# ~GREAT~ Composers/their not so great works, house cleaning time



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

We all regard Mahler as qualified to rank among the greatest of composer,,,yet do we really need/wish to hear his string quartets?
Bruckner, also, ranks very high among all classical community , as a ~Great~ classical composer,,,yet how many actually listen to his piano violin concertos?

Do the Bach fans actually listen and enjoy all 1200 Bach's works? 
Mozart's string quartets, trios, quintets , still hold real value today,,when we have plenty of other , modern quartets which offer a greater range of musical expression. We have Shostakovich's 15 SQ,s;,Bartok's 6, Ravel/Debussy, and the list can go on for another 20 great modern SQ.'s. 
How is Mozart's of any interest when there are truly outstanding modern quartets to be heard?

So which works of your favorite ~Great~ composers, which you feel can be eliminated from your listening experience, 
~forever~, = you hope never to hear another Violin Concerto from Bruckner, nor a string quartet from Mahler.
Nor ever to hear piano solo works from ~Stravinsky~

I'll start, Mozart's string quartets, , old , dated, rusted, boring. I have no interest in Mozart;'s quintets , trios, quartets.
I'll extend this even further, all his early/mid concertos, don't hold a candle next to his late concertos. Includes 9,12, both sound rather boring, after you hear a late concerto. 
His early/mid symphonies, for the most part, I still enjoy hearing, as they are just continue to glimmer and shine with life and brilliance.

So go ahead and give your fav a ~ hair cut~.

LvB is about to get a crew cut,,hehe

Here is your Mozart SQ


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I love listening to "lesser" works by the great composers. I find that, while these types of pieces don't always contain the same emotional breadth or level of complexity as most highly regarded masterworks, they often do demonstrate very adept craftsmanship and (perhaps more importantly) help us, the audience, to better understand and connect with their creators. So, even though I may not regard many of the early Mozart piano concertos as being among my all time favorite works, I still deeply enjoy and benefit from listening to them.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

paulbest said:


> We all regard Mahler as qualified to rank among the greatest of composer,,,yet do we really need/wish to hear his string quartets?
> Bruckner, also, ranks very high among all classical community , as a ~Great~ classical composer,,,yet how many actually listen to his piano violin concertos?


I assume this is a strange way of saying that the range of their output was limited, because obviously they did not write any of these. Of course, even that does not make any sense in combination with the title of your thread, but hey, can't say I'm surprised.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I enjoy hearing the lesser works of great composers, but in many cases once is enough. Did this guy really compose _Tristan und Isolde?_






As Wagner himself admitted, the best thing about it was the money the city of Philadelphia paid him for it.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I only threw in that oddity about Mahler and Bruckner , as a way to show these 2 composers were rather limited in their output. 
Time to take a fresh look at both and many others, like Tchaikovsky, Dvorak. 
I think there are so many popular opinions surrounding these composers based on ,,,old traditions. 
Tchaikovsky, not even sure he wrote solo piano music. Did he? String Quartets? 
Yet we have many modern composers past 100 yrs, whose works are more broad/wide/deep , varied and expansive, yet whose image is portrayed as less than the old standards. 
take szymanowski. Now we all know Tchaikovsky continues to holda much greater reputation in classical music elitists community, over Szymanowski. 
Yet who has the wider, more varied musical offerings. 
Tchaikovsky is only good around Christmas time,,a season I really loathe, notable for the Xmas seasonal music, which includes Tchaikovsky, ballets for kids. .


Once we take a closer look at Stravinsky, his works really are not all that great, , Had he written a few SQ;s a few sonatas, or maybe a finer piano and violin concerto, we could reconsider his output as ~great~. His piano concerto and VC are OK/good, nothing ~extra-ordinary~ once we consider other concertos composed past 60 years. 
Both his PC and VC are rather thin and wimpy vs many other modern offerings.
basically this topic should be titled
~A time for re-assessing/re-evaluating 
the ~once~ Great~ composers and their early/middle works~ , for those living in a modern world. 
Yeah that's a better way of putting it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I for one am happy to listen to Beethoven's _Duo for Viola and Cello with Two Eyeglasses Obbligato_ and hope it is not expunged from the repertoire!


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I enjoy hearing the lesser works of great composers, but in many cases once is enough. Did this guy really compose _Tristan und Isolde?_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good one, can't believe the great spinner of gorgeous Germanic lore thematic operas, , scored *that*, who would have ever guessed it correctly.
Now there's more you need to share.
Go ahead, claen Schuberts, Schumann's house. How about Chopin,,he must have written some piano , early works, that were just dreadful.

btw I think my post #5, is a more explanatory , than the OP's fogginess. Post #5
opens
the gates to more open admissions and confessions.
I am trying to get folks to see beyond their square listening experiences, toa world of music which awaits them, if only they can let go of some past, once held scared, composers. 
In order to gain something new, something old, must be shed off.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> I only threw in that oddity about Mahler and Bruckner , as a way to show these 2 composers were rather limited in their output.
> Time to take a fresh look at both and many others, like Tchaikovsky, Dvorak.
> I think there are so many popular opinions surrounding these composers based on ,,,old traditions.
> Tchaikovsky, not even sure he wrote solo piano music. Did he? String Quartets?
> ...


An even better way of putting it is "I'm creating a thread as an excuse to dis great music I don't like."


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

LvB is about to get a , long overdue,,crew cut


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Here's one we can do without. The listener is ready to throw in the towel long before Bach has lost his enthusiasm for repetitions. Why do we put up with this garbage?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

paulbest said:


> Tchaikovsky, not even sure he wrote solo piano music. Did he? String Quartets?
> ...
> Tchaikovsky is only good around Christmas time,,a season I really loathe, notable for the Xmas seasonal music, which includes Tchaikovsky, ballets for kids. .


You don't even know what Tchaikovsky wrote and yet you are making that ridiculous Christmas comment based on exactly one work?? Might I suggest that you spend more time learning about the various composers than you do spinning these not particularly coherent rambles?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Tahts one way of reading me, or can we at least consider some composers have such a fan club as to propagandize , at the expense ,,of other more contemporary composers, whose works truly are finer.
Mozart's SQ;s, , what makes it so special?

Have we not, Schoenberg, Bartok SQ's? to be heard. 
How many SQ's do we need to make us satisfied? 
Mozart's SQ;'s are annoying and just clutter the mind so I can not listen to Henze's music with a clean, clear mind.
I have no use for Hayden's music. Its just noise.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

OK, so I got it wrong, seems old Tchai, did in fact scorea piano sonata. 
Who really cares,when we have Scriabin's late piano works? 
Tchai's solo piano, can just be placed far below a superior venue for late romantic solo piano, that of Scriabin,, 
In fact I'll go even one further,,Do we really need Chopin's solo piano works, when we all have access to Scriabin's late sonatas? 
Chopin is dated. old, when heard just after Scriabin's late works. 
Time to house clean. When we do, it will make room for new musical experiences. 
A cluttered musical room, makes less room for new experiences.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

"truly are finer" ... so you still haven't figured out the difference between personal opinion and fact? Or that there is no fact when it comes to musical taste? Talk about just noise.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I'd say finer
Chopin/, ~~in olden times~~~





and now
~~Scriabin~ late sonata, Modernism is now born forth....Why the need for Chopin?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

You tell me which composer offers the finer music for solo piano.
Honestly, w/o bias.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

well here you go, *Beethoven a la russe*

One hours worth


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> *Mozart's SQ;'s are annoying and just clutter the mind so I can not listen to Henze's music with a clean, clear mind.*
> I have no use for Hayden's music. Its just noise.


A clean, clear mind might result from a month in rehab, but removing Mozart won't help you.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> A clean, clear mind might result from a month in rehab, but removing Mozart won't help.


Are we here on earth to see how much music we can cram in before we pass away?
I'm older than most here, I can see perspectives better and hear selectively better,,than,,,(ha, thought I was going to refer to you)

what I mean is later in life you guys will reflect and see, hear with a different set of eras, minds, souls. It will happen, its just a matter of time.

Thais is what my post is all about. 
Reform, transform, inform.

Changes are inevitable, these new musical experiences have taken place within, me, unexpectably,,,the same will occur to each and every one of you.

What you once held so dear, may take a slight tumble. 
Renewal, transformal, undeniable. 
Is it that we are drawn towards new music, or is it the new music draws us in its sphere? 
Both synchronistic.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Not for the first time (understatement of the year) you have the delusion that what happened to you MUST therefore happen to everyone. That's not how the world works. 

There's plenty of us here who can enjoy 20th and 21st century classical music without giving up on the older composers. Fortunately.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

look its late, 1am , and believe it or not,,,this thing has ~~5 Like~~ hits,,,apparently there is someone out there, 5 in fact, who have some interst in this OP /discussions going on.

Now I know it being 1am, most everyone is gone off to bed,,,so in the morning,,i'll have a lot to answer to.
A apology is in order now, if I do not get around to responding to all the queries that come my way. 
Please understand, my health limits my comp time. 

Forgive any inadequacies in my ability to get across ideas which have filtered through my mind these past years. I'm trying to sort out these things myself, at the moment. I do know now, music has to possess a spirit, living and life giving. W/o these 2 essential qualities, what use is it? 
Music become like a skeleton , which at one time might have embodied a great musical experience for countless souls. 


As life moves on, art too moves ahead. 
The past has given birth to music which our ancestors have never even dreamed could be possible. It is this new living art form which draws me to write these ideas, in ways that may not be expressed with finesse and coherency, and beg you to overlook any excesses and blunderings , which may do more harm than good for the motivated purpose. 
Which purpose is, ~Enlightenment~. 
I bid all a good night,,,and for my compatriots in modern classical music, ,,,please I have this ,,,no back up support needed. 
I've dug my grave and its no use trying to hold back the dirt which inevitably will be flung my way,,,,,,.
Just hold your positions,, as I am not looking for a bout of flaming to take place. 

Like the modern music we so love, a call to peace and acceptance will show us as the ~~Peace corps~~~.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

paulbest said:


> Tahts one way of reading me, or can we at least consider some composers have such a fan club as to propagandize , at the expense ,,of other more contemporary composers, whose works truly are finer.
> Mozart's SQ;s, , what makes it so special?
> 
> Have we not, Schoenberg, Bartok SQ's? to be heard.
> ...


I'm not familiar with Hayden.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

DaveM said:


> I'm not familiar with Hayden.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

I for one would be fascinated to hear one of Mahler's String Quartets. Right up there with the Chopin symphonies or the Bruckner operas.

So-called lesser works do give a broader picture of the composer, and more often than not, getting to know a composer, warts and all, is more important than just liking a piece of music by whoever.

Disconcerting to see Hayden (sic) described as "just noise". On that basis, so is every piece of music composed since the dawn of time.


----------



## CrunchyFr0g (Jun 11, 2019)

paulbest said:


> look its late, 1am , and believe it or not,,,this thing has ~~5 Like~~ hits,,,apparently there is someone out there, 5 in fact, who have some interst in this OP /discussions going on.


I think that's because, like driving past a car crash, you hate to look but you can't quite look away.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Plus these likes are not given to the thread, but to people arguing against the OP.


----------



## Aleksandr Rachkofiev (Apr 7, 2019)

The existence of great works doesn't invalidate the existence of good ones. Once you stop appreciating good in search of great, you slowly start to take all of the beauty in the world for granted.

Maybe this is not what you were trying to argue, and if so, I apologize for not understanding better. But my personal answer to the "why listen to outdated works like those by Chopin when their originality has faded, listen instead to something like Scriabin which is new, exciting, and explores the depths of what music can achieve to a much greater degree" is that, as others have touched on, something doesn't have to be great (or even good) to be enjoyed.

I personally agree with you that Scriabin's works are more intellectually stimulating than Chopin's (just take a look at my username), however that doesn't mean Chopin's works are not worth hearing. I am confused as to why you posted something seemingly so opinionated under the guise of something objective - music and all forms of art in general by nature are highly subjective, something that has been repeated countless times likely because it has a grain of truth to it. Music is communication - when a person decides that what they want to express and share with someone else cannot be done through the use of words alone - and communication is highly, in fact I'd say entirely, individualized. Just because from your standpoint Chopin does not have anything new or interesting to offer the world of music doesn't mean it doesn't have anything new or interesting to offer to someone else. 

I personally have to confess that I adore Rachmaninoff. Is he at times trite, overplayed, hollywood-y, overly sentimental? Of course! But I still enjoy listening to what he writes even if I know it's not technically perfect. I feel as if a lot of these polls on greatness and lack of greatness (works and people) contribute to a loss of appreciation for the art and subjectivity in music. 

Once again, I know I'm repeating tired arguments here (and I still am not sure if I entirely understood what you were trying to say), but I felt like this needed to be said. 

Go ahead and tear my arguments to shreds if you wish, I'll be enjoying Rachmaninoff's Second Piano Concerto for the billionth time just as I did the first time I heard it


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

paulbest said:


> Are we here on earth to see how much music we can cram in before we pass away?
> I'm older than most here, I can see perspectives better and hear selectively better,,than,,,(ha, thought I was going to refer to you)
> 
> what I mean is later in life you guys will reflect and see, hear with a different set of eras, minds, souls. It will happen, its just a matter of time.


If I understand correctly you find it hard these days to absorb the great volume (of great variety) of music written in the past and would like to focus your attention on music that fits your current musical likes. So go ahead. What is stopping you? Why do you need us all to give up the same music that you don't like?

Because you think you are older than most here, apparently. That would put you at quite a senior age. And I think many of us (I'm in my mid-60s, for example) have found an increased ability to explore and listen to more without needing multiple hearings to understand it. I enjoy doing this and greatly enjoy my growing ability to understand and enjoy more, and more quickly. I don't know what age you are but .... fear you may be developing dementia This might lead to your not being able to hold as much music in your head as you used to. Forgive the amateur diagnosis but your feeling that you are better able to hear music in perspective than everyone else here brought to my mind the words "deluded" and then "demented".



paulbest said:


> *Thais is what my post is all about.*
> Reform, transform, inform.


If your post was really about a Massernet opera why didn't you say? I don't know Thais but do tell us what you have against it.



paulbest said:


> Changes are inevitable, these new musical experiences have taken place within, me, unexpectably,,,the same will occur to each and every one of you.
> 
> What you once held so dear, may take a slight tumble.
> Renewal, transformal, undeniable.
> ...


Again, I'm thinking that you may be describing the onset of a neurological problem. You might consult a specialist. And, BTW, the suggestion that you (alone?) are able to appreciate newer music holds no water. Your taste seems stuck in the relatively conservative among modern composers with everything that is more radical dismissed as "post-modern" and therefore not worthy of time. I am having no trouble exploring and enjoying a lot of newer music (including the relatively recent Ravel, Schnittke, Carter and even Pettersson) and do so while also continuing to explore more of the older masters.

You need to be a hero - our hero? - but come over as relatively limited in your interests. Enjoy what you enjoy. Tell us about it and why you enjoy it. Your interest in your preferred music often seems less than your need to rubbish everything else that you have lost the ability to enjoy,


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Aleksandr Rachkofiev said:


> The existence of great works doesn't invalidate the existence of good ones. Once you stop appreciating good in search of great, you slowly start to take all of the beauty in the world for granted.
> 
> Maybe this is not what you were trying to argue, and if so, I apologize for not understanding better. But my personal answer to the "why listen to outdated works like those by Chopin when their originality has faded, listen instead to something like Scriabin which is new, exciting, and explores the depths of what music can achieve to a much greater degree" is that, as others have touched on, something doesn't have to be great (or even good) to be enjoyed.
> 
> ...


No, actually you are expressing my main idea, in much superior, understandable idiom , with agreeable tones for all to register and accept.

No Chopin has some value,,,but should he dominate the FM radio over equally if not more important voices and exprssions in solo piano. 
I have to confess here, I've never been drawn to Chopin, other than his 1st PC and that with Pollini, 1961 record,,all others sound ,,,*not the real deal*.

But those early days have come and gone and now I am left,,,empty handed,,I must find some suitable substitute for my missing Chopin,,,I had heard of Scriabin,,,but failed to take him seriously, as his early works, just did not make this modern sound, that I was in search of. Late works , yes there is something I can find interesting.

Tahts all I am saying. 
Time to RE-Value_ate all our music.

Some here just live like on auto drive,,,never stopping to Re-Consider their catalogues.

How can modern music enter in with Chopin placed so high on their iconic statues.

You know I had Richter's Rachmaninov for yrs,,,it was interesting, and well composed,,,Yet have never returned to what was in LP format....LP's went away as my turn table broke and never decided to replace Rachmaninov;s solo piano with a cd. 
His syms, PC;s, only the 1st PC holds lasting nostalgic interest. His 4th also was a standard for me. Not even sure I have heard the 4th in decades. 
So many new discoveries these past months, years, have left me not interested in a past, now holding only faint memories. 
Sure the younger crowd has to pass through all the phases/stages which I had to struggle through. 
I can agree with this ponderance. 
Yet to remain locked in with minimal works of great composers,,,seems abit too *faithful, devoted* Making some sort of religion of a composers music.

I just do not see the need to hang on to some ~~Great~~ composers,, ~lesser/early/minimal/seminal/experiemental~~ expressions, which only hinder the search, the seeking for newer forms of musical expression. 
Its like the mind gets a log jam, and can not allow new fresh water to flow down the minds streams to carry ~~The New, The Modern Sound~~~.

I am a modernist, who feels the greats of the past , have ~~done their work well~,,,w/o their sacrifice and devotion to this great art, we would not have the modern composers which we cherish today.

Im my opinion, its their greatest successes, , not their lesser, which we should remember them by, and it is these creative living jems which point the way, direct us to The New Modern Composers.

So it is thus: Bach/Henze which I cherish. 
Henze has to study bach , as it is his forebear, his soil from which he grew forth. 
I know when I hear Henze, I owe a deep gratitude for Bach, Wagner,,and also more contemporary influences of Schoenberg and that of the forgotten Karl Hartmann.

Modern music is structure and supported from the framework of past great composers,,,Their finest expressions are what should be recalled. 
Mozart's SQ's are of interest only for the ~~Musicologist~~ Museum pieces~~~

Haydn(spell correct saved me) gave us all he could, He could only compose what he had in him. 
Perhaps we have Mozarts' final works in such glorious forms, due to Haydn's influences, no doubt this is so.

Rachmaninov's 2nd cpncerto, has some moving sections, but its the other sections which I feel ,,,,what do I feel...believe,?,,well its just not what I want in Modern Music. ….I prefer Szymanowski and next to Rachmaninov's 2nd, it over takes Rachmaninov, leaving his cd collecting ,,,dust....


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> If I understand correctly you find it hard these days to absorb the great volume (of great variety) of music written in the past and would like to focus your attention on music that fits your current musical likes. So go ahead. What is stopping you? Why do you need us all to give up the same music that you don't like?
> 
> Because you think you are older than most here, apparently. That would put you at quite a senior age. And I think many of us (I'm in my mid-60s, for example) have found an increased ability to explore and listen to more without needing multiple hearings to understand it. I enjoy doing this and greatly enjoy my growing ability to understand and enjoy more, and more quickly. I don't know what age you are but .... fear you may be developing dementia This might lead to your not being able to hold as much music in your head as you used to. Forgive the amateur diagnosis but your feeling that you are better able to hear music in perspective than everyone else here brought to my mind the words "deluded" and then "demented".
> 
> ...


I'm ,,,63.5.
Actually my cognition is sharper now, than ever previously.

I have never heard any Massernet,,as yet,,,I will one day...

Look if the youths want to follow in the paths laid down by our forefathers, fine and dandy. 
But if via my ideas, some of the tree can be shaken and new paths cleared of debris standing in the way to new musical experiences, then this OP has some ~~residual~~ value. 
Sift the chaff for the wheat.

I am glad you are waking up to the vitality and living power of Ravel, indeed music of timeless beauty. 
Schnittke has made your list, , many great surprises in store for you there.

Elliott Carter,,again, treasure trove of alluring and magical sounds.

Pettersson, , amazingly, we now have 3 (almost as Segerstam was too busy recording Sibelius a SECOND TIME,,??? and thus failed in his mission to complete the Pettersson cycle,,,and or scoreing his own syms, 1-150,,yes he has like 150 syms!!!, take all you wish). That is truly a a miracle, considering just only 20 yrs ago, there were a few rare LP's of 2 or 3 of the syms, floating around at high prices.

This shows resources being given where they should belong,,to a new great symphonist...Do we really need Beethoven sym cycle #221 recording and still counting?
WE can not awaken the youths to new music, if we continue to worship at the altar of past greats, many works of which are just out dated,,,like,,,,,~~ Beethoven's piano music. Even the great Schnabel can not bring me around to that,,,bleakness.~~barren of all and any, beauty~~~


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Here ye go, if you think I am making all this up.
Just cked Chicago SO schedule, next 6 months,,there is

~Only~ 
Uno
concerto which I have some interest,,,Oct's program of Shostakovich's great 8th sym. 
The other programs hold no interest whatso ever...maybe the Wagner, which is onlya short Prelude offering,,,big deal...I'll pass for a $100 price tag.
+ parking,,+ traffic jams,,,no thank you
And for the 8th, the CSO did not even invitea v Russian conductor for that task.

I'll pass on that one as well.
= a complete shutout.

