# Which composer has the best late works?



## Felix Mendelssohn (Jan 18, 2019)

In my opinion,

1. Schubert
2. Beethoven
3. Liszt


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

For a reasonable comparison, I think we should not include composers who died very young (like Schubert).

I'd say

1. Mahler
2. R Strauss
3. Dvorak


----------



## Felix Mendelssohn (Jan 18, 2019)

Art Rock said:


> For a reasonable comparison, I think we should not include composers who died very young (like Schubert).


Is there a reason for that?


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

For a composer who undoubtedly blossomed late, debatably only producing his very best masterpieces after the age of sixty (?), I'd say Leos Janacek.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I would agree with Art Rock. A composer with 70 years of experience on this earth is going to write severely different music than a composer with 30 years. Still, though, impending death being a factor with Schubert (pretty sure he'd known for the last year or two that his days were numbered, given his illness), it is interesting to see how that shapes his late works (which are phenomenal). But I wouldn't categorize them the same as those of Beethoven or Strauss, who wrote his Four Last Songs at 84 years old or something like that.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Cesar Franck should be considered as well.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

I think age does not matter in showing a personal growth and wisdom, as Schubert and Mozart have demonstrated. 

My favorite 'late works' are from:
Bach
Beethoven
Schubert
Shostakovich


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

The best and clearest suggestion I know,,would be none other than 
~~Mozart~~, with no 2nd choice. 
The reason is, for the incrediblely clear and well established so called ~~Break~~ twix the 34thsym and then his magisterial 35-41 and once agin in his piano concertos,,,the 19th, being his final concerto of his ~~middle creativity~~ going into his mature creative phase, starting with No20 going all the way,,,,to the 25th?? No I will also include No26 and also if I may 27,,,though the final 2, some may not include in his ~~great late period~~, 26,27 seem to fall lower than the mastery of the 25th,,and that case can be argued with convincing.


I do not know the time lines on his 2 great operas,,i assume those 2 were also of his very late period. Superior to his earlier operas. 


No other composer in history has a delineation with such sharply defined ,,,~~Early/Mid period~~ then straight into his late creativity.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2019)

Schubert (D 956, D 960)
Mozart (Syms 39-41, Requiem - last 3 years)
Beethoven (Op 130 String Quartet)
Haydn (Creation)
Bartok (PC No 3)
Strauss R (4 last songs)

.........

I think it's reasonable to include composers who died young provided they wrote a lot of music in their lifetimes that had evolved in style and sophistication, as was the case with both Schubert and Mozart.

In the case of Schubert, it's debateable whether his last works were valedictory, even though he was ill. About a week before his death he asked his brother, whose flat he shared, what was wrong with him that made him feel so ill. He had also begun lessons on counterpoint, which would suggest that he was expecting to recover (he only had one lesson).


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

paulbest said:


> The best and clearest suggestion I know,,would be none other than
> ~~Mozart~~, with no 2nd choice.
> The reason is, for the incrediblely clear and well established so called ~~Break~~ twix the 34thsym and then his magisterial 35-41 and once agin in his piano concertos,,,the 19th, being his final concerto of his ~~middle creativity~~ going into his mature creative phase, starting with No20 going all the way,,,,to the 25th?? No I will also include No26 and also if I may 27,,,though the final 2, some may not include in his ~~great late period~~, 26,27 seem to fall lower than the mastery of the 25th,,and that case can be argued with convincing.
> 
> ...


Well - Mozart's middle period was still spectacular. But OK - if you are taking K466 as the moment when Mozart began his later phase - we have some mighty works - the best of his operas - Nozze, Don, Cosi, Clemenza, Zauberflote.

4 great symphonies
Requiem
At least a dozen great chamber works and of course the piano concertos, some sonatas - K475 etc.

There is a good case for Mozart.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Tchaikovsky springs to mind (1887-1893 that witnessed the coming of Symphony V, Sleeping Beauty, Pique Dame, The Nutcracker, Symphony VI).


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Jacob Obrecht maybe; some people think Nicolas Gombert wrote his best stuff after he came out of prison, but I'm not so sure. Toyohiko Satoh argues that the pieces by Robert de Visée on his Carpe Diem recording are late, and I think they may well be his best work.









And from more recent composers, I think Morton Feldman was at his best at the end of his life, in the extraordinary Piano Violin Viola and Cello. And same for Luigi Nono.

