# Your Favorite Countries/Regions for Classical Music!



## Huilunsoittaja

I allow you to choose more than one. Pick at most 3.

OMG WHAT HAVE I DONE???? I LEFT OUT RUSSIA! How do I undo that???? No, I can't undo. 

Ok, "Other" ONLY counts as Russia. If you have another country you like, don't count them in, just name them below.


----------



## emiellucifuge

LOL! Ill wait for Russia to be added...


----------



## World Violist

I voted Germany (for Bach and Webern in particular), France (for just about everyone post-Wagner), and "Other" to represent Northern Europe (particularly Finland, Estonia, those places; no Russia for me, sorry).


----------



## Aramis

I remember at least two threads on this subject.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Aramis said:


> I remember at least two threads on this subject.


They're lost in the shuffle now, though. This is for update.


----------



## Weston

I think Spain and Latin America are as different as the UK and the USA, or almost so. No matter I wouldn't include them in my top three unless I can count Scarlatti as Spanish, and he wasn't.

I chose Germany / Austria, UK, and Russia / Other. 

Not sure about Eastern Europe either. Does that include Dvorak, Liszt, and Chopin? Quite a broad range of styles and traditions. Also where is Scandinavia? Oh, never mind. I'm nit-picking.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Not going by the poll for now, my top 3 would be:

Russia
Germany/Austria - But this pains me to miss out some eastern european composers that are germanic in style.
France - purely for impressionism, Boulez and Messiaen


----------



## dmg

:lol: :lol:

Prokofiev icon, Prokofiev in your sig, and you leave his country out of the choices!  

It would have been more suiting if you had covered your error by saying something along the lines of "Since Russia is obviously the best place, this poll is for second best." Of course, it would have also been less funny.

:lol: 

Anyway, for me, the order would be:

Germany/Austria
Russia
Eastern Europe
Scandinavia/Finland
Italy
North America (USA, Canada)
France
Great Britain
Far East (Japan, China, Korea)
Latin America


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Huilunsoittaja said:


> OMG WHAT HAVE I DONE???? I LEFT OUT RUSSIA! How do I undo that????


You can't. We can. 


Huilunsoittaja said:


> Ok, "Other" ONLY counts as Russia. If you have another country you like, don't count them in, just name them below.


Based on the fact that no one specified a different region in their posts, we judged that the previous votes listed for "other" were all intended for Russia. If any weren't, whoever did so didn't read the "ballot proposition" carefully enough.


----------



## anshuman

My pick:
1) Germany/Austria
2) Russia
3) Eastern Europe/Bloc
4) France
But where do I put Sibelius. Anyway to me sometimes there is little connection between music and a particular region. Is Tchaikovsky more Russian or Rimsky? Is Elgar quintessentially english or Delius(or Handel)?What about Chopin. Is his music more polish(eastern european!)or that of composer of Halka?Sorry I know the thread is not about any such connections. It's just that why would a particular region be our favourite? Why do i like the Karelia suite? Do I know anything about Karelia? This favourire region concept seems to belie the fact that regions are political,cultural, social entities whose shape has changed through history. We all seem to suffer from totalizing impulses. Something is GERMANIC or ENGLISH. To take the example from poetry, T.S Eliot was technically american but in poetry and essays always tried to prove that European civilization and culture is the bedrock of his poetry. Chopin wrote Mazurkas,Krakoviaks but lived in Paris.


----------



## Aramis

> But where do I put Sibelius. Anyway to me sometimes there is little connection between music and a particular region. Is Tchaikovsky more Russian or Rimsky? Is Elgar quintessentially english or Delius(or Handel)?What about Chopin. Is his music more polish(eastern european!)or that of composer of Halka?Sorry I know the thread is not about any such connections. It's just that why would a particular region be our favourite? Why do i like the Karelia suite? Do I know anything about Karelia? This favourire region concept seems to belie the fact that regions are political,cultural, social entities whose shape has changed through history. We all seem to suffer from totalizing impulses. Something is GERMANIC or ENGLISH. To take the example from poetry, T.S Eliot was technically american but in poetry and essays always tried to prove that European civilization and culture is the bedrock of his poetry. Chopin wrote Mazurkas,Krakoviaks but lived in Paris.


Sometimes, yes, but such composers are minority - Liszt, Handel perhaps.

Besides, it really depends what do you take for definition. Where the music comes from and where was written? To which cultural realm it belongs? For me it's latter and therefore answers to most of question you made are obvious.


----------



## anshuman

Aramis said:


> Sometimes, yes, but such composers are minority - Liszt, Handel perhaps.
> 
> Besides, it really depends what do you take for definition. Where the music comes from and where was written? To which cultural realm it belongs? For me it's latter and therefore answers to most of question you made are obvious.


But is the culture of a particular region in a state of stasis so that we can essentialize something as polish or german? Dont you think that regional/national identities keep on shifting? The very concept of polishness in the 19 century was based on resisting russian imperialism and Bismarck's predatory eye. Yet at the turn of the century a writer of polish descent(his father was a freedom fighter) is highly confused about imperialist practices of the english and changes his polish name to an English one(Joseph Conrad).


----------



## Aramis

anshuman said:


> But is the culture of a particular region in a state of stasis so that we can essentialize something as polish or german? Dont you think that regional/national identities keep on shifting? The very concept of polishness in the 19 century was based on resisting russian imperialism and Bismarck's predatory eye. Yet at the turn of the century a writer of polish descent(his father was a freedom fighter) is highly confused about imperialist practices of the english and changes his polish name to an English one(Joseph Conrad).


Example of Conrad doesn't change much, I already wrote that there are exceptions difficult to put anywhere. Composers you mentioned before are unquestionable though in their adherence. How can you ask about Sibelius, someone who wrote works like Finlandia and Tapiola and is so connected with his homeland? Tchaikovsky, who despite having some western academic influences still was clearly part of national music movement? And Chopin? Even his years in Paris make him more, not less Polish as Great Emigration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Emigration) is strongly part of this culture.


----------



## Art Rock

1. Germany/Austria
2. UK/Ireland
3. Eastern Europe
4. Russia/Soviet Union
5. Scandinavia/Finland
6. France
7. USA
8. Italy
9. Australia/New Zealand
10. Latin America


----------



## anshuman

Aramis said:


> Example of Conrad doesn't change much, I already wrote that there are exceptions difficult to put anywhere. Composers you mentioned before are unquestionable though in their adherence. How can you ask about Sibelius, someone who wrote works like Finlandia and Tapiola and is so connected with his homeland? Tchaikovsky, who despite having some western academic influences still was clearly part of national music movement? And Chopin? Even his years in Paris make him more, not less Polish as Great Emigration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Emigration) is strongly part of this culture.


I did not question Sibelius's nationalism. It was just an expression of irritation as the existing categories only gave the 'other' option for Sibelius which in turn brought me to the question we are discussing. Well I guess what you see as an exception , I see as a tenuous and everchanging relation between the the artist and the regions they belong to. I'm in no way denying the existence og genuinely nationalistic or regional music.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Chi_townPhilly said:


> You can't. We can.
> Based on the fact that no one specified a different region in their posts, we judged that the previous votes listed for "other" were all intended for Russia. If any weren't, whoever did so didn't read the "ballot proposition" carefully enough.


Thank you so much!

Yeah, I also sorta forgot about Northern Europe, I guess they are a unique region unto themselves. I mean, there's Sibelius, Alfven, Nielsen, and Grieg too.

That's also ironic, since I'm of Finnish/Swedish origin. 

If I had to, I may put them with Eastern Europe, especially Finland and Estonia, but Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. more likely in "Other"


----------



## Head_case

I voted for Russia, although my taste is distinctly more Soviet. 

The Latvian, Lithuanian; Georgian and ethnic composers like Ciurlionis; Tuur; Part; Vasks; Nasidze; etc are definitely interesting, although it is probably more that spirit of composer, like Myaskovsky; Shebalin; Salmanov; Shostakovich; Weinberg whose 'voice' arose against the oppressive features of the cultural context in which they lived which formed their musical expression for me. 

On the other hand, boundary composers, like Maconchy (Irish, but resident in England); Foulds (English, but resident in France/India); Enescu (Romanian, but resident in France); Gan Ge Ru (Chinese, but resident in USA) form a category who defy nationalistic tendencies. I guess the language of music transcends nationalism, just as much as it can be informed by; pro- or contra- nationalism too.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Aramis said:


> I remember at least two threads on this subject.


Yeah.

After a fashion, I started a thread a few years ago- here.

Then, there was another thread (with a poll attached)- here.

My viewpoint has always been that if you combine Germany & Austria, they kind of lap the field. It's so decisive that (at the highest levels) one could make a case for Germany & Austria v. Rest of the World- (with 'Rest of World' possibly coming up unfavorably in the comparison). I know I've used a similar metaphor before- but if we're considering nation of origin, and going as deep as an NBA-style '12 man roster,' then Germany & Austria would contain-


*Beethoven
*Mozart
*Bach
*Wagner
*Haydn
*Brahms
*Schubert
*Handel
*Schumann
*Mendelssohn
*Mahler
*R. Strauss

'Rest of World' would be hard-pressed to list out twelve that matches _that_ dozen.

If my vote were entirely my own, I'd say 1) *Germany & Austria*, 2) _Russia_, and 3) France- but I'd like to use one of my votes to repair a discrepency in the reconfiguration of the ballot. _World Violist_ made clear that his "other' vote was not to go to Russia, but has been credited as such in the results. So, instead of voting for Russia myself, I'd like to use the vote that would have gone there as a proxy for him and direct it to "other;" to reflect HIS intention to support the _Norden_ regions.


