# Your classical music pet peeves



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Here are some of mine, and yes the list is long (don't read if you're easily offended):

1) Too much vibrato in lied and opera. This probably isn't what the composers wanted, and it just doesn't sound good or make any sense for that matter. If you have a note to sing, you're not supposed to hover around it wobbling like a butterfly. Mertens & Mathot show how it's supposed to be done in Winterreise. But there are few such recordings as far as I know. So few that it makes you wonder what kind of zombie epidemic hit the West at around the year 1900. Vibrato does come naturally after the singer has conditioned their brain to apply vibrato unconsciously. This doesn't mean vibrato is "natural" and "should always be used".

2) Lack of balance in recordings of polyphonic compositions, mainly Renaissance sacred vocal works. There are two variations of this issue. There are the groups who emphasise the top voice so much that you can barely hear the rest, and then there are the groups who emphasise different voices at different times so that you can't hear one or two voices at all or nearly at all at any given moment. Ugh. I mean, come on - can't we have even one recording of Gombert sung in perfect balance as the composer obviously intended?

3) Lack of balance in opera recordings. Here the issue is that I can't hear orchestral detail nearly as well as I'd like to. The singing is so much on the foreground that it makes me think people just aren't comfortable with listening to different layers of music at the same time.

4) Pianists play Bach fugues as if the only thing that matters in them is the fugue subject, highlighting the subject where ever it arises, and putting everything else on the background. This is blatantly against the nature of polyphonic music, as well as against the performance practice of the time in which these pieces were composed. There's at least one pianist who seems to have enough brains not to do this (Peter Hill), but there are not many, in fact there are very few and I can't think of more than one even though I've investigated the matter.

5) Most cellists playing Bach's cello suites highlight the structure of the music by emphasising and lengthening the first note of a bar or so. By most cellists I mean almost everyone. This can get pretty absurd, like so absurd you have to consciously follow the music to not lose sense of the actual rhythm, because the cellists are butchering the natural flow of the music. Rostropovich seems to avoid this awful habit a lot, but it really is hard to find anyone who plays these pieces with a natural flow. Humans really are slaves of tradition and love to ape others, don't they?

6) Same problem as number 5, except affecting harpsichordists. Not as hard to find someone who plays with their brain turned on though. Gilbert is solid here.

7) Harpsichordists like to add flourishes to Bach. Ugh. Extra notes spoil the structure and character of the piece. If Bach had wanted to those notes there, he would have written them in.

8) Tempo in classical era slow movements. If you look at the tempo markings in Beethoven's op 106, it's pretty clear that composers in that era didn't use the adagio marking to mean "make this music drag". When Mozart wrote his slow movements, he made them sound slower than the allegros because he composed them in a different style. The tempo marking is there just to confirm that yes, this isn't supposed to sound like an allegro movement. It doesn't mean the pianist should slow it down even further until it drags.

9) Pianists universally avoid following performance instructions in the score when there are very many of them, at least in Beethoven. The last movement of Beethoven's op 57 is a good example. I don't mind creativity and deviating from the score. I really don't. But when that deviation makes the piece seem less creative and less powerful, and nobody is following the score properly, then you have to wonder what is wrong with pianists.

10) Lack of balance in piano concertos and violin concertos. Again, it seems like people want to hear the soloist virtuoso and nothing else. Take for example Frank Martin's violin concerto. There's no recording where you can actually here the orchestra properly at all times. Another good example is Mozart's D minor piano concerto. Why did Mozart add those beautiful woodwinds in the first movement if we can never hear them properly? Uchida's recording of this concerto is a nice exception.

11) Using subtonics instead of leading tones when phrases are clearly cadencing in Renaissance era vocal music. This issue affects pretty much everyone to some extent. Cappella Pratensis is at least one exception. A Sei Voci and Beauty Farm do better than most.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

My biggest pet peeves:

1. Conductors who perform a long work like the Schubert Ninth Symphony and insist on taking all of the repeats.

2. Slides and vibrato from the strings in Bach, Handel, Haydn and Mozart.

3. Leave keyboard Bach to the harpsichordists.

4. If you are going to perform all repeats in the Bach cello Suites and Keyboard Partitas, guess what...you are not supposed to play the repeat "verbatim". You are supposed to add embellishments. Otherwise, dullsville.

5. Harpsichordists: Listen to the way Igor Kipnis plays Bach solo works. This is NOT the way to play Bach! The guy adds embellishments on steroids. Something is wrong when one can no longer recognize the melodic line due to this excessive musical graffiti. Ornamenting should be tastefully employed-a little here, a little there.

6. The same as No. 5 for Mozart keyboard concertos. No reason to take a beautiful Mozart slow movement melody and on repeat make the melody unrecognizable by believing one is being "stylish" by going overboard on embellishments.

