Reduction to a few composers

[ratsrcute]

I hear most other music of the period as pretty much the same thing, only of lesser quality.

Most music of any period is of lesser quality than its towering masterpieces.

There are two parts to my statement: "pretty much the same thing" and "of lesser quality." See below...

This is the misunderstanding I'm trying to clear up. I don't "deny" myself anything because "it doesn't carry one of the top brand names." Nor do I need to "break out of the closed circle."

Well, you did ask, "Why don't I want a varied diet?"

I explained that my answer is that I do want a varied diet---and Mozart provides that for me through his own internal variety (for the classical period, or Bach for the baroque, etc.)

If other composers offered something different, I would be interested, even if the quality was lower.

The problem is that I perceive it as both "pretty much the same thing" and "lesser quality." That's why it doesn't appeal.

Of course there are exceptions. There are interesting things here and there, when they come on the radio. But it's extremely rare that one of the non-greats interests me enough for a second listen, let alone purchasing a CD.

I'm talking about a perceptual phenomenon. Once I started to groove on the great qualities of Bach and Mozart, I hear most other music of the period as pretty much the same thing, only of lesser quality. This is not a conscious choice.

As you say, it's about perception, and I don't believe "quality" weighs as heavily in most people's perceptions as simple familiarity, which I'm alluding to when I speak of brand names. Indeed, many have no coherent notion of quality at all. And it shows in the lists of musical favorites and best-selling recordings.

That may be for the general public. It may be for me as well, but I don't think so, because I adore variety. I'm actually prejudiced to like something by an obscure composer because it would be such a great find. But generally, it doesn't happen. This could be an illusion of my own making, I don't deny that.

A preference for a symphony or quartet by the teen-aged Mozart over, say, an unheard symphony by his contemporary Frantisek Kramar or an unheard quartet by his pupil Johann Nepomuk Hummel, has zero to do with their relative quality and 100% to do with the composers' relative familiarity. Prejudice, nothing more.

I agree with this.

[ratsrcute]

An interesting topic...except I can't work out what everyone sees in Mozart. Academia tells me he was quite good at music (I used to play his Sunshine Sonata at school), but from what little I know - a few symphonies, concertos - his music seems very nice - but facile, full of platitudinous CPP harmony, sort-of 'lowest common denominator' stuff that has become the pop music of the Classical world, much as the Beatles has the modern pop world. What's so nice about him is his apparent sense of humour.

I understand the thing about Mozart as lite muzak.

Here's what got me into Mozart. First, I must be listening to a great performer who is sympathetic to the potential in Mozart. Then, I started noticing the quality of rhythm and how it changes from bar to bar. Maybe I make my hand dance along to the rhythm, or hum along to it. In one bar, BUM-de-BUM-de-BUM. But then the next bar: BA BA BA BA BA BA BA. Then BUM BUM be be ba. Notice the constant change, and how fresh and exciting this makes everything.

Include changing texture as well as changing rhythm in your awareness.

Now imagine the trajectory of the music as a bird in flight, a bird which sometimes soars, sometimes dives, sometimes swoops, and sometimes makes gentle landings. Despite this amazing variety of movement, the bird is also following some larger trajectory, some greater scheme.

I now adore Mozart beyond words.

And yet, I can still shift my perception into the "surface lightness" and all the magic is gone. It's like an illusion... look at it one way, and it's a plain image. Look at it another way, and it becomes magical.

Mike

[josé echenique]

An interesting topic...except I can't work out what everyone sees in Mozart. Academia tells me he was quite good at music (I used to play his Sunshine Sonata at school), but from what little I know - a few symphonies, concertos - his music seems very nice - but facile, full of platitudinous CPP harmony, sort-of 'lowest common denominator' stuff that has become the pop music of the Classical world, much as the Beatles has the modern pop world. What's so nice about him is his apparent sense of humour.

However, I'm happy to be instructed. People do like this stuff so there's something there. Looking at my musical (listening) development I do seem to move backwards. I'm transported by Beethoven's Eroica so I'll keep my ear out for Mozey. He must be close by. And he receives recommendations here. I did join to learn more.

