Those are some really good ideas of noldar and Errikos.  I tend to agree with goran most of all.  Actually this so-called "argument" is composed of many equally valid ideas.  

One thing I would add is that I have always noticed in vastly different artistic contexts how it is DESIRE on the part of the artist that creates the best work.  In other words, if you truly want to create something great, you have a chance no matter who you are.  Some people like Mozart will be able to do it more easily, others with more difficulty or fewer successes, but this never-to-be- extinguished desire to create something fundamentally meaningful is the one essential element.  You can learn or adapt techniques, and as goran pointed out, your studies can actually nurture your talent whatever it is. 

An artist I really like is Yves Tanguy,  and he is an example of someone who did not have the effortless talent of Picasso, but who nevertheless gradually found a style of his own and created some of the great masterworks of surreal painting because of his inspiration and desire.  When he saw from a bus a de Chirico painting in a store window, he jumped off it and ran to the window to peer at the painting.  That experience was one of the most formative in his artistic career. That sort of inspiration shows a great enthusiasm and love of the medium. 

Contrast that to a commercial supplier of "product" who basically doesn't give a shit about creating something meaningful.  There are so many taleneted commercial graphic artists who can effortlessly draw a perspective or paint a portrait, and yet they never do anything of lasting value.  Why?  The don't have the desire to do so.  It was killed at some point in their lives.  

William: really appreciate your comments about desire.  Ultimately, we will do what we desire to do, perhaps either on a "graphic artist" level or "artistic painter".  Yet, even a good graphic artist can serve a useful and valuable purpose.

Of course, what makes one a "good graphic artist" is open to wide ranging debate.

@William said:

Contrast that to a commercial supplier of "product" who basically doesn't give a *** about creating something meaningful.  There are so many taleneted commercial graphic artists who can effortlessly draw a perspective or paint a portrait, and yet they never do anything of lasting value.  Why?  The don't have the desire to do so.  It was killed at some point in their lives.  

 So you're saying that everybody drops art as soon as they need some money. 

@William said:

 So you're saying that everybody drops art as soon as they need some money. 

Well that's not really what I said. I said that almost anybody will tend to drop art if you put them in constant financial distress long enough and hard enough. That's quite different from claiming that they do it "as soon as they need some money".

Even for those who don't drop art to produce crap instead, the very prospect of going through financial misery involving sufficiently high pain factor can be enough to put them off from even considering realizing a similar project again. Berlioz wrote about planning a fourth major symphony (after Romeo et Juliette), and about how he completely abandoned the project simply because he had all reasons to believe the financial strains would ruin him, a road he already went down once with Le Damnation de Faust, and he had no intention at all of repeating (for understandable reasons).

A fourth major symphony by Berlioz. I don't even want to think about what was lost to us by this one case alone.

 I'm glad to encounter a fellow Berlioz enthusiast. 

However, what you are saying is still a great excuse for total collapse of artistic principles, since the worst hackwork can be justified by a variation on your statement.  I think one needs to uphold what may be only ideals, like van Gogh.  Of course he went partly mad and committed suicide.  But his unswerving dedication to pure creation without even a single thought of how to USE art for money making - something he showed as much as any artist in history - is an ideal to strive for.     Also, I can't help thinking of statements like this from Tarkovsky who was not only unswervingly, absolutely idealistic concerning art over money, but even over the worst totalitarian government in history.  He was talking about filmmaking but it applies equally to music:

"The man who has stolen in order never to thieve again remains a thief.  Nobody who has ever betrayed his principles can have a pure relationship with life.  Therefore when a film-maker says he will produce a pot-boiler in order to give himself the strength and means to make the film of his dreams - that is so much deception, or worse, self-deception. He will never now make HIS film."

In my 20s I was obsessed with artistic purity, against anything. I had a great time, met some interesting people, got a big record deal which I frittered away by upsetting everyone who had any power just for my own amusement.

Aged about 33, after a life of poverty, I decided for an experiment to see what would happen if I channeled my energy into making money from music instead seeking artistic nirvana.

Some important things happened:

1. I made money for the first time in my life, more than I ever expected to make (I had small ambitions, so I don't mean millions, I just mean I never expected to have the kind of money I have now; a real living, a nice house).

2. I did music which I found more interesting to make, which took a more open mind, which took more listening, learning and thinking than I ever did before.

