In classical music, are today's symphonies better/worse/equal to the symphonies in the time of the composers?

Question

In athletics, the athletes get bigger, faster, better every generation, so a great player of yesteryear might not crack the starting lineup today. I'm wondering if the same thing applies to classical music - are instruments better, are techniques more refined, or is what we are hearing today pretty much what the composer heard in the 19th century when they first heard their work played?

Answer 1

I think that it is a novel thought that our forefathers of music were the ultimate performers, but musicians really go above and beyond now with the addition of hundreds of virtuosos, refined instruments and equipment, an international study, and more resources. It would be hard for the musicians of yesterday to compete. I do think music may have been alot more pure before the addition of so many things, but in all, what we produce today is unmatched as far as talent and possibilities... we as musicians are tied down by little these days, and we will continue to grow and improve, leaving a mark of excellence for our path.

I think it would be wrong of us to compare the composers of yesterday to those of today.. what is expeditionary for us may not be equal to that of Bach, but we make the same leaps in the advancement of composition. Tomorrows composers will far surpass today in what we thought possible.

The beauty of music is its evolution...

we always move forward.

Answer 2

A wise man once said that "art does not evolve, it transforms itself." What this means, is that music, and art in general does not inherently get better or worse. It simply reflects the aesthetic values of the time.

For instance, should Bach be played on a piano, because pianos are "modern" and "Bach would have liked it better?" From all indications, Bach liked harpsichords just fine, and there were some damn good harpsichords being made in his day. Playing his keyboard music on piano is not better or worse, it's just different. There is nothing wrong with enjoying Bach on piano or harpsichord or both. If you value an "authentic" performance, go with the harpsichord. If you enjoy pianos more, listen to it on piano. Better or worse is a matter of personal opinion.

Now if most people don't like a particular piece of music or composer, than that music falls by they wayside. The opposite if more people like it. Sometimes music comes back into popularity after years of neglect, again reflecting changing values and attitudes.

Also, about "is what we hear today the same as in the 19th century," that is a very difficult and complicated musicological question. We don't have sound recordings until Edison invented them. What we depend on is primary sources from the time that describe performance practices or specific performances by individuals. We also have instruments that have survived from these periods, which helps give us an idea. This question is one that many musicologists have devoted entire careers to. A movement that began in the late 20th century by people like Christopher Hogwood in the U.K. is called the "authentic movement" which attempts to play music how it was originally played to the best of our knowledge. Sometimes it's quite different.

Answer 3

In the 17th and18th century when JS Bach and Vivaldi were writing music the instruments were quite different from those we have today. The sound was less resonant. Indeed the keyboard instrument of choice was the harpsichord. If you listen to Bach played by an orchestra with his contemporary instruments, it would sound different from the way our current orchestras play it. So they would not have heard it the same way. As we get later and later, the refinement of the instruments catches up to us. Brahms symphonies, for example, written in the 19th century would have sounded to him quite similar to the way they are played today. But orchestras and their conductors bring nuances to the music that the composer may not have thought of. So each time they are played, they are "new".

Check out the San Francisco Symphony program "Keeping Score" on PBS. Michael Tilson Thomas tells some history of Beethoven's "Eroica" symphony and the program shows how the orchestra readies themselves for interpreting the music. So far there are three programs, really excellent! But there will be many more.

Answer 4

Most instruments have evolved. the human body has certainly enjoyed the benefits of a stable life style, adequate food and housing and medical services, and become stronger.
A few miles outside the city where I live is a medieval city still standing. It's a great tourist attraction. The half-timbered houses still stand, although sagging with time, and it's amazing to realize how much smaller the average human was, based on how much everyone has to duck to get inside. All the door frames are of a size, and they are a 15 cm shorter than what we call standard today.
As a singer, I will confine myself to observations on the human vocal instrument:
recent research tells us that it is the proprotion of the length of the vocal tract ( from the vocal folds to the lips) to the rest of the body that makes a voice tenor as opposed to bass. A tall man might have a proportionately shorter vocaltract length (tenor), whereas his equally tall friend will have 1 to 2 cm longer ( bass).
If you consider that the overall length has grown, then the proportions must also have kept pace. There are more and more lower voices, percentage wise, simply because there are more and more longer instruments.
The first tenor to sing out in full voice above a high A was Jean de Reszke, in the 1850's. It was an accepted style to switch into falsetto after that point. He was criticized as being an animal, the sound was bestial, it was too coarse for polite society, etc. How we have come to appreciate all our favorite tenors since the recording industry started ( take Caruso for an example) for just that high full sound?!
What would we have done for kicks without Mr. P's "King of the High C's" album?
The voice is still evolving. We may manage to understand it fully, in time. What will people of the next 150 years sound like?
I liked both your questions.

Answer 5

"Better" is a subjective matter. There is no question that older music played now sounds different from what the original performances were like. For some time, it was felt that because of improvements in instruments and the availability of larger orchestras, that such music sounded "better". Then the early music "authentic performance" philosophy began, and in many areas "modern" performances of older music were looked down upon. Of course, no one knows how close these "authentic" performances are to the original, but they are certainly closer. For myself, I prefer the modern interpretation, and I feel if the composers of that time had the modern resources they would have used them (especially Beethoven).

Answer 6

I think that older classical music sounded better. It was more challenging than some of what is wrote now. Although instruments are becoming better over the years, it would be a challenge now to compare to the music of the past.