Musical complexity

[Ugh]

Listening to Bartok's string quartets again this week, I am in awe of the musical complexity in terms of rhythm, harmony (disharmony) and orchestration, etc. Master craftmanship but not a single hummable theme.... What would be some of the works that leave you impressed by the compositional craftmanship - as opposed to merely enjoying a certain memorable theme? (merely in bold to avoid discussions whether the two are mutually exclusive).

Another of my favorites in this context would be Stravinsky's Octet for Wind Instruments. And I love that bassoon ostinato in variacion D!

[jochanaan]

Lots of pieces fit that description, Ugh.  A few highlights:
Bach: Brandenburg Concertos; any organ piece
Mozart: Jupiter Symphony finale
Beethoven: Piano Sonatas #29 "Hammerklavier" and #32; Ninth Symphony, esp. 1st mvt.; String Quartet #14
Mahler: Symphonies #5 through #9
Sibelius: Symphony #7
Carl Nielsen: Symphonies #4 and #5
Bartok: Piano Concerto #1
Schoenberg: Variations for Orchestra
Shostakovich: Symphony #4
Varèse: everything he wrote

[Cato]

Listening to Bartok's string quartets again this week, I am in awe of the musical complexity in terms of rhythm, harmony (disharmony) and orchestration, etc. Master craftmanship but not a single hummable theme.... What would be some of the works that leave you impressed by the compositional craftmanship - as opposed to merely enjoying a certain memorable theme? (merely in bold to avoid discussions whether the two are mutually exclusive).

Another of my favorites in this context would be Stravinsky's Octet for Wind Instruments. And I love that bassoon ostinato in variacion D!

Mr. (Miss, Mrs. ?) Ugh: you must give the Prokofiev Second Symphony a try: in the first movement, you will think you are inside a thousand-geared cuckoo clock and will marvel at how it all meshes!

[Sid]

I too have been getting into string quartets for the last few years. I've been listening to some of Beethoven's and Schubert's as well as the modern repertoire like Carter, Feldman and Tippett. It's just amazing how complex a piece written for only four instruments can be! I have the Bartok quartets on two discs played by the ABQ. The easiest one to get into for me has been the final, the 6th. It has this theme, repeated in a modified way, at the beginning of each movement (marked mesto, which I believe means motto). The other 5 of his quartets simply baffle me, but I haven't given them that much repeated listening. I actually find the Carter 1st quartet to be more understandable, but then again, I have listened to that repeatedly for more than a year. Time will come when I have the headspace to tackle the Bartok quartets in a more comprehensive way. But yes, I too love the complexity in this type of music, I especially like how a theme is worked over very rigorously in a single piece...

[some guy]

Eugene, nice to see you back! (Or at least, it seems that you're back. Maybe you never left, and I just haven't been following the same threads you've been posting to.)

Anyway, it seems to me that, "mutually exclusive" or not, all pieces have something admirable about their craftsmanship. And all pieces have something memorable about them, thematic, melodic or otherwise.

Or, I should say, that we're probably not talking about music at all but about listening. A careful and sympathetic listener will find something crafty in every piece--and something memorable. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to distinguish between Merzbow's 1930 and his Pulse Demon (Or between either of those and Tetreault and Yoshihide's GRRRR.)*

I hum, just by the way, tunes from Stravinsky's Octet all the time. (And with one more current listen to all six Bartok quartets, could do the same for all of them, as well. Without that one more listen, I can only hum bits of the fifth and sixth.)

*I chose three things not generally known for either compositional craftsmanship or melodic invention--but which are generally satisfying and easy to distinguish.

[Luke]

The easiest one to get into for me has been the final, the 6th. It has this theme, repeated in a modified way, at the beginning of each movement (marked mesto, which I believe means motto).

Mesto means 'sadly'

[Mirror Image]

What would be some of the works that leave you impressed by the compositional craftmanship - as opposed to merely enjoying a certain memorable theme? (merely in bold to avoid discussions whether the two are mutually exclusive).

