Unpopular Opinions

[Mahlerian]

Sure (Did not Stravinsky say "the talent that once was a genius" about Strauss?), but Mahler still turned out the more interesting instrumental music, I think.

Strauss wrote better operas, I'll give him that.

[Jo498]

I think with talent we associate easy and precocious capability. Strauss wrote a bunch of "conservative" classicist instrumental stuff as a teenager and the best of these works, like the violin sonata (when he was slightly older) or the Burleske are very good. And then he does something like Don Juan in his mid-20s which was groundbreaking and overall pretty amazing.
As original and underrated "Das klagende Lied" is, I don't think the young Mahler displayed talent at the Straussian level.  For me the problem is that he used this huge talent mostly for a genre I tend to find shlocky, the "Tondichtung", while Mahler succeded with the more serious symphonies. And even in opera Strauss settled for less than he could have done after Elektra.

[Florestan]

While not taking any side (neither one nor the other is among my favorites at the moment), I think Strauss's output is much more varied than Mahler's. and therefore the former might appeal to a wider stratum of music lovers.

[Mahlerian]

I think with talent we associate easy and precocious capability. Strauss wrote a bunch of "conservative" classicist instrumental stuff as a teenager and the best of these works, like the violin sonata (when he was slightly older) or the Burleske are very good. And then he does something like Don Juan in his mid-20s which was groundbreaking and overall pretty amazing.
As original and underrated "Das klagende Lied" is, I don't think the young Mahler displayed talent at the Straussian level.

Entirely agreed.  Mahler was by no means a child prodigy, and his skill in composition didn't fully reveal itself until at least the Second Symphony or possibly later.

[Monsieur Croche]

R. Strauss was more facile than Mahler.

There is a huge difference, i.e. that quality/ability is not automatically inclusive with either talent or genius.

I didn't mean for this post to summarily end the discussion, while I think it pretty much does ;-)


Best regards

[Karl Henning]

R. Strauss was more facile than Mahler.

There is a huge difference, i.e. that quality/ability is not automatically inclusive with either talent or genius.

I didn't mean for this post to summarily end the discussion, while I think it pretty much does ;-)


Best regards

I don't know if it closes things up (it may), but it is a consideration well worth the reminder.


I certainly admire Telemann's facility 

[North Star]

The facility does wear its welcome when a composer writes faster than you can listen to their music, let alone perform it..

[Florestan]

The facility does wear its welcome when a composer writes faster than you can listen to their music, let alone perform it..

There's beauty even in that, though, but not everyone sees it.   

[North Star]

There's beauty even in that, though, but not everyone sees it.   

Beauty tends to be harder to see whizzing by from a moving train.

[Karl Henning]

The facility does wear its welcome when a composer writes faster than you can listen to their music, let alone perform it..

That's the right tack!  Once the work is created, we have all our own time to address it.  Hats off to"Papa"!

[ritter]

I don't know if it closes things up (it may), but it is a consideration well worth the reminder.

And then again, can we really say that Richard Strauss's Elektra (e.g.) is the work of a more "facile" composer than the Gustav Mahler of  the Symphony No. 4 (again, e.g.)?

Just to be clear, I admire both works immensely, so am not trying to put one ahead of the other...

[Karl Henning]

I follow you like a leopard.  Saint-Saëns was more facile than Ravel, but they were both geniuses.  And facility, of itself, is an imperfect indicator.

[Florestan]

I'll take genuinely facile music over contrivedly (is this a word?) profound one any day and night.

As for Telemann, I am reminded of that musicologist, whose name I can't remember right now, who vituperated against the low quality of some of his cantatas as opposed to some masterpieces of Bach, only to learn years later that the latter were wrongly attributed to Bach: they had been actually composed by Telemann.

[Karl Henning]

I'll take genuinely facile music over contrivedly (is this a word?) profound one any day and night.

It's a fine word, and nothing contrived.

As for Telemann, I am reminded of that musicologist, whose name I can't remember right now, who vituperated against the low quality of some of his cantatas as opposed to the masterpieces of Bach, only to learn years later that the objects of his scorn were wrongly attributed to the former: they had been actually composed by the latter.

You realize, that the only fact here is that Bach wrote music which was short of a masterpiece, which I have practically always granted     There may be other music, genuinely by Telemann, which may draw reasonable scorn   0:)

[Karl Henning]

I'll take genuinely facile music over contrivedly (is this a word?) profound one any day and night.

As for Telemann, I am reminded of that musicologist, whose name I can't remember right now, who vituperated against the low quality of some of his cantatas as opposed to some masterpieces of Bach, only to learn years later that the latter were wrongly attributed to Bach: they had been actually composed by Telemann.

Well, the plot thickens.  Perhaps when the name of the musicologist returns to you, we might go back to the source.

[Florestan]

Particularly striking examples of such judgements were produced by noted Bach biographers Philipp Spitta and Albert Schweitzer, who criticized Telemann's cantatas and then praised works they thought were composed by Bach, but which were composed by Telemann.[8]

The source mentioned is

Zohn, Steven: "Georg Philipp Telemann". In L. Root, Deane. Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press.

[Jo498]

Two of these apocryphal cantatas now attributed to Telemann are BWV 141 and 160. This is particularly ironic because Spitta and others, even up to the mid 20th century tended to make a big deal of the obvious differences in quality between that facile writer of 1000s of pieces and the Fifth Evangelist and Father of German Music.

There are quite a few apocryphal Bach pieces and even more suspicious ones. Another example is a trio sonata C major BWV 1037 for two violins, now attributed to Bach's student Goldberg.

[Karl Henning]

The source mentioned is

Zohn, Steven: "Georg Philipp Telemann". In L. Root, Deane. Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press.

Good (and, thank you).

Now, what does it actually mean?

1. That Telemann actually wrote some works which are praiseworthy.  It does not follow that all that Telemann wrote is praiseworthy (after all, we are allowing that not all that Bach wrote is "a masterpiece").  Jn Rutter has written a few pieces which are very highly regarded;  and he has written a ton of mediocre boilerplate (and for the entirely understandable reason that there is a market for it).  Jn Rutter may both be a superior craftsman to (e.g.) Natalie Sleeth and Pepper Choplin, and yet not be A Great Composer.  Perhaps some similar principles apply to Telemann.

2. That listeners, lay and professional, can fall into lazy mental traps ("If Bach wrote it, it's great; if Telemann wrote it, it's rubbish").  This is true, and the detection of the fallacies is a worthy and necessary pursuit.

[Florestan]

Two of these apocryphal cantatas now attributed to Telemann are BWV 141 and 160. This is particularly ironic because Spitta and others, even up to the mid 20th century tended to make a big deal of the obvious differences in quality between that facile writer of 1000s of pieces and the Fifth Evangelist and Father of German Music.

This tells more about Spitta and the others than about Telemann or Bach. The latter held the former in high enough esteem as to make him the godfather of his son Carl Philip Emmanuel. And ironically enough, it's only after Telemann gave up his appointment as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, and Graupner declined as well, that the post went to Bach.

[Karl Henning]

Two of these apocryphal cantatas now attributed to Telemann are BWV 141 and 160. This is particularly ironic because Spitta and others, even up to the mid 20th century tended to make a big deal of the obvious differences in quality between that facile writer of 1000s of pieces and the Fifth Evangelist and Father of German Music.

There are quite a few apocryphal Bach pieces and even more suspicious ones. Another example is a trio sonata C major BWV 1037 for two violins, now attributed to Bach's student Goldberg.

I think the refinement of Bach scholarship can only be a good thing.