# Gustav Holst



## Architekton (Feb 14, 2017)

Hello everyone!

I am not sure is this the right section of the board, so I apologize in advance if it isnt! Anyway...

Gustav Holst - The Planets, full suite!!!
Omg, cant believe that John Williams, James Horner, HZ and some other took some parts so blatantly...I mean "For the love the princess" from Horner, than Tatooine, Leias theme, and many more from Williams...Mars again Williams and Zimmer! Theres some heavy inspiration going on!

How do you guys comment on this?


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 14, 2017)




----------



## vlad (Feb 14, 2017)

Same with Howard Hanson - some of his work (except one used in Alien of course) is copied almost 1:1 even nowadays.
As for Holst as far as I remember a lot of his music was put by Lucas in temptrack.
So, maybe temptracks are the answer 

PS Also , seehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGcpLm989-U


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Feb 14, 2017)

Architekton said:


> Hello everyone!
> 
> I am not sure is this the right section of the board, so I apologize in advance if it isnt! Anyway...
> 
> ...



My comment: Sacrilege!


----------



## Paul T McGraw (Feb 14, 2017)

Architekton said:


> Hello everyone!
> 
> I am not sure is this the right section of the board, so I apologize in advance if it isnt! Anyway...
> 
> ...



Are any movie scripts truly original any more? Hasn't every possible story been told, and every current script is just a rehash with a few details changed to make it seem new? How many cop shows have the same basic plot? Anyway, the point is that in all forms of art and entertainment creators have a similar challenge to be original, while still using concepts that ring true to the audience.

We all stand on the shoulders of giants.

Various parts of "The Planets" sound very similar to Elgar, Brahms, Saint-Saens or Wagner. Yes, some uses of the Planets are more blatant than others, but personally, I do not consider it a negative unless a composer actually quotes note for note without attribution.

We all stand on the shoulders of giants, and otherwise we would be having to reinvent fire and the wheel with each generation.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 14, 2017)

To quote Ritchie Blackmore: "Steal everything, then try to make it your own".


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Feb 14, 2017)

It's funny, but I don't hear these supposedly 'blatant' Holst references. Not sure what I'm missing here...

I definitely hear the same / similar orchestration. I definitely hear the same 'vibe' or 'filmscore sound'... but the melodies / motives are clearly Holst. I can hum most of The Planets and think of them as their own tunes. OP mentioned Princess Leia, but I don't hear that in here. Maybe somewhere in the Venus woodwinds?

King's Row is much clearer to me - that's the first part of the Star Wars theme - but I have never understood the Holst plagiarism claims. Can anyone point out specific Holst parts / motives and how they correspond to well-known film music?


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Feb 14, 2017)

Architekton said:


> How do you guys comment on this?



It tells me that Holst was TRUE greatness. And, the Stravinsky quote was kind of a joke. He was supposedly good at that. The quote originated from T.S. Elliot “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal."


----------



## garyhiebner (Feb 14, 2017)

Guess it's not about reinventing the wheel, but making it spin better.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 14, 2017)

And again, composing a film score is a different gig from composing for the concert hall. Its primary job is to serve the picture, not to create music for the ages, although obviously it is great when one has the talent and is afforded the opportunity to do both.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 14, 2017)

garyhiebner said:


> Guess it's not about reinventing the wheel, but making it spin better.



Well, we could argue worship all day...look at the influence of the Beatles/Beach Boys on popular music today (name one Beyoncé song that doesn't use a songwriting template from those two...and do me a favor and check the scores before defending her music), Wagner's operas and film music altogether, Beethoven's symphonies on, well, everything.

To hear things more toward the unique means to have commensurately more patience as a listener. Some of the works of Cage, Zorn, and Zappa come to mind. Check out what Scott Walker's been doing the past...oh, two decades give or take.


----------



## Saxer (Feb 14, 2017)

marclawsonmusic said:


> It's funny, but I don't hear these supposedly 'blatant' Holst references. Not sure what I'm missing here...
> Can anyone point out specific Holst parts / motives and how they correspond to well-known film music?


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Feb 14, 2017)

Thanks, @Saxer. 

Again, I hear some of the same orchestration and harmonic devices, but these are different tunes (at least to my ear). It's like saying a guitar player who knows some Hendrix or Stevie Ray Vaughan licks is playing the same music. I think that kind of analysis is oversimplification and I still don't get it.


