# What if...



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

What if I discovered a great work by Mozart and I said that it was composed by me? Would it have more relevance if I said that it was by Mozart?

Is the value of a masterpiece related just to the work itself or does the author's name make the difference?

P.S.

Correct me if the grammar is bad please.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

kikko said:


> What if I discovered a great work by Mozart and I said that it's composed by me?


Mozart would sue you.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

kikko said:


> What if I discovered a great work by Mozart and I said that it's composed by me? Would it have more relevance if I said that it's by Mozart?
> 
> Is the value of a masterpiece related just to the work itself or does the author's name make the difference?


I think people would quickly discover that you were trying to pass off a Mozart work as your own. You know that scholars have spent their entire lives learning to distinguish this or that composer's handiwork.

It would attract more interest if you said it was by Mozart, certainly. The work would be just as relevant, in my opinion, but people would be unlikely to pay much if any attention to what they thought was a clever pastiche in Mozart's style. Why? Because music students churn out dozens of the things all over the world, every single day. You can't say the same things Mozart was saying just by imitating his style; you would have had to approach the music with the same mindset, and if you did that, it wouldn't sound a single thing like Mozart!

If a playwright down the street from you wrote a new play in Shakespearean English, would you expect a Shakespeare fan (let's not assume a scholar here, just an enthusiast) to be interested just because the language used resembles the works they love? The motivations for riding on the coattails of another's artistic achievement seem dubious at best.



> P.S.
> 
> Correct me if the grammar is bad please.


"it's" isn't appropriate here because the context is past tense, so it has to be "it was". Other than that it's fine.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

kikko said:


> What if I discovered a great work by Mozart and I said that it's composed by me? Would it have more relevance if I said that it's by Mozart?
> 
> Is the value of a masterpiece related just to the work itself or does the author's name make the difference?
> 
> ...


It would be profitable for you to allow it as a work by Mozart. The auction value of the manuscript alone could be staggering. If you need an agent, I'm available -- for 10 ... no 20 percent.

You bring up an intriguing question that is constantly debated in art. Where does the "value" of a work derive from? Does the "author's name" make a difference? Certainly. Which, of course, proves little about the intrinsic (real) value of a work of art. For instance, a scribble with Picasso's signature is worth more than a scribble (or even a fine landscape painting) with SONNET CLV's name on the bottom. Why? That is the question.

We see this a lot in book publishing. Many an author who will go on to become a best seller has trouble selling his or her first novel, sometimes getting dozens of rejections before self publishing and selling it out of the trunk of their car. (As Vince Flynn did with his first novel. Flynn went on to write over a dozen thrillers before he died of cancer, way too early. Yet every book by Flynn rocketed to the top of the best seller list -- _after _he was established, on the power of his first novel, which he sold out of the trunk of his car and at the bar where he worked. That first novel eventually became a best seller, too.)

So ... if you have a Mozart manuscript, let's get it auctioned off to the highest bidder. Let it be published and performed. And you can take your 80% of the profit and go to music school, learn to write music, and go on to your own career as a composer. That way you'll have legitimacy as an artist ... and probably a couple bucks left over for a party or two. You can invite your agent to the party, too. No charge.

By the way, the grammar looks good. And you even spelled "grammar" correctly!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

SONNET CLV said:


> Which, of course, proves little about the intrinsic (real) value of a work of art. For instance, a scribble with Picasso's signature is worth more than a scribble (or even a fine landscape painting) with SONNET CLV's name on the bottom. Why?


Because the world of art, music and literature isn't entirely rational, that's why.


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> I think people would quickly discover that you were trying to pass off a Mozart work as your own. You know that scholars have spent their entire lives learning to distinguish this or that composer's handiwork.
> 
> It would attract more interest if you said it was by Mozart, certainly. The work would be just as relevant, in my opinion, but people would be unlikely to pay much if any attention to what they thought was a clever pastiche in Mozart's style. Why? Because music students churn out dozens of the things all over the world, every single day.  You can't say the same things Mozart was saying just by imitating his style; you would have had to approach the music with the same mindset, and if you did that, it wouldn't sound a single thing like Mozart!
> 
> ...


But here we are not talking about an imitation in Mozart style. We are talking about a original work by Mozart, that means that he created this work with his own mindset bringing something new on the table. Then, based on what you said, it shouldn't sound a single thing like Mozart.

How could scholars discover that it was composed by Mozart if they never heard something like that?

