Though I love many works by many of the great composers, there are some composers where virtually every work of theirs moves, interests and/or excites me. It's not just that I think their individual ideas are beautiful, but rather the very idiom and language that they compose with. They may not always be considered as great as Mozart or Beethoven etc. (though for some people it might be these composers), but maybe we love them for their foibles and peculiar traits. I think other people know what I am talking about as I have seen people hint at this kind of thing before, but I thought that it would be interesting to see everyone's own 'soul-mate' composers for want of a better term. I currently have three and greatly look forward to finding more:
Ives
Barber
Finzi
there are a few others that I think may be possible candidates, but I wont say them yet.
If any one can articulate better what I am trying to say please feel free to!
Brahms, Bruckner, Beethoven, Schubert, and Mozart
Bach, Schumann, Aho and Scriabin.
Beethoven and Bruckner in particular.
Luke = Janacek
You got in whilst I was typing that!
I think you articulate it very well, Guido, particularly the bit about how 'they may not always be considered as great as Mozart or Beethoven etc. ... but maybe we love them for their foibles and peculiar traits'. That's certainly true in my case - in fact, I almost always feel closer to those composers with flaws and vulnerabilities. Conversely I can find it impossible to have anything like a 'soul mate' relationship with the very 'Greatest' composers for exactly that reason - they are just too far above me. So, among mine are Janacek, Tippett and even Satie, but there are others too. Ives is pretty close to the list too.
Haydn, Beethoven, Bruckner, Smetana (until now), R.Strauss, Liszt, Shostakovich, Schumann, schubert, Berlioz, Nielsen, Ravel, Stravinsky.
You may find it's too much, but almost every work by the 13 composers above interested and provided me a great pleasure.
Harry will have more names than me by the way.
It's not exactly my top 13 but it's similar
Sibelius
Tchaikovsky
Beethoven... And then - Berlioz, Wagner, Bruckner, Scriabin, Brian, Langgaard, Delius... They all embody some part of me and are inspiring presences.
I feel a personal connection with Brahms' music.
Another composer that is very close to me - but not as a "soul mate" - is Bach.
Q
Berg, Janáček.
Quote from: Guido on January 16, 2008, 08:01:23 AM
It's not just that I think their individual ideas are beautiful, but rather the very idiom and language that they compose with.
Mahler
Quote from: Guido on January 16, 2008, 08:01:23 AM
there are some composers where virtually every work of theirs moves, interests and/or excites me. It's not just that I think their individual ideas are beautiful, but rather the very idiom and language that they compose with.
The above quote accurately describes what WAGNER 0:) as a composer means to me! I am madly enamoured by the "very idiom and language that" Wagner composes with. Marvellous, simply marvellous!
marvin
Beethoven above all. Also Berlioz, Berg, Mahler, Chopin in their own ways. The Verdi of Falstaff, who is a very different Verdi from anything he had written previously. Bach too, but it's harder to think of him as a "soul-mate."
My personal "three B's" are Bartók, Berg and Britten, and many of their works speak to me very deeply.
--Bruce
Richard Strauss' music is where I find the meaning of life which I've found by myself either.
While Schubert is the one whose style is probably closest to mine (when I showed my older classical compositions to my new composition teacher, he immediately thought of Schubert, either).
So Schubert expresses my musical way of thinking, why Richard Strauss expresses my philosophical way of thinking.
Vaughan Williams and Rautavaara, definitely.
Shostakovich, Part, Bartok and Stravinsky. (a couple of works here and there i might not like, but in general this are the closest to perfection in my book)
Dvorak, both in his life and his music.
Others that very possibly may make the list for me are Faure, Dvorak, Bridge, Szymanowski, Bartok, Walton, Goldschmidt, Feldman, Carter and Adams - the main reason for my reticence being that I haven't heard all of any of their works (though I have my initial three.)
Some very interesting choices so far.
For me, the obvious choices would be Janacek and Martinu, probably backed up with Ligeti and Webern.
I can see a case for some others: I feel very much at one with the later, austere Busoni, for example. Similarly with Denisov, though I don't rate him as highly as the others I've mentioned.
(I won't mention the really big names, as they almost go without saying.)
Quote(I won't mention the really big names, as they almost go without saying.)
Maybe but possibly not. Although I love very many of Beethoven's works I still wouldnt call him a 'soul mate' composer. Just as an example.