I'm poised to buy a DVD of The Magic Flute so if members could please give me advice about choices available I'd be most obliged. Important criteria are: a credible production, classical sets - and a soprano who can really manage the vocal gymnastics.

Many thanks for anyone allowing me to trespass on their time to make a comment or two.

Cheers.

Richard Strauss once said that he would gladly exchange his 3 best operas for 3 bars of Don Giovanni. That´s how facile Mozart is. Haydn wrote a letter to Leopold Mozart saying that his son was the greatest composer, past or present that he knew of. And Brahms said that if Mozart had composed nothing but Le Nozze di Figaro he would still be the greatest composer of all time. And reportedly the very last word Mahler said before dying was...Mozart.
As for the Magic Flute I would recommend the Ingmar Bergman movie of 1972. It´s sung in Swedish and from a musical point of view it´s rather provincial, but it would give you the right idea about the opera. If you insist on great opera singers, try the Sawallisch Munich production with Lucia Popp, Kurt Moll and Francisco Araiza, or the fine Levine/Salzburg version produced by the great Jean-Pierre Ponnelle.

[diegobueno]

you've repeatedly cast aspersions on the intelligence level of anyone wanting to delve more fully into baroque music.

You'll have to direct me to the posts where I said this. I assure you, you won't be able to find them because they don't exist.

What I did say is For the varied diet thing there are also other periods and styles to listen to: medieval, renaissance, early baroque, romantic, early modern, Post WWI modern, verismo, neo-classicism, serialism, minimalism, on and on and on.... There is so much variety out there one can be excused for ignoring the lesser contemporaries of Bach and Handel, or Haydn and Mozart.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't explore these other composers, or that you're stupid if you do.

[jbuck919]

Richard Strauss once said that he would gladly exchange his 3 best operas for 3 bars of Don Giovanni. That´s how facile Mozart is.
Haydn wrote a letter to Leopold Mozart saying that his son was the greatest composer, past or present that he knew of.

"Facile" is an uncomplimentary adjective usually reserved for the some composers on B or C lists who are not among the "few" that fall out of a "reduction." I know you did not mean it in a pejorative sense, but Mozart wrote about his frustrations with those who thought composing was easy for him. And what Haydn said was that Mozart was the greatest composer known to him either in person or by reputation, not past or present.

Just getting a couple of things straight.

[diegobueno]

Also, I think we can distinguish between extraordinary and greatest of their era. If Zelenka, for instance, has written music that is unlike the music of his contemporaries -- in a good way -- one could well call it extraordinary even if it doesn't hold up to the Olympian standards of Bach and Handel. I admit it's been many years since I've listened to any Zelenka, but my memory of it is that there is something different about it, I don't remember what. I obviously need to refresh my ears.

One thing for sure, no other composer of his era, or any other, wrote a piece called Hypocondria. The title alone is extraordinary whether or not the music is.

[diegobueno]

One of the major virtues in listening to the music of Vanhal, Rosetti, Gyrowetz, and so on, is that you begin to grasp just how fertile the imagination of Mozart and Haydn were. M and H took the same basic stylistic materials, but look how much farther they went with them! Look at how much more in the way of complexity, counterpoint, drama, subtle harmonic inflections, startling modulations Mozart was able to cram into his compositions than any of his contemporaries. Plus he made sure in his chamber music that everyone has something interesting to play and has sufficient rests. The G Minor String Quintet is, in my estimation, the most perfect music ever written.

[josé echenique]

you've repeatedly cast aspersions on the intelligence level of anyone wanting to delve more fully into baroque music.

You'll have to direct me to the posts where I said this. I assure you, you won't be able to find them because they don't exist.

What I did say is For the varied diet thing there are also other periods and styles to listen to: medieval, renaissance, early baroque, romantic, early modern, Post WWI modern, verismo, neo-classicism, serialism, minimalism, on and on and on.... There is so much variety out there one can be excused for ignoring the lesser contemporaries of Bach and Handel, or Haydn and Mozart.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't explore these other composers, or that you're stupid if you do.

I would never even DREAM of using "facile" on Mozart. I used it responding to Absinthe who was the one who used it.

