I know a few of his harpsichord pieces, long wondering things they are. I spoke to professor Whenham at Birmingham uni a couple of times, who's an early 17th c man and agrees with me that Frescobaldi struggles to give sufficient shape and significance to his writing. It is interesting, but not great music; similar things can be said of Froberger...
Quote from: Sean on July 24, 2009, 10:52:51 AM
similar things can be said of Froberger...
Hey, watch it! :o 8)
Seriously: you obviously are not very familair with his music, or just fail to appreciate it. Froberger was a very interesting and
highly original (!) composer of harpsichord music who fused French, Italian and German musical styles.
I reserve any judgement on Frescobaldi until I've had a good taste of his music.
Q
All keyboard music before the big B is iffy- face it pal.
Quote from: Sean on July 24, 2009, 11:23:38 AM
All keyboard music before the big B is iffy- face it pal.
Why that generalization is absurd! :D
Quote from: Sean on July 24, 2009, 11:23:38 AM
the big B
Boethius?
Perhaps you're right, at that, Sean.
I've just looked through my list of early composer and really they're too boring to mention. How about Tallis's Felix namque pieces, some of his vocal polyphonic rejects smudged over.
Quote from: Sean on July 24, 2009, 11:23:38 AM
All keyboard music before the big B is iffy- face it pal.
Be careful when you sit, you're apt to break your neck, and what a blow that would be for all of us. ::)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 12:09:05 PM
Be careful when you sit, you're apt to break your neck, and what a blow that would be for all of us. ::)
Yup.
Quote from: Sean on July 24, 2009, 11:23:38 AM
All keyboard music before the big B is iffy- face it pal.
Bullshit.
By the time of most of big B's harpsichord oeuvre (1720s?) french harpsichord music was created (mostly on basis of lute music), underwent major change in style, from its start as suite combined of dances as created by de Chambonnieres and honed further by Louis Couperin, D'Anglebert, de La Guerre or mysterious Le Roux, into suite of character pieces of Francois Couperin, reaching its highest point with same Couperin and Rameau by 1720s, with predictable path toward late extravagances of mid 18th century (e.g. Royer or A-L Couperin).
If you thing all that is iffy you need some serious taste check, but then again I'm certainly not the first who told you that.
Quote from: Sean on July 24, 2009, 11:44:10 AM
I've just looked through my list of early composer and really they're too boring to mention. How about Tallis's Felix namque pieces, some of his vocal polyphonic rejects smudged over.
Sean - well there is a saying in radiology (my field) - 'Look three times, think twice, and speak once!' - I believe from the number of posts left, you've gone the other way - ;) :D
Hope that you don't have to 'eat' those words, and then 'hide' from us for a while? Dave :)
(http://monkey3media.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/headupass.jpg)
Quote from: SonicMan on July 24, 2009, 03:05:52 PM
Sean - well there is a saying in radiology (my field) - 'Look three times, think twice, and speak once!'
Sounds like the Walter Cronkite school of radiology, he always would pick up the phone to confirm for the third time. :) And why don't we have a Walter Cronkite thread when he was a 100 times better human than Michael Jackson? :-\
Anyway back on topic my Paulb snips last night left me even more curious about the music because it sounded pretty different as compared to the usual baroque sound.
Quote from: SonicMan on July 24, 2009, 03:05:52 PM
(http://monkey3media.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/headupass.jpg)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 12:09:05 PM
Be careful when you sit, you're apt to break your neck, and what a blow that would be for all of us. ::)
8)
Handy illustration of my point, Dave. ;D
8)
----------------
Listening to:
City of London Sinfonia / Ward - Fiorillo Sinfonia Concertante in F for Oboe & Orchestra 2nd mvmt
Drasko, yes styles were advancing, up to the point where great music could be written- by Bach. I know about three quarters of the Couperin, who's about as good as it gets, and it just doesn't have the melodic or structural distinction of the music of the next generation, Rameau, Scarlatti and Bach.
The likes of Binchois, Tallis, Sweelink, Frescobaldi, Froberger, Bull, Gibbons, Tunder, D'Anglebert, Purcell, Kuhnau, Bruhns, A.Scarlatti and Croft are all interesting and fill in the picture and can be enthusiastically discussed, but there can be no serious consideration of this as great or particularly meaningful or memorble music. So there.
Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2009, 04:09:00 AM
yes styles were advancing, up to the point where great music could be written- by Bach.
Bullshit. Advance stage of a style is no prerequisite condition for greatness of music. By your little theory Monteverdi or Schoenberg are crap by default.
Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2009, 04:09:00 AM
Couperin, who's about as good as it gets, and it just doesn't have the structural distinction of the music of the next generation, Rameau, Scarlatti and Bach.
