# Richard Strauss : His Alpensinfonie



## tahnak (Jan 19, 2009)

Richard Strauss wrote this symphony for a hundred strings, thirty wind instruments, twenty french horns,six trumpets,six trombones, pipe organ, wind machine, thunder machine, heckelphone, four timpani, celesta, contrabassoon, four tenor tubas, two tubas, glockenspiel, tam tam - in all 180 players.
This is Richard Strauss' statement of Alpine nature and life to the Almighty Divine Architect of the Universe. It was written between 1911 and 1915. It had its premiere in Berlin on 28th October, 1915. Strauss is at the peak of his powers of orchestration. It is one of the most eloquent expressions of his musico-philosophical views. It is actually a symphonic poem in the garb of a symphony.It is played without pause but its various sections have been given titles - Night, Sunrise, the Ascent, Hunting Horns, Entrance into the Forest, Wandering by the Brook, At the Waterfall, Apparition, On Flowery Meadows, On a Mountain Pasture ( with the cowbells sequence), Lost in the Thicket and Brush, On the Glacier, Perilous Moments,On the Summit,Vision, The Fog Rises, The Sun is Clouded Over, Elegy, Calm before the Storm, Thunderstorm, Descent, Sunset, Epilogue and Night again.
Richard Strauss was one of music's greatest individualists.He created an aura around him.His concerts were attended not because of his compositions or his conducting but because he was Richard Strauss. He was an innovator and he lived during the cross-over point in the movements of art that is from romanticism to neo-romanticism and impressionism.
Richard Strauss owes much to Franz Liszt, the creator of the symphonic poem. Strauss considered himself an 'Ausdrucksmusiker'(Musician of Expression); if there ever was an 'Expressionism' as a movement in art or music, he belonged to it. The symphonic poem was an ideal medium for his romantic musical gifts. He musically describes not only what man does, but man's inner state of mind. Strauss saw man as a heroic figure. Critics had mixed reactions to some of his innovations. People did not adapt to change fast. When Berlioz and Franck used the English Horn in their symphonies, the critics said it was vulgar because Haydn and Beethoven did not use an English Horn in their symphonies. Meyerbeer and Bizet were criticized for using saxophones. Berlioz was also criticized for using an exceptionally large orchestra.
Strauss used some naturalistic sounds in this symphony such as cowbells and machines to create the sounds of wind and thunder. Mahler used cowbells before in his Tragic Symphony and his Seventh Symphony. Strauss' score was branded by some critics as a movie score. Some wrote, "this is really throwing the baby out with the bath water." When Strauss completed this symphony, he said, "Finally, I have learnt to orchestrate." The critics were arseholes who did not appreciate music. They only wanted convention that they could comfortably describe.
I say that it is a joy to discover so rich a musical masterpiece as this symphony that is Strauss' finest work.A great performance comes from Zubin Mehta and the Berliner Philharmoniker followed by Rudolf Kempe and the Royal Philharmonic succeeded by Strauss' own performance with the Bayerischen Rundfunks in his 1941 recording.


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

*Is Strauss really alright?*

Strauss was a powerful composer, but I have certain doubts about him. Isn't he too Germanic, too much part of that Wagner-Nietzsche school of late Romantic German excess, with its enormous egocentricity, with its dangerous love of power? Wasn't Strauss trying to express too much, and some of that somewhat dubious material, in his music?

Don't you rather long to hear Mozart after listening to Strauss?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Weird. I was listening to the Alpine Symphony this morning after not listening to it for a good few months. I've got the Antoni Wit/Staatskapelle Weimar recording on Naxos, by the way.

I'm not a massive fan of Strauss but I do enjoy most of his tone poems (Alpensinfonie being my favourite). I also liked what little I have heard of his chamber music, even though I find it quite bland compared to his orchestral output. Strauss certainly knew what to do with the brass section. Tis a shame he wasted so much time and effort on those bloody operas.



Roberto said:


> Don't you rather long to hear Mozart after listening to Strauss?


No. I don't think I ever long to hear Mozart. I don't mind listening to his music incidentally but I never feel the urge to search it out.

Do you only feel this longing for Mozart after listening to Strauss or is it a common occurence after listening to much different music?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Tis a shame he wasted so much time and effort on those bloody operas.


You miss much great music because of your prejudices on opera, even as far as only R. Strauss is considered.

Get Bohm's Salome and spend 30 minutes standing before mirror and repeating: "this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall (...)

and then - do it.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Aramis said:


> You miss much great music because of your prejudices on opera, even as far as only R. Strauss is considered.
> 
> Get Bohm's Salome and spend 30 minutes standing before mirror and repeating: "this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall, this not opera is, this music drama is, listen to the music drama I shall (...)
> 
> and then - do it.


Shall do, but I think there's a good chance that I'll enjoy chanting the mantra more than the opera itself.


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

The Four Last Songs I used to love, and they have beautiful passages in them (I link them with Das Lied ven der Erde, which preceded them). Der Rosenkavalier - is it worth sitting through the dull bits for the attractive parts?

I would like to listen to Salome. 

I often long to hear Mozart - how can you not, being a music lover? He is the finest of all, except for Bach I suppose. Even after Beethoven I want to hear Mozart to remind myself how for the most part Mozart (pun unintentional) does it better.....

I recently bought his Gesamtwerke (the whole output), which is a lovely thing to have


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> I would like to listen to Salome.


If you didn't listen to such major and important work as Salome why are you even trying to discuss Strauss music the way you do?


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

I have heard it in parts. 

But why on earth not?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

"If you want Richard, try Wager. If Strauss, try Johan."


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2010)

Strauss' Alpensinfonie is my favorite of his works. I also have Zarathustra, and his other tone poems. I have listened to just two of his operas - Ariadne auf Naxos and Salome. As with most other situations, other than the operas of Mozart and Beethoven, I just don't find myself caring too much about opera. That being said, I preferred Ariadne auf Naxos to Salome. But neither ever have me yearning to listen to them.

