Why are musicians who composed complex works (Mozart, Beethoven, Bach) much more productive than writers?

Why are musicians who composed complex works (Mozart, Beethoven, Bach) much more productive than writers?

For example, Shakespeare wrote at most some 37 plays (some of them with collaboration), the 154 sonnets and two longer poems. Yet even Beethoven, who was very demanind about what he wrote and how much he would polish a piece composed at least 135 works with Opus number (and there are many more without opus number).

What’s the main difference, for example, in writing a piano concerto and a Shakespearean comedy? Is the comedy more time-demanding?

Dont name Lope de Vega as an example: his writing was very bad, no even near in artistic quality as the Shakespeare plays and the best works of Mozart/Beethoven

Music is easy. It's also less time consuming than writing.

Stupid thread, sage

Beethoven and Mozart wrote alot of stuff because they thought it would only be played once on a special occasion. They were ordered to by nobility.
Not true. Fuck off, retard.

>Lope de Vega
>bad
>implying you have any resemblance if taste

Anyway, there are many writers who were extremely prolific, like Lope himself, Benito Perez Galdos, Dickens, Chesterton, Balzac, Johnson, Bacon, etc, and there are other who wrote very little in comparison, like Sabato, Joyce, Ariosto, etc. You also have to consider that there is a difference between what a writer published and what they actually wrote. We have around 37 surviving plays by Shakeapeare, but there are some that are lost and others that he may have written but destroyed, abandoned or went lost without anyone noticing.

However, you seem to equate quantity with quality, which is a very stupid thing to do, even more so when you force the comparison of creative output and process of two different artforms.

Very true. You're retarded if you think otherwise. Clearly biased thread

Music is better than writing, only pseuds like literature

anyone else got a Yuja Wang from this picture?

a book takes much longer than 50 minutes to read. In terms of absolute quanitity of information a novel has magnitudes more matter. Its worth a few symphonies

it's not her?

She is a delight, isn't she?

In the case of Mozart and Bach, they were productive because they had to be. Composing was a skilled trade, you worked for the church, the crown, or later the aristocracy. Beethoven was less productive by volume, by the time he was a mature composer the market had become much more commission based, and his primary sources of income were publishing and concerts. These days composers are either working in movies or games or they teach, because making music in itself is no longer a viable means of earning a living. However, music of the common practice period was much easier to "mass produce", formulae and convention had not yet given way to total freedom of expression, there was an accepted framework in which development occurred. Composers today tend to be less prolific because of this, however it also has to do with the fact that today it's almost impossible to make a living composing unless you do it for movies or games, otherwise you pretty much have to either be a conductor/performer or a teacher to make ends meet.

Classical and Baroque composer could benefit from the omnipresence of various accepted musical styles. They could basically work on frameworks, and did not have to start from scratch everytime. Basically they composed music like Balzac wrote books. It was quite a serial, but still infinitely sophisticated process.
This, by the way, is not accepted anymore in contemporary music, and most composers are expected to write very few pieces in a style, and then branch out in a completely different direction.

Also you should notice that many of the Opuses by Beethoven are very short works. A fairer comparison would be a composer like Wagner, who was very literary in bis compositional style. He ended up composing 40 musical dramas, of which maybe 20 are masterpieces.

>music is easy
how can one be so fucking sure about shit you obviously know fucking nothing about

>Music is easy

As a musician this made me kek pretty hard

>Dont name Lope de Vega as an example
t.pleb

A piece of music can be composed in one sleepless night, a Shakespeare level work of literature can't.

...

Care to elaborate? Whats the diference in composing a major piano concerto, like Mozart's K466, and a Shakesperean comedy like Twelfth Night? By the was, Yuja is hot as hell.

They were radical Formalists. Making Formalist Music or Art in general requires almost nothing. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven's works all revolve around a single interval (the perfect fifth), as does most Western Music. They have almost no qualitative variation between them. The average excerpt one would need to blindly identify any given Bach fugue is something like a minute long. They would've been even more productive had their Music been any less boring to make than it is to listen to.

>less time consuming

Those guys could sit down and write a tune without laying a hand on an instrument.

With Bach it's obvious he had more time to compose certain works...like the Goldberg variations or the Brandenburg concertos. But yeah, those guy could crank out tunes with the small part of an afternoon. It doesn't mean it's less skill or less or more anything. It's like doing a small postcard sized painting versus on the size of a wall on your bedroom...IF You compare one song to a while book. A song should be close to a chapter in a book.

Your thread is stupid, op.

Fuck autocorrect.

Music takes little creativity and anyone who says otherwise is just a musician or sole faggot biased to music. It's just too simple. Music is finite

>Music is finite
And language isn't?

>music is finite

so are the ways we can arrange words, idiot.

>unmanicured nails
>Korean boy haircut
I can't get off to this pleb

>Music is finite

What are you talking about. Wagner composed 13 operas.