Comparing Composers

[karlhenning]

Don't bother, I asked him that hours ago, and there was no cogent reply, at least no 'rules' which you can't find being followed by dozens of degenerate modern composers also. It boiled down to 'music which I like', of course...

QFT

[Saul]

QFT

Yes this really made my day:

Teresa said :

'Stravinsky's firebird is 1.000.000.000 times better then Mozart's symphony'

An intellectual discussion by every standard, dont you agree Karl?

[Teresa]

Um, Teresa, that melody is not "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star."

My mind goes Twinkle, twinkle little star when I hear it.  What Children's song is the melody from then?

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes this really made my day:

Teresa said :

'Stravinsky's firebird is 1.000.000.000 times better then Mozart's symphony'

An intellectual discussion by every standard, dont you agree Karl?

I think we should make it a rule that anyone giving answers like that has to be required to show their work. I want to know the formula used to derive that number.

Oh, and Saul, I give you just one name that puts your post-1900 argument in the wrong; Ernest Bloch. Say no more.  0:)

[Gurn Blanston]

My mind goes Twinkle, twinkle little star when I hear it.  What Children's song is the melody from then?

It isn't a children's song at all, or at least it wasn't in the 18th century. It is a French folk song. That twinkle crap came along in comparatively recent times. I suspect Stravinski had something to do with it...

[Teresa]

That is not a correct description of the harmony at that point, which is a perfectly standard half cadence on the dominant: VI, V-of-V, V. In any case II is commonly substituted for IV in cadences and thus II, V, I is just as commonly found as IV, V, I.

The quote was from my composition teacher many decades ago, perhaps he was in error as he shown to us that Haydn's Surprise was the first use of II, V, I.  And he said it was very shocking at the time.

[MN Dave]

twinkle crap

[Saul]

Another Chinese lo mein...

http://www.youtube.com/v/I8nseOWRwvw&feature=related

[Teresa]

I think we should make it a rule that anyone giving answers like that has to be required to show their work. I want to know the formula used to derive that number.

Oh, and Saul, I give you just one name that puts your post-1900 argument in the wrong; Ernest Bloch. Say no more.  0:)

Sorry my clarification was on Page 11 as follows:

All you have to do is actually listen to a good performance though a good stereo to hear for yourself.

The Firebird's Orchestration alone is light years ahead, not to mention the actual notes themselves and the interplay with the instrument's voices and tone colors.  Melody and harmony have seldom been matched by any composition before or after.  The Firebird IMHO is one of those rare perfect works.

I agree Ernest Bloch is a wonderful composer.  Actually Saul is calling everything from the Romantic period forward (1800's) crap and not Classical music at all    And those of us who love Romantic and Modern composers do not want to be disenfranchised. 

[Saul]

Sorry my clarification was on Page 11 as follows:

All you have to do is actually listen to a good performance though a good stereo to hear for yourself.

The Firebird's Orchestration alone is light years ahead, not to mention the actual notes themselves and the interplay with the instrument's voices and tone colors.  Melody and harmony have seldom been matched by any composition before or after.  The Firebird IMHO is one of those rare perfect works.

So we had 'billion times better' and now you ventured to 'light years' what's next? Cosmic explosions?

[Luke]

The quote was from my composition teacher many decades ago, perhaps he was in error as he shown to us that Haydn's Surprise was the first use of II, V, I.  And he said it was very shocking at the time.

Then he was hugely, hugely wrong. It's among the most common chord progressions of all, as common if not more so than IV V I.

[Mirror Image]

Look guys there's no use in continuing to argue with somebody who clearly has their head in the sand. Saul isn't listening to any of your arguments. It's the simple case of in one ear, out the other. I'm surprised people continue to argue with him. He's simply not going to listen with an open-mind to any 20th Century composer. No need in arguing with him about something that he has built walls up against.

[karlhenning]

Surgically done.

[Mirror Image]

Another Chinese lo mein...

http://www.youtube.com/v/I8nseOWRwvw&feature=related

I'm not a big fan of Webern at all. In fact, my two favorite compositions by him are "Im Sommerwind" and "Passacaglia." It is in these works that we hear a man who was still writing tonal music. His 12-tone works almost seem directionless. Berg, on the other hand, is my favorite composer from "The Second Viennese School." He was essentially a Romantic, but composed music in the 12-tone method, but what makes his music so striking is that he actually uses tonal centers in his music. There is also a Romantic lyricism that runs deep through all of his works. He is one of my favorite composers and has really opened my ears up to 12-tone music. He just used this music in tonal way and that is very appealing style. His importance is also quite significant, especially when you had composers like Dallapiccola and some Alwyn's works that use the 12-tone method but in a melodic way. The influence of Berg in these two composers is apparent.

[Saul]

Look guys there's no use in continuing to argue with somebody who clearly has their head in the sand. Saul isn't listening to any of your arguments. It's the simple case of in one ear, out the other. I'm surprised people continue to argue with him. He's simply not going to listen with an open-mind to any 20th Century composer. No need in arguing with him about something that he has built walls up against.

This is evolving from Swiss Cheese to an Ostrich argument, really entertaining.

[karlhenning]

At any rate, (and as could be said for any composer, Mendelssohn included, I suppose) no matter what the ideas which may drive the compositional process, the soundworld of the Webern Opus 21 is simply exquisite.

blah blah roasted chicken blah blah lo mein blah blah Ostrich blah blah

Thank you for continuing to illustrate that you have no musical criticisms to make on this thread.

It is rare to find someone who so thoroughly gives himself to the activity of making himself both irrelevant to the discussion, and ridiculous in aspect.

[Lethevich]

Look guys there's no use in continuing to argue with somebody who clearly has their head in the sand. Saul isn't listening to any of your arguments. It's the simple case of in one ear, out the other. I'm surprised people continue to argue with him. He's simply not going to listen with an open-mind to any 20th Century composer. No need in arguing with him about something that he has built walls up against.

This kind of thread has happened many times before, we need warning posts to that the unaware can stand a chance of not being sucked in for dozens of pages at a time It reminds me of being trapped in the orbit of a black hole: inescapable - as you get closer, time slows and the trap is set.

[Saul]

At any rate, (and as could be said for any composer, Mendelssohn included, I suppose) no matter what the ideas which may drive the compositional process, the soundworld of the Webern Opus 21 is simply exquisite.
 
Thank you for continuing to illustrate that you have no musical criticisms to make on this thread.

It is rare to find someone who so thoroughly gives himself to the activity of making himself both irrelevant to the discussion, and ridiculous in aspect.

Anyone who considers this to be 'progressive' is guilty of self deception.
http://www.youtube.com/v/9umvR9_3peQ&feature=related

[Scarpia]

This kind of thread has happened many times before, we need warning posts to that the unaware can stand a chance of not being sucked in for dozens of pages at a time It reminds me of being trapped in the orbit of a black hole: inescapable - as you get closer, time slows and the trap is set.

I often wonder of the appeal of these threads, in which some of our members who require the most forbearance, simply repeat their fanatically held opinions over and over and over again, apparently believing that the mere statement of these opinions constitutes an "argument" or "proof" that they are correct.  These same posters, requiring extreme forbearance, believe that they have refuted the carefully reasoned replies made to them with equally facile statements of dismissal.  The mystery, of course, is why anyone else would participating (and yes, I realize this applies to me as well).

[Saul]

Here some real classical music.

http://www.youtube.com/v/1GXHjxvSi24&feature=related