I'm not talking about composers who's music you don't like, for whatever reason, but composers who's music you just don't seem to understand, at all. For me it has to be Berlioz. Nothing of what this musician does makes sense to me. He always starts good, building up moments of apparent great beauty, and then he holds back at the last minute, and leaves you there wondering what the hell just happened. Its like going to a restaurant and have the waiter walk by, and every time it seems like he's about to drop a plate on your table he just walks away at the last second. And this happens over and over, until you realize that you are just never going to eat that day, and simply walk away. Anybody with a similar experience to share?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 11, 2011, 02:22:04 AM
I'm not talking about composers who's music you don't like, for whatever reason, but composers who's music you just don't seem to understand, at all. For me it has to be Berlioz. Nothing of what this musician does makes sense to me. He always starts good, building up moments of apparent great beauty, and then he holds back at the last minute, and leaves you there wondering what the hell just happened. Its like going to a restaurant and have the waiter walk by, and every time it seems like he's about to drop a plate on your table he just walks away at the last second. And this happens over and over, until you realize that you are just never going to eat that day, and simply walk away. Anybody with a similar experience to share?
Furtwangler. I will keep trying since I stubbornly refuse to think that this great music I admire is a boring meandering composer.
Bruckner. I've explained before but I am getting into a couple of works, namely #2 and #5, along with #9. #7 is close...
Mahler. All my other tastes point towards him as the apex of what I should enjoy, but I by and large do not. There's nothing wrong with the length, structure, scope or style of writing for orchestra. It's more to do with the thematic material often sounding strained to me, almost forced through in a rhetorical manner rather than growing. I realise that the composer's juxtapositions and mood swings are considered one of his main stylistic fingerprints, but when these swings occur during transitional passages, I am fine, and yet large sections of the 5th and much of the 9th just don't make sense to me. The opening of the 5th almost sounds like an off the cuff hummed idea being lavishly orchestrated rather than improved upon. The 1st, 4th and 7th come closest to sounding natural to me, although I am at a loss as how to explain why. The 2nd and 3rd are in la-la land as far as I can grasp.
I still listen to the composer a lot, and can enjoy really good recordings of the music, with some almost convincing me at times, but there are still quite a few "wat" moments.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 11, 2011, 02:22:04 AM
I'm not talking about composers who's music you don't like, for whatever reason, but composers who's music you just don't seem to understand, at all. For me it has to be Berlioz.
I do have some problems with Berlioz. Somebody said that his music consisted of attempts to go mad without ever quite succeeding. There's something to that.
Another one I don't get - Debussy. Yeah, I know he's supposed to be great and modern and all that. But his work just sounds like mush to me.
Come to think of it, I have a general problem with the French musical aesthetic. Too much atmosphere and perfume and effects; not enough structural rigour.
Quote from: Velimir on October 11, 2011, 10:18:04 AM
I do have some problems with Berlioz. Somebody said that his music consisted of attempts to go mad without ever quite succeeding. There's something to that.
That description is what I feel about it as well, although I do like Berlioz. It reminds me of a few screenwriters and playwrights I know. Being a psychologist, I occasionally get a consultation about one of their projects. But more often than not, I do not get the consultation call but see their finished product -- often with a psycho character. It is a weird to see how a sane person trying to portray a psycho without knowing what that really is all about. Remember Frazer Crane in CHEERS trying to be the hunter--macho-man--outdoors man?
For me, it's Schumann. In theory I understand where his music is coming from (and I do appreciate a lot of Schumann-influenced composers) but in reality I simply have no point of connection with it, either emotional nor intellectual. Hence, while I might enjoy some pieces in good performances, the music never sticks with me after I'm finished.
Interesting thread! Although a fan of Berlioz, I shan't interrupt the flow . . . I understand that Hey, but!... isn't really the point here : )
Oh, I forgot that forums can be used for discussion for a moment there.
JPD: do you have the same reservation about Berlioz's later, less "statement-y" works? L'enfance du Christ, nuits d'été, Béatrice et Bénédict are more "classical" in conception, more emotionally cool.
Most of the time, if I don't "get" a composer, all that is required is to spend time listening to them later.
The only two I really doubt I'll ever get are Berio and Stockhausen (I just like some of the Sinfonia and Gruppen). After that, Mozart and Corelli, but I could probably easily cure that with more listening.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 11, 2011, 10:46:04 AM
Interesting thread! Although a fan of Berlioz, I shan't interrupt the flow . . . I understand that Hey, but!... isn't really the point here : )
The
hey! is OK, but the
but! isn't.
I'll keep that in mind: but out . . . .
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Pettersson on October 11, 2011, 10:56:42 AM
Oh, I forgot that forums can be used for discussion for a moment there.
JPD: do you have the same reservation about Berlioz's later, less "statement-y" works? L'enfance du Christ, nuits d'été, Béatrice et Bénédict are more "classical" in conception, more emotionally cool.
And even though the scale is grand, I should add: Les Troyens.
Dittersdorf and all those anti-music Modernists.
Haydn (so many works, so much tedium)
Rossini (fun overtures, the operas suck)
Handel (the operas suck from beginning to end)
Mozart (the symphonies are nice, but the piano concertos are boring and the operas are vastly overrated)
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Pettersson on October 11, 2011, 10:56:42 AM
Oh, I forgot that forums can be used for discussion for a moment there.
JPD: do you have the same reservation about Berlioz's later, less "statement-y" works? L'enfance du Christ, nuits d'été, Béatrice et Bénédict are more "classical" in conception, more emotionally cool.
Berlioz is a sore spot for me as well (there are more), but you succeeded in mentioning the 3 works that made me not posting him.
It's interesting that I've had, almost exactly, the same experiences with all the works people referred to here - except I have now completely overcome my discomfort with Debussy.
Quote from: MDL on October 11, 2011, 01:54:06 PM
Haydn (so many works, so much tedium)So much humour.
Rossini (fun overtures, the operas suck)Check - I agree
Handel (the operas suck from beginning to end)No, some of my favorie music, a wealth og gloriuos melody and invention.
Mozart (the symphonies are nice, but the piano concertos are boring and the operas are vastly overrated) My take is the totally opposite of yours. And the chamber mudic is great
See insertions.
Mozart....apart from the last three symphonies.
Late Mahler.
Delius.
Rachmaninov...apart from the First Symphony and "The Bells".
Skalkottas.
Webern.
I see no one has mentioned Hennings!
Well, I don't always "get" Karl's music, apart from the vocal works. Maybe it is because I don't have much Wourien, part from vocal works? I don't know...
Mahler is an interesting case. I can see his talent. His scores are condensed with creativity and imagination, but the music just doesn't communicate to me. I have had similar experiences with Beethoven too. Perhaps repeated listening is the cure.
Quote from: AllegroVivace on October 12, 2011, 05:14:41 PM
Mahler is an interesting case. I can see his talent. His scores are condensed with creativity and imagination, but the music just doesn't communicate to me. I have had similar experiences with Beethoven too. Perhaps repeated listening is the cure.
Yes. Keep listening to both. Not so frequently or diligently as to make it a chore, but once a year or so.
Arvo Pärt — I've tried with his music but every time I have I can't ignore what sounds overgrown with clichés, but then his advocacy among people here whose opinion I respect and usually defer to on points of theoretical knowledge (like Luke O and others) makes me doubt whether I'm hearing him correctly or not.
Quote from: Coco on October 13, 2011, 06:42:38 AM
Arvo Pärt — I've tried with his music but every time I have I can't ignore what sounds overgrown with clichés, but then his advocacy among people here whose opinion I respect and usually defer to on points of theoretical knowledge (like Luke O and others) makes me doubt whether I'm hearing him correctly or not.
This isn't the thread for it, but just my take on it - I don't hear cliché in Part, because (at his best) he is completely unlike any other composer I have ever heard, in his unique technique but more importantly in his unique sound, and because (in those same 'best' pieces) his style is so simple and pure it goes beyond cliché. Of course, if the style itself doesn't appeal to you, then as it remains pretty invariant throughout those best pieces, (which is why they are so good), perhaps it
will begin to sound stale!
OTOH hand, a composer who has been lucky enough to have caught some of the tar off the Arvo Part brush: Morton Lauridsen. Ugh. And I've tried and tried. I get it, mind you, I just don't like it, and, yes, Lauridsen
does seem clichéd to me. But then there is nothing unique about his style, just (to my ears) a set of tired 'luminous; (yawn) choral gestures and textures. He's not alone in this, but something about his musi really irks me!
A fair amount of virtuoso piano composers - Alkan, Scorabi & Finnessey - do nothing for me
in the same vein, never cared much for Paganini
Isn't there a difference between "don't get" and "don't like?"
Quote from: AllegroVivace on October 12, 2011, 05:14:41 PM
Mahler is an interesting case. I can see his talent. His scores are condensed with creativity and imagination, but the music just doesn't communicate to me. I have had similar experiences with Beethoven too. Perhaps repeated listening is the cure.
Me too. I love the sound but I don't get why he takes so long to say what could be said in half the time and I'm too old to want to spent long hours listening to it all again and again.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on October 13, 2011, 11:51:44 AM
A fair amount of virtuoso piano composers - Alkan, Scorabi & Finnessey - do nothing for me
in the same vein, never cared much for Paganini
FWIW to me Paganini is a very different vein. Though there is some fun and jaw-dropping Paganini, it never, IMO, rises above the level of pyrotechnics. Whereas with Alkan, the closest comparison here in many ways (and not just of chronology) there is equal concentration on virtuosity of the most implacable sort, but never for its own sake. Alkan
invents a whole new and statlingly modern approach to virtuosity - almost anicipating Ferneyhough et al in some ways - in that he appreciated the poetry of virtuosity, the beauty of danger, and is able to handle this new parameter in structures of enormous invention, complexity and subtlety. Put simply, he is a great composer, never mind the difficulty of the music; you won't find a better and more penetrating, understanding use of sonata form between Beethoven and Brahms than you do in his Concerto
As for Sorabji and Finnissy - they are a long way down the family tree from Alkan, but they belong there surel. But with both, virtuosity and display is not the prime factor. I (usually) think Finnissy is the finest piano composer of recent decades, and he's that because he's a poet (like Chopin or Berlioz - and see his Romeo and Juliet are Drowning or his Mazurkas for corroboration) more than a pyrotechnician like Liszt. And Sorabji - well, he's just plain weird: the difficulty is a by-product of the weirdness, not the goal of it.
Quote from: Luke on October 13, 2011, 01:10:25 PM
Finnissy is the finest piano composer of recent decades, and he's that because he's a poet
More so than Rzewski?
Quote from: Ten thumbs on October 13, 2011, 12:42:55 PM
Me too. I love the sound but I don't get why he takes so long to say what could be said in half the time and I'm too old to want to spent long hours listening to it all again and again.
Unlike some other long-winded composers whose work could benefit from some non-narcissistic editing (!), Mahler is really worth the effort it takes to get into his late-19th Century, late-Romantic,
fin de siecle Vienna and end-of-the-old-pre-industrial-social-order mindset. It also helps to remember that his full-time job was as an opera director and that his symphonies are infused with that operatic sensibility.
Instead of trying to force yourself to like it, just give it time to grow on you.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on October 13, 2011, 12:42:55 PM
Me too. I love the sound but I don't get why he takes so long to say what could be said in half the time and I'm too old to want to spent long hours listening to it all again and again.
I have the opposite reaction to Mahler. Like you I "love the sound"...but I don't want it to end. The end comes quickly enough. At my age, I know that only too well.
Sarge
@ BWV
I love Rzewski. There is a solid core of standard notation Rzewski piano works which hold up to anything else. But, yes, ona piece by piece bass, taking into account the enormous fecundity and variety of Finnissy's music, it's voraciousness, its humanity, its roots in popular dance and song, its groundedness in human experience, it's glorious awareness of the musical past (and of its relevance) and its poetic subtlety which, yes, I think is quite close to Chopin's - yes, I really do think he's the greatest writer for piano of today.
But, as I said above, there's a 'usually' attached to that statement, because when I'm listening to Rzweski at his finest, he seems the best; when I'm listening to Ronald Stevenson he does. But when I'm not in a phase of listening to any of them - as I'm not, at the moment - Finnissy seems the finest of all.
Quote from: Luke on October 13, 2011, 01:35:07 PM
But, as I said above, there's a 'usually' attached to that statement, because when I'm listening to Rzweski at his finest, he seems the best; when I'm listening to Ronald Stevenson he does. But when I'm not in a phase of listening to any of them - as I'm not, at the moment - Finnissy seems the finest of all.
To add (in a very minor way) to this, I'm not anything like the Finnissy guru, but his piano music has, to me, always had a staggering range--maybe not all the works seem successful to me, but every time I listen to a Finnissy piano piece I'm always reminded that it's very different from the others (while still obviously being by the same composer).
There's also a sense to me in which Finnissy has digested the tradition rather more thoroughly than Rzewski, where often the references to the nooks and crannies of piano tradition appear on the surface; in Finnissy it's deep in the grammar and syntax of the music. (And IMO, though I largely think of Finnissy as a piano composer,
Red Earth to me still stands as one of the finest late 20th-century orchestral works.)
Quote from: edward on October 13, 2011, 05:22:03 PM
There's also a sense to me in which Finnissy has digested the tradition rather more thoroughly than Rzewski, where often the references to the nooks and crannies of piano tradition appear on the surface; in Finnissy it's deep in the grammar and syntax of the music.
Agree with every word of what Edward just said, but this bit, particularly, is
very well put and perceptive. I was searching for the words to say this, and it's true, and makes a big difference to the way I appreciate and understand the two composers..
Quote from: bwv 1080 on October 13, 2011, 11:51:44 AM
A fair amount of virtuoso piano composers - Alkan, Scorabi & Finnessey - do nothing for me
in the same vein, never cared much for Paganini
Virtuoso composers appealed to me when I first became interested in classical music, just because the pyrotechnics involved appealed to my immature mind. It was like watching a movie with awesome special effects. With time, I lost interest in pure virtuosity.
Here's a sub-theme: Pieces you don't get by composers you love
Beethoven Op. 131 for me. I can admire this as a great intellectual structure, but I can't connect with it on an emotional level.
I have a similar reaction to Bach's Musical Offering - though I get on much better with The Art of Fugue, perhaps because it's such a unified piece.
There are a couple composers I'm having a hard time grasping as of late: Holmboe, Simpson, and Weinberg. Their music is interesting, but it doesn't contain that much for me to latch onto. I can deal with Simpson better than Holmboe or Weinberg, but I'm still waiting for that lightbulb moment with all three of these composers.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 13, 2011, 10:02:54 PM
There are a couple composers I'm having a hard time grasping as of late: Holmboe, Simpson, and Weinberg. Their music is interesting, but it doesn't contain that much for me to latch onto. I can deal with Simpson better than Holmboe or Weinberg, but I'm still waiting for that lightbulb moment with all three of these composers.
Everyone has a different emotional approach to music, but still, of all three composers Simpson is the hardest to get acquainted with, for most that is, I bought these recordings the moment they came on the market, that much it grasped me, but to others his music is poison. Holmboe for me are his Symphonies, apart from them I have a hard time to connect with him. His Orchestral scores are lucid and well thought out, for me his chamber music less. Weinberg on the other hand is pivotal to me, his Symphonies a marvel, his SQ a hard piece of metal that leaves me barren in emotions, but one of the best composers I have in my collection. All three I could not do without, but I see that it influences people in a different way, and that amazes me every time I read something in this context.
Nevertheless they will grasp you all three of them! ;D
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 13, 2011, 10:02:54 PM
There are a couple composers I'm having a hard time grasping as of late: Holmboe, Simpson, and Weinberg. Their music is interesting, but it doesn't contain that much for me to latch onto. I can deal with Simpson better than Holmboe or Weinberg, but I'm still waiting for that lightbulb moment with all three of these composers.
Strangely enough, these are 3 composers where I have been significantly more impressed with their chamber than with their orchestral output. You can do the maths from there I think. Harry's response is interesting as it is so different from mine.
Haha, mentioning Alkan is a sure fire way to make Luke post in a thread. Truth is, i tried listening to this composer the way he does, but i just don't see it. Yes his music is a lot more technical then the average romantic virtuoso of the Thalberg variety, but its kinda like listening to Brahms with lots of gratuitous virtuosity thrown in and none of the inspiration and genius behind it. Right now its not the grand works like the concerto or the symphony that i enjoy the most, but the more intimate pieces, like the Esquisses.
Quote from: DavidRoss on October 13, 2011, 12:05:37 PM
Isn't there a difference between "don't get" and "don't like?"
Yes. You cannot say you don't like something if you don't understand it.
I'm a bit surprised at the number of major composers and composition people seem to have a problem with here. Had no idea i was going to open such a controversial topic.
Quote from: Velimir on October 13, 2011, 09:56:08 PM
Virtuoso composers appealed to me when I first became interested in classical music, just because the pyrotechnics involved appealed to my immature mind. It was like watching a movie with awesome special effects. With time, I lost interest in pure virtuosity.
But I think this gives the wrong impression entirely. There may be pyrotechnics, but Paganini's violin concertos are pretty good music in their own right. And with Alkan, I think it doesn't come across as just a pyrotechnics exercise. I am moved deeply by the Concerto for Solo Piano. It's a piece that demands I listen to it. I must also admit that it never occurred for me to somehow separate out music in this way. As time went on, composers wrote more and more difficult pieces, and I think the composers just reflect that. I would add one last note - if the performer struggles with the technical side of a piece in any way, the impact will be to highlight those very pyrotechnics, perhaps creating the wrong impression and not showing the piece to advantage.
Perhaps you just don't like so much bombast in a solo performance?
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Pettersson on October 11, 2011, 10:56:42 AM
JPD: do you have the same reservation about Berlioz's later, less "statement-y" works? L'enfance du Christ, nuits d'été, Béatrice et Bénédict are more "classical" in conception, more emotionally cool.
I'm not too familiar with those. This thread spurred a renewed attempt at grasping this music, so i started chewing off
Les Troyens. One thing i can concede about Berlioz is that his orchestration was simply magnificent. It makes even Wagner sound like child play at times.
Quote from: Luke on October 13, 2011, 01:10:25 PM
more than a pyrotechnician like Liszt.
I think that's a bit unfair. Yes, there are a lot of pyrotechnics in the music of Liszt, but his virtuosity was never as gratuitous as a lot of people make it out to be. In fact, i think Liszt is probably the single most elegant virtuoso that ever lived. The problem with his music is that it lacks in
individuality. Nietzsche said it best when he claimed that Liszt was "the conglomerate of a hundred musicians' souls, but not enough of a personality to cast his own shadow upon them".
To bring up the case of Alkan again, one of the things that bother me the most in his works is precisely the fact that his virtuoso elements are not only gratuitous, but in many cases entirely unnecessary. Some of his works would actually sound a lot better without the continuous avalanche of technical difficulties.
Quote from: Velimir on October 13, 2011, 09:59:28 PM
Here's a sub-theme: Pieces you don't get by composers you love
The Cello Suites.
Disclaimers: As of this writing, I don't "get" any music, because I cannot understand them at a technical level (although I would like to).
I don't find the cello suites repulsive... it's nice music at some level, no doubt; but I seem to connect more with even supposedly less interesting cantatas of Bach than I do with these pieces.
There isn't even a single fugue! >:(
A lot of music by Bach will always remain inaccessible unless you learn to listen to it vertically, which 90% of classical music lovers never do. Some of his compositions can be enjoyed in a more simple horizontal way, but in that case the experience is relatively limited (though sufficient for many). This is not the case for the cello suites.
Quote from: Opus106 on October 14, 2011, 01:09:22 AM
There isn't even a single fugue! >:(
There's a fugue in the prelude of the fifth suite. The cello suites are bit less ambitious in scope the the pieces he wrote for solo violin, probably because they were written first. They are still very difficult works.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 14, 2011, 02:40:29 AM
There's a fugue in the prelude of the fifth suite. The cello suites are bit less ambitious in scope the the pieces he wrote for solo violin, probably because they were written first. They are still very difficult works.
I stand corrected. Of late, I've been taken by the fantasia-stic prelude of the 6th. I'll listen to the 5th's prelude again and listen for the fugue.
Having said that, I'm still in a complaining mood and point out that it's too little.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 14, 2011, 02:40:02 AM
A lot of music by Bach will always remain inaccessible unless you learn to listen to it vertically...
Quote from: Opus106 on October 14, 2011, 02:52:36 AM
I stand corrected.
Then all should be clear to you! >:D
Quote from: DavidRoss on October 13, 2011, 01:28:52 PM
Unlike some other long-winded composers whose work could benefit from some non-narcissistic editing (!), Mahler is really worth the effort it takes to get into his late-19th Century, late-Romantic, fin de siecle Vienna and end-of-the-old-pre-industrial-social-order mindset. It also helps to remember that his full-time job was as an opera director and that his symphonies are infused with that operatic sensibility.
Instead of trying to force yourself to like it, just give it time to grow on you.
I can't deny the greatness of this music and when I was younger I did give it the time it needs but there is so much beautiful music out there. Most of my listening is done in short spells, so I get my immensity from lied such as Kinkel's 'Abendfeier' (5'40) and yes I may want to listen to that twice, or even three times.
Quote from: JDPHaha, mentioning Alkan is a sure fire way to make Luke post in a thread.
Yep, you aksed for it ;D hold on to your hat, this is going to be a long and unnecessarily verbose one, again...!
Quote from: JDPTruth is, i tried listening to this composer the way he does, but i just don't see it. Yes his music is a lot more technical then the average romantic virtuoso of the Thalberg variety, but its kinda like listening to Brahms with lots of gratuitous virtuosity thrown in and none of the inspiration and genius behind it. Right now its not the grand works like the concerto or the symphony that i enjoy the most, but the more intimate pieces, like the Esquisses.
So yes, I'll always be happy to talk about Alkan! I'm also happy to lead you through his best pieces bar-by-bar and show you quite how wrong you are ;-) – take Alkan's style on its own terms (which I guess is the 'getting it' of the thread title) and suddenly none of that virtuosity seems gratuitous. It is built into the structure of the music... And once one appreciates that fact – and the concerto's first movement
is the best place to see it – then the inspiration and genius becomes blazingly clear. As I said, I'm happy to go bar-by-bar on this one ;-)
Quote from: JDPYou cannot say you don't like something if you don't understand it.
Exactly!
Quote from: VelimirVirtuoso composers appealed to me when I first became interested in classical music, just because the pyrotechnics involved appealed to my immature mind. It was like watching a movie with awesome special effects. With time, I lost interest in pure virtuosity.
Believe me, it is the same for me; it would be slightly strawmannish to imply that appreciation of virtuosity-for-virtuosity's sake is what is going on here, at least not in my case, re my experience of Alkan (or Liszt, or Chopin, or Rzewski, or Stevenson, or Finnissy, or Sorabji...). As a kid I, too, was fascinated by the extremes of virtuosity; as a young teenager I eagerly got my paws on scores, first of Gaspard and Islamey and as much Liszt as I could handle, before progressing onto stuff I hadn't even dreamt of... I also loved BIG orchestral sounds, and I think there was something of the same fascination with extremes there too. I grew out of both, but my admiration for the composers remained,
when the music itself was worthy of it. As I got to know more and more about Alkan, my admiration grew and grew. It is simply extraordinary music, never mind whether it is difficult or not.
Quote from: JDPQuote from: Lukemore than a pyrotechnician like Liszt.
I think that's a bit unfair. Yes, there are a lot of pyrotechnics in the music of Liszt, but his virtuosity was never as gratuitous as a lot of people make it out to be. In fact, i think Liszt is probably the single most elegant virtuoso that ever lived.
Ha! Well, that's not quite fair on
me, in fact, because of course I am an ardent Lisztian and said nothing to his detriment. Liszt isn't a
mere pyrotechnician, which is perhaps how you read my post. But his nevertheless his virtuosity is pyrotechnic - the dazzling show and the effect is what it is about. Alkan's virtuosity certainly dazzles too, but it isn't there for prettification and glitter, to embelish a line beautifully or to caress the senses. It is of a different order, existing in carefully graded and sequenced patterns to clarify form, to act almost a moral force, a fire through which the performer must go. And then Chopin's is different again, sometimes closer to Liszt (in the Nocturnes, maybe), sometime s to Alkan (in the Etudes) but alwys with that unique Chopin poetry. So yes, - anything pejorative you picked up from my post was your inference but not my implication.
Quote from: JDPThe problem with his music is that it lacks in individuality. Nietzsche said it best when he claimed that Liszt was "the conglomerate of a hundred musicians' souls, but not enough of a personality to cast his own shadow upon them".
And I'm not sure
that is entirely fair on Liszt! But I know there is a kernel of truth there. It isn't something that could be said of Chopin, or of Alkan - both posses musical personality in bucketloads, even if Alkan's is more restricted and monomanical than Chopin's.
I do think it is worth considering these three composers together though. They make such a compelling triumvirate, these three gus, who were all active in Paris at the same time, of course, and who knew each other. I think trying to differentiate between the very different but equally valid species of virtuosity these three big mid-19th century pianistas exhibit is useful; thinking about how they differ is illuminating, especially in a thread which is about 'not getting' specific composers.
Quote from: JDPTo bring up the case of Alkan again, one of the things that bother me the most in his works is precisely the fact that his virtuoso elements are not only gratuitous, but in many cases entirely unnecessary. Some of his works would actually sound a lot better without the continuous avalanche of technical difficulties
Again, this is an argument I reject; I find it hard to see Alkan's virtuoso demands as gratuitous when they are such a central feature of his work...
Quote from: ukrneal...I would add one last note - if the performer struggles with the technical side of a piece in any way, the impact will be to highlight those very pyrotechnics, perhaps creating the wrong impression and not showing the piece to advantage.
This is true of course, but actually there is also the other POV - that the strain on the performer is part of the piece, part of the performance, something which communicates strongly with the audience (provided the perofmance doesn't become a shambles, of course). We don't want to be played to by machines. (This argument has its end-point in Ferneyhough et al, which is one reason that I see Alkan as the starting point on that line). What I love about Alkan is that he writes music which is implacable; he traps the pianist in the machine of his music - there is no speeding up, no slowing down, there are just these notes to get through. But it is not a 'continuous avalanche' as JDP described it; on the contrary it is carefully graded with endless invention and insight. There is lyricism of a high order, there are moments of extreme simplicity, but all are under the sway of this implacable tempo - and (this is important), these moments are the more beautiful, the more exquisite, because they are under threat; there is little room to breathe, the cage of that implacable tempo is always near. That's a kind of beauty which is very rare (we don't really get it in Liszt or particularly in Chopin). It's one of the chief virtues of Alkan's music IMO. Sometimes there are things which sound hideously hard but are actually quite easy; sometimes there are things which sound doable but which almost break one's fingers off. In the solo Concerto Alkan sets himself a problem - I have to write a florid, complex, passionate 'orchestral' music; I have to write a virtuoso piano 'solo' on top of and in the middle of this. Finally, (problem 1) I have to top it all off with a cadenza which is clearly for solo piano, but which is harder than anything else so far...but (problem 2)how to grade this, how not to exhaust the reservoirs of potential difficulty well before this point? Alkan's solution: trim the cadenza down so that instead of a barrage of notes, the performer onl has to deal with one single line, monody. But in repeated notes at light speed, and for pages. This is a great moment of compositional inspiration IMO; Alkan solves all his self-imposed problems by taking a startling look-from-the-other-side and making his music very simple in texture but requiring a virtuosit of the most cruelly, viciously exposed sort. It's moments like that (and there are several more even in that single first movement) which make me admire Alkan so much.
:) :)
Sorry. I get carried away... (haven't been able to post all day!) :-[
Haha, i'll try to tackle that later. This is what my mind feels like right now:
http://nyan.cat/
(yes i know, you can't get that out of your head too now. You are welcome).
At any rate, mind that everything i said about Alkan isn't as damning as it sounds. Even now i still don't consider him a genius in the order of a Beethoven, or even a Mahler, but he's a lot greater then, say, Paganini. And i mean, a *lot*. I think he is one of those musicians who could have attained full genius status if only his inspiration had been stronger. Doesn't help that i don't like many of the pianists that are recording his music right now. So far the only one i really liked is Roland Smith.
Quote from: Luke on October 14, 2011, 09:05:07 AM
...What I love about Alkan is that he writes music which is implacable; he traps the pianist in the machine of his music - there is no speeding up, no slowing down, there are just these notes to get through. But it is not a 'continuous avalanche' as JDP described it; on the contrary it is carefully graded with endless invention and insight. There is lyricism of a high order, there are moments of extreme simplicity, but all are under the sway of this implacable tempo - and (this is important), these moments are the more beautiful, the more exquisite, because they are under threat; there is little room to breathe, the cage of that implacable tempo is always near. That's a kind of beauty which is very rare (we don't really get it in Liszt or particularly in Chopin). It's one of the chief virtues of Alkan's music IMO...
The quoted part is what really struck me - you've captured his music very well in that description.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 14, 2011, 12:16:44 AM
Yes his music is a lot more technical then the average romantic virtuoso of the Thalberg variety, but its kinda like listening to Brahms with lots of gratuitous virtuosity thrown in and none of the inspiration and genius behind it.
Perhaps Alkan wanted to replicate the orchestra with his piano compositions and Thalberg was satisfied with the strings.
As a 3rd rate hack pianist, I have tried to play both Alkan's Concerto for solo piano and Thalberg's Fantasies on Sonnambula and Seriminade. Since I didn't get very far with any of these, I consider them (probably in error) of similar technical difficulty.
Thal
Quote from: bwv 1080 on October 13, 2011, 11:51:44 AM
A fair amount of virtuoso piano composers - Alkan, Scorabi & Finnessey - do nothing for me
I certainly don't "get" Sorabji and have almost driven myself to insanity in the attempt to do so.
I was once told that his music requires "intelligence" to appreciate, so no doubt the fault is mine.
It is with some relief that I no longer feel bound to subject my ears to hours of random note spinning to placate his supporters.
Thal
Luke, great point about the cadenza in the first movement; I've always considered it the perfect climax to a 20+-minute relentlessly building wave of musical tension, but I'd not thought of its success being specifically due to the combination of the radical simplification of the music and the ratcheting up the technical demands even further with that horrendously rough storm of double notes--a classic Alkan example of something that is extremely difficult yet not showily so. And that combination of difficulty without showy display surely has a lot to do with his lack of more general popularity--so much technical difficulty yet in many works the virtuosity is there to illuminate the musical architecture rather than to provide explosive Lisztian climaxes.
Not unrelatedly, one of the reasons I still value the Ronald Smith version of the concerto so highly, despite the cuts and technical infelicities, is that to me he clearly regards it of prime importance to treat this movement as one relentless single sweep from beginning to end, a giant accelerando e crescendo--albeit with many other layers of musical meaning woven through it. For me, there are very few performances of any work that so convincingly articulate such a large-scale sonata-form-based structure as a single breath; Scherchen's '58 VSOO Eroica first movement being one that comes to mind.
Schoenberg
12 tone row stuff just makes me scratch my head.
JdP, can you explain what you mean about listening vertically to Bach? Thanks.
Just checked out last years' Pulitzer Prize winning piece by Jennifer Higdon, her Violin Concerto (http://youtu.be/yW-7awt9MCE (http://youtu.be/yW-7awt9MCE)). Couldn't see any substance behind the whole display of quasi virtuoso lines and orchestral tricks. Planning to give it a chance though, a couple of more times. Hopefully it will grow on me.
Quote from: Harry on October 14, 2011, 12:00:39 AM
Everyone has a different emotional approach to music, but still, of all three composers Simpson is the hardest to get acquainted with, for most that is, I bought these recordings the moment they came on the market, that much it grasped me, but to others his music is poison. Holmboe for me are his Symphonies, apart from them I have a hard time to connect with him. His Orchestral scores are lucid and well thought out, for me his chamber music less. Weinberg on the other hand is pivotal to me, his Symphonies a marvel, his SQ a hard piece of metal that leaves me barren in emotions, but one of the best composers I have in my collection. All three I could not do without, but I see that it influences people in a different way, and that amazes me every time I read something in this context.
Nevertheless they will grasp you all three of them! ;D
Simpson is a tough nut to crack! :D Holmboe and Weinberg I can digest a little easier. But I think this is all a matter of spending more time with their music. I just find all three of them off-putting. Hopefully, I can reconcile some of this discomfort in time.
Well, I certainly don't find anything offputting in Wainberg's wonderful string quartets that should be immediately approachable for anybody appreciating Shostakovich's. Playing vol 1 on cpo now.
Quote from: The new erato on October 15, 2011, 12:03:11 AM
Well, I certainly don't find anything offputting in Wainberg's wonderful string quartets that should be immediately approachable for anybody appreciating Shostakovich's. Playing vol 1 on cpo now.
Don't get me wrong Erato, I have Weinberg's SQ, and I do not dislike them, simply have to find the right mood in myself to connect on a deeper level with them.
I have trouble with Haydn. I like a few pieces but, on the whole, I can't get into him. Like someone here said, maybe if I try again I'll succeed in understanding him.
Quote from: milk on October 15, 2011, 12:16:10 AM
I have trouble with Haydn. I like a few pieces but, on the whole, I can't get into him. Like someone here said, maybe if I try again I'll succeed in understanding him.
A sense for slightly gruff humour seem to be essential IMO.
Quote from: The new erato on October 15, 2011, 12:17:24 AM
A sense for slightly gruff humour seem to be essential IMO.
Perhaps I'll find it one day.
They say he was much influenced by CPE Bach and I love him.
I do like his keyboard concertos (Brautigam has a great recording of them) and some of his trios. But I don't seem to get to them these days.
I love Trio No. 44 In e Major, Hob. XV: 28: II. Allegretto!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 14, 2011, 09:31:51 AM
http://nyan.cat/
(yes i know, you can't get that out of your head too now. You are welcome).
GMG-friendly version:
http://www.youtube.com/v/KiKPgmN5jTg
Quote from: AllegroVivace on October 14, 2011, 05:27:36 PM
Just checked out last years' Pulitzer Prize winning piece by Jennifer Higdon, her Violin Concerto (http://youtu.be/yW-7awt9MCE (http://youtu.be/yW-7awt9MCE)). Couldn't see any substance behind the whole display of quasi virtuoso lines and orchestral tricks. Planning to give it a chance though, a couple of more times. Hopefully it will grow on me.
I bought the Hilary Hahn cd of it for SOME reason! A mistake I think. I have had it packed up,ready to send back to Amazon,for over a week. (I can't stand those miseries in the main post office,I had a nice local branch & the b****** closed it!) Or I could be incredibly generous & put in the box with all the cds I'm taking to a charity shop? Anyway,hopefully it will go off on Monday.
Have to say,the bit I heard on Youtube does sound like the usual overrated tosh. Maybe,I might play it a few times,then it'll stay in the box,like allot of contemporary pieces. It's coupled with the Tchaikovsky 'warhorse' which is allright now & again,but I do hate this 'craze' for coupling new with old, ie Brahms Violin Concerto followed by Stravinsky,Beethoven by Bernstein. It's okay once or twice,but then I just find myself programming one or the other of them out. An irritating marketing gimmick & I agree with that bloke on Musicweb,from the point of lasting musical enjoyment,a bit of a mistake (although,Hahn's doing pretty well on it!). Call me unadventurous,but when I buy a cd I favour 'like with like'!
Quote from: cilgwyn on October 15, 2011, 03:09:56 AM
I bought the Hilary Hahn cd of it for SOME reason! A mistake I think. I have had it packed up,ready to send back to Amazon,for over a week. (I can't stand those miseries in the main post office,I had a nice local branch & the b****** closed it!) Or I could be incredibly generous & put in the box with all the cds I'm taking to a charity shop? Anyway,hopefully it will go off on Monday.
Have to say,the bit I heard on Youtube does sound like the usual overrated tosh. Maybe,I might play it a few times,then it'll stay in the box,like allot of contemporary pieces. It's coupled with the Tchaikovsky 'warhorse' which is allright now & again,but I do hate this 'craze' for coupling new with old, ie Brahms Violin Concerto followed by Stravinsky,Beethoven by Bernstein. It's okay once or twice,but then I just find myself programming one or the other of them out. An irritating marketing gimmick & I agree with that bloke on Musicweb,from the point of lasting musical enjoyment,a bit of a mistake (although,Hahn's doing pretty well on it!). Call me unadventurous,but when I buy a cd I favour 'like with like'!
Hmmm. I'll have to give it another listen.
Hahn's been packaging new works with warhorses throughout her career. More than a gimmick, I think it's a way of getting broader exposure for new works when people buy the CD for the warhorse. And I regard filling out the CD with other music as a bonus...and really dislike getting only 30 or 40 minutes of music with a medium that easily contains 80.
Quote from: The new erato on October 15, 2011, 12:03:11 AM
Well, I certainly don't find anything offputting in Wainberg's wonderful string quartets that should be immediately approachable for anybody appreciating Shostakovich's. Playing vol 1 on cpo now.
What I find so off-putting is all the Shostakovich-like elements in the music. It makes me want to listen to Shostakovich instead, which I do.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 15, 2011, 07:10:59 AM
What I find so off-putting is all the Shostakovich-like elements in the music. It makes me want to listen to Shostakovich instead, which I do.
Perfectly legit of course, but the fact is that Weinberg in his better moments only superficially resembles Shostakovich, which was why I put it like "immediately approachable for anybody appreciating Shostakovich's" instead of saying that the quartets resembles Shostakovich's, which, the more I listen, they don't. But there's no denying they are not on the same, even, level as them.
I suppose I don't get any of the composers I don't appreciate myself but are generally kept in high esteem. ::)
Does it even matter what we get? During the last few years I have concentrated on music I enjoy the most and it's really what counts in the end. I keep an open mind which lets me find new favorites but I don't force myself to "get" anything. I have come to understood there are too many composers for one lifetime.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 16, 2011, 12:43:17 AM
I suppose I don't get any of the composers I don't appreciate myself but are generally kept in high esteem. ::)
Does it even matter what we get? During the last few years I have concentrated on music I enjoy the most and it's really what counts in the end. I keep an open mind which lets me find new favorites but I don't force myself to "get" anything. I have come to understood there are too many composers for one lifetime.
Depends what you want to get out of music (or art and life in general): solely entertainment, or also a broadening of knowledge and perspective?
Quote from: 71 dB on October 16, 2011, 12:43:17 AM
I have come to understood there are too many composers for one lifetime.
I feel like there are far from enough (especially good ones). I've only been listening for last 10 or so years, and it's really hard to find another composer I've never heard of that strikes me as "great." If I have 50 more years of listening experience, it will probably mainly be having a detailed knowledge of composers' output.
Quote from: Grazioso on October 16, 2011, 05:43:34 AM
Depends what you want to get out of music (or art and life in general): solely entertainment, or also a broadening of knowledge and perspective?
In my case both.
Quote from: Greg on October 17, 2011, 06:41:08 AM
I feel like there are far from enough (especially good ones). I've only been listening for last 10 or so years, and it's really hard to find another composer I've never heard of that strikes me as "great." If I have 50 more years of listening experience, it will probably mainly be having a detailed knowledge of composers' output.
I haven't found new favorite composers in a long time but classical music is not everything. There is other things to discover.
At the moment I am exploring
Carly Simon's output.
In classical music genre a work that I really enjoy at the moment is
Piazzolla's
Concerto for Bandoneón, String Orchestra and Percussion, 'Aconcagua' on Naxos 8.572271
There are too many composers for ones lifetime only if you decide not to attinge to the essential, or if you decide to have a life.
Luke seems to have the same obsession for Alkan that i have for Enescu, or Kapustin. I have to investigate this deeper, before i dismiss him altogether.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 22, 2011, 10:39:38 AM
There are too many composers for ones lifetime only if you decide not to attinge to the essential, or if you decide to have a life.
Luke seems to have the same obsession for Alkan that i have for Enescu, or Kapustin. I have to investigate this deeper, before i dismiss him altogether.
I do! But I have it for Enescu too. Not Kapustin, though, not yet anyway. :)
Cage (but I understand I´m not supposed to either), except from some early pieces ...
+ most of the later Webern.
Also somehow have a minimal interest in the minimalists ...
Quote from: DieNacht on October 22, 2011, 10:47:49 AM
+ most of the later Webern.
That's the best Webern. :(
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 22, 2011, 10:49:35 AM
That's the best Webern. :(
You're right, of course; the Cantatas, the Variations for Orchestra and
Das Augenlicht are fascinating, beautiful works, Webern's greatest achievements, but I
do think they're quite tough; not as accessible as the Six or Five Pieces for Orchestra, for example.
For me it's Messiaen, i started out trying to listen to his piano music, his birdsong music, and it's just random chaos to my ears, also his organ music leaves me feeling empty, it goes nowhere, so i'm really put off by him, the only thing i somewhat like is his theme and variations for violin and piano, i'm thinking of listening harder to his Vingt Regards Sur L'Enfant Jesus, or maybe i just need to admit i'll never get him.
Quote from: Octo_Russ on October 22, 2011, 04:02:43 PM
For me it's Messiaen, i started out trying to listen to his piano music, his birdsong music, and it's just random chaos to my ears, also his organ music leaves me feeling empty, it goes nowhere, so i'm really put off by him, the only thing i somewhat like is his theme and variations for violin and piano, i'm thinking of listening harder to his Vingt Regards Sur L'Enfant Jesus, or maybe i just need to admit i'll never get him.
I can certainly sympathize with your remarks. He's a tough nut to crack, which for me it might be he's just not the composer for me, which is fine, because, as it's been said about women: there are plenty of fish in the sea.
As a total Messiaen fanatic, I can say that if you start with Messiaen's earliest works and then work forward chronologically, everything will be unfolded gradually. Elements of his later works are hidden in his earlier works, and his earlier works are a great preparation for his later, (perhaps) more difficult works. Still, on the whole, I honestly see Messiaen as really one of the more upfront, hear-on-his-sleeve composers that really aimed to make his music visceral and easy to understand, and I think he succeeded. Perhaps you just haven't heard the right works? The bird pieces are some of his most difficult works, but if you must listen to them, try out Le Loriot and Le Merle Bleu first. These are the most accessible and the best, in my opinion. Also, the Petites Esquisses d'Oiseaux.
Quote from: Octo_Russ on October 22, 2011, 04:02:43 PM
For me it's Messiaen, i started out trying to listen to his piano music, his birdsong music, and it's just random chaos to my ears, also his organ music leaves me feeling empty, it goes nowhere, so i'm really put off by him, the only thing i somewhat like is his theme and variations for violin and piano, i'm thinking of listening harder to his Vingt Regards Sur L'Enfant Jesus, or maybe i just need to admit i'll never get him.
Have had this sort of discussion before - obviously it is no concern of mine whether anyone likes composer x or not, but in the case of Messiaen, when I see it described as 'random chaos to my ears' I'm left wondering what of the music you've been listening to. Doubtless there are harder nuts to crack in his music - I would never start with the Sept Haikai or Chronchromie or the Livre d'Orgue - but he is one of the least 'random' or 'chaotic' composers I can think of. Almost every note operates within the parameters of at least one kind of system. That isn't a guarantee of quality of course, and in pieces such as the two I just named the systems can be quite hard to discern. But in much of the music the glorious and idiosyncratic pattern-making is right there to beguile the ear. Sometimes the ear just needs to be led in the right direction once, and then the music clicks. Anyway, try something earlier, obvious things like the Quatuor or Turangalila or the Vingt Regards, and try to listen deep, to the patterns of notes and rhythms. In among the more arcane movements (but all the arcana beautifully presented in these works) there are many movements which show just how capable of 'conventional' tonal beauty Messiaen was.
Haven't got time to edit it, but reading back that post I realise how horifically patronising it sounds and that wasn't my intention at all! Only to try to describe how my understanding of Messiaen is different. Apologies! But I do love my Messiaen...
Quote from: Luke on October 23, 2011, 01:01:53 AM
Haven't got time to edit it, but reading back that post I realise how horifically patronising it sounds and that wasn't my intention at all! Only to try to describe how my understanding of Messiaen is different. Apologies! But I do love my Messiaen...
