Is it just me, or is it really so that most people go for standard fare in classical music?
I see a lot of postings of the three B's and Mahler/Sibelius/Pettersson thank God/ Stravinsky, etc, etc, etc as Yul Bryner said in the the King of Siam.
But there is so much more quality to be found, yet the bulk of posters are keeping on the surface of things in their choice of composers.
That is not to say that this is a negative thing, but still there is more beyond as some people think, me thinks.
What you you have to say, my classical friends. ;D
Too much music, too little time IMO. I have to narrow my choices, as I only have on average a few hours a day for dedicated music listening. I also like to extensively listen to certain pieces, often in multiple performances, which also cuts out time that could be spent on others.
Quote from: Lethe on February 15, 2008, 05:55:40 AM
Too much music, too little time IMO. I have to narrow my choices, as I only have on average a few hours a day for dedicated music listening. I also like to extensively listen to certain pieces, often in multiple performances, which also cuts out time that could be spent on others.
Well yes, that's far enough, Sarah!
The cream rises to the top. The rest may be of a certain quality, but it is not "the cream." 0:)
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 06:00:32 AM
The cream rises to the top. The rest may be of a certain quality, but it is not "the cream." 0:)
Somehow I am not one who enjoy an all-cream diet. ;)
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 06:00:32 AM
The cream rises to the top. The rest may be of a certain quality, but it is not "the cream." 0:)
I have issues with the term cream and certain quality! ;D
Quote from: springrite on February 15, 2008, 06:02:28 AM
Somehow I am not one who enjoy an all-cream diet. ;)
See, you are a man after my heart, that it is what I wanted to say.
But my cream diet has a much wider scope! ;D
Quote from: Harry on February 15, 2008, 06:02:30 AM
I have issues with the term cream and certain quality! ;D
You have issues indeed. ;)
Well first workout now, and I hope too see many reactions you'd hear! ;D
Well, if you get tired of listening to Beethoven, Harry, you can listen to Schubert or Mozart or Chopin...
It really is a matter of limited resources (mainly time). I certainly don't confine myself to the standard repotoire, but it is very time consuming to navigate the world of lesser-known composers.
One reason my collection of CDs and LPs grew to 10,000 is because I've ventured far off the beaten standard-repertoire path. There are around 400 composers in my collection. Even when I listen to the most popular composers, I tend nowadays to listen to their less popular works: Beethoven 2, 4 and 8 rather than 5, 6 and 9; early Tchaikovsky symphonies instead of 4, 5, and 6. But then I have all day to listen to music. I understand most people aren't as lucky as I am...or as old ;D I completely understand, Harry, why many, perhaps most, would rather concentrate on the "cream" or their favorites (i.e., Paul and Pettersson/Schnittke) once they finally have an opportunity to sit down and listen.
Sarge
Most of the music which has earned a place in the standard repertory deserves to be there. It doesn't necessarily follow (though jbuck, bless him, will at times pursue this line) that the music which has not had the opportunity to win its way into standard rep, for that reason must deserve its obscurity.
To some degree, there's a closed-circuit aspect to it. The standard rep, for that very reason, gets a lot of exposure, and people have to know something in order to like it. And we've all experienced the "one tends to like what one knows" dynamic.
Quote from: Lethe on February 15, 2008, 05:55:40 AM
Too much music, too little time IMO. I have to narrow my choices, as I only have on average a few hours a day for dedicated music listening. I also like to extensively listen to certain pieces, often in multiple performances, which also cuts out time that could be spent on others.
Sadly I am in a similar situation. Lately I've been getting no more that 2 hours of listening time every day. That hardly gives me enough time to explore obscure composers- especially when my Bach collection has been weighed, measured and found WANTING ::) ::).
marvin
Sarge has hit the nail on its noggin.
I've been listening almost exclusively to Medieval and Renaissance composers. Almost none of those are "standard repertoire" (Tallis's Spem in Alium might qualify).
Quote from: Corey on February 15, 2008, 06:59:10 AM
I've been listening almost exclusively to Medieval and Renaissance composers. Almost none of those are "standard repertoire" (Tallis's Spem in Alium might qualify).
Yes, but you've been making a point of a historical survey, runner deeper than just the frothy top 8)
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 06:58:12 AM
Sarge has hit the nail on its noggin.
Uh-huh, I suspected that
Sarge was hitting the noggin, when he voted "Burma!"
Quote from: karlhenning on February 15, 2008, 07:01:37 AM
Yes, but you've been making a point of a historical survey, runner deeper than just the frothy top 8)
I've done my survey. Now I sit in my comfort zone, for the most part.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 15, 2008, 07:01:37 AM
Yes, but you've been making a point of a historical survey, runner deeper than just the frothy top 8)
At first I planned to listen to only the "major" composers from each era, but there is so little knowledge of "named" Medieval and Renaissance composers that it makes no sense to me not to hear as many as I can. Though, once I get to the point where known composers become more commonplace I will have to use discretion.
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 07:04:13 AM
I've done my survey. Now I sit in my comfort zone, for the most part.
Maybe you'll do a cycle . . . dwelling in and embracing the zone . . . then zone expansion . . . consolidation . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on February 15, 2008, 07:23:10 AM
Maybe you'll do a cycle . . . dwelling in and embracing the zone . . . then zone expansion . . . consolidation . . . .
Yes, that is how the zone breathes.
To paraphrase Adam Begley in a 1994 NY Times article on Harold Bloom: "The canon, Bloom believes, answers an unavoidable question: What, in the little time we have, shall we hear?"
Quote from: karlhenning on February 15, 2008, 06:52:01 AM
Most of the music which has earned a place in the standard repertory deserves to be there. It doesn't necessarily follow (though jbuck, bless him, will at times pursue this line) that the music which has not had the opportunity to win its way into standard rep, for that reason must deserve its obscurity.
I miss jbuck. He almost had a coronary when somebody suggested that Schubert's masses may be worth listening to.
Quote from: Corey on February 15, 2008, 07:05:39 AM
At first I planned to listen to only the "major" composers from each era, but there is so little knowledge of "named" Medieval and Renaissance composers that it makes no sense to me not to hear as many as I can. Though, once I get to the point where known composers become more commonplace I will have to use discretion.
It's cool that you're going through the survey slowly - IMO it'll be far more useful that way. Shame that I lack the patience for such an undertaking...
Quote from: Lethe on February 15, 2008, 07:36:19 AM
I miss jbuck. He almost had a coronary when somebody suggested that Schubert's masses may be worth listening to.
And there were the ritual posts of "You cannot be serious that the symphonies of
Nielsen are as worthy of our attention os those of
Beethoven" . . . . ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on February 15, 2008, 07:47:04 AM
And there were the ritual posts of "You cannot be serious that the symphonies of Nielsen are as worthy of our attention os those of Beethoven" . . . . ;D
Well, they're not. :D
Quote from: karlhenning on February 15, 2008, 07:47:04 AM
And there were the ritual posts of "You cannot be serious that the symphonies of Nielsen are as worthy of our attention os those of Beethoven" . . . . ;D
A strange man, jbuck, and incredibly self-limiting, I thought. But hey, I still miss the curmudgeon. By the way, did he recover fully? Out of the hospital now?
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 15, 2008, 07:50:55 AM
A strange man, jbuck, and incredibly self-limiting, I thought. But hey, I still miss the curmudgeon. By the way, did he recover fully? Out of the hospital now?
Sarge
What happened to the gentleman? Did he hear a Schubert mass?
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 06:10:19 AM
Well, if you get tired of listening to Beethoven, Harry, you can listen to Schubert or Mozart or Chopin...
Its not a question that I am bored Dave. :)
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 07:49:10 AM
Well, they're not. :D
No, perhaps not. But they are worth hearing, perhaps most of all the strange, enigmatic 6th.
