posted
Hey, everybody's getting down with their bad Beethoven selves in the piano sonata thread, so I thought I'd ask another question, while we were on the topic.
Getting into classical music is uniquely tricky. Finding the right work is only half the challenge. You must also find the right performance. So, since the Beethoven thread just came along, I thought I'd ask some of the culturally aware to help out here.
I've actually been listening to my Beethoven quite a lot lately. I love the works, obviously, but I've been long meaning to get better versions. Other than a good version of sonatas 8, 13 and 14, all my Beethoven comes from a bargain basement box set I got at Costco many years ago. I've been meaning to replace them, but I want to make sure that I get some fairly definitive versions.
So, starting with the symphonies, which versions are well-known masterpieces? Either complete sets or individual symphonies are appreciated, but they must be good enough to be the only copy someone owns. Quality should be judged both by virtuosity of performance and audio fidelity of the recordings. The sixth is my favorite, so I'd especially love a good version of that.
Don't stop there, though. Any other favorite versions of Beethoven works are accepted in this thread. In fact, if you have a truly legendary version of a non-Beethoven work you'd like to share, you won't be kicked out. Links to Amazon or other retailers (to avoid confusion) are also helpful.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're all brilliant in different ways, and of course I love the ninth and the fifth... who doesn't? Those are the classics. But for some reason the sixth is the one I can just listen to over and over again and always want some more of it. I may sometimes be in the mood for different things at different times, but the sixth always seems to have what I need. It never fails to make me giddily happy. Just a personal preference thing.
Oddly enough, though, I've listened to the first about five times this week. I don't know why, I keep just wanting to hear the beginning again, and once I start I can't stop.
Again, better versions than the ones I have would really make my life worth living. With as many people busting out obscure favorite sonatas, I'm sure there have to be some people with some guidance on this one.
In fact, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I just haven't heard a version of the fifth that will knock the Pastorale out of the top spot. Help me out, Tatiana. Prove me wrong.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's definitely true that good versions make a huge difference. Other than "avoid anything by Leonard Bernstein", though, I have no guidance. My good versions were all on vinyl, and decades old, and surely not available anymore. I gave them all away long ago, as I had listened to them so many times that I have committed them to memory. Now, any time I want, I can just listen to my favorites in my head. Hopefully someone else here can help you. We have lots of music gurus.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and P.S. does anyone else agree with the truth noted in my family that odd numbered symphonies (by anyone, not just Beethoven) are always the best? That's considered a truism in my family, but I wonder if others agree. If I were to suddenly show signs of musical genius and begin writing symphonies one after another, I would certainly number them 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, ... Who wants to listen to those dull old even numbered symphonies?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about Mahler's Resurrection (#2)? Or Haydn's Surprise (#94)? Or Beethoven's sixth? (oh, wait, I think I covered that one. )
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a hard time wrapping my head around Mahler symphonies. Not so much the first, but the rest are flabby in their largess to my ear.
Baron if you are looking for other Beethoven Symphonies, the seventh has a famous allegretto movement that is simple and beautiful. The Fourth Symphony is forgettable symphony, but there is super-cool moment in the first movement development that almost redeems the whole piece.
posted
The best performance of Beethoven's Fifth is one by Peter Shickle (aka PDQ Bach) where he commentates as if it's a ballgame!
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love Ralph Vaughan William's 4th and 6th symphonies. I also love his 5th, 7th, and 9th too... so I guess the odds do outnumber the evens.
I love the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony.
Everyone has a different opinion of what is good. Best thing is to listen to many recordings and decide what you like. Just tempo differences can change the entire mood of a work. I've listened to "extrodinary" recordings of the same symphony and couldn't stand it because it was "too fast", meaning it was much faster than the recording that I learned the syphony by listening to it over and over. So try to avoid only hearing one recording.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Irami. Like I said, though, I've had a collection of all the symphonies for years, and I'm pretty familiar with them. I'm just looking for performances that suck a little less than the ones I've ended up with.
On a tangent, I was looking for the versions of the RVW symphonies human recommended when I ran across the best use I've ever seen anyone make of Amazon's "Listmania" feature.
posted
Tatiana, WHY do you avoid the symphonies conducted by Bernstein? In my experience, they are wonderful! He's a nutty conductor, but he sure knew how to make an orchestra 'sing.'
