Taneyev vs Rachmaninoff ~ or Taneyev's mastery of counterpoint

[M forever]

If you are still interested in multi-dimensional vibrational fields, you should explore Rachmaninoff. His music has multi-dimensional fields which are much more complex than Elgar's.

[71 dB]

If you are still interested in multi-dimensional vibrational fields, you should explore Rachmaninoff. His music has multi-dimensional fields which are much more complex than Elgar's.

Rachmaninov and Elgar do have similarities but Rach is no match to Elgar imho. Taneyev is closer to Elgar's complexity level thanks to his mastery of counterpoint.

[BachQ]

If you are still interested in multi-dimensional vibrational fields, you should explore Rachmaninoff. His music has multi-dimensional fields which are much more complex than Elgar's.

Rachmaninov and Elgar do have similarities but Rach is no match to Elgar imho.

Thank you for that wisdom.  We should all adjust our composer hierarchies accordingly.

[71 dB]

Thank you for that wisdom.  We should all adjust our composer hierarchies accordingly.

Well, we can have our own hierarchies. Rachmaninov was one of the composers that lured me into the world of classical music. His music is relatively easy. His best work, The Bells, is a very fine work.

[M forever]

Rachmaninov and Elgar do have similarities but Rach is no match to Elgar imho. Taneyev is closer to Elgar's complexity level thanks to his mastery of counterpoint.

Come on, we all know you don't really understand counterpoint (can you actually read music?). Rachmaninoff may be fairly easy to like because of the great melodies and all that, but I don't hink you have even begun to grasp the complexity of his music if you say stuff like that.

[imperfection]

Well, we can have our own hierarchies. Rachmaninov was one of the composers that lured me into the world of classical music. His music is relatively easy. His best work, The Bells, is a very fine work.

Wait, what do you mean by Rach's music being "easy"? Because his piano music is certainly not easy to perform by the longest stretch of imagination, demanding very large hands, pin-point accuracy in huge leaps (we're talking over 2 octaves here) in rapid tempo, extremely agile fingerwork for the chromatic runs and whatnot. If you meant that his music is easy to like, as M Forever said, then that I guess is true, as Rach is indeed recommended for many beginners to classical music. However, this "easiness" is only on the very, very surface, as underneath all that gorgeous melodies and moving harmonies Rachmaninoff wrote, lies a lot of what you would call "complexity". That complexity can certainly not be described as being "easy", and not many people can explain it intelligently (including me and you), and/or do an analysis on it without making fools out of themselves. So before making bold and decisive statements like that, think about what you actually mean and why you are saying it.

Just my little suggestion.

[karlhenning]

Well, we can have our own hierarchies. Rachmaninov was one of the composers that lured me into the world of classical music. His music is relatively easy. His best work, The Bells, is a very fine work.

Well, if you mean we can all have our own preferences, we agree.

The idea that The Bells (a genuinely fine piece, BTW) is Rakhmaninov's best, is somewhat eccentric.

[scarpia]

Wait, what do you mean by Rach's music being "easy"? Because his piano music is certainly not easy to perform by the longest stretch of imagination, demanding very large hands, pin-point accuracy in huge leaps (we're talking over 2 octaves here) in rapid tempo, extremely agile fingerwork for the chromatic runs and whatnot. If you meant that his music is easy to like, as M Forever said, then that I guess is true, as Rach is indeed recommended for many beginners to classical music. However, this "easiness" is only on the very, very surface, as underneath all that gorgeous melodies and moving harmonies Rachmaninoff wrote, lies a lot of what you would call "complexity". That complexity can certainly not be described as being "easy", and not many people can explain it intelligently (including me and you), and/or do an analysis on it without making fools out of themselves. So before making bold and decisive statements like that, think about what you actually mean and why you are saying it.

Just my little suggestion.

Before you get yourself into a lather, he probably just meant it is relatively easy for someone new to classical music to appreciate, not that it is easy to play.

