Why are there no great composers anymore?

[User1001]

There are plenty of comtemporary composers that are awesome, but classical music is not as big in the public mind as it was then. Prokfiev. Rachmaninof. Ralph Vaughn Williams. Leonard Berstein

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: ThePresence

You also have to take into account that music was much newer then; If someone today makes something just as good as one of those, two, it wouldn't be as appreciated because it's already been done.

I'm not sure about this argument. Music does not have defined borders.

I'm not sure, either...just threw that out there because it seemed to make sense. But really: how long had that type of music been around when Mozart lived, vs. how long it's been around now.
I understand that music in general has nearly always been around, but I'm pretty sure there was no symphony for Jesus to hear back then, was there?

No there probably wasn't, because music was more primitive then, it had not evolved into that kind of thing yet. Same way as there was no rock band for Mozart to hear. I understand all that. But just because comtemporary music today is not classical symphonies does not mean that we don't listen to great symphonies anymore, we still do. So just because it has evolved does not mean that the old, beautiful style is no longer relevant. It's not a 2 way street.

 

[James3shin]

Music and the taste of the general public has changed. Due to this change, the idea of a "composer" in my opinion has changed. I'm going to go out on a limb and actually say that Kanye West is a great composer. He's continuously putting together tracks that are fresh, and appealing. Will his tracks stand the test of time like the 5th or Canon and so on? I honestly do not know. But I am certain that Reasonable Doubt by Jay-Z is a timeless album, as is Illmatic by Nas. Those two are timeless hip-hop albums. Look at Hotel California by the Eagles, that song is timeless. To conclude, there are plenty of great composers today, its just that the idea of a composer has been warped.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: James3shin
Music and the taste of the general public has changed. Due to this change, the idea of a "composer" in my opinion has changed. I'm going to go out on a limb and actually say that Kanye West is a great composer. He's continuously putting together tracks that are fresh, and appealing. Will his tracks stand the test of time like the 5th or Canon and so on? I honestly do not know. But I am certain that Reasonable Doubt by Jay-Z is a timeless album, as is Illmatic by Nas. Those two are timeless hip-hop albums. Look at Hotel California by the Eagles, that song is timeless. To conclude, there are plenty of great composers today, its just that the idea of a composer has been warped.

Hotel California is a good song. Yes, it takes real talent to write that song.
But do you understand the IMMENSE genius and talent it takes to write 4 movements of a BAD symphony? Four complete movements revolving around one central theme and explaining it in different and subtle ways through music? It's incredible. Hotel California was probably written in an hour or two. That's not a put down of the song, but it just illustrates the difference in the genius of the composer.

 

[James3shin]

I know the talent/genius required to write a symphony, do you know the talent/genius required to put together a great album with 12 tracks? Whether a song is written in "an hour or two" or over a decade, if the song is successful in portraying its "theme" or idea to the listener while being entertaining, then the composer/artist is successful, no? I just feel that the idea of a "great composer" has changed over time.

 

[Mucho]

Originally posted by: cjgallen
Because nowadays, all the musical geniuses play guitar \m/

 

[Jpark]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Probably have to wait 100 years and see how today's composers are viewed by the folks of the future.

Were Amadeus and Beethoven as well though of when they were alive, or was it years after they died that their music was more popular? ......

Beethoven's music wasn't discovered until many years after his death.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: ThePresence

You also have to take into account that music was much newer then; If someone today makes something just as good as one of those, two, it wouldn't be as appreciated because it's already been done.

I'm not sure about this argument. Music does not have defined borders.

I'm not sure, either...just threw that out there because it seemed to make sense. But really: how long had that type of music been around when Mozart lived, vs. how long it's been around now.
I understand that music in general has nearly always been around, but I'm pretty sure there was no symphony for Jesus to hear back then, was there?

No there probably wasn't, because music was more primitive then, it had not evolved into that kind of thing yet. Same way as there was no rock band for Mozart to hear. I understand all that. But just because comtemporary music today is not classical symphonies does not mean that we don't listen to great symphonies anymore, we still do. So just because it has evolved does not mean that the old, beautiful style is no longer relevant. It's not a 2 way street.

Point taken, but if you had a way to send radio back to when Mozart was alive, you'd hear mostly symphony on the air.....because that's what was most popular.
But there are so many other kinds of music now, that I'd guess symphony isn't even in the top 5 of popular genres.....so people are listening to lots of different music now, which they didn't have the option of doing back then.
So there may be some composers today that are just as good, but their audience as a percentage of the total population is much smaller.