[Chosen Barley]

One of the major virtues in listening to the music of Vanhal, Rosetti, Gyrowetz, and so on, is that you begin to grasp just how fertile the imagination of Mozart and Haydn were. M and H took the same basic stylistic materials, but look how much farther they went with them! Look at how much more in the way of complexity, counterpoint, drama, subtle harmonic inflections, startling modulations Mozart was able to cram into his compositions than any of his contemporaries. Plus he made sure in his chamber music that everyone has something interesting to play and has sufficient rests. The G Minor String Quintet is, in my estimation, the most perfect music ever written.

I'm speaking as one who doesn't understand and is unable to recognize some of the above mentioned aspects of musical compositions. If a piece sounds good to me, that's all I need to know.

So my question to those of you who are musically well-educated is:

Can a musical work by any well-known and purportedly great composer, containing all that complexity, counterpoint, drama, harmonic inflection, startling modulation, etc., still bore you to tears (no matter how many times you've listened to it & tried to figure out what all the fuss is about)?

[diegobueno]

So my question to those of you who are musically well-educated is:

Can a musical work by any well-known and purportedly great composer, containing all that complexity, counterpoint, drama, harmonic inflection, startling modulation, etc., still bore you to tears (no matter how many times you've listened to it & tried to figure out what all the fuss is about)?

Let me turn the question around: You are on record as saying "I love Bach so much, but my one record would be:Brahms: Sonata #3 for Violin & Piano. Heifetz & W. Kapell."

Now there are those in this world (not me) who say that either of these composers, Bach or Brahms bore them to tears no matter how many times they've listened to them. What would you say to these people?

[absinthe]

An interesting topic...except I can't work out what everyone sees in Mozart. Academia tells me he was quite good at music (I used to play his Sunshine Sonata at school), but from what little I know - a few symphonies, concertos - his music seems very nice - but facile, full of platitudinous CPP harmony, sort-of 'lowest common denominator' stuff that has become the pop music of the Classical world, much as the Beatles has the modern pop world. What's so nice about him is his apparent sense of humour.

I understand the thing about Mozart as lite muzak.

Here's what got me into Mozart. First, I must be listening to a great performer who is sympathetic to the potential in Mozart. Then, I started noticing the quality of rhythm and how it changes from bar to bar. Maybe I make my hand dance along to the rhythm, or hum along to it. In one bar, BUM-de-BUM-de-BUM. But then the next bar: BA BA BA BA BA BA BA. Then BUM BUM be be ba. Notice the constant change, and how fresh and exciting this makes everything.

. . . . . .

Mike

Thanks for your reply. It's highly probable that things might happen that way. Seriously I have no doubt soever about Mozart's genius from the one or two non-Eine-Kleine pieces with which I have some familiarity. Not just that but his demands on his instrumentalists.** I'm thinking of the oboe quartet in which he was adventurous enough in the last movement to pit the strings in 12/8 against the oboe in 4/4. It would surely have taken an exceptional oboist in Mozart's time to play the work at all. It's difficult enough on a modern instrument before even thinking of interpretation.

But even in Eine Kleine one can appreciate the mastery of his string arranging. He gets just the power when he needs it, likewise lightness, etc.

**Edit: I'm ready to bet that it's his sheer boldness compositionally as well as instrumentally that will set him way apart from his contemporaries. I may be wrong but I don't expect to find anyone writing such as Mozart's Horn Concertos, the Flute Quartet, Oboe Quartet, String Quartets, et al.

[karlhenning]

Can a musical work by any well-known and purportedly great composer, containing all that complexity, counterpoint, drama, harmonic inflection, startling modulation, etc., still bore you to tears (no matter how many times you've listened to it & tried to figure out what all the fuss is about)?

No, it won't bore me to tears. It may or may not be my favorite music to listen to, but the capacity to bore me to tears is reserved for their mediocre contemporaries ; )

Cheers,
~Karl

[absinthe]

I'm speaking as one who doesn't understand and is unable to recognize some of the above mentioned aspects of musical compositions. If a piece sounds good to me, that's all I need to know.

