# Just wondering...



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

What do you think music would be like if Beethoven had lived another ten years and Mozart/Schubert another twenty years each?

My view is Beethoven would of done two more symphonies and probably some real heavy piano sonatas and quartets. Would Schubert have written a piano concerto? What would Mozart have made of Beethoven's 'Eroica'? 

The way I look at it is this: Composers seem to die when when have achieved all they can. Just imagine the horror of Beethoven (like he said he would) commiting suicide at the age of thirty. It doesn't bear thinking about.


----------



## Organum (Nov 29, 2009)

There would be a lot more incredible music, that's for sure. Funny, it seems for classical composers, the older they got the better (more interesting) their work got. For almost every other form of popular music the inverse is true.

Another composer I think would've done truly groundbreaking things if he'd lived 10-20 years longer is Scriabin (dead at 43). He seemed to be on the cusp of something truly revolutionary (or possibly insane) when he died.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

beetzart said:


> What do you think music would be like if Beethoven had lived another ten years and Mozart/Schubert another twenty years each?
> 
> My view is Beethoven would of done two more symphonies and probably some real heavy piano sonatas and quartets. Would Schubert have written a piano concerto? What would Mozart have made of Beethoven's 'Eroica'?
> 
> The way I look at it is this: Composers seem to die when when have achieved all they can. Just imagine the horror of Beethoven (like he said he would) commiting suicide at the age of thirty. It doesn't bear thinking about.


Reading your post I can't help thinking about fate, destiny and so forth. I hear a lot of "this was meant to be", or "it's destiny"... Sadly (or not, for some people, including myself), there is no such thing as destiny. If Beethoven had decided to end his life right after his Heiligenstadt Testament (I assume that's what you're referring to), then... well... then no more Beethoven! There would be no point counting the loss in works that would never be written. Yes, music would have been different, but in overall, I guarantee that it would be equally interesting.

I don't like what ifs. The past has happened and we can "read" it however we want.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

http://www.talkclassical.com/4005-add-20-years-their.html


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I think Beethoven would have struuggled desperately to complete his planned 10th symphony and would have gone insane in the process or something that would incapacitate him from composing, partly due to his deafness.

Schubert may have found some recognition at last.

Mozart would have spent the last years of his life toiling to finish the requiem in a version that would far surpass the reconstructions we have today.



On second thought the achievments of Mozart and Schubert would not seem so remarkable had they lived too old age, and Beethovens final struggles with deafness as well as Mozart writing his own requiem would not seem so romantic.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

emiellucifuge said:


> On second thought the achievments of Mozart and Schubert would not seem so remarkable had they lived too old age, and Beethovens final struggles with deafness as well as Mozart writing his own requiem would not seem so romantic.


Mozart and Schubert are already highly famous on the basis on what they achieved in their short lifetimes. If they had both lived to old age in good health, you appear to be suggesting that some kind of overall diminution of their reputations would have resulted. I don't see how, because they were both writing better and better material as they matured. As for Mozart's Requiem, I'm afraid that I don't see the point you are trying to make at all. He worked so rapidly that he would have probably polished off that work in a few weeks had he survived.

I grant you that Beethoven had probably had enough of life by the time of his end. His cirrhosis was very severe according to autopsy reports, and he had therefore in all likelihood been quite a heavy drinker. Nevertheless, had he been spared another few years in the same/possibly worse condition he may not have written much more. On the other hand, with Beethoven it was never too clear what he might tackle next. To all intents and purposes he had a pretty good "innings". If he were judged on the basis of his achievements at the same age as Mozart's death they would be significantly less, as he lived another 22 years. If judged on his achievements up to the same age as Schubert died, Beethoven would have been a much less significant composer today, probably a virtual nobody.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Regarding Mozart, he would surely have composed more works in the major genres that he loved most, which were also genres that brought him relatively more financial success and fame in his generation. These would have been opera and piano concertos, both saw no equal to Mozart during the classical period/pre-Beethoven.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I imagine that all we could expect from any of these composers is 'more of their best stuff' should they have lived longer, but I wouldn't think that the direction or speed of musical development towards middle and late Romanticism (or elsewhere) would have been any different.

With regards to the best music of a composer typically being their latest works, I've always felt that this is because classical music requires totally different skills and attitudes to contemporary, commercial music. The creation of classical music requires (life) experience, hardship and wisdom, all of which increase with age.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> The creation of classical music requires (life) experience, hardship and wisdom, all of which increase with age.


