# Late works vs all the rest ;)



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

I realized that I simply love to listen to late works of composers and for me they are more profound and are highlights of their musical styles: it's true for a majority of composers. Schubert's late sonatas,messe in Es-Dur, Haydn London symphonies, R. Strauss 4 last songs, Brahms chamber music, my favorite Puccini's opera Turandot and much more

May be it's due to transformations/modifications in musical language of composers? 

Is it the same for you?


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

It's a rare composer whose late period isn't a more boring version of his middle period.

That said, Brahms' _Rosenkavalier_ concerto is maybe my favorite work by him. Do I contradict myself? etc.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Epilogue said:


> It's a rare composer whose late period isn't a more boring version of his middle period.
> 
> That said, Brahms' _Rosenkavalier_ concerto is maybe my favorite work by him. Do I contradict myself? etc.


If serious, wrong. If a joke, rather flat.

I agree heartily with the OP. Many composers have moved into new stylistic territory in their late works, which are not "versions" of their middle period works in any sense. Besides the works mentioned, I'll add the dense polyphonic meditations of Bach's _Art of Fugue_ and _Musical Offering_, the deepening pathos and adventurous harmony of Mozart's late chamber music, the innovative forms and transcendental expression of Beethoven's late piano sonatas, cello sonatas, quartets, and 9th symphony, the rarefied sounds and atmospheres of Wagner's _Parsifal_, the subtilization and enrichment of Verdi's style in _Otello_ and _Falstaff_, the etched refinement of Debussy's late works, and the terseness and harmonic and orchestral complexity of Rachmaninoff's third symphony and _Symphonic Dances_. Others will no doubt cite other examples.

Not all these stylistic developments are related to old age (Mozart and Schubert being the obvious outliers), but they do generally suggest to me a deeper perspective on life, presumably in the light of a growing sense of mortality. Those of us of a certain age, or having had certain experiences in life, will understand this. There are common, hard-to-define, yet surprisingly recognizable qualities which unite much of the music written by aging composers across the centuries. Perhaps the best words for these qualities are "spiritual" and "transcendental."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Seems to me that some composers get better as they age (Janacek being a real outlier in this regard) while others run out of steam and even become silent (Rossini, Sibelius). No rules in this game.


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

All jokes are serious.

When you have to say a joke is bad, it usually means it's good and you don't like it. It almost always means that when you have to affect disinterestedness ("rather").

By the way, it is sentimentality to identify "late" tendencies in what happened to be Mozart's last works.

And it is a consoling lie to say that getting older makes you deeper.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I'd rather rest than work late.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Epilogue said:


> All jokes are serious.
> 
> When you have to say a joke is bad, it usually means it's good and you don't like it. This goes double when you have to affect disinterestedness ("rather").
> 
> ...


It wasn't necessary to affect disinterestedness in something uninteresting. But if you insist, I'll be less tactful and withdraw the "rather."

The OP broached an actual subject for discussion. Just ten minutes later, you were the first to respond. Perhaps now, having made your flat joke, you'd like to offer member helenora a serious opinion?

No one claims that getting older necessarily makes one deeper. And, "by the way," Mozart's last works are in fact late in relation to his earlier works. They show tendencies which distinguish them, tendencies I can readily associate with maturity, which need not be identified entirely with old age. If you can't recognize that, that is all very well for you, but I wouldn't go around calling people who do recognize it sentimental.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Schumann's early piano works and song cycles are quite a bit better than the symphonies and chamber works that came later...


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> It wasn't necessary to affect disinterestedness in something uninteresting.


And yet, _for some reason_, you did!



Woodduck said:


> The OP broached an actual subject for discussion. Just ten minutes later, you were the first to respond. Perhaps now, having made your flat joke, you'd like to offer member helenora a serious opinion?


I was serious.



Woodduck said:


> No one claims that getting older necessarily makes one deeper.


You did.



Woodduck said:


> And, "by the way," Mozart's last works are in fact late in relation to his earlier works.


Mooooooo.


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Schumann's early piano works and song cycles are quite a bit better than the symphonies and chamber works that came later...


True, if only because the early piano works and songs are just that good, but the symphonies and piano quintet are still pretty great.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Epilogue said:


> And yet, _for some reason_, you did!
> 
> I was serious.
> 
> ...


Your remarks that _"It's a rare composer whose late period isn't a more boring version of his middle period"_ and _"Brahms' Rosenkavalier concerto is maybe my favorite work by him"_ are unserious and unamusing as responses to this thread topic.

