Are you intrigued by music that disturbs and/or challenges?

[Scarpia]

Bartoks string quartets are quite dense and flirt with atonality, I can imagine that they are for relatively more adventurerous listeners.  But most of his works for orchestra---Concerto for Orchestra, Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta, the Violin and Piano Concerti---seem to have been written with the intention of appealing to a broad audience.   The Miraculous Mandarin, well, I'm unsure who it is meant to appeal to.   

[karlhenning]

. . . The Miraculous Mandarin, well, I'm unsure who it is meant to appeal to.   

Like A kékszakállú herceg vára, it's masterfully lyrical music underpinning a dark, unsettling story. So, the story does not have surface appeal, strictly speaking, perhaps . . . but the music, great appeal, indeed.

[Superhorn]

   I didn't say that I'm appalled by the fact that so many people like Beethoven,Mozart nd Tchaikovsky.
   What I said is that I'm appaled that so many want to hear the same old familiar and beloved pieces over and over again, and the prospect of hearing something new and different frightens them.
   Their minds are closed. They're not willing to give unfamiliar music a chance. 
There's absolutely nothing wrong with loving Beethoven,Mozart and Tchaikovsky etc, but there's so much worthwhile
music outside the box.  To many concertgoers can't think outside it.

[Scarpia]

Like A kékszakállú herceg vára, it's masterfully lyrical music underpinning a dark, unsettling story. So, the story does not have surface appeal, strictly speaking, perhaps . . . but the music, great appeal, indeed.

The music is interesting, no doubt, but it is no symphony and some knowledge of the scenario would be helpful to to put it in context, but that scenario.   

[Florestan]

   I didn't say that I'm appalled by the fact that so many people like Beethoven,Mozart nd Tchaikovsky.
   What I said is that I'm appaled that so many want to hear the same old familiar and beloved pieces over and over again, and the prospect of hearing something new and different frightens them.
   Their minds are closed. They're not willing to give unfamiliar music a chance. 
There's absolutely nothing wrong with loving Beethoven,Mozart and Tchaikovsky etc, but there's so much worthwhile
music outside the box.  To many concertgoers can't think outside it.

Well, that's why I cancelled my subscription to Romanian NRSO concerts. If I want to hear Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Brahms and Rachmaninoff, then my CDs or LPs would deliver far better performances than theirs. 

[Sid]

I've never seen people cringe at Bartok's music.  I agree with Sid, R. Strauss' music is dense and hard to get into excepting a couple of well known works.  Bartok's rhythmic drive makes it easier to follow his music, and speaks more to modern ears imo.

Agreed.

Bartoks string quartets are quite dense and flirt with atonality, I can imagine that they are for relatively more adventurerous listeners.  But most of his works for orchestra---Concerto for Orchestra, Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta, the Violin and Piano Concerti---seem to have been written with the intention of appealing to a broad audience.   The Miraculous Mandarin, well, I'm unsure who it is meant to appeal to.   

I agree that the first three quartets are very complex (probably the most complex music that Bartok ever wrote). But numbers 4 & 5, the ones that most commonly get outings in the concert halls, at least have a more predictable structure - being based on the language/structure of two of Beethoven's late quartets. The 6th quartet is probably the least complex, with the "mesto" theme recurring at the beginning of each movement.

Regarding the orchestral works - I agree, they usually don't present any problems to a fairly regular concert goer. They're actually some of the most popular and often-played works in the repertoire. Even I have seen most of them live at one stage or another. They fit in well basically with any concert program.

The Miraculous Mandarin shouldn't also be a problem. Like Prokofiev's Scythian Suite, it is a Rite of Spring spin-off. Provided the listener can appreciate Stravinsky's three early ballets to some level, Bartok's MM shouldn't present too many challenges, imo.

I did attend a concert at Carnegie Hall where two old geezers walked out in the middle of Boulez's Four Notations for Orchestra and slammed the exit door quite loudly. Without turning around or missing a beat, David Robertson waved "bye-bye" from the podium in the direction of the offending door.

Yes, some people are stuck in about 1945 (or even earlier) and can't stand much music that came after that. It's an issue with their limitation, attitude whatever. But judging from concerts here in Sydney, there is also a small but dedicated audience for post 1945 classical music. Synergy Percussions concerts are almost always sold out.