Things ain't going nowhere,,same old,,same old....kick the can down the road.....

https://cso.org/calendar/index.aspx


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Wait a minute,,I just now see Enthusiast posted on Sibelius Kullervo topic,a thumbs up for Vanska conducting Sibelius.
The world worst conductor.

Your points above are invalidated, based on a suggestion for Vanska in Sibelius. 
Besides the original 5th is just as shoddy as the later ~~revised~~ 5th. 
No ~~wonder~~ you don't agree with anything I am suggesting in this topic. 
You are I are at opposites.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

You are hell bent on trashing every composer and every work that doesn't tickle your fancy, Paul. Give it a rest. Spend more time extolling the works and composers that you DO like.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> You are hell bent on trashing every composer and every work that doesn't tickle your fancy, Paul. Give it a rest. Spend more time extolling the works and composers that you DO like.


are you saying ,
TC needs a ~dislike~ button, this way we can gauge what we are saying has any support or ~~~making enemies~~
But I thought its best to say things, which instills , percolates , new open discussions.

Would you wear your great grand fathers clothes?

Attend his church with a preacher yelping things which you already know?

The old jute box needs a good kick,,,as the 45 record is skipping badly,,,that's all i'm doing, not trying to damage the jute machine ,,,just trying to get some new 45's in the box, that's all.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I was typing a reply, but in the end I decided that KenOC's approach is the only sane one.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

paulbest said:


> I'm ,,,63.5.
> Look if the youths want to follow in the paths laid down by our forefathers, fine and dandy.
> But if via my ideas, some of the tree can be shaken and new paths cleared of debris standing in the way to new musical experiences, then this OP has some ~~residual~~ value.
> Sift the chaff for the wheat.
> ...


I am all for discrimination between great music and lesser music but cannot begin to think of great music as debris that stands between me and something that I am missing. If modern composers could compose Mozart's or Beethoven's music then we wouldn't need Mozart and Beethoven but, of course, they can't. So when I feel like Mozart or Beethoven I go to them. It doesn't stop me exploring and enjoying the new or the "new to me". Indeed familiarity with the greats of the past illuminates much new music for me.

BTW I am not "waking up" to the vitality of Ravel. I have known a lot of Ravel's music for more than 30 years. Similarly, Schnittke who I "discovered" some 20 years ago. I probably know at least as much of his music as you do. Carter is newer to me (some 6 years of enjoying his music preceded by a few of trying to enjoy it). As for Pettersson, yes, he is getting recorded and that is a good thing. (Segerstam, BTW, had finished two Sibelius cycles more that a decade ago) but I have know quite a lot of his music for at least a decade. I can't blame you for not remembering this but I have posted much (including addressing you) on your favourite composers. It's not your fault if your memory is going.

Your last para gives us the crux of your problem with the masters of the past. It is probably true that we get too many recordings of a relative few great masterpieces. It is something of a miracle how so many of them are actually worthwhile (tell us new things about music that we had thought was familiar) but I do agree that overall time, talent and money would be better spent giving us less known works. But you are against that, also, unless they are works by your "new" (but actually not so new any more) favourites.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

paulbest said:


> Wait a minute,,I just now see Enthusiast posted on Sibelius Kullervo topic,a thumbs up for Vanska conducting Sibelius.
> The world worst conductor.
> 
> Your points above are invalidated, based on a suggestion for Vanska in Sibelius.
> ...


Actually, I was recommending a work - the 1915 version of Sibelius 5. Vanska is the only one to have recorded it. But I do in general greatly revere Vanska and think he is one of our greatest. His earlier Sibelius - with the Lahti SO - was revolutionary and iconic. His second run with the Minnesota orchestra is much more sophisticated but quite special. His Minnesota Beethoven is one of the great sets (you would get rid of many before that one) and his Minnesota Mahler is looking very worthwhile, too. But he is no rabble rouser, I'll grant you.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> It's not your fault if your memory is going.
> 
> Your last para gives us the crux of your problem with the masters of the past. It is probably true that we get too many recordings of a relative few great masterpieces. It is something of a miracle how so many of them are actually worthwhile (tell us new things about music that we had thought was familiar) but I do agree that overall time, talent and money would be better spent giving us less known works. But you are against that, also, unless they are works by your "new" (but actually not so new any more) favourites.


My memory is poor, as is my eyesight.
Anyway, Yes I am for promoting~~~Modern music~~ not post modern, That music will have to wait its trun in the next century.

Stockhausen, Berio, Ligeti, who am I missing, cage, that whole ~bunch of grpaes~ can just wait til we get through Carter and other ~~truly greats~~. 
I runa very fine line twix old and new. The old roamntics keep gathering resoyrces/attention, 
Why? Beats me.
The new fan-dangle,,,well its so hip you know,,,its really cool to listen to post modern. Schnittke might be what we consider post, but its ~~authentic~~~ while Rihm is just, his own thingy. 
Yeah I see 10K new composers just screaming for attention. 
Well, they will just have to wait like Szymanowski has to yet wait. 
The French have completely forgotten Ravel....they want to please their german neighbors who are paying their bills, so they perform Beethoven,,,The germans just love their ~Germanic composers, the romantics~~


----------



## CrunchyFr0g (Jun 11, 2019)

Am I missing something in this argument? It seems to me that if we follow it to its conclusion, we must only listen to composers alive today because we need to make room for new musical experiences and dead composers by definition can't produce those.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

paulbest said:


> Mozart's string quartets, trios, quintets , still hold real value today,,when we have plenty of other , modern quartets which offer a greater range of musical expression.
> How is Mozart's of any interest when there are truly outstanding modern quartets to be heard?
> 
> I'll start, Mozart's string quartets, , old , dated, rusted, boring. I have no interest in Mozart;'s quintets , trios, quartets.
> ...


If you don't like the piano concertos 9 and 2 you won't like this trio either, but I find it to be a little gem, particularly in the last movement theme and variations. There are some finds among those more obscure works.






I see your point though. One's music listening time is finite, especially when you're a certain age, and maybe one could do better and be more adventurous in one's listening choices.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

I'm not offended by this thread. What offends me is when an acknowledged great composer is trashed in his entirety and the critic gleefully rubs it in about how stupid (in his enlightened view) admirers of this "worthless" composer are (including world class performers, teachers, and critics, presumably; yes, they are all blind and stupid and this guy knows better than everyone). 

That kind of trashing was common on another classical forum and made it unpleasant to visit.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

CrunchyFr0g said:


> Am I missing something in this argument? It seems to me that if we follow it to its conclusion, we must only listen to composers alive today because we need to make room for new musical experiences and dead composers by definition can't produce those.


No, the Modern Epoch, has passed, With the passing of Elliott Carter and Henze, both in 2012. 
The year CM ~~Finis~~


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Describing Osmo Vanska as "the world's worst conductor" is either incredibly vacuous, or seriously hilarious. Not sure how it was intended. :tiphat:

And unfortunately suggesting that the French play Beethoven just to keep their German paymasters happy is the sort of utter [email protected]@cks that feeds the bigoted anti-European "conversation" that has put my own country in this ridiculous self-immolating quagmire of its own making, panders to the lowest common denominator of the populace (even if it is a vaguely cultured point), and shows precious little understanding of anything, let alone European politics.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Open Book said:


> If you don't like the piano concertos 9 and 2 you won't like this trio either, but I find it to be a little gem, particularly in the last movement theme and variations. There are some finds among those more obscure works.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes excellent. 
You at least are trying to understand where I am coming from..
On Mozart's trios, , nice work, great stuff,,,but why settle forab sketch when you can listen to the full score in the last 8 piano concertos?
This is what I don;'t get. 
Mozart's chamber seems to me practice sessions and rough sketches for what he would do in his great powerful operas, sacred, last syms, pc;'s. Here is where Mozart has made his voice loudest, most profound and captivating.

*more adventurous listening choices*
Yes that's it, Henze awaits along with Szymanowski. I am not going to suffer modern greats for Mozart's minor works. 
I'm always looking for substance,, dynsmaics, .

CM Lite just ain't gonna work for me. 
How many have romantic/classical chamber on their shelf and no Henze/Carter chamber?
A lot.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

I'm tempted to write that Haydn's Baryton Trios are some of the most numbingly boring pieces of music ever put to paper by a musical genius, but I would never share that appalling opinion on this forum.

Also, Mozart's earlier works for piano and four hands are the only pieces by him that I would genuinely consider bad; as in, truly mediocre works; as in, did Mozart really write these? Usually, Mozart's bad day is any other composer's burst of genius, but these pieces are—it really annoys me to listen to them. No other Mozart does that for me.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Open Book said:


> I'm not offended by this thread. What offends me is when an acknowledged great composer is trashed in his entirety and the critic gleefully rubs it in about how stupid (in his enlightened view) admirers of this "worthless" composer are (including world class performers, teachers, and critics, presumably; yes, they are all blind and stupid and this guy knows better than everyone).
> 
> That kind of trashing was common on another classical forum and made it unpleasant to visit.


Well the establishment has made sure their favs are kept high in iconic regards...
This style of promotion , can lead to some criticism. 
If the greats of old are bullet proof, nothing I can say will daunt, nor rust their armor, their cloths will not fade , nor unravel.

They are ~The Untouchables~.

Look who were the greats post Bach,,,,3 composers.

After Beethoven, along came a flourishing of talent. 
Why stop there?

Some do.
Would you rather attend a Schubert/Schumann chamber concert, or a Carter with Boulez piano solo concerto?

Resources should be allocated so the last great moderns can be more well known and appreciated.

History has already given Tchaikovsky enough time center stage,,Its time he moves back and let Szymanwowski step up.


----------



## Aleksandr Rachkofiev (Apr 7, 2019)

Okay paulbest, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here because I think a lot of what you're saying is not very controversial once you remove the perhaps controversial language.

It seems to me you are simply calling for art music culture in general to stop "fixating" on the past and look to the future - and at first it does seem strange that the most commonly played works are by those who died hundreds of years ago and (could be argued) "had their time". It seems you are simply arguing that it is to the benefit of all listeners if, for example, Berlin Phil decided to play the complete works of Xenakis rather than recording another Beethoven cycle, as art music will be pushed forward rather than back into the past - new life will be breathed into the medium of art.

To some extent I definitely agree with you, but you have to consider more than just our perspectives. The vast majority of people who listen to art music will only ever listen to a few works by the big 3, but why? It's simply because those works are the most digestable - memorable tunes, textures complex enough to provoke thought but not drown one in it, easily followable structures. You can't expect a listener who has never put much thought toward art music to understand The Mysterium on first listen and have it profoundly effect his/her life. On the other hand, I've given quite a few people meaningful experiences by simply showing/playing Chopin nocturnes. It isn't the job of art music culture to cater to the minority.

For those of us who do have a lifelong passion for art music, we have all the resources we need to discover more obscure works, namely through the internet!

Then again you may argue that by promoting the big 3, we are making the decision of what to listen to FOR the novice listener, and that that choice should be his own, but it's simply unfeasable for orchestras to cover all the repertoire that exists even just in the modern era.

So I think I understand and sympathize with your argument, but I still have to say I disagree with it.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

paulbest said:


> Well the establishment has made sure their favs are kept high in iconic regards...
> This style of promotion , can lead to some criticism.
> If the greats of old are bullet proof, nothing I can say will daunt, nor rust their armor, their cloths will not fade , nor unravel.
> 
> ...


To be honest, I don't love a lot of 20th century music, not the kind that contains unrelenting dissonance that seems designed to dare the listener to give up. Dissonance should be limited and resolved, not played relentlessly until eardrums break.

What I often do enjoy is a concert of staples from early 20th century or before with a new work added in. I find music of this century often more listenable than music of the mid-to-late 20th century. Even fascinating.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

vtpoet said:


> I'm tempted to write that Haydn's Baryton Trios are some of the most numbingly boring pieces of music ever put to paper by a musical genius, but I would never share that appalling opinion on this forum.
> 
> Also,* Mozart's earlier works for piano* and four hands are the only pieces by him that I would genuinely consider bad; as in, truly mediocre works; as in, did Mozart really write these? Usually, Mozart's bad day is any other composer's burst of genius, but these pieces are-it really annoys me to listen to them. No other Mozart does that for me.


k279 k280?

OK you are entitled to your view - I think they're fine sonatas - not as good as the next group k330/331/332/333 but not bad music as you say.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

paulbest said:


> Yes excellent.
> You at least are trying to understand where I am coming from..
> On Mozart's trios, , nice work, great stuff,,,but why settle forab sketch when you can listen to the full score in the last 8 piano concertos?
> This is what I don;'t get.
> ...


Me - and there is a long line of 20thC composers I would explore before those if I had the time.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

stomanek said:


> k279 k280?
> 
> OK you are entitled to your view - I think they're fine sonatas - not as good as the next group k330/331/332/333 but not bad music as you say.


Yeah, sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the Sonatas for two pianos and/or four hands. k 381 and k 358 for example. They just sound like Mozart imitating Mozart, and doing a bad job. K 448, on the other hand, is a masterpiece. It's like Mozart didn't really know how to write for two pianos or four hands until around the time he wrote the Haydn Quartets. I can't help thinking that's not coincidence. Suddenly, in 448, the equality of parts is thematically integrated, it's not just pianists handing off themes to each other.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

paulbest said:


> Yes excellent.
> You at least are trying to understand where I am coming from..
> On Mozart's trios, , nice work, great stuff,,,but why settle forab sketch when you can listen to the full score in the last 8 piano concertos?
> This is what I don;'t get.
> ...


That's an interesting point about some of Mozart's chamber music being sketches for his greater works, not sure I agree with it. Yes, my trio is something you would hear on the "light classical" music station on TV. I don't want a steady diet of only the greatest works, or only serious works, and would like the diversion of something lighter but well done.

What of Henze's and Szymanowski's would you recommend to a listener unfamiliar with them?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I find the notion that Chopin must be discarded in order to make room for Scriabin to have no merit. it reminds me of the "limited love" premise which is also nonsense.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Open Book said:


> That's an interesting point about some of Mozart's chamber music being sketches for his greater works, not sure I agree with it. Yes, my trio is something you would hear on the "light classical" music station on TV. I don't want a steady diet of only the greatest works, or only serious works, and would like the diversion of something lighter but well done.
> 
> What of Henze's and Szymanowski's would you recommend to a listener unfamiliar with them?


Well here is something from Szymanowski which the romanticists will love
The only hangup I have for clicking to purchase the cd,,is that 
Sterczynski
has decided to~~ lump~~~ in some Chopin as filler in the Szymanowski Polish themes piece. Why would he do that?
This is a perfect example of hos Chopin has achieved such a notoriety and fame, which then trumps Szymanowski from having his music all to himself on one cd.
Why throw in Chopin??
= more sales = profits,
The 2 should never be paird on 1 cd. Chopin is Chopin, 
Szymanowski is post romanticism.

@ Bulldog, if chopin continues to get promotion and *raves*,,this might equate to less time for sharing our passion for Scriabin's late works.

Sure it was my prejudice of all things romanticism which kept his late works from my explorations. Luckly enough someone here on TC suggested I try his late works, which I should have discovered on my own.

I own no Chopin, never have, Popularity has always raised red flag in my radar for new and unique music. 
Commonality. The program promoters want to see which composers the crowds want to hear,.,,as opposed to bringing in new music which the crowds ought to come experience for themselves. 
Chopin can tend to shove aside Scriabin late works. A sound world which we would gladly pay the ticket price for a concert,, only if the show is *Chopin free*. 
We want the new style, the new modal structures, Chopin is sorry to say, dated.

Here is a perfect example of a potential great cd offering, but has Chopin , *thrown in* for better sales objectives.

I won;'t buy it, though it is a very fine performance. and I may have to settle for less.





.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Open Book said:


> That's an interesting point about some of Mozart's chamber music being sketches for his greater works, not sure I agree with it. Yes, my trio is something you would hear on the "light classical" music station on TV. I don't want a steady diet of only the greatest works, or only serious works, and would like the diversion of something lighter but well done.
> 
> What of Henze's and Szymanowski's would you recommend to a listener unfamiliar with them?


ohh sorry to get all sidetracked.
Henze, well that's not so easy to answer.
As I suggested to another curious TC member recently, go over to YT, spend some time getting to know his,,not-so-easy-to-get-acquainted-with,,,music. 
I;m still in explorative stages myself. 
So far, not a *dud/fluff/filler* in my cds bought so far. 
Its like one is a *winner* every time on a purchase.

But as I say, his styles vary and are very wide ranging. 
His 10th sym, I had *issues* with,,,then came back to it, with less *reservations*..
He had some outside *influnces* on that one, and may have altered his creative process. 
read up on that to get a clearer understanding what I am getting at, has to do with a suggestion from his friend, Conductor Rattle's request *Paint me in music*, some of the 10th sym revolves around this suggestion,,which may /may not have some influence on his creative process.

I can *get* Schnittke, though when I say *get* not in any tech, full understanding, no way. But I can *absorb* his music, 
Whereas Henze,,is somehow,,,*escapable* , I just can not pin his music down , except definitely has 2nd Viennese and also influences from a composer who is great in modern german orchestration, that is Karl Hartmann. And of course some Varese can be noted. 
No rush on Henze,,,just listen to clips or whole works until you figure out if his sounds work in for your stage of musical experiences.

Ok, lets just throw out this one for starters, and stop beating around the bush

Strange I founda link to the cd I was looking to suggest, the aurthor of the into to the release says, 
&This cd is a IDEAL intro to Henze*

Oddly I pinned down the perfect cd as a intro into Henze. 
EDIT
An apologist speaking:If you do not find this Cd as welcoming to ones sensibilities, , one need not proceed further.

http://www.classicalmusicsentinel.com/KEEP/keep-henze-symphony8.html


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

paulbest said:


> @ Bulldog, if chopin continues to get promotion and *raves*,,this might equate to less time for sharing our passion for Scriabin's late works.


There you go again. All I can say is that I have sufficient time to listen to and enjoy the music of all the composers whose music I love; that also allows me time for "discoveries". Is your day shorter than mine?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

vtpoet said:


> Yeah, sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the Sonatas for two pianos and/or four hands. k 381 and k 358 for example. They just sound like Mozart imitating Mozart, and doing a bad job. K 448, on the other hand, is a masterpiece. It's like Mozart didn't really know how to write for two pianos or four hands until around the time he wrote the Haydn Quartets. I can't help thinking that's not coincidence. Suddenly, in 448, the equality of parts is thematically integrated, it's not just pianists handing off themes to each other.


I dont know those works too well - there is some bias in me against a 4 hand piano sonata or even 2 pianos. I remember hearing one of the sonatas for 2 pianos and thinking he wasnt doing much given he has double the number of fingers and keys.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Open Book said:


> *That's an interesting point* about some of Mozart's chamber music being sketches for his greater works, not sure I agree with it. Yes, my trio is something you would hear on the "light classical" music station on TV. I don't want a steady diet of only the greatest works, or only serious works, and would like the diversion of something lighter but well done.
> 
> What of Henze's and Szymanowski's would you recommend to a listener unfamiliar with them?


No it isnt - it has no merit at all as it stands, just an off the cuff comment. In what way, for example, is the g minor piano quartet a sketch for any other work?

dont encourage him


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> I find the notion that Chopin must be discarded in order to make room for Scriabin to have no merit. it reminds me of the "limited love" premise which is also nonsense.


Especially since Chopin was the strongest influence on Scriabin.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

paulbest said:


> Well here is something from Szymanowski which the romanticists will love
> The only hangup I have for clicking to purchase the cd,,is that
> Sterczynski
> has decided to~~ lump~~~ in some Chopin as filler in the Szymanowski Polish themes piece. Why would he do that?
> ...


These rants about what is, or what is not, recorded infers some agenda of the recording companies and conveniently ignores the fact that it is ordinary people who are buying or not buying recordings. If an all-Szymanowski recording can't make enough to justify a company recording and releasing it, then perhaps it's the fault of...Szymanowski. And that reasoning could apply to a number of the other composers you seem to be promoting.

Companies continue to release umpteen recordings of Beethoven works because they, presumably, continue to be in demand. That is likely the fault of...Beethoven.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

stomanek said:


> I dont know those works too well - there is some bias in me against a 4 hand piano sonata or even 2 pianos. I remember hearing one of the sonatas for 2 pianos and thinking he wasnt doing much given he has double the number of fingers and keys.


How often are pieces like that intended for amatuers at home?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

stomanek said:


> you dont like penderecki but its fine music?


Well I am being ,,,apologetic here,,,,Music is about connections. Maybe I am not connecting at this point in my life with Penderecki ,,,but its been like 10 yrs now. Let me try tonight, see if I have missed something. With new composers music, at times if one work does not work out, try another. Perhaps I've overlooked something.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

who would have imagined Penderecki wrote a concerto for~~Viola~~ nice, really nice,,,but you know I have Schnittke,,,and so why bother with this Penderecki viola concerto?






and yes, note the timing in the 2 posts, less than 2 minutes i'm back with a verdict,,,shameful...


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

paulbest said:


> Yes I noted that,,,~~fly in the old soup bowl~~ just after posting,,,tried, but can't alter topic heading.
> Its a omen for sure,,,and could mean something,,as you point out,,,
> ~~Perhaps , lousey spelling may mean shoddy ideologies ,,just up ahead,,watch for it....


