- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
14 Apr 12
Originally posted by Pianoman1Myeah, well. One or two generations before that, composers also wrote mainly for their employers, and what they wrote still manages to move me. Mozart's work does not. And if you want child prodigies, Pergolesi died ten years younger than Mozart, and still wrote the Stabat. No, to my mind, Wolfie has no excuses.
Underachiever? Surely not! I agree that the Requiem IS very moving, but I think you're being a bit hard on old Wolfgang. Only lived 36 years at a time when composers were mere slaves of rich and preferably titled employers. His music was written to please his masters.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
14 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillMyeah. In fact, that was the one someone elsewhere on the net advised me to try, if I wanted to get into Mahler. Sure, it's lyrical, but... somehow, it just doesn't touch me.
Interesting. For example, The Adagietto from the 5th Symphony leaves you "cold " ?
What did Rossini say ? I know a few other comments.
Bosse de Nage quoted the one I meant.
For example, I have not heard anything by Havergall Brian which I thought was really good.
I've never heard anything by him - in fact, I've never even heard of him before. What's he like?
The keyboard playing of Glenn Gould won me over to Bach.
Mind you, Pianoman is correct on that one. Don't get me wrong, I like Gould playing Bach... but it's 60% Gould and only 40% Bach. Fun, but not like the original music.
Richard
16 Apr 12
5 edits
Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Myeah. In fact, that was the one someone elsewhere on the net advised me to try, if I wanted to get into Mahler. Sure, it's lyrical, but... somehow, it just doesn't touch me.
What did Rossini say ? I know a few other comments.
Bosse de Nage quoted the one I meant.
[quote]For example, I have not heard anything by Havergall Brian whi .. but it's 60% Gould and only 40% Bach. Fun, but not like the original music.
Richard
Myeah. In fact, that was the one someone elsewhere on the net advised me to try, if I wanted to get into Mahler. Sure, it's lyrical, but... somehow, it just doesn't touch me.
Great. Even his own wife once said she couldn't stand his music.
Not everyone is moved by that. As one composing myself, his skill is admirable to me. Especially in using music in communicating wide range of emotional states.
Tell me what you like and let me see if I understand.
Less "program music" perhaps ? Less "heart on the sleeve Romanticism" perhaps ?
For example, I have not heard anything by Havergall Brian which I thought was really good.
I've never heard anything by him - in fact, I've never even heard of him before. What's he like?
Havergal Brian was a 20th century British composer largly self taught. He wrote over 26 some symphonies. The Gothic is perhaps his most famous. And that was the 1rst. A huge work.
The keyboard playing of Glenn Gould won me over to Bach.
Mind you, Pianoman is correct on that one. Don't get me wrong, I like Gould playing Bach... but it's 60% Gould and only 40% Bach. Fun, but not like the original music.
I realize that Gould puts a lot of Gould into his playing. But, like Jazz, that really could argue for the success of the original composer. Could it not ?
I mean the lastingness of the composition in that it can be played on different instruments and even sung by The Swingle Singers in a kind of "pop" mode, or made to sound spacy and New Age with "Switch On Bach" or Moog Synthasizer ... these invitations to creative treatment of the baseline musical idea, actually could indicate the enduring value of Bach's creative effort.
No? Oh well. Sounds smart anyway.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
16 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillYes, for starters. Can't stand Dickens, either - I much prefer Chaucer.
Tell me what you like and let me see if I understand.
Less "program music" perhaps ? Less "heart on the sleeve Romanticism" perhaps ?
What I think I don't like about Mahler, and do about Beethoven, amongst others, is that the latter's works sound like a whole to me - the parts, and the parts within parts, of his symphonies all fit together, whereas Mahler, to my ear at least, seems to hop from one harmonic idea to another, never creating a coherent whole. I don't doubt that, in actual fact, he did have such a coherent whole in mind, but it never reaches my ear.
Havergal Brian was a 20th century British composer largly self taught. He wrote over 26 some symphonies. The Gothic is perhaps his most famous. And that was the 1rst. A huge work.
Interesting. I'll see if I can find any of his music over here.
I realize that Gould puts a lot of Gould into his playing. But, like Jazz, that really could argue for the success of the original composer. Could it not ?
Certainly it could, and in the Gould/Bach case, I agree that it does. Nevertheless, it would be something to keep in mind for someone who hears him for the first time.
