You get one pick, and the criteria you use is your business: enjoyment, influence, greatness, listening time, whatever.
Please keep in mind that your pick must be very clear to the Bulldog.
Not surprisingly, my no. 1 pick is Johann Sebastian Bach, my soulmate and the guy I listen to far more than any other composer.
I thought of using the poll process, but I'm sure that somebody would be left out in the cold.
Janacek, for his fearless, flawed, self-aware humanity
I'm a Trinitarian. One in Three. Wagner/Mahler/Bruckner. The three are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial 8)
Sarge
Not sure I could choose . . . .
hmmmm................
Mahler.
:)
That was unexpected, Daniel! : )
I can't choose. This is far too difficult for me because my top 5: Ravel, Bartok, Vaughan Williams, Shostakovich, and Villa-Lobos have all given me so much pleasure and have each influenced me. I'll simply give the Bulldog a banana for this one. 8)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on March 01, 2012, 10:25:02 AM
I'm a Trinitarian. One in Three. Wagner/Mahler/Bruckner. The three are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial 8)
Sarge
Come on, pick one of those three. I believe you're up to the task. ;)
The pinnacle of all music: Beethoven
*runs away*
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 01, 2012, 10:33:40 AM
I can't choose. This is far too difficult for me because my top 5: Ravel, Bartok, Vaughan Williams, Shostakovich, and Villa-Lobos have all given me so much pleasure and have each influenced me. I'll simply give the Bulldog a banana for this one. 8)
Banana not accepted. :D
Quote from: Bulldog on March 01, 2012, 10:38:36 AM
Banana not accepted. :D
Ah, man, I'm screwed now...:D
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 01, 2012, 10:39:12 AM
Ah, man, I'm screwed now...:D
Not at all. It's never too late (until I say so).
Quote from: karlhenning on March 01, 2012, 10:25:15 AM
Not sure I could choose . . . .
Sure you can - you chose your wife among millions of women.
If you can't choose, you haven't been thinking about it hard enough. :-*
Haydn. He is from the period, 1750-1825, which is my favorite, and his music contains all the best elements of the Classical style. His oeuvre includes most forms, and some works hardly found elsewhere (e.g. Baryton Trios).
And his music makes me smile.
:)
For me it is Beethoven.
Quote from: Bulldog on
Today at 03:43:32 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg606111#msg606111)
Sure you can - you chose your wife among millions of women.
Aye, and without remorse.
Quote from: Arnold on March 01, 2012, 10:45:13 AM
Haydn. He is from the period, 1750-1825, which is my favorite, and his music contains all the best elements of the Classical style. His oeuvre includes most forms, and some works hardly found elsewhere (e.g. Baryton Trios).
And his music makes me smile.
:)
An excellent and concise explanation. 8)
Quote from: Luke on March 01, 2012, 10:23:23 AM
Janacek, for his fearless, flawed, self-aware humanity
A somewhat unusual choice, but Janacek's a big winner whose reputation will only keep growing.
Beethoven.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on March 01, 2012, 10:48:02 AM
My fallback position 8)
Sarge
I just want to be sure about this. Should I mark you down for Haydn?
Well, since Sarge has endorsed a single choice, and since I know that a banana is no use to a bulldog . . .
. . . and because selecting a wife is different, there's no need to forsake all composers else to cleave unto one alone . . .
I must say Stravinsky. His music was a seminal discovery for me early in my composing days. I like the all-but-incredible variety through the course of his career, and yet the distinctive musical fingerprint throughout. I like the rhythmic energy, the harmonic energy (which is a force, too), the wonderful colors of the scoring.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 01, 2012, 10:56:44 AM
Well, since Sarge has endorsed a single choice, and since I know that a banana is no use to a bulldog . . .
. . . and because selecting a wife is different, there's no need to forsake all composers else to cleave unto one alone . . .
I must say Stravinsky. His music was a seminal discovery for me early in my composing days. I like the all-but-incredible variety through the course of his career, and yet the distinctive musical fingerprint throughout. I like the rhythmic energy, the harmonic energy (which is a force, too), the wonderful colors of the scoring.
Good job! Thanks for going along with this thing.
Quote from: Bulldog on March 01, 2012, 10:47:37 AM
An excellent and concise explanation. 8)
Your choice of
Bach would be among my "Top 3", which would be rounded out with my avatar.
:)
Quote from: Bulldog on March 01, 2012, 10:36:03 AM
Come on, pick one of those three.
Heresy!(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/asheville/trinitarian.jpg)
Sarge
Go with Mahler, Sarge! ;)
(* chortle *)
Quote from: Bulldog on March 01, 2012, 10:52:21 AM
I just want to be sure about this. Should I mark you down for Haydn?
Well, he is my fallback position...but I'm not ready to retreat yet.
Sarge
Beethoven. And mainly because of his chamber music and piano sonatas. JS Bach is no 2 though.
Bartók, just based on frequency of listening. Bluebeard's Castle is one of my favorite operas, and other scores I could hear any day of the week are the Concerto for Orchestra, The Miraculous Mandarin, The Wooden Prince, the three piano concertos and many others. Add in his huge chamber music output - the six string quartets are among the 20th-century's greatest - and I'm sold.
In general, the 1920s through the 1940s are sort of my "baseline" - the period to which I gravitate most naturally - but there are many exceptions, most notably Bruckner and Mahler.
--Bruce
This is a tough call for me. Hard to pick between Bach and Brahms (my usual fallback)...but given how much Bach listening I've been doing lately and the fact that I haven't listened to Brahms in a couple of months, I'll choose Bach.
BRAHMS...... ::)!
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on
Today at 04:43:50 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg606154#msg606154)
BRAHMS...... ::)!
Testify, Marvin! : )
Richard Wagner. :D
So far four people have the correct answer.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 01, 2012, 11:51:46 AM
Quote from: marvinbrown on Today at 04:43:50 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg606154#msg606154)
BRAHMS...... ::)!
Testify, Marvin! : )
Followed by Stravinsky, Haydn, Handel and then Mendellsohn.......in that order.
marvin
See avatar. For explanation: see eponymous thread... ;D
(Beethoven and Wagner are the two other, greater, composers I love most, but HB is my personal No. 1)
Quote from: MN Dave on
Today at 04:59:23 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg606160#msg606160)
So far four people have
the correct my answer.
Corrected : )
Quote from: karlhenning on March 01, 2012, 12:04:34 PM
Quote from: MN Dave on Today at 04:59:23 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg606160#msg606160) So far four people have
the correct my answer.
Corrected : )No, you done botched it up, son. ;)
Quote from: Bulldog on March 01, 2012, 10:18:06 AM
You get one pick, and the criteria you use is your business: enjoyment, influence, greatness, listening time, whatever.
Please keep in mind that your pick must be very clear to the Bulldog.
Not surprisingly, my no. 1 pick is Johann Sebastian Bach, my soulmate and the guy I listen to far more than any other composer.
I thought of using the poll process, but I'm sure that somebody would be left out in the cold.
Haydn, Joseph (1732 - 1809). :)
8)
Quote from: karlhenning on March 01, 2012, 12:04:34 PM
Quote from: MN Dave on Today at 04:59:23 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg606160#msg606160) So far four people have
the correct my answer.
That's not it. He just left out a few letters. He meant to say, "So far all of our people have the correct answer." See, nothing to change, just left off a few letters. :)
Quote from: MN Dave on
Today at 05:09:21 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg606169#msg606169)
Really? Aw, man...
Don't tell me you're surprised?
Freedom of choice is what you got. Freedom from choice is what you want . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on March 01, 2012, 12:10:54 PM
Freedom of choice is what you got. Freedom from choice is what you want . . . .[/font]
No, I've made my choice. Can't you tell?
Quote from: MN Dave on March 01, 2012, 12:09:21 PM
Really? Aw, man...
You would be content with my second place pick though... 0:)
8)
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on March 01, 2012, 12:13:43 PM
You would be content with my second place pick though... 0:)
;D
Mine would be Bach or Chopin. Just sayin'...
Quote from: MN Dave on March 01, 2012, 12:14:28 PM
;D
Mine would be Bach or Chopin. Just sayin'...
Mine would be Beethoven or Mozart. Either one is a hell of a fallback! :)
8)
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on March 01, 2012, 12:15:42 PM
Mine would be Beethoven or Mozart. Either one is a hell of a fallback! :)
Yeah, up with Mozart. I just listen to a whole lot of Chopin...for some reason.
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on March 01, 2012, 12:15:42 PM
Mine would be Beethoven or Mozart. Either one is a hell of a fallback! :)
That makes you Classical Guy, dunnit? Heeheehee...
Quote from: MN Dave on
Today at 05:14:28 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg606179#msg606179)
;D
Mine would be Bach or Chopin. Just sayin'...
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on
Today at 05:15:42 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg606181#msg606181)
Mine would be Beethoven or Mozart. Either one is a hell of a fallback! :)
8)
Ahem (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,20098.msg606187.html#msg606187), gentlemen.
Abiding Bulldog's wishes to pick one and one only I choose Shostakovich. 8) I don't think I could ever be without his music and his music, especially over the past few months, has conjured up so many feelings for me.
Beethoven, I have most CD's of his music. (no other way of leaving out Schumann, Brahms, Sibelius, and Debussy) But I have listened only 2.8 h of LvB in the last 3 months...
The current tally:
Beethoven 5
Haydn 3
Bach 2
Janacek 1
Mahler 1
Stravinsky 1
Bartok 1
Brahms 1
Wagner 1
Brian 1
Shost. 1
Quote from: Luke on March 01, 2012, 10:23:23 AM
Janacek, for his fearless, flawed, self-aware humanity
An obvious choice, but a fine one. I, too, love Janacek's music.
Brahms for me.
