A quotation that I believe was Oscar Wilde's on the difficulty of writing (can be applied to composing equally validly)..."Woke up and added a comma to a passage, in the afternoon I deleted the comma, a productive day!".......
I don't know if this is the right place for this, as it's about literature and not music, but this talk made me think of a quote from Roberto Bolaño's book 2666: "He chose The Metamorphosis over The Trial, he chose Bartleby over Moby-Dick, he chose A Simple Heart over Bouvard and Pecuchet, and A Christmas Carol over A Tale of Two Cities or The Pickwick Papers. What a sad paradox, thought Amalfitano. Now even bookish pharmacists are afraid to take on the great, imperfect, torrential works, books that blaze paths into the unknown. They choose the perfect exercises of the great masters. Or what amounts to the same thing: they want to watch the great masters spar, but they have no interest in real combat, when the great masters struggle against that something, that something that terrifies us all, that something that cows us and spurs us on, amid blood and mortal wounds and stench." I don't know if I necessarily "agree" with the character but I've certainly noticed that my most loved works are almost always these large, messy, "torrential" works.
I’m amazed at the clarity and seemingly clairvoyant quality of argument displayed here. As far as I’m aware, you are not a composer. I am. And I feel you understand the process of composition extraordinarily well. I have had more positive remarks about compositions I threw off in a matter of hours half heartedly wrapped up to meet weekly deadlines. Whereas the ones I spent years “perfecting” often disappointed me in the reactions it stirred in a lot of listeners. Even loved ones. I spun it positively as a byproduct of the gap of harmonic sophistication. But I also find myself listening more to the ones I spent less time on than the ones I view as perfect. I think your opinion on the Brahms string quartets is a good example. To Brahms, and to a lot of people it is perfection. But we all know you don’t enjoy them. And to be fair, I also respect them more than love them. Very interesting topic and throughly well argued. Thanks Dave. I cherish these musical talks.
I think the concept of perfection is useful as a north star to guide the creative process, but it's dubious to talk about as if it is some objective, measurable quality of a work of art.
A professor I knew once said that if he knew what it was that makes a work a masterpiece and what "perfection" is, he'd write one a week. The definition of perfection is not something that anyone, including Einstein, could agree on. There are no works in the literature that are "perfect".
"In my opinion, each number in Figaro is a miracle; it is totally beyond me how anyone could create anything so perfect; nothing like it was ever done again, not even by Beethoven." -Brahms
In a letter to Clara Schumann when writing his piano transcription (left hand only) of Bach's famous D minor chaconne Brahms wrote similar superlatives: “The Chaconne is, in my opinion, one of the most wonderful and most incomprehensible pieces of music. Using the technique adapted to a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I could picture myself writing, or even conceiving, such a piece, I am certain that the extreme excitement and emotional tension would have driven me mad."
@Ziad3195 Very beautiful words. Mozart is maybe my favorite composer because he makes you believe in the divine. But I also found amusing the fact that Brahms considered "perfect" a work that has a couple of numbers systematically cut in the fourth act.
@Ziad3195 To me, "perfect" suggests complete, flawless, something that cannot be altered or retouched without losing its balance and proportions. Very, very few human creations give me the feeling of perfection, of that almost mathematical rigor. In music: Boléro, Brahms 4th, Bach's Wohltemperiertes Klavier... I just found funny that Brahms, a master of perfection, applied that adjective to Nozze, a work with arias that were cut off by generations of interpreters under the alibi that they slowed down the pace of the 4th act. Nothing more.
I was in a concert of the Austin Symphony....and the first half of the program was dedicated to the Overture and Incidental Music to "A Midsummer Night's Dream of Mendelssohn (very well played...my friend Peter Bay conducting)....a fellow concert goer and I looked at one another and said....OK..what do you follow perfect music with? I consider A Midsummer Nights Dream music about as perfect as it gets.
John Cage's 4'33" is the only truly perfect composition. There are no notes to be removed and adding notes would ruin it. One might complain that it is too short but that problem is easily solved by repeating it as often as you wish. “Silence is the language of God; all else is poor translation.” - Rumi, 13th century Persian poet.
