# Which is the greater achievement?



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Between composing a masterpiece opera or a masterpiece symphony, and why? I would be very interested in hearing opinions from this rather learned group on the Forum.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

No one willing to take a stab at this? I'm a bit surprised!

My own take on this is as follows: a great symphony is a greater achievement than a great string trio (for example) since the composer is showing a far greater mastery in being able to write for an entire orchestra instead of just 3 strings.

Similarly, a great opera is being written for the entire orchestra plus voices (arias, etc. and recitatives) vs. just an orchestra for a typical symphony. *And*, an opera is generally at least _twice as long_. The dramatic or comic action must be sustained for much longer in general.

Therefore IMHO, generally speaking, a masterpiece opera is an even more significant achievement than a masterpiece symphony.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

A 'masterpiece' is what it is. While there may be general agreement that a construct is a masterpiece, there is usually no consensus of opinion, either on the designation or exactly how it rates the designation. (This definitely applies to Wagner's constructs.)


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> A 'masterpiece' is what it is. While there may be general agreement that a construct is a masterpiece, there is usually no consensus of opinion, either on the designation or exactly how it rates the designation. (This definitely applies to Wagner's constructs.)


That is sidestepping the question just a bit. All other things being equal - is it a greater achievement to have written a great opera, or a great symphony?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

to me it's a generalization without any sense.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

poconoron said:


> All other things being equal


There's your problem, they never are. By your measures, length and amount of instruments, a Bach Partita or a Chopin Nocturne must be pretty poor. If you are interested in achievement then Beethoven's opera is better than one of his symphonies as he found opera difficult so it was a greater achievement for him, no?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

It is a strange question for the reasons quack lists above. What you're essentially saying is that if we have two masterpieces - each as masterful as the other - then the longer one or the one with more instruments is a greater achievement. I don't think so. Once something has achieved "masterpiece" status (however that comes about), then it has reached the peak and comparisons end.

The only exception I might make would be for a composer who also wrote the libretto to their own opera, as that shows literary as well as musical mastery.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

A 'masterpiece' is what it is.

I have to disagree. I think that in general we attribute a greater respect for the masterpiece that is far greater in scale. The writer J.L. Borges asked this question in an essay with regards to literature. He questioned why a work such as Cervantes _Don Quixote_, which was admittedly flawed as a result of the inclusion of Cervantes' miserable poetry, should be considered greater that that single, perfect, gem-like sonnet. He came to the conclusion that nearly every poet of merit is capable of achieving that perfect small poem at least once, while a masterpiece such as _Don Quixote_, or Homer's _Odyssey_, or Dante's _Divine Comedy_... or even a collection such as Blake's _Songs of Innocence and Experience_, Baudelaire's _Les Fleurs du mal_, and Whitman's _Leaves of Grass_ involve a greater achievement... rising to the level of that single perfect poem repeatedly... and maintaining a definite high level throughout.

I think the same is true of music. Writing that single exquisite lieder or little piece for piano is not generally going the be seen as being as great an achievement as composing a grand symphony or an opera... although which work in the better or more perfect work of art would surely remain debatable.

A masterful opera would seem a greater or more difficult (and rarer) achievement than a masterful symphony. Not only must we consider the greater scale or length, the increased challenge of writing not only for orchestra, but also for vocal soloists and chorus, but there is also the challenge of composing for an established narrative (which limits the composer's options to a certain extent) and employing the music to convey an established drama, rather than being able to freely develop the work without such constraints.

What you're essentially saying is that if we have two masterpieces - each as masterful as the other - then the longer one or the one with more instruments is a greater achievement. I don't think so. Once something has achieved "masterpiece" status (however that comes about), then it has reached the peak and comparisons end.

But as a literature student, do you look at literature in this manner? Is the perfect sonnet by Shakespeare or Baudelaire or Verlaine, or Shelley equal to the _Odyssey_, _The Divine Comedy, Hamlet, War and Peace, The Arabian Nights_, or _In Search of Lost Time_? Do you not recognize the epic masterwork as a greater and rarer achievement?

The only exception I might make would be for a composer who also wrote the libretto to their own opera, as that shows literary as well as musical mastery.

So that would place Wagner above your boy.:devil:


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Polednice said:


> It is a strange question for the reasons quack lists above. What you're essentially saying is that if we have two masterpieces - each as masterful as the other - then the longer one or the one with more instruments is a greater achievement. I don't think so. Once something has achieved "masterpiece" status (however that comes about), then it has reached the peak and comparisons end.
> 
> The only exception I might make would be for a composer who also wrote the libretto to their own opera, as that shows literary as well as musical mastery.