I just realized that Mozart is nowhere to be found. :o
That what happens when you ask people to do something so silly as to pick a solo #1! :-)
Quote from: Bulldog on March 01, 2012, 12:45:22 PM
I just realized that Mozart is nowhere to be found. :o
Mozart. He was with me. :)
Handel
Quote from: Winky Willy on March 01, 2012, 12:47:03 PM
That what happens when you ask people to do something so silly as to pick a solo #1! :-)
Solo no. 1's is what life is all about unless you believe in Hillary Clinton's famous refrain.
Quote from: Bulldog on March 01, 2012, 12:40:23 PM
Mahler 1
I am the only one who voted for Mahler?!!!!
Sarge, vote quickly!!! ;)
Quote from: madaboutmahler on
Today at 06:04:27 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg606242#msg606242)
I am the only one who voted for Mahler?!!!!
Sarge, vote quickly!!! ;)
Sarge still has the Mahler pieces and the Bruckner parts mashed into the Wagner pile!
Quote from: karlhenning on March 01, 2012, 01:05:26 PM
Quote from: madaboutmahler on Today at 06:04:27 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg606242#msg606242) I am the only one who voted for Mahler?!!!!
Sarge, vote quickly!!! ;)
Sarge still has the Mahler pieces and the Bruckner parts mashed into the Wagner pile!
It must be hard picking between those three for Sarge....
but he should go with Mahler! 8)
Quote from: madaboutmahler on March 01, 2012, 01:09:10 PM
It must be hard picking between those three for Sarge....
but he should go with Mahler! 8)
Hold on! I put Sarge down for Haydn. Please let me know if I've done wrong.
Quote from: Bulldog on March 01, 2012, 01:11:38 PM
Hold on! I put Sarge down for Haydn. Please let me know if I've done wrong.
I believe Sarge voted for Haydn in the 'no.2' thread. I am yet to see his no.1 vote on this thread yet, hopefully it will be Mahler. ;)
Quote from: madaboutmahler on
Today at 06:13:20 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg606255#msg606255)
I believe Sarge voted for Haydn in the 'no.2' thread
Here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,20098.msg606232.html#msg606232). I don't know if Sarge will commit to a no. 1 ; )
Not surprisingly, my no. 1 pick is Johann Sebastian Bach, my soulmate and the guy I listen to far more than any other composer.
;)
Quote from: madaboutmahler on March 01, 2012, 01:13:20 PM
I believe Sarge voted for Haydn in the 'no.2' thread. I am yet to see his no.1 vote on this thread yet, hopefully it will be Mahler. ;)
Okay, so I need to revise the tally:
Beethoven 5
Bach 2
Haydn 2
Brahms 2
Janacek 1
Mahler 1
Stravinsky 1
Bartok 1
Wagner 1
Brian 1
Shost. 1
Mozart 1
Handel 1
Quote from: Bulldog on March 01, 2012, 01:11:38 PM
Hold on! I put Sarge down for Haydn. Please let me know if I've done wrong.
I'm usually annoyed when people won't play by the rules laid down by a thread's creator. But in this case, I really can't, in good conscience, or even in fun, pick between Wagner, Mahler and Bruckner. My trinity is indivisible; the only number one I could pick.
I was raised Lutheran. I follow his example: "Here I stand. I can do no other." ;D
Sarge
Difficult to choose, but if I count my listening hours, it must be
Handel ;)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on March 01, 2012, 01:34:11 PM
I'm usually annoyed when people won't play by the rules laid down by a thread's creator. But in this case, I really can't, in good conscience, or even in fun, pick between Wagner, Mahler and Bruckner. My trinity is indivisible; the only number one I could pick.
I was raised Lutheran. I follow his example: "Here I stand. I can do no other." ;D
Sarge
I understand, Sarge. :)
Holst
I just put together a set of ring tones as a birthday gift for my partner, and while most of them were clips of traditional Thai and Lao music, the one he'll surely use when I call is a clip from the Goldberg Variations.
Count another vote for JS Bach!
thanks :)
www.youtube.com/13Orcun?feature=mhee
look at my channel
greetings from Turkey to Finland
I don't have a 'number one' - oh, I suppose if I were shoved into an isolated hole I would grab Beethoven or something on the fall down, just to be as complete as possible, but even he would be missing the whole baroque and (much) modern elements ....
I'm not sure if I could even narrow it down to a top seven.
Haydn
I'm going to choose the composer who's music was the first to get me excited about serious music...
...Richard Strauss (1864-1949)
...it was almost 20 years ago that I watched the NY Phil. on PBS perform Till Eulenspiegels lustige Streiche under the baton of Zubin Mehta, I had never heard a piece that endured so many emotions and presented it's listener with so many visuals. From there, I moved on to more Strauss, and more music in general thus beginning my passion for classical music. I find such a of high level personal involvement and colorful storytelling in Strauss' tone poems, a display of musical genius in his operas, a delicate devotion to his chamber and concerti, and a touch of pure love in his songs.
Over the years I have found a fondness for other composers that may have surpassed Strauss, but there is always a first love, and this music I first fell in love with will never be replaced.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on March 01, 2012, 01:34:11 PMI'm usually annoyed when people won't play by the rules laid down by a thread's creator. But in this case, I really can't, in good conscience, or even in fun, pick between Wagner, Mahler and Bruckner. My trinity is indivisible; the only number one I could pick.
I was raised Lutheran. I follow his example: "Here I stand. I can do no other." ;D
Sarge
Or, to put it more succinctly:
Banana. Suck it.(http://bp0.blogger.com/_yYhafUXistU/SEDYbixYjcI/AAAAAAAADd8/tFShjjo3OsY/s400/P1110282.JPG)
(Do you realise how hard it is to find a safe-for-work image of someone sucking a banana?)
John Williams.
I can hum his music more than any other composer I know, he has my son listening to symphonic music....and enjoying it (Williams and other movie composers lead me into classical music) and at the same time his music enables me to replay many a loved movies in my head. Goldsmith and others may have been somewhat more effective at the craft, but my reasons hold for this choice. :)
Current Tally:
Beethoven 5
Bach 3
Haydn 3
Brahms 2
Handel 2
Janacek 1
Mahler 1
Stravinsky 1
Bartok 1
Wagner 1
Brian 1
Shost. 1
Mozart 1
Holst 1
R. Strauss 1
J. Williams 1
Quote from: Bogey on March 01, 2012, 06:34:06 PM
John Williams.
That's the most surprising entry so far. I knew you loved film music, but I underestimated its impact on you.
Quote from: Bulldog on March 01, 2012, 06:39:45 PM
That's the most surprising entry so far. I knew you loved film music, but I underestimated its impact on you.
Indeed it has, Don and the effect on my lad is a positive one as well. Pretty cool to see. Williams can get a rap of just writing BIG stuff or formulaic. This is not totally true (ie Catch Me If You Can), but point taken. The likes of Herrmann, Rozsa, Newman, Goldsmith, Elfman etc., of whom I also enjoy, seem to get a more serious look by many film music buffs. It also does not help that he is typecast to mainly Spielberg films, but as far as memorable and just fun for me to revisit, he fits my bill. I am just starting to look into his earlier efforts....should be fun as well. In short, there is not a score from him of which I have heard that I did not enjoy part or all of.
ummm... let's see....
ehhhhhhh....... errrrrrrrrr......
maybe.......... um.................
I think......... ummm...... it was...........
ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........................
Bulldog, you know who to add. 8)
Quote from: Greg on March 01, 2012, 06:56:37 PM
ummm... let's see....
ehhhhhhh....... errrrrrrrrr......
maybe.......... um.................
I think......... ummm...... it was...........
ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........................
Bulldog, you know who to add. 8)
Xenakis?
I looked through my collection.
I thought about composers whose music I've only heard in concert.
None of them were numbered. Not any of them.
When I want to listen to what only Berlioz can give me, I listen to Berlioz. When I want to listen to what only Luc Ferrari can give me, I listen to Luc Ferrari. When I want to listen to what only Bach can give me, I listen to Bach. (Added after Bulldog's most recent post: When I want to listen to what only Xenakis gives me, I listen to Xenakis.) And so it goes.
Easy!
So I call Bulldog's number one idea a silly thing.
When I was a child, I had favorite composers. When I became a man, I put away childish things. (That's my Biblical version of "banana." Biblical references raise the tone of discussions, you know. Biblical and Greek and Roman and the Bhagavad Gita and the Kalevala. Man that stuff is so tonal.)
Quote from: some guy on March 01, 2012, 07:43:54 PM
I looked through my collection.
I thought about composers whose music I've only heard in concert.
None of them were numbered. Not any of them.
When I want to listen to what only Berlioz can give me, I listen to Berlioz. When I want to listen to what only Luc Ferrari can give me, I listen to Luc Ferrari. When I want to listen to what only Bach can give me, I listen to Bach. (Added after Bulldog's most recent post: When I want to listen to what only Xenakis gives me, I listen to Xenakis.) And so it goes.
Easy!
So I call Bulldog's number one idea a silly thing.
When I was a child, I had favorite composers. When I became a man, I put away childish things.
Now that you've pumped yourself up, how about a composer's name? Just one will do fine.
Quote from: some guy on March 01, 2012, 07:43:54 PM
I looked through my collection.
I thought about composers whose music I've only heard in concert.
None of them were numbered. Not any of them.
When I want to listen to what only Berlioz can give me, I listen to Berlioz. When I want to listen to what only Luc Ferrari can give me, I listen to Luc Ferrari. When I want to listen to what only Bach can give me, I listen to Bach. (Added after Bulldog's most recent post: When I want to listen to what only Xenakis gives me, I listen to Xenakis.) And so it goes.
Easy!
So I call Bulldog's number one idea a silly thing.
When I was a child, I had favorite composers. When I became a man, I put away childish things. (That's my Biblical version of "banana." Biblical references raise the tone of discussions, you know. Biblical and Greek and Roman and the Bhagavad Gita and the Kalevala. Man that stuff is so tonal.)
