GMG Classical Music Forum

 ;D

Interesting combination there, Dave!  :)

Neglected or underrated composers?

Quote from: MN Dave on October 29, 2010, 08:39:12 AM
Neglected or underrated composers?

I don't think any of these are.  Perhaps Grieg is the most underrated of this group.

Interesting clump of five, Dave . . . for me, Grieg, R. Strauss & Elgar aren't even in the running (compared to Ravel or Rakhmaninov) . . . and to decide between Ravel and Rakhmaninov is a Gordian knot.

I suppose I must vote Rakhmaninov.

Of course, it's just a Silly Poll . . . .

Ravel and Rach rock.  8)

For me only Ravel and Strauss are in the running, and still, when comparing these 2, my choice is clear: Strauss.

Strauss for me. Rach and Elgar are in the second tier...both among my favorite composers. Ravel and Grieg are also rans.

Sarge

I'm the same as Rappy (toss up between Ravel and Strauss).  In the end, it's Strauss.

Quite interesting to me these results...

Boy, I do find this difficult as well. Elgar is definitely in fifth, and Strauss and Grieg are sort of dark horses - especially Grieg - but it really boils down to Rach vs. Ravel for me. I think I listen to Rach more, and get a ton of pleasure from Rach's piano music and Third Concerto, but Ravel might be closer to my own personality and spirit.

Strauss for opera, otherwise Ravel wins.

Quote from: ChamberNut on October 29, 2010, 08:40:08 AM
I don't think any of these are.  Perhaps Grieg is the most underrated of this group.

Grieg is clearly the most overrated.  How many substantial pieces by Grieg are really worth listening to?  The Piano Concerto, Peer Gynt maybe, then, hmmm, that's it, right?  A couple of violin sonatas if you want to be charitable.

Rachmaninov must be taken more seriously as an opera composer: The Miserly Knight is a masterpiece which should be performed more often, although who is our modern-day Chaliapin?

Outside of opera, these are not to be forgotten: The Bells, one of the greatest choral  symphonies of the 20th Century.  And Isle of the Dead!

Despite the above, I must give the edge to Richard Strauss and mainly for one nearly perfect work:  Elektra.

Quote from: Scarpia on October 29, 2010, 10:17:28 AM
How many substantial pieces by Grieg are really worth listening to?

Ah, but that is where the difference lies! Aside from his substantial pieces - and I would list those as Peer Gynt, Piano Concerto, last two violin sonatas, Symphonic Dances, the piano Holberg Suite, and nearly all the orchestral songs / choral works - Grieg was the only composer of the five to bring any of his talents to bear on the realm of the miniature (exception: "Polka de V.R."). Elgar's miniatures are negligible trifles, Ravel didn't really write (m)any, and the idea of Strauss writing miniatures is a laugh. But Grieg's are little pure slices of heaven.

I did vote for Ravel, true. But Grieg wasn't last place on my ballot. Simplicity and wit are not easy things for composers to do.

Argh, Cato reminds me that I really, really need to attend to the operas of both Rakhmaninov and R. Strauss.

It's an easy choice as Ravel is one of my very favourite composers - no one to touch him, for me, in this poll. But aside from my personal preference for his precise, perfect but profound soundworld - and I could go on about it all day! - there's also the fact (or so it seems to me) that he's alone among these composers in producing not a single dud - even the pieces he rejected, such as the exam-pieces he wrote for the Prix de Rome or the Serenade Grotesque are exquisitely fine music. His small oeuvre is a real jewel which, to me, is one of the finest things music has to offer.

Quote from: Luke on October 29, 2010, 11:52:23 AM
It's an easy choice as Ravel is one of my very favourite composers - no one to touch him, for me, in this poll. But aside from my personal preference for his precise, perfect but profound soundworld - and I could go on about it all day! - there's also the fact (or so it seems to me) that he's alone among these composers in producing not a single dud - even the pieces he rejected, such as the exam-pieces he wrote for the Prix de Rome or the Serenade Grotesque are exquisitely fine music. His small oeuvre is a real jewel which, to me, is one of the finest things music has to offer.

Really?!? Fascinating. He was my easy first cut!! Profound soundworld is not what comes to my mind on Ravel - although it's not so much that I dislike him, but rather I just like the others so much more. I am really surprised that so many people put him so high. Perhaps you (and anyone else who is interested) could go a little deeper into what attracts you to him? I have four discs with orchestral pieces on two and piano on the other two. Perhaps I am missing something in his chamber pieces (although chamber is not always my faborite)? I've even played Bolero, so he is not exactly foreign to me either. I'm not trying to knock those who like him, just want to better understand what it is I may be missing.

