Intimidation

Most of the time, we are intimidated with the music of such giants such as Mozart , Bach, and beethoven. But have you not realized dear composer, that this 'giants' had to listen to mediocre music also, not big hits, as we are acostume to sometimes, in order to give them a reason to improve their own compositions?

Well,a question come to my mind; one of many which I will discuss later, for us composers to improve on:

Which composer music would you rather consider to improve first, Mozart's or Clementi's?

Nevertheless, have you not asked yourself also the following?

Do you write music to please the audience?, to please the world? to please yourself? to please but not to the point of having your piece copied by someone else?

greetings

Most of the time, we are intimidated with the music of such giants such as Mozart , Bach, and beethoven.

greetings

According to my one and only musical textbook, it says, "It is generally agreed, very reluctantly, that composers are also essential to music. There are four composers who are beyond criticism - Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and your own particular favourite...."

I don't know why I write music...compulsion, I suppose. Sometimes I'm lucky enough to get paid.

:huh:

What is really intimidating is how prolific some of these composers were.

What is really intimidating is how prolific some of these composers were.

quantity does not equal quality.

Mozart wrote a LOT of really crappy stuff, as did Beethoven, and Bach, and Brahms, and .

do not be intimidated by quality nor quantity, instead, let it drive you to your own perfection.

What about the composers what didn't write so much stuff, Qcccowboy, like say Alban Berg...

Love or hate the romantic-type serialism in the music... I think it would be hard to really be critical of the works - they are so perfect within their own structure, and there are so few of them...

What about other composers whose output was very minimal?

Borodin - his entire lifetime output would fit on just 8 CDs.

By the way, anything by Brahms that is published is pretty damn good, but that's probably because he wrote a lot of crappy stuff and then threw it in the fire.

On the subject of quantity: if you really consider how much music even the most prolific composers published over a period of years, it's not nearly as intimidating. Even Mozart, one of the most prolific composers in history, actually averaged fewer than 25 pieces per year. I think this is something that young aspiring composers often forget when they try to write a lot of music (often with questionable results). The best example is our very own Nico Canzano - when he joined, he was actually writing music at a much faster pace than Mozart did, but in his more recent work he's grown immensely as a composer by taking his time on each piece.

quantity does not equal quality.

Mozart wrote a LOT of really crappy stuff, as did Beethoven, and Bach, and Brahms, and .

do not be intimidated by quality nor quantity, instead, let it drive you to your own perfection.

You're an idiot

You're an idiot

Oh come on....

Sorry but I think he over simplified and also "crappy" is not a way to put it. Some of these composers are a friggin' human ocean and this guy here comes along with that remark. Maybe I was a little unfriendly but you get the idea.

Either way, I agree with him...

Why be intimidated? You write different music. You'll never write better than Mozart or Beethoven (etc) unless you try to out-Mozart or out-Beethoven them - impossible because things have moved on too far. Their circumstances placed them to become famous initially from performing which put them immediately in the public eye. Then they could perform their own stuff.

The chances of becoming famous long-term is very slim - one always hopes it happens for the deserving but it rarely does, so you might as well get on with what you will....then if history/impressarios/agents and the musical public do shine on you, good. If not, there's nothing you can do about it.

But don't be intimidated. In one respect, You are as good as these great masters - you're expressing yourself, creating music, trying to put it before a public. Where you might fall is failing to be self-critical enough (in an objective way - like an artist stands back to check if what he's done is what he really wants); not getting help from someone with rapport when you hit problems; and of course, being too lazy to look for simple technical answers yourself.

Compose first, and ask questions later.

Why be intimidated? You write different music. You'll never write better than Mozart or Beethoven (etc) unless you try to out-Mozart or out-Beethoven them - impossible because things have moved on too far. Their circumstances placed them to become famous initially from performing which put them immediately in the public eye. Then they could perform their own stuff.

The chances of becoming famous long-term is very slim - one always hopes it happens for the deserving but it rarely does, so you might as well get on with what you will....then if history/impressarios/agents and the musical public do shine on you, good. If not, there's nothing you can do about it.

But don't be intimidated. In one respect, You are as good as these great masters - you're expressing yourself, creating music, trying to put it before a public. Where you might fall is failing to be self-critical enough (in an objective way - like an artist stands back to check if what he's done is what he really wants); not getting help from someone with rapport when you hit problems; and of course, being too lazy to look for simple technical answers yourself.