7. One more: Anyone who always finds classical music soooo "relaxing".


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

1. Bad performances

2. Critics focusing on the music rather than the performance, especially when the negative criticism directly results from a bad performance

3. "Technique to the detriment of beautiful sound" that's a Glazunovism. Simply bad performing priorities of the performer.

4. Bad sound engineering on an album

I guess you could say I complain more about how something is done or presented rather than the music itself. Performance practice gets the brunt of criticism from me.

Don't ask me _why _it's bad, it's just BAD BAD BAD! :tiphat:


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

hpowders said:


> My biggest pet peeves:
> 
> 1. Conductors who perform a long work like the Schubert Ninth Symphony and insist on taking all of the repeats.


I completely forgot this one. I prefer to go straight to the development section after the exposition, and the fact is repeats no longer make that much sense in the era of recordings. If I want to hear "repeats", I can just listen to the piece again.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I agree with almost everything in the OP except that I like sloooooow slow movements - tacky, I know - and I have no strong opinions about musica ficta in Renaissance music (gotta enjoy that "modal" sound sometimes).

My own:

-Recordings that don't even approximate something you could hear in real life. There are a lot of examples of this, but the one that struck me most recently is Mutter's newer recording of the Mozart's Sinfonia concertante, where she plays much of the slow movement with a barely-there whispery tone that somehow dominates the London Philharmonic Orchestra - this kind of really obvious studio artifice pulls me right out of the music.

-A strike against a lot of modern composers: instrumental "extended techniques." I DON'T CARE.

-Gratuitously fast tempos in Baroque music, even solemn religious music. Why?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

1. Referring to keyboard works of the baroque period as piano pieces.

2. The praising of classical crossover artists and works.

3. "Wet" sounding acoustics. Just keep things dry.

4. Professional reviewers who don't like HIP/period instrumentation reviewing HIP performances - a waste of time for all.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

By wet do you mean reverb? For some classical music a little natural reverb can do wonders. And in the case of VW Tallis Fantasia, a lot!


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

1. Accoustic (classical) instruments being (ab)used in "novel" ways to produce sound, which doesn't have anything to do with the way the instrument was meant to be played (I'm sorry avant gardists but this never sounds good).
2. Sprechgesang.
3. Heavy presence of cymbals in a recording.
4. Pianist theatrics, swaying, eyebrows etc.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Conductors who grunt and groan during a performance.

Performers with excessive body English.


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> 1. Bad performances
> 
> 2. Critics focusing on the music rather than the performance, especially when the negative criticism directly results from a bad performance
> 
> ...


Hello Huilu,

<Glazunovism> That's a new one to this old wolf's ears...Maybe I'm missing something, besides the gray matter inside my skull that seems to be evaporating at an ever-increasing and more rapid rate these days


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DeepR said:


> 1. Accoustic (classical) instruments being (ab)used in "novel" ways to produce sound, which doesn't have anything to do with the way the instrument was meant to be played (I'm sorry avant gardists but this never sounds good).


I'm curious where you draw the line on this one. Is pizzicato okay? Strings weren't necessarily "made" to be plucked but it's within the range of things that can be done with the instrument that doesn't totally ignore its functionality, if that makes sense.

But do you really think extended techniques "never" sound good. I can understand the dislike of pieces that are nothing but a collection of extended techniques, those pieces aren't necessarily always my thing either. But what about, say, the 4 movement of Bartok's 4th quartet, where the "snap pizzicato" are used functionally as a way of adding a stronger than usual accent to certain notes in the texture? Or what about the 5th movement of Berg's Lyric Suite where the sul ponticello is used to effectively enhance the violent sound of the music?

Or what about more moderate examples of extended techniques in the Romantic Era, like the "left hand pizz" variation of Paganini's 24th caprice?

What about extended techniques that basically transform the instrument into something else? Like Cage's Prepared Piano. I can't see anyone thinking something like this sounds "ugly" but I guess taste is taste 




It basically just sounds like a percussion ensemble at this point. So I guess another question I have is if there were a percussion ensemble that sounded exactly like the Cage piece above, would you still dislike it? Is it only the fact that it's using an instrument in a way it wasn't "meant" to be used?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> A strike against a lot of modern composers: instrumental "extended techniques." I DON'T CARE.


+1 i second that.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I think Glazonovism means its a quote of Glazonovism, and a type of thing that he would say.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Actually, I kinda want to ask everybody a similar question to the one I just asked DeepR because I'm really very curious.

To those of you that say you dislike extended techniques, is it the fact that the instrument isn't being used in the "proper" way that annoys you? or is it the sound itself? Like, you just happen to dislike the sound of every single extended technique?

Or in other words, if there was an instrument that naturally sounded exactly like a flutertongue flute or a harmonic on a string instrument, would you still hate it? or would you be okay with it since it was the "proper" way of playing the instrument?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

violadude said:


> I'm curious where you draw the line on this one. Is pizzicato okay?


would not be ok if used for the sake of itself alone.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I draw a line a somepoint with extended techniques. I don't dislike the philosophies of Cage or how he was as a person at all, but I have always felt that he could just as easily made a similar composition without ''preparing' a piano, which is capable of making much more beautiful music.

