Telegraph: What makes a great composer?

[Hlao-roo 388]

I didn't really get anything out of this article, but perhaps it's a good starting place for conversation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalmusic/10737383/What-makes-a-great-composer.html

Great composers soar above the normal requirement to have a "personal voice", that thing we so prize in all the arts. A lot of minor composers have an instantly recognisable personal voice, and in a way that’s their problem. The liberating thing about the great composers is that they keep doing things which are out of character. They "contain multitudes". Mozart sometimes sounds like Bach, Bach sometimes sounds like Frescobaldi or one of his own sons, and Beethoven seems to foreshadow an awful lot of what came after him, from Chopin to Albeniz to boogie-woogie.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

Hm, that quote reads like hokum to me. Hewett seems to deal almost exclusively in florid quasi-intellectual rhapsodizing with absolutely zero substance.

Count me as one of those pompous music lovers who find it tiresome to rank composers, even as "harmless entertainment." Music moves you or it doesn't. What's the point of trying to establish some "objective" perspective on it?

I have a great fondness for Erik Satie, and find some of his works intensely moving, but I’m not going to claim he’s a great composer. He’s not even a very good one.

What the hell does that mean?

[Ludwig 1,000]

In an online discussion I was privy to about computer-generated music, the notion of competent vs. great music arose. One respondent had this to say, a wonderful way of explaining something of the ineffable quality of great music:

What, then, is the difference between competent music and great music? For me, it is what I call inspired improbabilities––those musical events that simultaneously surprise and delight us. They always come at just the right moment when the piece needs that special something to keep the listener fully engaged and continuously amazed. I suspect they come from that inner voice that resides within all creative people that says, “Do this now.” The rational mind responds, “Are you kidding? That’s crazy stuff!” The great artists have always listened to that inner voice because it is processing and juggling data in ways the rational mind cannot begin to fathom.

I would say that "inspired improbabilities" is a great way to describe many of the most satisfying moments in Williams.

[Mr. Brown 91]

Hm, that quote reads like hokum to me. Hewett seems to deal almost exclusively in florid quasi-intellectual rhapsodizing with absolutely zero substance.

Count me as one of those pompous music lovers who find it tiresome to rank composers, even as "harmless entertainment." Music moves you or it doesn't. What's the point of trying to establish some "objective" perspective on it?

I have a great fondness for Erik Satie, and find some of his works intensely moving, but I’m not going to claim he’s a great composer. He’s not even a very good one.

What the hell does that mean?

It seems like a lot of critiques are written this way on the Internet. I guess you need to figure that 75% of the people reading the site are looking for the latest Paris Holton and Kim Kevorkian news, or they're hair-brained hipsters looking for a quick fix on cultural news so they can brag to their friends at the nearby Starbucks. To those people, an article like this, using bullets and big words, is a critical analysis. To anyone else with half of a brain, it's shit. Reads like a goddamn IMDB review for THE DARK KNIGHT.

Some other examples from the article:

I reckon there are five reliable markers of a great composer. Here they are:

1) A great composer must also be a good one...

3) Great music has to appeal to a wide cross-section of a culture, not a small coterie within the culture (and yes, I realise that those words "culture" and "coterie" beg huge questions). Following on from this...

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

I suspect if anyone ever used to the word "coterie" in conversation with me, I would slap them.

[Incanus 5,519]

I think publicist had some kind of secret formula to figure out if a piece of music or a composer is great but he has thusfar been less than enthusiastic in sharing it with me or the larger public. He has only tantalizingly hinted at it on numerous occasions when similar discussion has come up.

[publicist 4,484]

Don't get polemic with me, kid!

I always maintained there are objective (academic, of course) standards that raise above 'me like= masterpiece' babble that spreads like venom since internet forums are available to the public at large. It's more of a psychological issue, really. If you feel the need to validate all your likes - even the shitty ones - as somehow making the world a more sophisticated place, it's more about you than the likes, isn't it...

[Incanus 5,519]

Don't get polemic with me, kid!

I always maintained there are objective (academic, of course) standards that raise above 'me like= masterpiece' babble that spreads like venom since internet forums are available to the public at large. It's more of a psychological issue, really. If you feel the need to validate all your likes - even the shitty ones - as somehow making the world a more sophisticated place, it's more about you than the likes, isn't it...

Well I do agree that those objective academic standards (whatever they might be) sure make for interesting discussions on the merits of composers and music.

