Earlier vs. later works of certain composers: Which do you prefer?

[kyjo]

I thought this might be an interesting topic. I've been thinking about composers whose earlier works I prefer to their later works, and vice versa. This especially applies to composers who radically changed their style over the course of their career (e.g. Stravinsky), but you can mention any composers you'd like. I'm speaking generally here, and there will always be exceptions of course:

Composers whose earlier works I generally prefer:
Braga Santos
Britten
Debussy
Fauré
Ginastera
Piston
Schoenberg
Stravinsky (up to and including the Symphony of Psalms)
Suk
Tippett
Webern
Weinberg


Composers whose later works I generally prefer:
Bruckner
Dvořák (though with some notable exceptions; e.g. I prefer his 3rd symphony to the 9th)
Haydn
Mozart
Poulenc (one of the few 20th century examples I can think of!)
Schubert


Interesting to see that my first list is significantly longer than my second. As I realized, when it comes to certain 20th century composers especially, I prefer often their earlier, less "experimental" works (I'm probably in the minority here). Often, I'm not a huge fan of the "hermetically sealed", more austere style some composers adopted later in life, and prefer the bright-eyed youthful vigor they exhibited in their earlier works. The composers whose later works I prefer are the great exceptions; to me, they achieved musical transcendence in these works while still being greatly communicative to the common listener. I hope this makes some modicum of sense!

[MusicTurner]

Currently, I can't really think of many such cases, except preferring middle and late Beethoven and Dvorak, and not liking late Schumann as much as the rest ... and being, still, mostly into the early Webern.

[Brian]

Earlier
Glass
Lutosławski
Mahler (1-4 and Wunderhorn)
W. Schuman
Suk (before his personal tragedies and Mahlerian turn)

Later
Haydn
Janáček, of course!!
Martinu (particularly the 40s-50s)
Penderecki (the return to neoromanticism of e.g. the French horn concerto, Sextet, and String Quartet No. 3)
Rautavaara
Roussel
Schubert

Middle
Dvorak (1875-1893ish; bearing in mind that his final period was spent on opera)
George Lloyd (4/5/6)

Early and Late But Not Middle
R. Strauss - I don't listen to opera much, so my favorites are mainly Don Juan, the Four Last Songs, and the Oboe Concerto, at opposite ends of his career.

[Sergeant Rock]

I've been thinking about composers whose earlier works I prefer to their later works, and vice versa.

I honestly can't think of any, not among my favorite composers. For example, I genuinely love Haydn's First Symphony (the one with the thrilling Mannheim crescendo in the first movement) as much as 104; Dvorak's First as much as his Ninth; Bruckner's 0, 1, 2 and 3 as much as 9. That these early works are not the great masterpieces as the later examples does not diminish my appreciation of them. Even among composers whose style changed radically over the course of their lives (e.g., Stravinsky or Schoenberg) I can't think of anyone I can't enjoy and follow gladly their evolution.

Sarge

[MusicTurner]

Yes, even Schubert has some nice things in the early oeuvre, though quantity-wise, there's more to find in the later works.

[bhodges]

This is an interesting question, and the only way I know to answer is with a favorite example: Mahler. I like both his First and Ninth symphonies about equally, but for different reasons. (We'll leave aside the Tenth for the moment, though I admire it, too.)

The First is so audacious, a symphony like none that had come before it, and has that freshness of a brilliant young composer leaping onto the scene. It is also somewhat sunnier than some of the others. But its drama and energy, again diving into territory mostly unexplored until then, are irresistible.

On the other hand, the Ninth, written some 20 years later, has the world weariness of someone who has experienced a lot of life, and now sees the end in sight. Some listeners hear more maturity, or more pain. The final pages seem like a glimpse into the beyond.

Generally, composers get more polished and thoughtful as they mature, but those early sparks can be mighty seductive.

And thus endeth my philosophical musings for today. 

--Bruce

[Brian]

I honestly can't think of any, not among my favorite composers. For example, I genuinely love Haydn's First Symphony (the one with the thrilling Mannheim crescendo in the first movement) as much as 104; Dvorak's First as much as his Ninth; Bruckner's 0, 1, and 3 as much as 9. That these early works are not the great masterpieces as the later examples does not diminish my appreciation of them. Even among composers whose style changed radically over the course of their lives (e.g., Stravinsky or Schoenberg) I can't think of anyone I can't enjoy and follow gladly their evolution.

