GMG Classical Music Forum

Following Don's Russian composer poll, I figured it'd be alright try a GMG poll on French composers. Five votes permitted, if I forgot to list one of your favorite French composers just select "other" and please include the unlisted composer's name in your reply. Thanks.

Berlioz
Saint-Saens
Franck
Bizet
Ravel

Honorable Mention: Chabrier

C Franck were Belgian, if he is included Honegger ought to be as well (both spent a lot of their time in Paris).

Edit: Honegger IS included! Sorry!

Dufay
Desprez
Rameau
Saint-Saens
Faure

This poll hurts, there's so many favorite left by the wayside!

Alkan
Berlioz
Poulenc
Ravel
Saint-Saëns

Of course there are more, but you only asked for five.

Jean-Baptiste Lully
Marc-Antoine Charpentier
Jean-Philippe Rameau
Camille Saint-Saëns
Gabriel Fauré

Varese, Boulez, Messiaen, Ravel, Debussy

Saint-Saens
Franck
Bizet
Ravel
Berlioz

Debussy
Ravel
Boulez
Dutilleux
Messiaen

And one more whose work I find utterly fascinating and suspect may be recalled as influential in years to come, as one of the founders of the "spectralist" movement:

Gérard Grisey (1946-1998)

--Bruce

Quote from: bhodges on January 05, 2008, 12:17:00 PM


Gérard Grisey (1946-1998)

--Bruce

He, Poulenc, and Berlioz would be my runners-up  8)

Delibes (delicious, utterly unpretentious music)
Chabrier (ditto, though quite different in character)
Chausson (extraordinarily haunting stuff, especially Poeme)
Ravel (unequalled when at his best: Rhapsodie espagnole; L'enfant et les sortileges)
Poulenc (sheer indulgence)

I'd probably vote for different composers on a different day - v sorry not to include Dutilleux, for example.

Alkan
Debussy
Ravel
Faure
Satie

Even though I love Berlioz above everyone before, say, 1911, and could easily have voted for people like Poulenc on the one hand and Varèse on the other (who was to all intents and purposes an American composer--in a very real, and legally binding way...), I decided to vote only for "Other," so I could confine myself to five without stabbing my eyes out with a pencil:

Michèle Bokanowski (rich, lovely sounds--heart-stoppingly gorgeous music)
Eliane Radigue (just starting to listen to her--a friend of Michèle's, she's what one might term a drone minimalist--as opposed to a pattern minimalist or a phase minimalist or a concept minimalist.)
Lionel Marchetti (someone who in his composed work combines electroacoustic "tape" techniques with the "open mike" kind of thing associated with Luc Ferrari, and who, with Jérôme Noetinger, is one of the most inventive live electronics improvisers)
Francis Dhomont (a pioneer of electroacoustic music--was discovering on his own some of the same things Pierre Schaeffer would become known for inventing around the same time as Pierre, maybe even earlier...)
Luc Ferrari (the giant among giants--the most innovative and revered of the not famous French composers--the one that in certain circles is the most famous, too)

Wow. Only five? Are you sure? You meant fifty, I think. (Otherwise, where'd I put that pencil....)

Berlioz
Franck
DeBussy
Chausson
Faure

Quote from: some guy on January 05, 2008, 02:53:18 PM
Even though I love Berlioz above everyone before, say, 1911, and could easily have voted for people like Poulenc on the one hand and Varèse on the other (who was to all intents and purposes an American composer--in a very real, and legally binding way...), I decided to vote only for "Other," so I could confine myself to five without stabbing my eyes out with a pencil:

Michèle Bokanowski (rich, lovely sounds--heart-stoppingly gorgeous music)
Eliane Radigue (just starting to listen to her--a friend of Michèle's, she's what one might term a drone minimalist--as opposed to a pattern minimalist or a phase minimalist or a concept minimalist.)
Lionel Marchetti (someone who in his composed work combines electroacoustic "tape" techniques with the "open mike" kind of thing associated with Luc Ferrari, and who, with Jérôme Noetinger, is one of the most inventive live electronics improvisers)
Francis Dhomont (a pioneer of electroacoustic music--was discovering on his own some of the same things Pierre Schaeffer would become known for inventing around the same time as Pierre, maybe even earlier...)
Luc Ferrari (the giant among giants--the most innovative and revered of the not famous French composers--the one that in certain circles is the most famous, too)

Wow. Only five? Are you sure? You meant fifty, I think. (Otherwise, where'd I put that pencil....)

While we're going obscure here, what about Pierre Henry, Henry Schaeffer, Maurice Ohana? And since I can't see the poll options while typing the answer, were the less obcure Jolivet and Francaix included? Germain Tailleferre and Cecile Chaminade certainly weren't.....

Berlioz
Saint-Saens
Faure
Debussy
Ravel

Quote from: Que on January 06, 2008, 02:51:33 AM
I guess the results will be pretty predictable: The "Romantics" will come 1st, the "Modernists" 2nd, with the composers from the Baroque and earlier in last position.

Q

Charpentier: 2 votes
Rameau: 5 votes
Debussy: 15 votes
Ravel: 19 votes

Are Debussy & Ravel really that good composers? I enjoy their music but I enjoy Charpentier and Rameau too. Some people just ignore baroque...  ::)

ALKAN !!!!!!      Naturellement .......   :)

My top 3 (Berlioz, Debussy and Ravel) were easy. My other 2 were much more difficult, though, in the end I opted for Duparc ( a small, but perfect, output) and Poulenc. However I could just as easily have opted for Bizet, Offenbach, Messiaen, Gounod, Chausson, Lilli Boulanger, Massenet or Saint- Saens.

Debussy
Ravel
Rameau
Saint-Saëns
Bizet

Wikipedia: Dufay was among the most influential composers of the 15th century, and his music was copied, distributed and sung everywhere that polyphony had taken root. Almost all composers of the succeeding generations absorbed some elements of his style. The wide distribution of his music is all the more impressive considering that he died several decades before the availability of music printing.

How many French composers can you say that about (except for Debussy)?. Yet I'm the only one to like his music and consider him among the very greatest?

Quote from: erato on January 06, 2008, 04:45:55 AM
Wikipedia: Dufay was among the most influential composers of the 15th century, and his music was copied, distributed and sung everywhere that polyphony had taken root. Almost all composers of the succeeding generations absorbed some elements of his style. The wide distribution of his music is all the more impressive considering that he died several decades before the availability of music printing.

How many French composers can you say that about (except for Debussy)?. Yet I'm the only one to like his music and consider him among the very greatest?

I don't know Dufay's music. I don't listen to renaissance music much. Palestrina sometimes but that's it. Baroque music is much more interesting.

Jean-Baptiste Lully
Marc-Antoine Charpentier
Gabriel Fauré
Paul Dukas
Maurice Ravel

and an honarable mention to André Danican Philidor.

and I need to check out Dufay pronto.

1. Berlioz

2. Debussy

3. Ravel

4. Satie

5. MAGNARD!!!


Sarge

d'Indy is substantial as well, anybody know his string quartets (recorded by the Joachim Qt)? But Magnard is very worthwhile.

If we're allowed to count the not-really-French composers, I'll vote Dufay/Debussy/Ravel/Honegger/Dutilleux. Oops, forgot about Berlioz!

Erato, who you callin' obscure?  ;D

Actually, if you get the right people together, none of these people is obscure. Luc Ferrari was a cult figure in the seventies and eighties, with much jostling of elbows in record stores for his latest LP. When he died a couple of years ago, there were immediately concerts of his works all over Europe. And still there's elbow jostling when new CDs come out. (eRikm has been assiduously performing and recording hitherto unperformed or unrecorded Ferrari.)

Radigue and Dhomont are quite well known. Radigue has almost cult status as an electroacoustic minimalist. Dhomont taught several generations of electroacoustic composers in Montreal. Probably the largest electroacoustic label is the one in Montreal. His eightieth birthday concert there in 2006 was sold out. People had to be turned away.

That leaves Lionel Marchetti, who is wildly famous--among the right people!--and Bokanowski, who should be more famous than she is. :(

I certainly wouldn't call Henry obscure. With Schaeffer, he's one of the founders of electroacoustic music. He gives concerts in Paris all the time, still. Schaeffer's GRM is still one of the more prominent electronic music studios in the world. Ohana, may be. I'll give you Ohana.

