Composers, Symphonies, Orchestras, etc.

[NikolaiI]

I'm interested in people's favourite composers and orchestras. I'd love to be more knowledgable about this. If you have any suggestions I'd check them out. I don't know much about different orchestras, I just found one called Tafelmusik, I am checking it out now.

Thanks!

That one was here, they're playing a Beethoven symphony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=733bnDTrO6Y

[amarna]

Great thread. My favourites are the violin concerto in e minor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoS4rMmUk-w) op 64 by Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, several concertos by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach and the symphonies (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=charles+ives+symphony+no.+2&search_type=&aq=f) of wonderful Charles Ives (pity that symphony no. 2, which I like most, is not at youtube).

[kratsayra]

This is probably not what you are looking for, but I like contemporary composers. In particular, Philip Glass. I like some of Steve Reich's stuff too, but a lot of it is a little bit too difficult for me to understand.

Sometimes contemporary minimalist music is difficult to access, but I find Philip Glass very accessible.

Though if you are looking for classical music, these musicians are not the place to find it.

But there are lots of interesting composers out there currently (or not-too-long-ago) composing for piano, symphonies, orchestras, et. al.

One of Philip Glass' pieces: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imbwn6iVryQ

[billl]

I like Aaron Copland, especially Appalachian Spring Suite.

However, my absolute favorite orchestral work (and I always do my best to restrain myself when recommending it, but it is so obviously incredible, c'mon everybody) is Sibelius' 5th Symphony. (Simon Rattle City of Birmingham is good, but a Bernstein performance from probably the 1970's was the one that introduced me to it. Both are very good, and worth comparing. But I've only heard 3 or 4 performances, so...).

Also, my favorite violin concerto is Sibelius's (Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg does an amazing version, but again, I've only heard two in this case).

There's lots of Sibelius that I wouldn't recommend, though--try one of those two if you decide to give him a shot.

[samah]

try to listen to symphony No. 25 in G minor for Mozart ,its my favourite

[amarna]

Ah, and the Kreutzer Sonata (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5DsEB5I6xc&feature=related) of course.

[virginiawang]

My favorite is Dreams of Love, composed by Franz Liszt. It is really beautiful.

[1n50mn14]

Rachmaninov (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8ytY57u8_4) is one of my (more recent) favorites.

I started listening to Rachmaninov because of my classical piano teacher. We were watching some Igudesman and Joo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKKlhYF53w) (who are fantastic classical musicians with a sense of humor- also worth checking out, regardless of whether or not Rainer Hersch did it first...)

Besides that, I could listen to any classical composer over and over and over again. Antonio Vivaldi is a particular favorite, Spring (Four Seasons) being my favorite.

[NikolaiI]

Oh, thanks everyone. I will look up all your suggestions:)

[NikolaiI]

amarna, I just listened to your suggestions and thank you! It was an amazing listening experience! :)

[stlukesguild]

NikolaiI... you can always lurk over at the music discussion group and get some pointers. An easy introduction to classical music is the book, Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1,000 Greatest Works. It gives a solid introduction to various styles, genre, musical forms, etc... all written by and to the non-expert.

The 20 top composers as rated in this book are as follows:

1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Wagner
5. Haydn
6. Brahms
7. Schubert
9. Handel
10. Tchaikovsky
11. Mendelssohn
12. Dvorak
13. Liszt
14. Chopin
15. Stravinsky
16. Verdi
17. Mahler
18. Prokofiev
19. Shostakovitch
20. Richard Strauss

The list is pretty decent IMO. The first three are nearly indisputable although there will always be those who favor Mozart or Beethoven (or even Brahms or Wagner). Personally, I find that Bach is God. After that... I'd probably put Schubert above Brahms and Haydn and I'd definitely move Richard Strauss up to no. 15 (and get rid of Stravinsky altogether). In place of Stravinsky and Shostakovitch I'd have Bruckner and Puccini (or perhaps even Rachmaninoff).

The question of the "best" orchestras/conductors depends upon the piece being performed. You will rarely go wrong with the Berlin Philharmonic (especially under Herbert von Karajan), the Vienna Philharmonic and the Vienna State Opera Orchestra, the London Symphony, the New York Philharmonic, the Chicago Symphony, the Cleveland Orchestra. The Philharmonia and the New Philharmonia, etc... Of course there are endless other quality orchestras... many having strengths in one period or genre such as period performance, French music, Opera, etc... Among the greatest conductors one would need to include the above-mentioned Karajan, George Solti, George Szell, Kurt Boehm, Otto Klemperer, John Barbirolli, Adrian Boult, Bruno Walter, Pierre Boulez, Sir Neville Mariner, John Eliot Gardiner, Valery Girgiev, Leonard Bernstein, etc... You will rarely go grossly wrong with any of the combination of these. With time, however, you may wish to do more research (Penguin and Gramophone Guides for example) and will find that you prefer a certain conductor, performer, and orchestra over others. Personally my tastes in classical are so broad that I'd be hard pressed to suggest a single piece. If you give me some idea of what you are familiar with and like, however, I can make some recommendations.:thumbs_up

[mortalterror]

1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Wagner
5. Haydn
6. Brahms
7. Schubert
9. Handel
10. Tchaikovsky
11. Mendelssohn
12. Dvorak
13. Liszt
14. Chopin
15. Stravinsky
16. Verdi
17. Mahler
18. Prokofiev
19. Shostakovitch
20. Richard Strauss

The list is pretty decent IMO. The first three are nearly indisputable although there will always be those who favor Mozart or Beethoven (or even Brahms or Wagner). Personally, I find that Bach is God. After that... I'd probably put Schubert above Brahms and Haydn and I'd definitely move Richard Strauss up to no. 15 (and get rid of Stravinsky altogether). In place of Stravinsky and Shostakovitch I'd have Bruckner and Puccini (or perhaps even Rachmaninoff).


I wholeheartedly agree. I'd make Mozart #1 with a toss up between Beethoven and Bach for #'s 2 and 3. Swap Verdi with Wagner, Haydn with Tchaikovsky, drop Stravinsky and Shostakovitch entirely and leave the rest of the list as it is.

[stlukesguild]

In support of Stravinsky and Shostakovitch I will state that The Rite of Spring is probably THE masterpiece of Modernist music and I definitely love it as well as the Firebird and Petruschka. I also love Shostakovitch's Cello Concerto and his Preludes and Fugues (which are a marvelous variation on Bach's Well Tempered Clavier). On the other hand... there are so many other late Romantic and Modernist composers that I would rank higher (even if they admittedly are not as clearly daring). Among these would be Anton Bruckner, Richard Strauss, Claude Debussy, Maurice Ravel, Alexander Zemlinsky, Karol Szymanowski, Giacomo Puccini, Gioacchino Rossini, Edvard Grieg, etc...

[mortalterror]

In support of Stravinsky and Shostakovitch I will state that The Rite of Spring is probably THE masterpiece of Modernist music and I definitely love it as well as the Firebird and Petruschka. I also love Shostakovitch's Cello Concerto and his Preludes and Fugues (which are a marvelous variation on Bach's Well Tempered Clavier). On the other hand... there are so many other late Romantic and Modernist composers that I would rank higher (even if they admittedly are not as clearly daring). Among these would be Anton Bruckner, Richard Strauss, Claude Debussy, Maurice Ravel, Alexander Zemlinsky, Karol Szymanowski, Giacomo Puccini, Gioacchino Rossini, Edvard Grieg, etc...

