OK, since we're on classical music....various composers c/d

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
OK, I might as well sling out my list ov classix0r faves, and see if U all think I'm full ov shit. Gimme all yr lists if it pleases U.

Messiaen

Vaughan-Williams

Hovhaness

Shostakovitch

Saint Saens

Holst

Elgar

Yours =?

xoxo

NoRMaN PHaY, Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yay! Classical music!

Um... I'd have to say that I think Vaughn-Williams is awful tripe... but my ex-girlfriend thought the world of him, so I guess there's no accounting for taste... :)

I totally dig the Saint Saens Organ Symphony... for some reason, no matter how treachly I know it to be, it kills me... I think because it's like pop music in some ways, the short little hooks and the obvious pandering to an audience in its motifs...

Shosty is very cool as well... I like Messaien, Ligeti, Takemitsu, Berio, for the slightly younger crew... Schnittke, Webern, Berg, not so much Schoenberg... Brahms, finally, after being browbeaten... Mozart, Bach, and definitely definitely Beethoven (esp. the later stuff)... Bartok's Quartets... Barber Adagio, no matter how cheesy... some Elliot Carter... Schubert... Strauss (not the waltz man).. Copland's Clarinet Concerto is very cute... and um... there are so many great composers! I'm not sure how to narrow it down more than history already has... Chopin, of course... Debussy... a lot of the Impressionists...

I think it's easier to do a dislike list than a like list--most of the Baroque stuff I'm not too keen on... nor am I a bit fan of minimalism or the modern classical-for-philistines-commited-by-pop- musicians stuff--Taverner, for instance... or that Gavin Bryars, which is only notable as a novelty...

Mickey Black Eyes, Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Ligeti, Xenakis, Partch, many electro-acoustic composers, Beethoven's later stuff, early Reich, Satie, Feldman, Penderecki, lots of Medieval stuff (yay for modal music) -- just a few that pop into my head immediately.

Clarke B., Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm speaking largely from a vocal/choral perspective.

Faves: Howells, Tavener, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Hayden, Palestrina, Mozart, Puccini, Verdi.

Hates: Harbison, Carter, Pinkham, and most of the rest of the Harvard composers (except my friend Dan Roihl who is GRATE), Webern, Martino, Liszt. (No particular reason for Liszt. I don't like his name.)

Dan Perry, Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Vivaldi uses a lot of strings... and I love cello. Mozart is totally underrated. His "fortepiano sonatas" are GRATE (do I fit in now?) I think when people think Vivaldi they think "4 seasons" and get turned off and when people think Mozart, they just think of any old commonplace bit of tune that's been overused throughout the media.

But, classical music wasn't really meant to be listened to repeatedly on compact discs or records or tapes. In its time it was a rare event for people lucky enough to see it, which is why the songs are so long, metastasizing and variances on a theme; it had to be interesting enough to let you get lost, but repetitive enough to be familiar in one sitting.

So, if you judge Mozart by the things that have been overplayed or Vivaldi by his 4 seasons only, of course they seem typical. I think they are my favorites, though and Bach and Beethoven, which seem to be most people's first choice, don't do it as much for me. Also, I suffer from Mozart Effect so I'm smarter than all of you who think your taste is better. ;)

Nude Spock, Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

walter carlos of course.

and tchaikovsky. (but only when performed by clara rockmore.)

jess, Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Wow, timely...I'm just wading back into this after a fairly length absence, and one of the things I just picked up was the Glenn Gould Plays Bach 12-CD set. I'm not sure which is the incentive to get the set, Gould or Bach, or maybe both.

I like a lot of the Great Big Hits(tm) from Mozart, but my favourite pieces have to be "Messiah" and "Serenade for Winds, K.361, 3rd Movement". Favourite artist/work of all, though: Holst's The Planets. Close Second is probably Dvorak's 9th (so predictable, I know).

Modern stuff would be Ligeti, Gavin Bryars, a lot of Kronos (best work: Black Angels). If you give me the Low Symphony, you can throw out virtually everything else that Mr. P. Glass ever did and I wouldn't care. Okay. That's it for now. Time to get back to work.

Sean Carruthers, Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Wait, one more thing...you can throw away P. Glass, but I'm keeping my Reich box set. Mmm.

Sean Carruthers, Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Of all the Philip Glass things your throwing out I'd like all the soundtracks please. Specially ones about Japan or India.