I'd bet that 100 years from now, Edward Van Halen will be considered more of a legend than any living composer today.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: James3shin
I know the talent/genius required to write a symphony, do you know the talent/genius required to put together a great album with 12 tracks? Whether a song is written in "an hour or two" or over a decade, if the song is successful in portraying its "theme" or idea to the listener while being entertaining, then the composer/artist is successful, no? I just feel that the idea of a "great composer" has changed over time.

I agree with you that the art of a gomposer has changed over time. But I refuse to believe that the talent/genius level of putting together a great album is anything remotely near the level of writing a symphony.

 

[James3shin]

I think you agree with me to a certain extent Presence. When you said, "llustrates the difference in the genius of the composer. " Correct me, if I am wrong. You are saying that while the Eagles are geniuses in there own right, they are different from composers of the past such as Mozart, correct? I think that statement solidfies my statement that the idea of a "great composer" has changed over time. I apologize if I'm making too much of nothing or if I have twisted you words Presence.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The Mozarts of our time have little or no work to do -- even modern classical/"art music" doeesn't want them, the tastemakers want atonal dreck, "found music," performance art, other novelty sounds that will only ever be "enjoyed" by properly-indoctrinated music snobs who buy into the Emperor's new clothes.

Almost the only classical composers writing enjoyable music in the last few decades have been composers for film like John Williams.

I suspect a fair number of people with the raw potential now either never develop their talent, or end up in other fields like mathematics and software development.

Creating a program is in some ways like crafting a symphony, both involve a vast number of interrelated parts that must work together while following strict rules. Most of us are more Salieri than Mozart though

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: James3shin
I think you agree with me to a certain extent Presence. When you said, "llustrates the difference in the genius of the composer. " Correct me, if I am wrong. You are saying that while the Eagles are geniuses in there own right, they are different from composers of the past such as Mozart, correct? I think that statement solidfies my statement that the idea of a "great composer" has changed over time. I apologize if I'm making too much of nothing or if I have twisted you words Presence.

I do agree in that regard. I have great respect for certain contemporary bands. But the level of talent that it takes to write an album with 12 tracks is not anything NEAR the talent it would take to write a symphony.

 

[James3shin]

hmm...how are we to compare the level of genius/talent that is needed to write a symphony or a album? It's subjective, no?

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
The Mozarts of our time have little or no work to do -- even modern classical/"art music" doeesn't want them, the tastemakers want atonal dreck, "found music," performance art, other novelty sounds that will only ever be "enjoyed" by properly-indoctrinated music snobs who buy into the Emperor's new clothes.

Almost the only classical composers writing enjoyable music in the last few decades have been composers for film like John Williams.

I suspect a fair number of people with the raw potential now either never develop their talent, or end up in other fields like mathematics and software development.

Creating a program is in some ways like crafting a symphony, both involve a vast number of interrelated parts that must work together while following strict rules. Most of us are more Salieri than Mozart though

I think you hit the nail right on the head.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
The Mozarts of our time have little or no work to do -- even modern classical/"art music" doeesn't want them, the tastemakers want atonal dreck, "found music," performance art, other novelty sounds that will only ever be "enjoyed" by properly-indoctrinated music snobs who buy into the Emperor's new clothes.

Almost the only classical composers writing enjoyable music in the last few decades have been composers for film like John Williams.

I suspect a fair number of people with the raw potential now either never develop their talent, or end up in other fields like mathematics and software development.

Creating a program is in some ways like crafting a symphony, both involve a vast number of interrelated parts that must work together while following strict rules. Most of us are more Salieri than Mozart though

I think you hit the nail right on the head.

Agreed.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: James3shin
hmm...how are we to compare the level of genius/talent that is needed to write a symphony or a album? It's subjective, no?

I don't think so. Let me put it this way. When Mozart wrote his Hotel California is when he BEGAN writing his symphonies. You see, HC is a great tune, but that's all it is. A symphony is a tremendously complex work of art based around a great tune.

 

[mobobuff]

Because there is no audience for genius. Genius makes people feel stupid. People want to feel like a thug, or a simple country man, or a hard punk rocker, or an emo starving artist. There's simply no market for artistic genius today. Today our geniuses are found in industry and technology.

 

[oogabooga]

i don't know thepresence : i would contend that the talent it takes to write a good album is up there with the talent it takes to write a symphony. It takes different kinds of genius's perhaps, but i wouldn't say that they are too far off base. But as to your question : why are there no great -composers- (in terms of symphony pieces i suppose) we can take a look :

There have been many very good, and perhaps one day even great, composers of our time. The most glaring example is Aaron Copland. His work is amazing, and somehow very appropriate for his time. Dimitri Shostakovitch also has written incredible work, Festive Overture ushered a free Russia when the hosted the Olympics after the fall of communism. Glass who has been mentioned is a little new, but his stuff is good and very intricate. There have also been faster paced pieces such as Rocky Point Holiday by Ron Nelson which has been described as "impossibly fast to play", but that doesn't stop anyone from trying. Jean Sibelius also was another person who was around in the 20th century who produced some amazing works.