Sarge

Haydn's First is probably my favorite of the first 20 or so Haydn symphonies. What a good start he got to! (Of course the real order may be different from the numerical one...)

[Jo498]

The order is different but supposedly Haydn's first is really the first!

The problem here is that "early" etc. can have rather different meanings. Are "early" Mozart the pieces he wrote with 12 or with 20? "Early Beethoven" was mostly written by a man in his late 20s, about as old as "late Schubert"..., early Bruckner by a man around 40... therefore Haydn's op.20 or "Mourning symphony" are not "early" either, despite 30 years before the "Creation".
Composers with several distinguishable mature phases like Stravinsky are somewhat rare, I think.

For many of my favorites I find comparably early pieces already strong and like many of them (e.g. Mozart's "little g minor", although if forced, I'd obviously go for his last 7 or 10 years than for 1776-84, and certainly not for 1768-77).

So I can mainly think of Prokofiev and Stravinsky where I'd rather go with the early works. Maybe Schumann but while more of my favorite works are early, I really dislike the late Schumann = mad and bad stance (although I think by now there is overcompensation, hailing the violin concerto and Gesänge der Frühe out of proportion)

Composers where I find the early works usually immature and quite clearly prefer late:
Dvorak, Verdi, Bruckner, also CPE Bach (despite not finding his early works weak, by far my favorites are the 10 Hamburg symphonies, lateish concerti and some chamber music from the 1780s)

[Mandryka]

Late

Scriabin
Bach
Beethoven
Liszt
Cage
Chopin
Brahms
Nono
Shostakovich
Dufay

Early

Finnissy
Ben Johnson
Trebaci
Monteverdi
Bartok
Boulez
Rihm
Lachenmann
Schumann

[vandermolen]

Interesting thread idea:

Prefer earlier works:

Braga-Santos
Lilburn
Blomdahl
Norgard
Tubin
Egge
Diamond
Tippett
Weinberg

Prefer later works

Bruckner
Freitas-Branco
Sibelius
Rautavaara
Tchaikovsky
Hoddinott (6th symphony)
Soderlind (8th Symphony)
Novak (De Profundis, South Bohemian Suite)

[The new erato]

Thanks Mandryka for finally mentioning late Beethoven.

[71 dB]

Comprehensive listing would take a lot of work, but here are some initial thoughs:

Earlier works preferred:

C.P.E. Bach
J. Haydn


Later works preferred:

Beethoven
Fauré

[relm1]

Interesting thread idea:

Prefer earlier works:

Braga-Santos
Lilburn
Blomdahl
Norgard
Tubin
Egge
Diamond
Tippett
Weinberg

Prefer later works

Bruckner
Freitas-Branco
Sibelius
Rautavaara
Tchaikovsky
Hoddinott (6th symphony)
Soderlind (8th Symphony)
Novak (De Profundis, South Bohemian Suite)

Thank you for making my list for me.  But you prefer Novak's early Storm.  I'm split on Tchaikovsky if I consider Swan Lake an early work, because it's so magnificent though otherwise his later are greater. 

[kyjo]

Earlier
Glass
Lutosławski
Mahler (1-4 and Wunderhorn)
W. Schuman
Suk (before his personal tragedies and Mahlerian turn)

Later
Haydn
Janáček, of course!!
Martinu (particularly the 40s-50s)
Penderecki (the return to neoromanticism of e.g. the French horn concerto, Sextet, and String Quartet No. 3)
Rautavaara
Roussel
Schubert

Middle
Dvorak (1875-1893ish; bearing in mind that his final period was spent on opera)
George Lloyd (4/5/6)

Early and Late But Not Middle
R. Strauss - I don't listen to opera much, so my favorites are mainly Don Juan, the Four Last Songs, and the Oboe Concerto, at opposite ends of his career.

Great list, Brian! I generally agree with you on Mahler, W. Schuman, Janacek, Martinu, Roussel, and Lloyd.

