Composition Quiz

[Quijote]

I confess I've finally been beaten down by the misanthropic Phillip. Gerd has class for remaining silent in the face of this "diplomacy".

I found 2 and 4 part harmony difficult and have only read Kittson's "Elementary Harmony" so don't underestimate anyone who has arrived at a point of actual composition - no matter how successful the outcome (computer program or not). I'm not surprised that students at a University would "compose" music; there would be some who play it too, I'll bet! All have a particular talent no doubt; much more than I. But do they LOVE music any more than I do?

I've come to a point of understanding at my age that this love may be expressed in various ways. Watching (the just awful) Andre Rieu concert from Sydney recently I saw many thousands of elderly folk in raptures and singing along with his choir and soprano to an improbable arrangement of "Waltzing Matilda". I cringed but, at the same time, was genuinely moved by the emotional response to the music - which shouldn't be patronized or underestimated as it was genuine.

I didn't say Gerd's composition was "nice", but that it was nice to hear a piece he had composed.

I've been too grumpy. My apologies. My quip to gprengel about "inserting" one of his own works into the quiz fell flat and I feel chastised now. My comments about his violin sonata were my honest appraisal, and I stand by them. I shall keep my comments to myself in future, unless directly solicited. I do have an additional (and last) thought about it, if I may : If you were an aspiring writer, would you choose to write your novel/novella in a style of language nearly two hundred years old? Gprengel clearly knows how to put notes down on paper (or software programme), but I would like to hear if he can offer a new "take" on what he writes (which is why I used the term "derivative"). What is his own original "voice", compositionally speaking?

Concerning your Rieu comments, yes, genuine emotional response to music (of any sort) should not be patronized. I hope I have not given this impression. Personally, I have always been uncomfortable in crowd situations,and the concert you describe would have sent me scuttling away.

As to "nice", I'm afraid I misread you. Back to the quiz, then.

[gprengel]

... If you were an aspiring writer, would you choose to write your novel/novella in a style of language nearly two hundred years old? ...What is his own original "voice", compositionally speaking?...

I don't care whether my musical language is 200 years old or from today - it just must express my personal emotions and these correspond much more to the early Romantics than the contemporary composers of so called 'serious music'. Composers from today which I love are Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Neil Young and Mark Knopfler.

Yes, I perform only with my PC Software and this is very limited compared to a real performance and yet, I can't tell you how satisfying it is to listen to you own compostions on a MP3 Player. I love it and that's why I write maybe once a year piece and contrary to what you were saying I feel emotionally very much inspired doing this.

For Bonn1827 (because she asked me to do it) I take the chance to present my symphonic Andante with Beethoven's sketched theme of a second movement for his 10th symphony as the main theme and variations on it and likewise a Scherzo based on the Scherzo sketches. When you listen please switch from 360pi to 480pi to improve the sound quality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ELsq2BljQY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYvYZFukRqo

Tomorrow we can continue with our quiz ...

Gerd

[Bonn1827]

Danke, Gerd. That was interesting and enjoyable, and good to be able to read the music as we went along. I appreciate very much your love of music!!

Regarding writing in a so-called archaic style, whether in the written or musical form: we live in a post-modernist cultural age and anything and everything is viable IMO. Rachmaninov wrote in an older style and, in fact, critics said of Brahms that he "poured new wine into old bottles". Not everyone is enamored with post-war art music, finding it difficult and inaccessible. But, having said that, I cannot imagine NOT having this music - particularly in light of the rise of existentialism post WW2 and Sartre and Beckett, and the whole world horror of those experiences. This affected film too (of which I have some specialist knowledge) and movies like "It's a Wonderful Life" were considered passe because they represented a pre-war or wartime value system of loss and yearning. So, it's easy to see why music evolved in the way it did from the 2nd Viennese school. I actually enjoy the challenge of much of this music myself, but wouldn't put myself on anything like a level such as that of Roehre or Phillip!! I admire them for it!

I, too, love Neil Young and Bob Dylan!!

[Peter]

Yes, of course it can't be anyone but Mendelssohn,

But it can, it could also be Larry Todd or Marcello Bufalini!

[Roehre]

But it can, it could also be Larry Todd or Marcello Bufalini!

I think Gerd's version is Bufalini's, but either way the differences at the end of the first movement are negligable as Mendelssohn's manuscript is for 90% clear here (and in nearly the whole of the 2nd mvt). It is the 3rd movement which causes editors/completers a massive headache .

Various sketches, no continuity score, big gaps, and on top of that with sketches interspersed which not only could relate to this e-minor piano concerto, but to that other e-minor concerto (the violin concerto opus 64 that is) as well.

Therefore: which ones to use if you like to make some kind of reconstruction of the final movement?

Todd's first completion therefore consisted of the first two movements only, without even an attempt to reconstruct the finale.

[Peter]

I think Gerd's version is Bufalini's, but either way the differences at the end of the first movement are negligable as Mendelssohn's manuscript is for 90% clear here (and in nearly the whole of the 2nd mvt). It is the 3rd movement which causes editors/completers a massive headache .

