GMG Classical Music Forum

I'm sure some of you (if not all) notice that certain composers at certain times seem to be talked about a lot and listened to a lot.

Recently, I've noticed the following composers have been red hot in discussions and listening threads:

*Koechlin
*Villa-Lobos
*Schnittke

I just wanted to mention a few, and I could name a whole pile of names, but thought I'd just mention a few to open up the discussion.

Feel free to chime in on who you think is sizzling hot right now and who is not so hot or discussed much, that stand out for you.   :)

Of the three you have listed: Villa-Lobos and Koechlin are sizzling and Schnittke is not.

Besides VL and Koechlin, for me, right now, I've been listening to a lot of Havergal Brian, Pizzetti, Malipiero, Dutilleux, Milhaud (of course, aren't I always? :)), and Revueltas. These composers are pretty hot for me right now. Composers that aren't hot right now, in my opinion, Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis, pretty much any composer who thinks farting in the tub somehow qualifies as music. :)

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 25, 2011, 07:50:41 PM
Of the three you have listed: Villa-Lobos and Koechlin are sizzling and Schnittke is not.

MI, what I meant was that Schnittke's name has appeared a lot lately in the listening and purchasing threads, at least from my observations.

Quote from: ChamberNut on April 25, 2011, 07:53:19 PM
MI, what I meant was that Schnittke's name has appeared a lot lately in the listening and purchasing threads, at least from my observations.

In that case, this thread doesn't really make much sense then, because anybody can look at the composer discussion threads and see who's most discussed and who isn't.

As far as Koechlin is concerned, not many have been listening to his music except for me. In fact, I've been the driving force recently behind this composer's thread. If I haven't had brought him up, then his name would still be on the bottom and I'm perfectly okay with that. Koechlin isn't for everybody, just like Sibelius isn't for everybody, or Schoenberg isn't for everybody. Speaking of which, I need to make another post. :D

Quote from: ChamberNut on April 25, 2011, 07:53:19 PM
MI, what I meant was that Schnittke's name has appeared a lot lately in the listening and purchasing threads, at least from my observations.

Xenakis had a bit of a spurt.

Quote from: Philoctetes on April 25, 2011, 08:16:03 PM
Xenakis had a bit of a spurt.

Yup, it came to mind immediately.  Schnittke and Shostakovich I've noticed as well... but... these are retaliation listens that happen whenever posters badmouth a composer, other posters retaliate with marathons from that composer.

But Xenakis was the real deal for interest, if briefly. 

Composers that are not hot: Mahler, Beethoven, Bruckner, Sibelius usually have some presence on the forum but it seems as if the conversations on these composers have gone dormant.

As to the should, everyone in this thread:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,17509.0.html

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 25, 2011, 07:54:33 PM
In that case, this thread doesn't really make much sense then, because anybody can look at the composer discussion threads and see who's most discussed and who isn't.

Naaah;...they appear in listening and purchases threads etc....

Quote from: haydnfan on April 25, 2011, 09:33:00 PM
but... these are retaliation listens that happen whenever posters badmouth a composer, other posters retaliate with marathons from that composer.

LOL. "Retaliation listens"? That's the first I've heard of such a concept. Call me old-fashioned, but I think you should listen to music because you like it, not because other people don't!

Quote from: haydnfan on April 25, 2011, 09:33:00 PMSibelius usually has some presence on the forum but it seems as if the conversations on these composers have gone dormant.

A lot of that has to do with two people: DavidRoss is not posting much these days, and I haven't been listening to much Sibelius at all. The last time Sibelius was really "hot" and his thread was gaining 10-15 new posts per day, it was because Elgarian was trying to crack the late symphonies and I was going through a major Sibelius phase at the same time... so far in 2011, discounting listens for MusicWeb reviews, I've only listened to Sibelius 9 times.  :o

QuoteComposers that aren't hot right now, in my opinion, Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis, pretty much any composer who thinks farting in the tub somehow qualifies as music. :)

Well, I don't know (& don't really care) if those three you mention are "hot" or not, but one has to admit that they were amongst the major movers and shakers of the classical music world after 1945. They're not "big names" for nothing, they all composed some very engaging music (engaging to me at least). Their music isn't "fart" music any more than those composers you like. Much of their music that I have heard - that has mainly been in the chamber and electronic realms - is highly sophisticated and innovative. & it is relevant to any listener who wants to get their head around what happened in music after World War Two. I have an acquaintance who studied the composition degree at the Sydney Conservatorium & she analysed and studied the music of all of those three in depth (whether she likes them or not is another matter). I doubt whether she has ever even heard of guys like Malipiero, Brian, Pizzetti or Koechlin. They might be of curiosity value, but they are basically nonentities to even some (or most?) of the most sophisticated and knowledgeable classical music listeners (but I must add that Brian's "Gothic Symphony" is garnering quite a bit of a cult following in many quarters around the world, so his reputation might be more solid, but only based on that one work)...

& a further "lecture"  :o -

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 25, 2011, 07:50:41 PM
Besides...Koechlin, for me, right now, I've been listening to a lot of Havergal Brian, Pizzetti, Malipiero...

I haven't heard anything by those, and something tells me I'm probably not missing out on that much. They were basically composers on the fringes (not that I only like composers who were/are "mainstream"). I have found loads to discover in the "biggies" like Monteverdi, Handel & Beethoven. The more I delve into composers like this the more I come to the conclusion that they have so much to offer that it can take a lifetime (or a sizeable chunk of it) to fully come to terms with and appreciate their genius. The major innovations in classical music (eg. the things that have had a lasting impact until today) happened up to the Classical Era. What happened after that was just further refinement and exploration of the possiblities set down by the earlier composers...

Quote from: Sid on April 26, 2011, 02:53:16 AM
I have an acquaintance who studied the composition degree at the Sydney Conservatorium & she analysed and studied the music of all of those three in depth (whether she likes them or not is another matter). I doubt whether she has ever even heard of guys like Malipiero, Brian, Pizzetti or Koechlin. They might be of curiosity value, but they are basically nonentities to even some (or most?) of the most sophisticated and knowledgeable classical music listeners (but I must add that Brian's "Gothic Symphony" is garnering quite a bit of a cult following in many quarters around the world, so his reputation might be more solid, but only based on that one work)...

I'd say that any music student/composition student worth their salt ought to have the intellectual curiosity to explore all the music they can. I find it very hard to imagine a real musician who is indifferent to music or who doesn't have a voracious appetite for it.

I'd also say that if one hasn't heard of the four composers you mention as examples (I'm not even saying have an intimate acquaintance with their music, but just have heard of them, be aware of them, know where they fit in the general scheme of things) then one can't really be included amongst 'the most sophisticated and knowledgable classical music listeners.

I love both Koechlin and Boulez's music. I even think the latter's music has had a lot of appeal for non-specialist listeners, especially since the 80s with pieces like Repons and "...explosante-fixe...". These are colorful and — yes — accessible works.

Stockhausen is harder to get into — I'm still exploring his oeuvre, but so far Gruppen has been the standout for me. I don't find this music ugly at all — just pure sensory overload.

A fine, thought-provoking thread, Ray!  I see its point as more a matter of communal trend rather than just the customary "what the music does for me" banter.

Certainly I'm on board with Luke's point viz. the importance of sonic curiosity to the serious music student or composer.

Davey, I don't think (in the case of Schnittke, anyway) that "retaliation" covers this uptick. Here, it's also a matter of members like Scarps and yrs truly finding inspiration to explore more of his catalogue.  In my own case, I am listening to hours of his music I'd never heard before, and digging it mightily.

Quote from: Luke on April 26, 2011, 03:05:52 AM
I'd say that any music student/composition student worth their salt ought to have the intellectual curiosity to explore all the music they can. I find it very hard to imagine a real musician who is indifferent to music or who doesn't have a voracious appetite for it.

I'd also say that if one hasn't heard of the four composers you mention as examples (I'm not even saying have an intimate acquaintance with their music, but just have heard of them, be aware of them, know where they fit in the general scheme of things) then one can't really be included amongst 'the most sophisticated and knowledgable classical music listeners.

Digression About American Music Students Worth Their Salt (Or Not)

At my undergraduate university, which is home to a prestigious conservatory, a musicologist friend of mine knew Koechlin's Persian Hours, but I have no idea if anybody had heard of Pizzetti, Malipiero or Havergal Brian. People knew what they did: pianists knew their Czerny and Hummel and Paderewski; violinists knew Beriot and Berio and Ysaye; composition students were able to talk fluently about Boulez, Reich, whomever; music theorists pretty much universally specialized in Stravinsky. There was not an overwhelming amount of crossover: I heard a couple violinists who were amazed that they'd found a Ligeti piece that didn't sound like space aliens, and the Stravinsky brigade pretty much tuned out the post-1910 romantics. My Koechlin-loving friend (who wrote his thesis on Stravinsky) hadn't heard all the Beethoven symphonies.

One year, I was pretty attracted to a very cute new composition student whose (12-tone) first string quartet I heard and enjoyed. She was clever and self-deprecating and her music had personality. But then our school orchestra put on a program of Berg's Violin Concerto and the "Eroica" Symphony, and she left at the half; I asked her about it later, and she said she really didn't find "Eroica" all that interesting. And that was the end of that romance.

There was a pretty universal agreement among my music major friends that I had listened to far more music than they had. Which made me sad, honestly.*  :(

*EDIT: Hang on! Not true. A cellist friend has incorporated a few pieces into her repertoire after I found them and introduced them to her, including the Khachaturian cello concerto and some music by Mieczyslaw Weinberg, and I am very proud of that. :)

Quote from: Brian on April 26, 2011, 04:31:52 AM
Digression About American Music Students Worth Their Salt (Or Not)

[snip]

. . . My Koechlin-loving friend (who wrote his thesis on Stravinsky) hadn't heard all the Beethoven symphonies.

Oof. Like it or not, knowing LvB's nine is basic musical literacy.

. . . the tangential question (tied in with discussion of the Canon, elsewhere) is, of course: Is there still a Core Literature with which a musician must be familiar, in order to be considered musically literate?

Quote from: Brian on April 26, 2011, 04:31:52 AM
. . . One year, I was pretty attracted to a very cute new composition student whose (12-tone) first string quartet I heard and enjoyed. She was clever and self-deprecating and her music had personality. But then our school orchestra put on a program of Berg's Violin Concerto and the "Eroica" Symphony, and she left at the half; I asked her about it later, and she said she really didn't find "Eroica" all that interesting. And that was the end of that romance.

Well, but that doesn't mean that she would never find it of interest.  That is a snapshot of where her ears were at that time.  Heck, there have been times when I didn't find Beethoven interesting.  (I'm still in a place where I do not find the Bach Cantatas interesting, e.g.)

You've got to allow a composer his dislikes, which are not necessarily permanent.  It's unrealistic to expect a composer to like everything, even to like all the inarguably great lit.

Quote from: Apollon on April 26, 2011, 03:43:22 AM
Davey, I don't think (in the case of Schnittke, anyway) that "retaliation" covers this uptick. Here, it's also a matter of members like Scarps and yrs truly finding inspiration to explore more of his catalogue.  In my own case, I am listening to hours of his music I'd never heard before, and digging it mightily.

I wasn't thinking of Scarpia mostly you and Brian.  You have you listening to the Schnittke after the MI rant... and then notably after the Toucan DSCH smackdown both you and Brian go on DSCH listens, I think Brian trotted out a marathon.  Perhaps it's only being reminded of how much you love the composer... but I still notice a cause and effect.  And I've seen this repeated ALOT.  I might be the only one that notices but I've seen this pattern at least a dozen times on this forum: someone says composer X sucks, several posters say no he is great, a few of those go on a marathon of said composer when there interest was otherwise temporarily petered out before the thread.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 26, 2011, 05:08:48 AM
someone says composer X sucks, several posters say no he is great, a few of those go on a marathon of said composer when there interest was otherwise temporarily petered out before the thread.

happened with Xenakis, so if only someone will say composer Y sucks we can all have an Ysaye binge...  ;D

Quote from: Apollon on April 26, 2011, 04:48:26 AM
(I'm still in a place where I do not find the Bach Cantatas interesting, e.g.)

None of them? asks Sfz, who coincidentally has just embarked on another project to hear the entire set through. (I know, I know, I could be listening to Arnold Bax.)

Quote from: Luke on April 26, 2011, 05:12:00 AM
happened with Xenakis, so if only someone will say composer Y sucks we can all have an Ysaye binge...  ;D

And if composer Z sucks then we can have a Zemlinsky binge! :D

Quote from: Apollon on April 26, 2011, 04:48:26 AM
Well, but that doesn't mean that she would never find it of interest.  That is a snapshot of where her ears were at that time.  Heck, there have been times when I didn't find Beethoven interesting.  (I'm still in a place where I do not find the Bach Cantatas interesting, e.g.)

Karl you suck! ;D  Did you really listen to all 60 cds worth of music and found not one appealing note?  Fess up... you only listened to like 2-3 cantatas right? >:D

Quote from: haydnfan on April 26, 2011, 05:08:48 AM
I wasn't thinking of Scarpia mostly you and Brian.  You have you listening to the Schnittke after the MI rant... and then notably after the Toucan DSCH smackdown both you and Brian go on DSCH listens, I think Brian trotted out a marathon.  Perhaps it's only being reminded of how much you love the composer... but I still notice a cause and effect.  And I've seen this repeated ALOT.  I might be the only one that notices but I've seen this pattern at least a dozen times on this forum: someone says composer X sucks, several posters say no he is great, a few of those go on a marathon of said composer when there interest was otherwise temporarily petered out before the thread.