As far as core repertory is concerned, the obvious example is Wagner.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

------------------------


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

IIRC, Schubert was planning to take some counterpoint lessons at the end of his life, feeling the need to improve his skills. I don't know about his earlier studies, but would assume they included counterpoint.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

If a composer didn't have a body of very impressive works at the end of his life would we still count him as a great composer?
Is there a logical disconnect here?

Are there great composers who didn't have many great works at the end? I'm trying to think of an example..

added: Perhaps Schumann because of his illness.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Luchesi said:


> If a composer didn't have a body of very impressive works at the end of his life would we still count him as a great composer?
> Is there a logical disconnect here?
> 
> Are there great composers who didn't have many great works at the end? I'm trying to think of an example..
> ...


Haydn, Rossini, and Sibelius come to mind.


----------



## Aleksandr Rachkofiev (Apr 7, 2019)

Scriabin and Prokofiev are a few more who's late compositions are quite different from their early ones (I'd wager better).


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

(deleted, repeating points given by others)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> Are there great composers who didn't have many great works at the end? I'm trying to think of an example..


Mozart

Haydn

Brahms

Prokofiev

Hindemith

Bartok

Xenakis

Carter


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

OT: Beethoven of course.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Beethoven (late quartets) and Wagner (Parsifal). Music beyond normal experience.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Beethoven, Wagner and Bach from what I know and in my humble opinion.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Mozart is undoubtedly the first. His late works are so better in quality, than sometimes I believe we have two different composers. Henze, is also such a composer. And, without hesitation, Richard Strauss.


----------



## Rubens (Nov 5, 2017)

Late Chopin. He was taking his music to a new direction. Ballade no.4, Scherzo no.4, Polonaise-Fantaisie, Barcarolle, the two Op.62 nocturnes, his greatest masterpieces IMO.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Dimace said:


> Mozart is undoubtedly the first. His late works are so better in quality, than sometimes I believe we have two different composers. Henze, is also such a composer. And, without hesitation, Richard Strauss.


As I posted earlier, Mozart is exemplar bar none,,,He was writing the Requiem, and failed to complete at time of death. No other composer in history was writing a supreme masterpiece just days before his death.

Now on Henze,,,you may have something there,,,but I find Henze's earliest works, already quite good,,, middle , wuite good,,,I just do not hear a break from pre mature to maturity,,,,,Henze to me,,seems consistent throughout his works. Which I can not find this level of crafting success after success, in any other composer I know. Take Shostakovich,,His first 3 syms are ~~~warm ups~~~,,,Sibelius syms 2,3 are practice tests. 
This list to go on to every composer I know, Beethoven's sym s 1,2,,,practice, pencil sketches,,for later success.
Henze is writing in full colors,,,well his 1st sym is a bit rough,,after that, full vibrant colors
Prokofiev;s 1st sym, graduation shool exam, , he made a A+ at it. 
This list could be extended ,,,well except Debussy and Ravel,,,Both had masterpieces at the very beginning til their last.

EDIT
Henze 
sym 1
masterpiece. 
I was wrong,,just cked YT listing to double ck my opinion ~~guessed opinion~~ based on Henze dissing his 1st sym. he was wrong..Its a =masterpiece.
In which work of Henze do you note his ~~last great phase~?


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Beethoven, Dvorak and Sibelius.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Dimace said:


> Mozart is undoubtedly the first. His late works are so better in quality, than sometimes I believe we have two different composers. Henze, is also such a composer. And, without hesitation, Richard Strauss.


Dimace, have you listened to Mozart's earlier works like Vesperaes solennes in C K321, K339, Kyrie in D minor K341, Litaniae de Venerabili in E flat K243 before making that conclusion?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Haydn, Rossini, and Sibelius come to mind.


Good ones, except for the fact that I'm not convinced that Rossini and Sibelius were great composers. How did they further the art of music?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Mozart
> 
> Haydn
> 
> ...


I think I know what you mean in each bio. In any case, that would be a list to talk about. And most likely edifying for me because of what I know of your opinions and discernment.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

paulbest said:


> As I posted earlier, Mozart is exemplar bar none,,,He was writing the Requiem, and failed to complete at time of death. No other composer in history was writing a supreme masterpiece just days before his death.
> 
> Now on Henze,,,you may have something there,,,but I find Henze's earliest works, already quite good,,, middle , wuite good,,,I just do not hear a break from pre mature to maturity,,,,,Henze to me,,seems consistent throughout his works. Which I can not find this level of crafting success after success, in any other composer I know. Take Shostakovich,,His first 3 syms are ~~~warm ups~~~,,,Sibelius syms 2,3 are practice tests.
> This list to go on to every composer I know, Beethoven's sym s 1,2,,,practice, pencil sketches,,for later success.
> ...


does this not really sum up the major flaw in your approach to expressing your views?


