Unpopular Opinions

Started by The Six, November 11, 2011, 10:32:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Jared

Quote from: Mirror Image on November 14, 2011, 11:43:28 AM
For me, I don't listen to a lot of post-WII composers. I'm not sure why, but I'm just not too keen on what's going on in classical music these days. I hope Karl Henning doesn't beat me up for saying that. 8)

Let's just say that he won't be dedicating this year's Thanksgiving Motet to you...  ;D

Mirror Image

Quote from: Jared on November 14, 2011, 11:48:36 AM
Let's just say that he won't be dedicating this year's Thanksgiving Motet to you...  ;D

:P

jowcol

Quote from: karlhenning on November 14, 2011, 10:53:29 AM
I think we've all had powerful experiences, and emotional experiences, as a result of listening to music.  Which is not the same thing as saying that these things are contained within the music.  But it's certainly a tangle, and quite often an enjoyable tangle.

I've been a bit too busy to jump on this thread,as I would but a couple of points to ponder.    I agree, it's a tangle, and a fascinating one.  And I do think it is more of how we react and any"emotion" in what we hear- but some things tend to create the same reactions, but this is more of a tendency than an absolute.

On a raw acoustic level, there are some common responses people have to types of sound.  Subsonic can be unsettling.  Fingernails on a chalkboard also can set people on edge more then, say, door chimes.   We can open up Helmholtz and think in terms of what is perceived as consonance and dissonance, and think there must be some immutable laws.

However, if we  talk about eternal principles of what is consonance,  it seems that the rules were changing.  Listen to early music, and the minor third is pretty much a dissonant interval, so much so that one common tactic was to end a minor sounding modal tune with a major third (the Picardy  Third) .  To modern ears, this may sound dissonant, while we can listen to a whole minor key work without angst.   (Unless it's by John Tesh).   So, to some degree, there must be some cultural element and experience that shapes how we react.  So, are our reactions a totally matter of sociological conditioning?

But, to contradict myself again (I like doing that), if you expose someone to an Indian Raga for the first time,  they will definitely react to the static harmonic quality, the presence of natural tempered intervals, and the different approach to rhythm.   It is not necessary to  school them in the Carnatic or Hindustani tradition to get this reaction.  There is a more raw and basic reaction.  Are there immutable laws of "greatness", "dissonance", etc?


But, to contradict myself again, all you need to do is to look at this forum to see that it is hard to find two people from generally the same culture who can agree on the greatness of a Beethoven or a Mozart.  Some people are drawn to different forms, scales, etc.  It was interesting that Scriabin and Rimsky Korsakov both saw colors in different key signatures, but could not agree compoletely, and there was one key that RK could not "see".  I'm definitely drawn to minor scales and modes, and I'm anal enough to sort my Complete Bach by minor vs major.   Why the variation?   Could some of these reactions be genetic, or based on experience? 


The final issue in this big tangle is the battle between the intellect and emotions (the Apollonian vs Dionysiac- where is Saul when you need him?)  Or maybe it isn't a battle, in my way of thinking, but  more of a matter of levels of consciousness, right or left brain, or however you chose to define these modes  inside your head.   Some of the impact of raw sounds, drones, etc, I associate with a more trancelike state, and I usually find Indian, modal jazz, and minamlist stuff great for that sort of reaction. There is a lot of emphasis on timbre, and repetition, and typically a limited harmonic palatte.  But if I'm in a more "wakeful" mood, i find this music empty, and I need more complexity and more structure.     Bach seems to hit both lobes at the  same time for me.  In collecting music, I try to find something for each mood-- although it may be the other way.  I may be selecting the music to alter my mood, rather than reflect it.


One thing Copeland said that I admired is with all of the attention we've given to composers and performers, very little has been done in defining or guiding the listener, which is the third point on the triangle.  Many of the disagreements I've seen on these and other forums is that people tended to assume that everyone else listened the same, and was not bringing a complex set of historical, cultural, and physiological baggage with them.  If it wasn't such a confusing tangle,  music, and the perception of it, would not be half as interesting.