Quote from: ukrneal on October 29, 2010, 12:07:48 PM
I'm not trying to knock those who like him, just want to better understand what it is I may be missing.

You are obviously missing any musical sensibility and are therefore insane.  ;D

Quote from: MN Dave on October 29, 2010, 12:18:09 PM
You are obviously missing any musical sensibility and are therefore insane.  ;D

Thankfully for me then, that wasn't a choice!  ;)

My Ravel top 5 favorites! (which changes constantly)
5. String Quartet
4. Daphnis et Chloe (complete)
3. Sonatine for piano
2. Piano Concerto
1. La valse

(Hon. Mention: Mother Goose, Pavane, orchestral Alborada del Gracioso. Things I haven't heard yet: all his other chamber music, L'enfante et les sortileges, piano Miroirs. Things I don't care much for: Bolero, Tzigane. Things I don't like: Valses nobles et sentimentales.)

To me, Ravel is a superb craftsman with excellent taste--a perfectionist.

Quote from: Brian on October 29, 2010, 12:27:54 PMThings I don't like: Valses nobles et sentimentales.)

:o

This might help

(http://moonmadness.cocolog-nifty.com/photos/uncategorized/2009/01/22/argerich.jpg)

Heh, I am listening to that Gaspard as we speak!

Quote from: MN Dave on October 29, 2010, 12:34:20 PM
To me, Ravel is a superb craftsman with excellent taste--a perfectionist.

Yes, I agree--as well as a ravishing orchestrator.  One thing that seems to be sometimes overlooked in Boléro, for example, is Ravel's expert use of different timbres to heighten tension and maintain interest.  I love the combination of horn, piccolo and celesta used about halfway through.  And when I heard it again recently, the piece struck me as a bunch of "mini-concertos," all strung together. 

--Bruce

I like the Boléro, and it surprised me to find this album entirely listenable, some ten (?) different versions on a single disc:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51TfQagrwqL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

Quote from: ukrneal on October 29, 2010, 12:07:48 PM
Really?!? Fascinating. He was my easy first cut!! Profound soundworld is not what comes to my mind on Ravel - although it's not so much that I dislike him, but rather I just like the others so much more. I am really surprised that so many people put him so high. Perhaps you (and anyone else who is interested) could go a little deeper into what attracts you to him? I have four discs with orchestral pieces on two and piano on the other two. Perhaps I am missing something in his chamber pieces (although chamber is not always my faborite)? I've even played Bolero, so he is not exactly foreign to me either. I'm not trying to knock those who like him, just want to better understand what it is I may be missing.

To me, Ravel is more sensitive and affecting than almost any other composer - and it's partly because there is this sheen and polish to his music which makes the perception of the heart beating underneath all the more powerful. There's a dark, anguished undertone to Ravel which breaks through sometimes in the most turbulent ways, but it's always in control and most of the time we just sense it under the surface. The oft-discussed love of automata, toys, machines, fairy stories, exotica, etc. etc. are masks behind which lurk passions and insecurities as great as any in music, I think; the intense yearning for childhood and innocence are the flip-side of this. That's why pieces like Ma mere l'oye are so much more than they seem - why its last section is so affirmative and yet so valedictory, I think. And of course his masterpiece opera L'enfant et les sortileges, after the pastiches and orchestral wizardry are past, is heartbreakingly touching in its final bars. I don't mind saying that I never cry whilst listening to music - except with this piece, which moves me to tears every time! I choke up even thinking about it! Ravel is just full to the brim of moments like these, however - moments of the most touching catharsis, all held under control which makes them the more affecting (as in Beahms or Mozart...)

Elsewhere there is a demonism, somethink dark and troubling which, paradoxically and disturbingly, Ravel is able to turn into the most compelling and compulsive music - I'm thinking of the left hand piano concerto above all, and of Le Gibet, Scarbo, La Valse, especially as it whirls to its own destruction...

But you're right, the chamber music contains much of the best of Ravel - the Piano Trio, so rich and complex and radiant-dark; the light and lucid violin sonata, the compact, terse duo sonata for violin + cello... and the songs!! The Mallarme songs with ensemble, moving from ultra-lucid extreme impressionism to a Schoenbergian complexity; the Madagascan songs (also with ensemble), erotic, sensuous, angry; the Histoires naturelles, maybe his best songs..

well, enough! To me Ravel's most popular pieces - Bolero, Daphnis - are the ones I listen to least, because I find them comparatively impersonal. It's the Concerti, the later chamber music, the two operas, Ma mere l'oye, the piano music, the ensemble songs, that I come back to over and over...

