America has produced many great composers, and many fine symphonists...
what work do you consider to be the greatest American symphony??
some possibilities, IMO:
Copland -Sym #3
Harris - Sym #3
Hanson Sym #3
Mennin - Sym #7
possibly, but, for me - FIRST PRIZE goes to
Wm Schuman - Sym #3 -
a real blockbuster, a wartime symphony that is a real challenge for any orchestra - powerful stuff...
I'm a big fan of Bernstein's Symphony No. 2, "The Age of Anxiety". But I haven't heard anywhere near enough American symphonies. I must rectify this, I know.
Quote from: Maestro267 on April 22, 2016, 09:51:45 AM
I'm a big fan of Bernstein's Symphony No. 2, "The Age of Anxiety". But I haven't heard anywhere near enough American symphonies. I must rectify this, I know.
That one was a great and pleasant surprise for me!
Quote from: Heck148 on April 22, 2016, 09:47:40 AM
America has produced many great composers, and many fine symphonists...
what work do you consider to be the greatest American symphony??
some possibilities, IMO:
Copland -Sym #3
Harris - Sym #3
Hanson Sym #3
Mennin - Sym #7
possibly, but, for me - FIRST PRIZE goes to
Wm Schuman - Sym #3 -
a real blockbuster, a wartime symphony that is a real challenge for any orchestra - powerful stuff...
I do like the later
Schuman symphonies better still.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 22, 2016, 09:53:18 AM
That one was a great and pleasant surprise for me!
I do like the later Schuman symphonies better still.
Yes, the later Schuman symphonies are good - 7, then 8, 9 and 10 are very good...a bit more austere....
still, I think the continuity, the drama of #3 is most effective...the conclusion to Part I [mvts I/II] is a real roof-raiser, one of the greatest orchestra sonorities in the literature - same with the very end...some great touches - the Toccata theme introduced by snare drum??!! then followed by bass clarinet!! fascinating
For your consideration: (chronologically)
Charles Ives: Symphony #2, Symphony #4
Bernard Herrmann: Symphony
George Rochberg: Symphony #2
Roger Sessions: Symphony #3
Elliott Carter: Symphonia sum fluxae pretium spei
I rather like Hanson's 1st and 2nd symphonies. Stuff after that not so much. Also a big fan of Ives' Holiday's Symphony if you stretch the meaning a bit.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 22, 2016, 09:53:18 AM
I do like the later Schuman symphonies better still.
I heard the Schuman 6th (Slatkin/CSO) a couple of years ago. It's tremendous; I rank it about equal to the 3rd.
Glad to see a mention of Hanson 3 above, which I actually prefer to the more popular "Romantic."
Rochberg 2 is also terrific, but for me it's topped by his #1 - an over-the-top, kitchen-sink anarcho-symphony.
I would add one of the Piston symphonies (probably #2) and of course something by Ives (probably the mind-bending #4).
I would throw Samuel Barber's Symphony Nr.1 (1937) in the mix. Toscanini loved it, anyway.
In the twentieth century, coinciding with a general movement by the less traditional composers to go outside the concert hall, symphonies do tend to be an the traditional side, don't they? Everywhere, not just the US. Webern and Zimmermann put out some exceptions to that, as did Dhomont. Even Z'ev has put out a thing called "Symphony #2." I'd put Z'ev's symphony up there with Ives' in the "not business as usual" category.
While I think Sessions should get quite a lot more love than he does, symphonies in the US in the 20th century are not really representative of the important trends and ideas about art that were swirling around in that country then. Fluxus, happenings, multimedia, electronics, percussion, graphic scores, indeterminacy, extended techniques. Yeah, some of those were swirling around in Europe and elsewhere, too, but several of those things started in the US. For a brief time mid-century, the US was leading the avant garde.
But most classical audiences are blissfully unaware. Maybe a little uncomfortably aware. But mostly unaware. And very antagonistic when confronted with anything. I've had people bite my head off for simply having the temerity of mentioning such things as 4'33" or Fluxus, as if simply mentioning them were more or less equivalent to being responsible for their existence.
Oh well. Anything besides those five I already mentioned? When I think of new music in the twentieth century, symphonies are not what comes to mind. To my mind, anyway. So I could easily have missed something.
So far my favorites are Thompson's Second and Barber's First, but my experience (especially with Mr. Schuman) is limited. I used to love the Copland Third but have turned against it. Need to re-investigate Rouse, since I'll soon be attending the premiere of his Fifth.
Among symphonies that the composer failed to call a symphony, Harmonielehre at least deserves an honorable mention.
I remember a critic who said that maybe if they didn't sound like "Genghiz Khan on cocaine" some of the more extreme avant-garde composers might have made it into the concert halls more often. Now I have no idea what that means, but it didn't sound good. :)
Considering just how experimental many symphonies are, I see no reason to worry about what might-have-been. And if you get too far away from what a symphony is supposed to be, then it no longer is a symphony, but some other music form.
Many strong American symphonies have been composed without any need of throwing in a tape-looped helicopter engine.
Quote from: Brian on April 22, 2016, 01:50:37 PM
Need to re-investigate Rouse, since I'll soon be attending the premiere of his Fifth.
Cool. Where and when is that happening?
QuoteAmong symphonies that the composer failed to call a symphony, Harmonielehre at least deserves an honorable mention.
Yeah, same for his follow-up,
Naïve and Sentimental Music.
At the NY premiere of "Naïve and Sentimental Music," Adams was asked at the pre-concert talk if his symphony was actually a symphony. Adams: "Well, I don't know about a symphony . . . . " - symphony being obviously in his mind a term for Brucknerian/Mahlerian sludge and bloat. (As opposed to Adamsian sludge and bloat.)
I don't know all the candidates mentioned above myself, but my choices are the following:
- Charles Ives, Symphonies Nos. 2 (maybe not the "greatest" but surely the most fun) and 4
- Harold Shapero, Symphony for Classical Orchestra (especially for its extraordinary slow movement)
- Elliott Carter, Symphony of Three Orchestras, Symphonia sum fluxae pretium spei
And definitely not the "greatest," but a great personal favorite: Meyer Kupferman's Little Symphony, a marvelous American counterpart to Prokofiev's 1st.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 22, 2016, 02:02:59 PM
- Charles Ives, Symphony Nos. 2 (maybe not the "greatest" but surely the most fun) and 4
- Harold Shapero, Symphony for Classical Orchestra (especially for its extraordinary slow movement)
- Elliott Carter, Symphony of Three Orchestras, Symphonia sum fluxae pretium spei
Yep, I love all those too (except "Three Orchestras," which I have yet to hear). On the above comment by Brian
I used to love the Copland Third but have turned against itI've never liked the Copland as much as the 3rds it gets bracketed with (Schuman, Harris) - by comparison, it seems rather bloated and overblown. However, the nice new recording I got (Kalmar/Oregon) is improving it in my mind.
BTW Kalmar is conducting both the Piston 2nd and the Harris 3rd at Grant Park this summer.
Quote from: Brian on April 22, 2016, 01:50:37 PM
... I used to love the Copland Third but have turned against it.
Oh, I am sorry to hear it. But I shall hope that five years down, the pendulum swings back.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on April 22, 2016, 02:18:09 PM
I used to love the Copland Third but have turned against it
I've never liked the Copland as much as the 3rds it gets bracketed with (Schuman, Harris) - by comparison, it seems rather bloated and overblown. However, the nice new recording I got (Kalmar/Oregon) is improving it in my mind.
Nice to hear!
I'm against type, it seems; I started with a dislike of the
Copland Third, but got over it 8)
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Outside of Ives and Cowell, I've heard few American symphonies. I'm surprised Cowell hasn't been mentioned yet: I came across the Madras recently and found it pretty impressive. I'm not really a fuguing-tune enthusiast but I do have a lot of time for Ray Green's Sunday Sing Symphony. Does anyone else?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 22, 2016, 02:02:59 PM
I don't know all the candidates mentioned above myself, but my choices are the following:
- Charles Ives, Symphonies Nos. 2...and 4
- Elliott Carter, Symphonia sum fluxae pretium spei
We have two votes now for
Ives' Fourth and
Carter's Symphonia...spei! 8)
Not to be forgotten - and it has! -
https://www.youtube.com/v/IS8NFq84_lo
There are many American symphonies that I love (in no particular order):
Barber: Symphonies 1 & 2
Schuman: Symphonies 3, 6, & 10
Copland: Symphony No. 3
Ives: Symphonies 2 & 4, 'Holidays' Symphony
Diamond: Symphonies 3 & 4
Piston: Symphonies 2 & 6
Thompson: Symphony No. 2
Harris: Symphony No. 6 "Gettysburg" (the only Harris symphony I enjoyed otherwise I have always felt he was too preachy and declamatory)
Kyle Gann had an interesting post about this on his blog some time ago: http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2014/07/inventing-an-america.html (http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2014/07/inventing-an-america.html). He selected the following symphonies:
QuoteAnthony Philip Heinrich: The War of the Elements and the Thundering of Niagara (c. 1845)
George Frederick Bristow: Arcadian Symphony, Op. 50 (1872)
George Chadwick: Third Symphony (1894)
Amy Beach: Gaelic Symphony (1896)
Charles Ives: First Symphony (1899)
Charles Ives: Third Symphony (1911) [might ought to do the Fourth, but sentimental about Third]
Virgil Thomson: Symphony on a Hymn Tune (1928)
James P. Johnson: Harlem Symphony (1932)
Roy Harris: Third Symphony (1938)
Florence B. Price: Symphony No. 3 (1940)
George Antheil: Symphony No. 4, "1942" (1942)
Aaron Copland: Third Symphony (1946)
Leonard Bernstein: Second Symphony, "Age of Anxiety" (1949/65)
George Rochberg: Second Symphony (1956)
Roger Sessions: Third Symphony (1957)
William Schuman: Eighth Symphony (1962) [Sixth would do, too]
William Bolcom: Fifth Symphony (1989)
Glenn Branca: Symphony No. 6, "Devil Choirs at the Gates of Heaven" (1989)
Philip Glass: "Low" Symphony (1992)
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on April 22, 2016, 12:03:41 PM
I rather like Hanson's 1st and 2nd symphonies.
Hanson #1 is very good, alot like #3...#2 is his best known, and it has some very effective writing, but it is too disjointed, episodic relative to #s 1 and 3.
I performed Hanson #2 with the composer conducting...it was fun, quite exciting.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on April 22, 2016, 12:14:03 PM
I heard the Schuman 6th (Slatkin/CSO) a couple of years ago. It's tremendous; I rank it about equal to the 3rd.
Glad to see a mention of Hanson 3 above, which I actually prefer to the more popular "Romantic."
Rochberg 2 is also terrific, but for me it's topped by his #1 - an over-the-top, kitchen-sink anarcho-symphony.
Rochberg #2 "The Atonal" is very good, glad to see it getting some mentions.
Quote from: some guy on April 22, 2016, 01:34:41 PM
But most classical audiences are blissfully unaware. Maybe a little uncomfortably aware. But mostly unaware. And very antagonistic when confronted with anything.
just think of all the wonderful 20th century symphonies that could be programmed in place of yet another presentation of Tchaik 4, 5, or Rach-y #2...gawd, those old warhorses occupy SO much concert space/time.
Quote from: Brian on April 22, 2016, 01:50:37 PM
I used to love the Copland Third but have turned against it.
Try his "Dance Symphony"...the wonderful Gould/Chicago recording is now available, along with Gould "Spirituals"
Quote from: Scion7 on April 22, 2016, 01:55:17 PM
Many strong American symphonies have been composed without any need of throwing in a tape-looped helicopter engine.
Try Diamond or Mennin, fine composers who wrote very excellent symphonies - Diamond 2, 3, 4 are definitely worth hearing, and Mennin #7 is a real All-Star..#3 is good, too. Most all of the works mentioned are quite readily approachable...
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 22, 2016, 03:25:34 PM
There are many American symphonies that I love (in no particular order):
Barber: Symphonies 1 & 2
Schuman: Symphonies 3, 6, & 10
Copland: Symphony No. 3
Ives: Symphonies 2 & 4, 'Holidays' Symphony
Diamond: Symphonies 3 & 4
Piston: Symphonies 2 & 6
Thompson: Symphony No. 2
Harris: Symphony No. 6 "Gettysburg" (the only Harris symphony I enjoyed otherwise I have always felt he was too preachy and declamatory)
Good list!! I do like Harris #3....he does get academic sounding tho, same with Piston...
Quote from: Heck148 on April 22, 2016, 07:22:15 PM
Good list!! I do like Harris #3....he does get academic sounding tho, same with Piston...
Thanks, yeah Harris' 3rd is pretty good. It's been years since I've listened to it. I'll probably revisit it this weekend.
I don't think there has been a "Great American Symphony". (I don't see why there has to be.) There have been some decent ones, Ives #4 probably the best of the bunch, Carter maybe (though I'm not such a huge fan anymore), Sessions maybe but even the later ones are overshadowed by the Concerto for Orchestra... the midcentury Boulangerie ones everyone's been nominating so far are pleasant to listen to but very much in one ear and out the other. Americans have produced great string quartets and great electronic pieces and great experimental work and a fair amount of great kitsch, but not much in the way of symphonies.
Of course most American symphonies have been 20th century and the number of truly great symphonies of any nationality after, oh, 1910 or so can be counted on your fingers
[/stirs pot]
Quote from: Heck148 on April 22, 2016, 07:07:43 PM
I performed Hanson #2 with the composer conducting...it was fun, quite exciting.
I would like to hear more about this!!
Quote from: amw on April 22, 2016, 07:45:09 PM
I don't think there has been a "Great American Symphony". (I don't see why there has to be.) There have been some decent ones, Ives #4 probably the best of the bunch, Carter maybe (though I'm not such a huge fan anymore), Sessions maybe but even the later ones are overshadowed by the Concerto for Orchestra... the midcentury Boulangerie ones everyone's been nominating so far are pleasant to listen to but very much in one ear and out the other. Americans have produced great string quartets and great electronic pieces and great experimental work and a fair amount of great kitsch, but not much in the way of symphonies.
Of course most American symphonies have been 20th century and the number of truly great symphonies of any nationality after, oh, 1910 or so can be counted on your fingers
[/stirs pot]
Your post got me thinking a little more outside the box about what a true American symphony would sound like, and I am changing my vote:
Mingus -
The Black Saint and the Sinner LadyEDIT:
http://www.youtube.com/v/zFA0FYQo0Gg
Haha, realest answer in this thread :P
Quote from: amw on April 22, 2016, 07:45:09 PM
I don't think there has been a "Great American Symphony". (I don't see why there has to be.)
I am in sympathy both with this philosophical rumination, and with the ongoing discussion of strong American writing in the genre.
As for any of the works being (I may be misrememberly paraphrasing) "very much in one ear and out the other" ... I've seen some GMGers say just that about
Mozart (e.g.) And no one will seriously entertain the reassignment of
Mozart to the second tier.
My point being that any body of work needs a degree of sympathy from the audience (what our
Alan refers to as "the listener's share"); and (as we've discussed w/r/t
Haydn &
Dvořák, f'rinstance) there are bodies of work which may at first seem a Sea of Sameness, but which with aural attunement reveal rich variety in content.
Quote from: Brian on April 22, 2016, 08:37:32 PM
I would like to hear more about this!!
Your post got me thinking a little more outside the box about what a true American symphony would sound like, and I am changing my vote:
Mingus - The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady
EDIT:
http://www.youtube.com/v/zFA0FYQo0Gg
Nice!
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: amw on April 22, 2016, 07:45:09 PM
Sessions maybe but even the later ones are overshadowed by the Concerto for Orchestra...
I could (and would) make exactly the same point about Carter, whose CfO is to my mind one of the outstanding American compositions.
Regarding "in one ear and out the other," well, I haven't reviewed a lot of the neo-classical American symphonies in my collection of late and no doubt ought to do so, but I wouldn't aggressively dispute the point based on my recollections. [stirs pot again]
Quote from: amw on April 22, 2016, 07:45:09 PM
I don't think there has been a "Great American Symphony". (I don't see why there has to be.).... the midcentury Boulangerie ones everyone's been nominating so far are pleasant to listen to but very much in one ear and out the other. Americans have produced great string quartets and great electronic pieces and great experimental work and a fair amount of great kitsch, but not much in the way of symphonies.
Disagree completely - there have been many fine symphonies written by Americans - the ones mentioned so far are good examples - Schuman #3 is in no way "easy listening", or "pleasant to listen to" - it's a powerhouse, indeed - listen to Bernstein/NYPO I, or Slatkin/CSO - these guys are really tearing it up...
QuoteOf course most American symphonies have been 20th century and the number of truly great symphonies of any nationality after, oh, 1910 or so can be counted on your fingers
again - there is such a huge number of great symphonies written after 1910, you'd have to have a multi-person effort to count them all - not just American - but Russian, English, European.
They suffer from under-exposure, that is the problem....the old warhorses - Tchaik 4,5, Rach-y 2 receive WAY too much exposure.....give them a rest......
Since most of us do most of our listening from recordings these days, all that's needed for "exposure" is a decent recording that's easily available. So maybe a Christopher Rouse symphony is being played in Dallas next year; how does that help me if I live in New York? I've known the Carter CfO for years from its four recordings, but have only heard the piece once live (in an inadequate performance under Leon Botstein). I've never heard the Shapero played live, but came to love it through the Bernstein recording (which is much better than the Previn). And at a time when all but the top American orchestras are struggling to stay afloat, I'm not going to blame a conductor for programming Tchaikovsky 5 rather than Mennin 7 and thus risking a hall that's 3/4 empty.
That said, I remember Schuman as being one of the more powerful voices here mentioned, while Piston, Creston, Diamond, Hanson were pretty much in one ear and out the other. Randall Thompson I remember only as a composer of some ghastly folksong settings I had to accompany many years ago. But I could see going through the shelves and starting a little listening project to acquaint or reacquaint myself with some of the names mentioned above.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 23, 2016, 07:25:39 AMDiamond, Hanson were pretty much in one ear and out the other.
Diamond, Hanson and Mennin are very good composers...the live symphonic repertoire could really use some freshening...the endless cavalcade of warhorses really gets tedious...there is so much fine music that is not performed nearly often enough...
to hell with yet another Rach'y Sym #2, a dreadful, boring, murky mess..2 fine symphonies of Diamond or Mennin could be heard for one slog thru this tired sonic miasma...
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 23, 2016, 07:25:39 AM
That said, I remember Schuman as being one of the more powerful voices here mentioned, while Piston, Creston, Diamond, Hanson were pretty much in one ear and out the other. Randall Thompson I remember only as a composer of some ghastly folksong settings I had to accompany many years ago. But I could see going through the shelves and starting a little listening project to acquaint or reacquaint myself with some of the names mentioned above.
Last year I went through a weeklong listening project of Piston, Creston, and Diamond symphonies, trying to figure out which ones I liked. There were a couple good ones. Unfortunately, I immediately forgot which they were, which suggests that maybe there weren't so many good ones after all. I do remember that none of the Piston symphonies where nearly as entertaining as his "Incredible Flutist" ballet.
Will add Shapero/Bernstein to my agenda. I have the gigantic mega-box of Bernstein's Columbia recordings but have not played that one yet.
P.S. An interesting perspective on Randall Thompson (http://www.classicstoday.com/review/anglos-in-america/) from a longtime chorister. Thompson's Requiem will be released on Naxos next month, its first complete recording.
Quote from: Brian on April 23, 2016, 10:47:12 AMI do remember that none of the Piston symphonies where nearly as entertaining as his "Incredible Flutist" ballet.
yup, I agree...
Very difficult to choose as I like so many of those already mentioned but my top candidates would be:
Copland: Symphony 3
Bernstein: 'Jeremiah'
William Schuman: Symphony 6
David Diamond: Symphony 3
Others I like very much:
Roy Harris: symphonies 3,6 and 7
George Antheil: Symphony 4
Howard Hanson: Symphony 3 (especially in Koussevitsky's marvellous performance)
Barber: symphonies 1 and 2
Ives: Symphony 3 'The Camp Meeting'
Bernard Herrmann's Symphony
Morton Gould's 'West-Point Symphony'
Creston: Symphony 2
Schuman: Symphony 3
Piston: Symphony 2
Kurka: Symphony 2
Copland: Organ Symphony
Quote from: Heck148 on April 23, 2016, 10:41:09 AM
Diamond, Hanson and Mennin are very good composers...the live symphonic repertoire could really use some freshening...the endless cavalcade of warhorses really gets tedious...there is so much fine music that is not performed nearly often enough...
to hell with yet another Rach'y Sym #2, a dreadful, boring, murky mess..2 fine symphonies of Diamond or Mennin could be heard for one slog thru this tired sonic miasma...
Tedious and tiresome to whom? To conductors, players, audiences, critics, all of the above? The American composers you mention may well be worth another hearing and I will check my shelves to see what I have by each of them, and fill in any gaps that seem promising. But just because you have a bug up your rear end about a deservedly popular Russian Romantic doesn't require the rest of us to agree with you.
I'm 67 now and have been through a lifetime of concert going, and I'm not likely to jump at many concerts right now because tickets have become absurdly expensive and there are all the associated expenses of travel and meals. And I don't begrudge orchestras from playing popular warhorses when these are the works most audiences want to hear, including those listeners who are just starting out with classical music or those who attend live concerts only occasionally. Economics have to be considered too. Many years ago the most exciting concert programmed by my local Long Island Philharmonic included Shostakovich 10. I was keenly disappointed when it was cancelled but was told that renting the parts became prohibitive.
But your accusation that the symphonic repertoire needs refreshing doesn't necessarily stand up to examination either. A lot of course depends on the particular orchestra and region of the country, but the truth is that (at least with the major orchestras and other groups), there is more willingness to take chances than there was even 20 years ago. Even that most conservative of institutions, the Metropolitan Opera, is now presenting works by Saariaho, Adès, Nico Muhly, Glass, and John Adams. As for the NY Philharmonic, its 2016-17 season (besides the expected large doses of Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, et al.) includes music by the following - and note above all the presence of women composers:
Ligeti
Copland
Bolcom
Wynton Marsalis
Adams
Esa-Pekka Salonen
Timo Andres
Lera Auerbach
Anna Thorvaldsdottir
Corigliano
HK Gruber
John Adams
Julia Adolphe
Ravi Shankar
Tansy Davies
And not a single piece by Rachmaninoff.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 23, 2016, 11:31:07 AM
Tedious and tiresome to whom? To conductors, players, audiences, critics, all of the above?
yes.. 8)
QuoteThe American composers you mention may well be worth another hearing and I will check my shelves to see what I have by each of them, and fill in any gaps that seem promising.
great idea - I hope you find lots of new attractions
QuoteI don't begrudge orchestras from playing popular warhorses when these are the works most audiences want to hear, including those listeners who are just starting out with classical music or those who attend live concerts only occasionally.
I'm not saying they should never be performed - but must it be so frequently?? must they occupy so much concert time/space?? It's like a vicious, downward-spiraling circle - it just keeps getting more in-grown - people like the same old warhorses because that's what they are familiar with because that's what gets played and that's what they are familiar with, because that's what is played..etc, etc, etc.
yes people want to hear them, but maybe people would want to hear some less well-known music if they actually got the chance to hear it in live performance.
Quotebut the truth is that (at least with the major orchestras and other groups), there is more willingness to take chances than there was even 20 years ago.
glad to hear it!! I know the Boston Sym has been pretty adventurous, it definitely was with Levine - entire Schoenberg concerts - that was great...
QuoteAnd not a single piece by Rachmaninoff.
:) :) maybe we're making progress...
Quote from: Heck148 on April 23, 2016, 06:46:51 AM
Disagree completely - there have been many fine symphonies written by Americans
Well we're talking about
great symphonies. There are certainly American symphonies that are
okay, or good-but-flawed, or whatever. Some people certainly like them, and I'm sure I could find a few that I like (maybe Rochberg's 1st, one of Reynolds's... Kernis's 1st which is not a good symphony but very good kitsch). Others will find nothing to appreciate in them, and not for lack of musical knowledge, as is often the case when people criticise Mozart (whose craft and innovation at least should be obvious even if one doesn't enjoy the results). For example I've listened to most of the Schuman symphonies and none of them stick in the memory or break any new ground—they're "easy listening", answer all the questions they raise. His Violin Concerto is similar but has enough craft to rise slightly higher, I guess, so I do listen to it sometimes.
Quote
again - there is such a huge number of great symphonies written after 1910
Leaving out ones that come close but are fatally flawed (eg Nielsen 5, whose first movement is certainly great, but falls down in the second), and musical "dead ends" (eg Szymanowski 3—a great symphony, but neither the culmination of a tradition nor the start of one, I think), the number's not that high. It's not that high even with those.
Sibelius 5 & 7 (I prefer 6 over 5, but 6 is less great though more perfect)
Nielsen 6
Webern
possibly Zimmermann
in einem Satz though I'm not sure I would have chosen it myself
Berio
Shostakovich 14
Gerhard 3
Simpson 9, arguably
Lutosławski 3
Malec
Triola? maybe?
