# So I started a new thread finally = What composers best work is also their first?



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

I vote Alban Berg Op. 1 the piano sonata.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I vehemently disagree: Two of the major operas of the entire operatic literature, the violin concerto, the Kammerkonzert for 13 instruments are all mega-powerful arguments, each, against your choice. All take place over his Op. 1. 

I could be dead wrong, but I think you have mistakenly opted for a piece which you at the moment most readily grasp and then named it his best work. That is fine, but while there is no such thing as an objective perspective that can be had about anything remotely called art, and the aesthetic stance of a work as well, yours seems to be a choice made from an extremely limited range of experience, and in that regard, is highly personal and subjective within that context.

I can not think of any major composer whose Op 1. (or any of their earliest works, with or without opus number) as generally thought to be their finest piece.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

But that's not even Berg's earliest work that's well-known. The Seven Early Songs predate it (albeit not in their orchestral form), and those specific songs were, like the Sonata, at the end of his tutelage with Schoenberg, before which time he had written a whole bunch of songs.

I don't think there's any composer whose very earliest work is a favorite among many.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Listen to his operas and the violin concerto.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

PetrB said:


> I vehemently disagree: Two of the major operas of the entire operatic literature, the violin concerto, the Kammerkonzert for 13 instruments are all mega-powerful arguments, each, against your choice. All take place over his Op. 1.
> 
> I could be dead wrong, but I think you have mistakenly opted for a piece which you at the moment most readily grasp and then named it his best work. That is fine, but while there is no such thing as an objective perspective that can be had about anything remotely called art, and the aesthetic stance of a work as well, yours seems to be a choice made based upon a very personal and subjective choice based upon an extremely limited range of experience.
> 
> I can not think of any major composer whose Op 1. (or any of their earliest works, with or without opus number) as generally thought to be their finest piece.


Geez, just shoot me why don't ya. It seems you'd be delighted to do so.

All kidding aside your right I just started listening to the violin concerto and it is far better. I retract my original submission and will think of another by tomorrow night. Thanks for pointing me towards the violin concerto its wonderful.

Again forgive my shortsighted p.o.v I'm very new to Berg.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> But that's not even Berg's earliest work that's well-known. The Seven Early Songs predate it (albeit not in their orchestral form), and those specific songs were, like the Sonata, at the end of his tutelage with Schoenberg, before which time he had written a whole bunch of songs.
> 
> I don't think there's any composer whose very earliest work is a favorite among many.


That's what I get for trying to put one past Mahlerian. I knew he wrote the songs along with sketches for five or so piano sonatas, all (the 5 sonatas not the dances) of which he used to write the op. 1 piano sonata... And since he did eventually write them in orchestral form later I thought they were indeed published after op. 1. I beg your pardon.

This posting new threads not boding well for me...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> Geez, just shoot me why don't ya. It seems you'd be delighted to do so.
> 
> All kidding aside your right I just started listening to the violin concerto and it is far better. I retract my original submission and will think of another by tomorrow night. Thanks for pointing me towards the violin concerto its wonderful.
> 
> Again forgive my shortsighted p.o.v I'm very new to Berg.


Sorry, at least genuinely a bit -- I just PM'd a TC colleague about this very post. Outside of TC, in private lessons and schools, it is not considered harmful or permanently damaging when one rightly assesses the subject / student is either a total n00b, or a n00b to _____ and then to rather sharply advise them to withhold from making snap personal judgements, let alone definitive sounding statements of opinion given in public (and that in a place amid a number of people who really really do know their stuff until they have some real experience with more of, or ideally all of, the repertoire they are making judgements upon.

I am happy I was right, threefold: 
you're not one with a wholly egocentric view of the world, lol, 
your ears are open, and...
you are open to suggestion 

Best regards.

P.s. The fiddle concerto came out of Berg at what for him was lightning speed, and is not only pretty much an indisputable masterpiece, but for many, one of _the_ three greatest violin concerti to date (the other two: Beethoven, Stravinsky -- depending upon who is talking, those might be Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, but it is always Beethoven, then another

The Kammerkonzert might be a thornier go, but repeat listens may open it up for you, and IMO it is a marvelous piece.

The two operas, if vocal music is not a hurdle, are, simply, fantastic in every sense of the word


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Hey I had it coming... 

