AH! what you said about adagio in G minor is a new information for me.

for the first scenario, I don't think that any of those three conditions would change my opinions, but really if the piece was composed by an Artificial intelligence, my heart would get broken.

and to answer your question " Would music be purer if you had no idea about the lives of the composers, or does that knowledge allow for a greater deal of understanding of artistic expression? " I would say getting to know more about the piece and about its composer would definitely make me appreciate the work even more. I like it when the piece has its unique lore. take Elgar's cello concerto, it is a sad work and being associated with Jacqueline du Pre makes it even sadder.

Shostakovich's 9th symphony might seems a casual work. But when you know it was actually composed as a form of protest, you would be astonished by it.

 

Fascinating, this thread is a very close copy, word for word in some places, of one posted by @mmsbls ...
Musical Thought Experiment

 

I should have linked that post, that's my bad. Didn't realize I had copied it word for word in some places though, and I've been thinking about this topic from before I read that post. I thought they set up the thought experiment incorrectly as it is inconceivable for Beethoven's 9th to have been composed in the modern day, and I also wanted to bring up AI in music.

 

deleted

 

Basically, it boils down to whether you care more about the intrinsic vs extrinsic value of music.

Since you asked about our opinions, I will offer mine: I am much less interested in the background of a work than the sound of the music.

This is also true for paintings/artwork, i.e. I ignore the title blocks and other contextual information when viewing a gallery or museum exhibit. I don't much care who wrote a work, nor what was the impetus of its creation, nor any biographical information pertaining to the work.

I consider all of this kind of information extraneous and fairly irrelevant regarding my own enjoyment. However, it might be important from a musicological perspective.

IMO any work of art, whether music, painting/sculpture, literature, etc. must stand on its own and be evaluated by the internal content. I also believe that this is an almost entirely subjective process.

 

I am much less interested in the background of a work than the sound of the music.

That was my first reaction. And yet.

Music is rarely produced in a vacuum. Composers usually work in a cultural context, as do artists generally. Consequently, that context plays a part in our estimation of the worth of a work.

 

Imagine that Beethoven’s 4th symphony was written by Napoleon.

 

Imagine Napoleon didn't actually exist.

 

If a piece of music is so greatly enjoyable that I "can't stop listening to it," then certainly I would continue to listen to it. The value of the music would not be tarnished, despite learning of its true author. If the only reason for listening to a piece is motivated by the supposed composer, then certainly it would be dissappointing to find out that it wasn't authored by the composer.

In your example, it isn't as if I had purchased an expensive Rolex watch, but found out that the watch was actually an inexpensive Timex.

 

I generally listen to music on shuffle because in my opinion music strikes most powerfully when it comes unexpected, e.g. I'm more likely to be moved by an unfamiliar song in a film compared with someone sharing a link to that same song on YouTube. Rationally none of the options presented should change how I feel but I'm only human. When I'm blown away by a piece and it turns out to be a lesser known contemporary of a famous composer, which happens quite often with baroque music, I'm pleased... after all it means I've even more to explore than I thought. But... if it turns out it's from a composer from the 20th century, I do, I admit it, recoil a little and question my own judgment. As for the AI thing, either AI manages to compete artistically with humans or it doesn't. And if it does, how is that a bad thing? If an AI starts knocking out works that move me as much as Bach's then I'd be all too happy to listen. But I highly doubt that will ever happen, even if AI is already making cartoon bosom illustrators sweat, I think the great composers have little to worry about.

 

I would like it less or at least be less interested in a piece of music if it was AI or lesser composer. I like to know the context of when a piece was written and how a composer's music changed as he aged etc.

 

I don't think any of those changes would affect my enjoyment of the piece going forward, though I can't be certain they hadn't affected my enjoyment of it beforehand as we are--or at least I am--more inclined to give a work the "benefit of the doubt" if it comes from an artist we already like. Unlike others I actually look forward to what the future of AI art (in all mediums) might look like. AI's don't think like humans do and that already is a recipe for originality and innovation. We already see some of that in how computers play and think about games like poker and chess, and much of the "innovation" in those games over the last 10-20 years have come from us humans learning from computers. It's entirely possible that we may get there with art as well; though given that art is often all about the expression of uniquely human values and ideas I'm more skeptical, if still intrigued.

