Composers you don't get

[Bulldog]

I've read some positive comments about Mozart's 13th PC in the past.  One thing about it's historical critical reputation that would be used against it is probably that pianists have performed it less than some of the others, that has probably blinded some. 

To say that Mozart's mature piano concertos are more masterful than his earlier ones does not equate to needing to be critical of the earlier concertos.  I love all of them while recognizing the greater inspiration and thematic development of the mature concertos.

What we have here is a tendency to believe that what one greatly enjoys must be a masterpiece.  This attitude is displayed daily on the board and has always puzzled me.

[North Star]

I don't care much about ranking pieces, either, but with none you end up recommending 3rd grade pieces of a composer, and possibly making people dismiss the composer.
It's all relative, of course, but something like Mozart's 13th PC or the 34th symphony are hardly juvenilia. As to distributing the older compositions, Mozart wasn't exactly rich, so that might have motivated him, too.
And "They are simply different kinds of pieces. " is exactly what I think, too. What I meant is that composers should evolve in the sense of writing different sort of music - and I certainly didn't mean that a composers work should always be better than the ones before it. That's just plain silly.

[Bulldog]

Beethoven's 1st in it's way is arguably as masterful as the 9th, whether it is as original is certainly very much more questionable.  But why should I care about that?  As long as it's original in the sense of not being generic (which it isn't I think) and it gives me enjoyment with what it is aiming for that is all I care about.  Also let's not forget Beethoven was quite an experienced composer by the time he wrote his 1st. 

And repying to Northstar:
"Composers, if they're any good, develop and get more individual style at a later age."

I don't agree, you could get good composers who do some remarkably fresh and accomplished work when younger and lose interest later or try other styles that don't quite work for them.

Correct, but Beethoven isn't one of those composers; he got better and better with age.  I think it likely that someone who loves Beethoven's 1st symphony as much or more than his 9th has a preference for classical-era music over music with strong romantic-era traits.

[eyeresist]

A simpler piece can do this just as much as a more complex longer work.  Is there any point judging a work for not being what it wasn't ever aiming to be?

It is important, I agree, to evaluate composers on what they do achieve in preference to what they don't. I wouldn't attempt to argue the Prokofiev is ultimately greater than Bach, for instance, but they are doing different things, and I prefer what Prok does. (The true artist is only really competing against themself.) In the same way, we evaluate (or should) individual works on their own merits. But all this is not to say we shouldn't compare works in terms of quality (however that may be defined); certainly the artists themselves aren't afraid to do it.

One thing that annoys me about reviewers is how they sometimes belittle a work by a lesser known composer just because the style reminds them of a famous one.

I don't think that's generally true. Critics acknowledge that influence is unavoidable (unless the composer is a Pol Pot-style modernist), and happily point out how great composers were influenced by their predecessors.
The problem is that some composers never get much beyond pastiche of other works. In some cases it's the sad result of a frenetic work schedule that doesn't allow time for artistic development (I'm thinking of soundtrack writers here, though in the past composers for opera, church and the theatre might also have qualified); in other cases, they just don't have the individuality in them to bring out music that sounds fresh.

[Elgarian]

What we have here is a tendency to believe that what one greatly enjoys must be a masterpiece.

Not sure if it was my comment you were addressing here, but just to clarify: I'm making a much more nuanced claim, namely, that a PC such as the 13th, which is not highly regarded by expert music critics (on grounds I described), is by no means devoid of value (to this listener at least). It's true that it doesn't have the overabundance of inventiveness that one finds in other Mozart PCs, but that doesn't mean it can't offer a delightful and satisfying listening experience. I'm not competent to declare whether it's a masterpiece or not.

[starrynight]

Correct, but Beethoven isn't one of those composers; he got better and better with age.  I think it likely that someone who loves Beethoven's 1st symphony as much or more than his 9th has a preference for classical-era music over music with strong romantic-era traits.

Maybe we could say Beethoven got more consistent over time, doesn't mean that he didn't do very good pieces before his last period or even middle period.  I'd just judge each piece on it's own merit for it's own style.

And everyone inevitably will have preference for one style over another.  Those who like the romantic style more probably don't give his 1st symphony very much chance.  I like to think I can like both, I rate his 5th and 6th very highly too.  The 9th is obviously a considerable piece, though I wonder if people rate it his best as much for it's huge ambition as anything.

I wouldn't attempt to argue the Prokofiev is ultimately greater than Bach

Yes, but does it really matter?  A particularly good Prokofiev piece could still impress us enough in the moment to make it worthwhile listening for us, and that's all that matters it seems to me.

(The true artist is only really competing against themself.) In the same way, we evaluate (or should) individual works on their own merits. But all this is not to say we shouldn't compare works in terms of quality (however that may be defined); certainly the artists themselves aren't afraid to do it.

Of course you need to make comparisons to see exactly what is worth re-hearing, I think I said that.  The thing is though to make the proper comparisons.

The problem is that some composers never get much beyond pastiche of other works. in other cases, they just don't have the individuality in them to bring out music that sounds fresh.

In some cases that could well be the case.  I think critics in both popular and classical music can be far too quick to this kind of judgement as well though.  They can get it stuck in their minds that a particular style belongs to one composer and that anyone else doing it is just secondary and only worth damning with faint praise.

What I meant is that composers should evolve in the sense of writing different sort of music - and I certainly didn't mean that a composers work should always be better than the ones before it.

I agree.

I don't care much about ranking pieces, either, but with none you end up recommending 3rd grade pieces of a composer, and possibly making people dismiss the composer.