Not in Mendelssohn's case though!

Oh, and these people were not "creating classical music". They were just creating music. "Classical" came much later.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

danae said:


> Not in Mendelssohn's case though!
> 
> Oh, and these people were not "creating classical music". They were just creating music. "Classical" came much later.


This is an interesting issue.

It has got me wondering if any broad conclusions could be drawn about the following. Suppose we take a group of top composers (I accept that the composition of such is uncertain and highly debateable etc) and split each of their lifetime's works into three roughly equal groups by volume/age. The first set would comprise the composer's "early" works, the second set the "mid-period" works, and the last the "late period" works. Note that this is not entirely a time-based issue, but needs to incorporate a roughly equal "volume" of work, however measured, in each category.

In my estimation, if I had to chose the best single set of works for each composer I would select - off the top of my head, based on a bit of guesswork, and subject to possibly major revision after more thought - the following: 



Beethoven: mid
  Mozart: late
  Bach: mid
  Brahms: mid
  Schubert: late
  Mendelssohn: mid
  Chopin: mid
  Tchaikovsky: late
  Schumann: early
  Handel: mid
  Stravinsky: mid
  Debussy: mid
  Wagner: late
  Mahler: late
  Bruckner: late
  Liszt: mid
  Dvorak: late
  Vivaldi: late
  Verdi: mid
  Berlioz: mid
Haydn: late

I have based this crudely on a quick check of the dates when these composers produced their greatest works. Just to give a few examples:

Handel wrote Messiah in 1741/2, some 17 years before his death. Water music was far earlier. Judas Maccabaeus was written in 1746, etc. Bach wrote the St Mathew Passion in 1727, age 42 and 23 years before his death. Regards Beethoven, it's a matter of taste to a very large extent but I marginally prefer mid-period to late period. Schumann is the only composer I would place in the "early" category by virtue of his magnificent solo piano concentration. With Schubert it's almost inevitable that his best works are from his "late" period. The same could be said to apply to Mozart.

As may be seen, on my preferences at least, the late period works are not necessarily the best.

 Other people may wish to attack all this and state their own assessments.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Artemis said:


> Other people may wish to attack all this and state their own assessments.


Okay then. Of those listed the only one I possibly disagree with is Stravinsky. What works are you grouping into his mid-period? I could see him as being one of the few who can be classed as peaking early. What about Schoenberg? He could be another ealy one.

And why the big font?

As for the OP, in a parallel universe all possible outcomes either have happened, are happening or will have happen at some point.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Artemis said:


> Mozart and Schubert are already highly famous on the basis on what they achieved in their short lifetimes. If they had both lived to old age in good health, you appear to be suggesting that some kind of overall diminution of their reputations would have resulted. I don't see how, because they were both writing better and better material as they matured. As for Mozart's Requiem, I'm afraid that I don't see the point you are trying to make at all. He worked so rapidly that he would have probably polished off that work in a few weeks had he survived.
> 
> I grant you that Beethoven had probably had enough of life by the time of his end. His cirrhosis was very severe according to autopsy reports, and he had therefore in all likelihood been quite a heavy drinker. Nevertheless, had he been spared another few years in the same/possibly worse condition he may not have written much more. On the other hand, with Beethoven it was never too clear what he might tackle next. To all intents and purposes he had a pretty good "innings". If he were judged on the basis of his achievements at the same age as Mozart's death they would be significantly less, as he lived another 22 years. If judged on his achievements up to the same age as Schubert died, Beethoven would have been a much less significant composer today, probably a virtual nobody.


I do not deny that both Mozart and Schubert would have continued to create many more masterpieces, but in my mind it seems all the more remarkable and tragic that two geniuses managed to create such amazing works of art and still died early. After all history wouldnt be complete without its tragedies.

The other idea is that the rather romantic story of Mozart receiving the comission at midnight with a bag of gold, and working on the requiem until his last breath believing it be a requiem for himself - it would lose all its mystique if mozart had managed to get up after finishing and had lived on happily.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Argus said:


> Okay then. Of those listed the only one I possibly disagree with is Stravinsky. What works are you grouping into his mid-period? I could see him as being one of the few who can be classed as peaking early. What about Schoenberg? He could be another ealy one.
> 
> And why the big font?
> 
> As for the OP, in a parallel universe all possible outcomes either have happened, are happening or will have happen at some point.


First, why the big font? I find it visually more attractive than the default. Not only do I like good music, but I also like nice fonts, nice cars, hi-fi-, holidays, holidays, food, clothes, and other such goodies.

