Listening to Prokofiev's 2nd Symphony, it struck me that this is the sort of brilliant, but eccentric and ultimately unsuccessful piece that only a composer of genius could write. Isolated parts make a strong impression, but as a whole it just doesn't hold together.
I'm tempted to think that Schoenberg's serial technique is the kind of misstep only a genius could make. While I like certain products of it (like the Op. 31 Variations), on the whole I think he made a wrong turn when he went this way.
My early impression of Bach's Musical Offering is that it too could fall into this "dud of genius" category. I need to get to know it better, though.
Your candidates for "duds of genius"?
Der Ring des Nibelungen (hides under table).
Quote from: Scarpia on April 27, 2010, 11:25:51 AM
Der Ring des Nibelungen (hides under table).
LOL
But as a piece of such inspiration, it really ought to be referred to as a Dud of Phenomenal Proportions.
I say that, but I must admit to enjoying the Met
Rheingold DVD I watched recently.
However, it took me a week to get all the way through it.:)
Quote from: Scarpia on April 27, 2010, 11:25:51 AM
Der Ring des Nibelungen (hides under table).
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/asheville/1408.gif)
SCARPIAYou can run but you can't hide, Scarpia!
A lot of Tchaikovsky's orchestral music is fit for this category. It's all great, and much of it has many moments of decided imperfection (not the "intentional jagged edge" kind, but simply awkward bits that could be improved upon). The 1812 overture and 2nd piano concerto's slow movement are them are some of the more commented-on examples of this.
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/dead.gif)
Quote from: Scarpia on April 27, 2010, 11:43:37 AM
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/dead.gif)
;D :D ;D
Beethoven-- Wellington's Victory it's just kind of dumb.
Quote from: Velimir on April 27, 2010, 11:23:29 AM
My early impression of Bach's Musical Offering is that it too could fall into this "dud of genius" category. I need to get to know it better, though.
Yes, you do. That way you'll get out of the "dud of listening" category. :D
I got used to the Musical Offering and even appreciate it now, but would still take any part of the WTC over it any day of the week. It is not my favorite piece, but it's no Wellington's Victory either! :D
Quote from: Lethe on April 27, 2010, 11:41:17 AM
A lot of Tchaikovsky's orchestral music is fit for this category. It's all great, and much of it has many moments of decided imperfection (not the "intentional jagged edge" kind, but simply awkward bits that could be improved upon). The 1812 overture and 2nd piano concerto's slow movement are them are some of the more commented-on examples of this.
Hey, the Second Concerto's slow movement is a great one (though the thirty-second cut everyone takes near the end is rather more justifiable than cuts usually are...)!
Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more with you about the Prokofiev 2nd symphony.
It may be a tough nut to crack for some, but I consider it to be a masterpiece of the highest rank, and one of Prokofiev's most brilliant and original works.
I first got to know it way back in the LP era from an old Melodiya recording with Rozhdestvensky and the Moscow Radio symphony, and I became a fan of this weird but compelling symphony.
Quote from: DavidW on April 27, 2010, 12:42:03 PM
I got used to the Musical Offering and even appreciate it now, but would still take any part of the WTC over it any day of the week.
I can understand that. There are some board members I'm now used to.
Quote from: Superhorn on April 27, 2010, 12:50:40 PMSorry, but I couldn't disagree more with you about the Prokofiev 2nd symphony.
Agreed! Prokofiev's second is perfectly well made. Hangs together fine. The first movement is all of a piece, for one, with no isolated bits at all. The second movement hangs together like any theme and variations does. It's lyrical enough to be a good contrast to the relentless first, and it has enough wild bits to keep it clear that this symphony as a whole is all of a piece.
As for Schoenberg's serial technique, you have GOT to be kidding. I've said this before on another board. Apparently it's time to say it here, too. No one in 2010 should have any trouble with serialism. No one. Not that anyone has to like all serial pieces. I don't like all of them, any more than I like all tonal pieces or all turntable music. But come on. Let's get caught up a bit here. 2010. (I wonder how many people in 1910 were still having trouble with Beethoven. Or how many in 1810 were still having trouble with Bach.) And it's not the radicalness of the music that's at issue here. That's too easy. (And too lame.) And too much ignoring of obvious and palpable realities--like the fact that so many composers have felt it important to use the technique, like the fact that so many listeners have somehow managed to enjoy the sensual beauties of a lot of splendid music.
Enough already.
Shosty 4! :P
Quote from: some guy on April 27, 2010, 08:20:28 PM
As for Schoenberg's serial technique, you have GOT to be kidding. I've said this before on another board. Apparently it's time to say it hear, too. No one in 2010 should have any trouble with serialism. No one. Not that anyone has to like all serial pieces. I don't like all of them, any more than I like all tonal pieces or all turntable music. But come on. Let's get caught up a bit here. 2010. (I wonder how many people in 1910 were still having trouble with Beethoven. Or how many in 1810 were still having trouble with Bach.) And it's not the radicalness of the music that's at issue here. That's too easy. (And too lame.) And too much ignoring of obvious and palpable realities--like the fact that so many composers have felt it important to use the technique, like the fact that so many listeners have somehow managed to enjoy the sensual beauties of a lot of splendid music.
Enough already.
Oh, I want to stir up the hornet's nest here, haha! Serialismo is Universal, but Schonberg's a Dud!
...Release the Hounds!...
Late Xenakis (though, I forced myself to convert!,...for the children :'()
Quote from: Velimir on April 27, 2010, 11:23:29 AM
Listening to Prokofiev's 2nd Symphony, it struck me that this is the sort of brilliant, but eccentric and ultimately unsuccessful piece that only a composer of genius could write. Isolated parts make a strong impression, but as a whole it just doesn't hold together.
Quote from: some guy on April 27, 2010, 08:20:28 PM
Agreed! Prokofiev's second is perfectly well made. Hangs together fine. The first movement is all of a piece, for one, with no isolated bits at all. The second movement hangs together like any theme and variations does. It's lyrical enough to be a good contrast to the relentless first, and it has enough wild bits to keep it clear that this symphony on the whole is all of a piece.
I just heard this for the first time the other week (Gergiev). This was the one I thought was going to sound like Varese-meets-Szymanowski ("a work of steel"), and, though I thought the machine music was just not as avant brutale as I'd hoped, the variations almost in parts reminds me of Xenakis. As a work without context I find it extremely strong, so, I'm curious that it apparently has a duddish reputation amoungst Prokofiev's works (though, I would have had a more decisively brutal depiction of machine music (where's the percussion overload?)). As a fan of the darker side of Russia's composers, I would have thought that the Classical Symphony would be the considered dud, no?
Quote from: some guy on April 27, 2010, 08:20:28 PM
As for Schoenberg's serial technique, you have GOT to be kidding. I've said this before on another board. Apparently it's time to say it hear, too. No one in 2010 should have any trouble with serialism.
I don't have any trouble with serialism, and I don't see why the current date (2010) is relevant to this. Rather, I don't like the serial pieces Schoenberg wrote nearly as much as I like the late Romantic and free atonal pieces that he wrote earlier. I'll take
Pierrot Lunaire,
Verklärte Nacht, and the Five Orchestral Pieces over the Piano Concerto, Violin Concerto, or
Begleitmusik zu einer Lichtspielszene any day. He was a great composer, but the serial period does not reflect him at his best. End of story.
And thanks for the counter-arguments re: Prokofiev's 2nd Symphony. I will listen to it again with your thoughts in mind.
John Cage ;D.
Hands down, Helikoptor Quartett.
I don't agree with that. The piece is not either for normal every day concert performance or for home listening, but it is an interesting experiment, certanly not a dud.
Mike
Quote from: Franco on April 28, 2010, 01:45:19 AM
Shirley, you jest!
:)
Interesting-- I really like Prokofiev's 2nd and Shosty's 4th, but on both of them I like the individual parts, but they don't really cohere for me.
In the case of Prokofiev's second, I love both movements (the second is more work), but when I here his Third, it is much more unified. (Strange, since the material was not originally written for a symphony).
Interesting topic-- I'll need to ponder this a bit more...
Quote from: DavidW on April 27, 2010, 11:49:16 AM
Beethoven-- Wellington's Victory it's just kind of dumb.
That was the first thing hitting my mind, when I saw the topic.
I very much disagree with the choice of the
Prokofiev Second Symphony. For me it is a home run/touchdown/slam dunk all the way!
The form comes from
Beethoven's definitely non-dud Opus 111.
Hoping that
Sarge keeps his machine-gun under control, I will mention an early
Wagner work (I heard excerpts many moons ago) dedicated to dud-dom:
The Fairies (Die Feen) .
One reviewer said it had passages which presaged the future Wagner.
Which to some ears could be taken as a warning! $:)
( :o Runs for cover! 0:) )
Quote from: Superhorn on April 27, 2010, 12:50:40 PM
Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more with you about the Prokofiev 2nd symphony.
It may be a tough nut to crack for some, but I consider it to be a masterpiece of the highest rank, and one of Prokofiev's most brilliant and original works.
Ditto.
In a parallel universe in which we would only have one of the Prokofiev symphonies, I should have to choose the Second. It would be a wrench, &c. &c., but my decision would be swift and final.
Wow, lots of love for the much-maligned and neglected Prokofiev 2nd Symphony! I'll have to reconsider my dismissal of this work.
I'm surprised to see only one unambiguous defense so far of the Musical Offering - I thought JSB was sacrosanct.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 28, 2010, 04:17:15 AM
Ditto.
In a parallel universe in which we would only have one of the Prokofiev symphonies, I should have to choose the Second. It would be a wrench, &c. &c., but my decision would be swift and final.
I might agree with that (either that or the 5th)... (and the recording would be Ozawa)
Of course Wellington's Victory is hardly one of Beethoven's greatest works.
But it's harmless fun, and at least not boring. Basically, he wrote it for easy money.
Not everything Haydn and Mozart wrote is a sublime masterpiece. They wrote their share of potboilers. They often had to write pleasant music to divert aristocrats at dinner. No crime. It put food on their tables.
Quote from: DavidW on April 27, 2010, 11:49:16 AM
Beethoven-- Wellington's Victory it's just kind of dumb.
People keep saying that, but I beg to differ.
First of all, it's masterly crafted. You can not only hear, but feel the cannons and the battle.
Secondly, imagine what Wellington's victory meant for those countries and peoples which were really opposed to Napoleon's usurpation of titles and pretensions of dictating the fate of the whole Europe: a heroic achievement, a giant relief, a huge sign of hope and a truly good news. All this is expressed in the score.
Not among his greatest works, but certainly worth more than its reputation.
Quote from: Velimir on April 27, 2010, 11:23:29 AM
My early impression of Bach's Musical Offering is that it too could fall into this "dud of genius" category. I need to get to know it better, though.
I'll come back later with a few of my duds. But right now, I need to say that IMHO Bach's Musical Offering is one of his greatest works. Perhaps you need a better version. I would recommend the one by Mariner/Academy SMF.
Quote from: Chaszz on April 28, 2010, 12:25:59 PM
I'll come back later with a few of my duds. But right now, I need to say that IMHO Bach's Musical Offering is one of his greatest works. Perhaps you need a better version. I would recommend the one by Mariner/Academy SMF.
Ouch! I consider Marriner/Bach an evil combination. It's likely the version that's turning Velimir off.
But seriously, it would be good to know what versions he has heard.
Quote from: Bulldog on April 28, 2010, 12:33:57 PM
Ouch! I consider Marriner/Bach an evil combination. It's likely the version that's turning Velimir off.
