For me - Wagner any time.
Not that I really dislike his music, but... I just don't have the patience to sit and listen to anyone of his operas from start to end. I've tried but to no avail.
Quote from: Florestan on April 12, 2007, 06:04:29 AM
For me - Wagner any time.
Not that I really dislike his music, but... I just don't have the patience to sit and listen to anyone of his operas from start to end. I've tried but to no avail.
Hello Florestan, your comments regarding Wagner remind me of the the first time I listened to Wagner 5 years ago. At first it was a struggle, those operas are long, uncompromising and unlike Verdi and Mozart the music is not very accessible. But I noticed that the more I listened to him (and I started with Parsifal and Tristan und Isolde-not the most accessible operas out there) Wagner's music began to grow on me. I became addicted to his music and thats when I realized why Wagner is called "Opera's Towering Intellect". I recommend you start with Meistersingers and Lohengrin leave the Ring, Tristan and Parsifal till the end. Wagner is worth the struggle!
At the moment I am facing a similar problem you are having with Mahler......I just can't get around this guy...what's he trying to say? His symphonies start with one key and end with a different one, he throws in ethinic melodies then shifts gear to vocal....... ??? But I am not giving up...not yet anyway....
marvin
For a long time, it was Bruckner and Schubert.
I like Schubert's songs, but little else until I heard Richter's Schubert piano music. Now I like some of his piano music and a couple of chamber pieces.
With Bruckner, I am listening to a bit of it once in a while, and strangely, my favorite is symphony #2.
~
Shostakovich -- I have not listened to his works extensively, but what I've heard in concert and on recordings, his music does not appeal to me. Perhaps I will listen to some of his music in the future. Any suggestion of his music that is not bombastic?
Quote from: marvinbrown on April 12, 2007, 06:21:55 AM
I recommend you start with Meistersingers and Lohengrin leave the Ring, Tristan and Parsifal till the end. Wagner is worth the struggle!
Actually, I started listening to Meistersingers but never reached the end. The only operas I managed to listen completely are The Flying Dutchman (live on stage), Tannhauser, Lohengrin and Tristan. For the last three the audition lingered for days... and days... and days... :)
Quote from: johnshade on April 12, 2007, 06:29:43 AM
~
Shostakovich -- I have not listened to his works extensively, but what I've heard in concert and on recordings, his music does not appeal to me. Perhaps I will listen to some of his music in the future. Any suggestion of his music that is not bombastic?
Yes, his chamber music. IMHO his truest, deepest and most intimate soul is there.
Quote from: johnshade on April 12, 2007, 06:29:43 AM
~
Shostakovich -- I have not listened to his works extensively, but what I've heard in concert and on recordings, his music does not appeal to me. Perhaps I will listen to some of his music in the future. Any suggestion of his music that is not bombastic?
Plenty - just sounds like you ought to steer clear of symphonies and so on and go for the Quartets (especially the later ones), the Preludes and Fugues and so on.
For myself, the one great composer I struggle with is Wolf - can't penetrate his style really, though I can see its quality clearly. I probably need some more recordings - my main one is a big box of stuff recorded in the 1930s and as yet outside a few songs I just don't get it. The fault likes in me - I am probably too conditioned to be expecting Brahms and Schumann, even though I know I shouldn't be doing so - so I will persevere until I've got there.
Quote from: johnshade on April 12, 2007, 06:29:43 AM
~
Shostakovich -- I have not listened to his works extensively, but what I've heard in concert and on recordings, his music does not appeal to me. Perhaps I will listen to some of his music in the future. Any suggestion of his music that is not bombastic?
Twenty-Four Preludes for piano, Opus 34
Piano Trio No. 2 in E Minor, Opus 67
Cello Concerto No. 1, Opus 107
Seven Romances on Poems of Blok, for soprano and piano trio, Opus 127
String Quartet No. 13 in B-flat Minor, Opus 138
Six Romances on Verses of English Poets, Opus 140
Viola Sonata, Opus 147
I've never learned to enjoy Haydn's music; it just seems empty and Telemann-Tafelmusik to me. And Schumann is not my cup of tea, outside of the songs.
My loss, doubtless. But there is so much music out there!
Romantic composers who are not Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, Brahms, Mahler or Reger
Quote from: Florestan on April 12, 2007, 06:30:12 AM
Actually, I started listening to Meistersingers but never reached the end. The only operas I managed to listen completely are The Flying Dutchman (live on stage), Tannhauser, Lohengrin and Tristan. For the last three the audition lingered for days... and days... and days... :)
Oh dear....those operas are long but not THAT long....no worries though plenty of great opera composers out there beside Wagner :).
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on April 12, 2007, 06:21:55 AM
At the moment I am facing a similar problem you are having with Mahler......I just can't get around this guy...what's he trying to say? His symphonies start with one key and end with a different one, he throws in ethinic melodies then shifts gear to vocal....... ??? But I am not giving up...not yet anyway....
marvin
LOL, you don't have to force yourself to like Mahler you know. If you don't like it, don't listen to it, listen to Mozart or Haydn or something.
the point is great composers didn't write music to "please", they are often tough for a listener to get, it took me 2 years to get through Mahler's 11 symphonies.
Same can be said about Shostakovich, you either put the effort and try to understand it, or you won't like it. He didn't write it to please anybody, if you want that kind of music, listen to his film music or jazz suites.
Not too many but generally the French impressionists don't do it for me. Also not a big fan of Prokofieff.
On symphonic, I only like russian or french.Never
listened to other. And can't stand opera. Any opera.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on April 12, 2007, 06:50:47 AM
Romantic composers who are not Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, Brahms, Mahler or Reger
Interesting, but have you any idea why?
I can't listen to Wagner and I only like Mahler's songs.Oh and Scarlatti is too speedy.
Wagner, no good. ;D
Quote from: Lady Chatterley on April 12, 2007, 09:05:29 AM
I can't listen to Wagner and I only like Mahler's songs.Oh and Scarlatti is too speedy.
Of course if it is played by Scott Ross, but Belder on Brilliant will fit your bill, I am sure! :)
Quote from: carlos on April 12, 2007, 08:42:48 AM
On symphonic, I only like russian or french.Never
listened to other.
that's a interesting statement, since pretty much all of romantic Russian symphonists followed the Austro-German musical tradition.
Vivaldi doesn't seem to be my cup of tea. The only impact his music has on me is that it makes me drowsy.
Quote from: Don on April 12, 2007, 10:45:52 AM
Vivaldi doesn't seem to be my cup of tea. The only impact his music has on me is that it makes me drowsy.
SWITCH TO COFFEE
Liszt & Chopin - Too piano-centric, and Liszt's orchestral work is too bombastic.
Schubert - apart from a handful of pieces, I find his mixture of daintiness and long-windedness to be annoying.
Debussy - too static and mellow. Puts me to sleep.
Quote from: Spitvalve on April 12, 2007, 11:10:48 AM
Debussy - too static and mellow. Puts me to sleep.
And what's wrong with that? 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 12, 2007, 11:15:33 AM
And what's wrong with that? 8)
Perhaps nothing...but working on the principle that a cup of tea revivifies, being put to sleep is distinctly un-cup-of-teaesque.
Schumann. I heard his first piano concerto at concert a while ago and found it boring. Manfred overture wasn't much better, I'm afraid.
Quote from: Don on April 12, 2007, 10:45:52 AM
Vivaldi doesn't seem to be my cup of tea. The only impact his music has on me is that it makes me drowsy.
Don I am surprised to hear this, especially from you. J.S. Bach was influenced by Vivaldi. In fact if you listen to some of Bach's violin conecrtos BWV1042 -BWV1044, some of the music is a variation on Vivaldi's violin concertos and l'estro harmonicos. Granted Bach was a far more accomplished Baroque composer than Vivaldi, but I was shocked when I started listening to Vivaldi and noticed just how similar it was to some of Bach's work.
marvin
They are many, but, to keep it short, i'll name only one; Mozart!
Quote from: marvinbrown on April 12, 2007, 12:32:01 PM
Don I am surprised to hear this, especially from you. J.S. Bach was influenced by Vivaldi. In fact if you listen to some of Bach's violin conecrtos BWV1042 -BWV1044, some of the music is a variation on Vivaldi's violin concertos and l'estro harmonicos. Granted Bach was a far more accomplished Baroque composer than Vivaldi, but I was shocked when I started listening to Vivaldi and noticed just how similar it was to some of Bach's work.
marvin
All I can do is call them as I see them. For me, any similarities are superficial.
Probably Vivaldi, Handel and Schumann. There are things I like in all three, but overall what I get from them I get more successfully from other composers.
No doubt this will change over time.
Quote from: edward on April 12, 2007, 01:34:41 PM
Probably Vivaldi, Handel and Schumann. There are things I like in all three, but overall what I get from them I get more successfully from other composers.
No doubt this will change over time.
Yes, at some point Vivaldi will probably be the only one left on your list. :D
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 12, 2007, 07:09:20 AMSame can be said about Shostakovich, you either put the effort and try to understand it, or you won't like it. He didn't write it to please anybody, if you want that kind of music, listen to his film music or jazz suites.
Funny, I love Shostakovich, but I can't stand his jazz suites. They just sound almost...twee...
I don't particuarly like Strauss - his music has always struck me as a little too heavy-handed, and self-assured to the point of arrogance.
Don't much like Vivaldi either - he had moments, but the slight problem that he considered the development section to be an excuse to write out a circle of fifths. (snore...)
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 12, 2007, 07:09:20 AM
Same can be said about Shostakovich, you either put the effort and try to understand it, or you won't like it.
I put absolutely no effort into liking Shostakovich.
Mahler. But I will keep trying.
Quote from: Don on April 12, 2007, 01:21:21 PM
How about hot chocolate?
As long as its GHIRARDELLI, but for one week only we have a special for residence of New Mexico a large can of rich and creamy hot chocolate by Williams-Sonoma....(I am not kidding their Hot Chocolate is out of this world)...
Vivaldi. The least of the baroque masters. I just have never found, beyond my early years of playing, any particular need for him.
Vivaldi, Bruckner and Strauss.
Although Bruckner may change as I finish listening to and spend more time with his symphonies, but he just hasn't made an impression on me yet. The 5th I had to turn off midway through the 2nd movement through boredom. I just couldn't concentrate on it. And so far his scherzi, although good, do seem to sound very repetitive and formulaic...
As for Vivaldi and Strauss, Vivaldi just hasn't connected with me and is no where near as interesting as other Baroque composers I'd rather spend time with like Bach and Scarlatti. Strauss is just too annoying, overblown Late Romantic and seems to me to be hiding a lack of any depth behind all that over-orchestration although he does have a few interesting moments. I'd much rather listen to Mahler though.
Oh, and I also dislike all composers who wrote pretty much exclusively for opera like Verdi, Puccini, Wagner, etc since I don't like opera. I can't stand extensive periods of singing...
There is always something beautiful even in composers that I don't like much.
Liszt, is an example: I find most of his works boring, with lack of structure, too long, with poor motives. But then I love Via Crucis, the piano Sonata, the Dante Symphony, some of the Psalms (in special the 13), La vallée d'Oberman ...
The same with Shostakovitch. He is far from being among my preferred composers, but I love "The nose", the 2nd, 8th and 14th Symphony, the quartets, the viola sonata.
Even Rachmaninov: I love his "Bells" and "The Island of the dead" even if I can't stand his piano music or his concertos.
Quote from: val on April 13, 2007, 12:39:35 AM
Even Rachmaninov: I love his "Bells" and "The Island of the dead" even if I can't stand his piano music or his concertos.
Why? :)
Quote from: val on April 13, 2007, 12:39:35 AM
Even Rachmaninov: I love his "Bells" and "The Island of the dead" even if I can't stand his piano music or his concertos.
But those are his best part! ;D
Oh well, I no longer listen to his piano concerti anymore myself since I listened to them way too many times when I first discovered classical music. So it is possible to have too much of a good thing...
Quote from: Egebedieff on April 12, 2007, 05:55:44 PM
Chopin. I admire how it's put together, I don't hate it, I don't get bored when I hear it, but I just can't bond with it. Same with Coltrane, which seems even more like blasphemy to me. I love Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Bud Powell, and esp Thelonious Monk, but Coltrane eludes me.
egbdf
Have you listened to Trane's work from different periods? There's a pretty broad spectrum from his Prestige work and albums with Miles to the Atlantic recordings to the late Impulse work.
I tried hard to find just someone that was not exactly my cup of tea, and I was considering wether I could find myself in the music of Bartok or not, but honestly.....am I the only one that can simply not mention one great composer, that I does not actually love? And don´t blaim me to be uncritical, because I really am a very critical listener!
If any, I would react against non-perfection, but judgering from the little collection of music, that I have been studied to the last note, I recall no pieces, that was not perfect. I remember a recent thread about disliking Debussy where it was explained as the opposition to Beethovens motifical, the most palpable, music. Well, when I listen to Debussy, I find his musical developement not really different from Beethoven, the difference is only relatively. I mean the exciting sound made of contrasts in Debussy can be explained like the other: A contrasting element is a more dramatical progression on a motif, than a non-contrasting. A difference on Beethoven and Debussy, but not neccesarely a difference in definability.
Oh dear, that should perhabs have been posted on the Debussy thread ;D but my conclusion is, that I love everything from Palæstrina to...hmm ok..Cage...
Rossini, Verdi, Britten, Sibelius & Bruckner but I don't call them great because they aren't my cup of tea.
Most of the Barock.
Endless notespinning. Who listened to it? Did they employ lackeys to write it all down?
Rachmaninoff.
I've tried. The 2nd Piano Concerto evokes images of middle-aged, middle-class couples not having sex at a railway station as the steam trains pull in and out.
As everybody knows sex wasn't invented until the sixties.
Generally, though, I find something I can like from most composers from 1770 up to the present day.
Even Penderecki, although what, exactly, slips my mind for the moment.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 04:23:47 AM
Rossini, Verdi, Britten, Sibelius & Bruckner but I don't call them great because they aren't my cup of tea.
::) Here we go again. As we discovered on the Elgar-Berlioz thread, it's really a rather self-centred attitude which refuses to apply the adjective 'great' to anything because one does not personally chime with it, even if the rest of the musical world disagrees! The only 'great composer' I've really not come to grips with, as I said earlier on this thread, is Wolf, but I have absolutely no problem at all recognising him to be that great composer; he obviously is such, in fact. The fault lies with me, and at some point my blind spot will be remedied, as it has in the past with other composers.
On a general note - the ability to understand and love a previously-disliked/unappreciated composer's music is often representative of a stage in one's personal growth, I think - my appreciation for Ives, for instance, which had been at best limited, grew in leaps and bounds simultaneously with my changing and maturing attitudes in other areas of life. So it's important to accept and welcome these developments rather than to shut oneself off from them.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 04:23:47 AM
Rossini, Verdi, Britten, Sibelius & Bruckner but I don't call them great because they aren't my cup of tea.
are you sure you that are in the right forum?
Quote from: Hector on April 13, 2007, 04:38:41 AM
Most of the Barock.
Barock? You mean Barock(sic) Obama?
Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 13, 2007, 04:59:37 AM
::) Here we go again. As we discovered on the Elgar-Berlioz thread, it's really a rather self-centred attitude which refuses to apply the adjective 'great' to anything because one does not personally chime with it, even if the rest of the musical world disagrees! The only 'great composer' I've really not come to grips with, as I said earlier on this thread, is Wolf, but I have absolutely no problem at all recognising him to be that great composer; he obviously is such, in fact. The fault lies with me, and at some point my blind spot will be remedied, as it has in the past with other composers.
On a general note - the ability to understand and love a previously-disliked/unappreciated composer's music is often representative of a stage in one's personal growth, I think - my appreciation for Ives, for instance, which had been at best limited, grew in leaps and bounds simultaneously with my changing and maturing attitudes in other areas of life. So it's important to accept and welcome these developments rather than to shut oneself off from them.
I
did like Sibelius long ago before I had really found classical music. When I found Elgar, Nielsen, Saint-Saëns to mention few I noticed that Sibelius' music isn't that remarkable after all. On the contrary, I had learned to expect much more from classical music and Sibelius just didn't meet my expectations anymore.
If someone likes the composers I dislike I envy them. I wish I liked too but Rossini makes me gringe.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 13, 2007, 05:14:54 AM
are you sure you that are in the right forum?
There isn't such thing as the right forum for me. Or do you know a forum where Bruhns, Elgar, Autechre, DJ Mark Moore and Standfast are all kept in high esteem?
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 05:43:55 AM
When I found Elgar, Nielsen, Saint-Saëns to mention few I noticed that Sibelius' music isn't that remarkable after all.
Oof! The fact that your own taste has jaded to
Sibelius, does not make his work less remarkable, in the first place.
In the second place, speaking as someone who likes the music of all four composers . . .
Elgar, Nielsen & Saint-Saëns all wrote music of a character entirely different to
Sibelius. There is no way in the musical world that knowledge of, or affection for, the music of
Elgar, Nielsen & Saint-Saëns makes
Sibelius at all "commonplace" or "redundant."
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on April 13, 2007, 05:16:05 AM
Barock? You mean Barock(sic) Obama?
No, I mean Barock but if you like I'll use the French term: Baroque!
Obama? Isn't he the next President of the good ol' US of A?
And to think that only less than a century ago lynching of Afro-Americans was quite commonplace in parts of America. How civilised you have become and in such a short time, too!
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 05:43:55 AM
Or do you know a forum where Bruhns, Elgar, Autechre, DJ Mark Moore and Standfast are all kept in high esteem?
A lot of us hold
Elgar in high esteem. If you're looking for a forum where no one questions the greatness of every last note of
Elgar's . . . well, I wish you all luck! :)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2007, 05:50:30 AM
Oof! The fact that your own taste has jaded to Sibelius, does not make his work less remarkable, in the first place.
I think that Sibelius is very much liked because it's easy music. Same with popular music. Easy to understand and popular but does that make it remerkable music? Of course, Sibelius is 100 more advanced than popular music but still I have always found it easy. How can we say any composer is great when objective measures do not exist?
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2007, 05:50:30 AMIn the second place, speaking as someone who likes the music of all four composers . . . Elgar, Nielsen & Saint-Saëns all wrote music of a character entirely different to Sibelius. There is no way in the musical world that knowledge of, or affection for, the music of Elgar, Nielsen & Saint-Saëns makes Sibelius at all "commonplace" or "redundant."