You sure like your punctuation Paul.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

well ck this out,,,went to Pendereceki sym 3,,,right at the getgo,,I thought,,,fora ,,moment,,sure enough,,,sounds something familiar,,,not sure,, you guys tell me, in the opening few passages, of the 3rd,,,do you also hear what I think I hear,,,some influences from Pettersson.
Well now, we have a connection. 
Those Penderecki fans have no right to baluk at Pettersson, its right there in Penderecki's 3rd.

\
Well what do you know,,,It was composed between 1988 and 1995,,,thats quite a long time, but may be well worth the efforts..I plan to hear it all the way through,,,can't promise anything,,,as with Penderecki,,there are ~~moments~~~ of,,lets say,,, filler material,,as though he stops and is thinking what is best to come next....so he offers these bumpy sections,,,,where you have to wait patiently for something imaginative to unfold...at which point,,i walk out the program. I have little patience for fluff. 
just skimmed through ~~IT~~~, One comment on YT , guys says, *Its no small wonder the Pendereceki estate does not sure the hell out of John Williams*,,,= implying JW 's music is plagiarism right off Penderecki's 3rd sym. Might be thruth there,,,But then where did Penderecki get his main ideas,,,if not Pettersson and more from Shostakovich.

I'll pass on Penderecki.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

jegreenwood said:


> How often are pieces like that intended for amatuers at home?


Keep in mind that Beethoven wrote his Sonatas for "amateurs at home" and that he was scolded by his Scottish publishers for making his piano accompaniments too hard to play. So the real question, I think, is in asking which composers wrote to the abilities of amateurs (rather than assume that amateurs could play at a professional level). Mozart only very occasionally did so, and then somewhat reluctantly (as when he complained in Paris that everyone wanted him to write sonatas in the manner of JC Bach). That said, Mozart prided himself on writing for both the dilettante and the connoisseur. Beethoven not so much. JC Bach most definitely wrote for the abilities of amateurs at home. JC Bach's virtuosic abilities were far in excess of his actual production. CPE Bach deliberately and wisely wrote to the skill level of amateurs (though not exclusively) while his brother, WF Bach, criticized him for it, wrote for the professional, and starved.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

samm said:


> You sure like your punctuation Paul.


I picked that ~~trademark~~ from the one the only
Karl Henning, who is running things over at GMG. 
God Bless him. 
He sure had some great lines,,,cracked me up all the time....its from him, I ;ve relaxed my style and write half serious.half spoofing you guys,. 
Now you have to determine where I;m for real,,,and where i'm ~~~off on a tangent~~~
A home run is not so, if it just curves inches over the foul line,,which is a travesty ,,if a guy can smack a ball, juice free that is,,,as far as THE ACTUAL LINE,,over the fence,,,for petes sake, give him the HR. 
Ridiculous calling back a HR for a mere few inches, ,,just pathetic...
I'm hitting a perfect 500 here on this topic...
Not getting any LIKE clicks so far,,,but at least I'm getting the comments out with,,,~~passion ,~~a vociferous call to arms against the renegade.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> Keep in mind that Beethoven wrote his Sonatas for "amateurs at home" and that he was scolded by his Scottish publishers for making his piano accompaniments too hard to play. So the real question, I think, is in asking which composers wrote to the abilities of amateurs. Mozart only very occasionally did so, and then somewhat reluctantly (as when he complained in Paris that everyone wanted him to write sonatas in the manner of JC Bach). That said, Mozart prided himself on writing for both the dilettante and the connoisseur. Beethoven not so much. JC Bach most definitely wrote for the abilities of amateurs at home. JC Bach's virtuosic abilities were far in excess of his actual production. CPE Bach deliberately and wisely wrote to the skill level of amateurs (though not exclusively) while his brother, WF Bach, criticized him for it, writing for the professional, and starved.


Well now, that explains why I hear the~~dilettante~~ in some early composers. Writing for students/wealthy patrons, a way for quick easy cash. Makes sense. 
Making his late concertos the crown jewel of his entire output...Why settle for common quartize stones when you can have the rarest of polished brilliant jems?
This is what I am saying.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

paulbest said:


> well ck this out,,,went to Pendereceki sym 3,,,right at the getgo,,I thought,,,fora ,,moment,,sure enough,,,sounds something familiar,,,not sure,, you guys tell me, in the opening few passages, of the 3rd,,,do you also hear what I think I hear,,,some influences from Pettersson.
> Well now, we have a connection.
> Those Penderecki fans have no right to baluk at Pettersson, its right there in Penderecki's 3rd.
> 
> ...


Penderecki is not dead and is 85 years old.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Never heard the Penderecki Viola Concerto. I liked it. That's coming from someone who almost exclusively listens to music prior to the 20th century. Reminds me of CPE Bach in a strange, inexplicable way.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> Never heard the Penderecki Viola Concerto. I liked it. That's coming from someone who almost exclusively listens to music prior to the 20th century. Reminds me of CPE Bach in a strange, inexplicable way.


Thanks for your interest,
Coming from a early music perspective , you might be a the one who can offer a good comment on yet another modern viola concerto. 
Now this one, may be a bit more ~~over the edge~~ for someone with your choices in music. 
I don't know,,perhaps not, anyway,,,Give this viola concerto a listen , if you will, so kindly and lets us know how you hear it.
Thanks in advance.

This one is far less well known as the Penderecki,, as Pettersson is still a unknown composer among many in the classical community, Penderecki is by far the more well recognized,,,that by a long mile.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

paulbest said:


> I ;ve relaxed my style and write half serious.half spoofing you guys,.
> Now you have to determine where I;m for real,,,and where i'm ~~~off on a tangent~~~


And here we have the entire reason for this thread.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I've struggled through this entire thread just to see if I could figure out where it was coming from/going to.

1) I don't disagree that the 20 c. was an extraordinarily fecund one musically, and produced a lot we should pay attention to. But it's there for us to do so should we desire to.

2) But (to offer an analogy), just because we have theatrical riches that we can enjoy today that address contemporary sensibilities, that doesn't mean we have to bannish from the stage Shakespeare or Moliere, or Ionesco, or Sartre, or Beckett, or O'Neill, or Pinter . . . . They still have something to say to us, as do Bach and Beethoven and Wagner and Brahms . . . .


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Shakespeare was writing of human frailty which occurs on every level of society, regardless of the epoch.,,,His wit and power in plays has no parallel. 
Does the baroque/classical era speak to us on that level as does Shakespeare? 
Different expression of art. 
I see a split coming. Its bound to occur. 
When it happens, in full force,,,the arts may suffer a financial set back ..
If I was running a orch program , I'd put a mortorium on all works pre 1900, post 200.

Strictly only 20TH C masters at composition. 
No Stockhausen, No Ligeti.

CM in order to maintain a level of tradition, must have a review of composers and their works.

The modern world is too liberal in what it claims as CM.

You consider this in step with Beethoven?






I know my music,,,that is pure New Age stuff. 
Banned!


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Look if Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were to come judge 20th C CM, which composers would get the nod to proceed onto the stage their works, , and which the eye of disdain and castigation? 
Beethoven would stand in awe and amazement at Ravel's solo piano. *Now that's music for the piano!* quote LvB.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

paulbest said:


> Thanks for your interest,
> Coming from a early music perspective , you might be a the one who can offer a good comment on yet another modern viola concerto.
> Now this one, may be a bit more ~~over the edge~~ for someone with your choices in music.
> I don't know,,perhaps not, anyway,,,Give this viola concerto a listen , if you will, so kindly and lets us know how you hear it.
> ...


Okay, keep in mind that I'm not this music's ideal listener. After a relentless twenty minutes (and still not done) the unremitting dissonances have really put me on edge, and in an unpleasant way. I have a fairly visceral reaction to dissonance (which is good with the right kind of music) but non-stop, unresolved dissonance does nothing for my blood pressure or mood. I checked it out on Youtube and a commenter called him a master of melancholy. There were elements of melancholy, but to me it was more like a ceaseless, straight-jacketed howl of frustration. Glad I listened to him, so that at least I now have an informed opinion, but I don't feel the need to ever hear it again-like a clinically depressed Ralph Vaughan Williams. Can't speak to the quality of the music, but I don't sense any momentum, just recycling the same motifs (if you can call them that) over and over again. But, again, I'm not this music's ideal listener.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2019)

CrunchyFr0g said:


> Am I missing something in this argument? It seems to me that if we follow it to its conclusion, we must only listen to composers alive today because we need to make room for new musical experiences and dead composers by definition can't produce those.


I'd say you've definitely missed something in the argument. Paul is winding people up to some extent but his basic suggestion is that people need to review their favourite composers and recognise that not everything they wrote was good. Their time would be better spent delving into several "modern composers" works. By "modern" he doesn't include any who are alive today. He's referring to the likes of Ravel, Bartok, Pettersson, Henze.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Musicologist Sigmund Spaeth:

_"Above all else, I wish people would have the courage to say what they really think about music, and not be so eternally worried over what somebody else may think and say." _


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

janxharris said:


> Musicologist Sigmund Spaeth:
> 
> _"Above all else, I wish people would have the courage to say what they really think about music, and not be so eternally worried over what somebody else may think and say." _


That presumes that what is being said is coherent, consistent and based on knowledge and understanding. Indicating lack of knowledge of some area then, when being told about it, immediately being dismissive of it does not pass that test.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Becca said:


> That presumes that what is being said is coherent, consistent and based on knowledge and understanding. Indicating lack of knowledge of some area then, when being told about it, immediately being dismissive of it does not pass that test.


Agreed......................


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2019)

MarkW said:


> I've struggled through this entire thread just to see if I could figure out where it was coming from/going to.
> 
> 1) I don't disagree that the 20 c. was an extraordinarily fecund one musically, and produced a lot we should pay attention to. But it's there for us to do so should we desire to.
> 
> 2) But (to offer an analogy), just because we have theatrical riches that we can enjoy today that address contemporary sensibilities, that doesn't mean we have to bannish from the stage Shakespeare or Moliere, or Ionesco, or Sartre, or Beckett, or O'Neill, or Pinter . . . . They still have something to say to us, as do Bach and Beethoven and Wagner and Brahms . . . .


I didn't find it all that difficult to work out what this thread is about. It's simply a suggestion that people who are mainly wedded to the distant past in music might ask themselves whether or not they have become over-attached to some their favourite composers because they are in awe of just a few of their works. He's asking whether it's time to give the time spent listening to these composers a good pruning with some sharp shears, and spend it looking more sympathetically at various "modern" composers' works.

To an extent, I think Paul makes some valid comments and suggestions. It won't apply so much to younger people who are still exploring the general classical music scene, but may be more applicable to some of the more seasoned veterans who seem to focus almost their entire posting time devoted to one particular composer, by discussing and talking-up works that are of relatively minor importance. Those in this bracket perhaps aren't aware how boring and so obviously narrow-focused they are in their musical appreciation. When someone rattles their tiny cage, they sometimes tend to throw tantrums with all manner of abusive name-calling.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2019)

samm said:


> You sure like your punctuation Paul.


The strange thing is that I don't usually have much trouble following it, and I'm usually quite sensitive to poorly expressed posts.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Partita said:


> I'd say you've definitely missed something in the argument. Paul is winding people up to some extent but his basic suggestion is that people need to review their favourite composers and recognise that not everything they wrote was good. Their time would be better spent delving into several "modern composers" works. By "modern" he doesn't include any who are alive today. He's referring to the likes of Ravel, Bartok, Pettersson, Henze.


Its a bit arrogant of him to assume that people dont already know their favourite composers are not infallible. Though he is highlighting works that are well established as "good" - Mozarts G minor quintet for example - which is regularly rated highly in TC polls - he dismisses as clutter along with all his other chamber music. Now Mozart did compose some boring pieces - many of them. But the quartets and quintets are generally accepted to be top level compositions. He also dismisses Haydn's entire output as noise.

So his suggestion that we spend a little more time exploring new repertoire does not need to be couched so absurdly and is pretty much obvious - we all know we need to spread our wings a bit.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2019)

Becca said:


> That presumes that what is being said is coherent, consistent and based on knowledge and understanding. Indicating lack of knowledge of some area then, when being told about it, immediately being dismissive of it does not pass that test.


Paul has thrown out a lot of comment concerning many composers in this and several other threads. After a while I reckon I can work out if someone is trying to con people with a very limited knowledge of classical music. I definitely do not place Paul in that category. I'm often quite surprised about his depth of knowledge in the positive sense, not just regarding several modern composers but also with most of the big names from the past.

I sometimes agree with what Paul says but more often I disagree. They're usually quite entertainting, and I think that some of his expressions are very amusing. When I disagree I usually let it pass without comment. I do not let it upset me, as seems to have been the case with several people. I accept that he sometimes makes mistakes but he is usually quick to recognise them. He has said that her recognises that his memory is not so good as it once was. It also clear that quite a lot of what he says is deliberately provocative in order to stimulate discussion. He's also surprisingly resilient to some of more disparaging comments that come his way.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2019)

P.S I trust that those who gave "likes" to post #109 will note carefully the contents of my post #110.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Time to put Beethoven on the turntable

Schiller:Oh friends, not these sounds!


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Please behave positively towards your fellow members.

Concentrate on the OP *not *personal arguments.

Do not make simple statements attacking any type of music without obvious justification.

A number of off topic posts have been removed.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Taggart said:


> Please behave positively towards your fellow members.
> 
> Concentrate on the OP *not *personal arguments.
> 
> ...


You should then remove Paul's post where he says that Tchaik just wrote xmas time music.

then admitted he didn't even know that Tchaik had composed any solo piano or string quartets.

*Tchaikovsky is only good around Christmas time,,a season I really loathe, notable for the Xmas seasonal music, which includes Tchaikovsky, ballets for kids. .

*

*Tchaikovsky, not even sure he wrote solo piano music. Did he? String Quartets? *


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

CnC Bartok said:


> Describing Osmo Vanska as "the world's worst conductor" is either incredibly vacuous, or seriously hilarious. Not sure how it was intended. :tiphat:
> 
> And unfortunately suggesting that the French play Beethoven just to keep their German paymasters happy is the sort of utter [email protected]@cks that feeds the bigoted anti-European "conversation" that has put my own country in this ridiculous self-immolating quagmire of its own making, panders to the lowest common denominator of the populace (even if it is a vaguely cultured point), and shows precious little understanding of anything, let alone European politics.


Careful! Defending Vanska is considered a capital offense by at least one fellow member who seems not to have the ears to get what he is about.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2019)

janxharris said:


> Time to put Beethoven on the turntable
> 
> Schiller:Oh friends, not these sounds!


Beethoven? I've never heard of him.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

stomanek said:


> You should then remove Paul's post where he says that Tchaik just wrote xmas time music.
> 
> then admitted he didn't even know that Tchaik had composed any solo piano or string quartets.
> 
> ...


Is it justifiable for this thread to even be moderated in the usual way when the OP is not only deliberately throwing out bits and pieces intended to wind people up, but also bits and pieces with no knowledge behind them?

I've just read back through a few threads of Mr Best to find it is a story of outlandish claims and statements and then back-pedaling when brought to task or when simply corrected after making false statements. How can a thread like this not go down the pan?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Yep - that's how it is. Plus it is always about him rather than the music. He will tell us he is a "Ravelian" or a "Petterssonian" but he doesn't tell us about Ravel's or Pettersson's music. It is anyone's guess whether he actually knows much of their music or is even in a position to recommend their "best" works.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

paulbest said:


> Tahts one way of reading me, or can we at least consider some composers have such a fan club as to propagandize , at the expense ,,of other more contemporary composers, whose works truly are finer.
> Mozart's SQ;s, , what makes it so special?
> 
> Have we not, Schoenberg, Bartok SQ's? to be heard.
> ...


I'm a big fan of Henze, and felt was underrated. But now comparing side by side with Haydn made me realize while Henze had great technique, Haydn's music seems way more inspired, on top of his great technique.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Yep - that's how it is. Plus it is always about him rather than the music. He will tell us he is a "Ravelian" or a "Petterssonian" but he doesn't tell us about Ravel's or Pettersson's music. It is anyone's guess whether he actually knows much of their music or is even in a position to recommend their "best" works.


Well I am just surprised that anybody continues post serious replies to any of his points. When gaps or wrongs in his knowledge are highlighted he just says - oh my memory isn't what it used to be. Well frankly if his memory is so poor none of his posts have an credibility.

As I said - we all mostly know that our favourites composed less than great works and we all know we ought to explore modern music more - if that is his point - ok - got it - agreed . But the rest is just babble.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

paulbest said:


> I'd say finer
> Chopin/, ~~in olden times~~~
> 
> 
> ...


Well, if one has the capacity to take in the music, understood human nature, one would know why Chopin is still gladly played because of his classical elegance, technical mastery and his huge emotional range. It's easy to talk about Scriabin but forget that Chopin was one of his heroes and his early works were greatly inspired by him. So even Scriabin would have unlikely agreed with Chopin's insensitive critics that he should be forgotten. It helps to be familiar with the background of the composers one makes endlessly foolish statements about. But some can only see Scriabin and trash Chopin rather than sorting out their wires of understanding and stop being ridiculous in trashing composers they don't like... You're making new enemies for your own personal favorites who are only surviving on the fringe of the repertoire, whether it's Pettersson, Henze, or Szymanowski. How ridiculous to imagine that one can't find something new in both Chopin and Scriabin and anyone else, including the more contemporary composers. The heart has the capacity to love more than one person or composer at the same time and the enjoyment of music is not a matter of being an either/or proposition where one has to choose between two geniuses.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm a big fan of Henze, and felt was underrated. But now comparing side by side with Haydn made me realize while Henze had great technique, Haydn's music seems way more inspired, on top of his great technique.


I couldn't possibly compare two aesthetic paradigms like that Phil. Your opinion/assessment duly noted and respected of course, but I can't help feeling that an injustice is inevitable because of ambiguous subjectivity concerning "inspiration", of which sometimes the composer and audience will disagree upon. As you may well know from your composing, what you consider best moments in a piece of yours doesn't always come across as such to listeners, who will form their own conclusions as to inspired moments according to their sensibilities.
For me, inspiration per se doesn't feel like solid ground on which to form a critical judgement regarding works with such an aesthetic gulf between them.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Look many if not all the justifiable criticisms flung my way, are valid and,,,honestly,,,i have it coming to me. 


My fellow modernists , who are waiting on the sidelines,,,no doubt getting a jolly good chuckle at many of my ~~far out~~ in left field quips,,,that I am sure of. I admonished them, to hold off,,,as ~~I got this~~.
Anyway, lets go back in time,,,say to Beethoven's day. 
Now the Viennese, whose music do you think will fill the concert halls, Bach or Beethoven?
Now lets stay locked ina long ago past,,,to Brahms epoch..Did the Viennese wanta Beethoven concert,,ora Brahms?

Lets movea bit more into the future,,,,in say Ravel's days,,,the Parisians would more wish for a concert piano solo, of say,, Chopin,,or Ravel...perhaps Chopin, as he had sucha absolute strong pull on the feminine sensibilities,,,its just * so lovely*.
Yet whose music evokes dazzling displays and sparkles with rainbows and other worldly emotions and conveys a spiritual realm which no one could even imagine could be set to piano?
Chopin would , to this day, be Ravel's biggest fan.


Everything moves forward.
The old 1960's TV sets, we thought was a miracle to own.
Now its flat screen UNREAL image.
Cars have all these elec gadgets which break down.


Clothes are different. The food we consume has changed,,,for the worst...
Everything is in flux and evolvement. 
Chopin's music seems to me a sound from a old past,,which once held brilliant and glorious colors,,,,Now, next to say Webern, it has lost some of its shine.
Tahts all I am saying here, Go through your Chopin collection and wittle down what you once listened to, but hardly any longer...
And with that room in your shelf, buy some Schnittke chamber, Elliott carter solo piano. 
Move ahead.
That's all I am saying,,,this house cleaning is llong over due for many of you.
This could be extended to the major orchestral works. 
Try some Henze, some Pettersson, 
Bring these composers into this post modern music world. 
Otherwise it will be too late,,,and both will miss the boat,,,as funding dwindles and youths find CM to be a bit of a drag. 
We want to push the 20th C CM agenda. 
This is one way we can help stabilize this crumbling infrastructure of CM industry. 
Hahn keeps playing Sibelius VC, Fine.

One day the youths will hear it, and say , *gee,,,I find pop more of interest,,,this Sibelius VC is nice, but no cigar*. and move on..Whereas a modern VC, might hold their attention and bring in needed support for a community which is slowly growing older,,with less replacements filling those seats. 

Churches are closing daily, if you did not know. 

Hillary really needs to expand her interests.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> I couldn't possibly compare two aesthetic paradigms like that Phil. Your opinion/assessment duly noted and respected of course, but I can't help feeling that an injustice is inevitable because of ambiguous subjectivity concerning "inspiration", of which sometimes the composer and audience will disagree upon. As you may well know from your composing, what you consider best moments in a piece of yours doesn't always come across as such to listeners, who will form their own conclusions as to inspired moments according to their sensibilities.
> For me, inspiration per se doesn't feel like solid ground on which to form a critical judgement regarding works with such an aesthetic gulf between them.


Thanks for your supportive understanding here,,,expressed much finer than I ever could.
Yes exactly,,,it is this kind of ~~MIS-understanding~~ surrounding a few notable late modern composers , which is showing some ~~Unfairness~ towards The New. 
Trust me, back in the day, I was resentful otowards The New. 
Now I can see it was only a puerile attitude on my part.

