Langgaard's Lyre

[cilgwyn]

Indeed! I have had the complete set of Langgaard symphonies for some time and I have listened to them all;but for some reason this one,somehow,passed me by.
Thanks to these posts I put the 'Ixion' ON repeat! Well,actually,I have nice Sennheiser cordless headphones,so I wasn't near the off button! Nevertheless,for some strange reason,I DID actually enjoy the piece! I think,I actually typed words like "fantastic" & 'yeeeehooooo!",even if that IS a word!
But even if you DO actually enjoy this 'symphony' is it really only because it's a wacky novelty? A sort of symphonic equivalent of a 'clever' (well he COULD score for a symphony orchestra!) 'party piece'?
  As I observed,once the 'excitement' had died down;after 'Ixiom',the opening bars of Mahler's First felt like a cooling balm!!!!!
More Mahler tomorrow,I think!!!!!!!!

[Dundonnell]

Thank you Dundonnell for being right.

Oh....I usually am

(What was that about Ixion...chained to a flaming wheel as a punishment for hubris )

[cilgwyn]

Like I said,more Mahler tomorrow!

[Dundonnell]

Anyone who can be so rude about Carl Nielsen gets a big black mark in my book

[Lethevich]

Hmm, I need to relisten - it was one of the late works that stood out most to me when I initially began his cycle, I found it fun.

Edit: I recall why - it's like a viginette of bubbling magma, I can understand the silly nicknames he gave it now. The forced ending is actually really funny, on a Haydnesque level.

[Sergeant Rock]

Hmm, I need to relisten

Me too....but only because I have no memory of it. I must have listened to it sometime but it escapes me now. Anyway, I must hear what all the fuss is about.

Sarge

[Dundonnell]

My idea of Hell would be listening to this symphony on endless repeat

(Or indeed having to listen to the Rachmaninov Symphony No.2 and Piano Concertos Nos. 2 and 3 I could put up with MOST Delius rather than have to listen to endless Rachmaninov. How the composer of masterpieces like the First Symphony, "The Bells" or "The Isle of the Dead" could end up writing such saccharine-drenched pap is quite beyond me )

[Lethevich]

I couldn't resist playing No.12 and Sphynx on the same Stupel disc - all much the same length. I preferred Sphynx* Sphinx to both the numbered symphonies, very broody. For all its conciseness and the rich programme, Hélsingeborg always goes in one ear and out the other for me

*Why do I always make this typo -_-

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I like the Twelfth for most of its length, but - it doesn't go anywhere, it is literally 'pointless'. Sphinx is the better work, I agree, but not by a very wide margin... Symphonies 2-6, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16 are the ones I return to most often. Eleven out of sixteen isn't bad. And 7, 8 and 15 have their charms, too.

As for old Rued being Rude about Carl - artists aren't always very complimentary about each other. For all my love of Langgaard, Nielsen achieved more than he, no doubt about it. But Langgaard has a warmth which I find a bit lacking in Nielsen's greatest symphonies (4-6).

[Dundonnell]

And I repeat (once again ) that I am delighted that you find so much to enjoy in the music, Johan

Just because I happen to be physically sick at the taste or smell of an onion does not mean that others should not eat and enjoy that particular vegetable

The same premise applies to music

[Sergeant Rock]

*Why do I always make this typo -_-

Maybe you have a old German soul, crying out for the return of the Y    (The spelling of many German words was officially changed last century; the Y abolished.)  One of my favorite vintners has been fighting the good fight for twenty years, insisting on spelling Silvaner with a y even though it gets him into trouble with the wine authorities. 

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

I couldn't resist playing No.12 and Sphynx on the same Stupel disc - all much the same length. I preferred Sphynx* Sphinx to both the numbered symphonies, very broody.

After "Ixion" I got sidetracked by "The Cat." I'll go back to the Stupel disc after dinner tonight and check out....Sphynx 

Sarge

[Lethevich]

Re. artistic relationships - after all, Chopin had nothing nice to say about anyone but we like him

The symphonies I especially admire are 5, 6, 10 and 15, but have recently made much ground with 2-4 and 13.

I used to consider No.10 and No.13 as complimentary, but No.6 has been edging its way in between them. They seem to represent a core style, elementally grand, also extremely "integrated", but with an almost alien quality, a lack of real-world reference. Perhaps No.16 could join them too.

Maybe you have a old German soul, crying out for the return of the Y    (The spelling of many German words was officially changed last century; the Y abolished.)  One of my favorite vintners has been fighting the good fight for twenty years, insisting on spelling Silvaner with a y even though it gets him into trouble with the wine authorities. 

Now that just sounds like a town in Lord of the Rings or something

[cilgwyn]

My idea of Hell would be listening to this symphony on endless repeat

(Or indeed having to listen to the Rachmaninov Symphony No.2 and Piano Concertos Nos. 2 and 3 I could put up with MOST Delius rather than have to listen to endless Rachmaninov. How the composer of masterpieces like the First Symphony, "The Bells" or "The Isle of the Dead" could end up writing such saccharine-drenched pap is quite beyond me )

Give me the Holbrooke version,any day!(Got that one! )
Ahem! I listened to 'Ixon' ON (! these names! ) repeat,so maybe I'm already there,Dundonnell! I actually LOVED it at the time! But funnily enough,I'm not sure I want to go back to it,today! I DO wonder,even IF you like it,is it just a 'clever' novelty?
  To be fair,it must rate as one of THE most truly bonkers piece of music I have ever heard! After ten listens,I was on the verge of 'booking in' myself!
By the way,I'm in Ward Six!
                       