Various sketches, no continuity score, big gaps, and on top of that with sketches interspersed which not only could relate to this e-minor piano concerto, but to that other e-minor concerto (the violin concerto opus 64 that is) as well.

Therefore: which ones to use if you like to make some kind of reconstruction of the final movement?

Todd's first completion therefore consisted of the first two movements only, without even an attempt to reconstruct the finale.

The 'work' is still not Mendelssohn's 3rd piano concerto, but a realisation by others. This applies to all these completions in my opinion including Beethoven, Mahler and Schubert's 10th symphonies and especially Elgar's 3rd as the composer's dying wishes were ignored in that case. We know for a fact that Beethoven and Mendelssohn both reworked their sketches ad infinitum and the mere fact they abandoned work on many of the now reconstructed works shows their own dissatisfaction with the material. Composing a piece of music in the style of a composer based on his sketches is no more the real thing than taking a selection of Leonardo sketches, painting them in the same style, filling in the gaps and claiming a new Leonardo masterpiece as a result - a thing that no one would dare attempt!

Having said all that I admire the work done on the Mendelssohn but would appreciate a little more honesty from these constructions - the work should simply be entitled 'a realisation based on Mendelssohn's sketches' rather than palmed off as THE 3rd concerto and part of Mendelssohn's own canon.

[Hofrat]

Peter;

I have the scores of the Schubert 7th and 10th symphonies, as well as the scores of the Beethoven 6th piano concerto and 10th sympnoy movements. On all the scores it is stated most clearly that these are realizations. Also on the recordings, it is stated that these are realizations. What else can be done? I do not want to list again all the great compositions that are realy "competions" or "realizations" and no body rejects them. I like realizations as they show what might have been running inside the composer's head.

[Roehre]

The 'work' is still not Mendelssohn's 3rd piano concerto, but a realisation by others. This applies to all these completions in my opinion including Beethoven, Mahler and Schubert's 10th symphonies and especially Elgar's 3rd as the composer's dying wishes were ignored in that case. We know for a fact that Beethoven and Mendelssohn both reworked their sketches ad infinitum and the mere fact they abandoned work on many of the now reconstructed works shows their own dissatisfaction with the material. Composing a piece of music in the style of a composer based on his sketches is no more the real thing than taking a selection of Leonardo sketches, painting them in the same style, filling in the gaps and claiming a new Leonardo masterpiece as a result - a thing that no one would dare attempt!

Having said all that I admire the work done on the Mendelssohn but would appreciate a little more honesty from these constructions - the work should simply be entitled 'a realisation based on Mendelssohn's sketches' rather than palmed off as THE 3rd concerto and part of Mendelssohn's own canon.

It is only the concerto's finale which basically doesn't exist. The sketches for it (even including the ones which could be part of the sketching process for the violin concerto) are insufficient to reconstruct a complete finale based on these. Consequently any finale for this concerto will consist of a high percentage of conjecture and putty, not unlike Beethoven's "Tenth ".

However, the situation for the first 2 movements is completely different. In terms of quality these are very similar to Schubert's 7th symphony in E D.729 [This work exists in its entirety as continuity draft, "only" needing orchestration, and with a scherzo as well as other bits -especially from the slow mvt- completely in score]. The concerto's first movement is "only" partly in need of being orchestrated. Its second mvt needs editing and orchestration. And as the concerto is through-composed, i.e. the movements being connected to each other without a pause (as in the violin concerto), one needs to find a solution how to end the 2nd mvt, as there isn't a finale, and a transitional passage leading to it is the only bit that was fully sketched.

A recent presentation of this concerto with the violin concerto's finale (set for piano) as concluding movement for the "3rd" concerto of course doesn't even suggest that this was what Mendelssohn had in mind. But it offers us a complete and enjoyable work, and completely based on Mendelssohn's music of whatever provenance. In that sense it offers a more satisfying work than without a finale, which is the way Todd originally presented his edition of this "3rd" concerto.

[Peter]

Peter;

I have the scores of the Schubert 7th and 10th symphonies, as well as the scores of the Beethoven 6th piano concerto and 10th sympnoy movements. On all the scores it is stated most clearly that these are realizations. Also on the recordings, it is stated that these are realizations. What else can be done? I do not want to list again all the great compositions that are realy "competions" or "realizations" and no body rejects them. I like realizations as they show what might have been running inside the composer's head.

That may be so Hofrat, but it isn't how they are marketed or indeed referred to here - there is no such work as Beethoven's 10th - he wrote only 9 symphonies! Why stop there, why not recompose works already completed by the composer to realise other possibilities? This is the ghastly road we may ultimately be on where you can choose how you want the music to develop!

[Peter]

It is only the concerto's finale which basically doesn't exist. The sketches for it (even including the ones which could be part of the sketching process for the violin concerto) are insufficient to reconstruct a complete finale based on these. Consequently any finale for this concerto will consist of a high percentage of conjecture and putty, not unlike Beethoven's "Tenth ".

