Started by karlhenning, April 02, 2008, 12:44:20 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 21, 2008, 02:51:31 PMI'll sign on there, too.
Quote from: James on September 23, 2008, 03:30:22 AMMe too.
Quote from: Catison on September 23, 2008, 10:15:28 AMI don't think I've ever met anyone who likes only a little Webern. He's more of an all or nothing type of composer.
Quote from: James on September 23, 2008, 05:16:16 AMAll Im saying is that there is better out there, DG is often guilty of distance/reverb issues with their recordings...and I especially don't like listening to Webern like that, it's far too ambient and inappropriate. I don't like to hear all the instruments smoothed and blurred together like that...painting ambience on top of the music.
Quote from: sul G on March 12, 2009, 02:00:32 AM...so I might as well repost here what I just responded to it there :My point from yesterday, though (re Schoenberg but obviously applicable here too) is that if the Passacaglia (say - Gurrelieder or Verklarte Nacht in S's case) impresses you, that in itself helps. If you can see that the composer knows what he's about in these earlier works that ought to make it easier to give him a little trust on the trickier ones - so, IOW, not thinking that some of the music 'struggles to be musical' (the composer has proved his musicality) but simply that you struggle to hear it as such, at the moment. So much of appreciating this music lies in not dismissing it because one doesn't get it at first listen, and in trusting in the composer - not that I'm implying you're doing anything other than this.You're right, though, to imply that the later stuff needs listening to with differrent expectations - IMO it is these expectations which are what one is really struggling to find in oneself, and once one can listen that way, the whole thing clicks. That's true even though the seeds of the later music are there in the Passacaglia and even earlier.
QuoteQuote from: Catison on September 23, 2008, 10:15:28 AMI don't think I've ever met anyone who likes only a little Webern. He's more of an all or nothing type of composer.
Quote from: snyprrr on March 12, 2009, 09:26:59 PMthough i generally prefer anything by Webern to Schoenberg, i do prefer Schoenberg's final flowering in the '49 string trio to Webern's austere rigidness in his last corresponding chamber work, str. qrt. op.28.it seems to me that these guys played hopscotch with my prefenerences, however, were Webern allowed to live i think he would have incorporated the added fantastical/expressive freedom that Schoenberg, for me, only achieved in this last-ish work. to hear what Webern would have done had he started adding back the 6 bagatelles-era special effects to his crystalline world be interesting. i'm thinking late Nono.
Quote from: Kolneder by way of KarlThus towards the end of his life Webern's mystical tendencies led to a kind of 'Meta-music' which did not need to be written down on paper and realized in sound. [Cesar?] Bresgen says of this: 'It is highly improbable that Webern worked at any piece of music on paper in those last months of his life in Mittersill: in any case there is no one to whom he spoke about it. On the other hand one could often see Webern in most stimulating work, which consisted of drawing with pencil and compasses on a poor quality table or on a wooden board. I well remember his system of lines, in which could be seen geometrical figures or fixed points with markings. Once—it was the middle of August 1945—Webern said on one of my visits thaht he had just finished some work which had occupied him a great deal. He had completely organized a piece, i.e. he had fixed all the notes in it in respect of their pitch (sound) and also their duration in time. I cannot remember the series, but I remember Webern's remark about "time fulfilled". With this graphic plan on the table Webern regarded the real work as completed. More than once he made the assertion that he would never wish to hear his piece (played by musicians). He said that the work "sounds by itself"—he himself could "hear it right through"—it was enough for him that the piece was now finished in itself: "the sound is always there"—"a performance would not bring it out as perfectly as it had already become sound in himself". Apart from this Webern was convinced that what he had done was no private or arbitrary step; he said "one will hear this music as if it had always been, it will be like a morning breeze, a liberation . . . in fifty years one will find it obvious, children will understand and sing it".'
Quote from: Catison on June 25, 2009, 04:38:44 AMCan you tell which Webern piece this is?
Quote from: Catison on June 25, 2009, 04:38:44 AMhttp://www.youtube.com/v/NAS_dKaPEmgCan you tell which Webern piece this is?
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on June 26, 2009, 05:09:35 PMHmm...can't tell if Carrol Burnett and Co. are actual fans of modern classical or they hate it. Either way this is a particularly effective parody.
Quote from: Greg on March 12, 2009, 03:05:32 PMI only like a little Webern- I mean, I like it moderately but I'm not fanatical about his music.
Page created in 0.054 seconds with 23 queries.