# I'm looking for certain kinds of great contemporary music



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Something that's reasonably accessible but great and could be seen as an extension of late 19th century music -- has counterpoint, motivic development, conventional instruments only, and not super dissonant. The Bartok piece that was used in Kubrick's Shining is about the level of dissonance I can appreciate. Something like Webern goes over my head so that sort of thing should be avoided here. I also don't usually like rhapsodic music or minimalism. I'm looking for something like the Beethovens of today, and specifically their best works or the works that correspond best to what I'm looking for.

Any recommendations?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Part (later works), Vasks, Rautavaara.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

My advice: if you want Beethoven, listen to Beethoven. 

:tiphat:

But if you don't like that advice...
Perhaps later Penderecki will do.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Why not Stravinsky's take on Beethoven? It has everything you're looking for (except for the fact that it's not contemporary, though it is Modernist).


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

You could find out what the Bartok piece from The Shining is and give that a go and then some of the other Bartok cornerstones like Quartet 4 or PC 2. 

Being in the late 19th century classical tradition? That may take out more "neoclassical" work so recent pieces like the Ligeti Violin Concerto, or Etudes or something or Jagden und Formen or the Scnittke things people like are probably out, so maybe looking more in line with the most recent Magnus Lindberg and Kaia Sariaaho? Hans Werner Henze? Peter Eotvos? York Holler? Detlev Glanert? 

I'm not a good judge of dissonance-levels - so maybe some of this stuff would be too yucky


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

violadude said:


> My advice: if you want Beethoven, listen to Beethoven.
> 
> :tiphat:
> 
> ...


Later Penderecki sounds rather promising. I actually have an album I bought years ago that has some of his later stuff. I should give it some proper attention now that I have more experience listening to music than back then.

I wish I got more recommendations of particular works though. It kind of seems like it's difficult to tell one contemporary piece from another in terms of quality even for the better informed here.

Still, I'll save these recommendations and will be looking into them. Thanks all who have contributed so far.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

dgee said:


> You could find out what the Bartok piece from The Shining is and give that a go and then some of the other Bartok cornerstones like Quartet 4 or PC 2.


It's the slow movement from Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta (in the Karajan recording, I believe).

There's also a good deal of Penderecki's avant-garde period work in the movie (which gave rise to one of Alex Ross's sillier remarks in _The Rest is Noise_), but I doubt that's what the OP is looking for.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

dgee said:


> You could find out what the Bartok piece from The Shining is and give that a go and then some of the other Bartok cornerstones like Quartet 4 or PC 2.
> 
> Being in the late 19th century classical tradition? That may take out more "neoclassical" work so recent pieces like the Ligeti Violin Concerto, or Etudes or something or Jagden und Formen or the Scnittke things people like are probably out, so maybe looking more in line with the most recent Magnus Lindberg and Kaia Sariaaho? Hans Werner Henze? Peter Eotvos? York Holler? Detlev Glanert?
> 
> I'm not a good judge of dissonance-levels - so maybe some of this stuff would be too yucky


Actually I was just trying to express my interest in something that seems like the continuation of hundreds of years of tradition. It can be neoclassical.

edit: I have a recording of that Bartok composition, but for some reason my fondness for that one movement hasn't expanded to the others. Maybe later. I haven't listened to it in a long time. I'm not sure it's quite what I'm looking for right now though.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> Later Penderecki sounds rather promising. I actually have an album I bought years ago that has some of his later stuff. I should give it some proper attention now that I have more experience listening to music than back then.
> 
> I wish I got more recommendations of particular works though.* It kind of seems like it's difficult to tell one contemporary piece from another in terms of quality even for the better informed here.
> *
> Still, I'll save these recommendations and will be looking into them. Thanks all who have contributed so far.


Well, I actually don't like later Penderecki that much and don't think much of the quality of his work. But he's the only composer I could think of that might meet your restrictive requirements.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> Actually I was just trying to express my interest in something that seems like the continuation of hundreds of years of tradition. It can be neoclassical.


I'm curious about what you think of the Stravinsky piece that Mahlerian recommended. It will help us judge exactly what your thresh hold is.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> I wish I got more recommendations of particular works though. It kind of seems like it's difficult to tell one contemporary piece from another in terms of quality even for the better informed here.


Well, you've had a few specifics. And, actually, given you're not really certain what you're looking for, it might be quite good to google say "Hans Werner Henze major works" and see what you like the sound of, check it out on youtube etc. There's no point in me enthusing about Peter Eotvos's opera Three Sisters if you have no interest in opera or it's way too discordant for you


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

*Lutoslawski*: Piano Concerto 



*Keuris*: Movements for Orchestra 



*Saariaho*: Flute Concerto, L´Aile du Songe 



*Pettersson*: Symphony 8 




*Rautavaara*: Symphony 3, "The Brucknerian" 



*Tishchenko*: Violin Concerto no.2 



*Holmboe*: For instance Viola Concerto 



*Sumera*: Symphony 4 




*Corigliano*: Piano Concerto 



*Pawel Szymanski*: Etudes for Piano 



*Pärt:* Symphony 1 




*Dutilleux*: Symphony 2 



*Keuris*: Piano Concerto 



*Rochberg*: Violin Concerto


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

violadude said:


> I'm curious about what you think of the Stravinsky piece that Mahlerian recommended. It will help us judge exactly what your thresh hold is.


It has some passages that are maybe too strange for me, but in the same breath I have to say I like the passage around 3:30. For me that sort of thing can work well or not work at all and I can't really explain why the other and not the other.

Anyway, I've heard contemporary composers who aren't composing any sort of pastiche and still sound far more pretty than much of that piece. I'd be more inclined to like that sort of thing rather than something more reminiscent of the more dissonant parts of the Stravinsky.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

Listen to all of Prokofiev's symphonies (5 is the best imo) including the sinfonietta, maybe it, wouldn't be a bad idea to start with this or his first symphony (very very verrry traditional), but I would save the second symphony for last
(in my experience from least to most dissonant: 1<sinfonietta<7<4<5<6&3<2)
Also to his first 3 piano concertos and all of his piano sonatas


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> It has some passages that are maybe too strange for me, but in the same breath I have to say I like the passage around 3:30. For me that sort of thing can work well or not work at all and I can't really explain why the other and not the other.
> 
> Anyway, I've heard contemporary composers who aren't composing any sort of pastiche and still sound far more pretty than much of that piece. I'd be more inclined to like that sort of thing rather than something more reminiscent of the more dissonant parts of the Stravinsky.