Mr Noodles, Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Messiaen: Classic. I've read some "serious" music critics dis him, and to that I say "fuck off". So, yeah, classic.

Vaughn Williams: Not my fave by any stretch, but not as bad as all that. You wouldn't think Celtic trad + Debussy would equal anything good, but sometimes it does.

Saint Saens: Hate him. Oh sure, his music was pleasant enough (but pretty conservative if you ask me, especially compared to his contemporaries like Wagner and Tchaikovsky), but it seemed he made it a point to dis Debussy at all turns. What an old fogey.

Holst: Given that I've only heard the Planets and his Suite for Band, I can't really make a good judgement. I enjoyed both of those, so classic?

Elgar: Dud. Pretty boring from what I've heard. Like the kind of music you would play at a chardonay tasting contest. Very white chardonay.

I nominate Mussorgsky (IMO classic) and Grieg (IMO marginal).

Now I feel flippant.

dleone, Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Any composer is fine, as long as Walter Murphy is doing the arrangements.

Mark, Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Edgard Varèse. But y'all knew I was gonna say that!

Other faves off the top of my head: Prokofiev (the bane of my existence during that brief period I took piano lessons, but such wonderful piano music!), Schoenberg, Schubert, Debussy, Webern (sorry Dan), Penderecki, Chopin, Górecki

Tadeusz Suchodolski, Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

And lest I forget, definitely Mozart. Would say that for Don Giovanni, Die Zauberflöte, and the "Elvira Madigan" Concerto alone, but so much else. Even after the millionth listening of "Eine kleine Nachtmusik," I'm not sick of it.

Tadeusz Suchodolski, Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I like Bach of course. But I also like Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Wendy Carlos, Gershwin, Moussorgsky, Prokofiev, ...but I'm more into pop really!

Mike Hanle y, Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Now fer my destroy list: WAGNER!!! RICHARD WAGNER!!!! WAGNER!!!! Did I mention that I HATE Wagner? Ditto with the Wagner rip-offs like Mahler and Richard Strauss.

Tadeusz Suchodolski, Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Dan: Do you just dislike atonality or do you have some other reason for hating Carter and Webern? I think Carter's first three string quartets and Webern's complete works are fantastic.

sundar subramanian, Thursday, 4 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

varese, satie, maderna,nono,morton feldman, xenaxis , strav.,

francesco, Thursday, 4 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Chopin, Bartok

dave q, Thursday, 4 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

get down get funky get Mahler

Alexander Blair, Thursday, 4 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Bravo Dan re your faves (esp. putting Herbie Howells first!) but as baffled as sundar by two of your hates. Expliquez nous, s.v.p.

All of my canon have already been mentioned I think, save for Britten, Lutoslawski, Boulez and Ligeti.

Search: JS Bach motets, Beethoven late string quartets and Symphony No.9, Schubert songs and late works, Tchaikovsky symphonies and The Nutcracker (complete), Debussy piano préludes, Bartok "Music For Strings Percussion and Celeste", Shostakovich symphonies, most any Berio, Feldman, George Crumb or Steve Reich.

Jeff, Thursday, 4 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

In my world, atonality is something which is to be used sparingly. It is not meant to sustain a 7 minute piece.

Really, my dislike of Webern comes from a soprano art song I heard during a music theory class. The accompaniment was stupid little trills that made me think he'd put catnip on the keys of his piano and recorded the first riff his cat produced when it freaked out on it, while the soprano had to do all of these stupid octave-and-a-fifth (twelfth?) leaps in an unrelated key. It sounded dumb and would be an awful thing to have to sing. Carter wrote one of the ugliest pieces of music for men's chorus that wasn't by Harbison ever ("Tarentella"), but he also wrote this fantastic piece whose title escapes me, so I can't really say that I hate him. Most of my exposure to these composers has come from performing their work as opposed to listening to them, so I may be unfairly judgubg some of them on stupid things they did with the voice.

I am APPALLED that I didn't mention Britten. His "War Requiem" is one of the greatest pieces of music ever written; certainly the best choral/symphonic piece of the 20th century.

Dan Perry, Thursday, 4 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The accompaniment was stupid little trills that made me think he'd put catnip on the keys of his piano and recorded the first riff his cat produced when it freaked out on it,

I think I've stumbled across a difference in our sensibilities: to me, that sounds great (and I did not dislike a single art song on the Complete Works).