The Alpensinfonie is a very nice work. He does an excellent job of conveying the different parts of the ascent and descent, and the storm scene makes one feel as if they truly are experiencing a storm. Very nice, but Strauss still is not one of my favorite composers, and I actually do also prefer Mozart - I'd take his Magic Flute over Strauss' Salome any day.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Roberto said:


> Don't you rather long to hear Mozart after listening to Strauss?


With me, it's the other way around.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Actually,Haydn used not one English horn but two of them in one of his symphonies,I forget which number.
It has the nickname "The Philosopher",which was not the composer's idea,but some one who got the impression that the opening reminded him of a philosopher musing on some profound matter. People used to get weird ideas about some of the Haydn symphonies,but the titlkes stuck.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Roberto said:


> Strauss was a powerful composer, but I have certain doubts about him. Isn't he too Germanic, too much part of that Wagner-Nietzsche school of late Romantic German excess, with its enormous egocentricity, with its dangerous love of power? Wasn't Strauss trying to express too much, and some of that somewhat dubious material, in his music?
> 
> Don't you rather long to hear Mozart after listening to Strauss?


How do you describe Mahler then


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

My favourite of his operas is definitely Capriccio, which is a bit self-indulgent I suppose. It is certainly sweet, but not in the way one might think of musical sweetnees. It is redolent of that same intoxicating fragrance that permeates his 4 last songs. I haven't heard an opera of Strauss that wasn't worthy at least of respect, and I've heard quite a number. Elektra is a mighty work, another music drama like Salome, but with less polytonality and atonality, but still very dark. Aridane auf Naxos OTOH is a delightful, Mozartian work (Strauss himself greatly admired Mozart).
Metamorphosen is my favourite amongst his tone poems (also autumnal in feel- technically not a symphonic poem, but it has the feel of one), although Tod und Verklaerung is overpowering and Till Eulenspiegel is incredibly enjoyable, and I enjoy others mentioned in this thread.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Argus said:


> Weird. I was listening to the Alpine Symphony this morning after not listening to it for a good few months. I've got the Antoni Wit/Staatskapelle Weimar recording on Naxos, by the way.
> 
> I'm not a massive fan of Strauss but I do enjoy most of his tone poems (Alpensinfonie being my favourite). I also liked what little I have heard of his chamber music, even though I find it quite bland compared to his orchestral output. Strauss certainly knew what to do with the brass section. Tis a shame he wasted so much time and effort on those bloody operas.


His chamber music is generally very early. Still some fine pieces there. The Burleske is also early, but I fail to understand why it isn't more popular. Music programmers (and the public sadly) seem to be so superficial that a work that is given the title of 'concerto' is given more value than one which isn't.

The operas, as has been pointed out, are not so easy to dismiss. They comprise the most significant contribution to the genre in the C20th, notwithstanding those of Prokofiev, Janacek, and Puccini (Berg, Britten, Barber, Ginastera, Meale....)


----------



## Falstaft (Mar 27, 2010)

I like Alpensinfonie though I don't rank it as his finest tone poem -- somehow it doesn't quite present its argument to me in a completely satisfactory manner. Would have been better if he'd gone with his initial idea for the title "Der Antichrist" -- give ol' Langgaard a run for his money (although Langgaard gives Strauss's pictorialism a run for its money in his own 4th symphony "Lovfald")

However, I believe Strauss's Alpensinfonie does have the finest *build up* to a storm in the orchestral repertoire. It's music that just crackles, wonderfully evocative.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Roberto, the music of Strauss has much more than "egotistical grandiloquence." 
There's also a great deal of sly humor in it,as well as radiant and tender lyricism./
In fact, Ein Heldenleben ,which some dismiss as merely bombastic and egostistical, is a humorous work, and the egotistical heroism is actually tongue in cheek ! It's full of in jokes, like many of his works. Much of his music is full of self-deprecating wit.
Till Eulenspiegel is full of exuberantly irreverent humor.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I'm pretty spellbound by the Alpensinfonie. For example, today I've listened to it twice, and hummed it the whole day. It's so wonderfully "too much" - like the grand finale of all German music. I can pretty much say that I like it for all the reasons Roberto is apprehensive of it. It's grand, mad, German and drunk with power, will and love of nature. It's orchestrated like the world is going to end tomorrow. A sonic orgasm!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Strauss was a powerful composer, but I have certain doubts about him. Isn't he too Germanic, too much part of that Wagner-Nietzsche school of late Romantic German excess, with its enormous egocentricity, with its dangerous love of power? Wasn't Strauss trying to express too much, and some of that somewhat dubious material, in his music? 

Nonsense. IMO Strauss was the greatest composer of the 20th century... considering especially his operas. How can a composer be "too Germanic"? Is Debussy "too French"? or Tchaikovsky "too Russian"? As for the influence of Wagner... just what composers after Wagner did not exhibit a good deal of influence from him? And what exactly are you suggesting with regard to the notions of "German excess", "enormous egocentricity" and the "love of power"? It would seem that you are unable to separate the politics of the artist from the art work... and in all reality Strauss had little or no sympathy for the Nazis... which seems to be where you are really headed.

Don't you rather long to hear Mozart after listening to Strauss?

Sometimes. Sometimes I long too hear Bach. Sometimes I long to hear Gesualdo. And sometimes I long to hear Johnny Cash. Of course sometimes after I listen to Mozart, Bach, Gesualdo, or Johnny Cash, I long to hear Strauss.

Argus- Tis a shame he wasted so much time and effort on those bloody operas.

Except that the operas are the greatest things he achieved... with the possible exception of the _Four Last Songs_.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think one of the "problems" (if you can call it that?) that some of the above people are suggesting they see with R. Strauss' music is that (in his large-scale works, anyway) he tends to go way over the top. His orchestration is like "on steroids" & often I feel that there is little substance behind all the "braggadocio." A more balanced view might be that you get little or no glimpse of the actual composer as a human being behind all of the dazzling effects. Some people complain about (supposed) defects of Schumann's orchestration, but I think that orchestration is only "one slice of the pie" so to speak, it isn't everything. Musical substance & the actual quality of ideas is much higher on my list in regards to music I enjoy. The willingness of composers like Schumann to let their guard down a bit and show their human frailties and foibles is more moving to me than things lie R. Strauss' & Wagner's vast edifices that offer me personally little in the way of real intimacy.