In 20 yrs from now, after i'm passed on, you will see a growing attraction towards Henze, , Szymanowski will be resurrected from the grave.

Ravel will out shine Chopin, once and for all times.

well I am even prognosticating , that maybe Pettersson's fame will catch up ,, just on the heels of Beethoven's notoriety in the symphonic genre.

It could happen, as this world is changing, daily, then by the hour, then minute, lastly,,,every second that passes, this world will be a different world.

A place where Pettersson will be on the CM community's tongue as often as the word~~Beethoven~~is on the lips.
Such a event may shock some of you , in such a distant ~~Brave New World~~


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

If I could, I would update my handle on TC
~The Great Iconoclast~,,,well that's such bilious of me,,,hows this *The Iconoclast~
Yeah that's better.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2019)

In regard to Haydn, I recall in the dim and distant past here at T-C a prominent member asking for advice on what he's supposed to do with the many "Baryton Concertos" that evidently came as part of a mega-deal CD package from some place like Amazon. I must admit these works are somewhat tedious, and maybe not a bad example of the kind of thing Paul was going on about. 

Whilst I greatly like Haydn, I still think that many of his symphonies sound somewhat generic. As for his chamber works, there are some gems among them, but they don't generally do as well in comparisons with those by Beethoven and Schubert and possibly Mozart, let alone against later composers like Dvorak, Ravel, Bartok etc.

For my part, I don't regard that everything, or nearly everything, that the composers like Haydn wrote is top class. I've become more picky over time. For their lesser works I'm not suggesting that other people shouldn't bother with them at all. At some stage they could be be investigated, but I can see the point that anyone who is still building up their library from a lowish position might do better by casting their net more widely to include some 20th C material. 

If they don't do so, the risk is that they become Mozart or Beethoven "fan-boys", getting carried away with their new-found heroes, and come to places like T-C trying to tell the more seasoned listeners among us that our other interests in music are inferior.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Partita said:


> In regard to Haydn, I recall in the dim and distant past here at T-C a prominent member asking for advice on what he's supposed to do with the many "Baryton Concertos" that evidently came as part of a mega-deal CD package from some place like Amazon. I must admit these works are somewhat tedious, and maybe not a bad example of the kind of thing Paul was going on about.
> 
> Whilst I greatly like Haydn, I still think that many of his symphonies sound somewhat generic. As for his chamber works, there are some gems among them, but they don't generally do as well in comparisons with those by Beethoven and Schubert and possibly Mozart, let alone against later composers like Dvorak, Ravel, Bartok etc.
> 
> ...


Scholarly , noble , gentlemanship at its finest.

Your post cancels out some of my ~~long winded~~ comments on this thread.

One wack, hit the 6 inch nail straight down. 
No rebuttals. I know when I'm beat. 
Muchas gracias , as I can now rest my case. 
case closed.
I would like to thank everyone who has participated on this wide ranging, open minded debate, we have all learned a lot here, and what a better way to adjourn this topic than with

Partita's

Outstandingly fair minded, well balanced approach to this otherwise neglected ongoing issue within The Classical Community.

The old world sound versus the New Modern Approach.

It was rough at times, but no flaming, no snides, ,,snikeriings ,,,well a few ~spit balls~(had it coming) did shoot my way, but it was all ~~part of the pie~~.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

paulbest said:


> Scholarly , noble , gentlemanship at its finest.
> 
> Your post cancels out some of my ~~long winded~~ comments on this thread.
> 
> ...


I learned :

- that you think Haydn is noise
- that you have no use for Chopin, Mozart's chamber music plus many more works that are well established in the repertoire
- that you didnt know Tchaik composed solo piano and chamber and yet dismissed all his work as xmas music
- that you want to be known as the Great Iconoclast
- that your memory is not what it used to be
- that you like having your ego tickled

That is what I learned from this thread.

thank you


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Taggart said:


> Do not make simple statements attacking any type of music without obvious justification.


Define 'obvious justification' when it comes to a matter of taste. Given that one person's justification will not be valid for another, it probably can't be done.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Guess he didn't think much of my opinion of Pettersson's Viola concerto. He dropped me like a hot potato in a house fire.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

To return to the apparent point of the OP....

I will generally defend the works of RVW, but that Tuba Concerto? Was that really a good idea?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Pat Fairlea said:


> To return to the apparent point of the OP....
> 
> I will generally defend the works of RVW, but that Tuba Concerto? Was that really a good idea?


Ask a tuba player!


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2019)

I've been taking a glance at the "T-C Recommended" works lists to see how many post Brahms composers works were voted through into high positions.

Compilation of the TC Top Recommended Lists

These lists cover all of the main classical music genres and were produced several years ago based on assorted methods of voting. I'm not going to attempt a detailed summary here of any of the genres, but will simply draw attention to the lists.

A cursory glance suggests that the lists are not dominated completely by Bach, Beethoven Mozart, Schubert, Haydn, Tchaikovslky etc. Depending on genre, there are quite a few highly placed works by more modern composers such as Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, Prokofiev, Messiaen, Stravinsky, Britten etc.

I understand that there has been an ongoing more recent exercise of a similar nature seeking out TC's most valued works, but I'm afraid that I know next to nothing about it. Is anyone from among those involved prepared to offer a summary of the results of their work to date? What does it say about the status of modern composers?


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

The Classical Music Project itself is not recent at all and has been ongoing since 2011. I've participated semi-regularily since joining this forum. Before moving to the games subforum (about a year ago), there were over 3,100 works present in a single ranked list. Trout, who is now occupied with an amazing contemporary composers project, previously compiled detailed statistics on the CMP's first 2,900 entries. The most pertinent bit of information to this thread may be the breakdown of eras: 1,030 20th Century; 824 Romantic; 438 Contemporary; 265 Classical; 218 Baroque; 99 Renaissance; 26 Medieval. Long story short, I feel that "modern" (I hate that term) music is represented extremely well-medieval music is rather underepresented.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Portamento said:


> The Classical Music Project itself is not recent at all and has been ongoing since 2011. I've participated semi-regularily since joining this forum. Before moving to the games subforum (about a year ago), there were over 3,100 works present in a single ranked list. Trout, who is now occupied with an amazing contemporary composers project, previously compiled detailed statistics on the CMP's first 2,900 entries. The most pertinent bit of information to this thread may be the breakdown of eras: 1,030 20th Century; 824 Romantic; 438 Contemporary; 265 Classical; 218 Baroque; 99 Renaissance; 26 Medieval. Long story short, I feel that "modern" (I hate that term) music is represented extremely well-medieval music is rather underepresented.


Glancing at the top of the charts - say top 50 - seem to be 80%+ 18th and 19thC big composer repertoire. For example - the top 50 symphonies - 42 are by 18th and 19thC composers. If it were not for Shostakovich and Prokofiev this figure would be far worse.

The 20th C is better represented the lower down you go.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Partita said:


> I've been taking a glance at the "T-C Recommended" works lists to see how many post Brahms composers works were voted through into high positions.
> 
> Compilation of the TC Top Recommended Lists
> 
> ...


Good find in the archives.

Oddly I did not see Szymanowski opera King Roger on the list,,,yet did see 2 operas from Philip Glass, in the low 200 votes...He barely edged in. Could we ~~yank~ at least 1 of the Glass and replace it with King Roger?

I know if the same tally was today,,King Roger would make the 250 list,,as I've already recommended here at least 10 times in different topics.

Sure the ~~Big 10~~ do not over dominate,,,but they sure show up quite often in the top,,oh say,,,,top 50 lists. ,,,which shoves other...~~Lesser Knowns~~ right off the 250 cliff edge..
This clearly shows one of my points I am trying to make on this topic.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

wait a minute,,,looking over the top 200 recommends/solo piano...I failed to note, Webern, Elliott Carter, is Schoenberg there???,,and none from Szymanowski
Are you sure that list holds, ~~merits~~...Lets see, yeah, I think it does,,for every 1 Modernist we have here on TC,,there are 10 romanticists/classicists. 
10 to 1, 
we lose.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Portamento said:


> I feel that "modern" (I hate that term) music is represented extremely well-medieval music is rather underepresented.


~~The Modernists~~ what other term would you have in mind?
I think it defines us, quite well, ,,delineates us from from the ~~Romantics/Classicists~~,,those who rule the roost.

I found the lists are impoverished as to early/mid/late Modern Composers
~~early~~ born around 1870,,,~~middle modern era~~ those composers born around 1900, ~~late modern~~ composers born around 1920-1930. Composers born post 1930 are ~~The Post Modernists~~ a era I have nothing to do with at all.

btw , I hap to like some medieval sounds,,now and then,,,folk music is really cool and earthy.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

stomanek said:


> Glancing at the top of the charts - say top 50 - seem to be 80%+ 18th and 19thC big composer repertoire. For example - the top 50 symphonies - 42 are by 18th and 19thC composers. If it were not for Shostakovich and Prokofiev this figure would be far worse.
> 
> The 20th C is better represented the lower down you go.


You mean to tell me,,
the symphonies of 
Schnittke
Pettersson
Henze

did not make the top
10 list in the symphonic genre??
No way,,,,,maybe the top 100??
No?
Top 200?
No?
top...,,or have these 3 ~~fallen over the cliff's edge~~


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Becca said:


> That presumes that what is being said is coherent, consistent and based on knowledge and understanding. Indicating lack of knowledge of some area then, when being told about it, immediately being dismissive of it does not pass that test.


Agree, I
really do not qualify to post such a Q, to this musically astute and trained community here on TC.

w/o this knowledge of how music works, all the musical terms/definitions,,are all greek tto me.
As I have zero training/skills..
I am only basing some of my opinions on 35 yrs experience and, as recently, a broader range of classical music = new 20TH C composer discoveries.

based on these new experiences, has led me to express,,what needs saying,,as per musicologist , Spaeth suggests.

~~Speak ones mind,,regardless~~

If I hear Henze as trumping much of the ~~olden styles~~ its what I hear, and feel needs be expressed....If I read Henze's journey as ~~heroic~~, as was Shostakovich,,and Elliott Carter,,,this needs saying,and should not be held back from public announcement .

Sure I can not tell one note chored froma another,,,, can not read even, nor play one note.
Should this ~~impoverished state~~ exempt, and invalidate my wide ranging opinions? 
Beliefs which other Modernists, also hold, but are afraid to open up about. 
The odds are stacked against us.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mikeh375 said:


> I couldn't possibly compare two aesthetic paradigms like that Phil. Your opinion/assessment duly noted and respected of course, but I can't help feeling that an injustice is inevitable because of ambiguous subjectivity concerning "inspiration", of which sometimes the composer and audience will disagree upon. As you may well know from your composing, what you consider best moments in a piece of yours doesn't always come across as such to listeners, who will form their own conclusions as to inspired moments according to their sensibilities.
> For me, inspiration per se doesn't feel like solid ground on which to form a critical judgement regarding works with such an aesthetic gulf between them.


I think it is possible to judge works on their own terms and styles, but also from a certain collective "X" factor, being how it moves or achieves on more levels than only a technical level. I agree it can become pretty dicey most of the time, but sometimes the obvious can manifest itself. I love Bartok, as I've mentioned a several times, and analyzed his music to minute detail, but I can understand if his music sounds cold, impersonal, etc. Brilliant and innovative, yes. Inspired, I'd say no, to most of his music. Haydn beside Henze is one of those moments where the obvious seemed to manifest to me.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

stomanek said:


> Glancing at the top of the charts - say top 50 - seem to be 80%+ 18th and 19thC big composer repertoire. For example - the top 50 symphonies - 42 are by 18th and 19thC composers. If it were not for Shostakovich and Prokofiev this figure would be far worse.
> 
> The 20th C is better represented the lower down you go.


Your numbers are inflated; top 200 is about 72% pre-20th century, and that's basic math. What's the point of pitting 119 years against ~1,100?



paulbest said:


> ~~The Modernists~~ what other term would you have in mind?


20th-century composers, perhaps? I wouldn't consider anything composed over 50 years ago to be "modern."



paulbest said:


> You mean to tell me,,
> the symphonies of
> Schnittke
> Pettersson
> ...


53. Webern - Symphony
70. Górecki - Symphony No. 3 "Symphony of Sorrowful Songs"
85. Berio - Sinfonia
96. Rautavaara - Symphony No. 8 "The Journey"
99. Penderecki - Symphony No. 3
109. Hovhaness - Symphony No. 2 "Mysterious Mountain"
121. Schnittke - Symphony No. 1
132. Lutoslawski - Symphony No. 3
*134. Szymanowski - Symphony No. 3 "Song of the Night"*

Look. It's a list. Lists aren't perfect. Lists don't please everyone.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Well now that we have coverered the Q 
~~Greats at times,,other times,,not so great~~
We shall expand this topic a bit further..
Now here is where I really
~~get in trouble~~

~~Part Two
The Q will be as stated,,although you can make adjustments, so as to make sense of it..

~~Which composers are well established in the echelon of 
~~THe Greats of all time in classical music~~
Yet , some we are still scratching our heads, 
~~How /Why/Wherefore~ did this composer get to be, so often recorded past 50 yrs, so often programed past 100's of years. ,,,so often hit on YT/ and has so many topic posts here on TC?
That is the Q , which is Part 2 of this thread.

I'll start,,,Someone says ,*Mahler's 2nd sym, as his cast away island music. 
Well not having heard the 2nd, only parts of some of his syms,,,thought I pay a visit to YT.

How has Mahler gained such a incredible following, programming, cd records, .
~~Great~~ can not be argued against, as the vote shows, its for real. 
Bruckner has a huge fan base, tons of recordings, tremendous resources have dedicated their efforts and energies to his music. 
All over the world, EU, USA, Asia, all have voted as Bruckner, Mahler as *significant , remarkable, Outstanding~~ thus both have achieved the ~~elite qualification~~ as The Great.
I must say here, Bruckner's codas in the 4th sym, 1st, 4 th movements are SPECTACULAR, (only if performed correctly), and these 2 codas trumps any passage in all/every Mahler sym.

The ideation of ~The Great Composers~~, is now done and over..It was all a prefabricated /promoted/propagandized/ well convincing, staging of ~~the past~~.

can we step back, stop for a moment and re-evaluate this idea as *The Greats*. 
For me, Mahler's 2nd sounded better on the speed wheel placed at 1.25 or better 1.5 speed.

The thing is full of fluff and filler. and seems to come and go,,no where in particular. 
I could find these same qualities in most of Dvorak,,who yet continues to rank as *The Great Dvorak*.

50+ records of his syms, sure puts the ball back in my court, now doesn't it. 
Plus his music will gain more ticket sales than say,,,Henze. 
*Henze,,,you mean the ketchup??*


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Portamento said:


> Your numbers are inflated; top 200 is about 72% pre-20th century, and that's basic math. What's the point of pitting 119 years against ~1,100?
> 
> 20th-century composers, perhaps? I wouldn't consider anything composed over 50 years ago to be "modern."
> 
> ...


and his King Roger opera,,why is it at least in the top 100?Glass has 2 spots, 
Also how mnay sym of Bruckner and Mahler are far ahead of Szymanowski's 3rd? 
Mahler and Bruckner do not even make my list of top 500 ~~Worlds greatest symphonies~~


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Partita said:


> I've been taking a glance at the "T-C Recommended" works lists to see how many post Brahms composers works were voted through into high positions.
> 
> Compilation of the TC Top Recommended Lists
> 
> ...


Yeah well, of course everyone is going to have some complaint about their fav composers,,,except Beethoven fans,, they are all happy with every list.

Though there is one list, which I feel is in bad need of updating. 
Top 150 Modern works.

For some off, unknown reason, 
Pettersson
Schnittke (may be there , not sure,= don't think I noted his name)
Henze,,,I don't believe I saw Elliott carter's name,,,be right back....
Not as far as I can tell
~~Elliott Carter ~~ failed to make the top 150 Modern

Henze is not there, 
Schnittke, as I recall, did not make the list. .
Pettersson is not there

~~Of all the lists tabulated, hard work, lots of hours and efforts,,we applaud those who sacrificed their time...
But of all the lists.
This one stands out as~ problematic~. In need of -revision.

Not sure how old the list is. 
Pettersson, Henze, I can understand as not having made top 150,,,and I can understand how it is possible many of the 150 DID MAKE THE LIST<<BUT REALLY DO NOT BELONG THERE.

But Elliott Carter, not in the top
~~150~~
Come on, , surely I know what the issue is. 
there are 3 eras within the~~ Modern Music Epoch~~~, early, middle, late. 
If we add up all the hits , from all 3 eras, its well over 500+ Top Hits...
Even in the top, 500, its very likely Henze, Pettersson will not ~~make the cut~~. 
had the list gone to ~~Top 200~~ surely we would have seen Elliott Carter's name mentioned once, perhaps twice.

There are many more ~~Top Hits~~ within the Modern Musical Epoch~~ than all previous and past eras combined.(past, meaning post modern,,which actually made the Top 150 Modern, but really is a sepatare class of music, and has no place within the traditional Classical Music Genre. 
Berio, Glass, Stockhausen, Ligeti, all Post Mod. 
Why ae they included in Modern Classical. Anyone?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

paulbest said:


> and his King Roger opera,,why is it at least in the top 100?Glass has 2 spots,
> Also how mnay sym of Bruckner and Mahler are far ahead of Szymanowski's 3rd?
> Mahler and Bruckner do not even make my list of top 500 ~~Worlds greatest symphonies~~


 That's probably a compliment to Mahler and Bruckner not to have made such a dubious Unfortunate 500 list, since the interest in these composer's symphonies seems almost universal. How good does it look to so misjudge and mischaracterize the greats, be so off-base and quixotic about it, and then expect others to heed the recommendations of others whom you think are better? If you more convincingly understood them, though no composer is universally liked by everyone, no one, then others might think that you had worthwhile insight into someone like Pettersson, Henze, or Symanowski. But instead, you set up exaggerated expectations and barriers for them. People have to listen to them despite all the silly remarks made about someone like Mahler or Bruckner when some of Pettersson's symphonies show an influence of Mahler.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

True I am biased here. 
But how often have you seema post,,,*Your fav Mahler movement from any of his syms…*,,and *I love his sym XYZ,,,but don't care for movements XYZ of that particular sym*,,,How is this even imaginable that some one loves such and sucha sym,,,but only parts , 1 and 2,,but not so much 3 or 4 part*. 


And I am sure there are moments in Bruckner's syms , where the devotee is thinking to himself *just alittle more of this,,and then we get into the really great part,,,the section I've been waiting for,,,*


and such. 

Tahts more of a oddity than many of my opinions so recently posted here. 

The Modern list, makes no sense..
Of all the lists , that is the list, which is most problematic and IMHO,,~~worthless trash~~
They should have left that one out,,= needs deletion, and revision


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Look , from a Modernist viewpoint, based on hearing The New Musical Sound,,we do not reject all music pre 1900, That would be a senseless action and would block us from music which we feel , continues to hold value.
We are not here to throw ~~the baby out with the bath water~~, 
We only wish the Romantics/Classicists , (the ones who concocted the top 150 Mod list),,,to at least step into the Modern Musical World and experiment,..What are they afraid of?

A fair assessment, based on several listens over a yr or 2 period. 
We might find the lists begin to change shape and the votes would be more altered towards the Modernists. 


the Romantic/Classicists groupies , remind me of some religious sect or cult. 


I was one, I know the blockages and resistances , the ~~Pre-judge-ice~~ involved.


A ~~awakening~~ is most needed at this stage in classical music. ,,Otherwise post modern may gain a upper hand over the Modern Epoch,,,,then we are all in trouble.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

paulbest said:


> We only wish the Romantics/Classicists , (the ones who concocted the top 150 Mod list),,,to at least step into the Modern Musical World and experiment,..What are they afraid of?
> 
> the Romantic/Classicists groupies , remind me of some religious sect or cult.







-----------


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

*Your numbers are inflated; top 200 is about 72% pre-20th century, and that's basic math. What's the point of pitting 119 years against ~1,100? *

Not inflated as I said top 50 - you are looking at top 200 and as I said the lower you go the more 20thC you find.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

paulbest said:


> Look , from a Modernist viewpoint, based on hearing The New Musical Sound,,we do not reject all music pre 1900, That would be a senseless action and would block us from music which we feel , continues to hold value.
> We are not here to throw ~~the baby out with the bath water~~,
> We only wish the Romantics/Classicists , (the ones who concocted the top 150 Mod list),,,to at least step into the Modern Musical World and experiment,..What are they afraid of?
> 
> ...


OK I have decided you have some redeeming features after all. As someone who seems to be inclined towards 20thC and a lot of that atonal - I think it does you credit that you recognise the quality of Mozart's late work. And I really think its quite funny that you dismiss all Haydn's compositions as noise. I assume you have no use for Handel.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2019)

Portamento said:


> The Classical Music Project itself is not recent at all and has been ongoing since 2011. I've participated semi-regularily since joining this forum. Before moving to the games subforum (about a year ago), there were over 3,100 works present in a single ranked list. Trout, who is now occupied with an amazing contemporary composers project, previously compiled detailed statistics on the CMP's first 2,900 entries. The most pertinent bit of information to this thread may be the breakdown of eras: 1,030 20th Century; 824 Romantic; 438 Contemporary; 265 Classical; 218 Baroque; 99 Renaissance; 26 Medieval. Long story short, I feel that "modern" (I hate that term) music is represented extremely well-medieval music is rather underepresented.


