Composer personalities

[greg]

Daedalus encouraged my idea:

Yes, I feel the same way about a number of composers and also writers. What I mean is I identify with them and their personalities. Regrettably, it seems, I lack the incredible musical and literary genius of my heroes!  Cry  Grin  I think that is how I started to get into books and classical music. I was looking for people to identify with.

Certainly, I feel Mahler's very sensitive, neurotic, maladjusted, artistic, emotional, intelligent and reverie filled personality probably appeals to many people. It certainly does to me.

You should definitely start a thread about that! I advise that you read the Blaukopf's biography - it's more of a collection of letters, of both Mahler and his contemporaries and friends, giving a range of viewpoints. A very interesting way of presenting a biography.

so..........


anyone who think they can recognize relations between the composers they like, their music, and their own personalities?

[MN Dave]

Yes, any brooding, melancholic, but not necessarily neurotic, composer and I'm on board. 

[Lady Chatterley]

Henry Purcell loved singing,so do I.

[greg]

i can cut the vagueness with an invisible knife......

[Benny]

I can relate to Edward MacDowell's treehouse in New Hampshire!

[eyeresist]

Brahms's gruff unsociability, humour and deep feeling strike a chord, though he's not my favourite composer. (That's a competition between religious nut Bruckner and good ol' boy Dvorak, at the moment, anyway.)

[Daedalus]

It's about time that somebody wrote a huge essay on this thread – here I am to save the day. 

Personally, I have always wondered if people who listen to classical music or read literature (which is my greatest passion) tend to be more maladjusted, or perhaps sensitive is a better word. I have always felt that those who feel moved by the intense words of a favourite author or the sonorous and emotional sound of a piece of music might have a greater sense of humanity and of the urgency of life.

I have always been a very sensitive and anxious individual, even as a child. One of my earliest school memories is of learning the names of the planets. At this early age, I just simply could not understand why nobody was reacting like I was inside my mind. Everyone was just mindlessly learning the names, accepting the facts without question. Memorising the names was the only imporant part of the lesson to them. But I wanted to know WHY they were there, WHY I was here, WHAT it all meant and a million other questions. Nobody else cared about these kinds of questions, or if they did then they didn't let on.
Anyone who has read A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man will know what I mean. I am no Stephen Dedalus but I really identified with all of the questions he asks as a child, in his simple way, about the universe, religion, philosophy, language etc.

I have been asking questions like that my whole life. This is why I have traded in a successful career in order to fund my dream of becoming an academic and this is also why I love literature and music. To read books or to listen to music is to find out what other people make of this crazy situation we are all in (that so many of us seem to take for granted). It is to find out what is important to others and to find out what it all means to them.

My first love in classical was Beethoven. I heard this kind of arrogance in his symphonies, like he seemed to be saying, 'here I am, I am human and I am restricted by my fate but listen to what I can do, I am rebelling in defiance at my fate' – I don't think I have captured what exactly I feel about Beethoven very well here but perhaps you get the idea. I guess I have always seen my anxiety as a kind of shackle, perhaps in the same way as Beethoven saw his deafness. Reading about Beethoven and listening to his music enabled me to identify with his defiance in the face of his unwanted fate.

When I found Mahler's symphonies and read about his life, I loved what I heard in both senses. Here was a man who FELT so much and was so sensitive to all of the things my contemporaries have always seemed to take for granted. Mahler was absorbed in the intellectual life around him, always asking questions about everything – always asking the ultimate question. His music is profound. Reading about his life, I found a larger than life character, sometimes agitated, sometimes angry, always full of dreams and wonderfully eccentric. I could identify with it. Reading his letters and most importantly listening to his music made me feel like he was a friend.

I love reading about composers' lives. I can respect them as men who expressed their innermost thoughts and emotions. Whether it is Elgar, the self-educated common man fighting against class divisions in Edwardian England, and going on long bike rides to compose his music. Whether it is Sibelius drinking himself silly, unable to manage his money, depressed at the wars that have devastated so many human lives since the beginning of time. There are so many others. When I first got into classical, I thought, 'these guys all understand what everyone else seems to be missing'.

I saw a thread on here recently that was wondering if people who listen to classical music are, in general, highly educated. My hypothesis is that people who listen to classical, or read literature – those two forms of art are strongly linked in my opinion – are often sensitive, romantic, highly responsive to the world we live in, eccentric and always asking questions.