Well, that's why I cancelled my subscription to Romanian NRSO concerts. If I want to hear Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Brahms and Rachmaninoff, then my CDs or LPs would deliver far better performances than theirs. 

Ditto me with all of the mainstream groups in Sydney. Although I might be a casual visitor to one or two of their concerts throughout the year, I don't subscribe to these (or any groups). I like to be flexible and keep my ear open to more interesting things than just the usual regurgitations of standard repertoire that I've heard millions of times.

[EDIT: Bartok's solo violin sonata and sonatas for violin and piano are probably quite complex, granted, but hardly anyone listens to those )...

[Mirror Image]

Yes, some people are stuck in about 1945 (or even earlier) and can't stand much music that came after that. It's an issue with their limitation, attitude whatever. But judging from concerts here in Sydney, there is also a small but dedicated audience for post 1945 classical music. Synergy Percussions concerts are almost always sold out.

Ditto me with all of the mainstream groups in Sydney. Although I might be a casual visitor to one or two of their concerts throughout the year, I don't subscribe to these (or any groups). I like to be flexible and keep my ear open to more interesting things than just the usual regurgitations of standard repertoire that I've heard millions of times.

You know I heard a work by Boulez the other day ("Notations" for orchestra) and then turned around and listened to a work by Xenakis and I noticed one remarkable difference between what just sounded like chicken scratch to me, the Boulez work had that clarity in the orchestration which the French are widely known for while the Xenakis just sounded like the work of a mad scientist. I felt the urge to vomit, but I held back until both works were finished. I feel better now as I'm listening to Malipiero and all the world is well again. This is what these composers like Boulez and Xenakis do for me. They are like cold sores on the lips of classical music if I could use this ever expressive analogy. They hurt while they're there, but one is relieved when they're gone.

I don't think it's that I'm purposely trying to dislike composers like Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Nono, Carter, among others, it's just that they're music doesn't make any kind of emotional connection with me. There are no lyrical moments, which even Berg and Schoenberg has these moments in their music. There's nothing to keep me interested. It's just a wash of loud, clashing dissonance. The structure of the music I heard just seems non-existent. The rhythms don't interest me as they just fade in and out and have no purpose within the music itself or at least to me they don't.

Anyway, my point to this little rant, is that some people don't like certain music based entirely on the way the music sounds. It has nothing to with how dissonant it is, it has more to do with how it's orchestrated and presented to the listener. I relish dissonance as much as any other modern listener, but I don't like it for it's own sake. I don't want to listen to somebody performing a science experiment or a mathematical problem, I want to hear music of purpose and directness. Surely somebody of your intellect can understand that it's not always people's limitations or even their own attitudes, but the way the music is projected to them?

I think you're a very adventurous person with music, Sid, but you listen for completely different reasons than everybody else. Not everybody thirsts for new, exciting contemporary sounds like you do, so please keep this in mind. Don't fault people who aren't as inquisitive as you are.

Special note: Classical police please take two steps back. This is just my opinion. It doesn't reflect the opinion of anybody else. I have not committed any wrong doing other than stating my opinion. If you have a problem with this, then just get over it, because I'm certainly not going to spend an hour defending it.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I don't think it's that I'm purposely trying to dislike composers like Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Nono, Carter. There are no lyrical moments, which even Berg and Schoenberg has these moments in their music. It's just a wash of loud, clashing dissonance.

I don't think this is an accurate description of Boulez, to start. There's considerable delicacy and even lyricism in much of Boulez, including Dérive I, orignale, the three Improvisations from Pli selon Pli, much of Le Marteau, and probably more. Stockhausen less so, though he attains similar qualities in one of his most Boulezian pieces, the Refrain for piano, celesta, and vibraphone. Xenakis can be very aggressive, Carter is very varied, and Nono is a composer I have not been able to find interesting. I did see X's Oresteia when performed at Columbia University about 2-3 years ago, and to be honest I did not like it much; I prefer the more aggressive Xenakis.