Quote from: some guy on January 06, 2008, 11:07:52 AM
Ohana, may be. I'll give you Ohana.

Isn't Ohana the only one of these to be currently reasonably available on record?

James,

I will try, but I have to warn you that I do not personally distinguish between "great" and "interesting."

Still, let's see what I can come up with:

Bokanowski, L'étoile Absinthe. Utterly marvelous. Grabs you and does not let go. I thought that as Pour un Pianiste and the soundtrack to L'Ange were recently released, they'd be easier to locate. Well, you just have to go to the Metamkine site. They're all there.

Radigue, Trilogie de la Mort is probably her most famous piece. Jetsun Mila is recent. But even though it's been out since May, I still don't have this. So it might even be better! I still have a special fondness for Biogenesis, as that was the first Radigue I really enjoyed. (That's on Metamkine,too, though Radigue's CDs are easy to find on Amazon.

Marchetti, Portrait d'un Glacier. Marchetti's difficult to choose from. He does both composed music and improv. My favorite of the latter is on a Hermes disc, Hermes 034, though Double Wash, with Noetinger and Voice Crack is pretty sweet, too. And while you're on the Metamkine site, you might as well check out the Marchetti they have, too. (All those three inch CDs for only three Euros and the five inch ones for eight Euros. Nice!!)

Dhomont, Les dérives du signe. (Four pieces, Novar, Chiaroscuro, Météores, and Signé Dionysos. Météores is also a movement of Chroniques de la lumière, which also includes Miroitements and Artifices. Odd that that should have happened, as Chroniques is a pretty tightly integrated piece. Of his more recent work, I like Je te salue, vieil océan very much.

Ferrari. Are you kidding me? What by Ferrari isn't great? OK. I'll make a short list of the long list of great Ferrari pieces. Presque Rien No. 1, which along with two other Presque Rien pieces and a number of other "open mike" pieces like Music Promenade, illustrates Cage's dictum that music is all around us. I started my Ferrari listening with Société II, Et si le piano était un corps de femme, which is a wild extravaganza of almost everything.

Otherwise, it's so hard to choose. Et si toute entiere maintenant, maybe? Danses organiques? Son memorise? Unheimlich schön? Nope. Too hard. I can't decide.

erato, If "reasonably available" means "on amazon," then all but Bokanowski are reasonably available.

Ohana has had a brief recent spurt of attention, that's true.

We have just pressed the buttons for four of them - naturally the incomparable Chausson was first of all - and for our fifth we pressed "Other": it is D'Indy of course!

May we perhaps also observe, although we find his productions inaesthetic and are not voting for him, that the music of Jean Barraqué is liked by a good many people.

Marc-Andre Dalbavie

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 06, 2008, 08:13:34 AM
5. MAGNARD!!!

Oh darn ........ I wish I could re-vote .........

DUFAY

MARC-ANTOINE CHARPENTIER

FRANÇOIS COUPERIN

BERLIOZ

DEBUSSY

Where is Louis Vierne?!?!?!?!?!    :o

I am shocked, shocked, shocked Monsieur, by this lapse!!!

Agreed, he produced mainly organ music, but have you heard his 6 GREAT Organ Symphonies??!?? 

His one orchestral symphony is a real trip to the twilight limits of the soul's outer zone!

And add another vote for Ernst Chausson!

Quote from: 71 dB on January 06, 2008, 03:01:57 AM
Charpentier: 2 votes
Rameau: 5 votes
Debussy: 15 votes
Ravel: 19 votes

Are Debussy & Ravel really that good composers? I enjoy their music but I enjoy Charpentier and Rameau too. Some people just ignore baroque...  ::)

Better face it - Debussy and Ravel are the big guns of French classical music.  However, Charpentier and Rameau are hardly ignored; they're just eclipsed by Bach, Handel and Vivaldi.

Quote from: Don on January 07, 2008, 09:21:34 AM
Better face it - Debussy and Ravel are the big guns of French classical music.  However, Charpentier and Rameau are hardly ignored; they're just eclipsed by Bach, Handel and Vivaldi.

I never "face" things that does not make sense. Debussy and Ravel are not the greatest romantic composers, are they? Bach, Handel on other hand are the greatest baroque composers.

What work by Debussy is better music than Rameau's Les Indes galantes?  ???

People ignore baroque and pay attention to the best (Bach, Handel and Vivaldi) only.

Rameau, Berlioz, Debussy, Ravel, Boulez. Fauré if I were allowed a sixth. Offenbach for fun. But definitely not Messiaen (shudder).

Quote from: 71 dB on January 07, 2008, 09:56:53 AM


People ignore baroque and pay attention to the best (Bach, Handel and Vivaldi) only.

I definitely agree  (and would add renaissance as well)....but if you listen to Debussy as romantic music you are missing a point.

Quote from: Sydney Grew on January 06, 2008, 06:32:10 PM
We have just pressed the buttons for four of them - naturally the incomparable Chausson was first of all - and for our fifth we pressed "Other": it is D'Indy of course!

May we perhaps also observe, although we find his productions inaesthetic and are not voting for him, that the music of Jean Barraqué is liked by a good many people.

As for ourselves, if we may be so bold to perhaps view the productions of the composer nominated supra by the Member as aesthetic in the highest vein, we would mayhaps, had we felt welling within ourselves the urge to écrivez le nom d'un compositeur nous-même, and if we were able to locate the subject and predicate within our own sentence, have posited the name of the said Jean Barraqué as one of our favorites among the great musical geniuses of the pays français.

Here are a few names of French composers that had the misfortune to be born/ to live in the shadow of Debussy, Ravel, Messiaen and Boulez. I'm giving this list for information's sake -I have only heard a few of their works - and do not claim that they are "better" or "greater" or .....
AFAIK, they all wrote valuable music that deserves to be heard & played.Unfortunately the French themselves do little to promote their musical past & future...as compared to GB, the Nordic countries....

Charles Koechlin
André Jolivet
Jacques Charpentier
Jacques Castérède
Tony Aubin
Yvonne Desportes
Claude Ballif
Henry Barraud
Yves Baudrier
André Boucourechliev
Emmanuel Bondeville
André Casanova
Pierre Capdevielle
Maurice Jaubert
Raymond Loucheur
Ivo Malec
Thierry Escaich
Nicholas Bacri
Thérèse Brenet
Charles Chaynes
etc, etc etc

Peter

Quote from: pjme on January 07, 2008, 10:59:36 AM
Unfortunately the French themselves do little to promote their musical past & future...

?

GRM
IRCAM
CCMIX
IMEB

Radio France
Montpellier festival

Metamkine
Musique Française d'Aujourd'hui
Disques Montaigne

?

But I do understand your point. One could list new music organizations by the dozens in the U.S. and still maintain that the U.S. does not promote its own music. Or note the plethora of electroacoustic CDs from Germany and still say (as a German electroacoustic composer did say to me once) that there's not musch electronic music activity in Germany.

Quote from: James on January 07, 2008, 10:32:35 AM
The pre 20th century French school ... my favourite is Faure, then his pupil Ravel & Debussy.

Same thing for me.

I've heard a lot of opinionable assertions about historical periods here (Beethoven Classicist, Mahler Romantic). But Ravel and Debussy labelled as "Romantics" in one of the funniest.

    Of course , France has also these small groups of enthusiasts, trying to promote composer X, Baroque organs in the Ardeche region, forgotten tenors and sopranos....

I would like to see a realy well prepared cycle of the Magnard (Koechlin, Jolivet,Barraud,Charpentier,Chaynes...) symphonies played by one of the major orchestras, a well prepared and recorded version of Bizet operas, other than Carmen, operas by Saint Saens, d'Indy, Ropartz...chamber music by Lappara, Tournemire, Migot....

Almost every scrap of Sibelius and Vaughan Williams has been recorded. I wonder why the French cannot do the same for their Early -to Late -Romantic composers.....

Quote from: 71 dB on January 07, 2008, 09:56:53 AM
I never "face" things that does not make sense. Debussy and Ravel are not the greatest romantic composers, are they? Bach, Handel on other hand are the greatest baroque composers.

What work by Debussy is better music than Rameau's Les Indes galantes?  ???