I heard a decent Mason Bates composition live in 2014, that had an instance of prepared piano which was well integrated into the scheme of the piece, but I still feel such a sound or effect could have been achieved by other means, and that it's an unnecessary nod to one of Cage's least interesting ideas. Bates himself said in the interview afterwards that he didn't think much of making entire pieces this way.

Sometimes extended techniques really do sound like percussion, but on surfaces and resonating bodies not really designed for that. Depends on the intuition of the composer in question and the effectiveness of any given effort. Bartok did just fine, and there is nothing the matter with the beginning of Mars by Holst, with the tapping bows. Pizzicato is tried and true.

All the same, when I was a little kid, I loved to mess around with the piano, plucking the strings with my hands ect. I am not sure if this was out of enjoyment of the sound or just curiosity and boredom. I get annoyed with "The Piano Guys" on YouTube who everyone seems to love(though I will wager not here!) not only for the silly new age inspirational vibes, but for the ways they use "extended techniques", very gimmicky though it's the new age vibe about it all that makes me scoff.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Zhdanov said:


> would not be ok if used for the sake of itself alone.


To you, what does that mean? Like, does Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony 3rd movement count? There's no real "reason" for having that section be pizzicato except to get a unique timbre that fits with the character of the piece (which, in my view, is how it's usually used). It could have easily been a staccato section, but it would lose some character.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I draw a line a somepoint with extended techniques. I don't dislike the philosophies of Cage or how he was as a person at all, but I have always felt that he could just as easily made a similar composition without ''preparing' a piano, which is capable of making much more beautiful music.
> 
> I heard a decent Mason Bates composition live in 2014, *that had an instance of prepared piano which was well integrated into the scheme of the piece, but I still feel such a sound or effect could have been achieved by other means*, and that it's an unnecessary nod to one of Cage's least interesting ideas. Bates himself said in the interview afterwards that he didn't think much of making entire pieces this way.
> 
> Sometimes extended techniques really do sound like percussion, but on surfaces and resonating bodies not really designed for that. Depends on the intuition of the composer in question and the effectiveness of any given effort. Bartok did just fine, and there is nothing the matter with the beginning of Mars by Holst, with the tapping bows. Pizzicato is tried and true.


This bolded part is the thing I'm having trouble understanding. So you're fine with the sound of the thing you were hearing, but you would rather it was achieved another way? So the sound could be exactly the same but achieved differently and you would have liked it better? Or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I think it's silly to put objects in a grand piano when you coud make a suitable, even preferable sound by other means involving percussion instruments. Grand pianos can make an infinitely more beautiful sounds and it is not part of their mechanism as there are objects inside them. It's like an ungainly combination of street percussion with cans and piano.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I think it's silly to put objects in a grand piano when you could more economically make a suitable, even preferable sound by other means involving percussion instruments. Grand pianos can make an infinitely more beautiful sound and it is not part of their mechanism to make these sounds, as there are objects inside them. It's like an ungainly combination of street percussion with cans and piano.


However, the prepared piano combines the sound of the percussion ensemble with the versatility of the piano, I think that's the true advantage of it. For example, let's say you wanted a very quick upwards scale and have each note be a different percussive sound. Depending on how quick the scale is, that would be next to impossible to coordinate smoothly using 10 different percussionists playing each note, but a piano could easily do it. Plus having a "one man" percussion ensemble on the medium of the piano allows for richer interpretive freedom, as far as rhythm, tempo and expression goes.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

violadude said:


> To you, what does that mean? Like, does Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony 3rd movement count?


did he made it the point of that piece by declaring this pizzicato as something of importance in advance?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Goodness me! I never suspected so much narrow mindedness in our ranks. Well, I guess I have my own too. 

When I'm researching a piece on YouTube, say to compare piece A to piece B, I find a performance that might work. The orchestra comes on stage and everyone applauds, then they tune up for a few minutes, then the 1st violinist saunters in and everyone applauds. A bit later the soprano glides in and everyone applauds a bit longer. She bows a few times and finally takes her place. There is much paper rustling and eventually the conductor swaggers in and there is much raucous and lengthy applause. He bows multiple times, removes the flowers from the stand and takes his place, whereon we are greeted to closeups of his seemingly telepathic stern glances at several key members of the orchestra, baton raised, yet frozen in time . . .

By this time I have completely forgotten what I was trying to research. What is all this prissy rigmarole? I'll stick with CD performances.