 "The Classical Music Project" that you refer to above is not the more recent list of recommended works I was referring to.

What I had in mind was the _"The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works"_. This was started more recently than 2011, and is still ongoing. I've never had anything to do with it but the following link goes there:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t_9MHZTENbmYdezAAj4LRM0-Eak_MYO1HssZW2FX1U/edit

.............

There have been at least 4 major exercises over the past 10+ years involving recommended works. My understanding of the sequence is as follows:

1. "TC Top Recommended Lists"

This is the list I refered to at post #107. It is a compilation of most highly favoured works as voted upon by those members who participated in the various sequential genre-based polls. It started off with symphonies and eventaully covered all other genres. I'm not sure exactly when it started and finished, but would guess it was around 2008 and finished around 2016/17. The early results were first compiled by one of the moderators in 2012, and subsequently added to by _mmsbls_ as further poll results came in.

2. The "Classical Music Project"

This is the one you refer to. I believe it was started by _Science_, and is based on works listed by importance according to the results of various polls. It was not genre-based. It simply listed works of any description by order of preference/greatness. It seems to have reached 3000 works and then abandoned.

3. "Most Liked"

There was another polling exercise in/around 2017 based on the most "liked" works and separately the most liked "composers". This involved many separate polls asking people to vote for their "liked" works/composers in various lists of alternative candidates that were put up for consideration. A vast amount of data was collected, but as far as I recall the results, when they finally appeared, did not receive much publicity. I'm not aware of how the results can be accessed now. This set of polls was, I gather, set up in an attempt to deal with the perceived problem of it being difficult for some people to rank works and composers. It was thought that by simply asking which works/composers were "liked" it might shed some useful light on this subject. I recall that it all seemed to be of rather dubious value to me, especially since the whole exercise appeared to flood the forum with virtually endless polls asking about some very obscure composers and works.

4. "The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works"

More recently (not sure exactly when), it seems that _Science_ started another very large set of polls that involve voting for works in various so-called "tiers", where each "tier" is ranked by greatness. These polls are still ongoing. Look out for threads involving "tier" in the title, e.g "64th tier". I have never bothered to understand the voting system used in these polls, except that it somehow involves selecting one's favourite works in various tiers.

It would be helpful if someone could think about making the results of this latest exercise (4 above) more accessible by, for example, listing the top 50 works in each main genre. As things stand currently, I doubt that anyone bar a few dedicated individuals who have contributed to the polls have any idea where the results can be found, even at the most aggregated level.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

"The Classical Music Project" and "_The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works_" are the same list, just organized differently. The latter project is a continuation of the former.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2019)

Portamento said:


> "The Classical Music Project" and "_The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works_" are the same list, just organized differently. The latter project is a continuation of the former.


That may be so, but the rankings of many of the main works look quite different as between the two sets of results.

I have not been involved in either project but it would seem to me that the original list started in 2011 has been substantially re-worked in terms of order and content for the purpose of the more recent exercise. I guess this must have been the intention, as otherwise why change the title of the lists?

In the more recent exercise, I have only looked at the first 7 "tiers" listing the top 49 works. I fully realise that the first exercise begun in 2011 did not categorise works by "tier", but such a categorisation can be constructed using the numerical ranking of each work. I'm not suggesting it's 100% accurate, but should be good enough for the present limited purposes.

From a quick look, I spotted several quite large differences in rankings amongst some of the main works as between the two exercises. I'll mention a few, but there are many other examples:
1. In the original list, Bach's Mass in B Minor was in the No 1 spot (equates to "tier 1). In the new list it's in "tier 3".

2. Brahms Clarinet Quintet moved from 2nd to 4th tier

3. Stravinsky Rite of Spring has moved from the 2nd to 4th tier.

4. Wagner Ring Cycle from 6th to 2nd

5. Schubert Winterreise 3rd to 7th​
Based on such large differences, I'd say that the two lists bear very little resemblance to each other, whether or not they have a common base. That would make them effectively separate lists.

In other words, if the latest deliberations of TC members are what is required for present purposes then the results you quoted are not suitable. It would be better to use the latest lists based on "tiers". The main problem with these is that they are of limited interest to read through, as they comprise a mix of genres in each group. As I suggested earlier, it would be useful if genre-based lists could be produced, and set out separately.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

stomanek said:


> *Your numbers are inflated; top 200 is about 72% pre-20th century, and that's basic math. What's the point of pitting 119 years against ~1,100? *
> 
> Not inflated as I said top 50 - you are looking at top 200 and as I said the lower you go the more 20thC you find.


Its not years that matter here.

In my understanding of CM taken as a whole entity..
There are beginnings , flowering, fruiting, and a ending period.

The flowering and fruting take place, beginning the budding in Wagner's incredible Parsifal, and also with Debussy's 1899 Prelude, Scriabin's late piano sonatas also may be included,,Ravel, Bartok both as full blooming on this CM Epoch,,,fruiting would be Shostakovich, and others,,,who I will not mention,,as you know who they are.

It is this ~~Budding/Flowering/Fruiting ~~~ era, which is the main body of the entire Epochal Musical Art.
It is this era which has not been correctly represented in that poll. Perhaps the other polls mentioned below by partita , do allow for a more true and fair assessment in ranking modern works/composers.

Can 't be any worse in the results than the one above for modern works ratings/opinions.

The poll in the one above,,,is almost like they pulled names/works out of a hat,,and wrote down what chance may bring.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Partita said:


> "The Classical Music Project" that you refer to above is not the more recent list of recommended works I was referring to.
> 
> What I had in mind was the _"The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works"_. This was started more recently than 2011, and is still ongoing. I've never had anything to do with it but the following link goes there:
> 
> ...


These results for the Modern Era, may be ~~improved~ more reflecting actual opinions of the top tier from The Modernists...Those who, ~~only~~ are really qualified to give solid opinions.

And with the new recordings in Henze, Pettersson, these 2 may show up in a new poll. The other polls,. gretest sym, solo, orchestral,,,may not alter mmuch yr to yr,,But in the ~~Modern top 200~~ list,,,you will see significant changes year to year.
There is a flux and reformation taking place in the 1900-2000 era.

I see this Epoch, as divided into 3 eras.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

stomanek said:


> OK I have decided you have some redeeming features after all. As someone who seems to be inclined towards 20thC and a lot of that atonal - I think it does you credit that you recognise the quality of Mozart's late work. And I really think its quite funny that you dismiss all Haydn's compositions as noise. I assume you have no use for Handel.


Henceforth, I shall only 
discuss and give opinions on composers I know,,,Composers I do not know the music,,I refrain from making peevish and unwelcomed comments..

I am not familiar with the music of Haydn , only faintly,,and more faintly that of Handel.

I prefer Vivaldi, which I do have 8+ cds, some are 3 cd sets,. 
Bach is represented in my collection,,,,,only his B Minor Mass cd,,,somewhere in my collection.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

paulbest said:


> Henceforth, I shall only
> discuss and give opinions on composers I know,,,Composers I do not know the music,,I refrain from making peevish and unwelcomed comments..
> 
> I am not familiar with the music of Haydn , only faintly,,and more faintly that of Handel.
> ...


and how much of that Vivaldi did you listen to?

handel and bach you hardly know

really - how can you know how to clear out the house from clutter if you go from room to room with your eyes closed?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

paulbest said:


> Henceforth, I shall only
> discuss and give opinions on composers I know,,,Composers I do not know the music,,I refrain from making peevish and unwelcomed comments..
> 
> I am not familiar with the music of Haydn , only faintly,,and more faintly that of Handel.
> ...


OK I listened to some Henze

sonatina for flute/piano - good
Qt No 3 - not bad 
Labyrinth - not bad

give me your all time best piece by Henze to really impress me.

It seems I can listen to Henze.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2019)

paulbest said:


> The poll in the one above,,,is almost like they pulled names/works out of a hat,,and wrote down what chance may bring.


Do bear in mind that none of these poll results is sacrosanct by any stretch of the imagination. They are merely a reflection of the opinions of those individuals who took the trouble to enter their votes at the appropriate times in some fairly obscure polls.

The samples are by no means randomly drawn from a wide base of T-C members, but are simply self-selecting groups of people who presumably enjoy participating in such exercises. They don't even represent the opinions of an unchanged sample of members, as people came and went at various times. Thus, sample sizes are very difficult to calculate, and no doubt varied a lot.

I would guess that the vast majority of the rankings from these polls are statistically insignificant, given the inherent "noise" resulting from the inherent weaknesses in the sampling methods. I think that the main purpose of the polls was simply to provide a bit of amusement for those involved, rather than an attempt at producing anything of serious value. The lists are useful in providing reference to lots of works that might otherwise have gone unnoticed.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think it is possible to judge works on their own terms and styles, but also from a certain collective "X" factor, being how it moves or achieves on more levels than only a technical level. I agree it can become pretty dicey most of the time, but sometimes the obvious can manifest itself. I love Bartok, as I've mentioned a several times, and analyzed his music to minute detail, but I can understand if his music sounds cold, impersonal, etc. Brilliant and innovative, yes. Inspired, I'd say no, to most of his music. Haydn beside Henze is one of those moments where the obvious seemed to manifest to me.


The technical level is a necessary given of course and plays a major role by inviting inspiration into the work and then looking after it, dressing it up well for presentation. The X factor is surely subjective, for example I disagree about your view of Bartok and a perceived lack of inspiration, but that matters not.

Perhaps a definition of inspiration can include the sense of inevitability one experiences in great writing. This is often achieved with great calculated artifice and/or a visionary or musical serendipity after much familiarity with the compositional material (Beethoven Sketchbooks). It is much easier to judge in a tonal environment, the success of a particular (inspired!) moment, given the clarity and immediacy of the language. With atonality or expanded tonality any so called inspired passage sometimes becomes a lot harder to assess given the more disorientating environment, but is still something one can sense if one has open, adventurous ears I believe...as you say, the obvious becomes manifest. Except in some cases, I bet the composer (and fellow listeners) will see different inspired moments in the same piece. For the composer, an inspired passage -or maybe just a single harmonic change, a turn of phrase, timbre change or a contrapuntal solution - will be the result of his deep acquaintance with the actual moment to moment writing process and the overcoming of problems encountered.

Did I ramble?..probably. Ah well, I still don't think comparing eggs to apples is viable......keep on writing.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

stomanek said:


> OK I listened to some Henze
> 
> sonatina for flute/piano - good
> Qt No 3 - not bad
> ...


Someone else here on TC, requested I make a intro recommend on Henze,,,,I arrived at the cd listed in the link below,,and to my surprise the author of the article also made this cd *the definitive intro to Henze*...we are both in sync with this cd grouping...
That is to say,,of the 3 works offered,,if none elicit any interest,,,just skip Henze. 
With Henze,,,each work is different. He is not so easy to peg ina box.

I have not heard the sonatine for flute/piano,,,but I am quite sure it is on the same level as Elliott Carter's chamber. 
In my listens of Henze,,I've yet to come across a *dud*.

I am about to start a new topic *Composers who made ~~Hits~~ from beginning/middle/end of their creativity. The only composer I know who fits this category is ~~Henze~~ and also Maurice Ravel,,and Claude Debussy. With Bartok possibly, a success all through.

http://www.classicalmusicsentinel.com/KEEP/keep-henze-symphony8.html
.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

paulbest said:


> Someone else here on TC, requested I make a intro recommend on Henze,,,,I arrived at the cd listed in the link below,,and to my surprise the author of the article also made this cd *the definitive intro to Henze*...we are both in sync with this cd grouping...
> That is to say,,of the 3 works offered,,if none elicit any interest,,,just skip Henze.
> With Henze,,,each work is different. He is not so easy to peg ina box.
> 
> ...


Henze seems ok - interesting enough to keep me listening.

Schnitke viola concerto - good start - but starts to get boring at half way point.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

stomanek said:


> Henze seems ok - interesting enough to keep me listening.
> 
> Schnitke viola concerto - good start - but starts to get boring at half way point.


With Schnittke its a mixed bag at times...Problem with some of Schnittke's works,,is the fact he is extremely intellectual, super genius comparable to no others.

Listen to his sacred works. Choir Concerto, Penitential Pslams and 3 Sacred Songs. 
Nothing boring there..
As I say, Schnittke's music is a *rare bird*, he also at times gets/grates on my nerves,,,as much as I ,,contrarily love his music.

No one can *get* Henze on 1st few listens. 
Henze is complex, and not so easy to figure out,,,With Henze you have to wait for a *revelation*,,,,Try every few years,,,,,I know someone who is a Petterssonian like myself,,,yet can not get into Henze ,,none at all.

making Henze , unique and surely a ~~acquired taste~ only. With Henze, you almost need a code,,, a password to get in the door.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think many people's problems with the premise of this thread (and Paul Best) is that they think their music is "permanent" and should last forever, while the truth is, it does not...Paul Best actually has a very down-to-earth, based-in-reality approach to music. He discards what is non-essential, and moves on to what he can really immerse himself in.

Look at it like food; you eat what you want, as long as it tastes good, until you find something tastier or fresher. The food is useless to you if it just sits there; so discard it.

I think another aspect which plays into this is that people are afraid or hesitant to "believe" in their own subjective experience; they seem to be constantly aware of the "overmind" of history, or peer pressure, or things outside their own experience. And they use this awareness of the status quo to invalidate or discount the value of someone's personal experience. They are spokesmen for an "overmind" which is illusory, and exists only in the collective consensus.

Also, they may not be taking away from music what they should be taking away, which is not something which involves or satisfies the mind or "ideas" of things, but that which satisfies "the spirit" or essential core being of the individual.

I think Paul Best is able to do what he does because he has reached a point where he is aware of the_ true value _of things & experiences. As roughly chiseled as he appears, as un-intellectual, as unknowledgeable compared to some, he is nonetheless "in the zone" when it comes to managing and dealing with_ his own experience,_ and he is casting his pearls before swine in many cases here, which I find endlessly amusing.

IGNORE ALIEN ORDERS!


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

haha
well, it did take some time and resistence to the ~~New Muisc~~, Schoenberg does not come easy for most of us, ,,we all ahd our **Cringe* moments, at 1st hearing of some of his most atonal /12 tone rows, whatever its tagged.
I 've read a comment, here of on YT, the guy was *into* Schoenberg at age 12. 
That's pretty amazing, considering at 12 yrs old, some of us though the Beatles I want to Hold Your hand, was *great* music. 

So yeah, its beena long winding journey...I think its the sounds of Webern which made me think *wonder what else is out there*,,,this thought opened me up to Schnittke and the Elliott carter, But it was actually Varese which prepared me for Elliott Carter. 
I had a reprieve from CM for some years,,,,after coming back,,I decided to make a journey of ~~Discovery~~ which brought me to composers, I had known the name, but not really taken seriously.

I don;'t know, perhaps others feel the Modern era should include , the many I do not feel belong there.


Some may say,*,well gee you put Henze in the era, but you feel Stockhausen is a separate genre. How so?*
Berio, Ligeti, cage. I just don't know. I guess lets include these,,as they were born within the late modern period, so by means of birth right, they do belong there.

Again, its all a matter of personal temperament. 


But yet, if we look at Carter, Henze's output, quality, early/middle/late and number of works,,can Stockhausen, Cage, Ligeti Berio, hold up to this level of crafting established...Many composers around Mozart and Beethoven's day, are completely forgotten due to the mastery of these 2 highly artistic composers. 
Lets see the forest through the trees. From a higher viewpoint. 
Instead of mixing all moderns up like one big gumbo. 
(I hate chicken and seafood in the same gumbo, Its one or the other please)

I just noticed the ideas of Theosophy may have influenced Stockhausen and also Messiaen had some *ecumenical* ideas. 
Both I feel , do not offer classical music, but another strain, another genre, a different school of composition. 
Any kind of religiosity involved, is a sure turnoff. Hovhaness goes along with these *mystical composers * as well,

Lets be good modernists and reject liberalism.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"Greatest Hits" of this thread:

_An even better way of putting it is "I'm creating a thread as an excuse to dis great music I don't like."

You don't even know what Tchaikovsky wrote and yet you are making that ridiculous Christmas comment based on exactly one work?? Might I suggest that you spend more time learning about the various composers than you do spinning these not particularly coherent rambles?

 ... so you still haven't figured out the difference between personal opinion and fact? Or that there is no fact when it comes to musical taste? Talk about just noise.

A clean, clear mind might result from a month in rehab, but removing Mozart won't help you.

I'm thinking that you may be describing the onset of a neurological problem. You might consult a specialist. Your taste seems stuck...Your interest in your preferred music often seems less than your need to rubbish everything else that you have lost the ability to enjoy...

__You are hell bent on trashing every composer and every work that doesn't tickle your fancy, Paul. Give it a rest. Spend more time extolling the works and composers that you DO like.

_


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

paulbest said:


> haha
> well, it did take some time and resistence to the ~~New Muisc~~, Schoenberg does not come easy for most of us, ,,we all ahd our **Cringe* moments, at 1st hearing of some of his most atonal /12 tone rows, whatever its tagged.


I am an avid "Schoenbergian," but here is something I haven't said very often: some of Schoenberg begins to lose credibility with me, especially his pretenses at "melody." Listening yesterday to the Phantasy for Violin & Piano, Op. 47 (1949), I am actually pushed to the point of questioning Schoenberg's sincerity, just as the John Cage detractors do. Was Schoenberg exacting revenge, as late as 1947, on the German tradition with these ludicrous, leaping things he calls "melodies"? They say that sarcasm does not translate well on-line. If Schoenberg was being purposely sarcastic, then it is lost to me. If he was being sarcastic, I'll let him pass.
Same with the String Trio 0p. 45 (1946). Was Schoenberg bitter about the way he was ejected from Germany, only to live in obscurity as a professor at UC, playing ping-pong with George Gershwin? I wonder...


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> "Greatest Hits" of this thread:
> 
> _An even better way of putting it is "I'm creating a thread as an excuse to dis great music I don't like."
> 
> ...


Yeah, well much of these condemnations well ~~eraned if not deserved~~, I've received a fair shot over the bow,,warning about some of my,,,cheap shots~~ at other composers I am not too fond of. So I must be on best behavior around here from now on.

Its understandable how we can all have dif ears in CM. 
I came froma hard childhood and underground rock was my escape,,,so I now look for ~~the underground sounds~~~,,off the beaten paths,,,at times I can see down into the valley,,and its there I should hold silent. 
Its only my opinion that Modern Composers are ~~The real deal~~~, and so should refrain from imposing this belief on the romantics/classicists.

Everyone 's journey will be different. Its the modern world we live in, everything is in division. Unity is not real.

The word ~~ classical music~ holds no value whatsoever. 
Music it is, But this word ~~classical~~ has to be chopped off, and obliterated, completely. 
I'll leave it up to you guys to figure out how we will further define this wide vast domain of art.

Also the epochs may also bea myth,,as so fully exposed on the topic ~~ who is responsible for the ruination of the classical era?~~
It has been shown there is no such thing called The Classical Era,,,The romantic era. 
Sheer myths and weird box terms. 
Muisc is round. 
So each and every composer has to be considered as distinct from the other.

Muiscologists have us believing in eras, that are not there. Its all myths of their imaginations.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I am an avid "Schoenbergian," but here is something I haven't said very often: some of Schoenberg begins to lose credibility with me, especially his pretenses at "melody." Listening yesterday to the Phantasy for Violin & Piano, Op. 47 (1949), I am actually pushed to the point of questioning Schoenberg's sincerity, just as the John Cage detractors do. Was Schoenberg exacting revenge, as late as 1947, on the German tradition with these ludicrous, leaping things he calls "melodies"? They say that sarcasm does not translate well on-line. If Schoenberg was being purposely sarcastic, then it is lost to me. If he was being sarcastic, I'll let him pass.
> Same with the String Trio 0p. 45 (1946). Was Schoenberg bitter about the way he was ejected from Germany, only to live in obscurity as a professor at UC, playing ping-pong with George Gershwin? I wonder...


Over my range, Yet I hear what you are saying. 
I wonder if Henze ,,scattered among some of his works, is shooting spit balls at the gang over at the school,be right back,,cant recall how to spell it....~~The Darmstadt School~ ,,,seems there was some sort of ~~ruckus~~ there late 1940's/early 1950's? where Henze hada ~~conflict~ with some his collogues, I think Stockhausen and Boulez were involved...Not sure, but its quite possible,,every now and then, Henze slips in a ~~spit ball~ straight at a few faces who stood him up.
Henze had a rough time all his life. rejection on so many levels.

I am not musically trained, so I really can't say for sure that Henze is splashing cold water on some of the *post modern group* and/or his ~enemies~.
I have no musical tech, so hard for me to translate why the sudden transition,,and as quick as the oddity comes,,,its gone PUFF!,,,and I thought,,whats that all about,,,,,who knows? 
Seems he is knocking some other composer there...... 
A real heroic journey, Which may be one reason I find his music ,,unique.
Brings us right back to my point above,,,~~classical music~~, figment of the imagination,. No such thingy. Its this composer and that composer. 
No lumping all in one big box.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I think many people's problems with the premise of this thread (and Paul Best) is that they think their music is "permanent" and should last forever, while the truth is, it does not...Paul Best actually has a very down-to-earth, based-in-reality approach to music. He discards what is non-essential, and moves on to what he can really immerse himself in.
> 
> Look at it like food; you eat what you want, as long as it tastes good, until you find something tastier or fresher. The food is useless to you if it just sits there; so discard it.
> 
> ...