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 14, 2017)

marclawsonmusic said:


> Thanks, @Saxer.
> 
> Again, I hear some of the same orchestration and harmonic devices, but these are different tunes (at least to my ear). It's like saying a guitar player who knows some Hendrix or Stevie Ray Vaughan licks is playing the same music. I think that kind of analysis is oversimplification and I still don't get it.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Feb 14, 2017)

@Rodney Money, that's clearly the same tune.

I guess I am the village idiot here. Not the first time, and probably not the last. You guys get some free laughs at my expense today. Enjoy.


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 14, 2017)

marclawsonmusic said:


> @Rodney Money, that's clearly the same tune.
> 
> I guess I am the village idiot here. Not the first time, and probably not the last. You guys get some free laughs at my expense today. Enjoy.


No man, you are awesome in my book, and no one can take the title Village Idiot around here except for me.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 14, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


> No man, you are awesome in my book, and no one can take the title Village Idiot around here except for me.



Wait, when was this made official? I didn't get to vote _myself_ in as V.I.! My life's work, ruined!


----------



## Paul T McGraw (Feb 14, 2017)

marclawsonmusic said:


> @Rodney Money, that's clearly the same tune.
> 
> I guess I am the village idiot here. Not the first time, and probably not the last. You guys get some free laughs at my expense today. Enjoy.



No way! I was certainly not laughing at you or your posts and I doubt if anyone on the forum was doing so. 

Our senses, including hearing, are somewhat different from person to person. Some might hear pitch content better, or timbre better, etc. I have known musicians that could not hear differences in phrasing, especially on the piano, yet otherwise they had great skills. And a lot depends on our usual listening choices and practice. I could not distinguish between urban and hip hop and industrial fusion (I found those terms on the internet) if my life depended on it. 

So please do not beat yourself up. No need for that.


----------



## Anthony (Feb 14, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> Well, we could argue worship all day...look at the influence of the Beatles/Beach Boys on popular music today (name one Beyoncé song that doesn't use a songwriting template from those two...


I'm not that familiar with Beyoncé's music, but am surprised to hear that it was influenced to the extent of using Beatles/Beach Boys templates given the difference in the respective genres. Would you kindly provide an example or two? I'm curious to know if the influence is melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, etc. Thanks!


----------



## Architekton (Feb 14, 2017)

You guys want to tell me you hear no difference between this:



and this:



????


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 14, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


>



personally I think Stravinsky is tremendously overrated. His Rite of Spring and Firebird basically are Scriabin's symphonies, ecstasies, and Mysterium copied over with new riff/licks/motiffs (and if he lived today he would just edit taht midi note up and another down to make it an editted version of Scriabin and call it his own work, just a speculation though) He even lists Scriabin as one of his biggest influences. Steal and admit hard. Smart move though.

But John Williams, HZ and james horner are different because they're writing to film. If they weren't writing the music to film and copied that much from Holst and etc then of course it's unacceptable.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Feb 14, 2017)

Paul T McGraw said:


> No way! I was certainly not laughing at you or your posts and I doubt if anyone on the forum was doing so.
> 
> Our senses, including hearing, are somewhat different from person to person. Some might hear pitch content better, or timbre better, etc. I have known musicians that could not hear differences in phrasing, especially on the piano, yet otherwise they had great skills. And a lot depends on our usual listening choices and practice. I could not distinguish between urban and hip hop and industrial fusion (I found those terms on the internet) if my life depended on it.
> 
> So please do not beat yourself up. No need for that.



Paul, you make a good point. I hear melody probably more than anything else. To me, that is the 'tune'. Maybe it's my rock/pop/jazz background.

When people are posting videos and memes to prove their point, it's almost like they are saying... "this is so obvious, everyone gets it (but you)". But maybe I am reading into it and taking it the wrong way.

I see that the OP just posted a reference to Braveheart (my favorite soundtrack)... maybe there's something I can grasp there...


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Feb 14, 2017)

Architekton said:


> You guys want to tell me you hear no difference between this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, there is some similarity - on the surface...

The Braveheart progression goes from F-G-Am, and _seems _to have a key of C, but it's tonal center is really Am. So, this progression is really a VI-VII-i, with a comfortable resolution on the minor.

The Holst progression goes from Ab-Bb-Cm, which _implies _a similar tonality (on the surface - if you just listen to those 3 chords), but the tonal center of that part of the work is clearly in Eb, which makes it a IV-V-vi. There is no sense of resolution on that vi chord - you will not hear resolution until you return to the Eb (I chord).

So, context is everything. If you cherry pick those 3 chords out of the context of the larger work, you are losing perspective of the bigger picture and equating things that should not be equated. James Horner was clearly writing modal Irish music, while the Holst example is very much diatonic and major. Two different things!


