About Heitor Villa-Lobos:

[dulcinea]

is he a major figure of music?
The weasels, stoats, martens, rodents, ferrets and mustelids only play a couple of the Bachianas and a few guitar pieces; as for his chamber music, his choral pieces, and his several symphonies, THEY DON'T EXIST.

[absinthe]

He was certainly a major figure in his homeland. Until he appeared, Brazillian music was European.

[Allen]

I bought this set several years ago and enjoyed it very much:

http://www.amazon.com/Villa-Lobos-Compl ... g+quartets

[dulcinea]

He was certainly a major figure in his homeland. Until he appeared, Brazillian music was European.

Would you be satisfied if all I said about Johnny Bach was that he was certainly a major figure in his homeland?

[maestrob]

The set of Bachianas Brasilieras (there is no singular, i.e. Bachiana Brasiliera) can be quite interesting in places, as can his string quartets. #5 of the Bachianas Brasilieras (with soprano solo) has been sung by every soprano capable of learning Portugese, and is his Greatest Hit (Look for Anna Moffo, Victoria De Los Angels or Kiri Te Kanewa, not to mention Bidu Sayao for a historical reading).

Momoprecoce is an interesting piano/orchestral work: the other piano concerti meander on and leave me wanting less instead of more.

Not a major composer (the symphonies are a drag as well), but he wrote only one work that made it as a concert staple.

[johnQpublic]

Not a major figure, but some pieces are quite original and striking.

Two things to consider:

Stravinsky complained, “Why is it that whenever I hear a piece of music I don’t like it’s always by Villa-Lobos?”

French composer Olivier Messiaen stated that Villa-Lobos was definitely one of twentieth century’s foremost orchestrators.

[absinthe]

Stravinsky complained, “Why is it that whenever I hear a piece of music I don’t like it’s always by Villa-Lobos?”

I seem to recall Villa Lobos saying "Whenever I hear a piece by Stravinsky he saves me the cost of sleeping tablets."

Stravinsky went backwards after the Rite. Villa-Lobos went forward. I think Stravinsky had reason to be jealous.

[absinthe]

He was certainly a major figure in his homeland. Until he appeared, Brazillian music was European.

Would you be satisfied if all I said about Johnny Bach was that he was certainly a major figure in his homeland?

Does satisfaction come into it? Your question didn't imply that.

I did write quite a long post about HVL but it was lost in the failed recovery of this site I reckon.


Johnny Creek? Who's he?

[dulcinea]

Stravinsky complained, “Why is it that whenever I hear a piece of music I don’t like it’s always by Villa-Lobos?”

I seem to recall Villa Lobos saying "Whenever I hear a piece by Stravinsky he saves me the cost of sleeping tablets."

Stravinsky went backwards after the Rite. Villa-Lobos went forward. I think Stravinsky had reason to be jealous.

No love lost.

[Chalkperson]

He was certainly a major figure in his homeland. Until he appeared, Brazillian music was European.

Agreed, very prolific but not that much is memorable enough to make the standard repertoire...

Antônio Carlos Brasileiro de Almeida Jobim had a far greater influence bringing Brazilian music to the masses...

[absinthe]

I think there are several reasons for that:

1) He can be boring (Guitar Prelude No 3)
2) His music is intensely difficult to perform (everything except the Guitar Prelude No 3)
3) His bigger works tend to sprawl (Symphonies 1 and 2)
4) The bigger orchestral works are expensive to perform
5) As with Revueltas, his music is fairly nationalistic and only recently received much interest outside Latin America
...(except perhaps in France)
6) He was his own worst advocate (his conducting is scruffy, ill-balanced except for two items - below)

But he can compose damned good music. Try:

The Discovery of Brazil Suite
Forest of the Amazon Suite

Both conducted by him. The latter is now out of print (it was in the catalogue between about 1959 and 2006, not a bad run) and was issued on CD entitled "Inspiration Brazil" (with Bidu Sayao) Utterly brilliant. The best. Shows he could conduct if he tried.



For chamber music the string quartets are ok but the difficult and effective stuff is in the
woodwind music.

Try the Quinteto Em Forma De Choros and
Trio for Oboe Clarinet and Bassoon, on:


How on earth the artists can play these works is beyond me!

This disc contains a few other nice ones, e.g. the "Love Song" here, for flute and guitar,
drawn from the Forest of the Amazon score.

There's another recording of the Quintet done by the New York Wind Quintet, somewhat
more atmospheric. Beautifully played. Track 14.
Tracks 15 & 16 give a superb performance of the Bach. Bras. No 6



Brill.

