# Holst: The Planets



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

I must admit I am not a huge fan of modern classical music, but I love The Planets. What amazing work. I was wondering if I was alone here. The thing with modern classical music is that it's often very heavy and takes a lot of patience and time to appreciate, at least for me, that's why I am surprised how much I love the planets. I don't find them difficult to listen to, in fact I find them very easy listening even if the work is often very load. Uranus and Mars are my favorite movements. This work does sound a bit like a movie score though, and I don't mean that in a bad way, in fact I have heard it in movies and even cartoons. So my question is: are the Planets considered easy listening compare to other modern classical works? Are they popular in general? You must excuse my naive questions, I have never been on a classical music forum before and none of my friends or even anyone I know listens to classical music so I have nobody to talk about my passion. I hope you will forgive me if people have asked about this before.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I think most fans of modern classical music would consider Holst's works to be very easy compared to other modern works. I do, in any case... but what do I know about how difficult a piece really is? I think The Planets is extremely popular with the mainstream classical listener, in particular, but less so with devotees of modern music, since it is not as 'schräg' as a lot of the 20th Century music that we love  I've gotten to like it now, since I began to realize there is more to modern music than Stockhausen


----------



## Mister Man (Feb 3, 2014)

I doubt there's a standard for what "easy" listening is. I consider the Planets to be easy listening per se. I don't listen to much modern so I can't say if it's easy in comparison. 

It's fun to run the Planets in its entirety and hear all the different science-fiction films.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

_The Planets_ is indeed a popular twentieth century work and certainly Gustav Holst's best known piece. And though it is rather tonal (as compared to the less tonal, atonal works generally associated with the 20th century after Schoenberg) it explores a lot of territory and generally has something to offer for every listener. I remain a fan of the Jupiter movement and that lovely big tune that sweeps through the "Bringer of Jollity."

But, as one web-site puts it: "Any die-hard Holst fan realizes that _The Planets _is, in fact, uncharacteristic of Holst...." So true. Because Holst's other music remains, for the most part, relatively underperformed in concert halls and on disc, one tends to associate his name with the sweeping grandeur of his large orchestral suite. But Holst proves more elusive, and much of his music would be relatively unrecognizable to one who could identify _The Planets _as being by Holst.

Check out this site: http://isisweb.8m.com/holst/planets.htm , and here, too: http://www.gustavholst.info/

Two of the loveliest of Holst's works are the two suites for strings: _St Paul's Suite _Op. 29 No.2 (1913) and _Brook Green Suite _(1933). Don't miss those.

If you want to enhance your experience of listening to _The Planets_, consider picking up a score of the work. Holst's orchestration is tremendous, ranking up there with fellows like Rimsky-Korsakov and Igor Stravinsky for stunning effects and other-worldly sounds. Too, you can find versions of _The Planets _on DVD where space satellite pictures and video are shown while the music plays. Something like that was done in Pittsburgh at the symphony last season when projections were added to the performance of the work.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

There are some elements of musical modernity in the planets - think col legno strings and unresolved dissonances in Mars, impressionistic touches especially in Mercury, Venus and Neptune, and some crunchy polyrhythms in Uranus - and the shutting door at the end! It's a great piece and justifiably hugely popular

If it's whetted your appetite for some more modern sounds why not try Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet music and Symphony 5, Bartok Concerto for Orchestra, Hindemith Symphonic Metamorphosen and Matis der Maler symphony, Stravinsky Firebird suite and Petroushka or Debussy La Mer - all spectacular and approachable orchestral scores


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

Holst's The Planets Suite is as serious and interesting as any other piece of classical music. Unfortunately it has been categorized as one of those "warhorses" that are continually pulled out by symphonies for popular concerts because it has immediate appeal. There are a few of us that may (and I really do stress the "may") believe it has been over-represented work. I really enjoy it, and among my favourites are by the Montreal Symphony Cond. Dutoit (for the sublime voices of the Montreal Women's Chorus, Decca 1987) and the RPO with Handley conducting (very clean, very good sonics. Alto ALC 1013, 1993). Boult's with the London Philharmonic (EMI 567 7482) is considered definitive, and should be a part of anyone's collection.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

dgee said:


> ... If it's whetted your appetite for some more modern sounds why not try Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet music and Symphony 5, Bartok Concerto for Orchestra, Hindemith Symphonic Metamorphosen and Matis der Maler symphony, Stravinsky Firebird suite and Petroushka or Debussy La Mer - all spectacular and approachable orchestral scores