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Feb 15, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> personally I think Stravinsky is tremendously overrated



I sure wish I was that overrated! One thing I can say is that in my mind, the Planets is a true masterpiece. As far as "borrowing" is concerned, in Western music, the 12 notes become finite at some point.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 15, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> personally I think Stravinsky is tremendously overrated. His Rite of Spring and Firebird basically are Scriabin's symphonies, ecstasies, and Mysterium copied over with new riff/licks/motiffs (and if he lived today he would just edit taht midi note up and another down to make it an editted version of Scriabin and call it his own work, just a speculation though) He even lists Scriabin as one of his biggest influences. Steal and admit hard. Smart move though.
> 
> But John Williams, HZ and james horner are different because they're writing to film. If they weren't writing the music to film and copied that much from Holst and etc then of course it's unacceptable.



I'm not a huge fan of Stravinsky, but I really like Firebird, and respect his Rite of Spring. I like Scriabin better, but they're both terrific composers imo, and certainly have left their mark on music today.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 15, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> personally I think Stravinsky is tremendously overrated. His Rite of Spring and Firebird basically are Scriabin's symphonies, ecstasies, and Mysterium copied over with new riff/licks/motiffs (and if he lived today he would just edit taht midi note up and another down to make it an editted version of Scriabin and call it his own work, just a speculation though) He even lists Scriabin as one of his biggest influences. Steal and admit hard. Smart move though.



Yes, you are correct. All the music historians who for over 100 years have called Le Sacre a seminal piece of the the 20th century simply are not as smart as you to have noticed that.

And of course, all Mozart did was rip off his teacher Haydn. And Bach did not originate anything, he just sort of codified what had previously been done. Debussy? Simply stole scales from other cultures. The Beatles? Inferior renditions of American R & B.


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 15, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> Where is the eye roll emoji when I need it?


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 15, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


>



Thank you Rodney..


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 15, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> Thank you Rodney..


My absolute pleasure, and I'm glad you wrote that so I didn't have to. (How dare that "Bach" person, or whoever he was steal Buxtehude's style. Partita No. 2, especially the Chaconne is pure rubbish.)


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 15, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> Yes, you are correct. All the music historians who for over 100 years have called Le Sacre a seminal piece of the the 20th century simply are not as smart as you to have noticed that.
> 
> And of course, all Mozart did was rip off his teacher Haydn. And Bach did not originate anything, he just sort of codified what had previously been done. Debussy? Simply stole scales from other cultures. The Beatles? Inferior renditions of American R & B.



Yes, that's getting pretty broad! Although Mozart did mostly use the templates Haydn helped pioneer (the proof is in the scores). But we're talking about perhaps the greatest melodicist who ever lived....


----------



## penfever (Feb 15, 2017)

Maybe the V.I. in VI-Control stands for Village Idiot control ...


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 15, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> I'm not a huge fan of Stravinsky, but I really like Firebird, and respect his Rite of Spring. I like Scriabin better, but they're both terrific composers imo, and certainly have left their mark on music today.



Oh and Scriabin stole from Wagner. But when he started making his own harmonic language -that stuff is original


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 15, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> I'm not a huge fan of Stravinsky, but I really like Firebird, and respect his Rite of Spring. I like Scriabin better, but they're both terrific composers imo, and certainly have left their mark on music today.



History long ago made its judgement. If we put it in Hollywood terms. Stravinsky is A List, Scriabin B list.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 15, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> History long ago made its judgement. If we put it in Hollywood terms. Stravinsky is A List, Scriabin B list.



have we forgotten musicologists usually are biased with agendas? 

Also, there r far too many composers where in their biography written by musicologists are speculated to be lgbt.

There isn't any worthiness of mentioning it unless they have direct evidence to it imho.

Scriabin is A list. Remember, he didn't live for long.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 15, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> have we forgotten musicologists usually are biased with agendas?




We are talking musicologists over 100 years! And generally they have fewer agendas than composer fanboys.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 15, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> We are talking musicologists over 100 years! And generally they have fewer agendas than composer fanboys.



Yea at least my agendas have everything to do with music. Theirs? "his piano teacher MIGHT HAVE been a pedophile" "he MIGHT HAVE had affairs with other men" give me a break.

