Recovered Vivaldi Opera - Your Thoughts

.

On the other hand, one of what I, personally, consider to be the most sublime compositions of all time, Mozart's Requiem, was only partly composed by Mozart, himself, prior to his death. The piece was finished by one of his students, who used Mozarts existing material for the Requiem as source material to finish the work. As far as I can tell, it's impossible to tell (by listening) where the original Mozart composition ends and the student's work begins, so it's totally legitimate to me. Perhaps the case of the recently discovered Vivaldi piece and the student who "completed" the work is a similar one...... Or not... ;>)

Well...you can kinda tell on the second half of the mass. Only the first Requiem and Kyrie were finished completely by Mozart. The rest either had unfinished parts or were never even started, 100% Sussmayr. (He did a very good job, though, and it holds its own I think) Vivaldi though...I can see his music as somewhat easier to compile than Mozart's Requiem or some of the other major unfinished works, like Mahler's 10 Symphony, Tchaikovsky's 7th symphony, and the majority of the output by Mussorgsky. Vivaldi operas have mostly string orchestration, predictable harmonies, numerous sequences, with improvised harpsichord (and vocals of course). Still, I wouldn't trust that to a student unless he was a Vivaldi expert.

Mussorgsky's Boris -- often played in a version "fixed" by Rimski Korsakov.

You know, he actually finished orchestrating that one (twice I think, because the first version was rejected), and I heard the second version was actually quite good. Though the Rimsky-Korsakov version is much more popular.

In direct response to the OP, I'd question whether the world really needs more Vivaldi, in any rate . . .

SHHH! Careful, there might be violin players in the room

My favorite fantasy writer, Robert Jordan, died last year one book away from having finished his 'Wheel of Time' series. Another talented fantasy author, Brandon Sanderson, has been given his manuscripts to compile and finish the final piece of the series. I'm certainly glad this is happening, and I'm sure most fans of Vivaldi feel the same way!

Sven

ORIGINAL: rumleymusic

On the other hand, one of what I, personally, consider to be the most sublime compositions of all time, Mozart's Requiem, was only partly composed by Mozart, himself, prior to his death. The piece was finished by one of his students, who used Mozarts existing material for the Requiem as source material to finish the work. As far as I can tell, it's impossible to tell (by listening) where the original Mozart composition ends and the student's work begins, so it's totally legitimate to me. Perhaps the case of the recently discovered Vivaldi piece and the student who "completed" the work is a similar one...... Or not... ;>)

Well...you can kinda tell on the second half of the mass. Only the first Requiem and Kyrie were finished completely by Mozart. The rest either had unfinished parts or were never even started, 100% Sussmayr. (He did a very good job, though, and it holds its own I think) Vivaldi though...I can see his music as somewhat easier to compile than Mozart's Requiem or some of the other major unfinished works, like Mahler's 10 Symphony, Tchaikovsky's 7th symphony, and the majority of the output by Mussorgsky. Vivaldi operas have mostly string orchestration, predictable harmonies, numerous sequences, with improvised harpsichord (and vocals of course). Still, I wouldn't trust that to a student unless he was a Vivaldi expert.

Hi, Rumleymusic,

I certainly don't argue that Sussmayr wrote the bulk of the Requiem(based on Mozart's originall ideas), but I'd argue that the vast majority of laymen would not be able to detect where Mozart stopped and Sussmayr began, if you know what I mean. I base this on listening, not on studying the score or having prior knowledge that Mozart died before getting very far into the composition.

To me, a least, it's a pretty seamless (and, in fact, astonishing) job of finishing the piece. There are some, of course, who claim that Mozart, prior to his death, discussed finishing the Requiem with Sussmayr; Other's say that isn't true. I guess we'll never knowt he truth. There's also the whole bit about Constanze asking Sussmayr to finish the Requiem, etc., that you undoubtedly are familar with. There was, unquestionably, a lot of financial hanky-panky going on with the Requiem and it's commissioning......

But my only point was that a "student" (there are some who say Sussmayr was not a student of Mozart, but a protege of sorts) finished the Requiem and did a heck of a good job of it, in my opinion.