So my question to those of you who are musically well-educated is:

Can a musical work by any well-known and purportedly great composer, containing all that complexity, counterpoint, drama, harmonic inflection, startling modulation, etc., still bore you to tears (no matter how many times you've listened to it & tried to figure out what all the fuss is about)?

Hmm...I'm well-educated enough to have earned certification by the Royal Academy but that proves nothing really. In a couple of weeks I'll meet a few Phuds and professorial types at Dartington who parrot the orthodoxy but I sometimes wonder...! (I'm not an iconoclast, onnist, gov!)

Quite honestly I'm more likely to get bored by excessive listening (and particularly analysis). I start out intrigued, progressively get to know how it's done and the magic gets lost. It doesn't happen with all composers. If I "can't get it" at the outset it's probably best to leave it for another day than lift the bonnet in the hope of finding out what's happening. Most people find some composers plain boring - nothing wrong: one can't be expected to like everything. Maybe at a later date they'll feel differently.

[Chosen Barley]

So my question to those of you who are musically well-educated is:

Can a musical work by any well-known and purportedly great composer, containing all that complexity, counterpoint, drama, harmonic inflection, startling modulation, etc., still bore you to tears (no matter how many times you've listened to it & tried to figure out what all the fuss is about)?

Let me turn the question around: You are on record as saying "I love Bach so much, but my one record would be:Brahms: Sonata #3 for Violin & Piano. Heifetz & W. Kapell."

Now there are those in this world (not me) who say that either of these composers, Bach or Brahms bore them to tears no matter how many times they've listened to them. What would you say to these people?

My love of that piece by Brahms happened without any knowledge of sonata structure or being told by someone that it is a great example of music composition. Something can speak to if you are technically ignorant, but if you are musically literate, simply knowing that a composition is a work of genius (that your equally musically literate friends love) won't automatically have the same effect on you.

To answer your question, I wouldn't say much of anything to people who are bored by music that amazes me. Probably just, "Well, different strokes fer different folks!"

Hey, I have met smart people who want to listen to Bruckner & Mahler all day (really) and they aren't impressed by the works of genius by the other B & M, while knowing perfectly well that these compositions are generally regarded as amazing from every standpoint.

[diegobueno]

To answer your question, I wouldn't say much of anything to people who are bored by music that amazes me. Probably just, "Well, different strokes fer different folks!"

And that's what I'll say to you about Mozart.

But I'll add that Mozart's music amazes me, and when I throw around words like "complexity, counterpoint, drama, harmonic inflection, startling modulation, etc.", I'm simply trying to find words to explain some of the features I find in the music that amaze me. Some of these words could also be applied to Bach, but you no doubt have your own list of things that amaze you about his music.

[Chalkperson]

I now adore Mozart beyond words.

I rarely play him now, i'm much more likely to listen to Wolfl, Kalliwoda, Wilms or any others of the same era...

[Chalkperson]

Can a musical work by any well-known and purportedly great composer, containing all that complexity, counterpoint, drama, harmonic inflection, startling modulation, etc., still bore you to tears (no matter how many times you've listened to it & tried to figure out what all the fuss is about)?

No, it won't bore me to tears. It may or may not be my favorite music to listen to, but the capacity to bore me to tears is reserved for their mediocre contemporaries ; )

Cheers,
~Karl

To be honest, Brahms Symphonies bore me, I start crying when (Sir) Simon Rattle conducts/destroys them...

[dulcinea]

Once, when asked for his autograph, Brahms wrote the opening notes of THE BEAUTIFUL BLUE DANUBE, and wrote under it: Unfortunately not by Johannes Brahms. That is how generous Jack Brahms was in his admiration for pop composer and personal friend, J Strauss II.
In a similar spirit of generosity I multiply the 3 Bs by 3 and come up with:
JS Bach
Bartok
Beethoven
Berlioz
Boccherini
Brahms
Britten
Bruckner
Byrd

[josé echenique]

Once, when asked for his autograph, Brahms wrote the opening notes of THE BEAUTIFUL BLUE DANUBE, and wrote under it: Unfortunately not by Johannes Brahms. That is how generous Jack Brahms was in his admiration for pop composer and personal friend, J Strauss II.
In a similar spirit of generosity I multiply the 3 Bs by 3 and come up with:
JS Bach
Bartok
Beethoven
Berlioz
Boccherini
Brahms
Britten
Bruckner
Byrd

What about Bellini, Boulez, Blomdahl, Blow and Buxtehude?