It's not quite over 100 years yet. British radios banned Scriabin's music back in the 1920's because they thought it was "demonic". Music schools all over the world nowadays have no interest in the importance of Scriabin in Stravinsky's music. There are many classical musicians who have only "heard of" Scriabin.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 15, 2017)

I played some Scriabin in college. Love him, he was a great composer. But our personal taste aside, his ouvre does not match Stravinsky in terms of influence and place in the repertoire. It just doesn't. Le Sacre, L'histoire Soldat, Symphony of Psalms, Firebird, and on and on are studied and performed so frequently and it is not articially inflated by prejudiced musicologists.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 15, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> I played some Scriabin in college. Love him, he was a great composer. But our personal taste aside, his ouvre does not match Stravinsky in terms of influence and place in the repertoire. It just doesn't. Le Sacre, L'histoire Soldat, Symphony of Psalms, Firebird, and on and on are studied and performed so frequently and it is not articially inflated by prejudiced musicologists.



because he stole, from Scriabin.


----------



## FredericBernard (Feb 15, 2017)

Indeed odd how all the composers "exploited" Holst Planets, not only the Mars movement, but some others as well.

...just compare these two, the similarities are quite perplexing:


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 15, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> because he stole, from Scriabin.


And again, 100 years later, apparently only you were perspicacious enough to figure that out. OK, I am done with you. Horse fly nipping at a champion stallion.


----------



## tonaliszt (Feb 15, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> Scriabin is A list.


Uhhh................No.


----------



## David Story (Feb 15, 2017)

Holst composed a lot of good music, I personally like the Suites for military band and the Rig Veda Hymns. The Planets is on another level, there's pretty cool and catchy melodies, orchestration and structure that are part of the standard repertoire. But it's not a highly developed and expansive style like you find with Ravel, Stravinsky, Glass, etc. Meaning you have to be careful to not overuse it. Unless you'er commissioned to sound just like The Planets 

That brings us to a core topic: what is originality?

There were superhero comics before Spider-Man. And dramas, teen heroes, soap operas, etc. Yet combining all those elements into one coherent title was revolutionary. Being original is a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts. More than being different or personal.

Holst wrote original music, so did the Beatles. The Beatles just wrote a lot more original music than Holst.

Same with Stravinsky- he wrote a vast amount of original music, probably more than any other composer in the last 100 years. Holst was influenced by Stravinsky in several sections of The Planets, so are Adams, Copland, Williams and virtually every other composer and many songwriters and bands.

Mars and Jupiter are iconic and it's good to know their techniques. But it's even more helpful to learn from Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, Ragas, folk songs, the many elements that can become part of our own styles.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 15, 2017)

tonaliszt said:


> Uhhh................No.



fine. cuz everything needs to be liszt-like and tonal


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 15, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> And again, 100 years later, apparently only you were perspicacious enough to figure that out. OK, I am done with you. Horse fly nipping at a champion stallion.



THere's no denying the popularity of Scriabin when he was alive. It's what happened to him afterwards that makes it unfair to say he's B list. First of all he died early, second of all, historians/promoters/musicologists have gone against promoting his music after his death.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 16, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> fine. cuz everything needs to be liszt-like and tonal



As I mentioned, I'm neutral on the Scriabin/Stravinsky thing (it amazes me that Jay lasted so long on this type of subject; he usually, understandably, checks out earlier).

However I must mention that Liszt was far from a one trick pony; even a mildly attentive listen to the Rhapsodies will attest to that. He had some input on Wagner as far as reaching beyond the then-contemporary structures, and it's more than likely he was a great composer (though he could arguably be put on a "B" list I guess...Wagner completely shot past him).

Hey I'm a composer fanboy and couldn't care less what anyone thinks of it! Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Mahler, Schoenberg...total fanboy, yes. Quite proud of it.


----------



## Paul T McGraw (Feb 16, 2017)

David Story said:


> Holst composed a lot of good music, I personally like the Suites for military band and the Rig Veda Hymns. The Planets is on another level, there's pretty cool and catchy melodies, orchestration and structure that are part of the standard repertoire. But it's not a highly developed and expansive style like you find with Ravel, Stravinsky, Glass, etc. Meaning you have to be careful to not overuse it. Unless you'er commissioned to sound just like The Planets
> 
> That brings us to a core topic: what is originality?
> 
> ...



You make some very interesting points about originality. But I fear that composers, especially young composers, become overly concerned about originality, and it actually stunts their creativity. An original style and "voice" will either be developed by a composer or not, but for most humans, we develop skills and wisdom with experience. For most composers, the more practice, the more they work at composing, the better the creations will become, and in time an original "voice" may develop. But it will not happen if a composer is so worried about being called derivative that they just freeze up and stop composing. Or write garbage just because it is believed to be new.

I am not so sure about the details of your last two paragraphs. Who or what is Ragas? And Adams? Really?


