# Opucide .



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

" Opucide ?" This is a. word I have recently coined to refer to works which were destroyed in manuscript form. by composers and never got a chance to be published and. performed . Who knows how many such works have been put into the fire or shredded over the centuries by composers who felt certain works they had written did not deserve a chance to survive .? And the troubling question is, have some works of genuine merit been. subject to such a fate ? Works which could have and should have achieved a place in the repertoire ? I am convinced this is so . 
An example of near opucide is. Rachmaninov's first symphony , which received a scathing reception by Russian critics in the 1890s . The young composer was so traumatized by this he was unable to compose until he saw a psychiatrist who was able to persuade him to. continue composing, after which Rachmaninov wrote his. famous piano concerto no 2 . Apparently, the conductor , who was none other than Alexander Glazunov and who apparently dislike the new symphony and was drunk when conducting it according to reports , did a terrible job and the orchestra played very poorly . 
Rachmaninov destroyed the manuscript score, but many years later and after his death, the individual parts were discovered and it became possible to reconstruct it by a musicologist . And now, the first symphony , while not as popular and the second , has achieved something of a place in the repertoire. and has been recorded many times .
But take Paul Dukas . He was so self critical as to allow only a small number of the works he. composed to survive . So we have the famous "Sorcerer's. Apprentice", the Symphony in C major, the piano sonata , the opera "Ariane & Barbe Bleue " , the ballet score. "La Peri " and a handful of other works left to us . 
According to a story I have read , Dukas was seriously considering destroying the manuscript of "La Peri " ! 
This is a genuine masterpiece ! Did Dukas destroy other works of quality ? Very possibly . Composers are not always the best judges of their music . 
Sibelius spent the last 30 years of his life without producing virtually interesting . Did he actually complete an eighth symphony ? According to the English conductor Sir Basil Cameron , who apparently knew the composer , it. had genuinely been completed and Cameron. saw it . But. the long awaited symphony was apparently destroyed by the composer , as well as other works written after the "Silence from Jarvenpaa " ( the Finnish town outside of Helsinki where Sibelius lived with his wife Aino .) .
Aino Sibelius told this story : her husband had been suffering from depression and alcoholism . And one day , he burned a. batch of his manuscripts . After this, his depression lifted. . Again , did he destroy a genuine masterpiece in. that eighth symphony manuscript ? We'll never know . 
Brahms also destroyed a fair number of works he had written . and he left instructions for his housekeeper not to touch any manuscripts he put in the garbage . 
We'll never know if he destroyed some genuine masterpieces unfortunately .


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Reading Swafford's Brahms bio, I get the impression Brahms put as much music in the fire as he sent to his publisher. I think we have to trust that he knew what he was doing, and that any great music in a destroyed work was likely recycled elsewhere. The 1st symphony and the 3rd Piano Quartet certainly show us that he could carry music around with him (in his head or on paper) for years and make it worthy, so I expect that only stuff he thought unsalvageable was destroyed. Although the claim that an entire second violin concerto bit the dust (after the lukewarm reception for op77) is a bit disturbing!

I must say, I'd have liked to hear Sibelius' 8th, which it seems must have existed at some point. Although, it's hard to imagine what could possibly follow the 7th and _Tapiola_. Sibelius obviously thought it wasn't worthy.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

I think Chopin wanted his Impromptu opus 66 posth. to be destroyed after his death. Also the 20th Nocturne and attractive waltzes and polonaises and an Em nocturne. 

We have corrections, in these scores which were put aside, and these can help scholars in many ways.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

While I am not sure if Brahms exaggerated sometimes how many pieces he supposedly burned (and he did publish at least one work many people find rather mediocre, the early f# minor piano sonata). But we know of several works, such as a piano trio that was the companion to the published C major trio of which Clara and Joachim or other friends had seen drafts and approved of that he destroyed. So I'd assume that he destroyed at least a few works most of us would have liked to hear...


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

GraemeG said:


> Reading Swafford's Brahms bio, I get the impression Brahms put as much music in the fire as he sent to his publisher. I think we have to trust that he knew what he was doing, and that any great music in a destroyed work was likely recycled elsewhere. The 1st symphony and the 3rd Piano Quartet certainly show us that he could carry music around with him (in his head or on paper) for years and make it worthy, so I expect that only stuff he thought unsalvageable was destroyed. Although the claim that an entire second violin concerto bit the dust (after the lukewarm reception for op77) is a bit disturbing!
> 
> I must say, I'd have liked to hear Sibelius' 8th, which it seems must have existed at some point. Although, it's hard to imagine what could possibly follow the 7th and _Tapiola_. Sibelius obviously thought it wasn't worthy.


