# Classical Music's Ten Dirtiest Secrets



## Fsharpmajor

See what you think of this short article by David Hurwitz. The list of ten dirty secrets is at the end of it:

*http://www.classicstoday.com/features/0404-editorial.asp*


----------



## Delicious Manager

A little bit of context might be useful here (I LOVE context!). Davis Hurwitz is a controversial music journalist who loves to provoke people - he is somewhat notorious in the British music business for his deliberately simplistic and mocking 'baiting'. He is exaggerating to make a point; it is a dig at the 'precious' in the music profession. Of course there is bad classical music - plenty of it. I think even Ludwig recognised that his _Battle Symphony_ was not one of his better moments. And Mozart seemed to be deliberately writing a second-rate work for the two instruments he liked the least in his Flute and Harp Concerto. The only composer I can think of who didn't produce any 'turkeys' was Johann Sebastian Bach. Some of his works might be less than 100% inspired (but, at the rate he had to churn things out, who could blame him?), but I am not aware of anything less that 'pretty damn satisfactory' from him. So, that deals with Hurwitz's *Dirty Secret 10*.

On the other ones, I would say:

1. Mozart really does all sound the same.
This is so obviously a spoof. Hurwitz has written two whole volumes on Mozart's music in the _Unlocking the Masters_ series of books. He either doesn't mean this statement, or he wasted a lot of paper by writing his books.

2. Beethoven's Grosse Fuge is just plain ugly.
It might not be the most attractive of Beethoven's works, but it is no more 'ugly' than, say, the _Hammerklavier_ Sonata or the first movement of the Fifth Symphony.

3. Wagner's operas are much better with cuts.
Well, I'd struggle arguing about this one...

4. No one cares about the first three movements of Berlioz' Symphonie fantastique.
Well *I DO*!

5. Schoenberg's music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it.
He is conveniently forgetting, obviously, _Verklärte Nacht_, _Pelleas und Melisande_ and _Gurrellieder_, thereby deliberately, I think, mocking narrow-minded people's perception of Schoenberg.

6. Schumann's orchestration definitely needs improvement.
Yup, that's right!

7. Bruckner couldn't write a symphonic allegro to save his life.
Well, they might not be _Allegro_s, but there are some mighty finely structured modified sonata-form movements in there.

8. Liszt is trash.
Mostly, I liken Liszt's music to modern heavy metal - a lot of noise and thrashing about for very little musical value.

9. The so-called "happy" ending of Shostakovich's Fifth is perfectly sincere.
I think we know he's being provocative again here, don't we?

10. It's a good thing that "only" about 200 Bach cantatas survive.
Dealt with above

Articles like this should be (and are intended to be) taken with a large handful of salt. They're a sort of 'inside joke' for musos. I thought it was a bit of fun - nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Delicious Manager said:


> 4. No one cares about the first three movements of Berlioz' Symphonie fantastique.
> Well *I DO*!


Actually it would seem that he does too:

*http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12901*

As you say, at the most he's only being half serious.

Regarding Liszt being trash, that's probably true, but it doesn't stop me from liking Liszt.


----------



## Argus

I'm dissappointed. I was expecting at least some mention of Mahler's penchant for dogging.


----------



## Weston

The weird thing is I agree with the premise of the article. Classical music listeners do tend to be perceived as a stuffy elite group of snobs, so esoteric that normal earthly folk could never fit in. That's really what this is all about. I've often wondered why orchestras insist on wearing tuxedos for instance. I know it's a tradition, but why not come out dressed in costumes or have a light show like a rock concert? I know this would be cost prohibitive, but there must be some way loosening up.

However I think his list is ridiculous.

1. Mozart clearly doesn't all sound the same to me, even though I can rarely stand Mozart.

2. Of course Beethoven’s Grosse Fuge is just plain ugly. Who said it had to be beautiful? Do you think Bob Dylan's music is beautiful? Or The Sex Pistols?

3. The first opera(s) I ever saw were the complete ring cycle and I was spellbound. Never bored.

4. Okay - I'll give him this. I don't care about even the last movement of Symphonie fantastique, or any other Berlioz for that matter. It just doesn't speak to me. But so what? This is no great secret.

5. Schoenberg’s music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it? Yes, so far that's true.

6. There is nothing wrong with Schumann’s orchestration that I can detect.

7. Bruckner couldn’t write a symphonic allegro to save his life. Again, so what? 

8. Liszt is trash? Maybe. But Les Preludes makes my heart race. 

9. The so-called “happy” ending of Shostakovich’s Fifth is perfectly sincere. Not sure what he's getting at here. Shostakovich did write some happy music though. So what?

10. It’s a good thing that “only” about 200 Bach cantatas survive. Well, that's just juvenile.


----------



## Falstaft

Thanks Fsharpmajor for this guarantee for lively discussion! And thanks Delicious Manager for providing context about Hurwtiz's penchant for provocation. I still think this list is basically nonsense, and by addressing each of his points, I'm playing right into his hands as being an over-defensive priss. But whatever, it's worth shutting down. Everyone likes to feel self-righteous, afterall 

1) I think to anyone with even basic exposure to WAM should see this is self-refuting!

2) Gee, a fugue subject composed of repeated dissonant leaps doesn't sound like the height of beauty and lyricism, surprise! (I guess Bach's B-minor or chromatic fugue is an ugly duckling too!). Perhaps (gasp!) _beauty_ isn't what romantic composers were always going after... And the interpolated slow movement in the middle of the Fuge is actually quite lovely, proof that LvB knew exactly what effect he was trying to wring out the subject.

3) As a Wagnerian, I cannot dispassionately address this!  Let's just say, I believe the total opposite (if only each act were 2 hrs longer!)

4) The last two mvts are the most thrilling, structurally simplest, easiest to drum up excitement about for novice listeners, and correspondingly the best known. Not sure how that = "no1 carez about teh 1st 3." Certainly anyone who has ever studied the work appreciates them. And the waltz was for a long time my favorite movement!

5) Ditto what Delicious Manager said. I think it takes very closed ears not to appreciate the attractiveness of this, this, or this.

6) I defer to people who practice orchestration here, but from what I've heard, his skills are average -- nothing to write home about, but serviceable for his musical ideas.

7) Bruckner's flailing horribleness at writing form is a persistent canard that a lot of recent musicologists have striven (quite convincingly) to dispel -- Bruckner's grasp of form was idiosyncratic but immensely powerful, which is why I like a lot of people on this board am left shellshocked after hearing his opening movements.

8) I wasn't aware people even disliked Liszt! How can you dismiss such a prolific, influential composer? Saying that the B-minor sonata, the Dante & Faust symphonies, the late piano works, Orpheus, Les Preludes, the transcendental etudes are "trash" should get you immediately disbarred from commenting on classical music 

9) Issuing an either/or call on the sincerity here is totally missing the tension and ambivlance that makes the mvt come alive.

10) Oh come on.


----------



## World Violist

I can't take Hurwitz seriously anymore after reading this pile of trash: http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3045

Every word in it is just juvenile, insulting (not only to the artists but the readers), and plain stupid. I can't believe anyone above the age of five wrote this.

Also, he trashed Vanska's Bruckner 4 without a second thought merely because it was in the wrong edition. I doubt he even listened to it.

So there you are. I can't take Hurwitz seriously, and this list of "dirty secrets" is just another nail in his coffin.


----------



## Ravellian

I thought this was a sincere article after reading the introduction (after all, Vivaldi really did write the same concerto 600 times), but the list was just silly.


1. Mozart really does all sound the same.
Only if you just listen to his first four symphonies over and over again. The operas sound completely different from any of his other works, same with the piano concerti (which are all unique amongst each other), etc. I'm not a huge fan of most of his symphonies, but come on... this statement is stupid.

