Are there particular genres certain composers should have just avoided?

[Jo498]

Hummel is most definitely not a lesser composer. What a strange thing to say....

Hummel is a very good composer and not "lesser" compared to Spohr but clearly lesser compared to Beethoven, Haydn Schubert or Mozart. Weber is on a similar level in his instrumental music; Hummel might be more classically polished whereas Weber has more romantic elements mixed in. But Weber wrote one epochal masterpiece, namely Freischütz that really changed the history of opera whereas nothing changes if you cut Hummel from musical history except for the absence of a few nice (but hardly great) pieces.

The question was whether Weber was a case who should have stayed away from certain genres because his instrumental music is quite uneven compared to his operatic masterpieces. So I claimed that his instrumental music is decent and comparable to e.g. Hummel's, not really a failure unless one compares with Beethoven oder mature Schubert (of roughly contemporary composers).

[Florestan]

Weber wrote one epochal masterpiece, namely Freischütz that really changed the history of opera whereas nothing changes if you cut Hummel from musical history except for the absence of a few nice (but hardly great) pieces.

I´m not that sure. He taught Czerny who in his turn taught Liszt. He also taught Thalberg, who was hugely influential on 19-th century piano playing. The young Chopin was influenced by his works, too.

I think that when it comes to musical history things are not as clear-cut and black-and-white as they seem to be.

This applies equally to Weber, whose instrumental music, especially his piano sonatas and piano music, were held in high esteem by his contemporaries and even by later generations of critics.

[jochanaan]

An opera by Mahler is something I've always wished he'd done.

The closest Mahler got to completing an opera was not Das Klagende Lied, as fine as that is, but Symphony #8's last movement.

[San Antone]

Hummel is a very good composer and not "lesser" compared to Spohr but clearly lesser compared to Beethoven, Haydn Schubert or Mozart. Weber is on a similar level in his instrumental music; Hummel might be more classically polished whereas Weber has more romantic elements mixed in. But Weber wrote one epochal masterpiece, namely Freischütz that really changed the history of opera whereas nothing changes if you cut Hummel from musical history except for the absence of a few nice (but hardly great) pieces.

The question was whether Weber was a case who should have stayed away from certain genres because his instrumental music is quite uneven compared to his operatic masterpieces. So I claimed that his instrumental music is decent and comparable to e.g. Hummel's, not really a failure unless one compares with Beethoven oder mature Schubert (of roughly contemporary composers).

I have spent many happy hours enjoying the music of "lesser" composers such as Hummel.  I would hate to see a Hummeloscopy performed on music history.

[jochanaan]

Thread duty: I once heard a piece for brass by Sibelius, and it was just awful: not even "fair," it actually sounded bad!  I don't know if Sibelius was just having an "off" day or however long it took him for that piece, but he probably should have just kept on writing for full orchestra.

With opera, so much depends on the drama.  It is a tribute to Mozart's genius, for example, that he was able to make something great out of The Magic Flute, whose libretto is pretty silly if you look at it.  Some composers, like the aforementioned Schubert, have been unfairly pegged as being "bad at opera," when if they'd only had a decent collaborator...

Of course, I tend to think that the Strauss brothers should have avoided waltzes.

[Ken B]

I would hate to see a Hummeloscopy performed on music history.

We had a thread on that. The plurality was for a Shostakovichoscopy, with a Glassoscopy neck and neck, but of course the smart money was on Schoenbergoscopy.

What we really need is a Dylanoscopy on the NPL 

[Brian]

Of course, I tend to think that the Strauss brothers should have avoided waltzes.

What! Those are brilliant pieces. 

[jochanaan]

What! Those are brilliant pieces. 

Like we've said, personal taste.  In my case, with some reason: I once played in a group called the Mostly Strauss Orchestra, which played exactly what you'd expect.

[Jo498]

You are still missing my point. Dave above pondered if Weber might be a case of a composer who was considerably better in some genres (opera) than others. I only brought Hummel in because I think that Weber was roughly as good as Hummel in his uneven instrumental music but superior in at least one opera (maybe three). So I defended Weber rather than accuse Hummel of mediocrity.

Bizet also obviously excelled in opera and we do not have to call the symphony from his student days or the charming Arlessienne music weak to recognize that they can hardly be compared with a masterpiece like Carmen.

[Florestan]

the Strauss brothers should have avoided waltzes.

Yeah, right, and Bach should have never composed fugues, and Verdi should have stayed away from opera... 

What! Those are brilliant pieces. 

+1. Such marvels of orchestration and poetry! A great many of their waltzes are tone poems in miniature.

[ritter]

...Verdi should have stayed away from opera... 

+1 (except for Falstaff, of course)...

[Mahlerian]

We had a thread on that. The plurality was for a Shostakovichoscopy, with a Glassoscopy neck and neck, but of course the smart money was on Schoenbergoscopy.

Removing Schoenberg from music history would affect everything that came after, so you wouldn't have Shostakovich the way he is either.  It's one of those things reactionaries might dream about only because they don't know anything about Schoenberg or his music.

Oh, to answer the thread question, Bruckner's piano music is pretty universally mediocre.

[Ken B]

Removing Schoenberg from music history would affect everything that came after, so you wouldn't have Shostakovich the way he is either.  It's one of those things reactionaries might dream about only because they don't know anything about Schoenberg or his music.

Oh, to answer the thread question, Bruckner's piano music is pretty universally mediocre.

Actually, in that thread, it was precisely his effect rather than his music per se that was cited.

[Mahlerian]

Actually, in that thread, it was precisely his effect rather than his music per se that was cited.

