# Style versus substance



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Thinking about some pop music I listened to when young -- quite a bit of it really really bad it seems now. Embarrassing in fact.

Maybe things haven't changed. There are some composers from the Classical period whose music I enjoy, even though it's really not really very good. I like the style! Though I draw the line at Kozeluch...

How about you? Are there composers you enjoy for their style, even though deep down you know they're not really the best?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Nah, my taste is pretty immaculate across the board.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

I'm a sucker for lush piano concertos, so any composer from Hyperion's Romantic Piano Concerto series would fit the bill. While the greats are among them, like Tchaikovsky, Mendelssohn, or Saint Saens, and while there are also the "hidden" greats like Medtner, there are dozens of composers that...hm, how can I put it nicer, are romantic fluff, who wrote decent crowd pleasers but would never be ranked among the best.

There are also some well known names, like Balakirev and Rimsky Korsakov, but the piano concertos by these composers are probably among their weaker works.

Maybe I'm being too harsh. But it doesn't matter, I'm actually now gonna listen to Stenhammar's pc's since I brought this up


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I have a taste for late 19th-century, early 20th-century Scandinavian/Finnish Romantics: Alfven, Larsson, Langgaard, Atterberg, Stenhammar, Sinding, Halvorsen, Rangstrom, Peterson-Berger, Melartin, Madetoja, etc. Some of their music is absolutely first-rate, some of it is not, but there's something in the inward, moody, cool yet fervent, solemn yet friendly nature mysticism of that part of the world that speaks to me whatever the source.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Although I would love there to be some immutability in these characterizations, there remains a certain amount of subjectivity in style/substance judgments. That said, I will admit that to my mind, Tchaikovsky's Serenade for Strings is pretty much his most perfect work, but I doubt you will find many listeners who confer a lot of substance on it. Richard Strauss is a self-confessed "first-rate second-class composer," whose music I derive a lot of pleasure from. This is just me, and I will get a lot of flack for it, by I consider Chopin to be a gorgeously pianistic composer whose works celebrate wonderfully imaginative pianism with (to me) very little substance -- and I generally don't listen to him unless I'm at a concert and the pianist has included a Chopin set on his program. Rimsky's Russian Easter Overture is a guilty, style over substance, pleasure.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Thinking about some pop music I listened to when young -- quite a bit of it really really bad it seems now. Embarrassing in fact.


I can think of some current-when-I-was-young contemporary classical about which I too, could think that admitting to being seriously impressed with it would now be "Embarrassing in fact."

I'm _fairly_ inured by now in not succumbing to being attracted to or seduced by the clothes someone is wearing, their looks, or the manner in which they speak: to me, it is all about _what they say, how they think_, the rest of the other more outward aspects becoming part of them if what I found of that 'interior' was attractive or interesting.

Ditto with music.

That said, interior liked and at its best -- the people that I like, myself, and I'm sure a lot of the music I like -- are each and all not completely perfect, and sometimes far from, while they are not liked though, merely for their style.

Some time ago, someone here posted an early classical symphony by a composer I had never heard of (current listening, I think) and I found it genuinely "Delightful" and said so. I would never seek it out, purchase a copy, or listen to it again -- rather like it was for many an audience member at the time it was written. That work was more 'generic' in its style, as 'well-written' as it was.

As much as I like / love and admire much modern and contemporary work, I am just as hard-nosed on content as I am about works of any other era.

That said, I think it nearly impossible for a piece which has really worthwhile 'content' (whatever that is, lol) to be devoid of style or a somewhat unique personality behind it.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I just don't have _that many_ albums. Usually, if there is something substandard, I recognize it within a short while... hopefully before I bought it


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I have a weakness for the classical guitar, even though very little of its literature can stand up to that of the great war horses. What I like is perhaps not so much the style (because the instrument spawned many) as the texture. At least to my ears, a piece that would otherwise be utterly banal, somehow sounds great on a guitar, as if the instrument has the power to ennoble otherwise lesser pieces.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

^ I have a 2CD Andrès Segovia set. Is he considered substandard  It gets its annual playing, like all my other albums, but classical guitar is not a gripping passion, although I do enjoy it.