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

paulbest said:


> As I posted earlier, Mozart is exemplar bar none,,,He was writing the Requiem, and failed to complete at time of death. No other composer in history was writing a supreme masterpiece just days before his death.
> 
> Now on Henze,,,you may have something there,,,but I find Henze's earliest works, already quite good,,, middle , wuite good,,,I just do not hear a break from pre mature to maturity,,,,,Henze to me,,seems consistent throughout his works. Which I can not find this level of crafting success after success, in any other composer I know. Take Shostakovich,,His first 3 syms are ~~~warm ups~~~,,,Sibelius syms 2,3 are practice tests.
> This list to go on to every composer I know, Beethoven's sym s 1,2,,,practice, pencil sketches,,for later success.
> ...


Very nice post. I agree also for the other composers you mentioned. For the Henze is fact that his late works (after 90es) are the most famous. Maybe this has influenced to my opinion. (all his symphonies are masterfully elaborated. No doubt about that.) For Strauss we have also an agreement.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

paulbest said:


> As I posted earlier, Mozart is exemplar bar none,,,He was writing the Requiem, and failed to complete at time of death. *No other composer in history was writing a supreme masterpiece just days before his death*.


I agree with your point that Mozart was a great genius, and I think that it would have been wonderful for all of us if he had lived more. Still, I have to say that three counterexamples to your statement in bold come to my mind at the moment, showing that it's false (of course that "supreme masterpiece" is a very subjective term, but still): Bach with the _The Art of Fugue_, Tchaikovsky with the _Pathétique Symphony_, and Bruckner with his _Symphony No. 9_.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

paulbest said:


> As I posted earlier, Mozart is exemplar bar none,,,He was writing the Requiem, and failed to complete at time of death. No other composer in history was writing a supreme masterpiece just days before his death.
> 
> ?


Bach was working on Art of Fugue when he died. And of course Bruckner was working on the 9th symphony. They got these to a more complete state than Mozart did his requiem, who can say whether the Mozart requiem would have turned out to be a masterpiece? He was going through all sorts of style experiments in his final years, for better or for worse (just compare The faux naivity of The Magic Flute with Don Giovanni.)


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Dimace said:


> Very nice post. I agree also for the other composers you mentioned. For the Henze is fact that his late works (after 90es) are the most famous. Maybe this has influenced to my opinion. (all his symphonies are masterfully elaborated. No doubt about that.) For Strauss we have also an agreement.


I will take your word for it, that Henze, as typical of most composers, late works are their highest expressions.

Will note this , as I begin my long journey into Henze,,,once my stereo gets out the shop. 
lately its been all YT uploads. 
I need a stereo to really get into the depths of his music.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Bach was working on Art of Fugue when he died. And of course Bruckner was working on the 9th symphony. They got these to a more complete state than Mozart did his requiem, who can say whether the Mozart requiem would have turned out to be a masterpiece? He was going through all sorts of style experiments in his final years, for better or for worse (just compare The faux naivity of The Magic Flute with Don Giovanni.)


Bach's Art of Fugue.

A Cd set from Accord, previously released on LP, which I played daily. 
That and S Richter's Well Tempered Clavier.

Ristenpart mentions that he believes, his chamber group,,~~All Star Musicians~~ have achieved the closest rendition to Bach's intentions.
I am sure the Bachians may argue that issue. 
Sure it only ~~seems~~ to start off slow,,but if a conductor meddles with the tempos at the open,,,there may be sticky issues ahead. 
Its a very dif work to ~~pull off ~~ successfully
I have always felt Ristenpart and his all star chamber group Chamber of The Saar. , offers just what Bach intended...No I have not cked K Munchinger version(s).






Your comments on Mozart's*faux* moments in the operas, are over my range of understanding.

.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Roberto Gerhard (1896-1970).