And the above was merely a couterpoint (forgive the bad pun) to my comments about the Vivaldi piece that has (apparently) been completed by a music student. Of course, the differerence is that, while Mozart did know and have some sort of relationship with Sussmayr, the "student" who finished off the Vivaldi piece was born long after Vivaldi's death.

Which is more valid, compositionally? I don't really know, since I haven't heard what the student did with the Vivaldi piece. But I have not only heard (many, many times), but performed, the Mozart Requiem and I still think it is utterly sublime, regardless of who "finished" it.

Best regards,
Bill

ORIGINAL: foxwolfen

Back to the original question, I do not like people who think they are smart enough or good enough to finish another persons work.

Its arrogant and presumptuous.

One of the most distasteful examples of late is the movies in the Bourne series. Not only did they completely make a mockery of the original work, the "Foundation" which owns the works of Ludlum have given the task of writing new novels in the Bourne saga to the hack, Eric Van Lustbader.

As far as I am concerned, a man's art is his own and no person has the right to "improve" or "finish" a work.

If you are so good, then make your own original works. If I ever produce something that transcends my own life (unlikely I know) I promise I will haunt, in the worst possible way, any hack who thinks they can complete or improve my work .

As Mercutio states in Romeo and Juliet - A plague on both (all) their houses.

Hi, foxwolfen,

To a great extent, I agree with you that it's presumptuous for anyone to "finish" the work of another, especially if that person thinks they can do it as well as the original composer. There's no way for anyone to know what the original composer might have had in mind in most cases.

In the case of Mozart/Sussmayr, some believe the Mozart actually discussed the completion of his Requiem with Sussmayr before he died so that Sussmayr could do a competent job of completing the piece. If that is true, then I think it's OK in this case. And, I think we'd all agree that Sussmayr did a marvelous job of finishing Mozarts work, regardless. However, it may also be that it was Mozarts wife who commissoned Sussmayr to finish the Requiem because of financial considerations. This starts getting into a very gray area......

Obviously, as with your example of the Ludlum books, it is the worst sort of endeavor to have a "ghost writer" put out pieces attributed to another artist for the sake of making a buck. It's disgusting. I'd sure as heck be unhappy if I found out that a work of mine had been finished by another without my express permission or, worse, a piece had been written by someone else under my name. But I guess we're stuck with that sort of thing since someone is making a lot of money off of doing it.

Best regards,
Bill

Yikes, this thread is starting to cross into the territory of the "Amen Break" thread, which pretty much hit a deadlock on page 1.

But for the record, I just want to re-assert my "Amen Break" opinion. I think it's counter-productive (to a society) for the artist or his estate or even his fans to lock up a work forever, saying "hands off! this is SACRED!" The whole evolution & progress of a society is based on its ability to build upon the past. Without that option, there is no communal advancement.

This is the big picture, the "Buddhist" viewpoint. But unfortunately we individuals are motivated more by our egos, selfish interests and pride (even to the point that we project these flaws upon souls who are long dead), leading us back to that counter-productive "hands off" attitude.

With Vivaldi as with the Amen Break as with Queen's "Under Pressure"*, I don't see it as so outrageous that someone wants to finish/augment/modify an idea. The only outrage would be if someone is unfairly profiting from it at the expense of an artist who is still living. But I don't want to turn this into a commercial/copyright/legal debate because I think that's where the "Amen Break" thread imploded. As before, I'm just speaking philosophically on a societal scale.

If there is an "Artist's Hell", I think it is a place where ideas languish and die, get buried and fade into meaninglessness. (Refer to Salieri's final speech in Amadeus where he reveals that, despite his worldly success and "pop" superiority to Mozart, he faces the ultimate anguish of seeing his work "growing fainter... until nobody plays it at all"). This is the same punishment for people who are overly protective and miserly with their works; they may not realize it when they're at the height of their career, but I guarantee on their deathbeds (once they've been forgotten), they would pay good money to see someone breathe new life into their work, to extend its life for another generation or 2.