But seriously, it would be good to know what versions he has heard.
Most recently I've heard Harnoncourt CMW, which instilled respect but not love of the music.
Shostakovich 4 is just staggering, one of his greatest symphonies without question.
Quote from: Guido on April 28, 2010, 02:38:23 PM
Shostakovich 4 is just staggering, one of his greatest symphonies without question.
QFT
Quote from: Velimir on April 27, 2010, 10:28:24 PM
I don't have any trouble with serialism, and I don't see why the current date (2010) is relevant to this. Rather, I don't like the serial pieces Schoenberg wrote nearly as much as I like the late Romantic and free atonal pieces that he wrote earlier. I'll take Pierrot Lunaire, Verklärte Nacht, and the Five Orchestral Pieces over the Piano Concerto, Violin Concerto, or Begleitmusik zu einer Lichtspielszene any day. He was a great composer, but the serial period does not reflect him at his best. End of story.
Actually I will agree with you. I find the more neo-classical pieces like the Septet, Piano Suite, and the Wind Quintet especially to be rhythmically more constrained and less free than the extraordinary works written between op. 11-22. Serialism did not IMO inhibit Berg or Webern, but for Schoenberg himself, the inventor of the system, I think it proved a dead end.
My dud of genius? The Beethoven Violin Concerto, which I find his least satisfactory large-scale orchestral work.
Quote from: Sforzando on April 28, 2010, 04:26:25 PMMy dud of genius? The Beethoven Violin Concerto, which I find his least satisfactory large-scale orchestral work.
:o
One man's dud is another man's gold.
As to duds, it strikes me the more I think about it that the fault may be mine rather than the composer's when I can't appreciate a work by a master. And it also strikes me now that I think about it how many composers I haven't appreciated properly, because my listening is overall haphazard and unplanned; I have a lot of things going on in my life, am an artist and don't always specialize in listening as I think a number of members here do. The list of great composers I am relatively unfamiliar with stretches a lot longer than the ones I am, excepting the fact that the ones I am familiar with are more or less on the higher end of posterity's reckoning.
Anyway, for duds, some of Bach's cantata solo and duet vocal arias are dull. They often seem formulaic. I read recently on a Bach site that he had music pupils/assistants write some of them. I had not read that before. Does anyone know the truth of that?
If he wrote them himself, of course the sheer volume of work he took on in writing a cantata every week or so for a few years would make it almost impossible to be inspired for every aria, even for a composer as great as this.
Quote from: Chaszz on April 28, 2010, 05:56:19 PM
Anyway, for duds, some of Bach's cantata solo and duet vocal arias are dull. They often seem formulaic.
I'll disagree with this, they are often filled with charming counterpoint between the instruments in the background, making light of the singing but elevating the whole to excellent chamber music. I think they are the heart of Bach's cantatas, and I usually find that they move me more than a perfunctory chorus at the end. Not everyone is going to be some deep, moving aria like the one in bwv 82 (this seems to be threatening to replace the Archduke Trio for my favorite work) but overall they are still my favorite part of a Bach cantata. :)
And my least favorite part of any vocal work (especially operas)? Recitative. Screw the text, the meaning, the story, the plot etc, let's sing! :D
Regard Prok 2, I defer to the composer's opinion (he thought it was a dud).
I find Mahler edging into this category. There's so much good stuff in his symphonies, but it's like a turkey draped in cheese and bacon, and stuffed with another turkey, which is in turn stuffed with quail's eggs - it's just too much!
Mozart and Haydn were mentioned earlier. I have found myself up against the conventional wisdom that EVERYTHING by Mozart is a top work of genius. It puts you in the ridiculous position of having to equate the Requiem with his juvenilia. Only a fanatic could do that with a straight face.
Prokofiev's Second Symphony is a work of genius, there's no doubt about it.
It's shocking that someone would find a fault in Bach's music, especially his cantatas.
As for the recitatives, one must think of them in the context of the opera. Operas are merely staged productions that integrate a libretto and a musical score. It's much like a musical, in fact. So when Figaro and Susanna are talking about (who knows what!) it is no different... in fact, I believe that composers saw this as a necessity for the plot to move along smoothly.
Of course, the major difference is that operatic recitatives are often well-written and have a highly musical purpose in the context of the opera itself.
Quote from: eyeresist on April 28, 2010, 07:09:56 PM
... I find Mahler edging into this category. There's so much good stuff in his symphonies, but it's like a turkey draped in cheese and bacon, and stuffed with another turkey, which is in turn stuffed with quail's eggs - it's just too much!...
But what music could better exemplify the gargantuan end of Romanticism, like an obese brontosaurus, and the readiness of the culture for something else? Almost as if, if it didn't exist, it would have to be invented...
Quote from: DavidW on April 28, 2010, 06:58:07 PM
I'll disagree with this, they are often filled with charming counterpoint between the instruments in the background, making light of the singing but elevating the whole to excellent chamber music. I think they are the heart of Bach's cantatas, and I usually find that they move me more than a perfunctory chorus at the end. Not everyone is going to be some deep, moving aria like the one in bwv 82 (this seems to be threatening to replace the Archduke Trio for my favorite work) but overall they are still my favorite part of a Bach cantata. :)
And my least favorite part of any vocal work (especially operas)? Recitative. Screw the text, the meaning, the story, the plot etc, let's sing! :D
I was careful to say some of these, not all of them, are somewhat dull. Some are inspired, some formulaic, in my opinion. What you say about the counterpoint is certainly true of many of them, especially the ones with flute obligatto.
Quote from: Bulldog on April 28, 2010, 12:33:57 PM
But seriously, it would be good to know what versions he has heard.
I had a version on Hanssler, I forget the exact forces involved. More recently, I got Konstantin Lifschitz's piano version on Orfeo.
I don't wish to knock the work too hard, it contains some good bits as one would expect with Bach. But as a whole it feels like a bunch of disconnected parts which creates a rather dry academic impression.
Quote from: Sforzando on April 28, 2010, 04:26:25 PM
Serialism did not IMO inhibit Berg or Webern, but for Schoenberg himself, the inventor of the system, I think it proved a dead end.
Yes, well put. Ironic, eh?
Quote
My dud of genius? The Beethoven Violin Concerto, which I find his least satisfactory large-scale orchestral work.
Agree with this as well. Not a bad piece, but kind of uninspired. For small-scale dud LvB, the Serioso Quartet (Op. 95) is my choice. One of those experimental-sounding things that doesn't quite hang together.
Quote from: Chaszz on April 28, 2010, 09:20:12 PM
But what music could better exemplify the gargantuan end of Romanticism, like an obese brontosaurus, and the readiness of the culture for something else? Almost as if, if it didn't exist, it would have to be invented...
But why not just put the brontosaurus on a diet? They didn't have to put it down :(
Re Beethoven's violin concerto, it's not a top work but I like it. Brahms's violin concerto, on the other hand, is not a first-rate work of the master, in my opinion, and I find it distinctly
meh to listen to.
Quote from: Cato on April 28, 2010, 03:50:24 AM
Hoping that Sarge keeps his machine-gun under control, I will mention an early Wagner work (I heard excerpts many moons ago) dedicated to dud-dom: The Fairies (Die Feen)
( :o Runs for cover! 0:) )
When I read "an early Wagner work" I thought you might mention
Holländer or
Tannhäuser and I made ready to unleash the heavy artillery...but
Die Feen? Relax, Cato....I won't go to war over that ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 29, 2010, 01:51:11 AM
When I read "an early Wagner work" I thought you might mention Holländer or Tannhäuser and I made ready to unleash the heavy artillery...but Die Feen? Relax, Cato....I won't go to war over that ;D
Sarge
Apprentice works are
allowed to be duds, for God's sake! How else to learn?
Quote from: eyeresist on April 28, 2010, 07:09:56 PM
Regard Prok 2, I defer to the composer's opinion (he thought it was a dud).
Balderdash, and intellectually lazy balderdash at that.
Quote from: Velimir on April 28, 2010, 10:29:37 PM
I had a version on Hanssler, I forget the exact forces involved. More recently, I got Konstantin Lifschitz's piano version on Orfeo.
I don't wish to knock the work too hard, it contains some good bits as one would expect with Bach. But as a whole it feels like a bunch of disconnected parts which creates a rather dry academic impression.
Thanks for the response. Those two versions of the Musical Offering are certainly worthy ones.
Quote from: Velimir on April 27, 2010, 11:23:29 AM
My early impression of Bach's Musical Offering is that it too could fall into this "dud of genius" category. I need to get to know it better, though.
Your candidates for "duds of genius"?
If I'd had to pick one work by Bach it would be the Goldberg Variations. There are some beautiful parts, but most of it I find just dry and boring. I never understood it's popularity, and I'd rather listen to *any* other work by Bach.
Quote from: Velimir on April 28, 2010, 10:29:37 PM
I had a version [of the Musical Offering] on Hanssler, I forget the exact forces involved. More recently, I got Konstantin Lifschitz's piano version on Orfeo.
I don't wish to knock the work too hard, it contains some good bits as one would expect with Bach. But as a whole it feels like a bunch of disconnected parts which creates a rather dry academic impression...
...Agree with this as well [re the Beethoven Violin Concerto]. Not a bad piece, but kind of uninspired. For small-scale dud LvB, the Serioso Quartet (Op. 95) is my choice. One of those experimental-sounding things that doesn't quite hang together.
For me these two snippets illustrate that beauty is in the ear of the beholder. I have spent many hours exploring the Musical Offering in whole and part, and find it one of Bach's most elevated and rewarding works, quite consistent in the overall lyrical effect it makes. The ineffable harmonies suggested by the passing and crossing contrapuntal lines seem on a new plane of wisdom and serenity even for Bach. The center sections seem to me to be natural for strings, and I would not think a piano version the ideal way to hear it.
And just the other day I was at a life drawing class where we listen to NYC classical music station WQXR-FM while drawing. The Beethoven Violin Concerto came on, and I thought to myself, well, WQXR plays a lot of hoary old warhorses, and here is one of the hoariest ones. I sighed and resigned myself to having to listen through it again. After several moments I was swept away for the hundreth time in the majesty of this wonderful piece, each movement inspired and beautiful....
And yet some people find two these works lacking...go figure.
As Toscanini said," No one is a genius 24 hours a day".
Great composers can be forgiven for having written some hum-drum works if they have provided the world with genuine immortal masterpieces.
Quote from: Superhorn on April 29, 2010, 07:18:04 AM
As Toscanini said," No one is a genius 24 hours a day".
Great composers can be forgiven for having written some hum-drum works if they have provided the world with genuine immortal masterpieces.
I like Billy Wilder's dictum, "You're as good as the best thing you've done."
Quote from: RexRichter on April 28, 2010, 07:14:30 PM
Of course, the major difference is that operatic recitatives are often well-written and have a highly musical purpose in the context of the opera itself.
Well when I watch an opera with subtitles I can tell that great music was written around silly soap operas. :D And when I just listen on cd, I get nothing out of recitatives in a language that I don't understand, it doesn't add anything if you don't get it. So they just don't really work for me in either situation. :)
Quote from: Chaszz on April 29, 2010, 07:07:26 AM
For me these two snippets illustrate that beauty is in the ear of the beholder. I have spent many hours exploring the Musical Offering in whole and part, and find it one of Bach's most elevated and rewarding works, quite consistent in the overall lyrical effect it makes. The ineffable harmonies suggested by the passing and crossing contrapuntal lines seem on a new plane of wisdom and serenity even for Bach. The center sections seem to me to be natural for strings, and I would not think a piano version the ideal way to hear it.
