janney@unm-cvax.UUCP (06/04/84)
<- kills bugs dead for months > While I am not an authority on music, I had the impression that > most of the pre-20th century composers we currently honor were quite > popular in their own time. Examples include Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Beethoven, > Tschaikovsky, Liszt, Chopin, Mendelssohn... I think I could continue > in this vein forever. But I'm not sure I could name a single pre-20th > century composer who was *not* popular in his own time (except for some > who still aren't popular). J. S. Bach was not popular in his time. Interestingly enough, his music was considered stuffy and old-fashioned. His music did not become widely known until the 19th century when it was popularised by, I believe, Mendelssohn. Handel and Vivaldi were indeed quite popular in their time. Beethoven was extremely controversial in his time. He departed radically from the current musical conventions, and this disturbed many of his musically knowledgeable contemporaries. There is a story that Clementi (a pianist and composer of the period) said to Beethoven (about his op. 59 quartets): "Surely you do not consider these works to be music?" to which Beethoven replied: "Oh, they are not for you, but for a later age".* Liszt and Chopin were best known as virtuoso pianists. I don't know about Tschaikovsky. Mendelssohn was independently wealthy. > Up until somewhere around the time of Mozart, I believe, composers > depended on a patron to provide their living, and therefore had to be > appreciated by at least some of their contemporaries, or they'd have > starved. The idea that Great Art will not be appreciated until long after > the creator is dust seems a modern idea, and not supported by the evidence. Beethoven was the first composer to deliberately write for later ages. Before that, music was written to be performed for a few years and then thrown away: this is why Vivaldi wrote so many concertos and why Haydn wrote so many symphonies, most of which are no longer extent. Beethoven was also the first composer to make a reasonable living without depending on a particular patron; he accomplished this in part by shrewd business practices. *Grout, A History of Western Music, revised edition, page 525 Jim Janney {{convex,ucbvax,gatech}!unmvax, {purdue,lbl-csam,cmcl2}!lanl-a}!unm-cvax!janney Help! My postilion has been struck by lightning!
dep@allegra.UUCP (Dewayne E. Perry) (06/04/84)
that is why ... Haydn wrote so many symphonies, many of which ar not extent [sic - extant] today. Sorry to disappoint you but a goodly number are available in score form (the Landon editions as well as the Haydn Society editions) as well as recorded form (the Dorati series on London Treasury). The goodly number of them includes the accepted 104 plus a few extra. It is not at all clear that the "new music for new music's sake" approach is any less productive in terms of musical development than "new music for art's [whoever he is] sake". Haydn consistently broke new ground with each new composition (or in some cases, set of compositions). Perhaps "great art" is the con job of the 19th century and "abstract art" is the con job of the 20th. aurally yours - dep
barry@ames-lm.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (06/05/84)
[<+>] >> While I am not an authority on music, I had the impression that >> most of the pre-20th century composers we currently honor were quite >> popular in their own time. Examples include Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Beethoven >> Tschaikovsky, Liszt, Chopin, Mendelssohn... I think I could continue >> in this vein forever. But I'm not sure I could name a single pre-20th >> century composer who was *not* popular in his own time (except for some >> who still aren't popular). > J. S. Bach was not popular in his time. Interestingly > enough, his music was considered stuffy and old-fashioned. His music > did not become widely known until the 19th century when it was > popularised by, I believe, Mendelssohn. Can't agree. It is true that J. S. Bach was a musical conservative, and that in his later life the kind of music he made was indeed considered old-fashioned. Bach lost his popularity in his old age, and was more or less obscure for some decades thereafter. HOWEVER, he was quite popular in his youth, as organist, composer, and improviser extraordinaire. > Beethoven was extremely controversial in his time. He departed > radically from the current musical conventions, and this disturbed > many of his musically knowledgeable contemporaries. There is a story > that Clementi (a pianist and composer of the period) said to Beethoven > (about his op. 59 quartets): "Surely you do not consider these works > to be music?" to which Beethoven replied: "Oh, they are not for you, > but for a later age".* Beethoven was indeed controversial, both musically and politically. But (most of) his compositions were extremely popular with the audiences of his time, which is all I was saying. I stick by my original point. Until the 20th century, great composers who were unpopular in their own time were rarer than hen's teeth. Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames-lm!barry