# can they be sqaved?



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

There has been some discussion here as regards composers who died too soon. Did they really? It would be nice, one would think, to go back in time and rescue these composers from their deathbeds and bring them to a time when their deadly malady is just a medical quirk. We heal them and they continue to write their music for us. But, if we remove Mozart from his 18th century Viennese milieu, would he still be the Mozart we know? Could he write music for his new environment? A living Mozart (or Mendelsohn or Mahler etc.) would be a still developing Mozart. Would we want him to continue to develop or would we want him to stay the old Mozart? Would Shostakovich be as good freed from Soviet tyranny?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I think it would be a worthy experiment. I know for a fact I myself would be able to contribute interesting and vibrant works if I could but be rescued from my singular lack of musical talent.

Joking aside, I have always wondered what Beethoven might have accomplished with a modern orchestra, modern pianos, modern technology and his hearing fully restored. But some say his handicap helped make him great.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

I've left the keys in the DeLorean. Go nuts.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

drpraetorus said:


> A living Mozart (or Mendelsohn or Mahler etc.) would be a still developing Mozart. Would we want him to continue to develop or would we want him to stay the old Mozart?


There are several composers who "developed" tremendously over the course of their lives but who are still primarily associated with the early parts of their careers. Stravinsky comes to mind: despite the changes in his style from decade to decade, his most popular pieces continue to be the three ballets from his Russian period with the occasional work from his Neoclassical period; but basically nothing from his serial period has gotten a toehold in the repertoire, with the exception of maybe _Agon_. The mature Milton Babbitt was pretty disdainful of his early works (Composition of Four Instruments, Composition for Twelve Instruments), which is one reason why they've never been rerecorded, but with the exception of _Philomel_ those works are still the ones by which we define him. I would also put Steve Reich and John Adams in this category: they will always be known as minimalists even though the word "minimalism" does very little to describe the music they've composed in the last fifteen years or so.

So if Mozart had lived and continued to develop past 1791, I don't think this would have any adverse effect on the works we currently know and love. If the above examples are any indication, audiences will continue to put certain pieces on pedestals regardless of, and sometimes in explicit rejection of, what the composer does afterward.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I've heard bout saving people, but not sqaving them . Could you please explain what this is ?





:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Alban Berg was especially unlucky. Due presumably to economic measures his wife allegedly lanced a blister that had developed from an innocuous insect bite or sting on his back. The results were fatal but had it happened a few years later penicillin or some other medication may have been available to save him. Had he recovered and lived a reasonably longer life he may well have been composing into the 1960s like his near-contemporary Stravinsky. 

I've often wondered how his style would have evolved, especially bearing in mind how slowly and methodically he worked on his music. It's all 'ifs and buts' of course, but emulating Lulu and the Violin Concerto would surely have presented a hell of a challenge, even allowing for the fact that he might not be allowed to do much while the Nazis were in power (unless he felt inclined to 'do a Schoenberg' and get out while he could).

I find Webern's case similarly tantalising - would he have painted himself into a corner with his ascetic approach to serialism or could he have developed a method which satisfactorily opened more doors for him (perhaps hinted at in later works such as the two cantatas)? 

I'd also loved to have known what they both thought about what emerged from post-WWII institutions such as Darmstadt .


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Back in the Renaissance, Jacob Obrecht died right before the style of music changed from dense to clearer, so he is classified as an older-style composer. But personally, if he lived longer, I think he would have outshone Josquin, because Josquin's most famous pieces came after Obrecht died.


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

Another interesting case would have been Wagner. After Parsifal, he had pretty much written all the music dramas he had intended to and was looking to do more work in purely orchestral music. I would like to know what a Wagner symphony from, say, 1890 would have sounded like.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

What will be will be.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2013)

Another aspect of this is that if some famous composer 'X' had not died so young we can't simply assume that the only effect would be a number of additional works by that composer, with everything else remaining the same. There's a possibility that the production of further works by that composer might have had a knock-on effect with regard to the style and quantity of works by other, later composers. 

For example, suppose Mozart had survived another 10 years and produced a number of further monumental works in the symphony, concertante, chamber areas. The existence of these works might have influenced what Beethoven, to name just one composer, attempted to produce. It is conceivable that Beethoven might have looked at these further works and decided to alter the kind of music he would write, so that the music by that composer we know today might have been different. 

To the extent that this is true, this of itself might have set up a further round of "ripples" on the kind of music that other composers, post Beethoven might have written, and the whole thing soon becomes virtually intractable. Thus if there is any attempt to switch to a "general equilibrium" approach in this area it become much more difficult to reach any conclusions on how the music scene might be different if famous composer 'X' had survived much longer.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

drpraetorus said:


> Would Shostakovich be as good freed from Soviet tyranny?


not nearly as good because Stalin was his inspiration in the first place.


----------



## BillT (Nov 3, 2013)

Schubert! he died quite young, like 35 or so? I would love to be able to hear what he could have done.


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

One of the implications of quantum theory is that there is an infinite number of universes. Every time a decision is made by any thing, all versions of the decision, including other ways the decision could go, are played out in the newly created universes. This, of course means that new universes are constantly being pealed off by every action or non action of everything in every universe. Given that, there are universes where Mozart lived to a ripe old age and others where he never lived at all. Whatever variation you can imagine has been, or will be enacted. All we need to do now is find out A) how to find the appropriate universe for the scenario we are interested in and B) how to get there and back again. Piece of cake, don't you think?


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

i don't think living erases and defiles your previous achievements. you can see that now by the composers that are living.

nothing dramatic would have happened.

if you remove them from time who knows what would happen.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I think they all died right on time. It's a persistent, and often misguided, trait of people to always want more.


----------

