favorite 20th century violin sonatas and cello sonatas

[milk]

Does anybody have any particular recommendations, either cello or piano, by Martinu?

I quite enjoy this recording.

[Madiel]

I'm going to have to check out this composer and those sonatas. I see he has a piano trio as well (But that's for snpyrr's thread).

1. Two of them, actually, but the second one isn't called 'Piano Trio'.

2. What thread? Where?

*goes to spread the Gospel of Holmboe elsewhere*

[milk]

1. Two of them, actually, but the second one isn't called 'Piano Trio'.

2. What thread? Where?

*goes to spread the Gospel of Holmboe elsewhere*

Check this out:
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,7015.0.html
and another great thread:
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,12256.0.html

[Dax]

Quote from: Dax on November 13, 2013, 02:17:31 AM
Does anybody have any particular recommendations, either cello or violin, by Martinu?

I quite enjoy this recording.

Yes, but amongst the examples by Martinu relevant to this thread, what are the most worthwhile works?

[amw]

There is sort of a "Martinu problem" (IMO anyway) in that it often seems like almost everything he wrote is on the same level and in more-or-less the same style—in other words, everything is good, but there aren't any really outstanding works, and they all sort of sound the same. That's probably too harsh a way of putting it, but after hearing (and enjoying about equally) 20-30 of his pieces I started to wonder how much of his admittedly vast output I really needed to hear, and diminishing returns set in. I realise this doesn't actually answer your question and is in fact extremely unhelpful.

I don't know any of his solo-and-piano music except the flute and clarinet sonatas, but if memory serves me right, there's an early violin sonata in C major which is supposed to be rather unconventional by Martinuvian standards, significantly larger in scale and more late-Romantic-ish etc, so if you already know some Martinu it might make an interesting contrast. If you don't know much Martinu, I'm not sure. Consult the I Ching. >.>

[kyjo]

Prolific as he was, Martinu was bound to be inconsistent, but I feel he composed a number of outstanding works-Symphonies 4-6, Concerto for Double String Orchestra, Piano and Timpani, PCs 3 and 4, Field Mass, Memorial to Lidice, The Epic of Gilgamesh, Frescoes of Pierra della Francesca, Parables, Nipponari, Magic Nights, both cello concertos, Piano Quintet no. 2, and SQ no. 5 are all of the highest order IMHO. He really didn't compose any "bad" works, either.

[Mirror Image]

Prolific as he was, Martinu was bound to be inconsistent, but I feel he composed a number of outstanding works-Symphonies 4-6, Concerto for Double String Orchestra, Piano and Timpani, PCs 3 and 4, Field Mass, Memorial to Lidice, The Epic of Gilgamesh, Frescoes of Pierra della Francesca, Parables, Nipponari, Magic Nights, both cello concertos, Piano Quintet no. 2, and SQ no. 5 are all of the highest order IMHO. He really didn't compose any "bad" works, either.

I endorse this post! I would only add the opera Julietta, Chamber Music No. 1, all of the neoclassical ballets from the 'French years,' and the Oboe Concerto.

[kyjo]

I endorse this post! I would only add the opera Julietta, Chamber Music No. 1, all of the neoclassical ballets from the 'French years,' and the Oboe Concerto.

Indeed! Martinu wrote so much great music and it's a shame that he's sometimes written off because simply because he was so prolific.

[Mirror Image]

Indeed! Martinu wrote so much great music and it's a shame that he's sometimes written off because simply because he was so prolific.

Absolutely, Kyle. I think being 'prolific' isn't criteria for any kind of criticism. But, at the end of the day, I love Martinu's music and I could care less if anyone else doesn't enjoy him. Thankfully, however, there are plenty of people here that do enjoy his music, which is quite evident in his dedicated composer thread.

[Mirror Image]

Another composer I love that was prolific that many haven't 'warmed' to is Milhaud. The more I listen to his music, the more I began to see how astonishing his music actually was.

[kyjo]

Another composer I love that was prolific that many haven't 'warmed' to is Milhaud. The more I listen to his music, the more I began to see how astonishing his music actually was.

Yeah, Milhaud undeservedly gets mud slung at him sometimes. He wasn't as consistent as Martinu or Villa-Lobos, for instance, but at his best he was able to create unique and sometimes powerful music. My favorite works of his are his mid-period symphonies (nos. 5-7, mainly). There is a certain breezy freshness that permeates many of his symphonies that I really like. I can't listen to too much of his music in one sitting, though, especially when it comes to his "lighter" works, which can be great fun.

[amw]

Prolific as he was, Martinu was bound to be inconsistent,

Well, from what I've heard at least, he's not inconsistent at all—in fact he's an extremely consistent composer, turning out an amazing number of pieces of great technical quality and high inspiration, often in what must have been an extremely short time. Paradoxically, if he'd written only about 40 works in his lifetime, he'd probably be much more renowned than he is now with 400. At the same time, well... there's hardly a dud, and at the same time, there's hardly an obvious "masterpiece" to direct newcomers to, since he maintained such stylistic consistency throughout his career. Where do you start?

