Myths about Composers

[mahler10th]

Tchaikovsky had an irrational fear of his head falling off when he was conducting.  So he conducted with one hand and held his head with the other.

[Guido]

Are we inventing new myths now, or as they say in the vernacular 'making shit up'? 

Brahms was a shameless farter and often dropped heinous SBDs during concerts. True fact.

[schweitzeralan]

Perhaps for spreading it in modern times, but not for making it up. It was in his obituary for one thing, and was "common knowledge" even during his lifetime. But it was probably only occasionally true. And he and Constanze did nothing to help the cause of truth: he admitted that in many cases he did just that (all the composition was done in his head before touching pen to paper), which was true up to a point. And then, after his death, Constanze threw out all his sketches, thinking they would have no value  .  But in certain works where sketches exist (like the Haydn Quartets, for example), it is obvious that he worked his butt off, just like any other composer (well, maybe not like Beethoven, who agonized over every note).

Was Mozart really coprophagic; or, is that another myth?

[karlhenning]

Was Mozart really coprophagic; or, is that another myth?

No mention of this is in any of the Mozart books I've ever read.

[Passau]

A friend of mine who's a feline lover spent years disliking Brahms because he believed a story that the composer had hated cats and would shoot at them with a bow and arrow from his window. Although easily debunked (Richard Wagner was the original source--isn't that a clue?), the calumny has been repeated in several books.

Passau

[karlhenning]

Speaking of whom (given the topic):

Mein Leben

[some guy]

Hey, is it too late to add another real myth? A serious one? 'Cause if it's not, I'd like to add one that showed up on another thread here awhile back, but I don't remember which one, because my memory is not that

What were we talking about?

Anyway, someone on another thread mentioned M. Hector Berlioz as an example of an untutored composer, whereas he took a full course of study in Paris, getting high marks in the counterpoint classes, for instance, in spite of the personal animosity of the teacher.

He had formal training, in short, years of it.

If, however, it IS too late for that, then what about that rumor I just made up that Mussorgsky was a strict teetotaler. Yes. Not a drop. (Sibelius too. Temperance society boys. Or was that that they both liked temperance society boys? Well, choice of myths.)

[JoshLilly]

Here's are a couple of myths that are still repeated to this day, even by some supposed-experts:

1. Beethoven was the first composer to employ trombones in a symphony.

2. Saint-Saëns wrote the first French Piano Concerto.

[schweitzeralan]

No mention of this is in any of the Mozart books I've ever read.

Probably a myth then.  Someone told me this years ago.  I haven't actually read anything either. Just wanted to ascertain if there was anything to it.

[Taxes-]

Here's are a couple of myths that are still repeated to this day, even by some supposed-experts:

1. Beethoven was the first composer to employ trombones in a symphony.

2. Saint-Saëns wrote the first French Piano Concerto.

A reason why those two statements are 'myths' would have been great. For 1, Joachim Nicolas Eggert preceeded him. For 2, Saint-Saëns was preceeded by at least Hyacinth Jadin (1796 for the 2nd, though they also mention a concerto performed in 1789).

[karlhenning]

A reason why those two statements are 'myths' would have been great. For 1, Joachim Nicolas Eggert preceeded him. For 2, Saint-Saëns was preceeded by at least Hyacinth Jadin (1796 for the 2nd, though they also mention a concerto performed in 1789).

This is also a good opportunity to make a distinction between genuine myth (performer N. ate excrement on stage) and detail which is in error, but of relative insignificance.  Nor Beethoven nor Saint-Saëns was strictly the first in these instances, but their works are the first which have owned turf in the repertory; and that is of historical significance.  Reading this post is the first I have ever heard of either Eggert or Jadin.

[JoshLilly]

I don't mean to sound combative, but why do people always bring up that "argument"?  It's as if fame somehow is able to alter chronological reality.

[Taxes-]

I don't mean to sound combative, but why do people always bring up that "argument"?  It's as if fame somehow is able to alter chronological reality.

Because fame has more influence on other composers than chronological reality, so I'm pretty sure that Beethoven has more to do with the fact that trombones are used in symphonies than Eggert.

[JoshLilly]

The statement people make, even in books, is "Saint-Saëns wrote the first French piano concerto".  This is a false statement.  FULL STOP.  Nothing else can ever, ever change that it is a false statement, barring the invention of a time machine, and someone going back in time and stopping the multiple French composers who wrote piano concerti before Saint-Saëns.  Until such a thing takes place, it remains a false statement, and nothing anybody ever says, wants, or does can ever change that.  No amount of fame will ever change that.  2+2=4, whether I like it or not, whether I want to believe it or not, and whether I even know it or not.

[karlhenning]

I don't mean to sound combative, but why do people always bring up that "argument"?  It's as if fame somehow is able to alter chronological reality.

I appreciate your point, which has its merits.  The counterpoint is: why do people dredge up the unknown composer who 'pre-empted' Beethoven in this trivial matter?  It's as if mere chronology trumps artistry.

View the matter from another angle, too:  One of the complaints which (rightly or wrongly, on a case-by-case basis) is occasionally levied against the musical twentieth century, is an obsession with novelty, an obsession with being the first to do something-or-other.  That is, the preoccupation with the novelty assuming an overriding importance above the artistic use to which the novelty is put.

Chronology certainly has its importances in life.  In the Arts, though, it may or not have its uses.  In cultural history, we don't want to be mere bean-counters, do we?

[karlhenning]

The statement people make, even in books, is "Saint-Saëns wrote the first French piano concerto".  This is a false statement.  FULL STOP.

Sure.  And normally, when correctives of importance arise, these incidental inaccuracies tend to be modified or footnoted or what-have-you.

Your quarrel (to use the term dispassionately) hinges on considering the erratum of prime importance.

I shall watch the future career of that concern with interest.

[JoshLilly]

Dredge up?  It's just a fact.  It's 2+2=4.  It doesn't matter how important it is.  If I forget and say I put on my left shoe before my right this morning, when in fact the opposite was true, it was a false statement, regardless of how insignificant it was.  Truth is truth, and false statements should not be made, regardless of how trivial the issue or point.  In this case, people who are really into music history's gritty details would probably find these facts more than trivial.

Also, I'm not sure what the "trumps artistry" means exactly.  I know the technical meaning of the phrase, but not one speck of ink on either manuscript has been changed or trumped by stating in which order they were written.

[karlhenning]

Dredge up?  It's just a fact.  It's 2+2=4.  It doesn't matter how important it is.  If I forget and say I put on my left shoe before my right this morning, when in fact the opposite was true, it was a false statement, regardless of how insignificant it was.  Truth is truth, and false statements should not be made, regardless of how trivial the issue or point.  In this case, people who are really into music history's gritty details would probably find these facts more than trivial.

Also, I'm not sure what the "trumps artistry" means exactly.  I know the technical meaning of the phrase, but not one speck of ink on either manuscript has been changed or trumped by stating in which order they were written.

I see that my comment has not made any impact, nor shall I trouble to repeat myself.

Thanks for your time.

[karlhenning]

By the way, sunrise is a myth: it is the earth which moves in relation to the sun.  Why do people use this patent falsehood of a term!? Fact is fact.

[Taxes-]

I hate inaccuracies as much as the next guy, and obviously those statements should not be made by people that have access to the 'truth' about these issues. But still, I'd hate it even more if I were to read a book on the history of the symphony (or whatever) that gave more credit to Eggert than Beethoven on the inclusion of trombones.

Obviously, I'd even prefer to have both the accuracy and the significance right, but the point is that I put much more importance on the latter than the former.