# What do people mean when they call R. Strauss "vulgar?"



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I have heard this criticism several times now. Richard Strauss' music is somehow "vulgar" or "lurid" or some such. The most recent example of this was in one of Hurwitz's videos, discussing "Eine Alpensinfonie," terming it a "huge, vulgar piece of nonsense." (~ 1:15)

Is it me? Am I not attuned to vulgarity? I don't understand what people mean by these words. Anyone agree with these assessments and want to explain in a bit more detail?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

"Vulgar" I take to mean "is likely to appeal to a wide audience without the mediation of critics and scholars". "Lurid" would be something like Strauss' _Salome_.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

consuono said:


> "Vulgar" I take to mean "is likely to appeal to a wide audience without the mediation of critics and scholars". "Lurid" would be something like Strauss' _Salome_.


I have a hard time seeing "Eine Alpensinfonie" as a work with broad appeal. To me, that's stuff more along the lines of Mozart's "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" (which I adore, and therefore must possess a taste for vulgarity).


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

I think he's being hyperbolic when he says "huge, vulgar piece of nonsense". It seems that he's speaking using such loaded terms to say that interpretations of the piece should not seek to dig below the surface to find some deep meaning because he thinks there is none to be found. I'm not sure that I agree, but this is a type of assessment that tends to annoy me. The way he describes _Eine Alpensinfonie _is similar to the way that people often describe and criticize some works such as _Carmina Burana_. To me this just seems like a poor excuse to throw dirt on pieces one doesn't like and hasn't given a fair chance. Initially that's what I thought the guy in the video was doing, but actually he doesn't seem to be trying to demean _Eine Alpensinfonie_. I definitely like this work, but I haven't listened to it enough to know whether I agree with the assessment he gave. I will say though that the Solti recording he mentioned is excellent and does have a great storm section. Some have criticized Solti for going to fast on the summit. The other tone poems in the Solti set are performed superbly as well.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I have heard this criticism several times now. Richard Strauss' music is somehow "vulgar" or "lurid" or some such. The most recent example of this was in one of Hurwitz's videos, discussing "Eine Alpensinfonie," terming it a "huge, vulgar piece of nonsense." (~ 1:15)
> 
> Is it me? Am I not attuned to vulgarity? I don't understand what people mean by these words. Anyone agree with these assessments and want to explain in a bit more detail?


A very clear example of his vulgarity comes right at the end of the last of the four last songs, where there's an orchestral postlude with pointless silly little flute kiss curls, about as tasteful as a Ukrainian wedding cake









Another equally clear example is the orgasm in the opening overture of Rosenkavelier.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I don't really know. My first acquaintance with _Eine Alpensinfonie_ was Karajan's recording of it, which I listened when I had just discovered classical music and was going through, so far, my most severe phase of Karajan obsession. I was amazed by it when I finally "got" it and enjoyed listening to _Ein Heldenleben_, _Also sprach Zarathustra_, _Don Quxote_, and other tone poems Strauss wrote. I never found them lacking in good taste or sophistication.

I feel Strauss' so-called vulgarity has more to do with the qualities and the tradition of late Romanticism, rather than Strauss. Strauss has struck me as the last in the lineage of the great Austro-German late Romantics and that era in itself might be described as more "vulgar" than a lot of following modernist music which started abandoning the use of big massive orchestras as it moved on. This, on the other hand, means that Wagner, Bruckner, and Mahler could (according to the logic, maybe "should") be described as "vulgar" as well. Some might indeed say so but I, for one, wouldn't. The late Romantics, in unveiling the depth of human emotions and using the expressivity of music with some of the greatest mastery found in the whole classical music tradition, produced many amazingly focused and coherent works where nothing truly resembles a mere instrumental ornamentation which doesn't serve the music, the drama or the programme.

Strauss can be grotesque and vulgar in his operas, but this is quite different, more literal kind of vulgarity than the one Hurwitz seems to be referring to in the context of _Eine Alpensinfonie_. In my opinion, Strauss definitely doesn't seem to be lacking sophistication or depth. Of course, we sometimes use words like pompous and vulgar without meaning anything negative at all. I could say that _Eine Alpensinfonie_ is pompous (i.e. huge, grand, rich) _without_ meaning that it lacks true content but Hurwitz seems to use these words to describe exactly the lack of depth and content.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I have a hard time seeing "Eine Alpensinfonie" as a work with broad appeal. To me, that's stuff more along the lines of Mozart's "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" (which I adore, and therefore must possess a taste for vulgarity).


