# Anyone here like Arvo Part?



## JTech82 (Feb 6, 2009)

I just read an interesting article about his music, but I'm pretty scared of it, because I normally don't like minimalism.

Anyone a fan or have some valuable insights into his music?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I have one disc by Part. It's a disc of choral music, whoch seems to be his specialty.

It's quite good! He creates sounds which are much akin to those that one might have heard in cathedrals during the middle ages. SO, in a way, his sound his very much a throw-back to a distant time, and one cannot help but feel transported to some place in the mists of time.

I wasn't aware that he is thought of as a minimalist, but I suppose I could see this. There is not a lot of fluctuation in the music that I've heard, but that is not to say it is repetitive to a fault. There is a strange "static" feeling to it, which, again, is other-worldly.


----------



## Lang (Sep 30, 2008)

There are some Part works that I really like. I think 'Spiegel im Spiegel' is my favourite of all I have heard. It's a piece which could be fully described in a couple of sentences, but which has an enormously transporting effect. I also really like the recorder piece, Pari Intervallo, which has a similar quality. And of course, 'Alina' is probably the ultimate work for aspiring pianists. Can you imagine someone who has only played for a short time, being able to transport listeners?

But overall I am pretty ignorant of his oeuvre. I must try to listen to more.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

JTech82 said:


> I just read an interesting article about his music, but I'm pretty scared of it, because I normally don't like minimalism.
> 
> Anyone a fan or have some valuable insights into his music?


For goodness' sake, just get a disc. 

Some of it really is minimalist, but other of his works are not very minimal at all; natural crescendi and phrases and such--this is not Glass by any means, not even the more minimal stuff. There is also a good amount of dissonance (make no mistake, though--still tonal!). There are people who swear by Part as one of the great composers of the era, one of the truly great ones. He is something different and not trying to be anything else but himself.

His music is an emotional experience, though. Almost like a modern-day Palestrina or something like that. Liquid lines in the music, stripped-bare textures (one can hear every line very prominently), and very spiritual in his musical outlook. This isn't just some random modernist; I think he's the real deal.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I wasn't aware that he is thought of as a minimalist, but I suppose I could see this. There is not a lot of fluctuation in the music that I've heard, but that is not to say it is repetitive to a fault. There is a strange "static" feeling to it, which, again, is other-worldly.





World Violist said:


> His music is an emotional experience, though. Almost like a modern-day Palestrina or something like that. Liquid lines in the music, stripped-bare textures (one can hear every line very prominently), and very spiritual in his musical outlook. This isn't just some random modernist; I think he's the real deal.


These are good descriptions of Part's music. Although I'm no expert of contemporary classical, I do like to listen to more recent stuff, especially Eastern European composers. I too am no fan of the more pure minimalist music like that of Glass, I find it somewhat cold and devoid of emotion, but the same cannot be said of Part.

The EMI cd I have includes _Spiegel_, _Fratres_, _Summa, Festina lente_, also _*Tabula Rasa *_(a concerto for 2 violins, prepared piano & string orchestra) and the _*Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten*_. I think the latter especially makes a big emotional impact on the listener, similar to Gorecki's _Symphony No. 3_, but it is only about 6 minutes long. He seems to like the sound of bells, sounds of which are prominent in the last two works. These are excellent works for smaller forces, and I recommend them to anyone who likes works for chamber orchestra.

He also wrote some symphonies, which I have not heard, & these might be more interesting for JTech, from what I know about him.


----------



## andruini (Apr 14, 2009)

yes! do yourself a favor and just listen to something by him!
his music to me is comparable to being in a dream.. one of those really weird but peaceful ones (i, of course, am making zero sense).. but it's like being transported as has already been said to a peaceful place.. some of it is really powerful too.. but they all have a really simple beauty, but also in some senses quite dense.. well, i don't know if i made any sense at all, but i really urge you to listen to the man..
i particularly recommend the Alina disc, as well as Tabula Rasa, Arbos and Te Deum..


----------



## handlebar (Mar 19, 2009)

I have almost every available CD of Pärt in my collection. I love the choral works and listen to his music often. He has become rather famous over the last 10 years and is well worth listening to IMHO.
The symphonies are not my cup of tea but his sacred music is truly inspired.

Jim


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Andre said:


> He also wrote some symphonies, which I have not heard, & these might be more interesting for JTech, from what I know about him.


