# Greatness revisited



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Once or twice a year someone posts a question asking what makes a piece of music “great.” After a lot of back and forth we realize that there is no enumerable list of qualities that accompanies a great piece of art other than “much greatness.”

Since the Kindle price of Jan Swafford’s massive new Beethoven biography has come down into that range of affordability, I got it and have read it. It’s a mostly positive mixed bag, but includes at least one really telling anecdote:

In the early years of Ries’ study with Beethoven, he would look at the almost illegibly revised manuscript of, say, a piano sonata – and ask why Beethoven made a particular change, hoping to learn something. All Beethoven would ever say was “It’s better.”

In other words, artists compose/write/etc. by ear – not by rules (except some customary ones that may provide a starting framework). And they revise according to what sounds “better” to them – a great artist’s sense of “better” being of a level higher than that of the rest of us.

For instance, he only wrote two movements for his last piano sonata because to him, that was sufficient and complete. Given his track record, who’re we to say otherwise?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

MarkW said:


> In the early years of Ries' study with Beethoven, he would look at the almost illegibly revised manuscript of, say, a piano sonata - and ask why Beethoven made a particular change, hoping to learn something. *All Beethoven would ever say was "It's better."
> 
> In other words, artists compose/write/etc. by ear* - not by rules (except some customary ones that may provide a starting framework). And they revise according to what sounds "better" to them - a great artist's sense of "better" being of a level higher than that of the rest of us.


I don't think this assumption is warranted. In fact, the only thing we can conclude from Beethoven's cursory answers is that, whatever the reasons for the changes, he didn't feel like explaining them. It is likely there was detailed technical and structural thought behind the changes, but musical thought can be difficult or impossible to translate into words and composers sometimes just don't want to do it, even when they can. And if I remember correctly, Ries was working as a copyist for Beethoven when he asked these questions, so it is possible Beethoven was also simply not in "teaching mode" when he answered them.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MarkW said:


> All Beethoven would ever say was "It's better."
> 
> . . . And they revise according to what sounds "better" to them


Note that, as you quoted it, he did not say "it sounds better", he said "it's better"


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MarkW said:


> In other words, artists compose/write/etc. by ear - not by rules (except some customary ones that may provide a starting framework). And they revise according to what sounds "better" to them - a great artist's sense of "better" being of a level higher than that of the rest of us.
> 
> For instance, he only wrote two movements for his last piano sonata because to him, that was sufficient and complete. Given his track record, who're we to say otherwise?


I agree with this; what makes Beethoven sound good to me is that he seems to be engaged and creative, not on auto-pilot like some Mozart I've heard, harmonically surprising and adventurous, even bizarre and quirky, as in the late string quartets, to the strangely incongruous chorale finale of the Ninth.

Why are Mandryka and EdwardBast being so contrary to this view? Are they proponents of "think inside the box?"


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A related story. Schuppanzigh, Holst, and the others were rehearsing a late quartet while Beethoven looked on. The played a passage somewhat differently from the way it was written, leaving out a ritardando or something. Can't remember if Beethoven said anything, but he walked over and marked out the ritardandos in the individual parts, evidently considering the change "better."

Not a mysterious process, it seems to me. And I doubt that mediocre composers are any different from "great" ones in this.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Note that, as you quoted it, he did not say "it sounds better", he said "it's better"


A distinction without a difference.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Most intelligent artists - and most good artists are quite intelligent, in my observation - don't care to explain their work, their creative processes and techniques, unless they have some compelling reason to do so. Aside from simply having no need to, they may be disinclined to attempt to educate people who really don't know what they're talking about - which would be most people. The sources of inspiration and the perception of "rightness" in art may ultimately be mysterious, but artists don't create thoughtlessly, and when they make changes they are not clueless as to why the changes make the work better. Far from lacking insight into their processes, they may realize that those processes involve too many subtle relationships to be worth the bother of trying to explicate for our benefit, or our idle curiosity.

Why Beethoven didn't want to go into detail about his creative decisions with Ries, I couldn't say, but I seem to recall him remarking something like "Ries imitates me too much."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> A distinction without a difference.