First, you need to make distinctions between your preferences and general popularity - that's facing reality, something you never pay attention to.  Recognizing reality does not mean you have to agree with its findings.

Second, neither Debussy nor Ravel are romantic-era composers.

Third, although Rameau's operas are mighty fine, I much prefer a host of works by Debussy - Etudes, Preludes, La Mer, Faun, String Quartet, etc.

Quote from: erato on January 06, 2008, 04:45:55 AMDufay was among the most influential composers of the 15th century, and his music was copied, distributed and sung everywhere that polyphony had taken root.
Yet I'm the only one to like his music and consider him among the very greatest?

Heartily seconded.

Quote from: Don on January 07, 2008, 12:47:30 PM
Third, although Rameau's operas are mighty fine, I much prefer a host of works by Debussy - Etudes, Preludes, La Mer, Faun, String Quartet, etc.

Well, i for one think Rameau's operas are at very least finer then Vivaldi's.  ;)

Personally, i think Rameau made a mistake in abandoning his early production of keyboard music (which personally i consider some of the finest in the "not by Bach" Baroque repertory) to devote nearly entirely on a single genre. 

Quote from: erato on January 06, 2008, 04:45:55 AM
Wikipedia: Dufay was among the most influential composers of the 15th century.

I prefer Josquin myself. ;D

Quote from: Sforzando on January 07, 2008, 10:29:03 AM
As for ourselves, if we may be so bold to perhaps view the productions of the composer nominated supra by the Member as aesthetic in the highest vein, we would mayhaps, had we felt welling within ourselves the urge to écrivez le nom d'un compositeur nous-même, and if we were able to locate the subject and predicate within our own sentence, have posited the name of the said Jean Barraqué as one of our favorites among the great musical geniuses of the pays français.

Hahaha! Brilliant!

Quote from: James on January 07, 2008, 01:57:04 PM
Yea...in that point in time sure, but it's a rather narrow affair to the kind of multi-faceted creations that were to come later, and though I do admire the beauty of a few of his vocal edifices; there is not much, and not much of his music has had "legs" to travel through time for him to be considered a truly "great composer"; let alone one that typifies a uniquely French sound, like French impressionists Debussy & Ravel; who personify it...

Keep in mind you are listening with ears that are used to the music of our time. We have no idea how those who studied music in the time immediately after Dufay heard his music, but I think they would have picked up things that we wouldn't notice now.

Additionally, I shouldn't have to highlight the ludicrousness of comparing music made in 1400 with music made in 1900.

As this vote is for favorites, my fifth vote goes to Farrenc, inexplicably missing from the list. Bonis is another composer who lies in the shadows of Debussy and Saint-Saens.

Quote from: pjme on January 07, 2008, 10:59:36 AM
AFAIK, they all wrote valuable music that deserves to be heard & played.Unfortunately the French themselves do little to promote their musical past & future...as compared to GB, the Nordic countries....

Music is not very present in our culture.
Strangely, before I got interested in classical I've always had the feeling that Ravel, Berlioz or Saint-Saëns were minor composers (I had heard much more about Tchaikovsky, Schumann or Mendelssohn). Most of french people probably ignore what kind of an artist Debussy was (a writer?) (He seems too be more famous in Japan ;D)

My top 5 :

Berlioz
Ravel
Satie
Franck
Saint-Saëns

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 07, 2008, 01:17:21 PM
Well, i for one think Rameau's operas are at very least finer then Vivaldi's.  ;)

Definitely.

Quote from: James on January 07, 2008, 02:31:02 PM
otherwise Dufay's music would be much more widely spread than it is now;

Or perhaps that he was writing before the printing press (invented in 1436; Dufay died in 1474) was widely available?

Quoteand also, it would be unanimously regarded as being so characteristically & quintessentially French, but it's not.

It may not seem that way now, but isn't it possible that a British/Flemish/Spanish person studying music during the Renaissance would have seen Dufay's music as "characteristically French"? I haven't studied music but perhaps someone here who has could confirm or deny this?

Quote from: James on January 07, 2008, 01:57:04 PM
Yea...in that point in time sure, but it's a rather narrow affair to the kind of multi-faceted creations that were to come later, and though I do admire the beauty of a few of his vocal edifices; there is not much, and not much of his music has had "legs" to travel thru time for him to be considered a truly "great composer"; let alone one that typifies a uniquely French sound, like French impressionists Debussy & Ravel; who personify it...

Well, there's nothing about the Flemish composers that typifies a uniquely French sound. There's nothing "French" about them to begin with, the typical plastic texture of the Renaissance being British in origin.

Nonetheless, beyond the strict parameters of a national style (which are of limited value anyway), their dept is based on the astonishing advancements they made to the art of polyphony, which i think it's a bit more impressive in a general sense (whether the Flemish masters wrote greater music then the French it's a different matter).

Quote from: James on January 07, 2008, 03:25:55 PM
Yes...he may have been a catalyst for change and made advancements & developments in areas of music, but again, I don't really care for his music.

Fixed.  ;)

Quote from: James on January 07, 2008, 10:32:35 AM
The pre 20th century French school ... my favourite is Faure, then his pupil Ravel & Debussy. They can hardly be considered romantic composers, but more transitional...and nothing against Rameau whom you prefer (that's fine), but Debussy did produce many deeply rich, extraordinary and highly innovative (& important) works...things like Prelude a l'apres-midi d'un faune, Nocturnes for Orchestra, La Mer, Jeux, the String Quartet, the late Sonatas (Cello, Violin, Flute-Viola & Harp), the Melodies (songs), and the piano music; 2 books of Preludes, the Images and the Etudes etc...

Yeah, they are not romantic composers stylistically but you understand what I mean (time period, Ravel also post war).

I have these works by Debussy: Piano Trio No. 1 & Violin Sonata. I enjoy them but I enjoy Rameau's music even more.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 07, 2008, 04:04:21 PM
Yeah, they are not romantic composers stylistically but you understand what I mean (time period, Ravel also post war).

I have these works by Debussy: Piano Trio No. 1 & Violin Sonata. I enjoy them but I enjoy Rameau's music even more.

You're judging him on two pieces, one of which he wrote when he was 16?

Quote from: Don on January 07, 2008, 12:47:30 PM
First, you need to make distinctions between your preferences and general popularity - that's facing reality, something you never pay attention to.  Recognizing reality does not mean you have to agree with its findings.

I DO pay attention: generally people like Debussy more than Rameau. I like Rameau more than Debussy. Do you mean I have to admit I am wrong?  ???

Quote from: edward on January 07, 2008, 04:11:07 PM
You're judging him on two pieces, one of which he wrote when he was 16?

Yeah, I wish I could judge him on all of his works but I can't.

Only 16? I didn't know that!  :o

Quote from: 71 dB on January 07, 2008, 04:04:21 PM

I have these works by Debussy: Piano Trio No. 1 & Violin Sonata.

Considering that  one of his claims to fame was his mastery of orchestral color (and innovations in large scale structure) that seems a bit............hrm..............lacking.

That said; the late violin sonata is a fabulous work. The Piano trio I've never heard. Despite listening to a lot of Debussy over the years, I wasn't even aware of it. 

I have no problem with you preferring Rameau. In fact he is an absolutely marvellous composer, and one cannot like what one doesn't know. There are composers in this poll I don't know well myself. But we all have to be careful about making statements about greatness (greater than); your knowledge about Debussy compares to the knowledge of Monet by one who has only seen a couple of charcoal drawings. The mature Debussy orchestral works are a fine experience which you shouldn't miss!

Very difficult to select five from your list, however, I will offer five that have impressed me in recent years:

Widor;
Tournemire;
Pierne;
Farrenc;
Dupre.

I regret leaving off Onslow, Ropartz, Canteloube and Guilmant. Come to think of it the latters first symphony, alone, could put him above Dupre in my affections.

Quote from: erato on January 07, 2008, 09:22:44 PM
Considering that  one of his claims to fame was his mastery of orchestral color (and innovations in large scale structure) that seems a bit............hrm..............lacking.

That said; the late violin sonata is a fabulous work. The Piano trio I've never heard. Despite listening to a lot of Debussy over the years, I wasn't even aware of it. 