Probably not but that's not going to stop critics and other assorted "authorities" from applying the label to anything by this or that composer, once it's been applied for something else.


annaw said:


> This, on the other hand, means that Wagner, Bruckner, and Mahler could (according to the logic, maybe "should") be described as "vulgar" as well.


I'd say all of them have been described that way at one time or other. What's meant essentially I think is "shallowness" or a showiness...e.g. in using overwhelming orchestral forces and whatnot.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

The kiss curls in the four last songs






The orgasm in Rosenkavalier (wonderful this -- the conductor here is in his element.)


----------



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

Mandryka said:


> _Another equally clear example is the whole of the domestic symphony. I mean really! Fancy writing a piece of programme music with a section called "giving the baby a bath!" He might as well have had a section called "wiping the baby's bottom"_


I have to agree here - the programme of _SD_ overpowers the music and makes the whole work sound twee. Strauss attempts to have a gentle laugh at his own expense but he wears too smug an expression to be convincing.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

consuono said:


> I'd say all of them have been described that way at one time or other. What's meant essentially I think is "shallowness" or a showiness...e.g. in using overwhelming orchestral forces and whatnot.


I agree, they most probably all have. I think it's largely a question of taste. I'm very happy with Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, and Strauss exactly the way they are. I mean, imagine chamber orchestra Strauss  . I'm not sure whether that would have made him significantly more sophisticated; it would have done the opposite, I think.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

R. Strauss was the first major composer whose music is more of a "row" than a "flow" of effects.

For example _Salome's Dance_ - a collection of good ideas, but just imagine what would Russian orientalist composers have done with that. Or Saint-Saens.

R. Strauss paid such attention to details that he had no time for a strong form. In that he paved a way for many others in the 20th century.

This lack of strong form coupled with a hitherto unmatched production of great effects is the reason why he knew he was "only" a "first rate second rate composer".


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Technically, _vulgar_ just means _common_. I presume in this context it is meant to imply that Strauss lapses into bad or low taste. For the most part, I do not find that to be the case.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

"Majesty, I am a vulgar man, but I assure you my music... ...okay, my music is vulgar too". :devil:


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> The kiss curls in the four last songs


They're not really 'kiss curls' though, are they? They're the two larks he's talking about in verse 2, swirling and whirling about. They're the only thing left in the after-glow of the sun. When the last words of the last song ask 'is this, perhaps, death?', the orchestra is, perhaps, answering... "well, it's not quite as nihilistic as that!"

They seem acceptable to me, at any rate!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> R. Strauss paid such attention to details that he had no time for a strong form. In that he paved a way for many others in the 20th century.


It would be great if you would say a bit more about this, I've never seen this idea of strong form before and it sounds interesting.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> They're not really 'kiss curls' though, are they? They're the two larks he's talking about in verse 2, swirling and whirling about. They're the only thing left in the after-glow of the sun. When the last words of the last song ask 'is this, perhaps, death?', the orchestra is, perhaps, answering... "well, it's not quite as nihilistic as that!"
> 
> They seem acceptable to me, at any rate!


Ah!

SLDCNSKLCNSZ,KC NDXSZ,KVN SDX,KVN DXSVN


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

elgars ghost said:


> I have to agree here - the programme of _SD_ overpowers the music and makes the whole work sound twee. Strauss attempts to have a gentle laugh at his own expense but he wears too smug an expression to be convincing.


I like _SD_ but I have to agree with you. Great comment, and I learned the meaning of "twee" in the bargain (looked it up in a dictionary).


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Before Mahler became our God most of our critics dismissed him as vulgar. Vulgarity as a reason to dismiss a composer means something more than mere vulgarity - which can be appropriate and even inspired (the "kiss curls" in the last song?) in some settings - and, while I think it is not hard to find examples of vulgarity in Strauss, I do not think they harm the music. I am not sure I would like Strauss as much without his occasional vulgar touches.


