# Hard-core contemporary 'Tonalist' Pavel Karmanov



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Pavel Karmanov, Russian composer: his YouTube Channel is 'Tonalist.' and a 'Tonalist' he is....

He also composes ambient film tracks, is in a niche of a kind of simplicity and minimalism rather all his own. There is more than a hint of 'easy sounding' pop-ambient, but at a different level of craft one might expect of similar from the pop sector.

I find a lot of it 'very pleasant' -- music from a composer who knows well his craft -- and thought if unknown to some, might be a welcome addition of 'more to listen to.'

His recent "Day One."





Other works I've enjoyed:
Force-major ~ for two pianos, two violins





Different Brooks ~ for piano quintet and tape of running water.





Green ~ chamber strings ensemble





Twice a Double Concerto ~ for Baroque chamber ensemble -- tuned to a lower 'a', with Baroque Flute & Oboe, strings and harpsichord; and contemporary chamber ensemble, tuned to contemporary A, w/ Flute & oboe, strings and piano.





The short, snappy, 'bouncy' Michael Music ~ piano quintet





7' before Christmas ~ String quintet, flute, prepared tape with synthesizer sounds. Childlike charm....





If any of it is your kind of fun, have fun. then 

P.s. "Green was added after O.P."


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I listened to all the pieces and enjoyed them all. I especially liked _Different Brooks_ and _Twice a Double Concerto_. I looked for Karmanov's works on both Naxos and Spotify but found nothing. There's nothing on Amazon so I assume he does not have any works recorded on CD.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Interesting, but I can't say it's my kind of thing. You distinguish him from easy-sounding pop (not too difficult an accomplishment!); how do you think he compares to our big name 'minimalists'?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Polednice said:


> Interesting, but I can't say it's my kind of thing. You distinguish him from easy-sounding pop (not too difficult an accomplishment!); how do you think he compares to our big name 'minimalists'?


What do you mean, "our", white man?

What I do think is this composer is not at all occupied with thoughts about profundity or the shelf-life of his music, and just writes 'as he will and can.' I think many a composer, including some of the best living composers are, i.e. they have an eye to their possible / potential 'place in history.'

I don't get a whiff of that from Karmanov, yet have never met or communicated with the man, so could not really say. At least, in feeling that when I listen, I am already 'refreshed' in a way. A composer whose music sounds playful, good-natured, and who may have no trouble sitting down to compose with the 'mere' intent of 'entertaining.'


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

PetrB said:


> What do you mean, "our", white man?


What's whiteness got to do with it? I meant respected classical minimalists - as this is a classical music forum - as opposed to populist ones.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Polednice said:


> What's whiteness got to do with it? I meant respected classical minimalists - as this is a classical music forum - as opposed to populist ones.


"Our" implies "We" "Own" music... so now I'm being the one picky on word use... because there are some who act as if they do "Own" music, and I find that repellent.

I did not post this to 'stack it up' against others. Having to assess like that (necessary, if one is to discern - discerning is something I think crucial) when in the act of listening, well, I fail to see where the pleasure is -- and I like people to make up their own minds. Then there is something to discuss, because that listener has a point of view. Karmanov's music, to me, is pleasant, well-made, and I do not judge or recommend it, past those qualifications.

Big picture? Not 'a big boy,' but neither is Puccini, for whatever that is worth.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

PetrB said:


> "Our" implies "We" "Own" music... so now I'm being the one picky on word use... because there are some who act as if they do "Own" music, and I find that repellent.


I wouldn't suggest anything so ridiculous; my word choice was bad. I'll leave the thread now. :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Polednice said:


> What's whiteness got to do with it? I meant respected classical minimalists - as this is a classical music forum - as opposed to populist ones.


Oooooh, "Respected."

I'm sorry to inform you that John Adams, Steve Reich, Philip Glass and Graham Fitkin are all -- to one degree or another -- 'populist' composers. I think it is safe to say Pavel Karmanov is another.

I think David Lang, and Michael Gordon (if the latter can still be classed as 'minimalist,') are not 'populist' composers.

Louis Andriessen (when he writes that way) is still a declared and markedly 'intellectual' composer. (Michael Nyman has talked enough about himself that I don't feel the need to say anything further about him. My 'Taste' regarding Nyman is that both his talking and his music have no interest or value to me at all.)

What they all are, are contemporary classical composers vs. composers of another genre.

If you want a 'signifying' judgement call, John Adams, Steve Reich, and David Lang have each been awarded the Pulitzer prize (Americans only, natch.)

Having looked at the list of Pulitzer prize winners recently (1943 - present), of a list of sixty-four composers I readily recognized the names of all but fifteen of them. From that remaining forty-nine, there are a fair number with whose work I have at least a bit of real familiarity, while only a small handful seem to me 'worthy' to be 'respected' -- i.e. are of any possible long-term import.