I really can't overstate how much I hate The Rite of Spring. Give me Carmina Burana any day.

[stlukesguild]

You hate The Rite of Spring?! Acccck! It is unquestionably the work that made the largest break with the tradition... rather like Ulysses, The Wasteland, and Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. After this beginning, however, I don't find much that I find particularly listenable. Rather like Schoenberg who started out marvelously in the lush, late Romantic tradition of Mahler and Strauss. His serial work... while perhaps a logical development in music... are almost painful to listen to and strike me as innovation for the sake of innovation: a criticism that I know you have been apt to throw at Finnegan's Wake. Bernstein's Rite is absolutely magnificent. Even so... I admit that I would take Richard Strauss any day. Seriously, considering Strauss' daring, expressionistic early operas, his tone poems, his slew of later operas, and his final heart-breakingly gorgeous Four Last Songs I feel Strauss is easily a justifiable candidate for the title of greatest 20th century composer which is all to often and easily awarded to Stravinsky.

[Drkshadow03]

try to listen to symphony No. 25 in G minor for Mozart ,its my favourite

That's my favorite symphony too. The first movement especially is mind-blowing.

[mortalterror]

You hate The Rite of Spring?! Acccck! It is unquestionably the work that made the largest break with the tradition...
A tradition which I rather like.

rather like Ulysses, The Wasteland, and Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.
Hate Ulysses, love The Wasteland, not too hot about Demoiselles. I'm not a big Picasso fan. When it comes to modern art I prefer Dali and Magritte. As far as classical music goes, my taste runs more toward Con Te Partiro, Vesti La Giubba, Pachelbel's Canon in D, Rigoletto, The Barber of Seville, Jupiter Symphony, Carmina Burana, Air on a G String, Flower Duet, Anvil Chorus, Four Seasons, Swan Lake Act IV, Sleeping Beauty, Night on Bald Mountain, 1812 Overture, A Little Night Music, Moonlight Sonata, Doretta's Dream from La Rondine specifically by the soprano Leontyn Price, O Mio Babbino Caro sung by Maria Callas, Nessun Dorma sung by Pavarotti, Ave Maria, Handel's Messiah, and Un Bel Di the Katherine Jenkins version.

[stlukesguild]

Of course I'm rather fond of the tradition as well. Its the reason I find later Schoenberg and Stravinsky (among others) rather lacking. They broke away from the tradition... but what they offer as an alternative is rather lacking. In some ways I imagine this is a flaw of Modernism in general. In spite of the brilliance of Picasso, for example, (and I have little doubt of his brilliance) what he achieved is not necessarily sustainable. He certainly opened up Western art to the vast wealth of possibilities beyond (and including) the Post-Renaissance tradition of illusionistic realism... but his particular "style" is not something that can be really built upon without appearing excessively derivative. I think the same is true of Schoenberg. Most post-Schoenberg Modernism (John Cage, Ligeti, etc...) seems to be nothing more than novelty for the sake of novelty.

Speaking of Schoenberg... the man was actually a marvelous composer at age 25... in the tradition of Strauss, Mahler, Wagner, and Zemlinsky (his brother-in-law):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl6Zw9iqlrk

[Emil Miller]

This is one of my all-time favourite pieces of Russian music. There are more polished performances but they don't match the passionate playing of this orchestra.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0AL8OnMTyg

[stlukesguild]

I'll have to get back to ya, Brian. After a long day in the studio I finally finished the painting I've been working on for about 2 months. I'm celebrating with pizza and Buffalo wings (one of those uniquely American dishes) and a slew of good beers: a Belgian abbey ale: Ommegang, a lovely spicy German beer: Aventinus, and I'll finish up the night with what may just be my absolute favorite beer: Samuel Smith Imperial Stout. I've been spending the evening with Duke Ellington turned up real loud and some real American bluegrass... true drinkin' music.:wave:

[Emil Miller]

I'll have to get back to ya, Brian. After a long day in the studio I finally finished the painting I've been working on for about 2 months. I'm celebrating with pizza and Buffalo wings (one of those uniquely American dishes) and a slew of good beers: a Belgian abbey ale: Ommegang, a lovely spicy German beer: Aventinus, and I'll finish up the night with what may just be my absolute favorite beer: Samuel Smith Imperial Stout. I've been spending the evening with Duke Ellington turned up real loud and some real American bluegrass... true drinkin' music.:wave:

Having what may be the world's smallest appetite and being generally unknowledgeable about food, I had to check out Buffalo wings on Wikipedia to discover that they have nothing to do with Buffalos per se but are a dish from the town of that name in the USA. However, although I could readily forgo the food, the beers are another matter, especially the Belgian abbey ale.

[amarna]

Here you are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPc7DP3zf1I

[stlukesguild]

Lately I've been building upon my body of late Romantic composers and these have taken me past the 19th century, well into the 20th, and on to the present. I'm somewhat fascinated by the fact that the strain of Romanticism has held on so strong in Britain and America, especially... to the point that there is now something of a Neo-Romantic revival now that the rule of academic serialism and dissonance has lost its grip... and become as "old fashioned" in its way as any tonal music. Over the last few weeks I've been exploring the American Romantics (beginning with Copland) who can be found in grossly under-priced recordings on the budget Naxos label. I've been listening to Ned Rorem, Roy Harris, David Diamond, Virgil Thompson, Howard Hanson, and Alan Hovhaness... among others. David Diamond writes a particularly eloquent defense of the continuation of Romanticism:

"It is my strong feeling that a Romantically-inspired contemporary music, tempered by reinvigorated classical technical formulas is the way out of the present period of creative chaos in music... To me the Romantic spirit in music is important because it is timeless."

Steven Lowe, writing for the Seattle Symphony, where Diamond was Honorary Composer in Residence, continues:

"For some thirty years following World War II, the apostles of post-Weberian serialism and its offshoots determined the course of contemporary classical music. Diamond, and other such Neo-Romantic voices as Roy Harris, Samuel Barber, Howard Hanson, William Schuman, and Walter Piston, to name only American composers of that persuasion, were dismissed with an imperious wave of the academic hand and a curt "irrelevant" from the lips- or pen- of the ideological purist, Pierre Boulez.

While in no means demeaning the many fine works that have come from Boulez (which ones would those be?:confused:) and gifted composers who trod the chaste path of serialism, time has proven them wrong in consigning Diamond and his gloriously unrepentant Romantics to the trash bin of music history. In music, as in life itself, there are many roads to truth... One thing is clear, many composers and audiences have either re-embraced the Romantic spirit, or never left its enveloping warmth in the first place."

I'm somewhat struck by the recognition that contemporary classical music has faced the same struggle with the notion of a single "correct" way of working as imposed by Modernist academicians that has afflicted the visual arts. One is struck by the almost "totalitarian" nature of the dictates... the notion that there is only a single correct path... that certain ideas, styles or approaches to art are doomed to result in nothing more than kitsch... no matter how well they are done... ideas that so strongly contrast with the freedoms from academic cliche's that first wrought Modernism. Now Romanticism and Classicism and even ideas of modal music rooted in Medieval and non-Western music have begun to assert themselves while many of the hard-core Modernist academics are themselves slipping for their pedestals... if not being consigned to the dustbins of history. I see many of the same urges unfolding in the visual arts as well... as there is a strong return to realism, classicism, and even painting from life.

