No matter how broad our tastes in music, we periodically encounter works which make us baulk and wish we'd not bought them. Given time, of course, we often grow to appreciate (and even love) these same works, as our listening becomes ever more diverse and our opinions change.
Today, I tried but couldn't appreciate this:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZZMZMJASL._SS500_.jpg)
Admittedly, the conditions for a first listen weren't ideal: I was travelling in rush hour on the Tube across London. This said, the apparent chaos and spiky angularity of these quartets did rather aptly fit the chaotic, jostling scenes of tired commuters through which I myself pushed and shoved. Certainly, I'll need to approach these works at a better time. Until then, I reserve judgement.
Which works did you once find yourself ill prepared for, or which are currently, for you, 'no go' territory?
Anything by Bartok and/or Bruckner. I know there's some good stuff there if I could find the time and focus to explore. Maybe someday. I finally got into Sibelius so maybe there's hope.
I'll second Bartok, i bought his 3 piano concertos and i am on my 3rd listen and have yet to really enjoy them. They are growing on my a little, so i will continue to listen.
Hornteacher,
I used to be the same with Bruckner until i layed down with the lights off and listened to Bruckner's 9th. I was a little jittery by the end, but it has been one of the best listening experiences in a long time.
How is this thread different from: "works which you presently dislike" ? ? Maybe I'll never "be ready" for it.
Stated otherwise, how do I know whether I'll eventually come to appreciate a work I currently dislike?
Anything by Elgar.
Hey, if it's ready for me, I'm ready for it! ;D
Quote from: jochanaan on November 05, 2007, 04:03:19 PM
Hey, if it's ready for me, I'm ready for it! ;D
The man has a point! (Which I second.)
Quote from: c#minor on November 05, 2007, 03:31:21 PM
Hornteacher,
I used to be the same with Bruckner until i layed down with the lights off and listened to Bruckner's 9th. I was a little jittery by the end, but it has been one of the best listening experiences in a long time.
Jittery? Is there caffene in Bruckner? ;D
I remember listening to the opening of the 9th some time ago and loving the horn parts. Maybe I should start with this one.
Quote from: Herzog Lipschitz on November 05, 2007, 03:42:40 PM
Stated otherwise, how do I know whether I'll eventually come to appreciate a work I currently dislike?
That's a great question.
It should give critics something to think about.
Quote from: hornteacher on November 05, 2007, 04:34:03 PM
Jittery? Is there caffene in Bruckner? ;D
I remember listening to the opening of the 9th some time ago and loving the horn parts. Maybe I should start with this one.
definitely, 9th is a very moving piece, if you listen it through and listen it carefully, you'll get to Bruckner in no time.
btw, I know this isn't that big of a deal, the 9th is unfinished, so if you want an "ending", you should get the Bruckner's 9th by Johannes Wildner.
Quote from: hornteacher on November 05, 2007, 04:34:03 PM
Jittery? Is there caffene in Bruckner? ;D
I remember listening to the opening of the 9th some time ago and loving the horn parts. Maybe I should start with this one.
Not quite :). I have what they are now calling ADD. It's hard for me to make it all the way through a Mozart Symphony without wanting to get up and fidget with something. So getting through a Bruckner with absolute stillness and no stopping was an acomplishment for me.
Wait till you hear the 2nd Movement, its very exciting, in a Bruckner kind of way. :)
Quote from: Mark on November 05, 2007, 02:31:23 PM
No matter how broad our tastes in music, we periodically encounter works which make us baulk and wish we'd not bought them. Given time, of course, we often grow to appreciate (and even love) these same works, as our listening becomes ever more diverse and our opinions change.
Today, I tried but couldn't appreciate this:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZZMZMJASL._SS500_.jpg)
Admittedly, the conditions for a first listen weren't ideal: I was travelling in rush hour on the Tube across London. This said, the apparent chaos and spiky angularity of these quartets did rather aptly fit the chaotic, jostling scenes of tired commuters through which I myself pushed and shoved. Certainly, I'll need to approach these works at a better time. Until then, I reserve judgement.
Which works did you once find yourself ill prepared for, or which are currently, for you, 'no go' territory?
It's not you, these pieces are awful.
