Visionaries is an interactive seven-part series that debates the merits of some of the most innovative and iconic composers from the field of classical music, examining the geniuses behind some of the greatest compositions. At the end of each program listeners will have the chance to vote online for their favourite composer.
Presented by BBC Radio 4's Francine Stock, inspirational composers from different eras will be pitted against each other in the quest to find the supreme classical music visionary.
Each composer has a dedicated and well known advocate, arguing why their chosen icon is the most visionary and has had the most impact in the field.
The final program will be a reprise of all the featured composers including a discussion among the advocates about their chosen composer and the winner will be revealed.
There is more information on the Visionaries website: http://www.visionariesdebate.com/
The series, in association with Credit Suisse, launches on BBC World News on 30 August 2008 with a special introductory program. Full transmission details can be found on the BBC World News website: http://www.bbcworldnews.com/Pages/Schedules.aspx
The Series
Introduction Program
Saturday 30 August
PROGRAM 1: BACH (Tim Minchin) Vs HANDEL (Alexander Armstrong)
Saturday 6 September
PROGRAM 2: BEETHOVEN (Evelyn Glennie) Vs MOZART (Michael Morpurgo)
Saturday 13 September
PROGRAM 3: CHOPIN (Clemency Burton-Hill) Vs VERDI (Sophie Ellis Bextor)
Saturday 20 September
PROGRAM 4: SHOSTAKOVICH (Joan Wasser) Vs TAKEMITSU (Noriko Ogawa)
Saturday 27 September
PROGRAM 5: GLASS (Dennis Russell Davies) Vs BOULEZ (Courtney Pine)
Saturday 4 October
PROGRAM 6: Winners Announced
Saturday 25th October
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!!!!!!!!111
What a load of bollocks.
Quote from: James on August 31, 2008, 08:25:17 PM
PROGRAM 3: CHOPIN (Clemency Burton-Hill) Vs VERDI (Sophie Ellis Bextor)
Saturday 20 September
Verdi vs
CHOPIN :o ????
No Wagner? No Stravinsky? No Schoenberg? No Bartók?
The whole concept is gimmicky at best.
Thomas
Might help as an introducion of sorts to Classical Music for the uninitiated - that is about all. :(
Quote from: sound67 on August 31, 2008, 10:25:45 PM
Verdi vs CHOPIN :o ????
No Wagner? No Stravinsky? No Schoenberg? No Bartók?
The whole concept is gimmicky at best.
Thomas
Agreed Wagner's absence is disconcerting :(.....most disconcerting >:(. Also I fail to see how comparisons of any kind can be made between Verdi and Chopin that would allow the viewer to choose between these two composers. In fact I can not think of 2 composers who have less in common and come from completely different sound worlds than Verdi and Chopin!
marvin
Is this the same programme that featured Mozart v Madonna last year? I distinctly remember one show from the BBC where the advocate for WAM was mostly talking about the composer's life as Freemason and its impact on his music.
Quote from: sound67 on August 31, 2008, 10:25:45 PM
Verdi vs CHOPIN :o ????
No Wagner? No Stravinsky? No Schoenberg? No Bartók?
The whole concept is gimmicky at best.
Thomas
Perhaps, but something's better than nothing. Some of us seem to want the "perfect" poll or competition. If you feel that way, do your own program.
Quote from: Don on September 01, 2008, 06:32:33 AMIf you feel that way, do your own program.
Easy now, easy. I know you're the grand master of pointless composer polls, no one's going to take that title away. ;D
I think you're in for another walk.
Seriously, why Verdi vs Chopin? ???
Thomas
Quote from: marvinbrown on September 01, 2008, 04:28:29 AM
Agreed Wagner's absence is disconcerting :(.....most disconcerting >:(.
I don't see why,
Marvin . . . he was more navel-gazer than visionary . . . . >:D ;D
Why do we need to listen to a BBC program? We've got lots of people here who have very strong opinions about which composers were the great visionaries! 8) And we're very good at debating, pointlessly or otherwise. ;D
Now, such a debate can often go overboard with points and counterpoints ;), so I propose that we limit this thread to nominations for "the greatest visionary" and brief statements as to why he should be. And shall we limit our rebuttals to three? For extended discussions, we can start other threads or revive old ones.