I instantly thought back to Swafford's recollection of Brahms destroying possibly over a dozen string quartets before Op. 51. Duruflé was known to be very self-critical and destroyed those works he deemed unworthy, I believe, and so was Henri Mulet, another French organist.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

GraemeG said:


> Reading Swafford's Brahms bio, I get the impression Brahms put as much music in the fire as he sent to his publisher. I think we have to trust that he knew what he was doing, and that any great music in a destroyed work was likely recycled elsewhere. The 1st symphony *and the 3rd Piano Quartet certainly show us that he could carry music around with him (in his head or on paper) for years and make it worthy,* so I expect that only stuff he thought unsalvageable was destroyed. Although the claim that an entire second violin concerto bit the dust (after the lukewarm reception for op77) is a bit disturbing!
> 
> I must say, I'd have liked to hear Sibelius' 8th, which it seems must have existed at some point. Although, it's hard to imagine what could possibly follow the 7th and _Tapiola_. Sibelius obviously thought it wasn't worthy.


In letters to his publisher Simrock, Brahms said that the Third Piano Quartet wasn't worth much but that Simrock could publish it if he wanted to. This is enough for me to doubt Brahms's judgment, because his only expressed criticism of the work seems to have been it's overly passionate and stormy nature, although he only expressed this through jokes. I would love to hear anything Brahms wrote that he considered too passionate, because to my ears, nothing by him that I have heard has that particular "failing." I really enjoy the Third Piano Quartet.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> While I am not sure if Brahms exaggerated sometimes how many pieces he supposedly burned (and he did publish at least one work many people find rather mediocre, the early f# minor piano sonata). But we know of several works, such as a piano trio that was the companion to the published C major trio of which Clara and Joachim or other friends had seen drafts and approved of that he destroyed. So I'd assume that he destroyed at least a few works most of us would have liked to hear...


I heard the opinion by a professor that he was acting out for Clara. He did things to get her intense attention (thoughts and emotional). We'll never know.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Quora said:


> Giuseppe Verdi: he apparently used to write a fugue every morning (or every time he could) to master this form of art and then burn it.
> 
> Edgard Varese: all of his scores before going to the USA were burnt (though this is not exactly clear: some were burn in a house fire, the remaining he burnt himself; there's a big maybe on the subject)
> 
> ...





Library of Congress said:


> During the Nazi occupation of Poland, Hitler's forces razed the major concert halls and conservatories, burned most of the existing scores, and imprisoned or murdered numerous musicians.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bach's other passions and the Haydn singspiels, Tändlmarkt, Das Hahnenangeschrei - it's uncertain whether they're destroyed, or just lost and not found yet.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> nothing by him that I have heard has that particular "failing."


Howabout this- 




Anh.4/5


----------



## AaronSF (Sep 5, 2021)

"For all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, 'It might have been.'" That's John Greenleaf Whittier at his sappiest (and he was pretty sappy). I don't imagine for a second that composers who destroyed their working scores regretted their action, and even if they did at some point, it's up to them to decide what is worth publishing. It's a strange mind game to imagine that composers might have destroyed potential masterpieces. Who knows? And why speculate about it? What matters is what we have, not what "might have been."

I'm with Piaf on this, "Non. Rien de rien. Non, je ne regrette rien." I'm frankly grateful Brahms was so self critical and left us with so many works of pure genius...Triumphlied notwithstanding. And Dukas? Well, he left a few small jewels, none of which suggest to me he destroyed any masterpieces.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Brahms called his Second Symphony a "lovely monstrosity":


> It will at all events be a proper flop, and people will say that this time I took it easy.





> The new symphony is so melancholy that you won’t stand it. I have never written anything so sad, so minor-ish: the score must appear with a black border. I have given enough warning. Are you really still proposing to buy yourself such a thing? We can always alter the terms […]


Reference: Houston Symphony

He was known to be quite ironic when discussing his own works and so it is necessary to filter out his serious self-criticism from his ironic self-criticism.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

So even Brahms didn't like most of Brahms' music? Good taste, poor execution.

In addition to disowning it, if Wagner had recalled and burned all the scores to _Rienzi_, WWII might have been avoided.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

superhorn said:


> And the troubling question is, have some works of genuine merit been. subject to such a fate ? Works which could have and should have achieved a place in the repertoire ? I am convinced this is so .


You might be right in the case of Brahms, who's already been discussed extensively. Then there's Varese, also mentioned. I remember reading that one of his late works where saved from the bin by his assistant Chou Wen-chung.