Certainly no offence taken!, in fact you've been very helpful, i actually listened at random to a few pieces of Vingt Regards, yes it's a tough nut to crack, but i can hear certain phrases i like, in "Regard Des Anges", there's a reoccurring phrase about 10 seconds in, where the right hand plays high in the treble, while the left hand hammers away deep in the bass, sounds wonderful, and it's good that it keeps coming back, but the rest i need to listen to some more, i also like "Par Lui Tout E Ete Fait", it's incessant, very Prokofievian, i've only skimmed the surface, but certainly Catalogue d'Oiseaux put me off him, and i'm not a big fan of organ music either.
Also do you have a recommendation for Vingt Regards?, i'm thinking of getting Joanna MacGregor's set, is she any good?.
For the Vingt Regards, Steven Osborne, hands down. Aimard is also a nice alternative. Joanna MacGregor's is a bit weird to me, and it doesn't quite work for my ears, much like how Ogdon's doesn't work for me either. It might work for others, though. Still, Osborne's is probably your best bet.
Quote from: Octo_Russ on October 23, 2011, 03:57:50 PM
Certainly no offence taken!, in fact you've been very helpful, i actually listened at random to a few pieces of Vingt Regards, yes it's a tough nut to crack, but i can hear certain phrases i like, in "Regard Des Anges", there's a reoccurring phrase about 10 seconds in, where the right hand plays high in the treble, while the left hand hammers away deep in the bass, sounds wonderful, and it's good that it keeps coming back, but the rest i need to listen to some more, i also like "Par Lui Tout E Ete Fait", it's incessant, very Prokofievian, i've only skimmed the surface, but certainly Catalogue d'Oiseaux put me off him, and i'm not a big fan of organ music either.
Also do you have a recommendation for Vingt Regards?, i'm thinking of getting Joanna MacGregor's set, is she any good?.
Peter Serkin's is a very good option. It goes without saying that Loriod should be heard. An unusual one I didn't expect to uncover is this one - http://takecare-maready.blogspot.com/search/label/John%20Ogdon -John Ogdon's, free to download and worth the hearing.
Yes, that Muraro is intense. It's on youtube - check out his Par Lui tout a ete fait, but don't forget to pick your jaw off the floor afterwards.
http://www.youtube.com/v/dtE0Y7wUfCQ
Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 03:41:36 AM
Yes, that Muraro is intense. It's on youtube - check out his Par Lui tout a ete fait, but don't forget to pick your jaw off the floor afterwards.
http://www.youtube.com/v/dtE0Y7wUfCQ
I love this stuff . . . Luke, you bring awful forces to bear upon a chap's budget ; )
Quote from: Luke on October 22, 2011, 10:40:41 AM
Not Kapustin, though, not yet anyway. :)
Well, he's not a decadent composer, so its hard to fully appreciate his music if you are among those who has internalized resolving cognitive dissonances as a form of intellectual gratification. With that, i mean nothing insulting or damning, just an impassioned observation. Kapustin is neither a modernist nor a modern (that is, his music is not actually Jazz). That's puts him in a very unfortunate position in this day and age.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 05:11:50 AM
Well, he's not a decadent composer, so its hard to fully appreciate his music if you are among those who has internalized resolving cognitive dissonances as a form of intellectual gratification.
Thanks for the chuckle!
I think Luke probably knows what i'm talking about.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 05:29:57 AM
I think Luke probably knows what i'm talking about.
Sure. Possibly, I may, as well.
Quote from: toucan on October 24, 2011, 05:33:56 AM
If you like people like Mantovani & Liberace & Doc Severinsen, Kasputin sure is the "composer" for you. Serious classical music lovers have better things to concern themselves with; so do serious pop & jazz fans
Well, Kapustin isn't as tough a sell if you are a classical pianist and can understand just how thankful some people have some music like his to play and listen to. It admittedly isn't great music if you're just a serious casual classical music listener, but it isn't terrible either. Comparing it to Liberace et al is a bit of a stretch. Hell, the second sonata is still enough to be called a masterpiece! Let's see Liberace write a jazzy piece in perfect sonata form like that one.
Actually having played a lot of Kapusitn myself (above all the Preludes and Fugues, which I think may be his best work anyway) and looked through dozens and dozens of his score, I am well aware of his qualities. He is undeniably a very skillful composer. What eludes me about him is - what is the point of it all? For all its dazzling effects the music doesn't feel very...well, I could say 'profound' here, but that leads to difficulties! What I mean is that I don't sense a strong personality at work in Kapustin's music, and neither do I find a strong aesthetic there - much more than Alkan, Kapustin's work seems to me to effect its undeniable effect by means of shock-and-awe: the music is very hard to play, it is a complex blitz of notes, and there is an impressive compositional skill involved in uniting a variety of disparate trends (complex counterpoint, post-Lisztian virtuosity, the harmonic and rhythmic syntax of jazz...). So yes, these things leave me very impressed, but that is all. They don't leave me with that sense of an almost moral struggle that I get from Alkan. I feel about Kapustin somewhat as some people feel about Alkan - that there is a lot of show but little substance. But just as that is utterly to misrepresent and misunderstand Alkan, I am very prepared to admit that I am wrong about Kapustin too. In fact, I'd love to be convinced that there is more there than I have realised. And I will keep playing it, in the hope of being thus convinced....and because it is fabulous music, and fun to play. :)
Quote from: toucan on October 24, 2011, 05:33:56 AM
If you like people like Mantovani & Liberace & Doc Severinsen, Kasputin sure is the "composer" for you. Serious classical music lovers have better things to concern themselves with; so do serious pop & jazz fans
Serious classical music lovers are apparently a bunch of clueless morons. This is me mocking the posting style of James.
The point of Kapustin is that his music is actually inspired, note for note. This is of course very rare in a modern composer, modernity being by definition antithetical to genuine artistic inspiration. Granted, i'm speaking to a group of people who can't tell the difference between Chopin and Liszt in terms of actual inspiration, so how could i possibly convince anybody here of the worth of a composer like Kapustin? Its an act in futility.
1) You could easily convince us (or me) by actually showing us (me) some examples of these every-note-is-inspired music, and telling us (me) something of the inspiration you discern there, not-by-note. In the intermin between my last post and this I've been here - http://classicscore.hut2.ru/K.html (fabulous score resource btw) - and re-looking through the considerable amount of Kapustin they have there. I want to love this music (I already like and am impressed by some of it). But every note inspired? That is, I think, demonstrably not true. There is a hell of a lot of rather turgid passgework and motivically empty written-out improv over fixed left hand chord sequences which seems to me very empty. (I prefer his preludes and fugues to anything else of his, they are as close as he gets to real stature I think, but even in those there are banal moments aplenty). As with Alkan, where I said I'd be happy to go through the music bar-by-bar, I'd happily look at Kapustin note-by-note, but when I do, it leaves me relatively cold.
2) The game you play is easily played (I'm not quite sure how your cage got rattled about this, btw, I think I've been very fair and reasonable). You question others' ability to 'tell the difference between Chopin and Liszt in terms of actual inspiration'; it would be just as easy to call into question your own listening prowess in a 'you really think Kapustin is that good? You leaden-eared fool!' kind of way. But I wouldn't do that. Your ears are perfectly fine; why make imputations about others'?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 09:33:34 AM
The point of Kapustin is that his music is actually inspired, note for note. This is of course very rare in a modern composer . . . .
Thanks for yet another chuckle!
Kapustin´s chamber works are often delightful - such as his string quartet and pieces for cello and piano or
saxophone and cello, all on you-tube. The selection of chamber works there has now been supplemented
by a piano quintet and a trio for flute, cello and piano.
The piano works can sound a bit too alike, but I´ve recently come to appreciate a work like the 8th Sonata,
which can somehow be easier related to the sonatas of, say, Prokofiev. It has promoted more interest
in the field of his piano music.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 09:33:34 AM
The point of Kapustin is that his music is actually inspired, note for note. This is of course very rare in a modern composer, modernity being by definition antithetical to genuine artistic inspiration. Granted, i'm speaking to a group of people who can't tell the difference between Chopin and Liszt in terms of actual inspiration, so how could i possibly convince anybody here of the worth of a composer like Kapustin? Its an act in futility.
Please spare us your gushing about this trite composer, Kapustin. His music is nothing in the world but notated jazz, which defeats the whole purpose of jazz, which is all about improvisation. I've talked to many jazz musicians through the years who would probably cringe when they hear Kapustin because what he's trying to do is sound like a jazz musician. If you take the music away from Kapustin, I'd like to hear how well he improvises over the changes to Coltrane's
Giant Steps. Jazz is not classical music and classical music is not jazz. They can influence each other, but Kapustin puts this idea way over the edge.
Kapustin is a fine jazz player, and I'm sure he could improvise on Giants Steps just fine. But that's not my point. I just don't think his 'classical' compositions are the works of high genius JDP does. Excellently written, yes. But they don't come near the claims he makes for them.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 09:55:09 AM
. . . which defeats the whole purpose of jazz, which is all about improvisation.
I don't think that simplification is fair to jazz, BTW. When Duke and Monk were composing, was their activity antithetical to the whole purpose of jazz?
QuoteGranted, i'm speaking to a group of people who can't tell the difference between Chopin and Liszt in terms of actual
inspiration
It would be appropriate then that you gave us newcomers just a tiny few samples of your thoughts on the difference;
we might have a few immediate ideas, such as the vast difference in literary scope between the two, but still...
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 24, 2011, 10:08:11 AM
I don't think that simplification is fair to jazz, BTW. When Duke and Monk were composing, was their activity antithetical to the whole purpose of jazz?
Shades of the jazz thread coming back to haunt us... Hang on, I need to make a bag of popcorn so I can sit back and enjoy this... ;)
Quote from: DieNacht on October 24, 2011, 10:09:43 AM
It would be appropriate then that you gave us newcomers just a tiny few samples of your thoughts on the difference;
we might have a few immediate ideas, such as the vast difference in literary scope between the two, but still...
"Samples"? You just intuit these things, claim you're right, and then make fun of people who disagree. It's easy! ;)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 24, 2011, 10:08:11 AM
I don't think that simplification is fair to jazz, BTW. When Duke and Monk were composing, was their activity antithetical to the whole purpose of jazz?
Monk admitted that most of his compositions were sketches. Did you ever see the film
Straight, No Chaser, Karl? He openly admitted this. Ellington, on the other hand, was a big band leader and did some fine arrangements. He wasn't as noteworthy as a jazz writer as Billy Strayhorn was, which, as you know, was his right-hand man for many years. Ellington said in an interview that when Strayhorn died, he didn't really know how he was going to carry on, but he did fine without him I think. Recordings like
New Orleans Suite and
Latin American Suite proved Ellington the capable composer himself. But Ellington's true gift was in his arranging skills.
Quote from: DieNacht on October 24, 2011, 10:09:43 AM
It would be appropriate then that you gave us newcomers just a tiny few samples of your thoughts on the difference;
we might have a few immediate ideas, such as the vast difference in literary scope between the two, but still...
But still what? Can you tell the difference between the two? I'm curious.
I originally compared Kapustin to Scarlatti. That comparison was merely based on the fact both composers were able to write music of the utmost inspiration based on the same formula. So to the question of which Kapustin is supposed to be genuinely inspired, well, the answer is: all of it. There isn't a single work by Kapustin that isn't just as inspired as the other. Some just happen to be more ambitious.
Understanding the terms now, I see that my question was, of course, completely irrelevant.
Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 10:04:55 AM
Kapustin is a fine jazz player, and I'm sure he could improvise on Giants Steps just fine. But that's not my point. I just don't think his 'classical' compositions are the works of high genius JDP does. Excellently written, yes. But they don't come near the claims he makes for them.
Well I was making an entirely different point, Luke. No need to comment on what I wrote. I have my own criticism of Kapustin just like you do. I doubt he could improvise on
Giant Steps. This is a fiendishly difficult piece that has tripped up even the most accomplished jazz musicians. I've been struggling with it for a long time now.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 09:55:09 AM
Please spare us your gushing about this trite composer, Kapustin. His music is nothing in the world but notated jazz
No it isn't. Its Jazz notated in a classical medium. The very fact you can't even see the difference invalidates any opinion you might have on the subject. Its like arguing Bartok is a worthless composer because his music is just notated folk Hungarian song. It also demonstrates you have no idea what Jazz music actually is (to wit, it isn't about improvisation
per-se).
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 10:19:55 AM
But still what? Can you tell the difference between the two? I'm curious.
I originally compared Kapustin to Scarlatti. That comparison was merely based on the fact both composers were able to write music of the utmost inspiration based on the same formula. So to the question of which Kapustin is supposed to be genuinely inspired, well, the answer is: all of it. There isn't a single work by Kapustin that isn't just as inspired by the other. Some just happen to be more ambitious.
Except
a) it isn't a 'fact' that both composers only wrote music of 'utmost inspiration'. That's disingenuous, because obviously it is unprovable. You think it true, but wrt Kapustin I and others dispute it, and, contrary to your imputations, I am perfectly able to listen and tell you why this is, note-by-note.
b) not only is it not a fact for the reason that one cannot prove 'utmost inspiration', it is also not a fact that Kapustin is a one-formula man (nor was Scarlatti, though the argument could be made that he was more easily).
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 10:30:09 AM
No it isn't. Its Jazz notated in a classical medium.
It's not, really. Jazz, notated, looks very different. The worst bits of Kapustin, to my mind, are the bits which
do look like notated jazz.
Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 10:32:15 AM
Except
a) it isn't a 'fact' that both composers only wrote music of 'utmost inspiration'. That's disingenuous, because obviously it is unprovable.
Right. That's the whole point of artistic criticism. I can't prove that Beethoven was a greater genius then Britney Spears. That doesn't mean he wasn't. This is why modernist materialism and relativism is a decadent, limited world view.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 10:30:09 AM
No it isn't. Its Jazz notated in a classical medium. The very fact you can't even see the difference invalidates any opinion you might have on the subject. Its like arguing Bartok is a worthless composer because his music is just notated folk Hungarian song. It also demonstrates you have no idea what Jazz music actually is (to wit, it isn't about improvisation per-se).
I see you're still holding the flag for Kapustin. Yeah, I don't have any idea of what jazz is ::), I've only been listening to jazz for 15 years now and playing it for almost as long.
If you enjoy listening to Liberace ???, I mean Kapustin, then that's your business, but don't try and pass him off as some kind of genius composer, because he's not.
Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 10:34:21 AM
It's not, really. Jazz, notated, looks very different.
Which is what i said. Its not Jazz, its is a Jazz idiom notated in classical context. Kapustin is not Jazz anymore then Bartok was Hungarian folk song.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 10:16:21 AM
Monk admitted that most of his compositions were sketches. Did you ever see the film Straight, No Chaser, Karl? He openly admitted this.
It's interesting that you cast this in light of an "admission." And yes, I've seen the film.
You're not answering my question, I note.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 10:39:02 AM
Yeah, I don't have any idea of what jazz is ::), I've only been listening to jazz for 15 years now and playing it for almost as long.
Which proves, exactly, nothing. Keith Jarrett has been playing Jazz for most of his life. He still doesn't know the first thing about this type of music.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 10:39:02 AM
If you enjoy listening to Liberace ???, I mean Kapustin, then that's your business, but don't try and pass him off as some kind of genius composer, because he's not.
Actually, he is. As close to genius as a modern composer can possibly get, in an age where the whole concept of genius has little meaning in the first place.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 10:37:15 AM
Right. That's the whole point of artistic criticism. I can't prove that Beethoven was a greater genius then Britney Spears. That doesn't mean he wasn't. This is why modernist materialism and relativism is a decadent, limited world view.
Rubbish, because back in the real world, it's perfectly possible to prove it, once you've agreed terms. Or you should be able to make a bloody good attempt, as it's bleeding obvious. The problem with Kapustin is that it is harder to make the case for him. It's not relativism that is making me dispute claims for Kapustin's almighty greatness. It's the opposite - I think that others are demonstrably greater.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 10:39:22 AM
Which is what i said. Its not Jazz, its is a Jazz idiom notated in classical context. Kapustin is not Jazz anymore then Bartok was Hungarian folk song.
::) Listen to Bartok and then listen Kapustin and tell me who is more original. Where is Kapustin's
Concerto for Orchestra, where is Kapustin's
The Miraculous Mandarin, where is Kapustin's
Violin Concerto No. 2?
Your defense of Kapustin is hilarious. Please keep it up. I needed a good laugh today, so if anything, thank you for that. 8)
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 10:16:21 AM
Monk admitted that most of his compositions were sketches. Did you ever see the film Straight, No Chaser, Karl? He openly admitted this. Ellington, on the other hand, was a big band leader and did some fine arrangements. He wasn't as noteworthy as a jazz writer as Billy Strayhorn was, which, as you know, was his right-hand man for many years. Ellington said in an interview that when Strayhorn died, he didn't really know how he was going to carry on, but he did fine without him I think. Recordings like New Orleans Suite and Latin American Suite proved Ellington the capable composer himself. But Ellington's true gift was in his arranging skills.
It's still a stretch to claim the whole purpose of jazz is improvisation. That creates an artificial boundary between composition and improvisation, it neglects other key jazz elements (such as swing and characteristic instrumentation), and downplays the fact that many compositions in jazz are beloved in their own right and have becoming hallmarks of certain players, styles, and albums.
A jazz composition might be "just" a sketch--it might be conceived primarily as a harmonic framework upon which to improvise--but someone thought it important enough to write one to serve as such an organizing principle for the music, instead of playing pure free jazz.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 10:39:22 AM
Which is what i said. Its not Jazz, its is a Jazz idiom notated in classical context. Kapustin is not Jazz anymore then Bartok was Hungarian folk song.
OK, fine, then you are just using the word 'notated' incorrectly, I suppose. That confused me. But, yes, in that case we do agree about this.
Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 10:43:13 AM
Rubbish, because back in the real world, it's perfectly possible to prove it, once you've agreed terms.
No it isn't, because the terms are unassailable. You can't prove genius in a scientific manner. Once again, that is why modern materialism is a rotten philosophy that has only been able to produce rotten art.
Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 10:43:13 AM
The problem with Kapustin is that it is harder to make the case for him. It's not relativism that is making me dispute claims for Kapustin's almighty greatness. It's the opposite - I think that others are demonstrably greater.
Hence, lies your problem. Genius cannot be
demonstrated. By definition.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 10:44:20 AM
::) Listen to Bartok and then listen Kapustin and tell me who is more original.
Brahms was not original either. Meaning, not a genius. Who is being ridiculous now?
The point is that Bartok was not merely notated Hungarian folk music, anymore then Kapustin is notated Jazz, which it isn't.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 24, 2011, 10:40:27 AM
It's interesting that you cast this in light of an "admission." And yes, I've seen the film.
You're not answering my question, I note.
QuoteWhen Duke and Monk were composing, was their activity antithetical to the whole purpose of jazz?
The answer is simple: they weren't thinking about the purpose of jazz. They were thinking: let's make some music. But, in the end, it doesn't matter what their intentions were, because the end result is a music that's full of improvisation, which is the epitome of jazz music.
Jazz is not about improvisation in and of itself. This canard has been gone long enough as it is.
Quote from: JDPNo it isn't, because the terms are unassailable. You can't prove genius in a scientific manner. Once again, that is why modern materialism is a rotten philosophy that has only been able to produce rotten art.
Hence, lies your problem. Genius cannot be demonstrated. By definition.
Doesn't feel like a problem to me. We know the term 'genius' is a loaded one for you, one that means something very different for you than for anyone else, so let's not get back on that tedious track.
Quote from: Grazioso on October 24, 2011, 10:44:55 AM
It's still a stretch to claim the whole purpose of jazz is improvisation. That creates an artificial boundary between composition and improvisation, it neglects other key jazz elements (such as swing and characteristic instrumentation), and downplays the fact that many compositions in jazz are beloved in their own right and have becoming hallmarks of certain players, styles, and albums.
A jazz composition might be "just" a sketch--it might be conceived primarily as a harmonic framework upon which to improvise--but someone thought it important enough to write one to serve as such an organizing principle for the music, instead of playing pure free jazz.
I agree, Grazioso. Where would jazz be today without greats like Ellington, Benny Golson, Jimmy Heath, Wayne Shorter, among others churning out delicious compositions? My point was that improvisation is the crucial element in jazz music whether one agrees with me or not, without this, then shouldn't we call it something else?
Quote from: Grazioso on October 24, 2011, 10:15:31 AM
Shades of the jazz thread coming back to haunt us... Hang on, I need to make a bag of popcorn so I can sit back and enjoy this... ;)
Hope you've made enough to pass around!Quote from: Grazioso on October 24, 2011, 10:15:31 AM
"Samples"? You just intuit these things, claim you're right, and then make fun of people who disagree. It's easy! ;)
I knew I was working too hard at this ; )
Quote from: JDP[Kapustin is] Jazz notated in a classical medium.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 10:48:05 AM
The point is that Bartok was not merely notated Hungarian folk music, anymore then Kapustin is notated Jazz, which it isn't.
Glad you've come round to the normal use of the word 'notation'... ;D
Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 10:51:09 AM
Doesn't feel like a problem to me. We know the term 'genius' is a loaded one for you, one that means something very different for you than for anyone else, so let's not get back on that tedious track.
Well, i would you go on proving that a composer was a genius, under your definition?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 10:48:05 AM
Brahms was not original either. Meaning, not a genius. Who is being ridiculous now?
The point is that Bartok was not merely notated Hungarian folk music, anymore then Kapustin is notated Jazz, which it isn't.
You have no point. All your credibility, what little you had, went out the window when you starting making ridiculous claims about Kapustin and trying to prove them as facts.
Here's a fact: Kapustin isn't as great as you've made him out to be.
Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 10:53:49 AM
Glad you've come round to the normal use of the word 'notation'... ;D
Notated
in a classical medium. Meaning, the form is classical, the Jazz element is merely thematic. Kinda like what Bartok did.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 10:54:58 AM
Here's a fact: Kapustin isn't as great as you've made him out to be.
Well, you almost cannot throw a dead cat around GMG without hitting a composer who is not so great as his enthusiasts claim ; )
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 10:54:58 AM
Here's a fact: Kapustin isn't as great as you've made him out to be.
He can't be. He is too much of his own personality to pigeonhole himself to what modernity defines as genius (which is, whoever can be the most
decadent).
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 10:55:37 AM
Notated in a classical medium. Meaning, the form is classical, the Jazz element is merely thematic. Kinda like what Bartok did.
As I said where are Kapustin's masterpieces? Where is his
Bluebeard's Castle? Where is his
Piano Concerto No. 2? What is an orchestral work of his that will make me bow down to his unheralded greatness?
No. Notated refers only to the writing down of the music. Notatin gin a classical medium/idiom doesn't really mean anything, but if it does, it only means written down using classical notation. I know what you are trying to say here, and I agree with it - I agree with what you are saying about the role of jazz in Kapusitn 's music, I mean. I'm only objecting to your use of the words.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 10:54:26 AM
Well, i would you go on proving that a composer was a genius, under your definition?
I woudn't be that bothered. It's just a word for me, of loose definition. It isn't such a sacred cow for others as it is for you.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 10:58:05 AM
He can't be. He is too much of his own personality to pigeonhole himself to what modernity defines as genius (which is, whoever can be the most decadent).
Damn, must have missed a meeting...
;D : :D ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?
;D :D
;D :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :D
;D :D
;D :D
;D :D
;D :D
;D :D
;D :D
;D :D
Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 11:01:44 AM
Damn, must have missed a meeting...
You and me, both.Quote from: Cato on October 24, 2011, 11:02:11 AM
;D : :D ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?
;D :D
;D :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :D
;D :D
;D :D
;D :D
;D :D
;D :D
;D :D
;D :D
There's a flag on the play.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 10:59:30 AM
As I said where are Kapustin's masterpieces? Where is his Bluebeard's Castle? Where is his Piano Concerto No. 2? What is an orchestral work of his that will make me bow down to his unheralded greatness?
Maybe it's in a medium which isn't your bag. (Just a thought. I've not heard any Kapustin, so I don't have a dog in that race.)
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 10:59:30 AM
As I said where are Kapustin's masterpieces? Where is his Bluebeard's Castle? Where is his Piano Concerto No. 2? What is an orchestral work of his that will make me bow down to his unheralded greatness?
The orchestral thing is a red herring, though. It isn't written anywhere that composer must write an orchestral masterpiece to be considered great.
Pace the two lovely concerti, Chopin's greatness, for one, resides elsewhere.
Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 11:01:00 AM
I woudn't be that bothered. It's just a word for me, of loose definition. It isn't such a sacred cow for others as it is for you.
Ok, let's test this. Was Alkan as great a
genius as Beethoven?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 24, 2011, 11:04:30 AM
Maybe it's in a medium which isn't your bag. (Just a thought. I've not heard any Kapustin, so I don't have a dog in that race.)
Well I was just trying to find out if he's composed any orchestral music that's noteworthy?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 24, 2011, 11:04:30 AM
Maybe it's in a medium which isn't your bag. (Just a thought. I've not heard any Kapustin, so I don't have a dog in that race.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn9fTO7zp5Q
There.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 11:05:45 AM
Well I was just trying to find out if he's composed any orchestral music that's noteworthy?
Well, all right, but that may not signify the way you seemed to imply. Hardly any Chopin lover would claim that he wrote any orchestral music that is noteworthy, but that doesn't alter the fact of his unassailable genius.
Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 11:04:52 AM
The orchestral thing is a red herring, though. It isn't written anywhere that composer must write an orchestral masterpiece to be considered great. Pace the two lovely concerti, Chopin's greatness, for one, resides elsewhere.
I'm just trying to figure out if Kapustin has composed anything noteworthy in the orchestral genre.
Should have trusted Luke to get there first!Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 11:04:52 AM
The orchestral thing is a red herring, though. It isn't written anywhere that composer must write an orchestral masterpiece to be considered great. Pace the two lovely concerti, Chopin's greatness, for one, resides elsewhere.
Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 10:51:09 AM
Doesn't feel like a problem to me. We know the term 'genius' is a loaded one for you, one that means something very different for you than for anyone else, so let's not get back on that tedious track.
Nor to me. Using specific musical examples, you show how a composer managed something that hadn't been tried before, or overcame the perceived limitations of existing forms and methods, i.e., they solved a musical "problem." You demonstrate things like the complexity or novelty of their musical structures. Rosen's
The Classical Style is a good example of such a demonstration. I am still waiting for the follow-up volume on Britney Spears :)
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 10:51:57 AM
I agree, Grazioso. Where would jazz be today without greats like Ellington, Benny Golson, Jimmy Heath, Wayne Shorter, among others churning out delicious compositions? My point was that improvisation is the crucial element in jazz music whether one agrees with me or not, without this, then shouldn't we call it something else?
Jazz, like any classification of art, is inherently fuzzy. I think of Wittgenstein's "family resemblances": the things we call
"jazz" typically feature at least some of these characteristics: swing, improvisation, instrumental, acoustic, etc. Yet we can easily find examples of music that are called "jazz" that lack one or more of those characteristics. Similarly, the things we call "jazz" tend to belong to one historical stream, to one cultural edifice, so when something jazz-like pops up in a classical music cultural sphere, confusion or disagreement (or nonsense :D) sets in.
Quote from: James on October 24, 2011, 11:09:27 AM
And these aren't set in stone, either .. music being a creative field, its potential; the sky is the limit. Musical interplay between 4 string sounds & 4 helicopter sounds anyone?
;D
The gang's all here ;D I agree. It's fluid. See above.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 11:05:45 AM
Well I was just trying to find out if he's composed any orchestral music that's noteworthy?
He has composed some chamber music that is pretty good. But that is besides the point, is it not? Luke just addressed the same problem. Kapustin is a pianist first and foremost after all.
I sampled Kapustin when Josquin des Prez started praising him but I don't like his music. Not my cup of tea or coffee. Josquin "I know genius" des Prez will say I don't get that composer but I don't care. :D
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 24, 2011, 11:08:07 AM
Well, all right, but that may not signify the way you seemed to imply. Hardly any Chopin lover would claim that he wrote any orchestral music that is noteworthy, but that doesn't alter the fact of his unassailable genius.
I was just trying to make a point. I know a lot of composers weren't skilled in writing orchestral music. I mean look at Mompou and, like you said, Chopin.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 11:11:53 AM
I was just trying to make a point.
Seems to me like you are just trying to avoid something, rather then prove anything. So who cares whether Kapustin wrote anything of worth for the orchestra? What's that got to do with anything whatsoever?
I have wanted to jump in a few times, but I am having trouble figuring out what precisely you all are arguing about.
A few topics you ran through:
Was Kapustin inspired? Most artists would say they were inspired by something or something. The idea was thought up, I imagine with some sort of inspiration in the process, and thus, there is most likely an element of inspiration in that creativity. How does one measure creativity anyway? And if the composer achieved what he (or she) set out to do, can we judge the composer for not meeting some other standard, which was not of interest when they wrote the piece. And who says what standards these pieces should meet anyway?
Is Kapustin any good? I don't know. I suppose if someone connects with the music, yes. One can admire the writing or not. But if one feels something is lacking - is there really something lacking or are we imposing our own values on the music. If someone says the music connects to their soul in some way, isn't that a great compliment that implies some sort of greatness or at least inspired art?
Can we agree on the terms of evaluating the music? Well, we don;t agree on the terms for other composers, so how can we agree here? Is Prokofiev or Shostakovich the better composer? These things tend to be relative. I can say (and perhaps proove) that a composer does something better than another composer, but even that does make a clear cut proof in favor of one composer. Heck, we cannot even agree on what composers are classical music composers.
Is Beethoven a better composer than Kapustin? An interesting question really. I can, of course, rely on historical influence and such, and using that, convincingly argue one way or the other. But can I say that Beethoven's 30th Piano Sonata is inherently a better work of art than Kapustin's Piano Sonata No. 6? Well this comes back to agreeing the terms of evaluating the music or taste. How do we rate it?
Originality. There are some indicators that give the advantage to composers who changed how music is made. I think Bartok and Beethoven can be proven to be more original than Kapustin, for example, because of it. But, this does not imply that Kapustin was unoriginal, which is the logic I feel I am being asked to follow.
Liberace = Kapustin. Huh??? This one really has me confused. Are we talking about the Liberace that dressed up in crazy outfits? No connection that I can see here, except trying to get under the skin of other posters.
In the end, the way I read it, there a number of accusations being thrown around about various composers. Perhaps a few specific examples would help clarify some of the issues? Or perhaps I have stepped into an argument that crossed time? If so, I'll grab some of that popcorn if Grazioso will share! :)
PS - And while I wrote this 27 new replies were posted!!!!!!!! I'm posting this anyway!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 11:10:53 AM
He has composed some chamber music that is pretty good. But that is besides the point, is it not? Luke just addressed the same problem. Kapustin is a pianist first and foremost after all.
No, it's not beside the point to me. I'm wondering if he composed any orchestral music that you enjoy? Can you not even answer my question, which I've asked three times now I think.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 11:05:36 AM
Ok, let's test this. Was Alkan as great a genius as Beethoven?
For you, genius has a precise definition, taken from your beloved Weininger, right? For me, as I said, it is much looser thing, as per wiki's...
Quote...Genius (plural geniuses[1][2]) is something or someone embodying exceptional intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of unprecedented insight.
There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and indeed the question of whether the notion itself has any real meaning is a subject of current debate...
With your Weininger-based ideas you might well hate that, but just accept that that is the kind of thing that I have in mind when the word genius is flung around. And in that context I find it perfectly possible to imagine greater and lesser genius, whereas perhaps you don't. So yes - Alkan, if a genius (and he fits my idea of one, and he certainly has the 'unprecedented insight' wiki talks of...I don't think Kapustin does, btw) is clearly of a lesser degree to Beethoven.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 11:14:28 AM
Seems to me like you are just trying to avoid something, rather then prove anything. So who cares whether Kapustin wrote anything of worth for the orchestra? What's that got to do with anything whatsoever?
Speaking of avoiding...
Avoiding my question again, I see. I was just inquiring, but I see that you can't even answer my question, which isn't all that surprising.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 24, 2011, 11:14:44 AM
PS - And while I wrote this 27 new replies were posted!!!!!!!! I'm posting this anyway!
My stupid remark doesn't count. :P
QuoteI'm just trying to figure out if Kapustin has composed anything noteworthy in the orchestral genre.
There are so-called piano concerti (at least 5 I think, a lot of the stuff on you-t), but I found them less interesting.
Quote from: DieNacht on October 24, 2011, 11:19:25 AM
There are so-called piano concerti (at least 5 I think, a lot of the stuff on you-t), but I found them less interesting.
Why would they be "so-called" piano concertos? This "so-called" seems to imply that they don't belong to the long history of classical piano concertos that have been written before Kapustin's time.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 24, 2011, 11:14:44 AM
I have wanted to jump in a few times, but I am having trouble figuring out what precisely you all are arguing about.
It doesn't matter, as long as we're arguing! :D
Quote
PS - And while I wrote this 27 new replies were posted!!!!!!!! I'm posting this anyway!
This thread is going to get pulled over for speeding :o
Typical kapustin piano concerto style, very big-band + piano sounding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yNI3k6RUZw
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 11:17:08 AM
Speaking of avoiding...
Avoiding my question again, I see. I was just inquiring, but I see that you can't even answer my question, which isn't all that surprising.
There is no point to your question.
Some more concerto stuff I didn´t know in another style -
cello cto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r56zLa4POfc&feature=related
There´s a sinfonietta etc. as well.
But I'm with JDP and Karl etc on this - orchestral music or not isn't the point. Of course Alkan was similarly unorchestral, FWIW! Outside some sometimes shockingly innovative (and 'unprecedentedly insightful') chamber pieces his energies were almost entirely directed at the piano, and thank goodness they were.
Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 11:15:46 AM
So yes - Alkan, if a genius is clearly of a lesser degree to Beethoven.
But how is that provable, exactly?
Our definition of genius isn't as important at this point, since that's just a difference in semantics. For me, a genius is the absolute pinnacle of a particular form of artist and/or intellectual expression. You seem to attach degrees to the word. I think that's ultimately irrelevant either way.
One answer - at this point, who cares?
Another one - by deciding on terms, and then looking at their music, just as in your putative Beethoven/Spears example.
Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 11:36:32 AM
One answer - at this point, who cares?
What point? You don't care whether Beethoven is greater then Britney Spears?
No, I meant that at this point, having been posting here for too long, I'm past caring about your hang-up on the word genius!
You are asking me how I would know that LVB is greater than BS, or that LVB is more of a genius than CVA (though by your own definitions these two comparison aren't the same thing, surely you agree; I do wish you'd get your arguments straight). You say, what, that it is not possible to describe why, but that you, personally, you, JDP, you just know the answer to this and all such possible questions? That Kapusint is almost-a-genius and Alkan not because you say he is, but that you can't tell us why, although you make claims that all his notes are inspired, which I have declared myself happy to discuss note-by-note with you. And that is supposed to be a more logical solution to this 'greatness problem' than my 'well, you decide what you are looking for and then you look for it' ?? Really??
Whether i'm correct about Kapustin is not really relevant here (notice of course that a lot of people here are guilty of the opposite attitude towards Kapustin, which ought to be as equally damning to you).
What's important is that the measure by which i arrived to my conclusion regarding his music is understood for what it is. A personal assessment which is based on something unassailable, I.E., inspiration. Its your prerogative to negate such an approach but you need to be aware of the inherent dangers here, like, for instance, the problem of Beethoven vs Britney Spears. For the record, yes, i think Kapustin is greater then Alkan, but not as great as Beethoven. Once again, this is based on instinct, rather then something that can be proven scientifically.
There's a problem of Beethoven and Britney Spears?
I did not know that.
They are two very different people from two very different times doing two very different things that appeal, I dare say, to two very different groups of listeners.
Where are the grounds for comparison (and thus for problems)?
Quote from: some guy on October 24, 2011, 12:07:04 PM
There's a problem of Beethoven and Britney Spears?
I did not know that.
They are two very different people from two very different times doing two very different things that appeal, I dare say, to two very different groups of listeners.
Where are the grounds for comparison (and thus for problems)?
One is a genius, the other one isn't. More proof why my definition is the only one that's actually workable to any meaningful degree.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 12:00:37 PM
Whether i'm correct about Kapustin is not really relevant here (notice of course that a lot of people here are guilty of the opposite attitude towards Kapustin, which ought to be as equally damning to you).
Actually, I am interested in people's opinions of Kapustin, provided they are informed ones. As I told you before, I actively want to enjoy his music more than I do. I have spent all evening, between posting here, looking at Kapustin scores again. I know that a composer needs to be 'got' - in the words of the thread title - and that often only a small change in ones listening is all that is needed to 'get' a composer and be convinced. As yet I am not convinced by Kapusitn, and I would emphasize that this is based on a thorough acquaintance with a lot of his music, in the ears, under the fingers, before the eyes... The opinions I've given here are based on that, not on other people's opinions. And I've said all along, maybe one day I'll 'get it' and realise that Kapustin is as great as Scarlatti. But at present I don't, and so what' I've said today is all I can say. Maybe the same thing will happen for you re Alkan.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 24, 2011, 12:00:37 PM
What's important is that the measure by which i arrived to my conclusion regarding his music is understood for what it is. A personal assessment which is based on something unassailable, I.E., inspiration. Its your prerogative to negate such an approach but you need to be aware of the inherent dangers here, like, for instance, the problem of Beethoven vs Britney Spears.
To clarify - you mean the composer's inspiration, not yours? That's all very well, but inspiration is the same class of word as genius: what you hear as inspired I may see as hackneyed. So it's not exactly unassailable, is it? It's been being assailed all evening, after all. That's not to say that there's no such thing as inspiration, of course, or inspired music. Just that it isn't a fixed, measurable quantity.
There's no need arguing about any of this any further guys. Kapustin simply is a composer who Josquin admires. He can make all of the outrageous statements he wants, it will not change my opinion of this composer.
You guys are just beating a dead horse now...
Dead horses can't bite.
Or kick.
Or buck.
Or even run away, for that matter.
Much easier to beat them.
Kinda like straw men. The beater is in complete control of the situation. Dead horses and straw men are even easier to conquer than windmills (which have those nasty rotating blades, you know.)
((Did you say blades?? -- Rotating blades, yes.))
Anyway, I wonder if it's time to point out that we've learned practically nothing about any of the composers mentioned (and only a little bit about the way people listen to music). Heigh ho. Another narcissistic online thread, woo hoo!!!
[Note: if any of this thread has led anyone to questioning how they listen, then I take back the preceding paragraph in its entirety and in toto, all of it.]
I actually dug the start of this thread, and commend JDP for starting it. There are composers/artists that I know are "good", but I don't seem to enjoy like I should.
For Schoenberg, I tend to like is more flat out atonal stuff than the serialist works. I know there is a lot going on, but I don't get an answer to the "So what?"
Most Brahams does little for me, and I can't say I'm much of a Mozart fan. Mendelsson and most of the stuff form that period.
In the world of Jazz, I'm so-so on the Second Miles Davis Quintet despite teh fact I love all the musicians in it.
Iv'e wanted to get deeper in Mahler, but sometimes there is a cheesiness that bothers me and gets in they way. On the other hand, I can listen to Scriabin for hours. I would say the Scriabin's late orchestral works don't nearly the structure of Mahler.
I'm curious how the tenor of this discussion would have changed if the Kapustin was switched with Koechlin? (I LOVE that latter, but I can see how others would not get his style. ) I'd also venture that nearly all of us make outrageous statements about the composers that move us, frankly, I'm feel more sympathy for those that don't have the courage to stand up for their faves. The relationship between a listener an a work of music is, at the most basic level, instinctual, I agree with JDP here.
Of course, that may make me a relativist/nihilist, or a lowbrow, or whatever... i think I'll put on some blues....
Quote from: jowcol on October 24, 2011, 02:24:20 PM
The relationship between a listener an a work of music is, at the most basic level, instinctual, I agree with JDP here.
If that was what I thought he'd been saying, I'd agree with him too.
Quote from: jowcol on October 24, 2011, 02:24:20 PMI'm curious how the tenor of this discussion would have changed if the Kapustin was switched with Koechlin? (I LOVE that latter, but I can see how others would not get his style. ) I'd also venture that nearly all of us make outrageous statements about the composers that move us, frankly, I'm feel more sympathy for those that don't have the courage to stand up for their faves. The relationship between a listener an a work of music is, at the most basic level, instinctual, I agree with JDP here.
I gave my opinion of the music I heard from Kapustin. I have nothing against JDP liking his music, but when you start throwing absurd comparisons at people and present your opinion as fact is when I start having a problem.
I don't need to defend Koechlin. People can and have ridiculed him before, what makes me think that I can change their mind? I read on the Amazon classical forum somebody talking about Koechlin and how his music puts them to sleep because it's so boring, well that's what that person heard in the music. It simply does nothing for them. Perhaps in the case of JDP's opinion of Kapustin, he's simply being too sensitive about people's opinions. You think I give a damn what somebody thinks about Koechlin or Ravel or Milhaud or Villa-Lobos or Pettersson? No, I will continue listening to their music because it moves me and it means something to me.
People respond differently to music as you well know. What I like somebody else probably loathes and I'm fine with that and I don't have the attitude where "Oh, you don like them, well that's your loss." I'm sure I've had this attitude before, but now I know it doesn't matter. At this juncture, we should all agree to disagree and move on.
Quote from: toucan on October 24, 2011, 04:24:03 PM
Putting a Kasputin on a par with Beethoven - or even of Alkan - now, that's decadence, as certainly as putting Mantovani, Liberace or Britney Spears on a par with Beethoven (or even Alkan) is decadent - as ludicrous an expression of that collapsing standard of judgment and of taste, that defines decadence.
Interesting to see such an old-fashioned concept like "decadence" invoked. (Paging Mr. Wilde...) Putative fixed, universal norms starting crashing down in earnest during the 19th century if not earlier, and the dust still hasn't cleared. The genie is out of the bottle and
long gone; you can't stuff it back in.
Evoking "musical genius" as something both obvious and unprovable is an intellectual cop-out of those who don't have the training or patience to study history and scores and then set forth a clear, detailed thesis backed by actual evidence. Barring that, a musical genius is a merely a composer someone likes a lot.
Quote from: toucan on October 25, 2011, 07:14:59 AM
You have failed to demonstrate "the training or patience to study history and scores and then set forth a clear, detailed thesis backed by actual evidence" to back up your implied notion that Kasputin deserves to be placed on a foot of equality with a Beethoven, or even an Alkan. By the pompou, pedantic & vainglorious standard you have established, therefore, you are incompetent to express any opinion, or make any judgment regarding music or any other subject.
It wasn't Grazioso who was making any such claims for Kapustin (the opposite IIRC). It was Josquin.
I assume you've just forgotten about Yanni...
[sorry, once it was in my head I couldn't resist. Do carry on...]
Yanni is certainly on a par with Britney Spears.
(Musically, I mean.)
Quote from: Grazioso on October 25, 2011, 05:45:30 AM
Interesting to see such an old-fashioned concept like "decadence" invoked. (Paging Mr. Wilde...) Putative fixed, universal norms starting crashing down in earnest during the 19th century if not earlier, and the dust still hasn't cleared. The genie is out of the bottle and long gone; you can't stuff it back in.
Evoking "musical genius" as something both obvious and unprovable is an intellectual cop-out of those who don't have the training or patience to study history and scores and then set forth a clear, detailed thesis backed by actual evidence. Barring that, a musical genius is a merely a composer someone likes a lot.
This is what modernists actually believe.
Quote from: Luke on October 24, 2011, 02:35:28 PM
If that was what I thought he'd been saying, I'd agree with him too.
Its part of what i'm saying. The other part is that those instinctive evaluations are NOT arbitrary. Is that where your objection lies?
Quote from: toucan on October 25, 2011, 07:30:07 AM
It is the inappropriately named Grazioso who is resorting to ill-tempered & pedantic insult to dismiss views on decadence he does not have the historical knowledge to understand. Resorting to authority is what the mediocrities do, when they run out of argument. And as my comment was made in relation to Kasputin, let him share the responsibility for Josquin's poor taste & bad judgment.