----------



## Living Fossil (Feb 16, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> History long ago made its judgement. If we put it in Hollywood terms. Stravinsky is A List, Scriabin B list.



While i agree on the bigger impact of Strawinsky, this statement isn't very useful.

First, you write "history long ago made its judgement".
We talk about composers who worked - roughly said - hundred years ago.
You can take some books that were written around hundred years after the death of JS Bach. You will find that at that time history also long ago had made its judgement according to which Haendel was a giant and Bach not that much of a giant. (however, as written, this comparison isn't really appropriate if we talk about Scriabin vs. Stravinsky. It's just about judgements in the course of time).

Then, putting composers in lists is something for people who don't get the principle of culture and who are too lazy to listen to music and to unsensible to understand the deeper layers of music. They need a short article about composers to know who are to good ones, then they can smalltalk about the great ones at dinner parties.
There are lots of lesser known composers who only wrote a handful of great works. But those works are milestones.
(Think of Mussorgsky etc.)
Then, there are composers who invented techniques etc. without whom the oeuvre of the giants would be impossible.
(Mozart's and Beethoven's music would be far from the level it has without Stamitz. Etc.) But of course, this is the part that is easy to ignore in hindsight.


Hollywood "lists" make sense, since Hollywood is a dream machinery with the primary goal of making lots of money.
And in a profit oriented world it's good to know which artists will fulfill the dreams of their audience in the most lucrative way. But please, leave away these stupid lists when talking about art.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 16, 2017)

Living Fossil, all fair points, so I will make one last one.

Anyone is entitled to not particularly care for Stravinsky's work, or any other composer. But anyone who denies his great influence and importance to the history of music is what we in Boston call a chowderhead.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 16, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> Living Fossil, all fair points, so I will make one last one.
> 
> Anyone is entitled to not particularly care for Stravinsky's work, or any other composer. But anyone who denies his great influence and importance to the history of music is what we in Boston call a chowderhead.



He definitely made a difference, and I would say a great composer, fwiw. I far prefer the other biggies during his prime though.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 16, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> As I mentioned, I'm neutral on the Scriabin/Stravinsky thing (it amazes me that Jay lasted so long on this type of subject; he usually, understandably, checks out earlier).
> 
> However I must mention that Liszt was far from a one trick pony; even a mildly attentive listen to the Rhapsodies will attest to that. He had some input on Wagner as far as reaching beyond the then-contemporary structures, and it's more than likely he was a great composer (though he could arguably be put on a "B" list I guess...Wagner completely shot past him).
> 
> Hey I'm a composer fanboy and couldn't care less what anyone thinks of it! Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Mahler, Schoenberg...total fanboy, yes. Quite proud of it.



all Germans, yes. Love how you left out Mozart (but he's austrian anyways) because I would've as well.

For me: Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Myaskovsky, Kalinnikov, Balakirev, Liadov. But without Wagner, Scriabin wouldn't have been so great.


----------



## Living Fossil (Feb 16, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> Anyone is entitled to not particularly care for Stravinsky's work, or any other composer. But anyone who denies his great influence and importance to the history of music is what we in Boston call a chowderhead.



Jay, i totally agree with this...

Concerning general discussions about composers and the question if they are good or bad:
In my experience in most cases it's better to explain why one likes a particular composer and his music than trying to explain why some specific music isn't good. Music is an art with deals with the logic of emotions and psychology, and those are things with the potential to touch somebody at a very deep level. Maybe that's a reason why discussions about good, bad, and the really good music often get so emotional, because music that we love mirrors deep layers of our personal being.


----------



## Living Fossil (Feb 16, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> THere's no denying the popularity of Scriabin when he was alive. It's what happened to him afterwards that makes it unfair to say he's B list. First of all he died early, second of all, historians/promoters/musicologists have gone against promoting his music after his death.



The "problem" that Scriabin shares with lots of other composers of that era is that in that time period there were remarkably many great composers...
And so, musicologists often try to create "trends" to highlight the importance of certain composers.
Mahler's popularity e.g. had peaked some decades ago; before he wasn't considered so important.
In Europe, there was a trend in a rising appreciation of Janáček's music.
There was a (not really succesful) try to bring back the appreciation towards Schreker's music.
etc. etc.
There is an ongoing (and quite stupid) discussion if Prokofiev or Shostakowitch was the better composer (in my life, there is place for both of them).
And there are some composers who are completely out of the focus but who wrote great music.

Scriabin wrote some absolutely outstanding masterpieces for sure. That's why the really important thing is that his music is performed regularly...