No, Sibelius is far from redundant. He has his own style but I can't help myself suffering from his structural simplicity and clumsyness compared to many other composers. Nielsen uses naive structures too but in order to have humour. He is brilliant in that!
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2007, 05:52:09 AM
A lot of us hold Elgar in high esteem. If you're looking for a forum where no one questions the greatness of every last note of Elgar's . . . well, I wish you all luck! :)
Of course many of Elgar's notes can be questioned but the same goes to other composers too. Elgar's Sevillana op. 7 isn't that great but so aren't Beethoven's first 2 symphonies. The critic should be fair.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 06:05:56 AM
I think that Sibelius is very much liked because it's easy music.
You have a penchant for nonsense, you know.
Sibelius did not write any more easy music, within the context of his entire work, than did (say)
Elgar.
I must say my friend that you flabbergast me no end, by your firm convictions, which are your convictions of course, and that is oke with me. Nevertheless I sometimes question your sound judgement. To say you don't like some composers is one thing, to make comparisons on a technical level is another. And I think that you should stop there, because you are not really equipped to hold your ground in a point to point analysis.
I could say the same of myself my friend, so don't be angry with me.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2007, 06:11:31 AM
You have a penchant for nonsense, you know. Sibelius did not write any more easy music, within the context of his entire work, than did (say) Elgar.
Funny, I find Elgar's music 10-20 times more complex and sophisticated.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 06:21:16 AM
Funny, I find Elgar's music 10-20 times more complex and sophisticated.
(a) Funny, how selectively you compare the two composers.
(b) Please spell out for us how you arrived at the mathematical figure "10-20 times" in comparing the "complexity" of the two composers' work. This is just balderdash which you are offering, to seem more "complex and sophisticated" — a pet hang-up of yours — than the frank, manly statement "I like
Elgar's music better than I do
Sibelius's."
BTW, 71 dB, while Elgar and Sibelius are both great, and I enjoy the work of both . . . I find (and, while I do not in any way rely upon consensus here, I believe you will find that consensus is) that Sibelius is the more uniformly excellent composer of the two. That does not mean that you are not welcome to enjoy Elgar's music more. Nor does it mean that Sibelius is a "more popular cmposer," or that he wrote music that was "less complex or sophisticated" than Elgar's.
Also, did you see my reply regarding recordings of Falstaff?
[ EDIT :: added an omitted not ]
Quote from: Hector on April 13, 2007, 04:38:41 AM
Rachmaninoff 2nd Piano Concerto evokes images of middle-aged, middle-class couples not having sex at a railway station as the steam trains pull in and out.
Such a coincidence! That very image plagues me whenever I listen to Rach 2 . . . . . . .
I believe it was Catison who said, on the old forum, that he tried to like every composer. Me too. I didn't start that way. Forty years ago I definitely had composers I disliked: Mozart, Bruckner, Debussy. But I persisted, reading about and listening to the composers others said were among the greats. I figured I was the problem, not the music. The persistence paid off. Sometimes the revelation came in a blinding flash (Bruckner); sometimes it took serious study (reading Charles Rosen's The Classical Style tuned my ears and finally convinced me Mozart was among the elect); sometimes it took decades listening over and over again to music I really didn't care for until finally I caved in and admitted it wasn't so bad afterall (Debussy).
I'm now in a position to honestly say there isn't a composer, genre, or style of music I can't enjoy.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 13, 2007, 06:58:07 AM
I believe it was Catison who said, on the old forum, that he tried to like every composer. Me too. I didn't start that way. Forty years ago I definitely had composers I disliked: Mozart, Bruckner, Debussy. But I persisted, reading about and listening to the composers others said were among the greats. I figured I was the problem, not the music. The persistance paid off. Sometimes the revelation came in a blinding flash (Bruckner); sometimes it took serious study (reading Charles Rosen's The Classical Style tuned my ears and finally convinced me Mozart was among the elect); sometimes it took decades listening over and over again to music I really didn't care for until finally I caved in and admitted it wasn't so bad afterall (Debussy).
I'm now in a position to honestly say there isn't a composer, genre, or style of music I can't enjoy.
Thank you,
Sarge, for writing my post for me :)
(I mean, my list of former dislikes would differ, but call that a detail.)
Quote from: Hector on April 13, 2007, 04:38:41 AM
Rachmaninoff.
I've tried. The 2nd Piano Concerto evokes images of middle-aged, middle-class couples not having sex at a railway station as the steam trains pull in and out.
No, Rach's PC2 evokes images of Tom Ewell desperately trying to get into Marilyn Monroe's panties in the
Seven Year Itch.
Huh...wait a minute. Come to think of it, he didn't succeed, so I guess you're right, Hector ;D
Sarge
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 05:43:55 AM
I did like Sibelius long ago before I had really found classical music. When I found Elgar, Nielsen, Saint-Saëns to mention few I noticed that Sibelius' music isn't that remarkable after all. On the contrary, I had learned to expect much more from classical music and Sibelius just didn't meet my expectations anymore.
People who know the first few symphonies, the
Swan of Tuonela and so forth often dismiss Sibelius in this way. But truth be told, Sibelius offers something quite new in symphonic music, a new approach, above all to structure and texture, that simply hadn't been dreamt of before. For you to dismiss that as with a simple 'I noticed that Sibelius' music isn't that remarkable after all' ought to be astonishing. But somehow it isn't.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 06:05:56 AM
I think that Sibelius is very much liked because it's easy music. Same with popular music. Easy to understand and popular but does that make it remerkable music? Of course, Sibelius is 100 more advanced than popular music but still I have always found it easy. How can we say any composer is great when objective measures do not exist?
No, Sibelius is far from redundant. He has his own style but I can't help myself suffering from his structural simplicity and clumsyness compared to many other composers. Nielsen uses naive structures too but in order to have humour. He is brilliant in that!
Again with the misrepresentation of Sibelius! Perhaps you don't know his last 4 symphonies or
Tapiola, but these, just for a start, offer both great sophistication and entirely new structural thinking (sorry to repeat myself!). Another aspect of Sibelius's writing which doesn't exist in, say, Elgar to the same extent, is his fascinating motivic methods. Easy music this ain't!
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 06:09:28 AM
Of course many of Elgar's notes can be questioned but the same goes to other composers too. Elgar's Sevillana op. 7 isn't that great but so aren't Beethoven's first 2 symphonies. The critic should be fair.
So the
Sevillana is the only failure you can think of? And Beethoven's first two symphs are comparable in this respect? ::) ::)
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 06:21:16 AM
Funny, I find Elgar's music 10-20 times more complex and sophisticated.
Well, complexity and sophistication aren't the be-all-and-end-all but trust me, a little study of Sibelius and Elgar reveals their levels of 'complexity and sophistication' to be different, but probably about equal, I'd say. Structurally, Sibelius certainly offers things Elgar never did; harmonically, too, and in terms of melodic variety, he is probably more innovative, inventive and interesting; Sibelius's new approach to orchestral strata is also more developed than Elgar's basically traditional orchestral conception; OTOH Elgar has more events-per-square-cm and a more fragmented, mosaic-like orchestral texture which may sometimes make his music sound more complex on the surface.
I agree with Sarge and Karl, except that Johann Strauss (et familia) remains elusive . . . . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2007, 07:00:09 AM
Thank you, Sarge, for writing my post for me :)
My pleasure, Karl. And let me remind you I pray every day that you will eventually come to appreciate Wagner, Mahler, and Bruckner as much as I do :)
Sarge
Quote from: D Minor on April 13, 2007, 07:04:59 AM
I agree with Sarge and Karl, except that Johann Strauss (et familia) remains elusive . . . . . . .
D, just take a few ballroom dancing courses and all that will change! ;D
Sarge
Chopin
Mozart
Beethoven
Rossini
Wagner (usually)
Stockhausen
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 06:05:56 AM
I think that Sibelius is very much liked because it's easy music. Same with popular music. Easy to understand and popular but does that make it remerkable music? Of course, Sibelius is 100 more advanced than popular music but still I have always found it easy. How can we say any composer is great when objective measures do not exist?
No, Sibelius is far from redundant. He has his own style but I can't help myself suffering from his structural simplicity and clumsyness compared to many other composers. Nielsen uses naive structures too but in order to have humour. He is brilliant in that!
This is too over-the-top for me....Ill just sit this one out......
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 06:05:56 AM
I think that Sibelius is very much liked because it's easy music. Same with popular music. Easy to understand and popular but does that make it remerkable music? Of course, Sibelius is 100 more advanced than popular music but still I have always found it easy. How can we say any composer is great when objective measures do not exist?
No, Sibelius is far from redundant. He has his own style but I can't help myself suffering from his structural simplicity and clumsyness compared to many other composers. Nielsen uses naive structures too but in order to have humour. He is brilliant in that!
Strange. :-\ I thought most people found Sibelius pretty hard to understand. Some weeks ago I was in the concert hall of Odense when they performed Sibelius´s 6th. After the break there were missing people in the audience, because they had walked away in the break. I came to the concert again the next day, where I heard people talking about how borring and hard it was yesterday.
Mikkel, welcome!
Thank you Karl! :) Haven´t been here for a while. It looks like much has changed...
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 06:05:56 AM
I think that Sibelius is very much liked because it's easy music.
Sibelius isn't very much liked actually, not outside the US, UK and Scandinavia anyway, and not beyond the Violin Concerto. The symphonies are rarely played in Germany, for example. And it's nonsense that Sibelius is "easy" music. I second Karl: just say you prefer Elgar to Sibelius because...because you like Elgar more. No one will argue with that and we'll all walk away happy.
By the way, my first classical record was Barbirolli's recording of the RVW 8th and the Enigma Variations. I bought it for Vaughan Williams; I didn't know Elgar at all then. I was immediately won over, though, playing Enigma far more than the 8th. Elgar is still one of my favorite composers. But...so is Sibelius and, honestly, I can't understand your arguments against this great music.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 13, 2007, 07:33:10 AM
Sibelius isn't very much liked actually, not outside the US, UK and Scandinavia anyway, and not beyond the Violin Concerto.
Honestly, I think this Concerto is the weakest part of his output. This is not a value judgment, just a personal matter of taste.
But his symphonies are pure gold, starting with the very first one. The clarinet solo at the very beginning, and especially the clarinet licks in the second part never fail to impress me in a very special way.
Quote from: Florestan on April 13, 2007, 07:38:02 AM
Honestly, I think this Concerto is the weakest part of his output. This is not a value judgment, just a personal matter of taste.
But his symphonies are pure gold, starting with the very first one. The clarinet solo at the very beginning, and especially the clarinet licks in the second part never fail to impress me in a very special way.
The Sibelius VC is pure gold, too . . . . . .
Quote from: D Minor on April 13, 2007, 07:54:37 AM
The Sibelius VC is pure gold, too . . . . . .
I don't deny it. It's just that for the time being I don't see it shininng.
Anyway, even if the Violin Concerto were only a mediocre early work showing a composer struggling to find his own voice, it would still serve to demonstrate Sibelius's versatility 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2007, 06:29:39 AM
(a) Funny, how selectively you compare the two composers.
(b) Please spell out for us how you arrived at the mathematical figure "10-20 times" in comparing the "complexity" of the two composers' work. This is just balderdash which you are offering, to seem more "complex and sophisticated" — a pet hang-up of yours — than the frank, manly statement "I like Elgar's music better than I do Sibelius's."
(a) I compared their complexity only here, not the composers.
(b) If I give you a set of letters E & S like this: {EEEEEEEESEEEEESEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE} one can without any math come to an conclusion that there are 10-20 times more E letters compared to S. Similarly I can tell my brains have to work 10-20 more in order to "decode" Elgar's music.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 08:16:07 AM
(b) If I give you a set of letters E & S like this: {EEEEEEEESEEEEESEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE} one can without any math come to an conclusion that there are 10-20 times more E letters compared to S. Similarly I can tell my brains have to work 10-20 more in order to "decode" Elgar's music.
71 dB, I mean no offense in any way, but this tells something about your brains and nothing about Elgar or Sibelius.
Ah! the good old "supremacy" topic; this one is immortal! ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 08:16:07 AM
Similarly I can tell my brains have to work 10-20 more in order to "decode" Elgar's music.
Maybe that means that
Elgar's music is worse than
Sibelius's.
Composers don't earn awards just for making their music more turgid, do they?
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 12, 2007, 07:09:20 AMSame can be said about Shostakovich, you either put the effort and try to understand it, or you won't like it. He didn't write it to please anybody, if you want that kind of music, listen to his film music or jazz suites.
~
I will try some chamber music of Shostakovich. I certainly have no interest in film music or jazz. I know what you mean about spending effort to appreciate some composers, but have not been attracted to Shostakovich based on symphonies I have heard in concert and on records. Apparently not my cup of tea.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 08:16:07 AM
(a) I compared their complexity only here, not the composers.
(b) If I give you a set of letters E & S like this: {EEEEEEEESEEEEESEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE} one can without any math come to an conclusion that there are 10-20 times more E letters compared to S. Similarly I can tell my brains have to work 10-20 more in order to "decode" Elgar's music.
The fact is you are making an estimate based on a
quantitative representation of something. How is musical comparison measured, even if roughly, quantitatively?
Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 13, 2007, 07:03:46 AM
People who know the first few symphonies, the Swan of Tuonela and so forth often dismiss Sibelius in this way. But truth be told, Sibelius offers something quite new in symphonic music, a new approach, above all to structure and texture, that simply hadn't been dreamt of before. For you to dismiss that as with a simple 'I noticed that Sibelius' music isn't that remarkable after all' ought to be astonishing. But somehow it isn't.
Anyone can offer something new but what does it help if it sounds bad? Sibelius might be intersting to those who study scores but for me music does not exist before it's performed and heard. Elgar might have been old-fashioned composer (so was Bach), but at least he composed music that sounds good. As I have said, some compose with notes, some compose with sounds.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 13, 2007, 07:03:46 AMAgain with the misrepresentation of Sibelius! Perhaps you don't know his last 4 symphonies or Tapiola, but these, just for a start, offer both great sophistication and entirely new structural thinking (sorry to repeat myself!). Another aspect of Sibelius's writing which doesn't exist in, say, Elgar to the same extent, is his fascinating motivic methods. Easy music this ain't!
I like Sibelius' 6th symphony the most. 7th is good too. Elgar's music isn't lacking anything. It's internally in total balance.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 13, 2007, 07:03:46 AMSo the Sevillana is the only failure you can think of? And Beethoven's first two symphs are comparable in this respect? ::) ::)
Not the only one but one example of weaker Elgar. It's still nice music but far from Elgar's best moments. Same with Beethoven's symphonies 1 & 2.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 13, 2007, 07:03:46 AMWell, complexity and sophistication aren't the be-all-and-end-all but trust me, a little study of Sibelius and Elgar reveals their levels of 'complexity and sophistication' to be different, but probably about equal, I'd say. Structurally, Sibelius certainly offers things Elgar never did; harmonically, too, and in terms of melodic variety, he is probably more innovative, inventive and interesting; Sibelius's new approach to orchestral strata is also more developed than Elgar's basically traditional orchestral conception; OTOH Elgar has more events-per-square-cm and a more fragmented, mosaic-like orchestral texture which may sometimes make his music sound more complex on the surface.
Elgar do not have more "events-per-square-cm" in his scores but his events have much more effect due to the musical dimensions. Sibelius is a non-relative composer and Elgar is a relative composer. Music is very much relative as an artform. Things have their meaning mostly when they are compared to each other. Non-relative composers are blind to musical dimensions and their music tend to be flat.
EXAMPLE: If violins and cellos play with the same rhythm we have only one rhythm but if they play different rhythms we have actually 3 rhythms: Violin, cello and their interaction rhythm (illusionary structure). So, just giving violin and cello different rhythms we have 3 times more complex music not to mention about other benefits (huge harmonic possibilities due to note overlap).
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2007, 08:23:27 AM
Maybe that means that Elgar's music is worse than Sibelius's.
Composers don't earn awards just for making their music more turgid, do they?
No because decoding means musical interest.
No because decoding means lack of musical interest. It means code interest.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 08:16:07 AM
(b) If I give you a set of letters E & S like this: {EEEEEEEESEEEEESEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE} one can without any math come to an conclusion that there are 10-20 times more E letters compared to S. Similarly I can tell my brains have to work 10-20 more in order to "decode" Elgar's music.
My brain must work 10-20 times more in order to "decode" your post . . . . . .
Quote from: CS on April 13, 2007, 08:52:41 AM
The fact is you are making an estimate based on a quantitative representation of something. How is musical comparison measured, even if roughly, quantitatively?
It's based on the musical impact of the music. Work A "kicks ass" two times more than work B. So, Work A is 2 times better. Understanding musical impact is another issue and not an easy one.
Quote from: D Minor on April 13, 2007, 09:02:34 AM
My brain must work 10-20 times more in order to "decode" your post . . . . . .
When they can't dazzle you with brilliance, they baffle you with bullfeathers.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 08:57:55 AM
No because decoding means musical interest.
You betcha . . . . . . . ::)
Dmitri Shostakovitch - don't really care much about his work in whole. I have listened to some of his most important symphony's and I can't find anything special about them. At some point they are interesting but what annoys is that they are usually too long for me and it gets boring. But I really enjoy some of his smaller pieces. I have to admit also that I don't really enjoy modern music that much and "new music" makes a big part of Dmitri's life work.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 09:03:23 AM
It's based on the musical impact of the music.
Which you
quantify how?
QuoteWork A "kicks ass" two times more than work B. So, Work A is 2 times better. Understanding musical impact is another issue and not an easy one.
What is being
quantified?Which word do you not understand?
Gentlemen, please! As OP, I beg you to stop these spiral-running parallel monologues. Let us each enjoy what we like and respect - and let others know, that's the idea of the topic - what we don't like!
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2007, 09:06:18 AM
What is being quantified?
And are you expecting a coherent answer to this question? :D
Quote from: looja on April 13, 2007, 09:05:33 AM
Dmitri Shostakovitch - don't really care much about his work in whole. I have listened to some of his most important symphony's and I can't find anything special about them. At some point they are interesting but what annoys is that they are usually too long for me and it gets boring. But I really enjoy some of his smaller pieces. I have to admit also that I don't really enjoy modern music that much and "new music" makes a big part of Dmitri's life work.