I understand the points being made here. Perhaps I should have stated the question as "What displays a greater musical mastery of all of the elements of composition", instead of "What is the greater achievement".

In the simpler example of a symphony vs. a string trio - I think clearly the symphony "displays a greater musical mastery of all of the elements of composition" since the composer is writing for a mass of instruments as opposed to 3 strings. In a similar vein, I believe a "Great" opera surpasses a "Great" symphony in displaying a musical mastery of all the phases of composition (voice *and* orchestra).

If we take Wagner (who composed not much of note beyond the great operas) as an example, the reason he is generally considered one of the very top few greats of all the composers in history - is his supreme mastery in Opera. Had he mastered in just quartets, let's say, surely his position among the all-time greats would not be so high.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

If you are interested in achievement then Beethoven's opera is better than one of his symphonies as he found opera difficult so it was a greater achievement for him, no?

No. Because the comparison is between a good opera and a great symphony. Obviously a great sonnet or partita or lied is better than an average novel or symphony or opera. The question is not which is the "better" work of art but rather which is the "greater achievement". I have little doubt that Bach himself would be clear as to which was the greater achievement, one of his partitas (as fine as it may be) or _The Saint Matthew Passion._


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

If we take Wagner (who composed not much of note beyond the great operas) as an example, the reason he is generally considered one of the very top few greats of all the composers in history - is his supreme mastery in Opera. Had he mastered in just quartets, let's say, surely his position among the all-time greats would not be so high.

Here I disagree. Schubert's reputation rest more upon his lieder than on anything else. A single marvelous lied may not be thought of as the greatest of achievements... but some 700+ lieder... hundreds of which are the finest ever composed? That is an achievement of another level altogether. A single quartet by Beethoven may not rival a truly great opera... but surely his massed quartets do.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Assuming both are, as you say, masterpieces, the one which required more work is the one that is the more significant achievement (not necessarily the better work, though). Of course, for that, we have to take the composer's word (and possibly the word of his close companions) about how much work it was, rendering the distinction absolutely useless.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

never mind...


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

This discussion is a bit like deciding that









is a greater achievement than








since the first is about 40 times larger.....


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But as a literature student, do you look at literature in this manner? Is the perfect sonnet by Shakespeare or Baudelaire or Verlaine, or Shelley equal to the _Odyssey_, _The Divine Comedy, Hamlet, War and Peace, The Arabian Nights_, or _In Search of Lost Time_? Do you not recognize the epic masterwork as a greater and rarer achievement?


Sustaining high quality is a point to take into consideration, and I think it makes a work or a body of work more awe inspiring if it is consistently amazing (as opposed to the small, perfect poem), but I don't think that makes it _better_. Also, in the context of this discussion, I think there is far less separating a symphony from an opera than there is separating a piano miniature from an opera. What if it were a programme symphony? What if it were a programme symphony with chorus?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> So that would place Wagner above your boy.:devil:


Yes... _if_ Wagner were any good. 



poconoron said:


> In the simpler example of a symphony vs. a string trio - I think clearly the symphony "displays a greater musical mastery of all of the elements of composition" since the composer is writing for a mass of instruments as opposed to 3 strings. In a similar vein, I believe a "Great" opera surpasses a "Great" symphony in displaying a musical mastery of all the phases of composition (voice *and* orchestra).


Another problem is that I don't think this takes into account scalability. What about arrangements, or pieces that are scored for elastic orchestra? When Schoenberg arranged Brahms's Piano Quintet for orchestra, did it make it a better piece? It may have demonstrated a flare for orchestration, but Brahms's underlying musical ideas remained the same, and that's what makes it a masterpiece; not how many instruments the composer can handle.

What matters is not how much a composer can juggle at once, but what they can get out of the instruments they're writing for. That's why people so often describe masterpiece solo piano works as sounding as though the piano is played like an orchestra.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> If we take Wagner (who composed not much of note beyond the great operas) as an example, the reason he is generally considered one of the very top few greats of all the composers in history - is his supreme mastery in Opera. Had he mastered in just quartets, let's say, surely his position among the all-time greats would not be so high.
> 
> Here I disagree. Schubert's reputation rest more upon his lieder than on anything else. A single marvelous lied may not be thought of as the greatest of achievements... but some 700+ lieder... hundreds of which are the finest ever composed? That is an achievement of another level altogether. A single quartet by Beethoven may not rival a truly great opera... but surely his massed quartets do.