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 07:49:10 AM
Well, they're not. :D
Oh, you love the "more stuff," too! 8)
Quote from: Sforzando on February 15, 2008, 07:54:30 AM
No, perhaps not. But they are worth hearing, perhaps most of all the strange, enigmatic 6th.
Right. The catch was "as worthy." Of course not.
Quote from: Harry on February 15, 2008, 07:53:28 AM
Its not a question that I am bored Dave. :)
How could you be? You purchase more music than any man alive. You need to see a doctor, methinks. ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on February 15, 2008, 07:55:18 AM
Oh, you love the "more stuff," too! 8)
Yeah, but not as much.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 15, 2008, 07:50:55 AM
A strange man, jbuck, and incredibly self-limiting, I thought. But hey, I still miss the curmudgeon.
Yes, for all his foibles,
Sarge, he's likeable 8)
QuoteBy the way, did he recover fully? Out of the hospital now?
Yes, he's out and recovering well.
Well I am in the same position as Sarge though I would not call myself old! ;D
I work at home most of the time, and so have plenty of time to listen to all that I want.
If I cannot explore, I will dry up in a instant. If I see a composer that looks promising, I am like Indiana Jones! Go for the action. ;D
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 07:57:04 AM
How could you be? You purchase more music than any man alive. You need to see a doctor, methinks. ;)
I am a doctor my friend, allthough not a medical one, I must add. :)
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 07:57:04 AM
How could you be? You purchase more music than any man alive. You need to see a doctor, methinks. ;)
I think Sarge purchases more as me Dave! ::)
Quote from: Harry on February 15, 2008, 08:00:58 AM
I am a doctor my friend, allthough not a medical one, I must add. :)
I know, I know. You're the doctor of love. ;)
Quote from: Harry on February 15, 2008, 08:01:43 AM
I think Sarge purchases more as me Dave! ::)
Well, all of Sarge's Cheerios aren't in the bowl either. :P
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 08:02:22 AM
I know, I know. You're the doctor of love. ;)
;D ;D
Well that amongst others, yes! 0:)
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 07:04:13 AM
I've done my survey. Now I sit in my comfort zone, for the most part.
Take two Ockeghem masses and call me in the morning. ;D
Quote from: Corey on February 15, 2008, 08:05:06 AM
Take two Ockeghem masses and call me in the morning. ;D
:o
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 08:02:22 AM
I know, I know. You're the doctor of love. ;)
Dr. Strange Love
Quote from: springrite on February 15, 2008, 08:46:40 AM
Dr. Strange Love
O, I assure you there is nothing starnge about my love, apart from being ferocious...maybe... 8)
Quote from: Harry on February 15, 2008, 08:51:12 AM
O, I assure you there is nothing starnge about my love, apart from being ferocious...maybe... 8)
Harry's love roars like a lion.
Oh, are we off topic again?
Yes we rather are Dave... ;D
Quote from: Lethe on February 15, 2008, 05:55:40 AM
Too much music, too little time
Thats why i choose carefully as to what stays in my collection, and/or take a chance on.
I have like 400+ cds, and a few others to buy I'm not complaining.
I also have a *box of what-nots* that i slowly dump on my brotherinlaw. He loves the fact I am selective ;D
+ another 100 *to sell* cds that Katrina took care of, which i could have saved, had i
remembered ;)
But to answer the OP, I also think that later in everyones life , changes will happen. Even if you think *oh I would never ever lose my great interest in my favorite composer ______, or fav _____, or _,or_____*
Yet there are laws at work deep down inside you.
Life is permanance and change. You could try to remain, but why?
Quote from: Harry on February 15, 2008, 05:53:49 AM
Is it just me, or is it really so that most people go for standard fare in classical music?
I see a lot of postings of the three B's and Mahler/Sibelius/Pettersson thank God/ Stravinsky, etc, etc, etc as Yul Bryner said in the the King of Siam.
But there is so much more quality to be found, yet the bulk of posters are keeping on the surface of things in their choice of composers.
That is not to say that this is a negative thing, but still there is more beyond as some people think, me thinks.
What you you have to say, my classical friends. ;D
I wonder though,
Harry, if there is really a strong correlation between the works discussed here at GMG, and what we are actually listening to. The discussions seem to surround those canonical composers because their music is present in nearly all of our collections. Hence, nearly everyone will have some favourite recording, ensemble, or the like. Additionally, as many of our posts refer to specific recordings of works, one would expect those works with many renditions on record to be more discussed (as there are more of them), then those hardly recorded. It wouldn't be difficult to show that the works in the canon, are recorded more frequently. With many obscure works there may be only a single definitive recording.
Re: standard rep. It's "standard" for a reason, and I respect that. Many classics are widely admired, and further, admired by many people over long periods of time. Further, most of them "keep on giving," in the sense that listeners continue to like them after repeated hearings and get more out of them. And although it's not a given, repeated hearings can mean that in time a work becomes "beloved," like getting to know someone who someday, after many conversations, dinners and other events, may be "an old friend."
Now that said, my feeling is that if you never hear anything new (and that doesn't mean music written today, by any means), you're not giving something the chance to push its way into your "circle of esteem" and possibly become...your favorite piece. I hear new works every week, either recorded or live, and some are fantastic, some are forgettable, with most somewhere in between. But I always try to remember that this is a first hearing, and very often a first impression will mature into something else. My experience is usually that subsequent hearings bring more pleasure, rather than less, although it's good to keep an open mind to whatever path occurs.
Without belaboring the point, I've been listening to classical music for decades, but here are some of my all time favorite works—yet they are works that I only discovered in the last five years or so. But there is that all-important first step: hearing each one for the first time, i.e., "letting them in." If I hadn't at least spent the time to hear them once, I'd never have been the wiser, but in these cases a first hearing led to a second, then a third, and now that I have heard all of these dozens of times, I can't imagine not hearing them.
Martinů: Double Concerto (1938)
Janáček: Jenůfa and Kát'a Kabanová (1904 and 1921)
Shostakovich: Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk and Symphony No. 4 (1934 and 1935-36)
Pavel Haas: Study for String Orchestra (1943)
Louis Andriessen: Workers Union (1975)
Rihm: Jagden und Formen (1995-2001)
Ligeti: Violin Concerto (1992)
Sven-David Sandström: High Mass (1994)
Nino Rota: Score to Il Gattopardo (The Leopard) (1963)
Richard Strauss: Die Frau ohne Schatten (1918)
Verdi: Macbeth (1847 - see, I do listen to some music before 1900 ;D)
And this is just the tip of the iceberg--things that come to mind with just a few minutes' pondering. Those who like Renaissance and Baroque music have a veritable goldmine of new recordings of much of this repertoire, and the same idea applies: if you listen to Vivaldi's Four Seasons day in and day out, you'll never discover Handel's Theodora, which you might end up enjoying even more.
Whether you spend half your time exploring unfamiliar works, or 25%, or even 1%, you never know what works are lurking out there, waiting patiently for you to discover them, which will then join your (hopefully ever increasing) canon of favorites.
--Bruce
Quote from: Steve on February 15, 2008, 08:59:56 AM
I wonder though, Harry, if there is really a strong correlation between the works discussed here at GMG, and what we are actually listening to. The discussions seem to surround those canonical composers because their music is present in nearly all of our collections. Hence, nearly everyone will have some favourite recording, ensemble, or the like. Additionally, as many of our posts refer to specific recordings of works, one would expect those works with many renditions on record to be more discussed (as there are more of them), then those hardly recorded. It wouldn't be difficult to show that the works in the canon, are recorded more frequently. With many obscure works there may be only a single definitive recording.
There is truth in that also of course. The fact is that I post really a lot of unknown composers, but that seems to no one important really, only for my self and a handful of others. Maybe my pace is just to high, that could well be.
Maybe its my hormons, also a possibility. ;D
Quote from: bhodges on February 15, 2008, 09:02:53 AM
Re: standard rep. It's "standard" for a reason, and I respect that. Many classics are widely admired, and further, admired by many people over long periods of time. Further, most of them "keep on giving," in the sense that listeners continue to like them after repeated hearings and get more out of them. And although it's not a given, repeated hearings can mean that in time a work becomes "beloved," like getting to know someone who someday, after many conversations, dinners and other events, may be "an old friend."
