# Camille Saint-Saens



## Azathoth (Feb 28, 2007)

What's your opinion of him?

I came across him when I got a CD of his solely because it had a skeleton playing the violin on the front (Danse Macabre was the main focus on that album) and then ended up picking up a 'The Best Of' CD because the name was vaguely familiar and I didn't notice that Saint-Saens was the skeleton CD guy.

I think he's pretty awesome. He's not heavy on the keyboard --or other instruments in general-- which makes his major-key pieces (Finale of Carnival of the Animals) really nice, but it also adds a really cool element when it's minor-key, like in the Presto movement of his second piano concerto.

I've had a lot of fun playing part of his Symphony #3. The track description in WMP --I can't find the CD case-- says "- Allegro moderato-Presto-maestoso-Allegro" so I don't know if that's all of it, but I've worked out the timing so the organ comes in at just the right time to be really annoying.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

He's probably the best material France provided ever.

If you are interested in more Saint-Saens I suggest you to try
his 5th piano concerto. The orchestration of this concerto is marvelous, as well as the piano writting.
Introduction and rondo capriccioso (for violin and orchestra)
Habanera (for violin and orchestra)
Violin concertos Nº 2 and 3. The are not many recordings of the 2nd, but you will find lots of the third. My favs are Ricci and Perlman, respectively.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

I love the big cat! 

An interesting fact about the geezer was that he had an embarrassing lisp which was extremely apparent when he was composing his thecond thymphony!

His Organ Symphony is a piece I have great respect for. Also his piano trios are rather nice to listen to. I only like the swan out of his animal suite. I'll have a look for his piano and violin concertos. Thanks Manuel!


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2007)

> He's probably the best material France provided ever.


OUCH!!

Lully
Couperin
Rameau
Berlioz
Debussy
Ravel
Poulenc
Varèse 
Messiaen
Dhomont
Henry
Boulez

And what a pathetically short list this is, to be sure. And so many great other living composers aside from the last three on this list. So many I won't even start.

But of course, Manuel was only indulging in a bit of harmless hyperbole, right Manuel? Right?


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Saint-Saens _Three Rhapsodies for Organ_ are some favorites of mine.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

> But of course, Manuel was only indulging in a bit of harmless hyperbole, right Manuel? Right?


I really mean it. The poor guy is just underated.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2007)

Yes, but from "underrated" to "best" is quite a leap. And matched up against those people on my (woefully) short list, well...

I'm not sure he's underrated, anyway. He's pretty popular in the U.S., anyway, and for more than just the 3rd and the Carnival. I don't know about his presence in concerts, but his ouevre is pretty well represented on cd, and the bins are pretty full everywhere.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

Manuel said:


> He's probably the best material France provided ever.


Nothing against Saint-Saens, but I think Debussy is better suited for that statement. I find Debussy to be one of the most original composers in the history of music, who's influence on those who came after him (like Stravinsky, Sibelius, Bartok) is vastly overlooked.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

I love a thread like this. Virtually everyone had something thought-provoking to say. I'd like to approach the topic tangentially, but keep in mind, I've come to praise Saint-Saens, not to bury him... To begin with, thanks to "some guy" for reminding us of the depth of the French contribution. [In fact, for France's top XI, I have their "highly unofficial" 'FICA' (composers) world ranking at #4. (behind only Germany/Austria/Russia)] Furthermore, props to Sr. M for not being afraid to posit an absolute. (I'm weary of philosophical relativism/positivism.) That being said, I want to add Bizet/Franck (ethnically a Walloon but geographically a Frenchman)/Faure/Satie/Gounod to our list. Furthermore, if forced into a choice, I would plump for Debussy over Saint-Saens (in agreement w/Maestro K).

However, to compare Saint-Saens to some of our list entries as though they are at least co-equal is, I think, not especially tenable. Another way of viewing it is to resort to the old "desert-island" chestnut, i.e.: if you could take one French composer's works with you into exile, whose would you choose? So, Saint-Saens vs. Faure/Satie/Gounod/Dhomont/ Varese/Henry/Rameau/Poulenc/Couperin/Satie/Boulez or Lully (of whom it can be said, "he died from a staff infection")? Not to minimize the accomplishments of Jean-Baptiste, but... (please).