----------



## World Violist

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Based on the fact that no one specified a different region in their posts, we judged that the previous votes listed for "other" were all intended for Russia. If any weren't, whoever did so didn't read the "ballot proposition" carefully enough.


I did specify a different region in my post, and I believe I started typing my post before the "ballot proposition" was proposed... so I had no idea I was voting for Russia. I believe that I also specifically said I wouldn't vote Russia. Oh well.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

In effect, it's like you voted for Russia on my behalf, and I voted for Scandinavia on your behalf. 

So (hopefully), no lasting harm done. "?"


----------



## starry

Best region the planet Earth, great region for music.


----------



## Grosse Fugue

Austria/Germany
Italy
Russia
England
USA

Not in any real order


----------



## World Violist

Chi_townPhilly said:


> In effect, it's like you voted for Russia on my behalf, and I voted for Scandinavia on your behalf.
> 
> So (hopefully), no lasting harm done. "?"


Oh, very good. At least my vote is being represented somehow.:tiphat:


----------



## Argus

America.

Best region for music in general.

If Europe is the cheese, Africa is the beef, South America is the pickles and onions, Asia is the lettuce, then North America is the sesame seed buns that hold the Big Mac together. And I haven't eaten at a McDonalds in years.

Americans, where is your patriotism now?

The two people who voted for you are English.


----------



## toucan

West Europe (Paris, Berlin, London, Milan) is still the best there is for classical music - with a preference for Paris, which year after year has very good programs (in several important venues) and is also convenient, if you want a musical week-end holiday to London, Salzburg, Vienna etc.

In the United States the North East is where it's at - New York of course, which is furthermore just a shuttle away from Washington, Boston and Philadelphia + trips to Cleveland and Chicago always feasible, if the concert you want to attend is during the week-end.


----------



## emiellucifuge

toucan said:


> West Europe (Paris, Berlin, London, Milan) is still the best there is for classical music - with a preference for Paris, which year after year has very good programs (in several important venues) and is also convenient, if you want a musical week-end holiday to London, Salzburg, Vienna etc.
> .


How dare you forget Amsterdam


----------



## Almaviva

Other: my living room.


----------



## Almaviva

Chi_townPhilly said:


> My viewpoint has always been that if you combine Germany & Austria, they kind of lap the field. It's so decisive that (at the highest levels) one could make a case for Germany & Austria v. Rest of the World- (with 'Rest of World' possibly coming up unfavorably in the comparison). I know I've used a similar metaphor before- but if we're considering nation of origin, and going as deep as an NBA-style '12 man roster,' then Germany & Austria would contain-
> 
> *Beethoven
> *Mozart
> *Bach
> *Wagner
> *Haydn
> *Brahms
> *Schubert
> *Handel
> *Schumann
> *Mendelssohn
> *Mahler
> *R. Strauss
> 
> 'Rest of World' would be hard-pressed to list out twelve that matches _that_ dozen.


Since my passion is opera, I do place Italy as matching German/Austria.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*I think people here are starting to know me...*

What is Martin's favourite country?

R.O.C. (Russia of course).

After...Austria (Schönberg, Schreker, Zemlinsky, Mahler, Wellesz)
after....Italy maybe (Dallapiccola, Puccini)
after Germany probably (Wagner, Richard Strauss)
after France (Massenet, Bizet, Gounod, Debussy)

after...I don't know, sometimes Finland...This country has many GOOD contemporary composers.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*You shouldn't put Austria and Germany together*

Those are very different countries...it is just the same language and...not even. German people say Austrian don't speak well the language...

Can you compare Paul Hindemith with Alban Berg?

Martin


----------



## Jacob Singer

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Those are very different countries...it is just the same language and...not even. German people say Austrian don't speak well the language...


Indeed.

People assume that just because they both speak dialects of German, that they should somehow be included together. Considering their histories, that's a bizarre assumption.

The Austrian Empire - _entirely separate from Germany_ - tied the eastern European nations together into a powerful empire that existed for hundreds of years. By the 19th century, it was not only seen as integral to protect the various nations under her control against the burgeoning empire of Russia to the east, but it served as a check against the growing power of the German states as well (which were dominated by Prussia, and which eventually united into one German Empire under Bismarck). Vienna was the heart of the Austrian Empire, just as it had been for centuries (and it became the empire of Austria-Hungary in 1867).

The bottom line is that _nobody_ back then would have included Austria and Germany together (even if some Germans indeed wanted to somehow bring Austria and Bohemia into a unified Germany). The only time that Austria has ever been part of Germany was from 1938-1945 under Hitler.


----------



## Guest

Germany (Brahms and Mendelssohn), Russia (Prokofiev and Rachmaninoff), and England (Vaughan Williams and Britten).

I feel bad leaving the USA out, because I love Barber and Harris and Schuman, but we all have to make sacrifices.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

It is fascinating that the suggestion that the Germans/Austrians produced a good amount of some of the greatest music of the Western classical tradition led to charges of their being overrated... and yet what is with the continual overrated Russians?

Now don't get me wrong, I quite like Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Prokofiev, Rimsky-Korsakov, Scriabin, etc... and I listen to the operas and lieder/romances and quartets as well as the more known works... but seriously... we are talking about the production of music that barely spans a century. I won't even touch upon the German/Austrian composers but looking at the musical achievements of France and Italy over nearly a millenium I am puzzled that the Russians could be taken so seriously. I mean the Italians and the French have a major wealth of composers (who are major players in the development of Western music) from the middle-ages through the present. Russia virtually doesn't exist until the late Romantic era.

Of course this seems to be the reason for the Russian popularity... Romanticism is admittedly the most popular era in music... admired far beyond its merits (not to downplay them). It is especially admired by those first coming to classical music. Interestingly, there is a similar obsession with Romanticism and late Romanticism in literature which explains much of the popularity of the great late 19th century Russian writers... as well as the "great six" English Romantic poets (Blake, Byron, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, Coleridge) and such late post-Romantic French writers as Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Flaubert, etc...

Again... I have no problem with Romanticism... I love Wagner, Mahler, Schubert, and Richard Strauss... but it seems too often that those who so embrace Romanticism do so while dismissing the merits of non-Romantic music. Mozart and Haydn don't compose music obviously gushing... oozing with emotions and they don't use the minor key and big clanging bombastic explosions of sound a whole lot... thus they are "emotionless"... "decorative"... "light-weight"... while the Baroque... well that "all sounds the same" and lets not even look at the Renaissance or the medieval stuff 'cos that ****'s all too weird. 

I disagree with some members' continual push for the exaltation of the most esoteric bleeps and scribbles and electronic farts of contemporary music while dismissing the efforts of those composers who continued in the traditions of Romanticism and Post-Romanticism. Romanticism and Post-Romanticism are indeed overrated... to the extent that the music of this single era, as fine as some of it is, blinds many from exploring not merely the music that has been composed since... but also the great wealth of music that was written prior.

Now I've said my bit... 

:tiphat:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

People assume that just because they both speak dialects of German, that they should somehow be included together. Considering their histories, that's a bizarre assumption.

Give me a break. That is as absurd as the notion that Italy should not be a single nation because there are differences in dialect and history between Tuscany and Calabria or Sicily. Hell the dialects and histories of Massachusetts and Texas are probably even more dissimilar than those of Austria and Germany.

The Austrian Empire - entirely separate from Germany - tied the eastern European nations together into a powerful empire that existed for hundreds of years. By the 19th century, it was not only seen as integral to protect the various nations under her control against the burgeoning empire of Russia to the east, but it served as a check against the growing power of the German states as well (which were dominated by Prussia, and which eventually united into one German Empire under Bismarck). Vienna was the heart of the Austrian Empire, just as it had been for centuries (and it became the empire of Austria-Hungary in 1867).

Some rather sloppy history there. The Holy Roman Empire dating back to 962 was comprised of most of the central European German-speaking states... including what would become Austria. These states were loosely organized... often an Empire in name only. Various families and rulers vied for control. Even so, Austria was still part of the HRE at the time of the Napoleonic Wars in 1790 which spelled the end of the Empire. The Empire of Austria was founded in 1804 in part as a means of employing the Prussian/Austrian rivalry for control of the German states as a way to divide and weaken France's powerful neighbor. The northern German states under Bismarck warred with Austrian in 1864 and the unified state of Germany was declared in 1871 with the exclusion of Austria assuring Prussian dominance.

The bottom line is that nobody back then would have included Austria and Germany together (even if some Germans indeed wanted to somehow bring Austria and Bohemia into a unified Germany). The only time that Austria has ever been part of Germany was from 1938-1945 under Hitler.

Duh. This is essentially true because there was no "Germany" until 1871, but Austria was continually part of the loose collection of German States under the Holy Roman Empire until their defeat at the hands of Napoleon. The separation of Austria and the rest of the German states had more to do with the efforts of the French... and later the English and Americans to divide the nation weakening it as a military and economic threat.

The divided history of the German nation is no different than that of Italy, and yet we do not hear the notion that we should not refer to Dante as an Italian poet or Titian as an Italian painter. Considering the continual whims of national borders, artists are generally categorized according to the language of the artist. Matthias Grunwald is recognized as a German painter in spite of the fact that he spent much of his career and created his masterpiece in Colmar... which is now in France.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Those are very different countries...it is just the same language and...not even. German people say Austrian don't speak well the language...

And we must remove Prokofiev from the list of Russian composers because he was actually born in the Ukraine... which is no longer part of the Russia?


----------



## Sid James

> I disagree with some members' continual push for the exaltation of the most esoteric bleeps and scribbles and electronic farts of contemporary music while dismissing the efforts of those composers who continued in the traditions of Romanticism and Post-Romanticism.


Can you please name these members who like electronic music but "dismiss" the earlier styles. I for one love electronica, but I also love many many of the earlier composers. I don't remember dissing or dismissing earlier music at the expense of the more recent stuff.



