Composers That Are Linked To Your Soul

[jowcol]

Of course it makes sense, that's precisely my point. I don't think you read what i said very carefully.

Reading something carefully does not necessarily  mean the same as  agreeing with broad, unsubstantiated assertions, or opinions presented as fact which may be present. 

The idea here is that somehow that didn't happen, thus, this incessant need from the aforementioned anti-individualists to tout the exploits of this ubiquitous "anonymous" entity when early music is actually extremely thoroughly documented.

This is where the logic gets away from any natural since of cause and effort.  Without time travel, the idea that this determined group of anti-individualists does not make since with the notion that the "better" an artist is, the more likely they are to be remembered.  Since that all happened a few hundred years ago, people today may wish distort the historical record (avoiding the opportunity to cite some really obvious examples.), but can't change what was recorded.   

early music is actually extremely thoroughly documented.

This will come as a very welcome surprise to many early music scholars  

. And there is no "conspiracy"

Interesting considering the bolded terms below:

hus, this incessant need from the aforementioned anti-individualists to tout the exploits of this ubiquitous "anonymous" entity when early music is actually extremely thoroughly documented. Like i said, this has nothing to do with historical accuracy and has everything to do about maintaining this illusion of safe egalitarianism and comfortable uniformity where the idea that art is actually about strong and dangerous personalities is something to be afraid of. .

, this is a basic psychological issue, the same basic psychological issue that leads people to equating second rate artists to the first rate masters.

If this is a basic psychological issue, and not an opinion (which you are welcome to have) presented as fact (which you may need to expect to defend in an open forum) can you please show me an accepted psychological reference outside of your imagination for this psychological condition that "leads people to equating second rate artists to the first rate masters"?   Although the DSM-IV codes do cover paranoia , I can't find one that addresses this "basic need to dis the masters".

I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for  your concerns about the herd mentality, and also that society as a whole is very frightened of some of the dangerous ideas that an artist can present.   (And, if this thread goes on record for putting me in the anti-individualist camp, this will be a first!  )


Just to clarify-- I don'tbelieve  balk at the concept of genius (you may differ) -- just some of the unsubstantiated assumptions it's being presented with. .

I don't believe that there  is a completely objective set of criteria. If there was, people wouldn't debate it, and the labels would not change from generation to generation.  Bach's impact was pretty muted until the 1830s, but was he any less a master before being rediscovered?  It's often the case early firebrands and radicals that shake a culture in one generation can become the voices of the pasts that conformists use to discourage creativity among others.  If you are worried about anti-individualism and forced conformance, I would hazard that blind worship what the masters produced, as opposed to what problems they were trying to solve, could create a much harsher climate of  forced conformance. 

I also feel that  simple  binary model that a person is either a master or not is awfully simplistic, and also neglects many aspects of the artist as a whole person that makes them truly fascinating.   Many "geniuses" had flaws or limits in their thinking, and personally I think it does them more of a service to create an individual analytical model to capture their strengths and weakness than to toss them in one of two buckets.  Also, are "geniuses" allowed to have bad day?  IMO  many second tier artists, IMO, created works that stand with, (or are better) then the weaker elements of a "master's" catalog.  This is a matter of personal choice, but I'd rather let me ears decide what works I'll trouble to listen to more than once rather than labels.   I personally think that an oversimplified analytical model can greatly handicap analysis of music and limit the amount of potentially rewarding music a person can encounter-- but this is definitely my opinion.  I'm not trying to talk you out of any of your opinions-- you are welcome to them, and it would be a boring planet indeed if we all shared the same opinions.

[Brian]

Time to finally answer this thread's question. In 2010, 25% of all listening I did was to Beethoven, Sibelius, and Dvorak. So there are the three composers linked to me right there. I think the best answer is Dvorak, because he is my musical "soul mate" - his works, especially the String Quintet Op 77 and Symphony No 8, are the best reflections of my personality that I've heard in musical form. They describe me.

Fairly naturally, then, Dvorak is the only composer I would even dare to call myself "expert" on. Of course, I'm not really an expert, having heard none of his operas and only just starting on his chamber music (the heart of his output). But I daresay I know more about his piano music than most, and am working on a series of nine essays about his symphonies which I think will fill an important role in clarifying and reassessing both his symphonic development over time and his central role in the story of the romantic-era symphony. So eventually maybe I actually will be a Dvorak expert!

Obviously, though, I've got a sort of triumvirate going on. The music that feels most like home to me, that feels the most like hearing myself in audio form, is Dvorak. The music that affects my emotions the most is fairly varied, but if I had to narrow it down, Smetana's Moldau, Dvorak's Eighth, Sibelius' Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh. But, and my listening habits do give this away, the composer I love the most is still Beethoven.

[Scarpia]

Reading something carefully does not necessarily  mean the same as  agreeing with broad, unsubstantiated assertions, or opinions presented as fact which may be present. 

Jowcol, you seem to have taken the role of Don Quixote, doing battle with our resident windmills.  Not a profitable occupation.   

[Klaatu]

Interesting that old Billy Brian keeps popping up here. For a relative "unknown", whose works are generally considered difficult and rebarbative, he seems to be linked to a lot of souls - including mine. (Elgar and Mahler are also there.)

