Duds of Genius

[Renfield]

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!

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.

[kishnevi]

I suppose that's the point I'm now due to play the part of the Angry Internet Man, and start (e-)yelling!

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 ]

[kishnevi]

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

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.

[Guido]

Yes! Mahler's 8th is the ultimate dud of genius.

[jurajjak]

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

[Cato]

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    or Lord Berners     but not Prokofiev.

There!  I said it again!  And I'm glad, I tell you!   0:)

[karlhenning]

Dude, that's cool. We could hardly agree on everything ; )

[Cato]

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,     so...   0:)

[drogulus]

      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.

[Scarpia]

      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.

[drogulus]

     

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".

[Scarpia]

     
      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.

[drogulus]

      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.

[Sergeant Rock]

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  ) 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 

Sarge

[Cato]

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

Sarge

Well, thank you!   

Drogulus: can you give us a specific example?  Do you have access to a score?

[drogulus]

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  ) 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 

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.


     
   

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.

[drogulus]

      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.

[Scarpia]

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. 

[drogulus]

     

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.}

     

[Scarpia]

     
     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.