Composers you don't get

[Luke]

As I said where are Kapustin's masterpieces? Where is his Bluebeard's Castle? Where is his Piano Concerto No. 2? What is an orchestral work of his that will make me bow down to his unheralded greatness?

The orchestral thing is a red herring, though. It isn't written anywhere that  composer must write an orchestral masterpiece to be considered great. Pace the two lovely concerti, Chopin's greatness, for one, resides elsewhere.

[Josquin des Prez]

I woudn't be that bothered. It's just a word for me, of loose definition. It isn't such a sacred cow for others as it is for you.

Ok, let's test this. Was Alkan as great a genius as Beethoven?

[Mirror Image]

Maybe it's in a medium which isn't your bag.  (Just a thought. I've not heard any Kapustin, so I don't have a dog in that race.)

Well I was just trying to find out if he's composed any orchestral music that's noteworthy?

[Josquin des Prez]

Maybe it's in a medium which isn't your bag.  (Just a thought. I've not heard any Kapustin, so I don't have a dog in that race.)

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

There.

[karlhenning]

Well I was just trying to find out if he's composed any orchestral music that's noteworthy?

Well, all right, but that may not signify the way you seemed to imply.  Hardly any Chopin lover would claim that he wrote any orchestral music that is noteworthy, but that doesn't alter the fact of his unassailable genius.

[Mirror Image]

The orchestral thing is a red herring, though. It isn't written anywhere that  composer must write an orchestral masterpiece to be considered great. Pace the two lovely concerti, Chopin's greatness, for one, resides elsewhere.

I'm just trying to figure out if Kapustin has composed anything noteworthy in the orchestral genre.

[karlhenning]

Should have trusted Luke to get there first!

The orchestral thing is a red herring, though. It isn't written anywhere that  composer must write an orchestral masterpiece to be considered great. Pace the two lovely concerti, Chopin's greatness, for one, resides elsewhere.

[Grazioso]

Doesn't feel like a problem to me. We know the term 'genius' is a loaded one for you, one that means something very different for you than for anyone else, so let's not get back on that tedious track.

Nor to me. Using specific musical examples, you show how a composer managed something that hadn't been tried before, or overcame the perceived limitations of existing forms and methods, i.e., they solved a musical "problem." You demonstrate things like the complexity or novelty of their musical structures. Rosen's The Classical Style is a good example of such a demonstration. I am still waiting for the follow-up volume on Britney Spears 

I agree, Grazioso. Where would jazz be today without greats like Ellington, Benny Golson, Jimmy Heath, Wayne Shorter, among others churning out delicious compositions? My point was that improvisation is the crucial element in jazz music whether one agrees with me or not, without this, then shouldn't we call it something else?

Jazz, like any classification of art, is inherently fuzzy. I think of Wittgenstein's "family resemblances": the things we call
"jazz" typically feature at least some of these characteristics: swing, improvisation, instrumental, acoustic, etc. Yet we can easily find examples of music that are called "jazz" that lack one or more of those characteristics. Similarly, the things we call "jazz" tend to belong to one historical stream, to one cultural edifice, so when something jazz-like pops up in a classical music cultural sphere, confusion or disagreement (or nonsense  ) sets in.

And these aren't set in stone, either .. music being a creative field, its potential; the sky is the limit. Musical interplay between 4 string sounds & 4 helicopter sounds anyone?

The gang's all here  I agree. It's fluid. See above.

[Josquin des Prez]

Well I was just trying to find out if he's composed any orchestral music that's noteworthy?

He has composed some chamber music that is pretty good. But that is besides the point, is it not? Luke just addressed the same problem. Kapustin is a pianist first and foremost after all.

[71 dB]

I sampled Kapustin when Josquin des Prez started praising him but I don't like his music. Not my cup of tea or coffee. Josquin "I know genius" des Prez will say I don't get that composer but I don't care. 

[Mirror Image]

Well, all right, but that may not signify the way you seemed to imply.  Hardly any Chopin lover would claim that he wrote any orchestral music that is noteworthy, but that doesn't alter the fact of his unassailable genius.

I was just trying to make a point. I know a lot of composers weren't skilled in writing orchestral music. I mean look at Mompou and, like you said, Chopin.

[Josquin des Prez]

I was just trying to make a point.

Seems to me like you are just trying to avoid something, rather then prove anything. So who cares whether Kapustin wrote anything of worth for the orchestra? What's that got to do with anything whatsoever?

[mc ukrneal]

I have wanted to jump in a few times, but I am having trouble figuring out what precisely you all are arguing about.