I have no problem with you preferring Rameau. In fact he is an absolutely marvellous composer, and one cannot like what one doesn't know. There are composers in this poll I don't know well myself. But we all have to be careful about making statements about greatness (greater than); your knowledge about Debussy compares to the knowledge of Monet by one who has only seen a couple of charcoal drawings. The mature Debussy orchestral works are a fine experience which you shouldn't miss!

The Piano Trio is listed as "L.3" in the Debussy catalog. It was probably written around the time that he was pianist for Madame von Meck's (of Tchaikovsky fame) personal trio. Considering that even such delightful early works as Pour le Piano and the String Quartet aren't fully characteristic of Debussy's most personal manner, it seems unjust to judge Debussy on such an incomplete basis. Debussy's orchestral works are something very special, but then again so are his mature piano works as well. I would say that unless one knows at least the Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, the Piano Preludes, Images, Estampes, and Etudes, Pelleas et Melisande, La Mer, the Images for Orchestra, the three late chamber sonatas, and Jeux, one doesn't know Debussy.

Correct!

And it applies to all composers ofcourse : listen, explore, learn, read. take time.....go to concerts,when possible.  ;D 0:)

Quote from: Sforzando on January 08, 2008, 06:18:09 AMI would say that unless one knows at least the Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, the Piano Preludes, Images, Estampes, and Etudes, Pelleas et Melisande, La Mer, the Images for Orchestra, the three late chamber sonatas, and Jeux, one doesn't know Debussy.

First of all, I was surprised myself I have only 2 works by Debussy. I thought I had more. Secondly, I do know Faun, of course. I have it recorded on a VHS cassette but I haven't played it for years (I don't use VHS anymore). I think I have heard La Mer and Images too (whatever was on that Naxos CD I borrowed 10 years ago...) I could always buy more Debussy but I want to explore many other composers too. Many of the composers in this poll are completely unknown to me!

Quote from: 71 dB on January 08, 2008, 11:09:32 AM
I could always buy more Debussy but I want to explore many other composers too. Many of the composers in this poll are completely unknown to me!

Curiosity is a good thing. But one has tio have a balance between the masters and the exploration of new territory. Not easy to achieve.

No Lalo,no Lekeu?

Hard to fathom: a French poll without Lalo ..........

Quote from: Muriel on January 08, 2008, 11:16:27 AM
No Lalo,no Lekeu?

Frankly, I'm getting tired of folks complaining about the particular names not on these types of lists.  If you don't find the list satisfactory, just do your own.

Quote from: James on January 08, 2008, 11:54:23 AM
Don't fret it Don, it's not worth it...instructions were given at the beginning that if a name wasnt there, just vote "other" & include the unlisted name(s) their reply, many have did just that. No problems.

Right.  I'm just in a pissy mood after finding that I'll have to pay for the repairs to the roof leak at my home.  I was expecting free repair to the roof cover, but it turns out that the stucco is the problem.

Quote from: erato on January 08, 2008, 11:15:08 AM
Curiosity is a good thing. But one has tio have a balance between the masters and the exploration of new territory. Not easy to achieve.

Thanks to exploration I have found MY masters.

And....hmm..Guillaume Lekeu is Belgian....( even if he lived and studied in France)

(http://www.pelleas.info/composers/Lekeu/Monument_Lekeu.jpeg)

Lekeu monument in Verviers   

(http://www.pelleas.info/composers/Lekeu/Tomb_Lekeu.jpeg)

Lekeu's grave

Quote from: pjme on January 08, 2008, 02:04:46 PM
And....hmm..Guillaume Lekeu is Belgian....( even if he lived and studied in France)

Same with Franck ........ but that doesn't stop him from being French ........

Quote from: 71 dB on January 08, 2008, 01:43:00 PM
Thanks to exploration I have found MY masters.

How can you say that when you admit not having heard the major Debussy works? Or major works by other masters? Are  youl istening to music in seek of confirmation of yourself and your established opinions, or of discovery/new experiences/learning?

Totally wrong attitude IMO.

Quote from: erato on January 09, 2008, 01:29:04 AM
How can you say that when you admit not having heard the major Debussy works? Or major works by other masters? Are  youl istening to music in seek of confirmation of yourself and your established opinions, or of discovery/new experiences/learning?

Totally wrong attitude IMO.

Wrong attitude? What? I hear samples of music. Some of these samples get me interested. I start to explore and usually find music/artists/composers I like. What is wrong about this? Yes, I have not heard ALL major works by Debussy but I have heard some (e.g. Faun). I am open-minded and I constantly seek new territories. At the moment I am exploring Tangerine Dream's electronic music. I don't read from the books who are the "official" masters according to the music history. I want to figure that out myself because I am not an idiot. That's why I speak for neglected composers like Dittersdorf, Bruhns, Weckmann, Fasch, Graupner, Hasse, Taneyev,...

I don't mean you should read who are the mastera from books. Who are the masters to you are your decision. But I think you shall discover new masters continually by listening to new stuff, instead of deciding on a list of "masters" already, which is the impression your previous post gave. 

Quote from: erato on January 09, 2008, 02:44:01 AM
I don't mean you should read who are the mastera from books. Who are the masters to you are your decision. But I think you shall discover new masters continually by listening to new stuff, instead of deciding on a list of "masters" already, which is the impression your previous post gave. 

Oh, I definitely keep exploring new stuff.  ;) Perhaps more Debussy in the near future...

Quote from: 71 dB on January 09, 2008, 02:04:15 AM
Wrong attitude? What? I hear samples of music. Some of these samples get me interested. I start to explore and usually find music/artists/composers I like. What is wrong about this? Yes, I have not heard ALL major works by Debussy but I have heard some (e.g. Faun). I am open-minded and I constantly seek new territories. At the moment I am exploring Tangerine Dream's electronic music. I don't read from the books who are the "official" masters according to the music history. I want to figure that out myself because I am not an idiot. That's why I speak for neglected composers like Dittersdorf, Bruhns, Weckmann, Fasch, Graupner, Hasse, Taneyev,...

Neglected figures are generally neglected for good reason. Accepted figures are generally accepted for good reason as well. Occasionally there are reputations that deserve to rise or fall, but by and large the accepted canon of great composers is a pretty amazing body of fine art. There's nothing wrong with pursuing lesser known composers once in a while, but if your sights are set no higher than Taneyev and Dittersdorf, how will you be aware of a superlative achievement like Debussy's La Mer? This is not a matter of being open-minded or not; rather it is a matter of exploring what other knowledgeable individuals before you have already singled out as the most original and remarkable achievements in the art. Why deny yourself these experiences?

Quote from: Sforzando on January 09, 2008, 08:13:48 AM
Neglected figures are generally neglected for good reason. Accepted figures are generally accepted for good reason as well. Occasionally there are reputations that deserve to rise or fall, but by and large the accepted canon of great composers is a pretty amazing body of fine art. There's nothing wrong with pursuing lesser known composers once in a while, but if your sights are set no higher than Taneyev and Dittersdorf, how will you be aware of a superlative achievement like Debussy's La Mer? This is not a matter of being open-minded or not; rather it is a matter of exploring what other knowledgeable individuals before you have already singled out as the most original and remarkable achievements in the art. Why deny yourself these experiences?

I wish you hadn't lumped Taneyev and Dittersdorf together.  I find Taneyev a rather special composer, while Dittersdorf is only mildly interesting.

Quote from: Don on January 09, 2008, 08:23:28 AM
I wish you hadn't lumped Taneyev and Dittersdorf together.  I find Taneyev a rather special composer, while Dittersdorf is only mildly interesting.

Change Taneyev to any 2nd or 3rd rater of your choice. (And if you have anything "special" by Taneyev you'd like to point out, I'm all ears.) My point was more that the above poster seems to be deliberately going out of his way to avoid what he calls the "official" masters, apparently to prove his own uniqueness of viewpoint.

As for me, well - look, I'm close to 60 years old. I may have 20-30 years left, I may have 5 or 10. I want to spend that time with composers who matter. Unless I find good reason to think "Dittersdorf, Bruhns, Weckmann, Fasch, Graupner, Hasse, Taneyev" et al. are pursuing, I'll stick with Beethoven, Debussy, Bach, and Brahms.

Quote from: Sforzando on January 09, 2008, 08:13:48 AM
Neglected figures are generally neglected for good reason. Accepted figures are generally accepted for good reason as well.

Often yes but not always.