2. Beethoven’s Grosse Fuge is just plain ugly.
Maybe comparatively speaking if you listen to it right after the Bb quartet? But still, no more so than the Hammerklavier fugue as somebody mentioned earlier.

3. Wagner’s operas are much better with cuts.
Not if you have any kind of attention span! Good grief! Going to or listening to a Wagner opera is a huge event, something that demands your full attention for an extended period of time. 

4. No one cares about the first three movements of Berlioz’ Symphonie fantastique.
I think he means the first four movements. The fifth one is the only interesting one. :-D

5. Schoenberg’s music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it.
I agree with this.

6. Schumann’s orchestration definitely needs improvement.
Maybe? But I don't see how big an issue it is.. I don't know how anyone can listen to the entire 4th symphony and not think it a masterpiece of the likes of Beethoven.

7. Bruckner couldn’t write a symphonic allegro to save his life.
I don't listen to Bruckner.. but this makes sense since his influence was Wagner..

8. Liszt is trash.
Absolute gibberish. Aside from revolutionizing piano technique, he greatly influenced Wagner with his expansion of harmony in form and use of thematic transformation. Not to mention he completely invented the symphonic tone poem.

9. The so-called “happy” ending of Shostakovich’s Fifth is perfectly sincere.
Except that's not what Shostakovich said!

10. It’s a good thing that “only” about 200 Bach cantatas survive.
This is just being childish.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Trouble with Hurwitz is that he IS knowledgable but that isn't enough to satisfy him. Just like Star Trek's Q, it's often difficult to know whether he means what he says or if he's just taking the ****. And, again like Q, I think this muddying of the waters gets him off.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Aww I thought this thread had to do with the secret lives of various composers 

Most of those are generalizations, although I understand some points, like for Berlioz.

Another dirty secret: Borodin didn't actually write the Overture to Prince Igor :O


----------



## Nix

I agree with 6 and 7. The rest are all absurd. And I agreed with the premise of the article, so it's really disappointing that he couldn't come up with 8 other legitimate examples. So I thought I might! 

1. Shostakovich and Mahler recycled too many themes
2. Chopin was not versatile 
3. Schubert accomplished more in first 30 years then Mozart
4. Brahms only wrote like he was writing for piano 
5. There are too many violin concertos and not enough cello 
6. Schumann was not a good orchestrator 
7. Bruckner couldn't write an allegro 
8. Haydn wrote more then his "Suprise" and "London" symphonies 
9. Philip Glass is not a classical composer
10. Music is not "chance" 

The point of this article was to have opinions... these are mine. I tried to make them not too controversial- but ran out towards the end.


----------



## World Violist

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Aww I thought this thread had to do with the secret lives of various composers


No, then Brahms, Berlioz, R. Strauss, and Wagner, among others, would need their own separate pages.


----------



## Toccata

What a tired old list of nonsense this guy has come up with. It's all so passe that it's obviously meant as a joke. He must have run out of ideas if that's the best he can come up. If I had spotted this article I would have flicked straight past it and not given it a moment's reflection. All these assertions have been paraded and debated ad nauseam on Boards like this in the past. The one concerning Schumann's alleged poor orchestration comes up regular as clockwork, and Classical music Boards are awash with views and counter-views on this one (with the counter-views prevailing based on modern musicological opinion). I think maybe I should find a new hobby as reading all this guff aint fun any more.


----------



## Argus

Nix said:


> Philip Glass is not a classical composer


Explanation please.


----------



## Weston

Falstaft said:


> 5) Ditto what Delicious Manager said. I think it takes very closed ears not to appreciate the attractiveness of this, this, or this.


The first link maybe, but an adagio in and of itself does not beauty make. Still I keep trying because I heard an interview with the guy, 



 and he seems so full of humility and genuine spirituality I feel there must be something there for me even if I don't get it yet.



Nix said:


> I agree with 6 and 7. The rest are all absurd. And I agreed with the premise of the article, so it's really disappointing that he couldn't come up with 8 other legitimate examples. So I thought I might!


Well these lists at least get us thinking, so it's all good.

1. Shostakovich and Mahler recycled too many themes
Agreed at least about Shostakovich, but that's a little like saying The Art of the Fugue recycled the same theme too often. I do have trouble telling Shotakovich's string quartets apart sometimes.
. . .

4. Brahms only wrote like he was writing for piano 
I must disagree with this. I find his piano music a but muddy for my ears with his heavy crowded harmonies in the lower keys. I find his chamber work more luminous and uplifting.

5. There are too many violin concertos and not enough cello 
You got that right!

8. Haydn wrote more then his "Suprise" and "London" symphonies.
I was listening to one of his middle symphonies at work this week, I think number 61. My players are usually set to random so I never know exactly what I'm hearing. I thought the adagio was Beethoven. It's astonishing!

10. Music is not "chance" 
I disagree with this. I think chance could play a huge role in music as in visual art. It can at the very least be a springboard.


----------



## tgtr0660

It would be great if some people here could recognize sarcasm when they read it...


----------



## Falstaft

Weston said:


> The first link maybe, but an adagio in and of itself does not beauty make.


Quite right Weston, though I was thinking more "attractiveness" than sheer beauty. But if it is beauty we're talking about, I certainly think the last of the Schoenberg 6 Pno pieces, in its haunted and distant way, qualifies!


----------



## Rasa

Everyone who wrote more then two lines on this article commenting on all his comments has lost the game.


----------



## Chris

One for UK members:

After listening to Radio 3's Building a Library on Saturday morning, go out and buy any recording EXCEPT the recommended one. 

That's not a secret though


----------



## superhorn

Hurwitz may very well have his tongue firmly planted in his cheek.Possibly he's trying to point out silly ideas that are commopnplace among classical music fans.
Arnold Schoenberg pointed out that when Wagner operas are cut,it has the paradoxical effect of making them sound longer trhan they are!
It's not true that Bruckner could not write allegro fist movements. But it often seems that way because of the excessively slow tempos many conductors adopt for his music. It's been pointed out that some conductors make a Bruckner symphony seem like a succession of four slow movements! But by no means all. Jochum and Furtwangler are anything but lethargic in Breuckner.
I don't think that Liszt's music can be dismissed as "trash". True,it can be corny,bombastic and 
melodrammatic at times,but his music almost always has a kind of engaging pizaaz which 
rescues it from being mere trash. I'd rather listen to his entertaining vulgarity than some dry as dust piece of academic pedantry by one of the minor composers of the 19th century.
And his late music is amazingly forward-looking and harmonically advanced.


----------



## Nix

In response to those who think the entire thing is a joke... yes I can understand it would be if the list appeared on its own, but he wrote a well reasoned article before it. He must have thought that what he was supporting it with was legitimate, and if he didn't then the entire things just stupid. Why write an article if you're going to follow with a list that refutes its credibility? I don't know if it's just British humor or whatever, but either way the guy seems pretty stupid.


----------



## Rondo

First of all, if one were to insert a Likert's scale on this list I would "strongly disagree" with number 8. However, I couldn't agree more with number 5; Schoenberg is essentially the musical equivalent of Ginsberg.

Classical music enthusiasts are arguably the most scrupulous music "fans" out there, and possibly the most opinionated when it comes to musical performances. It's not just the personalities of the people, either. Classical music lends itself to that. At a rock concert, for instance, outside of technical issues, how many possible contingencies can you have which can positively or negatively affect the audience's overall opinion of the performance? I would say, no where _near_ the same number as with an orchestral or opera performance. In other words, a "successful" classical music performance would call for many, many, many more of these: :tiphat: (I love the new emoticon). And that is _not_ just limited to the number of people on the stage.


----------



## Rondo

> 4. No one cares about the first three movements of Berlioz' Symphonie fantastique.


The same could be said of Beethoven's 9th. And, that's actually (but sadly) true.


----------



## Edward Elgar

It's a good thing that David Hurwitz does not hold a position of intellectual authority on anything. Critics should think before they write. They are like infantile kids in playground. This guy shames the name critic which is a feat in itself!