Why compound such nonsense with further nonsense? And what the hell is "mooooooo"? What are you trying to accomplish? And what are you trying to accomplish by misrepresenting what I said? My statement about composers' late works was "Not all these stylistic developments are related to old age, but they do generally suggest to me a deeper perspective on life." I did not say that age _necessarily_ brings depth.

I do not appreciate pointless games and smirking sarcasm. I dare say no one does. You really need to reassess your approach here.


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> You really need to reassess your approach here.


Yeah, I'm gonna go with, _no_.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Not all these stylistic developments are related to old age (Mozart and Schubert being the obvious outliers), but they do generally suggest to me a deeper perspective on life, presumably in the light of a growing sense of mortality. Those of us of a certain age, or having had certain experiences in life, will understand this. There are common, hard-to-define, yet surprisingly recognizable qualities which unite much of the music written by aging composers across the centuries. Perhaps the best words for these qualities are "spiritual" and "transcendental."


yes, me too I was thinking about Verdi's Falstaff, Beethoven's late quartets, even above mentioned Rossini's with his Stabat Mater - composed not when he was old, but different from what he composed before, difference is less obvious of what we find in late Beethoven's or Schubert's works but still we can hear it. It's quite curious that not even musical language changes and therefore we see stylistic developments, but even ideas of these late works change, philosophical tendency change its direction or rather its very philosophy becomes present in late works or at least more "visible". For sure what you have written defining these qualities as "spiritual"/"transcendental" are just exact words which we can use even though it's not easy to define these qualities which we find in late works by using words. When we speak about Mozart and Schubert /young people / we face a phenomenon of "having had a life of immense intensity " lived in a half or even third of the time of what is supposed to be a normal life span so that late works of these composers could equal to those of other composers written when they are in their 70th or so.....
it's what you call as 'maturity' or wisdom which we associate with them and which distinguish these works from the rest composer's heritage.

This interesting phenomenon can be found among works of another arts ... like literature where last works are OUTstanding and even show new facet of an author's talent which might bring about a new theme in writer's works or sometimes demonstrate us writer's new views of which neither reader nor an author was aware of before . Or...late works emphasize one specific theme that we already knew/read about but it was somewhat on a background and now it becomes significant and shows itself as an only true theme with which author identifies himself.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2015)

Certainly the extent to which art is a talent, that talent can become better as one practices it more. So it's not so much age as it is just having done it longer.

But it's equally true that one can become more and more conventional, too. Assured mastery can turn into either assured masterpieces or banal pastiche--pastiche of one's own, earlier, self.

One can get better or get worse at any stage and for any reason.

I'd go on with this, but I noticed that all of this is just a gloss on what Ken said more succinctly. Let's just go with what Ken said.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

some guy said:


> Certainly the extent to which art is a talent, that talent can become better as one practices it more. So it's not so much age as it is just having done it longer.
> 
> But it's equally true that one can become more and more conventional, too. Assured mastery can turn into either assured masterpieces or banal pastiche--pastiche of one's own, earlier, self.
> 
> ...


Do you think some composers are more talented than others at composing? And that some of their music is better than others?

.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Schumann's early piano works and song cycles are quite a bit better than the symphonies and chamber works that came later...


...Perhaps for obvious reasons...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

There are some composers who definitely hit some sort of "late period" that outshines all the rest of their work by far, Mozart and Schubert come to mind immediately. There are some composers who hit their late period with a certain sense of maturity and perhaps, profundity, but the austerity of the music makes their earlier periods more popular still...Beethoven and Sibelius. Some composers are always awesome and while their late works bring a different style, their output is even enough that one can't say that it's better than earlier periods...Bach, Schoenberg, Stravinsky. Some composers don't actually change their style too much in their late period, they merely refine it...Haydn, Debussy, Chopin. Some composers are always all over the map in terms of quality...Liszt. 