3. I did music at a higher level of technical excellence.

4. When I did side projects for old times' sake, for the artistic fun of it, they were better on every level than the stuff I did when I thought I was a tortured artist, because I'd matured and developed while under commercial pressures.

So, in fact during my tortured artist years really I just had ambitions beyond my own ability. I got very closed minded about what I thought was good, I stopped listening to anyone except myself and I got stuck in a rut.  I also ended up depressed and lost my enthusiasm for music.  Ok, I also had some fun and I did make some important leaps of imagination, but I think I progressed further artistically when I stopped trying to be artistic and instead focused on money and the market. It made me work harder, I became happier, I listened more and developed an open mind.

So Tarkovsky's statement is fine for him and his life, but it's not my experience.

:)

to put it maybe more reasonably - I understand how you're saying be practical, etc.  But your reduction of Van Gogh and Tarkovsky to the cliche of "tortured artist" is wrong.  They are far more than that.   Yes, I too went through the adolescent naivete you are talking about.   But after awhile one starts to need some essential meaning instead of mere comfort.  I'll leave it at that.

@Another User said:

However, what you are saying is still a great excuse for total collapse of artistic principles, since the worst hackwork can be justified by a variation on your statement.  I think one needs to uphold what may be only ideals, like van Gogh.  Of course he went partly mad and committed suicide.  But his unswerving dedication to pure creation without even a single thought of how to USE art for money making - something he showed as much as any artist in history - is an ideal to strive for.     Also, I can't help thinking of statements like this from Tarkovsky who was not only unswervingly, absolutely idealistic concerning art over money, but even over the worst totalitarian government in history.  He was talking about filmmaking but it applies equally to music:

"The man who has stolen in order never to thieve again remains a thief.  Nobody who has ever betrayed his principles can have a pure relationship with life.  Therefore when a film-maker says he will produce a pot-boiler in order to give himself the strength and means to make the film of his dreams - that is so much deception, or worse, self-deception. He will never now make HIS film."

 I've had the same thought.  Another example is Hitchcock, who did one of the all time great films Vertigo, and yet was one of the most commercial of all directors. 

But Tarkovsky is somehow still right, because he is an example of uncompromising artistry that could not be conquered either by money or even the Soviet Union.   With only seven films he become known all over the world not for mere popularity, but for his artistic accomplishment and originality.  If you follow his example, you have no excuses.  But if you follow the dagmarpiano philosophy, or the guy who said "to hell with art and society" - what a philosophy! -  you have a beautiful excuse every day for total enslavement to money.  It's called selling your soul to the devil and people do it every hour. 

Tarkovsky was probably reacting to the hardships he faced getting the job done that he wanted to do. His extreme statements about art being above everything were probably a necessary defence he needed to stay true, to stay on course with everything pushing him off course.  The time I got the most like that, that purist attitude, was when I also had everything around me pushing me in different directions and I needed huge defences to stay on track.  Now, when I work on my 'pure' projects, I know what I want, I can do it and no one is stopping me. So I don't need lofty statements to propel me forth. I just need a set of word documents where I develop my theories, and then a lot of to do lists.

Being artistic doesn't have to be hard. Well, not unless you're struggling to raise millions of roubles from a corrupt totalitarian government for film projects that many people didn't understand. Yes, that would be hard so its no wonder it ate him up.

I'm just saying, his statements are probably more to do with his own difficulties than anything grand and universal.

It is also worth remembering Charles Ives.

Made his money in insurance, followed his unique vision in composing.

never mind - I'll sign off of this.

@dagmarpiano said:

Being artistic doesn't have to be hard. Well, not unless you're struggling to raise millions of roubles from a corrupt totalitarian government for film projects that many people didn't understand. Yes, that would be hard so its no wonder it ate him up.

As someone who was born and spent most of his life in Russia I have a question. What do you think is more corrupt and totalitarian: a "corrupt totalitarian state" or the "free" market we all "enjoy"? Oh, and which do you think is easier to escape? [:)]

No worries. I didn't even think you were dismissive or anything and it wasn't Russia my argument was about.

I just didn't agree with your idea that if Tarkovsky's existence hadn't been poisoned by the regime he would have lived a long and happy life, gracing us with his works.