Baron, I can't tell you about Beethoven, but I can tell you to look for Eric Kunzel as a conductor...I think he conducted the Cincinatti Pops?...not sure. But I've got several recordings of Copland and Mozart that he's conducted and they are exquisite. Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From this players point of view. Beethoven Symphonies 1,3,5,7, and 9 are the best. 2,4,6, and 8 are lesser works.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Cleveland Orchestra under George Szell put out back in the 60s what is generally considered among professional orchestra musicians to be the best cycle of all 9 Beethoven symphonies. As with all Cleveland recordings, you can hear every note in every line. I don't look farther than these if I want to actually hear the music.
On the other hand, it may be possible able to dig up some great stuff from Stokowski and Philadelphia, if you just want great beauty of sound and tremendous artistry. Stokowski was one of the 2 or 3 best conductors out there, and was just a tremendously capable artist. He got the best orchestral tone in the business, but it's not as crystal-clear as Cleveland. it depends on what you want.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can only recommend what I own. My first set was a complete one that I highly enjoyed but outgrew quickly. I had to explore other recordings, and they are all exceptional and highly affordable:
posted
And the even symphonies are just as good as the odd ones. The 7th and 8th symphonies premiered the same evening I think, and when someone asked Beethoven why the 7th seemed to be more popular he famously replied "because the 8th is so much better..." =D
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean radical. The one with the most odd stuff in it is the 10th or Battle Symphony. It's also not good at all, and rarely played.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean I think it's the oddball that stands out the most. The Eroica, the Fifth, and the Ninth clearly expand the symphonic framework yet none feel as instrinscally "romantic" as the Pastoral does, what with its birds chirping and rain and thunder gathering ominously.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A really good recording of all 9 symphonies is the Berliner Philharmoniker conducted by Herbert von Karajan. This is a very well done version. The version of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra conducted by Sir Georg Solti is also good.
My personal favorite is the 7th. The second movement is so beautiful. Of course the first movement has some great bass lines, so I love it too.
Beethoven orchestral music is great if you want some truly fantastic bass lines!
Posts: 511 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Narnia, his stuff just makes me cringe. It sounds overdramatized or something. It's like listening to a really hammy actor recite Shakespeare, vs. someone great. I just shudder at his interpretations, I guess. The seem egotistical and contrived and vain, or something. I guess to each his own.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, those are some great recommendations. I did some research on the Cleveland Orchestra version, and it sounds like a real winner. Unfortunately, it appears to be out of print. I'm pretty bummed. From what Steven said about it, and what I saw written elsewhere, it looked like it could have been the one.
The Karajan one (assuming that this is the one you were talking about, Luet) looks very nice, too. It's a bit steep, but I guess I'd rather have a really nice $75 version than another worthless $25 one. I won't rule it out.
I checked out a book from the library yesterday. It's called The NPR Guide to Building a Classical CD Collection by Ted Libbey. I got it because I really like NPR. It's the only radio I've listened to for about 15 years, and I've had a lot of good experience with music I've been introduced to through them, of all genres. Anyway, this is an interesting read. Of course, something like this can only be as good as one person's opinion, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt. But both versions of the symphony cycle that have been mentioned here were listed in that book, so that helps. It also mentioned the Kleiber version of the Fifth that The_Somalian brought up as the gold standard for that work. It's cheap on Amazon, so it's in my cart already.
A couple things Tatiana might find interesting. Mr. Libbey feels that, if you can't get a complete cycle, four of the symphonies are essential. Those symphonies are 3, 5, 9, and... 6. Yeah, the Pastorale pulls through in a pinch. Also, his preferred versions of both the 9th and the Eroica are conducted by Bernstein. Different strokes, neh?
One other thing about the book. Mr. Libbey said that if you're one who likes their symphonies played on period instruments, he feels that there's a very good version by Christopher Hogwood. I looked it up on Amazon, and it's actually quite reasonable compared with some of the other cycles. I don't know if I'd want a period recording to be my only copy, but I'm seriously tempted to check it out. I don't have much experience with this type of recording, though. Anyone have any opinions on them?
That's it for me. Thanks to everyone so far for your recommendations. We've got some geniuses in the house today. Keep 'em coming. Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One quick tangent to break out of the Beethoven discussion. I stopped by the CD shop on the way home from work today and picked up a new version of one of my favorite orchestral works. I've had a pretty decent vinyl version of Grieg's Peer Gynt suites for most of my life, and once CDs pushed my record player out of common use I replaced the record with a sort of average disc of the same piece. This mediocre CD is basically the only version I've listened to in many years. Today, on the recommendation of the aforementioned Ted Libbey, I picked up a fairly inexpensive new version to try out.