Dr, Let me second all of dgee's recommendations. If you enjoy Holst's _Planets_, 
you'll enjoy the ones dgee lists. A few favorite performances of those:

*Debussy, _La Mer_ -- Pierre Boulez & Cleveland Orchestra (Deutsche Grammophon)
*Prokofiev, _Romeo and Juliet_ -- Lorin Maazel & Cleveland Orchestra (Decca)
*Bartok, _Concerto for Orchestra_ -- Fritz Reiner / Chicago Symphony (RCA)
*Stravinsky, _Firebird_ -- Pierre Boulez & Chicago Symphony (Deutsche Grammophon) 
OR Igor Stravinsky & Columbia Symphony


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

More alternatives/additions for listening pleasure:
Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade (good choices: LSO Sir Charles Mackerras - Telarc CD-80208, or my favourite New York Philharmonic Cond. Yuri Temirkanov. RCA - comes with Russian Easter Overture)
Moussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition and his Night on Bald Mountain. 
It does seem that our recomendations have a certain Russian bent to them!


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2014)

DrMuller said:


> I must admit I am not a huge fan of modern classical music, but I love _The Planets_. What amazing work. I was wondering if I was alone here.


No, as you can see, you're not alone at all. This was probably the first classical I was aware of liking (my older brother had a copy and I found Mars scary!) and it was the first LP I ever bought (Sargent/LSO). I've got four other versions of the Suite (Boult, Dutoit, McKerras - recorded off a TV performance at the Proms a couple of years back, and Lloyd-Jones).

I'm not convinced that one piece of music can necessarily lead to another. For example, I wouldn't say that liking _The Planets_ has led me to explore more of Holst - it hasn't at all - never mind setting me off on a grand exploration of any other composer, or genre, or century, but I can endorse others' recommendations if you're looking for other similar works.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think the first classical record Zi bought wax a 7inch EP of Adrian Boult conducting Mars. My Dad liked it and it had been the theme music to a radio adaptation of HG Well's 'War of the Worlds'.
Later I bought an LP of the whole thing with Sargent and the LSO on Decca Ace of Clubs in mono.
Then Steinberg on cassette - really exciting.
When CD came on the scene I bought Previn on Telarc, a spectacular recording.
Then both Karajan versions.
It is an endlessly fascinating and entertaining work. Strangely Holst never composed anything else remotely as good in my view.
But the sheer number of recordings of the planets by distinguished conductors tells the story of its quality and appeal. It really is a great work for old and young. In fact if I were to introduce a young person to classical music the Planets would be on the list.
For 'modern' music that is listenable try Vaughan Williams Fantasia and Lark Ascending.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

The Planets is an easy work for an introduction to classical music, especially for kids. Who doesn't like astronomy as a kid? (yes, I know The Planets is more astrological than astronomical) It's a terrific piece of music.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

"Mars" from The Planets was the first piece of classical music I liked; I was a Star Wars kid.
Yes, I suppose it is a fairly "easy" piece to get into, and such pieces do occasionally get dismissed by the occasional jaded cynic, but really, who cares what they think? 

Other music I listened to in the early days included the previously mentioned Scheherazade, also Grieg's Piano concerto and his Peer Gynt suites; Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture and ballet suites; Sibelius's Finlandia and Karelia; Beethoven's 5th and 7th symphonies. Once those sorts of things had whetted my appetite I found it easy to get into Mahler's 1st symphony.

One thing that fascinates me about the notion of getting into classical music is that there's so much different music out there, that people can approach it from so many directions. You just never know: we're offering suggestions that lead you along a particular path, but perhaps you'll hear something completely different (say, a Handel opera aria, a Palestrina mass, a Chopin nocturne, a Ligeti concerto...) and that will immediately 'click' for you... or you might never like any of those things. I'm sure there's some suggestions made already that will have you scratching your head about why that music was recommended - don't feel that you've failed by not appreciating something that us wise folk like!


----------



## mikey (Nov 26, 2013)

I think first off, one should realise that the Planets is not really 'modern music'. It's 100 years old!
To the non trained ear, it's certainly an accessible piece of music when compared to some other works written at the time. (That in now way diminishes it's power).

