What are you listening to now?

[Traverso]

Schweigt stille,plaudert nicht !





Preise dein Glücke ,gesegnetes Sachsen BWV 215.I realyy enjoyed that cantata,wonderful.

[Que]

Schweigt stille,plaudert nicht !

Ei! wie schmeckt der Coffee süße..... 

[Traverso]

Ei! wie schmeckt der Coffee süße..... 

great fun

[Harry]

Second rerun, CD 1 & 2.

http://walboi.blogspot.nl/2018/04/melartin-erkki-1875-1937-solo-piano.html?spref=tw

[SurprisedByBeauty]

#morninglistening to @DeccaGold's opening shot w/@NYPhil & #JaapVanZweden in #Beethoven #Symphonies 5 & 7 (@deccaclassics)

: http://a-fwd.to/5e2xKEI

Zweden's third recording of these works, this most classic of couplings. Perhaps surprisingly
conventional a choice for launching a "NEW" record label. Especially after Alan Gilbert's programming.

[Traverso]

Falla

[Mirror Image]

Ravel
Le tombeau de Couperin
Queffélec

[Mahlerian]

Really the slow movement (played third by Karajan) is the highlight of this work for me. I can't imagine how Mahler would have felt after committing this work of utter genius to paper. Karajan's control of sonority really brings something special to it. It is still a mystery to me why at key moments I am hearing cow bells tinkling in this work. What do cows have to do with it?

Nothing.  The cowbells are meant as an evocation of wide spaces and distance, not as an indication of a herd of bovine.

Whenever I listen to the third movement I have the impression that there is something profoundly similar to the music of Sibelius, particularly the use of woodwinds. The opening of the finale, on the other hand, brings to mind the theme song of the television show "The Honeymooners," written by Jackie Gleason himself. I still struggle to make something coherent of the finale. I definitely recognize themes from earlier in the symphony being revisited, but I still don't know what to make of the overall structure, with the Jackie Gleason theme recurring, with or without the controversial hammer blows. In any case, a wonderful tour de force for orchestra, and the Berliners acquit themselves well.

The finale is in a modified sonata form, with a lengthy introduction, two themes, development (which takes up about half the movement), a recapitulation, and coda.  In brief, it's consistently trying to overcome the conflicts presented in the music and reach a major-key apotheosis, but those same internal conflicts keep bringing it back down.  The hammer blows arrive at two important points in the development and turn the music back in the direction of conflict rather than resolution.

That's the precis, anyway.  The details are a lot more interesting than that might imply, and Mahler's ability to control all of the elements he sets into play in the introduction is nothing short of astounding.

[Madiel]

The plan, though really I don't have enough time tonight to complete it after a night at the the theatre, is:

Shostakovich: Symphony No.8 (Petrenko)
Nielsen: Symphony No.5 (Schønwandt)

[André]

This just arrived, after some debate here on the merits of the Reger 4-hand piano transcription of the Brandenburgs.

[asin]B0000021GL[/asin]

So far only listened to the first movement of the first concerto. But wow, it is miraculous! Wonderful how it is at once familiar and entirely different.

The second concerto fares best IMO. Truly wonderul. I wouldn't take a full disc's worth at one sitting, though.

[Mirror Image]

Ravel
Miroirs
Queffélec



I'd say the only blessing/curse of Ravel's piano music is I can't just listen to one piece and that's it, I have to listen to a whole disc before deciding to move onto something else.

[Sergeant Rock]

Ligeti String Quartet No.2 played by the Arditti

https://www.youtube.com/v/Yx_Q_mIth0Q


Sarge

[Mahlerian]

Ives: Symphony No. 4
Cleveland Orchestra and Chorus, cond. Dohnanyi
[asin]B00004TTIK[/asin]

[Draško]

Decent if mostly unremarkable and forgettable performance, apart from superb Norman as Iocasta, leaning slightly on the operatic side of opera-oratorio scale of things. Still vastly preferable to Gardiner's dreadful recent outing. But not preferable to Davis' earlier more angular and punchy Sadler's Wells recording, even despite my dislike for both leads in that one. 

[Baron Scarpia]

The second concerto fares best IMO. Truly wonderul. I wouldn't take a full disc's worth at one sitting, though.

No worries, I could not sit through a full disc of original Brandenburg Concerti in one sitting either. I usually digest one concerto at a time. I would have listened to the first in entirety if not for the need to be up early in the morning.

[Baron Scarpia]

Nothing.  The cowbells are meant as an evocation of wide spaces and distance, not as an indication of a herd of bovine.

I though it might represent Mahler's critics, sitting through the sublime moments of music in bovine incomprehension of his genius, chewing their cud. 

The finale is in a modified sonata form, with a lengthy introduction, two themes, development (which takes up about half the movement), a recapitulation, and coda.  In brief, it's consistently trying to overcome the conflicts presented in the music and reach a major-key apotheosis, but those same internal conflicts keep bringing it back down.  The hammer blows arrive at two important points in the development and turn the music back in the direction of conflict rather than resolution.

That's the precis, anyway.  The details are a lot more interesting than that might imply, and Mahler's ability to control all of the elements he sets into play in the introduction is nothing short of astounding.