"If it sounds good, it is good."
Duke Ellington

jowcol

Quote from: starrynight on November 14, 2011, 07:23:18 AM
I think there is some universality to music and the relation of emotions to music or sounds.   And of course as time has gone on with the increasing globalisation this universality has been more and more evident.  Also I don't think emotion is an abstraction, it's a very real thing with which we react to something.  Emotions can combine our senses with an intellectual response to something.   If we are talking about very precise meanings then obviously that may not specifically apply to a particular listener, but a general feeling can still apply and link composer, performer and listener.  That's why you don't necessarily have to read music critics and understand all about a composer's life to enjoy music.  I still think the best way is to just listen to more of a composer's or a particular period's music to get more inside it and past its surface sound to its intent.

Really I think music touches on emotions and the intellect, both are combined.  It may well be the same with other arts too, though the intellectual side is more to the surface perhaps in most other cases.  With music, initially at least,  we take it more directly as its pure state (sound) rather than as just an artwork.  And music is enjoyed by most people, it is easy to take in somehow compared to other arts, maybe because it is so uniquitous now and we are so used to hearing it all the time thanks to recording and transmitting technology.  This is a positive in that people can be more open to music, but might be a negative as people take it for granted without thinking about it more.  Food I think is different, to most people it is largely sustenance (and purely sensory and not intellectual) and not a particular expression of intent.

I didn't read this before posting, but I strongly agree with most of this.  The only bone I'd pick is that Music is sustenance for some of us....
"If it sounds good, it is good."
Duke Ellington

madaboutmahler

Quote from: Mirror Image on November 14, 2011, 10:37:58 AM
This is one of the problems I have is that get burnt out on certain composers from listening to them over a long period of time. Now, I try not to do this too often and listen to a variety of composers. I'm finding a lot of enjoyment in Mahler right now and I've always been amazed by how much of a genius he was.

:)  :)   :)  :)
And one of my goals of the year has been achieved! :)
I am so glad that you are enjoying Mahler more now John! Keep us updated with your Mahler journey! :)
About the Abbado recordings, yes, that 7th is certainly one of the best! For no.7, I also particularly love Rattle's recording! One of the highlights in his cycle in my opinion, along with the excellent 2, 4, 9, 10. :)
Yes, I have heard most of the live Abbado/Berlin Phil Mahler recordings, a particularly excellent 6 and 9!

Quote from: Lisztianwagner on November 14, 2011, 10:41:39 AM
Haha, here's the Mahler phase I was waiting for ;)

For John, it is finally come! This makes such happy reading! :)
"Music is ... A higher revelation than all Wisdom & Philosophy"
— Ludwig van Beethoven

Geo Dude

Let's see...

I feel that Brahms equaled or exceeded Beethoven in every genre he (Brahms) attempted, with the exception of string quartets and solo piano works.

Following from that, I feel that Brahms was the greatest composer of the romantic period.

Schubert's late string quartets do not appeal to me.  Not yet at least.

Most 20th century music is of little interest to me, with some exceptions (Sibelius, some of Stravinsky's choral work, some Villa Lobos, among others) I simply don't find the musical language(s) used to be appealing.

The interpretation is often one of my favorite elements of HIP performances.

I prefer composers' symphonies to be played by the number of performers they were written for, rather than using larger forces just for the sake of a 'big' sound.

I prefer Bach on the harpsichord to Bach on the piano.

For that matter, I prefer most music to be played on the instruments it was written for.

With some notable exceptions, I prefer to spend my money by exploring the obscure works of my favorite composers, rather than exploring obscure composers.

I think that's enough for now.

Mirror Image

Quote from: madaboutmahler on November 14, 2011, 02:00:34 PM
:)  :)   :)  :)
And one of my goals of the year has been achieved! :)
I am so glad that you are enjoying Mahler more now John! Keep us updated with your Mahler journey! :)
About the Abbado recordings, yes, that 7th is certainly one of the best! For no.7, I also particularly love Rattle's recording! One of the highlights in his cycle in my opinion, along with the excellent 2, 4, 9, 10. :)
Yes, I have heard most of the live Abbado/Berlin Phil Mahler recordings, a particularly excellent 6 and 9!

Thanks, Daniel. I'm sure you and my Dad could talk about Mahler for many hours. You should see his collection of Mahler. I agree that the 7th in Rattle's cycle is fantastic.

I hate to say this to you but I'm about to start a Bartok phase, but I will be listening to Mahler too. By the way, did you get that Bartok/Boulez set on DG? You will find many musical treasures in this box.

starrynight

#167
Quote from: Geo Dude on November 14, 2011, 03:55:29 PM
I feel that Brahms equaled or exceeded Beethoven in every genre he (Brahms) attempted, with the exception of string quartets and solo piano works.