Having said that, I enjoy things like R. Strauss' late works (_Metamorphosen for 23 solo strings_, the gorgeous _Oboe Concerto_ & also the _Four Last Songs_). No wonder, as I am kind of a big chamber fan & when I do like orchestral works, I like it when composers divide up the orchestra (even a quite large one) & use it in a chamber-like way (Mahler does this in his 4th symphony, so does Shostakovich in things like his 5th symphony). R. Strauss may well have done the same in some of his works (eg. the instrumental _Sextet_ from his opera _Capriccio_ can be said to be as quite like this).

It must be said that if you listen to most of guys like R. Strauss', Wagner's or Stravinsky's music, you will get little or no glimpses of the man behind them. They are more "objective" than "subjective" (although these are slippery & quite unclear terms, I admit). So if you are looking for more pure emotion & a sense of the autobiographical in a composer's music, then there are others who fit that category better - eg. I've recently been getting into Leonard Bernstein's works - from his ballets, to his musicals & purely orchestral "concert" pieces - & they all kind of show a facet of the man's multifarious personality in a very strong way. The same could not be said of many other composers, whom people seem to put on pedestals, & call other equally good composer's music - like Bernstein or Mahler or Shostakovich for that matter - as being emotionally self indulgent wankery or something like that. This is pure rubbish, imo. One has to realise that these guys were totally different beasts, so to speak. It's no use in blaming individual listeners for not connecting with the some of the "greats" just because their minds or sense of aesthetics (etc., etc...) are on different wavelengths to these guys...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The willingness of composers like Schumann to let their guard down a bit and show their human frailties and foibles is more moving to me than things lie R. Strauss' & Wagner's vast edifices that offer me personally little in the way of real intimacy. 

Of course the notion of the art work as autobiography is a rather dated Romantic concept. It owes much to the Romantic poets (especially Wordsworth) who felt that their own experiences and emotional responses to life were worthy subject matter. With Modernism, the notion of the art work as a revelation of the artist owes much to Freud.

I'm far more of the school of Oscar Wilde, who declared, "The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim."

Following Romanticism and Freud there is this desire to interpret every work of art as autobiographical. Thus, the Sistine Ceiling isn't an expression of Neo-Platonic ideals, of the drama of creation, of the heroic aspects of the founders of Chritianity... rather it is an expression of the artist's personal frustrations and homosexual longings. Thus Wagners grandiose narratives are interpreted as expressions of his personal egomania, antisemitism, nationalism, and lust for power.

The reality is that the very notion of "self-expression" is somewhat comic. The human being is so complex that no work of art... no artist's oeuvre... comes near to conveying all that there is to know about the individual artist.

Some art is based upon intimate, personal experience: the paintings of Vermeer and the Impressionists, and the poetry of Emily Dickinson and Wordsworth, and perhaps the works of Schumann. Other works of art are based upon "larger" ideas. It is humorous that Wagner and Strauss are criticized for egomania... and yet neither seems concerned with dramatizing their own lives. Their content is something larger... external. One might ask just how should a musical portrayal of the grandeur of the alps sound? Should it really be delicate and intimate? We are speaking of the alps, not a gopher hole in the back yard. Should Wagner's grand narrative of the fall of the Gods with all its sub-themes of human passion, love, greed, etc... sound like Erik Satie or something by Lehar?

I love the Impressionistic delicacy of Debussy and Koechlin and Takemitsu but I's not one to think that they represent the highest ideal... that the fact that Mozart, Bach, Wagner, Strauss, Rameau, Handel, etc... sound quite different should be taken as a failure.

Certainly, I am not about to accept the notion that virtuosity is a failing... or masks a lack of content. This is another Modernist prejudice. I can't say how many artists I have met who actually believe that the virtuosity of Rubens, Michelangelo, Bernini, Ingres, etc... kept these artists from achieving a deeper content. This strikes me again as one more prejudice of Romanticism: the aggrandizement of the "primitive", the crude, the unschooled, etc... as more "honest" and more "expressive". This, of course, is sheer nonsense. The "primitiveness" of medieval art, African art, Asian art, etc... is in no way "primitive". The artists are masters of a tradition just as complex and sophisticated as Western art. An artist like Van Gogh or Gauguin, or Matisse is equally sophisticated. Their goals are not the same as a Renaissance painter... but they are no less complex and difficult to master. I think the same applies to music. Simplicity can be beautiful at times... but one should never confuse virtuosity for lack of content.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio of all members talking about prejudices? 

I used to listen to Strauss a lot, but my interest waned after got into Mahler. I feel with the former I was listening for something that was suggested but wasn't fully realized, and the latter totally offered what I wanted. Not that they aren't both great in different ways.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

> Of course the notion of the art work as autobiography is a rather dated Romantic concept.


I don't know about that. Composer Hans Werner Henze has stated that all of his works are basically one big work. His observation reads to me as if, in some ways, a composer's life's work is a bit like an autobiography. What's wrong with that? As for psycho-biography, yes, that is a bit outdated (& Freudian). Getting into the composer's psyche is near impossible, but we can make "educated guesses" or inferences about how a composer generally feels from listening to his/her music of various stages in his/her life. This is not always possible, but sometimes it is. Eg. I was listening to one of J.S. Bach's solo violin works (one of the sonatas & partitas) the other night. The notes said that the final movement of that work was very long for the time (15 minutes). The composer wrote this when he returned home from a trip to a distant court to find his first wife dead & buried. So in this final movement, which reads like a "cathedral in sound," he encrypted a motto theme based on his wife's name, as well as his own. So clearly, this work was like J.S. Bach writing his own autobiography in a musical sense.