As a matter of fact, this is the VERY disc that made me realize that most of 20th Century classical is awful. "Composers" shove this garbage upon us, devoid of any sort of thought, melodic/harmonic content...a complete disregard for the listener...and a few academics lap it up as gospel. Meanwhile the real composers of old are turning in their graves as this schlock that passes for "art music" gets its turn.
Is it any wonder concert halls sit empty? Is it any wonder classical CD sales sink further and further into the abyss? It's because for decades crap like this has been forced upon an unsuspecting public who desire nothing more than a decent melody.
Apologies for the threadjack...that CD really touches a nerve with me. :)
Quote from: c#minor on November 05, 2007, 04:45:22 PM
Wait till you hear the 2nd Movement, its very exciting, in a Bruckner kind of way. :)
Yes, in fact my first ever Bruckner memory had something to do with the Scherzo. I think i was 15 or 16 at the time, and I heard this on TV, i still remember it was a documentary about Claudio Abbado doing a rehearsal with Gustav Mahler youth orchestra, and they played the Scherzo. I was totally overwhelmed by it, it was something quite unique and unusual, and i went out and got a copy of the 9th right a way.... unfortunately, the next few years were "sidetracked" by my discoveries of Mahler, Schubert, and Shostakovitch, so it took about 3 more years for me to finally being able to appreciate Bruckner's music.
QuoteI remember listening to the opening of the 9th some time ago and loving the horn parts. Maybe I should start with this one.
I did. It was my "gateway" piece for Bruckner. Only because a Mystery Orchestra game had been started on it, so I had to listen to the 1st mvmt opening several times, and really fell in love with it. It's gorgeous, the whole symphony is amazing.
I think there are a lot of great vocal works I'm not ready for, masses and such. And a fair amount of operas too. Or maybe they're just not my preference...but when I get time I will give them a chance. :)
Composers I still have trouble with and find really boring:
- Bax
- Sibelius
- Tchaikovsky (except the ballets)
Ahhhhh Tchaikovsky boring???
I know it's all opinions but i cease to understand how Tchaikovsky could be boring. My first love, aside from piano music, was his 5th symphony. What a shame, but then again i can do without Brahms symphonies, and most people can't understand that.
I have had very little exposure to Sibelius, from what i have heard its okay but i have yet to hear the symphonies.
I've tried a lot, but I'm still ambivolent towards Wagner. So at the moment, and for the near future, I will ignore most of his music. I will certainly revisit him many times in future, with the expectation that he shall one day "click" with me.
Quote from: gmstudio on November 05, 2007, 04:50:45 PM
"Composers" shove this garbage upon us, devoid of any sort of thought, melodic/harmonic content...a complete disregard for the listener...and a few academics lap it up as gospel.
...and the normal people who enjoy and buy it, of course (plenty of whom can be found on this very forum).
Quote from: gmstudio on November 05, 2007, 04:50:45 PM
Is it any wonder concert halls sit empty? Is it any wonder classical CD sales sink further and further into the abyss? It's because for decades crap like this has been forced upon an unsuspecting public who desire nothing more than a decent melody.
Why are concert halls just as empty when pre-Schoenberg music is played? Other than particularly desirable "big name" concerts, which rich idiots treat as a social event. Many people on this forum have already mentioned that new music concerts they have visited are often sold out or highly attended.
Claims of a "poor public" and their "raped ears" don't appear to correlate with what is being performed. Classical programming is
staggeringly conservative (although it can vary depending on location) - which is precisely why when new music is performed, reviews often mention the good attendence that the performances have drawn...
Outside of the tonal warhorses, your point is on even less solid ground. I recall a BBC Proms concert of a British concervative symphonist (
perhaps Bax) playing to an almost deserted hall a few years ago. it would be ungracious to bend this to fit your point by saying that this is because the bogeymen scared away the audiece for Bax. People evidently just did not want to listen to him.
Edit: Added word.
Quote from: Greta on November 05, 2007, 05:00:54 PM
I did. It was my "gateway" piece for Bruckner. Only because a Mystery Orchestra game had been started on it, so I had to listen to the 1st mvmt opening several times, and really fell in love with it. It's gorgeous, the whole symphony is amazing.