Whether it is Pulitzer Prize winning Americans, other award-winning Europeans, or those who are given more inches of column-space in the latest editions of Groves or the Larousse Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians, there are no guarantees of longevity of play for any of these composers which can yet be predicted, nor how high they sit on Mr. Olympus. Only a fair 'guess-timation' is possible.

You do know that for decade upon decade, the Nobel Prize for literature was never given to an author known to be Catholic (perhaps no Catholic in any of the categories!?), because the committee was that much Protestant reactionary?

So much for any and all external labels, awards, citations -- so much for all contemporary lists of 'who's significant.'

You could ask the board -- but remember here are young, old, the newest of dilettante, earnest amateur of varied degree of acquired discernment, and pros -- all mixed in the salad.

Someone just named Arvo Part the equal of J.S. Bach! Between spluttering and laughing, I realized for them it was an individual evaluation based on the fact those two composers moved them emotionally about to the same degree. In 'respected' musical circles, even if Part is admired, that same 'pronouncement' is, at the least, risible.

Groves has an article on Rachmaninoff which is so catty-nasty and biased, it makes the author, not the composer, look horridly small.

Between the flagrant bias of articles in the most erudite and 'respected' tomes on music and the new vogue of people thinking that what they feel about a subject (while knowing little or nothing about it) has the same weight as the informed opinion of the experienced, I then think an opinion poll on a forum such as this would be more a display of personality -- and background, training, or lack thereof -- than of any real worth as a guide to the merit of the pieces or composers being discussed.

Talking about them, for all of us, is of course fun, sometimes stimulating.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

PetrB said:


> I'm sorry to inform you that John Adams, Steve Reich, Philip Glass and Graham Fitkin are all 'populist' composers, as is Pavel Karmanov. What they all are are contemporary classical composers vs. composers of another genre.


Your comments are rather loaded with assumptions about what I think despite the fact that you've really got no basis to judge. I think you ought to make more effort to clarify before combating a position that I don't hold.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Polednice said:


> Your comments are rather loaded with assumptions about what I think despite the fact that you've really got no basis to judge. I think you ought to make more effort to clarify before combating a position that I don't hold.


What if any, distinction did you make about 'classical' vs. 'populist' then? Aaron Copland was, very consciously, a populist composer, while there is no question at any moment that he is a classical composer. It is a somewhat known term in reference to certain classical musicians, with no reference to non-classical music involved.

I apologize if I misread that, but it had a taste of the way each political party calls the other 'liberal' or 'conservative' as if it were a lower or loathsome thing 

Neither of us should have to apologize for what we are. I'm an old pro (that and the fare gets me on the bus, so do Not, please take that any other way.) That does mean certain terms register with me as having specific meaning: for others, they are more generally used (to me that translates as at least 'loosely' - leaving me really not quite knowing what some here mean.)

"Neoclassical' to me is modern era, a stylistic genre starting about 1920 - something very particular. I know too, it is now very very loosely used to categorize a sub-genre of pop music.

And I am, I thought, on a classical music forum. I'm getting it, though. I looked at a poll asking about preferred music eras, 'properly' listing Medieval, Renaissance ... staying "all good" without a hitch until... Romantic, followed by Impressionist! Can't help it, it made me involuntarily squawk, enough for me to be a pinball game major "tilt, game over." I know the O.P. is not a fully trained musician, nor a college music major, or that would have been drilled in by the end of the first semester.

Formal and precise terminology from me may or may not confuse half the members, that informal usage by the other half often confuses (or irritates) the pros. I'm willing to get used to a certain casual usage, but in an online forum, words are all we've got, and immediate interaction ("...pardon, you meant what by that? Oh, O.K.") then quickly back to the matter at hand just doesn't work well in the virtual world.

Maybe someone could / should start a reference thread on terms and terminology. Musical periods. Neoclassical, Populist in terms of art, etc. Might help all concerned avoid confusion. I'm truly surprised that such ABC's necessary to talk about classical have not been acquired by the greenest of true classical enthusiasts - they're readily and reliably available on line.

Back to what could have been a two second interjection: From your frame of personal reference, Populist then means pop, vs classical?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Right... I'm really not going to get involved in this discussion any further. You ought to consider becoming a literary critic though - you appear rather adept at reading a tremendous amount of unsubstantiated off-the-wall twoddle out of totally harmless but perhaps mildly ambiguous comments. :tiphat:


----------



## pavelkarmanov (Sep 7, 2012)

Hi! I'm Pavel Karmanov, composer from Russia.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL93417425992B5CC0&feature=plcp 
http://www.myspace.com/pavelkarmanov 
Listen it!
Thanks.


----------

