Unfamiliar Composers To Me

[karlhenning]

It worked for Schnittke...

Well, any of the Schnittke pieces I like, offhand, are quite specific.  I have no absolute quarrel with moving from style to style, but there are inherent challenges.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Actually, I very much meant it as criticism.

Sorry, Brian. I was multi-tasking.

[Josquin des Prez]

It works for Kapustin as well, perhaps more so, since the first is able to blur any distinction in the variety of idioms used, whether its blues, swing, bebop or even rock 'n' roll. Schnittke relished in the contrast of his influences which to me just isn't as intellectually satisfying, at least in his orchestral music. His chamber works are a lot more consistent.

[jowcol]

Okay, time for me to take sides with Josquin.

Ditto- I liked the first three clips a lot,  and some parts  of Saxophone concerto.   Thanks for posting them.   I'm not sure if my world will revolve around him, but I definitely want to explore more.  I appreciate your bringing him to my attention.

To some degree, I miss the improv element-- but I'm trying not to judge this by representing all jazz or all "seriously meaningful classical music", and nobody seems to be able to agree on those terms.  I woulld'nt listen to this in terms of my favorite jazz artists, but I think it works on its own terms. 

(Remember Tynan's famous rant about how Coltrane was Anti-jazz.    Similar attacks on Miles Davis for betraying jazz.  Seriously, who's to judge?  And wasn't jazz, ideally, about taking risks and opening new areas?  Wasn't  good "classical" about the same? Or maybe art really isn't about pursuing one's path, but non-conforming according to a very strict set of rules?)

For the "crossovers", I'm partial to the likes of Ellington and Mingus who crossed over from the other side, but also like Liebermann's concerto, which was a very cool use of 12 tone in jazz.  And some of Gil Evan's arrangements with Davis (Sketches of Spain) were very challenging, and were difficult for classical musicians to play.  I also like some of Pharoah Sanders more "out there" work a lot more than some of the "serious" avante garde work of the time. 

Of course, those are my preferences-- and just that,  I won't make any statements on how they represent all good music, or the evil spirits that undoubtably lurk in a composer's heart, because I would consider that a waste of time.   

The parable of the blind men and the elephant seems to rear its ugly head(and tusks) every time one of these threats gets started. 

Certainly, if you don't like the idiom, there is no need to waste your time trying to like it, and a vast sea of music out there to explore.

[Josquin des Prez]

I'm not the biggest Schnittke fan but at least he had his own unique musical voice and language. Ditto Gubaidulina. A helluva lot deeper than anything I've heard from this Kapustin guy. Heck, just comparing Kapustin to other Russian composers alone that came before him like Stravinsky or Prokofiev, and he's a total lightweight with no real voice of his own. Not to mention jazz musicians that also blow him out of the water in this regard as well. Then if we move on to all the others he becomes completely inconsequential on musical terms. You know Ravel, Stravinsky, Copland, Carter, Ligeti, Nancarrow, Stockhausen, Berio and many, many others were influenced by jazz and in some cases even played it first-hand themselves but they all sound completely like themselves.

Kapustin has his own voice as well. You are just being purposefully tone death.

[jowcol]

You are just being purposefully tone death.

Tone death, to me, is the state we reach when all of us like the exact same music for the exact same reasons.  At that point, there would be little to live for-- at least as far as music is concerned.

[Josquin des Prez]

Tone deaf. Curse this brain fog, curse it to hell...

[jowcol]

Tone deaf. Curse this brain fog, curse it to hell...

Actually, I though it was quite poetic....

[Josquin des Prez]

Hardly .. it's more a imitation .. mish-mash, derivative.

No it isn't. I remember the first time i heard the following piece:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn9fTO7zp5Q

It was branded in my brain almost instantly, and nearly couldn't get it out of my head for days. I only get this type of reaction for composers who have a unique, distinct voice.

Just listen to a good Scriabin or Prokofiev piano sonata and then listen to this guy for instance.

He is very much in league with those artists. Possibly the last great Russian composer for the piano.

[jowcol]

It was branded in my brain almost instantly, and nearly couldn't get it out of my head for days.

I  believe this is the only criterion that really matters.  Frankly, this is the sort of musical experience I live for.   Anything that has that sort of impact on me is something I pursue and cultivate-- no matter what category it may be under, or what others may think of the artist.   I'm sure much (if not all) of my favorite artists would make someone on this forum cringe-- I'd be disappointed if it didn't. 

The one "gotcha", if one would wish to call it that, is that no two people are wired quite the same, and one can't count on everyone else reacting the same.  Even if you find two people admiring the same artist-- they will often disagree over which works are the best.   So when something talks to us in a unique and distinctive voice, others may not get it. 

But, deep down, would one rather listen to the music that others tell you is "good", or music that which triggers a powerful personal experience-- for whatever reason? And if you can't convince others of a music's intrinsic value, is that a reason to stop listening?

[The new erato]

After this thread surely Kapustin isn't unfamiliar to anybody anymore?

