Favorite French Composers Poll

[Don]

Your problem is misinterpreting my words. I don't have a "resentment towards the established canon". I like lots of it. Just not all while I see treasures outside the canon. If I like 25 % of the established canon and also 25 % of obscure composers/works it does not matter which I explore, does it?

Some people show amazing ignorance of things outside "the established canon".

I might get a kick out of it but my intention is to shaken the "ossified" opinion. It's healthy for you all. 

 

So you're like a daily vitamin pill? 

[Don]

And why is that? Because counterpoint takes higher understanding of art and it's relative structures. If masses like easy melodic music that's fine but Composers like Taneyev and Reger should not be punished for trying hard to produce intelligent art.
 

You really have a way about you that ticks people off.  I don't think it's an "automatic" that counterpoint takes a higher understanding.   Can't you simply enjoy both polyphonic and homophonic music and leave it at that.

Also, being dead guys, neither Taneyev nor Reger is being punished.  But I suppose their descendants might be a little grumpy.

[(poco) Sforzando]

a) Your problem is misinterpreting my words. I don't have a "resentment towards the established canon". I like lots of it. Just not all while I see treasures outside the canon. If I like 25 % of the established canon and also 25 % of obscure composers/works it does not matter which I explore, does it?

b) Some people show amazing ignorance of things outside "the established canon".

c) I might get a kick out of it but my intention is to shaken the "ossified" opinion. It's healthy for you all.   

QED.

Not worth my trouble responding to you further.

[Kullervo]

[(poco) Sforzando]

Seems to me that 71 dB, along with a very limited number of other board members, get a big kick out of bucking the "established" composers, labels, artists, etc.  This process might make them feel distinctive, but I think the price one pays is far too great.

I was emailing about this phenomenon with a friend the other week, who wrote, "People who want to believe they are among an 'elite' few capable of greater insights than the common man will always rebel against the received wisdom.  So Bach and Beethoven [and of course Debussy] are obviously over-rated since we are told that they are very great composers.  And people who are into Klami and Raff [or perhaps as well 'the enormously talented Tarnopolski,' whose CDs are so impossible to find that there is no way for any of us poor slobs to determine the veracity of that statement] are very rare, so naturally such people are privy to some deeper understanding of what makes great Art.  It's just another form of elitism."

[Don]

I was emailing about this phenomenon with a friend the other week, who wrote, "People who want to believe they are among an 'elite' few capable of greater insights than the common man will always rebel against the received wisdom.  So Bach and Beethoven [and of course Debussy] are obviously over-rated since we are told that they are very great composers.  And people who are into Klami and Raff [or perhaps as well 'the enormously talented Tarnopolski,' whose CDs are so impossible to find that there is no way for any of us poor slobs to determine the veracity of that statement] are very rare, so naturally such people are privy to some deeper understanding of what makes great Art.  It's just another form of elitism."

I was listening just the other day to the 1st Movement of Raff's Symphony No. 1 - nothing there that held my attention.

[some guy]

sfz, only two of the three are impossible to find, that is, have so far proved impossible for me to find.

The other one, the only one I have, can be found on amazon.de:

http://www.amazon.de/gp/offer-listing/B00007JR5N/ref=sr_1_olp_1?ie=UTF8&s=gateway&qid=1199947551&sr=8-1

I don't mind too much being called an elitist--you're one, too, you know, just for liking Bach and Beethoven--but I'm an elitist who likes to spread the love.

Michael

[BachQ]

So you're like a daily vitamin pill? 

More like a daily enema .........

[71 dB]

71dB, give it some time...

I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet, you are free to prefer & enjoy whomever you like of course, but keep an open mind, your perspective just may change on all this...

Rest assured James I will update my views when needed. Don't forget I am one of those who talk about open mind here. About jumping to conclusions: I don't think I have been any more impatient about that than any of us. I am 37. Can I jump to conclusions when I am 40? 50? 60? Is jumping to conclusions at an yearly age more justified if it's favorable for the established canon? My opinion about Debussy may seem hasty but don't forget he is canonic, we all hear Debussy passively without buying the CDs. Anyway, I realised I should explore him better and I probably will in time. I don't remember hearing his piano music.

So you're like a daily vitamin pill? 

I am vitamin F (Free-thinking vitamin)

Can't you simply enjoy both polyphonic and homophonic music and leave it at that.

Can't you simply enjoy Elgar and my other favorites? My brain was greater hunger for music of complex structures but sometimes I enjoy easy music for desert. My answer below explains my problem:

Also, being dead guys, neither Reger or Taneyev is being punished.  But I suppose their descendants might be a little grumpy.

You are right but the fans of their music are "punished." Taneyev isn't recorded much. This means less brilliant CDs because statistically the more releases the better the best is. It's easy to find superb recordings of Beethoven's symphonies but how about Taneyev's? What if Beethoven was recorded less and Taneyev more? There would still be superb Beethoven discs but the overall quality of Taneyev releases would increase because of increased competition. How to increase Taneyev releases? Well, by demanding them, telling the companies they'd make good money releasing them.

[71 dB]

I have these works by Debussy: Piano Trio No. 1 & Violin Sonata.

I knew I had more Debussy than that!

Arabesque No. 1 and Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune. Both for Flute and Harp (Naxos: Dance of the Blessed Spirits).

[Josquin des Prez]

Similarly there is no point listening to Taneyev or Dittersdorf without understanding what the music is about. If Debussy had rhythmic energy or pulse in his music too it could be really good.

There's no point in listening to Debussy without understanding what the music is about, either. As i said, what about harmony, or his radical use of chord progressions? What about color? Ho wait, you never even listened to his mature works. For the record, there's nothing in the classical pantheon that has the same rhythmic energy or pulse of a Jazz musician. Perhaps you are listening to the wrong music?