Quote from: Guido on January 16, 2008, 05:01:19 PM
Maybe but possibly not. Although I love very many of Beethoven's works I still wouldnt call him a 'soul mate' composer. Just as an example.
When I was a kid and just learning about music, I would walk around scowling, pretending I was Beethoven.
But to explain at least one of my choices (especially as your question allows for all kinds of responses), I might choose Berlioz as my one soul-mate. I love the man for his wild imagination, his sarcastic wit, his courage and integrity. Reading the David Cairns 2-volume biography, I often find myself very moved. Few moments in musical biography have affected me like Berlioz's deep grief on hearing of the death of his sailor son Louis.
Yeah, Sibelius here too. :)
Wagner, Mahler. Much of Tchaikovsky. Much of John Adams.
A few others that can really grab me by the heart: Bruckner, Brahms, Elgar.
Mahler and Ligeti.
Beethoven
Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Bruckner, Debussy.
Pretty much everything by Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Rachmaninov struck special chords of my soul.
I'm also particularly fond of the piano music of Faure and Granados, of the Arriaga's SQs and Kalinnikov's symphonies.
Quote from: hornteacher on January 16, 2008, 04:27:52 PM
Dvorak, both in his life and his music.
?
What do you have in common with Dvořák?
Quote from: M forever on January 17, 2008, 12:12:06 AM
?
What do you have in common with Dvořák?
A distaste for pedantry, perhaps.
Quote from: Greta on January 16, 2008, 06:03:57 PM
Yeah, Sibelius here too. :)
Wagner, Mahler. Much of Tchaikovsky.
A few others that can really grab me by the heart: Bruckner, Brahms, Elgar.
What she said.
Sarge
Feldman comes to mind first and foremost, followed by Mahler. Mahler is my favorite composer, but there is a difference between that and soul mate. Feldman's music represent a state of mind that best represents me.
Man, if I think about one composer, it is so easy for me to feel a soulmate in some way.
But I think: Stockhausen, Langgård and Scriabin.
Quote from: Guido on January 16, 2008, 08:01:23 AM
If any one can articulate better what I am trying to say please feel free to!
That certain composers reflect back to us something that deepest within us, the music gives us meaning, our past/present/future life essense, perhaps. A strong inner bond is felt between you and the music, where the "between" vanishes.
This could apply to a few composers i feel connected with, but will mention Pettersson and Schnittke, as the deepest sense.
Quote from: Guido on January 16, 2008, 08:01:23 AM
Though I love many works by many of the great composers, there are some composers where virtually every work of theirs moves, interests and/or excites me. It's not just that I think their individual ideas are beautiful, but rather the very idiom and language that they compose with.
Three come to mind immediately:
Stockhausen
Wuorinen
Hanson
Quote from: M forever on January 17, 2008, 12:12:06 AM
?
What do you have in common with Dvořák?
Maybe he breeds pigeons? I had the same question. ;D
My musical soul mate is probably Dvořák as well, though; I am a generally very cheery person, bursting with ideas that I don't always remember or draw into the overall structure of my life. Whether the products of my work have one common 'goal' is debatable. And occasionally I can have some emotional outbursts. But really another composer could describe me well, except that I might be subject to ridicule if I were to say that Khachaturian is a potential soul mate. His mixture of introspective quieter moments and totally rambunctious folk-style dancing are also partially me.
Quote from: Bogey on January 16, 2008, 08:20:56 PM
Beethoven
They say in religions that a unified soul is best. = just one lone composer.
I wonder how much our answers reveal about ourselves. Some choosing like 10 composers. if this a sign of division, a spilt personality, or maybe the poster is still in his personality forming stages, that is has to "find himself'?
as of 5 or 6 yrs ago, i don't think i could have honestly, sincerely answer the OP.
Tchaikovsky
Quote from: Brian on January 17, 2008, 08:48:31 PM
Maybe he breeds pigeons? I had the same question. ;D
Or maybe he also used to work as a butcher.
I feel most related emotionally with Bruckner and Shostakovich, but I love the music of Bach and Beethoven at least as much.
Pettersson, no doubt....., and Tchaikovsky naturally. :)
Quote from: paulb on January 17, 2008, 09:59:11 PM
They say in religions that a unified soul is best. = just one lone composer.
I wonder how much our answers reveal about ourselves. Some choosing like 10 composers. if this a sign of division, a spilt personality, or maybe the poster is still in his personality forming stages, that is has to "find himself'?
