# A thought experiment on the listener’s reaction



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I’m slightly hesitant in posting this thought experiment. I tried it years ago and saw another person mention something similar in a different thread. In both cases there was much misunderstanding leading to aggressive posts. Hopefully, I can explain it better such that people focus on my intent. I will describe the thought experiment and then try to explain what it is NOT about.

Imagine you find out that Beethoven’s 9th symphony was not written by Beethoven and was actually written in your lifetime. If you don’t find that symphony to be one of your favorite and most highly respected works, simply substitute another old work that is. The question is how that knowledge would affect your enjoyment and respect for the work. You absolutely loved and highly valued the work before learning of its true origins. The piece itself has not changed but your knowledge about it has.

So there’s less misunderstanding:

This thought experiment has nothing to do with modern/contemporary music. If I could ask people in 1890 the same question, I would expect to learn the same about people’s attitudes. If asked what music I would like modern/contemporary composers to write, I would say exactly the wonderful music they’ve written for the past 100 years.

Remember, it’s a thought experiment. If you think it’s impossible, that’s irrelevant. Please use your imagination. Maybe advanced aliens conditioned everyone in the world to believe Beethoven wrote the work. Philosophers write serious papers using thought experiments on unconscious zombies.

If you think no one recently could write a symphony like that, again use your imagination. It happened. How would you react?

The experiment is to learn about _your_ (TC members’) response to loving a work then finding out it is not what you always thought it was. Do you think you would enjoy it as much? Would you appreciate the work in the same way?

Thanks for taking this seriously.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

It's hard to even conceive. One would hope that it would receive the same general/widespread acceptance but it's hard to imagine music history with a gaping hole in it. Taking your example of Beethoven's Ninth, how would subsequent works be different had it never been written? (On the flip side, how would music history be different today if Schubert, Mahler, or Bruckner completed their last symphonies?) There are some works which really are part of the fabric of music history, and it's not so simple to unweave part of that fabric without ruining the rest. One thing is nearly for sure: it wouldn't be so revolutionary today, because music has progressed in the 198 years since Beethoven's Ninth premiered. In fact it might be labeled as reactionary, and consigned to the wastebasket of music history. A horrible thought! 

It's much easier to imagine if it was _discovered_ in my lifetime and authenticated as being _written_ by Beethoven between 1822 and 1824; this would be treated as pure solid gold! A manuscript from the master himself! But if Beethoven never wrote it, and a more recent composer had written the exact same work by an act of chance, I think scholars who took it seriously might see the beauty and craftsmanship in the work, but I would be afraid that the general public might never see those. I'm as guilty of this as anyone; I severely neglect contemporary compositions. So I don't even know if they are good or bad, since I don't expose myself to contemporary works enough; this is one good thing about modern concert programming, since it forces me to hear more recent music. But I think that in your example in this post, there is a good chance that it would be just another contemporary work, written in an archaic, backward-looking style, and swamped by competition. It was forward-looking at the time it was written, but that was 200 years ago; today, it would be looking backward because of how far music has progressed in those two centuries.

What an interesting idea, though!


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I would appreciate it a lot more, because the work was never existing in our history, it was gone, and now it's here written for the first time.

A more interesting question for me would be, which works would be more surprising. I think a composer of _Scheherazade_ or _The Eroica_ or _The Choral,_ would be a lot less surprising for me, than something like _Der Ring des Nibelungen,_ as Der Ring feels like a product of a very monumental and unique person time and philosophy. Hearing it composed today would be a bit insane.

But a much more interesting question than any of these I think, is what if a modern piece was composed very early. Say a contemporary of Haydn composed something a bit more like Star Wars with its different kind of wild-orchestration and character themes. It might be one of the most influential pieces but would it (a) ruin the course of music or (b) be a lot more popular in CM albums. I wonder what Mozart would think if he walked upon a composer and their band performing the below song.

I personally think:


Spoiler



Music was always designed to be "good" and provoke a positive reaction. There isn't really much _bad_ music out there, there's just a lot of _music you get tired of, _and better music that you never do. It was still always good. The old composers therefore would be astounded for a long time by the music of the rock and digital era and by grand works from films, some of them saying it's "better," because it's more rare and emotionally affecting.