*Being a HUGE Queen fan, I think this was the hardest thing I've ever had to say! I can't stand Vanilla Ice, either. But I have to be consistent and stand behind my philosophy, no matter how emotionally painful it feels.

ORIGINAL: Roflcopter

Sorry, I really don't see where the Amen Break or copyrights come in - and best leave them out of the discussion altogether.

As I said

ORIGINAL: Spaceduck
But I don't want to turn this into a commercial/copyright/legal debate because I think that's where the "Amen Break" thread imploded. As before, I'm just speaking philosophically on a societal scale.

I was just trying to tie in to the philosophical argument of what I was saying back in that thread. Mainly I mentioned the "Amen Break" thread for foxwolfen because that's where he & I connected on the point of Buddhism, even though in this discussion we're on opposite ends.

ORIGINAL: Roflcopter

I liked that other analogy in your post, about Salieri. There was also a movie I believe, could also have been a long TV one, about an artist that died, and was rowed to a beautiful hotel on an island, and he got a really nice room there, marvelous place, imagine Lake Geneva in spring/Greek island, marvelous old building, lots of rooms and guests. And some have better rooms, some less - and occasionally people are moved from one room to another, sometimes better, more often worse.

He's really puzzeld as to how that works, and finds out it has to do with how often people are still mentioned back on Earth. That decides the quality of their room, untill there's only the basement, and then eviction from the premises, and [poof].

What a cool illustration! Do you remember the name of it?
(Unfortunately if it were true and I died tomorrow, I'd go straight to the doghouse)

ORIGINAL: Roflcopter
Eternity and immortality are very much on an artists mind, apparently. Yet what greater pleasure can there be, than seeing your 'creative dna' spread through a humongous part of the human cultural genome, and stay there for ages, just because it's just to good to toss out.

Another great analogy, I'm going to seize upon DNA. We all hope that our offspring will be like us ("look she's got my eyes", "like father like son", etc). So instinctively we all want to preserve our DNA, untouched, unmodified (akin to an artist who wants to keep his work untouched, unmodified).

But we see it's inevitable that our DNA will get re-worked, re-organized and re-envisioned, to the point that our offspring 10 generations from now will be totally unrecognizable. That may throw a damper on our sense of immortality. Eventually the DNA is no longer a true reflection of our original identity.

Still, it's much better than dying out altogether and being fossilized like the wooly mammoth, right? I think when we begin to face our true mortality (not just of the flesh but of our memory and all contributions we've done in our lifetime) we realize that it's great to see re-awakenings of our soul through new interpretations (even bad ones are better than nothing!).

ORIGINAL: Roflcopter
But it's a nameless eternity. Same with truly useful inventions. Everybody uses it and noone knows the first to start it. The rudder? Compass? Yet their (co-, re-)inventors are all smiling, up there/out there/down there, I imagine.

If you really want eternity it has to be so basic that people have to be told it had to be invented. It's too pat.

Couldn't have said it better. Who invented the wheel? Who discovered fire? Who wrote the Bible? Who first sang "Happy Birthday to You"? We'll never know. But we can honor them just the same.

In fact, isn't it said that Bach wrote many manuscripts he never officially published or signed? Maybe these melodies are still floating around today in different disguises.

"He points to the work of David Cope, a researcher at the University of California-Santa Cruz, as evidence that some aspects of the goal may be within reach.

Cope has spent years experimenting with software that can mimic the style of various composers including Bach, Chopin and Mozart. The software is so good that, in live performances, even music aficionados can have difficulty distinguishing between the human- and machine-composed scores. "

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/october29/nilsson-1029.html

Probably in 10-20 years a computer program can do a better and more convincing job of repairing it than any person. I've heard some recordings that could probably fool most people here, unless they're like aaronk.

This also made me think how easy it can be to come up with new 'work' discovered, hire a good forger, and get rich.

[edit: oops forgot to add link]

I agree with Duck in that I would want my work to continue on and be influential. I would not at all mind if people derived works of their own from my works. But in no way would I want anybody to ever presume to be able to finish my work. Its my work. Mine. If I am gone, then so is any new work coming from me.