What I discovered through Segovia, however, is quite nice: Vivaldi's Guitar Concertos.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> ^ I have a 2CD Andrès Segovia set. Is he considered substandard  It gets its annual playing, like all my other albums, but classical guitar is not a gripping passion, although I do enjoy it.
> 
> What I discovered through Segovia, however, is quite nice: Vivaldi's Guitar Concertos.


Segovia isn't substandard. He is one of the greatest classical guitar players of all time.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Segovia isn't substandard. He is one of the greatest classical guitar players of all time.


!!! I can not believe you fell for that one  !!!


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> !!! I can not believe you fell for that one  !!!


Well, sarcasm _is_ kinda hard to detect in this medium sometimes.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Segovia isn't substandard. He is one of the greatest classical guitar players of all time.


He was certainly a modern pioneer of the instrument, but from what I hear, his technique was not all that great compared to that of modern players.

I wouldn't know - I have actually never heard any of his recordings, mostly just because I don't like the rather "dry" sound of old recordings.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

brianvds said:


> He was certainly a modern pioneer of the instrument, but from what I hear, his technique was not all that great compared to that of modern players.
> 
> I wouldn't know - I have actually never heard any of his recordings, mostly just because I don't like the rather "dry" sound of old recordings.


Meh, to be perfectly honest, I consider Paco de Lucia to be a better guitarist, but then he's not considered 'classical'.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Usually I find style for the sake of style quite tedious. The Mannheim School and their "rockets" and Alberti bass drives me to the mute button. The overdone vibrato and rubato of the romantic period and the syrupy strings of 1940s and 50s Hollywood soundtracks repulse me with equal swiftness. However I do have guilty pleasures.

I enjoy a great deal of Anton Rubinstein. Though he is clearly uneven, a couple of his works are 4 star at least 

My guiltiest pleasure is probably The Swingle Singers, proving that Bach can sound profound regardless of how maudlin or corny the interpretation.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2014)

KenOC said:


> even though deep down you know they're not really the best?


Deep down I know that vertical thinking is not nearly as useful nor interesting as horizontal.

(I'll let you work out the irony there.)

How about listening to music for the sounds? For the rhythms and the colors and the various variations and intricacies and changes? Too radical, I know. Listening to music is for deciding what's best. That's the only reason to spend any time with the stuff. And if you can get someone else to do the work (tedious work) for you, then you can have a nice collection of "the best" without having had to listen to any of it yourself. What bliss!!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Segovia isn't substandard. He is one of the greatest classical guitar players of all time.


You are sadly misinformed. Classical guitar playing has, over the years, improved greatly and even though Segovia may have been influential and perhaps even having been considered to have good technique in his day, his performances on the instrument are nowhere near as advanced in musicality, accurate in technique nor as beautiful and controlled in tone and performers of today.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> You are sadly misinformed. Classical guitar playing has, over the years, improved greatly and even though Segovia may have been influential and perhaps even having been considered to have good technique in his day, his performances on the instrument are nowhere near as advanced in musicality, accurate in technique nor as beautiful and controlled in tone and performers of today.


Please recommend some.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Please recommend some.


Kyuhee Park: 



Ana Vidovic: 



Xuefei Yang: 



Duo Assad (they're older than the above, but still arguably the best guitar duo in the world): 



Göran Söllscher: 




For period instruments, Paolo Pugliese and Claudio Maccaro are the experts:


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Great links, CoAG. I greatly enjoyed both the repertoire and the performances. You should make a thread: "Actual _good_ music for the classical guitar!"


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

aleazk said:


> Great links, CoAG. I greatly enjoyed both the repertoire and the performances. You should make a thread: "Actual _good_ music for the classical guitar!"


Anything commissioned by Julian Bream! Takemitsu (guitarist as well as a composer) wrote this for him: 




Also just remembered that Ginastera wrote a sonata. 




And yeah, a thread would be pretty cool for this kind of music


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> You are sadly misinformed. Classical guitar playing has, over the years, improved greatly and even though Segovia may have been influential and perhaps even having been considered to have good technique in his day, his performances on the instrument are nowhere near as advanced in musicality, accurate in technique nor as beautiful and controlled in tone and performers of today.