>


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

I would like to think I would enjoy it just the same. Philosophically speaking, I like to think I value quality over originality in art, but we all fall victim to some amount of biases. I think it is a very interesting question though: does the mere fact that something was original, ahead of its time, or new at the time make it high quality art and, more generally, to what extent do people judge art based on when it was made?


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

There something that I would struggle to overcome - the I idea in my mind that music of all kinds, is of and reflective of its time and place.
To take the OP's initial example of Beetoven's ninth it can be argued that it was the end point of a progression of works influenced by Beethoven's circumstances and times - if that work was dropped on us in the 21st century with all the influences and experiences we currently have I'm not sure how I'd react or accept the piece.
The answer to would it be regarded as a masterpiece in the same manner as history currently affords it, is in my view, extremely doubtful.
Part of the reason we tend to like what we like is directly as a result of the accumulation of written, and audio knowledge and analysis of music up to this point in time. I don't believe we could put that knowledge to one side and accept an older style of composition, at best it may be regarded as a hommage to times past.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

mmsbls said:


> I’m slightly hesitant in posting this thought experiment. I tried it years ago and saw another person mention something similar in a different thread. In both cases there was much misunderstanding leading to aggressive posts. Hopefully, I can explain it better such that people focus on my intent. I will describe the thought experiment and then try to explain what it is NOT about.
> 
> Imagine you find out that Beethoven’s 9th symphony was not written by Beethoven and was actually written in your lifetime. If you don’t find that symphony to be one of your favorite and most highly respected works, simply substitute another old work that is. The question is how that knowledge would affect your enjoyment and respect for the work. You absolutely loved and highly valued the work before learning of its true origins. The piece itself has not changed but your knowledge about it has.
> 
> ...


I believe, my perception would not change, after I have known and loved the work already. Or not much. The more interesting question for me is, if it would become so popular if written by somebody else, not carrying the trademark of Beethoven.

The real thing, which approaches your thought experiment a little bit, is learning about the recycled arias by Bellini. You imagine the aria containing a music tailor made for the situation in an opera, and you find out it is reused from a different situation. I still love it, but sometimes I think it is more effective in the original opera, like, "yes, it makes sense, I have always thought it doesn't fit this situation". But did I always think so, or am I rationalizing backwards ? For instance, the famous trio from Norma (Norma, Adalgisa and Pollione) was orriginally Ernani and Elvira, with Don Carlo joining them.
So in Ernani, it starts as a love duet, but in Norma, Norma comments how deceived Adalgisa has been by Pollione, who seduced both of them. It shows empathy, but also possibly a suppressed anger at her rival Adalgisa.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

@hammeredklavier , where are you when we need you ? Knowledgeable as you are, is there, by chance, a real life example of this ? A music initially attributed to, let's say, Mozart, but later discovered to have been written by somebody I have never heard of ?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

There's the real life case of "Albinoni"'s Adagio in G Minor. It became rather popular with the general public, and I don't think ts popularity decreased when it was found out that it was composed by Remo Giazotto in the mid 20th century.

Personally, I'd like to think that I would not appreciate a favourite work (like Bruckner's 9th or Mahler's 9th to stick with the 9th) less if we found out it was actually not by them. It's still the same music, and that is what moved and moves me.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Not sure I can focus any legitimate thoughts on this issue. What struck me by the original concept and the use of the Beethoven Ninth as an example is that that particular symphony has a history of being mentioned and even quoted by composers who lived well before my own birth. Thus, to just discover that the symphony was more _modern_ than believed seems unlikely, unless, as is hinted at, aliens or some other source have totally reconstructed reality to allow such comments as those of composers who were "haunted" by the image of the Beethoven Ninth, etc. etc. In such a case, we would have a much larger "problem" to deal with than that of a single work of art.

One factor that gives a work of art such as The Ninth Symphony its power of originality is exactly the era in which it was composed. Anyone can duplicate a work of art after encountering the original. It is the mind that creates that original work which provides the true value of a work of art. We certainly treasure Beethoven's Ninth moreso than we do Havergal Brian's First Symphony, the "Gothic". Yet I wonder: what if we found out that the "Gothic" had preceded Beethoven's Ninth. Wouldn't we view it with a different sense of respect?

