# the exquisite



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

There are some very special pieces of classical music,

that overcome the transition line of the typical characteristics of classical music,

towards a higher level, where the main element is a complexity,

that involves presence and combination of some very distinct qualities.

Being a person that I love to have doubts

and knowing that transition is the state of no return,

I wonder which are these forces that make a classical work unique

*Are there really objective criteria of evaluation or

it is the intelligence, taste and perception of the receptors,

that declare a classical work as "masterpiece"?*


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

I absolutely agree that Wesendonck-Lieder is a masterpiece.

In fact, I would declare that I think it is Wagner's finest opus, with Tristan and Parsifal following. *ducks*

This Kaufmann is one of my favorite albums:


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

*J.S. Bach: Suite No. 5 in C minor, BWV 1011 (Rostropovich)*

This does it for me...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

For me the truly exquisite is the opening of Appalachian Spring by Aaron Copland.
If there is anything more beautiful than this, I have not yet heard it.
Played by its greatest interpreter, Leonard Bernstein leading the NY Philharmonic.

Just some simple notes on a page. Meaningless, looking at it from a layperson's perspective.

Listen to what it really means! It's all about the emotions brought on by the interaction of a human brain and human heart recognizing the poignant feelings these notes conjure up.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Trying to define and quantify an aesthetic experience is like trying to get information out of a Black Hole -- and greater minds than any of ours have been stumped by it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> For me the truly exquisite is the opening of Appalachian Spring by Aaron Copland.
> If there is anything more beautiful than this, I have not yet heard it.
> Played by its greatest interpreter, Leonard Bernstein leading the NY Philharmonic.
> 
> ...


Copland's greatest work, imo,_ but even more "exquisite" in its brilliant and lucid original orchestration for thirteen instruments._ I so prefer it I cannot help but 'dismiss' the full symphonic version as cosmetic fluff and 'not the real stuff.'





@ HPowders: I would also argue that the original instrumentation is far more _pithy_


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

clara s., gladta see the *Agnes Baltsa* mention. :tiphat:

View attachment 38580


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Copland's greatest work, imo,_ but even more "exquisite" in its brilliant and lucid original orchestration for thirteen instruments._ I so prefer it I cannot help but 'dismiss' the full symphonic version as cosmetic fluff and 'not the real stuff.'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would put the Bernstein full orchestra performance against any 13 instruments version.
I love the sound of the orchestra in Appalachian Spring.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

By now, some may find my mention of this work tiresome, but....

Morton Feldman ~ Piano and string quartet


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

You don't like any reductions?

Have you heard the Schonberg/Riehn chamber version of Mahler's DLVDE?

I like it more than the full orchestration. 
*ducks again*






*The link is not my preferred recording but the picture is; Kenneth Slowik did it superbly, as well as a fantastic recording of the 4th with Songs of the Wayfarer:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> I would put the Bernstein full orchestra performance against any 13 instruments version.
> 
> In my opinion those 13 instruments should take a hike to their local music store and get the score for Mozart's Gran Partita, practice that and stop annoying me with reductions.
> 
> By the way, the only reduction I can stomach starts with white wine in a frying pan with some fish.


The full orchestration _is_ the re-do of the original chamber version, with all the corn starch, flour, and other thickeners which are all hollow calories that completely ruin the dish. But, many are more sensationalist, i.e. love the big orchestra sound over the leaner, cleaner, tastier -- and pithier -- original


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> The full orchestration _is_ the re-do of the original chamber version, with all the corn starch, flour, and other thickeners which are all hollow calories which completely ruin the dish. But, many are more sensationalist, i.e. love the big orchestra sound over the leaner, cleaner, tastier -- and pithier -- original


In this case, I prefer the full orchestra. The Bernstein performance of the Appalachian Spring Suite is a classic; a heartfelt, beautiful performance in tribute to his great friend, Aaron Copland.