Now that said, my feeling is that if you never hear anything new (and that doesn't mean music written today, by any means), you're not giving something the chance to push its way into your "circle of esteem" and possibly become...your favorite piece. I hear new works every week, either recorded or live, and some are fantastic, some are forgettable, with most somewhere in between. But I always try to remember that this is a first hearing, and very often a first impression will mature into something else. My experience is usually that subsequent hearings bring more pleasure, rather than less, although it's good to keep an open mind to whatever path occurs.
Without belaboring the point, I've been listening to classical music for decades, but here are some of my all time favorite works—yet they are works that I only discovered in the last five years or so. But there is that all-important first step: hearing each one for the first time, i.e., "letting them in." If I hadn't at least spent the time to hear them once, I'd never have been the wiser, but in these cases a first hearing led to a second, then a third, and now that I have heard all of these dozens of times, I can't imagine not hearing them.
Martinů: Double Concerto (1938)
Janáček: Jenůfa and Kát'a Kabanová (1904 and 1921)
Shostakovich: Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk and Symphony No. 4 (1934 and 1935-36)
Pavel Haas: Study for String Orchestra (1943)
Louis Andriessen: Workers Union (1975)
Rihm: Jagden und Formen (1995-2001)
Ligeti: Violin Concerto (1992)
Sven-David Sandström: High Mass (1994)
Nino Rota: Score to Il Gattopardo (The Leopard) (1963)
Richard Strauss: Die Frau ohne Schatten (1918)
Verdi: Macbeth (1847 - see, I do listen to some music before 1900 ;D)
And this is just the tip of the iceberg--things that come to mind with just a few minutes' pondering. Those who like Renaissance and Baroque music have a veritable goldmine of new recordings of much of this repertoire, and the same idea applies: if you listen to Vivaldi's Four Seasons day in and day out, you'll never discover Handel's Theodora, which you might end up enjoying even more.
Whether you spend half your time exploring unfamiliar works, or 25%, or even 1%, you never know what works are lurking out there, waiting patiently for you to discover them, which will then join your (hopefully ever increasing) canon of favorites.
--Bruce
Your story lifted my spirits Bruce, thank you. Many good points.
Absolutely. :)
Quote from: Harry on February 15, 2008, 09:07:40 AM
Your story lifted my spirits Bruce, thank you. Many good points.
Absolutely. :)
Bruce is always lifting spirits. Gin especially.
[Okay, I'll leave now.]
Quote from: bhodges on February 15, 2008, 09:02:53 AM
Whether you spend half your time exploring unfamiliar works, or 25%, or even 1%, you never know what works are lurking out there, waiting patiently for you to discover them, which will then join your (hopefully ever increasing) canon of favorites.
Well put,
Bruce.We must always
seek!
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 09:09:03 AM
Bruce is always lifting spirits. Gin especially.
[Okay, I'll leave now.]
;D
Harry, you definitely have a huge appetite for unfamiliar music--probably larger than anyone here. I don't think anyone would be expected to match your pace, but on the other hand, you're constantly reinvigorating your listening pool.
And I forgot a glaring omission on my list above: virtually all the works I've come to like by
Elliott Carter...all in the last five years. Oh, and
Wagner's Tristan und Isolde.
Steve, absolutely right: seeking is such an important part of listening. Now,
how much you seek, and
how often--all up for grabs. But not seeking at all, period, is to me closing off a huge source of potential pleasure.
--Bruce
I have an idea,
Bruce, that perhaps instead of . . .
Quote from: bhodges on February 15, 2008, 09:02:53 AM
. . . if you never hear anything new (and that doesn't mean music written today, by any means) . . .
. . . you may have meant,
doesn't mean exclusively music written today, by any means.
Maybe 8)
For me, being only becoming an ardent classical music fan 3 years ago, and with limited time constraints, I've only scratched the surface of what most would consider the "standard repertoire". I have to have short lists of composers/works of where I'd like to focus my exploration towards, plus money is also a consideration. I find I don't have enough fully dedicated listening hours to enjoy all of the music I already have in my collection (100 or so discs), thus I don't see how I could do it with 10,000 + discs in my collection? :o
Also, when I find I really like something, it tends to stay in my backpack that I bring to work (I usually keep 6 or 10 CD's in their for wherever I go, on a rotating basis). I think I had my set of Beethoven String Quartets in my backpack for about 2 years, because I would always want to listen to them, and couldn't get enough of them! :)
Quote from: karlhenning on February 15, 2008, 09:19:59 AM
I have an idea, Bruce, that perhaps instead of . . .
. . . you may have meant, doesn't mean exclusively music written today, by any means.
Maybe 8)
That's absolutely right,
Karl: the point I was after is that there is much unfamiliar music out there
from all periods. And
ChamberNut, points well taken: time and money do enter into all of this, and...we all have our "Beethoven string quartets," either literally or figuratively, that we love to hear again and again.
--Bruce
There's so much in there I could upset about.
No time. :)
Quote from: James on February 15, 2008, 09:49:38 AM
What matters is not the premiere, but the second performance. And the third. And the tenth. Conductors today dip into lots of new reservoirs of new music. But they rarely go back for a second drink. So how's an audience to become familiar with the new works when they hear them only once? Especially difficult works like these?
Great article, and the above stuck me as especially important. Back in the 1980s AT&T (IIRC) funded a program for orchestras solely for
second hearings of recently premiered works--no world premieres, but repeats of things already played. May have been a small step, but a crucial one.
--Bruce
Then, there is the flip side........Fans of Baroque/Renaissance/Medieval music wonder why people listen only to Classical and Romantic music?
Fans of medieval music?
(kidding . . . but just a little)
Too many of these arguments for modern serious music strike me as, "If it's not new, it's not good. Only the new is good. Aged music sounds old and icky and why the hell are you listening to that when you could listen to this new stuff? So what if it sounds like two gerbils mating in a tin bread box? It's NEW!!!"
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 15, 2008, 09:24:04 AM
For me, being only becoming an ardent classical music fan 3 years ago, and with limited time constraints, I've only scratched the surface of what most would consider the "standard repertoire". I have to have short lists of composers/works of where I'd like to focus my exploration towards, plus money is also a consideration. I find I don't have enough fully dedicated listening hours to enjoy all of the music I already have in my collection (100 or so discs), thus I don't see how I could do it with 10,000 + discs in my collection? :o
...
I'm with you all the way, ChamberNut, since my ardour is fairly recent too -- 3-4 years though I have been listening to classic occasionally for 35.
I'm still struggling to acquire some familiarity with the basic repertoire, never mind the more obscure stuff. (Dare I say the list of 250 Core Classical Composition was record for
my own instruction, not for other peoples'?) But, poor me, I don't have the cash to acquire or the time to listen to music that Harry seems to have, lucky man. I've got you beat presently, CN, at about 500 classical recordings, but I'll never get to, say, Sarge's 10,000+ if only because I'm already so old that I'll run out of time
When I do go tangential from the basic repertoire it tends to be towards the contemporary stuff. So far the obscure Romantics that Harry seems to favour, (could be my wrong impression), don't appeal to me.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 15, 2008, 10:28:30 AM
Fans of medieval music?
(kidding . . . but just a little)
Maybe I got it wrong. What was the "era" prior to the Renaissance period?
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 10:29:06 AM
Too many of these arguments for modern serious music strike me as, "If it's not new, it's not good. Only the new is good. Aged music sounds old and icky and why the hell are you listening to that when you could listen to this new stuff? So what if it sounds like two gerbils mating in a tin bread box? It's NEW!!!"
And it's not just happening in classical music. As a teenager growing up, I was more into the pop/rock/hard rock/metal groups of the 70's and early 80's, rather than the dance/techno/rap/rock "newer" music in the 90's. You'd be made fun of because you weren't hip for listen to "old" music, cool people listen to what's new.