I still recall my first reading of Orson Scott Card's short story "Unaccompanied Sonata" first published in the March, 1979 issue of _Omni _magazine, an issue which I still have packed away in a box full of _Omni_ magazines in the barn. That story presented a premise which was music-oriented "thought experiment" enough to last me a lifetime.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> Imagine you find out that Beethoven’s 9th symphony was not written by Beethoven and was actually written in your lifetime. If you don’t find that symphony to be one of your favorite and most highly respected works, simply substitute another old work that is. The question is how that knowledge would affect your enjoyment and respect for the work. You absolutely loved and highly valued the work before learning of its true origins. The piece itself has not changed but your knowledge about it has.


Beethovens 9th is used by the european union as anthem. If the work was recently written I would actually suspect it more to be a propaganda work. But Beethovens 9th is probably a bad example because of that.

If Bruckners 8th was recently written, I would enjoy it as much and respect it even more because of the time we live in where such works can't be expected. And I would be more excited about new works, because there would be the possibility of a Bruckner 10th symphony, 11th symphony etc. The same would apply for the first three movements of Beethovens 9th.


----------



## Doublestring (Sep 3, 2014)

The answer is simple. If it was written in our time we would never have heard of it. The composer would be seen as an epigone and he wouldn't find an orchestra to perform or record it.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

Art Rock said:


> There's the real life case of "Albinoni"'s Adagio in G Minor. It became rather popular with the general public, and I don't think ts popularity decreased when it was found out that it was composed by Remo Giazotto in the mid 20th century.
> 
> Personally, I'd like to think that I would not appreciate a favourite work (like Bruckner's 9th or Mahler's 9th to stick with the 9th) less if we found out it was actually not by them. It's still the same music, and that is what moved and moves me.


Wow, I didn't know about Remo Giazotto and Albinoni's adagio at all ! Internet says it is more complicated, because Giazotto claimed, he has found an unfinished manuscript by Albinoni and built on it.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

It's not accidental that this only happens with forgeries and pastiches. The "power of originality" is not tied to a point in time but to a whole (section of) history. I don't remember liking a musical forgery (there are not that many famous ones). If Handel's "German Arias" are a early 20th century pastiche as some seem to suspect, it's a very good one and based on original baroque music. 
I do remember two books I read as a kid about which I learned much later as an adult that they were in some sense "fake". One was an additional "Famous Five" book written by a German ghostwriter (and by accident it was the first of that series I ever read, before the translations of the original ones by Blyton) and the other one was a book by the German late 19th century adventure writer Karl May that had been all but re-written by a later editor (he kept the main plot but changed the character from one series of this author to another, which included changing a 3rd person narrative to a 1st person narrative style). Of course, as an adult, I didn't care that much anymore as both books were rather trivial anyway but I think if I had learned at 14 about that May book being an editor's pastiche I would have been quite disappointed and felt cheated.

Of course, the imaginary Beethoven 9th or Bruckner 8th from the late 20th century would not be a fake. So I don't know. Again, I think one misses a very salient point by not admitting that this usually does not happen except with intentional forgeries. (Or if there are any better examples than "Albinoni" or the fake Mozart violin concerto, I'd be interested in what they are.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

Kreisler jr said:


> ...
> the fake Mozart violin concerto, I'd be interested in what they are.


Which work is that ?


----------



## PeterKC (Dec 30, 2016)

I wonder what Alfano would make of this discussion.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

It wouldn't matter to me if it was written by Beethoven, Richard Clayderman, Barry Manilow or my next door neighbour. It's music I enjoy. I listen to music that resonates with me. Really, really don't care about its origin.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

BBSVK said:


> Which work is that ?


The so-called "Adelaide concerto" K Anh. 294a

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adélaïde_Concerto 

I wonder if someone has examples of "high profile" fakes or highly anachronistic works that would be real experiments concerning the thread question.
There have been quite a few historical misattributions, e.g. a Bach trio sonata for two violins actually by Goldberg, the "Jena symphony" (Witt, attr. Beethoven), (not) "Haydn's" oboe, flute concerto and serenade quartet etc. but they were all by contemporaries and usually not among famous works of these composers. That is, there was never a re-evalution of Beethoven or Witt or that symphony when it turned out to be Witt's.