But enough of my rant. Currently I've been listening to Alan Hovhaness a great deal. He is certainly worth exploring by anyone who admired the late Romanticism of Richard Strauss, Mahler, Zemlinsky, Szymanowski or the nature-bound pastoralism of Delius, Bax, Vaughan-Williams, etc...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsqylAdSymg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj6Wa4O6IV8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZrpVB3xQpE

[Emil Miller]

Yes St Lukes, I see what you mean about Hovhaness and the pastoralism of certain British composers. The Alleluia and Fugue bears a distinct resemblance to Vaughan Williams' Tallis Fantasia. I am not sure about a resurgence of romantic music but the exisiting repertoire is so vast that, although it might be ignored by the post Schoenberg brigade, for most music lovers it has remained pretty much at the forefront of their musical experience.

Here is a remarkable performance of a piece by your favourite composer. I have watched it several times already and I still find it hard to believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIx48a9bXUQ

[LitNetIsGreat]

What's your opinion of Glen Gould? Here is a particular piece I have been listening to an awful lot over the past couple of months, J.S.Bach's Piano Concerto No.7. (When I say "awful lot" I mean about 500+ times.:blush:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyOf_L4cNHc

[amarna]

Ah, very beautiful and harmonic, the pastorals. :)
Anyone for Penderecki? (Don't know what school he is, maybe post-serialism or pre-post-semi-neoromanticism.) The Requiem is so awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l672HYgzow&feature=related

[Niamh]

I love classical music. Tchaikovesky, Chopin, Handel and Beethoven are amongst my favourite composers.
I love Eine kleine nachtmusik, Peer gynt suites, Pastoral Symphany, fantasie impromtu, Prince Igor, moonlight sonata, appassionata, Romeo and juliet, the nutcraker, sleeping beauty and swan lake (genius!), bacarolle, meditation, Zadok the priest, and well the Messiah... i love The capulets and the montegues from Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet, the sorcerors apprentice, fur elise, Clair de lune, Toccata and Fugue, Canon, Air on a G String, The Barber of Seville, Nimrod, Carmen and so many more! just love it.



I really can't overstate how much I hate The Rite of Spring. Give me Carmina Burana any day.

Rite of Spring on the other hand, is one tune that i do not like at all. Carmina Burana is however amazing.

[Emil Miller]

What's your opinion of Glen Gould? Here is a particular piece I have been listening to an awful lot over the past couple of months, J.S.Bach's Piano Concerto No.7. (When I say "awful lot" I mean about 500+ times.:blush:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyOf_L4cNHc

I can't comment with any authority on Gould because my knowledge of Bach is confined to what I have read and a couple of pieces that I play on piano.
However, it is generally acknowledged that Glen Gould was among the best, if not the very best, interpreters of Bach during Gould's lifetime, although there were others who held contrary views as to his superiority.

[stlukesguild]

Glen Gould was an absolutely fabulous interpreter of Bach. His youthful 1955 recording of the Goldberg variations is absolutely seminal... as is his later recording of the same from the mid-1980s. Gould certainly had his detractors who challenged his unorthodox approaches to the pacing of speed of certain pieces, his habitf singing along (often audible on recordings), and his rather quirky nature. Nevertheless... he is not easily surpassed. In spite of this... I would rarely ever limit myself solely to Gould's... or anyone else' interpretations of an major Bach work. In some cases I have 5 or more different recording by different performeres... and there are some wonderful Bach performers out there. Far more than there were in Gould's era, which is one of the reasons he is so revered: he was among the few to revive Bach's music at a time when most orchestral performances centered upon productions with a large Romantic-era orchestra.

Anyway... among those equally worthy of exploration with regard to Bach's keyboard work you should include:

Rosalyn Tureck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBdqpuaHq4I

Sviatoslav Richter (a true Romantic who plays with a lovely fluidity and Romanticist flourish):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GXHjxvSi24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-c8WG2GTaI&feature=related

Angela Hewitt (a classical perfectionist):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcQzFp8rC7E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKx7ePuIsi0

Andreas Schiff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKbpt0c1rZI

Ralph Kirkpatrick (A wonderful performer on the harpsichord... or clavichord in this instance... as well as an important musical scholar. His catalog... the Kirkpatrick catalog... of Scarlatti's music is the standard.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYPJudocC4w

Murray Perahia (Who has only turned to Bach in the last 10 years or so and become a magnificent performer of Bach's work. He is especially enlightening in his performances of the keyboard concertos... which I cannot find on YouTube)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e9HqyZhP70&feature=PlayList&p=3C2C61415A738D7E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=60

[stlukesguild]

Here is a remarkable performance of a piece by your favourite composer. I have watched it several times already and I still find it hard to believe.

I'd love to be able to play half as good... but I never had the least musical ability. I knew I'd need to participate in the arts in one way or another, but while I loved music it was clear quite early on that music was not in my future. The mere idea of moving the fingers of one hand to a different rhythm than the other involved a type of motor skill that I completely lacked... yet I could outdraw anyone in my school classes without even trying. In the end it all came down to art vs literature.

[stlukesguild]

Penderecki is an interesting figure. He is probably best described as a post-serial composer. He walks the line between tonal and atonal. In the instance of the Lacromosa from his Polish Requiem the work seems quite traditionally tonal and avoids any extremes of dissonance. This is not true of his more famous works such as the famous Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima. Harrowing... but not something I would gain pleasure from listening too often:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfBVYhyXU8o

[LitNetIsGreat]

Thanks for the thoughts on Gould and Bach Stlukes and Brian, just checking out the posted videos now.

[WiseCookie]

If you want to start getting into "classical" music to try to get a feel for what you like and how to approach the vast selection of classical music out there, I would suggest starting with the greatest composers and their greatest works, because you know you are going to need to listen to these to have a standard by which to judge everything else. As a starter, I would go with:

1. Beethoven -- Nine Symphonies. Every single one is a masterpiece in my opinion, and certainly any lover of classical music will have at least one, if not several, copies. Also worth buying -- 32 Piano Sonatas, 10 Violin Sonatas (at least No. 5 and No. 9), 5 Piano Concerti, Violin Concerto, String Quartets (start with Op. 59 "Razumovsky," which are the best in my opinion).
2. Bach -- If we are only talking about symphonic works, I would have to go with the five Brandenburg Concerti. Not that these are the greatest of his works (although arguably they are), but that they are a good place to start--complex but listenable at the same time. Other stuff to get--Preludes and Fugues, Goldberg Variations, Cello Suites, Violin Suites and Sonatas, and tons more but these are just to get a taste of what Bach is about.
3. Mozart -- This is a little harder. If you are just starting a collection, I would get a selection of symphonies, probably anything after the 23rd symphony (including the 23rd) would be fine. You could also take a selection of his Piano Concerti, and pretty much any of these would do except maybe the very early ones. You'll see that there are many recordings for certain symphonies and concerti, which is an indication that these are the better (or at least more popular) works.

These three in my opinion are the greatest composers. But that doesn't mean there isn't a ton of other good composers that are worth listening to. I'm just saying they are a good place to start.

