how do you think the great classical composers would have faired these days?

Question

instead of harpsicord, etc. a guitar, could they have been as prodigious? or would technology and the lack of influences be enough to hold them back

by great i mean the 18th century guys, mozart beethoven bach vivaldi, etc

i meant more like electric but still itd be weird to picture mozart with a guitar unless youre thnking of yngwie malmsteen or something...

Answer 1

Elaine C has given a well-thought-out and imaginative take on how some of the well-known composers might live and work, given what we know of their personalities. I have the position of being a living composer of "classical" music in the modern age, and find that I must put forth two additional questions - "How did the great composers fare in their own days?" and "How do composers of today fare?"

In their own days, those who we now recognize as the masters enjoyed quite varying degrees of fame and success. Some were much more famous for their performing or conducting than for their composing (Bach, Bruckner and Mahler among them). Some were quite well-known, and audiences were curious to hear what new symphonies they'd written (consider Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms) - but still, no one cared when their birthdays were! No one organized music festivals in their honor or named music schools after them. Others never gained any sort of fame in their lifetime (Zelenka, Schubert, and Webern are the prime examples).

We must remember that composers have quite rarely had it as cushy as we might imagine. If Mozart showed up today to cash in on the music he wrote in the 18th century, he would be swimming in royalties from millions upon millions of concert tickets, scores and recordings - but in his day, there were no recordings to sell, and he was lucky if he had fifty performances during one year (nearly all of which he would have organized himself), and his income from the sale of sheet music to publishers wasn't even enough to live on.

(As an amusing aside, I must admit that a precious few composers *did* have it pretty cushy - Haydn seemed quite happy working for the Austrian prince and writing hundreds of pieces for his own talented orchestra and chamber musicians to perform. Liszt had the ear of the world, and plenty of money from his concert tours, but was known more for his phenomenal skill as a performer than his considerable but uneven skill as a composer. And Wagner...well, Wagner created his own universe in life as well as theatre - you can dream as big as you want when you have a King footing the bill.)

On to the second question - "How do composers of today fare?" Composers of today have the unique and lamentable position of essentially "competing" with not only other composers of today, but the most famous - and dearly beloved - composers of the past 500 years. This is an absolutely new situation! Prior to 1915 or so, all audiences were both interested in what composers of their day were doing, and what composers of earlier generations had written. People were curious about what Brahms's next symphony would sound like, and about Wagner's new opera which had sparked so many rumors - there was a very healthy interest in "Modern Music" of the time.

Compare this to the situation of today, where the audience for classical concerts appears to be dwindling, and the vast majority of that audience would be perfectly happy hearing only music written before they were born. Even among young musicians, in conservatories and on concert stages worldwide, those who frequently bring their talents to modern works (not just Stravinsky and Bartok, but composers who are writing pieces in 2007!) are a minority. An important minority, and much-valued by composers, but a minority.

Here is the point that I'm trying to make: What if there ARE great composers in our midst - AND WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IT? Do we really believe that the canon of classical masterworks extends only up until Copland's Appalachian Spring (1944) and then stops? Have we put the compositional titans on such a high pedestal that we don't realize that if Beethoven were alive in 2007, he would not be writing *those* nine symphonies, but he would be writing nine different symphonies of what we now label "Modern Music" - which the fans of modern music would rave about, but the rest of the public would probably not ever get to hear, because modern music is treated as its own category, separate from "Classical Music" - and performances and recordings of modern music are truly harder to come by.

As a living composer, and a thoroughly dedicated lover of ALL music, I can honestly say that yes, in my opinon, there ARE great composers active today. (To name only a few: Gyorgy Kurtag, Veljo Tormis, Brian Ferneyhough, Chaya Czernowin.) And I believe that many of them WOULD be enjoyed by a wide audience, even with their modern style and unfamiliar innovations, if that audience simply had the fair opportunity to hear them. Living composers have thousands of dedicated fans, but will probably never reach millions of people - that is, unless something in the the system that we call the classical music business is changed.

And I hope to be part of that change. If you've read my tirade and you think there might be something to it, please let me know - visit my website (www.chappellkingsland.com), read my blog, send me an email. If you disagree with my conclusions and want to debate, I'm happy to listen - any dialogue is welcome, as long as it's sincere.