The symphonies, if I'm not mistaken, are from his twelve-tone era, or shortly before it when his primary influences were Bartok and the like. He has written a fourth symphony recently, though, and its premiere by Esa-Pekka Salonen and the Los Angeles Symphony was very well-received. It hasn't had the chance to be recorded yet, but I think a recording might well be in the works by now.


----------



## JTech82 (Feb 6, 2009)

Well I appreciate all the help guys, I've read a lot about him too and listened to some sound samples. The music he composes is as World Violinist says static, but there seems to be a great emotional element to his music where all the drama just seems to wash away and forms this kind of tranquil mood.

I will investigate further. Right now I'm looking at a disc with Paavo Jarvi and the Estonian National Symphony.


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

And don't miss his Beatitudes. A masterpiece - beautifully proportioned and infinitely delicate. And the organ solo at the end is an out-of-this-world business.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

his early stuff is on the wild side...jarring harmony, etc. then around sym 3 (i think, ... whichever number, it's quite pretty) he began to dabble in renaissance sounding music and seems to have stayed there.

dj


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

sym #3, my favorite

dj


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

No, he's rubbish, jtech. Don't bother.


----------



## JTech82 (Feb 6, 2009)

Yeah, his Symphony No. 3 is quite beautiful. I like the way he builds up to that climax. Gorgeous.


----------



## Lang (Sep 30, 2008)

Bach said:


> No, he's rubbish, jtech. Don't bother.


*coughs quietly*


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Don't post a silly retort as if I'm somehow being a philistine.. his music is pap and he is scoffed at by the musical elite.


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

Ah, the musical elite... that utterly elevated and omniscient company of the reason-endowed...

Let me quote Sibelius once more: 'Pay no attention to what the critics say. No statue has ever been put up to a critic.'


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

That's rich coming from him.. probably because the critics gave him a good roasting.


----------



## JTech82 (Feb 6, 2009)

Well the problem I have with Part right now and I just heard his "Summa" is that there seems to be no kind of development in his pieces. It kind of stays in one mood much like Allan Pettersson's music.

All of my classical heroes composed music that is in constant change and can be interpreted in thousand different ways.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Yes, as I said, he's not terribly good. Cheap, hollow alternative to contemporary music.


----------



## Lang (Sep 30, 2008)

Bach said:


> Don't post a silly retort as if I'm somehow being a philistine.. his music is pap and he is scoffed at by the musical elite.


I'm sorry - I genuinely thought you were being sarcastic. But now I'm here - who in the 'musical elite' scoffs at him?


----------



## JTech82 (Feb 6, 2009)

Lang said:


> I'm sorry - I genuinely thought you were being sarcastic. But now I'm here - who in the 'musical elite' scoffs at him?


No you will know when Bach is kidding. If he doesn't like something, then he will tell you and I'm the same way.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Yeah, I'm not too keen on Pärt. Coffee table music.


----------



## Lang (Sep 30, 2008)

JTech82 said:


> No you will know when Bach is kidding. If he doesn't like something, then he will tell you and I'm the same way.


No, this is not true. If you don't like something you say it is rubbish. There is a big difference.


----------



## JTech82 (Feb 6, 2009)

Lang said:


> No, this is not true. If you don't like something you say it is rubbish. There is a big difference.


Oh yeah you really got me there Lang.  God forbid I say something bad about somebody you like.

It's okay because I completely _*SCHOOLED*_ you over at the Ravel thread in regards to "Bolero," which you didn't mention anything about, but it's cool I look forward to schooling you again.

Anyway, I agree with Bach. Part is a waste of perfectly good CD space.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Pärt is so very 90s. I liked much of his music back then, but now it just feels... old. Like Gorecki, who was suddenly hyped and then quickly forgotten again.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

pay no attention to the man behind the shades who calls himself bach. he's having an elite-ogasm.
it will pass soon enough, as does gas. 
enjoy all the arvoisms you wish.

dj


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Bach said:


> .. his music is pap and he is scoffed at by the musical elite.


Yeah right, and the elite are always right, aren't they? Like back in the early C19th, when they said that composers like Spohr & Hummel were greater than Beethoven. We always have to value what the elites have to say...(not!).


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

My experience is that the elite are no better than anyone else. What the elite sees in music is no more valid than what anyone else has to say. They can pick out subtleties in music, sure, but does that automatically make them better? I think not. Why would it be that way? It doesn't make sense in the end to assert that the musical "elite" are better, any more than the assertion that people with more money are more important.


----------



## JTech82 (Feb 6, 2009)

World Violist said:


> My experience is that the elite are no better than anyone else. What the elite sees in music is no more valid than what anyone else has to say. They can pick out subtleties in music, sure, but does that automatically make them better? I think not. Why would it be that way? It doesn't make sense in the end to assert that the musical "elite" are better, any more than the assertion that people with more money are more important.