It's difficult to know whether this is because of the music or because of what the music represents - Brian's 8-year labour over a virtually unperformable score (the Gothic), and his long, stoic life of continuous composition in the face of utter neglect and indifference.

Which is by way of asking - what is it that makes a composer more likely to be one's soul-companion through life? Is it the music, or the character of the composer, and what the music-making has cost him? One thinks of Brian for the reasons above, also of Shostakovich's struggle to express great music within an oppressive political regime, or indeed Peter Warlock whose music countered his depressive personality (until it failed at the last.)

Maybe this would be better tackled on a new thread: What makes a composer a listener's soulmate? If that's felt to be appropriate, I'll start one..........or people might want to comment here.

[Mirror Image]

Time to finally answer this thread's question. In 2010, 25% of all listening I did was to Beethoven, Sibelius, and Dvorak. So there are the three composers linked to me right there. I think the best answer is Dvorak, because he is my musical "soul mate" - his works, especially the String Quintet Op 77 and Symphony No 8, are the best reflections of my personality that I've heard in musical form. They describe me.

Fairly naturally, then, Dvorak is the only composer I would even dare to call myself "expert" on. Of course, I'm not really an expert, having heard none of his operas and only just starting on his chamber music (the heart of his output). But I daresay I know more about his piano music than most, and am working on a series of nine essays about his symphonies which I think will fill an important role in clarifying and reassessing both his symphonic development over time and his central role in the story of the romantic-era symphony. So eventually maybe I actually will be a Dvorak expert!

Obviously, though, I've got a sort of triumvirate going on. The music that feels most like home to me, that feels the most like hearing myself in audio form, is Dvorak. The music that affects my emotions the most is fairly varied, but if I had to narrow it down, Smetana's Moldau, Dvorak's Eighth, Sibelius' Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh. But, and my listening habits do give this away, the composer I love the most is still Beethoven.

Out of curiosity, I'd be curious to know how much 20th Century music you've been exposed to, Brian?

[Brian]

Out of curiosity, I'd be curious to know how much 20th Century music you've been exposed to, Brian?

An awful lot. Many of the composers from the 20th century whom I love (Atterberg might be closest to a "soul mate"; Khachaturian and I had a fling last year but this year I moved beyond him; Roussel, Bernstein, Weinberg) are slightly "off the beaten path," though others are decidedly on it (most of all Shostakovich and Ravel). I've been exposed to most of the big players, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, though not necessarily to a lot of their work (Berg's VC and Wozzeck but none of his other stuff, for instance). One big guide was a music history class I took which was taught by a Stravinskian/Straussian; another is new releases from Naxos. When stuff comes up on NML I listen pretty indiscriminately - hence my listens to Komei Abe, Freitas Branco, Roussel, Boris Tchaikovsky, Fikret Amirov, and about one-third of the living composers in my diet. Looking at my MusicWeb folder, I see I've reviewed music by Amirov, Atterberg, Bernstein, Copland, Gershwin, Ginastera, Kabalevsky, Khachaturian, Piazzolla, Miaskovsky, Roussel, Schulhoff, Shostakovich, Sibelius, and Earl Wild. 

EDIT: But this is kind of getting away from the point of the thread, I guess, especially with my listening log next door.    From the 20th century, Sibelius is definitely the guy "in my soul," and Ravel is the guy I wish was there instead. 

[DavidRoss]

Although the DSM-IV codes do cover paranoia , I can't find one that addresses this "basic need to dis the masters".

No--but 301.81 may be appropriate in this general context. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

FWIW, I would have to say Beethoven above all. But Mahler, Brahms, Berlioz, Wagner, Berg, Verdi, Puccini, Chopin are all up there too.

Purely as biography, I would have to say the composer I feel closest to is Hector Berlioz. There is something about the man's isolation and integrity that strikes a deep personal chord with me.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Purely as biography, I would have to say the composer I feel closest to is Hector Berlioz. There is something about the man's isolation and integrity that strikes a deep personal chord with me.

My central composer is that other HB, Havergal Brian. His 'isolation' and 'integrity' strike the same 'deep personal chord' with me.

[(poco) Sforzando]

My central composer is that other HB, Havergal Brian. His 'isolation' and 'integrity' strike the same 'deep personal chord' with me.

Unfortunately, I have yet to find any of his music I can bear listening to.

[Scarpia]

My central composer is that other HB, Havergal Brian. His 'isolation' and 'integrity' strike the same 'deep personal chord' with me.

My lonely plummer may have isolation and integrity, what does that have to do with music?

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Unfortunately, I have yet to find any of his music I can bear listening to.

Oh well... Fortunately, I have found many many pieces by your HB I can love without reservation!

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

My lonely plummer may have isolation and integrity, what does that have to do with music?

Brian persevered in doing his own thing against all odds (isolation) and without much reward (integrity). I love the results of that perseverance = his music. And his example is an inspiration.

