Composers you don't like

[knight66]

This one again. Some time ago there was a thread where Britten's proclivities were discussed. A couple of books had come out, one by David Hemmings. All the actual evidence pointed to the composer very much liking the close company of boys. He tended to choose a favourite and become like an uncle, always around and showering little gifts and treats. The instant the youngster's voice broke, they were excluded from all communication.

Hemmings had been one of these chosen ones and the adjustment from close little friend to being a non-person was the real trauma.

All that seems quite bad in itself. But nothing at all surfaced to indicate that Britten had touched any of these boys.

Mike

[Josquin des Prez]

Carlo Gesualdo, who would like a murderer?
Although it was an act of passion...hmm, I'm torn now. 

Well, he did spend the remaining of his life doing penance, praying constantly and even resorting to flogging. The man seemed to be all about extremes, in rage as in guilt, but the fact he did in fact experience guilt does seem to imply he had some redeeming personal qualities.

[raduneo]

My understanding (admittedly vague in this case) is that he fancied adolescent boys but didn't do anything with them, which doesn't seem reprehensible to me.

Unless you believe that a thought is no different to an action, in which case we are ALL going to hell.

I believe I read in Alex Ross's book, in the chapter dedicated to him, that only once he did  try to make a move on a younger (meaning adolescent) boy that was a singer. He realized his mistake and never attempted anything like that again. You should note that the boys that worked with him were fond of him though; they were very well treated and respected. (I read this a month ago, I think I'm remembering it right)

[raduneo]

What did Strauss do to Mahler?

What I understood from Alex Ross's book is that although the two composers did conduct each other's works, they were somewhat rivals. While the premieres of Mahler's symphonies waren't actually failures, Richard Strauss was the one who usually got the spotlight (in Vienna I believe). People were really excited about his music. This had really bothered Mahler, who thought that his recognition couln't come in this lifetime; he had a hard time accepting this.

I remember reading about how the successful premiere of Salome in Vienna puzzled Mahler (not to confuse with the US premiere!); it received very positive reviews and quite a few people enjoyed it. Mahler considered it a great work and didn't understand how could people enjoy a great work! (to him the greatness and popularity of a work were mutually exclusive)

[Sequentia]

The defining personal quality of a genius is supreme totality and wholeness of their individuality, which invariably means they tend to be misanthropic towards the grand majority of people who have less defined individualities and tend to live and act as if they were part of some sort of social herd.

So does that mean that Sorabji is the greatest composer of all time?

[Josquin des Prez]

So does that mean that Sorabji is the greatest composer of all time?

I'm not sure i follow you.

[Josquin des Prez]

What I understood from Alex Ross's book is that although the two composers did conduct each other's works, they were somewhat rivals. While the premieres of Mahler's symphonies waren't actually failures, Richard Strauss was the one who usually got the spotlight (in Vienna I believe). People were really excited about his music. This had really bothered Mahler, who thought that his recognition couln't come in this lifetime; he had a hard time accepting this.

I remember reading about how the successful premiere of Salome in Vienna puzzled Mahler (not to confuse with the US premiere!); it received very positive reviews and quite a few people enjoyed it. Mahler considered it a great work and didn't understand how could people enjoy a great work! (to him the greatness and popularity of a work were mutually exclusive)

Interesting. But from what i understand opera was much more popular in those days then instrumental music. Strange that Mahler couldn't see this as a contributing factor, particularly considering how many operas he conducted himself.

[raduneo]

Interesting. But from what i understand opera was much more popular in those days then instrumental music. Strange that Mahler couldn't see this as a contributing factor, particularly considering how many operas he conducted himself.

Hmm that is good to know! I wasn't aware that opera was very popular back then! When did its popularity begin to fall? When were ballets popular? (I assume during the 1st half of the 20th century). What about symphonies?

I ask because I don't have a music backgroud and would welcome some knowledge!

[Sequentia]

I'm not sure i follow you.