Cause & effect, sure. But . . . retaliation? ; )

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 26, 2011, 05:13:15 AM
None of them? asks Sfz, who coincidentally has just embarked on another project to hear the entire set through. (I know, I know, I could be listening to Arnold Bax.)

Well, I'll refine my remark:  I find them interesting and rewarding whenever I sing them (which has not been for a while, now);  but I don't seek them out for listening.

I didn't know that you sang Karl, thought you just played the clarinet.  So you

* sing
* play the clarinet
* conduct
* compose

Anything else?  You're like a jack of all trades. :D

Quote from: Brian on April 26, 2011, 04:31:52 AM
There was a pretty universal agreement among my music major friends that I had listened to far more music than they had. Which made me sad, honestly.*  :(

Your experience with music students (and academic professionals) mirrors mine. Most I know have a very limited range of musical interests. That Sid's friend doesn't know the music of H. Brian, etc, does not surprise me and it in no way supports Sid's contention that Brian is a "nonentity."

Sarge

Quote from: haydnfan on April 26, 2011, 05:17:36 AM
Karl you suck! ;D  Did you really listen to all 60 cds worth of music and found not one appealing note?

Dude! Go on a Bach Cantata retaliation binge! Je-je-je!

That's not what I said;  all the notes are fine notes, and (to quote Jeeves) I understand that Bach gives satisfaction.  I just have other things higher in my to-listen-to queue.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 26, 2011, 05:25:28 AM
Your experience with music students (and academic professionals) mirrors mine. Most I know have a very limited range of musical interests. That Sid's friend doesn't know the music of H. Brian, etc, does not surprise me and it in no way supports Sid's contention that Brian is a "nonentity."

Sarge

I've also had that experience.  When I took a class on Beethoven in college I was the smart aleck that had all of the answers, and generally showed more enthusiasm than the other students.  I guess they really just have enthusiasm for playing music.

Quote from: Apollon on April 26, 2011, 04:36:34 AM
Oof. Like it or not, knowing LvB's nine is basic musical literacy.

. . . the tangential question (tied in with discussion of the Canon, elsewhere) is, of course: Is there still a Core Literature with which a musician must be familiar, in order to be considered musically literate?

I would prefer to think so. Harold Bloom (the Yale literature professor, who coined the term the School of Resentment to denote those readers who think of Dante, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Molière, Melville, Tolstoy, etc. as Overrated Dead White European Males whose work should be - thank God!-  thrown in the trash heap to make way for the truly "relevant" black, feminist, marxist, what have you Authors That Matter For Our Time) would definitely think so. When I was growing up and first learning music in the 1960-70s, I believed firmly that I should make every attempt to learn the canonical literature, and I did so - even if some of it like the Missa Solemnis or the Art of Fugue seemed remote or difficult at the start. I believe we have many voices exemplifying a similar School of Resentment on this forum - folks who, for whatever reason, turn their back on the established literature and instead prefer to devote their time towards championing lesser known, supposedly "undeservedly neglected" figures.

It truly pains me to read some of what Brian has written. I have no objection to delving into Czerny and Hummel and Paderewski; no doubt there is some worthy music there (most definitely the case with Hummel.) But it disturbs me to hear that these pianists may not be learning their Chopin and Brahms and Debussy. But given the latitudinarian attitudes in the academy today, I should not be surprised. While I was doing my graduate work in English lit. in the early 70s, I remember the prof asking how many people had read King Lear. I was shocked not only by how many hadn't, but even more by the prof's attitude that it wasn't a shortcoming in their literary education.

On the other hand, when I took a graduate course with Charles Rosen during that time, he made a statement that shocked me only a little less in its cynicism, when he said, "I don't care if you haven't read [insert King Lear, or whatever canonical work you like - I think he used The Charterhouse of Parma.] But don't ever let me find out you haven't read that work."

[Edit: thinking of Sarge's post] This actually makes me think of the interested maverick vs the professional.  I've had this kind of experience before in physics.  Some people not studying physics, but genuinely interested can have acquired a large amount of interesting knowledge and show enthusiasm that the physics student doesn't show.  The student is busy mastering the problem solving skills per subject.

I guess the same can happen in music.  While the student might have deep but not broad knowledge, and the maverick has broad but not deep knowledge, as the student matures into a professional they will have both deep and broad knowledge.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 26, 2011, 05:33:16 AM
. . . Harold Bloom (the Yale literature professor, who coined the term the School of Resentment to denote those readers who think of Dante, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Molière, Melville, Tolstoy, etc. as Overrated Dead White European Males whose work should be - thank God!-  thrown in the trash heap to make way for the truly "relevant" black, feminist, marxist, what have you Authors That Matter For Our Time) would definitely think so.

Hah! Surgically done.

I don't want anybody to take away my Langgaard; but that doesn't change the fact that (whether you find him "interesting" or not) you've got to know Beethoven.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 26, 2011, 05:08:48 AM
I wasn't thinking of Scarpia mostly you and Brian.  You have you listening to the Schnittke after the MI rant... and then notably after the Toucan DSCH smackdown both you and Brian go on DSCH listens, I think Brian trotted out a marathon.  Perhaps it's only being reminded of how much you love the composer... but I still notice a cause and effect.  And I've seen this repeated ALOT.  I might be the only one that notices but I've seen this pattern at least a dozen times on this forum: someone says composer X sucks, several posters say no he is great, a few of those go on a marathon of said composer when there interest was otherwise temporarily petered out before the thread.

I don't think "relatiation" is the mechanism.  Negative comments provoke enthusiasts to extol the virtues of the composer in question, and the positive comments result in curiosity, or renewed interest.  In my case it reminded me of several discs I had purchased after my last bout of Schnittke listening but had gotten distracted from listening to.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 26, 2011, 05:46:35 AM
I don't think "relatiation" is the mechanism.  Negative comments provoke enthusiasts to extol the virtues of the composer in question, and the positive comments result in curiosity, or renewed interest.  In my case it reminded me of several discs I had purchased after my last bout of Schnittke listening but had gotten distracted from listening to.

Exactly. Both negative and positive criticism make me run to the shevles to dig out works I haven't heard recently. MI's fanatical insistence on the worth of Koechlin's Jungle Book is a case in point: I'm listening to it for the first time since I bought it (mid 90s). Yesterday it was Haydn's Stumbling Goat  ;D

Sarge

Quote from: Apollon on April 26, 2011, 05:28:20 AM
Dude! Go on a Bach Cantata retaliation binge! Je-je-je!

That's not what I said;  all the notes are fine notes, and (to quote Jeeves) I understand that Bach gives satisfaction.  I just have other things higher in my to-listen-to queue.

No need for retaliation binge, I've never stopped listening to Bach!  He is great, utterly sublime.  The only composer the features higher on my queue is Haydn. 0:)

Alright, alright everyone I'll drop the word "retaliation"... I don't even think I knew how loaded that word is until I used it.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 26, 2011, 05:33:16 AM
I believe we have many voices exemplifying a similar School of Resentment on this forum - folks who, for whatever reason, turn their back on the established literature and instead prefer to devote their time towards championing lesser known, supposedly "undeservedly neglected" figures.

I hope you include this raving Brianite out, who loves and knows his Beethoven, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, Stravinsky, Elgar, Vaughan Williams et cetera et cetera...  :o

Quote from: haydnfan on April 26, 2011, 06:05:37 AM
No need for retaliation binge, I've never stopped listening to Bach!  He is great, utterly sublime.  The only composer the features higher on my queue is Haydn. 0:)

Alright, alright everyone I'll drop the word "retaliation"... I don't even think I knew how loaded that word is until I used it.

Okay, laddie!  Though it may inspire Take-That Tuesdays! ; )

Quote from: Sid on April 26, 2011, 02:53:16 AM
Well, I don't know (& don't really care) if those three you mention are "hot" or not, but one has to admit that they were amongst the major movers and shakers of the classical music world after 1945. They're not "big names" for nothing, they all composed some very engaging music (engaging to me at least). Their music isn't "fart" music any more than those composers you like. Much of their music that I have heard - that has mainly been in the chamber and electronic realms - is highly sophisticated and innovative. & it is relevant to any listener who wants to get their head around what happened in music after World War Two. I have an acquaintance who studied the composition degree at the Sydney Conservatorium & she analysed and studied the music of all of those three in depth (whether she likes them or not is another matter). I doubt whether she has ever even heard of guys like Malipiero, Brian, Pizzetti or Koechlin. They might be of curiosity value, but they are basically nonentities to even some (or most?) of the most sophisticated and knowledgeable classical music listeners (but I must add that Brian's "Gothic Symphony" is garnering quite a bit of a cult following in many quarters around the world, so his reputation might be more solid, but only based on that one work)...

& a further "lecture"  :o -

I haven't heard anything by those, and something tells me I'm probably not missing out on that much. They were basically composers on the fringes (not that I only like composers who were/are "mainstream"). I have found loads to discover in the "biggies" like Monteverdi, Handel & Beethoven. The more I delve into composers like this the more I come to the conclusion that they have so much to offer that it can take a lifetime (or a sizeable chunk of it) to fully come to terms with and appreciate their genius. The major innovations in classical music (eg. the things that have had a lasting impact until today) happened up to the Classical Era. What happened after that was just further refinement and exploration of the possiblities set down by the earlier composers...

What utter rubbish these two paragraphs are! ??? Koechlin wasn't on the fringes of anything my friend. A little research and you would know this, but I thought you knew everything about everything, so it's quite surprising to find that you have done zero research on this most prolific composer. Shows what you know.

Here's an idea: go to Wikipedia or wherever you go to research composers and read about Koechlin. And furthermore, go to YouTube and go listen to some of his music. Educate yourself before you continue to run composers who you know nothing about into the ground just because they're not "mainstream." Your general attitude these past few months has been that of an elitist. You're becoming the very thing you so adamantly detest.

While I hope that it does not take a lifetime to appreciate Beethoven's genius, there are reasons why LvB is "canonical," and Koechlin is not.

That said, it is neither a perspicacious assessment of Monteverdi, Handel or Beethoven, nor a musical evaluation of the great composers since them, to dismiss "what happened after" as mere "refinement and exploration of the possiblities set down by the earlier composers."

Quote from: Apollon on April 26, 2011, 08:10:53 AM
That said, it is neither a perspicacious assessment of Monteverdi, Handel or Beethoven, nor a musical evaluation of the great composers since them, to dismiss "what happened after" as mere "refinement and exploration of the possiblities set down by the earlier composers."

I think Sid had a little too much to drink when he made that post. :)

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 26, 2011, 05:33:16 AM
I believe we have many voices exemplifying a similar School of Resentment on this forum - folks who, for whatever reason, turn their back on the established literature and instead prefer to devote their time towards championing lesser known, supposedly "undeservedly neglected" figures.

I don't quite see it like that - what I see is

a) a small group of people who fit your description of Bloom's 'relativists', agitating for a neglected group (female composers, ignored classicists, whatever) as being 'as good as' their male counterparts, classicist contemporaries, whatever) - but these I don't see as a major feature of the board.

b) a group of people (a large group of people, probably most of us) who will argue from time to time (or sometimes more often!)  that a particular piece or a particular composer is worth more attention than they might generally get - you've done this yourself with e.g. Clementi sonatas or Auber, Spontini, IIRC...

a) - the wish to promote composers based not on their individual qualities but the basis that they happen to belong to a larger 'excluded' group - strikes me as nonsensical and, yes, it smacks of a resentment. b) however, is perfectly valid. Saying 'I think this composer may be worthy of more consideration than they usually get' doesn't in itself imply resentment, although of course it doesn't necessarily mean that the composer is worthy of that consideration!  ;)

Composers with a strong character tend to attract listeners strongly, though this might be a smallish group of listeners. The Brianites (and I'm one) are an example - I imagine you are at least in part thinking of him/them, as you've not had much time for him before. I don't think there's a single Brian lover on this board who would dream of placing him on a par with Beethoven or Bach, nor, probably of (say) Nielsen and Sibelius, to cite near contemporary symphonists. What they say is - this composer's music is quite odd, but it speaks to me very strongly, I think it might speak to others too, given the chance; its oddness, however, means that it hasn't been given as much of an airing as it needs to be given that chance. In Brian's case that picture is changing - just as it did for other composers before him - the symphonies are being recorded more and more, by better and better ensembles and conductors who make his oddnesses sound a little less...odd! And, lo and behold, new listeners are trying him and liking him all the time. It would be a mischaracterisation of Brian's admirers to suggest that they are in any way turning their backs on the core literature for the sake of the periphery. OTOH, I also think that peripheral art - literally eccentric art - is of its nature bound to appeal strongly to a small but passionate group, where centric art's appeal is bound to be more general, and perhaps not always as passionate.

But it is, after all, possible for a composer to be undeservedly neglected, isn't it? The scare quotes aren't strictly necessary, I think.

Rued Langgaard SUCKS

(awaits listening thread entries)

Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on April 26, 2011, 10:37:36 AM
Rued Langgaard SUCKS

(awaits listening thread entries)

Rued Langgaard is AWESOME.

(that should cancel out the previous post).

Note to self:  google Langgaard.

Rued's brother Guegel Langgaard.

Quote from: Apollon on April 26, 2011, 10:49:32 AM
Rued's brother Guegel Langgaard.

:)

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 26, 2011, 07:55:37 AM
Koechlin wasn't on the fringes of anything my friend.