I finish with a quotation from The History Boys by Alan Bennett:
'The best moments in reading are when you come across something - a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things - that you'd thought special, particular to you. And here it is, set down by someone else, a person you've never met, maybe even someone long dead. And it's as if a hand has come out, and taken yours.'

Surely true of music as well. 

D.

[Florestan]

Great post, Daedalus mon frere!

[greg]

Yep, that was a nice post!

Yesterday when I was mowing the grass (40 min. of it)  I thought about this subject the whole time. But also other stuff- and I noticed how my mind always tries to figure really BIG stuff, constantly asking "WHY", "what can I do to achieve this humanly impossible goal?" stuff like that. All the time.
And my mind does this so much that it's basically impossible for me to fall asleep within an hour unless i'm indescribably tired. I suppose Mahler thought this way, too?  0:)

[Daedalus]

I figure that for a composer like Mahler - but this is true of many composers, I am sure - that he absolutely needed music as an organising principle for the world around him. He needed to express all of his ideas in a coherent and cogent whole - and Mahler had a lot of ideas, that much is clear from listening to any of his symphonies. 

I have little ability music-wise but I would love to have the capacity to create. Sometimes I wonder at the incredible emotion and pride (also agitation and anxiety, I'm sure) that Mahler must have felt when conducting his own works.
Personally, I have always wanted to write something creative, ideally a novel. I am quite sure that I will do this one day but not so sure that it will be worth reading.  

I guess that is the difference between us and them though. Some people are born to be creators; others are born to be appreciators. Some of us are just meant to pass the beauty on to others, to perpetuate the artistic and intellectual endeavours of our civilisation.

Another History Boys quotation springs to mind, said in jest, but many a true word spoken and all that:
'Pass the parcel. That's sometimes all you can do. Take it, feel it and pass it on. Not for me, not for you, but for someone, somewhere, one day. Pass it on, boys. That's the game I want you to learn. Pass it on.'

In conclusion, I think so many of us share the same feelings as our favourite artists but cannot express ourselves as wonderfully as they can. Therefore, their works become our expressions, our answers, our organising principle and that is why artistic works such as music and literature can be so incredibly powerful.

D.

[Varg]

I figure that for a composer like Mahler - but this is true of many composers, I am sure - that he absolutely needed music as an organising principle for the world around him. He needed to express all of his ideas in a coherent and cogent whole - and Mahler had a lot of ideas, that much is clear from listening to any of his symphonies. 

I have little ability music-wise but I would love to have the capacity to create. Sometimes I wonder at the incredible emotion and pride (also agitation and anxiety, I'm sure) that Mahler must have felt when conducting his own works.
Personally, I have always wanted to write something creative, ideally a novel. I am quite sure that I will do this one day but not so sure that it will be worth reading.  

I guess that is the difference between us and them though. Some people are born to be creators; others are born to be appreciators. Some of us are just meant to pass the beauty on to others, to perpetuate the artistic and intellectual endeavours of our civilisation.

Another History Boys quotation springs to mind, said in jest, but many a true word spoken and all that:
'Pass the parcel. That's sometimes all you can do. Take it, feel it and pass it on. Not for me, not for you, but for someone, somewhere, one day. Pass it on, boys. That's the game I want you to learn. Pass it on.'

In conclusion, I think so many of us share the same feelings as our favourite artists but cannot express ourselves as wonderfully as they can. Therefore, their works become our expressions, our answers, our organising principle and that is why artistic works such as music and literature can be so incredibly powerful.

D.

I like your innocence, Daedalus.

I will only say that none of us, great or little, were born to be this or that; it is our lives that makes us what we are (well, mostly). As you probably know, the greatest composers, like Obelix, "felt in it when they were little", and we did not.

Conserning other forms of genius, there is a price to pay, and it is high. You'd like to write something immortal, or better, something that is too good to be immortal? Give up everything, reject everything, dedicate your live to yourself, become your work of art, and only that. That would make you a genius... but you wont do that, right? Dont blame your birth for not being the genius you'd like to be, but blame yourself; you have the power to be one, and you dont use it... which, i must add, is completely understandable.

As for the topic, we all are humans (very alike and very different at the same time), so we can relate to pretty much anybody, be it Beethoven or the dumb neighbour; the matches are infinite. So there's no way i can boost my vanity on the fact that i can relate to the greatest, since i can relate just as well with the mediocre... just like the greatest can 

[Haffner]

I have a ridiculous laugh like the Mozart character in Amadeus (ask Karl, it's really silly); completely blot out the whole world when I get a good idea (like Beethoven). Unfortunately, I share with Wagner the trait of not thinking when I speak angrily.

