# Flawed Masterpiece



## mikey (Nov 26, 2013)

Currently watching the Glyndebourne DVD of Porgy and Bess with Willard White (who's phenomenal in the role!) and decided to do some research when I came across a review calling the opera a flawed masterpiece.

So my question is - how can a masterpiece be flawed? (In relation to P&G or anything else)


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Flawed is a matter of opinion. For me perfection is dull, so a masterpiece may have just the right amount of flaws, in which case they then wouldn't be flaws and I'm right back to dull perfection. I get into philosophical quicksand if I think too much about these things.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Is the Bruckner 9th Symphony a flawed masterpiece because it doesn't have the expected final fourth movement?
Absolutely not. The final adagio is the perfect ending. An unqualified masterpiece!

"Flawed" and "masterpiece" to me seem a contradiction in terms.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Music is a human invention, it is necessarily flawed, masterpiece or otherwise.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Crudblud said:


> Music is a human invention, it is necessarily flawed, masterpiece or otherwise.


I don't know about that. The music of Beethoven, Mozart and Bach that we consider masterpieces sounds to me like they may have had some "extra" help.


----------



## mikey (Nov 26, 2013)

It seems a contradiction to me too, hence the question. I'm curious as to how one can come to such an answer and whether there is a way to answer it without getting philosophical. Analytical perhaps? Objectively?

nb. Had a similar discussion with my teacher about the appassionata when one of his students called the slow movt boring to which the reply was it sort of needs to be in order to balance out the groundbreaking outer movts.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Anything from the hand of man is flawed; look around you.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Maybe someone of this forum is really going to shoot me (I have a couple of names in mind...), 
but another example of flawed masterpiece is imo Beethoven's Fidelio.

...waiting for reactions, I have just worn a body armour...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

hpowders said:


> I don't know about that. The music of Beethoven, Mozart and Bach that we consider masterpieces sounds to me like they may have had some "extra" help.


I try to avoid such mythologising of music, or indeed any art, as I believe it serves only to put a handicap on one's perception, but to each their own.


----------



## Matsps (Jan 13, 2014)

Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No.1 never returns to it's spectacular opening theme. 

THAT is how a masterpiece becomes flawed.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

I'm guessing a flawed masterpiece is one where most of the qualities of a particular work are very high and cannot be bettered (or improved), yet there are some things, be them ideas or matters of structuralism (or both) that can use a tweaking or two (which, depending on a piece, it's probably too late especially since we may know the work well enough already). Tchaikovsky's _Manfred_ Symphony comes to mind. It represents most of the best Tchaikovsky had written, but the finale is where the composer rambles on a bit. Toscanini and Temirkanov (and later Svetlanov, surprisingly) tried to circumvent that by making cuts. But the effort only damages the structural unity of the work. Gliere's Third Symphony (another "flawed" masterpiece) comes to mind as does Myaskovsky's 27th (the first two movements are excellent, but the finale is simply fine; not as inspirational or profound as the first two).

There are also examples I'm sure, like Dargomyzhsky's _Rusalka_ for instance, but I'll stop here.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Matsps said:


> Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No.1 never returns to it's spectacular opening theme.
> 
> THAT is how a masterpiece becomes flawed.


And where is it etched in absolute, totalitarian stone that the opening theme MUST return?
That's what makes the Tchaikovsky #1 Piano Concerto a UNIQUE masterpiece!!!
He was thinking OUTSIDE the box!!!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Attention. The term 'masterpiece' does not negate the existence of imperfection(s), it merely limits their importance.

As you were.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

It's easy to think of flawed masterpieces when talking about films, plays or novels. Maybe there's one scene or minor character that doesn't work, but isn't enough to offset the greatness of the rest.

The same with music. Maybe there's one aria in an opera that isn't so hot, or one weak character.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

Bruckner's 9th is what it says on the tin 'unfinished'. I agree that the 3 existing movements are masterful and that on completion the 9th would have joined the 8th as a masterpiece. I include in the above both the Schubert and Mahler unfinished works. This assertion will undoubtedly bring howls of protest, but in my defense. The composers, sadly' had not realised their overall vision.
Like hpowders I love Bruckners 9th but I do realise that it is an incomplete work. 
Imagine Das Lied without Der Abschied, or Beethoven's 9th without 'O Freunde'. 
So Masterpiece no, great music undoubtedly.