----------



## Ravellian

Rondo said:


> The same could be said of Beethoven's 9th. And, that's actually (but sadly) true.


Strongly disagree with that one. Most people who know anything at all about the 9th symphony know about the famous introduction to the 1st movement. The theme to the scherzo is quite famous as well. The 3rd movement is the only one that could be considered a little obscure.


----------



## Air

1. Mozart really does all sound the same.
Hurwitz has the balls to write something as ridiculous as this?

2. Beethoven's Grosse Fuge is just plain ugly.
So is the Rite of Spring. And both of them are works of the highest calibre.

3. Wagner's operas are much better with cuts.
I agree that some of them are a bit long...

4. No one cares about the first three movements of Berlioz' Symphonie fantastique.
SF is a piece that I don't care much for anymore, not even the 5th movement.

5. Schoenberg's music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it.
In the contrary, Schoenberg is a composer whose music can only grow on you.

6. Schumann's orchestration definitely needs improvement.
It may need some improvement, but it's not bad per se, and is enough to serve the composer's abundant imagination. Regardless, his orchestral works are still magnificent creations.

7. Bruckner couldn't write a symphonic allegro to save his life.
Yes, but whatever those movements titled _Allegro_ are, they're pretty darn good. Plus, his adagios and scherzos more than make up for any flaw of his.

8. Liszt is trash.
Only if you listen to the bad stuff.

9. The so-called "happy" ending of Shostakovich's Fifth is perfectly sincere.
Yikes, what a dirty dirty secret this is.

10. It's a good thing that "only" about 200 Bach cantatas survive.
So I don't go wild with ecstacy, maybe.


----------



## tgtr0660

If anyone here had ever read a review by Hurwitz, you'd know he's joking. He loves Mozart (though not ALL Mozart), he likes most of what he's joking about in this list. Only the Schoenberg part leaves me doubtful...


----------



## Fsharpmajor

tgtr0660 said:


> If anyone here had ever read a review by Hurwitz, you'd know he's joking. He loves Mozart (though not ALL Mozart), he likes most of what he's joking about in this list. Only the Schoenberg part leaves me doubtful...


He has written favourable reviews of Schoenberg, e.g. this one:

*http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=10675*

In fact I bought that CD because he recommended it.


----------



## tahnak

Delicious Manager said:


> at 'pretty damn satisfactory' from him. So, that deals with Hurwitz's *Dirty Secret 10*.
> 
> On the other ones, I would say:
> 
> Articles like this should be (and are intended to be) taken with a large handful of salt. They're a sort of 'inside joke' for musos. I thought it was a bit of fun - nothing more, nothing less.


Well, in keeping with the fun, I would say that Mr. David

Hurwitz can take his ten dirty little secrets mentioned in the article and make tissue roll out of it and then dirtily on the seat he can wipe his **** with it!


----------



## GraemeG

Nix said:


> In response to those who think the entire thing is a joke... yes I can understand it would be if the list appeared on its own, but he wrote a well reasoned article before it. He must have thought that what he was supporting it with was legitimate, and if he didn't then the entire things just stupid. Why write an article if you're going to follow with a list that refutes its credibility? I don't know if it's just British humor or whatever, but either way the guy seems pretty stupid.


Not a "well-reasoned article", just a series of straw man arguments. Who pretends that the classical cannon is a series of unmatched masterpieces, as he asserts? Which Bruckner movement is marked "Allegro", and thus stands as proof of incompetence? You might as well say that Brahms couldn't write an opera.

No, it's all very undergraduate. If he's being even a bit serious, then his argument is pitifully weak on the evidence he presents, and if he's trying for humour then it fails on the grounds it's not funny....
cheers,
G


----------



## Nix

GraemeG said:


> No, it's all very undergraduate. If he's being even a bit serious, then his argument is pitifully weak on the evidence he presents, and if he's trying for humour then it fails on the grounds it's not funny....
> cheers,
> G


Um, yes. I agree.


----------



## Sid James

Well, the fact is you see similar hogwash opinions of great masterpieces and great performers on sites like this nearly every day. Basically people saying "it's crap because I don't like it." At least Hurwitz was clearly writing this as a joke. If he would have been serious, he would have gone into more depth as to why he thinks these things (on the list). It is good to be critical of the sacred cows sometimes, stir the pot and play devil's advocate (I have done this with the ALLMIGHTY J. S. Bach a few times on this forum and got "corrected" in the process). The fact is that there is an unhelpful halo or aura around classical music, as if it were some kind of cult. I think that by getting off our high horses and making it more accessible, we can get rid of this aura and make classical music just like any other music - simply to be enjoyed (whether it's "ugly" Beethoven, "trashy" Liszt or "unattractive" Schoenberg)...


----------



## Toccata

Andre said:


> The fact is that there is an unhelpful halo or aura around classical music, as if it were some kind of cult. I think that by getting off our high horses and making it more accessible, we can get rid of this aura and make classical music just like any other music - simply to be enjoyed (whether it's "ugly" Beethoven, "trashy" Liszt or "unattractive" Schoenberg)...


The reason why classical music is not popular has little to do with its adherents living on "high horses" and creating an aura that is not like any music. It is because most people don't like it for what it is. Mind you, I can't say that I blame them as we can't all be sophisticated, suave and culturally refined, can we?


----------



## Il Seraglio

_5. Schoenberg's music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it._
It would seem he is not talking about Schoenberg's earlier works. In which case I think I agree with him.

_6. Schumann's orchestration definitely needs improvement._
This is a secret?

_8. Liszt is trash._
As much as I like Liszt, I think this is true, although no less true of Wagner. There is little to no beauty in his music and yet it sets the nerves racing. The sort of artful contrivance that only a supremely talented musician could conjure up.

_10. It's a good thing that "only" about 200 Bach cantatas survive._
Well in one way it's good or else so much as collecting a complete recorded set would be a gargantuan task.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Il Seraglio said:


> _
> 
> 8. Liszt is trash.
> As much as I like Liszt, I think this is true, although no less true of Wagner. There is little to no beauty in his music and yet it sets the nerves racing. The sort of artful contrivance that only a supremely talented musician could conjure up.
> 
> _


_please relisten to Liszt again._


----------



## tgtr0660

Toccata said:


> The reason why classical music is not popular has little to do with its adherents living on "high horses" and creating an aura that is not like any music. It is because most people don't like it for what it is. Mind you, I can't say that I blame them as we can't all be sophisticated, suave and culturally refined, can we?


You are an example of why classical music is not popular at all.. instead of trying to conquer new people, many aficionados put themselves in a high place above the rest of mere mortals who can't understand the magic of a 12-tone piece by Webern and if they dare to try to cross over at least to the Mozart side you would consider them unworthy of the music of the grand master. And thanks to that attitude we have less and less classical music anywhere but in select circles with the same people... Thank you very much. In a few decades your type will manage to make classical music a university-only subject of study...


----------



## World Violist

Il Seraglio said:


> _10. It's a good thing that "only" about 200 Bach cantatas survive._
> Well in one way it's good or else so much as collecting a complete recorded set would be a gargantuan task.


It already is. I wouldn't mind a few more, personally.


----------



## JAKE WYB

Il Seraglio said:


> _8. Liszt is trash.
> As much as I like Liszt, I think this is true, although no less true of Wagner. There is little to no beauty in his music and yet it sets the nerves racing. The sort of artful contrivance that only a supremely talented musician could conjure up.
> 
> _


_

I take it youve never been aqcianted with Anees de pelerinage (particularly Suisse) or the two legends - they are of the highest order of subtlety, radiance and profundity and dispell all accusations of trashyness - even though hungarian rhapsodies happen to be trash - though the best possible sort_


----------



## Sid James

Having recently discovered Liszt's solo piano works (other than the _Hungarian Rhapsodies_), I agree with JAKE WYB 100%. The _Years of Pilgrimage_, the_ Legends_, the _Harmonies Poetiques et Religueses_, even the _Consolations_ and _Ballades_, have many many great moments that far surpass those of his more popular and "trashy" works...