Koechlin's large output is little-known, little-performed, and little-recorded. Like him if you like, but he's about as fringey as it gets.

If Koechlin isn't on the fringe . . . who is? : )

Quote from: Apollon on April 26, 2011, 11:14:04 AM
If Koechlin isn't on the fringe . . . who is? : )

Well, if you consider yourself the center of the universe, you could say Koechlin is central and Mozart is at the fringe.   0:)

Quote from: Apollon on April 26, 2011, 11:14:04 AM
If Koechlin isn't on the fringe . . . who is? : )

I just think that labeling a composer as being on the fringe is derogatory. If Sid doesn't like him, that's fine, that is his prerogative, but don't cast out composers with who have followed their muses in order to free themselves from the "mainstream." There are hundreds of composers that have been neglected for whatever reasons. I'm completely okay with the fact that Koechlin wasn't "hip." Hell, I'm not "hip" either, but this doesn't make my voice any less important. I admire composers who forged their own paths. All of the great composers have done this whether they were popular or not. Again, as I have said many times, music is not a competition.

Okay, I saw the topic and the first two composers who came to mind were:

Karl Henning and Luke Ottevanger!

The fact that he was "on the fringe" is an empirical fact, not a denigration.  It doesn't exclude the possibility that he wrote fine music, but it takes into account the reality that his music is not well known and was not particularly influential.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 26, 2011, 12:36:55 PM
I just think that labeling a composer as being on the fringe is derogatory. If Sid doesn't like him, that's fine, that is his prerogative, but don't cast out composers with who have followed their muses in order to free themselves from the "mainstream." There are hundreds of composers that have been neglected for whatever reasons. I'm completely okay with the fact that Koechlin wasn't "hip." Hell, I'm not "hip" either, but this doesn't make my voice any less important. I admire composers who forged their own paths. All of the great composers have done this whether they were popular or not. Again, as I have said many times, music is not a competition.

Well, the fringe is not necessarily derogatory; and even if someone means it for derogatory, pfft.  Langgaard is fringe, and I love his music.

I just avoid the sort of hyperbole that gets one into trouble, like claiming that Elgar is a greater symphonist than Beethoven.

Quote from: Cato on April 26, 2011, 12:42:40 PM
Okay, I saw the topic and the first two composers who came to mind were:

Karl Henning and Luke Ottevanger!

!!!

Quote from: Cato on April 26, 2011, 12:42:40 PM
Okay, I saw the topic and the first two composers who came to mind were:

Karl Henning and Luke Ottevanger!

What, Karl's hot and I'm not? Not sure how to take that, Cato... I mean, we've never even met   ;D  ;D

Hah!  The same thought occurred to me, Luke!  (I mean, that this misconstruction could be teased out of Cato's post.)

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 26, 2011, 12:43:37 PM
The fact that he was "on the fringe" is an empirical fact, not a denigration.  It doesn't exclude the possibility that he wrote fine music, but it takes into account the reality that his music is not well known and was not particularly influential.

Let's talk about influence and how unimportant it is when it comes to the actual music and what we hear as listeners. ::) Vivalid was nearly a forgotten figure in classical music, but his revival has been almost overwhelming. Mahler was a next-to-nobody until the 50s and 60s. Bruckner was pretty much in the same boat. So, I think there's several holes in your argument.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 26, 2011, 12:53:24 PM
Let's talk about influence and how unimportant it is when it comes to the actual music and what we hear as listeners. ::) Vivalid was nearly a forgotten figure in classical music, but his revival has been almost overwhelming. Mahler was a next-to-nobody until the 50s and 60s when . Bruckner was pretty much in the same boat. So, I think there's several holes in your argument.

I did not make any argument, only an observation.     

Vivaldi was arguably an influence upon Bach.  And Mahler inspired composers as unlike one another as Schoenberg and Shostakovich.

Quote from: Apollon on April 26, 2011, 12:58:12 PM
Vivaldi was arguably an influence upon Bach.  And Mahler inspired composers as unlike one another as Schoenberg and Shostakovich.

Not just arguably, Bach studied Vivaldi concerti, although he made the form his own. 

Aye.

Quote from: Apollon on April 26, 2011, 12:58:12 PM
Vivaldi was arguably an influence upon Bach.  And Mahler inspired composers as unlike one another as Schoenberg and Shostakovich.

Who influenced who is not a concern of mine. What is a concern, as a listener, is does the music move me emotionally/intellectually? That's what I'm concerned with.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 26, 2011, 01:05:34 PM
Who influenced who is not a concern of mine. What is a concern, as a listener, is does the music move me emotionally/intellectually? That's what I'm concerned with.

I don't see that as an either/or.

Quote from: Apollon on April 26, 2011, 01:07:40 PM
I don't see that as an either/or.

I did, because influence doesn't equate to music that moves me.

Well, you said "move me emotionally/intellectually," which seemed to me broad enough to include part of why I enjoy the question of inter-composerly influence.

Quote from: Apollon on April 26, 2011, 01:16:15 PM
Well, you said "move me emotionally/intellectually," which seemed to me broad enough to include part of why I enjoy the question of inter-composerly influence.

For me, if I'm moved by something intellectually, I'm moved by thoughts of what possibly went through the composer's minds as they wrote this harmony or that melody. I could spend hours on end thinking about what went through Koechlin's or Bartok's mind. :)

That's something I hardly ever do, FWIW

Quote from: Apollon on April 26, 2011, 01:19:02 PM
That's something I hardly ever do, FWIW

Well it's impossible to get into anyone's mind and what their thought process was, but sometimes I just have to wonder, especially if it's a composer like Pettersson whose music comes across as psychologically scarred and tormented.

Quote from: Luke on April 26, 2011, 12:49:08 PM
What, Karl's hot and I'm not? Not sure how to take that, Cato... I mean, we've never even met   ;D  ;D

To avoid favoritism, I used an alphabetical listing!   0:)

"Composers on GMG..." struck me as composers who are members on GMG!

So, yes, I think both of you qualify as "hot"...as opposed to e.g. Saul!   0:)

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 26, 2011, 05:33:16 AM
I believe we have many voices exemplifying a similar School of Resentment on this forum - folks who, for whatever reason, turn their back on the established literature and instead prefer to devote their time towards championing lesser known, supposedly "undeservedly neglected" figures.

I don't think this is a good summa of why I do the things I do. I sort of work off of the assumption that people on this forum have already listened to the masters, and am just trying to trump up those who have not yet been heard (no value judgments attached).

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 26, 2011, 01:13:19 PM
I did, because influence doesn't equate to music that moves me.

I don't see that anyone said or implied that one can't or shouldn't be fascinated by music on "the fringe."  I've recently found myself fascinated by some music of Tansman, which may be almost as "fringy" as Koechlin.  I don't see any contradiction between the fact that Tansman is not a particularly important composer and the fact that I really enjoy some of his music.
 

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 26, 2011, 01:29:00 PM
Well it's impossible to get into anyone's mind and what their thought process was, but sometimes I just have to wonder, especially if it's a composer like Pettersson whose music comes across as psychologically scarred and tormented.

I must say I don't find the personal motivations of the composer to be important to my appreciation of their works.   I guess I subscribe to a less militant version of Stravinsky's philosophy that music doesn't express anything except itself.

Quote from: Philoctetes on April 26, 2011, 02:52:42 PM
I don't think this is a good summa of why I do the things I do. I sort of work off of the assumption that people on this forum have already listened to the masters, and am just trying to trump up those who have not yet been heard (no value judgments attached).

What makes you think I was referring to you?

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 26, 2011, 03:07:18 PM
What makes you think I was referring to you?

I didn't. I personalized it, needlessly.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 26, 2011, 02:57:56 PM
I don't see that anyone said or implied that one can't or shouldn't be fascinated by music on "the fringe."  I've recently found myself fascinated by some music of Tansman, which may be almost as "fringy" as Koechlin.  I don't see any contradiction between the fact that Tansman is not a particularly important composer and the fact that I really enjoy some of his music.

Tansman is a name I heard of, but have not heard any of his music. What is his music like?

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 26, 2011, 04:05:16 PM
Tansman is a name I heard of, but have not heard any of his music. What is his music like?

20th century neoclassical, probably more similar to late Stravinsky or Hindemith than anyone else.  The chamber music has been the most interesting too me (there is a Naxos release of chamber music including Clarinet).

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 26, 2011, 04:09:42 PM
20th century neoclassical, probably more similar to late Stravinsky or Hindemith than anyone else.  The chamber music has been the most interesting too me (there is a Naxos release of chamber music including Clarinet).

Interesting. I'll have to check him out. Thanks for the info.

Quote from: Luke on April 26, 2011, 08:32:46 AM
I don't quite see it like that - what I see is

a) a small group of people who fit your description of Bloom's 'relativists', agitating for a neglected group (female composers, ignored classicists, whatever) as being 'as good as' their male counterparts, classicist contemporaries, whatever) - but these I don't see as a major feature of the board.

b) a group of people (a large group of people, probably most of us) who will argue from time to time (or sometimes more often!)  that a particular piece or a particular composer is worth more attention than they might generally get - you've done this yourself with e.g. Clementi sonatas or Auber, Spontini, IIRC...

a) - the wish to promote composers based not on their individual qualities but the basis that they happen to belong to a larger 'excluded' group - strikes me as nonsensical and, yes, it smacks of a resentment. b) however, is perfectly valid. Saying 'I think this composer may be worthy of more consideration than they usually get' doesn't in itself imply resentment, although of course it doesn't necessarily mean that the composer is worthy of that consideration!  ;)

Composers with a strong character tend to attract listeners strongly, though this might be a smallish group of listeners. The Brianites (and I'm one) are an example - I imagine you are at least in part thinking of him/them, as you've not had much time for him before. I don't think there's a single Brian lover on this board who would dream of placing him on a par with Beethoven or Bach, nor, probably of (say) Nielsen and Sibelius, to cite near contemporary symphonists. What they say is - this composer's music is quite odd, but it speaks to me very strongly, I think it might speak to others too, given the chance; its oddness, however, means that it hasn't been given as much of an airing as it needs to be given that chance. In Brian's case that picture is changing - just as it did for other composers before him - the symphonies are being recorded more and more, by better and better ensembles and conductors who make his oddnesses sound a little less...odd! And, lo and behold, new listeners are trying him and liking him all the time. It would be a mischaracterisation of Brian's admirers to suggest that they are in any way turning their backs on the core literature for the sake of the periphery. OTOH, I also think that peripheral art - literally eccentric art - is of its nature bound to appeal strongly to a small but passionate group, where centric art's appeal is bound to be more general, and perhaps not always as passionate.

But it is, after all, possible for a composer to be undeservedly neglected, isn't it? The scare quotes aren't strictly necessary, I think.

To try to answer Luke, as he has given the most thoughtful response: I can't quantify how "many" people here seem to embody attitudes of resentment towards canonical composers, but (without mentioning names) I can easily remember being told here that Bach wrote "Muzak," that the St. Matthew is "appallingly mundane," Mozart is a "sissy" and Beethoven a "bombastic bore," "I often feel I will go mad if I hear any more Mozart. It just drives me crazy all the Mozart mania and people assuming he was the greatest," "I don't like opera [or chamber music, or piano music, or sacred music, or the moderns, or the Renaissance - take your pick] - and this is just a small sampling. Obviously this is not always a black and white thing. I'm not pretending that the board is rife with a majority of people who are totally out to jettison the accepted canon. But the attitudes quoted above do exist, and if this is not resentment towards some of the most admired names in musical history, then how would you describe it?

I absolutely agree too that there are any number of composers who have been unjustly neglected, and too much emphasis on a small body of names. This is the essential problem with a canon of any sort. Before the turn of the 19th century or so, composers were primarily expected to produce new work, and the idea of preserving a corpus of music for posterity was largely unknown. Now we've gone to the other extreme where new music is often reviled, and what we get are endless performances and recordings of a very limited repertoire always of music of the past (and a very limited past at that, overwhelmingly concentrating on 19th century orchestral music). This is hardly a healthy situation, above all not a good one for living composers, and to that degree it is extremely valuable that we get to hear less familiar names who have much good music to offer.

But to my mind there is a major difference between expanding one's horizons beyond the generally accepted canon and to some degree or other rejecting it. Most of you will not like me for saying this - not that I really care - but it seems to me that if one does not know very well the touchstones of the canonical literature - such as (but not limited to) the B minor Mass, the Goldbergs, the Art of Fugue, the major Mozart operas and concertos, the Eroica, the Grosse Fuge and the other late Beethoven quartets, Tristan, Meistersinger, and the Ring, Falstaff, the Chopin ballades, the songs of Schubert and Schumann, the chamber music of Brahms and Bartok, La Mer, Le Sacre, Erwartung, Pierrot, Wozzeck - that one is in a less secure position to assess work that is not part of the canon. The core repertoire is not just some arbitrary collection of pieces that some mean person selected in order to keep other worthy music from being heard. Works like those I named are the essence of the art, and if somebody is going to go off on the "Bach is overrated" or "Wagner is a snooze" tangent, then I'm going to fight back.

