mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
My local public radio station KUSC ran a feature not too long ago naming the 10 composers who banked the most money over the course of their careers. Adjusted for inflation then, here are the 10 biggest money makers:
1. George Gershwin
2. Johann Strauss II
3. Giuseppe Verdi
4. Gioachino Rossini
5. George Frideric Handel
6. Joseph Haydn
7. Sergei Rachmaninoff
8. Giacomo Puccini
9. Niccolò Paganini
10. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
I was surprised that Philip Glass didn’t make the list, considering the many, many films that have been underscored with his music. Also, I believe he holds the record for receiving the largest commission of all time from the Metropolitan Opera for his Christopher Columbus opera ($325,000).
It’s also interesting that Gershwin is considered a “classical composer” but someone like John Williams isn’t (otherwise for sure he’d be on the list). Both Gershwin and Williams were/are composers, conductors and pianists. Both wrote numerous concerti and symphonies. Both wrote musicals (do you know Williams’ Thomas and the King?) and, of course, both wrote for the movies. For whatever reason, and this clearly has me in a quandary, Williams has never been taken seriously by the classical establishment. He’s always and only been a “pops” composer.
I’m not saying Williams is more talented than Gershwin, but if film is our generation’s opera, isn’t Williams our generation’s Verdi? True, Spielberg is the star, not Williams, the way Verdi was the star, not a librettist like Francesco Maria Piave, but I think you see my point. Many of the composers on the list made their money in opera because it really was as popular in its heyday as our movies are today. And royalty payments add up when you’ve got your show running in numerous cities every night.
Who else thinks John Williams should be acknowledged? Who doesn’t? Why? Why not? The floor is open.
I agree with you 100%. I don’t understand how people like Hans Zimmer, Danny Elfman, Nino Rota and John Williams isn’t considered “real” classical music.
Three things: first, I completely agree with the opera-film resonance you point out; second, if you think about it, film is the only place most of the public hears new music that could be considered ‘classical;’ third, aren’t there people who do not accept modern classical composers like John Cage as ‘classical?’ It’s all just labels by people who have their own personal set of biases.
posted by g c on 6-5-2008 at 7:33 am
The only reason I can think for the Williams oversight: do they determine what kind of composer you are by the time period or by the style?
Generally, I think of classical composers as those who composed during the classical period, same with baroque and romantic. While Williams might compose in the classical style, if they’re grouping by time period he would not technically be a classical composer.
Just a thought.
posted by Ira on 6-5-2008 at 8:04 am
I’m in complete agreement with you. I listen to film scores while I’m at work most days, and it’s amazing how Williams’ pieces stand out from the rest. They’re truly some of the most beautiful and elegant works and deserve to be included.
It’s funny that this was posted today because yesterday I found out Williams will be performing with the Pops here in MA next month. It was a very exciting day for me!
posted by Kristin on 6-5-2008 at 8:12 am
I recently attended a symphony concert of Gershwin’s Concerto in F and Rhapsody in Blue, and the conductor made a comment that Gershwin is considered by many to be a “Pops” composer as well. I think the distinction between the two may have something to do with time, since Gershwin is only (relatively) recently starting to be truly recognized. Maybe in time John Williams’ work will be recognized, and he’ll break through as well.
posted by Cameron on 6-5-2008 at 8:12 am
Williams got a bad rap from the get-go when he signed on to score “Daddy-O”.
posted by Scotty A on 6-5-2008 at 8:37 am
This is a very interesting subject to me as I’m a grad student in Music. It is true that Gershwin is thought of as both ‘concert’ and ‘pop’ music- that depends on the type of musician you might ask. I know of composers (academic) who disdain folks like Gershwin, Williams, Glass, Ewazen and others for writing in a non-original style (read: atonal). I am not one of these ilk. Williams is one of the best film composers ever. His style is unique and his orchestrations are tasteful. Performers take William’s music much more seriously. I’ve played his music (the real things, not arrangements) and it is extremely difficult, musical- in short, everything that would lend a credible comparison to Verdi and the like. Gershwin as well has this ability to appeal to the beautiful as well as retain respectability in the ‘concert’ genre. It might be a good idea (per Ira) to reconfigure the term recognition of “classical” music to ‘Concert’ music- as it is true that the “classical” music truly only comes from a time period.
