For today's blog, I decided to research the topic of compositional "flops," a term I define below.
Stephen Sondheim is, by any measure, one of the all-time great composers and lyricists of musical theatre, and yet Anyone Can Whistle (1964) closed after only 9 performances, and Merrily We Roll Along (1981), had only 16-performances.
Have you heard of Galt MacDermott? He was Canadian (1928-2018), and the composer of the wildly-successful, period-defining musical, Hair (1967), which produced three number-one singles in 1969: "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In," "Good Morning Starshine," and the title song "Hair." Another successful Broadway production of his was Two Gentlemen of Verona (1971), which won the Tony award for best musical that year. He also did the music for Via Galactica (1973), which closed after seven performances.
The history of musical theatre includes many flops by otherwise successful composers, a sampling of which include the following:
- Rodgers and Hammerstein — creators of many of the most successful Broadway musicals, such as Oklahoma!, Carousel, The Sound of Music, The King and I, and South Pacific — created Pipe Dream (1955), described as "a flop and a financial disaster" by Wikipedia, and others. It closed after 246 performances — which may seem like a pretty good run, except it was "the shortest run of any Rodgers and Hammerstein musical and their only show to lose money and not go on tour."
- Breakfast at Tiffany's (1966), by Bob Merrill and Edward Albee (both extremely successful), closed after only four previews, despite a cast that included Mary Tyler Moore (The Dick Van Dyke Show, The Mary Tyler Moore Show), Richard Chamberlain (Dr. Kildare, Shōgun, The Music Lovers (he played Tchaikovsky), King Solomon's Mines, The Bourne Identity), and Sally Kellerman (M*A*S*H, The Player).
- The Rocky Horror Show (1975) closed after only 45 performances on Broadway (although it did well in London and other venues). The film adaptation (The Rocky Horror Picture Show) did poorly when it opened, but went on to become a cult classic.
Beethoven is possibly the best-known classical composer that ever lived; surely he must not have written any flops! And yet, he worked on his Violin Concerto in C when he was a young man, and either never finished it, or did finish it, but it was never performed.
This brings up an important point: What exactly is a flop? If a composer fails to finish a work, does that make it a flop?
I think of a flop as a completed work that was received badly by the public and/or critics, and, as a consequence, did not fare well, at least initially.Let us set aside the Violin Concerto in C, and consider Beethoven's Violin Concerto in D, which he did finish. Unfortunately, it got off to a bad start; according to Wikipedia, "the premiere was not a success, and the concerto was little performed in the following decades." Beethoven died thinking his Violin Concerto had been unsuccessful. It was revived seventeen years after his death in a performance by a 12-year old violinist, conducted by Felix Mendelssohn, and went on to become a staple of the classical music repertoire.
Fidelio (1805), Beethoven's only opera, was also the largest work he had composed at the time. It suffered several delays during composition, one of which arose from objections raised by the Austrian censor, and finally premiered in November 1805 to houses that were nearly empty because of the French occupation of the city. Wikipedia tells us that, "in addition to being a financial failure, this version of Fidelio was also a critical failure, and Beethoven began revising it." The next revision (1806) was also unsuccessful, but the last one, in 1814, was finally well received.
The Paris version of Wagner's Tannhäuser (1861; original Dresden version completed in 1845) was an expensive flop, closing after three performances, this after 164 rehearsals. The performances were belligerently disrupted by members of a claque called The Jockey Club, which had unsuccessfully tried to extort Wagner into paying them off to prevent these disruptions. They were also displeased that it had a ballet in the first act, because they held the strong conviction that ballets in operas should only be in the second act, which allowed them to arrive late for shows and still catch the ballet, for them the highlight of any opera.
There are many more examples of compositions that did not fare well, at least initially, by highly-regarded composers, but there are also countless examples of people working in other fields who experienced failure in their lives, and yet managed to overcome it.
- Vincent Van Gogh created 860 paintings, but only one was sold during his lifetime.
- Emily Dickinson published fewer than a dozen of her 1,800 poems during her lifetime.
- Dr. Seuss’ first children’s book, And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, was refused by "at least 20" publishers.
- Vera Wang competed at the 1968 U.S. Figure Skating Championships, but failed to make the US Olympic team; she then switched careers and entered the fashion industry.
- Steve Jobs was the cofounder, chairman, and CEO of Apple Inc. He was dismissed by Apple in 1985 following an unsuccessful power struggle with its board of directors; you can probably imagine how gutted he felt by this experience. He then went on to found a new computer company, NeXT, which made better computers than those being produced by Apple. NeXT was moderately successful, but caught the attention of Apple, and in 1996 Apple bought the NeXTSTEP platform and used it as the basis of its highly-successful OS X. This led to Jobs coming back to Apple as an advisor, and in 1998 he was once again given control of the company, bringing Apple back from near-bankruptcy to become the world's most valuable publicly-traded company in 2011.
- And that is not all; after being fired by Apple, Jobs acquired Pixar for $10 million in 1986 and became its CEO. Pixar went on to produce some of the most commercially and critically successful animated films ever made, such as Toy Story, Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars, and Wall-E. In 2006 Jobs sold Pixar to Disney for $7.6 billion.