> Romanticism and Post-Romanticism are indeed overrated... to the extent that the music of this single era, as fine as some of it is, blinds many from exploring not merely the music that has been composed since... but also the great wealth of music that was written prior.


I tend to agree with you on this. There is a great wealth of music out there, so it's a shame to get stuck in the one era or genre. I know some classical listeners out there are a bit like this, they like their "niches." On the other hand, many like myself, yourself and other members on this forum are really quite "eclectic" listeners. Although Romantic music has a lot to offer, so does the music of all other eras. Much of my listening is based around the classical era until now, but I have been trying to expand that a bit. Admittedly, I sometimes find it harder to distinguish between say two or three Renaissance composers than some of the later ones. But with patience and practice (listening to and reading about the music) I am beginning to develop a better perception of pre-classical era music as well. Basically I think it all boils down to the listener having some measure of flexibility and daring to explore things off his/her well-worn track. For once, it's not about what or who you know, but how far you are willing to go to expand your horizons with music new to you...


----------



## Nix

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Now don't get me wrong, I quite like Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Prokofiev, Rimsky-Korsakov, Scriabin, etc... and I listen to the operas and lieder/romances and quartets as well as the more known works... but seriously... we are talking about the production of music that barely spans a century. I won't even touch upon the German/Austrian composers but looking at the musical achievements of France and Italy over nearly a millenium I am puzzled that the Russians could be taken so seriously. I mean the Italians and the French have a major wealth of composers (who are major players in the development of Western music) from the middle-ages through the present. Russia virtually doesn't exist until the late Romantic era.
> :tiphat:


Um... I think you mean music that barely spans 2 centuries? It's 2011 Glinka was born 1804. Also while the Russians have been composing a significantly less time, they got started composing at the most significant time in music history- from mid romantic to the present, a time when composing was first actually considered to be a real profession, and music became much more of what it is today. True, their western counterparts have been around a lot longer, but they were also composing at a time when it was done more as a hobby or a second job, and when there were considerably less composers, and most of the 'millennium' they were around, composition was very rudimentary. While the French, Italians and Germans have founded almost every musical movement, the Russians have been able to keep in the game on the same level, and sometimes higher, and the fact that they've been around for so short a time, and still managed to be as successful as they have speaks volumes. Compare it to America, whose composer equivalents are probably something like Barber/Copland to Tchaikovsky, and you can see what odds they've overcome in the concert halls.


----------



## Art Rock

Personally I think it makes a lot more sense to lump Germany/Austria into one choice, given their shared language and cultural heritage: why do you think Austrian composers often used german poems? On the other hand, Eastern Europe.... Poland, Czech republic, Hungary, Slovakia..... very different culture, and moreover many of them actually belonged to Austria at that time (Dvorak, Liszt).


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Art Rock said:


> Personally I think it makes a lot more sense to lump Germany/Austria into one choice, given their shared language and cultural heritage: why do you think Austrian composers often used german poems? On the other hand, Eastern Europe.... Poland, Czech republic, Hungary, Slovakia..... very different culture, and moreover many of them actually belonged to Austria at that time (Dvorak, Liszt).


Yeah, that's why I put them together. I would've not even had Austria on the poll, and only Germany, but then I realized that Mozart, Mahler, and some others were Austrian, so I included it here.


----------



## Jacob Singer

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Give me a break. That is as absurd as the notion that Italy should not be a single nation because there are differences in dialect and history between Tuscany and Calabria or Sicily.


I didn't say that they shouldn't be considered a singe nation because of the dialects. 

Read my post again. I said that people make the mistake of thinking that they somehow should be included together because they both speak dialects of German. Didn't you put words in my mouth on that other thread too, or was that somebody else?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> This is essentially true because there was no "Germany" until 1871,


There was no German _Empire_, but the Germans most certainly considered themselves part of a German "nation" well before that, even if the various states weren't united under one rule until 1871. That fact was critically important at the time, since it drove the political history of Germany from the Napoleonic Wars to the Empire period. In fact, nationalism had a HUGE effect on the political history of many of the peoples in Europe at this time, and the word 'nation' was used in the _exact sense that I am using it._

You obviously need to read more on the subject, as central Europe in the 19th century is more complicated than you obviously realize. For example, in 1848 Frantisek Palacky (among others) wrote *specifically* about the German "nation", how they wanted to have control of Austria as a part of the German reich (as well as Bohemia, which is specifically why they invited him to their Frankfurt Assembly), and how he felt that maintaining a separate Austrian Empire was not only the only logical way to go, but even if it hadn't existed for so long then it would be prudent to have created it. This is _well before_ the official German Empire was created, but there was never any doubt in any of the minds of the people at the time that Germany was an entirely separate "nation" from the Austrian Empire (with very little in common except German being the language of the aristocracy).



StlukesguildOhio said:


> The divided history of the German nation is no different than that of Italy, and yet we do not hear the notion that we should not refer to Dante as an Italian poet or Titian as an Italian painter.


That's simply wrong, and the Germans and Austrians at the time would certainly have disagreed with you. The "divided history of the German nation" at this time did not include Austria (and it is most certainly different from the case of Italy). They were entirely separate during these periods, and were not united until the Third Reich.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Um... I think you mean music that barely spans 2 centuries? It's 2011 Glinka was born 1804. 

Who? Seriously I don't think Glinka is a big enough name to be considered the birth of a great period of composition... but even if we grant you this... what have the Russians been doing since 1950? Are they still one of the major players?

Also while the Russians have been composing a significantly less time, they got started composing at *the most significant time in music history*- from mid romantic to the present, a time when composing was first actually considered to be a real profession, and music became much more of what it is today.

How do you define "the most significant time in music history?" This would seem to be simply another way of saying "The Russians were major contributors during the period which I personally like the best." How is the Baroque or the Renaissance or Modernism any "less significant"?

True, their western counterparts have been around a lot longer, but they were also composing at a time when it was done more as a hobby or a second job, and when there were considerably less composers, and most of the 'millennium' they were around, composition was very rudimentary. 

Ah humor. Ol' J.S. Bach and Joseph Haydn... the musical hobbyists composer music using the most rudimentary of means.:lol:

While the French, Italians and Germans have founded almost every musical movement, the Russians have been able to keep in the game on the same level, and sometimes higher, and the fact that they've been around for so short a time, and still managed to be as successful as they have speaks volumes. 

Undoubtedly the Russian contribution to music in the Romantic and early Modernist periods was immense. I don't doubt this. But then again the German/Austrians produced late Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Hugo Wolf, Richard Wagner, Johannes Brahms, Gustav Mahler, Anton Bruckner, Alexander von Zemlinsky, Kurt Weill, Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, Alban Berg, Paul Hindemith, Erich Korngold, Karl Amadeus Hartmann, Hans Werner Henze, Carl Orff, etc... so we are not exactly looking at a decline of their contribution. These composers can surely match anything the Russians of the era produced... and we still have the whole of the classical, Baroque, and earlier eras. The same is true of the French. Among the great French Romantics and Post-Romantics we have Georges Bizet, Jules Massenet, Gabriel Fauré, Maurice Ravel, Claude Debussy, Olivier Messiaen, Henri Dutilleux, Charles-Valentin Alkan, Joseph Canteloube, Ernest Chausson, Maurice Duruflé, Gérard Grisey, Arthur Honegger, Reynaldo Hahn, Vincent d'Indy, Charles Koechlin, Tristan Murail, Jacques Offenbach, Florent Schmitt, Camille Saint-Saëns, etc... and still a wealth of composers from the Baroque especially and the Renaissance and Medieval periods.

Ultimately, there is no competition. This is not sports. You listen to what you like. "Better" and "worse" are subjective opinions... although some opinions are better than others. The influence or impact of given composers, however, is something than can be seen over the course of time and it is simply absurd to dismiss anything beyond the Romantic era as little more than "rudimentary" any more than it is absurd to dismiss the painting of the Renaissance or the sculpture of the middle-ages as rudimentary in comparison to Romantic-era art.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

On the other hand, Eastern Europe.... Poland, Czech republic, Hungary, Slovakia..... very different culture, and moreover many of them actually belonged to Austria at that time (Dvorak, Liszt).

So Liszt and Dvorak become Austrian composers if we use the national borders as the measure?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

There was no German Empire, but the Germans most certainly considered themselves part of a German "nation" well before that, even if the various states weren't united under one rule until 1871. That fact was critically important at the time, since it drove the political history of Germany from the Napoleonic Wars to the Empire period. In fact, nationalism had a HUGE effect on the political history of many of the peoples in Europe at this time, and the word 'nation' was used in the exact sense that I am using it.

You obviously need to read more on the subject, as central Europe in the 19th century is more complicated than you obviously realize. For example, in 1848 Frantisek Palacky (among others) wrote specifically about the German "nation", how they wanted to have control of Austria as a part of the German reich (as well as Bohemia, which is specifically why they invited him to their Frankfurt Assembly), and how he felt that maintaining a separate Austrian Empire was not only the only logical way to go, but even if it hadn't existed for so long then it would be prudent to have created it. This is well before the official German Empire was created, but there was never any doubt in any of the minds of the people at the time that Germany was an entirely separate "nation" from the Austrian Empire (with very little in common except German being the language of the aristocracy).

You are simply using the politics of a short span of time to suggest something much larger. There was a large power struggle between the Prussians and Austrians for the control of any unified German state. Part of this revolves around tensions between the Catholic Austrians (with presumed ties to the Papacy) and the more Protestant North. All of this overlooks the fact that Austria was most certainly part of the Holy Roman Empire from its inception in the 10th century until its collapse in the late 18th century. Vienna and Salzburg were among the German courts which employed artists and composers from across the whole of the Germanic Empire.