[johnQpublic]

STOP.....DON'T STOP....STOP.....DON'T STOP....STOP.....DON'T STOP....STOP.....DON'T STOP....I can relate to Percy Grainger's S&M fetish....STOP.....DON'T STOP....STOP.....DON'T STOP....STOP.....DON'T STOP....STOP.....DON'T STOP....   

[MN Dave]

I poop just like Beethoven!!! 

[Daedalus]

I like your innocence, Daedalus.

It is one of my better traits, I am sure  

I will only say that none of us, great or little, were born to be this or that; it is our lives that makes us what we are (well, mostly).

Yes, you are correct in some respects, of course.
I was wrong to attempt to create a rigid structure, i.e. creator or appreciator. My post was an emotional rather than intellectual one.
Sometimes I find myself to be so overwhelmed by the genius of people such as Gustav Mahler and James Joyce, two of my main heroes in music and literature respectively, that I find myself making a simple division between genius and mere mortal.  

There is a price to pay, and it is high. You'd like to write something immortal, or better, something that is too good to be immortal? Give up everything, reject everything, dedicate your live to yourself, become your work of art, and only that. That would make you a genius...

I think you fall into the same 'innocent' trap here as I did in my previous post. Yours is a romantic notion that hard work and dedication can make a genius. My notion was a myth of natural genius. It's a binary opposition and in truth we're both innocent and naive

... but you wont do that, right? Dont blame your birth for not being the genius you'd like to be, but blame yourself; you have the power to be one, and you dont use it...

I don't normally get too upset about posts on an internet forum but this is a little bit harsh. You are drawing some incredible conclusions about me from one post that I made, which, incidentally was written at my workplace without much concentration on what I was saying.

The thing is, you couldn't be more wrong about me. I have recently given up everything and I am currently attempting to dedicate my life to my 'art'.
My 'art' is knowledge and I recently gave up a very well paid career to dedicate myself to follow my dream of becoming an academic. I have made some major changes to my life – and not pleasant ones – in order to be able to study.

One day, I will attempt to create something of my own, I have no doubt of that. I will dedicate myself to it and I will try to be true to it. If I fail, you will not hear me blame my birth for my lack of success. I have had a wonderful upbringing and have a fantastic family, I could not be luckier. Of course, I do wish that my family could act as my perpetual patron, for I would be a genius now if that were the case!  
I am still young and I believe that I have a lot of life to experience before I can attempt contribute something of my own (depressing to think that Joyce was becoming quite prolific at about my age though!)

Anyway, to finish on a positive, I absolutely understand your point. To prove that, I quote from Samuel Taylor Coleridge writing suspiciously about William Shakespeare's mythical natural genius:

'Shakespeare, no mere child of nature; no automaton of genius; no passive vehicle of inspiration possessed by the spirit, not possessing it; first studied patiently, meditated deeply, understood minutely, till knowledge became habitual and intuitive, wedding itself to his habitual feelings, and at length gave birth to that stupendous power...' - Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

No more quotations from me today - I promise I will try, anyway.  

D.

[Greta]

STOP.....DON'T STOP....STOP.....DON'T STOP....STOP.....DON'T STOP....STOP.....DON'T STOP....I can relate to Percy Grainger's S&M fetish....STOP.....DON'T STOP....STOP.....DON'T STOP....STOP.....DON'T STOP....STOP.....DON'T STOP....   

Hahahahaha! 

I kind of identify with Sibelius personality-wise....in some ways....like I am very self-critical. And I think Charles Ives is a chum I would've had fun talking to.

[greg]

I poop just like Beethoven!!! 

It's a binary opposition and in truth we're both innocent and naive

'Shakespeare, no mere child of nature; no automaton of genius; no passive vehicle of inspiration possessed by the spirit, not possessing it; first studied patiently, meditated deeply, understood minutely, till knowledge became habitual and intuitive, wedding itself to his habitual feelings, and at length gave birth to that stupendous power...' - Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

Perfectly said, both you and him.
It's just like, for example, bodybuilding.... people have a limitation to how big they can get genetically, but if they don't work extremely hard, they won't ever get there!

[Kullervo]

I feel a strange affinity with Adrian Leverkuhn.

[Varg]

It is one of my better traits, I am sure  

Yes, you are correct in some respects, of course.
I was wrong to attempt to create a rigid structure, i.e. creator or appreciator. My post was an emotional rather than intellectual one.
Sometimes I find myself to be so overwhelmed by the genius of people such as Gustav Mahler and James Joyce, two of my main heroes in music and literature respectively, that I find myself making a simple division between genius and mere mortal.  