It's not so much that there isn't great composers today : but that the attention for them / glory hasn't been assigned in my opinion. There is a greater and greater drift between what a modern symphony orchestra, or philharmonic does and what the modern public desires. this is sad, but as long as people continue to train classicly, and play modernly : i think we'll continue to advance. In the meantime check out local universities orchestras, and obviously larger city venues. There is still a brilliant amount of cultural arts left in the world, WWF and NFL football haven't taken over that realm quite yet

 

[DaveSimmons]

The professor teaching a "Non-Western Music" class I took at college described pop, rock, etc. as "calculated folk": that is a successor to the folk music, marching, work and drinking songs of the past rather than the classical music.

That seemed a fair comparison to me -- I admire the talent of folks like Elvis Costello, Lennon/McCartney and Damien Rice but they're closer to Irish harpist Turlough O'Carolan or the folk composers Vaughn Williams borrowed from than to Bach or Mozart.

I'd rate them as more talented than Williams himself though, but that's personal taste since his watered-down blurrings of good folk tunes puts me to sleep

 

[oogabooga]

I think John Williams is also pretty talented : but a lot of his pieces are re-arrangments of better known works. Star Wars borrows from The Planets by Gustav Holst (who also lived in the early 20th cent).
James Horner also does some nice arranging. It seems the movie genre kinda has it's vision for what an 'epic' score should sound like : so you dont see the big blockbusters attempt to transcend their genre (as much great music does).

Jon Brion who writes compositions for a lot of smaller films does some incredible work, mainly his ability to understand the film, and then write appropriately.

edit : while adding my 'second thought' about williams someone posted above me. :beer: to you davesimmons

 

[James3shin]

I'm going to say all music is subjective man, whether or not its a "complex work of art basqued around a great tune." While you can think of HC as a first iteration of a symphony, many may regard it the other way around. You may view Mozart's work as masterpieces and bliss to your ears, obviously others will view Mozarts work as "WTF? Its just a orchestra playing?" while considering Pink Floyd the end all artists, and vice versa. Who's to say one is right or wrong? ALL MUSIC is SUBJECTIVE as is GENIUS/TALENT.


**EDIT** I apologize Presence for going OT in the thread man. To get back on topic, I'll stick to my guns and say that great composer are still around and that the idea of what constitutes a great composer has changed.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: oogabooga
I think John Williams is also pretty talented : but a lot of his pieces are re-arrangments of better known works. Star Wars borrows from The Planets by Gustav Holst (who also lived in the early 20th cent).
James Horner also does some nice arranging. It seems the movie genre kinda has it's vision for what an 'epic' score should sound like : so you dont see the big blockbusters attempt to transcend their genre (as much great music does).

Jon Brion who writes compositions for a lot of smaller films does some incredible work, mainly his ability to understand the film, and then write appropriately.

edit : while adding my 'second thought' about williams someone posted above me. :beer: to you davesimmons

Right back at you -- and you're probably right about there being some good classical composers (as opposed to "critically acclaimed" which I consider a dubious honor these days) still working, they're just toiling in semi-obscurity. I've been too lazy to wade through atonal, performance art, etc. to try to find them.

And as an Aimee Mann and Fiona Apple fan I really should hear what Jon Brion sounds like on his own.

 

[LongCoolMother]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95nov/copland.html

agreed. i think copland is one of the last of the modern "greats."

but i think the question roughly parallels, why are there no great PRESIDENTS anymore? im thinking people like thomas jefferson, george washington, abrahama lincoln and the such. those who argue that times have changed must agree that our presidents today, george bush, bill clinton, are equally great to the founding fathers in their own right... perhaps even greater?

i tend to disagree w/ people who claim this... that today's more "mainstream" music is composed with equal intellect as the works of bach/mozart/brahms/etc... i dont think people realize the magnitude of genius they were. perhaps it may help to realize that the works of beethoven were NOT so highly esteemed during his life (not like now). it was only years after his death..

 

[newnameman]

John Williams did write a symphony. Text

1966 Symphony n. 1
Composed in 1966, premiered by the Huston Symphony, under André Previn in October 21st, 1968.
The piece was taken out of Willliams list of compositions around 1971, after the European premiere (with Previn conducting the LSO).
Apparently, Bernard Herrman pointed out some flaws to Williams, and Williams felt that the work wasn't good enough to be played until he reworked it. He programed it in 1988 for a concert with the Houston SO, but at the last minute it was replaced for some film music.

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

Nobuo Uematsu