 

As I wrote in the other thread, I don't think that this thought experiment helps much. The scenario I think historically (as opposed to theoretically) possible, is the first one, i.e. the lesser known composer's rediscovered Great Work. This would be a great discovery and I think it would be appreciated as such. We have had some such cases (although not many). E.g. the re-discovery of Monteverdi and Vivaldi in the 1920s. Or works that were known to scholars but almost unknown to the public and then become frequently recorded "standards", e.g. Biber's Rosary sonatas or a lot of baroque opera in the last decades.

I simply doubt that a pastiche either by a human or AI would be similarly convincing as a real rediscovery. It's not impossible as there have been convincing forgeries in music (although none of them were considered "great works") and even more convincing ones in painting. But I think it would be unlikely and it would correctly have an "asterisk" as it simply is something not merely inspired but derivative 200 years after the artistic style was actual.

 

Branding is an interesting psychological phenomena. I'm 54, overweight, borderline diabetic, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, high everything...Stroke and heart disease run in the family. I live with my wife and 18 year old son. So I've been making what I think is a delicious meat loaf made from turkey instead of beef (turkey is supposed to be healthier, or so they say). My son insists that beef is better and says he doesn't like the turkey meat loaf that much. I was thinking that if I could find a way to season the turkey meatloaf just right so that he THINKS it is beef, wouldn't that be an interesting "thought experiment". Could I pull it off? And if I did would he come to accept turkey meatloaf as a viable alternative to beef?

So we get used to brand-names. For me, peanut butter HAS to be Skippy, frozen waffles HAVE to be the Eggo waffles; pop tarts HAVE to be the Kellogg's pop tarts; and cookies HAVE to be the Keebler's with the little elves on the bag. This mind-set seems to begin when we're quite young where the hamburger or the chicken nuggets are just as good (or better) at the next place, but the little kid NEEDS it to be McDonald's. When I was a kid living here in New England, every summer we went to the SAME beach, and every autumn, we went to pick apples at the SAME apple orchard, and now if I ever try a different beach or apple orchard it just doesn't feel "right". Therefore, we get hooked on brands. If it's Beethoven then it HAS to be good, and I think we are more patient and place more effort into liking something by Beethoven, Brahms, Bach, Mozart, because our experience, as well as the experts have endorsed it. And, yes, I would be slightly disappointed and I probably would experience some cognitive dissonance if I heard, liked, and praised something that I THOUGHT was Beethoven but was actually else.

 

You might enjoy NOVA's episode, Mystery of the Masterpiece. It talks about a possible new painting discovered that appears to be DaVinci. That would be a very big deal because he was arguably the most significant artist (yes, yes and doctor, sculptor, scientist, inventor, etc) and only has a handful of paintings. It took a great deal of forensic research to determine if it was real or a forgery. That made we think, why is it the authentic one is so valuable, but the forgery is worthless though it's virtually impossible for anyone but the most trained experts to tell the difference? I guess that's the answer, the authenticity is what makes it is so precious.

 

I wonder if there is any such case in music. I am not aware of a single forgery or even real historical but wrongly attributed piece that was consider a great masterpiece. How about literature? It shouldn't be too hard to write a Dickens pastiche (and it probably has been done, it certainly has been done one step below, e.g. non-Doyle Holmes stories). But Shakespeare, Milton, Byron? Could anyone do a copy/forgery (would be much harder than Doyle or Dickens, of course) that would be hailed as a lost masterpiece?

Again, there are lots of ancient and medieval sculptures and other art where we don't even know who the artist was (all these artists that were dubbed "Master of the xy altar piece") but they are highly regarded by art historians and art fanciers. So the "brand" is not necessary.

 

I wonder if there is any such case in music [of a] real historical but wrongly attributed piece that was consider a great masterpiece.

The motet Absalon fili mi, disputed attribution to Josquin, also attributed to Pierre de la Rue, comes to mind. This isn't my area and I'm not sure what the current thinking is on that one, but it is a remarkable work whoever wrote it. There have been several other motets attributed to Josquin that were later banished from his oeuvre based on stylistic and/or documentary evidence. I think Mandryka knows a bit about these cases(?)