[Mirror Image]

I don't think this is an accurate description of Boulez, to start. There's considerable delicacy and even lyricism in much of Boulez, including Dérive I, orignale, the three Improvisations from Pli selon Pli, much of Le Marteau, and probably more. Stockhausen less so, though he attains similar qualities in one of his most Boulezian pieces, the Refrain for piano, celesta, and vibraphone. Xenakis can be very aggressive, Carter is very varied, and Nono is a composer I have not been able to find interesting. I did see X's Oresteia when performed at Columbia University about 2-3 years ago, and to be honest I did not like it much; I prefer the more aggressive Xenakis.

I'll probably explore more Boulez at some point as he seems more up my alley, but Xenakis and Stockhausen don't interest at all. Any recommendations for recordings of Boulez?

[(poco) Sforzando]

I'll probably explore more Boulez at some point as he seems more up my alley, but Xenakis and Stockhausen don't interest at all. Any recommendations for recordings of Boulez?

Sure, but at it's midnight here now, it will have to wait until the ayem. But let me just warn that you're not going to find big Romantic tunes; instead, there's a kind of delicacy of texture and restraint in the use of dynamics that creates what I would call a lyrical atmosphere.

[Mirror Image]

Sure, but at it's midnight here now, it will have to wait until the ayem. But let me just warn that you're not going to find big Romantic tunes; instead, there's a kind of delicacy of texture and restraint in the use of dynamics that creates what I would call a lyrical atmosphere.

I know pretty much what I'm getting into with Boulez. You have to remember that I'm a Romantic at heart, but I have an ear for textural music. I am a fan of Dutilleux and Ligeti after all.

[Philoctetes]

I don't think this is an accurate description of Boulez, to start. There's considerable delicacy and even lyricism in much of Boulez, including Dérive I, orignale, the three Improvisations from Pli selon Pli, much of Le Marteau, and probably more. Stockhausen less so, though he attains similar qualities in one of his most Boulezian pieces, the Refrain for piano, celesta, and vibraphone. Xenakis can be very aggressive, Carter is very varied, and Nono is a composer I have not been able to find interesting. I did see X's Oresteia when performed at Columbia University about 2-3 years ago, and to be honest I did not like it much; I prefer the more aggressive Xenakis.

There's lyricism to be found in almost any composer's oeuvre.

Here's some enjoyable Nono:
http://www.youtube.com/v/KQlLDE1tymo

[Sid]

...and listened to a work by Xenakis...what just sounded like chicken scratch to me...

I actually remember you describing Schoenberg and Berg's violin concertos as "chicken scratch" over at TC two years ago. You had similar negative opinions regarding Dutilleux, Frank Martin, Ligeti and Arvo Part, among others. Now you're listening to their music & appreciating it. I'd bet that in about 1 or 2 years from now, you'll come to appreciate Xenakis the same way. Remember, don't judge a book by it's cover, as the old saying goes...

...the Boulez work had that clarity in the orchestration which the French are widely known for...

Well maybe you should go with Boulez then & leave guys like Xenakis on the backburner for now. I've been listening to Boulez's Le marteau... (The hammer without a master) song cycle since purchasing it last week (coupled with Stockhausen's wind quintet "time measures" and klavierstucke XI). That Boulez work is quite ravishing, so many rich sonorities from the deep contralto voice and the flute and percussion. I'm actually beginnning to hear some vestige of cross reference in the work, not literal repetition but at least similarities in mood between the different movements. Stravinsky said this was the finest work he had heard come from Boulez' generation, and it's not hard to understand why. As for the Stockhausen, it's also interesting, but those works come from his more "hard core" total serialist phase.

The structure of the music I heard just seems non-existent. The rhythms don't interest me as they just fade in and out and have no purpose within the music itself or at least to me they don't.

There are plenty of works post WW2 that have discernible structure after a few listens. One I can think of in particular which got the ball rolling for me is Carter's 1st string quartet. In that work, he takes a theme on a journey throughout the entire 40 or so minutes - in a similar way as Beethoven in his late quartets. But if you say you usually don't like chamber & close yourself off from this & go straight to his far more complex orchestral works, then you are shooting yourself in the foot, imo...

I think you're a very adventurous person with music, Sid, but you listen for completely different reasons than everybody else. Not everybody thirsts for new, exciting contemporary sounds like you do, so please keep this in mind. Don't fault people who aren't as inquisitive as you are.