The concept of decadence is one that people who were very well versed in history - as well as well gifted in intellect & understanding - people like Gibbon and Montesquieu and Voltaire and Gobineau and Spengler - have upheld
How many people out there know where Greece is? But the Greece I am referring to here is not the fourth-fiddle country that is about to bring itself, Europe and the world down over the incompetence of its leaders to responsibly manage their finances. The Greece I am referring to is the Greece which, thanks to people like Homer and Praxitele and Sophocles and Plato was - briefly - the center of the Arts and which, thanks to the power of Athens and Sparta, enjoyed a political prestige that went way beyond its size and means: where is that Greece today? Nowhere, because the Greeks have long ago entered a process of decadence and their failure to produce talents equal to the creators that still are the extent of its reputation and political leadership equal to Pericles and Alexander - are expressions of that decadence.
Greece is what happens when you let multiculturalism run amok with the original genetic constitution of a particular nation. Europe is going the same way.
Quote from: toucan on October 25, 2011, 07:30:07 AM
It is the inappropriately named Grazioso who is resorting to ill-tempered & pedantic insult to dismiss views on decadence he does not have the historical knowledge to understand. Resorting to authority is what the mediocrities do, when they run out of argument. And as my comment was made in relation to Kasputin, let him share the responsibility for Josquin's poor taste & bad judgment.
Am I right in finding this post to be ill-tempered and insulting?
Hey, I have an idea! I know this has never really been tried on an online forum, or not for long anyway, but I think it might be fun to talk about the ideas and not about the people expressing the ideas. It might not turn out to be as much fun, but it will at least have the advantage of novelty, whaddaya think?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 09:59:53 AM
Greece is what happens when you let multiculturalism run amok with the original genetic constitution of a particular nation. Europe is going the same way.
I suggest you concentrate on Italy. The parallell to Greece is pretty close. To Northern Europe.....not so much.
Quote from: toucan on October 25, 2011, 07:14:59 AM
You have failed to demonstrate "the training or patience to study history and scores and then set forth a clear, detailed thesis backed by actual evidence" to back up your implied notion that Kasputin deserves to be placed on a foot of equality with a Beethoven, or even an Alkan. By the pompou, pedantic & vainglorious standard you have established, therefore, you are incompetent to express any opinion, or make any judgment regarding music or any other subject.
Relax. Sit down, take a deep breath...
I have never heard Kasputin, know nothing about him other than what I've seen in this thread, have no opinion of his artistic worth, and have made no comments on his worth here or elsewhere. You are confusing me with someone else. I was questioning a) the invocation of the concept of artistic decadence in a postmodern Zeitgeist and b) the use of the word "genius" as some attempted end-run around scholarly, factual debate.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 25, 2011, 09:30:41 AM
Yanni is certainly on a par with Britney Spears.
(Musically, I mean.)
But would you want to see Yanni dancing around in leather jeans and a halter top? Wait--no one answer that! ;D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 09:54:04 AM
This is what modernists actually believe.
I would be very reluctant to speak for all "modernists," certainly if you're considering the artistic movement/era as a whole. It was complex and multifaceted.
Quote from: some guy on October 25, 2011, 10:00:37 AM
Am I right in finding this post to be ill-tempered and insulting?
Hey, I have an idea! I know this has never really been tried on an online forum, or not for long anyway, but I think it might be fun to talk about the ideas and not about the people expressing the ideas. It might not turn out to be as much fun, but it will at least have the advantage of novelty, whaddaya think?
Which was part of my point: want to talk about a composer's ability or importance or innovations? How about referencing some scores and primary sources. Do some research, make a clear thesis, and support it with evidence instead of mere feeling.
It was not really all that complex. Wagner made European music sick, Schoenberg killed it off altogether. When i said that my original comment wasn't meant to be entirely damning, what i meant to say is that i too share a certain fascination for decadent music. The difference, i suppose, is that i recognize it for what it is.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 10:14:33 AM
It was not really all that complex. Wagner made European music sick, Schoenberg killed it off altogether.
Cain's tax plan has a similar simplicity . . . .
Quote from: Grazioso on October 25, 2011, 10:13:22 AM
Which was part of my point: want to talk about a composer's ability or importance or innovations? How about referencing some scores and primary sources. Do some research, make a clear thesis, and support it with evidence instead of mere feeling.
Once again, you can't judge art using a scientific method. There in lies the fault in your argument.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 10:16:26 AM
Once again, you can't judge art using a scientific method. There in lies the fault in your argument.
Actually, you are in error, trying to reduce Grazi's comment to "[judging] art using a scientific method."
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 25, 2011, 10:29:13 AM
Actually, you are in error, trying to reduce Grazi's comment to "[judging] art using a scientific method."
There is no error here. This is precisely what he's trying to do.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 10:16:26 AM
Once again, you can't judge art using a scientific method. There in lies the fault in your argument.
No one is talking about the scientific method in the formal sense, but I am talking about what scholars and critics of the arts do every day: they use facts and details to support their assertions. If you're going to judge music on anything other than a personal, gut level, you need to posit an assertion and then lay out out details that support it: excerpts from the scores or recordings, biographical data (e.g., letters expressing the composer's intentions or aesthetics), reactions from contemporaries and peers, etc. These things give weight to your assertions and show that you've really delved into the matter and therefore possess some authority on it. Can such a thesis be proved right or wrong? Perhaps, depending on its nature and specificity. Can one such thesis be stronger than another? Certainly. Whoever marshals the most evidence, makes the most insightful connections, shows the strongest grasp of the subject matter, that person is worth listening to and learning from.
Someone merely running around saying, "That's genius, that's not" is just going to look foolish. That doesn't tell us anything factual or useful, doesn't elucidate anything, doesn't provide new theories or uncover new facts.
Quote from: Grazioso on October 25, 2011, 10:32:52 AM
No one is talking about the scientific method in the formal sense, but I am talking about what scholars and critics of the arts do every day: they use facts and details to support their assertions.
Bullshit. The only reason we have a "canon" of great artists is because once upon a time people were not afraid to assert their own subjective perspective on invisible, unassailable subjects. When Schumann called Brahms a genius it had nothing to do with neither facts nor details.
Quote from: Grazioso on October 25, 2011, 10:32:52 AM
If you're going to judge music on anything other than a personal, gut level, you need to posit an assertion and then lay out out details that support it: excerpts from the scores or recordings, biographical data (e.g., letters expressing the composer's intentions or aesthetics), reactions from contemporaries and peers, etc.
I.E., a scientific method. Which has absolutely jack shit to do with the evaluation of art.
Quote from: Grazioso on October 25, 2011, 10:32:52 AM
These things give weight to your assertions.
No they don't, its just an appeal to authority. That is, an argumentative fallacy.
Quote from: Grazioso on October 25, 2011, 10:32:52 AM
Someone merely running around saying, "That's genius, that's not" is just going to look foolish. That doesn't tell us anything factual or useful, doesn't elucidate anything, doesn't provide new theories or uncover new facts.
Actually, it does. When Steve Molino used to recommend recordings here, he did from the perspective of somebody who knew what he was talking about. Not because of anything "factual", it was all based on instinct. And he was right right most of the times. Now that you people drove him away with your pathetic mediocrity you can pretend you can wallow away in reasonable and factual discussions, where the reality is of an altogether nature. Everything i've learned about classical music i had to learn on my own, since this forum refuses to deal with real, actual knowledge. To be frank, i'm not even sure why i hang around here anymore.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 25, 2011, 10:29:13 AM
Actually, you are in error, trying to reduce Grazi's comment to "[judging] art using a scientific method."
Joseph Schillinger's attempt at a mathematics of aesthetics comes to mind.
QuoteThe reasons for the decline in awareness of Schillinger's work are complicated. During his life, he had been heavily criticised by the concert music establishment as a promoter of mechanised creativity. Schillinger's work was very radical, clearing away mystery and elitism and speaking directly to musicians involved in popular music, which fed largely on jazz energy. As such, its outlook was in conflict with an avant-garde who looked to Europe, and to certain ascendant figures, such as, Schaeffer and Stockhausen, for a philosophical and intellectual lead. In addition, Schillinger's celebrity status must have made him more suspect in the eyes of his critics and caused his ideas to be treated with greater scepticism than they deserved.
On the other hand, Schillinger was not his own best friend, becoming notorious for his arrogant style, ridiculing well-known critics and establishment figures. His flamboyant manner is evident in his published writings and one can only wonder at some of his extreme assertions.2
'These procedures were performed crudely by even well reputed composers. For example L. Van Beethoven...'3
Later, in The Theory of Melody4, Beethoven is taken to task once again over the flawed construction of the opening melody of his Pathetique Sonata.
See:
http://www.ssm.uk.net/biog.php (http://www.ssm.uk.net/biog.php)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 09:56:24 AM
Its part of what i'm saying. The other part is that those instinctive evaluations are NOT arbitrary. Is that where your objection lies?
I think the point is the people's instinctive evaluations are not the same-- and there is another name for them. Opinions. We tend to grade our likes and dislikes usually on a gut reaction, not a rational analysis.
:(
Quote from: jowcol on October 25, 2011, 11:02:44 AM
I think the point is the people's instinctive evaluations are not the same-- and there is another name for them. Opinions. We tend to grade our likes and dislikes usually on a gut reaction, not a rational analysis.
Yes. But the heart of my argument is that likes and dislikes aren't arbitrary. Thus, if i say that Beethoven is a genius, and somebody else disagrees, one of us is wrong. We cannot both be right. In essence, my argument is that there is in fact an objective standard by which to judge art, only, its not based on anything you can observe scientifically.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 04:15:16 PM
I gave my opinion of the music I heard from Kapustin. I have nothing against JDP liking his music, but when you start throwing absurd comparisons at people and present your opinion as fact is when I start having a problem.
I don't need to defend Koechlin. People can and have ridiculed him before, what makes me think that I can change their mind? I read on the Amazon classical forum somebody talking about Koechlin and how his music puts them to sleep because it's so boring, well that's what that person heard in the music. It simply does nothing for them. Perhaps in the case of JDP's opinion of Kapustin, he's simply being too sensitive about people's opinions. You think I give a damn what somebody thinks about Koechlin or Ravel or Milhaud or Villa-Lobos or Pettersson? No, I will continue listening to their music because it moves me and it means something to me.
People respond differently to music as you well know. What I like somebody else probably loathes and I'm fine with that and I don't have the attitude where "Oh, you don like them, well that's your loss." I'm sure I've had this attitude before, but now I know it doesn't matter. At this juncture, we should all agree to disagree and move on.
I agree with this-- but I'm not sure, as a community, if we are consistently calling out everyone who presents an opinion as fact or tossing around absurd comparisons. That was my point. Your last paragraph is spot-on. Personally, I take perverse glee when someone expresses disapproval for music I like. It reminds me of Tom Leher or the Velvet Underground using quotes form bad reviews for advertisement.
Quote from: jowcol on October 25, 2011, 11:07:24 AM
I agree with this-- but I'm not sure, as a community, if we are consistently calling out everyone who presents an opinion as fact or tossing around absurd comparisons. That was my point. Your last paragraph is spot-on. Personally, I take perverse glee when someone expresses disapproval for music I like. It reminds me of Tom Leher or the Velvet Underground using quotes form bad reviews for advertisement.
Yeah, I'm glad nobody likes Koechlin. :) I know you do and a few others, but we're such a small group that I feel really hip and cool now. 8) I'm still waiting for somebody to come into this thread detesting Koechlin. Makes me proud when I see this. :D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 11:05:58 AM
:(
Yes. But the heart of my argument is that likes and dislikes aren't arbitrary. Thus, if i say that Beethoven is a genius, and somebody else disagrees, one of us is wrong. We cannot both be right. In essence, my argument is that there is in fact an objective standard by which to judge art, only, its not based on anything you can observe scientifically.
Both could be wrong. You are assuming they use the same criteria.
Objective typically means something that can be observed the same by different people at different times, something measurable. Music criticism tends to be highly subjective and varies by season. Beethoven wasn't universally loved by critiics when he unleashed a new sound world-- quite the opposite. It took time to absorb and understand. Similar for Stravinsky's Rite of Spring-- the music did not change-- the people did.
Quote from: toucan on October 25, 2011, 07:14:59 AM
By the pompou, pedantic & vainglorious standard you have established, therefore, you are incompetent to express any opinion, or make any judgment regarding music or any other subject.
I only wish this comment was addressed to me. I would die happy and fulfilled.
This does rank as one of the best GMG quotables of all time. I can't stop giggling.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 10:48:33 AM
Bullshit. The only reason we have a "canon" of great artists is because once upon a time people were not afraid to assert their own subjective perspective on invisible, unassailable subjects. When Schumann called Brahms a genius it had nothing to do with neither facts nor details.
You do prior composers and critics a disservice by making it sound like they all just pulled crap out of a hat and never actually referenced the music at hand. Schumann, you'll recall, was a trained composer-pianist and respected music journalist, i.e., someone who actually knew the craft of music intimately.
Quote
I.E., a scientific method. Which has absolutely jack shit to do with the evaluation of art.
The scientific method, as used by actual scientists, is a bit more complex than that.
Quote
No they don't, its just an appeal to authority. That is, an argumentative fallacy.
Not at all. That would be if you were to say, "X claims Beethoven is genius, so it must be so," when X's standing hasn't been established as valid. Putting forward your
own ideas and backing them with points is a fundamental principle of Western intellectual discourse and culture. You usually won't be taken seriously if you merely say "X is Y." Instead you say, "X is Y because of A, B, and C."
Quote
Actually, it does. When Steve Molino used to recommend recordings here, he did from the perspective of somebody who knew what he was talking about. Not because of anything "factual", it was all based on instinct. And he was right right most
Perhaps you mean intuition? Instinct, in its proper sense, doesn't fit there. I don't know who Steve Molino is.
Quote
of the times. Now that you people drove him away with your pathetic mediocrity you can pretend you can wallow away in
Another important component of intellectual debate and growth is civility, which you lack here.
Quote
reasonable and factual discussions, where the reality is of an altogether nature. Everything i've learned about classical music i had to learn on my own, since this forum refuses to deal with real, actual knowledge. To be frank, i'm not even sure why i hang around here anymore.
I am counseling just that: use real, actual knowledge when you make a point. The only time I want to hear about someone's subjective experience of art is when they can write about it in a literary way, giving their expression artistic worth in and of itself. If I actually want to know about the art beyond how it affects one person at one given time, I want to see some details. Show me something in the scores. Show me something in the composer's writings. Don't make the child's mistake of confusing your feelings with universal absolutes.
Quote from: jowcol on October 25, 2011, 11:15:03 AM
I only wish this comment was addressed to me. I would die happy and fulfilled.
This does rank as one of the best GMG quotables of all time. I can't stop giggling.
And why should you wish to stop giggling, I wonders.
Quote from: Grazioso on October 25, 2011, 11:19:32 AM
You do prior composers and critics a disservice by making it sound like they all just pulled crap out of a hat and never actually referenced the music at hand. Schumann, you'll recall, was a trained composer-pianist and respected music journalist, i.e., someone who actually knew the craft of music intimately.
Aye: one is hard pressed to make a remark less musical than that [w]hen Schumann called Brahms a genius it had nothing to do with neither facts nor details.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 11:05:58 AM
:(
Yes. But the heart of my argument is that likes and dislikes aren't arbitrary. Thus, if i say that Beethoven is a genius, and somebody else disagrees, one of us is wrong. We cannot both be right.
If it's all about subjective judgments devoid of any supporting evidence, then, yes, you can both be right or wrong or neither of the two. If, on the contrary, "genius" is first defined in a mutually agreeable manner, then whoever can best illustrate/demonstrate that genius is (conventionally) "correct." Certainly that person's opinion will tend to offer more value to others because, through the process of offering and interpreting representative data, he or she might get us to look more closely and carefully at the music at hand. Someone merely saying, "It's genius. Because." offers us nothing of use or credibility.
Quote
In essence, my argument is that there is in fact an objective standard by which to judge art, only, its not based on anything you can observe scientifically.
That's self contradictory. An objective standard (versus a subjective one) is by nature something that can be delineated and mutually understood by multiple parties. Otherwise, you're just conflating universal fact and personal opinion.
It is intellectual folly, if not towering disingenuousness, to say,
There is a universal standard of art
That standard cannot be shown or proven or explained
Yet I know that standard
And my judgments on it are inherently right
Quote from: Grazioso on October 25, 2011, 11:36:43 AM
There is a universal standard of art
That standard cannot be shown or proven or explained
Yet I know that standard
And my judgments on it are inherently right
Pretty much, yes.
Quote from: Grazioso on October 25, 2011, 11:19:32 AM
I am counseling just that: use real, actual knowledge when you make a point.
I can't. Knowledge is invisible and unassailable. That's the whole point.
Amusingly though, none of you has the courage to actually bring me to the task, because in a way you know i'm right. Beethoven was a genius. Go ahead, try to contest that assertion. Its pathetic really. It shows just how helpless modern materialism actually is.
Quote from: Grazioso on October 25, 2011, 11:19:32 AM
I don't know who Steve Molino is.
He was the best authority on recordings this type of forums ever saw. I remember having an actually hero worship thing for him in my late teens/early twenties. I like to mention his name just because of all the butthurt it causes to people who still remember him.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 12:12:26 PM
He was the best authority on recordings this type of forums ever saw. I remember having an actually hero worship thing for him in my late teens/early twenties. I like to mention his name just because of all the butthurt it causes to people who still remember him.
Was his handle "Steve Molino?"
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 11:54:48 AM
I can't. Knowledge is invisible and unassailable. That's the whole point.
Amusingly though, none of you has the courage to actually bring me to the task, because in a way you know i'm right. Beethoven was a genius. Go ahead, try to contest that assertion. Its pathetic really. It shows just how helpless modern materialism actually is.
I think you have a very warped view of how the rest of us see things. Of course no one is going to contest that assertion - because we all think he was a genius too. he difference is that Grazioso and I (and others) say that you can point to details of LVB's music as illustration of his genius. You don't/can't because your definition of genius is different to ours, and won't allow any discussion of the music itself.
And that, btw, is precisely what I meant when I said, more than once, above (and Grazioso said it in his last post too) that genius (or greatness, or crapness) can be 'proven' once one agrees terms. None of us agree with your terms of what genius is, so the discussion will go nowhere.
And, btw, make the assertion that
Kapustin is a genius and I
will contest it, note by note. Though you find it 'amusing' that no one will argue with you about LVB's genius status, I personally find it amusing that you made you claims about Kapustin's note for note inspiration, but aren't prepared to meet my offer of discussing the music, note by note.
Quote from: Mn Dave on October 25, 2011, 12:32:02 PM
Was his handle "Steve Molino?"
Molman i think. Its been a long time.
Quote from: Luke on October 25, 2011, 12:32:34 PM
Of course no one is going to contest that assertion - because we all think he was a genius too.
He was a genius because?
It's pointless to argue with this guy, Luke. He's going to think what he thinks regardless of what kind of point you make. He's another classic example of a genuine know-it-all. He knows everything and his arguments can't be refuted because he's not open to discussing them.
I think it's time to pack it up here and move it out, don't you think?
See? Chickened out answer. Come on Luke, you can do better then that. I think you know what my argument is, you just don't want to admit it.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 25, 2011, 12:42:03 PM
It's pointless to argue with this guy, Luke. He's going to think what he thinks regardless of what kind of point you make. He's another classic example of a genuine know-it-all. He knows everything and his arguments can't be refuted because he's not open to discussing them.
And what exactly is that i'm going to think, that Beethoven was a genius? Would you like to refute that assertion?
(* yawn *)
Condescending much, Karl?
Can you actually prove that Beethoven was a genius?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 12:51:09 PM
And what exactly is that i'm going to think, that Beethoven was a genius? Would you like to refute that assertion?
As somebody who doesn't like Beethoven, I can honestly say that I don't want acknowledge anything the man's done, but I would just be projecting an ignorance that is all too prominent in your own posts if I didn't. Beethoven's genius is acknowledged by historians, conductors, musicians, and by listeners all across the world. For you to put someone like Kapustin on the same plateau as someone who changed music forever seems simply ill-informed.
This isn't a debate anymore. This is me simply telling you that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about and you're just being argumentative because you know that we're all right in telling you BEETHOVEN WAS A GENIUS!!!! Not because we say he is but because history acknowledges that he was and his influence in undeniable.
Do us all a favor and stop. It's this whole forum against you. You have NO argument.
So I finally decided to jump in this thread to see what composers everybody doesn't get. Instead, as GMG's Second-Biggest Kapustin Fan, I'm just depressed.* :(
I want to be there when Mirror Image finally cracks Beethoven.
*though I would not consider him a member of the Beethoven class, or even to be one of the greatest living composers - just one of those I like the most
Quote from: Brian on October 25, 2011, 03:09:17 PMI want to be there when Mirror Image finally cracks Beethoven.
I want to be there too. ;) :D
Hard for me to imagine not liking Beethoven.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 25, 2011, 03:13:57 PM
Hard for me to imagine not liking Beethoven.
It's not that I
don't like Beethoven's music it's just that I don't connect with the music.
Anyway, does anyone disagree with what I wrote to Josquin des Prez in regards to Beethoven's genius?
Quote from: Brian on October 25, 2011, 03:09:17 PM
as GMG's Second-Biggest Kapustin Fan, I'm just depressed.* :(
Can I petition to be the forum's Third-Biggest Kapustin Fan? I rather like his music, although perhaps not for the same reasons as others.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Pettersson on October 25, 2011, 03:27:45 PM
Can I petition to be the forum's Third-Biggest Kapustin Fan? I rather like his music, although perhaps not for the same reasons as others.
Hey, let's take this party to the Kapustin thread and hide from the haterz. 8)
Quote from: Brian on October 25, 2011, 04:33:24 PM
Hey, let's take this party to the Kapustin thread and hide from the haterz. 8)
I'll take my own party to the Koechlin thread where I can debate with myself. Since I am the only one who posts there. :)
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 25, 2011, 03:19:28 PM
Anyway, does anyone disagree with what I wrote to Josquin des Prez in regards to Beethoven's genius?
(Crickets, crickets, crickets.)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 25, 2011, 03:13:57 PM
Hard for me to imagine not liking Beethoven.
Well, yes...but you've been listening to and performing and studying and composing music for many years, Karl.
As for Kapustin (isn't that a province in Uzbekistan?), if Bri & Sar like him, he must be worth
something...right?
So now it's off to Mog to hear 24 preludes in jazz style
So, I have spent some time listening to music by Nikolai Kapustin.
Yes, European jazz, with occasionally a far distant memory of Scriabin now and then, but more often than not, one hears something similar to the smoky sweaty tinkling and twirbling of Oscar Levant and the MGM Symphony Orchestra, or at least that was the first thing I thought of during the opening of this piece:
From the Second Piano Concerto:
http://theory.caltech.edu/~kapustin/Nikolai/07%20Track%207.mp3 (http://theory.caltech.edu/~kapustin/Nikolai/07%20Track%207.mp3)
Another composer I don't get besides the ones I've already mentioned in this thread is Igor Markevitch. Obviously influenced by Stravinsky and Neoclassicism in general, but there's nothing memorable about his music. I've made it through four volumes of his orchestral music on Naxos (originally on Marco Polo) and I don't hear anything that jumps out at me.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 12:54:35 PM
Condescending much, Karl?
Can you actually prove that Beethoven was a genius?
Complexity mixed with an individual voice mixed for his time?
(possibly the general definition of "genius?")
But I'm not extremely acquainted with his scores, so if I had to explain "genius," I could explain it with other composers whose scores I'm more familiar with (such as Mahler).
I mean, I could go on and prove Mahler was a genius, but will you understand the technical aspects of what I would say?
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 25, 2011, 03:03:20 PM
As somebody who doesn't like Beethoven
The hell?
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 25, 2011, 03:03:20 PM
we're all right in telling you BEETHOVEN WAS A GENIUS!!!! Not because we say he is but because history acknowledges that he was and his influence in undeniable.
Bzzz, wrong answer. History and influence have nothing to do with the evaluation of genius. You really have no idea what this argument is about, do you.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 12:46:51 PM
See? Chickened out answer. Come on Luke, you can do better then that. I think you know what my argument is, you just don't want to admit it.
I know what your argument is, I just think it is rubbish.
Truth is, I started to write a sensible reply to your ridiculous question. A reply which discussed some of the myriad moments in Beethoven's music which are so suffused with unique insight and so forth that they indicate a mind of genius behind them. And then I thought
1) this is a waste of time, because JDP isn't even going to bother to read this. He is scared of discussing the notes themselves
2) in the end, what I was trying to say
did in fact boil down to the much simpler, reductive answer I gave: Beethoven's genius is shown in his music. Weininger may tell you that there is no such thing as a genius for music, just a 'universal genius', but really, I doubt there is much genius in Beethoven's recipe for chicken soup. No, you need to look at his music to find it. Seriously. No chickening out there.
BTW, to Brian and Sara and whoever else - don't count me among the Kapustin haterz! Read my posts here and you'll see precisely my opinion of him: a skillful, gifted compoer of very interesting and enjoyable music with much to
give. But not a composer with much to
say, IMO
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 25, 2011, 03:03:20 PM
Do us all a favor and stop. It's this whole forum against you. You have NO argument.
Please don't include me in that list. I may disagree mildly on the genius thread and vehemently on the racial theories , but I fully support his right to post. If his posts cause you discomfort, you can block them or scroll past, or look for the entertainment value in them.
Quote from: Luke on October 26, 2011, 01:29:54 AM
I know what your argument is, I just think it is rubbish.
Truth is, I started to write a sensible reply to your ridiculous question. A reply which discussed some of the myriad moments in Beethoven's music which are so suffused with unique insight and so forth that they indicate a mind of genius behind them. And then I thought
1) this is a waste of time, because JDP isn't even going to bother to read this. He is scared of discussing the notes themselves
That's precisely the problem with these sorts of "debates" here on GMG. On the one hand, you have a couple people who spout off about anything and everything with no logic, evidence, or even comprehensibility, much of it clearly calculated to incite discord. When someone calls "bulls--t," these posters always fall back on "It's obvious, I don't have to explain it, I don't need examples, it can't be proven but I have the proof!" Then you have the people who have actually studied and thought about the music or have a serious desire to learn about it and engage in intelligent, edifying discourse. Never the twain shall meet, it seems :(
Internet Recipe for Success1 part Ignorance
1 part Arrogance
1 part Intransigence
Add Potty-Mouth Extract, to taste
Mix and half-bake as long as you want. The results will be disgusting no matter what.
How about we analyze why Beethoven's 7th Symphony is genius?
http://erato.uvt.nl/files/imglnks/usimg/f/f9/IMSLP57874-PMLP01600-Beethoven_Werke_Breitkopf_Serie_1_No_7_Op_92.pdf
I can make some broad points, but don't really feel like spending a lot of time dissecting the score right now.
Introduction
from pg.1 bar 1- pg.3 bar 3: keeps a forward motion while having a different harmony each bar
pg.3 bar 4: introduces second theme of introduction
pg.3 bar 10- has an interesting accompaniment rhythm
leads into the main theme in an interesting way....
anyways, there are some solid ideas here which develop in interesting ways harmonically, which provide a variety of connected ideas.
But this is all within this style. In other styles, there may be different expectations and aesthetics.
Asides of the very viable query as to what 'genius' really means, I'm very loath to use such metrics to try to define if a work is a work of genius or not; I'm sure you could find remarkable ideas, well executed, in many composers who stop far short of Beethoven's level.
To a sense I agree with Kurt Vonnegut's comment in Bluebeard, on how you recognize a great painting. I don't have the book to hand as I'm at work, but it was something along the lines of "Once you've looked carefully at 100,000 paintings, you can look at a new one and just know." Which doesn't cover everything, by any means, but I honestly don't think it's easy to get a better definition of greatness than that. It's simply something you intuit based on experience and knowledge.
Now of course, such a definition opens up several further cans of worms....
[And the most obvious thing of 'genius' in B7 for me is of course the use of the same rhythm repeated endlessly for so much of the second movement. But--perhaps other composers could have done this, and Beethoven's achievement was more to make it work (superlatively well, as it happens) as to come up with the idea.]
Quote from: jowcol on October 26, 2011, 02:51:36 AM
Please don't include me in that list. I may disagree mildly on the genius thread and vehemently on the racial theories , but I fully support his right to post. If his posts cause you discomfort, you can block them or scroll past, or look for the entertainment value in them.
That's not what this is about, jowcol. Where did all of this come from? This is about this poster putting Beethoven and Kapustin in the same class. I'm sorry but this is pure ignorance on display.
Quote from: Luke on October 26, 2011, 01:29:54 AM
I know what your argument is, I just think it is rubbish.
Truth is, I started to write a sensible reply to your ridiculous question. A reply which discussed some of the myriad moments in Beethoven's music which are so suffused with unique insight and so forth that they indicate a mind of genius behind them. And then I thought
1) this is a waste of time, because JDP isn't even going to bother to read this. He is scared of discussing the notes themselves
2) in the end, what I was trying to say did in fact boil down to the much simpler, reductive answer I gave: Beethoven's genius is shown in his music. Weininger may tell you that there is no such thing as a genius for music, just a 'universal genius', but really, I doubt there is much genius in Beethoven's recipe for chicken soup. No, you need to look at his music to find it. Seriously. No chickening out there.
BTW, to Brian and Sara and whoever else - don't count me among the Kapustin haterz! Read my posts here and you'll see precisely my opinion of him: a skillful, gifted compoer of very interesting and enjoyable music with much to give. But not a composer with much to say, IMO
Is this really a reference to the brilliant but severely awry
Otto Weininger? I cannot believe anybody knows about him any longer, outside of specialists in the History of Modern Psychology and its Dead Ends. Let me recommend a book from 70 years ago or so, if you can find it:
The Mind and Death of a Genius by a certain David Abrahamsen. I should thumb through it again, but it resides in a part of the vast
Cato Archives which is not at hand right now.
Luke is precisely right:
Kapustin has absorbed the 1930's-1940's Hollywood Jazz idiom, and produces things in that vein.
Quote from: edward on October 26, 2011, 06:40:26 AM
Asides of the very viable query as to what 'genius' really means, I'm very loath to use such metrics to try to define if a work is a work of genius or not; I'm sure you could find remarkable ideas, well executed, in many composers who stop far short of Beethoven's level.
And that naturally leads to: how do we know that a composer isn't as genius as Beethoven but just not as well liked? Being well liked for long enough is really the only thing that brings fame, popularity, performances, a solid place in history, etc.
Quote from: Cato on October 26, 2011, 06:54:30 AM
Is this really a reference to the brilliant but severely awry Otto Weininger?
Cato, Otto Weininger is JdP's god. It explains so much about JdP, doesn't it?
Sarge
Quote from: Greg on October 26, 2011, 07:08:33 AM
And that naturally leads to: how do we know that a composer isn't as genius as Beethoven but just not as well liked? Being well liked for long enough is really the only thing that brings fame, popularity, performances, a solid place in history, etc.
Or maybe it is best explained like this: take a genre of music, and you have certain expectations about that genre.
There are certain things the artist of that genre may do which is original, which no one else does. If enough people like it, he is a discovered genius.
I've seen, for example, many scores on the Sibelius website which are just poor imitations of other composers or styles. Perhaps to explain what geeeeeeeeeeenius is, it would be best to put it in perspective by pointing out examples that aren't genius?
EDIT: Sibelius, the notation program, not the composer
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 26, 2011, 07:10:42 AM
Cato, Otto Weininger is JdP's god. It explains so much about JdP, doesn't it?
Sarge
Okay, so I understand why he is searching for a new direction.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 26, 2011, 06:42:03 AM
That's not what this is about, jowcol. Where did all of this come from? This is about this poster putting Beethoven and Kapustin in the same class. I'm sorry but this is pure ignorance on display.
This is about your asking a fellow member to stop posting and telling him the whole forum was against him, not about the relative worth of anyone's opinions.
If you don't want' him defining what "genius" is, is it fair to define what "pure ignorance" is?
Quote from: Grazioso on October 26, 2011, 05:12:36 AM
Internet Recipe for Success
1 part Ignorance
1 part Arrogance
1 part Intransigence
Add Potty-Mouth Extract, to taste
Mix and half-bake as long as you want. The results will be disgusting no matter what.
So THIS is why that "talk about the ideas not the people expressing the ideas" idea of mine has failed.
Yes. Yes, I see. Well, I have another idea. How about if all of us start posting successfully?
"Decadence is a stupid notion and only stupid people think there is such a thing."
"Only morons think that genius and greatness are important or useful concepts."
Wait, wait. Bullshit. Have to get "bullshit" in there somewhere.
"Everything James writes is bullshit."
Yes. Of course, I still have to get rid of vocabulary like "notion" and "concepts." There must be no suggestion that I have studied in a university.
Jeez. Being successful is harder than I thought it would be. :o
Quote from: jowcol on October 26, 2011, 08:10:58 AM
If you don't want' him defining what "genius" is, is it fair to define what "pure ignorance" is?
Ouch! :) (Who needs a definition when there are so many fine examples to learn from? ;) )
Re Kapustin--after hearing quite a bit of his stuff last night, I can't say I would choose to hear it as classical work, nor as jazz when Dollar Brand and McCoy Tyner and Herbie Hancock and so many others are available, but if Kapustin were playing at the piano bar I used to frequent on College Avenue, I wouldn't walk out and head for McNally's.
Quote from: some guy on October 26, 2011, 09:15:58 AM
Jeez. Being successful is harder than I thought it would be. :o
I thought you were a natural. [Ducking and running for cover.] ;)
One of the fascinating things about this thread is that people even fiercely disagree about
when to take it seriously ... ;)
What we need is a USB device that will administer a mild shock to anyone who types the word "genius" without defining it. :D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 12:12:26 PM
[Steve Molino] was the best authority on recordings this type of forums ever saw. I remember having an actually hero worship thing for him in my late teens/early twenties. I like to mention his name just because of all the butthurt it causes to people who still remember him.
Now I enjoyed having Steve around, but "hero-worship"? I think you just liked his black-&-white, "laying down the law" approach to recordings.
For those who never knew him, here are his Amazon reviews. They will give you an idea of his brief, clipped, nuance-free approach:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2C83MC9APW47P/ref=cm_cr_dp_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview
Quote from: Luke on October 26, 2011, 01:29:54 AM
BTW, to Brian and Sara and whoever else - don't count me among the Kapustin haterz! Read my posts here and you'll see precisely my opinion of him: a skillful, gifted compoer of very interesting and enjoyable music with much to give. But not a composer with much to say, IMO
Yip - I like him for similar reasons to Hindemith, it is excellent functional music, nourishingly note-y, and offers a distinct sound that I won't find with another composer. I wish the non-piano works were easier to find - I've only heard a violin sonata. (I am loathe to closely listen to youtube clips because so much is lost in the murk.)
I don't hear much of the salon or movie theatre in his music, to recall a few other criticisms from peeps; that feels a bit too much like dismissal by proxy - other composers writing in this style wrote bad salon music, ergo Kapustin also did. I find his music interesting enough to listen to as something other than background sound, which is good enough for me :)
BTW, to try to offer something vaguely relevent to the discussion at hand, I often find myself agreeing with JDP's sense that sheer achievement can be perceived and even listed as some kind of heirachy (if the individual so-wishes), and it's important to recognise such achievements even though they may be hard to quantify (remember the Marxist lecturers trying to debase culture by preaching that Shakespeare is no better than some ideological crap that they find favour in? - It's nice to think that greatness can withstand this, but what if it reaches a point where people are too apathetic to defend it and people begin to fall for those lines?) But then I disagree with the point that this greatness must be synonymous with what I enjoy the most. I'm fairly happy to concede that my favourite composers are often lesser-lights, and the styles of some of the greats are admirable but I simply do not enjoy them in some instances.
QuoteFor those who never knew him, here are his Amazon reviews. They will give you an idea of his brief, clipped, nuance-free approach:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2C83MC9APW47P/ref=cm_cr_dp_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview
............................ But that is no review ? :(
- he probably wrote that while driving his car and eating something as well ?
OK, the next ones have a bit more more than 25 words ...
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevna Pettersson on October 26, 2011, 10:05:36 AM
BTW, to try to offer something vaguely relevent to the discussion at hand, I often find myself agreeing with JDP's sense that sheer achievement can be perceived and even listed as some kind of heirachy (if the individual so-wishes), and it's important to recognise such achievements even though they may be hard to quantify (remember the Marxist lecturers trying to debase culture by preaching that Shakespeare is no better than some ideological crap that they find favour in? - It's nice to think that greatness can withstand this, but what if it reaches a point where people are too apathetic to defend it and people begin to fall for those lines?) But then I disagree with the point that this greatness must be synonymous with what I enjoy the most. I'm fairly happy to concede that my favourite composers are often lesser-lights, and the styles of some of the greats are admirable but I simply do not enjoy them in some instances.
While most of us do this, at least casually, some of the time, it's an inherently problematic approach in that it relies on unspoken (if not unexamined) individual, subjective criteria. I can look at a painting and think "that's genius!" but for me to then assert such a thing, other than as a casual recommendation to a friend ("It's brilliant, check it out, you'll dig it"), gives others no basis with which to judge the validity or usefulness of my assertion. They don't know my tastes, what art I've seen or studied or created, my level of education, the mood I was in when I saw the painting, whether I'm reacting solely on emotion or making intellectual judgments, etc.
It would be even less valid or useful for me, in the context of a group discussion, to start militantly asserting my opinion as a fact when my interlocutor is only able to guess at what supports my judgment.
I often wonder at the urge to rank and classify art/ists as "great" or "genius" in the first place.
Is it to pat oneself on the back? (I recognize greatness; look upon my judgment, ye mighty, and despair!)
Is it to win an argument? (I know Beethoven is great, and you don't, so there!)
Is it to convert others? (So-and-so is a genius; you should really listen to and appreciate him.)
Is it to investigate or edify? (This music seems great because of X, Y, and Z. Let's look closely and see if that holds water.)
Seems like it's too often the first three options, too infrequently the last. Does asserting the genius or greatness of art/ists serve any useful function beyond creating an educational canon? If I slap the label "genius" on some book or symphony, will my experience of it change or improve? Will I pay closer attention since I've deemed it significant, or pay less since I've already neatly boxed it in a convenient category?
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 25, 2011, 06:24:25 PM
Another composer I don't get besides the ones I've already mentioned in this thread is Igor Markevitch. Obviously influenced by Stravinsky and Neoclassicism in general, but there's nothing memorable about his music. I've made it through four volumes of his orchestral music on Naxos (originally on Marco Polo) and I don't hear anything that jumps out at me.
I went through a pretty major Markevitch binge around the time you were getting into Koechlin. I really enjoyed Hymnes for Orchestra, Rebus, and others, but if you've gone through four volumes, you've already dedicated a lot of time to him. Another interesting aspect to Markevitch is that he simply gave up composing and devoted himself purely to conducting.
Quote from: DieNacht on October 26, 2011, 09:36:05 AM
One of the fascinating things about this thread is that people even fiercely disagree about
when to take it seriously ... ;)
To paraphrase the title of one of the worst movies ever made:
GMG Needs Women! Too much male dominance on display! Too much chest thumping!
It also needs that
Image Button back, so that we could add some women for a different kind of chest thumping! 0:)
Quote from: Cato on October 26, 2011, 10:57:42 AM
To paraphrase the title of one of the worst movies ever made:
GMG Needs Women!
Too much male dominance on display! Too much chest thumping!
Who would have thought all the alpha males would be sitting around bickering about classical music? ;D
Quote
It also needs that Image Button back, so that we could add some women for a different kind of chest thumping! 0:)
Preach it, brother!
Quote from: Cato on October 26, 2011, 10:57:42 AM
To paraphrase the title of one of the worst movies ever made:
GMG Needs Women!
Too much male dominance on display! Too much chest thumping!
It also needs that Image Button back, so that we could add some women for a different kind of chest thumping! 0:)
To paraphrase Family Guy:
They can't run GMG- they'll just bleed all over the forum!
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 26, 2011, 07:10:42 AM
Cato, Otto Weininger is JdP's god. It explains so much about JdP, doesn't it?
Sarge
I had not even heard about Otto Weininger before but this certainly explains a lot. JdP's fanatism raises from the fact he
has a god.
I fiercely disagree with everything that's been said so far, including this.
Quote from: some guy on October 26, 2011, 12:06:31 PM
I fiercely disagree with everything that's been said so far, including this.
Oh, wise guy!
(http://www.scenicreflections.com/files/Fierce%20Creatures%20Wallpaper%201.jpg)
And since the IMAGE BUTTON now works!!!
Allow me to show you my musical hope chest:
(http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Pic-Bio/Bonney-Barbara-19.jpg)
And since GMG needs women: just off the top of my head, how about...
(http://imgusr.celebscentral.net/images/users/14050/200610/Emily_Deschanel%7Cemily-deschanel-004.jpg)
Quote from: Grazioso on October 26, 2011, 11:08:42 AM
Who would have thought all the alpha males would be sitting around bickering about classical music? ;D
Alpha males?
(http://forum.susan-boyle.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
Quote from: DavidRoss on October 26, 2011, 03:06:13 PM
Alpha males?
(http://forum.susan-boyle.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
YEAH! ALPHA MALES!
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/6/23/424db7f6-bb8c-44ea-a426-2173ee3645de.jpg)
Quote from: jowcol on October 26, 2011, 10:40:52 AM
I went through a pretty major Markevitch binge around the time you were getting into Koechlin. I really enjoyed Hymnes for Orchestra, Rebus, and others, but if you've gone through four volumes, you've already dedicated a lot of time to him. Another interesting aspect to Markevitch is that he simply gave up composing and devoted himself purely to conducting.
Well, I think I just need some time away from Markevitch and then maybe some of the music will click for me.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 26, 2011, 06:30:54 PM
Well, I think I just need some time away from Markevitch and then maybe some of the music will click for me.
He struck me as the middle link between Stravinsky after the first three Ballets, and Messiaen. Not much color-- sort of dry in that regards, but fascinating rhythm.
Once again-- I admire you for sticking in for 4 albums, I don't think I'd have the patience if it wasnt' clicking for me.
Quote from: Cato on October 26, 2011, 06:21:29 PM
YEAH! ALPHA MALES!
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/6/23/424db7f6-bb8c-44ea-a426-2173ee3645de.jpg)
You will notice that no self-respecting movie hero would ever listen to classical music, but the villains and serial killers often do. Hmmm...
Quote from: Cato on October 26, 2011, 12:41:47 PM
And since GMG needs women: just off the top of my head, how about...
(http://imgusr.celebscentral.net/images/users/14050/200610/Emily_Deschanel%7Cemily-deschanel-004.jpg)
Lovely photo of Bones.
Sarge
Quote from: Grazioso on October 27, 2011, 04:00:38 AM
You will notice that no self-respecting movie hero would ever listen to classical music, but the villains and serial killers often do. Hmmm...
This tradition probably goes back to the classic movie "M", where child-murderer Peter Lorrie would whistle "In the Hall of the Mountain King" when he stalked his victims.
You have to admit some really odd people listen to classical. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
Quote from: jowcol on October 27, 2011, 08:59:20 AM
This tradition probably goes back to the classic movie "M", where child-murderer Peter Lorrie would whistle "In the Hall of the Mountain King" when he stalked his victims.
You have to admit some really odd people listen to classical. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
Put down the chainsaw and back away slowly! ;) It is interesting how parts of popular culture have glommed onto the idea of classical as music for odd, if not dangerous, eccentrics. Perhaps they're indirectly voicing some fear of or disdain for the cultural elite or intellectuals among us?
Holmes too, eh? Not just his own fiddling, but doesn't he enthuse at some point about Sarasate playing in town?
Quote from: chasmaniac on October 27, 2011, 10:09:06 AM
Holmes too, eh? Not just his own fiddling, but doesn't he enthuse at some point about Sarasate playing in town?