Dhomont
FrankensteinFerrari
Déchirée? I mean as an instrumental work by a composer whose greatest music is electronic it's more like the holiday-work of an artist, like Wagner's Album-Sonate für M.W., but it's still probably a better symphony than any others being written around the same decade, lol
Of course there are lots of second tier ones, "near greats" etc, that would be worth buying the recordings of... but I'm not going to make exaggerated claims for the importance of Nørgård or Maxwell Davies or Holmboe or Yun or idk. Similar to how in the much more symphony-rich 19th century there are plenty of also-rans worth occasional listens (Tchaikovsky 1-3, Mendelssohn 1 & 5, Taneyev 4...) without being on the level of Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, etc.
Notice also the lack of Rach 2 :P
Quote
They suffer from under-exposure
There are tons of recordings. Even for pieces that really don't deserve them, like Copland's 3rd, which is neither a good symphony nor good kitsch >_>
I think most 20th century symphonies get approximately the exposure they deserve, apart from live performances, which are not worth much anyway—orchestras are basically dead on their feet due to lack of public funding. There's been very little worth going to symphony concerts for ever since Reagan/Thatcher/Gorbachev, and there likely won't be until the Revolution ;)
Quote from: vandermolen on April 23, 2016, 11:00:52 AM
Very difficult to choose as I like so many of those already mentioned but my top candidates would be:
Creston: Symphony 2
Kurka: Symphony 2
My brother has been a big advocate of
Paul Creston. (He is also a big fan of underdog
Joachim Raff.)
Do you know
The Good Soldier Schweik Suite ?
https://www.youtube.com/v/CWRdyOX4-cY
AMW wrote:
QuoteLeaving out ones that come close but are fatally flawed (eg Nielsen 5, whose first movement is certainly great, but falls down in the second), and musical "dead ends" (eg Szymanowski 3—a great symphony, but neither the culmination of a tradition nor the start of one, I think).
To my ears the
Szymanowski Third Symphony contains DNA of
Scriabin. It could be argued that it is the culmination of
Scriabin's style, or a variation on it.
Others have argued that certain microtonal composers, e.g.
Wyschnegradsky, carried on the
Scriabin tradition. But
Wyschnegradsky was not a symphonist.
https://www.youtube.com/v/UF23fvJHrXI
Quote from: amw on April 23, 2016, 04:32:54 PM
Well we're talking about great symphonies.
so am I...your list of great symphonies post 1910 is so restricted, so limited as to be virtually meaningless...you leave out the Russian giants - Shostakovich, Prokofieff, the English - Vaughan Williams, Walton, no Penderecki, Roussel [#3]and of course, no mainstream Americans..I'm not sure what your criteria are for symphonic greatness - but there are works here that are easily the equal of Tchaikovsky 4,5 [I much prefer 1-3 anyway, they're better pieces], Mendelssohn, Schumann, Schubert as far as symphonic works of great impact and compositional artistry.
QuoteI think most 20th century symphonies get approximately the exposure they deserve, apart from live performances, which are not worth much anyway
they get nowhere near the exposure they deserve, esp compared to the wholesale over-exposure of some of the aforementioned warhorses...
Well, let's remember that for many, the "warhorses" may be their first attendance to such a concert. Let's not blame these great compositions for getting a lot of attention - rather, just lament that so very many great pieces of music don't get played because there just isn't an audience for them - ye olde butts-in-seats-syndrome. Now if some of these filthy-rich multi-billionaires would put some effort into paying for performers and conductors and venues and thus having even low-attendance concerts available (and filmed for video release), it would be a more delightful world.
Maybe if Richard Bransom's fortune was appropriated by the state and used for such a purpose, eh wot? (a deserving punishment for what happened at Virgin records around 1975 - the wankernacht.)
I'm afraid that the exciting times in America - back when Piston, Schuman, Barber, etc., were being premiered in-concert will probably never come back. :-X
So many strong American symphonies will have to be experienced via studio recordings unless something drastic happens - sometimes college orchestras put one on.
Shostakovich is in there (or should be)—No. 14 is great, some of his symphonies are "near greats" (no. 4 and 15) but he spent so little time working on each piece that the great ones achieve that almost by accident? Nothing pejorative meant there, he was just insanely prolific, had to be for political reasons basically. Prokofiev's 6th is his best symphony and it's also flawed (though great, one could argue, because of its flaws). RVW & Walton are too derivative to be considered as greats, & Roussel misses the mark a bit in his symphonies though a fairly good composer otherwise—I haven't heard any Tchaikovsky tier works from him, haha, but as I recall the ballet scores are generally his best work. Penderecki only the 1st would be under consideration, the rest being pastiche, more or less. Great works generally have to be groundbreaking (Schubert D759 & 944) or the culmination/perfection of a particular style (Beethoven 1-8) or both (Beethoven 9)... and also to contain no or very few miscalculations (thus Symphonie Fantastique and not Roméo et Juliette).
If we include the great-but-flawed (ie with miscalculations) works we also have Nielsen 5, Shostakovich 4, Schnittke 8, Lutosławski 2, Tippett 2 & 3, and not very many more. Of the Americans, Ives 4 qualifies, I guess. If we include the dead ends (ie individual & original, but not new or culminatory) we have Szymanowski 3 & maybe 4 (though that's really a piano concerto), Stravinsky in C, Messiaen Turangalîla, and arguably Simpson 9 belongs here instead of mainlist. Of Americans I can't think of any, and I know a lot of American symphonies, mind.
Compared to, say, concertos—where the 20th century really is a heyday of sorts, or at least the great revival of the form after the Baroque—I don't think the same can be said for more than a few 20th century symphonies, most of which rehash 19th century rhetoric in a slightly more up-to-date musical language (or a completely out-of-date musical language, lol). Probably says something that the greatest 20th century symphony, by any metric except popularity, is Webern's, and it's about 10 minutes long.
@ Cato—That's true, I forgot Scriabin. I'm not sure if any of his symphonies would be great, maybe Poéme de l'extase, if that qualifies as symphony rather than tone poem. (Or Mysterium hahahaha) It would be flawed simply by his apparent difficulty in working in long forms though. Don't know if any of the Scriabin symphonies are post 1910—a cutoff I added mostly because of Mahler (5-9 have been highly influential and it's hard to dispute their greatness even if I don't like them much), but which accidentally ended up taking out Schoenberg's Kammersymphonie as well, the other greatest 20th century symphony.
Edit: If we forget about greatness and just go with "these are some American symphonies I like", the answers would be completely different. Of course, that's just list-making rather than actual discussion.
Edit 2: Carter 3 Orchestras might count as a Great American Dead End.
Quote from: amw on April 23, 2016, 06:10:23 PM
Probably says something that the greatest 20th century symphony, by any metric except popularity, is Webern's, and it's about 10 minutes long.
... Schoenberg's Kammersymphonie as well, the other greatest 20th century symphony.
This gets into the issue of personal taste, so I'm not going to dispute your choices here; but both of them strike me as very strange. If we polled people in the know (musicians, critics etc.), how many would name these as the 2 greatest 20th century symphonies? I have no idea, but I doubt it would be many. (and yes, I happen to like them both)
Therefore, I classify your interesting post as "great-but-flawed."
That might be regional to an extent, though! In the music schools/departments I've been in those are likely to be popular answers, except for those who instead favour one of Mahler's. (And the performers, who will often name Shostakovich.) I'm often the outlier for thinking highly of composers like Rubbra and Tippett, even if I don't think they are "great". Many critics/musicologists/composers/etc I've encountered think the symphony died with Webern (if not Mahler), and there's been nothing in the genre since worth listening to. I think one could also judge based on influence and etc—the Webern symphony laid the groundwork for a lot of the longer-form serial/post-serial music that began to be composed around the 1940s by people like Boulez and Barraqué and went on as far as Stockhausen in the 2000s, but also was highly influential for the experimental/anti-serial composers of the 1960s onwards like Feldman and Cage, which in turn diversified into a lot of mini-movements in the 21st century that are still ongoing. I don't believe any other symphony is as important in the century, even Mahler's. As for Schoenberg his work is most valuable for its expansion & virtual redefinition of the genre: the first one-movement symphony, the first symphony not for orchestra, possibly the first symphony not to use traditional tonality. It opened the way for the wide variety of non-orchestral, non-tonal, non-rhetorical, non-classical etc symphonies that followed.
Lol at your classification though :D
Nevermind symphonies, I mean we can list probably less than 5 that reach the apex from Americans, but pale next to the Europeans .. perhaps we should try to list the very best written classical compositions by Americans thus far. The symphony form seems pretty dead at this point imo, never to compete with the best of earlier eras .. new forms is where it is at .. and that is why in the (particularly the 2nd half of the century) ... we have some truly outstanding pieces for a symphony orchestra, but the forms are new - but those aren't coming from Americans.
" Many critics/musicologists/composers/etc I've encountered think the symphony died with Webern " -
and I would bet there are at least twice as many that think this is just so much chamber pot refuse.
That Webern opus is one of the most profound pieces of harmonic writing ever put to paper by a composer .. but that piece wasn't responsible for it's slow demise. That's journalistic b.s. Time and all that has been done by the long line of geniuses of the past is the greatest enemy of all to the form in it's traditional sense; but the medium (the symphony orchestra) is still ripe for musical creativity ..
Quote from: Cato on April 23, 2016, 05:08:05 PM
My brother has been a big advocate of Paul Creston. (He is also a big fan of underdog Joachim Raff.)
Do you know The Good Soldier Schweik Suite ?
https://www.youtube.com/v/CWRdyOX4-cY
AMW wrote:
To my ears the Szymanowski Third Symphony contains DNA of Scriabin. It could be argued that it is the culmination of Scriabin's style, or a variation on it.
Others have argued that certain microtonal composers, e.g. Wyschnegradsky, carried on the Scriabin tradition. But Wyschnegradsky was not a symphonist.
https://www.youtube.com/v/UF23fvJHrXI
Thanks Leo - I will listen to that and may have it on a Kurka CD. Glad your brother likes Creston - Symphony 2 is excellent. I am a great admirer of Raff's 'Leonore' Symphony, especially the ghostly night journey depicted in the last movement.
I think one can agree that symphonies after Mahler (or Webern) were usually not cutting edge avantgarde anymore, but concede that the form remained an option in neo-classical style until 1940 or so: Stravinsky in C and 3 movements, Hindemith in E flat, Shostakovich, Hartmann. Or even later, e.g. some of Henze's.
(Not sure how this puts the "American symphony" in perspective. I know only a little (listened to Copland's 3rd last night, nice but I would not consider this "great") but it seems that at least Ives's 4th should be considered as an idiosyncratic but original and important piece (it's not post-Webern, though...)
I would rate Copland's Symphony 3 as great despite or because of its populist tendencies. However I would also rate William Schuman's Symphony 6. It is a grittier score than Schuman's better known Symphony 3. I have seen it described as 'a requiem for the 20th century'. I'd be interested to know what others thought of this work.
Of course, these are all very flexible expressions. If I say that I didn't find Copland's 3rd "great", I do not mean that it is not worth being listened to once in a while. But I don't think that it is as impactful or impressive as e.g. Stravinsky's in three Movements.
Quote from: vandermolen on April 24, 2016, 01:35:23 AM
I would also rate William Schuman's Symphony 6 . . . I'd be interested to know what others thought of this work.
There is very little of Bill Schuman that I don't like. I like the chaotic brass passage at the seven minute mark in the Sixth. Stirring stuff, that!
Just the thing for Chuck to sneak into mum's bedroom and take the "pause" off of with the volume all the way up.
His royal majesty the next day! ;)
Quote from: Jo498 on April 24, 2016, 12:47:39 AM
I think one can agree that symphonies after Mahler (or Webern) were usually not cutting edge avantgarde anymore
I agree.
Quote from: Jo498 on April 24, 2016, 12:47:39 AMthe form remained an option in neo-classical style
Made me grin. Symphony. Option. Neo-classical. Well, yeah. ;)
Anyway, no one has said anything one way or the other about Z'ev's so-called Symphony #2, so I looked for a version online that you could play.
Here it is: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/ZEV/Symphony_2_Elementalities/
Broken up into movements, but plays them sweetly without pause. Or paws.
Not sure that really constitutes cutting-edge avant garde, either, but it's a nice piece.
I think that there may be some equivocal-ness about the whole "cutting-edge" business, which I fear I rather carelessly abetted in my last post. I don't think of music as being progressive; but I think that it is easy to tell when a piece (or a style) is regressive. Be fair, if you feel you've "heard it before," it's probably because you've heard it before. And it is, as the remark about "neo-classical" reveals, dead easy to write regressive music if what you're doing you're calling a symphony.
But it's not 100% sure, as Zimmermann and Dhomont and Z'ev have shown.
Like finding the lack of a cutting edge to be "a flaw" in an exquisite spoon.
Quote from: Brian on April 23, 2016, 10:47:12 AM
Last year I went through a weeklong listening project of Piston, Creston, and Diamond symphonies, trying to figure out which ones I liked. There were a couple good ones.
I've only heard the
Piston Second &
Sixth, and should revisit them. I seem to remember liking them, while perhaps not finding them "in competition with" the best of
Mennin or
Schuman.
The
Diamond Fourth and
Harris Third are all I know of either composer, and that is courtesy of the
Lenny box.
Lenny was a fine ambassador for both symphonies.
Creston I know only from some minor band piece we must have played in a high school region band, and some
Whitman settings for chorus & piano which
Paul Cienniwa led at
FCB.
(Just thinking out loud here.)
Quote from: Scion7 on April 24, 2016, 01:53:09 AM
Quote from: vandermolen on April 24, 2016, 01:35:23 AM
I would rate Copland's Symphony 3 as great despite or because of its populist tendencies. However I would also rate William Schuman's Symphony 6. It is a grittier score than Schuman's better known Symphony 3. I have seen it described as 'a requiem for the 20th century'. I'd be interested to know what others thought of this work.
There is very little of Bill Schuman that I don't like.
Likewise. I'd say the same of
Mennin.
Quote from: Scion7 on April 23, 2016, 05:53:26 PM
Well, let's remember that for many, the "warhorses" may be their first attendance to such a concert. Let's not blame these great compositions for getting a lot of attention - rather, just lament that so very many great pieces of music don't get played because there just isn't an audience for them - ye olde butts-in-seats-syndrome. Now if some of these filthy-rich multi-billionaires would put some effort into paying for performers and conductors and venues and thus having even low-attendance concerts available (and filmed for video release), it would be a more delightful world.
Maybe if Richard Bransom's fortune was appropriated by the state and used for such a purpose, eh wot? (a deserving punishment for what happened at Virgin records around 1975 - the wankernacht.)
I'm afraid that the exciting times in America - back when Piston, Schuman, Barber, etc., were being premiered in-concert will probably never come back. :-X
So many strong American symphonies will have to be experienced via studio recordings unless something drastic happens - sometimes college orchestras put one on.
We note that large corporations and "multi-billionaires" have no problem placing their names on sports arenas.
"The Mercedes-Benz Berlin Philharmonic." "The Apple Symphony Orchestra."
In the good old days there was the "RCA Symphony Orchestra" and
Toscanini had no qualms about conducting the NBC Orchestra.
Today the "CBS Orchestra" is a glorified klezmer band for the midnight show of a (sporadically funny) comedian.
I would be against anyone's bank account being "appropriated by the state" for any purpose! Imagine rather a state which itself actually fosters the creation of wealth, of productivity, and of creativity itself! 8)
Quote from: Scion7 on April 23, 2016, 05:53:26 PM
I'm afraid that the exciting times in America - back when Piston, Schuman, Barber, etc., were being premiered in-concert will probably never come back. :-X
As a general thing (several major US orchestras whose music directors are ready to take "new music risk"), perhaps not.
I've never made any bones about my complaints with the endeavor (the conductor shuttling between Boston and the Met, and his working that gruelling schedule in defiance of medical advice), but
Levine maintained (or, restored, we might argue) the
BSO's commitment to new music, and one of the highlights for me of the
Levine era was the première of the
Wuorinen Eighth Symphony.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 24, 2016, 03:27:25 AM
and one of the highlights for me of the Levine era was the première of the Wuorinen Eighth Symphony.
So is that a candidate for Great American Symphony?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 23, 2016, 11:31:07 AM
Economics have to be considered too. Many years ago the most exciting concert programmed by my local Long Island Philharmonic included Shostakovich 10. I was keenly disappointed when it was cancelled but was told that renting the parts became prohibitive.
And oh, by the way, since I just found this out: the LI Philharmonic this year shut down permanently after 36 years due to financial problems. I myself gave up on the orchestra (whose music directors have included Christopher Keene and Marin Alsop) after the Shosty 10 debacle. But those who advocate riskier repertoire ought to take such occurrences into account.
Quote from: Cato on April 24, 2016, 04:05:07 AM
So is that a candidate for Great American Symphony?
I hesitate to say after but one performance 0:)
Quote from: amw on April 23, 2016, 06:10:23 PMGreat works generally have to be groundbreaking (Schubert D759 & 944) or the culmination/perfection of a particular style (Beethoven 1-8) or both (Beethoven 9)... and also to contain no or very few miscalculations (thus Symphonie Fantastique and not Roméo et Juliette).
your criteria for great symphony is far too narrow and constricted...you leave out far too many outstanding works....
you don't like 20th century symphonies much at all, we get the picture....We've seen your list of what you considered great...you can have it... not for me...
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on April 23, 2016, 06:27:46 PM
This gets into the issue of personal taste, so I'm not going to dispute your choices here; but both of them strike me as very strange. If we polled people in the know (musicians, critics etc.), how many would name these as the 2 greatest 20th century symphonies? I have no idea, but I doubt it would be many. (and yes, I happen to like them both)
Therefore, I classify your interesting post as "great-but-flawed."
well said!! :) 8)
Quote from: James on April 23, 2016, 06:52:20 PM
I mean we can list probably less than 5 that reach the apex from Americans, but pale next to the Europeans ..
I disagree strongly....there have been outstanding American symphonies, and outstanding European symphonies...I don't see a strong superiority of one over the other...
I do think that many 20th century symphonies are equal to, or better, than some of the most often performed works of the previous century...I think these 20th century works deserve much more performance exposure. believe me, if an orchestra is going to program Schuman Sym #3, or Hindemith Sym in Eb, I'll make every effort to get there!!
Quote from: vandermolen on April 24, 2016, 01:35:23 AM
I would rate Copland's Symphony 3 as great despite or because of its populist tendencies. However I would also rate William Schuman's Symphony 6. It is a grittier score than Schuman's better known Symphony 3. I have seen it described as 'a requiem for the 20th century'. I'd be interested to know what others thought of this work.
I like Schuman #6, but I'm still getting into it....I like 8 about the same, and 9 and 10 are really quite excellent. #3 is the one that reaches right ut and grabs you - it's a very tough score to play, very demanding parts - but when done well - NYPO, Chicago, it is a real knockout...would love to hear it live.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 24, 2016, 03:03:25 AM
Like finding the lack of a cutting edge to be "a flaw" in an exquisite spoon.
very good!!
:D :D 8)
Quote from: Heck148 on April 24, 2016, 10:03:24 AMI disagree strongly....there have been outstanding American symphonies, and outstanding European symphonies...I don't see a strong superiority of one over the other...
You may disagree but that doesn't change things.Quote from: Heck148 on April 24, 2016, 10:03:24 AMI do think that many 20th century symphonies are equal to, or better, than some of the most often performed works ..
Not many, a few - and they are not from Americans.
Quote from: James on April 24, 2016, 11:28:46 AM
You may disagree but that doesn't change things.
right, there are great works both American and European...
QuoteNot many, a few - and they are not from Americans.
yes, there are, and some composed by Americans.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 24, 2016, 05:32:45 AM
And oh, by the way, since I just found this out: the LI Philharmonic this year shut down permanently after 36 years due to financial problems. I myself gave up on the orchestra (whose music directors have included Christopher Keene and Marin Alsop) after the Shosty 10 debacle. But those who advocate riskier repertoire ought to take such occurrences into account.
On the other hand, I'm often surprised by the off-the-beaten-path programming of no-name suburban orchestras. If I wanted to hear a symphony by Franz Schmidt in the Chicago area, I had to go to Northbrook (a suburb). My most-local orchestra even has its own composer-in-residence. But of course these unusual pieces are generally sandwiched or accompanied with something more standard.
Quote from: Heck148 on April 24, 2016, 12:24:27 PM
right, there are great works both American and European...
European yes; American .. yet to be seen on that level. You can disagree - but that will not change this fact.Quote from: Heck148 on April 24, 2016, 12:24:27 PMyes, there are, and some composed by Americans.
Which American Symphonies? (this ought to be good for a laugh)
Quote from: James on April 24, 2016, 01:35:09 PM
European yes; American .. yet to be seen on that level. You can disagree - but that will not change this fact.
I do disagree, and your opinion is certainly not fact.
QuoteWhich American Symphonies?
Many have already been named on this thread. go read them...better yet, go listen to them.
You're wasting your time with James, Heck128. You're really better off arguing with a brick wall. Just remember: he's ALWAYS right and you're ALWAYS wrong.
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 24, 2016, 04:05:15 PM
You're wasting your time with James, Heck128. You're really better off arguing with a brick wall. Just remember: he's ALWAYS right and you're ALWAYS wrong.
:laugh: :laugh: I know the type... ;)
Quote from: Heck148 on April 24, 2016, 05:29:06 PM
:laugh: :laugh: I know the type... ;)
Don't we all! :D
QuoteYou may disagree but that doesn't change things.
Least of all, James's mind.
This had puzzled me a bit, too. James' mind is certainly a thing, but the text in question uses the plural.
Anyway, to do some thread duty--or just philosophical duty--this last little exchange is a good example of one of the many problems with the whole idea of "greatness."
Greatness is almost always used as if it were an attribute of the object itself, like instrumentation and duration and perhaps genre. It is not. It is a quality conferred upon the object, a value judgement. Treating this valuation as if it were an attribute is what gives these kinds of discussions their peculiar quality, as it would be for anything extrinsic treated as if it were intrinsic.
So we get the following sub-text, rarely ever spelled out so bluntly, but certainly ever-present in every conversation: "You cannot see that X is great? What is wrong with you?" And its converse, equally contentious, "You cannot see that X is not even close to being great? What's the matter with your brain?"
It's not really difficult. "Great" is a conclusion, drawn (in the best case scenario), from facts. Facts are the only kinds of things that can be attributes, intrinsic. Conclusions are always and forever opinions. Conclusions derive whatever validity they may have--and some of them, as we have seen, have none :P--by how convincingly they have been derived from the facts. Some will remain unconvinced.
So yeah. "The Great American Symphony" is a non-starter. There not only is no such thing; there can be, in the nature of things, no such thing. No matter what intrinsic attributes a symphony may have--duration, instrumentation, use of or deviations from previous formal structures--the great (!) extrinsic quality of greatness doesn't enter into it until you have yourself some listeners. And, as we have just seen, listeners--even intelligent, experienced listeners--disagree about which symphonies are great or not.
Instead of trying to find something that does not exist, that cannot, by definition, exist, perhaps we would be better served by listening to some symphonies and then talking, if we must, about what we liked and disliked, if we must, about each one.
Quote from: some guy on April 25, 2016, 02:25:20 AM
This had puzzled me a bit, too. James' mind is certainly a thing [....]
Just for purposes of discussion, mind you, it may be a thing, or it may possibly be only an idea.
Quote from: some guy on April 25, 2016, 02:25:20 AM
Anyway, to do some thread duty--or just philosophical duty--this last little exchange is a good example of one of the many problems with the whole idea of "greatness."
Greatness is almost always used as if it were an attribute of the object itself, like instrumentation and duration and perhaps genre. It is not. It is a quality conferred upon the object, a value judgement. Treating this valuation as if it were an attribute is what gives these kinds of discussions their peculiar quality, as it would be for anything extrinsic treated as if it were intrinsic.
So we get the following sub-text, rarely ever spelled out so bluntly, but certainly ever-present in every conversation: "You cannot see that X is great? What is wrong with you?" And its converse, equally contentious, "You cannot see that X is not even close to being great? What's the matter with your brain?"
It's not really difficult. "Great" is a conclusion, drawn (in the best case scenario), from facts. Facts are the only kinds of things that can be attributes, intrinsic. Conclusions are always and forever opinions. Conclusions derive whatever validity they may have--and some of them, as we have seen, have none :P--by how convincingly they have been derived from the facts. Some will remain unconvinced.
So yeah. "The Great American Symphony" is a non-starter. There not only is no such thing; there can be, in the nature of things, no such thing. No matter what intrinsic attributes a symphony may have--duration, instrumentation, use of or deviations from previous formal structures--the great (!) extrinsic quality of greatness doesn't enter into it until you have yourself some listeners. And, as we have just seen, listeners--even intelligent, experienced listeners--disagree about which symphonies are great or not.
Instead of trying to find something that does not exist, that cannot, by definition, exist, perhaps we would be better served by listening to some symphonies and then talking, if we must, about what we liked and disliked, if we must, about each one.
Yes. Greatness: what does it mean? If/when we agree on what it means, how do we put that idea to service?
Some are content to use the idea as a cudgel, which hints at just how blunt and inartistic an instrument it is, in their hands.