I've given Beethoven forgery some thought and even tried my hand at a bit. Somewhere along the way it occurred to me that a key to successful Beethoven forgery might be to not make it sound too much like (any known) Beethoven. After all, one of the things that makes Beethoven remarkable is the number of one of a kind, sui generis works or movements he composed.

 

Now what if it was found out to be composed by

1. A lesser-known contemporary of Beethoven
2. A 21st-century composer
3. An Artificial intelligence

Would any of these change your opinion of the piece, and if so would it be an equivalent change?

1. The example is badly chosen since Beethoven's late style is unique and inimitable. Better would be assuming an unknown symphony Beethoven could have written before the 1st - like in the case of the "Jena" symphony, which was actually by Witt. But that one was never considered a masterpiece.
But let's say a really good symphony "no. 0" would surface, allegedly written by the young Beethoven in Bonn. It would cause a sensation, and even if the the name of the real composer was eventually revealed, it would cause serious interest in that composer's oeuvre. The piece would certainly hold up on its own.

2. We had long discussions here about the value of modern music written in historic styles, and whether hoaxes like the Mazotti adagio still have value - and I'd say, no, they don't. One of the primary qualities of a composer is having a certain degree of originality. Which doesn't say one has to be part of the avant-garde. Conservative composers of the past that we still value highly employed the prevalent style of their times, but they didn't pick a random style from a century or more earlier. It's fine if people - not gonna call them composers - want to write baroque pastiches or whatever in order to show off their technique and knowledge of that era, but they should keep them in their drawers and not bother the rest of the world with them. In the case of the "Albinoni" pastiche, it angers me that the hoaxer in question not only got away with it, instead of being fined or jailed for fraud, but probably derived enough income from it for a nice and comfortable life.

3. Absolutely unacceptable. Music is communication - from one human being to another. If the human link is severed, it stops being music.

 

For me, your option #3 (AI written) is the most acceptable. Apart from humans writing the basic computer program, the music would be entirely computer generated, and that would make it interesting in its own right. It would be a totally original piece of music.
Scenario #2 (21st century composer) is the least acceptable, since the composition and promotion of it smacks of deception and a less than honest motivation for its creation.
Scenario #1 (contemporary) is the most debatable. In recent decades, much of the music attributed to Giovanni Pergolesi has been stripped of his presumed authorship. Of course, it is the same music as when it was attributed to him. Does it lessen the quality (or non-quality) of the music? No. Does it somehow "taint" the music to have had a corrected attribution? Well, somewhat. When hearing this music, the mind (well, at least, my mind, anyway) can't help thinking about whose music this really is and the "controversy" of changing attributions. Somehow, the mind can get hung up on trivialities and it detracts from the pure pleasure of the music, work of art, novel etc. I suppose that is just human nature.

 

Of course, if the Beethoven 10th were widely acclaimed and accepted as a masterwork of early-decades 19th-century Romanticism because of its emotional force, harmonic and/or orchestrational invention, and structural innovation ... of course if it were then discovered to have been by a Beethoven contemporary rather than the master himself, the hailing of this "new genius" would be well-worth noting. No need, then, to change one's opinion about the quality of the work.

Seldom, though, do mediocre talents produce an innovative masterwork -- not even one, let alone several. In the case of one William Shakespeare, there have been doubters who attribute various of his plays to other hands. The fact is, that when we compare known works by those "other hands" persons to nearly anything by Shakespeare, profound differences become apparent. And, why would one labor under a pseudonym to release his/her "best work" but allow for the real name to be associated with tripe? Makes little sense to me.

