 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 16, 2011 - 12:04 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike West
(Member)
|
it is rather impossible to compare the quality of those works, especially when they were composed and performed and perceived in entirely different circumstances - other times, other places, other society etc. etc. etc.
Very first sinfonies or works are sometimes not as developed in a certain style a composer tends to compose, but that does not necesarily mean they are not as good as the later works.
Examples for brillant first works are Mendelssohn's Midsummernight Dream Overture (18 years old), Mozarts D-Dur Sonata for 4-hand piano (12 years old), and Korngolds first Ballett (I think 11 years old, don't remember the title). There is nothing - n - o - t - h - i - n -g - in those works the majority of people would call weaker than the later works.
There is still the 19th century definition of a musical work in a lot of minds today, especially in american musicology, which sometimes claims to be able to say a certain work is not a masterpiece while other works are masterpieces.
(Of course, there are some criteria...)
But usually when an author claims to give HIS opinion why a work is better or weaker that mostly shows the author's narrow horizon.
That is especially true for people who never composed a piece of music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