My attempt at a very(!) simple history of C20th music- 
traditional harmony started going completely haywire end of C19th; Schoenberg introduced atonality with his opera Erwartung (atonality being very simply the kind of sounds most non musicians dislike about 'classical music'); 1920's Paris became the scene for huge experamentalism; Composers such as Boulez who idolized the second Vienese School (Schoenberg/Webern/Berg) pushed this kind of music further composing using ideas like mathematical formulas; This died down once Minimalism came to town through composers such as Steve Reich and Phillip Glass. Minimalism was the complete opposite to the complexity music had reached, and was deemed easily accessible to the general public - Pieces like Terry Riley's In C and Steve Reich's music for 18 musicians. Bearing in mind that it is a certain kind of music and will not be to everyone's taste.
I think the current phase of music (post modern?) is where anything goes; composers embrace complexity, simplicity, neo-romantic/classical, popular crossover, whatever they want.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mikey said:


> My attempt at a very(!) simple history of C20th music-
> traditional harmony started going completely haywire end of C19th; Schoenberg introduced atonality with his opera Erwartung


No, actually, it was with his settings of the poet Stephan George in the String Quartet No. 2 and elsewhere.



mikey said:


> (atonality being very simply the kind of sounds most non musicians dislike about 'classical music');


I thought people disliked "Classical Music" because it was "that boring stuff with no beat".



mikey said:


> 1920's Paris became the scene for huge experamentalism


1920s Soviet Union could do just as well, or 1920s Germany, for that matter.



mikey said:


> Composers such as Boulez who idolized the second Vienese School (Schoenberg/Webern/Berg) pushed this kind of music further composing using ideas like mathematical formulas;


...no, that's not at all the way serialism works. Plus, that was in the 1940s/1950s.



mikey said:


> This died down once Minimalism came to town through composers such as Steve Reich and Phillip Glass.


Perhaps, but it's still going. We still have serialist and post-serialist composers writing today (Boulez is still alive, though he hasn't written much in the past decade), and minimalism itself has gone through a number of developments which have, as with serialism, diluted the original ideas.



mikey said:


> Minimalism was the complete opposite to the complexity music had reached, and was deemed easily accessible to the general public - Pieces like Terry Riley's In C and Steve Reich's music for 18 musicians. Bearing in mind that it is a certain kind of music and will not be to everyone's taste.


If it's easily accessible, then why do so many loathe it so much? I think all of this talk about accessibility is relative, at any rate.



mikey said:


> I think the current phase of music (post modern?) is where anything goes; composers embrace complexity, simplicity, neo-romantic/classical, popular crossover, whatever they want.


Well, I suppose I can't disagree with that one too much.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Holst is an interesting composer to me, not only for The Planets, but for his interest in Eastern and Indian thought. Too bad he did not produce more stuff like that. The most interesting thing I've run across is an orchestral setting of one of his songs from his Dream City song cycle, which he didn't even arrange; but it is hauntingly beautiful.










Also:

http://amzn.com/B0000CDJKD


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

mikey said:


> My attempt at a very(!) simple history of C20th music-
> traditional harmony started going completely haywire end of C19th; Schoenberg introduced atonality with his opera Erwartung (atonality being very simply the kind of sounds most non musicians dislike about 'classical music'); 1920's Paris became the scene for huge experamentalism; Composers such as Boulez who idolized the second Vienese School (Schoenberg/Webern/Berg) pushed this kind of music further composing using ideas like mathematical formulas; This died down once Minimalism came to town through composers such as Steve Reich and Phillip Glass. Minimalism was the complete opposite to the complexity music had reached, and was deemed easily accessible to the general public - Pieces like Terry Riley's In C and Steve Reich's music for 18 musicians. Bearing in mind that it is a certain kind of music and will not be to everyone's taste.
> I think the current phase of music (post modern?) is where anything goes; composers embrace complexity, simplicity, neo-romantic/classical, popular crossover, whatever they want.


As a historian, I tend to be very, very uneasy (or, better, queasy) about any such claims of "simple history." It is urgent not simply to get one's facts right. It is unusually difficult to make generalizations that are both accurate and illuminating. I would describe this account as a parody or gross caricature. It ignores that certain composers with innovative yet romantic idioms were active in the 20th century (e.g. Strauss, Mahler; in a different way, Scriabin and Sibelius and Barber). It ignores, for example, populist trends (e.g. Copland in the best-known phase of his career; Weill in a completely different way), self-conscious national idioms (e.g. Albeniz, Kodaly, Villa-Lobos), the way those interacted whether with modernist trends (e.g. Bartok, Takemitsu) or neoclassical ones (e.g. Martinu) or world musics (e.g. Lou Harrison). It ignores major figures who don't fit the narrative (e.g. Britten, Shostakovich, Ligeti). It never bothers to deal with European composers in the last 30+ years of the 20th century (e.g. Norgard, Lutoslawski, Dutilleux, Gubaidulina).