However, the situation for the first 2 movements is completely different. In terms of quality these are very similar to Schubert's 7th symphony in E D.729 [This work exists in its entirety as continuity draft, "only" needing orchestration, and with a scherzo as well as other bits -especially from the slow mvt- completely in score]. The concerto's first movement is "only" partly in need of being orchestrated. Its second mvt needs editing and orchestration. And as the concerto is through-composed, i.e. the movements being connected to each other without a pause (as in the violin concerto), one needs to find a solution how to end the 2nd mvt, as there isn't a finale, and a transitional passage leading to it is the only bit that was fully sketched.

A recent presentation of this concerto with the violin concerto's finale (set for piano) as concluding movement for the "3rd" concerto of course doesn't even suggest that this was what Mendelssohn had in mind. But it offers us a complete and enjoyable work, and completely based on Mendelssohn's music of whatever provenance. In that sense it offers a more satisfying work than without a finale, which is the way Todd originally presented his edition of this "3rd" concerto.

Yes but this completely ignores two facts - Mendelssohn rejected the work and had he continued with it he would have revised it over and over again, so what we have presented to us as his 3rd piano concerto is no more than a mirage of the ultimate work that would have been.

[Roehre]

Yes but this completely ignores two facts - Mendelssohn rejected the work and had he continued with it he would have revised it over and over again, so what we have presented to us as his 3rd piano concerto is no more than a mirage of the ultimate work that would have been.

Mendelssohn has not rejected the work (as follows from his correspondence, despite the long time of its gestation), nor any of his other projects or the 80% of his works [conservative estimaion by Robert Schumann] which he withheld from publication during his lifetime, including the Italian and Reformation symphonies e.g.

And Mendelssohn did not have the general habit of revising and revising scores over and over again.

The one movement from this "3rd" piano concerto which to a high extant is conjectural, is the finale.

Therefore I only agree with you as far as the 3rd movement is concerned, as the other may be considered to be near the music Mendelssohn had in mind at the time of its being penned down.

=================================

But in general, and following Hofrat's approach:


There isn't anything wrong with this Mendelssohn concerto (or Schubert 7 and 10 or Mozart Requiem or Bruckner 9 or Mahler 10)

IMO it is helpful and it does matter that we have awareness of what artists do, because it not only informs our understanding of them but also their music and their influences:

Berio added music "in the style of Brahms" to his orchestrations of the clarinet sonatas as well.

Berg shifted through Mahler's sketches (not only those which were designated for the Tenth) to hand these to Ernst Krenek in order to complete the work (of which nothing came).

Mahler composed more than half of CM von Weber's Die Drei Pintos based on sketches, and the Intermezzo of this opera is completely Mahler's work.

Suessmayer possibly used some sketches for completion of the Mozart Requiem, but assessing the handwriting of the scores, approximately 90 % of the orchestration of the part left sketched by Mozart and 50% of the whole of the work are Suessmayer's.

Composers in past and present didn't consider work of late colleagues as intangible/sacrosanct.

Why should one be holier than the pope and deny that composers themselves often think of as acceptable?

Why should the "wider public" be denied the possibillity to listen to "artist's impressions" (Barry Cooper's expression regarding his Beethoven 10) of what might have been?
IMO this is not territory which should be left exclusively in the hands of musicologists and other scholars.

And if this "wider public" gets the impression or even beliefs that it IS the real stuff, so what? From a purist's point of view that might be regrettable (an opinion I share btw), but does it hurt anyone.

[Roehre]

he wrote only 9 symphonies!!

Hm, nine numbered symphonies you mean without doubt.
Looking at the last mvt from Egmont, or the 2nd part of Wellington you'll see that Beethoven called more works a "symphony" than the nine numbered ones

[gprengel]

I think Gerd's version is Bufalini's, but either way the differences at the end of the first movement are negligable as Mendelssohn's manuscript is for 90% clear here (and in nearly the whole of the 2nd mvt).

My version is the one from Larry Todd. Mendelssohn's sketches are much more worked out than those from Beethoven or even Schubert, he even made remarks where to use the pedal of the piano with detailed, beautiful and clean handwriting which is just remarkable. Unfortuneateley there were only, I think, 2 faksimile pages in the edition from Todd which I lent from a library.
Whether the CD from Larry Todd has a portion of 90% or 80% of Mendelssohn I do not know but fact is that this concerto is much more impressive than the first two original concertos from Mendelssohn (the 2nd concerto I also love very much)!!! I love this concerto more than any other Romantic piano concerto, including the one from Tschaikowsky, (ok, maybe apart from the first concerto from Brahms). The only reason why Mendelssohn put off the concerto is the fact, that it was too similiar to the Violin Concerto with the same key and similiar expression and passion (the violin concerto was written in the same time as this piano concerto).

[gprengel]

After some tricky questions now 2 pieces where the composers should be easier to find. But which works do we have here?

www.gerdprengel.de/piece10.mp3

www.gerdprengel.de/piece11.mp3

Gerd

[Roehre]

After some tricky questions now 2 pieces where the composers should be easier to find. But which works do we have here?

www.gerdprengel.de/piece10.mp3

www.gerdprengel.de/piece11.mp3

Gerd

Piece 10 is Schubert.
I tend to think of Verdi for no.11, though the orchestration is "richer" than usual for Verdi and the use of solo winds reminds me of Bellini (e.g Lucia di lammermoor).