Duds of Genius

[drogulus]

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.

[DavidW]

      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?

[Elgarian]

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.

[drogulus]

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?

    He did 3 with the Boston Phil when I saw him at the Sanders Theater in Cambridge a few years back (nice intimate setting).

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.

[Elgarian]

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.

[drogulus]

     He doesn't mention '80s hair bands, so it's a flawed, wonderful post. Yet, for all that....

[karlhenning]

Some bits of Ruskin might be relevant:

'The demand for perfection is always a sign of a misunderstanding of the ends of art.'

Brilliant!

[karlhenning]

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.

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.

[DavidW]

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.

[karlhenning]

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.

[Chaszz]

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?

[Guido]

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".

[Scarpia]

the heaven storming of the third piano sonata

What is "heaven storming" anyway?

[Guido]

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!

[Guido]

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.