----------



## Falstaft

Il Seraglio said:


> _
> As much as I like Liszt, I think this is true, although no less true of Wagner. There is little to no beauty in his music and yet it sets the nerves racing. The sort of artful contrivance that only a supremely talented musician could conjure up._


_



I think you're not listening to the right Liszt, and definitely not to the right Wagner! Take two pills of Lohengrin Prelude and the end of Walkure Act 3 and get back to me in the morning. And if that fails, a heavy dose of Tristan Act 2 should get you back on your feet. :tiphat:_


----------



## Ravellian

^ Why would you recommend the Lohengrin Prelude? so.. slow... The Tannhauser Prelude is the one you need to become familiar with. I agree that Tristan Act 2 is some of the most ravishing music ever composed..


----------



## superhorn

Well,the Grosse Fuge is gross,after all. All kidding aside,it's not ugly at all,just not conventionally pretty. Who said music has to be pretty to be enjoyable? 
And remember "The Grossest Fugue" by the immortal P.D.Q. Bach.


----------



## Serge

The classical music dirtiest secret No. 1 is that as far as the masses are concerned it will always be beaten by Pop. Pathetic, I know. Can't compete with the market though.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

superhorn said:


> Well,the Grosse Fuge is gross,after all. All kidding aside,it's not ugly at all,just not conventionally pretty. Who said music has to be pretty to be enjoyable?


If Beethoven was the first Romantic composer, I think the Grosse Fuge and late quartets show that he was also the first Post-Romantic composer. But nobody followed his lead until Bartok came along a century or so later.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Fsharpmajor said:


> If Beethoven was the first Romantic composer, I think the Grosse Fuge and late quartets show that he was also the first Post-Romantic composer. But nobody followed his lead until Bartok came along a century or so later.


Brahms Clarinet Sonatas, and Intermezzos pointed that way too.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Weston said:


> The weird thing is I agree with the premise of the article. Classical music listeners do tend to be perceived as a stuffy elite group of snobs, so esoteric that normal earthly folk could never fit in. That's really what this is all about. I've often wondered why orchestras insist on wearing tuxedos for instance. I know it's a tradition, but *why not come out dressed in costumes* or have a light show like a rock concert? I know this would be cost prohibitive, but there must be some way loosening up.


Watch Nodame Cantabile, if you can stand anime. They actually had an amateur orchestra do that kind of thing.


----------



## TresPicos

Liszt _is_ trash?! I _knew _it! :lol:

Well, to be honest, I've heard one good Liszt piece:


----------



## toucan

Hurwitz's review of Barbirolli's Messiaen is great stuff, wonderfully mean-spirited, and spot on classical music's dirty little secret #11: the Turangalila symphony is not a very good work, too long and incoherent - while the Quartet for the End of Time is just pplain awful. Ah ah.

(However, I can't find that CD: nowhere to be found, Barbirolli/Messiaen. Are you sure Hurwitz didn't make it up, just so he could pan it?)

What Hurwitz is doing is using cliches and good humor to make a valid point: not all classical music is equally good. 
(He could have expanded on the idea by pointing out it is when we understand we do not have to like all of it that we develop personal taste - and therefore taste itself).



> 2. Beethoven's Grosse Fuge is just plain ugly.


Well, it is heavy-handed, almost coarse, overly wilful. Obviously Beethoven was not satisfied with it or why else did he knock it off its original function as closing movement to the op. 130 quartet?



> 3. Wagner's operas are much better with cuts.


God, ain't that so! In fact, Wagner would be best if you deleted all of him except the *Tristan* Prelude. Not because it is great music. It's not. It is inept music, so inept he couldn't do what any music student could have done, find resolution for those damned melodies of his. No, the *Tristan* deserves to be preserved because of the great music it provoked, from Debussy and Schoenberg forward.



> 4. No one cares about the first three movements of Berlioz' Symphonie fantastique.


That's just about the only bearable Berlioz there is. His repiutation would be greatly enhanced, however, if you suppressed his God-awful Oratorios. I mean, what's an Oratorio, if not a failed Opera? Who needs that?



Rondo said:


> The same could be said of Beethoven's 9th. And, that's actually (but sadly) true.


Actually, the first three movements of the 9th are the only ones worth listening to. They add nothing new to his previous symphonies, but they are good. With the 4th movement he tried to inovate; but all he managed to produce was a bad imitation of Haendel, who is not even a good composer.

I mean, doesn't everyone in their right minds agree?
(or in what minds they have left in the case of music lovers from the other party)



> 5. Schoenberg's music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it.


Well, that it is true of Verklarte Nacht and Pelleas, so easy you can get them on a first try...



> 9. The so-called "happy" ending of Shostakovich's Fifth is perfectly sincere.


Actually, nothing Shostakovich ever wrote ever was sincere. The reason why is because everything he wrote was imitative and even border-line plagiarized and sincere composers compose on their own inspiration not on the inspiration of others.

11. Dvorak is no more than a second-fiddle to Brahms

12. Boulez is a nice man as well as a great composer

13. Tchaikovsky is trash



Serge said:


> The classical music dirtiest secret No. 1 is that as far as the masses are concerned it will always be beaten by Pop. Pathetic, I know. Can't compete with the market though.


If you try hard enough you just might get them to like Tchaikovsky. That is why he is so Pathetic. Sentimental mish-mash, just like popular song

14. Italian Opera is bad for you. I mean, let yourself get touched by those vulgar arias, and you may have started yourself onto that slippery slope that leads to popular song and even French-style _varieté_.

15. Except for Stravinsky, neo-classicism produced nothing worth listening to: not Martinu, not Hindemith, not anyone.


----------



## david johnson

I seemed to have misplaced my complete edition of Hurwitz masterpieces! Oh, well, there was nothing in the box anyway.


----------



## Vor Gott

Some of what I say may repeat what has been said in previous replies, but in spite of that I shall reply:

1. What? The only way I could see this is if one compared works from the same time in Mozart's life and only paid attention to the beats and ignored the rest. Indeed, he used many similar patterns on certain instruments, but it is quite a leap to say that it all sounds the same.

2. It is. There is no hidden beauty as was entertained in the movie _Copying Beethoven_ where Anna Holtz, his fictional copyist, has an almost religious experience hearing the Fuge as Beethoven apparently did-as heavenly music akin to that of his Ninth symphony. However, it still is a masterpiece, albeit one that humans do not prefer to listen to over and over again or find emotional comfort and/or pleasure in.

3. Yes, but only when taken as all other music is-neglecting the fact that such cuts would absolutely ruin the opera when viewed in standard performance.

4. ...Except Berlioz fans. Not many people care about the first three movements of Beethoven's Ninth as well, but that is just the way society treats Classical music.

5. Sort of addressed in 2.

6. "That's our opinion, we welcome yours."

7. Ahem.

8. Again, same stuff, but this one I do not see as well.

9. Sure, it is not very joyful, but it is not depressing either. What are you getting at anyway? Shostakovich has just as much "happy" works as most other composers.

10. What? They are some of the most frequently praised compositions in human history!

Oh dear, at least it seems the author had good intentions, but he seems to appeal to a less educated (in classical music) crowd.


----------



## Meaghan

(On the Grosse Fuge)



toucan said:


> Well, it is heavy-handed, almost coarse, overly wilful. Obviously Beethoven was not satisfied with it or why else did he knock it off its original function as closing movement to the op. 130 quartet?


Because it puzzled people! His publisher talked him into replacing it, even though it was the movement of which he was the most proud in the Op. 130 quartet. Contemporary audiences didn't like it, but Beethoven sure did.