[Heck148]

Villla-Lobos is of considerable interest to WW players, and to bassoonists, esp -

His 5tet is often played - very difficult - so is his Bacchianas Brasilieras #6 for flute and bassoon. It is something of a staple - very beautiful work all told, but quite difficult. His Ciranda Das Sete notas [7-note Ciranda] for bassoon and strings is a very fine solo bassoon piece...I heartily recommend the Willard Elliot/CSO recording, and also the Frank Morelli/OrpheusCO verion, on MSR classics.

He wrote a Duo for Oboe and Bassoon [1957] - this work has been splendidly recorded on Crystal Records - the IDRS 25th Anniversary disc - performed by Alex Klein[ob] and George Sakakeeny[bn]...this is some amazing playing!!
a real problem with performing Villa-Lobos' works is the disruption of the underlying pulse...There is a pulse, for sure, but nobody is playing it!! one part isplaying 1/4 note triplets, another part is playing triplets against simple time sub-division....you really have to have the inner "clock" working....

[absinthe]

The topic got me returning to this composer and particularly the works you mention - performed by the N Y Wind Quintet. Their recordings (on the Boston Skyline label) include many other works, including Barber’s Summer Music, beautifully played, when you consider the endurance needed and performance difficulties especially as you say, rhythmic.

I believe HVL is a major figure, capricious as his output might seem. He isn’t sufficiently major to be memorable across centuries but how many are? We’ve had the Austrian and German rammed down our throats for SO long that Mozart and Beethoven - oh, and Messrs. Haydn and Bark - are among very few. Same with fine artists: how many Rubens, Titians and Rembrandts have become (moderately educated) household names?

“Beneath” those are the major composers, fame achieved through anything from excellence to good marketing and fashion. There’s a steering committee known as “the professional musical consensus” (I'm told - no further comment) that, with media outfits, has quite a say on who’s major and not. I reckon a quite good indicator is Arkivmusic’s list of “most popular composers.” Stravinsky is among them (though something over 1/3 of available recordings cover the three ballets), also Villa-Lobos.

So, Dulcinea, my reckoning is that he’s a major. One of very few Brazilian composers whose recordings are available in Europe. If only his music wasn't so darned difficult and expensive he might receive more exposure.

[Lance]

Personally, I don't consider Villa-Lobos a "major" composer in the sense of so many others one might name, but from his own time period in music history, perhaps he is more major than minor. I have not been terribly enamoured with too much of his music, though the Bachianas Brasilieras No. 5 is one of his best pieces.

There's an excellent 6-CD set from EMI [67229], which is available very inexpensively that I would highly recommend for the "best of" the composer, who is involved in many of the performances himself along with several noted others, such as Victoria de los Angeles, Felicja Blumental, Magda Tagliaferro, etc.

You may not listen to V-B frequently, but when you want a complete change to the ears, his music will do just about as good as anyone else's!

[Wallingford]

He's a damned sight better than Bruckner & that's all that matters to me......

[absinthe]

There's an excellent 6-CD set from EMI [67229], which is available very inexpensively that I would highly recommend for the "best of" the composer, who is involved in many of the performances himself along with several noted others, such as Victoria de los Angeles, Felicja Blumental, Magda Tagliaferro, etc.

You may not listen to V-B frequently, but when you want a complete change to the ears, his music will do just about as good as anyone else's!

Lance, hopefully you can forgive my offering an alternative view of that set. It’s great value for the amount of music you get and those artists make it a notable document but it’s more for the die-hard HVL fan rather than a newcomer.

These are old recordings. I bought this set over 10 years ago (under different artwork, Villa-Lobos par lui-meme) by which time I’d accumulated more recent HVL Cds. I was a little disappointed.

IIRC most of the recordings cover 1954-1959. So they’re mono - but compared to state of the art recording of this era, they’re poor. Whether it’s HVL’s negligent conducting, insufficient rehearsal or a recording setup incapable of handling his oft dense textures, I don’t know, but there are times when the sound is quite muddy. Detail is buried.
Compare the sound of these recordings with, say, Stokowski’s Uirapuru from 1955 and you’ll see what I mean.

Up there somewhere I reckoned that HVL was his own worst advocate conducting his own stuff. He wouldn‘t be the first or last composer/conductor to do his own works poor service..

The Bachianas No 5: Victoria de los Angeles is in fine voice. Shame the ensemble wasn’t able to support her. Listen to the lead in to where she takes up. (It’s in 5/4, the intro in 1/16notes).

