Where have the Great Composers gone?

[Ken B]

Then, there's the fellow who thinks La mer is trash.

Not trash, just a tad dull.

Bruce had a good quote. What was it?  " There's so much music you don't have to waste time on La Mer. ".
I paraphrase 

[Monsieur Croche]

Not trash, just a tad dull.

Bruce had a good quote. What was it?  "There's so much music you don't have to waste time on La Mer."
I paraphrase 

If you want a "tad dull," I have all of Vaughan Williams and Medtner for you -- and that is just the sample starter kit  (There really ought to be a single emoticon for "The Laughing Policeman.")

"There's so much music you don't have to waste time on composer / piece." is so great a truism that it has me pondering any one wasting their time on putting down the composers / pieces one finds lacking or doesn't care for. 

Since there is so much music the time taken to put down or disparage a composer or piece is an activity which, at the least, is specious.

Since firing off of the occasional bon mot can be a bit of fun for all, I would think that rather than targeting specific composers or pieces, our fellow members / colleagues on this forum should and do provide enough fodder -- and better fodder, too, in the form of our briefest of written statements to veritable theses -- for ye olde bon mot blunderbuss.

[Cato]

I offer this excerpt for your consideration from Albert Jay Nock's essay on mass appeal/mass culture from 1936: Isaiah's Job.

...Everyone with a message nowadays is... eager to take it to the masses. His first, last and only thought is of mass acceptance and mass approval. His great care is to put his doctrine in such shape as will capture the masses' attention and interest. ...

The main trouble with all this is its reaction upon the mission itself. It necessitates an opportunist sophistication of one's doctrine, which profoundly alters its character and reduces it to a mere placebo. If, say, you are a preacher, you wish to attract as large a congregation as you can, which means an appeal to the masses; and this, in turn, means adapting the terms of your message to the order of intellect and character that the masses exhibit. If you are an educator, say with a college on your hands, you wish to get as many students as possible, and you whittle down your requirements accordingly. If a writer, you aim at getting many readers; if a publisher, many purchasers; if a philosopher, many disciples; if a reformer, many converts; if a musician, many auditors; and so on. But as we see on all sides, in the realization of these several desires, the prophetic message is so heavily adulterated with trivialities, in every instance, that its effect on the masses is merely to harden them in their sins. Meanwhile, the Remnant, aware of this adulteration and of the desires that prompt it, turn their backs on the prophet and will have nothing to do with him or his message.

Isaiah, on the other hand, worked under no such disabilities. He preached to the masses only in the sense that he preached publicly. Anyone who liked might listen; anyone who liked might pass by. He knew that the Remnant would listen; and knowing also that nothing was to be expected of the masses under any circumstances, he made no specific appeal to them, did not accommodate his message to their measure in any way, and did not care two straws whether they heeded it or not. As a modern publisher might put it, he was not worrying about circulation or about advertising. Hence, with all such obsessions quite out of the way, he was in a position to do his level best, without fear or favor, and answerable only to his august Boss.

If a prophet were not too particular about making money out of his mission or getting a dubious sort of notoriety out of it, the foregoing considerations would lead one to say that serving the Remnant looks like a good job. An assignment that you can really put your back into, and do your best without thinking about results, is a real job; whereas serving the masses is at best only half a job, considering the inexorable conditions that the masses impose upon their servants. They ask you to give them what they want, they insist upon it, and will take nothing else; and following their whims, their irrational changes of fancy, their hot and cold fits, is a tedious business, to say nothing of the fact that what they want at any time makes very little call on one's resources of prophesy. The Remnant, on the other hand, want only the best you have, whatever that may be. Give them that, and they are satisfied; you have nothing more to worry about. The prophet of the American masses must aim consciously at the lowest common denominator of intellect, taste, and character among 120,000,000 people; and this is a distressing task. The prophet of the Remnant, on the contrary, is in the enviable position of Papa Haydn in the household of Prince Esterhazy. All Haydn had to do was keep forking out the very best music he knew how to produce, knowing it would be understood and appreciated by those for whom he produced it, and caring not a button what anyone else thought of it — and that makes a good job.

In a sense, nevertheless, as I have said, it is not a rewarding job. If you can touch the fancy of the masses, and have the sagacity to keep always one jump ahead of their vagaries and vacillations, you can get good returns in money from serving the masses, and good returns also in a mouth-to-ear type of notoriety:

Digito monstrari et dicier*, Hic est!

We all know innumerable politicians, journalists, dramatists, novelists and the like, who have done extremely well by themselves in these ways. Taking care of the Remnant, on the contrary, holds little promise of any such rewards. A prophet of the Remnant will not grow purse proud on the financial returns from his work, nor is it likely that he will get any great renown out of it. Isaiah's case was exceptional to this second rule, and there are others, but not many.

