|
George Garnett
|
 |
« on: 10:19:26, 13-07-2007 » |
|
After all, we composers aren't all rich and famous Wot!! I was led to believe on another thread that you were all cloying, stifled, pampered and woolly. Not so?  A New Musico At Home |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 11:04:03, 13-07-2007 by George Garnett »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 10:45:12, 13-07-2007 » |
|
Any recommendations for a good recording that might, say, be less than, say, $33 for a single disc?! After all, we composers aren't all rich and famous like Mr. Barrett here. You must be confusing me with someone else of the same name I think. It's probably the "rich" bit that's caused the confusion. There aren't any other composers called Mr. Barrett here, are there? - or indeed anywhere else, for that matter... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 11:14:53, 13-07-2007 » |
|
After all, we composers aren't all rich and famous Wot!! I was led to believe you were all cloying, stifled, pampered and woolly. Not so? Who led you to belive that? And by "you" here, do you mean Richard only, or all the composers on here, or all composers anywhere? A lot of composers are neither rich nor famous, a few are famous (and most of those are probably abit richer than their non-famous counterparts), even fewer may be rich but not famous (and most of those may be so on account of private wealth rather than on wealth derived from their compositions) and the odd one here and there may have amassed sufficient wealth from compositions not to miss the odd half million quid or so hoovered out of a business account immediately... Elliott Carter has said that there's no money to be made at composition. He is, of course, far more widely performed nowadays than used to be the case and he now has a lot more pieces to be performed than he used to have, yet he still says this. In this context, he has also bemoaned those younger composers who he believes have sacrificed themselves in order to make more money at what they do and it is clear that there are some fields open to composers that are far more potentially lucrative than others, so one can easily see what he means. Some might argue (I am not one of them, incidentally) that it's easy for him to make throwaway remarks like this when he appears not to have had to worry overmuch about the source of funds to support day-to-day living as much as some of the rest of us do. That said, he did spend a good many years writing and quite a few more teaching (as many composers do), for which he would have been paid; I daresay his remark may have derived from a realisation that his professional fees for this kind of work vastly exceeded what he was making from writing music in those days. Composers do have three principal income sources - commissions, royalties for performances/broadcasts/recordings and (more recently) distribution of self-published material. Whereas commissions are usually somewhat more manageable than the other two in cashflow terms (in that they're commonly paid on a half-up-front, half-on-completion basis), distribution can be (and usually is) very much less dependable and most royalties nigh on impossible to secure at all, let alone in anything remotely approaching a timely manner. Yes, Elliott Carter is right; one doesn't go into composition for the money - unless, perhaps one's sole or principal aim at the outset is to succeed in the more commercial areas of the compositional market place. Anyway, since the thread topic is Zemlinsky's Lyrische Symphonie rather than his annual income from composition, let's get back to the topic following my brief digression (for which please forgive me if forgiveness is required). I wonder how anyone might think it compares to that other great Austrian late-Romantic symphony, the Herbstsymphonie of Joseph Marx? Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 11:28:37, 13-07-2007 » |
|
Elliott Carter has said that there's no money to be made at composition. I wonder if that comment is taken into account when negotiating a very moderate commission fee for his latest work?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 11:42:33, 13-07-2007 » |
|
Elliott Carter has said that there's no money to be made at composition. I wonder if that comment is taken into account when negotiating a very moderate commission fee for his latest work? I couldn't say, but since you referring only to his "latest work", what I would say is that I'm none too certain that too many people would take kindly to the possibility of having to attain a great age (even if not quite as great as Carter's is now) before standing much chance of getting decent commission fees. Furthermore, you surely don't suppose that, even nowadays, Carter sits down at his desk and thinks along the lines of "I could do with a few tens of thousands more bucks right now, so let's see who'll commission my next five-minute orchestral piece", do you?... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 11:51:03, 13-07-2007 » |
|
Furthermore, you surely don't suppose that, even nowadays, Carter sits down at his desk and thinks along the lines of "I could do with a few tens of thousands more bucks right now, so let's see who'll commission my next five-minute orchestral piece", do you?... That question should be asked of his publishers rather than him, perhaps But, I'm all with you, Carter is a selfless composer who sacrificed mere material gains in order to pursue the higher calling of music. And the privilege he had that enabled him to do so must have been granted from above. He surely belongs to the true 'aristocracy of the intellect', an equitable and aspirational form of social hierarchy which is of course totally necessary, especially when society has been sullied by such awful inconveniences as democracy and the like.... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 11:56:10, 13-07-2007 » |
|
I have been invited to start a new thread on this topic. For the contributions that gave rise to that invitation, see the thread on Zemlinsky's Lyrische Symphonie, where I already put in my two-pennarth, so does anyone have more thoughts on this?
