# A work from the future



## TudorMihai (Feb 20, 2013)

Last time we had a fantasy discussion about which composer would you like to meet if you are able to travel back in time. Now let's start something new. If you can meet a particular composer from the past, what work would you show him from the future? For instance, it would be interesting to meet either Chopin or Liszt and show them Rhapsody in Blue. Or to meet Beethoven and show him Clair de Lune. It would also be interesting to meet Wagner and play him some film music.


----------



## Jfong (Feb 9, 2014)

Show The Rite of Spring to Beethoven


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I'd love to play some early Einstürzende Neubauten for JSB, Mozart, and Richie Wagner... :angel:






Kollaps from 1981

/ptr


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I would show Bach a piece by Webern, Babbitt, et al.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

aleazk said:


> I would show Bach a piece by Webern, Babbitt, et al.


Care to speculate on what Bach might say? Possibly "Was ist diese Scheiße?"


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Care to speculate on what Bach might say? Possibly "Was ist diese Scheiße?"


I guess he would be interested in the techniques, but unsure about the sound. Basically because he didn't see all what happened during the XIX century and the evolution of tonality and chromaticism.

But then, he composed things like this. So maybe he would enjoy the music after all.

I would show him also some of the piano etudes by Ligeti, more or less by the same reasons, and also some pieces by Nancarrow.


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

It'd be interesting to travel back to meet Mahler armed with a complete set of Shostakovich symphonies


----------



## Sofronitsky (Jun 12, 2011)

I would show Rachmaninoff the works of Lowell Liebermann. Specifically _Gargoyles_, the Nocturnes, and the Piano Concerti. I would really just want his opinion on whether or not Liebermann is the new voice of classical piano.

Also I would want to show Mozart the film _Amadeus_ just for a bit of fun.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I'd like to acquaint the composer of the "Dies irae" chant with all the subsequent uses of his(?) work.


----------



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

I would show some of the composers from the 17th-18th centuries the huge variety of percussion instruments that are available to the modern composer.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Beethoven would consider Rite of Spring to be formless (and form was important to him). I think Haydn would be intrigued by Prokofievs Classical Symphony. Bach might be interested in Bloch's two Concerto Grossi. I imagine Liszt would intrigued by a range of things, from Richard Strauss to Bartok to Rachmaninoff. Mozart would mostly just be bewildered, but would probably enjoy Schubert. Mahler would probably get a kick out of Gurrelieder. I'd love to know what Wagner would have thought about Berg.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

GGluek said:


> Mahler would probably get a kick out of Gurrelieder.


...That's a weird one. Gurrelieder was already composed in full (just not orchestrated in full) by Mahler's death. Mahler was also familiar with (and admired) Schoenberg's music, up to at least the Second String Quartet.

Anyway, maybe I'd show Wagner Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande and see the reaction there...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Let me know if he fell asleep the way I did.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

I'm just not sure there's any record he saw any of it.



Mahlerian said:


> ...That's a weird one. Gurrelieder was already composed in full (just not orchestrated in full) by Mahler's death. Mahler was also familiar with (and admired) Schoenberg's music, up to at least the Second String Quartet.
> 
> Anyway, maybe I'd show Wagner Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande and see the reaction there...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

GGluek said:


> I'm just not sure there's any record he saw any of it.


You might be right there. The orchestration for Part 3 does reflect Mahler's influence, it's true, and there's no way he would have seen that.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I'd let Chopin listen to early Scriabin and then to late Scriabin.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I would love to hear Mozart's opinion of Prokofiev's third piano concerto.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2014)

Getting a dead composer's response to music written long after his death would prove exactly nothing. Of course someone from 1800 would find music from 1900 incomprehensible. And someone from 1700 would find music from 2000 incomprehensible. Of course. That doesn't take any imagining at all. And since we can find plenty of people of all sorts in 2014 who still find music from 1914 incomprehensible....

And yes, I can hear *** saying "But it's fun to speculate!"

Sure.


----------



## Sofronitsky (Jun 12, 2011)

some guy said:


> Getting a dead composer's response to music written long after his death would prove exactly nothing. Of course someone from 1800 would find music from 1900 incomprehensible. And someone from 1700 would find music from 2000 incomprehensible. Of course. That doesn't take any imagining at all. And since we can find plenty of people of all sorts in 2014 who still find music from 1914 incomprehensible....
> 
> And yes, I can hear *** saying "But it's fun to speculate!"
> 
> Sure.


 If you don't agree with the thread's whole reason for being, then it's probably better not to even post in the thread.. I don't see how you are contributing anything. If you would have read all the posts in this thread, you would see that everyone isn't speculating on things such as "OH GEE I WONDER WHAT BACH WOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT GOSH DARNED SCHOENBERG "


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2014)

Good advice, Sof. But not really necessary. All other posters who are not you get to decide for themselves which threads they respond to or not. I could equally say if you don't agree with my observations, then it's probably better for you not to respond to them, but that had happened, we would never have had this delightful conversation about freedom.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> Good advice, Sof. But not really necessary. All other posters who are not you get to decide for themselves which threads they respond to or not. I could equally say if you don't agree with my observations, then it's probably better for you not to respond to them, but that had happened, we would never have had this delightful conversation about freedom.


The only speculation I've ever done in this particular arena is to think: the genius composers of the past _would, at least, and in one listen and one quick glance at a score, get 'what was going on,' with the newer music._ Whether they would like it, not like it, or have vehement disagreements with the aesthetics, I would not / could not speculate.

So, Bach would more than likely 'get' Schoenberg, Mozart more than likely 'get,' say, Stravinsky or Messiaen, etc. etc. If that "I'd like to think," is correct, the rest is really moot. If they 'did not get' sound art, etc. I think they would at least be amused that people were busy with that sort of sound activity.

I have a hunch most people playing the game think that any of those composers would be sputtering some nonsense like, _what about melody, what about tonality_ and all the other cliches that current listeners often spit out when first confronted with more modern and contemporary music. I happen to think not.

But generally, I agree with you. Take anyone from 1850 and drop them down into any urban center, say downtown London, Paris, New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo, etc. The people, the dress, the machines rolling on the pavements, flying in the sky, etc. ad nauseum are going to be more than a little surprise and require a serious adjustment... that we have conservatory students regularly playing at a technical level only known to a few virtuosi stars of yore, and so much else. Fun thought game, but one has to simply ignore most of the real implications to play it


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Fun thought game, but one has to simply ignore most of the real implications to play it




For those playing, "fun thought game" is enough. The "but" isn't part of the game.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> For those playing, "fun thought game" is enough. The "but" isn't part of the game.


I know, that "but," so dissolves the whole premise in a nano-second!

So this includes some envelope where they are confined to a room which looks familiar to them, have a Babel Fish stuck in their ear (and you with a Babel Fish in your ear), and they are at home and comfortable _while you play a recording to them?_ Ha!


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

Oh crikey...here we go


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

techniquest said:


> Oh crikey...here we go


OK, I promise this is my last contribution to this partial derailment:

The idly speculative bringing together of two ideas doesn't have to be based in a plausible physical reality.

And I would like to introduce Wagner to reddit.


----------