What are some examples of contemporary compositions that you've thoroughly enjoyed?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Regarding form, and to some extent the material, the second movement from Ligeti's Violin Concerto is one of the "most traditional" pieces I have heard from recent times (1992) that still can be considered, at the same time, very modern.

The movement is basically a set of variations over a theme, which sounds folk music-influenced. Some hocketing technique is used in some sections. It contains some wild "dissonance", though, and unconventional tuning.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> Something that's reasonably accessible


I'm tired of saying this, but I will fight off my ennui for just a moment to say "accessible to whom?" Accessible is a certain type of word. It does not describe any characteristics of any object. It points to the experience and capacity of a subject. Only.



Chordalrock said:


> but great and could be seen as an extension of late 19th century music -- has counterpoint, motivic development, conventional instruments only, and not super dissonant.


Late 19th century music is "super dissonant." Wagner, Mahler, Dvorak, Scriabin. Early twentieth century music is super dissonant as well. Super dissonant is one of the extensions of late 19th century music that you find in the early twentieth century. All the way up to Schoenberg, which technically speaking is not dissonant at all, his system not being predicated on movement from consonance to dissonance and back.

As for "great," what are you asking for?



Chordalrock said:


> It kind of seems like it's difficult to tell one contemporary piece from another in terms of quality even for the better informed here.


Ah. Asking for a fight. Sorry. Altogether too much of that round here as it is. Drop the snark and people will be more likely to want to converse with you. Up to you, really.

Here are some representative pieces of the twentieth century. A very few. What they represent might not fit your notion of "great music." Too bad. It's what happened. And there are plenty of people, people who also like Bach and Mozart and Beethoven, who listen to them with great (!) pleasure, pleasure that increases from listen to listen as well. What more can you ask for?

Ives: symphony n. 4
Schoenberg: Variations
Stravinsky: Les Noces
Varese: Arcana 
Cage: Imaginary landscape n. 1
Sessions: symphony n. 7
Searle: symphony n. 5
Cage: Cartridge music
Stockhausen: Gesang der Juenglinge
Mumma: Hornpipe
Oliveros: I of IV
Varese: Poeme electronique
Stockhausen: Hymnen
Lachenmann: Gran torso
Lutoslawski: Livre pour orchestra
Ligeti: Le grand macabre
Berio: Sinfonietta
Maderna: oboe concerto n. 3
Shields: Apocalypse
Dockstader: Omniphony
Lachenmann: Air
Lutoslawski: cello concerto
Ligeti: violin concerto
Marclay: Records
Galas: Litanies of Satan
Cage: Freeman etudes
Stockhausen: Licht
Bruemmer: La cloche sans vallees
Ferreyra: Petit Poucet Magazine

OK, I give up. There is just too much lovely music in the twentieth century to list. Start anywhere. Keep going. Enjoy.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Why not Stravinsky's take on Beethoven? It has everything you're looking for (except for the fact that it's not contemporary, though it is Modernist).


LOL... the criticisms of A Rake's Progress were that the opera was pure pastiche, while each critic who cried pastiche listed several composers different from the other critic's lists.

The accompaniment figure right after the opening statement of Stravinsky's Symphony in C is a near direct copy of the configuration of the accompanying strings in the first movement of Mozart's Symphony no. 40 in G minor.

So... is the Symphony in C an hommage to Beethoven, Mozart, or an amalgam neoclassical work stamped all over with each and every of Stravinsky's hallmarks, his fingerprints, his musical DNA, his personality and modus operandi? (I think it is


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Not picking a fight so much as trying to motivate people to list particular works as I requested instead of just listing composers.

Thanks for the list.

As for the earlier question (by Mahlerian?) re what contemporary pieces I've enjoyed "thoroughly", none that I can think of if we're talking about whole compositions. There were two movements of Lehto's Missa Votiva that I enjoyed thoroughly.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> Something that's reasonably accessible but great and could be seen as an extension of late 19th century music -- has counterpoint, motivic development, conventional instruments only, and not super dissonant. The Bartok piece that was used in Kubrick's Shining is about the level of dissonance I can appreciate. Something like Webern goes over my head so that sort of thing should be avoided here. I also don't usually like rhapsodic music or minimalism. I'm looking for something like the Beethovens of today, and specifically their best works or the works that correspond best to what I'm looking for.
> 
> Any recommendations?


In Kubrick's film _The Shining_, the Bartok used is _Music for Stringed Instruments, Percussion, and Celesta.
_Fine 'definitive' recorded versions, I think both up on Youtube, are with Fritz Reiner conducting the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, and one with Ferenc Fricsay conducting the RIAS orchestra (this link with score.) There are four movements.





American William Schuman wrote 10 (pretty certain) symphonies: Schuman is a composer very strong in writing in the old symphonic tradition, and he was also a master of counterpoint. I am particularly fond of his Symphony no. 6, while that may be far too dense for you at this stage. Try the earlier numbered symphonies as catch can via Youtube.

More in an audibly direct line of descent, the late-romantic / modern Symphony No. 5 of Carl Nielsen, another symphonist with masterly use of counterpoint.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Copy pasted for later use.

Had to take a peek at William Schuman's sixth. It seems like a mixture of accessible, somewhat accessible, and inaccessible to me. I'd say the beginning is nice until the flute starts dancing around, then it becomes nice again afterwards. I'll have to listen to more later.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

It´s not so likely that you´ll find the examples I listed very attractive then; that Schuman work is mostly "milder" than them. 
As others said, late Arvo Pärt is probably an option (lots of choral music included there too, cf. your mention of the Lehto mass).


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I think you're trying to find qualities in contemporary music that you simply aren't going to find in the best compositions. Maybe you just don't like it.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

joen_cph said:


> It´s not so likely that you´ll find the examples I listed very attractive then; that Schuman work is mostly "milder" than them.
> As others said, late Arvo Pärt is probably an option (lots of choral music included there too, cf. your mention of the Lehto mass).


Yeah, I did listen to some of them a bit and they did seem mostly more dissonant than I was looking for. Still, it's not that I can't take dissonant stuff, it's just that I find it difficult to evaluate or care about deeply. I'll keep the list for future use and maybe there's something there I'll like anyway.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Chordalrock said:


> Something that's reasonably accessible but great...


You'll have to find it on your own... How would anyone else know what you find great and accessible?


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

starthrower said:


> You'll have to find it on your own... How would anyone else know what you find great and accessible?