Ravel at the top - Grieg at the bottom.  The other three are closer to Ravel than Grieg.

Ravel at the top, the others are distant seconds.  From delicate rhythmic sensibilities to beautiful melody to fantastic coloring Ravel puts those other composers in the dust! ;D

R. Strauss simply bores me.

I've just listened to two Ravel works I'd never heard before - violin sonata in G and Sheherazade - and they're just stunning. Glad I voted for him. Why didn't anyone tell me Sheherazade is an out-and-out masterpiece before?

Quote from: bhodges on October 29, 2010, 12:50:07 PM
Yes, I agree--as well as a ravishing orchestrator.

yes!

Ravel is in my top 5 favorite composers, so perhaps my choice is a little biased?  :P

But seriously, I adore Ravel. Everything about his music. The rhythms, those lovely chord voicings, the remarkable command he had of the orchestra (his writing for the woodwinds is some of the best I've heard from any composer), the attention to detail, the whole aura of his music just mesmerizes and enchants me. He was one of the first composers I got into that seriously made me sit up and listen. Ravel is easily my favorite French composer.

Quote from: DavidW on October 29, 2010, 02:03:49 PMR. Strauss simply bores me.

I used to have a soft spot for Strauss' music, but he leaves me cold these days. I hardly listen to him much anymore.

Quote from: Luke on October 29, 2010, 12:50:44 PM
To me, Ravel is more sensitive and affecting than almost any other composer - and it's partly because there is this sheen and polish to his music which makes the perception of the heart beating underneath all the more powerful. There's a dark, anguished undertone to Ravel which breaks through sometimes in the most turbulent ways, but it's always in control and most of the time we just sense it under the surface. The oft-discussed love of automata, toys, machines, fairy stories, exotica, etc. etc. are masks behind which lurk passions and insecurities as great as any in music, I think; the intense yearning for childhood and innocence are the flip-side of this. That's why pieces like Ma mere l'oye are so much more than they seem - why its last section is so affirmative and yet so valedictory, I think. And of course his masterpiece opera L'enfant et les sortileges, after the pastiches and orchestral wizardry are past, is heartbreakingly touching in its final bars. I don't mind saying that I never cry whilst listening to music - except with this piece, which moves me to tears every time! I choke up even thinking about it! Ravel is just full to the brim of moments like these, however - moments of the most touching catharsis, all held under control which makes them the more affecting (as in Beahms or Mozart...)

Elsewhere there is a demonism, somethink dark and troubling which, paradoxically and disturbingly, Ravel is able to turn into the most compelling and compulsive music - I'm thinking of the left hand piano concerto above all, and of Le Gibet, Scarbo, La Valse, especially as it whirls to its own destruction...

But you're right, the chamber music contains much of the best of Ravel - the Piano Trio, so rich and complex and radiant-dark; the light and lucid violin sonata, the compact, terse duo sonata for violin + cello... and the songs!! The Mallarme songs with ensemble, moving from ultra-lucid extreme impressionism to a Schoenbergian complexity; the Madagascan songs (also with ensemble), erotic, sensuous, angry; the Histoires naturelles, maybe his best songs..

well, enough! To me Ravel's most popular pieces - Bolero, Daphnis - are the ones I listen to least, because I find them comparatively impersonal. It's the Concerti, the later chamber music, the two operas, Ma mere l'oye, the piano music, the ensemble songs, that I come back to over and over...

Thanks for that. Really appreciated. I admittedly had forgotten about the left hand concerto, which is a remarkable piece indeed. And I will try to keep some of what you said in mind when I next get a chance to listen to Ravel (hopefully this weekend).

Quote from: DavidW on October 29, 2010, 02:03:49 PM
From delicate rhythmic sensibilities to beautiful melody to fantastic coloring Ravel puts those other composers in the dust! ;D

R. Strauss simply bores me.

Astonishing, because all the things you mention, one can find in Strauss' music too!

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 29, 2010, 09:11:07 AM
Interesting clump of five, Dave . . . for me, Grieg, R. Strauss & Elgar aren't even in the running (compared to Ravel or Rakhmaninov) . . . and to decide between Ravel and Rakhmaninov is a Gordian knot.