At the end of bar 2 is a rallentando. The cellos just aren’t together. Crikey, only 6 of them are playing. They’re obviously professionals. Maybe they were pulled together at a moment’s notice for this work. So why did HVL let this scruffiness through? It happens on no other reading of the work I can think of and I doubt cellists from, say, the New York Philharmonic would get away with that.

Not all is lost, however. La découverte du Brésil (Descovery of Brazil) is very well played and conducted. A wonderful composition. Likewise the Choros No 10. (It must be an absolute blighter to perform but HVL keeps it well under control.)

Just about every work has been recorded more recently with greater sensitivity. Boxes of the Bachianas are available, each with strengths and weaknesses. Karabtchewsky’s is quite good if you can find one.

Overall, the problems with this set are the problems of HVL’s difficult scores. His music is laden with polyphony made difficult by cross-rthythms and polyrhythms. Balancing is a heck of a problem. It can easily be played badly. Carl St. Clair has the knack and if only he’d do some of the other works I’d buy ‘em.

So, yes, Lance, someone wanting a complete change to the ears could well turn to this composer but that set can be a difficult listen. If I had first encountered HVL through this set I'd have been put off! My intro was the NY Wind Quintet playing the Quintet and Bernstein's reading of the Bach 5 with Davrath and the NYPO.

[Lance]

Well stated, Absinthe. I guess my recommendation is largely because of my penchant for historical recordings. For certain, there are finer contemporary recordings of everything in that EMI boxed set. I, too, thought some things therein posed a difficult listen, but, again, it is due to my interest in historical material. Some of what you say applies to Aaron Copland's recordings, too. He was a better composer than a conductor but also a better pianist than a conductor, at least to my ears.

[diegobueno]

Stravinsky complained, “Why is it that whenever I hear a piece of music I don’t like it’s always by Villa-Lobos?”

I seem to recall Villa Lobos saying "Whenever I hear a piece by Stravinsky he saves me the cost of sleeping tablets."

Stravinsky went backwards after the Rite. Villa-Lobos went forward. I think Stravinsky had reason to be jealous.

I can't imagine what you're talking about. Stravinsky never went anywhere but forward.

This argument relies on a false and partisan construction of history, kind of like American history according to Fox News. This is music history according to Darmstadt, in which the only legitimate path of music history in the 20th century is towards atonality and the 12-tone system. It is the kind of argument promulgated by martinets like Boulez who insisted that anyone who didn't see the necessity of the 12-tone system was worthless. Sorry, Boulez, but yours isn't the only game in town. Stravinsky had his own agenda and he followed it, writing the greatest music of the 20th century, and in his old age he showed that he could beat the post-Webern crowd at their own game.

[dulcinea]

I think there are several reasons for that:

1) He can be boring (Guitar Prelude No 3)
2) His music is intensely difficult to perform (everything except the Guitar Prelude No 3)
3) His bigger works tend to sprawl (Symphonies 1 and 2)
4) The bigger orchestral works are expensive to perform
5) As with Revueltas, his music is fairly nationalistic and only recently received much interest outside Latin America
...(except perhaps in France)
6) He was his own worst advocate (his conducting is scruffy, ill-balanced except for two items - below)

But he can compose damned good music. Try:

The Discovery of Brazil Suite
Forest of the Amazon Suite

Both conducted by him. The latter is now out of print (it was in the catalogue between about 1959 and 2006, not a bad run) and was issued on CD entitled "Inspiration Brazil" (with Bidu Sayao) Utterly brilliant. The best. Shows he could conduct if he tried.



For chamber music the string quartets are ok but the difficult and effective stuff is in the
woodwind music.

Try the Quinteto Em Forma De Choros and
Trio for Oboe Clarinet and Bassoon, on:


How on earth the artists can play these works is beyond me!

This disc contains a few other nice ones, e.g. the "Love Song" here, for flute and guitar,
drawn from the Forest of the Amazon score.

There's another recording of the Quintet done by the New York Wind Quintet, somewhat
more atmospheric. Beautifully played. Track 14.
Tracks 15 & 16 give a superb performance of the Bach. Bras. No 6



Brill.

Taking together all your responses, I'm getting the impression that HV-L is in the same situation today as Mahler was in 1964; just as GM was not fully appreciated in 1964 because of the demands his music made on the performers and the audience, HV-L is not fully appreciated today because of the same reason. The Man from Rio clearly needs directors and performers who will advertise his music by performing it as it should be performed.

[absinthe]

I can't imagine what you're talking about. Stravinsky never went anywhere but forward.