Are there any composers that actually got significantly worse with age? For me, Penderecki is a candidate...but I can't think of too many others. Some composers write their most popular work very early on, Stravinsky and Berlioz for example...but their mature work is far from being worse than their early work...merely less accessible by many.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2015)

Got to mention Elliott Carter, who was still motoring past his century.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

It's true that by the end of one's life composer's/artist's works can go either way - better or worse.....but....here I'd rather focus on far beyond average cases and not consider a development in composition as simple mastery of techniques where a rule of " the more you work the better you become" applies. Sure this rule works, but let's think in a different way as not just a development and therefore improvement in all levels in composers work but as an opening of a "new door" such as a new reality or after following one path unexpectedly changing it for a new one, not similar to the previous one - this is what I see in some some composer's late works. Sure their techniques are improved, their composition and forms are impeccable etc, but then this new epoch in their style is quite different . It equals to a transition from typewriting machine to a computer which can not be done by improvement only and it's an entrance into a completely new era - so that the late works of some artists - it's an irreversible change , not a step towards a perfection, but a leap to a new level of ideas.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

The older I get, the more I appreciate the insights of age. I think many composers distilled their wisdom into old age though there is no inevitability about this. I like Helenora's example of Verdi. He was a genius all through his life, and the works of his middle period are stunning: think Traviata, Rigoletto, Masked Ball, Il Trovatore, Boccanegra etc, even Aida (getting later). But Otello, Falstaff and the Requiem have taken a distinctly different turn, and I do not think it is too much to call this a rarified distillation.


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

dogen said:


> Got to mention Elliott Carter, who was still motoring past his century.


Yeah, but the last 60 years were all downhill.



Steatopygous said:


> The older I get, the more I appreciate the insights of age.


The older I get, the more I appreciate the insights of youth.


----------



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

violadude said:


> Are there any composers that actually got significantly worse with age? For me, Penderecki is a candidate...but I can't think of too many others. Some composers write their most popular work very early on, Stravinsky and Berlioz for example...but their mature work is far from being worse than their early work...merely less accessible by many.


I can certainly meet you halfway with Penderecki - I had no problem with him adopting a less radical style and I like numerous works of his that resulted from it but there is something of the conveyor belt about his work now, especially the vocal/choral output from the last 20 years, most of which I found dreary.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Dufay composed his best isorhythmic motets early in his life, when he was eager to impress. On the other hand, he composed his best piece ("L'homme arme" mass credo) late in his life, when he was also eager to impress and to compete with other masses on the same tune.

Obrecht is more like a typical case of interesting early works, excellent middle-period, and supreme late works (Missa Fortuna desperata, Missa Rose playsante, Missa Maria zart).

Interestingly, Victoria revised some of his masses later in life, removing cliches and changing trite passages. Otherwise pretty consistent from what I can tell.

William Schuman got darker as he aged. His most popular stuff is his earlier works, but I prefer his later style. His last symphony - the tenth - is my favorite.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2015)

violadude said:


> Are there any composers that actually got significantly worse with age? For me, Penderecki is a candidate...but I can't think of too many others. Some composers write their most popular work very early on, Stravinsky and Berlioz for example...but their mature work is far from being worse than their early work...merely less accessible by many.


The transition to a more conservative style seems rather common. Penderecki got way more conservative. Schnittke got more conservative. Rihm got a bit more conservative. I hesitate to call any of this "significantly worse", in spite of preferring the early periods.

Oh yeah. Philip Glass is a strong possibility.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

nathanb said:


> The transition to a more conservative style seems rather common. Penderecki got way more conservative. Schnittke got more conservative. Rihm got a bit more conservative. I hesitate to call any of this "significantly worse", in spite of preferring the early periods.
> 
> Oh yeah. Philip Glass is a strong possibility.


Philip Glass you say?

Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass . . . Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass . . .


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2015)

Morimur said:


> Philip Glass you say?
> 
> Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass . . . Philip Glass Philip Glass Philip Glass . . .


And Steve Reich???


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

Steve Reich, you say?

Steve Reich hStev eReic chSte veRei ichSt eveRe eichS teveR Reich Steve eReic hStev veRei chSte eveRe ichSt...

Seriously, Steve Reich remains better respected because he writes less and doesn't do film scores, but he also fell off in a big way. (Time wounds most heels.)

(Note that Boulez, 10 years older than Groovy Steve and infamous for his supposed lethargy, came up with _Sur Incises_ 8 years _after_ the last Reich piece that anybody even pretends to care about.)


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

violadude said:


> ...Perhaps for obvious reasons...


This is funny, but contributes to a serious prevalent misunderstanding of Schumann's work.

His turn toward conservatism (in some ways) happened in 1841 - the year of the _Spring_ symphony and the first version of the "4th" symphony in D minor - three years before his first nervous breakdown in 1844. And he temporarily recovered from that (before again becoming debilitatingly ill in early 1854) sufficiently to write the _Rhenish_ symphony (among other important works, of course), which is if anything a _greater_ work - and for that matter a more technically solid work - than his pre-breakdown essays in the form.