----------



## Nix

Hmm... toucan we really don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. More like eye to knee. 

I second Meaghan's post about the Grosse Fugue... the rest there's not much to debate since it's all opinion. Although what exactly has Shostakovich plagiarized? The only thing I've come across that has similarities to his music is Strauss' 'Don Quioxte.' As for his sincerity, I find his 8th string quartet to be one of the most beautifully sincere works- written at a time when he was seriously considering suicide, and thought the quartet would be his last work.


----------



## toucan

Jerks are prone to knee-jerk reactions...


----------



## Nix

toucan said:


> Jerks are prone to knee-jerk reactions...


Ok... a kind of clever pun that didn't really have anything to do with what I said. Care to answer my question?


----------



## toucan

No buddy. That was dismissing as it deserves your guttersniping posting style. Nor do I have any time to waste with one who is ignorant of the spoof of Satie presented in the Danses Fantastiques, of Prokofiev in the First Symphony, of Charles Ives _Unanswered Question_ in the 2nd symphony, of Mahler in most of the subsequent symphonies, of Bartok in the String quartets, etc etc etc.. Nor can we be certain, when he is getting back to his grotesque mode, whether he is mimicking Stravinsky, Mahlerian Scherzi - or Satiesque humor. And if you can't learn a word or two about decent exchange of opinion, then get into punk music: that is where you'll find the highest available number of people you can relate to.


----------



## Nix

toucan said:


> No buddy. That was dismissing as it deserves your guttersniping posting style. Nor do I have any time to waste with one who is ignorant of the spoof of Satie presented in the Danses Fantastiques, of Prokofiev in the First Symphony, of Charles Ives _Unanswered Question_ in the 2nd symphony, of Mahler in most of the subsequent symphonies, of Bartok in the String quartets, etc etc etc.. Nor can we be certain, when he is getting back to his grotesque mode, whether he is mimicking Stravinsky, Mahlerian Scherzi - or Satiesque humor. And if you can't learn a word or two about decent exchange of opinion, then get into punk music: that is where you'll find the highest available number of people you can relate to.


I'm sorry... what part of my post did you find offensive exactly? The part where I said we don't see eye to eye, or when I said it didn't really matter because it was all opinion? Because to me, those are two pretty polite ways of disagreeing and not inviting any argument to the matter. And you think it's appropriate respond with name calling and a completely pretentious attitude towards a simple question? And then you lie to me when you say you don't have 'any time to waste' on me- but then follow with an entire paragraph showing that you clearly _do_ have the time!


----------



## starry

Meaghan said:


> (On the Grosse Fuge)
> 
> Because it puzzled people! His publisher talked him into replacing it, even though it was the movement of which he was the most proud in the Op. 130 quartet. Contemporary audiences didn't like it, but Beethoven sure did.


Yeh it worked well enough within that quartet. Maybe having it published separately with the other finale in its place got Beethoven more money, he had money problems.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Syllogism*

Usually I don't agree with Morons
The guy is a Moron, I don't agree with him.

That is HIS opinion. Not MY opinion.

Martin


----------



## emiellucifuge




----------



## myaskovsky2002

*That is the guy!!!!!*

I didn't know Emiellucifuge got his photo! Great!

LOL

Martin


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well its a photo of a Neantherthal...


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Lol*

a photo????? Who took it 100,000 years ago?

Martin, amused


----------



## emiellucifuge

I did, why?


----------



## superhorn

I don't believe Barbirolli ever performed,let alone recorded anything by Messiaen.
That just wasn't his kind of music.His tastes were pretty conservative.But he did quite a lot of then new music by English composers of his day.


----------



## superhorn

Wagner's music "inept"? Gee,I wish more composers would write music as "inept" as his.
His operas actually seem LONGER when they are cut. That's the paradoxical thing about themk. Schoenberg,who learned so much from Wagner's music,pointed this fact out.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Do you guys ever like to imagine that composers were still alive? Like, you might say to yourself "Beethoven would approve" or "Prokofiev would kill me right now." ?


----------



## Aksel

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Do you guys ever like to imagine that composers were still alive? Like, you might say to yourself "Beethoven would approve" or "Prokofiev would kill me right now." ?


Yes. Mostly while practicing, but still ...


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*I think this thread skcuS!*

!yas ot esle gnihtoN

nitraM


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Hey, *I* started this thread, and I'm an ambidextrous reader!

D !elohssa na em llac t'nod uoy sa gnol os dennab uoy teg ot yrt ot gniog ton ma I tuB).


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Lol*



> elohssa na em llac t'nod uoy sa gnol os dennab uoy teg ot yrt ot gniog ton ma I tuB).


LOL

I am not a savage. I didn't say assh...to anybody. It was a misunderstanding.

You are nice. I don't agree with your 10 principles, that's all.

Martin


----------



## Jacob Singer

*1. Mozart really does all sound the same.*
It doesn't _all_ sound the same. Just most of it.

*3. Wagner's operas are much better with cuts.*
Obviously. Possibly the most pretentious tripe of all-time.

*5. Schoenberg's music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it.*
I really wish someone had told me that before. Dammit!

*7. Bruckner couldn't write a symphonic allegro to save his life.*
Could he write anything else? Wait… _was that what killed him?_

*10. It's a good thing that "only" about 200 Bach cantatas survive.*
Just like the dinosaurs. Whew!


----------



## starry

Delicious Manager said:


> Articles like this should be (and are intended to be) taken with a large handful of salt. They're a sort of 'inside joke' for musos. I thought it was a bit of fun - nothing more, nothing less.


No, too much salt is bad for you. 

Articles like this should be avoided, not even funny enough really.


----------



## tdc

Jacob Singer said:


> *1. Mozart really does all sound the same.*
> It doesn't _all_ sound the same. Just most of it.
> 
> *3. Wagner's operas are much better with cuts.*
> Obviously. Possibly the most pretentious tripe of all-time.
> 
> *5. Schoenberg's music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it.*
> I really wish someone had told me that before. Dammit!
> 
> *7. Bruckner couldn't write a symphonic allegro to save his life.*
> Could he write anything else? Wait… _was that what killed him?_
> 
> *10. It's a good thing that "only" about 200 Bach cantatas survive.*
> Just like the dinosaurs. Whew!


It seems like most of your posts here are just quite insulting (masquerading as funny) to get a reaction out of people. Does it make you feel cool?


----------



## Jacob Singer

Heaven forbid someone should challenge a sacred cow or two and make it funny as hell in the process. If you ask me, that's just what this place needs. Besides, if there wasn't a grain of truth in a lot of this stuff, then it wouldn't strike a nerve so easily.

So lighten up, guy. Not everyone bows at the same altars that you do. Best get used to it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Jacob Singer said:


> Heaven forbid someone should challenge a sacred cow or two and make it funny as hell in the process. If you ask me, that's just what this place needs. Besides, if there wasn't a grain of truth in a lot of this stuff, then it wouldn't strike a nerve so easily.
> 
> So lighten up, guy. Not everyone bows at the same altars that you do. Best get used to it.


Who is pictured in your avatar?


----------



## starry

Right click on it - save picture as - and it says Duke Ellington.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

The 3 S: Scriabin, Sushi, Sashimi

Martin (anything goes here)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Jacob Singer said:


> *1. Mozart really does all sound the same.*
> It doesn't _all_ sound the same. Just most of it.


Same goes for Duke Ellington's 1,000 pieces of works.

Oh, by the way,  .


----------



## Jacob Singer

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Same goes for Duke Ellington's 1,000 pieces of works.
> 
> Oh, by the way,  .


Pardon me if I find that laughable, since you didn't even recognize his most famous photo less than a day ago, and apparently you couldn't even make an educated guess as to who he was.

You obviously just looked him up for the very first time on wiki (where you got the "1,000" figure instead of the actual "more than 2,000"), you listened to only a couple of his works, and then you formed your hilariously erroneous conclusion.