[publicist 4,484]

In a nutshell, like in all arts really, the history of the profession is considered: that's why James Horner doing a decent Bach impression should not possibly be on the same genius-list as Bach.

If you take a piece at hand, you can of course make certain educated statements about musical roots and craftmanship of it, does it achieve what it sets out to do? (awfully hard to take a stance in filmmusic, as you can always claim it is 'only' there to support the picture) Does it heavily draw from past sources, to what extend tries it to move it beyond the past, enrich it, fuse it with new things - Goldenthal is a good example for the latter - or does it indeed invent new things (which should get highest marks) and, in filmmusic's case - is it a clever/thoughtful comment on the picture it supports?

To analyze (film) music is no easy feat (and most of us will agree that in the end, you listen to what tickles your bone - but i think it's not the ebony tower people often call it to denounce it. If you take away all objectivity from it and hand the whole thing to the crowd, what could possibly gained by it? That people are less offended because nobody questions their dime-a-dozen masterpiece labels? HOOK is masterpiece, INDEPENDENCE DAY is, WATERWOLRD is - and every John Barry-score with a mellow main theme - but then i'm done with discussing things and stick to Facebook-Like buttons.

[BloodBoal 7,532]

I have a great fondness for Erik Satie, and find some of his works intensely moving, but I’m not going to claim he’s a great composer. He’s not even a very good one.

What the hell does that mean?

That the guy likes not very good music.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

In a nutshell, like in all arts really, the history of the profession is considered: that's why James Horner doing a decent Bach impression should not possibly be on the same genius-list as Bach.

If you take a piece at hand, you can of course make certain educated statements about musical roots and craftmanship of it, does it achieve what it sets out to do? (awfully hard to take a stance in filmmusic, as you can always claim it is 'only' there to support the picture) Does it heavily draw from past sources, to what extend tries it to move it beyond the past, enrich it, fuse it with new things - Goldenthal is a good example for the latter - or does it indeed invent new things (which should get highest marks) and, in filmmusic's case - is it a clever/thoughtful comment on the picture it supports?

To analyze (film) music is no easy feat (and most of us will agree that in the end, you listen to what tickles your bone - but i think it's not the ebony tower people often call it to denounce it. If you take away all objectivity from it and hand the whole thing to the crowd, what could possibly gained by it? That people are less offended because nobody questions their dime-a-dozen masterpiece labels? HOOK is masterpiece, INDEPENDENCE DAY is, WATERWOLRD is - and every John Barry-score with a mellow main theme - but then i'm done with discussing things and stick to Facebook-Like buttons.

Blah blah blah!

[BloodBoal 7,532]

Blah blah?

[publicist 4,484]

In a nutshell, like in all arts really, the history of the profession is considered: that's why James Horner doing a decent Bach impression should not possibly be on the same genius-list as Bach.

If you take a piece at hand, you can of course make certain educated statements about musical roots and craftmanship of it, does it achieve what it sets out to do? (awfully hard to take a stance in filmmusic, as you can always claim it is 'only' there to support the picture) Does it heavily draw from past sources, to what extend tries it to move it beyond the past, enrich it, fuse it with new things - Goldenthal is a good example for the latter - or does it indeed invent new things (which should get highest marks) and, in filmmusic's case - is it a clever/thoughtful comment on the picture it supports?

To analyze (film) music is no easy feat (and most of us will agree that in the end, you listen to what tickles your bone - but i think it's not the ebony tower people often call it to denounce it. If you take away all objectivity from it and hand the whole thing to the crowd, what could possibly gained by it? That people are less offended because nobody questions their dime-a-dozen masterpiece labels? HOOK is masterpiece, INDEPENDENCE DAY is, WATERWOLRD is - and every John Barry-score with a mellow main theme - but then i'm done with discussing things and stick to Facebook-Like buttons.

Blah blah blah!

Remind yourself of that when you spam around here twenty times a day!

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

Eh, I'd much rather crack a joke when I have a minute than engage in verbose but empty posturing.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

These days a great composer needs a cracking sample library!

[publicist 4,484]

Eh, I'd much rather crack a joke when I have a minute than engage in verbose but empty posturing.

You are such a scumbag. Let me add this little flourish to your elaborations here without any regard to what you actually wrote and see how that works out.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

Ok! How's the family?

[publicist 4,484]

At home which makes the day even more miserable!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

How was work?

[KK 3,202]

Hey! Take your petty small talk where it belongs!!

http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23902

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

Sure.

You doing anything this weekend?