Or maybe it's because we are all individuals with unique personalities, very different than any one composer. Therefore we need several composers to satisfy different aspects of ourselves. For example, Mahler and Bruckner are often lumped together but they couldn't be more different. And yet I feel in tune with both; in fact, I couldn't imagine life without these "soulmates."
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 18, 2008, 04:29:38 AM
For example, Mahler and Bruckner are often lumped together but they couldn't be more different.
Well said Sarge! I'm not sure why they are often lumped together? And if someone says the length of their symphonies, think twice....Mahler's symphonies are on average well over 10 minutes longer per symphony. I think it's about 12 minutes or so actually per symphony. I had checked it out awhile ago.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 18, 2008, 04:29:38 AM
Or maybe it's because we are all individuals with unique personalities, very different than any one composer. Therefore we need several composers to satisfy different aspects of ourselves. For example, Mahler and Bruckner are often lumped together but they couldn't be more different. And yet I feel in tune with both; in fact, I couldn't imagine life without these "soulmates."
Sarge
Don't forget the meaning of the word 'composer' - someone who puts things together. Aren't we all 'composite', needing a 'composer' for every 'part'?
Definitely different parts of the soul but all have something in common:
Scriabin, Chopin, Fanny Mendelssohn, Schubert and Medtner.
No, but thanks for asking. Are you inferring there is something wrong with being gay? Tchaikovsky was.
Quote from: M forever on January 19, 2008, 01:10:10 AM
No, but thanks for asking. Are you inferring there is something wrong with being gay? Tchaikovsky was.
I know he was. No, there is nothing wrong with being gay. For me Tchaikovsky is number one composer
naturally, and I am not a gay. Should I have to be... after that... ? 8)
Myaskovsky and Vaughan Williams
Listening to the Berwald symphony cycle today reminded me that he's probably a composer who belongs here for me.
There's something so wonderfully human about how he keeps doing the wrong thing and making it work (well, perhaps not that horrid transition to the coda in the finale of the Singuliere, but for me his weirdnesses come off way more often than they don't).
Quote from: edward on January 22, 2008, 04:48:02 PM
Listening to the Berwald symphony cycle today reminded me that he's probably a composer who belongs here for me.
There's something so wonderfully human about how he keeps doing the wrong thing and making it work (well, perhaps not that horrid transition to the coda in the finale of the Singuliere, but for me his weirdnesses come off way more often than they don't).
"Doing wrong things and making them work" is an apt description of Berwald's music. Personally, I prefer to consider the things he does as "alien", but the results are the same.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 18, 2008, 04:29:38 AM
Or maybe it's because we are all individuals with unique personalities, very different than any one composer. Therefore we need several composers to satisfy different aspects of ourselves. For example, Mahler and Bruckner are often lumped together but they couldn't be more different. And yet I feel in tune with both; in fact, I couldn't imagine life without these "soulmates."
Sarge
Agree, I was just making that comment partly in jest. As we all have our defining composers. We are composites in nature, the ying/yang concept is part of our nature, Jung's contrasexual components in our natures, introversion/extroversion sides to us, 4 functional characteristics to us.So its most unlikely just 1 composer will define our essense.
I think some will notice how their choice in composer today, will be different in the future.
Though Harry seems to be well set in his choices, Pettersson /Tchaikovsky. As i am in mine.
That is funny how Mahler sometimes gets paired with Bruckner. I have done that in the past, "Mahler AND Bruckner" ;D why i am not sure ::)
. And yes i realize they are quite opposites. I think it has to do with the fact they were contemporaries and both syms are long, and both are of prussia.
Quote from: paulb on January 23, 2008, 01:31:49 AM
both are of prussia.
I think you mean Austria, Paul... I don't know any great Prussian composer (although Frederick the Great played the flute and composed...)
Quote from: paulb on January 23, 2008, 01:31:49 AM
And yes i realize they are quite opposites. I think it has to do with the fact they were contemporaries and both syms are long, and both are of prussia.
Mahler and Bruckner have a whole lot more in common than you think, but that would probably be too difficult and time-consuming to explain to someone who doesn't know the difference between Prussia and Austria. And Mahler wasn't Austrian either. He was a subject of the Austro-Hungarian double monarchy, but not that much more Austrian than Dvořák or Janáček.