[piston]

Among the "GREATS" I tend to skip over Mozart, from Bach to Beethoven. In agreement with absinthe, here, it's "pretty" and likely to have pleased the pre-democratic music loving groups (not crowds) of an earlier era.

I'm very fascinated with the rise of democracy and its impact on classical music. Beethoven caught on to that rebellious spirit; others stuck with the formalities of upper society.

As for Bach, I think he could have defied any established regime.

[dulcinea]

Once, when asked for his autograph, Brahms wrote the opening notes of THE BEAUTIFUL BLUE DANUBE, and wrote under it: Unfortunately not by Johannes Brahms. That is how generous Jack Brahms was in his admiration for pop composer and personal friend, J Strauss II.
In a similar spirit of generosity I multiply the 3 Bs by 3 and come up with:
JS Bach
Bartok
Beethoven
Berlioz
Boccherini
Brahms
Britten
Bruckner
Byrd

What about Bellini, Boulez, Blomdahl, Blow and Buxtehude?

If you add Biber, you get 15 Bs.

[josé echenique]

Once, when asked for his autograph, Brahms wrote the opening notes of THE BEAUTIFUL BLUE DANUBE, and wrote under it: Unfortunately not by Johannes Brahms. That is how generous Jack Brahms was in his admiration for pop composer and personal friend, J Strauss II.
In a similar spirit of generosity I multiply the 3 Bs by 3 and come up with:
JS Bach
Bartok
Beethoven
Berlioz
Boccherini
Brahms
Britten
Bruckner
Byrd

What about Bellini, Boulez, Blomdahl, Blow and Buxtehude?

If you add Biber, you get 15 Bs.

Damn!!! I knew I was leaving an important B out.
Sorry Heinrich Ignaz Franz.

[Chosen Barley]

Don't leave Bortniansky out.

[karlhenning]

To be honest, Brahms Symphonies bore me, I start crying when (Sir) Simon Rattle conducts/destroys them...

But, if they bored you truly, Le Rat's desecration would not grieve you, methinks ; )

Cheers,
~Karl

[maestrob]

To be honest, Brahms Symphonies bore me, I start crying when (Sir) Simon Rattle conducts/destroys them...

But, if they bored you truly, Le Rat's desecration would not grieve you, methinks ; )

Cheers,
~Karl

They don't bore me, not at all, yet when badly done I want to tear my hair out (whatever I have left, that is!).

There is nothing worse than badly done Brahms, sadly, a great tradition no longer with us, IMHO.

[Chalkperson]

To be honest, Brahms Symphonies bore me, I start crying when (Sir) Simon Rattle conducts/destroys them...

But, if they bored you truly, Le Rat's desecration would not grieve you, methinks ; )

Like Schumann's Symphonies, I just don't think that they are particularly great works, when done well they are enjoyable, but, when played by an inferior Conductor like Rattle then they just sound turgid...like Lumpy Gravy (without Frank)...

[Jack Kelso]

To be honest, Brahms Symphonies bore me, I start crying when (Sir) Simon Rattle conducts/destroys them...

But, if they bored you truly, Le Rat's desecration would not grieve you, methinks ; )

Like Schumann's Symphonies, I just don't think that they are particularly great works, when done well they are enjoyable, but, when played by an inferior Conductor like Rattle then they just sound turgid...like Lumpy Gravy (without Frank)...

Really no need to comment here----but the Schumann and Brahms symphonies are STILL regarded as the nonplusulta continuation of the Beethoven tradition. Difficult to understand anyone seriously interested in music could not be moved by these eight great masterworks!

Bruckner, for his part, carries on the Schubert symphonic tradition.

Elgar and Mahler represent a continuation of these trends plus Raff and Dvorak influences.