I'm in need of some Brucknerfication too, so will take this recommendation up. I love the horn call at the beginning of the Fourth, but nothing that follows it, and absolutely adore the slow movement in the Seventh, but not the surrounding movements. The rest I perhaps am "not yet ready" for. :) I also find the Goldberg Variations utterly mystifying/meaningless, as well as the vast majority of atonal/serial modern music (which I expect never to like, really), Sibelius' Fifth and Sixth, and most chamber music. The chamber music thing is actually because of a deliberate campaign; I don't want to reach the age of, say, 25 and find out I've heard all the great masterpieces already (I'm still a teenager), so I have been consciously avoiding chamber music and, until recently, opera.
Concerning Bruckner's 9th:
Am I the only one that reads into that Scherzo the ticking of a clock, as time runs out? An eerie work, Bruckner's 9th. (Especially if one considers the finale fragments which I was able to appreciate, courtesy of Mr Harnoncourt. :))
Quote from: Renfield on November 05, 2007, 05:35:30 PM
Concerning Bruckner's 9th:
Am I the only one that reads into that Scherzo the ticking of a clock, as time runs out? An eerie work, Bruckner's 9th. (Especially if one considers the finale fragments which I was able to appreciate, courtesy of Mr Harnoncourt. :))
My favourite performance (Abendroth) of that scherzo has the main theme played 50% faster than most performances :D It's like galloping horses - a wonder to behold :P It has perverted me into finding every other scherzo I ever hear sound far too slow :(
Quote from: gmstudio on November 05, 2007, 04:50:45 PM
As a matter of fact, this is the VERY disc that made me realize that most of 20th Century classical is awful. "Composers" shove this garbage upon us, devoid of any sort of thought, melodic/harmonic content...a complete disregard for the listener...and a few academics lap it up as gospel. Meanwhile the real composers of old are turning in their graves as this schlock that passes for "art music" gets its
Point taken, but your generalization about 20th-century classical is way wide of the mark. There's actually huge stylistic diversity, including, all through the century, loads of tonal works in a (quasi) Romantic idiom that's readily accessible. What's garbage about Mahler, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Nielsen, Suk, Korngold, Ravel, Sibelius, Bax, Holst, Vaughan Williams, Diamond, Copland, or Bernstein, to throw out just a few big names?
What I'm not ready for: maybe Norgard, who's revered by some here. So far, I find his third symphony pretty yet ultimately pretty dull, rather like a collection of sound effects with delusions of grandeur. The sixth is an ugly bore, but
Terrains Vagues has an interesting rhythmic drive.
Quote from: Grazioso on November 05, 2007, 05:56:05 PM
Point taken, but your generalization about 20th-century classical is way wide of the mark. There's actually huge stylistic diversity, including, all through the century, loads of tonal works in a (quasi) Romantic idiom that's readily accessible.
As for me, I haven't felt the need to dive into the sort of atonal/serial/avant-garde music you hint at, so maybe I'm not ready for that.
I couldn't agree with you more. I am quite happy with the ballets of Khachaturian and the music of Gershwin, Shostakovich and Villa Lobos. :) (Odd that I should enjoy Shosty so much more than Prokofiev. Another composer I may not be ready for.)
Quote from: Lethe on November 05, 2007, 05:51:51 PM
My favourite performance (Abendroth) of that scherzo has the main theme played 50% faster than most performances :D It's like galloping horses - a wonder to behold :P It has perverted me into finding every other scherzo I ever hear sound far too slow :(
Bruckner that fast. I honestly don't think i could handle it. His works are already so HUGE in size sound, how it's written and...... well really everything about them, it's almost intimidating. To me listening to Bruckner is like listening to a giant (if that makes any sense.)
Quote from: gmstudio on November 05, 2007, 04:50:45 PM
As a matter of fact, this is the VERY disc that made me realize that most of 20th Century classical is awful. "Composers" shove this garbage upon us, devoid of any sort of thought, melodic/harmonic content...a complete disregard for the listener...and a few academics lap it up as gospel. Meanwhile the real composers of old are turning in their graves as this schlock that passes for "art music" gets its turn.
Is it any wonder concert halls sit empty? Is it any wonder classical CD sales sink further and further into the abyss? It's because for decades crap like this has been forced upon an unsuspecting public who desire nothing more than a decent melody.
Long live Webern.
(From a resident non-academic).
Quote from: gmstudio on November 05, 2007, 04:50:45 PM
It's not you, these pieces are awful.