Quote from: Sforzando on January 09, 2008, 08:13:48 AMOccasionally there are reputations that deserve to rise or fall, but by and large the accepted canon of great composers is a pretty amazing body of fine art. There's nothing wrong with pursuing lesser known composers once in a while, but if your sights are set no higher than Taneyev and Dittersdorf, how will you be aware of a superlative achievement like Debussy's La Mer? This is not a matter of being open-minded or not; rather it is a matter of exploring what other knowledgeable individuals before you have already singled out as the most original and remarkable achievements in the art. Why deny yourself these experiences?

Debussy's La Mer might be superlative for you but maybe I have different taste? I find Debussy lacking rhythm while I adore Taneyev's skill in counterpoint. I don't completely trust individuals before me. I trust myself. I don't deny experiences from myself if I don't even know they exist. Sorry, but I find you patronising and arrogant trying to deny my enjoyment of music.

Quote from: Sforzando on January 09, 2008, 08:51:54 AM
If you have anything "special" by Taneyev you'd like to point out, I'm all ears.

Taneyev is not one of the "accepted" masters because his music is too complicated for masses. That's why his teacher (Tchaikovsky) and pupil (Rachmaninov) are so popular - easiear music. Try Taneyev's chamber music and you'll be blown away. Try his Oresteya Overture or Symphonies. Let's see if you still care about Debussy after that.  ;D

Quote from: Sforzando on January 09, 2008, 08:51:54 AMAs for me, well - look, I'm close to 60 years old. I may have 20-30 years left, I may have 5 or 10. I want to spend that time with composers who matter. Unless I find good reason to think "Dittersdorf, Bruhns, Weckmann, Fasch, Graupner, Hasse, Taneyev" et al. are pursuing, I'll stick with Beethoven, Debussy, Bach, and Brahms.

With all respect the older generation sticks with Beethoven and few other composers. We younger people (well, I just turned 37) are spoiled with new exciting composers and works! There are new labels like CPO bringing this music in to the light! We also have the "old masters". I can buy Debussy anyday but I can explore so many other composers! It's cornucopia! I'm lucky!

Quote from: Sforzando on January 09, 2008, 08:13:48 AM
Neglected figures are generally neglected for good reason.

Yeah, because the neglecters are stupid or scared or snobbish or right. "Right," notice, is only ONE of the possible reasons.

And if the conversation is about more recent work, by living composers, then the whole sifting activity (which is not as benign as Sforzando thinks it is) cannot have hardly even gotten going. Why, for instance has the enormously talented Tarnopolski had only three CDs so far, two of which are impossible to find, one of which is enormously difficult to find? Rihm, on the other hand, is an also talented composer who isn't neglected at all. Performed and recorded all the time.

Age, by the way, has really nothing do with anything. Sforzando is 60 and 71 db is 37. That's nice, but hardly germane. Many "new" music composers are so old they've already died (Cage, Tudor, Stockhausen, Ferrari), many are older than Sforzando (Huber, Dhomont, Bokanowski, Ferreyra), some are around my age (Rihm, Czernowin, Hosokawa, Hobbs--Hobbs is as old as Sforzando).

I spend a good deal of time listening to music. Most of it, in fact. I'm almost 56. I have about the same time left as Sforzando. I don't have time to waste with listening only to music I already know or to music that "knowledgeable listeners" have already vetted for me! Yikes!

I think I'll go listen to some GOL. (They're laptop quartet in Paris, which is in France, so that my post is still "on topic" so to speak!!)

And let's not have any more respect, 71 db!!!

Quote from: Sforzando on January 09, 2008, 08:51:54 AM
Change Taneyev to any 2nd or 3rd rater of your choice. (And if you have anything "special" by Taneyev you'd like to point out, I'm all ears.)

No problem.  Check out Taneyev's Piano Trio Op. 22 and Piano Quartet Op. 20 - both are stunning works and wonderfully realized by the Barbican Trio on Dutton Labs.  Personally, I don't see how anyone could be intimate with Taneyev's output and consider him less than 1st rate.

Quote from: Don on January 09, 2008, 10:37:07 AM
No problem.  Check out Taneyev's Piano Trio Op. 22 and Piano Quartet Op. 20 - both are stunning works and wonderfully realized by the Barbican Trio on Dutton Labs.  Personally, I don't see how anyone could be intimate with Taneyev's output and consider him less than 1st rate.

Because first rate composers are not only stunning and wonderfully realized, they are also unique. Taneyev wasn't. Besides, there's much more to music then counterpoint (and this is coming from somebody who cannot live without polyphony). Harmonically, Debussy is on another universe compared to Taneyev, which is probably why he is remembered more.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 09, 2008, 09:06:31 AM
Often yes but not always.

Debussy's La Mer might be superlative for you but maybe I have different taste? I find Debussy lacking rhythm while I adore Taneyev's skill in counterpoint.

From my perspective, there's no point listening to Debussy if you insist on some kind of consistent rhythmic energy or pulse; that's simply not what Debussy's music is about.  I do agree about the value of Taneyev's counterpoint; he was an "ace" when it comes to writing counterpoint.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 09, 2008, 09:19:31 AM
Taneyev is not one of the "accepted" masters because his music is too complicated for masses. That's why his teacher (Tchaikovsky) and pupil (Rachmaninov) are so popular - easiear music. Try Taneyev's chamber music and you'll be blown away. Try his Oresteya Overture or Symphonies. Let's see if you still care about Debussy after that.  ;D

Although I love Taneyev's music dearly, I'm not buying the argument that he is not an accepted master because his music is complicated.  Let's remember that counterpoint is not universally loved, and many consider it a highly academic venture devoid of emotional investment.  Obviously, I consider this erroneous, but composers like Taneyev and Reger are often knocked for their contrapuntal tendencies.

Quote from: some guy on January 09, 2008, 10:10:43 AM

Age, by the way, has really nothing do with anything. Sforzando is 60 and 71 db is 37. That's nice, but hardly germane.

Agreed.  I'm also 60 and think that I become more interested in the "obscure" as I get older.  The established master composers are all wonderful, but there's plenty of outstanding music that comes from other composers.

Rameau

But I like also

Lully
Delalande
Charpentier
Boulogne

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 09, 2008, 10:38:49 AM
Because first rate composers are not only stunning and wonderfully realized, they are also unique. Taneyev wasn't. Besides, there's much more to music then counterpoint (and this is coming from somebody who cannot live without polyphony). Harmonically, Debussy is on another universe compared to Taneyev, which is probably why he is remembered more.

I don't believe that a composer must be unique to be 1st rate.  Further, why do you feel that Taneyev's only attribute is counterpoint?

Quote from: 71 dB on January 09, 2008, 09:06:31 AM
Debussy's La Mer might be superlative for you but maybe I have different taste? I find Debussy lacking rhythm while I adore Taneyev's skill in counterpoint. I don't completely trust individuals before me. I trust myself. I don't deny experiences from myself if I don't even know they exist. Sorry, but I find you patronising and arrogant trying to deny my enjoyment of music.

I would say the arrogance is more on your side by so cavalierly dismissing a composer on the level of Debussy, whose work you clearly don't know. As for your statement, "I find Debussy lacking rhythm," it is musically speaking nonsense. Rhythm is the aspect of music concerned with the durations of notes. All music by definition has rhythm.

Just one more thing about Taneyev.  He doesn't sound special at all in the new Naxos disc from the Carpe Diem Quartet that has two of his string quartets.  Anyone thinking of getting this disc would be wise to switch to the Taneyev Quartet cycle of the string quartets on the Northern Flowers label.

Quote from: Don on January 09, 2008, 11:12:00 AM
Just one more thing about Taneyev.  He doesn't sound special at all in the new Naxos disc from the Carpe Diem Quartet that has two of his string quartets.  Anyone thinking of getting this disc would be wise to switch to the Taneyev Quartet cycle of the string quartets on the Northern Flowers label.

If only some of my regular suppliers could supply me with this label (I usually shop from the UK).

Quote from: Don on January 09, 2008, 10:50:36 AM
Agreed.  I'm also 60 and think that I become more interested in the "obscure" as I get older.  The established master composers are all wonderful, but there's plenty of outstanding music that comes from other composers.

