# Response to a "New Beethoven's 10th Symphony"



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

In another thread a member asked, "Could a musical 'masterpiece' attributable to a famous musician be composed today?" I'd like to ask a different but related question. Imagine 3 scenarios:

1) Historians find a 10th symphony written by Beethoven.
2) A manuscript for what appears to be Beethoven's 10th symphony is found but determined to be fake.
3) A contemporary composer writes a symphony that sounds to everyone like what Beethoven's 10th symphony would be.

In each case imagine that the music is identical - it sounds like a great new symphony of the late Classical era. If you wish, you can imagine that Beethoven never wrote his 9th symphony, and this new symphony sounds exactly like the 9th. Scenario 2 and 3 are rather similar (a contemporary composer wrote the work).

How would you respond to each scenario? Remember that the music would be identical. Any variation in your response would be based on the difference between the scenarios rather than the music. If you don't like Beethoven, please substitute a composer whose symphonies you love.

I believe my responses would be:
1) I would love the work as I do Beethoven's other great symphonies. I would be ecstatic that this new work was discovered.
2) I would love the work as I do Beethoven's other great symphonies. I would wonder why it was written and especially why it was an attempted forgery.
3) I would love the work as I do Beethoven's other great symphonies. I would wonder why a contemporary composer chose to write a late Classical era style work.

In each case I would listen to the work often at first and then probably as often as I listen to Beethoven's symphonies 3,5,7, and 9. While I realize that music is, in a significant sense, a product of its time, I generally respond to music based almost exclusively on how it sounds rather than on my understanding of historical inputs.

I expect some others might have a different response, and I'm interested to hear what your response would be and why.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I can't say anything much about Beethoven - but if a new mature Mozart symphony were found I believe it would take a greater composer than Mozart to fake it. There are quite a few spurious Mozart works that to me were certainly not composed by M - such as the Sinfonia Concertante for winds, the 6th, 7th violin concertos.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

I don't think scenarios 2 and 3 are even possible (i.e. something that could be mistaken for Beethoven being either a fake or a contemporary imitation). But for an interesting take on something similar, read Jorge Luis Borges' short story "Pierre Menard, Author of The Quixote."


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2012)

Another in a looooooong (and sad) line of speculative scenarios, all based on the idea that great works of art (any works of art) are independent of time or culture or personality. Beethoven's ninth could only have been written in 1824* by Beethoven in Austria.

Of course, once a work has been done, it can be mimicked. And the styles of earlier times can be faked, more or less convincingly, depending on who you're trying to convince. But the results will be empty. The historical, personal, cultural, economic, genetic, and educational forces that went into making up the man Beethoven and thus into making up the music that that man wrote will be absent from such a pastiche. The only thing present will be superficial stylistic patterns. Done carefully enough, such mimickry might fool some of the people some of the time. But it won't be anything that someone who really loves the music of Beethoven and who really knows the scores deeply and intimately will be willing or able to live with for very long.

*Well, 1823, mostly.

(Borges' story is a wicked little send-up of the independence idea, btw. Highly recommended!!)


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Some guy and I will never agree on this topic.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

I'm not commenting in case it's a set-up to criticise anyone who says they wouldn't rate the works under scenarios 2 and 3, i.e not genuinely written by Beethoven. I vaguely recall a similar thread a while back where some mud-slinging of this nature occurred against those individuals who attached importance to the authenticy of the "discovered" new work, as opposed to its intrinsic qualities.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> Some guy and I will never agree on this topic.


I dunno, clavi. The time may come when you do.

But more interesting is "why?" Why do you think we will never agree? And, even more interesting to me, why do you think that culture and personality and zeitgeist and the like do not contribute? Why do you think that a thoroughly convincing (satisfying) pastiche is possible or even desirable?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

1) Historians find a 10th symphony written by Beethoven.
~ The work might be such a departure from his previous works that it gets a terrible reception. No one knows 'what was next' in Beethoven's mind. If you project a work based on the late string quartets, a majority of contemporary Beethoven fans might find the work unfathomable, extremely 'ugly' and 'formless.'

2) A manuscript for what appears to be Beethoven's 10th symphony is found but determined to be fake.
~ Dead in the water. Corpse, wrong ID. A forgery, even from the same era of Beethoven, is still a pastiche.

3) A contemporary composer writes a symphony that sounds to everyone like what Beethoven's 10th symphony would be.
~ Almost all forgeries are eventually 'found out' because the forgers cannot completely get into the head of the composer / painter / author whose style was forged, or convincingly get wholly into the ethos of the time - it is more than virtually impossible. The forgery is ultimately discovered as the pastiche it is - a tell-tale 'modern' sensibility ultimately shows through under the well-replicated antique varnish. Either way, 'forgery' or if it is plainly not a forgery but an open 'ala maniere de' piece - it will inevitably have the contemporary hallmarks of its time, and not be 'Beethoven's 10th.' It may sound well, will not be in the contemporary composer's true voice, and may be of more academic than musical interest.

