# Middle Ground between 2 Composers Game



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

In this game, you try to find the middle ground between 2 different composers by putting another composer somewhere in the middle between those 2 styles. I'll start it off.
Tchaikovsky and Schnittke.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

Wow, hard game! I unfortunately cannot play because I know almost nothing of Schnittke...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Easy. Bach. 

Monteverdi and Holst


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

> Monteverdi and Holst?


George Bizet(?!)

Mozart - x - Beethoven
Brahms - y - Sibelius

Guess who are x and y!
I will reveal them later (not much different, but still)


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Wow, hard game! I unfortunately cannot play because I know almost nothing of Schnittke...


I would say Tchaikovsky->Shostakovich->Schnittke or Tchaikovsky->Prokofiev->Schnittke.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> I would say Tchaikovsky->Shostakovich->Schnittke or Tchaikovsky->Prokofiev->Schnittke.


I would say Tchaikovsky->Bach->Schnittke.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I'm stumped with Monteverdi - Holst: too difficult for me to think of one composer that links both of these bearing in mind that they were about 300 years apart!

x = Haydn, unless that is too obvious.
y = Tchaikovsky, ditto.

Do I assume the 'missing link' doesn't necessarily have to be chronologically stuck in the middle of the other two, then?


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> George Bizet(?!)
> 
> Mozart - x - Beethoven
> Brahms - y - Sibelius
> ...


x = Haydn, of course. "May you receive the spirit of Mozart through the hands of Haydn."
y = Dvorak perhaps? (Dvorak could be described as Brahms + nationalism; all three were major symphonists and wrote violin concertos)


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

My turn.

Chopin & Bruckner.
Liszt & Debussy.
William Byrd & Dvorak.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Wrong! Hausmusik is right for one case.

X is definitely *Schubert*. It's more obvious that Mozart is the middleground between Haydn and Beethoven.
Y could be more varied, but I meant *Dvorak*.



Hausmusik said:


> My turn.
> 
> Chopin & Bruckner.
> Liszt & Debussy.
> William Byrd & Dvorak.


1st one ?! One is the master of Piano, the other is the master of Symphony... So I guess Saint Saens.
2nd one, I dont know.
3rd one, Handel (or even Mozart)?


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Hausmusik said:


> My turn.
> 
> Chopin & Bruckner.
> Liszt & Debussy.
> William Byrd & Dvorak.


1. Brahms
2. Ravel
3. Schubert?


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

Here's one: Brahms and Tchaikovsky.
See if you can guess the one I have in mind!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I would say Tchaikovsky->Bach->Schnittke.


How did you come up with that answer? Bach is over 100 years before Tchaikovsky and over 200 years before Schnittke? This one should be easy. Bach->______->Haydn
And my answer to the previous post is Dvorak.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

1. For Chopin and Bruckner, I had in mind *Schubert*---an adventurous composer of piano sonatas and piano character pieces but also a master of writing instrumental works of "heavenly length"----Brahms was a very good answer too, crmoorhead, as would be Schumann perhaps (the Rhenish symphony is kind of Brucknerian in some ways, isn't it?).

2. For Liszt and Debussy, I had in mind *Saint-Saens*--midway between the impressionism and elusiveness of Debussy and the extroverted showmanship of Liszt. (So Arsakes had the right answer but to the wrong question!)

3. For Byrd and Dvorak, I had in mind *Vaughan Williams*, who straddles English choral tradition and the late romantic symphony. Tallis might have been better than Byrd, but I thought it was too on-the-nose.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Here's one: Brahms and Tchaikovsky.
> See if you can guess the one I have in mind!


A late Romantic who is both an inveterate tunesmith given to writing tone poems and someone committed to working within the confines of inherited musical forms like the symphony, the concerto, the string quartet, the piano trio, etc. It has gotta be Dvorak.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> And my answer to the previous post is Dvorak.





Hausmusik said:


> A late Romantic who is both an inveterate tunesmith given to writing tone poems and someone committed to working within the confines of inherited musical forms like the symphony, the concerto, the string quartet, the piano trio, etc. It has gotta be Dvorak.


Oh, I was thinking Schumann, but since you both said Dvorak, that's probably an even better answer!


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

Hildegard and Xenakis


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Toddlertoddy said:


> Hildegard and Xenakis


Messiaen! Highly religious and yet atonal and 20th century.

What about Stravinsky and Vivaldi?


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I'm K.O'd! lol



> What about Stravinsky and Vivaldi?


Mahler, likely...


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Beethoven and Chopin.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

StevenOBrien said:


> Beethoven and Chopin.


Bob Schumann. Chopin's introverted-ness and desire to write lot's of very personal, intimate piano works combined with Beethoven's extroversion and German-ness.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Mozart & Merzbow


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Hausmusik said:


> 2. For Liszt and Debussy, I had in mind *Saint-Saens*--midway between the impressionism and elusiveness of Debussy and the extroverted showmanship of Liszt. (So Arsakes had the right answer but to the wrong question!)