That's simply wrong, and the Germans and Austrians at the time would certainly have disagreed with you. The "divided history of the German nation" at this time did not include Austria (and it is most certainly different from the case of Italy). They were entirely separate during these periods, and were not united until the Third Reich. 

The Germans and Austrians were completely divided at what point? Not until their defeat during the Napoleonic Wars. Until that time they were part of a loose empire of more or less independent states. This is no different from Italy during the Renaissance (or later) in which we would not think it odd to call Leonardo working for the Duchy of Milan and Titian working in Venice... often for the Emperor Charles... Italian. Franz Kafka (Czech) and Paul Celan (Romanian) and Hermann Hesse (German-Swiss), and Hermann Broch (Austrian), etc... are all studied as German writers because they wrote in German and their language was German. The grouping of artists on the basis of language makes far more sense than the grouping according to ever-shifting national borders.


----------



## Almaviva

Just to mention what another Austrian had to say about this, you guys need to read what Sigmund Freud wrote about "the narcissism of the small difference."

It does make sense to group musical and literary traditions by language/geographic region even when different monarchs and heads of state have traced different national borders along history.

Austria and Germany in my opinion do share similar traditions and culture and there is nothing wrong with thinking of composers who were born in the regional territories that are now part of these modern countries, as coming from the same cultural space. They are certainly a lot closer to each other, culturally and linguistically speaking, than they are to the Italians (and someone has correctly indicated that modern Italy sits where many regional states with their own dialects used to sit, but nobody denies that the whole peninsula is part of a larger Italian cultural space - just pay attention to the Neapolitan dialect in many of their popular songs - such as _O Sole Mio_ or _Torna a Surriento_ and compare it to standard modern Italian - big difference, huh? No matter, Naples is still Italian not only in terms of nationality and geography, but also culturally).

You want another example? Look, San Marino is an old, old republic. It isn't part of modern Italy at all (and not even part of the European Union), it's been a souvereign nation for centuries and centuries, actually since the year 301. It's the *oldest* surviving souvereign nation in the *entire world.* But would you deny that the culture in San Marino is an Italian culture? I've been to it. You can't see *any* difference, I repeat *any* difference between San Marino and the surrounding Italian provinces, except for some local souvenirs and tourist traps up there in Monte Titano celebrating their "unique" heritage. If you drive by the Città di San Marino or any of their other eight municipalities such as Borgo Maggiore or Dogana and you go in and out of their borders, you need some panel on the road to tell you that you're not in Italy any longer, because otherwise you wouldn't notice it. The day someone tells me that Francesco di Pesaro is not an "Italian" composer (in the cultural sense, as in Italianate music) because he was born in San Marino, I'll laugh to the person's face.

All attempts to the contrary (that is, to completely separate Germany and Austria in musical terms) in my opinion can be attributed to the narcissism of the small difference. You can depict two guys saying to each other: "I'm prouder of being a German than you are of being an Austrian." "No, *I'm* prouder of being an Austrian than you are of being a German!" For the Italian observer, however, they are both Tedeschi (or Teutons, or Teutonic, or more precisely, Germanic).

I believe that attempts to deny that they are both from the same larger cultural group should fall flat, regardless of the ups and downs of History. Are they identical? Certainly not, just as much as San Marino has one or two cultural particularities (they make their own Euro coins - but not their Euro bills - and their guards dress weirdly during their medieval-like celebrations), and just as much as Napoli is culturally a bit different from Milano, but in terms of the larger cultural group, they're rather the same.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Agreed, Almaviva...

By the way... I'm quite saddened at the "lack of love" shown for the Italians. I mean come on people:

Monteverdi, Alessandro and Domenico Scarlatti, Antonio Vivaldi, Palestrina, Carlo Gesualdo, Pandolfi, Arcangelo Corelli, Vincenzo Bellini, Antonio Caldara, Luigi Boccherini, Rossini, Verdi, Giacomo Carissimi, Gaetano Donizetti, Salvatore Di Vittorio, Andrea Gabrieli, Francesco Geminiani, Francesco Landini, Ennio Morricone, Giacomo Puccini, Giovanni Battista Pergolesi, Luc Ferrari, Giacinto Scelsi, Antonio Salieri, Tartiti, Niccolò Paganini, Nicola Porpora, Saverio Mercadante, Ruggero Leoncavallo, Pietro Mascagni, etc... 

And I barely scrape the surface.


----------



## Nix

StlukesguildOhio said:


> How do you define "the most significant time in music history?" This would seem to be simply another way of saying "The Russians were major contributors during the period which I personally like the best." How is the Baroque or the Renaissance or Modernism any "less significant"?




Sorry, productive would have been a better word there.

_Ah humor. Ol' J.S. Bach and Joseph Haydn... the musical hobbyists composer music using the most rudimentary of means.:lol:_

Well, notice how I said "most of the millennium." You rightly claim that they've been around for SO long, but it was only a 100 years between Bach, Mozart and Haydn. Before that, there was much less music- for a very long time.

_Undoubtedly the Russian contribution to music in the Romantic and early Modernist periods was immense. I don't doubt this. But then again the German/Austrians produced late Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Hugo Wolf, Richard Wagner, Johannes Brahms, Gustav Mahler, Anton Bruckner, Alexander von Zemlinsky, Kurt Weill, Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, Alban Berg, Paul Hindemith, Erich Korngold, Karl Amadeus Hartmann, Hans Werner Henze, Carl Orff, etc... so we are not exactly looking at a decline of their contribution. These composers can surely match anything the Russians of the era produced..._

Well then you'll be pleased to know I voted Germany/Austria on this one. I just thought you were being a little harsh on the Russians.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Well, notice how I said "most of the millennium." You rightly claim that they've been around for SO long, but it was only a 100 years between Bach, Mozart and Haydn. Before that, there was much less music- for a very long time. 

Or perhaps it is rather that you are personally unaware of the music that exists before Bach. This would not be uncommon. The recording industry in general has only recently begun to explore the wealth of what exists prior to Bach. Undoubtedly the numbers of composers are greater for the Romantic period than they are for the Renaissance if only as a result of population growth... but as with every period it will only be a few of the strongest who survive. For nearly every major Romantic-era composer you can name I am certain that a baroque fan such as HarpsichordConcerto could name an equally talented Baroque composer, and undoubtedly there are early music fans who could similarly name an equally important Renaissance or medieval composer. Far from being amateurs or part-time composers a great many of these composers wrote far more music than their later counterparts. Handel, for example, composed 42 full-scale operas, 29 oratorios, more than 120 cantatas, as well as a wealth of other vocal and instrumental music. Alessandro Scarlatti composed more than 65 operas, an estimated 600 cantatas, a wealth of masses some have estimated to be in excess of 200, etc... Nor were Vivaldi, Buxtehude, Biber, Zelenka, Monteverdi, Gesualdo, Josquin des Prez, Michael Praetorius, etc...

...you'll be pleased to know I voted Germany/Austria on this one. I just thought you were being a little harsh on the Russians.

Seriously, I don't see music... or any art as competition. I simply voted for the German/Austrian contingent based upon the fact that they account for by far the largest proportion of my music collection... and almost undeniably the greatest body of major influential music in the whole of the classical tradition. I quite like the best that the Russians have to offer... but I also feel that the French and the Italian contributions are too often under-estimated... and music outside of the Romantic-Post-Romantic realm rarely gets fair recognition.

For example, the Classical Era is commonly reduced to Mozart, Haydn, and early Beethoven... but how many have actually made the effort to explore what else exists beyond these composers. I have made some efforts... but I'll be the first to admit that my grasp of the Classical Era is woefully stunted. And I don't doubt that there are some marvelous works and composers to be found. Just recently I purchased a disc of Micheal Haydn's (Joseph's brother) masses... which I found to be quite stupendous. But then there's Salieri (who certainly is more than Mozart's rival and a talentless hack), Hummel, Jakub Šimon Jan Ryba, Christoph Willibald Gluck, Josef Myslivecek, Francois-Joseph Gossec, Weber, Luigi Boccherini, Clementi, Louis Spohr, Joseph Martin Kraus, Bernhard Henrik Crusell, Franz Krommer, Carl Stamitz, C.P.E. Bach (and Bach's other sons), etc... How many of these composers have you explored in any real depth before dismissing the Classical Era as inferior to the Romantic? I know that I can't lay claim to having done so, but right now I'm focused upon delving deeper into the Baroque and Renaissance.


----------



## Jacob Singer

StlukesguildOhio said:


> On the other hand, Eastern Europe.... Poland, Czech republic, Hungary, Slovakia..... very different culture, and moreover many of them actually belonged to Austria at that time (Dvorak, Liszt).
> 
> So Liszt and Dvorak become Austrian composers if we use the national borders as the measure?


It is obvious from your posts that you are *very confused* about what the word 'nation' means in the context of Europe in the 19th century. 'Nation' was used to represent a group of people within a geographic area bound by culture and history, and many of these nations were located within larger empires. The Austrian Empire was a union of nations - wholly separate from Germany - and within that empire existed the individual peoples of Austria, Bohemia, Hungary, etc.

So, exactly as the history books say (and I guarantee every history scholar would agree), Dvořák was _Czech_ (or Bohemian, if you prefer), Brahms was _German_, Schubert was _Austrian_, etc.

What is so hard to understand about that?

The only way for a poll like this to makes sense is to have the obvious nations of people - Germany, Austria, France, Russia, England, Italy, etc. - and then for simplicity's sake (primarily the fact that the poll is limited to ten choices) to have broader categories like "Scandinavia" and "Other Eastern European" to include other groups of people together (unless you can find room to give a separate category for any of them).