I don't recall but wouldn't be surprised; at the end of
The Hound of the Baserkvilles, he's eager to go see
Les Huguenots, but that manner of classical music entertainment was a pretty standard night out for the Victorian educated classes. Holmes is certainly a fictional eccentric: cocaine addict, prone to long bouts of prostration followed by bursts of manic energy, alternatively arrogant and graciously charming.
Quote from: Velimir on October 26, 2011, 10:01:23 AM
Now I enjoyed having Steve around, but "hero-worship"? I think you just liked his black-&-white, "laying down the law" approach to recordings.
For those who never knew him, here are his Amazon reviews. They will give you an idea of his brief, clipped, nuance-free approach:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2C83MC9APW47P/ref=cm_cr_dp_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview
Well, i was a teenager. I think its natural for a young mind to look up on those wiser then he is, and be humbled in the process.
What i liked about Steve has nothing to do with his style, but in the nature of his peculiar understanding and actual knowledge, which invariably is what
led to his approach in the first place. The root of my argument is that knowledge is really invisible and unassailable. You cannot explain knowledge, you cannot prove it in any way or form. You can prove information, but that is not the same thing as knowledge. Knowledge is essentially a metaphysical concept, and in that relies on that specific aspect of intellect which is above all others, that is, intuition. This is why i said there is no way to prove that Beethoven was a genius. You can argue how this or that particular passage in a given work displays this or that particular quality, but you cannot
prove that the passage in question displays that quality, you can only rely on your own subjective impression and understanding.
So if all knowledge can only be gleamed and understood subjectively, does it mean that there is nothing of value to be imparted by sharing opinions with each other? Well, for one, no human being can experience the entire world by himself. We still need to rely on the experience of others, however subjective, in order to gain a broader understanding then what our own personal experiences afforded us so far. In essence, opinions are not meant to
convince, they serve as a guide for those moving around the world of actual knowledge. Knowledge does not exist in its totality in any one human being, and opinions are roads that lead us to the subjective understing of others. The way in which we move around this veritable highway of shared understanding is generally based, once again, on intuition, and experience (no one can be easily lured down a certain path after a few bad experiences). Certain opinions carry a certain amount of authority and confidence within them which makes it easier to know which path to chose. This confidence can only radiated if one posseses the same amount of confidence in his own understanding and knwowledge on a given subject. I saw this quality in Steve. I saw it in very few people since.
The problem i have in this forum is that the fact knoweldge is invisible and unprovable, equals that it does not exist, at least to many. All subjective experiences are unique and valid for that person only, which means there is nothing to gained by sharing opinions. The only purpose of communication becomes emotional gratification, and to anyone who prefers substance over fluff life just becomes unsofferable. Hence, why Steve and others left, and those of us who linger along do it just out of habit.
Paradoxically, the fact some here believes that knowledge does not really exist, means that they find no value in the opinions of others. The only opinions which are tolerated are those which are uttered in relativistic terms. The moment one attempts at dealing with actual
knowledge, one is then accused of attempting to once again
convince others. To the contrary, the forceful tone i adopt when i share my opinions (such as my views over the music of Kapustin) is not meant to convince, but merely to announce that i'm not presenting a purely subjective perspective that is valid only from my own unique point of view, but something that is based on actual understanding, and by extension requires serious consideration. In essence, i'm not here to chat, i'm here to share actual knowledge.
Now, to the points i raised regarding Kapustin. First, the fact that he is not a decadent composer, and as such his music cannot be enjoyed from the perspective of modernism. Now you can argue against my use of the word "decadent", but what i mean is that his music does not contain the type of complexity based on the
distortion of musical rules which has become the norm since the beginning of the 20th century. The complexity of his music is based on a more traditional approach, one in tune with the older masters, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. A complexity which is based not on distortion, but on a
surplus of healthy musical ideas. This type of complexity is no longer respected, and some are no longer able to understand it (I.E., Grieg). To paraphrase Nietzsche, in order to appreciate Kapustin you have to force yourself to enjoy "simple fair" again. Second, to the point of his music not being Jazz. Its not that his composition are, by definition, not improvised, but that you
cannot improvise his music. Hence, why it is composed in the first place. Somehow, some here seem to find this point confusing.
Quote from: Cato on October 26, 2011, 10:57:42 AM
GMG Needs Women!
This place is filled with women. They just don't know that they
are women.
Quote from: Luke on October 26, 2011, 01:29:54 AM
Weininger may tell you that there is no such thing as a genius for music, just a 'universal genius', but really, I doubt there is much genius in Beethoven's recipe for chicken soup. No, you need to look at his music to find it. Seriously. No chickening out there.
What Weininger meant is that genius is universal in the quality that makes it genius. Michelangelo and Beethoven were both geniuses, even though they dealt with very different things (painting and sculpture on one side, music on the other). Thus, things like form, style, and the medium chosen for one's own artistic expression is irrelevant to the evaluation of genius, as are a lot of other things.
Quote from: Grazioso on October 26, 2011, 10:33:44 AM
While most of us do this, at least casually, some of the time, it's an inherently problematic approach in that it relies on unspoken (if not unexamined) individual, subjective criteria. I can look at a painting and think "that's genius!" but for me to then assert such a thing, other than as a casual recommendation to a friend ("It's brilliant, check it out, you'll dig it"), gives others no basis with which to judge the validity or usefulness of my assertion. They don't know my tastes, what art I've seen or studied or created, my level of education, the mood I was in when I saw the painting, whether I'm reacting solely on emotion or making intellectual judgments, etc.
But all genius is universal. Many times i had to elaborate my taste anew in order grasp the music of a given composer. For instance, Mozart, who's golden optimism did not sit well initially with my morose temperament (by comparison, i took on Beethoven and Mahler instantly). Taste, education, mood, all irrelevant factors.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 27, 2011, 11:13:57 AM
This place is filled with women. They just don't know that they are women.
I LOL'ed at that.
Sorry. :-[
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 27, 2011, 11:12:53 AM
The problem i have in this forum is that the fact knoweldge is invisible and unprovable, equals that it does not exist, at least to many. All subjective experiences are unique and valid for that person only, which means there is nothing to gained by sharing opinions. The only purpose of communication becomes emotional gratification, and to anyone who prefers substance over fluff life just becomes unsofferable. Hence, why Steve and others left, and those of us who linger along do it just out of habit.
A couple of things-- first, you could revisit Plato's Cave allegory to at find an approach to reconcile objective and subjective, and the difference between ground truth (which does exist) and a single persons ability to perceive the entire truth (which is hard through the distortion.) The same would apply to the parable of the blind men and the elephant. The elephant is REAL-- no doubt, but no one person can fully describe it. If one truly wishes to be objective, it is important to take some degree of subjectivity into account.
Beyond that-- I gain a lot when people share opinions, and when they review the criteria that underlies their opinions. This, IMO, is where the real learning occurs. I've learned a lot about music from people who's tastes were radically different than mine in simply analyzing their approach, as I'd find a lot that I could use to further my pursuits. As I've learned more, I've found out in many cases there were many technical similarities in works that appealed to me, even though I didn't know the technical terms, there are certain modes, keys, and other things I respond to more than others.
I personally feel the best discussions are those where opinions are exchanged by people who KNOW they are opinions, and make an effort to analyze what criteria they are using in making their judgements. To be honest, I'm here for opinions-- candid, honest opinions with a bit of self analysis about why we feel the way we do. The discussions that seem the least useful to me are the circular ones where one is trying to prove the unprovable, and degenerate into ad hominem attacks.
Note-- this is my spin. Your mileage may vary. If this sounds like modernistic nhilistic relativistic hogwash, I should point out that similar ideas have been around for the last 2500 years or so.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 27, 2011, 12:14:08 PM
But all genius is universal. Many times i had to elaborate my taste anew in order grasp the music of a given composer. For instance, Mozart, who's golden optimism did not sit well initially with my morose temperament (by comparison, i took on Beethoven and Mahler instantly). Taste, education, mood, all irrelevant factors.
If you are unable/unwilling to define/describe what genius is beyond that, how is anyone supposed to evaluate that claim or discuss it or take it seriously? It's tantamount to someone assuring us that "Genius is green" or "Stupidity is universal."
We're not talking about religious mysticism here, but rather conventional intellectual concepts that admit of verbal delineation. If you believe that not to be the case, then it's perhaps wise to heed Wittgenstein's adage:
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen." ("Whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one be silent.")
Quote
The problem i have in this forum is that the fact knoweldge is invisible and unprovable, equals that it does not exist, at least to many. All subjective experiences are unique and valid for that person only, which means there is nothing to gained by sharing opinions. The only purpose of communication becomes emotional gratification, and to anyone who prefers substance over fluff life just becomes unsofferable. Hence, why Steve and others left, and those of us who linger along do it just out of habit.
You're assuming we do/should share the same philosophical views you've chosen. Many proceed from different premises and/or draw different conclusions. You make the unwise decision to proceed as if you are right and then get huffy when others see things differently. Have you considered that your views might appear to be fluff over substance to others?
Quote from: Grazioso on October 28, 2011, 04:30:59 AM"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen." ("Whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one be silent.")
One might be tempted to
whistle it, of course. :D
Quote from: chasmaniac on October 28, 2011, 04:52:21 AM
One might be tempted to whistle it, of course. :D
If you can whistle the tune from
Close Encounters, all knowledge will be revealed!
Quote from: Grazioso on October 28, 2011, 04:53:33 AM
If you can whistle the tune from Close Encounters, all knowledge will be revealed!
Further to this Tractarian conceit: "There are indeed things that cannot be put into words. These
speak for themselves. They are the mystical."
Ooooh!
;D
Quote from: chasmaniac on October 28, 2011, 05:04:05 AM
Further to this Tractarian conceit: "There are indeed things that cannot be put into words. These speak for themselves. They are the mystical."
Ooooh!
;D
Tao Te Ching Verse 29 (which should be accompanied by one hand clapping....)
Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?
I do not believe it can be done.
The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will lose it.
Quote from: chasmaniac on October 28, 2011, 05:04:05 AM
Further to this Tractarian conceit: "There are indeed things that cannot be put into words. These speak for themselves. They are the mystical."
Ooooh!
;D
As soon as you confuse the finger pointing at the moon with the moon itself you run into practical and intellectual problems.
The nameless is the root of Heaven and Earth,
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things...
Quote from: chasmaniac on October 28, 2011, 04:52:21 AM
One might be tempted to whistle it, of course. :D
LOL! Bravo!
Quote from: Grazioso on October 29, 2011, 04:28:04 AM
As soon as you confuse the finger pointing at the moon with the moon itself you run into practical and intellectual problems.
The nameless is the root of Heaven and Earth,
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things...
Quote from: jowcol on October 28, 2011, 01:04:20 PM
Tao Te Ching Verse 29 (which should be accompanied by one hand clapping....)
Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?
I do not believe it can be done.
The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will lose it.
Bravo again and again! How wonderful (and unexpected) to see both wit and wisdom here this fine morning! Thank you, gentlemen.
Quote from: DavidRoss on October 29, 2011, 06:06:39 AM
Bravo again and again! How wonderful (and unexpected) to see both wit and wisdom here this fine morning! Thank you, gentlemen.
Scary-- I was about to quote the same line as Grazioso, but changed my mind. Grazioso, if you really are thinking like me, you need therapy!
As long as we are here, one more, that may also talk about why it is okay not to "get" something others approve of, or pursue you path when it seems no one understands.
Tao Te Ching Twenty
Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles.
Is there a difference between yes and no?
Is there a difference between good and evil?
Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!
Other people are contented, enjoying the sacrificial feast of the ox.
In spring some go to the park, and climb the terrace,
But I alone am drifting, not knowing where I am.
Like a newborn babe before it learns to smile,
I am alone, without a place to go.
Others have more than they need, but I alone have nothing.
I am a fool. O, yes! I am confused.
Other men are clear and bright,
But I alone am dim and weak.
Other men are sharp and clever,
But I alone am dull and stupid.
Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea,
Without direction, like the restless wind.
Everyone else is busy,
But I alone am aimless and depressed.
I am different.
I am nourished by the great mother.
Quote from: jowcol on November 01, 2011, 03:03:09 AM
Others have more than they need, but I alone have nothing.
I am a fool. O, yes! I am confused.
Other men are clear and bright,
But I alone am dim and weak.
Other men are sharp and clever,
But I alone am dull and stupid.
Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea,
Without direction, like the restless wind.
Story of my life in a nutshell.
Really, the first two lines in the Tao express my entire problem here. Once you name the Tao, you lost it. Likewise, if i try to define what genius is, it cease to be the real thing. And i guess i had a master/pupil relationship with Steve in a taoistic sense. Most of what i learned derives not from what he said, but in what he
didn't say.
How would this be? Don't try to define "genius."
Ask yourself this, "Why do I want to define 'genius'? Why do I need the concept at all?"
Why bother knowing anything? I don't think i understand the question.
Quote from: jowcol on November 01, 2011, 03:03:09 AM
Scary-- I was about to quote the same line as Grazioso, but changed my mind. Grazioso, if you really are thinking like me, you need therapy!
As long as we are here, one more, that may also talk about why it is okay not to "get" something others approve of, or pursue you path when it seems no one understands.
Tao Te Ching Twenty
Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles.
Is there a difference between yes and no?
Is there a difference between good and evil?
Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!
Other people are contented, enjoying the sacrificial feast of the ox.
In spring some go to the park, and climb the terrace,
But I alone am drifting, not knowing where I am.
Like a newborn babe before it learns to smile,
I am alone, without a place to go.
Others have more than they need, but I alone have nothing.
I am a fool. O, yes! I am confused.
Other men are clear and bright,
But I alone am dim and weak.
Other men are sharp and clever,
But I alone am dull and stupid.
Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea,
Without direction, like the restless wind.
Everyone else is busy,
But I alone am aimless and depressed.
I am different.
I am nourished by the great mother.
I've seen worse translations. This catches some of the spirit, but is still misleading. Try:
-20-
Give up eruditon and be without anxiety.
Acceptance and denial--how far apart are they?
Beauty and ugliness--what distinguishes them?
What one man fears must others fear also?
It goes on and on and never nears an end!
The multitudes are prosperous and joyful,
Like villagers celebrating a great festival.
When climbing the terraces in springtime
I am at peace among them, never wavering,
Like a newborn child who has yet to laugh.
How acquisitive they are,
As if they lack the means of replenishment!
The multitudes all have more than enough--
Only I leave alone.
I have the mind of a simpleton--
So foolish and clumsy!
Worldly people are brilliant and clear--
I alone am muddled and tongue-tied.
Worldly people are perceptive and sure--
I alone am bewildered and confused.
Unfathomable! Vast as the ocean.
Infinite! As if there's no place it stops.
The multitudes all have their ambitions--
I alone seek the door to the beginning
In order to laugh at my desires.
I alone am different from the others
And prize drinking from the mother.
Quote from: DavidRoss on November 02, 2011, 06:14:51 PM
I've seen worse translations. This catches some of the spirit, but is still misleading. Try:
-20-
Give up eruditon and be without anxiety.
Acceptance and denial--how far apart are they?
Beauty and ugliness--what distinguishes them?
What one man fears must others fear also?
It goes on and on and never nears an end!
The multitudes are prosperous and joyful,
Like villagers celebrating a great festival.
When climbing the terraces in springtime
I am at peace among them, never wavering,
Like a newborn child who has yet to laugh.
How acquisitive they are,
As if they lack the means of replenishment!
The multitudes all have more than enough--
Only I leave alone.
I have the mind of a simpleton--
So foolish and clumsy!
Worldly people are brilliant and clear--
I alone am muddled and tongue-tied.
Worldly people are perceptive and sure--
I alone am bewildered and confused.
Unfathomable! Vast as the ocean.
Infinite! As if there's no place it stops.
The multitudes all have their ambitions--
I alone seek the door to the beginning
In order to laugh at my desires.
I alone am different from the others
And prize drinking from the mother.
Interesting-- whose translation?
Quote from: jowcol on November 02, 2011, 06:26:48 PM
Interesting-- whose translation?
Mine, from the Ma Wang Tui manuscripts.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2011, 10:17:29 AM
Why bother knowing anything? I don't think i understand the question.
If you answered the question, you would indeed have knowledge, and not only knowledge, perhaps you would also have wisdom.
Quote from: some guy on November 02, 2011, 09:57:31 AMAsk yourself this, "Why do I want to define 'genius'? Why do I need the concept at all?"
Ruskin distinguishes between the
aesthetic response to art ('the mere animal consciousness of the pleasantness') and (coining a term from Aristotle), the
theoretic response ('the exulting, reverent, and grateful perception of it'). So
Aesthesis, then, broadly concerns the sensual;
Theoria, the moral or spiritual.
So the theoretic response to art involves feelings of joy, gratitude, awe, reverence, and the like - and associated with this comes an idea of the artist's capabilities and insights which, in so far as they exceed our comprehension (we being incapable of such things ourselves), we might be inclined to refer to as signs of 'genius'. It's an imprecise term, but basically it's a compliment, signifying admiration for the maker, as having done something extraordinarily out of the common way. To call Mozart (say) a genius seems like a very normal and healthy thing to do - a shorthand way of expressing gratitude, awe, and admiration for his artistic insight, and for the joy it brings.
Quote from: DavidRoss on November 02, 2011, 06:57:04 PM
Mine, from the Ma Wang Tui manuscripts.
Way cool! I'm most impressed.
The only composer I don't get, and it's not all of his works only a subset of them, mainly his symphonies, and that composer is Mozart.
Mmm, I have that too, to some extent. The late symphonies don't impress me as much as I'm told they're supposed to. I find the earlier ones, with their lyricism influenced by Italian opera, more enjoyable.
I also find Mozart's violin concertos pretty blah.
Quote from: some guy on November 02, 2011, 09:57:31 AM
How would this be? Don't try to define "genius."
Ask yourself this, "Why do I want to define 'genius'? Why do I need the concept at all?"
Because otherwise I'd have to buy EVERY cd to hear how it stacks up to my ever accumulating list of contenders for my most precious time.
Is it 'genius' to take a ballad and turn it into a punk rock song? c'mon, be honest,... it seems it was at oooooone time ;)
Is it 'genius' to have a crack wit?
Are Norgard's Symphonies Genius?? :-*, or have we reached a point where someone had BETTER come up with something cool!!!! We Contemporary Music Lovers don't take no jive, no what I mean? I will tell you WHY something sucks raw eggs, but I have a hard time explaining Norgard No.5 mind boggling mysteries.
Many times, when people come up with something out of thin air, it is called genius. Think of when Rochberg, in what?, 1976, stunned the academic world (as a traitor, I suppose) when he incorporated a Mahlerian slow movement in an otherwise dodecaphonic work. I know, bad example :P...
I think, TODAY, you CAN be a 'genius', if you WANT TO BE, because ALL the former geniuses have left their posterity for us, so, duh, we can learn from the best and go, like genii, far beyond what they had ever dreamed. What Modern Composer do you think Bach would call a genius?
I mean, was Billy Squier a genius because he sucked so bad? I don't think so. SOME have sucked to the point of genius... help me out here... ED WOOD! Genius, or fool, what's the difference?
The only sin is to be BORING!!! >:D And many have sinned... a LOT!!! :o
Quote from: eyeresist on March 22, 2012, 08:16:04 PM
I also find Mozart's violin concertos pretty blah.
So did I, first time I heard them. Gidon Kremer helped me to see light. The David Oistrakh set is smashing, too.
Quote from: snyprrr on March 22, 2012, 08:21:42 PM
The only sin is to be BORING!!!
I get that, truly I do.
Yet, if you think on it . . . there is a lot of musical boredom being experienced which is not any matter of the composer's alleged failure, but of the listener's condition.
Chew on that 'un.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 23, 2012, 04:39:41 AM
I get that, truly I do.
Yet, if you think on it . . . there is a lot of musical boredom being experienced which is not any matter of the composer's alleged failure, but of the listener's condition.
Chew on that 'un.
Very good point! In your opinion, would everyone be able to enjoy classical music? (at least small parts of it, namely very accessible pieces, like say The Nutcracker, Rach 2, Moonlight Sonata, Clair de Lune). Or is it "not for everyone"?
I am thinking that if you were to convince some people that classical music is not for "sissies" or "old people", and that putting in a little listening effort isn't that bad and it most definitely pays off, than once they would get over their prejudice over it they should be able to enjoy (at least some of) it. I feel that there's a great variety in classical music to be found, something for everyone:from the very emotional, deep, very sad, to the sarcastic, funny, disturbingly dark, absurd, spiritual, happy, extremely energetic, violent and wild, psychotic, supernatural, military, etc. So IN THEORY there should be something for everyone. hmmm
Just something I've been pondering on.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 23, 2012, 04:39:41 AM
I get that, truly I do.
Yet, if you think on it . . . there is a lot of musical boredom being experienced which is not any matter of the composer's alleged failure, but of the listener's condition.
Chew on that 'un.
Of course.
Can we possibly get a consensus on some shitty piece of music, so we have some kind of...aye, this isn't going to work, is it?
I love much grey, boring music, only because it allows me to imagine things that more involving music won't. When I listen to music that's overwhelming, there's no room for MEEEEE!!!!
I'm thinking of Feldman's 'For Samuel Beckett', 40mins of grey wash, and not the kind of Feldman I like. However, it IS 40mins long, so, if it's raining and I'm moody, this piece works ok for me,... as a background.
I wish we could have these types of probes with some kind of ASSUMING CONSENSUS,... I mean, I feel like (you're) going to say that "If you find it boring, it's because YOU'RE boring". C'mon, we all know that's not true, right? ISN'T there such a thing a just plain old boring music? There must be a Symphony or String Quartet from...mm...about 1869-73... that would test EVERYONE'S mettle,... there MUST be.
I don't know why I tend to dwell on criticism and 'bad' things, but I suppose I'm one of those that expects perfection, and only notice the lack of perfection. I can easily discard perfection as being perfect and not needing to be noted; however, imperfection seems to demand one's attention.
Surely I have all this backwards. I mean, I looooove '70s exploitation films,... I love many guilty pleasure (maybe I ONLY love g.p.?),... so how can I know what Greatness is?
oy, my head is spinning
Karl, as to your reply,... can we ASSUME that the listener is not the problem just for the argument at hand?
aye,... already a headache and I've only been up an hour, haha...
Perhaps, like a car wreck, I cannot turn my ears nor eyes from the grievously horrible. Do I love the bad more than the good?
Again, surely there is an American work from 1980-2010 that fits the bill!! I must be obsessed with the work "sucks". ???
DISCO SUCKS!
Well, honestly, many at least played their instruments back then, but, I'm a sucker for disco and all things '70s pretty much.
Am...I... a genius? ??? ??? ???
I don't think I "get" any of them, but I'm really impressed by the ones who "get" me.
Quote from: snypsssKarl, as to your reply,... can we ASSUME that the listener is not the problem just for the argument at hand?
In fact, that is my baseline assumption as I do my own composing . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on March 23, 2012, 07:07:16 AM
In fact, that is my baseline assumption as I do my own composing . . . .
Have you had the same horrified reaction that Cato had? Or, do you realize that going down a semitone has a universally ominous tone and use it only when you intend it as such? Elaborate...
Sometimes, the descent of a semitone is a gesture of gracious dolcezza.
The notes do what I require of them, nor dare they stray far from my intent.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 23, 2012, 07:45:34 AM
The notes do what I require of them, nor dare they stray far from my intent.
If I were a note, I don't think I'd dare to stray far. In fact I'd probably get hung up on E-F and B-C changes, on the lazy principle that the distance is shorter. (Assuming, as seems likely, that I'd be forever stuck in the key of C, and playing only the most elementary tunes.)
Quote from: karlhenning on March 23, 2012, 04:39:41 AM
Yet, if you think on it . . . there is a lot of musical boredom being experienced which is not any matter of the composer's alleged failure, but of the listener's condition.
Happens to me all the time. Not just with music, but with visual art and books. It seems to be a matter of matching the listener to the work under the right conditions at the right time. Believe it or not, I have sometimes been a bit bored listening to parts of
Der Ring. (Confessions now coming thick and fast, y'see.)
You're the bravest man I know, Alan!
Quote from: Elgarian on March 23, 2012, 09:12:42 AM
Believe it or not, I have sometimes been a bit bored listening to parts of Der Ring. (Confessions now coming thick and fast, y'see.)
:o :'(
Quote from: Lisztianwagner on March 23, 2012, 09:44:19 AM
:o :'(
Alright then, the whole truth: I wasn't feeling very well at the time.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 23, 2012, 07:45:34 AM
Sometimes, the descent of a semitone is a gesture of gracious dolcezza.
Right: a B-to-C Octave Unison has that 'weighty' sound, but a B-to-C with a G in the bass makes it a lilting suspended fourth.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 23, 2012, 07:45:34 AM
The notes do what I require of them, nor dare they stray far from my intent.[/font]
Is that Igor? I needed to hear that right now, that helps how I'm thinking about the notes... as if they were 'people', 'characters', so to speak.
Quote from: Elgarian on March 23, 2012, 09:06:17 AM
If I were a note, I don't think I'd dare to stray far. In fact I'd probably get hung up on E-F and B-C changes, on the lazy principle that the distance is shorter. (Assuming, as seems likely, that I'd be forever stuck in the key of C, and playing only the most elementary tunes.)
Doesn't Genius dwell in the semitone? ::)hmm??
Quote from: Elgarian on March 23, 2012, 09:12:42 AMBelieve it or not, I have sometimes been a bit bored listening to parts of Der Ring.
You must have been listening to
Siegfried when this boredom set in. ;) :D For me, this is the weakest link of the entire cycle.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 23, 2012, 08:15:37 PM
You must have been listening to Siegfried when this boredom set in. ;) :D For me, this is the weakest link of the entire cycle.
It's certainly the one that's most likely to make me restless in my seat at times, but I wouldn't therefore conclude that it's the weakest link. I think these boredom issues are overwhelmingly a matter of personal temperament, and my restlessness certainly isn't a reliable indicator of the intrinsic value of the music-drama. I remember having a discussion with someone in this forum a year or two ago about
Die Walkure: for me, there isn't a dull moment throughout its entire length, but the chap I was talking to (might have been Scarpia?) couldn't bear what
he experienced as the tedium that inhabits much of Act 2. There was no way of accounting for this difference as far as I could see, except by acknowledging the difference in our temperaments.
Coincidentally, I've been watching daily chunks of
Walkure the last few evenings - from the Chereau
Ring. Bloomin' marvellous, and confirming that
for me, there's not a dull moment anywhere. In fact I've fallen in love with Jeannine Altmeyer and Gwyneth Jones all over again. I can't argue my way out of that sort of infatuation!
Sometimes the performer is the problem and not the listener in making a piece boring. But ultimately a performer, unless they effectively rewrite the piece, can only do so much with a piece of music.
Yes, as we found last night. Notwithstanding the excellence of both the soloist and the BSO, the Violin Concerto is clearly B-grade Dvořák. Not utterly without interest, and I say this knowing that Dvořák produced a great wealth of A-material.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 25, 2012, 12:55:47 PM
Yes, as we found last night. Notwithstanding the excellence of both the soloist and the BSO, the Violin Concerto is clearly B-grade Dvořák. Not utterly without interest, and I say this knowing that Dvořák produced a great wealth of A-material.
As someone who learnt the solo part in my teens (wasn't really good enough to play it in public, though) I have to totally agree there. There's some nice things in it but it's ultimately it doesn't stand out in the way that his best work does. I remember it being quite a bit of fun to play, though.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 25, 2012, 12:55:47 PMYes, as we found last night. Notwithstanding the excellence of both the soloist and the BSO, the Violin Concerto is clearly B-grade Dvořák. Not utterly without interest, and I say this knowing that Dvořák produced a great wealth of A-material.
Yes. Something the reviewers rarely have the guts to say!
I sense a lack of Genius surrounding this Dvorak and his VC. ???
Quote from: karlhenning on March 25, 2012, 12:55:47 PM
Yes, as we found last night. Notwithstanding the excellence of both the soloist and the BSO, the Violin Concerto is clearly B-grade Dvořák. Not utterly without interest, and I say this knowing that Dvořák produced a great wealth of A-material.
Wow, I totally disagree with the consensus here, finding it not inferior to his Cello Concerto.
Yes, this is the problem with listening to these top composers. No sooner does one listener decide once and for all that Blank's Concerto for Pots and Pans is weak and dull, when up pops another who thinks it's the bees' knees. Worse, both listeners may well find persuasive arguments that suggest their view is the right one. (For a specific example, the Rest of the Critical World seems to regard Mozart's 13th Piano Concerto as uninspired and banal, but it supplied enough interest and inspiration to sustain me, on repeat, through many a sleepless night in hospital a few years ago.)
It would be so much simpler if we restricted our listening to composers who always wrote bad music, I think. Then we could spend all our time laughing at how dull their work is, and at last be secure in the truth of our critical statements.
Quote from: Elgarian on March 26, 2012, 12:25:42 AM
Yes, this is the problem with listening to these top composers. No sooner does one listener decide once and for all that Blank's Concerto for Pots and Pans is weak and dull, when up pops another who thinks it's the bees' knees. Worse, both listeners may well find persuasive arguments that suggest their view is the right one. (For a specific example, the Rest of the Critical World seems to regard Mozart's 13th Piano Concerto uninspired and banal, but it supplied enough interest and inspiration to sustain me, on repeat, through many a sleepless night in hospital a few years ago.)
It would be so much simpler if we restricted our listening to composers who always wrote bad music. Then we could spend all our time laughing at how dull their work is, and be secure in the truth of our critical statements.
Agreed!
Quote from: karlhenning on March 25, 2012, 12:55:47 PM
Yes, as we found last night. Notwithstanding the excellence of both the soloist and the BSO, the Violin Concerto is clearly B-grade Dvořák. Not utterly without interest, and I say this knowing that Dvořák produced a great wealth of A-material.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 25, 2012, 04:46:18 PM
Yes. Something the reviewers rarely have the guts to say!
A few comments:
1. I don't know what B-grade means nor how to determine what that is. What do you mean and is there an objective way to really determine this?
2. Do you think it is useful to say this?
3. As to reviewers, I detest reviews where they spend time telling me how second-rate or poor the music they are reviewing is. I have seen it quite often too. In my opinion, this is not their job. I am fine if they make a passing comment (based on some sort of reasoning) that this may not be as enticing as other works from this composer for reasons that then follow (less lyrical, less melodic, tangential structure, etc.). But too many reveiws spend time telling me how wonderful (or poor) a performace is of poor quality music. There is a lot of music I don't like, but my not liking it does not automatically make it inferior.
By the way, this is a pet peeve of mine. I hope I didn't come across too aggressively.
I think it's necessary to grade the quality of the work itself, so that we don't subside into a fairyland where everything is wonderful. I mentioned here a couple of years ago, I think, that my exploration of American composers had been hindered by people's apparent lack of discernment. If people talk as though Roy Harris was the equal of Ives, for instance, and I find myself unimpressed with Harris, why would I bother with Ives? Or forum threads in which people ask for good introductory works to a composer, and some nut starts recommending all the juvenilia as unmissable. No-one benefits by this attitude.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 26, 2012, 01:07:35 AM
A few comments:
1. I don't know what B-grade means nor how to determine what that is. What do you mean and is there an objective way to really determine this?
Well, what it means is, as Edward plainly states, not up at the level of the composer's best works (the plural there is generally significant).
My counterpoint will perforce be, there is no purely objective means of evaluating any music, so the question is not useful. Is there a purely objective means of laying out why Beethoven's first symphony is not on the same level as his (to make the question really toothsome) eighth symphony?
Per Velimir's protest, there are listeners who will vehemently assert that the Beethoven first is every bit as fine as his ninth. Now, that is a proposition against which it were useless to suggest any purely objective criteria.Quote from: mc ukrneal2. Do you think it is useful to say this?
Well, to answer one rhetorical question with another: Is an actual musician's honest opinion ever useful?
Quote from: eyeresist on March 26, 2012, 01:36:26 AM
I think it's necessary to grade the quality of the work itself, so that we don't subside into a fairyland where everything is wonderful.
Overall, agreed. We can agree that for practically any music which an accomplished composer can write, there are listeners who will appreciate it. This does not negate the value of discussing wherein lies the distinction between excellence and that's very good, but . . . .
Quote from: eyeresist on March 26, 2012, 01:36:26 AM
I think it's necessary to grade the quality of the work itself, so that we don't subside into a fairyland where everything is wonderful. I mentioned here a couple of years ago, I think, that my exploration of American composers had been hindered by people's apparent lack of discernment. If people talk as though Roy Harris was the equal of Ives, for instance, and I find myself unimpressed with Harris, why would I bother with Ives? Or forum threads in which people ask for good introductory works to a composer, and some nut starts recommending all the juvenilia as unmissable. No-one benefits by this attitude.
I disagree. But also let me be clear, I am not suggesting that on a forum like this (or even at review sites) that we don't state our preferences. The key here is the rationale behind them. Someone telling us that one composer is better than another doesn't add much. Saying Ives is better than Harris is, in my opinion, totally unhelpful (unless there is some sort of understanding, when additional info has already been revealed). Why he is preferred and what is interesting about one or another composer is what is ultimately interesting. And if someone recommends something obscure and provides a logical explanation, I think that is great. Otherwise, many greats we take for granted today would still be unheard (like Ives or Mahler).
The question here is not a lack of discernment, but a difference in priorities and likes. It comes down to the criteria, which are almost never clear. This is true for performances too. I can't tell you how many times someone has said something like ...don't recommend, because it's too bombastic, too loud, too aggressive, etc., which has only fuelled my interest (most of the time), the exact opposite of what the reviewer is concluding. But if they did not expand upon the logic/reasoning/criteria, I would only know it was not recommended. I might then miss some wonderul performance or music.
To be more blunt, if I followed the advice of some reviewers about the quality of the music, I would have missed some amazing works of music.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 26, 2012, 02:15:10 AM
Well, what it means is, as Edward plainly states, not up at the level of the composer's best works (the plural there is generally significant).
My counterpoint will perforce be, there is no purely objective means of evaluating any music, so the question is not useful. Is there a purely objective means of laying out why Beethoven's first symphony is not on the same level as his (to make the question really toothsome) eighth symphony?
Per Velimir's protest, there are listeners who will vehemently assert that the Beethoven first is every bit as fine as his ninth. Now, that is a proposition against which it were useless to suggest any purely objective criteria.
I would disagree a bit. If one provides the reasons, one could show why one thinks that (using this example) Beethoven's first is better than Beethoven's 9th. It would have to include reasonable explanations and discussion. One could accept or reject. But saying Beethoven's 9th is better than his 1st is also different from saying that the first is not up to the level of his 9th. I think it is fairly standard these days for most people to say the ninth is better than the first when they really mean the ninth is preferred over the first. All they know is they like the ninth more.
In the earlier part, I agree that the plural is important. But even more important is the 'why' behind it. There is something that those works are doing that the other one is not. There is some quality there that can be indentified. I think all of these differences can be explained.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 26, 2012, 02:15:10 AM
Well, to answer one rhetorical question with another: Is an actual musician's honest opinion ever useful?
My question was not entirely rhetorical. The answer to yours is yes and no. It depends on the context.
Certainly it's rhetorical. If even one person finds use for an opinion, it's useful, right? If even one person finds B-grade (and, incidentally, I don't see how I could have phrased my post less abrasively; if such diplomatic expression comes under fire, so much the worse for diplomacy ; ) moving, then it's music right up at the top, isn't it?
Take Telemann (please). (Old stand-up allusion, there.) A call for purely objective criteria as to why JS Bach is a great composer, but Telemann, only a good composer won't settle the matter. To musicians, it's obvious; to an impassioned Telemanniac, no answer will serve.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 26, 2012, 03:04:09 AM
Certainly it's rhetorical. If even one person finds use for an opinion, it's useful, right? If even one person finds B-grade (and, incidentally, I don't see how I could have phrased my post less abrasively; if such diplomatic expression comes under fire, so much the worse for diplomacy ; ) moving, then it's music right up at the top, isn't it?
Take Telemann (please). (Old stand-up allusion, there.) A call for purely objective criteria as to why JS Bach is a great composer, but Telemann, only a good composer won't settle the matter. To musicians, it's obvious; to an impassioned Telemanniac, no answer will serve.
If something is obvious, it should be easy to explain, don't you think? Someone who is closed minded is not exactly a useful foil here. And in your example, both groups are presented in a close-minded way - for both sides, the reasons are obvious, because there is no reason. It just is.
As to the other, I don't believe it is useful (using terms like second-tier/grade B, etc.). It doesn't add insight (that I can see), but it does expose the reviewer's thinking. I mean, is there an accepted list of whic composers belong to which tiers? I don't think we could agree on one. And that leads back to why - and that is what I find interesting.
One hardly gets more obvious than the following:Quote from: karlhenning on March 26, 2012, 02:15:10 AM
. . . there is no purely objective means of evaluating any music . . . .
Along with my following implication that the Beethoven Op.93 is obviously a better work of music than his Op.21 (which doesn't stop any of us from enjoying the latter).
Something which you have obliged us all by making obvious is: I can state the obvious, but that does not mean that you won't completely sidestep a point, how obvious soever, which is inconvenient to your viewpoint. Which does not make for a particularly interesting conversation, I don't think.
Speaking of that which exposes the reviewer's thinking, you utterly astonish me by asking for "an accepted list of [which] composers belong to which tiers." I don't see how you can take part for years in a forum discussing classical music, and say any such thing. Of course, you have wit enough to know that it does not advance the conversation. So you offer it, what? because it "proves" that all composers are equally good?
Now, if on the other hand, I list a group of composers whom practically anyone would accept for an A-list composer, and another group of composers whom any temperate mind would not object to having listed as beneath that A-list rank: what? You're going to say that this lstener, or that, finds one or more of those composers especial favorites — so how could they be B-list composers, right?
To conclude, you baffle me even with the disingenuousness of If something is obvious, it should be easy to explain, don't you think? As if all the important (or even basic) musical matters were easy to explain.
But one example (no any intellectually dense example): A clarinet plays, out of sight perhaps. To me (to a million musicians) it is obviously a clarinet. You (perhaps) do not know just from hearing a couple of notes that it is a clarinet. How does anyone explain that?
Quote from: karlhenning on March 26, 2012, 05:46:03 AM
One hardly gets more obvious than the following:
Along with my following implication that the Beethoven Op.93 is obviously a better work of music than his Op.21 (which doesn't stop any of us from enjoying the latter).
Something which you have obliged us all by making obvious is: I can state the obvious, but that does not mean that you won't completely sidestep a point, how obvious soever, which is inconvenient to your viewpoint. Which does not make for a particularly interesting conversation, I don't think.
Speaking of that which exposes the reviewer's thinking, you utterly astonish me by asking for "an accepted list of [which] composers belong to which tiers." I don't see how you can take part for years in a forum discussing classical music, and say any such thing. Of course, you have wit enough to know that it does not advance the conversation. So you offer it, what? because it "proves" that all composers are equally good?
Now, if on the other hand, I list a group of composers whom practically anyone would accept for an A-list composer, and another group of composers whom any temperate mind would not object to having listed as beneath that A-list rank: what? You're going to say that this lstener, or that, finds one or more of those composers especial favorites — so how could they be B-list composers, right?
To conclude, you baffle me even with the disingenuousness of If something is obvious, it should be easy to explain, don't you think? As if all the important (or even basic) musical matters were easy to explain.
But one example (no any intellectually dense example): A clarinet plays, out of sight perhaps. To me (to a million musicians) it is obviously a clarinet. You (perhaps) do not know just from hearing a couple of notes that it is a clarinet. How does anyone explain that?
Not sure why you have resorted to insulting and belittling me. You also seem to wish to 'win' the conversation instead of exchanging differences of opinion. You seem to have decided that I am being disingenous and that you know what I am going to say and what I mean better than I myself do (at least, that is what you write). And to think all I was trying to say is that I dislike when reviewers tell me whether a piece or composer are good or not (and whether they are worth my time).
One thing that annoys me about reviewers is how they sometimes belittle a work by a lesser known composer just because the style reminds them of a famous one. Just because a composer is little known doesn't mean they might not produce just as enjoyable a piece as a famous one. Obviously that doesn't mean that the whole output of the lesser known is better than the famous one, but that hardly matters in judging a single work (it shouldn't anyway).
As for Mozart's 13th concerto, I doubt that many say it's a bad work.
And again with Beethoven's 1st and 9th, I doubt many say either are bad. The first is obviously a piece with very different objectives but that doesn't have to mean it's weaker.
And certainly I think it is good to critically judge pieces. Consistency of invention isn't that easy and every composer is likely to fall short on some occasion. Saying all of a particular composer's work is great or bad isn't that helpful in comparing their own works to each other or comparing it to other composers within their style or period. Some pieces if set against other pieces will eventually fall short, certainly after repeated close comparative listening. Does it matter? Well if you want to carefully use your limited time to hear better crafted pieces more often then it probably does. But it does take time and effort in comparing pieces to work out the more inventive pieces in a style.
Quote from: starrynight on March 26, 2012, 07:51:51 AM
One thing that annoys me about reviewers is how they sometimes belittle a work by a lesser known composer just because the style reminds them of a famous one.
Right, though that's not what any of us is talking about w/r/t the Dvořák vn cto.Quote from: starrynightAs for Mozart's 13th concerto, I doubt that many say it's a bad work.
And again with Beethoven's 1st and 9th, I doubt many say either are bad. The first is obviously a piece with very different objectives but that doesn't have to mean it's weaker.
With all respect, neighbor, if Beethoven walked among us, and if you told him to his face that his first symphony was just as fine a piece as his ninth, I expect a hothead such as he to smack you for belittling the accomplishment of the ninth.
Is it really the suggestion here, that there can be no qualititative difference between a piano concerto which Mozart wrote in 1782 and one which he wrote seven years (and 12 further piano concertos) later?
This is the blindspot in the respectful opposition which baffles me. The denial that a great artist — even a great artist — benefits from experience, and that his art is apt to wax better over time. And what purpose does this denial serve? To make us listeners feel better for liking earlier works just as well? This is what strikes me as the wrong-headed opposed notions. No one here is saying that one shouldn't like the Dvořák vn cto, the Mozart 13th cto, Beethoven's first symphony.
I wasn't talking about Dvorak. :D
But of course a composer will say their latest work is vastly superior to their earlier. If they didn't they would probably feel they had been wasting time changing their style. But to me music is an entertainment for the mind and therefore I want a piece to give me enjoyment. A simpler piece can do this just as much as a more complex longer work. Is there any point judging a work for not being what it wasn't ever aiming to be? For the listener I don't think there is. Simpler pleasures can sometimes suit our mood and be quite powerful, popular music can attest to that. This isn't to disparage complex ambitious works, but the enjoyment of music can be so much broader than that. Our minds surely enjoy a variety of styles. Does ranking something according to complexity really develop our musical tastes? I'm not sure it would, it would potentially limit our judgement and enjoyment if anything.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 26, 2012, 08:09:50 AM
Is it really the suggestion here, that there can be no qualititative difference between a piano concerto which Mozart wrote in 1782 and one which he wrote seven years (and 12 further piano concertos) later?
I was the one who dragged Mozart's 13th PC into this, so I ought to answer (and also I should respond to starry's doubts about whether informed folks are likely to rubbish a Mozart PC). Anyway, no, I wasn't suggesting that, not at all, Karl. I wasn't actually making any comparisons. (I revel in lots of Mozart's PCs.) I'm just making a claim for my own subjectively perceived value in this particular concerto, against received opinion.
To address starry's point. I have two books on Mozart's PCs. C.M. Girdlestone says, of the 13th (K415 - he calls it the 9th) that 'the piano part is timid'; 'great beauties remain unknown because they lie side by side with weaknesses and banalities'; 'the work loses itself in conventional virtuosity'. My other 'expert', Arthur Hutchings, considers that 'the first movement fails', being 'filled with pretentious rubble'; the slow movement (which I happen to adore) 'merits no long examination'. etc.