I'm assuming a certain amount of commonality of experience, what with all of us being human. Feel free not to contribute if you feel unable to. So far, I've gotten some good pointers, William Schuman for one.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I agree with starthrower to some extent. It's really your own journey. Check the recommendations you've been given already, do some reading and try some more stuff. If you go on youtube and plug in Ligeti Violin Concerto for example (or maybe the William Schuman if you think it's a good starting point - his famous Symphony 3 might be more your speed tho) you get a whole lot of recommendations down the side of the screen - go down the rabbit-hole! Maybe you could report back on this thread when you've had time to digest and explore, make some observations, ask some questions - might be the start of something cool!


----------



## Dirge (Apr 10, 2012)

Paul HINDEMITH: String Quartet No. 4, Op. 22 (1921) • Zehetmair Quartett [ECM]
Ernest BLOCH: String Quartet No. 2 (1945) • Griller Quartet [Decca]
Roger SESSIONS: String Quartet No. 2 (1951) • Kohon Quartet [Vox]

Hindemith and Bloch wrote a fair number of continuation/advancement-of-tradition works, some particularly good examples being the highly wrought string quartets listed above. The Sessions quartet is more cutting edge in language yet still traditional in the forms it uses. The Hindemith has become almost popular of late, but the Bloch and especially the Sessions (deadly serious works, both) remain more admired than actually listened to.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> I'm assuming a certain amount of commonality of experience, what with all of us being human. Feel free not to contribute if you feel unable to. So far, I've gotten some good pointers, William Schuman for one.


Your assumption is somewhat off, in that everyone's idea of dissonant is relative... I was listening to the Prokofiev second piano concerto as a regular start of day music, with breakfast, in middle school. Others can and will, for them quite legitimately, say they find Ravel 'weird' or 'dissonant.'

At least you recognize you have limits. Now realize that fully equates with "limitations," and that no one but you can really guess what they are, now, or really from day to day.

That piccolo going to flute solo in the first movement of Schuman's sixth is a corker, deeply expressive, and that is the part you _didn't_ care for, lol


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Listen to white noise for about 20 minutes and then listen to one of Xenakis' percussion pieces. Xenakis should become one of your favorite composers after that. Worth a try.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Thanks all for the recommendations.

Something I may try to do is focusing more on slow movements in works that seem otherwise too strange. I'm able to appreciate slow movements and passages a lot better in these sorts of works for some reason.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> Thanks all for the recommendations.
> 
> Something I may try to do is focusing more on slow movements in works that seem otherwise too strange. I'm able to appreciate slow movements and passages a lot better in these sorts of works for some reason.


It's because you have an easier time understanding the language if you can track the changes as they occur, and you're not familiar enough with it to track them at a fast pace.

Without meaning this as a criticism (because I was once the same), I would suggest that you stop worrying about whether you like or understand something or not, and simply try to understand why this or that note is there. All of the dissonances in the Stravinsky movement, for instance, grow directly out of the opening motif and its inherent tonal ambiguity.


----------



## EDaddy (Nov 16, 2013)

How about Stravinsky's Symphony in Three Movements? And/or his Symphony in C and/or his Symphony of Psalms. 

Stravinsky Conducts Stravinsky is a great way to go for these. No one does his music like he does.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Chordalrock, After reading the opening post and your reaction to various items, I'm at some loss what exactly to suggest since I cannot pinpoint the boundaries (anti-rhapsodic on the one hand, concerned with dissonance on the other). I don't think in those terms. For me, contemporary means contemporary -- which means this extraordinary range of styles. And I enjoy most of them, from quite traditional to quite avant-garde. Like several others, let me list a wide range of items and a range of styles and composers in hopes of hitting the mark and opening a doorway into some of the richness that is contemporary classical:

Readily accessible:
*Michael Daugherty, Fire and Blood (2003) 




*Osvaldo Golijov, La pasión según san Marcos (2000) 




*Judd Greenstein, Change (2009)




*Frederic Rzewski, The People United Will Never Be Defeated (1975)




*Arvo Pärt, Tabula Rasa (1976)




*Paul Moravec, Tempest Fantasy (2004)




*Vagn Holmboe, Quartetto Sereno, op. 197, posth. (1996)





Somewhat more challenging:
*Einojuhani Rautavaara, Symphony #7 "Angel of Light" (1994)




*John Adams, Harmonielehre (1985)




*Krzysztof Penderecki, String Quartet #3 ("Leaves of an unwritten diary") (2008)




*Bryce Dessner, Aheym (2013)





Challenging but give it some time:
*Henri Dutilleux, L'Arbre des songes: Concerto for Violin & Orchestra (1985)




*Gyorgy Ligeti, Etudes pour piano 




*Witold Lutoslawski, Symphony #4 (1994)





I could list others, and more challenging ones, but I don't think that's what you say you're looking for.

(Addendum: I just noticed Some Guy's remark about "accessibility". I appreciate his frustration. I interpret "accessible" as those who grew up listening to and attending symphony concerts with mainly 19th-century works but who are used to and enjoy various 20th century composers who favor a populist palette, e.g. Copland, Britten, Bernstein).


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

EDaddy said:


> How about Stravinsky's Symphony in Three Movements? And/or his Symphony in C and/or his Symphony of Psalms.
> 
> Stravinsky Conducts Stravinsky is a great way to go for these. No one does his music like he does.


Stravinsky isn't a bad suggestion, but I was trying to avoid the topic of the modernists, for various reasons, one being that they're well known so I don't really need much guidance if I want to explore their works more than the little I have. Another is that my impression and let's say, hope, was that more recent composers would have composed music that's more to my taste. Somebody once said the really dissonant stuff was happening around the mid-20th century while in recent decades composers have been moving to a more accessible direction -- for some composers this is clearly evident, Penderecki, Lindberg, Rautavaara if I'm not mistaken. Some composers died before they could move to this direction, Webern for example. Anyway, some contemporary works that I've heard have sounded quite accessible (but there are no recordings available of these) and I was hoping to find something like them, although not only something like them.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> It's because you have an easier time understanding the language if you can track the changes as they occur, and you're not familiar enough with it to track them at a fast pace.
> 
> Without meaning this as a criticism (because I was once the same), I would suggest that you stop worrying about whether you like or understand something or not, and simply try to understand why this or that note is there. All of the dissonances in the Stravinsky movement, for instance, grow directly out of the opening motif and its inherent tonal ambiguity.


I think you may have a point, in both paragraphs.

I've noticed it does sometimes help in appreciating a piece when you understand it structurally to the point where you can see how passages were derived from motives. This applies more to appreciating specific passages though than whole pieces. One example would be the slow passage from Brahm's fourth symphony first movement development section. It seemed underwhelming until I realised it's motivic development and fits the piece structurally.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

I would recommend Lutoslawski's "Concerto for Orchestra"


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Listen to white noise for about 20 minutes and then listen to one of Xenakis' percussion pieces. Xenakis should become one of your favorite composers after that. Worth a try.