And again, would this work have some relevance if I said it was composed by me even now that we are abandoning tonal music?


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

For sure, if you are so fortunate to discover an unknown manuscript with an original piece by Mozart, the right way to proceed would be to publish it, and you will enjoy the reputation of being the discoverer.

Now, if you would pose as the author... nobody will pay much attention. Why?. Because to write in 2014 a piece using the 18th century 'mindset' is, in the best case scenario, a good writing exercise from a musical student. Maybe someone would even salute you as a new Pierre Menard, a 'real' Pierre Menard, let's say. But that's about it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

A newly found work possibly by Mozart could have historical importance, not to mention interest to Mozart's fan. By contrast there aren't as many fans of new music in the style of Mozart, and it would have little or no historical importance anyway. Exactly the same set of notes on a page would be received differently depending on whether they were (or are believed to have been) composed by Mozart or not because _art isn't an objective thing, nor is the market for music_.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

schigolch said:


> Now, if you would pose as the author... nobody will pay much attention. Why?. Because to write in 2014 a piece using the 18th century 'mindset' is, in the best case scenario, a good writing exercise from a musical student.


I think it is a shame when people prioritise innovation ahead of beauty. When I listen to Mozart's Clarinet Concerto, I listen to it on an abstract level; it is enough that I am moved by the beautiful melodies and harmonies. I don't see the need to impose some sort of historical narrative upon my listening; the fact that the piece was written in the 18th century doesn't bring any additional pleasure.

If Mozart's Clarinet Concerto had been written today, it would be no less beautiful. Trouble is that modern composers aren't writing pieces of that caliber anymore because they are generally being encouraged to pursue innovation for innovation's sake.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Why are they not writing pieces of that caliber?. For sure they are doing exactly that, in my view. 

A new found Mozart Clarinet Concerto, like any other work of art, have two components in it: in a sense, it's outside the 'historical narrative' to be appreciated by anyone interested. In another, it's a product of the 18th century, and not of the 21st. The Clarinet Concerto can be lost and found, but it can't be written as a new piece today, except as an academic exercise or a travesty. 

And this have nothing to do with innovation, and much less with that problematic concept 'beauty'. It's simply the way things are, and why Mozart didn't write music like Bach, Wagner didn't write music like Mozart, Berg didn't write music like Wagner and Rihm is not writing music like Berg.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> I think people would quickly discover that you were trying to pass off a Mozart work as your own. You know that scholars have spent their entire lives learning to distinguish this or that composer's handiwork.


I'm not so sure about it. I remember Glenn Gould mentioning something about a fake composition that was considered a great work and then forgotten after it was discovered that it was a fake. I can't remember what the work was but it should be added that in the world of art there are many cases of fake works (even of dubious quality) considered masterpieces by the great authorities. Abraham Bredius considered a painting of Meegeren like the greatest painting made by Vermeer. In italy many of the most important critics (like Giulio Carlo Argan) thought that three sculptures found in a river where without any doubt made by Modigliani and were masterpieces too. And actually it was a joke made by three students who forged those sculptures in few hours.


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

Read this http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/fritz_kreislers_lost_classics


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

kikko said:


> But here we are not talking about an imitation in Mozart style. We are talking about a original work by Mozart, that means that he created this work with his own mindset bringing something new on the table. Then, based on what you said, it shouldn't sound a single thing like Mozart.
> 
> How could scholars discover that it was composed by Mozart if they never heard something like that?


But then it couldn't have been by Mozart. You can bring something new to the table, but you can't stop being yourself. Trust me on this.

Anyway, the reason scholars wouldn't be interested in your hypothetical work is because you've told them it was a work of your own in the style of Mozart; there are so many of these things that there's no point in being interested in any of them, and all of them are pale imitations of the real thing.



> And again, would this work have some relevance if I said it was composed by me even now that we are abandoning tonal music?


First, tonal music has not been abandoned, so this is predicated on a false premise. Second, the reason that it would be irrelevant is not because of the style, but because you are disingenuously affecting a dead style in order to imitate the accomplishments of one who took on that style because it was new and vital. That is insulting to Mozart.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> Trouble is that modern composers aren't writing pieces of that caliber anymore because they are generally being encouraged to pursue innovation for innovation's sake.


WHO? WHERE? Stop making such strong assertions without backing them up! I don't care how strongly you believe this, but you have to show evidence.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> WHO? WHERE? Stop making such strong assertions without backing them up! I don't care how strongly you believe this, but you have to show evidence.