For a well-written and popular account, see Alex Ross, _The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century_. There are loads of more overtly scholarly accounts: Nicholas Cook and Anthony Poole, eds., _The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Music_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Paul Griffiths, _Modern Music and After_, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Richard Taruskin, _Music in the Early Twentieth Century_, Vol. 4 of The Oxford History of Western Music (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

Please, can we dispense with the caricatures?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

dgee and alypius mentioned some great works, but I think that the nearest piece in spirit I know is the three mantras of John Foulds (someone in a review called it "hyper-holst"):









another work that could be mentioned is The warriors of Percy Grainger


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

mikey said:


> 1920's Paris became the scene for huge experamentalism; Composers such as Boulez who idolized the second Vienese School (Schoenberg/Webern/Berg) pushed this kind of music further composing using ideas like mathematical formulas


Other than Paris, there was, as Mahlerian pointed out, Soviet Russia and Germany that were very much into the experimentation fervor of the 1920s. In many ways, so was the United States (and not just Jazz, but think of Antheil and Ives).


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

May I suggest Rued Langgaard's Music of the Spheres, which measures up to The Planets in every way (in its own right, it's a more daring piece and in a way, quite esoteric yet quite as an easy listening as Holst's masterpiece). Adolfs Skulte's related works include his Third and Fifth Symphonies, which can be found on YouTube. Ligeti's Atmospheres is also worth checking out.


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

Thank you very much for all your recommendations. Somebody mentioned Night on Bald Mountain; that is a piece of music that I love, in fact it is similar to the planets in a the sense that it's epic, loud, movie-score-like, easy to listen to but powerful. I do prefer the Rimsky-Korsakov version though. I must tell you that this type of music is not all I listen to; last month it was all Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, but this month I am looking for something different. Maybe I will like Rimsky-Korsakov, I have not given his music a change at all and I own about 300 classical music CDs, but none of his music. Should I check him out? BtW I have Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet Suit in my collection and really like it.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

Yes, you should.

I think you would enjoy Rimsky-Korsakov's _Scheherazade_. R-K's one of my favorite composers, and I could suggest many more pieces of his for you to listen to, but I think _Scheherazade_ would be the best one to start with.


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

musicrom said:


> Yes, you should.
> 
> I think you would enjoy Rimsky-Korsakov's _Scheherazade_. R-K's one of my favorite composers, and I could suggest many more pieces of his for you to listen to, but I think _Scheherazade_ would be the best one to start with.


I just bought online R-K's Scheherazade. Tsar Saltan Suite was also on the same CD, I found the sound samples very interesting. By all means recommend more of his music, let's start with purely orchestral music though. Thanks by way, I don't know how I could have missed this one. That's what I get for not knowing a single soul that likes classical music. By the way I am in my summer break now, so I have nothing but time. When medical school starts again in September I will probably disappear for a while..


----------



## mikey (Nov 26, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> No, actually, it was with his settings of the poet Stephan George in the String Quartet No. 2 and elsewhere.


ok, High School incorrect recollection.



> I thought people disliked "Classical Music" because it was "that boring stuff with no beat".


I thought different....



> 1920s Soviet Union could do just as well, or 1920s Germany, for that matter.


Or any where then...



> ...no, that's not at all the way serialism works. Plus, that was in the 1940s/1950s.


I didn't mention Serialism or specific dates, merely that composers like Boulez (who I know uses Serialist techniques) started to use formulas to compose...perhaps I should have reworded.



> Perhaps, but it's still going. We still have serialist and post-serialist composers writing today (Boulez is still alive, though he hasn't written much in the past decade), and minimalism itself has gone through a number of developments which have, as with serialism, diluted the original ideas.


As I said at the end, now it's anything goes. I was attempting to be brief...



> If it's easily accessible, then why do so many loathe it so much? I think all of this talk about accessibility is relative, at any rate.


Why do so many people loathe 'classical' music in general? I was referring to it as a relief from the hyper complexity music had previously reached.

