Messing with Beethoven!

[Peter]

Originally posted by Pastorali:
Just an other view to the music. I really would give it a chance, is it well done, it has it's rights to be. Also B. took other people's music to work with it. (did somebody not?)

Beethoven doesn't need another view to his music! How anyone can be so presumptious as to play around with the greatest set of variations known to man (along with Bach's Goldberg) and think they can offer something new is beyond me! What next, Eminem and the 9th symphony?

I'm all for improvisation and if this Uri Caine loves jazzing up classical themes, fine - I'd have no problem with him or anyone else using say the Eroica theme, but when a complete work is sabotaged it is something else.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Steppenwolf]

Let me pose a question - what is the difference between what this jazz musician has done, and Brahms composing variations on a theme by Haydn? Or, indeed, between Beethoven himself composing variations on a theme by Handel (in 'The Consecration of the House')?

As long as the new music has some merit, and it treats the original music in a respectful manner, then I don't see what the problem is. I object when snippets of Beethoven are used for rap songs, because rap songs have no musical merit whatsoever, and the themes are used in a flippant and trivial manner.

Peter said "What next, Eminem's version of the 9th?". Well, if Emimen can produce variations of themes from the 9th in a way that is respectful to Beethoven (not ironic or mocking), and can do so with some musical merit, then great! Bring it on! But judging from his previous efforts I doubt he would be capable of this.

However, jazz does have musical merit, and it seems from that article that Beethoven's music is being treated in a respectful, even reverential manner. So I don't see what the problem is. I object when the music of the masters is used in a tacky or derogatory context (like in that new movie Amalie recently mentioned in another thread), but I don't think the context of jazz improvisation is derogatory at all. If these variations form a bridge towards appreciation of Beethoven in his original form, over which jazz lovers, as yet unacquainted with the classics, may cross, then this could be a very good thing.

[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited February 24, 2004).]

[Steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Amalie:

The concert opened with Sibelius 4th Symphony, which to me seems a bit wierd and experimental with dark undertones, though I did find myself liking parts of it.
I do like other works by Sibelius such as his symphonic poem - Nightride & Sunrise, the 2nd, 6th and 7th Symphony.

I too was at that concert

The symphony was the first piece I have heard by Sibelius. I found it quite tedious ... I have no desire to hear it again. Like too much very late 19th century, and early 20th century music, it seemed to me too 'academic', and not sufficiently entertaining. And what about that ludicrous tinkling of the triangle or bell or whatever it was? Any sense of solemnity just evaporated when that stunt was pulled.

The Requiem was very enjoyable, and was conducted well, although I did think the chorus sounded a bit flat in places. The strains of the choir didn't quite soar up into the heavens, as in the best performances. Also, I feel that the Ave Verum was a bit spoiled, because a particularly sublime passage on the strings in the last few bars of the piece was fudged over hastily and was barely audible.

[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited February 24, 2004).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
Let me pose a question - what is the difference between what this jazz musician has done, and Brahms composing variations on a theme by Haydn? Or, indeed, between Beethoven himself composing variations on a theme by Handel (in 'The Consecration of the House')?

There is a huge difference between writing variations on a theme and completely reworking an entire piece in a style alien to the composer. I am entirely in agreement about the merits of jazz and improvisation but this isn't the issue. If he wants to do 32 jazz variations on Diabelli's theme all well and good - but leave Beethoven out of it!

Aside from this I fail to see the point of the exercise - as if Beethoven doesn't offer us enough with his wealth of imagination and creativity we need Uri Caine to show us something beyond that? I doubt you'd like to hear the 'Siegfried Idyll' played by a jazz band with huge chunks rewritten.

----------------'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited February 24, 2004).]

[urtextmeister]

Back to the original topic for a moment...

I think it is important to consider the context when one is adapting music by another composer.

When Mozart went to the court of so-and-so and said, give me a theme by a composer of the day and I shall improvise upon it, that was to display his virtuosity.
Likewise, when Beethoven wrote the Diabelli variations, he was probably setting out to display his virtuosity as a composer. It also turned out to be a great work of art.

When advertisers use a classical theme it is almost strictly for commercial gain.

When I play for silent movies, which I occasionally do, I use classical themes as background accompaniment and I think everyone knows that I am not presenting the music in its original guise.

In these contexts, it seems like the rules governing traditional concert performances--those rules that are constantly changing, but always seem chiselled in stone--no longer apply.
The jazz Diabelli/Beethoven project would be disturbing to me if it were presented without any disclaimer that this is a free, jazz-oriented presentation of the work.

I don't think that is the case.

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Peter:
There is a huge difference between writing variations on a theme and completely reworking an entire piece in a style alien to the composer. I am entirely in agreement about the merits of jazz and improvisation but this isn't the issue. If he wants to do 32 jazz variations on Diabelli's theme all well and good - but leave Beethoven out of it!

Aside from this I fail to see the point of the exercise - as if Beethoven doesn't offer us enough with his wealth of imagination and creativity we need Uri Caine to show us something beyond that? I doubt you'd like to hear the 'Siegfried Idyll' played by a jazz band with huge chunks rewritten.