As a matter of fact, this is the VERY disc that made me realize that most of 20th Century classical is awful. "Composers" shove this garbage upon us, devoid of any sort of thought, melodic/harmonic content...a complete disregard for the listener...and a few academics lap it up as gospel. Meanwhile the real composers of old are turning in their graves as this schlock that passes for "art music" gets its turn.
Is it any wonder concert halls sit empty? Is it any wonder classical CD sales sink further and further into the abyss? It's because for decades crap like this has been forced upon an unsuspecting public who desire nothing more than a decent melody.
Apologies for the threadjack...that CD really touches a nerve with me. :)
Maybe these are works for which you're not yet ready . . . .
Quote from: 12tone. on November 05, 2007, 05:01:58 PM
Composers I still have trouble with and find really boring:
- Bax
- Sibelius
- Tchaikovsky (except the ballets)
May I suggest trying works of theirs in different genres? You can hear a different side of a composer that way. Perhaps you've heard Bax's orchestral music, so maybe try his string quartets. Or Sibelius's choral works instead of the symphonies.
And of course, just listen a lot. Other than the immediately lovable
Tintagel, I had trouble with Bax at first, but the beauty and subtlety of his music can reveal themselves with time.
Okay gang, you've all convinced me. I'm shopping for a Bruckner 9th tonight.
Quote from: Lethe on November 05, 2007, 05:51:51 PM
My favourite performance (Abendroth) of that scherzo has the main theme played 50% faster than most performances :D It's like galloping horses - a wonder to behold :P It has perverted me into finding every other scherzo I ever hear sound far too slow :(
Have you heard a Furtwängler/BPO one currently issued (at least) as part of the DG "Anniversary Tribute" set? I haven't heard Abendroth's, but that is certainly the fastest Scherzo I've heard.
"Weirdest" thing is, it's also one of the most poignant, down to the "ticking clock" impression (for me).
Quote from: c#minor on November 05, 2007, 06:03:37 PM
Bruckner that fast. I honestly don't think i could handle it. His works are already so HUGE in size sound, how it's written and...... well really everything about them, it's almost intimidating. To me listening to Bruckner is like listening to a giant (if that makes any sense.)
I definitely get the "standing in awe" feeling with Bruckner too, but generally I find that faster performances give the works a much-needed energy or propulsion. Revelling in the sound of the orchestra can be fun with particularly slow performances, but my personal perference is reflected in that however far removed, this is music which is both structurally traditional, and inspired by Beethoven and Schubert. The speeds Beethoven expected his symphonies to be played at could obviously not be possible with Bruckner, but that definitely doesn't mean that it has to be as... "measured" as it often is when performed nowadays. While relatively fast (to use a stereotype) Bruckner conductors such as Jochum can sound a little frentic at first, he brings out the power of the pieces brilliantly, with the climaxes becoming almost concentrated attacks opposed to the tectonic-style movements with conductors at speeds on the slower end of the spectrum.
I suppose a good example would be the end of the 8th symphony - with Celibidache, it sounds absolutely titanic, with Jochum (in his two full cycles, at least) it sounds almost out of control, making the final three notes quite an amazing experience :D I often feel that many slow performances of the symphonies have an almost total lack of rough edges, as if Bruckner is "above" everyone else (perhaps reinforced by his strong religiousness). Some of those performances just aren't enjoyable to me as a result. I didn't explain that very well - but there is a big appeal in Bruckner for the speed freaks, as much as the slower ones :) More than most composers, though, Bruckner
does have a very large amount of room for different intepretations.
Quote from: Renfield on November 05, 2007, 06:21:16 PM
Have you heard a Furtwängler/BPO one currently issued (at least) as part of the DG "Anniversary Tribute" set? I haven't heard Abendroth's, but that is certainly the fastest Scherzo I've heard.
Your post prompted me to relisten to it - I had forgotten just how fast the Furtwängler was. If the Abendroth is faster (it possibly is), it's not by much at all - the Furtwängler sounds more in touch with standard practice (cavernous booms from the timpani), wheras the kind of boxy/dry sound of the Abendroth gives it a strange flat sound, much less "monumental" than Furtwängler, it borders on dance-like to my ears, with that lack of grimness to the sound. The Furtwängler 9th is a brilliant performance too, I should listen to it fully later.
