Unpopular Opinions

[Mirror Image]

Thanks, John!    Gee, I wish you Dad would sign up here.  Perhaps he could help put the 'Mahler Mania thread' over top of 'Havergal Brian thread'! 

I've told him about GMG, but he's not too interested. He has so many other interests besides music that take up a lot of his time like film, television, collecting rare watches, among other things. I have other interest too like video games, film, television (preferably early to mid 90s), etc.

[jowcol]

Jowcol - add to next bingo card!!   

Actually, Bingo is not the name of the game this time around... A bit busy at work, but the next one is nearly done...

[Mirror Image]

The scherzo from no.7 is certainly amazing. Although my favourite movement from that symphony would be m1. Love the symphony as a whole really! My absolute favourite Mahler symphonies would be no.6 and 9 definitely. After that it is difficult to choose between them!

Certainly! Great performances, although I personally think the DG recordings are better, more excitment, passion, power, beauty. Plus the Vienna Philharmonic are absolutely amazing!
Ah, I see

I see what you mean about no.7, nothing else like it! To be accurate, each Mahler symphony is different than the other!

I disagree that Bernstein II is more passionate than Bernstein I. Just comparing the 2nd symphony, Bernstein I seems more energized and he really lets the orchestra cut loose, whereas Bernstein II, while still very good, sounds a little lackluster and not as driven. I tend to favor Bernstein's early recordings over his older ones in general anyway.

[jowcol]

You are a humorless twit who could use a page out of the insult comic's handbook. And Cage is mindless crap that any unmusical shithead could pull off. Now if you excuse me, I'm off to the washroom to perform to my latest opus in his honour.

Speaking of which-  It's positively eerie how the author here fuses the image of excretion with the act of creation.  This was the closing  thesis of this humble scholar in the "Through a Brown Mirror Darkly" Chapter of "The Essential James" (link below).

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,18249.msg503521.html#msg503521

His constant mindfulness of the creative act permeates every pore of his being.   And the fact that he is willing to share his waste products with us, summoned from the core of his creative essence for the honor of another artist, is something that we should be grateful for.

What he has managed to accomplish, with the precision of  a jeweler and the passion of a saint, is to distill the entire chapter into a phrase of pure magic, and, if I dare say so myself, GENIUS.

[madaboutmahler]

I disagree that Bernstein II is more passionate than Bernstein I. Just comparing the 2nd symphony, Bernstein I seems more energized and he really lets the orchestra cut loose, whereas Bernstein II, while still very good, sounds a little lackluster and not as driven. I tend to favor Bernstein's early recordings over his older ones in general anyway.

hmmm... Well, I think it depends which symphony we are discussing. For no.2, perhaps yes. But taking no.6 as an example, Bernstein II for me is so much more brilliant, making Bernstein I sound dull in comparison. But I suppose there are some symphonies that I prefer Bernstein I for. Another issue I have is the sound, to which I much prefer Bernstein II.

Statement....
Surely Haydn was more of a genius that Mozart?

[Karl Henning]

Surely Haydn was more of a genius that Mozart?

Surely such a comparison is futile?

[chasmaniac]

Statement....
Surely Haydn was more of a genius that Mozart?

In lieu of a definitive statement by the Gurnatron 5500, may I say, Welcome to the club! 

[Karl Henning]

I'll never believe that Gurn would sign on to such a sentiment.

[madaboutmahler]

In lieu of a definitive statement by the Gurnatron 5500, may I say, Welcome to the club! 

haha Thank you!

Surely such a comparison is futile?

Well, I'm just saying - maybe Mozart was capable of more beauty, power etc, but Haydn was the greater genius and did more to revolutionise music.

[chasmaniac]

Surely such a comparison is futile?

Well, yes. 

But it's fun! 

[Karl Henning]

Well, I'm just saying - maybe Mozart was capable of more beauty, power etc, but Haydn was the greater genius and did more to revolutionise music.

And why is "did more to revolutionise music" greater genius than "capable of more beauty, power, &c."?

[madaboutmahler]

And why is "did more to revolutionise music" greater genius than "capable of more beauty, power, &c."?

Well, the one who is more daringly original tends to be a greater genius... I suppose "capable of more beauty, power" would come under being a great composer, not all great composers have to be geniuses!

Thought of the day!

[Karl Henning]

Well, the one who is more daringly original tends to be a greater genius...