And just the other day I was at a life drawing class where we listen to NYC classical music station WQXR-FM while drawing. The Beethoven Violin Concerto came on, and I thought to myself, well, WQXR plays a lot of hoary old warhorses, and here is one of the hoariest ones. I sighed and resigned myself to having to listen through it again. After several moments I was swept away for the hundreth time in the majesty of this wonderful piece, each movement inspired and beautiful....
And yet some people find two these works lacking...go figure.
Count me in as well on both works. I count Beethovens violin concerto as the non plus ultra of violin concertoes. So it's not virtuosic, but what the h..l? Who needs a sweaty guy (or gal) in frot of the orchestra anyway?
Quote from: erato on April 29, 2010, 08:31:27 AM
Count me in as well on both works. I count Beethovens violin concerto as the non plus ultra of violin concertoes. So it's not virtuosic, but what the h..l?
That's not Sforzando's quarrel with the piece, I am sure. (Just saying.)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 29, 2010, 01:51:11 AM
When I read "an early Wagner work" I thought you might mention Holländer or Tannhäuser and I made ready to unleash the heavy artillery...but Die Feen? Relax, Cato....I won't go to war over that ;D
Sarge
Glad to hear it! 0:)
And I must admit that a day or two ago, when I first went through this topic, the name
Ferde Grofe went through my mind, and I was ready to enumerate various musical malefactions like the
Hudson River Suite or the
Hollywood Suite.
But then I stopped: the topic is "Duds
of Genius " $:) and so I relented! 8)
Quote from: Cato on April 29, 2010, 09:12:14 AM
And I must admit that a day or two ago, when I first went through this topic, the name Ferde Grofe went through my mind... But then I stopped: the topic is "Duds of Genius " $:) and so I relented! 8)
Poor Ferde...the Rodney Dangerfield of composers.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 29, 2010, 09:16:34 AM
Poor Ferde...the Rodney Dangerfield of composers.
Sarge
Rodney 0:) was a genius!
I still remember being in the car and hearing the middle of the
Mississippi Suite - not knowing what it was or who had scribbled it down - and laughing my way through it. It was a hot day in July, and I was at the post office: so vivid is the memory!
It did not take long for me to deduce who the scribbler had to be! :o
Quote from: zmic on April 29, 2010, 06:38:25 AM
If I'd had to pick one work by Bach it would be the Goldberg Variations. There are some beautiful parts, but most of it I find just dry and boring. I never understood it's popularity, and I'd rather listen to *any* other work by Bach.
My heart is sinking. :(
Quote from: Velimir on April 28, 2010, 10:29:37 PM
For small-scale dud LvB, the Serioso Quartet (Op. 95) is my choice. One of those experimental-sounding things that doesn't quite hang together.
hrrmph! :'(
Quote from: Velimir on April 28, 2010, 10:29:37 PM
I had a version on Hanssler, I forget the exact forces involved. More recently, I got Konstantin Lifschitz's piano version on Orfeo.
I don't wish to knock the work too hard, it contains some good bits as one would expect with Bach. But as a whole it feels like a bunch of disconnected parts which creates a rather dry academic impression.
Yes, well put. Ironic, eh?
Agree with this as well. Not a bad piece, but kind of uninspired. For small-scale dud LvB, the Serioso Quartet (Op. 95) is my choice. One of those experimental-sounding things that doesn't quite hang together.
First you dump on Bach's Musical Offering. Now you add Beethoven's Violin Concerto and his Op. 95 Quartet to the mix. I'm getting the feeling that you're getting a charge out of doing this. I'd like to suggest that the problem is you, not Bach or Beethoven.
Quote from: DavidW on April 29, 2010, 07:39:02 AM
And when I just listen on cd, I get nothing out of recitatives in a language that I don't understand, it doesn't add anything if you don't get it. So they just don't really work for me in either situation. :)
But don't you usually have access to the English translations?
Quote from: Bulldog on April 29, 2010, 03:04:10 PM
But don't you usually have access to the English translations?
At home yes, and then yup I have them out. But I also like to listen at work and sometimes in the car, and those times I'm at a loss. And if I were to just go strictly home listening for operas, then I would prefer dvds to watch over cds since I'm home anyway, might as well watch it.
Quote from: Velimir on April 28, 2010, 10:29:37 PM
For small-scale dud LvB, the Serioso Quartet (Op. 95) is my choice. One of those experimental-sounding things that doesn't quite hang together.
And we were doing so well. I think 95 an absolute masterpiece from first note to last, and I emphatically include the coda to the finale.
Quote from: Bulldog on April 29, 2010, 01:49:50 PM
First you dump on Bach's Musical Offering. Now you add Beethoven's Violin Concerto and his Op. 95 Quartet to the mix. I'm getting the feeling that you're getting a charge out of doing this. I'd like to suggest that the problem is you, not Bach or Beethoven.
Hey, I dumped on the Violin Concerto first.
Quote from: Sforzando on April 29, 2010, 03:55:00 PM
And we were doing so well. I think 95 an absolute masterpiece from first note to last, and I emphatically include the coda to the finale.
And apparently Mahler agreed, since he prepared a version for string orchestra that makes an interesting contrast to the proper quartet version.
Quote from: Chaszz on April 28, 2010, 12:25:59 PM
I'll come back later with a few of my duds. But right now, I need to say that IMHO Bach's Musical Offering is one of his greatest works. Perhaps you need a better version. I would recommend the one by Mariner/Academy SMF.
My feeling is that the MO is more like an album or collection than a unified work. I do think the Ricercare a 6 one of Bach's most fascinating fugues, and of course so did Webern, who managed to make it sound at least as much like Webern as like Bach.
Quote from: Bulldog on April 29, 2010, 01:49:50 PMFirst you dump on Bach's Musical Offering. Now you add Beethoven's Violin Concerto and his Op. 95 Quartet to the mix. I'm getting the feeling that you're getting a charge out of doing this. I'd like to suggest that the problem is you, not Bach or Beethoven.
This was my feeling from the start. I was castigated on another board (which will remain anonymous, but its letters are CMG) for putting it this way, but all this seems like consumerism to me. The attitudes often expressed about music on all the boards I've ever strolled through are those of consumers--I'm spending my hard earned money on this music, and it had better satisfy me. If it doesn't, something's wrong with
it. This is most noticable when people are talking about musics of the past hundred years (I'm cancelling my symphony subscription if they don't stop shoving all this modern crap down my throat), but, as this thread illustrates, it's an attitude that applies about all music everywhere.
And what's really wrong with it is not the disrespect to great artists whose shoe laces we're not worthy and et cetera, though that's certainly part of the wrongness! It's that it kills what should be a dynamic relationship. It's the composer's/performer's/music's job to entertain me. All I have to do is sit here passively and point my thumb majestically up or down. Whatever happened to listening, active, sympathetic listening that pulls us out of ourselves and makes us better people? To the kind of engaged receptivity that makes the whole business worthwhile?
Too philosophical? :P
I think that the OP has been misread by a few here. His actual wording suggests that he is looking for brilliant, but flawed works. Hardly a binary thumbs up/down nor a call to trash great works that you happen to not like. And I don't really think this has anything to do with consumerism.
Here let me give my own example to reply to Spitvalve's post (Wellington's Victory was just a cheap shot): Schubert's 9th is one of my favorite symphonies, and it has many spectacular moments and an architecture that only his genius could have written, but at the same time it's simply not enough it is too massive for such a limited number of themes to develop. :)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 29, 2010, 05:30:31 AM
Balderdash, and intellectually lazy balderdash at that.
Hey, you'll have to take it up with Sergei. Myself, I agree with him. Prok 2 is on balance a triumph of technique over musicality.
Quote from: Sforzando on April 29, 2010, 04:07:52 PM
My feeling is that the MO is more like an album or collection than a unified work. I do think the Ricercare a 6 one of Bach's most fascinating fugues, and of course so did Webern, who managed to make it sound at least as much like Webern as like Bach.
I understand the feeling that the Musical Offering is not unified, in terms of form. However, I feel the theme unifies it, and is a very effective motif, though provided by Frederick the Great rather than Bach. Its rising then descending chromatic nature is very evocative to me (of something definite but unnameable), and Bach puts it through its paces, wringing every possible refined emotion and harmonic change out of it. So though there is a trio sonata here, canons there, and a ricercare elsewhere, at the end I feel like I've seen a large and beautiful complex jewel from every angle and facet. And in the final ricercare, I feel the master ascending to a new plateau of wisdom, akin to Beethoven's late quartets or Strauss' Four Last Songs.
Quote from: some guy on April 29, 2010, 04:18:18 PM
This was my feeling from the start. I was castigated on another board (which will remain anonymous, but its letters are CMG) for putting it this way, but all this seems like consumerism to me. The attitudes often expressed about music on all the boards I've ever strolled through are those of consumers--I'm spending my hard earned money on this music, and it had better satisfy me. If it doesn't, something's wrong with it. This is most noticable when people are talking about musics of the past hundred years (I'm cancelling my symphony subscription if they don't stop shoving all this modern crap down my throat), but, as this thread illustrates, it's an attitude that applies about all music everywhere.
And what's really wrong with it is not the disrespect to great artists whose shoe laces we're not worthy and et cetera, though that's certainly part of the wrongness! It's that it kills what should be a dynamic relationship. It's the composer's/performer's/music's job to entertain me. All I have to do is sit here passively and point my thumb majestically up or down. Whatever happened to listening, active, sympathetic listening that pulls us out of ourselves and makes us better people? To the kind of engaged receptivity that makes the whole business worthwhile?
Too philosophical? :P
I would disagree with some of this. I've spent the past 50 years playing and listening to classical music, and it is no disrespect to some very great composers to believe that they are not always at the top of their game. If I have problems with the LvB Violin Concerto, it has nothing to do with consumerism, or my hard-earned money, or any of this, but rather with the sense I have that many of its phrase structures are characterized by a kind of predictable symmetry that strikes me as ultimately pedestrian. The antecedent goes up, the consequent goes down. Two bars of a phrase are heard in the treble, then two in the bass, back and forth, monkey-see monkey-do. And then the phrases often fall apart rather than coming to firm cadences. It seems to me that B. was attempting a kind of almost neutral lyricism in this work, but that he hadn't found a way to reconcile lyricism with sonata form in the way he did in the 4th piano concerto or still later in sonatas like op 110 or the quartet op 127.
Quote from: James on April 29, 2010, 06:54:00 PM
Hey Sforzando ... just curious, what's your opinion of LvB's 1st, 2nd & 3rd Piano Concertos or even his Triple Concerto?
The Triple - an interesting experiment that doesn't quite come off. The opening movement is well-constructed but somewhat neutral in character, and I wish he had developed a complete slow movement rather than just an intro to the concluding polacca. Piano 1+2 for me are both attractive early works, with #1 being somewhat prolix as LvB tended to be in his early period. I think #3 one of the best of them all, a well-constructed and inventive piece in B's Sturm und Drang C-minor style, with a great slow movement.
Quote from: Sforzando on April 29, 2010, 07:09:06 PMI think #3 one of the best of them all, a well-constructed and inventive piece in B's Sturm und Drang C-minor style, with a great slow movement.
#3 is my clear favorite among the Beethoven Piano Concerti, with 5 a close second. The early works don't interest me as much and I have never understood the 4th.