These comments are, presumably, justifiable from a musical analysis point of view, and I'm quite unable to say whether their analysis is correct. I assume that it is. But I listen from a
listening point of view, and I find myself wondering whether Messrs Hutchings and Girdlestone ever actually listened to the thing for its own sake without taking it apart? If it is so banal as they say, how did it come about that it sustained such close listening, night after night, as I gave it when lying in hospital - and indeed, since?
I don't want to elevate it to some Superconcerto status relative to others. I don't want to compare it with the others at all. I just want to say that I know from personal experience that this 'banal' piece of music can move and fascinate a human being so much as to help him significantly through difficult circumstances. Hutchings's and Girdlestone's opinions, though noted, seem weirdly irrelevant in the face of that. That's fair comment - isn't it?
Composers, if they're any good, develop and get more individual style at a later age. Beethoven's 1st piano sonata is an excellent work, but I don't believe anyone really thinks it's as good as the 32nd (or the 8th). Usually, when ranking composers pieces, it's important how individual the piece is among the composers opera, and among other composers'.
Complexity is of course most important as a criterion when there is little of it - I don't think anyone would rank Beethoven's late quartets just according to how complex they are, but ranking the 29th piano sonata higher than the 28th based on increased complexity wouldn't be so strange.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 26, 2012, 06:01:24 AM
And to think all I was trying to say is that I dislike when reviewers tell me whether a piece or composer are good or not (and whether they are worth my time).
I would agree concerning reviews of famous works by famous composers. Let's say the recording is Beethoven's 9th symphony. Since, through general consensus, both Beethoven and his 9th reside at the top of the heap, it would be a waste of time to critique either. Also, I think most readers want to know what the reviewer thinks of the performance, not the quality of the work.
Switch to relatively obscure composers/works and the reviewer's mission changes greatly. These are situations where readers do want to know what the reviewer thinks of the composer and specific works on the recording. It could be Pierne piano works, Koechlin string quartets, Myaskovsky symphonies, etc.
As for the quality of Beethoven's 1st symphony vs. his 9th, there is no doubt that the 9th is a huge advancement over the 1st. A listener might well enjoy the 1st as much or more, but that's personal enjoyment and nothing more. Anyone who tried to make the argument that the 1st symphony is as masterful and original as the 9th would be engaging in a nut-job endeavor.
I've read some positive comments about Mozart's 13th PC in the past. One thing about it's historical critical reputation that would be used against it is probably that pianists have performed it less than some of the others, that has probably blinded some. I wouldn't say it's one of my own favourites particularly but I can still get some enjoyment out of it. I think I also read somewhere once that Mozart performed it quite a lot or that it's reception at the time was quite good. There's an interesting performance of Mozart's 5th PC on youtube with Malcolm Frager btw, that was another piece that Mozart apparently liked performing. And Mozart's 8th PC is a personal favourite of mine, I have liked it for many years.
It's the job of the reviewers I suppose to pick out the wheat from the chaff, unfortunately they will have their own preferences and biases which will in many cases make them make some extreme comments.
Beethoven's 1st in it's way is arguably as masterful as the 9th, whether it is as original is certainly very much more questionable. But why should I care about that? As long as it's original in the sense of not being generic (which it isn't I think) and it gives me enjoyment with what it is aiming for that is all I care about. Also let's not forget Beethoven was quite an experienced composer by the time he wrote his 1st.
And repying to Northstar:
"Composers, if they're any good, develop and get more individual style at a later age."
I don't agree, you could get good composers who do some remarkably fresh and accomplished work when younger and lose interest later or try other styles that don't quite work for them.
"when ranking composers pieces"
I'm not too obsessed with ranking, maybe people get too concerned about that. Of course I can have big favourites and some of those are right at the end of a composer's opus in a style, such as Mozart's 41st or Brahms 4th, but that doesn't mean I have to say they are unquestionably better than Mozart's 34th or Brahms 2nd for instance. They are simply different kinds of pieces. Mozart himself was a bit annoyed with Leopold when he was in Paris and found he had not distributed his earlier symphonies. Mozart still had some pride in his earlier work.
And to me it is about enjoyment, not some assumed historical importance. When we listen to music we surely live in the moment, it moves us intellectually and emotionally in the way it wishes to if it is a successful piece.
Quote from: starrynight on March 26, 2012, 11:08:42 AM
I've read some positive comments about Mozart's 13th PC in the past. One thing about it's historical critical reputation that would be used against it is probably that pianists have performed it less than some of the others, that has probably blinded some.
To say that Mozart's mature piano concertos are more masterful than his earlier ones does not equate to needing to be critical of the earlier concertos. I love all of them while recognizing the greater inspiration and thematic development of the mature concertos.
What we have here is a tendency to believe that what one greatly enjoys must be a masterpiece. This attitude is displayed daily on the board and has always puzzled me.
I don't care much about ranking pieces, either, but with none you end up recommending 3rd grade pieces of a composer, and possibly making people dismiss the composer.
It's all relative, of course, but something like Mozart's 13th PC or the 34th symphony are hardly juvenilia. As to distributing the older compositions, Mozart wasn't exactly rich, so that might have motivated him, too.
And "They are simply different kinds of pieces. " is exactly what I think, too. What I meant is that composers should evolve in the sense of writing different sort of music - and I certainly didn't mean that a composers work should always be better than the ones before it. That's just plain silly.
Quote from: starrynight on March 26, 2012, 11:08:42 AM
Beethoven's 1st in it's way is arguably as masterful as the 9th, whether it is as original is certainly very much more questionable. But why should I care about that? As long as it's original in the sense of not being generic (which it isn't I think) and it gives me enjoyment with what it is aiming for that is all I care about. Also let's not forget Beethoven was quite an experienced composer by the time he wrote his 1st.
And repying to Northstar:
"Composers, if they're any good, develop and get more individual style at a later age."
I don't agree, you could get good composers who do some remarkably fresh and accomplished work when younger and lose interest later or try other styles that don't quite work for them.
Correct, but Beethoven isn't one of those composers; he got better and better with age. I think it likely that someone who loves Beethoven's 1st symphony as much or more than his 9th has a preference for classical-era music over music with strong romantic-era traits.
Quote from: starrynight on March 26, 2012, 08:28:25 AMA simpler piece can do this just as much as a more complex longer work. Is there any point judging a work for not being what it wasn't ever aiming to be?
It is important, I agree, to evaluate composers on what they do achieve in preference to what they don't. I wouldn't attempt to argue the Prokofiev is ultimately greater than Bach, for instance, but they are doing different things, and I prefer what Prok does. (The true artist is only really competing against themself.) In the same way, we evaluate (or should) individual works on their own merits. But all this is not to say we shouldn't compare works in terms of quality (however that may be defined); certainly the artists themselves aren't afraid to do it.
Quote from: starrynight on March 26, 2012, 07:51:51 AMOne thing that annoys me about reviewers is how they sometimes belittle a work by a lesser known composer just because the style reminds them of a famous one.
I don't think that's generally true. Critics acknowledge that influence is unavoidable (unless the composer is a Pol Pot-style modernist), and happily point out how great composers were influenced by their predecessors.
The problem is that some composers never get much beyond pastiche of other works. In some cases it's the sad result of a frenetic work schedule that doesn't allow time for artistic development (I'm thinking of soundtrack writers here, though in the past composers for opera, church and the theatre might also have qualified); in other cases, they just don't have the individuality in them to bring out music that sounds fresh.
Quote from: Bulldog on March 26, 2012, 02:01:42 PM
What we have here is a tendency to believe that what one greatly enjoys must be a masterpiece.
Not sure if it was my comment you were addressing here, but just to clarify: I'm making a much more nuanced claim, namely, that a PC such as the 13th, which is not highly regarded by expert music critics (on grounds I described), is by no means devoid of value (to
this listener at least). It's true that it doesn't have the overabundance of inventiveness that one finds in other Mozart PCs, but that doesn't mean it can't offer a delightful and satisfying listening experience. I'm not competent to declare whether it's a masterpiece or not.
Quote from: Bulldog on March 26, 2012, 02:07:15 PM
Correct, but Beethoven isn't one of those composers; he got better and better with age. I think it likely that someone who loves Beethoven's 1st symphony as much or more than his 9th has a preference for classical-era music over music with strong romantic-era traits.
Maybe we could say Beethoven got more consistent over time, doesn't mean that he didn't do very good pieces before his last period or even middle period. I'd just judge each piece on it's own merit for it's own style.
And everyone inevitably will have preference for one style over another. Those who like the romantic style more probably don't give his 1st symphony very much chance. I like to think I can like both, I rate his 5th and 6th very highly too. The 9th is obviously a considerable piece, though I wonder if people rate it his best as much for it's huge ambition as anything.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 26, 2012, 05:16:53 PM
I wouldn't attempt to argue the Prokofiev is ultimately greater than Bach
Yes, but does it really matter? A particularly good Prokofiev piece could still impress us enough in the moment to make it worthwhile listening for us, and that's all that matters it seems to me.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 26, 2012, 05:16:53 PM
(The true artist is only really competing against themself.) In the same way, we evaluate (or should) individual works on their own merits. But all this is not to say we shouldn't compare works in terms of quality (however that may be defined); certainly the artists themselves aren't afraid to do it.
Of course you need to make comparisons to see exactly what is worth re-hearing, I think I said that. The thing is though to make the proper comparisons.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 26, 2012, 05:16:53 PM
The problem is that some composers never get much beyond pastiche of other works. in other cases, they just don't have the individuality in them to bring out music that sounds fresh.
In some cases that could well be the case. I think critics in both popular and classical music can be far too quick to this kind of judgement as well though. They can get it stuck in their minds that a particular style belongs to one composer and that anyone else doing it is just secondary and only worth damning with faint praise.
Quote from: North Star on March 26, 2012, 02:04:47 PM
What I meant is that composers should evolve in the sense of writing different sort of music - and I certainly didn't mean that a composers work should always be better than the ones before it.
I agree.
Quote from: North Star on March 26, 2012, 02:04:47 PM
I don't care much about ranking pieces, either, but with none you end up recommending 3rd grade pieces of a composer, and possibly making people dismiss the composer.
It depends how you define 'third grade'. If you just mean bad pieces which have very average ideas not so well developed then I would agree that it hardly helps a composer's cause. But if it is a good early work then I think it actually broadens the understanding of a composer.
Quote from: Bulldog on March 26, 2012, 02:01:42 PM
To say that Mozart's mature piano concertos are more masterful than his earlier ones does not equate to needing to be critical of the earlier concertos. I love all of them while recognizing the greater inspiration and thematic development of the mature concertos.
What we have here is a tendency to believe that what one greatly enjoys must be a masterpiece. This attitude is displayed daily on the board and has always puzzled me.
How do you define 'masterful' and 'masterpiece' (that horribly overused word)? I think something can be masterful without being complex. The classical style for example can have a beautiful simplicity and directness to it, in a way it was populist perhaps. And masterpiece I assume originally meant a late work by a composer which sums up how his work had developed by the end of his life. That wouldn't have to mean a value judgement on other pieces. Now it pretty much means any piece somebody thinks is good.
Quote from: Elgarian on March 27, 2012, 12:26:44 AM
. . . I'm making a much more nuanced claim, namely, that a PC such as the 13th, which is not highly regarded by expert music critics (on grounds I described), is by no means devoid of value (to this listener at least). It's true that it doesn't have the overabundance of inventiveness that one finds in other Mozart PCs, but that doesn't mean it can't offer a delightful and satisfying listening experience.
Not a word here but I can heartily agree with (well, I suppose I ought to revisit the 13th concerto, refresh my knowledge of it, to affirm absolutely). This arc of increasing mastery whereof we speak (to repeat, not necessarily for your benefit, Alan — I know you don't require this saying) in no way negates delight or satisfaction in earlier works.
Quote from: starrynight on March 27, 2012, 01:13:29 AM
And everyone inevitably will have preference for one style over another. Those who like the romantic style more probably don't give his 1st symphony very much chance.
Here's a case where the opposing positions are opposite but not equal. Don made a sensible point in saying that someone who feels that the Beethoven First Symphony is "better" than the Ninth may well be someone who generally prefers the Classical style to the Romantic.
That is a very different matter to the hypothesis that finding the Sinfonia eroica a piece of richer work and greater mastery than the First, is "just" a matter of preferring the Romantic style to the Classical.
Again, most great artists strive to improve their art over time, even from project to project; or maybe all of them strive, and we might say that most of the great artists succeed. Tell Brahms, "Yeah, those Intermezzi of your Op.119 are good, sure; but of course, your Op.76 pieces are every bit as good, you just tried to achieve 'something different' with them," he would just conclude that you do not understand his work. And if you insisted, "Why have I continued to work for 15 years following the Op.76, only to remain in exactly the same place 15 years later?"
The artist's sense of his increasing art is not the illusion; it is this misapplication of the democratic principle, that somehow all good works of art are created equal, they're just "different," which is the illusion/
Quote from: karlhenning on March 27, 2012, 02:19:47 AM
And if you insisted, "Why have I continued to work for 15 years following the Op.76, only to remain in exactly the same place 15 years later?"
I never said that they have to stay in exactly the same place. Just because some later work may be of high quality is no reason to have to dismiss some earlier work. An artist will dismiss things because they move on to other styles and lose interest in earlier styles they have composed in, but a listener doesn't have to do that. Some artists styles may even move towards a greater simplicity rather than complexity. And as I said before denseness alone doesn't have to be a reason to give a piece acclaim. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. And some composers establish elements of their own individual style quite early anyway.
Quote from: starrynight on March 27, 2012, 04:10:40 AM
I never said that they have to stay in exactly the same place. Just because some later work may be of high quality is no reason to have to dismiss some earlier work.
There, we do agree. Petrhaps the point I need to repeat (nor is it the first repetition in this discussion) is: To acknowledge that an earlier work is a lesser work, is not dismissal.
Would anyone care to sum up the last 3-4 Pages for me? :D
munch...munch...
No Xenakis here.
Quote from: snyprrr on March 27, 2012, 06:28:07 AM
Would anyone care to sum up the last 3-4 Pages for me? :D
Easier to summarise Proust, I think.
Quote from: Elgarian on March 27, 2012, 08:29:16 AM
Easier to summarise Proust, I think.
I seem to recall...
Quote from: Elgarian on March 27, 2012, 12:26:44 AM
Not sure if it was my comment you were addressing here, but just to clarify: I'm making a much more nuanced claim, namely, that a PC such as the 13th, which is not highly regarded by expert music critics (on grounds I described), is by no means devoid of value (to this listener at least). It's true that it doesn't have the overabundance of inventiveness that one finds in other Mozart PCs, but that doesn't mean it can't offer a delightful and satisfying listening experience.
My comment referred to certain board members; you are not among them.
Of course, the 13th has value; I don't know of anyone who loves Mozart's piano concertos who doesn't think highly of the 13th.
Must be life in Boston, but I just misread that phrase of Alan's as a much more nuanced clam. Which is just the sort of shellfish we need around here.
Quote from: Bulldog on March 26, 2012, 02:01:42 PM
What we have here is a tendency to believe that what one greatly enjoys must be a masterpiece. This attitude is displayed daily on the board and has always puzzled me.
Word.
--Bruce
Quote from: karlhenning on March 27, 2012, 08:49:35 AM
Must be life in Boston, but I just misread that phrase of Alan's as a much more nuanced clam. Which is just the sort of shellfish we need around here.
No Karl, that's quite right: 'claim' was a typo, and the 'i' unintentional. The importance of shellfish to Mozart has always been under-rated, and I think it's our mission to fix that. One thinks, for example, of the more b
oysterous moments in
Don Giovanni; of how his clarinet concerto warms the
cockles of our hearts; of the subtleties in his great works that sometimes need to be
winkled out; and of the warm
whelkome that all his music invariably receives. I believe we may be embarking upon a whole new set of perceived relationships between Mozart and Marine Life in general.
I am relieved to learn it, Alan; I didn't like to think I had misclammed . . . .
Don't hog all the puns; it's shellfish.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 27, 2012, 11:17:38 PM
Don't hog all the puns; it's shellfish.
;D :D ;D
This thread is mistitled. Should be: the Joke Thread.
Sarge
I wouldn't be surprised if Tippett and Koechlin were added to someone's "composers you don't get" list. I've read several people have difficulty with both of these musical lone wolves. For my own list, I still struggle with Holmboe but I'm not giving up! I think there's something there, I just haven't found it yet. The same with Messiaen, though I do like some of his music.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 28, 2012, 06:08:11 PMI wouldn't be surprised if Tippett and Koechlin were added to someone's "composers you don't get" list.
Tippett's on this list. Koechlin is on the "If only I had the money and the time!" list, which is quite separate.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 28, 2012, 06:18:36 PM
Tippett's on this list. Koechlin is on the "If only I had the money and the time!" list, which is quite separate.
Koechlin's recordings on Hanssler can be purchased for decent prices through Amazon MP. I usually recommend people
The Jungle Book, but this recording is OOP, but can be found used on Amazon MP for a good price. As far as the time to put in and understand Koechlin, well that's really hard to say because I didn't like his music at all when I first heard it. There was something though I found appealing in the music or I wouldn't have revisited it. One of the most important things in Koechlin is much of his music is devoid of drama or at least drama in the Romantic sense. A lot of his music builds from texture and the melodies aren't exactly memorable per se, but the overall lushness of the music pulled me right in and I soon discovered that there was a whole exotic world under the surface of this music.
Tippett is another composer who I didn't initially like when I first heard him, but, like with Koechlin, there was something in the music that I connected with. Works like
Ritual Dances,
Fantasia Concertante on a Theme of Corelli,
Piano Concerto, and
Concerto for Double String Orchestra were approachable for me, but when I got to the symphonies,
Concerto for Orchestra, and
Triple Concerto I was almost immediately turned off. I guess because the style was so different from his first period works. Anyway, I'm proud to say that most of his music doesn't give me any kind of problems these days, but there are still a few later works that I just have say "WTF? ???" :D
All the samples I've heard of Koechlin sound very appealing. Tippett, OTOH.... I have that Australian Eloquence CD that everyone said was a great introduction and didn't like it. As a lover of symphonies, it's possible I may prefer that part of his opus.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 28, 2012, 06:39:35 PM
All the samples I've heard of Koechlin sound very appealing. Tippett, OTOH.... I have that Australian Eloquence CD that everyone said was a great introduction and didn't like it. As a lover of symphonies, it's possible I may prefer that part of his opus.
Tippett's symphonies are all outstanding IMHO, but my opinion may be a little biased. ;) The symphonies that get the most criticism are the 3rd and 4th. These are, for newcomers to his music, tough nuts to crack. The 4th symphony, if you read about the symphony and it's program (and it does have a program, don't let anyone tell you it doesn't), is supposed to be about the circle of life: from life to death. The last movement, or section, depending on how it's divided up on a recording, actually features human breathing. This breathing signifies death, but if this breathing isn't done correctly, and what I mean by this is ethereally, then it come off sounding cliche or just plain trite. Thankfully, Hickox's performance on Chandos does full justice to this work. Stay away from Solti's performance! It's really just awful.
Quote from: Bulldog on March 26, 2012, 02:01:42 PM
What we have here is a tendency to believe that what one greatly enjoys must be a masterpiece. This attitude is displayed daily on the board and has always puzzled me.
I can only hope to be this wise. Another composer that I have a hard time with is Wagner.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 28, 2012, 06:49:43 PM
Tippett's symphonies are all outstanding IMHO, but my opinion may be a little biased. ;) The symphonies that get the most criticism are the 3rd and 4th. These are, for newcomers to his music, tough nuts to crack. The 4th symphony, if you read about the symphony and it's program (and it does have a program, don't let anyone tell you it doesn't), is supposed to be about the circle of life: from life to death. The last movement, or section, depending on how it's divided up on a recording, actually features human breathing. This breathing signifies death, but if this breathing isn't done correctly, and what I mean by this is ethereally, then it come off sounding cliche or just plain trite. Thankfully, Hickox's performance on Chandos does full justice to this work. Stay away from Solti's performance! It's really just awful.
The problems with badly-executed breathing in the symphony may be solved by the solution that Tippett used in his own recording of the work; samples played on a MIDI keyboard replacing any live "performance." (Not that I think that would have rescued Solti's recording; the treatment of the work as a concerto for the CSO brass is a bigger offender in my ears than the sounds of an asthmatic Darth Vader.)
The composer's recordings of the 2nd and 4th symphonies probably make a good cheap dip into his symphonic world; there's probably still quite a few copies of the original issue (as a cover disc for BBC Music Magazine) around at very low prices, and the performances are more than satisfactory.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 28, 2012, 06:39:35 PM
All the samples I've heard of Koechlin sound very appealing. Tippett, OTOH.... I have that Australian Eloquence CD that everyone said was a great introduction and didn't like it. As a lover of symphonies, it's possible I may prefer that part of his opus.
What's on it? If I had to choose a single work which might be apt to appeal to the most listeners, cold, it would likely be the Corelli Fantasia. Now, watch that be one of the pieces you particularly cannot bear . . . .
Isn't 'Genius' an ever concentrating circle? Follow me:
Let's start with British Composers. You get ONE. Then, that Composer gets put into the next Category, say 20th Century European Composers. You get THREE (or what have you). Then, you put those Composers into the next Category, and so on and so on, until, literally, the cream rises to the top. Genius should be an ever DWINDLING number, not an ever increasing number.
No?
That's the only thing that hits me about 'Genius': we should always be willing to CUT instead of ADD. There must still be some exclusivity in this feel good, diversity world gone mad.
Not sure how to describe that post, but it isn't genius.
Venn diagrams? I think Snypps is onto Venn diagrams. ;D
BTT. For me, some composers I don't "get" are: Joannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart, Robert Schumann, Hector Berlioz, Richard Strauss, Anton Webern, John Rutter (oops), Pierre Boulez.
Quote from: edward on March 29, 2012, 04:52:17 AM
The problems with badly-executed breathing in the symphony may be solved by the solution that Tippett used in his own recording of the work; samples played on a MIDI keyboard replacing any live "performance." (Not that I think that would have rescued Solti's recording; the treatment of the work as a concerto for the CSO brass is a bigger offender in my ears than the sounds of an asthmatic Darth Vader.)
The composer's recordings of the 2nd and 4th symphonies probably make a good cheap dip into his symphonic world; there's probably still quite a few copies of the original issue (as a cover disc for BBC Music Magazine) around at very low prices, and the performances are more than satisfactory.
Actually, NMC has reiussed the Tippett conducted performance of the 2nd and 4th. I bought it a couple of days ago. I believe you made a comment on it when I bought it. I'm really looking forward to hearing it. No, Solti's slam bam approach doesn't work with Tippett's 4th at all and it's pretty offensive that he would treat the work that way, but, as I said on the Tippett thread, he wasn't good at conducting British music anyway.
Quote from: Velimir on October 11, 2011, 10:18:04 AM
I do have some problems with Berlioz. Somebody said that his music consisted of attempts to go mad without ever quite succeeding. There's something to that.
Another one I don't get - Debussy. Yeah, I know he's supposed to be great and modern and all that. But his work just sounds like mush to me.
Come to think of it, I have a general problem with the French musical aesthetic. Too much atmosphere and perfume and effects; not enough structural rigour.
I hear you, re: Berlioz: http://ionarts.blogspot.de/2012/03/ionarts-at-large-berlioz-damnation.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.de/2012/03/ionarts-at-large-berlioz-damnation.html)
QuoteLa Damnation de Faust should not feel as long as Les Troyens. Now, Stéphane Denève knows more about conducting Berlioz than I know listening to the composer, and therefore I should seek faults on my part first. I'm a troubled Berlioz-listener. In abstract I admire his phenomenal skill in orchestration, or the innovative use of instrumentation. But when I listen to the undisputable master of episodic phantasmorgasm, I often feel like I have ADD. Appropriate for the Will-o-the-Wisp Minuet, granted. But I look with some desperation to a conductor to take me by the ear and pull me from beginning to end, without the mind beginning to wander...
Debussy's
Pelleas was a break-through work for me. Like a different composer, from that darn post meridiem demi-goat.
I had to work hard to 'get' most composers. Only select Bach and especially Haydn came
really naturally. Haydn I have loved equally at age 5 and 35.
Bartok. Was reminded of this this morning when I heard the finale of his 3rd string quartet. His material doesn't interest me, and what he does with it doesn't interest me. I've given him plenty of chances.
Schnittke is another composer I just don't get and I don't think I'll ever get. Bare in mind, that it's not the composer's fault that I dislike his music. I simply just don't like the way he composes music. His style seems so cold and distant.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 28, 2012, 06:08:11 PM
For my own list, I still struggle with Holmboe but I'm not giving up! I think there's something there
*The forum's brand new wild Holmboe enthusiast bounces in*
Absolutely there is! And I personally adore the process of finding it.
But I tend to subscribe to similar views to mc urkneal a few pages back. One person's ranking of pieces and composers will be different to another because we all value different things in music. My priorities are not anyone else's priorities. The best anyone can do is TRY to articulate why they like the things they like, and don't like the things they don't - which requires a fair bit of self-awareness - so that others can assess the similarities and differences with their own 'priorities' or push-button issues.
For example, the whole reason I got on the Holmboe train myself was not just the positive reviews (mostly in the Penguin Guide), but the
kind of positive reviews and what they said - remarks about form and development and structure, and comparisons with other composers that I already responded to. When someone gets compared to Sibelius and Shostakovich it sparks my interest. For someone else, a comparison to Sibelius and Shostakovich might not be a recommendation at all. I already suspected I would like Holmboe before I heard a note. Happily, the suspicion turned out to be correct.
It's no different for any other subject. For example, hotel reviews in TripAdvisor. When someone complains/gives a low score because of some issue I don't care about much, I don't rule out the hotel. When some gives a high score because of issues I do care about, the hotel goes towards the top of the list.
Also... I do tend to think that artists improve with age, but it's not always true. In the field of painting, later de Chirico is widely panned as vastly inferior to his early work.
Quote from: orfeo on March 29, 2012, 06:33:01 PM
*The forum's brand new wild Holmboe enthusiast bounces in*
Absolutely there is! And I personally adore the process of finding it.
But I tend to subscribe to similar views to mc urkneal a few pages back. One person's ranking of pieces and composers will be different to another because we all value different things in music. My priorities are not anyone else's priorities. The best anyone can do is TRY to articulate why they like the things they like, and don't like the things they don't - which requires a fair bit of self-awareness - so that others can assess the similarities and differences with their own 'priorities' or push-button issues.
For example, the whole reason I got on the Holmboe train myself was not just the positive reviews (mostly in the Penguin Guide), but the kind of positive reviews and what they said - remarks about form and development and structure, and comparisons with other composers that I already responded to. When someone gets compared to Sibelius and Shostakovich it sparks my interest. For someone else, a comparison to Sibelius and Shostakovich might not be a recommendation at all. I already suspected I would like Holmboe before I heard a note. Happily, the suspicion turned out to be correct.
It's no different for any other subject. For example, hotel reviews in TripAdvisor. When someone complains/gives a low score because of some issue I don't care about much, I don't rule out the hotel. When some gives a high score because of issues I do care about, the hotel goes towards the top of the list.
Also... I do tend to think that artists improve with age, but it's not always true. In the field of painting, later de Chirico is widely panned as vastly inferior to his early work.
Well I'm glad you like Holmboe's music. I simply do not and can't find anything redeeming about it other than to say it's pretty lifeless sounding to me, but a lot of it could be attributed to the BIS set I own which isn't all that impressive performance-wise either. I guess, at the end of the day, I just don't connect with the music because, to me, it lacks substance. Structure alone doesn't sell a composer for me. I respond emotionally to a piece of music whether it be a harmonic voicing that I find appealing or a rhythm that just hits me in the gut. With Holmboe, I get nothing, but, again, I'm glad you enjoy the music.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 29, 2012, 06:45:13 PM
Well I'm glad you like Holmboe's music. I simply do not and can't find anything redeeming about it other than to say it's pretty lifeless sounding to me, but a lot of it could be attributed to the BIS set I own which isn't all that impressive performance-wise either. I guess, at the end of the day, I just don't connect with the music because, to me, it lacks substance. Structure alone doesn't sell a composer for me. I respond emotionally to a piece of music whether it be a harmonic voicing that I find appealing or a rhythm that just hits me in the gut. With Holmboe, I get nothing, but, again, I'm glad you enjoy the music.
Thanks. And I think you're just illustrating that so much of it is about personal preferences. There are composers where I'm responding to them more on the intellectual, construction side of things, and less on the emotional, hit-me-in-the-gut side of things. And Holmboe is definitely one of those. I don't know that any of his work moves me in the profoundly emotional way that some others can. The 8th symphony probably comes closest, but even that's still a sense of excitement and awe rather than deep, profound emotion.
And for you, Holmboe doesn't supply the things you want music to supply. I can completely understand that.
Quote from: orfeo on March 29, 2012, 06:58:17 PM
Thanks. And I think you're just illustrating that so much of it is about personal preferences. There are composers where I'm responding to them more on the intellectual, construction side of things, and less on the emotional, hit-me-in-the-gut side of things. And Holmboe is definitely one of those. I don't know that any of his work moves me in the profoundly emotional way that some others can. The 8th symphony probably comes closest, but even that's still a sense of excitement and awe rather than deep, profound emotion.
And for you, Holmboe doesn't supply the things you want music to supply. I can completely understand that.
As a listener, isn't it always about personal subjectivity and preferences? We respond to what we respond to and at the end of the day we may say x composer does this for me and y composer does that for me, but music is such a personal thing that I don't think we can really explain why we love the things we love. I mean sure we can certainly try and I know I
try to stress to people what I look for in music but it's incredibly difficult for me to do. Although I did say I'm hit by music emotionally, I'm captivated by it intellectually as well or else I wouldn't bother to keep listening. Emotion only goes so far, it's what is said to you after the music has stopped that is more profound than what has come before. Does that make any sense?
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 29, 2012, 07:05:46 PM
As a listener, isn't it always about personal subjectivity and preferences? We respond to what we respond to and at the end of the day we may say x composer does this for me and y composer does that for me, but music is such a personal thing that I don't think we can really explain why we love the things we love. I mean sure we can certainly try and I know I try to stress to people what I look for in music but it's incredibly difficult for me to do. Although I did say I'm hit by music emotionally, I'm captivated by it intellectually as well or else I wouldn't bother to keep listening. Emotion only goes so far, it's what is said to you after the music has stopped that is more profound than what has come before. Does that make any sense?
About as much as anything said in words about the language of music can!
btw- I'm just trying to keep this Thread On Topic! ;) ;D
I also think that I 'get' EVERY Composer, because I judge them all according to their own paradigms. No one surprises me... context context context!!!
Quote from: eyeresist on March 29, 2012, 04:34:53 PM
Bartok. Was reminded of this this morning when I heard the finale of his 3rd string quartet. His material doesn't interest me, and what he does with it doesn't interest me. I've given him plenty of chances.
I was of the same mind until I heard his lone opera and his tone poems. I also find his piano concertos (Boulez) very enjoyable.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 29, 2012, 05:12:22 PM
Schnittke is another composer I just don't get and I don't think I'll ever get. Bare in mind, that it's not the composer's fault that I dislike his music. I simply just don't like the way he composes music. His style seems so cold and distant.
Have you tried his Concero Grossi? I have similar sentiments when it comes to his concertos and symphonies, but I really enjoyed his handling of these chamber pieces.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 29, 2012, 04:34:53 PM
Bartok. Was reminded of this this morning when I heard the finale of his 3rd string quartet. His material doesn't interest me, and what he does with it doesn't interest me. I've given him plenty of chances.
I can find some of Bartok interesting, like his 4th and 6th quartets. But I do find his musical ideas to be boring quite often, the exotic side of it just isn't enough for me.
And with Berlioz I suppose you could say having a beautiful sound to the music isn't always enough.
Quote from: snyprrr on March 29, 2012, 07:31:37 PM
I also think that I 'get' EVERY Composer, because I judge them all according to their own paradigms. No one surprises me... context context context!!!
Absolutely. Just about every composer will have done work somebody will be able to like somewhere, it's a matter of how much patience you have. As there is so much music out there, inevitably some people will get more priority than others in your listening.
And on the question of emotion that was brought up, I think all music needs some emotion and the performer has to find that. But however emotively done a performance is the actual material conveyed has to be interesting enough to the listener. What makes a memorable motif or melody? Probably something that is individual and not that generic, and which has good contrast within a piece and inspires good drama and/or development while also allowing a fluent enough flow of musical ideas. And over time with accumulated listening and increased understanding of styles opinions on these factors can develop and change.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 29, 2012, 07:05:46 PM
As a listener, isn't it always about personal subjectivity and preferences?
Not always. Thank heaven, the truth is richer than that.
Quote from: snyprrr on March 29, 2012, 07:27:34 PM
btw- I'm just trying to keep this Thread On Topic! ;) ;D
And you're the man to do it! [wink, wink]
Quote from: eyeresist on March 29, 2012, 04:34:53 PM
Bartok. Was reminded of this this morning when I heard the finale of his 3rd string quartet. His material doesn't interest me, and what he does with it doesn't interest me. I've given him plenty of chances.
Oh, you simply
must hear Bartok String Quartets live!! First or second row with a favorite quartet. When you see them bop and hop and sweat and the second violinist's shock of hair flopping back and forth madly, and the first violinist puckers his lips in delight, along with the pizzicato sections, that's when the magic begins to happen. Your ears will listen to the inescapable power of rhythm, rather than something else... and conversion is but minutes away. :-)
Also: Bluebeard, as mentioned above, is a great ticket. Open that fifth door and it's like being flooded with a cinematic flight of epic proportions.
In any case, the whole idea of "I don't get XYZ" as I understand it -- hopeless cases like Rutter excepted -- is the underlying, implicit question: "What can I do to 'get it'"? Where am I lacking or thinking in the wrong direction?" This should not - and hopefully isn't - the cul-de-sac of threads on GMG, where we go and dump our musical ignorances with one last, relieved sigh... but the catalyst where we get new ideas how to appreciate Verdi or Bartok or Berlioz or Schnittke. Or at least why others can and do. Which is really what makes music so wonderfully interesting, given enough time and will to invest into it. It's what keeps the museum-culture of classical music from quite devouring us yet.
Quote from: jlaurson on March 30, 2012, 04:46:10 AM
-- hopeless cases like Rutter excepted --
(* pounds the table *)
Quote from: karlhenning on March 30, 2012, 03:28:06 AM
And you're the man to do it! [wink, wink]
gggeee-yuk!! ;)
btw- your new avatar is giving me a strobe-ache ??? ??? ??? Is that one of the military's new disorienting weapons?
You are getting sleeeeepy, you vill listen to ze Telemann . . . .
Quote from: jlaurson on March 30, 2012, 04:46:10 AM
hopeless cases like Rutter excepted
There's always a superlative degree. His name is Karl Jenkins. :-X
Quote from: orfeo on March 29, 2012, 06:33:01 PM
I already suspected I would like Holmboe before I heard a note. Happily, the suspicion turned out to be correct.
Same, this happened to me with Havergal Brian too (to a lesser extent) and others. It's a strange feeling.
Quote from: jlaurson on March 30, 2012, 04:46:10 AM
but the catalyst where we get new ideas how to appreciate Verdi or Bartok or Berlioz or Schnittke. Or at least why others can and do.
Often though I'm not sure people express too well
why they like something beyond that they think a work is a masterpiece or a composer a genius.
Quote from: starrynight on March 30, 2012, 11:55:58 AM
Often though I'm not sure people express too well why they like something beyond that they think a work is a masterpiece or a composer a genius.
Not without prodding, no. But it's what I love about music... trying to find words that will enthuse others... or gently bends their ear a certain way that allows them to appreciate something they hitherto hadn't quite.
Quote from: Philoctetes on March 29, 2012, 10:23:45 PM
Have you tried his Concero Grossi? I have similar sentiments when it comes to his concertos and symphonies, but I really enjoyed his handling of these chamber pieces.
Actually, yes, I do recall enjoying one of his
Concerto Grossi. I think it may be the first. I also like his ballet
Peer Gynt a lot, but wish it had a better performance. I imagine the Berliners or the Concertgebouw having a field day with this work. What I like about the work is it seems like there's a purpose to the music and a rhythmic drive that helped me get inside of the work more. It also contains some lyrical passages that I thought were surprising for Schnittke.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 30, 2012, 03:26:31 AM
Not always. Thank heaven, the truth is richer than that.
Oh,you believe that artistic quality can be objectively measured and quantified! That's cute.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 31, 2012, 02:04:08 AM
Oh,you believe that artistic quality can be objectively measured and quantified! That's cute.
Of course it can. Certain elements of it, at any rate. The experience is always a mix of the objective and the subjective... it's just often very difficult to parse which is which and to what degree and so forth. But the idea that a concert experience is
only subjective is as wild as some critics pretense that it isn't subjective at all.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 31, 2012, 02:04:08 AM
Oh,you believe that artistic quality can be objectively measured and quantified! That's cute.
Oh, you went from one boxtop simplification to its opposite! That's cute.
To repeat for the reading impaired: Thank heaven, the truth is richer than that.
Quote from: jlaurson on March 31, 2012, 02:11:17 AM
Of course it can. Certain elements of it, at any rate. The experience is always a mix of the objective and the subjective... it's just often very difficult to parse which is which and to what degree and so forth. But the idea that a concert experience is only subjective is as wild as some critics pretense that it isn't subjective at all.
As tidily put as can be, thank you, Jens.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 31, 2012, 04:53:46 AM
Thank heaven, the truth is richer than that.
I'd like to join you in the thanking process, Karl, if I may?
Always welcome, Alan. The Shed has been an aid in my getting yet more and more composers (all of whom are contained therein).
Quote from: karlhenning on March 31, 2012, 05:05:02 AM
Always welcome, Alan. The Shed has been an aid in my getting yet more and more composers (all of whom are contained therein).
If the Shed reaches top capacity you might have to become Karl "Two Sheds" Henning.
Mozart is still a composer I don't get at all. All of his works, that I've heard thus far, drive me to boredom, tedium, and ultimately to sleep. Obviously I'm not going to stop trying, but I've not really had any luck yet.
I'd go with Brahms and Hindemith. It seems they outsmart their own ideas. Something beautiful is often immediately developed out of its original form, never to be heard the same way again. "Wow, that's powerful," I'll say. As soon as I utter this the music is going somewhere else. They're both great composers but they take my dinner to the kitchen before I'm half finished...
Quote from: Rons_talking on June 27, 2013, 03:37:13 PM
I'd go with Brahms and Hindemith. It seems they outsmart their own ideas. Something beautiful is often immediately developed out of its original form, never to be heard the same way again. "Wow, that's powerful," I'll say. As soon as I utter this the music is going somewhere else. They're both great composers but they take my dinner to the kitchen before I'm half finished...
The best description I ever read of my own reservations. ::)
I've always struggled a bit with Villa Lobos - but am enjoying his Symphony No 4.
Quote from: vandermolen on June 28, 2013, 02:49:10 AM
I've always struggled a bit with Villa Lobos - but am enjoying his Symphony No 4.
FWIW . . . I love the string quartets, and like the Bachianas brasileiras all right.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 28, 2013, 04:36:29 AM
First-Listen Fridays! Hat-tip to Jeffrey (vandermolen):
Hanson
Elegy in memoriam Serge Koussevitsky
Seattle Symphony
Schwarz
[asin]B005YD11NS[/asin]
Morning, Karl.
I like Hanson, in fact I went through a Hanson, Diamond, Hovhanass phase when Schwarz and Seattle began releasing these discs years ago. Hovhanass is the one that stuck around the longest with me, but there's some good music to be found with the other two.
Wrong thread! Although for long, I have not thought much of Hanson, as the result of a negative experience rehearsing a band transcription of a movement from (IIRC) the Nordic Symphony.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 28, 2013, 04:54:08 AM
Wrong thread!
We better get out of here before someone rolls in with,
"You're out of order! This whole thread is out of order!"
Quote from: karlhenning on June 28, 2013, 04:29:04 AM
FWIW . . . I love the string quartets, and like the Bachianas brasileiras all right.
What about the
Chôros?
Have not yet checked them out.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 28, 2013, 06:35:27 AM
Have not yet checked them out.
Do! They are wonderful music, all of them. The
Introduction to the Choros, for guitar and orchestra, would probably work well as an introduction (what a surprise!). They are quite different from the
Bachianas brasileiras.
Quote from: North Star on June 28, 2013, 06:53:09 AM
Do! They are wonderful music, all of them. The Introduction to the Choros][/b], for guitar and orchestra, would probably work well as an introduction (what a surprise!). They are quite different from the Bachianas brasileiras.
On Mirror Image's behalf (though of course I agree with him), they are some of V-L's best music, and very wide ranging, from chamber to grand orchestral (one is really a piano concerto). (Though I am surprised you've not heard any of them yet.)
Quote from: vandermolen on June 28, 2013, 02:49:10 AM
I've always struggled a bit with Villa Lobos - but am enjoying his Symphony No 4.
To continue on the Choros highlighted by Karlo, you could also try the solo guitar with Norbert Kraft (Choros No.1 in this case) - this is stunning :
[asin]B00004YYRQ[/asin]
I do struggle with the Bachianas Brasilieras myself (i own the Batiz but not enjoying it - considering the Schermerhorn as an alternative to give it an other go).
Quote from: Papy Oli on June 28, 2013, 10:18:00 AM
To continue on the Choros highlighted by Karlo, you could also try the solo guitar with Norbert Kraft (Choros No.1 in this case) - this is stunning :
[asin]B00004YYRQ[/asin]
I do struggle with the Bachianas Brasilieras myself (i own the Batiz but not enjoying it - considering the Schermerhorn as an alternative to give it an other go).
+1 to the solo guitar music too, and the Andreas Molin recording in the BIS box is a great recording, Kraft must be good too, I have some of his recordings on a compilation disc.
Quote from: vandermolen on June 28, 2013, 02:49:10 AM
I've always struggled a bit with Villa Lobos - but am enjoying his Symphony No 4.
For me, it was almost love on first listen. I heard
Bachianas Brasileiras No. 7 and it was all over. :) Really do enjoy his symphonies, all of the
Choros, all of the symphonic poems,
The Discovery of Brazil Suites 1-4,
Forest of the Amazon, the SQs, all of the concerti I've heard, the ballets, the
Bachianas Brasileiras, a lot of the solo piano music, chamber music, etc. He really was such a master, but my love for his music shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here as my love for Latin American classical music is well documented on GMG.
Quote from: North Star on June 28, 2013, 06:53:09 AM
Do! They are wonderful music, all of them. The Introduction to the Choros, for guitar and orchestra, would probably work well as an introduction (what a surprise!). They are quite different from the Bachianas brasileiras.
Well, and that BIS set is now ca. $10 for the download version? Sacrée vache! No reason not to . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on June 29, 2013, 04:00:43 AM
Well, and that BIS set is now ca. $10 for the download version? Sacrée vache! No reason not to . . . .
That's quite a bargain!
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 28, 2013, 06:04:10 PM
For me, it was almost love on first listen. I heard Bachianas Brasileiras No. 7 and it was all over. :) Really do enjoy his symphonies, all of the Choros, all of the symphonic poems, The Discovery of Brazil Suites 1-4, Forest of the Amazon, the SQs, all of the concerti I've heard, the ballets, the Bachianas Brasileiras, a lot of the solo piano music, chamber music, etc. He really was such a master, but my love for his music shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here as my love for Latin American classical music is well documented on GMG.
This thread led me to take a look at Villa-Lobos, a composer of which I hadn't heard. I've ended up purchasing five recordings over the last few days. This music is quite wonderful. Thanks folks. I'm glad I keep up with GMG!
Quote from: milk on June 29, 2013, 04:54:23 PM
This thread led me to take a look at Villa-Lobos, a composer of which I hadn't heard. I've ended up purchasing five recordings over the last few days. This music is quite wonderful. Thanks folks. I'm glad I keep up with GMG!
Excellent! Do let us know your impressions of the music once you've had sufficient amount of time to absorb it.