I suppose I must vote Rakhmaninov.

Of course, it's just a Silly Poll . . . .

I actually agree with this whole post.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 29, 2010, 09:11:07 AMI suppose I must vote Rakhmaninov.

interesting choice, Mr. Henyng

Quote from: rappy on October 29, 2010, 11:39:50 PM
Astonishing, because all the things you mention, one can find in Strauss' music too!

I find Strauss heavier.

My head says Ravel, my heart says Strauss. Luke's post sums it up beautifully above (as per usual), and I agree that Strauss is maddeningly inconsistent, but at his best (i.e. soprano with orchestra, when the text and situation move him) there are few things I like more in music. That said, Ravel is also one of my absolute favourites - Madagascan Songs, Left Hand piano concerto, piano trio, Miroirs... all are on my desert island.

(And your post has reminded me of a thread I was going to start!)

For me it's Rachmaninov, i love the piano, and of course Rachmaninov wrote for it well, the 24 Preludes and the Etudes Tableaux are endlessly fascinating.

Ravel / Rachmaninov
Strauss
Elgar
Grieg

I went for Ravel in the end, but another day I might have chosen Rach. I wouldn't want to live in a world with Daphnis or the Left Hand PC, but then I could say the same about The Bells, which is one of the most moving pieces I know. But then I could also say the same about the Four Last Songs.  ???

I'm glad this is a just-for-fun exercise. Imagine you had to discard everything except your single top choice.  :'(

I picked Strauss, but Ravel and Elgar would follow fairly closely.  I'm surprised Elgar as so few advocates on this thread.

Quote from: Scarpia on October 31, 2010, 11:37:21 AM
  I'm surprised Elgar as so few advocates on this thread.

Well, I just voted for him.

That said, none of the named composers are among my favorites. I like several of the Strauss tone poems, so I'd put him in 2nd place. I'm one of those listeners who finds Rachmaninoff a sentimental gloppy romantic mess, so he comes last. Ravel seems to be a big favorite here; my reaction is basically the same as ukrneal's. I don't hate Ravel; his soundworld just doesn't appeal to me. It's a problem I have with French composers generally - they favor color and texture over rigorous development. My taste is more "Germanic." I suppose Grieg gets 3rd place by default.

Quote from: Benji on October 31, 2010, 11:25:19 AM
I wouldn't want to live in a world with Daphnis or the Left Hand PC,

My sentiments exactly  :D

Where is Sibelius in this survey??

Sibelius is a huge GMG favorite who would have wiped out the competition. Or so I thought.

The only way I can answer this is to break it into format categories:

Piano concertos: Rachmaninoff by a nose, although Ravel is a strong rival.
Horn concertos: Strauss :)
Cello concertos: Elgar :)
Operas: Strauss
Orchestral variations: Elgar, but only because his Enigma is truly orchestral without a solo piano. ;D
Small piano pieces: Rachmaninoff by a nose again, with Grieg very close and Ravel a strong contender
Symphonies: A fair tie between Strauss and Rachmaninoff
Tone poems: Strauss, with Ravel and Rachmaninoff behind only in sheer number of compositions
Marches: Elgar :)
Incidental music to a Norwegian play: Grieg :D

Quote from: jochanaan on October 31, 2010, 02:32:14 PM
Incidental music to a Norwegian play: Grieg :D

I greatly prefer Ravel's incidental music to a Norwegian play. :D

Quote from: jochanaan on October 31, 2010, 02:32:14 PM
Symphonies: A fair tie between Strauss and Rachmaninoff

Hang on, are you basing Strauss on Sinfonia domestica and Eine alpensinfonie, or the two youthful works which are only available on Marco Polo?

Also, you left off ballets...  ;D

Ravel & Rachmaninov, mainly for their excellent solo piano works and piano trios. For me, these are the crowning glories of their outputs. But I also like things like R. Strauss' Metamorphosen (have seen it live three times!). With Grieg, I am yet to hear his solo piano works so that might turn the tide. Elgar I have a mixed reaction to - I dislike his symphonies and think the violin concerto is a bit too long for the material. I did enjoy seeing the cello concerto live (it brought tears to my eyes), but I think that I enjoy his smaller scale works like the string quartet more. So basically it's a tie between the two R's here...

Quote from: Brian on October 31, 2010, 02:46:11 PM
Hang on, are you basing Strauss on Sinfonia domestica and Eine alpensinfonie, or the two youthful works which are only available on Marco Polo?