Of the works you listed I suppose the Double Concerto and Lidice would be the closest to "masterpieces", since they're Tragic and Serious, but I'd agree with the high quality of all the ones you listed that I know, plus the Piano Quartet No. 1 and possibly the Symphony No. 1. All the same.... that consistency sort of works against him in some ways, since there are so many Great Works that they all sort of blur together after a while. I've had a similar problem with, yes, Milhaud, and also Weinberg and Vivaldi and even Haydn to some extent.

[Mirror Image]

Well, from what I've heard at least, he's not inconsistent at all—in fact he's an extremely consistent composer, turning out an amazing number of pieces of great technical quality and high inspiration, often in what must have been an extremely short time. Paradoxically, if he'd written only about 40 works in his lifetime, he'd probably be much more renowned than he is now with 400. At the same time, well... there's hardly a dud, and at the same time, there's hardly an obvious "masterpiece" to direct newcomers to, since he maintained such stylistic consistency throughout his career. Where do you start?

Of the works you listed I suppose the Double Concerto and Lidice would be the closest to "masterpieces", since they're Tragic and Serious, but I'd agree with the high quality of all the ones you listed that I know, plus the Piano Quartet No. 1 and possibly the Symphony No. 1. All the same.... that consistency sort of works against him in some ways, since there are so many Great Works that they all sort of blur together after a while. I've had a similar problem with, yes, Milhaud, and also Weinberg and Vivaldi and even Haydn to some extent.

'Tragic' and 'serious' aren't criteria for a classical masterpiece IMHO.

[amw]

'Tragic' and 'serious' aren't criteria for a classical masterpiece IMHO.

'Course not. But if you look at critical reception over time, the tragic and serious works (or works that involve serious emotional ambiguity, which Martinu rarely aims for) seem to get much more positive attention than the light-hearted/happy/triumphant/nervous/weird/etc works.

[Mirror Image]

'Course not. But if you look at critical reception over time, the tragic and serious works (or works that involve serious emotional ambiguity, which Martinu rarely aims for) seem to get much more positive attention than the light-hearted/happy/triumphant/nervous/weird/etc works.

But, you were the one who used the said criterion, not me. There are more emotions than tragic, serious, happy, triumphant, etc. Is Dvorak's Symphony No. 9 'From The New World' any less a masterpiece than Berg's Wozzeck because it expresses a completely different emotional musical world? I don't think so.

[amw]

But, you were the one who used the said criterion, not me. There are more emotions than tragic, serious, happy, triumphant, etc. Is Dvorak's Symphony No. 9 'From The New World' any less a masterpiece than Berg's Wozzeck because it expresses a completely different emotional musical world? I don't think so.

I did put "masterpieces" in quotation marks because I don't particularly like or approve of the idea of the masterpiece myself. But it is a concept that exists, as a sort of consensus of listeners and critics and historians, and while it's hard to compare a romantic symphony to a modernist opera Dvorak's 9th is certainly much more well-regarded than, say, his 6th, which is a much sunnier and more "light-hearted" work, though its equal in quality. Many serious critics even seem to prefer the 7th (pretty indisputably the "darkest" of his symphonies) to the 9th. Similarly, look at the overshadowing of Beethoven's even-numbered symphonies by his odd-numbered ones, or Wagner's Meistersinger by the Ring and Tristan, and so forth. It's just a thing that seems to happen.

[Mirror Image]

I did put "masterpieces" in quotation marks because I don't particularly like or approve of the idea of the masterpiece myself. But it is a concept that exists, as a sort of consensus of listeners and critics and historians, and while it's hard to compare a romantic symphony to a modernist opera Dvorak's 9th is certainly much more well-regarded than, say, his 6th, which is a much sunnier and more "light-hearted" work, though its equal in quality. Many serious critics even seem to prefer the 7th (pretty indisputably the "darkest" of his symphonies) to the 9th. Similarly, look at the overshadowing of Beethoven's even-numbered symphonies by his odd-numbered ones, or Wagner's Meistersinger by the Ring and Tristan, and so forth. It's just a thing that seems to happen.

Yes, it's something that still happens so it seems but I think if people can't embrace a wide palette of emotions they're one-dimensional IMHO. I like all kinds of music and don't give a crap what people, especially the holier-than-thou critics, consider a masterpiece. If I enjoy the music, that's all that matters to me.

As for the comparison between Dvorak and Berg, that was just an example. Not really a fair one, but, I was more or less, just making a point. No reason to read too much into this.

[milk]

Another composer I love that was prolific that many haven't 'warmed' to is Milhaud. The more I listen to his music, the more I began to see how astonishing his music actually was.

Any piano chamber works of Milhaud that you would recommend? For the thread, this one's got a violin sonata. But the suite for violin, clarinet and piano looks tempting as well.

[North Star]

Oh geez, no mention of the Nonet for flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, horn, violin, viola, cello, double bass

As for tragic & serious being qualifications, I guess Le nozze di Figaro can't possibly be a masterpiece then.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Yes, but amongst the examples by Martinu relevant to this thread, what are the most worthwhile works?

The three cello sonatas are great Martinu. The violin sonatas as well.