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

If the composer indicates in the score the use of instruments in an unconventional manner, then I think it is appropriate and necessary. If an interpreter of a score should deviate from the composers notes to achieve a desired effect, then I think it is interesting, but not necessary.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

violadude said:


> Actually, I kinda want to ask everybody a similar question to the one I just asked DeepR because I'm really very curious.
> 
> To those of you that say you dislike extended techniques, is it the fact that the instrument isn't being used in the "proper" way that annoys you? or is it the sound itself? Like, you just happen to dislike the sound of every single extended technique?
> 
> Or in other words, if there was an instrument that naturally sounded exactly like a flutertongue flute or a harmonic on a string instrument, would you still hate it? or would you be okay with it since it was the "proper" way of playing the instrument?


Speaking for myself, I don't have anything against extended techniques themselves - I was being a little hyperbolic - but against a particular, weirdly persistent trend in composition making them the primary element that's supposed to be of interest in a piece.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Weston said:


> When I'm researching a piece on YouTube, say to compare piece A to piece B, I find a performance that might work. The orchestra comes on stage and everyone applauds, then they tune up for a few minutes, then the 1st violinist saunters in and everyone applauds. A bit later the soprano glides in and everyone applauds a bit longer. She bows a few times and finally takes her place. There is much paper rustling and eventually the conductor swaggers in and there is much raucous and lengthy applause. He bows multiple times, removes the flowers from the stand and takes his place, whereon we are greeted to close ups of his seemingly telepathic stern glances at several key members of the orchestra, baton raised, yet frozen in time . . .
> 
> By this time I have completely forgotten what I was trying to research. What is all this prissy rigmarole? I'll stick with CD performances.


I agree with your point. Just have everybody on stage already when the lights go down, even the conductor and concertmaster. Applaud once because you are excited for the performance, and then let them play music. The omitted applause can be inserted between movements.

For YouTube recordings, the fluff is even more nonessential. Give us a moment or two as the orchestra lies in wait, then have the performance start. I can take or leave extended applause time at the end, depending on how extraordinary the performance was.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

There is altogether too much applauding at classical concerts.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> 2. Critics focusing on the music rather than the performance, especially when the negative criticism directly results from a bad performance


I'd be more inclined to say the exact opposite. I found this particularly frustrating as a noob. I wanted to read about the music, but all I'd hear about was the performance. (Although I do agree that if the performace was off, they shouldn't blame the work.)


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> There is altogether too much applauding at classical concerts.


Hmm, maybe you are being ironic but I entirely disagree with this. Bring back audience expression of enthusiasm in classical music! I can't often tell who liked what, and the formality of the whole experiences sometimes stifles my own joy. I have learned to get into my own world when listening despite the oppressive feeling transmitted by the crowd and even the performers in today's world, thus becoming one of them. But I would enjoy the ability to clap after a movement, because all the restriction of that does is allow haughty people to think condescending thoughts towards people supposedly ignorant of the number of movements, nothing more.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

clavichorder said:


> Hmm, maybe you are being ironic but I entirely disagree with this. Bring back audience expression of enthusiasm in classical music! I can't often tell who liked what, and the formality of the whole experiences sometimes stifles my own joy. I have learned to get into my own world when listening despite the oppressive feeling transmitted by the crowd and even the performers in today's world, thus becoming one of them. But I would enjoy the ability to clap after a movement, because all the restriction of that does is allow haughty people to think condescending thoughts towards people supposedly ignorant of the number of movements, nothing more.


I take this chance to ask everyone... As I understand (read it somewhere), this is Mahler's "fault"?
I mean the current very formal ritual of classical music performances, is that really something that Mahler as a conductor fostered?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Stavrogin said:


> I take this chance to ask everyone... As I understand (read it somewhere), this is Mahler's "fault"?
> I mean the current very formal ritual of classical music performances, is that really something that Mahler as a conductor fostered?


One man alone doesn't have that much power. He certainly did try to add to the solemnity of performances and discouraged the operatic "claque" from having their say.

If regietheater had taken off right after Mahler's collaborations with Roller on more abstract operatic scenery, then you would probably have him praised and blamed for that as well.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

clavichorder said:


> Hmm, maybe you are being ironic but I entirely disagree with this. Bring back audience expression of enthusiasm in classical music! I can't often tell who liked what, and the formality of the whole experiences sometimes stifles my own joy. I have learned to get into my own world when listening despite the oppressive feeling transmitted by the crowd and even the performers in today's world, thus becoming one of them. But I would enjoy the ability to clap after a movement, because all the restriction of that does is allow haughty people to think condescending thoughts towards people supposedly ignorant of the number of movements, nothing more.


I actually agree. I was thinking more of the long period of applause _before_ the performance, and of the multiple, interminable curtain calls that seem to be de rigeur after _every_ performance, whether or not it's remarkable.

I wouldn't have a problem with applause between movements, or with extended applause inspired by a truly exceptional performance.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Yes, ritual applaus gets in my nerves as well.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> Speaking for myself, I don't have anything against extended techniques themselves - I was being a little hyperbolic - but against a particular, weirdly persistent trend in composition making them the primary element that's supposed to be of interest in a piece.


