5 Worst Composers Ever!!

[Madiel]

Ouch!

In my frame of reference, professional composer is not narrowly defined as the composer who makes money related to his composition (which largely would include professors of composition in colleges, e.g.), but the composer who, by dint of training, application and talent, composes at a professional level.  I think it is part of the mistake, to attribute to money the power to define who is a composer.

It doesn't define who is a composer. It defines, by the more original sense of the term, who is a professional.

The world has changed to turn 'professional' into a measure of quality, but that's not how I'm using it.

EDIT: It is perfectly possible, for example, for an 'amateur' golfer to completely outperform all the professionals and win a tournament.  These days, though, such people don't tend to maintain their amateur status all that long.

[Karl Henning]

At the risk of sounding too pithy: To tickle the imagination. Or, paraphrasing one composer many people love to hate, "To sober and quiet the mind."

Ods bodikins, man! Would you deny that The Phantom Menace is art?

[Karl Henning]

It doesn't define who is a composer. It defines, by the more original sense of the term, who is a professional.

Thank you for illustrating so efficiently part of my own artistic problem.

[Madiel]

Thank you for illustrating so efficiently part of my own artistic problem.

Efficient use of words is MY profession, or a key part of it.  Although I am on holidays at the moment...

[petrarch]

Yes, but whose imagination or mind?

That is the key aspect; left open on purpose .

[petrarch]

Ods bodikins, man! Would you deny that The Phantom Menace is art?

Someone's imagination might be tickled by the Menace; or their mind might be sobered and quieted by it. Why not?

[Karl Henning]

Someone's imagination might be tickled by the Menace; or their mind might be sobered and quieted by it. Why not?

Fair enough. I was under the influence of recently viewing the Honest Trailer send-up:

http://www.youtube.com/v/0sKRRY5tQz8

[Madiel]

The Phantom Menace is a fine example of what happens when everyone is excessively concerned about money-spinning and the whole thing is being run by a Hollywood management committee.

[Karl Henning]

The Phantom Menace is a fine example of what happens when everyone is excessively concerned about money-spinning and the whole thing is being run by a Hollywood management committee.

It many such instances, there are many critics and "lay people" who pillory the result . . . yet there will still be enthusiasts. Money will still be coined.  And to indulge in a pathetic fallacy, the market will feel vindicated.

[Madiel]

It many such instances, there are many critics and "lay people" who pillory the result . . . yet there will still be enthusiasts. Money will still be coined.  And to indulge in a pathetic fallacy, the market will feel vindicated.

Here's one of the things about the market. There are some people, many people even, who will be enthusiastic for reasons that don't have a lot to do with the actual 'product' they're being enthusiastic about.

There are people who will love a Star Wars movie just because it's a Star Wars movie.  There are people who will hate a Star Wars movie just because it's a Star Wars movie.  My nephew has, at various times, loved the idea of a Star Wars movie or some other franchise which he's never seen because he's fallen in love with the toys and whatever other associated gimmicks are around.  He's a kid, but some adults don't stray far from that mentality.  And it was arguably the original Star Wars that was key in developing the idea that a 'blockbuster' movie was as much about its marketing tie-in opportunities as it was about the movie itself.

We all have our blind spots I suppose. I mean, I resolutely continue to see and buy Pixar movies, despite there being some worrying wobbles and an over-abundance of sequels nowadays.  Whereas my admiration of The Matrix didn't prevent me from considering the sequels to be horrible rubbish (they still got my money though... I had to go find out they were horrible rubbish).

Another thing about the market is that there are a lot of people who don't have much gradation in their rating scales.  Many years ago I was fascinated by an episode of a movie review show that I watch which, unusually for the show, did some audience ratings as people left the cinema along with the professional critic reviews.  It was eye-opening to see how many people would rate movies as 5-out-of-5 perfection or as 1-out-of-5 disasters, and not nearly as many scores in between.  People were regularly seeing one of the best movies ever or one of the worst movies ever.

I think, though, one of the differences between the commercial point of view and the more artistic point of view is the length of time over which success is measured.  Artistic success is not so much about how much money was squeezed out of the market upon release, but about how the work is remembered after the initial rush of cash registers is over.  Is it still rewarding on a repeat experience.  Is there more to explore after the first impression. How well does it survive no longer being 'current' - a test which to me often depends on how well an artistic work develops its own language and logic and then follows it.

There is, though, a certain form of skill in targeting the short-term commercial 'hit' kind of success as well.  I think there is often something impressive about people who can consistently work out what will be a popular hit, rather than just stumbling across it occasionally.

[Todd]

The Phantom Menace is a fine example of what happens when everyone is excessively concerned about money-spinning and the whole thing is being run by a Hollywood management committee.