Actually, despite having voted, I'm very much with you here...in principle. I found it both easy and difficult to cast my vote. Difficult becase - as you say - there are so many composers who take me to a specific place 100% of the way, and if it is a place I want to go to, then at that moment that particular composer is the one for me. Jo Janacek is my favourite composer, but so is Ravel, and so is Brahms, and so is Tippett, and so is Chopin, and so is Cage, and so is Satie, and so is Brian, and so is Bach, and so is Ligeti, and so is Beethoven, and so is Webern, and so is Stravinsky, and so is...well, you get the point.
All the composers above do things to me that no others do, take me to places no others can, and mean the world to me as they do it. But the place Janacek takes me to is a particularly special one; it's the place I would choose to live in, metaphorically speaking, were I able to, whereas the others, to extend the metaphor, offer me places I desperately want to visit for long, repeated periods, but not necessarily to base myself in fully. That's why it was also easy for me to pick him as a number 1, without in the least suggesting that any of the others leave me less moved or wonderstruck. I didn't find that a childish or shallow choice, personally - that's why I found your last paragraph somewhat patronising.
At the end of the day, I'm proud of my choice of Shostakovich. The first time I heard Shostakovich, I didn't respond to his music at all and, to be even more honest, I found a lot of it just completely one-deminsional. He was a composer I admired but I didn't love (yet). Fast forward two years later and here I am writing about how much Shostakovich has meant to me. What happened along the way? Did my mind broaden? Did my tastes change? Was I looking for something in his music the first time I heard him that actually wasn't there? Probably, yes, to all three questions. One of the works that really got me interested in Shostakovich was his ballet The Golden Age (or The Age of Gold). This might not be "essential" Shostakovich, but it really made me take note of the many facets of his compositional style. There is no grey mood here like there is in his more serious music. This is, more or less, Shostakovich giving the listener a little relief after such intense music like his symphonies or SQs. I found this ballet to be one of my entry points into his style. I was already very familiar with all of his concerti, but I heard a performance with Viktoria Mullova (w/ Andre Previn conducting) of Violin Concerto No. 1 that really rattled my cage. Again, I found another entry. Shostakovich's music became much more accessible to me especially after hearing a lot of Prokofiev (another composer I couldn't live without). For me, Shostakovich's music was much more intense than Prokofiev and darker in mood, which I adjusted to quite nicely. The first symphony that really clicked with me after taking such a long hiatus from his music was Symphony No. 8. I now understood the musical language much better and was quite moved by the entire work. From here, I re-listened to Symphony No. 5 and like a hammer blow I heard everything I missed the first time around. When the Largo movement of this symphony ended, I paused the music, and just sat back and took a deep breath. I was just completely in awe of the way that movement took shape and the hold it had over me. I finished the rest of the symphony and I then moved onto Symphony No. 6. Shostakovich's music just gets under my skin and has continued to surprise me over and over again no matter how many times I hear a specific work. There are so many layers of emotion and the tension that is created in the music makes it all the more engrossing. He's my No. 1 and will continue to be even if I don't listen to his music as frequently as I have these past months.
Sorry for the rambling, but I thought I would just share why he's my favorite composer.
I refuse to choose between Bach and Mahler.
Well, OK, Bach it is.
Beethoven.
But Bach is at the exactly same level.
Interesting post, MI, particularly
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 01, 2012, 10:31:55 PMShostakovich's music became much more accessible to me especially after hearing a lot of Prokofiev (another composer I couldn't live without). For me, Shostakovich's music was much more intense than Prokofiev and darker in mood, which I adjusted to quite nicely.
I must hear that Mullova/Previn recording sometime.
Well done, MI. That's a very accurate description of how you can fall in love with an artist.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 01, 2012, 10:50:47 PM
Interesting post, MI, particularly
I must hear that Mullova/Previn recording sometime.
Thanks, eyeresist. I would call Mullova's performance of Shosty's
Violin Concerto No. 1 the finest version I've heard and I've heard almost all of them from Oistrakh to Perlman to Repin to Mordkovitch to Vengerov, etc. There's something about Mullova's phrasing and just the general feeling she put into her interpretation that really moved me.
Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on March 01, 2012, 10:54:59 PM
Well done, MI. That's a very accurate description of how you can fall in love with an artist.
Thank you, Johan. :)
I was anxiously awaiting whether it's be Shosty, Keochlin or H V-L. Now we know!
Quote from: Luke on March 01, 2012, 09:34:38 PM
All the composers above do things to me that no others do, take me to places no others can, and mean the world to me as they do it. But the place Janacek takes me to is a particularly special one; it's the place I would choose to live in, metaphorically speaking, were I able to, whereas the others, to extend the metaphor, offer me places I desperately want to visit for long, repeated periods, but not necessarily to base myself in fully. That's why it was also easy for me to pick him as a number 1, without in the least suggesting that any of the others leave me less moved or wonderstruck. I didn't find that a childish or shallow choice, personally - that's why I found your last paragraph somewhat patronising.
What a heart-warming explanation; I'd like to have said much the same myself, but would have done it less eloquently.
There was a period of a couple of years when exploring Wagner's music seemed the most important thing in my life; there was a week in hospital not so long ago when Mozart's piano concertos kept me sane through painful, sleepless nights; there was a glorious summer when I was sixteen, listening to
Scheherazade almost every day and wondering whether music could actually get any better than this. And most of us have these treasured memories that - in the absence of anything else - would make it impossible to pick a number one, as per Bulldog's requirement.
But then there's this thing 'love', which isn't childish, which defies explanation, and which surely oughtn't to be scoffed at or patronised. And that brings me to Elgar. Irascible and unpredictable as a man, uneven as a composer, and too limited in range to be counted among the greatest, nevertheless (as Luke has it) his best music takes me to the places I most want to be. Not all the time, certainly; but the one that feels most right for me, most of the time. A kind of bedrock. My roots are pretty much the same as his; I can't contemplate the English landscape without hearing his music. (I can't sit still for long
anywhere without hearing his music, actually.) There's no other single artist (musician, painter, or writer) to whom I feel so much personal affection and gratitude for providing companionship in the face of existential solitariness, by showing me musical equivalents for feelings and perceptions that I could never have articulated myself.
So add Elgar to the list, please, Bulldog.
Quote from: some guy on March 01, 2012, 07:43:54 PM
I looked through my collection.
I thought about composers whose music I've only heard in concert.
None of them were numbered. Not any of them.
When I want to listen to what only Berlioz can give me, I listen to Berlioz. When I want to listen to what only Luc Ferrari can give me, I listen to Luc Ferrari. When I want to listen to what only Bach can give me, I listen to Bach. (Added after Bulldog's most recent post: When I want to listen to what only Xenakis gives me, I listen to Xenakis.) And so it goes.
Easy!
So I call Bulldog's number one idea a silly thing.
When I was a child, I had favorite composers. When I became a man, I put away childish things. (That's my Biblical version of "banana." Biblical references raise the tone of discussions, you know. Biblical and Greek and Roman and the Bhagavad Gita and the Kalevala. Man that stuff is so tonal.)
This is certainly more true to me, too, than naming a single composer an absolute favourite. All great composers have their unique voice and style, and as Luke says, take me to different places. So naming a single composer as your favourite is akin to naming the kitchen or the living room your favourite room. But naturally I visit some rooms more often than others.
Quote from: Bulldog on
Today at 12:36:06 AM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg606365#msg606365)
Xenakis?
Ubloobideega?
Quote from: Bulldog on March 01, 2012, 07:36:06 PM
Xenakis?
No, Mahler.
well, Xenakis is in my top 10, so not too bad of a guess...
Daniel is now your best buddy : )
Quote from: springrite on March 01, 2012, 11:09:46 PM
I was anxiously awaiting whether it's be Shosty, Keochlin or H V-L. Now we know!
:P Yes! The truth came out! :D
Current Tally:
Beethoven 6
Bach 4
Haydn 3
Brahms 2
Handel 2
Mahler 2
Janacek 1
Stravinsky 1
Bartok 1
Wagner 1
Brian 1
Shost. 1
Mozart 1
Holst 1
R. Strauss 1
J. Williams 1
Elgar 1
You forgot Luke's Janacek...
Quote from: Elgarian on March 02, 2012, 12:27:39 AM
Quote from: Luke
All the composers above do things to me that no others do, take me to places no others can, and mean the world to me as they do it. But the place Janacek takes me to is a particularly special one; it's the place I would choose to live in, metaphorically speaking, were I able to, whereas the others, to extend the metaphor, offer me places I desperately want to visit for long, repeated periods, but not necessarily to base myself in fully. That's why it was also easy for me to pick him as a number 1, without in the least suggesting that any of the others leave me less moved or wonderstruck. I didn't find that a childish or shallow choice, personally - that's why I found your last paragraph somewhat patronising.
What a heart-warming explanation; I'd like to have said much the same myself, but would have done it less eloquently.
There was a period of a couple of years when exploring Wagner's music seemed the most important thing in my life; there was a week in hospital not so long ago when Mozart's piano concertos kept me sane through painful, sleepless nights; there was a glorious summer when I was sixteen, listening to Scheherazade almost every day and wondering whether music could actually get any better than this. And most of us have these treasured memories that - in the absence of anything else - would make it impossible to pick a number one, as per Bulldog's requirement.
But then there's this thing 'love', which isn't childish, which defies explanation, and which surely oughtn't to be scoffed at or patronised. And that brings me to Elgar. Irascible and unpredictable as a man, uneven as a composer, and too limited in range to be counted among the greatest, nevertheless (as Luke has it) his best music takes me to the places I most want to be. Not all the time, certainly; but the one that feels most right for me, most of the time. A kind of bedrock. My roots are pretty much the same as his; I can't contemplate the English landscape without hearing his music. (I can't sit still for long anywhere without hearing his music, actually.) There's no other single artist (musician, painter, or writer) to whom I feel so much personal affection and gratitude for providing companionship in the face of existential solitariness, by showing me musical equivalents for feelings and perceptions that I could never have articulated myself.
So add Elgar to the list, please, Bulldog.
Beautiful post, and really, when you talk of my post being eloquent, I am ashamed, given the regularity with which you post such wonderful things as this, which are at once well-written, humble and fascinatingly revealing.