----------



## Bourdon (Jan 4, 2019)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Well, Strauss aimed for faithful depiction of things first and foremost - he once said that he could describe a fork in music if he had to. Sometimes I can find this comes across as cheap and patronizing - I mean, the sheep bleats in _Don Quixote_ always make me crack up and the giant thunderstorm with all the sound effects in _Alpensinfonie_ is a hi-fi extravaganza, but do they add anything musically? Not sure. Haven't taken the dive into his operas yet. If I were to have any problem with Strauss - and he hovers just outside my top 20 composers - it would be the egotism that often comes across in his works. Who writes a 40-minute tone poem about himself as an "ultimate hero" rising victorious from the denunciations of the critics and an even longer one describing the going-ons of his everyday household? I mean, can you get over yourself already I think a similar narrative was intended in Zarathustra and Alpensinfonie which have very humanistic programs. I can easily look past that to enjoy the music (just like I can with Wagner and Beethoven who I also see as very egotistical composers) but I wouldn't blame anyone if they were turned off by it. I guess that "vulgarness" contrasts all the more with the sublime, ethereal Four Last Songs of his "indian summer."


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Ah!
> 
> SLDCNSKLCNSZ,KC NDXSZ,KVN SDX,KVN DXSVN


I wish I knew what any of that meant. I think I got the 'Ah!'


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

One must always take into account that Hurwitz is, as we say in Scotland, a complete bampot! Before you ask, it's not a compliment. :lol:


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

So it seems like there are two-ish conceptions being offered here. 1. vulgarity refers to a focus on mundane events or concepts (e.g. orgasm, wiping the baby) that everyone is aware of; 2. vulgarity refers to a grandiloquent focus on the composer themselves, and their emotions (e.g. heroism, struggle).

These ideas seem to exclude each other.

Are there also vulgar technical aspects to music? Use of folk music? Certain music tricks?

Maybe here's a different approach to the question: can you name a piece that is _not _vulgar, and say why? Is Beethoven 6 vulgar, but not Beethoven 9? Appalachian Spring vs. Fanfare for the Common Man? Mozart 41 vs Eine Kleine Nachtmusik? Haydn's "Surprise" symphony vs. his Schopfung?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Strauss can be, and often is superficial, cheap, glitzy, tawdry, and empty - i.e. vulgar. Too often he's more interested in effect and sonics than something more profound. He was not a symphonist, and there is little idea of development in his music. Too much of his music is like a Hollywood blockbuster - loud, fast moving with little depth. And a heck of a lot of fun to play and listen to. Even his most dedicated conductors only played a small portion of his voluminous output: Also Sprach Zarathustra, Don Juan, Till Eulenspiegel, Ein Heldenleben (now that's vulgar!), the Rosenkavalier suites, maybe Don Quixote and not much else. He wrote a lot of operas and they made him a lot of money, but nowadays Salome, Elektra, and Rosenkav obscure everything else. I have to say I've never really been taken by his music, although I own all the orchestral stuff and many of the operas. Yet I love the work of his contemporaries like Mahler, Schreker, Schmidt, Korngold, Zemlinsky...Strauss was a wizard with the orchestra but there's something missing at least for me. There's an emotional detachment that's hard to define. But a good SACD will sure show off a good system!


----------



## Bourdon (Jan 4, 2019)

Bourdon said:


> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


......................:tiphat:


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> Strauss can be, and often is superficial, cheap, glitzy, tawdry, and empty - i.e. vulgar. Too often he's more interested in effect and sonics than something more profound. He was not a symphonist, and there is little idea of development in his music. Too much of his music is like a Hollywood blockbuster - loud, fast moving with little depth. And a heck of a lot of fun to play and listen to. Even his most dedicated conductors only played a small portion of his voluminous output: Also Sprach Zarathustra, Don Juan, Till Eulenspiegel, Ein Heldenleben (now that's vulgar!), the Rosenkavalier suites, maybe Don Quixote and not much else. He wrote a lot of operas and they made him a lot of money, but nowadays Salome, Elektra, and Rosenkav obscure everything else. I have to say I've never really been taken by his music, although I own all the orchestral stuff and many of the operas. Yet I love the work of his contemporaries like Mahler, Schreker, Schmidt, Korngold, Zemlinsky...Strauss was a wizard with the orchestra but there's something missing at least for me. There's an emotional detachment that's hard to define. But a good SACD will sure show off a good system!


I think it should be said that Hollywood blockbuster scores sound like Richard Strauss, not vice versa. Film scores are imitating Strauss's style. But why do interesting sounds and effects make one's music shallow?


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Metamorphosen.

Then be quiet about claims that Strauss is not a great, deeply profound composer.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Eclectic Al said:


> Metamorphosen.
> 
> Then be quiet about claims that Strauss is not a great, deeply profound composer.