Quote from: Jezetha on January 23, 2008, 01:37:08 AM
I don't know any great Prussian composer
If you want, you can count Mendelssohn a little since he was born in Hamburg, but grew up and studied in Berlin. Not that it matters much though.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 18, 2008, 04:29:38 AM
Or maybe it's because we are all individuals with unique personalities, very different than any one composer. Therefore we need several composers to satisfy different aspects of ourselves. For example, Mahler and Bruckner are often lumped together but they couldn't be more different. And yet I feel in tune with both; in fact, I couldn't imagine life without these "soulmates."
Sarge
Exactly, i've thought about this, too.....
i think we all have energy to express ourselves in some form(s), emotionally, and it's manifested in music. Listening to music is like fulfilling the desire to express ourselves emotionally in that way, at that moment. Sometimes your favorite composer doesn't exactly cut it for a specific time- for me, i'm more likely to be in the mood for Prokofiev in the morning (lighter, more inspired and imaginative music) and then late Mahler/Shostakovich Symphonies for the evening (deep, expressive music). It's just like having energy to eat at certain times more than others.
And I suppose how we decide our 'soulmate composers' may be a combination of the short term (how satisfying the music is) and long term (how much we go back to it, or how much energy we have for it).
Quote from: M forever on January 23, 2008, 01:51:03 AM
If you want, you can count Mendelssohn a little since he was born in Hamburg, but grew up and studied in Berlin. Not that it matters much though.
A shame. I thought you'd care, being a Prussian, M(ark Brandenburg) forever! ;)
Johan
Quote from: BrianI am a generally very cheery person, bursting with ideas that I don't always remember or draw into the overall structure of my life. Whether the products of my work have one common 'goal' is debatable. And occasionally I can have some emotional outbursts. But really another composer could describe me well, except that I might be subject to ridicule if I were to say that Khachaturian is a potential soul mate. His mixture of introspective quieter moments and totally rambunctious folk-style dancing are also partially me.
Boy does that sound shockingly like me, Brian, especially the first line... ;D
Has only person mentioned Ravel?? He jumped to mind first when I realized I had forgotten someone. I have always been in awe of his orchestration, and somehow his music has always "clicked" for me, there is just that inexorable sense of everything being right. Like Sibelius, you couldn't possibly add or subtract a note.
They both seem to achieve this perfect balance which attracts me, another that fits in there is Hindemith. :D Also in that category, recently I have come to love Lutoslawski, there is something very special about the construction of his music.
So, what exactly describes a "soulmate composer"? I'm curious, for those in this thread, what qualities bring these specific names to mind for you? Does their music describe a part of your personality, do you just love listening, do you admire the writing? I find it so interesting how some composers click totally for some people but not for others.
Like for me, there are many composers I like immensely, or even love, but just couldn't count as soulmates. Stravinsky and Shostakovich are two examples. I absolutely love their works, but somehow have found them hard to "get close" to. Ives is another.
Debussy. :)
I didn't hear his music until I was 15? 16? There's a certain magic & childlike innocence about his work about his music, and a love of nature (which is not imitated in his music, rather what is hear is an emotional response TO nature). There's an emphasis on tonal colour that I find spellbinding. I never tire of listening to his works.
That being said, I find Bach irresistible-- he was my first love as an early teenager and more than anything, I adore his cello suites. Probably more than anything else, if push came to shove and I could only have one cycle of *anything* by any composer, it would be his cello suites. Wow...
Quote from: M forever on January 23, 2008, 01:51:03 AM
Mahler and Bruckner have a whole lot more in common than you think,
OOO, Mahler-ians just
cringe whenever they read something like that >:D
no don't explain, as you say i can't tell the diff from old prussia than austria. Books on prussia wait reading on the shelf.....
anyway both composers strike me as "the old world", whatever that configures in your imaginations, Wagner shows sparks of the new world in parts of his 3 great late operas, Debussy sets sail away from the old world, but never lets us forget the fond memories of a world long gone.
Quote from: Greta on January 23, 2008, 06:09:17 PMHas only person mentioned Ravel?? He jumped to mind first when I realized I had forgotten someone. I have always been in awe of his orchestration, and somehow his music has always "clicked" for me, there is just that inexorable sense of everything being right. Like Sibelius, you couldn't possibly add or subtract a note.
Sometimes Ravel's complete
Daphnis just hits me in a truly wondrous way, holds me in awe and keeps me riveted to my headphones. Other times I turn it off for five minutes. Which suggests that a "soul mate composer" is not just a composer who merely "hits" your moods and your character and seems to connect with you in a very profound way - but does so consistently. Dvorak has been a favorite of mine for so long that his music seems to have merged into my persona - I just feel like I understand everything he wrote. (Certainly an illusion!) And when I amuse myself by composing in my head ... well, it sounds a lot like Dvorak. :)
Tchaikovsky seems to go in cycles - his compositions really "connect" with me for about six months, then not as much as before, and then I come back round to them again like old friends.