I have 2 performances of the chamber version and I have no idea where they are, nor do I care.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Look. You are not the arbiter of what I should or shouldn't like. What I submitted *TO ME *is one of the most poignant moments in all of music played by one of its greatest interpreters and an orchestra at the top of its form.
> 
> I don't like the 13 instrument version (I have two performances) and whether it came before or after the orchestral version is irrelevant to me. I simply do not like it.


And I said I much prefer the original version, and what I thought of the later full orchestral version... and, that a _lot_ of people generally prefer full orchestra over smaller ensembles (not a major revelation, eh?)

Sheesh


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

"you'll never get agreement on questions of artistic merit"

copy/pasted from another thread. No, IMO there is no objective criteria to define a masterpiece. We all have our own opinions. The closest you can get to objectivity is to take a large number of subjective ones and look at the most mentioned.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

The OP suggests that there are certain pieces which give you a great amount of pleasure. Everybody knows some pieces of this kind, some are common - like masterpieces by Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven... but there are countless others I am sure. So you will always be well advised to keep exploring. I am a newbie to classical, and I find myself listening to a new work almost every day and discovering a new composer every month or so... not very regularly, but I admit it had gotten boring listening to the same Beethoven symphonies and Bach keyboard works every day - even if they are definitely high points.


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> For me the truly exquisite is the opening of Appalachian Spring by Aaron Copland.
> If there is anything more beautiful than this, I have not yet heard it.
> Played by its greatest interpreter, Leonard Bernstein leading the NY Philharmonic.
> 
> ...


Appalachian spring...

the sunrise of human being in all its glory

Can you tell, if in this interaction of brain and heart, which part dominates?


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

GGluek said:


> Trying to define and quantify an aesthetic experience is like trying to get information out of a Black Hole -- and greater minds than any of ours have been stumped by it.


that's why human mind is so restless

because it tries eternally to get information out of a Black Hole


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Copland's greatest work, imo,_ but even more "exquisite" in its brilliant and lucid original orchestration for thirteen instruments._ I so prefer it I cannot help but 'dismiss' the full symphonic version as cosmetic fluff and 'not the real stuff.'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


excuisite can only be one, either full version or thirteen instruments hahaha

you said, for you is the second

can I hear both of them and return, for any question?


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I would put the Bernstein full orchestra performance against any 13 instruments version.
> I love the sound of the orchestra in Appalachian Spring.


oh

a different preference here


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

Art Rock said:


> "you'll never get agreement on questions of artistic merit"
> 
> copy/pasted from another thread. No, IMO there is no objective criteria to define a masterpiece. We all have our own opinions. The closest you can get to objectivity is to take a large number of subjective ones and look at the most mentioned.


fine, but in this case there is a danger,

to develop a greater interest to the rise of the stochastic satisfaction of our ego,

through our subjectivity, than to reach as close as we can, to real objectivity


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

shangoyal said:


> The OP suggests that there are certain pieces which give you a great amount of pleasure. Everybody knows some pieces of this kind, some are common - like masterpieces by Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven... but there are countless others I am sure. So you will always be well advised to keep exploring. I am a newbie to classical, and I find myself listening to a new work almost yesterday and discovering a new composer every month or so... not very regularly, but I admit it had gotten boring listening to the same Beethoven symphonies and Bach keyboard works every day - even if they are definitely high points.


yes, but I am not speaking for pleasure, or at least just pleasure.

I am also interested in finding what are the real factors that make a work, to be called a masterpiece

As for the continuous exploring for new exquisite pieces, I agree with you fully


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> Appalachian spring...
> 
> the sunrise of human being in all its glory
> 
> Can you tell, if in this interaction of brain and heart, which part dominates?


For me it's the heart first. The opening of Appalachian Spring to me is so evocative of a peaceful nostalgia of times gone by. But then again I sometimes use it as a platform to recall pleasant thoughts from my brain's memory bank related to my own life, so both can be in play. The music allows me to "take a trip".


