"Why should the composer be more guilty than the poet who warms to fantasy by a strange flame, making an idea that inspires him the subject of his own very different treatment?"
About this Quote
Schubert is doing something sly here: he’s not defending theft so much as puncturing the moral panic around it. The line comes out of a long 19th-century anxiety about originality, an era when “genius” was starting to harden into a near-religious ideal, even as artists freely borrowed themes, forms, and folk material. He flips the accusation with a clean analogy: if poets are allowed to take an idea, catch fire, and remake it, why is a composer treated as the criminal cousin for doing the same?
The phrasing is the tell. “Warms to fantasy by a strange flame” romanticizes inspiration as involuntary combustion, not calculated borrowing. That metaphor quietly absolves the artist: the impulse is elemental, not litigious. Then Schubert lands the real argument in the final clause: “his own very different treatment.” Originality isn’t the raw ingredient; it’s the transformation. He’s staking out a modern-sounding definition of authorship based on process and interpretation, not on owning a premise.
There’s also a classed subtext. Poetry enjoyed prestige as “high” art; instrumental and song composition, especially when tied to popular tunes or earlier models, could be dismissed as craft. Schubert is insisting that musical imagination is not a secondary language. The composer’s “guilt” is a social construction, born from critics and gatekeepers who treat influence as evidence of deficiency. He’s arguing for a creative commons before the term existed: the artistic act is not mining untouched territory, but making something unmistakably yours out of what culture has already set alight.
The phrasing is the tell. “Warms to fantasy by a strange flame” romanticizes inspiration as involuntary combustion, not calculated borrowing. That metaphor quietly absolves the artist: the impulse is elemental, not litigious. Then Schubert lands the real argument in the final clause: “his own very different treatment.” Originality isn’t the raw ingredient; it’s the transformation. He’s staking out a modern-sounding definition of authorship based on process and interpretation, not on owning a premise.
There’s also a classed subtext. Poetry enjoyed prestige as “high” art; instrumental and song composition, especially when tied to popular tunes or earlier models, could be dismissed as craft. Schubert is insisting that musical imagination is not a secondary language. The composer’s “guilt” is a social construction, born from critics and gatekeepers who treat influence as evidence of deficiency. He’s arguing for a creative commons before the term existed: the artistic act is not mining untouched territory, but making something unmistakably yours out of what culture has already set alight.
Quote Details
| Topic | Music |
|---|
More Quotes by Franz
Add to List