Uh, Domestica and Alpensinfonie; I'm not at all familiar with the other two...

Quote from: Brian on October 31, 2010, 02:46:11 PM
Also, you left off ballets...  ;D

Oops! :-[ Definitely Ravel.  8)

For those who like late Romantics, I recommend Hubert Parry (whom Elgar studied under and greatly admired), Franz Schmidt and Franz Srecher, if you've not already heard them.

Quote from: MN Dave on October 31, 2010, 12:23:28 PM
Sibelius is a huge GMG favorite who would have wiped out the competition. Or so I thought.

As much as I love Sibelius, I like Ravel better, so no, for me, if Sibelius was in poll, he still would have lost.

Quote from: Mirror Image on November 01, 2010, 03:52:42 PM

As much as I love Sibelius, I like Ravel better, so no, for me, if Sibelius was in poll, he still would have lost.

Same here, I love Sibelius but Ravel is still the winner.

I haven't heard anything else from Sibelius except for his orchestral works, so it's hard for me to judge. I missed a live performance last year of his string quartet "intimate voices," and have never heard a recording of that, nor his solo piano works...

Oh Sid you're online!  You'll just LOVE what has happened to your 2nd Viennese school thread... ;D

Quote from: DavidW on November 01, 2010, 05:07:30 PM
Oh Sid you're online!  You'll just LOVE what has happened to your 2nd Viennese school thread... ;D

Yes, he will.  :P

For me Ravel is fo far ahead of the pack that it was a no brains involved vote. I'd guess Strauss would be a fairly distant runner-up; as for the rest they are composers I occasionally enjoy but could well live without.

Quote from: Mirror Image on November 01, 2010, 03:52:42 PM

As much as I love Sibelius, I like Ravel better, so no, for me, if Sibelius was in poll, he still would have lost.

Hm...  >:D

FWIW I'd be in agreement with MI here - I absolutely adore Sibelius, but for every hard-won moment of granitic splendour or every surgingly overwhelming point of formal balance (oh, the 1st-2nd movement transition in the 5th symphony is running throuhg my head now!!!) that I derive from him and his large canvasses Ravel with his intricately detailed scores gives me countless moments of delight, bar after bar after bar of them. The hidden depths of his music move me deeply, he makes me gasp in astonishment, and makes me think. Technically speaking Ravel had one of the most complete equipments of any composer - as an orchestrator, as everyone says, but as a deeply individual harmonist and as a moulder of large forms too, for instance - and as a result he was able to compose like a wizard, repeatedly making sounds that no one else could make. One could say the same of Strauss...but, for me, Strauss's magic too often fails to work, he lacks Ravel's lightness and deftness and his humility too, I think - the humility that makes an airily-scored delicate work like Ma mere l'oye possible. All just IMO, just the way I hear things, and really to underscore that Ravel ranks so very, very high for me, not to denigrate the other two, who I love deeply also.

Great post, Luke.

Elgar
:
:
:
Ravel / Rachmaninov / Strauss
:
:
:
Grieg

Quote from: Scarpia on October 31, 2010, 11:37:21 AM
I'm surprised Elgar has so few advocates on this thread.

Are you?  I am here...  :D

Quote from: Luke on November 02, 2010, 06:01:50 AM
FWIW I'd be in agreement with MI here - I absolutely adore Sibelius, but for every hard-won moment of granitic splendour or every surgingly overwhelming point of formal balance (oh, the 1st-2nd movement transition in the 5th symphony is running throuhg my head now!!!) that I derive from him and his large canvasses Ravel with his intricately detailed scores gives me countless moments of delight, bar after bar after bar of them. The hidden depths of his music move me deeply, he makes me gasp in astonishment, and makes me think. Technically speaking Ravel had one of the most complete equipments of any composer - as an orchestrator, as everyone says, but as a deeply individual harmonist and as a moulder of large forms too, for instance - and as a result he was able to compose like a wizard, repeatedly making sounds that no one else could make. One could say the same of Strauss...but, for me, Strauss's magic too often fails to work, he lacks Ravel's lightness and deftness and his humility too, I think - the humility that makes an airily-scored delicate work like Ma mere l'oye possible. All just IMO, just the way I hear things, and really to underscore that Ravel ranks so very, very high for me, not to denigrate the other two, who I love deeply also.