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

Composers who really did write their very greatest works after the age of 50:

Handel (_Messiah_; _Saul_, maybe)
Haydn (the only plausible candidates he wrote _before_ 50 are the Op. 33 quartets and a few of the Paris symphonies)
Beethoven (symphony 9 - though of course to some extent he spent his entire life writing that work)
Brahms (symphony 4)

After the age of 60:

Haydn again, maybe?

After the age of 70:

I got nothing. Monteverdi and Verdi, maybe, but then again maybe not.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

After 60 - Franck

Les Djinns
Symphonic Variations for piano and orchestra
Symphony in D minor
Violin Sonata in A


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

Good call! But then, it's Franck, so who cares?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

elgars ghost said:


> I can certainly meet you halfway with Penderecki - I had no problem with him adopting a less radical style and I like numerous works of his that resulted from it but there is something of the conveyor belt about his work now, especially the vocal/choral output from the last 20 years, most of which I found dreary.


I am very fond of Penderecki´s late works and also his vocal/choral music. They have a certain what might be called bombast that put me in a good mood.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Epilogue said:


> Good call! But then, it's Franck, so who cares?


People who care about music?

Also:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=try-hard&defid=1391998


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2015)

Sloe said:


> I am very fond of Penderecki´s late works and also his vocal/choral music. They have a certain what might be called bombast that put me in a good mood.


I am not among the folks here who would claim a general dislike of his late works either, but do you find them consistent? I like his late style in general, but I find some of the movements/works rather uninspired... Something I can't say of his early period. His late period, for instance, may have produced the 7th symphony, but I'm not particularly convinced that every symphony between 1 and 7 should have seen the light of day...


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2015)

For those of us who do, add _Psyché_ to mms's list.

No one's topped Ken's "no rules," I see. In fact, this seems to be yet another situation in which the very problematic "greatness" thing gets treated as if there were no problem with it at all.

And so many different things are getting dumped into large bins and treated as if they're the same.

Just take two late pieces by Franck, _Psyché_ and the symphony. Two very different pieces. Written coterminously, but with very little in common except one or two characteristic Franck-isms.

We have at least established that "late" can mean different things depending. Late for Mozart is juvenilia for Carter, as it were. And different people got going at different times in their lives. Ken mentioned Janáček, who is well-known for getting a late start. But I don't think that Janáček is quite as extreme as it's popular to make him out to have been. He was primarily an opera composer, and his first mature opera was finished right before he was fifty. And those last few years that saw a tremendous explosion of cool stuff also saw a bunch of fairly lame stuff, too.

Nothing in real life is quite as simple as we seem determined to make it out to be--that's my theory.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

nathanb said:


> I am not among the folks here who would claim a general dislike of his late works either, but do you find them consistent? I like his late style in general, but I find some of the movements/works rather uninspired... Something I can't say of his early period. His late period, for instance, may have produced the 7th symphony, but I'm not particularly convinced that every symphony between 1 and 7 should have seen the light of day...


It sounds good consistent or not that some of his music is better than other is like with all other music. The same can be said about Mozart or Beethoven or any other composer.
To say some of his music should not have seen the light of day is a bit cruel to say I think even the music I don´t personally like have the right to exist.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

some guy said:


> For those of us who do, add _Psyché_ to mms's list.
> 
> No one's topped Ken's "no rules," I see. In fact, this seems to be yet another situation in which the very problematic "greatness" thing gets treated as if there were no problem with it at all.
> 
> And so many different things are getting dumped into large bins and treated as if they're the same.


I see what you mean and that 'greatness' is all about uniqueness which can't be categorized and generalized at all. I agree. Then all generalizations, conclusions which we usually make are just useless...and there is truth in that, but human's mind got used to work like that trying to define, to put into baskets, labeling in short. In art , yes, things are unique - in true art- therefore the rule is 'no rules'. As a proof of this rule we can see these 'great' works of various composers, each of these works 'applies' exactly above mentioned rule of overcoming rules and becoming unique.


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

@Chordalrock Where'd you get the idea that I wouldn't rather die than be cool?

That said, you know what's super uncool (and not in the sense of mean, just in the sense of lame)? Posting links to Urban Dictionary.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

elgars ghost said:


> I can certainly meet you halfway with Penderecki - I had no problem with him adopting a less radical style and I like numerous works of his that resulted from it but there is something of the conveyor belt about his work now, especially the vocal/choral output from the last 20 years, most of which I found dreary.


