5 Worst Composers Ever!!

[Karl Henning]

As with composers, not all tunesmiths are created equal  0:)

[Karl Henning]

On Gershwin's part, then, more than an attempt.

[Cato]

On Gershwin's part, then, more than an attempt.

Schoenberg famously said that Gershwin should give him lessons, upon hearing the younger man's income.   

As with composers, not all tunesmiths are created equal  0:)

Ain't that the truth!  I have complained here before about incompetently composed church hymns, where the accents in the words and the musical flow are clumsy, awkward, ridiculous, etc.

[Madiel]

Having spent some time as a church pianist, I lived for the tunesmiths who managed to crank out something better than a relentless 8787 metrical pattern with a dominant at the halfway point and a tonic at the close.

Best hymn in the book? For me it was always Love Unknown composed by John Ireland.  A proper 'composer'.  And a tune without any boringly square notes in it.

[Octave]

For professional musicians, there can be no question that a familiarity with Mozart's work is necessary.  Imagine a professional clarinetist who didn't know the K.622; he would have to be considered disqualifyingly illiterate, wouldn't he?[/font]

Yes, but once we're into the "professional" thing, we're talking about money and employment---"exploitation".  "Do you or don't you make your living from music?  No?  Then shut up.  Can you play any kind of music at the drop of a hat?  No?  Then shut up."

Chris Speed and Joe Maneri are/were "professionals", but if we learned that they couldn't play Mozart (well or at all), or "weren't familiar" with him (hadn't analyzed scores of the the most famous pieces or practiced them), or hadn't even heard them (unlikely, because Mozart is conventionally mandatory for the music-school crowd, no red herring in sight....pickled, maybe)---even if all these conditions were met, those two guys would still be remarkable clarinetists, not just "professionals" (depending on what gigs they could get, and both of them had great gigs, better than many humdrum orchestral tool clarinetists) and they innovated on their instruments, changed perceptions of what was possible on the clarinet.

But "professional"?  That's a boring retreat.  Speed and Maneri, jazz musicians, didn't need to show knowledge of and fidelity to even "the" jazz clarinet tradition.  They reached into other kinds of music entirely and came up with something powerfully "original" (even if referential and predicated on massive borrowing and transformation).  They probably won't be remembered in the long run, because they made their small, patient, but radical workmanlike contributions at a time when jazz really didn't matter anymore to the zeitgeist, the bourgeoisie, or the Money Machine.  But they are/were artists.

The anxiety on the part of traditionalists seems to be, in part, that eventually there won't be anything---especially among the Old Music---that simply must be heard by everybody, not even by all musicians, not even by all professional "classical" musicians.  This prospect makes me think that traditionalists are motivated not primarily by celebration or even appreciation, but by a will to enforcement: enforcement by programming (programming repertoire and programming students).   An impulse they probably picked up from their professors or parents or an embittered childhood piano teacher.  Mozart is done no service by this kind of imperious missionary zeal.  "Art" is outright eliminated as anything living.

[Parsifal]

Yes, but once we're into the "professional" thing, we're talking about money and employment---"exploitation".  "Do you or don't you make your living from music?  No?  Then shut up.  Can you play any kind of music at the drop of a hat?  No?  Then shut up."

I don't think the criteria is restricted to professional musicians as Karl Henning descibes it.  Suppose I am reading some comments on GMG relating to Britten's use of the Passacaglia in Peter Grimes.  Suppose one person is familiar with Bach, Couperin, Buxtahude, and another person admits to (or even brags about) never bothering with anything written before the 20th century.  Whose comments are more interesting?  I would not claim that a person has to enjoy listening to Bach or his contemporaries, but a person who is not aware of the origins of a Passacaglia does not, in my view, have an informed opinion of the use of the Passacaglia in Peter Grimes.  There is a lot of history wound up in classical music.  Listening to Brittens Passacaglia without knowing Bach's is like listening to the 10th variation in a set without listening to the theme.  There is significance in the relationship to the original.

[Octave]

Also, the "objective" component to greatness is mainly important for an artist (and her work) as an institution; but the more that our conception of art relies on these institutions, the more likely they will usurp the artist herself as the point of reference.  One will be required to show one's credentials/affiliation at the door, before any work is heard at all.  Things have always been this way, but with a certain strain of free-agency---sometimes by way of virtual total obscurity in one's own lifetime---offering some respite from an infrastructure entirely peopled by Salieris (except less generous and earnest than the real Salieri, before he was slandered as an easy self-serving joke for stage and screen).  A parade of fun facts is nice and all, but it eventually comes up curiously hollow.  For example, someone who listens to Mozart because his operas have never been out of the repertoire is a sheep; though when challenged on the value of the composer, it is true that they can point to this as a reason to listen to the operas in question.  "Because he's still there!"  It's not a bad reason for greatness in 2013, just a.....curiously hollow reason.   One starts to wonder if the whole point of talking about (music) history is precisely to repeat it.