I think we are largely agreeing here. In the case of Schubert, his lofty status as a "Great" has to do with his lieder _as well as_ some magnificent chamber works - quartets and such, as well as some fine symphonies.

I'm not so sure that he would be considered one of the Best had he only composed lieder. But Wagner seems to hold on to his lofty status as a "Great" pretty much on the basis of Opera only. And the reason for that, I believe, is the greater musical mastery required for the Opera genre vs. the rest.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

poconoron said:


> I think we are largely agreeing here. In the case of Schubert, his lofty status as a "Great" has to do with his lieder _as well as_ some magnificent chamber works - quartets and such, as well as some fine symphonies.
> 
> I'm not so sure that he would be considered one of the Best had he only composed lieder. But Wagner seems to hold on to his lofty status as a "Great" pretty much on the basis of Opera only. And the reason for that, I believe, is the greater musical mastery required for the Opera genre vs. the rest.


Given the above, how would you explain the stardom of Chopin when his output was almost exclusively for solo piano - not even chamber or orchestral? I don't think Wagner's position is attained because opera is 'hard', but because his operas were epic in many senses of the word.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> If you are interested in achievement then Beethoven's opera is better than one of his symphonies as he found opera difficult so it was a greater achievement for him, no?
> 
> No. Because the comparison is between a good opera and a great symphony. Obviously a great sonnet or partita or lied is better than an average novel or symphony or opera. The question is not which is the "better" work of art but rather which is the "greater achievement". I have little doubt that Bach himself would be clear as to which was the greater achievement, one of his partitas (as fine as it may be) or _The Saint Matthew Passion._


Well I would expect him to think a work glorifying god was a greater achievement than some dance tunes, it doesn't really say which is better. What about his Art of the Fugue which bests a Passion with technical virtuosity.

My point though is that achievement is a bad way to measure anything, especially art. Scope will be seen as a greater achievement than concision, struggle will be regarded greater than inspired and effortless, a lot is better than a little. Achievement places a composition on the same level as scout badges or video game levels in my opinion, it suggests Beethoven's 9th is great based on the fact he composed it while deaf, rather than for what it sounds like.

I was going to write more but I ended up comparing masterpieces and it made me want to cry, so I stopped.


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2011)

Purely instrumental works Symphonies, Concertos, St Qt’s etc are more complicated than an opera they evolve develop resolve musically, whereas an opera is just a collection of Arias sung by rather stout Ladies and gentlemen, this is IMO of course. 
I would consider an orchestral work to be the greater achievement of the two.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

"What displays a greater musical mastery of all of the elements of composition"
Symphony - Wagner couldn't write a good symphony if his life depended on it.

The Great symphony writers, apart from Mozart, failed to achieve mastery of the operatic form - Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Mahler, but they failed for different reasons. Beethoven only tried once, and because he had the talent to do other things he decided to exploit that comparative advantage instead. Schubert died too young, Brahms avoided it for philosophical reasons (absolute music, etc), and Mahler avoided opera because he believed that Wagner already wrote the Greatest Operas, avoid Oedipus' fate, etc, and that it was his destiny to write the greatest symphonies.

Brahms and Beethoven didn't write much for the voice but Schubert and Mahler did. I find the best of Mahler's songs better than any aria, even if you don't include Das Lied von der Erde.

A single quartet by Beethoven may not rival a truly great opera... but surely his massed quartets do.

_Not trying to contradict you for contradiction's sake, just exploring a thought experiment that your point has directed me towards._

I find this curious, if we divide his quartets into the traditional three periods, and even then an entire period can *only* rival a great opera (of course, great is loose, but I would guess that it encompasses any first rate work by a first rate composer, e.g. Puccini's four best operas, Mozart's last four, Wagner after Rienzi, etc), how is it possible that Beethoven consistently ranks above Wagner most rankings?

