Gurn's Classical Corner

[Gurn Blanston]

I had no idea this thread was considered "esoteric"! 

Not esoteric? Krommer? He's damn near a cult classic! 

Love your quote from Rosen. I need to pull out that book for a reread. It's been a while.

[DavidW]

I had no idea this thread was considered "esoteric"! 

It is so esoteric with such a small clique, that it makes the Havergal Brian thread seem mainstream!

Nah this thread is great, don't take offense.  I'm just having fun.

[Karl Henning]

Nah this thread is great, don't take offense.

Just broadens our appreciation for "Papa", je-je-je-je!

[Gurn Blanston]

It is so esoteric with such a small clique, that it makes the Havergal Brian thread seem mainstream!

Nah this thread is great, don't take offense.  I'm just having fun.

Havergal Who?   

[DavidW]

That reminds me, as the classical era experts tend to hang out on this thread... does any one want to help pick the composers and works for the classical era blind listening?  We would need mature yet not immediately recognizable music from Mozart and Haydn (should we include Beethoven? his music is very distinctive), and the same from lesser known composers that you believe could go head to head with the giants.

Please don't volunteer composers or works yet, just volunteer that you want to participate in the selection.  We need either a special thread or communication through PM to settle the list of works.

[Gurn Blanston]

I'll help.

[Leo K.]

I like! And there is indeed a missing track, #13-Die fruhe Liebe by Rosler.

(Add umlauts to taste.)

That is indeed a great disk! I like the Kozeluch tunes 

[Uncle Connie]

*bows*

Speaking of which, this Krommer chap's music is more than pretty. He's had some attention in these parts in the past, but I haven't heard mention of Quartetto di Milano's recording of his opus 18 SQs on Tudor. The disc is not readily available - I nabbed BRO's last copy I think - but it is downloadable and suchforth and so on, so it's not impossible to hear. MI, lovely recording, and music Haydn would have been proud to call his own. A most superior and exclusive listen.

What it doesn't quite do is touch the hem of the sublime. Sorry about that. Maybe next time.



[asin]B00005QTPO[/asin]

Not a whole lot does touch the hem, among the second-tier; Krommer's lucky to have come close.

If you like the quartet disc chasmaniac suggests, then also get this:

[asin]B001R4KQM0[/asin]

There's no duplication between the two, and they are well worth the trouble.

chasmaniac's disc is on the Tudor label and if you scan the Krommer pages in Amazon you'll find a whole lot of stuff that label has issued, mostly (but not entirely) involving the clarinet and a superb performer named Eduard Brunner.  Anything you buy, if you like wind chamber music, you'll enjoy.  And in cruising through I found one I didn't know about, and will go order it now to add to my own Krommer stash. 

[Uncle Connie]

HOWEVER (I forgot to add about Krommer):

Don't get carried so far away with this guy that you make the error of his symphonies, in the Bamert series.  Others may disagree; for me, they're utter tripe.  Most disorganized things I can recall.  Which is really weird since his chamber music and concertos are exactly the opposite.  Is it I?

[chasmaniac]

Yes! the Marcolini disc is excellent too. Somewhat later material, iirc, with a dash of Beethovenism added, sounds to me. The Bamert Krommer has fans in these parts. I'd have to relisten to refresh the grey cells on that one. (Outside of Papa, I listen to little orchestral music.)

And Leo: that is a handsome recital, isn't it? Maybe on that score, we can work up a fine little nisus towards consensitivity, er sumfin'.

[Gurn Blanston]

Not a whole lot does touch the hem, among the second-tier; Krommer's lucky to have come close.

If you like the quartet disc chasmaniac suggests, then also get this:

[asin]B001R4KQM0[/asin]

There's no duplication between the two, and they are well worth the trouble.

chasmaniac's disc is on the Tudor label and if you scan the Krommer pages in Amazon you'll find a whole lot of stuff that label has issued, mostly (but not entirely) involving the clarinet and a superb performer named Eduard Brunner.  Anything you buy, if you like wind chamber music, you'll enjoy.  And in cruising through I found one I didn't know about, and will go order it now to add to my own Krommer stash.

Yes, I'll certainly second the Marcolini disk. Very enjoyable. I also have another disk with 3 quartets; early, middle and late. When I get home I will refresh my memory on the players, label etc. but for now, I just recall that I really did enjoy it.  

[Uncle Connie]

Here's the Krommer I found that I want but don't have, so just ordered:


[asin]B001UL3ZYQ[/asin]


Yummy.  But I won't even see it for three weeks because I'm about to fly off on a vacation.  'Bye.  Meanwhile, y'all go order some of these Krommer thingies that are out there, and enjoy!!!!

[Leon]

Since I am having a hard time finding a copy of the book, Haydn, Mozart and the Viennese School 1740-1780 for a price I consider fair, I once again checked it out of my local public library; for at least the 4th time.  However, I must have never read the Preface before and found an astonishing sentence that I thought might spark a discussion among the Corner's friends:

In his recent book on Haydn's Farewell Symphony, James Webster demonstrated in no uncertain terms that the traditional notions of "Classical style" and "Classical period" (which would have astonished Haydn and Mozart) are flawed beyond redemption and need to be replaced.