The merit of a work of art is linked to its place in time. We must view Haydn as a symphonic innovator in a different light than a highly trained contemporary composer who can churn out Haydn-like symphonies in correct, fashionable 18th century style. In arts there is often that expression of "I can do that!" when it comes to expressing an opinion about the "value" of a contemporary piece. Few seem to look at the Mona Lisa and say "I can do that!", but these same do so with paintings by such as Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock. The fact of the matter is, many out there can duplicate the Mona Lisa. Any half decent art student should be able to reasonably proclaim "I can do that" upon looking at the centuries old DaVinci portrait. And if anyone out there proclaims they "can do that" upon viewing a de Kooning or a Pollock painting, I say "Of course you can. Everybody can ... now." But as I used to tell my arts students, it's not hard to do something once you've encountered it. The difficulty lies in doing the "new thing," the thing no one had previously done before, no matter how simple it looks to be now. I used to give the assignment: "Produce a work of art that no one has ever done before, and which is unlike anything previously seen using techniques and styles and presentation-methods that are original and innovative." Of course I would always allow for the history of art to ground a work; after all, even the greatest of innovators relied upon past workings in their artistic fields. Students would naturally attempt to come up with ideas, most of them rather bizarre, about what such a work of art would be from them. Of course, the instructor had some richer sense of artistic heritage and could often counter such proclamations with an example or two of just such an idea, already having been done. Too, the instructor would say: "And after you bring me in that great innovation, that miraculous miracle of art, I will be able to say, in all confidence: 'I can do that.'" The thing is, I could not have done it before seeing it. To be able to so so -- to be original and create "the new" -- is the criterion for genius.

Thus, in the case of number 2 in the OP's post above, should a 21st century composer be able to produce wonderful Hadyn-like symphonies, we can admire them and like them all we want. We may even prefer to listen to them rather than to original Haydn symphonies. But the fact remains that Haydn seems of "more value" than the talented 21st century composer. After all, could that composer have produced wonderful Hadyn-like symphonies had there never been a Haydn to write the originals?

As for item 3 .... Were an AI to produce "wonderful Hadyn-like symphonies", I will be greatly impressed. Moreso by the mind that was able to create the artificial intelligence that created the music. I do not think I will experience such in my remaining life-time. I am glad I have several sets of The Complete Haydn Symphonies in my collection, and the means to play them whenever I want.

As for Beethoven's Tenth .... I do have the Wyn Morris / London Symphony Orchestra recording of it in my collection. And I suspect that Dr. Barry Cooper is a very talented 20th-21st centuries musical scholar. Still, two things strike me about that symphony as I recall it: one, it is in the key of E-flat, which I find fascinating mainly because Brahms's First is in the three-flat key of C minor, and Brahms's First is sometimes referred to as "the Beethoven Tenth", and I suspect Brahms had never had access to the Beethoven notes for the sketched out passages of the unfinished (and hardly even ever started) Beethoven Tenth. The second thing is: I keep meaning to relisten to the work, which I haven't listened to in decades now, but I never seem to get it spinning in my disc player. Rather, something else always ends up in its place, quite often one of Beethoven's other nine symphonies. Or the Brahms First. Alas....

 

My evaluation/appreciation of a piece of music is based solely I what I hear. My evaluation/appreciation of a painting or a piece of sculpture is based solely I what I see. Who created it, when it was created, why it was created are all completely irrelevant as are any other aspects of a work’s “back story”. It’s not that I wouldn’t find those things interesting. But they have zero impact/influence on my evaluation/appreciation.

I started painting a little over three years ago and have more than 60 paintings on the Saatchi Art website. When posting a painting on Saatchi one must enter certain information: title, dimensions, year produced, medium(s), (acrylic, oil, etc.) and some other information including what they call "Description”. Here is a direct quote from the site suggesting of what a "Description" should consist:

“Collectors tend to appreciate works more if they know the “story” behind them, so be sure to write informative artwork descriptions. Great descriptions not only provide useful information (e.g. physical texture, whether hanging hardware is included, quality of materials), but they also answer questions like:
What/who inspired the work?
What do you hope its viewers will feel/think?
Why did you choose the medium, subject matter, style?”

While I can see that information of that nature might be interesting it should be irrelevant as far as appreciating (and possibly buying!) a painting. As such, I leave the "Description" field blank. (I do, however, think that info like "whether hanging hardware is included, quality of materials" IS relevant. I do use good quality materials but do not indicate that...very few artists on the site do.)

Along the same lines, I am friends with an established and very successful artist who told me I need to come up with an artistic “statement” explaining what I am trying to do with my art, what are my thoughts behind it, etc., these being important to some potential buyers.

I suppose I will do it but it is unfortunate that some collectors care about that.

