# Has any composer ever achieved perfection?



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

In honer of Felix Hernandez throwing a perfect game for the Mariners today, I ask has any composer ever thrown a "perfect game?" In other words, what, in your opinion, are perfect pieces of music? If none, what comes closest for you to being perfect?

Edit: One additional question: do you believe perfection is even possible?


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

I'm not sure you can even define "perfection" as it relates to a piece of music. In accounting for its popularity, I have long considered the overture to Mozart's Figaro as very close to a "perfect" four minutes of music -- but that was a facile and not well thought out judgment -- although it may also be correct. But then, there are a lot of pieces of music I would be hard-pressed to find flaws in in terms of wrong or excess notes, or bad modulations, progressions, chords, or not well and elegantly filling their allotted time intervals. Tchaikovsky's Serenade for Strings, for instance, to pick a hackneyed example, is close to "perfect" (for Tchaikovsky) in terms of not being overblown. Beethoven's "Eroica" is close to perfect despite almost being overblown. I don't think there's a wrong note in Beethoven's Seventh, or in Mozart's "Jupiter," or in Brahms' First. Mahler's music is full of miscalculations -- but they are far outweighed by what he did right. Several Beethoven string quartets are perfect by any measure. I think the term needs to be better defined where music is involved.

I don't have it in front of me, but Tovey once wrote something close to: "What one thing can we not learn from the greats? How to get out of a jam, because the greats never get in one."

cheers --


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Good thread! What first popped into my head was Bach's Art of the Fugue, what he does with one simple theme is quite incredible. Haydn's Andante and Variations in F minor is exquisitely beautiful, and virtually perfection as it is almost seamless in its flow and developement. The 2nd movement of Mozart's 2nd Piano Sonata in F major is very tender and hangs on a knife edge, but it's simplicity it what makes it so perfect. Schubert String Quintet in C major 2nd movement of which no words exist in which to describe it!


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

GGluek said:


> I'm not sure you can even define "perfection" as it relates to a piece of music.


Of course you are right. With baseball it is easy - 27 up, 27 down = perfect game.

With music, it may not even be possible. However, I think an individual can always define a piece as perfect for them. If it captures their emotions perfectly, or has the perfect effect on their mood, perhaps.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

In my book, Mozart's Figaro and Don Giovanni are both perfection as well as a number of Mozart piano concertos and chamber works and symphonies.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

Well if we have the understanding that perfection is subjective then my subjective list of perfect works would include:

Bach - Goldberg Variations
Haydn - Symphony 104
Mozart - Marriage of Figaro
Mozart - Clarinet Concerto
Beethoven - String Quartet Op 131
Beethoven - Piano Concerto 4
Mendelssohn - Overture to Midsummer Night's Dream
Brahms - Symphony 4
Dvorak - Cello Concerto
Dvorak - Symphony 7
Tchaikovsky - Violin Concerto
Stravinsky - Rite of Spring
Shostakovich - Symphony 5
Shostakovich - Symphony 10
Copland - Appalachian Spring


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

It is really hard to say because to me there is no perfect music because humans are not perfect so they can not form perfect music.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Perfection written by music-gods like Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Schubert, Brahms, Bach, Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky that should never be questioned and challenged ... :lol:


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

For me one of the most perfect pieces of music is Ravel's 'Le Tombeau de Couperin'. I find amazing how different movements can complement each other to form a full homogeneous piece, but homogeneous without repetition. Maybe the homogeneous is in the 'meditative' character of the pieces, in the moderated emotion, the cleanness and grace of the moves.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Olias said:


> Well if we have the understanding that perfection is subjective then my subjective list of perfect works would include:
> 
> Bach - Goldberg Variations
> Haydn - Symphony 104
> ...


I can't say I would disagree with any of your selections.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

mtmailey said:


> It is really hard to say because to me there is no perfect music because humans are not perfect so they can not form perfect music.


Not to be argumentative, but then, what would a "perfect" piece of music sound like compared to some of the, evidently, only "near perfect" pieces people have composed?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

How the heck is the Eroica "overblown"? Please explain . It might have seemed that way to many audience members , critics and composer contmeporaries of Beethoven when new , since it was about twice the length of any normal symphony by Haydn,Mozart and their lesser contemporaries and far more complex in structure than anything they had previously encountered , but I fail to see how any one could call it "overblown".
Some listeners are critics may find the symphonies of Bruckner and Mahler "ovewrblown" because of their enormous length and complexity as well as the enromous orchestras most of Mahler's require , but I've always reveled in their "overblownness," if you'll permit me to coin a word .