Anyway, to extend my analogy somewhat - yes, Janacek is 'home', to me. I don't think him greater or more worthy or more beautiful than others, and there are others I love to visit every bit as much, and whose music I love and know so well that they too feel like somewhere I can be truly happy. But Janacek will be where I return to; when I'm old and grey it'll be Pohadka and Mladi and Riklada you find me playing as I potter in the garden! And - this is the point - that means that, as my life bustles by, I don't even feel the need to listen to him any more than I do other composers. It has in fact been years since I had a good Janacek binge, whereas my Ravel and Tippett and Brian and Chopin and Schubert binges, for instance, come regularly every few months. But Janacek is always there, or at the world of his music is, rather like my parents' house is always there, not for decades now the place I live and work in, but nevertheless the place in which the child Luke lived, and thus somewhere where my mind returns, a kind of base or focal point of who I am.
Yeah, I love Janacek... ;D
I love reading your posts, gents.
Quote from: Luke on March 02, 2012, 11:11:25 AM
And - this is the point - that means that, as my life bustles by, I don't even feel the need to listen to him any more than I do other composers.
That's perfect. I wish
I'd said that. In fact - may I steal your idea openly, here and now, and play with it? If I'd kept a record of which composers I'd listened to most in the last few months it would be something like:
1. Haydn
2. Rimsky-Korsakov
3. Vaughan Williams
4. Vivaldi
etc...
Elgar would probably come in at something like no. 9 or 10, which gives
no indication at all of the intensity and character of my love for his music, or of the unparallelled depth of my lifelong involvement with it.
Music seems to make people feel they have a connection to the actual composer themselves sometimes. I do wonder if they actually met their idol whether they would actually like him as much though. :D The very distance increases the mystery and enhances our ability to put ourselves into that space and claim it for ourselves. Music has enough ambiguity and shifting moods to shape itself to our own desires and needs.
Quote from: starrynight on March 02, 2012, 11:36:33 AM
Music seems to make people feel they have a connection to the actual composer themselves sometimes. I do wonder if they actually met their idol whether they would actually like him as much though. :D The very distance increases the mystery and enhances our ability to put ourselves into that space and claim it for ourselves.
Yes, I think that's inescapably part of the special power of art. It permits the making of a unique kind of indirect connection between listener and composer that bypasses some of the problems associated with 'ordinary' human interactions. I'd quibble about the use of the word 'idol' though. I'm under no illusions about Elgar the man, or about the limitations of his music (and it wouldn't surprise me if Luke said the same about Janacek). Loving and admiring aren't at all the same as idolising.
Quote from: starrynight on
Today at 04:36:33 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg606605#msg606605)
Music seems to make people feel they have a connection to the actual composer themselves sometimes. I do wonder if they actually met their idol whether they would actually like him as much though. :D
That consideration is part of why I appreciate Alan's on-going discussion of Elgar. He knows that Elgar was no cuddly teddy bear . . . .
Quote from: Elgarian on March 02, 2012, 11:50:17 AM
(and it wouldn't surprise me if Luke said the same about Janacek)
Nor me.Quote from: Elgarian on March 02, 2012, 11:50:17 AM
Loving and admiring aren't at all the same as idolising.
Do you mind if I say spot on? You don't?
Well: Spot on.
Gosh!
(Just trying out the 'Cuddly Teddy Bear' tactic for size.)
We're veering terribly off-topic (because I'm not anyone's No. 1 Composer, I'm not), but I was actually called a cuddly teddy bear, by one musical friend to another. They meant it as a compliment.
(I think.)
Quote from: karlhenning on March 02, 2012, 12:01:00 PM
We're veering terribly off-topic (because I'm not anyone's No. 1 Composer, I'm not), but I was actually called a cuddly teddy bear, by one musical friend to another. They meant it as a compliment.
(I think.)
But surely you must have expected something of the sort, Karl, after composing your concerto for two floppy ears, a pair of button eyes, and a furry tummy?
It may seem obvious now . . . .
Even though I have'nt listened to him a whole lot in the last few months I chose Bach - I have spent more time listening to him and have a greater collection of his works than any other Composer in my library.
I admire the skill and humanity in Bach's writing and the sheer amount of excellent works he composed as well - I dont think I have heard a Bach work that I thought wasnt of a high standard.
Bach's Well tempered Clavier and Brandenburg Concertos are amongst my favourite classical works and I have played them many times - Bach's works reward repeated listening and never grow stale, the guy was a genius! :).
Quote from: starrynight on March 02, 2012, 11:36:33 AMMusic seems to make people feel they have a connection to the actual composer themselves sometimes.
Actually, sitting in a bar sipping Guinness is much better for this.
Quote from: starrynight on March 02, 2012, 11:36:33 AMI do wonder if they actually met their idol whether they would actually like him as much though. :D
For me, in every case, I like them more after I've met them. Lovely, lovely people all of them. (So far.)
I quit my day job several years ago, sold my house, took the money and ran. To Europe, to Canada, to other places in the US. To festivals and concerts where I have met dozens of people whose CDs have populated my shelves for years. People who very graciously press (free) CDs on me. Who invite me into their homes. Who make every effort to meet up with me whenever I travel. Charming, intelligent, articulate, gracious, and often very humble people. (Including Mr. Karl Henning, just by the way.)
Quote from: starrynight on March 02, 2012, 11:36:33 AMThe very distance increases the mystery and enhances our ability to put ourselves into that space and claim it for ourselves. Music has enough ambiguity and shifting moods to shape itself to our own desires and needs.
Well, if that's the kind of thing you like.;D Give me intimacy and camaraderie any day!!
In short, in my experience, the real people are really great as real people. Much to be preferred over their mysterious and chimerical apparitions in my head! Plus, there's that drinking Guinness in bars. Did I mention drinking Guinness in bars already??
Quote from: Elgarian on March 02, 2012, 11:50:17 AM
Yes, I think that's inescapably part of the special power of art. It permits the making of a unique kind of indirect connection between listener and composer that bypasses some of the problems associated with 'ordinary' human interactions.
How do you do that? Exactly! Beautifully put, that word 'bypasses'...this is a different kind of connection entirely, and one to be treasured.
Quote from: Elgarian on March 02, 2012, 11:50:17 AM
I'd quibble about the use of the word 'idol' though. I'm under no illusions about Elgar the man, or about the limitations of his music (and it wouldn't surprise me if Luke said the same about Janacek). Loving and admiring aren't at all the same as idolising.
Totally. In fact, in my case, I'd go further. I actually seem to 'go for' the flawed and the human in music. As a man, Janacek had many highly dubious qualities. And as a composer he is flawed too - and so is Tippett, so is Brian, so is Satie...delciciously flawed, utterly human. Chopin spins a poetic web in which each tiny fluctuating nuance is indicated with neurotic detail, as if the music on the page is a seismograph of something deeper. This is precisely why he is a genius, IMO, this tense hypersensitivity. And through Ravel and Brahms wrap up their bruisable interiors in a perfect technical exterior, what is underneath is always bubbling away and bursting through, and is all too probably exactly why these composers mean so much to me.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 02, 2012, 06:34:15 AM
Daniel is now your best buddy : )
Good choice, Greg! :D
Some really beautiful, interesting posts here that I have really enjoyed reading!
Quote from: Luke on March 02, 2012, 12:35:25 PM
Totally. In fact, in my case, I'd go further. I actually seem to 'go for' the flawed and the human in music. As a man, Janacek had many highly dubious qualities. And as a composer he is flawed too - and so is Tippett, so is Brian, so is Satie...delciciously flawed, utterly human. Chopin spins a poetic web in which each tiny fluctuating nuance is indicated with neurotic detail, as if the music on the page is a seismograph of something deeper. This is precisely why he is a genius, IMO, this tense hypersensitivity. And through Ravel and Brahms wrap up their bruisable interiors in a perfect technical exterior, what is underneath is always bubbling away and bursting through, and is all too probably exactly why these composers mean so much to me.
Moments before reading your post, I came across this quote on Janacek, "...Moments like these are what we love in Janacek: the way he presents the ordinary world, burbling on in its habitual way, as the site of sudden, barely containable emotions breaking free." Deja vue...
Quote from: some guy on March 02, 2012, 12:16:32 PM
Well, if that's the kind of thing you like.;D Give me intimacy and camaraderie any day!!
I never said that's what I like, just that that's what people do. I think it is good sometimes to try and keep some distance from the music at times, certainly to judge it better. Idolising is probably a bit of a dead end and could get in the way of understanding the music better.
Also in some ways the work doesn't fully represent the person anyway, so you don't know a person just by listening to the music or by reading about their life (which will be biased accounts anyway). As for living composers who you may know, well that is great but most people aren't really in that position and so it isn't that relevant to them.
Quote from: madaboutmahler on March 02, 2012, 12:37:51 PM
Good choice, Greg! :D
Oh yeah, it's been a no-brainer choice for me the last 6 or so years.
And I'm feeling like I know what Luke means from personal experience, since Mahler is starting to feel similar to me as how he explained Janacek is to him. I don't go on any "Mahler binges" any more, in the same way he doesn't go on "Janacek binges," and I wonder if it's because we both know their music so thoroughly well that there isn't much left for discovery, yet we can still say they are without a doubt, our favorites.
Another analogy between a listener and favorite composer might be similar to a couple that has been married for many years (pretty easy to see what I mean here, I'd imagine)...
Quote from: Elgarian on March 02, 2012, 11:50:17 AM
Yes, I think that's inescapably part of the special power of art. It permits the making of a unique kind of indirect connection between listener and composer that bypasses some of the problems associated with 'ordinary' human interactions. I'd quibble about the use of the word 'idol' though. I'm under no illusions about Elgar the man, or about the limitations of his music (and it wouldn't surprise me if Luke said the same about Janacek). Loving and admiring aren't at all the same as idolising.
Of course I'm not speaking about everyone (or specifically about anyone here indeed), but neither can you. :D But some people can idolise for sure.