Best,
Alistair
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 12:11:13, 13-07-2007 » |
|
Furthermore, you surely don't suppose that, even nowadays, Carter sits down at his desk and thinks along the lines of "I could do with a few tens of thousands more bucks right now, so let's see who'll commission my next five-minute orchestral piece", do you?... That question should be asked of his publishers rather than him, perhaps That question was actually rhetorical (as you must surely have noticed but chosen to overlook), so I don't really think that it actually needs to be put to anyone as such. But, I'm all with you, Carter is a selfless composer who sacrificed mere material gains in order to pursue the higher calling of music.
The subtext of your entire paragraph that begins thus is not especially hard to recognise, but I do think that it could reasonably be said - without recorse to the kind of motives that gave rise to said subtext - that, had Carter wanted to write in ways that might ensure that he'd have derived more money from his music, he could probably have done so but was clearly not inclined in such directions. I'm not falling for the "higher calling" terminology here, if for no other reasons than that (a) his wife was one of the more persistent of those who, in his earlier days, sought to persuade him to devote more time to composing his own music than to writing about others' work and (b) because he continued to teach until well into his 60s. And the privilege he had that enabled him to do so must have been granted from above.
"Above" where, precisely? And "granted" by whom"? And what particular "privilege" do you refer to here? Private wealth? If that meant so much to him or if he felt (assuming that he had enough of it) that it would enable him to do just what he liked without having to worry about earning a living, the question would perhaps be "why, therefore, did he teach"? He surely belongs to the true 'aristocracy of the intellect', an equitable and aspirational form of social hierarchy which is of course totally necessary, especially when society has been sullied by such awful inconveniences as democracy and the like.... This appears to require only the very simple response that it tells us all about how Ian Pace writes (when he feels so disposed) and less than nothing about Elliott Carter and the way he does; the only "awful inconvenience" here appears to be the one implicit in the possible need for you to answer my previous post, but let us not worry overmuch about that... Anyway, we're still way off Zemlinskyan limits here, so let's get back to him on this thread and, for the benefit or otherwise of anyone who may want to discuss composers' abilities or otherwise to earn money from composition, I've just now opened a new thread (as invited) in the Making Music section. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 12:16:48, 13-07-2007 » |
|
Alistair, in the midst of your valiant mission to save music from the marauding herds of socialists, feminists, modernists, postmodernists, and any other barbarians at the gate who might taint the whole concept of the 'purely musical' and the 'aristocratic principle' as taught in our venerable public schools, a little humour check might be in order...?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 12:26:15, 13-07-2007 » |
|
Well, for what it's worth, which at least moderately successful composers, past and present, have not been from at least moderately comfortable background, and as such have not had to worry too much about making money from their work (and from, say, being granted teaching positions on account of their profile as a successful composer)?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 13:12:54, 13-07-2007 » |
|
Alistair, in the midst of your valiant mission to save music from the marauding herds of socialists, feminists, modernists, postmodernists, and any other barbarians at the gate who might taint the whole concept of the 'purely musical' and the 'aristocratic principle' as taught in our venerable public schools, a little humour check might be in order...? Once again, go to the Making Music section, Ian; what do you need, a "get out of jail" card? Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 13:20:12, 13-07-2007 » |
|
Well, for what it's worth, which at least moderately successful composers, past and present, have not been from at least moderately comfortable background, and as such have not had to worry too much about making money from their work (and from, say, being granted teaching positions on account of their profile as a successful composer)?
I couldn't say with any certainty, really - and to do so would in any case presume some kind of universally agreed yardstick to judge what might constitute a "moderately comfortable background" which, since such a situation would inevitably mean different things to different people, would be impossible to establish. Obviously, the poorer the background, the harder it might be to achieve what one might want to as a composer, but I don't think that this is much different in other professions so I'd not be especially inclined to single out the composer's as a particular example of this. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 13:33:15, 13-07-2007 » |
|
Which composers ... have not been from at least moderately comfortable background and as such have not had to worry too much about making money from their work I would try to answer the question, Ian, but I'm not sure whether you're asking for the less or more financially comfortable ones? - the two halves of your statement seem to contradict each other ... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
autoharp
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 14:38:08, 13-07-2007 » |
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 14:43:30, 13-07-2007 by autoharp »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kittybriton
|
|
« Reply #14 on: 14:41:44, 13-07-2007 » |
|
My late father made most of his income (which was barely enough to support a family) by publishing his own work. I was surprised when I began working in the publishing industry to find that most authors (and, I suppose, composers) prefer a juicy advance, followed by royalties which usually amount to pennies.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Click me -> About meor me -> my handmade storeNo, I'm not a complete idiot. I'm only a halfwit. In fact I'm actually a catfish. |
|
|
|