Sforzando, I don't think we disagree. I didn't, after all, say that all posts exemplify the consumer attitude. (And money, certainly, is not the most important element of the attitude.)
Of course, any of us who have studied and played and loved music as long as we have (your dates and mine correspond) will have opinions about different works. Your post about Beethoven's violin concerto (which is not one of his stronger works, it's true) is not in line with what I've called consumerism.
I'm talking only about the attitude that assumes that it's the piece's job, the composer's job, to please us. Period. The energy only flows one way. Our only job is to sit back and take it in. If it pleases us, the thumb goes up. If it doesn't, the thumb goes down. That is not the attitude you have brought to this discussion. You bring the real sense of engagement with the music that I miss in many of our colleague's posts.
Quote from: DavidW on April 29, 2010, 04:40:58 PM
I think that the OP has been misread by a few here. His actual wording suggests that he is looking for brilliant, but flawed works. Hardly a binary thumbs up/down nor a call to trash great works that you happen to not like. And I don't really think this has anything to do with consumerism.
Wow, somebody actually read and understood my opening post. A rare thing on a message board. Thanks David :)
As for the rest of you >:(
Quote from: Bulldog on April 29, 2010, 01:49:50 PM
First you dump on Bach's Musical Offering. Now you add Beethoven's Violin Concerto and his Op. 95 Quartet to the mix. I'm getting the feeling that you're getting a charge out of doing this. I'd like to suggest that the problem is you, not Bach or Beethoven.
LOL. I guess the fact that I like almost everything else I've heard from Bach and Beethoven doesn't matter? Once again, the topic is Duds of
Genius, not Duds of
Duds.
Quote from: some guy on April 29, 2010, 04:18:18 PM
This was my feeling from the start. I was castigated on another board [snipped: lots of irrelevant stuff about "consumerism", etc.]...
Since you misunderstood my earlier point about Schoenberg and serialism, it doesn't surprise me that you misunderstand the point of this thread as a whole.
Quote from: Sforzando on April 29, 2010, 04:07:52 PM
My feeling is that the MO is more like an album or collection than a unified work. I do think the Ricercare a 6 one of Bach's most fascinating fugues, and of course so did Webern, who managed to make it sound at least as much like Webern as like Bach.
I agree with this. It's the "album aspect" that makes it difficult to listen to straight through. I have a similar problem with
The Art of Fugue, but at least that feels more unified throughout.
Quote from: Velimir on April 29, 2010, 10:00:40 PMSince you misunderstood my earlier point about Schoenberg and serialism, it doesn't surprise me that you misunderstand the point of this thread as a whole.
Well, since none of my comments so far have been about the point of this thread, it's rather humorous to hear this accusation.
You've made two points about Schoenberg and serialism, one before my very first comment on this thread and one after.
Here's the first: "I'm tempted to think that Schoenberg's serial technique is the kind of misstep only a genius could make. While I like certain products of it (like the Op. 31 Variations), on the whole I think he made a wrong turn when he went this way."
And the second, abridged: "I don't have any trouble with serialism.... Rather, I don't like the serial pieces Schoenberg wrote nearly as much as I like the late Romantic and free atonal pieces that he wrote earlier. ... He was a great composer, but the serial period does not reflect him at his best."
You are welcome to believe that everyone will think that your two points do not contradict each other in any way.
Quote from: some guy on April 29, 2010, 04:18:18 PM
It's the composer's/performer's/music's job to entertain me.
But well, also to enlighten you. That's why music that doesn't sound very convincing or entertaining after some years suddenly may click! One of the joys of systematic listening IMO.
Quote from: some guy on April 29, 2010, 11:46:13 PMYou are welcome to believe that everyone will think that your two points do not contradict each other in any way.
Where's the contradiction? In any case, Sfz and James seem to have the same problem as I do:
Quote from: Sforzando on April 28, 2010, 04:26:25 PM
Serialism did not IMO inhibit Berg or Webern, but for Schoenberg himself, the inventor of the system, I think it proved a dead end.
Quote from: James on April 29, 2010, 11:57:30 PM
Schoenberg was a genius but he (& Berg) did seem to struggle & wrestle with the serial technique, much more-so than say Anton Webern who used it best. At least to my ears.
I disagree with James about Berg, though.
This thread is simply hi-la-rious! ;D
Bach's "duds" so far: Art of the Fuge, Musical Offering and the Goldberg Variations.
(Basically the works in which his writing is more formal and therefore probably less accessible.)
Well Tempered Clavier anyone? 8) ;)
Q
Quote from: Que on April 30, 2010, 01:39:24 AM
This thread is simply hi-la-rious! ;D
Bach's "duds" so far: Art of the Fuge, Musical Offering and the Goldberg Variations.
(Basically the works in which his writing is more formal and therefore probably less accessible.)
Well Tempered Clavier anyone? 8) ;)
Q
I guess structure is not entertaining enough.
Quote from: Scarpia on April 29, 2010, 07:46:25 PM
#3 is my clear favorite among the Beethoven Piano Concerti, with 5 a close second. The early works don't interest me as much and I have never understood the 4th.
I would be interested in why 4 presents a problem in "understanding" for you. I think it stands alone among the concerti for its spontaneity, lyricism, and sense of organic unity. (Consider just the opening 5-bar phrase for the solo piano: no matter how hard you try, you can't "regularize" it into a 4-bar pattern. And then the answering phrase from the strings in what sounds like a remote key, until he works his way back to G major.) The Emperor is a fine piece in B's middle-period heroic mode, with a beautiful slow movement, but to me it does not have quite the individuality of the 4th.
Quote from: Velimir on April 30, 2010, 12:23:35 AM
I disagree with James about Berg, though.
So do I. If you read George Perle's studies of Berg, he discovered more potential uses for the row than either Schoenberg or Webern.
I would like to hear more about your issues with op. 95, however.
Quote from: eyeresist on April 29, 2010, 06:22:35 PM
Hey, you'll have to take it up with Sergei.
Thanks for your continued laziness! What exactly is it that you "just agree with"?
But why discuss the matter when your mind is made up, right?
Quote from: erato on April 30, 2010, 01:57:36 AM
I guess structure is not entertaining enough.
Is that why you don't think much of the Prokofiev Opus 40?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 30, 2010, 04:15:40 AM
Thanks for your continued laziness!
What exactly is it that you "just agree with"?
But why discuss the matter when your mind is made up, right?
Not sure where you got "just agree with"; those weren't my words.
To quote from the composer's biography at prokofiev.org, after the debut of the second symphony, Prokofiev said
"Neither I nor the audience understood anything in it. It was too thickly woven. There were too many layers of counterpoint which degenerated into mere figuration... This was perhaps the first time it appeared to me that I might be destined to be a second-rate composer."
http://www.prokofiev.org/biography/america.html
He also planned to revise it, another indication that he found it unsatisfactory.
That's why I said you should take it up with Sergei, the horse's mouth, so to speak.
I formed my opinion of the work before I knew the composer's. Apart from finding its caustic elements something of a pose, I found the structure of the work difficult to intuit. Contra more sophisticated opinion, I think I should be able to perceive these things without studying the score, or taking the matter on faith.
Well, I think the posts have uncovered the interesting fact that so far there's no dud that someone else doesn't love. Would anyone care to try to name a universal dud? By a great composer, of course; we can all name many universal duds by mediocre or incompetent ones.
This means that probably you'll have to try to think of one that not only do you not like, but that also hasn't been defended here and that you haven't seen praised elsewhere: on this forum, on other forums, by your friends, in the critical literature.
I would open the bidding but I'm thinking, I'm thinking...
Quote from: Que on April 30, 2010, 01:39:24 AM
This thread is simply hi-la-rious! ;D
Bach's "duds" so far: Art of the Fuge, Musical Offering and the Goldberg Variations.
(Basically the works in which his writing is more formal and therefore probably less accessible.)
Well Tempered Clavier anyone? 8) ;)
Q
Here's a good combination of opinions. I find even though the Musical Offering is formal, it is lovely and inspired throughout, as I've already said twice. But the Art of Fugue I find formal and academic, relatively uninspired. And I've had these opinions over many years, through several versions of each work.
Go figure...
And actually I think this is a very useful thread, in showing that
it's very hard or perhaps impossible to have any absolute standard/evaluation of what's good or not good in music.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 30, 2010, 04:17:08 AM
Is that why you don't think much of the Prokofiev Opus 40?
Me? I've never mentioned the work!
Quote from: Chaszz on April 30, 2010, 08:30:57 AM
But the Art of Fugue I find formal and academic, relatively uninspired. And I've had these opinions over many years, through several versions of each work.
Go figure...
Well, I'm aware of the obstacle the nature of the work presents to performers and listeners alike. But I have encountered evidence that the Art of the Fugue actually has life and a soul in it! :)
Yes really, Bach plays hard to get but it
can be done. Which shows there is a difference between hard-to-get and a dud. 8)
(http://images.emusic.com/music/images/album/279/110/929/11092926/300x300.jpg)
Samples (http://www.emusic.com/album/Robert-Hill-Johann-Sebastian-Bach-The-Art-of-Fugue-BWV-1080-MP3-Download/11092926.html)
Q
Quote from: James on April 30, 2010, 09:36:04 AM
As great as Berg was he didn't achieve that perfect balance between organizing and expressivity, it can be very dilute, derivative, familar & forced at times, weaving references & influences of the past, non-serial elements. .. as if the serial technique wasn't enough for him to express what he wanted, tilting to the overtly expressive-side too...like he (much like Schoenberg) was being pulled in 2 different directions, you never sense this with Webern & he makes that 12 note method of organizing music so much more his own than either of them, so much more undiluted...and this is why he was the most influencial of the 3.
It is precisely that quality in Berg and Schoenberg that I find the most compelling aspect of their 12-tone works, and while much is made of Webern's influence, I think that was more true in the mid-20th century, and limited to the absolute serial school. Others, Wuorinen for example, I find to be more akin to Berg and Schoenberg than Webern, I would also include Nono, and most of the Italian serialists with Wuorinen - and I think ultimately it has been the expressive, looser, use of the 12-tone process of Berg and Schoenberg that has been more of an influence for more composers.
Quote from: Sforzando on April 28, 2010, 04:26:25 PM
My dud of genius? The Beethoven Violin Concerto, which I find his least satisfactory large-scale orchestral work.
WOW! To me, this is one of his best, if not the best of his large scale orchestral works. It tramples over all of his Piano Concerti, and comes very close to the mastery of his great symphonies, in my opinion. I still think it's the greatest Violin Concerto ever written (sorry Brahms, Tchaik, Sibelius.)
Mahler - Symphony No. 8
Immediately sprung to mind.
Quote from: Brahmsian on April 30, 2010, 10:18:04 AM
Mahler - Symphony No. 8
Immediately sprung to mind.
Same here. ;D I refrained from mentioning it though because I haven't listened to it in a few years.
Quote from: DavidW on April 30, 2010, 10:41:23 AM
Same here. ;D I refrained from mentioning it though because I haven't listened to it in a few years.
I was also going to mention Mahler 8, but restrained myself because I've never listened past the first 30 seconds or so. 8) (I do have at around 5 recordings of it, one for each Mahler cycle I own).
Quote from: Scarpia on April 30, 2010, 10:45:34 AM
I was also going to mention Mahler 8, but restrained myself because I've never listened past the first 30 seconds or so. 8) (I do have at around 5 recordings of it, one for each Mahler cycle I own).