Or are you just a really fast listener? :rofl:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the fact is that Ellington's catalogue of work is *by far* the most diverse of the entire jazz era (as any jazz musician could have told you), and it is arguably the most diverse in the entire history of music composition.

:lol:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Here's a portrait of the troll-ish behaviour of member Jacob Singer:

This member wrote on page 5 of this thread:-



Jacob Singer said:


> *1. Mozart really does all sound the same.*
> It doesn't _all_ sound the same. Just most of it.
> 
> *3. Wagner's operas are much better with cuts.*
> Obviously. Possibly the most pretentious tripe of all-time.
> 
> *5. Schoenberg's music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it.*
> I really wish someone had told me that before. Dammit!
> 
> *7. Bruckner couldn't write a symphonic allegro to save his life.*
> Could he write anything else? Wait… _was that what killed him?_
> 
> *10. It's a good thing that "only" about 200 Bach cantatas survive.*
> Just like the dinosaurs. Whew!


Notice the use of the  smilie, presumably with a jocular intention. That was followed by member tdc's post, to which member Jacob Singer's reply was:-



Jacob Singer said:


> Heaven forbid someone should challenge a sacred cow or two and make it funny as hell in the process. If you ask me, that's just what this place needs. Besides, if there wasn't a grain of truth in a lot of this stuff, then it wouldn't strike a nerve so easily.
> 
> So lighten up, guy. Not everyone bows at the same altars that you do. Best get used to it.


Notice member Jacob Singer advised that "not everyone bows at the same altars" that many of us do, presumably referring to Mozart, Wagner etc.

I returned the kind jocular intention with my post above regarding Duke Elligton, see post #78 above. Now for the best part, which member Jacob Singer was at pains to ridicule regarding Mozart, Wagner, etc. but when given the same treatment regarding his/her avatar, he/she responded with post #79; an intolerance of any adverse opinion regarding Duke Ellington. I shall quote in full, in case if he/she decides to edit his/her post later:-



Jacob Singer said:


> Pardon me if I find that laughable, since you didn't even recognize his most famous photo less than a day ago, and apparently you couldn't even make an educated guess as to who he was.
> 
> You obviously just looked him up for the very first time on wiki (where you got the "1,000" figure instead of the actual "more than 2,000"), you listened to only a couple of his works, and then you formed your hilariously erroneous conclusion.
> 
> Or are you just a really fast listener? :rofl:
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but the fact is that Ellington's catalogue of work is *by far* the most diverse of the entire jazz era (as any jazz musician could have told you), and it is arguably the most diverse in the entire history of music composition.
> 
> :lol:


Moderators, your experienced judgement is called for.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Bravo!


----------



## graaf

As someone with no stakes in this debate, I would like to point out that Jacob Singer is experiencing what had to happen to anyone coming to classical music forum to sell jazz, as would most likely happen to anyone on jazz forums selling classical music. Can one expect anything much different? And all the things about holly cows and altars doesn't make much sense when you go to Italian restaurant to order miso soup - are you in it for the meal or for the bashing of Italians and their holly pizzas?


----------



## jhar26

Jacob Singer said:


> Pardon me if I find that laughable, since you didn't even recognize his most famous photo less than a day ago, and apparently you couldn't even make an educated guess as to who he was.
> 
> You obviously just looked him up for the very first time on wiki (where you got the "1,000" figure instead of the actual "more than 2,000"), you listened to only a couple of his works, and then you formed your hilariously erroneous conclusion.
> 
> Or are you just a really fast listener? :rofl:
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but the fact is that Ellington's catalogue of work is *by far* the most diverse of the entire jazz era (as any jazz musician could have told you), and it is arguably the most diverse in the entire history of music composition.
> 
> :lol:


If you make disparaging remarks about other people's holy cows you musn't be surprised if someone else does the same concerning yours. If you like to dish it out you must also be willing to take it.


----------



## starry




----------



## Jacob Singer

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Here's a portrait of the troll-ish behaviour of member Jacob Singer


In other words, since I proved you to be completely wrong, I must therefore be a troll, right?

How convenient. 



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> he/she responded with post #79; an intolerance of any adverse opinion regarding Duke Ellington.


Wow, who knew that intolerance could involve so much laughter? I almost fell out of my chair. :lmfao:



jhar26 said:


> If you make disparaging remarks about other people's holy cows you musn't be surprised if someone else does the same concerning yours. If you like to dish it out you must also be willing to take it.


Oh, I am absolutely loving this! 

The thing is, anyone can see that this thread is obviously about "grain-of-truth" observations made by the author of the article (a lot of which I agree with, as others do too).

So, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever for someone to choose _literally_ the most diverse jazz composer, and to make the preposterous statement that most of his stuff sounds the same (especially from someone who clearly doesn't know the first thing about his music). I'd have to be crazy not to take issue with that, as any jazz fan would. In contrast, we have 41 numbered Mozart symphonies, for example, and yes a lot of them do sound the same (and don't even get me started on Haydn). See the difference? It's quite literally night and day. Besides, I was actually going easy on Mozart (compared to some of the others), since I do actually like some of his stuff.

Also, the fact is that Ellington is not even my favorite musician/composer. I just thought that his pic would make a really cool avatar.

:lol:


----------



## tdc

Jacob Singer said:


> In other words, since I proved you to be completely wrong, I must therefore be a troll, right?
> 
> How convenient.
> 
> Wow, who knew that intolerance could involve so much laughter? I almost fell out of my chair. :lmfao:
> 
> Oh, I am absolutely loving this!
> 
> The thing is, anyone can see that this thread is obviously about "grain-of-truth" observations made by the author of the article (a lot of which I agree with, as others do too).
> 
> So, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever for someone to choose _literally_ the most diverse jazz composer, and to make the preposterous statement that most of his stuff sounds the same (especially from someone who clearly doesn't know the first thing about his music). I'd have to be crazy not to take issue with that, as any jazz fan would. In contrast, we have 41 numbered Mozart symphonies, for example, and yes a lot of them do sound the same (and don't even get me started on Haydn). See the difference? It's quite literally night and day. Besides, I was actually going easy on Mozart (compared to some of the others), since I do actually like some of his stuff.
> 
> Also, the fact is that Ellington is not even my favorite musician/composer. I just thought that his pic would make a really cool avatar.
> 
> :lol:


It wouldn't be that hard for me to pick your comment about Wagner to pieces, or for that matter your ridiculous signature which seems to suggest (again masquerading as humor) that one of the Belushi brothers is a bigger contributer to the world of music than J.S. Bach. Give me a break - too easy. However, (unlike yourself) I don't enjoy putting down other individual's musical tastes. It's a waste of time.


----------



## Argus

Jacob Singer said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble, but the fact is that Ellington's catalogue of work is *by far* the most diverse of the entire jazz era (as any jazz musician could have told you), and it is arguably the most diverse in the entire history of music composition.
> 
> :lol:


I like Ellington and you've probably listened to more of his music than I, but more diverse than Miles. From Cookin' with the MD Quintet, through Kind of Blue and Sketches of Spain, In a Silent Way and his early fusion up to the heavy funk of Agartha and Pangea, coming finally to the very 80's electronic/synthy stuff like Tutu. Yeah, Ellington combined big band swing, some New Orleans and Dixie stuff with his kind of Impressionist piano elements and obviously heavy blues influence but I still think Davis has the greater variety.

Maybe his compositions (as opposed to albums or jams) are more diverse, because with Miles' stuff you get the feeling he had so many great players as sidemen, his role wasn't as crucial as Ellingtons in making the final product what it was.

John Zorn might be up there too but he's all over the place in terms of what genre you can categorise him in.


----------



## starry

Diversity can be overrated when judging an individual composer.  Sometimes it's good for them to explore in detail a particular style than just switch from one to another alot.