Thank you for conceding that Mozart is the greater genius. Exhibit A:  the piano concerti.  Exhibit B: the da Ponte operas and Die Zauberflöte.  Exhibit C: the Requiem.  Exhibit D: the clarinet concerto.

You know, I should not normally have compared the genius of Haydn with that of Mozart, but would content myself with enjoying their several demonstrations of musical genius; but now that you frame the matter so clearly, you're right: Haydn is but an also-ran.

[Karl Henning]

This is cast into sharper relief, for my having just reviewed sound samples of the Haydn keyboard concerti.  Pleasant works, well written, and indeed, the work of a master.  But works which Mozart's concerti leave in the dust.

[Gurn Blanston]

This is cast into sharper relief, for my having just reviewed sound samples of the Haydn keyboard concerti.  Pleasant works, well written, and indeed, the work of a master.  But works which Mozart's concerti leave in the dust.

Not to dispute the genius of Mozart, but you pick a loaded example. If you compared symphonies instead of piano concertos, Haydn leaves Mozart gasping in the dust. Same with string quartets. Same with piano trios. The piano concertos were composed by a virtuoso keyboardist needing a vehicle to make himself a public figure. They served that purpose admirably. Haydn's were composed to play in a country church in the middle of a mass. Hardly a fair comparison...

[madaboutmahler]

Thank you for conceding that Mozart is the greater genius. Exhibit A:  the piano concerti.  Exhibit B: the da Ponte operas and Die Zauberflöte.  Exhibit C: the Requiem.  Exhibit D: the clarinet concerto.

You know, I should not normally have compared the genius of Haydn with that of Mozart, but would content myself with enjoying their several demonstrations of musical genius; but now that you frame the matter so clearly, you're right: Haydn is but an also-ran.

I agree with Gurn, not really a fair comparison! Haydn did not write many piano concerti and these are not considered his greatest works anyway. It is really the symphony that we should turn to for Haydn's genius. I would have to say that I personally prefer any of Mozart's last six or so symphonies over any of Haydn's, but if we take the complete cycle as a whole, Haydn would have to come out on top. Plus, Haydn pretty well created the symphony! For a while, in his earlier symphonies, Mozart just followed Haydn's example. Of course this changed when later on though. Really, it's only when it gets into number 30's and 40's that Mozart's symphonies can truly be called masterpieces...
In my humble opinion of course...

And remember, I never argued or wished to argue that Mozart was not a genius! The Requiem is a perfect work to show that!

[canninator]

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?

A rule of thumb rather than iron clad rule. top 5 off the top of my head by this metric. Beethoven, Bach, Schoenberg, Debussy, and Feldman (controversial!). There are clear exceptions, those who wrote predominantly for solo instrument (Chopin, Liszt, Sor), those for whom the solo instrument is not necessarily a part of there musical philosophy (spectralists, although Grisey is so good in my mind because of his treatment of the viola), then there are those who pretty much ignored the genre but who to my mind are still giants (Bruckner). By and large I Don't connect with some, to many, great composers but for who I don't rate their solo instrument output (Ligetti(bar some key pieces) and Henze spring to my mind). Barraque is interesting because his piano sonata is so great but I'm not a fan of his remaining small output. There are so many exceptions but it's just something that seems to fit with me so IDont mind being thought wrong, after all I know I am!

btw add MEssiaen to my expanded top 5

excuse typing, darn ipads

[DavidRoss]

Not to dispute the genius of Mozart, but you pick a loaded example. If you compared symphonies instead of piano concertos, Haydn leaves Mozart gasping in the dust.

Tastes differ, even among reasonable folks.  As much as I like Haydn's symphonies, I would take just one of Mozart's -- the 40th -- over ALL of Haydn's.

[starrynight]

Ok let's make a better comparison, let's assume Haydn had died at 35 like Mozart and then compare their achievements. 

[starrynight]

but if we take the complete cycle as a whole, Haydn would have to come out on top. Plus, Haydn pretty well created the symphony! For a while, in his earlier symphonies, Mozart just followed Haydn's example. Of course this changed when later on though. Really, it's only when it gets into number 30's and 40's that Mozart's symphonies can truly be called masterpieces...

Mozart was no slouch even in his earlier symphonies, and he was influenced by more than just Haydn's symphonies.  But overall Haydn achieved more in the symphonic genre, not as he invented the genre (which is questionable anyway) but because of the scale of the achievement.  Mozart's acheivement in that area is also great though and he is still among the greatest in that genre.