In general, sounds just fine to me. But I have to disagree about one part in particular. Strauss abounds in lightness and deftness when he wanted and this can be found in the songs, opera, and probably other pieces as well if I try to think about it. Of course, he didn't create a sound world like Ravel, but neither did Ravel create a sound world like Strauss.

I also think you are transferring 'humility' of person into the work. I'm not sure what a humble work even is in this sense. In any case, they all have enough marvels to keep us happy for years to come.

For me it was relatively easy.

Narrowed it down to Strauss and Ravel.
Then looked at their piano output.
And it was decided.

Quote from: ukrneal on November 02, 2010, 11:06:38 AM
Strauss abounds in lightness and deftness when he wanted and this can be found in the songs, opera, and probably other pieces as well if I try to think about it.

i.e. Burleske, Josephslegende or the early violin sonata.



And just to indulge the threadmaker, my choice regarding the original question would be Ravel and R. Strauss.  0:)

Quote from: Chaszz on November 01, 2010, 03:32:58 PM
For those who like late Romantics, I recommend Hubert Parry (whom Elgar studied under and greatly admired), Franz Schmidt and Franz Srecher, if you've not already heard them.

Parry, Schmidt and Schreker. Looks like another poll ready to happen.



PS: All three recommendations are of course seconded.

Quote from: Wanderer on November 02, 2010, 12:01:52 PM
Parry, Schmidt and Schreker. Looks like another poll ready to happen.



PS: All three recommendations are of course seconded.

Schmidt would win this poll for me just for one composition: his Symphony No. 4. This symphony is a masterpiece of the genre.

Quote from: ukrneal on November 02, 2010, 11:06:38 AM
Strauss abounds in lightness and deftness when he wanted and this can be found in the songs, opera, and probably other pieces as well if I try to think about it.

Oboe Concerto
the Horn Concertos
Suite in B flat for 13 Wind Instruments op.4
Serenade for Wind Instruments op.7
Sonatine #1 "From an Invalid's Workshop"
Symphony for Winds "The Happy Workshop"
Duett Concertino


Sarge

I haven't got anything by Elgar other than two of the Pomp & Circumstance marches, but I have heard many of his works on radio. I particularly enjoyed The Dream of Gerontius, which was hailed by R. Strauss as one of the masterpieces of that time. I remember seeing a live performance of the Cello Concerto in the '90's and it actually made me tear up, which is rare. There is a very good disc on the ABC budget label Discovery which has that work and some others performed by Aussies, so I'll probably get that at some stage. He definitely had a flair for good string writing, & the concertos & his Serenade for Strings and his only String Quartet strongly attest to this...

The Dream of Gerontius and the Cello Concerto are top-drawer Elgar.

For those who would like to be acquainted with the operas of The Rach:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001Y4JI4/ref=s9_simh_bw_p15_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1512G77J5CX247EV3Q55&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=507063831&pf_rd_i=5174 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001Y4JI4/ref=s9_simh_bw_p15_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1512G77J5CX247EV3Q55&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=507063831&pf_rd_i=5174)

Not a bad price at all!

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 04, 2010, 05:40:07 AM
The Dream of Gerontius and the Cello Concerto are top-drawer Elgar.

I like the cello concerto, the violin concerto and the string quartet. :)

And Falstaff!

Not a single vote for Grieg yet  :o his Piano Concerto is incredible, better than the Ravel in my opinion.

Quote from: Octo_Russ on November 04, 2010, 11:27:36 AM
Not a single vote for Grieg yet  :o his Piano Concerto is incredible, better than the Ravel in my opinion.

That is a little surprising.  More surprising to me is Rachmaninoff's low vote total.

Quote from: Bulldog on November 04, 2010, 11:33:58 AM
That is a little surprising.  More surprising to me is Rachmaninoff's low vote total.

I'm surprised too, why is Ravel so good?, i voted for Rachmaninov, i love his solo piano output, the 24 Preludes and Etudes tableaux are wonderful, Strauss's piano output is non existent, Elgar's isn't much better, Grieg in my opinion composed trifles, only Ravel gives him a run for his money, i really do feel that Rachmaninov's solo piano output is better than the other four Composers combined.

Quote from: Octo_Russ on November 04, 2010, 11:50:43 AM
I'm surprised too, why is Ravel so good?, i voted for Rachmaninov, i love his solo piano output, the 24 Preludes and Etudes tableaux are wonderful, Strauss's piano output is non existent, Elgar's isn't much better, Grieg in my opinion composed trifles, only Ravel gives him a run for his money, i really do feel that Rachmaninov's solo piano output is better than the other four Composers combined.