So I'll start:
I nominate Edgard Varèse as the greatest visionary among composers. More than any other early 20th-century composer, he emancipated music from the rules which, though established for good purposes, had become too limiting. He imagined a music without bounds, and showed how it would sound. Thanks to him and a few others like him, any sound can now become music.
Ah, so you would condition great vision with influence, Jas?
Quote from: sound67 on September 01, 2008, 06:55:27 AM
Easy now, easy. I know you're the grand master of pointless composer polls, no one's going to take that title away. ;D
I think you're in for another walk.
Seriously, why Verdi vs Chopin? ???
Thomas
Just got back from a walk; my wife came along this time.
There's nothing serious about Verdi vs. Chopin - it's just having a little fun, something you and a few others don't seem to get.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 01, 2008, 06:57:39 AM
I don't see why, Marvin . . . he was more navel-gazer than visionary . . . . >:D ;D
(laughing) Air OUT that lint!
Quote from: AndyD. on September 01, 2008, 10:44:08 AM
(laughing) Air OUT that lint!
Andy 8), as hard as I am trying to promote Wagner to the other GMG members it seems that our illustrious Mr. Henning is forever immune to my marketing schemes :-[. DavidRoss is the other "tough nut to crack" so to speak. God bless them both at least they keep me "grounded"!
Quote from: marvinbrown on September 01, 2008, 02:35:45 PM
Andy 8), as hard as I am trying to promote Wagner to the other GMG members it seems that our illustrious Mr. Henning is forever immune to my marketing schemes :-[. DavidRoss is the other "tough nut to crack" so to speak. God bless them both at least they keep me "grounded"!
I can see where people might not like Wagner much. It can be daunting for many folks to get past some of the more "recitative" parts of his operas. What I really mean is, I can't entirely blame folks for only dealing with Wagner via highlights cds and the like. I actually had to take some time out of my daily life (not some really, a
lot), in order to fully "get" the Wagner operas on a more inward level.
It's my opinion (and perhaps yours as well) that the last six Wagner operas, but most particularly the Ring, Tristan und Isolde, and Parsifal, are the greatest works of art in Western civilisation's history. But that really is only my opinion and nothing more. I literally
marvel at the fact that, not only do I learn something new about these last six operas every time I listen to them, but in fact I learn something new about myself and society (from an Archeytpal standpoint) each time as well.
As many GmG-ers already know, Wagner chose the "fantasy" elements in order to be more broad in the definitions of what his operas meant. One can apply the plot devices (most certainly including their interplay with the musical motifs), extensive characterizations, etc. within the operas to multitudinal models useful in taking perspectives on the "big picture" of life.
Or one can use them to cure insomnia (laughing) 0:). To each his or her own. I certainly wouldn't want to give up Mozart, Joseph Haydn, Schumann, Grieg, LVB, Mahler, or Bruckner. But I personally would drop all of them if faced with a desert island scenario with a lifetime battery charged television, cd player and a Wagner collection to shame
Sarge's. One can gain something from his music with each listen. I'm not saying other composers don't have that quality. But Wagner included the human voice most effectively as
part of the orchestra...this I find worthy of my deepest admiration.
Again, this is me, and I respect others' opinions on the matter. And I like to laugh with people whom just don't seem to care for Wagner, because I hate taking anything too seriously. I noticed that when I do the latter, I end up miserable, and nothing is worth that, right?
Quote from: marvinbrown on September 01, 2008, 02:35:45 PM
Andy 8), as hard as I am trying to promote Wagner to the other GMG members it seems that our illustrious Mr. Henning is forever immune to my marketing schemes :-[. DavidRoss is the other "tough nut to crack" so to speak. God bless them both at least they keep me "grounded"!
Don't be disheartened,
Marvin! I could never approach
Wagner save with some dose of humor larger than The Great Man himself possessed. Remember that I did greatly enjoy my initial listen to
Tristan.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 01, 2008, 03:18:24 PM
Remember that I did greatly enjoy my initial listen to Tristan.