Regards my choice of "mid" for Stravinsky, I was basing my assessment on a selection of his best works works: Rite of Spring, Petrushka, Firebird, L'histoire du Soldat, Symphony of Psalms, Violin Concerto, Les Noces, Mass, Symphony in 3 movements, Rake's Progress.

Some of these works were written early and revised much later, which complicates matters. I therefore had to take an average of the various dates of creation/amendment. Then I guessed that the average date of composition for all works (incorporating a very subjective weighting for importance) came to about 1930'ish with a standard error of about 10 years, which I attributed to his "mid" period.

Voila!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

danae said:


> Not in Mendelssohn's case though!
> 
> Oh, and these people were not "creating classical music". They were just creating music. "Classical" came much later.


Indeed - I apologise for the anachronism and give myself a smack on the wrist  If I replaced that with 'art music', I think that would be applicable. Even though the term might not have been used, and even though there was no 'popular' (if we disregard folk) music with which to wrestle, I'm sure all composers were aware that they were creating some form of high-art.

With regards to Mendelssohn, you're of course exactly right. However, it seems that from the way his music affects people and the kinds of critiques he gets, the best word to describe his output would be 'well crafted and academic'. In that sense, it doesn't necessarily contradict my notion that late works are superior because the creation of art requires experience, hardship and wisdom. Rather, Mendelssohn just happened to have a very rare gift for an almost mathematical perfection of his music and maybe if he lived much longer, he would have created works we might today consider more 'groundbreaking' than his usual (albeit misleading) 'conservative' label.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Although he did not die young, I always thought that, had Brahms lived for another 5-10 years, he might have given us the greatest clarinet concerto of all time, surpassing Mozart. His clarinet-based chamber music of his last years is awesome.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Indeed - I apologise for the anachronism and give myself a smack on the wrist  If I replaced that with 'art music', I think that would be applicable.


I also use the term "art music".


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Artemis said:


> First, why the big font? I find it visually more attractive than the default. Not only do I like good music, but I also like nice fonts, nice cars, hi-fi-, holidays, holidays, food, clothes, and other such goodies.
> 
> Regards my choice of "mid" for Stravinsky, I was basing my assessment on a selection of his best works works: Rite of Spring, Petrushka, Firebird, L'histoire du Soldat, Symphony of Psalms, Violin Concerto, Les Noces, Mass, Symphony in 3 movements, Rake's Progress.
> 
> ...


I would class a few of those works listed as his early period. His first 3 ballets are undoubtedly part of his first clear phase in his career. I would say his mid-period works probably start around 1920ish with Pulcinella and the revised Les Noces. His late-period would encompass his stay in America. Carry on.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Argus said:


> I would class a few of those works listed as his early period. His first 3 ballets are undoubtedly part of his first clear phase in his career. I would say his mid-period works probably start around 1920ish with Pulcinella and the revised Les Noces. His late-period would encompass his stay in America. Carry on.


For each of the works I listed, Wikipedia gives the following dates as the original year of production:Firebird 10 
Petrushka 11 
Rite of Spring 13 
L'Histoire du Soldat 18 
Les Noces 14-17 
Symphony of Psalms 30 
Violin Concerto 31 
Symphony in 3 Movements 45 
Mass 44-48 
The Rake's Progress 51​As you know, some of these works were revised many years later. Ignoring that, the average date of these works is 1927.

Previously, I guessed "1930'ish" as the average date. Hence, I was not far out. I was assuming around 1920-25 for the start of his mid period. You say that you consider that his mid period works started after 1923. If the average date of his best works is around 1927, it could be argued that his best output was that from his mid-career. Which I what I suggested.

Anyway, it's not you I'm mainly directing this at but anyone who happens to believe that all composers, or even most of them, always produce their best works in their late periods.

Carry on.


----------



## kmisho (Oct 22, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Indeed - I apologise for the anachronism and give myself a smack on the wrist  If I replaced that with 'art music', I think that would be applicable. Even though the term might not have been used, and even though there was no 'popular' (if we disregard folk) music with which to wrestle, I'm sure all composers were aware that they were creating some form of high-art.
> 
> With regards to Mendelssohn, you're of course exactly right. However, it seems that from the way his music affects people and the kinds of critiques he gets, the best word to describe his output would be 'well crafted and academic'. In that sense, it doesn't necessarily contradict my notion that late works are superior because the creation of art requires experience, hardship and wisdom. Rather, Mendelssohn just happened to have a very rare gift for an almost mathematical perfection of his music and maybe if he lived much longer, he would have created works we might today consider more 'groundbreaking' than his usual (albeit misleading) 'conservative' label.