Quote from: some guy on April 25, 2016, 02:25:20 AM
This had puzzled me a bit, too. James' mind is certainly a thing, but the text in question uses the plural.
Anyway, to do some thread duty--or just philosophical duty--this last little exchange is a good example of one of the many problems with the whole idea of "greatness."
Greatness is almost always used as if it were an attribute of the object itself, like instrumentation and duration and perhaps genre. It is not. It is a quality conferred upon the object, a value judgement. Treating this valuation as if it were an attribute is what gives these kinds of discussions their peculiar quality, as it would be for anything extrinsic treated as if it were intrinsic.
So we get the following sub-text, rarely ever spelled out so bluntly, but certainly ever-present in every conversation: "You cannot see that X is great? What is wrong with you?" And its converse, equally contentious, "You cannot see that X is not even close to being great? What's the matter with your brain?"
It's not really difficult. "Great" is a conclusion, drawn (in the best case scenario), from facts. Facts are the only kinds of things that can be attributes, intrinsic. Conclusions are always and forever opinions. Conclusions derive whatever validity they may have--and some of them, as we have seen, have none :P--by how convincingly they have been derived from the facts. Some will remain unconvinced.
So yeah. "The Great American Symphony" is a non-starter. There not only is no such thing; there can be, in the nature of things, no such thing. No matter what intrinsic attributes a symphony may have--duration, instrumentation, use of or deviations from previous formal structures--the great (!) extrinsic quality of greatness doesn't enter into it until you have yourself some listeners. And, as we have just seen, listeners--even intelligent, experienced listeners--disagree about which symphonies are great or not.
Instead of trying to find something that does not exist, that cannot, by definition, exist, perhaps we would be better served by listening to some symphonies and then talking, if we must, about what we liked and disliked, if we must, about each one.
Well, if you want to go truly off the deep end
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
Quote from: Heck148 on April 24, 2016, 10:07:14 AM
I like Schuman #6, but I'm still getting into it....I like 8 about the same, and 9 and 10 are really quite excellent. #3 is the one that reaches right ut and grabs you - it's a very tough score to play, very demanding parts - but when done well - NYPO, Chicago, it is a real knockout...would love to hear it live.
Thanks for the feedback. There is a very poetic section towards the middle of the work and I find the end of it oddly moving in a way that eschews all sentimentality. I find it to be a searching and visionary work which, to me, is one of the marks of greatness in music. I agree that Symphony 3 is a terrific score too.
Quote from: Heck148 on April 24, 2016, 03:17:33 PM
I do disagree, and your opinion is certainly not fact.
I'm not stating my opinion, just pure fact. There has not been an American symphonist or symphony on the level (nor "equal or better", as you put it) of the best of what was born & bred in Europe.Quote from: Heck148 on April 24, 2016, 03:17:33 PMMany have already been named on this thread. go read them...better yet, go listen to them.
You can't be serious ..
Quote from: James on April 25, 2016, 02:00:49 PM
I'm not stating my opinion,
right, you are just spewing bullcr*p.
QuoteThere has not been an American symphonist or symphony on the level (nor "equal or better", as you put it) of the best of what was born & bred in Europe.[/size][/font]
an unfounded opinion based on obvious inexperience and lack of musical knowledge.
QuoteYou can't be serious ..
Totally serious - I doubt that you have even heard the music aforementioned...as for "best of what was born & bred in Europe" -
???..you obviously do not have the musical knowledge to express a worthwhile opinion.
Is there an American symphony equal to Beethoven's 5th, 6th, 7th or 9th? Well, no, of course not.
Has any American made the same accomplishment as Mahler did with the best of his symphonies? Can't think of one.
BUT that doesn't mean that William Schuman's 3rd or Barber's 1st can't stand along many slightly 'lesser' European symphonies - and both of these are both inspired, and very well done pieces of music technically.
American composers have given many symphonies that "count."
Just dismissing them would be a foolish thing to do.
Quote from: Scion7 on April 25, 2016, 04:57:51 PM
Is there an American symphony equal to Beethoven's 5th, 6th, 7th or 9th? Well, no, of course not.
Has any American made the same accomplishment as Mahler did with the best of his symphonies? Can't think of one.
BUT that doesn't mean that William Schuman's 3rd or Barber's 1st can't stand along many slightly 'lesser' European symphonies - and both of these are both inspired, and very well done pieces of music technically.
American composers have given many symphonies that "count."
Just dismissing them would be a foolish thing to do.
True. I would suggest that in the last forty years* or so, the American contribution to the symphony has been at least as good as that made by Europe.
But certainly the most boring American symphony is more worth listening to than almost anything by Stockhausen.
*Interval chosen to leave Shostakovitch out of the balance. Leaving him in would send it crashing down in favor of the European side.
This is turning into the usual "You're an idiot," "No, you're the idiot," "No, you're the bigger idiot" type of pseudo-discussion that so many threads of this sort degenerate into. Change a few names and it's the same thing as we had last week with the "Frustration" thread, in which the OP started beating the drum for a few British candidates (with the usual complaint about the overplayed "standard" composers, just as we have had here). Then at the next stage, various posters line up for or against, and finally everyone comes out swinging, with statements like "But certainly the most boring American symphony is more worth listening to than almost anything by Stockhausen" — which makes me question whether the poster has heard much by Stockhausen at all, just as I question whether the advocate of Stockhausen has heard many American symphonies. Of course nobody says anything specific about any of the music in question or attempts to revisit it (why bother?), so that by this point the whole discussion just becomes an unenlightening slugfest.
Quote from: Scion7 on April 25, 2016, 04:57:51 PM
BUT that doesn't mean that William Schuman's 3rd or Barber's 1st can't stand along many slightly 'lesser' European symphonies - and both of these are both inspired, and very well done pieces of music technically.
and powerfully expressive...agreed, but I don't think I would refer to them as "lesser" symphonies, tho - it has a negative connotation that is not warranted - I don't feel that Walton Sym #1, Vaughan Williams 4, Sibelius 5, Schuman 3, Shotakovich 5 are in any way "lesser" symphonies...these are all powerful works, extremely well-written, and deeply expressive...whether they are "equal" to Mozart 39, 41, Beethoven 3,5,7,9?? Who knows??....depends on what mood I'm in!! They all affect me differently. all great...
QuoteAmerican composers have given many symphonies that "count."
Just dismissing them would be a foolish thing to do.
Right on the $$ :)
I didn't say they were lesser - I said they'd stand with many quote-lesser-unquote European symphonies [those outside of the best of Beethoven or Mahler - which were innovative.] Lesser than Beethoven does not mean 'of no value.' :)
Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique is vastly different from Charles Ives' symphonies, but I'd rank them about the same level - giving the edge to Berlioz for melody, and Ives for technical complexity - and there is a lot going on in the Berlioz piece that's bold and new for the era it was composed.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 25, 2016, 05:28:25 PMjust as I question whether the advocate of Stockhausen has heard many American symphonies.
I have, too many .. otherwise I wouldn't have said what I did. Stockhausen has more on offer.
As I understood the question it has at least two aspects. The first is that after ca. Mahler "symphony" ceased to be as important a genre as it had been from late Haydn and Mozart to Mahler. So it is very unlikely that any symphony post ca. 1920 will have the status, impact etc. of one by Beethoven or Mahler.
This can of course be denied or classified as skewed position in favor of one certain narrative in musical history favoring the avantgarde that abolished symphonies in the strict sense already in the first wave of modernity (no symphonies by Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, Berg etc.).
So if one accepts that there are still worthwhile symphonies written (more or less post-romantic or neo-classical in a broad sense) after ca. 1925-30 (to put Ives, Nielsen and Sibelius also into the frame where symphonies were still an unproblematic genre) one can compare symphonies by e.g. Shostakovich, Hartmann, Henze, Vaughan Williams etc. with their American counterparts like Schuman, Copland, Harris etc.
I think e.g. amw holds a version of the position sketched in the first paragraph that tends to be very critical towards any neoclassical/romantic symphony past the 1930s or so (or even towards the masterpieces of neoclassicism like Stravinsky's). So from this vantage point it seems plausible that most American symphonies are rather negligible in the long run.
But the main (and maybe slightly more worthwhile) discussion should probably start with what I wrote in the 3rd paragraph above.
Quote from: Scion7 on April 25, 2016, 04:57:51 PM
Is there an American symphony equal to Beethoven's 5th, 6th, 7th or 9th? Well, no, of course not.
Has any American made the same accomplishment as Mahler did with the best of his symphonies? Can't think of one.
Yes, precisely, good examples .. and there are others. Then you go on and talk of 'lesser' things ..
Bottomline, there really isn't an American symphonist or symphony that is truly 'great', or essential ..
and probably less than 5 American symphonies that truly count.
Quote from: Heck148 on April 25, 2016, 05:37:03 PMwhether they are "equal" to Mozart 39, 41, Beethoven 3,5,7,9?? Who knows??....depends on what mood I'm in!! They all affect me differently. all great...
You're so very confused. The mere whim of your mood doesn't change musical history or where things came from. It doesn't lessen, devalue or erase the greatest achievements. I'm not much of a symphony person myself at the end of the day, but at least I have put in the time and have the facts all sorted & straight, leading to a clear perspective.
Quote from: Heck148 on April 25, 2016, 04:09:43 PM
right, you are just spewing bullcr*p.
In essence, you are right. When James states his opinion, he seems genuinely to believe that his opinion is Universal Artistic Truth. He genuinely believes that, when you offer what any reasonable adult would regard as a divergent opinion, you simply were not
paying attention when he pronounced The Truth unto you. James's discussion, then, is not any matter of intelligent adults exchanging ideas, and benefiting from another perspective; it is James trying to get all youse idiots to understand the Truth he's laying down here. FOR OUR BENEFIT, PEOPLE! Show a little appreciation, jeeze . . . .
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on April 25, 2016, 11:32:52 AM
Well, if you want to go truly off the deep end
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
That was an interesting article, especially for the struggle expressed therein, not explicitly articulated until the last paragraph.
The thing he posits there, that his "experiences of everyday life—[his] real feeling of a headache, [his] real taste of chocolate—that really is the ultimate nature of reality," is first principle kinda stuff for any student of language or literature. I was thinking as I read it, that his struggle was probably a result of his perspective, his training as a scientist. And that is what he says in the last paragraph. A poet, for example, would never have this particular struggle. In poetry, in the arts generally, probably, the idea is that "reality" is what happens when objects and observers get together. Reality only happens then. Neither observers nor objects really ( :)) exist on their own. Real reality is what happens when they meet.
Of course, there's something there in each, separately, in order for the meeting to even be possible, but that something, in either case, is quite remarkably different from what results are when the two meet. That's what Hoffmann suggests in his interview, too. A poet would probably start with the results, the pre-existing somethings being, by definition, out of reach, a matter of speculation only.
But that's as may be. More immediately interesting to me is how easy it is for a post like mine explaining how a category can be empty to be followed immediately by a heated discussion in which all the disputants take as given that the category is real, is full:
"marks of greatness"
"on the level of"
"equal to"
"lesser"
"rank" (this one came after an acknowledgement of difference--and only similar things can reasonably be ranked)
"truly great"
So yeah. Just ignore that stuff about the empty category, eh?
And I also expect some high-powered ignoring of (poco) Sforzando's last--and very sensible and intelligent--post. Too early to tell on his, I suppose. Karl's last is a nice adjunct to that. While focussed on the shenanigan's of a particular poster, it does imply the same intellectual premises as inform (poco)'s post.
"Just noodling."
Some symphonies which I have quite enjoyed, but which I do not at all propose as The Great American Symphony, are those of George Antheil. I find them both enjoyable as music to listen to (and I do not necessarily enthuse about music, merely because it is enjoyable to listen to), and interesting to reflect upon, in the context of the larger question which embraces the present thread. It seems to me that Antheil didn't set about to write "The Great American Symphony": perhaps he did not believe there was such a thing, nor any need for any such thing. Perhaps he wrote them, and wrote them in the way he did, because he wanted to. To pick up one strand in the present discussion, I can enjoy listening to them, and feel gratitude that there is a recording available, without arguing that the pieces ought to be represented in the current or future repertory of US orchestras. Which is a considerable distance from other pieces which I feel are, actually, bad music. Good but not great is a valid space for creative endeavor, especially since the definition of The Great is so problematic. (Problematic, I mean, for any mind willing to step outside of comforting oversimplifications.)
Part of why I do not worry myself at all about The Need for Greatness, on the one hand, nor about the fallacy that there is One True Direction of Musical Progress (and if your work is not on that path, You Are No Use) is exemplified in the Antheil symphonies. If you do good work, creating the work you want to create, for your own reasons, is enough.
Quote from: some guy on April 26, 2016, 03:56:11 AM
That was an interesting article, especially for the struggle expressed therein, not explicitly articulated until the last paragraph.
The thing he posits there, that his "experiences of everyday life—[his] real feeling of a headache, [his] real taste of chocolate—that really is the ultimate nature of reality," is first principle kinda stuff for any student of language or literature. I was thinking as I read it, that his struggle was probably a result of his perspective, his training as a scientist. And that is what he says in the last paragraph. A poet, for example, would never have this particular struggle. In poetry, in the arts generally, probably, the idea is that "reality" is what happens when objects and observers get together. Reality only happens then. Neither observers nor objects really ( :)) exist on their own. Real reality is what happens when they meet.
Of course, there's something there in each, separately, in order for the meeting to even be possible, but that something, in either case, is quite remarkably different from what results are when the two meet. That's what Hoffmann suggests in his interview, too. A poet would probably start with the results, the pre-existing somethings being, by definition, out of reach, a matter of speculation only.
My problem with the article is that non-conscious "observers" (cameras, microphones) obviously record reality. Put a timer on a camera and walk away from the forest, and I am betting that the camera will - without any brain - observe a forest when the shutter clicks. Light particles are bouncing off the forest and bring that image to anything capable of receiving them, conscious or not. And if somehow not one particle of light hit the forest, I will also bet that it is still there.
And he seems to misunderstand quantum physics, i.e. the "blinking" nature of a particle, its tendency to "sort of" exist, to be a packet of potential existence, is fine for individual particles. But outside of the quantum world we obviously do not see e.g. books and trees disappearing for a micro-second and then reappearing.
Otherwise, I would say he should read Kant and ruminate on phenomenology. ;)
Quote from: Cato on April 26, 2016, 05:10:45 AM
. . . Put a timer on a camera and walk away from the forest, and I am betting that the camera will - without any brain - observe a forest when the shutter clicks.
You seem to be saying that an apparatus without a brain is not necessarily at any disadvantage compared to a human with (we must suppose) a brain.
Perhaps you're right, at that.
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 22, 2016, 03:25:34 PM
There are many American symphonies that I love (in no particular order):
Barber: Symphonies 1 & 2
Schuman: Symphonies 3, 6, & 10
Copland: Symphony No. 3
Ives: Symphonies 2 & 4, 'Holidays' Symphony
Diamond: Symphonies 3 & 4
Piston: Symphonies 2 & 6
Thompson: Symphony No. 2
Harris: Symphony No. 6 "Gettysburg" (the only Harris symphony I enjoyed otherwise I have always felt he was too preachy and declamatory)
I've just revisited the
Diamond Fourth. Now, I realize you're saying,
John, these are symphonies you love, which is already refocusing the question, so my observation here is not necessarily a conflict.
Personally, I could not argue for the
Diamond Fourth as The Great American Symphony. I enjoy it, I am glad to have heard it, and I can entirely see any of us loving the piece. So perhaps we should not see my comment as any deficit in
Diamond's work, but (again) in the notion of
The Gr Am Sym.
Separately . . . you find the
Harris Third fatally
preachy & declamatory?
(* looks for Volume 16 . . . . *)
Quote from: James on April 25, 2016, 11:09:50 PM
You're so very confused. The mere whim of your mood doesn't change musical history or where things came from.
you attempt to posit an absolute that does not exist. "musical history", "where things came from" are subjective, not objective...
How an individual responds to particular music is probably the only real "standard", and that is definitely subjective...
QuoteIt doesn't lessen, devalue or erase the greatest achievements.
nor does your sounding forth your own individual opinion.
QuoteI'm not much of a symphony person myself at the end of the day,
yes, that is quite obvious. :D
Quotebut at least I have put in the time and have the facts all sorted & straight, leading to a clear perspective.[/size][/font]
no, you have voiced your own individual opinion, which to this point, is completely unsubstantiated or supported...there is nothing factual or clear about anything you've posted...
Quote from: karlhenning on April 26, 2016, 03:10:58 AM
In essence, you are right. When James states his opinion, he seems genuinely to believe that his opinion is Universal Artistic Truth.
right, Karl - there is never a discussion with such people - they simply try to pontificate, and naturally expect everyone to defer in strict obedience to their pronouncements.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 26, 2016, 05:20:25 AM
I've just revisited the Diamond Fourth. Now, I realize you're saying, John, these are symphonies you love, which is already refocusing the question, so my observation here is not necessarily a conflict.
Personally, I could not argue for the Diamond Fourth as The Great American Symphony. I enjoy it, I am glad to have heard it, and I can entirely see any of us loving the piece. So perhaps we should not see my comment as any deficit in Diamond's work, but (again) in the notion of The Gr Am Sym.
Separately . . . you find the Harris Third fatally preachy & declamatory?
(* looks for Volume 16 . . . . *)
Cheers,
Karl!
I could never argue for what the
Great American Symphony is or could be. I do, however, feel that these symphonies exhibit musical traits that I admire and each of these symphonies have really meant a lot to me, which I have concluded that they're
great IMHO.
As for Harris, I'm wrong about his 3rd, I do like this work, but aside from this symphony and his 6th, I can barely listen to his music without feeling the need to turn it off. It's not
bad music of course, it's just not my thing.
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 26, 2016, 05:30:32 AM
As for Harris, I'm wrong about his 3rd, I do like this work
Thank you. I can now return my bazooka to the armory ;D
(By the way, and to return to topic, Harris 3 would get my vote as the Great American symphony; that or Ives 2. I'd have to flip a coin.)
Sarge
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 26, 2016, 05:30:32 AM
Cheers, Karl!
I could never argue for what the Great American Symphony is or could be. I do, however, feel that these symphonies exhibit musical traits that I admire and each of these symphonies have really meant a lot to me, which I have concluded that they're great IMHO.
As for Harris, I'm wrong about his 3rd, I do like this work, but aside from this symphony and his 6th, I can barely listen to his music without feeling the need to turn it off. It's not bad music of course, it's just not my thing.
Can't say fairer than that, and you have mollified the
Sarge 8)
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 26, 2016, 05:30:32 AM
....I do, however, feel that these symphonies exhibit musical traits that I admire and each of these symphonies have really meant a lot to me, which I have concluded that they're great IMHO.
yes, I agree, well said.
QuoteAs for Harris, I'm wrong about his 3rd, I do like this work, but aside from this symphony and his 6th, I can barely listen to his music without feeling the need to turn it off. It's not bad music of course, it's just not my thing.
I'm with you - I enjoy Harris #3, and #6....have not had much luck with the others...very "academic-sounding"
Quote from: karlhenning on April 26, 2016, 05:14:05 AM
You seem to be saying that an apparatus without a brain is not necessarily at any disadvantage compared to a human with (we must suppose) a brain.
Perhaps you're right, at that.
Right, given the author's idea that reality depends on a (conscious) observer. e.g.
QuoteGefter: The world is just other conscious agents?
Hoffman: I call it conscious realism: Objective reality is just conscious agents, just points of view. Interestingly, I can take two conscious agents and have them interact, and the mathematical structure of that interaction also satisfies the definition of a conscious agent. This mathematics is telling me something. I can take two minds, and they can generate a new, unified single mind.
And what about
non-conscious agents capable of observations? Do they create "non-objective reality" ? 0:)
QuoteGefter: If it's conscious agents all the way down, all first-person points of view, what happens to science? Science has always been a third-person description of the world.
Hoffman: The idea that what we're doing is measuring publicly accessible objects, the idea that objectivity results from the fact that you and I can measure the same object in the exact same situation and get the same results — it's very clear from quantum mechanics that that idea has to go. Physics tells us that there are no public physical objects. So what's going on? Here's how I think about it. I can talk to you about my headache and believe that I am communicating effectively with you, because you've had your own headaches. The same thing is true as apples and the moon and the sun and the universe. Just like you have your own headache, you have your own moon. But I assume it's relevantly similar to mine. That's an assumption that could be false, but that's the source of my communication, and that's the best we can do in terms of public physical objects and objective science.
But we do not live
inside a quantum mechanical world! The quantum mechanical world resides inside us and the rest of the universe. And it is not clear to me at all that "Physics tells us that there are no public physical objects." ;)
And what about that camera and its image of the forest? Is it not "communicating" to me that the forest does exist, even when I did not consciously observe it? I would hope that the good man is not insisting on some degree of consciousness for the camera?!
Anyway...
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 26, 2016, 05:38:28 AM
Thank you. I can now return to my bazooka to the armory ;D
(By the way, and to return to topic, Harris 3 would get my vote as the Great American symphony; that or Ives 2. I'd have to flip a coin.)
Sarge
$:) $:) $:) ;D ;D ;D
Thanks all and, most of all, thanks to Sarge for sparing me of the bazooka! :P
Quote from: Heck148 on April 26, 2016, 05:43:51 AM
I'm with you - I enjoy Harris #3, and #6....have not had much luck with the others...very "academic-sounding"
Without contradicting you . . . I've been lucky in my explorations of that era (I may just have the right, and a long-lived, canary for duty down that shaft). The initial "tastes" with which I tried
Schuman and
Mennin encouraged me to explore more, and that listening has all been to the good (and we might say that I had to overcome the hurdle of The Lot being dismissed as "academic"). With certain other composers, the one symphony I heard (without its being a genuinely negative experience) left me feeling that, well, I would explore down
other avenues.
Antheil (and perhaps
Hanson) is a case where I do not feel that the work is on quite the level of
Schuman and
Mennin, but (1) the work is IMO genuinely good, (2) it strikes me as a personal musical expression, not as dutiful notespinning ("academic"), and thus (3) is music I do revisit at times.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 26, 2016, 06:07:19 AM
Antheil (and perhaps Hanson) is a case where I do not feel that the work is on quite the level of Schuman and Mennin, but (1) the work is IMO genuinely good, (2) it strikes me as a personal musical expression, not as dutiful notespinning ("academic"), and thus (3) is music I do revisit at times.
yeh, that works, I think Schuman and Mennin, Diamond too for me, are consistently at least very good, sometimes great...Hanson and Antheil can get there too, maybe not as consistently??
another American symphony I enjoy is Bernstein #1 - "Jeremiah"...the 2nd mvt is a real "rip-snorter"...Bernstein jumps right in with the asymmetric rhythms, mixed meters, very effectively...written in 1942, this is one pissed-off piece...but, considering what was happening to the Jewish population at the time, it certainly stands to reason.
Quote from: Heck148 on April 26, 2016, 06:28:37 AM
another American symphony I enjoy is Bernstein #1 - "Jeremiah"...the 2nd mvt is a real "rip-snorter"...Bernstein jumps right in with the asymmetric rhythms, mixed meters, very effectively...written in 1942, this is one pissed-off piece...but, considering what was happening to the Jewish population at the time, it certainly stands to reason.
I need to revisit
Jeremiah. I'm a
huge yuuuuge fan of
The Age of Anxiety.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 26, 2016, 06:34:44 AM
I need to revisit Jeremiah. I'm a huge yuuuuge fan of The Age of Anxiety.
+1
I like both of these Bernstein symphonies. I'm not sure how I feel about the
Kaddish, though. Any thoughts?
Quote from: Heck148 on April 26, 2016, 06:28:37 AM
yeh, that works, I think Schuman and Mennin, Diamond too for me, are consistently at least very good, sometimes great...Hanson and Antheil can get there too, maybe not as consistently...
Arnold Schoenberg advised
Diamond to stay with a future as "an American Bruckner."
The discussion has jogged a memory of a letter from
Schoenberg to
Roy Harris. In the letter
Schoenberg states that
Harris is the composer whom he considered "characteristic for American music."
Saying that he has not seen the scores, and has heard their compositions on the radio usually only once,
Schoenberg lists other American composers whose music showed "talent and originality."
(It is not clear how the list is organized, or whether the names occurred to
Schoenberg as he wrote (in English).)
Aaron Copland, Roger Sessions, William Schuman, David Diamond, Louis Gruenberg, Walter Piston, Anis Fuleihan, Henry Cowell, Adolphe Weiss, Gerald Strang. He then adds as "lesser known"
"Lou Harrison and Miss Dika Newlin".
The letter dates from May 1945.
I would suggest Mahler Symphony No. 9 is the great American symphony since Mahler was a New York resident from 1908-11 and this symphony (written 1908-9) sums up music before and transitions to what comes ahead. Congratulations Mahler. Honorable mention to Los Angelenos's own Rachmaninoff who live in LA after 1919 and whose Symphony No. 3 from 1934-5 is a fantastic work.
Quote from: Heck148 on April 26, 2016, 06:28:37 AM
another American symphony I enjoy is Bernstein #1 - "Jeremiah"...the 2nd mvt is a real "rip-snorter"...Bernstein jumps right in with the asymmetric rhythms, mixed meters, very effectively...written in 1942, this is one pissed-off piece...but, considering what was happening to the Jewish population at the time, it certainly stands to reason.