I think you fall into the same 'innocent' trap here as I did in my previous post. Yours is a romantic notion that hard work and dedication can make a genius. My notion was a myth of natural genius. It's a binary opposition and in truth we're both innocent and naive

I don't normally get too upset about posts on an internet forum but this is a little bit harsh. You are drawing some incredible conclusions about me from one post that I made, which, incidentally was written at my workplace without much concentration on what I was saying.

The thing is, you couldn't be more wrong about me. I have recently given up everything and I am currently attempting to dedicate my life to my 'art'.
My 'art' is knowledge and I recently gave up a very well paid career to dedicate myself to follow my dream of becoming an academic. I have made some major changes to my life – and not pleasant ones – in order to be able to study.

One day, I will attempt to create something of my own, I have no doubt of that. I will dedicate myself to it and I will try to be true to it. If I fail, you will not hear me blame my birth for my lack of success. I have had a wonderful upbringing and have a fantastic family, I could not be luckier. Of course, I do wish that my family could act as my perpetual patron, for I would be a genius now if that were the case!  
I am still young and I believe that I have a lot of life to experience before I can attempt contribute something of my own (depressing to think that Joyce was becoming quite prolific at about my age though!)

Anyway, to finish on a positive, I absolutely understand your point. To prove that, I quote from Samuel Taylor Coleridge writing suspiciously about William Shakespeare's mythical natural genius:

'Shakespeare, no mere child of nature; no automaton of genius; no passive vehicle of inspiration possessed by the spirit, not possessing it; first studied patiently, meditated deeply, understood minutely, till knowledge became habitual and intuitive, wedding itself to his habitual feelings, and at length gave birth to that stupendous power...' - Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

No more quotations from me today - I promise I will try, anyway.  

D.

I'm sorry if i upset you, that was really not my intention.

Of course, everybody cant become a genius, no matter how hard they try. Birth is very important, even if it's only a small part (a seed, at best), it is essential; one cant grow anything without seeds. And so many rare things are necessary for the seed to become a tree, and it starts with complete solitude, for many, many years... many painful years, without it being forced; it just needs to happen by itself. I think there is more fortune than anything else in the life of a genius (birth is only one small part of countless other things). It has nothing to do with hard work. I'm willing to hang myself right now if any great genius ever dreamed of being a genius; they did not notice the "seed" within them, and they were feeding it without knowing it; they only get that much later, at the end of their journey. An whole world of fortune! One has to love games, dangerous games!!


Which leads me to clarify something else. When i said that one must give up and reject everything, i meant everything, including academies. That is, if you want more for yourself than being learned, which is not what i'm talking about when i'm talking about genius. Anybody can be learned; one only needs to open books. But maybe we are not talking about the same thing. I'd rather stop here.

I must say that i'm talking about philosophical genius; i'm sure most of these things are not related to artists, for instance.

Again, i'm sorry if i seemed harsh; i only tried to help you notice the power you have over things, and how dangerous and uncertain is the road to genius. Glad to met you, by the way.

[Renfield]

Interesting thread.

And because I don't want to reply hurriedly, as I'm bound to so if I attempt it at this moment, I'll come back to it later; or at least to the discussion already taking place.

Considering the general topic, I am somewhere between Mahler's existential anxiety, Bruckner's cosmic self-assurance, Beethoven's crass radicalism, Brahms' wallowing melancholy, Sibelius' mystical naturalism, and Shostakovich's bitterly ironic self-parody. Go figure.

I suppose that is why I listen to their work with this sort of fervour:

I identify with what it has to say, or where it came from.


But objectively, I think it's more to do with identifying with specific aspects of each composer's mindset, than the composer necessarily sharing entire "chunks" of their personality with me, or anyone else. Though of course people can be alike...


And that having been said, I have often commented that had I lived at Mahler's time, and in Mahler's way, I'd near-certainly have been Mahler myself. And I don't mean as a composer, as that is impossible to tell; I do not compose music, nor conduct it.

Yet otherwise, Mahler is someone I could well have been, as a person. Also, I consider him something of a "friend"; and his 9th symphony as much as a testament of his life as a testament of mine (so far), in many ways. Maybe that is why I so cherish it.


Mind you, I am getting back to this discussion, mainly because I want to read through Daedalus' thoughts, above. Otherwise, I don't think I need write any one of my own trademark essays here; I do have a hunch he might have saved me the "trouble" already.