Hey, this is news to me! Also true, Wagner really seemed to have a problem with humor, it's practically bereft in all his operas but the incredible "Meistersinger...".
Hey, I remember that your current avatar is the same one that you had back when I first registered with GMG (was it Dec. 2006 or somethin'?Memory is getting shot...).
Great memories, thanks
Karl!
Quote from: AndyD. on September 01, 2008, 03:36:06 PM
Hey, this is news to me!
Yes, you must already have been taking a break at the time of my hauling in The Big Bayreuth Box,
Andy!
Quote from: karlhenning on September 01, 2008, 03:38:09 PM
Yes, you must already have been taking a break at the time of my hauling in The Big Bayreuth Box, Andy!
lol :D WAIT!
The Big Bayreuth Box! I'm SO there! (cracking up now)
So, one nomination for Wagner, one for Varèse; any others?
Quote from: sound67 on August 31, 2008, 10:25:45 PM
No Schoenberg?
well, no one was as "visionary as he was" ;) ......
he was the dude that felt wind from other planets..... 8)
Composing music is not a sport, where competitors are pitted against one another to produce a winner and a loser. This thing lacks sense, dignity and taste.
In sports, competitors try to prevent their opponents from scoring, and try to take advantage of their opponents' weaknesses. Perhaps Bach can attack Handel's tendencies toward simpler, more vertical music with a heavy volley of counterpoint, while Beethoven can attack Mozart's sometime tendency toward prettiness with a good dose of sturm und drang.
What nonsense.
A good case for reducing the BBC's budget. It's tough times now in the world economy, and a lot of unemployment. The idiots who put this together should be on the jobless line, rather than wasting good working peoples' hard-earned taxes to come up with this garbage. I'm so disturbed by governemt funds going for this I would almost become a British citizen to rail against it.
Quote from: jochanaan on September 01, 2008, 07:57:25 AM
I nominate Edgard Varèse as the greatest visionary among composers. More than any other early 20th-century composer, he emancipated music from the rules which, though established for good purposes, had become too limiting. He imagined a music without bounds, and showed how it would sound. Thanks to him and a few others like him, any sound can now become music.
>:D
Quote from: jochanaan on September 01, 2008, 07:57:25 AM
I nominate Edgard Varèse as the greatest visionary among composers. More than any other early 20th-century composer, he emancipated music from the rules which, though established for good purposes, had become too limiting. He imagined a music without bounds, and showed how it would sound. Thanks to him and a few others like him, any sound can now become music.
*Raises rump for a moment*
I just made some music! ;D
It's an oldy but a goody.
Quote from: Chaszz on September 01, 2008, 04:07:50 PM
A good case for reducing the BBC's budget. It's tough times now in the world economy, and a lot of unemployment. The idiots who put this together should be on the jobless line, rather than wasting good working peoples' hard-earned taxes to come up with this garbage. I'm so disturbed by governemt funds going for this I would almost become a British citizen to rail against it.
Isn't the BBC funded from television licence fees that people voluntarily pay than by general taxes?
If any sound can now become music, how can there be any visionaries in the future?
I like the idea of Mozart v. Beethoven. Mozart would have probably been amused himself at being considered a visionary.
How about Scriabin and his Mysterium? He wanted to go beyond sound to all the senses.
Quote from: AndyD. on September 01, 2008, 02:55:56 PM
I literally marvel at the fact that, not only do I learn something new about these last six operas every time I listen to them ...,
Quote
I continually marvel at the beauty and aristocratic sensuality of...
Hey, has anyone seen AndyD. and Pink Harp together in the same room? ;D
(Andy, I share your enthusiasm for Wagner, especially
Parsifal)
Italicized marveling . . . danger, Will Robinson!
Quote from: CRCulver on September 02, 2008, 03:55:21 AM
Isn't the BBC funded from television licence fees that people voluntarily pay than by general taxes?
Yes. Would you consider a television "license fee" a voluntary fee, when you had to do without television if you didn't pay it?
Quote from: AndyD. on September 01, 2008, 02:55:56 PM
I can see where people might not like Wagner much. It can be daunting for many folks to get past some of the more "recitative" parts of his operas. What I really mean is, I can't entirely blame folks for only dealing with Wagner via highlights cds and the like. I actually had to take some time out of my daily life (not some really, alot), in order to fully "get" the Wagner operas on a more inward level.