I'll give you an example. I am an English teacher working in an international company which is known all over the world. As a business, its primary goal is to keep afloat on the market and make revenue. In order to achieve this goal one needs to make certain steps which are not the same as the ones needed if your goal is to teach someone English. The two can coincide occasionally, but it's rather an exception than a rule.

If Tarkovsky had to go commercial for even just a second, it would be the end of him as we know him, I believe. This is not to drop a shaddow on you or reduce what you do, it's about Tarkovsky. That's all.

@The Minstrel said:

Wow. I hadn't quited realized that composing film music in the style of Hans Zimmer where morally comparable to working as an assassin or exploiting third world countries, and that the current musical trends would lead to the utter annihilation of our civilization. This thread has been a real wake-up call.

There could potentially be a great composer inside The Minstrel; he summarized everything in two lines! What he says with irony though, I say with conviction, with one modification: I don't believe a professional assassin poses such a threat to our civilization, save for him getting a contract to "off" the next Mozart. If I could "press a button", I'd rather he continued his pitiful profession than all the Zimmerites put together (not Zimmer).

@Goran Now, as far as the more elevated discussion regarding talent is concerned, I brought up the example of the 16 year-olds, not to say that they represent the pinnacle of the art of musical composition, and I agree that the 30 year-old Mozart and Chopin are better than their 16 year-old counterparts (I'm not sure about Mendelssohn if I stretch that to 18 years of age). I also agree that those teenagers were "better" than the 30 year-old Beethoven, however he overtook them a couple of years later. I thought all this went without saying... I made that example to demonstrate that when the 'Gift' has hit early, it has resulted in some unbelievable musical works that rank with the very best any century has to offer, before those kids had enough time to "work hard", to "cultivate musical sensibilities" (to the same extent a 30 year-old has had), or to amass enough experience which potentially can result in the writing of a masterpiece. 

Be that as it may, - and if I may expand the age limit of those youngsters to 17-8, then I'd give up Les Troyens, the complete catalogue of Bruckner and Taneev (and certainly the minor Draeseke and his Tragic - for me he sits somewhere between Gliere and Schmidt) with tears of joy, if I could have Chopin's op.10 for my own. And if I can stretch the youths' ages up to say 23-5, then some of Mozart's, Chopin's, Prokofiev's, Mendelssohn's, Schubert's, Rossini's, Strauss', and Scriabin's offerings up to that point - and forgetting for the moment the eras before and after them - eclipse most other music excepting their own of a later date, and that of the great masters. I am saying this not to initiate a draw of comparisons, but to emphasize that if great composition was the result of talent combined with hard work and the "cultivation of musical sensibilities" on an equal basis, those early works would not have been as brilliant, as perfect as they were. Also, I never said that the gift is something that has to appear early in life or never at all (if Janacek had died before he turned 60 we probably would not know of him today). I also never said that talent alone can create great art. It does require the will, the application and discipline, the "cultivation of musical sensibilities", and the element of luck, in order for it to be allowed to shine through, to be expressed.

However, I am saying that the genetic 'Gift' is by far the most important element, along with something to which I neglected to refer last time, and which is the 'Innate Musical Personality'. These two make the difference between what is accomplished/good/well-crafted music, and what is Great music. Those qualities by far outweigh 'hard work' and the rest, without replacing them (I can't be any clearer than this). So I disagree that the incalculable difference of quality and substance in Ravel's work compared to his classmates can be attributed to them "not possessing the same amount of self-criticism, cultivated the same musical sensibilities, or worked on those as well on his technical proficiency with the same rigour and consistency". The first goes straight out the window when we consider the example of Mussorgsky vs. Balakirev and Rimsky, the second follows when we remember that back then there were no CDs or the Internet, everybody went to each other's house and the same concerts, studied the same scores with the same teachers, and constantly compared notes and showed one another their works, so everybody was aware of everyone else and what they were doing at all times. Finally the third follows the same route when we compare hard working French composers of the time with the almost hobbyist (but gifted...) Poulenc, Italian rigorous and consistent composers with the lazy Rossini, or their Russian, also non-existent, counterparts with the self-proclaimed "inert" Scriabin. And there are numerous other examples... Whatever little differences between Ravel and his classmates in terms of musical experience or work ethic are not enough to account for the vast artistic disparities between their work and the master's.

Also, how many decades of instruction in harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration does one require before he can write Barber's Adagio? It looks like an empty manuscript where a 10 year-old drew some semi-breves and minims here and there. But what music!...I'll also take that any day over Tallis' Spem in Alium (be that the great work that it is).