----------



## Nix

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Or perhaps it is rather that you are personally unaware of the music that exists before Bach.




Nope, I've taken a 2 semester college course covering Medieval through Baroque music. And the fact of the matter is that for hundreds of years the church stifled the voices of the greatest musical minds, forcing them to write monophonically, in specific modes, and only about things in relation to Christ. Only a few composers managed to really rise above these rules. And true, composers were very prolific, but it must be kept in mind that these works weren't always the highest quality, and then many of them were simply reworkings of previous pieces. The point I'm trying to make is that _most_ of the music written pre-Beethoven was simply written to pay the rent.


----------



## Aramis

Though I don't plan to stop considering Austria and Germany together there is something thak makes me partially agree with idea of dividing them - Ländler. Did German composers include ländler in their symphonies? It's hallmark of Austrians: Schubert, Mahler, Bruckner. Not most important thing perhaps but I would say it proves that to some extent these were (are) two diffrent cultures.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

So, exactly as the history books say (and I guarantee every history scholar would agree), Dvořák was Czech (or Bohemian, if you prefer), Brahms was German, Schubert was Austrian, etc.

And history scholars are irrelevant when talking about music or art. Why not bring scientist into this and begin to explore the genetic make-up of the different composers.

What is so hard to understand about that?

What's not hard to understand is your own arrogance in presuming that that you are right and anyone who disagrees is ignorant or confused about of the facts. It might just be that most who follow classical music (as Almviva's post suggests) don't think of Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven as being of different national musical traditions. Beethoven was born in Bonn which at that time was in the Electorate of Cologne and part of the Holy Roman Empire. Mozart was born in Salzburg, which was then a Bishopric and part of the Holy Roman Empire, but separate from the Kingdom of Bohemia under which much of Austria fell at that time. Haydn was born in Rohrau in what is today Austria but was then part of the HRE and on the border of the Hungarian Empire. Haydn was employed by the Esterházy court in the Kingdom of Hungary, but he and his aristocratic lords spoke German. Rather than trying to sort out composers "nationality" by the convoluted and ever-shifting borders, the common practice is to categorize artists by their native language.

What, for example, is Liszt? He was born in what was then a Hungarian village but today lies in Austria to a German-speaking mother and a Hungarian-speaking father. He spent time in the Esterházy court with his father. He spent his adolescence in Paris and lived for extended periods in Weimar, Geneva, and Rome. He is considered the founder of the "Neudeutsche Schule" (or New German School). So how do we categorize him? Most lists consider him Hungarian because of his language... and because of the conscious efforts he made to employ Hungarian elements in his music.

Within the larger cultures there are instances of a smaller sub-culture with its own language. The poets writing in Catalan or the novelists writing in Yiddish are commonly categorized as Catelan (rather than Spanish) or Yiddish rather than German, Polish, or Russian. Language simple seems to be the strongest means of establishing a given culture.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The point I'm trying to make is that most of the music written pre-Beethoven was simply written to pay the rent.

And most of the music after Beethoven was simply written to pay the rent... but the notion that there is a qualitative shift is based on little more than personal prejudice or ignorance.


----------



## Nix

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that most of the music written pre-Beethoven was simply written to pay the rent.
> 
> And most of the music after Beethoven was simply written to pay the rent... but the notion that there is a qualitative shift is based on little more than personal prejudice or ignorance.


Ha, hardly. How many musicians do you know that do it for the money? I don't think any classical composer today writes music to pay the bills. They do it because they love it, and yes, I would argue that doing something because you love to do it produces better results. That isn't to say that there weren't composers pre-Beethoven who didn't love what they were doing, but I think the ratio was definitely the reverse of what it is today. Sorry that we're so off topic.


----------



## RBrittain

Has to be Germany/Austria really, doesn't it? Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Mozart, Bach...


----------



## Jacob Singer

StlukesguildOhio said:


> And history scholars are irrelevant when talking about music or art. Why not bring scientist into this and begin to explore the genetic make-up of the different composers.


Now you are just being ridiculous. Scholars of music history... ever heard of them? I'm working on my dissertation under the supervision of more than one of them, and yes, they are history scholars. 

With your infinite wisdom, you might want to start contacting _each and every publication and internet site_ covering this subject and inform them that after 200 years we have decided that somehow Schubert is now German. :lol:

I guarantee you that not one of them will agree with you.

But to prove this to you once and for all, I submit the words of one of the most acclaimed statesmen in all of eastern Europe in the 19th century, František Palacký, Czech national hero and proponent of constitutional reform in the era of the revolutions of 1848-49:

_"It was a pleasant surprise to me to find in that letter full and authentic evidence of the confidence which the most distinguished men of the *German Reich* continue to have in my opinions; for inviting me to a Diet of "German patriots" they themselves acquit me of the unjust accusation so repeatedly brought against me of having shown myself an enemy of the *German nation*." ~ František Palacký, 1848.

"I must briefly express my conviction that those who ask that Austria (and with her, Bohemia) should unite on national lines with Germany, are demanding that she should commit suicide - a step that has neither moral nor political sense." ~ František Palacký, 1848._

There is no doubt whatsoever among historians that the peoples of Europe viewed the Germans as a distinctly separate nation of people from Austria (and even as a potential threat to Austria's power), just as they are distinctly separate nations to this day. They were ruled by wholly separate governments (the Habsburg Monarchy in Austria from 1780 until 1867, when the empire became Austria-Hungary), and had distinct cultural and geographical boundaries separating the two. Indeed, those same differences remain to this day, and the only time in modern history in which those vast differences were surreptitiously disregarded was during the rule of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. Ignoring the political, geographic, and cultural chasms that separated Austria from Germany is merely an attempt to re-write the history books, something that zealous Germans were once eager to do in the name of perceived ethnic German superiority.

The fact is that Vienna had long been the nexus that tied the cultures in eastern Europe together (most of them along the Danube River), and this had _nothing_ to do with Germany. In fact, because people today tend to think of Austria as a "western" nation, a lot of people don't realize that Vienna is even further east than Prague. It is quite literally at the heart of eastern Europe. The locations/borders of the European states today reflect the nations of peoples that have existed in Europe for centuries (even if at times those nations had been ruled by imperial monarchs), and in short, the events of the 20th century resulted in independent federal statehood for virtually each one of these nations (Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, etc.). This is precisely what the nationalist movements in the 19th century were all about (resulting in "nationalist" music), only it took well over a century to make those individual states a reality.

With your kind of revisionist thinking, you might as well include America as being part of Britain in the 19th century as well. They both spoke the same language, right? And there were those in Britain who sought unsuccessfully for America to be a part of the British Empire, right? That's virtually the exact same thing you are doing with Germany and Austria. It's silly, and it displays a profound lack of understanding regarding the subject.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

It's silly, and it displays a profound lack of understanding regarding the subject. 

Yeah... I'm sorry. My mother's family was German and my father's family was Austrian but I have a complete and profound lack of understanding of German history... unlike the pretentious student who knows it all. I'll stick with German/Austrian, British, and Netherlandish rather than breaking things down to English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Burgundian, Belgian, Dutch, Brabantine, Bohemian, Bavarian, Prussian, etc...

The Balkanization of Europe doesn't seem to have been a great idea in political terms nor in simply categorizing the arts.


----------



## elgar's ghost

If this was a 'pound for pound' poll I'd be very tempted to vote for Finland - small population, many fine composers.


----------



## Almaviva

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Agreed, Almaviva...
> 
> By the way... I'm quite saddened at the "lack of love" shown for the Italians. I mean come on people:
> 
> Monteverdi, Alessandro and Domenico Scarlatti, Antonio Vivaldi, Palestrina, Carlo Gesualdo, Pandolfi, Arcangelo Corelli, Vincenzo Bellini, Antonio Caldara, Luigi Boccherini, Rossini, Verdi, Giacomo Carissimi, Gaetano Donizetti, Salvatore Di Vittorio, Andrea Gabrieli, Francesco Geminiani, Francesco Landini, Ennio Morricone, Giacomo Puccini, Giovanni Battista Pergolesi, Luc Ferrari, Giacinto Scelsi, Antonio Salieri, Tartiti, Niccolò Paganini, Nicola Porpora, Saverio Mercadante, Ruggero Leoncavallo, Pietro Mascagni, etc...
> 
> And I barely scrape the surface.


Exactly! I have voted for the Italians. When CTP above said something about the Germanic vs. the rest of the world, I've added something to the effect of "not so fast, buddy, what about the Italians?" Not only they (we) have a large number of important composers, but also many of the trends and subgenres in classical music were created and started in Italy.


----------



## Almaviva

Nix said:


> Ha, hardly. How many musicians do you know that do it for the money? I don't think any classical composer today writes music to pay the bills. They do it because they love it, and yes, I would argue that doing something because you love to do it produces better results. That isn't to say that there weren't composers pre-Beethoven who didn't love what they were doing, but I think the ratio was definitely the reverse of what it is today. Sorry that we're so off topic.


Just to give you two examples of major musicians who did it "for the rent" - or actually, to buy multiple properties since both became filthy rich and were skilfull businessmen very much interested in making as much money as possible from their music: Rossini and Richard Strauss.


----------



## Nix

Almaviva said:


> Just to give you two examples of major musicians that did it "for the rent" - or actually, to buy multiple properties since both became filthy rich and were skilfull businessmen very much interested in making as much money as possible from their music: Rossini and Richard Strauss.


Very true, (in fact I listed those as some of the highest paid composers in another thread just the other day) though they are still a long way from 'today.'


----------



## the_emptier

Russia, right now at least.