Nice post. Well done.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I think many people's problems with the premise of this thread (and Paul Best) is that they think their music is "permanent" and should last forever, while the truth is, it does not...Paul Best actually has a very down-to-earth, based-in-reality approach to music. He discards what is non-essential, and moves on to what he can really immerse himself in.
> 
> Look at it like food; you eat what you want, as long as it tastes good, until you find something tastier or fresher. The food is useless to you if it just sits there; so discard it.
> 
> ...


I am not a swine.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Well
someone, Millionrainbows might be the one who could best open a post focusing on this subject.

We need to begin unraveling the late modern composers who are now somehow bunched in one large basket. 

I see its all jumbled together,,so any new commers who want to inquire aboutlate mods,,have no clue where to begin,,Of course alittle time spent on YT clips,,,will give them a good idea of who is who,,which composers ~~sings their song~~ best and which are ~experimental~~.
I am not so fond of the ~~experimental group~~, but there are exceptions , = Varese.


Anyway. 
If you look at a list of recommends, you will see sucha extremely wide variance in styles,,,makes no sense. 
Which is why I taking such efforts in the promotion of who I feel has earned the rights to be classed among the notables such as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I see Paul Best's fixation on the mostly early modern composers (Szymanowski, Ravel, Pettersson, etc.) as a_ harmonic sensibility_. He likes tone-centricity, and tonalities which are "general," and have localized centers which change, but still give that sense of being "projected" from an underlying tone center. And he can take his "centricity" straight, or on the rocks, 'rocks' being jagged, as obstructions, as impenetrable.
Except in the case of Elliott Carter, but Carter is so elegant in the way he uses notes, the sheer beauty of the music _in toto._


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Becca said:


> Ask a tuba player!


I would, but the brass section are all in the bar!


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

I've just read the last 5 pages of this and it is actually a pretty boring thread in its premise. A premise so obvious it might as well have have a red flag and a string of fairy lights attached to it.

I like 20th century music too. I like it a lot. Whenever I see or hear some classical fan giving it ten to the dozen about how modern their listening is compared to all the 'boring old music of the past' I just want to switch off. The OP keeps on making statements that seem to betray very little knowledge of whatever gets trashed. How can such an opinion be given any credibility?

What kind of threadbare iconoclasm is it to tell everyone you think Mozart is overrated and no good? That his string quartets, (which are really masterpieces of the genre, whether or not someone personally cares to listen to them) are 'noise' or whatever? It's like when you visit a place on holiday and some jaded bitter old resident tells you there is nothing to see because they have stopped valuing anything around them; if they ever really looked at all. 

What is the value of forever pitting modern against traditional in this way? In either direction? What useful thing does it tell us aside from the current listening tastes of the one opining? In particular the OP of this thread gets my goat with all the grandstanding and remarks about Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Mozart that make me believe there is no real listening or knowledge behind them. If someone initiates a thread about 'The Greats' and all their alleged shortcomings, shouldn't that person actually know what these people have actually written before embarking on such a journey? Rather than limping along in fits and starts with a patchwork of remarks?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I see Paul Best's fixation on the mostly early modern composers (Szymanowski, Ravel, Pettersson, etc.) as a_ harmonic sensibility_. He likes tone-centricity, and tonalities which are "general," and have localized centers which change, but still give that sense of being "projected" from an underlying tone center. And he can take his "centricity" straight, or on the rocks, 'rocks' being jagged, as obstructions, as impenetrable.
> Except in the case of Elliott Carter, but Carter is so elegant in the way he uses notes, the sheer beauty of the music _in toto._


Glad you help define what I am not sure of,,,tonal centers,,with variations,,,nothing too *inventive* (that is has some traditional roots)

Elliott Carter would indeed be the exception,,,and yes Carter offers such a brilliance, and unexpectedness. Mostly Carter avoids the ~~post modern trap~,,,Is it odd that I with zero musical training/score read ability (obviously!) could tell a note's chord one from the other,,,yet am drawn immensely towards a level of musical writing such as Carter,,which is highly complex. 
I have no idea translate on a tech level whats going on in some of Carter;'s thickly scored orchestrations,,I only hear and attempt to figure out later. Sure more meaning would contribute to a greater appreciation , depth of understanding. But its no use,,its all like greek to me.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

samm said:


> What kind of threadbare iconoclasm is it to tell everyone you think Mozart is overrated and no good? That his string quartets, (which are really masterpieces of the genre, whether or not someone personally cares to listen to them) are 'noise' or whatever? It's like when you visit a place on holiday and some jaded bitter old resident tells you there is nothing to see because they have stopped valuing anything around them; if they ever really looked at all.
> 
> What is the value of forever pitting modern against traditional in this way? In either direction? What useful thing does it tell us aside from the current listening tastes of the one opining? In particular the OP of this thread gets my goat with all the grandstanding and remarks about Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Mozart that make me believe there is no real listening or knowledge behind them. If someone initiates a thread about 'The Greats' and all their alleged shortcomings, shouldn't that person actually know what these people have actually written before embarking on such a journey? Rather than limping along in fits and starts with a patchwork of remarks?


I never demeaned Mozart's last great creative period,,There are few here who love more Mozart's last great works, than I.
The other inaccuracies I can be faulted for,,,However,, you might be a bit exaggerated ,,,did I really say all those things you so accuse me of??

, but I've been reprimanded by the mods for such audacity,,,,and so, take my rights to the 5th amendment.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2019)

samm said:


> What kind of threadbare iconoclasm is it to tell everyone you think Mozart is overrated and no good? That his string quartets, (which are really masterpieces of the genre, whether or not someone personally cares to listen to them) are 'noise' or whatever?


I've seen far worse criticism of Mozart at T-C than anything Paul has said, not just in one thread but cross several of them. At one time, several years ago, it was almost _de rigeu_r to criticise Mozart and his band of followers. Some of the criticism got so bad here in one instance that the main accuser eventually gave an apology as it upset so many people. In fact, Paul has only made limited crticism of certain works by Mozart. On the whole, I think that Mozart remains one of the few "traditional" composers Paul still has any regard for. in any event, it doesn't bother what he thinks of Mozart or anyone else.



> What is the value of forever pitting modern against traditional in this way? In either direction? What useful thing does it tell us aside from the current listening tastes of the one opining?


Not that I condone "genre-bashing" of any description if it's done with malice or intent to disrupt a thread. But this thread was initiated by Paul, so it would make no sense for anyone to suggest that he's trying to disrupt this one. It has to be recalled that in the not too distant past here at T-C the boot was on the other foot in that there was a great deal of bashing of contemporary music taking place here by various people who couldn't stand it. It was so bad at one time that it was a daily struggle to find much else to read. There were several threads raised in Area 51 moaning about the alleged lack of moderator action to stop the worst of the criticism. There were several flounce speeches, and walkout etc, by contemporary music lovers. I don't think that anything we've had recently arguing the opposite is remotely in the same league.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

It's like a boring see-saw going in both directions. There are a fair number here with limited listening tastes or fixed to one era or style. When that extends to knocking other music you have to wonder if these people are actually in interested in classical music, or just bits of classical music. That goes for recent converts (to trad or hyper modern) harping on about the greatness of their current tastes.

What sticks in my craw about this thread is Mr Best's idea that going on about a handful of composers from 80 years ago, which he currently favors, is of interest to the wider membership. Especially when it involves the routine unfavorable comparisons with the composers of the core classical 'canon'. It's pretty tedious by now to keep hearing how the greatness of these composers is manufactured and that not all their works are great; as if any listener worth his salt doesn't already know that every composer has written a few duds or bits of fluff. 

Way too many threads like it.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Yeah well think about it, More than 50%++ of all the financial /EDU resources go towards pre 1900 music. Been that way past 50+ yrs,,,

This biased, imbalance ain't gonna improve over the coming 50 either. 
The odds are stack in the other camps favor.

We get that. 
Even france has turned their backs on Debussy and Ravel,,,they are playing Germanic romantics. 
Hahn has Sibelius at every concert for 5 yrs now + another 5 yrs of locked in concerts.


The industry is in trouble and if you think the youths are going to go for the trads, You need to ck the corner church,,as its more than half empty. 
The youths are looking for the New Sound,,Thats why I promote Modern music,,and am so harshly critical of post modern/late modern...I have to sift it to make sure there are some wheat grains in the chaff.
WE do not want any ~~~Tares~~ in the wheat fields. 

Elliott Carter is wheat, bountiful.. I do not like to see ~~Tares~~ mentioned along side his name. 
I just don't.

If you can't tell when a post modern is utilizing ~~Fluff N Fillers N Gimmicks~~~just listen to Mozart's last 8 PC;s, Last 6 syms, as a refresher course. 
My inner era has been trained to hear ~~The Authentic~~ all thanksm to Mozart's Last 6 syms/Walter/Columbia and Final 8 PCs, various performers,,,many of whom had~~at times~~ great difficulty keeping pace with Mozart's tricky passages. ~

I know what real music is. That which has lasting value. Mozart;s last works, will never become out dated. 
The other 2 will lose some brilliance over time, not so with Mozart's final phase.

EDIT
Time for a confession and a apology,, Seems I have been unfair about Mahler and Bruckner. 
Now after some 15 yrs, I can hear both composers as authentic and complete. Although I can't muster interest,,,both have a growing community of fans. 

I realize now, its not fair to be critical of the romantic/classical eras. This music has been of great art for millions and will continue to entertain millions in the near future....I am now more critical of this so called ~~Post Modern sound compositions~. 
It is this segment of The Arts which I am listening and making comments.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Someone here on TC recently made upa 
5 Category 
of classical music fans
It was his descript of group #2, that I had issues with..
I wish he would come back right now and repost his excellent summary of the 5 main groups of listeners.

I fall in group 6, which he never labeled.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

paulbest said:


> Yeah well think about it, More than 50%++ of all the financial /EDU resources go towards pre 1900 music. Been that way past 50+ yrs,,,
> 
> This biased, imbalance ain't gonna improve over the coming 50 either.
> The odds are stack in the other camps favor.
> ...


What's this, another public announcement? Listen dude, I'm neither trapped in 1789 nor trying to flog the wonders of the avant-garde to anyone. The 'youth' are not gravitating towards _any_ classical music in great numbers, so it doesn't really matter. The fact of the matter is that established music is still helping orchestras break even at this moment in time.

As far as I can tell 'the youth' is doing most of any classical listening online and mostly at joints like You Tube. What I see is some younger people listening to the regular canon and some others listen to newer and/more avant-garde output. It's recorded stuff and in terms of recordings old and new are well represented and recorded. There's no crisis.

And please, knock it off with that singular punctuation charade. You're not James Joyce.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Fairly stated, can't argue with straight up , and to the point..
On the ~~~ I got this habit from a GMG poster, Karl Henning , added punch line and humor,,,but he only used sparingly,,,whereas I am overkill ,,,and it won't make up for my lack of rhetorical polish.
Advice taken\

Thanks

It was all in fun while it lasted. 

Should I also tone down my fire brigandry , in attempting to touch late Mod music,,which ever works are standing,,these are considered as included in the traditional art of music?


Or should we just sit back, and in time, the music fans will sort out who is who in late modern classical?
Just asking.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

samm said:


> What's this, another public announcement? Listen dude, I'm neither trapped in 1789 nor trying to flog the wonders of the avant-garde to anyone. The 'youth' are not gravitating towards _any_ classical music in great numbers, so it doesn't really matter. The fact of the matter is that established music is still helping orchestras break even at this moment in time.
> 
> As far as I can tell 'the youth' is doing most of any classical listening online and mostly at joints like You Tube. What I see is some younger people listening to the regular canon and some others listen to newer and/more avant-garde output. It's recorded stuff and in terms of recordings old and new are well represented and recorded. There's no crisis.
> 
> And please, knock it off with that singular punctuation charade. You're not James Joyce.


Apparently, you are not the only member who is irritated; the mods have issued a warning to Paul Best for what he has said on this thread. I don't see any infractions, myself; I think it's just the status quo asserting itself.

I see exactly what Paul best is saying. I just listened to Beethoven's Seventh Symphony (Klemperer), and noted that I sometimes tire of Beethoven's jaunty, bouncy, recognizable, often repetitious and almost "Scottish" sounding themes.

In this way, I can see how Mozart can stand up to more repeated listenings: his themes are more nondescript, and less like "earworms." Do I get "warned" for saying this?

What's the big deal, mods and members? Can't we be critical of the main body of music we listen to, or is it all too sacred and precious?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

samm said:


> It's like a boring see-saw going in both directions. There are a fair number here with limited listening tastes or fixed to one era or style. When that extends to knocking other music you have to wonder if these people are actually in interested in classical music, or just bits of classical music. That goes for recent converts (to trad or hyper modern) harping on about the greatness of their current tastes.
> 
> What sticks in my craw about this thread is Mr Best's idea that going on about a handful of composers from 80 years ago, which he currently favors, is of interest to the wider membership. Especially when it involves the routine unfavorable comparisons with the composers of the core classical 'canon'. It's pretty tedious by now to keep hearing how the greatness of these composers is manufactured and that not all their works are great; as if any listener worth his salt doesn't already know that every composer has written a few duds or bits of fluff.
> 
> Way too many threads like it.


Well, it's not like Paul Best is personally attacking you. If you are irritated, channel it into a thoughtful response. It's also tedious to hear all the complaining.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Partita said:


> I've seen far worse criticism of Mozart at T-C than anything Paul has said, not just in one thread but cross several of them. At one time, several years ago, it was almost _de rigeu_r to criticise Mozart and his band of followers. Some of the criticism got so bad here in one instance that the main accuser eventually gave an apology as it upset so many people. In fact, Paul has only made limited crticism of certain works by Mozart. On the whole, I think that Mozart remains one of the few "traditional" composers Paul still has any regard for. in any event, it doesn't bother what he thinks of Mozart or anyone else.
> 
> Not that I condone "genre-bashing" of any description if it's done with malice or intent to disrupt a thread. But this thread was initiated by Paul, so it would make no sense for anyone to suggest that he's trying to disrupt this one. It has to be recalled that in the not too distant past here at T-C the boot was on the other foot in that there was a great deal of bashing of contemporary music taking place here by various people who couldn't stand it. It was so bad at one time that it was a daily struggle to find much else to read. There were several threads raised in Area 51 moaning about the alleged lack of moderator action to stop the worst of the criticism. There were several flounce speeches, and walkout etc, by contemporary music lovers. *I don't think that anything we've had recently arguing the opposite is remotely in the same league.*


I agree, but yet Paul Best has been warned by the mods concerning this thread. Is there a conservative status quo bias at work here?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Apparently, you are not the only member who is irritated; the mods have issued a warning to Paul Best for what he has said on this thread. I don't see any infractions, myself; I think it's just the status quo asserting itself.
> 
> I see exactly what Paul best is saying. I just listened to Beethoven's Seventh Symphony (Klemperer), and noted that I sometimes tire of Beethoven's jaunty, bouncy, recognizable, often repetitious and almost "Scottish" sounding themes.
> 
> ...


You know this for fact? - that pb has been warned for criticizing the equivalent of your critique here of Beethoven's 7th?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

I have criticized Mozart (and the classical era) plenty of times - I haven't had any warnings.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> Apparently, you are not the only member who is irritated; the mods have issued a warning to Paul Best for what he has said on this thread. I don't see any infractions, myself; I think it's just the status quo asserting itself.
> 
> I see exactly what Paul best is saying. I just listened to Beethoven's Seventh Symphony (Klemperer), and noted that I sometimes tire of Beethoven's jaunty, bouncy, recognizable, often repetitious and almost "Scottish" sounding themes.
> 
> ...


It dawned on me , some 35 yrs ago, when comparing Klemperer/Philharmonia and the Walter/Columbia Beethoven sets,,that
*Do I really like Beethoven?*.

I was a new green to CM, and so onlya passing thought. 
Yes It was Mozart that seemed more inviting.
Listen to ,,,well here I found EXACTLY what I am looking for.
This comment on YT says it all.
This guy is a genius,,he hears exactly what I heard some deacdes ago. 
Now do't get me wrong,,,Beethoven has passages that draw one into his sound world, Its really cool music,,at times,,,other times, *ear worms*.

I could say more, on this subject, but won't.
Read top comment, has like 5K Likes and 230 comments , most I am sure striking back at the guy's audacity in sucha long winded comment.
Yet for me, this guy You, Sums it up nicely


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

janxharris said:


> You know this for fact? - that pb has been warned for criticizing the equivalent of your critique here of Beethoven's 7th?


Well Millionrainbows has not over stepped any protocol . I have.
With my incessant nagging over certain ideas, on and on,,and on.
The mods felt I was cluttering the TC pages.
Which I was.
I am still the same old critic, with a little less attitude.
I do not see any unprofessionalism in Millionrainbows comment, nor does he attack the composer.

He is just giving honest opinions based on decades of his experiences.
We will never know just what Debussy and moreso, what Ravel mentioned of Beethoven's music. Not the details at least,,they had privy exchanges in that regard.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

janxharris said:


> I have criticized Mozart (and the classical era) plenty of times - I haven't had any warnings.


The Mods here are really cool about boundaries. 
As long as the posts are not personal snides and flaming, they seem to let things take their course. So far I've not seen any personal attacks nor bickerings. I heard that happen some time before I arrived in February. 
Glad I was not around,,,I would have been shot down fast. 
It's good to critique music, opens us to other views we may have been blind to. 
We have to accept the good with the bad.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Beethoven's 5th, Lyrics , as sung by 
YOU on YT upload, 
Great interpretation of Beethoven's 5th.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

janxharris said:


> You know this for fact? - that pb has been warned for criticizing the equivalent of your critique here of Beethoven's 7th?


Well, he told me this, and I believe him. Of course, that's hearsay.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

janxharris said:


> I have criticized Mozart (and the classical era) plenty of times - I haven't had any warnings.


 Well then, it must be for some other reason. Come to me with solutions, not problems.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I just paid a visit to Beethoven's 7th sym, its been some decades since last listen, so I thought, why not.
The opening movement is the only move I can accept,. The others , 2,3,4 , I just can not believe folks still listen to this sym, and that they actually like it. 
Carlos Kleiber conducting the Concertgebouw. 
I just can not believe it.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

paulbest said:


> I just paid a visit to Beethoven's 7th sym, its been some decades since last listen, so I thought, why not.
> The opening movement is the only move I can accept,. The others , 2,3,4 , I just can not believe folks still listen to this sym, and that they actually like it.
> Carlos Kleiber conducting the Concertgebouw.
> I just can not believe it.


On bachtrack in the next year it is scheduled 63 times by orchestras:
https://bachtrack.com/find/category=1;medium=1,3;work=60


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> On bachtrack in the next year it is scheduled 63 times by orchestras...


And people are eating frozen pizza, washing it down with Sunny "D", and watching football.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> On bachtrack in the next year it is scheduled 63 times by orchestras:
> https://bachtrack.com/find/category=1;medium=1,3;work=60


haha, good one, sure put my face in the mud, didn't ya
gald you posted THAT,,
revs up my Yellow Vest spirit even more to promote modernism over,,,The other camp's music.
Them versus us.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> And people are eating frozen pizza, washing it down with Sunny "D", and watching football.


Good one, 
Nailed it,,yet again.
I think you do hear Beethoven as I hear him. 
I was not sure, but with this post, I believe you know what I know of his music. 
How does the gov have us labeled
*consumers*, *common man*
Jung;s collective 
UN-conscious.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

paulbest said:


> I just paid a visit to Beethoven's 7th sym, its been some decades since last listen, so I thought, why not.
> The opening movement is the only move I can accept,. The others , 2,3,4 , I just can not believe folks still listen to this sym, and that they actually like it.
> Carlos Kleiber conducting the Concertgebouw.
> I just can not believe it.


Believe it - though for me, I only really treasure the second - and perhaps it's no surprise that this movement was the one that the audience demanded to be encored at the premiere. I believe this wasn't the only instance either.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

paulbest said:


> haha, good one, sure put my face in the mud, didn't ya
> gald you posted THAT,,
> revs up my Yellow Vest spirit even more to promote modernism over,,,The other camp's music.
> Them versus us.


No if I wanted to do that I could have poster that web page showing the number of performances for Alan Pettersson.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Well, he told me this, and I believe him. Of course, that's hearsay.


So you asserted without clear evidence.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

janxharris said:


> So you asserted without clear evidence.


I've been sent fair waring shots across my bow several times..the mods know I ain't here to disrupt the tranquility of TC.
I am no rabble rouser.

I must be on best behavior and so please don't get me started...
I know some of you will miss me around here
if I get the old boot.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> No if I wanted to do that I could have poster that web page showing the number of performances for Alan Pettersson.


Christian Lindberg and his team over at Norrepoking SO, are making TREMENDOUS INCREDIBLE WONDERFUL SELF SACRIFICING OF THEIR ENERGY,TIME, FINANCES
in order to make a world wide presentation of Pettersson's music.

The audience reactions are significant.
\
We yet await the final results.

Petterrsson is a whole new world for The Audiences.
\
90% have not yet heard the name,,,make that 99%.