And that's why if someone who truly does appreciate this core literature says to me, "listen also to Brian, or Pettersson, or Farrenc, or Vorisek," then I am more likely to take that person seriously than I am someone who displays some degree of resentment towards major periods, genres, or composers.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 26, 2011, 05:09:44 PM
To try to answer Luke, as he has given the most thoughtful response: I can't quantify how "many" people here seem to embody attitudes of resentment towards canonical composers, but (without mentioning names) I can easily remember being told here that Bach wrote "Muzak," that the St. Matthew is "appallingly mundane," Mozart is a "sissy" and Beethoven a "bombastic bore," "I often feel I will go mad if I hear any more Mozart. It just drives me crazy all the Mozart mania and people assuming he was the greatest," "I don't like opera [or chamber music, or piano music, or sacred music, or the moderns, or the Renaissance - take your pick] - and this is just a small sampling. Obviously this is not always a black and white thing. I'm not pretending that the board is rife with a majority of people who are totally out to jettison the accepted canon. But the attitudes quoted above do exist, and if this is not resentment towards some of the most admired names in musical history, then how would you describe it?

I absolutely agree too that there are any number of composers who have been unjustly neglected, and too much emphasis on a small body of names. This is the essential problem with a canon of any sort. Before the turn of the 19th century or so, composers were primarily expected to produce new work, and the idea of preserving a corpus of music for posterity was largely unknown. Now we've gone to the other extreme where new music is often reviled, and what we get are endless performances and recordings of a very limited repertoire always of music of the past (and a very limited past at that, overwhelmingly concentrating on 19th century orchestral music). This is hardly a healthy situation, above all not a good one for living composers, and to that degree it is extremely valuable that we get to hear less familiar names who have much good music to offer.

But to my mind there is a major difference between expanding one's horizons beyond the generally accepted canon and to some degree or other rejecting it. Most of you will not like me for saying this - not that I really care - but it seems to me that if one does not know very well the touchstones of the canonical literature - such as (but not limited to) the B minor Mass, the Goldbergs, the Art of Fugue, the major Mozart operas and concertos, the Eroica, the Grosse Fuge and the other late Beethoven quartets, Tristan, Meistersinger, and the Ring, Falstaff, the Chopin ballades, the songs of Schubert and Schumann, the chamber music of Brahms and Bartok, La Mer, Le Sacre, Erwartung, Pierrot, Wozzeck - that one is in a less secure position to assess work that is not part of the canon. The core repertoire is not just some arbitrary collection of pieces that some mean person selected in order to keep other worthy music from being heard. Works like those I named are the essence of the art, and if somebody is going to go off on the "Bach is overrated" or "Wagner is a snooze" tangent, then I'm going to fight back.

And that's why if someone who truly does appreciate this core literature says to me, "listen also to Brian, or Pettersson, or Farrenc, or Vorisek," then I am more likely to take that person seriously than I am someone who displays some degree of resentment towards major periods, genres, or composers.

I think, in the end, we like what we like. Whether it's from the pen of Bach or Bartok. You may not agree with my stance on this composer or that composer, but I'm not changing my mind about them anytime soon just like if I criticized a composer you enjoy, this shouldn't alter your view of that composer. I think too often in classical music the other person listens to the other person and tries to mold their opinion from everybody else's without forming their own. I hate Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, but this doesn't, and shouldn't, mean that I don't respect them as composers nor does it mean that I don't recognize their genius and innovations, because I do. What this does mean, however, is that I simply don't enjoy early classical music (from Baroque to Classical eras). I think for anyone to deny these composer's influence would be foolish. There are plenty of people that dislike Beethoven just like there are plenty of people who dislike Janacek.

Well maybe I was setting up a false dichotomy between the "mainstream" and the "fringe" which is a bit ironic since I usually profess to dislike and question "black and white" thinking. But I was reacting more to MI's negative comments regarding Xenakis, Boulez and Stockhausen more than anything else. It's fine to like and appreciate the less mainstream repertoire, but I find little sense in dissing the prime movers and shakers in classical music, be it of the last 50 years or last 500+ years. I agree 110% with Sforzando's comments above regarding the value of the canon - which is of course constantly changing all of the time as our view and assessment of musical history develops.

Quote...And that's why if someone who truly does appreciate this core literature says to me, "listen also to Brian, or Pettersson, or Farrenc, or Vorisek," then I am more likely to take that person seriously than I am someone who displays some degree of resentment towards major periods, genres, or composers.

That's a bit like my acquaintance who completed the composition degree who I was talking about earlier. She's not only familiar with the big names but also some of the lesser known ones who have had some influence in shaping things in music. Eg. I was telling her once that I liked the complexity of Carter and she said "Carter's not complex, Harry Partch is complex!" I then got a recording (or THE recording, as there's only one!) of his Delusion of the Fury, and his music "clicked" with me straight away, it was a good recommendation as any. No matter who's hot or not on these forums, composers like Partch generally get little mention. He was on the fringes for most of his life, but by the time he died in the 1970's, he had achieved cult status, at least on the West coast of the USA. Since then, many other mainstream composers have been highly influenced by him, like Steve Reich. All of his music is performed on the unique instruments that he invented, or reinvented using ancient examples. Even out here in the "colonies" his music has been performed, and I plan to see it live later this year in Sydney (at a concert also featuring other contemporary composers influenced by him).

What I'm saying is that at least being familiar with the big fish in the pond will allow one to understand what the smaller fish were doing as well. Wierd metaphor, I know (I'm not suggesting that the big fish have to eat the little fish!).

QuoteWorks like those I named are the essence of the art, and if somebody is going to go off on the "Bach is overrated" or "Wagner is a snooze" tangent, then I'm going to fight back.

Yes, some people do tend to rubbish some of the finest composers in the history of music, and unfairly compare them to others. Take Rachmaninov, who is often derided. This composer had an enormous range, composing not only for his own instrument (the piano, of course), but also in the orchestral, chamber, artsong and opera realms. & yet despite all of his considerable achievements, some people put him down to no end. I'd basically put Rachmaninov on par with guys like Stravinsky and Prokofiev, quite easily. Not all of his works were pure gold, but neither were all of those composed by the other two. Rachmaninov carried on the Romantic tradition (later with some "Modern" touches), he was not much different in that regard from someone like Langgaard. & yet I'd hazard a guess that quite a number of members of this forum would put Rachmaninov below Langgaard. It seems like this kind of muddled thinking seems like the fashionable thing to do, but it strikes me as being totally off-track for many reasons...

Quote from: Sid on April 26, 2011, 07:29:46 PMYes, some people do tend to rubbish some of the finest composers in the history of music, and unfairly compare them to others. Take Rachmaninov, who is often derided. This composer had an enormous range, composing not only for his own instrument (the piano, of course), but also in the orchestral, chamber, artsong and opera realms. & yet despite all of his considerable achievements, some people put him down to no end. I'd basically put Rachmaninov on par with guys like Stravinsky and Prokofiev, quite easily. Not all of his works were pure gold, but neither were all of those composed by the other two. Rachmaninov carried on the Romantic tradition (later with some "Modern" touches), he was not much different in that regard from someone like Langgaard. & yet I'd hazard a guess that quite a number of members of this forum would put Rachmaninov below Langgaard. It seems like this kind of muddled thinking seems like the fashionable thing to do, but it strikes me as being totally off-track for many reasons...

I like music off the beaten track. I like exploring and finding new composers to listen to and, hopefully, come to appreciate. Only recently has Koechlin's music hit me. I hope that someday you will explore this composer as I think he would be right up your alley. That is, if you can let down your guard long enough to listen to the music.

Re: Rachmaninov

I actually prefer Rachmaninov to Langgaard, but, then again, I think Rachmaninov had more heartfelt things to say musically speaking. Now, I do think Langgaard's neglect is unfortunate as I think he's a very fine composer and has written some notable works like, for example, Music of the Spheres, which predates Ligeti by decades (he composed this work in 1918). I recognize the quality of Rachmaninov's and Langgaard's music. Your attitude lately has surprised me. One minute you're deriding composers who wrote in a late-Romantic style, but now, all of a sudden, you're praising them? Make up your damn mind.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 26, 2011, 05:09:44 PM
To try to answer Luke, as he has given the most thoughtful response: I can't quantify how "many" people here seem to embody attitudes of resentment towards canonical composers, but (without mentioning names) I can easily remember being told here that Bach wrote "Muzak," that the St. Matthew is "appallingly mundane," Mozart is a "sissy" and Beethoven a "bombastic bore," "I often feel I will go mad if I hear any more Mozart. It just drives me crazy all the Mozart mania and people assuming he was the greatest," "I don't like opera [or chamber music, or piano music, or sacred music, or the moderns, or the Renaissance - take your pick] - and this is just a small sampling. Obviously this is not always a black and white thing. I'm not pretending that the board is rife with a majority of people who are totally out to jettison the accepted canon. But the attitudes quoted above do exist, and if this is not resentment towards some of the most admired names in musical history, then how would you describe it?

I absolutely agree too that there are any number of composers who have been unjustly neglected, and too much emphasis on a small body of names. This is the essential problem with a canon of any sort. Before the turn of the 19th century or so, composers were primarily expected to produce new work, and the idea of preserving a corpus of music for posterity was largely unknown. Now we've gone to the other extreme where new music is often reviled, and what we get are endless performances and recordings of a very limited repertoire always of music of the past (and a very limited past at that, overwhelmingly concentrating on 19th century orchestral music). This is hardly a healthy situation, above all not a good one for living composers, and to that degree it is extremely valuable that we get to hear less familiar names who have much good music to offer.

But to my mind there is a major difference between expanding one's horizons beyond the generally accepted canon and to some degree or other rejecting it. Most of you will not like me for saying this - not that I really care - but it seems to me that if one does not know very well the touchstones of the canonical literature - such as (but not limited to) the B minor Mass, the Goldbergs, the Art of Fugue, the major Mozart operas and concertos, the Eroica, the Grosse Fuge and the other late Beethoven quartets, Tristan, Meistersinger, and the Ring, Falstaff, the Chopin ballades, the songs of Schubert and Schumann, the chamber music of Brahms and Bartok, La Mer, Le Sacre, Erwartung, Pierrot, Wozzeck - that one is in a less secure position to assess work that is not part of the canon. The core repertoire is not just some arbitrary collection of pieces that some mean person selected in order to keep other worthy music from being heard. Works like those I named are the essence of the art, and if somebody is going to go off on the "Bach is overrated" or "Wagner is a snooze" tangent, then I'm going to fight back.

And that's why if someone who truly does appreciate this core literature says to me, "listen also to Brian, or Pettersson, or Farrenc, or Vorisek," then I am more likely to take that person seriously than I am someone who displays some degree of resentment towards major periods, genres, or composers.

Now this I agree with every word of, and thanks for taking the time to write it. Well, almost every word - I still have a little problem with the word 'resentment' characterising those who dismiss Mozart, Beethoven and Bach in the way you describe in your first paragraph. The words arrogance and ignorance float through lightly my mind, but not resentment...

...and before that inflames anyone too much:

- arrogance, because, I'm sorry, but it is a little arrogant to proclaim one's disdain for a Mozart as if a) one's one-listener's-opinion actually matters, or b) one (a bloke on an internet forum) has weighed him (one of the supreme musicians) in the balance and found him wanting. But it's all a matter of attitude and phrasing - I don't think it's arrogant to hold the position, as many more do, 'I know he's one of the greatest, but I don't really get it or enjoy it; my loss I suppose' - and TBH that is the position of the majority of the anti- camp, I think. That's why I always say, when there's discussion of a composer I don't care for much, 'It's probably my fault, it's my loss, I wish I liked them, I hope that one day I do, and I'll keep on trying'.

- ignorance, because, I'm sorry, but if e.g. James feels that Mozart is merely a composer of lightweight trifles then he displays a real ignorance which, I think, does more damage to the credibility of his arguments elsewhere than any amount of Jamesian pffffing. The same holds for dismissal of Beethoven or Bach - there simply aren't any grounds to hold the position that this is bad music, and to suggest that it is only shows ignorance of the music itself. This is not the same as saying one has to like  the music, however.

Quote from: Luke on April 26, 2011, 09:23:46 PM
I still have a little problem with the word 'resentment' characterising those who dismiss Mozart, Beethoven and Bach in the way you describe in your first paragraph.

Sforzando, as he explains, borrows 'resentment' from Harold Bloom (I have (read) several books by him). Perhaps the word is simply not apt for what happens on this board. Bloom uses it for groups trying to establish their own alternative canons, and who resent and envy the prestige accorded to 'the' Canon. I don't see that here on GMG.

Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on April 27, 2011, 12:13:54 AM

Sforzando, as he explains, borrows 'resentment' from Harold Bloom (I have (read) several books by him). Perhaps the word is simply not apt for what happens on this board. Bloom uses it for groups trying to establish their own alternative canons, and who resent and envy the prestige accorded to 'the' Canon. I don't see that here on GMG.

Yes, I understand that - I've read the Bloom book he is borrowing from too. And I think the term is applicable there because Bloom is positing the idea not of rejection of individual canonic authors but of (to use your neat description) 'groups trying to establish their own alternative canons...who resent and envy the prestige accorded to 'the' Canon'. IOW, not saying 'I hate Dickens' but instead retaliating against the predominance of dead white males in 'the' Canon and arguing that living black females ought to be there too. That, it seems to me, is possibly indicative of resentment - I tend to agree with Bloom, and Sfz on this. But as you say, it's not really what happens at GMG, except in a few very specific and unobjectionable cases (Ten Thumbs, for instance, who is a champion of female composers as a specific group, an approach I don't really understand - I'm more interested in composers as individuals than in groups of composers, disparate in time and place, whose link is based on a fact of anatomy, though of course there are interesting sociological issues about the opportunities given to female composers historically. But that's another discussion....)