If you like Bach the best, go for the Baroque period composers--Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Handel, Telemann (he wrote some compositions called "Tafelmusik" which may be where the orchestra you are talking about got its name).

If you like Mozart, stick with Mozart. There are no other great "Classical" style composers except for Haydn, and Haydn is no Mozart. Sorry Haydn lovers.

Of course you will like Beethoven, no question, and from him you can springboard into the romantic period with composers like (in no particular order):

1. Schumann
2. Schubert
3. Chopin
4. Liszt
5. Brahms
6. Mendelssohn

And later romantics:

6. Mahler
7. Richard Strauss
8. Wagner (only if you like opera)
9. Verdi (opera only except for one string quartet, I believe)
10. Tchaikovsky
11. Rachmaninov (sp?)
12. Dvorak
13. Scriabin (one of my favorites but a little more difficult to listen to)

Then, when you've finally sampled all of these and need some more cutting edge type music (or go right to it because it's all great stuff), you can get to some of the great "modern" composers. I say that in quotes, because some of these guys are pretty old:

1. Debussy (I can't understand why he's not on the list of 20 greatest. He was mostly 19th century, but I group him with modern composers because his style is not really romantic)
2. Stravinsky (yes, he is great, despite what others have said in this thread)
3. Prokofiev
4. Shostakovich
5. Schoenberg (not light listening, but if you put in the time, you reap the reward)
6. Bartok

"So, this is it?" you ask. Heck no. There are tons of other composers that are worth spending lots of time with--Ravel, Villa Lobos, Medtner, Grieg, Copland just to name a few. I just wrote down the first ones that came to mind.

"But what do I buy when I'm looking at these composers?" That's not an easy question. It depends on what you like. If you like grand symphonic works, buy the symphonies, concerti, symphonic poems, operas or masses. If you like chamber music (works for only a few instruments), buy the string quartets, sonatas (piano, violin, cello, etc.). If you like soloists, find some good ones (someone mentioned Glenn Gould for the Bach material, and I recommend him) and buy what they are producing.

Finally, remember that price does not always equal quality, so if you see something cheap, it doesn't mean it's not good. A couple good, cheap classical music labels are Naxos and EMI, and I'm sure there are several others.

If you've read this far, a congratulate you. Finding the classical music that best suits you is a journey, and one well worth taking. Have fun.

[stlukesguild]

If you want to start getting into "classical" music to try to get a feel for what you like and how to approach the vast selection of classical music out there, I would suggest starting with the greatest composers and their greatest works, because you know you are going to need to listen to these to have a standard by which to judge everything else.

Certainly, I agree. I would suggest, however, that one do a little reading. It helps if one has some idea of what one is dealing with if we are speaking of a concerto versus a symphony versus a tone poem versus a fugue. One of the best resources for the initiate, from my experience, is Phillip G. Goulding's Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and their 1,000 Greatest Works. The book gives a solid grounding in musical forms, musical styles, eras, national traditions, as well as short bios on the 50 of the greatest composers (and recommendations to 100s of others) and their works. To this I would add a recent guide to classical music on CD by Gramophone or Penguin.

I would then begin by picking some of the works recognized by critics as the best examples of each era.

From the Medieval Period I would suggest some Gregorian chant, something by Hildegard of Bingen, and something by Josquin Desprez. Among the some of the leading performers of medieval music you might wish to check out The Anonymous Four, Sequentia, the Akademie für Alte Musik Berlin, Chanticleer, the King's Noyse, the Alfred Deller Consort, among others. Medieval music is currently undergoing a great revival... due in part to the fact that many contemporary composers (Minimalists and otherwise) have been deeply influenced by the same.

From the Renaissance I'd recommend Giovanni Palestrina. His Missa Papae Marcelli and Missa Brevis are especially good. Carlo Gesualdo would be another recommendation (look into performances with the Hilliard Ensemble). Most important in this era would be Claudio Monteverdi. His essential works include the Vespro della Beata Vergine, and L'Orfeo (generally credited as being the first opera) both magnificently recorded by John Eliot Gardiner.

From the Baroque we begin with J.S. Bach... one of the triad of "immortals" (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart). Bach's output is phenomenal and phenomenally huge. You might want to pick a bit from each genre. Certainly the Brandenburg Concertos... probably the best example of the Baroque form known as the Concerti Gross. I'd also look into the violin concertos. From the keyboard music you should probably start with The Goldberg Variations (Glenn Gould's 1955 recording is a great place to start). As Bach was "the" master of organ music you should probably get a collection of organ music. Bach also wrote 100s of cantatas for church services. These are among his greatest works. You can't go wrong with any recording by John Eliot Gardiner... but I'd especially be on the look out for cantatas no.s 140, 147, 8, 80, 82, 106, 169 & 170. From there I would expand into the Works for Solo Violin, the Cello Suites, the Art of the Fugue, and the Well Tempered Clavier.

After Bach there's Handel. The Messiah is perhaps the essential work, but I would also recommend his keyboard suites (available at ridiculously low prices on EMI). After that I'd expand upon the operas and oratorios (perhaps Solomon next). From Vivaldi you'll want the famous Four Seasons... and from Scarlatti check out some of his keyboard sonatas.

Moving into the true "Classical" period the central figures are Mozart, Haydn, and Gluck. From Mozart you'll want to explore the late symphonies: 25, 29, and 35-41. Probably his greatest achievements in purely instrumental music are his piano concertos. Numbers 19, 20, and 21 are essential... along with everything after them. I'd also check out his string quartets, clarinet quintet and concerto, and Requiem. His operas, however, are unsurpassed. Perhaps only discs of highlights for the beginner: Don Giovanni, Cose Fan Tutte, Le Nozze di Figaro, and the Magic Flute.

Haydn is another giant... often underrated. Check out his "London Symphonies", his string quartets (he is credited with virtually "inventing" them), and his great oratorio, The Creation. Gluck is known solely for his efforts in the field of opera. Alceste and Iphigenie en Tauride are especially recommended.

From the Late Classical/Early Romantic period we have Beethoven, Schubert, and Rossini.

From Beethoven the key pieces are Symphonies no.s 3,5,6,7,and 9, piano sonatas no.s 8 (Pathetique), 14 (Moonlight), 17 (Tempest), 21 (Waldstein), 23 (Hammerclavier) and 29 (Hammerclavier) although all of them are truly essential. Add to this his piano concertos no.s 4 and 5, and his violin concerto.

From Schubert it is symphonies 8 (Unfinished) and 9 (Great), the "Trout Quintet", the quartet "Death and the Maiden" and the song cycle, Die Winterreise. With Rossini we are with the greatest opera composer of his era. begin with a collection of overtures and move on to The Barber of Seville.

With Romanticism things get complex... lots of big composers... so one may wish to begin with one or two essentials to get a taste of each:

Liszt- Hungarian Rhapsodies, tone poems
Berlioz- Symphonie Fantastique
Mendelssohn- Mid-summers' Night Dream Music, Violin Concerto
Schumann- Kreisleriana, Kinderszenen, Carnaval
Chopin- Nocturnes
Bruckner- Symphony 7

The two opposed giants of the era were Brahms (who was more of a classicist continuing in Beethoven's footsteps) and Wagner. Brahms essential works include his 4 symphonies, German Requiem, and a great deal of "chamber music". I'd especially check into his Cello Sonatas, Violin Sonatas, and his works for clarinet. From Wagner you might wish to begin with a collection of his overtures and a collection of music from his operas. The operas themselves are quite challenging, but worth the effort as they are among the greatest music ever composed. I'd begin with Tristan und Isolde.