----------



## Argus

starry said:


> Diversity can be overrated when judging an individual composer.  Sometimes it's good for them to explore in detail a particular style than just switch from one to another alot.


Most evolve over time, especially when innovations in technology allow for advancement in areas. But yeah, there's room for both the AC/DC's and Chuck Berry's of this world who find a sound and stick to it, and the artists who choose to change with time. Most move towards either freer (Coltrane, Beethoven, Liszt, Hendrix), more grandiose (U2, Coldplay, Muse) forms or sometimes the other way round (Cardew, Stravinsky, Nyman) or sometimes just kind of lateral movement (Bowie, Pink Floyd, Coleman). If change occurs as a natural progression in the artist, it just leads to more chance of more people liking at least some of their music.

It takes all sorts.


----------



## starry

There are so any styles available now it's easy for someone to try out many different ones, but some of those attempts are bound to be relative failures I think.


----------



## Jacob Singer

tdc said:


> It wouldn't be that hard for me to pick your comment about Wagner to pieces, or for that matter your ridiculous signature which seems to suggest (again masquerading as humor) that one of the Belushi brothers is a bigger contributer to the world of music than J.S. Bach.


It's just a joke, man. Sheesh. 



tdc said:


> Give me a break - too easy. However, (unlike yourself) I don't enjoy putting down other individual's musical tastes. It's a waste of time.


Oh ok. Thanks for your insights.



Argus said:


> I like Ellington and you've probably listened to more of his music than I, but more diverse than Miles. From Cookin' with the MD Quintet, through Kind of Blue and Sketches of Spain, In a Silent Way and his early fusion up to the heavy funk of Agartha and Pangea, coming finally to the very 80's electronic/synthy stuff like Tutu. Yeah, Ellington combined big band swing, some New Orleans and Dixie stuff with his kind of Impressionist piano elements and obviously heavy blues influence but I still think Davis has the greater variety.
> 
> Maybe his compositions (as opposed to albums or jams) are more diverse, because with Miles' stuff you get the feeling he had so many great players as sidemen, his role wasn't as crucial as Ellingtons in making the final product what it was.


You make some good points about Miles, and you obviously know your stuff, but Ellington did a ton of things beyond just the styles you mentioned. Some interesting examples include his _Black, Brown and Beige_ "tone parallel" to the African-American experience, his progressive _Harlem_ and _Far East_ suites, his film scoring, and of course all of his "sacred" music, not to mention the more popular song-type jazz and the countless compositional reinterpretations of his own (and others') musical works that he did through the years. So I'd say he has at least as many bases covered as Miles in the post-war musical areas (if not all the same bases), but you also have to consider his "jungle style" in the 1920's, along with his wide array of original contributions through the early 1940's that preceded Miles (things like his impressionistic _Mood Indigo_, the "locomotive" composition _Daybreak Express_, _Ko-Ko_, the bebop-esque _Cotton Tail_, etc.). Considering all that, I'd definitely give the edge to the Duke when it comes to overall diversity.

Regardless, they were both phenomenal.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

> Aww I thought this thread had to do with the secret lives of various composers
> 
> Most of those are generalizations, although I understand some points, like for Berlioz.
> 
> Another dirty secret: Borodin didn't actually write the Overture to Prince Igor :O


Who did? R-K?

Martin, puzzled.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Some things I don't like about this shread...*

- it is negative
- it comes from people who apparently don't know very well these composers
- you are speaking about major composers here, you are not respectful at all.

Respectful,

Martin (I hope I won't be banned)


----------



## myaskovsky2002

thread...not shread....LOL

Martin


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

myaskovsky2002 said:


> - it is negative
> - it comes from people who apparently don't know very well these composers
> - you are speaking about major composers here, you are not respectful at all.
> 
> Respectful,
> 
> Martin (I hope I won't be banned)


I agree with you.

HarpsichordConcerto, relaxed.


----------



## GraemeG

Jacob Singer said:


> ... and make it funny as hell in the process. If you ask me, that's just what this place needs...


Funny as hell? Get yourself down to NBC's studios. They're looking for people like you to be part of the live audience.
Scene 1
Lead character opens door <laughter>
Catches foot on rug <deep chuckles>
"Phew, that was close" <hysterical laughter>
Man, you'll be right at home...
GG


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Who did? R-K?
> 
> Martin, puzzled.


Glazunov  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Igor

Now you can see where I got my Avatar from.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Interesting the way you're demonstrating you were wrong my flutist friend...*



> Glazunov and I settled the matter as follows between us: he was to fill in all the gaps in Act III and *write down from memory the Overture played so often by the composer, while I was to orchestrate, *finish composing, and systematize all the rest that had been left unfinished and unorchestrated by Borodin."[10]
> -Nikolay Rimsky-Korsakov, Chronicle of My Musical Life, 1909
> 
> From your site...
> 
> I read R-K's book.
> 
> Then Glazunov didn't write the overture but rewrote it fron Borodin's head...


I'm sorry...

Martin

Change your Avatar....LOL. Put Borodin's instead...LOL


----------



## hammeredklavier

Delicious Manager said:


> 1. Mozart really does all sound the same.
> *This is so obviously a spoof.*


He has admitted it.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

The only thing I agree with him without reservation is the Wagner one. I do in fact make my own abridged versions of Wagner's operas. Wagner wrote the most exciting and the most boring music in the same work!


----------



## superhorn

Weston said:


> The first link maybe, but an adagio in and of itself does not beauty make. Still I keep trying because I heard an interview with the guy,
> 
> 
> 
> and he seems so full of humility and genuine spirituality I feel there must be something there for me even if I don't get it yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Well these lists at least get us thinking, so it's all good.
> 
> 1. Shostakovich and Mahler recycled too many themes
> Agreed at least about Shostakovich, but that's a little like saying The Art of the Fugue recycled the same theme too often. I do have trouble telling Shotakovich's string quartets apart sometimes.
> . . .
> 
> 4. Brahms only wrote like he was writing for piano
> I must disagree with this. I find his piano music a but muddy for my ears with his heavy crowded harmonies in the lower keys. I find his chamber work more luminous and uplifting.
> 
> 5. There are too many violin concertos and not enough cello
> You got that right!
> 
> 8. Haydn wrote more then his "Suprise" and "London" symphonies.
> I was listening to one of his middle symphonies at work this week, I think number 61. My players are usually set to random so I never know exactly what I'm hearing. I thought the adagio was Beethoven. It's astonishing!
> 
> 10. Music is not "chance"
> I disagree with this. I think chance could play a huge role in music as in visual art. It can at the very least be a springboard.


----------



## superhorn

Actually, there are too few viola concertos . There are plenty of wonderful cello concertos . But the viola is such a cool and underrated instrument .


----------



## fbjim

I love the first three movements of the Fantastique though that piece is really, really hard to conduct properly.

The first movement is such a free-flowing expression of symphonic drama that I was legitimately shocked when I discovered there was an "exposition repeat" in it - I actually think this should not be taken because a bit like Brahms 4/1 (kind of a silly comparison but hey) part of the power is how it has the dramatic power of sonata form but seems unconstrained by it. 

The third movement is a pastoral movement with a psychotic breakdown, what's not to like?


----------



## Merl

Clickbait. Pure and simple.


----------



## EdwardBast

Merl said:


> Clickbait. Pure and simple.


I have never listened to the man and you might be right. But it seems likely to me that Hurwitz doesn't believe any of the canards he listed and is lampooning them to flush out and embarrass those who do(?)


----------



## fbjim

it's an old joke article, i dont think it really merits deep thought

he did kind of expand on the Fantastique one in a review where he said something along the lines of the first three movements sometimes being boring because of them being extremely difficult to conduct


----------



## ORigel

EdwardBast said:


> I have never listened to the man and you might be right. But it seems likely to me that Hurwitz doesn't believe any of the canards he listed and is lampooning them to flush out and embarrass those who do(?)