Oh, but I do agree with Bloom, Sforzando and you on the 'resentment' felt by people who define themselves as a group in rivalry with the elect who have been favoured by the verdict of history. Though even 'the' Canon isn't as airtight as they think. As someone already said (MI?), a few deserving individuals are sometimes admitted, belatedly. Mahler is a case in point. And in another century (the 19th) someone like Johannes Vermeer, who suddenly came to be seen as Rembrandt's equal. I think every country can point to cases of belated recognition.

Fine discussion, gents, thank you.

Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on April 27, 2011, 01:13:29 AM
Oh, but I do agree with Bloom, Sforzando and you on the 'resentment' felt by people who define themselves as a group in rivalry with the elect who have been favoured by the verdict of history. Though even 'the' Canon isn't as airtight as they think. As someone already said (MI?), a few deserving individuals are sometimes admitted, belatedly. Mahler is a case in point. And in another century (the 19th) someone like Johannes Vermeer, who suddenly came to be seen as Rembrandt's equal. I think every country can point to cases of belated recognition.

Ultimately you have a mystery: how is it that the eyes, ears, and souls of a later generation suddenly sense something great in a creative person's output?  Being "ahead of one's time" is no explanation, except to say that the tyranny of the status quo prevented a new idea from spreading.  Why was the status quo not maintained, and why did a new generation accept something rejected, or at least not completely accepted in earlier days? 

One thinks of Bach's reputation as an obscure mathematical composer in the early 19th century.  He was not part of the canon at that time.

Perhaps the awakening comes from the assertion of "generational personalities" and the willful galling of parents and grandparents, or from a combination of other factors.  "My parents' generation was blind, but I SEE what they have missed!"

As far as women artists/composers/creators are concerned, one considers the works: Artemisia Gentileschi certainly convinced her patriarchal society that she was a great artist, despite their prejudices.  Cecile Chaminade's works, however, prove she was a minor leaguer.

In the 90's I received a copy of a book and CD's from the German government.  Dripping with sweat, the book hoped to convince the reader that the "female composer" had been locked in the fruit cellar of a Male Society's Mansion, and offered examples of contemporary compositions by German women composers, every one of them professors of music, and every one of them demonstrating why, as a general statement, professors should not be composers.

Composers, of course, can also be professors (Rimsky, Bruckner) but the equation is not commutative.   0:)

Quote from: Luke on April 27, 2011, 12:30:50 AM
Yes, I understand that - I've read the Bloom book he is borrowing from too. And I think the term is applicable there because Bloom is positing the idea not of rejection of individual canonic authors but of (to use your neat description) 'groups trying to establish their own alternative canons...who resent and envy the prestige accorded to 'the' Canon'. IOW, not saying 'I hate Dickens' but instead retaliating against the predominance of dead white males in 'the' Canon and arguing that living black females ought to be there too. That, it seems to me, is possibly indicative of resentment - I tend to agree with Bloom, and Sfz on this. But as you say, it's not really what happens at GMG, except in a few very specific and unobjectionable cases (Ten Thumbs, for instance, who is a champion of female composers as a specific group, an approach I don't really understand - I'm more interested in composers as individuals than in groups of composers, disparate in time and place, whose link is based on a fact of anatomy, though of course there are interesting sociological issues about the opportunities given to female composers historically. But that's another discussion....)

Well yes, the parallels are not exact. But they're suggestive nonetheless. Take also the always entertaining Teresa, who established a personal canon where the use of percussion was the dominant factor in her enjoyment of a work, vs. all those old percussionless bores from the Classical period. And GMG is only a microcosm of a larger phenomenon.

Quote from: Luke on April 27, 2011, 12:30:50 AM
Yes, I understand that - I've read the Bloom book he is borrowing from too. And I think the term is applicable there because Bloom is positing the idea not of rejection of individual canonic authors but of (to use your neat description) 'groups trying to establish their own alternative canons...who resent and envy the prestige accorded to 'the' Canon'. IOW, not saying 'I hate Dickens' but instead retaliating against the predominance of dead white males in 'the' Canon and arguing that living black females ought to be there too. That, it seems to me, is possibly indicative of resentment - I tend to agree with Bloom, and Sfz on this. But as you say, it's not really what happens at GMG, except in a few very specific and unobjectionable cases

Yeah, Bloom's usage relates to the so-called "culture wars," i.e. certain authors should get more "points" because they are (black, female, disabled, lesbian, or [fill in the blank]). I don't see that going on here. When cases are made for obscure composers, they are done either on the basis of quality (they're "underrated"), or simple affinity ("hey, I just like it").

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 27, 2011, 03:53:39 AM
Take also the always entertaining Teresa, who established a personal canon where the use of percussion was the dominant factor in her enjoyment of a work, vs. all those old percussionless bores from the Classical period.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with being upfront about one's personal tastes and biases. If Teresa really can't stand percussionless music, I don't see how the great composers of the world are going to be negatively affected by her preferences.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 26, 2011, 07:52:02 PM
Only recently has Koechlin's music hit me. I hope that someday you will explore this composer as I think he would be right up your alley. That is, if you can let down your guard long enough to listen to the music.

One minute you're deriding composers who wrote in a late-Romantic style, but now, all of a sudden, you're praising them? Make up your damn mind.

Why such anger towards this guy? One minute you want him to make his own damn mind, the next you'll taunting him for being close-minded towards a composer you've only recently discovered.

And yet if there's any suggestion that you yourself are being similarly close-minded, you become belligerent: "You may not agree with my stance on this composer or that composer, but I'm not changing my mind about them anytime soon." Now look, I've pretty much given up on trying to get you to listen to composers you've already decided you've "hated." But at least be intellectually honest enough to recognize there's a real pot-kettle-black situation here.

Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on April 27, 2011, 01:13:29 AM
Oh, but I do agree with Bloom, Sforzando and you on the 'resentment' felt by people who define themselves as a group in rivalry with the elect who have been favoured by the verdict of history. Though even 'the' Canon isn't as airtight as they think. As someone already said (MI?), a few deserving individuals are sometimes admitted, belatedly. Mahler is a case in point. And in another century (the 19th) someone like Johannes Vermeer, who suddenly came to be seen as Rembrandt's equal. I think every country can point to cases of belated recognition.

Herman Melville.

Quote from: Cato on April 27, 2011, 03:36:36 AM
Ultimately you have a mystery: how is it that the eyes, ears, and souls of a later generation suddenly sense something great in a creative person's output?  Being "ahead of one's time" is no explanation, except to say that the tyranny of the status quo prevented a new idea from spreading.  Why was the status quo not maintained, and why did a new generation accept something rejected, or at least not completely accepted in earlier days? 

One thinks of Bach's reputation as an obscure mathematical composer in the early 19th century.  He was not part of the canon at that time.

Perhaps the awakening comes from the assertion of "generational personalities" and the willful galling of parents and grandparents, or from a combination of other factors.  "My parents' generation was blind, but I SEE what they have missed!"

The reasons why an artist's contemporaries may be blind to his qualities, while a new generation appreciates them are many and complex. One reason - a new historical experience, like war, artistic change, technological advances... People, artists, want to make sense of life and a dead artist may be retro-actively 'activated', because he seems to partly solve the puzzle or can help in its expression. Bach's reappraisal, for example, came as the Romantics freed up harmony and saw a sea of possibilities in his work. They needed him.

Sforzando, Luke, Cato, Johann --- thank you gentlemen for a very thoughtful, interesting and civil debate. For the record, in matters "Canonical" I'm with Sforzando all the way; and Spontini rocks.  :)

Mirror Image --- to dislike Bach, Mozart and Beethoven is your "damn" right and I don't object to it in the least; but why "hate"? What damage has their music done to you personally or to someone you love to elicit such a strong abhorrence?

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 26, 2011, 05:25:43 PM

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 26, 2011, 05:09:44 PM
To try to answer Luke, as he has given the most thoughtful response: I can't quantify how "many" people here seem to embody attitudes of resentment towards canonical composers, but (without mentioning names) I can easily remember being told here that Bach wrote "Muzak," that the St. Matthew is "appallingly mundane," Mozart is a "sissy" and Beethoven a "bombastic bore," "I often feel I will go mad if I hear any more Mozart. It just drives me crazy all the Mozart mania and people assuming he was the greatest," "I don't like opera [or chamber music, or piano music, or sacred music, or the moderns, or the Renaissance - take your pick] - and this is just a small sampling. Obviously this is not always a black and white thing. I'm not pretending that the board is rife with a majority of people who are totally out to jettison the accepted canon. But the attitudes quoted above do exist, and if this is not resentment towards some of the most admired names in musical history, then how would you describe it?

I absolutely agree too that there are any number of composers who have been unjustly neglected, and too much emphasis on a small body of names. This is the essential problem with a canon of any sort. Before the turn of the 19th century or so, composers were primarily expected to produce new work, and the idea of preserving a corpus of music for posterity was largely unknown. Now we've gone to the other extreme where new music is often reviled, and what we get are endless performances and recordings of a very limited repertoire always of music of the past (and a very limited past at that, overwhelmingly concentrating on 19th century orchestral music). This is hardly a healthy situation, above all not a good one for living composers, and to that degree it is extremely valuable that we get to hear less familiar names who have much good music to offer.

But to my mind there is a major difference between expanding one's horizons beyond the generally accepted canon and to some degree or other rejecting it. Most of you will not like me for saying this - not that I really care - but it seems to me that if one does not know very well the touchstones of the canonical literature - such as (but not limited to) the B minor Mass, the Goldbergs, the Art of Fugue, the major Mozart operas and concertos, the Eroica, the Grosse Fuge and the other late Beethoven quartets, Tristan, Meistersinger, and the Ring, Falstaff, the Chopin ballades, the songs of Schubert and Schumann, the chamber music of Brahms and Bartok, La Mer, Le Sacre, Erwartung, Pierrot, Wozzeck - that one is in a less secure position to assess work that is not part of the canon. The core repertoire is not just some arbitrary collection of pieces that some mean person selected in order to keep other worthy music from being heard. Works like those I named are the essence of the art, and if somebody is going to go off on the "Bach is overrated" or "Wagner is a snooze" tangent, then I'm going to fight back.

And that's why if someone who truly does appreciate this core literature says to me, "listen also to Brian, or Pettersson, or Farrenc, or Vorisek," then I am more likely to take that person seriously than I am someone who displays some degree of resentment towards major periods, genres, or composers.

I think, in the end, we like what we like. [snip]

Entirely orthogonal, i.e., in the end, this remark does not address at all (poco) Sfz's post.  We like what we like, huzzah, hail and well met, but one of the core ideas in this thread is the fact of the Canon, the historical and artistic values reflected in the Canon, and (a shadow of the main res) how one's personal taste is a separate question, to whatever degree one's personal taste and the historical and artistic v. reflected in the C. may or may not overlap.

To illustrate, personally, I may not find Handel all that interesting to listen to, but that does not affect at all (a) his historical importance, and by extension (b) the reasonable requisite that anyone pursuing an education in music must (1) cultivate a familiarity with significant samples of his work, and (2) acquire an objective understanding of his musical characteristics, style, &c.

(And I still have a good time singing the Hallelujah Chorus.)

Quote from: Apollon on April 27, 2011, 04:42:28 AM
To illustrate, personally, I may not find Handel all that interesting to listen to, but that does not affect at all (a) his historical importance, and by extension (b) the reasonable requisite that anyone pursuing an education in music must (1) cultivate a familiarity with significant samples of his work, and (2) acquire an objective understanding of his musical characteristics, style, &c.[/font]

Exactly, and I would say the same thing for, say, Schumann. But he is part of the established canon, and whether I find his music worth listening to or not isn't going to make the slightest difference to that. However, and I expect this does happen to many people, it did probably take me until my late 20s to come to accept the established canon (after a violently anti-art-music period followed by a "the only music worth listening to is Beethoven, Mahler and atonal crap" phase). No doubt I now have some other dogmatic views now that I fail at this point to recognize.

It does seem to me that an acceptance and knowledge of the canon gives one a big advantage in appreciating non-canon works, too. One only needs to think of, say, Henze's 7th symphony or Tippett's 3rd, and ponder "would these works make anything like as much sense to someone who's never heard Beethoven's symphonies?"

My problem with the classical music canon is that it celebrates a tradition of Western European music for the upper class.  Historical influence of other composers in the canon is both circular (why is Beethoven great? because he influenced Brahms, talk about nepotism) and subjective.  The canon seems to not be defined in terms of any kind of objective merits, and yet you people here think that it should be accepted as such.

To think that with a wealth of music around the world that some would choose a small selection of 18th and 19th century music from Germany and Italy and say that music is somehow artistically superior to the rest smacks of myopia.

And btw that is exactly the problem with Bloom as well.  It's not about creating alternative canons, it's about recognizing the merits of literature around the world.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 27, 2011, 06:06:57 AM
My problem with the classical music canon is that it celebrates a tradition of Western European music for the upper class.

Well, that is where the word canon, at least with its Biblical resonance is misleading: the idea that These Are Great, and Nothing Without Is Great.  It seems to me, though, that there is a consensus among us who affirm value in a canon, that its purpose is Representative, not Exclusionary.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 27, 2011, 06:06:57 AM
My problem with the classical music canon is that it celebrates a tradition of Western European music for the upper class. 

That's history. What we call "classical music" for lack of a better term developed and evolved under the patronage of, and with the passionate support, of the upper classes, i.e. clergy, aristocracy and bourgeoisie. This might certainly hurt some contemporary sensibilities, but it can't be neither changed nor cast aside.  ;D

OTOH, does anybody force you to listen to the music of that lackey of the aristocracy, Haydn, to the detriment of Austrian peasant music?