The 20th century neoclassical style was / is successful because composers 'borrowed' a form or format while they resolutely stayed in their here and now as far as harmonic vocabulary and musical procedures: they 'lived and composed within their own time' and did not deny the ether / ethos which they breath(ed.)

P.s. I wonder what present you wish to deny or hold at arms length by instead fantasizing about adding to a past already concluded.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Another in a looooooong (and sad) line of speculative scenarios, all based on the idea that great works of art (any works of art) are independent of time or culture or personality. Beethoven's ninth could only have been written in 1824* by Beethoven in Austria.

Of course, once a work has been done, it can be mimicked. And the styles of earlier times can be faked, more or less convincingly, depending on who you're trying to convince. But the results will be empty. The historical, personal, cultural, economic, genetic, and educational forces that went into making up the man Beethoven and thus into making up the music that that man wrote will be absent from such a pastiche. The only thing present will be superficial stylistic patterns. Done carefully enough, such mimickry might fool some of the people some of the time. But it won't be anything that someone who really loves the music of Beethoven and who really knows the scores deeply and intimately will be willing or able to live with for very long.

I was waiting for someguy to post the party-line response. I always thought he argued for making judgments based solely upon the music... upon what you hear... and not upon the product label, the artist's biography... or the so-called 'cult of personality. I guess I was wrong. Or else he assumes that in no way could he be mistaken or confused when it comes to attribution.

This question arises again and again... especially within the world of the visual arts. In the mid-1980s a group of Rembrandt "experts" undertook the project of making an in-depth analysis of all the paintings thought to have been painted by Rembrandt... and to offer up an official attribution. Any number of paintings long hanging in museums were re-attributed "Student of Rembrandt", "Studio of Rembrandt", "Follower of Rembrandt", "Forgery", or legitimately "Attributed to Rembrandt".

The Cleveland Museum of Art saw both of its "Rembrandts" down-graded to "Follower of Rembrandt". The paintings were immediately placed in deep storage. This raises a serious question: why were the paintings hanging in a major museum to start with? If the museum curators thought that they were marvelous works of art, how does the re-attribution change that fact? If all along they weren't marvelous works of art, then why were they hanging in a museum? Is the "cult of personality"... the artist's name (like a logo on designer fashions) all that matters?

The situation at the Frick Museum was even more convoluted. The Rembrandt Attribution group down-graded the famous Polish Rider to Follower of Rembrandt and perhaps Student of Rembrandt.










The Frick Museum refused to acknowledge the re-attribution, and many art historians were faced with the dilemma of how to deal with the fact that this painting was an unquestioned masterpiece... no matter who it was by. A decade later, many art historians and Rembrandt experts shifted their opinion, suggesting that the paintings was certainly of Rembrandt's studio... and almost certainly painted, at least in part, by Rembrandt. Now am I to believe someguy, and assume that once the painting was reduced to being by a student of Rembrandt that it became nothing more than an empty pastiche... a worthless painting mimicking the style of another? So, in other words, what matters most is the artist's name... and not the actual art work... not the actual work of music? And of course such a work would never fool a self-proclaimed expert, right?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Your reasoning applied to fine art does not necessarily extrapolate to music.
The absurd events which you outlined nicely do not, as far as I know - have paralells in music, thank goodness. I'm glad I am a Mozart devotee and not a Rembrandt admirer.
Mozart scholars seem to be in agreement about what are the false Mozart works, for example.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Further to SLG's post, the classic example of this in music is Mozart's Symphony No 37 which was discovered 100 years ago to be by Michael Haydn, not Mozart. 

The work lost value immediately and is seldom performed. There have been several debates on various music forums about whether this downgrading was the "right" thing to have happened, given that the work hasn't changed and assuming that it is of a quality such that it might have been produced by Mozart. 

The debates of this nature are futile because the loss of value is a fact of life that can't be changed by people pontificating on such issues in forums like this or any other. Only if the work is actuallly written by Mozart (or any top rated composer of your choice if you want another example) , and not by some far less important composer, will it continue to command a high premium.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2012)

What both St. and VSM gloss over is that their examples are of contemporaneous or roughly contemporaneous events. The OP, and everyone else up to St's post, has been talking about mimicking styles from the past. Michael Haydn wasn't writing any pastiche of classical music, he was a classical era composer himself. Same with the Rembrandt examples. These students of or followers of or whatever were themselves of that time, thoroughly imbued with the same kinds of things that made up Rembrandt, with only one thing missing, that they weren't Rembrandt himself.