Mr. Gerhard's best works come from the last decade of his life.
What he wrote from around 1960 through 1969 exemplifies the highest qualities of post-WWII serialism.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Bach was working on Art of Fugue when he died. And of course Bruckner was working on the 9th symphony. They got these to a more complete state than Mozart did his requiem, *who can say whether the Mozart requiem would have turned out to be a masterpiece? *He was going through all sorts of style experiments in his final years, for better or for worse (just compare The faux naivity of The Magic Flute with Don Giovanni.)


Based on what he left of it I think that is beyond question. It stands as one of the great choral works in history as it is. We are very lucky to have Mozart's musical take on death seen through the eyes of his catholic faith - of all composers, dare I say. I don't find any of the big requiems have a similar impact.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

stomanek said:


> Based on what he left of it I think that is beyond question. It stands as one of the great choral works in history as it is. We are very lucky to have Mozart's musical take on death seen through the eyes of his catholic faith - of all composers, dare I say. I don't find any of the big requiems have a similar impact.


Indeed, what we have of Mozart's complete sections,, is stunning, mastery,,,what he left unfinished,,is ~~dubious~too sketchy~~, not authenticated enough to qualify as ~~by Mozart's hard~~~. 
We know had Mozart finished the final 2 sections,,,it would have become a 
~~Completed Masterwork~~~
There is a dif twix the 2 ,,, this is what Mandryka is getting at here.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

paulbest said:


> Indeed, what we have of Mozart's complete sections,, is stunning, mastery,,,what he left unfinished,,is ~~dubious~too sketchy~~, not authenticated enough to qualify as ~~by Mozart's hard~~~.
> We know had Mozart finished the final 2 sections,,,it would have become a
> ~~Completed Masterwork~~~
> *There is a dif twix the 2 ,,, this is what Mandryka is getting at here*.


I know - but there is no doubt it would have been a complete masterwork.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mozart's _Requiem_ is a complete masterwork as it is in my opinion. The majority of it composed by Mozart. What exactly was completed by Süssmayr is shrouded in mystery because it is unknown how much he depended on scrap pieces of paper, and there were parts torn away from the final manuscript Mozart was working on.

Had Mozart lived to finish the work completely yes I'm sure it would be even better, but this doesn't change the fact the work that we have is a masterpiece.

Further I know Mozart aficionados that prefer _The Magic Flute_ to any of his other operas. Of all his operatic works it features his most advanced use of counterpoint. Personal tastes aside there is no strong argument to be made that Mozart's late works were showing a decline in quality.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

paulbest said:


> Bach's Art of Fugue.
> 
> A Cd set from Accord, previously released on LP, which I played daily.
> That and S Richter's Well Tempered Clavier.
> ...


I doubt that Bach wanted his Art of Fugue to sound like a Vaughan Williams composition. :lol:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

tdc said:


> Mozart's _Requiem_ . . . The majority of it composed by Mozart.





tdc said:


> _The Magic Flute_ . . . Of all his operatic works it features his most advanced use of counterpoint.


These ideas are new to me, I haven't met them before.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

stomanek said:


> I don't find any of the big requiems have a similar impact.


It's really not relevant but have you heard Damien Poisblaud's interpretation of the Gregorian Requiem? Or the Ockeghem? Or even the de la Rue?


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Beethoven, Strauss, Janacek and Tchaikovsky come to my mind. I'm sure there are others. 

Sibelius is a curious case because yes, he wrote some outstanding last works, Symphony no 7, Tapiola. But he had another 30 years after that of silence. These are late works, and last works, however, not end of life works.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> These ideas are new to me, I haven't met them before.


Mozart left behind 100 pages of music for the requiem - sketching out most of the sections - the important stuff - the choral/singing parts - fully scored the introitus - and wrote the 1st violin part for the bulk of the work minus some of the sections near the end - sanctus benedictus agnus dei. in addition he left some indications for scoring.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> These ideas are new to me, I haven't met them before.


As far as the counterpoint in The Magic Flute I believe I came across that in Rosen's book. Mozart's skill in counterpoint was certainly increasing at the time of his death, other clear evidence is the finale of Symphony 41 and The Requiem.

As far as the majority of The Requiem being by Mozart, I didn't know some questioned that. Süssmayr himself only claimed the Sanctus and Agnes Dei as his own, some have disputed that. As Stomanek has pointed out there were many pages of work left on the piece and I suspect many have gone missing. My ears tell me the vast majority of this work is Mozart and what Süssmayr did complete (having been a student of Mozart's) was pretty close to the composers intentions and probably touched by the hand of God as well.