I was merely wanting to point out that Holst is not modern music and a brief history of things since. I did not in any way mean it to be a scholarly account of a ridiculously complex subject. So in hindsight, this was probably a futile thing to attempt. :tiphat:


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

mikey said:


> Why do so many people loathe 'classical' music in general?


I believe "loathe" is a way to strong word to be used, the majority don't have any interest in music other then has a mindless in through one ear out through the other beat! So its more of a general disinterest, mostly do to that Classical music takes an effort (more or less) to make any sense! (There have been miles of text written about this on TC and most other foras that cover Classical Music)-

/ptr


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

Which recording of the Planets do you recommend? BTW, I hate when the first movement is too slow...


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

'Jupiter' and 'Mars' were often played on BBC radio on Saturdays, _Children's Favourites _in the 1950s and 60s; occasionally Venus and Mercury, too.
And for me too, it was the first classical music that I ever owned - I bought the LP conducted by Adrian Boult from my elder brother (at cost price) after he was disappointed with the lesser-played pieces. ('Saturn, the bringer of old age - huh, listening to it *makes *you old!')

I have seen comments on TalkClassical that make me think that yes, it _is_ regarded as easy listening. But so what? Pieces usually become popular and widely played for a reason. I liked it then, and I still like it; with me, it's not the astronomy that appealed, but the poetry & use of classical myth.

But I'm glad to learn of other pieces by Holst - will definitely be checking out the Eastern-inspired music.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Like many people of my generation, my first introduction to Holst was the theme to Quatermass - Mars the bringer of War. Suitably atmospheric and almost like something out of the Radiophonic Workshop. Nowadays, I love the St Paul's suite which gets played regularly on Classic FM. Written in 1912, about the time Sharp was publishing his edition of the Dancing Master, it's on the leading edge of folk song study. Holst had already written arrangements for George Gardiner's Hampshire Folksongs.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Worth noting that The Planets inspired one of the more tasteful historical album covers.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I actually had that LP and the cover made me cringe even back then.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Everyone wants to talk about Mars and Jupiter in this suite, but for me the underrated jewel is Venus. That soft opening does for the horn what Stravinsky's Rite of Spring does for the bassoon. It even makes me wonder if Holst was aware of Rite when he wrote that movement. 

And then there's Neptune with the choir fading away to infinity. . .


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

Weston said:


> Everyone wants to talk about Mars and Jupiter in this suite, but for me the underrated jewel is Venus. That soft opening does for the horn what Stravinsky's Rite of Spring does for the bassoon. It even makes me wonder if Holst was aware of Rite when he wrote that movement.
> 
> And then there's Neptune with the choir fading away to infinity. . .


Actually my favorite movement is Uranus.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

I don't care if it's considered "lightweight" or whatever, "The Planets" is amazing, a masterpiece, and was one of the pieces that brought me to classical music. My favorite movement is Mercury. Or Jupiter. Or Saturn. Or...


----------



## geralmar (Feb 15, 2013)

DrMuller said:


> Which recording of the Planets do you recommend? BTW, I hate when the first movement is too slow...


Then stay away from Bernard Herrmann/LPO (8.33).

If you want fast, try Steinberg/Boston (6.28).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Worth noting that The Planets inspired one of the more tasteful historical album covers.


I wonder what Sir Adrian thought of it?


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

In the '80s, film director Ken Russell stitched a ton of documentary and news footage over a complete performance of The Planets. The result is a little hit-and-miss, but fascinating to watch and an interesting insight into one person's interpretation of what the music does for him.


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

techniquest said:


> In the '80s, film director Ken Russell stitched a ton of documentary and news footage over a complete performance of The Planets. The result is a little hit-and-miss, but fascinating to watch and an interesting insight into one person's interpretation of what the music does for him.


Very interesting.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

The Planets is possibly the one classical work that everyone seems to have had a copy of in the seventies. Usually the Classics For Pleasure one. Perfect introduction to classical music.
I agree with Weston's "


> And then there's Neptune with the choir fading away to infinity. . .


Its always been my favourite moment.

Scheherazade ...wonderfull piece...The Crescendo after the Violin solo during "The Young Prince and The Young Princess always gets to me.

Night on a Bare Mountain, Brilliant! although I cant resist an evil laugh during the loud horn section....


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

Do you have any more recommendations for me?


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

DrMuller said:


> Do you have any more recommendations for me?