[71 dB]

Come on, we all know you don't really understand counterpoint (can you actually read music?). Rachmaninoff may be fairly easy to like because of the great melodies and all that, but I don't hink you have even begun to grasp the complexity of his music if you say stuff like that.

Counterpoint is about harmonic relations of individual melodic lines. I understand it well. I can read music somehow but not as well as you, obviously.

Rachmanino(v/ff)'s music isn't simple in comparison to many other composers but Elgar and Taneyev just happen to be even more complex.

[71 dB]

Wait, what do you mean by Rach's music being "easy"? Because his piano music is certainly not easy to perform by the longest stretch of imagination, demanding very large hands, pin-point accuracy in huge leaps (we're talking over 2 octaves here) in rapid tempo, extremely agile fingerwork for the chromatic runs and whatnot. If you meant that his music is easy to like, as M Forever said, then that I guess is true, as Rach is indeed recommended for many beginners to classical music. However, this "easiness" is only on the very, very surface, as underneath all that gorgeous melodies and moving harmonies Rachmaninoff wrote, lies a lot of what you would call "complexity". That complexity can certainly not be described as being "easy", and not many people can explain it intelligently (including me and you), and/or do an analysis on it without making fools out of themselves. So before making bold and decisive statements like that, think about what you actually mean and why you are saying it.

Just my little suggestion.

It's easy to like/listen to. I am aware Rach's music is difficult to play. Naturally there are more complex layers under the surfice. That's my very point with Elgar!

The idea that The Bells (a genuinely fine piece, BTW) is Rakhmaninov's best, is somewhat eccentric.

Well, in that case the composer himself was eccentric because he has said The Bells is his finest work*. I have thought the same ever since I heard the work on radio, years before I read about the composer's own opinion. Perhaps I understand his music better than you all think?

_________________________________________________________________
*Michael Stegemann on DG CD Inlet: When asked by an interviewer in 1933 to name what he considered his best composition, he replied: "That would be my cantata, The Bells, which unfortunately is rarely performed."

[The new erato]

When do you people learn that what I say is my subjective opinion and nothing more?

Fine with me.But you are very good at disguising your opinions as objective fact, claiming Elgars superiority based on vibrational fields, making statements about Taneyey superiority in polyphonic writing when in fact neither you nor I are qualified to judge on that etc etc etc (the examples really are numerous) that it is hardly suprising I took your words at face value. Why can't you just say you like Taneyev more than Rachmaninov (I don't know Taneyev well enough to want to make that statement, though I suspect i eventually may be of the same opinion)?

[71 dB]

Fine with me.But you are very good at disguising your opinions as objective fact, claiming Elgars superiority based on vibrational fields, making statements about Taneyey superiority in polyphonic writing when in fact neither you nor I are qualified to judge on that etc etc etc (the examples really are numerous) that it is hardly suprising I took your words at face value. Why can't you just say you like Taneyev more than Rachmaninov (I don't know Taneyev well enough to want to make that statement, though I suspect i eventually may be of the same opinion)?

S. I. Taneyev's mastery of counterpoint is not only my idea. Just check the Master contrapuntalist section in Wikipedia. It seems I must inform people whether what I write is only my on opinion or generally accepted facts.

[Bulldog]

Fine with me.But you are very good at disguising your opinions as objective fact, claiming Elgars superiority based on vibrational fields, making statements about Taneyey superiority in polyphonic writing when in fact neither you nor I are qualified to judge on that etc etc etc (the examples really are numerous) that it is hardly suprising I took your words at face value. Why can't you just say you like Taneyev more than Rachmaninov (I don't know Taneyev well enough to want to make that statement, though I suspect i eventually may be of the same opinion)?

Lightening this subject a little, I am not in any position to say that Taneyev's music is better than Rachmaninoff's.  However, I sure listen to it much more, owing some to the fact that when I did listen to Rachmaninoff often, I hadn't even heard of Taneyev.

[M forever]

Counterpoint is about harmonic relations of individual melodic lines. I understand it well. I can read music somehow but not as well as you, obviously.