I think other conductors doing completions reflects an attempt to get their name attached to posterity more than being a reflection of actual short comings in this work.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

tdc said:


> My ears tell me the vast majority of this work is Mozart and what Süssmayr did complete (having been a student of Mozart's) was pretty close to the composers intentions and probably touched by the hand of God as well...


I've read, somewhere, that the Benedictus is actually based on a very common ground or theme, I think, that was given to composition students as far back as Mozart's youth. I suspect that the Benedictus was originally a composition exercise Mozart had given Süssmayr (prior to the Requiem) and was repurposed (maybe under Mozart's instruction) for the Requiem.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

paulbest said:


> Your comments on Mozart's*faux* moments in the operas, are over my range of understanding.
> 
> .


There are a handful of works he wrote starting in the late 1780s which are unusually simple and lyrical, with much less emphasis on virtuosity. Some of the violin sonata K 547, some of the string quintet K614, the 27th piano concerto and The Magic Flute.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> There are a handful of works he wrote starting in the late 1780s which are unusually simple and lyrical, with much less emphasis on virtuosity. Some of the violin sonata K 547, *some of the string quintet K614,* the 27th piano concerto and The Magic Flute.


You know K614 is riddled with contrapuntal devices, right?
I don't know what you mean by virtuousity, 
Is something like this easy to compose or perform? (composed on March, 1791)






Not to put down Beethoven, but Sonata No.30 in E major Op.109: there's like a trill on B-C# that goes on for 2 minutes in the last variation, with a meandering melody (that's typical of Beethoven's more lesser-known works and doesn't really make a huge impression on me to be honest.) 
Actually, this is what I feel about Beethoven and Mozart regarding this issue:
In the case of Beethoven, all his late string quartets and late piano sonatas are supposed to be great works (Or so we believe) since they were written by highly-matured, late-period Beethoven. 
Beethoven also generally organized his pieces as sets more neatly, as sets like "piano sonatas" and "string quartets" which helps people find and know his pieces better.
In the case of Mozart, he wrote pieces with miscellaneous titles like Fantasia, Rondo, etc that require people to actually put in time and effort to search for them before they can know and come to appreciate them.
But in my view, Mozart's K608 looks forward to something like Liszt Mazeppa, more than any other works written around that time. Many of late Beethoven works are masterpieces, I'm not arguing against that. But Is there any reason Mozart's late stuff like K608 doesn't deserve attention and recognition like late Beethoven keyboard works?

_"As Wolfgang Plath has pointed out, the influence of Mozart's Fantasy in F minor, K. 608 was considerable in the nineteenth century. Aside from the editions, manuscripts, and arrangements already mentioned, many public performances can be documented. Beethoven owned the work and made his own arrangement of the fugue. Schubert's F Minor Fantasy for piano four-hands, op. 103 (D. 940, 1828), suggests his reaction to the whole of Mozart's piece, whereas Franz Lachner's Wind Octet in B flat, op. 156 (1859) demonstrates his reception of the Andante"
"As already mentioned, the two principal manuscript copies of K. 608 are on four staves; one is in the Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, the other in the library of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna. The four-staff version of the work in both manuscripts and in the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe can without further ado be played four-hands," _
https://www.loc.gov/collections/mol...e-to-archives/allegro-and-andante-in-f-minor/


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> I've read, somewhere, that the Benedictus is actually based on a very common ground or theme, I think, that was given to composition students as far back as Mozart's youth. I suspect that the Benedictus was originally a composition exercise Mozart had given Süssmayr (prior to the Requiem) and was repurposed (maybe under Mozart's instruction) for the Requiem.


Sussmayer also referenced Mozart's earlier masses in completing the remaining movements.
For example,

compare Agnus Dei of the Requiem with Gloria of Spatzenmesse (at 1:00)





compare Lacrimosa with Credo (at 1:45)


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I would also like to nominate Brahms. His late intermezzi and other piano works are amazing.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> You know K614 is riddled with contrapuntal devices, right?
> I don't know what you mean by virtuousity,
> Is something like this easy to compose or perform? (composed on March, 1791)
> 
> [


I was thinking of the first movement of 614. No one's saying that all Mozart's late music is faux naive, I just want to postulate that he was experimenting with a radically simplified style.