The point of all these stories is that almost everyone experiences failure on some level at various points in their lives, including highly-successful people. Setbacks are a normal part of life, and especially of the creative process; try to learn from them, and push past them, but never let them define you.
Posts
50 comments:
This raises so many good points! Success is so subjective. It depends on what a person considers success to be - many people put value of different aspects of life, and someone who sees themselves as successful due to their financial earnings may not be seen as successful by someone who highly values their emotional wellbeing. Just because someone doesn't make six figures or live in a large house doesn't mean they're not successful. We tend to make broad assumptions when someone does a project, writes a piece, or creates art that isn't well-received that they are a failure based on the negative reaction to that art. Just because someone writes one piece that isn't an instant hit doesn't mean that it was a waste of time, or that it's invaluable. As a musician I can testify that every hour practiced is valuable, even the ones when I feel like I'm just not getting something or not making improvements. I think composers get a lot of flak for pieces that don't immediately pick up, but those pieces help people realize what's working in their music and what to incorporate into later pieces. Every piece written is a step towards developing one's personal musical and compositional style, regardless of what critics say of the end product.
This is a great post Dr. Ross! Like Sarah said, I also believe that just because a composition, piece of artwork, film or any other form of creative art is not well received initially, it does not mean that we should immediately label it as a failure and disregard its good qualities. While reading your post, I was reminded of another work, which I'm playing this year, that wasn't initially well received at its premiere: Saint-Saens' Second Piano Concerto. It was a last-minute composition written over a period of only two weeks for composer Anton Rubenstein's conducting debut in Paris. Saint-Saens himself was the soloist at the premiere and had little time to learn the solo part or rehearse with the orchestra. Consequently, the performance was not well received initially. However, it quickly gained notoriety and after a few more performances it was championed by many leading concert pianists, including Franz Liszt (who proclaimed it as a highly unique masterpiece). It is frequently performed today and critically lauded, despite the fact that at the time critics in Paris dismissed the piece as strange and unusual while it successful elsewhere. This also raises another important point, in my opinion. Different audiences will judge the same work in highly contrasting way due to many factors including age, gender, cultural background, personal experiences, etc. Everyone has opinions, and just because person dislikes a work, it does not mean that everyone will share that opinion. As composers, we can try to learn and grow by listening to others opinions, but we cannot take their opinions personally or to heart, especially negative ones.
Success is relative. For today's composers that make hundreds of thousands of dollars, such as movie composers Hans Zimmer, and Henry Jackson, $500 is probably just a drop in the bucket for them, but for me, if I made $500 for something I wrote, I would literally just freak out and be extremely happy. And I'd say before they got to that point, they had a few "flops" along the way, and I say they are just learning experiences. For where you have bad judgement, you have a lesson well learned. And another point on writing a "flop" is tat maybe it was just written in the wrong time, people could hate your music at the time when you write it, but may learn to love it in the years to come. This is the same as a lot of artists I find, you mentioned Van Gogh in this aspect. I feel that if you write a "flop", just take it with a grain of salt and learn from it instead of thinking you are a bad composer.
To my understanding if you want to find success in any avenue of life you must pursue it incessantly. It is incredibly rare for anyone to be able to produce masterful works of art by simply sitting down and attempting to do so. Flops are an incredibly important part of ones creative development, if you're constantly pumping out ideas you're bound to have some flops, but you're also bound to strike gold eventually! Unfortunately, flops are easier to come by... but if you know how to learn from them, they can be even more beneficial to your growth than successes.
Another point to consider is whether you want your work to resonate with people in the now? What if your vision is one that can't be understood in your time? The classical music community throughout history has been notorious for disregarding works when they were initially produced and lauding them a century later. In contrast, composers like George Onslow who was lauded as "the french Beethoven" during his life and was much sought after as a composer of chamber music (he wrote over 76 string quartets) has now fallen almost entirely by the wayside. None of his works are still being published and performances are extremely rare.
So, this raises another question: which would prefer, instant gratification, or a sort of immortality through your music?
I think most people would at least prefer for their musical endeavours to be considered a success but measuring success can become complex.
Perhaps it's easier to measure commercial success of things such as a Broadway musical as we can simply compare numbers but as the music becomes less commercially motivated the measurement for success becomes less tangible.
In any case I whole heartedly agree that failure is a good thing to have a healthy relationship with in general and having the tenacity to persevere in the light of failure and the ability to learn from failure is vital to anyone's development.
I also found the Claque phenomenon fascinating and it reinforces the importance of differentiating between public and personal success.