I'll skip the white noise part and go straight to this.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with film soundtracks. There is truly great and profound music there. Try Max Steiner, Bernard Herrmann, Franz Waxman, Miklos Rosza, Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Dimitri Tiomkin, Hans Salter, Frank Skinner, etc. There are some fantastic modern recordings of their works on RCA, Marco Polo and Naxos.

Classical music changed into a different sort of thing in the modern era. If that different sort of thing doesn't appeal to you, you'll find what you are looking for in classic film soundtracks. The orchestral tradition that you like continues there.

The same is true of Jazz. I highly recommend the Jazz on Film series produced by http://www.moochinabout.com


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

bigshot said:


> There is absolutely nothing wrong with film soundtracks. There is truly great and profound music there. Try Max Steiner, Bernard Herrmann, Franz Waxman, Miklos Rosza, Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Dimitri Tiomkin, Hans Salter, Frank Skinner, etc. There are some fantastic modern recordings of their works on RCA, Marco Polo and Naxos.
> 
> Classical music changed into a different sort of thing in the modern era. If that different sort of thing doesn't appeal to you, you'll find what you are looking for in classic film soundtracks. The orchestral tradition that you like continues there.
> 
> The same is true of Jazz. I highly recommend the Jazz on Film series produced by http://www.moochinabout.com


Cool idea. I also like your mentioning that jazz series. I was contemplating starting a similar thread on jazz but thought I would be drowned in all of these recommendations if I started it too soon after this one.


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2014)

I agree with ArtRock's post.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> LOL... the criticisms of A Rake's Progress were that the opera was pure pastiche, while each critic who cried pastiche listed several composers different from the other critic's lists.
> 
> The accompaniment figure right after the opening statement of Stravinsky's Symphony in C is a near direct copy of the configuration of the accompanying strings in the first movement of Mozart's Symphony no. 40 in G minor.
> 
> So... is the Symphony in C an homage to Beethoven, Mozart, or an amalgam neoclassical work stamped all over with each and every of Stravinsky's hallmarks, his fingerprints, his musical DNA, his personality and modus operandi? (I think it is


I know you're right on that point (even Stravinsky's Tchaikovsky and Pergolesi sound like Stravinsky...), but there was an essay I read once comparing the first movement of the Symphony in C to Beethoven's Symphony No. 1 (also in C major), and I found it pretty convincing.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> I've noticed it does sometimes help in appreciating a piece when you understand it structurally to the point where you can see how passages were derived from motives. This applies more to appreciating specific passages though than whole pieces. One example would be the slow passage from Brahm's fourth symphony first movement development section. It seemed underwhelming until I realised it's motivic development and fits the piece structurally.


Understanding how a piece works doesn't necessarily get us to enjoy it. There will always be things we just don't like. On the other hand, it can be difficult to tell at times whether you dislike something because you just have an aversion to it or because you don't yet understand it or have a feel for the idiom. That's why I try not to make assumptions either way, either for myself or for others.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Sometimes composers seem to be helpfully aiding us in not liking their work. Is there a musical equivalent of sociopathic behavior?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> Cool idea. I also like your mentioning that jazz series. I was contemplating starting a similar thread on jazz but thought I would be drowned in all of these recommendations if I started it too soon after this one.


The interesting thing about forums and jazz on the internet is that everyone only seems to know about jazz from the fifties and beyond. They have very little experience with the first three and a half decades of jazz. That's the same as going online to ask about classical music and only getting recommendations for music composed from Wagner on.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Sometimes composers seem to be helpfully aiding us in not liking their work. Is there a musical equivalent of sociopathic behavior?


You'd have to consider every composer a sociopath in relation to those that don't like their music, I guess.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

bigshot said:


> The interesting thing about forums and jazz on the internet is that everyone only seems to know about jazz from the fifties and beyond. They have very little experience with the first three and a half decades of jazz. That's the same as going online to ask about classical music and only getting recommendations for music composed from Wagner on.


Well, this is true of Classical music to an extent. There is relatively little talk about music from before Bach.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

violadude said:


> Well, this is true of Classical music to an extent. There is relatively little talk about music from before Bach.


Which is somewhat surprising, particularly how little there is talk of anything before Palestrina. My guess is most people when they listen to music approach it from a melodic-chordal perspective rather than paying a lot of attention to polyphonic detail, because otherwise you could easily see the early Renaissance as the golden age of choral music.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

bigshot said:


> The interesting thing about forums and jazz on the internet is that everyone only seems to know about jazz from the fifties and beyond. They have very little experience with the first three and a half decades of jazz. That's the same as going online to ask about classical music and only getting recommendations for music composed from Wagner on.


That's because for people who are playing jazz Charlie Parker is still relevant while Benny Goodman is not so relevant anymore.

For a lot of people it starts to get interesting with lester young. It started to turn into art


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Piwikiwi said:


> That's because for people who are playing jazz Charlie Parker is still relevant while Benny Goodman is not so relevant anymore.
> 
> For a lot of people it starts to get interesting with lester young. It started to turn into art


This reminds me why I don't like violin concertos: they're about the playing. They're not about the music, they're about art, which is to say the art of playing and not the art of music alas.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> Which is somewhat surprising, particularly how little there is talk of anything before Palestrina. My guess is most people when they listen to music approach it from a melodic-chordal perspective rather than paying a lot of attention to polyphonic detail, because otherwise you could easily see the early Renaissance as the golden age of choral music.


It is not at all surprising; as per the average listening public, choral and vocal music are the least favored genre of it all. Many a 'classic FM' station steers far clear of most choral music and nearly all vocal music. Both their audiences and their sponsors do not care for it.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> This reminds me why I don't like violin concertos: they're about the playing. They're not about the music, they're about art, which is to say the art of playing and not the art of music alas.


That's not the reason, jazz has moved on from on from the swing period and modern players simply have more in common with bebop than with big band swing

You're missing a kot of gorgeous music if you think that violin concertos are only about the virtuosity.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

I wouldn't say violin concertos are only about virtuosity, but starting with Beethoven they're usually spoiled by virtuosic episodes that have zero actual musical value.

Anyway, I'm finding some Rautavaara easy to like. For example, Apotheosis, which is a revised version of the fourth movement of his symphony no 6. The first part of Manhattan Trilogy is somewhat less accessible but still nice. Some other stuff of his has a mixture of the kind of sound world I was looking for and rather more dissonant than I'd prefer.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

It's about time violin concertos be banned. Enough's enough!