Ah, but what a dud those 30 seconds are . . . .
Quote from: Sforzando on April 30, 2010, 11:16:14 AM
Ah, but what a dud those 30 seconds are . . . .
;D
Nice to have you back, Poco.... :)
8)
Quote from: eyeresist on April 30, 2010, 05:11:28 AM[Prokofiev] also planned to revise [the second symphony], another indication that he found it unsatisfactory.
Really? Just the one option?
Well, if that's so, then he must have really found his fourth symphony even more unsatisfactory, because he actually did carry out extensive revisions on that one. (In 1945, talking about his plans to revise the second and the fourth, he said "Now I know what is wrong with them, and I simply must re-do them." Now, in 1945 not 1925. That suggests that he did not really know, in 1925, what was wrong with it.)
Prokofiev was an inveterate tinkerer. He worked on revisions on most of his pieces, sometimes for years. (He only stopped working on
War & Peace because he died.) Perhaps Prokofiev simply found everything he did to be unsatisfactory. Kind of like Bruckner, maybe, another composer who mucked about with his own pieces long after their first versions were completed.
Lots of options for why Prokofiev planned to revise the second.
As for your ability or inability to intuit the structure. Are you really seriously advancing that as a critical comment on the symphony itself? (Do you have similar difficulties with Beethoven's opus 111?)
Quote from: some guy on April 30, 2010, 12:50:13 PM
Really? Just the one option?
Well, if that's so, then he must have really found his fourth symphony even more unsatisfactory, because he actually did carry out extensive revisions on that one. (In 1945, talking about his plans to revise the second and the fourth, he said "Now I know what is wrong with them, and I simply must re-do them." Now, in 1945 not 1925. That suggests that he did not really know, in 1925, what was wrong with it.)
Prokofiev was an inveterate tinkerer. He worked on revisions on most of his pieces, sometimes for years. (He only stopped working on War & Peace because he died.) Perhaps Prokofiev simply found everything he did to be unsatisfactory. Kind of like Bruckner, maybe, another composer who mucked about with his own pieces long after their first versions were completed.
Lots of options for why Prokofiev planned to revise the second.
As for your ability or inability to intuit the structure. Are you really seriously advancing that as a critical comment on the symphony itself? (Do you have similar difficulties with Beethoven's opus 111?)
The fact that he planned a revision of the Second Symphony, yes, we all agree on that.
But Sunshine there is sure he knows exactly what that means.
Ah, the sound of a mind snapping shut!
Quote from: Brahmsian on April 30, 2010, 10:18:04 AM
Mahler - Symphony No. 8
Immediately sprung to mind.
I suppose that's the point
I'm now due to play the part of the Angry Internet Man, and start (e-)yelling! :D
But within the context of the approach that seems (to me) to lead people astray regarding the Mahler 8th, it's a good example of a dud of
genius-as-perceived-by-some (vs. dud-as-perceived-by-some). I still find it tied with the 6th for second best!
:)
Edit: To elaborate a little, I feel the Mahler 8th is generally disregarded by people to whom Mahler in general means different things than he does to me, and even, I dare suspect (in knowledge of the hubris I might be committing) Mahler himself.
Though that's not an accusation, but an observation, on my behalf.
Quote from: Renfield on April 30, 2010, 01:19:14 PM
I suppose that's the point I'm now due to play the part of the Angry Internet Man, and start (e-)yelling! :D
But within the context of the approach that seems (to me) to lead people astray regarding the Mahler 8th, it's a good example of a dud of genius-as-perceived-by-some (vs. dud-as-perceived-by-some). I still find it tied with the 6th for second best!
:)
Edit: To elaborate a little, I feel the Mahler 8th is generally disregarded by people to whom Mahler in general means different things than he does to me, and even, I dare suspect (in knowledge of the hubris I might be committing) Mahler himself.
Though that's not an accusation, but an observation, on my behalf.
I think the vocal/choral element in the 8th makes it, on the surface, different enough from the rest of Mahler's works that most people have to think of it in a class by itself. The song cycles have a solo voice and orchestra, the 2, 3, and 4 have vocal/choral elements as part of the overall scheme, but in the 8th they are (while closely tied in to the orchestra) the whole ball of wax.
My own nomination for "dud of genius":
Bruckner's Symphony. All nine incarnations of it.
[slips into asbestos suit :)]
Quote from: Que on April 30, 2010, 09:40:10 AM
Well, I'm aware of the obstacle the nature of the work presents to performers and listeners alike. But I have encountered evidence that the Art of the Fugue actually has life and a soul in it! :)
Yes really, Bach plays hard to get but it can be done. Which shows there is a difference between hard-to-get and a dud. 8)
(http://images.emusic.com/music/images/album/279/110/929/11092926/300x300.jpg)
Samples (http://www.emusic.com/album/Robert-Hill-Johann-Sebastian-Bach-The-Art-of-Fugue-BWV-1080-MP3-Download/11092926.html)
Q
I've found that I enjoy multi-instrument performances of the Art of Fugue more than those on a keyboard instrument, whether piano or harpsichord. The contrasts of timbre, register, etc. seem to make it easier to follow. So that's why my preferred recordings are the Emerson SQ and Musica Antiqua Koln.
Yes! Mahler's 8th is the ultimate dud of genius.
Quote from: snyprrr on April 27, 2010, 10:26:53 PM
I just heard this for the first time the other week (Gergiev). This was the one I thought was going to sound like Varese-meets-Szymanowski ("a work of steel"), and, though I thought the machine music was just not as avant brutale as I'd hoped, the variations almost in parts reminds me of Xenakis. As a work without context I find it extremely strong, so, I'm curious that it apparently has a duddish reputation amoungst Prokofiev's works (though, I would have had a more decisively brutal depiction of machine music (where's the percussion overload?)). As a fan of the darker side of Russia's composers, I would have thought that the Classical Symphony would be the considered dud, no?
Try exploring other recordings of this work. The Gergiev recording is a lot less mechanistic than Kuchar or Jarvi--Kuchar, in particular, goes out of his way to emphasize the more brutalistic parts of the first movement.
Though the second symphony used to have a poor reputation, it has been rehabilitated in recent years, and now most Prokofiev experts--including the recent biographers--consider it to be a vital and necessary work in his output.
andrew
Quote from: jurajjak on May 01, 2010, 12:49:21 AM
Try exploring other recordings of this work. The Gergiev recording is a lot less mechanistic than Kuchar or Jarvi--Kuchar, in particular, goes out of his way to emphasize the more brutalistic parts of the first movement.
Though the second symphony used to have a poor reputation, it has been rehabilitated in recent years, and now most Prokofiev experts--including the recent biographers--consider it to be a vital and necessary work in his output.
andrew
If it makes any difference, I always thought it was a masterpiece from my very first hearing many decades ago: the "meshing-of-multiple-gears" counterpoint is giddying, and you do not need to know about the parallel with the
Beethoven Opus 111 to enjoy the 2-movement form.
I place the
Second far above many of the Soviet symphonies: the
Fourth and
Seventh come closer to dud-dom, especially the
Seventh, which is not one of my favorite works, and yes, I have ignited minor warfare here on GMG abut the Seventh, and remain steadfast in the opinion that it it might be worthy of
Ferde Grofe :D or
Lord Berners :o but not
Prokofiev.
There! I said it again! And I'm
glad, I tell you! 0:)
Dude, that's cool. We could hardly agree on everything ; )
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2010, 05:08:33 AM
Dude, that's cool. We could hardly agree on everything ; )
When you come to visit, I will show you my complete set of scores, Nowak Edition, of the
Bruckner Symphonies.
You will be so overawed, overwhelmed, and overcoated, that you will be converted into a Brucknerian, and take up the cause to extend
Bruckner's legacy into this new fledgling century!
Schoenberg told
David Diamond that the latter should become an "American
Bruckner."
I am not so sure that
Diamond met that goal, :o so... 0:)
I changed my mind about the Mahler and Bruckner 8th's. My initial reaction was that the works were failures. Very quickly I changed my mind about the Bruckner and had to accommodate myself to a new understanding of how serious flaws do and sometimes don't hinder the appreciation of large scale works. The same flaws that Bruckner-phobes point to are equally obvious to the rest of us. My first reaction to many Bruckner works was "This has got to be a joke". I wondered who was pulling my leg concerning Bruckner's fitness to be considered the heir of Beethoven. From time to time I still think about that. Why don't the flaws matter for me? More to the point, why don't they matter to Brucknerians generally? Does anyone know the answer to this, besides the trivial answer that everyone who reveres Bruckner's music is obviously wrong?
Recently I've been reassessing Mahler's 8th. It's starting to get to me.
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2010, 08:18:40 AM
I changed my mind about the Mahler and Bruckner 8th's. My initial reaction was that the works were failures. Very quickly I changed my mind about the Bruckner and had to accommodate myself to a new understanding of how serious flaws do and sometimes don't hinder the appreciation of large scale works. The same flaws that Bruckner-phobes point to are equally obvious to the rest of us. My first reaction to many Bruckner works was "This has got to be a joke". I wondered who was pulling my leg concerning Bruckner's fitness to be considered the heir of Beethoven. From time to time I still think about that. Why don't the flaws matter for me? More to the point, why don't they matter to Brucknerians generally? Does anyone know the answer to this, besides the trivial answer that everyone who reveres Bruckner's music is obviously wrong?
Recently I've been reassessing Mahler's 8th. It's starting to get to me.
I'd like to know the mechanism by which you identified "flaws" in Bruckner 8.
Quote from: Scarpia on May 01, 2010, 08:26:30 AM
I'd like to know the mechanism by which you identified "flaws" in Bruckner 8.
Do you love Bruckner's music? I think you do, but not the way I do. I love Bruckner in spite of puzzling passages that meander off in a way that almost seems.......retarded, for lack of a better way to put it. I don't use any mechanism to arrive at this impression. I suppose you would have to ask an expert in why Bruckner can't be a great composer for the details. Or maybe my assumption that Bruckner's music is studded with awkward passages that meander off into the void or just come to a halt (apparently for nap time) is an idiosyncrasy. Or maybe (just thinking aloud, OK?) Bruckner inspired Modernists to imagine all sorts of violative possibilities, the uses of "wrongness".
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2010, 09:00:18 AM
Do you love Bruckner's music? I think you do, but not the way I do. I love Bruckner in spite of puzzling passages that meander off in a way that almost seems.......retarded, for lack of a better way to put it. I don't use any mechanism to arrive at this impression. I suppose you would have to ask an expert in why Bruckner can't be a great composer for the details. Or maybe my assumption that Bruckner's music is studded with awkward passages that meander off into the void or just come to a halt (apparently for nap time) is an idiosyncrasy. Or maybe (just thinking aloud, OK?) Bruckner inspired Modernists to imagine all sorts of violative possibilities, the uses of "wrongness".
Whenever you are puzzled it is a flaw? Whenever Bruckner brings a dramatic passage to a halt, it is because he forgot to finish it? There might be something there that you are missing.
No, I don't think that whenever I'm puzzled it must be a flaw. I'm puzzled when it does sound like a flaw and imagine other people have a similar reaction. Given Bruckner's reputation and the dichotomous way he is viewed to this day I naturally thought that my impressions were not that different from many other listeners. That could be wrong, certainly. But if so I still have to account for my reaction to Bruckner.
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2010, 09:00:18 AM
I suppose you would have to ask an expert in why Bruckner can't be a great composer for the details.