I hope I wasn't "faulting" people as you say. I just have little time for people who expect things post 1945 (or today) to be carbon copies of what happened before. It's just an unhelpful way to approach music of any kind - be it new or old - and just leads the listener down a dead end. It's far better to take each composer and each piece on it's own terms, rather than uselessly comparing it to the music of a generation or two before...

[Mirror Image]

I actually remember you describing Schoenberg and Berg's violin concertos as "chicken scratch" over at TC two years ago. You had similar negative opinions regarding Dutilleux, Frank Martin, Ligeti and Arvo Part, among others. Now you're listening to their music & appreciating it. I'd bet that in about 1 or 2 years from now, you'll come to appreciate Xenakis the same way. Remember, don't judge a book by it's cover, as the old saying goes...


Well maybe you should go with Boulez then & leave guys like Xenakis on the backburner for now. I've been listening to Boulez's Le marteau... (The hammer without a master) song cycle since purchasing it last week (coupled with Stockhausen's wind quintet "time measures" and klavierstucke XI). That Boulez work is quite ravishing, so many rich sonorities from the deep contralto voice and the flute and percussion. I'm actually beginnning to hear some vestige of cross reference in the work, not literal repetition but at least similarities in mood between the different movements. Stravinsky said this was the finest work he had heard come from Boulez' generation, and it's not hard to understand why. As for the Stockhausen, it's also interesting, but those works come from his more "hard core" total serialist phase.

There are plenty of works post WW2 that have discernible structure after a few listens. One I can think of in particular which got the ball rolling for me is Carter's 1st string quartet. In that work, he takes a theme on a journey throughout the entire 40 or so minutes - in a similar way as Beethoven in his late quartets. But if you say you usually don't like chamber & close yourself off from this & go straight to his far more complex orchestral works, then you are shooting yourself in the foot, imo...

I hope I wasn't "faulting" people as you say. I just have little time for people who expect things post 1945 (or today) to be carbon copies of what happened before. It's just an unhelpful way to approach music of any kind - be it new or old - and just leads the listener down a dead end. It's far better to take each composer and each piece on it's own terms, rather than uselessly comparing it to the music of a generation or two before...

Yes, I guess I do eat my words quite often, but I'm still not that impressed with Schoenberg's VC and after I've heard multiple times. I do, however, like his PC much better. Have you heard it? Anyway, I understand what you're saying, but I just struggle with some of these composers like Xenakis and Stockhausen. Boulez seems a little bit easier for me to access as I do like the textures he conjures in his music. I'm just trying to figure out the structure which may take some time.

Perhaps, you need to eat your own words as well, and listen to some late-Romantic music. You have often expressed a distaste for this style, but when I express any distaste for contemporary music (i. e. Boulez, Stockhausen, etc.), you're telling me I need to listen harder. You should definitely follow your own advice, Sid.

[Sid]

Yes, I guess I do eat my words quite often, but I'm still not that impressed with Schoenberg's VC and after I've heard multiple times. I do, however, like his PC much better. Have you heard it?

Yes, I have heard Schoenberg's PC - got it a few weeks ago with Brendel on LP. But I've only heard it twice - a very interesting work, the rhythm of the soloist & orchestra seems slightly out of sync in some parts, and these things - the harmonies as well - are interesting.

Anyway, I understand what you're saying, but I just struggle with some of these composers like Xenakis and Stockhausen. Boulez seems a little bit easier for me to access as I do like the textures he conjures in his music. I'm just trying to figure out the structure which may take some time.

Well, speaking personally, if it all gets too hard, I just sit back and let it all wash over me, just enjoy the sounds of the music (without too much of a concern for structure or tonality, etc.). Another composer I would strongly recommend is Harry Partch, his music is very complex and rhythmic, but far more tonal than some of the atonal composers...

Perhaps, you need to eat your own words as well, and listen to some late-Romantic music. You have often expressed a distaste for this style, but when I express any distaste for contemporary music (i. e. Boulez, Stockhausen, etc.), you're telling me I need to listen harder. You should definitely follow your own advice, Sid.

I have my limitations just like anyone else around here. For close to 20 years I was daunted by Beethoven's late quartets, scared of listening to them. In the past few years I have begun to listen to them and found nothing but joy, engagement, pure musicality. I think those opinions that I read that these works were highly complex, dense and came from a source of divine inspiration where basically rubbish. You just sit down & listen to the music without such preconceptions, and just engage with it on it's own terms (& your own terms) it suddenly becomes very human.