Along with Wagner we can't forget his great operatic rival, Verdi. Again, begin with a collection of overtures and orchestral music... then choose one of the best... perhaps Aida.

The Late Romantics include Mahler (Symphonies no.s 1 and 2), Richard Strauss (Also Sprach Zarathustra, Death and Transfiguration, Four Last Songs, Die Rosenkavalier), Dvorak (symphonies 8 and 9), Rachmaninoff (Piano concerto no.s 2, Vespers, Symphony no. 2, the Preludes), Mussorgsky (Pictures at an Exhibition, Night on Bald Mountain), and Tchaikovsky (Symphonies no.s 5 and 6, Piano concerto no. 1, Violin concert, 1812 Overtures, Swan Lake suite) and Puccini, Madame Butterfly, Tosca, and La Boheme to start.

Working along side of the Late Romantics were the Impressionists, Debussy, Ravel, Satie, Faure, etc... Essential works include Debussy (La Mer, Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune, Preludes, Etudes), Ravel (Pavane pour une infante défunte, Bolero, La valse, Faure (Requiem), Satie (Gymnopédies). You might also add the pastoral works of the English Ralph Vaughan-Williams (Symphony 3 and 5) and Frederick Delius (On Hearing the First Cuckoo in Spring; Brigg Fair; In A Summer Garden; North Country Sketches)

Modern and Contemporary classical can be very challenging... especially in the more experimental vein. The key works of the era include Stravinsky (Firebird and Rite of Spring), Prokofiev (Lieutenant Kijé, violin concertos, Ivan the Terrible, piano concertos), Shostakovitch (Symphonies 7, 8, 10; Preludes and Fugues, cello concerto), Bela Bartok (Miraculous Mandarin), Aaron Copland (Appalachian Spring, Rodeo), Olivier Messiaen (Quartet for the End of Time).

Other talented composers of the era include George Gerschwin, Zemlinsky, Szymanowski, Schoenberg, Heinz Henze, David Diamond, Phillip Glass, Arvo Part, Henryck Gorecki, Ned Rorem, Alan Hovhaness, Virgil Thomson, Roy Harris, Benjamen Britten, John Adams, Erkki-Sven Tuur, etc...

Enjoy!:wave:

[LitNetIsGreat]

Wow, two very informative posts to say the least.:eek: I for one have ordered the book (shipped from the US, another amazon purchase) which sounds very useful. Thanks.

[Niamh]

a modern composer i like is Yiruma
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhN7SG-H-3k
what a beautiful piece of music.

[Emil Miller]

a modern composer i like is Yiruma
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhN7SG-H-3k
what a beautiful piece of music.

This kind of music is very popular in Japan and it generally falls under the title of mood music, it is very pleasant and relaxing.
For a somewhat more advanced example of Japanese piano technique, you might care to try the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7xz1nos-xc

[stlukesguild]

This kind of music is very popular in Japan and it generally falls under the title of mood music, it is very pleasant and relaxing.

You might check out Keith Jarrett who combined training in classical music and jazz. He was especially aware of the improvisation that exists in both jazz and Baroque music as it was originally performed. His best works were purely improvisational... improvised on the spot in live performance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzqMJWlKMsY

[Emil Miller]

This kind of music is very popular in Japan and it generally falls under the title of mood music, it is very pleasant and relaxing.

You might check out Keith Jarrett who combined training in classical music and jazz. He was especially aware of the improvisation that exists in both jazz and Baroque music as it was originally performed. His best works were purely improvisational... improvised on the spot in live performance:

http://174.133.97.227/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=759604

I was unabe to access your link due to a message that informed me that I did not have authority. However, I was easily able to access Keith Jarrett via YouTube because there are many videos showing his improvisatons on tunes from the standard song repertoire. Improvisation does indeed go back to the Baroque , as my piano teacher has pointed out, but it also survives today in the form of the Cadenza, whereby the soloist in a concerto is allowed to improvise the main theme towards the end of a movement.

[stlukesguild]

Brian... I believe I fixed the link. Listening to a lovely Hovhaness right now... then onto some Russian choral music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e48vQn03_vE

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2538/3805693855_5873de6450_o.jpg

I've been making some serious efforts to explore Russian vocal music... a genre I have ignored for far too long. Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov and "lieder", Tchaikovsky's Eugene Onegin and his songs, Shostakovitch's songs, Rachmaninoff... one of the great song writers, a composer of three short operas, and a master of choral music, etc...

[WiseCookie]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Certainly, I agree. I would suggest, however, that one do a little reading. It helps if one has some idea of what one is dealing with if we are speaking of a concerto versus a symphony versus a tone poem versus a fugue. One of the best resources for the initiate, from my experience, is Phillip G. Goulding's Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and their 1,000 Greatest Works. The book gives a solid grounding in musical forms, musical styles, eras, national traditions, as well as short bios on the 50 of the greatest composers (and recommendations to 100s of others) and their works. To this I would add a recent guide to classical music on CD by Gramophone or Penguin.


I agree with pretty much everything said here. The point I want to make is to start with the greats, and find a feel for what you like. Do some research. Once you understand it better, it will be easier for you to find music you enjoy and that speaks to you. Good luck.

[Emil Miller]

Brian... I believe I fixed the link. Listening to a lovely Hovhaness right now... then onto some Russian choral music:

I've been making some serious efforts to explore Russian vocal music... a genre I have ignored for far too long. Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov and "lieder", Tchaikovsky's Eugene Onegin and his songs, Shostakovitch's songs, Rachmaninoff... one of the great song writers, a composer of three short operas, and a master of choral music, etc...

I don't know much about Russian choral music although years ago someone I know had a recording of Gretchaninov's The Creed which was quite popular at that time and was actually recorded by a Russian Orthodox choir.

Going from the sacred to the profane (?) I have posted below some of the most magical film music ever written with a tribute to the only woman who could break a heart with a smile or a tear. Talk about nostalgia.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nshf2sQpwc

[stlukesguild]

Synchronistic thinking? I've certainly known Nino Roto's music for years... but never really paid much attention to it outside of its role within the films it was written for. Just yesterday of the day before I was browsing through a copy of Gramophone or BBC Music Magazine and I came upon a new recording of Roto's music composed for symphonic production outside of film. I ended up looking him up and was more than intrigued. But then...like you... I lean far more toward late-Romanticism... or at least tonalism... as opposed to the "uglier" strains of Modernism.

Speaking of Russian choral music, I should admit that I had long been enamored of liturgical/choral music... from medieval (even Sephardic) chant, through Bach and Handel and on to the 20th century. Only recently have I begun to broaden out my grasp of late 19th and 20th century choral compositions and composers. Rachmaninoff was actually the leading figure of the so-called New Russian Choral School, along with Grechaninov and several others. His choral works, culminating in the great Vespers, are magnificent. My explorations have led me beyond the early 20th century into exploration of contemporary choral composers... who offer some of the most innovative and lushly tonal music being written today: Arvo Part, Morten Laurisen, Henryck Gorecki, John Tavener, John Rutter, James MacMillan, Sofia Gubaidulina, William Mathias, Roberto Sierra, Gabriel Jackson, Peteris Vasks, Tarik O'Regan, Herbert Howells, etc...