Richard
16 Apr 12
Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Yes, for starters. Can't stand Dickens, either - I much prefer Chaucer.
What I think I don't like about Mahler, and do about Beethoven, amongst others, is that the latter's works sound like a whole to me - the parts, and the parts within parts, of his symphonies all fit together, whereas Mahler, to my ear at least, seems to hop from one harmonic idea ...[text shortened]... would be something to keep in mind for someone who hears him for the first time.
Richard
Yes, for starters. Can't stand Dickens, either - I much prefer Chaucer.
I am not well read on these liturary folks. Of course I know who Charles Dickens is - Oliver Twist , David Copperfield.
My brother took the liturary route. I took the music route.
What I think I don't like about Mahler, and do about Beethoven, amongst others, is that the latter's works sound like a whole to me - the parts, and the parts within parts, of his symphonies all fit together, whereas Mahler, to my ear at least, seems to hop from one harmonic idea to another, never creating a coherent whole. I don't doubt that, in actual fact, he did have such a coherent whole in mind, but it never reaches my ear.
Very interesting. Perhaps you are just more for the Classical style than the latter Romantic.
One thing is evident. If you employ a large number of musicians as in a large orchestra, you have to get your money's worth and give them a lot of music to play. So I think the extended thematic material and extended development of the typical Mahler symphony, say over Beethoven's, reflects giving more musical forces more interesting things to play.
To me, I cannot think of a Mahler symphony that is not coherent as a world in itself. Perhaps I can think of one or two who could probably do OK minus a movement.
But I accept you view of taste there. Mahler stood upon the work already done by Beethoven as Beethoven expanded upon that done by Haydn, Mozart, and others before him.
Havergal Brian was a 20th century British composer largly self taught. He wrote over 26 some symphonies. The Gothic is perhaps his most famous. And that was the 1rst. A huge work.
Interesting. I'll see if I can find any of his music over here.
I wouldn't think you'd like it. If Mahler doesn't do anything for you, I doubt that you'll get anything from Havergal Brian. Brian is nowhere near as skillful as Mahler IMO.
But I am interested in 2nd and 3rd raters. I want to hear what composers have to say regardless because I am always on the side of the composer.
It is a labor intensive artform. And to those who put in the hard work, I like to give them a chance.
Now, you may try Ralph Vaughn Williams for a great 20th century British compser. But I think now my favorite British composer of large scale orchestral music is Arnold Bax.
I realize that Gould puts a lot of Gould into his playing. But, like Jazz, that really could argue for the success of the original composer. Could it not ?
Certainly it could, and in the Gould/Bach case, I agree that it does. Nevertheless, it would be something to keep in mind for someone who hears him for the first time.
I think I like keyboard Bach over other kinds of Bach.
16 Apr 12
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI am having trouble finding a recording of this:
Well, yes. And more of the Renaissance Englishmen, like Dowland. In many ways, I think, they're almost the opposite of Mahler.
Richard
http://wintonmeghan.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/in-nomine-in-114-by-john-bull/
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
17 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillUndoubtedly
Very interesting. Perhaps you are just more for the Classical style than the latter Romantic.
But I am interested in 2nd and 3rd raters. I want to hear what composers have to say regardless because I am always on the side of the composer.
So what, if anything, is your opinion on James MacMillan? I only have the one CD of him (Scotch Bestiary et al.), and I found that amusing, but in the end unsatisfactory.
Now, you may try Ralph Vaughn Williams for a great 20th century British compser. But I think now my favorite British composer of large scale orchestral music is Arnold Bax.
I think I mentioned upthread that, of 20th century composers, I do like Respighi, and quite a bit of Ravel.
And yes, I also like Vaugh Williiams. Britten, not so much. I recognise the quality in his work, but I can't listen to it for long. Then again, my sister's choir sings his "Yif ic of luve can" (from "Sacred and Profane" ), and it's good. They have the advantage of a really good soprano, of course. (And I don't think I've heard any Bax.)
I think I like keyboard Bach over other kinds of Bach.
You're not the only one. I think I prefer his string music, just, but for me choosing between different kinds of Bach is somewhat pointless. It's all the best in its field.
Richard
17 Apr 12
Quality thread guys!
I for the most part share Richard's opinion on composers. Wagner and Mahler don't do much for me (although with the Concertgebouw orchestra around the corner a good performance is never far away, and I do love good performances, especially because they are so rare).