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 16, 2017)

Living Fossil said:


> The "problem" that Scriabin shares with lots of other composers of that era is that in that time period there were remarkably many great composers...
> And so, musicologists often try to create "trends" to highlight the importance of certain composers.
> Mahler's popularity e.g. had peaked some decades ago; before he wasn't considered so important.
> In Europe, there was a trend in a rising appreciation of Janáček's music.
> ...



his music isn't performed regularly, relatively speaking compared to Mozart. His piano works maybe, but symphonic works not so much. I would even say his symphonic works are RARELY performed.

And yes, all those points are exactly what i wanted to say about musicologists, trend, popularity.

The whole point of me initially saying Stravinsky was overrated was just to raise an awareness that actually, he is pretty overrated and his popularity has put some of the composers completely out of focus who actually wrote great music as well, especially the ones that Stravinsky deliberately stole from (Liadov and Scriabin). And then of course someone had to go A and B list lol. But if it was just hollywood, sure. Music is much less important in Hollywoood these days compared to 1990's and before. Luckily we have sample libraries being developed and have been developed so composers have an orchestra at their fingertips. Hopefully, make hollywood music great again!


----------



## Living Fossil (Feb 16, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> The whole point of me initially saying Stravinsky was overrated was just to raise an awareness that actually, he is pretty overrated and his popularity has put some of the composers completely out of focus who actually wrote great music as well.



Speaking about Stravinsky's position is more complicated when seen in the historical context.
In the European music scene (specially among composers) there was a time, when you almost had to take a "position" either for Schoenberg or for Stravinsky. After WW2, when in Darmstadt the serialists formulated their dogmas, there was much depreciation towards Stravinsky's music.
And while the music that based on these concepts discussed in Darmstadt never reached a larger popularity, it's impact on most composers (at least in Europe) was huge. Hundreds of composers literally didn't had the courage for years to use tonality in their music and when they finally formed a voice (that was opposed to the positions of atonal composers etc.) Stravinsky became a symbolic figure for them. 
But actually, i think in the moment there is rather a tendency among musicologists to put the focus away a bit from Stravinsky and Schoenberg and to go for the lesser known.


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Feb 16, 2017)

Paul T McGraw said:


> Who or what is Ragas? And Adams? Really?


I believe he was referring to Indian Ragas, which opens up a whole different way of thinking tonally. And he was referring to John Adams, a wonderful American minimalist.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 16, 2017)

By the way, guess which sample libraries I used for that.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 16, 2017)

fritzmartinbass said:


> I believe he was referring to Indian Ragas, which opens up a whole different way of thinking tonally. And he was referring to John Adams, a wonderful American minimalist.



I've heard some good things from Adams myself. Really cool rhythms.


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Feb 16, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> I've heard some good things from Adams myself. Really cool rhythms.


Yeah, I think the piece I really like by Adams is called Harmonium. Had to transcribe part of it in school one semester.


----------



## David Story (Feb 16, 2017)

Paul T McGraw said:


> You make some very interesting points about originality. But I fear that composers, especially young composers, become overly concerned about originality, and it actually stunts their creativity...
> 
> ...I am not so sure about the details of your last two paragraphs. Who or what is Ragas? And Adams? Really?



Paul, I agree that we all learn from true genius, and that has to come before we can find our own voice. I am suggesting that we study The Planets *and* Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, Ragas, folk songs, etc. The clear influences that inspired Holst (I left out Wagner, he gets plenty of mention ) Those can become elements of our own original style. Or not, but it's a natural extension of digging The Planets.

Fritz is right, thank you, I meant Indian Ragas, a lasting influence on much of Holst's art. Eg, raga-like melodies and meditative drones. 

Yes, Adams is also the great John Adams, he of On the Transmigration of Souls, and Nixon In China. He uses a lot of Stravinsky techniques for rhythms and orchestration, and frequently conducts Stravinsky in concert.

Someone mentioned that a composer had a big reputation when they were alive. That's one reason why we need to wait at least 50-100 years to determine if work will stand the test of time. Have to wait for the first fans to all pass.

Stravinsky had a big reputation his entire 60 year+ career and almost 50 years after his passing is performed and studied around the world. I love John Williams and am among the first to acknowledge his great influence. But he is quick to point out that Stravinsky is a better and more original composer. In fact there is no living artist of Stravinsky level accomplishment, though someone will get there over decades.