I guess flops/failures are part of the learning process. I also think that no matters what, an artist will never stop what he loves doing. I mean he might make a pause but he will always come back to its art at some point in his life, or he will think about it all the time. I feel that what is important in these moments are the people, friends and family which surround the artist. However, I feel that a failure can be dangerous, it can push someone to always go further, but I also feel that it can destroy someone, especially lonely artists who have no one who understand them on their side. I think that a lot of musicians have felt alone at some point… and this is a special/hard moment. For someone who fails and who have nobody to talk to, this most be the worst moment ever. Now I also think that there are different level of failure and different ways to interpret them. Depending on the sensitivity of the artist, a failure can be more or less strong. I guess we all have to accept that the word failure is part of our path as musicians, and that it can only make us stronger. There is a saying in french "Ce qui ne nous tue pas nous rend plus fort" which means: what does not kill us makes us stronger. When we love something, we should never stop doing it even if people don't like what we do…
This blog post is very close to my heart. Being an up-and-coming composer, I have had my share of disappointments when I would show a friend a piece and they would simply respond with "Eh..." The crushing disappointment when a piece that you thought was enjoyable was simply not enjoyed by the people you show it to. Even though this can be discouraging and can lead to temporary melancholy, it is important to pick yourself back up and figure out why your piece did not get the response that you desired. Now sometimes it happens to be that the person you showed it do does not happen to like the style of your piece and when you show someone else, they will enjoy it, but if not, then sit down, get creative, and keep composing! Ultimately though, you are the one that you needs to be happy with your compositions so if others do not particularly enjoy your piece, do not be too hard on yourself. Everyone writes flops, but it is how we recover from our flops that defines us as a composer and musician.
I find it so baffling how some pieces could be considered bad in their day. It seemed that many composers had pretty big egos. I recall reading that Ravel had written his famous string quartet for a competition and had dedicated to his mentor, fellow composer Gabriel Faure. Faure was actually very displeased with the piece, calling it unbalanced and an overall failure. Can you imagine? The man wrote a piece for a guy he looked up to. The guy who it was written for immediately vocalized that he thought it sucked. It's the equivalent of a kid throwing a temper tantrum after receiving the wrong birthday present. Artists were definitely more open to mean comments about each other back in the day, and despite the hate on Ravel, we now have obviously a lot of respect for his music. A critic once said Tchaikovsky's music "stinks to the ears". I don't know what they were hearing/smelling!
A lot of the things mentioned in the article were flops at the time but not anymore so it's kind of comforting to know that potentially your work will catch on eventually. And besides, I feel that a piece is a failure only if it completely alienates all of its listeners and doesn't captivate anybody. All money aside, most of us play and write music to move an audience in some way so I think that if it does that it's not a flop.
Also, as Sarah said, even if a work is never played, there are still aspects of it that can be used in later pieces. I guess the point is, composing is fun. Everybody should compose. Yay.
I thoroughly agree with this post about how failure happens (especially in MacGumat). But even in a sea of failure, it is the persons choice to either push through this low and climb for the high or back out. Failure is something that is inevitable. As someone who has gotten his pilots licence at the age of 16, I failed 5 tests in my lectures before actually writing the Transport Canada exam, but with these failures I was able to sit down, learn from my mistakes and now I know the subjects I failed like the back of my hand. It's all about how one person deals with it. Beethoven had some bad times too but like Dr. Ross said he's one of the best recognized classical composers in history! To recap, failure is an option, it will always be an option, but will it be the thing that defines you as a person.
Failure happens! I believe that as long as we understand how this failure occurred then it was a worthwhile endeavour. It is impossible to be on our top game constantly with everything we do in life. Sometimes because of failure we have our brightest moments as our goals and true desires become more apparent to us.
This blog also reminded me of the Daring to dream big blog: http://www.clarkross.blogspot.ca/2015/03/daring-to-dream-big.html
Especially these parts: "Vincent Van Gogh created 860 paintings, but only one was sold during his lifetime.
Emily Dickinson published fewer than a dozen of her 1,800 poems during her lifetime.
Dr. Seuss’ first children’s book, And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, was refused by "at least 20" publishers."
Those are obviously very bleak. But they still managed to push through. It's inspiring to see dedication against such set backs. Great post! Really makes you evaluate what your success might mean.
Thanks, nice blog to read.
Of course I wrote several flops, and the best experience is when I wrote something small and not important and the people experienced as a great composition.
It seems to me that I and my fellow composers often think that if a piece is a flop, people will forget all of our successes and remember only our failure. And yet, despite having significant flops, the individuals mentioned in this post are not only still considered great, but their successes continued to be lauded while their flops largely forgotten. I have to wonder whether the same holds true today, in a time when posthumous discovery seems rare and communications technology results in more instant and farther-reaching praise or condemnation of a work. I also must wonder whether the public and critics are more forgiving of an individual with a reputation of success rather than a newcomer. Regardless, this post proves that even the "greats" have produced flops, and so it seems that flops are simply a part of life for artists. In which case, there is little sense in worrying about composing a flop; if it happens, it happens, and we shouldn't be discouraged. All we can do is continue writing to the best of our ability.
As I perform flute, rather than compose, I believe that people will only notice the things I do wrong. Perhaps it's our new recording technology, but it's interesting that when you go on stage people expect you to be absolutely perfect because that's all people know. People seem to be listening for flops and I can't say that I am not one of those people that listen for flops because that's hearing something different than the recording you've heard 100 times and that will stand right out. But playing everything perfect is really hard! Back to composition, I don't yet feel the worry of composing flops. I understand that not many people will hear my flops, because they were flops. Perhaps if I ever build up a strong enough reputation I will be worried about the potential of flops. Also I didn't know that Steve Jobs owned Pixar.