When will Liszt be described differently? Why are the main adjectives that describe his music so often something like 'extroverted showmanship.' Maybe if you limit his output to a few opera fantasies, the grand galop chromatique and hungarian rhapsodies, sure. But the majority of his output (basically the works he actually tried to create entirely for a musical purpose, which number well into the hundreds) - even works like the Transcendental Etudes, first Mephisto Waltz, Orage, Totentanz, the Dante Sonata, etc - certainly don't deserve to be described in a way that has such a negative connotation. In fact, showmanship has next to nothing to do with them - even if they can certainly (and are usually) be extroverted and virtuosic.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Mozart & Merzbow


Takemitsu. Pieces that have a large focus on pure sound but with the grace and beauty of Mozart.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

bach and gershwin?
(actually i have yet a perfect answer for this, but i'm curious to know what others think )


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

norman bates said:


> bach and gershwin?
> (actually i have yet a perfect answer for this, but i'm curious to know what others think )


Mendelssohn I assume (very long range of composers in between)


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Lisztian said:


> When will Liszt be described differently? Why are the main adjectives that describe his music so often something like 'extroverted showmanship.' Maybe if you limit his output to a few opera fantasies, the grand galop chromatique and hungarian rhapsodies, sure. But the majority of his output (basically the works he actually tried to create entirely for a musical purpose, which number well into the hundreds) - even works like the Transcendental Etudes, first Mephisto Waltz, Orage, Totentanz, the Dante Sonata, etc - certainly don't deserve to be described in a way that has such a negative connotation. In fact, showmanship has next to nothing to do with them - even if they can certainly (and are usually) be extroverted and virtuosic.


Lisztian,
Totentanz not a showpiece!? Seriously now.

As to the "negative connotation": all in your head. I do not dislike Liszt for being a showman fond of composing music that allowed him to engage in extroverted displays of technical virtuousity.

It appears you are angry at me for calling your favorite composer "vulgar" or "meretricious," and the fact that I did not use any such words is no consolation to you. You even seem to agree with my post, when you say that his works "can certainly (and are usually) be extroverted and virtuosic." So why are you jumping down my throat for saying the same thing? I just don't get it. Are you just looking to stir up a fight?

By the way, have you read _After the Golden Age_ about pianism in the age of Liszt? I am basing my phrase "extroverted showmanship" on a pretty good understanding of Liszt's music, his performance practices, the relationship between his compositions and his career as a performer, etc.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Hausmusik said:


> Lisztian,
> Totentanz not a showpiece!? Seriously now. As to the negative connotation: you are reading it into my language. I meant it as a neutral descriptor. I do not dislike Liszt for being a showman fond of extroverted virtuosic displays. It sounds to me like it is you who has a problem with such qualities / their being applied to Liszt.
> 
> In fact on rereading your post I do not really understand what possible definition you are using for showmanship since you have separated it from virtuosity when I was specifically using them as synonyms as is abundantly clear from my post.
> ...


I'm not trying to start an argument - and I was (pretty) sure what you say now is what you meant. I am sorry for seeming confronting and argumentative in my post, but I simply don't like his music being described as that of a showman, so I decided to make a post on it - whether you meant it in a negative way or not. I am not angry at you or even feeling/thinking anything negative about you at all.

And with Totentanz I guess it depends on how you define 'showpiece'. Certainly the work can be used for show and is a thrilling piece that uses virtuosic writing, but I do not consider it a showpiece and I seriously doubt Liszt would have too. I could be wrong here - Liszt was fond of virtuoso display - but so many pieces by Liszt I have learnt to try to hear the virtuosity as a means to a purely musical end rather than a 'showy' one. In works like the Dante sonata some passages which at first seem ridiculous were actually written with a musical purpose in mind and are really quite vividly descriptive when you understand them. I am not as convinced of the Totentanz being wholly 'musical' but from what i've read about Liszt's intentions I think it is certainly a piece to take seriously in this way rather than a showpiece, and I am trying to understand it in a purely musical way (it was one of Bartok's favourite works not because of any flash, but because of what the music meant/depicted) - and I think every listener of Liszt's music would do well to try that, and not give up, in most of his serious works.

I have not read the book - but I am well aware of the pianistic 'culture' in Liszt's day.


----------



## ZombieBeethoven (Jan 17, 2012)

No, no, no. People you are getting this all wrong. Clearly, Wagner is at the center of all things!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Wagner is the beginning and the end of course.


----------



## ZombieBeethoven (Jan 17, 2012)

Wagner and Wagner?
Answer - Wagner
Come on, Couchie, we can't do this all by ourselves.


----------