If the late Quartets alone can only stand equal to Parsifal, then Beethoven is finished, for Wagner achieved a very high plateau beginning with Tannhauser (although I think he clambered to the greatest heights in Parsifal, and Stravinsky and Debussy agrees with me), as evidenced by the fact that there is very little consensus on the ranking of his operas. (I don't know why people hate Parsifal... my friend is a devoted Wagnerite, and smirked and laughed when I said my favorite opera was Parsifal...)

http://www.talkclassical.com/11338-ranking-10-major-wagner-2.html

Then we work backwards; Tristan (a TC favorite) is then surely an equal to the Late Sonatas and Diabelli Variations? Gotterdammerung equal to the 3 most famous symphonies (3, 5, 9), but wait, it seems that we have already listed Beethoven's greatest masterpieces! Wagner still has Tannhauser, Meistersinger, Lohengrin, Das Rheingold, Die Walkure, Siegfried, and The Flying Dutchman! Any one of these alone (well, perhaps not the Flying Dutchman, but I would call it a tie there) dwarfs Beethoven's "early period", and another can match symphonies 4, 6, 7, and 8. Wagner still have five giants left, but Beethoven has only the Missa, Fidelio (which I have not heard, but you once stated that it's inferior to Mozart's ranked 5-7 operas (I'm guessing La Clemenza, Die Entführung, and Idomeneo) which means it can't be that great) his violin concerto and triple concerto, 5 piano concertos, middle sonatas, violin sonatas, and other assorted overtures, trios, and chamber work. It looks like a clobbering.

For me Opus 130 (including the Grosse Fugue), 131, and 132 can each stand against a full Wagner opera on any level, and Op. 127 + 135, if counted as one, can too. Of course one vs. one they would probably lose (for me anyways, my top 25 works has three Wagner operas but only one Beethoven Quartet), but this is the case of a middle weight boxer vs a heavy heavy. Throw Opus 131 and Opus 132 *together* in the ring, and they would, for me, beat out any single Wagner opera save Parsifal.

Then again, I ranked Wagner above Beethoven in my top ten list... 
Another thought experiment...

Bach vs. Wagner

Mass in B Minor - Parsifal 
St. Matthew's Passion - Tristan 
WTC - Book 1 - Gotterdammerung
WTC - Book 2 - Die Walkure 
The Art of Fugue - Meistersingers 
Cantatas - Das Rheingold 
French and English Suites - Lohengrin 
Cello Suites - Tannhauser 
Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin - The Flying Dutchman 
Brandenburg Concertos - Siegfried

Then we are left with Bach's organ works, Violin/String Concertos, Oratorios, Keyboard Partitas, etc against..... Rienzi. 

But I digress...

------

The tricky thing is how you define "all the elements of composition". If I include the weaving of complex leitmotives as one of the essential elements of composition, everyone flunks out save Wagner and maybe Mahler.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Just an FYI, Brahms's lieder _far_ outweigh his contributions to any other genre (in terms of size, that is), and his orchestra+chorus works fall only a little short of his purely orchestral pieces. These are all marvellous works, it just so happens that his large number of vocal pieces are overshadowed by his larger scale works, possibly/probably because people have more taste for grand and epic music.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

There has to be a little subjectivity when evaluating anything musical or artistic.

I for one consider Schubert's D956 String Quintet on par in terms of mastery with any symphony or opera ever written.

If I were asked which work demonstrated greater mastery between Schubert's D956, Wagner's Tristan and Beethoven's 9th Symphony, I would probably pick the Schubert.

To the OP I respond this way:

Rembrandt is today revered largely for his paintings, but as a draftsman I think he excelled far beyond any other in the history of art. I say this because he seemed to be able to hone in on the thin line between abstract and realism better than any other.

Look at how simple and quick-like this drawing is:










If you cover the woman's head, the image looks almost as randomly abstract as Pollock. As soon as you see her head though, your mind makes total sense of what otherwise appears to be random jots. This, in my opinion, is mastery. Yet, painting is almost always considered to be the grander forms of art when compared with drawing.

*In my opinion, mastery in music composition refers to how effectively a composer can transform a complex and abstract human emotion (or series of emotions) into a physical audible form, so that it may be listened to and re-digested and understood by others who seek to hear reflections of the metaphyiscal (their own fears, their own struggles and their own joys) in physical form*.

It has nothing to do with how vast the work is. If you think it does - you may find your soulmate at Bayreuth.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Given the above, how would you explain the stardom of Chopin when his output was almost exclusively for solo piano - not even chamber or orchestral? I don't think Wagner's position is attained because opera is 'hard', but because his operas were epic in many senses of the word.


Chopin is an interesting case to me - no doubt a great composer of piano music, but little else. But one cannot really compare a piano music composer to a composer such as a Mozart or Beethoven or Bach or Wagner who are composing for a vast range of instrumentation and in all genres. If you don't take my word for it, how about Chopin's himself:

"Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head." (Chopin quote)

For me, Chopin is nowhere near a Top 10 of all-time due to his very limited range.

You are correct in pointing out the epic scale in Wagner's operas and this only adds to his status.


----------

