Composers you don't get

[DieNacht]

Typical kapustin piano concerto style, very big-band + piano sounding

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yNI3k6RUZw

[Josquin des Prez]

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.

There is no point to your question.

[DieNacht]

Some more concerto stuff I didn´t know in another style -
cello cto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r56zLa4POfc&feature=related

There´s a sinfonietta etc. as well.

[Luke]

But I'm with JDP and Karl etc on this - orchestral music or not isn't the point. Of course Alkan was similarly unorchestral, FWIW! Outside some sometimes shockingly innovative (and 'unprecedentedly insightful') chamber pieces his energies were almost entirely directed at the piano, and thank goodness they were.

[Josquin des Prez]

So yes - Alkan, if a genius is clearly of a lesser degree to Beethoven.

But how is that provable, exactly?

Our definition of genius isn't as important at this point, since that's just a difference in semantics. For me, a genius is the absolute pinnacle of a particular form of artist and/or intellectual expression. You seem to attach degrees to the word. I think that's ultimately irrelevant either way.

[Luke]

One answer - at this point, who cares?

Another one - by deciding on terms, and then looking at their music, just as in your putative Beethoven/Spears example.

[Josquin des Prez]

One answer - at this point, who cares?

What point? You don't care whether Beethoven is greater then Britney Spears?

[Luke]

No, I meant that at this point, having been posting here for too long, I'm past caring about your hang-up on the word genius!

You are asking me how I would know that LVB is greater than BS, or that LVB is more of a genius than CVA  (though by your own definitions these two comparison aren't the same thing, surely you agree; I do wish you'd get your arguments straight).  You say, what, that it is not possible to describe why, but that you, personally, you, JDP, you just know the answer to this and all such possible questions? That Kapusint is almost-a-genius and Alkan not because you say he is, but that you can't tell us why, although you make claims that all his notes are inspired, which I have declared myself happy to discuss note-by-note with you. And that is supposed to be a more logical solution to this 'greatness problem' than my 'well, you decide what you are looking for and then you look for it' ?? Really??

[Josquin des Prez]

Whether i'm correct about Kapustin is not really relevant here (notice of course that a lot of people here are guilty of the opposite attitude towards Kapustin, which ought to be as equally damning to you).
What's important is that the measure by which i arrived to my conclusion regarding his music is understood for what it is. A personal assessment which is based on something unassailable, I.E., inspiration. Its your prerogative to negate such an approach but you need to be aware of the inherent dangers here, like, for instance, the problem of Beethoven vs Britney Spears. For the record, yes, i think Kapustin is greater then Alkan, but not as great as Beethoven. Once again, this is based on instinct, rather then something that can be proven scientifically.

[some guy]

There's a problem of Beethoven and Britney Spears?

I did not know that.

They are two very different people from two very different times doing two very different things that appeal, I dare say, to two very different groups of listeners.

Where are the grounds for comparison (and thus for problems)?

[Josquin des Prez]

There's a problem of Beethoven and Britney Spears?

I did not know that.

They are two very different people from two very different times doing two very different things that appeal, I dare say, to two very different groups of listeners.

Where are the grounds for comparison (and thus for problems)?

One is a genius, the other one isn't. More proof why my definition is the only one that's actually workable to any meaningful degree.

[Luke]

Whether i'm correct about Kapustin is not really relevant here (notice of course that a lot of people here are guilty of the opposite attitude towards Kapustin, which ought to be as equally damning to you).

Actually, I am interested in people's opinions of Kapustin, provided they are informed ones. As I told you before, I actively want to enjoy his music more than I do. I have spent all evening, between posting here, looking at Kapustin scores again. I know that a composer needs to be 'got' - in the words of the thread title - and that often only a small change in ones listening is all that is needed to 'get' a composer and be convinced. As yet I am not convinced by Kapusitn, and I would emphasize that this is based on a thorough acquaintance with a lot of his music, in the ears, under the fingers, before the eyes... The opinions I've given here are based on that, not on other people's opinions. And I've said all along, maybe one day I'll 'get it' and realise that Kapustin is as great as Scarlatti. But at present I don't, and so what' I've said today is all I can say. Maybe the same thing will happen for you re Alkan.

What's important is that the measure by which i arrived to my conclusion regarding his music is understood for what it is. A personal assessment which is based on something unassailable, I.E., inspiration. Its your prerogative to negate such an approach but you need to be aware of the inherent dangers here, like, for instance, the problem of Beethoven vs Britney Spears.

To clarify - you mean the composer's inspiration, not yours? That's all very well, but inspiration is the same class of word as genius: what you hear as inspired I may see as hackneyed. So it's not exactly unassailable, is it? It's been being assailed all evening, after all. That's not to say that there's no such thing as inspiration, of course, or inspired music. Just that it isn't a fixed, measurable quantity.

[Mirror Image]

There's no need arguing about any of this any further guys. Kapustin simply is a composer who Josquin admires. He can make all of the outrageous statements he wants, it will not change my opinion of this composer.