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

PetrB said:


> It is not at all surprising; as per the average listening public, choral and vocal music are the least favored genre of it all.


Average listening public who listen mostly to classical music, sure. Average music listening public in general, I think you'll find that instrumental music barely registers. I would say it's odd but then right off the bat I can guess it probably has something to do with classical vocal music being mostly in foreign languages and people not liking the style of singing.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Piwikiwi said:


> That's because for people who are playing jazz Charlie Parker is still relevant while Benny Goodman is not so relevant anymore. For a lot of people it starts to get interesting with lester young. It started to turn into art


It really has nothing to do with the music. It has to do with the recordings. Younger listeners tend to divide music into two categories... old irrelevant stuff and modern high fidelity recordings. Of course that is as wrong for classical music as it is for jazz. There's a storehouse full of art in pre-50s jazz, just as there are unique and wonderful classical musicmaking in historical recordings.

The only way to know whether what I say is correct or not is to be as familiar with pre-50s jazz as post-50s. I've traversed the entire history of recorded jazz myself, and if I had to trace its course, I would say that the artistic quality of jazz increased steadily, hitting it's highest peak in the 1930s. At that point, jazz was recognized as the greatest American artistic achievement and the music was a part of every person's everyday life, crossing over from being an ethnic subgenre to being mainstream music for all Americans. There is a bit of a dark zone during the war and recording ban where it's hard to know everything that was happening during the transition from swing to be bop. After that it was a steady decline from that lofty peak to fusion and a drop off the chart altogether with free jazz.

The problem is that there is a period during the recording ban where all that exists is amateur recordings. Most younger jazz listeners hit that point, get turned off by the bad sound and don't press back any further. Then they go into internet newsgroups and announce that pre-50s jazz is irrelevant!

Swing isn't irrelevant to modern jazz artists, modern jazz artists are affected by the greatest blow to creativity we've suffered as a civilization lately... cultural amnesia. Young people are largely ignorant of anything further back than fifty years. No films earlier than Star Wars, no music earlier than the Beatles. No artists earlier than Warhol. Artistic Alzheimers.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> This reminds me why I don't like violin concertos: they're about the playing. They're not about the music, they're about art, which is to say the art of playing and not the art of music alas.


There is plenty of virtuosity and room for solos that spotlight the art of playing in golden age jazz. The difference between classic jazz and modern jazz is in its attitude toward the style of performance.

A perfect example is Dizzy Gillespie. Compare his performance style in "Jivin' in Be Bop" 1946 to the famous Dumont performance of Hot House just a little over five years later. In 1946, Gillespie was working hard to entertain an audience... addressing the camera, mugging, making it look fun, etc. The music is as modern and skillful as it would later be, it's just made accessible and is presented as fun. On Hot House all attempt to acknowledge the fact that they are performing is gone. They stand still, totally serious, dressed plainly, focused on themselves. It's as if they are saying "real art is no fun".

What happened was that Gillespie had decided that taking a stone faced approach gave him more gravitas with music critics and the intelligencia. He didn't care what general audiences thought any more. When other modern jazz musicians followed his lead, the music followed. It became less fun, more abstract. The audience for jazz shrunk to an elite few... the boppers. And anyone who liked older forms were denigrated as moldy figs. Gillespie even had the gall to accuse Louis Armstrong of being an "Uncle Tom" because he criticized the pompous turn jazz had taken. They didn't just turn their back on the established jazz audiences, they threw rocks at them and told them to get lost.

Alienated audiences for jazz followed Louis Jordan and others into jump blues, which merged with country music to form rock n roll. Rock n Roll and Elvis plowed modern jazz under completely. Eventually modern jazz became so weakened, the only way it could survive was by following the old adage, "if you can't beat them, join them" and it fused with rock music and went electronic.

Kind of a sad story. Jazz was once the everyman's music. The perfect manifestation of musical democracy with no social or racial barriers. But even though it had already conquered the world, some folks thought it wasn't good enough unless it was taken seriously by an exclusive cult of insiders.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

So what if jazz became "art" music, for a select few in the in-crowd? Why should jazz artists feel like they need to appeal to broader audiences? I think you're wrong about Dizzy Gillespie, btw. Jazz hit a brick wall with bebop in terms of popular acceptance. Bebop was more advanced than Glenn Miller and Louis Jordan, and it just didn't appeal to a broad audience (and there's nothing wrong with that). It wasn't Gillespie who turned away from a popular audience; it was the popular audience that didn't want to follow Gillespie to where he wanted to go (though there's nothing wrong with that either).

It's sort of shocking to hear post-bebop jazz be described as a "sad story". What a rich body of music to be described that way! Sad? No. Hardly.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

bigshot said:


> There is plenty of virtuosity and room for solos that spotlight the art of playing in golden age jazz. The difference between classic jazz and modern jazz is in its attitude toward the style of performance.
> 
> A perfect example is Dizzy Gillespie. Compare his performance style in "Jivin' in Be Bop" 1946 to the famous Dumont performance of Hot House just a little over five years later. In 1946, Gillespie was working hard to entertain an audience... addressing the camera, mugging, making it look fun, etc. The music is as modern and skillful as it would later be, it's just made accessible and is presented as fun. On Hot House all attempt to acknowledge the fact that they are performing is gone. They stand still, totally serious, dressed plainly, focused on themselves. It's as if they are saying "real art is no fun".
> 
> ...


I agree with almost all of this except:

- seeing it as necessarily sad. Many of us (I'm nothing like alone here) enjoy the bebop and later jazz as much as I enjoy Dixieland and big band. Anyway, the tradition had to go somewhere - if it'd just stood still, it would've simply died.

- the implication that in a world without bebop, a world where "jazz" still meant strictly Dixieland or big band (or maybe things like ragtime and stride piano as well if you're willing to count them) rock and roll (or some other new thing) would not have become popular. I just can't imagine, and I don't believe that anyone else can imagine, that the teenagers of the 1950s (let alone those of the mid- and late-1960s) would've rejected all newer alternatives had Dixieland or big band only been more popular.

- seeing any period of jazz as a manifestation of music without social or racial barriers. That just didn't exist, and probably hasn't ever existed outside of foraging societies. One of the reasons the beboppers took that straitlaced style was to conform to white/European/highbrow notions of what "art" should be. They didn't want to "know their place" and "stay in their place," they were self-consciously "uppity." They were self-consciously pursuing "art music" rather than "popular music." They demanded a kind of respect that the clownish "smiling *****" performance style wasn't going to receive. We live in a different world in terms of race, but the art/pop dichotomy remains alive and frankly omnipotent in our world - suffocatingly ubiquitous even among people who by virtue of their education "ought to know better." We have to acknowledge the reality of our world even if we occasionally manage to protest its dichotomies, and so did they: they did not create those stereotypes or dichotomies, they were born into that world and had to live in it, and praise the gods they responded to it with great creativity and success.