While I love the Rach, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I think that Ravel's piano compositions are superior, or at least that I prefer them to his. Although, I love both of them.

Quote from: Philoctetes on November 04, 2010, 12:28:09 PM
While I love the Rach, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I think that Ravel's piano compositions are superior, or at least that I prefer them to his. Although, I love both of them.

Rach is just too heavy for me.  There is not enough color in his performances. I love those Ravel concertos, the only ones on par for 20th century are Prokofiev and Bartok. :)

Quote from: Octo_Russ on November 04, 2010, 11:50:43 AM
I'm surprised too, why is Ravel so good?, i voted for Rachmaninov, i love his solo piano output, the 24 Preludes and Etudes tableaux are wonderful, Strauss's piano output is non existent, Elgar's isn't much better, Grieg in my opinion composed trifles, only Ravel gives him a run for his money, i really do feel that Rachmaninov's solo piano output is better than the other four Composers combined.

Better how? than Ravel's specifically, I mean? Just interested...

Quote from: DavidW on November 04, 2010, 12:35:07 PM
Rach is just too heavy for me.  There is not enough color in his performances. I love those Ravel concertos, the only ones on par for 20th century are Prokofiev and Bartok. :)

And I'd rank his above both of theirs, but that's mostly because they simply haven't resonated with me yet (I'm not a huge fan of that percussive style). My favorite concertos for the piano though, in the 20th century, are the two composed by Shostakovich.

Quote from: Philoctetes on November 04, 2010, 02:23:41 PM
And I'd rank his above both of theirs, but that's mostly because they simply haven't resonated with me yet (I'm not a huge fan of that percussive style). My favorite concertos for the piano though, in the 20th century, are the two composed by Shostakovich.

Yeah that Shostakovich pair are great.  And another one I like is Schoenberg. :)

Quote from: Luke on November 04, 2010, 01:39:45 PM
Better how? than Ravel's specifically, I mean? Just interested...

I can only speak personally here, Rachmaninov is certainly more barnstorming in the heavier music [Preludes Op23/2 & 5, Etudes Tableaux Op39/5], and yet so heart melting in others [Prelude Op32/5 and Moments Musicaux 5], a thrillingly virtuosity [Preludes Op23/7, Op32/12 and Moments Musicaux 4], and mysterious [Etudes Tableaux Op33/8 & Op39/2], lyrical and romantic, i like the heavy stuff, more profound.

Ravel on the other hand is more chimerical, shimmering, playful, dancing, evocative [Gaspard de la Nuit, Sonatine, Miroirs].

I like both, i'm glad i don't have to choose between them, i can choose both!, unless it's on a poll like this, and in my mind Rachmaninov wins.

Let me break it down elsewhere,

Best Symphony = Rachmaninov Symphony 2

Best Concerto = Rachmaninov Piano Concerto 2

Best Orchestral = Rachmaninov Isle Of The Dead

Best Chamber = Ravel String Quartet

Best Solo Piano = Rachmaninov 24 Preludes

Best Ballet = Ravel Daphnis et Chloe

Best Choral = Rachmaninov Vespers

Best Vocal = Ravel Sheherazade

Best Opera = hmmm both Composers are poor here

Final score Rachmaninov 5, Ravel 3

I certainly lean more towards Orchestral, Chamber, and Solo works [where Rachmaninov is strong], and less so on Vocal and Stage works [where Ravel is stronger], it's only my opinion, but i find Rachmaninov the greater Composer.

Quote from: Octo_Russ on November 04, 2010, 11:50:43 AM
...Strauss's piano output is non existent...

Well, not literally, I saw a Naxos disc entirely devoted to his piano music. So it's out there somewhere, just not as much heard as the piano works of Grieg, Rachmaninov or Ravel...

Not really sure I can go along with some of those opinions, of course (plus the exceptional status given to 'symphony' is always problematic to me), but this bit....

Quote from: Octo_Russ on November 04, 2010, 04:01:43 PM
Best Opera = hmmm both Composers are poor here

REALLY??  ???  ???

Quote from: Octo_Russ on November 04, 2010, 03:58:34 PM
...i like the heavy stuff, more profound.

Relegating profundity to the land of the "heavy stuff" is a good way to lose perspective on just what profundity really is. Both Debussy and Ravel take "profound" beyond the romantically obvious and create pure bliss with their use of half-lights, contours, mists, and colors.

Rach's romantic obviousness seems a pale shadow (pun intended) in comparison.   