I don't disagree with this at all. If I did, I wouldn't have asked you for information about Taneyev. My problem with Mr. 71 dB is that he seems deliberately to be guided by an attitude of resentment towards the established canon:

QuoteTaneyev is not one of the "accepted" masters because his music is too complicated for masses. That's why his teacher (Tchaikovsky) and pupil (Rachmaninov) are so popular - easiear music. Try Taneyev's chamber music and you'll be blown away. Try his Oresteya Overture or Symphonies. Let's see if you still care about Debussy after that.

The attitude here seems to me not one of Don's very rational, "The established master composers are all wonderful, but there's plenty of outstanding music that comes from other composers," but rather one of "The established canon is a bunch of crap, all recognized master composers are overrated, all unrecognized composers are undeservedly neglected, and unlike all you brainwashed sheep I'm the only one who gets it straight."

Quote from: Sforzando on January 09, 2008, 11:21:34 AM
The attitude here seems to me not one of Don's very rational, "The established master composers are all wonderful, but there's plenty of outstanding music that comes from other composers," but rather one of "The established canon is a bunch of crap, all recognized master composers are overrated, all unrecognized composers are undeservedly neglected, and unlike all you brainwashed sheep I'm the only one who gets it straight."

Count me in among the unwashed masses! I share Dons attitude BTW though not always his tastes (Schubert eg).

Quote from: Sforzando on January 09, 2008, 11:21:34 AM
The attitude here seems to me not one of Don's very rational, "The established master composers are all wonderful, but there's plenty of outstanding music that comes from other composers," but rather one of "The established canon is a bunch of crap, all recognized master composers are overrated, all unrecognized composers are undeservedly neglected, and unlike all you brainwashed sheep I'm the only one who gets it straight."

Seems to me that 71 dB, along with a very limited number of other board members, get a big kick out of bucking the "established" composers, labels, artists, etc.  This process might make them feel distinctive, but I think the price one pays is far too great.

Quote from: erato on January 09, 2008, 11:26:18 AM
Count me in among the unwashed masses! I share Dons attitude BTW though not always his tastes (Schubert eg).

I assume that erato considers me to be rather anti-Schubert.  However, that's not quite accurate.  I own about 150 Schubert recordings and love his solo piano works, string quartets, piano trios and even his operas.  But there is a little voice in my head that tells me Schubert is rather long-winded and deserves the minus points I've been giving him in the silly "composer competition" threads.  And let's keep in mind that the composers on those competition lists are generally the top of the mountain; somebody has to get a minus count.

Quote from: erato on January 09, 2008, 11:16:24 AM
If only some of my regular suppliers could supply me with this label (I usually shop from the UK).

Is the Russian DVD website available to you?  I think those Northern Flowers discs are all there.  I acquired my set through ArkivMusic.

PLeeeeeassssss!  :o!!!! Stop it ...try not to start an argument again!

71dB has stated over and over again that he is a "free thinker" - whatever that means ...( it means a lot to him )...Let it be.
Ignore posters that you find irritating.

Peter

Quote from: Don on January 09, 2008, 11:35:31 AM
I assume that erato considers me to be rather anti-Schubert.  However, that's not quite accurate.  I own about 150 Schubert recordings and love his solo piano works, string quartets, piano trios and even his operas.  But there is a little voice in my head that tells me Schubert is rather long-winded and deserves the minus points I've been giving him in the silly "composer competition" threads.  And let's keep in mind that the composers on those competition lists are generally the top of the mountain; somebody has to get a minus count.

Point taken - and one man's longwindedness is another man's heavenly length!   ;D

Quote from: Don on January 09, 2008, 10:41:12 AM
From my perspective, there's no point listening to Debussy if you insist on some kind of consistent rhythmic energy or pulse; that's simply not what Debussy's music is about.  I do agree about the value of Taneyev's counterpoint; he was an "ace" when it comes to writing counterpoint.

Similarly there is no point listening to Taneyev or Dittersdorf without understanding what the music is about. If Debussy had rhythmic energy or pulse in his music too it could be really good.

Quote from: Don on January 09, 2008, 10:47:06 AM
Let's remember that counterpoint is not universally loved, and many consider it a highly academic venture devoid of emotional investment.  Obviously, I consider this erroneous, but composers like Taneyev and Reger are often knocked for their contrapuntal tendencies.

And why is that? Because counterpoint takes higher understanding of art and it's relative structures. If masses like easy melodic music that's fine but Composers like Taneyev and Reger should not be punished for trying hard to produce intelligent art.

Quote from: Sforzando on January 09, 2008, 11:11:43 AM
I would say the arrogance is more on your side by so cavalierly dismissing a composer on the level of Debussy, whose work you clearly don't know. As for your statement, "I find Debussy lacking rhythm," it is musically speaking nonsense. Rhythm is the aspect of music concerned with the durations of notes. All music by definition has rhythm.

Rhythm in Debussy's music is totally secondary to other things. "All music by definition has rhythm.", Yeah, and All music by definition has everything.  ::)

Quote from: Don on January 09, 2008, 11:12:00 AM
Just one more thing about Taneyev.  He doesn't sound special at all in the new Naxos disc from the Carpe Diem Quartet that has two of his string quartets.  Anyone thinking of getting this disc would be wise to switch to the Taneyev Quartet cycle of the string quartets on the Northern Flowers label.

Pitty. I was considering this disc. Hopefully the forthcoming Naxos CD of Taneyev's symphonies is better. Thanks for the warning.

Quote from: Sforzando on January 09, 2008, 11:21:34 AMMy problem with Mr. 71 dB is that he seems deliberately to be guided by an attitude of resentment towards the established canon:

Your problem is misinterpreting my words. I don't have a "resentment towards the established canon". I like lots of it. Just not all while I see treasures outside the canon. If I like 25 % of the established canon and also 25 % of obscure composers/works it does not matter which I explore, does it?

Some people show amazing ignorance of things outside "the established canon".

Quote from: Don on January 09, 2008, 11:28:03 AM
Seems to me that 71 dB, along with a very limited number of other board members, get a big kick out of bucking the "established" composers, labels, artists, etc.  This process might make them feel distinctive, but I think the price one pays is far too great.

I might get a kick out of it but my intention is to shaken the "ossified" opinion. It's healthy for you all.  :D

 

Quote from: 71 dB on January 09, 2008, 01:26:50 PM


Your problem is misinterpreting my words. I don't have a "resentment towards the established canon". I like lots of it. Just not all while I see treasures outside the canon. If I like 25 % of the established canon and also 25 % of obscure composers/works it does not matter which I explore, does it?

Some people show amazing ignorance of things outside "the established canon".

I might get a kick out of it but my intention is to shaken the "ossified" opinion. It's healthy for you all.  :D

 

So you're like a daily vitamin pill? 

Quote from: 71 dB on January 09, 2008, 01:26:50 PM
And why is that? Because counterpoint takes higher understanding of art and it's relative structures. If masses like easy melodic music that's fine but Composers like Taneyev and Reger should not be punished for trying hard to produce intelligent art.
 

You really have a way about you that ticks people off.  I don't think it's an "automatic" that counterpoint takes a higher understanding.   Can't you simply enjoy both polyphonic and homophonic music and leave it at that.

Also, being dead guys, neither Taneyev nor Reger is being punished.  But I suppose their descendants might be a little grumpy.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 09, 2008, 01:26:50 PM
a) Your problem is misinterpreting my words. I don't have a "resentment towards the established canon". I like lots of it. Just not all while I see treasures outside the canon. If I like 25 % of the established canon and also 25 % of obscure composers/works it does not matter which I explore, does it?

b) Some people show amazing ignorance of things outside "the established canon".

c) I might get a kick out of it but my intention is to shaken the "ossified" opinion. It's healthy for you all.  :D 

QED.

Not worth my trouble responding to you further.

(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z245/tapiola/dontfeedthetroll.jpg)

Quote from: Don on January 09, 2008, 11:28:03 AM
Seems to me that 71 dB, along with a very limited number of other board members, get a big kick out of bucking the "established" composers, labels, artists, etc.  This process might make them feel distinctive, but I think the price one pays is far too great.