Quote
Historical influence of other composers in the canon is both circular (why is Beethoven great? because he influenced Brahms, talk about nepotism) and subjective.

I don't know whoever pretended that Beethoven's greatness resides mainly in his influence on Brahms. Could you please give us a source?

Quote
The canon seems to not be defined in terms of any kind of objective merits

So basically you dismiss the countless works analysing in the minutest details the intricacies of Beethoven's or Mozart's or Haydn's music as lacking any kind of objective merit, don't you?

Quote
, and yet you people here think that it should be accepted as such.

I can't think of anyone here who ever suggested that the canon be accepted blindly and uncritically. Could you please name one?

Quote
To think that with a wealth of music around the world that some would choose a small selection of 18th and 19th century music from Germany and Italy and say that music is somehow artistically superior to the rest smacks of myopia.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 27, 2011, 06:08:28 AM
And btw that is exactly the problem with Bloom as well.  It's not about creating alternative canons, it's about recognizing the merits of literature around the world.

Saul Below once attracted the rage of liberal academia upon him saying something to the effect of: "Show me the Proust and the Tolstoy of the Papuans and I'll be only too glad to read them".

I shall paraphrase him and attract your rage upon me: "Show me the Monteverdi and the Mozart of the Caribbeans and I'll be only too glad to listen to them."  ;D

Quote from: haydnfan on April 27, 2011, 06:08:28 AM
And btw that is exactly the problem with Bloom as well.  It's not about creating alternative canons, it's about recognizing the merits of literature around the world.

He does recognize it. In appendix D of the The Western Canon he predicts what works may eventually enter the Canon; they include works from all over the globe. Of course it's weighted heavily towards the personal bias of an American Jew: seven books in Arabic but almost forty in Yiddish or Hebrew. Seven works in Czech but seven pages of Americans. I'm just happy he includes John Berryman and Conrad Aiken  8)

Sarge

Quote from: haydnfan on April 27, 2011, 06:06:57 AM
My problem with the classical music canon is that it celebrates a tradition of Western European music for the upper class.  Historical influence of other composers in the canon is both circular (why is Beethoven great? because he influenced Brahms, talk about nepotism) and subjective.  The canon seems to not be defined in terms of any kind of objective merits, and yet you people here think that it should be accepted as such.

To think that with a wealth of music around the world that some would choose a small selection of 18th and 19th century music from Germany and Italy and say that music is somehow artistically superior to the rest smacks of myopia.

I do not understand this viewpoint at all.  What we are discussing is the canon of classical music, and the definition of classical music that seems most persuasive to me (from the thread) is notated music from a certain tradition leading from Monteverdi to Tippett.  Maybe some assume so, but there is no implication that it is the only worthwhile form of music, it is one form of music.  You can have a Canon of Jazz music starting from Louis Armstrong and Jellyroll Morton leading to Miles Davis.   You can have a Canon of teenybobber rock starting from the Monkeys and leading to Justin Beiber. 

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 27, 2011, 06:36:50 AM
You can have a Canon of Jazz music starting from Louis Armstrong and Jellyroll Morton leading to Miles Davis.   You can have a Canon of teenybobber rock starting from the Monkeys and leading to Justin Bieber.

Agreed.

Teenybopping has to date at least back to the Beatles playing Shea Stadium ; )

Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on April 27, 2011, 06:29:10 AM
That's history. What we call "classical music" for lack of a better term developed and evolved under the patronage of, and with the passionate support, of the upper classes, i.e. clergy, aristocracy and bourgeoisie. This might certainly hurt some contemporary sensibilities, but it can't be neither changed nor cast aside.  ;D

You missed my point, the canon is very restrictive in scope.

QuoteSo basically you dismiss the countless works analysing in the minutest details the intricacies of Beethoven's or Mozart's or Haydn's music as lacking any kind of objective merit, don't you?

Oh so complexity is equal to artistic merit?

QuoteI can't think of anyone here who ever suggested that the canon be accepted blindly and uncritically. Could you please name one?

Poco has asserted several times on this thread, and has been backed up by you, Karl and others that whether you appreciate a composer or not that is part of the canon, you must accept the greatness of that composer.  That to me is blind, uncritical acceptance.

QuoteI shall paraphrase him and attract your rage upon me: "Show me the Monteverdi and the Mozart of the Caribbeans and I'll be only too glad to listen to them."  ;D

I do not have that burden of proof.  I merely claim that music across the world can have just as much value.  If you assert that is not the case, then justify your assertion.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 27, 2011, 06:40:56 AM
Poco has asserted several times on this thread, and has been backed up by you, Karl and others that whether you appreciate a composer or not that is part of the canon, you must accept the greatness of that composer.  That to me is blind, uncritical acceptance.

Not at all. Bach, Mozart & Beethoven hold up very well to critical questioning (and we many have us have had experience like Edward's, of youthful resistance to the [idea of] the Canon).  And of course, my point that someone pursuing education in music must study the music of Handel, why, that's the opposite of blindness, isn't it? ; )

Quote from: haydnfan on April 27, 2011, 06:40:56 AM
You missed my point, the canon is very restrictive in scope.

Now, of course, the canon of classical music is restricted to classical music. But please feel free to make the case for including in it whatever you think it should be there.

Quote
Oh so complexity is equal to artistic merit?

It is you who missed my point. Complexity is something that can be objectively assessed, contrary to your claims that the canon is purely subjective. But please feel free to show why [insert a canonical name] should be struck off.

Quote
Poco has asserted several times on this thread, and has been backed up by you, Karl and others that whether you appreciate a composer or not that is part of the canon, you must accept the greatness of that composer.

You chopped it off to conveniently suit your point. The original idea is to accept it on the basis of certain elements, whose identification and analysis is available to everyone for pondering.

Quote
  That to me is blind, uncritical acceptance.

To you, indeed.

Quote
I do not have that burden of proof.  I merely claim that music across the world can have just as much value.
  If you assert that is not the case, then justify your assertion.

You completely turn upside down a fundamental principle of the Roman law, namely that the burden of proof is on the one who asserts the thing, not on the one who denies it. I made no assertion so I don't have to justify anything, contrary to you who made several unjustified assertions.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 27, 2011, 06:40:56 AM
You missed my point, the canon is very restrictive in scope.

Then you haven't read what I wrote above:

QuoteI absolutely agree too that there are any number of composers who have been unjustly neglected, and too much emphasis on a small body of names. This is the essential problem with a canon of any sort. . . . [Now] what we get are endless performances and recordings of a very limited repertoire always of music of the past (and a very limited past at that, overwhelmingly concentrating on 19th century orchestral music). This is hardly a healthy situation, above all not a good one for living composers, and to that degree it is extremely valuable that we get to hear less familiar names who have much good music to offer.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 27, 2011, 06:40:56 AM
Poco has asserted several times on this thread, and has been backed up by you, Karl and others that whether you appreciate a composer or not that is part of the canon, you must accept the greatness of that composer.  That to me is blind, uncritical acceptance.

For the record, there are any number of compositions by well-known composers that I find weak or second-rate. I have never concealed my disappointment with the Beethoven Violin Concerto, some of the more pedestrian piano sonatas like opp. 7 and 27/1, endless reams of dull stuff in Handel oratorios, and so forth.

And considering that you sign yourself "haydnfan," you too appear to be asserting your devotion to a central composer in the canon. Here you are, earlier in this thread:

QuoteI've never stopped listening to Bach!  He is great, utterly sublime.  The only composer the features higher on my queue is Haydn.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 27, 2011, 07:04:15 AMI have never concealed my disappointment with the Beethoven Violin Concerto,

Thank goodness; I thought I was the only one. (http://www.wnff.net/Smileys/wnff/phew.gif)

By the way, this is indeed an excellent discussion and I'm reading with great pleasure and stimulation.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 27, 2011, 06:06:57 AM
My problem with the classical music canon is that it celebrates a tradition of Western European music for the upper class.  Historical influence of other composers in the canon is both circular (why is Beethoven great? because he influenced Brahms, talk about nepotism) and subjective.  The canon seems to not be defined in terms of any kind of objective merits, and yet you people here think that it should be accepted as such.

To think that with a wealth of music around the world that some would choose a small selection of 18th and 19th century music from Germany and Italy and say that music is somehow artistically superior to the rest smacks of myopia.

Who says that?  And how does "the canon" exclude e.g. a girl from Japan?  Or an American from Ohio?   ;D  If it were so culturally exclusive in its merits, then "the canon" would not have adherents outside of (Western) Europe.

There is a symphony orchestra in Baghdad!  They play Grieg, Duke Ellington, as well as orchestrations of Iraqi folk songs! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhGKE_DzQSQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhGKE_DzQSQ)

Romanian Count Rudolf quotes Saul Bellow accurately: the "canon" will/should/can include anything great by anybody, whether from the South Pacific or the North Pole.

"The canon" in earlier days may indeed have been created by Western intellectuals, but the Great Unwashed have always been free to reject it, ignore it, and find something else.  The democratization which has occurred in creating a modern canon is not necessarily better, as non-objective factors (Is the artist a lesbian Asian?  Did it hit #1 on the best-seller list?) skew things. But that can be irrelevant these days, unless one has children and looks at the Dreck replacing the canon in high schools and colleges.  As a parent, one needs to be aware and guide one's children to things of virtue, if the schools are not doing so.

I have read a few of the novels of Egyptian novelist Mahfouz and have also gone through some of the Chinese novels of Chiang Kuei and Xiaobo.  Will they be accepted as part of a canon?  Maybe, maybe not!  How many Nobel Prize winners are in the canon? Sinclair Lewis has faded dramatically: ever hear of Nobel Prize-winning novelist Halldor Laxness?

Marcel Pagnol's The Water of the Springs has always struck me as one of the greatest 20th Century novels with its Sophoclean tragedy.  Who reads it today, rather than seeing the movies it generated?  Would it be pushed by the "professoriat" if Pagnol had been a member of an "oppressed" group?

Sarge also quotes Bloom correctly as not rejecting great things from around the world.  Today one creates one's own canon, using the recommendations from the intellectuals as a guide...or not!

In the end, a "canon" means that Life Is Short, and you do not have time to experience everything!  Here is a recommendation for you to make your life's experience deeper and more thoughtful and enjoyable.  Do with it as you will!

Quote from: Cato on April 27, 2011, 07:11:21 AM
Who says that?  And how does "the canon" exclude e.g. a girl from Japan?  Or an American from Ohio?   ;D  If it were so culturally exclusive in its merits, then "the canon" would not have adherents outside of (Western) Europe.

There is a symphony orchestra in Baghdad!  They play Grieg, Duke Ellington, as well as orchestrations of Iraqi folk songs! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhGKE_DzQSQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhGKE_DzQSQ)

Romanian Count Rudolf quotes Saul Bellow accurately: the "canon" will/should/can include anything great by anybody, whether from the South Pacific or the North Pole.

"The canon" in earlier days may indeed have been created by Western intellectuals, but the Great Unwashed have always been free to reject it, ignore it, and find something else.  The democratization which has occurred in creating a modern canon is not necessarily better, as non-objective factors (Is the artist a lesbian Asian?  Did it hit #1 on the best-seller list?) skew things. But that can be irrelevant these days, unless one has children and looks at the Dreck replacing the canon in high schools and colleges.  As a parent, one needs to be aware and guide one's children to things of virtue, if the schools are not doing so.

I have read a few of the novels of Egyptian novelist Mahfouz and have also gone through some of the Chinese novels of Chiang Kuei and Xiaobo.  Will they be accepted as part of a canon?  Maybe, maybe not!  How many Nobel Prize winners are in the canon? Sinclair Lewis has faded dramatically: ever hear of Nobel Prize-winning novelist Halldor Laxness?

Marcel Pagnol's The Water of the Springs has always struck me as one of the greatest 20th Century novels with its Sophoclean tragedy.  Who reads it today, rather than seeing the movies it generated?  Would it be pushed by the "professoriat" if Pagnol had been a member of an "oppressed" group?

Sarge also quotes Bloom correctly as not rejecting great things from around the world.  Today one creates one's own canon, using the recommendations from the intellectuals as a guide...or not!

In the end, a "canon" means that Life Is Short, and you do not have time to experience everything!  Here is a recommendation for you to make your life's experience deeper and more thoughtful and enjoyable.  Do with it as you will!

To conclude, allow me to reiterate my first opinion: the "hot composers on GMG" are - in reverse alphabetical order -  ;D -
Luke Ottevanger and Karl Henning.

Quote from: Cato on April 27, 2011, 08:47:38 AM
To conclude, allow me to reiterate my first opinion: the "hot composers on GMG" are - in reverse alphabetical order -  ;D -
Luke Ottevanger and Karl Henning.

How can we tell which composers are hot without photos?

Back to the violin babes with you!

Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on April 27, 2011, 06:54:14 AM
It is you who missed my point. Complexity is something that can be objectively assessed, contrary to your claims that the canon is purely subjective. But please feel free to show why [insert a canonical name] should be struck off.

Complexity can be objectively assessed... but what does that have to do with the canon?  Are all canonical works complex?  Are all complex works canonical?  No to both.  Is what separates those composers from being great from being fringe have to do with complexity?  Again, no.

QuoteYou chopped it off to conveniently suit your point. The original idea is to accept it on the basis of certain elements, whose identification and analysis is available to everyone for pondering.

Too vague, what are the elements that you speak of?