It's my opinion (and perhaps yours as well) that the last six Wagner operas, but most particularly the Ring, Tristan und Isolde, and Parsifal, are the greatest works of art in Western civilisation's history. But that really is only my opinion and nothing more. I literally marvel at the fact that, not only do I learn something new about these last six operas every time I listen to them, but in fact I learn something new about myself and society (from an Archeytpal standpoint) each time as well.
As many GmG-ers already know, Wagner chose the "fantasy" elements in order to be more broad in the definitions of what his operas meant. One can apply the plot devices (most certainly including their interplay with the musical motifs), extensive characterizations, etc. within the operas to multitudinal models useful in taking perspectives on the "big picture" of life.
Or one can use them to cure insomnia (laughing) 0:). To each his or her own. I certainly wouldn't want to give up Mozart, Joseph Haydn, Schumann, Grieg, LVB, Mahler, or Bruckner. But I personally would drop all of them if faced with a desert island scenario with a lifetime battery charged television, cd player and a Wagner collection to shame Sarge's. One can gain something from his music with each listen. I'm not saying other composers don't have that quality. But Wagner included the human voice most effectively as part of the orchestra...this I find worthy of my deepest admiration.
Again, this is me, and I respect others' opinions on the matter. And I like to laugh with people whom just don't seem to care for Wagner, because I hate taking anything too seriously. I noticed that when I do the latter, I end up miserable, and nothing is worth that, right?
A wonderfull post Andy :). I really enjoyed reading that. You're right Wagner takes a rather long time to appreciate and fully grasp but he is worth every effort. Also I agree with you that there is no point in taking anything in life too seriously, save one's health and his/her relationship/s with love ones.
Back to the topic at hand, there better be an episode on Wagner in that BBC series. Other than that I will be looking out for the Mozart/Beethoven episode. That should be an interesting comparison. Once again Verdi vs. Chopin eludes me ???, can't see how those two composers are going to be compared in any way ??? ::)!
marvin
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on September 02, 2008, 05:39:44 AM
Hey, has anyone seen AndyD. and Pink Harp together in the same room? ;D
(Andy, I share your enthusiasm for Wagner, especially Parsifal)
lol Ahhh...the day
Pink Harp and I can get together and Marvel thr'out the day....
At times Parsifal usurps even The Ring... as my favorite opera, ever.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 02, 2008, 05:48:10 AM
Italicized marveling . . . danger, Will Robinson!
I'm a lost space-case.
Quote from: AndyD. on September 02, 2008, 07:01:04 AM
At times Parsifal usurps even The Ring... as my favorite opera, ever.
:o :o
I am surprised to hear this! Although, I've only listened to Parsifal once in its entirety. For me, it's still Siegfried, especially the Solti/WP.
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 02, 2008, 07:03:16 AM
:o :o
I am surprised to hear this! Although, I've only listened to Parsifal once in its entirety. For me, it's still Siegfried, especially the Solti/WP.
The Stein/Bayreuth Parsifal dvd remains a religious experience for me. The Knap cds as well.
LOVE the Solti Siegfried!
Quote from: AndyD. on 01 September 2008, 23:55:56
I can see where people might not like Wagner much. It can be daunting for many folks to get past some of the more "recitative" parts of his operas. What I really mean is, I can't entirely blame folks for only dealing with Wagner via highlights cds and the like. I actually had to take some time out of my daily life (not some really, alot), in order to fully "get" the Wagner operas on a more inward level.
It's my opinion (and perhaps yours as well) that the last six Wagner operas, but most particularly the Ring, Tristan und Isolde, and Parsifal, are the greatest works of art in Western civilisation's history. But that really is only my opinion and nothing more. I literally marvel at the fact that, not only do I learn something new about these last six operas every time I listen to them, but in fact I learn something new about myself and society (from an Archeytpal standpoint) each time as well.