Just to be clear, I am not claiming this. I am baffled by such claims.

Metamorphosen is either number 1 or 2 on my list of the very greatest 20th century compositions (with Sibelius 7).


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Just to be clear, I am not claiming this. I am baffled by such claims.
> 
> Metamorphosen is either number 1 or 2 on my list of the very greatest 20th century compositions (with Sibelius 7).


Indeed, I would have them up there.

Sibelius 7 is one of those miracles. In a sense it is a dead end - in a good way. What I mean is that I can't imagine how you could improve it: if you try to do something like it, then you will do something less good.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Eclectic Al said:


> Indeed, I would have them up there.
> 
> Sibelius 7 is one of those miracles. In a sense it is a dead end - in a good way. What I mean is that I can't imagine how you could improve it: if you try to do something like it, then you will do something less good.


Unfortunately, he felt the same way :-[


----------



## Rambler (Oct 20, 2017)

I think I remember a Percy Grainger comment along the lines that he considered Strauss a greater composer than Ravel because Strauss's music was more vulgar. I can't find a source for this however. If he did say this I think I agree!


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Rambler said:


> I think I remember a Percy Grainger comment along the lines that he considered Strauss a greater composer than Ravel because Strauss's music was more vulgar. I can't find a source for this however. If he did say this I think I agree!


At risk of getting a bit political: I don't think "vulgar" is a criticism, if by vulgar is meant something akin to populist. The idea that there is something wrong with being of appeal to the masses is something which escapes me. Only a patronising spirit, with a sense of exclusive superiority, would be anti-populist. But populism is now a dirty word.

Hence, I agree with Grainger's sentiment - although I love Ravel for his fastidiousness. But then why would one claim that fastidiousness is not vulgar - unless one is wanting to patronise the unwashed masses?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

What about when his vulgarity consists in reinforcing populist unflattering stereotypes, of Jews for example?


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> What about when his vulgarity consists in reinforcing populist unflattering stereotypes, of Jews for example?


I suppose that's another possible meaning. It's not what I took Hurwitz to mean by it, though, or the other instances of the label I've seen.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> What about when his vulgarity consists in reinforcing populist unflattering stereotypes, of Jews for example?


This is to confuse so many things. I, personally, am not willing to concatenate "populist" with "bad", where by bad you might mean, for example, anti-semitic. Plenty of "elite" people have been anti-semitic.

I suppose I just don't think that a badge of membership of an elite provides any protection against unattractive views, and I am unwilling to associate a lack of formal education (say) with moral deficiency.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Yes, I should have said popular rather than populist maybe, I was trying to make a link with the idea of vulgarity.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> What about when his vulgarity consists in reinforcing populist unflattering stereotypes, of Jews for example?


Strauss was certainly not an anti-semite. He insisted on letting Stefan Zweig (a Jewish librettist) write the libretto for _Die schweigsame Frau_ and he was fired from both Reichsmusikkammer and Bayreuth after that (some very anti-Nazi letters he had written to Zweig were discovered). His daughter-in-law was Jewish and he was able to save her thanks to his musical influence. He remained apolotical during his time in Reichsmusikkammer and wrote letters conveying deep criticism towards the Nazis. I cannot see how creating or propagating some negative Jewish stereotypes would be something he would do. As far as I know, many of his in-laws were Jewish and killed during the WW2.


----------



## AlexD (Nov 6, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> View attachment 142316


Now I want a piece of cake.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

annaw said:


> I cannot see how creating or propagating some negative Jewish stereotypes would be something he would do.


What do you think about that scene? I mean we have a bunch of Jews arguing in a ludicrous casuistical way about whether John the Baptist is the Prophet Elijah come back to life, a caricature of stereotypical Talmudic thinking. All this happening in a context where there are life and death things at stake.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Yes, I should have said popular rather than populist maybe, I was trying to make a link with the idea of vulgarity.


One of the things which interests me is that I love Dickens - and he was a very socially aware novelist. But Fagin is not really a character who would pass muster these days, given a clear (not credibly random) link between Jewishness and money-grubbing.

My reaction to this is, in general, that I don't have much right to judge people from other times, places, etc, and need to make my own meaning out of what they did.