This post definitely provides some inspiring insights. When reflecting on composer flops, I immediately thought of how music as a whole is so subjective and the social opinions on style and genre change over time. I was reminded of how the music of Bach, for example, was used as kindling for fires after he died until someone decided to start keeping his music. Of course, Bach's music is highly regarded and intensely studied today - we definitely do not perceive much or any of his work as "flops". However, during that time, it's apparent that his music didn't have any value as people weren't hesitant to use it to heat churches following his passing. My point in saying all of this is that it is interesting how as a composer, one can be completely unknown and/or unappreciated during their life and then become highly regarded after they have passed away. It creates a question in my mind: what exactly constitutes something as a compositional flop, and can something originally regarded as a flop become appreciated later on? To me, the answer to the latter is yes. Not to say at all that Bach wrote any flops, but the very nature of how someone's compositions can go from nothing to something is pretty remarkable.
The role of the critic has always been an interesting one. This post highlights how some works that were seen as critical failures are now perceived as successes (or at the very least as "not failures"). It would be easy to brush off critical scrutiny because "art is subjective and everyone has different opinions, blah blah blah..." I do not mean to play devil's advocate, but critics are supposed to be experts in their respective fields; their judgments should ideally reflect those of someone who is knowledgeable and who is familiar with the conventions/trends of the time. The creative intention of the composer and the reception of the critic might not always align, and that can really suck, to say the least. But, most of the time, it's not like the critic is giving an uninformed and unfounded opinion. What I would be really interested in learning about are the works of music or art that were initially critical successes, but are now perceived as flops. We see this often with fashion trends, but I don't recall this happening often in music. On a different note, I like how this post stresses that a work being deemed a flop is not the end of world, but that the work in question can sometimes have a future chance at "success" if it is reworked or embraced by an audience that differs from its premiering audience.
As artists, I think it is our duty to recognize and celebrate creation in all of its forms, whether that creation be considered a success by public, critics or even fellow musicians. Classical music specifically is one of the most subjective forms of creative art even during the most clear-cut circumstances. Personally, I believe that success is a measure of your own happiness with what you create. Others can certainly affect your own happiness with what you have created, but as long as this is constructive it can only better you. Honing skills in anything requires failure and the fear of failure is toxic to the development of your skills, it essentially narrows your perspective.
Failure will always happen to everyone somewhere along the way. Not everyone will love your work but I believe the most important part is that you are happy with what you have created, and hopefully you can find that other someone that agrees. If you get caught up in too much critique and let it affect your own ability to create what you want, you will not succeed due to not being able to do your best. I agree that it is not the worst thing to happen if you have a piece that is a flop, it happens, and the best thing to do is to move on and keep trying.
It's reassuring to know that even great composers have pieces that they consider failures, I think sometimes I am too critical of my own pieces. I am often surprised when I show a piece to someone and they seem to really like it, even though I thought it was terrible. I think what happens sometimes is I spend a lot of time on a piece and just get sick of hearing it. This is why it's so important to show works in progress to people, to get an unbiased opinion. This way you know for sure whether the piece is going well or if it needs to be changed.
I have definitely written pieces that I consider failures, but I have realized it's better to look at them as learning experiences rather than setbacks.
As other commenters have said, failure is such a subjective concept. There are certain styles of music that, although not unique, are sure to be successful, or at least accepted by the public. Meanwhile, something that is less "acceptable" and therefore may be deemed as a failure at the time, may actually be groundbreaking and inspire music for generations to come. If a composer was only concerned with being successful, they would never push boundaries or compose anything new or different. The fear of failure can often hold artists back. But it is only when composers put aside these fears and compose without worrying about the approval of others that music can progress.
I don't think anything can be considered a "flop", when considering how much work someone puts into their personal tasks. To me, a flop is when you haven't done enough or any work, so you are a letdown to YOURSELF, not to others. It is hard not to be affected or influenced by what the public may say, but you have to dig deep and find confidence in yourself if you truly believe that what you did was good. As artists, we truly are part of one of the most difficult professions, as criticism and rejection are basically a rite of passage before experiencing success. This is why I also believe that artists are some of the mentally strongest people in the world. As well, choosing this career path is often a gamble because only some people can make a living off of it; your income could be extremely significant or minuscule, depending on the public's opinion of your work. I believe that if music, or literature, or acting (or whatever!) is your passion, than you shouldn't let fear paralyze you, and you should pursue your dreams in that particular field, however hard it might be.
As an individual, we each have our own individual experience with art. Although there are pieces that are not generally well received or shows that cannot stay a float, it does not mean that there is something "wrong" with what the person created. I think a reception of a piece can "flop", but can we consider any art to be a "flop"? In my opinion, because art is so subjective and is felt so strongly by the individual we cannot pass a piece off as a failed work. I think the main objective of art is to make someone feel something. If something has stirred a reaction, albeit a bad one haven't we still fulfilled a purpose. Rejection and failure are a part of life, but at the end of the day you've created something and it is important that you keep working towards your personal goals as a composer.