Cross-post:Quote from: karlhenning on April 26, 2016, 06:43:27 AM
Lenny
Symphony № 1 « Jeremiah » (1942)
Jennie Tourel, mezzo
NY Phil
The composer conducting
Large stretches of the third movement (
Lamentation) are very
Billy the Kid-ish, which I find touching rather, for a few reasons. As a composer no less,
Lenny was often inspired by his musical enthusiasms (and as the last chord of the
Lamentation fades away, it seems almost to echo the
Symphonies of Wind Instruments). Even where I fancy echoes of the
Copland,
Lenny does not merely riff on the found material; there is original material, in the first place, throughout the movement; and there are also passages of (shall we say) warmly personalized adaptation of the found material.
I find the middle movement (
Profanation) exhilarating rather than "angry," for the most part. Maybe he meant it for angry when he wrote it, and re-thought its emotional content in the almost 20 years which elapsed before this 1961 recording? Or do I just hear the piece otherwise?
Very strong piece; I shan't wait anywhere so long before revisiting it again.
Quote from: relm1 on April 26, 2016, 07:51:46 AM
I would suggest Mahler Symphony No. 9 is the great American symphony since Mahler was a New York resident from 1908-11 and this symphony (written 1908-9) sums up music before and transitions to what comes ahead. Congratulations Mahler.
And we have a winner! ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Cato on April 26, 2016, 05:54:12 AMAnd what about that camera and its image of the forest?
The "good man," as you call him probably knows quite well that the camera is a mechanical device designed by conscious individuals, and the images it produces are objects that are comprehensible to humans. How else would it be?
What the camera and its image shows is that humans can devise recording devices that can capture things in recognizable ways. A microphone is not as sophisticated as an ear nor is a camera as sophisticated as an eye, but do a fair job. The brains attached to the ears and the eyes are going to interprete the frequencies and the pixels, anyway. Not only that, but with photography the brains, or perhaps it's the minds, have also to interpret two dimensional images of three dimensional objects.
Cameras and microphones can also alter things past all recognition. And what that says about the things, I think, is that "it depends."
:)
Quote from: some guy on April 26, 2016, 08:06:23 AM
The "good man," as you call him probably knows quite well that the camera is a mechanical device designed by conscious individuals, and the images it produces are objects that are comprehensible to humans. How else would it be?
What the camera and its image shows is that humans can devise recording devices that can capture things in recognizable ways. A microphone is not as sophisticated as an ear nor is a camera as sophisticated as an eye, but do a fair job. The brains attached to the ears and the eyes are going to interpret the frequencies and the pixels, anyway. Not only that, but with photography the brains, or perhaps it's the minds, have also to interpret two dimensional images of three dimensional objects.
Cameras and microphones can also alter things past all recognition. And what that says about the things, I think, is that "it depends."
:)
All true: and these machines will not summon up things to record from the quantum foam! 0:)
Having revisited
Schoenberg's letter to
Roy Harris (above) I decided to check for recordings of the names which have been stored away in the attic, so to speak.
e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/v/tA4GxXfECrg
...and...
https://www.youtube.com/v/cLLiikYaV1g
Perhaps
Schoenberg heard those works in the 1940's?
Not much for
Gerald Strang:
https://www.youtube.com/v/B0y94BKdNNY
However...
The Krell ??? ??? ??? may have been involved in this:
https://www.youtube.com/v/PvMeDG2zLvI
Quote from: some guy on April 26, 2016, 03:56:11 AM
That was an interesting article, especially for the struggle expressed therein, not explicitly articulated until the last paragraph.
The thing he posits there, that his "experiences of everyday life—[his] real feeling of a headache, [his] real taste of chocolate—that really is the ultimate nature of reality," is first principle kinda stuff for any student of language or literature. I was thinking as I read it, that his struggle was probably a result of his perspective, his training as a scientist. And that is what he says in the last paragraph. A poet, for example, would never have this particular struggle. In poetry, in the arts generally, probably, the idea is that "reality" is what happens when objects and observers get together. Reality only happens then. Neither observers nor objects really ( :)) exist on their own. Real reality is what happens when they meet.
Of course, there's something there in each, separately, in order for the meeting to even be possible, but that something, in either case, is quite remarkably different from what results are when the two meet. That's what Hoffmann suggests in his interview, too. A poet would probably start with the results, the pre-existing somethings being, by definition, out of reach, a matter of speculation only.
But that's as may be. More immediately interesting to me is how easy it is for a post like mine explaining how a category can be empty to be followed immediately by a heated discussion in which all the disputants take as given that the category is real, is full:
"marks of greatness"
"on the level of"
"equal to"
"lesser"
"rank" (this one came after an acknowledgement of difference--and only similar things can reasonably be ranked)
"truly great"
So yeah. Just ignore that stuff about the empty category, eh?
And I also expect some high-powered ignoring of (poco) Sforzando's last--and very sensible and intelligent--post. Too early to tell on his, I suppose. Karl's last is a nice adjunct to that. While focussed on the shenanigan's of a particular poster, it does imply the same intellectual premises as inform (poco)'s post.
It was rather Buddhist to me
Quote
O Sariputra, Form does not differ from Emptiness
And Emptiness does not differ from Form.
Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form.
The same is true for Feelings,
Perceptions, Volitions and Consciousness.
(the Heart Sutra)
But I agree with most of what you said in your previous post.
Or at least, the category is so subjective in nature as to be useless. I am not keen on Stockhausen, so I made a subjectively based jab at him. And subject to other mental vagaries. For instance, when I suggested that American symphonic writing is better than European, I somehow forgot that Henze and Schnittke fit into that time period. And they invalidate my point (although I don't care for Henze myself, and I have yet to grapple successfully with Schnittke).
But subjective as it may be, I think some American works are undervalued. F.i. I seem to think more highly of Corigliano's symphonies than others do.
And the whole discussion lies under the burden that has already been pointed out: that the 20th century substantially lowered the importance of the genre. Boulez and Ligeti---and Stockhausen too--wrote for orchestra, but nothing that can be easily fit into the genre. And those are just obvious examples.
Quote from: Cato on April 26, 2016, 08:22:19 AM
However...The Krell ??? ??? ??? may have been involved in this:
https://www.youtube.com/v/PvMeDG2zLvI
Try dancing to that...it ain't easy! ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Cato on April 26, 2016, 08:22:19 AM
However...The Krell ??? ??? ??? may have been involved in this:
https://www.youtube.com/v/PvMeDG2zLvI
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 26, 2016, 09:22:46 AM
Try dancing to that...it ain't easy! ;D
Sarge
Even
The Krell :o :o :o would have found it problematic, I think! :D
What would
Arnold have thought of it?!
Another American work worth mentioning is Corigilano Sym #1, [the AIDs Sym, c.1990]...definitely powerful stuff....programmatic for sure, but it is skilfully written, with some very effective devices - the improvised cello tune from his deceased amateur cellist friend forms the basis of a movement, a powerful climax, for sure...
Corigliano also uses some previous material of his own - the demented "Tarantella" theme appears much earlier in his "Gazebo Dances" [1972]....also, some parts of the symphony remind me of the "3 Hallucinations from Altered States" [1982]....some pretty wild stuff!!
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on April 26, 2016, 08:44:50 AM
And the whole discussion lies under the burden that has already been pointed out: that the 20th century substantially lowered the importance of the genre. Boulez and Ligeti---and Stockhausen too--wrote for orchestra, but nothing that can be easily fit into the genre. And those are just obvious examples.
In the US at present, it is the annex to The Star System which rules conductors and soloists: unless you already have a name (
Harbison,
Adams,
Wuorinen) you will not have the opportunity to have a symphony performed by a high-profile professional orchestra. The orchestras (as has been discussed elsewhere) are playing it increasingly safe, and when there is new music programming, the orchestral world in the US has reverted, and there is heavy preference to Euro composers (and conductors), who enjoy more of a favorable environment which cultivates new talent.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 27, 2016, 02:05:05 AM
In the US at present, it is the annex to The Star System which rules conductors and soloists: unless you already have a name (Harbison, Adams, Wuorinen) you will not have the opportunity to have a symphony performed by a high-profile professional orchestra. The orchestras (as has been discussed elsewhere) are playing it increasingly safe, and when there is new music programming, the orchestral world in the US has reverted, and there is heavy preference to Euro composers (and conductors), who enjoy more of a favorable environment which cultivates new talent.
I think the reason for this is arts leadership need cash inflow so are risk averse and this applies to popular European composers being played in the US as well. Vaughan Williams and William Walton don't get programmed in the US either. If you aren't Shostakovich or Prokofiev, It's a long shot getting a big piece programmed.
Depends. I've heard the BSO play both the Tallis Fantasia and the RVW Sixth in recent-ish seasons. And of course, with all the choral activity (even allowing for attrition over time), RVW is absolutely a known quantity in the States, not a risk in the least.
Walton, well . . . unlike RVW with the choral/church music, Walton hasn't really had the "in" over here. We arranged a performance of Façade while I was at UVa, but chalk that up to a collective of graduate students with an interest in 20th-c. music. I am certain we played a band transcription of his Crown Imperial March when I was in high school.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 27, 2016, 06:12:22 AM
Walton, well . . . unlike RVW with the choral/church music, Walton hasn't really had the "in" over here.
Again...depends. The CSO did Walton's 1st a couple years ago, under Bychkov. Also one of the concertos, I forget which.
Contrary to what is often claimed, the major British composers get a fair amount of live play over here. I attended an Elgar/VW program(me) just last month. However, I doubt I'll have the chance to hear a Simpson or Rubbra symphony anytime soon.
Part of my point is specifically to the big works. 2nd and 3rd rate American composers do just fine overall with a small piece. But the big pieces (the great American Symphony) is a very rare event for any non sure deal composer. The American League Survey listed the top 10 most often performed composers and they were all 18th or 19th century except for Shostakovitch and Prokofiev. So its a challenge to be programmed no matter what country you're in unless you are the star. Russian composers have to compete with Shostakovitch and Prokofiev too. Again, a 5 to 10 minute piece, its a different issue.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on April 27, 2016, 06:40:08 AM
Again...depends. The CSO did Walton's 1st a couple years ago, under Bychkov. Also one of the concertos, I forget which.
Good!
Quote from: Heck148 on April 26, 2016, 05:20:18 PM
Another American work worth mentioning is Corigilano Sym #1, [the AIDs Sym, c.1990]...definitely powerful stuff....programmatic for sure, but it is skilfully written, with some very effective devices - the improvised cello tune from his deceased amateur cellist friend forms the basis of a movement, a powerful climax, for sure...
Corigliano also uses some previous material of his own - the demented "Tarantella" theme appears much earlier in his "Gazebo Dances" [1972]....also, some parts of the symphony remind me of the "3 Hallucinations from Altered States" [1982]....some pretty wild stuff!!
I do not want to throw everyone off topic, but consider a
Corigliano Symphony #1 WITHOUT any crisis-du-jour strings attached. Would it be programmed as much as it is?
I once offered this theme in a short story: a work using only the note "A" - which the orchestra bandies around in various octaves - is attached to the Holocaust of WW II, and of course is a sensation full of controversy.
But would anyone have ever programmed it without a Holocaust connection? ;)
Quote from: Cato on April 27, 2016, 07:41:32 AM
I do not want to throw everyone off topic, but consider a Corigliano Symphony #1 WITHOUT any crisis-du-jour strings attached. Would it be programmed as much as it is?
I once offered this theme in a short story: a work using only the note "A" - which the orchestra bandies around in various octaves - is attached to the Holocaust of WW II, and of course is a sensation full of controversy.
But would anyone have ever programmed it without a Holocaust connection? ;)
The crisis du jour may have helped its popularity, and Corigliano is one of the few living American composers whose name would be recognized by concertgoers (the Star System, as Karl terms it)...but this symphony I think is a high quality work that will endure.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on April 27, 2016, 07:48:59 AM
The crisis du jour may have helped its popularity, and Corigliano is one of the few living American composers whose name would be recognized by concertgoers (the Star System, as Karl terms it)...but this symphony I think is a high quality work that will endure.
Many thanks for the comments!
Any votes out there for
David Diamond?
I came across a website http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/what-about-those-great-american-symphonies/ (http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/what-about-those-great-american-symphonies/) with a discussion similar to ours, but with a different twist, and read the name
Primous Fountain who, according to the agitprop, has taken the torches of
Stravinsky and
Shostakovich and run with them to new territory.
https://www.youtube.com/v/n4_mtLo_63M
Quote from: karlhenning on April 27, 2016, 02:05:05 AM....and when there is new music programming, the orchestral world in the US has reverted, and there is heavy preference to Euro composers (and conductors), who enjoy more of a favorable environment which cultivates new talent.
good point..
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on April 27, 2016, 06:40:08 AM
Again...depends. The CSO did Walton's 1st a couple years ago, under Bychkov.
..would have loved to hear that one!!
Quote from: Cato on April 27, 2016, 07:41:32 AM
I do not want to throw everyone off topic, but consider a Corigliano Symphony #1 WITHOUT any crisis-du-jour strings attached. Would it be programmed as much as it is?
I don't know...would people enjoy Beethoven Sym #6 as much without the attached program?? ;)
To me, they are both fine works just on their own...the program provides me an insight into the composer's mind as he wrote the work...
QuoteI once offered this theme in a short story: a work using only the note "A" - which the orchestra bandies around in various octaves - is attached to the Holocaust of WW II, and of course is a sensation full of controversy.
But would anyone have ever programmed it without a Holocaust connection?
in Elliot Carter's "8 Etudes and a Fantasy" [WW 4tet] there is one mvt of just the note "G" - above middle C - each instrument sounds just that pitch....it's quite fascinating...tho I don't know how well it stands repeated listening!! :D
Quote from: Cato on April 27, 2016, 02:02:22 PMAny votes out there for David Diamond?
I chose Diamond's 3rd and 4th as two of my favorite American symphonies, so yes, I voted already. ;)
Quote from: Cato on April 27, 2016, 02:02:22 PM
Any votes out there for David Diamond?
yes, indeed, Diamond is very good...I've been exploring his symphonies of late - I knew 2,4 and 5 from various sources...now I'm into 1, 3 and 8...
the Schwarz/Seattle collection is valuable - decent performances, generally well-recorded...but Lenny/NYPO blows them away totally in #4, the only recording I have with which to compare.
I have a broadcast performance of CSO conducted by Michael Morgan [assist. cond, 1990] of Diamond Sym #5 which is really dynamite - fine work, brilliantly played.
Quote from: Heck148 on April 27, 2016, 03:09:03 PM
yes, indeed, Diamond is very good...I've been exploring his symphonies of late - I knew 2,4 and 5 from various sources...now I'm into 1, 3 and 8...
the Schwarz/Seattle collection is valuable - decent performances, generally well-recorded...but Lenny/NYPO blows them away totally in #4, the only recording I have with which to compare.
I have a broadcast performance of CSO conducted by Michael Morgan [assist. cond, 1990] of Diamond Sym #5 which is really dynamite - fine work, brilliantly played.
I honestly didn't care much for Bernstein's performance of Diamond's 4th and neither did the composer apparently:
"Leonard Bernstein recorded and played often the Fourth Symphony, and I was never really happy with his way. We would talk about why I didn't like it, and he said, "Well, I'll try to do it as close as you want it." This is way back in 1948, and he said, "I'll do my best, but I have a feeling I want to slow it up a little bit here," and I said, "Well, please don't. You didn't write it. Do what I say." He said, "But I don't feel it that way." Already then he had very strong convictions about what he felt in terms of interpretation. So now I'm finally hearing the recording of Schwarz's, which is the way I want it, not the way Bernstein wanted it."From this interview: http://www.bruceduffie.com/diamond.html (http://www.bruceduffie.com/diamond.html)
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 27, 2016, 03:27:40 PM
I honestly didn't care much for Bernstein's performance of Diamond's 4th and neither did the composer apparently
When I was in School, David Diamond came up for Hanson's Festival of American Music, IIRC...he participated in some discussions and convocations with faculty and students - very feisty personality, quite prickly...he certainly had definite ideas about all sorts of matters... ::)
Bernstein certainly had his own mind as well - of the two, I'll take Lenny over Schwarz, there's way more drive and energy...Schwarz is OK, a good account, but Lenny puts it across better, IMO.
Quote from: Heck148 on April 27, 2016, 03:41:26 PM
When I was in School, David Diamond came up for Hanson's Festival of American Music, IIRC...he participated in some discussions and convocations with faculty and students - very feisty personality, quite prickly...he certainly had definite ideas about all sorts of matters... ::)
Bernstein certainly had his own mind as well - of the two, I'll take Lenny over Schwarz, there's way more drive and energy...Schwarz is OK, a good account, but Lenny puts it across better, IMO.
Yes, Diamond does come across as a bit of a difficult personality, but his opinion is just as valid as Bernstein's or any conductor who has performed his music.
Sure, yeah, Bernstein is good in most of what he conducts, but I think Diamond's 4th needs a softer touch and Bernstein's interpretation is just too heavy-handed. I'll agree that the third movement needs more drive, which Schwarz doesn't quite deliver, but the first two movements seem to have a better ebb-and-flow to them in Schwarz's performance.
Quote from: Heck148 on April 27, 2016, 03:41:26 PM
very feisty personality, quite prickly...he certainly had definite ideas about all sorts of matters... ::)
More please...
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 27, 2016, 04:06:54 PM
Sure, yeah, Bernstein is good in most of what he conducts, but I think Diamond's 4th needs a softer touch and Bernstein's interpretation is just too heavy-handed.
The key, I think, is
Lenny honestly explaining to
Diamond that that isn't
how he feels it. As a composer, I entirely empathize with
Diamond's "but that's not what I mean by it"; as a conductor (in even my small way), I also empathize with
Bernstein's point . . . to make good music, the conductor needs an
understanding of the piece.
Diamond was obviously in his right to say (in effect)
you understand it wrong, but there may not be a simple switch the conductor can throw, so that he understands the piece in another (even the composer's own) way.
As in so much in life, it's a bit of a tangle, and the available choices may not have been [doing it as it was done]
VS. [doing it as
Diamond meant], but [doing it as it was done]
VS. [the conductor feeling he cannot do it]. As it is, one sees the composer's point, that the piece was "mis-represented"; on the other hand, the piece as a result did get (that dreaded word) Exposure.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 28, 2016, 02:07:26 AM
The key, I think, is Lenny honestly explaining to Diamond that that isn't how he feels it. As a composer, I entirely empathize with Diamond's "but that's not what I mean by it"; as a conductor (in even my small way), I also empathize with Bernstein's point . . . to make good music, the conductor needs an understanding of the piece. Diamond was obviously in his right to say (in effect) you understand it wrong, but there may not be a simple switch the conductor can throw, so that he understands the piece in another (even the composer's own) way.
As in so much in life, it's a bit of a tangle, and the available choices may not have been [doing it as it was done] VS. [doing it as Diamond meant], but [doing it as it was done] VS. [the conductor feeling he cannot do it]. As it is, one sees the composer's point, that the piece was "mis-represented"; on the other hand, the piece as a result did get (that dreaded word) Exposure.
Sure, there's no denying that Bernstein helped make a name for Diamond whether the composer was happy with the results or not is beside the point at this juncture as more performances were soon to follow and, again, give way for Diamond's music so the concert-going public will be be able to hear, otherwise, a still relatively unknown composer.
No time to read the whole thread, so perhaps these have been mentioned, but among the greats I will add Persichetti's Symphony #6 for Band (I've played that one) and Hovhaness' Symphonies #2 "Mysterious Mountain" and #50 "Mount Saint Helens."
Quote from: Heck148 on April 26, 2016, 05:25:33 AMyou attempt to posit an absolute that does not exist. "musical history", "where things came from" are subjective, not objective...
History and what artists have done & left behind is subjective? Are you for real? These things are tangible, real .. totally exist. Well documented. My opinion did not will them into existence. My opinion has nothing to do with this at all actually.Quote from: Heck148 on April 26, 2016, 05:25:33 AMHow an individual responds to particular music is probably the only real "standard", and that is definitely subjective...nor does your sounding forth your own individual opinion.
Again, your or my personal response in these matters has nothing to do with it. Someone may claim that they respond more strongly to say Taylor Swift than Beethoven but that doesn't change things or make it better than what it is.Quote from: Heck148 on April 26, 2016, 05:25:33 AMno, you have voiced your own individual opinion, which to this point, is completely unsubstantiated or supported...there is nothing factual or clear about anything you've posted...
It's not my opinion. You need some serious education. You will not find much to support what you are saying. You believing that these largely inessential American symphonies are truly "great" ("equal or better") than the best that have ever been written is delusional.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 26, 2016, 03:10:58 AMIn essence, you are right. When James states his opinion, he seems genuinely to believe that his opinion is Universal Artistic Truth. He genuinely believes that, when you offer what any reasonable adult would regard as a divergent opinion, you simply were not paying attention when he pronounced The Truth unto you. James's discussion, then, is not any matter of intelligent adults exchanging ideas, and benefiting from another perspective; it is James trying to get all youse idiots to understand the Truth he's laying down here. FOR OUR BENEFIT, PEOPLE! Show a little appreciation, jeeze . . . .
Another lost soul ..
William Schuman's 3rd symphony is as essential and important in its own area/nook of Classical music as is, say, Brahms' 2nd symphony in that portion of the Classical music spectrum - and, yes, it ranks as a 'great symphony.'
Quote from: Scion7 on April 28, 2016, 11:52:38 PM
William Schuman's 3rd symphony is as essential and important in its own area/nook of Classical music as is, say, Brahms' 2nd symphony in that portion of the Classical music spectrum - and, yes, it ranks as a 'great symphony.'
Nope. Classical music would have been just fine without the American's 3rd Symphony. He's not a great composer. And trying to put Schuman up there with Brahms is ridiculous. I'm sure Schuman himself would have shaken his head at even the thought.
Pats James condescendingly on his little head.
Quote from: Scion7 on April 28, 2016, 11:59:07 PM
Pats James condescendingly on his little head.
I like how you tried though .. resorting to such verbal jive as "its own area/nook of Classical music" ... lol
After the way you embarrassed yourself over on the Alan Holdsworth thread, mate, I'm surprised you continue to post anywhere - true megalomania.
Quote from: Scion7 on April 29, 2016, 12:08:52 AMAfter the way you embarrassed yourself over on the Alan Holdsworth thread, mate, I'm surprised you continue to post anywhere - true megalomania.
Weak.
Quote from: Scion7 on April 29, 2016, 12:08:52 AM
After the way you embarrassed yourself over on the Alan Holdsworth thread, mate, I'm surprised you continue to post anywhere - true megalomania.
Something else, indeed.
Quote from: James on April 28, 2016, 11:31:59 PMHistory and what artists have done & left behind is subjectiv
Really not interested in your spewage here....You've not contributed a single worthwhile post to this thread.
one has only to look at how various composers' reputations and standings have risen and fallen over periods of time to see how subjective the whole business really is...to deny this is simply foolish.
Quote from: James on April 28, 2016, 11:56:42 PM
Nope. Classical music would have been just fine without the American's 3rd Symphony.
an utterly ignorant premise...Music "would have done just fine" without Brahms #2, Beethoven #5, Mozart #39, etc, etc...
I doubt that you've even heard Schuman Sym #3...
Quote from: Heck148 on April 29, 2016, 05:00:01 AM
an utterly ignorant premise...
Ah, I see you've met James! That dull
click you hear from time to time on this thread is the sound of a mind snapping shut.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 29, 2016, 05:02:57 AM
Ah, I see you've met James! That dull click you hear from time to time on this thread is the sound of a mind snapping shut.
:) right - he seems to be the type that manages to subtract from the sum total of human intelligence every time he opens his cyber-yap... :D
Quote from: James on April 28, 2016, 11:56:42 PM
Nope. Classical music would have been just fine without the American's 3rd Symphony. He's not a great composer. And trying to put Schuman up there with Brahms is ridiculous. I'm sure Schuman himself would have shaken his head at even the thought.
Schuman would have done so because of humility.
Quote from: James on April 28, 2016, 11:56:42 PM
Nope. Classical music would have been just fine without the American's 3rd Symphony. He's not a great composer. And trying to put Schuman up there with Brahms is ridiculous. I'm sure Schuman himself would have shaken his head at even the thought.
I don't particularly care for Schuman 3: does not hit my ears agreeably. But it is an important and influential work. Some music can be utterly craptastic and yet still be important and influential. For instance, the music of a certain German composer named....well, nevermind >:D
Craptastique des Dieux
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on April 29, 2016, 08:07:56 AM
I don't particularly care for Schuman 3: does not hit my ears agreeably. But it is an important and influential work. Some music can be utterly craptastic and yet still be important and influential. For instance, the music of a certain German composer named....well, nevermind >:D
Friedrich Mistmacher ?
Immanuel Quatschmann ?
Oswald Schundspieler ?
Ignatz Wuschelkopf ?
I think Jeffrey is referring to Reinhardt Bogner.
Someone ... someday ...
