The Classical Chat Thread

[Karl Henning]

Sara, you remind me that I need to revisit the Korngold concerto . . . .

[Lethevich]

It's perfect, although I keep hearing the E.T. theme in the first movement. Someone who I mentioned this to didn't hear it the same, though.

[KeithW]

Today I learned: both Tchaikovsky and Korngold's violin concertos are in D major, and both are assigned opus 35.

Elgar's violin concerto is in B minor, Op. 61.  The third violin concerto by Saint-Saens is also in B minor, Op. 61.

I'm sure there was another violin concerto (most definitely not in B minor) assigned Op. 61 

Ah, but it was in D major, so there's some connection to Tchaikovsky and Korngold

[Lethevich]

Elgar's violin concerto is in B minor, Op. 61.  The third violin concerto by Saint-Saens is also in B minor, Op. 61.

I'm sure there was another violin concerto (most definitely not in B minor) assigned Op. 61 

Ah, but it was in D major, so there's some connection to Tchaikovsky and Korngold

That is a cool pick n__n I've noticed some composers doing deliberate Beethoven opus number hommages with certain works, but can't recall one for the life of me.

[eyeresist]

Hanson's 6th is in six movements, and I think I can hear reference to Prokofiev's 6th in it.

Dvorak's 3rd is his only symphony in three movements.

[Lethevich]

Oh, that reminds me of Lepo Sumera:

Symphony No.1 - 2 movements
Symphony No.2 - 3 movements
Symphony No.3 - 4 movements
Symphony No.4 - 5 movements

[Karl Henning]

For truly spiritual music, you need to turn to Jonathan Harvey, says Ivan Hewett.

As someone who's composed a setting of a Passion, I half-resent this sort of remark.

[Lethevich]

IMO any use of the s-word is highly suspect anyway.

[Karl Henning]

Good point.

[DavidW]

Anyone got any advice on how to get into atonal/modern stuff? At the moment it's just unpleasant to me and I'm curious as to what I'm missing. Is it just a matter of adjusting to it through putting in the hours listening to it or is it something that someone can just find unpleasant and never get past that point?

*awaits the barrage of conflicting opinions*

Okay what have you heard so far?   It's okay to not like famous atonal music btw, you have to get used to it.  But knowing what you've heard and what you felt about 'em will help everyone come up with good alternatives.

[eyeresist]

Depending on your experience, what you call "atonal" may not be what we generally recognise as such. Crazy notes-all-over-the-place stuff can actually be quite tonally centred, once you know what to listen for.

I find actual atonal music (IF any music can truly be atonal) in general pretty boring BTW. Rare is the composer who can make something interesting to the listener while avoiding the game of harmonic relationships.

[jlaurson]

Okay what have you heard so far?   It's okay to not like famous atonal music btw, you have to get used to it.  But knowing what you've heard and what you felt about 'em will help everyone come up with good alternatives.

Anyone got any advice on how to get into atonal/modern stuff? At the moment it's just unpleasant to me and I'm curious as to what I'm missing. Is it just a matter of adjusting to it through putting in the hours listening to it or is it something that someone can just find unpleasant and never get past that point?

*awaits the barrage of conflicting opinions*

I know we have a thread (or a discussion within a thread) on precisely that topic somewhere.

Echoing DavidW: What have you arrived at so far? In any case:

Gently, is the idea! It took me a considerable time, but the enjoyment that waits at the end of that progression is very considerable.

In between your gentle path might pluck a few real 'difficult' pieces so as to give you contrast that that which you already like... it helps the mind, somehow, when it goes back to Webern and suddenly thinks: Oh, my... he sure was a romantic at heart.

I loved approaching Schoenberg through Strauss and especially Webern through Bach. One foot on solid ground, the other gently pulled on over into the pantonal camp.
These discs, in various ways, were instrumental in that and are still among my most cherished recordings:


Schnittke, Bach, Webern-Bach,
Faust-Cantata,
Chorales, Fuga a 6 voci,
Boreyko / Hamburg SO
Berlin Classics


Bach, Webern, Webern-Bach,
"Ricercar"
Poppen / MKO / Hilliard Ens.
ECM


J.Strauss II (via Schönberg, Webern, Berg),
Waltz Arrangements,
Berliner Streichquartett et al.
Berlin Classics

http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/09/dip-your-ears-no-42.html
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/09/dip-your-ears-no-43.html
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2010/02/reviewed-not-necessarily-recommended_11.html

http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2010/03/between-boulez-and-bach-interview-with.html
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2008/Oct08/Schonberg_phoenix133.htm

Get your hands on a copy of "Langsamer Satz" (Webern, see link above), too. Oh, and perhaps the piece teetering on the edge between romanticism and atonality: Berg's Piano Sonata op.1. There's a YouTube clip of Gould, explaining it, and then playing it: His best performance of all the ones I have of him playing op.1. Unfortunately it's not a complete performance, not on disc, and finding it on Youtube always takes me ages. There are other fine performances that I've found recently... after being frustrated with almost every recording for a long time. The one I have on record that satisfies me the most is probably Uchida (see below). But I'm surprised (very much, so) by how absolutely wonderful and feeling Marc Andre Hamelin's performance is in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z67mnXTttoE. Listen to the coffee house sentimentality seeping through the cracks in the harmonies.
Shura Cherkassy ain't half bad, either. http://youtu.be/41m49EdJRGY But too many miss the wistful, romantic quality. If that work were played by a program like 'Sibelius', it would sound like an awful jumble of notes. It needs to breath like slime-mold. :-) http://youtu.be/HUA6N9DWwa8



Schoenberg, Berg, Webern
Mitsuko Uchida / Boulez
Philips
UK-link

[nesf]

Thanks jlaurson, that's very helpful.