Perhaps they all follow in Alan Hovhaness' belief that "Atonality is against nature. There is a center in everything that exists... The reason I like Oriental music is that everything has a firm center. All music with a center is tonal. Music without a center is fine for a minute or two, but it soon sounds all the same... Things which are very complicated tend to disappear... Simplicity is difficult, not easy. Beauty is simplicity. All unnecessary elements are removed... only essence remains." This reminds me of how Matisse spoke of his painting.

Returning to Romanticism... have you ever heard or heard of Joseph Marx? I just came across some of his music on Chandos which strikes me as more than promising. A few examples taken from the slim choices available on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQBgPkHXSFQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8vWPzEYh7k

[Emil Miller]

I had not heard of Marx, and listening to the pieces I think they are very much in the style of film scores such a those by Korngold. In other words, they appear episodic rather than thematically developed. In the absence of significant masterworks in recent years, there has been a tendency to fall back on music which acts as a kind of ersatz substitute. That isn't to say that they are not worth listening to, they are, but they are not greater than the sum of their parts in the way that other 20th century composers such as Ravel or Sibelius are for example. I agree with the Hovhannes point about Atonality being against nature but, in all honesty, by the time we got to Mahler and Strauss, romanticism was beginning to curdle, along with much else in the years leading to WW1, and Atonalism reflected it.
When Federico Fellni chose Nino Rota to write the music for his films it was the perfect combination but I don't think that Rota's music, as brilliantly atmospheric as it is, can be seperated from the films. I have a CD of the film music and every time I hear it, I see scenes from the films in my mind's eye; for me they are inseperable. Interestingly enough, Rota composed a number of piano concertos and symphonies, some of which have been recorded but not taken too seriously by music critics.

[stlukesguild]

Brian... I don't disagree with you. I'm not suggesting that Korngold or Bax or Vaughan-Williams or Copland or certainly Nino Rota are on the level of Richard Strauss, Mahler, or Wagner. But neither are Ligetti, Berg, Schoenberg, or dare I say it... Stravinsky. Where Modernism represented the greatest shift in the visual arts and resulted in the greatest output of artistic masterpieces since the Renaissance, I am not sure that it represented anything of this level within the field of music. Indeed... if I were to go out upon a limb... I might suggest that jazz may just have been the most important innovation to music of the era and resulted in the greatest body of music of real merit. I suspect that Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, and Thelonious Monk... to say nothing of Rachmaninoff and Puccini... may prove far more lasting than a great deal of the most experimental aspects of Modern classical music. I seriously cannot imagine many people listening to Ligetti, Berg, or John Cage a century from now. Who actually listens to them now outside of a few specialists?

Unfortunately, classical music developed a sort of snobbish divide between the "serious" academics (Schoenberg, Berg, Ligetti, Cage, Boulez) who were imagined to represent the true avant garde and anyone else who held firm to tonalism or worse yet... who employed forms borrowed or derived from popular music (as if Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms... and even the great Modernist: Bartok had not employed folk music in their own work). The same sort of divide evolved within the visual arts between those who recognized that abstraction represented the only possible direction for the "serious" artist... versus those obvious "reactionaries" who remained attached to figurative art.

Personally, I embrace some of the strongest examples of work by the more experimental composers. I have no problem recognizing that The Rite of Spring may just be THE masterpiece of Modernism... an equivalent of The Wasteland or Ulysses. I also admire Bartok, Messiaen, etc... On the other hand... I find Strauss' operas and his Four Last Songs to be among the greatest musical achievements of the century... and as I mentioned earlier I suspect Rachmaninoff and Puccini will prove to have been more than passing fads. I also suspect that any number of late Romantics or other tonal composers are of no less merit than Boulez and Cage (to say the least) even if they are not of the level of Mozart.

The various diverse art forms go through periods of great innovation and achievement as well as lulls in which there may still be a few artists of great merit... but the art as a whole seems to be struggling to come to terms with itself. The visual arts exploded with innovation and the highest level of achievement from around 1865 to the mid-1930s when the rise of fascism and the Second World War took its toll. There are no artists today (of whom I am aware) to rival Picasso, Matisse, Beckmann, Klee, or even Bonnard. Considering Wagner and Brahms and a number of others I truly suspect that classical music achieved one of these pinnacles at a somewhat earlier moment and that it began to slip into a long period of decadence from which we have not broken free at a slightly earlier time. In this sense, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring and Bartok represent to music what Pollack and DeKooning do to painting... a last gasp... laden with great bombast and rhetorical flourish before slipping into a period of academic mannerism.

[mortalterror]

SLG, I don't think I've ever seen you praise any rock band besides The Rolling Stones. For my part, I think that rock and roll was the great musical movement of the twentieth century and cinema was the great new artistic form. I would rather have The Beatles than all of Jean Sibelius, and I'd rather have Pink Floyd than any of that repetitive minimalist stuff Philip Glass does. I'm also more than a little curious to know what you think of John Williams the film scorer. His ET, Superman, and Star Wars scores are heavily influenced by some of the same composers you profess to like, and I wonder if you would view him as legitimate.

[stlukesguild]

Jazz has a far greater degree of sophistication... rooted in the fact, perhaps, that it began with the efforts of classically trained black musicians improvising upon simple popular melodies. Rock music is but the folk music of the time... not far removed from bluegrass, the ballads of Appalachia, Ireland, etc... or the simple folk dances and bawdy songs sung in taverns and at gatherings of the working/peasant classes throughout Europe since time immemorial. The biggest difference is that recording technology has allowed for such to be preserved. Personally I'd probably take the Beatles... or Johnny Cash over Sibelius myself... but certainly not over Richard Strauss, Mahler, or many others. Pink Floyd vs Phillip Glass may be an even greater no-brainer... but Rachmaninoff, Puccini, and Miles Davis win over them hands down. Seriously I don't listen to a great deal of pop-rock anymore. Beyond the few listed I'll sometimes pull out Led Zeppelin, the Kinks, Springsteen, Dylan, the Byrds, the Band as well as some real oldies: Elvis, Roy Orbison, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc...

As for John Williams... I wouldn't underestimate him anymore than I would underestimate Spielberg as a director. He is good at what he does... at setting the mood and in creating powerful memorable theme music. I don't think the work hold together overly well outside of its context... anymore than does the work of many other film composers. Unlike compositions for the theater, film places very specific demands upon timing with sudden shifts in mood, etc... which don't allow for a more unified or complex development. This, undoubtedly, is one of the greatest challenges of scoring film. perhaps with passing years more and more music from film will be edited into suites... not unlike what Tchaikovsky's ballets underwent.

[mortalterror]

You refer to folk songs and classical music but you haven't really explained why one is inherently better than the other. What, in your mind, makes The Carnival of the Animals superior to The Dark Side of the Moon?