A few works in which I respect the craftsmanship:

Dutilluex: Symphonies Nos. 1 & 2, Metaboles, Shadows of Time
Ravel: Daphnis et Chloe, La Valse
Bartok: The Wooden Prince, The Miraculous Mandarin, all concerti, Bluebeard's Castle, Hungarian Sketches, etc.
Revueltas: Sensemaya, Los noche de los Mayas, Redes, Itinerarios, Colorines
Shostakovich: Symphonies Nos. 4, 5, 7, 10, Piano Concerto No. 1
Szymanowski: Symphonies Nos. 3 & 4, Violin Concertos Nos. 1 & 2, Stabat Mater
Berg: Lulu-Suite, Violin Concerto, Three Pieces for Orchestra, Der Wein, Seven Early Songs, Altenberg Lieder
Stravinsky: all of the ballets, Symphony of Psalms, Symphony In Three Movements, Violin Concerto
Ligeti: Lontano, Atmospheres

These are just a few off the top of my head.

[Ten thumbs]

Medtner is generally complex, often in rhythm and harmony, but particularly in melodic transformation. The second piano concerto is a good case in point.

[Scarpia]

Medtner is generally complex, often in rhythm and harmony, but particularly in melodic transformation. The second piano concerto is a good case in point.

The is nothing particularly difficult in making music complex.  I can write a simple computer program that generates music that is arbitrarily complex.  The question is whether all the complexity can be girded into a piece of music that is compelling.  Here, I don't find that Medtner succeeds.

[Bulldog]

The is nothing particularly difficult in making music complex.  I can write a simple computer program that generates music that is arbitrarily complex.  The question is whether all the complexity can be girded into a piece of music that is compelling.  Here, I don't find that Medtner succeeds.

I have quite a few Medtner recordings and find each of them very rewarding and enjoyable. 

[Scarpia]

I have quite a few Medtner recordings and find each of them very rewarding and enjoyable.

I have enjoyed his miniatures, but listening to the larger structures (i.e., the concerti) I feel like I am wandering in the wilderness. 

[Bulldog]

I have enjoyed his miniatures, but listening to the larger structures (i.e., the concerti) I feel like I am wandering in the wilderness.

Don't get lost; winter is coming.

[some guy]

Scarpia says that he doesn't find that Medtner succeeds in making a compelling piece of music.

Bulldog says that he finds Medtner rewarding and enjoyable.

The actual sounds are identical in each case. The difference is entirely in the responses.

And that, it seems to me, is what so bedevils all conversations about music. We say all sorts of things that purport to be about music but that, when examined, say only something about ourselves.

Now, there's certainly nothing wrong with talking about ourselves. And it's certainly possible to talk about music. The problem arises when we consistently take one for being the other. In this case, neither Bulldog nor Scarpia has said anything about Medtner. No one reading these two comments would have any idea what Medtner sounds like or whether they too would either like or dislike his music. If you've been following Scarpia's posts, and have found that his tastes and yours align pretty well, you could guess that you too would not enjoy Medtner. But it would only be a guess.

Bulldog's comment on the other hand is more generally useful. That is, it conveys the message that Medtner can be enjoyed, can reward--can compel. Medtner may turn out to be someone you despise, but Bulldog's comment opens up the possibility that you, too, can enjoy it.

Well, I've mentioned two things--describing music and describing ourselves. But there is a third thing, and that is the one that is probably the most useful as well as the closest to experience: describing what happens when we listen. Whatever we can say about the music of Medtner, what really matters experientially is what happens when those sounds and those structures engage a particular mind. Not what kind of composer is Medtner, not how his music compares to other composers, not how other people have judged him, but what happens when a particular mind hears a particular piece of his.