You guys are just beating a dead horse now...

[some guy]

Dead horses can't bite.

Or kick.

Or buck.

Or even run away, for that matter.

Much easier to beat them.

Kinda like straw men. The beater is in complete control of the situation. Dead horses and straw men are even easier to conquer than windmills (which have those nasty rotating blades, you know.)

((Did you say blades?? -- Rotating blades, yes.))

Anyway, I wonder if it's time to point out that we've learned practically nothing about any of the composers mentioned (and only a little bit about the way people listen to music). Heigh ho. Another narcissistic online thread, woo hoo!!!

[Note: if any of this thread has led anyone to questioning how they listen, then I take back the preceding paragraph in its entirety and in toto, all of it.]

[jowcol]

I actually dug the start of this thread, and commend JDP for starting it.  There are composers/artists that I know are "good", but I don't seem to enjoy like I should.

For Schoenberg, I tend to like is more flat out atonal stuff than the serialist works.   I know there is a lot going on, but I don't get an answer to the "So what?"

Most Brahams does little for me, and I can't say I'm much of a Mozart fan.   Mendelsson and most of the stuff form that period.

In the world of Jazz, I'm so-so on the Second Miles Davis Quintet despite teh fact I love all the musicians in it.

Iv'e wanted to get deeper in Mahler, but sometimes there is a cheesiness that bothers me and gets in they way.  On the other hand, I can listen to Scriabin for hours.  I would say the Scriabin's late orchestral works don't nearly the structure of Mahler.

I'm curious how the tenor of this discussion would have changed if the Kapustin was switched with Koechlin?  (I LOVE that latter, but I can see how others would not get his style. )   I'd also venture that nearly all of us make outrageous statements about the  composers that move us, frankly, I'm feel more sympathy for those that don't have the courage to stand up for their faves.   The relationship between a listener an a work of music is, at the most basic level, instinctual, I agree with JDP here. 



Of course, that may make me a relativist/nihilist, or a lowbrow, or whatever...   i think I'll put on some blues....

[Luke]

The relationship between a listener an a work of music is, at the most basic level, instinctual, I agree with JDP here. 

If that was what I thought he'd been saying, I'd agree with him too.

[Mirror Image]

I'm curious how the tenor of this discussion would have changed if the Kapustin was switched with Koechlin?  (I LOVE that latter, but I can see how others would not get his style. )   I'd also venture that nearly all of us make outrageous statements about the  composers that move us, frankly, I'm feel more sympathy for those that don't have the courage to stand up for their faves.   The relationship between a listener an a work of music is, at the most basic level, instinctual, I agree with JDP here.

I gave my opinion of the music I heard from Kapustin. I have nothing against JDP liking his music, but when you start throwing absurd comparisons at people and present your opinion as fact is when I start having a problem.

I don't need to defend Koechlin. People can and have ridiculed him before, what makes me think that I can change their mind? I read on the Amazon classical forum somebody talking about Koechlin and how his music puts them to sleep because it's so boring, well that's what that person heard in the music. It simply does nothing for them. Perhaps in the case of JDP's opinion of Kapustin, he's simply being too sensitive about people's opinions. You think I give a damn what somebody thinks about Koechlin or Ravel or Milhaud or Villa-Lobos or Pettersson? No, I will continue listening to their music because it moves me and it means something to me.

People respond differently to music as you well know. What I like somebody else probably loathes and I'm fine with that and I don't have the attitude where "Oh, you don like them, well that's your loss." I'm sure I've had this attitude before, but now I know it doesn't matter. At this juncture, we should all agree to disagree and move on.

[Grazioso]

Putting a Kasputin on a par with Beethoven - or even of Alkan - now, that's decadence, as certainly as putting Mantovani, Liberace or Britney Spears on a par with Beethoven (or even Alkan) is decadent - as ludicrous an expression of that collapsing standard of judgment and of taste, that defines decadence.

Interesting to see such an old-fashioned concept like "decadence" invoked. (Paging Mr. Wilde...) Putative fixed, universal norms starting crashing down in earnest during the 19th century if not earlier, and the dust still hasn't cleared. The genie is out of the bottle and long gone; you can't stuff it back in.

Evoking "musical genius" as something both obvious and unprovable is an intellectual cop-out of those who don't have the training or patience to study history and scores and then set forth a clear, detailed thesis backed by actual evidence. Barring that, a musical genius is a merely a composer someone likes a lot.

[Luke]

You have failed to demonstrate "the training or patience to study history and scores and then set forth a clear, detailed thesis backed by actual evidence" to back up your implied notion that Kasputin deserves to be placed on a foot of equality with a Beethoven, or even an Alkan. By the pompou, pedantic & vainglorious standard you have established, therefore, you are incompetent to express any opinion, or make any judgment regarding music or any other subject.

It wasn't Grazioso who was making any such claims for Kapustin (the opposite IIRC). It was Josquin.

[Luke]

I assume you've just forgotten about Yanni...






[sorry, once it was in my head I couldn't resist. Do carry on...]