Really excellent post here that highlights some "flops"artists have experienced and how they dealt with the negative reception they received. I've always found it interesting that society's perception of a work will often change over time for a number of different reasons. Like others have mentioned, I believe there is a bit of a grey area surrounding what constitutes a "flop" and its meaning can vary for composers depending on their viewpoint. A composer who actively works on commissions could certainly be justified in feeling their piece is a "flop" if it gets slammed by multiple critics, but that doesn't necessarily mean all aspects of the piece are bad. An important consideration for any composer presenting music to an audience is that not everyone will always enjoy it, and that critical opinions can often provide improvements to projects in the future. I think a composer's main goal should always be to try and express their ideas as articulately as possible with the tools available to them. If a composer feels they have achieved this to the best of their abilities, then I don't think their piece can ever really be called a "flop".
I'm glad that you made reference to some big names here in this post. It just goes to show that even the best struggle to get where they want to go. And I actually think that a lot of people overlook that aspect of someone's success. Some people might think that they appeared out of nowhere and suddenly became famous when really they probably had many bumps in the road along the way. Failure is a part of being successful, not everything is going to be perfect along the way, and I think the examples of the people you mentioned who flopped but just went back and kept trying are the ones who people should look up to. They use their "flops" as motivation to do better.
These are awesome examples of the truth behind being an artist. Failure is such a big part of life no matter what career someone may choose but in the arts community it can be especially upsetting. This can make people shy away from trying to achieve their dreams as a musician because they can get so caught up in having a "flop". The beautiful thing about the arts community however is that once a piece is out there, it is out there, looking for it's audience. I especially like the examples of The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Beethoven's Violin Concerto in D because these pieces were revived years after their initial flop. This makes me see them as underdog stories (a type of story that I personally love) and it makes me have faith that no matter what someone creates it can be appreciated one way or another.
I would chose to define a flop as a work that failed to meet expectation. This would then include works that didn't turn out as well as artists had intended, leading them to see it as a flop even if it was still commercially viable. This would be in addition to works that failed to meet expectations for success that we expect from these artists that we now know as famous and successful, because they could have very well lived up to the composer's expectations if they felt it wasn't their best work.
So in this same sense a flop can be considered just as subjective as success or merit.
Quality of works vary greatly over an artists lifetime due to a multitude of factors, time available to work, creative tools available at the time, effort invested, and much more. An artist can be experimenting with a new medium, audience, genre, or any number of factors which would lead to them maybe taking it less seriously, taking some risks, or just making foolish mistakes— and this can occur at any stage in an artist's career.
So flops are to be expected, but not all that we would consider a flop may truly be a flop, as the artist may have still gotten what they wanted out of the project— experience, money, satisfaction, etc.
I had never heard most of these stories before. I found it very interesting that many of them had a similar theme of not being successful for a few years and then all of a sudden becoming popular. I wonder if this was because they had a few years to improve upon the works, or if it was because the audience had a different opinion on what was good or not? All questions aside, it's nice to see that everyone has "flops" sometimes and it doesn't necessarily determine your career.
I think that it's impossible to define a composer as good or bad based on one composition. To go further with that, I'll make the bold statement that I don't think any composer is good or bad. I think that every piece of art is "good" because it served a purpose. Sometimes a piece's purpose is to give a composer fame, sometimes it is to make the composer money, sometimes it's to give the composer joy, sometimes it teaches its audience something, and sometimes a piece's only purpose is to be lesson to the composer.
Even if we are going with specific guidelines and criteria as to what is "good" I think it's still important to remember that a composer is more than their "worst" work. As outlined in multiple examples throughout this article, one flop does not define a composer. If we dismissed composers based on their flops, we would miss out on some amazing art. This of course is not limited to just music, but applies to such examples as the paintings of Van Gogh, the poetry of Emily Dickinson, and more.
It's so tough to decide what makes a good composer. Obviously you can use success as a litmus test but would I be incorrect if I stated that Bach has never written anything worth listening to, or that Beethoven was a talentless hack? I suppose there's no way of defining 'good' art, so there's no way of proving me wrong other than showing success. But I don't believe success and quality are interchangeable terms. One can have one with out the other, both, or neither.
I'm sure every artist has commercial flops and successes, but that does not necessarily mean they are a 'good' or 'bad' artist. Beauty in art is a very individual experience and cannot be translated universally.
I find that it's really interesting to use this to recontextualize a piece that I compose that I like a lot less than my others. Like yeah, this piece might absolutely sucked but not every piece can be the exact same level of quality, and somethings has got to be the worst. But that they can even be reworked years late and go from your worst piece to even just your 9th worst is a cool idea to me.
I was really intrigued by the idea of something being a flop... at first but eventually got pretty well-received something like rocky horror or the movie cats can come out and be critically and financially absolute disaster but then after a few years more and more people realize that it is actually pretty rad and its legacy can change.
I found it so interesting to look at composer's "flops". I feel that this is a topic that isn't talked about often, but it is so reassuring to hear that even the most popular and best composers have pieces that aren't necessarily their best work. I found the Newsies example very cool. The fact that the musical was written, and then became popular years later is crazy! It makes me wonder what changed that made it so different and appeal to people. Was it a change in the direction and the presentation of the musical? Or was it just that it was twenty years later and people had forgotten about it? This just shows that art and compositions are completely subjective. What may appeal to one generation may not to another generation.