Holy cow! What a difference it made. I mean, the Peer Gynt suites are so good that you'd have a hard time making them suck playing them one note at a time on a Casio keyboard. But I'd forgotten just how moving it could be. As overplayed as In the Hall of the Mountain King is, this version hit me like I'd never heard it before. And the version of Solveig's Song with a vocal from the original opera was a stroke of brilliance.
Yes, it's true, a good version makes all the difference.
quote: period instruments... Anyone have any opinions on them?
Hehehe, a few.
I'm still really good friends with my Baroque music history teacher and she absolutely loves period instruments. I don't really care myself. Music has to be relevant to the listeners and there are really only a few people who like to hear music played the way it was when the works were written.
A funny story. In my history class I listened to a recording of Carlo Gesualdo's Moro Lasso and fell in love with it. A few years later, she played me a new version knowing that I was so fond of it, thinking that I would be happy to have such a better recording. But it sounded so different, I actually DIDN'T like it... I didn't have the heart to tell her though because she liked it better. Oh well. For example, here is part of an instrumental version:
I at least recognise it, but it doesn't have the appeal of the version I listened to. I think the version I listened to was just performed really well, even if it wasn't as accurate as could be.
I have a soap box spill I like to give periodically. Performer involvement is more important that note accuracy. You can tell if the performer is involved because it usually draws the audience into the work--they forget they are listening to music and instead loose themselves in their imagination. A performance doesn't have to be notation perfect to be able to achieve that.
In fact, I think most composers understand they can't put everything on paper and so they leave it to the performers to fill in the missing gaps. It has taken me a long time, as a performer, conductor, and composer, to figure that out. All of the fuss people make about accuracy is that "this is how *they* would have filled in the missing gaps". But it isn't how we do it today.
I'm not trying to downplay accuracy and complexity. It is important to put some effort into learning to like accuracy. Lazy listeners are satisfied with any song played in the key of E (95% of rock music?) with a I, IV, V chord over and over, in root position no less. Easy to play, easy to listen to, if they don't go dead bored first. So they turn up the amp to distort the guitars, shake the ground with the drums, and screech into a microphone to generate interest (I tend to get alert when cars honk at me too). Obviously it wont hurt to learn to understand the vision that is behind the notes in orchestral and classical music.
I'm just saying that it is more important to get involved in the music. If you don't get involved in an "accurate" performance, but you love the "bad" performance, then listen to what you like. If it was good enough to be recorded on a CD, someone probably (hopefully) liked it well enough for it to have actually ended up there. So it doesn't make you a total heathen for liking a "bad" recording.
Music is ours. Not the dead people's and not the educated elite's.
Perhaps I'm overreacting. I'm just so use to the suffocating fog that surrounds the classical community whenever anyone brings up "quality". It is the whole idea behind capitalism. If it is good, it will be popular. So why isn't classical music more popular? Because I think the classical community has a few screws loose and worships note accuracy and authentic and sacrifices quality performances that--gasp--might have a wrong note.
Ok, sorry for the huge rant. I'm still mad at the professors. And I have a good friend who teaches piano for a uni and his boss is so clueless, she has no idea what makes quality. And she is the head of the department.
And I should say I just found out a psycho professor royally screwed me over 6 years ago and I didn't find out until a few weeks ago but it is too long of a tangent story, so I wont spill it. I guess I'm really really mad at the "establishment" right now. I'm just glad I work with computers and that psycho's actions aren't going to really hurt me, other than my pride.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice rant, human. I'm right there with you. I think there's a reason music has evolved, and there's a reason that, even in pop music, a well thought out cover version can sometimes be better than an original. In classical music, when our only option is basically to find the best cover band, a well-educated break from tradition can be better than a rote and robotic recitation.
As an extreme example of this, I have a version of J.S. Bach's Goldberg Variations performed by Uri Caine. I don't know if anyone else has heard this, but if you're looking for a wild ride, this is the one to get. Caine takes advantage of the improvisatory nature of the score, and does variations in literally any style he thinks suits the music best, from baroque to romantic, jazz, gospel, ambient, techno, latin, minimalist, and whatever else crosses his mind. If you want an idea of just how many liberties he took with it, just have a look at the list of musicians.
It's not as easy to listen to as the average traditional Baroque version. And it's certainly as far away as it's possible to get from what Bach imagined when he wrote the piece. But there's never a dull moment across two discs.