As many GmG-ers already know, Wagner chose the "fantasy" elements in order to be more broad in the definitions of what his operas meant. One can apply the plot devices (most certainly including their interplay with the musical motifs), extensive characterizations, etc. within the operas to multitudinal models useful in taking perspectives on the "big picture" of life.
Or one can use them to cure insomnia (laughing) . To each his or her own. I certainly wouldn't want to give up Mozart, Joseph Haydn, Schumann, Grieg, LVB, Mahler, or Bruckner. But I personally would drop all of them if faced with a desert island scenario with a lifetime battery charged television, cd player and a Wagner collection to shame Sarge's. One can gain something from his music with each listen. I'm not saying other composers don't have that quality. But Wagner included the human voice most effectively as part of the orchestra...this I find worthy of my deepest admiration.
Again, this is me, and I respect others' opinions on the matter. And I like to laugh with people whom just don't seem to care for Wagner, because I hate taking anything too seriously. I noticed that when I do the latter, I end up miserable, and nothing is worth that, right?
This is quite the considered and interetsing post that will make me actually listen to a Wagner opera in it's entireity.
I may thank you or curse you as a result. ::) Now I have to go and find one...all I've got are the highlights, etc., but not one complete Wagner work...
Quote from: mahler10th on September 02, 2008, 07:23:31 AM
This is quite the considered and interetsing post that will make me actually listen to a Wagner opera in it's entireity.
I may thank you or curse you as a result. ::) Now I have to go and find one...all I've got are the highlights, etc., but not one complete Wagner work...
You just might curse me yet (laughing). But don't give up if you get really daunted the first time all the way through. If you
do get frustrated, I've found that putting the opera aside for a few months is the perfect cure. You'll end up
wanting to go back and give it another try.
Trust me, the ultimate pay off is the kind of thing that just keeps giving.
Or not :-X. Some people end up
never really liking Wagner. Everyone's different, right?
Quote from: mahler10th on September 02, 2008, 07:23:31 AM
This is quite the considered and interetsing post that will make me actually listen to a Wagner opera in it's entireity.
I may thank you or curse you as a result. ::) Now I have to go and find one...all I've got are the highlights, etc., but not one complete Wagner work...
Mahler10th, may I suggest that you listen in small chunks? If, for example, you start off with The Ring operas, listen to one Act at a time, or you can even break it down in smaller chunks and listen to a scene at a time. Then take a break.
Honestly, if you can get a hold of the very famous Solti/Wiener Philharmonic set, and start off with all the various Preludes, you may be hooked just from that! ;D
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 02, 2008, 07:47:09 AM
Mahler10th, may I suggest that you listen in small chunks? If, for example, you start off with The Ring operas, listen to one Act at a time, or you can even break it down in smaller chunks and listen to a scene at a time. Then take a break.
Honestly, if you can get a hold of the very famous Solti/Wiener Philharmonic set, and start off with all the various Preludes, you may be hooked just from that! ;D
I've tried this route, and it
does work great. It's how I managed to "conquer" the Ring. ;) For me, eventually I was able to "deal with" the longer, recitative-ish parts and thus absorb the whole more easily.
Thank
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 02, 2008, 07:47:09 AM
Mahler10th, may I suggest that you listen in small chunks? If, for example, you start off with The Ring operas, listen to one Act at a time, or you can even break it down in smaller chunks and listen to a scene at a time. Then take a break.
Honestly, if you can get a hold of the very famous Solti/Wiener Philharmonic set, and start off with all the various Preludes, you may be hooked just from that! ;D
Thank you guys. I will sieze upon the Solti...surely the old Hungarian Master won't cost too much these days...this is going to be virry virry interesting...
Quote from: mahler10th on September 02, 2008, 11:03:50 AM
Thank
Thank you guys. I will sieze upon the Solti...surely the old Hungarian Master won't cost too much these days...this is going to be virry virry interesting...
If you have access to the Solti, you won't have to work particularly hard. Despite a few intonation problems (and perhaps a less than perfect Die Walkure...for that I strongly reccomend the Karajan and/or the Keilberth), the Solti is the tops for the Ring. Again,my opinion.