One's entitled to one's own opinion. One's not entitled to one's own facts.

-- At least that's _my_ doctrinaire way of looking at assertions.


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

For what it's worth, my analogy would be that Tracy Emin's scruffy old bed is art; mine is just a scruffy old bed. Sometimes the name is everything.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I think the key difference with Tracy Emin is not so much the name but that it was purposely created as an artistic work, your own unmade bed was not.

As far as finding a new Mozart work and passing it off as your own goes, no one would care about it because you're trying to present 18th century music as a new thing in the 21st century, whether people find you out or not no one's going to buy it as interesting work from a contemporary composer.


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> But then it couldn't have been by Mozart. You can bring something new to the table, but you can't stop being yourself. Trust me on this.
> 
> Anyway, the reason scholars wouldn't be interested in your hypothetical work is because you've told them it was a work of your own in the style of Mozart; there are so many of these things that there's no point in being interested in any of them, and all of them are pale imitations of the real thing.
> 
> First, tonal music has not been abandoned, so this is predicated on a false premise. Second, the reason that it would be irrelevant is not because of the style, but because you are disingenuously affecting a dead style in order to imitate the accomplishments of one who took on that style because it was new and vital. That is insulting to Mozart.


Last question: what if I said that I only found it and that is 100% composed by Mozart? Wouldn't every theater of the world start to perform it?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Crudblud said:


> whether people find you out or not no one's going to buy it as interesting work from a contemporary composer.


No if it's another cheesy little menuet by 10-years old Mozart. But let's assume Don Giovanni was lost and happens to be this hypothetically rediscovered work. Nobody would find it interesting today?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

kikko said:


> Last question: what if I said that I only found it and that is 100% composed by Mozart? Wouldn't every theater of the world start to perform it?


Probably. But you see, then it wouldn't sound like pastiche. It would speak with the true authority of the classical era, by one who was writing within that milieu. I know what you're trying to get at, but the idea of someone today even being able to write a masterpiece that is exactly like Mozart's music without being written by Mozart doesn't seem plausible for me to begin with.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Aramis said:


> No if it's another cheesy little menuet by 10-years old Mozart. But let's assume Don Giovanni was lost and happens to be this hypothetically rediscovered work. Nobody would find it interesting today?


If it's presented as Mozart, sure. If it's presented as new piece by a contemporary composer I imagine it would be respected as an imitation of Mozart and little else.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

^^ Elaborating slightly on what Mahlerian writes, Your first hurdle will lye in presenting an authentic hand written manuscript that not only will pass the hawk-eyed of the knowledged Mozart Experts who will compare it to other original Mozart manuscripts and hand writing, it will also have to pass modern forensic science that eminently will discover the age of the paper and the ink and the age of the writing on the paper (So even if You have authentic paper and ink and quill and now how to falsify Mozart's hand writing there are methods to tell the time line of when the ink was put to the paper!).

Then we come to the music, anyone who are knowledged in the mozartian style can easily write something that will convince the novice, but hardly the expert... I would urge You to try!

/ptr


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Crudblud said:


> If it's presented as Mozart, sure. If it's presented as new piece by a contemporary composer I imagine it would be respected as an imitation of Mozart and little else.


The point is, it's possibly wouldn't seem as imitation of Mozart to many people. It's not really a "sounds like" kind of work, DG sounds like DG more than it sounds like Mozart, because Mozart did some things there that he didn't do in any other work, perhaps in Cosi fan Tutte to some extent. So for most people (excluding musicologists who spent half of their long lives studying Mozart) attending rediscovered DG in XXIst performed as work of contemporary composer, it certainly springs from classical style, it certainly points out to qualities associated with Mozart, but they hardly get any feelings close to "we heard this before" or "oh, yeah, this kind of stuff...", because it's both old and new at the same time. I can't see why work like this would pass for uninteresting today. It's just a matter of it not being a generic piece written for recreation between important works that have something individual about them, despite still being written in old, recognizeable stylistic frame.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Art is not all about aesthetics and it never was, despite of what naive formalists say.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I think there are 2 separate ideas being discussed here. 

The first involves a new Mozart work being discovered. The experts would validate everything about the manuscript along with the music clearly written as Mozart had done. The music community would hail the new work, and it would be played often at first. If the work were deemed to be one of Mozart's better works, it would continue to be played regularly and recorded as much as the other great works. If someone tried to pass it off as their own, I suspect that the musical world would not be much interested other than to notice the fine craftmanship and wonder why someone would attempt such a work.