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 15, 2008, 10:37:42 AM
And it's not just happening in classical music. As a teenager growing up, I was more into the pop/rock/hard rock/metal groups of the 70's and early 80's, rather than the dance/techno/rap/rock "newer" music in the 90's. You'd be made fun of because you weren't hip for listen to "old" music, cool people listen to what's new.
I find it best to listen only to yourself in matters of music. 0:)
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 15, 2008, 10:25:35 AM
Then, there is the flip side........Fans of Baroque/Renaissance/Medieval music wonder why people listen only to Classical and Romantic music?
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 10:29:06 AM
Too many of these arguments for modern serious music strike me as, "If it's not new, it's not good. Only the new is good. Aged music sounds old and icky and why the hell are you listening to that when you could listen to this new stuff? So what if it sounds like two gerbils mating in a tin bread box? It's NEW!!!"
I know what you mean, and in an ideal world, there is room for everything. It's an
inclusive way of listening, rather than an
exclusive one. And yes, the implicit or explicit risk in hearing new stuff is that you may not like it at all, which is just fine, of course.
--Bruce
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 10:39:24 AM
I find it best to listen only to yourself in matters of music. 0:)
True, my point is that no matter what you are listening to and enjoying, there are always people out there telling you that you should be listening to this, instead of that, listen to Mahler, not Bruckner; listen to Sting, not The Police, or Peter Cetera, not Chicago ;D etc....
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 15, 2008, 10:44:45 AM
True, my point is that no matter what you are listening to and enjoying, there are always people out there telling you that you should be listening to this, instead of that, listen to Mahler, not Bruckner; listen to Sting, not The Police, or Peter Cetera, not Chicago ;D etc....
Right. And when you get right down to it, no two peoples' tastes are exactly alike, so you will always have that.
Quote from: James on February 15, 2008, 10:33:19 AM
One explanation for this could be that 'sheeple' often just go where they're told by the safe classical music marketing lobby (especially Mozart & Beethoven... & the safe romantic era) ... sorta like how kids fodder fed & manipulated by shit pop groups, their managers & their labels.
Well....if I'm a sheeple, can I safely graze on your pasture, James? ;D
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 15, 2008, 10:47:54 AM
Well....if I'm a sheeple, can I safely graze on your pasture, James? ;D
Don't graze there. His pasture is thorny and atonal. Not nourishing at all. ;)
Quote from: James on February 15, 2008, 10:33:19 AM
One explanation for this could be that 'sheeple' often just go where they're told by the safe classical music marketing lobby (especially Mozart & Beethoven... & the safe romantic era) ... sorta like how kids fodder fed & manipulated by shit pop groups, their managers & their labels.
Another explanation for this could be that Mozart, Beethoven, and the "safe" Chopin, Brahms, et al., represent music that most performers want to spend long hours in their practice rooms mastering, and that most listeners want especially to hear.
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 10:49:39 AM
Don't graze there. His pasture is thorny and atonal. Not nourishing at all. ;)
Mmmmm......Atonality!
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 10:39:24 AM
I find it best to listen only to yourself in matters of music. 0:)
Unfortunately (or not) that's a comfortable illusion. What you consider "your" tastes are inevitably circumscribed from the outset by the music that performers want to play and record. (I have heard talk from people I respect, for example, that Etienne Méhul's opera Ariodant is his masterpiece. But lacking a recording, and with scores costing in the $600 range if they're available at all, I am not likely ever to experience it.) What's more, what you consider "your" tastes are also circumscribed by what you have read, heard of, etc., from your education and interpersonal discussions, including the WWW. There is a filtering-out over the years of the music that performers consider most worth keeping in their repertoires and scholars consider most worthy of study. And I by no means consider this an entirely bad thing.
Pure personal independence in taste is a fantasy.
Quote from: Sforzando on February 15, 2008, 10:59:40 AM
Pure personal independence in taste is a fantasy.
Ugh. That could be a whole thread unto itself. I don't agree with you and I ain't going there. ;)
An open mind should be open just wide enough to recognize that not everyone is as open minded ;D
Of course it would be great if everyone was discovering new composers all the time. I'm all for new experiences in life :D, still a bit tucked in a comfort zone when it comes to music, but I am still a newcomer with only 3 - 4 years of exposure, so "I'm not too worried about it"**
This business of a standard repertoire is particularly hurting the listening habits of the adventurers simply because their own favorites are recorded and performed much less regularly as a result of the habits of the audience at large, so I fully support their enthusiasm in trying to get others to listen to different composers/genres.
**
(http://www.siyumhaseinfeld.com/images/chars/kruger2.jpg)
Quote from: orbital on February 15, 2008, 11:04:43 AM
This business of a standard repertoire is particularly hurting the listening habits of the adventurers simply because their own favorites are recorded and performed much less regularly as a result of the habits of the audience at large, so I fully support their enthusiasm in trying to get others to listen to different composers/genres.
So, they should start their own orchestras and make their own recordings. What's stopping them?
Perhaps we need more scandals in today's classical music? When's the last time classical music had a great scandal? The premiere of Stravinsky's 'The Rite of Spring'?
We need wing-nut conductors who bite the heads off bats and doves. :D
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 11:03:07 AM
Ugh. That could be a whole thread unto itself. I don't agree with you and I ain't going there. ;)
On the What are you Listening To thread you cite the Brahms Quartets. Above you yourself write:
"Well, if you get tired of listening to Beethoven, Harry, you can listen to Schubert or Mozart or Chopin..."
QED. We are all part of a community, a culture of Western listeners. Same with literature, theater, dance, art. Do you think it's just by accident that when Patrick Stewart is appearing as Macbeth in Brooklyn this season, you can scarcely get tickets, or that when the original panels from the Baptistery in Florence appeared at the Met, the throngs were three and four deep? No man is an island when it comes to developing taste. Even the gadflies who reject Beethoven, Mozart, what have you in favor of their own eccentric favorites, are constantly fighting against the culture they claim to be so independent from.
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 15, 2008, 11:12:48 AM
Perhaps we need more scandals in today's classical music? When's the last time classical music had a great scandal? The premiere of Stravinsky's 'The Rite of Spring'?
We need wing-nut conductors who bite the heads off bats and doves. :D
Classical music has pretty much a cult following now, innit?
Quote from: Sforzando on February 15, 2008, 11:13:02 AM
On the What are you Listening To thread you cite the Brahms Quartets. Above you yourself write:
"Well, if you get tired of listening to Beethoven, Harry, you can listen to Schubert or Mozart or Chopin..."
QED. We are all part of a community, a culture of Western listeners. Same with literature, theater, dance, art. Do you think it's just by accident that when Patrick Stewart is appearing as Macbeth in Brooklyn this season, you can scarcely get tickets, or that when the original panels from the Baptistery in Florence appeared at the Met, the throngs were three and four deep? No man is an island when it comes to developing taste. Even the gadflies who reject Beethoven, Mozart, what have you in favor of their own eccentric favorites, are constantly fighting against the culture they claim to be so independent from.
What I'm saying is that if each work is a toggle for like/dislike, I find it hard to believe that there will be any two people on this planet with all their switches flipped in the same pattern.
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 11:19:14 AM
What I'm saying is that if each work is a toggle for like/dislike, I find it hard to believe that there will be any two people on this planet with all their switches flipped in the same pattern.
I did not and would not specifically claim that. There are individual variations. You may like Parsifal; I prefer Meistersinger. You may like the Schumann Piano Concerto; I'll take the Dichterliebe. Or maybe you don't like Wagner much at all, though you recognize his immense importance and his mesmerizing appeal among those who do.
But these variations are within what I would say is a general community of concensus among people who care deeply about these matters. E.g.: while going through all the Bach cantatas some time ago, I found the opening soprano aria of 151 so striking that I replayed it a dozen times. Looking up the work on www.bachcantatas.net, I found I was far from alone in finding this a particularly stunning piece of music. Coincidence? somehow I doubt it.
