Duds of Genius

[Que]

This thread is simply hi-la-rious! 


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? 

Q

[The new erato]

This thread is simply hi-la-rious! 


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? 

Q

I guess structure is not entertaining enough.

[(poco) Sforzando]

#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.

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.

[karlhenning]

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?

[karlhenning]

I guess structure is not entertaining enough.

Is that why you don't think much of the Prokofiev Opus 40?

[eyeresist]

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.

[Chaszz]

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...

[Chaszz]

This thread is simply hi-la-rious! 


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? 

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. 

[The new erato]

Is that why you don't think much of the Prokofiev Opus 40?

Me? I've never mentioned the work!

[Que]

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.



Samples

Q

[Franco]

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.

[Brahmsian]

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.)

[Brahmsian]

Mahler - Symphony No. 8

Immediately sprung to mind.

[DavidW]

Mahler - Symphony No. 8

Immediately sprung to mind.

Same here.   I refrained from mentioning it though because I haven't listened to it in a few years.

[Scarpia]

Same here.   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.     (I do have at around 5 recordings of it, one for each Mahler cycle I own).

[(poco) Sforzando]

I was also going to mention Mahler 8, but restrained myself because I've never listened past the first 30 seconds or so.     (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 . . . .

[Gurn Blanston]

Ah, but what a dud those 30 seconds are . . . .

 

Nice to have you back, Poco.... 

[some guy]

[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?)

[karlhenning]

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!