Read this story about musical styles in Japan. Apparently there's 2 main ones, whose names I really don't remember. There's also a third, and it's totally different. It's only to be found in the region between the old imperial capitol of Edo and the coastal road to Nagasaki, where there's a little island called Deshima. This was a Dutch trading post for ages, and the Dutch had to send emissaries to the emperor yearly, and all new dignitaries + the usual aides de camp marched towards the capitol on foot, taking a few weeks even, I believe.

Anyway, they always brought the chapelmaster or whatever they call him in English, the guys who leads the military band. He got into the habit of teaching children Dutch songs, and that became a hit.

Totally forgotten until a Dutch musical student recovered the fact, this had developed over time into a totally weird hybrid of Eastern and Western musical influences, and even became typical for the region.

Noone understood why those songs typically start with the mysterious incantation 'Eh, teh, dih'.

'Een, twee, drie' means 'Ah-one two three' in Dutch'.

ORIGINAL: Roflcopter
Read this story about musical styles in Japan ... this had developed over time into a totally weird hybrid of Eastern and Western musical influences, and even became typical for the region.

Sounds wild! Did you forget to add the link?

It reminds me of the old Star Trek episode where they encounter a very imitative yet creative society. The people of that planet seize on any outside influence, mimic it, and build upon it in their own way. Somehow they get a hold of an old history book "Gangsters of Chicago" and form an entire civilization based on 1930s Prohibition Era America. But of course it evolves in their own special way, parallel but unique. In another episode the same idea was revisited with Nazi Germany (with much more drastic consequences)...

A note on the issue of a STUDENT finishing the piece --

Baroque opera composers tended to work a bit like Baroque painters -- they had their compositional equivalent of studios. E.g., recitatives were often written by assistants, not the master.

Given the tradition of apprentices working on parts of bigger pieces under the supervision of the Master, the notion of a student finishing up the work isn't terribly off base.

In reply to the posts about the Mozart Requiem -- historians up on current research will know better than I do, but back in my days of studying music history, although it was known that Sussmayr finished the Requiem, there wasn't agreement as to which parts were his. Opinions seemed to be driven by what parts the individual liked, or not. E.g., writers who like the trombone solo in the Tuba Mirum [sp?] section say "something that brilliant must be by Mozart." Anti-trombonists write: "Only a Sussmayr could have perpetrated something so execrable!"

E.g., writers who like the trombone solo in the Tuba Mirum [sp?] section say "something that brilliant must be by Mozart." Anti-trombonists write: "Only a Sussmayr could have perpetrated something so execrable!"

I have my doubts whether Mozart would write a trombone solo, and I don't think there are any surviving notes to assume that he did.

And you are right, it is anyone's guess to which parts Mozart actually wrote, though they have a good idea because of notes and unfinished drafts (the Dover Edition notates some parts with (S) where it is generally though to be Sussmayr contribution: I think the Tuba Mirum solo is marked with and S). My favorite recording of the Requiem (Vienna w Solti) actually reorchestrates some of the brass parts know to be Sussmayr's. It is actually a great improvement I think.

I think the thing it. Sussmayr was a student of Mozart, living in the early 19th century, where this style of composition was in common practice. I don't see how a 21st century student, whose only exposure to Vivaldi's style of composition is probably in 1st year theory or general performance on modern instruments, can accurately recreate the style of a Baroque composer. A Vivaldi expert, sure, could do a good job with ample notes. But a kid who got lucky and found some scores? I don't know...

In nature, there's a clear distinction between symbiosis and parasitism. I'm not sure that really applies here (how can you have a symbiotic relationship with someone that's dead?), but in any case, parasites rarely contribute to the overall progress of things. Parasites are usually nature's destructive agents. Same in the art world?

I think I remember something about only 2 percent there abouts of all organic material is actually alive, the rest is 'between organisms'. Life would be severely handicapped even, if this were not the case. Think dead wood in a forest gradually turning into soil (after ants chew the lignine).

What good is a corpse? Only thing that bugs me is the holier-than-thou 'we're doing it to preserve his memory' kinda BS, frankly.