As I'm allowed a number 2 composer, I'll put here the composer whose music I admire the most, namely Schubert. There is no striving in his music. The whole human condition is there, open to view and no other composer moves me to tears so readily.
Quote from: madaboutmahler on
Today at 22:37:51 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg606642#msg606642)
Some really beautiful, interesting posts here that I have really enjoyed reading!
Seconded!
Quote from: Bulldog on March 02, 2012, 08:35:43 AM
Current Tally:
Beethoven 6
Bach 4
Haydn 3
Brahms 2
Handel 2
Mahler 2
Janacek 1
Stravinsky 1
Bartok 1
Wagner 1
Brian 1
Shost. 1
Mozart 1
Holst 1
R. Strauss 1
J. Williams 1
Elgar 1
It seems that I'm the only one who voted for Wagner till now....
Quote from: Lisztianwagner on March 02, 2012, 01:16:39 PM
It seems that I'm the only one who voted for Wagner till now....
I picked Wagner too but in a way that wasn't accepted by the thread's creator. We Trinitarians are so misunderstood :'(
;D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on March 02, 2012, 01:26:49 PM
I picked Wagner too but in a way that wasn't accepted by the thread's creator. We Trinitarians are so misunderstood :'(
;D
Sarge
;D
I understand, it is sometimes so hard to choose among all those great composers!
Current Tally:
Beethoven 6
Bach 5
Haydn 3
Brahms 2
Handel 2
Mahler 2
Wagner 2
Janacek 1
Stravinsky 1
Bartok 1
Brian 1
Shost. 1
Mozart 1
Holst 1
R. Strauss 1
J. Williams 1
Elgar 1
Schubert 1
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on March 02, 2012, 01:26:49 PM
I picked Wagner too but in a way that wasn't accepted by the thread's creator. We Trinitarians are so misunderstood :'(
;D
Sarge
You finally said the magic word. 8)
Quote from: Greg on March 02, 2012, 01:01:01 PM
Oh yeah, it's been a no-brainer choice for me the last 6 or so years.
And I'm feeling like I know what Luke means from personal experience, since Mahler is starting to feel similar to me as how he explained Janacek is to him. I don't go on any "Mahler binges" any more, in the same way he doesn't go on "Janacek binges," ...
Of course, there's nothing really stopping Luke from binge Janácekking!
Wolfgang Mozart (1756-1791).
I played in the 2nd violin section in my high school orchestra, circa 1985-89. Our orchestra often played Mozart, but it wasn't until I saw Milo Forman's Amadeus on a rental video cassette that I got obsessed with Mozart's music, and music in general. I didn't see Amadeus in the movie theater but I was lukewarm about the movie. However, playing Mozart in my school orchestra reminded me of a clip I saw on the Siskel and Ebert show and later (perhaps 1986 or so) after the film was released on video, I happened to see it at a grocery store for rent. My stepdad offered to rent it for me if I wanted to see it, so I accepted and took it off the shelf. The VCR tape was in bad shape, and when I played it someone had recorded a commercial over the top of the beginning of the movie. I cringed, but eventually, the movie itself returned and all was well. After the film ended, I realized I had been captivated, drawn in to the whole experience of the film, not just the music, but the 18th century too.
The first Mozart recording I bought was a budget label cassette, containing Symphonies No.36 ('Linz') and No.41 ('Jupiter'). I bought it at a retail store called "Shopko," and was feeling proud and nervous when I walked out into the parking lot and approached my parents, waiting for me by the car. I remember my stepdad asking why I bought it. I wish I still had that cassette because the performances still resonate in my mind. I can still see the yellow label on the black cassette, and the front cover with a portrait of Mozart in the center. I am pretty sure the orchestra was the Salzburg Mozarteum, and this cassette was probably a repackaging of a previous vinyl release. I am still on the hunt to regain this lost treasure of a recording.
I remember one day in orchestra class, when Mrs. Workman had us play Mozart's Violin Concerto No.4 with Charles Li, our star violinist, as soloist. I never heard the work before, but upon hearing the orchestra and Charles attack the solo part, the energy in the room intensified—wow—each bar of Mozart's music reached a new level of imagination, more unexpected at each turn. The 1st violin section played the main themes, but Mozart wrote something fun for the 2nd violins as counterpoint. The orchestra was communicating with each other like a conversation. Whatever was happening in the room, this was the real thing. But the inexperienced orchestra couldn't sustain the action and the piece fell apart, yet a conversion happened inside me.
Every single day, after school, I got on a bus and went downtown to the Rochester Public Library. I checked out Mozart records and listened for hours at a time at home, on my brother's turntable. I recorded the music onto cassettes and returned to the library for more records. It wasn't long before I was checking out Beethoven, Schubert, Tchaikovsky and Charles Ives among others.
I also started to seek and purchase Mozart cassettes at Musicland (at the Apache Mall) using money made from my first job at the Bonanza Steak House. When I wasn't at the library, I was shopping at Musicland, looking for new Mozart. Alfred Einstein's classic book on Mozart, called "Mozart: His Character, His Work" (1945) was my bible, and guide. While reading this old book, I discovered the film Amadeus wasn't accurate regarding the truth of Mozart's life, yet that knowledge didn't stop my obsession with the film. I watched Amadeus to live in that world, the world of the 18th Century. The production design of the film is intoxicating, and inviting. The colors, sounds, music, acting, and editing was a white-heat rush to my brain. Nothing made me happier than listening to Mozart and watching Amadeus.
8)
I probably should just let this go, but some things are just too tempting.
Quote from: starrynight on March 02, 2012, 12:40:44 PMkeep some distance from the music at times, certainly to judge it better. Idolising is probably a bit of a dead end and could get in the way of understanding the music better.
I would take judging and understanding to be two different things. And that the better the understanding, the less the judging.
Quote from: starrynight on March 02, 2012, 12:40:44 PMAs for living composers who you may know, well that is great but most people aren't really in that position and so it isn't that relevant to them.
Yes. I see. That must be why so many people read fantasy fiction and sci fi novels (and watch the movies, too) and why so many people like shows about people stranded on deserted islands and shows about gangsters, because those things are relevant to them. Yes. That must be it!
Quote from: some guy on March 02, 2012, 06:15:06 PM
I would take judging and understanding to be two different things. And that the better the understanding, the less the judging.
I promise not to take this any further off-topic, but I can't resist quoting here an observation by David Cecil that I know, absolutely, that you'll like. He's writing about literature, but it's relevant for criticism of any art form:
[The critics'] aim should be to interpret the work they are writing about and to help readers to appreciate it, by defining and analysing those qualities that make it precious and by indicating the angle of vision from which its beauties are visible.
But many critics do not realise their function. They aim not to appreciate but to judge; they seek first to draw up laws about literature and then to bully readers into accepting these laws ... [but] you cannot force a taste on someone else, you cannot argue people into enjoyment.Actually, reading it again I see this is not quite as off-topic as I feared. We're talking in this thread not about the assessment and judgement of music, but about the love affairs we have with it. And although we're not acting in the formal role of critics here, Cecil's references to trying to articulate the nature of its preciousness, and of trying to express our perception of its beauties, are not a million miles away from the things we're struggling to talk about.
Easy choice, Beethoven, for me no other Composer comes even close, a revolutionary, it's his sheer universal-ness, for a number 2 i would agonize over a whole pack [Schubert, Chopin, Brahms], but Beethoven is head and shoulders above them all.
Quote from: Elgarian on March 02, 2012, 06:37:24 PM
I promise not to take this any further off-topic, but I can't resist quoting here an observation by David Cecil that I know, absolutely, that you'll like. He's writing about literature, but it's relevant for criticism of any art form:
[The critics'] aim should be to interpret the work they are writing about and to help readers to appreciate it, by defining and analysing those qualities that make it precious and by indicating the angle of vision from which its beauties are visible.
But many critics do not realise their function. They aim not to appreciate but to judge; they seek first to draw up laws about literature and then to bully readers into accepting these laws ... [but] you cannot force a taste on someone else, you cannot argue people into enjoyment.
That is good.
Quote from: some guy on March 02, 2012, 06:15:06 PM
I probably should just let this go, but some things are just too tempting.I would take judging and understanding to be two different things. And that the better the understanding, the less the judging.
Yes. I see. That must be why so many people read fantasy fiction and sci fi novels (and watch the movies, too) and why so many people like shows about people stranded on deserted islands and shows about gangsters, because those things are relevant to them. Yes. That must be it!
I think every time we listen to music or approach any work of art we are both trying to understand and judge at the same time. Judging is pretty much inescapable it seems to me, it's the decision as to whether something is really worth your time or not, and whether it is worth your effort to get to understand more. Obviously it's important to have that openness to try and understand in the first place, but you can't keep listening to the same piece forever trying to understand it.
Your second point I don't really get. Most people don't know a composer in person, so any idea of the composer's character is often largely of their own imagining and I don't think can be inferred fully through the music. In fact I wonder if you could have someone who you know in person who is really nice and interesting but could actually do quite boring music for you anyway. And it could work the other way too. And for some good composers in the past their music may have been pretty much their life, putting most of their energy and thoughts into that and not into other things or people so much.
Quote from: Elgarian on March 02, 2012, 06:37:24 PM
I promise not to take this any further off-topic, but I can't resist quoting here an observation by David Cecil that I know, absolutely, that you'll like. He's writing about literature, but it's relevant for criticism of any art form:
[The critics'] aim should be to interpret the work they are writing about and to help readers to appreciate it, by defining and analysing those qualities that make it precious and by indicating the angle of vision from which its beauties are visible.
But many critics do not realise their function. They aim not to appreciate but to judge; they seek first to draw up laws about literature and then to bully readers into accepting these laws ... [but] you cannot force a taste on someone else, you cannot argue people into enjoyment.
Actually, reading it again I see this is not quite as off-topic as I feared. We're talking in this thread not about the assessment and judgement of music, but about the love affairs we have with it. And although we're not acting in the formal role of critics here, Cecil's references to trying to articulate the nature of its preciousness, and of trying to express our perception of its beauties, are not a million miles away from the things we're struggling to talk about.
