On 4 Feb 2005 at 16:43, Christopher Smith wrote: > On Feb 4, 2005, at 2:56 PM, dhbailey wrote: > > > > Ah, but was she a "major" composer? That teacher's statement begs > > the entire issue of what makes a composer a major composer -- is it > > the total output, is it the number of performances of a single > > masterpiece, is it the number of different organizations which have > > programmed that composer's works, is it the name recognition when a > > random person in the audience is questioned, is it the number of > > reprintings the person's music makes it through (if so, all the > > rental-only composers are doomed not to be major composers, aren't > > they)? > > > > I have no clue how to define "major composer" anymore -- so I > > attempt to steer clear of that title in discussing composers. Who > > was more major during their lifetimes, Salieri or Mozart? Who is > > more major now? > > > > Excellent point, and one which will get you yelled at a lot (not so > much discussing Vivaldi vs. Handel, but a whole lot discussing any > pre-1900 female composer!)
Fanny Mendelssohn's songs were silently published under her brother's name. He was a major composer, the songs are considered just as brilliant as his other songs. Does that make her a major composer? The concept of "major composer" is useless in a time period in which no female composer, however brilliant, would have been allowed to become a "major composer." There were female composers just as brilliant and gifted as the best male composers. But they were never given the opportunity to develop or distribute their music. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