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Mozart Piano Concerto 21
Beethoven Diabelli Variations
Bach Brandenberg


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

GGluek said:


> I'm not sure you can even define "perfection" as it relates to a piece of music. In accounting for its popularity, I have long considered the overture to Mozart's Figaro as very close to a "perfect" four minutes of music -- but that was a facile and not well thought out judgment -- although it may also be correct. But then, there are a lot of pieces of music I would be hard-pressed to find flaws in in terms of wrong or excess notes, or bad modulations, progressions, chords, or not well and elegantly filling their allotted time intervals. Tchaikovsky's Serenade for Strings, for instance, to pick a hackneyed example, is close to "perfect" (for Tchaikovsky) in terms of not being overblown. Beethoven's "Eroica" is close to perfect despite almost being overblown. I don't think there's a wrong note in Beethoven's Seventh, or in Mozart's "Jupiter," or in Brahms' First. Mahler's music is full of miscalculations -- but they are far outweighed by what he did right. Several Beethoven string quartets are perfect by any measure. I think the term needs to be better defined where music is involved.
> 
> I don't have it in front of me, but Tovey once wrote something close to: "What one thing can we not learn from the greats? How to get out of a jam, because the greats never get in one."
> 
> cheers --


Which is it to be then, "overblown" or "almost overblown"? Though as with the other poster, Superhorn, I really have no idea to what you refer in using either term vis a vis Beethoven's *Third.*
It also seems to me, that--like being pregnant--one either is or isn't; I should think the same principle is applicable to being "overblown" or not.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

samurai said:


> Which is it to be then, "overblown" or "almost overblown"? Though as with the other poster, Superhorn, I really have no idea to what you refer in using either term vis a vis Beethoven's *Third.*
> It also seems to me, that--like being pregnant--one either is or isn't; I should think the same principle is applicable to being "overblown" or not.


First, to you and Superhorn, understand that the Eroica is one of my favorite pieces of music, certainly my favorite Beethoven Symphony, and high on my list of greatest symphonies ever written. That said, I have a tendency to be self-deprecating, and to not assume that others always share my taste, so when I compare the gigantic and rough-hewn quality of the Third with other pieces that don't demonstrate similar qualities I may go overboard in characterizing them. (I love Tchaikovsky's fourth, also, but have less difficulty defending it as "overblown."  )

cheers --


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

No such thing. Also the idea that there are excess notes, or _wrong_ notes in a composer's finished piece, is such a grandly absurd concept that I'm almost completely speechless.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Perfection is any piece you would rate 10/10, not really hard, people.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> No such thing. Also the idea that there are excess notes, or _wrong_ notes in a composer's finished piece, is such a grandly absurd concept that I'm almost completely speechless.


Come now, you disagree that there can be (are) "bad" pieces of music? And that some of the "bad"ness is the result of incompetence, lack of craftmanship, wrong turns, faulty inspiration, or just plain lack of ability? Quality is quality. Certainly to a composer's mother, there are never excess or wrong notes -- but the rest of us can recognize them when we hear them. 

No amount of marveling at Wagner's mature genius is ever going to make the overture to "Das Liebesverbot" sound like any more than bad Suppe.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Apparently Brahms said, "Every number in Figaro is for me a marvel; I simply cannot understand how anyone could create anything so perfect."

For me, I find Mozart's 41st symphony perfect. There are simply no flaws.


----------



## Mun (Aug 15, 2012)

"Mozart I love as a musical Christ. Besides, he lived almost like Christ did. I think there is nothing sacrilegious in such a comparison. Mozart was a being so angelical and child-like in his purity, his music is so full of unattainably divine beauty, that if there is someone whom one can mention with the same breath as Christ, then it is he. […] It is my profound conviction that Mozart is the highest, the culminating point which beauty has reached in the sphere of music. Nobody has made me cry and thrill with joy, sensing my proximity to something that we call the ideal, in the way that he has […] In Mozart I love everything because we love everything in a person whom we truly love. Above all I love Don Giovanni, as it was thanks to this work that I found out what music is. Until then (till the age of 17) I had known nothing apart from pleasant Italian semi-music. Of course, whilst I do love everything in Mozart, I won't claim that every minor work of his is a masterpiece. No! I know that any one of his sonatas, for example, is not a great work, and yet I love every sonata of his precisely because it is his - because this musical Christ touched it with his radiant hand" - *Tchaikovsky*

Most of the greatest composers seem to favour Mozart.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Schubert's Winterreise came to mind. This cycle of 24 songs is a perfect union between the text and music. There is no single thread that is loose. Everything is united in their order and perfection. From the first song, "Gute Nacht" and to the last "Der Leiermann", Schubert's cycle is the "perfect" song cycle ever written.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> No such thing. Also the idea that there are excess notes, or _wrong_ notes in a composer's finished piece, is such a grandly absurd concept that I'm almost completely speechless.