----------



## Whistler Fred (Feb 6, 2014)

When I hear the phrase "flawed masterpiece" I tend to think of a piece of music that may have an obvious shortcoming, but is strong enough that the weakness can be overlooked. A favorite symphony of mine is Roy Harris Symphony No. 3. Like much of his music, it tends to sprawl about and you can never be quite sure where it is going, and the end seems abrupt and a bit anticlimactic. But the work has an atmosphere and power of its own that make it easy for me to pass over these flaws, and I get a lot of pleasure from this symphony.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Polyphemus said:


> Bruckner's 9th is what it says on the tin 'unfinished'. I agree that the 3 existing movements are masterful and that on completion the 9th would have joined the 8th as a masterpiece. I include in the above both the Schubert and Mahler unfinished works. This assertion will undoubtedly bring howls of protest, but in my defense. The composers, sadly' had not realised their overall vision.
> Like hpowders I love Bruckners 9th but I do realise that it is an incomplete work.
> Imagine Das Lied without Der Abschied, or Beethoven's 9th without 'O Freunde'.
> So Masterpiece no, great music undoubtedly.


I just feel that the utter resignation at the end of the adagio is already a fitting and satisfying conclusion to the Bruckner 9th.
Oh well, we will never really know.

By the way, I looked on the tin and couldn't find the word "unfinished". All I could find was "$17.99".


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Is the *Bruckner 9th Symphony* a flawed masterpiece because it doesn't have the expected final fourth movement? Absolutely not. The final adagio is the perfect ending. An unqualified masterpiece! [...]


You're quite right, HPowders, it's not a flawed masterpiece, it's an incomplete masterpiece. But I disagree that the "final Adagio" is _the_ perfect ending. Bruckner himself knew this was not the case.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> You're quite right, HPowders, it's not a flawed masterpiece, it's an incomplete masterpiece. But I disagree that the "final Adagio" is _the_ perfect ending. Bruckner himself knew this was not the case.


Oh yes, I forgot you have the Bruckner hotline. Send him my regards please.

Anyhow to me the final few minutes of the adagio speak to me of weariness and surrender to his inevitable fate. It says "farewell".
To me nothing else is required, even though I may be wrong.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I'd say that Schubert's 1st Piano Trio is a perfect masterpiece, whereas his 2nd is a flawed masterpiece. And you know what: I prefer the latter!


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Oh yes, *I forgot you have the Bruckner hotline*. Send him my regards please.
> 
> Anyhow to me the final few minutes of the adagio speak to me of weariness and surrender to his inevitable fate. It says "farewell".
> To me nothing else is required, even though I may be wrong.


Yeah, me and Anton have this sort of beyond-the-grave connection. However, we know *from the literature* that he was most upset at the realization he would never complete his 9th and made half-baked, death-bed suggestions (to use his Te deum...). But there is a sort of "solution" available, _viz_, the Samale/Mazzuca/Phillips/Cohrs _completion_ which gives the barest glimpse of what could have been.
In the meantime, Anton sends his regards back to you, and asks you to keep your eyes open for any lost sketches in your attic or those of your entourage.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Whistler Fred said:


> When I hear the phrase "flawed masterpiece" I tend to think of a piece of music that may have an obvious shortcoming, but is strong enough that the weakness can be overlooked.


I feel that way about Mendelssohn's 5th symphony. In the finale, the transition from the first theme to the second is weak and probably would have been revised if Mendelssohn didn't have such bad memories about it. The only option there is for a conductor to find a way to de-emphasize the weakness.


----------



## Matsps (Jan 13, 2014)

hpowders said:


> And where is it etched in absolute, totalitarian stone that the opening theme MUST return?
> That's what makes the Tchaikovsky #1 Piano Concerto a UNIQUE masterpiece!!!
> He was thinking OUTSIDE the box!!!


It's not, but who the heck comes up with a theme like that and never revisits it? You spend the entire concerto waiting for that theme to come back, but it just never happens... Very disappointing. I mean, it's not like the rest of the concerto is bad, but the best part of it is right at the beginning and never returns.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Matsps said:


> It's not, but who the heck comes up with a theme like that and never revisits it? You spend the entire concerto waiting for that theme to come back, but it just never happens... Very disappointing. I mean, it's not like the rest of the concerto is bad, but the best part of it is right at the beginning and never returns.