Answer 2

I have always thought of British 'culture' as being predominantly literate / literal. The moment music turned from verbal / vocal content predominating, I would bet without looking it up, is when 'the decline' happened. All of Europe called England during this long period of little or no classical music, "The Island with No Music." To my spottily informed mind, the 20th century and beyond has British music returning in strength, but again, I believe the majority of it has a literal or literary reference at its base. Ditto with painting and other arts. My empirical observation: Far too many composers and listeners in Britain are much too sentimentally attached to the 'old' modal style, and it seems to trigger reminiscences of an England that perhaps never was. To be glib, it is as if British composers are forever re-writing "What child is this?" This sentiment resonates only for locals of course, and it has little meaning for outlanders. If I've raised a ruckus I'm rather glad, because I'm sure a lot of us in all directions across all the waters surrounding that isle would like to figure this one out. p.b.

Answer 3

That's an interesting question. They probably would be living on benefits, which is more than they had in the 18 th century. Most of them were not recognised until they were dead and lived lives of near poverty.

What is interesting nowadays is the popular usage of the great composers. BBC's winter sports (was it Ski Sunday, can't remeber) had as its them tune a jazzed up version of Mozart's 'A Musical Joke'. His G Minor symphony has also been the tune for an ad. Loads of ads have classical music as their theme tune and we shouldn't forge 'Nessun Dorma' which became famous because of football. Lol. I'll bet the composers of contemporary classical musical are gnashing their teeth!

Answer 4

This is one of those questions that is virtually impossible to answer. The course of our lives is determined not just by our talents, but the times in which we live. If Bach or Mozart or Beethoven had been born and raised in the late 20th century, who knows what they might or might not have become?

Mozart's talent would surely have been recognized, no matter where and when he was born... but in these times, he might have been encouraged to be a performer rather than a composer. I can see him winning piano competitions at a very young age, becoming something of an international superstar (and very wealthy), experimenting with all sorts of crossover combinations of classical and popular music, pushing both genres to their limits, perhaps getting into trouble now and then. Yet I can also see him feeling very isolated and lonely, though everyone in the world knew his name, because no one else could quite understand his quest for absolute perfection.

Perhaps Beethoven could have had some success as a film composer or a conductor or a pianist (with modern hearing aids to mitigate or prevent his hearing loss in the first place). Despite his historical reputation as a rebel, I think he might have rebelled (in this time period, at least) mainly against the "dumbing down" of music. He would probably be something of a curmudgeon, known for being difficult and demanding. I just can't see him appreciating popular music at all (and yes, I know this is bound to be a minority opinion).

Bach, I think, would have been quite content to be organist and music director at a large church, perhaps composing sacred anthems and choral works in the manner of John Rutter. Of the three, he's the one I think would be less likely to be known to the general public, had he lived in this time period.

Answer 5

How well did they fare back then? Not as well as you probably think. They would have been quite prodigious even now. The benefits of hindsight permit us to determine who the great ones were, although their stock tends to fluctuate a bit with every succeeding generation or two.

Technology was changing rapidly at their time as well -- the clavichord, harpsichord, pianoforte were all evolving rather than static in design. All of them produced music for the new instruments of their day, while Beethoven arguably caused the piano's development to evolve just to handle his music.

As far as a "lack of influences"? There are more influences today than there have ever been, so I'm not sure I'm understanding your question correctly.

Answer 6

I don't know but I was wondering the other day why there are no great classical composers like of the olden times.

Answer 7

i have my doubts. you see, as each generation progresses, They want different music. for example, the 18th century guys may have had a great thirst for classical music, it is not the case now. and yes, i do recognize the fact that there are a handful of individual who still yearn for classical music, most of us would rather listen to goth, indie rock or pop music. therefore, i do not agree that the great guys would not have fared too well in the present.

Answer 8

it's hard to say. maybe we would've appreciated it like those in their lifetimes did. maybe the start of structured music would've started later in order to accomodate the time that music has progressed over. maybe because the progression of music would be the same, the same instruments typically used in the 19th century would've been used today. keep in mind that this is highly throetical.

but the guitar is a classical instrument as well. it goes as far back as the Violin

Answer 9

It's hard to say really, it all depends on different peoples' tastes in music. so, some people might like them and others might ridicule than and ignore/ make fun of them. I personally only listen to classical music (preferably Vivaldi or Dvorak).

Answer 10

That's like asking , what would Shakespeare have done if he would have had a PC with Word 2007?((and someone else in his age would have invented electricity))