 

Entry deleted

 

You find it as amazing as his 9th and can't stop listening to it. Now what if it was found out to be composed by

1. A lesser-known contemporary of Beethoven
2. A 21st-century composer
3. An Artificial intelligence

Nice scenario, however, it shares the realism with this one:

Someone is running the 100m in 9,27 secs. Now it was found out that:

1. This someone is some hobby runner never seen before on international competitions
2. An improved clone of Usain Bolt
3. A robot looking like a man

With scenario 2, a real analog would be the Adagio in G minor which became famous as a composition of Albinoni, while in reality it was composed by a 20th-century musicologist Remo Giazotto.

That's not correct. The composition was never described as a work by Albinoni. The original title of the 1958 edition was: "remo giazotto: adagio in sol minore per archi e organo su due spunti tematici e su un basso numerato di tomaso albinoni"

So it was clear from the beginning that (at maximum) the bass line and some thematic fragments are from Albinoni. - However, even this authorship is in doubt.

 

@John O - slightly confused by your pair of posts above. You quote yourself saying, "The composers context is not that relevant" even though you didn't say that in the post you quote.

I'm not sure why it's not relevant. Perhaps if I elaborate on my earlier post.

Originality and development are two criteria often used to judge the worth of a work. So, one of the reasons Beethoven's Eroica is often cited as being a great work is the extent to which it took the symphonic form - part of the context within which LvB was composing - and gave it an original treatment, not least its length.

You only have to consider how the context for an artist changed from the Renaissance to the Surrealism of the 20thC. It's not possible to estimate the worth of, say, Untitled (Woman’s Face Covered by a Rose) by Magritte if it is shorn of context and just set alongside the Mona Lisa.

Composers works contribute to a conversation among their contemporaries, with the past, with the times...

 

Not sure where that second posting came from : technical glitch!
There is no way to delete posts is there?

My point is that when a listener subjectively rates a piece it is based on their own musical experiences more than the piece's contribution to the art form.
I might admire the Eroica or Tristan or The Rite Of Spring because they had a major impact on musical history but I like them and personally rate them because of the music both in itself and in relation to other music I listen to.

Are Ive's works better or worse according to whether you believe he introduced certain innovations before Stravinsky, Schoeberg etc or you believe he altered these works later making them more innovative?

 

^^^ You've lost me I'm afraid. My post above aimed at responding to those who said that they only listen to the music. IMO, they don't, if what we mean by how we "value" music is to make a judgement (often intended to be an attempt at an objective judgement) about how good/great something is.

If what we mean by "value" is just what we find valuable to us, personally, regardless of any other factor, then I would agree; I take the same view.

In which case, if I attached personal value to the supposed 10th Symphony, I would continue to listen to it, no matter who composed it.

Having said that, I find it difficult to be totally honest about a hypothetical. Maybe I would be somewhat dismayed to find that what I thought was Beethoven turned out not to be the case.

Besides, I've said elsewhere that when I listen to music I like, the sense of the composer's personality and values figure in my estimation. For me, it's unavoidable, though it is of greater significance wrt pop music than classical.

 

People can say what they want, or feel is right. But in reality I think there would be a change in perspective in general. I think the real test is having it done. Check the attendence in concerts before the news is broken that it was someone other than Beethoven, and compare with the attendance after. I think there will be a decline in attendance.

 

1. A lesser-known contemporary of Beethoven
2. A 21st-century composer
3. An Artificial intelligence

My take in each case:

1. This composer is a forgotten god of music and not only I will want to keep listening to this symphony of his but also I will want to look for more of his pieces;
2. This composer is a god of music and not only I will want to keep listening to this symphony of his but also I will want to look for more of his pieces;
3. The dude who programmed the AI is a god of music and not only I will want to keep listening to this symphony of his but also I will want to look for more of his pieces.

It could be argued that in cases 2 and 3 the actual composer lacked originality, but considering that every Beethoven symphony breaks the mold somehow, it's automatic that the alledged tenth that I would be obsessed with would have to be different from any previous work of the genre by Beethoven, and therefore, in my view, it would have to be original.

 

Every one knows that Beetroot's 10th was composed by Brahms