I don't ordinarily go that extreme in my selections. It is usually nice to have a certain amount of authenticity in your performances. But there's something to be said for conductors and performers who will make a piece exciting, rather than trying to make it as close as possible to exactly what was written down. It's the same reason I'd rather listen to, say, the Alison Krauss version of "I Will" than hear it from some cheesy Beatles cover band dressed up like the cover of Sgt Pepper.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: I've been meaning to replace them, but I want to make sure that I get some fairly definitive versions.
That instinct will be what kills classical performance forever. Just get different versions, you'll never find one that is more difinitive than all the rest, only alot of subtle (or not subtle) variations in interpretation. Some are more thought out, but none are difinitive.
It only bothers me that you say this because classical music for so many people has changed alot in the information age. Now I get the impression that people believe there is one "original" version of any peice hundreds of years old, and itunes has got everyone calling any peice of music a "song." Maybe the info age will help to broaden our understanding of performance by exposing us to many recordings, such as you are after, but it will also limit our understanding of the living part of the music, as well as make perspective on the works more difficult in some ways.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point, Orincoro. I guess when I said "definitive", I was sort of thinking of interpretations that have gained a critical consensus of being quite well conducted, played and recorded. I don't want another version of some average joe with his average orchestra throwing out a cycle because it's a good way to make some spare cash.
I do get your point, though. If I had the money, I'd like nothing better than to pick up several versions of my favorite pieces and see how different people interpret them. For example, St Matthew's Passion is one of my all time favorite pieces. I got lucky in picking out a version well over a decade ago that is very good, and I never listen to it without getting completely wrapped up in the music. More than once I've whiled away some spare time reading reviews on alternate versions of the piece, and I'm always tempted to pick one up, just to see what it sounds like. Unfortunately, there's always something else on my list of things to get that trumps new versions of music I already own.
I'd love to live in a city that had a better local music scene. If there were an orchestra around where I live that played any of these pieces live, I'd be there in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, we'd be lucky to get one of the dudes that used to be in Three Dog Night coming through my town, let alone a quality symphony orchestra.
Yeah, music has changed a lot. We're well past the days when you could only listen to music when it was played live. We're also past the days when every time you heard a piece was a different experience. Music can be a less personal and immersive experience. On the other hand, it's more readily available, and technology has vastly improved its quality. If I had been around to hear St Matthew's Passion the first time it was performed, I don't know if I'd even have liked it. And I'm sure I'd never have had a chance to know it inside and out like I do now, unless I became a professional musician.
Pros and cons to any situation. I agree with your perspective, though.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly, you learn much more about a peice and you understand and ussually like it better when performed live. The recording is like a black and white photocopy of a color painting, it gives you the idea and even some details, but it isn't listening to the real thing.
I worry that people burn out on classical music because the recordings are often so "perfect" that they have little remaining character. There is no real feeling of musicallity or care for the music in some very popular recordings, and now some classical and early music groups employ sound engineers to tweek their recordings to perfection in the studio.
All that, plus the culture today is teaching people to treat individual mp3s as intellectual property that is somehow a definitive edition of the titled work. Thus I get people telling me all the time: "I have that song on my ipod," (emphasis mine), or "Can you play Pachelbell's Canon by Mozart?" People treat classical music like its a section in a record store or a list of names in a card catalogue, one recording, one version of everything.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A live performance is always preferable to a recorded one in my opinion. I like the relationship between performer and audience. I like the wrong notes and the different tempos. I always find it odd that when my friends record themselves, they try to make it "perfect"--and therefore taking themselves completely out of the music.
I'm tired of people talking about the way you're SUPPOSED TO PLAY IT and the way it SHOULD sound. There's value in playing period instruments, sure--but that doesn't make playing music one way WRONG and the next way RIGHT.
I guess my goal in playing music is to serve the music first always--which does require being accurate, but correct notes and rhythms are only a start to conveying music well.
I'm just glad that live concerts of classical music still live on in our culture despite recordings and technology. There'll always be people like us that insist on having them, at least as long as I'm alive.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darnit Human, I composed a longer response to you and my computer ate it. STUPID MACHINE!!!!
Anyway, I wanted to mention that I think your view on academics is too harsh. This stern attitude toward musical performance is present but not ubiquitous, at least in my department. Of course, UCD shares a very strong history with Mills and Cal Berkley, so our culture is naturally a bit more liberal than your education may have been.
Nonetheless, I couldn't agree with you more that pitch accuracy is not the end all be all of good performance. Having been to MANY undergrad and graduate performances in the last month, I can relate to the fact that a performance can be accurate but completely uninspiring. I have also been to performances which were inspired, if not completely "correct." I've even played in a few of them myself.