Welcome to the Forum!
And what a fascinating post! From my viewpoint, actually,
Shostakovich is hardly new at all (the fellow has been dead already some 30 years, after all).
But if his symphonies are leaving you cold, leave them be for a spell; listen to other music which fires your interest. You may find your ears have changed towards
Shostakovich five, ten years from now.
Quote from: D Minor on April 13, 2007, 09:08:12 AM
And are you expecting a coherent answer to this question? :D
How absolute the knave is! :D
No, as indeed you guessed,
mon vieux!
Quote from: Florestan on April 13, 2007, 09:07:37 AM
Gentlemen, please! As OP, I beg you to stop these spiral-running parallel monologues. Let us each enjoy what we like and respect - and let others know, that's the idea of the topic - what we don't like!
Well, I don't like people taking things as vague as their feelings about music, and pretending that they've
quantified them :D
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2007, 09:11:18 AM
Well, I don't like people taking things as vague as their feelings about music, and pretending that they've quantified them :D
I completely agree with you. But this is a never-ending story. :)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2007, 09:06:18 AM
Which you quantify how?
My brains just do it automatically.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2007, 09:06:18 AMWhat is being quantified?
Which word do you not understand?
Musical dimensions, structures and other attributes a sound can have.
Somehow fans of Sibelius have been able to quantify his music in order to keep him in high esteem. I am just doing the same with Elgar.
I think 71 Db is really enjoying his sparring partners. ;D
Quote from: Harry on April 13, 2007, 09:16:02 AM
I think 71 Db is really enjoying his sparring partners. ;D
I enjoy explaining things important to me but sometimes things get frustrating... :-\
Decibel = dB. B is uppercase because it comes from the name Bell.
Mozart(except for the requiem so far), verdi, etc
Quote from: johnshade on April 13, 2007, 08:40:08 AM
~
I will try some chamber music of Shostakovich. I certainly have no interest in film music or jazz. I know what you mean about spending effort to appreciate some composers, but have not been attracted to Shostakovich based on symphonies I have heard in concert and on records. Apparently not my cup of tea.
then it's perfectly alright, knowing that you put effort in understand his music.
Quote from: Florestan on April 13, 2007, 09:13:09 AM
I completely agree with you. But this is a never-ending story. :)
this is also fun to read ;D
Besides the cello concerto, I have a hard time listening to Elgar's music. The music is too "jumbled" for my taste. I just can't seem to get into it.
In past years, I would've said Mahler to, but I'm starting to like his music. Schumann too.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2007, 09:08:37 AM
Welcome to the Forum!
And what a fascinating post! From my viewpoint, actually, Shostakovitch is hardly new at all (the fellow has been dead already some 30 years, after all).
But if his symphonies are leaving you cold, leave them be for a spell; listen to other music which fires your interest. You may find your ears have changed towards Shostakovitch five, ten years from now.
Hello! I am not new actually ;D, just changed my name due to the forum location changes. But I haven't been in here for a month or so and now decided to refresh my mind with some new classical music debates 8)
But I would really like to enjoy Shostakovitch more someday.
Handel.
Quote from: Ring_of_fire on April 13, 2007, 12:17:53 PM
Besides the cello concerto, I have a hard time listening to Elgar's music. The music is too "jumbled" for my taste. I just can't seem to get into it.
Elgar's music is difficult even if it seems easy. I find Elgar's music the least "jumbled", a continuing multidimensional fabric. The Cello Concerto is easy Elgar, thin and simple work but has strong emotional impact. Why is it thin? Because it's written just after WW I and half of the orchestral players had injured/died in the war. Music had to be writen for half-empty orchestras.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 14, 2007, 02:17:07 AM
Elgar's music is difficult even if it seems easy. I find Elgar's music the least "jumbled", a continuing multidimensional fabric. The Cello Concerto is easy Elgar, thin and simple work but has strong emotional impact. Why is it thin? Because it's written just after WW I and half of the orchestral players had injured/died in the war. Music had to be writen for half-empty orchestras.
No, this isn't really true of the
Cello Concerto, in practical terms, even though 'spiritually' it may be. In fact, the
Cello Concerto is written for the same standard large orchestra as the
Violin Concerto, for instance, and at the climaxes it really lets rip in the same way. It's certainly more sparsely-scored from moment-to-moment, however, but that is partly because that's what the tone of the music demands, and partly because it is Elgar's practical way of letting the cello be heard (this problem being the main reason there weren't many Romantic cello concertos around).
Quote from: The Emperor on April 13, 2007, 10:06:46 AM
Mozart(except for the requiem so far), verdi, etc
Who are the etceteras?
Sarge
Quote from: looja on April 13, 2007, 09:43:04 PM
Hello! I am not new actually ;D, just changed my name due to the forum location changes.
And who were you in that previous forum life?
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 14, 2007, 03:11:34 AM
And who were you in that previous forum life?
Sarge
I was LaurT., I am not sure you know me. I haven't been around here lately ::)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 13, 2007, 07:33:10 AM
Sibelius isn't very much liked actually, not outside the US, UK and Scandinavia anyway, and not beyond the Violin Concerto. The symphonies are rarely played in Germany, for example. And it's nonsense that Sibelius is "easy" music. I second Karl: just say you prefer Elgar to Sibelius because...because you like Elgar more. No one will argue with that and we'll all walk away happy.
By the way, my first classical record was Barbirolli's recording of the RVW 8th and the Enigma Variations. I bought it for Vaughan Williams; I didn't know Elgar at all then. I was immediately won over, though, playing Enigma far more than the 8th. Elgar is still one of my favorite composers. But...so is Sibelius and, honestly, I can't understand your arguments against this great music.
Sarge
I once read that Germans don't like much of Sibelius because according to them he was a Nazi sympathiser. ::)
Quote from: Siedler on April 15, 2007, 12:51:26 PM
I once read that Germans don't like much of Sibelius because according to them he was a Nazi sympathiser. ::)
Now that's something completely new for me. Were there any arguments for that in that book / article?
Quote from: Siedler on April 15, 2007, 12:51:26 PM
I once read that Germans don't like much of Sibelius because according to them he was a Nazi sympathiser. ::)
Amazingly stupid if true, he was one of the few composers who came out of that fascist/Nazi/communist period with all his integrity intact...
Quote from: Florestan on April 15, 2007, 12:53:50 PM
Now that's something completely new for me. Were there any arguments for that in that book / article?
I can't find the article but here's an another one. Apparently some German philosopher bashed Sibelius and claimed him to be a nazi sympathiser.
http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20001024IE3
Why is it that the music of Jean Sibelius (1865-1957) and perhaps also that of other Finnish composers finds a relatively chilly reception in Germany? One reason that has been offered up for decades is the writing of the German philosopher and sociologist Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno (1903-1969), who took a very dim view of our national composer.
For Adorno, Sibelius was a "scribbler" and to be classified along with the other amateurs who were frightened to study composition theory. These barbs carried some weight, since Adorno was an important figure on the cultural scene in West Germany in the post-war period.
Here's one more, also from Helsingin Sanomat: Ruth-Maria Gleissner investigates Sibelius's reception in Germany (http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20001211IE8)
"Theodor Adorno badmouthed Sibelius to great effect and influenced other critics. For my research paper, I asked the modern-day German concert audience for their views on Sibelius. One in ten of them said something about the composer's political leanings and background, even though I di not a ask them about this at all", reports Ruth-Maria Gleissner.
xenakis, definitely don't want to listen to his music while having a cup of tea.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 14, 2007, 03:08:35 AM
Who are the etceteras?
Sarge
Mostly Composers of the Classical period with the exception of Beethoven and some works here and there.
And keep those operas away from me!!! ;D
Quote from: Hector on April 13, 2007, 04:38:41 AMRachmaninoff.
I've tried. The 2nd Piano Concerto evokes images of middle-aged, middle-class couples not having sex at a railway station as the steam trains pull in and out.
As everybody knows sex wasn't invented until the sixties.
The 2nd concerto is not trying, I love rach but I hate his 2nd. Listen to the 3rd. Listen to the 2nd symphony too.
Be kind to me. :D
Bach!
HOWEVER...
I've just started to delve into his preludes and fugues, and I think I just might finally be getting the contrapunctal coolness. Definitely different from my most commonly preferred performer: Debussy.
I've actually started some brief work on his prelude in d minor from the first book. I'm only in gr4, but the biggest challenge for me seems to be memory work. I don't find memorizing that easy if the entire piece is just triplets after triplets after triplets. I'm trying to follow the chords...it might help.
Richard Strauss :P
Quote from: Schu on April 15, 2007, 05:31:53 PM
The 2nd concerto is not trying, I love rach but I hate his 2nd. Listen to the 3rd. Listen to the 2nd symphony too.
I know the 3rd concerto almost as well as the 2nd and it fails to do anything for me.
I have had Previn's EMI recording of the 2nd symphony for some time and the moment der big toon clicks in, that's it, I'm gone!
However, I have Svetlanov's Soviet recording of the 1st symphony of which I have high hopes. It is Tchaikovskian in its sweep and has one great moment in the last movement. I continue to persevere.
Hm... in [EDIT: solo] piano music, Mozart, Beethoven and Bach have me very bored. But I like Bach's piano concertos, Mozart's Requiem, Beethoven's symphonies.
I haven't crossed a single work of Schumann that I liked. They're all BO-RING. I also have no sympathy whatsoever toward's Verdi's music; I've had a hard time not sleeping at Aïda, and I view his requiem as a disgrace.
Quote from: Michel Parent on April 16, 2007, 07:53:45 AM
Hm... in [EDIT: solo] piano music, Mozart, Beethoven and Bach have me very bored. But I like Bach's piano concertos, Mozart's Requiem, Beethoven's symphonies.
I haven't crossed a single work of Schumann that I liked. They're all BO-RING. I also have no sympathy whatsoever toward's Verdi's music; I've had a hard time not sleeping at Aïda, and I view his requiem as a disgrace.
There's a lot you don't like, but time will probably take care of that.
Yes, that's the beauty of it. ;D I still have most to discover. Up until six months ago, I despised all things Chopin. Now, I quite like some of the Polonaises and Nocturnes.
Mozart, Haydn, Palestrina, Vivaldi.
The title of the thread is "Great Composers...", Vivaldi is not a great composer :P
Quote from: Michel Parent on April 16, 2007, 07:53:45 AM
I haven't crossed a single work of Schumann that I liked. They're all BO-RING.
Then perhaps you haven't found a key to hearing Schumann.
Quote from: Michel Parent on April 16, 2007, 07:53:45 AM
I also have no sympathy whatsoever toward's Verdi's music; I've had a hard time not sleeping at Aïda, and I view his requiem as a disgrace.
A disgrace, eh? that's pretty big talk. And just what about Verdi's Requiem is so disgraceful?
Quote from: Don on April 12, 2007, 10:45:52 AM
Vivaldi doesn't seem to be my cup of tea. The only impact his music has on me is that it makes me drowsy.
Yeah, I don't listen to much Vivaldi, either. I got tired of the Four Seasons long ago when it was played everywhere--radio, stores, supermarkets . . . The Gloria is nice to perform, easy for any decent chorus, but I have no desire to listen to it. An exception is the Concerto for Sopranino Recorder (RV 443 and 444--they both sound the same to me), which is quite spectacular with a virtuoso player.
I hardly ever listen to Orff's Carmina Burana--though again, it is fun to perform. I just got a recording of Carmina Burana Suite, an arrangement for Concert Band by John Krance, performed by the Peabody Conservatory Wind Ensemble conducted by Harlan D. Parker, on Naxos 8.570242 which is fun, though. Very good sound, too.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on April 16, 2007, 03:59:48 PM
The title of the thread is "Great Composers...", Vivaldi is not a great composer :P
Maybe you're joking
I can't accept this way of saying without knowing. ;)
I know it's very popular to say this. (he's not profound, he's always doing the same, his music is simplistic...) but it's completely wrong.
But Vivaldi is more than a great composer. His role in the history of concerto and orchestration is enormous. Not to forget his magnificent vocal works.
I would add that the 4 seasons is definitely a masterpiece ; even if many people refuse to like it (it's popular music, I'm not like the ignorant people, it deserves only scorn...)
Quote from: quintett op.57 on April 17, 2007, 01:55:21 AM
Maybe you're joking
I can't accept this way of saying without knowing. ;)
I know it's very popular to say this. (he's not profound, he's always doing the same, his music is simplistic...) but it's completely wrong.
But Vivaldi is more than a great composer. His role in the history of concerto and orchestration is enormous. Not to forget his magnificent vocal works.
I would add that the 4 seasons is definitely a masterpiece ; even if many people refuse to like it (it's popular music, I'm not like the ignorant people, it deserves only scorn...)
I more than completely agree with you my friend! :)
Quote from: Harry on April 17, 2007, 02:03:59 AM
I more than completely agree with you my friend! :)
Me too!
I once met someone who hated
Ravel. After a short discussion, it became obvious that apart from
Bolero she knew next to nothing about his works.
Now, back to
Vivaldi, IMHO he belongs to a very special class of composers:
those who are far better than their reputation.
Rossini is another example.
Quote from: Florestan on April 17, 2007, 02:33:42 AM
Me too!
I once met someone who hated Ravel. After a short discussion, it became obvious that apart from Bolero she knew next to nothing about his works.
Now, back to Vivaldi, IMHO he belongs to a very special class of composers: those who are far better than their reputation. Rossini is another example.
It's like paganini.
We've always denigrated italians with always the same arguments (they're simplistic and not profound) since the first musicographers (german and nationalist). Their work has still a great impact on composers'reputations.
It's a Beethoven/Haydn/Handel/Bruckner/Strauss/Schubert fan (above any italian) writing here.
Quote from: quintett op.57 on April 17, 2007, 03:25:11 AM
It's like paganini.
We've always denigrated italians with always the same arguments (they're simplistic and not profound)
Which we? Not me, anyway, because I'm not a musicologist. :)
Varese
Quote from: quintett op.57 on April 17, 2007, 01:55:21 AM
Maybe you're joking
I can't accept this way of saying without knowing. ;)
I know it's very popular to say this. (he's not profound, he's always doing the same, his music is simplistic...) but it's completely wrong.
But Vivaldi is more than a great composer. His role in the history of concerto and orchestration is enormous. Not to forget his magnificent vocal works.
I would add that the 4 seasons is definitely a masterpiece ; even if many people refuse to like it (it's popular music, I'm not like the ignorant people, it deserves only scorn...)
I am not joking. There is a Vivaldi piece on the local classical station almost once every hour it seems like. Great composers write music that once you hear it you want to hear more. You can't change the radio station until the piece is over. Sure Vivaldi's music is pleasant enough. But I don't get the feeling while listening to his violin concerto #400 that it tells me anything new that I didn't get by listening to his violin concerto #399.
Vivaldi also wrote some nice operas, nice in the sense that if you take an excerpt here and there and listen to it you say to yourself: wow this sounds so cool ! But if you listen to the entire work and then listen to a few more operas (I had that luxury when I was able to borrow from the library a few years ago) you begin to hear the same formula, the same stilted opera seria genre that just turns me away.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 15, 2007, 03:48:31 PM
xenakis, definitely don't want to listen to his music while having a cup of tea.
yeah, it'd be pointless, sorta like drinking coffee and tea at the same time in the morning
Quote from: greg on April 17, 2007, 08:08:07 AM
yeah, it'd be pointless, sorta like drinking coffee and tea at the same time in the morning
Perhaps but Bach's coffee cantata should be everyone's cup of tea. ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on April 17, 2007, 08:30:08 AM
Perhaps but Bach's coffee cantata should be everyone's cup of tea. ;D
Unless everyone's cup of tea is the Tea divertissement (Danse Chinoise) from The Nutcracker.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on April 17, 2007, 07:57:01 AM
Sure Vivaldi's music is pleasant enough. But I don't get the feeling while listening to his violin concerto #400 that it tells me anything new that I didn't get by listening to his violin concerto #399.
This is true enough. But I guess that, apart from the really great ones, you could say the same thing about three-quarters of the Baroque composers (and I would dare say of all composers who ever lived). Be it as it may, I see no reason why pleasant music should be considered inferior to profound music. There's a time for everything under the sun: a time for Mahler and a time for Vivaldi. There are evenings when I come home tired, weary and depressed. All I want is to sit quiet in my armchair, a glass of wine in hand, and just let my mind wander dreamily. I think Vivaldi is just perfect music for that. And for those hours of simple, tranquil pleasure I am grateful to him.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on April 17, 2007, 07:57:01 AM
Sure Vivaldi's music is pleasant enough. But I don't get the feeling while listening to his violin concerto #400 that it tells me anything new that I didn't get by listening to his violin concerto #399.
If you can't see the really big difference between the 4 seasons (Quite unusual big difference for a cycle of concertos in the baroque era) you should listen again, and then hear the next concertos in the opus.
Then you could also compare them to La Stravaganza op.4.....
This is not true. One could have said the same with Handel's concerti grossi if he had not listened well enough.
Vivaldi's concertos are redundant but good. It does not make much sense to collect/listen to all concertos. I have one disc of 7 cello consertos, another disc of 7 oboe concertos and one disc of sacret music. Concertos for flute, bassoon, recorder and violin could be nice additions as well as one complete opera. Vivaldi's sacret music is interesting...
Vivaldi is my small cup of tea.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 18, 2007, 11:00:21 AM
Vivaldi's concertos are redundant but good. It does not make much sense to collect/listen to all concertos. I have one disc of 7 cello consertos, another disc of 7 oboe concertos and one disc of sacret music. Concertos for flute, bassoon, recorder and violin could be nice additions as well as one complete opera. Vivaldi's sacret music is interesting...
Vivaldi is my small cup of tea.
And in this case I strongly disagree with you my friend!
Small cup of tea for you, well yes, that may be.
But in the context of music history he is a top-dog.
For me it is worthwhile to collect as much music by him as I can.
I am well on my way accomplishing just that. :)
Quote from: 71 dB on April 18, 2007, 11:00:21 AM
Vivaldi's concertos are redundant but good.
I'm sorry, you're influenced by all you've read or heard about him. Objectively, he was a genious.
It's not only good. It's magnificent. How can you all refuse to see that? It's obvious!
Quote from: Harry on April 18, 2007, 11:11:46 AM
And in this case I strongly disagree with you my friend!
Small cup of tea for you, well yes, that may be.