[Mathor]

Jazz has a far greater degree of sophistication... rooted in the fact, perhaps, that it began with the efforts of classically trained black musicians improvising upon simple popular melodies. Rock music is but the folk music of the time... not far removed from bluegrass, the ballads of Appalachia, Ireland, etc... or the simple folk dances and bawdy songs sung in taverns and at gatherings of the working/peasant classes throughout Europe since time immemorial. The biggest difference is that recording technology has allowed for such to be preserved. Personally I'd probably take the Beatles... or Johnny Cash over Sibelius myself... but certainly not over Richard Strauss, Mahler, or many others. Pink Floyd vs Phillip Glass may be an even greater no-brainer... but Rachmaninoff, Puccini, and Miles Davis win over them hands down. Seriously I don't listen to a great deal of pop-rock anymore. Beyond the few listed I'll sometimes pull out Led Zeppelin, the Kinks, Springsteen, Dylan, the Byrds, the Band as well as some real oldies: Elvis, Roy Orbison, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc...

As for John Williams... I wouldn't underestimate him anymore than I would underestimate Spielberg as a director. He is good at what he does... at setting the mood and in creating powerful memorable theme music. I don't think the work hold together overly well outside of its context... anymore than does the work of many other film composers. Unlike compositions for the theater, film places very specific demands upon timing with sudden shifts in mood, etc... which don't allow for a more unified or complex development. This, undoubtedly, is one of the greatest challenges of scoring film. perhaps with passing years more and more music from film will be edited into suites... not unlike what Tchaikovsky's ballets underwent.

I feel like the majority of the classical you mentioned is kind of unoriginal.

The Beatles are a hell of a lot more original than Richard Strauss.

Regardless, rock is a whole lot more applicable to the future of music. The classics of classical music are wonderful, but there is no future in classical music.

I am a musician, and I can play a LOT of bach on mandolin and guitar and other instruments. Though it is more difficult to play, it kind of bores me. I am a musician, and I live for writing my own music. I find nothing in learning other people's music, and it is not a valid form of expressing my craft.

When I pick up the guitar I instinctively fall towards the blues. I've found much more in it emotionally than I will ever find in any classical music other than Beethoven, and a select few others.

Most of the only classical music that i find original at all is the work of John Cage, Schoenburg, and all of the 20th century classical music. It produced a lot of atonal and tritone and overly dichotic progressions that were COMPLETELY absent in the last hundred of years. A lot more interesting music has come out in the past 100 years, in my opinion.

Clasiccal music from 1500-1900 is too perfect. it's not muddy and dirty enough. Where's all the dark and scary feelings? This seems to be absent in much of the music you are praising. Overly tonal music is just sooooooooooooooo boring, it doesn't really push any sorts of boundaries.

And Miles Davis is one of my favorite musicians of all time!!! *****es Brew is a complete masterwork!

[stlukesguild]

The Beatles are a hell of a lot more original than Richard Strauss.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Do you actually know anything by Strauss beyond Also Sprach Zarathustra? His operas starting with Salome and Elektra were among the most shocking and innovative compositions of the 20th century. They were a merger of Wagnerian lushness and Romanticism with Viennese decadence and eroticism and more than a dash of Freudian, angst-laden German Expressionism. In partnership with the writer Hugo von Hoffmannsthal and later Stefan Zweig he produced the greatest body of musical theater/opera of the 20th century. His Four Last Songs are probably the swan song of classical Romanticism.

Regardless, rock is a whole lot more applicable to the future of music. The classics of classical music are wonderful, but there is no future in classical music.

Unfortunately the majority of pop music has a life span no longer than that of the generation raised upon it. You can chant the old rock-n-roll mantra that "rock-n-roll is here to stay but it will largely be as popular 50 years from now as Tommy Dorsey and Glen Miller are today. "Classical" music, on the other hand, is not a genre. It envelops a range inclusive of nearly every possibility. It is not unlike the term "literature" in the field of the written word in that it denotes artistic achievements within the field of the highest order. The classical music of today sounds no more like the classical music of the age of Beethoven and Mozart than the great paintings of today look like the paintings of Rembrandt and Vermeer... but neither do they look like comic books.

I am a musician, and I can play a LOT of bach on mandolin and guitar and other instruments. Though it is more difficult to play, it kind of bores me. I am a musician, and I live for writing my own music. I find nothing in learning other people's music, and it is not a valid form of expressing my craft.

And a lot of people are bored by Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and Ovid, and would prefer to read Steven King, Dan Brown, and the Harry Potter novels. This says more about the audience than it does about the merits of the art.

When I pick up the guitar I instinctively fall towards the blues. I've found much more in it emotionally than I will ever find in any classical music other than Beethoven, and a select few others.

Again... is it a shortcoming of the music if it does not speak to you personally? We have all those for whom Shakespeare and Dante are meaningless.

Most of the only classical music that i find original at all is the work of John Cage, Schoenburg, and all of the 20th century classical music. It produced a lot of atonal and tritone and overly dichotic progressions that were COMPLETELY absent in the last hundred of years. A lot more interesting music has come out in the past 100 years, in my opinion.

Atonality and dissonance can have an expressive quality when used briefly. Even Mozart and Haydn employed them on occasion. Used over an extended period of time it ll begins to sound the same: irritating. Employed solely for its own sake it strikes me as academic intellectual masturbation... experimentation for the sake of experimentation with no other purpose of goal. John Cage or Pierre Boulez are about as rewarding as listening to the noises on a construction site. Having said this much, I do concede that Modernism opened up many other possibilities within music... including a re-examination of musical forms pre-polyphony as well as the potential of non-Western sources, jazz, and various folk musics. Composers such as William Bolcom, Tan Dun, and Osvaldo Golijov have made use of a broad array of musical styles and idioms.

Clasiccal music from 1500-1900 is too perfect. it's not muddy and dirty enough. Where's all the dark and scary feelings? This seems to be absent in much of the music you are praising. Overly tonal music is just sooooooooooooooo boring, it doesn't really push any sorts of boundaries.

Nonsense. That's just the same sort of sophomoric prejudice that declares that Modernist painting or literature is so much more interesting than the painting or literature from 200 or 500 years ago. It shows a real lack of understanding of what art is about... which is not a mere reinforcement of our own experiences, preferences, and prejudices. As in any era the vast majority of the art of today will eventually be proven to have been nothing more than mediocre... a period piece. Which works will survive are always open to debate. The works of the past that are still performed or read or hung in museums have already proven themselves to a certain extent by their very survival. Of course there's always room for further discussion, interpretation, and even re-evaluation... but the notion that the work of today with which we may have a personal connection (I grew up with Zeppelin, man! They rule!) will somehow escape this cruel gleaning of time and sweep aside all that went before is naive at the very least.

And Miles Davis is one of my favorite musicians of all time!!! *****es Brew is a complete masterwork!

That's maybe the last of his really great work, but certainly no where near the level of Kind of Blue, Sketches of Spain, or his Blue Note recordings.

[stlukesguild]

You refer to folk songs and classical music but you haven't really explained why one is inherently better than the other. What, in your mind, makes The Carnival of the Animals superior to The Dark Side of the Moon?

