Arvo Part (1935 - )

[Christo]

My favorite Part composition above all of them is "Te Deum" written for chorus, string orchestra, and prepared piano.

Mine too. |Enjoyed a similar experience: it took time before I was won over, but now Pärt is an all-time 'great composer' for me.

[San Antone]

I first began listening to Arvo Part from the Naxos releases in the '90s, but then have not listened again until very recently.  I've been playing this recording this week.  Paul Hillier's vocal style is a good match for Part.

[North Star]

I don't suppose anyone was in Tallinn on Tuesday for the premiere of Adam's Passion
http://www.adamspassion.com/press-releases-1

[Karl Henning]

I was not, although I was thinking of Tallinn this week . . . .

Check your messages, Karlo! 

[North Star]

I was not, although I was thinking of Tallinn this week . . . .

Check your messages, Karlo! 

Tallinn is a grand place.

(did).

[San Antone]

Happy Birthday, Arvo Pärt



For several years (from 1968) he concentrated on exploring tonal monody and simple two-part counterpoint in exercises inspired by his studies of early music and Gregorian chant. During this period he produced two works (Laul armastatule – subsequently withdrawn – and the Third Symphony) which reveal the strength of these preoccupations. It was only in 1976, however, that he began to compose fluidly again, this time using a tonal technique of his own creation which he calls 'tintinnabuli' (after the bell-like resemblance of notes in a triad).

RTRH

[milk]

This is a very short thread. Isn't Part the most successful composer, in terms of concert performances and use in films, of the last 50 years? I find the music very accessible. Sometimes that fact makes me suspicious but other times I'm just overwhelmed by the beauty of the music. I'm listening to Te Deum at the moment. It's live by Dijkstra. It's very affecting. Is Part respected or written off because he's so outside the avant garde? How is he perceived amongst the cutting-edge critics? Is he a dinosaur or an inventor? I'm guessing it depends on whom you ask.
I think those who complain classical music has become ugly and unlistenable can turn to Part as a purveyor of highly listenable music.

I don't know what I'm trying to say here. The fact that his music is so outwardly beautiful makes me a little suspicious yet I can't help but really get pulled into it. Will Part be remembered as a high point? A conservative who innovates, like Bach? A lesser composer (compared to whom)? I know: it doesn't matter. But what do people think of him anyway?     

[VonStupp]

Will Part be remembered as a high point? A conservative who innovates, like Bach? A lesser composer (compared to whom)? I know: it doesn't matter. But what do people think of him anyway?   

I was introduced to Arvo Pärt in the 80's with his Tabula Rasa and a series of recordings from the Hilliard Ensemble. I am not obsessed with his music, it is too much of the same mellifluous style for my tastes, but I respect his music.

Coming from a choral perspective only, I think Pärt has broken out beyond a niche Estonian composer. His music is almost always included on choral programs still today, even if it is just one song to fit a Christmas album or a themed program. But I think enough of his works have been recorded outside of Estonia and away from Estonian devotees like the Järvi's, that his music is pretty standard fare in the choral world.

That said, I am largely ignorant of his instrumental music, although I would love to hear from someone who is familiar with his four symphonies to see if they are worth exploring.

[Mirror Image]

This is a very short thread. Isn't Part the most successful composer, in terms of concert performances and use in films, of the last 50 years? I find the music very accessible. Sometimes that fact makes me suspicious but other times I'm just overwhelmed by the beauty of the music. I'm listening to Te Deum at the moment. It's live by Dijkstra. It's very affecting. Is Part respected or written off because he's so outside the avant garde? How is he perceived amongst the cutting-edge critics? Is he a dinosaur or an inventor? I'm guessing it depends on whom you ask.
I think those who complain classical music has become ugly and unlistenable can turn to Part as a purveyor of highly listenable music.

I don't know what I'm trying to say here. The fact that his music is so outwardly beautiful makes me a little suspicious yet I can't help but really get pulled into it. Will Part be remembered as a high point? A conservative who innovates, like Bach? A lesser composer (compared to whom)? I know: it doesn't matter. But what do people think of him anyway?   

I like Pärt, but I still feel his best pieces are from the late 70s/early 80s when he was still relishing in his newfound style that he called Tintinnabuli. For me, works like Stabat Mater, Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten and Tabla Rasa are amongst the masterpieces of post-war music.