----------



## Almaviva

Jacob Singer said:


> Now you are just being ridiculous. Scholars of music history... ever heard of them? I'm working on my dissertation under the supervision of more than one of them, and yes, they are history scholars.
> 
> With your infinite wisdom, you might want to start contacting _each and every publication and internet site_ covering this subject and inform them that after 200 years we have decided that somehow Schubert is now German. :lol:
> 
> I guarantee you that not one of them will agree with you.
> 
> But to prove this to you once and for all, I submit the words of one of the most acclaimed statesmen in all of eastern Europe in the 19th century, František Palacký, Czech national hero and proponent of constitutional reform in the era of the revolutions of 1848-49:
> 
> _"It was a pleasant surprise to me to find in that letter full and authentic evidence of the confidence which the most distinguished men of the *German Reich* continue to have in my opinions; for inviting me to a Diet of "German patriots" they themselves acquit me of the unjust accusation so repeatedly brought against me of having shown myself an enemy of the *German nation*." ~ František Palacký, 1848._
> 
> _"I must briefly express my conviction that those who ask that Austria (and with her, Bohemia) should unite on national lines with Germany, are demanding that she should commit suicide - a step that has neither moral nor political sense." ~ František Palacký, 1848._
> 
> There is no doubt whatsoever among historians that the peoples of Europe viewed the Germans as a distinctly separate nation of people from Austria (and even as a potential threat to Austria's power), just as they are distinctly separate nations to this day. They were ruled by wholly separate governments (the Habsburg Monarchy in Austria from 1780 until 1867, when the empire became Austria-Hungary), and had distinct cultural and geographical boundaries separating the two. Indeed, those same differences remain to this day, and the only time in modern history in which those vast differences were surreptitiously disregarded was during the rule of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. Ignoring the political, geographic, and cultural chasms that separated Austria from Germany is merely an attempt to re-write the history books, something that zealous Germans were once eager to do in the name of perceived ethnic German superiority.
> 
> The fact is that Vienna had long been the nexus that tied the cultures in eastern Europe together (most of them along the Danube River), and this had _nothing_ to do with Germany. In fact, because people today tend to think of Austria as a "western" nation, a lot of people don't realize that Vienna is even further east than Prague. It is quite literally at the heart of eastern Europe. The locations/borders of the European states today reflect the nations of peoples that have existed in Europe for centuries (even if at times those nations had been ruled by imperial monarchs), and in short, the events of the 20th century resulted in independent federal statehood for virtually each one of these nations (Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, etc.). This is precisely what the nationalist movements in the 19th century were all about (resulting in "nationalist" music), only it took well over a century to make those individual states a reality.
> 
> With your kind of revisionist thinking, you might as well include America as being part of Britain in the 19th century as well. They both spoke the same language, right? And there were those in Britain who sought unsuccessfully for America to be a part of the British Empire, right? That's virtually the exact same thing you are doing with Germany and Austria. It's silly, and it displays a profound lack of understanding regarding the subject.


Like I said, it's still the narcissism of the small difference. Can you see the words "political sense" in your very quote? You're quoting a nationalistic (therefore political) statement, from someone who is no less than a statesman. Yep, people who espouse nationalistic beliefs tend to be very proud of their small differences and to insist on them and highlight them. They actually start killing the ones they see as different, as their next step.

Nationalism and cultural history however do not entirely overlap. They frequently do (as in nationalistic music) but frequently don't and even when they do, not entirely.

All these world cultures can be subdivided and there are different degrees of separation.

Even your example of Britain and America can fall under this same concept. Initially, yes, American culture was a sub-set of British culture. Then with the distance (there is a small pond in between these two countries), war of independence, and influx of immigrants and slaves, American culture drifted farther and farther apart. But still, Americans are closer to the British than to the Germans (like a little fight called World War II has demonstrated). There is a smaller degree of separation between the Americans and the British even nowadays than between the Americans and the Germans.

A place as far as the Falkland Islands is still profoundly British, like another recent conflict has demonstrated. New Zealand with all its cultural diversity and local indigenous population is still much closer to British culture than to any other culture in the world.

But then, even inside the United Kingdom you have four "home nations" - Wales, Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland. You also have the Channel Islands (Jersey, Guernsey, Sark - hey, have you noticed that one of the 50 states in America is called New Jersey?) that are their own little cultural niche with their proud traditions and relative autonomy - but they are also very British in many other senses. So, between someone from Wales and someone from England there is a degree of separation, but it is small. Similarly, between Germans and Austrians there is a degree of separation, but it is smaller than the ones between Germans and the French or Austrians and Italians.

These cultural degrees of separation are not dictated by national borders. The culture in Barcelona has in my opinion a bigger degree of separation from the culture in Madrid (both major cities inside the same national borders) than the one existing between German and Austrian cities (across national borders).

And yes, language has a major role in all of this. Catalan and standard Spanish (Castilian) are a lot more different from each other than the German spoken in Germany versus the one spoken in Austria. Catalan and Spanish (Castilian) are also more different from each other than Spanish and Portuguese. Catalan is however very close (almost identical) to Valencian. The Portuguese and Spanish cultures have many differences (hey, their _toreros_ kill their bulls in Spain but not in Portugal). However, you can still zoom out and say that these three cultural areas - Portugal, Spain, and inside Spain, the Catalonia/Valencia conglomerate, are all Iberic cultures and their degree of separation is a lot smaller than the one existing between themselves and the French.

You talk about the several events in History that have differentiated the Austrians and the Germans. You can't have any more animosity than between the Portuguese and the Spanish who fought each other for centuries, with different kings taking over the other territory in different eras and vice-versa. Still, the culture in Portugal and Spain is close enough that people talk about Iberic literature, etc. And see, these are two _bona fide_ different languages, but they are still grouped together in many cultural assessments. These two nations have divided South America in half along a line called the Tordesilhas Line. It has resulted in a profound cultural difference between Brasil (of Portuguese language) and the other countries in South America (of Spanish language). Still, with all their soccer(football) rivalry and their narcissism of the small difference, Brazilians still refer to Argentinians as "hermanos" - brothers in Spanish, no less (the word in Portuguese is "irmãos" but the Brazilians who otherwise don't speak Spanish at all, friendly call their Argentinian brothers using the Spanish word. This is to show that the degree of separation between Brazilians and Argentinians even though the former dance samba and the latter tango, is smaller than between both and the Americans, and they are both part of Latin American culture. People talk about Latin American literature and place together Pablo Neruda and Carlos Drumond de Andrade in poetry, or Jorge Amado and Mario Vargas Llosa in literature, in spite of the fact that Neruda and Llosa write in Spanish, while Andrade and Amado write in Portuguese. Brazilians and Argentinians are more similar to each other than the Brazilians are to the Portuguese.

But if you ask around what is the official language in Austria, it's called German. Period. The differences are considered to be minor - e.g., the use of _sein_ as the auxiliary verb in the perfect tense, or the rarity of the use of the simple past in coloquial Austrian German. There are some regionalisms in the vocabulary such as different ways to call foods and vegetables, small differences in how the months of January and February are named, etc. Nothing major. It's in any case much more similar than the Portuguese spoken in Brazil as opposed to that spoken in Portugal.

You've been talking about the ancient Austria-Hungary empire. Do you know how many people speak Hungarian in Austria? 0.5%. That's less than those who speak Turkish, Croatian, and Serbian over there. The degree of cultural separation between the Austrians and the Hungarians (although they were at various points in history part of the same empire) is bigger than the degree of separation between Germans and Austrians. You were talking about the British and the Americans. Like I said, there is a small pound between them. But you can cross a little ten yards bridge from Salzburg, Austria, and find yourself in Freilassing, Germany. A little south of Salzburg the river is not even there any longer along the border. You can literaly keep walking along the same street and suddenly you are in Germany. I found a Google Map picture of this national frontier and in one case, it falls right in the middle of a house! In this house, some rooms are in Germany while others are in Austria! I wonder how they manage to pay property taxes.:lol:

In summary, yeah, yeah, of course the Germans and Austrians are not identical. But they are pretty darn close.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Nix said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that _most_ of the music written pre-Beethoven was simply written to pay the rent.


:lol: Oh yes, and contemporay composers today / 20th century don't mind if they are paid only with oxygen. I like how you describe it using the words "simply written" in particular.

I think the quality of music history that are taught by some lecturers today at universities are really starting to show. Perhaps these are the lecturers who themselves struggle with economic means these days in the real world, and are therefore "simply doing it" to pay their rent. Afterall, the real world has little need these days for tens of thousands of music students; where else can they go, but "teach" at universities? They cannot possibly all be talented composers to command premium fees for compositions like Haydn in London or Handel in Baroque England, or Mozart with his operas (he earned as much as Salieri but was quick to squander it).


----------



## RBrittain

It certainly makes sense to include Austria in with Germany.

The Holy Roman Empire, which was essentially 'the first German Reich', existed right up until 1806.

Where was Beethoven born? Bonn. Where did he spend much of his life? Vienna.

Haydn? You can call him Austrian, but no such country existed for most of his life.

Plus, the Austrian Empire is sometimes called the _continuation_ of the Holy Roman Empire. Yes, you then had the growth of the Prussian Empire, but if anything, the Austrian Empire through the early to mid 1800s was more _German_ than Prussia (until Bismarck came along), as it was founded on a remnant of the Holy Roman Empire.

They speak the same language. They identify themselves as very similar and probably always will (see: Adolf Hitler), and it makes total sense to include Austria with Germany, especially as we're defining other broad strata like 'Britain & Ireland' and 'Eastern Europe'.


----------



## RBrittain

Not to mention that the German Confederation encompassed much of the Austrian Empire, including Vienna, throughout most of the 1800s.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Almaviva said:


> You're quoting a nationalistic (therefore political) statement, from someone who is no less than a statesman. Yep, people who espouse nationalistic beliefs tend to be very proud of their small differences and to insist on them and highlight them. They actually start killing the ones they see as different, as their next step.