I like period instruments and performance, for example, because they are "out" of tune, out of joint with the "tradition of quality" intonation and robust, romantic vigor; not because they offer me something "more" authentic, a window into/onto a lost time (and economic/class system).  I like them because they sound wrong by standards that have been enforced and policed for quite a while (but not a long time).  The "history lesson" therein is a history of the present, not just a recreation (which approaches the kitsch hobbyism of U.S. Civil War re-enactments or Renaissance Faire dress-up).

[Parsifal]

Also, the "objective" component to greatness is mainly important for an artist (and her work) as an institution; but the more that our conception of art relies on these institutions, the more likely they will usurp the artist herself as the point of reference.  One will be required to show one's credentials/affiliation at the door, before any work is heard at all.  Things have always been this way, but with a certain strain of free-agency---sometimes by way of virtual total obscurity in one's own lifetime---offering some respite from an infrastructure entirely peopled by Salieris (except less generous and earnest than the real Salieri, before he was slandered as an easy self-serving joke for stage and screen).  A parade of fun facts is nice and all, but it eventually comes up curiously hollow.  For example, someone who listens to Mozart because his operas have never been out of the repertoire is a sheep; though when challenged on the value of the composer, it is true that they can point to this as a reason to listen to the operas in question.  "Because he's still there!"  It's not a bad reason for greatness in 2013, just a.....curiously hollow reason.   One starts to wonder if the whole point of talking about (music) history is precisely to repeat it.

That's just silly.  People listen to Mozart because they enjoy it.  It may be that they tried Mozart before Salieri because they followed the judgement of history that Mozart was the best of his era but if they didn't like it they would not listen further and might find themselves listening to Monteverdi, Verdi, Puccini, Alban Berg or Lady Gaga instead.

[Octave]

Much like Benny Goodman knew and recorded classical repertory, including both the Clarinet Concerto and Quintet, it is not far-fetched an idea for Chris Speed and Joe Maneri to know the works for clarinet by Mozart.

I'm saying it's potentially beneficial for them to be familiar with the Mozart/tradition(s)---and beneficial in more and less obvious ways---but it is not mandatory.  It could also just as readily be beneficial for them (Speed and Maneri, or any artist from any domain of creativity) to remain ignorant of mandatory touchstones.  Sometimes reliance on mandatory touchstones is a sign of cowardice, a false modesty and false humility, something used in lieu of a living creativity, laziness coupled with imperious complacency, or maybe just a reasoned and reasonable preference that for some anxious reason doesn't want to acknowledge itself as such, as something so rational and impassioned, but nonetheless arbitrary.  (I take this last position myself, for myself.) 

Mozart can be harmful to art.  Karl's cited "narcissism" can be, often is, the very essence of living art.  Traditionalism usually can't be bothered with this, as it's too busy hopping on the coat-tails of "immortals" (or long-term beneficiaries of fashion trends, more like), hedging its bets that it can suck up some of that immortality for itself---for traditionalism's craven waiting---like a contact high.

[Geo Dude]

If they were truly rotten on the inside they would never be able to produce works of genius. Anyone who believes eitherwise understands nothing of great art.

While the recent discussion in this thread has been interesting I must say that this is my favorite post in terms of entertainment value.

[Brian]

The anxiety on the part of traditionalists seems to be, in part, that eventually there won't be anything---especially among the Old Music---that simply must be heard by everybody, not even by all musicians, not even by all professional "classical" musicians.  This prospect makes me think that traditionalists are motivated not primarily by celebration or even appreciation, but by a will to enforcement: enforcement by programming (programming repertoire and programming students).   An impulse they probably picked up from their professors or parents or an embittered childhood piano teacher.  Mozart is done no service by this kind of imperious missionary zeal.  "Art" is outright eliminated as anything living.

"One has only to spend a term trying to teach college literature to realize that the quickest way to kill an author's vitality for potential readers is to present that author ahead of time as 'great' or 'classic.' Because then the author becomes for the students like medicine or vegetables, something the authorities have delcared 'good for them' that they 'ought to like,' at which point the students' nictitating membranes come down, and everyone just goes through the requisite motions of criticism and paper-writing without feeling one real or relevant thing. It's like removing all oxygen from the room before trying to start a fire."
- David Foster Wallace, "Joseph Frank's Dostoevsky"

(Arguably all of classical music suffers from this - even right there in the name.)