I hear ya. I feel the same way sometimes.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

Peeve: people whose snoring can be heard in the concert hall.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

GreenMamba said:


> I'd be more inclined to say the exact opposite. I found this particularly frustrating as a noob. I wanted to read about the music, but all I'd hear about was the performance. (Although I do agree that if the performace was off, they shouldn't blame the work.)


I agree with this. I think reviews/analysis of works are much more interesting.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

1. Contrary to the OP, I have an issue with performers who perform adagios/andantes at such a fast tempo that the beauty of the melody is diminished if not lost. As far as performers playing these movements at a tempo that is allegedly slower than the apparent markings, the fact is that, particularly with piano works during Beethoven's time and before, sometimes we have no exact way of knowing what exact tempo was expected. For instance, as I mentioned in a previous post, Beethoven changed the tempo instruction for the piano sonata #32 on the autograph score in a way that still confuses performers.

In addition, not only was it not possible to play adagios slowly in as pleasing a way using a fortepiano as is possible with modern grands, but the fact is that no matter what the markings are, we have no way of knowing what Mozart or Beethoven would find appropriate if they heard their piano adagios played slower (than the apparent markings) on modern grands. They might have very much liked it.

2. I have a gripe with messing with a grand piano in any way, shape or form. At the factory, a lot of work went into preparing a Steinway to sound just the way it was meant to sound so I don't want to hear an otherwise 'prepared piano'. And I don't want to hear any plucking of a grand piano's strings either. Leave the poor thing alone.


----------



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

Those unaccompanied little trills near the end of a finale, especially in classical-era keyboard concertos.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> Those unaccompanied little trills near the end of a finale, especially in classical-era keyboard concertos.


Different strokes, I guess. That's one hallmark of the Classical era that I really like. The trill signals the end of the cadenza/solo, and the final ornamentation lets the orchestra know when to come back in. It can be a very powerful technique when used correctly.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Kivimees said:


> Peeve: people whose snoring can be heard in the concert hall.


Oh! Was that you? Sorry!


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

clavichorder said:


> Hmm, maybe you are being ironic but I entirely disagree with this. Bring back audience expression of enthusiasm in classical music! I can't often tell who liked what, and the formality of the whole experiences sometimes stifles my own joy. I have learned to get into my own world when listening despite the oppressive feeling transmitted by the crowd and even the performers in today's world, thus becoming one of them. But I would enjoy the ability to clap after a movement, because *all the restriction of that does is allow haughty people to think condescending thoughts towards people supposedly ignorant of the number of movements, nothing more*.


I very, very strongly disagree. A piece may be divided into movements, but they constitute an organic whole (otherwise they'd have been written as separate works) and need to be experienced as such. Applause between movements destroys that experience.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

1) Orchestras that never program anything written in the past 30 years. I love standard rep but lets put something new in once in a while.

2) Pianists that hum along. Its why I can't listen to any Glenn Gould recording.

3) Conductors who get paid more than the entire orchestra combined.

4) Symphony Guilds that are more concerned with what kind of tea cakes will be at the reception rather than looking for ways to increase the salaries of musicians.


----------



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

bharbeke said:


> Different strokes, I guess. That's one hallmark of the Classical era that I really like. The trill signals the end of the cadenza/solo, and the final ornamentation lets the orchestra know when to come back in. It can be a very powerful technique when used correctly.


^
^

Yes, I can see their point as some kind of musical signpost but I just find them too obvious a lot of the time.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

violadude said:


> To you, what does that mean? Like, does Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony 3rd movement count? There's no real "reason" for having that section be pizzicato except to get a unique timbre that fits with the character of the piece (which, in my view, is how it's usually used). It could have easily been a staccato section, but it would lose some character.


I'm sympathetic to the general point you are trying to make, but I am mystified by "no real 'reason' for having that section be pizzicato." It sounds to me like the passage was conceived as pizzicato and could be no other way - that the timbre can't be separated from the other parameters. Played staccato it would sound stilted and uncomfortably slow, and no one in their right mind would have written it that way. The perfect concordance of means and effect is what it means to be a great orchestrator, as Tchaikovsky was.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

clavichorder said:


> I think it's silly to put objects in a grand piano when you coud make a suitable, even preferable sound by other means involving percussion instruments. Grand pianos can make an infinitely more beautiful sounds and it is not part of their mechanism as there are objects inside them. It's like an ungainly combination of street percussion with cans and piano.


Do you know Arvo Pärt's Tabula Rasa? The prepared piano in that piece is beautiful and perfect for its function, and I can't imagine why one would even think of trying to produce those sounds any other way.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

*On recordings *

Bucket loads of reverb that could never be re-created in the natural world.

Producers that treat stereo panning as an olympic event.

Not mentioning that its a live recording on the blurb ( Thank you Sony!)

