# The Four Seasons Recomposed



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

One of my interests is how we create certain (usually simple) concepts with fairly artificial definitions, then reify our concepts as if they were real things existing in the world, and then struggle with all the cases that don't fit our pretty little scheme as if they present a genuine intellectual puzzle about how the world actually is. We do that all the time, of course; we're pattern-seekers, and we're constantly hypothesizing patterns. But that kind of thing is like an old itchy scab for me. I know I'm not supposed to touch it… but…

So within the field of classical music, it interests me when things violate our standard "composer: work" configuration.

One example brought to mind by a recent thread by Taggart (http://www.talkclassical.com/28801-new-old-music.html]) is "Vivaldi Recomposed," the Four Seasons "recomposed" by Max Richter:










It's the most popular of a whole "recomposed" series that, sadly perhaps, or perhaps fortunately, hasn't gotten much attention beyond this one edition.

So, I'm wondering things like…

- What is your opinion of this particular work, "Vivaldi Recomposed?"

- What is your opinion of other editions in that series?

- What is your opinion of this kind of project? For example, has Richter really accomplished something special with that work? Or perhaps, was that sort of project just not the kind of thing that can make for "great" composing? Was it a colossal waste of time? A silly publicity stunt? Or is it potentially a work of genius - even if Richter's particular work wasn't, could this be a substantial "new way forward" for classical music?


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Lots of popular composers see their work 'covered' in some instances involving reimagination or redefinement BUT 'Classical' music previously simply saw such redefinement in terms of performance's poetic licence where this work goes in a different direction I'm uncomfortable with really without seeing The Beatles elevated into the 'Classical' canon


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I posted this reworked piece some time ago, and while I found it has some appeal, the 'fresh take on' sort of aspect, and an occasional flash of if not brilliance, at least something musical a bit within the realm of clever.... Max Richter is a competent composer whose strengths, I think, are more in the realms of good / appropriate film music, and one stripe of "Ambient" style pieces.

What I objected to completely was the stylistic playing of the violin soloist -- throughout all the movements of each concerto there is a far far too pronounced romantic style delivery -- most of all, the middle movements, all of them if I recall, were seriously distorted to "filmic ~ romantic," both in the writing and the performance, which is antithetical to the spirit of the work, and each time, the composer turned those into what I consider a cheapened sentimental porridge. Richter completely ruined the middle movement of Spring by omitting the crux of the movement's frame, i.e. the "Barking Dog" ostinato -- which turned that particular movement into the more / most egregious of the overtly and overly romanticized takes on the middle movements.

Nonetheless it was at least "fun" for one or two listens, after which it fades or pales more than quickly, indicating it is more Schtick than substance.

I see no future in it at all as a new branch or genre, while it does make for some interesting retakes, which is what they are.

The most original retakes is not a direct retake, but a true reworking, or a genuinely new piece, not mere re-arrangements of old works, but wholly fresh invention perhaps as hommage or _a la maniere de_ pieces.

I think Richter got lucky in getting to re-do this already wildly popular baroque work.

My stumbling upon the Vivaldi / Richter did not stimulate any interest whatsoever in wanting to explore any other works from this ongoing series.

ADD Ps. The moment I saw this and what it was called, I was in no way put off or offended (I think both the OP and I imagine some people would be... as in mortally offended.) The label on the tin announces exactly what is in the box, and that is that. Ergo -- no mortal offense that some holy relic was messed about with -- which I think is "the other" reaction one might think there to be.


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

DGG has this weird series of albums, presented with their grand classical covers, from musicians/producers that are in the electronics or house-scene. Moritz von Oswald and Carl Craig amongst others.
I don't get it, they are all good in their own right! But this reworkingthing doesn't do it for me. And I really like hypnotic repetitive electronica! Is this a jump on the vinylressurection bandwagon from DGG, so basically a commercial move ?
Don't think this "genre" will be a stayer. I have heard works of great techno or house producers who suddenly feel the need for big classical orchestra's; Jeff Mills, for one, I like him as a technowizzard, but that project was just pompous and pretentious.
Max Richter makes nice music, i have one of his albums. I agree with PetrB that his music falls in the category of moviescores and atmospheric ambient.
At the risk of being a boring old frt; if this is crossover music, I stick to my ridgid genreclassification.

Cheers,
Jos


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Nonetheless it was at least "fun" for one or two listens, after which it fades or pales more than quickly, indicating it is more Schtick than substance.


Agreed. My local classical station had this on frequent repeat last year. At first I found it interesting and after that I just wanted to throw things at the radio every time it started up. This is actually the only piece I've ever emailed a radio station to complain about.

I guess it's a classical-crossover novelty item, in the same category for me as Bumble Boogie.





I am not opposed to classical crossover stuff, remixes or recompositions in general. In fact I quite like Gabriel Prokofiev and Daniel Bernard Roumain. But there are also a lot of crossover pieces that aren't that good but get a lot of attention, because.... they're trendy? because classical presenters think younger listeners want to hear mediocre crossover? no idea.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I hate the concept of "crossover". It implies there's these inherent barriers between musical idioms and styles.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> I hate the concept of "crossover". It implies there's these inherent barriers between musical idioms and styles.


When you realize a good many PR people in the arts came there by way of sports backgrounds (at least in the U.S. of A. -- go figure), and that a lot of that marketing is calculatedly condescending, i.e. thinking people in general are stupid and limited, so need such labels as "crossover," (that mentality bringing up the "What Bin Do We Put It In?" dilemma of all retailers) and that is one explanation of all the horrid genre-tagging that exists.

Pop music, which I follow almost none at all, seems to be the worst, with genres and hairsplitting new sub-genres being spun out at a frightening rate, those tags often cannibalizing classical terminology, and getting it wrong in the bargain (neoclassical pop.)

It all goes hand in hand with "Theme exhibits" and "Theme musical programming" -- an opportunity for intelligent exhibitions and music programming which is almost always way off the mark. If you believe people love being told what to think, and telling them is necessary to sell your product, there you have it.

If you remember the flap when Bob Dylan picked up an electric guitar, for example, as much as many of those tags are genuinely loathe-worthy, you'll learn to pretty much ignore them


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> I hate the concept of "crossover". It implies there's these inherent barriers between musical idioms and styles.


Rather, it implies that any such barriers can be crossed.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

hreichgott said:


> Rather, it implies that any such barriers can be crossed.


There are no barriers


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> There are no barriers


With the composer, there are limits of the imagination and ability with the craft itself.

With much of the general listening public, listening habits wrapped up hand in hand with expectations based upon preconceptions, expectations that a piece will be within their comfort zone, use a syntax and vocabulary with which they are both familiar and comfortable, and the habituated sense of allegiance to either a genre, period, or harmonic era... are all tangible limits.

What can be done with music -- well, no end in sight yet, thank goodness.


----------