The idea of a "flop" is also defined very well and in my opinion, accurately in the blog post. I feel that many musicians may deem something a failure before It even gets out to the world. This is again where the idea of subjectivity comes in - what one person hates may be someone else's favourite song. I like how you defined it as a completed work that was published and did not succeed in the public. It really puts into perspective that you can't judge something until it is received by people.
I also liked learning about people who turned their failures into a different form of success. Sometimes you have to try a couple of different things before you find your niche. You can pour your heart and soul into something and it may not work out - unfortunately, that's reality. However, when you fail at something, it might open another door and open your eyes to what you really can succeed and thrive in, which is what happened in the case of the successful people mentioned in the article.
"Vincent Van Gogh created 860 paintings, but only one was sold during his lifetime." Wow! This was most certainly interesting to read!
Finding this blog post quite ironically happened today, when some of Lady GaGa's adoring fans (myself included) decided to celebrate her album ARTPOP for being amazing, full of bops, and truly ahead of its time! It was released almost eight years ago, and considered by all the "critics", a flop. Yup. And now, it is being celebrated! Of course, it greatly affected Lady GaGa's mental health, as she went on to do a jazz album, and then a country album. Just last year, she released a disco album similar to that of ARTPOP, titled Chromatica, and after the release of Dua Lipa's Grammy-winning album "Future Nostalgia", it was received quite well by critics! All in all, some interesting food for thought.
Mistakes are an essential part of any pursuit. It’s not a profound statement to say that everybody makes mistakes. What sets people apart though, is how they react to their mistakes. Do they learn from them, do they make changes based on what they learned, or does it cause them to give up completely? Sometimes you can make a mistake so catastrophically bad that you can never recover from it (think heinous crimes or something else that would completely ruin your public image). Most of the time when it feels like something will haunt us forever, it almost never does (unless you’ve done the previously mentioned heinous crime or two). Getting a bad review of a piece, failing an exam, or getting rejected are all natural and normal parts of life. They rarely have any long-term effects. Despite this, it’s still important to ask questions like why was this received poorly? Is the criticism legitimate? If it is legitimate, what do I need to do going forward to hopefully prevent a similar incident? When you actively own up to and work on your mistakes, not only does it help you grow as a person, but it makes the people around you think more highly of you. Everyone makes mistakes, but the people who stand out and find success in life are the people who know how to get the most out of them.
As many others have mentioned in this thread, success is definitely subjective. I will likely never be as successful in the music industry as the Beatles, but considering my own personal career objectives, I consider myself to be pretty successful as a musician at this point in my life. My goal is not to be a professional completely reliant on the income I make from music, so the fact that I can get anything is pretty great.
All famous artists will have their "flops" and other works that will be forgotten, even by the most diehard fans. And on the other hand there will be works that will be more or less ignored or heavily criticized at their debut, but can see a revival years down the line. I usually think of "The Shawshank Redemption", a movie that made almost nothing at the box office, but today is considered to be one of the greatest movies ever made (which is a statement I would personally agree with). I think examples like these are reasons that artists should embrace their flops. Either it will be terrible and remain terrible to the public, in which case artists can learn from the mistakes they made and fuel the development of their future works; or one day it will see success in one form or another, in which case the artist will benefit from having released it in the first place.
On a closing note, I think the flops of more famous artists can be reassuring to either the developing artists or artists have not reached the same level of fame. We often put the "great" composers on a pedestal, and it can be very discouraging to compare our own work to theirs. So to know that even people like Beethoven or Sondheim had their fair share of flops can show us that it is okay to make mistakes, and doing so does not make us any less great than the famous artists we look up to.
I appreciate the final point on not letting failure define you - this can be tricky to grapple with, but it is humbling to be reminded that we all go through it.
Again, success and failure can be quite subjective - even if a larger majority might not take interest in a piece or work, there will still be people who do, and sometimes it might take time; additionally, though the piece might not have achieved perceived standards or expectations, that doesn't necessarily mean the concept or certain ideas presented are bad ones (sometimes ideas that did not work the first time can be returned to, tweaked, and then turn into something wonderful). Despite this perception of failure, or even success (of either the creator or audience), potential is still always present.
I think it is kind of tricky to establish how failure doesn't define you by pointing out how extremely succesful people has "failures". Did Beethoven's "flop" come back because people realized how amazing it was, or did it suddenly become succesful because he had died, and people love raving over the dead? That may be extremely controversial, and I am not saying that his Concerto in D is not a classic work, but I think that it is hard to compare my failures to that of Beethoven.Those who are successful always have points in their life when they are not. It is motivating to see and hear, but can become discouraging. Maybe if people stop chasing fame, or popularity, and just write for their own personal gain and fulfillment, they will feel more happiness in their lives and their success. I guess this also goes into the post about dreams, and when they are not suitable to create a living. I think it is great to have a part of your life that you love and enjoy for your own benefit, rather than chasing success and fame.
This post gives an interesting look at the relationship between the audience and the composer. Sometimes it feels like pieces are written too early for their time and would be better appreciated by an audience 100 years from its creation. I think as a composer, if you are convinced of your own success it should not matter what other people think. It's also important to keep writing, because "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."
When it comes to the composers mentioned in the blog, not only does it makes me feel better that they have had failures, but it also makes me feel better that some of their failures turned into success later down the line. As I said earlier, sometimes a composers work might be better appreciated by the next generation.