Wow. Just wow.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I would have picked Beethoven's 3rd, but he himself scratched out the dedication. I'll take hs word for that fault.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Mun said:


> "Mozart I love as a musical Christ. Besides, he lived almost like Christ did. I think there is nothing sacrilegious in such a comparison. Mozart was a being so angelical and child-like in his purity, his music is so full of unattainably divine beauty, that if there is someone whom one can mention with the same breath as Christ, then it is he. […] It is my profound conviction that Mozart is the highest, the culminating point which beauty has reached in the sphere of music. Nobody has made me cry and thrill with joy, sensing my proximity to something that we call the ideal, in the way that he has […] In Mozart I love everything because we love everything in a person whom we truly love. Above all I love Don Giovanni, as it was thanks to this work that I found out what music is. Until then (till the age of 17) I had known nothing apart from pleasant Italian semi-music. Of course, whilst I do love everything in Mozart, I won't claim that every minor work of his is a masterpiece. No! I know that any one of his sonatas, for example, is not a great work, and yet I love every sonata of his precisely because it is his - because this musical Christ touched it with his radiant hand" - *Tchaikovsky*
> 
> Most of the greatest composers seem to favour Mozart.


I wonder if you're aware that the omitted sections in and around this passage extol Beethoven to an almost equally exaggerated degree - "My attitude towards him reminds me of how I felt as a child with regard to God, Lord of Sabaoth. I felt (and even now my feelings have not changed) a sense of amazement before Him, but at the same time also fear". Of course Tchaikovsky _liked_ Mozart more than Beethoven, but his respect for what he regarded as their greatest music was approximately equal (I believe he described Beethoven as "the greatest composer who ever lived" somewhere).

There is also this quote: ""I cannot think of any musical works (with the exception of some by Beethoven) about which one could say that they are completely perfect""


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Beethoven's 5th? Beethoven had some great movements but not sure he had a perfect Symphony.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

J.S. Bach is the only composer in my eyes that has truly been able to achieve perfection. That may or may not be a good thing. The reason Mozart is my favorite composer over J.S. Bach is precisely because Mozart wasn't perfect. Mozart was able to write music that was thoroughly human. Mozart's music when examined on a small scale is imbalanced and asymmetrical, but when it's put together, the irregularities balance themselves out perfectly when viewed as a whole.

The music of J.S. Bach is perfection in a universal sense, it always feels as if it's been stripped down to its purest and simplest possible form. The music of Mozart is perfection in a human sense, it feels as if it's a delicate, but stable balance between a vast amount of contrasting complexities.


----------



## Mun (Aug 15, 2012)

_"The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts."_ - Richard Wagner

_"O Mozart, immortal Mozart, how many, how infinitely many inspiring suggestions of a finer, better life have you left in our souls!"_ - Franz Schubert, Diary, 1816

_"The place in the center belongs to Mozart, due to the universality of his genius."_ - Franz Liszt

_"It is hard to think of another composer who so perfectly marries form and passion."_ - Leonard Bernstein

_"Beethoven I take twice a week, Haydn four times, and Mozart every day!"_ - Gioachino Rossini

I'm way too obsessed with Mozart, I do like many others think Mozart in my opinion is "one" of the greatest composers of all time and did achieve perfection (or close to it) through his later symphonies, his piano concertos (ex. No. 20, No. 15 and No. 23 etc.), Sinfonia Concertantes and so on.

But this is just my opinion, Although I might prefer some concertos for example over Mozart's concertos. For example, I prefer Sergei Rachmaninoff's piano concerto's over Mozart's piano concertos.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

_Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg _


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Couchie said:


> _Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg _


Speak English please.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

_The Mastersingers of Nuremberg_


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

GGluek said:


> Come now, you disagree that there can be (are) "bad" pieces of music? And that some of the "bad"ness is the result of incompetence, lack of craftmanship, wrong turns, faulty inspiration, or just plain lack of ability? Quality is quality. Certainly to a composer's mother, there are never excess or wrong notes -- but the rest of us can recognize them when we hear them.
> 
> No amount of marveling at Wagner's mature genius is ever going to make the overture to "Das Liebesverbot" sound like any more than bad Suppe.