Or, just suggesting ;) you could consult an expert who could tell you why the things that bother you aren't flaws at all but strokes of inspiration that reveal Bruckner's individual style and genius (and I use genius with a great deal of hesitation...given how we know JdP uses the word ;D ) See Robert Simpson's analysis of Bruckner 8, for example.
If you'd been complaining about one of Bruckner's early symphonies, you'd get no argument from me. But I believe from the Fifth on, he wrote a string of flawless masterpieces...and I have expert witnesses to back me up :D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 01, 2010, 09:27:58 AM
If you'd been complaining about one of Bruckner's early symphonies, you'd get no argument from me. But I believe from the Fifth on, he wrote a string of flawless masterpieces...and I have expert witnesses to back me up :D
Sarge
Well, thank you! ;D
Drogulus: can you give us a specific example? Do you have access to a score?
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 01, 2010, 09:27:58 AM
Or, just suggesting ;) you could consult an expert who could tell you why the things that bother you aren't flaws at all but strokes of inspiration that reveal Bruckner's individual style and genius (and I use genius with a great deal of hesitation...given how we know JdP uses the word ;D ) See Robert Simpson's analysis of Bruckner 8, for example.
If you'd been complaining about one of Bruckner's early symphonies, you'd get no argument from me. But I believe from the Fifth on, he wrote a string of flawless masterpieces...and I have expert witnesses to back me up :D
Sarge
Yes, I could do that, and the Simpson suggestion sounds good to me. But you're also suggesting that I imagine Bruckner's greatness as flawless, or even worse requiring flawlessness as a condition of greatness. That's so far from how I usually imagine music, I don't know that I could ever learn to do that. I certainly wouldn't want to think like that coming from the way I think now. I can't imagine what purpose it would serve to "normalize"
Bruckner. I could hardly love his music more as it stands now. Maybe I should avoid reading Simpson, it might spoil things.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: Cato on May 01, 2010, 09:41:18 AM
Drogulus: can you give us a specific example? Do you have access to a score?
I'm talking about how the music is heard. A score wouldn't do me much good.
Sarge, the 8th certainly has fewer passages of the type I'm talking about. And the 6th and 7th come pretty close to the ideal of flawless, though the opening of the 6th was the first episode that caused me to think that I would have to make an adjustment to hear Bruckner appreciatively. It still sounds a bit ridiculous in a way, and it will never sound "unflawed" to me. What a great, great symphony, though! For me the 6th, 7th and 8th are the pinnacle.
Let's get something straight. I'm talking about my impressions, which are open to all kinds of interpretations including "he doesn't know what he's talking about" (not my favorite). I don't think I can prove that the strange opening of the 6th symphony is a flaw as opposed to sounding like a flaw. I wouldn't know what that means, unless it means violating the rules of composition that obtained at the time. I'm not talking about that.
Later: I would have thought that a "Duds of Genius" thread would be the perfect place to talk about this kind of seeming wrongness, since the governing premise, as I imagined it, would be that it could be a close call whether a work was preposterous or magnificent or (as I imagined it), best of all, both at the same time, which was my reaction when I first heard the double fugue in Hovhaness's Mysterious Mountain. I still remember my first reaction, that it was so wrong yet so gooood. The wrongness has faded a little bit since I'm more knowledgeable about music than I was near the beginning of my listening career in 1963.
Another point: It occurs to me that loving the music of a composer might require some people to imagine the music as unflawed, or that hearing something that sounds like a flaw must somehow be a mistake. That would certainly make what I'm saying sound like an error about a fact.
The opening of Bruckner 6 is certainly idiosyncratic, but I regard it as one of Bruckner's most sublime inspirations. I can't imagine a definition of the word "flaw" that could remotely apply to it.
Quote from: Scarpia on May 01, 2010, 11:14:26 AM
The opening of Bruckner 6 is certainly idiosyncratic, but I regard it as one of Bruckner's most sublime inspirations. I can't imagine a definition of the word "flaw" that could remotely apply to it.
I hear what you're saying, and I believe you, though I don't know how a definition of "flaw" would help. Yes, it could be the case that a rule is being violated. I don't know what rule that would be.
Since what I'm talking about is familiar to a good number of people who think that Bruckner is the quintessential Dud of Genius (if not the Dud of non-Genius) perhaps the dichotomy can only be explained by the premise that people who think the way I do don't like Bruckner or even don't like Bruckner because the music is obviously flawed, and that my "mistake" is in thinking that Dudness and Genius can coexist, even in the same work. Maybe my reaction is rarer than I realized.
Later: Retardation may be too strong a word but at 21:00 in the 4th movement, 8th Symphony (Karajan/BPO, 19:02 Karajan/VPO)*
Bruckner begins a contrapuntal section in the strings which features both the same and different themes in the voices. In time this develops into one of the most impressive climaxes in symphonic music,
sooo why does it sound so lame at the beginning? This kind of awkwardness is
not just a feature of the early music. It never disappears from his music entirely.
* That covers everyone. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2010, 11:31:09 AM
I hear what you're saying, and I believe you, though I don't know how a definition of "flaw" would help. Yes, it could be the case that a rule is being violated. I don't know what rule that would be.
A flaw is a defect, especially one that mars an otherwise perfect entity. A defect not a general impression that it could be better, it is a well-defined imperfection. For instance, I have read that some consider that Beethoven's ninth symphony contains a flaw, in that at a prominent part in the scherzo the melody is played by bassoons while the entire string section plays a rhythmic figure. The claimed flaw is that in performance it is impossible to make the melody heard. Some conductors "correct" this flaw by reinforcing the melody.
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2010, 11:31:09 AM
Later: Retardation may be too strong a word but at 21:00 in the 4th movement, 8th Symphony (Karajan/BPO, 19:02 Karajan/VPO)* Bruckner begins a contrapuntal section in the strings which features both the same and different themes in the voices. In time this develops into one of the most impressive climaxes in symphonic music, sooo why does it sound so lame at the beginning? This kind of awkwardness is not just a feature of the early music. It never disappears from his music entirely.
* That covers everyone. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
My emphasis above.
IF - and without a score reference I cannot be exactly sure - it is what I believe you are referring to,
the answer is in your question!The "lameness" or the "awkwardness" which you hear may be precisely what
Bruckner wants to portray: an ugly duckling transformation into the Trumpeter Swan.
What I have always heard there is a tentative nature becoming ever more confident.
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2010, 11:31:09 AM
Since what I'm talking about is familiar to a good number of people who think that Bruckner is the quintessential Dud of Genius (if not the Dud of non-Genius)
I kind of agree - any composer so bizarrely innovative and in his own world cannot help but be imperfect in some way (compositionally, conceptually or otherwise) - even his attempts to respond to criticism were unable to tame his unique creations. A lot of the things he does "right" are by many standards "wrong", which is what makes him a genius - his wrong choices are the right ones. His clodhopping scherzos are perfect, his tiresomely long adagios are still somehow perfect, etc, etc.
This is in marked opposition to, say, Brahms, who wrote in a different manner producing music just as good, but with a more self-aware mind, incapable of cultivating a style with such blatant "difficulties" as Bruckner's when analysed by others.
Quote from: Lethe on May 01, 2010, 02:16:26 PM
I kind of agree - any composer so bizarrely innovative and in his own world cannot help but be imperfect in some way (compositionally, conceptually or otherwise) - even his attempts to respond to criticism were unable to tame his unique creations. A lot of the things he does "right" are by many standards "wrong", which is what makes him a genius - his wrong choices are the right ones. His clodhopping scherzos are perfect, his tiresomely long adagios are still somehow perfect, etc, etc.
This is in marked opposition to, say, Brahms, who wrote in a different manner producing music just as good, but with a more self-aware mind, incapable of cultivating a style with such blatant "difficulties" as Bruckner's when analysed by others.
My difficulties with Bruckner are not with any particular musical choice he makes, but with his overall style. I wouldn't say he has flaws, so much as I would say his general approach creates problems for
me.
First, his music reminds me very often of a film score. Had someone presented me with some passages of the Sixth without any attribution, I might have declared with great firmness that they were from the score to Lawrence of Arabia--there's a sort of Arabian figuration that shows up several times in (IIRC) the first movement.. My first reaction to the Fifth was "now I know where film score composers came from!" The other symphonies are not quite so extreme in this respect.
Second, he seems to repeat himself from symphony to symphony. In every symphony, there seem to be passages which would fit well into any of the other eight. And his style remains consistent throughout--for instance, in the constant use of masses of brass. I rather feel like taking him by the hand and saying, "Very nice, Anton, but can't you do it differently this time?"
Mind you, I don't dislike Bruckner's music. But I can go quite some time without listening to it, and usually I listen with the purpose of seeing if it "clicks" for me this time So far, it hasn't. Apparently, I don't hear in it what some other people hear.
His obsession with template and format is quite unique for a composer to take to such an extent. I would feel that his primary appeal is as a tinkerer within an established system until I remember what a rule-breaker his "system" is in the first place. It's certainly something in his personality, perhaps related to his counting mania, but I figure that other composers limited themselves severely as well - only not quite to the extent of Bruckner's quiet intro/big coda symphonic style.
One way to view it is not only each symphony being an experiment in what to do with the template this time, but more of each later symphony being a total re-write of the previous, striving towards something sublime. After all, Brahms' four are all magnificent, Beethoven's 3rd-9th are impossible to pick over one another, but Bruckner did gradually improve, albeit after reaching a high level of achivement early on. The 3rd is astonishing but naive, the 4th is more accomplished but similar, but by the time the 8th is reached, a watershed moment has occured. Then he mounts another subtle revolution after already "perfecting" the formula, taking it into furthermore radicial directions in the 9th - the ambiguous tonality of the adagio, the unique scherzo, the first movement moulded into an organic whole with a greater mastery than before. In the 9th, his music - as naive as his stylistic fingerprints are in general - has reached a level of sublimity that almost no composer can touch.
It feels like there is a huge dichotomy in his music, but I don't think I have a coherent explanation of it :'(
Edit: hehe I cut out a bit by accident, also spelling fixes.
Schumann's symphonies immediately spring to mind — many passages of inspiration, but for some reason (for me) none really "persuade".
This thread was not created to just rant on composers whose music fails to move you whatsoever (edit: wasn't specifically directed at you Corey!). It was to discuss works that don't work for you from composers that you admire as genius. If you feel that you know better, and you could step in to correct a composer for what you consider flaws in many of his works, you are just using this thread as an excuse to gripe.
There is no right or wrong with art. Art simply is. A composer that writes music still performed more than a hundred years after his death is certainly above such shallow criticism. I thought that this thread would be interesting, but now it's nothing more than petty griping.
Quote from: kishnevi on May 01, 2010, 05:47:59 PM
Mind you, I don't dislike Bruckner's music. But I can go quite some time without listening to it, and usually I listen with the purpose of seeing if it "clicks" for me this time So far, it hasn't. Apparently, I don't hear in it what some other people hear.
This is very far from my own feeling about Bruckner. You really have to care about this music to be amazed at how it can be so powerful and awkward at the same time. I wish I could capture my feeling about it. I thought a bunch of people would chime in and say they felt the same way.
Quote from: Lethe on May 01, 2010, 06:02:54 PM
His obsession with template and format is quite unique for a composer to take to such an extent. I would feel that his primary appeal is as a tinkerer within an established system until I remember what a rule-breaker his "system" is in the first place. It's certainly something in his personality, perhaps related to his counting mania, but I figure that other composers limited themselves severely as well - only not quite to the extent of Bruckner's quiet intro/big coda symphonic style.
