Difficulty of being yourself and happiness

[71 dB]

In the spirit of the thread I will not make recommendations of other recordings for you (not something I usually do anyway, but these are pieces I have opinions about!) but simply say - great, it's fabulous you are enjoying them!

I remember the first time I heard the Intimate Letters quartet, it was on my dad's Janacek Quartet LP, and then shortly afterwards on TV or possibly video, the Smetana Quartet. I was about 8 or 9 I guess. Couldn't make head or tail of it, it was so different from anything else I knew. But the next time, aged about 13, I fell in love with the piece, head over heels, and never looked back. It's the initial reason I became such a Janacek fantatic, I suppose.

Cool. I wasn't exposed to classical music in childhood because my dad listened to jazz only. I exposed my dad to classical music later on so that he enjoys some of it.   

[Scarpia]

Who's the quartet on the the first of those discs?

Sorry, I misread at first.  The Guarneri quartet on the first release, if you squint you can see it is the Gabrieli Quartet  on the second.

I always come back to the Smetanas for the Janacek quartets. No one else, of the many recordings I've heard,  can match them, with their blend of deeply cultured sheen, their understanding of the folk roots of the music, their touching humanity, and their long-bred understanding of the pieces (the 2nd quartet was edited by the violist of the Smetana quartet, for instance), that I've heard (and I've heard a lot). The Skampas (mentored by said violist, FWIW) offer an equally convincing reading though, amongst modern quartets, stressing the folky side of them very nicely. The two Janacek quartets tend to bring the best out of a quartet because they absolutely demand such committed, passionate, open, honest, brave playing. So there are many fine recordings - but my word of warning would be, the ABQ sound forced in this music, and not at home in the style, and the Talich...not good.... 

I don't really like the ABQ for anything, although I suspect it is their recording of the Janacek quartets that I have listened to first.  I'm still working my way through the Janacek Box and haven't arrived at the quartets.   

[Scarpia]

As long as we're on the subject, any opinion on the Janacek Quartet recordings of the Janacek Quartets?

or

[Luke]

Fabulous. Get 'em, if you have the chance

[Luke]

Sorry, that was little brief! I rate those recordings very highly (despite my early experience of them, mentioned above!). The Smetanas may be my favourite, but they only just shade it over the Janaceks, which are very strong, vital readings, in the best Janacek style. 

[Drasko]

Fabulous. Get 'em, make the chance.

There is only one in the box (2nd), but get the box for other stuff.

Brief is good!

[drogulus]

I think if it were for purely practical or academic ends, it might be a useful endeavor: e.g., "which composers should we teach, given the limited time frame of a music appreciation course?", or "how can we examine the harmonic language of two different composers to determine who is 'greater' and thereby learn more about music theory and history?

     I guess you could smuggle the greatness concept in there without doing any damage. One composer might be greater in harmonic influence. But in general I think greatness can be best explained as a kind of social estimate of the worth of a composer in which various objective factors make a contribution, but different contributions in different minds. The rank a composer achieves is an overall ranking, though, so one might rank in the middle on innovation but very high otherwise. And great innovators don't always capture the top prizes. So each composer can be great in an exclusive way. No formula applies to all of them.* That's why the explanation of greatness can only be seen in the effects and not in the causes, in how a composer is perceived by listeners over time rather than the various means composers have used to get there.

     _{* If Bach=100 all composers would line up one way, if Beethoven=100 you might get a different list, and if Mozart=100 the list would be different again. But these aren't the real lists, are they? What's wrong is that each list measures greatness by a single standard, whereas a real greatness list measures by all relevant standards, and all listeners apply their own version of what those are. One might object that some people have low standards. I say yes, they do, and that's not an objection, it's the way it is.}

[Scarpia]

Fabulous. Get 'em, if you have the chance

Well, I was more interested in the older recording, but a 7 CD set motivated by interest in one quartet is a bit much.  That motivated me to try out DG's flac download service.  I got FLAC versions of the Janacek Quartet #2 from that set for a few bucks. 

Just listened to the first movement.  Awesome stuff!

[Grazioso]

     _{* If Bach=100 all composers would line up one way, if Beethoven=100 you might get a different list, and if Mozart=100 the list would be different again. But these aren't the real lists, are they? What's wrong is that each list measures greatness by a single standard, whereas a real greatness list measures by all relevant standards, and all listeners apply their own version of what those are. One might object that some people have low standards. I say yes, they do, and that's not an objection, it's the way it is.}

True. Some might see music's greatest end as the impassioned, subjective utterances of an artist like LvB, others the more restrained, decorative elegance of Mozart's work. Some might rank Bach as the greatest composer because of his mastery of certain techniques and forms, or for his influence on later notable composers. Yet one could legitimately contest that by asking questions like how he could be so great if he composed no operas, one of the keystones of classical music and a genre that was taken to great heights by his contemporaries.

Personally, for me to bestow the "true greatness" mantle on any composer from the late 1700's to present, he or she needs to at least have grappled with the symphony, if not mastered it, since that genre to me represents the pinnacle of orchestral writing and the concentrated essence of what makes classical music vital. Others, of course, would argue that one should only judge a composer on what he did write, not what he didn't.

[karlhenning]

Personally, for me to bestow the "true greatness" mantle on any composer from the late 1700's to present, he or she needs to at least have grappled with the symphony, if not mastered it, since that genre to me represents the pinnacle of orchestral writing and the concentrated essence of what makes classical music vital.

That's hard cheese on Chopin, of course.

[Florestan]

Personally, for me to bestow the "true greatness" mantle on any composer from the late 1700's to present, he or she needs to at least have grappled with the symphony, if not mastered it, since that genre to me represents the pinnacle of orchestral writing and the concentrated essence of what makes classical music vital.