QuoteYou completely turn upside down a fundamental principle of the Roman law, namely that the burden of proof is on the one who asserts the thing, not on the one who denies it. I made no assertion so I don't have to justify anything, contrary to you who made several unjustified assertions.

No I haven't turned upside down that law.  It's a little subtle here so bear with me: I said that the canon should be larger than it is in scope, in representative culture.  That is NOT a positive assertion, because a priori without any consideration a canon of great, art music should not show any bias for any particular culture.  Now if you say no, it's limited range of western European music is exactly as it should be, I call that a positive assertion.  And thus the burden of proof is on you.

I strongly agree with that quote of your earlier post Poco.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 27, 2011, 09:05:22 AM

No I haven't turned upside down that law.  It's a little subtle here so bear with me: I said that the canon should be larger than it is in scope, in representative culture. That is NOT a positive assertion, because a priori without any consideration a canon of great, art music should not show any bias for any particular culture.  Now if you say no, it's limited range of western European music is exactly as it should be, I call that a positive assertion.  And thus the burden of proof is on you.

As I wrote above, why should you be exercised by whatever the canon used to be in the 19th century?  If 19th-century Western European intellectuals had heard e.g. a symphony from China, I am not so sure that they would have excluded it.  Given the mania for Orientalism which has sporadically swept through the West, I see no proof that it would have been rejected "a priori."

In addition, the genius of the West has often been to absorb cultural items from other civilizations, rather than rejecting them outright because they were foreign.  It was in fact the Chinese who viewed other cultures as beneath them, as barbarous, and believed that Chinese culture was the height of Humanity's Progress.

Quote from Apollon/Karl Henning

QuoteBack to the violin babes with you!

Violin babes should cause no debate!   0:)

Quote from: Cato on April 27, 2011, 09:15:18 AM
. . . In addition, the genius of the West has often been to absorb cultural items from other civilizations, rather than rejecting them outright because they were foreign.

Marcia alla turca from the great Opus 125!

Quote from: Apollon on April 27, 2011, 09:17:08 AM
Marcia alla turca from the great Opus 125!

Not to mention Mozart's use of "Turkish music" in Die Entführung aus dem Serail and the Fifth Violin Concerto.

How exactly is cultural chauvinism at work with compositions such as
From the Steppes of Central Asia by Borodin and Islamey by Balakirev?

Harry Partch took inspiration from gamelan music and Eastern microtonal scales: all kinds of examples abound of the West accepting Eastern influences.

Quote from: Apollon on April 27, 2011, 09:17:08 AM
Marcia alla turca from the great Opus 125!

Is there really anything "turkish" in that music other than the use of a cymbal?

In any case, whenever I have seen a formal appellation applied to "The Canon", it was "The Canon of Western Music". That being the case, and Western Music being a euphemism for European Art Music since time immemorial, the question of its exclusivity should be moot. Now, a "Canon of World Music" that was unduly exclusive should be worth fighting over... :)

8)

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on April 27, 2011, 09:48:46 AM
In any case, whenever I have seen a formal appellation applied to "The Canon", it was "The Canon of Western Music". That being the case, and Western Music being a euphemism for European Art Music since time immemorial, the question of its exclusivity should be moot. Now, a "Canon of World Music" that was unduly exclusive should be worth fighting over... :)

8)

A mixed genre canon makes no sense to me.  It's like trying to decide if Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusic is better than the Mona Lisa.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 27, 2011, 09:50:35 AM
A mixed genre canon makes no sense to me.  It's like trying to decide if Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusic is better than the Mona Lisa.

???

8)

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 27, 2011, 09:48:06 AM
Is there really anything "turkish" in that music other than the use of a cymbal?

That's a fair question, yet it remains true that it was exposure to Turkish music which was an inspiration.

Quote from: Apollon on April 27, 2011, 09:55:57 AM
That's a fair question, yet it remains true that it was exposure to Turkish music which was an inspiration.

Well, incorporation of non-Western influence in classical music has typically been very superficial and involved more parody and caricature than genuine influence.  I think of all of those cringe-inducing "oriental" effects in Puccini.

Quote from: Cato on April 27, 2011, 09:15:18 AM
the genius of the West has often been to absorb cultural items from other civilizations, rather than rejecting them outright because they were foreign.  It was in fact the Chinese who viewed other cultures as beneath them, as barbarous, and believed that Chinese culture was the height of Humanity's Progress.

Exactly. If one thinks about the whole issue without any prejudice, it is precisely those much vilified "Dead White European Males' who left no stone unturned in search of everything "Oriental", "exotic", "foreign", "strange" and "unheard / unseen". There never was in the whole history of mankind a culture more opened to, and more inquisitive about, foreign cultures than the European one, some liberal / feminist / black wishful thinking & historical revisionism notwithstanding.

I remember a conversation I had with a Cuban guy. When I asked him whether he liked classical music, he replied that he didn't, because it was not "theirs" (i.e, Cuban). Now, I'm not going to say he was exemplary of the Cubans as a whole, but he certainly was representative of an "anti-Western" and "anti-European" trend, which can be found not only in the Third World, but also in the very Western World as well. Now, if such a guy would publicly sing the praises of the folk Cuban music as "his" music, in whose tradition he was born and raised, as opposed to the "upper class" European classical music, a foreign and "opressive" genre, he'd be applauded --- but if I, a white male European were to sing the praises of the latter as being "my" music, i.e. the music in which tradition I was born and raised, as opposed to Cuban folk music, a foreign and "inferior" genre, I'd be labeled a racist and white suprematist.  ???

I'm still waiting for haydnfan to make a convincing case for someone who is not included in the European classical music canon yet should be there, and for someone who is included yet should be struck off.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 27, 2011, 09:59:12 AM
Well, incorporation of non-Western influence in classical music has typically been very superficial and involved more parody and caricature than genuine influence.  I think of all of those cringe-inducing "oriental" effects in Puccini.

Even if that were true, could you point to even a parodical and caricatural incorporation of Western influence into Oriental music in Puccini's time?

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 27, 2011, 09:59:12 AM
Well, incorporation of non-Western influence in classical music has typically been very superficial and involved more parody and caricature than genuine influence.  I think of all of those cringe-inducing "oriental" effects in Puccini.

Or that "Chop Suey" number in Flower Drum Song. Heck, that whole fool musical.

Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on April 27, 2011, 10:08:00 AM
Even if that were true, could you point to even a parodical and caricatural incorporation of Western influence into Oriental music in Puccini's time?

I think that both cultures have been musically isolated from each other, especially considering the domain of 18th and 19th century as we have been.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 27, 2011, 09:48:06 AM
Is there really anything "turkish" in that music other than the use of a cymbal?

Alla turca is always lively in tempo, and is almost always a kind of march.

When Alla turca music was scored for orchestra, it normally used extra percussion instruments not otherwise found in orchestras of the time: typically, the bass drum, the triangle, and cymbals. These instruments were used by Ottoman Turks in their military music, so at least the instrumentation of "Turkish" music was authentic except for the triangle. Often there is also a piccolo, whose piercing tone recalls the shrill sound of the zurna (shawm) of Ottoman Janissary music.

At least part of the entertainment value of "Turkish" music was the perceived exoticism. The Turks were well known to the citizens of Vienna (where Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven all worked) as military opponents, and indeed the centuries of warfare between Austria and Ottoman Empire had only started going generally in Austria's favor around the late 17th century. The differences in culture, as well as the frisson derived from the many earlier Turkish invasions, apparently gave rise to a fascination among the Viennese for all things Turkish—or even ersatz Turkish. This was part of a general trend in European arts at the time.

Stolen from Wiki since it was easier than typing it out myself... 0:)

8)

Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on April 27, 2011, 10:08:00 AM
Even if that were true, could you point to even a parodical and caricatural incorporation of Western influence into Oriental music in Puccini's time?

Huh?  The Empire of Japan was using western style military bands as early as the 19th century.  They adopted and mastered the style, they did not just include a few western lollipops into their traditional music.

I get my "which composer is hot" info from the "Gurn's Classical Corner " thread. ;D

(* chortle-ortle *)

Quote from: springrite on April 27, 2011, 10:29:44 AM
I get my "which composer is hot" info from the "Gurn's Classical Corner " thread. ;D

It's the only place that counts. BTW, we have been discussing Reicha's keyboard music. AFAIK, he is non-canonized, however, don't let that stop you.  :)

8)

I can safely declare that today Prokofiev is on fire! 8)  Like a fiery angel if you will... ;D

Quote from: Apollon on April 27, 2011, 10:30:33 AM
(* chortle-ortle *)

I note that he didn't mention Henning's Hidey-Hole... :D

8)

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on April 27, 2011, 10:32:56 AM
I note that he didn't mention Henning's Hidey-Hole... :D

8)

I'm cryin' here, Gurn & Paul!

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on April 27, 2011, 10:32:56 AM
I note that he didn't mention Henning's Hidey-Hole... :D

8)

If I said "thank goodness for Henning's Hidey-Hole", someone will surely respond with "don't mention it". ;D

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 27, 2011, 09:59:12 AM
Well, incorporation of non-Western influence in classical music has typically been very superficial and involved more parody and caricature than genuine influence.  I think of all of those cringe-inducing "oriental" effects in Puccini.

Personally, I cringe a lot more at Billy and his squaw. Not to mention "Whisky per tutti!"

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on April 27, 2011, 10:23:41 AM
When Alla turca music was scored for orchestra, it normally used extra percussion instruments not otherwise found in orchestras of the time: typically, the bass drum, the triangle, and cymbals. These instruments were used by Ottoman Turks in their military music, so at least the instrumentation of "Turkish" music was authentic except for the triangle.

This. A word from GMG's resident Turk: the "Turkish" music craze in Europe was almost entirely based on the instrumentation of the Ottoman military bands - understandably, since the Ottoman army was the primary means by which Europeans interacted with Turks! The Turkish scales, however, let alone actual melodies, were not used by Europeans unless in a form which was smoothed over into one of the traditional Western modes.

An extremely good - extremely good - example of genuine Turkish classical music, from the 1700s, demonstrating the state of Turkish compositions at the time of the European "Turkish music" craze, is Jordi Savall's superb CD "Istanbul" - which, for what it's worth, my Istanbul-native mother considers the best Turkish music CD she's ever heard.

[asin]B002GUJ15W[/asin]

(Side note: Ordering from non-USA Amazons, or other sites, can save you a lot of money.)

Quote from: Brian on April 27, 2011, 11:06:44 AM
An extremely good - extremely good - example of genuine Turkish classical music, from the 1700s, demonstrating the state of Turkish compositions at the time of the European "Turkish music" craze, is Jordi Savall's superb CD "Istanbul" - which, for what it's worth, my Istanbul-native mother considers the best Turkish music CD she's ever heard.

[asin]B002GUJ15W[/asin]

Dimitrie Cantemir being... an European who cared enough for Turkish music to collect, notate and made it known to Europeans.  Show me his Turkish counterpart, doing the same with European music.

Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on April 27, 2011, 11:44:35 AM
Dimitrie Cantemir being... an European who cared enough for Turkish music to collect, notate and made it known to Europeans.  Show me his Turkish counterpart, doing the same with European music.

You posed the same idiotic rhetorical question when I referred to Puccini's use of caricature of "oriental" music but ignored my substantial response. 

Quote from: Brian on April 27, 2011, 11:06:44 AM
An extremely good - extremely good - example of genuine Turkish classical music, from the 1700s, demonstrating the state of Turkish compositions at the time of the European "Turkish music" craze, is Jordi Savall's superb CD "Istanbul" - which, for what it's worth, my Istanbul-native mother considers the best Turkish music CD she's ever heard.

[asin]B002GUJ15W[/asin]

I'll pass on the recommendation. Mrs. Rock is a fanatic about Turkish music: pop, folk and classical.

Sarge

Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on April 27, 2011, 11:44:35 AM
Dimitrie Cantemir being... an European who cared enough for Turkish music to collect, notate and made it known to Europeans.  Show me his Turkish counterpart, doing the same with European music.

Dimitrie Cantemir being... the Frenchified name of a man who, though Moldovan-born, was raised and educated in Istanbul from the age of 14, adopted by the Ottoman court as "Kantemiroglu," and, more importantly, who was taught musical performance, theory, and composition by Turkish teachers in Ottoman schools. Later on he learned European musical notation so he could set down Turkish music - including his own compositions, which are all in the Ottoman style which he was taught.

Nice try, though.
EDIT: I don't mean to sound harsh - there is no way you could have known all that stuff. Just don't pass judgment so quickly.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 26, 2011, 07:52:02 PM
I like music off the beaten track. I like exploring and finding new composers to listen to and, hopefully, come to appreciate. Only recently has Koechlin's music hit me. I hope that someday you will explore this composer as I think he would be right up your alley. That is, if you can let down your guard long enough to listen to the music.

All of Koechlin's music is on premium price labels & that's the main thing that deters me from getting into these more obscure composers. It's basically been hit & miss in that regard. Eg. about 6-12 months ago, I got a disc of Langgaard's music (it was on special), who you praised to high heaven, and I thought it would indeed be "right up my alley." Turned out that this music, his final two symphonies written around the 1940's & '50's, sounded like they could have been written more than 50 years before. This is the last thing I want to listen to, regurgitations of what had gone on half a century before. I took it back to the store and exchanged it for some Ives, which I did indeed find was "right up my alley" much unlike the Langgaard.