[Mirror Image]

I was introduced to Arvo Pärt in the 80's with his Tabula Rasa and a series of recordings from the Hilliard Ensemble. I am not obsessed with his music, it is too much of the same mellifluous style for my tastes, but I respect his music.

Coming from a choral perspective only, I think Pärt has broken out beyond a niche Estonian composer. His music is almost always included on choral programs still today, even if it is just one song to fit a Christmas album or a themed program. But I think enough of his works have been recorded outside of Estonia and away from Estonian devotees like the Järvi's, that his music is pretty standard fare in the choral world.

That said, I am largely ignorant of his instrumental music, although I would love to hear from someone who is familiar with his four symphonies to see if they are worth exploring.

For me, the third symphony is the best of the four. The first two symphonies are avant-garde, but not in a way that I personally enjoy. There's a reason why he broke away from this early style and I'm glad he did, because his earlier works aren't amongst his most interesting works. I don't listen to his music very often, but I will agree there's a certain 'sameness' in his style from the mid-70s until today, but there are some gems that were written along the way that I think demonstrate his compositional brilliance, which I mentioned in my previous post.

[milk]

I like Pärt, but I still feel his best pieces are from the late 70s/early 80s when he was still relishing in his newfound style that he called Tintinnabuli. For me, works like Stabat Mater, Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten and Tabla Rasa are amongst the masterpieces of post-war music.

These are beautiful pieces of music. They produce a real experience. Maybe they're very accessible. Each piece sounds familiar to me even though I'd never heard them.

[Mirror Image]

These are beautiful pieces of music. They produce a real experience. Maybe they're very accessible. Each piece sounds familiar to me even though I'd never heard them.

I'm puzzled by this post: you first say they're beautiful pieces, but then you conclude with saying they sound familiar to you even though you never heard them. How do you know they're beautiful pieces of music if you never heard them? Are you going purely by titles alone? I'm confused.

[vers la flamme]

I'm puzzled by this post: you first say they're beautiful pieces, but then you conclude with saying they sound familiar to you even though you never heard them. How do you know they're beautiful pieces of music if you never heard them? Are you going purely by titles alone? I'm confused.

He said he had never heard them, not that he has never heard them.

[Mirror Image]

He said he had never heard them, not that he has never heard them.

Still confused.

[milk]

Still confused.

I meant they sound familiar even though I'd never heard them before. Is that clearer? Day by day I find I'm less able to make sense of myself so if this doesn't make sense, or if there's a better way to say it, I might not even know it.

I think great music is sometimes like that. Part is a unique test for me because he's one of the really big names I'd never delved into. So, when I put on his famous pieces, it's interesting that they did seem familiar.

[Mandryka]

I meant they sound familiar even though I'd never heard them before. Is that clearer? Day by day I find I'm less able to make sense of myself so if this doesn't make sense, or if there's a better way to say it, I might not even know it.

I think great music is sometimes like that. Part is a unique test for me because he's one of the really big names I'd never delved into. So, when I put on his famous pieces, it's interesting that they did seem familiar.

Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter.

By the way, you were once interested in minimalism of the non-holy kind. Have you heard Peter Michael Hamel and Hans Otte?

[milk]

Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter.

By the way, you were once interested in minimalism of the non-holy kind. Have you heard Peter Michael Hamel and Hans Otte?

I'll check those names. Thanks!

[Mandryka]

I'll check those names. Thanks!

Possibly for me more interesting, because more austere,  than any of those composers is Ernstalbrecht Stiebler.  I suppose it's not totally unexpected that there are German minimalists.

[milk]

Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter.

By the way, you were once interested in minimalism of the non-holy kind. Have you heard Peter Michael Hamel and Hans Otte?

Otte is something: Book of Sounds, Aquarian music...
Thanks! I didn't know this music.

[Mandryka]

Otte is something: Book of Sounds, Aquarian music...
Thanks! I didn't know this music.

I didn't get on with Roger Woodward's recording of the piano music, but liked Ralph van Raat and the composer's CD. I haven't really broached Aquarian Music, but just random sampling makes me think of Julius Eastman's Femenine (which I can't listen to for more than 10 minutes . . . )