I'm definitely not apart of the elite, but I do have a natural gift for music. I just happen to not like this minimalism stuff. Not my cup of tea. Boring, go nowhere, no resolution, nothing harmonically beautiful about it, no kind of melody, lack of structure. These are things I notice when I heard Adams, Riley, Reich, Glass, and now Part.

I realize there are people that like this muzak and that's perfectly okay with me, but nobody has given me a clear cut reason of why they like it. Saying "I like it," isn't really a descriptive that explains that much.

Now all you minimalism lovers tell your logic of why you like music that goes nowhere? Get the cucumbers out of our eyes and start getting down to the real reason of why many people enjoy this stuff.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

JTech82 said:


> I realize there are people that like this muzak and that's perfectly okay with me, but nobody has given me a clear cut reason of why they like it. Saying "I like it," isn't really a descriptive that explains that much.


Although Part's & Gorecki's music lack big statements, I think they can pack quite an emotional punch, in the right context. For example, look at how Michael Moore used Part's _*Cantus in memoriam Benjamin Britten*_ in _Fahrenheit 9/11_. I think this music expresses some of the ambiguities, uncertainties and problems of our age pretty well. It's very spriritual, and seems to talk to how we deal with tragedy and adversity. Like some others, I'm not a big fan of the USA minimalists, their work is too sterile and devoid of emotion for me. But this is not the case with Part & Gorecki.


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

I'd like to put in a postive vote for Arvo Part as I find his music to be soothing & up-lifting.
My favourite works by this composer are: Berliner Messe, Festina Lente, Summa, Cantus In Memoriam Benjamin Britten, Tabula Rasa, Spiegel Im Spiegal & Fur Alina - These are works which are in my opinion as beautiful as they are austere .


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

is austere the right word?


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2017)

World Violist said:


> My experience is that the elite are no better than anyone else. What the elite sees in music is no more valid than what anyone else has to say. They can pick out subtleties in music, sure, but does that automatically make them better? I think not. Why would it be that way? It doesn't make sense in the end to assert that the musical "elite" are better, any more than the assertion that people with more money are more important.


Your analogy is a little off. People with more money may not be more important than others, but they sure are better at making money (mostly) than most people--just as the musical elites are better at interpreting music than others, which also does not make them more important, of course. It is just plain nonsense to assert that people who devote their entire lives to a subject cannot have more credibility in that particular field.

Better analogy: the professionally trained surgeon can pick out subtleties in human anatomy, sure, but does that automatically makes them better at operations? I think yes.

It just annoys the heck out of me when I see people dismissing the elites as if they are all a bunch of useless brats living off of their daddy's dough. People simply don't become elites randomly or through sheer luck--otherwise you and I could become elites, too.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Sublunary said:


> Your analogy is a little off. People with more money may not be more important than others, but they sure are better at making money (mostly) than most people--just as the musical elites are better at interpreting music than others, which also does not make them more important, of course. It is just plain nonsense to assert that people who devote their entire lives to a subject cannot have more credibility in that particular field.
> 
> Better analogy: the professionally trained surgeon can pick out subtleties in human anatomy, sure, but does that automatically makes them better at operations? I think yes.
> 
> It just annoys the heck out of me when I see people dismissing the elites as if they are all a bunch of useless brats living off of their daddy's dough. People simply don't become elites randomly or through sheer luck--otherwise you and I would could become elites, too.


Firm statement made in your first post, welcome to Talk Classical by the way.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Sublunary said:


> Your analogy is a little off. People with more money may not be more important than others, but they sure are better at making money (mostly) than most people--just as the musical elites are better at interpreting music than others, which also does not make them more important, of course. It is just plain nonsense to assert that people who devote their entire lives to a subject cannot have more credibility in that particular field.
> 
> Better analogy: the professionally trained surgeon can pick out subtleties in human anatomy, sure, but does that automatically makes them better at operations? I think yes.
> 
> It just annoys the heck out of me when I see people dismissing the elites as if they are all a bunch of useless brats living off of their daddy's dough. People simply don't become elites randomly or through sheer luck--otherwise you and I could become elites, too.


Nice first post but you do realize you're replying to an 8-year-old post, right?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Nice first post but you do realize you're replying to an 8-year-old post, right?


I am sure he/ she didn't just had to get this of the chest


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

It's especially good if you've had a lobotomy.


----------