> I'm far more of the school of Oscar Wilde, who declared, "The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim."


Well then it appears that guys like R. Strauss, Wagner & Stravinsky created with that kind of dictum in mind. This is of course a generalisation, but as far as their more mainstream works are concerned, it is probably accurate to say this. Concealing the artist may be all well & good for you or many others, but I especially enjoy works were composers let their guard down a bit, perhaps on the personal side (what's going on in their lives), or talking to current events/issues, politics, that kind of thing. I think that knowing things like the story behind Beethoven's _Eroica _symphony (eg. how he tore out the page dedicating it to Napoleon when he learned the guy crowned himself emperor - so seeing Beethoven's impulsive side a bit there, the feeling of betrayal of some of the emotions/beliefs behind the symphony) or even Arnold Bax's_ Tintagel _(a composer who I generally have little time for, but that work, composed when he was esconced in that seaside area with his lover the pianist Harriet Cohen - so all that stuff about his joy of being with the love of his life) kind of make me get involved more emotionally. BTW same thing goes with things by R. Strauss (_Metamorphosen_) or Wagner (_Siegfreid Idyll_) or Stravinsky (_Elegie for solo violin_, composed when his first wife died, although he married his mistress soon after, so I'm not sure if the darkness of this piece was actually a tribute to his late wife or is the mood of the piece just coincidental?) - but these kinds of works seem few & far between in their outputs which seem more concerned with "big" statements about humanity rather than about conveying their own intimate thoughts. I think Beethoven balanced these two perfectly, esp. in his late string quartets. These works make profound general statements about the human condition, but they are also deeply connected to the "headspace" of the composer.



> The reality is that the very notion of "self-expression" is somewhat comic. The human being is so complex that no work of art... no artist's oeuvre... comes near to conveying all that there is to know about the individual artist.


Maybe this is true, maybe composers are fighting an unwinnable battle when they try to put their emotions down on the page. There are so many variables in music, from technical things like aspects of interpretation, to just how we all absorb these great works of art differently due to our individual quirks and preferences. But I do like it when composers go "out on a limb" and do something that really makes the listener "see" where they are at, their way of thinking, their "world view." Of course, epic works are part of this as well. In my reply above, I was merely validating the view that some people don't connect with things like R. Strauss' monumental works because with these, his focus was often on making "big" statements, there definitely is a lot of hyperbole there, a lot of a sense of it all being huge & overwhelming, a bit like climbing Everest for the listener.



> Should Wagner's grand narrative of the fall of the Gods with all its sub-themes of human passion, love, greed, etc... sound like Erik Satie or something by Lehar?


By all means no, if the subject is epic, it is understandable that the music will probably sound and come across like that. I was merely giving reasons as to (maybe?) why some people do not go for this type of music.



> Certainly, I am not about to accept the notion that virtuosity is a failing... or masks a lack of content...Simplicity can be beautiful at times... but one should never confuse virtuosity for lack of content.


Personally speaking, I want balance between "virtuosity" & "content." As I said above, Beethoven's late quartets have this kind of balance, imo. Most of what so-called "objective" centred composers like R. Strauss, Wagner or Stravinsky offer does not have this kind of balance or centredness. That doesn't mean many people can't love their music, which is clearly the case across the world, but I was merely giving some possible reasons as to why some listeners feel "out in the cold" with a large part (or perhaps more accurately most) of what these guys had to offer...

[EDIT - I'm being a bit whimsical here, but who I'd compare some composers I mentioned about who tend to "dwarf" listeners like myself, is the c20th American novelist Ayn Rand. Her novels read like tracts of huge verbose speeches connected together with the thinnest of plots. Her political conservatism can also be likened to some of these composers, although that might have actually been a plus (writers of all political "denominations" can be interesting in terms of presenting a number of views), but only *if* her books weren't as thick as the Bible!]...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Of course the notion of the art work as autobiography is a rather dated Romantic concept.

I don't know about that. Composer Hans Werner Henze has stated that all of his works are basically one big work. His observation reads to me as if, in some ways, a composer's life's work is a bit like an autobiography. 

OK... allow me to clarify. I am suggesting that the notion that all artists see art as autobiographical is dated... is something that began with Romanticism and continued through the Romantic strains of Modernism. Certainly all art has elements that are revealing of the individual artist... I don't think any artist can avoid this... but not every artist thinks of art as spilling his or her guts on the page or the canvas for all to see.

I'm far more of the school of Oscar Wilde, who declared, "The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim."

Well then it appears that guys like R. Strauss, Wagner & Stravinsky created with that kind of dictum in mind. This is of course a generalisation, but as far as their more mainstream works are concerned, it is probably accurate to say this. Concealing the artist may be all well & good for you or many others, but I especially enjoy works were composers let their guard down a bit, perhaps on the personal side (what's going on in their lives), or talking to current events/issues, politics, that kind of thing.

As Romanticism wore on there was a contrary movement generally known as _art pour l'art_ or "art for art's sake". Those who have made little exploration of this movement misinterpret it as defining art about nothing or art about art... "formalism" in Clement Greenberg's terminology. _Art pour l'art_ was born in opposition to the notion that a work of art should be judged upon external (non-artistic) factors: social, political, theological, moral, etc... As Oscar Wilde states further in his famous preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray, "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all." "Artists like Wilde, Walter Pater, Theophile Gautier, Baudelaire, Mallarme, the Impressionists, Wagner, Strauss, etc... would have questioned the notion that a work of art should be judged upon moral or political terms.

Wagner and Strauss (among others) are not hiding from the audience... rather they, it would seem, believe that there are larger ideas... or ideas that seem more worthy of expression to them... than their own personal lives. If I look at a writer like Shakespeare (with the possible exception of the sonnets) or Milton (in most cases) I find that it would be near impossible to discern the autobiographical in their work. I think it quite likely that the dramas of _Elektra_ or _Salome_ are far more exciting and electrifying than the personal dramas of Strauss life. This does not negate an awareness of current socio-political-theological realities. _Salome_ undoubtedly fits within that generation's thoughts on sex and women. Freud's theories, the struggles of women for equal rights (including the open expression of sexuality), the femme fatales, Dracula, etc... all play into this drama.