Bullshit. Apples & oranges, faulting Couperin's character pieces for lacking structure in comparison with Scarlatti ABA sonatas or Bach's fugues is ridiculous, like it would be faulting the latter in lacking the narrative. Same as saying Schumann's Carnaval doesn't have the structure of Beethoven sonata. Don't you say?
edit: Dave, sorry for thread derailment, I won't any further.
Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2009, 04:09:00 AM
The likes of Binchois, Tallis, Sweelink, Frescobaldi, Froberger, Bull, Gibbons, Tunder, D'Anglebert, Purcell, Kuhnau, Bruhns, A.Scarlatti and Croft are all interesting and fill in the picture and can be enthusiastically discussed, but there can be no serious consideration of this as great or particularly meaningful or memorble music. So there.
I do seriously disagree. It's not as if music evolves in a linear progression towards ever increasing levels of sofisticatian and complexity. Your statement really baffles me to the extent that I find it totally incromprehensible. I could understand a statement saying that
you don't understand the greatness in it, after all we all aren't attuned to all sorts of music. Lots of jazz baffles me, but that doesn't mean I woud be so arrogat as to say that "there can be no serious consideration of this as great or particularly meaningful or memorable music". IMO it comes down to narrowmindeness and downright arrogance, rather than meaningful musical criticism. In what aspect is the music of eg an isorhytmic motet by Dufay any less great than eg Gretchen by Spinnrade by Schubert?
Drasko &
eratoQuoteAdvance stage of a style is no prerequisite condition for greatness of music. By your little theory Monteverdi or Schoenberg are crap by default.
QuoteIt's not as if music evolves in a linear progression towards ever increasing levels of sofisticatian and complexity.
I certainly agree that artist merit doesn't depend on style but music has fundamental technical components, particularly counterpoint and tonality, that didn't get properly established until into the 17th century- and this fact
does compromise what all prior composers could achieve.
And in my notion of structure I wasn't thinking of fixed formal designs but the understanding of musical flow, architecture and logic- which are related to contrapuntal technique and harmony: with primitive modal polyphony instead still in influence, music was naturally wandering, uncertain and without closure regardless of the composers intuitive genius- because they hadn't the means to articulate it.
Musical logic indeed may not have formal closure of those traditional types but it needs the technical groundwork there in order to really do anything. Pre and post tonal works are interesting but lie outside what art music essentially is.
QuoteIn what aspect is the music of eg an isorhytmic motet by Dufay any less great than eg Gretchen by Spinnrade by Schubert?
As above.
By the way I forgot Buxtehude on my list, who's at least a match for Couperin in quality of music (just to remind erato that aesthetics isn't a subjective matter).
Have fun with that: somehow I expect you'll be looking for another picture for it.
Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2009, 01:02:20 PM
music has fundamental technical components, particularly counterpoint and tonality, that didn't get properly established until into the 17th century
So you're defining music as necessarily requiring counterpoint and tonality? Thus making anything pre-baroque, and anything atonal just strange noise? I don't think that anyone will accept your definition! :D
Evening/ afternoon David. Yes, that's what I'm saying: non-tonalities are in various ways of value but they're not what music is really about. Let's agree to disagree on this though as it's old ground...
Presently listening to Scarlatti sonatas (Nos.120+)- ah, those blending lines, those consonant harmonies...
Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2009, 01:56:56 PM
Evening/ afternoon David. Yes, that's what I'm saying: non-tonalities are in various ways of value but they're not what music is really about.
So you think that artists who preserve the folk musics of the world should just give up? Chinese opera troupes would be better off doing Handel? Shakuhachi players should just quit and listen to Bach instead? In spite of dedicating their lives to their musical crafts, they don't know what music is really about?
Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2009, 01:02:20 PM
Drasko & erato
I certainly agree that artist merit doesn't depend on style but music has fundamental technical components, particularly counterpoint and tonality, that didn't get properly established until into the 17th century- and this fact does compromise what all prior composers could achieve.
And in my notion of structure I wasn't thinking of fixed formal designs but the understanding of musical flow, architecture and logic- which are related to contrapuntal technique and harmony: with primitive modal polyphony instead still in influence, music was naturally wandering, uncertain and without closure regardless of the composers intuitive genius- because they hadn't the means to articulate it.
Musical logic indeed may not have formal closure of those traditional types but it needs the technical groundwork there in order to really do anything. Pre and post tonal works are interesting but lie outside what art music essentially is.
As above.
By the way I forgot Buxtehude on my list, who's at least a match for Couperin in quality of music (just to remind erato that aesthetics isn't a subjective matter).
