Generalists and specialists

[Leinster Lass]

Some composers produced works in a range of musical fields, yet others confined themselves, for some reason, to just one or two forms. We associate Scarlatti with keyboard sonatas, Mahler with symphonies and song cycles, Verdi and Rossini with opera. Britten wrote relatively few orchestral works, and Elgar relatively few smaller-scale works. On the other hand, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart, Brahms and others managed to produce masterpieces for just about every possible combination of musical forces. Is this because the former chose to speclalize or were they forced to do so by circumstances? To what extent, if any, does or did public taste and patronage and/or financial considerations play a part?

[ahinton]

Some composers produced works in a range of musical fields, yet others confined themselves, for some reason, to just one or two forms. We associate Scarlatti with keyboard sonatas, Mahler with symphonies and song cycles, Verdi and Rossini with opera. Britten wrote relatively few orchestral works, and Elgar relatively few smaller-scale works. On the other hand, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart, Brahms and others managed to produce masterpieces for just about every possible combination of musical forces. Is this because the former chose to speclalize or were they forced to do so by circumstances? To what extent, if any, does or did public taste and patronage and/or financial considerations play a part?

It's a good question! At the risk of appearing to quibble over detail (which is not my intention!), I would take slight issue with your statement that Elgar wrote relatively few small-scale works, though; Beethoven wrote little and Brahms nothing for the stage - and whilst Britten did indeed write relatively few orchestral works, all of his stage works involve the orchestra. One could also perhaps start by considering the major pianist/composers, of whom Chopin and Alkan wrote almost exclusively for their own instrument whereas Liszt didn't, Godowsky and Medtner likewise concentrated on the piano (some of the latter's 100+ songs have quite elaborate piano parts that are far more than mere "accompaniments") whereas Busoni and Rachmaninoff spread their wongs more widely; one might well ask why the difference. There are probably several different reasons.

[richardfinegold]

Some composers produced works in a range of musical fields, yet others confined themselves, for some reason, to just one or two forms. We associate Scarlatti with keyboard sonatas, Mahler with symphonies and song cycles, Verdi and Rossini with opera. Britten wrote relatively few orchestral works, and Elgar relatively few smaller-scale works. On the other hand, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart, Brahms and others managed to produce masterpieces for just about every possible combination of musical forces. Is this because the former chose to speclalize or were they forced to do so by circumstances? To what extent, if any, does or did public taste and patronage and/or financial considerations play a part?

Other examples would be Composers who wrote for just one instrument, usually keyboard. Chopin the most prominent here, but Liszt also for the most part, Alkan, Sorabaji, Nancarrow, ....

[Bryn]

Other examples would be Composers who wrote for just one instrument, usually keyboard. Chopin the most prominent here, but Liszt also for the most part, Allan, Sorabaji, Nancarrow, ....

Though few in number (just three string quartets, the second of which is lost, for instance) Nancarrow did compose several ensemble works. I take it that Allan was a typo, though whether for Alkan or Alain I am not too sure.

[ahinton]

Though few in number (just three string quartets, the second of which is lost, for instance) Nancarrow did compose several ensemble works. I take it that Allan was a typo, though whether for Alkan or Alain I am not too sure.

Alkan, I imagine - although whereas he did indeed leave few works besides a couple of piano concertos with chamber orchestra and three chamber works (an orchestral symphony is supposedly lost), Liszt wrote a considerable amount of music besides his solo piano output; likewise, Sorabji gave us some 18+ hours of organ music, two large orchestral symphonies an equally large Mass and five chamber works alongside a considerable corpus of music for his own instrument, the piano.

[french frank]

Some composers produced works in a range of musical fields, yet others confined themselves, for some reason, to just one or two forms. We associate Scarlatti with keyboard sonatas, Mahler with symphonies and song cycles, Verdi and Rossini with opera. Britten wrote relatively few orchestral works, and Elgar relatively few smaller-scale works. On the other hand, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart, Brahms and others managed to produce masterpieces for just about every possible combination of musical forces. Is this because the former chose to speclalize or were they forced to do so by circumstances? To what extent, if any, does or did public taste and patronage and/or financial considerations play a part?

[Wrote this an an immediate answer to yours, but my bubble came to the door and has only just departed] Deep waters, Watson. In the case of Mozart, I think, public taste, patronage AND financial considerations were to the fore - he wrote for his audiences. And yet he also wrote that he didn't care about other people's praise or criticism - he followed his own inclinations. I don't think these two things were necessarily incompatible. He was probably ahead of the rest of the field in the variety of genres he 'turned out' - and is admired for.

[Leinster Lass]

It's a good question! At the risk of appearing to quibble over detail (which is not my intention!), I would take slight issue with your statement that Elgar wrote relatively few small-scale works, though; Beethoven wrote little and Brahms nothing for the stage - and whilst Britten did indeed write relatively few orchestral works, all of his stage works involve the orchestra. One could also perhaps start by considering the major pianist/composers, of whom Chopin and Alkan wrote almost exclusively for their own instrument whereas Liszt didn't, Godowsky and Medtner likewise concentrated on the piano (some of the latter's 100+ songs have quite elaborate piano parts that are far more than mere "accompaniments") whereas Busoni and Rachmaninoff spread their wongs more widely; one might well ask why the difference. There are probably several different reasons.

Regarding Britten, I should perhaps have said 'purely orchestral works'. I took care to say 'relatively few' in Elgar's case - I like his works for wind quintet and, of course, the 3 great late chamber works, but for many people I suspect his name conjures up the 2 symphonies, Gerontius and possibly some of the other choral works, the Enigma Variations, the Pomp and Circumstance marches and, of course, the two great concerti.

[Jonathan]

With Liszt's output, there are roughly 3000 works and actually only 1500 (approximately) of those are for solo piano. The remainder include the songs (obviously with the piano) and the chamber music (most also with piano) but that still leaves a lot which doesn't involve the piano.

[richardfinegold]

Though few in number (just three string quartets, the second of which is lost, for instance) Nancarrow did compose several ensemble works. I take it that Allan was a typo, though whether for Alkan or Alain I am not too sure.

Alkan