In other words, go for perfection and let not your brain think that mozart or beethoven are perfect (intimidation), and try to improve their music if possible. I put clementi and mozart because clementi is probably less elavorative in his compositions than mozart. In that sense improving clementis music can improve one's techniques more than if you are dealing with a great master such as mozart.

Feeling, or having a great respect for names such as bach could make us feel that our technique ( emotional expression) is no match for that of this great composer. So let us feel rather realistic on where are we standing as far as our compositional techniques are concerned, and were do we want to go .

greetings.

quantity does not equal quality.

Mozart wrote a LOT of really crappy stuff,

I haven't listened to all of Mozart's 600+ works, but the only real crap I'm aware of is "a musical joke" - which was intended to be crap. Some compositions are more mature than others. Some are much more interesting than others. But I'm not aware of any that I would equate with a morning movement.

Heh. "A musical joke" was sort of forward looking though. Today that sort of stuff is "new" and "genius".

What about the composers what didn't write so much stuff, Qcccowboy, like say Alban Berg...

Love or hate the romantic-type serialism in the music... I think it would be hard to really be critical of the works - they are so perfect within their own structure, and there are so few of them...

What about other composers whose output was very minimal?

I think you may have misuderstood what I wrote.

I did not say that to write a lot is good.

I said that quantity does not equal quality.. in other words simply having written a lot of music does not mean it's all GOOD music. I made no judgement about any composers who have written less music.

I believe we are actually pretty much on the same wave length - I happen to greatly admire a number of composers who had rather small catalogues.

Sorry but I think he over simplified and also "crappy" is not a way to put it. Some of these composers are a friggin' human ocean and this guy here comes along with that remark. Maybe I was a little unfriendly but you get the idea.

yes, you were not only "unfriendly" you were downright rude.

I see no reason for that sort of behaviour on this forum.

"crappy" = "bad"

nothing wrong with that.

As to my statement regarding Mozart's output, after nearly 40 years of making music (the last 25 of those professionally) I believe I have sufficient musical and technical baggage to make that sort of assertion. You might choose to believe that every single note Mozart wrote was genius, but I do not. Even Mozart himself did not and said so in various letters to his father and to his friends.

Please, though, share with us why you believe that I oversimplified and what justification you have for that assertion?

my statement (simplified): writing alot of music does not guarantee writing only good music.

I wrote "quantity does not equal quality"

I really don't understand what it is you find offensive about that statement.

I haven't listened to all of Mozart's 600+ works, but the only real crap I'm aware of is "a musical joke" - which was intended to be crap. Some compositions are more mature than others. Some are much more interesting than others. But I'm not aware of any that I would equate with a morning movement.

Heh. "A musical joke" was sort of forward looking though. Today that sort of stuff is "new" and "genius".

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "crap" in common usage. It may have, at its origin, a relationship to "excrement", however, it has become common usage to use it in reference to "something of poor quality".

— ORIGIN originally meaning ‘chaff’, later residue from rendering fat and dregs of beer: related to Dutch krappe.

— NOUN: nonsense; rubbish; extremely poor in quality

by the way, I happen to think the Musical Joke is a wonderful peice... writing musical humour is a terribly difficult thing.

quantity does not equal quality.

Mozart wrote a LOT of really crappy stuff, as did Beethoven, and Bach, and Brahms, and .

do not be intimidated by quality nor quantity, instead, let it drive you to your own perfection.

This comment speaks for itself. No need for a redundant argument. You sound like a silly kid.

I think you will find glimpses of genius even in the least mature works of some of these composers. Bach doesn't belong in your sentence and though i'm not a big fan I wouldn't include Beethoven in there either.

Heh. "A musical joke" was sort of forward looking though. Today that sort of stuff is "new" and "genius".

You know it's funny, but it seems that with some music, people have seriously lowered the bar for genuis. Now a days, if someone does a dance with no movement it could possibly be considered genuis. I wouldn't put it past them

This comment speaks for itself. No need for a redundant argument. You sound like a silly kid.

I think you will find glimpses of genius even in the least mature works of some of these composers. Bach doesn't belong in your sentence and though i'm not a big fan I wouldn't include Beethoven in there either.