Which leaves Franck (whose total repertory output is insufficient to merit a comparision with Saint-Saens) and Berlioz, Bizet, Debussy & Ravel. I would hate to have to choose between these Saint-Saens and these four, but my personal favorites are Debussy & Ravel. I understand the greater historical influence of Debussy (although if historical influence is a criterion, we have to hold Schoenberg in higher reard than he's been held heretofore). If I'm booted to the island, I'd choose Ravel.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

> If I'm booted to the island, I'd choose Ravel.


What I enjoy most of Saint-Saens is that there's not a single work of him I can't describe as full of joy. And his orchestration is superb, a bit overcharged, but that's what I like most. And his piano writting shows he was a supreme pianist. Exploring almost every single resource the instrument has (take a look at the second movement of his Egyptian concerto.

I will stick to my first post.


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Chi_town/Philly said:


> If I'm booted to the island, I'd choose Ravel.


With just a CD full of Bolero.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Actually, simply a CD of _Bolero_ would be just fine if the performer most responsible for its dissemination (think the movie "10") came as part of the deal! 
But seriously, _Valses_, _Pavane_, _Rhapsodie Espagnole_, _La Valse_, _Daphnis et Chloe_, _Tombeau_, _Tzigane_, _Alborada_, the two _Piano Concertos_ (and that's just off the top of my head).
In deference to Sr. M (and in tribute to his persistence) I readily acknowledge that Monsieur Saint-Saens has a higher output volume than Ravel. However, Ravel's contributions are less thin than some wags believe.


----------



## johnnyx (Jan 3, 2007)

If booted to the island, I'd choose Debussy.

(we're assuming this island has electricity right?)


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

I'd say that Debussy would be the ideal choice if the island _didn't_ have electricity. Then, you'd be limited to what you could play on the piano. I don't want to contemplate being without electricity _and_ without a piano, unless I have company as referenced in my previous post...


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

> In deference to Sr. M (and in tribute to his persistence) I readily acknowledge that Monsieur Saint-Saens has a higher output volume than Ravel. However, Ravel's contributions are less thin than some wags believe.


Thanks for your courtesy.
I'm not despising Ravel, I even recognise his works as superior to Saint-Saens'. I just happen to like the later more. Caprice perhaps?


----------



## MungoPark (Feb 15, 2007)

*Saint-Saens' repertoire more verastile than Debussy.*

How many symphonies did Debussy write? oh, that's right. None. How about concertos. Hmm, let's see. Zero. Okay, how about organ or church music. Nope, not really. So what we're left with is a ton of solo piano music and peaceful, hypnotic orchestral pieces. I don't want to knock Debussy - the music that he did write is excellent - but it's what he didn't write that makes him, IMHO, inferior to Saint-Saens in every way. In my book he claims a distant third, after Faure.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

MungoPark said:


> In my book he claims _a distant third_, after Faure.


The same to me. Well... not too much. Only a _minor third_.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

_"It's not how, it's how many."_
Great axiom... for GOLF!
*B-a-a-a-a-d* axiom... for classical music composition!

Quality of output, rather than variety, or quantity, of output, is a better arbiter of excellence here. To place composers who didn't write concertos or symphonies in arrears of those who did is an argument that would lead to consignment for Mahler, Bruckner, and Wagner (didn't write concertos), and also Verdi and Puccini (didn't write symphonies). Is output quantity decisive? If so, I await the panegyric to Telemann. 
An understanding of Tennyson's metaphor ("better 50 years of Europe than a cycle of Cathay") pretty much sums up my attitude. Argue for the quality of Saint-Saens music (and Sr. M _has_, with sufficient persuasion that I'm reaching into my CDs for re-appraisals), but don't say that a composer deserves deference simply because of his variety and/or quantity.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

> Quality of output


Take a look at the attached image. Don't tell me there's not quality and innovation in this. (I may post an audio sample later). Those who have a piano, run to it and play what you see here (In tempo d'Andante).

(Chi_town/Philly, check The Broadcasts corner. I left something for you there)


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

In my opinion, Saint-Saens is the best thing to come out of France. Debussy is fantastic as he developed his own distinctive style, but Saint-Saens' music has some balls to it!

Faure comes second for me as well, mostly because of his sublime choral works.


----------



## Azathoth (Feb 28, 2007)

Manuel said:


> What I enjoy most of Saint-Saens is that there's not a single work of him I can't describe as full of joy.