Tomorrow I am playing the Viola da Gamba in a workshop performance of rennaisance music for my core history class. I organized the group I'm playing with, and even had to teach one student how to play the tenor viole in one week. The other students are playing on: A replica lute, a steel string guitar, and a classical guitar, and I also have two students improvising percussion. This is in the true spirit of the music I think, and my teacher agrees with me, and he is a life long promoter of rennaissance music and culture, and a member of the "establishment" to boot.
I will attest that while there are many right ways to play a piece LaunchyWiggin, some ways are most definetly, absolutely dead wrong. If one does not at ALL consider the intent of the composer, and attempt to maintain some integrity as a performer, (who is not an editor or composer of the work), then the performance will certainly be wrong. However a wrong interpretation is most often arrived at for lack of trying or caring about the music. You are of course right in your assertion that accuracy is step one, not the final goal; and in fact if a peice is to be played accurately, then the notes will not be played exactly as written, because the true performer interprets the work thoughtfully.
This problem of the "evil establishment" bleeding dry the creative spirit of the inspired and unique young individual is questionable to me. Its the perfect story that doesn't make any sense at all; why do you think it is endless fodder for teen movies, and we identify with it so well, even though we recognize these movie situations as having little connection with oura real world experiences. This idea that there even is an "establishment," and especially a classical music elite just strikes me as plain stupid, if only because I don't believe any of the proffessors I have met or studied with have a goal much removed from yours and mine.
The big bad academia plays great for OSC in his thougthless ramblings and rantings against the man, (after all, who could believe that a "member" of a "group" which you don't belong to or agree with might have a complex personal history and divergent and interesting opinion which justifies what he does, at least for himself) but I don't see it as either being plausible or present in our society. Are there individuals who are threatened by change? Of course. But is there a known and respected pecking order or power structure in academia? Well I haven't found out who is in charge yet, even at my own music department, so I think reasonably that few people have the time or patience to try and control the world through the interpretation of music.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd like nothing better than to pick up several versions of my favorite pieces and see how different people interpret them.
Libraries are your friend.
Man, I miss Salt Lake. They had the most amazing library system there. Where I'm at now even the main library looks about like what we had at my high school. It's really depressing.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
human: last I checked, pretty much every CD put out by any of the major lablels, in every genre (excepting experimental stuff and concert recordings) was note accurate . This is hardly surprising, as a recording done in a good studio can be adjusted on a per-note basis. The demand for note-accuracy in recordings is hardly caused by academics or the classical establishment.
I go to a university with one of the best schools of music in the world. People are perfectly forgiving of one or two (literally, though, not as a euphemism for more) notes out of place at performances, but extremely unforgiving of an unpleasant or apathetic style. Of course wrong notes will result in a deduction in academic performances; everyone at this school is striving to be among the best in the world. But audiences, at least audiences used to regularly attending friendly performances instead of stuffy tuxedo-laced ones , know wrong notes happen.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, we have an average of over three a day (averaged over the entire year; more during the school year and on weekends, fewer during summer and during the week). Most free, and this is only official IU School of Music performances, not all sorts of stuff that goes on in the community (like the Bloomington Early Music Festival, which ended a little under two weeks ago, and was fairly expensive at $10 a performance for a student).
The cheapest season pass to our spectacular operas is a mere $48 (for a student, and the seats don't have a great view of course, though the acoustics are still superb), and the most expensive season tickets for a non-student are only $150 (center orchestra).
That's 6 operas. Individual tickets range from $10 to $20.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The demand for note-accuracy in recordings is hardly caused by academics or the classical establishment.
I know. I hate listening to wrong notes because then I memorize them and expect them. The solution is to have more than one recording of something if it is live. That doesn't seem to bother me too much. I don't think note accuracy is really what I'm harping about. I'm just sad I'm not a superstar musician myself and I blame it on mistakes I make, which probably isn't true.
quote:The big bad academia plays great for OSC in his thougthless ramblings and rantings against the man, (after all, who could believe that a "member" of a "group" which you don't belong to or agree with might have a complex personal history and divergent and interesting opinion which justifies what he does, at least for himself) but I don't see it as either being plausible or present in our society.
You mean OSC is thoughtlessly rambling and ranting about academia? I'm not sure what you mean. Anyway, I certainly agree with him that the "educated" arts is royally screwed up.