Thanks for Villa Lobos advice, which I will act on. I like Chorus No 10 very much but have invariably struggled with the symphonies. I've just ordered a Naxos CD with symphs 3 and 4 on.
Thanks again. :)
Quote from: Philo on July 25, 2014, 12:43:43 PM
I'm planning on a marathon listening of Mozart's Symphonies soonish, maybe even this weekend. So please send in your recommendations, if you would.
Of the ones I've kept over the years (Bernstein DG, Bohm, Marriner/ASMF on Philips, and Hogwood), I listen most frequently to Hogwood. There's also a good 40 & 41 by Klemperer, a 35 by Harnoncourt, and the Prague by Mackerras on Telarc.
Mackerras also has a new series on Linn Records. SACD. I have it but I haven't listened to it much.
Quote from: Philo on July 25, 2014, 12:43:43 PM
I'm planning on a marathon listening of Mozart's Symphonies soonish, maybe even this weekend. So please send in your recommendations, if you would.
René Jacobs & Freiburger Barockorchester, and Mackerras & Scottish Chamber Orchestra (Linn). In fact, I just listened to Jacobs' recording of '
Jupiter', great,
great recording. I'm sure Klemperer's is different from it, though. 8)
Quote from: Philo on July 25, 2014, 12:43:43 PM
I'm planning on a marathon listening of Mozart's Symphonies soonish, maybe even this weekend. So please send in your recommendations, if you would.
Traditionally admired modern instrument recordings include Bohm, Walter, Szell. I would look to those first if you're looking for modern instrument big-band. I have always liked Bohm. However I would recommend H I P in general. Hogwood is usually my first choice, but Jacobs, and Pinnock are very good. Not all modern instrument recordings are big-band. You can pick up cheaply the vox set with Guenter Kehr. It is nicely done, sprightly tempos in general, avoiding some of the excesses of big band. A better set than many of the more famous versions from the 50s 60s 70s.
Quote from: North Star on July 25, 2014, 02:12:36 PM
In fact, I just listened to Jacobs' recording of 'Jupiter', great, great recording.
+1 (I have it in the Lumières box)
Quote from: Pat B on July 25, 2014, 03:58:31 PM
+1 (I have it in the Lumières box)
+1 8)
(I've heard the others on YouTube)
Quote from: Philo on July 25, 2014, 12:43:43 PM
I'm planning on a marathon listening of Mozart's Symphonies soonish, maybe even this weekend. So please send in your recommendations, if you would.
Harnoncourt.
I've been having trouble with Mozart my whole life. When I was four or five years old, my mom told me about how wonderful Mozart is (she was an occasional/informal classical listener) and took me to Circuit City (those were the days!) to buy a sampler CD. I recall not liking it at all, much preferring the other CD we got which had various (mostly baroque) things like Vivaldi "The Four Seasons", Bach "Brandenburg Cto. No. 3", Handel's "Water Music", etc. I loved these works. The only Mozart piece I liked back then was "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik".
I was 5 then. Now I am 23. I still don't like Mozart, except for "Symphony No. 41". I especially dislike No. 40, and I thought that No. 38 was boring (I have the score and listened to it recently). I heard a few piano concertos a few years ago (I forget which), and I felt the same way. At first, I thought "well, I guess I just don't like classical-era music." But, Haydn has become a favorite composer over the past few months, thanks to BBC's "Composer of the Week" that started me off and also to the enthusiastic Haydn fans here who have helped me along. I've read that Haydn was rather well-to-do (especially for a composer) and a very amiable person who loved his work. His music reflects this and it sounds like someone who is genuinely having a good time with music.
I really wish I liked Mozart more because there is obviously so much in his music -- otherwise, it wouldn't be so popular for so long. I also hate to come across as "that modernist who loves Bartok and Ligeti, but who hates anything earlier." It's weird. Mozart's music sounds uninspired and shallow to me, but I also feel shallow for not liking him. Maybe it just takes a certain level of maturity that I don't yet have.
I still need to hear Mozart's "Requiem", though. I suspect that I will like that because I've heard it is somewhat different from his other works.
Thoughts?
I have often read comments of readers who claimed that they "only liked the Requiem". I find this puzzling (I also find the Requiem somewhat overrated ::)). Of course, the Requiem has this "neo-baroque" elements, but this holds even more for the c minor Mass K 427. And a piece like Handel's "The ways of Zion do mourn", on which the great first part (Requiem aeternam dona eis) of Mozart's requiem is clearly based, is almost unknown, so I often think that people are more fascinated by the history/mystery of the Requiem's composition than judging the piece on aesthetic grounds.
I find a lot of the supposedly happy major key music of Mozart quite dramatic (e.g. Symphony #38) and you dislike #40 which is one of obviously dramatic minor key pieces, but if you have not heard them you might want to try some more candidates. Like the minor key piano concerti 20 K 466 and 24 K 491, the piano quartet and string quartet in g minor, the a minor piano sonata and the quartet in d minor K 421. Another "neo-baroque" piece is the adagio & fuge in c minor for strings.
The pieces closest to Haydn I can think of are the last two string quintets K 593 and 614, both also extraordinary pieces, especially the first one. K 593 seems to give a nod to Haydn's lark quartet in the first movement, 614 has a rather Haydnesque andante movement and the outer movements seem to refer to the first movement of the E flat major quartet from op.50 (#3 I think) and the finale of op.64/6.
Quote from: EigenUser on July 26, 2014, 01:33:38 AM
I've been having trouble with Mozart my whole life.
I was 5 then. Now I am 23. I still don't like Mozart, except for "Symphony No. 41". I especially dislike No. 40, and I thought that No. 38 was boring (I have the score and listened to it recently). I heard a few piano concertos a few years ago (I forget which), and I felt the same way.
I really wish I liked Mozart more because there is obviously so much in his music -- otherwise, it wouldn't be so popular for so long. I also hate to come across as "that modernist who loves Bartok and Ligeti, but who hates anything earlier." It's weird. Mozart's music sounds uninspired and shallow to me, but I also feel shallow for not liking him. Maybe it just takes a certain level of maturity that I don't yet have.
I still need to hear Mozart's "Requiem", though. I suspect that I will like that because I've heard it is somewhat different from his other works.
Thoughts?
I also struggled with Mozart for a while when I discovered classical music. I found Mozart's music sissy. I think you feel similar way, don't you? After a few years I understood it's not the music, it's me. What if I listen to it as sissy music and accept it as it is? Change my expectations and perspective. Guess what? Mozart started to work for me! It's kind of the best sissy music ever. His piano concertos where the first to really impress me. The music is like wondering around in a flower shop. You just have to admit flowers are beautiful, not sissy. This might be easier when you are older (I was about 40 when Mozart clicked - when I was 23 as you are now I thought ALL classical music is sissy! :D ).
My favorite Mozart symphony is no. 39, strangely overlooked compared to 40 and 41.
The thing with Mozart is he makes difficult things sound easy, so you kind of need to listen to it "closely" and carefully, no matter how easy it seems.
Quote from: Jo498 on July 26, 2014, 01:48:07 AM
I have often read comments of readers who claimed that they "only liked the Requiem". I find this puzzling (I also find the Requiem somewhat overrated ::)). Of course, the Requiem has this "neo-baroque" elements, but this holds even more for the c minor Mass K 427. I often think that people are more fascinated by the history/mystery of the Requiem's composition than judging the piece on aesthetic grounds.
I agree. K 626 is a bit overrated and K 427 is underrated, almost neglected.
Quote from: Jo498 on July 26, 2014, 01:48:07 AM
I have often read comments of readers who claimed that they "only liked the Requiem". I find this puzzling (I also find the Requiem somewhat overrated ::)). Of course, the Requiem has this "neo-baroque" elements, but this holds even more for the c minor Mass K 427. And a piece like Handel's "The ways of Zion do mourn", on which the great first part (Requiem aeternam dona eis) of Mozart's requiem is clearly based, is almost unknown, so I often think that people are more fascinated by the history/mystery of the Requiem's composition than judging the piece on aesthetic grounds.
I find a lot of the supposedly happy major key music of Mozart quite dramatic (e.g. Symphony #38) and you dislike #40 which is one of obviously dramatic minor key pieces, but if you have not heard them you might want to try some more candidates. Like the minor key piano concerti 20 K 466 and 24 K 491, the piano quartet and string quartet in g minor, the a minor piano sonata and the quartet in d minor K 421. Another "neo-baroque" piece is the adagio & fuge in c minor for strings.
The pieces closest to Haydn I can think of are the last two string quintets K 593 and 614, both also extraordinary pieces, especially the first one. K 593 seems to give a nod to Haydn's lark quartet in the first movement, 614 has a rather Haydnesque andante movement and the outer movements seem to refer to the first movement of the E flat major quartet from op.50 (#3 I think) and the finale of op.64/6.
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll listen to these next time I want to give him another chance.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 26, 2014, 02:46:07 AM
I also struggled with Mozart for a while when I discovered classical music. I found Mozart's music sissy. I think you feel similar way, don't you? After a few years I understood it's not the music, it's me. What if I listen to it as sissy music and accept it as it is? Change my expectations and perspective. Guess what? Mozart started to work for me! It's kind of the best sissy music ever. His piano concertos where the first to really impress me. The music is like wondering around in a flower shop. You just have to admit flowers are beautiful, not sissy. This might be easier when you are older (I was about 40 when Mozart clicked - when I was 23 as you are now I thought ALL classical music is sissy! :D ).
My favorite Mozart symphony is no. 39, strangely overlooked compared to 40 and 41.
The thing with Mozart is he makes difficult things sound easy, so you kind of need to listen to it "closely" and carefully, no matter how easy it seems.
I agree. K 626 is a bit overrated and K 427 is underrated, almost neglected.
Haha, that's a good way to put it, actually. I've done that with other music and it seems to work. For instance, I actually like some Boulez now because I just accept that it is "intellectual" (before that I was put off that it was coming from his mind, not heart). I used to dislike the third movement of the Ligeti Requiem, but I accept it as "terrifying" and it seems to work (still not my favorite Dies Irae, but I like it now). Even with Haydn, a year ago I would have said it was too proper. Sure it is proper, but it is damn good proper music.
Quote from: EigenUser on July 26, 2014, 01:33:38 AMMozart's music sounds uninspired and shallow to me, but I also feel shallow for not liking him.
Don't. Hating Mozart without giving him a try, because he's
that guy everyone loves.. THAT would be shallow. Give
Requiem a listen, it is a valid part of the classical canon after all - but don't feel like you're obliged to hear what others are hearing in Mozart's music.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 26, 2014, 02:46:07 AMThe music is like wondering around in a flower shop. You just have to admit flowers are beautiful, not sissy.
Hah, that's pretty much spot on. And it also makes the destruction of the flower shop (i.e.
Requiem) that much more powerful.
Quote from: Philo on July 25, 2014, 12:43:43 PM
I'm planning on a marathon listening of Mozart's Symphonies soonish, maybe even this weekend. So please send in your recommendations, if you would.
Nobody said
Krips, so I'm fixing that.
Quote from: Mandryka on July 25, 2014, 10:07:33 PM
Harnoncourt.
I highly endorse this.
Quote from: EigenUser on July 26, 2014, 01:33:38 AM
I still need to hear Mozart's "Requiem", though. I suspect that I will like that because I've heard it is somewhat different from his other works.
Thoughts?
Probably because he didn't write it. ;)
Quote from: EigenUser on July 26, 2014, 01:33:38 AM
... Now I am 23. I still don't like Mozart,
... It's weird. Mozart's music sounds uninspired and shallow to me, but I also feel shallow for not liking him. Maybe it just takes a certain level of maturity that I don't yet have.
I'm 67 and I still don't like Mozart's music. I know "it's not Mozart, it's me" but I've learned not to let it get to me.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 26, 2014, 02:46:07 AM
I also struggled with Mozart for a while when I discovered classical music. I found Mozart's music sissy. I think you feel similar way, don't you? After a few years I understood it's not the music, it's me. What if I listen to it as sissy music and accept it as it is? Change my expectations and perspective. Guess what? Mozart started to work for me! It's kind of the best sissy music ever. His piano concertos where the first to really impress me. The music is like wondering around in a flower shop. You just have to admit flowers are beautiful, not sissy. This might be easier when you are older (I was about 40 when Mozart clicked - when I was 23 as you are now I thought ALL classical music is sissy! :D ).
Quite the challenge. Liking a lot of Mozart's stuff is about as challenging as enjoying flowers in a flower shop. Doesn't exactly come natural.
Quote from: Philo on July 25, 2014, 12:43:43 PM
I'm planning on a marathon listening of Mozart's Symphonies soonish, maybe even this weekend. So please send in your recommendations, if you would.
[asin]B001L15C9Q[/asin]
Quote from: Rinaldo on July 26, 2014, 03:05:53 AM
Nobody said Krips, so I'm fixing that.
Sissy interpretations?
Quote from: Jay F on July 26, 2014, 06:20:11 AM
I don't know why it's required that everyone "get" everything in classical music. If someone likes something, good. If not, who cares? There are obviously enough people who like Wagner (or Madonna) that my not liking Wagner (or Madonna) has not made much of a difference in Wagner's (or Madonna's) sales figures each year.
It isn't required, of course. I remember reading about Glazunov and his opinions on modern music that was coming through at the turn of the century. He didn't like it, but rather than dismissing it and booing at concerts he would regularly listen to it in an attempt to figure it out and see what everyone was so excited about. I like this attitude very much and I've always felt this way about music. I can be dismissive at first and I've called several modern compositions "horrible" (I guess I shouldn't), but I do try. I even almost listened to "Gruppen" last night for this reason. Some people like it. Shouldn't there be something there? Mozart isn't modern (at least, not since the classical era!), but I think that the same logic applies. Many people like him, so what am I missing? A lot of times it turns out that I am missing something, but sometimes it turns out that the music just isn't to my taste. It is hard for me to tell when I start listening to a composer for the first time, but it becomes clearer as I hear more which of the two options apply.
Quote from: Jay F on July 26, 2014, 06:20:11 AM
Though there are countless things I'd rather do than listen to Wagner (or Madonna), I have had some limited success with listening to Brahms. I have never hated Brahms, however. I had simply, until hearing his chamber music, been bored by Brahms. However, I have listened to his symphonies as conducted by Janowski and Haitink (Boston), and I am no longer a Brahms orchestralphobe. Do I love him? No. Am I ever going to like him as much as I like Mahler? Not unless it is an unintended consequence of brain surgery I may have to have someday in the future. But I don't change the dial the minute I hear the name Brahms on the radio (as I do with Wagner [or Madonna]).
So, I wish you luck with Mozart. I hope he's your Brahms rather than your Wagner (or your Madonna).
Thanks! I feel exactly the same way that you felt about Brahms, by the way. I like the "sound" of his music, but it gets boring for me after a not-very-long time.
Also, I assumed that if I like Mahler then perhaps Wagner is next (don't most people who like Mahler also like Wagner?). I guess I might have been wrong.
Quote from: EigenUser on July 26, 2014, 02:58:12 AM
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll listen to these next time I want to give him another chance.
Haha, that's a good way to put it, actually. I've done that with other music and it seems to work. For instance, I actually like some Boulez now because I just accept that it is "intellectual" (before that I was put off that it was coming from his mind, not heart). I used to dislike the third movement of the Ligeti Requiem, but I accept it as "terrifying" and it seems to work (still not my favorite Dies Irae, but I like it now). Even with Haydn, a year ago I would have said it was too proper. Sure it is proper, but it is damn good proper music.
Listen closely, there are rather dissonant harmonies under the surface in
Mozart.
https://www.youtube.com/v/qUKPL0kJdME
Quote from: Henk on July 26, 2014, 06:32:22 AM
Sissy interpretations?
"This is
Classical Music at its very finest. You won't find Mozart anywhere else that is played with such lightness, radiating joy, and so being the epitome of musical tip-toeing. Yes, it sounds very different – luxuriously so – than Mozart coming from smaller, HIP groups, but not heavier per se, nor swooningly romantic.
Krips covers symphonies 21 to 41 and they are finally available separately again after having long shared box-set space with the unnecessary Neville Marriner-conducted early symphonies. Even with the excellent, moderately HIP Charles Mackerras / Prague set (Teldec) available, Krips should still be the first choice of any collection's allotment for Mozart symphonies."
Ionarts: Why Haydn Should be Mandatory (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-haydn-should-be-mandatory.html)
Quote from: EigenUser on July 26, 2014, 06:36:15 AMAlso, I assumed that if I like Mahler then perhaps Wagner is next (don't most people who like Mahler also like Wagner?). I guess I might have been wrong.
Though there may be commonalities, I, as a "Mahler Uber Alles" listener, am unable to perceive them to the extent that they enable me to like Wagner. However, I'm not a big fan of opera in general. I like
Die Zauberflote, Le Nozze di Figaro (speaking of Mozart),
La Traviata, and
La Boheme, and that's about it. I'm something of an anti-anti-Semite, as well, which has to inform my attitude towards Wagner at least a bit.
I have read from time to time that if you love Mahler, you'll also love Bruckner. I am not a Bruckner lover. I don't hate him. I like him, even. I definitely like him more than Brahms. But I know I don't have all of his symphonies. I had them once, all by HvK, but I let them go during a move a dozen years ago. And I don't miss them at all. I've reacquired some of them. I like Bernstein's interpretations most, I think. And Celibadache's. But there is no Bruckner symphony I like as much as my least favorite Mahler symphony (#1 or everything in #9 except the first movement).
My friend the music critic says more people who like Mahler also like rock and pop more than they like other classical music, and that is true of me.
And whoever called Mozart "sissy" music, well, my response to you would probably get me booted from GMG.
I do like Mozart, but he is definitely quite different to Haydn. Haydn is more... human. Somewhere out there is a quote I can't relocate, about Haydn being earthly and Mozart being heavenly, and I think there's an element of truth in that.
Mozart is more likely to dazzle you with the perfection of his technique, but Haydn is more likely to dazzle you with his wit. Or something like that. It's not to say that Mozart can't be witty, or that Haydn has no technique. We're talking about 2 giants of the musical world here. But nevertheless, their emphasis is a bit different.
I suppose another way of saying it, for me, would be that Mozart is a bit more intellectual and Haydn is a bit more emotional.
You could also argue that Haydn was followed by Beethoven, whereas Mozart was followed more by Schubert... and now, having opened up as many cans of worms as possible, I'll stop. ;D
Nietzsche writes about Mozart as being very "European music", more than Beethoven for example, who was more Nordic. Also Nietzsche says Mozart's music is about seeing Italian life. Those views are not contradictive as some might think.
BTW Beethoven's music is "music about music" according to Nietzsche.
Haydn is another composer I don't "get."
A composer I "got" in the past, for about just a few listenings, but now not anymore: Prokofiev.
But I don't want to like him, so there's no problem.
However, one might also want "to get" a composer to be able to judge the music.
Jo has given you excellent analysis.
The Requiem is over rated 427 under rated.
The best music is in the Piano Concerti, the operas, and some of the chamber music, especially the quintets of various flavors. K452.
That said my favorite is the Sinfonia Concertante K364
The PCs are not like flowers, they are like conversations or dates with winsome women. Forget the flower nonsense.
The key to Mozart is his underlying sadness. It is rarely overt though. It is like cumin in a delicately spiced pilaf. If you approach Mozart as happy flower man you have got him wrong. He is Apollonian to the bone. Mondrian, Monet, and Ingres, not Goya or Gericault.
40 in g minor is often I think misplayed. The opening is not upbeat. It is music of dread and apprehension, like near the end of Don Giovanni.
FWIW, I didn't really "get" Haydn for a long time, seeing him as "Papa". (That wretched epithet is as wrong as flowerboy.) I saw him as Mozart light, which is wrong. His goals are different and Haydn doesn't have the cumin. :)
Quote from: North Star on July 26, 2014, 06:43:54 AM
Listen closely, there are rather dissonant harmonies under the surface in Mozart.
https://www.youtube.com/v/qUKPL0kJdME
Let me max out my plus here. Cumin. :)
And to Jay's comment about needing to listen carefully. This seems to be deliberate on Mozart's part. His letters often speak of music for those who know that will still appeal to those who do not, and like phrases.
James's comments are interesting. Bach really is deeper. But Bach is deeper than anyone :). I don't quite agree with all James says, but it's an insightful comment.
I don't think "deeper" means a lot in this context. Charles Rosen and others have pointed out that Mozart's mastery of counterpoint was comparable to Bach's, but of course there are stylistic differences and dense counterpoint does not equal great or deep music. Otherwise Fux and Reger would be far greater composers than Schubert...
In any case Mozart excels both in fluid two-part-writing as in first mvmt of the last piano sonata K 576 as in rather dense polyphonic style in some of the church music, string quartets and quintets or the symphonies 38 and 41. And he combines this effortlessly with the classical style and beautiful lyrical melodies without ever sounding learned or contrived.
I never had any "problems" with Mozart, so it's hard to give hints what to listen for. But his music really encompasses a universally broad range of emotions, not only in the operas, although it might take some getting used to the nuances once blunted by Wagnerian and Straussian excesses (especially the latter revered Mozart, of course).
Great discussion, by the way!
Quote from: Jay F on July 26, 2014, 06:57:24 AM
I have read from time to time that if you love Mahler, you'll also love Bruckner. I am not a Bruckner lover. I don't hate him. I like him, even. I definitely like him more than Brahms. But I know I don't have all of his symphonies. I had them once, all by HvK, but I let them go during a move a dozen years ago. And I don't miss them at all. I've reacquired some of them. I like Bernstein's interpretations most, I think. And Celibadache's. But there is no Bruckner symphony I like as much as my least favorite Mahler symphony (#1 or everything in #9 except the first movement).
Yeah, my friend really likes Mahler (and Wagner). We had surprisingly never discussed Bruckner before so I assumed he liked him as well. He thought Bruckner was boring, much to my surprise. I've only heard the 4th and 7th. I liked them, but I definitely didn't love them, i.e. I felt no rush to further investigate his music, though I do plan to at some point. I recently bought scores for the 2nd and 3rd masses, the Requiem, and the 6th symphony for when the time is right (actually, both of the scores for the masses were falling apart, so the music store gave them to me ;D).
Oddly enough, I think that Schoenberg's "Chamber Symphony No. 1" was my entryway to Mahler -- the modernist "secret tunnel" approach :D. I discovered that piece a few months ago and it would explain why I like Mahler's 7th so much, as the first movement of the 7th has many similarities with Schoenberg's CS1.
Quote from: Ken B on July 26, 2014, 07:32:56 AM
FWIW, I didn't really "get" Haydn for a long time, seeing him as "Papa". (That wretched epithet is as wrong as flowerboy.) I saw him as Mozart light, which is wrong. His goals are different and Haydn doesn't have the cumin. :)
No, Haydn has the paprika. :laugh:
Quote from: Ken B on July 26, 2014, 07:32:56 AM
40 in g minor is often I think misplayed. The opening is not upbeat. It is music of dread and apprehension, like near the end of Don Giovanni.
Checking this:
Krips does it slow, Immerseel, Harnoncourt and Nelson rather upbeat.
Quote from: EigenUser on July 26, 2014, 01:12:19 PMOddly enough, I think that Schoenberg's "Chamber Symphony No. 1" was my entryway to Mahler -- the modernist "secret tunnel" approach :D. I discovered that piece a few months ago and it would explain why I like Mahler's 7th so much, as the first movement of the 7th has many similarities with Schoenberg's CS1.
Mahler's No. 7 is my current favorite (favoriteness switches among Nos. 7, 6, 2, and 3), so I must try this Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony No. 1.
Quote from: Jay F on July 26, 2014, 01:45:45 PM
Mahler's No. 7 is my current favorite (favoriteness switches among Nos. 7, 6, 2, and 3), so I must try this Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony No. 1.
It's a wonderful piece. If you've heard his "Verklarte Nacht", it's like that taken a few steps further in terms of modernism (if you haven't heard "Verklarte Nacht" you'd probably like that, too). Kind of like an emotional roller coaster ride, but with mostly positive/passionate emotions (at least, that's how it makes me feel -- someone on here said it leaves them cold, so everyone hears it differently).
Allow me to go against the grain and recommend Schoenberg's own full orchestration of the work (originally for a chamber orchestra 15 players). I wouldn't normally, but since you are coming from Mahler you might get more out of it. The original is great, too.
[asin]B00369K1GA[/asin]
Quote from: Jay F on July 26, 2014, 01:45:45 PM
Mahler's No. 7 is my current favorite (favoriteness switches among Nos. 7, 6, 2, and 3), so I must try this Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony No. 1.
For older
Schönberg, try also
Gurre-Lieder, massive Late-Romantic symphonic cantata!
Quote from: EigenUser on July 26, 2014, 01:52:57 PM
It's a wonderful piece. If you've heard his "Verklarte Nacht", it's like that taken a few steps further in terms of modernism (if you haven't heard "Verklarte Nacht" you'd probably like that, too). Kind of like an emotional roller coaster ride, but with mostly positive/passionate emotions (at least, that's how it makes me feel -- someone on here said it leaves them cold, so everyone hears it differently).
Allow me to go against the grain and recommend Schoenberg's own full orchestration of the work (originally for a chamber orchestra 15 players). I wouldn't normally, but since you are coming from Mahler you might get more out of it. The original is great, too.
[asin]B00369K1GA[/asin]
Yes, I have heard Verklarte Nacht. It came with Chailly's first Mahler recording, a complete version of No. 10. It has never made much of an impression one way or the other, but neither did his M10. I will try the Simon Rattle version. He did a
Berg/Schoenberg/Webern CD I like very much. I was going to look for this by him in any case, so I'm glad you like him, too.
Verklarte Nacht is, of course, supposed to be chamber music.
*wanders off grumbling about orchestrations left, right and centre*
Quote from: Philo on July 28, 2014, 01:39:01 PM
although listening through this batch did cause me to wonder how does a composition come to be categorized as a symphony.
It wasn't exactly a settled category at the time these were composed. You're listening to pieces from the period when the form was developing.
You're also, of course, listening to things composed by Mozart between the ages of 8 and 17 (except symphonies 2 and 3 which aren't even his). I wouldn't expect an enormous amount of depth, even from child geniuses.
Quote from: Ken B on July 26, 2014, 07:32:56 AM
40 in g minor is often I think misplayed. The opening is not upbeat. It is music of dread and apprehension, like near the end of Don Giovanni.
An interesting comment. I might not choose the word "dread" but it has always been gloomy to me -- definitely not cheerful music. I may have imprinted on Bernstein/DG, but now I also have Hogwood and Tafelmusik. I haven't played it in months, so I'll try to put one of those on tomorrow, and listen for any upbeatness.
Finnissey - its seems to be pastiche without passion, too subtle for me and I could care less about the references
Quote from: Pat B on July 28, 2014, 09:01:37 PM
An interesting comment. I might not choose the word "dread" but it has always been gloomy to me -- definitely not cheerful music. I may have imprinted on Bernstein/DG, but now I also have Hogwood and Tafelmusik. I haven't played it in months, so I'll try to put one of those on tomorrow, and listen for any upbeatness.
Mozart in g minor is always something special, gloomy and tragic are words I would choose.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on July 28, 2014, 09:47:06 PM
Finnissey
Yes, feel a bit the same way. I wonder if there are any fans here, people who connect with the music who could talk it up a bit. One thing I would say is that I find Ian Pace not the most communicative of pianists (Nicolas Hodges better)
Quote from: Philo on July 28, 2014, 01:39:01 PM
Made it through Mozart's first 24 symphonies:
01 Hogwood
02 Ward
03 Leinsdorf
04 Hogwood
05 Leinsdorf
06 Linden
07 Hogwood
08 Linden
09 ????
10 ????
11 ????
12 Aslan
13 Linden
14 Linden
15 Linden
16 Linden
17 Linden
18 Linden
19 Hogwood
20 Linden
21 Linden
22 Linden
23 Koopman
24 Linden
Bloody hell. You're a braver man than me. One of these early symphonies was used to great effect in a Martin Scorsese film called "After Hours"
When I listened to all Haydn symphonies (most of which I had heard before) around 2009 over a year, I always took one early and one late, e.g. 1+104, 2 +103 etc. So one does not get bogged down in early works or listens only to the most famous late ones for weeks.
Of Mozart's I remember Nr. 14 and 20 as quite charming, if I do not confuse the numbers. But admittedly, I hardly ever listen to any before 25 (which has been a favorite since I first heard it as a teenager).
Quote from: Jo498 on July 29, 2014, 01:51:35 AM
When I listened to all Haydn symphonies (most of which I had heard before) around 2009 over a year, I always took one early and one late, e.g. 1+104, 2 +103 etc. So one does not get bogged down in early works or listens only to the most famous late ones for weeks.
That's a brilliant idea! Too late for me, I guess. I've just been going through the ones I have the score to first and hearing them a few times. I'm trying to take my time. It would be easy to sit down and play all 104 of them over the course of a week or so, but I probably wouldn't remember any of them. It sounds silly, but every now and again I like testing myself and seeing if I can think of a random number from the ones I've heard and humming a melody from one of the movements (sometimes I can, sometimes I can't). So far I've heard 35 or so over the past three months.
By the way, something interesting I've noticed about "composers I don't get" (or don't like) is that when I show a friend music that I don't care for and they like it or find it interesting, I re-evaluate my own opinion (I'm very impressionable ;D). Last March I was visiting a friend in NYC who loves/plays music (and is very interested in classical music, though not his main area). I saw he had the
Sgt. Pepper's album on his wall in his apartment, so I pointed to a sketchy-looking figure in the very back of the crowd -- Karlheinz Stockhausen:
(http://www.beatlesnews.com/blog/images/stockhausen.jpg)
We went to his computer and I played
Kontakte for him (he turned up the volume quite loud, too). I was surprised at his reaction -- the wooshing electronic sounds made his eyes dart from one side of the room to the other. I don't think he would listen to it regularly, but he was absolutely intrigued by it.
Similarly, last week I showed a friend Crumb's
Black Angels. I was shocked when he said he liked it (he loves classical, but not as much modern as I do). I'm not entirely sure if he was joking, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't.
The Haydn symphony listening was supposed to be spread over one year, doing two symphonies a week, starting in 2008 and some people in a german language forum did participate, although for several reasons it was never completely finished (a handful or two symphonies around 53 are still left over).
you can get all the scores online here:
http://www.haydn107.com/index.php?id=2&lng=1
Quote from: Philo on July 28, 2014, 01:39:01 PM
Made it through Mozart's first 24 symphonies. [...] To use a food analogy, I'd call them snack symphonies, tastes good but is altogether unfulfilling.
Mozart starts to become a real taste treat at #25.
Quote from: Philo on July 29, 2014, 09:08:35 AM
Ha! The music isn't bad at all. Just sort of blase. It's light, joyful, delightful. No. 25 through No. 35 today. I will say the amount of choices I have has improved quite a bit, and the works are all quite a bit meatier. None of the works have caught my ear yet, but I have enjoyed them, for at least a one-time listen. I can't imagine revisiting any of these pieces again, unless I come across some compelling reason. The music is still light. The music is still delightful, but it doesn't satiate, at least it doesn't satiate me. I don't feel like I'm wasting my time though, as I am enjoying this traversal quite a bit. Just nothing that has intrigued me yet.
25 Marriner
26 Linden
27 Bohm
28 Bohm
29 Karajan
30 Linden
31 Harnoncourt
32 Frieman
33 Kleiber
34 Bohm
35 Bohm
Indeed. Much of this stuff is juvenilia too. Nice but not great music. It gets better with 36 and 38, and the we get to the good stuff.
I am interested to see how you feel about the last 3. When I point out the obvious, they are on a higher plane, the lynch mobs form ... 8)
Quote from: Philo on July 29, 2014, 09:08:35 AM
Ha! The music isn't bad at all. Just sort of blase. It's light, joyful, delightful. No. 25 through No. 35 today. I will say the amount of choices I have has improved quite a bit, and the works are all quite a bit meatier. None of the works have caught my ear yet, but I have enjoyed them, for at least a one-time listen. I can't imagine revisiting any of these pieces again, unless I come across some compelling reason. The music is still light. The music is still delightful, but it doesn't satiate, at least it doesn't satiate me. I don't feel like I'm wasting my time though, as I am enjoying this traversal quite a bit. Just nothing that has intrigued me yet.
I won't disagree with Ken about the last 3, but I like 25 and 38 a lot too. I haven't heard Marriner's 25, but elsewhere he can be too polite for my taste. It might be worth listening to a different recording, after you finish your marathon.
I'm now listening to Tafelmusik's 40 as promised. Some sunlight shines through occasionally but the darkness is never far away. I hope that wasn't too much of a cliché. Anyway, I like it.
I'd rather listen to Mozart's 29, 33 or 34 than to most I have heard by Elgar, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams. They are worthy pieces, if not as great as his last four.
Quote from: Dundonnell on October 12, 2011, 03:58:20 PM
Mozart....apart from the last three symphonies.
Late Mahler.
Delius.
Rachmaninov...apart from the First Symphony and "The Bells".
Skalkottas.
Webern.
Largely agree with this although I like Mahler's 7th,9th and what exists of the 10th Symphony. I like some Delius (In a Summer Garden, the Piano Concerto and the Requiem) but not much. I listen to no Mozart but like the Clarinet Concerto. I would add Richard Strauss, Nicholas Maw, York Bowen, Elizabeth Lutyens and there are many more!
Mozart's music is the most profoundly human ever composed I think. But all the deepest, lightest, saddest, happiest, most memorable, etc music he composed—the stuff worth listening to more than once—is accounted for in some 60-70 works I'm estimating. Though subjective of course I think most people's lists won't be too dissimilar:
Nozze / DG / Cosi / Zauberflöte
Requiem / C Minor Mass
Piano Concertos 9 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27
Sinfonia Concertante
Clarinet Concerto
Symphonies 38 / 39 / 40 / 41
The last ten string quartets
String quintets 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6
Clarinet quintet
"Kegelstatt" Trio
Piano quartets
Divertimento for string trio K563
Some of the piano and violin sonatas (almost certainly K310, 457/475, 576, 379 and 526, but this depends on the listener I guess)
Gran Partita K361
[remaining spaces left open for subjectivity]
Not that there's anything wrong with the other works, just that these in particular seem on a higher plane, and are difficult to even compare with the others. By comparison, with Haydn virtually all of the works are of the same (high, if perhaps not quite as sublime as Mozart's greatest) quality, containing so many surprises, emotional extremes and memorable ideas as to make his output seem inexhaustible.
Anyway, for "composers I don't get"... Merzbow.
Quote from: amw on July 30, 2014, 12:08:24 AM
Mozart's music is the most profoundly human ever composed I think. But all the deepest, lightest, saddest, happiest, most memorable, etc music he composed—the stuff worth listening to more than once—is accounted for in some 60-70 works I'm estimating. Though subjective of course I think most people's lists won't be too dissimilar:
Nozze / DG / Cosi / Zauberflöte
Requiem / C Minor Mass
Piano Concertos 9 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27
Sinfonia Concertante
Clarinet Concerto
Symphonies 38 / 39 / 40 / 41
The last ten string quartets
String quintets 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6
Clarinet quintet
"Kegelstatt" Trio
Piano quartets
Divertimento for string trio K563
Some of the piano and violin sonatas (almost certainly K310, 457/475, 576, 379 and 526, but this depends on the listener I guess)
Gran Partita K361
[remaining spaces left open for subjectivity]
Not that there's anything wrong with the other works, just that these in particular seem on a higher plane, and are difficult to even compare with the others. By comparison, with Haydn virtually all of the works are of the same (high, if perhaps not quite as sublime as Mozart's greatest) quality, containing so many surprises, emotional extremes and memorable ideas as to make his output seem inexhaustible.
Anyway, for "composers I don't get"... Merzbow.
One thing that struck me straight away is that there's a tough side to Mozart's music which is sometimes overlooked and yet, IMO, gave rise to some of his most interesting music. I'm thinking of things like the Fantasia and Fugue in F minor, the Adagio and Fugue in C minor for string quartet and Adagio in B minor for piano. I expect there are others I can't think of.
Quote from: Philo on July 30, 2014, 06:41:01 AM
37 Leinsdorf
Might wanna read this if you haven't already. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._37_(Mozart))
And if you didn't listen to any period-instrument recordings, you might want to retry 38-41 some day with Rene Jacobs and the Freiburg Baroque Orchestra. (Mackerras/Scottish Chamber Orchestra is my favorite modern-instrument version; as bold and lively as neon lights.)
EDIT:
http://www.youtube.com/v/d5UHKFI25YE
Quote from: Philo on July 30, 2014, 06:41:01 AM
Completed my Mozart Symphony cycle listen. Today was 36-41, and my prior statements still stand. I don't feel bad for having listened to these symphonies. I just don't feel anything drawing me in or even drawing me back to relisten to any of them SAVE No. 36. This is the one symphony in which I came away invigorated to go back and discover those lost nuances. It was moving and exciting and was the single symphony that didn't sound like it was just a piece of a quilt. No. 36 stood out to me, and simply discovering that fact, made this whole project worthwhile.
36 Bohm (Relisten)
37 Leinsdorf
38 Honek
39 Harnoncourt
40 Bernstein
41 Haitink
Well if you like 36 so much I'll let you know that there's a sort of stand-out version which many people, including myself, cherish. That's the one by Brüggen on Philips.
Quote from: Philo on July 30, 2014, 06:41:01 AM
and my prior statements still stand. I don't feel bad for having listened to these symphonies. I just don't feel anything drawing me in or even drawing me back to relisten to any of them
If I did the same project, I'd almost bet money I'd have the same exact reaction.
Quote from: amw on July 30, 2014, 12:08:24 AM
Mozart's music is the most profoundly human ever composed I think. But all the deepest, lightest, saddest, happiest, most memorable, etc music he composed—the stuff worth listening to more than once—is accounted for in some 60-70 works I'm estimating. Though subjective of course I think most people's lists won't be too dissimilar:
Nozze / DG / Cosi / Zauberflöte
Requiem / C Minor Mass
Piano Concertos 9 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27
Sinfonia Concertante
Clarinet Concerto
Symphonies 38 / 39 / 40 / 41
The last ten string quartets
String quintets 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6
Clarinet quintet
"Kegelstatt" Trio
Piano quartets
Divertimento for string trio K563
Some of the piano and violin sonatas (almost certainly K310, 457/475, 576, 379 and 526, but this depends on the listener I guess)
Gran Partita K361
[remaining spaces left open for subjectivity]
Not that there's anything wrong with the other works, just that these in particular seem on a higher plane, and are difficult to even compare with the others. By comparison, with Haydn virtually all of the works are of the same (high, if perhaps not quite as sublime as Mozart's greatest) quality, containing so many surprises, emotional extremes and memorable ideas as to make his output seem inexhaustible.
Anyway, for "composers I don't get"... Merzbow.
More or less. Left off the Piano and Wind Quintet, K452, which WAM considered (at that time ) the best music he ever wrote. I'd toss in PC 14 and out with PC 26.
Quote from: Greg on July 30, 2014, 07:35:30 AM
If I did the same project, I'd almost bet money I'd have the same exact reaction.
This does nothing for you?
http://www.youtube.com/v/2UpLYuSVgoQ
Quote from: karlhenning on July 30, 2014, 11:40:58 AM
This does nothing for you?
I like it.
There are a few Mozart works that I've liked, though I've heard several of the symphonies and either didn't care for them or felt that they could just be something different to listen to if I felt like it. And the assessment of it being nice music but not really deep is what I thought of what I heard (don't remember which ones, though, it's been a few years). I wouldn't be surprised if there were only maybe 5 of them total that I genuinely enjoyed listening to repeatedly.
But eventually I do plan to listen to them all, of course.
Quote from: Philo on July 30, 2014, 06:41:01 AM
Completed my Mozart Symphony cycle listen. Today was 36-41, and my prior statements still stand. I don't feel bad for having listened to these symphonies. I just don't feel anything drawing me in or even drawing me back to relisten to any of them SAVE No. 36. This is the one symphony in which I came away invigorated to go back and discover those lost nuances. It was moving and exciting and was the single symphony that didn't sound like it was just a piece of a quilt. No. 36 stood out to me, and simply discovering that fact, made this whole project worthwhile.
36 Bohm (Relisten)
37 Leinsdorf
38 Honek
39 Harnoncourt
40 Bernstein
41 Haitink
In almost 40 years I have never managed to listen to 37.
I saw it on a concert listing once with Sibelius's 8 and the fourth movement of Bruckner's 9 but just walked on by. Am I sorry now.
There is no #37. Mozart wrote a slow introduction to a symphony of Michael Haydn and apparently this was mistaken as one of Mozart's.
I wonder what kind of music people find "deep" if Mozart's #38 or #39 don't qualify?
I like Mozart, but I'm not sure how enthusiastic I would be about #39 if I had just listened to the previous 37.
While the minor-key works are usually the ones people who don't find Mozart "deep" enough are advised to listen to (esp K427, 491, 516 and 550) I think his "deepest" work may be the String Quintet K515, the prototype of Schubert's C major quintet.
That or K595.
Maybe I'm just weird.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 30, 2014, 11:40:58 AM
This does nothing for you?
http://www.youtube.com/v/2UpLYuSVgoQ
Verrry interesting! ;)
Quote from: Pat B on July 30, 2014, 03:10:39 PM
I like Mozart, but I'm not sure how enthusiastic I would be about #39 if I had just listened to the previous 37.
Yes, this crossed my mind as well. It doesn't matter who the composer is, churning through 10 or 15 works in a day is the very opposite of a way to find 'depth'. It doesn't make a lot of sense to skim across the surface of everything saying "show me depth". The Mariana Trench doesn't look deep if you zoom past it on a motorboat.
Quote from: amw on July 30, 2014, 03:16:10 PM
While the minor-key works are usually the ones people who don't find Mozart "deep" enough are advised to listen to (esp K427, 491, 516 and 550) I think his "deepest" work may be the String Quintet K515, the prototype of Schubert's C major quintet.
That or K595.
Maybe I'm just weird.
I had a friend --now a convicted felon, you decide -- who hated Mozart but loved Boulez and Ravebussy. (Did I mention the felon bit?). I played for him K427. He loved it and said the one guy who he was sure did not write it was Mozart.
I think the K 593 quintet may be the "deepest" quintet; in any case the last two seem to be somewhat neglected compared to 515/516.
I also agree that one will not get so much out of a Mozart symphony if ones listens to 5 or 10 in a row. Things tend to get blurred (and it would be the same with Bruckner's, only not many would even try to listen to 5 in a row).
Random thought while listening to some Mozart piano sonatas (K.570 at the moment): isn't being light one of the reasons to *like* Mozart?
I mean, everyone's been talking as if all the challenge is in being deep. But that isn't true. Being as light on your feet as Mozart is isn't something that just happens without talent or effort. Making music SOUND light can actually be pretty hard work. A lesser composer of the period is going to sound four-square or stodgy in comparison.
(And, speaking from my piano student days, playing Mozart to convey the grace and lightness is sometimes considerably more difficult than a composer who allows you to lay into the keyboard in a forceful fashion.)
Quote from: orfeo on July 31, 2014, 04:07:02 AM
Random thought while listening to some Mozart piano sonatas (K.570 at the moment): isn't being light one of the reasons to *like* Mozart?
I mean, everyone's been talking as if all the challenge is in being deep. But that isn't true. Being as light on your feet as Mozart is isn't something that just happens without talent or effort. Making music SOUND light can actually be pretty hard work. A lesser composer of the period is going to sound four-square or stodgy in comparison.
(And, speaking from my piano student days, playing Mozart to convey the grace and lightness is sometimes considerably more difficult than a composer who allows you to lay into the keyboard in a forceful fashion.)
Oh for sure. But some claim that because he sounds so deft and light he lacks depth. But you are right: he is Charlie Chaplin and most of his contemporaries are the Keystone Kops. :D
Quote from: Greg on July 30, 2014, 12:23:58 PM
I like it.