A few topics you ran through:
Was Kapustin inspired? Most artists would say they were inspired by something or something. The idea was thought up, I imagine with some sort of inspiration in the process, and thus, there is most likely an element of inspiration in that creativity. How does one measure creativity anyway? And if the composer achieved what he (or she) set out to do, can we judge the composer for not meeting some other standard, which was not of interest when they wrote the piece. And who says what standards these pieces should meet anyway?

Is Kapustin any good? I don't know. I suppose if someone connects with the music, yes. One can admire the writing or not. But if one feels something is lacking - is there really something lacking or are we imposing our own values on the music. If someone says the music connects to their soul in some way, isn't that a great compliment that implies some sort of greatness or at least inspired art?

Can we agree on the terms of evaluating the music? Well, we don;t agree on the terms for other composers, so how can we agree here? Is Prokofiev or Shostakovich the better composer? These things tend to be relative. I can say (and perhaps proove) that a composer does something better than another composer, but even that does make a clear cut proof in favor of one composer. Heck, we cannot even agree on what composers are classical music composers.

Is Beethoven a better composer than Kapustin? An interesting question really. I can, of course, rely on historical influence and such, and using that, convincingly argue one way or the other. But can I say that Beethoven's 30th Piano Sonata is inherently a better work of art than Kapustin's Piano Sonata No. 6? Well this comes back to agreeing the terms of evaluating the music or taste. How do we rate it?

Originality. There are some indicators that give the advantage to composers who changed how music is made. I think Bartok and Beethoven can be proven to be more original than Kapustin, for example, because of it. But, this does not imply that Kapustin was unoriginal, which is the logic I feel I am being asked to follow.

Liberace = Kapustin. Huh??? This one really has me confused. Are we talking about the Liberace that dressed up in crazy outfits? No connection that I can see here, except trying to get under the skin of other posters.

In the end, the way I read it, there a number of accusations being thrown around about various composers. Perhaps a few specific examples would help clarify some of the issues? Or perhaps I have stepped into an argument that crossed time? If so, I'll grab some of that popcorn if Grazioso will share!

PS - And while I wrote this 27 new replies were posted!!!!!!!! I'm posting this anyway! 

[Mirror Image]

He has composed some chamber music that is pretty good. But that is besides the point, is it not? Luke just addressed the same problem. Kapustin is a pianist first and foremost after all.

No, it's not beside the point to me. I'm wondering if he composed any orchestral music that you enjoy? Can you not even answer my question, which I've asked three times now I think.

[Luke]

Ok, let's test this. Was Alkan as great a genius as Beethoven?

For you, genius has a precise definition, taken from your beloved Weininger, right? For me, as I said, it is much looser thing, as per wiki's...

...Genius (plural geniuses[1][2]) is something or someone embodying exceptional intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of unprecedented insight.

There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and indeed the question of whether the notion itself has any real meaning is a subject of current debate...

With your Weininger-based ideas you might well hate that, but just accept that that is the kind of thing that I have in mind when the word genius is flung around. And in that context I find it perfectly possible to imagine greater and lesser genius, whereas perhaps you don't.  So yes - Alkan, if a genius (and he fits my idea of one, and he certainly has the 'unprecedented insight' wiki talks of...I don't think Kapustin does, btw) is clearly of a lesser degree to Beethoven.

[Mirror Image]

Seems to me like you are just trying to avoid something, rather then prove anything. So who cares whether Kapustin wrote anything of worth for the orchestra? What's that got to do with anything whatsoever?

Speaking of avoiding...

Avoiding my question again, I see. I was just inquiring, but I see that you can't even answer my question, which isn't all that surprising.

[71 dB]

PS - And while I wrote this 27 new replies were posted!!!!!!!! I'm posting this anyway!

My stupid remark doesn't count. 

[DieNacht]

I'm just trying to figure out if Kapustin has composed anything noteworthy in the orchestral genre.

There are so-called piano concerti (at least 5 I think, a lot of the stuff on you-t), but I found them less interesting.

[Mirror Image]

There are so-called piano concerti (at least 5 I think, a lot of the stuff on you-t), but I found them less interesting.

Why would they be "so-called" piano concertos? This "so-called" seems to imply that they don't belong to the long history of classical piano concertos that have been written before Kapustin's time.

[Grazioso]

I have wanted to jump in a few times, but I am having trouble figuring out what precisely you all are arguing about.

It doesn't matter, as long as we're arguing! 

PS - And while I wrote this 27 new replies were posted!!!!!!!! I'm posting this anyway! 

This thread is going to get pulled over for speeding