But there wasn't even a single semi-decent composer after him whose music wasn't either inspired by or written in reaction to Schoenberg's.  To remove him from history, we'd lose The Planets, Shostakovich's best works, some of the most fascinating parts of Prokofiev, a good bit of Stravinsky, the Neoclassical movement, and so forth, all of which reacted to his work in some way.  Forget about the Darmstadt School and American serialism, the entire 20th century would be significantly different without one of its foremost geniuses to guide it.

His influence is incredibly poorly understood because people think that the 12-tone method was the most important thing he did, or that his theoretical work was especially influential, both of which are dead wrong.

His most widely accepted theoretical idea is so widely accepted today that people don't even realize that Schoenberg was one of the first to formulate it: that the distinction between consonance and dissonance is one of degree, rather than kind.

Once again, because Schoenberg's influence was, and continues to be, so wide-ranging, no one could possibly imagine how much it would affect the entirety of music history to remove it, and to imagine that it would be a good thing is near-sighted and spitefully reactionary.

[Ken B]

But there wasn't even a single semi-decent composer after him whose music wasn't either inspired by or written in reaction to Schoenberg's.  To remove him from history, we'd lose The Planets, Shostakovich's best works, some of the most fascinating parts of Prokofiev, a good bit of Stravinsky, the Neoclassical movement, and so forth, all of which reacted to his work in some way.  Forget about the Darmstadt School and American serialism, the entire 20th century would be significantly different without one of its foremost geniuses to guide it.

His influence is incredibly poorly understood because people think that the 12-tone method was the most important thing he did, or that his theoretical work was especially influential, both of which are dead wrong.

His most widely accepted theoretical idea is so widely accepted today that people don't even realize that Schoenberg was one of the first to formulate it: that the distinction between consonance and dissonance is one of degree, rather than kind.

Once again, because Schoenberg's influence was, and continues to be, so wide-ranging, no one could possibly imagine how much it would affect the entirety of music history to remove it, and to imagine that it would be a good thing is near-sighted and spitefully reactionary.

Did you read the thread? I refer to the compulsory aspect of its premise.
And if no-one can imagine the effect then how can you?
Anyway Delius is really the right answer, logically, in that thread  since the existence of his music is identical in its effect to its absence.

[Mahlerian]

Did you read the thread? I refer to the compulsory aspect of its premise.
And if no-one can imagine the effect then how can you?
Anyway Delius is really the right answer, logically, in that thread  since the existence of his music is identical in its effect to its absence.

I can't.  I can imagine part of the effect, but not the entirety of it.

If I wanted to throw out a composer, I'd do away with Pfitzner or some nobody like that, not one of the greatest musical geniuses.

[BasilValentine]

But there wasn't even a single semi-decent composer after him whose music wasn't either inspired by or written in reaction to Schoenberg's.  To remove him from history, we'd lose The Planets, Shostakovich's best works, some of the most fascinating parts of Prokofiev, a good bit of Stravinsky, the Neoclassical movement, and so forth, all of which reacted to his work in some way.  Forget about the Darmstadt School and American serialism, the entire 20th century would be significantly different without one of its foremost geniuses to guide it.

Strange assertion. Which of Shostakovich's best works have a debt Schoenberg and what is the nature of the debt? What fascinating parts of  Prokofiev? 

[Monsieur Croche]

Yes.  Genres for which they have no innate strong interest or feeling for, lol.

Schubert should not have composed any concerti, for example.  Oh, wait... he didn't.

From what I've heard via listening to them, Medtner should not have composed three piano concerti (if they are any measure of what and how else he composed, well, different strokes for different folks); Karl Jenkins should not have composed anything; etc.

Of course, there is only one way to find out if one is 'good at' anything, and that is in the doing of that thing -- and often doing more than just one essay.  Unfortunately, even a formal training up through doctorate level is not going to have a composition major writing, say, a concerto, an opera, art song, a choral work, a ballet score, or all varieties of chamber music. 

To be plain, I don't get the value of the question, or at least if there is a point of discussion there, it is to me lost in the particular wording.

On the other hand, it is a weirdly academic conjectural tease to contemplate an object such as, say, "Puccini's Piano Concerto." 


Best regards

[Mahlerian]

Strange assertion. Which of Shostakovich's best works have a debt Schoenberg and what is the nature of the debt? What fascinating parts of  Prokofiev?

Shostakovich listed Schoenberg among his favorite composers in the early 1930s, and you can certainly hear this in the works from around that time.  The most obviously influenced piece, of course, is the Five Fragments for Orchestra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQIPGefNMvY, and the Fourth Symphony, the third movement of which begins with the motif of the so-called "Viennese trichord," but I can hear the influence of Schoenberg's melodic style on even the "populist" works of the later 30s and 40s.

Naturally, these influences were filtered through Hindemith and Stravinsky and others as well.

Similarly, Prokofiev was reacting to the milieu of The Rite of Spring (orchestrated after Stravinsky's encounter with Pierrot lunaire) and the machine works of Varese when he wrote his percussive sonatas and the Second Symphony.  Even if the influence was not direct, and in Prokofiev's case I agree it most likely was not, to suggest that he was ignoring the musical world around him would seem to have a higher burden of proof than otherwise.

[DaveF]

Oh, to answer the thread question, Bruckner's piano music is pretty universally mediocre.

As indeed is Sibelius's - BUT it is clearly unfair (of me) to cite Weber for having written three great operas and not much else of note, since it would clearly be impossible only to write three masterpieces and nothing else (yeah, yeah, Barraqué, Duruflé, Joyce, I know, I know, but I bet they turned out a load of junk that ended up on the fire).  I laugh sometimes to read things like "if Schoenberg had only written the 1st chamber symphony (or Stravinsky the Rite, or Haydn the Op.20s) he would still be considered one of the greatest composers" - as if stuff like that leaps into existence fully-formed.  Poor Weber - I should celebrate his writing of two dud symphonies if they were essential preparation for Freischütz.