There are a few Mozart works that I've liked, though I've heard several of the symphonies and either didn't care for them or felt that they could just be something different to listen to if I felt like it. And the assessment of it being nice music but not really deep is what I thought of what I heard (don't remember which ones, though, it's been a few years). I wouldn't be surprised if there were only maybe 5 of them total that I genuinely enjoyed listening to repeatedly.
But eventually I do plan to listen to them all, of course.
Stout fellow!
Quote from: orfeo on July 31, 2014, 04:07:02 AM
Random thought while listening to some Mozart piano sonatas (K.570 at the moment): isn't being light one of the reasons to *like* Mozart?
I mean, everyone's been talking as if all the challenge is in being deep. But that isn't true. Being as light on your feet as Mozart is isn't something that just happens without talent or effort. Making music SOUND light can actually be pretty hard work. A lesser composer of the period is going to sound four-square or stodgy in comparison.
(And, speaking from my piano student days, playing Mozart to convey the grace and lightness is sometimes considerably more difficult than a composer who allows you to lay into the keyboard in a forceful fashion.)
Light is good (overture to Così, after the intro)
Heavy is good (Requiem - Lacrimosa)
Deep is best (contessa perdono - Figaro)
K 570 by the way seems to me more like Contessa Perdono than the others, at least potentially.
Quote from: Mandryka on July 31, 2014, 05:10:25 AM
K 570 by the way seems to me more like Contessa Perdono than the others, at least potentially.
There are definitely a few of the piano sonatas with operatic/vocal qualities.
Interesting discussion. I too fall into the camp of generally being pretty ambivalent towards Haydn and Mozart. But I think to an extent that stems from ploughing through string quartets, badly, at school.
I still struggle with Haydn if truth be told but I think that's partly because I've never really explored his "best" work - I don't even know what his best is. Mozart, on the other hand, I think is akin to eating out in an Italian restaurant. There's no point in paying big money in a restaurant for a bit of bruschetta or a slab of mozzarella with some basil leaves unless (1) it uses the very best ingredients and (2) it's PERFECTLY prepared. Similarly with Mozart, I generally found his music pretty dull, but I realised that at his very, very best his music is pretty much perfection. The late piano concertos and the operas, when they're played by the very best, are just out of this world.#
But the one I just don't get is Schubert. Beethoven - yes. Mendelssohn - yes. Schumann - a cautious yes, although I don't know enough of his music and probably wouldn't go out of my way to hear it. But Schubert just strikes me as being less complex, less tuneful, less emotional and just less interesting than Beethoven or any other contemporaries. That's just the instrumental music (I don't "do" songs). The "HIP Romantic recordings" thread has inspired me, however, and I've recently bought the Immerseel/Beths/Bylsma CD of the Schubert trios which is getting a good few airings. Perhaps I'll be turned?
Another one who I formerly didn't get but am making an effort with, with good results so far: CPE Bach.
Oh, and Dvorak. With a few exceptions (cello concerto, etc) it just leaves me cold.
Final question: why is Erik Satie so highly lauded? Is it that he was just a bit of an oddball and so gets a cult following, or am I missing something in his music?
I have the somewhat provocative idea that Schubert (who died a few months before turning 32) had only "found his style" in a few pieces and even the mature ones, great as they are in many respects, still show what could be conceived of as "weaknesses". A case in point are the last two piano sonatas D 959 and 960, revered pieces that many listeners count among the greatest music. Although others (or even the same ones) are puzzled how he can follow extraordinary "deep" and emotionally challenging slow movements with a somewhat run of the mill scherzo and finale, teeming with good-natured Viennese Laendler etc. Even the finale of what may be his greatest instrumental work, the string quintet, has a section I secretly dub "the Kaffeehausmusik".
Nevertheless, I think he solved those problems of form and balance of movements quite satisfactorily in the string quintet, quartets in d minor and G major, the C major symphony and the Trios. And if some of the piano sonatas may confuse the listener with a leisurely going Rondo after some heart wrenching slow movement, the best ones are very impressive anyway. Most of them are very broadly conceived and somewhat slow going, so one should not judge them with the concentration and density one would find in Beethoven.
Another interesting thing is that Schubert could be unconventional and almost terse, but he did this only twice in larger works, namely the "Wanderer" Fantasy and the violin fantasy. The former was one of the few instrumental works that were well known and influential in the 19th century. Liszt arranged it as a piano concerto with orchestra and the integrated form of his piano sonata ows quite a bit to the piece.
Quote from: eoghan on August 14, 2014, 01:29:24 AMBut the one I just don't get is Schubert. Perhaps I'll be turned?
Let's certainly hope so! :)
Quote from: eoghan on August 14, 2014, 01:29:24 AMAnother one who I formerly didn't get but am making an effort with, with good results so far: CPE Bach.
Tsk tsk. Hopefully you find JS, and the other sons, enjoyable?
Quote from: eoghan on August 14, 2014, 01:29:24 AMOh, and Dvorak. With a few exceptions (cello concerto, etc) it just leaves me cold.
Tsk tsk, reprise. A contender for the greatest Czech composer, and since there are several great ones (like Smetana), that's saying something. With very few exceptions, I find his work very admirable.
Quote from: eoghan on August 14, 2014, 01:29:24 AMFinal question: why is Erik Satie so highly lauded?
If he is, it is by his aficionados. Generally speaking, even finding his works in the racks is a miracle - and very rarely played on the classical stations. And on the stage? Bah. Now, this is not in itself a condemnation of the music, since, say, Bacewicz is only now getting recorded more and more, but rarely heard on western Classical stations or the stage, but while she is probably the greatest female composer of all time, this is an injustice, while Satie is of much lesser interest.
If you want Schubert at his best, try some of his lieder. They are genius. But if you want piano, try the impromptus. They are tuneful and rich and as good as anything he ever wrote.
Satie is the start of a clear shift away from romantacism, and he is often connected with the surrealists and minimalists. He is also credited for influencing the neoclassicists. The idea was to strip the music to its core, getting rid of all the romantic encumbrances. His music is quite interesting and he wrote numerous notes for his music, some of which are quite hilarious.
Quote from: eoghan on August 14, 2014, 01:29:24 AM
Interesting discussion.
One of my favorite threads here!
Quote from: eoghan on August 14, 2014, 01:29:24 AM
I still struggle with Haydn if truth be told [...]
I've been working slowly and steadily through his symphonies So far, I see him as a master craftsman in good spirits and with a good sense of humor. To me, some of his music brings to mind slapstick comedy in a very proper setting (maybe like the three stooges at Esterhazy's palace? :D). Okay, that's a bit extreme, but you get the idea.
Quote from: eoghan on August 14, 2014, 01:29:24 AM
Final question: why is Erik Satie so highly lauded? Is it that he was just a bit of an oddball and so gets a cult following, or am I missing something in his music?
I like Satie. I'm not familiar with his very small orchestral output, but I know some of his piano works. Like mc ukrneal said, he was a precursor to a lot of stuff in the 20th century (including
Les Six, who looked up to him rather than to Debussy and Ravel).
He was certainly an oddball. He didn't let anyone into his apartment for years. When he died and his friends went up to clear it out, they found some of the strangest things. Not bad, just strange. Like two pianos -- one stacked on top of the other, both unplayable. And a collection of
exactly 100 umbrellas. And 7 identical velvet suits.
Somehow I feel kind of bad for him, too. He had a rough start to life and lived in near-poverty for most of it. His
Pieces Froids ("Cold Pieces") was composed during the winter in a tiny unheated apartment. In the end, though, it (relatively) worked out and he has a secure place in music history for sure.
Now I want to listen to some Satie piano music later today!
Quote from: eoghan on August 14, 2014, 01:29:24 AM
[...] ploughing through string quartets, badly, at school [...]
Do you mean listening or playing? If playing, what instrument(s) do you play?
Quote from: eoghan on August 14, 2014, 01:29:24 AM
Final question: why is Erik Satie so highly lauded? Is it that he was just a bit of an oddball and so gets a cult following, or am I missing something in his music?
In general, I think his music light and inconsequential — by design. He is, therefore, something of a peripheral figure.
That said,
Socrate is a magnificent piece, do you know it?
[asin]B000FZEQJG[/asin]
P.S./ The
mélodies on that recording are more like "salon music" than like heaven-storming
Lieder, but of course there's a place for both, and
Satie's are charming.
I know a few people who find Schubert's long form music challenging. He seems to have a style based more on repetition than variation, so there's this frequent feeling of of déjà vu. It's as if in his long form music we're often running into doppelgangers. I think he's saying something about memory, identity, nostalgia. Basically some people are only comfortable with music based on variation - you see that in discussions of the Missa Solemnis, I've heard people say it's not good because there's so little variation.
Schubert's short form music is another kettle of fish.
Haydn suffers through poor performance IMO. Also some of his music is quite complex, where he's exploring new ideas, op 33 is like that I think. People don't expect that sort of complexity so they're put off.
I was quite disturbed when I realised a few years ago I actually owned more Schubert than I did of a number of other composers I would say I liked a great deal more.
The thing about Schubert for me, though (and this is agreeing with a previous poster) is that the chronology is critical. For me there is almost a direct relationship between the year in which the piece was composed and my degree of enjoyment. I have the box of Schubert piano sonatas by Andras Schiff. The first few are frankly tedious. The ones around the 500s in the D. catalogue begin to get interesting. The later ones are better. The best Schubert has a meditative quality that can be quite appealing.
I'd actually say a similar thing about Dvorak, although the tipping point is a bit different. The first few string quartets are long-winded and boring. I quite like the works I know around the B.50 mark in the Burghauser catalogue - string quartet no.7 and the first piano trio - and from there things tend to get better and better, although I can't fathom the popularity of the 'American' string quartet. Give a work a name and a gimmick and it takes off, leaving other far better works behind. But overall, I've concluded that I like Dvorak from about 1874/5 onwards far more than I like anything before that period.
Satie, I confess to having little interest in.
Quote from: orfeo on August 14, 2014, 04:44:37 AM
The ones around the 500s in the D. catalogue begin to get interesting.
When the effects of syphilis set in?
Quote from: The new erato on August 14, 2014, 04:54:13 AM
When the effects of syphilis set in?
I always just put it down to increasing maturity and skill as a composer, but if that theory works for you, go with it.
Well, as noted Schubert's music changed quite drastically, and his syphilis is more or less a historical fact. So I guess it's quite possible, though not in any way imortant regarding the value of his late works.
There are some very good Schubert Lieder quite early on (e.g. Gretchen am Spinnrade D 118 from 1814) and many people like his early symphonies (which I find charming, but comparably overrated), apparently also conductors as there are quite a few recordings around. The early string quartets are interesting, but more for aficionados; most of them were written when he was still a teenager.
What I meant above and what I find somewhat puzzling is that even undoubtedly mature und great pieces like the a minor quartet, the late piano sonatas or the trios often have these leisurely final rondos, are comparably repetitive and sometimes seem to lack a little concentration or direction. To me it seems that Schubert still felt not certain enough about himself so he stuck to forms he knew he could handle well, but combined with his broad, mostly lyrical style they became very expansive and slightly repetitive. There is nothing wrong with that an many people love it. He does some amazing things, but the framework does not seem ideal and sometimes even a little formalist (There are some recapitulation sections where the earlier material is repeated far more literal than one would ever find in Haydn or Beethoven.)
Had he lived only a little longer, I expect that he would have experimented more, maybe along the freer forms of some late Beethoven pieces.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 14, 2014, 02:00:09 AM
I have the somewhat provocative idea that Schubert (who died a few months before turning 32) had only "found his style" in a few pieces and even the mature ones, great as they are in many respects, still show what could be conceived of as "weaknesses". A case in point are the last two piano sonatas D 959 and 960, revered pieces that many listeners count among the greatest music. Although others (or even the same ones) are puzzled how he can follow extraordinary "deep" and emotionally challenging slow movements with a somewhat run of the mill scherzo and finale, teeming with good-natured Viennese Laendler etc. Even the finale of what may be his greatest instrumental work, the string quintet, has a section I secretly dub "the Kaffeehausmusik".
FYI, I agree with you. As much as I love Schubert, and as deeply as I love most of his final pieces, the finales were the one thing that he had not successfully figured out. It is strange that the quintet ends on a faux-Hungarian dance after the devastating power of the first three movements - although he saves the finale with that incredible coda, ambiguous and slightly menacing. It is strange that the sonata D960 ends with another rather fragmented finale. If he had solved the finale problem (and the quintet and symphony show he was close), Schubert's maturity would have been...well, I guess too great for us mortals to know.
By the way, in terms of terse, unconventional works, you left off the two final fantasies for piano four-hands.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 14, 2014, 06:12:28 AM
his early symphonies (which I find charming, but comparably overrated)
I don't think the early symphonies are "overrated"; I think everyone agrees that they are merely charming, "nice," and diverting. But gosh, are they lovely. I'm very fond of Nos. 2, 3, and 6.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 14, 2014, 06:12:28 AM
[...]
Had he lived only a little longer, I expect that he would have experimented more, maybe along the freer forms of some late Beethoven pieces.
Maybe, or maybe not. It is not uncommon, when we think of the composers who died terribly early, to project future careers of unceasing experiment and progress. It is an attractive arc of speculation! But (just for argument) it is possible, too, that they would reach a point beyond which they do not feel motivated to press with further experimentation.
And in that line of speculation, there are at least two possibilities, too:
1. At that point, the composer "realizes his gains," expanding his artistry laterally rather than vertically (not that it does either composer full justice, but think
Bach and
Brahms)
2. At that point, the composer feels no further motivation to create (think
Rossini and
Sibelius)
We just do not know.
Personally, I do not feel these pangs of "oh, the music which we
might have had from
Mozart and
Schubert!" There is a wealth of great music to listen to, without the need to bemoan the imaginary masterpieces which might have been.
Maybe Schubert just wasn't that interested in creating 'direction'. This picks up on what I've just said in another thread: to say that Schubert wasn't very good at putting direction, or momentum, in his music makes the assumption that he would have done it if he could, or that it's a necessary part of music being good.
I like a bit of forward movement in my music as much as anybody, but frankly if that's what I'm in the mood for I'm likely to bypass Schubert. I know, on the other hand, that if I'm in the mood for something that has a meditative static quality, there's hardly anything in my CD collection that matches the first movement of Schubert's last string quartet.
Quote from: orfeo on August 14, 2014, 06:28:44 AM
Maybe Schubert just wasn't that interested in creating 'direction'. This picks up on what I've just said in another thread: to say that Schubert wasn't very good at putting direction, or momentum, in his music makes the assumption that he would have done it if he could, or that it's a necessary part of music being good.
Word.
Satie re-introduced a new attitude, a cooler more detached response to the ungodly post-Wagnerian bloat of stuff like Gurrelieder. There are more values in music than surging emotion or gushing longing. Satie managed to find an original way to emphasize them. This accounts for his influence. He had the failings of his virtues I think, and was often too detached. He was surpassed by many of his followers -- Poulenc, Roussel -- but he wrote much fine music, together with the not so fine. But a man who can stand in the flow of Wagner-Schoenberg-Skriabin grandiosity and snicker deserves to be remembered fondly.
Quote from: orfeo on August 14, 2014, 04:44:37 AM
I was quite disturbed when I realised a few years ago I actually owned more Schubert than I did of a number of other composers I would say I liked a great deal more.
The thing about Schubert for me, though (and this is agreeing with a previous poster) is that the chronology is critical. For me there is almost a direct relationship between the year in which the piece was composed and my degree of enjoyment. I have the box of Schubert piano sonatas by Andras Schiff. The first few are frankly tedious. The ones around the 500s in the D. catalogue begin to get interesting. The later ones are better. The best Schubert has a meditative quality that can be quite appealing.
I'd actually say a similar thing about Dvorak, although the tipping point is a bit different. The first few string quartets are long-winded and boring. I quite like the works I know around the B.50 mark in the Burghauser catalogue - string quartet no.7 and the first piano trio - and from there things tend to get better and better, although I can't fathom the popularity of the 'American' string quartet. Give a work a name and a gimmick and it takes off, leaving other far better works behind. But overall, I've concluded that I like Dvorak from about 1874/5 onwards far more than I like anything before that period.
Satie, I confess to having little interest in.
On the whole I agree with you about Schubert, but something happened to me a couple of years ago which makes me think the situation is more complex. It was a concert of early Schubert quartets by Cuarteto Casals - they played a fantastic C minor quartet with a double digit D number, and a super G major piece with D number less than 20! If you get a chance to hear their early Schubert I think you should - more urgently than to hear their late quartet recording in fact.
Another outstanding experience I've had with early Schubert was with Kagan and Leonskaja playing violin duos. And there are loads of songs - Erlkonig for example.
Maybe I sounded more critical than I meant to. I fully agree that Schubert did some highly original and extraordinary things in his late instrumental works. I have no quibbles with the finales of the d minor, G major quartets, the quintet and the Great symphony. (The very fast "Totentanz"/Tarantella finales of the last quartets and the c minor sonata are maybe the most successful, also my fav is probably still the quintet) And the Trios which are a little more relaxed in mood altogether work well with their "Kaffeehaus"-finales. It's mainly some of the piano sonatas where I think that the finales feel more anticlimactic than I would like.
Admittedly I feel (or used to feel) the same with some Beethoven like the piano sonatas op. 90 (and even the Waldstein) or the quartet op.74.
Quote from: Scion7 on August 14, 2014, 02:31:31 AM
Tsk tsk.
Tsk tsk, reprise.
Isn't this a thread for making admissions you wouldn't necessarily make loudly elsewhere? ;D
Thanks for all the thoughts on Schubert. I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than listen to lieder of any sort (that's just personal preference and is unlikely to change any time soon) but I'll certainly focus on some of the later works.
A few weeks ago I went to hear the OAE (My sense most people on this forum are in the US or elsewhere? In which case I mean the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment) play Beethoven 7 and Schubert 9. I think the programme would have sounded a million times better if they'd programmed the Schubert in the first half. As it was, hearing it after the Beethoven it just sounded flat.
Re CPE Bach, I think my problem had always been that I thought of him as being a Baroque composer, so found his style and harmony very sterile. Now if I think of him as a "competitor" to Mozart, Haydn and Boccherini he suddenly comes across much better in my ears.
To the question about playing at school, I think I may be falling into a cultural pit here - I used school in the UK sense of high school - I never went to music college/conservatoire. I play cello (badly) although recorder is my main instrument.
Quote from: eoghan on August 14, 2014, 09:04:09 AM
Isn't this a thread for making admissions you wouldn't necessarily make loudly elsewhere? ;D
Aye, we should keep this a "guilt-free" zone 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 14, 2014, 09:15:31 AM
Aye, we should keep this a "guilt-free" zone 8)
All right then, Schnittke. At best he seems like a lesser Shostakovich in a bad mood. I have the quintet, symphonies, a CG and VC.
Quote from: eoghan on August 14, 2014, 01:29:24 AMBut the one I just don't get is Schubert. Beethoven - yes. Mendelssohn - yes. Schumann - a cautious yes, although I don't know enough of his music and probably wouldn't go out of my way to hear it. But Schubert just strikes me as being less complex, less tuneful, less emotional and just less interesting than Beethoven or any other contemporaries. That's just the instrumental music (I don't "do" songs). The "HIP Romantic recordings" thread has inspired me, however, and I've recently bought the Immerseel/Beths/Bylsma CD of the Schubert trios which is getting a good few airings. Perhaps I'll be turned?
Less tuneful or emotional than
LvB or any other contemporaries? ??? Tuneful and emotional are the first things that come first to my mind when I think of
Schubert, and
vice versa too, actually - in addition to
Tchaikovsky, perhaps.
Quote
Final question: why is Erik Satie so highly lauded? Is it that he was just a bit of an oddball and so gets a cult following, or am I missing something in his music?
The latter. Try
Socrate, if you can withstand singing. Or John Cage's transcription for two pianos, if you can not . . .
https://www.youtube.com/v/hdjLCfo3Fjs https://www.youtube.com/v/b_Cny7aeFW4 https://www.youtube.com/v/sPQPzaVhowQ
Quote from: karlhenning on August 14, 2014, 06:22:16 AM2. At that point, the composer feels no further motivation to create (think Rossini and Sibelius)
Sibelius was pretty much forced to quit treating his tremor with alcohol to keep his health, and thus he couldn't write scores anymore.
Quote from: Ken B on August 14, 2014, 12:35:02 PM
All right then, Schnittke. At best he seems like a lesser Shostakovich in a bad mood. I have the quintet, symphonies, a CG and VC.
I love Schnittke but, aside from the later chamber music, sometimes think Shostakovich is a lesser Mahler in a bad mood
Quote from: North Star on August 14, 2014, 12:48:37 PM
Sibelius was pretty much forced to quit treating his tremor with alcohol to keep his health, and thus he couldn't write scores anymore.
Thanks for the emendation; though that points out other factors which make our wishful thinking speculative at best :)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 14, 2014, 01:03:21 PM
Thanks for the emendation; though that points out other factors which make our wishful thinking speculative at best :)
What, you mean it would be silly to wish
Ravel had written more music, with no less polish? 8)
For me the very lightness of Satie's music is consequential.
Quote from: Ken B on August 14, 2014, 12:35:02 PM
All right then, Schnittke. At best he seems like a lesser Shostakovich in a bad mood. I have the quintet, symphonies, a CG and VC.
I disagree. I think, like Mahler and Shostakovich, Schnittke was interested in merging different styles of music together and somehow making them form something musically cohesive and comprehensible, but like Mahler and Shostakovich, beneath that polystylistic surface lay a man who was, in his own way, revealing apart of his soul to the listener. Schnittke was a very spiritual person and his faith was important to him, but what he sat out to do is express himself in a way that only he could. I think this 'bad mood' you hear is actually emotional ventilation. Not really anger for it's own sake, but, in my view, he's trying to tell the listener something that happened to him that upset him. His later music can give many people problems, but he suffered as much as any composer did and his ongoing bouts of poor health affected his music, but there is life in his music, it's just that he gets right to the point and cuts off all the superfluous trimmings so that his soul can be laid bare.
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 14, 2014, 08:06:32 PM
I disagree. I think, like Mahler and Shostakovich, Schnittke was interested in merging different styles of music together and somehow making them form something musically cohesive and comprehensible, but like Mahler and Shostakovich, beneath that polystylistic surface lay a man who was, in his own way, revealing apart of his soul to the listener. Schnittke was a very spiritual person and his faith was important to him, but what he sat out to do is express himself in a way that only he could. I think this 'bad mood' you hear is actually emotional ventilation. Not really anger for it's own sake, but, in my view, he's trying to tell the listener something that happened to him that upset him. His later music can give many people problems, but he suffered as much as any composer did and his ongoing bouts of poor health affected his music, but there is life in his music, it's just that he gets right to the point and cuts off all the superfluous trimmings so that his soul can be laid bare.
This inspired me to listen to Schnittke's Cello sonata No. 1. now. Great stuff! Definitely some raw emotion.
I've liked what little Schnittke I've heard (mostly chamber music). It's definitely more challenging than Shostakovich, but still quite listenable if you're into that sort of thing. Need to give him a bit more exploration.
I never got Haydn. I do like some of his piano trios but he generally never stuck with me. I'm not listening to this period much now so I doubt I'll have a chance to try again soon. Maybe some day. I still haven't gotten very far with Ligeti. I've been loving Xenakis lately and, in a way, Ligeti seems like just small a step sideways. But I think It will come. Is there a thread for "famous compositions you don't get"? I like Cage but can't for the life of me get his etudes. I really tried to get into Scriabin but It just never stuck. I made a big effort!
Quote from: milk on August 15, 2014, 12:40:56 AM
This inspired me to listen to Schnittke's Cello sonata No. 1. now. Great stuff! Definitely some raw emotion.
Indeed. That's a great piece. One of my favorite Schnittke chamber works is
Four Hymns. Have you heard this work? It's quite difficult to find on disc and it's scored for bassoon, viola, cello, double bass, harpsichord, harp, timpani, and tubular bells. Unusual instrumentation, but he really makes it work to marvelous effect.
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 15, 2014, 07:00:16 PM
Indeed. That's a great piece. One of my favorite Schnittke chamber works is Four Hymns. Have you heard this work? It's quite difficult to find on disc and it's scored for bassoon, viola, cello, double bass, harpsichord, harp, timpani, and tubular bells. Unusual instrumentation, but he really makes it work to marvelous effect.
I realize that, for some reason, I have iii. and iv. from 4 hymns. I don't know why I don't have it all. I'll go back and listen. But maybe I need to complete it.
Quote from: milk on August 15, 2014, 07:55:17 PM
I realize that, for some reason, I have iii. and iv. from 4 hymns. I don't know why I don't have it all. I'll go back and listen. But maybe I need to complete it.
Yes, give the whole work a proper listen. Have you heard the
Viola Concerto or
Faust Cantata yet? If no, then, run, don't walk to remedy this!
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 15, 2014, 07:57:56 PM
Yes, give the whole work a proper listen. Have you heard the Viola Concerto or Faust Cantata yet? If no, then, run, don't walk to remedy this!
Ok. I'm getting to all this today. Looks like Eschenbach on the viola and BIS for the Cantata.
Quote from: milk on August 15, 2014, 08:14:26 PM
Ok. I'm getting to all this today. Looks like Eschenbach on the viola and BIS for the Cantata.
I haven't heard David Aaron Carpenter in the
Viola Concerto, but I would have a hard time believing anyone could better the Bashmet/Rostropovich recording. As for that
Faust Cantata with DePreist, that's an excellent recording that also contains some other great works like
(K)ein Sommernachtstraum,
Passacaglia, and
Ritual. A great disc for a listener just starting to get into Schnittke's music.
Quote from: milk on August 15, 2014, 06:17:36 PM
I never got Haydn. I do like some of his piano trios but he generally never stuck with me. I'm not listening to this period much now so I doubt I'll have a chance to try again soon. Maybe some day.
I like Haydn, but not as much as some people. I have never get the applause Haydn gets for his String Quartets and Symphonies. I enjoy Dittersdorf's music about as much as Haydn's. Why not? Both where top composers of their time. So, for me Haydn is a bit overrated while Dittersdorf is underrated.
Why are Haydn's Symphonies and String Quartets so popular while his Concertos and Piano Trios etc. aren't? Weird.
The Piano Trios have received their share of advocacy (from the likes of Charles Rosen) but are relatively infrequently performed because of the comparative lack of interest in the violin and cello parts. (they are basically enhanced piano sonatas, with the cello providing the bass and the violin taking over the cantabile melodies). I think they are on a level with the late symphonies and quartets in musical interest. The Concertos aren't as good. >.> Haydn's operas, sacred music (except the Creation and the Seasons & maybe one or two of the masses) and wind ensemble works are also quite underrated, as are the baryton trios & some of the keyboard works. Still, it's mostly the invention of the symphony and string quartet in their modern form that has led to Haydn's fame. With his quartets Opus 20 and 33, and the contemporaneous symphonies (40s, 50s, 60s) Haydn succeeded in elevating a domestic music genre and a glorified opera overture, respectively, to the level of the sublime, assimilating the high drama of serious opera and the learned style of sacred music into a new style surpassing that of CPE Bach in depth and power... etc... etc. His other works were less influential, Mozart's concertos were a more significant model on succeeding generations for instance, Beethoven's piano sonatas broke the mold of the educational pieces Mozart and Haydn and CPE had contributed while simultaneously destroying the musical language that had made their creation possible, and so forth.
Quote from: 71 dB on August 16, 2014, 12:26:20 AM
I like Haydn, but not as much as some people. I have never get the applause Haydn gets for his String Quartets and Symphonies. I enjoy Dittersdorf's music about as much as Haydn's. Why not? Both where top composers of their time. So, for me Haydn is a bit overrated while Dittersdorf is underrated.
Why are Haydn's Symphonies and String Quartets so popular while his Concertos and Piano Trios etc. aren't? Weird.
I do find his piano concertos enjoyable enough as an alternative to Mozart's. I admit I never tried very hard with the Symphonies or SQs. I did make an effort with the genre I like: keyboard music in in general and it just never stuck with me. It doesn't offend me.
But for composers I really don't get I guess Scarlatti is the one. Haydn is fine I guess. I just don't love it. But Scarlatti, I really tried hard and failed.
Quote from: milk on August 16, 2014, 12:58:00 AM
I do find his piano concertos enjoyable enough as an alternative to Mozart's. I admit I never tried very hard with the Symphonies or SQs. I did make an effort with the genre I like: keyboard music in in general and it just never stuck with me. It doesn't offend me.
But for composers I really don't get I guess Scarlatti is the one. Haydn is fine I guess. I just don't love it. But Scarlatti, I really tried hard and failed.
Assuming you mean
Domenico, not his father
Alessandro, this is a beauty, and probably not something most associate with him.
https://www.youtube.com/v/bZrYxbOTUq4
Quote from: milk on August 16, 2014, 12:58:00 AM
But for composers I really don't get I guess Scarlatti is the one. Haydn is fine I guess. I just don't love it. But Scarlatti, I really tried hard and failed.
Alessandro was imo much greater composer than his son Domenico, who's "modern" sonatas don't do much for me, but Alessandro's cantatas are wonderful! 0:)
Quote from: amw on August 16, 2014, 12:55:35 AM
The Piano Trios have received their share of advocacy (from the likes of Charles Rosen) but are relatively infrequently performed because of the comparative lack of interest in the violin and cello parts. (they are basically enhanced piano sonatas, with the cello providing the bass and the violin taking over the cantabile melodies). I think they are on a level with the late symphonies and quartets in musical interest.
Oh, it's that. ;D Thanks for the explanation.
Quote from: 71 dB on August 16, 2014, 01:11:29 AM
Alessandro was imo much greater composer than his son Domenico, who's "modern" sonatas don't do much for me, but Alessandro's cantatas are wonderful! 0:)
Check out
Domenico's
Stabat Mater a 10 voci from the video I posted above. :)
Quote from: milk on August 15, 2014, 06:17:36 PM
I never got Haydn. I do like some of his piano trios but he generally never stuck with me. I'm not listening to this period much now so I doubt I'll have a chance to try again soon. Maybe some day. I still haven't gotten very far with Ligeti. I've been loving Xenakis lately and, in a way, Ligeti seems like just small a step sideways. But I think It will come. Is there a thread for "famous compositions you don't get"? I like Cage but can't for the life of me get his etudes. I really tried to get into Scriabin but It just never stuck. I made a big effort!
As much as I love him now, Ligeti was work for me (which might be hard for GMG'ers to imagine).
Clocks and Clouds was the only piece I loved immediately, and also perhaps the first two movements of the
Piano Concerto. Movements 3 and 5 came about a year later and movement 4 was only a few months ago! I can now say that I love them all. Other works of his were like this as well. I still dislike the
Cello Concerto, though. I come back to it now and again, but so far nothing has come out of it for me. Oddly, the similar
Chamber Concerto is one of my favorites (that
definitely took a while!).
A good friend of mine had the
very unfortunate experience of having
Aventures and
Nouvelles Aventures be the first Ligeti works he heard. This was just after the time I first heard
Clocks and Clouds and he showed me a YouTube sample performance of the BPO/Rattle playing the
Aventures because it was so ridiculous. Two years later, he is finally starting to warm up, I think.
Please don't attack me for saying this (anyone), but I think that a big difference between Xenakis, (early) Penderecki, and Ligeti is that the former two are like "broad brushstrokes" on a canvas (more so Penderecki) whereas the latter is microscopically structured and more subtle. Neither one is better or worse at all. They were just doing different things and had different goals.
Interesting to see D Scarlatti and Haydn grouped together like this.
Both Scarlatti and Haydn wrote a lot of music, so to some extent it's quite hard to get the taste for their music because you have to separate the great stuff from the more mediocre. This requires quite a bit of effort and, in the case of Scarlatti, it may not be worth it unless you have a special interest in 17th century keyboard music. I also think that both of them suffer from radically wrong-headed perfomace styles: in the case of Scarlatti ones which are basically shallow bravura and nothing else, in the case of Haydn ones which make him sound a bit tame.
My favorite Ligeti is still the very early "Concert romanesc". That's the only Ligeti I'd let my parents listen to. ;D
Quote from: amw on August 16, 2014, 12:55:35 AM
The Piano Trios have received their share of advocacy (from the likes of Charles Rosen) but are relatively infrequently performed because of the comparative lack of interest in the violin and cello parts. (they are basically enhanced piano sonatas, with the cello providing the bass and the violin taking over the cantabile melodies). I think they are on a level with the late symphonies and quartets in musical interest. The Concertos aren't as good. >.> Haydn's operas, sacred music (except the Creation and the Seasons & maybe one or two of the masses) and wind ensemble works are also quite underrated, as are the baryton trios & some of the keyboard works. Still, it's mostly the invention of the symphony and string quartet in their modern form that has led to Haydn's fame. With his quartets Opus 20 and 33, and the contemporaneous symphonies (40s, 50s, 60s) Haydn succeeded in elevating a domestic music genre and a glorified opera overture, respectively, to the level of the sublime, assimilating the high drama of serious opera and the learned style of sacred music into a new style surpassing that of CPE Bach in depth and power... etc... etc. His other works were less influential, Mozart's concertos were a more significant model on succeeding generations for instance, Beethoven's piano sonatas broke the mold of the educational pieces Mozart and Haydn and CPE had contributed while simultaneously destroying the musical language that had made their creation possible, and so forth.
5-star post here.
Quote from: North Star on August 16, 2014, 01:21:44 AM
Check out Domenico's Stabat Mater a 10 voci from the video I posted above. :)
Good stuff, a bit too 16th-century-like for a work composed in early 18th century. That kind of polyphonic carpet can be a bit ponderous. Alessandro's music is airy, beautiful and dramatic:
http://youtu.be/uFjxmHqNtyA (http://youtu.be/uFjxmHqNtyA) (I can't make the flash work)
Quote from: 71 dB on August 16, 2014, 12:26:20 AM
Why are Haydn's Symphonies and String Quartets so popular while his Concertos and Piano Trios etc. aren't? Weird.
I like the piano trios, but find that only the late ones really have that wow! I'm not a big fan of Mozart's PTs either. The PTs don't really start for me until Beethoven.
As for the concertos I love the cello concertos, but not a huge fan of the other concertos. I think that Mozart is king here, and I also like Boccherini and the sons of Bach at least as much as Haydn in the concertos.
I forgot that you are a fan of Ditters.
Quote from: Brian on August 16, 2014, 05:55:05 AM
My favorite Ligeti is still the very early "Concert romanesc". That's the only Ligeti I'd let my parents listen to. ;D
Concert Romanesc is a great piece. It doesn't have the qualities in his music that I like so much about him and his style/voice, but I enjoy it a lot.
My parents actually liked the violin concerto when I played it for them, which surprises me. Even more surprising is that my dad
really liked the
Requiem. I was positive he wouldn't.
The piano etudes are not too "modern" at all. Considering the kind of stuff that has been written in the past, say, 70 years, they are extremely tame -- yet they are each like a puzzle at the same time. Also extremely well-written. I'm a big fan of
Fanfares (etude No. 4). I'm sure I'm wrong, but I don't see why anyone who likes jazz wouldn't at least appreciate
Fanfares. If slowed down slightly and orchestrated for a small jazz ensemble, most parts of it would be convincing jazz club music.
Quote from: milk on August 16, 2014, 12:58:00 AM
I do find his piano concertos enjoyable enough as an alternative to Mozart's. I admit I never tried very hard with the Symphonies or SQs. I did make an effort with the genre I like: keyboard music in in general and it just never stuck with me. It doesn't offend me.
But for composers I really don't get I guess Scarlatti is the one. Haydn is fine I guess. I just don't love it. But Scarlatti, I really tried hard and failed.
Darn it! I meant to say Scriabin not Scarlatti. I'm sorry.
Quote from: North Star on August 16, 2014, 01:04:03 AM
Assuming you mean Domenico, not his father Alessandro, this is a beauty, and probably not something most associate with him.
https://www.youtube.com/v/bZrYxbOTUq4
I'm really sorry I had a metal burp. It's Scriabin that I tried hard with and failed. I like Scarlatti sometimes. But I don't love him. I really feel bad to write the wrong thing and have people react to that. I'm sorry about that. I tried really hard wit Scriabin because so many people see him as a genius and have been influenced by him. But nothing ever really stuck with me. I still think I might come back around some day. I bought a bunch of Scriabin recordings and listened to.
Quote from: EigenUser on August 16, 2014, 02:27:32 AM
As much as I love him now, Ligeti was work for me (which might be hard for GMG'ers to imagine). Clocks and Clouds was the only piece I loved immediately, and also perhaps the first two movements of the Piano Concerto. Movements 3 and 5 came about a year later and movement 4 was only a few months ago! I can now say that I love them all. Other works of his were like this as well. I still dislike the Cello Concerto, though. I come back to it now and again, but so far nothing has come out of it for me. Oddly, the similar Chamber Concerto is one of my favorites (that definitely took a while!).
A good friend of mine had the very unfortunate experience of having Aventures and Nouvelles Aventures be the first Ligeti works he heard. This was just after the time I first heard Clocks and Clouds and he showed me a YouTube sample performance of the BPO/Rattle playing the Aventures because it was so ridiculous. Two years later, he is finally starting to warm up, I think.
Please don't attack me for saying this (anyone), but I think that a big difference between Xenakis, (early) Penderecki, and Ligeti is that the former two are like "broad brushstrokes" on a canvas (more so Penderecki) whereas the latter is microscopically structured and more subtle. Neither one is better or worse at all. They were just doing different things and had different goals.
I like Clocks and Clouds. I just don't find myself going back and back to Ligeti yet. Once I started on Xenakis, I couldn't stop. I don't know why Ligeti didn't have that effect because I like much of it. Part of me thinks that if one loves Xenakis one should love Ligeti too. They're not that different. I mean they are different but they're both geniuses playing in the same kind of field, even though much of what they actually do concerns different elements of music. I love Feldman also and snyprrr pointed out a connection that I think is more apparent on a deeper level.
Quote from: James on August 16, 2014, 06:59:06 AM
Yes .. Ligeti is a very sophisticated, cogent & disciplined composer of unique, forensic rhythmic & harmonic detail, subtlety & nuance, vast amounts of harmonic & rhythmic information .. there is a lot more going on beneath the surface.
Ligeti seems more operatic to me. I guess I'm drawn more to the spectral stuff. Maybe there is a lot of nuance to Ligeti that I will pick up when I go back to it. I do like it. It hasen't obsessed me like Feldman or Xenakis but I definitely will be listening more. But, like I said, there is something operatic-sounding to me...dramatic, religious. I think I've been on a kick where I'm drawn to music that sounds like the natural world, if that makes sense. Ligeti seems more about humanity. More ironic.
I'm really sorry again about writing the wrong name. I think it'll be a long time until I approach Scriabin again. But I'll be onto Ligeti again soon. I do like Clocks and Clouds, Lux, Lontano...The concertos haven't made any impact on me at all yet.
Quote from: milk on August 16, 2014, 07:56:29 AM
I'm really sorry again about writing the wrong name. I think it'll be a long time until I approach Scriabin again. But I'll be onto Ligeti again soon. I do like Clocks and Clouds, Lux, Lontano...The concertos haven't made any impact on me at all yet.
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Messiaen?
I don't have anything by Ligeti. Started to listen his String Quartets on Spotify (Parker Quartet/Naxos). Post war composers are often a bit mystery for me, hard to figure out what they are doing with their music.
Quote from: EigenUser on August 16, 2014, 08:22:33 AM
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Messiaen?
I only have "Quatuor pour la fin du temps" and I haven't given it enough listens. I know Xenakis was a student, was Ligeti also? I acquired it before I was really fully interested in modern music, so I suppose it's something else I might enjoy spending time with now.
However, I'm not sure I'd like his solo piano stuff.
Before I got into modern music I was so focused on keyboard music. But now, when it comes to pushing boundaries, I find myself less interested in "avant garde" solo piano stuff, with some exceptions like Cage's prepared piano music and Feldman's pieces. I love Xenakis but took his solo piano pieces off my playlists. I know Ligeti's etudes are much praised.
Quote from: EigenUser on August 16, 2014, 07:33:23 AM
My parents actually liked the violin concerto when I played it for them, which surprises me.
One of my favourite concert experiences was at the Edinburgh Festival in 2000, when Christian Tetzlaff played the Ligeti violin concerto with the LSO under Boulez. Absolutely fantastic performance, but one of the things that really stuck out was this little old lady coming up to me at the interval, saying "I didn't know modern music could be like that!" and asking me if there were any recordings of the piece.
I think the violin concerto's a great introduction to Ligeti; it's got pretty much everything (including good tunes).
but the violin concerto does not sound much like the rest of Ligeti's music, just go watch the overture to 2001: A Space Odyssey
https://www.youtube.com/v/r94mPZAapQA
Quote from: bwv 1080 on August 16, 2014, 02:36:37 PM
but the violin concerto does not sound much like the rest of Ligeti's music, just go watch the overture to 2001: A Space Odyssey
https://www.youtube.com/v/r94mPZAapQA
I think it's a pretty good summary of his late style... his second period is of course a different kettle of (micropolyphonic) fish.
Quote from: milk on August 16, 2014, 07:40:51 AM
Darn it! I meant to say Scriabin not Scarlatti. I'm sorry.
??? ... but the bombers are beyond the recall point.
Quote from: edward on August 16, 2014, 02:56:26 PM
I think it's a pretty good summary of his late style... his second period is of course a different kettle of (micropolyphonic) fish.
I would argue the Piano Concerto is more representative of Late Ligeti - the Violin Concerto lacks the African polyrhythms that Ligeti got interested in late in his life
Quote from: edward on August 16, 2014, 02:20:43 PM
One of my favourite concert experiences was at the Edinburgh Festival in 2000, when Christian Tetzlaff played the Ligeti violin concerto with the LSO under Boulez.
Interestingly I heard this exact same combo do this exact same piece in Carnegie Hall earlier in 2000. It was part of a 4-concert Boulez-led mini-fest, with Bartok's
Wooden Prince on the second half.
QuoteI think the violin concerto's a great introduction to Ligeti; it's got pretty much everything (including good tunes).
Yeah, the tune that opens the 2nd mvt. is one that he apparently liked a lot and kept going back to. It first appears, as far as I know, in
Musica ricercata back in the 1950s.
Quote from: Velimir on August 16, 2014, 04:26:40 PM
Interestingly I heard this exact same combo do this exact same piece in Carnegie Hall earlier in 2000. It was part of a 4-concert Boulez-led mini-fest, with Bartok's Wooden Prince on the second half.
Yep, they played the same four concerts in Edinburgh (went to them all) and London (went to to the Berg/Neuwirth/Mahler one). The London Mahler 6 was probably the best live performance I've ever heard of a Mahler symphony... and what was really rather endearing, given Boulez's "iceman" reputation, was how obviously he was swept along by the occasion, particularly in the finale.
Quote from: milk on August 16, 2014, 09:22:27 AM
I only have "Quatuor pour la fin du temps" and I haven't given it enough listens. I know Xenakis was a student, was Ligeti also? I acquired it before I was really fully interested in modern music, so I suppose it's something else I might enjoy spending time with now.
However, I'm not sure I'd like his solo piano stuff.
Before I got into modern music I was so focused on keyboard music. But now, when it comes to pushing boundaries, I find myself less interested in "avant garde" solo piano stuff, with some exceptions like Cage's prepared piano music and Feldman's pieces. I love Xenakis but took his solo piano pieces off my playlists. I know Ligeti's etudes are much praised.
Xenakis was a student for a very brief period. Both Boulez and Stockhausen were students of Messiaen, but not Ligeti. Messiaen's
Vingt Regards pour l'Enfant Jesus is a great cycle of piano pieces. While I think he started to wear out the whole birdsong thing by the late 1970s,
Oiseaux Exotiques ("Exotic Birds") is a fun, jovial concerto for piano, winds, and percussion.
