B's 10th Symphony! Opinions?

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by Ateach Asc:
There never was anything beyond published OP 135 which finished with a very sudden and final goodbye and good luck! type of statement.

If Mr. C had simply left the matter as a tribute to B and his followers, rather than suggest the opening of an hitherto unpublished B. work in the making, perhaps the result would have drawn far less contempt, and definitely less publicity, for a work devoid of any artistic merit.

Dear Ateach Asc;

Are you saying that Mozart's "Requiem" and Puccini's "Turandot" are devoid of any artistic merit too??

Hofrat

[Ateach Asc]

Originally posted by Hofrat:

Dear Ateach Asc;

Are you saying that Mozart's "Requiem" and Puccini's "Turandot" are devoid of any artistic merit too??

Hofrat

Not at all.... the reference is to C's pretensions that a Beethoven something or other had been reconstructed, and only to that purported reconstruction.

Again, C should have bitten the bullet and simply noted his efforts to weave some B sketches into some kind of homage to B. C's efforts very clearly did not come anywhere near B's creations, let alone B's creative genius.



------------------
Must it be? It must be!

[gprengel]

To the list of fragmentary works and sketches who have been completed by others I would like to add:

- a recently realized fantastic "Amen" double Fuge from a sketch from Mozart's Reqiem which Süsmayer left unused (I can email a mp3 file to anyone who is interested)

- a wonderful realised 7th symphony in Eb Major from Tschaikowsky

With regard to Schubert's 10th symphony:
At my website www.gerdprengel.de you find a mp3 file of the awesome slow movement fragment in b minor. I made this file by just using the sketched notes from Schubert from his piano sketch but putting them into a rough orchestra score without adding more to it.

As I have said before I think it is a great loss to refuse to appcreciate such completions only because they are not completed by the original composers. I love the Cooper realisation, the 6th piano concerto realisation, even more Beethoven's 1816 f-minor piano trio from W.Holsbergen, ... Even when these works are not completed by the masters themselves they still contain quite a bit of their spirit. And this definively makes it worthwile to listen to these works!

[Laurenticwave]

Originally posted by Ateach Asc:
Not at all.... the reference is to C's pretensions that a Beethoven something or other had been reconstructed, and only to that purported reconstruction.

Again, C should have bitten the bullet and simply noted his efforts to weave some B sketches into some kind of homage to B. C's efforts very clearly did not come anywhere near B's creations, let alone B's creative genius.

You write as though you feel strong animosity toward C. Did you read his paper on the 10th in the 1988 Beethoven Newsletter? Or listen to his lengthy audio introduction on the Wyn Moris/LSO recording? If so, you would know that he was extremely modest about his efforts, and made no claim that this was how the movement would have ultimately sounded: "The piece itself is not a new Beethoven symphony as such, but a kind of 'artist;s impression' of the first movement." The themes are undoubtedly B's - including the strident opening - and for this reason alone they are surely worth a listen. What I would personally love to hear are the sketches as written by B in his noteboks, without any further elaboration - but with over 8,000 entries, that would be some feat indeed!

[Peter]

Originally posted by Hofrat:

Dear Ateach Asc;

Are you saying that Mozart's "Requiem" and Puccini's "Turandot" are devoid of any artistic merit too??

Hofrat

These works were in a far more advanced state of completion being substantially written by the composers concerned, whereas B's 10th was very much in embryonic form. The result speaks for itself anyhow in that it is a huge disappointment not worthy of Beethoven, falling way below any of the official 9. At least with the Walker/Elgar and Payne/Elgar realisations they have produced works that are convincing and of quality.

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 12-06-2005).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by gprengel:
- a wonderful realised 7th symphony in Eb Major from Tschaikowsky

Is this the same symphony that he abandoned and then used for a one movement 3rd piano concerto in 1893?



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

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by gprengel:
As I have said before I think it is a great loss to refuse to appcreciate such completions only because they are not completed by the original composers. I love the Cooper realisation, the 6th piano concerto realisation, even more Beethoven's 1816 f-minor piano trio from W.Holsbergen, ... Even when these works are not completed by the masters themselves they still contain quite a bit of their spirit. And this definively makes it worthwile to listen to these works!