Dear me, you really had to dig deep to find that one.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Speak English please.


The problem there is that Wagner wrote it in German.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Mun said:


> _"The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts."_ - Richard Wagner
> 
> _"O Mozart, immortal Mozart, how many, how infinitely many inspiring suggestions of a finer, better life have you left in our souls!"_ - Franz Schubert, Diary, 1816
> 
> ...


Can't agree about the concerti.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Sometimes when you are listening to your favourite pieces you get the feeling "that is just perfection" too many pieces to mention - there are soe Mozart pieces hailed by critics as perfect - the finale of sy 41 for example. And Bach of course - the entire well tempered clavier and many many more. There are pieces that are flawed masterpieces - such as Cosi Fan Tutte - which may be musically perfect - but is tarnished by an absurd libretto. Don Giovanni is longer than it should be.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2012)

What's perfect? Easy. Debussy's _Arabesque No. 1

_Hypnotised by the animation in this version (though I prefer Jean-Efflam Bavouzet's recording).






Oh, well, yes, subjective, based on a very vague notion of what 'perfect' might mean.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

jalex said:


> I wonder if you're aware that the omitted sections in and around this passage extol Beethoven to an almost equally exaggerated degree - "My attitude towards him reminds me of how I felt as a child with regard to God, Lord of Sabaoth. I felt (and even now my feelings have not changed) a sense of amazement before Him, but at the same time also fear". Of course Tchaikovsky _liked_ Mozart more than Beethoven, but his respect for what he regarded as their greatest music was approximately equal (I believe he described Beethoven as "the greatest composer who ever lived" somewhere).
> 
> There is also this quote: ""I cannot think of any musical works (with the exception of some by Beethoven) about which one could say that they are completely perfect""


I have read somewhere that Tchaikovsky has been criticised in his attitude to Mozart - loving his music but seeing it through the eyes of a Romantic as somehow quaint and outdated and thus not appreciating its real worth.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

moody said:


> The problem there is that Wagner wrote it in German.


I was just giving Couchie a hard time.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Short answer: No

Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> J Mozart's music when examined on a small scale is imbalanced and asymmetrical, but when it's put together, the irregularities balance themselves out perfectly when viewed as a whole.


Is that true? I usually get a very sweet sense of balance and wholeness when I have listened to a piece.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> the idea that there are excess notes, [...] is such a grandly absurd concept that I'm almost completely speechless.


If it was a good enough view for Emperor Joseph II then it's good enough for me!


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> If it was a good enough view for Emperor Joseph II then it's good enough for me!


I see what you did there.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Mun said:


> "Mozart I love as a musical Christ. Besides, he lived almost like Christ did. I think there is nothing sacrilegious in such a comparison. Mozart was a being so angelical and child-like in his purity, his music is so full of unattainably divine beauty, that if there is someone whom one can mention with the same breath as Christ, then it is he. […] It is my profound conviction that Mozart is the highest, the culminating point which beauty has reached in the sphere of music. Nobody has made me cry and thrill with joy, sensing my proximity to something that we call the ideal, in the way that he has […] In Mozart I love everything because we love everything in a person whom we truly love. Above all I love Don Giovanni, as it was thanks to this work that I found out what music is. Until then (till the age of 17) I had known nothing apart from pleasant Italian semi-music. Of course, whilst I do love everything in Mozart, I won't claim that every minor work of his is a masterpiece. No! I know that any one of his sonatas, for example, is not a great work, and yet I love every sonata of his precisely because it is his - because this musical Christ touched it with his radiant hand" - *Tchaikovsky*
> 
> Most of the greatest composers seem to favour Mozart.


I don't think Christ made jokes about poo though. 

As for the OP, there are many works by Bach that I consider perfect, plus some choral works like Faure's Requiem and Mozart's Great Mass. Other works by Mozart and Beethoven, Ravel's Gaspard de la Nuit... lots and lots. Maybe I am easily impressed.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Dvorak, Brahms, Wagner and Mussorgsky.

I actually lowered the level of perfection a little, because in the imperfect land of mortals nothing is perfect!


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

stomanek said:


> Is that true? I usually get a very sweet sense of balance and wholeness when I have listened to a piece.


Yes, if you look at it closely you'll be surprised to see how imbalanced and strangely put together it seems. The beauty of it is that it all works out to sound perfectly balanced.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I agree with much of what has been said here. I hesitatingly will squeak in Satie's Gymnopedie No. 3. Like a Greek vase, it has harmonies which are like the vase's static background but are still compelling, and over this is etched a single line, simple but beautiful, which could go on forever but doesn't, because, as Ned Rorem said, he knew when to stop.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

If music were perfect, it wouldn't be.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

I wouldn't say "perfect", because that's not what human expression is, but these are a few works that I have no problem with.