However, big props for the shootout to jump blues, one of the sadly neglected great strains of American music! BTW, one of the pioneers of _that_ tradition was none other than Lionel Hampton. There're always interesting connections to find!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

apricissimus said:


> So what if jazz became "art" music, for a select few in the in-crowd?


Because any art form flourishes when it reflects and is in direct contact with the society that produces it. Jazz exploded and evolved at lightning speed because recordings spread the word all over the world. Everyone was a part of it. When art is cooped up in ivory towers, its growth slows to a snail's pace. It wasn't just jazz though. Just about every form of creativity in America flourished in the first half of the 20th century and declined in the second half. Jazz was just the first and greatest 20th century art form to fall.

By the way, I always hear young people use Glenn Miller as an example of early jazz. He was a popular artist, not a jazz artist. He played a little jazz with Red Nichols in his early days, but in his prime, he was primarily a popular artist. Also, he was at his peak during WW2 when jazz suffered from the wartime restrictions and recording ban, not during the golden age of the 30s. When I refer to golden age jazz, I'm talking about Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Fletcher Henderson, James P Johnson, among many others. Those are the giants of jazz. They changed the world with their music.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

science said:


> I agree with almost all of this except:
> 
> - seeing it as necessarily sad. Many of us (I'm nothing like alone here) enjoy the bebop and later jazz as much as I enjoy Dixieland and big band. Anyway, the tradition had to go somewhere - if it'd just stood still, it would've simply died.


You misunderstood a couple of my points... Be Bop wasn't the end of the road, it was just the point where the direction of jazz turned and headed toward the end. (Free jazz was the nail in the coffin.)

The society that produced jazz wasn't without racial issues... But jazz was the knife that cut through those problems- the great equalizer. Appreciation of the talents of black jazz musicians had a lot to do with laying the foundation the civil rights movement was built on.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

bigshot said:


> Because any art form flourishes when it reflects and is in direct contact with the society that produces it. Jazz exploded and evolved at lightning speed because recordings spread the word all over the world. Everyone was a part of it. When art is cooped up in ivory towers, its growth slows to a snail's pace.


This is a good point that I at least hadn't thought of: when an art form is only enjoyed by the few, the talent mostly goes elsewhere and the art form produces far less, and perhaps of lesser value, than it would otherwise. That said, I don't know anything about the state of jazz but I think classical music is doing very well -- if only it got recorded and stayed in print so you wouldn't hear most of it only in concerts. Popularity would help tons here too.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

bigshot said:


> You misunderstood a couple of my points... Be Bop wasn't the end of the road, it was just the point where the direction of jazz turned and headed toward the end. (Free jazz was the nail in the coffin.)
> 
> The society that produced jazz wasn't without racial issues... But jazz was the knife that cut through those problems- the great equalizer. Appreciation of the talents of black jazz musicians had a lot to do with laying the foundation the civil rights movement was built on.


I have some great news for you, free jazz is as good as dead and a lot of interesting things are happening right now in jazz.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

bigshot said:


> It really has nothing to do with the music. It has to do with the recordings. Younger listeners tend to divide music into two categories... old irrelevant stuff and modern high fidelity recordings. Of course that is as wrong for classical music as it is for jazz. There's a storehouse full of art in pre-50s jazz, just as there are unique and wonderful classical musicmaking in historical recordings.
> 
> The only way to know whether what I say is correct or not is to be as familiar with pre-50s jazz as post-50s. I've traversed the entire history of recorded jazz myself, and if I had to trace its course, I would say that the artistic quality of jazz increased steadily, hitting it's highest peak in the 1930s. At that point, jazz was recognized as the greatest American artistic achievement and the music was a part of every person's everyday life, crossing over from being an ethnic subgenre to being mainstream music for all Americans. There is a bit of a dark zone during the war and recording ban where it's hard to know everything that was happening during the transition from swing to be bop. After that it was a steady decline from that lofty peak to fusion and a drop off the chart altogether with free jazz.
> 
> ...


Sorry but most jazz in the 1930's was commercial trash. Jazz musicians invented bebop to keep themselves interested in the music. You also seem to forget that guys like John Coltrane are hugely popular. It seems to me that you confuse personal taste with quality.

I've studied jazz full time for 7 years. I know all about pre 1940's jazz so I don't get why you suggest I don't listen to it because of the sound quality. It would be nice if you can provide solid arguments for this discussion instead of ad homonyms

I'm in my phone now and while respond more in depth later.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Piwikiwi said:


> I have some great news for you, free jazz is as good as dead and a lot of interesting things are happening right now in jazz.


Hooray for the death of free jazz! I'll dance on its grave.

The great things happening in jazz now are a pale shadow of jazz's past. Jazz was a worldwide revolution in the 1930s. To see current jazz reduced to just another sub genre in the "other" section in record stores is sad.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Piwikiwi said:


> Sorry but most jazz in the 1930's was commercial trash.


That's a remarkably under-informed opinion you've got there! Keep studying jazz full time. I think you might have missed a few classes.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

bigshot said:


> That's a remarkably under-informed opinion you've got there! Keep studying jazz full time. I think you might have missed a few classes.


I actually got a 95/100 in my jazz history course. I've read more than a few biographies, articles and two books which interviewed a lot of musicians about the evolution from swing to bop from the 1930's to the late 1940's.

I'm happy to debate this but you are now just cherry picking certain things from my argument while ignoring my main points.

The evolution from swing to bebop was inevitable after this record was released.






Count Basie's big band shifted the focus from tight arrangement were soloists had very little freedom to a more improvisation focused type of jazz.
It was inevitable after this recording. I don't know if you have listened a lot to Charlie Parker's bootleg recordings during the recording ban but he really played like Lester Young in the early 1940's.

Lester Young was probably the most influential jazz saxophonist on the whole west coast jazz scene. It is especially noticeable with people like Al Cohn, Zoot Sims, Gerry Mulligan and Stan Getz. These people were hugely popular, so you argument that it is not longer part of people's everyday life's isn't very strong either. Pop music is relevant to a lot of people's daily lives and you can safely question the artistic merit of pop music.

Miles Davis' recording Kind of blue and John Coltrane's A love supreme(probably the best jazz album of all time) are still one of the best selling jazz albums of all time. Your arguments simply don't hold up I'm afraid. To say that jazz has it's artistic peak in the 1930's is like saying that classical music peaked in the renaissance. It doesn't lose artistic merit simply because it get's less accessible.