[Karl Henning]

 Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on February 26, 2012, 07:50:36 PM

Interesting post, Colin. I'd like to say the following:

Art isn't democratic. Every artist likes to be the centre of attention, and only a handful succeeds. A minority survives death. Why? There must be something in the work - not just the life - which fascinates and merits repeated viewings, readings, listens. There must be abundance, mastery, vitality, mystery. If an artist possesses all these attributes, he will continue to attract new 'customers', whatever the critics say. That many artists are not so lucky can't be helped - life is short and you must make choices. That's why I do think that comparing artists is useful - it sharpens critical awareness and it saves time...

 
Thanks for this post, Johan.

[Dundonnell]

Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on February 26, 2012, 07:50:36 PM

Interesting post, Colin. I'd like to say the following:

Art isn't democratic. Every artist likes to be the centre of attention, and only a handful succeeds. A minority survives death. Why? There must be something in the work - not just the life - which fascinates and merits repeated viewings, readings, listens. There must be abundance, mastery, vitality, mystery. If an artist possesses all these attributes, he will continue to attract new 'customers', whatever the critics say. That many artists are not so lucky can't be helped - life is short and you must make choices. That's why I do think that comparing artists is useful - it sharpens critical awareness and it saves time...

 
Thanks for this post, Johan.

Karl: I presume that what you mean by thanking Johan for his post is that you not only agree with the views being expressed but regard those views as having some particular value or significance.

You are fully entitled to such an opinion and such an evaluation. I regard you both as friends but I have some serious issues with Johan's post quoted above.

I agree that "Art is not democratic" but disagree that "every artist likes to be the centre of attention". I am not even sure that I understand exactly what is meant or intended by such a statement

Of course the following two statements about the "abundance, mastery, vitality, mystery" possessed by the music which attracts the devotees of that particular composer's music and allows it to survive is self-evidently true, even if the number of such devotees may remain obstinately small or may fluctuate from generation to generation.

What I dispute, perhaps even profoundly dispute, is the statement "that many artists are not so lucky can't be helped". Is there an assumption in that statement that their lack of such good fortune is axiomatically because their music suffers from an absence of the very qualities listed above If that were really the case then luck or good fortune doesn't enter into it. The good composers survive because they are good, the others sink and are denied recognition because they are not good. That is manifestly untrue.

Of course Havergal Brian's music, for example, is 'good' and deserves exposure but he was extremely fortunate in having champions with the wonderful ability to fight his cause so effectively. To then argue that other 'good' but relatively forgotten composers have to just endure their bad luck in not having such effective and well-placed champions or that they cannot be that good because they have failed to find such advocates, I would seriously dispute.

Yes...life is indeed short and one must make choices But one cannot make informed choices about the respective merits of composers and their music without being given the opportunity to actually study or better, hear that music. That is why I-in my miniscule, amateurish and frequently ineffective and perhaps pedestrian way-try to fight the corner for a whole range of composers, as I have done for some years on here and elsewhere. Sometimes, perhaps even often, such composers-on increased exposure to their music-turn out to be disappointing or uneven.  In other cases their neglect is unjustified and their cause requires advocacy.

That advocacy or "help" is not something I have the ability, the eloquence, the power to do very much to provide......but, by heaven, I shall never give up as long as I draw breath!!

[Karl Henning]

 Quote from: Dundonnell on Today at 12:19:26 PM

I agree that "Art is not democratic" but disagree that "every artist likes to be the centre of attention."

 
Well, the way I understood Johan here, Colin (and I indeed think of you both as good friends whom I've not yet had the opportunity to meet) is actually, every artist wishes his work to be the center of attention.  That is, as a composer myself, I want audiences to listen to my work; and when they are listening to it, I wish their attention to be undivided.  Maybe the listener won't like my music, but please, listen to it.  I didn't take Johan's brief remark as at all impugning the character of all artists . . . .

[Karl Henning]

 Quote from: Dundonnell on Today at 12:19:26 PM

. . . The good composers survive because they are good, the others sink and are denied recognition because they are not good. That is manifestly untrue.

 
I think that Johan agrees, and I certainly do; so I don't think you've quite derived this from his wee paragraph . . . .

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Quote from: karlhenning on Today at 17:26:30 Quote from: Dundonnell on Today at 12:19:26 PM

. . . The good composers survive because they are good, the others sink and are denied recognition because they are not good. That is manifestly untrue.

 
I think that Johan agrees, and I certainly do; so I don't think you've quite derived this from his wee paragraph . . . .


I do. Karl understood me aright. The survival of artists is a very messy business. There are terrific artists, alive and dead, who deserve a lot more exposure. They don't get it for all kinds of reasons, very often nothing to do with the quality of their work. That's where luck and the right circumstances come in. I do think, though, that in the end 'quality will out' and will always find fresh advocates.


P.S. As for the artist wanting to be the  'centre of attention', I meant it as Karl understood it. I am not impugning the character of all artists. The fact remains, though, that artists are in competition with each other for the love of an audience. Every artist is a suitor.

[Wanderer]

"Ixion" was, if I recall, not a title given to the symphony by Langgaard himself but by his widow after the composer's death.

"...on the basis of an unreasoned note from her husband's hand." It sounds legitimate enough.

He had given the symphony a whole host of remarkable titles involving various permutations of 'Sun', 'Satan', 'Devil', 'Terror', Lightening' etc etc.

Not surprising. In some versions of the myth, Ixion is given demonic status. Either way, the connotations aren't essentially different.

Another interesting fact:
Langgaard sent the score to the broadcasting network with a vain request for a performance and refused from that day onward to take it back. 

The survival of artists is a very messy business. There are terrific artists, alive and dead, who deserve a lot more exposure. They don't get it for all kinds of reasons, very often nothing to do with the quality of their work. That's where luck and the right circumstances come in. I do think, though, that in the end 'quality will out' and will always find fresh advocates.

Quoted for truth; and very succinctly put.