Wouldn't that depend on what you mean by "convincing"? If it just means, "true to its conception and limitations", maybe no, but if it means giving you a sense that the performance made the piece sound significant to you for whatever reason, then why not enjoy it without judging?
For some reason, this talk reminded me of Arthur M. Abell’s book “Talks with great composers”. Maybe when you mentioned ‘inspiration’, since it deals with excatly that. I enjoyed reading it when I was young(er), but after Blomstedt told me he found it ‘dubious’, I read it once more, and I can see what he meant. It’s hard to believe that all in there actually happened/was said. I wonder what you thought of it.
Some works seem perfect to me, in that I can't think of a way to improve them, so they are perfect to my ears, there are many others I would list but Bach's D minor partita for violin, Bach's Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue, Schumann's closest approach, the C Major Fantasy for piano - pure passion, can you be more passioate? Ravel's G major piano concerto, Schubert Impromptu G flat Opus 90, Schubert - Gretchan am Spinrade.
Unfortunately some people can not appreciate Mozart's beauty. His music seems to be an acquired taste :) I think Cosi fan tutte is probably a good example for a "perfect masterpiece".
In the third movement of his Second Symphony, Mahler disregarded the conventional prohibition of parallel fifths in counterpoint, whereupon he writes, "Anmerkung für Preisrichter: sind verboten! Ich weiß!" (Note to the judges: it's forbidden, I know!) Mahler could definitely compose "perfect" music, but he chose to break the rules.
A musical friend once said to me Brahms never wrote a bad piece. Not being a big fan myself, I didn't reply, but the thought that instantly flashed through my mind was: did he ever write a great one?
Perfection in large-scale works is always going to be problematic, but small-scale works like the slow moments of Mozart's piano concertos and most of Chopin's pieces sound perfect to me.
The idea of perfection is as much a human creation as any work of art. Unlike a work of art, though, we can imagine it and yet never be able to point to an example in the actual world. Where is the perfect circle, the perfect ratio, the perfect oscillation? Be that as it may, there does seem to be some sense in which things can approach more closely to it. And there are composers that seem to more readily reveal to us their calculus for approaching perfection - Bach, Mozart, etc. Speaking of Brahms, I used to hate his music because it felt so messy to me. It took me a long time to realize I just wasn't grasping his calculus of perfection yet, it was too difficult for me to even get a sense of. I think the only perfect performance or composition can only exist as a place in our own minds, one we're always getting closer to but never fully arriving at.
Ives Fourth is much more perfect then any of Brahms symphonies because it brings something new to my ears every time I listen to it, never have that with Brahms! Ives Orchestral music should be next on the "Fabulous Concert Programs" traversal!
I don’t know about any “perfect” pieces, but I would suggest that Ravel was the closest thing we had to a perfect composer in terms of musical complexity and innovation. Stravinsky once called Ravel a, “Swiss Watch Maker” due to Ravel being a perfectionist. On the side note, if I had to pick a piece from him that could be considered a perfect masterpiece it would be La Valse.
Our attachment with art is akin to our attachment with people. We are attracted the traits that touch perfection; yet, can only truly love something by discovering and then embracing its flaws. Perfection = boring!
Brahms' four symphonies may be perfect, I don't know. What I do know is that they all incorporate an inimical depth and beauty that is truly unique among symphonic compositions. They are in a league of their own.
Interesting re: Mozart and perfection....I recently purchased a recording of some of Haydn's Concertos and a few sonatas...and I must admit..not only are they as well written as any of Mozart"s...but they are far more interesting.....!!!!
Oh no, certainly not. The work is full of technical problems: bad balances, silly parts for piccolo and contrabassoon, what to do with that big repeat in the finale...nothing remotely like "perfection."
There are many unimpeachable masterpieces by the great composers. Beethoven's Fifth, Holst's Planets, Prelude a l'Apres Midi d'un Faun, etc , etc . And, to my mind, a few performances that can't be improved in any way. Gould's second version of The Goldbergs can't be bettered in my opinion.