More seriously, I think there's a little more compositional structure going on in Webern that that. That sounds much more like something that would come out Cage/Fluxus-style chance experimentalism.

sundar subramanian, Thursday, 4 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

What is Classical music? I thought classical referred to 18th/19th century. Bach, Stravinsky, Varese wouldn't fit that classification. Not trying to be pedantic here, but it seems like anyone who professes to be a "lover of classical music" would object to someone lumping anything played by a symphony into that category. Otherwise, you'd have to include Frank Zappa or even the Moody Blues. Even Chic used a string section.

So what is classical?

Dave225, Thursday, 4 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I thought classical referred to 18th/19th century. Classical music is divided into several periods, and the Classical period was from about 1750-1820ish (Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven being its most famous composers). However, most people still use the term "classical" to describe all of, well, er, classical music.

What is classical music? I don't know, what is pop? James Zichowicz had this to say about Western classical music:

"Music in the Western Culture is the result of various influences, including the formalization of improvised traditions; the growth of notation; the development of tuning systems; the treatment of text; innovative approaches to form; the role of patronage; the absorption of various cultures into the style; the growth of technology; investigations of performance practice; and various other factors.

"Western music also benefits from various dualities: sacred and secular traditions; monophonic and polyphonic textures; conservative and progressive tendencies; popularism and elitism; canon and non- canonic works; and other polarities. The western tradition is complicated by these various influences and perspectives, and formal musicological study often becomes a point of departure for other, more individualized investigations of music."

It still seems a little vague as to the actual sound of classical music, but then again, the medium has changed so drastically since the time of chant that its no wonder a concrete definition is so illusive.

dleone, Thursday, 4 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

In something like chronological order:

Gesualdo, Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Bach, Mozart, some Haydn, Beethoven, some Schubert, some Mendelssohn, some Chopin, Wagner, Bruckner, Scriabin, Debussy, Ravel, Satie, some Ives, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Stravinsky, Bartok, Hindemith (wildly underrated), earlier Cage, Morton Feldman, Takemitsu, Crumb.

What don't I like? Of the "top-tier greats", I find myself seldom really engaged by Brahms or Handel. I'm not a fan of Telemann or the mid-late-19th-century French composers like Saint-Saens (though Fauré can be really great). I can't stand any of the Milton Babbitt I've heard, and a lot of later Cage is just unlistenable. Vaughan Williams, Holst, and Elgar are, to my taste, very bland. Minimalism is usually deadly dull, though Glass's Koyannisqatsi and Einstein on the Beach are quite good, and some of Steve Reich's music is very good. Michael Daugherty's pieces (Superman, Barbie, etc.) seem cynical and calculated.

Dan: I find that a bad performance can render atonal music utterly unintelligible. I've heard performances of a certain Schoenberg piece that left me thinking it was nonsense, and then heard others that were like a revelation by comparison. Similarly, I heard a performance of Boulez's 2nd sonata that sounded like garbage, and then heard a Pollini recording where it sounded like music, and rewarding music at that.

Other notes: Gorecki's Third, which has been beaten to death in the Nonesuch version, is actually available in a far better rendition in Britain (Jerzy Swoboda, Katowice Philharmonic, and Kilanowicz singing). It makes the Upshaw version seem histrionic. And it's beautiful.

Erwin Schulhoff's string quartets are great. As is some music by a composer named Fred Lerdahl -- a piece called Eros and his Waltzes for string quartet come to mind.

From what I've heard, I would rank the Carter string quartets just as they're numbered -- the first is brilliant, and the fourth seems nearly random.

I remember really liking George Perle's music, and some of Roger Sessions'.

Nono's Prometeo is great.

Phil, Thursday, 4 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

one year passes...
I heard some Delius this morning and hated it. Horrible timbres.

Rockist Scientist, Friday, 7 February 2003 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

It's rather unfair to dis Mahler as a Wagner wannabe.
I like Wagner - but Mahler was far more complex then
Wagner ever was. He's one of my favorite classicist -
not dissonant at all, but influential on Stravinsky
in the sheer complexity of interweaving counterpoint
harmonies.

(Now as for Stravinsky - totally overrated. Petrushka
is only decent, and I actively dislike The Rite Of Spring.
Haven't heard the Firebird yet.)