To be honest, I'm no expert on Penderecki or his late work.From his non-Avant-Garde phase, I have his 2nd, 4th and 5th symphonies, his 1st and 2nd violin concertos, 2nd violin sonata, the Sextet. When I was listening to these pieces back to back I started noticing too many familiar "fallback" melodies and figures. It started sounding trite and cliche to me and it turned me off from his later music.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

To me, it is always interesting to see how composers progressed over time (cleaning/clearing up their languages along the way, well, at least sometimes). Many composers who sought clarity and forwardness trends tend to write music that may not be so interesting as the earlier pieces. I'm thinking of Glazunov, Nielsen, Sibelius (whose earlier works I tend to prefer over his later ones), Rachmaninoff. Yet there were those who got more complex as their music and worldview changed with the times, like, say, Wagner, Mahler, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Melartin, Shostakovich, Shebalin, Suk, Ives. And there were those who simplified the language, yet managed to write music quite as engaging, perhaps more, like Myaskovsky, Atterberg, Bax, Lyatoshynsky. And there were those who wrote meaningful works, but who looked backwards at least from time to time, like Bortkiewicz. It's all relative, but intriguing when taking everything into account (internal as well as external forces that shaped these artists and their oeuvres).


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

I'd say it isn't always true, one example the OP listed, Richard Strauss.. As much as I enjoy the final songs I feel like the greatest works he ever created were before Der Rosenkavalier although I do confess a weak spot for his Metamorphosen. 

On the other hand Beethoven is a strong argument for the old age being better idea, those last 4 piano sonatas, and the last 5 string quartets and how about that Missa Solemnis?


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

After the 9th symphony, I'd say the Diabelli variations are late Beet's strongest claim to primacy over middle Beet.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Epilogue said:


> @Chordalrock Where'd you get the idea that I wouldn't rather die than be cool?
> 
> That said, you know what's super uncool (and not in the sense of mean, just in the sense of lame)? Posting links to Urban Dictionary.


I've got to say Epilogue but I found Chordalrock's post to be quite apt and rather on the nose for a person such as yourself. You strike me as the type who is trying to breed discontentment.

I'm also fairly certain that "cool / uncool" are designations for less confident people to throw around. For the most part I think people who listen and are here to post primarily about classical music, being cool doesn't even enter in to it and if it does I think many would tell you, most people find them uncool in the first place for enjoying classical.. in which case we deal with uncool all the time.

Anyway not trying to throw gas on the fire here pal but chill out seriously.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> I'd say it isn't always true, one example the OP listed, Richard Strauss.. As much as I enjoy the final songs I feel like the greatest works he ever created were before Der Rosenkavalier although I do confess a weak spot for his Metamorphosen.


I agree but Daphne is also very fine.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Why should this be seen as a debate over whether composers' late works are "better" than their earlier ones? The OP suggested that they might be in some sense more "profound," which is a measure of quality in art but not the only one. Sibelius advised young composers not to discard their youthful sketches, saying that they might never again have such fine ideas and that these could be a resource for them later in life when the fires of inspiration might burn less brightly and ideas come less easily.

In Sibelius's own work, the sheer exuberance of his inspiration in the early _Kullervo_ is thrilling in quite a different way from, e.g., the mature _Seventh__ Symphony_ or _Tapiola_; _Kullervo_ virtually explodes with inspired melodies potent enough to transcend a tendency toward sprawl (the latter being no doubt the reason for Sibelius suppressing the work's performance), while the late works achieve powerfully concentrated and subtler statements with relatively sparse materials handled with mature formal mastery. I love all of these pieces, each for its own virtues, and would not want to say which is "better" music in some global sense. But the sense of accumulated life experience I feel in the composer's later works makes them ultimately more satisfying to me.

I have the same feeling about Richard Strauss's _Four Last Songs_ in comparison to his early _Salome_ and _Elektra_, which are brilliant and exciting but speak much less profoundly to me.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I'd say Schubert and Mozart were both just getting into their middle periods. I wish they'd lived to have actual late periods.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> I'd say Schubert and Mozart were both just getting into their middle periods. I wish they'd lived to have actual late periods.


I agree.
It is meaningless to talk about a late period for Schubert and Mozart. The same with Bellini and many other composers who died too early.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Oh, I don't know--I think you can have a late period in your 30s if you know the end is near. Shostakovich, for example, had about 17 late periods--the first one dating, I believe, from his teenage years.