This argument relies on a false and partisan construction of history, kind of like American history according to Fox News. This is music history according to Darmstadt, in which the only legitimate path of music history in the 20th century is towards atonality and the 12-tone system. It is the kind of argument promulgated by martinets like Boulez who insisted that anyone who didn't see the necessity of the 12-tone system was worthless. Sorry, Boulez, but yours isn't the only game in town. Stravinsky had his own agenda and he followed it, writing the greatest music of the 20th century, and in his old age he showed that he could beat the post-Webern crowd at their own game.

I certainly agree with you about old stone balls (Pierre Boules). He was a mathematician. Realising he was no von Neumann he sought fame as a composer and seizing on ideas of Schoenberg and Messaien tried to cut a niche as a total serialist. Receiving such bleak acclaim he turned to conducting - at least it paid the mortgage.

As for Stravinsky, I did slip a next to my comment. However, both Boulez and Stravinsky had one thing in common: they made utterances that sycophants were eager to note. Mostly they were rude to others. So we're entitled to be rude back, as I see it.

Commenting about Villa-Lobos on this thread, I tried to differentiate between immortals like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven; and major composers - those who enjoyed sustained popularity for whatever reason, whether they'd had an undeniable impact on their nation's or wider culture, or whether they were plugged for sleeping with their fave impresario. Everyone will have views on who's major or not so I took the easy way out, looked up Arkivmusic's "Most popular composers" list. Stravinsky was on it, as was Villa-Lobos. I can't think of Stravinsky as one of the immortals and I noticed that more than 1/3 of Stravinsky recordings were of The Rite, Petrouchka and Firebird. And it's my belief he'll be remembered for those. After The Rite he simplified his textures and tended back to classical forms. (No surprise, the Rite is a brilliant work that he probably knew he'd never top.) In fact, as I recall he was angry at Strauss (R) for Ariadne, reverting to classical opera with set numbers and such, something Stravinsky hoped to be the first neo- at.

I find the variety and expressiveness of Villa-Lobos more engaging than any Stravinsky after The Rite, with the possible exception of Agon. But that's just personal taste.

No love lost over Boulez!

[PJME]

This is an excellent Villa Lobos disc. Very good performances of - at least- interesting scores.

P.

[diegobueno]

I certainly agree with you about old stone balls (Pierre Boules). He was a mathematician. Realising he was no von Neumann he sought fame as a composer and seizing on ideas of Schoenberg and Messaien tried to cut a niche as a total serialist. Receiving such bleak acclaim he turned to conducting - at least it paid the mortgage.

As for Stravinsky, I did slip a next to my comment. However, both Boulez and Stravinsky had one thing in common: they made utterances that sycophants were eager to note. Mostly they were rude to others. So we're entitled to be rude back, as I see it.

The difference between Boulez and Stravinsky is that Stravinsky wrote great music.

Boulez, of course, is one of the great conductors, so I can appreciate his value as a musician even though his aesthetic positions are such to make my eyes roll. If he defames Stravinsky I chalk it up to artistic temperament.

You, absinthe, are not Boulez, so I feel free to go into attack mode when you defame Stravinsky.

[absinthe]

This is an excellent Villa Lobos disc. Very good performances of - at least- interesting scores.

P.

Yes. Amazonas is an early one, 1917.
The rest are from 1950 onwards.

Duarte and Marco Polo have brought several of his works to the public.
He made a good recording of The Discovery of Brazil. Still in print.
I still like HVL's own reading from the "Villa-Lobos Conducts" set.

The Heymanns (Marco Polo) released the first recordings of Choros 8 & 9
with Schermerhorn conducting the Hong Kong Philharmonic (c1983).
Not a world class orchestra and with a conductor not exactly a
household name it was an ambitious project. It worked. There are
now at least three recordings now of No 8, two of No 9. Schermerhorn manages
to keep things under control given the extreme difficulty of these scores.
Anyone who's seen the score of the 8th will appreciate! He brings out the various
textures well and, musically at least, these are superior to the recent
Neschling efforts, spoiled by recording engineers with fingers itching
to get on the sound desk sliders, so the balance keeps altering.

These aren't the easiest works with which to come to terms. Not for a newcomer.
It took me several listenings and I was able to lean on some experience
of HVL's work. I knew they'd make sense in the end.

All in all, Naxos/Marco Polo have done some excellent work.

[absinthe]

The difference between Boulez and Stravinsky is that Stravinsky wrote great music.

Boulez, of course, is one of the great conductors, so I can appreciate his value as a musician even though his aesthetic positions are such to make my eyes roll. If he defames Stravinsky I chalk it up to artistic temperament.

You, absinthe, are not Boulez, so I feel free to go into attack mode when you defame Stravinsky.