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Friday, 7 February 2003 18:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I think when people think Vivaldi they think "4 seasons" and get turned off

4 Seasons turns me ON in a big way. I love it.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 7 February 2003 18:23 (twenty-two years ago)

I like some Boulez, but my big fave right now is Mauricio Kagel (Argentina, relocated to Germany, not Hollywood). S Wolpe is pretty neat at times too (Germany -> Palestine, he called it -> U.S.).
I think Earle Brown and Christian Wolff are good too, but have not had the time to properly investigate those long M Feldman works (and the shorter ones are minimalist enough in a different way to Reich etc. to make me always jump up and change what's on after ten minutes.)

I wish there was more Schoenburg available, but there ain't so i've had to settle for those who are carrying the torch (sort of), ie what i've heard of C Wuorinen, M Powell, D Martino, J Druckman, J Schwantner etc. etc. that post-serialist american school.

I think John Cage is almost completeley a waste of time (the prepared piano interludes etc. were composed, so they're funky, honourable exception).

(
Yeah, given all the other composers out there trying to make a crust w/out poking fun to the exclusion of any useful overiding aestetics, screw John Cage. Listen to that stuff at the library, if you think your valuable time is worth wasting even a little bit. Compared to what has been composed in the last half century, John Cage is a waste of your ears, your cognisance will be stretched into false connections, John Cage is just a NYC art cult, like sonic youth. You could treat your brain as an adult or you could go and listen to them. Both Cage and 'Youth once had good chops, but just as the "music" of cage is still alive, both these cults relying more on ny reputation and patronage than on actual musical intelligence, have really been dead musically for about ten years.
)

george gosset (gegoss), Saturday, 8 February 2003 05:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I feel very differently about the Carter quartets now. I still like #1 the best, but #4 makes total sense to me -- if anything, it's one of the most transparent and accessible of them -- and is in fact my 2nd or 3rd favorite of the bunch (it's neck-and-neck with #5, which I've only heard once but quite enjoyed).

Phil (phil), Saturday, 8 February 2003 06:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I think John Cage is almost completeley a waste of time (the prepared piano interludes etc. were composed, so they're funky, honourable exception).

This is what I don't get. Even if you only stick to the 'composed' stuff, throwing out all the chance/indeterminacy stuff, that still leaves you with a massive catalogue of unique, diverse, often brilliant, and often quite accessible material.

sundar subramanian (sundar), Saturday, 8 February 2003 06:54 (twenty-two years ago)

It's rather unfair to dis Mahler as a Wagner wannabe.

Too true. Mahler was engaged w/ history, humour (? yes) and irony in a way that Wagner never was. Stay away from sym. 8 tho. And search 4, 6 and 7

Re: Kagel - the new recording of the Piano Trio on Winter+Winter is, technically, one of the best sounding recordings I've heard. And the piece itself is no slouch either

Re: Vivaldi - It's easy to get bored by the 4 seasons, but try Fabio Biondi's recordings to relieve this

Captain Sleep (Captain Sleep), Saturday, 8 February 2003 10:38 (twenty-two years ago)

''Yeah, given all the other composers out there trying to make a crust w/out poking fun to the exclusion of any useful overiding aestetics, screw John Cage. Listen to that stuff at the library, if you think your valuable time is worth wasting even a little bit. Compared to what has been composed in the last half century, John Cage is a waste of your ears, your cognisance will be stretched into false connections, John Cage is just a NYC art cult, like sonic youth. You could treat your brain as an adult or you could go and listen to them. Both Cage and 'Youth once had good chops, but just as the "music" of cage is still alive, both these cults relying more on ny reputation and patronage than on actual musical intelligence, have really been dead musically for about ten years.''

GG in 'conspiracy theory' mode shockah!

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 8 February 2003 11:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I have been getting more and more excited about Kagel as well lately. How is that Bach remix-type piece that Montaigne put out not long ago?

That parenthetical about Cage doesn't make any sense to me ("your cognisance will be stretched into false connections"? "You could treat your brain as an adult or you could go and listen to them." -- if that means what I think it means, then yes: this was, in some pieces, Cage's point entirely, that it's important to shuck away that sort of "adult listening"; similarly I might point out that it's important to play sometimes and not just go to work and be responsible).

I'm a fan, though, and dismissing Cage in one swoop like that seems weird, since for me Cage's work contains many different directions and styles, and if someone says they don't like Cage I immediately wonder what period they're talking about -- the prepared piano stuff? the early chance music? the deeply experimental 70s stuff? the quiet end-of-life numbers pieces? I can imagine someone not getting much out of "Music of Changes" but nevertheless adoring "Ryoanji" or "1O1".