Jazz is very much alive and doing well today. There are a ton of musicians working extremely hard and with fresh ideas. People like Jacky Terrasson, Avishai Cohen, Brad Mehldau, Joshua Redman, Lage Lund, Will Vinson are making fresh music that is not obsessed with looking at the past.

I really want to stress this point again. Just because you prefer music from the 1930's doesn't change it's artistic merit. I personally prefer west coast jazz/hard bop from the 1950-1960 but I can enjoy and still realize that jazz always needs to be a product of it's time and that it needs to continue to evolve like it has done since it was first invented. Here is another video which shows that swing still lives on in a more modern way. The another one is from a documentary with modern musicians playing swing.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

bigshot said:


> Because any art form flourishes when it reflects and is in direct contact with the society that produces it. Jazz exploded and evolved at lightning speed because recordings spread the word all over the world. Everyone was a part of it. When art is cooped up in ivory towers, its growth slows to a snail's pace. It wasn't just jazz though. Just about every form of creativity in America flourished in the first half of the 20th century and declined in the second half. Jazz was just the first and greatest 20th century art form to fall.
> 
> By the way, I always hear young people use Glenn Miller as an example of early jazz. He was a popular artist, not a jazz artist. He played a little jazz with Red Nichols in his early days, but in his prime, he was primarily a popular artist. Also, he was at his peak during WW2 when jazz suffered from the wartime restrictions and recording ban, not during the golden age of the 30s. When I refer to golden age jazz, I'm talking about Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Fletcher Henderson, James P Johnson, among many others. Those are the giants of jazz. They changed the world with their music.


I strongly disagree that the growth of jazz slowed to a snail's pace, post-bebop. That just seems demonstrably untrue. Just look at the amazing variety of different kinds of jazz since then. It seems to me that jazz exploded; it didn't stagnate.

Nor did it fall. If you don't care as much for jazz from the last 70 years or so, that's fine. But you couldn't be more wrong about it "falling" as a great art form.

And I wasn't using Glenn Miller as an example of early jazz. I was citing him as someone who was popular around the time that bebop started to take off. (I have a good knowledge of early jazz, so you don't have to worry about that.)


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

bigshot said:


> You misunderstood a couple of my points... Be Bop wasn't the end of the road, it was just the point where the direction of jazz turned and headed toward the end. (Free jazz was the nail in the coffin.)
> 
> The society that produced jazz wasn't without racial issues... But jazz was the knife that cut through those problems- the great equalizer. Appreciation of the talents of black jazz musicians had a lot to do with laying the foundation the civil rights movement was built on.


This sounds an awful lot like the posts you see here ad nauseam with people complaining about "dissonant" music, the terrible effects of Schoenberg, etc.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

bigshot said:


> Hooray for the death of free jazz! I'll dance on its grave.
> 
> The great things happening in jazz now are a pale shadow of jazz's past. Jazz was a worldwide revolution in the 1930s. To see current jazz reduced to just another sub genre in the "other" section in record stores is sad.


I have good news. If you don't like free jazz, you don't have to listen to it!


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

I am big fan of Jazz, but last year I had to make a choice; either cut my Classical music collection in half (limited space, you see) or do the same to my smaller but still sizable Jazz collection. I chose to save the former. However, I've started a small but growing collection of Japanese and Indian classical music. I suppose I'll have to get a bigger place now.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

apricissimus said:


> I strongly disagree that the growth of jazz slowed to a snail's pace, post-bebop. That just seems demonstrably untrue. Just look at the amazing variety of different kinds of jazz since then. It seems to me that jazz exploded; it didn't stagnate.
> 
> Nor did it fall. If you don't care as much for jazz from the last 70 years or so, that's fine. But you couldn't be more wrong about it "falling" as a great art form.


Write down a list of the greatest jazz created from be bop on. Include as much as you can. Then apply dates to your list and plot it chronologically on a chart by time. You aren't going to see a straight line.

See, you are assuming that I like 30s jazz and I don't like modern jazz. That isn't true. I love be bop and beyond. It's just I clearly see a decline in the amount of great music, and a decline in jazz's influence on creativity and culture. The decline isn't in quality, it's in quantity. The reason is that creative musicians migrated to other forms of music... specifically rock.

Improvisational music has boiled down and evolved in the contemporary era to rock music.
Composed music has boiled down and evolved in the contemporary era to film soundtrack music.

Jazz still exists and there are still wonderful musicians working in that area. But it's just a specialty genre now, not anywhere near the world changing creative revolution it was in the 30s. In the 30s, jazz changed the world. Now it's just another nice kind of music to listen to.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

apricissimus said:


> This sounds an awful lot like the posts you see here ad nauseam with people complaining about "dissonant" music, the terrible effects of Schoenberg, etc.


You're right. I think there is a corollary there. Classical music was a huge revolutionary world changer in the late 19th century. Today, it's also just another nice genre of music to listen to. Why isn't classical music as culturally important today as it was 100 years ago? Could it be because the composers took contemporary classical music in abstract and dissonant directions that appealed to critics and intellectuals and proponants of contemporary classical music looked down on traditional classical audiences and worked hard to alienate them from the music? It's VERY similar to what happened to jazz. The mistake was equating populism with lack of sophistication. The audience got refined down to an incestuous puddle that no longer could support the art form. So the art form moved on to a different art form.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I am big fan of Jazz, but last year I had to make a choice; either cut my Classical music collection in half (limited space, you see) or do the same to my smaller but still sizable Jazz collection. I chose to save the former.


It's a good thing you weren't standing in front of King Soloman with a custody dispute over a baby!!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

One other quick comment... the worst sort of music is "retro" music. Pickling a dead musical form in formaldaehyde is horrible. Imitating something that already exists is a waste of time. The best you can achieve is "almost as good". That is a lot of the problem with classical music. If conductors are forced to conduct "proper" performances "true to history" the music might as well be dead. It can never grow or become anything greater than it is.

I believe classical music and opera is a living tradition. We should be free to interpret and adapt things to remain relevant with our own time and culture... just as Bernstein did with Shakespere's Romeo and Juliet. I read people on these forums who criticize modern stagings of operas and non-HIP interpretations, but all they're doing is injecting more embalming fluid into the corpse. For classical music to survive, it has to be made relevant. That means finding the kernal of universality.... the intersection of emotions and ideas between our society and the society where the piece was created.

Modern artists shouldn't reject old forms and music and reinvent the wheel with a totally different type of music. They should find inspiration in the past, and act as the conduit to make it relevant to today. They should build on the foundation of thousands of years of great music instead of tearing it all down and starting over again.