And why is that? Because counterpoint takes higher understanding of art and it's relative structures. If masses like easy melodic music that's fine but Composers like Taneyev and Reger should not be punished for trying hard to produce intelligent art.

Actually, writing in counterpoint takes little artistic ability, it's just a question of memorizing the right techniques . Writing good counterpoint is a different matter altogether, particularly when in conjunction with other forms of expression (like Bach, who's use of harmony has few equals in the Baroque, and that's on top of his contrapuntal refinery. BTW, is Bach one of those "established" simpletons the masses seem to enjoy so much?).

Your problem is misinterpreting my words. I don't have a "resentment towards the established canon".

No, you actually really, really do. Your grudging recalcitrance to even give the established canon proper consideration bespeaks of nothing but the most ignominious of closed mindedness. You have already dismissed Debussy without properly exploring his music because you have already decided a priori that he isn't worth your time, precisely because he belongs to this "canon" loved so much by us brainwashed cows.

[71 dB]

There's no point in listening to Debussy without understanding what the music is about, either. As i said, what about harmony, or his radical use of chord progressions? What about color? Ho wait, you never even listened to his mature works. For the record, there's nothing in the classical pantheon that has the same rhythmic energy or pulse of a Jazz musician. Perhaps you are listening to the wrong music?

I have never said Debussy is a poor composer. I have always thought he is a fine one but I just have been even more interested of Rameau and Fauré. Debussy has many fine aspects in his music but rhythm is something I think he lacks more than other classical composers. Yes, Jazz is rhythmically rich and I do listen to it sometimes alto I am not into improvised music that much. My father is a Jazz nut. I heard Jazz all my childhood, Clifford Brown, Thelonius Monk, Max Roach's drum solos etc. I also like quality underground dance music (what masses call techno or electronica as they don't know much about the many many subgenres). That's music with stunning rhythm.

I don't think I listen to "wrong" music if I enjoy it.

Actually, writing in counterpoint takes little artistic ability, it's just a question of memorizing the right techniques . Writing good counterpoint is a different matter altogether, particularly when in conjunction with other forms of expression (like Bach, who's use of harmony has few equals in the Baroque, and that's on top of his contrapuntal refinery. BTW, is Bach one of those "established" simpletons the masses seem to enjoy so much?).

I agree with this. I believe J.S. Bach is liked by masses mainly for his mastery of melody rather than contrapuntal skills. He is the second greatest composer ever after Elgar for me and far from simpletons, established or not.

No, you actually really, really do. Your grudging recalcitrance to even give the established canon proper consideration bespeaks of nothing but the most ignominious of closed mindedness. You have already dismissed Debussy without properly exploring his music because you have already decided a priori that he isn't worth your time, precisely because he belongs to this "canon" loved so much by us brainwashed cows.

I haven't cemented my opinion about Debussy. I only said what I have heard is not rhythm-heavy and I find some other masters more interesting at this moment. In fact this thread made me curious about Debussy and I try to explore him better this year...

There is nothing wrong loving the canon but if you totally ignore the obscurities while doing so I'd call that narrow-minded.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Debussy has many fine aspects in his music but rhythm is something I think he lacks more than other classical composers.

This is, quite simply, wrong. The suppleness and flexiblity of rhythmic activity is in fact one of the most original aspects of Debussy's musical language. Consider (among numerous possible examples) the phrase I've attached from the first movement of La Mer. I wish I could include the entire 2-minute paragraph, but we're limited in attachment size here. Even so, listen for the artistry with which Debussy uses syncopation, how he contrasts the active movement of the triplets with long-sustained notes, and the shape of the whole phrase - which of course depends too on its melodic structure and the beautiful coloristic use of divided cellos set off by horns.

What you don't get in Debussy are pounding, heavily accented rhythms in the way you'd expect from Stravinsky, Prokofiev, or Bartok. That doesn't matter. Debussy's use of rhythm is masterly, and cannot be divorced from other aspects of his extraordinarily original musical vocabulary.

But I promised not to feed the troll here any more.

[71 dB]

Debussy's use of rhythm is masterly, and cannot be divorced from other aspects of his extraordinarily original musical vocabulary.

Debussy must be the greatest composer ever... 

Thanks for the clip.

[Josquin des Prez]

I think it must be said that 71db thinking isn't really free. If it was, he would be able to judge music without pre-conceived notions regarding how much the brainless masses can comprehend and how much bearing that has had to the formation of the "canon" (none, really, since the masters have never been really popular among the masses, then or now).

[71 dB]

Sounds like a plan...

& freely thinking is fine, we all do it, but it often can (and does) equal lazy thinking...

I don't know about you but I have more important things to think about than if I have heard enough Debussy... 

I don't say I think more than others, just free.

I think it must be said that 71db thinking isn't really free. If it was, he would be able to judge music without pre-conceived notions regarding how much the brainless masses can comprehend and how much bearing that has had to the formation of the "canon" (none, really, since the masters have never been really popular among the masses, then or now).

Well, you are free to think that. 

If Mozart has not been popular among the masses then who has been? Dittersdorf? The masters must have been popular among some people since they are not completely forgotten/ignored.

[Ten thumbs]

Instead of arguing over composers who are not even French, you should be discussing Saint-Saens.

[Don]

Instead of arguing over composers who are not even French, you should be discussing Saint-Saens.

Okay.  I'll start:

[Josquin des Prez]

If Mozart has not been popular among the masses then who has been? Dittersdorf? The masters must have been popular among some people since they are not completely forgotten/ignored.

They are popular among people that count, I.E., academics, musicians and other composers.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Instead of arguing over composers who are not even French, you should be discussing Saint-Saens.

Pourquoi? we were discussing Debussy.