It's simply impossible to bracket historical and other background knowledge. If a not quite as famous piece, say Beethoven's piano sonata op.90 turned out to be a 20th century composition we could not avoid thinking of it as an extraordinarily brilliant "copy" of Beethoven's style.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Merl said:


> *It wouldn't matter to me* if it was written by Beethoven, Richard Clayderman, Barry Manilow or my next door neighbour. It's music I enjoy. I listen to music that resonates with me. Really, really don't care about its origin.


You're the first person that I thought of when I read the OP - Jaysus... Poor Merl... the lad has to go back and re-write like a hundred cycle reviews substituting the phrase - "It's been rumored that Beethoven wrote a 9th symphony but no trace of it has ever been found".


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

It wouldn't alter my appreciation in the slightest - Genius then is genius now - Every day, I hear something that I've never heard before or, most likely, did hear and probably wasn't paying any attention to it the first time around - Usually, don't have a clue as to what it is or who it was written by - Feel profoundly grateful for the ability to place it back in the correct sleeve in the right box - Identification doesn't alter or affect the quality of the work. One of life's great pleasures is finding the answer to the question - "This is great! - What am I listening to?".


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I had a little phase on this forum where I had experiments a bit like the one you are posting.

One of the most strange experiences was that I listened to Haydn symphonies first -- and then convinced myself into thinking that Sibelius´ 3rd Symphony was written by Haydn. I was utterly amazed by the genius of Haydn and how ahead of his time he was!

Then my next experiment some time later was to convince myself that the 3rd Sibelius was an early symphony by Brahms! And I was not impressed at all. My reaction was: "Why is Brahms so dark, why is there so much repetition? Was he depressed in his youth?"

These two experiments made it clear to me how much our mental state and expectations are part of the musical experience.

As Haydn the symphony was one of the greatest masterpieces of all time and I even "heard/saw" @Kreisler jr and @Neo Romanza praise it!
As Brahms it was an early peculiar experiment.
As Sibelius it is one of my favourites.



(I have a strong imagination.)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

_*To accept the validity of the thought experiment:*_
If it was a work that had had such a big impact on me then I don't think my opinion would change. I tend not to think of a work's history while In am listening to it - while it is working its magic on me - but outside of the listening experience I might ponder how a work that convinced as a Classical or Romantic masterpiece could have been written only yesterday. I can't think of any other example where that has happened so I would be alert. Could I have been wrong about the work? I would listen again is a search for give away passages. But, no, if it were truly the music I know as Beethoven's 9th or Bach's Mass then my mind about the piece would not change. But my understanding of what is possible - that it is possible to write now a work that convinces 100% as a Baroque masterpiece - would change and the world would fall apart!

_*To accept the world as it is:*_
Such a phenomenon is no more possible than are vampires and zombies. Apologies to people who believe in those monsters. And I must say I wonder why a really gifted composer would even want to write something that could convince as one of the greatest masterpieces of an earlier age.

I bet I answered similarly in the earlier attempt to launch this thought experiment (if I answered at all).


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Monsalvat said:


> It's hard to even conceive. One would hope that it would receive the same general/widespread acceptance but it's hard to imagine music history with a gaping hole in it. Taking your example of Beethoven's Ninth, how would subsequent works be different had it never been written? (On the flip side, how would music history be different today if Schubert, Mahler, or Bruckner completed their last symphonies?) There are some works which really are part of the fabric of music history, and it's not so simple to unweave part of that fabric without ruining the rest. One thing is nearly for sure: it wouldn't be so revolutionary today, because music has progressed in the 198 years since Beethoven's Ninth premiered. In fact it might be labeled as reactionary, and consigned to the wastebasket of music history. A horrible thought!
> 
> It's much easier to imagine if it was _discovered_ in my lifetime and authenticated as being _written_ by Beethoven between 1822 and 1824; this would be treated as pure solid gold! A manuscript from the master himself! But if Beethoven never wrote it, and a more recent composer had written the exact same work by an act of chance, I think scholars who took it seriously might see the beauty and craftsmanship in the work, but I would be afraid that the general public might never see those. I'm as guilty of this as anyone; I severely neglect contemporary compositions. So I don't even know if they are good or bad, since I don't expose myself to contemporary works enough; this is one good thing about modern concert programming, since it forces me to hear more recent music. But I think that in your example in this post, there is a good chance that it would be just another contemporary work, written in an archaic, backward-looking style, and swamped by competition. It was forward-looking at the time it was written, but that was 200 years ago; today, it would be looking backward because of how far music has progressed in those two centuries.
> 
> What an interesting idea, though!