It may be thought, then, that while taking care of the Remnant is no doubt a good job, it is not an especially interesting job because it is as a rule so poorly paid. I have my doubts about this. There are other compensations to be got out of a job besides money and notoriety, and some of them seem substantial enough to be attractive. Many jobs which do not pay well are yet profoundly interesting, as, for instance, the job of research student in the sciences is said to be; and the job of looking after the Remnant seems to me, as I have surveyed it for many years from my seat in the grandstand, to be as interesting as any that can be found in the world.

IV

What chiefly makes it so, I think, is that in any given society the Remnant are always so largely an unknown quantity. You do not know, and will never know, more than two things about them. You can be sure of those — dead sure, as our phrase is — but you will never be able to make even a respectable guess at anything else. You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you. Except for these two certainties, working for the Remnant means working in impenetrable darkness; and this, I should say, is just the condition calculated most effectively to pique the interest of any prophet who is properly gifted with the imagination, insight and intellectual curiosity necessary to a successful pursuit of his trade...

So the Great Composers are very probably out there, but some effort is needed to discover them these days, due to all the chaff floating in the ether!

* For those who know something about Latin, and who might be wondering about the somewhat obscure form dicier, there was a tendency among poets (the quote is from Persius the Satirist) and even some prose writers to add an "-er" to a Third Conjugation Passive Infinitive.  Musical considerations may have been involved.   0:)   

And the translation is: "(It is beautiful) to be pointed at with a finger and for someone to say of you: That's the man!"

[Andante]

I often encounter this statement but never are any examples offered or discussed. So, with the best intentions, in all earnest and really interested in learning, I ask: what Schoenberg work is very similar to what Brahms work and what are the similarities?

Excuse me for quoting an old post but I have been away.
I agree with you, and if sanantonio thinks I am going to waste money on something that I more than likely will not like well think again baby, would it not be easier to post a YT video or audio track and then add comments and point out the similarities.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Personally I find that there are more comparable aspects between Brahms's and Schoenberg's compositional methods than there are differences, including but not limited to 'Motivführung' and dodecaphony, displaced harmonic rhythm or even just displaced rhythm in a melodic line generally, tendencies towards counterpoint, similar orchestration techniques or instrumental figuration (this isn't limited only to orchestral music).

The main difference I can think of is that the Schenkerian principle of Ursatz is not especially applicable to many of Schoenberg's works, but I do believe that posthumous developments of Schenker's analytical theory has shown that some aspects of it can be applied to his music anyway. Through this we can see similarities in the structure and shape of melodic lines and harmonic movement which can ultimately help musicians to understand how to interpret it musically in performance. The Solti example of asking musicians to play it like it's Brahms is evidence of the huge influence of the German tradition, especially Brahms.

[Andante]

@ jessop.    Very clever but now give a real life example.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

@ jessop.    Very clever but now give a real life example.

I don't think it necessarily meaningful to post a youtube link of something like Brahms 4 and Schoenberg's Variations for orchestra and just expect people to hear some kind of 'sameness' in compositional approach. You might be able to hear similarly dense orchestral textures, instrumental figuration and the like, and I wouldn't be surprised if you pick up on similarities in the treatment of melody and motif. They just SOUND different in the way that Brahms sounds different to Bach despite the similarities you can see in the functionality of pitch, harmony and even rhythm. In fact, the outward sound of Brahms is more similar to what Schoenberg decided to do anyway even though many Schoenberg compositions don't fall into the common practice era.

[Andante]

I don't think it necessarily meaningful to post a youtube link of something like Brahms 4 and Schoenberg's Variations for orchestra and just expect people to hear some kind of 'sameness' in compositional approach. You might be able to hear similarly dense orchestral textures, instrumental figuration and the like, and I wouldn't be surprised if you pick up on similarities in the treatment of melody and motif. They just SOUND different in the way that Brahms sounds different to Bach despite the similarities you can see in the functionality of pitch, harmony and even rhythm. In fact, the outward sound of Brahms is more similar to what Schoenberg decided to do anyway even though many Schoenberg compositions don't fall into the common practice era.

So they are similar but sound different, excellent   

[Mahlerian]

It would be difficult not to hear the Brahms in the very early works of Schoenberg:
https://www.youtube.com/v/Gl3wjgeBUSo

Take that and compare it to a song from the next decade, where a good dose of Wagner is added:
https://www.youtube.com/v/csnZBon1Ncw

The confident stride of that is further morphed into a mad rush alternating with serene reflection (stick with it after the crashing opening):
https://www.youtube.com/v/NsG9s9uWp7A

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

So they are similar but sound different, excellent   

The point is that musicians can use similar interpretative techniques in the music of Schoenberg due to the similar approach of the functionality of pitch in a melodic line. The only difference is harmonically, in Schoenberg's non-tonal works, harmonic functions associated with pitch can only be perceived rather than viewed objectively. What constitutes as having a leading note function is not as clear in Schoenberg's non-tonal works as it is in Brahms. It can certainly be perceived, and the musicians can treat it as such in their phrasing and take a similar approach to the way they might phrase Brahms. It is beneficial to the performers, but anyone just listening to the music doesn't have to care about it at all.