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> excuisite can only be one, either full version or thirteen instruments hahaha
> 
> you said, for you is the second
> 
> can I hear both of them and return, for any question?


The full orchestral version plays up the emotions in my opinion. I like having the strings performing in Appalachian Spring.

I'm very well familiar with the chamber version. I simply don't like it. I feel cheated.
Too analytical where I want to relax and be moved instead.
The full symphony orchestra treatment allows me to do that.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

clara s said:


> yes, but I am not speaking for pleasure, or at least just pleasure.
> 
> I am also interested in finding what are the real factors that make a work, to be called a masterpiece
> 
> As for the continuous exploring for new exquisite pieces, I agree with you fully


These days I am of the opinion that you are too inclined to think about "what" makes a piece great, there is a good chance that you are actually looking for fresh air, for a new place to go. Physically or metaphorically, we need to keep discovering and for me, to really try to form a fixed or constant decision on what I like and why I like it, has been mostly dour and unsuccessful. Exploration keeps rewarding you from time to time. Sometimes I also feel like I am done with classical music and I listen to Nirvana for an hour - I usually like it a lot. One thing is for sure, the world is full of great treasures.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Let your heart lead the way. It's all about the feelings. Don't analyze so much.

When a majority of listeners connect with a piece because it moves them, it is a masterpiece.


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> For me it's the heart first. The opening of Appalachian Spring to me is so evocative of a peaceful nostalgia to me of times gone by. But then again I sometimes use it as a platform to recall pleasant thoughts from my brain's memory bank related to my own life, so both can be in play. The music allows me to "take a trip".


true american masterpiece

listening to it, I am sure that I can see the first pioneers full of youth and hope

searching for their dreams.

do you know that it was first called "Ballet for Martha", the famous Martha Graham?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

clara s said:


> excuisite can only be one, either full version or thirteen instruments hahaha
> 
> you said, for you is the second
> 
> can I hear both of them and return, for any question?


To each his own.

But of course... as long as you know there is no one 'right' response / answer


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

shangoyal said:


> These days I am of the opinion that you are too inclined to think about "what" makes a piece great, there is a good chance that you are actually looking for fresh air, for a new place to go. Physically or metaphorically, we need to keep discovering and for me, to really try to form a fixed or constant decision on what I like and why I like it, has been mostly dour and unsuccessful. Exploration keeps rewarding you from time to time. Sometimes I also feel like I am done with classical music and I listen to Nirvana for an hour - I usually like it a lot. One thing is for sure, the world is full of great treasures.


who can doubt that humans have always a great desire, to broaden their horizons

and open their wings for the highest parts of the sky?

and yes, I am one of those, that are always looking for fresh air, not to get bored,

because even perfection, if it goes on and on the same, it can be boring


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> true american masterpiece
> 
> listening to it, I am sure that I can see the first pioneers full of youth and hope
> 
> ...


Yes, I did know that, thanks. One of the most influential modern dance choreographers. I would love to see it danced in person. Never have unfortunately.

Appalachian Spring and Le Sacre du Printemps are on my ballet bucket list.


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Yes, I did know that, thanks. One of the most influential modern dance choreographers. I would love to see it danced in person. Never have unfortunately.
> 
> Appalachian Spring and Le Sacre du Printemps are on my ballet bucket list.


Maurice Bejart had done a supreme choreography for Rite of Spring

and also a unique one for the Bolero of Ravel

Bejart had an exquisite soloist, who died years ago, Jorge Donn

see him in Bolero in utube


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> Maurice Bejart had done a supreme choreography for Rite of Spring
> 
> and also a unique one for the Bolero of Ravel
> 
> ...


Thank you. Exquisite references!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I find Debussy's L'isle joyeuse a completely exquisite piece.

This from a Debussy detractor.


----------



## mcaparula (Apr 4, 2015)

Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe...the entire ballet. The epitome of "exquisite."


----------

