Composer Prolificness

I have noticed that composers are getting less and less prolific over the years.

Josef Haydn (1732-1809):

107 Symphonies

11 Piano Concertos

4 Violin Concertos

4 Cello Concertos

Trumpet Concerto

12-15 Other Concertos

63 String Quartets

40 or 50 Piano Trios

Lots of Operas.

Various Choral Works.

126 Baryton Trios

8 Violin Sonatas

52 Piano Sonatas

Various Other Pieces

Edward Elgar (1857-1934)

2 Complete Symphonies

An incomplete Piano Concerto

1 Violin Concerto

1 Cello Concerto

1 String Quartet

1 Piano Quintet

0 Operas

Various Choral Works

1 Violin Sonata

1 Piano Sonatina

Various Other Pieces

So really...

Do you think it had to do with the fact that earlier composers had to compose more for their patrons and that artist were less constrained in later centuries?

Patrons needed music fast and paid lots of money for it. Hence, Mr. Haydn wanted lots of money so he wrote lots of monotonous music that was indistinguishable.

Also note that the concept of "composing for posterity" did not exist before the romantic era. Bach wrote all his cantatas expecting them to be performed once.

Patrons needed music fast and paid lots of money for it. Hence, Mr. Haydn wanted lots of money so he wrote lots of monotonous music that was indistinguishable.

Also note that the concept of "composing for posterity" did not exist before the romantic era. Bach wrote all his cantatas expecting them to be performed once.

Explains why Bach often recycled his ideas from one piece to the next.

Hey guys.

I noticed this thing. Where like. Composers are writing less.

*looks at two composers*

See?

/please notice the nonsensical-ality.

Let's ignore people like Martinu, Faur

Actually, there's a composer today that's in his Op. 500 and some odd number. Can't recall his name, but I have to say, 'prolificicality' doesn't have much to do with quality of composition.

Well, as a whole I think we can still safely say that in average composers write less today than in 1700, while knowing that there always are exceptions. I think reasons for it are both in what Edgar and SSC said. For one, composers used to be more or less permanently employed and had to live up to a "quota", by steadily writing something new to justify their pay. Music wasn't as widely distributed then, so in order for the public to hear something new, composers constantly had to write something new.

Today, there's so much music available that there's no strict need to have a new composition available every week. People could happily live without any new music whatsoever and still hear different stuff all the time. Along with this the role of the composer had began to change around Beethoven's time. The longer the more of them weren't employees with a fixed salary anymore, but created pieces on an individual basis, which lead to a much greater emphasis on single pieces. "One symphony" became something big and very important during Beethoven's time, which hadn't been the case before.

Today, most composers don't even earn their money as composers, but as teachers, performers, conductors, music journalists, or whatever. And if you get paid as a composer, those are either single commissions or grants from foundations or public institutions. Those are usually evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and thus it depends on whether they accept certain -individual- pieces, and not just you, the compser, as a whole.

And then there's what SSC said: In a time where a certain style, set of techniques, and certain "criteria for quality" existed, one had very clear things to orient yourself at. That allowed you to write a large number of works with this learned craft, without having to establish for yourself every single time what your musical goals are, and how you could meet them. Even in the 1950s/60s there was still an academical canon that was very strict, which you could orient yourself at (be it by following it or by going against it). This has become increasingly harder with the advent of postmodern thought, where suddenly everything was acceptable, there were no clear boundaries to go against anymore, no inherent rights and wrongs. Since composers couldn't really define themselves in affirmation of, or revolt against, a doctrine anymore, they had to set their own rules, boundaries, lines of thought based on which to judge their own pieces. This is not such an easy process and can take time.

P.S. I'm not saying this is a new thing. To certain degrees there have always been periods with less clear cultural doctrines than in other times. And the early 20th century could be sort of compared with the situation we have now (even if it may be more extreme now), and was only interrupted somewhat in the post-WW2 period.

Hence, Mr. Haydn wanted lots of money so he wrote lots of monotonous music that was indistinguishable.

Have you even listened to Haydn? :X

EDIT: I'm also fairly sure it's "proloficacy" rather than "prolificness"

Hence, Mr. Haydn wanted lots of money so he wrote lots of monotonous music that was indistinguishable.

This is not actually true.

Well, as a whole I think we can still safely say that in average composers write less today than in 1700, while knowing that there always are exceptions. I think reasons for it are both in what Edgar and SSC said. For one, composers used to be more or less permanently employed and had to live up to a "quota", by steadily writing something new to justify their pay. Music wasn't as widely distributed then, so in order for the public to hear something new, composers constantly had to write something new.

Today, there's so much music available that there's no strict need to have a new composition available every week. People could happily live without any new music whatsoever and still hear different stuff all the time. Along with this the role of the composer had began to change around Beethoven's time. The longer the more of them weren't employees with a fixed salary anymore, but created pieces on an individual basis, which lead to a much greater emphasis on single pieces. "One symphony" became something big and very important during Beethoven's time, which hadn't been the case before.

Today, most composers don't even earn their money as composers, but as teachers, performers, conductors, music journalists, or whatever. And if you get paid as a composer, those are either single commissions or grants from foundations or public institutions. Those are usually evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and thus it depends on whether they accept certain -individual- pieces, and not just you, the compser, as a whole.