Coming back to Strauss and Metamorphosen, that's such an interesting example. It's about the tragedy of the destruction of Austro-German culture (if you like), but I can't escape the nagging doubt that Strauss might have preferred it if that culture had prevailed in the war, and then remedied itself - whereas I find that preposterous. Nevertheless, it's as moving a work of music as exists (IMO). This is, perhaps, why I try and keep my appreciation of music and my thoughts about anything else separate.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> What do you think about that scene? I mean we have a bunch of Jews arguing in a ludicrous casuistical way about whether Jesus is the Prophet Elijah, a stereotype of Talmudic thinking. All this happening in a context where there are life and death things at stake.


I simply cannot see a single reason why Strauss, who risked his own position and possibly life to help Jews, would have intended the scene to be seriously offending. I deeply doubt it was meant as an anti-semitic message. It would be just illogical to me. When we parodise national stereotypes, we usually don't do so because we hate a nation. (Whether that's a parody or human psychology is another question and when it comes to this scene, I'm not sure which one it is. I tend to prefer the latter option and that it means to convey the absurdity which you yourself pointed out.) I'm not well acquainted with _Salome_ specifically and thus refrain from making too definite conclusions. I just deeply doubt Strauss conveyed anti-semitism in any of his works.

Strauss wrote this to Zweig: _ Do you believe I am ever, in any of my actions, guided by the thought that I am 'German'? Do you suppose Mozart was consciously 'Aryan' when he composed? I recognise only two types of people: those who have talent and those who have none._

I might be entirely mistaken but these are my impressions. Feel free to correct me if you see I'm somewhere wrong or unreasonable .


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Eclectic Al said:


> Metamorphosen.
> 
> Then be quiet about claims that Strauss is not a great, deeply profound composer.


Yes, that's a remarkable piece, and very moving. Add to it Four Last Songs.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Wasn't the Salome libretto adapted from Wilde? 

Vulgarity is hardly unique to Strauss... the more I explore 19-20c romanticism the more I find many "vulgar" composers appealing - Strauss, Bax, Delius, Respighi... their musical trajectories keep me interested, being more "polynomial" than cyclic... plus instrumental touches which punctuate the way... Mahler may also be "vulgar" but dwells in moods for too long... 

Was just watching Eyes Wide Shut last night with the Shostakovich Jazz Suite in the soundtrack... representing a culture of decadence...


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Is the Strauss family's (i.e. Elder, Younger & Joseph) music vulgar? If yes, then how is R. Strauss also vulgar? These seem very different to me.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

philoctetes said:


> Wasn't the Salome libretto adapted from Wilde?


Yes, it was. He could be quite grotesque...


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Is the Strauss family's (i.e. Elder, Younger & Joseph) music vulgar? If yes, then how is R. Strauss also vulgar? These seem very different to me.


Let's move this discussion to Hurwitz's video's comments. :lol: If he only knew what kind of questions this one description created...


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

annaw said:


> Let's move this discussion to Hurwitz's video's comments. :lol: If he only knew what kind of questions this one description created...


Hurwitz isn't the only perpetrator, just the most recent one I've heard.

The philosopher in me can't resist trying to define terms and pointing out inconsistencies in those definitions.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

The Alpine Symphony is one of my favourite works, but I am perhaps a superficial listener. Personally, while a 'deeper meaning' below the surface is a welcome thing, it is not always necessary. Often I'm content with the pure, visceral effect of the surface: and few composers can sweep me along like Strauss can. Of course Strauss also wrote the Four Last Songs and Metamorphosen, which both strike me as being among the most profound music of all! The majority of his output is not like that though, although I still have a few more works I need to familiarise myself with.


----------



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

Despite my earlier criticism of the premise behind _Symphonia Domestica_ I do enjoy Strauss' orchestral works as a whole. I even enjoy the music for _SD_ as long as I can put its programme firmly out of my mind. As far as his tone poems go, _Don Quixote_ probably isn't held in the highest regard by many but it ranks very highly with me, bleating sheep and all. Then again, I'm a sucker for variation form.


----------



## NeilP (Aug 25, 2020)

*Richard Strauss Alpine Symphony*

I haven't played this for years I've lost my copy but I am now going to seek another one. I remember back in the late 70s this symphony on audio CD was my bedtime listening, I don't remember any vulgarity in it. Your man compares it to Mozart's Einer KleinerNacht music, So perhaps he is being complimentary?


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Is Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony vulgar?