Believe me I totally understand, but if he was alive, would you want him to change it to incorporate the beginning or leave it as is. My vote would be leave it as is. Whether you call it a"flawed" masterpiece, or I call it a "unique" masterpiece, it still remains astonishingly great.


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2014)

While I would hesitate to call such a thing a "flaw", I think a masterpiece would have to inherently have less interesting sections to build tension for it's moments of magnificence. I imagine that a lengthy symphony in which every moment has equally high value would leave me thinking "been there, done that" by the finale. Anticipation is key.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> Yeah, me and Anton have this sort of beyond-the-grave connection. However, we know *from the literature* that he was most upset at the realization he would never complete his 9th and made half-baked, death-bed suggestions (to use his Te deum...). But there is a sort of "solution" available, _viz_, the Samale/Mazzuca/Phillips/Cohrs _completion_ which gives the barest glimpse of what could have been.
> In the meantime, Anton sends his regards back to you, and asks you to keep your eyes open for any lost sketches in your attic or those of your entourage.


Yeah. I was joshing you. The only thing I found in my attic was what seems to be the skeleton of an apparently unfed dog, left there by the previous owner.
That's the story of my life. You go up to your attic, you find a Rembrandt. Me, a skeletal xylophone.

Anyhow, at least we should have the choice-3 movements or a 4 movement reconstruction.
As far as I'm concerned if the original genius didn't write it, I want no part of it.


----------



## Matsps (Jan 13, 2014)

> but if he was alive, would you want him to change it to incorporate the beginning or leave it as is.


Yes of course I would want him to make another arrangement of it where the theme is actually coming back and developed and I don't think I would be the only one spamming up his E-mail inbox with this.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

_L'heure espagnole_


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mikey said:


> Currently watching the Glyndebourne DVD of Porgy and Bess with Willard White (who's phenomenal in the role!) and decided to do some research when I came across a review calling the opera a flawed masterpiece.
> 
> So my question is - how can a masterpiece be flawed? (In relation to P&G or anything else)


Almost all of the recitative portions are only moderately 'successful.' Since the opera consistently drops the ball in that particular quarter, I suppose one "should not" call it a masterpiece. You can also view recitative (in general in any opera) as a needed contrast / relief from all the aria and chorus singing, and in _Porgy and Bess_ all of those elements are outstanding (ergo, maybe that negative critique of the recitative portions is not so strong or valid 

BUT, some people's work is so outstanding, regardless of some notable weaknesses or flaws, that it is said, "I would rather listen to this artist's failures than many another (lesser) artist's successes."


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

What? You mean L'heure espagnole_?!?!?



Of course re. post #28...sorry PetrB

_


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Weak writer*

I understand what a flawed masterpiece is.

My problem is that I am such a weak writer I doubt that I could explain it in a thousand words or less.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> I understand what a flawed masterpiece is.
> 
> My problem is that I am such a weak writer I doubt that I could explain it in a thousand words or less.


A flawless post!


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

I think music is perhaps the only art where near if not total perfection can be reached... at least in terms of the dots. 

But I reserve this to very structured music, like the fugue where... yes... alternative possibilities are available, but since, for example, the entries must come in by 4ths/5ths, and the style and counterpoint is very defined, there are only so many avenues it could take... and so a perfection can be reached within those limits.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

A flawed masterpiece implies that there are perfect masterpieces.... I have yet to hear a perfect anything. Or - either all is perfect or all is flawed. Dividing between one and the other will never be true for everyone, as what you deem perfect will be flawed for someone else.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> A flawed masterpiece implies that there are perfect masterpieces.... I have yet to hear a perfect anything. Or - either all is perfect or all is flawed. Dividing between one and the other will never be true for everyone, as what you deem perfect will be flawed for someone else.


If you take it literally yes of course, but I believe the sense of the OP is different...
The mentioned example (and many others quoted in this thread) is a masterpiece indeed, BUT....
The emphasis is in that contrast.


----------



## mikey (Nov 26, 2013)

So I'm gathering then that it depends on balance - if enough of the work is truly inspired, with the rest on a high creative level. (which is then a matter of opinion?)

Just came across this on the Schumann Symphonies
_Some of us are content to forget all about development, orchestration and the rest of it, and to listen to a man pouring out his heart to us; and if he stammers, or his voice is husky, or his speech hesitant, then what his heart has to say is all the more appealing for being inarticulate_

It's all quite paradoxical!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Anything from the hand of man is flawed; look around you.