(That is, just by the way, one of the things I find so unsatisfying about the notions of greatness and genius, and what I find so silly about ranking, and that is that they considers (that is, they pretend to consider) only the work itself, or the worker him or herself. But no matter how "great" we consider x, y, or z piece, it doesn't have any reality until someone hears it (literally, in a hall or through speakers or figuratively, by reading a score). Only then can we talk about "it" and by that time, our ears and our minds have entered, eternally and inextricably, into the equation.)

Ah, feels good to get things off your chest, you know! You can breathe easier and such.

[Scarpia]

Scarpia says that he doesn't find that Medtner succeeds in making a compelling piece of music.

Bulldog says that he finds Medtner rewarding and enjoyable.

The actual sounds are identical in each case. The difference is entirely in the responses.

And that, it seems to me, is what so bedevils all conversations about music. We say all sorts of things that purport to be about music but that, when examined, say only something about ourselves.
...
Bulldog's comment on the other hand is more generally useful. That is, it conveys the message that Medtner can be enjoyed, can reward--can compel. Medtner may turn out to be someone you despise, but Bulldog's comment opens up the possibility that you, too, can enjoy it.

I didn't represent my reaction to Medner to be anything other than my own reaction.  Unlike Bulldog, I said something about Medner other than that I enjoyed/didn't enjoy it.  I said that I thought he was successful in miniature pieces, but I didn't find him successful in larger pieces.   According to you Bulldog's comment is "more useful" simply because he said he liked it.  Well, according to you, I can be the most "useful" poster in the universe by saying that I like everything. 

Please, do not interpret this comment as criticizing Bulldog, who is one of our most interesting posters.  I am just pointing out that some guy's post is utter horse shit (in my opinion, of course).

[Bulldog]

Scarpia says that he doesn't find that Medtner succeeds in making a compelling piece of music.

Bulldog says that he finds Medtner rewarding and enjoyable.

The actual sounds are identical in each case. The difference is entirely in the responses.

And that, it seems to me, is what so bedevils all conversations about music. We say all sorts of things that purport to be about music but that, when examined, say only something about ourselves.

Now, there's certainly nothing wrong with talking about ourselves. And it's certainly possible to talk about music. The problem arises when we consistently take one for being the other. In this case, neither Bulldog nor Scarpia has said anything about Medtner.

If I was talking about myself, I would definitely mention my rugged good looks, piercing eye contact, great sense of humor, intense spirituality and the keen ability to identify b.s. when I read it.

[Josquin des Prez]

The question is whether all the complexity can be girded into a piece of music that is compelling.

And that is what makes Bach the greatest composer of them all. What for other composers constitute their peak of perfection and complexity for Bach was the norm.

[greg]

Speaking of the Bartok 6th SQ, the whole idea of opening a piece with the same theme each movement is something I can't think I've seen anywhere else. Maybe I have, but am forgetting something- is there any other piece that does this that someone can think of?

[Mirror Image]

And that is what makes Bach the greatest composer of them all. What for other composers constitute their peak of perfection and complexity for Bach was the norm.

What an absurd statement, but fitting seeing who wrote it. 

[some guy]

Speaking of the Bartok 6th SQ, the whole idea of opening a piece with the same theme each movement is something I can't think I've seen anywhere else. Maybe I have, but am forgetting something- is there any other piece that does this that someone can think of?

Bruckner's fifth symphony

[jochanaan]

Speaking of the Bartok 6th SQ, the whole idea of opening a piece with the same theme each movement is something I can't think I've seen anywhere else. Maybe I have, but am forgetting something- is there any other piece that does this that someone can think of?

Bruckner's fifth symphony

Actually, Bruckner 5 doesn't quite do this.  The first and fourth movement open the same way, but that's because Bruckner is using Beethoven's device of recalling earlier themes merely as a bridge to the finale; the second and third open with the same motif; but the first and second examples are not at all the same.

But there are a few other pieces whose movements actually do all begin with the same motif:
Holst: Suite #1 for band
Hindemith: Symphony in E flat
Hanson: Symphony #6
There are probably more, but those are the ones that I can think of at the moment.