In your list of what superior art requires, the one Mendelssohn was missing was "hardship." Overstating of course, but I think this was basically his problem. So much great art is born of turmoil in the real lives of artists. And, unfortunately, I think it has to be this way. Mendelssohn simply didn't have the life-stuff to put in his work that a Shostakovich or a Chopin or a Tchaikovsky had.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

kmisho said:


> In your list of what superior art requires, the one Mendelssohn was missing was "hardship." Overstating of course, but I think this was basically his problem. So much great art is born of turmoil in the real lives of artists. And, unfortunately, I think it has to be this way. Mendelssohn simply didn't have the life-stuff to put in his work that a Shostakovich or a Chopin or a Tchaikovsky had.


Maybe if he didn't die so soon after his sister Fanny he could have translated some of his grief from her passing into his music. Saying that, however, I don't think that idea of the artist having to struggle through hardship is that important to allow them to compose profound music. A lot of the earlier composers, lie Bahc or Haydn, had pretty simple and uneventful lives yet still composed deep and moving music. It seemed that creating music was more like a any other regular job to these earlier composers rather than the fatalistic calling it would later be seen as.



> As you know, some of these works were revised many years later. Ignoring that, the average date of these works is 1927.
> 
> Previously, I guessed "1930'ish" as the average date. Hence, I was not far out. I was assuming around 1920-25 for the start of his mid period. You say that you consider that his mid period works started after 1923. If the average date of his best works is around 1927, it could be argued that his best output was that from his mid-career. Which I what I suggested.
> 
> ...




I see what how you're calculating it know. Using the best works and creating an average, then seeing what period that falls into.

I was dividing his career up into 3 periods beforehand then seeing where most of my favourite pieces of his fell.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Artemis said:


> Handel wrote Messiah in 1741/2, some 17 years before his death. Water music was far earlier. Judas Maccabaeus was written in 1746, etc.


Handel's example is a very interesting one. His best operas regarded by many, were three masterpieces written and performed consecutively around 1724/1725, when he was about 40 years old. These three works were _Giulio Cesare, Tamerlano_ and _Rodelinda_. While _Messiah_ (an oratorio) appeared almost 20 years later, other oratorios were at least, if not of higher standard. I have in mind for example, _Samson_ (composed after/along with _Messiah_), _Solomon_ and _Theodora_ , latter two premiered around 1749/1750, which was around the time when J. S. Bach died.

Handel's genuis was primarily a matter of inspiration. His creativity was always with him throughout his career. Thus, latest works were not necessarily always the finest, but earlier works may well be too.


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

I really would like to know what the likes of lesser known composers such as Edward MacDowell and Charles Griffes would have done if their careers weren't cut short.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Handel's example is a very interesting one. His best operas regarded by many, were three masterpieces written and performed consecutively around 1724/1725, when he was about 40 years old. These three works were _Giulio Cesare, Tamerlano_ and _Rodelinda_. While _Messiah_ (an oratorio) appeared almost 20 years later, other oratorios were at least, if not of higher standard. I have in mind for example, _Samson_ (composed after/along with _Messiah_), _Solomon_ and _Theodora_ , latter two premiered around 1749/1750, which was around the time when J. S. Bach died.
> 
> Handel's genuis was primarily a matter of inspiration. His creativity was always with him throughout his career. Thus, latest works were not necessarily always the finest, but earlier works may well be too.


Thanks. I'm aware of Handel's masterpieces, and only quoted a tiny number to illustrate the principle of calculation. In fact, for the majority of composers I didn't specify any particular works. It's up to people themselves to decide which works they consider to be their favourites for the composers they know about, and then to consider in which "period" of the composer's life they fall, on average. Argus has now got the point about the calculation method if you glance back at his last comment. Your suggestions about additional high quality Handel works are perfectly valid and they would appear to support my contention that his "best" period was his middle one. Note too that the procedure I suggested of averaging takes into account all aspects of a composer's creativity, including both quality and quantity of works produced at different points in time. For example, it's dubious to argue that composer X's best period was his last if he had slowed down sharply by then and hardly produced anything at all. Anyway, it's obvious that most people have no comment on any of this (obviously too complicated or they can't work it out or don't like the consquences for their pet theory, or something like that).


----------