Vox Balaenae--George Crumb
Symphony #8--Dvořák
Sonata In F Major For Violin and Piano--Dvořák

Humoresque 7 in G-flat Major--Dvořák
(my absolute favorite piece of music)

Symphony 1--Mahler
String Quartet 3 in C Major, Op. 59--Beethoven

and--of course--The Rite of Spring by Stravinsky


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I think there's a distiction between composers who were aspiring to perfection of form and those who were aiming at something else. The perfect examples are Bach and Wagner. Bach clearly was trying to express perfect structures and balances. But Wagner was more focused on expression. It isn't necessarily a better/worse thing, it's just different.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

If we take perfect to mean excellent *and* flawless and not superlatively "great" or "surpassing in all dimensions", all of Ravel's piano pieces are perfect. They never reveal even an inkling of error. On the other side of the hedge are Berlioz's and Mahler's deeply flawed masterpieces; great, sublime, sure, but with untrimmed branches all round. A good rule of thumb is that the longer the continuous length of the work, the most likely it is to be flawed. Mahler's most perfect pieces are his songs, which are the shortest of his works. Wagner's operas are long but they're broken into discrete (not separate) sections, the longest of which do not exceed 12 minutes. There appears to be a unbreakable barrier on the length of a flawless continuous piece of music. The longest in my judgment is the first movement of the Eroica, clocking in at 17 minutes. It's no coincidence that the symphonies of Brahams, that ardent perfectionist, shrank in size over time as they grew and plateaued in their quality.

Schubert's influence on Bruckner and, in turn, Bruckner's influence on Mahler, were all negative (imo). The latter two would have been better off writing much shorter symphonies.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Wow. Just wow.


They are pretty awe-inspiring words aren't they? :3 Brings a tear to my eye that such glorious brilliance could emanate from my own mind~


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> They are pretty awe-inspiring words aren't they? :3 Brings a tear to my eye that such glorious brilliance could emanate from my own mind~


Take my advice and moderate your approach on this board or you will give away your true age.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> No such thing. Also the idea that there are excess notes, or _wrong_ notes in a composer's finished piece, is such a grandly absurd concept that I'm almost completely speechless.





BurningDesire said:


> They are pretty awe-inspiring words aren't they? :3 Brings a tear to my eye that such glorious brilliance could emanate from my own mind~


The thought that a piece could improve if the score suffered some red ink has *never* occurred in your mind while listening to some work before? Not necessarily that you'd be the one wielding the pen, but a more skillful and qualified editor perhaps.

I, for one, would have Brahms edit Tchaikovsky's 6th.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> The thought that a piece could improve if the score suffered some red ink has *never* occurred in your mind while listening to some work before? Not necessarily that you'd be the one wielding the pen, but a more skillful and qualified editor perhaps.
> 
> I, for one, would have Brahms edit Tchaikovsky's 6th.


No, I'm not saying that there aren't pieces that could use improvements, but I think there is alot of hubris in saying that a great artist like Tchaikovsky wrote down "wrong notes". There are no "wrong notes" except by what the composer thinks so. You might think something could be better, could be improved, but its not wrong. Music isn't objective.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

stomanek said:


> Take my advice and moderate your approach on this board or you will give away your true age.


I do moderate my approach. My style is combination of serious ideas, but also having a sense of humor and not taking things too seriously :3 I think it works pretty nicely~


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> No, I'm not saying that there aren't pieces that could use improvements, but I think there is alot of hubris in saying that a great artist like Tchaikovsky wrote down "wrong notes". There are no "wrong notes" except by what the composer thinks so. You might think something could be better, could be improved, but its not wrong. Music isn't objective.


You realize that Tchaikovsky admitted in his letters that certain works of his could have been improved if he had more time to work on them?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> You realize that Tchaikovsky admitted in his letters that certain works of his could have been improved if he had more time to work on them?


Yep, and I think he has the authority to say so, seeing as how it is _his_ work.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Yep, and I think he has the authority to say so, seeing as how it is _his_ work.