Well after some careful deliberation I come to the conclusion that this is a hard nut to crack this thread of mine but I believe I've come up with a better answer: Webern's op. 1 the Passacaglia for orchestra. My reasoning is, he didn't write much and to my personal taste this is the most accessible thing he ever came up with, at least for audiences. I must admit I haven't heard any of his songs but from all else that I've heard the serialism of his later works just gets in the way of my enjoyment of the works (even when played by Gould) I admire the intellect that went into his later works but the passacaglia is something I listen to. Everything else that followed was music written for the page. 

Of course there will always be that minority who champion his music but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone with Webern as there number 1 composer. Having said that I did start out in this thread with an obviously wide margin of error and in the last few hours I've come to see how wrong I was, (loved the violin concerto, I also hear the lyric suite, and the 9 short pieces). But I feel pretty confident I've got a valid answer now, and look forward to seeing others thoughts including yours PetrB, also did you give any thought to what your answer would be? After all this run around I'm starting to see the difficulty in this thread subject. 

Any different answers?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'd be surprised if anyone's first work was their greatest. But I'd like to find out.

For now, I'll take Orff, who withdrew everything he'd composed prior to _Carmina Burana_. If that is allowed, it may be the winner.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> Hey I had it coming...
> 
> Well after some careful deliberation I come to the conclusion that this is a hard nut to crack this thread of mine but I believe I've come up with a better answer: Webern's op. 1 the Passacaglia for orchestra. My reasoning is, he didn't write much and to my personal taste this is the most accessible thing he ever came up with, at least for audiences. I must admit I haven't heard any of his songs but from all else that I've heard the serialism of his later works just gets in the way of my enjoyment of the works (even when played by Gould) I admire the intellect that went into his later works but the Passacaglia is something I listen to. Everything else that followed was music written for the page.
> 
> ...


Well, you're on a better tack now at least  I like and admire the Passacaglia, while it is still rather like saying _L'oiseau de feu_ is the best thing Stravinsky ever wrote, simply because it is the most accessible to many, if you catch the drift....

While many, from cognoscenti, other composers, performers and audiences are all part of a collective factor in what decides which is a 'great' piece of music, what is the most accessible and most readily popular for the masses is actually not at the top of the list of criteria for determining greatness. Where that is very much in play for popular music, it is much further down the list in determining greatness for the classical repertoire. (If you did not know, the general fan base for classical, antique or modern eras, has stayed at about 3% of the entire population -- populist / populism has almost nothing, relatively, to do with it  I believe it was Aaron Copland who wrote if prettiness or if what is currently considered 'beautiful' were the top or only criterion for judging music, that Ravel might top the list as the greatest composer who ever lived, lol.

Better would be "Which composers wrote a particularly outstanding Op. 1, or pre-Opus 1?" (because so many _did not!_)

Then you could fit in a variety of works, like Berlioz' academic fulfillment for his requirement to graduate, his delightfully ebullient and breezy _Symphony in C_ (without Opus when written, and which post conservatory, sat in a drawer for a long time, and was later discovered in storage at that conservatory!), Webern's pre-opus 1 _Im Sommerwind_ -- which I recommend to you -- etc.

[There are a number of such works which if they are not outstanding masterworks, nonetheless in retrospect contain many or nearly all of the personal hallmark traits and visible sprouts of what will come to bloom in that composer's later works. Look at Benjamin Britten's Op. 1 _Sinfonietta_, for example.]

As long as you qualify your tastes and then name what you like, all is well enough.

When "Accessibility _to you_", tonality, atonality, come into play and you start to speak for many instead of just yourself, sorry again friend, but until you have more under your belt, I wouldn't quite take that post as classical music critic for the public at large, yet 

As an interesting quest re: composers' earliest and earlier works, outstanding opus 1's or pre-opus 1's I think could, via sundry contributions, eventually pile up an interesting and varied lot of pieces and make for a lively thread.

P.s. that you are actually thinking about and concerned about making a thread of interest puts you wayyyy ahead of a number of others, lol.


----------



## mikey (Nov 26, 2013)

If you had gone with the most amazing op.1's, Erlking would certainly be up there.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Yes I considered it but its far from Schubert's ultimate best so alas it falls to Webern..