*Live.*

The "I want to be the fastest Brava at the end of the piece" idiot

"The world famous performer you have paid a small fortune to see will be replaced by someone we dragged in off the street and wiped down with a wet cloth". ( No Refunds!)

Terrible old Classical Concert/opera Queens who rant on about the fact that it hasnt been the same since callas/Dupre died.
and what ever happened to the dress code darling?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> Do you know Arvo Pärt's Tabula Rasa? The prepared piano in that piece is beautiful and perfect for its function, and I can't imagine why one would even think of trying to produce those sounds any other way.


I do not. It may be essential to the context of that piece but for winning me over, Arvo Part won't do it as I have not been much interested in his music beyond the fact that it is an original aesthetic. Similar to the way I feel about Glass and really, many composers these days. Great that they have a voice, and pity that it does not result in more interesting examples.

Anyway, that was cranky and snobby. Maybe my opinion will change in the future and I certainly don't look down on people who are into it, but I feel little interest in many of the trending compositional aesthetics or possibly the individual examples of them, I am not sure which really.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Olias said:


> 1) Orchestras that never program anything written in the past 30 years. I love standard rep but lets put something new in once in a while.
> 
> 2) Pianists that hum along. Its why I can't listen to any Glenn Gould recording.
> 
> ...


2. Concerning Gould's humming, I find his interpretations so stunning that I soon forget his vocalizations.

3. I can't blame a conductor for negotiating the most desirable terms he/she can get; the market takes care of these matters.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

I can just visualize all the raised eyebrows here, but I do have a pet peeve, minor though it is, that I really wish would not ever happen again:

Female pianist, or violinist, wearing strapless gown - so that at times we are treated to ARMPIT! I do not want to see yer dang armpit, OK?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

:devil:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

CypressWillow said:


> I can just visualize all the raised eyebrows here, but I do have a pet peeve, minor though it is, that I really wish would not ever happen again:
> 
> Female pianist, or violinist, wearing strapless gown - so that at times we are treated to ARMPIT! I do not want to see yer dang armpit, OK?


I prefer to think of them as underarms, and they can be very attractive.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

Chacun a son gout.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> :devil:


Gee, I didn't know that Marilyn & Sophia were also concert pianists!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

GreenMamba said:


> I'd be more inclined to say the exact opposite. I found this particularly frustrating as a noob. I wanted to read about the music, but all I'd hear about was the performance. (Although I do agree that if the performace was off, they shouldn't blame the work.)


I guess I should have had some context on it.... chip on the shoulder accidentally revealed....

In the program notes of a concert or an album, it's best to see the write talking about the music, of course. However, I dislike it when critics move to condemning a work (any work, be it a premiere or an older work) without a qualification that it could be because it wasn't performed well. For example, on a certain radio critic's show on the local classical station, there have been times where the critics started saying bad stuff about the piece of music, which was broadcasted on air, when actually they're supposed to be on the show to critique the _performance_, as well as sound mastering of the album/recording. If people were listening to the piece and liked it as is, their opinion basically nullifies any emotions anyone else had towards the work. What listeners _need _to know about albums is not if the music is necessarily good or bad, but if the performance was adequate for the music. Listeners can make the decision themselves whether or not the _music _is worth it. Perhaps I'm saying this from personal experience...



clavichorder said:


> and a type of thing that he would say.


Yes, twas a quote. About Prokofiev's piano playing even hehe!


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

I was reading the "Best and worst of the most popular" thread and I decided to listen to various versions of Oh Fortuna on YouTube.
Apparently the most common pronounciation of "crescis" (and "decrescis)" sounds like "cres-cheese", and it irks me to hear that.
It is not correct by the actual latin use (it would be "cres-kis") nor by the modern scholarly use (it would be "cre-sheese", as in Italian), which seems to be the choice for singing this work ("faciem" is not pronounced "fakiem" etc).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Stavrogin said:


> I was reading the "Best and worst of the most popular" thread and I decided to listen to various versions of Oh Fortuna on YouTube.
> Apparently the most common pronounciation of "crescis" (and "decrescis)" sounds like "cres-cheese", and it irks me to hear that.
> It is not correct by the actual latin use (it would be "cres-kis") nor by the modern scholarly use (it would be "cre-sheese", as in Italian).


In the Aubrey/Maturin novels, Patrick O'Brian has Doctor Maturin tell someone-- his associate Martin, maybe--that the English pronounce Latin one way, and the rest of the world pronounces it another way. My old Latin teacher told us that nobody actually knows how Latin was pronounced in Ancient Rome--Kikero? Tchitchero?


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> In the Aubrey/Maturin novels, Patrick O'Brian has Doctor Maturin tell someone-- his associate Martin, maybe--that the English pronounce Latin one way, and the rest of the world pronounces it another way. My old Latin teacher told us that nobody actually knows how Latin was pronounced in Ancient Rome--Kikero? Tchitchero?


I am no scholar but as far as I remember from my studies, in the classical ("restituta") pronounciation the C was never palatalised.