[Mirror Image]

An awful lot. Many of the composers from the 20th century whom I love (Atterberg might be closest to a "soul mate"; Khachaturian and I had a fling last year but this year I moved beyond him; Roussel, Bernstein, Weinberg) are slightly "off the beaten path," though others are decidedly on it (most of all Shostakovich and Ravel). I've been exposed to most of the big players, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, though not necessarily to a lot of their work (Berg's VC and Wozzeck but none of his other stuff, for instance). One big guide was a music history class I took which was taught by a Stravinskian/Straussian; another is new releases from Naxos. When stuff comes up on NML I listen pretty indiscriminately - hence my listens to Komei Abe, Freitas Branco, Roussel, Boris Tchaikovsky, Fikret Amirov, and about one-third of the living composers in my diet. Looking at my MusicWeb folder, I see I've reviewed music by Amirov, Atterberg, Bernstein, Copland, Gershwin, Ginastera, Kabalevsky, Khachaturian, Piazzolla, Miaskovsky, Roussel, Schulhoff, Shostakovich, Sibelius, and Earl Wild. 

EDIT: But this is kind of getting away from the point of the thread, I guess, especially with my listening log next door.    From the 20th century, Sibelius is definitely the guy "in my soul," and Ravel is the guy I wish was there instead. 

Good to see that you're continuing exploring this very vast era of classical music. My heart is almost entirely in the 20th Century with some leanings to mid to late 19th Century.

[Scarpia]

Brian persevered in doing his own thing against all odds (isolation) and without much reward (integrity). I love the results of that perseverance = his music. And his example is an inspiration.

Music is music, organized sounds.  The biography of the composer isn't of primary interest to me, except insofar as it affects the music.  Beethoven was also an iconoclast, but he felt an urgent need to communicate, to have his works performed and to move people.  He could not stand to compose music that would not be performed, or heard, or change the way other composer approached music.  That is part of what made him a great composer, the conflict between his impulse to break to mold, and his impulse to communicate.   A "composer" turning out gargantuan, unperformed, and perhaps unperformable, works to fill his desk drawer doesn't arouse my curiosity.

[Mirror Image]

Music is music, organized sounds.  The biography of the composer isn't of primary interest to me, except insofar as it affects the music.  Beethoven was also an iconoclast, but he felt an urgent need to communicate, to have his works performed and to move people.  He could not stand to compose music that would not be performed, or heard, or change the way other composer approached music.  That is part of what made him a great composer, the conflict between his impulse to break to mold, and his impulse to communicate.   A "composer" turning out gargantuan, unperformed, and perhaps unperformable, works to fill his desk drawer doesn't arouse my curiosity.

This is a sad attitude to have about any composer. How do you know that Brian didn't want his music performed or to be heard? You have to understand the time frame in which Brian composed his music in. You also have to understand that some composers don't feel the need to appeal to a large group of people. Brian composed honest music. This is not to say that Beethoven didn't either, but to degrade Brian's music because you simply don't understand and/or can't understand why other people wouldn't enjoy it is very ignorant.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Music is music, organized sounds.  The biography of the composer isn't of primary interest to me, except insofar as it affects the music.  Beethoven was also an iconoclast, but he felt an urgent need to communicate, to have his works performed and to move people.  He could not stand to compose music that would not be performed, or heard, or change the way other composer approached music.  That is part of what made him a great composer, the conflict between his impulse to break to mold, and his impulse to communicate.   A "composer" turning out gargantuan, unperformed, and perhaps unperformable, works to fill his desk drawer doesn't arouse my curiosity.

Not all of Brian's music is 'gargantuan', nor did he choose to be unperformed. Not every artist is adept at pushing his works. Brian wasn't. Neither was he 'breaking the mould' in the way Beethoven did, or in his day Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Varèse and others. Brian was creating his very own synthesis of all the music he loved, filtered through his own sensibility, adding to the tradition in the process. I don't blame him for not being successful for so much of his career. I listen to the music, and I am thrilled and moved. That's all. And that's enough. I know there are greater composers (Beethoven, for one). But Brian speaks to me very personally.

[Mirror Image]

Not all of Brian's music is 'gargantuan', nor did he choose to be unperformed. Not every artist is adept at pushing his works. Brian wasn't. Neither was he 'breaking the mould' in the way Beethoven did, or in his day Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Varèse and others. Brian was creating his very own synthesis of all the music he loved, filtered through his own sensibility, adding to the tradition in the process. I don't blame him for not being successful for so much of his career. I listen to the music, and I am thrilled and moved. That's all. And that's enough. I know there are greater composers (Beethoven, for one). But Brian speaks to me very personally.

I admire Havergal Brian. Some of his music is challenging, but he always stayed true to himself and that, alone, is a major feat for any composer I think.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I admire Havergal Brian. Some of his music is challenging, but he always stayed true to himself and that, alone, is a major feat for any composer I think.

Yes, and then it is a matter of taste whether you like the result. No-one is obliged to like Brian's music.

[Mirror Image]

Yes, and then it is a matter of taste whether you like the result. No-one is obliged to like Brian's music.

Oh no, of course not, my soul is linked to Bartok, but I could really careless whether someone likes his music or not. The same rings true for all the composers that are linked to my soul.