I like 608 - and generally I'm keen on severe Mozart. The reason it doesn't get the same recognition as late Beethoven is that for all its strengths K 608 is not op 131 or op 120 or op 111 or , , ,. Mazeppa is not op 131 either.

I think the Sussmayer completion is awful! But maybe I'm not totally at ease with classical style anyway.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> I would also like to nominate Brahms. His late intermezzi and other piano works are amazing.


That's again a retreat into simplicity.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Couperin
Monteverdi
Lutoslawski


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> I was thinking of the first movement of 614. No one's saying that all Mozart's late music is faux naive, I just want to postulate that he was experimenting with a radically simplified style.
> 
> I like 608 - and generally I'm keen on severe Mozart. The reason it doesn't get the same recognition as late Beethoven is that for all its strengths K 608 is not op 131 or op 120 or op 111 or , , ,. Mazeppa is not op 131 either.
> 
> I think the Sussmayer completion is awful! But maybe I'm not totally at ease with classical style anyway.


No. You haven't convinced me yet why Beethoven should exempted from the list of composers you criticized as "not having produced great works in their late periods". You know, other than stuff like late string quartets, not all his late works were written in the last 3~4 years of his life either.
The guy thought his Choral Fantasia was so good he did it again in the 9th symphony. 
And by your logic, certain sections in the late piano sonatas can be thought as tinkly stuff that really don't seem to get anywhere.
You honestly think every one us of would appreciate every single note written in late Beethoven. 
Good thing you mention Op.111. This is how I view it.
the 1st movement is allegro-sonata-version of Mozart K546,
and the 2nd movement is boogie-woogie.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> No. You haven't convinced me yet why Beethoven should exempt from the list of composers you criticized as "not having produced great works in their late periods". You know, other than stuff like late string quartets, not all his late works weren't written in the 3~4 last years of his life either.
> The guy thought his Choral Fantasia was so good he does it again in the 9th symphony.
> And by your logic, certain sections in the late piano sonatas can be thought as tinkly stuff that really doesn't seem to get anywhere.
> You honestly think every one us of would appreciate every single note written in late Beethoven.
> ...


Well I'm not a great Beethoven lover either.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> Well I'm not a great Beethoven lover either.


You're starting to sound like these people who think the 'greats' didn't actually contribute that much to classical music.



PetrB said:


> It is an antique 'top' and its repute (unrevised / not updated for generations) is in place now primarily due to generations of rote teaching, like state propaganda... yes it has a genuine validity. It is a complete falsehood that there is not room at that same top for some of the others I mentioned, and I think the sovereignty of that plateau being solely Germanic is also political, and no longer at all valid.
> 
> "Self-evident,' if programmed in by rote repetition since we were tots, seriously needs some examining. We need to think for ourselves, realize that perhaps Debussy has as much universal respect and admiration from composers and musicians, for example, and Stravinsky, and not feel fear that it would 'knock off or down,' the holy trinity if they were no longer a trinity.


I don't know what to tell you man, I'd rather talk with flat-eartheners than to waste time talking with these people.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> That's again a retreat into simplicity.


Agreed, he distilled his art to a powerful concision. He says more in op.117 than he does in the whole German Requiem, despite its simplicity.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> He says more in op.117 than he does in the whole German Requiem, despite its simplicity.


I'm not sure that's even possible. One of us must be missing something.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> I think the Sussmayer completion is awful! But maybe I'm not totally at ease with classical style anyway.


So are you saying you think the Requiem is good, up until the point where you detect the contributions of Süssmayr? At which point is that? Or you don't enjoy any of it?



Mandryka said:


> That's again a retreat into simplicity.


So for you complexity = good and simplicity = bad?


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

Tchaikovsky wrote "The Nutcracker" less than two years before his death, and Mozart died in the process or writing his Requiem, both compositions I really like, so they deserve a spot.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Waldesnacht said:


> I'm not sure that's even possible. One of us must be missing something.


Maybe I am wrong, I won't pretend I fully "get" Brahms just yet, though I am starting to admire his music more. Still, you have to admit the late piano works are something special, no? And what of the clarinet sonatas?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> I think the Sussmayer completion is awful! But maybe I'm not totally at ease with classical style anyway.





Mandryka said:


> That's again a retreat into simplicity.


I get it, you admire the extreme sophistication and absolute complexity of these masters of their late works:

6:06






0:42






6:00


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

.



tdc said:


> So for you complexity = good and simplicity = bad?