While Hurwitz was trolling with the article, he does think that Bruckner did not write symphonic allegros (that is, allegros that listeners perceive as fast) and that Schumann was often (not always!) a bad or so-so orchestrator.

And it's no secret that Hurwitz prefers Haydn to Mozart and Handel to Bach. The listicle items in the article about Bach and Mozart are pure trolling. Hurwitz wrote a couple books on how to appreciate Mozart's music.

There is a controversial opinion he holds that is not on the list: Dvorak, he says, is an even greater composer than Brahms, because Dvorak was more versatile.


----------



## pianozach

Fsharpmajor said:


> See what you think of this short article by David Hurwitz. The list of ten dirty secrets is at the end of it:
> 
> *http://www.classicstoday.com/features/0404-editorial.asp*


The page you are trying to reach does not exist, or has been moved. Please use the menus or the search box to find what you are looking for.


----------



## Philidor

May I add my secrets?

1. First of all, music has to please you. That's by far the most important duty of music.
2. Viola players are former violin players that failed in that business.
3. Wagner is a 1st rate composer for 2nd rate listeners.
4. Conductors are clearly overestimated. For at least half of the cases, the orchestra would play better without them.
5. Sibelius comes off best in winter, thinking of finnish lakes and woods with moonshine.
6. Böhm was the best Mozart conductor for eternity.
7. And yes, the idea of "the best" is valid is classical music. Thus, all rankings etc. are meaningful.
8. You can easily neglect everything before Bach and after Strauss.
9. You are always entitled to judge composers, pieces and musicians. Always remember that you don't have to be a chicken in order to identify a rotten egg.
10. Last but not least, music has to please you. That's by far the most important duty of music.

And please don't take it too seriously ...


----------



## MarkW

A personal eleventh: The motif B-A-C-H (in German notation) is an ugly motif, and all the various pieces written based upon it because of its connotations are correspondingly ugly.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I actually think the motive was not mainly picked so often because of its connotations but because it is a cool motive with the two half steps... Cf. the somewhat similar 4 tone motive Beethoven used in op.133 and other late quartets.


----------



## Philidor

Already Sweelinck used that motif ... certainly not influenced by J. S. Bach ...


----------



## Simon Moon

There has been a lot of zombie threads around here lately.

But I'll respond to the only point in the original article that I care about.

*5. Schoenberg's music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it.*

I could never quite understand this sort of criticism leveled at a lot of 20th century music.

Even if I were to agree with the statement, there are so many other reasons to listen to classical music than obvious, beauty or attractiveness. There is: complexity, implied melody, there may be other sorts of beauty than what is found in common practice, there is underlying symmetry*, there may be intense feelings of catharsis created by the music of Schoenberg and other 20th century and modern composers.

"Picasso's "Guernica" never looks any more attractive, no matter how many times you look at it". Well, yeah, that's the idea.

Hurwitz' statemen may be a category error.

*there are books and scholarly articles written about it.


----------



## Red Terror

Fsharpmajor said:


> See what you think of this short article by David Hurwitz. The list of ten dirty secrets is at the end of it:
> 
> *http://www.classicstoday.com/features/0404-editorial.asp*


I love Dave and if you're acquainted with his sardonic sense of humor, this piece is a hoot.

FYI: He likes both Schoenberg and Lizt.


----------



## EvaBaron

Philidor said:


> May I add my secrets?
> 
> 1. First of all, music has to please you. That's by far the most important duty of music.
> 2. Viola players are former violin players that failed in that business.
> 3. Wagner is a 1st rate composer for 2nd rate listeners.
> 4. Conductors are clearly overestimated. For at least half of the cases, the orchestra would play better without them.
> 5. Sibelius comes off best in winter, thinking of finnish lakes and woods with moonshine.
> 6. Böhm was the best Mozart conductor for eternity.
> 7. And yes, the idea of "the best" is valid is classical music. Thus, all rankings etc. are meaningful.
> 8. You can easily neglect everything before Bach and after Strauss.
> 9. You are always entitled to judge composers, pieces and musicians. Always remember that you don't have to be a chicken in order to identify a rotten egg.
> 10. Last but not least, music has to please you. That's by far the most important duty of music.
> 
> And please don't take it too seriously ...


I’ll challenge your number 6. Marriner and Mackerras are both better Mozart conductors


----------



## Philidor

EvaBaron said:


> I’ll challenge your number 6. Marriner and Mackerras are both better Mozart conductors


Don't take them too seriously ... much more a weak try for a satire on Hurwitz' statements than expressing my opinion ...


----------



## CatchARisingStar

Hurwitz is full of himself. Very egotistical person. Have you ever seen someone elevate a tam tam to the level of a Steinway or Stradivarius? I get it that he loved playing the instrument, but golly, to desecrate a performance because the tam tam player wasn't heard that well is not the crime of the century.


----------



## Enthusiast

superhorn said:


> Actually, there are too few viola concertos . There are plenty of wonderful cello concertos . But the viola is such a cool and underrated instrument .


I agree, I guess. I can only think of a few from before the 20th century but since 1950 it does seem that the situation is getting a lot better. BTW, someone somewhere on this site (perhaps it was you?!) recommended Bruch's concerto for clarinet and viola as a lovely work, an excellent recommendation I found and am happy to pass on.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Enthusiast said:


> I agree, I guess. I can only think of a few from before the 20th century but since 1950 it does seem that the situation is getting a lot better. BTW, someone somewhere on this site (perhaps it was you?!) recommended Bruch's concerto for clarinet and viola as a lovely work, an excellent recommendation I found and am happy to pass on.


That was me. Glad you liked it.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ A recommendation I also praised on the current listening thread a week or so earlier! I think I named you on that occasion.


----------



## Xisten267

Philidor said:


> May I add my secrets?
> 
> 1. First of all, music has to please you. That's by far the most important duty of music.
> 2. Viola players are former violin players that failed in that business.
> 3. Wagner is a 1st rate composer for 2nd rate listeners.
> 4. Conductors are clearly overestimated. For at least half of the cases, the orchestra would play better without them.
> 5. Sibelius comes off best in winter, thinking of finnish lakes and woods with moonshine.
> 6. Böhm was the best Mozart conductor for eternity.
> 7. And yes, the idea of "the best" is valid is classical music. Thus, all rankings etc. are meaningful.
> 8. You can easily neglect everything before Bach and after Strauss.
> 9. You are always entitled to judge composers, pieces and musicians. Always remember that you don't have to be a chicken in order to identify a rotten egg.
> 10. Last but not least, music has to please you. That's by far the most important duty of music.
> 
> And please don't take it too seriously ...


Maybe not dirty enough, but here are ten of my secrets:

Bach, Mozart and Beethoven aren't overrated, they just are _that_ good;
Wagner's operas are long, heavy and deal with passionate emotions and deep philosophical questions, and this is why so many people turn their noses up to them. Nonetheless, he _is_ one of the very greatest composers;
John Cage was an awful composer, and the only true important lesson he left to later musicians is that noise can be musical;
Mahler actually had a happy and very successful life, better than those of many other famous artists;
Technique doesn't necessarily translate into meaning, and there are classical compositions that are extremely complex in the former and trivial in the latter;
Greatness exists, regardless of taste, and there are musicians that just _are_ better than others;
Music for the cinema can be classical just as music for the theaters also can, and John Williams _is_ one of the finest classical music composers still alive;
The golden age of classical music began around the 1700s and ended around the 1970s; it should be acknowledged that there _is_ good music in the genre to be found outside of this time span though;
When one is listening to a famous piece of music for the first times, it's a nice idea to hear what those who like it have to say, as it's good to share their enthusiasm; nonetheless, it's a bad idea to pay attention to those who dislike it, for blind spots should not be shared;
The popularity of music pieces among non-casual listeners _is_ an indicative of quality, but there are impopular works that are quite good.


----------