No retro jazz. Make it real.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

bigshot said:


> I read people on these forums who criticize modern stagings of operas and non-HIP interpretations, but all they're doing is injecting more embalming fluid into the corpse.


You lost me here. I'd say modern audiences feel more connection to Wagner when the operas are presented as intended. Look at the popularity of "Lord of the Rings" and other fantasy. Postmodernist stagings are nonsense for the sake of nonsense. They annoy because they are meant to annoy. If you want universality, you can in many cases perhaps find it best by recreating the works of art as intended. A lot of the time you'll find that they work and communicate better that way.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I think modernized stagings of old operas can be interesting and maybe insightful, but they don't beat the original most of the time. And sometimes they are downright silly.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I've often contemplated the contrast between classical music, where the ideal is usually to follow the composer's intention as closely as possible in every way we can think of, and theater, where performers feel extremely free to change absolutely any aspect of the playwright's work. That these two approaches come together in opera, each unmitigated by the other, fascinates me.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> You lost me here. I'd say modern audiences feel more connection to Wagner when the operas are presented as intended.


I have a LOT of Ring cycles and I haven't found that to be the case. I like stagings that present the drama well, that's what counts. I'd rather see a good modern staging than a dull traditional staging. Naturally there are truckloads of bad modern stagings and I despise them. But not because they aren't "presented as intended". I despise them because they are bad. Badly conceived. Badly designed. Traditional stagings can be bad too.

When it comes to "as intended", when was the last time you saw Fricka arrive in a chariot drawn by rams? The only staging I can think of that actually did that was a modern staging!

On video, my most favorite Ring cycle is a modern staging and my least favorite is the most traditional.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

violadude said:


> I think modernized stagings of old operas can be interesting and maybe insightful, but they don't beat the original most of the time. And sometimes they are downright silly.


Have you ever seen a traditional staging of Rigoletto. There's a healthy dose of silly there!


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Write down a list of the greatest jazz created from be bop on. Include as much as you can. Then apply dates to your list and plot it chronologically on a chart by time. You aren't going to see a straight line.
> 
> See, you are assuming that I like 30s jazz and I don't like modern jazz. That isn't true. I love be bop and beyond. It's just I clearly see a decline in the amount of great music, and a decline in jazz's influence on creativity and culture. The decline isn't in quality, it's in quantity. The reason is that creative musicians migrated to other forms of music... specifically rock.
> 
> ...


this is blatantly false and I think you are still pushing your opinion as being "the truth".

Also swing is not very developed musically in comparison to bebop so the claim that you make about the quality is just uninformed. I'm very interested in debating this so I'm a bit disappointed that you simply ignore my points.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

bigshot said:


> I have a LOT of Ring cycles and I haven't found that to be the case. I like stagings that present the drama well, that's what counts. I'd rather see a good modern staging than a dull traditional staging. Naturally there are truckloads of bad modern stagings and I despise them. But not because they aren't "presented as intended". I despise them because they are bad. Badly conceived. Badly designed. Traditional stagings can be bad too.
> 
> When it comes to "as intended", when was the last time you saw Fricka arrive in a chariot drawn by rams? The only staging I can think of that actually did that was a modern staging!
> 
> On video, my most favorite Ring cycle is a modern staging and my least favorite is the most traditional.


I was speculating about popular taste, not speculating about the preferences of a few cherry picked opera buffs.

Also, I forgot to mention the style of singing: I'd say opera would become a lot more popular if the singers sung with less vibrato and theatrics, as you could argue was the case in Wagner's time. For tons of people, the wide and excessive vibrato is the main turn off. For yet other tons of people, the excessive melodrama turns them off. So again, going back to the roots would actually make the music more universally appealing.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yes. Excessive vibrato indicates a trained singing voice and I have to agree, turns off a lot of the uninitiated.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Yes. Excessive vibrato indicates a trained singing voice and I have to agree, turns off a lot of the uninitiated.


Have you ever sung? All that the excessive vibrato indicates is that you're singing too loudly, bellowing more than singing.

Also, it's the current musicological consensus (according PetrB) that singers sang with far less vibrato in Wagner's time. I've heard this claim elsewhere as well and it does make sense, so I'd say you're on fairly weak ground with your uninformed sarcasm.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> Have you ever sung? All that the excessive vibrato indicates is that you're singing too loudly, bellowing more than singing.
> 
> Also, it's the current musicological consensus (according PetrB) that singers sung with far less vibrato in Wagner's time. I've heard this claim elsewhere as well and it does make sense, so I'd you're on fairly weak ground with your uninformed sarcasm.


I've heard plenty of lousy singing at the Met, in Wagner's Ring in particular, a lot of off-pitch with excessive wobble. It's just that kind of singing that is the negative stereotype that mainstream pop listeners have of opera singers.

Have I sung? What has that got to do with anything? Simon Cowell can't sing yet he was the glue that held American Idol together as its most influential judge.

By the way, for the record, any sarcasm emanating from these fingers is well-informed. :lol:


----------



## Chad (Jan 11, 2014)

why not Curtis curtis-smith? or willam bolcom? all music
is an extension of late 19th century music


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Piwikiwi said:


> Also swing is not very developed musically in comparison to bebop


tell that to Duke and Fats and Django! And there was jazz before Swing too.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> I'd say opera would become a lot more popular if the singers sung with less vibrato and theatrics


I'd say opera, and Wagner opera in particular, would be more popular if there were enough singers who could sing the music without straining and perform the drama with vivid acting. Too much standing in one spot with bulging veins on the brow and sweat pouring down the face.

I'm actually beginning to like what modern staging techniques can do for opera. The Valencia Ring's Rhine Journey is visually beautiful and follows Wagner's intent perfectly. Costumes could be better in modern stagings, but that may be as much a matter of having to deal with girth as it is lack of inspiration.


----------



## JakeBloch (Mar 27, 2014)

Yes! Bloch SQ #2 throbs. Regarding Bloch, SQ #1 is a late romantic monster, very demanding, beautiful and intense.
And then there is Bloch's first Piano Quintet - superlatives abound - so brutal, pulsating, beautiful. Not grating at all. Try the Pro-Arte recording.
Bloch's Violin Sonatas are also fantastic. His 2nd is like the tune from Schindler's List, but written 20+ years before WWII, and even more passionately beautiful. It kept me mentally together during long nights at my evening MBA studies.
You cannot go wrong with Bloch's Viola nor Cello work either. It is only, to-date, with some of the large-scale work of Bloch's that unimpressed me. Bloch is an undiscovered master.


----------