Tschüß,
Jack

[karlhenning]

Like Schumann's Symphonies, I just don't think that they are particularly great works, when done well they are enjoyable, but, when played by an inferior Conductor like Rattle then they just sound turgid...like Lumpy Gravy (without Frank)...

Really no need to comment here----but the Schumann and Brahms symphonies are STILL regarded as the nonplusulta continuation of the Beethoven tradition.

You've cast this in passive voice again, Jack; but really, consensus for a long while has been that the Brahms four are a more significant contribution to the literature than the Schumann four. Not that there was need for that clarification ; )

Cheers,
~Karl

[Chosen Barley]

But the Schumann symphonies are purtier.

[Jack Kelso]

But the Schumann symphonies are purtier.

Yes indeed! This is the point that Karl (and many others) missed. The Schumann symphonies express much that those of Brahms do not. Nevertheless, I (and most scholars today) would objectively place their symphonies on roughly equal ground.....some preferring the former, some the latter.

We dare not forget that some months ago Karl promised me here that he would not listen to ANY Schumann this year, so perhaps he is a bit out of practice in this arena.....

Tschüß,
Jack

[karlhenning]

(and most scholars today)

This does not accord with my experience. Just saying.

Cheers,
~Karl

[karlhenning]

We dare not forget that some months ago Karl promised me here that he would not listen to ANY Schumann this year, so perhaps he is a bit out of practice in this arena..... 8)

I remember them quite well from before, Jack.

I am tru to my word; how could I not be, with such constant reinforcement from your esteemed self? ; )

Cheers,
~Karl

[Jack Kelso]

We dare not forget that some months ago Karl promised me here that he would not listen to ANY Schumann this year, so perhaps he is a bit out of practice in this arena.....

I remember them quite well from before, Jack.

I am tru to my word; how could I not be, with such constant reinforcement from your esteemed self? ; )

Cheers,
~Karl

I guess I read "Chosen Barley" wrongly----I understood "purer". Well, at any rate George Szell was still of the opinion that Schumann was the greater, however one wishes to disagree.

Today, Bruckner and Mahler have joined the candidates of "greatest" since Beethoven. However, there are far more pressing questions and discussions than that! One critic (Herbert Weinstock) even suggested that Tschaikowsky was the "greatest symphonist since Beethoven." Thus.....

It's really a matter of selective taste.

Tschüß,
Jack

[Chalkperson]

Really no need to comment here----but the Schumann and Brahms symphonies are STILL regarded as the nonplusulta continuation of the Beethoven tradition. Difficult to understand anyone seriously interested in music could not be moved by these eight great masterworks!

Bruckner, for his part, carries on the Schubert symphonic tradition.

Elgar and Mahler represent a continuation of these trends plus Raff and Dvorak influences.

Hey Jack, what's wrong with me having a different point of view to you and the Musicologists, I like Beethoven's, Schubert's, Dvorak's, Bruckner's and Mahler's Symphonies...I find that Schumann and Brahms symphonic works cannot be played as often as the Composers they are imitating...i'll say this once again, Classical Music is like Sports, we all support different teams, there is absolutely nothing wrong in that...

Of course, your credibility drops to 40 below zero when you throw Raff in there...

[karlhenning]

Well, at any rate George Szell was still of the opinion that Schumann was the greater, however one wishes to disagree.

Just because Szell's opinion coincides with yours, Jack, doesn't mean that Szell is equal in his contrarian weight to the consensus.

Jack, by all means, remain firm in your preference to Schumann; I wouldn't change that for the world. The fact remains that consensus is strongly in Brahms's corner; consensus has never (and I use that adverb advisedly) thought more highly of Schumann as a symphonist over Brahms.

And I am exulting in this 60-disc box of the complete works of Brahms!

Cheers,
~Karl

[StephenSutton]

There are certain performers/singers who are considered our greatest stars - partly due to their talent, but RARELY becuase they are actually the best.; They have the fortune to be hyped and promoted for commercial gain while other totally brilliant musicians get little publicity - just check out some of our Cd reviews or those of other labels trying to promote real musicianship...

