But, we should also remember that Schubert was face to face with his own mortality, especially in his last couple of sonatas. Many feel that Schubert communicates this with his writing.

With this in mind, a 65-70 year old would no doubt be able to relate to Schubert, even though only 30 when he composed the works, to a better degree than someone in his mid 20's. Sadly, they both have something in common.

If an artist feels a connection with what the composer was going through when he wrote a piece of music, and can relate to it in his own life, perhaps there's an advantage that can't be learned or studied.

I thought about death when I was 20, I think about it constantly now.

koji (STSD)

I think that everyone obviously does, but my point is that the general problems that "seniors" (or even those in their 50's) go through on a regular basis perhaps could emphasize a negative truth that Schubert's own health problems no doubt did.

And let me clarify something before all hell breaks loose and my statement is dissected:

I think an 11 year old could give a better performance of Schubert's Bb than a 60 year old. Anything's possible. No one really knows for sure the answer to this topic's question. But my opinion is that on an average, for reasons I've posted and by some others already made, I think the majority of "convincing" performances of late Beethoven and Schubert would be by older artists.

Quick poll

Which would you rather see Lang Lang perform (and don't say neither):
1. Beethoven Op.2, No.1
2. Beethoven Op.111?

He's got the talent (read fingers), and while both performances would probably suck, I would say the first would be the most convincing.

I think both would be bad for different reasons, but I certainly get your point.

koji (STSD)

Hahaha

I think that maybe a young sensitive person could understand late Schubert/Beethoven works even better than an adult or old person
It's to simplistic to say that since you're 50 or 60 then you understand people in their 50s and 60s better than someone in his 20s, or that if you're in your 20s you understand people in their 20s better than people in their 10s or 50s
It's not only simplistic, it is plain wrong
If there something that history has taught us about learning and arts is that different generations should never be seperated in their knowledge, maturity and activities and that in fact intergenerational frendships or learning experiences are what really helped art and science in the past
That's also the reasons why special schools where people from all ages can interact with each other
results in more intelligent and with higher IQ and maturiy students
And interaction between generations means also that I could understand the needs or emotions of my grandmother better than someone her age or that my 6 years old cousin could understand my needs and emotions better than my peers
Close peer-to-peer interaction, in music too, is the exact opposite of maturation and progress
Through my short life I've always experienced intergenerational friendships and learning either by the company or senior people who lived near my house when I was 5 to 10 years old, either with way younger than me friends or either whith mixed groups of friends and it always enriched my minds and my life
So, is someone in his/her 60s after a life of experiences more able to understand the works composed by someone in his/her 60's because they're peer and we understand our peer better??
Hogwash !!
Sometimes death can be better felt and understood by a young kid than someone "approaching" it, sometimes pain and fear can be better felt and understood by a young empathic kid than someone older and sometimes the experience of childhood or problems of childhood can be better be understood and felt by someone older than a younger kid
Let's young pianists play piece composed by old composers and let old pianists play piece composed by your composers, peers don't understand each other betters, quite the opposire, and I'm sure that the real depth of the late Beethoven and Schubert will be understood and performed by a young pianist not an older one
And btw; maturity has nothing to do with age, you can meet sensitive, intelligent 20 years old or arrogant, ignorant unsentivity 40 or 50 years old

Daniel

You have to start building repertore from a young age. Learning the late sonatas at 15,16 is no problem. The interpretation will mature over a number of years. We can all see that by listening to one performer doing one work recorded in different periods of his life. Like Brendel, I mush prefer his 3rd set of Beethoven sonatas to his 1st.

Music is the art of sound. Losing your parents or getting fired from your job isn't going to improve the way you hear and play music. "Oh, now my Mom's dead I'm a much better musician." Er, no.

In my opinion, there are VERY few adult pianists that do justice to late Schubert/Beethoven/Brahms; Beethoven in particular, and it has nothing to do with their age. It would not be hard for an intelligent teenage pianist to do better, although very few of them ever do, again it's not down to their age.

Also, on a side note, much of Chopin is no less sophisticated and nuanced (I might say it is often more so) than Schubert, but for some reason it's not regarded in the same way because it's not from some kind of "late" period.

i think that your dedication, and experience depends on how well you play the piece, not 'maturity'or 'age'. I myself am only sixteen, and only started getting serious about the piano a year ago, and practiced about eight hours daily. until then i gained experience and fully understood what i was doing.

Isn't it wonderful that at 16 and after one year at the piano one has already fully understood what s/he was doing?

I wish I had that sort of genius. No, on second thought, I don't, really. What is life but a journey of learning and understanding. If there's nothing left to learn (i.e. understand) life must be pretty dull!
Thank goodness I'm as stupid as I am! There's more to look forward to than I'll ever have time for, should I live to be 100!

Cheers!

what i meant by "fully understood what i was doing" was understanding what i learned and was taught and being able to apply it to other pieces myself, and not having to be dependent on someone telling me how to. im not saying i know EVERYTHING, i lack alot of things, but i think i can continue on my own and teach myself from this point, although i wont

The important thing, IMHO, is not to bias oneself with notions and generalizations about people's playing. Instead, I'd have to hear an individuals playing to know if it was sufficient. I could guess as to the effect of maturity on piano playing, but I'd rather comment on an individual recording rather than make a broad statement about the ability of a large disparate group. Just my POV.

If I may give an example from another area, Keats, like Schubert, was mortally ill the last few years of his life. Under this pressure his writing matured from the most insipid verse to truly great poetry that can stand beside that of any other English poet.

Tovey's comment about Schubert was made in the broader context of consideration of how almost all musicians reach a point when they stop writing "automatically," and have to put in a certain kind of maturity combined with intellectual rigor (he doesn't use those terms, I'm extracting all this from passages I read more than 20 years ago). For Rossini, that point came when he produced Guillaume Tell, and then he stopped writing. For Mozart, I think this point came at the time of the six quartets dedicated to Haydn. For Beethoven, it was probably the point when he had to come to terms with his deafness. I'm not sure Mendelssohn ever got there.