I certainly ran head first into the establishment agenda when I was mildly threatened I wouldn't receive my degree unless I composed atonal, and after composing crap atonal, being told it was much better than my previous work. Ok, sure, I was learning. But I could've learned a lot faster writing tonal if they were supportive of it rather than condescending of it.
I define the "establishment" as individuals who happen to have a goal that is similar and so they tend to keep themselves in the positions of power. Obviously, that isn't true everywhere. John Adams gave me a lesson once and told me quite the oposite of Harrison Birtwistle (UK big wig composer) so I consider him not part of the establisment that Birtwistle belongs to. Birtwistle hated my music, and I likewise hated his. Adams said I could go somewhere, and I like his music. So it isn't 100% one sided.
But this story also shows that like begats like. And currently, the majority of the "establishment" is more like Birtwistle than Adams from my perspective. And considering I don't like H. B.'s music or his opinions... well...
I should also say that the composer who mildly threatened me is still my friend, sorta. He is certainly in the Birtwistle camp. I don't think he likes me because he knows I'm not "converted". But we are still friendly. Same goes with the other composers to different degrees.
I appreciate that they are skilled and the music is very high quality by their standards, standards that aren't totally illogical. But their music doesn't connect, the standard I value most. There is no pleasure listening to it. I think they think the music somehow elevates them, like a form of meditation. Almost like they think they are Vulcans and aren't allowed to have fun.
And I guess if you are writing music for a living, well, you have to make it mystic because if you made it fun, well, anyone can make fun music. So maybe their behavior is just a method to get job security.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: Live performances are what though, $70? Half with student discount maybe?
I get mostly comped as a music student, but alot of concerts are free or only a few bucks, maybe 7 for students.
The most expensive concert I ever had to pay for was either the Russian National or the American National symphony Orchestras, which were both in the 80 dollar range (half for students) but Itzac Perlman played... so whatever.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: I appreciate that they are skilled and the music is very high quality by their standards, standards that aren't totally illogical. But their music doesn't connect, the standard I value most. There is no pleasure listening to it. I think they think the music somehow elevates them, like a form of meditation. Almost like they think they are Vulcans and aren't allowed to have fun.
And I guess if you are writing music for a living, well, you have to make it mystic because if you made it fun, well, anyone can make fun music. So maybe their behavior is just a method to get job security.
Your criticism of certain trends or styles is warranted and well recieved by me, because I agree with you. You are absolutely allowed to disagree with atonal composers, especially since atonality is stupid and not really relevant today (IMO). I will tell you that I think you have the wrong attitude about what these composers are doing it for. I know composers who write "that kind" of music, and they really, honestly, wholeheartedly enjoy it. IT isn't a self-deception or some sort of con, they really get into it. There is little accounting for taste, so you should be allowed to dislike it, and I think you rightly reject those who claim that you MUST like these newer forms of musical expression.
This music can be and is fun for some. I even go to concerts where alot of new works are premiered on the more dissonant or minimal or electronic side of music, and they are enjoyable if only for the performances and peculiarities of the music.
I will close by saying that you cannot fairly compare recent trends to the musical past, because the examples of past styles and epics are all the best that time had to offer. You might just have legitimately have criticised the hundreds of symphonies that were attempted and done poorly, and which no longer survive. The very best and lasting of the music of today will last for a reason other than politics, even if YOU have to listen to a few that are done for the wrong reasons. Cheer up, now is all there is.
Edit to add: My mother asked me last year, if it was something people did to just spend their careers writing music that sounds like Mozart or Beethoven or Bach. I responded that, at least to me, this would be like writing books in old English, or building cars using the technology of the 1920s. It is done, can be done, but it can also make a person feel very silly and out of date. Even the most ardent recitivist learns from modern style- he can't help it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I know composers who write "that kind" of music, and they really, honestly, wholeheartedly enjoy it. IT isn't a self-deception or some sort of con, they really get into it. There is little accounting for taste, so you should be allowed to dislike it, and I think you rightly reject those who claim that you MUST like these newer forms of musical expression.
It was probably my school then. Because it wasn't much fun. The more I talk about it though, the more I can see I'm just bitter.
But I do have one more good point. With all the resistance people give atonal composers, they aren't responding much. That is, they are choosing who their audience is, and it is a very exclusive crowd. Accessibility is a good thing. But the "establishment" is not being accessible.
That said, film music is the branch of classical music that is still accessible to the masses. John Williams is our king.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Hopefully someone else here can help you. We have lots of music gurus.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