COMPOSER-Symphony No.6 in e, Op.22 'Craptastique'
:)
Any love here for Benjamin Lees? I found his Symphony No. 4 quite moving.
Quote from: relm1 on April 29, 2016, 03:20:56 PM
Any love here for Benjamin Lees? I found his Symphony No. 4 quite moving.
I have that, although I was not overwhelmed by it. Also his violin concerto which I think I liked more. Both fine pieces of music. I certainly liked the Lees symphony more than Gorecki's Symphony of Sorrowful Songs (to pick an obvious European parallel).
Which merely gives more evidence that a symphony does not have to be the equal of Beethoven's Third to be worth hearing.
I cannot make this string of words make any sort of sense at all:
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on April 29, 2016, 05:26:22 PMthe equal of Beethoven's Third
For that to make sense, there would have to be at least one symphony that is comparable to Beethoven's Third and preferably several more than one.
But there isn't. There is only one symphony that is like Beethoven's Third and that is Beethoven's Third.
With certain exceptions, which we will pass over quickly and silently as they're a huge embarrassment for all concerned, that's how the arts work. Sui generis.
Of course, there are similarities and family resemblances between every work and one or two other works. Or hundreds. Just as there are between humans of the same family. But here's the sticking point for me. I have three sons. They have many similarities, obviously. But they are three, distinct, unique and easily distinguishable persons. They are not comparable. There is only one of each.
Even Haydn's 100 plus symphonies. There are certain resemblances. But each one is distinct, unique, and easily distinguishable from the others as well as from every other symphony ever written--at least every other symphony written to be something other than a Haydn pastiche.
Comparisons, levels, rankings and the like are for things that can be so treated, jeans, breakfast cereals, speaker systems, chairs. Not for things like paintings or symphonies or plays or sculptures or poems. Those things, like people, are unique. In spite of their obvious similarities, they are very much themselves. I have to confess: I cannot even compare nine symphonies by the same guy.* They are all quite different. I can easily compare my jeans and the jeans in the store and the jeans my friends wear.
In our mad rush to make sure we give due importance to the incomparable music we favor, the music we consider to be "great" and incalculably valuable, we have treated it as if it were as comparable as the things that are, which are things not incalculably valuable. Not really valuable at all. If I never wore another pair of jeans in my life, my life would be in every way unaltered and unaffected. If I were never to hear Beethoven's Third again, or Schuman's Third for that matter, my life would be clearly diminished.
I need, now that I have them, each individual piece of music that I have ever enjoyed.
*Why, I cannot even compare thee to a summer's day. :)
Quote from: some guy on April 30, 2016, 06:25:30 AM
I cannot make this string of words make any sort of sense at all:
For that to make sense, there would have to be at least one symphony that is comparable to Beethoven's Third and preferably several more than one.
But there isn't. There is only one symphony that is like Beethoven's Third and that is Beethoven's Third.
With certain exceptions, which we will pass over quickly and silently as they're a huge embarrassment for all concerned, that's how the arts work. Sui generis.
Of course, there are similarities and family resemblances between every work and one or two other works. Or hundreds. Just as there are between humans of the same family. But here's the sticking point for me. I have three sons. They have many similarities, obviously. But they are three, distinct, unique and easily distinguishable persons. They are not comparable. There is only one of each.
Even Haydn's 100 plus symphonies. There are certain resemblances. But each one is distinct, unique, and easily distinguishable from the others as well as from every other symphony ever written--at least every other symphony written to be something other than a Haydn pastiche.
Comparisons, levels, rankings and the like are for things that can be so treated, jeans, breakfast cereals, speaker systems, chairs. Not for things like paintings or symphonies or plays or sculptures or poems. Those things, like people, are unique. In spite of their obvious similarities, they are very much themselves. I have to confess: I cannot even compare nine symphonies by the same guy.* They are all quite different. I can easily compare my jeans and the jeans in the store and the jeans my friends wear.
In our mad rush to make sure we give due importance to the incomparable music we favor, the music we consider to be "great" and incalculably valuable, we have treated it as if it were as comparable as the things that are, which are things not incalculably valuable. Not really valuable at all. If I never wore another pair of jeans in my life, my life would be in every way unaltered and unaffected. If I were never to hear Beethoven's Third again, or Schuman's Third for that matter, my life would be clearly diminished.
I need, now that I have them, each individual piece of music that I have ever enjoyed.
*Why, I cannot even compare thee to a summer's day. :)
That is a lot of verbiage to state the obvious. And what I was saying ought to be obvious and has no similarity to what you were talking about.
Of course, the Eroica is sui generis. Same with every other symphony ever written.
But it is more influential, more widely known, more important in the history of music, than many other symphonies.. say, to keep it simple, Beethoven's Second and Fourth.
Very few, if any, of the works we are discussing here are as influential, as important in history, as widely known, as B3. That does not mean (as James seems to asserting) that they are not worth bothering with.
They should be listened to and valued as good music.
I think you agree with me on that point.
Quote from: James on April 28, 2016, 11:56:42 PM
Nope. Classical music would have been just fine without the American's 3rd Symphony. He's not a great composer. And trying to put Schuman up there with Brahms is ridiculous. I'm sure Schuman himself would have shaken his head at even the thought.
Classical music would have been just fine without Stockhausen, too, but it's your right to claim the opposite, but the fact of the matter is your opinion isn't some kind of sacred truth. It's simply an opinion. Please just get off your high horse and post in a thread where you actually can make some kind of meaningful contribution, because you're completely out of your element here and you're just embarrassing yourself at this juncture IMHO.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on April 29, 2016, 08:03:15 AM
Schuman would have done so because of humility.
Perhaps a little of that, but only because of a sound education & training.
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 30, 2016, 07:45:42 PMPlease just get off your high horse and post in a thread where you actually can make some kind of meaningful contribution, because you're completely out of your element here and you're just embarrassing yourself at this juncture IMHO.
I'm just injecting a little reality into the thread. I think people get really carried away with their words & ideas. I'm a realist.
Quote from: James on May 01, 2016, 04:09:22 AM
I think people get really carried away with their words & ideas.
So we've noticed. ::)
See below, for an example .. (though the thread is loaded)Quote from: Scion7 on April 28, 2016, 11:52:38 PM
William Schuman's 3rd symphony is as essential and important in its own area/nook of Classical music as is, say, Brahms' 2nd symphony in that portion of the Classical music spectrum - and, yes, it ranks as a 'great symphony.'
Quote from: James on May 01, 2016, 04:09:22 AM
I'm just injecting a little reality into the thread. I think people get really carried away with their words & ideas. I'm a realist.
Well that's nice and all, but you've still added nothing to the ongoing discussion and continue to pollute this thread with your sacred truths and holy wiseman attitude.
I fully endorse Schuman's Symphony No. 3 by the way. I think it's a masterpiece of American symphonic music and it's good to know that I'm not the only one who believes this to be the case. Got to love those American third symphonies.
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 01, 2016, 06:16:49 AM
I fully endorse Schuman's Symphony No. 3 by the way. I think it's a masterpiece of American symphonic music and it's good to know that I'm not the only one who believes this to be the case. Got to love those American third symphonies.
I fully endorse this post, and I think his 6th is maybe even better.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on May 01, 2016, 08:01:44 AM
I fully endorse this post, and I think his 6th is maybe even better.
Yes! The 6th is amazing. One of my favorites from him.
Quote from: James on May 01, 2016, 04:09:22 AM
I'm a realist.
$:) $:) Eeeuuuwww!! Did somebody just
break wind on-line?? :P :laugh: :D
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 01, 2016, 09:11:59 AM
Yes! The 6th is amazing. One of my favorites from him.
yes, I've become very fond of #s 9 and 10, as well...
Quote from: Heck148 on May 01, 2016, 04:08:39 PM
yes, I've become very fond of #s 9 and 10, as well...
Schuman's 10th is a favorite, but I'm less impressed with his 9th. I suppose it's general tone isn't really that appealing to me, but it's been awhile since I've listened to the work, but I've heard it maybe 3-4 times and I remember being put off by it with each successive listen.
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 01, 2016, 04:20:33 PM
Schuman's 10th is a favorite, but I'm less impressed with his 9th. I suppose it's general tone isn't really that appealing to me, but it's been awhile since I've listened to the work,
The theme of it is definitely not happy - a Nazi atrocity committed in Italy..."Ardeatine Caves"
A Schuman favorite that gets much program time is "New England Triptych"...neat piece, very effective...
Quote from: Heck148 on May 01, 2016, 04:39:25 PM
The theme of it is definitely not happy - a Nazi atrocity committed in Italy..."Ardeatine Caves"
A Schuman favorite that gets much program time is "New England Triptych"...neat piece, very effective...
Yes, the subject is anything but a pleasant one, but the question I have is this general grim symphonic outlook varied enough to make it a piece of music I want to hear again? I heard it several times to see if I could 'unlock' it and I've failed each time. If you enjoy it, that's great, but I need a bit more musical/emotional variety, especially in a symphony. Yes,
New England Triptych is a great work. One of my favorite's from Schuman actually. Outside of the symphonies,
Crendendum,
New England Triptych,
A Prayer in a Time of War, and
Undertow are firm favorites.
Quote from: Heck148 on May 01, 2016, 04:08:39 PM
yes, I've become very fond of #s 9 and 10, as well...
A strong set!
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Specifically, I do think very highly of the Ninth.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I see I should make a special effort to hear William Schuman's other symphonies! I am fond of his music anyway, but the only symphony of his I know is #8--and it's a great one. I have played his setting of Chester in band; very fun!
Quote from: jochanaan on May 02, 2016, 06:51:19 PM
I see I should make a special effort to hear William Schuman's other symphonies! I am fond of his music anyway, but the only symphony of his I know is #8--and it's a great one. I have played his setting of Chester in band; very fun!
Schuman #8 is very good - his last symphonies are quite strong - #9 "Ardeatine Caves", #10 "American Muse"...
if you've not heard #3 - you're in for a treat - If you can - get Bernstein/NYPO I [1960], or Slatkin/CSO [1986; Archive Set "CSO in 20th Century"] - both terrific performances - "pedal to the metal" stuff - very powerful.
It's a real trip - the conclusion of Part I [mvts 1,2] is really hair-raising - one of the greatest orchestral sonorities - crank up the volume!! - from the roof-rattling timpani solo on to the end....
the very end of the work is very high-powered as well - esp Slatkin/CSO
I dug this up on Qobuz (unfortunately their cover is wrong) in preference to my own files, which are 256kbps AAC and which I'll replace with a CD some day, probably.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51gwPWNbuRL.jpg)
Re-acquaintance with Schuman's 3rd via Bernstein did not leave much of a renewed impression on me, but his Violin Concerto is altogether a more interesting, less bombastic and more emotionally ambiguous work, as I recalled. Perhaps it's the Great American Violin Concerto? >_> (Probably not seeing as there's Barber, Carter, Rochberg, Schoenberg, Bloch and Korngold, and maybe others. But it's certainly a very good one and worth hearing.)
Quote from: amw on May 08, 2016, 05:40:28 AM
but his Violin Concerto is altogether a more interesting, less bombastic and more emotionally ambiguous work, as I recalled. Perhaps it's the Great American Violin Concerto? >_> (Probably not seeing as there's Barber, Carter, Rochberg, Schoenberg, Bloch and Korngold, and maybe others. But it's certainly a very good one and worth hearing.)
..my favorite for the title as well though you left out Bernstein's Serenade, a strong contender.
Quote from: Heck148 on May 03, 2016, 04:47:16 PM
if you've not heard #3 - you're in for a treat - If you can - get Bernstein/NYPO I [1960]
The Bernstein, without doubt.
(http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/RGwAAOSw7n9XFQa1/s-l500.jpg)
Quote from: Scion7 on May 09, 2016, 12:00:33 PM
The Bernstein, without doubt.
(http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/RGwAAOSw7n9XFQa1/s-l500.jpg)
great recording, my long-time favorite - until - I acquired the Slatkin/CSO from '86 - part of CSO Archival Set - <<CSO in 20th Century>>
Love both recordings, wouldn't want to be without either.
Both orchestras really have that full-bore horsepower and virtuosity to deliver this work to best effect...both Bernstein and Slatkin seem to have this work in their blood - very convincing interpretations.
Lenny's later version ['85] - again - NYPO for DG is good, but not up to the earlier one.
I've not heard Schwarz/Seattle
Tonight I've listened for the first time to the four numbered symphonies of Charles Ives. All are very enjoyable works, from the Dvorákian 1st, through the American-tune-filled 2nd, the chamber-like 3rd and then the epic 4th Symphony.
Quote from: Maestro267 on May 17, 2016, 12:25:41 PM
Tonight I've listened for the first time to the four numbered symphonies of Charles Ives. All are very enjoyable works, from the Dvorákian 1st, through the American-tune-filled 2nd, the chamber-like 3rd and then the epic 4th Symphony.
I agree. I've been listening to William Schuman's Symphony 3 (Bernstein) which has to be one of the greatest American symphonies.
I'm convinced that Ives' 4th is a real contender to be included in the symphonic repertoire for a long time to come, if that is the measure of "greatness."
Thread duty done now, I think anyone unaware of it in this quest should do themselves a large favor and get familiar with...
Lucas Foss: Symphony of Chorales (Symphony No. 2)
Foss is the only immigrant / became American I can consider 'American.' Though a prodigy with some impressive training prior arriving in the states at the ripe age of seventeen, thereafter he was immersed in teachers and schools in the states. While inevitably (due to historic events of those times) many of those teachers were also immigrants, his training as a young man through his adult years was very American, including being one of that group called 'the Boston Six.'
At any rate, one Very Fine and durable piece, this....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU1p4Em0hzQ
Best regards.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on August 10, 2016, 12:20:53 AM
I'm convinced that Ives' 4th is a real contender to be included in the symphonic repertoire for a long time to come, if that is the measure of "greatness."
Agreed.
I'm glad to see so much affirmation of Schuman on this thread, he was certainly a worthy composer, dear god did he ever write some beautiful adagios. I'm not sure what I would label as my favorite American symphony. This is a tough question. Is probably a toss up between Schuman and Ives.
(* hopes Ken B is not looking *)
http://www.youtube.com/v/a4v0Wyrf0N4
Quote from: karlhenning on August 10, 2016, 09:11:10 AM
(* hopes Ken B is not looking *)
Good heavens, why? I thought the Mennin 7 one of the strongest American symphonies I encountered while I was doing some listening in response to this thread 2-3 months ago. I should want to know more about Foss, too, if for no other reason than I know his daughter. (She appears in the Glenn Gould movie "Genius Within," which in part is how Foss's wife had a 5-year affair with Gould and schlepped the children up to Toronto.)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 10, 2016, 12:07:27 PM
Good heavens, why?
Oh, just because I seem to remember his finding
Mennin something of an allergen.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
And I agree: the Mennin Seventh is superb.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: karlhenning on August 10, 2016, 12:24:55 PM
Oh, just because I seem to remember his finding Mennin something of an allergen.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
All the more reason.
;)
I am listening to Mennin No. 7. I am certainly enjoying, but is there a better recording?
Quote from: Simula on August 11, 2016, 09:04:54 AM
I am listening to Mennin No. 7. I am certainly enjoying, but is there a better recording?
The only other recording I know of is the
Schwarz/Seattle, reissued on Naxos. Which is certainly cleaner; I have not done a close comparison, otherwise.
[asin]B0085AXTFK[/asin]
Quote from: karlhenning on August 11, 2016, 09:26:17 AM
The only other recording I know of is the Schwarz/Seattle, reissued on Naxos. Which is certainly cleaner; I have not done a close comparison, otherwise.
Thanks. This is certainly worth purchasing. :)
Aye, indeed!
I should say, anyone who finds Mennin No.7 agreeable would find Pettersson (who is not an American composer) to be far more powerful and original. He is truly an amazing, sadly obscure, composer (though I think this is now changing).
Quote from: Simula on August 11, 2016, 12:22:32 PM
I should say, anyone who finds Mennin No.7 agreeable would find Pettersson (who is not an American composer) to be far more powerful and original. He is truly an amazing, sadly obscure, composer (though I think this is now changing).
He certainly has his fans on this board. There don't seem to be many live performances of his work, however.
Quote from: Simula on August 11, 2016, 12:22:32 PMI should say, anyone who finds Mennin No.7 agreeable would find Pettersson (who is not an American composer) to be far more powerful and original. He is truly an amazing, sadly obscure, composer (though I think this is now changing).
What is it about Pettersson that is so original? I mean I like a few of his works, but, ultimately, find him to be quite the buzzkill, especially since there's not a lot of variety in his music. His 7th is the best thing he's done IMHO and that's because of the integration of those lyrical sections that seem to elevate the whole piece and give it accessibility.
Gosh darn is there no love for Coates at all?!?!
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 11, 2016, 08:07:49 PM
What is it about Pettersson that is so original? I mean I like a few of his works, but, ultimately, find him to be quite the buzzkill, especially since there's not a lot of variety in his music. His 7th is the best thing he's done IMHO and that's because of the integration of those lyrical sections that seem to elevate the whole piece and give it accessibility.
How did the Swedish composer come up?
Was listening to the Bernstein Sony William Schuman 3rd earlier. I have to admit that I don't like this recording. Perhaps I just don't like the music, but I also find the this Bernstein recording too string heavy and a bit crude. I like the Schwarz a bit better. I unambiguously enjoy Schuman's later symphonies more (e.g. the 10th under Slatkin).
Quote from: Daverz on August 11, 2016, 08:19:51 PM
How did the Swedish composer come up?
Quote from: Simula on August 11, 2016, 12:22:32 PM
I should say, anyone who finds Mennin No.7 agreeable would find Pettersson (who is not an American composer) to be far more powerful and original. He is truly an amazing, sadly obscure, composer (though I think this is now changing).
Quote from: jessop on August 11, 2016, 08:17:34 PM
Gosh darn is there no love for Coates at all?!?!
True gentlemen
[and ladies, for that matter]
never kiss and tell.
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 11, 2016, 08:07:49 PM
What is it about Pettersson that is so original? I mean I like a few of his works, but, ultimately, find him to be quite the buzzkill, especially since there's not a lot of variety in his music. His 7th is the best thing he's done IMHO and that's because of the integration of those lyrical sections that seem to elevate the whole piece and give it accessibility.
Amen, brother! Uber late 19th century romanticism with some fused modernisms, even with the somewhat admirable contrapuntal aspects, makes me think Nielsen married Shostakovich
and Brahms, and that made for a very dull child indeed.
Quote from: Daverz on August 11, 2016, 08:19:51 PM
How did the Swedish composer come up?
Well, I think it came up as a 'better than Mennin' comment, i.e. an assertion of taste preference for a non-American composer in a thread specific to... yeah .... American composers. Go figure. (You can take some people anywhere but out, while the internet has completely changed that, lol.)
Quote from: Simula on August 11, 2016, 12:22:32 PM
I should say, anyone who finds Mennin No.7 agreeable would find Pettersson (who is not an American composer) to be far more powerful and original.
I disagree; from the
Pettersson I have heard, my experience is the reverse (i.e., I find
Mennin by far the more powerful and original composer).
Of course, we don't all hear music the same; that is part of the wonder of the experience.
Listened to the Mennin 7 in the Martinon/Chicago box yesterday. Fabulous recording.
[asin]B00PCCWXPG[/asin]
Quote from: karlhenning on August 10, 2016, 12:25:49 PM
And I agree: the Mennin Seventh is superb.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Yes, it is. I will give his 5 and 6 another listen next week on my trip. But I remember his cello concerto to be one of his best "symphonies" (with concertante elements). Hehee
I have 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on August 11, 2016, 09:25:28 PM
Well, I think it came up as a 'better than Mennin' comment, i.e. an assertion of taste preference for a non-American composer in a thread specific to... yeah .... American composers. Go figure. (You can take some people anywhere but out, while the internet has completely changed that, lol.)
Sorry I wasn't trying to derail the thread, just saw the chance to introduce people to more music. :)
Quote from: Simula on August 12, 2016, 12:44:53 PM
Sorry I wasn't trying to derail the thread, just saw the chance to introduce people to more music. :)
My apology if I came off as curmedgeonly (I am a qualified card-carrying member of that club, though, lol.)
That said, there is a wide latitude of what / whose work is considered obscure as per any individuals perception.
Best regards
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on August 12, 2016, 01:23:52 PM
My apology if I came off as curmedgeonly (I am a qualified card-carrying member of that club, though, lol.)
That said, there is a wide latitude of what / whose work is considered obscure as per any individuals perception.
Nope, I don't think you came across this way. No harm done. I will be exploring more of the works of Mennin. LOTS of music so little time.
Quote from: Simula on August 12, 2016, 01:37:10 PM
Nope, I don't think you came across this way. No harm done. I will be exploring more of the works of Mennin.
Thanks for that.
Quote from: Simula on August 12, 2016, 01:37:10 PM
LOTS of music so little time.
Aint' that just too true!?!
"It is the total artistic statement that is of paramount importance, not the working process; it is what the music truly is, not what it is not or would like to be, that is of genuine value. With the passage of time, all that really counts is the final musical result. To the committed composer, all other matters are peripheral." Peter Mennin
" Mr. Mennin presided over Juilliard during its tremendous growth in prestige during the 1960's and 70's... One of his principal gifts to Juilliard was the strengthening of its faculty. He added Elliott Carter, Roger Sessions and Luciano Berio to the composition staff, even though the music of these men spoke a very different language from his own." New York Times Obituaries, Bernard Holland, June 18, 1983
Quote from: jessop on August 11, 2016, 08:17:34 PM
Gosh darn is there no love for Coates at all?!?!
I am listening to Coate's Symphony No.15. Interesting....
Quote from: Simula on August 12, 2016, 04:06:04 PM
I am listening to Coate's Symphony No.15. Interesting....
14 is great too!!
What single Coates work would you recommend, if you could only recommend one?
(No response with more than one work will be considered. PICK ONE.)
8)
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: karlhenning on August 12, 2016, 05:15:53 PM
What single Coates work would you recommend, if you could only recommend one?
(No response with more than one work will be considered. PICK ONE.)
8)
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
O shit ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
String Quartet no. 5
Quote from: jessop on August 12, 2016, 05:52:31 PM
O shit ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
String Quartet no. 5
Knew you could do it!
Quote from: Simula on August 11, 2016, 09:04:54 AM
I am listening to Mennin No. 7. I am certainly enjoying, but is there a better recording?
If you are listening to Martinon/Chicago, then no there is not a better recording...these guys just eat it up...
Quote from: Daverz on August 11, 2016, 08:19:51 PM
Was listening to the Bernstein Sony William Schuman 3rd earlier. I have to admit that I don't like this recording. Perhaps I just don't like the music, but I also find the this Bernstein recording too string heavy and a bit crude.
Bernstein I, string heavy?? you're kidding?? the brass and percussion are just knocking it out of the park - really heavy metal stuff, so is Slatkin/CSO - neither of them are string heavy, tho the string sections can certainly handle the difficult parts...haven't heard Schwarz/Seattle - I don't know if they really have the first-rate brass/WWs/Perc to match up with NYPO or CSO...I have alot of Schwarz/Seattle American series - not bad, and in some cases, very good - but for Schuman 3, I don't know if they'd be up to the formidable competition.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 12, 2016, 01:24:37 AM
I disagree; from the Pettersson I have heard, my experience is the reverse (i.e., I find Mennin by far the more powerful and original composer).
I agree...Mennin, for me, is more interesting.
Quote from: Daverz on August 12, 2016, 10:23:51 AM
Listened to the Mennin 7 in the Martinon/Chicago box yesterday. Fabulous recording.
[asin]B00PCCWXPG[/asin]
yup - great set, for sure, so many treasures....Nielsen, Bartok, Hindemith, Varese; the Ravel stuff is totally splendid....right up there with Reiner's...
Reporting back on Coates. I don't know what to say, how am I to tell if this is, in fact, the kind of music that will grow on me, it might? My negative criticism is that the glissandos thing seems a bit gimmicky to me, and she seems to do it all the time. However, she is interesting enough, and unique enough, that I will give her several more listens.
Quote from: jessop on August 11, 2016, 08:17:34 PM
Gosh darn is there no love for Coates at all?!?!
Why does this surprise you? I remember hearing a Coates piece way back when (one of her symphonies I believe) and thinking "When will it be over?" I mean there was nothing in the piece I heard that had me allured and, towards the end of the work, thankful I listened.
I think Ives, Copland, Schuman, Piston, Diamond...have written symphonies that are certainly candidates for "The Great American Symphony." I didn't mention Harris as he comes across as too preachy and declamatory to me.
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 14, 2016, 09:27:32 AM
I think Ives, Copland, Schuman, Piston, Diamond...have written symphonies that are certainly candidates for "The Great American Symphony." I didn't mention Harris as he comes across as too preachy and declamatory to me.
Harris #3 is very good....the others...uuhhhh???...I feel similarly about Piston - too "academic"..too much textbook...
I would add Mennin to your list, tho, and Hanson - in Syms 1 and 3...don't know that they are the "greatest", but they're very good...