Mozart has written some incredible music. As someone said, not only his Requiem but the late piano concertos (slow movement from K. 491 anyone? Check out Horowitz' recording when he was like 83 years old).
Be careful, too, about Glenn Gould, there are multiple versions of the Goldberg Variations... and he puts a lot into them in any version. I personally think that the way he plays it, he really lets the piece shine.
Ravel! Oh, Gaspard de la Nuit...
Played that on numerous concerts. Recent concert I didn't, but I couldn't keep myself from playing Ondine as an encore after the second Brahms sonata... That was lovely.
18 Apr 12
Originally posted by davaniel
Quality thread guys!
I for the most part share Richard's opinion on composers. Wagner and Mahler don't do much for me (although with the Concertgebouw orchestra around the corner a good performance is never far away, and I do love good performances, especially because they are so rare).
Mozart has written some incredible music. As someone said, not on ...[text shortened]... myself from playing Ondine as an encore after the second Brahms sonata... That was lovely.
I for the most part share Richard's opinion on composers. Wagner and Mahler don't do much for me (although with the Concertgebouw orchestra around the corner a good performance is never far away, and I do love good performances, especially because they are so rare).
Splendid! Another Mahler non-fan.
Whose music do you like better ?
Mozart has written some incredible music. As someone said, not only his Requiem but the late piano concertos (slow movement from K. 491 anyone? Check out Horowitz' recording when he was like 83 years old).
Do you like any Romanticists ?
Myself, I always prefered Haydn to Mozart. But I have no problem recognizing Mozart as a great composer. Haydn himself thought he was the greatest composer he knew personally or by name.
Around where I live, Mozart is played and played and played and played nearly to annoyance. He must bring in the advertizing bucks to the local classical music station.
Be careful, too, about Glenn Gould, there are multiple versions of the Goldberg Variations... and he puts a lot into them in any version. I personally think that the way he plays it, he really lets the piece shine.
Ravel! Oh, Gaspard de la Nuit...
So you like Maurice Ravel ?
I like Ravel also. As an amatuer composer I recognize Ravel as one composer who learned to ignore criticism good or bad. Perhaps his famous six entries and failures in a famous French composition contest enfluenced him for life.
I heard he did not read reviews of his works. And I read that he would pull a successful piece off and improve upon it with no regard for what people thought.
I admire Ravel's orchestration.
Mahler though stands at the top of long list of classical symphonists and really culminates a line from Haydn to Brahms. The care with which such monumental works are constructed in the short time that he had as a professional conductor speaks volumes of the man's musicianship.
His gearing of chords, to me, is a phenomenal mastery of harmony.
There is always a song in a Mahler symphony. I mean in spite of their complexity he always includes something so memorable that one can whistle it on the way home.
Balance.
Anyway, in the world of musical taste he certainly is not for everyone.
Played that on numerous concerts. Recent concert I didn't, but I couldn't keep myself from playing Ondine as an encore after the second Brahms sonata... That was lovely.
18 Apr 12
Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Undoubtedly
But I am interested in 2nd and 3rd raters. I want to hear what composers have to say regardless because I am always on the side of the composer.
So what, if anything, is your opinion on James MacMillan? I only have the one CD of him (Scotch Bestiary et al.), and I found that amusing, but in the end unsatisfactory.
[ ...[text shortened]... inds of Bach is somewhat pointless. It's all the best in its field.
Richard
So what, if anything, is your opinion on James MacMillan? I only have the one CD of him (Scotch Bestiary et al.), and I found that amusing, but in the end unsatisfactory.
I will try to check this person out and get back to you about my first impressions.
James MacMillan I never heard of.
I think I mentioned upthread that, of 20th century composers, I do like Respighi, and quite a bit of Ravel.
YouTube, for me, has rescued Respighi. I am not on YouTube hearing all kinds of Respighi works I never heard before.
Of course the Pines ... works I have known for years.
I never cared for the Ancient Dances thing.
But I heard a Violin concerto of Respighi that was lovely.
And since I tracked down other chamber works and orchestral of Respighi that are hard not to like.
Somewhat lighter. Less brooding and Germanic in philosophizing.
Beautiful tonality in the midst of a turn away from it in the 20th century is Respighi.
I don't know why. I really don't know why. But it is hard for me not to like the French composers of the 19th and 20th century. Of them Ravel is at the top.
But I would recommend also Albrich Magnard. Start with the 4th symphony. Little heard of in the US but georgeous.