I agree that it would leave a gaping hole in music history – my first question would also be to ask how this affects the works coming after Beethoven, if this piece never existed in that time period. How does this change our view on Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Schumann, and so many others? A lot of things would have to be re-evaluated.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BBSVK said:


> A music initially attributed to, let's say, Mozart, but later discovered to have been written by somebody I have never heard of ?


There are a few, as others have pointed out. Now that we know they're not by Mozart, it seems less interesting to talk about them.
Btw, I did pose this question the other day - _"Is this pastiche? (How would we know?)"_ -













How many of these excerpts are music by Mozart?







www.talkclassical.com


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

I'm fairly sure I would welcome such a splendid and glorious score, but I wouldn't have the history and parallels in the huge output of splendid scores by LvB to explore as stellar antecedents. 

I enjoy thinking about what LvB (and other composers too) was composing before and after the symphony (I know the works like old friends). What do they share that is characteristic of his lofty level at this time. 'So interesting.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Many interesting replies and very, very different from my first attempt years ago. 

There's another version of the experiment that asks the same question in a slightly different way. Perhaps it could further clarify my intent. Monsalvat hinted at this version. 

Imagine a previously unknown work discovered in your lifetime. The classical music community analyzes the work and confirms that it is Beethoven's 10 symphony (again substitute something else if you would prefer). The work is beautiful, powerful, grand, innovative - everything that Beethoven's 9th was. You listen and are stunned by its magnificence. You react in essentially the same way you reacted to the 9th. Orchestras perform the work in concert and record many versions of it. You simply love the work and consider it one of the truly great works of classical music Then, details arise confirming that it was written in your lifetime. 

My questions are the same. Would your enjoyment of the music change? Would your view of the work's status change? I am more interested in everyone's personal view rather than the effect on society or the musical community, but of course, people can respond to anything they wish. Basically, the music has not changed but the circumstances of the music's origin have. How would it affect _you_?

My answer (as best as I know myself) is that I would enjoy the work as much. When I originally listened, the sounds filled me with joy, interest, excitement. They still would. But my view of the work would likely change. It is, in some sense, out of time. It is no longer an innovative Classical era work but rather "simply" a wonderful piece written beautifully. It would have lost some of its mystique and lessened my reverence. I'm not sure whether I would still consider it a great work.

I view both versions of the thought experiment as essentially the same for my purpose. The music is the same music that filled you with joy and caused you to hold the work in such high regard, but the origin of the music has changed considerably.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

I do enjoy the history so much, such as a famous painting within the long history of painting, or a scientist within the history of science (associated with all the forward and backward attempts in science around his time). So, yes it's a good thought experiment to drive home these subtleties. Thanks.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It seems to me that it may be possible to wrongly attribute a piece of music as by one of the greats when it was not. But not one of their truly great works.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Luchesi said:


> I do enjoy the history so much, such as a famous painting within the long history of painting, or a scientist within the history of science (associated with all the forward and backward attempts in science around his time). So, yes it's a good thought experiment to drive home these subtleties. Thanks.


You and I are both scientists and likely marvel at remarkable advances in science. The history can be interesting. I suspect the Special Theory of Relativity would have been discovered very soon even if Einstein had not done so because several others were knocking on the door. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity seems more out of time. I wonder how long it would have taken for others to have discovered it?

I think one can ask similar questions of music. Schoenberg is generally considered "the father of atonal music" though others had expanded tonality significantly. I wonder if there is an example of a startling change in music that seemed to come "out of the blue" and was not a trend in the making.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> It seems to me that it may be possible to wrongly attribute a piece of music as by one of the greats when it was not. But not one of their truly great works.


Not even in your imagination?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

OT: Hilbert was developing a field theory very close to (or eventually equivalent to) the GRT at roughly the same time (IIRC he was in some points ahead of Einstein as he was a far better mathematician, Einstein need some help for the maths details from Großmann?) It would probably have needed one guy who knew more physics to adapt it and get to Einstein's (I am not an expert at all, just what I dimly recall read long in history of science).
Schoenberg was not even the only father of 12-tone-music, Hauer was before him although his music sounds quite different.

