Musical questions and answers thread

[teamsaint]

Ok, question that has been on my mind for a few days.

when discussing JS Bach and his works here and elsewhere, there seems to be infrequent reference to composition date, and a similar lack of discussion of development of his music through his life. With most other major composers, reference to the time in a composers life when a work was written seems to be much more central to discussion.
There are some obvious reasons why this might be, as the BWV system isn't chronological( I think), and other composers have Opus numbers or numbered symphonies/concertos which provide easy timeline reference.
But is there more to it than that?

Just out of interest, do people think they could very roughly date a JSB work that they didn't know work just from listening?
anyway, talk among yourselves.....

edit: a not very comprehensive Bach timeline here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/bach/timeline.shtml

[Richard Barrett]

Ok, question that has been on my mind for a few days.

The BWV list is very far from being chronological - it's arranged by genres, beginning with the cantatas, and it isn't chronological within the genres either. However much of his work can be dated reasonably accurately - most of the cantatas according to their place in one or other of the annual cycles in Leipzig, the instrumental ensemble music mostly to the Cöthen period 1717-23 and so on. Also his instrumentation often gives clues to dating, for example transverse flutes become more common in his later work; then there are occasional pieces such as the Musical Offering, various secular cantatas and the 1733 version of the B minor Mass which can be placed accurately.

Such signposts give a useful framework for dating most of Bach's work, and there are fairly clear stylistic changes through the course of his working life, if not as obvious as in cases like Beethoven or Schoenberg, but since this framework isn't obvious from the catalogue numbers of the works people tend not to know so much about it.

[EdgeleyRob]

Ok, question that has been on my mind for a few days.

when discussing JS Bach and his works here and elsewhere, there seems to be infrequent reference to composition date, and a similar lack of discussion of development of his music through his life. With most other major composers, reference to the time in a composers life when a work was written seems to be much more central to discussion.
There are some obvious reasons why this might be, as the BWV system isn't chronological( I think), and other composers have Opus numbers or numbered symphonies/concertos which provide easy timeline reference.
But is there more to it than that?

Just out of interest, do people think they could very roughly date a JSB work that they didn't know work just from listening?
anyway, talk among yourselves.....

edit: a not very comprehensive Bach timeline here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/bach/timeline.shtml

Great question ts.
I think Roehre would have a field day with this.
There is a chronological list of works here http://www.jsbach.org/completeyear.html

[EdgeleyRob]

The BWV list is very far from being chronological - it's arranged by genres, beginning with the cantatas, and it isn't chronological within the genres either. However much of his work can be dated reasonably accurately - most of the cantatas according to their place in one or other of the annual cycles in Leipzig, the instrumental ensemble music mostly to the Cöthen period 1717-23 and so on. Also his instrumentation often gives clues to dating, for example transverse flutes become more common in his later work; then there are occasional pieces such as the Musical Offering, various secular cantatas and the 1733 version of the B minor Mass which can be placed accurately.

Such signposts give a useful framework for dating most of Bach's work, and there are fairly clear stylistic changes through the course of his working life, if not as obvious as in cases like Beethoven or Schoenberg, but since this framework isn't obvious from the catalogue numbers of the works people tend not to know so much about it.

Thank you for this.

[EdgeleyRob]

New question: do composers mostly work on one piece at a time?

RVW worked on Pilgrim's Progress from 1906 to 1951.
Some of the works that were composed during this time included music from PP,Shepherds of the Delectable Mountains,Valiant for Truth and the 5th Symphony.

[kea]

Something I'm curious about, because I haven't put much time into studying the lives and extra-compositional activities of composers.

All composers seem to play a musical instrument at a very high level, or to conduct reasonably well, or to be able to realise their music electronically at the level of a professional audio engineer (which I suppose is a form of performance), or some combination of these things. What I'm asking is if there has ever been an important composer whose only skill was putting notes on paper/sounds on tape? A composer who lacked the capability to play anything more difficult than Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star, or who could play an instrument but could not bothered to practice and therefore never got beyond a very low level, or whatever. Basically anyone for whom composition was primarily an intellectual rather than a physical exercise, primarily solitary rather than social.

I'm not aware of a single one. Even composers who were mediocre instrumentalists/conductors were still good enough to play in orchestras, or put on private performances of their own works or whatever. But like I said, I wouldn't know.

[Serial_Apologist]

Something I'm curious about, because I haven't put much time into studying the lives and extra-compositional activities of composers.

All composers seem to play a musical instrument at a very high level, or to conduct reasonably well, or to be able to realise their music electronically at the level of a professional audio engineer (which I suppose is a form of performance), or some combination of these things. What I'm asking is if there has ever been an important composer whose only skill was putting notes on paper/sounds on tape? A composer who lacked the capability to play anything more difficult than Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star, or who could play an instrument but could not bothered to practice and therefore never got beyond a very low level, or whatever. Basically anyone for whom composition was primarily an intellectual rather than a physical exercise, primarily solitary rather than social.

I'm not aware of a single one. Even composers who were mediocre instrumentalists/conductors were still good enough to play in orchestras, or put on private performances of their own works or whatever. But like I said, I wouldn't know.

I might be wrong, but I would think Pierre Schaeffer and Pierre Henry, the two originators of musique concrete, fall into the category of non-instrumentalist composers you are looking for.

And many improviser who are unable or unwilling to put notes on paper or sounds on tape, let alone read music, are nevertheless excellent musicians, in my view. I would count them as composers.

[Pabmusic]

Something I'm curious about, because I haven't put much time into studying the lives and extra-compositional activities of composers.