Quote from: Sforzando on February 15, 2008, 11:27:36 AM
I did not and would not specifically claim that. There are individual variations. You may like Parsifal; I prefer Meistersinger. You may like the Schumann Piano Concerto; I'll take the Dichterliebe. But these variations are within what I would say is a general community of concensus among people who care deeply about these matters. E.g.: while going through all the Bach cantatas some time ago, I found the opening soprano aria of 151 so striking that I replayed it a dozen times. Looking up the work on www.bachcantatas.net, I found I was far from alone in finding this a particularly stunning piece of music. Coincidence? somehow I doubt it.
Today, I listened to Bach, Brahms, some hip-hop, electronic, pop and rock music. How about you?
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 11:28:52 AM
Today, I listened to Bach, Brahms, some hip-hop, electronic, pop and rock music. How about you?
I heard Alban Berg and Beethoven. So what? I'm not interested in anyone's daily consumption, rather in one's overall sense of what music matters.
Quote from: Sforzando on February 15, 2008, 11:30:36 AM
I heard Alban Berg and Beethoven. So what? I'm not interested in anyone's daily consumption, rather in one's overall sense of what music matters.
I always say that there is good music in every genre. One just has to find it.
No, you're right, ChamberNut, the era before Renaissance is Medieval. Being a fan of that era takes some doing.
And, esteemed Dave, do not inform us how you've come to know what two gerbils mating in a tin bread box sounds like ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on February 15, 2008, 11:34:42 AM
And, esteemed Dave, do not inform us how you've come to know what two gerbils mating in a tin bread box sounds like ;D
Ask Xenakis or Varese or one of those crazy bastards. ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on February 15, 2008, 11:34:42 AM
the era before Renaissance is Medieval. Being a fan of that era takes some doing.
Well I am a fan, and it did not much doing, I simply loved what I heard, that's all. ;D
Quote from: Harry on February 15, 2008, 11:38:02 AM
I simply loved what I heard, that's all. ;D
That there is the battle won.
Quote from: Harry on February 15, 2008, 11:38:02 AM
Well I am a fan, and it did not much doing
Oh, but it did; there are fewer recordings than of music of practically any other era (so that you expended the effort of voluminous acquisition). More than other eras of music, anyone interested in the medieval era have to make an effort to seek it out.
Anyway,
Harry, you prove the rule, because you're simply a fan of everything ;)
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 11:37:18 AM
Ask Xenakis or Varese . . .
Neither of whom interested himself in rodents, so far as I know 0:)
Quote from: karlhenning on February 15, 2008, 11:44:50 AM
Neither of whom interested himself in rodents, so far as I know 0:)
Admit it. I gave you ideas for your next piece. 0:)
In terms of listening at home, I'm sure my general listening is somewhat based around the canon. There's at least two reasons for this: firstly, a lot of the music that is in the canon is damn good; secondly, there are lots of different performances of music that's canonical and thus more chance to hear a wide variety of valuable interpretations of this music. I'm pretty sure there's not a single Ligeti piece that's available in as many worthwhile performances as, say, the Eroica. ;)
When going to live performances, I tend to go for less canonic works: new pieces that I may never get a chance to hear live again; obscurities that would be interesting to hear in person, and so on. I grew up with the Royal Scottish National Orchestra as my local orchestra, and thus have had my fill of mediocre run-throughs of Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky--I'd much rather hear something that the performers care about and would do well.
Quote from: James on February 15, 2008, 11:37:49 AM
Not knocking the value of the quality older stuff but the concerns are largely financial, the newer stuff needs more (or equal) exposure. But it poses too much of a risk (& work), so they opt. for the safe, familiar, tried & true.
Don't forget either that a lot of the newer stuff demands new performing techniques that instrumentalists and vocalists have not inevitably mastered. I can bang out much of Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, Debussy, etc., on my home piano - ineptly for sure but at least the techniques are within my physical grasp. Put a Ligeti etude in front of me and I'm a baby.
But I think some of that is changing. The Juilliard students I heard the other week playing Elliott Carter's Sinfonia sounded utterly fearless, and I've heard Boulez state that he can put together a performance of Marteau in 1/10 the time it took back in the 50s.
Quote from: MN Dave on February 15, 2008, 11:47:01 AM
Admit it. I gave you ideas for your next piece. 0:)
Gerbils mating in a tin bread box... in a helicopter!! 8)
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 15, 2008, 12:05:48 PM
Gerbils mating in a tin bread box... in a helicopter!! 8)
Underwater.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 15, 2008, 11:43:48 AM
Anyway, Harry, you prove the rule, because you're simply a fan of everything ;)
That is so not true, and you know it. I could name tons of music that I dislike.... 0:)
Quote from: Harry on February 15, 2008, 02:23:00 PM
That is so not true, and you know it. I could name tons of music that I dislike.... 0:)
I admit you are much more open minded that i am.
i have only like 15 favorites, I think its 15, maybe a few others. But definetly not over 20.
there may be total 25 composers represented in my collection, with another 2 or 3 to add.
My standard repertoire begins with Dufay and, until now, ends with Dufour.
So, a large, very large number of great composers.
As for more obscure composers, I admit that I am not very interested in knowing their opus omnia. I accept that if I had ten or twenty CD with works of Sammartini, instead of the only one I have, I would discover one or two remarkable works.
But if I spent my time listening to that music I would be forced to stop listening to the great masterpieces of Dufay, Monteverdi,Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, Debussy, Mussorgski, Stravinsky, Schönberg or Bartok. And those masterpieces cannot be heard only two or three times. Most of them are with me year after year, for decades, and each time I listen to them, like yesterday Mozart's piano Concerto 18, I feel as impressed and touched as in the first time.
I agree with Harry, there are so much interesting music to explore outside the "canon". Today I listened to
Pisendel's violin sonatas and all I can say is I truly enjoyed the music. 0:)
Quote from: karlhenning on February 15, 2008, 07:47:04 AM
And there were the ritual posts of "You cannot be serious that the symphonies of Nielsen are as worthy of our attention os those of Beethoven" . . . . ;D
I value
Carl Nielsen's symphonies higher than those of
Beethoven.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 16, 2008, 01:39:23 AM
I agree with Harry, there are so much interesting music to explore outside the "canon".
I value Carl Nielsen's symphonies higher than those of Beethoven.
Can we make some sort of defining limits to the idea of
The Canon, as music from Bach to late romantics.
Mahler is on that borderline (no man's land), Debussy falls into the beginnings of the modern era and so *outside the canon*. I think this is the idea that Harry is suggesting.
The simple fact that you feel Nielsen offers more personal satisfaction that the syms of the canonical composer, Ludwig Beethoven, shows that you have broken *established dogma of belief*. You have stepped outside *the canon*, congradulations You are now a heretic. ;D
Quote from: Harry on February 15, 2008, 05:53:49 AM
Is it just me, or is it really so that most people go for standard fare in classical music?
I see a lot of postings of the three B's and Mahler/Sibelius/Pettersson thank God/ Stravinsky, etc, etc, etc as Yul Bryner said in the the King of Siam.
But there is so much more quality to be found, yet the bulk of posters are keeping on the surface of things in their choice of composers.
That is not to say that this is a negative thing, but still there is more beyond as some people think, me thinks.
What you you have to say, my classical friends. ;D
A major part of my enjoyment of classical music is exploring off the beaten path (my current focus is on collecting relatively obscure complete symphony cycles) because a) it's exciting and often rewarding to try new things (I've found lots of music outside the big-name canonical composers that I absolutely love) and b) I have no burning desire to hear, say, the LvB symphonies a hundred times, let alone spend my hard-earned money on yet another recording of them--awesome music, to be sure, but I similarly don't spend all my reading/viewing time on Shakespeare, despite my love and admiration for his work and his undeniable status as one of the very greatest writers.