Quote from: Greta on January 23, 2008, 06:09:17 PM
Has only person mentioned Ravel?? He jumped to mind first when I realized I had forgotten someone. I have always been in awe of his orchestration, and somehow his music has always "clicked" for me, there is just that inexorable sense of everything being right. Like Sibelius, you couldn't possibly add or subtract a note.
I may have mentioned Ravel, and if I didn't, he is included in the list of 'others' I supplied - he was certainly the first composer who I truly fell head over heels for as a teenager. I've been known to take detours whilst driving through France just to be able to drive
past the house at Montfort l'Amaury, though I don't dare to go in again as I worry I will spoil the deeply-felt childhood impressions of my only proper visit. My connection to Ravel, however, has nothing to do with his orchestration, which is part of his craft but not part of his 'soul', for want of another word (actually, as with most composers to whom the distinction is applicable, I prefer Ravel's chamber/solo/vocal music, with the exception of the two concerti). What connects with me in Ravel is his 'passionate dignity', the endless ways he finds of making a phrase infinitely expressive but without letting things become the least histrionic. I could go on endlessly about this.... Note - I'm sure I don't share this quality, but I do
connect to it.
Pettersson for the music; and also Pettersson as a being, sadly, for we both had a childhood that kids should never have.
wow, two Pettersson avatars on the same page- not something you see every day ;D
Quote from: lukeottevanger on January 23, 2008, 11:27:02 PM
I may have mentioned Ravel, and if I didn't, he is included in the list of 'others' I supplied - he was certainly the first composer who I truly fell head over heels for as a teenager. I've been known to take detours whilst driving through France just to be able to drive past the house at Montfort l'Amaury, though I don't dare to go in again as I worry I will spoil the deeply-felt childhood impressions of my only proper visit. My connection to Ravel, however, has nothing to do with his orchestration, which is part of his craft but not part of his 'soul', for want of another word (actually, as with most composers to whom the distinction is applicable, I prefer Ravel's chamber/solo/vocal music, with the exception of the two concerti). What connects with me in Ravel is his 'passionate dignity', the endless ways he finds of making a phrase infinitely expressive but without letting things become the least histrionic. I could go on endlessly about this.... Note - I'm sure I don't share this quality, but I do connect to it.
Ravel for me goes deep. Yeah i know its too late to alter my picks as soul mates, I guess there's different levels of soul, whatever that means. I mean take Mozart's 20 cds worth of sacred music as presented on the 2 Philips releases, thats soul too.
Ravel for me goes even deeper than Debussy, but both are inter-twined into the fabric of my soul. Ravel''s muisc piano solo / orch/concerto/chamber, all has this mystical religious sense. The man was really ofa mystery as was his comrade Debussy. Both in my mind repesent the full fruit and flowering of the romantic tradition, yet neither remained as as luke succintly puts it,
histrionic. (gotta look that word up). Both , moreso ravel, transcended the romantic tradition, yet each pays hommage by allowing that style to remain a part of their art.
its like they looked at was before, and totally emblished these idaes with gorgous brilliant colors and textures.
I think that Ravel and Debussy are from that line of composers descended from Mozart. (neither "cared much" for the Beethovenian line of compositional stylings)
Both were highly impressed with some of Wagner's novo stylings in the late operas, especially Tristan and Parsifal.
So yes i have to say Ravel is one of those composers who has been a part of me from the very beginnings and will no doubt remain a powerful force in my life. None of my late 20th C music has weaken Ravel's position as a unique composer in my listenings.
And its for Ravel's masterpieces which stand in the way of my not being impressed with most late 20th C music.
Quote from: Brian on January 17, 2008, 08:48:31 PM
But really another composer could describe me well, except that I might be subject to ridicule if I were to say that Khachaturian is a potential soul mate. His mixture of introspective quieter moments and totally rambunctious folk-style dancing are also partially me.
Have you ever posted a picture of yourself here? I don't remember seeing one. You need to do that anyway since basically everyone who participates here on a regular basis has - it is just really nicer to "talk" to people when you at least have idea what they look like. But now we need a pic of you so we can picture you doing the sabre dance.
Perhaps Shostakovich or Tchaikovsky. They're probably the closest.