So basically I wasn't bringing up the past to criticise you so much as to say that EVERYONE has the ability to appreciate any music they like if they make a bit of effort and are open to the experience. This applies to something like Monteverdi as to Beethoven or Xenakis or anyone. Golly, I just listened to Messiaen's song cycle "Poemes pour Mi" for the umpteenth time since I got it on disc about 18 months back, and for the first time heard the theme that is present in all of the songs. I loved this work from my first acquaintance with it, but only today did I discover it's tight thematic unity. It was a big "a-ha!" experience for me, just like a little kid discovering something for the first time. This is why I love listening to this type of music, I always discover something fresh and new...

[Mirror Image]

Yes, I have heard Schoenberg's PC - got it a few weeks ago with Brendel on LP. But I've only heard it twice - a very interesting work, the rhythm of the soloist & orchestra seems slightly out of sync in some parts, and these things - the harmonies as well - are interesting.

It's actually a favorite Schoenberg work of mine, but I only own one recording of with Emanuel Ax/Esa-Pekka Salonen. I have enjoyed this version so well that I have an interest getting another performance of it sometime. Glad you enjoy it as well.

Well, speaking personally, if it all gets too hard, I just sit back and let it all wash over me, just enjoy the sounds of the music (without too much of a concern for structure or tonality, etc.). Another composer I would strongly recommend is Harry Partch, his music is very complex and rhythmic, but far more tonal than some of the atonal composers...

I've heard of Partch, I'll check him out. Thanks. I will say that, yes, sometimes it's good to just sit back and enjoy the music, but there other times where I want to study it and try and get inside the composer's head emotionally speaking. You certainly can't do this by simply sitting back and letting the sounds wash over you. Sometimes when you do this, you miss some of the more beautiful moments that happen.

I have my limitations just like anyone else around here. For close to 20 years I was daunted by Beethoven's late quartets, scared of listening to them. In the past few years I have begun to listen to them and found nothing but joy, engagement, pure musicality. I think those opinions that I read that these works were highly complex, dense and came from a source of divine inspiration where basically rubbish. You just sit down & listen to the music without such preconceptions, and just engage with it on it's own terms (& your own terms) it suddenly becomes very human.

Yes, and I have my limitations as well. I don't hide them.

So basically I wasn't bringing up the past to criticise you so much as to say that EVERYONE has the ability to appreciate any music they like if they make a bit of effort and are open to the experience. This applies to something like Monteverdi as to Beethoven or Xenakis or anyone. Golly, I just listened to Messiaen's song cycle "Poemes pour Mi" for the umpteenth time since I got it on disc about 18 months back, and for the first time heard the theme that is present in all of the songs. I loved this work from my first acquaintance with it, but only today did I discover it's tight thematic unity. It was a big "a-ha!" experience for me, just like a little kid discovering something for the first time. This is why I love listening to this type of music, I always discover something fresh and new...

As I said, you should take your own advice and listen to more late-Romantic music or listen to some opera. Hell, even I have found a few operas I have enjoyed and I enjoyed them because I put down my own pre-conceived notions of the genre and just listened to the music. Is opera something I listen to everyday? Absolutely not, but I have found some works in the genre that I like. Perhaps you could do the same? I even enjoy a lot of chamber music and string quartets, but I have made the effort to find out what I enjoy and what I don't enjoy. If you blow off late-Romanticism because you dislike the style, aren't you essentially doing the same thing I was doing about contemporary music?

I think, with music, a person has to accept that not everything is for them no matter how much effort they put into it. There are some things we simply will never wrap our heads around no matter how hard we try and I'm certainly okay with that.