All composers seem to play a musical instrument at a very high level, or to conduct reasonably well, or to be able to realise their music electronically at the level of a professional audio engineer (which I suppose is a form of performance), or some combination of these things. What I'm asking is if there has ever been an important composer whose only skill was putting notes on paper/sounds on tape? A composer who lacked the capability to play anything more difficult than Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star, or who could play an instrument but could not bothered to practice and therefore never got beyond a very low level, or whatever. Basically anyone for whom composition was primarily an intellectual rather than a physical exercise, primarily solitary rather than social.

I'm not aware of a single one. Even composers who were mediocre instrumentalists/conductors were still good enough to play in orchestras, or put on private performances of their own works or whatever. But like I said, I wouldn't know.

I do recall reading that Schoenberg had no particular performing skills, though I can't remember the source of that. Charlie Chaplin (no mean composer, of course) was once invited to conduct an American orchestra (Philadelphia?) and was required to join a union, for which he had to play an instrument. He chose one and auditioned on the bass drum! (He conducted Suppe's Poet & Peasant Overture.)

Elgar is of course a good example of a genuinely self-taught musician, with idiosyncratic playing skills, and he wasn't always competent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/classical/news/great-composer-shame-he-couldnt-play-1824125.html

[vinteuil]

Something I'm curious about, because I haven't put much time into studying the lives and extra-compositional activities of composers.

All composers seem to play a musical instrument at a very high level, or to conduct reasonably well, or to be able to realise their music electronically at the level of a professional audio engineer (which I suppose is a form of performance), or some combination of these things. What I'm asking is if there has ever been an important composer whose only skill was putting notes on paper/sounds on tape? A composer who lacked the capability to play anything more difficult than Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star, or who could play an instrument but could not bothered to practice and therefore never got beyond a very low level, or whatever. Basically anyone for whom composition was primarily an intellectual rather than a physical exercise, primarily solitary rather than social.

I'm not aware of a single one. Even composers who were mediocre instrumentalists/conductors were still good enough to play in orchestras, or put on private performances of their own works or whatever. But like I said, I wouldn't know.

... well, Berlioz I suppose :

...

"So you see – I had mastered three majestic, incomparable instruments, the flageolet, the flute and the guitar. Who could fail to recognise in this judicious choice the impulse of nature which was driving me towards the most immense orchestral effects and music on the scale of Michelangelo! The flute, the guitar and the flageolet!… I have never had any other skills as an instrumentalist, though these seem to me respectable enough as it is. But I am not being fair to myself: I could also play the drum.

My father was against letting me start studying the piano, otherwise I would probably have become a formidable pianist, like countless others. He had absolutely no intention of making an artist of me, and was probably worried that the piano might establish too strong a hold on me and lead me deeper into music than he wished.

I have often regretted not being able to play the piano; this skill could be of great use to me in many circumstances. But when I think of the frightening number of trivia that are produced with such ease day-in day-out – disgraceful compositions that would be beyond the reach of their authors if they had to rely on pen and paper and were deprived of their musical kaleidoscope – I have to thank my lucky stars for having been obliged to learn to compose in silence and with complete freedom. This has preserved me from the tyranny of fingering patterns, which are so damaging for creative composition, and from the seduction of commonplaces to which composers are exposed most of the time. But admittedly the countless devotees of such pieces express in my case the opposite regret; but this leaves me unmoved."

He was, however, quite a conductor....





.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I do recall reading that Schoenberg had no particular performing skills, though I can't remember the source of that.

That depends on how you define "particular" - like Berlioz, he couldn't play the piano, but he was a competent violinist, and taught himself 'cello to a sufficient standard to be able to play in a "gypsy" ensemble with Fritz Kreisler:

[Pabmusic]

That depends on how you define "particular" - like Berlioz, he couldn't play the piano, but he was a competent violinist, and taught himself 'cello to a sufficient standard to be able to play in a "gypsy" ensemble with Fritz Kreisler:

Thanks, Ferny. As you might have guessed, it was a partial memory. (Great picture!)

[teamsaint]

The internet throws up the following names as being poor performers at best.
Webern, Wagner,William Schuman, Milton Babbitt ,Xenakis.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Thanks, Ferny. As you might have guessed, it was a partial memory. (Great picture!)

I think I have those, too.

I have been racking/wracking/wrecking my brain, but I can't think of any composer who literally couldn't play an instrument at all.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The internet throws up the following names as being poor performers at best.
Webern, Wagner,William Schumann, Milton Babbit, Xenakis.

But what does that mean? Webern played passages from Bruckner on the piano to his students; Wagner could accompany his singers in rehearsal; Babbitt (two "t"s, please, vicar) is on film playing the popular songs of the '30s and '40s - don't know about Schuman (one "n", please, vicar ) or Xenakis*.

If "poor performers" means "not up to professional concert standard", then the list gets rather longer. But those having no performing ability at all - I can't think of any. (Xenakis was certainly "performer" enough to be able to "rehearse" performers in his work - he wasn't the sort of merely "theoretical"/"intellectual" composer that kea posited.)

* - this may be one of those partial memories, but I think Xenakis used to play violin, and played duets with his daughter when she was learning.

[teamsaint]

But what does that mean? Webern played passages from Bruckner on the piano to his students; Wagner could accompany his singers in rehearsal; Babbitt (two "t"s, please, vicar) is on film playing the popular songs of the '30s and '40s - don't know about Schuman (one "n", please, vicar ) or Xenakis.

If "poor performers" means "not up to professional concert standard", then the list gets rather longer. But those having no performing ability at all - I can't think of any. (Xenakis was certainly "performer" enough to be able to "rehearse" performers in his work - he wasn't the sort of merely "theoretical"/"intellectual" composer that kea posited.)

So sorry about the spelling,I was multitasking, and the other task was more immediately engaging.

Plus copy and pasting on an ipad is a nightmare.

Might be worth looking at medieval composers?