But in the context of music history he is a top-dog.
For me it is worthwhile to collect as much music by him as I can.
I am well on my way accomplishing just that. :)
By small cup I mean smaller doses. Vivaldi sounds heavenly if I haven't heard his music for a while but I have difficulties enjoying an hour of his concertos. Handel is the opposite (large cup of tea). I can listen to his music for hours and hours without getting bored or tired. Elgar is a cup of strong tea; after 2 hours of listening my euphoric head is full of music and I need to "cool down".
Quote from: quintett op.57 on April 18, 2007, 02:50:07 PM
I'm sorry, you're influenced by all you've read or heard about him. Objectively, he was a genious.
It's not only good. It's magnificent. How can you all refuse to see that? It's obvious!
Vivaldi was a genious combining melody, harmony and grace-notes. otherwise I wouldn't call him a genius.
Well, to return to the original question, during the last 15 years I forced myself to overcome my original distaste for (a.o.) Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius, Shosta.
But so far, some important composers still mean nothing to me - or even worse. Among them are:
Richard Strauss (one vast emptiness for me, alsmost like a Dutch modern novel :-)
Robert Schumann (heard never anything not trivial by him, not even his final symphony stays in mind)
One W.A. Mozart (though I love his later symphonies and concertos, he died too young to fulfil his promises)
Quote from: Christo on April 19, 2007, 12:23:56 AM
Well, to return to the original question, during the last 15 years I forced myself to overcome my original distaste for (a.o.) Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius, Shosta.
But so far, some important composers still mean nothing to me - or even worse. Among them are:
Richard Strauss (one vast emptiness for me, alsmost like a Dutch modern novel :-)
Robert Schumann (heard never anything not trivial by him, not even his final symphony stays in mind)
One W.A. Mozart (though I love his later symphonies and concertos, he died too young to fulfil his promises)
I am shocked and surprised! :o
But that happens all the time! ;D
Good day to you my friend.
Quote from: Harry on April 19, 2007, 12:30:47 AM
I am shocked and surprised! :o But that happens all the time! ;D Good day to you my friend.
Please, dear Harry, don't read this - if you find it abusive or if it's bad for your heart condition.
But IF you chose to do so, I have an even bigger shock for you. I forgot to mention another composer who means very little to me, even if I forced myself to listen dozens of times to his four symphonies in a couple of new recordings I bought, during my last Christmas break:
I mean one
Johannes Brahms, you might have heard of ...
Quote from: Christo on April 19, 2007, 12:46:35 AM
Please, dear Harry, don't read this - if you find it abusive or if it's bad for your heart condition.
But IF you chose to do so, I have an even bigger shock for you. I forgot to mention another composer who means very little to me, even if I forced myself to listen dozens of times to his four symphonies in a couple of new recordings I bought, during my last Christmas break:
I mean one Johannes Brahms, you might have heard of ...
Well you are good for a few surprises, but I always knew that of course. ;D
I actually have big problems with his piano concertos.
You like a lot of other composers, so that compensates a bit I guess.
Its not abusive to me, and I have no heart condition, so don't worry about that. 0:)
Quote from: Harry on April 19, 2007, 12:56:57 AM
I actually have big problems with his piano concertos.
Why?
Quote from: Christo on April 19, 2007, 12:23:56 AM
Well, to return to the original question, during the last 15 years I forced myself to overcome my original distaste for (a.o.) Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius, Shosta.
But so far, some important composers still mean nothing to me - or even worse. Among them are:
Richard Strauss (one vast emptiness for me, alsmost like a Dutch modern novel :-)
Robert Schumann (heard never anything not trivial by him, not even his final symphony stays in mind)
One W.A. Mozart (though I love his later symphonies and concertos, he died too young to fulfil his promises)
Quote from: Christo on April 19, 2007, 12:46:35 AM
Please, dear Harry, don't read this - if you find it abusive or if it's bad for your heart condition.
But IF you chose to do so, I have an even bigger shock for you. I forgot to mention another composer who means very little to me, even if I forced myself to listen dozens of times to his four symphonies in a couple of new recordings I bought, during my last Christmas break:
I mean one Johannes Brahms, you might have heard of ...
After reading this I feel no
oblication to like Mahler, Bruckner and Sibelius.
It took me a while before I liked Mozart. Then I "got it" and Mozart became my #4 composer.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 19, 2007, 02:14:46 AM
After reading this I feel no oblication to like Mahler, Bruckner and Sibelius.
There is
no obligation to like them, anyway. :)
Quote from: Florestan on April 19, 2007, 12:59:01 AM
Why?
As I explained in another thread, I think the orchestral part and the piano part not a happy match. The bombastic beginning of the first piano concerto clearly shows this. I am put of by this hammering away on the piano.
As many before me, composers and listeners alike, it is said that it is a piano sonate, coupled to a symphony.
And that is what it really feels to me. But you know its my opinion, and not a denigration of Brahms work. As I said before I have all the works Brahms composed, apart from the vocal things, so I think him a fine composer.
But the piano concertos...............
Saying that however made it a open door to ridicule my feelings about it, and instead of convincing me otherwise, or advising performances that might change my mind, they were all telling me how wonderful they are. :)
I understand that fully, since I try also to convince posters what a wonderful composers Telemann and Huber are. ;D
Somehow that doesn't work either.
Quote from: Florestan on April 19, 2007, 02:31:21 AM
There is no obligation to like them, anyway. :)
Sure, but I'm sure we can enjoy almost all of them if we make the effort. We're all influenced by non-musical reasons (me included). Our mind is not free :)
Quote from: Harry on April 19, 2007, 02:35:05 AM
As I explained in another thread, I think the orchestral part and the piano part not a happy match. The bombastic beginning of the first piano concerto clearly shows this. I am put of by this hammering away on the piano.
As many before me, composers and listeners alike, it is said that it is a piano sonate, coupled to a symphony.
And that is what it really feels to me. But you know its my opinion, and not a denigration of Brahms work. As I said before I have all the works Brahms composed, apart from the vocal things, so I think him a fine composer.
what about the 2nd?
Quote from: quintett op.57 on April 19, 2007, 02:41:03 AM
what about the 2nd?
The second piano concerto is much easier on the ear, and better married in terms of orchestral/piano balance.
Therefore I have to find performances that play it lucid, with pert tempi, and internal balance so that I will be able to hear all without the score.
Quote from: Florestan on April 19, 2007, 02:31:21 AM
There is no obligation to like them, anyway. :)
O, but we like you Andrei! ;D
Quote from: Harry on April 19, 2007, 02:47:01 AM
O, but we like you Andrei! ;D
Thanks, thanks, dear friend! :)
Quote from: quintett op.57 on April 19, 2007, 02:39:21 AM
Sure, but I'm sure we can enjoy almost all of them if we make the effort. We're all influenced by non-musical reasons (me included). Our mind is not free :)
I could always make the (mental) effort but I don't have time nor money for that. There's about 100 times more good music in the world than I could ever listen to or buy/loan/steel/download/whatever. My love for the music of Elgar and obsession of baroque music AND
several other music genres limits my possibilities to use time and money on less interesting composers. Lately I have used money and time for world music and excellent Swedish pop music.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 19, 2007, 03:00:46 AM
I could always make the (mental) effort but I don't have time nor money for that. There's about 100 times more good music in the world than I could ever listen to or buy/loan/steel/download/whatever. My love for the music of Elgar and obsession of baroque music AND several other music genres limits my possibilities to use time and money on less interesting composers. Lately I have used money and time for world music and excellent Swedish pop music.
So long as you think it not wasted, my friend it will lead you unharmed through your buying expeditions. :)
Now, for all my magnanimity, I still say:
Brahms rules!
But you're free to disobey him any time! ;D
Well you know.......I agree with that staement! :)
Quote from: 71 dB on April 19, 2007, 02:14:46 AM
After reading this I feel no oblication to like Mahler, Bruckner and Sibelius.
One the one hand, you are simply, perfectly right: you are under nothing like an "obligation."
But you must understand, that also means that the rest of the world is under no obligation (for instance) to like
Elgar. It especially means that that portion of the world, who
do like the best of
Elgar, are under no obligation to think otherwise than that the
Starlight Express and the
Bavarian Dances are sonic cheese.
Just saying . . . .
Quote from: Harry on April 19, 2007, 02:45:57 AM
The second piano concerto is much easier on the ear, and better married in terms of orchestral/piano balance.
Therefore I have to find performances that play it lucid, with pert tempi, and internal balance so that I will be able to hear all without the score.
Gosh,
Harry, come to Boston; the
BSO is accompanying the
First Concerto next weekend, and I think that positive experience is all you need to become a Certified
Brahms Piano Concerto Maniac! :)
Quote from: Florestan on April 19, 2007, 03:18:08 AM
Now, for all my magnanimity, I still say:
Braga Santos rules!
But you're free to disobey him any time! ;D
Thanks, I totally agree!
Quote from: Christo on April 19, 2007, 05:23:09 AM
Thanks, I totally agree!
Hey, that's not nice at all, Christo! You are free to quote me, but please, don't put words in my mouth! ;D
Quote from: Florestan on April 19, 2007, 05:32:39 AM
You are free to quote me, but please, always put your own words in my mouth! ;D
Thnx, I'll remember the generous offer :-) ;D
Quote from: Christo on April 19, 2007, 12:23:56 AM
Richard Strauss one vast emptiness for me
Robert Schumann heard never anything not trivial by him
You know, my friend, in music everyone finds what s/he brings ;D
Quote from: D Minor on April 13, 2007, 06:44:14 AM
Such a coincidence! That very image plagues me whenever I listen to Rach 2 . . . . . . .
I always see them making love with their clothes on in a darkened waiting room.
"Was it alright for you darling?"
"But was it alright for you?"
"I asked first, was it alri...oh,oh, I've think I've come, darling."
And the concerto tinkles away in the background. The Hatto version, I think.
Another: Hans Huber.
The greatest Swiss composer
since the last greatest
Swiss composer.
Listen, and be amazed
at the insomniac curing abilities
of this famous (in his own country?)
Swiz.
The complete symphonies are available, post free, at jpc for 54 euros.
He would have written a ninth if he could have managed to stay awake ;)
David Hurwitz gives them a 9/9. 'Nuff said?
Quote from: Florestan on April 19, 2007, 06:37:55 AM
You know, my friend, in music everyone finds what s/he brings ;D
No doubt, no doubt! At least that confirms what my wife always says.
But still: is there such a thing as German music after Beethoven? To me it remains a strange case, this 'Land ohne Musik' for almost two centuries by now. (Though I admire German literature and German culture in general, I cannot find music in its environment - and the meagre attempts to create something of the kind by e.g. Schumann, Brahms, Richard Strauss and also Max Reger illustrate that tragic lacuna only, for me :-)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 19, 2007, 04:54:12 AM
Gosh, Harry, come to Boston; the BSO is accompanying the First Concerto next weekend, and I think that positive experience is all you need to become a Certified Brahms Piano Concerto Maniac! :)
O, I dearly wish that Boston & Brahms!
Takes a 2 weeks to get a visa! :P
Quote from: Christo on April 19, 2007, 06:52:06 AM
But still: is there such a thing as German music after Beethoven?
Of course there is. But as I said, you are under no obligation to enjoy it. :)
But I'm curious: what post-Beethoven music do you enjoy?
Quote from: Florestan on April 19, 2007, 07:01:23 AM
Of course there is. But as I said, you are under no obligation to enjoy it. :)
But I'm curious: what post-Beethoven music do you enjoy?
Well, to be precise: almost everything! And even more in detail: the large majority of the many hundreds of Russian, Ukrainian, Czech, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian, British, Scandinavian, Baltic, Swiss, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Greek, Israeli, American, Australian, New Zealand, Brazilian, Argentian, Mexican, and many more - composers that I happen to know.
Far less so the Germans I just mentioned, and partly the same applies to some French 20th century music (though I'm fond of all French music from Berlioz untill Tailleferre). So what happened to the Germans? Somehow, they developed an over-academic style that doesn't appeal to me, from indeed Brahms untill Rihm.
I have a struggle with most of Chopin and also most of Prokofiev. I recognise their greatness and appreciate a few of their works alot, but in general I find both of their music difficult to listen to - and dare I say it? boring Well perhaps thats not fair, but both I find have little emotional effect on me generally, and the emotions always seem quite cold in both. Don't know why I am lumping them together but the music affects me (or rather doesn't) in the same way... I'll keep trying though!
Quote from: Guido on April 19, 2007, 04:33:20 PM
I have a struggle with most of Chopin and also most of Prokofiev. I recognise their greatness and appreciate a few of their works alot, but in general I find both of their music difficult to listen to - and dare I say it? boring Well perhaps thats not fair, but both I find have little emotional effect on me generally, and the emotions always seem quite cold in both. Don't know why I am lumping them together but the music affects me (or rather doesn't) in the same way... I'll keep trying though!
That's pretty much what I feel about Shosta (Piano Quintet excluded!).
How can Prokofiev or Shostakovich be boring? :o
Quote from: Siedler on April 20, 2007, 04:11:22 AM
How can Prokofiev or Shostakovich be boring? :o
Hear, hear!
Shostakovich I don't find remotely boring, but the pieces I have heard of Prokofiev's usually seem prolix, the material's qulaity almost accidental (its either very good, or quite bland), and there's a sort of facileness that I can't quite pu my finger on...
I'm probably completly wrong, or its the result of hearing bad performances, or not concentrating hard enough... Do suggest pieces that would provide a good crash course in his style and convince me of his greatness. He's in my 'favourite era' so logically I should like him! I am fond of the Symphony Concerto for Cello, and also the sweet concertino and the lovely Cello Sonata, but the first piece especially just seems to long... I find it tiring to listen to, and I'm a cello nut!
How can liking or not liking something be wrong?
Quote from: JoshLilly on April 20, 2007, 07:59:40 AM
How can liking or not liking something be wrong?
If it isn't based on significant experience. Not liking something is only justifiable if you've surveyed the artist/piece in question.
Quote from: Guido on April 20, 2007, 07:57:19 AM
Shostakovich I don;t find remorely boring, but the pieces I have heard of Prokofiev's usually seem prolix, the material's qulaity almost accidental (its either very good, or quite bland), and there's a sort of facileness that I can't quite pu my finger on...
I'm probably completly wrong, or its the result of hearing bad performances, or not concentrating hard enough... Do suggest pieces that would provide a good crash course in his style and convince me of his greatness. He's in my 'favourite era' so logically I should like him! I am fond of the Symphony Concerto for Cello, and also the sweet concertino and the lovely Cello Sonata, but the first piece especially just seems to long... I find it tiring to listen to, and I'm a cello nut!
Perhaps, Shostakovich Symphony No. 15, with Jansons? I too was rather disinterested with Shostakovich until I spent some time with a quality recording of his later symphonies. (11, 13, 10), all fit the bill.
No you seem to have misunderstood. Despite my awful typing skills, I was trying to say that I don't find Shostakovich remotely boring, i.e. I love his works.
Prokofiev is the one I am having difficulty with.
Elgar
Verdi and Stravinsky. I will keep trying, however. :)
Quote from: Shunk_Manitu_Tanka on April 12, 2007, 01:07:16 PM
They are many, but, to keep it short, i'll name only one; Mozart!
Well Im glad to see this guy doesn't login in anymore :P
Quote from: MozartMobster on August 01, 2007, 12:29:26 AM
Well Im glad to see this guy doesn't login in anymore :P
I only partially agree with S_M_T. I can only handle Mozart in small doses. If I listen to too much at a time, I get the sudden urge to kick a cute stuffed animal.
I don't know if he is really considered great, but I really don't like Antheil. His music comes off as something someone would have considered "wild" in its time, but now just seems embarrassingly posturing.
Quote from: Gabriel on August 01, 2007, 12:23:16 AM
Verdi and Stravinsky. I will keep trying, however. :)
Yes, Verdi much like caviar is somewhat an acquired taste- his operas are really wonderful if you can get yourself to appreciate them....realizing that this is easier said than done, my struggle with Mahler continues.......
marvin
I'm not sure that he qualifies as 'great', but British contemporary composer, Mark Anthony Turnage, really makes me switch off.
Quote from: Guido on April 20, 2007, 07:57:19 AM
Shostakovich I don't find remotely boring, but the pieces I have heard of Prokofiev's usually seem prolix, the material's qulaity almost accidental (its either very good, or quite bland), and there's a sort of facileness that I can't quite pu my finger on...
I'm probably completly wrong, or its the result of hearing bad performances, or not concentrating hard enough... Do suggest pieces that would provide a good crash course in his style and convince me of his greatness. He's in my 'favourite era' so logically I should like him! I am fond of the Symphony Concerto for Cello, and also the sweet concertino and the lovely Cello Sonata, but the first piece especially just seems to long... I find it tiring to listen to, and I'm a cello nut!
Which Prokofiev works are you familiar with? I love Prokofiev, but find the cello concertino (a semi-posthumous work) to be pretty boring. If you're not familiar with them already, I would suggest you check out The Buffoon (but not the slow Jurowski recording), The Fiery Angel, the 2nd and 5th Piano Concertos, the 2nd and 6th Symphonies, Le Pas D'Acier, The Love for Three Oranges (the full opera, not the too-brief suite), The October Cantata, the 6th, 7th, and 8th piano sonatas, the opus 11 Toccata, the Four Etudes (opus 2), The Ode to the End of the War, the Violin Sonata #1, and the op. 39 Quintet. If you listen to all of these works and are still not impressed, I guess Prokofiev isn't for you. If you're interested in his more "serious" works, I'd especially suggest the 2nd and 6th Symphonies, the Piano Sonatas 6-8, the Violin Sonata #1, and The Gambler, which is difficult but rewarding. If you have a lot of patience, you could also try War and Peace, which is a flawed masterpiece--and allegedly a work Shostakovich greatly admired. Shostakovich also had kind things to say about Prokofiev's Flute Sonata (in my opinion, the best flute sonata ever written) and his comic opera Betrothal in a Monastery, as well as the bombastic (and hardly boring) "Ode to the End of the War."