Have fun with that: somehow I expect you'll be looking for another picture for it.
So what you basically say is that nontonal music can never be great? Like Indian ragas, Webern, Machaut etc? Well I strongly disagree. And how you can say that principles of counterpoint was established in the 17th century is plain wrong. Greatness IMO has nothing to do with tonality, but with our tonalityconditioned minds it perhaps requires greater training, listening experience or openness to recognize it. I cannot hope to convince you I guess, but again, tying greatness up with tonality (any kind of tonality BTW?) to me me simply seems culturally restricted and narrowminded.
EDIT: I see the technicalities as defining the framework of composition, what the composers does, is fill the framework -whatever it is - with substance, and therein lies greatness and the composers genius - however hard or impossible that may be to define. What you basically say is that Middle of the Road's "Chirpy Chirpy Tweet Tweet" has a bigger chance of aspiring to greatness than early Dufay or an Indian raga developed as a result of thousands of years of musical development, because it is within a framework foreign to you. To me, that is simply madness...and makes greatness simply an individual and subjective matter. In that case I know people who would probably think that said ditty is a greater work of music than any Wagner opera, and they would be right, clearly an unsustainable position I would think.
Once Eric sees this thread, it's really going to take off. (http://www.improvresourcecenter.com/mb/images/smilies/popcorn.gif)
Him and Sean probably see eye to eye. ::)
Guys, there's no point arguing with Sean on this matter - greatness is what he says it is, just accept it and move on 0:)
BTW, is Purcell's keyboard music any good?
Has this clip been posted before?
About harpsichord tuning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfK3blfKE04
Quote from: Spitvalve on July 26, 2009, 09:33:31 AM
Guys, there's no point arguing with Sean on this matter - greatness is what he says it is, just accept it and move on 0:)
BTW, is Purcell's keyboard music any good?
I'm not arguing with him either in this or in any other thread; I'm just telling him he's wrong. Again.
What is it with you bunch?
CRCulver, your examples aren't art music.
erato (you expect me to take seriously someone who calls himself a record label or Greek muse or something?- what you doing?)
QuoteSo what you basically say is that nontonal music can never be great? Like Indian ragas, Webern, Machaut etc?
Yes. All these works have merit as art music in as far as they are tonal: try total serialism, eg the 1954 Stockhausen Klavierstucks or the early Ferneyhough quartets- all brainless rationalized garbage, being very polite.
Tonality has greater levels of correspondance with acoustic facts about consonance than any other harmonic system. If you haven't tried or your memory's failing, next time you're by a piano play C and C# and you'll find a discordant sound, whereas C and G is different. Argue your dumb way out of that.
QuoteI see the technicalities as defining the framework of composition, what the composers does, is fill the framework -whatever it is - with substance, and therein lies greatness and the composers genius
Only in terms of form. Melody however is music's highest component, as a moment's though will confirm.
And non-tonal frameworks aren't foreign to me, and tonality
isn't subjective.
DavidW- yes Eric and me go back a long way. At least he seems to experience art.
Spitvalve (what kind of person, may I ask, wants to be called that? Are you a person or a big joke? Very obviously the latter.)
QuoteBTW, is Purcell's keyboard music any good?
No, it isn't much. And most listeners with any sensitivity to speak of agree, but not indeed the relativist unknowing horde.
Quote from: Sean on July 26, 2009, 10:24:34 AM
And most listeners with any sensitivity to speak of agree, but not indeed the relativist unknowing horde.
This is exactly how Newman argues, including the random insults to people (mocking their handles in this case). Perhaps not appreciating serial music is your failing and not the composer's failing. As Karl would say, you need to recalibrate your listening gear. 8)
Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2009, 01:02:20 PM
Pre and post tonal works are interesting but lie outside what art music essentially is.
This is just complete nonsense (and my hunch is that you are trying to be provocative). And further, it's more than presumptuous to claim to know "what art music essentially is." Actually, based on that statement, I suspect you have no idea at all "what art music essentially is," since much of it seems to have bypassed you. ::)
--Bruce
Quote from: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 10:29:52 AM
This is exactly how Newman argues, including the random insults to people (mocking their handles in this case). Perhaps not appreciating serial music is your failing and not the composer's failing. As Karl would say, you need to recalibrate your listening gear. 8)
Newman may just be Sean's sock puppet, have we considered this? The similarities are overwhelmingly in favor of this solution. up to and including the FACT that neither of them knows f***-all about music. At least judging from anything they've posted so far. It may be the he/they are just holding back to keep from showing off... ::)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Marsalis, Leppard, English Chamber Orchestra - Telemann Concerto for in Bb for 3 Trumpets 1st mvmt - Moderato
Check the olive oil! ;)
Quote from: Sean on July 26, 2009, 10:24:34 AM
Only in terms of form. Melody however is music's highest component, as a moment's though will confirm.