No,it might be better for formal reasons, or intertextual reasons rather than how it sounds.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Most intelligent artists - and most good artists are quite intelligent, in my observation - don't care to explain their work, their creative processes and techniques, unless they have some compelling reason to do so. …
> 
> Why Beethoven didn't want to go into detail about his creative decisions with Ries, I couldn't say, but I seem to recall him remarking something like "Ries imitates me too much."


I remember reading about an exchange between Medtner and Rachmaninoff in which Medtner said that the two should talk theory sometime. Rachmaninoff's response was something like "Yes, we must … sometime," meaning never would be too soon. Perhaps a similar imitation problem there?

On the difference between "It sounds better" and "It's better," I agree with Mandryka. The former suggests the issue is on a superficial, sensory level, a mere matter of sonance, while the latter implies something more substantial.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> I remember reading about an exchange between Medtner and Rachmaninoff in which Medtner said that the two should talk theory sometime. Rachmaninoff's response was something like "Yes, we must … sometime," meaning never would be too soon. Perhaps a similar imitation problem there?
> 
> On the difference between "It sounds better" and "It's better," I agree with Mandryka. The former suggests the issue is on a superficial, sensory level, a mere matter of sonance, while the latter implies something more substantial.


And that would be?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DaveM said:


> And that would be?


It could be any number of things:

-Beethoven's sketches show that he often adjusted the original versions of his themes once he started developing them. So a change might be made to facilitate later contrapuntal passages without any reference to how the original passage "sounded."

-He might decide to save a poignant transformation or harmonization of a melody for a later appearance even though it would thereby "sound" less interesting in its initial appearance.

-He might cut or truncate a passage as a movement comes together because he finds it throws off the proportions of the whole rather than because of its "sound."

-He could change a theme in an earlier movement so it more clearly prefigures a similar idea in another movement, even though there is no reason to do so based on the mere "sound" of the idea.

-He could alter a motive because a change in orchestration makes an idea more idiomatic to the new instrument to which it is adapted.

In all of these cases, and no doubt many more, it would make more sense to say "It's better" rather than "It sounds better."


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> It could be any number of things:
> 
> -Beethoven's sketches show that he often adjusted the original versions of his themes once he started developing them. So a change might be made to facilitate later contrapuntal passages without any reference to how the original passage "sounded."
> 
> ...


Well, that's a matter of opinion and depends on what one means by 'sounds better'. There is the 'sound' of the notes, chords and the different instruments etc. and then there is the overall 'sound' of the work itself. For instance, one can make changes to the 'hook' or bridge of a song and say that that sounds better or worse. In the end, as far as I'm concerned, almost any change to a musical piece has an effect on how it sounds.

Also, btw, an assumption is being made that Beethoven's comment had some profound meaning when it may have been just a general aside.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> A distinction without a difference.


I do think there is a difference. However, I consider the "sound of music" anything but superficial. How music sounds and emotionally affects listeners is the basic reason humans listen to music.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> I do think there is a difference. However, I consider the "sound of music" anything but superficial. How music sounds and emotionally affects listeners is the basic reason humans listen to music.


That's pretty much my point. In the end, 'sounds better' can cover both of those. One can cut out a few notes such that the hook of a melody strikes the emotions more effectively and then say, 'It just sounds better.'


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Well, that's a matter of opinion and depends on what one means by 'sounds better'. There is the 'sound' of the notes, chords and the different instruments etc. and then there is the overall 'sound' of the work itself. For instance, one can make changes to the 'hook' or bridge of a song and say that that sounds better or worse. In the end, as far as I'm concerned, almost any change to a musical piece has an effect on how it sounds.
> 
> Also, btw, an assumption is being made that Beethoven's comment had some profound meaning when it may have been just a general aside.


I'm not assuming it has profound meaning. I'm assuming he said it because he didn't want to bother explaining. In any case, I just can't imagine him saying because "it sounds better," because that sounds like a dumb thing for the best composer alive to say - and apparently he didn't say it!


----------