So we (mostly) concede that Wagner was a great master and a great visionary. But there are plenty of other threads on him. :)
Just for laughs, shall we discuss Alexander Scriabin? Some of his advocates have claimed that he was one of the greatest musical visionaries ever, and from the evidence of The Poem of Ecstasy and Prometheus, I'm inclined to agree. Granted that his greatest "vision" of a week-long arts festival in the Himalayas didn't happen and probably wouldn't have brought The New Age, what about his unique approach to harmony and rhythm?
Quote from: jochanaan on September 03, 2008, 04:53:30 AM
Just for laughs, shall we discuss Alexander Scriabin? Some of his advocates have claimed that he was one of the greatest musical visionaries ever, and from the evidence of The Poem of Ecstasy and Prometheus, I'm inclined to agree. Granted that his greatest "vision" of a week-long arts festival in the Himalayas didn't happen and probably wouldn't have brought The New Age, what about his unique approach to harmony and rhythm?
Vision is one thing; execution, another.
Quote from: mahler10th on September 02, 2008, 11:03:50 AM
Thank
Thank you guys. I will sieze upon the Solti...surely the old Hungarian Master won't cost too much these days...
You'd think, given it's age (Rheingold recorded in 1958), that would be the case but in fact it remains one of the most expensive Rings...unless you can find a used one cheap somewhere.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 03, 2008, 05:55:19 AM
You'd think, given it's age (Rheingold recorded in 1958), that would be the case but in fact it remains one of the most expensive Rings...unless you can find a used one cheap somewhere.
Sarge
At one point the Britannia Music Club had it as a special introductory offer - £20 + free 2 CD set of Deryck Cooke's 'Introduction to the Ring' (which is a kind of appendix to the Solti edition, using the same recordings or specially recorded excerpts). So that's how I got mine - and the best thing was, my Dad bought it as
his introductory offer and then gave it to me. So, the Solti Ring was my cheapest ;D
Quote from: lukeottevanger on September 03, 2008, 08:43:55 AM
At one point the Britannia Music Club had it as a special introductory offer - £20 + free 2 CD set of Deryck Cooke's 'Introduction to the Ring' (which is a kind of appendix to the Solti edition, using the same recordings or specially recorded excerpts). So that's how I got mine - and the best thing was, my Dad bought it as his introductory offer and then gave it to me. So, the Solti Ring was my cheapest ;D
Hey cool story! The Cooke/Wagner writings are all very interesting. I really enjoyed M.Owen Lee's "Intro" take, and that's what I started with as a "Ring" appendix. I also got a kick out the "Wagner's Ring and Its Symbols" by Donington, though alot of his over-psycho-analyzing made me either laugh out loud or unintentionally sneer.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on September 03, 2008, 08:43:55 AM
. . . So, the Solti Ring was my cheapest ;D
Subtle, yet
frightful phrase, in its hint of uncharted plurality 8)
Quote from: James on September 03, 2008, 08:53:00 AM
Yup, he was a visionary too, as are many composers...but he's a blip next to the major cats. Being a visionary is one thing, but being a visionary who has a major impact is another.
Excellent point. But Scriabin had his moments, didn't he?
Quote from: AndyD. on September 03, 2008, 09:10:14 AM
Excellent point. But Scriabin had his moments, didn't he?
Oh, you don't see how inflexible
James's dogmata are,
Andy.
If the influence is slight, the vision isn't worth a damn.
Quote from: James on September 03, 2008, 09:35:00 AM
I never said that karl, I love music from Varese & Scriabin, but you have to be pretty objective & humble about the relative impact of their vision(s) compared to much greater figures. That's all.
And to be
objective means essentially agreeing with
you, is that it,
James?
Quote from: James on September 03, 2008, 09:47:46 AM
Ah no, I mean...this isn't exactly stuff i'm making up just now karl, we can put things into perspective and be clear headed about this.
Right. As I see things,
influence and
vision are distinct matters.
There. That's only the third time I've mentioned that in this thread.
Quote from: James on September 03, 2008, 09:58:30 AM
Impact is a vital key to this. The vision should carry well or have a record of carrying well in order to be considered truly great, important & substantial I would think. Otherwise, it's perhaps a little too esoteric...