Well spoken, Gerd, well spoken!! I could not say it any better!!


Hofrat

[Droell]

Originally posted by Hofrat:
Inedita has recorded the 6th piano concerto and was suppose to release it in November 2005. A free downloadable MIDI file of this realization is available on the Unheard Beethoven website.

Hofrat

I went to the UB website & listened to the 6th.

It might have been the performace, it might have been any number of things that had nothing to do with the music itself. Or it might have been that without his famous final flourishes, Beethoven sounds like many another composer of his day.

Or it might have been the "Picasso problem". Picasso stopped doing cubism when he ran out of things to do with it. Both the 6th piano concerto, and the 10th symphony (the one I heard, years ago, that sounded like Leonore 3 warmed over) sounded like someone frustrated by the limitations of his materials.

If so, then logically speaking, one would start the project with a lot of ideas & enthusiasm, but as the project progressed, grow more & more unhappy until it was finally abandoned. In this regard, look again at B's opinion of his 7th & 8th symphonies: The 8th is better, he said.

For a long time, I thought B's high opinion of the 8th was merely in its unfussy, unformal, "unbuttoned" nature. I had thought Beethoven's compositional "sabbatical", from about 1814 to 1821, to have been due to his distraction with Karl.

Listening to the 10th & the 6th, I get the impression of a great mind searching for the next great challenge. Unable to continue as he had, unwilling to parody himself. In this light, the 8th is more telling than many suspect: Beethoven is experimenting with the dynamics of the performance itself. He is all but telling us the final two movements should not be performed as he wrote them, but as best they can be mangled by under-rehearsed performers.

This then is the setup to his third & final period. Just as he had in the transition from first to second period, Beethoven starts his reconceptualization with the piano sonata, before moving to orchestral forces.

[Laurenticwave]

If Cooper's "realisation" of Beethoven's sketches for the first movement of his 10th symphony are such "a huge disapointment", why have a number of highly respected orchestras - not to mention conductors - consented to associate themselves with it by recording it??

[Droell]

Originally posted by Laurenticwave:
If Cooper's "realisation" of Beethoven's sketches for the first movement of his 10th symphony are such "a huge disapointment", why have a number of highly respected orchestras - not to mention conductors - consented to associate themselves with it by recording it??

Oh, heck, this one's easy. Because a performance of a newly realized piece by Beethoven will draw lots of attention. With apologies to Laurenticwave.

[stude_ham]

Originally posted by Droell:

Listening to the 10th & the 6th, I get the impression of a great mind searching for the next great challenge. Unable to continue as he had, unwilling to parody himself.

...

This then is the setup to his third & final period. Just as he had in the transition from first to second period, Beethoven starts his reconceptualization with the piano sonata, before moving to orchestral forces.

Dear Droell

The "10th" and the "6th" were done by interlopers of another era. Therefore, these works cannot provide any convincing clues into the mind of B's unlimited creative powers.

Consequently, I'm not at all certain that your musings concerning B's next musical steps may be in tune with his final completed works. These appear to be


Opus 123 (1822) Mass in D major (Missa Solemnis)
Opus 124 (1822) Overture - Die Weihe des Hauses
Opus 125 (1824) Symphony No. 9 in D minor "Choral"
Opus 126 (1824) Six Bagatelles for piano
Opus 127 (1825) String Quartet No. 12 in E flat major
Opus 130 (1825) String Quartet No. 13 in B flat major
Opus 131 (1826) String Quartet No. 14 in C sharp minor
Opus 132 (1825) String Quartet No. 15 in A minor
Opus 133 (1826) Grosse Fuge in B flat major
Opus 134 (1826) Piano arrangement (4 hands) of Grosse Fuge
Opus 135 (1826) String Quartet No. 16 in F major


From that mind boggling repertoire we cannot conclude, or even conceive of, a mind about to become unsure of the next major innovation. These works underscore the massive prints of a lion roaring headfast into an unlimited future.