Thanks for your remarks on the structure. I was aware of the general shape of exposition, development and recapitulation. But I still do not entirely come to grips with the narrative of conflict and resolution. And the ending, with a sort of fugue for low brass and the sudden outburst seems to leave things more or less where they began.

[amw]

The finale is in a modified sonata form, with a lengthy introduction, two themes, development (which takes up about half the movement), a recapitulation, and coda.

I would probably position it as [Introduction] - Exposition - [Introduction] - Development - [Introduction] - Recapitulation - [Introduction] except obviously the Introduction isn't an Introduction if it keeps coming back, and this is almost more of a synthesis of sonata and rondo forms: A | B C | A' | Dev. [three parts] | A'' | B' C' | A'''.

There seem to be approximately 10 themes in the movement, but most of them are based on an octave leap and a small 2-3-1 motive, so there's less of a sense of separate themes and more of a sense of constant development. It can definitely be hard to follow but the theme at the very opening of the movement can act as a waypoint signalling the end of the previous section and return of the introduction/ritornello/A section with its clouds of gloom and such. (Also I personally feel like conductors tend to play the entire movement too slowly, but apparently Mahler himself took 30 minutes so maybe I'm just weird?? 26'-27' seems ideal lmao. maybe we just have better orchestras now)

[amw]

Thanks for your remarks on the structure. I was aware of the general shape of exposition, development and recapitulation. But I still do not entirely come to grips with the narrative of conflict and resolution. And the ending, with a sort of fugue for low brass and the sudden outburst seems to leave things more or less where they began.

Imo the previous iterations of the introduction have a lot of musical material that tends to be floating in a sort of musical fog of tremolos and low harp notes and so on, whereas when it does return for the last time everything is brought together into a single musical texture (low brass) and "resolved" to the A minor tonic in the manner of a classical coda. At the end of the trombone passage we hear three very prominent octave leaps, E4-E3, C4-C3 and A3-A2, outlining the A minor triad. The final bars refer back to the first movement, throughout which one of the main themes was an A major triad shifting to A minor over a distinctive rhythm in the timpani; this minor-major ambiguity also played an important role throughout the finale and is in various ways a driving force of tonal conflict throughout the symphony. Especially in the finale, we could say that A major is constantly trying to "take over" from A minor, and the final bars are musically necessary to resolve that conflict, which they do in favour of an unambiguous A minor, and also provide a very dramatic way to end a symphony.

[Mahlerian]

I would probably position it as [Introduction] - Exposition - [Introduction] - Development - [Introduction] - Recapitulation - [Introduction] except obviously the Introduction isn't an Introduction if it keeps coming back, and this is almost more of a synthesis of sonata and rondo forms: A | B C | A' | Dev. [three parts] | A'' | B' C' | A'''.

There seem to be approximately 10 themes in the movement, but most of them are based on an octave leap and a small 2-3-1 motive, so there's less of a sense of separate themes and more of a sense of constant development. It can definitely be hard to follow but the theme at the very opening of the movement can act as a waypoint signalling the end of the previous section and return of the introduction/ritornello/A section with its clouds of gloom and such. (Also I personally feel like conductors tend to play the entire movement too slowly, but apparently Mahler himself took 30 minutes so maybe I'm just weird?? 26'-27' seems ideal lmao. maybe we just have better orchestras now)

That's definitely a valid way of parsing it too, and you're right that it is ambiguous, but if you want to go that far, then it would be

A | B C | D1 | A' | D2 | A'' | D3 | B' C' | A'''

Because the second return of the intro section leads into the last part of the development, which goes directly into the recapitulation.  I've seen some people say that the return of the introduction is where the recapitulation begins, but the moment when the "B" theme recurs is very marked, even if you only realize it after a few bars have passed because it dovetails with the end of the development.

Another weird thing is that chorale in the initial introductory section that is absorbed into the "C" theme.  I've seen some debate as to whether the fact that the chorale version never returns reflects a structural imbalance, but it's all just part of the developing variation in the movement that most things don't return in their original forms.

Also, am I the only one who thinks the first part of the movement sounds a lot like the opening of the finale of the Symphonie fantastique in both atmosphere and the way that themes gradually form out of the haze?

[amw]

That's definitely a valid way of parsing it too, and you're right that it is ambiguous, but if you want to go that far, then it would be

A | B C | D1 | A' | D2 | A'' | D3 | B' C' | A'''

Because the second return of the intro section leads into the last part of the development, which goes directly into the recapitulation.

I guess that's fair. I usually do consider that section a transition and thus a sort of "recapitulation" of the section from Allegro moderato in the opening (don't know bar numbers) even though the musical material isn't identical, but the recapitulation proper (from "Allegro energico") is very obvious.

Another weird thing is that chorale in the initial introductory section that is absorbed into the "C" theme.  I've seen some debate as to whether the fact that the chorale version never returns reflects a structural imbalance, but it's all just part of the developing variation in the movement that most things don't return in their original forms.

I am quite sad that the chorale doesn't come back, since it's a quite striking idea, but the movement is long enough already to be fair!! And yes, basically.

Also, am I the only one who thinks the first part of the movement sounds a lot like the opening of the finale of the Symphonie fantastique in both atmosphere and the way that themes gradually form out of the haze?

The whole structure sometimes reminds me of the first movement of Franck's D minor symphony, but Mahler probably would have resented the comparison >.> Berlioz is probably closer to what he meant