As I wrote above, I probably could not avoid to view the first "discovered" and then "debunked" (as not by the claimed author) as a stunningly well done "style copy". There were some such cases in painting, I believe, with brilliant forgers not forging existent put painting "newly discovered" Vermeers or so.
But for me the interesting question is why this does not happen in music, or only extremely rarely. So far I have not seen a better example than something like the Adelaide concerto. (Why it does happen with paintings is obvious, money.) So for me the gist is that it usually does not happen in music and one should ask why not.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

mmsbls said:


> Not even in your imagination?


It would be difficult. Great works tend to be filled with personality - the composer's personality.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> You and I are both scientists and likely marvel at remarkable advances in science. The history can be interesting. I suspect the Special Theory of Relativity would have been discovered very soon even if Einstein had not done so because several others were knocking on the door. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity seems more out of time. I wonder how long it would have taken for others to have discovered it?
> 
> I think one can ask similar questions of music. Schoenberg is generally considered "the father of atonal music" though others had expanded tonality significantly. I wonder if there is an example of a startling change in music that seemed to come "out of the blue" and was not a trend in the making.


Yes, someone back then, with all the fascination with light and the ether, would've quickly come up with SR, I think. You just have to imagine yourself riding on a photon. heh
But GR, I'd have to have been on drugs to think like that, back then. And anyway, it would be all forgotten when I sobered up. heh

I'm interested in physics, but physicists I ask (during projects) don't know how weather works. They make good guesses (like I try to do with the CMB 'crisis'). Global weather (or local) is such an interesting subject, everyday is different, every day yields the correct solution to the predictions you've made. And now, it can all be done by data and equations, untouched by human hands.

I think Rap is a startling change in music. Punk was abrupt for me. Maybe impressionism?


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

I despise Beethoven's 9th, but replacing it with an older work I enjoy: I'd be a bit happier, because it would mean I have more similar things to look forward to in a living tradition. But I don't really see how that would be significant or revelatory in any deep way, considering that I enjoy the oeuvre of several living composers, many of whose works were composed during my lifetime. It would just be another piece among them.

Now imagine we're talking about a singer of the quality that we got at the turn of the 20th century...I'd be ECSTATIC. I would lose my mind. I would give him all my money. I would make it my life's goal to popularize him and find him work.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

I would enjoy it all the same but might not respect it so much. It's one thing to write that symphony in 1824 and another to write it in 2022. That said, I do think it would be nigh-on-impossible for someone to have written a work like that in 2022. It's music that requires more than just skill to write and those capable of producing it would undoubtedly have been heavily influenced by the changes in musical aesthetics, technique and tradition of the past 200 years. I imagine anyone capable of writing such music would be unable and certainly unwilling to create inspired music in a style unchanged from that of 1820s Vienna.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> OT: Hilbert was developing a field theory very close to (or eventually equivalent to) the GRT at roughly the same time (IIRC he was in some points ahead of Einstein as he was a far better mathematician, Einstein need some help for the maths details from Großmann?) It would probably have needed one guy who knew more physics to adapt it and get to Einstein's (I am not an expert at all, just what I dimly recall read long in history of science).
> Schoenberg was not even the only father of 12-tone-music, Hauer was before him although his music sounds quite different.


Yes, but that was because he (Hilbert) got the idea of describing gravity using a non-trivial notion of distance on spacetime from Einstein. So I really think we can credit Einstein here (Hilbert himself always referred to GR as Einstein's theory).


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> It seems to me that it may be possible to wrongly attribute a piece of music as by one of the greats when it was not. But not one of their truly great works.





Enthusiast said:


> Great works tend to be filled with personality - the composer's personality.