I have struggled with Shostakovich for many years; his genius is obvious, and certainly there's nothing boring about him (though the excessive length of the symphonies can tax my patience). But often he tries too hard to be exciting--I feel he's standing over my shoulder hitting me on the head saying, "Come on, isn't this really exciting?" I generally prefer his early experimental works (like The Nose) or the later mature works (Quartet 15) to the warlike symphonies. If you like Shostakovich, you might check out Popov, if you don't already know him; Popov is much closer in spirit to Shost. than Prokofiev was, and Popov's Symphony #1 exerted some influence on Shost. when he was writing his 4th Symphony (though the Popov symphony totally rips off Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy and Prokofiev's Scythian Suite in its climax).
Andrew
Quote from: Mark on August 02, 2007, 09:14:32 AM
I'm not sure that he qualifies as 'great', but British contemporary composer, Mark Anthony Turnage, really makes me switch off.
I don't like him either; I thought his "From the Wreckage" trumpet concerto was pretty awful.
Quote from: jurajjak on August 04, 2007, 10:05:13 PM
Which Prokofiev works are you familiar with? I love Prokofiev, but find the cello concertino (a semi-posthumous work) to be pretty boring. If you're not familiar with them already, I would suggest you check out The Buffoon (but not the slow Jurowski recording), The Fiery Angel, the 2nd and 5th Piano Concertos, the 2nd and 6th Symphonies, Le Pas D'Acier, The Love for Three Oranges (the full opera, not the too-brief suite), The October Cantata, the 6th, 7th, and 8th piano sonatas, the opus 11 Toccata, the Four Etudes (opus 2), The Ode to the End of the War, the Violin Sonata #1, and the op. 39 Quintet. If you listen to all of these works and are still not impressed, I guess Prokofiev isn't for you. If you're interested in his more "serious" works, I'd especially suggest the 2nd and 6th Symphonies, the Piano Sonatas 6-8, the Violin Sonata #1, and The Gambler, which is difficult but rewarding. If you have a lot of patience, you could also try War and Peace, which is a flawed masterpiece--and allegedly a work Shostakovich greatly admired. Shostakovich also had kind things to say about Prokofiev's Flute Sonata (in my opinion, the best flute sonata ever written) and his comic opera Betrothal in a Monastery, as well as the bombastic (and hardly boring) "Ode to the End of the War."
Andrew
Good list - I would add the suites from the Eisenstein film scores though (Ivan & Nevski), and maybe the 2nd string quartet.
Well i'm another one that find's most Mozart boring, haven't heard enough maybe but i don't really feel like it to, the only thing by him i like so far is the requiem and that's not even all by him, maybe that's why! ;D
Quote from: jurajjak on August 04, 2007, 10:17:20 PM
I don't like him either; I thought his "From the Wreckage" trumpet concerto was pretty awful.
Turnage is yet another of those British prodigies who's turned out below their absurdly hyped expectations. I still like a lot of his earlier orchestral music (though it seems overscored and unnecessarily densely textured in a very Henzian way) but have found more recent works underwhelming. I think his chamber music deserves more attention, though.
Verdi is a bit too "oom pah" for my tastes, though many of his melodies are unarguably catchy. Other than that, I've yet to come across a major composer whom I haven't either liked immediately or come to appreciate in time. I have wide tastes.
Quote from: Grazioso on August 05, 2007, 03:46:58 AM
Verdi is a bit too "oom pah" for my tastes
Same here. Was impressed with Simon Boccanegra, though.
Thomas
Quote from: erato on August 05, 2007, 12:38:00 AM
Good list - I would add the suites from the Eisenstein film scores though (Ivan & Nevski), and maybe the 2nd string quartet.
Sure, there's plenty more to add (I'd also include Semyon Kotko, in the Gergiev recording, for those who can forgive the poor ending). I left out Nevsky because I guessed the poster, who knew more obscure works like the concertino, was already familiar with it. I'd add the first quartet as well; the second one is good too, and unfairly trashed by most critics simply because it doesn't live up to the Bartokian-Shostakovichian standards of the "dark and anguished string quartet." But it has wonderful melodies, and not every quartet has to be obsessed with self-important soul-searching. Indeed, I find that a lot of objectively good 20th century quartets (i.e., Hindemith's) become tiresome for their self-importance.
Quote from: Grazioso on August 05, 2007, 03:46:58 AM
Verdi is a bit too "oom pah" for my tastes, though many of his melodies are unarguably catchy. Other than that, I've yet to come across a major composer whom I haven't either liked immediately or come to appreciate in time. I have wide tastes.
Talking about Verdi. I survived a handful of Puccini operas, mostly in Romanian opera houses btw, and found them incredibly boring. Did Puccini write anything of interest?
Quote from: Christo on August 05, 2007, 12:45:10 PM
Did Puccini write anything of interest?
His shopping lists are renowned, there's also a museum on the subject, in Lucca. Go visit it, people love it.
Quote from: Christo on August 05, 2007, 12:45:10 PM
I survived a handful of Puccini operas, mostly in Romanian opera houses btw, and found them incredibly boring. Did Puccini write anything of interest?
Puccini boring? ??? Have you tried Turandot?
Quote from: Christo on August 05, 2007, 12:45:10 PM
Talking about Verdi. I survived a handful of Puccini operas, mostly in Romanian opera houses btw, and found them incredibly boring. Did Puccini write anything of interest?
YES TOSCA!!! (this opera is in my opinion his best and not to be missed)........
marvin
Quote from: JCampbell on August 01, 2007, 08:35:54 AM
I only partially agree with S_M_T. I can only handle Mozart in small doses. If I listen to too much at a time, I get the sudden urge to kick a cute stuffed animal.
:P I also have problems with large amounts of Mozart. His vocal works I can listen to for longer than his orchestral works, and his orchestral for longer than his chamber works. Of course, I do recognize his significance and skill, as well as his influences on many great composers I truly love (which is to say, just about all great composers except those that came before him - he didn't influence them so much for some reason). Strangely, I have a much easier time with Haydn than with Mozart - though, I'll admit, I'm mostly familiar with Haydn through his vocal works, so that may have some impact.
I'm surprised that I'm not the only one who feels this way. It alleviates some of the guilt I feel for not listening to Mozart so much.
Quote from: 71 dB on August 05, 2007, 01:59:29 PM
Puccini boring? ??? Have you tried Turandot?
I not only tried it, it tried me ! ;D
I listen to hardly any Mozart, Puccini, Richard Strauss or Verdi.
I have a hard time *not* enjoying bits and pieces of everything I hear. Some may not be ideal at a given moment, but my moods are fluid, so a given composer may fit the bill at a later date. I am not willing to swear off any composer (aside from Elgar, but that has more to do with his "champion" than anything he has done, so I am trying very hard not to hold it against the composer).
As for the earlier discussion of Vivaldi, Naive is a very appropriate name for a label responsible for releasing the Vivaldi edition (http://www.naive.fr/classique/newsletter-4.php#ve) as it seems that the great variety and genius of his works is completely contrary to the popular and *naive* preconceptions about the quality of his oeuvre (maybe we can blame Stravinsky for this impression).
Quote from: Kullervo on August 01, 2007, 05:37:55 PM
I don't know if he is really considered great, but I really don't like Antheil. His music comes off as something someone would have considered "wild" in its time, but now just seems embarrassingly posturing.
there's one Antheil I really like, and that's the Mechanical Ballet (which you might be talking about).
but some of his other stuff I heard I didn't really like at all, i think it was a CD with his 2nd? symphony and some other stuff
Quote from: greg on August 07, 2007, 05:42:04 AM
there's one Antheil I really like, and that's the Mechanical Ballet (which you might be talking about).
but some of his other stuff I heard I didn't really like at all, i think it was a CD with his 2nd? symphony and some other stuff
The symphonies are a bit more conservative from what I've read. Haven't bothered to listen to any of them. I was referring to Ballet Mecanique, most of the piano music, the violin sonatas, etc. It seems like most of the time he was slavishly imitating early Stravinsky, and I don't like early Stravinsky.
Quote from: vandermolen on August 06, 2007, 11:33:22 PM
I listen to hardly any Mozart, Puccini, Richard Strauss or Verdi.
Speaking for myself, I hardly listen to any Mozart, Puccini, R. Strauss or Verdi - too ;)
Quote from: Christo on August 07, 2007, 11:13:23 AM
Speaking for myself, I hardly listen to any Mozart, Puccini, R. Strauss or Verdi - too ;)
Mozart: Very often. #4 composer ever in my list.
Puccini: Quite often. IMO one of the greatest opera composers ever.
R. Strauss: Sometimes. Excellent orchestrator of a bit boring music.
Verdi: Hardly ever. Insults my musical intelligence...
Quote from: Christo on August 07, 2007, 11:13:23 AM
Speaking for myself, I hardly listen to any Mozart, Puccini, R. Strauss or Verdi - too ;)
Now this is frightening, I can not live without the operas of Mozart, Puccini , R. Strauss and Verdi :'(!
marvin
Most Mozart I find boring. He's a genius composer and wrote countless masterpieces, but I only listen to his Requiem, late symphonies, late piano concertos, some piano sonatas and "some" operas.
Quote from: Bonehelm on August 10, 2007, 07:18:08 AM
Most Mozart I find boring. He's a genius composer and wrote countless masterpieces, but I only listen to his Requiem, late symphonies, late piano concertos, some piano sonatas and "some" operas.
No string quartets? No chamber music? I couldn't imagine living without them.
Quote from: marvinbrown on August 09, 2007, 12:33:07 PM
Now this is frightening, I can not live without the operas of Mozart, Puccini , R. Strauss and Verdi :'(! marvin
Well, but you could easily learn how to survive on a diet without them - from us! ;) Great, however, that you enjoy them. It's our love of music that unites us, and we were just teasing a bit. In the end, we're all musical brothers/sisters (well, mostly brothers .. ) 0:)
Quote from: Bonehelm on August 10, 2007, 07:18:08 AM
Most Mozart I find boring. He's a genius composer and wrote countless masterpieces, but I only listen to his Requiem, late symphonies, late piano concertos, some piano sonatas and "some" operas.
I feel exactly the same - he simply died too young, before reaching musical maturity, but his final utterings were really very promising indeed.
Quote from: Christo on August 10, 2007, 01:10:47 PM
he simply died too young, before reaching musical maturity
I feel like he reached maturity at least 10 years before dying. Saying that it would have been revealing to see his senile achievements is another thing. But considering a 35 years old genius as Mozart, immature, is quite bizarre.
Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 10, 2007, 01:19:23 PM
I feel like he reached maturity at least 10 years before dying. Saying that it would have been revealing to see his senile achievements is another thing. But considering a 35 years old genius as Mozart, immature, is quite bizarre.
In fact, in 1782-1783 Mozart had already reached maturity. His music could have evolved later, no doubt, but that would be a normal process for any great composer.
With all respect for everybody's opinion, the Requiem is not a complete sign of Mozart's genius (he is based too closely in the model of Michael's Haydn's Requiem masses). And what do "final utterings" mean, Christo?
Quote from: Gabriel on August 10, 2007, 02:09:49 PM
And what do "final utterings" mean, Christo?
Death Rattle, for solo voice, K. 627
cant listen to Mahler.....
Quote from: Christo on August 10, 2007, 01:10:47 PM
I feel exactly the same - he simply died too young, before reaching musical maturity, but his final utterings were really very promising indeed.
Oh wow! This would really have pleased Mozart that all he needed was just a little bit more practice. ??? ;D
Quote from: Saul on August 12, 2007, 07:19:26 PM
cant listen to Mahler.....
That puzzles me exeedingly Saul!
Quote from: Christo on August 07, 2007, 11:13:23 AM
Speaking for myself, I hardly listen to any Mozart, Puccini, R. Strauss or Verdi - too ;)
That must be trying indeed! ;D
Quote from: Kullervo on August 10, 2007, 02:33:47 PM
Death Rattle, for solo voice, K. 627
;D ;D ;D ;D
Is the name Simon by any chance?
Quote from: Christo on August 10, 2007, 01:09:29 PM
Well, but you could easily learn how to survive on a diet without them - from us! ;) Great, however, that you enjoy them. It's our love of music that unites us, and we were just teasing a bit. In the end, we're all musical brothers/sisters (well, mostly brothers .. ) 0:)
AGREED :) !
marvin
Just finished listening to Wagner's famous mastersinger of Nuremberg.
Can't say I like Wagner. I treasure Bruckner's symphonies, though..
Quote from: Bonehelm on August 13, 2007, 01:22:55 AM
Just finished listening to Wagner's famous mastersinger of Nuremberg.
Can't say I like Wagner. I treasure Bruckner's symphonies, though..
which ones?
Quote from: MahlerTitan on August 13, 2007, 01:38:26 AM
which ones?
4th, 7th, 8th, 9th. The other's im still trying to decipher...might need to borrow Tchaikovsky's infamous Nutcracker ;D
Quote from: Bonehelm on August 13, 2007, 02:21:38 AM
4th, 7th, 8th, 9th. The other's im still trying to decipher...might need to borrow Tchaikovsky's infamous Nutcracker ;D
you should do 5th next, i find the 5th very accessible. (relatively speaking）
Quote from: Harry on August 12, 2007, 11:25:54 PM
That puzzles me exeedingly Saul!
His music just sounds to Germanic and Wagnerian for a nice Jewish boy, plus its way too long.
Quote from: Harry on August 12, 2007, 11:28:35 PM
;D ;D ;D ;D
Is the name Simon by any chance?
Simon makes his singing debut. Who'd have known he was a baritone? ;D
Quote from: MahlerTitan on August 13, 2007, 02:40:23 AM
you should do 5th next, i find the 5th very accessible. (relatively speaking）
In fact, i find it the most accesible, at least to me it is, and still is.
Howard
Quote from: MahlerTitan on August 13, 2007, 02:40:23 AM
you should do 5th next, i find the 5th very accessible. (relatively speaking）
Thanks for the suggestion, and who willl be the conductor/orchestra of your choice in the recording? I have access to Karajan/VPO on CD.
Quote from: Saul on August 13, 2007, 04:35:44 AM
His music just sounds to Germanic and Wagnerian for a nice Jewish boy, plus its way too long.
All nice Jewish boys composed in the Germanic tradition! :)
But Mahler's music is absolutely not Wagnerian IMO.
Q
Quote from: Que on August 14, 2007, 03:28:50 AM
But Mahler's music is absolutely not Wagnerian IMO.
Q
Absolutely right
Que!Heaven forbid, for that would rule out Mahler for me! :)
I too, do not see any signs of Wagnerism in Mahler...perhaps because the opera composer wasn't so much of a symphonist..
Franz Liszt
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 13, 2011, 07:04:29 AM
Franz Liszt
For you, Ray, may I suggest: Von der Wiege bis zum Grabe, symphonic poem No. 13, S107
I have trouble with Haydn and Mozart -- the 18th Century style sounds so foursquare and predictable to me, I get bored. I like certain works by them, but...zzz. In grad school I had to write 5 papers on Don Giovanni, I never want to hear that opera again
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 13, 2011, 07:08:09 AM
For you, Ray, may I suggest: Von der Wiege bis zum Grabe, symphonic poem No. 13, S107
You are right Karl. I need to explore his symphonic poems. I have to be honest and have not heard them yet, perhaps one or two?
It is his piano music that just doesn't seem to do anything for me (at least at this point in time). As with many other composers whose first impressions to me weren't the rosiest (see Mozart and Tchaikovsky).....well, obviously that can change.
I have no doubt that I will eventually find a great deal that I do enjoy in Liszt. :)
Quote from: Amfortas on July 13, 2011, 07:11:01 AM
I have trouble with Haydn and Mozart -- the 18th Century style sounds so foursquare and predictable to me, I get bored. I like certain works by them, but...zzz. In grad school I had to write 5 papers on Don Giovanni, I never want to hear that opera again
Well, that sort of overexposure is deadly.
Me, now, I had taken it as read that the Mozart violin concerti must be too early, too predictable (though some of the predictability of that era is a game, don't you think?), and that I should not much enjoy them.
Then I heard the Gidon Kremer recordings . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 13, 2011, 07:18:43 AM
Well, that sort of overexposure is deadly.
Me, now, I had taken it as read that the Mozart violin concerti must be too early, too predictable (though some of the predictability of that era is a game, don't you think?), and that I should not much enjoy them.
If by ''game'' you mean that the composers can play with your expectations, I agree, especially about Haydn. Don't get me wrong, I am not disparaging the composers or their music. I just find the late 18th C sound does not appeal much to me.
I do agree about the Mozart violin concerti, they really don't hold my interest at all. As for the piano concerti--I know lightning will strike me for saying it because they are universally adored--they all sound too much alike to me (in my oh-so-very-humble opinion). :D
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 13, 2011, 07:16:58 AM
You are right Karl. I need to explore his symphonic poems. I have to be honest and have not heard them yet, perhaps one or two?
It is his piano music that just doesn't seem to do anything for me (at least at this point in time). As with many other composers whose first impressions to me weren't the rosiest (see Mozart and Tchaikovsky).....well, obviously that can change.
I have no doubt that I will eventually find a great deal that I do enjoy in Liszt. :)
As far as S107 goes, allow me to suggest:
[asin]B0006A7WE6[/asin]
(Tone Poems 3 and 6, for ease of reference, are Les Preludes and Mazeppa)
Quote from: Amfortas on July 13, 2011, 07:56:50 AM
. . . I do agree about the Mozart violin concerti, they really don't hold my interest at all.
Ah, but you see, we don't agree any longer, because Gidon Kremer has removed the scales from my eyes (or, ears)!Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 13, 2011, 08:15:42 AM
As far as S107 goes, allow me to suggest:
[asin]B0006A7WE6[/asin]
That looks very nice, indeed, Jeffrey.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 13, 2011, 08:19:19 AM
Ah, but you see, we don't agree any longer, because Gidon Kremer has removed the scales from my eyes (or, ears)!
I'll take your word for it, but I should confess that violin concerti in general are not a favorite genre of mine. I don't like a lot of fiddling around (I know, I know) ::) -- my fave violin concerto would be the Sibelius
Quote from: Amfortas on July 13, 2011, 07:56:50 AM
I just find the late 18th C sound does not appeal much to me.
It's for sure not composers' but performers' fault. They mostly think that Mozart's music is as perfect as it is similar to Eine kleine Nachtmusik. And play all Classical period music like that. They probably believe that final tonics was the most exciting events in the spirtual world of Classical period composers.
I really prefer Liszt's piano music or any of it that has piano like his songs or piano concerti. I tried to sit through his symphonic poems but they usually overpower me with tedium.