They are rather big exceptions.  What about wind music (purely or very largely for wind instruments)?  Beethoven better there too?

Jared

Quote from: Geo Dude on November 14, 2011, 03:55:29 PM
Let's see...

Wow...

I feel that Brahms equaled or exceeded Beethoven in every genre he (Brahms) attempted, with the exception of string quartets and solo piano works.

I don't quite agree with this, but Brahms wasn't far behind..

Following from that, I feel that Brahms was the greatest composer of the romantic period.

Taking LvB out of the equation, I agree with you...

Schubert's late string quartets do not appeal to me.  Not yet at least.

They are masterpieces.. try the more accessible Quintets & Octet first, then come back to them (via Quartetto Italiano)

Most 20th century music is of little interest to me, with some exceptions (Sibelius, some of Stravinsky's choral work, some Villa Lobos, among others) I simply don't find the musical language(s) used to be appealing.

I personally would add RVW and Nielsen, but take away Stravinsky, but agree with your general sentiment..

The interpretation is often one of my favorite elements of HIP performances.

I can see that... I also like the textures...

I prefer composers' symphonies to be played by the number of performers they were written for, rather than using larger forces just for the sake of a 'big' sound.

agree completely (unless it's Klemperer's Missa Solemnis of course, for which I'm willing to make an exception...)

I prefer Bach on the harpsichord to Bach on the piano.

I like both in equal measure, but I really struggle to appreciate the Organ.

For that matter, I prefer most music to be played on the instruments it was written for.

yes, although Catrin Finch's reworked Goldbergs for Harp are certainly interesting..

With some notable exceptions, I prefer to spend my money by exploring the obscure works of my favorite composers, rather than exploring obscure composers.

I tend to agree here, too...

I think that's enough for now.

8)

Karl Henning

Quote from: The Six on November 11, 2011, 10:32:51 AM
Domenico Scarlatti is a giant of music who was ahead of his time. This probably wouldn't qualify as unpopular if his works received more attention. I've heard people say that Bach is the only Baroque composer worth noting.

D. Scarlatti is certainly one of the greats.

I don't doubt that you have . . . but I am pleased to say I have never heard anyone so cloth-eared as to say that Bach is the only &c.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

canninator

Interesting thread. Well here's (one of) mine

The true measure of a composer lies in their work for a solo instrument (whatever instrument it may be). If it is lacking, then so is that composer.

Karl Henning

Quote from: Il Furioso on November 15, 2011, 04:14:44 AM
The true measure of a composer lies in their work for a solo instrument (whatever instrument it may be). If it is lacking, then so is that composer.

I don't think that will wash at all, at all.  An interesting idea;  but, no:  a flawed litmus test.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

canninator

Quote from: karlhenning on November 15, 2011, 05:01:15 AM
I don't think that will wash at all, at all.  An interesting idea;  but, no:  a flawed litmus test.

Of my many flaws, this is among the most insignificant. In fact, were one to observe my flaws as a parade, this one would be barely noticeable. This flaw would still be polishing its bugle while other, more obvious and flagrant flaws, would be banging their drums to some inspecting dictator.  :D

chasmaniac

Quote from: Il Furioso on November 15, 2011, 05:22:26 AM
Of my many flaws, this is among the most insignificant. In fact, were one to observe my flaws as a parade, this one would be barely noticeable. This flaw would still be polishing its bugle while other, more obvious and flagrant flaws, would be banging their drums to some inspecting dictator.  :D

Meh, you call those flaws?!  8)
If I have exhausted the justifications, I have reached bedrock and my spade is turned. Then I am inclined to say: "This is simply what I do."  --Wittgenstein, PI §217

Geo Dude

#174
Quote from: starrynight on November 15, 2011, 02:31:17 AM
They are rather big exceptions.  What about wind music (purely or very largely for wind instruments)?  Beethoven better there too?

I agree that they are rather big exceptions.  Beethoven was an unparalleled genius when it came to both (very important) categories and I do not mean to demean him in order to elevate Brahms.  I apologize if it came across that way. 

I am not familiar with Beethoven's works for winds, so I can't comment on that.  Thanks for reminding me of a gap in my knowledge I need to fill, though.



Jared:  I view Beethoven as a classical composer (albeit, an unusually personality-filled one), rather than a romantic.