The importance* of that for museums is that they are supposed to "get it right." If they hang a painting by Rembrandt, it's supposed to be by Rembrandt, not by a student or a follower or some other painter in Rembrandt's studio. In that respect, it's similar to a quote in a scholarly paper--if you attribute certain words to Churchill, you had better be sure that Churchill actually said or wrote those exact words. It's about getting it right.

When I visited Berlioz' birth house in 2003, I was very disappointed that the guitar they had there was only "like" the one Berlioz himself had played. But I was also happy that they were honest about it. It would have fooled me if they'd passed off the guitar they had as the one Berlioz had owned, but it would have been dishonest. And regardless of how we feel about the artistic quality of the paintings attributed to Rembrandt or the symphony by Michael Haydn, calling them anything but what they are (to the best of our knowledge) is dishonest.

*Well, one of the importances. There's also the whole money issue. Though if you've already paid for a not by Rembrandt painting at the Rembrandt price, you're outta luck.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

The question is, who are the real "idol worshippers." The ones who want to create anew closely based on older styles, or the ones who absurdly think that is impossible because and go so far as to extrapolate that such a thing is breaking a law of nature or something.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I don't think it would impossible to produce a work that could pass as a Beethoven 10 or Mozart 42. All you need to do is to be very skilled in composition and have a thorough understanding and deep knowledge of the techniques and character of the composer. If someone has the musical imagination, skill, knowledge and understanding, why the heck would they waste their time on 'faking' a Beet or Moz? There would be no pay-off except perhaps satisfaction of fooling some people. This is in stark contrast to art forgery which can earn the talented forger vast sums of money.
People will pay millions for a Van Gogh, not because of the art but because of the object. In music the equivalent would be the autographed manuscript not the actual music.
Part of my musical education consisted of writing in the style of Bach, Schubert, Chopin, Debussy and Schoenberg. Once a composer has left a body of work, it can be analysed, scrutinised and imitated. It is useful training but you wouldn't bother making a career out of it unless of course you had the chance to become fabulously wealthy!
There is an art forger, Tom Keating I think is his name. What he doesn't know about painting probably isn't worth knowing but he did it for the money. He could do you a Rembrandt or a Monet or whatever you want.

Just as an aside. A classical symphony is one thing but I reckon I could knock up a convincing Webern Bagatelle in a couple of hours and 99% of listeners wouldn't spot the fake. LOL.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> 1) Historians find a 10th symphony written by Beethoven.


Great news to the world. Everyone happy.



mmsbls said:


> 2) A manuscript for what appears to be Beethoven's 10th symphony is found but determined to be fake.
> 3) A contemporary composer writes a symphony that sounds to everyone like what Beethoven's 10th symphony would be.


These two are related. You don't even need to think contemporary today. There were many examples of symphonies contemporary to Beethoven's symphonies that were studied and modelled on Beethoven's, and composed that way - Beethoven sounding. Now how great these are, you can probably ask yourself how many of these do you know today? I can think of a few, all by composers I would not expect many folks here to immediately know; indeed, I myself never knew of these composers before that random chance of me having bought those recordings. Excellent examples include the two symphonies by *Norbert Burgmüller* (1810-1836). Have you heard of this chap and his Beethoven-sounding symphonies? Probably not. Enjoyable pieces to me upon first listening, which is what really matters.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

What both St. and VSM gloss over is that their examples are of contemporaneous or roughly contemporaneous events. The OP, and everyone else up to St's post, has been talking about mimicking styles from the past. Michael Haydn wasn't writing any pastiche of classical music, he was a classical era composer himself. Same with the Rembrandt examples. These students of or followers of or whatever were themselves of that time, thoroughly imbued with the same kinds of things that made up Rembrandt, with only one thing missing, that they weren't Rembrandt himself.

The importance* of that for museums is that they are supposed to "get it right." If they hang a painting by Rembrandt, it's supposed to be by Rembrandt, not by a student or a follower or some other painter in Rembrandt's studio. In that respect, it's similar to a quote in a scholarly paper--if you attribute certain words to Churchill, you had better be sure that Churchill actually said or wrote those exact words. It's about getting it right.

Then what stops the museum from continuing to exhibit a work that they clearly believed was of great artistic worth... only changing the attribution? It would seem to me that contrary to the assumption that it is the artistic merits of of the work that is primary, it is actually the attribution. Isn't this what Picasso played with when after an expensive restaurant dinner with friends, he would pay the bill with a little signed doodle on a napkin... or what Manzoni was commenting on when he sold he own excrement in a can for the same going rate per ounce as gold?

