Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge About the Composers.

I suppose, then, that completing Beethoven's unfinished piano concerto shouldn't be too difficult for our young academic composers. Doing so in a manner that would be considered equal to what could have been expected from Beethoven shouldn't be too difficult for them either.

Also, and to lower the bar a bit, completing Mozart's Requiem in a couple of months and in a completely convincing and inspired manner shouldn't be too difficult for these young miracles of modern education. They should be able to, in other words, complete it just as well as Mozart would have completed it, had he lived.

I think you are confused, or that there is a communication barrier between us.

You are making less and less sense really.

WHO ON EARTH said anything about equal, better, or anything? What on earth are you talking about here.

Let me be frank:

Apart from not being interested, or having the time, I 99% doubt that I could, personally, finish Beethoven's unfinished concerto, or Mozart's requiem.

Does this prove anything at all?

Does it say anything about MY quality as a composer?

Does it mean anything about education today, or contemporary music, or anything at all?

Honestly do answer and explain this to me: What exaxctly do you mean with your post above? Cause I really fail to see much sense in it, apart from some foolish, I'm sorry to say, challenge of sort (which did get a reply, btw from me).

I wrote: "there is more to learn about Mozart and Beethoven and Bach and about composing using functional harmony than anyone can learn in one lifetime."

You said in response: "I have a feeling most universities and conservatoiries would dissagree with you."

I countered: "Schools, and institutions of similar kind: surely they don't make a Beethoven out of anyone"

You responded: "rrrright..."

I supposed that "I suppose, then, that completing Beethoven's unfinished piano concerto shouldn't be too difficult for our young academic composers."

Does this help? Can you see a connection there? Meaning?

Thank you.

Far fetched but yes, now I see what you mean.

What is your obsession with Beethoven in the end (or Mozart or anybody). Do you scale composers like that? "they don't make a Beethoven out of anyone", talking about composing, as you said.

I can't really name "the best composer of the whole world" in all truth, but you seem to can. You put Beethoven and then Mozart and challenge all young composers coming from unis to do what THEY did.

This is absurd really. It would be difficult, as difficult as for anyone. It would take studying, and huge research to do that, in order to MATCH THE STYLE and the aesthetics of any composers.

It's not an issue with Beethoven or Bach, or Mozart. I'm pretty sure that very few, if any would be able to finish an unfinished work from the following composers:
Bach
Berlioz
Brahms
Beethoven
Boulez
Ligeti
Prokofiev
Mahler
whatever name here.

It is a matter of style and only, and it was SO obvious to me that I failed to see the connection.

the "rrrrrigh..." was because you fail to reply to most of my points and stick to only what interests you, instead of discussing, which was getting tiring, so I thought to give it a rest: "we won't agree, I said what I had to say, you said what youhad to say, was fun, let's quit", in other words. but you decided to come back.


Once again, then:

If someone CAN'T complete the unfinished concerto of Beethoven, what does this mean for that person?

does it mean that he doens't know composing?

Does it mean that someone who spent ALL HIS LIFE studying composition up to 1850 style would be able to?

University degrees and formal, academic education is based on teaching ALSO contempoary techniques. you want to disregard all that, by all means, once more.

Learning and using is one and another. How much classical harmony can one learn in a life time?

In bold so that you'll notice it:
recup: Anybody can do anything they want. If anyone wishes to spend their whole life studying Baroque composition, no problem. No judgement, nothing. There are other things out there as well which are very nice should one want to explore more.

The bold comment is the whole meaning.

THE END (?)

What ever you will choose to do, I will clarify my previous posts or points when I see an especial need to do so, because this is a public forum and there are others besides you and me who might read these posts.

"If someone CAN'T complete the unfinished concerto of Beethoven, what does this mean for that person?"

It means, in the context of this discussion, that he doesn't know as much about composing using functional harmony as he could. One of my original points was precisely that: a modern composer doesn't necessarily need to study new techniques: there are plenty of other things that he could study, plenty of things that he could do with the old techniques if he understood them better or had more experience with them (which to me is the same thing, but might not be to someone else).

