(WHAT IS A...) COMPOSER
Nowadays we have a very biased view of what's a music composer : we think about it the romantic way, ie a successful or misunderstood person expressing his/her feelings through music, in order to share those feelings with other people.
That's the romantic point of view, and it's far from the only one.
THE COMPOSER STATUS, 1200... 1800
Let's take Haydn, for instance. He was an employee for a big aristocratic Austrian family, the Esterhazy. He had the same status as the cook, the horse guy, the gardener etc.
Traditionally, nowadays there is a huge social gap between a musician and a gardener, but it was not the case two centuries ago in Europe - Haydn was not complaining at all, he didn't feel misunderstood or anything : being the Esterhazy family's official composer was a very good job.
One of the first western composers : Guillaume de Machaut
And if we look a bit further in time, in the European middle ages for instance, a guy called Guillaume de Machaut, one of the first remembered western music composers, spent almost his whole life at the service of an influent noble man : he was a servant as well, composing music which would enhance his master's social life - remember that they couldn't play any CDs when meeting friends at the time...
THE COMPOSER STATUS, ROMANTIC ERA
Our conception of what is a composer is based on the romantic era, which in music goes roughly from 1800 to 1910. Beethoven, for instance, is often considered as the first major romantic composer. Schubert is one other contestant, though he is rather considered as being "pre-romantic".
In the romantic era, the composer is a hero. He expresses his feelings, he's unhappy and tortured most of the time, he's an artist and a poet, far above anyone else. Women must love him, and men must respect his grief.
Also, he has to discover new (musical) worlds and propose novelties, otherwise he's boring.
This guy is sooo romantic ;-)
THE COMPOSER STATUS, MODERN ERA
Same era, different styles.... (Pierre Boulez & David Bowie)
During the last few decades, we've been getting back to a more classical "servant" point of view : when a guy is paid to make music for a TV ad, for instance... The guy is not employed by an aristocratic family, but by a society, that's the main difference...
Conservative moralists don't approve of this phenomenon : music becomes a useful object, and that is decadent, supposedly. But what about court music ? Do we really think kings and noble men really cared about music ? Most of the time they had music played just because of the social étiquette.
There is another interesting evolution : the composer as a member of a team, for instance in movies.
The composer is not a lone worker anymore, and if he's not able to coordinate his work with other people's work, then he is on the wrong way...
This "team-ification" of the composer status goes even further in "rock'n roll" bands : who actually writes the music ? Typically, three or four guys at the same time...And what about the artistic producer for instance ? He certainly had his part in the creation process... But can he be considered as a composer ? So the composers are the guys actually writing the notes ? But what about electroacoustic music, rap or R&B where there are barely any notes ?