You have no idea what you are talking about. Palacky advocated only peaceful and sensible means of establishing reform. He was far from an extremist, and to this day is regarded as one of the prime examples of healthy and positive nationalism in Europe. He was not only a highly intelligent guy who predicted the difficulties that would arise between the three powers (Germany, Austria, and Russia), but he was _right_ about everything.

Also, to somehow suggest that the differences between the Germans and Bohemians (or Austrians for that matter) was "small" is an incredibly strange statement, and has absolutely no bearing on reality.



RBrittain said:


> It certainly makes sense to include Austria in with Germany.


It only ever made sense historically to zealous German nationalists. These people wanted to incorporate Austria in order to make Germany stronger, even as people today want to include the vastly disparate nations together in order to make Germany look better (and exactly as Hitler did). Take this profoundly ignorant thread, for example…



RBrittain said:


> The Holy Roman Empire, which was essentially 'the first German Reich', existed right up until 1806.


The Holy Roman Empire had begun dissolving LONG before 1806. That date only represents its final _formal_ dissolution, as Austria and the German states were separate long before that. Sorry, but that's an extremely weak argument, and one that doesn't hold water within the historical context.



RBrittain said:


> Not to mention that the German Confederation encompassed much of the Austrian Empire, including Vienna, throughout most of the 1800s.


The German Confederation was an extremely weak organization that had basically ZERO power. It was a failed attempt to incorporate Prussia and Austria together into a single German sphere along with the smaller German states, but the Germans were NEVER actually able to pull Austria out from the empire of the Habsburg Monarchy/Austria-Hungary. This is as weak an argument as the HRE one, perhaps even more so, since there never was any real power there at all.



RBrittain said:


> Where was Beethoven born? Bonn. Where did he spend much of his life? Vienna.


Yeah, so? His family was Flemish, and the Dutch-Flemish 'van' in his name resulted in Germans actually thinking that he was nobility, since that's what 'von' represents in German... :lol:


----------



## emiellucifuge

How dare you lump the Dutch and Flemish together!


----------



## Jacob Singer

The bottom line here is that it appears that people are TERRIFIED to actually see what a realistic poll would look like if Austria and Germany are considered separately, as they obviously should be.

The "big 5" seats of power in Europe over much of this time period were Russia, Germany, Austria, France, and Great Britain, and so having each those 5 on the poll is essential if it is to be taken seriously. For simplicity's sake, I'd say throw in Italy, Bohemia, Scandinavia/Finland, Hungary, and then an "Other (please specify)" category to round out the ten choices.

That kind of poll would be the only one that would actually show us anything, as the current poll is basically a charade to make the Germans look better at the expense of the Austrians (again, two COMPLETELY separate groups of people at the time, just as they are today). I would be _really_ interested to see how Germany and Austria would compare in relation to one another, and also how they compare with regards to Russia.


----------



## Norse

Nothing particularly original about my choices: Austria/Germany, France and Russia.

To me France represents a 'cooler' (e.g. impressionism, neo-classicism) and nice counterweight to the 'heavy' Germanic tradition.


----------



## RBrittain

Jacob Singer:

Do you not realise that the English and the Scots warred for centuries? That they identify themselves as different, but also appreciate that they're ultimately more similar than, say, the French and the English.

So the Prussians warred with the Austrians for a while. When the Austrian Empire became the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, _that's_ the only period when your argument holds any water. But that only existed for about 50 years, so is much smaller than the periods of German-Austrian unity. You seem to be fantasising about the Austrian-Hungarian Empire as though it somehow means that Austria has closer ties to Eastern Europe than to Germany. Well, you're wrong. Western Austria, including Vienna, has always had much stronger ties to Germany than to Eastern Europe.

Germany and Austria are _not_ exactly the same, but they _are_ a lot more similar than you seem to realise. Consider a place like Bavaria. Wagner lived there. Quintessentially German, you might say. And yet, its customs, cultures, traditions are hugely similar to Austrian customs, cultures and traditions. You seem to be failing to appreciate that Germany itself varies rather strongly from North to South. Are you saying we shouldn't include south Germany in Germany then, because it's too 'Austrian'?

Honestly, it makes perfect sense to include Austria with Germany for this poll. I doubt you will ever admit it now, because you have become so staunch in defending your viewpoints.

I'm a proud Englishman but I have no problems at all with being lumped in with the Scots and the Welsh for the purpose of this poll because it makes total sense. We're different, and yet similar when you look at all of Europe. We've been held in union by the United Kingdom for some 300 years now. Well, if you look at the Holy Roman Empire, western Austria, including Vienna, was in union with Germany for around 800 years, from 1000 to 1800 (approximately). _THAT'S_ what creates a cultural history and identity. 800 years. _NOT_ the 50 year period you're concentrating on (1867-1918), when Austria happened to be tied with Hungary.

Looking at the poll, I don't understand why you have picked on Germany/Austria when there is a much more obvious one to criticise - Eastern Europe, as this seems to include the Czech composers, as well as the Finnish composers, for example. I would personally have had Scandinavia as another category, poll options permitting, as you have Sibelius and Grieg as two rather big ones. That's the only real issue I can see with the poll options. Otherwise, it looks great.


----------



## Nix

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> :lol: Oh yes, and contemporay composers today / 20th century don't mind if they are paid only with oxygen. I like how you describe it using the words "simply written" in particular.
> 
> I think the quality of music history that are taught by some lecturers today at universities are really starting to show. Perhaps these are the lecturers who themselves struggle with economic means these days in the real world, and are therefore "simply doing it" to pay their rent. Afterall, the real world has little need these days for tens of thousands of music students; where else can they go, but "teach" at universities? They cannot possibly all be talented composers to command premium fees for compositions like Haydn in London or Handel in Baroque England, or Mozart with his operas (he earned as much as Salieri but was quick to squander it).


Well I hope you won't mind if _I_ don't take you too seriously HarpsichordConcerto. You spent most of your post insulting my education, and didn't even manage to come up with a valid argument.

Obviously 21st century composers want to get compensated for their work, but they don't decide to become a composer because they think it will be financially beneficial (unless they're very very stupid). And notice how I said '_most_ composers pre-Beethoven.' I would never dream of including Haydn, Handel or Mozart in that 'most' category (although I'm sure that _some_ of the music they wrote they did it just for money). Oh, and if you don't believe my opinions on those three in particular, and since you seem to have trouble taking my word for things, you can refer to http://www.talkclassical.com/12162-top-25-composers-please.html


----------



## Almaviva

blank (edited out by author)


----------



## Almaviva

Nix said:


> Very true, (in fact I listed those as some of the highest paid composers in another thread just the other day) though they are still a long way from 'today.'


Well, the divide was being set at Beethoven, and I have merely shown that two post-Beethoven composers surely did it "for the rent." Rossini actually quit when he thought he was rich enough, retired and survived for several more decades not doing much except spending his money throwing parties to friends and enjoying gourmet food in Paris.


----------



## Nix

Almaviva said:


> Well, the divide was being set at Beethoven, and I have merely shown that two post-Beethoven composers surely did it "for the rent." Rossini actually quit when he thought he was rich enough, retired and survived for several more decades not doing much except spending his money throwing parties to friends and enjoying gourmet food in Paris.


I agree, all I meant by the Beethoven divide was that was when the ratio started turning the other way.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

You all know that there can only be 10 poll choices right?  I couldn't put every single region/country on there, so I only did what made sense.

Would you all have liked to have had it organized by Language/Language group instead? Language is one of the key cultural bonds between people. In some ways, that would have made it more complicated.


----------



## zoziejemaar

emiellucifuge said:


> How dare you lump the Dutch and Flemish together!


I'm insulted too! 

No, seriously, about the Germany/Austria debate: some people here seem very certain about what they're talking about, but they should know that Austrians themselves were and are struggling with the question of their own "Germanness". Let me remind you that especially to the east of the Rhine, ancien regime-empires did not coincide with what we would call nations. The Habsburg empire not any more than say the Ottoman empire. The Austrians themselves (and in the years 20 and 30 certainly) considered, and sometimes consider, their own state as a pathetic fossil of the Habsburg past, which should not be separated from their German Volksgenossen. 
And the negative implications of this word alone (together with feelings as "Germanness") already point to the reasons why such a unification was not likely anymore after WWII.

And speaking about the time from Haydn to Mahler, it certainly makes sense to take Germany/Austria as one "cultural sphere". The argument of van Beethoven's life is a good one (and no, van Beethoven was not Flemish ).


----------



## Jacob Singer

Almaviva said:


> So you're saying that they are just as different as, say, the Japanese and the Mexicans? You don't seem to get my idea of different orders of magnitude of degrees of separation.


I haven't even commented on it, because it isn't all that relevant. The difference between Germany and Austria during most of these composers' lives was simply far too significant to ignore by anyone taking this subject seriously.



RBrittain said:


> So the Prussians warred with the Austrians for a while. When the Austrian Empire became the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, _that's_ the only period when your argument holds any water.


This is completely false, as I have already shown in detail. The Habsburg Monarchy ruled the Austrian Empire _long_ before it became the empire of Austria-Hungary. While the formal dissolution of the HRE didn't occur until 1806, Austria had been separate from the German states for many years before that, fighting them for territory.



RBrittain said:


> But that only existed for about 50 years, so is much smaller than the periods of German-Austrian unity…
> …the 50 year period you're concentrating on (1867-1918), when Austria happened to be tied with Hungary.