This isn't argument. That is positioning something nonevident as fact. Just as robnewman usually does.
Quote from: Sean on July 26, 2009, 10:24:34 AM
And non-tonal frameworks aren't foreign to me, and tonality isn't subjective.
Yes it is - to all the people through all the ages that didn't, and don't, find it selfevident. And to everybody able to find beauty, feeling and communication in nontonal music even if you aren't.
Quote from: Sean on July 26, 2009, 10:24:34 AM
If you haven't tried or your memory's failing, next time you're by a piano play C and C# and you'll find a discordant sound, whereas C and G is different. Argue your dumb way out of that.
It wasn't to Dufay. And please leave the obnoxious argumentation.
Or rather - don't bother. I should have known better than try to enter into meaningful and civil argumentation with you. I'm a stupid f**k.
Where IS the ignore Sean button? I really need it.
GurnQuoteup to and including the FACT that neither of them knows f***-all about music. At least judging from anything they've posted so far. It may be the he/they are just holding back to keep from showing off... ::)
Fine words for a moderator. But no, I'm not Rob N, just one of these pesky occasional guys who can actually think a bit, yes, odd and disturbing I know; don't worry though, just carry on in the flow and I'll be overwhelmed with B/S and you won't have to worry so.
I know the
Triple trumpet from the Leppard as well.
eratoQuoteThis isn't argument. That is positioning something nonevident as fact. Just as robnewman usually does.
It's self-evident.
QuoteYes it is - to all the people through all the ages that didn't, and don't, find it selfevident. And to everybody able to find beauty, feeling and communication in nontonal music even if you aren't.
This just isn't the case. If you want me to quote others, in R.Scruton's words, 'tonality is the only music that will ever make sense to us...'
QuoteI'm a stupid f**k.
Well I don't usually bother telling people but...
Your problem Sean is that you see everything - absolutely everything - as a reflection of you and your particular problems and place in the world. Which means any kind of discussion with you is useless by those able to step outside their own sphere for a moment and reflect on more general matters and principles (and I don't claim that I always am able to do that myself). It's you, you, you, something which frankly makes normal human communication useless.
Quote from: Sean on July 26, 2009, 11:05:52 AM
Well I don't usually bother telling people but...
Please do. Anybody stupid enough to think normal human interaction with you possible, deserves to be told off.
A few replies to that drivellous contribution come to mind but this thread is already too much of a wind up. I think I'll go on Youtube a bit.
Quote from: Sean on July 26, 2009, 11:01:08 AM
Gurn
Fine words for a moderator. But no, I'm not Rob N, just one of these pesky occasional guys who can actually think a bit, yes, odd and disturbing I know; don't worry though, just carry on in the flow and I'll be overwhelmed with B/S and you won't have to worry so.
I know the Triple trumpet from the Leppard as well.
I'm not worried, just exasperated. For a smart guy, you seem to say some dumb s**t. I expect more from you.
Yes, the Telemann is pretty good. Marsalis isn't a classical trumpeter by a long shot, but he can sure adapt well as needs be. Better yet is the anonymous 2nd or 3rd playing the Eb trumpet in the clarino register. That guy (or gal) can sure blow! :)
8)
That Marsalis recording is pretty sweet. I bagged it in a two story FYE on clearance for $3, just a couple of weeks before I left New England for good to move to the hotter part of the country. :)
Quote from: Sean on July 26, 2009, 11:09:46 AM
A few replies to that drivellous contribution come to mind but this thread is already too much of a wind up. I think I'll go on Youtube a bit.
Did you already check 'my' link of Bradley Lehman? ;D
Seriously guys: me, silly old soddus, friend of biggus dickus, famous in Rome, but not in Jerusalem, am very interested in a subject like
early (pre-Bach) harpsichord music.
Just think of the positive things we may discover:
Erato thinks there's early harpsichord music which is
great.
Sean thinks there's early harpsichord music which is
interesting.
Well, I do see
some correspondences! :)
Let's just try to talk about this music, OK?
And start a
normal kinda mature thread about it, OK?
Help this ignorant guy, pleaze!
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 26, 2009, 10:50:31 AM
Newman may just be Sean's sock puppet, have we considered this? The similarities are overwhelmingly in favor of this solution.