Let's be clear that JS Bach is revered by composers from Mozart to Jonny Greenwood. Everyone's popularity has their ups and downs, especially with the general public. Yet great composers universally agree on the greatness of the true genius composers- Including Bach, Beethoven, and Stravinsky. They are at the extreme of originality and brilliance, everyone is consciously or unconsciously walking in their footsteps.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 17, 2017)

You mention Williams rating himself lower than Stravinsky, which could quite possibly be true. However, I get the feeling that time is going to see Maestro John better and better as the years go on. As continue to go through the former's discography (as well as Mr. Goldsmith), I can hear just why he's so acclaimed.

I'm not sure there will ever be another composer who, during his or her life, is already assumed to be up there with the Accepted Greats. I'm pretty sure Beethoven and Wagner (perhaps Strauss) are the only two where that happened, even Bach was (correct me if I'm wrong) basically an amazing organist, Mozart a supernaturally great pianist...until a bit after death.

So even if Williams _is_ one of the hallowed "Them", he's unfortunately one of the rule, people aren't quite seeing just how outstanding he is, and probably won't until post-mortem. Same with some of the other amazing writers out there like Penderecki, Phillip Glass...I'm positive I'm leaving out some, and please forgive me.

And yeah, it wouldn't surprise me in the least (well, I'll be dead, buried in my Wagner cape for all time) if Mr. Zimmer were seen that way as well a hundred years from now. At least as a film composer.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 17, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> all Germans, yes. Love how you left out Mozart (but he's austrian anyways) because I would've as well.
> 
> For me: Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Myaskovsky, Kalinnikov, Balakirev, Liadov. But without Wagner, Scriabin wouldn't have been so great.



That's a very cool list, my friend, and you have me youtubing a couple names I kind of lost along the way.

As far as Mozart...sensational composer, but it's hard for me to rate him in place of/over Haydn. As you might already know, if you go back and listen to many of Mozart's string quartets and then Haydn's pre-opus 76 output you hear many similarities, Mozart stood out because he had an outrageous talent with actual tunes/melodies, and of course he was the more operatically-minded of the two.

Even the early Beethoven...I'm am an LVB _*fanatic *_and yet even I have trouble with the Haydn/Mozart alignment of most of his oldest works (gasp!). The mid to later works were the most personal, most unique, and therefore pretty much trumped everybody, at least up to then. And yes, I put relatively unadorned personal expression at the top of my list as the most desirable attribute a composer can have, so I understand there are plenty of other checklists for that type of classification.

Please accept my apologies once more for being disgracefully off topic.


----------



## Living Fossil (Feb 17, 2017)

David Story said:


> Let's be clear that JS Bach is revered by composers from Mozart to Jonny Greenwood.



Bach indeed was much appreciated among composers.
Beethoven even organized a charity event to raise money for Bach's widow (who had ended up as a clochard after Bach's death). And when a young promising teenage pianist (Franz Liszt) was introduced to Beethoven, he asked him to play some fugues of Bach and afterwards to instantly transpose them in other keys (which - on a sidenote - gives an interesting insight in the high level of the usual formal training at that time).

Regarding Mozart and Bach: When Mozart met Bach's music, he was deeply impressed and even wrote introductions etc. for some arrangements of his music. However, if you take a closer look at Mozart's view of the baroque music (and his letters etc.) it's always "Haendel and Bach". Never the other way round. Haendel's influence on Mozart was much deeper and can be heard quite directly in some of his later works.

ps. on the fly there's a short article about Mozart's view of Haendel: 
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/how-mozart-loved-handel

Funny quote from this article:
_[after having studied Bach's works] He also wrote home to his father, asking for copies of fugues (presumably held in the family library) by Handel and Johann Ernst Eberlin, writing again only 10 days later with what today would seem the unremarkable observation that Eberlin’s efforts were 'far too trivial to deserve a place beside Handel and Bach'._


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 17, 2017)

Living Fossil said:


> Beethoven even organized a charity event to raise money for Bach's widow


Are you sure it wasn't one of Bach's daughters?


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 17, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> That's a very cool list, my friend, and you have me youtubing a couple names I kind of lost along the way.
> 
> As far as Mozart...sensational composer, but it's hard for me to rate him in place of/over Haydn. As you might already know, if you go back and listen to many of Mozart's string quartets and then Haydn's pre-opus 76 output you hear many similarities, Mozart stood out because he had an outrageous talent with actual tunes/melodies, and of course he was the more operatically-minded of the two.
> 
> ...



You never have to apologize. Wagner was the Godfather of Scriabin's music


----------



## Living Fossil (Feb 17, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


> Are you sure it wasn't one of Bach's daughters?



Thanks for the correction! You are right, it was his youngest daughter


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 17, 2017)

Living Fossil said:


> Thanks for the correction! You are right, it was his youngest daughter


My pleasure, my friend.


