Provan@LLL-MFE.ARPA (10/31/84)
i've heard that argument about composers never being recognized in their own time a hundred times. i'm sure it's true, but i can't help feeling that it masks something going on here. maybe there's a music historian that can help me out here, but has there been a time before where composers were so aware that they'd only become famous after they die? has there even been a period of such intense experimentation? the current trend is to try ANYTHING. i once met a composer who never used octives. the reason, after being boiled down, was that it's been done before. in the composers i used to hang around with, the worst insult you could throw at someone was to say something they wrote sounded like some known work. the renegade in the group was a guy that wanted to write music for movies. the great composers have always had a healthy disrespect for what's come before, but has there ever been such an overwhelming feeling that EVERYTHING from the past should be discarded? are the great composers the ones that don't go too far? there certainly is a lot of slock out there, but i think Copland, for example, is every bit as enjoyable as, say, Beethoven. i can see how someone could say he wasn't as good as Beethoven, but i can't see how someone could say he's garbage or irritating.
jlg@lanl.ARPA (11/01/84)
> i've heard that argument about composers never being recognized in their > own time a hundred times. i'm sure it's true, ... I can't agree. Most past composers that are well known today were also widely known and respected in their own times. It wasn't until the standardization of the orchestra and certain chamber arrangements that composers began to have much notoriety outside the bounds of their own performances. This started during, and shortly after the time of Bach. (Bach was well known during his lifetime because he traveled extensively.) The standardized instrumentation of these groups allowed composers to write and arrange works to be played anywhere. Composers like Mozart were quite well known, and liked, during their own lifetimes (even when they died young). Beethoven's father (also called Beethoven I assume) was such a fan of Mozart that the young Beethoven was brought up in a strict musical environment and encouraged to emulate Mozart as much as possible. Bach fell out of favor after his death, but was rediscovered by Mendelssohn. Mendelssohn himself was quite popular during his lifetime (only 39 years) and he wrote the incidental music to 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' when he was only 16. (Most people instantly recognize the wedding march from this piece, but don't know it's Mendelssohn.) Stravinsky was widely known, and quite popular, despite the fact that his music split the musical community at its premier. I have several recordings of Stravinsky's work - conducted by Stravinsky - that were recorded in the 50's and 60's. The popularity of his work probably reached its zenith while he was still alive. The list of examples is endless. The point you must remember is this: composers have historically supported themselves on revinues from their music. If a composer is not popular, or at least widely respected, he must quicky find another line of work. This was especially true in the distant past, when musicians had to find a patron - if the patron was dissatisfied he'd find another musician. The problem with recent compositions, who's composers remain obscure, is that there seems to be a confusion between 'originality' and 'artistry'. The sound of a piano burning is certainly original (at least to most concert patrons), but I don't see that it's particularly artistic. The thing is, anybody can be original - the most common thing in all of nature is uniqueness - the hard part is to be GOOD.