----------------'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited February 24, 2004).]

I love the Idyll but honestly would be very interested to see what anyone who wanted to use it as a subject for improvisation would do with it - jazz or not. If I disliked the result, the original is still there in all its beauty for me to return to. No one will have harmed it.

From the standpoint of education, I can see that you might have a point in getting upset were someone to attend this jazz version of the Diabelli Variations and receive a distorted impression of Beethoven's original work from it, and never experience the original. But my experience in the past generation has been that jazz is as threatened a form as classical music is now, if not more so. And that most jazz listeners are also either classical listeners also, or else are quite respectful of classical music. They would be likely to explore the Beethovewn after hearing this concert, I think, if they were not already familiar with it. If there is a threat to music, it comes from pop and rap, not from jazz, which in its way is a museum music now as much as classical is.

[Steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Peter:
I doubt you'd like to hear the 'Siegfried Idyll' played by a jazz band with huge chunks rewritten.

I wouldn't mind, so long as it was in a respectable medium (and we both agree jazz is respectable) and in a way that was not trivial, mocking or otherwise ironic.

I think that composing variations is a compliment to the original composer, not an insult, even if the new work fails to stand up to the genius of the original (which in most cases will be unlikely). I think you do Beethoven an injustice in presuming that he would necessarily disaprove, or be turning over in his grave. Possibly he would be flattered that centuries after his death people are still using his themes as stimuli for new inspiration and new musical forms. Music, surely, is an organic, living organism, and it is meant to be enjoyed in a spirit of fun, not always in dreadful solemnity. We don't want to fossilise Beethoven, or any composer, and preserve them in a museum cabinet that destroys their vitality. When Glen Gould played Bach on the piano, that was in a new medium, and in a new style. The fact that it was not played on a harpsicord in the exact baroque style was not an insult to Bach. Keep authenticity - yes! But have an open mind for new styles and new forms of re-interpretation as well. Don't make an idol of Beethoven!


[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited February 24, 2004).]

[Joy]

Originally posted by Peter:
What next, Eminem and the 9th symphony?

I hope to heavens not!!!



------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[Peter]

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
I wouldn't mind, so long as it was in a respectable medium (and we both agree jazz is respectable) and in a way that was not trivial, mocking or otherwise ironic.

I think that composing variations is a compliment to the original composer, not an insult, even if the new work fails to stand up to the genius of the original (which in most cases will be unlikely). I think you do Beethoven an injustice in presuming that he would necessarily disaprove, or be turning over in his grave. Possibly he would be flattered that centuries after his death people are still using his themes as stimuli for new inspiration and new musical forms. Music, surely, is an organic, living organism, and it is meant to be enjoyed in a spirit of fun, not always in dreadful solemnity. We don't want to fossilise Beethoven, or any composer, and preserve them in a museum cabinet that destroys their vitality. When Glen Gould played Bach on the piano, that was in a new medium, and in a new style. The fact that it was not played on a harpsicord in the exact baroque style was not an insult to Bach. Keep authenticity - yes! But have an open mind for new styles and new forms of re-interpretation as well. Don't make an idol of Beethoven!


[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited February 24, 2004).]

I agree about variations - I've made this point over and over! If he wants to do jazz variations and improvisations on a theme from the 9th or whatever I have no problem!! However this is something different, a reworking in a Jazz idiom of the entire work. As for doing Beethoven an injustice, recall his own words to Czerny "But you must forgive a composer who would rather have heard his work performed exactly as it was written, however beautifully you played it in other respects" (this was in response to Czerny having introduced his own embellishments to the Op.16 quintet). Then look at the endless letters to publishers concerning mistakes in the editions. Look at the detailed instructions to the Arioso of Op.110 (around 50 words on one page!) and then we turn round say its ok to play around with it anyway - that's injustice!

As for Glenn Gould this is entirely different - he didn't change the music, he simply played it on a piano instead of harpsichord - the 48 are written 'for keyboard'.


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited February 24, 2004).]

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
I too was at that concert

The symphony was the first piece I have heard by Sibelius. I found it quite tedious ... I have no desire to hear it again. Like too much very late 19th century, and early 20th century music, it seemed to me too 'academic', and not sufficiently entertaining. And what about that ludicrous tinkling of the triangle or bell or whatever it was? Any sense of solemnity just evaporated when that stunt was pulled.

The Requiem was very enjoyable, and was conducted well, although I did think the chorus sounded a bit flat in places. The strains of the choir didn't quite soar up into the heavens, as in the best performances. Also, I feel that the Ave Verum was a bit spoiled, because a particularly sublime passage on the strings in the last few bars of the piece was fudged over hastily and was barely audible.

[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited February 24, 2004).]

I agree, the Sibelius 4th is a piece my husband says is never understood, the chords didn't seem to go anywhere. There was one or two signature themes of Sibelius in the 3rd movement, but they never seem to go anywhere.

We enjoyed Mozart's requiem, and the Sopranos had lovely vioces.