No

3kjvnkjvnvkjndkjnvsirvn


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> The guy thought his Choral Fantasia was so good he did it again in the 9th symphony.


Not really. The resemblances are obvious; the differences are more important.



> And by your logic, certain sections in the late piano sonatas can be thought as tinkly stuff that really don't seem to get anywhere.


No "logic" leads to that judgment.



> You honestly think every one us of would appreciate every single note written in late Beethoven.


"Honestly," he doesn't think that, and very probably no one else thinks it either.



> Good thing you mention Op.111. This is how I view it.
> The 1st movement is allegro-sonata-version of Mozart K546,
> and the 2nd movement is boogie-woogie.


Is that really how you view it? Well, I suppose you might, if you think of the finale of the 9th symphony as just another Choral Fantasy...


----------



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

Luchesi said:


> If a composer didn't have a body of very impressive works at the end of his life would we still count him as a great composer?
> Is there a logical disconnect here?
> 
> Are there great composers who didn't have many great works at the end? I'm trying to think of an example..
> ...


Antonín Dvořák's final few years seemed to end with a whimper rather than a bang - although his last four years were largely taken up with composing the opera _Armida_ in the wake of _Rusalka_'s success. _Armida_ was a bust, and the few other works written from 1900 to 1904 are inconsequential.

If I go by the idea that the quality of a composer's later output far exceeded that from the early and middle parts of their careers then I definitely agree with the posters who suggested Leoš Janáček and César Franck.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Is that really how you view it? Well, I suppose you might, if you think of the finale of the 9th symphony as just another Choral Fantasy...


Not that I actually want to disparage Beethoven, it's just a way to demonstrate to Mandryka how futile it is to resort to 'personal opinions' as basis for iconoclastic attack on works conventionally regarded as being great.

"Beethoven isn't actually that great. I'm tired of the over-long trills and tremolos in the second movement of Beethoven Op.111, and sections of Op.106 



 sound like Czerny School of Velocity...Grosse Fuge is homorhythmic etc" Of course I wouldn't suddenly out of the blue say these unpopular opinions in a thread meant for Beethoven appreciation unless I wanted to be a troll and a downer.

This is what Mandryka is doing with Mozart, Haydn, Brahms etc.

I also want to point out, contrary to what Mandryka thinks, Haydn actually did produce masterpieces in his late period: oratorios (Seasons, Creation), late masses, which again Beethoven considered 'inimitable' and F minor variations Hob 17/6, which became basis of early Beethoven sonatas.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Not that I actually want to disparage Beethoven, it's just a way to demonstrate to Mandryka how futile it is to resort to 'personal opinions' as basis for iconoclastic attack on works conventionally regarded as being great.
> 
> "Beethoven isn't actually that great. I'm tired of the over-long trills and tremolos in the second movement of Beethoven Op.111, and sections of Op.106
> 
> ...


We have to think of Mozart and Beethoven and all the rest in the conditions of centuries ago. Can we imagine it? Their audiences, health conditions and daily discomforts, winter and summer. Beethoven was always trashing his piano and breaking strings. As late as 1826 he said the piano is and remains an inadequate instrument.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Not that I actually want to disparage Beethoven, it's just a way to demonstrate to Mandryka how futile it is to resort to 'personal opinions' as basis for iconoclastic attack on works conventionally regarded as being great.
> 
> "


I think you're raising some very fundamental and challenging ideas, which I can't deal with properly at the moment. But yes, I think you're on to something important.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> Maybe I am wrong, I won't pretend I fully "get" Brahms just yet, though I am starting to admire his music more. Still, you have to admit the late piano works are something special, no? And what of the clarinet sonatas?


They are indeed special and profoundly expressive, much like the late piano works of Beethoven, and supposedly written mainly for his own benefit. The same probably applies to his chamber music for clarinet and to much of his earlier work, including his choral and orchestral works. Brahms is rarely less than deeply personal in his music. It's one of the things that makes his music difficult.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I think you're raising some very fundamental and challenging ideas, which I can't deal with properly at the moment. But yes, I think you're on to something important.


'Greatness' and relative greatness should be defined first. And then we'll have to agree about the nuanced definitions. There's many opinions in many books on the subject.

I can agree about trying to rank compositions from the same decade, but musical development has never stopped, the changes accelerated, and perhaps 30 or 40 years back then was the limits for an appropriate window, not longer than that.


----------