ZB
For you, too, ZB, may I suggest: Von der Wiege bis zum Grabe, symphonic poem No. 13, S107 : )
Quote from: mszczuj on July 13, 2011, 09:27:50 AM
It's for sure not composers' but performers' fault. They mostly think that Mozart's music is as perfect as it is similar to Eine kleine Nachtmusik. And play all Classical period music like that. They probably believe that final tonics was the most exciting events in the spirtual world of Classical period composers.
It's the music, but not a fault, it's just my taste. I prefer what happened in music after that period.
Chopin (though I don't actively dislike his music)
Verdi (ditto)
Carter (I try, with little return)
The Renaissance polyphonists (and, no, it has nothing to do with religion.)
I tried the Liszt tone poem Karl so avidly recommends - wow, that's a bizarre little piece, isn't it? Short, snappy, and rather disconcertingly weird. I'll have to hear it again.
Quote from: Brian on July 13, 2011, 02:39:04 PM
I tried the Liszt tone poem Karl so avidly recommends - wow, that's a bizarre little piece, isn't it? Short, snappy, and rather disconcertingly weird. I'll have to hear it again.
You ought to try some of his late piano pieces if you haven't. Like that times a million.
Quote from: Florestan on April 12, 2007, 06:04:29 AM
For me - Wagner any time.
Not that I really dislike his music, but... I just don't have the patience to sit and listen to anyone of his operas from start to end. I've tried but to no avail.
Perhaps this is the general problem. It's incredibly hard to sit through a 4+ hour opera regardless of how good it is and, trust me, Wagner's operas are brilliant. The best thing I have found, for me, is to split the operas up over several days. Maybe listen to one act a day. His music is incredible and it does demand a lot from the listener, but you have to be realistic with your listening time.
Quote from: Daverz on July 13, 2011, 02:02:59 PM
The Renaissance polyphonists (and, no, it has nothing to do with religion.)
There is sometimes a bit of interchangeability and blandness in that genre, but for me great beauty. You might want to try their secular music--a bit less bland, sometimes humor, and somewhat more varied in terms of what's going on in the music.
As to the thread topic: almost anything from the 20th century that is not tonally based composed for larger forces. My reactions vary between 1) it gives me a headache 2)it bores me and 3)I see what you're doing on the intellectual level, but frankly I don't hear anything that will motivate me for a repeat listen. Oddly enough, music of that sort written for smaller forces--chamber size or solo instrument--usually does work for me. Ligeti is a good example--I don't like his orchestral music, I love his work for solo piano and string quartet. The only exceptions to this rule seem to be Messiaen (almost everything including Quartour pour le Fin du Temps, bores me--the only thing I've heard by him I find halfway decent is Visions de l'Amen) and Boulez (Marteau sans Maitre can be used as the dictionary defintion of boring)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 13, 2011, 09:30:33 PM
There is sometimes a bit of interchangeability and blandness in that genre, but for me great beauty. You might want to try their secular music--a bit less bland, sometimes humor, and somewhat more varied in terms of what's going on in the music.
As to the thread topic: almost anything from the 20th century that is not tonally based composed for larger forces. My reactions vary between 1) it gives me a headache 2)it bores me and 3)I see what you're doing on the intellectual level, but frankly I don't hear anything that will motivate me for a repeat listen. Oddly enough, music of that sort written for smaller forces--chamber size or solo instrument--usually does work for me. Ligeti is a good example--I don't like his orchestral music, I love his work for solo piano and string quartet. The only exceptions to this rule seem to be Messiaen (almost everything including Quartour pour le Fin du Temps, bores me--the only thing I've heard by him I find halfway decent is Visions de l'Amen) and Boulez (Marteau sans Maitre can be used as the dictionary defintion of boring)
I know these are your own opinions and feelings, but I find that a composer like Berg rewards the listener upon each listen. His orchestral music is amazing I think. Here we have a Mahlerian wild, emotional lyricism combined with a Schoenbergian, cerebral inwardness. It's not too hot and it's not too cold. It's somewhere in the middle. Berg does have his moments where he completely sets the orchestra on fire (i. e. the opera
Wozzeck,
Three Orchestral Pieces), but I thought even you would understand Berg. His music is quite approachable.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 13, 2011, 09:41:02 PM
I know these are your own opinions and feelings, but I find that a composer like Berg rewards the listener upon each listen. His orchestral music is amazing I think. Here we have a Mahlerian wild, emotional lyricism combined with a Schoenbergian, cerebral inwardness. It's not too hot and it's not too cold. It's somewhere in the middle. Berg does have his moments where he completely sets the orchestra on fire (i. e. the opera Wozzeck, Three Orchestral Pieces), but I thought even you would understand Berg. His music is quite approachable.
Berg for me is the sort of composer whose craftmanship I can admire but who does not leave me with any urge to hear more. Personally, I find more emotional content if Schoenberg than in Berg. Just my ears, I suppose.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 13, 2011, 09:50:51 PM
Berg for me is the sort of composer whose craftmanship I can admire but who does not leave me with any urge to hear more. Personally, I find more emotional content if Schoenberg than in Berg. Just my ears, I suppose.
:o
Wow, so you can listen through the
Violin Concerto and remain emotionless? That's pretty interesting.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 13, 2011, 09:30:33 PM
. . . and Boulez (Marteau sans Maitre can be used as the dictionary defintion of boring)
Oh, I don't agree, at all!
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 13, 2011, 07:04:29 AM
Franz Liszt
Also, Ray . . . although I'm not sure how fond you may be of 19th-c. piano music, try Martha Argerich in the Sonata in b minor, S.178. If her playing doesn't engage you in this work, no one's will : )
Quote from: Brian on July 13, 2011, 02:39:04 PM
I tried the Liszt tone poem Karl so avidly recommends - wow, that's a bizarre little piece, isn't it? Short, snappy, and rather disconcertingly weird. I'll have to hear it again.
Delighted to have introduced it to you, Brian!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2011, 04:26:37 AM
Also, Ray . . . although I'm not sure how fond you may be of 19th-c. piano music, try Martha Argerich in the Sonata in b minor, S.178. If her playing doesn't engage you in this work, no one's will : )
With the exception of Hélène Grimaud 8) She's the one who finally convinced me about the Liszt Sonata.
Sarge
Quote from: Leon on July 14, 2011, 04:36:56 AM
Nor I.
:)
In fairness, of course, this thread is by design a sort of confessional of musical disharmony.
Still, the statement that a piece which I like so well, and which I find both surpassingly musical and of keen interest, could be nominated as a dictionary definition of boring!
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 14, 2011, 04:38:21 AM
With the exception of Hélène Grimaud 8) She's the one who finally convinced me about the Liszt Sonata.
Sarge
Ah, nice to know, Sarge!
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 13, 2011, 07:16:58 AM
You are right Karl. I need to explore his symphonic poems. I have to be honest and have not heard them yet, perhaps one or two?
It is his piano music that just doesn't seem to do anything for me (at least at this point in time). As with many other composers whose first impressions to me weren't the rosiest (see Mozart and Tchaikovsky).....well, obviously that can change.
I have no doubt that I will eventually find a great deal that I do enjoy in Liszt. :)
For the symphonic poems, try
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DAG43KXEL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
This is where HvK's wallowing in sonority works to great advantage. All this talk of our dear Abbe made me dig out my Masur set of the orchestral works for a listen to "Mazeppa," after which I had to pull out my Karajan disc for some real blood and thunder. Gotta love that BPO brass.
Now, it is Liszt, so you'll still need to open the window and air out the room after playing it ;D
FWIW, HvK didn't seal the deal for me on the Liszt tone-poems. I know reverence for HvK is near-universal, but he's not everybody's money, really.
And, I strongly encourage Ray to check out the last (which is an isolated, late tone-poem) first . . . call it a palate-cleanser.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2011, 04:48:28 AM
FWIW, HvK didn't seal the deal for me on the Liszt tone-poems. I know reverence for HvK is near-universal, but he's not everybody's money, really.
And, I strongly encourage Ray to check out the last (which is an isolated, late tone-poem) first . . . call it a palate-cleanser.
HvK is certainly not normally my cup of tea: that disc is a happy exception. Btw, has anyone mentioned the Bolet box set of piano works? His relatively slow, meditative pace on many pieces is interesting. (Some say it's to cover for flaws in technique, but I'm in no position to comment.)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2011, 04:48:28 AM
FWIW, HvK didn't seal the deal for me on the Liszt tone-poems. I know reverence for HvK is near-universal, but he's not everybody's money, really.
And, fact is, he was the conductor of the first recording I ever heard of the Liszt tone-poems. Here's the story:
We had played Les Préludes in the UVa orchestra in Charlottesville. Great experience, loved the piece, found it an entirely exciting and satisfying piece of music.
A couple of years later, I pick up a CD of Liszt tone-poems, Berliner Philharmoniker/HvK. They all sound flat to me, the brass are muffled (might almost say, muzzled) and the overall sound is wubba-wubba. HvK succeeds in making a piece dull, which I knew from experience was the opposite of dull.
Here's what I think of HvK, who was of course a genuinely great artist, but like any mortal, has his limitations: his musical mind was a sort of food processor. You put in the pitcher some Mozart, some Beethoven, some Liszt, some Stravinsky — and a boatload of Wagner, and slightly lesser boatloads of Bruckner, R. Strauss and Brahms. Push the Mix button.
Voilà! You've got a composer who, if not necessarily the very greatest, is in the front rank of conductors of Wagner, R. Strauss Bruckner and Brahms — and you've got some mannered recordings of (e.g.) Mozart & Stravinsky which sound a little uncomfortably like WWRD (What Would Jesus Richard Do?).
Even though Wagner was Liszt's son-in-law, his music requires a different sensibility, closer to Berlioz or even Mendelssohn than to Wagner.Quote from: Grazioso on July 14, 2011, 05:01:59 AM
HvK is certainly not normally my cup of tea: that disc is a happy exception.
Well, I am glad you like it. Of course, per this:Quote from: Grazioso on July 13, 2011, 06:49:33 AM
Cozy hermetic tanks, perhaps, but at least the academics are intellectually engaging art on a rigorous, systematic level, whatever the validity of their end results. That trumps the "I listened to and it sucks. Why? Because, it does, dumbass!" school of art criticism :D
. . . there's a corresponding school which goes, "I listened to and it's great. Why? Because, it is!"
Seriously, one likes what one likes, one dislikes what one dislikes. And it is not always an easy matter, figuring out whether anyone else on the planet will like or dislike quite what I like or dislike.
It's funny how it works, for me. I'm now looking forward to hearing Liszt's symphonic poems. When I already feel like I don't particularly dig a certain composer's music, it is then much easier for me to keep an open mind when I revisit again and perhaps try some different works.
It's worked great in the past. I will soon be re-exploring Liszt, more in depth, and I thank everyone for their recommendations.
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 14, 2011, 05:34:32 AM
It's funny how it works, for me. I'm now looking forward to hearing Liszt's symphonic poems. When I already feel like I don't particularly dig a certain composer's music, it is then much easier for me to keep an open mind when I revisit again and perhaps try some different works.
It's worked great in the past. I will soon be re-exploring Liszt, more in depth, and I thank everyone for their recommendations.
It's definitely easier if you don't have an emotional investment in liking or disliking something. I'm not normally a big Liszt fan, but I had fun listening to him again last night after reading this thread.
Groovimondo.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2011, 05:15:13 AM
Well, I am glad you like it. Of course, per this:
. . . there's a corresponding school which goes, "I listened to and it's great. Why? Because, it is!"
Seriously, one likes what one likes, one dislikes what one dislikes. And it is not always an easy matter, figuring out whether anyone else on the planet will like or dislike quite what I like or dislike.
Sure. De gustibus... "You like grape jelly!? You're wrong!" :P
I think it's important, though, to differentiate between the statement of an emotional reaction and a critical analysis. It's the difference between someone saying, "
Moby-Dick is boring" and a trained scholar writing a 300-page analysis of the novel according to an explicit critical framework, wherein elements X, Y, and Z are discussed in the context of A, B, and C. With the latter, specific evidence is cited, and conclusions are put forward as part of an ongoing critical discussion among experts.
You may not agree with the conclusions, but hopefully the scholar makes it clear he thought about the issues carefully. Just as importantly, following his thought processes hopefully gets you to read the novel through a new lens.
Quote from: Grazioso on July 14, 2011, 10:06:01 AM
I think it's important, though, to differentiate between the statement of an emotional reaction and a critical analysis.
Yes. You didn't suppose that I know the difference? Actually, part of my point is the difference ; )
Quote from: Grazioso on July 14, 2011, 10:06:01 AM
Sure. De gustibus... "You like grape jelly!? You're wrong!" :P
I think it's important, though, to differentiate between the statement of an emotional reaction and a critical analysis. It's the difference between someone saying, "Moby-Dick is boring" and a trained scholar writing a 300-page analysis of the novel according to an explicit critical framework, wherein elements X, Y, and Z are discussed in the context of A, B, and C. With the latter, specific evidence is cited, and conclusions are put forward as part of an ongoing critical discussion among experts.
You may not agree with the conclusions, but hopefully the scholar makes it clear he thought about the issues carefully. Just as importantly, following his thought processes hopefully gets you to read the novel through a new lens.
I had a friend who used to infuriate me by saying Moby-Dick is boring, right before admitting he'd never read it. And he wasn't kidding....Arrrgghhh!! :-\ :-X :-[
Quote from: Amfortas on July 14, 2011, 10:31:18 AM
I had a friend who used to infuriate me by saying Moby-Dick is boring, right before admitting he'd never read it. And he wasn't kidding....Arrrgghhh!! :-\ :-X :-[
A chacun son gout. It's one of my favorite books of all time, and I just read it about a year ago for the first time.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2011, 10:08:01 AM
Yes. You didn't suppose that I know the difference? Actually, part of my point is the difference ; )
I know you know, but...
Quote from: Amfortas on July 14, 2011, 10:31:18 AM
I had a friend who used to infuriate me by saying Moby-Dick is boring, right before admitting he'd never read it. And he wasn't kidding....Arrrgghhh!! :-\ :-X :-[
It's the one about the bald techno artist's love life, right?
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 14, 2011, 10:36:03 AM
A chacun son gout. It's one of my favorite books of all time, and I just read it about a year ago for the first time.
That book is intriguing--and immensely strange. Modernism way before the fact.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2011, 04:40:02 AM
In fairness, of course, this thread is by design a sort of confessional of musical disharmony.
Still, the statement that a piece which I like so well, and which I find both surpassingly musical and of keen interest, could be nominated as a dictionary definition of boring!
The Boulez is, like the Ligeti orchestral works, the sort of music which I take out every so often, as a sort of intellectual duty to myself, listen to it to try to hear what other people (like you) hear in it, find nothing, and put it back on the shelf. And the recording I have is Boulez conducting the Ensemble Intercontemporain (or whatever it's actually called, don't have it in front of me at the moment), so I have to assume it's not the fault of the conductor or the performers.
(It probably does say something that I keep have to correct myself all the time when typing his name--my fingers almost automatically turn it into Berlioz.)
But at least it doesn't give me a headache, unlike some of the aforementioned Ligeti--or the Ives symphonies. (Again, there's another one where I don't like the orchestral works but love the string quartets and the Concord Sonata.)
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 14, 2011, 10:36:03 AM
A chacun son gout. It's one of my favorite books of all time, and I just read it about a year ago for the first time.
One of my favorites as well, holds up well on re-reading and works well as an audiobook too
Quote from: Amfortas on July 14, 2011, 11:55:23 AM
One of my favorites as well, holds up well on re-reading and works well as an audiobook too
I have to re-read the final chapters (the days of the hunt), as I read through it too fast and felt like I missed a lot of the details. It seemed before I knew what was going on, the boat was sunk. :D
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 14, 2011, 12:05:45 PM
I have to re-read the final chapters (the days of the hunt), as I read through it too fast and felt like I missed a lot of the details. It seemed before I knew what was going on, the boat was sunk. :D
And you can listen to Bernard Herrmann's cantata "Moby Dick" while you read :D
And spurred by this thread, I dug out that Boulez CD and have it on now.
And it's not boring me. Mes regrets a Pierre.
I don't actually like it, but I'm hearing coherence and structure I don't remember noticing before. I had forgotten that this CD also has Derive I and Derive II on it, which I sort of kind of am enjoying at the moment. It's been about a year since I've tried listening to this. Maybe if I wait another year, I'll actually like it. ;)
I nominate Bartok's 2nd Violin Concerto and Frank Martin's Violin Concerto over the Sibelius.
A lot of music by Mozart sounds like a child's play to me.
As far as modern music, I never really understood what's special about Boulez, Stokhausen and Cage.
Quote from: Leon on July 15, 2011, 02:15:23 AM
Well, I don't think they are very important anymore (Boulez and Stockhausen, Cage is a special case since his influence transcended music and left an indelible mark on the arts in general and I think is important still, but not as much for composers as painters, etc.) - but for a certain period of time, say from 1950-1970, they (esp. Boulez and Stockhausen) were very influential and important. Most composers ultimately did not continue to follow B&S, and I think that much of what they were concerned with ended up as a dead end. Which is not bad, what they did had significance and the music is still very good and valuable to have.
Mozart, OTOH, is always relevant and his music a far cry from child's play.
8)
I think Boulez and Stockhausen are still vital today (their music, that is). They're both still performed, so they must speak to enough of the performers and audience.. As for Cage, I'd list him on this thread as a great composer whose music does absolutely nothing for me. His ideas, otoh, I agree were extremely influential. I'd much rather listen to Cage talk, or read about him, than listen to most of his music I have heard
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 14, 2011, 05:22:57 PM
And spurred by this thread, I dug out that Boulez CD and have it on now.
And it's not boring me. Mes regrets a Pierre.
I don't actually like it, but I'm hearing coherence and structure I don't remember noticing before. I had forgotten that this CD also has Derive I and Derive II on it, which I sort of kind of am enjoying at the moment. It's been about a year since I've tried listening to this. Maybe if I wait another year, I'll actually like it. ;)
Can't ask for fairer than that!
Quote from: AllegroVivace on July 14, 2011, 08:21:17 PM
A lot of music by Mozart sounds like a child's play to me.
Mozart is the most inaccessible of the great masters. --Artur Schnabel
Quote from: RJR on July 14, 2011, 05:57:01 PM
I nominate Bartok's 2nd Violin Concerto and Frank Martin's Violin Concerto over the Sibelius.