Thank goodness the record companies are adventurous these days, even if the concert halls aren't.
QuoteDebussy falls into the beginnings of the modern era and so *outside the canon*
Debussy is about as canonical and mainstream as you can get: frequently recorded and programmed, widely liked, found in every Classical Music 101 textbook or class.
Quote from: paulb on February 16, 2008, 02:50:04 AM
Can we make some sort of defining limits to the idea of The Canon, as music from Bach to late romantics.
Mahler is on that borderline (no man's land), Debussy falls into the beginnings of the modern era and so *outside the canon*. I think this is the idea that Harry is suggesting.
The simple fact that you feel Nielsen offers more personal satisfaction that the syms of the canonical composer, Ludwig Beethoven, shows that you have broken *established dogma of belief*. You have stepped outside *the canon*, congradulations You are now a heretic. ;D
This is how I define things:
Works that are
supposed to be kept in high esteem are inside the canon.
Works that are
not supposed to be kept in high esteem are outside the canon.
What comes to the stepping outside the canon I think I have always been outside more than inside.
I first came to this forum almost three years ago hoping to learn about extra-canonical composers whose music would satisfy me as much as that of some better-known masters. Thanks to a few kind souls here I've been introduced to Rautavaara, have learned to enjoy Bruckner, and have grown in appreciation for Janáček, Berlioz, Vaughn Williams, and Bax. I've bought dozens of recordings of works by other composers recommended here, mostly 20th Century, but haven't yet had lightening strike—not even once—in the way it has consistently struck over years and decades when listening to Bach, Mozart, Stravinsky, Mahler, Prokofiev, Sibelius, Adams, Pärt, Brahms, Debussy, Dvořák, or Beethoven (to name the heart of my personal canon).
Although I disagree vehemently with an erstwhile contributor's oft-repeated assertion that listening to anything other than Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and Brahms (along with some Schumann & Schubert) is a waste of time, I do agree with the underlying sentiment that some composers better repay the time invested in exploring their work than others. A banquet is more nourishing than a candy bar. But even candy bars have their place. This is not to suggest that, say, Dutilleux is a composer of the stature of Beethoven, but only that snacks have merit, too, and at times may be more satisfying than a feast.
Do I agree with the generally established canon reflected in the programming of most orchestras? Not entirely. I would much rather hear something new by a contemporary unknown than almost anything by certain fixtures in the repertoire. But for the most part those fixtures are there for a reason. They've earned their places through the test of time. It's not prejudice that keeps contemporary composers off the A list, they just haven't been around long enough to earn their places yet—that is, those who prove to have the sticking power to speak to the depths of the human soul a hundred or more years hence.
QuoteAlthough I disagree vehemently with an erstwhile contributor's oft-repeated assertion that listening to anything other than Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and Brahms (along with some Schumann & Schubert) is a waste of time...
Phew. That ain't me. No Chopin. ;)
Quote from: MN Dave on February 16, 2008, 05:52:41 AM
Phew. That ain't me. No Chopin. ;)
Too Polish for that poor soul...he only likes native German speakers.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 16, 2008, 04:53:52 AM
This is how I define things:
Works that are supposed to be kept in high esteem are inside the canon.
Works that are not supposed to be kept in high esteem are outside the canon.
Bingo.
well then i'm not as *black sheep* as i thought.
Quote from: MN Dave on February 16, 2008, 05:52:41 AM
Phew. That ain't me. No Chopin. ;)
I have nothing by Chopin in my collection. But i do have some Grieg(its OK) , and 2 spanish favs Granados and Albeniz.
Quote from: longears on February 16, 2008, 05:48:37 AMI would much rather hear something new by a contemporary unknown than almost anything by certain fixtures in the repertoire.
Agreed.
Quote from: longears on February 16, 2008, 05:48:37 AMBut for the most part those fixtures are there for a reason.
"A" reason? Probably several reasons. Where IS "there," anyway? (I haven't contributed to this thread yet because the phrase "standard repertoire" makes me break out in hives. The idea that fellow listeners view the concept without question--the mavericks are so defined according to their position vis a vis the "canon"--makes my hives burn. Fortunately, the silly backchat that has characterized this thread has been as a balm in Gilead. So, whew!)
Quote from: longears on February 16, 2008, 05:48:37 AMThey've earned their places through the test of time. It's not prejudice that keeps contemporary composers off the A list, they just haven't been around long enough to earn their places yet—that is, those who prove to have the sticking power to speak to the depths of the human soul a hundred or more years hence.
At the risk of giving any other esteemed member hives, I want to be serious here for a second. This notion of the test of time is all my grandmother's eye. How long is long enough? For the right listener, maybe two seconds. There's a little difference between recognizing Beethoven's ninth as superb and recognizing Stockhausen's
Hymnen as same, if the listener in question hasn't listened to much twentieth century music. But for someone conversant with new musics, it doesn't take any hundred years. (I'm only fifty-five. I'm not old!) Plus, what about all those live electronics concerts I go to? I have to "get it" instantly, once and for all, 'cause that's the only chance I'll get.
But I cannot develop this as I would like, as "speak to the depths of the human soul" is making me itch. More balm!! But before I head off to the liniment chest, I leave you all with this clarion call from Mr. Morton Feldman: "Down with Masterpieces; up with art!"
Quote from: paulb on February 16, 2008, 06:30:11 AM
I have nothing by Chopin in my collection.
Are you insane?!
Quote from: some guy on February 16, 2008, 07:40:43 AM
I leave you all with this clarion call from Mr. Morton Feldman: "Down with Masterpieces; up with art!"
You can leave us all with whatever you like, but that's a false dichotomy if ever I heard one.
Canon, shmanon. . . I listen to what I like and don't listen to what I don't like. 8) I'm always looking for new composers and works, for as with my taste in food, my taste in music continually evolves.
Quote from: Keemun on February 16, 2008, 08:08:56 AM
Canon, shmanon. . . I listen to what I like and don't listen to what I don't like. 8) I'm always looking for new composers and works, for as with my taste in food, my taste in music continually evolves.
Right. And then one looks at your posts to see what you are actually listening to, and 95% of it are works by canonical composers. QED.
Quote from: some guy on February 16, 2008, 07:40:43 AM"A" reason? Probably several reasons.
No,
a reason. They reflect the tastes of those who get to decide by virtue of willingness to vote with their dollars.
QuoteWhere IS "there," anyway?
"There" is in the concert halls, record catalogs, and radio playlists.
Quote(I haven't contributed to this thread yet because the phrase "standard repertoire" makes me break out in hives. The idea that fellow listeners view the concept without question--the mavericks are so defined according to their position vis a vis the "canon"--makes my hives burn. Fortunately, the silly backchat that has characterized this thread has been as a balm in Gilead. So, whew!)
Wow--chill, bro! You seem to be conflating recognition of the existence of a "standard repertoire" with blind allegiance to it. If the idea that mainstream values differ from yours "makes your hives burn," then the past 40-odd years must have been very trying for you--or do your values coincide with the mainstream in all other respects? And since a "maverick" is a cow that strays from the herd, what else could a "musical maverick" be?
QuoteAt the risk of giving any other esteemed member hives, I want to be serious here for a second.
Whew! Thank goodness! I hadn't realized the foregoing was all facetious. What a relief!
QuoteThis notion of the test of time is all my grandmother's eye. How long is long enough? For the right listener, maybe two seconds. There's a little difference between recognizing Beethoven's ninth as superb and recognizing Stockhausen's Hymnen as same, if the listener in question hasn't listened to much twentieth century music. But for someone conversant with new musics, it doesn't take any hundred years. (I'm only fifty-five. I'm not old!) Plus, what about all those live electronics concerts I go to? I have to "get it" instantly, once and for all, 'cause that's the only chance I'll get.