I agree that there is less of an issue of pastiche involved in the near contemporaneous work of a student or follower... but then again... outside of blatant forgery, how common is pastiche... to the point that it might be confused with the legitimate older work? It would seem to me that an artist cannot but help but be of his or her time... unless he or she were to make a concerted and conscious effort to imitate the art of the past. Can pastiche be "great art"? The question seems wholly theoretical. There are the literary examples of Chatterton's psedo-medieval poetry and Pierre Louÿs' Bilitis which for some time was accepted as a legitimate translation of classical Greek poetry... but reading them today, both seem clearly of their time... and rather poor as pastiches or forgeries. And then we have the forgeries in art... yet I've never come across one that struck me as appearing to be a legitimate major work by the individual.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> ... Imagine 3 scenarios:
> 
> 1) Historians find a 10th symphony written by Beethoven.
> 2) A manuscript for what appears to be Beethoven's 10th symphony is found but determined to be fake.
> ...


Ok I will chime in but if things get nasty, that's it for me in a while.

The questions you raise are interesting and there have been (and are) plenty of classical music pieces we think are fully by a composer but mostly aren't. Albinoni's famous 'Adagio' is the best example, it was actually just a short passage by Albinoni worked into a proper piece by an Italian music professor of early 20th century called Giazotto.

Does it make that piece any lesser to enjoy? No, and I've known people to say they want it played at their funeral. It was also movingly used in the Australian film 'Gallipoli' about our ill-fated campaign in Turkey in WW1.

But full fackes or copies have been accepted (for a while) by the public (and maybe experts?) in the past. An example is Fritz Kreisler composing concertos in the style of Italian Baroque composers, but not letting on that he did it, it was not the work of the dead guys:

A quote from the wikipedia article on Kreisler (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Kreisler).

_Some of Kreisler's compositions were pastiches in an ostensible style of other composers, originally ascribed to earlier composers such as Gaetano Pugnani, Giuseppe Tartini, and Antonio Vivaldi. When Kreisler revealed in 1935 that they were actually by him and critics complained, Kreisler answered that critics had already deemed the compositions worthy: "The name changes, the value remains" he said. _

I have heard the Vivaldi one on radio, and it sounded exacly like Vivaldi to my ears, except more 'solid.' But of course, I heard the recording done by Kreisler himself (in c. 1930's), so that's before the more 'authentic' period style playing came along. So maybe Fritz did a good copy, and if he'd not told people about his ruse about 5 years after publishing these works, the 'joke' would have been revealed maybe long after his death?

Same as with Albinoni, I enjoyed listening to that 'Vivaldi' concerto by Kreisler, it was part of a radio program dealing with these fakes and forgeries in music. There were a lot of them, maybe a dozen, but the Albinoni and Vivaldi are the ones that stick in my mind.

So my response is that I would maybe enjoy a new 'Beethoven 10th" but it depends on the piece itself, ultimately. But what I don't like is living composers rehashing themselves, which is what a few major composers been doing for decades, which is sad given that before they were doing original work. But that's another story, I think.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Sorry, obviously my OP was not clear enough. I'm _not interested_ in whether the scenarios could happen. I'm certainly not fantasizing about wanting them to happen. It has nothing to do with adding more "old" music. This thread is purely a thought experiment to try to better understand people's views on music.

Don't question whether the 3 could happen. As far as this thread is concerned, they already did. Use your imagination. Just to be clear, scenario #3 has a contemporary composer creating the work as their own - not as Beethoven's. All three works are as good as Beethoven's 9th (or whatever great piece you choose), and they are all _identical_. I guess I'm implicitly assuming that everyone would love the work in scenario 1 since the work is supposed to be as good (to you!) as any work you love from the past. Consider each scenario separately. What I want to know is how you would _feel about the music_ once you knew how it was created?

There's no trickery here in that there can be no wrong answer. It's just your feelings.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> ...This thread is purely a thought experiment to try to better understand people's views on music...Consider each scenario separately. What I want to know is how you would _feel about the music_ once you knew how it was created?
> 
> There's no trickery here in that there can be no wrong answer. It's just your feelings.


Okay, well I was speaking generally to the topic, but I think a bit of 'history' never goes astray.

In terms of scenario 1, I would most likely like the work as I like all of Beethoven's symphonies. There are some things by him I don't connect with now, but his symphonies are not among them, I like the symphonies (& concertos, string quartets, and so on).

In terms of scenario 2, the "fake" Beethoven 10th, whether I like it depends how good a fake it is. The same applies to scenario 3, the contemporary composer doing Beethoven rehash. Because I don't mind rehash if its very well done. This may surprise some, but here I am not alone. One of the most popular film scores of the 1940's was Richard Addinsell's 'Warsaw Concerto' which is pure Rachmaninov rehash. The film makers wanted Rachmaninov to do the score, but he was unavailable due to contractual reasons. So they told Addinsell to "do a" Rachmaninov. It was for the film 'Dangerous Moonlight.' This piece was one of the most recorded of all film scores and one of the most popular.

So what I'm saying is that if, like Addinsell, this composer copying Beethoven could do rehash that is as good as that, well I don't see why I would not enjoy it. To what degree depends on the actual piece, but I know its a purely hypothetical situation.


----------