If the author of the work is the only one who is endowed with the privilege of finding a flaw with it listeners would have no authority in judging music at all. The only reason that Tchaikovsky is considered a great artists is because listeners consider him a great artist. If the listener has the authority to endow the work with greatness the listener has the concomitant authority to find flaws in the work.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> If the author of the work is the only one who is endowed with the privilege of finding a flaw with it listeners would have no authority in judging music at all. The only reason that Tchaikovsky is considered a great artists is because listeners consider him a great artist. If the listener has the authority to endow the work with greatness the listener has the concomitant authority to find flaws in the work.


Most listeners don't understand how music works, so they really don't have the tools to make proper criticisms with. Even so, its just their opinion. Music is not objective. Its just Tchaikovsky's opinion too, but since he is the one who created the work, I hold his opinion in higher esteem. He holds actual authority in music, and he holds authority over his own work.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Having an opinion on a work is substantially different to altering said work. I don't think you need to have much "authority" to have an opinion on a piece of music.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

It astonishes me how brazenly arrogant some people can be in asserting, repeatedly under different guises, that most listeners are unable to judge the merits of music because they lack formal training in composition.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Someone who can create themself would have special knowledge about the quality of creation. Not that you couldn't have a good insight as a non creator too. It's just that a creator might have a better one.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

GGluek said:


> Come now, you disagree that there can be (are) "bad" pieces of music? And that some of the "bad"ness is the result of incompetence, lack of craftmanship, wrong turns, faulty inspiration, or just plain lack of ability? Quality is quality. Certainly to a composer's mother, there are never excess or wrong notes -- but the rest of us can recognize them when we hear them.
> 
> No amount of marveling at Wagner's mature genius is ever going to make the overture to "Das Liebesverbot" sound like any more than bad Suppe.


That is true there are music that does not sound all that great,the music can be flawed but not everyone like all music.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

Music is something created by humans, as are the rules of composition. I find it hard to judge whether something is perfect or imperfect without a natural law governing it. Look at chemistry for example. If two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom were bonded a water molecule will always be formed because the laws of chemistry are perfect. Music, however has none of these natural laws. We can only judge whether it follows the rules of composition but that is a human made standard. Compare music to a language. If I were to say: "I loves Chopin" that would be improper English but English is something conceived by man. I could invent my own language where the same sentence would be proper. Technically anyone could invent their own rules of composition that oppose our music theory. (ex. 5 beats in a 4/4 measure)

Music theory does seem to produce music that is pleasing to the ear and if music were created using jungle rules it probably would not sound pleasing. So perhaps music theory is perfect itself. If music theory is perfect then any composition following it should be perfect. And we ceratainly can't judge perfection based on whether people enjoy music because perfection is not dependent on opinion. 

I don't believe that music can be perfect or imperfect on a divine standard or a standard involving natural laws but I do believe music can be judged as perfect based on human standards. I personally don't feel that I can judge musical perfection, so I won't even try.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The arts are my passion. I'm constantly reminded that Superman exists when I see Goya's brushstrokes or see Rubinstein in that Russian concert on DVD. Men are not perfect. But mankind can create perfection.


----------



## Ivanovich (Aug 12, 2012)

What a singular genius Bach was! He transcended the constraints of the baroque era like no other contemporary; his music is universal, eternal, dare I say, perfect.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

As long as I don't experience any sensation to the effect of - "well, now he seems to just be trying to get from _there_ to _here_" - in the work, I'm willing to credit the composer with perfectly realizing his intentions.

Perfection seems to be just a matter of not having any wasted notes.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Nope.... and each of the greatest and 'most perfect' of composers would be the first to tell you that, at least about their own music. When it comes to commenting on other composer's music, like Beethoven commenting upon hearing a Mozart piece, "Oh, God, will we ever hear such perfection again?" they are much less inhibited to generally admire with greater surety the 'perfection' of another composer


----------



## Krisena (Jul 21, 2012)

For me to call music perfect, there would have to be some kind of objective idea or template of the perfect composition, which I think is absurd and impossible.

I can, however, allow myself to use the word perfection to describe a musical experience I find excessively great at a given moment.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

TrazomGangflow said:


> Music theory does seem to produce music that is pleasing to the ear and if music were created using jungle rules it probably would not sound pleasing. So perhaps music theory is perfect itself. If music theory is perfect then any composition following it should be perfect. And we ceratainly can't judge perfection based on whether people enjoy music because perfection is not dependent on opinion.


I think what you mean is "tonal harmony", as in the system that was really solidified during the Baroque period, with Johann Sebastian Bach as, probably, the first true master of that style of writing, the Major/Minor dichotomy. Music theory is the discipline that analyzes and explains all kinds of music. Modal writing, polytonality, atonality, the 12-tone system, serialism, aleatoric and indeterminate music all fit into music theory, as does tonal harmony, the system which was dominant during the common practice. Theorists study all of these things, and come up with ways of analyzing them. The theory explains how things work in a technical way.