It's probably my least favourite of his symphonies, but not because of supposed vulgarity - I suppose I prefer things to be more abstract, and don't really like the programmatic element. (Perhaps, that makes it vulgar, though??)
However, I quite like Strauss' Alpine Symphony. Go figure. Perhaps the Pastoral and the Alpine Symphony are both vulgar, and Strauss is just better at vulgarity than Beethoven.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

It is, of course, possible that Strauss is not, generally, vulgar, but that his _Symphonia Domestica_ is.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Vulgar means it's not really that great but most people will drop their booties to the floor of the rhythm and dance all night long.

Not sure if this applies really to Strauss, though perhaps when referencing some aspect of his music.

Vulgar is like the sound of that day-old smash hit on the pop station; nobody has time to analyze it but are captured by the hypey, superficial sounds.

The artist acquires fame through this technique of always new pleasing surprises, but as soon as people catch on to his flaw he already has something new out.

Someone can only be considered vulgar if they're high rated. The low rated version is called 'safe.'


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> Vulgar means it's not really that great but most people will drop their booties to the floor of the rhythm and dance all night long.
> 
> Not sure if this applies really to Strauss, though perhaps when referencing some aspect of his music.
> 
> ...


Even if that's how we define "vulgar", it causes problems when we use it to describe a work. My own understanding of the way how Hurwitz used the word (superficiality of content i.e that it seems to be more profound than it actually is) causes similar problems. Namely, to say that something appears to be greater or more profound than it really is, requires me to evaluate its true greatness or profoundity because only then I can say that most people give it more value than it's really worth. In short, if I'm not able to say how great it really is, I cannot really say that its greatness is overvalued and thus that it's vulgar or pompous. (As I said in one of my earlier posts though, I don't think we always mean to use these words to refer to a work's negative qualities.)

As far as I know, we are not able to evaluate how great a piece of music is and when it comes to those late-Romantic (or modernist) Austro-German composers, I _personally_ wouldn't say that the lack of content or simply superficiality is their main problem. I don't think we can fully see all the ideas Strauss wanted to communicate and thus we often tend to undervalue, rather than overvalue, a piece of music.

(Don't take this as a counter argument. These are just some things that entered my mind as I read your post.)


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Or maybe he confused the Strausses


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

annaw said:


> Even if that's how we define "vulgar", it causes problems when we use it to describe a work. My own understanding of the way how Hurwitz used the word (superficiality of content i.e that it seems to be more profound than it actually is) causes similar problems. Namely, to say that something appears to be greater or more profound than it really is, requires me to evaluate its true greatness or profoundity because only then I can say that most people give it more value than it's really worth. In short, if I'm not able to say how great it really is, I cannot really say that its greatness is overvalued and thus that it's vulgar or pompous. (As I said in one of my earlier posts though, I don't think we always mean to use these words to refer to a work's negative qualities.)
> 
> As far as I know, we are not able to evaluate how great a piece of music is and when it comes to those late-Romantic (or modernist) Austro-German composers, I _personally_ wouldn't say that the lack of content or simply superficiality is their main problem. I don't think we can fully see all the ideas Strauss wanted to communicate and thus we often tend to undervalue, rather than overvalue, a piece of music.
> 
> (Don't take this as a counter argument. These are just some things that entered my mind as I read your post.)


I think all of this analysis is unnecessary. It appears to me that Hurwitz is simply putting-down R. Strauss.

It may be for several reasons. Strauss was a major German composer, his works deal with grandiose themes at times, he dealt with the idea of "hero", Nietzsche, mountains, and other grand schemes.

I think Hurwitz was simply "taking down" Strauss a notch, for whatever reasons. 
Apparently the features listed above he felt were somehow pompous and undeserved. 
He's simply dissing the idea of a "Germanic hero" and all that goes with it.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I think all of this analysis is unnecessary. It appears to me that Hurwitz is simply putting-down R. Strauss.
> 
> It may be for several reasons. Strauss was a major German composer, his works deal with grandiose themes at times, he dealt with the idea of "hero", Nietzsche, mountains, and other grand schemes.
> 
> ...


The more time I spend on TC, the more convinced I become that there's a small (or not so small) analysis addict hidden in me. Maybe I should post my previous post into Hurwitz's comments :lol: (I probably won't).