Again, that is totally wrong. The Austrian Empire included Hungary _long_ before 1867.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_history#Austria.27s_Rise_to_Power_.281657.E2.80.931714.29

As you can see, the "Big 5" powers in Europe from this period all the way to WWI were Russia, Austria, Prussia (which along with the other German states would eventually become a unified Germany), France, and the United Kingdom. The differences between any of these 5 main entities are HUGE, and ignoring them simply due to ethnic similarity is downright absurd.

The real irony here is that I don't even care about Austria or Austrian composers all that much, despite the erroneous assumption to that effect in your post. I only care about the facts, unlike some of my detractors.

Furthermore, if a poll were set up with a better degree of historical understanding (i.e. Germany and Austria separate), then I might actually vote for Germany.



In that scenario, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia actually got the most votes, nor would I be surprised if Austria was second. Plus, it would just be _much_ more interesting to see these primary entities separated statistically, just as they were separated politically, culturally, and geographically throughout history.

Lumping them together is boring and tells us next to nothing.


----------



## RBrittain

The key failing in your argument seems to be that you are viewing the Habsburg monarchy as though it was a single, unified country, when the reality is that it was a number of different territories, different cultures all tied by one crown.


----------



## RBrittain

I also think you're grossly misunderstanding the nature of the Austrian Empire. The centre of power was very much in western Austria, Vienna. That they held jurisdiction over the lands of Hungary for a time does not lessen the fact that Vienna _was and is_ culturally closer to Germany than to Hungary.


----------



## Almaviva

blank (edited out by author)


----------



## RBrittain

Yeah, and for musical reasons also, it makes perfect sense. We talk about the impact Beethoven, a German composer, had on the Vienna School (and what he drew from it).

We find many close relationships between Austrian and German composers..

Haydn and Beethoven..

Bruckner and Wagner..

And Brahms produced most of his works in Vienna! He came all the way from Hamburg, north Germany.

The more I think about it, the more I realise how stupid it would be to separate them. Germany and Austria are inherently linked, musically, which is why we frequently come across terms like 'Austro-German Romanticism' in Musicology everywhere.


----------



## Jacob Singer

RBrittain said:


> The key failing in your argument seems to be that you are viewing the Habsburg monarchy as though it was a single, unified country, when the reality is that it was a number of different territories, different cultures all tied by one crown.


Yeah, and with Vienna at its heart along the Danube River, tying the various nations together into a single autonomous empire - _completely separate from Germany_ - that lasted for hundreds of years. I've already covered all that.



RBrittain said:


> And Brahms produced most of his works in Vienna! He came all the way from Hamburg, north Germany.


And Dvořák came all the way across the Atlantic! 

..................

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648:

_"formally recognized the independence of each state within the Holy Roman Empire, effectively making the emperor nothing more than a symbolic figurehead."_

This what you might call a 'slam dunk', proving my arguments to be airtight once again. As any scholar of the period knows, the HRE had become all but powerless at this point, and Austria was clearly under her own completely separate governance from this era onward.

Subsequent attempts to unify Austria with the German states (e.g. the failed "confederation") were totally in vain, and the _only_ time that Austria would ever be a part of Germany was centuries later when Hitler annexed Austria and the Sudetenland (an area located within the former state of Czechoslovakia), including these regions within his twisted vision of the German Reich. Apart from this brief period of Nazi occupation, no serious historian would ever consider lumping Germany and Austria together. The very notion is absurd.


----------



## RBrittain

Ugh. Just... Never mind.

Let's separate Germany and Austria. Let's, in this poll, also separate Bavaria from the rest of Germany, please. Also, I want to see Britain split into England, Ireland, Wales and the Isle of Man. Eastern Europe? Split it into Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech, etc, please. Russia? Too big a country - I want it split into at least three parts because the east Russians are so different from the west Russians. USA? Might as well split it into the 50 different states, because I know New Yorkers identify themselves as wholly different from Texans and north warred with south for a while. Hmm. Actually, let's split England too into Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria, please, because they identified themselves as different for quite a long time too. Oh, and the Cornish. Actually, if preferable, could you divide all English composers into: Roman stock, Anglian stock, Viking stock, Norman stock, Briton stock. 

I'd also like to see separate options for Portugal, Kazakhstan and Botswana, please. In total, I'd like to see around 400-500 poll options because of the new information that Jacob Singer has brought to light about Germany and Austria being different.

Thank you.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Oh ^
in that case I would change my vote. Botswana has a very rich musical tradition.


----------



## graaf

I am glad to see how high Russia is listed (2nd, and quite close to 1st), but surprised to see Italy quite low - 5th, almost as low as UK. Somehow I thought that all the opera would position them higher...


----------



## starry

The classical school established in Vienna had a wide influence way beyond German speaking countries. Other places have had influence at different times as well. Most artists look beyond national politics in creating art.


----------



## graaf

starry said:


> Most artists look beyond national politics in creating art.


Sure thing. Unfortunately it is easy for many people to jump into politics and whether Austrian people are Germans or not (not sure how may people know that Mozart is Swabian, not Austrian: Mozart family is from Augsburg for many generations, he was born in Salzburg since his father worked there and even Salzburg was on and off in Austria and Bavaria - not that it matters, just a small trivia). But there is something about some of the "schools of music" - like Russians and other Slavic composers. There is a certain emotion that I find only in Slavic composers, it might be that is due to the influence of folk music, but I can't be sure. The thing is that I find it in Russian (and Czech) composers some kind of melancholy or longing or something, which I don't see often in other composers. It can't be anything nationalistic (I'm from Serbia), since I regard Germans as best (I see Beethoven as undisputed, although, once again trivia, he is of Flemish descent), but Russians somehow speak directly to the heart...


----------



## science

Oh! I'm only the 3rd person to vote Spain/Latin America!

Albeniz! Albeniz! *ALBENIZ!*

And then there's Granados, de Falla, Roderigo! A bunch of renaissance/baroque guys: Thomas Luiz de Victoria, Luis de Narvaez, de Morales, and the criminally under-rated Zarzuela opera.

Latin America: Piazzolla, Villa-Lobos, Golijov, Ponce, Ginastera, Chavez, Revueltas. There's probably more.

And all that lovely guitar music!?


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> Oh! I'm only the 3rd person to vote Spain/Latin America!
> 
> Albeniz! Albeniz! *ALBENIZ!*
> 
> And then there's Granados, de Falla, Roderigo! A bunch of renaissance/baroque guys: Thomas Luiz de Victoria, Luis de Narvaez, de Morales, and the criminally under-rated Zarzuela opera.
> 
> Latin America: Piazzolla, Villa-Lobos, Golijov, Ponce, Ginastera, Chavez, Revueltas. There's probably more.
> 
> And all that lovely guitar music!?


Interesting. I usually think of Spain/Latin America more for World Music - stuff like tango, flamenco, samba, bossa nova, Latin jazz, bolero (which I all like very much) - than for classical music, but you're right, there are some interesting examples. I only know one zarzuela (Luisa Fernanda) but it left me longing for more - unfortunately like you said it is such an under-appreciated genre that recordings of full zarzuelas are hard to come by. I'd also add Brazilian opera composer Carlos Gomes who has some wonderful works that are totally under the radar (Il Guarany, Salvator Rosa).


----------



## Almaviva

graaf said:


> Sure thing. Unfortunately it is easy for many people to jump into politics and whether Austrian people are Germans or not (not sure how may people know that Mozart is Swabian, not Austrian: Mozart family is from Augsburg for many generations, he was born in Salzburg since his father worked there and even Salzburg was on and off in Austria and Bavaria - not that it matters, just a small trivia). But there is something about some of the "schools of music" - like Russians and other Slavic composers. *There is a certain emotion that I find only in Slavic composers, it might be that is due to the influence of folk music, but I can't be sure.* The thing is that I find it in Russian (and Czech) composers some kind of melancholy or longing or something, which I don't see often in other composers. It can't be anything nationalistic (I'm from Serbia), since I regard Germans as best (I see Beethoven as undisputed, although, once again trivia, he is of Flemish descent), but Russians somehow speak directly to the heart...


I think it's all that cold and all that vodka...


----------



## Charon

I voted for Germany/Austria, Italy and Russia.

It was pretty hard to leave France off, though.


----------



## chee_zee

Southern India (Carnatic) and Japan (Gagaku)


----------



## science

Almaviva - yes, the dance music is wonderful too. If the poll had asked which region had inspired the best music, I think Spain / Latin America would be doing much better, and one reason is all that dance music. 

I suppose Spain suffers a lot from the relative unpopularity of the Baroque. When people think of Baroque, they're mainly thinking of Bach, Handel, and a few Italians. Not even much of the French - the likes of Rameau are not too often deeply explored. So there's almost no way people get around to the Spanish Baroque. 

But it is getting better. I think the fact that I know about it is a sign of that!


----------



## starry

graaf said:


> But there is something about some of the "schools of music" - like Russians and other Slavic composers. There is a certain emotion that I find only in Slavic composers, it might be that is due to the influence of folk music, but I can't be sure. The thing is that I find it in Russian (and Czech) composers some kind of melancholy or longing or something, which I don't see often in other composers. It can't be anything nationalistic (I'm from Serbia), since I regard Germans as best (I see Beethoven as undisputed, although, once again trivia, he is of Flemish descent), but Russians somehow speak directly to the heart...


Maybe if you look outside of classical music then and other cultures like African, Arab or some areas of the far east you might find something similar then. I don't think melancholy / longing has a monopoly in just one area. Some folk musics of different areas can even sound surprisingly similar sometimes.


----------



## janealex

*My interest not belong to country music*

My interest not belong to country music i just love soft and romantic music of any country.


----------



## Hazel

How can anyone choose, really? Each country has its own style and each can be enjoyed for a different reason. There is only one I would not choose and, fortunately, it is not on the list. No, I'll not name it.


----------