For whatever reason, there has long been a notion held by many that poetry, music, and painting are or should be autobiographical... whereas this is surely not true of most novels, operas, or films. There are surely elements in every Hitchcock film that might be thought of as "autobiographical"... but the films are most assuredly not about him. If we are honest about it, only a limited aspect of all artistic efforts are spent upon the autobiographical. Beethoven may have scribbled out his ornate dedication to Napoleon on the Eroica... but the symphony remains more of an expression of his concept of the heroic struggles underway in Europe at the time, than an expression of wallowing in personal angst.

Maybe this is true, maybe composers are fighting an unwinnable battle when they try to put their emotions down on the page.

As the young Romantic artist I struggled to put my self into my art... and was repeatedly frustrated... recognizing that while I might capture this side of my personality here or that side there, nothing I did ever captured the whole of who I was. Later, I thought... how could any work of art achieve such? And what of all the aspects of ourselves of which we are unaware... or would even deny? With time, I recognize that my art is indeed uniquely my own. My favorite artists, subjects, colors, approaches to composition have all become so digested... so internalized... that they have become like my signature. Our signatures may reveal some trace of who we are... but surely they are not all.

Personally speaking, I want balance between "virtuosity" & "content." As I said above, Beethoven's late quartets have this kind of balance, imo. Most of what so-called "objective" centred composers like R. Strauss, Wagner or Stravinsky offer does not have this kind of balance or centredness. That doesn't mean many people can't love their music, which is clearly the case across the world, but I was merely giving some possible reasons as to why some listeners feel "out in the cold" with a large part (or perhaps more accurately most) of what these guys had to offer...

I fully understand. I also understand that this prejudice for the autobiographical and the emotional is a large part of the reason for the continued popularity of Romanticism over every other musical era. A great many of those who reject Mozart repeatedly bring up the notion that his work doesn't convey the depth of emotion of Beethoven or Mahler... as if it took more artistic ability to convey wallowing in tragedy and self-pity than to express wit, grace, and joy (and of course I'm exaggerating on both sides here). Seriously, I cannot think of a great many composers capable of expressing deeper emotions than Wagner (Liebestod) or Strauss (the finale from Salome). Again, I suspect that a good many presume that such aesthetic brilliance cannot go hand in hand with depth of content or emotion... at least when confronting more contemporary art. I never seem to come across this prejudice regarding Bach... and yet is there a greater virtuoso. Neither do we see such a prejudice with regard to Shakespeare... but Proust and Joyce have any number of critics who presume that they are all just surface perfume... with little underneath.

[EDIT - I'm being a bit whimsical here, but who I'd compare some composers I mentioned about who tend to "dwarf" listeners like myself, is the c20th American novelist Ayn Rand. Her novels read like tracts of huge verbose speeches connected together with the thinnest of plots. Her political conservatism can also be likened to some of these composers, although that might have actually been a plus (writers of all political "denominations" can be interesting in terms of presenting a number of views), but only if her books weren't as thick as the Bible!]...

Accckk!!! Please!!! Not Ayn Rand!! I don't know which is worse... the writing or the politics!!! Oscar Wilde, Walter Pater, Paul Valery... even Proust... but not Rand.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Except that the operas are the greatest things he achieved... with the possible exception of the _Four Last Songs_.


Why do they sound so bad then?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Why do they sound so bad then?

Possible hearing loss and general dulling of the senses from too much AC/DC and Black Sabbath.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Argus said:


> Why do they sound so bad then?


Do you mean "bad" in a sense that they are difficult or "atonal" (eg._ Salome _or _Elektra_)? Or do you mean it in the opposite sense that they're too light or not pushing the envelope enough? (eg. _Rosenkavalier_ or _Capriccio_) R. Strauss was a man of many facets in terms of style. In the late c19th & early c20th he was seen as at the vanguard of new and more experimental music, but as he got older he was seen as a conservative compared to the "young guns" - guys like Schoenberg & Varese whom he had actually championed in a big way & even influenced to some degree earlier in their careers. It's amazing to think that Strauss' long life covered a whole swathe of musical history - from late c19th composers such as Wagner, Liszt & Brahms to the mid c20th when guys like Stockhausen & Boulez were beginning to get noticed...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

> ...Wagner and Strauss (among others) are not hiding from the audience... rather they, it would seem, believe that there are larger ideas... or ideas that seem more worthy of expression to them... than their own personal lives. If I look at a writer like Shakespeare (with the possible exception of the sonnets) or Milton (in most cases) I find that it would be near impossible to discern the autobiographical in their work. I think it quite likely that the dramas of Elektra or Salome are far more exciting and electrifying than the personal dramas of Strauss life. This does not negate an awareness of current socio-political-theological realities. Salome undoubtedly fits within that generation's thoughts on sex and women. Freud's theories, the struggles of women for equal rights (including the open expression of sexuality), the femme fatales, Dracula, etc... all play into this drama.


I agree with all that, both Wagner's & Strauss' operas where quite topical, they were obviously speaking to the big issues of their time (& beyond).

In general, thanks for your detailed & interesting reply. I think this discussion has gone beyond the scope of this thread (as I am wanton to do, open up cans of worms!). So I have created this new thread (link below) talking to these issues, which you may well want to take part in & give us your insights (sorry if you have to end up repeating yourself there!) -

http://www.talkclassical.com/14101-music-strong-autobiographical-element.html

Getting back to R. Strauss, I'll just reiterate my earlier point that people like myself may be a bit repelled by his more grandiose works for various reasons, but this doesn't invalidate other people enjoying these larger scale or scoped works. I personally have connected much more with his works written post-WW2 - _Metamorphosen_ for it's reflections on the tragedy & futility of war (& how he was affected by it emotionally & his grieving at the destruction of German culture in particular, but I think that he also memorialised those who died in the Holocaust in a way in this work too); the _Oboe Concerto _for it's energy, joy and optimism, unusual for someone in their eighties, but clearly predicting a brighter future for humanity, perhaps a return to nature & simplicity, looking forwards rather than backwards; & the _Four Last Songs _(but I love his other earlier lieder as well) which celebrates many things, not least the female voice & his love for his wife who was a soprano...