Another one is Janacek's_ Piano Sonata_ which the composer thought he destroyed, but it was secretly saved by a student (two of the three movements remain). Then there's Shostakovich's fourth symphony, which was presumed lost but the composer was able to reconstruct it from a piano reduction (composed mid 1930's and premiere took place in the early 1960's).

Sometimes the cause is too much concern with quality control, or depression, and it can also be part of an attempt to wipe the slate clean. This is what Hovhaness did, who destroyed hundreds of his early works. His _Cello Concerto_ is one of the few which was spared. There's also Partch, none of whose compositions for conventional instruments remain, he destroyed them once he developed his microtonal system using unique instruments which he designed.

Its interesting how we can have a profusion of works by a famous composer, yet still want more. Any discovery would be noted, at least by some. I'm reading about Liszt, and during his time to many he was better known as a pianist than a composer. There where others who had more prominence then as composers (e.g. Thalberg, Czerny, Pixis, Herz), and even though their works would still be extant, their value is mainly of historical interest. Liszt didn't tend to destroy, but rework his old pieces into new ones, but if an unknown work where discovered, it would still generate at least some interest.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Couchie said:


> So even Brahms didn't like most of Brahms' music? Good taste, poor execution.


Yet Brahms revered Wagner’s music. I don’t have Swafford’s book in front of me (sadly) but Wikipedia has referenced the episode I was thinking of: (Wikipedia reference)


> Brahms, a collector of historic music scores and first editions, owned the Wagner's handwritten score of the "Venusberg" music from _Tannhäuser_ and the concert ending for the prelude of _Tristan and Isolde_, given to him by friend and pianist Karl Tausig in 1864 (Bozarth, _New Grove_ (2001), 4:188; Swafford, 269–70) When Wagner learned what Tausig had done, he was outraged. Brahms finally agreed to give back it back—in 1875—in exchange for a deluxe printed score of _Das Rheingold_ (Swafford, 400–401).


There’s a good article from 1936 if you have JSTOR: Wagner and Brahms, with Unpublished Letters on JSTOR noting “[t]hat the Wagnerian circle was actually not ill-disposed towards Brahms” either, despite the failed manifesto incident involving Brahms and Joachim, with this author saying it failed _so badly_ that it caused little more than amusement in the Wagnerian camp. The letters in that article are illuminating. The author concludes by saying that “at first, in the ’sixties, a cool but friendly interest existed between [Brahms and Wagner]. Circumstances, both external and personal, led in the course of the ’seventies to strained relations [...]”. I shall not quote any more, because the article is worth reading if you can access JSTOR and it is only twelve pages in length. I also remember Swafford claiming that Brahms had studied the _Waldweben_ music from _Siegfried_ in great detail. Brahms and Wagner sparred in different ways from one another, and Brahms’s only attempt at fighting through the press _à la_ Wagner ended in the manifesto disaster. 

And of course Brahms didn’t dislike his own music, but it seems that he gained amusement from disparaging it. That was another thing I got from Swafford’s biography, that Brahms had a sardonic sense of humor that very frequently burned him when those around him didn’t take it well.

No comment on _Rienzi_.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

I know that some French composers around the time of Dukas destroyed quite a bit of their music: Henri Duparc, Ernest Chausson, Maurice Emmanuel come to mind. It may have been because of perfectionism (self-criticism), or due to the devastating opinions of critics, teachers, or colleagues. I think it's a shame.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Roger Knox said:


> I know that some French composers around the time of Dukas destroyed quite a bit of their music: Henri Duparc, Ernest Chausson, Maurice Emmanuel come to mind. It may have been because of perfectionism (self-criticism), or due to the devastating opinions of critics, teachers, or colleagues. I think it's a shame.


I couldn't do it, but I assume that a perspicacious composer could bring a score mostly back from memory?


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Most of the music for *Gilbert & Sullivan's* first collaboration, the operetta *Thespis*, which premiered in December 1871(and ran until the following March), is assumed to have been lost in a warehouse fire.

The Gods on Mount Olympus are old and tired, so decide to take a vacation to earth while a group of traveling actors take their place. (Most of the music for this opera has been lost, so it is played today only in reconstructions using either other Sullivan music, or original music.) The music to three of the songs survive, one of them due to it being published, one that was reused in The Pirates of Penzance, adapted from memory by Sullivan himself, and a short five movement ballet.

It was advertised as *"An entirely original Grotesque Opera in Two Acts"*, and seems to have been more a burlesque (with _"brazen girls in tights and short skirts"_) than any sort of work meant to be taken seriously.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Sid James said:


> This is what Hovhaness did, who destroyed hundreds of his early works. His _Cello Concerto_ is one of the few which was spared.