[SeptimalTritone]

I think that these are also very good examples:

Brahms String Quartet 1 https://youtu.be/ZXBxZdunXLI?t=1m17s
Schoenberg String Quartet 3 https://youtu.be/OLuyQF_pVqk?t=2m29s

Brahms Symphony 1 https://youtu.be/POW-u-RGspY?t=26m45s
Schoenberg Five Pieces for Orchestra https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwnBAtpqOJw

Brahms String Quintet 2 https://youtu.be/Ye2pDTJNm6U?t=1m58s
Schoenberg String Quartet 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-akr3e8CTY

Brahms Symphony 2 https://youtu.be/qI1vYHT43a4?t=20m48s
Schoenberg Variations for Orchestra https://youtu.be/g7wefv98lvo?t=1m38s

Very melodic, motivic, contrapuntal, and expressive. Very yearning and singing. And very delicately composed. Small intervallic components generate the melodies, countermelodies, and harmonies.

[Andante]

Look guy's, don't get me wrong there is a lot of Schoenberg works that I like but perhaps not the 12T 

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I think that these are also very good examples:

Brahms String Quartet 1 https://youtu.be/ZXBxZdunXLI?t=1m17s
Schoenberg String Quartet 3 https://youtu.be/OLuyQF_pVqk?t=2m29s

Brahms Symphony 1 https://youtu.be/POW-u-RGspY?t=26m45s
Schoenberg Five Pieces for Orchestra https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwnBAtpqOJw

Brahms String Quintet 2 https://youtu.be/Ye2pDTJNm6U?t=1m58s
Schoenberg String Quartet 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-akr3e8CTY

Brahms Symphony 2 https://youtu.be/qI1vYHT43a4?t=20m48s
Schoenberg Variations for Orchestra https://youtu.be/g7wefv98lvo?t=1m38s

Very melodic, motivic, contrapuntal, and expressive. Very yearning and singing. And very delicately composed. Small intervallic components generate the melodies, countermelodies, and harmonies.

Huh, I would have picked Brahms 4 with the variations for orchestra, but these are all good examples

[San Antone]

In response to no one in particular:

A related question might be: Where have all the good listeners gone?

Are you curious about new music? 

For me, this is crucial - it is all about simply being curious about what living composers are writing.  I suspend judgment all the time and simply listen to new music, a lot of it - and then go back and listen again to those works which tickled my aural imagination.

But if you have no curiosity about new music and are interested in mainly listening to music you already know you enjoy or music recommended to you that is similar to music you already like, then it is hard for a new composer to have a chance with you.

[SeptimalTritone]

Yeah Jessop, I would agree upon better reflection. The leap up, leap down initial melody of the fourth symphony is probably closer to that main cello melody of the Schoenberg Variations.

I've always liked the extremely individual rhythmic and intervallic contours of all of Schoenberg's melodies, from his late romantic period to his free atonal and 12 tone period.

One could also compare the slowly growing cantus firmus melody in Brahms's 2nd quartet that Schoenberg famously talked about in his essay about Brahms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he_jBILF6cg

with Schoenberg's own piano piece op 11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeTFxbsVGrI

Although the harmony and mood are different, the idea of developing a linear pattern in a primary voice and reflecting it in the countermelodies is similar.

[Monsieur Croche]

In response to no one in particular:

A related question might be: Where have all the good listeners gone?

Are you curious about new music? 

This less than popular question needs, imo, to be asked much more often, while...

Oh, Apollo!

Can of worms opened when statement interpreted as
laying responsibility / blame on audience is again raised.  ~  Film at Eleven 

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Why, though? Is the audience afraid to take responsibility for their listening habits?

[San Antone]

This less than popular question needs, imo, to be asked much more often, while...

Oh, Apollo!

Can of worms opened when statement interpreted as
laying responsibility / blame on audience is again raised.  ~  Film at Eleven 

You're right and I did not think of that aspect.  But to a large extent, the same thing applies to an appreciation of classical music in general, but especially so for new classical music.  Compared to pop music, only a tiny fraction of people listen to any classical music.  And then among devoted classical music listeners only a small fraction enjoy new music.

But in both cases, imo, it comes down to how curious someone is about seeking out music outside their comfort zone.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I don't know about anyone else, but I prefer to expand my comfort zone rather than keep it small...........

[Mahlerian]

Look guy's, don't get me wrong there is a lot of Schoenberg works that I like but perhaps not the 12T 

None of what I posted is 12-tone, but it's okay, as I doubt you can tell the difference.  Don't worry about the 12-tone technique, it's actually irrelevant to you and your listening experience.  It's not as if Schoenberg became a different composer once he started using the technique.  The melodies, development, the harmonic and contrapuntal richness all remain.