Crudblud said:


> Music is a human invention, it is necessarily flawed, masterpiece or otherwise.


Have to dissent here. Perfection in music, in the case where it is not wholly subjective, is easy to the point of rendering the term meaningless. Unlike Minona, however, I wouldn't limit this to systematically constructed music like fugues. There are thousands of flawless little gems out there in the piano repertoire, for example. Perfection is overrated and a pretty low bar to set.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> Have to dissent here. Perfection in music, in the case where it is not wholly subjective, is easy to the point of rendering the term meaningless. Unlike Minona, however, I wouldn't limit this to systematically constructed music like fugues. There are thousands of flawless little gems out there in the piano repertoire, for example. Perfection is overrated and a pretty low bar to set.


What should be the "bar to set" then? Doesn't it all come down--in the final analysis--as to how one defines "perfection".


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Polyphemus said:


> Bruckner's 9th is what it says on the tin 'unfinished'. I agree that the 3 existing movements are masterful and that on completion the 9th would have joined the 8th as a masterpiece. I include in the above both the Schubert and Mahler unfinished works. This assertion will undoubtedly bring howls of protest, but in my defense. The composers, sadly' had not realised their overall vision.
> Like hpowders I love Bruckners 9th but I do realise that it is an incomplete work.
> Imagine Das Lied without Der Abschied, or Beethoven's 9th without 'O Freunde'.
> So Masterpiece no, great music undoubtedly.


Sometimes artists (including composers) have difficulty to determine when to stop, and can ruin great works this way. I know first-hand, as my wife is a professional artist (painter). Both Schubert's 8th and Bruckner's 9th are perfect the way they are imo, and the composer should have realized that (perhaps Schubert did). The completion efforts by others are horrible.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

samurai said:


> What should be the "bar to set" then? Doesn't it all come down--in the final analysis--as to how one defines "perfection".


Before I wrote my response, I checked a dictionary with more than twenty different definitions. The most relevant in this context included:

1. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement.
2. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for an intended purpose
3. without any of the flaws or shortcoming that might be present
4. correct in every detail
5. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of the type.

Perfection is easy by any of these definitions - if one is not too ambitious. And perfection by these definitions doesn't even require that the perfect object have that many redeeming qualities. The only exception I see is perhaps the first definition above. I suppose one could take a little gem of a piano piece by Chopin or Debussy and state that, theoretically, the melody could be more beautiful or mysterious or whatever abstract quality one wants more of, but this just strikes me as perverse if the piece meets the other definitions. After all, if one changes the fundamental quality of the melody, for example, one is, arguably, not improving the work practically or theoretically, one is creating an entirely new one.

So, to answer your question: No, I don't think it comes down so much to how one defines perfection, unless one is deviating wildly from the common definitions above. I just think there are qualities far more important than mere perfection - by any standard definition. Ambition, risk taking, originality, many undefinable qualities of melodic beauty, grace, subtlety, exquisite control of tension - any number of things really.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I would say usually there is a strong reason for a critic to call some piece a 'flawed masterpiece'.

If they actually like it, they will say they liked it.

If they did not like it, they will say that the composer would have been better off painting walls or selling cupcakes, or other such creative, inventive things to harass the composer.

If they found it perfect, they will call it a masterpiece.

If they did not find that perfection, but still smelled it near, they say it's a 'flawed masterpiece'. Meaning, it's probably a masterpiece, maybe not.

I think if somebody says something is a masterpiece, they saw a perfection in it - a unique light which changed them forever, which they will never forget or dismiss as trivial - in fact, it becomes part of their life-giving fabric and might affect their identity/personality. It's like love. Of course, all of this can mean absolutely nothing to somebody else. Because they are somebody else.


----------



## mikey (Nov 26, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Have to dissent here. Perfection in music, in the case where it is not wholly subjective, is easy to the point of rendering the term meaningless.


When is it not subjective?
I think that's one of my main issues here in that there has to (perhaps?) be guidelines to constitute a _masterpiece_ and it's failings.


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2014)

hpowders said:


> [...] Anyhow, at least we should have the choice-3 movements or a 4 movement reconstruction.
> *As far as I'm concerned if the original genius didn't write it, I want no part of it*.