Which echoes things you've said earlier. Hence:
Quote from: karlhenning on September 03, 2008, 09:22:33 AM
Oh, you don't see how inflexible James's dogmata are, Andy. If the influence is slight, the vision isn't worth a damn.
You are confused (as well as rude), James.
Now, let's be a little humble and clear-headed about this.
Vision and influence are different matters. That is common sense.
Now, if you decide that your current interests are only in those composers of both vision (whatever that may be, as it is a valid field for discussion in this thread, and generally) and wide-ranging influence together, no one would have any quarrel to it. Your interests are your interests, and no one else here knows them, unless you share them hither.
But another bit of common sense is this: The range of your current interests and what is important are different matters, too.
Quote from: James on September 03, 2008, 10:23:38 AM
Right, so following your logic, the greatest visionary is someone who's ideas & creations have a very very limited appeal and impact.
Nonsense. But if you find amusement in the strawmannish claim that vision and influence
necessarily have an inverse relationship . . . .
I'm just wondering what it really means to be a visionary in music. The dictionary defines visionary as
1 : one whose ideas or projects are impractical : dreamer
2 : one who sees visions : seer
3 : one having unusual foresight and imagination <a visionary in the computer industry.
I think definition three comes the closest to what we're talking about. All the great composers have imagination. Not all of them have foresight. Bach and Handel, masterly as they were in the forms and compositional procedures of their day, did not try to envision anything for the future of music, although they had an enormous impact and influence on future generations. So I don't really see them as visionary. Haydn, in conceiving a symphonic procedure in which a movement is built upon the development of motivic cells, might better fit the bill, though we might not see his particular manner of composing as having foresight had it not been adopted by Mozart, Beethoven and many more of his lesser contemporaries.
In that sense James has a point. The extant to which a composer's ideas can be seen as visionary depends in part on how much they were adopted by later composers. Foresight is part of it. Being able to see how the future plays out. But this is deceptive, because a great artist alters the future by influencing how it plays out. We don't know if Haydn intended to revolutionize the art of symphonic writing with his motivic development technique, so we can't say with certainty that he was truly visionary, or just lucky that future composers picked up on his methods.
So I'd say there is an element of intent that comes with being a visionary. If Hank Aaron hits a lot of home runs, he's a great batter. A visionary is someone like Babe Ruth who points to a place in the stands and then proceeds to hit a home run there.
The concept of making innovations for the sake of influencing the future belongs to the 19th and 20th centuries, and Wagner is music's first true visionary. He said he was creating "music of the future" and so he did. Schoenberg said his method would ensure the dominance of German music for the next century. He fell short of that goal, but his 12-tone method was still one of the most important developments of the 20th century, and certainly qualifies him as a visionary. Russolo envisioned a music made out noise. His vision, involving various noise-making machines, didn't lead anywhere at all. So intent and impact would be necessary in my formulation of what it is to be a visionary.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 03, 2008, 05:40:25 AM
Vision is one thing; execution, another.
Unless the visionary runs afoul of certain--authorities. ;D
The final show was hodge-podge of a few opinions and excerpts from excerpts of music played fast enough so that the 30-minute programme would end on time. And Bach was decided to be the greatest visionary. ::)
lol
What about Beethoven as a visionary? Wouldn't he be a more suitable candidate for visionary than Bach, on the grounds that he had the intent and the impact?
Quote from: opus67 on October 25, 2008, 12:13:56 AM
And Bach was decided to be the greatest visionary. ::)
I think
Mark is right about the requirement for something like foresight as well as impact.
Did Beethoven really say
"now music changes forever" as he began conducting the premiere of the 9th Symphony? If so, that would be a Babe Ruth moment.
:)
Quote from: drogulus on October 29, 2008, 04:28:33 PM
Did Beethoven really say "now music changes forever" as he began conducting the premiere of the 9th Symphony? If so, that would be a Babe Ruth moment. :)
Then again, didn't he already change it enough with his previous music, anyways?
Quote from: drogulus on October 29, 2008, 04:28:33 PM
Did Beethoven really say "now music changes forever" as he began conducting the premiere of the 9th Symphony?
If he did, he didn't hear himself say it.
Yeah, Beethoven is, like, SO last summer.