Et Exspecto Resurrection Mortuorum is a masterpiece (yes, I will use that word! ;D) and also one of the more powerful works I know. I can't wait to get home tomorrow morning because I was notified that my copy of the score arrived, finally. Much of his music is glorious and it is best to listen with an attitude of acceptance for the bombast. The
Trois Petites Liturgies and especially the
Turangalila-Symphonie are good examples of this. Both include the ondes-Martinot, an early (1930-ish) electronic instrument based off of the same principles as the theramin. His early works like
L'Asenscion and
Les Offrandes Oubliees are also very well-done and bridge the gap between late Debussy and mature Messiaen.
Quote from: edward on August 16, 2014, 02:20:43 PM
One of my favourite concert experiences was at the Edinburgh Festival in 2000, when Christian Tetzlaff played the Ligeti violin concerto with the LSO under Boulez. Absolutely fantastic performance, but one of the things that really stuck out was this little old lady coming up to me at the interval, saying "I didn't know modern music could be like that!" and asking me if there were any recordings of the piece.
I think the violin concerto's a great introduction to Ligeti; it's got pretty much everything (including good tunes).
Great story! The first movement is the one that got me hooked with it's shimmering glass-like quality.
Quote from: Velimir on August 16, 2014, 04:26:40 PM
Yeah, the tune that opens the 2nd mvt. is one that he apparently liked a lot and kept going back to. It first appears, as far as I know, in Musica ricercata back in the 1950s.
The first time it was used was in an early
Sonatina for piano four-hands. It is a beautiful, flowing theme with modal inflections (even more added in the VC).
Quote from: EigenUser on August 16, 2014, 06:25:57 PM
The first time it was used was in an early Sonatina for piano four-hands. It is a beautiful, flowing theme with modal inflections (even more added in the VC).
Interesting to know, thanks. I sometimes wonder if that melody is rooted in his exploration of Hungarian & Romanian folk music which he undertook in the 1940s.
Quote from: Velimir on August 16, 2014, 06:53:38 PM
Interesting to know, thanks. I sometimes wonder if that melody is rooted in his exploration of Hungarian & Romanian folk music which he undertook in the 1940s.
Here's the
Sonatina:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1pfyw8dbbA
You will likely recognize the first movement as well.
Quote from: James on August 16, 2014, 07:07:57 PM
The Violin Concerto offers a wider cross-section of his work in comparison, it is very characteristic & representative of not on only his work from the Horn Trio onward, but of his work as a whole. And it's outer movements delve deeply into rhythmic complexity and layering, and the effect is much wilder than anything in the Piano Concerto.
Yeah, all of the rhythmic stuff happens in the first and fifth movements. The VC is more impassioned whereas the PC is very mechanical sounding. I like this because it fits the personalities of the instruments very well.
Coming to this thread very late (or perhaps it was running when I was last active here, years ago....) so forgive me for jumping in the middle of things:
Quote from: milk on August 16, 2014, 07:56:29 AM
I'm really sorry again about writing the wrong name. I think it'll be a long time until I approach Scriabin again. But I'll be onto Ligeti again soon. I do like Clocks and Clouds, Lux, Lontano...The concertos haven't made any impact on me at all yet.
Above, you said something about being closer to spectral music than to Ligeti's style, but Ligeti, with his super-sophisticated use of harmonics/natural harmonics, is not a million miles away from the spectralists, and that delightful shower of notes that is the opening of the Violin concerto shows that best of all. So maybe give that a go again...and now I read the posts below, I can see that others have recommended the same piece. I also agree with the statement that the Piano and Violin concerti
are just as representative of Ligeti as the Requiem, and in fact perhaps more so. Like Messiaen, Ligeti accrued techniques throughout his life but never fully abandoned any, so the later works are more and more fully representative of the man's music. And as much as I love the earlier stuff (and it was the stuff I knew first) the later music, with its playful, ultra-virtuosic humour and its magically managed complexities is just unsurpassable, amongst the most imaginative music ever composed.
As far as Messiaen goes, whoever it was steering clear of the piano music - don't!! Messiaen, like Ligeti, is a compendium of techniques, each very much his own, each somehow belonging together so that, unlike any other composer, he can leap from complexity to simplicity, the purest triads to the densest thickets of atonality, without any jarring. (That's slightly contentious, I'm sure it jars for some, but once one is in the Messiaen soundworld, the whole thing is of a piece, it seems to me). The many enormous multi-movement works are all spectacular encyclopedias of these techniques, and amongst these the Vingt Regards and the Catalogue (i.e. the piano sets) stand very, very high indeed. Try the VR first, though. And watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtE0Y7wUfCQ), the barn-storming fugue that is its 6th movement,
Par lui tout a ete fait, all the way to the end (yes, it's harsh, rebarbative stuff - also immensely, crazily difficult to play - but hang on in there for the pure visceral thrill of it).
Satie is one of my musical gods. For a very small number of his pieces (Socrate above all - this is his one indisputable masterpiece, and it's possibly the least well-known of the great turning-point masterpieces of music, if that isn't a tautology - the Nocturnes, the Gnossiennes, some of the other earlier piano music, and for some of those songs which Karl correctly characterised as salon and which yet go far, far, far beyond that, to my mind). For his attitude. For what he meant for composer who came after. I don't even think he is a particularly good composer, and neither did he. His importance goes beyond that, for me anyway.
Quote from: Luke on September 10, 2014, 05:42:09 AM
Coming to this thread very late (or perhaps it was running when I was last active here, years ago....) so forgive me for jumping in the middle of things:
Above, you said something about being closer to spectral music than to Ligeti's style, but Ligeti, with his super-sophisticated use of harmonics/natural harmonics, is not a million miles away from the spectralists, and that delightful shower of notes that is the opening of the Violin concerto shows that best of all. So maybe give that a go again...and now I read the posts below, I can see that others have recommended the same piece. I also agree with the statement that the Piano and Violin concerti are just as representative of Ligeti as the Requiem, and in fact perhaps more so. Like Messiaen, Ligeti accrued techniques throughout his life but never fully abandoned any, so the later works are more and more fully representative of the man's music. And as much as I love the earlier stuff (and it was the stuff I knew first) the later music, with its playful, ultra-virtuosic humour and its magically managed complexities is just unsurpassable, amongst the most imaginative music ever composed.
As far as Messiaen goes, whoever it was steering clear of the piano music - don't!! Messiaen, like Ligeti, is a compendium of techniques, each very much his own, each somehow belonging together so that, unlike any other composer, he can leap from complexity to simplicity, the purest triads to the densest thickets of atonality, without any jarring. (That's slightly contentious, I'm sure it jars for some, but once one is in the Messiaen soundworld, the whole thing is of a piece, it seems to me). The many enormous multi-movement works are all spectacular encyclopedias of these techniques, and amongst these the Vingt Regards and the Catalogue (i.e. the piano sets) stand very, very high indeed. Try the VR first, though. And watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtE0Y7wUfCQ), the barn-storming fugue that is its 6th movement, Par lui tout a ete fait, all the way to the end (yes, it's harsh, rebarbative stuff - also immensely, crazily difficult to play - but hang on in there for the pure visceral thrill of it).
Satie is one of my musical gods. For a very small number of his pieces (Socrate above all - this is his one indisputable masterpiece, and it's possibly the least well-known of the great turning-point masterpieces of music, if that isn't a tautology - the Nocturnes, the Gnossiennes, some of the other earlier piano music, and for some of those songs which Karl correctly characterised as salon and which yet go far, far, far beyond that, to my mind). For his attitude. For what he meant for composer who came after. I don't even think he is a particularly good composer, and neither did he. His importance goes beyond that, for me anyway.
A good friend of mine won a piano competition playing the 10th of the
Vingt Regards -- you know --
Regard de l'Espirit de Joie. That is a crazy piece! And he wasn't even a music major -- he's in dental school now! I also love the first one -- so easy that even I can (kind of) play it.
The juxtapositions in Messiaen are exactly what I love about his music so much. Take, for instance, the third of the
Trois Petites Liturgies. Each "cycle" (or phrase, I guess) starts with an extremely dissonant and mechanically rhythmic section with ostinatos in the percussion/strings chanting in the chorus. Next, there is a melody that the strings play in unison with the chorus that sounds like it is chasing itself, or running in circles. It abruptly stops, and finally we get a kind of "love-theme" with the strings/ondes/chorus playing diatonic chords. Then the whole cycle repeats for another three times, with some variations (especially the 3rd and 4th repeat). It really almost sounds unappealing when describing it, but he just makes it work somehow.
EigenUser, I'm listening to Trois Petites Liturgies now, and it's a beauty. Like both Luke and you said above, Messiaen is wonderful at moving from consonance to dissonance and back, without making it jarring (in a bad way).
Quote from: North Star on September 10, 2014, 08:04:10 AMMessiaen is wonderful at moving from consonance to dissonance and back, without making it jarring (in a bad way).
This immediately made me think of
http://www.youtube.com/v/Nv2GgV34qIg
Well, my working title for my Op.123 was "Peace Piece," though I admit I held no great hope that it was at all original.
Bill Evans rises from the grave . . . "kill, Kill, KILL !!!"
Hi James! Thank you, good to be back. Looking forward to getting involved properly again. :)
So, Luke, who are the composers you don't get?
Yeah, keep it on topic, buddy!
I find it an odd phrase, because I don't feel like there are any composers in particular that I don't get, no one to whose music I respond 'what on earth was all that about?' but there are a few who, though I get them, I don't find particularly worth getting. No one particularly exciting, mind you.
And I always remember dismissing Ives as a teenager, for reasons which still make some kind of sense to me, and then discovering that the Concord Sonata, in particular, is nevertheless in fact one of the finest musical creations I know. Humility is the order of the day, then. If I don't like a composer particularly, I've learnt to shut up about it.
That said - Weber. Wolf's Glen aside, what's the point ;D
What, you weren't invited to the dance? 8)
Probably for the best, that...
Quote from: Luke on September 11, 2014, 11:10:55 AM
I find it an odd phrase, because I don't feel like there are any composers in particular that I don't get, no one to whose music I respond 'what on earth was all that about?' but there are a few who, though I get them, I don't find particularly worth getting. No one particularly exciting, mind you.
And I always remember dismissing Ives as a teenager, for reasons which still make some kind of sense to me, and then discovering that the Concord Sonata, in particular, is nevertheless in fact one of the finest musical creations I know. Humility is the order of the day, then. If I don't like a composer particularly, I've learnt to shut up about it.
This (the bolded stuff) is what I have been trying to formulate for this thread. Isn't it amazing when the piece you hated one day turns out the next day to be insightful and meaningful?
I actually thought you might name this modern composer, posts on GMG, last name starts with O... :-* :P
Well, oddly, and joking aside, I do find him a hard one to fathom, yes.
Quote from: Luke on September 11, 2014, 11:10:55 AMIf I don't like a composer particularly, I've learnt to shut up about it.
Same here. It's like pumpkin pie. "You don't like it because you haven't tried
my pumpkin pie."
No, I just don't like pumpkin pie.
Well, but it is still the fact that you've not tried my pumpkin pie >:D 8)
Quote from: Jay FSame here. It's like pumpkin pie. "You don't like it because you haven't tried my pumpkin pie."
No, I just don't like pumpkin pie.
It's more that
a) me not liking it means nothing
b) I probably don't feel that strongly about it anyway - there's no one I actively dislike, just some who so far have interested/grabbed me less
c) even with composers I don't adore, there are individual works I
do adore (e.g. the Wolf's Glen!)
d) if I tried the piece/composer again, I'd very likely like it very much. It's me that changes and matures, not the piece
so I'm not of a mind to make those sort of statements
Quote from: Luke on September 11, 2014, 11:41:45 AM
It's more that
a) me not liking it means nothing
b) I probably don't feel that strongly about it anyway - there's no one I actively dislike, just some who so far have interested/grabbed me less
c) even with composers I don't adore, there are individual works I do adore (e.g. the Wolf's Glen!)
d) if I tried the piece/composer again, I'd very likely like it very much. It's me that changes and matures, not the piece
so I'm not of a mind to make those sort of statements
Yeah but the thread is not composers you think suck, it is composers you personally do not see or understand the appeal of whilst acknowledging that others whose opinions you respect do.
Quote from: Ken B on September 12, 2014, 05:46:33 AM
Yeah but the thread is not composers you think suck, it is composers you personally do not see or understand the appeal of whilst acknowledging that others whose opinions you respect do.
In that spirit,
Wagner. There is a swath of his work which I like all right, a very few pieces which enthuse me; but I don't get how one could be . . . a
Wagnerite.
I mean, apart from just considering it a cult 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 12, 2014, 05:51:26 AM
In that spirit, Wagner. There is a swath of his work which I like all right, a very few pieces which enthuse me; but I don't get how one could be . . . a Wagnerite.
He was the Stockhausen of his day, only he knew how to write good music.
More seriously:: I think his status in the 19th century was due to his ideas: the idea that opera was a continuous drama and not a set of musical set pieces created for the singers to display their vocal talents, the marked increase of chromaticism and orchestral size, and so forth. Things we think of today as natural or even bloated and too old fashioned he promoted when they were newfangled inventions (and for some of them he counts as the inventor). He was therefore a symbol of The New in Music, and attacked or adored as such.
There aren't any composers I don't get but there compositions by composers that I don't get. The two most prominent are:
Mozart's Symphonies (I've heard all of them by at least two different conductors, and the 41st I've heard umpteen times).
Schubert's Piano Sonatas (I've heard all of these so many times, especially the last three).
Most of Stockhausen and most of Mozart, to name two off of the top of my head.
...but I will keep trying!
At first I thought "No one in particular...", and then a really obvious name struck me: Palestrina. Time and time again I've seen him listed as the apex of Renaissance music, the be-all and end-all that thoroughly exhausted all musical possibilities of the period before Monteverdi and the Baroque came in.
I don't get it. By all means he was a good composer, but head and shoulders above Des Prez? Tallis? Really? His music strikes me as very plain even compared to his contemporaries, but the Renaissance is one of my favorite time periods and I really want to hear the work that makes me agree with folks on this one.
Let me confess - once again - I never came to grips with:
Mozart (though I love Beethoven, and even some Mozart; Haydn is another blank space)
Schumann (though I love Mendelssohn)
Brahms (though I adore Dvořák)
Wagner (though I was really impressed by Parsifal)
Strauss (all of them ;))
Puccini (I find water more tasty ??? and am fond of late Respighi)
Stockhausen (didn't even try hard, as I did with the others listed here before)
Messiaen (though I admire the man, and used to be fond of the stories about him, told by an old musical friend (now deceased) who knew him personally) ::)
Quote from: Fagotterdämmerung on December 12, 2014, 11:33:10 PM
At first I thought "No one in particular...", and then a really obvious name struck me: Palestrina. Time and time again I've seen him listed as the apex of Renaissance music,
That's a very old-fashioned view, isn't it? My impression is that Palestrina was long regarded as the apex because not much other Renaissance music was known or played. This conventional wisdom has changed a lot in recent decades, because we know those other masters better.
Quote from: Fagotterdämmerung on December 12, 2014, 11:33:10 PM
At first I thought "No one in particular...", and then a really obvious name struck me: Palestrina. Time and time again I've seen him listed as the apex of Renaissance music, the be-all and end-all that thoroughly exhausted all musical possibilities of the period before Monteverdi and the Baroque came in.
I don't get it. By all means he was a good composer, but head and shoulders above Des Prez? Tallis? Really? His music strikes me as very plain even compared to his contemporaries, but the Renaissance is one of my favorite time periods and I really want to hear the work that makes me agree with folks on this one.
He isn't head and shoulders above Josquin. No-one could be. He is also from 100 years later. He is primus inter pares with late renaissance composers, Lassus, Victoria, and so on. You need to remember that for centuries this music was neglected and his was the name that survived. So he became an emblem. There are more recordings, good ones, of some of his masses. But we are only recently getting great recordings of the vast amount of music of that era.
A specific recording? PCA, 4 part Lamentation on Archiv, long OOP I think ... >:D
Or the PCA masses on Brilliant cheap.
I just don't get Brahms.
So, he's got some great ideas and powerful themes.
But by the end of a piece I feel like I'm back at square one, as though I haven't really experienced anything. To me it seems like the compositions never really develop. He twists and turns his themes a bit, but there's no new energy infused to the piece, which makes each theme sound pretty sentimental. What am I missing?
:-[
Quote from: Linus on December 14, 2014, 07:44:32 AM
I just don't get Brahms.
So, he's got some great ideas and powerful themes.
But by the end of a piece I feel like I'm back at square one, as though I haven't really experienced anything. To me it seems like the compositions never really develop. He twists and turns his themes a bit, but there's no new energy infused to the piece, which makes each theme sound pretty sentimental. What am I missing?
:-[
I have similar feelings on Brahms,
Linus (I've mentioned it elsehwere)..it's strange: I get te impression Brahms has
everything I believe a composer needs to achieve "greatness" and yet, IMHO, he doesn't...he actually bores me to tears (with one or the other exception in his works)...I can't pinpoint
what it is that's missing from that "everything"... ???
Cheers,
Brahms: short bus Beethoven.
I enjoy his work, though. It's a little like me and popcorn: I never make it at home or buy it, but if someone's having some a theater I'll probably enjoy it a good deal. Same when Brahms is on the concert program.
Quote from: ritter on December 14, 2014, 09:10:16 AM
I have similar feelings on Brahms, Linus (I've mentioned it elsehwere)..it's strange: I get te impression Brahms has everything I believe a composer needs to achieve "greatness" and yet, IMHO, he doesn't...he actually bores me to tears (with one or the other exception in his works)...I can't pinpoint what it is that's missing from that "everything"... ???
Cheers,
Yes! I also feel he has "everything" in theory, but the actual output lacks something fundamental.
It's tempting to say that it's because Brahms is "lazy", too content with the road paved by Beethoven and therefore lacks the drive that is needed to pave new roads. Perhaps originality is a prerequisite for greatness after all.
There's also the rumoured perfectionism of Brahms. Perhaps his sketches had greater energy than his final works? We'll never know.
Brahms does a lot of things at a technical level that can be hard to appreciate at first. In the case of his themes, it is all about modulation and defying expectation. When you think a melody is moving towards a certain path he suddenly changes gears completely, radically altering the mood of the piece only to suddenly pick things up to where they first broke off. And he does this continually. He is purposely making things harder from himself and by extension for the audience as well. Add to this a thick contrapuntal texture and relentless rhythmic alterations or implications and you get something that can pretty though to wade through the first time around. There is a reason so many 20th century composers used his music for inspiration though. Brahms the progressive indeed.
Quote from: Fagotterdämmerung on December 14, 2014, 11:21:22 AM
Brahms: short bus Beethoven.
http://www.youtube.com/v/caxST63cOd4
http://www.youtube.com/v/9D8waN3sZ8c
I think that Brahms is perhaps seen as an inferior Beethoven because (at least for the second half of his career) the drama is often implied as much as explicit. And though Brahms is not nearly as conservative as he's made out to be, there's nothing like the overt radicalism that you see in the late Beethoven quartets and sonatas.
If I absolutely had to choose between the two, it would be Beethoven, but as time goes by, my opinion of Brahms continues to edge higher.
Granted, I don't know all of Brahms' oeuvre (I still need to explore his chamber music which I've heard so many great things about), but I think this constant comparing him to Beethoven or even trying to doesn't really do the man's music justice. Okay, he revered Beethoven and it even took Brahms a considerable amount of time for him to even compose his first symphony, but what lay beneath the surface of his music is someone who understood and accepted the tradition of classical music at that time and took these classical forms and injected them with his own ideals about how he would like to express himself. On this front, I believe he succeeded. Some people may have difficulty with his music and that's certainly fine, but I think Brahms is one of the most accessible composers of the Romantic Era and a lot of this has to do with what is lying beneath that rugged, highly structured surface.
It took me a few months as a beginner, but I have liked Brahms' music for a long time and until I found dissenting opinions on the web I usually took him for someone almost universally acknowledged as a great composer. I am not so happy if the "restrained melancholy" mood is overly dominant (therefore I don't like the famous 3rd movement of the 3rd all that much) and I sometimes miss "letting it rip" (he does it in the first piano concerto and some earlyish chamber music like the 1st piano quartet and the piano quintet, but only rarely afterwards). There are also some pieces I find "dry" (bits of the first string quartet and the C major piano trio), but overall he is still a favorite. He denies himself and the listener "cheap thrills", but the cliche that it can be all the more rewarding in the long run seems true.
I also think that the well-known orchestral works are fairly accessible (and diverse enough) that it is somewhat unlikely that someone will fall in love with Brahms other music if one dislikes the symphonies and concertos. Maybe the violin sonatas Karl already referred to. Or choral music (found to be in Schuetz' and Bach's class by some choral guys I talked to), but usually these genres are less accessible for many listeners.
Over the course of 20+ years, I have reached the point where I don't change the station when Brahms comes on, but neither do I care if I ever hear another one of his notes.
Additionally, I've come to realize as well that I only like some classical music. I choose classical radio if I listen to radio (not that often) and don't truly dislike any of it except opera, but much of classical fails to engage me. I thought I would like Shostakovich's symphonies based on my love of his SQs, but it just hasn't happened.
Quote from: Jay F on December 15, 2014, 07:44:45 AM
Over the course of 20+ years, I have reached the point where I don't change the station when Brahms comes on, but neither do I care if I ever hear another one of his notes.
Additionally, I've come to realize as well that I only like some classical music. I choose classical radio if I listen to radio (not that often) and don't truly dislike any of it except opera, but much of classical fails to engage me. I thought I would like Shostakovich's symphonies based on my love of his SQs, but it just hasn't happened.
I saw an interview with Steve Reich where he said that if he is somewhere where Brahms is playing on the radio, he asks them to turn off the radio. A bit extreme, but amusing.
Funny, i have the same reaction to the music of Steve Reich.
Quote from: EigenUser on December 15, 2014, 11:20:31 AM
I saw an interview with Steve Reich where he said that if he is somewhere where Brahms is playing on the radio, he asks them to turn off the radio. A bit extreme, but amusing.
Schoenberg was wiser.
Brahms the Radical.
Quote from: Purusha on December 15, 2014, 12:19:35 PM
Funny, i have the same reaction to the music of Steve Reich.
:P
Itsgonnarainitsgonnarainitsgonnarainitsgonnarainitsgonnarainitsgonnarainitsgonnarainitsgonnarain
Quote from: Ken B on December 15, 2014, 12:23:54 PM
Schoenberg was wiser. Brahms the Radical.
That
Arnold could teach us a thing or two.
In all seriousness, i wouldn't really call Brahms "radical". I think there is a difference between variation by means of musical richness (which is the approach Brahms took) and variation by means of refusing consonance at every turn. It seems many 20th century composers believed that the progress of music hinged entirely on finding a way to avoid repetition. The presence of Brahms looms large precisely because he took great pains to avoid falling into cliches and because of the sheer volume of musical ideas he packed tightly into his work, his music becoming more and more concise as years went by, shedding away everything that was useless or gratuitous, like a diamond cutter painstakingly chipping a way on a rough stone until he obtains a richly faceted gem of perfect proportions.
So ultimately, it was not necessarily the language of Brahms that those composers adopted (at least, not on a technical level), but his methods and aims, particularly those of his late works. You won't find anything in the music of Brahms that was pointing towards, say, a new radical conception of harmony, but if you ever wondered why so many 20th century composers were so obsessed in packing so much within so little, just think of Brahms.
Quote from: Purusha on December 16, 2014, 06:09:31 AM
[...] but if you ever wondered why so many 20th century composers were so obsessed in packing so much within so little, just think of Brahms.
But of course, in his epoch with all the contemporary pursuit of grander gesture and longer time-scales, his was the
radical work.
Heh, i guess while musicians like Mahler were exploring music on a macrocosmic scales, Brahms perfected the art of looking for meaning in the smallest possible of musical particles.
The combination of the two gave us... too many notes. ???
As I remember the quote, Schönberg said "Brahms the progressive", not radical. It was mainly to show that Brahms was far more than a mere Beethoven clone.
Quote from: Jo498 on December 16, 2014, 06:39:31 AM
As I remember the quote, Schönberg said "Brahms the progressive", not radical.
I expect you are right. It is an article which repays repeat reading.
Quote from: Purusha on December 16, 2014, 06:09:31 AM
In all seriousness, i wouldn't really call Brahms "radical". I think there is a difference between variation by means of musical richness (which is the approach Brahms took) and variation by means of refusing consonance at every turn. It seems many 20th century composers believed that the progress of music hinged entirely on finding a way to avoid repetition. The presence of Brahms looms large precisely because he took great pains to avoid falling into cliches and because of the sheer volume of musical ideas he packed tightly into his work, his music becoming more and more concise as years went by, shedding away everything that was useless or gratuitous, like a diamond cutter painstakingly chipping a way on a rough stone until he obtains a richly faceted gem of perfect proportions.
So ultimately, it was not necessarily the language of Brahms that those composers adopted (at least, not on a technical level), but his methods and aims, particularly those of his late works. You won't find anything in the music of Brahms that was pointing towards, say, a new radical conception of harmony, but if you ever wondered why so many 20th century composers were so obsessed in packing so much within so little, just think of Brahms.
Have you ever heard anything by Morton Feldman?
Quote from: Purusha on December 16, 2014, 06:09:31 AM
In all seriousness, i wouldn't really call Brahms "radical". I think there is a difference between variation by means of musical richness (which is the approach Brahms took) and variation by means of refusing consonance at every turn. It seems many 20th century composers believed that the progress of music hinged entirely on finding a way to avoid repetition. The presence of Brahms looms large precisely because he took great pains to avoid falling into cliches and because of the sheer volume of musical ideas he packed tightly into his work, his music becoming more and more concise as years went by, shedding away everything that was useless or gratuitous, like a diamond cutter painstakingly chipping a way on a rough stone until he obtains a richly faceted gem of perfect proportions.
So ultimately, it was not necessarily the language of Brahms that those composers adopted (at least, not on a technical level), but his methods and aims, particularly those of his late works. You won't find anything in the music of Brahms that was pointing towards, say, a new radical conception of harmony, but if you ever wondered why so many 20th century composers were so obsessed in packing so much within so little, just think of Brahms.
Webern, Kurtag maybe sometimes but not always by any means. Anyone else?
Quote from: karlhenning on December 16, 2014, 06:14:54 AM
But of course, in his epoch with all the contemporary pursuit of grander gesture and longer time-scales, his was the radical work.
You're forgetting Chopin and Schumann, I think. Even Beethoven op 126 and Schubert op 946. Short timescale and intimate gestures are a big thing in 19th century music
Quote from: Mandryka on December 16, 2014, 08:09:52 AM
You're forgetting Chopin and Schumann, I think.
I'm not, because he survived them by a significant span.
Still, you've a musical point.
Although, I think that Brahms's language became more rarefied with time; that (say) when he was contemporaneous with Chopin and Schumann, his musical language was more expansive. So I shy from the suggestion that the focus in Brahms's language is simply a result of his being in the same graduating class as Ch. and Sch.
I always loved this example of rarified Brahms, though, and it's actually pretty early, the exquisite op 21 Variations. As Malcolm Macdonald pointed out, this page recalls nothing so much as Webern in its stripped-down nature, in which huge intervals bestride the piano in delicate two-part counterpoint, recalling Webern's own Variations, in fact. But Brahms has everything. I adore him without any reservation whatsoever.
Hi, btw!
No reservation required! Cheers, Luke!
Quote from: Mandryka on December 16, 2014, 08:06:47 AM
Have you ever heard anything by Morton Feldman?
I was obviously referring to those who came immediately after him, or were directly influenced by him. It would be like me saying that Beethoven's formal ideas had a huge influence on 19th century composers and you asking "have you ever heard of Bizet"?
Quote from: Mandryka on December 16, 2014, 08:06:47 AM
Webern, Kurtag maybe sometimes but not always by any means. Anyone else?
Webern yes. Hard to imagine him without Brahms. Also Reger, Schoenberg himself, Enescu, to name a couple that were influenced directly by Brahms. But i think this idea of constant variation in music grew much bigger than this cadre of artists who looked directly at Brahms for inspiration, and became something that many composers adopted in their own way and without taking anything from Brahms specifically. It was in a sense incorporated in the general weltanschauung of late 19th century and early 20th century music, and it is in this way that Brahms was "progressive", at least, that's how i think Schoenberg saw it.
Quote from: Purusha on December 16, 2014, 09:30:47 AM
I was obviously referring to those who came immediately after him, or were directly influenced by him. It would be like me saying that Beethoven's formal ideas had a huge influence on 19th century composers and you asking "have you ever heard of Bizet"?
Webern yes. Hard to imagine him without Brahms. Also Reger, Schoenberg himself, Enescu, to name a couple that were influenced directly by Brahms. But i think this idea of constant variation in music grew much bigger than this cadre of artists who looked directly at Brahms for inspiration, and became something that many composers adopted in their own way and without taking anything from Brahms specifically. It was in a sense incorporated in the general weltanschauung of late 19th century and early 20th century music, and it is in this way that Brahms was "progressive", at least, that's how i think Schoenberg saw it.
Oh, I completely misunderstood your first post, sorry.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 16, 2014, 08:18:59 AM
Although, I think that Brahms's language became more rarefied with time
It becomes more like Webern IMO. The change can already be heard around the Opus 76. This one for instance i think is a very transparent example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P8OqTHLvLQ
But i think he achieves his peak by the time he wrote the second string quintet. All of his late works from this period are all incredibly distilled, and that goes equally for the late chamber works, the late piano miniatures and even the chorale preludes which in my opinion are equal in greatness to his late piano music.
It was around this time too that Reger declared Brahms as the greatest living composer, that he had grown so advanced that he surpassed everyone else. And if you listen to Reger's music during this period, one can see just how much of an impression Brahms's late music had on him, starting even as early as the first cello sonata, where Reger tries to expand on his this idea of constant variation, if a bit awkwardly.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 16, 2014, 09:55:39 AM
Oh, I completely misunderstood your first post, sorry.
No worries. Generalizing about the 20th century is really impossible anyway. The point was to try to understand in what way Schoenberg understood Brahms to be "progressive". And, if i may so, also to reject this notion that Brahms was something of a lesser Beethoven. He was his own artist, with his own aesthetic ideas and musical aims that were not wholly identical to those of Beethoven.
Quote from: Purusha on December 16, 2014, 10:12:41 AM
No worries. Generalizing about the 20th century is really impossible anyway. The point was to try to understand in what way Schoenberg understood Brahms to be "progressive". And, if i may so, also to reject this notion that Brahms was something of a lesser Beethoven. He was his own artist, with his own aesthetic ideas and musical aims that were not wholly identical to those of Beethoven.
Agreed on all points.
Quote from: Luke on December 16, 2014, 09:02:17 AM
I always loved this example of rarified Brahms, though, and it's actually pretty early, the exquisite op 21 Variations. As Malcolm Macdonald pointed out, this page recalls nothing so much as Webern in its stripped-down nature, in which huge intervals bestride the piano in delicate two-part counterpoint, recalling Webern's own Variations, in fact. But Brahms has everything. I adore him without any reservation whatsoever.
Hi, btw!
Thanks for this - which just prompted me to go listen to that wonderful 7th variation.
Quote from: Purusha on December 16, 2014, 10:07:23 AM
It becomes more like Webern IMO. The change can already be heard around the Opus 76. This one for instance i think is a very transparent example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P8OqTHLvLQ
But i think he achieves his peak by the time he wrote the second string quintet. All of his late works from this period are all incredibly distilled [....]
All inessentials pared away; way ahead of his time!
Well, maybe not entirely "ahead". More like above, as in, timelessness. :P
Yes, I'm with you.
Or outside of time in a way roughly similar to you.
I enjoy how one line of sarcasm flowered into all these passionate defenses of Brahms ( It Might Get Prolix: the GMG Documentary ). When I get a chance, I will listen to Brahms-as-Webern ( Johannes Barraqué? ) with open ears, however. Webern's a man I could listen to all day, but unfortunately that would mean listening to his complete works several times over, so horizons must expand, inevitably...
Perhaps I should dis Schoenberg for some enlightening analysis. I'd be fibbing, though: I think he's hot stuff. ( He'd take the La Marseillaise from the French if he could! "Germany did whole-tone harmony first!" ...The Harmonielehre gets more dubious as it gets close to its own present. )
Maybe someone wouldn't mind spelling out what I'm supposed to be listening for in that little capriccio that is like Webern. Or in op 111/2.
Quote from: Fagotterdämmerung on December 16, 2014, 11:17:44 AM
I enjoy how one line of sarcasm flowered into all these passionate defenses of Brahms
Count your blessings! Dis Shostakovich in this neck of the woods and you might not make it out alive!
Quote from: Mandryka on December 16, 2014, 11:54:24 AM
Maybe someone wouldn't mind spelling out what I'm supposed to be listening for in that little capriccio that is like Webern. Or in op 111/2.
There is no fat in it, nothing superfluous. This is more obvious if you listen to it vertically, like you would with Bach:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAERQ92DOOQ
It is an exercise in constant variation, or constant motivic development really. There's also a great deal of rhythmic variation (which relates to the counterpoint). But it is what he does later on that is truly amazing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9DRthQSSUc
Alas, i lack the technical means to really explain why this is so impressive (at least to me), but there are articles out in the net that deal with this subject:
http://davidsbuendler.freehostia.com/spaet.htm
The spareness is not simplicity as some people assume, but conciseness. By saying less, he ends up saying more. And every note has some kinda of harmonic relation with the other, to the point one doesn't really know when the vertical begins, and the horizontal ends, and vice versa. Motivic development is counterpoint, and counterpoint is motivic development. It is as if the music rotates in a spiral, like a concentric canon.
Which is precisely what Webern does, except to a more extreme degree:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lED-ymqR2E4
Sorry if this sounds stupid, i don't have any other way to describe it, but its how i hear it.
BTW, can i mention the Chorale Preludes again, possibly his most underrated composition? This is one of those works where i almost brake into tears when i listen to it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyuWroI0148
Another one, just because you simply can't get enough of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsWY6WWyF8E
This is a great performance too. My current benchmark was Rudolf Innig but i think i will have to acquire this one as well. Bless you, youtube.
Quote from: Purusha on December 16, 2014, 02:43:32 PM
Another one, just because you simply can't get enough of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsWY6WWyF8E
This is a great performance too. My current benchmark was Rudolf Innig but i think i will have to acquire this one as well. Bless you, youtube.
I haven't heard Innig, but I very much enjoyed his Messiaen. I too like the chorale preludes - the performance which impresses me the most is by Gerd Zacher.
Quote from: Purusha on December 16, 2014, 02:36:48 PM
BTW, can i mention the Chorale Preludes again, possibly his most underrated composition? This is one of those works where i almost brake into tears when i listen to it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyuWroI0148
I love these.
Just to close this argument, here's an article devoted to Reger, his relation to Schoenberg, and their mutual relation to Brahms:
http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/mu/min-ad02/kreinin.html
I wish i knew enough about music theory to really explain this stuff myself. I hear it with my ears, but can't express it in words. It is frustrating.
I've just given it a cursory look as yet, but a nice article, thanks!
I definitely see some Bach influence ( Bachianas Brahmsileiras? ) on that last one. I do get where the Webern people are coming from if I don't exactly agree: they share a spare and somewhat somnambulant quality in some works.
Don't get me started on Reger, though. If I'm lukewarm on Brahms, Reger is my poster child for late Romantic bloat gone awry. :o
Quote from: Fagotterdämmerung on December 17, 2014, 07:51:45 AM
I definitely see some Bach influence ( Bachianas Brahmsileiras? ) on that last one.
(I should leave such biographical details to
Luke, who has better command of them than I)
Brahms was, I believe, to the pioneering edition of
Bach's works.
Quote from: Fagotterdämmerung on December 17, 2014, 07:51:45 AM
Don't get me started on Reger, though. If I'm lukewarm on Brahms, Reger is my poster child for late Romantic bloat gone awry. :o
Fagotterdämmerung, meet Mr Gurrelieder. Mr Gurrelieder, Fagotterdämmerung.
Quote from: Ken B on December 17, 2014, 08:22:07 AM
Fagotterdämmerung, meet Mr Gurrelieder. Mr Gurrelieder, Fagotterdämmerung.
:laugh:
Gurrelieder is kind of a guilty pleasure, like Strauss's
Symphonia Domestica. It's not really Schoenberg at his best, but it's popcorn music. Thankfully, Schoenberg went on a twelve-
tone step diet program and lost a lot of orchestral weight. ( Generally, I prefer more restrained works, like
Opus Calvicembalisticum and the
Gothic symphony... 0:) )
Actually, where Max Reger annoys me is in his contrapuntal work; it's always so stodgy to my ears. Bach always sounds good, but listen to something like
Variations and Fugue in A Major and then listen to, well, any Bach fugue and one really hears the difference
clarity makes in this type of composition.
Quote from: Fagotterdämmerung on December 17, 2014, 09:23:32 AM
:laugh:
Gurrelieder is kind of a guilty pleasure, like Strauss's Symphonia Domestica. It's not really Schoenberg at his best, but it's popcorn music. Thankfully, Schoenberg went on a twelve-tone step diet program and lost a lot of orchestral weight. ( Generally, I prefer more restrained works, like Opus Calvicembalisticum and the Gothic symphony... 0:) )
Actually, where Max Reger annoys me is in his contrapuntal work; it's always so stodgy to my ears. Bach always sounds good, but listen to something like Variations and Fugue in A Major and then listen to, well, any Bach fugue and one really hears the difference clarity makes in this type of composition.
The "book" on Reger is that he "over-eggs the pudding". This is often true, but there are enough exceptions to make him worthwhile. The Mozart variations for orchestra for example, or the Boecklin pieces, quartets and clarinet quintet, even some of the piano music.
IIRC Brahms was on friendly terms both with the Bach editor Philip Spitta and with Friedrich Chrysander who almost single-handedly handled the first major Handel edition. He might actually have made some contributions to both of those editions, e.g. providing written out figured bass.
I'd still put Messiaen in the 'composers I don't get' category. I have found that his music works best in small dosages but even then I'm left twiddling my thumbs a bit waiting for something to stick out and grab me, but, so far, only L'Ascension has really grabbed ahold of me.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 17, 2014, 07:10:19 PM
I'd still put Messiaen in the 'composers I don't get' category. I have found that his music works best in small dosages but even then I'm left twiddling my thumbs a bit waiting for something to stick out and grab me, but, so far, only L'Ascension has really grabbed ahold of me.
This is probably my favorite Messiaen (after his Apparition):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qWhpSCHCxg
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 17, 2014, 07:10:19 PM
I'd still put Messiaen in the 'composers I don't get' category. I have found that his music works best in small dosages but even then I'm left twiddling my thumbs a bit waiting for something to stick out and grab me, but, so far, only L'Ascension has really grabbed ahold of me.
Pssst...
Trois Petites Liturgies. Especially for a Debussy fan. While many parts have the "Messiaen" sound, many other parts also are very close to the
Sirenes and
Nuages.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 17, 2014, 07:10:19 PM
I'd still put Messiaen in the 'composers I don't get' category. I have found that his music works best in small dosages but even then I'm left twiddling my thumbs a bit waiting for something to stick out and grab me, but, so far, only L'Ascension has really grabbed ahold of me.
I believe it is perfectly OK not to like any composer (Messiaen) or performer. I detest Delius. There are a few exceptions that it may be difficult for the majority to understand and Bach leads that pack IMHO. But even there the majority does over shadow a considered personal reaction.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 14, 2014, 06:22:16 AM
Maybe, or maybe not. It is not uncommon, when we think of the composers who died terribly early, to project future careers of unceasing experiment and progress. It is an attractive arc of speculation! But (just for argument) it is possible, too, that they would reach a point beyond which they do not feel motivated to press with further experimentation.
And in that line of speculation, there are at least two possibilities, too:
1. At that point, the composer "realizes his gains," expanding his artistry laterally rather than vertically (not that it does either composer full justice, but think Bach and Brahms)
2. At that point, the composer feels no further motivation to create (think Rossini and Sibelius)
We just do not know.
Personally, I do not feel these pangs of "oh, the music which we might have had from Mozart and Schubert!" There is a wealth of great music to listen to, without the need to bemoan the imaginary masterpieces which might have been.
I disagree. I think that Schubert would have left Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner and Mahler in the dust for memorable, unforgettable spiritual music if he had lived longer. No doubt about it. Schubert was, above all, a poet. Listen to the Ninth with a different perspective. It's about youthful aspirations striving for spiritual nirvana. Especially the final movement. The soul, finally liberated from its earthly bondage, taking flight.
I definitely think Mozart would have continued writing good music. Innovative music? Maybe yes, maybe no, but would anyone be that sorry to have it around?
Though it's outside the scope of this thread, I think we accept mortality because we have to. The majority of composers, from what I can tell, would have kept on composing if given the chance of added life, health, and youth.
Quote from: Fagotterdämmerung on December 29, 2014, 05:32:48 PM
I definitely think Mozart would have continued writing good music. Innovative music? Maybe yes, maybe no, but would anyone be that sorry to have it around?
Though it's outside the scope of this thread, I think we accept mortality because we have to. The majority of composers, from what I can tell, would have kept on composing if given the chance of added life, health, and youth.
Especially the amiable ones, like Haydn.
*runs for cover*
Quote from: RJR on December 29, 2014, 05:00:33 PM
I disagree. I think that Schubert would have left Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner and Mahler in the dust for memorable, unforgettable spiritual music if he had lived longer.
Quote from: Fagotterdämmerung on December 29, 2014, 05:32:48 PM
I definitely think Mozart would have continued writing good music. Innovative music? Maybe yes, maybe no, but would anyone be that sorry to have it around?
That reminds me—because I think we had this thread before (switching around composers' lifespans). Some alternate history projections I find especially appealing:
Mozart 1756-1813
Beethoven 1770-1805
22 more years of productivity for Mozart are obviously tantalising in themselves. Then consider: Beethoven studies with Mozart, then sets out on his own path, only to be cut down in his prime shortly after the premiere of the Eroica. Two more symphonies and a piano concerto remain unfinished in manuscript, but the works that survived would certainly be enough to ensure Beethoven's name lives on. How would Mozart's music develop after coming in contact with Beethoven—would he be influenced by works such as the Eroica, Waldstein & Appassionata? Would we see Mozart completing Beethoven's unfinished Fourth and Fifth?
Schubert 1797-1873
Rossini 1792-1823
Rossini's place in history would not be very different; by 1823 he was already the most famous composer in Europe. In fact he might even get more respect than he currently does, due to the mystique that tends to be attached to composers who die young. Schubert, meanwhile, might find himself hopelessly outdated and unfashionable by the 1840s and 50s, surrounded by the likes of Berlioz, Schumann, Liszt and Wagner. Or perhaps he'd enthusiastically embrace the New German School and the symphonic poem and music-drama, and so forth... there's no way of knowing obviously. It does seem likely though that whatever he did, it'd be more interesting than staying home for ten years and then becoming a gourmand famous for his gluttony.
The one that got the most play on the thread was Mahler/Strauss, though I don't recall the dates. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
Quote from: RJR on December 29, 2014, 05:00:33 PM
I disagree. I think that Schubert would have left Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner and Mahler in the dust for memorable, unforgettable spiritual music if he had lived longer. No doubt about it.
You are fully entitled to disagree in our speculation. And because it is speculation, yes, the matter is full of doubt. Is in fact little more than doubt.
But what if we combine long-lived Schubert with Beethoven dying 1805? Would Schubert somehow have "replaced" middle/late Beethoven? What about long-lived Mozart + short-lived Beethoven + long-lived Schubert?
Would long-lived super-geniuses Mozart and Schubert have stomped everything in a more thorough fashion than Beethoven did? What should one compose after Mozart's Faust Opera, the late violin concerti or the dozen of full scale Masses for St. Stephan or after Schubert's 20th symphony or 15th string quintet?
Or would they have "pulled a Rossini"? I do not think the latter, but I could imagine it more easily with Mozart or Schubert than with Beethoven. When Mozart was on, he was on, but he was also somewhat of a bonvivant. And Schubert might have been composing like a maniac, not only with regard to speed, but also to intensity, because he knew he would not live to get old.