One way to view it is not only each symphony being an experiment in what to do with the template this time, but more of each later symphony being a total re-write of the previous, striving towards something sublime. After all, Brahms' four are all magnificent, Beethoven's 3rd-9th are impossible to pick over one another, but Bruckner did gradually improve, albeit after reaching a high level of achivement early on. The 3rd is astonishing but naive, the 4th is more accomplished but similar, but by the time the 8th is reached, a watershed moment has occured. Then he mounts another subtle revolution after already "perfecting" the formula, taking it into furthermore radicial directions in the 9th - the ambiguous tonality of the adagio, the unique scherzo, the first movement moulded into an organic whole with a greater mastery than before. In the 9th, his music - as naive as his stylistic fingerprints are in general - has reached a level of sublimity that almost no composer can touch.
It feels like there is a huge dichotomy in his music, but I don't think I have a coherent explanation of it :'(
Edit: hehe I cut out a bit by accident, also spelling fixes.
Interesting. What you say sounds very much like my reaction. Naive sounds better than retarded, more composerly. One thing particularly sticks out in your post.....COUNTING MANIA?? Yes, it's faintly possible that an obsessive/compulsive might strew his music with patterns that seem (heh!) naive. Thanks, that sounds more like a real explanation than "he does it on purpose". One way or another what he does is purposeful. In fact I'm thinking right now about points in the music where this might apply.
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2010, 08:18:40 AM
I changed my mind about the Mahler and Bruckner 8th's. My initial reaction was that the works were failures. Very quickly I changed my mind about the Bruckner and had to accommodate myself to a new understanding of how serious flaws do and sometimes don't hinder the appreciation of large scale works. The same flaws that Bruckner-phobes point to are equally obvious to the rest of us. My first reaction to many Bruckner works was "This has got to be a joke". I wondered who was pulling my leg concerning Bruckner's fitness to be considered the heir of Beethoven. From time to time I still think about that. Why don't the flaws matter for me? More to the point, why don't they matter to Brucknerians generally? Does anyone know the answer to this, besides the trivial answer that everyone who reveres Bruckner's music is obviously wrong?
Recently I've been reassessing Mahler's 8th. It's starting to get to me.
"This has got to be a joke"
I thought I was the only one who used to think that. It just sounded like simple, repetitive phrases and very awkward flute solos that don't even fit in anywhere. Maybe it is, but...
After awhile, the music grew so much on me that I don't even think that at all anymore. His symphonies are my #1 top choice of listening when it comes to driving or exploring the world on Google Street View. Nothing else quite hits the spot in the same way.
It's strange how misleading first impression can be sometimes.
One thing seems clear. Not that it needed this thread to demonstrate it. But it has. And that is practically any given listener can fail, spectacularly, with practically any piece. I'm very tempted to say that the more "genius" the piece, the more spectacular the fail. But however cute that is (however neat), I'm not sure that that's true.
It does seem that if you bring a lot of preconceptions to an unfamiliar piece (unfamiliar to you), you are setting yourself up to fail. That's the message I'm getting from this Bruckner subthread. And just look at how many listeners have continued to fail after the initial fail, even though they have continued to listen to Bruckner pieces. Reminiscent of the people who report as continuing to try to understand/like Schoenberg--and who claim, explicitly or implicitly, their failure (shared, of course, by many) is a failure of the technique.
Like I've tried to say before, in any musical situation there are at least two main things involved, not one: the piece being played is one, of course....
Quote from: DavidW on May 01, 2010, 06:39:39 PM
There is no right or wrong with art.
(I think this invites a question of context, but . . .) What of a composer refining his score?
Quote from: some guy on May 01, 2010, 09:55:44 PM
One thing seems clear. Not that it needed this thread to demonstrate it. But it has. And that is practically any given listener can fail, spectacularly, with practically any piece. I'm very tempted to say that the more "genius" the piece, the more spectacular the fail. But however cute that is (however neat), I'm not sure that that's true.
It does seem that if you bring a lot of preconceptions to an unfamiliar piece (unfamiliar to you), you are setting yourself up to fail. That's the message I'm getting from this Bruckner subthread. And just look at how many listeners have continued to fail after the initial fail, even though they have continued to listen to Bruckner pieces. Reminiscent of the people who report as continuing to try to understand/like Schoenberg--and who claim, explicitly or implicitly, their failure (shared, of course, by many) is a failure of the technique.
Like I've tried to say before, in any musical situation there are at least two main things involved, not one: the piece being played is one, of course....
That makes it sound like a listener is this poor subjective soul entirely at the mercy of the music. That isn't very credible. What you describe could only be the case if it were true that something above and beyond how people react to music certified masterpieces, which then would be officially flawless regardless of what any listener perceived.
Something faintly resembling this might be true, where listeners of great experience wield authority in the minds of less experienced listeners along with the obvious authority of musicians, critics and the weight of history's verdict.
If the latter is the case then until recently the verdict, which I feel entitled to dispute, is that Bruckner is a failed composer with deep and obvious flaws, flaws not being formal mistakes but awkward and crude passages that, it's obvious now, are heard by a number of listeners here.
Where I differ from many listeners is insisting on
both, that Bruckner is a supreme symphonist and a seriously flawed one. Most of those who agree with my first conclusion are disputing the second, and I reckon most people who agree about the flaws dispute the first conclusion.
I'm having my cake and eating it. I hear the flaws and love the music anyway. Furthermore I insist that there is nothing even slightly contradictory about my position.
Quote from: Greg on May 01, 2010, 07:18:35 PM
"This has got to be a joke"
I thought I was the only one who used to think that. It just sounded like simple, repetitive phrases and very awkward flute solos that don't even fit in anywhere. Maybe it is, but...
After awhile, the music grew so much on me that I don't even think that at all anymore. His symphonies are my #1 top choice of listening when it comes to driving or exploring the world on Google Street View. Nothing else quite hits the spot in the same way.
It's strange how misleading first impression can be sometimes.
First, it's not at all unusual to react this way. Second, and this is important, your reaction may have been hasty but you don't need to throw out the data. The strangeness of Bruckner is one of the wonders of the musical world, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that even among those who love his music it isn't easy to resolve the reasons for it or what to think about it.
Quote from: drogulus on May 02, 2010, 06:46:14 AM
That makes it sound like a listener is this poor subjective soul entirely at the mercy of the music. That isn't very credible. What you describe could only be the case if it were true that something above and beyond how people react to music certified masterpieces, which then would be officially flawless regardless of what any listener perceived.
You have completely missed the point. A work of art is not a mathematical derivation. It's quality is subjective and related to its cultural context, and it makes no sense to characterize a work of art in terms of flaws. That is not consistent with the definition of the word, despite the fact that it is a favorite among "critics" whose business is to create nothing and make their living by finding "flaws" in the works of great artists.
Quote from: drogulus on May 02, 2010, 06:46:14 AM
I'm having my cake and eating it. I hear the flaws and love the music anyway. Furthermore I insist that there is nothing even slightly contradictory about my position.
No, there isn't, and it's a position I'm well aware that I often take myself. I'd go so far as to say that very often, I love the flaws as much as the moments of perfection in some of my favourite pieces/composers, but that's possibly because, for me, music is just as much about trying and failing, human endeavour, as it is about the attainment of some unreachable-by-mortals Parnassus.
In the case of two of my very favourite composers, two who reach me like few others and whose every note is precious to me - I'm talking about Janacek and Tippett here - the flaws are very often evident and undeniable....and I love them; the music would be weaker without them, is my perverse view - weaker without Janacek's sometimes unbalanced orchestration, without his straining for the impossible; weaker without Tippett's unashamed, unabashed, unafraid striving, his structural miscalculations, his idiosyncratic texts (much criticised but perfect in their own ungainly way) - what did Browning say....'Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp/Or what's a heaven for?.
And this love of the slightly more human, vulnerable side of things might actually be one reason why I
adore the Musical Offering more than any other piece of Bach, emphatically more than the Art of Fugue particularly (in its inpenetrable perfection that's a piece which I have never managed to approach and feel close to, if I am honest). Yes, it is a less balanced, less 'perfect' set of pieces than the AoF - but in its diversity, its playfulness, its perversity, its ocassional unpolished moments (the first Ricercare, which is an approximation of Bach's oringal improvisation for the royal presence, is what I am thinking of), its obscurities (the augmentation canon, all stretched and squashed intervals and marvellous for it) its multi-faceted styles (from the sublime greatest-trio-sonata-of-all-time in the most up-to-date gallant syle Bach could muster through the tiniest fragmentary canon to the Ricercare, in all its emphatically old-fashioned splendour )....it seems to contain a whole world, Mahler-like, to sum up Bach's life, to point backwards and forwards, to look inwards and outwards in a way no other piece of Bach's does (in my experience). In brief - it might be flawed, but if so those flaws are part of why I find it the most moving work in the Bach canon.
Some bits of Ruskin might be relevant:
'The demand for perfection is always a sign of a misunderstanding of the ends of art.'
He goes on to explain (in part), that:
'No great man ever stops working till he has reached his point of failure: that is to say, his mind is always far in advance of his powers of execution, and the latter will now and then give way in trying to follow it. ... and according to his greatness he becomes so accustomed to the feeling of dissatisfaction with the best he can do, that in moments of lassitude or anger with himself he will not care though the beholder [or listener] be dissatisfied also. ... If we are to have great men working at all, or less men doing their best, the work will be imperfect, however beautiful'.
[From 'The Nature of Gothic'.]
Quote from: Scarpia on May 02, 2010, 07:02:35 AM
You have completely missed the point. A work of art is not a mathematical derivation. It's quality is subjective and related to its cultural context, and it makes no sense to characterize a work of art in terms of flaws. That is not consistent with the definition of the word, despite the fact that it is a favorite among "critics" whose business is to create nothing and make their living by finding "flaws" in the works of great artists. The fact that you would claim to have found "flaws" in a work like Bruckner's 8th symphony is sufficient for me to discount anything else you might post to this board.
You have stated a position that's very close to mine. As for my amazing ability to hear wrongness in music, it operates the same way yours does, only with the qualification that I don't cancel those impressions when I come to love the music, but somehow incorporate them. I don't
ever want to lose the strangeness.
Perhaps I should avoid the word "flaw" unless I'm talking to a
Bruckner-phobe who will no doubt object to the word "great". That's too much work. If you can't figure out by now that I don't mean a formal error but an impression I don't know what else to say. I think I've made myself clear enough to avoid such characterizations.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 02, 2010, 03:23:36 AM
(I think this invites a question of context, but . . .) What of a composer refining his score?
It seems that whenever that happens some prefer the original, some the changes. Which is right? I dunno. But we really don't need three hammerblows
Sarge. ;) ;D :D
You know, I think I did bring my own preconceptions about what A Musical Offering should sound like, I think I'll give it a fresh listen with open ears. :)
Quote from: Elgarian on May 02, 2010, 07:19:38 AM
Some bits of Ruskin might be relevant:
'The demand for perfection is always a sign of a misunderstanding of the ends of art.'
He goes on to explain (in part), that:
'No great man ever stops working till he has reached his point of failure: that is to say, his mind is always far in advance of his powers of execution, and the latter will now and then give way in trying to follow it. ... and according to his greatness he becomes so accustomed to the feeling of dissatisfaction with the best he can do, that in moments of lassitude or anger with himself he will not care though the beholder [or listener] be dissatisfied also. ... If we are to have great men working at all, or less men doing their best, the work will be imperfect, however beautiful'.