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 14, 2016, 09:26:19 AM
Why does this surprise you? I remember hearing a Coates piece way back when (one of her symphonies I believe) and thinking "When will it be over?" I mean there was nothing in the piece I heard that had me allured and, towards the end of the work, thankful I listened.
Well she seems to be a fairly popular composer based on what I've read people post on the internet so I was just very surprised not to even see her mentioned once on this thread.
Quote from: jessop on August 14, 2016, 03:10:27 PM
Well she seems to be a fairly popular composer based on what I've read people post on the internet so I was just very surprised not to even see her mentioned once on this thread.
Popular??? Heck no ! She is a woman who is fairly prolific and who wrote in some fairly traditional genres like string quartet and symphony. If she is a man they would have banished her to obscurity already. I think her music is pretty dreadful, as in dreadfully dull.
Ok wow well maybe she is just not very popular at all around this part of the internet
Quote from: jessop on August 14, 2016, 03:43:01 PM
Ok wow well maybe she is just not very popular at all around this part of the internet
I would be really surprised if her works were popular anywhere but among a very small sub-set of listeners.
So much of her music moves at glacially slow tempi, and I have to agree the glissandi thingie gets to be a mere, yet increasingly annoying, bit of shtick which just gets exponentially more annoying the more continually it is deployed and relied upon. I think she relies upon it soooo heavily that much of it ends up as seeming wholly gratuitous.
There is always a tiny subset of those who zealously love the contemporary rep, but I'm speaking of that tiny (thank goodness they are few) group who are also zealously
reactionary in rather indiscriminately liking any and all contemporary as a reaction
against all the older rep. If it is new, and 'other enough' apart from the older music, no matter how great, slight or bad it is, they will embrace it.
Coates for me is also pretty antithetical to my taste in that it seems to be 'drawing with sound' vs. making shapes and structures with sound -- if that makes any kind of sense to you -- maybe a better analogy would be lines on flat paper vs. sculpture; somewhat conflicting with that, maybe, is I much prefer the painterly or drawing approach vs. the literary - illustrative intent.
Seriously, listening again to symphony no 15, the glissandi (I suppose thought to generate both instability and tension) fail massively and are so overused in almost all of her work that they seem to be her main -- and only -- trick, and shtick. Take away all the effects and glissandi in the strings, and you're left with, imo, very little substance with about just as little interest -- in that regard one could more rightly cry "Emperor's New Clothes" as a readier criticism more apposite of Coates than the same shot so consistently taken at Philip Glass.
Interesting post M. Croche and I do see what you mean re her excessive use of glissandi. However I find that there are many interesting things happening on the much smaller scale when listening to the relationships of one line against another line of music...her music is very linear and the slow evolution of ideas is what I find very compelling and interesting.
Also, many of her works do not simply rely on heaps of slow moving glissandi like some of her works do. She does have quite a variety of sounds and techniques she employs in her compositions.....perhaps her symphonic glisses are just what people think of when they hear the name 'coates' and it puts people off initially.
I'm new here and too damn lazy to go back and read all these posts.
My favorite American symphonist is William Schuman and it is an absolute scandal that no major American orchestra has recently recorded symphonies 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Why must they have to give us new recordings of the Brahms 4 or Beethoven 9? We don't NEED them!
I know! I know! Simple economics! A real shame! >:(
It's more of a scandal that Gloria Coates is so rarely performed at all!
Quote from: El Píthi on September 15, 2016, 02:07:30 PM
My favorite American symphonist is William Schuman and it is an absolute scandal that no major American orchestra has recently recorded symphonies 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Bravo!! If you do read the earlier posts, you will see that there is considerable support for those fine Schuman symphonies you mention, esp #3 - my nomination for Great American Symphony.
Quote from: Thatfabulousalien on September 15, 2016, 03:07:07 PM
I'm a bit lazy to look back too,has anyone mentioned Henry Cowell's Symphonies? :)
Yes. His mother!
Quote from: Heck148 on September 15, 2016, 03:04:57 PM
Bravo!! If you do read the earlier posts, you will see that there is considerable support for those fine Schuman symphonies you mention, esp #3 - my nomination for Great American Symphony.
Good to hear some folks here are Schuman champions! :)
Well No. 3 is the most played, which isn't saying much these days.
If it wasn't for Naxos' American Classics Series with Gerard Schwarz and the Seattle Symphony, I wouldn't have ever heard 4, 7 or 10. All three have become favorites of mine.
An unjustly neglected great composer from the mid-20th century. This guy was a fantastic composer!
What happened? :(
I can not pick just one.
Some of my favorites include:
Barber First
Hanson Second
Piston Second
Mennin Seventh
Bernstein Second
There are several large scale Carter works that could be considered symphonies.
Schuman Third and Sixth
Ives Second
Riegger Third
Persichetti Fourth
There are a whole bunch others by the likes of Rochberg, Sessions, Harbison and many more.
Then there are the band ones that include:
Persichetti Sixth
Gould West Point
Giannini Third
Schuller Third
Maslanka Fourth
H. Owen Reed La Fiesta Mexicana
Ingolf Dahl Sinfonietta
Ticheli Second
Husa Prague 1968. Although it is not a symphony it is symphonic in nature. Then Husa was a Czech that spent most of his life in America. He immigrated here when he was in his early thirties and taught at Cornell.
And a whole bunch more.
I really do not have the wherewithal to pick just one.
Quote from: arpeggio on September 15, 2016, 04:29:08 PM
There are several large scale Carter works that could be considered symphonies.
For example:
Quote from: Cato on April 22, 2016, 10:24:26 AM
Elliott Carter: Symphonia sum fluxae pretium spei
Is this a pop quiz? OK, this time I will play.
My favorite is the Variations. Of course technically it is not a symphony. If Mennin's Variation Symphony (Seventh) can count maybe this one as well? But if you guys do not think counts OK.
There are the Concerto for Orchestra, the Symphony for Three Orchestras and the early Symphony No. 1.
I apologize if I am citing works that have already been mentioned.
Quote from: El Píthi on September 15, 2016, 03:49:15 PM
What happened? :(
I think it's a lost opportunity by second tier orchestras. This the natural home for more adventurous repertoire that still has audience appeal. After all, they cannot match my BPO recording of Beethoven, but there won't BE a BPO recording of Piston. I tried to get a local music director interested in Virgil Thomson's symphonies, which are perfect for a local orchestra, but alas with no success.
Quote from: Thatfabulousalien on September 15, 2016, 03:07:07 PM
I'm a bit lazy to look back too,has anyone mentioned Henry Cowell's Symphonies? :)
Yes. I did on page 1. Enthusiastic responses were not forthcoming!
QuoteOutside of Ives and Cowell, I've heard few American symphonies. I'm surprised Cowell hasn't been mentioned yet: I came across the Madras recently and found it pretty impressive. I'm not really a fuguing-tune enthusiast but I do have a lot of time for Ray Green's Sunday Sing Symphony. Does anyone else?
If pressed to identify my favorite Schuman Symphonies, it would be a tie between No. 6 and No. 9.
Quote from: El Píthi on September 16, 2016, 04:02:51 AM
If pressed to identify my favorite Schuman Symphonies, it would be a tie between No. 6 and No. 9.
Likewise, though I freely admit I can stand to know them all even better.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 16, 2016, 04:04:25 AM
Likewise, though I freely admit I can stand to know them all even better.
Yes. They are not "easy listening". I've spent a lot of time with them, much like Schoenberg's Piano Concerto.
I'm still hearing new things in the Schuman 6 and 9 after years of listening to them! :)
Quote from: El Píthi on September 15, 2016, 03:49:15 PM
Good to hear some folks here are Schuman champions! :)
Well No. 3 is the most played, which isn't saying much these days.
Bernstein made a remake with NYPO, on DG back in '85, but his original 1960 is better.
Slatkin/CSO made a live recording back in '86 [CSO Archive set - <<CSO in 20th Century>>]...both it and Bernstein I are great recordings, wouldn't want to be without either. Haven't heard Schwarz with #3.
QuoteIf it wasn't for Naxos' American Classics Series with Gerard Schwarz and the Seattle Symphony, I wouldn't have ever heard 4, 7 or 10. All three have become favorites of mine.
Schwarz/Seattle is quite good overall - quite equal, overall to alternate versions of each -
-Better than Mester/Louisville #4
-Not quite as good as Maazel/Pitts SO in #7
-about equal to Slatkin/StLSO in #10
Schwarz does a good job with #6, equal, IMO to the older Ormandy/Phila
Quote from: Heck148 on September 16, 2016, 05:10:07 AM
Bernstein made a remake with NYPO, on DG back in '85, but his original 1960 is better.
Slatkin/CSO made a live recording back in '86 [CSO Archive set - <<CSO in 20th Century>>]...both it and Bernstein I are great recordings, wouldn't want to be without either. Haven't heard Schwarz with #3.
Schwarz/Seattle is quite good overall - quite equal, overall to alternate versions of each -
-Better than Mester/Louisville #4
-Not quite as good as Maazel/Pitts SO in #7
-about equal to Slatkin/StLSO in #10
Schwarz does a good job with #6, equal, IMO to the older Ormandy/Phila
There's also a very fine modern recording of No. 6 with the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra.
After the premier of the Third Symphony Schuman made some significant cuts to the Symphony.
Joseph Polisi discussed them in his fine biography of Schuman:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51RwT1KqqwL.jpg)
[asin]https://www.amazon.com/American-Muse-Times-William-Schuman/dp/1574671731/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474034724&sr=1-1&keywords=American+muse+william+schuman[/asin]
There is a copy of the original with the Library of Congress. In 2005 Leonard Slatkin and the National Symphony performed the original.
According to Polisi: "In retrospect, it is possible that the cuts made by the composer, Koussevitzky and Bernstein might have been precipitous. In 2005 Slatkin and the National Symphony some of the cut material, which in the opinion of informed listeners made the symphony much stronger" (page 64).
I was at that concert and with the restored sections it was a much stronger work. The audience's reaction was very positive and the performance received an enthusiastic standing ovation. Even my wife stood and she rarely stands for anything. If I recall correctly according to the program notes and comments made by Slatkin all of the cuts were restored. Slatkin knew Schuman when he was at Julliard. At that time he was unaware of the cuts so he never could find out exactly why Schuman made them.
There is also a fine triple biography of Schuman, Persichetti and Mennin by Walter Simmons:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51ca0fILUGL.jpg)
[asin]https://www.amazon.com/William-Schuman-Vincent-Persichetti-Mennin/dp/B01A65KVVG/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474036073&sr=1-1&keywords=walter+simmons+voices+of+stone+and+steel[/asin]
I don't know man, is this the best we in the States have to offer: Schuman's 3rd? Don't we have something that remotely approaches the best from Germany and Austria?
BTW am I the only one who think Schuman shares a striking resemblance to Lorin Maazel?
Quote from: arpeggio on September 16, 2016, 06:42:08 AM
After the premier of the Third Symphony Schuman made some significant cuts to the Symphony.
Joseph Polisi discussed them in his fine biography of Schuman:
[asin]1574671731[/asin]
There is a copy of the original with the Library of Congress. In 2005 Leonard Slatkin and the National Symphony performed the original.
According to Polisi: "In retrospect, it is possible that the cuts made by the composer, Koussevitzky and Bernstein might have been precipitous. In 2005 Slatkin and the National Symphony some of the cut material, which in the opinion of informed listeners made the symphony much stronger" (page 64).
I was at that concert and with the restored sections it was a much stronger work. The audience's reaction was very positive and the performance received an enthusiastic standing ovation. Even my wife stood and she rarely stands for anything. If I recall correctly according to the program notes and comments made by Slatkin all of the cuts were restored. Slatkin knew Schuman when he was at Julliard. At that time he was unaware of the cuts so he never could find out exactly why Schuman made them.
Very cool story. One conductor who is an online acquaintance and I have a sharp disagreement about cuts to the
Rakhmaninov First Symphony.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 16, 2016, 06:44:34 AM
I don't know man, is this the best we in the States have to offer: Schuman's 3rd? Don't we have something that remotely approaches the best from Germany and Austria?
Well, in the first place, I think that
Schuman waxed better still after the
Third.
In the second: have you heard the uncut
Third? I mean, specifically as a response to
arpeggio's post, your question looks rather speculatively derogatory. (And even given the cut
Third, which must be the symphony as I know it, I wonder what you've got against it.)
And, I'll ask: what symphonies contemporaneous to
Schuman written in Germany and Austria do you consider to be clearly way above the league of the
Schuman Third?
Edit :: minor typo / I blame autocorrect
Quote from: Heck148 on September 16, 2016, 05:10:07 AM
Bernstein made a remake with NYPO, on DG back in '85, but his original 1960 is better.
Slatkin/CSO made a live recording back in '86 [CSO Archive set - <<CSO in 20th Century>>]...both it and Bernstein I are great recordings, wouldn't want to be without either. Haven't heard Schwarz with #3.
Schwarz/Seattle is quite good overall - quite equal, overall to alternate versions of each -
-Better than Mester/Louisville #4
-Not quite as good as Maazel/Pitts SO in #7
-about equal to Slatkin/StLSO in #10
Schwarz does a good job with #6, equal, IMO to the older Ormandy/Phila
Cheers,
Heck! I should have known to count on you for this thorough rundown :)
Your post reminds me that, in fact, I have that
Ormandy recording of the
Sixth . . . I ought to revisit it this afternoon.
I am not a musicologist so any observations that I make are highly personal and at best anecdotal.
I do have a book that may shed some light on the subject. The Symphony-A Listener's Guide by Michael Steinberg. According to the bio on the book, Mr. Steinberg "...is the program annotator of the San Fancisco Symphony and the New York Philharmonic and earlier served the Goston Symphony in the same capacity. He has been on the faculty of the Manhattan School of Music and the New England Conservatory, has lectured and taught widely in America and Europe, and was the music critic for the Boston Globe for twelve years."
[asin]https://www.amazon.com/Symphony-Listeners-Guide-Michael-Steinberg-ebook/dp/B001AMULTW/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474037514&sr=1-1&keywords=symphony+michael+steinberg#nav-subnav[/asin]
In the book he discusses the following American Symphonies:
Copeland: Short Symphony (No. 2)
Hanson: Symphony No. 4, Requiem
Harbison: Symphony No. 2
Ives: Symphony No. 4
Piston: Symphony No. 2
Piston: Symphony No. 6
Schuman: Symphony No. 3
Schuman: Symphony No. 6
I am familiar with and enjoy all of these works.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 16, 2016, 06:44:34 AM
I don't know man, is this the best we in the States have to offer: Schuman's 3rd? Don't we have something that remotely approaches the best from Germany and Austria?
Responding to observations like this has gotten me into trouble in other forums.
So what? I am not a music scholar so I really do not know the answer to that question.
All I can say is this. I have performed the Hanson
Second, the Persichetti
No. 6 for Band, Dahl's
Sinfonietta and Reed's
La Fiesta Mexicana. I have gotten as big a high performing these works as I have performing any symphony of Beethoven.
Beyond that I have nothing to say.
Quote from: arpeggio on September 16, 2016, 07:29:51 AM
Responding to observations like this has gotten me into trouble in other forums.
So what? I am not a music scholar so I really do not know the answer to that question.
All I can say is this. I have performed the Hanson Second, the Persichetti No. 6 for Band, Dahl's Sinfonietta and Reed's La Fiesta Mexicana. I have gotten as big a high performing these works than I have performing any symphony of Beethoven.
Beyond that I have nothing to say.
I still remember, as if it had been yesterday, the horn rips in
La fiesta mexicana!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 16, 2016, 06:58:55 AM
Well, in the first place, I think that Schuman waxed better still after the Third.
In the second: have you heard the uncut Third? I mean, specifically as a response to arpeggio's post, your question looks rather speculatively derogatory. (And even given the cut Third, which must be the symphony as I know it, I wonder what you've got against it.)
And, I'll ask: what symphonies contemporaneous to Schuman written in Germany and Austria do you consider to be clearly way above the league of the Schuman Third?
Edit :: minor typo / I blame autocorrect
Didn't mean it to be derogatory. Have Bernstein x 2 and Schwarz, now which one is uncut?
Sorry drawing a blank when it comes to Germany/Austria. I can think of quite a few from Scandanavia, Russia or even France. It's like Mahler died and that is it.
I think it is unfair to compare the American Symphony to European anyway. There are some great great American music, just not really in the Symphonic form. Then again there is nothing in Germany/Austrian quite like
Appalachian Spring either. It is as if the Germans placed the Symphony as a form as the apotheosis of artistic achievement but we do not. In fact if you dapple in the symphonic form you are considered "old-fashioned" and blackmarked.
Check out this rather interesting 10cd set celebrating American music:
http://www.classicalnotes.net/columns/american.html (http://www.classicalnotes.net/columns/american.html)
There are maybe 3 or 4 symphonies in there.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 16, 2016, 07:32:52 AM
I still remember, as if it had been yesterday, the horn rips in La fiesta mexicana!
Are you kidding. There are so many moments in that Symphony. Like that unbelievable bass clarinet/contrabass clarinet soli in the first movement. And the percussion parts are awesome.
This has become a standard work performed at band concerts. I have found over twenty live performances on YouTube, including a marching band half time show based on it. Of course that may be too vulgar for some so I did not post a link to it.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 16, 2016, 07:35:50 AM
Didn't mean it to be derogatory. Have Bernstein x 2 and Schwarz, now which one is uncut?
None of the above 8) Per
arpeggio's very interesting post, it was a live performance by
Slatkin and the
National Symphony in 2005.
Quote from: PWSorry drawing a blank when it comes to Germany/Austria. I can think of quite a few from Scandanavia, Russia or even France. It's like Mahler died and that is it.
Well, but it was
you who mentioned Germany & Austria 0:) I can think of
Henze and
Hartmann; and not to make it a bracketology exercise . . . I prefer
Schuman's voice to
Henze's. The
Hartmann symponies are excellent, but —
Quote from: PWI think it is unfair to compare the American Symphony to European anyway.
Exactly . . . comparisons can quickly get squishy.
Quote from: PWThere are some great great American music, just not really in the Symphonic form.
Well, you and I are in sharp disagreement there.
Quote from: PWIn fact if you dapple in the symphonic form you are considered "old-fashioned" and blackmarked.
Do you mean, by the musical authorities/establishment in Germany? The "imported avant-garde æsthetic" in the States in the late 50s and 60s shared that sort of "genre disdain." And yet by now
Wuorinen (whose musical chops can hold their own with any of the avant-gardistes) has now written eight symphonies. The musical mindset in the States is (now) more pluralistic, though arguably in
Schuman's day the avant-gardistes had a go at playing the
if you don't do it our way, you are irrelevant card. There was still a bit of a food fight, trying to claim the
We Are the Mainstream! banner.
Quote from: arpeggio on September 16, 2016, 07:57:07 AM
Are you kidding. There are so many moments in that Symphony. Like that unbelievable bass clarinet/contrabass clarinet soli in the first movement. And the percussion parts are awesome.
This has become a standard work performed at band concerts. I have found over twenty live performances on YouTube, including a marching band half time show based on it. Of course that may be too vulgar for some so I did not post a link to it.
Aye, a great piece. And since it's in three movements, arguably a kind of symphony for band, agreed.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 16, 2016, 07:35:50 AM
Sorry drawing a blank when it comes to Germany/Austria. I can think of quite a few from Scandinavia, Russia or even France. It's like Mahler died and that is it.
My vote goes to
Karl Amadeus Hartmann as the best symphonist of the Germans in that era:
Schuman's Third dates from 1941, and
Hartmann's First Symphony was born in 1936 as a "Symphonic Fragment" and later, after revisions and second and third thoughts, became his official First Symphony in 1950.
The
Fourth Symphony of
Ernst Krenek dates from 1947,and the symphonies of
Ernst Toch are not to be forgotten, although none of them date from the 1940's, the
First seeing birth in 1950. But should one consider them "Austrian" or "American" or "Austrian-American," or does it matter?
And what about
Paul Hindemith and his
Symphony in Eb from 1940?
As to whether their symphonies are superior to those of
Schuman or
Harris or others... :o :o :o :o Now that is a delicate 0:) question for another topic! ;)
Quote from: Cato on September 16, 2016, 08:13:56 AM
My vote goes to Karl Amadeus Hartmann as the best symphonist of the Germans in that era: Schuman's Third dates from 1941, and Hartmann's First Symphony was born in 1936 as a "Symphonic Fragment" and later, after revisions and second and third thoughts, became his official First Symphony in 1950.
The Fourth Symphony of Ernst Krenek dates from 1947,and the symphonies of Ernst Toch are not to be forgotten, although none of them date from the 1940's, the First seeing birth in 1950. But should one consider them "Austrian" or "American" or "Austrian-American," or does it matter?
And what about Paul Hindemith and his Symphony in Eb from 1940?
As to whether their symphonies are superior to those of Schuman or Harris or others... :o :o :o :o Now that is a delicate 0:) question for another topic! ;)
Yes, all those you mentioned are excellent examples (don't know about the Toch whose work I have not heard).
I would add the 4th Symphony of Franz Schmidt and Symphony by Eric Wolfgang Korngold to the list.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 16, 2016, 07:59:22 AM
Do you mean, by the musical authorities/establishment in Germany? The "imported avant-garde æsthetic" in the States in the late 50s and 60s shared that sort of "genre disdain." And yet by now Wuorinen (whose musical chops can hold their own with any of the avant-gardistes) has now written eight symphonies. The musical mindset in the States is (now) more pluralistic, though arguably in Schuman's day the avant-gardistes had a go at playing the if you don't do it our way, you are irrelevant card. There was still a bit of a food fight, trying to claim the We Are the Mainstream! banner.
Something like that. Dappling in the symphonic form sort of had the connotation that you are not "original". Take Howard Hanson for example, his symphonies are probably as good as anyone's but works like the Nordic and the Romantic were deemed by many as derivative because they didn't break any new grounds.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 16, 2016, 09:01:57 AM
Something like that. Dappling in the symphonic form sort of had the connotation that you are not "original". Take Howard Hanson for example, his symphonies are probably as good as anyone's but works like the Nordic and the Romantic were deemed by many as derivative because they didn't break any new grounds.
There was still a strong whiff of that musical odor in the music department at Buffalo when I was there. Luckily the departments in Wooster and Charlottesville were more open-minded and artistically inquisitive. Great music is where you find it, and where you make it.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 16, 2016, 09:53:46 AM
There was still a strong whiff of that musical odor in the music department at Buffalo when I was there. Luckily the departments in Wooster and Charlottesville were more open-minded and artistically inquisitive. Great music is where you find it, and where you make it.
When I was in college John Harbison was on the music faculty(still is maybe) and was treated like royalty. I never understood what is so great or even remotely great about his music. Yet he kept getting commissions left and right (at least it seems so). The university orchestra even performed some of his music - just a bunch of haphazard sounds it seems.
Oh, did you go to MIT? I believe he has retired (from teaching). He is certainly (to borrow a phrase from Kenneth Woods's blog (http://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2016/09/13/on-funding/)) in the Club, and he can fulfill as many commissions as he has any inclination to write. He is a very nice chap, and I know some musicians who think very well of his music. For myself, I've found what I have heard of his well written, but I have yet to hear the piece of his which I want to go back to for a second listen.
I mean, pending any of our neighbors here making a strong case for them, I do not see any interest on my part in the Harbison symphonies.
But then, 15 years ago, I would not have seen any interest on my part in the Hanson symphonies.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 16, 2016, 09:01:57 AM
Yes, all those you mentioned are excellent examples (don't know about the Toch whose work I have not heard).
See my reviews of his symphonies here:
http://www.good-music-guide.com/forum/index.php?topic=3190.0;wap2 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/forum/index.php?topic=3190.0;wap2)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 16, 2016, 10:23:56 AM
Oh, did you go to MIT? I believe he has retired (from teaching). He is certainly (to borrow a phrase from Kenneth Woods's blog (http://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2016/09/13/on-funding/)) in the Club, and he can fulfill as many commissions as he has any inclination to write. He is a very nice chap, and I know some musicians who think very well of his music. For myself, I've found what I have heard of his well written, but I have yet to hear the piece of his which I want to go back to for a second listen.
Yes for undergraduate, but music was merely a hobby. Yes he was a very nice man which is why I sometimes feel maybe I am not giving his music its due but I just don't hear what all the accolades were about. What probably didn't help was that when the university orchestra programmed his works they would play a "warhorse" piece in the same concert which makes his works even more out of place and hard to comprehend.
I am not sure whether he actually TAUGHT any courses when I was there. There were professors in EVERY department, really famous but you never see in the classrooms. He was sort of like one of them. Gets in every photograph or every pamphlet they have on the school though.
Quote from: El Píthi on September 16, 2016, 10:39:36 AM
Well, Michael Tilson Thomas has shown keen interest in American works with the BSO and SFSO.
I was hoping for a Schuman Symphony set from him.
I mean surely that is a more worthy project than the recording of the Bryant orchestration of the Ives Concord Sonata.
That is precisely why I have great respect for JoAnn Falletta and the Buffalo Philharmonic. In addition to a lot of great American works they champion works sort of on the fringe of the standard repertoire and took risks in expensive recordings like Gliere's 3rd. They didn't go the "safe" route of doing another Shostakovich or Schumann cycle.