I think this post serves as a great reminder that there is always an audience for whatever kind of art you want to make. The reference to The Rocky Horror Picture Show stuck with me from this blog, as it is one of my favourite films. When it was released, its audience didn’t understand it. Which makes sense, its wacky avant-garde style doesn’t exactly match the expectations of your average audience. It was different, and at the time it certainly was a flop. However, years later, it found its audience and became a cult classic. I think this story is a great reminder that even if people don’t “get” the art you are making now, if you believe in it, it will more than likely find an audience with time. There is an audience out there for all kinds of art, especially now in the digital age of the 2020s. Just because one person doesn’t get it doesn’t mean that your work is a “flop”. Of course, even great artists write flops every now and then. But if you really believe in the art you’re making, I think it's important to give it time before labelling it as a flop or a success, because it could find its audience in that time!
I think this is a very valid and important idea. Often we are told to learn from our failures, but considering them as a natural part of the progress makes them even more legitamate. It is a lot easier to try and to dare knowing that the greatest comosers and artists produced horrific failures through thier career. Music is very subjective, and in a way, a composer navigates in the dark. Sometimes something that looks like a flop is actually one step before a huge breakthrough.
I first think to Andrew Lloyd Webber who composed the music for Jesus Christ Superstar and was very successful at creating the music for the characters and all but also did not do way as well when composing for Cats. It does depend on the material and things are subjective and sometimes people need to take time to understand a musical for example. I think for this example, Cats, however subjective can typically be considered not as good as Jesus Christ Superstar in multiple different areas. We can see that Schoenberg was brilliant in his revolution against tonality in his music that he would come to write, but mostly people that I know of don't really like his work and think of it was unmusical and think of him actually as a bad composer really deep down. In this case, I think to see Schoenberg in this light would be to not understand the necessity of what he did with music in a Western Classical idiom.
Of course we can all learn from our own failures over all but especially as composers in composition. I think we should study why we failed and be as honest as possible with ourselves when we are searching for the answer/s.
It is so hard to realize that even great composers/artists are also people who have stages in life which will inevitably influence their works. Sometimes these stages are extremely beneficial to the artist in question but much more often these are the opposite and the creative flow of the person is not the same as it used to be. Even though I am not part of the so-called “great composers” I can see similar patterns in my works, sometimes they're fantastic and perfectly reflect my abilities and strengths, but other times these are not good in so many ways that they sound like it is a completely different person who is writing it. I also think these less productive periods in one's life are extremely important to produce quality works in the future when everything is ok again.
Being a big fan of movies, specifically the Horror genre, I am very familliar with "flops". Because of this, I absolutely agree that flops do not define your career, in fact I believe that sometimes flops can be great works of art that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A great example of this is John Carpenter's "The Thing" from 1982. The film is a classic and one of my personal favourites, but it was panned by critics when it first released. Ennio Morricone was even nominated for a Razzie for "Worst Musical Score" for The Thing (the score is awesome and you should check it out if you haven't). Nowadays, Carpenter is regarded as one of the greatest horror directors of all time, and Morricone won an Oscar in 2016 for Best Original Score for Tarantino's "The Hateful Eight", where he actually used some unused tracks from "The Thing". All this is simply to say that "flops" aren't the end of the world. In fact, some cases like "The Thing" or "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" could go on to be beloved by audiences.
This post is great for us Students to look at, as many times we will face challenges with our own compositions. Whether is is a gab grade or you simply just can't find what you are looking for in your score, everyone flops and it is ok. Honestly flopping is something for the best as we can build off of it and make sure we can do better the next time. Also something can look like a flop but then coming back to it it makes sense, sometimes it just takes time to be able to see something in its full light just like Beethoven's Violin Concerto in D, which initially faced public and critical rejection but later became a staple in classical music. Ultimately, the post encourages me to view failures as part of the creative process, learn from them, and not let setbacks define who I am as a musician. The stories presented aim to inspire resilience and a positive outlook in the face of challenges.
Interesting Post! I feel it is silly to immediately call a composition or a musical piece a work a flop. good music doesn't need to "hit" right away, it can grow on you.There are so many instances of when a piece of music is at first hated, then loved over an extended period of time. One example that I lived through was when rapper Playboi Carti released his highly anticipated album "Whole Lotta Red". This album faced many delays due to hackers leaking the album early, causing the album to be restarted multiple times. Whole Lotta Red finally released on Christmas Day of 2020 to many people's (including 17 year old me) anticipation. In this new album, Carti changed his sound and musicality drastically, sounding much different than his last beloved album. I remembered that day when the album released and people HATED it! so many people were complaining and hating online, calling the album horrible and trash. I personally was not the biggest fan of the album when it first released (I still don't think its that great) but I was so shocked by the harsh criticism for this album that people were so excited for. However, since then a wide opinion of the album began to positively shift, starting to shift about a year after Whole Lotta Red initially released. Today, the album is widely seen as a modern classic, songs from the album is performed in front of millions, and is now widely regarded as Playboi Cart's best album by far. I was so blown away by seeing an album going from one end of reception to another, being originally hated to loved. Playboi Cart's "flopped" blossomed into one of the most beloved rap albums this decade.