[urtextmeister]

Peter,

I believe Gould did extremely radical things with Bach and other composers. Yes the WTC was for Keyboard, but Gould's Steinway was like nothing Bach could have dreamed of. One thing Gould did was make it valid to play Bach and even Gibbons and Byrd on the modern piano. He made it valid because he did it with such conviction and artistry.
There are many things musical and technological ways that we have changed the presentation of classical music. Take recordings, for instance. The other day I heard someone listening to some French baroque music. It was blaring out a speaker like rock music. It seemed horribly wrong to me, but the listener liked this "extreme" baroque.
Gould was also fascinated by the whole concept of recordings and believed that in the future, live performance would be a thing of the past. This has not come to pass, but the art of recording is a sort of distortion of what Beethoven and Bach originally created.
Gould often made recordings of Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms that were in grotesquely "wrong" tempos. He wanted to do something that hadn't been done before and I believe he also wanted to show a different angle--show us the muscles and sinews instead of the surface.
Maybe his recordings aren't as radical as jazzified Beethoven, but I think they are on the same track.

How do you feel about radical reworkings of reperoire withing the realm of classical music? Such as Busoni's arrangement of Bach's Chaconne?

Of course a composer has preferences, but here is a philosophical point that fascinates me: when an artist creates a work of art, does he or she relinquish control of it? Don't the Diabelli Variations belong to us now?

[Pastorali]

Messing with everything:

Yesterday I have seen a report about Las Vegas and the something like a copy of 'Venice' there.

The whole sentimental rubbish was surrounded by a lot of digital Vivaldi.

The mayor of Venice is not very amused about it and is going to prepare to sue them for this 'abuse of culture', how he said...ah yeah, they have 50 million visitors a year there...cheers

[Peter]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:
Peter,

I believe Gould did extremely radical things with Bach and other composers. Yes the WTC was for Keyboard, but Gould's Steinway was like nothing Bach could have dreamed of. One thing Gould did was make it valid to play Bach and even Gibbons and Byrd on the modern piano. He made it valid because he did it with such conviction and artistry.
There are many things musical and technological ways that we have changed the presentation of classical music. Take recordings, for instance. The other day I heard someone listening to some French baroque music. It was blaring out a speaker like rock music. It seemed horribly wrong to me, but the listener liked this "extreme" baroque.
Gould was also fascinated by the whole concept of recordings and believed that in the future, live performance would be a thing of the past. This has not come to pass, but the art of recording is a sort of distortion of what Beethoven and Bach originally created.
Gould often made recordings of Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms that were in grotesquely "wrong" tempos. He wanted to do something that hadn't been done before and I believe he also wanted to show a different angle--show us the muscles and sinews instead of the surface.
Maybe his recordings aren't as radical as jazzified Beethoven, but I think they are on the same track.

How do you feel about radical reworkings of reperoire withing the realm of classical music? Such as Busoni's arrangement of Bach's Chaconne?

Of course a composer has preferences, but here is a philosophical point that fascinates me: when an artist creates a work of art, does he or she relinquish control of it? Don't the Diabelli Variations belong to us now?

Interesting points - actually I only referred to Gould as he was mentioned elsewhere, I'm far from being a fan of his, I only possess his Bach 2&3 part inventions which at least do not depart from the written notes. What do I think of reworkings within the repertoire? - not much! Gounod's sentimental tune tacked onto Bach, Mahler's tinkerings with Beethoven, Elgar's Bach fugue monstrosity right down to the distortions of Gruber's original silent night.

As for an artist relinquishing control, I don't think that was Beethoven's attitude - he didn't say to his publishers, "right you've paid me, the work is yours, do what you like!" I realise that some people obviously find the originals boring and unsatisfying which is why we have the attempts to set Mozart in a Los Angeles Burger bar "to show us a new and modern dimension" but this isn't for me!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Chaszz]

Today I posted an article on Chopin, on another thread, which bears somewhat on this thread. When Liszt played something of Chopin's and embellished it, Chopin politely asked him to play it as written or not at all.

But after that is a description of Chopin improvising for over an hour, and bringing tears to the eyes of the guests. This reminds me of stories of Beethoven's improvising, with similar outcomes. The reason I being this up here is to note, I think something essential went out of music when improvising was lost to it.

But I admit this little story comes down on both sides of the issue at the same time.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
Today I posted an article on Chopin, on another thread, which bears somewhat on this thread. When Liszt played something of Chopin's and embellished it, Chopin politely asked him to play it as written or not at all.

But after that is a description of Chopin improvising for over an hour, and bringing tears to the eyes of the guests. This reminds me of stories of Beethoven's improvising, with similar outcomes. The reason I being this up here is to note, I think something essential went out of music when improvising was lost to it.

But I admit this little story comes down on both sides of the issue at the same time.

I agree with you - I suppose it is because few of today's virtuosi are composers as they were expected to be in the past. Undoubtedly the spontanaiety of improvisation is a dimension of classical music that is sadly missing and Jazz is now the most obvious idiom for this. It would be an idea if the music exam boards were to introduce an element of improvisation as they do with the jazz syllabus.


------------------
'Man know thyself'