That's what I like about him! I couldn't place it before.

I of course might be biased, because what did I listen to just before cracking the Saint-Saens for the first time? Liszt's _Totentanz_. It could have just been contrast.

So let's test. Neutral mood. Windows Media Player, Saint Saens, Carnival of the Animals, Finale.

Yep, bright, happy, and now I'm all nice and cheerful.

Now, to go ruin it by doing homework.


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

It's indeed very unreasonable to say that Debussy is inferior to Saint-Saens.

I appreciate both of them, but it happens so that I'm better acquainted with Debussy's oeuvre, so I can tell that the 'tons of piano pieces' are more than just piano pieces.

And undoubtedly, Debussy was a far greater musical innovator than Saint-Saens.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Lisztfreak said:


> It's indeed very unreasonable to say that Debussy is inferior to Saint-Saens.


However, Saint-Saens did start composing when he was 3, and I can only think of two other composers that have had that sort of prodigal genius - Mozart and Mendelsohn.

This shows very much in his writing, especially when he's kicking out reams of fugue in his symphonies and the like.

If Debussy wanted to be remembered as one of the greats, he should have composed more for orchestra, choir, organ e.t.c. and more varied types of music - concertos, symphonies e.t.c.

It's a shame really because a piano concerto would have been right up Debussy's street!


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

Well, he did compose a Fantasy for piano and orchestra, and if you ignore the title, the work can serve as a concerto without any problems.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Edward Elgar said:


> If Debussy wanted to be remembered as one of the greats, he should have composed more for orchestra, choir, organ e.t.c. and more varied types of music - concertos, symphonies e.t.c.


I think that's not a happy conclusion. An extensive output embracing all the genres is not a prerequisite to qualify as a _great_.
What he composed for piano, orchestra or voices is amongst the best of the repertoire. And shows a great deal of innovation too.


----------



## Lithium (Jun 10, 2007)

I played Allegro Apassionato, and I loved it... I also played the "Le carnaval des animaux", it's very beautiful....


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

You are all wrong. Rameau is the best of them all.


----------



## rojo (May 26, 2006)

MungoPark said:


> How many symphonies did Debussy write? oh, that's right. None. How about concertos. Hmm, let's see. Zero. Okay, how about organ or church music. Nope, not really. So what we're left with is a ton of solo piano music and peaceful, hypnotic orchestral pieces. I don't want to knock Debussy - the music that he did write is excellent - but it's what he didn't write that makes him, IMHO, inferior to Saint-Saens in every way. In my book he claims a distant third, after Faure.


Debussy was completely innovative (hope this hasn`t already been said) in the fact that he pushed functional tonality to it`s very limit. No composer went as far as he did in this respect previously. His symphonic poem L`Après-midi d`un Faun was a ground-breaker in this respect. His influence on subsequent major composers was enormous; I couldn`t even begin to list all the composers influenced by his works. As to only being left with peaceful hypnotic orchestral pieces, I gather you have never listened to Debussy`s La Mer... And in his piano repertoire, try Ce Qu`a Vu le Vent de l`Ouest from his Préludes book 2 for something truly violent.

I love Saint-Saens- the Organ Symphony, Danse Macabre.. but if I was to go on a work by work basis, I would say Berlioz` Symphonie Fantastique is also more important in the evolution of music. I adore Ravel as well; Daphnis and Chloe, La Valse. Poulenc, Messaien- there are such wonderful works by these Frenchmen.

Edit- Forgot to mention that Debussy didn`t write symphonies or concertos, but nevertheless he wrote tons of stuff for orchestra. Nocturnes, Images... His style didn`t suit the form of the symphony, which was perhaps somewhat 'passé' by his time. His music lent itself to a freer form...

What a great thread; discussion about so many of my favourite composers! I seem to love many works by french composers. Vive les oeuvres de compositeurs français!


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2007)

My personal view is that Debussy is for music that a poet is for literature. 
Charles Beaudelaire, for example, didn’t write novels, plays, essays, etc…, but his genius astonishes us still today. Like Debussy, his influence on subsequent poets was definitely major. I’d say that it was not a pure coincidence that the first chose the poems of the second to compose songs.

Besides, if French composers were rarely versatile, they were no less great...


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2007)

Handel said:


> You are all wrong. Rameau is the best of them all.


may I ask why Rameau?


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

I was half joking. 