Quote from: Ken B on September 15, 2016, 06:28:12 PM
I think it's a lost opportunity by second tier orchestras. This the natural home for more adventurous repertoire that still has audience appeal. After all, they cannot match my BPO recording of Beethoven, but there won't BE a BPO recording of Piston. I tried to get a local music director interested in Virgil Thomson's symphonies, which are perfect for a local orchestra, but alas with no success.
Well, Michael Tilson Thomas has shown keen interest in American works with the BSO and SFSO.
I was hoping for a Schuman Symphony set from him.
I mean surely that is a more worthy project than the recording of the Bryant orchestration of the Ives Concord Sonata.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 16, 2016, 10:37:53 AM
Yes for undergraduate, but music was merely a hobby. Yes he was a very nice man which is why I sometimes feel maybe I am not giving his music its due but I just don't hear what all the accolades were about. What probably didn't help was that when the university orchestra programmed his works they would play a "warhorse" piece in the same concert which makes his works even more out of place and hard to comprehend.
There is a lot of that, the thinking (supposedly) being that you need to lure the audiences in with a well-worn classic which they know they like, so they will take their New Music Pill. Or, maybe they
say this is a tack for audiences, but it's
really what the musicians in the band need . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 16, 2016, 10:23:56 AM
Oh, did you go to MIT? I believe he has retired (from teaching). He is certainly (to borrow a phrase from Kenneth Woods's blog (http://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2016/09/13/on-funding/)) in the Club, and he can fulfill as many commissions as he has any inclination to write. He is a very nice chap, and I know some musicians who think very well of his music. For myself, I've found what I have heard of his well written, but I have yet to hear the piece of his which I want to go back to for a second listen.
This is more or less my impression as well. His music doesn't fall readily into any school or pattern, but he manages nevertheless to have very little to say on his own. Whenever I do find something striking in one of his works, it's forgotten just as readily.
I must disagree with Karl. The American Symphonies really don't match the best German-Austrian ones.
Of course ditto for French, English, Swediesh, Italian, Czech, Romanian, Hungarian, Scottish, Canadian, Mexican, Bolivian, Congoese, Egyptian, Haitian, and Jamaican symphonies.
There are a lot of terrific American symphonies nonetheless. My pick is the Barber.
The really bad American symphony is Mennin 8. 8)
Quote from: Ken B on September 16, 2016, 06:05:59 PM
The really bad American symphony is Mennin 8. 8)
Maybe because it is the most American. ;)
Quote from: Ken B on September 16, 2016, 06:05:59 PM
The really bad American symphony is Mennin 8. 8)
No, the
really bad American
Symphonies are about 63 of the 67 Alan Hovhaness wrote.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on September 16, 2016, 11:05:27 PM
No, the really bad American Symphonies are about 63 of the 67 Alan Hovhaness wrote.
Surely you mean that one symphony (apart from the truly unique and interesting ones) which he copied out 62 times? 8)
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on September 16, 2016, 11:05:27 PM
No, the really bad American Symphonies are about 63 of the 67 Alan Hovhaness wrote.
You've heard them all? ???
I think that Adams'
Harmonielehre, a symphony in all but name, is a profound work. His ability to marry a kind of meandering neo-romantic aesthetic with a minimalist sense of pulse and rhythm, is surprisingly successful.
And for all the skepticism that often surrounds him, I think Glass'
Symphony No.8 and
No. 9 are highly ambitious and affecting works, that may possibly become part of the 'standard rep' one day.
Quote from: Ken B on September 16, 2016, 06:05:59 PM
I must disagree with Karl. The American Symphonies really don't match the best German-Austrian ones.
But we knew we disagree on this because (per your curtain line) you do not appreciate the
Mennin Eighth or
Ninth as you ought ;)
We might discuss which are the best German-Austrian symphonies, and what it would take for other symphonies (of whatever provenance) to "match" them. I do not write this to contest your post,
Ken; but I post ruminatively: as a composer, if I set about writing a symphony (which, I do not mind saying, I hope to do someday) how should I need to write it, so that it might (in the present phrase) match the best German-Austrian symphonies?
If there truly be
A Right Answer to that question, I am professionally interested to know it.
An ancillary point I'll make is: How dismissive might we be of the
Mahler Seventh, or of the
Beethoven Third (for that matter), if (as with so much of he American symphonic catalogue) we had only the first recording, and of a performance with probably something of an inventory of musical (or even technical) insufficiencies?
And the late Sessions symphonies for goodness' sake.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 17, 2016, 04:00:51 AM
But we knew we disagree on this because (per your curtain line) you do not appreciate the Mennin Eighth or Ninth as you ought ;)
We might discuss which are the best German-Austrian symphonies, and what it would take for other symphonies (of whatever provenance) to "match" them. I do not write this to contest your post, Ken; but I post ruminatively: as a composer, if I set about writing a symphony (which, I do not mind saying, I hope to do someday) how should I need to write it, so that it might (in the present phrase) match the best German-Austrian symphonies?
If there truly be A Right Answer to that question, I am professionally interested to know it.
An ancillary point I'll make is: How dismissive might we be of the Mahler Seventh, or of the Beethoven Third (for that matter), if (as with so much of he American symphonic catalogue) we had only the first recording, and of a performance with probably something of an inventory of musical (or even technical) insufficiencies?
My wife and I attended the Staunton, Virginia music festival in August, 2016. This is a great festival that has a very diverse program from HIP performances to contemporary music. One of the guest composers was Eric Guinivan. He currently serves as Assistant Professor of Composition at James Madison University. At a panel discussions he was lamenting the plight of the contemporary composer. No matter what he does it is wrong. His music is to either to tonal or to atonal. If course if it is not as good as Beethoven's, forget it.
And among The People, few ears in Beethoven's time were adventurous enough to accept it. In the generation after his death, composers were "correcting" his symphonies for performance.
Now that Beethoven is The Unassailable Musical God, he is used as a bludgeon against (a) other symphonists (Tchaikovsky's or Rakhmaninov's symphonies are "inferior" because they are not about what LvB's were) and (b) any composer now working.
Quote from: Reckoner on September 17, 2016, 01:46:39 AM
You've heard them all? ???
I think that Adams' Harmonielehre, a symphony in all but name, is a profound work. His ability to marry a kind of meandering neo-romantic aesthetic with a minimalist sense of pulse and rhythm, is surprisingly successful.
And for all the skepticism that often surrounds him, I think Glass' Symphony No.8 and No. 9 are highly ambitious and affecting works, that may possibly become part of the 'standard rep' one day.
Yup.
Quote from: arpeggio on September 17, 2016, 04:14:49 AM
At a panel discussions he was lamenting the plight of the contemporary composer. No matter what he does it is wrong. His music is to either to tonal or to atonal. If course if it is not as good as Beethoven's, forget it.
Parenthetically, this is 95% of my experience in trying to interest
even those groups who are dedicated to new music in my work. For 47.5%, my work is too "complicated," too "challenging." For the other 47.5%, it is too "smooth," the musical language is too "familiar." For all 95%, "Your work is nothing like [
Composer N.] whose work we already know we like."
There are two crack new music chamber ensembles in Boston, and a wonderful new music choir in Philadelphia (to participate in which, a singer I know and who has done a great job singing my music, periodically commutes down to Philly). None of them will give me the musical time of day.
Oh well.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 17, 2016, 04:23:38 AM
Parenthetically, this is 95% of my experience in trying to interest even those groups who are dedicated to new music in my work. For 47.5%, my work is too "complicated," too "challenging." For the other 47.5%, it is too "smooth," the musical language is too "familiar." For all 95%, "Your work is nothing like [Composer N.] whose work we already know we like."
There are two crack new music chamber ensembles in Boston, and a wonderful new music choir in Philadelphia (to participate in which, a singer I know and who has done a great job singing my music, periodically commutes down to Philly). None of them will give me the musical time of day.
Oh well.
I bet if it came with grant money then instead of too spiky and too smooth it would be interestingly silky and reassuringly smooth.
Quote from: Ken B on September 17, 2016, 04:32:13 AM
I bet if it came with grant money then instead of too spiky and too smooth it would be interestingly silky and reassuringly smooth.
I need to know what you mean by the pronouns before I understand you.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 17, 2016, 04:36:20 AM
I need to know what you mean by the pronouns before I understand you.
They complain your music is simultaneously too spiky and too smooth. If you had grant money to subvene performances those "too"s would change as indicated.
Maybe, or maybe not.
Maybe, because while Triad is dedicated to music composed in the past 25 years, we did go "off mission" when the opportunity arose to participate in the North American première of Nono's Das atmende Klarsein (and to be paid for the work). And of course, it was only our second season, so there was also the benefit of publicity.
Somewhere in the mix is still the fact that, especially in this world of new music where we performers are not paid regularly by any established organization, but carving out our own time and devoting our own sweat, and in the vague future hope of "making it" (perhaps "it" here means, simply, money . . . Lord knows I could do with a bit more), it makes a difference when a conductor believes in the work he's leading. And (what may by now be clear) hardly all of even the new music community "get" (or approve of) my music.
Like Philae, Karl, the European Space Agency's lander, you're in a niche on an asteroid craving the light of the sun. You've got to get an agency or a manager to help pull you out into light of day so your solar panels fire up and your music blasts across the ether to universal acclaim.
The greatest Mennin symphony is No. 7, a very serious work without a millisecond of any humor. A terrific work though nonetheless.
I prefer the Schuman symphonies to those by Mennin.
I would nominate the Ives Third Symphony as the great American symphony.
What a beautiful, touching work.
Pithy too! :)
Quote from: hpowders on September 17, 2016, 10:21:25 AM
I would nominate the Ives Third Symphony as the great American symphony.
What a beautiful, touching work.
Pithy too! :)
Greater than the
Mennin Seventh? ;)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 17, 2016, 11:10:04 AM
Greater than the Mennin Seventh? ;)
No. But the Mennin 7th is not approachable and requires concentrated listening.
For general listeners, I would recommend the Ives-perhaps his most approachable work.
Speaking of the Mennin Seventh, I wonder if the Franck D minor Symphony was an influence?
A fascinating question ... it's only relatively recently that the Franck won me over.
(Sometimes I wonder if, when the time comes to shuffle off this mortal coil, I may just enjoy practically every piece of classical music ....)
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 16, 2016, 06:44:34 AM
I don't know man, is this the best we in the States have to offer: Schuman's 3rd? Don't we have something that remotely approaches the best from Germany and Austria?
Schuman #3 easily surpasses much of the European repertoire...easily...
Quote from: arpeggio on September 16, 2016, 07:29:51 AM
All I can say is this. I have performed the Hanson Second, the Persichetti No. 6 for Band, Dahl's Sinfonietta and Reed's La Fiesta Mexicana. I have gotten as big a high performing these works as I have performing any symphony of Beethoven.
All good music...and very effective. I've played them all and have thoroughly enjoyed them...I played Hanson #2 with the composer conducting, and played the Reed "La Fiesta" many times, - including with Eastman Wind Ensemble, which was a real kick!!
Quote from: Heck148 on September 17, 2016, 11:33:50 AM
All good music...and very effective. I've played them all and have thoroughly enjoyed them...I played Hanson #2 with the composer conducting, and played the Reed "La Fiesta" many times, - including with Eastman Wind Ensemble, which was a real kick!!
Must have been!
Quote from: Cato on September 16, 2016, 08:13:56 AM
And what about Paul Hindemith and his Symphony in Eb from 1940?
a very excellent piece, that should be in the symphonic repertoire, beyond doubt...very strong work.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 16, 2016, 10:23:56 AM
For myself, I've found what I have heard of his [note:Harbison's] well written, but I have yet to hear the piece of his which I want to go back to for a second listen.
my impression is very similar.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 16, 2016, 10:26:49 AM
But then, 15 years ago, I would not have seen any interest on my part in the Hanson symphonies.
There is no doubt tha tHanson's symphonies are very much in the "late Romantic" mode - a la Nielsen, Sibelius, etc...as such, they were very much outside the entire dodecaphonic, serialism trend of the 20th century...
but Hanson's works are very strong, yes, melodic, he goes for the "big tune", for sure. but there is no doubt an audience appeal, these are very approachable works that deserve much greater exposure. There is so much fine 20th century music, symphonies especially, that deserve much greater exposure - the aforementioned Hindemith Eb, and Walton #1 being just 2 examples...Mennin #7, and the symphonies of Diamond being additional ones.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 17, 2016, 11:20:28 AM
A fascinating question ... it's only relatively recently that the Franck won me over.
(Sometimes I wonder if, when the time comes to shuffle off this mortal coil, I may just enjoy practically every piece of classical music ....)
Similarities are there. If Mennin was still alive, I would surely ask him. He was known for his Franck-ness, after all.
Quote from: hpowders on September 17, 2016, 01:30:24 PM
Similarities are there. If Mennin was still alive, I would surely ask him. He was known for his Franck-ness, after all.
Why does it say powders? You are el pithi.
Quote from: Heck148 on September 17, 2016, 11:46:10 AM
There is no doubt tha tHanson's symphonies are very much in the "late Romantic" mode - a la Nielsen, Sibelius, etc...
Sibelius yes but Nielsen? Nielsen's idiom is a lot more angular and jagged, not as lush as Hanson. There might be moments in Nielsen where there is a semblance to Hanson but as a whole I have to disagree.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 17, 2016, 01:57:28 PM
Sibelius yes but Nielsen? Nielsen's idiom is a lot more angular and jagged, not as lush as Hanson. There might be moments in Nielsen where there is a semblance to Hanson but as a whole I have to disagree.
A fair point, I think.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 17, 2016, 01:57:28 PM
Sibelius yes but Nielsen? Nielsen's idiom is a lot more angular and jagged, not as lush as Hanson. There might be moments in Nielsen where there is a semblance to Hanson but as a whole I have to disagree.
Overall, they sound quite similar...which is good..I like all of them.
Quote from: Ken B on September 17, 2016, 01:44:51 PM
Why does it say powders? You are el pithi.
I changed it. You spelled it wrong. It was El Píthi. 8)
Now are we a town without Píthi ....
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 17, 2016, 04:40:51 PM
Now are we a town without Píthi ....
Yes. The sorrow and the Píthi!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 17, 2016, 04:40:51 PM
Now are we a town without Píthi ....
No Pithi, but Gene Pitney isn't a bad substitute.
I have concluded that Ives' 4th is 'The Great American Symphony.' 8)
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 18, 2016, 06:46:33 AM
I have concluded that Ives' 4th is 'The Great American Symphony.' 8)
Welcome stranger!
Idle question:
Since when is Hindemith "An American Composer?"
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on September 18, 2016, 07:42:59 AM
Idle question:
Since when is Hindemith "An American Composer?"
We have so few so we claim any that might have spent any significant time in the US like Stravinsky and Korngold for example :P
But seriously in Hindemith's case the great Eb Symphony was:
The Symphony in E flat was written in 1940 when Paul Hindemith had gone into exile in the United States and taught at Tanglewood at Serge Koussevitzky's invitation. The symphony was written for the Boston Symphony from a commission by Koussevitzky and the premiere took place on November 21 by the Minneapolis Symphony conducted by Dmitri Mitropoulos.So it is probably as
American as it gets.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 18, 2016, 08:43:24 AM
We have so few so we claim any that might have spent any significant time in the US like Stravinsky and Korngold for example :P
We'll leave the English with their pronounced illogical tic in claiming Handel as "An English composer," but for me, any composer who immigrated to the United States
and arrived with their full training and formative years and careers established as adult composers already behind them are not "American Composers." They are composers of whatever place and culture from whence they came and in which they were steeped, shaped and cooked before they ever arrived in the place of their new citizenship.
The reason you've never seen, in any writing considered earnest in its scholarship, either Stravinsky or Schoenberg not listed as 'American Composers'
is because they were not American Composers any more than Hindemith was an American composer. ;-)
Yeah. Who would ever call Dvorak or Bartok American composers? :)
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 09:36:52 AM
Yeah. Who would ever call Dvorak or Bartok American composers? :)
But why is Honegger considered a Swiss composer when he lived most of his life in France? Could it be something to the effect that the composer himself wanted to be recognized as a Swiss composer or is it music historians just mucking around with things?
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 18, 2016, 09:39:05 AM
But why is Honegger considered a Swiss composer when he lived most of his life in France? Could it be something to the effect that the composer himself wanted to be recognized as a Swiss composer or is it music historians just mucking around with things?
I guess the Swiss needed all the help they could get in claiming composers. They did really score a bullseye with Frank Martin, though-another scandalously neglected fine 20th century composer.
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 09:47:56 AM
I guess the Swiss needed all the help they could get in claiming composers. They did really score a bullseye with Frank Martin, though-another scandalously neglected fine 20th century composer.
Hah! Frank Martin is a favorite of mine for sure and, I agree, incredibly underrated.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 18, 2016, 09:52:36 AM
Hah! Frank Martin is a favorite of mine for sure and, I agree, incredibly underrated.
Yet he too spent a lot of time elsewhere, the Netherlands!! Claimed again by the Swiss! :)
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 09:57:08 AM
Yet he too spent a lot of time elsewhere, the Netherlands!! Claimed again by the Swiss! :)
Indeed. :)
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 09:47:56 AM
I guess the Swiss needed all the help they could get in claiming composers. They did really score a bullseye with Frank Martin, though-another scandalously neglected fine 20th century composer.
HP's explanation is accurate, I think; near the end of his career, the Swiss seemed esp. conscious and appreciative of him and his Swiss commissions and commitments increased accordingly. John's question evokes a broader and complex one - composers, like musicians, seem to be the most itinerant or cosmopolitan, if you will, of artists. If one adopts the simplest and most logical of national determinants, Honneger was born in Le Havre (of Swiss parents) and thus is French.
Grove sez Swiss-French. Then there's Kurt Weill, who late in life considered himself an American composer (even changing the pronunciation of his last name from v to w) and proud of it... In sum, I'm glad not to have been the bloke who arranged GMG's composer index by country!
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on September 18, 2016, 09:01:35 AM
We'll leave the English with their pronounced illogical tic in claiming Handel as "An English composer," but for me, any composer who immigrated to the United States and arrived with their full training and formative years and careers established as adult composers already behind them are not "American Composers." They are composers of whatever place and culture from whence they came and in which they were steeped, shaped and cooked before they ever arrived in the place of their new citizenship.
The reason you've never seen, in any writing considered earnest in its scholarship, either Stravinsky or Schoenberg not listed as 'American Composers' is because they were not American Composers any more than Hindemith was an American composer. ;-)
Try here
http://www.classicfm.com/pictures/composer-pictures/4-july-tribute-americas-greatest-composers/Igor is 3, Arnold and Eric Wolfgang 17 and 18.
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 09:57:08 AM
Yet he too spent a lot of time elsewhere, the Netherlands!! Claimed again by the Swiss! :)
And they say the Swiss are "neutral"! :D
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 18, 2016, 10:42:29 AM
Try here
http://www.classicfm.com/pictures/composer-pictures/4-july-tribute-americas-greatest-composers/
Igor is 3, Arnold and Eric Wolfgang 17 and 18.
Charles Pachelbel ??? CHARLES Pachelbel is one of the top American composers in a list forgetting e.g.
Bernard Herrmann,
George Crumb, Roger Sessions, Charles Wuorinen, Roy Harris, Elliott Carter, etc. etc. etc..
Startling that
Jay Greenberg was not on the list!v 8) ;)
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 18, 2016, 10:42:29 AM
Try here
http://www.classicfm.com/pictures/composer-pictures/4-july-tribute-americas-greatest-composers/
Igor is 3, Arnold and Eric Wolfgang 17 and 18.
That is the same jingoist relativism from the same locale that has Handel as an English composer.
and, as if the scholarly world of music, music criticism, history and musicology has anything remotely in common with the populist- relativist
Classic FM. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on September 18, 2016, 12:14:18 PM
That is the same jingoist relativism from the same locale that has Handel as an English composer.
No...it's just a matter of dual citizenship ;) Korngold, for example, is the quintessential Hollywood composer. Hence, he's more American than most Americans ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 18, 2016, 12:28:06 PM
No...it's just a matter of dual citizenship ;) Korngold, for example, is the quintessential Hollywood composer. Hence, he's more American than most Americans ;D
Sarge
Not to mention the most perfect name for that type of music -- Corn + Gold. You can't make up a better name for that! :D
Quote from: springrite on September 18, 2016, 12:34:55 PM
Not to mention the most perfect name for that type of music -- Corn + Gold. You can't make up a better name for that! :D
;D :D ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 18, 2016, 06:46:33 AM
I have concluded that Ives' 4th is 'The Great American Symphony.' 8)
John's account might have been hacked. He's heard too many American symphonies for this to be possible.
:P 8) ;D
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 09:36:52 AM
Yeah. Who would ever call Dvorak or Bartok American composers? :)
Or Stravinsky or Weill or Schoenberg who were after all citizens. And what about Martinu?
Quote from: Ken B on September 18, 2016, 12:38:18 PM
John's account might have been hacked. He's heard too many American symphonies for this to be possible.
:P 8) ;D
;D Yeah, I don't really think there is just one 'Great American Symphony,' but many of them, just like I don't think there's one 'Great Russian Symphony' or one 'Great Austrian Symphony' for example.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 18, 2016, 12:41:56 PM
;D Yeah, I don't really think there is just one 'Great American Symphony,' but many of them, just like I don't think there's one 'Great Russian Symphony' or one 'Great Austrian Symphony' for example.
There isn't even "one great Bruckner symphony"!
Quote from: Ken B on September 18, 2016, 12:40:43 PM
Or Stravinsky or Weill or Schoenberg who were after all citizens. And what about Martinu?
I've never heard any of my associates refer to any the above music writers as American composers, not even after 3 gin & tonics....or is it 3 gins & tonic?
Quote from: Ken B on September 18, 2016, 12:43:38 PM
There isn't even "one great Bruckner symphony"!
The Third...Wagner said so 8)
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 18, 2016, 12:48:01 PM
The Third...Wagner said so 8)
Sarge
I like the ending of the Bruckner 3....especially as done in the version by Karajan/Berlin.
My one quibble is the ending is about 52 minutes too late.
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 12:44:54 PM
I've never heard any of my associates refer to any the above music writers as American composers, not even after 3 gin & tonics....or is it 3 gins & tonic?
Depends. If they have a Gordon's, a Gilby, and a Bombay Saphire it's
gins.
Quote from: Ken B on September 18, 2016, 12:51:28 PM
Depends. If they have a Gordon's, a Gilby, and a Bombay Saphire it's gins.
All of those sound acceptable at this time.....late on a Sunday afternoon.
Nothing like a tall gin and tonic combined with some Ives Concord Piano Sonata comparative listening.
I may be the only guy in Tampa who considers that to be heaven.
As a matter of fact, I'm sure of it! 8)
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 12:55:01 PM
All of those sound acceptable at this time.....late on a Sunday afternoon.
Nothing like a tall gin and tonic combined with some Ives Concord Piano Sonata comparative listening.
I may be the only guy in Tampa who considers that to be heaven.
As a matter of fact, I'm sure of it! 8)
I've only driven through, but Tampa didn't see so awful that even Ives is better. ;)
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 12:50:05 PM
I like the ending of the Bruckner 3....especially as done in the version by Karajan/Berlin.
My one quibble is the ending is about 52 minutes too late.
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/asheville/1408.gif)
hpowders
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 18, 2016, 01:02:11 PM
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/asheville/1408.gif) hpowders
Hey powders, what do you think of Havergal Brian?
>:D >:D
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 12:55:01 PM
Nothing like a tall gin and tonic combined with some Ives Concord Piano Sonata comparative listening.
Coincidentally, I'm drinking this tonight. Goes well with Schumann too 8)
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/foodandwine/Ferdinands-SaarDryGin.jpg)
Sarge
Quote from: Ken B on September 18, 2016, 01:04:11 PM
Hey powders, what do you think of Havergal Brian?
>:D >:D
;D :D ;D ...depending on his answer, we might go nuclear >:D
Sarge
Quote from: Ken B on September 18, 2016, 12:56:59 PM
I've only driven through, but Tampa didn't see so awful that even Ives is better. ;)
Careful, Ken...my bazooka is still loaded >:(
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 18, 2016, 01:16:01 PM
Careful, Ken...my bazooka is still loaded >:(
Sarge
Hey, it's only Tampa...
Quote from: Ken B on September 18, 2016, 12:43:38 PM
There isn't even "one great Bruckner symphony"!
There isn't even one great
Segerstam symphony!
Quote from: North Star on September 18, 2016, 01:20:20 PM
There isn't even one great Segerstam symphony!
Ain't that the truth! ;D
Quote from: springrite on September 18, 2016, 01:20:11 PM
Hey, it's only Tampa...
;D :D ;D ...hey, my grandparents lived in Clearwater, practically a suburb of Tampa, And I ate my first red snapper there 8) So, dissing Tampa (or Ives) may warrant bazooka-vengeance ;D
Sarge
Quote from: North Star on September 18, 2016, 01:20:20 PM
There isn't even one great Segerstam symphony!
What about the 186th?