Anyways, I've just researched a bit more and found out that I was wrong in assuming that the "other" common use, stemming from the medieval times and built on the ecclesiastic tradition, sounds like Italian in all instances. In fact, in this instance "crescis", the rule that every letter has its own sound still stands, even in the ecclesiastic use, so it doesn't become _creʃis_ but _cres-tʃis_.
So, I stand corrected.
Not a pet peeve any more.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

A coupla thoughts on uncharacteristic instrumental sounds:

Some of the prepared piano sections of Crumb;s Makrokosmos are stunningly atmospheric and could not be composed any other way.

The scherzo of Ravel's string quartet?

Mahler's revolutionary use of the harp (adagio of the fifth symphony, etc.)?

Sul ponticello effects in Symphonie Fantastique, Miraculous Mandarin?

That said, I do think a lot of late 20th c. music is over-percussioned just for the sake of sounding exotic.

And I never enjoy the use of breathy native South American flutes.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Olias said:


> 1)
> 2) Pianists that hum along. Its why I can't listen to any Glenn Gould recording.


I agree re Glenn Gould. But I find Jeno Jando's occasional humming rather charming. Can't explain why.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Okay here is the latest one that has been annoying me: the perceived greatness of Gustav Mahler. I like some of his music, but I don't think he merits so much recognition. I don't not believe him among the greatest composers. He's at level with composers like Sibelius, Strauss, Nielsen, ect and I greatly prefer the two Scandinavians and find just as much interest in Strauss. That puts him nowhere near Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Bach, Stravinsky, Debussy, Schubert, Chopin, Wagner, Schoenberg, Tchaikovsky, ect.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> 1) Too much vibrato in lied and opera. This probably isn't what the composers wanted, and it just doesn't sound good or make any sense for that matter. If you have a note to sing, you're not supposed to hover around it wobbling like a butterfly. Mertens & Mathot show how it's supposed to be done in Winterreise. But there are few such recordings as far as I know. So few that it makes you wonder what kind of zombie epidemic hit the West at around the year 1900. Vibrato does come naturally after the singer has conditioned their brain to apply vibrato unconsciously. This doesn't mean vibrato is "natural" and "should always be used".


I'm not very keen on solo singing in classical music (though I love choral music), probably for this very reason. I was listening to some songs today and it really started to bother me.
Is it true that vibrato singing is more of a performance trend than something intended by the composers? What are other people's thoughts on this?


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

DeepR said:


> I'm not very keen on solo singing in classical music (though I love choral music), probably for this very reason. I was listening to some songs today and it really started to bother me.
> Is it true that vibrato singing is more of a performance trend than something intended by the composers? What are other people's thoughts on this?


There was a thread about it a year ago or something, and someone posted a research paper where the researcher had dug up evidence that constant vibrato started to be used - though not widely - around the mid 19th century.

I guess no one actually knows whether there were earlier trends or places where vibrato was used for a time; however, I think it's a safe bet that vibrato wasn't much of a thing when Mozart, Schubert, and Wagner were making their careers.

I guess it's an acquired taste, and I don't mind there being recordings where relatively wide vibrato is used constantly - some people like that, and that's fine. What I lament is the complete absence of any alternative for most of the core repertoire.


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> In the Aubrey/Maturin novels, Patrick O'Brian has Doctor Maturin tell someone-- his associate Martin, maybe--that the English pronounce Latin one way, and the rest of the world pronounces it another way. My old Latin teacher told us that nobody actually knows how Latin was pronounced in Ancient Rome--Kikero? Tchitchero?


Stephen Maturin was in the right of it when it came to the Latin of intellectual discourse in his time. The ancient Roman pronunciation wasn't accurately reconstructed until about 1900 (there's tons about this on the internet) and it seems to be the standard now.

I also read that the Church Latin pronunciation used in all countries except the German-speaking ones is that approved by the Vatican equivalent of the Académie Française . I had noticed that difference in the pronunciation of 'c's myself.


----------



## Gordontrek (Jun 22, 2012)

Dang, why do I never find these threads until they've gone to five pages. 

1) Music appreciation students who go to orchestra concerts and don't know anything about concert etiquette. I actually prefer balcony seats, but every now and then I get some college kids from my university who would rather be in their dorm playing graphic video games and blasting Skrillex, but alas they need to attend a concert or two for their music appreciation. And the balcony is where all the student seating is. Some of them talk constantly, some clap loudly between movements, some reach into their purse and spend five noisy minutes trying to find something. 

2) Parents who think their kid is the next Mozart. Go on YouTube and type in "the next Mozart" and you'll see what I mean. How many people think they have to show off their unremarkable 7-year-old kid? He can play Fur Elise? No way!! He's got perfect pitch? CALL THE NEWS!!