I don't believe it is possible to write an objectively "perfect" piece. There's too many different ways to judge and look at music. It may be perfect to a particular individual, in that it is really good for them, but that is just a subjective opinion. I mean, is... say, a movement from a Haydn or Mozart piano sonata perfect because it is a clear example of sonata form? Or is a Beethoven symphony finale perfect because it takes the sonata form and expands it and changes it in imaginative ways? Or is a Schoenberg 12-tone piece perfect because it has intense discipline and strictly follows the 12-tone system without breaking any of its' rules? Or is a Debussy piece perfect because it creates a beautiful, imaginative world of sound, with clever use of motives to keep a logical continuity to it, despite foregoing tonal direction and not following a standardized form? Personally, I don't think there is objectivity in the arts. There are schools of though that allow for something approaching objectivity, such as a painting being more realistic could be considered better in that aspect than say... a Mannerist, or Impressionist or Expressionist work, but those styles aren't going for an exact photo-realistic replica of the subject.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Bnseiyenmttphhho ov ne yn ' s

expressed in code to avoid controversy . But no, in reality I don't think so. Nor do I think that imperfection can be termed perfection as others have put forward as an alternative.


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

Olias said:


> Well if we have the understanding that perfection is subjective then my subjective list of perfect works would include:
> 
> Bach - Goldberg Variations
> Haydn - Symphony 104
> ...


That is the perfect list, the only thing I would add is Beethoven's violin concerto.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

*Ligeti's* Piano Concerto is perfect.


----------



## ArthurBrain (Aug 19, 2012)

Well, the piece that immediately sprung to mind was Stravinsky's 'The Rite Of Spring'. If it ain't perfect it's as near as IMO....


----------



## WavesOfParadox (Aug 5, 2012)

Music is art. Art is subjective. Therefore, perfection is impossible.

That said, I think the closest anyone has ever gotten is Cage's 4'33

Think about it


----------



## ArthurBrain (Aug 19, 2012)

WavesOfParadox said:


> Music is art. Art is subjective. Therefore, perfection is impossible.
> 
> That said, I think the closest anyone has ever gotten is Cage's 4'33
> 
> Think about it


To an extent that's true, but wouldn't that argument, if taken to the extreme, also mean there's no such thing as prodigious talent in the artistic field in turn? Sometimes there's pieces that just stand out for the sheer inventiveness, creativity, structure that go beyond the 'norm'. They may not be 'perfect' in an absolute sense of the term but they're still out the stratosphere in any other sense I'd say....

Like the example btw


----------



## WavesOfParadox (Aug 5, 2012)

We're getting into some psychology here. There is a general sense of good or bad art. I think the concept is much like what we think as ethical.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

To be honest music can have some flaws but still sound good ,in my case music that has a steady rhythm sounds better to me than music that has little of it.



ArthurBrain said:


> Well, the piece that immediately sprung to mind was Stravinsky's 'The Rite Of Spring'. If it ain't perfect it's as near as IMO....


I do not find it perfect but one likes it or enjoys it that matters to people like me,i do not mind some flaws in music.



ArthurBrain said:


> To an extent that's true, but wouldn't that argument, if taken to the extreme, also mean there's no such thing as prodigious talent in the artistic field in turn? Sometimes there's pieces that just stand out for the sheer inventiveness, creativity, structure that go beyond the 'norm'. They may not be 'perfect' in an absolute sense of the term but they're still out the stratosphere in any other sense I'd say....
> 
> Like the example btw


To be honest a lot of people like singers have no talent at all,they have machines do the work for them there are software that make music for people rather than them writing it down.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

*Has any composer ever achieved perfection?*

Yes. Several composers and at several moments in time.


----------



## eonbird (Aug 21, 2012)

There's a lot of pieces that I enjoy listening to, but I'm not sure about perfection. For some great concertos that I really enjoyed, my friends didn't like it when I showed it to them. But anyways, the one that came to mind that seemed close enough to perfection was Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No.2. Absolutely amazing. ^^


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The irony is that those who claim that music cannot possibly reach a state of perfection are probably the same ones screaming bloody murder when a conductor omits a repeat, performs cuts or tinkers with the orchestration.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Many "perfect games" in these bodies of work. The starting nine--Bach, Haydn, Mozart, LvB, Schumann, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Shostakovich.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> The irony is that those who claim that music cannot possibly reach a state of perfection are probably the same ones screaming bloody murder when a conductor omits a repeat, performs cuts or tinkers with the orchestration.