Quote from: Lethe on November 05, 2007, 06:28:18 PM
The Furtwängler 9th is a brilliant performance too, I should listen to it fully later.
It certainly is. In fact, it's the performance that made me
listen to Bruckner's 9th, if you know what I mean. :)
But I seem to be doing a fair amount of thread-jacking: my apologies to the OP. :(
Edit: Oh, the OP is Mark! I'd forgotten. (And was strangely bored to check.) Though, statistically speaking, that was quite likely to be the case. :P
I don't get Brahm's 4th. I know, I know. And just like many of us here, I'm almost completely lost with Mahler's "cantata" 8th. It has a lot of grand moments, but I just can't connect the usual expo-develope-recap form together!
Quote from: Bonehelm on November 05, 2007, 08:03:16 PM
I don't get Brahm's 4th. I know, I know. And just like many of us here, I'm almost completely lost with Mahler's "cantata" 8th. It has a lot of grand moments, but I just can't connect the usual expo-develope-recap form together!
Did you try approaching both (and most especially the latter)
semantically, as well? It might do the trick. ;)
Quote from: Bonehelm on November 05, 2007, 08:03:16 PM
I don't get Brahm's 4th. I know, I know.
Really? That's good! I wish I could go back to a time when I didn't get Brahms' 4. There was such a time. For a while I detested the piece. Actively hated it. What eventually cured me - slowly - was turning out the lights, putting Carlos Kleiber's (immortal) rendition on my sound-canceling headphones, closing my eyes, and cranking up the volume. After a few listens this way it became the most emotionally powerful experience I know of.
It is, by the way, very,
very easy to mess up a performance of that symphony. As I said in my review of Marin Alsop's recording, even thirty seconds is enough to make the whole symphony dead to my ears (in Alsop's performance the unfortunate half-minute comes right before the final coda).
Quote from: brianrein on November 05, 2007, 08:28:56 PM
As I said in my review of Marin Alsop's recording, even thirty seconds is enough to make the whole symphony dead to my ears (in Alsop's performance the unfortunate half-minute comes right before the final coda).
You mean Alsop's new one on Naxos? It's that bad, eh?
Plus, explain this 'thirty seconds' thing ???
EDIT: Please :D
Quote from: Bonehelm on November 05, 2007, 08:03:16 PM
I don't get Brahm's 4th. I know, I know. And just like many of us here, I'm almost completely lost with Mahler's "cantata" 8th. It has a lot of grand moments, but I just can't connect the usual expo-develope-recap form together!
Brahms' Fourth: Which recording do you have? I don't like a lot of the recent ones: too slow and heavy. But try one of these: Wolfgang Sawallisch/Vienna Symphony (60s or 70s, pretty good sound and utterly magnificent playing); Mackerras/Scottish Chamber Orchestra (lively and flexible); Carlos Kleiber/Vienna Philharmonic (big and Romantic but never ponderous). There's a classic Fritz Reiner recording too, which I've never heard, but I love Reiner, especially in Brahms; there's also a surprisingly good recording by Leopold Stokowski. (Reiner's Double Concerto with Milstein, Piatigorsky and the Robin Hood Dell Orch. of Philadelphia is the best performance of that work I've ever heard.)
Mahler's Eighth: The first movement is in a rather expanded sonata form, with the second theme starting at the words
Imple superna gratia, the development beginning more or less at
Infirma nostri corporis, and the recapitulation (of course) at the return of
Veni, creator spiritus with the huge cymbal crash. (Mahler's score says "à3" in the cymbal part there, probably calling for three PAIRS of cymbals! :o) The final movement is a quasi-operatic scene that has little resemblance to any traditional form, but all its thematic material is lifted or varied from the first movement. I particularly love how many of the main musical ideas grow directly from the first line of the choral parts. For example, the motive on
Accende lumen sensibus is a variant of the original three-note theme (Eb, Bb, Ab). I hope this information helps!
Bonehelm: Marin Alsop must have been off her form for that Brahms 4. I've never yet heard a performance by her that's less than interesting and fun, and I can still remember the flawless live Mahler Seventh I caught when she was in Denver leading the Colorado Symphony. :D
Thanks for all your replies, Renfield, brianrein and jochanaan. I'll check out that Kleiber 4th. As for the M8, I have Chailly, Bernstein, Tennstedt, Abbado, Solti, Bertini and Kubelik. What do you guys think is a good recording for starters?