I'd put Milhaud's 2nd over both of those (all three were on a recent ABC Classics reissue - http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2005/June05/20thC_Violin_4767182.htm ). But the Sibelius is probably better still!
Quote from: Grazioso on July 15, 2011, 05:04:49 AM
Mozart is the most inaccessible of the great masters. --Artur Schnabel
Corrected. :) With all due respect, Mr. Schnabel.
Quote from: Grazioso on July 15, 2011, 05:04:49 AM
Mozart is the most inaccessible metal of the great masters. --Artur Schnabel
I also fixed that for you. ;D
Quote from: DavidW on July 18, 2011, 07:10:55 PM
I also fixed that for you. ;D
Metal, like in
Metallica? :D
Quote from: AllegroVivace on July 14, 2011, 08:21:17 PM
A lot of music by Mozart sounds like a child's play to me.
Well, a lot of it literally
is.
Quote from: westknife on July 19, 2011, 10:16:55 AM
Well, a lot of it literally is.
Maybe, but according to Nietzsche whomever lost his inner child is already dead. ;D
Quoting Schnabel, Mozart's music can be too easy for children and too difficult for adults.
Well, if we're quoting musicians about Mozart, here's Vladimir Horowitz:
"Mozart should be played as if he were Chopin, and Chopin should be played as if he were Mozart."
I despise most Classical Era composers, but I also have a strong indifference to composers like Stockhausen, Boulez, Xenakis, and Messiaen. I just can't find one positive thing to say about any of them. Boulez, the conductor, however, I admire. Such remarkable detail given to his performances.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 19, 2011, 05:55:59 PM
I despise most Classical Era composers, but I also have a strong indifference to composers like Stockhausen, Boulez, Xenakis, and Messiaen. I just can't find one positive thing to say about any of them. Boulez, the conductor, however, I admire. Such remarkable detail given to his performances.
It's amazing how the human brains are wired. I feel exactly the same way about these composers. If all of the world's music was limited to the Classical-era compositions, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with music at all.
And I had the same experience with composers like Stockhausen, Boulez, Xenakis, Messiaen, Cage. Years and years of trying to listen to their music with open mind and free from all prejudice... And... Nothing! Won't help. I just can't stand anything they've done. More amazingly, when I simply read their written words, their ideas and intellectual declarations, too, seem stupid and pretentious to me. I have given up and accepted that they're just not my 'cup of tea"
Quote from: AllegroVivace on July 19, 2011, 07:12:17 PM
It's amazing how the human brains are wired. I feel exactly the same way about these composers. If all of the world's music was limited to the Classical-era compositions, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with music at all.
And I had the same experience with composers like Stockhausen, Boulez, Xenakis, Messiaen, Cage. Years and years of trying to listen to their music with open mind and free from all prejudice... And... Nothing! Won't help. I just can't stand anything they've done. More amazingly, when I simply read their written words, their ideas and intellectual declarations, too, seem stupid and pretentious to me. I have given up and accepted that they're just not my 'cup of tea"
If a person has to intellectualize a piece of music to death, then it's probably not worth hearing in my opinion.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 19, 2011, 07:16:37 PM
If a person has to intellectualize a piece of music to death, then it's probably not worth hearing in my opinion.
I think the reason for that is that human intelligence is powerful enough to make sense of almost anything. The power of rationalization and self-deceit are all part of our intelligence too, unfortunately.
Quote from: AllegroVivace on July 19, 2011, 07:35:27 PM
I think the reason for that is that human intelligence is powerful enough to make sense of almost anything. The power of rationalization and self-deceit are all part of our intelligence too, unfortunately.
This is true.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 19, 2011, 07:16:37 PM
If a person has to intellectualize a piece of music to death, then it's probably not worth hearing in my opinion.
You don't think that maybe this reflects more on the person, than on the music?
In other words, name ten pieces of music you feel are worth hearing, and I am sure we can find people to intellectualize them to death. You like Pettersson, right? There's a composer whose music could be readily intellectualized to any extreme you wish.
I think that all it takes to be thoroughly enamored of pre-Baroque music, is to be in a choir singing a Tallis, de Victoria or Palestrina motet. There's nothing quite like making music, for learning to love music.
Quote from: Leon on July 20, 2011, 06:43:19 AM
Not a bad period, mind you, but fairly limited IMO.
Post-Classical through the beginnings of the Darmstadt School and Friends doesn't seem very limited: Mendelssohn and Schumann and Spohr through Wagner and Liszt to Mahler, Debussy, Bartok, Stravinsky... That's pretty wide ground to cover.
Quote from: Leon on July 20, 2011, 10:23:13 AM
Yes, but not as wide an area as from Carl Friedrich Abel to Wu Fei.
:)
Don't forget 50 Cent and Dolly Parton. Gotta draw the line somewhere :D
Quote from: Leon on July 20, 2011, 10:45:26 AM
Why?
Practicality. I'm all for exploring art with an open mind, but if you want to dig into and really get to know certain music by studying/playing it, it becomes impractical to try to do that and simultaneously devour everything out there. Unless you're Neemi Jarvi ;D You have to balance breadth and depth.
Of course, lots of folks (most folks?) listen to music just for casual entertainment, and if they still only want to listen to one thing, who cares? Let them have their fun--as long as they don't start spouting off nonsense about other music they know nothing about.
I would say that the most major composer I haven't really "cracked" yet is Debussy. Nothing against the guy, I'm sure I'll come around sooner or later, but right now my focus is elsewhere.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 20, 2011, 06:27:40 AM
You don't think that maybe this reflects more on the person, than on the music?
In other words, name ten pieces of music you feel are worth hearing, and I am sure we can find people to intellectualize them to death. You like Pettersson, right? There's a composer whose music could be readily intellectualized to any extreme you wish.
Good point, Karl. For me, I'm affected by the music emotionally first and then comes in the intellectualizing aspect of it, which part of this, for me, is doing a lot research on the composer, his character, and what kind of goals they had set for themselves musically.
Do I like Pettersson? Yes, but only a few works. His
Symphonies Nos. 6-8 and the
Violin Concerto No. 2 are my favorite works by him. My view of Pettersson is he's a composer who suffered most of his life and had a pessimistic view of the world and this obviously comes out loud and clear in this music.
Quote from: Leon on July 20, 2011, 06:43:19 AM
So, unless you are an Early Music lover, your taste is limited to the late 19th century and early 20th century composers - essentially a tonal landscape. Not a bad period, mind you, but fairly limited IMO. I am just the opposite from you since the Classical period composers and the post-1950 composers are my favorites, although, to be sure, there are many works written during your preferred time span which I also love.
I cannot identify any period for which there are not a good number of works which provide me with immense entertainment, and would consider myself musically beggared to the extent that large time periods of music making or particular schools of composition did nothing for me.
Thankfully, I do not suffer from that problem.
:)
You might be a richer person then. I wish I was able to enjoy every composition I've ever heard. The readers of this thread will see, though, that I've never said I'm hostile to anything post late-romantic. Some of my favorite composers are still alive.
In regards to some of the newer music, I am indeed a snob. For example, I think John Cage's composition made entirely of silence is pretentious, stupid and possibly a cheap scam to attract attention. Go ahead and think otherwise, if you like. I am tolerant to everyone's opinion.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 20, 2011, 06:02:29 PM
For me, I'm affected by the music emotionally first and then comes in the intellectualizing aspect of it
This is the correct order.
As for the thread title, I'll throw the name Bartok out there. He's undeniably of terrific importance in the development of 20th c music, but most of his stuff just affects me like musical wallpaper. I can't remember any of it.
Quote from: eyeresist on July 20, 2011, 06:24:47 PM
This is the correct order.
As for the thread title, I'll throw the name Bartok out there. He's undeniably of terrific importance in the development of 20th c music, but most of his stuff just affects me like musical wallpaper. I can't remember any of it.
If a composer doesn't do anything for you, then you just can't help this, but I have to ask have you ever listened to Bartok's
Bluebeard's Castle? I'm not sure how you feel about opera, but I've heard people who don't even like Bartok end up enjoying this work.
Quote from: Leon on July 20, 2011, 06:15:35 PM
since it does not matter one way or the other what you think of it
This is generally a very poor style in debates...Does it actually matter what
anyone thinks of it?
Why talk this way when you're perfectly capable of talking like an intelligent person...
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 20, 2011, 06:28:36 PM
If a composer doesn't do anything for you, then you just can't help this, but I have to ask have you ever listened to Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle? I'm not sure how you feel about opera, but I've heard people who don't even like Bartok end up enjoying this work.
No, I'm not a great opera fan, but I will try to get around to this one day. I gather this was an early work? How does it differ from his later stuff?
Quote from: eyeresist on July 20, 2011, 06:59:45 PM
No, I'm not a great opera fan, but I will try to get around to this one day. I gather this was an early work? How does it differ from his later stuff?
Checkout this Wiki article when you have time...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard's_Castle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard's_Castle)
The Wooden Prince and
Bluebeard's Castle were written around the same time. The music still has some leftover R. Strauss and Debussy residue, but the opera is one of Bartok's most ingenious I think.
Thanks, MI.
Quote from: AllegroVivace on July 20, 2011, 06:06:31 PM
In regards to some of the newer music, I am indeed a snob. For example, I think John Cage's composition made entirely of silence is pretentious, stupid and possibly a cheap scam to attract attention. Go ahead and think otherwise, if you like. I am tolerant to everyone's opinion.
Judging Cage's music by
4'33" is asinine. If you're judging him based on a representative selection of works, fine, but otherwise your opinion on the matter is less than worthless.
Quote from: Daverz on July 20, 2011, 09:29:14 PM
Judging Cage's music by 4'33" is asinine. If you're judging him based on a representative selection of works, fine, but otherwise your opinion on the matter is less than worthless.
Cage's whole philosophy about music was a joke. The fact of the matter is the man didn't compose music that came from his heart but rather music than came to him through a science and mathematics textbook. I mean who composes a piece of music for a toy piano and expects to be taken seriously?
By the way, Daverz, it seems to me that you don't understand the intent behind this thread. This thread is for composers that are not your cup of tea. AllegroVivace has the right to dismiss any composer he wants to. Any kind of research on Cage will give the reader the information he/she needs in order to decide whether he's a composer that's worth their time. I don't need to hear 10 works by Cage to say that it's garbage. I don't need to hear 20 works by Stockhausen to say that he's a waste of time. Research enables a person to get a feel for what kind of music the given composer has written and as to whether or not they want to pursue their music or if they want to simply ignore, or in my own case, avoid it.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c3/Schroeder_Piano.jpg/230px-Schroeder_Piano.jpg)
If you're having difficulty getting into Wagner, try listening to to he operas one act at a time and give yourself a breather
between acts. This should be helpful.
Chopin is not my cup of tea. If you'll pardon my use of alliteration , it's music of pallid prettiness,
perfumed preciosity and swooning salonish sentimentality . You can't deny the elegant craftsmanship of the music,
but it's just too swooningly pretentious for me.
Quote from: Superhorn on July 21, 2011, 06:46:46 AM
If you're having difficulty getting into Wagner, try listening to to he operas one act at a time and give yourself a breather
between acts. This should be helpful.
Chopin is not my cup of tea. If you'll pardon my use of alliteration , it's music of pallid prettiness,
perfumed preciosity and swooning salonish sentimentality . You can't deny the elegant craftsmanship of the music,
but it's just too swooningly pretentious for me.
I agree that the single act approach is very helpful in getting to know Wagner. However, it's been my experience that Wagner is a composer who engulfs a sympathetic listener completely, almost taking over his/her life for years on end. Wagner seems to be an all-or-nothing composer. Some despise him, but those who love the music are consumed by it.
As for Chopin, I'd not call him pretentious (his music never seems ambitious in that way), but I don't get much out of his music either, apart from moments of poetic prettiness that never hold my attention and never make me want to go on investigating him.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 20, 2011, 09:42:53 PM
Cage's whole philosophy about music was a joke. The fact of the matter is the man didn't compose music that came from his heart but rather music than came to him through a science and mathematics textbook. I mean who composes a piece of music for a toy piano and expects to be taken seriously?
Hate Cage, by all means. But this description of him is wrong - science and maths textbooks? Really?
Quote from: Daverz on July 20, 2011, 09:29:14 PM
Judging Cage's music by 4'33" is asinine. If you're judging him based on a representative selection of works, fine, but otherwise your opinion on the matter is less than worthless.
If you only knew how little I care whether my opinions are worthless to you or not!
Far from judging him based on 4'33 alone... I've heard a lot more from Cage - all without any resonance. Let's take this piece, for example, for solo violin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YflfGMo3O2Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YflfGMo3O2Q) Now, try flossing your teeth, then put your tongue on your upper-front teeth and suck air in and out. What you hear might be more interesting than this composition (although the sound will be very similar).
Quote from: Luke on July 21, 2011, 10:40:58 AM
Hate Cage, by all means. But this description of him is wrong - science and maths textbooks? Really?
It's a joke, Luke.
Quote from: AllegroVivace on July 21, 2011, 05:00:29 PM
I've heard a lot more from Cage - all without any resonance. Let's take this piece, for example, for solo violin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YflfGMo3O2Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YflfGMo3O2Q) Now, try flossing your teeth, then put your tongue on your upper-front teeth and suck air in and out. What you hear might be more interesting than this composition (although the sound will be very similar).
To cite one of the commenters on YouTube: "I WISH my teeth sounded like this, I'd floss all day!"
Jokes aside, that is a very misleading example. Like, say, linking
Poème Symphonique for 100 metronomes to prove Ligeti was a hack.
Cage ain't my cup of tea either (except for the
Sonatas and Interludes which I find arresting & beautiful) but is there really any need to dethrone him from his well-documented role in the history of music?
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 21, 2011, 06:30:06 PM
It's a joke, Luke.
I know, but it doesn't work as one because to work it would have to have some relation to reality - Cage would have to have used maths and science just a little bit. Whereas in fact, he didn't at all. It would have worked as a joke if you'd said philosophy textbooks, Zen textbooks. Or if you'd been talking about Xenakis. But as it is, it just showed a misunderstanding of how Cage worked at a fundamental level.
Quote from: Daverz on July 20, 2011, 09:29:14 PM
Judging Cage's music by 4'33" is asinine.
I don't see why. All of his music is like that. I mean, is all chance after all, doesn't that make the existence of sound essentially incidental as well?
Quote from: AllegroVivace on July 14, 2011, 08:21:17 PM
A lot of music by Mozart sounds like a child's play to me.
You need to specify which compositions you are talking about. A lot of music by Mozart was in fact child play. Literally.
Quote from: westknife on July 19, 2011, 10:16:55 AM
Well, a lot of it literally is.
Opps, beaten to it.
Quote from: Leon on July 20, 2011, 11:40:44 AM
Different strokes for different folks
Yeah but not all people are created equal.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 22, 2011, 02:36:36 AM
I don't see why. All of his music is like that. I mean, is all chance after all, doesn't that make the existence of sound essentially incidental as well?
You need to take the words of your next post to heart - 'You need to specify which compositions you are talking about' - because 'all' John Cage's music isn't 'chance'. Nothing is, in fact, pre-1951. Honestly, MI saying Cage is all maths and science, you saying it's all chance....talk about misconceptions!
Isn't chance the underlying idea behind his musical development? Arguing that we can't judge his work because not all of his compositions conform to that particular idea when it was that idea that marks his most significant historical contribution to musical development is a bit disingenuous. Its like arguing we can't judge Ligeti for his micropholiphonic work merely because there was a time when he wrote in a traditional vernacular. I don't think we would even know who Ligeti was if he had stuck to the style of his first string quartet.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 22, 2011, 04:06:33 AM
Isn't chance the underlying idea behind his musical development? Arguing that we can't judge his work because not all of his compositions conform to that particular idea when it was that idea that marks his most significant historical contribution to musical development is a bit disingenuous. Its like arguing we can't judge Ligeti for his micropholiphonic work merely because there was a time when he wrote in a traditional vernacular. I don't think we would even know who Ligeti was if he had stuck to the style of his first string quartet.
By the way, welcome back JdP! :)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 22, 2011, 04:06:33 AM
Isn't chance the underlying idea behind his musical development? Arguing that we can't judge his work because not all of his compositions conform to that particular idea when it was that idea that marks his most significant historical contribution to musical development is a bit disingenuous. Its like arguing we can't judge Ligeti for his micropholiphonic work merely because there was a time when he wrote in a traditional vernacular. I don't think we would even know who Ligeti was if he had stuck to the style of his first string quartet.
Well, in fact, we
can't judge Ligeti on those works alone because there were other things he did, before and above all after. Ligeti is as much about the instrumentation and the tuning and the textures and the broken machines etc. etc. etc. as he is about the micropolyphony. Before turning to 'chance' Cage had made many 'contributions to musical development' which were at least as significant in 'their implications for later music. There's the prepared piano, for one, the duration-based structural devices for another; there's the beautiful use of 'gamuts' and modes, too. And although there are a hard core of 'chance pieces' which resist it, mostly from the earlier years of the chance experimentation, there are plenty of wonderful examples of pieces in which the chance procedures are just tools serving another end - pieces like Cheap Imitation, for instance, where the shape and rhythm of the lines comes from Satie's Socrate but the modes and gamuts are moved through by chance
Quote from: Leon on July 22, 2011, 05:50:10 AM
Not exactly. "Chance" is a method Cage employed to have music come into being that expressed one of his underlying ideas - which, as best I understand it, was to remove the creator from the creation.
It is a subtle difference, but one that I think is an important distinction to make.
Fair enough, but the way i see it this type of conception is the musical equivalent of something like nominalism in philosophy. Its a way of saying that only the predicate of musical concepts exist, which is where i find objection (being as i am, a musical realist). Cage is saying that there are no universals, removing the creator's role from the creation is then automatic once you have extricated the object of a musical concept from he concept itself.
Quote from: Luke on July 21, 2011, 10:53:21 PM
I know, but it doesn't work as one because to work it would have to have some relation to reality - Cage would have to have used maths and science just a little bit. Whereas in fact, he didn't at all. It would have worked as a joke if you'd said philosophy textbooks, Zen textbooks. Or if you'd been talking about Xenakis. But as it is, it just showed a misunderstanding of how Cage worked at a fundamental level.