Sarge
Quote from: North Star on September 18, 2016, 01:20:20 PM
There isn't even one great Segerstam symphony!
there is not even one
good rachmaninoff symphony.... :D :D :P
Quote from: Heck148 on September 18, 2016, 01:38:43 PM
there is not even one good rachmaninoff symphony.... :D :D :P
Now now, just because he didn't give you a rousing solo...
Quote from: Ken B on September 18, 2016, 01:04:11 PM
Hey powders, what do you think of Havergal Brian?
>:D >:D
No think. Haven't listened to anything by him.
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 02:20:08 PM
No think. Haven't listened to anything by him.
Then you are safe for the time being ;)
Sarge
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 02:20:08 PM
No think. Haven't listened to anything by him.
He's the English Mennin. ;)
Quote from: springrite on September 18, 2016, 02:49:20 PM
He's the English Mennin. ;)
Seriously? He composed in a modern style? I thought he was a neo-Romantic, perhaps.
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 02:52:38 PM
Seriously? He composed in a modern style? I thought he was a neo-Romantic, perhaps.
No, beyond his first few symphonies, he's terse and craggy. He appeals to few...the few, the proud, the eccentric (some say, the delusional ;D )
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 18, 2016, 02:55:51 PM
No, beyond his first few symphonies, he's terse and craggy. He appeals to few...the few, the proud, the eccentric (some say, the delusional ;D )
Sarge
Since I am a bit of all of those, I may have to check him out! Thanks! :)
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 02:58:26 PM
Since I am a bit of all of those, I may have to check him out! Thanks! :)
Check out the HB thread here (a monument to obscure composers). Pour yourself a gin and tonic, and wallow in the craziness 8)
Sarge
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 02:52:38 PM
Seriously? He composed in a modern style? I thought he was a neo-Romantic, perhaps.
Paul meant he composed a suck-hole 8th.
Quote from: hpowders on September 18, 2016, 02:58:26 PM
Since I am a bit of all of those, I may have to check him out! Thanks! :)
Now, that's the spirit and a sign of no decay! Hooray!
Havergal Brian is just OK. This forum has a few HB nutters trying to get new recruits to their HB thread..... ::)
Quote from: jessop on September 18, 2016, 03:42:24 PM
Havergal Brian is just OK. This forum has a few HB nutters trying to get new recruits to their HB thread..... ::)
I don't know a single HB nutter who proselytizes here. The really hardcore HB nutters never even leave the HB thread. When someone mentions HB (as Ken and powders did), we might point out the thread or respond to a question. Other than that, I don't think you will find a Havergalian John the Baptist among us nutters.
Sarge
Quote from: springrite on September 18, 2016, 01:41:00 PM
Now now, just because he didn't give you a rousing solo...
if he did, it is totally obscured by layers of muddy, murky over-orchestration. :D
Quote from: jessop on September 18, 2016, 03:42:24 PM
Havergal Brian is just OK. This forum has a few HB nutters trying to get new recruits to their HB thread..... ::)
Personally, I've never had any Havergal Brian fan try and convert me. They simply know better. ;)
Quote from: springrite on September 18, 2016, 12:34:55 PM
Not to mention the most perfect name for that type of music -- Corn + Gold. You can't make up a better name for that! :D
It was André Previn who pointed out that Erich Wolfgang Korngold, immigrant German and Jewish composer and a late very romantic style composer, once become film composer in Hollywood, also
became 'the sound' of Hollywood in that era. Ergo, the sound of Hollywood soundtracks from that era, via Korngold, are late German Romantic, adopted by "America." Refugee composers who had arrived in the states with little else but a suitcase and their skills went to Hollywood, available and ready to work; the general 'sound' of the era is of a collective group of Europeans, mainly German or Slavic composers.
Dimitri Tiomkin, Russian pianist/composer, became a U.S. citizen in 1936, the year he scored Frank Kapra's classic,
Lost Horizon, and he would later write the scores for
High Noon, and
Gunfight at the O.K. Corral -- about as quintessentially 'American' as the melting pot gets :-)
Your pun-quip on bankable 'corn,' though, holds more than a kernel (pun intended) of truth. As fine an original composer as Korngold was, when he turned to film-scoring his music became that very odd (and somewhat creepy?) thing ~ Korngold composing a parody of Korngold ~ hence, the corn.
Quote from: springrite on September 18, 2016, 01:41:00 PM
Now now, just because he didn't give you a rousing solo...
Ooooh, you're
good! ;-)
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 18, 2016, 06:46:54 PM
Personally, I've never had any Havergal Brian fan try and convert me. They simply know better. ;)
Well, we know how even as a convert you'd change your mind in no time. It'd be like writing in chalk on the pavement in the rain.
Quote from: vandermolen on April 24, 2016, 01:35:23 AM
I would rate Copland's Symphony 3 as great despite or because of its populist tendencies. However I would also rate William Schuman's Symphony 6. It is a grittier score than Schuman's better known Symphony 3....
I'd be interested to know what others thought of this work.
I think Schuman's 6th might be his 'best' symphony. It is not his (already extremely well written) third, the 6th not having the catchy-tune themes, motifs, the snappy rhythms of the third, i.e the third is all instantly accessible upon a premiere one-time listen; the sixth, for many, is not.
Schuman's 6th Symphony is a dense work: it is dense in its harmonic language, its polyphonic texture, and, if you will, has an emotional darkness and density very much of its time, without a stripe of that sentimentality of the late romantic era where even the darker realms were also somewhat 'indulged in' and actually
enjoyed ;-)
The 3rd will remain his better/best known (or only known) symphony because of that difference in disposition more than it being a matter of a wide disparity of 'quality' between the 3rd and the 6th. This is nothing new, though, popularity polls regularly name a composer's works as 'best,' while 'the cognoscenti' name others...
Poll: Beethoven
Vox Populi ~ Piano concerti Nos. 3 & 5
Cognoscenti ~ Piano Concerto No. 4
Poll: Bartok
Vox Populi ~ Concerto for Orchestra
Cognoscenti ~ Music for Stringed instruments, percussion and celesta
Vox Populi ~ Piano concerti No. 3
Cognoscenti ~ Piano Concerto No. 2and I do think it has more or less "ever been thus."
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 18, 2016, 06:46:54 PM
Personally, I've never had any Havergal Brian fan try and convert me. They simply know better. ;)
I assume though he's already been your avatar?
speaking of Havergal, a nice read here if anyone's interested:
If Havergal Brian's Symphony No 30 were premiered today as the work of a photogenic 25-year-old, preferably female or gay, it would cause a sensation
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/our-neglect-of-this-great-working-class-british-composer-is-a-disgrace/
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on September 18, 2016, 11:26:29 PM
I think Schuman's 6th might be his 'best' symphony. It is not his (already extremely well written) third, the 6th not having the catchy-tune themes, motifs, the snappy rhythms of the third, i.e the third is all instantly accessible upon a premiere one-time listen; the sixth, for many, is not.
Schuman's 6th Symphony is a dense work: it is dense in its harmonic language, its polyphonic texture, and, if you will, has an emotional darkness and density very much of its time, without a stripe of that sentimentality of the late romantic era where even the darker realms were also somewhat 'indulged in' and actually enjoyed ;-)
The 3rd will remain his better/best known (or only known) symphony because of that difference in disposition more than it being a matter of a wide disparity of 'quality' between the 3rd and the 6th. This is nothing new, though, popularity polls regularly name a composer's works as 'best,' while 'the cognoscenti' name others...
Poll: Beethoven
Vox Populi ~ Piano concerti Nos. 3 & 5
Cognoscenti ~ Piano Concerto No. 4
Poll: Bartok
Vox Populi ~ Concerto for Orchestra
Cognoscenti ~ Music for Stringed instruments, percussion and celesta
Vox Populi ~ Piano concerti No. 3
Cognoscenti ~ Piano Concerto No. 2
and I do think it has more or less "ever been thus."
His best symphonies are the Sixth and the Ninth. No doubt about it.
Conno-Sewers like me LOVE this stuff!!! 8)
I haven't head any Schuman because his music is so rarely played or spoken about in my country. John Cage, John Adams, Steve Reich and Elliott Carter are the main American composers who are performed here, but they aren't exactly known primarily as symphonists. Where should I start with Schuman if I want to get to know his music?
Quote from: jessop on September 19, 2016, 02:29:33 PM
I haven't head any Schuman because his music is so rarely played or spoken about in my country. John Cage, John Adams, Steve Reich and Elliott Carter are the main American composers who are performed here, but they aren't exactly known primarily as symphonists. Where should I start with Schuman if I want to get to know his music?
A good place to start are his rather 'Populist'
New England Triptych and the
American Festival Overture. But for a more brooding Schuman, you should listen to his
Symphonies 6-9.
Symphony No. 3 is also a good place to start because it is so immediately accessible like the afore mentioned 'Populist' works.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 19, 2016, 02:56:43 PM
A good place to start are his rather 'Populist' New England Triptych and the American Festival Overture. But for a more brooding Schuman, you should listen to his Symphonies 6-9. Symphony No. 3 is also a good place to start because it is so immediately accessible like the afore mentioned 'Populist' works.
Curious, how are these two styles distinguished? By 'populist' do you mean like Copland's approach from around the 40s of attempting to compose music without the 'experimental' stigma attached to the treatment of pitch and harmony?
Quote from: jessop on September 19, 2016, 03:03:07 PM
Curious, how are these two styles distinguished? By 'populist' do you mean like Copland's approach from around the 40s of attempting to compose music without the 'experimental' stigma attached to the treatment of pitch and harmony?
By 'Populist,' I mean writing in a style that's immediately ear-catching and accessible. For Schuman, he wrote several works written around an American 'Populist' style sort of like Copland, but still completely different and distinguishable from Copland. The 'other' Schuman is the Schuman of works like
Symphony No. 9 where it's music written in a dissonant, but tonal language. My main problem with Schuman, if I may share my own personal experience, is his music has this uniform quality to a lot of the music and I mean this as a criticism not a compliment. Like, for example, I couldn't even tell you differences between
Symphonies 6-9. They are seem to be striving for the same thing. His music is structurally sound and tight, but too often there aren't a lot of good ideas or ideas that lodge theirselves into my memory. It just all sounds the same. The same general atmosphere. In a way, he's like Alan Pettersson who could be criticized for writing the same piece over and over again. I'm not saying Schuman isn't a good composer, because he is, but there are only a few works of his that really stick out in my mind. Many times in his music I'm scratching my head and wondering "Where is this piece going?" My hats are off to people who can distinguish his mature symphonies from each other. I'd love to know what are the fundamental differences between
Symphonies 7 & 8, for example, besides having two different titles?
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 19, 2016, 03:15:52 PMI'd love to know what are the fundamental differences between Symphonies 7 & 8, for example, besides having two different titles?
I'll say that there is not much of a noticeable difference in harmonic language, orchestration, or shape and contour of ideas and musical syntax between Schuman's 7th and 8th symphonies, at least no more distinct differences than one would expect to find between two Haydn symphonies having been written not so far apart in time between one and the other. The same could be rightly said about a pair of Mozart symphonies, Brahms symphonies, several symphonic works of Rachmaninov, and then there is the bulk of Hindemith once he had codified his own music theory practice (interchangeable "Music spun by the Yard,") and that shining example of such interchangeable confusion, practically
all of J.S. Bach...
that is, if one is to consider such a statement as an offense to the music lover and a legitimate complaint in trying to make a negative criticism of a composer, which I don't.
The onus, my dear colleague, upon such a facile criticism is on the listening acuity
as affected by the conditioned through practice listening habits of the presenter of this particular criticism, the same responsibility for those who level exactly the same criticism about Mozart, Bach, etc. The solution to the dilemma, just as it would be to be able to distinguish one Mozart symphony from another also written not far apart... familiarity through acquired listening, which then becomes part of the listener's listening habits.
What are the fundamental differences between Beethoven's Symphonies 7 & 8, besides having two different titles?
As with the Schuman, they are distinct musical utterances.
Quote from: Reckoner on September 19, 2016, 06:08:36 AM
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/our-neglect-of-this-great-working-class-british-composer-is-a-disgrace/
Thanks for the link. I was particularly pleased with his praise for
Das Siegeslied, a symphony even many Brianites dislike, but one of my favorites.
Sarge
Getting back to the thread's topic, after listening to it last night, I'd have to cast my vote for the Ives 4th Symphony. It is hard to top the sheer giantness of it as well as the breadth of imagination on display. But more than that it oozes American with every note.
A fantastic piece.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 20, 2016, 04:37:31 AM
Getting back to the thread's topic, after listening to it last night, I'd have to cast my vote for the Ives 4th Symphony. It is hard to top the sheer giantness of it as well as the breadth of imagination on display. But more than that it oozes American with every note.
A fantastic piece.
It was wonderful to hear that live in
Symphony Hall, erewhile.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 20, 2016, 04:37:31 AM
Getting back to the thread's topic, after listening to it last night, I'd have to cast my vote for the Ives 4th Symphony. It is hard to top the sheer giantness of it as well as the breadth of imagination on display. But more than that it oozes American with every note.
A fantastic piece.
Ives' 4th got my vote as well. Remarkable work.
Alan Hovhaness did not compose the same symphony sixty-seven times. He composed one symphony with over two hundred twenty-five movements. ;D
I have no idea who composed the Great American Symphony. But if someone put a gun to my head I would say the Ives' Fourth. Of course this is based on the works I am familiar with and that I am just a retired pension auditor. ::)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 20, 2016, 05:29:47 AM
It was wonderful to hear that live in Symphony Hall, erewhile.
Lucky! Do you remember the conductor, Karl?
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 20, 2016, 04:33:08 AM
Thanks for the link. I was particularly pleased with his praise for Das Siegeslied, a symphony even many Brianites dislike, but one of my favorites.
Sarge
I would take the article more seriously if it didn't characterize Joseph Haydn's symphonic output as "uneven".
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 20, 2016, 06:58:28 AM
Lucky! Do you remember the conductor, Karl?
I had not . . . but through the miracle of the Search function, I learn afresh that it was
Alan Gilbert:
Quote from: kh
Sibelius, Rakhmaninov and Ives:Boston Symphony Orchestra, Alan Gilbert (guest conductor), Boston, 7.3.2009 (KH)
Sibelius, Night-Ride & Sunrise, Opus 55
Rakhmaninov, Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Opus 43
Stephen Hough, piano
Ives, Symphony № 4
Tanglewood Festival Chorus (John Oliver, conductor)
Stephen Drury, solo piano
It was a mild surprise to reflect, almost by accident, that this is an all-20th-century program.
Sibelius draws so much color out of his orchestra, it is something of a surprise to realize that his scoring is for an ensemble scarcely any larger than that of Brahms. While the ride through the dark here depicted is no Berliozian cours à l'abîme, the strings patter on at an energetic but controlled pace, and at the last dawn breaks with a glorious yet shifting chorale in the brass. The orchestra were in good form, though the brass might have been more homogeneous. Mr Gilbert paced the strings at perhaps a slightly slower tempo than he might have; but it is an exciting piece, and the execution was true to that character.
Mr Hough acquitted himself very well in the Rhapsody; maybe a bit dry of touch, but on the whole more engaged than the last time we heard him here at Symphony.
What a hubbub is the Ives Fourth. Gunther Schuller (who had attended the premiere performance of the symphony in its entirety, conducted by an 82-year-old Leopold Stokowski, on 26 April 1965 at Carnegie Hall) led the first BSO performances of the symphony in 1966/67. Before this past weekend, the only other BSO realizations of the work were with Ozawa, in 1976 and 1992. The work requires a fair-sized orchestra, with additional brass (two cornets and six trumpets) and percussion, in particular (including tubular bells so long that the player stood up on a scaffold to play them, practically at eye-level to the first balcony), organ, solo piano, celesta, orchestral piano four-hands, optional quarter-tone piano (omitted for these performances) and "ether organ" (the St Petersburg-born Léon Thérémin gave concert demonstrations of his aetherophone in the US in 1927 — included in these performances, the Theremin mostly doubles the strings, adding something of an 'off' glint to the string-choir tone). Oh, and four-part chorus for the outer movements. It's a sprawling malstrøm of a piece, but the Tanglewood Festival Chorus, the Orchestra and Mr Gilbert carried it off splendidly. (One might argue that the choral writing is as simple as a 19th-century hymnal, but it takes grace and presence to fit it in such an 'unsteady' setting.)
Music-director designate of the New York Philharmonic (to begin his official tenure with the '09-'10 season), Alan Gilbert is a native New Yorker, and the first such to enjoy that appointment. His concert this Saturday past was an unalloyed pleasure to witness, and I look forward to further occasions when he may be the guest of the BSO.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 20, 2016, 07:43:23 AM
I had not . . . but through the miracle of the Search function, I learn afresh that it was Alan Gilbert:
Wonderful! That's a great program, too.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 20, 2016, 07:33:21 AM
I would take the article more seriously if it didn't characterize Joseph Haydn's symphonic output as "uneven".
Yeah, that comment struck me as wrong-headed and unnecessary. Haydn's symphonies are only uneven in that they evince varying levels of greatness 8)
Sarge
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 20, 2016, 05:29:47 AM
It was wonderful to hear that live in Symphony Hall, erewhile.
I got to hear Ives 4th many years ago, at Lincoln Center, when I was still in high school...we're talking early-mid 60s[??] with Stokowski conducting the American Symphony Orchestra...right around the time they recorded it...
Great concert - Strauss - Also Sprach Zarathustra, a Rorem piece, an Hovhaness work, and the Ives...
still remember it...the ASO in those days was a pretty wild outfit - great NY free-lancers really going at it...the Strauss was wonderful, a really free-swinging affair...the Ives was quite overwhelming, as I recall.
Quote from: Heck148 on September 20, 2016, 08:12:11 AM
I got to hear Ives 4th many years ago, at Lincoln Center, when I was still in high school...we're talking early-mid 60s[??] with Stokowski conducting the American Symphony Orchestra...right around the time they recorded it...
Great concert - Strauss - Also Sprach Zarathustra, a Rorem piece, an Hovhaness work, and the Ives...
still remember it...the ASO in those days was a pretty wild outfit - great NY free-lancers really going at it...the Strauss was wonderful, a really free-swinging affair...the Ives was quite overwhelming, as I recall.
Great time!
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 20, 2016, 07:55:39 AM
Yeah, that comment struck me as wrong-headed and unnecessary. Haydn's symphonies are only uneven in that they evince varying levels of greatness 8)
Sarge
The article also fails to explain as to exactly WHY Brian's symphonies remain so under-performed. There are other gargatuan works of the 20th century that get performed and recorded, all the time. The English is usually pretty good at promoting their own music, however second-rate they may be. So it seems as if everyone has an axe to grind with Brian, which is not true. So it is a fairly odd phenomenon.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 20, 2016, 08:21:15 AM
The article also fails to explain as to exactly WHY Brian's symphonies remain so under-performed. There are other gargatuan works of the 20th century that get performed and recorded, all the time. The English is usually pretty good at promoting their own music, however second-rate they may be. So it seems as if everyone has an axe to grind with Brian, which is not true. So it is a fairly odd phenomenon.
Well, it's tough going. It's a bit squishy to argue that composer
N.'s music doesn't ever get performed, because it must not be any good.
[
Obligatory Disclaimer: My music hardly ever gets performed, and I hope it's good, nevertheless. ]
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 20, 2016, 08:24:49 AM
Well, it's tough going. It's a bit squishy to argue that composer N.'s music doesn't ever get performed, because it must not be any good.
[ Obligatory Disclaimer: My music hardly ever gets performed, and I hope it's good, nevertheless. ]
What IS truly unthinkable is that Brian wrote most of this in his 80s and 90s when most of us would be driveling oatmeal out of our mouths...
Anyway objectively speaking as a non-Brian fan I find his shorter symphonies pretty accessible, like #11 and #15. I would not characterize them as masterpieces but do have moments where he pits strange combos of instruments against one another.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 20, 2016, 07:43:23 AM
I had not . . . but through the miracle of the Search function, I learn afresh that it was Alan Gilbert:
Am I mistaken in thinking that
Alan Gilbert programs a good deal of contemporary music, or at least records it?
Quote from: Cato on September 20, 2016, 09:36:15 AM
Am I mistaken in thinking that Alan Gilbert programs a good deal of contemporary music, or at least records it?
Not at all. His tenure with the New York Philharmonic has brought with it a good deal of contemporary music, both on regular subscription programs and outside of them.
Quote from: Mahlerian on September 20, 2016, 09:39:53 AM
Not at all. His tenure with the New York Philharmonic has brought with it a good deal of contemporary music, both on regular subscription programs and outside of them.
Good! An example for the more timid conductors out there, although yes, I understand the pressures to stay with "safe programming."
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 20, 2016, 08:21:15 AM
The article also fails to explain as to exactly WHY Brian's symphonies remain so under-performed.
It's not just Brian. Most British symphonists are under-performed even in the UK, and most, under-recorded: Moeran, Rubbra, Rawsthorne, Berkeley, Bantock, Frankel, Jones, Bate, Arnell, Butterworth, Lloyd, Bush to name just a very few. I assume it's the same reason(s) most American symphonies are ignored in the USA. But Brian has the added problem of being a stylistic oddity, "
both monumental and subversive".
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 20, 2016, 10:38:46 AM
It's not just Brian. Most British symphonists are under-performed even in the UK, and most, under-recorded: Moeran, Rubbra, Rawsthorne, Berkeley, Bantock, Frankel, Jones, Bate, Arnell, Butterworth, Lloyd, Bush to name just a very few. I assume it's the same reason(s) most American symphonies are ignored in the USA. But Brian has the added problem of being a stylistic oddity, "both monumental and subversive".
Sarge
Not sure about the others but in the case of Butterworth he really didn't write that much orchestral music.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 20, 2016, 11:29:47 AM
Not sure about the others but in the case of Butterworth he really didn't write that much orchestral music.
I mean Arthur Butterworth (composed seven symphonies), not George "Banks of Green Willow" Butterworth.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 20, 2016, 12:54:17 PM
I mean Arthur Butterworth (composed seven symphonies), not George "Banks of Green Willows" Butterworth.
Sarge
Arthur Butterworth? Never heard of him. Huh huh.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 20, 2016, 03:00:54 PM
Arthur Butterworth? Never heard of him.
Exactly my point 8)
Sarge
I can see the motivation to give the laurel to the Ives Fourth, as (to use the word in its original sense) the masterpiece, the symphony which is the inaugural accomplishment signaling mastery. But considering the work as a cycle (and you expect this of a later composer, Ives having broken the ground) I think it quite clear that Schuman (e.g.) is an arguably greater symphonist.
Which I suppose brings us to my traditional quarrel with any effort to "establish" The [One] Great[est] Anything in the musical world. Like the Hungarian guy said, it ain't a horse race.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 21, 2016, 01:11:38 AM
I can see the motivation to give the laurel to the Ives Fourth, as (to use the word in its original sense) the masterpiece, the symphony which is the inaugural accomplishment signaling mastery. But considering the work as a cycle (and you expect this of a later composer, Ives having broken the ground) I think it quite clear that Schuman (e.g.) is an arguably greater symphonist.
Which I suppose brings us to my traditional quarrel with any effort to "establish" The [One] Great[est] Anything in the musical world. Like the Hungarian guy said, it ain't a horse race.
Thanks for the corrigendum!
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 20, 2016, 03:04:08 PM
Exactly my point 8)
Sarge
Maybe most of Britain prefers George instead?
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 21, 2016, 10:43:19 AM
Maybe most of Britain prefers George instead?
Probably. George does have a greatest hit; Arthur doesn't.
Sarge
John Adams' Harmonielehre is such a fantastic symphony. I'm currently listening to Kent Nagano's Montreal Symphony recording and it might be my favorite, so powerful, dramatic, and lyrical. The Mahler influence never felt as strong as it does here.
Quote from: relm1 on March 23, 2021, 04:10:11 PM
John Adams' Harmonielehre is such a fantastic symphony. I'm currently listening to Kent Nagano's Montreal Symphony recording and it might be my favorite, so powerful, dramatic, and lyrical. The Mahler influence never felt as strong as it does here.
Need to re-hear it. Thanks for the recommendation.
Quote from: vandermolen on March 24, 2021, 01:29:57 AM
Need to re-hear it. Thanks for the recommendation.
Listen how great this is:
https://youtu.be/r_vf_d6PNyA?t=494
and compare 8:37 of the Adams to this of Mahler here
https://youtu.be/2bWykCZXGDs?t=1098
*reads entire thread*
*makes great big, honkin' list*
*leaves*
Quote from: relm1 on March 23, 2021, 04:10:11 PMJohn Adams' Harmonielehre is such a fantastic symphony. I'm currently listening to Kent Nagano's Montreal Symphony recording and it might be my favorite, so powerful, dramatic, and lyrical. The Mahler influence never felt as strong as it does here.
It remain my favorite Adams' work.
Like with many contemporary composers (Philip Glass, Reich, Ades...), I seem to like their earlier works.
Quote from: springrite on February 22, 2024, 11:26:21 PMIt remain my favorite Adams' work.
Like with many contemporary composers (Philip Glass, Reich, Ades...), I seem to like their earlier works.
LA Phil is performing Adams' City Noir in a month which I'm thinking of checking out but am not so familiar with it.