Composers That Are Linked To Your Soul

[karlhenning]

It's not that it's shallow per se, more that it's vulgar, cheap and completely repellent in subject matter.

And those are only the opera's high points ; )

[Cato]

Readers of my little essays throughout the years (and how many has it been?) will probably be able to guess that Bruckner, Mahler, and Schoenberg form a kind of musical trinity for me, a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in that order.

Readers may not know, however, that Smetana and Dvorak for assorted reasons orbit that trinity like   0:)  guardian angels.   0:)

And of course there are Scriabin and Hartmann!

[karlhenning]

And of course there are Scriabin and Hartmann!

There are, indeed!

[karlhenning]

And, Cato, YHM

[Guido]

28000+ posts Karl! bloody hell!

Hartmann!! There's another composer very close to my heart... though probably not a soul mate...

[Cato]

28000+ posts Karl! bloody hell!

Hartmann!! There's another composer very close to my heart... though probably not a soul mate...

Wocka wocka!   

Hartmann is atomic: he tends to leave radioactive scar tissue behind.

I remember being absolutely astounded by his Fourth and Eighth Symphonies, when I heard Kubelik's DGG recording of them in the 1960's. 

Spiritually he is a descendant of Bruckner and Mahler I would think, and also Schoenberg.

[DavidRoss]

Why shouldn't Puccini be a sould mate? Is it only 'deep' music that touches the soul? And just because the music isn't considered deep, does that mean one cannot relate to it? And why should we care if people think it is deep or not? And if it isn't deep, should we ourselves be considered shallow because one doesn't connect with the deepest of composers and connects and 'shallow' composers? What is 'deep' music anyway? Can it be objectively categorized or is it subjective?

Personally, I love Puccini. I connect with him in a way I do with very few composers. I've never considered the issue of whether he is 'deep' or not, as it just never seemed to matter. He was clearly a master at what he did and produced some incredible music during his career. Why do people seem to like to bash composers that produce great tunes like Puccini or Offenbach?

You're not alone.  I love Puccini, too.  And so does my wife.  And opera-goers the world over who love being steeped in lush, tuneful beauty.

What is "deep" music?  The only quasi-objective assessment that comes to mind is music that yields continuing appreciation the more you hear it.  Whos to say that Puccini's not "deep?"  If not, would his music have continued to please so many people for more than a century, to connect with their emotional hearts with remarkable depth and passion? 

I suspect that most of the time when someone criticizes your choice of music as "not deep," he's really sneering and saying that he thinks he's better than you.   

[(poco) Sforzando]

I suspect that most of the time when someone criticizes your choice of music as "not deep," he's really sneering and saying that he thinks he's better than you.   

I don't see why, really. Why bring in an ad hominem remark and make the discussion so personalized? I enjoy some of Puccini and have admitted as much here; I also enjoy Gilbert and Sullivan (who are about as deep as a light film of PAM on a frying pan). No question that Puccini was an extraordinarily gifted melodist and a man with an instinctive sense of theatrical rightness. But emotionally speaking, all too often he veers between self-pity on the other hand and sadism on the other. His most prominent "little women" - Mimi, Butterfly, Angelica, Liu - tug at one's heart strings, and there's a quality of emotional manipulativeness that I find off-putting, and absent in Verdi. (Angelica is a special case, however: were it not for the sappy ending, which I find bearable only if it is taken as Angelica's illusion rather than an actual appearance of the boy, that opera would serve as a searing portrayal of the plight of a unwed mother in early 20th-century Italy, and the Princess is the most convincingly grim antagonist Puccini ever created.) But I really want to tell Butterfly to get over it; so Pinkerton is a cad, big deal, he's not worth killing yourself over and depriving your kid of a mother, just find yourself a nice Japanese boy and grow up already. Sadism is often present, too: it's what Turandot is all about, as well as much of Tosca, and it's even present in Schicchi (just read the original words to O mio babbino caro).

The Puccini I am most drawn to is Fanciulla, as for once he portrays a strong, resouceful heroine, and the ending isn't the usual tear-jerker as a result. And Gianni Schicchi, because there isn't a single character in that opera who is remotely admirable, even the young lovers. They're all thoroughly nasty, and for that reason the piece has an unmitigated sense of fun that Puccini developed elsewhere only in the interplay among the four friends from Bohème.

[(poco) Sforzando]

It's not that it's shallow per se, more that it's vulgar, cheap and completely repellent in subject matter. That shallow music can touch us deeply has been noted many times before (e.g. Noel Coward: "Extraordinary how potent cheap music is.") and I don't disagree (I'm quite partial to a bit of Ennio Morricone myself!)

I can understand liking or loving the tunes, but my surprise was registered because I wondered whether Puccini's operas with their horrible plots and terrible dramatic construction could really touch Larry on the deepest level.

See if my later comments clarify anything. I had to admit I had second thoughts about including Puccini even as I wrote my original post, but I just let it fly to see the results. As for "horrible plots," etc., you'll have to tell me why. Speaking as an amateur playright, I'd have to say that the plots often seem to me very soundly constructed.

[Mirror Image]

I see this thread is getting terribly off-topic with the anti-Puccini squad firing from balcony. My intent for this thread was not to judge or criticize people's choices in composers, but to let us all see what composers make in our lives that define who we are. If so and so enjoys Puccini, then my hats are off to them (I like some of Puccini as well). I've learned a lot just over this past year about accepting the reality that not everybody is going to enjoy the same things I do no matter how adamant we are in promoting our cause. We all should be happy that we've found each other on this forum and that we continue to learn from each other.