Good for you!

I also keep discussing since this is a public forum and others can read it too. Same as you, I guess.

I'm afraid that this is a huge fallacy. Sorry.

First of one, not being able to finish an unfinished piece by Beethoven, or Mozart, or anybody really (for example... Missiaen, which the same would apply), does not mean that:
a. The original composer is SO AWESOME that he cannot be copied or
b. The composer trying to do that still has things to learn technique wise.

It just means that there is no interest (so there are very very few case that this has been done, Mahler being one case, I believe, and rather unsuccesful). It means that it probably takes a musicologists more than a composer to do such a thing, because it takes huge research to do something like that. It means that there are stylistic issues, and not technical ones that prevent anyone from doing that.

In the end, you are aware that music history is proving you wrong, right? People like Wagner, Debussy, Schoemberg, Stravinsky, etc (the list goes on), fortunately did not have the same mentality as the one that you present. They felt that they needed to do something "new". Same with Mozart and Beethoven actually. The did make something "new" for their time.

Of course the bottom line is that one can spend a whole life time studying functional harmony and classical counterpoint. But there are also 1000s other things out there as well. Formal music education is based (as far as I know it, of course) exactly to the idea that the more you know the better off you are to do as you please: If baroque it is you want, then baroque. But if it is to express yourself, then the more you know the better, as it seems.

In one respect I agree with Antonius, that the existence or "newness" of a particular style or technique is not sufficient reason to explore or use it.

The field of composition is, nowadays, too big to explore completely, and I fear too many people spend too much time trying to understand a little about a lot of it than a lot about a little bit. In other words, I know a lot of composers who are a Jack of All Trades, Master of None. (And life is too short to listen to Jacks.)

Hi Kreisler! Thanks for joining in.

No "newness" on it's own shouldn't exactly but if you consider that one is willing to "forget" about 150 years of developement (for better or worst) in composition, it is rather... scary maybe.

And certainly the field of composition is enormous and I would never expect anyone to master all trades, but to meet them maybe. To hang out and have a coffee, instead of refusing even that. By simply declaring "I don't care what happened after 1850- I think it is enough for me to deal with music", I find it a bit limiting and nothing else. But this is just me and I do feel the need to remind that I am still studying so I am biased, and what we are talking about has nothing to do with quality, or better and worst, or anything. It's just an opinion.

"It means that there are stylistic issues, and not technical ones that prevent anyone from doing that."

That's a possibility. It would mean that the goal is so difficult to see that no amount of means would help you to get there. So perhaps you are right in this respect. I will have to reflect on the implications. Perhaps Beethoven was divinely inspired. I will have to reflect on them some more.

In the meanwhile...

"People like Wagner, Debussy, Schoemberg, Stravinsky, felt that they needed to do something 'new'."

Wagner didn't compose something "new" because of some supposed "need" to compose something "new". He was concerned with quite different goals. The achievement of these goals happened to require creating something new. He disliked Liszt's late music, which he called empty, dissonant, and meaningless.

Schoenberg I can counter with Rautavaara (who composes better music but will nevertheless be remembered only as long). Debussy I can counter with Mendelssohn (both minor composers). Stravinsky I can counter with Rachmaninoff (who's about as popular as Stravinsky in my estimation).

Heh...

Debussy a minor composer?

In all the idea was that many composers, not all, felt the need to expand their vocabulary and that both ideas apply. Other composers are more traditional and others more... radical let's say.

But Debussy a minor composer?

hmmm...

In all, writing in the style of someone else, does not prove the ability of a composer. It does not prove that one knows the "technique" or "style" of the era. It doesn't prove anything really.

What on earth are you fighting about in short? That it can be useful to learn a bit more techniques that sticking to 18th-19th century ideas? That it isn't a total waste of time? That someone can make a better choice after he's met a bit about these things rather than bashing them outright completely? I can't even begin to see the logic to that.