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Why do they sound so bad then?
> 
> Possible hearing loss and general dulling of the senses from too much AC/DC and Black Sabbath.


Not everything has got to be Byzantine chant and Elmore James. Expand your horizons.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

My favorite Strauss theme of all time is the opening to Til Eulenspiegel. I personally think Death and Transfiguration is his greatest piece, though I have not listened to the operas, I haven't branched out into opera yet. I used to be intimidated by the task of listening to it, since I used to find that heavy germanic sound and lush orchestration difficult to listen to due to marked preference for clean primary color orchestration(i.e. Tchaikovsky, and the classical period), but I had faith and I listened to it and sure enough, after a few times of listening to it in fragments, I became hooked to a few themes and moments and decided to follow it all the way through. Strauss has such a "sweep"(this word means something to me in this context if you follow) to him that is only exceeded by Mahler, though Mahler is rougher around the edges. Its very hearty music in a full and heavy and powerful way. You've inspired me to re listen to the Alpensinfonie.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler (Jul 8, 2010)

I can't say that Die Alpensinfonie is my favorite Strauss piece (I think his is one of the greatest opera composers and his librettist was certainly a great one), but I suppose that Concertgebouw and Jansons made a very good recording of it. The orchestra sound is so glorious! Esp, in 12th and 14th parts.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> "If you want Richard, try Wager. If Strauss, try Johan."


I think you have already said that...I don't like it. You still use it. Suggestion: Try both Richards: Wagner and Strauss. They are both awesome and different. You are young, you have a lot to learn yet.

Martin, old


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Xaltotun said:


> I'm pretty spellbound by the Alpensinfonie. For example, today I've listened to it twice, and hummed it the whole day. It's so wonderfully "too much" - like the grand finale of all German music. I can pretty much say that I like it for all the reasons Roberto is apprehensive of it. It's grand, mad, German and drunk with power, will and love of nature. It's orchestrated like the world is going to end tomorrow. A sonic orgasm!


My acquaintance with TalkClassical started with this post over two years ago. Back then I was strictly a Wagner fan (rather a Wagner newbie actually), and this post got me thinking that there might be other classical music out there that is just as glorious.

I've listened to it four or five times today. Breathtaking music, just like the mountains themselves. But the mountains do not simply stand there, they are being climbed. There is a sense of confrontation there, man testing his own strength against the powers of nature, side by side, overcoming it, but at the same time being united to it, in awe of the grandeur of the eternal mountains, but not subdued.

And it made me want to go buy a big backpack...


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

I'm not sure whether this is an atypical TC "best recording" thread (of Strauss Eine Alpensinfonie) .... but I'll start listing some faves ...

1967, Kempe, RPO:













1975, Mehta, LAPhil:









(I'm ignoring Strauss's self-conducted recording from the 1940s due to its poor fidelity)


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Did you bring this old thread back.

Anyway The Alpine Sy has a similar effect as Zarathustra when I listen - great opening and after that it goes down the mountain.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

stomanek said:


> Did you bring this old thread back.
> 
> Anyway The Alpine Sy has a similar effect as Zarathustra when I listen - great opening and after that it goes down the mountain.


Actually it goes up the mountain after the opening, then at the middle of the work (at the summit) it goes down again. 

I'm one of those who sees this work as one of the greatest tone poems ever. I love it from start to finish.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I like an occasional spin through _Also Sprach Zarathustra_ -- I just bought the Karajan-Berlin super audio remake from Japan -- but don't listen much to any of his other tone poems. I find they are magnificent but, for me, too many musical calories. They require too much time at the listening table and they put on weight.

However, I adore Richard Strauss's more Mozartean works such as the _Duet-Concertino for Clarinet and Bassoon_, an operatic piece with woodwinds speaking the roles, the _Sonatina "Happy Workshop," _and, above all, the _Serenade in E Op. 7_. I also enjoy his _Incidental Music to the play The Bourgeois Gentleman_, especially the versions played with piano.

I find Richard Strauss, in these moods, not so Teutonic, not so stuck on grandiose statements, and not so overlong and overstuffed. I realize others look at and hear the technicolor tone poems very differently.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

My favorite Strauss is Metamorphosen. I love the idea of the tone-poem, it's so modern and simplifies things so much. I occasionally listen to the Alpine Symphony; it provides a good trip up the mountain. I have the operas Elektra and that other one, is it Salome? I consider these to be important. I listen to Strauss for the harmonic thinking. That said, I like the late Oboe Concerto as well. The Rosenkavalier Suite is a favorite. The Four Last Songs almost get me crying every time, especially where the two birds fly off together into the sunset. He's great.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I like the _Alpine Symphony._ It might be my favorite Strauss tone poem, but that isn't saying much. I prefer the more intimate Strauss of the songs, and find that most of the orchestral spectaculars say too little to justify so many notes occupying so much time. Even the operas tend to oversell themselves.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Love the Alpine Symphony. Alongside La Mer, The Four Seasons and Beethoven 6, it's probably my favorite nature inspired piece.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

jdec said:


> Actually it goes up the mountain after the opening, then at the middle of the work (at the summit) it goes down again.
> 
> I'm one of those who sees this work as one of the greatest tone poems ever. I love it from start to finish.


Looks like I'll have to take that back - it's been 20 years since I last listened. I just tuned into Karajan's version on youtube and it was so good I had to stop my work.