----------



## David Story (Feb 18, 2017)

[QUOTE="Parsifal666, post: 4055911, member: 11643"...
I'm not sure there will ever be another composer who, during his or her life, is already assumed to be up there with the Accepted Greats. I'm pretty sure Beethoven and Wagner (perhaps Strauss) are the only two where that happened, even Bach was (correct me if I'm wrong) basically an amazing organist, Mozart a supernaturally great pianist...until a bit after death.
[/QUOTE]
It's rare but that's the main idea. Stravinsky was widely recognized as Great before he was 30. "You can rave about Stravinsky without the slightest risk of being classified as a lunatic by the next generation." GB Shaw (who was also a music critic among his many accomplishments) And whatever he tried, everyone else would imitate, for decades.

Mozart was also recognized as "Before God... the Greatest composer known to me" by Haydn and was Knighted, so he was already seen as pretty great before he died. But the public that adored him forgot him. His legend grew from there. 

Bach was seen as traditional and brilliant (oddly like JW) yet is still the only composer that can consistently survive bad performances. That's one reason every student is given his music. There's something primally beautiful that is independent from trends. And that grew in importance with each passing year.

Artists in the Pantheon are often underrated during their lifetime, like Debussy, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Bartok. There's no way to tell if fame or obscurity will be fleeting or if you're on the road to immortality. But we do know it's rare and worth studying.

John Williams certainly isn't underrated, but it's too soon to tell if he will be seen like Prokofiev or Verdi, or rise to be part of the DNA of civilization. He's that for our time. But all time is a long ways away, even a century.

Living Fossil, thanks for the reference. I don't know if you read German, but the sentence structure puts the words you're emphasizing at the end. If I say: Ich mag Hotdogs und Pizza, Pizza is the one I like most. So Mozart was emphasizing Bach. Similarly Beethoven loved listening to Handel, but he studied Bach to improve his own music.

I'm certain that brilliant, gifted people are born all the time, and one of them will have the sensitivity, life experience and extreme degree of talent to become a Great composer for the 21st century. Because of the net, we'll hear about them. But will their creativity be embraced, or dismissed? Standing by


----------



## Living Fossil (Feb 18, 2017)

David, first of all: good post!



David Story said:


> Living Fossil, thanks for the reference. I don't know if you read German, but the sentence structure puts the words you're emphasizing at the end.


German is my native language, and putting words you're emphasizing at the end is something you do sometimes in speaches (where you can emphasize the ending), but not in written texts. In a written text you would add "und insbesondere" or something similar if you wanted to achieve such a special effect in reversing the normal order. But that's a sidenote. There are lots of (good and serious) books about Mozart and dealing with Mozart's statements etc. They show quite clearly that for Mozart it was Haendel (the giant) and Bach. You can hear Haendel's style permanently in Mozart's writing (look at his writing for choir etc.), while Bach remains an interesting episode.
On the other hand, Bach's music had a huge (and ongoing substantial) impact on Beethoven.


ps. concerning your example: if you write "Ich mag Pizza und Hotdogs", it suggests that Pizza is your favorite and hotdogs is a food you appreciate very much. If you mean you like them equally, it would be: "Ich mag Pizza und Hotdogs gleichermaßen". However, when talking about favorite food, you wouldn't normally use this formulation, but rather a sentence like: "Mein Lieblingsessen/Lieblingsgericht ist...[insert your favorite dish]."


----------



## David Story (Feb 18, 2017)

Siegfried, you write well in English too! It may surprise you that I've discussed the history of counterpoint with other German speaking academics, and I stand by the conclusion - CPE and JS Bach are more influential than Handel, who is a great composer. In the case of Mozart, we see the fugato in the 4th movement of Symphony No.41 features multiple themes in invertible counterpoint. That is the style and spirit of Bach, and WAM's last word on the subject


----------



## Living Fossil (Feb 19, 2017)

Thank you David! Regarding the Bach family, Johann Christian had maybe the biggest impact on Mozart. Regarding the great Nr. 41 even there i have more the feeling to hear Haendel's spirit than JSB; and the "Messiah" still resonates in Mozart's Requiem. But to be honest, i'd really love to know Mozart's personal feelings when he was confronted with Bach's contrapunctical skills...maybe they intimidated him.
However, the aspect that i like the most about this discussion is that it shows, how much of a network culture is...even the biggest personalities among the artists couldn't have written their music without the influence of many other artists..


----------



## Mundano (Feb 19, 2017)

Great forum!


----------