[kyjo]

Interesting thread idea:

Prefer earlier works:

Braga-Santos
Lilburn
Blomdahl
Norgard
Tubin
Egge
Diamond
Tippett
Weinberg

Prefer later works

Bruckner
Freitas-Branco
Sibelius
Rautavaara
Tchaikovsky
Hoddinott (6th symphony)
Soderlind (8th Symphony)
Novak (De Profundis, South Bohemian Suite)

I definitely agree with you about Lilburn and Diamond. I've sampled a few of Diamond's later (post-4th symphony) works and they were quite forbidding - completely lacking the endearing melodic qualities of his earlier music. At least with, say, Braga Santos' later music, it still contains some references to his earlier style and is dramatic enough to keep my interest.

[kyjo]

I honestly can't think of any, not among my favorite composers. For example, I genuinely love Haydn's First Symphony (the one with the thrilling Mannheim crescendo in the first movement) as much as 104; Dvorak's First as much as his Ninth; Bruckner's 0, 1, and 3 as much as 9. That these early works are not the great masterpieces as the later examples does not diminish my appreciation of them. Even among composers whose style changed radically over the course of their lives (e.g., Stravinsky or Schoenberg) I can't think of anyone I can't enjoy and follow gladly their evolution.

Sarge

Thanks for your thoughts, Sarge. I need to spend more time with Haydn's earlier symphonies - the only one I know that well is no. 7 which is a delightful work. And I revisited Bruckner's 2nd recently which is a much finer work than I had remembered!

[kyjo]

Composers whose later works I generally prefer:
Bruckner
Dvořák (though with some notable exceptions; e.g. I prefer his 3rd symphony to the 9th)
Haydn
Mozart
Poulenc (one of the few 20th century examples I can think of!)
Schubert

Inspired by recent discussion, I'm adding Roussel, Martinu, Janacek, and Szymanowski to this list.

[DaveF]

Nielsen hasn't been mentioned yet - there's someone with very distinctive early and late styles.  Late for me.

And for most rock bands, definitely early - the great ones often seem to peak quickly and then keep going far too long, or otherwise feel a need to simplify their language or move into areas of less interest, to me anyway.  So I'm definitely for early Genesis (the Gabriel years), Led Zep (up to IV), Pink Floyd (up to Wish You Were Here), Yes (as far as Close to the Edge), King Crimson (there's nothing better than In the Court...).  Etc.  With the obvious exception of The Beatles.

[Mirror Image]

Nielsen hasn't been mentioned yet - there's someone with very distinctive early and late styles.  Late for me.

And for most rock bands, definitely early - the great ones often seem to peak quickly and then keep going far too long, or otherwise feel a need to simplify their language or move into areas of less interest, to me anyway.  So I'm definitely for early Genesis (the Gabriel years), Led Zep (up to IV), Pink Floyd (up to Wish You Were Here), Yes (as far as Close to the Edge), King Crimson (there's nothing better than In the Court...).  Etc.  With the obvious exception of The Beatles.

Not to turn this into a rock music debate (too late!), but I think that there's such variety in King Crimson's discography for example that claiming there's nothing better than In the Court of the Crimson King seems like a strange assertion on your part. I would never make the claim that Larks' Tongues in Aspic is better than Discipline or that The Power to Believe is better than Lizard. The whole band's history was in constant flux with members in and out of as fast as you could blink. My case with Genesis is a peculiar one --- I love A Trick of the Tail and Wind & Wuthering as much as anything Gabriel did with the band.

Anyway...carry on, gentlemen.

[The new erato]

Nielsen hasn't been mentioned yet - there's someone with very distinctive early and late styles.  Late for me.

And for most rock bands, definitely early - the great ones often seem to peak quickly and then keep going far too long, or otherwise feel a need to simplify their language or move into areas of less interest, to me anyway.  So I'm definitely for early Genesis (the Gabriel years), Led Zep (up to IV), Pink Floyd (up to Wish You Were Here), Yes (as far as Close to the Edge), King Crimson (there's nothing better than In the Court...).  Etc.  With the obvious exception of The Beatles.

That is so right. Totally agree. And I love all those groups. And to Johns point: Crimson was really a lot of different groups so this May not really apply to them. Fripp was on a road of explorstion.