If that's the case, then you are not familiar with his biography.

I am not a "modern" composer in the inverted commas sense. I utterly and indignantly repudiate that epithet as being in any way applicable to me. I write very long, very elaborate works that are entirely alien and antipathetic to the fashionable tendencies prompted, publicised and plugged by the various "establishments" revolving around this or that modish composer.

Why do I neither seek nor encourage performance of my works? Because they are neither intended for, nor suitable for it under present, or indeed any foreseeable conditions: no performance at all is vastly preferable to an obscene travesty. [...] Why do I write as I do? Why did (and do) the artists-craftsmen of Iran, India, China. Byzantine-Arabic Sicily (in the first and last of which are my own ancestral roots) produce the sort of elaborate highly wrought work they did? That was their way. It is also mine. If you don't like it, because it isn't the present day done thing, that is just too bad, but not for me, who couldn't care less. In fact, to me your disapproval is an indirect compliment and much less of an insult than your applause, when I consider some of your idols.

"A Personal Statement" (dated 14 October 1959), first published as "Statement by Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji" in Gambit: Edinburgh University Review, Summer 1965: 4.

Taken from http://www.mus.ulaval.ca/roberge/srs/03-quota.htm.

[eyeresist]

Hmm that is good to know! I wasn't aware that opera was very popular back then! When did its popularity begin to fall? When were ballets popular? (I assume during the 1st half of the 20th century). What about symphonies?

I think the decline of interest in opera coincides closely with the rise of cinema, which could do even more spectacular storytelling with (when sound was invented) music. Before this, most composers dreamed of having a hit opera as the surest route to fame and fortune. Even Beethoven attempted one, though it was to be honest a flop. Brahms is regarded as highly unusual for never attempting the genre.

Ballet was regarded as a minor diversion until Tchaikovsky showed it could be a serious musical work (and serious box office). Thanks to the big romantic hits, a few dancers' names entered common knowledge. But that was half a century ago.

The changing public face of the symphony is a bit more complicated and I don't feel up to examining it now, sorry.

[Josquin des Prez]

Brahms is regarded as highly unusual for never attempting the genre.

He was also unusual in stubbornly wanting to write music in a language that was already exhausted, and did it with so much intellectual rigor he even managed to influence the direction of certain "modernistic" tendencies, at least indirectly. When Schoenberg called Brahms "the progress" it was an exaggeration that contained an element of truth.

That said, it is even more unusual that Mahler, who specialized in conducting opera, never tried to write one in his mature years.

[Josquin des Prez]

If that's the case, then you are not familiar with his biography.

I am not a "modern" composer in the inverted commas sense. I utterly and indignantly repudiate that epithet as being in any way applicable to me. I write very long, very elaborate works that are entirely alien and antipathetic to the fashionable tendencies prompted, publicised and plugged by the various "establishments" revolving around this or that modish composer.

Why do I neither seek nor encourage performance of my works? Because they are neither intended for, nor suitable for it under present, or indeed any foreseeable conditions: no performance at all is vastly preferable to an obscene travesty. [...] Why do I write as I do? Why did (and do) the artists-craftsmen of Iran, India, China. Byzantine-Arabic Sicily (in the first and last of which are my own ancestral roots) produce the sort of elaborate highly wrought work they did? That was their way. It is also mine. If you don't like it, because it isn't the present day done thing, that is just too bad, but not for me, who couldn't care less. In fact, to me your disapproval is an indirect compliment and much less of an insult than your applause, when I consider some of your idols.

"A Personal Statement" (dated 14 October 1959), first published as "Statement by Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji" in Gambit: Edinburgh University Review, Summer 1965: 4.

Taken from http://www.mus.ulaval.ca/roberge/srs/03-quota.htm.

I was talking about a more fundamental and natural type of absolute personality. Sorabji's misanthropic excesses seem to be rather artificial to me.

[Scion7]

No, it's documented he "did" do things with them. 