If I had money, I'd send them some nice cash flows. But sadly I am middle class = poor. 
One day when I get cash, I will donate to The Pettersson Project,,which I am sure will not end when the last concert is over.
Its a life long commitment of Lindberg. I plan to support his efforts one day.

We all must do our part in supporting the music we love,,If you love Beethoven, go to his concert,,this way Beethoven will never be forgotten
.

Don't save me a seat, I won't be there.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

paulbest said:


> I've been sent fair waring shots across my bow several times..the mods know I ain't here to disrupt the tranquility of TC.
> I am no rabble rouser.
> 
> I must be on best behavior and so please don't get me started...
> ...


I was just clarifying the specifics of the reprimanded - it helps to know one's boundaries.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

paulbest said:


> Christian Lindberg and his team over at Norrepoking SO, are making TREMENDOUS INCREDIBLE WONDERFUL SELF SACRIFICING OF THEIR ENERGY,TIME, FINANCES
> in order to make a world wide presentation of Pettersson's music.
> 
> The audience reactions are significant.
> ...


To let you know I have Pettersson complete symphonies:


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2019)

paulbest said:


> I just paid a visit to *Beethoven's 7th sym*, its been some decades since last listen, so I thought, why not.
> The opening movement is the only move I can accept,. The others , 2,3,*4* , I just can not believe folks still listen to this sym, and that they actually like it.
> Carlos Kleiber conducting the Concertgebouw.
> I just can not believe it.


It's what they rely on to get them out of bed in the morning. Some of them are pushing 80, you know. Without Beethoven's Sym 7 mvt 4 to get them up, they's still be snoring away until about 2 pm.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> To let you know I have Pettersson complete symphonies:


That is a very fine set,,,Others have made comparisons twix the Segerstam/BIS, Lindberg BIS and this CPO. 
You made a good buy with that complete set, saved some cash. Someone over at YT, post heart surgery, used this set to help in his long recovery. 
He mentioned and is no doubt spot on,,, that CPO dished out the syms to various conductors/orchs, so as to keep the qulity high. As you know complete set cycles, usually suffer from some strong, others weak. 
Here they are all strong performances.
The syms 2,3,even 4 are OK, the 16 also is OK, nothing great,..,. Still for the price you paid, I guess under $80 you get a lot of excellent syms. 
5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15. 
Which other composer , in symphonic form has this many successful/mature, richly scored, highly emotive syms? 
Well?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

paulbest said:


> I just paid a visit to Beethoven's 7th sym, its been some decades since last listen, so I thought, why not.
> The opening movement is the only move I can accept,. The others , 2,3,4 , I just can not believe folks still listen to this sym, and that they actually like it.
> Carlos Kleiber conducting the Concertgebouw.
> I just can not believe it.


Apparently, a lot of people, and I mean A LOT disagree with you. The Beethoven 7th Allegretto played a pivotal role in the scene (i.e. the climatic king's speech scene) that won Colin Firth the Academy Award for Best Actor award in movie, The King's Speech. This movie on a budget of only 8 million, made 400 million so it was very popular. Apparently, it particularly drew attention to Beethoven's 7th because sales of recordings of the symphony rose dramatically during the movie's run.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Apparently, you are not the only member who is irritated; the mods have issued a warning to Paul Best for what he has said on this thread. I don't see any infractions, myself; I think it's just the status quo asserting itself.
> 
> I see exactly what Paul best is saying. I just listened to Beethoven's Seventh Symphony (Klemperer), and noted that I sometimes tire of Beethoven's jaunty, bouncy, recognizable, often repetitious and almost "Scottish" sounding themes.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty much confused about this. Beethoven wrote like Beethoven and really that's the end of the story. I have a solution for people who are worn-down from listening to so much Beethoven: limit your consumption. I've probably not heard Beethoven's 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th symphonies for 20 years. Maybe when I hear them again, though I've never really 'digested' them to the point where I can recall every note, I'll enjoy them for what they are.

And what _are_ they? They're something that nearly every symphonist of that period and after wanted to emulate or try and better. It's an easy target to opine: oh Beethoven ain't so great as they say...! Isn't he? Well why were so many fellow composers trying to be him? You find the same story with Wagner, massive influence upon music of his time and so he's a ripe target for people who want to knock him off his perch, or get out from under the sometimes suffocating blanket of influence. However there's really no credibility in saying: he's not as great as they claim! It's nonsense.

Mozart's themes more nondescript? Are you joking? His facility with melody at a time when composers worked with range of fairly short melodic motifs in order to develop them was second-to-none. The memorable nature of his melodies is one of his notable features.

Yes it's also possible to be critical, but surely not to invent hair-brained theories that don't match reality. Who wants to be an iconoclast for the sake of being an iconoclast? Plus there is no cash prize being awarded for those who think they are 'brave adventurers' for slogging their way through the works of lesser-known (though not necessarily lesser in quality) composers.

Just listen to your music and enjoy it and talk about it. All this game of trying to undo the evil dictatorship of 'the greats' by denigrating them (and then backpedaling when corrected) is tedious. Some will be open to new music, some won't. Who cares?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

samm said:


> Yes it's also possible to be critical, but surely not to invent hair-brained theories that don't match reality. Who wants to be an iconoclast for the sake of being an iconoclast?


Those who insist on standing apart from the mainstream.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

samm said:


> *...I have a solution for people who are worn-down from listening to so much Beethoven: limit your consumption....people who want to knock him off his perch,* or get out from under the sometimes suffocating blanket of influence. However there's really no credibility in saying: he's not as great as they claim! It's nonsense...Mozart's themes more nondescript? *Are you joking?*...Yes it's also possible to be critical, *but surely not to invent hair-brained theories that don't match reality. Who wants to be an iconoclast for the sake of being an iconoclast?* Plus there is no cash prize being awarded for t*hose who think they are 'brave adventurers' for slogging their way through the works of lesser-known (though not necessarily lesser in quality) composers....*J*ust listen to your music and enjoy it and talk about it.* *All this game of trying to undo the evil dictatorship of 'the greats' by denigrating them (and then backpedaling when corrected) is tedious*. Some will be open to new music, some won't. Who cares?


See how most of your comments are in the personal realm, mentioning people and their "hair-brained theories"? You need to back off & be more objective, or you will end up insulting someone.

"Just listen to your music and enjoy it and talk about it." but don't be critical of the music YOU like? Members here were not so generous when I talked about contemporary music.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> See how most of your comments are in the personal realm, mentioning people and their "hair-brained theories"? You need to back off & be more objective, or you will end up insulting someone.
> 
> "Just listen to your music and enjoy it and talk about it." but don't be critical of the music YOU like? Members here were not so generous when I talked about contemporary music.


No no NO
Let the man have his say, Its a good thing,. 
Look somewhere I did come across something in the way of a story of how Debussy had to hush Ravel's constant digging into Beethoven;'s music. 
I've looked and looked, but can not find a thread of what I recall seeing somewhere about this,,oh back in 2004ish.
Im thought all this time I was alone in my constant hampering into hyped criticism of the great composer,,,Then I hit on that bit of how Debussy begged Ravel to tone it down a bit.

I can only imagine

I am a iconoclast , not just to be fancy, or apart from the crowd, 
I guess I am going to lay part of the blame on my german spirit in me,,,the good N the bad. 
Ideologies somehow get us hooked badly, and we just can't let go.

I stand amazed the world runs after music that is to me , ,,a ,long list of descripts would not be appropriate.

Betwix Mozart's late works and Beethoven there is only 1 choice, and no other. 
Somehow I am with Ravel in my reactions to all-things-Beethoven. 
So the world goes to his concerts, like 60+ concerts with sym 7 world wide.

Means some things never change. 
And w/o change, means death.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> See how most of your comments are in the personal realm, mentioning people and their "hair-brained theories"? You need to back off & be more objective, or you will end up insulting someone.


Gimme a break, I'll not fall for that one: attempting to indirectly flag me up for the mods. This is not insulting people it is taking an approach to task. Unfortunately there is always a person, a mind behind any approach so it's up to that person whether they want to take the simplistic view of any critique being 'personal insult' or see it as a critique of an (in this case very flawed) approach.



millionrainbows said:


> "Just listen to your music and enjoy it and talk about it." but don't be critical of the music YOU like? Members here were not so generous when I talked about contemporary music.


The music I like? What music is that? I like music from across the spectrum. There's some I don't like, which is normal in matters of taste, but I'm not going to start a thread about e.g. Haydn's piano concertos being no good or that Haydn is an overrated composer. That's the stuff of cheap tabloids. It's no better than trashing modern music (which I also won't do because I listen to it). The members here who don't care for, listen to or know very much about for modern music. but wildly sound-off about it are not worth listening to. Those who fabricate arguments about very established great music for the sake of iconoclasm or propping-up their own little world of listening also aren't worth listening to.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I hate to go on and on and berate Beethoven , as its like chipping away at Mt Rushmore and ain't gonna do no good. 
Ravel and I, we know what we hear.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> I hate to go on and on and berate Beethoven


No you don't. .............


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

samm said:


> I'm pretty much confused about this. Beethoven wrote like Beethoven and really that's the end of the story. I have a solution for people who are worn-down from listening to so much Beethoven: limit your consumption. I've probably not heard Beethoven's 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th symphonies for 20 years. Maybe when I hear them again, though I've never really 'digested' them to the point where I can recall every note, I'll enjoy them for what they are.
> 
> And what _are_ they? They're something that nearly every symphonist of that period and after wanted to emulate or try and better. It's an easy target to opine: oh Beethoven ain't so great as they say...! Isn't he? Well why were so many fellow composers trying to be him? You find the same story with Wagner, massive influence upon music of his time and so he's a ripe target for people who want to knock him off his perch, or get out from under the sometimes suffocating blanket of influence. However there's really no credibility in saying: he's not as great as they claim! It's nonsense.
> 
> ...


Since no one is denying their popularity then I wonder why this post was necessary. There is nothing wrong with expressing a total dislike for popular composers; and, after all, that's what this thread is about.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

janxharris said:


> Since no one is denying their popularity then I wonder why this post was necessary. There is nothing wrong with expressing a total dislike for popular composers; and, after all, that's what this thread is about.


What are you talking about? The very point is that the thread is yet another sham thread which cultivates pointless discussion based upon trying to be a clever iconoclast in the lowest sense. There's nothing wrong with disliking a composer's work, but to actively and noisily dislike it and weave a theory of composers being 'false gods' out of that personal dislike is something entirely different.

If a person feels strongly about e.g. modern symphonies then it would be better to start a thread about modern symphonies rather than a conduit thread making up stuff about past composers. Or am I misguided. I notice that the critical threads, being more sensationalist, attract more activity as people come to defend a beloved composer. In this sense it is a rather low approach, like watching hypercritical, hyper-erroneous Fox News or reading the Daily Mail.

A thread just about the symphonies of H.W. Henze will probably attract a maximum of 3 replies and be on page three tomorrow. Perhaps time to think about why that is? The people who say music outside of the traditional cannon is largely ignored here are right. Lowest-common-denominator threads like this appear to be the only way of sustaining a discussion about music past Beethoven. It says a lot about the majority of listeners and the quality of discussion.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

samm said:


> What are you talking about? The very point is that the thread is yet another sham thread which cultivates pointless discussion based upon trying to be a clever iconoclast in the lowest sense. There's nothing wrong with disliking a composer's work, but to actively and noisily dislike it and weave a theory of composers being 'false gods' out of that personal dislike is something entirely different.
> 
> If a person feels strongly about e.g. modern symphonies then it would be better to start a thread about modern symphonies rather than a conduit thread making up stuff about past composers. Or am I misguided. I notice that the critical threads, being more sensationalist, attract more activity as people come to defend a beloved composer. In this sense it is a rather low approach, like watching hypercritical, hyper-erroneous Fox News or reading the Daily Mail.
> 
> A thread just about the symphonies of H.W. Henze will probably attract a maximum of 3 replies and be on page three tomorrow. Perhaps time to think about why that is? The people who say music outside of the traditional cannon is largely ignored here are right. Lowest-common-denominator threads like this appear to be the only way of sustaining a discussion about music past Beethoven. It says a lot about the majority of listeners and the quality of discussion.


Well, yes, much of what has been posted here doesn't make for great reading....it didn't have to be that way though.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2019)

samm said:


> What are you talking about? The very point is that the thread is yet another sham thread which cultivates pointless discussion based upon trying to be a clever iconoclast in the lowest sense. There's nothing wrong with disliking a composer's work, but to actively and noisily dislike it and weave a theory of composers being 'false gods' out of that personal dislike is something entirely different.
> 
> If a person feels strongly about e.g. modern symphonies then it would be better to start a thread about modern symphonies rather than a conduit thread making up stuff about past composers. Or am I misguided. I notice that the critical threads, being more sensationalist, attract more activity as people come to defend a beloved composer. In this sense it is a rather low approach, like watching hypercritical, hyper-erroneous Fox News or reading the Daily Mail.
> 
> A thread just about the symphonies of H.W. Henze will probably attract a maximum of 3 replies and be on page three tomorrow. Perhaps time to think about why that is? The people who say music outside of the traditional cannon is largely ignored here are right. Lowest-common-denominator threads like this appear to be the only way of sustaining a discussion about music past Beethoven. It says a lot about the majority of listeners and the quality of discussion.


What exactly are you proposing the moderators should have done about this thread? From your various comments it seems that you think the thread should have been stopped on some premise. And yet I had understood that you are against what you perceive to be excessive moderator intervention at T-C, in various ways that you raised several times before in Area 51, under several guises.

As far as I'm concerned, there's been nothing particularly startling about any of PB's comments regarding Beethoven, Bach, Mozart and one or two others. In the past, T-C has played host to some very long threads relating specifically to peoples' "hatred" or dislike of certain composers. Names such as Wagner, Beethoven, and Mozart, have often been targetted. There was one thread that compared Sibelius's music to dog "poop". They all ran for some time, several of them for much longer than this one, with very large numbers of posts.

I see no justification for banning threads like this one. I wouldn't worry if a few people got a bit hot under the collar to see their cherished composers criticised in this way. I've not seen anything offensive against any individuals, so I can't quite work out why PB has been cautioned, assuming that to be the case, but I have no more information on this than I have read earlier in the thread.

If the content isn't to some peoples' pleasing, then they shouldn't bother reading any more it. Might I respectfully suggest that they just send the mods a note expressing their concerns. Be warned: I wouldn't hold your breath for too long awaiting a reply..


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

It was okay for members to totally dis Ludovico Einaudi here - so presumably it's permissible for all.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Partita said:


> What exactly are you proposing the moderators should have done about this thread? From your various comments it seems that you think the thread should have been stopped on some premise. And yet I had understood that you are against what you perceive to be excessive moderator intervention at T-C, in various ways that you raised several times before in Area 51, under several guises.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, there's been nothing particularly startling about any of PB's comments regarding Beethoven, Bach, Mozart and one or two others. In the past, T-C has played host to some very long threads relating specifically to peoples' "hatred" or dislike of certain composers. Names such as Wagner, Beethoven, and Mozart, have often been targetted. There was one thread that compared Sibelius's music to dog "poop". They all ran for some time, several of them for much longer than this one, with very large numbers of posts.
> 
> ...


I can sympathize with samm's concerns. 
That we are really here to discuss intelligently, positively about the music we love and not the music we hate.
Why don't the haters just go stand in front ofa mirror and say it aloud,,,*I hate XYZ composer*. And get it out their system.
If that would help out their frustrations.
I think the OP was not so much about hate, per se,,,although one could extenuate the word *dislike* to mean hate. 
Which a few of us did. And actually like the town crier,
we too must go to the town hall yard, and just belch out which composer rankles our nerves.

I think it is cathartic to have a thread every now and then and get things off our chest.

I too once loved Sibelius syms, but lately, = past 20 yrs,,I've hada hard falling with Sibelius sym 1-7. 
His Kullervo I love immensely.

I have noted the Sibeliusians get all agitated at my comments,,not sure why.
If Beethoven;'s music is what everyone says it is, my pithy , lwo level pot shots at his music won;'t dent his reputation at all. HOWEVER,,if his music does have , weaknesses, lets rephrase that, some pedculairities,,which have been pointed out by seasoned muiscologists here, on YT< and elsewhere, why all the ruskus. 
Seems to me this protest about Beethoven being *the untouchable* might reveal the fact there is something *faulty* in his music.

That's all I'm saying.

What was it about LvB's music that drew such vehement , vitriolic dissing of his music by Debussy and worse case was Ravel's confessions. 
Neither testimonies was I able to google, but I can almost vouge its the truth...That Debussy had to *hush up* Ravel from carrying on and on.

What wis it about Beethoven's music that so ignited Ravel's critical spirit?
This is what I would like to know, and have a good hunch about it.
I might even brag I 'm a disser of all things Beethoven , moreso that the much greater qualified Ravel was.
I feel I am carrying on Ravel's ranklings over the great master's music,,that has enthralled and become beloved by millions worldwide. 
Even the eskimos love Beethoven.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

paulbest said:


> I can sympathize with samm's concerns.
> That we are really here to discuss intelligently, positively about the music we love and not the music we hate.
> Why don't the haters just go stand in front ofa mirror and say it aloud,,,*I hate XYZ composer*. And get it out their system.
> If that would help out their frustrations.
> ...


I know Debussy didn't appreciate what he considered the overly repetitious 6th symphony (of Beethoven).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

paulbest said:


> What wis it about Beethoven's music that so ignited Ravel's critical spirit?
> This is what I would like to know, and have a good hunch about it.
> I might even brag I 'm a disser of all things Beethoven , moreso that the much greater qualified Ravel was.
> *I feel I am carrying on Ravel's ranklings over the great master's music*,,that has enthralled and become beloved by millions worldwide.
> Even the eskimos love Beethoven.


Ravel knew Beethoven's music. You don't.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Ravel knew Beethoven's music. You don't.


Well this collection of comments seems to sum things up, Beethoven was writing ian completelt different time period. 
Orchestration , piano techniques, styles were not as developed in Beethoven's day. 
Chopin extended the piano, Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler extended the orchestration possibilities,,,which leaves Beethoven 's styles rather thin and his music out dated and repetitive. 
If you can not hear Chopin's piano music as superior to Beethoven, you need a hearing aid..
If you can not hear Wagner's orchestration as superior to Beethoven, you need a hearing aid,,even that might not help you in this case. Wagner set new standards in orchestrations. 
Beethoven's music sounds like kiddies play time next to Wagner's finest moments in his operas. .

Now we come to Ravel, if you can......hearing aid time.
Ravel's orchestration is so far superior to anything Beethoven wrote, in every category,,,you again need a hearing aid...
Beethoven;s music has been so far surpassed, its like Neanderthal vs modern.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

paulbest said:


> Well this collection of comments seems to sum things up, Beethoven was writing ian completelt different time period.
> Orchestration , piano techniques, styles were not as developed in Beethoven's day.
> Chopin extended the piano, Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler extended the orchestration possibilities,,,which leaves Beethoven 's styles rather thin and his music out dated and repetitive.
> If you can not hear Chopin's piano music as superior to Beethoven, you need a hearing aid..
> ...


Justifying your assertions paulbest would help.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

janxharris said:


> Justifying your assertions paulbest would help.


Oh I forgot to put in the link which educated me in these specifics. 
Please read the link, so you know from where I base my allegations and critques

The comments here all back up my assertions.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/5n2dak


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

paulbest said:


> Well this collection of comments seems to sum things up, Beethoven was writing ian completelt different time period.
> Orchestration , piano techniques, styles were not as developed in Beethoven's day.
> Chopin extended the piano, Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler extended the orchestration possibilities,,,which leaves Beethoven 's styles rather thin and his music out dated and repetitive.
> If you can not hear Chopin's piano music as superior to Beethoven, you need a hearing aid..
> ...


I could agree Wagner's orchestration as superior to Beethoven's, or at least more modern. In every other point, I need a hearing aid.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Let me try to reshape this idea, of 
The Development of the Piano Expression :Reference to New Colorations, New Textures, New Chords

Beethoven, with his perhaps finest piano sonata (making this up, as I do not know his piano music) as performed by ,perhaps the finest interpreter (I am not making this up, as I recall having the LP and thought, *wow, amazing talents, I might like this after all, if only for Schnabel)






and then fast forward some 100 years
Ravel, as representative of The New Piano Music, in Full technique color and 3D imagination textures






versus Beethoven's B and W tv set from the 50's, with 35MM film rolls.
Its just that Beethoven lived in a completely different era,,,music was still in the formation phases. It was left to early moderns to bring the full flowering and fruiting to what Beethoven and Mozart began.

When you go to a apple tree in mature fruiting season,,,do you pick the branches, leaves, or stems,,or the apple?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

paulbest said:


> Oh I forgot to put in the link which educated me in these specifics.
> Please read the link, so you know from where I base my allegations and critques
> 
> The comments here all back up my assertions.
> ...


It doesn't back up your comments about Beethoven. One comment from it that misrepresents his music, particularly the symphonies is '_strings were dominant and a lot of instruments hadn't progressed enough to make full use of them.'_


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Its is both highly amusing and utterly painful that you don't see anything wrong with posting:

"If you can not hear Chopin's piano music as superior to Beethoven, you need a hearing aid.."

and

"Beethoven, with his perhaps finest piano sonata (making this up, as I do not know his piano music)"

within one hour.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Logic, knowledge and consistency are highly overrated.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

paulbest said:


> Its just that Beethoven lived in a completely different era,,,music was still in the formation phases.