----------



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

Sorry, Science - I wouldn't say that Carmina Burana is necessarily Orff's best work, I think it's more a case of CB being saddled with the reputation of being the only one many people have heard (of). Although CB is probably the best work within the Trionfi trilogy, I have to say that Der Mond and Die Kluge equals it at the very least.

To answer the OP, there are without doubt numerous impressive op. 1's/first acknowledged compositions (I think there has been a relatively recent thread about 'best op. 1's'), but I can't name a single composer whose subsequent output doesn't contain something that matches/emulates their debut. Of course, in rock/pop music it can be different.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

elgars ghost said:


> Of course, in rock/pop music it can be different.


And even then, what you're considering to be an opus 1 is likely a first released album, which isn't exactly the same thing. A classical composer's opus 1 doesn't have to be picked up by a record label to count.

My guess is there's some new composer with only 3-4 published works of which opus 1 is best.

Robert Mondavi has a great Opus One.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> I'd be surprised if anyone's first work was their greatest. But I'd like to find out.
> 
> For now, I'll take Orff, who withdrew everything he'd composed prior to _Carmina Burana_. If that is allowed, it may be the winner.


Hovhaness burned everything prior to his official Opus 1, feeling he had finally found his own voice and that the previous works were not what he wanted to present.

I'm pretty sure there are some unpublished earlier works by Philip Glass which are also withheld (or have been destroyed by their maker) for very similar reasons.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

A much more interesting question would be: which composer's first acknowledged composition is the greatest of all "Opus 1's"? Off the top of my head I'd nominate Beethoven's Op. 1 piano trios 1-3.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> Hey I had it coming...
> 
> Well after some careful deliberation I come to the conclusion that this is a hard nut to crack this thread of mine but I believe I've come up with a better answer: Webern's op. 1 the Passacaglia for orchestra. My reasoning is, he didn't write much and to my personal taste this is the most accessible thing he ever came up with, at least for audiences. I must admit I haven't heard any of his songs but from all else that I've heard the serialism of his later works just gets in the way of my enjoyment of the works (even when played by Gould) I admire the intellect that went into his later works but the passacaglia is something I listen to. Everything else that followed was music written for the page.


It sounds wonderful to those of us who like it. Forget about serialism. It is a complete non-issue for you, save as a word and a concept. You know how I know this? The Berg Violin Concerto is serial. 100% 12-tone serial. The truth is that people can't hear serial music as serial unless they're _really_ familiar with the style.

So, with Webern, Berg, and Schoenberg, forget about "serial" (something which designates a technique only) and "atonal" (something which designates...well, pretty much nothing), and just hear it as music. If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't chalk it up to "serialism", and certainly don't assume that the music was not written to be heard.

That said, the Passacaglia is a great piece. I think my favorite Webern is the 5 Pieces for String Quartet or the Cantatas, but his Op. 1 is one of the most formidable first published works ever for sure.



Fugue Meister said:


> I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone with Webern as there number 1 composer.


Too bad user Webernite isn't here anymore...


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Fugue Meister said:


> Hey I had it coming...
> 
> Well after some careful deliberation I come to the conclusion that this is a hard nut to crack this thread of mine but I believe I've come up with a better answer: Webern's op. 1 the Passacaglia for orchestra. My reasoning is, he didn't write much and to my personal taste this is the most accessible thing he ever came up with, at least for audiences. I must admit I haven't heard any of his songs but from all else that I've heard the serialism of his later works just gets in the way of my enjoyment of the works (even when played by Gould) I admire the intellect that went into his later works but the passacaglia is something I listen to. Everything else that followed was music written for the page.
> 
> ...


er... why do you like to make assertions about composers you are admitting you are unfamiliar with? 

Your Berg and Webern assertions only show the vague familiarity you have with these composers. That's not bad of course, I'm unfamiliar with many composers. But I find it peculiar to go ahead and make assertions about what I think are Berg's or Webern's best pieces if I'm only familiar precisely with the piece I'm mentioning...

I find your Webern assertion as ridiculous as the Berg.

And, btw, Webern is certainly in my top 5, particularly because of the pieces in his late period, which I think are infinitely superior to the op.1, as I think that Berg's violin concerto is infinitely superior to his op.1, and that only someone very unfamiliar with these composers would say the opposite.