You received a number of recommendations earlier in the thread. I have not seen any reaction to those earlier ones. Before I could make any further ones, I need a better sense of your reaction to those earlier ones. What worked for you? What did not?


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Worth noting that The Planets inspired one of the more tasteful historical album covers.





DavidA said:


> I wonder what Sir Adrian thought of it?


He probably thought: "Mars and Venus are well represented. Especially Venus."


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Yep...the young lady is definitely wondering " Does Mars look big in this?"


----------



## mitchflorida (Apr 24, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I wonder what Sir Adrian thought of it?


That's him on the cover. I bought this LP several years ago, still haven't listened to the music but the cover is a real keeper.


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

Alypius said:


> You received a number of recommendations earlier in the thread. I have not seen any reaction to those earlier ones. Before I could make any further ones, I need a better sense of your reaction to those earlier ones. What worked for you? What did not?


You are right. Let's go over the previous recommendations. Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet is something I have and have loved for years. I had never heard Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade before but I absolutely love this piece now. I was a hit from first listen, and that doesn't happen often for me, I can not say enough good things about this work, I just can't believe I just discovered it now; makes me think there are other great works out there that I have missed out on. Hindemith Symphonic Metamorphosen was another hit; I love it and I like the Matis der Maler symphony too. Stravinsky Firebird suite and Petroushka is something I already had and enjoy alot, not as much as the Planets or Scheherazade but I do enjoy it. Debussy La Mer was also excellent, another gem that I didn't know existed. Bartok Concerto for Orchestra is a piece that I already have but have only listened to once before I think. I found it too eerie; almost creepy, but in a fascinating way though, can't explain it. I see the greatness but I am going to have to give it more time I think, it was not an immediate hit but there is something about it that is great. I had on the same CD a work called Music for strings, percussion and celesta that I found very interesting too but equally creepy. I think they used one of the movements in the Horror Movie The Shining, which I love btw.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

DrMuller said:


> .... I had never heard Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade before but I absolutely love this piece now. I was a hit from first listen, and that doesn't happen often for me, I can not say enough good things about this work, I just can't believe I just discovered it now; makes me think there are other great works out there that I have missed out on.....


I suspect that you will find a lot of great works out there. Like you, I stumble across various classical works all the time and can't believe that I had not discovered before now. Given what you said you enjoyed, here's a few others:

Maurice Ravel - _Le Tombeau de Couperin_, as well as briefer orchestral works such as _Pavane pour une infante defunte_, _Une barque sur l'ocean_, _Alborado del gracioso_. All of Ravel's works are worth exploring. Exquisite gems. Some of these are available as solo piano works as well -- worth exploring.

Claude Debussy - _Images pour orchestre_, _Nocturnes_, _Danses sacree et profane_. I list these since you said said you enjoyed Debussy's _La Mer_

Samuel Barber - _Violin Concerto_, _Adagio for Strings_

Aaron Copland - _Appalachian Spring_, _Rodeo_, _Billy the Kid_

Leonard Bernstein - _Symphonic Dances from West Side Story_

Joaquin Rodrigo - _Concierto de Aranjuez_, _Fantasia para un gentilhombre_

Leos Janacek - _Sinfonietta_, _Taras Bulba_

Bohuslav Martinu - _Symphony #2_

Roy Harris - _Symphony #3_ & Randall Thompson - _Symphony #2_ (These are on the same record with Leonard Bernstein conducting the New York Philharmonic).

I deliberately recommended only orchestral music since the springboard for this discussion was Holst's _The Planets_. If you get interested in 20th century chamber works, just say so. But let me suggest two right now: Ravel's _Piano Trio in A_ and Debussy's _Sonate pour flute, alto et harpe_.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

DrMuller said:


> You are right. Let's go over the previous recommendations. Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet is something I have and have loved for years. I had never heard Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade before but I absolutely love this piece now. I was a hit from first listen, and that doesn't happen often for me, I can not say enough good things about this work, I just can't believe I just discovered it now; makes me think there are other great works out there that I have missed out on. Hindemith Symphonic Metamorphosen was another hit; I love it and I like the Matis der Maler symphony too. Stravinsky Firebird suite and Petroushka is something I already had and enjoy alot, not as much as the Planets or Scheherazade but I do enjoy it. Debussy La Mer was also excellent, another gem that I didn't know existed. Bartok Concerto for Orchestra is a piece that I already have but have only listened to once before I think. I found it too eerie; almost creepy, but in a fascinating way though, can't explain it. I see the greatness but I am going to have to give it more time I think, it was not an immediate hit but there is something about it that is great. I had on the same CD a work called Music for strings, percussion and celesta that I found very interesting too but equally creepy. I think they used one of the movements in the Horror Movie The Shining, which I love btw.