And then there's what SSC said: In a time where a certain style, set of techniques, and certain "criteria for quality" existed, one had very clear things to orient yourself at. That allowed you to write a large number of works with this learned craft, without having to establish for yourself every single time what your musical goals are, and how you could meet them. Even in the 1950s/60s there was still an academical canon that was very strict, which you could orient yourself at (be it by following it or by going against it). This has become increasingly harder with the advent of postmodern thought, where suddenly everything was acceptable, there were no clear boundaries to go against anymore, no inherent rights and wrongs. Since composers couldn't really define themselves in affirmation of, or revolt against, a doctrine anymore, they had to set their own rules, boundaries, lines of thought based on which to judge their own pieces. This is not such an easy process and can take time.

P.S. I'm not saying this is a new thing. To certain degrees there have always been periods with less clear cultural doctrines than in other times. And the early 20th century could be sort of compared with the situation we have now (even if it may be more extreme now), and was only interrupted somewhat in the post-WW2 period.

I agree wholeheartedly!

Great response! :D

'prolificicality' doesn't have much to do with quality of composition.

I never said it did.

the argument only holds water if one ignores composers like Alan Hovhanness and Heitor Villa Lobos.

or Milhaud - you'll always find people of all kinds, if you're looking for them. If I find 50 pictures of disfigured people from Brazil and show them to you, and tell you "oh, why have people in Brazil been having disfigurements more often than others?" that's obviously a based sample I've chosen and a misleading question.

But as Gardener pointed out, the average output of composers today is more limited than the output of composers at the time of, say, Haydn. That is not to say that either group of composers is better or worse than the other, it's just different, reflecting the historical, cultural and social aspects of the time they live in (which obviously differ between Haydn and, say, Webern or Birtwistle).

I'd say that composers with fewer works in their catalogues will even tend to have better works.

As an example, I suggest examining the catalogue of Samuel Barber, every work contained in it is excellent, if not a masterpiece. Yet it stops at an opus number in the mid-late 40's.

Gardener, this is an excellent picture of the situation today as you portray it. In particular, I can personally confirm what you write in the following:

Even in the 1950s/60s there was still an academical canon that was very strict, which you could orient yourself at (be it by following it or by going against it).

Exactly this academical canon I have gotten to know in Darmstadt, the stronghold of serialism in the 1950s/60s in Germany. And in the end, I was going against it, giving up to compoase at all. Therefore I'm today only an "ad-hoc composer" (as I name myself) after having found my niche

Or Webern; or Varese.

I'd say that composers with fewer works in their catalogues will even tend to have better works.

As an example, I suggest examining the catalogue of Samuel Barber, every work contained in it is excellent, if not a masterpiece. Yet it stops at an opus number in the mid-late 40's.

Varese must be therefore an absolute genius eh?

... Then again he threw away most of his music.

Mahler was the most geniousness of them all. He didn't even use Opus numbers! :w00t:

:P

Varese must be therefore an absolute genius eh?

... Then again he threw away most of his music.

yes, I DO consider Varese to be one of the great musical geniuses of the 20th century.

There got to be something about the composition of a society. Like the amount of agricultural workers vs. industrial vs. specialists. Back in the time of Haydn wouldn't there have been a lot less specialist, in which case there weren't nearly as many composers composing? So to have the amount of music that people would want, each individual composer would have to write more right?

Also, "publishing." I put that in quotes since publishing really didn't work the same way for Haydn as it does now. It seems like after Haydn got into the business, most of his stuff got published. Now days, that's not necessarily true for a composer. There's a lot more competition and I don't think composers get locked into a business the same way.

There is certainly less demand now because there are so many more composers. Nobody needs you to write 200 symphonies nowadays.

I personally think it is far better to write one really great work than a million so-so ones. With so much great music available to us nowadays, there is really no room for so-so pieces.

There is certainly less demand now because there are so many more composers. Nobody needs you to write 200 symphonies nowadays.

Leif Segerstam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although some people do so anyway. :happy:

yes, I DO consider Varese to be one of the great musical geniuses of the 20th century.

And so do I! :>

Also,

look at the Haydn orchestra Vs. the (as an established "standard") the Late Beethoven orchestra.

Look at the Haydn symphony Vs. the Beethoven symphony (as a whole).

As someone previously mentioned, starting in the late 18th century and continuing into today, each work a composer completed was more important by itself than the composer as an individual, since a composer was less likely to be tied down to writing music for a single performance venue or group. The scope of work, as well, increased significantly. People (in general!!!) wrote longer pieces for larger groups, at least until the turn of the 20th century. Look at Mahler, for example, whose first movements (for most, but not all of his symphonies) could contain one or more classical symphonies.

A very easy "test" of this is the use of syntax and nomenclature used to describe pieces. Classical (and some preclassical) pieces are organized according to themes. Later pieces use theme COMPLEXES, each of which could be an independent theme in itself.

Also, in the late 19th to 20th centuries, there was much more study on the formal organization of a piece. Pieces written in a cyclical form (such as Franck's symphony or violin sonata) must be written with much more care an sensitivity to ensure cohesion of form and ideas through an entire work, instead of just within each movement. This, though, is probably directly related to Gardner's comment.

And about Haydn - he may have written a great deal of monothematic music, but I would never call it monotonous. I don't know how facetious you intended to be, but I find Haydn to be a very clever and creative composer who worked very well and very efficiently.

As an interesting side discussion - if music WERE more widespread and accessible in the 17th and 18th centuries (ie: recordings, multiple performances, easy publishing, stationary professional orchestras), do you think some of the more prolific composers would have the same "massive" catalog?

And about Haydn - he may have written a great deal of monothematic music, but I would never call it monotonous. I don't know how facetious you intended to be, but I find Haydn to be a very clever and creative composer who worked very well and very efficiently.

:w00t:

In your face, Tokke!