As an aside for anyone interested, Edward Said wrote a pretty entertaining book called "On Late Style: Music and Literature against the Grain."

http://www.amazon.com/On-Late-Style-Literature-Against/dp/0375726330


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

Fugue Meister said:


> You strike me as the type who is trying to breed discontentment.


Maybe you're just discontented.



Fugue Meister said:


> I'm also fairly certain that "cool / uncool" are designations for less confident people to throw around. For the most part I think people who listen and are here to post primarily about classical music, being cool doesn't even enter in to it


Well, evidently it entered into it for Chordalrock, because he linked to a page about it.



Fugue Meister said:


> Anyway not trying to throw gas on the fire here pal but chill out seriously.


You're right, I should chill out and stop dedicating entire posts exclusively to attacking another poster who hasn't even said anything to me - oh wait, that's you who's doing that.


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

Blancrocher said:


> Oh, I don't know--I think you can have a late period in your 30s if you know the end is near.


Agreed - which maybe covers Schubert and Chopin, but not Mozart, Bellini, or Mendelssohn.



Blancrocher said:


> Shostakovich, for example, had about 17 late periods--the first one dating, I believe, from his teenage years.


Ha! Excellent.


----------



## Le Peel (May 15, 2015)

Well, I like Beethoven's early and middle periods just as much as his late. I'd take early+middle over late in a "late vs. all."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm not so concerned about whether a work is or was in its time innovative in any way, so perhaps it's no surprise that I tend to like late periods better than early periods too.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

some guy said:


> Nothing in real life is quite as simple as we seem determined to make it out to be--that's my theory.


It's a good theory.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Epilogue said:


> It's a rare composer whose late period isn't a more boring version of his middle period.


So, did you ever support this broad assertion by listing the many composers whose late periods are just more boring versions of their middle periods? Or have you reconsidered this?


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Epilogue said:


> Maybe you're just discontented.
> 
> Well, evidently it entered into it for Chordalrock, because he linked to a page about it.
> 
> You're right, I should chill out and stop dedicating entire posts exclusively to attacking another poster who hasn't even said anything to me - oh wait, that's you who's doing that.


There is no attacking I simply said "you strike me as the type" and "trying to breed discontentment" well that's only how it seems but when you post back so defensively you lend credence to my assumption, not to mention the pointedly piercing remarks you post inviting arguments (the one about Franck comes to mind but I've no doubt there are others). You see, I'm what you call kind of a "moral traffic light", really. I'm like sayin', "Red! Go no further! Boooo-ee boooo-ee boooo-ee... Just trying to help you out boss, just don't rock the boat so much, don't rock the boat.

Also who cares that we've never exchanged words before thats sort of the point here people posting ideas and opinions and responding to what they see others post I'm sure you have done the very same thing in some other thread, again that's part of how this works.

Let me ask you this, why do you say the Diabelli Variations are the best of Beethoven's late period, and why the 9th over the Missa Solemnis? I'm curious as to your viewpoint Epilogue, fellow TC member... (See no attacking in sight just good 'ole constructive criticism, and then I segue back to music discussion)


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> So, did you ever support this broad assertion by listing the many composers whose late periods are just more boring versions of their middle periods?


If you'd finished reading this thread, you would have seen that I already did the opposite (listed everybody I could think of whose late periods is their best), which is of course much faster.



Fugue Meister said:


> There is no attacking I simply said


I'm pretty sure the above words have never, ever been said or written except as a preface to another attack.



Fugue Meister said:


> the pointedly piercing remarks you post inviting arguments (the one about Franck comes to mind but I've no doubt there are others)


I didn't post that "inviting arguments."



Fugue Meister said:


> I'm curious as to your viewpoint Epilogue


No you aren't.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> It's a good theory.


But it's not quite that simple.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Epilogue said:


> I'm pretty sure the above words have never, ever been said or written except as a preface to another attack.
> 
> I didn't post that "inviting arguments."
> 
> No you aren't.


I really am curious if you have some personal insight as to why you prefer those particular late Beethoven works, but I understand if you just don't have an answer and want to put words in my mouth, that's more your MO I suppose.

At this point it's futile to try explaining my motivations for my previous posts on this thread to you, if I pointed out to you why, you would no doubt take it as an "attack". Perhaps go back and reread what I said.


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

Fugue Meister said:


> I really am curious if you have some personal insight as to why you prefer those particular late Beethoven works


You really aren't.



Fugue Meister said:


> but I understand if you just don't have an answer and want to put words in my mouth


By saying that I "just don't have an answer" and "want to put words in [your] mouth," you're putting words in mine.