Well, as far as the SMPC reconstruction is concerned, they have composed *very* little that is not by Bruckner himself. Whether Bruckner would have left the symphony in the state the sketches suggest is an open question. Anyway, I'm always glad to get a vague idea of what the composer was thinking. Simon Rattle and the BPO are happy with that position too, it would seem.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

mikey said:


> When is it not subjective?
> I think that's one of my main issues here in that there has to (perhaps?) be guidelines to constitute a _masterpiece_ and it's failings.


Several of the five definitions I quoted in #40 above leave room for objective judgments about specific features or qualities. For example, it is relatively easy to demonstrate that a certain example of ternary form conforms "absolutely to the description or definition of the type." (definition 5) Similarly, one could objectively argue that the voice-leading in a particular piece is "without any of the flaws or shortcomings that might be present." (definition 3)

I have doubts about the possibility of developing a set of guidelines for what constitutes a masterpiece.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> Well, as far as the SMPC reconstruction is concerned, they have composed *very* little that is not by Bruckner himself. Whether Bruckner would have left the symphony in the state the sketches suggest is an open question. Anyway, I'm always glad to get a vague idea of what the composer was thinking. Simon Rattle and the BPO are happy with that position too, it would seem.


They are happy, as long as they are getting paid for doing it.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

GioCar said:


> If you take it literally yes of course, but I believe the sense of the OP is different...
> The mentioned example (and many others quoted in this thread) is a masterpiece indeed, BUT....
> The emphasis is in that contrast.


Thusly, the tragedy of language. So many words have been molested to the point of loosing all power.


----------



## spradlig (Jul 25, 2012)

I your answer because it identifies a specific flaw in _orgy and Bess_, which is what I was curious about. I don't understand or appreciate opera well enough to know how bad this flaw is.

Isn't recitative in opera boring in general, at least for most listeners?



PetrB said:


> Almost all of the recitative portions are only moderately 'successful.' Since the opera consistently drops the ball in that particular quarter, I suppose one "should not" call it a masterpiece. You can also view recitative (in general in any opera) as a needed contrast / relief from all the aria and chorus singing, and in _Porgy and Bess_ all of those elements are outstanding (ergo, maybe that negative critique of the recitative portions is not so strong or valid
> 
> BUT, some people's work is so outstanding, regardless of some notable weaknesses or flaws, that it is said, "I would rather listen to this artist's failures than many another (lesser) artist's successes."


----------



## CyrilWashbrook (Feb 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Oh yes, I forgot you have the Bruckner hotline. Send him my regards please.
> 
> Anyhow to me the final few minutes of the adagio speak to me of weariness and surrender to his inevitable fate. It says "farewell".
> To me nothing else is required, even though I may be wrong.


Allow me to don my devil's advocate hat for a minute or two. To a significant extent, the end of the third movement sounds very much like a fitting end to the piece - fading wearily, serenely into the distance - because that's how conductors and orchestras choose to play it. Based on the typical performance, you would expect that Bruckner intended for there to be copious fermata, ritenuto and morendo markings or something along those lines, and added these to the score accordingly. He didn't. As Cohrs writes: "Bruckner's score indicates no change of tempo. [...] If you make the music gradually slower and slower up to the very end, it seems of course that nothing could follow anymore." Or: if you choose to play it like a finale, it'll sound like a finale.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, belief in the fundamental rightness of ending the piece after three movements is also fostered by the pervasive and alluring belief that Bruckner identified the third movement as "Abschied vom Leben". He didn't: it's a reference specifically to the descending brass notes between B and C. (Even if he had, this wouldn't in my view dispose of the matter, given that Bruckner clearly didn't believe that earthly death was the endpoint of all existence. And if one feels comfortable deriving from extrinsic sources the view that this whole movement is a "farewell to life", it is hard to justify ignoring the extrinsic evidence about Bruckner's religiosity...) This is a noticeable mistake in the Schönzeler biography of Bruckner that I'm reading at the moment, but I doubt this would have bothered him, because he makes clear his personal belief that it is pure sacrilege even to contemplate a completion.