3) Band parents (does this count?). I don't care how many 3-bar solos your daughter has played, I don't care if you think she's better than her section's principal, I don't care how well she did/should have done at all-state, and I don't want to hear about how you chewed out the band director over her chair placement. And for the love of all things holy, stop recording and get your friggin' iPhone out of my face so I can see the band! 

4) "Yeah I know Mozart! Salieri killed him!"

5) Going into the CD store at the mall and finding shelf after shelf after shelf of rock/rap/country etc., and then a rinky dink classical section with maybe 20 CDs made up of Arthur Fiedler/Lang Lang/"Beethoven's Top 20 Greatest Hits."


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Polls which ask who was the greatest symphonist and Beethoven wins every one of them. If he always wins why keep asking?

People who want orchestras to only perform great or the most popular music.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

^^^
Gordontrek, these are great!!!!


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> *There was a thread about it a year ago or something, and someone posted a research paper where the researcher had dug up evidence that constant vibrato started to be used - though not widely - around the mid 19th century.
> *
> I guess no one actually knows whether there were earlier trends or places where vibrato was used for a time; however, I think it's a safe bet that vibrato wasn't much of a thing when Mozart, Schubert, and Wagner were making their careers.
> 
> I guess it's an acquired taste, and I don't mind there being recordings where relatively wide vibrato is used constantly - some people like that, and that's fine. What I lament is the complete absence of any alternative for most of the core repertoire.


Here's the thread- in which we thoroughly debunked that silly paper. :lol:

http://www.talkclassical.com/34791-what-early-music-singer-2.html


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> Polls which ask who was the greatest symphonist and Beethoven wins every one of them. If he always wins why keep asking?.


The polls are fun and even if Beethoven wins it is also interesting to see who gets the second, third, fourth place and so on.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Here's the thread- in which we thoroughly debunked that silly paper. :lol:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/34791-what-early-music-singer-2.html


Thanks for posting the link. I don't intend to start another conversation about vibrato, but what isn't clear from the thread is what counts as a narrow natural vibrato. In Mozart's time for example, opera orchestras were generally smaller or used instruments that weren't as loud (I think), so singers didn't have to sing as loudly. So their natural vibrato would have been narrower, perhaps so narrow that those who dislike vibrato wouldn't mind it at all or even register it.

Similarly, period pianos were more silent than modern grands. Songs were sung in smaller spaces than modern concert halls. The singer didn't have to raise his voice to the point of making it vibrate more than a little, and if the singer wanted to suppress vibrato most of the time, it wasn't taxing to his voice to do so.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> Thanks for posting the link. I don't intend to start another conversation about vibrato, but what isn't clear from the thread is what counts as a narrow natural vibrato. In Mozart's time for example, opera orchestras were generally smaller or used instruments that weren't as loud (I think), so singers didn't have to sing as loudly. So their natural vibrato would have been narrower, perhaps so narrow that those who dislike vibrato wouldn't mind it at all or even register it.
> 
> Similarly, period pianos were more silent than modern grands. Songs were sung in smaller spaces than modern concert halls. The singer didn't have to raise his voice to the point of making it vibrate more than a little, and if the singer wanted to suppress vibrato most of the time, it wasn't taxing to his voice to do so.


Do we know that more volume = more vibrato? Of course, if a singer is straining to produce much greater volume than is comfortable, s/he may end up with a wobble.


----------



## motoboy (May 19, 2008)

Singers who scoop the first note in every phrase and every ascending note after that, so...pretty much any singer right now.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Do we know that more volume = more vibrato? Of course, if a singer is straining to produce much greater volume than is comfortable, s/he may end up with a wobble.


I wouldn't say it's a perfect linear function, but I've noticed both in myself and in recordings that silent singing pretty much equals no vibrato, rather loud singing produces vibrato but can easily be controlled to be without vibrato, and very loud singing produces a wide vibrato.

Beyond that, I'm no expert. I wish I knew how Orlando Consort produce their fast and narrow, almost imperceptible vibrato in their Josquin motets for example.

Anyway, there are two aspects to this: (1) you guys basically admitted that wide vibrato probably wasn't a thing until relatively recently (because orchestras got louder and venues bigger?), and (2) you assumed that earlier singers weren't suppressing their relatively narrow natural vibrato, which I have now argued they could easily have done since they didn't need to produce so much volume. Maybe I'm wrong about (2), i.e. maybe the volumes were still high enough that singers weren't comfortable with suppressing vibrato except in songs with piano accompaniment.

I probably overstated my case earlier because I didn't remember that thread well, and probably never read it carefully, but whether vibrato is natural or not doesn't change my attitude towards it. Judicious and artistic use of vibrato, as in the recording of Erstarrung by Mertens and Mathot that I've mentioned, just sounds a lot better and more interesting to me. Whether that's physiologically possible in Wagner (who by the way wanted his orchestra to be more silent so that his singers didn't have to bellow) isn't something that needs to concern me in the era of microphones and recordings.


----------