B's last completed works fully support an inexhaustible inspiration requiring absolutely no experimentation hither and yon, and show that B was in full control of his creative genius, right up to March 26, 1827.



------------------
There are many princes but only ONE Beethoven!

[Laurenticwave]

Originally posted by Droell:

Oh, heck, this one's easy. Because a performance of a newly realized piece by Beethoven will draw lots of attention. With apologies to Laurenticwave.

Oh, heck, not as easy as your cynicism seems to think! The very fact that "a newly realized piece by Beethoven will draw lots of attention" is all the more reason why conductors and orchestras with high reputations to maintain are even more likely to keep their distance with anything that smacks of cheap sensationalism. Besides, a piece of work that was first recorded 18 years ago can hardly be called "newly realised" ...

[Droell]

Originally posted by stude_ham:
Dear Droell

The "10th" and the "6th" were done by interlopers of another era. Therefore, these works cannot provide any convincing clues into the mind of B's unlimited creative powers.

That they are incomplete from the years when he produced little, is the observation. Large scale works represent not only a lot of time & work, but also money & prestige. This is not a case of Beethoven got up one morning & forgot about what he had been working on for weeks & months. Nor is it that he suddenly found he was deaf & so tossed the 6th concerto. He was already too deaf to play the 5th, some years before. He laid these scores aside for reasons.

Originally posted by stude_ham:
[b]
Consequently, I'm not at all certain that your musings concerning B's next musical steps may be in tune with his final completed works. These appear to be


Opus 123 (1822) Mass in D major (Missa Solemnis) ....

That Beethoven eventually resumed composing seems to me to be directly due to the mental processes undertaken during the years when he produced little. Otherwise, Beethoven's transformation from the 5th symphony to the Missa is an enigma.

It is not that Beethoven did not compose, but that, if my hunch is right, by 1815 he could no longer go on composing as he had been. And so, for a time, he stopped to think about it. This precisely parallels the transformation from early to middle period, except that the first time there was no pause. The first transition was easy. Beethoven discovered the possibilities of descriptive music & seized on them eagerly.

The second transformation was a lot harder. If writing just plain music was not a challenge (or why do you suppose he hated his own septet, op. 20), and if descriptive music was no longer a challenge, then what do you do? Where do you go? What do you write? What's the point?

After a lot of thought, what Beethoven ended up with was the first movement of the 9th, the Hammerklavier, the Grosse Fugue, the stunning opening movements of the 14th string quartet, the agonizing opening of the 15th quartet, and all the rest. I have long been amazed with the sheer creativity of the 14th. It is as if anything could be made music, and seemingly without effort. The years of silence was the means to the third period.

[gprengel]

Peter wrote

<7th symphony in Eb Major from Tschaikowsky -
Is this the same symphony that he abandoned and then used for a one movement 3rd piano concerto in 1893?>

Yes, but I think it was quite a fault of Tschaikowsky because the 3rd piano concerto is not half as convincing as the realisation of the 7th symphony. Especially the most beautiful Andante und the powerful Finale belong to the greatest music works I know. But this music does not fit as a piano concerto at all.

[Kalimac]

It might help if we divided these posthumous works into categories:

1) Works which were mostly completed by the composer and can be played untouched, but with some sections reconstructed from sketches and/or newly composed by others (Mozart's Requiem, Puccini's Turandot)

2) Works customarily played in an unfinished state, but which can be completed by the above methods (Schubert's B-minor symphony, Bruckner's Ninth)

3) Works fully sketched out, but which need to be orchestrated or otherwise tinkered with by others to be playable (Mahler's Tenth, Tchaikovsky's E-flat, Schubert's E major)

4) Works consisting of jigsaw pieces that can be put together to form something of a whole, but which still need some reconstruction (Elgar's Third)

5) Works consisting of various sketches too scattered to form jigsaw pieces, put together on a purely hypothetical basis (Beethoven's Tenth)