As it happens, I don't miss the presence of a fourth movement and I'm happy to accept Löwe-influenced tempo changes that give the third movement a stronger sense of finality: it sounds good when played that way, and the three-movement version is one of my absolute favourite pieces of music. It is not _necessary_ for anything to follow in order to appreciate the magic of the work, and I never think "oh, what a pity he didn't finish it" after listening to it. Indeed, before I took a peek at the history of the work, I think I may even have said on these forums words to the effect that the Adagio was the perfect ending.

However, I think it's worth appreciating the way that interpreters have helped to shape that impression, including the editors of the published scores, the players and conductors who have performed it, and the commentators who have voiced their own opinion that the work is complete in its own way. The "perfection", one might say, has been cobbled together after the fact.

By the way, speaking of Bruckner hotlines: I don't have one, but those who can speak German might be interested by this piece by a person called Gerd Faßbender entitled (translated) "Farewell to life... right? A fictional conversation with Anton Bruckner about the finale of his ninth symphony".



hpowders said:


> As far as I'm concerned if the original genius didn't write it, I want no part of it.


My hotline to Franz Xaver Süßmayr, on the other hand, is in perfect working order...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

CyrilWashbrook said:


> Allow me to don my devil's advocate hat for a minute or two. To a significant extent, the end of the third movement sounds very much like a fitting end to the piece - fading wearily, serenely into the distance - because that's how conductors and orchestras choose to play it. Based on the typical performance, you would expect that Bruckner intended for there to be copious fermata, ritenuto and morendo markings or something along those lines, and added these to the score accordingly. He didn't. As Cohrs writes: "Bruckner's score indicates no change of tempo. [...] If you make the music gradually slower and slower up to the very end, it seems of course that nothing could follow anymore." Or: if you choose to play it like a finale, it'll sound like a finale.
> 
> Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, belief in the fundamental rightness of ending the piece after three movements is also fostered by the pervasive and alluring belief that Bruckner identified the third movement as "Abschied vom Leben". He didn't: it's a reference specifically to the descending brass notes between B and C. (Even if he had, this wouldn't in my view dispose of the matter, given that Bruckner clearly didn't believe that earthly death was the endpoint of all existence. And if one feels comfortable deriving from extrinsic sources the view that this whole movement is a "farewell to life", it is hard to justify ignoring the extrinsic evidence about Bruckner's religiosity...) This is a noticeable mistake in the Schönzeler biography of Bruckner that I'm reading at the moment, but I doubt this would have bothered him, because he makes clear his personal belief that it is pure sacrilege even to contemplate a completion.
> 
> ...


Heh! Heh! Well, I have a problem with the Mozart Requiem too! It should have been left alone where Mozart stopped. Now, we have a series of reconstructions. I want no part of it.

Mahler's 10th? I'm happy to have the two movements (adagio and purgatorio) that Mahler practically completed, the adagio being my favorite of all his adagios.

Bruckner 9th? Knowing how Bruckner worshipped Beethoven and some say he spent his life re-writng Beethoven's 9th Symphony, it's not a stretch to believe that he would have added a fourth movement. This was a conservative composer. No ground-breaking formats for him.
Being that he didn't get to write it, I, like you am satisfied with the great three movements we have.
Perhaps one day I will attend a garage sale in Austria and stumble upon the "long lost" finale to the Bruckner #9.
Until that day, the only notes I wish to hear from the Bruckner 9th, are Bruckner's.

Thanks, by the way for that interesting and absorbing post, CyrilWashbrook!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Mahler's 10th? I'm happy to have the two movements (adagio and purgatorio) that Mahler completed, the adagio being my favorite of all his adagios.


Mahler didn't complete the purgatorio. His orchestration breaks off part-way through, and he writes in "da capo" at the end of the middle section, which he would _never_ have left the way it was.

Of course, Mahler actually did compose all of the movements from start to finish. In structure, it is unlikely that much if anything outside of the minor point above would have changed. Bruckner's finale is not structurally complete, and thus requires whomever decides to complete it to compose material to fill in the gaps.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Mahler didn't complete the purgatorio. His orchestration breaks off part-way through, and he writes in "da capo" at the end of the middle section, which he would _never_ have left the way it was.
> 
> Of course, Mahler actually did compose all of the movements from start to finish. In structure, it is unlikely that much if anything outside of the minor point above would have changed. Bruckner's finale is not structurally complete, and thus requires whomever decides to complete it to compose material to fill in the gaps.