I can almost agree with Hamus' estimation of Debussy and Mendelssohn based on how many of their pieces are recognizable to the general public, but I disagree if we talk about influence. It would be difficult to find anyone working in the 19th century who wasn't profoundly influenced by Mendelssohn (Schumann and Brahms certainly were), and the same can be said for Debussy.

An interesting sideline is that there is a gulf between the "general public" and the "musically literate." The former would generally regard Rachmaninoff as being far more important than, say, Karlheinz Stockhausen. But if one looks at Stockhausen's experiments with electronic music and influence on such figures as Syd Barrett, Frank Zappa, and Bjork, then looking at popular music today (being largely an electronically produced entity), it would be fairly easy to say that what one hears on MTV probably owes more of a debt to Stockhausen than Rachmaninoff.

Fair enough on those points Kreisler, indeed.

I think that we are striving away a bit, more and more as this thread goes by (not that I'm not enjoying it, although I found the "challenge of finishing a work of Beethoven, or Mozart a bit childish).

Thing in the end is this. The world is full of ideas, full of cultures, music is full of ideas, techniques, old, new, whatever. If one wants to limit themselves to a very certain and restrictive pallet, it's all fine, but I do suggest that looking around would be more benefitial. That's all. I can't really find a way to express it simpler than that really... :-/

On the composers: If you actually ask the general public on names, my guess is that the names Debussy and Mendelssohn will both come up. Rach as well, but maybe not Stravinsky and certainly not Schoemberg. I don't think that this means anything. As for how many of their pieces are recognisable, I'd be ready to say that Bartok is much minor composer than anybody else mentioned here. He doesn't have a huge hit, only amounts of amazing works.

In the case of Debussy and Mendelssohn I wasn't really considering influence or popularity, but how good they were. Perhaps they aren't minor when compared to more obscure composers, but they are when compared to giants like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Brahms. Personally, I would also put composers like Schumann, Chopin, and Liszt above Deb and Mende.

In the case of Rachmaninov and Stravinsky, I *was* comparing popularity. The latter has his ballet music.

Please understand, too, that these observations continue to be inessential decorations, and shouldn't perhaps be taken too seriously.

*To Nikolas* You're an idiot! ~ Judge Judy.

(Indeed)

:| (This indifference smiley says bah to your abuse)

`,:|

Wanna be starting something? You gots to be starting something. I say you wanna be starting something? You gots to be starting something!!!

YOU TRYING TO START SOMETHING!?!?!?!?! >:^O

~ Michael Jackson.

Michael Jackson: Woh! *Does a gyro-spin and tornado attack/blows Nikolas out of the forums and into some place I'm too lazy to say*

Nikolas: Holy !@#$%

*After that, Ace 'Kool Kid' Bandit and Toddy the Kid comes along*

Ace: Hey, you! You wanna go to the Disco Castle...of the Cosmos? I heard my girl Lady Bow is there. w00t!

Michael Jackson: Woh! Thriller!

Toddy the Kid: Shoop da thillin' whoop! Let's rockit!

Michael Jackson: Woo!

*Michael Jackson, Kool Kid, and Toddy get into a nice car and rides to the Disco Castle of the Cosmos. How did they get across the water you say? Nobody knows...*

Kool Kid: Oh! And the good thing is, we don't even have to drive! We just sit back and chill!

Micheal Jackson: It is the one! (Like in the song Billie Jean)

Toddy: Oh yeaaaaaah! :^D

Kool Kid: And plus, we're leaving this board for good and doing our thing called piano! Cause too many sages are not mah thing mah boi.

Toddy: Touche'!

Kool Kid: And besides we got to learn a new piece. Learn two pieces perfectly and study for our theory test while we ballin'. So, if you sages don't like what we saying...

Micheal Jackson: Blame it on the Boogie.

Kool Kid: Well put, MJ.

Micheal Jackson: So just stop doggin'.

Toddy: Touche' x2 :^D

Kool Kid: Woo! And I'm listening to the album Thriller while practicing my pieces!

Toddy: Me too. Including the remixes.

Toddy: Ditto!