Not likely. Many people here seem to agree music cannot reach perfection, whereas the vast majority of musicians seem to think that omitting repeats is ok/good idea.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

bigshot said:


> The irony is that those who claim that music cannot possibly reach a state of perfection are probably the same ones screaming bloody murder when a conductor omits a repeat, performs cuts or tinkers with the orchestration.


Why is this ironic? (Not that I have problems in principle with omitted repeats or altered orchestration).


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> The irony is that those who claim that music cannot possibly reach a state of perfection are probably the same ones screaming bloody murder when a conductor omits a repeat, performs cuts or tinkers with the orchestration.


That isn't about perfection. Its about somebody changing somebody else's work of art, but still presenting it as that composer's vision, when its an altered one, altered to suit the taste of the conductor, or make things easier on the performers. I tend to view such edits to be unacceptable. Its fine if its a new orchestration, an altered version, but then you shouldn't present it like its the original. If you take the repeats out, or the brass players take some of the notes in a Beethoven symphony down an octave from what Beethoven wrote, thats alright, but then the program should read "Beethoven Symphony No. 5 (with some minor changes to alleviate the difficulty for our incompetent musicians)"


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Hummel's Trumpet Concerto is one of the greats for me. Very close to perfection.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> That isn't about perfection. Its about somebody changing somebody else's work of art


If something is flawed, that means it can be improved, no?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

In order to determine if something has reached perfection, one must first define perfection. Not sure if it can every be defined in regards to music.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> If something is flawed, that means it can be improved, no?


Obvious answer: I am suspicious of conductors 'improving' Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven etc.

In principle I agree. It does however annoy me when you can't even get it as the composer wrote it.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Call me silly, but I always thought with the greatest artists, including Dante, Michelangelo, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc. there is a certain completeness to their works, where succeeding artists can not develop their ideas any further but simply learn and revel from their beauty. For example, Beethoven loved and admired Mozart's work but according to Alfred Einstein he was constantly annoyed as he thought that Mozart's work showed him no guidance to his own musical thought; he couldn't grasp anything from it. I wouldn't call this perfection, but I would say that is as close as it's going to get in this world.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

bigshot said:


> The irony is that those who claim that music cannot possibly reach a state of perfection are probably the same ones screaming bloody murder when a conductor omits a repeat, performs cuts or tinkers with the orchestration.


I rather a person not change a persons music unless they have permission to do so,i would like to hear music the way the composer intended.The same way when people tinker with a dead persons work they may not know how to complete it.One person completed somewhat the elgar symphony 3 because elgar wrote enough sketchs to work from.But MR PAYNE mess up the last movement.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Should men still perform all the female roles in Shakespere?


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

bigshot said:


> If something is flawed, that means it can be improved, no?


Yes it can be improved that is why many composers destroy music after they made better versions.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Should men still perform all the female roles in Shakespere?


Yes. It would be hugely entertaining.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

After having listened to a really fine performance of Mozart's Requiem in D Minor K.626 I would have to say that *yes* there is a composer who reached perfection! He reached it musically, emotionally and spiritually in writing this piece on his death bed. It is a true masterpiece of musical perfection.

Kevin


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Kevin Pearson said:


> After having listened to a really fine performance of Mozart's Requiem in D Minor K.626 I would have to say that *yes* there is a composer who reached perfection! He reached it musically, emotionally and spiritually in writing this piece on his death bed. It is a true masterpiece of musical perfection.
> 
> Kevin


After having listened to a really fine performance of *Ligeti's* _Le Grand Macabre_ I would have to say that *yes* there is a composer who reached perfection! He reached it musically, emotionally and spiritually in writing this piece toward the end of his middle period when he was looking for more ideas and techniques to use in his compositions. It is a true masterpiece of musical perfection.

And for anyone else interested, here is the template:

After having listened to a really fine performance of ___________ I would have to say that *yes* there is a composer who reached perfection! He reached it musically, emotionally and spiritually in writing this piece _________. It is a true masterpiece of musical perfection.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Vivaldi's Four Seasons is 4 perfect Concertos imo. If only he could reach that level again. The other ones are good to but don't scream masterpiece like those 4 do.


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2012)

WavesOfParadox said:


> Music is art. Art is subjective. Therefore, perfection is impossible.
> 
> That said, I think the closest anyone has ever gotten is Cage's 4'33


Not if the performance lasts only 4'32".


----------