But actually, as MatthewWeflen seemed to intend to discuss Strauss' vulgarity in more general context, I thought I'd answer generally as well, observing the potential impossibility of using such description objectively in the first place.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think anyone who can write a piece called a "heroes life' with himself as the hero has a certain amount of vulgarity.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I think anyone who can write a piece called a "heroes life' with himself as the hero has a certain amount of vulgarity.


At least it is _A_ Hero's Life and not _The_ Hero's Life. Articles can make a difference.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Jim Svejda also called it vulgar, and added overblown, overwritten and dumb. I don't care. I love that symphony. The Summit is one of the most moving moments in music for me. R Strauss was a large influence on Bartok. I feel his music could be simplistic in the narrative, like Ein Heldenleben, and Also Sprach Zarathustra. But the music is never boring to me.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

I'll have to give various bits of Strauss another go. He's one of those composers where there are some works I listen too often (ASZ, Metamorphosen, T und V, 4 Last Songs) and some I don't listen to at all (Til Eulenspiegel, Ein Heldenleden, Symphonia Domestica). Perhaps those works aren't as unappealing as I remember.

Linked to the above thoughts, what do people think are the Vulgarity Scores (VS) of his works, from 1 (Not at all vulgar) to 10 (as vulgar as a club comedian on a roll)?

I'd have Metamorphosen with a VS at the 1 end, and I guess Symphonia Domestica is around 10. Alpensinfonie about 6-7 maybe?

Take works like the Oboe Concerto or Duett-Concertino: not at all vulgar. Low VS.

By the way, I think VS should have only a low correlation coefficient with "love it" score.


----------



## EnescuCvartet (Dec 16, 2016)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I have heard this criticism several times now. Richard Strauss' music is somehow "vulgar" or "lurid" or some such. The most recent example of this was in one of Hurwitz's videos, discussing "Eine Alpensinfonie," terming it a "huge, vulgar piece of nonsense." (~ 1:15)
> 
> Is it me? Am I not attuned to vulgarity? I don't understand what people mean by these words. Anyone agree with these assessments and want to explain in a bit more detail?


You've probably heard the one from Strauss' own time:

"If it had to be a Richard, why did it have to be a Strauss'? If it had to be a Strauss', why did it have to be a Richard?"

Off topic, but how do I find out when people reply to me? Is it in my preferences or settings?

Thanks. Escv.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

EnescuCvartet said:


> Off topic, but how do I find out when people reply to me? Is it in my preferences or settings?


No one ever replies to you.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I think anyone who can write a piece called a "heroes life' with himself as the hero has a certain amount of vulgarity.


Nice try, but James Joyce used this "everyman as hero" device in Ulysses. It's a modern idea. Do your homework.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EnescuCvartet said:


> You've probably heard the one from Strauss' own time:
> 
> "If it had to be a Richard, why did it have to be a Strauss'? If it had to be a Strauss', why did it have to be a Richard?"
> 
> ...


There is no way of being notified about a reply.

On the other end, when I want someone to know *I* have replied, I hit the "like" button on their post, whether I really like it or not. This way, it "notifies" them.

It's laughable that anyone could take Hurwitz' comments seriously. These are the kinds of opinions that powerless, social rejects toss out in frustration. I just thank God I don't look like that.

Back to topic, I wouldn't worry about Hurwitz' shallow dismissal of R. Strauss. I just listened to Ariadne auf Naxos, and it is fantastic! The orchestral effects he creates are magical.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Baron Ochs .


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MarkW said:


> Baron Ochs .


Oh, I get it! That's a reply to the OP!

Baron Ochs was a character in Strauss' opera Der Rosenkavalier who was brutish and coarse ("vulgar").

Did he look anything like Hurwitz? :lol:


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I don't think the music of Richard Strauss is laking in "form ". As he specialized in symphonic poems and opera rater than traditional abstract music you can't judge it by the standards of form used by Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn and Brahms et al .
A symphonic poem is less beholden to traditional sonata form than an abstract symphony, concerto. string quartet eta . Strauss did use elements of sonata form in some of his programatic works , and Till Eulenspiegel is in Rondo form . 
Don Quixote is a theme and variations . But his use of established forms is not academically "correct , and frankly, who cares " They work perfectly well on their own terms . Hidebound conservative music critics in his early years as a firebrand young composers carped about his "lack of correct form ".
And you can hear the clever way he pkles fun of them in Ein Heldenleben , which is not a work which shows egotism on the part of Strauss but is actually a rather satirical work filled with in jokes .


----------