I would just like to start by saying that the fact that anyone would consider Newsies a flop is shocking to me - but I say that as someone who is only really familiar with the Broadway version.
I think flopping is an essential part of the artistic process because when you flop, you learn from it, and grow as an artist. This applies to music, visual arts, writing, etc. I've written several pieces that, when finished, I play back and think "This is going in the drafts, and it is not coming out" because I know the piece is a flop. I also feel this way when I think about my pieces from intro to comp. Sure, I got really good grades on them, and they did get me into the composition major, but when I compare them to the pieces I write now, I can't help but shrivel up a little on the inside. However, what this means is that I learned from my past flop pieces, and now, I'm a better composer because of it.
This is a very relatable post in some aspects. The fear of failure, especially in the world of music we are studying in today, is prominent and horrifying. There is a stigma around the idea of perfecting all compositions and a voice which is constantly promoting self doubt while making music and completing compositions. It is how the musician or artist deals with the flop which is imperative to the continuation of artistic creation. It is easy to let the “flop” define us as artists, however it is important to realize, even the most influential artists have had flops, it is what makes us artists. These so-called “failures” are natural and happen to the best of us, it is important to keep this in mind and not let the fear of failure define us and take over our creativity as musicians.
I believe that there is a fundamental different with the nature of contemporary music visibility that differentiates the current circumstance, and perhaps even the very idea of "failure" from that which pertains to many of the examples listed here.
Many of the musical examples provided here required considerable commercial and spatial platforms to be staged, and would have drawn a requisite audience due to the spaces wherein they were presented (the Wagner and the Sondheim particularly come to mind). Failure in these cases would be a negative reception of the work, which we do see.
In the modern day however, the overwhelming majority of music is disseminated via the internet, and requires no physical space, nor company, nor even record label in order to be borne witness to. Furthermore, there is the matter of overabundance; there is simply so much music on the internet that one could not possibly hope to parse all of it, and so a great deal thereof will always remain effectively invisible.
In such an age, I don't believe that the most common form of musical "failure" is for one's work to suffer a negative reception. Far more common now I think is for a work to be heard by scarcely anybody at all. This may be particularly true in nonclassical traditions, where entire albums are often produced by an individual in their bedroom.
That said, I think that for anybody's principal metric of creative success to be based on others' perception of their work would be something of a disorder of their priorities.
I find it very comforting to know that it's okay to experience failure sometimes. Often times when I think of the great composers and performers I (and probably most) tend to perceive them as being perfect. This truly is not the case, and every composer/performer has some kind of horror story of a bad performance or a work not being received well.
The truth is that failure is an extremely important part of growth as both a musician and person, as much as we hate it. If you think about practicing an instrument, trying to learn a passage is essentially failing over and over until you get it right consistently. It makes me wonder why we don't think of composition more in this way; oftentimes my expectations when I sit down to compose are to write exactly what I want perfectly first try. However, like practicing an instrument, this is simply unrealistic. It's really something you have to work at and experiment with to truly get good at it, and you have to fail sometimes to learn from your mistakes and make something truly great.
Side note, the fact that Van Gogh had only sold one of his paintings in his lifetime is INSANE to me. I believed it but it was so unbelievable that I had to look it up!
Failure is a harsh reality of life that often disregard when it happens to someone else, but have a difficult time accepting failure ourselves, especially as musicians and even more so when money is involved. Although failure can feel terrible, it teaches more lessons than success and without those lessons stemming from failure, we as creatives, have no chance of learning as much as we can so that it can be applied later or passed on let alone reaching our full potential.
Similar to other comments, it really is reassuring that the greatest people in their respective fields can make mistakes or supposedly do everything right and still fail... depressing as the latter idea is. Even in school or work, seeing someone who is "the best" at what they do not do so well is a reminder of how they, too, are human and that it is natural to not do as well as they normally would.
Considering the failures of people we recognize as brilliant or stand-outs in their expertise is so interesting, especially because they were not always these "legendary" figures that we've defined them to be. At some point in history, Sondheim was just another composer in New York trying to write a break-out musical.
But I also looked at all these successful individuals and recognized something they have in common: a niche quality in their work or something that makes them distinct from their counterparts. Sondheim is known in theatre for his ability to paint an image with the type of dissonance he used and his unpredictable/uniquely constructed melodic lines (that being they are unusually chromatic or not always loyal to a key, like most Musical theatre music). Sweeney Todd is by far Sondheims most successful and iconic musical, however, and it in itself is a genre not often explored on Broadway stages, containing themes of cannibalism, corrupt government, murder and gore. Surely, at the time he was writing for Broadway, this was not the type of story composers were trying to score.
Van Gogh's style of painting was also original to him, and something people had never seen before.
My overall point is that these people, during their time, had none of the status they have today and were recognized as indifferent to any other creator. But their choice to create something unique and out-of-the-box within their medium and that is what led them to be as successful as they were. A further reason is that we should not fear or doubt ourselves and always go out of our way to be ourselves in excess in our artwork.
As Nadia Boulanger once said, "You need an established language and then, within that established language, the liberty to be yourself. It's always necessary to be yourself – that is a mark of genius in itself."
Post a Comment