Fugue Meister said:


> At this point it's futile to try explaining my motivations for my previous posts on this thread to you, if I pointed out to you why, you would no doubt take it as an "attack".


I do usually take attacks that way, yes.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2015)

Fugue Meister said:


> You see, I'm what you call kind of a "moral traffic light", really.


Ouch!

No, really. OUCH!

Well, I know one thing, I never voted for you for this post.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Epilogue said:


> (Note that Boulez, 10 years older than Groovy Steve and infamous for his supposed lethargy, came up with _Sur Incises_ 8 years _after_ the last Reich piece that anybody even pretends to care about.)


Presumably that piece would be the _Double Sextet_, which would mean Boulez wrote _Sur incises_ in... 2016???


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

Actually, I happen to known that Reich is going to unveil a piece in 2025 that will blow everybody's mind and totally not sound like _Music for 18 Musicians_ with wrong notes - so Boulez wrote _Sur incises_ in 2033.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2015)

_Sur Incises_ is better than anything written by any American minimalist (and better than most things written by just about anyone), so I'm not too fussed about dates.


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

Does the specification of "American" mean you're reserving the laurels for uncle Arvö?

I don't know if _Sur Incises_ is better or worse than _Music for 18 Musicians_, but I certainly find it more admirable. It's definitely better than _Different Trains_, though.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

For my part, I'd take pretty much any piece by Reich, early or late, over the entirety of Boulez.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Directly comparing Boulez and Reich is silly.


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

Well, maybe, but no more so than comparing Brahms and Wagner, and people do that.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Epilogue said:


> If you'd finished reading this thread, you would have seen that I already did the opposite (listed everybody I could think of whose late periods is their best), which is of course much faster.


I did read the thread. That was everyone you could think of? And everyone else wrote boring music late in life?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Epilogue said:


> Well, maybe, but no more so than comparing Brahms and Wagner, and people do that.


I think Boulez's and Reich's artistic aims are much farther apart than Brahms' and Wagner's were.

You're right that Reich is one of the composers who got less interesting with age.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> For my part, I'd take pretty much any piece by Reich, early or late, over the entirety of Boulez.


Reich rules. But my humble ears feel that Boulez penned true masterworks on the same level as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Cage, Stockhausen, and the like...


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Late works versus all of the rest?

Well, when a composer was very prolific (Haydn, Beethoven...) or when a composer died very young (Schubert...) or when I am considering works by a composer I am not totally committed to (Dvořák...), I tend to buy recordings of the late works first and work my way back. Do I think they're the best? Barring early student works, I'd say, not necessarily, but they can be good candidates.

That goes for people, too, right?


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Possibly. But both are great. I am coming to fully appreciate Schumann's violin concerto..it has taken me years. It is still an inscrutable work though. Typical of Schumann's contrariness, the main themes of both the last and first movements are irretrievably dull, and the codas of all 3 movements are nothing, nothing at all. But some of the developments are weird, ethereal, eerie, of a kind that reminds me of late Beethoven and no one else (but yet, are stranger) and the slow movement has an inexpressible seraphic quality. So yes, Schumann has a valid late period to go along with his also valid early and middle periods, out of which all he produced some staggeringly great music. Even if *you* don't know about it or aren't aesthetically capable of appreciating it.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

You are probably in a minority of 3. And Reich bores me senseless


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

As was said five years ago, most, but not all artists evolve over time. Some don't. Many later works, but not everyone's, are informed by a) a more experienced degree of craftsmanship, b) having lived longer and explored more, c) in some cases a more urgent realization of death. Schubert probably realized death was approaching. Mozart's trajectory was ever upward. Beethoven was aging but also a compulsive experimenter. Brahms always did the best he could, but was tired of living at the end. Wagner, again, was ever upward. Liszt and Stravinsky had artistic ADHD. Schumann had a lifelong tendency to revise downward. Mendelssohn died tragically old. Mahler was always evolving. Bruckner did extemely slowly. Everyone's different.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

MarkW said:


> As was said five years ago, most, but not all artists evolve over time. Some don't. Many later works, but not everyone's, are informed by a) a more experienced degree of craftsmanship, b) having lived longer and explored more, c) in some cases a more urgent realization of death. Schubert probably realized death was approaching. Mozart's trajectory was ever upward. Beethoven was aging but also a compulsive experimenter. Brahms always did the best he could, but was tired of living at the end. Wagner, again, was ever upward. Liszt and Stravinsky had artistic ADHD. Schumann had a lifelong tendency to revise downward. *Mendelssohn died tragically old*. Mahler was always evolving. Bruckner did extemely slowly. Everyone's different.