Not to mention how much prettier many of today's guitarists are.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

What'd King Richard say about Sibelius?: "I have more skill, but he is greater."

I get everything I can by both.

Strauss.

Sibelius.

'Style.'

'Substance.'

I never leave the house with neither.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

some guy said:


> How about listening to music for the sounds? For the rhythms and the colors and the various variations and intricacies and changes?


The "like" was for this part. It's something that I do more frequently now, and it seldom gets talked about.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Style over substance...style over substance. Let me think - that would probably involve a bear rockin' out.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Couac Addict said:


> Style over substance...style over substance. Let me think - that would probably involve a bear rockin' out.


A bear rockin Misirlou on a lute with hagraven backup dancers, my life is complete


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

That's easy. Domenico Scarlatti. He wrote three or four little sonatinas 600 times and got away with it.

Like what he was trying to do, but I find the repetition deadly after a while.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I read about that  I found this one at the used record store a few months back:










Yevgeny Sudbin

I hope he chose the 18 best ones, then  It's very nice listening!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I'm not quite sure how one goes about separating style and substance. Doesn't composing something with plenty of substance not count as a stylistic decision also? And if one composes with nothing but style (whatever _that_ means!) couldn't all that style be regarded as the substance?

Basically what I'm saying is if I enjoy it then in _my_ mind that makes it good.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Kyuhee Park:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Kyuhee Park in particular has amazing style and articulation.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Couac Addict said:


> Style over substance...style over substance. Let me think - that would probably involve a bear rockin' out.


this is hilarious - what game is this?


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> this is hilarious - what game is this?


Skyrim, but with some kind of mod


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> That's easy. Domenico Scarlatti. He wrote three or four little sonatinas 600 times and got away with it.
> 
> Like what he was trying to do, but I find the repetition deadly after a while.


I know all these quips about Baroque composers are a half-truth, since they were expected to produce like an office worker, and had no luxury of patched-together other means or jobs so they could write more 'when they felt like it,' and 'only what they wanted to write.'

But really, Bach, Telemann, Vivaldi, Scarlatti (A. & D.), Couperin, and a host of others could all be quasi-accused of 'writing the same piece,' x the number of known works by each.

So, yeah, its cute, its glib, but it always has me wondering about its speaker, _"How much and exactly what do they hear when they listen to anything?_

And that state of near just hearing vs. listening brings to mind a Thomas Beecham quote, 
"The English may not like music but they love the sound it makes."


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I know all these quips about Baroque composers are a half-truth, since they were expected to produce like an office worker, and had no luxury of patched-together other means or jobs so they could write more 'when they felt like it,' and 'only what they wanted to write.'
> 
> But really, Bach, Telemann, Vivaldi, Scarlatti (A. & D.), Couperin, and a host of others could all be quasi-accused of 'writing the same piece,' x the number of known works by each.
> 
> ...


'To be fair to Bach, Scarlatti etc, baroque simply is quite limited. It's stylistically quite strict and that makes it easy to create a large number of works but hard to do something new.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It would be interesting for somebody to post three or four pairs of works by JS Bach that are cut from the same pattern and were "easy to create." Waiting anxiously.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> It would be interesting for somebody to post three or four pairs of works by JS Bach that are cut from the same pattern and were "easy to create." Waiting anxiously.


Best I can do:

Concertos for organ, BWV 592-597.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Blancrocher said:


> Best I can do:
> 
> Concertos for organ, BWV 592-597.


Bzzzz! Sorry, that's the wrong answer. Bach's organ concertos are arrangements of Vivaldi and Prince Johann Ernst von Saxe-Weimar.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2014)

But how is that not "cut from the same pattern" or "easy to create"?

OK, OK, I know. They're not cut from one of Bach's same patterns. But they sure were easy to create, eh?

And, come to think of it, aren't the two completed Passions cut from the same pattern? Oh, but wait. They probably weren't easy to create. Dunno though. Who knows what was easy for Bach or not?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

some guy said:


> But how is that not "cut from the same pattern" or "easy to create"?
> 
> OK, OK, I know. They're not cut from one of Bach's same patterns. But they sure were easy to create, eh?
> 
> And, come to think of it, aren't the two completed Passions cut from the same pattern? Oh, but wait. They probably weren't easy to create. Dunno though. Who knows what was easy for Bach or not?