Quote from: Grazioso on November 05, 2007, 05:56:05 PM
Point taken, but your generalization about 20th-century classical is way wide of the mark. There's actually huge stylistic diversity, including, all through the century, loads of tonal works in a (quasi) Romantic idiom that's readily accessible. What's garbage about Mahler, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Nielsen, Suk, Korngold, Ravel, Sibelius, Bax, Holst, Vaughan Williams, Diamond, Copland, or Bernstein, to throw out just a few big names?
Perhaps I painted with a bit of a broad brush. :-[ I should have clarified with a "post 1940's" or something as such...I'm talking mainly about the serial/atonal/academic pieces foisted upon us by the 50's, 60's, 70's...that's the stuff that I still maintain "killed" our audiences. The stuff from which Mr. Maxwell Davies evolved.
I'm a huge Mahler, Sibelius, Bax, RVW, etc fan. In my other posts you'll find me extolling the virtues of Atterberg, Rangstrom, Tubin, Melartin, Borresen, etc. :)
Quote from: gmstudio on November 05, 2007, 04:50:45 PM
It's not you, these pieces are awful.
As a matter of fact, this is the VERY disc that made me realize that most of 20th Century classical is awful. "Composers" shove this garbage upon us, devoid of any sort of thought, melodic/harmonic content...a complete disregard for the listener...and a few academics lap it up as gospel.
If you really think these pieces lack thought or melodic/harmonic content, then I'd suggest you haven't listened carefully enough; this is music with bucketloads of all that and more, with integrity, imagination and conviction. I will readily admit that these are quite tough nuts, the PMD Naxos Quartets, and I've seen quite a few posts from contemporary music lovers in the past which have also admitted to finding them hard;I'll even admit that I wasn't that pulled in by this disc on first listen. But repeated listening proved them to be rewarding and powerful works which give more and more.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on November 06, 2007, 03:26:22 AM
If you really think these pieces lack thought or melodic/harmonic content, then I'd suggest you haven't listened carefully enough; this is music with bucketloads of all that and more, with integrity, imagination and conviction. I will readily admit that these are quite tough nuts, the PMD Naxos Quartets, and I've seen quite a few posts from contemporary music lovers in the past which have also admitted to finding them hard;I'll even admit that I wasn't that pulled in by this disc on first listen. But repeated listening proved them to be rewarding and powerful works which give more and more.
Luke, would you say you preferred the Second Quartet to the First? The First's opening movement seemed to me to be particularly tough going.
Quote from: Mark on November 06, 2007, 03:35:35 AM
Luke, would you say you preferred the Second Quartet to the First? The First's opening movement seemed to me to be particularly tough going.
Not really, I think I found both works equally tough - or equally easy! Truth be told, though, I actually the next one, no 3, more than either of these two. It's really quite a brave and striking piece, I think.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on November 06, 2007, 03:39:38 AM
Not really, I think I found both works equally tough - or equally easy! Truth be told, though, I actually the next one, no 3, more than either of these two. It's really quite a brave and striking piece, I think.
I'm planning on downloading one disc in the series each month. More than this at one go I couldn't take. :-\
Quote from: gmstudio on November 06, 2007, 03:13:43 AM
Perhaps I painted with a bit of a broad brush. :-[ I should have clarified with a "post 1940's" or something as such...I'm talking mainly about the serial/atonal/academic pieces foisted upon us by the 50's, 60's, 70's...that's the stuff that I still maintain "killed" our audiences. The stuff from which Mr. Maxwell Davies evolved.
I'm a huge Mahler, Sibelius, Bax, RVW, etc fan. In my other posts you'll find me extolling the virtues of Atterberg, Rangstrom, Tubin, Melartin, Borresen, etc. :)
I understand, but today there are still very accessible composers, like Rautavaara and Rorem and Pärt, to name a few I like. And in the 60's and 70's you had guys like Pettersson writing tonal music.
This thread got me interested in the Maxwell Davies quartet series, and I came across this nice line in a MusicWeb review:
'Expressionist' seems a very apt tag – much of this is like Berg ... but with extra Berg added.