To add another Rimsky-Korsakov suggestion, _Capriccio Espagnol_ is excellent as well, although it is a bit different from _Scheherazade_, and in my opinion, not quite as powerful.

Based on your preferences, I think you might like Jean Sibelius' music. Perhaps listen to his _Symphony No. 2_ or his _Violin Concerto_ if you haven't already.

You might also like the music of Mahler, but I would leave someone else to make suggestions, since I've only recently begun to appreciate him.

Also, since you liked Hindemith, but mainly because I'm a violist, I feel I should add his _Der Schwanendreher_ (a viola concerto) as a suggestion.


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

Alypius said:


> I suspect that you will find a lot of great works out there. Like you, I stumble across various classical works all the time and can't believe that I had not discovered before now. Given what you said you enjoyed, here's a few others:
> 
> Maurice Ravel - _Le Tombeau de Couperin_, as well as briefer orchestral works such as _Pavane pour une infante defunte_, _Une barque sur l'ocean_, _Alborado del gracioso_. All of Ravel's works are worth exploring. Exquisite gems. Some of these are available as solo piano works as well -- worth exploring.
> 
> ...


Thank you for that. I will give all these a listen. The only once I already have in my collection are Ravel's works that you recommended and Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez which I absolutely love. Thanks again so much.


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

musicrom said:


> To add another Rimsky-Korsakov suggestion, _Capriccio Espagnol_ is excellent as well, although it is a bit different from _Scheherazade_, and in my opinion, not quite as powerful.
> 
> Based on your preferences, I think you might like Jean Sibelius' music. Perhaps listen to his _Symphony No. 2_ or his _Violin Concerto_ if you haven't already.
> 
> ...


It's funny you said that; I do enjoy Sibelius' music a lot and have many of his works. I will check out the other suggestions. I recently bought Symphonie Fantastique but have not yet listened to it. People seem to be very split about it, either they love it or hate it. Thanks.


----------



## jamesvr (Sep 5, 2011)

That Mars was "borrowed" by John Williams for Star Wars....  I may have missed it listed above, but I have the same reaction to Copland's Fanfare for the Common Man. You may like his work. I think Bernstein conducts him best. *ducking +1 on the Sibelius, esp 4 and 7.


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

One question. Would you say Holst's music is late romantic or modern/20th century. Like someone here said his music doesn't sound very modern but if you consider the time line he is at least a 20th century composer, or what?


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

DrMuller said:


> One question. Would you say Holst's music is late romantic or modern/20th century. Like someone here said his music doesn't sound very modern but if you consider the time line he is at least a 20th century composer, or what?


Does it alter the sound of the music? I can't really see the point of the question. Is "modern" good? is it bad? Is "romantic" good? bad? Does the use of those abstract nouns illuminate Holst's music in any way, its harmonies, its structures, its melodic textures? Does such (vague) terminology illuminate the composer? Now it might matter if it mattered to Holst himself, if it shaped his self-understanding as an artist. (I think here of Medtner, a 20th-century composer yearning to live in another era -- all this mattered to Medtner.) Please make clear the purpose of your question, or perhaps what lies behind your question. Why does such terminology matter to you?


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

Alypius said:


> Does it alter the sound of the music? I can't really see the point of the question. Is "modern" good? is it bad? Is "romantic" good? bad? Does the use of those abstract nouns illuminate Holst's music in any way, its harmonies, its structures, its melodic textures? Does such (vague) terminology illuminate the composer? Now it might matter if it mattered to Holst himself, if it shaped his self-understanding as an artist. (I think here of Medtner, a 20th-century composer yearning to live in another era -- all this mattered to Medtner.) Please make clear the purpose of your question, or perhaps what lies behind your question. Why does such terminology matter to you?


It doesn't change the music, nor does it really matter. The reason for the question is simply me trying to learn. I have so few modern pieces in my collection and I am not sure really what it means to be a "modern work". I have not studied music, hence all the questions. I apologize if my questions have become tedious.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

DrMuller said:


> It doesn't change the music, nor does it really matter. The reason for the question is simply me trying to learn. I have so few modern pieces in my collection and I am not sure really what it means to be a "modern work". I have not studied music, hence all the questions. I apologize if my questions have become tedious.