In that case-
I wouldn't mistake now-neglected works of Paisiello for anyone else's, since they're "filled with Paisiello's personality", which I recognize. (And there's no parameter to deem it intrinsically inferior to Mozart's aesthetically, for example.)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

---------------------------------------


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

It would continue to be my favorite symphony, and would want the actual composer (if they're still alive) to write more symphonies. Hopefully that composer is responsible for the other "Late Beethoven" works so they can produce more of the most sublime music ever written, and have it always be like no one else.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Same response as before from me. Makes no difference.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

FWIW, Fritz Kreisler wrote a series of violin pieces that he "attributed" to various 18th-century composers. Reportedly, he didn't do this to defraud anyone, but somehow many people came to believe these were genuine works by these composers from an earlier era. Eventually, Kreisler had to "confess" the works were his. This doesn't seem to have affected their popularity or prestige one iota. They were popular, though not hailed as great masterpieces, originally, the same was true after Kreisler's confession, and the same remains true today. And while I wouldn't say it's obvious on initial hearing they were produced by a 20th century composer, if you are familiar with Kreisler's style, you can hear evidence of it in them.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Maybe I'd care with regards to pieces which I enjoy. In terms of Beethoven's music, I could substitute other pieces of his, since I'm not much a fan of the 9th. If music I enjoyed was proven to be inauthentic, there's a chance I'd still enjoy it but I would like to find out the details about how it came to be reattributed.

Perhaps this question isn't so hypothetical. I like Rembrandt, and for some decades now there's been scholarly consensus that many of his paintings are fakes. Many of his works which I admire are probably not by him.

There's been a few cases like this in music, for example Hoffstetter's _Serenade_ and Leopold Mozart's _Toy Symphony_ where once thought to be by Haydn, but something like Beethoven's 9th is in another league. Somehow, despite what they say, I think that many people would really care if it where found to be written by someone else.

Professor Martin Jarvis has come under fire from some quarters regarding his conclusion that Bach's cello suites and some other works where either by his second wife Anna Magdalena, or at least have significant contributions by her which weren't acknowledged by musicologists. He related the anecdote that while at a music conference, he saw two other professors come to blows over an argument about the legibility of an original score by Bach.

Some support Jarvis' claim, but whatever the consensus regarding the Bach case, he's raised important issues about how musicology has written out or downplayed certain perspectives and contributions to music.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I decided to listen to Witt's "Jena" Symphony in C, wrongly attributed to Beethoven.

Discovered in 1911, it was initially thought that the symphony was Beethoven's first attempt to write a symphony, before he started Symphony no. 1. It's all but plagerized from Haydn, and is not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination. But then another manuscript was found bearing the name Witts, and musicologists decided it was written by him not Beethoven.

Symphony no. 9 is in another league, and won't ever lose its status. The CM listening public would probably expect its inclusion in future Beethoven symphony cycles. If anything, it would become more popular than before for a time.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> I decided to listen to Witt's "Jena" Symphony in C, wrongly attributed to Beethoven.
> Discovered in 1911, it was initially thought that the symphony was Beethoven's first attempt to write a symphony, before he started Symphony no. 1. It's all but *plagerized from Haydn*


So when the "so-called greats" do "it", it's not "plagiarism"?




Symphony No.9 in D-minor (ca.1819)


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> So when the "so-called greats" do "it", it's not "plagiarism"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am fine with some plagerism or homages if the work is a masterpiece, but why should I listen to second rate faux-Haydn when I can listen to first-rate Haydn? (The "Jena" Symphony, not the one you linked which is good [especially the finale] but not ever going to become part of the standard reportoire)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> why should I listen to second rate faux-Haydn when I can listen to first-rate Haydn? (The "Jena" Symphony, not the one you linked which is good [especially the finale] but *not ever going to become part of the standard reportoire*)


I understand your preferences, but is that (the fact stated in bold) really important? Aren't these things on the other hand "rather disturbingly way too popular"? (I'm just asking)-
Four Seasons ~ Vivaldi (248,152,810 views) watch?v=GRxofEmo3HA
Symphony No. 9 ~ Beethoven (114,841,006 views) watch?v=t3217H8JppI
Pachelbel - Canon In D Major. The Best Version. (76,953,564 views) watch?v=NlprozGcs80
Mozart - Requiem (105,734,022 views) watch?v=Zi8vJ_lMxQI
Chopin - Nocturne op.9 No.2 (211,356,401 views) watch?v=9E6b3swbnWg
André Rieu - The Beautiful Blue Danube (81,520,817 views) watch?v=IDaJ7rFg66A


----------