I think judging is inescapable as a first point of selecting something to love. But certainly critics (like the general audience) can have a very narrow way of judging which ignores things which don't fit music with the kind of intention and style they are looking for. I always feel with any kind of music, popular or classical, that it shouldn't be judged on not being something that it isn't trying to be.
Quote from: starrynight on March 02, 2012, 06:59:46 PM
I think judging is inescapable as a first point of selecting something to love.
But that which we love — did we "select" it to love?
If do — is it love?
Quote from: starrynight on March 02, 2012, 06:59:46 PM
I think judging is inescapable as a first point of selecting something to love.
I think our experiences, then, are so widely divergent that we don't have much common ground to discuss. I loved Elgar's music long, long before I was in any position to attempt to
judge it. Indeed I know so little about music that I hardly think I'm capable of judging it correctly now.
This is all getting a bit too serious perhaps. To lighten things a bit, let me make the completely separate and irrelevant observation that I think I may now possess more recordings of
Scheherazade than I have of Elgar's violin concerto.
What does this mean? And
should I be worried? Karl, who understands all my neuroses better than most, will have wise words to offer, I doubt not.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 02, 2012, 07:02:04 PM
But that which we love — did we "select" it to love?
If do — is it love?
Yes, because otherwise you would just love everything. As for exactly what love is well that is another question, and a big one.
I fear there's a false step there. There must be some reason, not necessarily conscious selection, why we love some things and not others.
My wife and I are celebrating our 18th anniversary tomorrow. "I love you because I selected you to love" is not going to cut it with her. (Nor should it.)
Quote from: starrynight on March 02, 2012, 06:54:41 PMYour second point I don't really get. Most people don't know a composer in person, so any idea of the composer's character is often largely of their own imagining and I don't think can be inferred fully through the music. In fact I wonder if you could have someone who you know in person who is really nice and interesting but could actually do quite boring music for you anyway.
starry, this whole sub-topic started when you wondered about meeting composers in person. I responded to that, because I have met many composers in person. Then you said my response was irrelevant. Say what?
You: "I do wonder if they actually met their idol whether they would actually like him as much though."
Me: "Yes."
You: "That's irrelevant."
Me: "I question the relevance of your comment about relevance."
In none of that was there anything about inferring a composer's character from the music. I've met many heroes of mine. I like them all more after I had met them. Done.
And, though it might seem irrelevant, I can also answer your next question, "I wonder if you could have someone who you know in person who is really nice and interesting but could actually do quite boring music for you anyway."
Also "yes."
Most of the people I've met have been people whose music I already liked, so no problem there. Though liking someone is great incentive for trying harder to like their music. :)
Anyway, I apologize if my real-life first-hand experiences with living composers is not relevant to your speculations. But ya gotta understand that "I wonder if..." is hard to pass up if you have had the experience and hence know the answer.
Quote from: some guy on March 02, 2012, 09:28:17 PM
You: "I do wonder if they actually met their idol whether they would actually like him as much though."
Me: "Yes."
You: "That's irrelevant."
Me: "I question the relevance of your comment about relevance."
In none of that was there anything about inferring a composer's character from the music. I've met many heroes of mine. I like them all more after I had met them. Done.
. But ya gotta understand that "I wonder if..." is hard to pass up if you have had the experience and hence know the answer.
You are twisting what I said though, definitely a habit on these forums. I said many people do not personally know the composers they listen to, that is a fact. It is likely that they never will either. Now the fact that you have a different perspective and have met those you like the music of is interesting, but again you can't speak for everyone (a habit on these forums) even from that perspective. You have had one experience, others will have other experiences. You know the answer for yourself from that perspective but not for others.
I must say I don't understand at all what are you talking about. Do you mean man not music when you use word "composer"? But what for?
It's about time to wrap this one up.
Your No. 1 composer is Beethoven. That's no surprise, since Beethoven always wins.
No. 2 is Bach.
No. 3 is Haydn.
No. 4 is a tie among Brahms, Handel, Mahler, Wagner and Mozart.
I thank you for your votes and discussions.
Quote from: Bulldog on March 05, 2012, 08:09:43 AM
That's no surprise, since Beethoven always wins.
No. 2 is Bach.
Will you accept a last-minute vote for Bach? ;D
Quote from: Opus106 on March 05, 2012, 08:26:13 AM
Will you accept a last-minute vote for Bach? ;D
Hey, I got one and two right!! ;D
Quote from: Opus106 on March 05, 2012, 08:26:13 AM
Will you accept a last-minute vote for Bach? ;D
Well, another Bach vote wouldn't change the order.
Quote from: Bulldog on March 05, 2012, 08:09:43 AM
It's about time to wrap this one up.
Your No. 1 composer is Beethoven. That's no surprise, since Beethoven always wins.
No. 2 is Bach.
No. 3 is Haydn.
No. 4 is a tie among Brahms, Handel, Mahler, Wagner and Mozart.
I thank you for your votes and discussions.
I am thrilled to see Haydn as high as #3! His stock value is improving every day. :)
8)
Quote from: Bulldog on March 05, 2012, 08:32:46 AM
Well, another Bach vote wouldn't change the order.
I see I missed Octo_Russ' post after your latest tally. :( Hm... how about two last-minute votes, then? ;)
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on March 05, 2012, 08:34:47 AM
I am thrilled to see Haydn as high as #3! His stock value is improving every day. :)
8)
He got 3 votes: you, me and DavidW - the usual suspects.
:D
Quote from: Opus106 on March 05, 2012, 08:38:18 AM
I see I missed Octo_Russ' post after your latest tally. :( Hm... how about two last-minute votes, then? ;)
Give it a rest - I'm done here.
Whew! Thats the last time I write such a long and personal post!
Quote from: Arnold on March 05, 2012, 08:38:24 AM
He got 3 votes: you, me and DavidW - the usual suspects.
:D
:D Well we showed more solidarity than the Wagnerites or the Mahlerites and that's what counts. ;D hehe
There's always treachery in the ranks of the Wagnerites — and hand-wringing among the Mahlerians, je-je-je
Quote from: Leo K on
Today at 19:22:38 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg607497#msg607497)
Whew! Thats the last time I write such a long and personal post!
I read it and liked it. Sometimes things get snowed under, alas.
Quote from: Leo K on March 02, 2012, 03:16:32 PM
Wolfgang Mozart (1756-1791).
I played in the 2nd violin section in my high school orchestra, circa 1985-89. Our orchestra often played Mozart, but it wasn’t until I saw Milo Forman’s Amadeus on a rental video cassette that I got obsessed with Mozart's music, and music in general. I didn't see Amadeus in the movie theater but I was lukewarm about the movie. However, playing Mozart in my school orchestra reminded me of a clip I saw on the Siskel and Ebert show and later (perhaps 1986 or so) after the film was released on video, I happened to see it at a grocery store for rent. My stepdad offered to rent it for me if I wanted to see it, so I accepted and took it off the shelf. The VCR tape was in bad shape, and when I played it someone had recorded a commercial over the top of the beginning of the movie. I cringed, but eventually, the movie itself returned and all was well. After the film ended, I realized I had been captivated, drawn in to the whole experience of the film, not just the music, but the 18th century too.
The first Mozart recording I bought was a budget label cassette, containing Symphonies No.36 (‘Linz’) and No.41 (‘Jupiter’). I bought it at a retail store called "Shopko," and was feeling proud and nervous when I walked out into the parking lot and approached my parents, waiting for me by the car. I remember my stepdad asking why I bought it. I wish I still had that cassette because the performances still resonate in my mind. I can still see the yellow label on the black cassette, and the front cover with a portrait of Mozart in the center. I am pretty sure the orchestra was the Salzburg Mozarteum, and this cassette was probably a repackaging of a previous vinyl release. I am still on the hunt to regain this lost treasure of a recording.
I remember one day in orchestra class, when Mrs. Workman had us play Mozart’s Violin Concerto No.4 with Charles Li, our star violinist, as soloist. I never heard the work before, but upon hearing the orchestra and Charles attack the solo part, the energy in the room intensified—wow—each bar of Mozart’s music reached a new level of imagination, more unexpected at each turn. The 1st violin section played the main themes, but Mozart wrote something fun for the 2nd violins as counterpoint. The orchestra was communicating with each other like a conversation. Whatever was happening in the room, this was the real thing. But the inexperienced orchestra couldn’t sustain the action and the piece fell apart, yet a conversion happened inside me.
Every single day, after school, I got on a bus and went downtown to the Rochester Public Library. I checked out Mozart records and listened for hours at a time at home, on my brother’s turntable. I recorded the music onto cassettes and returned to the library for more records. It wasn't long before I was checking out Beethoven, Schubert, Tchaikovsky and Charles Ives among others.
I also started to seek and purchase Mozart cassettes at Musicland (at the Apache Mall) using money made from my first job at the Bonanza Steak House. When I wasn’t at the library, I was shopping at Musicland, looking for new Mozart. Alfred Einstein’s classic book on Mozart, called “Mozart: His Character, His Work” (1945) was my bible, and guide. While reading this old book, I discovered the film Amadeus wasn’t accurate regarding the truth of Mozart’s life, yet that knowledge didn’t stop my obsession with the film. I watched Amadeus to live in that world, the world of the 18th Century. The production design of the film is intoxicating, and inviting. The colors, sounds, music, acting, and editing was a white-heat rush to my brain. Nothing made me happier than listening to Mozart and watching Amadeus.
8)
I much appreciate this post, Leo, along with Johan.
I liked the post Leo, I didn't have anything to say. If we had a like button I'm sure you would have known that your post was read and admired by many. :)
Quote from: DavidW on March 05, 2012, 10:59:24 AM
I liked the post Leo, I didn't have anything to say. If we had a like button I'm sure you would have known that your post was read and admired by many. :)
Well, you could have said; "um, so, Mozart then?". For example. >:D
I liked it too, Leo. Even though I didn't get to read it until recently.... 0:)
8)
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on March 05, 2012, 11:03:52 AM
Well, you could have said; "um, so, Mozart then?". For example. >:D
I liked it too, Leo. Even though I didn't get to read it until recently.... 0:)
8)
Me too. I love these types of stories. They just showed Amadeus on TV the other day too and I watched part of it. Great stuff!