Music is always in formation phases.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

samm said:


> I'm pretty much confused about this. Beethoven wrote like Beethoven and really that's the end of the story. I have a solution for people who are worn-down from listening to so much Beethoven: limit your consumption. I've probably not heard Beethoven's 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th symphonies for 20 years. Maybe when I hear them again, though I've never really 'digested' them to the point where I can recall every note, I'll enjoy them for what they are.
> 
> And what _are_ they? They're something that nearly every symphonist of that period and after wanted to emulate or try and better. It's an easy target to opine: oh Beethoven ain't so great as they say...! Isn't he? Well why were so many fellow composers trying to be him? You find the same story with Wagner, massive influence upon music of his time and so he's a ripe target for people who want to knock him off his perch, or get out from under the sometimes suffocating blanket of influence. However there's really no credibility in saying: he's not as great as they claim! It's nonsense.
> 
> ...


I get baffled by this too - there are a small number of people who dont regard Mozart as a notable melodist - I can only imagine such listeners only respond to the soaring melodies of romantic music - have overdosed on them and consequently have lost all sensitivity to the elegant melodies of Mozart's art. I have some friends, for example - who cant find a single tune in Mozart's operas except papageno's opening song and yet go weak at the knees when listening to any 5 minutes of il trovatore or la traviata or if we are talking orchestral then rach 2 and 3 PCs and Tchaik PC1.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2019)

paulbest said:


> Well this collection of comments seems to sum things up, Beethoven was writing ian completelt different time period.
> Orchestration , piano techniques, styles were not as developed in Beethoven's day.
> Chopin extended the piano, Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler extended the orchestration possibilities,,,which leaves Beethoven 's styles rather thin and his music out dated and repetitive.
> If you can not hear *Chopin's piano music as superior to Beethoven,* you need a hearing aid..
> ...


I thought you were under orders to be nice about Beethoven.:lol:

It's a lot funnier than my latest_ Private Eye. _I have never laughed so much since Lord Gnome's Rolls Royce broke down in Mayfair.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> I could agree Wagner's orchestration as superior to Beethoven's, or at least more modern. In every other point, I need a hearing aid.


Neither as good as Ravel's.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2019)

samm said:


> I notice that the critical threads, being more sensationalist, attract more activity as people come to defend a beloved composer. In this sense it is a rather low approach, like watching hypercritical, hyper-erroneous Fox News or reading the *Daily Mail.*


How! dare you. Dail Mail heap good newspaper, speak truth, me like.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> Orchestration , piano techniques, styles were not as developed in Beethoven's day.
> Chopin extended the piano, Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler extended the orchestration possibilities,,,which leaves Beethoven 's styles rather thin and his music out dated and repetitive.
> If you can not hear Chopin's piano music as superior to Beethoven, you need a hearing aid..
> If you can not hear Wagner's orchestration as superior to Beethoven, you need a hearing aid,,even that might not help you in this case. Wagner set new standards in orchestrations.
> ...


Orchestration is good to the extent that it fits the material being orchestrated. Would anyone want to hear the "Eroica" orchestrated by Ravel? Does Beethoven's orchestration fail his symphony in any way? Could Rimsky-Korsakov have improved it? Did Sir Thomas Beecham improve Handel's _Messiah_?


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2019)

It's not a matter of whether Ravel could take a Beethoven symphony and improve upon its orchestration, or whether Beethoven's orchestration was defective in any way. The issue is whether the orchestration by Ravel in his works is any better than Beethoven's in his. In other words, who is the better orchestrator in general terms?

Ravel was superb, as mentioned. This opinion seems to be fairly common.

Some say Mahler was in the top drawer of orchestrators. I don't especially like Mahler's music but I guess I'd have to agree that he must be up there with the very best. 

Still, I'm not keen on Mahler's re-orchestrations of Schumann's symphonies. I think they're not as good as "real" thing. Mahler's changes make them sound too much like Mahler. I would accept that they contain more colour and a touch more clarity, but I'd far sooner have the genuine article, performed sympathetically (as many modern orchestras do so these days), taking account of the kind of orchestra layout/size that Schumann had in mind when he wrote his symphonies.

Wagner, of course, was a brilliant orchestrator, but since I'm not that bonkers about his music it doesn't make a very big impression on me.

Elgar was another very fine orchestrator. To say he was largely self-taught it's incredible what he managed to achieve.

Mustn't overlook Mozart and J S Bach, both of whom were obviously great orchestrators.

For my money, I don't think any of these aforementioned is quite up to the standard of Richard Strauss, Stravinsky and Respighi. I'd personally hand top prize to each of these equally.

I would conclude that Beethoven was very a good orchestrator, but not without strong competition both before and after.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Partita said:


> For my money, I don't think any of these aforementioned is quite up to the standard of Richard Strauss, Stravinsky and Respighi. I'd personally hand top prize to each of these equally.


Don't forget that both Respighi and Stravinsky learnt from Rimsky-Korsakov who should definitely be in that short list.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2019)

Becca said:


> Don't forget that both Respighi and Stravinsky learnt from Rimsky-Korsakov who should definitely be in that short list.


I accept that correction with thanks.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Partita said:


> ...I would conclude that Beethoven was very a good orchestrator, but not without strong competition both before and after.


It's hard for me to think about Beethoven's orchestration in isolation from the other aspects of his music. In general, his orchestration is just what it needs to be to get his points across with maximum effect. Naturally the evolution of orchestras and instruments may require some adjustments, but going beyond that would likely weaken the music significantly.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2019)

janxharris said:


> It was okay for members to totally dis Ludovico Einaudi here - so presumably it's permissible for all.


Crikey! I missed that thread.

I bet it blew a few fuses that morning in the moderators' control panel dealing with 100's of complaints from the big Einaudi fan-base at T-C.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

DaveM said:


> It doesn't back up your comments about Beethoven. One comment from it that misrepresents his music, particularly the symphonies is '_strings were dominant and a lot of instruments hadn't progressed enough to make full use of them.'_


Seems you read carefully through that link and found the one *weakness* in that whole ball of wax.
yes agree, Beethoven's new sound developments in harmonious winds, new blends of brass , bold, powerful, . Its the winds striking new chords , which was his trademark and was no doubt over powering the concert hall crowds at that time.

Ravel and Debussy acknowledge Beethoven's genius in use of the orchestral sections/his orchestrations. The dynamics and new harmonies were bold and fresh.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Partita said:


> It's not a matter of whether Ravel could take a Beethoven symphony and improve upon its orchestration, or whether Beethoven's orchestration was defective in any way. The issue is whether the orchestration by Ravel in his works is any better than Beethoven's in his. In other words, who is the better orchestrator in general terms?
> 
> Ravel was superb, as mentioned. This opinion seems to be fairly common...


Well, it's one of those catch phrases that's thrown out there and becomes a mantra without context. Keeping in mind the silly comparisons to Beethoven, here's the context, from the wiki: 'For all Ravel's orchestral mastery, only four of his works were conceived as concert works for symphony orchestra.'

I'm not contesting that he was a good orchestrator, but comparing him to someone who composed a large number of successful, widely accepted orchestral works is an exercise in desperation. The fact (from the other poster) that some instruments were not as developed in Beethoven's day has never diminished his overall orchestral sound as evidenced by the many recordings that use 'original' instruments.

Could any composer have orchestrated the sound and feel of a storm any better than this? (Not to mention the pastoral movement that follows.)


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Partita said:


> I thought you were under orders to be nice about Beethoven.:lol:
> 
> It's a lot funnier than my latest_ Private Eye. _I have never laughed so much since Lord Gnome's Rolls Royce broke down in Mayfair.


Oh I have to watch that episode of Lord Gnome's car breakdown in Mayfair,,now that should be hilarious.

I over did it with the word *Neanderthal*. Its overkill. 
The point being the summation of Beethoven's solo piano is quite a distant presentation of the potentials of the piano, versus what Ravel brings out the instrument.

Any performer who can master a Ravel piece, deserves 1st prize at any piano competition. One such contestant was robbed of 1st prize some yrs back, 2014 at the Paderewski Piano Comp. 
Wit , Zimerman in fact failed to give him even honorable mention. 
Cheated him of the Gold


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

paulbest said:


> Seems you read carefully through that link and found the one *weakness* in that whole ball of wax.
> yes agree, Beethoven's new sound developments in harmonious winds, new blends of brass , bold, powerful, . Its the winds striking new chords , which was his trademark and was no doubt over powering the concert hall crowds at that time.
> 
> Ravel and Debussy acknowledge Beethoven's genius in use of the orchestral sections/his orchestrations. The dynamics and new harmonies were bold and fresh.


Are you backtracking on:

_Ravel's orchestration is so far superior to anything Beethoven wrote, in every category,,,you again need a hearing aid...
Beethoven;s music has been so far surpassed, its like Neanderthal vs modern._

?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Well, it's one of those catch phrases that's thrown out there and becomes a mantra without context. Keeping in mind the silly comparisons to Beethoven, here's the context, from the wiki: 'For all Ravel's orchestral mastery, only four of his works were conceived as concert works for symphony orchestra.'
> 
> I'm not contesting that he was a good orchestrator, but comparing him to someone who composed a large number of successful, widely accepted orchestral works is an exercise in desperation. The fact (from the other poster) that some instruments were not as developed in Beethoven's day has never diminished his overall orchestral sound as evidenced by the many recordings that use 'original' instruments.
> 
> Could any composer have orchestrated the sound and feel of a storm any better than this? (Not to mention the pastoral movement that follows.)


One can not argue this point,,,The 6th has different textures from his other syms, and stands out among all his syms, 
Its different, not in association with the others, except the 4th has parallels. 
Ravel never denied the genius in Beethoven's orchestration and use of winds, brass. He could hear the dynamics and superb use of the orchestra sections.

No denial there. btw the YT uplod,,I hardly recognized the sym , via your Haitink/London performance .

Here is the far superior performance,,and yes I visited Furtwangler's 6th/Berlin,,just at the opening few seconds I had to shut it and look for the Bruno Walter/Columbia Gold Standard.

Honestly If I ranked all 200+ records of the 6th, its very possible, the Walter/Columbia would garner, earn The Gold.

4th move begins at 
27:33, now that's how the sym is suppose to go


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

janxharris said:


> Are you backtracking on:
> 
> _Ravel's orchestration is so far superior to anything Beethoven wrote, in every category,,,you again need a hearing aid...
> Beethoven;s music has been so far surpassed, its like Neanderthal vs modern._
> ...


Yes see the post #223. I'm flip flopping a bit,,,I've said something that has my back at the edge ofa cliff, best to take a apologetic stance and save my reputation, from a complete fall.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I should start a thread, Which conductor/orch can match/has equaled Walter/Columbia.
I am sure to get plenty of disgruntlements and nasty objections. 

Exceptions here are the 1950's golden years over at Bayreuth, Keilberth. Knappertsbusch.
I am only referring to the Columbia SO is Mozart/Beethoven.


Listen to the double basses/cellos in the Beethoven 6th. Never surpassed by any orchestra.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

paulbest said:


> The point being the summation of Beethoven's solo piano is quite a distant presentation of the potentials of the piano, versus what Ravel brings out the instrument...


How would you know?:



paulbest said:


> Beethoven, with his perhaps finest piano sonata *(making this up, as I do not know his piano music*) as performed by perhaps the finest interpreter...


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

paulbest said:


> No denial there. btw the YT uplod,,I hardly recognized the sym , via your Haitink/London performance .
> 
> Here is the far superior performance,,and yes I visited Furtwangler's 6th/Berlin,,just at the opening few seconds I had to shut it and look for the Bruno Walter/Columbia Gold Standard. Honestly If I ranked all 200+ records of the 6th, its very possible, the Walter/Columbia would garner, earn The Gold.
> 
> ...


When you're right, you're right. It's a wonderful performance and a particularly good stereo production with resonance and ambience surprising for a 1958 recording right near the beginning of the stereo era!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Partita said:


> It's not a matter of whether Ravel could take a Beethoven symphony and improve upon its orchestration, or whether Beethoven's orchestration was defective in any way. The issue is whether the orchestration by Ravel in his works is any better than Beethoven's in his. In other words, who is the better orchestrator in general terms?


Go back and read my post again. It began with the statement, *"Orchestration is good to the extent that it fits the material being orchestrated."* I think that has the same meaning as your statement, "The issue is whether the orchestration by Ravel in his works is any better than Beethoven's in his." But your last sentence, "In other words, who is the better orchestrator in general terms", doesn't make sense to me. What "general terms"?

I agree with KenOC, who says "It's hard for me to think about Beethoven's orchestration in isolation from the other aspects of his music. In general, his orchestration is just what it needs to be to get his points across with maximum effect."

The whole idea of comparing Beethoven's orchestration with Ravel's is pointless, since Ravel (like many other late Romantic and Modern composers) is "designing with color" - making the orchestration a principal element of composition - and seeking to create "atmoshpere" in a way that Baroque and Classical composers were not. It's very much the difference between color in a painting by Raphael or Ingres and color in a Monet or a Whistler. We can enjoy the latter pair as "colorists" and admire that particular art, but it's wrong to find the former artists deficient in a form of art they didn't even practice. The following statements

_"Ravel's orchestration is so far superior to anything Beethoven wrote, in every category...
Beethoven's music has been so far surpassed, its like Neanderthal vs modern"
_
show no understanding of this.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

DaveM said:


> When you're right, you're right. It's a wonderful performance and a particularly good stereo production with resonance and ambience surprising for a 1958 recording right near the beginning of the stereo era!


Yes , The sound engineers in this recording, was a tad more warmer in acoustics vs the magnificent last 6 Mozart syms. 
This 9 sym Beethoven set, is consistent, 1st - the 9th. No weak performances, all strong,, near miraculous if not also magical in nature.

The sonics are not DD, so allows this *old world semblances* to enhance the nature of Beethoven's music. If that makes sense. 
That is to say, Bach does not present well, neither Vivaldi, w'/o the aid of period sound,,,not over kill antiquated chamber imagery, just enough does it. 
I hate Bach sounding with *whinny, highly pitched violins*. Neither too fast tempoed. 
Listen to Karl Ristenpart's Chamber Orh of the Saar for what I am getting at. 
Neither too *period* , nor modern sounding. Struck a ideal balance.
In these late 1950's records, the equipment used, the micing,,all were utilized with finesse and intelligence. Someone in the studios knew how to make a record. 
Bruno Walter 's Columbia were superior to his NYPO records in Mozart.
This Columbia Orch at this time, was highly virtuoso and played with a committed passion, 
Superior to Klemperer's Philharmonia, both in the Beethoven and Mozart.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Go back and read my post again. It began with the statement, *"Orchestration is good to the extent that it fits the material being orchestrated."* I think that has the same meaning as your statement, "The issue is whether the orchestration by Ravel in his works is any better than Beethoven's in his." But your last sentence, "In other words, who is the better orchestrator in general terms", doesn't make sense to me. What "general terms"?
> 
> I agree with KenOC, who says "It's hard for me to think about Beethoven's orchestration in isolation from the other aspects of his music. In general, his orchestration is just what it needs to be to get his points across with maximum effect."
> 
> ...


Can 't be argue with, Excellent post.

But if we are speaking of a magical effect, a moving event, something that draws us is and mesmerizes us , I have to give the nod to Ravel. Over Beethoven. Wouldn't you?
Give the same vote?
and beckons for another cd play, over and over,,as somehow we may have missed something,,,never stale, always fresh and Beauteous.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

paulbest said:


> Can 't be argue with, Excellent post.
> 
> But if we are speaking of a magical effect, a moving event, something that draws us is and mesmerizes us , I have to give the nod to Ravel. Over Beethoven. *Wouldn't you?*
> Give the same vote?
> and beckons for another cd play, over and over,,as somehow we may have missed something,,,never stale, always fresh and Beauteous.


I am quite sure Wooduck will say - actually no.

Beethoven pretty much ticks all boxes.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

stomanek said:


> I am quite sure Wooduck will say - actually no.
> 
> Beethoven pretty much ticks all boxes.


This gives me a idea for a new topic. 
*Clashing sound worlds in CM, contrasts, conflicts, oppositions*

I think I'll start it today.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> Can 't be argue with, Excellent post.
> 
> But if we are speaking of a magical effect, a moving event, something that draws us is and mesmerizes us , I have to give the nod to Ravel. Over Beethoven. Wouldn't you?
> Give the same vote?
> and beckons for another cd play, over and over,,as somehow we may have missed something,,,never stale, always fresh and Beauteous.


Actually, I'm not seduced by orchestration as such. I wouldn't care if I never heard most of Respighi's or Rimsky-Korsakov's music again. _La Valse_ and _Daphnis and Chloe_ don't mesmerize me. The concentrated structures of Beethoven are much more likely to hold my attention and draw me back.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Actually, I'm not seduced by orchestration as such. I wouldn't care if I never heard most of Respighi's or Rimsky-Korsakov's music again. _La Valse_ and _Daphnis and Chloe_ don't mesmerize me. The concentrated structures of Beethoven are much more likely to hold my attention and draw me back.


What he said!..............


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Actually, I'm not seduced by orchestration as such. I wouldn't care if I never heard most of Respighi's or Rimsky-Korsakov's music again. _La Valse_ and _Daphnis and Chloe_ don't mesmerize me. The concentrated structures of Beethoven are much more likely to hold my attention and draw me back.


La Valse is not one of my favs' of Ravel, but it was Horowitz,,,no wait, ita YT upload of a british composer/musicologist who analyzed, brilliantly, La valse , there is more to that *minor* score from Ravel than meets the era.
Still , even with this insights into the compostion, its still nota fav of mine. 
Now Daphne. ,,well I am a Ravelian, so that would make the dif in how you hear it,. and howm I experience it.

I am not a Beethoven-ite. As you can surmise by now.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> What he said!..............


New Topic.
*Musical sound worlds: Contrasts, conflicts, opposities,,,and how we shall never resolve these issues , no remedies, no resolutions. *

Please discuss.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> New Topic.
> *Musical sound worlds: Contrasts, conflicts, opposities,,,and how we shall never resolve these issues , no remedies, no resolutions. *
> 
> Please discuss.


There are contrasts, but not conflicts, between different styles of music. There are no issues to resolve, except in the minds of those who think personal taste is an issue.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> There are contrasts, but not conflicts, between different styles of music. There are no issues to resolve, except in the minds of those who think personal taste is an issue.


If you can not tell that there are issues to resolve, you need a hearing aid,,even that might not help you in this case


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> If you can not tell that there are issues to resolve, you need a hearing aid,,even that might not help you in this case


It appears that most of us here---lovers of obsolete music---need hearing aids,,,\

(and keyboards with that little squiggly thing,,,)


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Go back and read my post again. It began with the statement, *"Orchestration is good to the extent that it fits the material being orchestrated."* I think that has the same meaning as your statement, "The issue is whether the orchestration by Ravel in his works is any better than Beethoven's in his." But your last sentence, "In other words, who is the better orchestrator in general terms", doesn't make sense to me. What "general terms"?


From what you wrote earlier where you asked: "_Would anyone want to hear the "Eroica" orchestrated by Ravel?" _ I thought you might have had in mind something akin to Mahler's re-orchestration of Schumann's symphonies. I can see now that you were not implying that.

In my comment, all I meant was that in comparing different composers' orchestration abilities the only way to do so is to look at what they each produced in respect of their own works. But I can see the possible ambiguity. 

So, we're agreed.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> ................The whole idea of comparing Beethoven's orchestration with Ravel's is pointless, since Ravel (like many other late Romantic and Modern composers) is "designing with color" - making the orchestration a principal element of composition - and seeking to create "atmoshpere" in a way that Baroque and Classical composers were not. It's very much the difference between color in a painting by Raphael or Ingres and color in a Monet or a Whistler. We can enjoy the latter pair as "colorists" and admire that particular art, but it's wrong to find the former artists deficient in a form of art they didn't even practice.


This should put any more debate on this rather odd and silly digression to bed imv. 
Orchestration is also composition and always has been. The expressive nature of timbre (solo instruments or in combinations) will have always been in the composers mind, if only because of resources available. But real emphasis on exploring timbre for its musical efficacy came after Beethoven and (along with the romantic zeitgeist) developed parallel to improving instrument design and an increase in the standards of performance as the concert halls became the monopolising curators.

With Beethoven's music, one could re-score sympathetically and successfully, if one had to, without out too much of a detrimental effect because (generally speaking) his language is not necessarily totally dependant on specific colour (except for sections), being driven as it is by an 'absolute' or pure musical rhetoric. Obviously there are exceptions with specific scoring which some will no doubt point out and I accept that, but a clarinet for a flute will not harm the music's intent to any great degree.

However the intricacy of the idiomatic writing in Ravel, exploiting instrument capability for colouristic and musical purposes (especially strings), and them taking on the role of perfectly judged musical functions within a score, makes a translation to other forces virtually impossible, without destroying the composer's intent. This is not to say Ravel's music cannot be absolute or rather pure because it is untranslatable, it just implies that his music has an added timbral dimension factored in at the composing stage - a state of mind that Beethoven had too in the Pastoral Symphony, but that was an effect, not an embedded paradigm regarding composing.

Colour and rhetoric are inextricably bound in Ravel and eventually both aspects gained near equal status in the 20thC imv.


----------