Luke, at this juncture, I think we know how I feel about Cage and Xenakis. My opinion of Cage is he was composer with nothing to say musically. He
thought he was being clever, but he ended up being a sad joke. The guy couldn't write an interesting harmony or melody to save his life. The same applies to Xenakis, Boulez, Babbitt, and Stockhausen.
Give me 12-tone Schoenberg any day over this musical nonsense!
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 22, 2011, 07:39:08 AM
Luke, at this juncture, I think we know how I feel about Cage and Xenakis. My opinion of Cage is he was composer with nothing to say musically. He thought he was being clever, but he ended up being a sad joke. The guy couldn't write an interesting harmony or melody to save his life. The same applies to Xenakis, Boulez, Babbitt, and Stockhausen.
Give me 12-tone Schoenberg any day over this musical nonsense!
Well, as I said in my first post, hate Cage if you want to. That's fine by me. I was only responding to the incorrect description of his working methods. He isn't comparable toany of the other composers you mention in that respect.
As far as interesting melodies and harmonies - well, I simply think you are wrong, seeing as I can right this second recreate dozens of examples of both in my mind. The earlier Cage - the Cage of The Seasons and the Sonatas and Interludes and the Six Melodies - is stuffed full of beautiful ides, beautiful sounds, wonderful rhythms, intriguing sonorities and haunting melodies. I know it is because, as I say, I can recreate them in my mind instantly: they've had a profound effect on me. But if that doesn't float your boat and you still think he 'couldn't write a melody to save his life' I suggest you try the Four Dances or Fads and Fancies in the Academy, two obscure little pieces which no one would ever believe were by Cage, being full of marvellous jazz/folk pastiche. Not major Cage, but proof that the guy was fluent in that stuff when he wanted to be.
Quote from: Superhorn on July 21, 2011, 06:46:46 AM
Chopin is not my cup of tea. If you'll pardon my use of alliteration , it's music of pallid prettiness,
perfumed preciosity and swooning salonish sentimentality . You can't deny the elegant craftsmanship of the music,
but it's just too swooningly pretentious for me.
I think this is fruit of an approximate understanding. I find Chopin's music to be contrapuntally, harmonically and rhythmically nuanced to the point of being manic and pianistically he is nearly masochistic. Obviously the product of an exceedingly complex personality, full of conflict, contradictions and paradoxes.
BTW not trying to convert, just trying to show that Cage was perfectly capable of beautiful sounds and haunting ideas...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF1DoVdHM9M
In a Landscape - one of Cage's most seductive pieces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TUW8NcvoaQ&feature=related
Sonatas 12, Interlude 4 and Sonata 13 from the Sonatas and Interludes. (this is Boris Berman, with the score running underneath - his whole recording is on youtube in this form :) ) This is Cage's early masterpiece, and a treasure trove of amazing sounds. No 13 is almost a folksong-lullaby in its clear E minor - begins about 6.25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5ssRFrgF2k&feature=related
The Six Melodies for violin and piano
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1_s9picY0
Beginning of The Seasons (ballet score, in orchestral version). A gorgeous piece.
EDIT - forgot this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TES3SII1_Y&feature=related
Last movement of the 1950 String Quartet. You might hate it (it isn't the most lyrical movement of the four) but you can't deny it is chock full of melody!
Just sayin'...
Quote from: AllegroVivace on July 21, 2011, 05:00:29 PM
If you only knew how little I care whether my opinions are worthless to you or not!
You're obviously feeling defensive now.
Quote
Far from judging him based on 4'33 alone... I've heard a lot more from Cage
Oh, bullshit. If you'd heard a lot more Cage, you could have mentioned it in your first post. You probably just went out on Youtube just now to find something to attack. This kind of know-nothingism is really tiresome.
ITT: getting angry about composers you don't know much about :P
A really amazing music/anger ratio.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 22, 2011, 10:38:47 AM
I think this is fruit of an approximate understanding. I find Chopin's music to be contrapuntally, harmonically and rhythmically nuanced to the point of being manic and pianistically he is nearly masochistic. Obviously the product of an exceedingly complex personality, full of conflict, contradictions and paradoxes.
This is very well put. If Chopin's music were truly as pallidly pretty and sentimental as Super asserts, it would all come out sounding like the earlier (and very popular) Nocturne in E-flat from Op. 9, instead of more mature and complex examples like the C# minor and C minor, both big dramatic pieces, or the late B major from op. 62; or the snarling, angry B minor scherzo; or the powerful final three etudes from op. 25; or sparkling virtuoso pieces like the F major from op. 10 or the Db from op. 25; or any of the Ballades - the fourth especially, which has a complexity and fluidity of form and idea that I think is rarely equalled in Romantic music. Superhorn's characterization is more appropriate to Chopin's predecessor John Field - a worthy composer, but not even close to Chopin in range and power. I speak here as a pianist who's played through most of this music (even though I can't manage most of the etudes except at half speed), but I think the direct contact with playing the notes adds some degree of understanding.
Quote from: Daverz on July 22, 2011, 11:28:06 AM
You're obviously feeling defensive now.
Oh, bullshit. If you'd heard a lot more Cage, you could have mentioned it in your first post. You probably just went out on Youtube just now to find something to attack. This kind of know-nothingism is really tiresome.
Don't be hysterical. I
don't like the music of John Cage. What's so difficult for you to understand? I've known his music for a long time, studied him in college and heard dozens of works, and none ever resonated with me. The thread is asking us to list famous composers who we don't like. I don't like John Cage, and I will say it here even if it kills you.
Can't we all just, get along? 8)
Case in point: Feanor despizes Bruckner's music, while he loves Carter's music. I'm the exact opposite. Yet, we still get along and respect one another's taste.
"In the late forties I found out by experiment (I went into the anechoic chamber at Harvard University) that silence is not acoustic. It is a change of mind, a turning around. I devoted my music to it. My work became an exploration of non-intention. To carry it out faithfully I have developed a complicated composing means using I Ching chance operations, making my responsibility that of asking questions instead of making choices." - John Cage
Now that Cage is speaking for himself, let's take a listen. So he says by carrying out an experiment at Harvard, he found that "silence is not acoustic. It is a change of mind, a turning around." This made him devote his music to it.
So, what are we to make of this? It sounds like Deepak Chopra talking about quantum physics and "universal energy". I took some time to read some more of his writings... Bullshit after bullshit packed densely into almost every sentence. I've had enough.
Quote from: AllegroVivace on July 22, 2011, 04:41:50 PM
Don't be hysterical. I don't like the music of John Cage. What's so difficult for you to understand? I've known his music for a long time, studied him in college and heard dozens of works, and none ever resonated with me. The thread is asking us to list famous composers who we don't like. I don't like John Cage, and I will say it here even if it kills you.
Why all the belligerence? Most people here rack up at least 100 posts before they start insulting everyone else on the forum.
Quote from: AllegroVivace on July 22, 2011, 05:04:52 PM
"In the late forties I found out by experiment (I went into the anechoic chamber at Harvard University) that silence is not acoustic. It is a change of mind, a turning around. I devoted my music to it. My work became an exploration of non-intention. To carry it out faithfully I have developed a complicated composing means using I Ching chance operations, making my responsibility that of asking questions instead of making choices." - John Cage
Now that Cage is speaking for himself, let's take a listen. So he says by carrying out an experiment at Harvard, he found that "silence is not acoustic. It is a change of mind, a turning around." This made him devote his music to it.
So, what are we to make of this? It sounds like Deepak Chopra talking about quantum physics and "universal energy". I took some time to read some more of his writings... Bullshit after bullshit packed densely into almost every sentence. I've had enough.
I think I understand what Cage is saying there--but he seems to be confusing two different things "Silence is not acoustic" refers to stilling of the mind, in Buddhist and Taoist fashion; if truly attained, the individual makes no choices of which he is aware--he simply acts in a natural fashion appropriate to the circumstances, and has no intentions as the term "intention" is normally understood. But stilling the mind and physical silence are two different things and Cage seems to be mixing them up. And he couldn't write unintended music--merely starting the process of composing shows he had the intention of producing music even if it was by unorthodox methods and unusual means.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 22, 2011, 06:24:47 PM
Why all the belligerence? Most people here rack up at least 100 posts before they start insulting everyone else on the forum.
Aha! So the number of posts is the reason why I should be bullied this way!
I don't pay attention to anyone's number of posts. The things you write here is all that counts. Where did this culture of forum hierarchy based on the members' number of posts take root? Who cares how many posts you've scribbled out?
Quote from: AllegroVivace on July 22, 2011, 06:43:57 PM
Aha! So the number of posts is the reason why I should be bullied this way!
I don't pay attention to anyone's number of posts. The things you write here is all that counts. Where did this culture of forum hierarchy based on the members' number of posts take root? Who cares how many posts you've scribbled out?
Good sense of humor, too.
(http://i.imgur.com/w2iec.png)
http://www.youtube.com/v/pcHnL7aS64Y
http://www.youtube.com/v/eaNTp5haE3o
Quote from: Luke on July 22, 2011, 10:15:58 AM
Well, as I said in my first post, hate Cage if you want to. That's fine by me. I was only responding to the incorrect description of his working methods. He isn't comparable toany of the other composers you mention in that respect.
As far as interesting melodies and harmonies - well, I simply think you are wrong, seeing as I can right this second recreate dozens of examples of both in my mind. The earlier Cage - the Cage of The Seasons and the Sonatas and Interludes and the Six Melodies - is stuffed full of beautiful ides, beautiful sounds, wonderful rhythms, intriguing sonorities and haunting melodies. I know it is because, as I say, I can recreate them in my mind instantly: they've had a profound effect on me. But if that doesn't float your boat and you still think he 'couldn't write a melody to save his life' I suggest you try the Four Dances or Fads and Fancies in the Academy, two obscure little pieces which no one would ever believe were by Cage, being full of marvellous jazz/folk pastiche. Not major Cage, but proof that the guy was fluent in that stuff when he wanted to be.
I never doubted that Cage wasn't fluent in any music of the classical tradition. He understood the history of classical music and I know he could compose a more accessible piece of music when he wanted to. My objection to his music are the results to much of his music, which I would classify as noise without any rhyme or reason. It doesn't flow, it doesn't haunt me, it doesn't leave me breathless, it doesn't evoke any kind of emotion within me.
Now, let's talk about a composer you dislike. :)
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 22, 2011, 07:39:08 AM
My opinion of Cage is he was composer with nothing to say musically. He thought he was being clever, but he ended up being a sad joke. The guy couldn't write an interesting harmony or melody to save his life. The same applies to Xenakis, Boulez, Babbitt, and Stockhausen.
What is nothing?
Sad joke? More joke than what? Someone special?
Concerning harmony and melody I disagree. Cage had the harmonically and melodically penetrating quality of being able to write random sound. Not many people can do that.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 22, 2011, 06:39:26 PM
I think I understand what Cage is saying there--but he seems to be confusing two different things "Silence is not acoustic" refers to stilling of the mind, in Buddhist and Taoist fashion; if truly attained, the individual makes no choices of which he is aware--he simply acts in a natural fashion appropriate to the circumstances, and has no intentions as the term "intention" is normally understood. But stilling the mind and physical silence are two different things and Cage seems to be mixing them up. And he couldn't write unintended music--merely starting the process of composing shows he had the intention of producing music even if it was by unorthodox methods and unusual means.
Whats the difference between heart and mind? Making no conscious choise is a choise too, and ultimately there is no way to still the mind, the sentence doesnt make sence. The mind can be still or not, but that has nothing to do with the mind, so what one consider awakening is in fact about the dream state. One have to think very irrational with this, start acting irrationally.
I get your point though, that Cage has a sence of underlying humor, which annoys me quite a lot.
Elgar, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Mozart.
Actually, I sort of like the Chopin Mazurkas, which are not quite as salonish. There's no denying the originality of his harmonies, which were often quite daring for his time. But there
's just too much darned sentimentality in his music for me.
I'm still waiting for Luke to discuss a composer he doesn't like.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 26, 2011, 08:35:25 AM
I'm still waiting for Luke to discuss a composer he doesn't like.
I guess we have agreed not to discuss Saul.
Bruckner. I am beginning to like some movements, and most of #2. But overall, I still hear nothing more than overblown sounds repeated for no apparent reason.
OK, my loss of course.
Quote from: springrite on July 26, 2011, 08:39:07 AM
Bruckner. I am beginning to like some movements, and most of #2. But overall, I still hear nothing more than overblown sounds repeated for no apparent reason.
OK, my loss of course.
Paul, that is OK. Bruckner is definitely not many people's cup of tea, so you are definitely not alone, and never will be alone.
He just happens to be my tea of choice, primo uno as for as symphonic composers are concerned. That didn't happen overnight, I assure you. Took a long time for him to dethrone Beethoven for me in this category. :)
Quote from: springrite on July 26, 2011, 08:39:07 AM
I guess we have agreed not to discuss Saul.
Bruckner. I am beginning to like some movements, and most of #2. But overall, I still hear nothing more than overblown sounds repeated for no apparent reason.
OK, my loss of course.
Saul what a joke. I guess he's off somewhere attending to his "legions of fans" on YouTube. ::)
Anyway, Bruckner was a difficult composer for me to get into, because much of the same reasons: overblown and obnoxious outbursts from the brass section and so much repetition that it just pissed me off after awhile. But then I realized later that his music is about spiritual transcendence not making grand statements which I had previously thought. Everything he composed was for God. I also around this time started to read more about his life and background. His appearance and demeanor was that of a simple man, but what's amazing is what was happening in his mind. The repetition in his music for me now is simply a compositional device and the results to my ears now is mesmerizing. I also think the man composed some of the most gorgeous slow movements in all of classical music.
Quote from: springrite on July 26, 2011, 08:39:07 AM
Bruckner.... But overall, I still hear nothing more than overblown sounds repeated for no apparent reason.
But that is the Beauty of Bruckner right there. His harmonies can give me chills. I would say that with Bruckner, more important is the 'how' you get there than the 'why'. Incidentally, the architecture is there, it's just on a scale unlike most.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 26, 2011, 08:49:58 AM
But that is the Beauty of Bruckner right there. His harmonies can give me chills. I would say that with Bruckner, more important is the 'how' you get there than the 'why'. Incidentally, the architecture is there, it's just on a scale unlike most.
That's so true. Many people have described his music as building cathedrals with sound. The structure of his music is some of the most organized and well-thought out in all of classical music.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 26, 2011, 08:35:25 AM
I'm still waiting for Luke to discuss a composer he doesn't like.
Really? I'm not that strongly aggrieved by any composer to say 'I don't like them.' Even amongst composers I don't listen to often or who have written works I don't really get, there are always works which I do admire, at the very least. Weber (for instance) does little for me - except in one or two works, which are enough for me to know quite how fantastic a composer he was. So how can I say I dislike him?
Quote from: Luke on July 26, 2011, 09:47:46 AM
Really? I'm not that strongly aggrieved by any composer to say 'I don't like them.' Even amongst composers I don't listen to often or who have written works I don't really get, there are always works which I do admire, at the very least.
I can sign on here, too.
We might say that disliking composers is not my cup of Darjeeling.
Well unlike Koechlin fans, HB fans keep it on their own thread. 8)
Hah!
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 26, 2011, 08:48:40 AM
Anyway, Bruckner was a difficult composer for me to get into, because much of the same reasons: overblown and obnoxious outbursts from the brass section and so much repetition that it just pissed me off after awhile. But then I realized later that his music is about spiritual transcendence not making grand statements which I had previously thought. Everything he composed was for God. I also around this time started to read more about his life and background. His appearance and demeanor was that of a simple man, but what's amazing is what was happening in his mind. The repetition in his music for me now is simply a compositional device and the results to my ears now is mesmerizing. I also think the man composed some of the most gorgeous slow movements in all of classical music.
Indeed!
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 26, 2011, 08:53:02 AM
That's so true. Many people have described his music as building cathedrals with sound. The structure of his music is some of the most organized and well-thought out in all of classical music.
You might like Celibidache's Bruckner if you haven't already heard it.
Quote from: Leon on July 26, 2011, 10:11:40 AM
Although I'm coming close to disliking Havergal Brian merely by association with his overly chatty fans.
>:D
Do you realize that thread has almost 2,000 posts!
It also doesn't help that I find his music boring ... but lest I coax an inveterate HB lover over here and derail this thread, I will be quiet.
Did someone call?
Just leaving. ;D
Quote from: DavidW on July 26, 2011, 10:40:55 AM
Well unlike Koechlin fans, HB fans keep it on their own thread. 8)
:P
Quote from: Israfel the Black on July 26, 2011, 11:19:38 AM
Indeed!
You might like Celibidache's Bruckner if you haven't already heard it.
Well I've enjoyed Bruckner for years and consider him one of my favorite composers. All I was saying earlier was that it wasn't always an easy road to that appreciation and admiration I have for his music now.
Bartok and Martinu. Yuck!
Quote from: fuhred on July 26, 2011, 05:09:39 PM
Bartok and Martinu. Yuck!
The whole Classical Era. Yuck!
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 26, 2011, 05:26:03 PM
The whole Classical Era. Yuck!
"My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all."
Another composer I just haven't been able to get into is Kodaly. I mean I know he's written some good works, but I find him overall unsatisfying especially compared to his countryman Bartok. There's just nothing in his music that grabs me and I've heard all of his orchestral works thanks to Dorati and Fischer.
It's Mahler for me, though I do find his 4th Symphony delightful and his first bearable, the rest I just don't get.
Bruckner to some extent also.
Sincerely,
Hany.
I have no disliked composer. There are composers who I rarely listen of course but I wouldn't say I don't like their music. Of course I don't know every composer. I didn't like Richard Strauss earlier but now I gladly listen to his music also.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 29, 2011, 07:37:50 PM
Another composer I just haven't been able to get into is Kodaly. I mean I know he's written some good works, but I find him overall unsatisfying especially compared to his countryman Bartok. There's just nothing in his music that grabs me and I've heard all of his orchestral works thanks to Dorati and Fischer.
Kodály is less important composer than Bartók indeed. His music is less interesting, less powerful. Even in Hungary there are opinions that much of his music is simply boring. But Bartók considered him as the principal Hungarian composer. I have favorite Kodály pieces: the Psalmus Hungaricus is mesmerizing for me with Doráti/Simándy every time I listen to it. The 2 orchestral dances are good also. I like the Székely Fonó with Ferencsik and the Te Deum of Buda Castle mass is one of my favorite.