My surprise on this list lies not in who is on, but also, who is off. I am THOROUGHLY surprised that igor Stravinsky did NOT make the list- even his Monogram was designed to look like money. Also, a surprise Jean-Baptiste Lully. Baroque composer. First guy to coordinate bowings across the orchestra, and to copryright his work for the publishing rights- getting paid to do so.
Where did you get this list?
posted by Ashley on 6-5-2008 at 8:43 am
John Williams is considered by many to rip-off previous composers’ work too much to be taken seriously.
posted by LP on 6-5-2008 at 9:42 am
As LP stated, the reason (or at least the one I’ve heard most often) Williams is not considered “classical” is that it often takes pieces of other composers’ works and re-uses them. Yes, he does compose some completely original pieces. Yes, they are difficult (as a fellow musician, I deeply respect just how hard they can be). However, the notion that “riffs” from Holst’s Planets, Tchaikovsky’s Romeo and Juliet and others have appeared disturbingly intact in many of his compositions is what makes some people cringe at the thought of including him among other “classical” composers.
Personally, I like his work. But I also understand why there’s a distinction.
posted by Bekah on 6-5-2008 at 10:31 am
Most of the movies scores we remember best are thanks to John Williams. He deserves to be in a category all his own.
posted by hannah on 6-5-2008 at 10:43 am
Interesting ideas guys!
Ashley: The data was collected by a radio station in the U.K. in 2005. I doubt much has changed since then.
As for Williams using other composers’ music, how about Stravinsky? Why is he allowed to get away with it?
Again, I am by no means saying that Williams is more talented a composer than Stravinsky, but the latter openly stole from many composers (Mozart and Bach and Tchaikovsky, and, and , and) and openly used folk songs (verbatim) in his works.
On the Gershwin/Williams debate: again, the latter went to Juilliard - a “classical music” institution, while the former did not.
Also: KUSC, the station in L.A. that broadcasted this list (over a period of days!) plays Williams all the time. THEY consider him a classical composer.
posted by David K. Israel on 6-5-2008 at 10:48 am
To me, William’s music is just rehashed Wagner.
posted by Miguel on 6-5-2008 at 10:56 am
Williams is a hack composer, whose creative control over his work is limited to sketching out a few themes and leaving the rest up to his staff.
With the exception of Schindler’s List and Minority Report — and nothing else — his scores are hardly unique when compared to each other, or when compared to their source material.
Stravinsky was a pop composer himself — as were any composers during their heyday — but he’s saved by having actually lived in the Romantic/20th Century era of music.
Williams’ accomplishments outside the cinema have been very, very few, as have Elfman’s — and Hermann’s, and all the rest. He can’t rightly be considered anything but a pop composer when the bulk of his work hasn’t started out in the concert hall.
Unlike Stravinsky, I might add.
posted by Benjamin Baxter on 6-5-2008 at 11:02 am
when one lines up john williams’ compositions next to each other, they all sound extremely similar. one cannot say that for the other composers on the top 10 list. so, in my mind, he doesn’t count, although the point about movies being this generation’s operas is a good one.
don’t get me wrong–I think williams is nice ‘beginner’ music–a gateway for a lot of people to get more excited/invested in other classical music. but really–nothing more for me. and there are many, many other more legitimate classical composers (gershwin and bernstein immediately come to mind) who are just as good for ‘beginners,’ but much more diverse in their repertoire.
posted by shyestviolet on 6-5-2008 at 11:33 am
I agree with the concept of film being today’s opera, however that doesn’t mean at all that someone like John Williams can be equated to Verdi or other operatic composers. It’s true that a good film score can highten the dramatic effects (what would Jaws be without the score?), but an opera is nothing without the score.
It’s possible that time will give Williams more recognition, even with the borrowing from other people (which has been done a lot throughout history).
posted by Julia on 6-5-2008 at 12:22 pm
First, I am fascinated by all of the comments on this topic. I am encouraged to find other people who spend time thinking on these topics.
Second, I suspect that the people making the list merely overlooked Williams, Glass, Elfman, etc. When people are thinking of classical music, they tend to think that it is something that is no longer being created. People tend to use the word “classical” to denote any high art music created by dead white people of European descent. Thus, modern composers are generally left out of most thought processes.