Not that I'm a big fan of committee movie making, but I was under the impression that George Lucas lorded over Lucasfilm and made precisely the movies that he wanted to make, because he could, though he obviously kept a keen eye on merchandising, etc.  The result: Episodes I-III.  When no one can tell someone else no, bad things can happen.  It may actually be possible for Disney to deliver superior films using committees and different directors.

[Madiel]

Not that I'm a big fan of committee movie making, but I was under the impression that George Lucas lorded over Lucasfilm and made precisely the movies that he wanted to make, because he could, though he obviously kept a keen eye on merchandising, etc.  The result: Episodes I-III.  When no one can tell someone else no, bad things can happen.  It may actually be possible for Disney to deliver superior films using committees and different directors.

My impression could well be erroneous, as I didn't care enough about the movie to investigate precisely why it was so pathetic.

I think quite a lot of people didn't care enough about the movie, including most of the actors making it...

[Cato]

It doesn't define who is a composer. It defines, by the more original sense of the term, who is a professional.

The world has changed to turn 'professional' into a measure of quality, but that's not how I'm using it.

EDIT: It is perfectly possible, for example, for an 'amateur' golfer to completely outperform all the professionals and win a tournament.  These days, though, such people don't tend to maintain their amateur status all that long.

I immediately thought of Van Gogh, who sold (I think) only 2 paintings in his career.

Karl Henning will recognize the following story: when I was all of 14 years old, I proudly marched into the offices of a music publishing company to show them a tone poem I had composed, and to offer them the incredible once-in-a-lifetime chance to publish it, arrange a performance with the local symphony orchestra, or even with e.g. Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra, and to enrich themselves - and me - through a standard "rich and famous" contract.

I actually talked my way past the secretary (I was 6' 3" at that age     ) and was able to have a meeting with the head of the company, whose grandfather had established it.

He paged through the score, but admitted he could not understand one note of it!  The company published only "church music" and specifically only "church hymns that'll sell in Podunk."  0:)

He gave me a a few of their hymnals and said if I could "crank out" similar things, he would have their "composing staff" evaluate it and possibly they would buy it.

No standard "rich and famous" contract.  And next time do more research on what the company offers!

The point is that their "composing staff" was no doubt competent, and professional, but I later looked back at the hymnals, and thought that the word "composer" was probably not quite right for the people creating their  I-IV-V-I songs for "Podunk."

They were tunesmiths.  Professional to be sure, and they did compose music in their own way for a purpose.  But they would probably be the first to admit that they were not "composers" in the artistic sense.

[Karl Henning]

According to this gallery, Van Gogh sold only a single painting.

[Cato]

Erratum: Van Gogh sold not even a single painting.

Where I believe Saul has sold some of his work  ...

. . . .

Life indeed is not fair!   0:)

[Karl Henning]

As soon as I posted that (which is what I had heard, more than once) I thought, let me investigate that.

To be sure, selling only one painting (or two) does not much diminish the injustice : )

[Karl Henning]

Nor let us forget the painter who shrewdly understood the marketplace.

[Karl Henning]

There is, by the bye, a well acclaimed recent bio:

[asin]0375758976[/asin]

[Brian]

I am willing to bet that all artists sincerely wish to find an appreciative audience, but draw the line at doing their art primarily in order to please.  As Karl has said, that is a moving target and the artist will be constantly chasing the flavor of the year.  The hope is, or my hope as an artist, is that what they are doing has qualities which some people will finding pleasing, but they must remain committed to their artistic vision despite the fact that other people will scratch their heads at what they produce.

I suppose it could be argued that there are different kinds of pleasure. For instance, Cervantes and Montaigne certainly aimed to provide their readers with gratification and enjoyment, but a very different kind of gratification from that offered by Scary Movie Five. The difference lies as much in the audience member, looking for a different kind of pleasure or growth from their art, as in the artist looking to provide it.

In this way I think it's possible to reconcile the fact that many artists aim to please, with the fact that many artists have achieved timelessness in that way. That is, it's possible to reconcile Haydn with The Lonely Island.

[Cato]

The difference lies as much in the audience member, looking for a different kind of pleasure or growth from their art, as in the artist looking to provide it.

And as I wrote earlier:

The point is that their "composing staff" was no doubt competent, and professional, but I later looked back at the hymnals, and thought that the word "composer" was probably not quite right for the people creating their  I-IV-V-I songs for "Podunk."

They were tunesmiths.  Professional to be sure, and they did compose music in their own way for a purpose.  But they would probably be the first to admit that they were not "composers" in the artistic sense.

Is it possible that the tunesmith could crank out something which could be considered "art" ?

Sure, in the same way that occasionally Hollywood creates a classic movie...without realizing it at first.

The purposes are different, but may at times overlap.