You may not like the notion of "time-tested," but to deny it is to stray off the reality map, dude. And again you're conflating your (or any individual's) tastes with the collective judgment over time of those who vote with their pocketbooks. If you want to hear
Hymnen live, time and again, you are perfectly free to do so. No one is preventing you. All you have to do is the same as anyone else who wants to hear Beethoven's 9th or Snoop Doggy Dog--pay for the privilege. That your personal tastes are so superior and rarified that you have to pay a lot, because few others are willing to share the expense, is just the cross you bear for being so much better than everyone else.
QuoteBut I cannot develop this as I would like, as "speak to the depths of the human soul" is making me itch. More balm!! But before I head off to the liniment chest, I leave you all with this clarion call from Mr. Morton Feldman: "Down with Masterpieces; up with art!"
Well, okay, maybe your soul isn't that deep...or at least your awareness of it. But again, whether you like it or not, the fact is that great art endures because of its power to speak to some essential aspect of the human condition, despite the trivialities of time and place. As for seeming dichotomies from Mr. Feldman, I suggest the one you quote merits deeper consideration, as does: "The people who you think are radicals might really be conservative. The people who you think are conservatives might really be radical."
Quote from: Grazioso on February 16, 2008, 04:45:02 AM
Debussy is about as canonical and mainstream as you can get: frequently recorded and programmed, widely liked, found in every Classical Music 101 textbook or class.
So is Mahler at this point in time. Fifty years ago that might not have been the case. If you look at Olin Downes's "Symphonic Masterpieces" from 1940, a set of program notes he wrote for concerts, you'll find no Mahler (and only the 7th of Bruckner) listed. But the "standard repertoire" or "canon," however you want to call it, is not fixed and inviolate for all time. Today all the Mahler and Bruckner symphonies are discussed in Michael Steinberg's book of program notes, "The Symphony." There are works that become included as standard over time, other works get forgotten. One hundred years ago the Meyerbeer operas might have been thought of as canonical; today they're rarely heard. Mahler has risen to the surface in a great many music lovers' minds as an important composer; at the time of his death his music was largely considered insignificant, but Mengelberg and Walter were early advocates, and Bernstein pushed hard for Mahler in the 1960s and 70s. Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra could not have been considered "canonical" when it was written in the early 1940s, but conductors like Koussevitsky (who first performed it) believed in the work and championed it, so that now it has become a mainstream piece as audiences have come to know it intimately. It's not just the "test of time," but the passion that performers and audience bring to the work that matters.
Quote from: Sforzando on February 16, 2008, 09:03:00 AM
It's not just the "test of time," but the passion that performers and audience bring to the work that matters.
If a work doesn't inspire that passion--and continue to do so--then it fails the test.
Quote from: longears on February 16, 2008, 09:06:24 AM
If a work doesn't inspire that passion--and continue to do so--then it fails the test.
Of course. And there are different strata among audiences. To be somewhat caricatural: there are the "tried and true" crowd who want their Beethoven, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, what have you and rarely venture beyond that. Then there are those who are primarily passionate about more esoteric fare; maybe they want to explore Josquin and Ockeghem, Berio and Carter, or names that nobody has heard of. Personally I find both such kinds of listener somewhat limited, but that's their choice to make. I only object when the esoteric crowd - and believe me there are plenty of such folks on this on other music forums - starts making accusations about "brainwashing" and that sort of thing, and acting as if any composer received within the canon is overrated, while any composers who have been neglected are undeservedly so. That's an exaggeration, of course, but not a huge one. As a friend of mine wrote to me:
QuoteBut this phenomenon isn't all that unusual. You see it in other areas as well. People who want to believe they are among the "elite" who see better than the common man will always rebel against the received wisdom. So Bach and Beethoven are obviously over-rated since we are told that they are so great. And people who are into Klami and Raff are very rare, so naturally that means that those people are privy to some deeper understanding of what makes great Art. It's just another form of elitism.
Quote from: Sforzando on February 16, 2008, 07:58:48 AMYou can leave us all with whatever you like, but that's a false dichotomy if ever I heard one.
Hmmmm. Don't know about whether you've seen false dichotomies or not. But the Feldman is not a dichotomy, false or otherwise. (Just because there are two things being contrasted doesn't mean that what we're seeing is a dichotomy.)
Quote from: longears on February 16, 2008, 08:50:16 AMYou seem to be conflating recognition of the existence of a "standard repertoire" with blind allegiance to it.
Not at all. Where'd you get that idea? To say that "maverick" presupposes "herd," which was my point, is not at all the same as saying, "the herd is good; long live the herd."
Quote from: longears on February 16, 2008, 08:50:16 AMIf the idea that mainstream values differ from yours "makes your hives burn," then the past 40-odd years must have been very trying for you--or do your values coincide with the mainstream in all other respects?
Again, where are you getting these things? "Mainstream values differ from mine" is not at all equivalent to "fellow listeners view the concept without question." I said the latter. Except in this sentence that you're reading now, I don't even acknowledge "mainstream values" as a valid concept. Is that so wrong? (For viewers at home, the answer is "No." That's "
No.")
Quote from: longears on February 16, 2008, 08:50:16 AMyou're conflating your (or any individual's) tastes with the collective judgment over time
How dare you accuse me of conflating!! Why, I oughta...!! But seriously, I'm doing no such thing. (I would recommend that you go back and reread my post, carefully, but that might encourage you to accuse me of writing badly. "No I didn't." "Yes you did." "No I didn't." "Yes you did." You know....) What I am saying (and I'd much prefer being criticized for what I
do say than for what I don't) is that an intelligent, knowledgeable, sensitive, sympathetic listener can recognize the goodness of a piece of music pretty quickly, and without the benefit of the passage of hundreds of years or the concurrence of millions of other listeners. At that point, to talk about a canon seems impertinent, no? Collective judgement, like any other collective thing, is much slower than individual judgement, and not necessarily any more valid or accurate or whatever other adjective you'd like to pitch in there.
Quote from: longears on February 16, 2008, 08:50:16 AMwhether you like it or not, the fact is that great art endures because of its power to speak to some essential aspect of the human condition, despite the trivialities of time and place.
Well, aside from time and place not being trivial, I don't know how we got off on what I like or dislike. Or on why great art endures. Of course it does. My point was about whether great art can be recognized fairly quickly or not. Not whether it can be accepted by lots of people right away or canonized right away, but whether a listener can or cannot recognize and appreciate it right away.
That's all I had to say about "test of time." Not that time is a bad test, just that it's not the only test. Though I would take "test of intelligent listening" over "test of time" any old day.
Quote from: Sforzando on February 16, 2008, 08:49:06 AM
Right. And then one looks at your posts to see what you are actually listening to, and 95% of it are works by canonical composers. QED.
But you miss the point. I listen to that music because I like it,
not because it is considered "canonical."
Okay, someguy, I guess you're not swift enough to recognize the implications of your statements even when someone points them out to you. For instance: I know you said, in essence, "fellow listeners view the concept without question." That's the misguided statement that I'm pointing out is no more than a steaming pile of self-important horse manure. That you "don't even acknowledge 'mainstream values' as a valid concept" is exactly what I'm addressing by parsing the cognitive content of your claims as "mainstream values differ from mine."
Is it "so wrong" not to acknowledge that mainstream values exist? Hell, yeah! Unless you're happy being a solopsistic fruitcake. The existence of such values no more presupposes that you or anyone else must share them than the existence of Fords precludes you from preferring a Chevy.
Whether a given listener can recognize quality is a completely different matter from whether a standard repertoire or canon exists. That such discrimination seems incomprehensible to you suggests that further attempts to engage you in rational dialogue would be fruitless.
Have a nice day, and thanks for sharing. (http://www.childrensmuseum.org/special_exhibits/good_grief/images/logo_goodgrief_75.gif)
Well, me dear, if "I guess you're not swift enough" and "steaming pile of self-important horse manure" and "solopsistic (sic) fruitcake" constitute what you consider legitimate elements of "rational dialogue," then I suppose that not having one of those with you won't keep me awake at night!