Thank heavens for that!

Boulez is an accurate conductor. Ironically his rendering of Le Sacre comes across as a very gentlemanly affair.
Le Sacre is about passion, ecstatic dancing, catharsis, possession....
so Boulez is hardly the man for that job. That recording is probably his greatest insult to Stravinsky!

[diegobueno]

Stravinsky's recording of the Sacre is rather gentlemanly, too. And not nearly so accurate. I like Boulez' 1972 recording of Petroushka, as eccentric as it is in some ways (keeping the snare drum pp between sections, what's that all about?).

I really love Boulez' way with Lulu. He really gets all the sensuality in Berg's orchestration, and some of that music is really sexy. And the murder of Lulu is absolutely blood-curdling.

Maybe I'll even have something to say about Villa-Lobos in another post.

[diegobueno]

One way for a composer, especially one who speaks Spanish or Portuguese, to keep a foothold in the repertory is to write extensively for guitar.

[Heck148]

Boulez is an accurate conductor. Ironically his rendering of Le Sacre comes across as a very gentlemanly affair.
Le Sacre is about passion, ecstatic dancing, catharsis, possession....
so Boulez is hardly the man for that job. That recording is probably his greatest insult to Stravinsky!

I disagree completely. Boulez Sacre recording with Cleveland from 1969 is one of the best around...very excting, powerful, and beautifully executed by the end-of-the-Szell-era Clevelanders...

I also enjoy Boulez' Schoenberg, and his Mahler Symphony #9/CSO is excellent, right up there near the top.

[johnQpublic]

Boulez Sacre recording with Cleveland from 1969 is ....beautifully executed by the end-of-the-Szell-era Clevelanders...

I followed this recording just last week with score in hand. Boulez's final "Danse sacrale" was far easier to follow than the composer's own recording that I have had my entire life.

[absinthe]

Taking together all your responses, I'm getting the impression that HV-L is in the same situation today as Mahler was in 1964; just as GM was not fully appreciated in 1964 because of the demands his music made on the performers and the audience, HV-L is not fully appreciated today because of the same reason. The Man from Rio clearly needs directors and performers who will advertise his music by performing it as it should be performed.

You might just be right. Though I wouldn't care to speculate on when and how. Orchestras are in the doldrums at the moment. The question seems to be, can HVL be sustained by his fans across the gap until things get better, if they get better? Then there'll be a queue of composers awaiting their revival. We shall just have to wait and see.

[ChrisX]

Recently picked up the Brilliant Classics box with the string quartets and am enjoying them immensely

[THEHORN]

Villa-Lobos is a lot better than Bruckner ?







Begone, churl !!!!!!!

[ContrapunctusIX]

Recently picked up the Brilliant Classics box with the string quartets and am enjoying them immensely

that's the Cuarteto Latinoamericano set right? Lovely music in the neoclassical vein, a far cry from his Bachianas but still highly enjoyable 20th century chamber music, and beautifully played and recorded to boot!

[Lance]

Actually, if I happened to be on a desert island and could have either HVL or AB, I would choose Bruckner. The older I get, the more I appreciate his symphonies, especially Nos. 5 and 7.

Villa-Lobos is a lot better than Bruckner ?







Begone, churl !!!!!!!

[John F]

Over on CompuServe's Music Forum some years ago, a fellow came along who claimed that Villa Lobos was the greatest composer since Beethoven. And he really meant it, no foolin'. His name was Alfred Heller, and if you Google the name you'll find that he's president of the Villa Lobos Music Society. He was a protégé of Villa Lobos and worked with the composer on some late projects, such as the premiere recording of "Forest of the Amazon"; he himself conducted a recording of the piece with Renée Fleming for Delos. A bee in his bonnet, then. As for me, I'll take Bruckner any day.

[piston]

There's something to be said about Latin American composers who didn't have a great time in Europe music classes and seminars. A bit like the Japanese student who, notwithstanding his/her intelligence, is not going to get much interested in a course on United States history until you reach the situation on the Pacific coast in World War II. Rather than assert Bruckner's superiority over Villa-Lobos, I would contend that they are two totally different letters in the alphabet of musicology.

On a different note, and not because I have been reading about his life lately, I do recall that, once in Europe, in Paris, HVL was not really inclined to learn about that kind of music. Rather, he wanted to show off his own brand. So, this was not the well-trained European school composer. But was he a colorful composer? Absolutely! Was he a more colorful composer than Bruckner? I would vote yes to that question as well.

[piston]

Simple truth is that Bruckner was terrible at composing guitar music....