Well, it's known that he could engender childrens at an impressive rate. Certainly, some 'ease' is needed!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

some guy said:


> But how is that not "cut from the same pattern" or "easy to create"?
> 
> OK, OK, I know. They're not cut from one of Bach's same patterns. But they sure were easy to create, eh?
> 
> And, come to think of it, aren't the two completed Passions cut from the same pattern? Oh, but wait. They probably weren't easy to create. Dunno though. Who knows what was easy for Bach or not?


Similar patterns, or relative ease in producing music, are things that don't necessarily bear any relationship to inspiration or originality. This I think is all too common, no offense maybe even an excuse, for people who don't have as much of a taste for pre-classical music. Much like two similar equations in physics can look identical to someone looking in from an outside perspective, to the physicist there can be all the difference in the world depending on *what exactly is different*.

In Baroque music in particular, there are mathematical patterns, symbols one can recognize while hearing but are most easily recognizable on the sheets (like some have mentioned, there are motifs that make the visible shape of a cross), types of motifs that were generally agreed to symbolize something, etc. So when people listen without that in mind and they just determine what it is they are hearing based on harmony and melody, dynamics and rhythm, it is understandable how it can all seem the same. When music proceeded into the classical period, the use of symbols went pretty much out the window aside from the concept of a leitmotif.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

KenOC said:


> It would be interesting for somebody to post three or four pairs of works by JS Bach that are cut from the same pattern and were "easy to create." Waiting anxiously.


His inventions.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Piwikiwi said:


> 'To be fair to Bach, Scarlatti etc, baroque simply is quite limited. It's stylistically quite strict and that makes it easy to create a large number of works but hard to do something new.


Like purchasing manufactured cloth, the era was very much 'Music to order, by the yard,' ... since these composers were master craftsmen, about anything they wrote serves as listenable without any pain, while in the midst of that daily grind of production it is that much more astonishing -- in those circumstances -- that any of them have even a handful of pieces which we, hundreds of years later, still feel 'are inspired.'


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It's not like our current society is that much freer than Bach's time. There were conservative and liberals just like today. The higher classes are still getting the majority of the wealth, while the middle-class continues to work their collective *** off. Many artist are still highly manipulated by societal conditioning based on what the media portrays as "the dream goals of life." And the media is controlled by those with the money who want to keep their money.... The stylized structure of eras really should be overlooked as simply a superficial costume of the times. Just like our current one.... The true artist is beyond that. 

Bach was actually accused to be backwards looking and not up with his contemporaries. Writing in fugues and ultra-counterpoint the way he did was considered to be overly nostalgic, and he didn't get that much attention from the "forward lookers" of his day.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> It would be interesting for somebody to post three or four pairs of works by JS Bach that are cut from the same pattern and were "easy to create." Waiting anxiously.


_The entire body of his work._

Guess you missed the post where I said that the quip 'the same piece 1000 times,' was glib, which implicitly includes _shallow._

Bach is 'all the same' like Mozart 'is all the same' like all but a few composers throughout their careers 'wrote all the same.'

The glibness re: Scarlatti wrote 500 sonatinas all the same glosses over these facts:
They ARE SONATAS
and
They encompass a widely varied pallet of musical materials.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> It's not like our current society is that much freer than Bach's time. There were conservative and liberals just like today. The higher classes are still getting the majority of the wealth, while the middle-class continues to work their collective *** off. Many artist are still highly manipulated by societal conditioning based on what the media portrays as "the dream goals of life." And the media is controlled by those with the money who want to keep their money.... The stylized structure of eras really should be overlooked as simply a superficial costume of the times. Just like our current one.... The true artist is beyond that.
> 
> Bach was actually accused to be backwards looking and not up with his contemporaries. Writing in fugues and ultra-counterpoint the way he did was considered to be overly nostalgic, and he didn't get that much attention from the "forward lookers" of his day.


What we need is a nuclear holocaust (or two). Let us start all over again.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> What we need is a nuclear holocaust (or two). Let us start all over again.


There's still time for more to come. It's not like we've been 'divinely-enlightened' since then.


----------