Mendelssohn died early at 38, and I do wish that he had lived much more. It's worth noting that he was composing masterpieces in his "late" period, for example the _Scottish_ symphony, the violin concerto, the oratorio _Elijah_ and the last string quartet.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Allerius said:


> Mendelssohn died early at 38, and I do wish that he had lived much more. It's worth noting that he was composing masterpieces in his "late" period, for example the _Scottish_ symphony, the violin concerto, the oratorio _Elijah_ and the last string quartet.


I should have been less subtle. That was a joke.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I agree composers, like most people, tend to get better with age, as does their music. However...

I enjoy Beethoven's early at least as much as late works though that's not to say they're better. The later ones, such Symphony 9, Missa Solemnis, the late quartets and piano sonatas, tend to be heavy and philosophical. I enjoy the Beethoven of the Symphony 2, Septet and other Mozart-influenced wind music, the leonine Piano Sonata No. 3. and the cantata The Glorious Moment written age 19.

Plenty of composers were more febrile and artistic when young than old, as well.

Richard Strauss (1864-1949) was not particularly prolific late in life. Most of his orchestral masterpieces -- Heldenleben, Zarathustra, Don Juan, etc.) came in the 19th century as a young man. His middle works include Rosenkavalier (1909) and Alpine symphony (1911) and his late work were few; one was Four Last Songs (1948.)

Another case where later was not always best was Shostakovich (1906-75). His great early masterpiece, Symphony 1, was written as his graduation exercise from the conservatory age 19, his opera Lady Macbeth of Minsk District 1932 in his mid-20, his Symphony 5 in 1937 age 30, Symphonies 6-8 during World War II, his first violin concerto 1947 age 40. His later works include the first cello concerto (1959), Symphonies 12-15 (1961-71) and the string quartets 8 (1960) and beyond.

And what of the cases of Sibelius and Rossini, composers that quit writing new music in what for most would be mid-life? Or Brahms who was known to have destroyed much of his early music, the reason he didn't publish a symphony until in his 40s.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Britten's interesting. 

Early period (pre-1945): masterpieces (or at least, extremely good pieces), such as Frank Bridge Variations, Piano Concerto, Violin Concerto, Les Illuminations, Sinfonia da Requiem, Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings, Hymn to St. Cecilia, Rejoice in the Lamb, A Ceremony of Carols.

Middle period (1945 - 1962): master works such as Peter Grimes, Rape of Lucretia, Albert Herring, Billy Budd, Gloriana, Turn of the Screw, A Midsummer Night's Dream, War Requiem, Missa brevis.

Late period (1962 - 1976): Multiple great cello works, Church Parables, Death in Venice, Third String Quartet. Phaedra. But a bit of a dog with Owen Wingrave. Some rather astringent choral works intended for children, which was pushing it (such as Children's Crusade) and some fairly ordinary stuff like Voices for Today.

He clearly changed over time. His output in the middle period was extraordinarily good. I think a case can be made for tailing off in his late period (the first Church Parable is great, the second is wonderful, the third is a bit iffy). The only dud opera he wrote dates from 1970 (Owen Wingrave), but I'd rate Death in Venice (1973) as as good as anything he wrote... and quite possibly more profound, in the sense of being honest about himself in a searching, searing kind of way. But his third string quartet is a great work, I think, and the concision and moral depth of Phaedra is extraordinary.

Did he get worse? A bit, but not hugely. Did he get more profound, confronted with death... yeah, I think you can hear that happening. But his middle period stands apart as his most ambitious and productive, I think.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

MarkW said:


> As was said five years ago, most, but not all artists evolve over time. Some don't. Many later works, but not everyone's, are informed by a) a more experienced degree of craftsmanship, b) having lived longer and explored more, c) in some cases a more urgent realization of death.


 True.


> Schumann had a lifelong tendency to revise downward.


 Not really supportable. At best too glib. Some of his revisions were barely improvements. However his creative processes remained undimmed, at least until 1852, and his work later than that is worth of respect, and is being acknowledged as so by the right people.


> Everyone's different.


Amen brutha


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

larold said:


> the cantata The Glorious Moment written age 19.


Beethoven wrote Der glorreiche Augenblick at age 44. 
Did you actually mean, 'Cantata on the Accession of Emperor Leopold II or Cantata on the Death of Emperor Joseph II, which Beethoven wrote at age 20?


----------