[Luke]

For a way in to Boulez - I would recommend Pli selon pli, a work which obsessed me as a teenager (BBCSO/Lukomska/Boulez). Its first section, Don, opens with such a dramatic gesture - an almighty chord in the orchestra and then a haunting, to-the-heart melodic line in the soprano (a row, I guess, but for me it was once heard, never forgotten, one of the great melodic moments of the 20th century). And then the music retracts into itself, the soprano disappears. Everything becomes about sonority, mystery, clouds of sound from which emerge the most incredible things, clatterings, muted screams...it seems to possess a dream-logic, and I don't know any other piece like it. The three central improvisations, as Sfz said, are also full of melodic lines and delicate colours, but it is Don which is particularly iconic in my mind

A second recommendation would be the early cantata Le soleil des eaux, whose two movements are very clear, dramatic, sumtuously orchestrated and full of good things. The first movement, describing a lizard on a rock, is essentially a set of unaccompanied recitatives (all, like the melodiy in Don, utterly memorable, beautiful...I can hear them seductively in my mind right this second!) separated by short, wildly inventive orchestral interludes. The second movement involves a choir, and is more violent, stormy, lyrical, episodically depicting a river. A really fabulous piece, and very short - you won't lose many minutes out of your life trying it out! The companion cantata (not really a companion, but the two are essentially contemporary and comparable in many ways) is Le visage nuptial - and it's as sumptuously scored as Le soleil des eaux, perhaps more so; and erotically charged, buzzingly vibrant piece. Something about Le soleil des eaux holds me more (perhaps it's only the fact that, having the score to it, I know it very intimately) but Le visage nuptial is every bit as attractive a piece.

This disc contains all of the above works, and is the Boulez disc I return to most frequently - one of my favourite discs of all, really, and of the post 1950 hardcore stuff in particular. It's not the Lukmska Pli selon pli, though, and that is still my favourite



For a way into Xenakis, I'd recommend Oresteia (as I did on another thread yesterday) for its blatantly Ancient Greek soundworld, its formal clarity, and its use of a kind of referential vocabulary - IOW, fanfares where there should be fanfares, homophonic choral writing where there should be homophonic choral writing etc. As I said yesterday, its a piece which reminds the listener that the abrasiveness in Xenakis is the abrasiveness of thistles and thorns and rocks and sand under your bare feet, the wind in your hair, the blood in your veins; it's not the barbed wire, angsty abrasiveness of Xenakis' contemporaries. It comes from a much deeper, more primal place.

There are plenty of other pieces which offer an entry into this world. Jonchaies is often mentioned, and it's a very good place to begin. Another one, one that has always stunned me, is the quasi piano concerto Synaphai. But maybe the greatest disc(s) of Xenakis of all are the set of chamber music discs made by the Arditti Quartet and Claude Helffer. I know you aren't a chamber music fan particularly, but the techniques in these pieces are the same as in the orchestral pieces, the sonorities are just as wild - it's just that one can hear the detail more fully and more clearly, and they are the most fabulous adventures in sound. The string quartet Tetras is absolutely unbelievable in this respect; the later, more auster quartet Tetora is equally fine. There are many standout pieces on that 2 CD set, but for me, as a cellist, the solo cello work Nomos Alpha stands above all ove them (and on this recording only, don't bother with any other - Rohan de Saram is the only one who can play it, I think, of those I've heard!). The last page, in which scales play against each other from both ends of the instrument, is absolutely mind-boggling, I can't for the life of me imagine how he can play it - I mean, I know, I've studied the score, I know how it works, but to have the technique to pull it off....well, as I say, only de Saram has it, that I've heard. The recording I'm talking about was a critical success and is available in a few editions, the most luxurious of which is this one:



As for Stockhausen, James is the one to ask... I'd tentatively suggest something like Inori, a huge, sonically beautiful and formally clear orchestral piece from the 70s - we had an online discussion of this piece hosted by the missed Al Moritz years ago (Al even supplied some of us with CDs) which was revelatory to me. I'm not the one to recommend you Carter or Nono, there are others here who know the music much more intimately than I do (there are others here who know their Boulez and Xenakis better too, but I have very strong feelings about the pieces I've just described)

[DavidW]

We're talking about newish composers as challenging... but I bet there are a few listeners that don't find that music challenging, but would never get through a Haydn symphony or a Mozart opera.

How about this: ol' stuck in the mud pre-20th century listeners challenge themselves with 20th century music, if the super avant garde crowd challenge themselves with pre-Schoenberg tonal, not so dissonant music.

[karlhenning]

Well, I walk on the wild side with the occasional Mozart viola quintet, as you know, Davey . . . .

[DavidW]

Well, I walk on the wild side with the occasional Mozart viola quintet, as you know, Davey . . . .

Ah yes indeed but I'd like to see James, Sid, Philo or MI pull that off.