A slightly different, and more interesting, situation would exist if it turned out that one of Mozart's masterpieces were found to have been written by a later (or even modern) composer. Several people have suggested that this would be essentially impossible. Let's forget for the moment the problem with the historical discovery of the original manuscripts. Also we're not talking about a student or good composer writing a pastiche. It tuns out the work was written by the greatest composer ever to live. This composer also found a way to transport her mental state to that of Mozart's time so she could write what Mozart might have written. This is a thought experiment so we can imagine whatever we wish (at least most of us can). Obviously people would wonder why she would compose a work for a much earlier time period, and presumably they would bemoan such a great compositional mind writing for the past. I doubt the work would be hailed as a great work, but I don't know. 

To me the more interesting question is how individuals would react. If you love Mozart's Symphony No. 41 and find it an amazing work, how would you react to finding out it was written not by Mozart but by a recent composer? More importantly, would you still love hearing the work and continue to listen as often as before?


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> Which, of course, proves little about the intrinsic (real) value of a work of art. For instance, a scribble with Picasso's signature is worth more than a scribble (or even a fine landscape painting) with SONNET CLV's name on the bottom. Why?





brianvds said:


> Because the world of art, music and literature isn't entirely rational, that's why.


Of course, it might be interesting to debate the merits of a purely _rational_ art world. Can art even exist in such an environ? Isn't art by its very nature an outpouring of the _irrational_ aspect of humanness?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

In my lifetime there have been several discoveries and validations of new works by Vivaldi, Bach, even Beethoven (that I remember). There have been notes in learned journals and a press article or two, but not much excitement -- the music simply didn't seem very significant. I suppose a new minuet by a ten-year old Mozart might well get a similar reception.

The only discovery I can remember that has made a real difference was Haydn's Cello Concerto #1, which was recognized from the beginning as a mainline repertoire work.

Perhaps visual art is different, because we're talking about physical artifacts with collectors, speculators, market values, etc. What's the market value of Beethoven's 7th Symphony?


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Well, they actually did discover a new work of Mozart in 2008. Here's a link:

http://www.today.com/id/26772717/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/new-mozart-piece-found-french-library/#.U8gqOCh-QUU

In 2012, they discovered a new manuscript of Vivaldi's opera _Orlando Furioso_. The known one dates from 1727, but the new discovered one is different and dates from 1714:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jul/15/orlando-furioso-vivaldi-1714-version

Some newly discovered works by Vivaldi have been recently recorded in the Vivaldi Edition by Naive:

















These are part of a vast project undertaken by Naive thanks to the proposal of an Italian musicologist, Alberto Basso, to record the complete Vivaldi after the sensational discovery of Vivaldi's _autograph_ manuscripts -- now housed in the Biblioteca Nazionale in Turin. These come from Vivaldi's private library of scores that he kept in his home in Vienna up to the time of his death in 1741. Many of these works have not been heard since the 18th century.

As for new compositions in an old style, here is a fascinating work by the contemporary American composer Charles Wuorinen who took a batch of anonymous Renaissance dance songs from the 15th-century _Glogauer Liederbuch_ and orchestrated them using contemporary instruments and performance techniques. One of the most creative joinings of old and new that I know. Here's the YouTube:


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

SONNET CLV said:


> Of course, it might be interesting to debate the merits of a purely _rational_ art world. Can art even exist in such an environ? Isn't art by its very nature an outpouring of the _irrational_ aspect of humanness?


Possibly. My own enjoyment of art and music certainly isn't entirely rational. But here, as with much else, it is perhaps a question of balance - there are degrees of irrationality, and the whole thing can go too far.

The kind of prices paid today for some art work reminds me of the Dutch tulip mania of the 18th century. It is not to say that tulips aren't genuinely beautiful, but is any tulip bulb really worth a fortune, if you strip away the marketing and the hype?

Similarly, perhaps we should be careful about elevating some composers to demigod status while largely ignoring others. The premise of this thread is an interesting one, because it modifies the way the argument is usually put. Instead of a modern composer trying to pull off a fake Mozart, we now have a real Mozart piece, but claimed to be a modern one. And what all our esteemed music experts here tell us is that they cannot decide whether a piece is genuinely a masterpiece without knowing who wrote it. Well, that's just nuts, if you ask me.


----------