I guess, then, I would encourage to listen to more music, to a lot more 19th century music and a lot more 20th century, to get a better feel for the wide range of idioms within each, to get a better feel for the range of continuities and discontinuities. "Modern work" is a complete abstraction. There is no "modern work." The generalizations only make a certain (though inevitably) limited sense if one brings to the table the experience of listening to (even studying) hundreds of works. I and others earlier listed a range of pretty accessible 20th-century works. Have you had the opportunity to listen to them?

You might also consider reading books about composers or eras or genres. Try the "Cambridge Companions to Music." There are volumes on individual composers, individual genres, individual instruments.


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

Alypius said:


> I guess, then, I would encourage to listen to more music, to a lot more 19th century music and a lot more 20th century, to get a better feel for the wide range of idioms within each, to get a better feel for the range of continuities and discontinuities. "Modern work" is a complete abstraction. There is no "modern work." The generalizations only make a certain (though inevitably) limited sense if one brings to the table the experience of listening (even studying) hundreds of works. I and others earlier listed a range of pretty accessible 20th-century works. Have you had the opportunity to listen to them?
> 
> You might also consider reading books about composers or eras or genres. Try the "Cambridge Companions to Music." There are volumes on individual composers, individual genres, individual instruments.


I have listened to the works that you and other recommended and i really enjoyed it, what I found a bit hard to listen to though was Bartók's music. The reason I asked about Holst and his "style" is because his music sounds like it could have been composed earlier, at least that's how I experience it. I guess many composers don't fit a specific style/timeline, Rachmaninov is a good example, alot of his music is composed in the 20th century but it sounds totally romantic.

Thanks for the recommending Cambridge Companions to Music. I will buy it.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

If you heard all those works, ask yourself about each composer: What does it mean to describe Copland as modern? as romantic? Or Samuel Barber as modern? as romantic? or Janacek? or Martinu? I guess that I would encourage you to find ways to describe their individuality first, and more specifically, to describe the contours of individual works of theirs. I think you will find that the very categories of "modern" and "romantic" are not very helpful -- they're too big and crude in most people's hands (though perhaps experts can probably get away with using them). I prefer to try to learn from people who are experts in individual composers and eras, to learn how they work to articulate things with precision (and sympathy). I am wary of grand generalizations.

By the way, the Cambridge Companions is a series, not a book. For example:
Julian Horton, ed., _The Cambridge Companion to the Symphony_ (2013)
Pauline Fairclough and David Fanning, eds., _The Cambridge Companion to Shostakovich_ (2008).

Perhaps, an even better place to begin is Alex Ross, _The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century_ (Picador, 2008):










It does not presume any familiarity with musical terminology, theory, etc. A couple of other surveys include:

*Nicholas Cook and Anthony Poole, eds., _The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Music_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
*Paul Griffiths, _Modern Music and After_, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

Alypius said:


> If you heard all those works, ask yourself about each composer: What does it mean to describe Copland as modern? as romantic? Or Samuel Barber as modern? as romantic? or Janacek? or Martinu? I guess that I would encourage you to find ways to describe their individuality first, and more specifically, to describe the contours of individual works of theirs. I think you will find that the very categories of "modern" and "romantic" are not very helpful -- they're too big and crude in most people's hands (though perhaps experts can probably get away with using them). I prefer to try to learn from people who are experts in individual composers and eras, to learn how they work to articulate things with precision (and sympathy). I am wary of grand generalizations.
> 
> By the way, the Cambridge Companions is a series, not a book. For example:
> Julian Horton, ed., _The Cambridge Companion to the Symphony_ (2013)
> ...


Thank you for that.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

dgee said:


> There are some elements of musical modernity in the planets - think col legno strings and unresolved dissonances in Mars, impressionistic touches especially in Mercury, Venus and Neptune, and some crunchy polyrhythms in Uranus - and the shutting door at the end! It's a great piece and justifiably hugely popular
> 
> If it's whetted your appetite for some more modern sounds why not try Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet music and Symphony 5, Bartok Concerto for Orchestra, Hindemith Symphonic Metamorphosen and Matis der Maler symphony, Stravinsky Firebird suite and Petroushka or Debussy La Mer - all spectacular and approachable orchestral scores


Holst has some exciting polyrhythms, it really gets your blood pumping.


----------