I did not notice this thread until now. My choice is certainly JS Bach, his music is my daily bread.
Quote from: Bulldog on March 05, 2012, 08:09:43 AM
It's about time to wrap this one up.
Your No. 1 composer is Beethoven. That's no surprise, since Beethoven always wins.
No. 2 is Bach.
No. 3 is Haydn.
No. 4 is a tie among Brahms, Handel, Mahler, Wagner and Mozart.
Well, my No.1 is No.1, my No.2 is No.2, one of my No.3-4 is No.3 and other of my No.3-4 is No.4-8. I must say the vox populi is not as objective as it should be. It slightly underestimate Mozart and seriously underrate Chopin and Schubert.
I'm sure Mozart is an early love for many people with classical music, hard not to be with such beautiful and melodic music. My no1 is Mozart or Beethoven, but I don't feel it that necessary to decide between them.
Thanks all and I appreciate it, guess I overreacted! Not the first time ;D
Quote from: Leo K on March 05, 2012, 09:22:38 AM
Whew! Thats the last time I write such a long and personal post!
I'll join in the general chorus. Leo, please don't assume that a lack of response means your post wasn't read and appreciated. I too was among the others here who read it appreciatively, aware that there was some personal unveiling going on; and on another day at another time, I'd have said so. It just happened that things (completely irrelevant things) got in the way at the time.
Quote from: Leo K on March 05, 2012, 11:44:13 AM
Thanks all and I appreciate it, guess I overreacted! Not the first time ;D
I missed your post entirely, Leo, probably because it was the last post on the page, and when I came back to the thread at a later date, the thread had moved on to a new page and I neglected to go back and catch up. Sorry. Just know posts like yours are appreciated by this old noncom.
Sarge
Quote from: Leo K on March 05, 2012, 11:44:13 AM
Thanks all and I appreciate it, guess I overreacted! Not the first time ;D
So, um.... Mozart then? :D
8)
I didn't read that post because it was too damn long. ;D
And the winner is...
Langgaard!
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on
Today at 22:23:37 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg607626#msg607626)
And the winner is...
Langgaard!
:D
Quote from: MN Dave on
Today at 05:23:22 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg607625#msg607625)
I didn't read that post because it was too damn long. ;D
So: TLDRFMZSB? (Too Long, Didn't Read, Fed My Zombie Some Brainz.)
Quote from: mszczuj on March 05, 2012, 11:23:46 AM
Well, my No.1 is No.1, my No.2 is No.2, one of my No.3-4 is No.3 and other of my No.3-4 is No.4-8. I must say the vox populi is not as objective as it should be. It slightly underestimate Mozart and seriously underrate Chopin and Schubert.
I think that for threads like this one, "objectivity" and "should" play no part.
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on March 05, 2012, 08:34:47 AMI am thrilled to see Haydn as high as #3! His stock value is improving every day. :)
But how long can this Haydn bubble last? :(
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 05, 2012, 11:10:13 AMThey just showed Amadeus on TV the other day too and I watched part of it. Great stuff!
Best to watch the original version and avoid the recent, unnecessary director's cut with extra
boobies Constanze.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 05, 2012, 04:01:33 PM
But how long can this Haydn bubble last? :(
With Haydn's Army aboard, FOREVER! ;D Hit me, Sarge!
Quote from: Bulldog on March 05, 2012, 02:29:51 PM
I think that for threads like this one, "objectivity" and "should" play no part.
Well, writing like that I defined "objectivity" as the accordance with my view.
Quote from: mszczuj on
Today at 05:05:53 AM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg607766#msg607766)
Well, writing like that I defined "objectivity" as the accordance with my view.
Sorry, that doesn't work, does it? ; )
Quote from: karlhenning on March 06, 2012, 04:42:13 AM
Quote from: mszczuj on Today at 05:05:53 AM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg607766#msg607766) Well, writing like that I defined "objectivity" as the accordance with my view.
Sorry, that doesn't work, does it? ; )
It depends on who is "me". I must say I am not able to see any serious difference between objectivity and my view.
Quote from: mszczuj on
Today at 11:29:53 AM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg607831#msg607831)
I must say I am not able to see any serious difference between objectivity and my view.
That is truly one of the most astonishing things I've read on the Internet to date.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 06, 2012, 06:36:55 AM
Quote from: mszczuj on Today at 11:29:53 AM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg607831#msg607831) I must say I am not able to see any serious difference between objectivity and my view.
That is truly one of the most astonishing things I've read on the Internet to date.
I think your astonishment is even more astonishing as about 90% of what I've read in Internet so far was written as if it was objective but was only expression of someone views.
Quote from: mszczuj on
Today at 11:50:00 AM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20097.msg607838#msg607838)
I think your astonishment is even more astonishing as about 90% of what I've read in Internet so far was written as if it was objective but was only expression of someone views.
Ah, so you consider the Internet to be representative of All There Is, is that the tale? ; )
I rather consider Internet to be the representative of Internet. So I'm astonishing that I astonish you just saying exactly the same thing that dozens of people think and do.
Quote from: mszczuj on March 06, 2012, 07:24:35 AM
I rather consider Internet to be the representative of Internet. So I'm astonishing that I astonish you just saying exactly the same thing that dozens of people think and do.
From my perspective, at the little corner of the Internet where the GMG Forum exists, members seem, on average, a bit more nuanced when they indulge in the behavior you describe. Of course, yourself excepted.
:)
I'd have to pick Mozbachtovenrahmsaldi. 8) For "his" incredible straddling of baroque, classic and romantic forms.
Quote from: Arnold on March 06, 2012, 07:54:44 AM
From my perspective, at the little corner of the Internet where the GMG Forum exists, members seem, on average, a bit more nuanced when they indulge in the behavior you describe.
But of course, they are. Nevertheless Karl have written "Internet" not "this little corner of the Internet". This is the reason of my astonishment - what a lucky man who knows only corners like this!
Quote
Of course, yourself excepted.
This statement is completely incomprehensible to me.
Mahler.
Quote from: Scion7 on March 06, 2012, 08:02:45 AM
I'd have to pick Mozbachtovenrahmsaldi. 8) For "his" incredible straddling of baroque, classic and romantic forms.
His
Piano Trio-Symphony for Mandolin and Orchestra in A Minor, "The Moonlight Brandenburg" is a masterpiece
Forums are about opinions and debate, but it's very obvious when you find someone who doesn't like someone else having a different opinion and with the ability to defend it strongly lol. When that happens they have to resort to changing the subject, making it personal etc.
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on March 06, 2012, 02:00:09 PMQuoteI'd have to pick Mozbachtovenrahmsaldi For "his" incredible straddling of baroque, classic and romantic forms.
His Piano Trio-Symphony for Mandolin and Orchestra in A Minor, "The Moonlight Brandenburg" is a masterpiece
Wor - I would buy that - IF the finale was in the form of a fugue.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 07, 2012, 05:32:47 PM
His Piano Trio-Symphony for Mandolin and Orchestra in A Minor, "The Moonlight Brandenburg" is a masterpiece
Wor - I would buy that - IF the finale was in the form of a fugue.
What's wrong with the
Rondo alla Turd as it is?
Quote from: springrite on March 08, 2012, 05:54:07 AM
What's wrong with the Rondo alla Turd as it is?
In the key of
BM Major?
Quote from: Bogey on March 05, 2012, 06:59:23 PM
With Haydn's Army aboard, FOREVER! ;D Hit me, Sarge!
First Sergeant Haydn(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/jan11/sgthaydnarmy.jpg)
Sarge
I demand a recount!
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on July 23, 2012, 06:42:31 PM
I demand a recount!
This year I've listened to Beethoven at a clip of more than once per day :o :o
Hey, one has the odd year like that, and none to blame ; )
Quote from: karlhenning on March 01, 2012, 10:56:44 AM
Well, since Sarge has endorsed a single choice, and since I know that a banana is no use to a bulldog . . .
. . . and because selecting a wife is different, there's no need to forsake all composers else to cleave unto one alone . . .
I must say Stravinsky. His music was a seminal discovery for me early in my composing days. I like the all-but-incredible variety through the course of his career, and yet the distinctive musical fingerprint throughout. I like the rhythmic energy, the harmonic energy (which is a force, too), the wonderful colors of the scoring.
Aye. No remorse here : )
Quote from: karlhenning on July 24, 2012, 03:57:37 AM
Aye. No remorse here : )
I feel the same way with my R. Strauss pick. I have a thing for nostalgia and Strauss being my first real discovery into serious music will always have a lasting impact, even though I listen to other composers more often (Elgar, Byrd, Prokofiev, Britten, etc...) and there might not even be a piece of Richard in a list of my favorite pieces if it was limited to ten. But nothing could replace the joy I get from his music.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 24, 2012, 03:57:37 AM
Aye. No remorse here : )
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on July 24, 2012, 04:28:07 AM
I feel the same way with my R. Strauss pick.
And I feel the same way with my Mahler pick. :D
I see exactly what you mean, Greg - Elgar and Dvorak were the composers that got me into classical music and both of them remain very dear to me.
Quote from: madaboutmahler on July 24, 2012, 05:17:02 AM
And I feel the same way with my Mahler pick. :D
TWU!As for my choice (I named Beethoven earlier), he's certainly still near the top. It feels impossible to choose from Chopin, Janacek, Prokofiev, Ravel, Sibelius, and Stravinsky. They are all unique composers with very individual styles, and I really couldn't say that I like one of them more than the others constantly, or even on average. I guess I could vote Ravel now.
Quote from: North Star on July 24, 2012, 06:13:11 AM
TWU!