[Josquin des Prez]

The one "gotcha", if one would wish to call it that, is that no two people are wired quite the same, and one can't count on everyone else reacting the same.

True, but i find it unlikely that two individuals may have such an extremely polarized reaction, because many of the things that make music great are objectively assessable. For instance, for the longest time i just couldn't stand the music of Prokofiev. I'm not sure for the reason, but it just didn't resonate with me. But even then, i still recognized that he was an artist of great talent, i just wouldn't listen to him often. To go to the extend in which James and the others are going, that is, to imply that Kapustin is not merely to their liking, but that he is downright incompetent, that his music is poorly crafted, derivative and essentially worthless, that to me, is perfectly contestable on an objective level.

[greg]

So, I've listened to quite a few of those clips by now. My thoughts are... he's pretty good. There are things about what I've heard that I like and dislike, though.

What I like is his sense of rhythm and great technique. Very interesting and hard to wrap the mind around, yet there is a nice hook to his rhythms. What I don't like is that listening to it just makes me crave something a bit heavier and more dramatic (going from loud to quiet passages), but that happens sometimes when I listen to jazz, and this isn't very far from jazz. Actually, when I listen to these clips, I think "that's quite nice," but then I get a sudden hunger for something by Brahms. 

True, but i find it unlikely that two individuals may have such an extremely polarized reaction, because many of the things that make music great are objectively assessable. For instance, for the longest time i just couldn't stand the music of Prokofiev. I'm not sure for the reason, but it just didn't resonate with me. But even then, i still recognized that he was an artist of great talent, i just wouldn't listen to him often.

I find this interesting. I could say the same about Beethoven, but slowly over time I'm starting to like some stuff a bit more. However, I still have times where I hear something I haven't heard by him- like the other day I was listening to the Diabelli Variations for the first time- and I just didn't know if I could make it. I felt like shooting myself because I found it painfully boring- however, I still recognize the talent to write his music. Saying he isn't great would be ridiculous just because I don't like some of his idiom.

[(poco) Sforzando]

True, but i find it unlikely that two individuals may have such an extremely polarized reaction, because many of the things that make music great are objectively assessable. For instance, for the longest time i just couldn't stand the music of Prokofiev. I'm not sure for the reason, but it just didn't resonate with me. But even then, i still recognized that he was an artist of great talent, i just wouldn't listen to him often. To go to the extend in which James and the others are going, that is, to imply that Kapustin is not merely to their liking, but that he is downright incompetent, that his music is poorly crafted, derivative and essentially worthless, that to me, is perfectly contestable on an objective level.

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm looking at the C major fugue published in the dissertation someone quoted above. I haven't had time to print it and read it at the piano yet, but from the look of it, the four-square design of the subject, with the rest at bar 4 and the second voice entering on the upbeat to 5, seems very un-Bachian. Bach - and a quick look through WTC 1 will confirm this - always provides greater rhythmic fluidity in the way he introduces the voices in the expositions of his fugues, often overlapping the entrance of the second voice rather than this clumsy breaking off and starting again. The countersubject, too, doesn't seem to relate to the subject very organically, and (not WTC) but WTF is with all the perfect fifths in the melody lines? Bach never did that. From looking at the page, the piano writing seems very awkward too (e.g., the left hand quoted on p. 113), not lying easily in the hands.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I find this interesting. I could say the same about Beethoven, but slowly over time I'm starting to like some stuff a bit more. However, I still have times where I hear something I haven't heard by him- like the other day I was listening to the Diabelli Variations for the first time- and I just didn't know if I could make it. I felt like shooting myself because I found it painfully boring- however, I still recognize the talent to write his music. Saying he isn't great would be ridiculous just because I don't like some of his idiom.

There is a major difference. Beethoven is established territory. People who know the Diabellis far better than you consider them one of his towering works. (And I include objectively speaking myself, as I've known them for 50 years, play them regularly on my home piano, and have heard a number of recordings as well as live performances by Pollini, Rosen, Peter Serkin, and others.) I appreciate that you're honest enough to admit your first reactions and to recognize the talent that went into them. But this may be one case where not giving up on something that seems initially unpromising will pay off in the end.

[The new erato]

The Diabelli's boring? For me it is edge-of-the-seat stuff if ever there was anything of the sort.

[karlhenning]

It was branded in my brain almost instantly, and nearly couldn't get it out of my head for days. I only get this type of reaction for composers who have a unique, distinct voice.

Same thing happened to me with "Paperback Writer" . . . .

[karlhenning]

After this thread surely Kapustin isn't unfamiliar to anybody anymore?

Unfamiliar to me. That is, I still know him only by name.  But really, I remembered the name from the first time I heard it, since it is a pun on the Russian word for cabbage.

[MN Dave]

Same thing happened to me with "Paperback Writer" . . . .

Great song. Not so great lyrics.

[karlhenning]

Great song. Not so great lyrics.

He'll be writing more in a week or two.