Obviously you don't understand counterpoint at all. Knowing what the word means doesn't mean you understand in depth what the word describes. I know what the word astrophysics means. That doesn't mean I understand astrophysics in depth.
I don't understand counterpoint as well as someone who has studied it intensely either. It is an extremely complex subject.

A little bit more celf-criticism, please. That can be expected especially of someone who is scientifically trained and who should be able to see his limitations. When you talk about electro-acoustical subjects here, it looks like you understand that area of science very well. I think it is a pity that you choose to make a clown out of yourself all the time by making dramatic proclamations about things you don't understand at all. You know the Latin proverb "si tacuisses philosophus mansuisses" (or was it "manuisses"? it's been a looong time...)?

[71 dB]

Obviously you don't understand counterpoint at all. Knowing what the word means doesn't mean you understand in depth what the word describes. I know what the word astrophysics means. That doesn't mean I understand astrophysics in depth.
I don't understand counterpoint as well as someone who has studied it intensely either. It is an extremely complex subject.

A little bit more celf-criticism, please. That can be expected especially of someone who is scientifically trained and who should be able to see his limitations. When you talk about electro-acoustical subjects here, it looks like you understand that area of science very well. I think it is a pity that you choose to make a clown out of yourself all the time by making dramatic proclamations about things you don't understand at all. You know the Latin proverb "si tacuisses philosophus mansuisses" (or was it "manuisses"? it's been a looong time...)?

Yeah yeah, yeah. You just must keep putting me down. I don't understand counterpoint enough to write a textbook about it but I understand enough to enjoy counterpuntal music, J. S. Bach etc.

[M forever]

You put yourself down, unnecessarily. That was my point. If you would stick to stuff you know and refrain from making silly and highly dramatic comments about stuff you obviously don't understand at all, you wouldn't get ridiculed as much and be taken more seriously.

BTW, do you understand why Rachmaninoff said that about "The Bells"?

[71 dB]

You put yourself down, unnecessarily. That was my point. If you would stick to stuff you know and refrain from making silly and highly dramatic comments about stuff you obviously don't understand at all, you wouldn't get ridiculed as much and be taken more seriously.

BTW, do you understand why Rachmaninoff said that about "The Bells"?

Damn, I understand something and that is enough. The Bells rules that's why.

[M forever]

Enough for what?

[M forever]

Just check the Master contrapuntalist section in Wikipedia.

So that's where you get your musical education and "opinions" from? That explains a lot.

Here is a wikipedia article you definitely should check out.

It seems I must inform people whether what I write is only my on opinion or generally accepted facts.

I thought you don't generally accept generally accepted facts, since you are such a "freethinker".

[71 dB]

So that's where you get your musical education and "opinions" from? That explains a lot.

That's one place and easiest to link. Taneyev's mastery has been mentioned elsewhere too. I wonder why your supreme education didn't include that information? As I have said before, something seems to be wrong with musical education. Perhaps your music lessons in the conservatory were like this:

Teacher: Don't think, repeat after me. Elgar bad, very bad.

Students: Elgar bad, very bad

Teacher: Beethoven good, very good.

Students: Beethoven good, very good

Teacher: Dittersdorf bad, very bad.

Students: Dittersdorf bad, very bad.

Teacher: Rachmaninoff good, very good.

Students: Rachmaninoff good, very good

Teacher: Taneyev bad, very bad.

Students: Taneyev bad, very bad.

:

:

ad nauseum

Here is a wikipedia article you definitely should check out.

As if I didn't know what autism and asperger are? What's your point?

I thought you don't generally accept generally accepted facts, since you are such a "freethinker".

Why wouldn't I accept if I agree? My introduction to Taneyev was when I was borrowed his orchestral music on Ondine Label. I was blown away by his skills in counterpoint. I read about the composer on the internet and found out he is considered a master on counterpoint. This time it's you who doesn't accept this generally accepted fact.