It depends how you define 'third grade'.  If you just mean bad pieces which have very average ideas not so well developed then I would agree that it hardly helps a composer's cause.  But if it is a good early work then I think it actually broadens the understanding of a composer.

To say that Mozart's mature piano concertos are more masterful than his earlier ones does not equate to needing to be critical of the earlier concertos.  I love all of them while recognizing the greater inspiration and thematic development of the mature concertos.

What we have here is a tendency to believe that what one greatly enjoys must be a masterpiece.  This attitude is displayed daily on the board and has always puzzled me.

How do you define 'masterful' and 'masterpiece' (that horribly overused word)?  I think something can be masterful without being complex.  The classical style for example can have a beautiful simplicity and directness to it, in a way it was populist perhaps.  And masterpiece I assume originally meant a late work by a composer which sums up how his work had developed by the end of his life.  That wouldn't have to mean a value judgement on other pieces.  Now it pretty much means any piece somebody thinks is good.

[Karl Henning]

. . . I'm making a much more nuanced claim, namely, that a PC such as the 13th, which is not highly regarded by expert music critics (on grounds I described), is by no means devoid of value (to this listener at least). It's true that it doesn't have the overabundance of inventiveness that one finds in other Mozart PCs, but that doesn't mean it can't offer a delightful and satisfying listening experience.

Not a word here but I can heartily agree with (well, I suppose I ought to revisit the 13^th concerto, refresh my knowledge of it, to affirm absolutely).  This arc of increasing mastery whereof we speak (to repeat, not necessarily for your benefit, Alan — I know you don't require this saying) in no way negates delight or satisfaction in earlier works.

[Karl Henning]

And everyone inevitably will have preference for one style over another.  Those who like the romantic style more probably don't give his 1st symphony very much chance.

Here's a case where the opposing positions are opposite but not equal. Don made a sensible point in saying that someone who feels that the Beethoven First Symphony is "better" than the Ninth may well be someone who generally prefers the Classical style to the Romantic.

That is a very different matter to the hypothesis that finding the Sinfonia eroica a piece of richer work and greater mastery than the First, is "just" a matter of preferring the Romantic style to the Classical.

Again, most great artists strive to improve their art over time, even from project to project; or maybe all of them strive, and we might say that most of the great artists succeed.  Tell Brahms, "Yeah, those Intermezzi of your Op.119 are good, sure; but of course, your Op.76 pieces are every bit as good, you just tried to achieve 'something different' with them," he would just conclude that you do not understand his work.  And if you insisted, "Why have I continued to work for 15 years following the Op.76, only to remain in exactly the same place 15 years later?"

The artist's sense of his increasing art is not the illusion; it is this misapplication of the democratic principle, that somehow all good works of art are created equal, they're just "different," which is the illusion/

[starrynight]

And if you insisted, "Why have I continued to work for 15 years following the Op.76, only to remain in exactly the same place 15 years later?"

I never said that they have to stay in exactly the same place.  Just because some later work may be of high quality is no reason to have to dismiss some earlier work.  An artist will dismiss things because they move on to other styles and lose interest in earlier styles they have composed in, but a listener doesn't have to do that.  Some artists styles may even move towards a greater simplicity rather than complexity.  And as I said before denseness alone doesn't have to be a reason to give a piece acclaim.  It can be, but it doesn't have to be.  And some composers establish elements of their own individual style quite early anyway.

[Karl Henning]

I never said that they have to stay in exactly the same place.  Just because some later work may be of high quality is no reason to have to dismiss some earlier work.

There, we do agree.  Petrhaps the point I need to repeat (nor is it the first repetition in this discussion) is: To acknowledge that an earlier work is a lesser work, is not dismissal.

[snyprrr]

Would anyone care to sum up the last 3-4 Pages for me?

munch...munch...

[Karl Henning]

No Xenakis here.

[Elgarian]

Would anyone care to sum up the last 3-4 Pages for me?

Easier to summarise Proust, I think.

[chasmaniac]

Easier to summarise Proust, I think.

I seem to recall...

[Bulldog]

Not sure if it was my comment you were addressing here, but just to clarify: I'm making a much more nuanced claim, namely, that a PC such as the 13th, which is not highly regarded by expert music critics (on grounds I described), is by no means devoid of value (to this listener at least). It's true that it doesn't have the overabundance of inventiveness that one finds in other Mozart PCs, but that doesn't mean it can't offer a delightful and satisfying listening experience.

My comment referred to certain board members; you are not among them.

Of course, the 13th has value; I don't know of anyone who loves Mozart's piano concertos who doesn't think highly of the 13th.

[Karl Henning]

Must be life in Boston, but I just misread that phrase of Alan's as a much more nuanced clam. Which is just the sort of shellfish we need around here.

[bhodges]

What we have here is a tendency to believe that what one greatly enjoys must be a masterpiece.  This attitude is displayed daily on the board and has always puzzled me.

Word.

--Bruce

[Elgarian]

Must be life in Boston, but I just misread that phrase of Alan's as a much more nuanced clam. Which is just the sort of shellfish we need around here.

No Karl, that's quite right: 'claim' was a typo, and the 'i' unintentional. The importance of shellfish to Mozart has always been under-rated, and I think it's our mission to fix that. One thinks, for example, of the more boysterous moments in Don Giovanni; of how his clarinet concerto warms the cockles of our hearts; of the subtleties in his great works that sometimes need to be winkled out; and of the warm whelkome that all his music invariably receives. I believe we may be embarking upon a whole new set of perceived relationships between Mozart and Marine Life in general.

[Karl Henning]

I am relieved to learn it, Alan; I didn't like to think I had misclammed . . . .

[eyeresist]

Don't hog all the puns; it's shellfish.