And of course Poulenc and Faure wrote some georgeous music to my taste. Chausson also - really pretty. Saint Seans, I probably would not have liked as a friend. But his music is good.
Someone can by talking about Stochousen - the more modern style. For the modern style the Frenchman Messian, better yet Detilleaux (but I know I am not getting the spelling correct).
And yes, I also like Vaugh Williiams. Britten, not so much. I recognise the quality in his work, but I can't listen to it for long. Then again, my sister's choir sings his "Yif ic of luve can" (from "Sacred and Profane" ), and it's good. They have the advantage of a really good soprano, of course. (And I don't think I've heard any Bax.)
Try some Bax Tone Poems first. Then try some symphonies -. 5th, 4th, 3rd.
Festaval Overture - not yet on YouTube, is great.
Cello concerto of Bax I recommend.
I think I like keyboard Bach over other kinds of Bach.
You're not the only one. I think I prefer his string music, just, but for me choosing between different kinds of Bach is somewhat pointless. It's all the best in its field.
Among composers, perhaps Bach is the most respected. I have known very modern composers who still learn something from Bach and speak highly of him.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
19 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillAnd what do I notice this evening, but that our public radio's Composer of the Week, this week, is... Arnold Bax! If only I'd seen that earlier. Never mind, now I have heard (and I'm re-translating some of these names back from the Dutch translations, here, so they may not be the originals) the last half
Try some Bax Tone Poems first. Then try some symphonies -. 5th, 4th, 3rd.
Festaval Overture - not yet on YouTube, is great.
Cello concerto of Bax I recommend.
I spotted his name just after the program had begun
of A Celtic Lullaby from A Celtic Song Cycle, and The Garden of Fand. And tomorrow, if I manage to catch it, Part 2 from his Sonata for viola, Part 2 from Symphony nr. 3, and and Violin Sonata nr. 2: The Grey Dancer.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
20 Apr 12
Originally posted by Shallow BlueTonight I joined halfway through again (this time because I just wasn't in yet), and heard half of the symphonic movement, and the violin sonata (which I think they only played one part of).
And what do I notice this evening, but that our public radio's Composer of the Week, this week, is... Arnold Bax! If only I'd seen that earlier. Never mind, now I have heard (and I'm re-translating some of these names back from the Dutch translations, here, so they may not be the originals) the last half[hidden]I spotted his name just after the p ...[text shortened]... r viola, Part 2 from Symphony nr. 3, and and Violin Sonata nr. 2: The Grey Dancer.
Richard
I think it's clear from what went before that he'll never be my favourite composer. The Lullaby did nothing at all for me. The Garden and the Sonata... no, not really. But I must say, I did like the symphonic movement. I could listen to that again. Not often, perhaps, but occasionally... yes. Some bits reminded me very much of Stravinski, another composer who will never be a mainstay of my music listening but parts of whose work I do appreciate every now and then. So, conclusion: next time I find Bax's symphonies, I must try them. His solo instrument work, not as much.
Richard
22 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI haven't heard to much chamber music of Bax. I do like his 3,4,5 symphonies. He more reminds me of impressionists, but a little more gruff in the brass.
Tonight I joined halfway through again (this time because I just wasn't in yet), and heard half of the symphonic movement, and the violin sonata (which I think they only played one part of).
I think it's clear from what went before that he'll never be my favourite composer. The Lullaby did nothing at all for me. The Garden and the Sonata... no, not rea ...[text shortened]... I find Bax's symphonies, I must try them. His solo instrument work, not as much.
Richard
But I also can hear what you mean by Stravinsky. There are a flew of Tone Poems about Winter and Nymphs that I find quite pleasant.
I really like his work with winds.
Taste is taste is taste - a personal matter.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillThis is very true, but it doesn't hurt to have your tastes prodded at every now and then. Who knows, you might unexpectedly find something you like - maybe I will buy a Bax symphony CD if I come across it. And if I listen to something I thought I didn't like, and it turns out that I was right all along, well, I've lost an hour and gained some knowledge.
Taste is taste is taste - a personal matter.
It's not just true in music, either. This is the reason why I visit the Tate Modern every time I'm in London - yes, every single time it proves again that modern art has much more than its fair share of Sturgeon's Law, but at least I can now state that with firm confidence, knowing that that's not just my opinion, it's my informed opinion. And it still leaves more than enough time to visit the V&A and the Courtauld.
Richard