I know I've walked away from this forum with some great information on composers I didn't know that much about thanks to several people here who have encouraged me to take a chance when otherwise I wouldn't even given that composer a second listen.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I see this thread is getting terribly off-topic with the anti-Puccini squad firing from balcony. My intent for this thread was not to judge or criticize people's choices in composers, but to let us all see what composers make in our lives that define who we are. If so and so enjoys Puccini, then my hats are off to them (I like some of Puccini as well). I've learned a lot just over this past year about accepting the reality that not everybody is going to enjoy the same things I do no matter how adamant we are in promoting our cause. We all should be happy that we've found each other on this forum and that we continue to learn from each other.

I know I've walked away from this forum with some great information on composers I didn't know that much about thanks to several people here who have encouraged me to take a chance when otherwise I wouldn't even given that composer a second listen.

Well, MI, discussions often have a mind of their own and tend to go places their originators never intended. I see no reason why people can't or shouldn't respond to other people's choices. And seeing the unrestrained sneering that Mozart of all people seems to provoke on various threads here, I don't feel particularly disturbed at taking a few pot shots at Puccini.

[Mirror Image]

Well, MI, discussions often have a mind of their own and tend to go places their originators never intended. I see no reason why people can't or shouldn't respond to other people's choices. And seeing the unrestrained sneering that Mozart of all people seems to provoke on various threads here, I don't feel particularly disturbed at taking a few pot shots at Puccini.

I don't like Mozart, but you don't see me jumping all over someone for liking him. That's the point I'm making here. There's no need in it. I can't change what somebody likes/dislikes. We all can simply agree to disagree and move on from there.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I don't like Mozart, but you don't see me jumping all over someone for liking him. That's the point I'm making here. There's no need in it. I can't change what somebody likes/dislikes. We all can simply agree to disagree and move on from there.

I wasn't thinking primarily of you. The person I mainly thought of (now deceased) made a virtual career of Mozart-bashing on this forum. But where's the liveliness in debate if we just shut down all argument by agreeing to disagree? Well, I don't agree!

[Mirror Image]

I wasn't thinking primarily of you. The person I mainly thought of (now deceased) made a virtual career of Mozart-bashing on this forum. But where's the liveliness in debate if we just shut down all argument by agreeing to disagree? Well, I don't agree!

But what's the point in arguing about something that we both disagree with? Life's too short for that don't you think? I get into arguments with people all the time, but the outcome is always the same. I believe what I believe and the other person believes what they believe. After awhile, it just gets old and redundant, just like you probably think people agreeing to disagree gets redundant. I like to find a happy medium between both.

[(poco) Sforzando]

But what's the point in arguing . . .

Because every once in a while, if you're sufficiently open, you learn to see things differently than you had come to believe.

[Mirror Image]

Because every once in a while, if you're sufficiently open, you learn to see things differently than you had come to believe.

I understand.


Anyway, getting back on topic, I've really made some strong connections with Nielsen and Shostakovich these past few months. They're definitely getting closer to my soul as the days go by.

[some guy]

Hey, wait a minute.

I came here for an argument!

[starrynight]

With my last post I was trying to broaden out the discussion on this, but I guess nobody wanted to.   

[Cato]

That brings up the question is it just the music you feel a close affinity with or some imagined connection to a composer's life and character as well?   The music is the only concrete thing we can easily judge really, but inevitably opinions through the ages of composers will be given some connection to their music.  And some would say someone's character / beliefs might come through their music too.

Also alot of names mentioned in this thread will no doubt not be modern composers.  In theory we would feel the closest connection with more modern music as it is the music of our time, but this is often not the case even if we like some modern classical music.  Art does transcend boundaries, though some people also sometimes like to build up boundaries along national or other lines.

I wonder as well whether this goes beyond simply having an affinity with an individual composer but also really indicates just as much a liking for a particular musical style or period.  A composer doesn't exist on an island they are part of their environment (both stylistically and ideologically).   

Not too much time right now, but certainly a composer and his works offer a psychological escape into a new universe, while at the same time the experience might offer a psychological affirmation of one's own state of mind.

Identifying with a composer could be involved, but in a good number of cases, the composer is not a particularly admirable character!      One might also feel a spiritual development from the music of a composer who personally was questionable.  (Wagner comes to mind.)

Knowing that e.g. Bruckner was cranking out his Ninth Symphony as his health declined might deepen my understanding of the work, and make it more poignant.  If I were in a similar state of declining health, I might feel therefore specifically connected to Bruckner through this work. 

It is interesting that many of us are more connected to composers of previous times: perhaps that is due to the highly personal and admittedly difficult nature of many modern works.

It takes effort to swim against the current, and to join those doing so.

[Guido]

Because every once in a while, if you're sufficiently open, you learn to see things differently than you had come to believe.

This is it exactly - part of why I chose to post my reaction to Puccini was to see if I was just seeing him in the wrong way - there's obviously a strong pull that people feel towards his operas, but for me the complete opposite is true - I find them repellent in every aspect... but I want to understand at least what people like about him. I assumed it was the tunes, which seems to pretty much be it... In terms of tunes, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Schubert and Barber do it for me, and if we're looking for the same rapturously erotic effusivity I have Strauss, Szymanovsky and and Korngold to fill all those "below the belt" needs! Actually I do like many of the arias of Puccini, but never in context and never when listening for the words! With the operas I feel that you have to endure so much musical padding to get to them (besides all the rest), that it's not worth it to me -  I'll get the artist recital discs.

OK, the aside is over now Mirror Image. We can all start reeling off lists again.