I think it's just a coincidence. They are both embittered losers, who display the traits common to that type of individual (such as belief in conspiracy theories); but the sad fact is there are zillions of such people clogging up the Internet.
erato &
SpitvalveQuoteYour problem Sean is that you see everything - absolutely everything - as a reflection of you and your particular problems and place in the world. Which means any kind of discussion with you is useless by those able to step outside their own sphere for a moment and reflect on more general matters and principles (and I don't claim that I always am able to do that myself). It's you, you, you, something which frankly makes normal human communication useless.
QuoteI think it's just a coincidence. They are both embittered losers, who display the traits common to that type of individual (such as belief in conspiracy theories); but the sad fact is there are zillions of such people clogging up the Internet.
Maybe I was bit harsh about the handles you use, though I don't know why people don't prefer to use their name, or a name, on internet forums- seems very defensive to me as though you're somehow hiding.
Anyway the above comments are pause for thought for me and have been levelled at me before: I am certainly interested in communication and discussion, but I guess I'm only going to get really involved with ideas I hadn't thought of and I feel are challenging. Maybe this is too conceited and I should be more receptive to all sorts of ideas beyond this, but I don't think so- I think the rest is garbage and that the likes of you two just want to take liberal relativist stances on everything, staying on fences as much as possible.
Quote from: Sean on July 27, 2009, 02:58:09 AM
erato & Spitvalve
Maybe I was bit harsh about the handles you use, though I don't know why people don't prefer to use their name, or a name, on internet forums- seems very defensive to me as though you're somehow hiding.
Why do you care what we call ourselves on this board? ??? "Spitvalve" reflects the fact that I used to play the trombone.
I for one welcome imaginative monickers.
Quote from: Sean on July 27, 2009, 02:58:09 AM
erato & Spitvalve
Maybe I was bit harsh about the handles you use, though I don't know why people don't prefer to use their name, or a name, on internet forums- seems very defensive to me as though you're somehow hiding.
Anyway the above comments are pause for thought for me and have been levelled at me before: I am certainly interested in communication and discussion, but I guess I'm only going to get really involved with ideas I hadn't thought of and I feel are challenging. Maybe this is too conceited and I should be more receptive to all sorts of ideas beyond this, but I don't think so- I think the rest is garbage and that the likes of you two just want to take liberal relativist stances on everything, staying on fences as much as possible.
Yeah, it´s a typical liberal stance to think Dufay great.
Quote from: The new erato on July 27, 2009, 11:25:03 AM
Yeah, it´s a typical liberal stance to think Dufay great.
LOL. However, the curious thing is that I can see some sense in Sean's POV, even without buying into his dogmatic, narcissistic view of things. Having listened to a fair amount of these early keyboard composers in the meantime, I find that a lot of this music has an exploratory, unfocused feel, as if the composers were searching for the forms and rules that had not yet been created.
That said, at the moment I'd much rather listen to Byrd, Sweelinck, or Frescobaldi than to any Romantic or Classical era piano music. It's just more interesting and full of surprises, a product of that exploratory sense perhaps.
Quote from: Velimir on September 20, 2013, 08:36:36 AM
as if the composers were searching for the forms and rules that had not yet been created.
A rather teleological view, which makes no sense. The early composers created their own forms and rules, which suited their needs for artistic expression. But when we listen to their music with our modern ears, we are because of our knowledge of the intervening history induced to hear an imaginary evolution. Listening to their music in a fair way, one has to "turn back the clock" and try to listen with unprejudiced ears. I think this can be achieved by training.
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 21, 2013, 04:19:19 PM
A rather teleological view, which makes no sense. The early composers created their own forms and rules, which suited their needs for artistic expression. But when we listen to their music with our modern ears, we are because of our knowledge of the intervening history induced to hear an imaginary evolution. Listening to their music in a fair way, one has to "turn back the clock" and try to listen with unprejudiced ears. I think this can be achieved by training.
The expression in philosophy was an "invisible hand explanation" -- as if some power is directing things towards some goal, but in fact there is no such power. Maybe no goal neither.
I'll just mention a pre Bach harpsichord recording which I like:
(http://i43.tower.com/images/mm106568817/de-macque-salvatore-pi-ces-clavecin-deverite-cd-cover-art.jpg)
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 21, 2013, 04:19:19 PM
A rather teleological view, which makes no sense. The early composers created their own forms and rules, which suited their needs for artistic expression. But when we listen to their music with our modern ears, we are because of our knowledge of the intervening history induced to hear an imaginary evolution. Listening to their music in a fair way, one has to "turn back the clock" and try to listen with unprejudiced ears. I think this can be achieved by training.
You are of course right; to a certain extent, we have to "un-hear" the following centuries of music to make sense of this material. But that is part of the fun.