----------



## satoru (May 29, 2014)

Hi my friend Fugue Meister,

If we limit to "composer's ever first published work", then there may be a few who didn't publish much. Other than that, there is little chance that a composer's earliest work is the best and there is a good reason for that.

Music is tightly related to language capability, suggested from piles of research on brain function. As the language-related IQ steadily improves throughout our life, it is quite reasonable to assume that the composer's music improves together as she/he ages. As such, there is good chance that composer's later works come out as "better".

Performing a musical instrument is quite a physical task. The physical capability peaks at late teen to early 20s, yet many musicians don't show a decline in their musicality, even at quite old ages. One explanation is that the decline in physical ability is compensated by the improvements in the musicality, where it is related to language. How do you think?

Notes: The language-music tie is coming from brain research, especially by fMRI. I can point to published papers, if you are interested. The statement of language related IQ and age is from some social psychologist friends, but I haven't pin pointed papers their claim is based on (and still hunting for them, but my capabilities in searching social science papers are quite limited, not to mention the ability to understand them).


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Andolink said:


> A much more interesting question would be: which composer's first acknowledged composition is the greatest of all "Opus 1's"? Off the top of my head I'd nominate Beethoven's Op. 1 piano trios 1-3.


I got the idea of this thread from and essay I read from Alfred Einstein's essays on music:

http://www.amazon.com/Essays-Music-Alfred-Einstein/dp/0393001776

The essay was on first and last works of great composers and how that opus 1s are not always a composers first works. If anyone wants to sort through it for free I found it online here(and I highly recommend it... for those of you who take the time the passages in question you will find if you scroll down about 20%):

http://archive.org/stream/essaysonmusic00eins/essaysonmusic00eins_djvu.txt

With this in mind I also thought of that silly philosophical idea that any artists first work is his greatest (and you must forgive me but I can't for the life of me recall the philosopher who first put this idea forth), anyhow the thread was my result albeit a messy one.



> It sounds wonderful to those of us who like it. Forget about serialism. It is a complete non-issue for you, save as a word and a concept. You know how I know this? The Berg Violin Concerto is serial. 100% 12-tone serial. The truth is that people can't hear serial music as serial unless they're really familiar with the style.
> 
> So, with Webern, Berg, and Schoenberg, forget about "serial" (something which designates a technique only) and "atonal" (something which designates...well, pretty much nothing), and just hear it as music. If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't chalk it up to "serialism", and certainly don't assume that the music was not written to be heard.
> 
> That said, the Passacaglia is a great piece. I think my favorite Webern is the 5 Pieces for String Quartet or the Cantatas, but his Op. 1 is one of the most formidable first published works ever for sure.


Here I explain; it was a misstep to say it's because of his serialism that Webern's op. 1 is better than all the rest. I retract it and say it is purely based on my fondness for the passacaglia over the rest of his output. For me to go any further in detail (with the remark about serialism) was only to express why I felt his latter works alienated me more so than his first.



> er... why do you like to make assertions about composers you are admitting you are unfamiliar with?
> 
> Your Berg and Webern assertions only show the vague familiarity you have with these composers. That's not bad of course, I'm unfamiliar with many composers. But I find it peculiar to go ahead and make assertions about what I think are Berg's or Webern's best pieces if I'm only familiar precisely with the piece I'm mentioning...
> 
> ...


Here again let me explain myself; The only reason I picked Webern is because aside from Dukas he is the only composer I know with such a small output and more than any other composer I'm aware of his opus one fit the bill for my impossible question. I own up to the fact I am not as into the atonalists and serialists (but I far from hate them or I wouldn't have specific pieces of theirs in my library) Forgive my ineptness in the response to my own question.

On the other hand I don't see many responses here with an answer to my OP's question (kudos to those of you that did) and now that I'm done explaining my answers perhaps you can think of your own answer to submit, even if it is to say you think there are none to your knowledge.

Out of curiosity if those of you who champion Webern please explain to me why... Maybe this should be my next thread... I think it will be.

One things for sure this thread has been making a hash of it. I refer to the spirited debating.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Okay, Okay, I just listed to the first act of "Wozzeck" and yeah I'm wrong. I want to see more... I guess Mahlerian had it right to begin with no one first was there best, at least no one I can think of. Hope I don't get flack for being a flip flopper..


----------