Rameau was the best french composer between 1600 and 1830. 

Great opera composer.
Great keyboard composer.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2007)

he was of course a great composer.

I’ve read in JJ Rousseau’s memoirs that he (JJ R.) was very found of Italian music, and used to compare French Music with the scream of the diarrhoea ("le cri de la colique", in French)
Only one composer was in favour with him: JP Rameau, probably because he learned music in his theoretical writings (but also probably because he was the greatest composer in this period!) But I’ve never understood why he (JJ R.) never mentioned Bach, nor Handle, nor German music...


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

Alnitak said:


> he was of course a great composer.
> 
> I've read in JJ Rousseau's memoirs that he (JJ R.) was very found of Italian music, and used to compare French Music with the scream of the diarrhoea ("le cri de la colique", in French)
> Only one composer was in favour with him: JP Rameau, probably because he learned music in his theoretical writings (but also probably because he was the greatest composer in this period!) But I've never understood why he (JJ R.) never mentioned Bach, nor Handle, nor German music...


Bach because he was unknown outside Nothern Germany.
Handel, probably because he composed works in foreign language.
German music, maybe because its musical style was not appreciated by Frenchs. 
Musical France during baroque era was a little world by itself. Even if a german like Telemann had some success there, France was blind to other styles, except italian (which was so strong in Europe).


----------



## Morigan (Oct 16, 2006)

I think there were two factions in France : the Rousseau-ists who though Italian music was the best, and the Rameau-ists who thought French music was superior.

Lol! Italians thought french music sounded like people screaming, while Frenchmen thought that Italian singers sounded girly and ridiculous.

Les français étaient bien meilleurs


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

Sung french during baroque era was very typical and different of italian bel canto.

Example:


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2007)

Morigan said:


> I think there were two factions in France : the Rousseau-ists who though Italian music was the best, and the Rameau-ists who thought French music was superior.
> 
> Lol! Italians thought french music sounded like people screaming, while Frenchmen thought that Italian singers sounded girly and ridiculous.
> 
> Les français étaient bien meilleurs


it is very curious that Rousseau, although Rousseau-ist, composed his operas in French! 
But, that wasn't his single contradiction: he wrote "L'Emile" and abandoned all his children. 
- So, he could compose in French also!


----------



## Morigan (Oct 16, 2006)

Handel said:


> Sung french during baroque era was very typical and different of italian bel canto.
> 
> Example:


I only just checked your link.

Le Roi Danse est un excellent film, même s'il y a quelques erreurs historisques (intentionnelles ou pas). J'ai la trame sonore depuis deux ans et je l'ai tellement écoutée que le CD est brisé...


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

> Lol! Italians thought french music sounded like people screaming, while Frenchmen thought that Italian singers sounded girly and ridiculous.
> 
> Les français étaient bien meilleurs


Je pense que les italiens avaient raison; je n'avais jamais aimer l'opera en francais comme en italien; peut-etre, le francais est trop "nasal" (je ne sais pas le mot, LOL).

(Pardonnez-moi si mon francais est horrible. J'ai etudie au lycee il y a longtemps, alors, j'essaie un peu.)


----------



## Morigan (Oct 16, 2006)

Leporello87 said:


> Je pense que les italiens avaient raison; je n'avais jamais aimer l'opera en francais comme en italien; peut-etre, le francais est trop "nasal" (je ne sais pas le mot, LOL).
> 
> (Pardonnez-moi si mon francais est horrible. J'ai etudie au lycee il y a longtemps, alors, j'essaie un peu.)


Hahaha, tu es très bien! Pas de soucis.

Well, I agree that they sound different. I still like both almost equally. However, French is so difficult to sing... and foreign singers often have a hard time getting the pronounciation right. I have this Carmen recording sung by Englishmen and Italians for the most part, it's incredibly annoying. On the other side, Italian must be the easiest language to pronounce ever, lol.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Morigan said:


> Well, I agree that they sound different. I still like both almost equally. However, French is so difficult to sing... and foreign singers often have a hard time getting the pronounciation right. I have this Carmen recording sung by Englishmen and Italians for the most part, it's incredibly annoying. On the other side, Italian must be the easiest language to pronounce ever, lol.


Haha, it could very well be. I think that in many other respects, like verb conjugations and such, Italian is also easier than even other Romance languages like French.


----------

