MovieChat Forums > Classical Music > Composers compared to film directors

Composers compared to film directors


1. Bach = Hitchcock
Both had a workmanlike approach to their craft, and excelled at one style in particular (fugue, suspense). Hugely influential to those who came after them.

2. Beethoven = Kubrick
Made some obtrusive works for their time. Slightly less prolific than fellow artists but took great care in making each work and taking on large themes.

3. Haydn = Spielberg
Father of the symphony, father of the blockbuster. Both well respected and prolific.

4. Mozart = Coen brothers
This one may turn a few heads. Very, very skilled in the execution of their respective crafts. Works are embedded with an idiosyncratic sense of humor. Consistent output that is always original.

5. Brahms = Paul Thomas Anderson
Newer generation artist highly influenced by older styles and masters. Excels in the technical aspect, but works are sometimes criticized as being too intellectual or empty.

reply

Good idea for a thread.

Mozart = Coen brothers
Excellent.

3. Haydn = Spielberg
Never. Haydn = Capra maybe. Spielberg = Puccini

5. Brahms = Paul Thomas Anderson
I'd say Woody Allen is a closer match - Brahms and Allen are stuffy and proud of it, Anderson wants to be cool - though this is all just with respect to intent - as far as outcome, Brahms is one of the greatest composers ever, Allen is a minor artist, and Anderson sucks.


-----

reply

1. Beethoven = Kurosawa
Sidney Lumet called this one. Both artists were hugely influential in their respective forms on future generations in motivating a shift from Classicism to a more personal and dynamic approach. They both also shared a high-minded social consciousness which they sometimes stumbled over - but which also lead to some of their greatest work. Both had a very robust style in their primes, but then shifted to more contemplative and philosophical styles in their last works.

2. Haydn = Hitchcock
Both were consummate craftsmen who put out large quantities of work with little variation, but with a seemingly endless ability to rework that material in interesting ways. Much of the language of Classic Cinema was derived from Hitchcock, who in turn was carrying on the traditions of the German Silent Cinema, just as the language of Classicism was derived from Haydn, who in turn was carrying forth from the ground laid by Bach. Both lived long enough to see themselves become old fashioned, and both slowly declined after reaching a relatively late peak. Both became beloved public figures - as "Papa Haydn and as "Hitch", the host of Hitchcock Presents.

3. Mozart = Renoir
Both prolific and with frothy styles masking hidden depths.

4. Wagner = De Mille
Big, big, big. They both helped define the words "epic" and "gargantuan" for generations.

5. Berlioz = Welles
Both were stupefyingly innovative and talented, creating their most famous single work in their 20's, but then struggling for acceptance and understanding from an indifferent public after that. Both were brilliant Renaissance men with many talents. Both had tempestuous personal lives and tended towards self-destruction.

6. Copland = Ford
Both epitomized and codified in art the mythical American West, although they were politically and culturally night and day, and Copland only wore that mantle temporarily before casting it off for a more intellectual and "international" persona, while Ford did not.

7. Bernstein = Lucas
Both started out as wunderkinds, having a few huge early successes, but then squandering much of that potential after focusing on other pursuits - Lucas as a producer and businessman and Lenny as a conductor and lecturer. Their later creative efforts suffered due to this divided focus. Later attempts to tweak and improve their early successes (Lucas' "special editions" of Star Wars and Bernstein's "opera house" versions of Candide and West Side Story) were not accepted by the public. Needless to say, Bernstein was a much greater conductor Lucas than was a producer. What would the musical equivalent of Howard the Duck be anyway?

8. Webern = Kubrick
Both very cold, analytical and meticulously craftsmen with very small bodies of work, although Webern lacked Kubrick's showmanship and grandiosity.

9. Willams = Spielberg
This one's a no-brainer. Sunny and mostly optimistic poster children of Americana.

reply

Webern isn't cold, he's just played that way.

In Webern, Boulez is cool and detached. Chaste, you might say. His performances are supple and beautiful, which is terrific to hear, after so many others that are ugly and rough.

But there’s an element of the music I think he doesn’t get. In the Webern biography by Hans and Rosaleen Moldenhaur, you can read reminscences of a pianist, whom Webern coached when he played Webern’s Piano Variations, Op. 27.

Webern, in his coaching, wasn’t restrained or chaste. He aang and danced. He wanted dynamic and tempo changes to be big, and wanted some that aren’t marked in his score.

Quite the opposite of a Boulez Webern performance. And there’s musical documentation of how far Boulez seems to be from what Webern intended.

Webern made orchestral arrangements of some Schubert dances, originally written for piano. And there’s a recording of him conducting them. It’s included on the first Boulez recording of Webern’s commplete works, and it’s a remarkable performance, almost unique in how flexible it is, with so many tiny changes of dynamics and tempo.

On Boulez’s second complete Webern recording, he conducts these dances. And he’s worlds apart from Webern. Heavier, less flexible. He dances much less. I’m not saying that’s wrong or bad. But if you want to know how Webern thought music — surely including his own! — should go, his recording of the Schubert dances will show you.

http://www.artsjournal.com/sandow/2016/01/memories-of-boulez.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6avxpj2LSg


-----

reply

Reminds me of Stravinsky's critique of Karajan's suave and cultivated 1964 recording of his Rite of Spring, which he hated: "Karajan is not out of his depth so much as in my shallows”.

reply

Never heard that before. Oh that's BEAUTIFUL!


-----

reply

I'd like to hear that recording, but they only have jumbled fragments of it on YouTube. Karajan's 1977 recording, which is apparently quite different, is up in its entirety.

reply

Eh, I'm 31, statistically probably have 50-60 years left to live, probably too short to justify listening to Karajan conduct Stravinsky.


-----

reply

His approach is more appropriate for Stravinsky's neoclassical works but ill-suited for the savagery of the Rite. I just listened to Karajan's 1977 version and didn't like it, so if the 1964 version is worse I won't bother seeking it out.

Karajan's reading of the Concerto In D For String Orchestra is not bad.

Concerto In D For String Orchestra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWw8YKXsfxw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEKMMnBfiRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmUGDHGWa1k

reply