Now I consider some things self evident, but just in case: I'm not saying that hard work etc. won't improve everybody's skills, or won't allow whatever gift anyone possesses to shine to its potential. With the exception of one's gift and innate musical personality - and you will note I'm saying innate, not merely musical personality which is heavily influenced by period, geography etc. I mean that almost ineffable musical signature that identifies the composer in a piece we hear for the first time (the greater the innate personality the faster this happens) - everything else one can endeavour to acquire and improve to the best of his ability during the course of his life. However, you can't buy those two qualities; you either possess them or you don't (you are a composer or you are not). And all composers possess them to different degrees. I don't talk much about luck and circumstance for two reasons: a) Luck is something outside ourselves and what we control (I'm referring to war, accidents, bad health, etc.), and b) Circumstance is something on which we can have some control (access to money, making the right connections/decisions), but it is something that also lies outside of strictly musical discipline, even if I agree that it can in reality prove to be a more determining factor in terms of survival.

Also, it is a convention for me to say for example "I admire Bruckner because of his 5th and 9th". That doesn't mean I admire Bruckner the man (please...) It is to the work that I am referring. In that respect, I don't care whether he slaved for a decade over a measure, or he wrote both symphonies while reading the morning paper in the toilet in two sessions. I don't care whether he worked hard or not because I'm not admiring him. I am admiring the work for its qualities, per se; not the discipline that went before it (that's a different kind of admiration which I also extend).

As far as the plague being as rare as a masterpiece, don't forget that the former wasn't always rare, the latter always has been, but just in case you're thinking of introducing deformities or other repellant curiosities and ideas, I hereby qualify what I meant, by saying that talent is also admired because of its rarity; if everyone possessed it, it wouldn't be worth bothering with. I could have turned around and say I don't sit there and admire the 'hard work' of a specialist fixing a sewer, but I knew what you meant...

@everybody Insofar as money and art are concerned, let's not forget that before Romanticism - whether it hit with Beethoven, before, or after in music - composers were hardly preoccupied with posterity and the masterpiece for a number of reasons: They were contracted employees for the most part, required to produce a lot of music on frequent demand. No matter how gifted one is, one can't produce landmarks on every page or opus (no one has!) when there's no time for reflection, contemplation, revision. And why should there be? Works were rarely if at all performed a second time (except opera), there were no recordings, and most of all, no mentality that the composer is a higher form of being, bringing us universal insight and Truth; that came later. It was professional pride into one's work and healthy competition that allowed the gifted composers to stand out and above the rest.

Coming to today, not everyone has inherited money or is otherwise employed, allowing him to take their time over every semiquaver, or uncompromisingly reject any musical requirement by a commissioner or a director; not everyone is prepared to live in conditions comparable to former Soviet squalor, particularly if those conditions are not shared by most everyone else in his community. If that weren't enough, all the members of the musical pantheon (with very few exceptions) proved that one can compose intentionally mediocre works on demand (for specific amateur musicians for one example), and the greatest works of music ever offered humanity at the same time. So if you can live from composition when people accept your mediocre music while you're also concentrating in doing your best as often as you can, I have no problem. It is not up to me or anyone else to say "how much is enough". Personally, if I could get paid €2,000,000 per contract I'd take it.

So the question for me is not "how much is the money"; it's "how important is the money" and "what do I have to do/write to get it"... For example, I would not consciously compromise the art and the standards by becoming the conduit through which mutants that never belonged in the industry are finally allowed access, effectively debunking it...

 dagmarpiano

No I don't think your stuff is hackwork, it sounded good.  Obviously going off on tangents here...  (sorry I signed back on  )

 That is a great post by Errikos.  Holy crap!  He should be teaching class! 

One example of somebody who never went to school was Erich Korngold - he didn't need to.  He wrote the Sinfonietta when he was 16!  Has anybody here heard that ?   Listen to it.  It is Mozart-level genius, and absolutely unfathomable how a callow teenager could write that.  It shows what Errikos is talking about in an extreme degree.  He just had it in him.  No need for hard work. 

That corresponds in an extreme way to something I've always thought - if you can write a good melody, you can do anything in music.  If you can't, everything you do will be forgotten, guaranteed. 

(Naturally I'm a bit concerned about whether or not my melodies are good...)