[Octave]

Octave, you are a very verbose character .. just curious, what are your qualifications?

I am a citizen!  Not a property holder or "of noble birth".

I know your inclination is to weigh in on the acceptable trajectory for those seeking to become internationally-recognized composers of note, including the absolute necessity of studying with a famed mentor etc etc etc, but when you say:

Octave, you are a very verbose character .. just curious, what are your qualifications? I personally think one needs to be qualified to judge. For instance, a doctor who needs a second opinion for a heart transplant patient wouldn't consult a parking attendant. He will most likely consult another competent doctor. Although the opinion of the parking attendant might be interesting inasmuch as he may suggest operating from the back instead of the front for a change, I don't think it should be taken seriously. Critique from someone you respect will be accepted and contemplated whereas an opinion from someone you do not respect won't be taken seriously.[/font]

then it just bears out what I said:

Also, the "objective" component to greatness is mainly important for an artist (and her work) as an institution; but the more that our conception of art relies on these institutions, the more likely they will usurp the artist herself as the point of reference.  One will be required to show one's credentials/affiliation at the door, before any work is heard at all. 

[Octave]

I personally think one needs to be qualified to judge.

What are your qualifications to personally think this?

[Cato]

"One has only to spend a term trying to teach college literature to realize that the quickest way to kill an author's vitality for potential readers is to present that author ahead of time as 'great' or 'classic.' Because then the author becomes for the students like medicine or vegetables, something the authorities have delcared 'good for them' that they 'ought to like,' at which point the students' nictitating membranes come down, and everyone just goes through the requisite motions of criticism and paper-writing without feeling one real or relevant thing. It's like removing all oxygen from the room before trying to start a fire."
- David Foster Wallace, "Joseph Frank's Dostoevsky"

(Arguably all of classical music suffers from this - even right there in the name.)

This is why so much depends on the creativity, enthusiasm, and educational techniques of the teacher. 

When I taught German, I offered a fairly broad choice of short stories and novels, through summaries of which students decided what they wanted to read.  To be sure, you could probably or even always find somebody who did not want to read anything.  However, by knowing one's students one can select things which are at least almost guaranteed to enthuse them.

And we discussed the works without a list of questions, especially questions with minutia: my wife still detests Moby Dick because the nun wanted everyone to know how many different types of whales there were!

Most students said they were happy that I had given them the opportunity to expand their horizons in such a way.

[Octave]

+1 the DFW.  Love and knowledge are not unalloyed goods.  They are riven with the character of strife, "love" on the side of motivation/affect, and "knowledge" on the side of raw material for use.  They are "many-faced", to cop the Homeric epithet.  ("Many" including at least "two".)  I just think there are---there exist and are frequently employed---some bad, lazy, imperious reasons to exalt Mozart, whose music I find wonderful and indispensable, but only recently.  I wasn't wrong before: I was just interested in music from Kenya, Tokyo, Appalachia, Iceland, Micronesia, etc.  It's a big world out there. 

[Brian]

Cato ..I noticed a lot of the time when I come across your posts it's alway about your classroom-bubble decorum. Maybe I missed some stuff .. but can you ever talk about something without having it relate in some way to class?

I found two instances of this in Cato's last 25 posts. I also find it valuable. Would you wish Karl to avoid talking about being a composer?

[Cato]

Cato ..I noticed a lot of the time when I come across your posts it's alway about your classroom-bubble decorum. Maybe I missed some stuff .. but can you ever talk about something without having it relate in some way to class?

Why yes, yes I can!   

I found two instances of this in Cato's last 25 posts. I also find it valuable. Would you wish Karl to avoid talking about being a composer?

SEE???   0:)

Thanks to Brian for checking the facts!  My classrooms are hardly bubbles, but are conduits to all sorts of things sacred and profound and at times profoundly inane.   0:)

Earlier I wanted to comment that the discussion here - off-topic, but okay - reminded me of some similar ones here at GMG a good number of years ago.

It has been nice to experience that again with newer members. 

[Karl Henning]

Thank goodness we have a grownup like you around, James. I find Cato's (infrequent) references to his classroom germane, and interesting. But of course, I could never hope to be your match in maturity.

[Karl Henning]

I just bask in your wisdom, James.

[Karl Henning]

Just reflecting on how much thought you put into that....