As for my choice (I named Beethoven earlier), he's certainly still near the top. It feels impossible to choose from Chopin, Janacek, Prokofiev, Ravel, Sibelius, and Stravinsky. They are all unique composers with very individual styles, and I really couldn't say that I like one of them more than the others constantly, or even on average. I guess I could vote Ravel now.
And of course, this is a choice that doesn't necessarily have to be made, it's perfectly fine to have a group of favorite composers. I tend to find individual pieces easier to seperate, there are many pieces I would consider favorites from composers I barely listen to or only have appreciation for few of their works.
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on July 24, 2012, 06:20:26 AM
And of course, this is a choice that doesn't necessarily have to be made, it's perfectly fine to have a group of favorite composers. I tend to find individual pieces easier to seperate, there are many pieces I would consider favorites from composers I barely listen to or only have appreciation for few of their works.
You're certainly right, Greg. I agree on the separate works thing, but groupings make these composer listings much easier - 32 piano sonatas, 15 string quartets, 7 symphonies, or 3
Ballets Russes sound quite a bit more impressive than naming one or two individual works.
And someone could name a favourite composer without actually liking none of their individual works more than some other composers work.
But I'd rather have a couple of masterpieces than a shovelful of almost-great music.
You mean no one has voted for Tveitt yet?
Tveitt Expectations!
(http://scottishrunningguide.com/images/news/2012/2/beethoven.jpg)
...still...
Or Chopin...
Or Bach.
Quote from: MN Dave on July 24, 2012, 07:57:43 AM
(http://scottishrunningguide.com/images/news/2012/2/beethoven.jpg)
...still...
This post is in need of some theme music...
http://www.youtube.com/v/-bzWSJG93P8
Surely LvB can write his own theme music!
Quote from: MN Dave on July 24, 2012, 07:57:43 AM
(http://scottishrunningguide.com/images/news/2012/2/beethoven.jpg)
...still...
Quote from: MN Dave on July 24, 2012, 11:19:04 AM
Surely LvB can write his own theme music!
Oh, and he did...
http://www.youtube.com/v/VAQKFNrL-o0
oy
My favourite composer.
(http://www.findabout.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Anton-Bruckner.jpg)
Bruckner was very tempting for me -- I truly love his entire aesthetic -- but being limited to mainly symphonies was too big a barrier. Ditto Mahler. Hard to compete with somebody like Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, or Schubert, where you have masterpieces in many different genres...
Beethoven & Brahms are both # 1 for me. And if you put a gun to my head to force me to pick just one, I'm afraid you'll just have to pull the trigger. ;D
Sergei Taneyev is # 1 for me :)
Quote from: k.vermont on August 29, 2012, 08:27:57 AM
Sergei Taneyev is # 1 for me :)
Big thumbs up!! Ok, he's not # 1 for me, but he climbs up the rank with every listen and every new work of his that I hear.
My No. 1 Composer? This man...
(http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/15090847/Dmitri%2BShostakovich.jpg)
^^Good choice MI hes my number 2! :D - For my number 1 it must be J.S. Bach :)
Quote from: Conor71 on September 04, 2012, 01:11:20 AM
^^Good choice MI hes my number 2! :D - For my number 1 it must be J.S. Bach :)
Yeah, there's just something so personal to me about Shostakovich's music. It's almost as if sometimes I feel his writing directly towards me. I feel a kinship with many composer's music, but I relate most to Shostakovich.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 04, 2012, 10:36:56 AM
Yeah, there's just something so personal to me about Shostakovich's music. It's almost as if sometimes I feel his writing directly towards me. I feel a kinship with many composer's music, but I relate most to Shostakovich.
Shostakovich is not my # 1 or # 2, but he's battling with a handful for # 3. :)
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 04, 2012, 10:37:58 AM
Shostakovich is not my # 1 or # 2, but he's battling with a handful for # 3. :)
I relate to dark, aggressive music which is why I love Honegger so much in addition to Shostakovich. :D
Right now, Schubert.
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on September 04, 2012, 12:23:39 PM
Right now, Schubert.
Not Prokofiev?!?!? ??? There is something deeply wrong with this universe.
Handel
My favorite composer is Late Classical aka Early Romantic.
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on September 04, 2012, 12:23:39 PM
Right now, Schubert.
I like this, although I earlier named R.Strauss as my No.1 (which is primarily due to Strauss being my main introduction to serious music) I find it hard to just pick one. I would gladly give up 90% of Strauss' repertoire for any of Schubert's late chamber works.
I'm not sure why, but I've never found myself devoted to truly calling one composer my favorite. I would rather take one piece from every composer than only the full repertoire of one.
Edit: Of course this does not mean in any way that I disagree with anyone selecting one composer as their favorite.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 04, 2012, 12:26:55 PM
Not Prokofiev?!?!? ??? There is something deeply wrong with this universe.
Now wait a minute...you know I love Prokofiev. :P I've just been on a Schubert kick lately (apparently coinciding with David's [Ross] recent infatuation!). Sometimes a composer resonates inside my head for a while stemming from some emotional encounter with their music (insert Hallmark® strolling-on-beach-holding-hands scene ;D).
Tough to shake it sometimes.
But bank on it I'll be back to Prokofiev before long!
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on September 04, 2012, 01:04:38 PM
I'm not sure why, but I've never found myself devoted to truly calling one composer my favorite. I would rather take one piece from every composer than only the full repertoire of one.
That's about how I view it, too. A few months ago I could've very well written Ravel instead of Schubert, or Prokofiev, or Berlioz. Etc, etc, etc......
A wonderful merry-go-round...
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on September 04, 2012, 05:32:09 PM
That's about how I view it, too. A few months ago I could've very well written Ravel instead of Schubert, or Prokofiev, or Berlioz. Etc, etc, etc......
A wonderful merry-go-round...
I also have been back on a Schubert high lately, mainly with SQ No.15, that piece is quickly moving up to becoming one of the greatest pieces I've ever listened to. Also been expanding my solo piano collection, more of the sonatas.
What about you? What have you been enjoying from Schubert lately?
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on September 04, 2012, 05:23:16 PM
Now wait a minute...you know I love Prokofiev. :P I've just been on a Schubert kick lately (apparently coinciding with David's [Ross] recent infatuation!). Sometimes a composer resonates inside my head for a while stemming from some emotional encounter with their music (insert Hallmark® strolling-on-beach-holding-hands scene ;D).
Tough to shake it sometimes.
But bank on it I'll be back to Prokofiev before long!
Yes, but we can only have one favorite composer in this thread. You may love Prokofiev's music, but if he was truly your favorite then he would be head and shoulders above all others like Shostakovich is with me. It doesn't matter how long you stay away from Prokofiev's music, the bottom line is you chose Schubert over Prokofiev. For shame, DD! For shame! I may not listen to Shostakovich for a week, a month, or even a year, but he will always remain my numero uno.
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on September 04, 2012, 05:40:30 PM
I also have been back on a Schubert high lately, mainly with SQ No.15, that piece is quickly moving up to becoming one of the greatest pieces I've ever listened to. Also been expanding my solo piano collection, more of the sonatas.
What about you? What have you been enjoying from Schubert lately?
Agree about Schubert's string quartets. Fantastic writing!
For me, lately I've been on a piano sonata binge, which started when I played the D.845 sonata (Lupu's recording). Then on to the
Wanderer Fantasy, then D.784, then the "Unfinished" D.840, and so on.
One nice surprise for me was reacquainting myself with a recording I have of the D.850 sonata by Gilels. I'd always remembered this recording as a good one but I hadn't actually played it in an age. Gilels makes all the right moves and it's a wonderfully fulfilling listening experience.
I'd also like to get to know better the recording I have of the last two sonatas by Paul Lewis. I'd always liked this disc but now I'm starting to think it's one of the finer recordings of these works ever put on disc. It may be the best thing Lewis has done as far as recordings.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 04, 2012, 06:37:39 PM
Yes, but we can only have one favorite composer in this thread. You may love Prokofiev's music, but if he was truly your favorite then he would be head and shoulders above all others like Shostakovich is with me. It doesn't matter how long you stay away from Prokofiev's music, the bottom line is you chose Schubert over Prokofiev. For shame, DD! For shame! I may not listen to Shostakovich for a week, a month, or even a year, but he will always remain my numero uno.
If I had to pick
one composer as my fave it'd be something along the lines of ProkMozBeetRavDebuScubJanacMartiSchumBerliWagBruckStrauSchoHandlBergBrahChoLiszSibelDSCH, esq.....
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on September 04, 2012, 09:11:12 PM
If I had to pick one composer as my fave it'd be something along the lines of ProkMozBeetRavDebuScubJanacMartiSchumBerliWagBruckStrauSchoHandlBergBrahChoLiszSibelDSCH, esq.....
Hey! You're cheating! >:(
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 04, 2012, 09:15:47 PM
Hey! You're cheating! >:(
Does this mean I'm in time out? ;D
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on September 05, 2012, 10:11:42 PM
Does this mean I'm in time out? ;D
Yes, you will have a time out with Prokofiev as he cusses you out in Russian. :D
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 05, 2012, 10:16:19 PM
Yes, you will have a time out with Prokofiev as he cusses you out in Russian. :D
I dunno...I have a feeling Prokofiev might just sit down and listen to Schubert with me. ;D
Shostakovich !!!
(http://clients.teksavvy.com/~wdbailey/Shostakovich.jpg)
For me, right now, it would have to be Brahms. I've only been listening to classical music with any regularity for just about a year and a half, but during that time I have found myself practically addicted to his Piano Concerto #1, and for the past few months (since seeing it performed live by the Montreal Symphony) I've also been addicted to his fourth symphony. What is particularly surprising to me about my own choice is that outside of Brahms (and Beethoven), I tend to strongly prefer 20th-21st century composers.
Mozart. (But mainly in HIP style!) His emotional world, orchestral execution, imagination, humor is absolutely for me. I didn't like (and didn't know) his music for years but I have changed. :) (And I have got to know the HIP Mozart.)
Handel