Same with composers; no one is liekly to deny the genius of 'the masters' but as been implied here, it is not only a question of quality. Many of the greats have need to be hyped by someone else to bring their music from obscurity - Bach being prime example no. 1.

And theres also this underlying preconception that is drummed into everyone that 'there are ten great composers and maybe twenty great compositions' - as the general public on average may believe; as someone pointed out we (society) accepts Haydn's 94th (the example given) or Beethoven's 5th or the Water Music as the best music ever - when in fact their position is due to the relative popular appeal over time - and we all know that popular opinion and pop culture (which are the same thing) means usually the lowest common denominator: American Idol QED. In fact it it is often the LESS popular works which might be thought to be of a higher standard because they don;t pander to 'the common taste' - discuss.

[Chosen Barley]

In fact it it is often the LESS popular works which might be thought to be of a higher standard because they don;t pander to 'the common taste' - discuss.

I simply cannot wait for the discussion on this one.

Well, Karl, maybe Zelenka's works are of a higher standard after all!

I had never even heard of him till I came here, as I live and breathe. On Wikipedia (for whatever that is worth) he is referred to more than once as a genius. I am now listening to one of his trio sonatas (sounds like oboe or bassoons ?) and it is rather beautiful. Is it a work of genius? I don't know.

[jbuck919]

I had never even heard of him till I came here, as I live and breathe.

Neither had I.

I am now listening to one of his trio sonatas (sounds like oboe or bassoons ?) and it is rather beautiful.

Can you give us Zelenka? sorry

[jbuck919]

In fact it it is often the LESS popular works which might be thought to be of a higher standard because they don;t pander to 'the common taste' - discuss.

It would be difficult for me to name a mature work by any great composer that pandered to the common taste. If you mean some genres had a bigger audience, then yes, an opera theater is bigger than a salon. Yet off the top of my head, the only composer I can think of who composed significantly better music for more intimate forces (and arguably was thinking about popularity in at least some of his orchestral works) is Dvorak. Now if there's a treasure trove of non-orchestral masterpieces by Respighi that I'm unaware of, please enlighten me.

[Chalkperson]

I had never even heard of him till I came here, as I live and breathe.

Neither had I.

Surely you jest, anyone with a taste for the Baroque must have heard of Zelenka, and, yes, he is a genius and has been described as that many times, I hate to say this part...by Scholars and Musicologists...

[Chosen Barley]

Here is some music by the much-discussed but maybe insufficiently listened-to Zelenka:

[Jack Kelso]

Well, at any rate George Szell was still of the opinion that Schumann was the greater, however one wishes to disagree.

Just because Szell's opinion coincides with yours, Jack, doesn't mean that Szell is equal in his contrarian weight to the consensus.

Jack, by all means, remain firm in your preference to Schumann; I wouldn't change that for the world. The fact remains that consensus is strongly in Brahms's corner; consensus has never (and I use that adverb advisedly) thought more highly of Schumann as a symphonist over Brahms.

And I am exulting in this 60-disc box of the complete works of Brahms!

Cheers,
~Karl

Remember (please!) that I NEVER said that Schumann's symphonies are superior to those of Brahms! They are equal in quality and belong on the same plane of greatness. While each brought to the genre his own personal expression, an individual listener's/musician's personal preference will always prevail.

The Karl I know generally doesn't go in for this type of quality judgements......

Tschüß,
Jack

[Jack Kelso]

Really no need to comment here----but the Schumann and Brahms symphonies are STILL regarded as the nonplusulta continuation of the Beethoven tradition. Difficult to understand anyone seriously interested in music could not be moved by these eight great masterworks!

Bruckner, for his part, carries on the Schubert symphonic tradition.

Elgar and Mahler represent a continuation of these trends plus Raff and Dvorak influences.

Hey Jack, what's wrong with me having a different point of view to you and the Musicologists, I like Beethoven's, Schubert's, Dvorak's, Bruckner's and Mahler's Symphonies...I find that Schumann and Brahms symphonic works cannot be played as often as the Composers they are imitating...i'll say this once again, Classical Music is like Sports, we all support different teams, there is absolutely nothing wrong in that...