Yeah, I read that. Anyhow, I often play the 10th's adagio. One of my favorite pieces. Not interested in any reconstructions, however.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

If somebody told me that Mahler's 10th's adagio was actually composed posthumously by the composer himself I would believe it for a while... had it been completed I would probably liked it more than the 7th.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I'm glad for having most of it by Mahler himself. My favorite of all his adagios and one of my all-time favorite pieces.
Those high strings near the end kill me every time!


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Perhaps one day I will attend a garage sale in Austria and stumble upon the "long lost" finale to the Bruckner #9. Until that day, the only notes I wish to hear from the Bruckner 9th, are Bruckner's.


Hah! HPowders, you'll be a millionaire if you do!
But about only wishing to hear notes by Bruckner himself, I'd like to quote you this snippet:

_For nearly a century, Bruckner's 9th symphony has been performed as a three-movement fragment, left unfinished like Schubert's 8th symphony. The prevailing wisdom has been that what Bruckner left of the 4th movement finale was too rough and scattered to reassemble into a coherent whole - and it would be more fitting at any rate to end with the poignant Adagio, Bruckner's "Farewell to Life."

We now know these assumptions couldn't be further from the truth. Since 1983, musicologists Nicola Samale, Giuseppe Mazzuca, John Phillips and Benjamin-Cunnar Cohrs have pored over the substantial material Bruckner left at his death in 1896 to reconstruct the final movement. *Of the 653 bars contained in the finale, only 28 - about two minutes of music - had to be composed from scratch*. Indeed, Bruckner himself had orchestrated more than 200 bars_.

Here's the link to the site where I got the quote above, plus an interview with Sir Simon Rattle giving his take. As I said before, I'm always glad to get a glimpse of what could have been, that's all I'm saying. Now if you don't mind, I'm getting back to my _Vermintino di Sardegna_ before it gets too warm.
http://www.feastofmusic.com/feast_o...hilharmonic-plays-bruckners-9th-complete.html


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2014)

mikey said:


> Currently watching the Glyndebourne DVD of Porgy and Bess with Willard White (who's phenomenal in the role!) and decided to do some research when *I came across a review calling the opera a flawed masterpiece.*


Are you able to provide a link to this review or quote the source and text?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> Hah! HPowders, you'll be a millionaire if you do!
> But about only wishing to hear notes by Bruckner himself, I'd like to quote you this snippet:
> 
> _For nearly a century, Bruckner's 9th symphony has been performed as a three-movement fragment, left unfinished like Schubert's 8th symphony. The prevailing wisdom has been that what Bruckner left of the 4th movement finale was too rough and scattered to reassemble into a coherent whole - and it would be more fitting at any rate to end with the poignant Adagio, Bruckner's "Farewell to Life."
> ...


Thanks, for that TH. Very interesting!!! Then I would like someone to record the first 3 movements plus the 200 or so bars Bruckner composed for the 4th movement and stop at the end of it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Thanks, for that TH. Very interesting!!! Then I would like someone to record the first 3 movements plus the 200 or so bars Bruckner composed for the 4th movement and stop at the end of it.


That can be arranged, HPowders. Do you have the money? My fee would be modest!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> That can be arranged, HPowders. Do you have the money? My fee would be modest!


No, unfortunately! I just committed my last remaining coin to Haydn's London Symphonies. Need a good excuse for the landlord.
I feel like I'm a character in La Boheme!

However, I would like some conductor to record whatever Bruckner left of the 4th movement.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> We now know these assumptions couldn't be further from the truth. Since 1983, musicologists Nicola Samale, Giuseppe Mazzuca, John Phillips and Benjamin-Cunnar Cohrs have pored over the substantial material Bruckner left at his death in 1896 to reconstruct the final movement. *Of the 653 bars contained in the finale, only 28 - about two minutes of music - had to be composed from scratch*. Indeed, Bruckner himself had orchestrated more than 200 bars[/I].


The difference, of course, is that those 625 bars are _not continuous_ and may not represent Bruckner's final structural thoughts. Gaps exist that have to be filled in. Moreover, if I am not mistaken, the coda needed to be written by the reconstruction team.

This is very different from Mahler's 10th, which is a whole piece of music, coherent from start to finish as is.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Good thing!!! I was about to wire my money to Polygram to have Bruckner's final movement thoughts recorded.

I will buy a CD set of Haydn London Symphonies instead.

That was a close one!!


----------