Just for the record, of course I acknowledge that mainstream values exist. I also acknowledge other things, some of which I value more highly than said values.
Thanks for catching the typo...solipsistic, of course--darned fat fingers! ;)
Quote from: Keemun on February 16, 2008, 10:32:23 AM
But you miss the point. I listen to that music because I like it, not because it is considered "canonical."
And you miss mine. The fact that you like certain music is not purely a solipsistic preference. It is not as if you are picking any old pieces of music arbitrarily. You have been born into a culture and there are influences on you that have helped shape your tastes and values, such as your education and personal relationships, the Internet included. You interact with that culture and the culture interacts with you to make you the listener you are.
Quote from: some guy on February 16, 2008, 09:41:13 AM
Hmmmm. Don't know about whether you've seen false dichotomies or not. But the Feldman is not a dichotomy, false or otherwise. (Just because there are two things being contrasted doesn't mean that what we're seeing is a dichotomy.)
Sure it is. A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts. Down with masterpieces, up with art, and the twain shall never meet. I recognize of course that what Feldman is attacking is similar to what Virgil Thomson called "the masterpiece syndrome," i.e., the big, plush, comfortable orchestral pieces of the 19th century that (in Thomson's mind) listeners attended in concert halls almost as a substitute for going to church. But to say that masterpieces can be opposed to art, which is exactly Feldman's point, is to my mind a false opposition. Er, dichotomy.
Quote from: Sforzando on February 16, 2008, 12:09:45 PM
Sure it is. A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts.
I don't think that's what Feldman has done, though.
Quote from: Sforzando on February 16, 2008, 12:09:45 PMto say that masterpieces can be opposed to art, which is exactly Feldman's point, is to my mind a false opposition. Er, dichotomy.
Actually, come to think of it, I think we do agree, about the falseness but not about Feldman. Here's what I get out of it. The concept of "Masterpiece," large M, can get in the way of understanding and appreciating and making "art," small a. He could have said "Down with Art; up with art," for that matter. You and I may still disagree, I don't know. I do think the concept of "Masterpiece" has replaced the idea of "art" for many people. Feldman was attempting to restore the balance. The falseness is prior to Feldman, I think. He wanted to turn away from that falseness to something true.
I think in internet forums there is also a tendency to make oneselves interesting by choosing not the standard repertoire. But the standard repertoire is still a very wide field. For example the Haydn symphonies are standard repertoire but I can't claim to know all of them. On the other hand I have heard some of the symphonies of Rimski Korsakov and Glazunov and I was disappointed. On the other hand Mjaskovski is a composer I love, certainly not standard repertoire but quite interesting. I would like to know more of him.
Martin, did you read the post that started this thread?
"Is it really so that most people go for standard fare in classical music?"
"There is so much more quality to be found, yet the bulk of posters are keeping on the surface of things in their choice of composers."
On this thread there's "a tendency" to talk about "the canon," and how far from it each of us strays (or how much each of us ignores it). That's what this thread was set up to do. (Do you watch the Olympics and observe that there is a tendency for athletes to make themselves interesting by doing a lot of running and jumping? Just wonderin', dude!)
Quote from: longears on February 16, 2008, 09:06:24 AM
If a work doesn't inspire that passion--and continue to do so--then it fails the test.
What is the test? Verdi's operas are still very popular but they fail
my test, they don't appeal to
me. Canonic works do well in the tests of majority while works outside the canon might do very well in the tests of minorities. Is the majority always right?
Quote from: 71 dB on February 17, 2008, 01:54:41 AM
What is the test? Verdi's operas are still very popular but they fail my test, they don't appeal to me. Canonic works do well in the tests of majority while works outside the canon might do very well in the tests of minorities. Is the majority always right?
I wrote the previous comment:
QuoteIt's not just the "test of time," but the passion that performers and audience bring to the work that matters.
Trust me, nobody gives a rat's tit if the operas of Verdi don't appeal to you. But of all mid-19th century Italian opera composers (that is, following the bel canto era and preceding verismo), Verdi is the one who has most decisively won over the hearts and minds of a large strata of music lovers. That being the case, I would think it behooves a genuine music-lover not to make snap judgments, to give this music a fair chance, to enlarge one's sympathies so that one can at least see and hear what are the qualities in this music that have so powerfully endeared it to its passionate devotees. There is no "brainwashing" here, to adopt your favorite caricatural epithet; rather, a wish to be part of something that has proven of great worth in the hearts and minds of those who have grasped it and love it.
Quote from: Sforzando on February 17, 2008, 02:28:23 AM
Trust me, nobody gives a rat's tit if the operas of Verdi don't appeal to you.
I am aware of that, of course. I was just giving one example of a person not admiring Verdi's art. Remember that most people on this planet do not care about any opera music by any composer (their loss).
Quote from: Sforzando on February 17, 2008, 02:28:23 AMBut of all mid-19th century Italian opera composers (that is, following the bel canto era and preceding verismo), Verdi is the one who has most decisively won over the hearts and minds of a large strata of music lovers. That being the case, I would think it behooves a genuine music-lover not to make snap judgments, to give this music a fair chance, to enlarge one's sympathies so that one can at least see and hear what are the qualities in this music that have so powerfully endeared it to its passionate devotees. There is no "brainwashing" here, to adopt your favorite caricatural epithet; rather, a wish to be part of something that has proven of great worth in the hearts and minds of those who have grasped it and love it.
I think I have given fair chance to Verdi. Even his Requiem does not appeal to me that much. I just find his music too simple and uninteresting. I don't like his style which over-emphasizes melody over other musical dimensions.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 17, 2008, 03:30:42 AM
I think I have given fair chance to Verdi. Even his Requiem does not appeal to me that much. I just find his music too simple and uninteresting. I don't like his style which over-emphasizes melody over other musical dimensions.
Depends on what constitutes "fair chance." It took me 30 years of off-and-on trying to "get" Bruckner. Of course I could've given up on him early. I am now glad I didn't. What you do is up to you.
Quote from: Sforzando on February 17, 2008, 02:28:23 AM
I wrote the previous comment:
Trust me, nobody gives a rat's tit if the operas of Verdi don't appeal to you. But of all mid-19th century Italian opera composers (that is, following the bel canto era and preceding verismo), Verdi is the one who has most decisively won over the hearts and minds of a large strata of music lovers.
Well said and I for one find Verdi's operas to be "better" (ie: IMHO higher artistic value) than the bel canto operas that preceded them and the verisimo operas that succeeded them. In short Verdi's operas represent the epitome of Italian opera and it is of no surprise that they are a part of the standard repertoire!
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on February 17, 2008, 08:09:25 AM
Well said and I for one find Verdi's operas to be "better" (ie: IMHO higher artistic value) than the bel canto operas that preceded them and the verisimo operas that succeeded them. In short Verdi's operas represent the epitome of Italian opera and it is of no surprise that they are a part of the standard repertoire!
marvin
Yes, and while some of them are centered on "melody," with relatively simple oom-pah-pah accompaniments, Verdi as he grew became far more attuned to the nuances of his texts and the use of the orchestra. The complaint of Mr 71 dB might - and I emphasize might - hold water when applied to the middle-period trio of Rigoletto, Trovatore, and Traviata, but even there Verdi is far more aware of the potential for drama in his musical texts than his forgotten contemporaries, or even his most esteemed predecessors like Bellini, Rossini, and Donizetti. (I would not disdain any of those composers, however - far from it.) But from Ballo in Maschera on, and culminating in Aida, Don Carlo, and Otello, Verdi matured at a prodigious rate. And then there's Falstaff, a quicksilver miracle of ensemble writing, orchestration, and nuance, like nothing else in Verdi or anywhere else (though Puccini did try, very successfully, to write his own version of Falstaff when he came to compose Giannni Schicchi). The Requiem Mass, however, is so far in spirit from the oom-pah-pah middle period works that I am surprised 71 dB chooses it as his example to castigate.