Chris P (Chris P), Saturday, 8 February 2003 12:03 (twenty-two years ago)

GG has a big prob with NY, I think. That's prob the only thing connecting SY to cage (certainly in music terms though you should factor in 'Goodbye 20th century' but GG doesn't like SY stuff from the 90s).

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 8 February 2003 12:11 (twenty-two years ago)

my impression is that elements of chance emerged in all john cage music after a certain time, which has left me coming across typically Atlas "to be played in whole or part in any ensemble, chamber or orchestra, with or without Winter Music" (a work for 1-20 pianists) (oh and the composer selects which parts to play using chance procedures) -- maybe i find it galling the potential permutations this implies -- the prospect of a complete John Cage issue by Mode something of a waste of resources

or just that i don't mind playful music, but why is there this beef mountain of cage material already out there, why do i have to play with john cage ? with such an immensity of realisable scores, should that result in more and more john cage recordings ? i'm sure it's easier to be prolific if you have cage's aesthetic, throwing the continuity in music that's what other composers work hard to get right out the window -- should that result in what i think is high and over-representative coverage of his music, when those same few ensembles could be playing other 20th century music thats going to be axiomatically different to john cage music ?

there's another thread "the john cage industry" -- discuss it there if you want, as that's the heart of what grates -- that john cage is tending towards the pop star of 20th century music, maybe because what's required isn't thoughtful listening -- that it's more econically feasible and easier for ensembles to put out john cage releases -- john cage as chin stroking easy listening industry shocker (cf: hard to play and more lassez faire to listen to post-serialist music, for instance)

my attitude is that john cage has put himself into a whole seperate category from all the other composers i mentioned yet he gets _so_much_ posthumous attention, and apologists -- it's nice though to see some people _have_heard_of_ and bother to listen to Kagel

george gosset (gegoss), Saturday, 8 February 2003 15:18 (twenty-two years ago)

one piece that i love that i haven't seen mentioned above is the last part of the fifth symphony by sibelius...

other favourites-cantus for benjamin britten by arvo part,gorecki's third sympony,dvorak's new world symphony,and mozarts piano concerto no 20 and 21...i also really like mahler's fifth symphony....

robin (robin), Saturday, 8 February 2003 18:41 (twenty-two years ago)

"Mozart is totally underrated"

ah now come on ted...surely the one thing in the world mozart couldn't possibly be is overrated...

robin (robin), Saturday, 8 February 2003 18:43 (twenty-two years ago)

doh!
i meant underrated,obviously

robin (robin), Saturday, 8 February 2003 18:43 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm sure it's easier to be prolific if you have cage's aesthetic

I have to agree with that.

Rockist Scientist, Saturday, 8 February 2003 19:17 (twenty-two years ago)

so basically gg: you object to Cage because his compositions leads to loads of permutations and therefore many recordings.

Like so many classical composer before the 20th century then (though here we have multiple performances of one score). There is a reason why we have a music INDUSTRY.

I see yr point: I'd like to attend a performance of Iancu dumitrescu's music, or Xenakis and so on but at least a focus on Cage might get ppl to look at other 20th century composers, no?

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 8 February 2003 19:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Many of the Winter Music-era pieces that allow so many permutations, however, are, when you listen to several different (even v. different) versions of them, clearly the same piece. The same questions are being asked, and an answer is being given. The specifics of, say, the notes being played might be different, but the overall experience of the piece is the same -- but, usually, very different from piece to piece.

The purpose of releasing any Cage recordings is suspect, because Cage was against them. You're not supposed to hear the same notes every time you hear Winter Music, and recordings give a certain authority to a single performance that Cage distrusted. (But he also understood that people liked recordings for various reasons, so assisted in making and gave his blessing to several of them.)

The Mode project is wonderful mostly because it's a document of the breadth of the music, and because many of the recordings are terrific.

But yeah: Obviously listening to Cage and listening to Kagel are two completely different things, and there's no reason why you can't have room for both of them in your listening habits.

Chris P (Chris P), Sunday, 9 February 2003 00:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Also, I probably need to listen to more Britten. The War Requiem, what little I've heard of it, didn't do much for me, but maybe if I got more familiar with it I'd enjoy it more; the rest of Britten's vocal/choral work has always impressed me. I especially like The Prodigal Son (and what I remember of the one time I heard Curlew River). Suddenly I have a hankering for more; any recommendations are appreciated.

Chris P (Chris P), Sunday, 9 February 2003 03:32 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.