----------



## Templeton (Dec 20, 2014)

stomanek said:


> Looks like I'll have to take that back - it's been 20 years since I last listened. I just tuned into Karajan's version on youtube and it was so good I had to stop my work.


Well, they do say that one becomes wiser as one becomes older and you have just proved the point, bravo!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

stomanek said:


> Looks like I'll have to take that back - it's been 20 years since I last listened. I just tuned into Karajan's version on youtube and it was so good I had to stop my work.


He was good in this one and in Zarathustra. Karajan's recording of the Domestic Symphony was one of the first CDs I bought!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> it provides a good trip up the mountain.


I think that it's a spiritual journey to an encounter with God.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Templeton said:


> Well, they do say that one becomes wiser as one becomes older and you have just proved the point, bravo!


Well Death and Transfig has always been a favourite even 20 years ago. I think I had mehta's rec of the alpine sy and listened in the car 20 odd years ago and it didnt connect. But it stopped me in my tracks this time. Very impressive. It really does blow everything else composed at that time out of the water - brahms dvorak etc al.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> I think that it's a spiritual journey to an encounter with God.


Let's not put a name on it shall we and be properly secular in this thread.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

stomanek said:


> Let's not put a name on it shall we and be properly secular in this thread.


Ok, how about a crude Freudian metaphor? It's about a gigantic phallic symbol, and at the end, it orgasms.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Ok, how about a crude Freudian metaphor? It's about a gigantic phallic symbol, and at the end, it orgasms.


doesnt really work though does it - the music soars up on high rather than sinking down below


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

stomanek said:


> It really does blow everything else composed at that time out of the water - brahms dvorak etc al.


Its a fine work, but I think you're getting carried away now.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

tdc said:


> Its a fine work, but I think you're getting carried away now.


I know - it sounded good though.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Along with performance, a *good recording* goes a long way to making this poem an engaging listening experience. 
For a long time, I'd only had the Haitink (Philips) recording as "reference". But recently, I was exposed to better recordings (Mehta/1975; Kempe/1967), and improved fidelity was important. 
As usual, YouTube has plenty of samplers!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I think my only criticism of this work would be many of the soaring melodies seem to have been plucked from the same hat as other Strauss works. It's a minor quibble though.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I must explore the operas more. Strauss wrote brilliantly for voice. But other than the operas I do greatly value Metamorphosen, the Four Last Songs, the Oboe Concerto, Tod und Verklarung, Don Juan, Till Eulenspiegel and the Alpensinfonie. I also quite like Don Quixote in a good performance. I don't greatly like Also Sprach, Heldenleben, Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme or Symphonia Domestica but I don't hate them either.


----------



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

The work is probably a little too rambling for me but I do like its unbroken structure. My favourite tone poem by Strauss is _Don Quixote_, but then I've always been a sucker for variation form - if I did want a Strauss tone poem to weigh in at over an hour then this would probably be the one.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

A personal gripe about Alpine is that it's too long. 
Sorry! I'm a huge Samuel Barber fan whose poems are succinct and melodic ... and ... "all of the above."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

13hm13 said:


> A personal gripe about Alpine is that it's too long.
> Sorry! I'm a huge Samuel Barber fan whose poems are succinct and melodic ... and ... "all of the above."


For tone poems I'll take Sibelius above all, with the possible exception of Rachmaninoff's _Isle of the Dead_. I'd consign every one of Strauss's obese, sequin-studded, mascaraed productions to the bonfire to save that one.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Spoken like a true Romantic. When is the book burning ceremony? Tonight?


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> For tone poems I'll take Sibelius above all, with the possible exception of Rachmaninoff's _Isle of the Dead_. I'd consign every one of Strauss's obese, sequin-studded, mascaraed productions to the bonfire to save that one.


Often you seem to be dismissive, using those kind f pejoratives on Strauss and Mahler. Sorry to tell you Woodduck, but the shortcoming is not in their great music but in the listener who is not able to appreciate it.

By the way, I also have Sibelius tone poems and Rach's Isle of the Dead in high esteem.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, I like Rachmaninoff too. I have a lot of stuff by him, including the RCA recordings of him playing. He was a real anomaly, sort of in a Russian time-warp, the last of the Romantics.


----------



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

Woodduck said:


> For tone poems I'll take Sibelius above all, with the possible exception of Rachmaninoff's _Isle of the Dead_. I'd consign every one of Strauss's obese, sequin-studded, mascaraed productions to the bonfire to save that one.


Are your piles playing up today, Wooders?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> Often you seem to be dismissive, using those kind f pejoratives on Strauss and Mahler. Sorry to tell you Woodduck, but the shortcoming is not in their great music but in the listener who is not able to appreciate it.
> 
> By the way, I also have Sibelius tone poems and Rach's Isle of the Dead in high esteem.


Well, I hope my pejoratives are entertaining, at least. In any event I have right to them, and I don't think anyone's presumed shortcomings are at issue. I understand Strauss's music perfectly well; since it isn't very deep for the most part, it isn't difficult to understand.

There's no disgrace in being a good entertainer. I just like my entertainments a bit more concise and amusing, a bit less pretentious. An orchestral work 45 minutes long based on Nietzschean teenage uebermensch fantasies interests me about as much as Star Wars, which I refuse to see. Strauss was admirably modest about his own work: a very good second-rate composer, he called himself. Were you to ask him how deep into his soul he had to reach to find _Ein Heldenleben_ (in which he lets us know that the hero is himself), I think he'd have chuckled at your callowness. You might better ask how much he got in royalties.

Generally, Strauss pleases me most when he isn't giving his music a title that suggests the possibility of profundity. Titles like "Oboe Concerto" or "Four Last Songs" simply draw from him music of great beauty, often of a depth that reveals he has a soul after all.

Mahler is another story altogether. The presence of a soul is never in question.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I understand Strauss's music perfectly well; since it isn't very deep for the most part, it isn't difficult to understand.