Of course, your credibility drops to 40 below zero when you throw Raff in there...

Your prejudice against Raff is farther below zero than any comment I could make. Any composer who had such a strong influence on Brahms, Tschaikowsky, Dvorak, Elgar, Mahler and R. Strauss must have meant something to these masters.

If I were to proclaim Raff as "the greatest symphonist since Beethoven" then you would certainly be correct. But he definitely was not. Yet no intelligent listener can deny many beauties in the German-Swiss composer's works.

And what composers are Schumann and Brahms supposedly "imitating"....??! Please try to keep your own credibility in check before you criticize that of others.

Tschüß,
Jack

[jbuck919]

I had never even heard of him till I came here, as I live and breathe.

Neither had I.

Surely you jest, anyone with a taste for the Baroque must have heard of Zelenka, and, yes, he is a genius and has been described as that many times, I hate to say this part...by Scholars and Musicologists...

Ah, well now I'm embarrassed.

[karlhenning]

I had never even heard of him till I came here, as I live and breathe.

Neither had I.

Surely you jest, anyone with a taste for the Baroque must have heard of Zelenka, and, yes, he is a genius and has been described as that many times, I hate to say this part...by Scholars and Musicologists...

FWIW, I sat in quite an intensive Baroque seminar one year of my graduate schooling. Zelenka was not mentioned even by name.

Cheers,
~Karl

PS/ Chalkie, didja get my PM?

[jbuck919]

FWIW, I sat in quite an intensive Baroque seminar one year of my graduate schooling. Zelenka was not mentioned even by name.

And I'm ten years older than you. Imagine if we had gone to school a generation earlier: We might never have heard of Vivaldi!

[Chalkperson]

Your prejudice against Raff is farther below zero than any comment I could make. Any composer who had such a strong influence on Brahms, Tschaikowsky, Dvorak, Elgar, Mahler and R. Strauss must have meant something to these masters.

You are the only person I have ever read that makes this claim of a "strong influence" about Raff...many Composers come to the same "musical conclusions" as others, it does not mean that they are copying someone else...if he was the guiding light like you suggest, then, surely there would be many recording of his Symphonies, but, they are very few in number, the only complete set I have ever seen are on Tudor and a couple are on Marco Polo/Naxos, if he was as good as you suggest then surely other Conductors and Record Labels would have recorded his music...

[Jack Kelso]

Your prejudice against Raff is farther below zero than any comment I could make. Any composer who had such a strong influence on Brahms, Tschaikowsky, Dvorak, Elgar, Mahler and R. Strauss must have meant something to these masters.

You are the only person I have ever read that makes this claim of a "strong influence" about Raff...many Composers come to the same "musical conclusions" as others, it does not mean that they are copying someone else...if he was the guiding light like you suggest, then, surely there would be many recording of his Symphonies, but, they are very few in number, the only complete set I have ever seen are on Tudor and a couple are on Marco Polo/Naxos, if he was as good as you suggest then surely other Conductors and Record Labels would have recorded his music...

Well, Chalkie---first of all you have to listen to theses composers yourself, in order to decide which work(s) came first. If you are not familiar with Raff, then the entire discussion is null and void. By the way, my wife likes his music even better than I do.

Get some literature on the subject and buy a couple of Raff symphonies (or chamber compositions).

I think you might be quite (pleasantly!!) surprised.....!

Tschüß,
Jack

[Wallingford]

Well, I knew of the existence of Zelenka ever since I began work at the Tower store. All this badmouthing compels me to immerse myself in his work.

[Chalkperson]

Well, Chalkie---first of all you have to listen to theses composers yourself, in order to decide which work(s) came first. If you are not familiar with Raff, then the entire discussion is null and void. By the way, my wife likes his music even better than I do.

Get some literature on the subject and buy a couple of Raff symphonies (or chamber compositions).

I think you might be quite (pleasantly!!) surprised.....!

Tschüß,
Jack

I have some Raff Recordings, I put him on a par with Spohr in terms of greatness, meaning Raff's Symphonies and Spohr's Chamber Music are pretty good, but, certainly not great...perhaps they could have both benefited from being a little less prolific in those areas...