[From 'The Nature of Gothic'.]
Perhaps that does go to the issue here. I think the issue is not "Is Bruckner flawed?" but rather "Are great works of art necessarily flawless?". My answer is no, and that applies to Bruckner because of all the composers considered great today he is the most seriously flawed by consensus opinion. That consensus would be arrived at by factoring in the opinion of a representative sampling of composers, musicians, critics and elite listeners whether they held a highly favorable opinion of Bruckner or not. That's a guess on my part.
One further word on the nature of "flaws". It strikes me that they will not often have the objective character of a mistake in arithmetic, even if a bizarre kind of arithmetic is responsible.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: DavidW on May 02, 2010, 07:30:47 AM
It seems that whenever that happens some prefer the original, some the changes. Which is right? I dunno. But we really don't need three hammerblows Sarge. ;) ;D :D
Zander did 3 when I saw him conduct. I can go either way on this one.
Quote from: drogulus on May 02, 2010, 07:28:28 AM
As for my amazing ability to hear wrongness in music, it operates the same way yours does, only with the qualification that I don't cancel those impressions when I come to love the music, but somehow incorporate them. I don't ever want to lose the strangeness.
If I understand you correctly (I hope I do), that strikes me as a fine expression of a very insightful perception. It contains within itself the implication that what we might initially call a 'flaw' becomes transformed into what we might call 'strangeness'; and when that happens there's an increase in empathy with the composer, because by transforming 'flaw' into 'strangeness', we've fulfilled
our half of the engagement with the music (the composer already having fulfilled his half).
Quote from: Elgarian on May 02, 2010, 07:49:51 AM
If I understand you correctly (I hope I do), that strikes me as a fine expression of a very insightful perception. It contains within itself the implication that what we might initially call a 'flaw' becomes transformed into what we might call 'strangeness'; and when that happens there's an increase in empathy with the composer, because by transforming 'flaw' into 'strangeness', we've fulfilled our half of the engagement with the music (the composer already having fulfilled his half).
That's very close to what I'm saying, yes. I'm deliberately letting the strange remain a flaw, though, in order to hear it both ways.
Quote from: drogulus on May 02, 2010, 07:44:02 AM
Zander did 3 when I saw him conduct. I can go either way on this one.
His recording did too (neat that you got to go to a live performance of that work btw), the later one, I never heard the earlier one with the Boston Phil. Two hammer blows? 3? 5? There are people that have preferences for any one of these and have no preference. Karl was probably thinking of Prokofiev's 2nd when he posted that question, because it had been on his mind. I wonder if gmg has debated the two versions to death like those hammerblows?
(http://ui31.gamespot.com/1214/deadhorsebeat_2.gif)
;D
Quote from: drogulus on May 02, 2010, 07:54:25 AM
I'm deliberately letting the strange remain a flaw, though, in order to hear it both ways.
Yes. I think that interchangeability may be where some of its life lies (as Ruskin would say). The perception is always on the move (or on the verge of moving), in a state of change between the two states 'flaw' and 'strangeness'. It's like the vital vibration that goes on when we look at Impressionist paintings, where our perception hovers between seeing brushstrokes on the one hand, and clouds or trees on the other.
Quote from: DavidW on May 02, 2010, 07:56:21 AM
His recording did too (neat that you got to go to a live performance of that work btw), the later one, I never heard the earlier one with the Boston Phil. Two hammer blows? 3? 5? There are people that have preferences for any one of these and have no preference. Karl was probably thinking of Prokofiev's 2nd when he posted that question, because it had been on his mind. I wonder if gmg has debated the two versions to death like those hammerblows?
(http://ui31.gamespot.com/1214/deadhorsebeat_2.gif)
;D
He did 3 with the Boston Phil when I saw him at the Sanders Theater in Cambridge a few years back (nice intimate setting).
Quote from: Luke on May 02, 2010, 07:14:08 AM
No, there isn't, and it's a position I'm well aware that I often take myself. I'd go so far as to say that very often, I love the flaws as much as the moments of perfection in some of my favourite pieces/composers, but that's possibly because, for me, music is just as much about trying and failing, human endeavour, as it is about the attainment of some unreachable-by-mortals Parnassus.
In the case of two of my very favourite composers, two who reach me like few others and whose every note is precious to me - I'm talking about Janacek and Tippett here - the flaws are very often evident and undeniable....and I love them; the music would be weaker without them, is my perverse view - weaker without Janacek's sometimes unbalanced orchestration, without his straining for the impossible; weaker without Tippett's unashamed, unabashed, unafraid striving, his structural miscalculations, his idiosyncratic texts (much criticised but perfect in their own ungainly way) - what did Browning say....'Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp/Or what's a heaven for?.
And this love of the slightly more human, vulnerable side of things might actually be one reason why I adore the Musical Offering more than any other piece of Bach, emphatically more than the Art of Fugue particularly (in its inpenetrable perfection that's a piece which I have never managed to approach and feel close to, if I am honest). Yes, it is a less balanced, less 'perfect' set of pieces than the AoF - but in its diversity, its playfulness, its perversity, its ocassional unpolished moments (the first Ricercare, which is an approximation of Bach's oringal improvisation for the royal presence, is what I am thinking of), its obscurities (the augmentation canon, all stretched and squashed intervals and marvellous for it) its multi-faceted styles (from the sublime greatest-trio-sonata-of-all-time in the most up-to-date gallant syle Bach could muster through the tiniest fragmentary canon to the Ricercare, in all its emphatically old-fashioned splendour )....it seems to contain a whole world, Mahler-like, to sum up Bach's life, to point backwards and forwards, to look inwards and outwards in a way no other piece of Bach's does (in my experience). In brief - it might be flawed, but if so those flaws are part of why I find it the most moving work in the Bach canon.
Great post. I wish I could get these observations across as well as you do here, because I think we're talking about the same thing.
Quote from: Luke on May 02, 2010, 07:14:08 AM
I'd go so far as to say that very often, I love the flaws as much as the moments of perfection in some of my favourite pieces/composers, but that's possibly because, for me, music is just as much about trying and failing, human endeavour, as it is about the attainment of some unreachable-by-mortals Parnassus.
Yes! Yes! And all art, not just music.
Also, I want to agree with the drogulistic verdict on the whole post. Brilliant.
He doesn't mention '80s hair bands, so it's a flawed, wonderful post. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif) Yet, for all that....
Quote from: Elgarian on May 02, 2010, 07:19:38 AM
Some bits of Ruskin might be relevant:
'The demand for perfection is always a sign of a misunderstanding of the ends of art.'
Brilliant!
Quote from: DavidW on May 02, 2010, 07:30:47 AM
It seems that whenever that happens some prefer the original, some the changes. Which is right? I dunno. But we really don't need three hammerblows Sarge. ;) ;D :D
Je-je-je!
But I was thinking more of how long Beethoven would tinker, until he got things to a state with which he was satisfied. Some of the stages, with which LvB was dissatisfied, must actually be musically poorer, I should think.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 02, 2010, 03:52:47 PM
Je-je-je!
But I was thinking more of how long Beethoven would tinker, until he got things to a state with which he was satisfied. Some of the stages, with which LvB was dissatisfied, must actually be musically poorer, I should think.
Well I don't think that intent of the composer creates a right or wrong. If I were to write a rough draft of the letter, and then do major revisions to prepare the final draft, the rough draft wouldn't be "wrong" just not polished. Even if I were to really redo it, one is not wrong the other right I wouldn't even consider it in that light. It would be just not what I wanted.
Quote from: DavidW on May 02, 2010, 04:32:35 PM
Well I don't think that intent of the composer creates a right or wrong. If I were to write a rough draft of the letter, and then do major revisions to prepare the final draft, the rough draft wouldn't be "wrong" just not polished. Even if I were to really redo it, one is not wrong the other right I wouldn't even consider it in that light. It would be just not what I wanted.
Very good. Poorer vs. better is not the same as wrong vs. right.
Quote from: DavidW on May 02, 2010, 04:32:35 PM
Well I don't think that intent of the composer creates a right or wrong. If I were to write a rough draft of the letter, and then do major revisions to prepare the final draft, the rough draft wouldn't be "wrong" just not polished. Even if I were to really redo it, one is not wrong the other right I wouldn't even consider it in that light. It would be just not what I wanted.
Given how many, many artists practice the creative process at any one time, and how vanishingly few of that huge multitude survive even one hundred years after their time, we must posit that the creation of real, great art is a rare and miraculous event. Who could be presumptuous enough to claim that what the master, such as Beethoven, has rejected and gone past to a later stage of the work, is as worthwhile as what was finally achieved? Especially in Beethoven's case, where minor alteration was not the process, but rather frequently whole passages and even large sections were torn out by the roots and thrown away? What would be his
opinion if we asked him if the earlier version was as good as the later? And since he is the one who manages to pull off the rare miracle regularly, even if his understanding of his work is imperfect, who else's understanding could come even within a stone's throw of his?
Quote from: Luke on May 02, 2010, 07:14:08 AM
And this love of the slightly more human, vulnerable side of things might actually be one reason why I adore the Musical Offering more than any other piece of Bach, emphatically more than the Art of Fugue particularly (in its inpenetrable perfection that's a piece which I have never managed to approach and feel close to, if I am honest). Yes, it is a less balanced, less 'perfect' set of pieces than the AoF - but in its diversity, its playfulness, its perversity, its ocassional unpolished moments (the first Ricercare, which is an approximation of Bach's oringal improvisation for the royal presence, is what I am thinking of), its obscurities (the augmentation canon, all stretched and squashed intervals and marvellous for it) its multi-faceted styles (from the sublime greatest-trio-sonata-of-all-time in the most up-to-date gallant syle Bach could muster through the tiniest fragmentary canon to the Ricercare, in all its emphatically old-fashioned splendour )....it seems to contain a whole world, Mahler-like, to sum up Bach's life, to point backwards and forwards, to look inwards and outwards in a way no other piece of Bach's does (in my experience). In brief - it might be flawed, but if so those flaws are part of why I find it the most moving work in the Bach canon.
What a fantastic write up. I must listen tonight!
I agree of course with this "loving the flaws" business - we've discussed this before (though my favourites are other composers, flawed (of course) for different reasons.)
It's also why I love early Brahms* (e.g. the heaven storming of the third piano sonata, the first piano concerto, the Alto Rhapsody where he reveals himself more fully than anywhere else and then retreats and obfuscates his passions behind cerebralism and mighty formal logic), and not so much later Brahms (excepting the second piano concerto, Symphony no.4 and certain chamber works), which is absolute heresy I'm sure. I don't think I'm mature enough yet to appreciate late Brahms.
*though of course his oeuvre famously contains virtually no "duds".
Quote from: Guido on May 03, 2010, 02:32:10 AMthe heaven storming of the third piano sonata
What is "heaven storming" anyway?
Dunno - a phrase I got from the subtitle of Langgaard's sixth. I think it's apt here though - the huge piano sound, the striving, transcendant, searing intensity and drive, as opposed to the basically nostalgic late works, which are however gruffly and unapologetically formal, muscular in construction, terse, profound with a rather soft wistful core, the emotion always veiled and subdued but immensely potent and strongly felt. It's not about Brahms, it's about me!
I just found the other source of the phrase "heaven-storming" - an article by Robin Holloway that has stuck with me far better than I thought because it aligns with my own feelings so closely on the matter.