Do you? sorry to have my doubts about it, specially when you equate your interest on Strauss's ASZ to star wars and refer to Nietzsche's Uebermensch as "teenage fantasies" (he wrote the book in his forties). According to his friend Romain Rolland, Strauss once quipped that "In music one can say everything. People won't understand you." This Strauss' characteristically humorous remark seems particularly applicable here. 



Woodduck said:


> There's no disgrace in being a good entertainer. I just like my entertainments a bit more concise and amusing, a bit less pretentious.


For sure! the "beautiful moments" only but not the "bad quarters of an hour."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> Do you? sorry to have my doubts about it, specially when you equate your interest on Strauss's ASZ to star wars and refer to Nietzsche's Uebermensch as "teenage fantasies" (he wrote the book in his forties). According to his friend Romain Rolland, Strauss once quipped that "In music one can say everything. People won't understand you." This Strauss' characteristically humorous remark seems particularly applicable here.
> 
> For sure! the "beautiful moments" only but not the "bad quarters of an hour."


Playing the smarty pants and telling other people what they do and don't understand because you don't like their views makes for an embarrassing self-portrait.

Yes, I know that Nietzsche was no longer an adolescent when he wrote _Zarathustra._ Perhaps you don't know that Nietzsche's book appeals largely to partly-formed young minds whose wide-eyed idealism and shaky but supercilious egos have not yet been brought down to earth by real life. Strauss's "interpretation" of Nietzsche has perhaps even less depth than its subject deserves, but about as much depth as one would expect from the composer of _Salome_ tackling a serious philosopher. That said, the opening of the piece does sound terrifically important and the ensuing lyrical section is sinfully gorgeous. After that, well...

Please desist from criticizing people for their musical opinions. I get that you think Strauss's tone poems are profound music. It's good just to say so, and even better to say why.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Strauss's "interpretation" of Nietzsche has perhaps even less depth than its subject deserves, but about as much depth as one would expect from the composer of Salome tackling a serious philosopher. That said, the opening of the piece does sound terrifically important and the ensuing lyrical section is sinfully gorgeous. After that, well...


"_I was aroused as by a flash of lightning by the first Budapest performance of Also Sprach Zarathustra. It contained the seeds for a new life. I started composing again._"

-- Béla Bartók


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> "_I was aroused as by a flash of lightning by the first Budapest performance of Also Sprach Zarathustra. It contained the seeds for a new life. I started composing again._"
> 
> -- Béla Bartók


What's the significance of that? At what point in Bartok's life did he make that remark? Bartok's music has little in common with Strauss's.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Duplicate..................


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> *What's the significance of that?* At what point in Bartok's life did he make that remark? Bartok's music has little in common with Strauss's.


Almost none, just that Strauss's ASZ was good enough (of course you cannot see it) for one of the greatest composer's of the 20th century, Bartók, to revitalize his creative energies at some point. Bartók also said of this work that it "_stimulated the greatest enthusiasm in me; at last I saw the way that lay before me_."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> Almost none, just that Strauss's ASZ was good enough (of course you cannot see it) for one of the greatest composer's of the 20th century, Bartók, to revitalize his creative energies at some point. Bartók also said of this work that it "_stimulated the greatest enthusiasm in me; at last I saw the way that lay before me_."


Of course I can't see what? I see that Bartok was excited by something he heard in _Also Sprach._ Well, what's remarkable about that? What exactly excited him? It could have been a number of things. Orchestration? Very likely. Form? Not likely. Programmatic intent? Maybe. This proves nothing about anything, does it? Strauss "good enough" for him? Bartok ended up creating a far different sort of music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ It is because it seems so unlikely that I found it interesting.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

A lot of the great composers enjoyed and highly rated other composers who later turned out to be generally considered not that great, and/or to fall into obscurity. So a great composer liking another composer isn't necessarily indicative of much.

On the other hand it seems a general rule that it is hard for artists and composers to judge their own work too, so Strauss saying he was a 'second rate composer' also doesn't mean much. Ravel claimed to essentially be a second rate composer too, Brahms thought he was about on par with Cherubini and would fall into obscurity soon after his death. J.S. Bach thought anyone industrious could achieve similar things as he did with music. etc.

So in general art criticism is a tricky thing. So take what I say with a grain of salt but my perception is most of Strauss music does indeed lack 'substance' if we compare him to the greats like Bach or Brahms (for similar reasons that Schubert also comes up short when put up against the very best in my opinion). He has many standout moments surrounded with a lot of filler and flimsy structures. I do think there are some exceptions in his oeuvre that are really fine works and the Alpine Symphony is one of these.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Bartok was influenced by Strauss, a whole lot of other composers where too. This was a thread I created on this topic:

Richard Strauss' musical progeny

Strauss was a composer who I had prejudices against. Earlier in the present thread I spoke a lot of drivel. In recent times I've come to understand him more, including reading his biography:

https://www.talkclassical.com/2934-richard-strauss-8.html#post1509794

It hasn't changed my response to his symphonies. Their length, like Bruckner's and Mahler's, stretch out before me like the Sahara. His shorter orchestral works appeal to me more, and I agree with the overall consensus that Metamorphosen is a masterpiece.

There is no doubt that he was among the most significant composers of his time. His music touched so many others: Schoenberg, Bartok, Respighi, Varese to name a few. Even Ravel admired his orchestration.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

R Strauss, was undoubtedly a great early modernist. R. Korsakov and Cui hated his music. Even Debussy said listening to Strauss was like being in an asylum. But he was a great melodist and orchestrator. There is no way to compare him with earlier Romantics. He was a visionary.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Phil loves classical said:


> R Strauss, was undoubtedly a great early modernist. R. Korsakov and Cui hated his music. Even Debussy said listening to Strauss was like being in an asylum. But he was a great melodist and orchestrator. There is no way to compare him with earlier Romantics. He was a visionary.


Ahh, there's the key to Woodduck's disdain. Strauss was a modernist.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Ahh, there's the key to Woodduck's disdain. Strauss was a modernist.


You say "ahh," I say"naaaah." Guess again.


----------