What I think of atonal (and I'm very much aware that what I think of atonal might very well be tonal) is some Schoenburg stuff like his second string quartet. I remember when it first listened to it it sounded like quite alien to me. I found it hard to find anything I liked in it, though I could tell it was music if that makes sense. What I think of "modern" is more dissonant music, starting with the likes of Prokofiev as a beginning point here for me, though I recognise that dissonance has a far, far older pedigree than that.

[Karl Henning]

What I think of atonal (and I'm very much aware that what I think of atonal might very well be tonal) is some Schoenburg stuff like his second string quartet. I remember when it first listened to it it sounded like quite alien to me. I found it hard to find anything I liked in it, though I could tell it was music if that makes sense. What I think of "modern" is more dissonant music, starting with the likes of Prokofiev as a beginning point here for me, though I recognise that dissonance has a far, far older pedigree than that.

On one hand, I am unsure how to be of help, because much the of atonal music which I heard early on in my musical journey, I found attractive right away.

On the other . . . one wants to try to be of help : )

In tonal/atonal terms, what is your impression of this? (Fair disclosure: it's a piece of my own)

[nesf]

In tonal/atonal terms, what is your impression of this? (Fair disclosure: it's a piece of my own)

I get an error when I follow that link.

[Karl Henning]

Hm, I don't know why. I just tried it myself, and it worked.

[nesf]

It worked after a few minutes.

I don't know. I think it's chromatic (could be very wrong) and I can't tell if it is has a key or not. Thus proving your point to me that I can't tell atonal from tonal yet.

[Karl Henning]

It worked after a few minutes.

I don't know. I think it's chromatic (could be very wrong) and I can't tell if it is has a key or not. Thus proving your point to me that I can't tell atonal from tonal yet.

Glad you're being a good sport! : )

Actually, you've done just fine here.  Fact is that in my own music, sometimes I write at no great distance from Common Practice, sometimes at quite a great distance indeed.  And I will often range about within the same piece.

Probably someone has pointed this out already . . . but Schoenberg famously didn't care for the term atonality (What can it mean? Music without tones?) In brief, rather than thinking of them as two compartmentalized opposites (tonality VS. atonality), I think more something of a sliding scale, where it is a matter of how many/few centers of tonal gravity, and of how strong the gravitational pull may be at one time or another.

[nesf]

Glad you're being a good sport! : )

Actually, you've done just fine here.  Fact is that in my own music, sometimes I write at no great distance from Common Practice, sometimes at quite a great distance indeed.  And I will often range about within the same piece.

Probably someone has pointed this out already . . . but Schoenberg famously didn't care for the term atonality (What can it mean? Music without tones?) In brief, rather than thinking of them as two compartmentalized opposites (tonality VS. atonality), I think more something of a sliding scale, where it is a matter of how many/few centers of tonal gravity, and of how strong the gravitational pull may be at one time or another.

You mean like writing in mostly in a diatonic scale but then using chromatic elements in places? It's still pretty much "in the key of C" but not quite?

Edit: Or introducing some dissonance but having the piece mostly consonant?

[jlaurson]

Edit: Or introducing some dissonance but having the piece mostly consonant?

True dissonance presupposes tonality. That's why pan-tonal music has such a difficult time. (Well, one of the reasons, at any rate.) There needs to be a consonance from which to deviate to create that delicious (or jarring) tension... and then to release it (to induce that smile or the relief). That's why many works toy with so-called a-tonality but the way the notes work together, we are drawn toward making sense of their relationship and -- like magnets, or the 'magnetic lines' in Photoshop -- are ready to snap to the nearest 'tonally logical explanation'. The music can then take us into other directions, suggesting to our ears that they were misguided... only for them to snap onto the next chord-like structure that comes along.

Schoenberg used (or rather: theorized about) his tone-row system to un-train the ears from doing that and to make sure that no accidental tonality allowed them their bad habits. That was new... not the sounds themselves. There's plenty of tonally ambiguous work that preceded him... not the least in Debussy where there's often no more than a diffuse tonality-cloud that shape-shifts as it goes along. Berg, of course, 'ruined it' right away when he used Schoenberg's strict system and showed how it could still be utilized to do something rather romantic with it. (Violin Concerto being the most popular example of that. A violinist friend of mine, with stubbornly conservative taste but at least the grace to acknowledge "theoretical greatness" to Berg's VC, eventually, finally came around to the work after being exposed to it for hours and hours because it's the background music for the '20th Century' developmental stage in Sid Meier's "Civilization IV".  )