I don't care for Britton's music (always found him a snore), but that has nothing to do with his actions as a person.

[Scion7]

Before you come down too hard on Brahms ......

Admittedly, he could be a very crotchety person in older age.  But much of that was due to a childhood in which his attitudes toward women (in general) were very warped by the actions of prostitutes, etc., in the brothels that he played in to support his family.  Brahms came from a very poor background in a slum district, and saw the worst of what went on at the docks.

Additionally, he admired Schumann so much that it's probable that his love/desire for Clara after Robert's final bout of insanity worked on his feelings of guilt - in later life, comparing all other women to her yet unable to form a natural, healthy relationship with one.  His total dedication to his art at the expense of wife and children affected him in later years. 

Despite his often gruff behavior, he was just as often very warm to his friends, and his private financial support of many promising students and institutions is very admirable, as was his very simple lifestyle, despite the wealth he acquired.

His attitude towards Liszt was completely without merit, but so it goes.  He hardly damaged either his popular success or his legacy.

So let's not kick the man too hard.  :-)

[Karl Henning]

He was also unusual in stubbornly wanting to write music in a language that was already exhausted

The inherent contradiction here is breathtakingly amusing in its concision!  If Brahms wrote great music (and only an ass would deny so), then the language was by no means exhausted, QED.

[Karl Henning]

Admittedly, he could be a very crotchety person in older age.  But much of that was due to a childhood in which his attitudes toward women (in general) were very warped by the actions of prostitutes, etc., in the brothels that he played in to support his family.

Old guys can get (and have gotten) crotchety without any such background. (Just saying.)

[Leon]

He was also unusual in stubbornly wanting to write music in a language that was already exhausted,

Seems to me that the language Brahms chose to compose in was obviously not exhausted since his oeuvre contains great works. 

[Leon]

The inherent contradiction here is breathtakingly amusing in its concision!  If Brahms wrote great music (and only an ass would deny so), then the language was by no means exhausted, QED.

I did not see your post before making the same point.

[Karl Henning]

Great minds, &c. : )

[snyprrr]

This one again. Some time ago there was a thread where Britten's proclivities were discussed. A couple of books had come out, one by David Hemmings. All the actual evidence pointed to the composer very much liking the close company of boys. He tended to choose a favourite and become like an uncle, always around and showering little gifts and treats. The instant the youngster's voice broke, they were excluded from all communication.

Hemmings had been one of these chosen ones and the adjustment from close little friend to being a non-person was the real trauma.

All that seems quite bad in itself. But nothing at all surfaced to indicate that Britten had touched any of these boys.

Mike

I know we went round n round with this before, but, honestly, in light of recent history, your Post just 'sounds' naive. I'm not criticizing, I'm just shocked that, as I'm reading your Post, my first reaction is, Of course nothing has 'surfaced',...those surrounding Britten have more wherewithal than those in the Catholic church. Hemmings doesn't count as 'surface'?

I mean,... all signs point to something so stereotypically common in the circles of people who would quite naturally be inclined to disregard signs... the 'privileged'? I mean, to me it seems like, Does a bear shit in the woods? Does the pope wear a pagan fish hat? Does a Brit fop bugger little boys?

Why do I feel like Strangelove all of a sudden?

I'm sorry, this just sounds like a blind alcoholic who just can't, for the life of them, figure out why their life isn't peaches. This is so 1945 to me. I've 'heard of' AA meetings that still act like the '60s never happened. I've heard of psychia-tropists who administer 1950s styled therapy to problems that any high schooler can see right through. Our whole society seems to be based on, Here, look over here while I deceive you behind your back...

Oh, ok,... doh de doh de doh, I go skipping down the lane...

Seriously, I don't go pedo-hunting, but Britten STINKS like a turd moustache!!


Then there was Elgar in the same Thread. NOW I'm trolling!!


ok, I just get a little emotional over 'those who had no choice'. not meaning to be a prick