QuoteRavel on the other hand is more chimerical, shimmering, playful, dancing, evocative [Gaspard de la Nuit, Sonatine, Miroirs].

All of which spells profound!

Nice post  :)

Thank you. :)

Quote from: Octo_Russ on November 04, 2010, 04:01:43 PM
Best Opera = hmmm both Composers are poor here

Ack! :o

;D

(I fully agree with Luke that L'enfant is one of the finest operas of the 20th century. And Cato has been championing Rach's operas quite convincingly, though I don't know them well enough to form my own opinion.)

Like i said, i'm not big on Opera, i defer judgement between Rach and Rav to someone with more experience, and a greater love of the medium.

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on November 04, 2010, 06:35:51 PM
Relegating profundity to the land of the "heavy stuff" is a good way to lose perspective on just what profundity really is. Both Debussy and Ravel take "profound" beyond the romantically obvious and create pure bliss with their use of half-lights, contours, mists, and colors.

Rach's romantic obviousness seems a pale shadow (pun intended) in comparison.

You're right about profundity, i certainly don't find Ravel unprofound, i love his music too, just recently i listened to Rach's 2nd Symphony [not my most favourite Rach], i admit it's soppy and sentimental, big swooning lush melodies, Rach puts his heart on his sleeve, i guess i'm a big romantic at heart, and Rach's soundworld fits nicely into my psyche more than Ravel.

Rachmaninov seems to have mastered the art of 'tugging at your heart', Prelude Op32/5 and Moments Musicaux 5 are great examples, he melts my heart, and for that he gets my vote, Ravel seems to have a tendency to more deliciously excite my brain, very profound too!, and i love Ravel for that.

Quote from: DavidW on November 04, 2010, 03:39:53 PM
Yeah that Shostakovich pair are great.  And another one I like is Schoenberg. :)

The Schoenberg Opus 42 is on the BSO calendar again this season! Woot!

I think I have a pet peeve: those that use profound to describe emotional depth when the word was created to describe intellectual depth. ::)

Quote from: DavidW on November 05, 2010, 06:12:41 AM
I think I have a pet peeve: those that use profound to describe emotional depth when the word was created to describe intellectual depth. ::)

Your post is profound, David!  8)

Quote from: Octo_Russ on November 05, 2010, 03:08:43 AM
Rachmaninov seems to have mastered the art of 'tugging at your heart', Prelude Op32/5 and Moments Musicaux 5 are great examples, he melts my heart, and for that he gets my vote, Ravel seems to have a tendency to more deliciously excite my brain, very profound too!, and i love Ravel for that.

As far as Ravel, the head/heart dichotomy doesn't exist to me. I get all the "heart-tugging" I could want from his music. :)

Quote from: DavidW on November 05, 2010, 06:12:41 AM
I think I have a pet peeve: those that use profound to describe emotional depth when the word was created to describe intellectual depth. ::)

Gosh, I certainly didn't mean to step on anyone's toes...

But I've always thought of "profound" as more open-ended. Merriam-Webster's gives as alternatives: "characterized by intensity of feeling", "deeply felt", and "intense".

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on November 05, 2010, 09:53:41 AM
Gosh, I certainly didn't mean to step on anyone's toes...

Not you I meant octo-russ.  When you take the emotional defn. then you could equate a stirring melodrama with depth if you wished, but that would be turning the word on it's head.  Similarly the Eric Anderson style of music critique is not one I associate with depth.  Just saying. :P

Quote from: DavidW on November 05, 2010, 10:40:16 AM
Similarly the Eric Anderson style of music critique is not one I associate with depth.  Just saying. :P

Wow, that's a blast from the past!  :o

Haha yeah he kind of vanished.  Ah well he was nice enough to give me a Debussy dvd so he's swell in my book, I just didn't like the whole "pleasure is the law!" thing. ;D

Quote from: DavidW on November 05, 2010, 10:40:16 AM
Not you I meant octo-russ.

*Whew*

Quote from: DavidW on November 05, 2010, 07:00:38 PM
whole "Eric Anderson's pleasure is the law!" thing. ;D

Yeah, me neither...

Quote from: DavidW on November 05, 2010, 07:00:38 PM
Haha yeah he kind of vanished.  Ah well he was nice enough to give me a Debussy dvd so he's swell in my book, I just didn't like the whole "pleasure is the law!" thing. ;D

But you know.... it kinda is.  :P









Just kidding. Or am I...  8)