I'm basically happy listening to the main movers and shakers of classical of the past 500 or more years. I've recently "discovered" or "rediscovered" the music of guys like Monteverdi, Mozart & Beethoven & heard for the first time music from the other end of the spectrum - Xenakis, Stockhausen, Boulez - & many things in between. It's been pure joy. Of course, now and then, I take a gamble with the more obscure composers - some have "clicked" with me, eg. Stanford, Rawsthorne & Roslavets, for example. Some haven't. That's just how it is, that's life.

But I will be sure to check out Koechlin's stuff on youtube soon when I have the time...

Quote from: Sid on April 27, 2011, 09:10:55 PM
All of Koechlin's music is on premium price labels & that's the main thing that deters me from getting into these more obscure composers. It's basically been hit & miss in that regard. Eg. about 6-12 months ago, I got a disc of Langgaard's music (it was on special), who you praised to high heaven, and I thought it would indeed be "right up my alley." Turned out that this music, his final two symphonies written around the 1940's & '50's, sounded like they could have been written more than 50 years before. This is the last thing I want to listen to, regurgitations of what had gone on half a century before. I took it back to the store and exchanged it for some Ives, which I did indeed find was "right up my alley" much unlike the Langgaard.

I'm basically happy listening to the main movers and shakers of classical of the past 500 or more years. I've recently "discovered" or "rediscovered" the music of guys like Monteverdi, Mozart & Beethoven & heard for the first time music from the other end of the spectrum - Xenakis, Stockhausen, Boulez - & many things in between. It's been pure joy. Of course, now and then, I take a gamble with the more obscure composers - some have "clicked" with me, eg. Stanford, Rawsthorne & Roslavets, for example. Some haven't. That's just how it is, that's life.

But I will be sure to check out Koechlin's stuff on youtube soon when I have the time...

That's great. You listen to music that is enjoyable to you and I'll listen to music that is enjoyable to me. See you on the fringes.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 27, 2011, 09:16:58 PM
That's great. You listen to music that is enjoyable to you and I'll listen to music that is enjoyable to me.

Agreed - we are all different but our tastes/interests can overlap sometimes.

QuoteSee you on the fringes.

Yep, then back to the centre!!!

Quote from: Sid on April 27, 2011, 09:25:24 PMAgreed - we are all different but our tastes/interests can overlap sometimes.

Last time I checked, not many people's tastes overlap with my own. I don't know many people who actually like Milhaud's symphonies as much as I do. :)

Quote from: Sid on April 27, 2011, 09:25:24 PMYep, then back to the centre!!!

No, I don't like the center. I prefer the corner. :)

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 27, 2011, 10:24:20 AM
Huh?  The Empire of Japan was using western style military bands as early as the 19th century.  They adopted and mastered the style, they did not just include a few western lollipops into their traditional music.

Ah, I see. Turandot and Madama Butterfly are cringe-inducingly superficial, as opposed to the masterly profound Japanese military bands... Substantial, indeed.

Quote from: Brian on April 27, 2011, 12:12:06 PM
Dimitrie Cantemir being... the Frenchified name of a man who, though Moldovan-born, was raised and educated in Istanbul from the age of 14, adopted by the Ottoman court as "Kantemiroglu," and, more importantly, who was taught musical performance, theory, and composition by Turkish teachers in Ottoman schools. Later on he learned European musical notation so he could set down Turkish music - including his own compositions, which are all in the Ottoman style which he was taught.

Nice try, though.
EDIT: I don't mean to sound harsh - there is no way you could have known all that stuff. Just don't pass judgment so quickly.

I am Romanian. Dimitrie Cantemir (this isn't any kind of Frenchified name, but his Romanian one --- the Frenchified would be Demetre) and his life is taught in schools. He went to Istanbul not by his own will, but sent as a hostage by his father Constantin, Prince of Moldavia, to take the place of his (Dimitrie's) brother Antioh. His education started well before that. He was not adopted in the least by the Ottoman court: he did not settle permanently in Istanbul, he did not change his name (Kantemiroglu means simply "Cantemir's son" and he never used this Turkish version), he remained a Christian and he subsequently ascended to the Moldavian throne, fighting the Turks alongside Peter the Great, who made him Prince of the Russian Empire and bestowed him vast estates in Russia proper and Ukraine. He died in Russia, was buried in Moscow and eventually his ashes were transferred to Jassy in his native Romania (Moldavia). He was a polymath and polyglot who took every opportunity to learn and study and there is no wonder that in Istanbul he studied in the most thorough manner the Turkish music, becoming its first musicologist.

There is no way you could have known all that stuff.  ;D

Nice try, though.  :)

And, of course --- I didn't mean to sound harsh either.  0:)

Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on April 28, 2011, 12:51:15 AM

There is no way you could have known all that stuff. ;D

Nice try, though.  :)

And, of course --- I didn't mean to sound harsh either.  0:)

Even Wikipedia has the basics about Cantemir, who obviously was no French-fried Turk!   8)    He sounds like a fascinating character, the kind we could use in Washington D.C. these days, instead of...well, I will be polite!    0:)

Amazon also offers this CD:

(http://www.goldenhorn.com/content/images/ghp019_cover.jpg)

http://www.amazon.com/CANTEMIR-Istanbul-Ottoman-Europe-around/dp/B0001CVE8E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303991487&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/CANTEMIR-Istanbul-Ottoman-Europe-around/dp/B0001CVE8E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303991487&sr=1-1)

Red hot: Langgaard

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 26, 2011, 06:59:04 AM
Red hot: Langgaard

And Koechlin, people seem to be discussing these two composers alot right now.  Bach has also drifted back into the limelight, not sure he ever dropped that much in popularity, but now people are again talking of him outside of his dedicated threads.

The unjustly neglected Franco-Danish composer Rued Charles Koechgaard...

(http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/3706/koecheggaard.png)

Quote from: mozartfan on May 26, 2011, 07:29:07 AM
And Koechlin

Well, we've now come full circle to the first post of the thread ; )

MI tells us that Koechlin is hot, but then, he's doing better than half the talking about Koechlin : )

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 27, 2011, 09:41:41 PM
No, I don't like the center. I prefer the corner. :)

I just saw this... you must be an atonalist honk! honk! ;D

Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on May 26, 2011, 07:29:49 AM
The unjustly neglected Franco-Danish composer Rued Charles Koechgaard...

tehehehe ;D  You know it would be fun to have a photoshop hybrid composer thread... :)

That's one scary portrait, Sara!

Quote from: mozartfan on May 26, 2011, 07:29:07 AM
Bach has also drifted back into the limelight, not sure he ever dropped that much in popularity, but now people are again talking of him outside of his dedicated threads.

Where?

Quote from: Opus106 on May 26, 2011, 07:38:33 AM
Where?

Listening thread... Karl posted a bajillion I'm so excited about his organ works posts.  And got me listening too. :)

Quote from: mozartfan on May 26, 2011, 07:39:43 AM
Listening thread... Karl posted a bajillion I'm so excited about his organ works posts.

::)

Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on May 26, 2011, 07:29:49 AM
The unjustly neglected Franco-Danish composer Rued Charles Koechgaard...

(http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/3706/koecheggaard.png)

:D :D

Quote from: mozartfan on May 26, 2011, 07:33:03 AM
I just saw this... you must be an atonalist honk! honk! ;D

Yes, I am an atonalist whackjob.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 26, 2011, 07:31:29 AM
MI tells us that Koechlin is hot, but then, he's doing better than half the talking about Koechlin : )

Hard for anyone else to get a word in!

I had a go a couple of days ago. About five posts on the cackling,I mean Koechlin thread,in a row. I think I just sent everyone off to sleep. Although posting at the weekend probably didn't help. (Don't tell me Sky Sport is more interesting than Koechlin? How dare you!.............is it?!)
Now then,what was it I was just saying about 'Les Chants de Nectaire'?.............
Oops,wrong thread!

NB: Now I know how to keep a Tournemire thread going. Just keep posting!

NB2: MI's the real Koechlin expert,I'm just impersonating him!

                                                                              Yours Sincerely
                                                                                Mirror Image
                                                                                (the other one)

Certainly noticed much mention of Ives probably due to the new disc of the violin sonatas Hahn has just made. I am still yet to fully appreciate/enjoy his music, so maybe I should get this disc to try with his music once more....

Also, due to the enthusiasm of various members - including MI and myself, Prokofiev certainly is getting many mentions!

And deservedly so. For such a high profile,aknowledged great,there's so much of his output that seems undeservedly underrated,or even,neglected.
Keep the recommendations up.

Quote from: madaboutmahler on October 21, 2011, 12:26:56 PM
Certainly noticed much mention of Ives probably due to the new disc of the violin sonatas Hahn has just made. I am still yet to fully appreciate/enjoy his music, so maybe I should get this disc to try with his music once more....

Also, due to the enthusiasm of various members - including MI and myself, Prokofiev certainly is getting many mentions!

Give it a go Daniel.  I, myself, am not very familiar with Ives' music.  Yet this Hahn CD of his violin sonatas is so beautiful.  I can almost 100% guarantee you will enjoy it!  :)

Quote from: ChamberNut on October 21, 2011, 01:26:39 PM
Give it a go Daniel.  I, myself, am not very familiar with Ives' music.  Yet this Hahn CD of his violin sonatas is so beautiful.  I can almost 100% guarantee you will enjoy it!  :)

Will do Ray! :) If I enjoy this Hahn disc then I might try and explore more into his music. :)

Quote from: madaboutmahler on October 21, 2011, 12:26:56 PM
Certainly noticed much mention of Ives probably due to the new disc of the violin sonatas Hahn has just made. I am still yet to fully appreciate/enjoy his music, so maybe I should get this disc to try with his music once more....

If you haven't already, I would seriously read up on Ives's biography. This will hopefully give you a better understanding of where he was coming from in his music. He was completely ahead of his time, but he never severed ties with the past like many composers have tried to do. There is a lyrical warmth that runs deeply through so much of his music. Have you heard Symphony No. 3 "The Camp Meeting"? This may be a good place to start exploring his orchestral music.

Hot: D. Scarlatti & Haydn. (Just sayin'.)

The heat's always on in Haydn's Haus!

Dorokhov is so hot that nobody even dared to engage in a discussion about him ! :o 

Quote from: PaulSC on December 22, 2011, 11:51:15 AM
The heat's always on in Haydn's Haus!

yes, he's had quite a night tonight, hasn't he?  8)

Yea, every day,... it's Haydn, Brian, Mahler. Haydn, Brian, Mahler,...AHHH!!!

Just resurrecting my old thread from way back!

It is obvious as to who's particularly hot right now on GMG:

Myaskovsky
Messiaen

Good idea, it's an interesting read. I've noticed someone's enthusiasm occasionally spread to a number of other members and have picked up on a few composers from it, so it's been quite beneficial. :)

Quote from: steve ridgway on May 03, 2021, 08:56:10 AM
Good idea, it's an interesting read. I've noticed someone's enthusiasm occasionally spread to a number of other members and have picked up on a few composers from it, so it's been quite beneficial. :)

Luckily I've had both my vaccines against pernicious enthusisam so it has not spread here  ;)

At the moment, I can't see any evidence of Messiaen being "hot". For me, if a composer is "hot" on the forum, their thread would be regularly on the first page of Composer Discussion for a little while, like maybe a week or so.

Quote from: Roasted Swan on May 03, 2021, 10:50:52 PM
Luckily I've had both my vaccines against pernicious enthusisam so it has not spread here  ;)

;D

Quote from: Maestro267 on May 03, 2021, 11:57:13 PM
At the moment, I can't see any evidence of Messiaen being "hot". For me, if a composer is "hot" on the forum, their thread would be regularly on the first page of Composer Discussion for a little while, like maybe a week or so.

Messiaen is dominating the "What are you listening to now" thread.  Has been for the last couple of weeks (along with Miaskovsky), which is why I mentioned him.

Quote from: OrchestralNut on May 04, 2021, 07:06:48 AM
Messiaen is dominating the "What are you listening to now" thread.  Has been for the last couple of weeks (along with Miaskovsky), which is why I mentioned him.

I have noticed Messiaen cropping up quite a bit. I'm often inspired to listen to a work or composer after reading posts on GMG but if a composer is "hot" I tend not to get on the bandwagon.

I never really follow who's 'hot' and who's 'not' on GMG. We're all on separate paths as listeners.

Quote from: Mirror Image on May 05, 2021, 08:47:32 AM
I never really follow who's 'hot' and who's 'not' on GMG. We're all on separate paths as listeners.

Yes. Hardly anyone shares my music taste. I have learned the more I follow the paths shown by my own instinct the better I do.  0:)

Quote from: 71 dB on May 05, 2021, 10:18:53 AM
Yes. Hardly anyone shares my music taste. I have learned the more I follow the paths shown by my own instinct the better I do.  0:)

Well, I believe this is the best way. I can't concern myself with a composer I have no interest in, so that's why I say that it's best to keeping listening to what you want. As for your own tastes, well, I do like Elgar and I do like Tangerine Dream, so that's two commonalities already. ;)

Quote from: Mirror Image on May 05, 2021, 09:13:14 PM
Well, I believe this is the best way. I can't concern myself with a composer I have no interest in, so that's why I say that it's best to keeping listening to what you want. As for your own tastes, well, I do like Elgar and I do like Tangerine Dream, so that's two commonalities already. ;)

Good for you! ;D However, if I start listing more of my favorites sooner rather than later there's stuff you DON'T like!  ;)

Quote from: 71 dB on May 06, 2021, 12:05:29 AM
Good for you! ;D However, if I start listing more of my favorites sooner rather than later there's stuff you DON'T like!  ;)

Well sure, but that's completely natural. All of one's likes/dislikes can't coincide with someone else's of course.