I was emailing about this phenomenon with a friend the other week, who wrote, "People who want to believe they are among an 'elite' few capable of greater insights than the common man will always rebel against the received wisdom.  So Bach and Beethoven [and of course Debussy] are obviously over-rated since we are told that they are very great composers.  And people who are into Klami and Raff [or perhaps as well 'the enormously talented Tarnopolski,' whose CDs are so impossible to find that there is no way for any of us poor slobs to determine the veracity of that statement] are very rare, so naturally such people are privy to some deeper understanding of what makes great Art.  It's just another form of elitism."

Quote from: Sforzando on January 09, 2008, 07:18:30 PM
I was emailing about this phenomenon with a friend the other week, who wrote, "People who want to believe they are among an 'elite' few capable of greater insights than the common man will always rebel against the received wisdom.  So Bach and Beethoven [and of course Debussy] are obviously over-rated since we are told that they are very great composers.  And people who are into Klami and Raff [or perhaps as well 'the enormously talented Tarnopolski,' whose CDs are so impossible to find that there is no way for any of us poor slobs to determine the veracity of that statement] are very rare, so naturally such people are privy to some deeper understanding of what makes great Art.  It's just another form of elitism."

I was listening just the other day to the 1st Movement of Raff's Symphony No. 1 - nothing there that held my attention.

sfz, only two of the three are impossible to find, that is, have so far proved impossible for me to find.

The other one, the only one I have, can be found on amazon.de:

http://www.amazon.de/gp/offer-listing/B00007JR5N/ref=sr_1_olp_1?ie=UTF8&s=gateway&qid=1199947551&sr=8-1

I don't mind too much being called an elitist--you're one, too, you know, just for liking Bach and Beethoven--but I'm an elitist who likes to spread the love.

Michael

Quote from: Don on January 09, 2008, 04:23:18 PM
So you're like a daily vitamin pill? 

More like a daily enema .........

Quote from: James on January 09, 2008, 04:07:00 PM
71dB, give it some time...

I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet, you are free to prefer & enjoy whomever you like of course, but keep an open mind, your perspective just may change on all this...

Rest assured James I will update my views when needed. Don't forget I am one of those who talk about open mind here. About jumping to conclusions: I don't think I have been any more impatient about that than any of us. I am 37. Can I jump to conclusions when I am 40? 50? 60? Is jumping to conclusions at an yearly age more justified if it's favorable for the established canon? My opinion about Debussy may seem hasty but don't forget he is canonic, we all hear Debussy passively without buying the CDs. Anyway, I realised I should explore him better and I probably will in time. I don't remember hearing his piano music.

Quote from: Don on January 09, 2008, 04:23:18 PM
So you're like a daily vitamin pill? 

I am vitamin F (Free-thinking vitamin)

Quote from: Don on January 09, 2008, 04:34:04 PM
Can't you simply enjoy both polyphonic and homophonic music and leave it at that.

Can't you simply enjoy Elgar and my other favorites? My brain was greater hunger for music of complex structures but sometimes I enjoy easy music for desert. My answer below explains my problem:

Quote from: Don on January 09, 2008, 04:34:04 PMAlso, being dead guys, neither Reger or Taneyev is being punished.  But I suppose their descendants might be a little grumpy.

You are right but the fans of their music are "punished." Taneyev isn't recorded much. This means less brilliant CDs because statistically the more releases the better the best is. It's easy to find superb recordings of Beethoven's symphonies but how about Taneyev's? What if Beethoven was recorded less and Taneyev more? There would still be superb Beethoven discs but the overall quality of Taneyev releases would increase because of increased competition. How to increase Taneyev releases? Well, by demanding them, telling the companies they'd make good money releasing them.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 07, 2008, 04:04:21 PM
I have these works by Debussy: Piano Trio No. 1 & Violin Sonata.

I knew I had more Debussy than that!

Arabesque No. 1 and Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune. Both for Flute and Harp (Naxos: Dance of the Blessed Spirits).

Quote from: 71 dB on January 09, 2008, 01:26:50 PM
Similarly there is no point listening to Taneyev or Dittersdorf without understanding what the music is about. If Debussy had rhythmic energy or pulse in his music too it could be really good.

There's no point in listening to Debussy without understanding what the music is about, either. As i said, what about harmony, or his radical use of chord progressions? What about color? Ho wait, you never even listened to his mature works. For the record, there's nothing in the classical pantheon that has the same rhythmic energy or pulse of a Jazz musician. Perhaps you are listening to the wrong music?

Quote from: 71 dB on January 09, 2008, 01:26:50 PM
And why is that? Because counterpoint takes higher understanding of art and it's relative structures. If masses like easy melodic music that's fine but Composers like Taneyev and Reger should not be punished for trying hard to produce intelligent art.

Actually, writing in counterpoint takes little artistic ability, it's just a question of memorizing the right techniques . Writing good counterpoint is a different matter altogether, particularly when in conjunction with other forms of expression (like Bach, who's use of harmony has few equals in the Baroque, and that's on top of his contrapuntal refinery. BTW, is Bach one of those "established" simpletons the masses seem to enjoy so much?).

Quote from: 71 dB on January 09, 2008, 01:26:50 PM
Your problem is misinterpreting my words. I don't have a "resentment towards the established canon".

No, you actually really, really do. Your grudging recalcitrance to even give the established canon proper consideration bespeaks of nothing but the most ignominious of closed mindedness. You have already dismissed Debussy without properly exploring his music because you have already decided a priori that he isn't worth your time, precisely because he belongs to this "canon" loved so much by us brainwashed cows.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 10, 2008, 05:46:12 AM
There's no point in listening to Debussy without understanding what the music is about, either. As i said, what about harmony, or his radical use of chord progressions? What about color? Ho wait, you never even listened to his mature works. For the record, there's nothing in the classical pantheon that has the same rhythmic energy or pulse of a Jazz musician. Perhaps you are listening to the wrong music?

I have never said Debussy is a poor composer. I have always thought he is a fine one but I just have been even more interested of Rameau and Fauré. Debussy has many fine aspects in his music but rhythm is something I think he lacks more than other classical composers. Yes, Jazz is rhythmically rich and I do listen to it sometimes alto I am not into improvised music that much. My father is a Jazz nut. I heard Jazz all my childhood, Clifford Brown, Thelonius Monk, Max Roach's drum solos etc. I also like quality underground dance music (what masses call techno or electronica as they don't know much about the many many subgenres). That's music with stunning rhythm.

I don't think I listen to "wrong" music if I enjoy it.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 10, 2008, 05:46:12 AMActually, writing in counterpoint takes little artistic ability, it's just a question of memorizing the right techniques . Writing good counterpoint is a different matter altogether, particularly when in conjunction with other forms of expression (like Bach, who's use of harmony has few equals in the Baroque, and that's on top of his contrapuntal refinery. BTW, is Bach one of those "established" simpletons the masses seem to enjoy so much?).

I agree with this. I believe J.S. Bach is liked by masses mainly for his mastery of melody rather than contrapuntal skills. He is the second greatest composer ever after Elgar for me and far from simpletons, established or not.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 10, 2008, 05:46:12 AMNo, you actually really, really do. Your grudging recalcitrance to even give the established canon proper consideration bespeaks of nothing but the most ignominious of closed mindedness. You have already dismissed Debussy without properly exploring his music because you have already decided a priori that he isn't worth your time, precisely because he belongs to this "canon" loved so much by us brainwashed cows.

I haven't cemented my opinion about Debussy. I only said what I have heard is not rhythm-heavy and I find some other masters more interesting at this moment. In fact this thread made me curious about Debussy and I try to explore him better this year...

There is nothing wrong loving the canon but if you totally ignore the obscurities while doing so I'd call that narrow-minded.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 10, 2008, 06:30:36 AM
Debussy has many fine aspects in his music but rhythm is something I think he lacks more than other classical composers.

This is, quite simply, wrong. The suppleness and flexiblity of rhythmic activity is in fact one of the most original aspects of Debussy's musical language. Consider (among numerous possible examples) the phrase I've attached from the first movement of La Mer. I wish I could include the entire 2-minute paragraph, but we're limited in attachment size here. Even so, listen for the artistry with which Debussy uses syncopation, how he contrasts the active movement of the triplets with long-sustained notes, and the shape of the whole phrase - which of course depends too on its melodic structure and the beautiful coloristic use of divided cellos set off by horns.