That would exclude, for instance, Berlioz, Chopin, Verdi and Wagner from any claim to "true greatness". 

[Scarpia]

That would exclude, for instance, Berlioz, Chopin, Verdi and Wagner from any claim to "true greatness". 

How did Berlioz find his way in that claim?

[Florestan]

How did Berlioz find his way in that claim?

Ask Karl. 

[Grazioso]

That's hard cheese on Chopin, of course.

Indeed. The guy spent too much time tickling the ivories instead of making a really loud noise with an orchestra.

That would exclude, for instance, Berlioz, Chopin, Verdi and Wagner from any claim to "true greatness". 

Um, Berlioz and Wagner wrote symphonies. Chopin and Verdi were lazy   

Seriously, if you think about it, hardly any composer of major stature from the Classical period onward didn't at least attempt a symphony. Chopin, Verdi, Puccini, and Debussy are ones that immediately spring to my mind, along with some of the major mid-20th-century modernists (Ligeti, Boulez). Others?

[Luke]

Dozens. Add Ravel, Bartok, Janacek, Smetana, Holst, Delius, Suk, de Falla, Faure, Alkan, Mussorgsky, Poulenc, Wolf, Busoni, Schoenberg, Berg, Medtner, Messiaen, Britten... to your Chopin, Verdi, Puccini, Debussy, and dozens and dozens more to your  'major mid-20th-century modernists' Ligeti, Boulez - Xenakis, Stockhausen, Nono, Berio, Birtwistle, Carter, Ferneyhough, Takemitsu, Feldman...

Others only attempted programmatic symphonies (Liszt) or symphonies with titular qualification (Carter, Britten) or only wrote symphonies as youngsters, before the realized where their true field lay (Wagner) or some combination of these two (Stravinsky, Strauss, whose youthful symphonies were followed up by Domesticas, Alpines, 'in C,' 'in three movements' 'of wind instruments' 'of psalms'...

[mc ukrneal]

Dozens. Add Ravel, Bartok, Janacek, Smetana, Holst, Delius, Suk, de Falla, Faure, Alkan, Mussorgsky, Poulenc, Wolf, Busoni, Schoenberg, Berg, Medtner, Messiaen, Britten... to your Chopin, Verdi, Puccini, Debussy, and dozens and dozens more to your  'major mid-20th-century modernists' Ligeti, Boulez - Xenakis, Stockhausen, Nono, Berio, Birtwistle, Carter, Ferneyhough, Takemitsu, Feldman...

Others only attempted programmatic symphonies (Liszt) or symphonies with titular qualification (Carter, Britten) or only wrote symphonies as youngsters, before the realized where their true field lay (Wagner) or some combination of these two (Stravinsky, Strauss, whose youthful symphonies were followed up by Domesticas, Alpines, 'in C,' 'in three movements' 'of wind instruments' 'of psalms'...

There are lots that did not write symphonies, but Holst did write a symphony (actually two): Symphony in F (or Cotswolds Symphony) and First Choral Symphony.

EDIT: Cotswolds Symphony is worth a hear in my opinion, written very early in his career. The first movement is often considered derivative, but one can start to hear the 'Holst sound world' in the process of defining itself in the second movement.

[Grazioso]

Dozens. Add Ravel, Bartok, Janacek, Smetana, Holst, Delius, Suk, de Falla, Faure, Alkan, Mussorgsky, Poulenc, Wolf, Busoni, Schoenberg, Berg, Medtner, Messiaen, Britten... to your Chopin, Verdi, Puccini, Debussy, and dozens and dozens more to your  'major mid-20th-century modernists' Ligeti, Boulez - Xenakis, Stockhausen, Nono, Berio, Birtwistle, Carter, Ferneyhough, Takemitsu, Feldman...

Others only attempted programmatic symphonies (Liszt) or symphonies with titular qualification (Carter, Britten) or only wrote symphonies as youngsters, before the realized where their true field lay (Wagner) or some combination of these two (Stravinsky, Strauss, whose youthful symphonies were followed up by Domesticas, Alpines, 'in C,' 'in three movements' 'of wind instruments' 'of psalms'...

I'm talking about top-tier composers, the biggest of the big canonical "greats," of which more than a few in your list aren't normally included. Guys like de Falla and Wolf aren't usually talked about in the same company as Hadyn, LvB, Mahler, Stravinsky, etc.

Be that as it may, I said "at least have grappled with the symphony," so I do include youthful stabs at the genre. I also hold an inclusive view of the genre and take a composer at his or her word: if he or she called it a symphony, it's a symphony. Therefore all the names in your final paragraph count as composers who attempted the genre.

There are some errors in your list: Smetana, Holst, Suk, Schoenberg, and Messiaen all wrote symphonies.  Mussorgsky started one, but it's lost.

[Florestan]

I also hold an inclusive view of the genre and take a composer at his or her word: if he or she called it a symphony, it's a symphony.

Rossini is then a consummate master of the genre, with all those wonderful sinfonia's he wrote. 

[Grazioso]

Rossini is then a consummate master of the genre, with all those wonderful sinfonia's he wrote. 

That term actually presents an interesting musicological challenge because of the overlap between opera overtures and independent symphonies during the latter genre's early years, along with the very broad, casual use of the terms used to describe them, like "sinfonia" or "sinfonie". Check out the liner notes in the CPO recordings of JC Bach's symphonies for some interesting background.

[Florestan]

That term actually presents an interesting musicological challenge because of the overlap between opera overtures and independent symphonies during the latter genre's early years, along with the very broad, casual use of the terms used to describe them, like "sinfonia" or "sinfonie". Check out the liner notes in the CPO recordings of JC Bach's symphonies for some interesting background.

Will do, thanks.

BTW, what do you make of Rossini? Great composer or a buffoon?