Quote from: Grazioso on November 06, 2007, 04:20:57 AM
This thread got me interested in the Maxwell Davies quartet series, and I came across this nice line in a MusicWeb review:
'Expressionist' seems a very apt tag – much of this is like Berg ... but with extra Berg added.
I'd be inclined to go with that description.
Quote from: gmstudio on November 05, 2007, 04:50:45 PM
It's not you, these pieces are awful.
As a matter of fact, this is the VERY disc that made me realize that most of 20th Century classical is awful. "Composers" shove this garbage upon us, devoid of any sort of thought, melodic/harmonic content...a complete disregard for the listener...and a few academics lap it up as gospel. Meanwhile the real composers of old are turning in their graves as this schlock that passes for "art music" gets its turn.
Is it any wonder concert halls sit empty? Is it any wonder classical CD sales sink further and further into the abyss? It's because for decades crap like this has been forced upon an unsuspecting public who desire nothing more than a decent melody.
Apologies for the threadjack...that CD really touches a nerve with me. :)
Thanks, I've added it to my wishlist. ;D
I do own the first four PMD quartets, and I was listening to the beginning of the first as I was typing my original post. So it's not for lack of trying. :) My feeling the first time I heard them was "haven't we heard all this before? why do we need this?" The Berg analogy is perfect.
Oh, and if you look at my Top 10 symphonies from Mark's thread of a few days ago, you'll find plenty of Pettersson listed. :)
QuoteWhich works did you once find yourself ill prepared for, or which are currently, for you, 'no go' territory?
I'm ready for anything! I don't actively avoid any composer's work, but there are many that currently don't come under my "sphere". Given what I've read about Ferneyhough I don't think I will be rushing to hear him. Maybe one day? It would be easier to explore this repertoire if their CDs weren't so damned expensive!
Edit: I just wanted to make it clear that there are indeed composers whose music I just don't like, but there isn't anything that I feel I'm not "ready" for.
Quote from: gmstudio on November 06, 2007, 05:10:21 AM
My feeling the first time I heard them was "haven't we heard all this before? why do we need this?" ....Oh, and if you look at my Top 10 symphonies from Mark's thread of a few days ago, you'll find plenty of Pettersson listed. :)
but it would be equally possible to say "haven't we heard all this before? why do we need this?" about some of Pettersson's symphonies. Not to mention all sorts of other pieces from within the canon.
Quote from: gmstudio on November 05, 2007, 04:50:45 PM
It's not you, these pieces are awful.
As a matter of fact, this is the VERY disc that made me realize that most of 20th Century classical is awful. "Composers" shove this garbage upon us, devoid of any sort of thought, melodic/harmonic content...a complete disregard for the listener...and a few academics lap it up as gospel. Meanwhile the real composers of old are turning in their graves as this schlock that passes for "art music" gets its turn.
Is it any wonder concert halls sit empty? Is it any wonder classical CD sales sink further and further into the abyss? It's because for decades crap like this has been forced upon an unsuspecting public who desire nothing more than a decent melody.
I take it you are a Classic FM kind of bod then ...
Quote from: gmstudio on November 06, 2007, 03:13:43 AM
I should have clarified with a "post 1940's" or something as such...I'm talking mainly about the serial/atonal/academic pieces foisted upon us by the 50's, 60's, 70's...that's the stuff that I still maintain "killed" our audiences. The stuff from which Mr. Maxwell Davies evolved.
Long live Lutoslawski.
Quote from: Grazioso on November 06, 2007, 04:07:58 AM
...today there are still very accessible composers, like Rautavaara and Rorem and Pärt, to name a few I like.
And Lachenmann and Dumitrescu and Yoshihide, to name a few
I like.
Quote from: Grazioso on November 05, 2007, 05:56:05 PMWhat I'm not ready for: maybe Norgard, who's revered by some here.... The sixth is an ugly bore, butTerrains Vagues has an interesting rhythmic drive.
Wow.
The sixth was my first experience of Nørgård's music. On the strength of that (and of
Terrains Vagues, which is on the same disc), I was back in the store to buy all the rest of their Nørgård, about four other discs, and then back home to get on Amazon and Arkiv to order the other half dozen I now enjoy.
(Oops. I just noticed that not only did I just double-post (which I prefer not to do), but that both posts are responses to Grazioso. Sorry Grazioso!!)