What you don't get in Debussy are pounding, heavily accented rhythms in the way you'd expect from Stravinsky, Prokofiev, or Bartok. That doesn't matter. Debussy's use of rhythm is masterly, and cannot be divorced from other aspects of his extraordinarily original musical vocabulary.

But I promised not to feed the troll here any more.

Quote from: Sforzando on January 10, 2008, 06:59:51 AMDebussy's use of rhythm is masterly, and cannot be divorced from other aspects of his extraordinarily original musical vocabulary.

Debussy must be the greatest composer ever...  ::)

Thanks for the clip.

I think it must be said that 71db thinking isn't really free. If it was, he would be able to judge music without pre-conceived notions regarding how much the brainless masses can comprehend and how much bearing that has had to the formation of the "canon" (none, really, since the masters have never been really popular among the masses, then or now).

Quote from: James on January 10, 2008, 09:16:25 AM
Sounds like a plan...

& freely thinking is fine, we all do it, but it often can (and does) equal lazy thinking...

I don't know about you but I have more important things to think about than if I have heard enough Debussy...  ::)

I don't say I think more than others, just free.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 10, 2008, 09:56:54 AM
I think it must be said that 71db thinking isn't really free. If it was, he would be able to judge music without pre-conceived notions regarding how much the brainless masses can comprehend and how much bearing that has had to the formation of the "canon" (none, really, since the masters have never been really popular among the masses, then or now).

Well, you are free to think that.  ;D

If Mozart has not been popular among the masses then who has been? Dittersdorf? The masters must have been popular among some people since they are not completely forgotten/ignored.

Instead of arguing over composers who are not even French, you should be discussing Saint-Saens.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on January 10, 2008, 02:23:42 PM
Instead of arguing over composers who are not even French, you should be discussing Saint-Saens.

Okay.  I'll start:

Quote from: 71 dB on January 10, 2008, 12:34:01 PM
If Mozart has not been popular among the masses then who has been? Dittersdorf? The masters must have been popular among some people since they are not completely forgotten/ignored.

They are popular among people that count, I.E., academics, musicians and other composers.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on January 10, 2008, 02:23:42 PM
Instead of arguing over composers who are not even French, you should be discussing Saint-Saens.

Pourquoi? we were discussing Debussy.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 10, 2008, 02:37:27 PM
They are popular among people that count, I.E., academics, musicians and other composers.

If only those people listened to classical music it wouldn't sell much...  ::)

Quote from: 71 dB on January 10, 2008, 04:13:57 AM
How to increase Taneyev releases? Well, by demanding them, telling the companies they'd make good money releasing them.

Highly effective strategy ........ How could it possibly fail?

Quote from: Dm on January 10, 2008, 04:14:46 PM
Highly effective strategy ........ How could it possibly fail?

Right. 71dB would simply present the companies with his market studies showing that their profit margins would go up by at least 2% if each of them put out 1 Taneyev disc per annum. 

IIIIII WANT MYYYY TANNYYYYEEEEEEV...

Berlioz
Fauré
Debussy
Satie
Ravel

Quote from: Corey on January 10, 2008, 04:31:55 PM
IIIIII WANT MYYYY TANNYYYYEEEEEEV...

Actually, Taneyev is faring pretty well in the record market.  Chandos has recorded all the four symphonies, one of them twice; I hear that Naxos also plans on recording them.  Naxos has embarked on a cycle of the nine string quartets, and Northern Flowers has all of them available.  Not long ago, an all-star lineup of performers put out a Taneyev chamber music disc on DG - and there's plenty more.  I'm well satisfied.

Yes! DeBussy has pulled ahead of Ravel  :)

Quote from: Sforzando on January 10, 2008, 02:40:10 PM
Pourquoi? we were discussing Debussy.

Agreed, but he is not alone amongst the French greats and I don't see Taneiev up there in this poll.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 10, 2008, 03:23:26 PM
If only those people listened to classical music it wouldn't sell much...  ::)

Classical music doesn't sell a lot, not if compared to pop. Try again.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 11, 2008, 03:25:40 PM
Classical music doesn't sell a lot, not if compared to pop. Try again.

It's nice you keep pointing out errors by others. Some classical CDs sell well. Pop music is another thing, sold by massive marketing, brainwashing and mental images. Underground music usually sells less than classic, say 1000 copies while an averige Naxos release sells 20.000 copies. Everything is relative...

I mean if only "music people" bought classical music it would sell even less! I am not a scholar but I buy classical music. Satisfied?

Couperin, Berlioz, Bizet, Milhaud and Tournemire. Doesn't leave much place for other favourites  :P. In round two I'd go for Pierné, Ropartz, Massenet, Honegger and Ravel.

Regarding the french non-French: Honegger was Swiss, but he lived most of his life in Paris and was a French citizen. Belgian composers: Belgium as such is a recent creation (1815). It was even part of France for a while (under Boney). And most composers identified as belgians lived and worked in Paris most of their life. How about Honorary French Composers ?

Other worthy additions: Farrenc (one of the few notable women composers of her time), Onslow (late Classical/early Romantic and finally getting his due), Francaix (a miniaturist whose music is Gallic to the core).

At the risk of seeming a philistine, I'll admit that French is by far my least favorite of the major nationalities of classical music—I would almost always rather be listening to Austro-German, Eastern European, Russian, Italian, English, American, or Scandinavian music. Then again, I'm a relatively new classical music fan (only a few years now). I'm warming up to Debussy, I guess. Perhaps I'll come around some day.

Lalo didn't make the list, I notice.  I really like his piano concerto, but no-one else seems to have heard of it.

Quote from: eyeresist on March 14, 2011, 04:55:06 PM
Lalo didn't make the list, I notice.  I really like his piano concerto, but no-one else seems to have heard of it.

A pleasant but little-known symphony, as well:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61-VOcPCpoL._AA300_.jpg)

Debussy
Berlioz
Saint-Saëns
Ravel
Massenet

Sauguet
Damase
Tournemire
Honegger
Durufle

My 2008 answer:

Berlioz
Saint-Saëns
Franck
Bizet
Ravel

My 2016 answer:

Berlioz
Fauré
Ravel
Poulenc
Other: Roussel

Machaut
Debussy
Poulenc
Durufle
Dusapin

Alkan
Satie
Ravel
Lili Boulanger
Barraqué

Ravel
Berlioz
Debussy
Fauré
Rameau

Rameau
Berlioz
Debussy
Ravel or Poulenc
Messiaen

Quote from: vandermolen on September 30, 2016, 06:43:55 AM
Sauguet
Damase
Tournemire
Honegger
Durufle

Honegger was Swiss not French. If I can't pick him, you can't either! ;D

Ravel
Debussy
Poulenc
Saint-Saëns
Roussel

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2016, 08:22:06 PM
Honegger was Swiss not French. If I can't pick him, you can't either! ;D

Well John, I thought that was the case, but as others had included him I did too!
Right, I need to think about this  ::).
Ok, here goes:

Magnard (hope he's French!)

:)

Quote from: Wanderer on January 05, 2008, 11:41:07 AM
Alkan
Berlioz
Poulenc
Ravel
Saint-Saëns

Of course there are more, but you only asked for five.

My 2008 top-five list stays largely the same, although I feel inclined to substitute Debussy for Poulenc.

So, (again in alphabetical order) today it'd be:

Alkan
Berlioz
Debussy
Ravel
Saint-Saëns

Others I'm extremely fond of:

Charpentier
Lully
Poulenc
Messiaen
Lili Boulanger
Offenbach
Fauré
Dupré
Franck (Les Béatitudes rocks!)
Schmitt
Tailleferre
Tournemire
Chausson
Vierne
Widor
Guilmant

(the list is of course non-exhaustive)

And a final shout-out to Léon Boëllmann for his splendid Suite gothique!  8)

Messiaen stands apart for me. I've never been able to get into French music particularly apart from him.

OMG
I haven't done this poll!!!!!!!!!

Pierre Boulez
Philippe Manoury
Bruno Mantovani
Hugues Dufourt
Lili Boulanger
Claude Debussy
Edgard Varèse
Maurice Ravel
Pascal Dusapin
Pierre Henry
Pierre Schaeffer
Gilbert Amy
Gerard Grisey
Tristan Murail
Perotin
Luc Ferrari
eRikm
Olivier Messiaen
Éliane Radigue
Henri Dutilleux
Jean Barraqué
Darius Milhaud