One of his goals for the book is to explain why the above quoted sentence is true and to suggest how to replace those terms.

This is a book, I will thoroughly enjoy reading.

[Gurn Blanston]

Since I am having a hard time finding a copy of the book, Haydn, Mozart and the Viennese School 1740-1780 for a price I consider fair, I once again checked it out of my local public library; for at least the 4th time.  However, I must have never read the Preface before and found an astonishing sentence that I thought might spark a discussion among the Corner's friends:

One of his goals for the book is to explain why the above quoted sentence is true and to suggest how to replace those terms.

This is a book, I will thoroughly enjoy reading.

I am in love with that entire concept, Arnold. Back there somewhere when we all were discussing the string quartets, I made a controversial statement along the lines that the entire notion that Haydn's quartets were like a striving towards "achieving Classicism", which has been stated for 200 years and has reached a point now where it is accepted without argument, is totally untrue. There is no such thing as Classicism.   I only got a little bit of argument at the time, but it was more to the point that Haydn's quartets certainly evolved and 'improved', but not about the Classical aspect at all. I'm certainly interested in this topic, anyway. Of course, I've already totally rejected the Classico-Romantic dichotomy, so might as well shed some more while we're at it.

[Leon]

There is no such thing as Classicism.   

I only vaguely understand this idea since so much of my appreciation of the music from what I consider "The Classical Era" is no doubt based on some assumptions which Heartz will challenge.  This is the  reason why I look forward so much to actually reading the book from start to finish instead of what I've done in the past which is to treat it as a reference book and just look things up.

[Gurn Blanston]

I only vaguely understand this idea since so much of my appreciation of the music from what I consider "The Classical Era" is no doubt based on some assumptions which Heartz will challenge.  This is the  reason why I look forward so much to actually reading the book from start to finish instead of what I've done in the past which is to treat it as a reference book and just look things up.

Well, I'm about 350 pages into it right now and the concept hasn't really raised its head yet. Maybe he is implying that the cumulative effect will lead you to those conclusions as an inescapable fact. Webster addresses that topic outside of his book in an essay, possibly in "Haydn Studies" or maybe it was in the "Cambridge Handbook". I read it a couple of years ago and mulled it pretty hard, so I already was agreeing with the concept before I read Heartz. But you might not agree at all; you don't have to! 

[kishnevi]

Well, I think it's glaringly obvious that Mozart and Haydn et al would think you were batty if you told them they were writing "classical" music.  Just as Bach and Handel and Vivaldi would not understand you if you were to tell them they were composing "baroque" music.   For them it was simply the style of the times.  But if you talked to someone c. 1780 about "classical music" they would probably think you were referring to some pedant's attempt to recreate the music of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and respond by asking how one makes a lyre and what do panpipes actually sound like.  On the other hand, I think it's also true that there were various recognized structures and methods in composing music in the late 18th century, and that Haydn and Mozart (principally) developed them, and in some cases invented new ones,  for maximum aesthetic effect,  and that style was retrospectively termed "classical".  I've seen more than a few times references to this style as "the first Viennese School"  (the second being Schoenberg et al.).

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, I think it's glaringly obvious that Mozart and Haydn et al would think you were batty if you told them they were writing "classical" music.  Just as Bach and Handel and Vivaldi would not understand you if you were to tell them they were composing "baroque" music.   For them it was simply the style of the times.  But if you talked to someone c. 1780 about "classical music" they would probably think you were referring to some pedant's attempt to recreate the music of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and respond by asking how one makes a lyre and what do panpipes actually sound like.  On the other hand, I think it's also true that there were various recognized structures and methods in composing music in the late 18th century, and that Haydn and Mozart (principally) developed them, and in some cases invented new ones,  for maximum aesthetic effect,  and that style was retrospectively termed "classical".  I've seen more than a few times references to this style as "the first Viennese School"  (the second being Schoenberg et al.).

Oh yes, no doubt about that. But the implication has long been that there was an intention to create a specific style, certainly I have inferred this from a lot of things I have read over the years both from professional writers and from amateur listeners. If you have read anything in evolution theory, you will know that for a long time, people believed that evolution had some sort of direction to it, like the end that things got to was a product of intent (eg - developing wings with the intention of being able to fly some day). And implicit in the term "First Viennese School", for example, is the idea that the leading proponents (Haydn and Mozart) worked on this project and now they were teaching it to others. But all of these terms, right down to 'Classical' are constructs that were invented and applied retroactively in order for scholars to be able to neatly catalog everything.

"Is this lepidopteran a butterfly or a moth?"

"Sleeps with its wings laid down flat, so it's a moth"

"Is Beethoven a Classicist or a Romantic?"

"Stirs up a lot of emotion, clearly a Romantic". 

 

[chasmaniac]

Wranitzky string quintet and sextet on Brilliant. Disappointing. Muddy, loose, blah.

[asin]B006YXGU42[/asin]

[Gurn Blanston]

Wranitzky string quintet and sextet on Brilliant. Disappointing. Muddy, loose, blah.

[asin]B006YXGU42[/asin]

Damn, sorry to hear that. I enjoyed his symphonies, and wanted to hear some chamber music. Recordings are thin on the ground though...