Strictly speaking, “classical” music refers to music created during the Classical Period of music (roughly 1750 - 1825). Again, strictly speaking, Haydn is the only one of the above ten composers who is a true “classical” composer.
3) If people are going to get irritated at Williams for copying others’ works, then they are going to have to also get irritated at just about any composer in history, as nearly all used others themes in their own works (see: just about any work that is called “Theme and Variations on a melody by …”).
posted by Bryan White on 6-5-2008 at 2:26 pm
Hi, David -
Not relevant to this blog, but I went on your homepage and was amused by the little snippet you posted on there of your father and you.
My own father used to do the exact same thing w/ my brother and I, and you and I are fairly close in age (although I am about 2 yrs younger)… must’ve been the thing to do!
posted by Amy on 6-5-2008 at 10:54 pm
I would guess that most of the money that Gershwin banked over the course of his musical career was from Broadway shows and popular songs. If you include him in this list of musical money makers, then you should include Richard Rodgers, Stephen Sondheim, Paul McCartney, Paul Simon, Billy Joel, etc.
posted by Harold on 6-5-2008 at 11:18 pm
And, of course, do not forget to include Andrew Lloyd Webber.
posted by Harold on 6-5-2008 at 11:25 pm
Harold raises an interesting point…Gershwin’s inclusion is a little hypocritical as his money did not come from his classical compositions (save American in Paris and Rhapsody in Blue) but from his wealth of pop songs.
As for John Williams…I’m proud to be ignorant enough to feel the incomparable thrill of hearing a John Willams piece. I mean, I’m far more a movie buff than a classical composer buff, but…hey, if Williams samples other folks melodies, he’s got great taste. I think it’s a little shallow to call his music “beginner”…even the most seasoned musician might still sit up in his seat upon hearing the first blasts of the trumpet section in “Star Wars: Main Title” and feel a swell of emotion when the rest of the orchestra joins them.
Besides that, this isn’t a list of the best classical composers, just the most financially sucessful…I’d say Williams is as classical as Gershwin, certainly.
posted by gokarm on 6-6-2008 at 10:30 am
Here are some random thoughts on this issue…
The converse is also true; how much of he music we currently consider “classical” was actually “popular” in its day?
Granted the mechanism of popular music distribution were not available to Haydn. But his music was published (and pirated) all over Europe. When he went on “tour” to Paris and London he was ecstatically received.
In music, the term classical has many meanings, but broadly speaking it is either,
A. Music composed between 1750 and 1825ish. or..
B. Not pop. Or more specifically, music that is preserved through the medium of musical notation.
The danger of this kind of discourse is that it tends to confuse quality with intent. “Classical” does not mean “good”, it is a style capable of being outstandingly good (much but no all of Mozart), or downright awful (Galuppi Sinfonia in D anyone?).
Time tends to sift the Galuppis of this world to the bottom and brings the best bits of Mozart to the top. This is an ongoing process, therefore we will know if Williams is classical in about 80 or 90 years.
It can be argued that Williams is not classical for the same reason The Beatles or Miles Davis or Duke Ellington are not classical: all of this music is primarily preserved in recorded form. The definitive rendition exist in recorded format, rather than in an idealized abstract form - the score. The great strength of classical music is that is music designed to be recreated, the perfect rendition does not, and will never, exist. This is not true Williams”, The beatles or Duke Ellington.
posted by Luke on 6-16-2008 at 5:47 pm
This is an interesting issue…here are my thoughts:
John Williams writes beautiful music, no doubt about it. However, when his music is compared to the academic structure of pieces by composers like Machaut, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Debussy and Shostakovich, his music doesn’t come close to being as great.
I agree that his music is and can be extremely difficult…but that doesn’t mean it’s well written music. There are pieces of music that Mozart wrote that are WAY easier to perform than the Imperial March, but are WAY more intellectually composed.
Having said that, I think John Williams does a great job with his movie scores. The themes are beautiful and memorable, and there’s something to be said for that. But he hasn’t done anything innovative enough to be remembered for more than writing music to accompany a movie.
The only thing remotely intellectually interesting that I can remember Williams doing is overlaying Short Rounds theme over the Raiders March in the end credits of the Temple of Doom. However, that’s nothing new to the music world. If you could provide any other examples in his music I;d be very interested in seeing that.
posted by Johnny John on 9-3-2008 at 12:32 pm