I'm afraid I don't understand why you are getting worked up about the fact that I said that many great composers have written insignificant works.

I have always tried to teach music history with as open a mind as possible, and also with a grain of salt.

I have never taught my students that the "great masters" wrote only "great works".

I think it's important to aknowledge that they also wrote works of absolutely no significant worth.

They themselves (those composers, not my students) have acknowledged it in their various correspondances.

the original poster of this thread admitted to being intimidated by the "greatness" of the composers who have come before.

I feel it is my duty as an educator to put that in perspective and offer at least a bit of encouragement and reassurance that not all those who came before were always "great" and that greatness is possible within ourselves as well with the proper training and the right mindset.

Apart from that, I think you have fixated on the word "crap". I fear you are creating drama where none is intended. "Crap" is a common english word used to refer to something of no significance, of little worth. It is not scatological.

I think you should have your educator license revoked.

No i'm just kidding but if I were in your classroom we would probably have some strong disagreeances. To describe the works as "crappy" or state them as "of absolutely no significant worth" is a little bit too subjective of a standpoint. If you want to tell your students that some of the works are maybe not as great as some others is one thing but you are treating it simple mindedly with these descriptions. Also what a coindidence you make these descriptions in the context of "intimidation". Is it like a defense mechanism where you brush off the colossal presence of a composer's output with these simple remarks? I woudln't like to hear a teacher talking like that. I woudln't take him very seriously if i did.

I think you should have your educator license revoked.

No i'm just kidding but if I were in your classroom we would probably have some strong disagreeances. To describe the works as "crappy" or state them as "of absolutely no significant worth" is a little bit too subjective of a standpoint. If you want to tell your students that some of the works are maybe not as great as some others is one thing but you are treating it simple mindedly with these descriptions. Also what a coindidence you make these descriptions in the context of "intimidation". Is it like a defense mechanism where you brush off the colossal presence of a composer's output with these simple remarks? I woudln't like to hear a teacher talking like that. I woudln't take him very seriously if i did.

I think what is happening here is a question of language. You are adding interpretation to something and changing the meaning of it.

You are also attributing too much importance to the word "crap".

I haven't said that any specific work was crap. I never said that "the works of Mozart are crap"... I said that even Mozart in his life time wrote some crappy pieces. As I have said, even Mozart HIMSELF admits to this.

I said that the great composers DID write crap at some points in their musical carreers, for whatever reason that may have been, whether money, or circumstances or sheer lack of inspiration.

You can disagree all you want, but you would be wrong.

Yes, I made a simple statement, and you took it completely out of context and ignored the POINT I was making with that comment.

And again, you are misinterpreting my comments by accusing me of "brushing off" anything related to those composers. I do not take kindly to being falsely accused.

What I challenge you to now, is to say in your own words, EVERYTHING that I stated in those comments. I would like proof that you understood what I was saying.

I can categorically state that you would more than likely fail in my class with the attitude you have. Not because you disagree with me, but because you are unable to make abstraction of one word and take in the greater meaning of what was said.

You must be elite.

You must be elite.

I see no reason to continue this "discussion". You appear to be the only person with a problem understanding what I wrote. Therefore, we will leave it at that.

This comment speaks for itself. No need for a redundant argument. You sound like a silly kid.

I think you will find glimpses of genius even in the least mature works of some of these composers. Bach doesn't belong in your sentence and though i'm not a big fan I wouldn't include Beethoven in there either.

Just because a composer is well known, doesn't mean that all of their works are "genius". Beethoven seems to be a well known trademark, but just because it is a well known trademark, doesn't mean the product is always good. In fact, I find alot of his music very boring and lacking motivation, same goes with Mozart. Bach was good, but his music seemed to follow a formula. Why do you think my favorite composer is Chopin?

I am not putting down these prolific composers, but not all of their music is genius, as far as I am concerned. There IS alot of crap that Mozart and Beethoven wrote, not because the music is musically incorrect, but because it lacks something. Some of their pieces just sound too generic, what can I say? Ask yourself the question, can you honestly sit down and listen carefully to all of Mozart's compositions without getting the least bit bored? How can you learn from a piece that is so uninspiring? I don't get it? I mean no offense, and as was mentioned, these guys did write some very good stuff, but I'm sorry, some of their works are just uninspiring and generic.