Anyway, I'm with Corey, up for anything--and I too am going back to that store mentioned in my previous utterance to pick up those Maxwell Davies discs. After such a fine recommendation as gmstudio's, how could I resist? (I know, buying music because someone else hates it is a chump's game, but I've gotten a couple of very sweet discs recently in just that way, including the very tasty Kurtag collection on ECM of works for strings.)
And speaking of Ferneyhough, I have a friend who thinks he's the cat's whiskers, along with Birtwhistle and Boulez. I don't particularly
like any of those, but who the hell am I, I say? These are three great composers. I'll get to the point some day where I'll be able to like them, I'm sure. Meanwhile, it's back to L/A/B and Lockweld for the rest of the morning.
Quote from: Grazioso on November 06, 2007, 04:20:57 AM
This thread got me interested in the Maxwell Davies quartet series, and I came across this nice line in a MusicWeb review:
'Expressionist' seems a very apt tag – much of this is like Berg ... but with extra Berg added.
Darn you to heck! Now I
have to buy this! ;D
Quote from: 12tone. on November 05, 2007, 08:32:41 PM
You mean Alsop's new one on Naxos? It's that bad, eh?
Plus, explain this 'thirty seconds' thing ???
EDIT: Please :D
Ah, sorry, I should elaborate.
Now that I have finally come around to Brahms' Fourth, I am absolutely dedicated to it. (My profile picture is from the cover of Kleiber's recording.) I love the work in such a way that if the performers take even one decision which doesn't seem "right" to me, I can be disappointed by the recording. It's a personal perfectionist problem. Marin Alsop's Brahms Four is actually fantastic, and the first three movements are played beautifully (the second maybe better than Kleiber), but then there are thirty seconds in the finale, around maybe the 7-8 minute mark, where the pace and energy seem to momentarily slacken and the dramatic momentum eases up. It's a very small moment, but all the more disappointing to me because everything before it had gone so well. As a result the final coda didn't have the same feeling of "WHAM! The End." that great performances have.
Basically, I have such a strong view of how the Brahms Fourth should sound, and how strong its emotional impact should be (=overpowering!), that if performers fall just a little short it makes me sad. Alsop's performance of the 4 is very fine indeed - along with the First it's the highlight of her cycle - but it falls
just short of the perfection one hoped for.
Quote from: Bonehelm on November 05, 2007, 09:26:30 PM
Thanks for all your replies, Renfield, brianrein and jochanaan. I'll check out that Kleiber 4th. As for the M8, I have Chailly, Bernstein, Tennstedt, Abbado, Solti, Bertini and Kubelik. What do you guys think is a good recording for starters?
For the Brahms 4th, and since you're already in the Karajan club (;D), I'd also recommend Karajan's 70's recording with the BPO, which is probably my favourite recording of the work. And if you can tolerate the sound, the
best (but very "adapted", and certainly quite disturbing) Brahms' 4th I've heard is a Furtwängler/BPO live recording, on EMI. :)
As for Mahler's 8th, I've said it a few times already (I think) that I consider Tennstedt's version
nonpareil, while the Solti, the early Bernstein, the Bertini, and the Rattle are also strong performances. The Sinopoli and the Chailly, on the other hand, are interesting in their approach, but I wouldn't recommend them as a way into the piece.
(Kubelik's I haven't heard, and Abbado's I don't rank with the above recordings: it's good, but not that good, in my opinion.)
Quote from: some guy on November 06, 2007, 09:55:43 AM
Wow.
The sixth was my first experience of Nørgård's music. On the strength of that (and of Terrains Vagues, which is on the same disc), I was back in the store to buy all the rest of their Nørgård, about four other discs, and then back home to get on Amazon and Arkiv to order the other half dozen I now enjoy.
Like they say, "De gustibus non est disputandum." ("They" being dead Romans.) But while Norgard hasn't wowed me, there's enough of interest for me to keep trying.
Quote from: Grazioso on November 05, 2007, 05:56:05 PM
What I'm not ready for: maybe Nørgård, who's revered by some here. So far, I find his third symphony pretty yet ultimately pretty dull, rather like a collection of sound effects with delusions of grandeur. The sixth is an ugly bore, butTerrains Vagues has an interesting rhythmic drive.
Well, if you didn't get the third, you probably won't get anything else by him.