...And yes, Klemperer's Missa Solemnis is an exception. :D  I do prefer smaller forces if they're called for, but a great interpretation is a great interpretation.

madaboutmahler

Quote from: Il Furioso on November 15, 2011, 04:14:44 AM
Interesting thread. Well here's (one of) mine

The true measure of a composer lies in their work for a solo instrument (whatever instrument it may be). If it is lacking, then so is that composer.

How?! Taking Mahler for example - he wrote no solo music, but (here is another what may be unpopular opinion)
MAHLER IS THE GREATEST COMPOSER OF ALL!

I am sure many of you will disagree with me, and hopefully some will agree as well. But this is a view I definitely believe!

Quote from: Mirror Image on November 14, 2011, 04:12:17 PM
Thanks, Daniel. I'm sure you and my Dad could talk about Mahler for many hours. You should see his collection of Mahler. I agree that the 7th in Rattle's cycle is fantastic.

I hate to say this to you but I'm about to start a Bartok phase, but I will be listening to Mahler too. By the way, did you get that Bartok/Boulez set on DG? You will find many musical treasures in this box.

haha :) I could talk to anyone who loves Mahler for many hours! :) I am fascinated by his collection - which complete cycles does he have? Don't suppose you could upload a photo of it to one of the 'cd collection' threads here?
Glad that you will still listen to Mahler too! The Bartok/Boulez set is resting in my amazon basket at the moment, after the move from the wishlist. Looking forward to hearing it.
"Music is ... A higher revelation than all Wisdom & Philosophy"
— Ludwig van Beethoven

Mirror Image

Quote from: madaboutmahler on November 15, 2011, 07:58:37 AMhaha :) I could talk to anyone who loves Mahler for many hours! :) I am fascinated by his collection - which complete cycles does he have? Don't suppose you could upload a photo of it to one of the 'cd collection' threads here?

Glad that you will still listen to Mahler too! The Bartok/Boulez set is resting in my amazon basket at the moment, after the move from the wishlist. Looking forward to hearing it.

What Mahler box sets does my Dad own? He owns all of them. 8) Of course when he was collecting, there have been several instances where a performance has been duplicated, but this is a common problem with collectors. Since there are so many new Mahler recordings coming out, I don't think he collects Mahler much anymore. Once another conductor completes a cycle, is when when he said he will buy some more recordings. But he owns every complete cycle and half-cycle available. He owns a ton of one shot performances too.

Edit: I just asked him what set he lacked and the the only one is MTT's cycle. He owns several of MTT's newer recordings, but he hasn't completed the cycle.

madaboutmahler

Quote from: Mirror Image on November 15, 2011, 08:26:11 AM
What Mahler box sets does my Dad own? He owns all of them. 8) Of course when he was collecting, there have been several instances where a performance has been duplicated, but this is a common problem with collectors. Since there are so many new Mahler recordings coming out, I don't think he collects Mahler much anymore. Once another conductor completes a cycle, is when when he said he will buy some more recordings. But he owns every complete cycle and half-cycle available. He owns a ton of one shot performances too.

Edit: I just asked him what set he lacked and the the only one is MTT's cycle. He owns several of MTT's newer recordings, but he hasn't completed the cycle.

:o

All of them.... (apart from MTT)... gosh... I really would love to meet your dad! ;) Which is his favourite cycle? And which is his favourite Mahler symphony? He should join GMG!  ;D
"Music is ... A higher revelation than all Wisdom & Philosophy"
— Ludwig van Beethoven

Karl Henning

Quote from: Mirror Image on November 14, 2011, 11:43:28 AM
For me, I don't listen to a lot of post-WII composers. I'm not sure why, but I'm just not too keen on what's going on in classical music these days. I hope Karl Henning doesn't beat me up for saying that. 8)

I've wondered if you left Facebook as a result of my asking you to go hear a colleague's opera performed . . . .
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Geo Dude

Quote from: Il Furioso on November 15, 2011, 04:14:44 AM
Interesting thread. Well here's (one of) mine

The true measure of a composer lies in their work for a solo instrument (whatever instrument it may be). If it is lacking, then so is that composer.

I don't intend to argue this point with you, but I'm curious for an explanation of why you feel this way.  I am sure it will be interesting.

By the way, which composers, using this metric, do you feel are say...the top five?