Thank you for that. I knew one of my favorite composers had destroyed his early works; I just couldn't remember who.


Wikipedia said:


> During the 1930s and 1940s, Hovhaness famously destroyed many of his early works. He later claimed that he had burned at least 1,000 different pieces, a process that took at least two weeks;[8] elsewhere he claimed to have destroyed around 500 scores totaling as many as a thousand pages.[9] In an interview with Richard Howard, he stated that the decision was based primarily on Sessions' criticism of his works of that period, and that he wanted to make a new start in composition.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Luchesi said:


> I couldn't do it, but I assume that a perspicacious composer could bring a score mostly back from memory?


Possibly, but music had become more complex in the late 19th century and that would make it more difficult to reconstruct. Anyway, to me this whole phenomenon is weird. Earlier in the century there was Berlioz, who in his autobiography claimed he had "burned" a number of manuscripts that he had simply put aside.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think that an important aspect of this topic is that whereas in the past composers wrote a lot of music made to order for the courts and churches, after Beethoven many felt a pressure to compose music that was great. Whereas composers in the 18th century would dash off a symphony, people like Brahms and Bruckner felt they where in Beethoven's shadow, and they where forty before they published their first symphonies.

As the century went on, the next Beethoven basically became Wagner, so concerns with greatness and posterity didn't let up. This impacted on not only on what composers ended up publishing, but also the genres they chose to work in.

There where of course, quite a few composers who tried to disregard these sorts of pressures, and created music that might not have been recognised as great during the period but has been accepted as such since. I think this especially applies to a lot of the solo piano music of the time.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

But this does not apply to all kinds of music and not all composers. Brahms had no problem writing dozens of lieder and choral pieces and there are lots of 19th century composers who did not feel this pressure so keenly. E.g. Mendelssohn, Schumann, Tchaikowsky, Dvorak all wrote either at a good pace and/or quite a lot of music compared to e.g. Bruckner (although Mendelssohn and PIT were also rather severe about some of their own works but they didnt destroy them). And minor 19th century composers like Raff or Reinecke wrote even more music.


----------



## shaun fernandez (6 mo ago)

Sid James said:


> I think that an important aspect of this topic is that whereas in the past composers wrote a lot of snaptube vidmate  music made to order for the courts and churches, after Beethoven many felt a pressure to compose music that was great. Whereas composers in the 18th century would dash off a symphony, people like Brahms and Bruckner felt they where in Beethoven's shadow, and they where forty before they published their first symphonies.
> 
> As the century went on, the next Beethoven basically became Wagner, so concerns with greatness and posterity didn't let up. This impacted on not only on what composers ended up publishing, but also the genres they chose to work in.
> 
> There where of course, quite a few composers who tried to disregard these sorts of pressures, and created music that might not have been recognised as great during the period but has been accepted as such since. I think this especially applies to a lot of the solo piano music of the time.


good points to mention


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

About my first 15 years of total compositions ,especially being self taught ,in all one short Pavan survived


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Kreisler jr said:


> But this does not apply to all kinds of music and not all composers. Brahms had no problem writing dozens of lieder and choral pieces and there are lots of 19th century composers who did not feel this pressure so keenly. E.g. Mendelssohn, Schumann, Tchaikowsky, Dvorak all wrote either at a good pace and/or quite a lot of music compared to e.g. Bruckner (although Mendelssohn and PIT were also rather severe about some of their own works but they didnt destroy them). And minor 19th century composers like Raff or Reinecke wrote even more music.


Of course there where still composers who where prolific, and as I mentioned some didn't seem to care much about the pressure to produce profound works.

Many things changed in the 19th century. There where still appointments and commissions coming from the courts and churches, but it was increasingly common for composers to be freelance. Even those who had such appointments (e.g. Liszt at Wiemar) generally had more freedom compared to those in the previous century.

Methods of publication and dissemination of music changed. Philharmonic societies catered for a new audience, the bourgeoisie, and these also became important sources for commissions. Music criticism took on a pivotal role with the publication of music journals and before the century was over, musicology became a more rigorous discipline than it had been previously.

Composers where more cautious about what they published. They spent a lot of time revising. Liszt, for example, revised his piano concertos about half a dozen times over a period of twenty years before publishing them.

Incidentally, moving forward to today, I think one of the biggest challenges in preservation of music is the issue of changing digital formats. In the past, printed scores could be lost or destroyed, whereas today the threat of loss is more through how digital formats change so rapidly. Once a format is obsolete, it may be hard to retrieve data. A lot of music that doesn't reach publication or archiving, or even just doesn't exist in hard copy, can be lost in this way.


----------