You certainly know better yourself. You have taken one of the strongest works within the genre of pop or rock and placed it in comparison with a minor work by a second-tier classical composer. One might just as easily ask what makes a second-rate poem by Swinburne inherently better than a folk ballad such as The Unquiet Grave. The reality is that The Unquiet Grave may be better than anything that Swinburne ever wrote... this, however, does not prove that folk ballads as a whole might rival Shakespeare, Dante, and Ovid. The folk ballad is a sub genre... just as rock music is such a genre. The very best or strongest work of any genre may survive to be recognized among the greatest works of art. This is probably more true today than at any time in the immediate past when the divisions between genre and "high" and "low" art have become increasingly blurred. Of course when one is speaking of "classical music" one might recognize that the term does not refer to a single genre but rather to the whole of "art music"... music composed by highly educated and sophisticated musicians... over the past millennium... and not actually the whole of such music, but rather only the strongest. For every Mozart and Haydn there were 100s if not 1000s of composers with similar training and education whose works have been largely lost to all but the specialists.

[mortalterror]

You certainly know better yourself. You have taken one of the strongest works within the genre of pop or rock and placed it in comparison with a minor work by a second-tier classical composer.
Actually, I was just comparing two groups of compositions I like. I'm very fond of Saint-Saens. I chose one of his works for my example because I wanted to see what you'd do with something classical you hadn't suggested yourself already. Since I don't enjoy Strauss, Stravinsky, or Wagner those comparisons don't mean much to me. However, I love Carl Orff's Carmina Burana even if it's the only good thing he wrote. Mozart has made more beautiful music than anybody but even he is often tedious and not everything the master makes is masterful. I have no problem placing works of merit by minor composers amongst the canon with the greats. I respect quality where I find it.

Gustav Holst's Jupiter is pretty great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouEyeN2F9Hw
So's Vivaldi's Trio Sonata
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2PWLGbJkLs
Grieg's In the Hall of the Mountain King
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEXAruiTSjk
Copland's Fanfare For the Common Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJBx_aFfgyo
Why shouldn't the little guys get the respect they deserve?

Edit: I was hoping you could unpack a phrase you used earlier for me. What exactly do you mean by sophistication? Would Jonathan Larson's musical Rent satisfy that requirement with it's homage to Puccini's La Boheme? Is John Philip Sousa's Stars and Stripes Forever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znEePD1nJxo good enough? Where do you draw that line, or is it arbitrary? Is it just music that has classical roots as you suggest Jazz has? If that is so, then you would have to include Neo-classical Metal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-classical_metal as well. Is Progressive rock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_rock experimental and complex enough for your taste? What's your stance on musicians that blur the lines between rock and classical like Apocalyptica http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSMXMv0noY4 , the cellists who play Metallica songs? For that matter, I suppose you think that orchestras which accompany rock musicians do not raise the quality of the music, and only degrade the "serious musicians." I don't mean to be confrontational or prying. I'm just very curious how exactly you came to your opinions.

[stlukesguild]

I thought that such was what I was doing with pointing out any number of lesser or second-tier Romantics such as Korngold, Szymanowki, Zemlinski, etc... Don't get me wrong. While I may acknowledge that Saint-Saens is a second-tier composer, that does not mean I dislike him. Personally, I have more than a few compositions by him, Faure, Chausson, Reynaldo Hahn, etc... My problem with a great deal of Modernist music is that I don't find almost any of the composers to have been really giants... not Stravinsky or Bartok or Schoenberg any more than Copland, Hovhaness. Perhaps Shostakovitch and Prokofiev and Strauss. Yet for quite some time there has been the prejudice... largely perpetuated by academic composers and schools... that suggest that Stravinsky and Schoenberg and Boulez and John Cage represent to sole direction of any possible achievement, while figures like Copland, and Vaughan-Williams, and Carl Orff, and Hovhaness, and even Puccini and Rachmaninoff are dismissed as light-weight reactionaries.

[Mathor]

Actually, I was just comparing two groups of compositions I like. I'm very fond of Saint-Saens. I chose one of his works for my example because I wanted to see what you'd do with something classical you hadn't suggested yourself already. Since I don't enjoy Strauss, Stravinsky, or Wagner those comparisons don't mean much to me. However, I love Carl Orff's Carmina Burana even if it's the only good thing he wrote. Mozart has made more beautiful music than anybody but even he is often tedious and not everything the master makes is masterful. I have no problem placing works of merit by minor composers amongst the canon with the greats. I respect quality where I find it.

Gustav Holst's Jupiter is pretty great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouEyeN2F9Hw
So's Vivaldi's Trio Sonata
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2PWLGbJkLs
Grieg's In the Hall of the Mountain King
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEXAruiTSjk
Copland's Fanfare For the Common Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJBx_aFfgyo
Why shouldn't the little guys get the respect they deserve?

Edit: I was hoping you could unpack a phrase you used earlier for me. What exactly do you mean by sophistication? Would Jonathan Larson's musical Rent satisfy that requirement with it's homage to Puccini's La Boheme? Is John Philip Sousa's Stars and Stripes Forever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znEePD1nJxo good enough? Where do you draw that line, or is it arbitrary? Is it just music that has classical roots as you suggest Jazz has? If that is so, then you would have to include Neo-classical Metal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-classical_metal as well. Is Progressive rock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_rock experimental and complex enough for your taste? What's your stance on musicians that blur the lines between rock and classical like Apocalyptica http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSMXMv0noY4 , the cellists who play Metallica songs? For that matter, I suppose you think that orchestras which accompany rock musicians do not raise the quality of the music, and only degrade the "serious musicians." I don't mean to be confrontational or prying. I'm just very curious how exactly you came to your opinions.

You explain all of my opinions better than I could possibly explain myself :thumbs_up:thumbs_up

I saw a local symphony do Holst' Planets Suite, it was one of the greatest things I've ever seen.

And I agree with you, the idea of this "sophistication" is not real. Other than difference in tastes, there is no way to infer that one is better than the other.

I put all music and art at the same level, and do not find one better than the other. However, i'm forced to interject when music is bastardized in the way of being called "pop" music at all. John Lennon was a great composer, Jimmy Page was a great composer, Ludwig Van was a genius, and certainly J.S Bach is one of the greatest composers ever to walk the face of the earth. What bugs me, is that people on here cannot see why ALL of those names should be lumped together. Why is one type of music inherently better?

And I just thought i'd plug my complete idol (as far as mandolin playing goes) doing some Bach:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSZ40V0teGM

and then him playing his own original "pop" music, which contains many examples of polyphony, and is just as interesting and thought-provoking as Bach:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j53rigVtINo&feature=related

[stlukesguild]

And I agree with you, the idea of this "sophistication" is not real. Other than difference in tastes, there is no way to infer that one is better than the other.

This is the same nonsense that is repeatedly spouted about by champions of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Dan Brown as well. There is no good nor bad in art. All is subjective. All is but opinion. Perhaps... but some opinions are better than others.

[Veho]

This is the same nonsense that is repeatedly spouted about by champions of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Dan Brown as well. There is no good nor bad in art. All is subjective. All is but opinion. Perhaps... but some opinions are better than others.

Do you consider The Lord of the Rings "unsophisticated"?

To the OP, I like Dvorák's 8 Slavonic Dances, op 72: No.2. I like the Berliner Philharmoniker orchestra version.

[stlukesguild]

John Lennon was a great composer, Jimmy Page was a great composer, Ludwig Van was a genius, and certainly J.S Bach is one of the greatest composers ever to walk the face of the earth. What bugs me, is that people on here cannot see why ALL of those names should be lumped together.

John Lennon was a tune-smith. He had a knack for putting together some decent lyrics and setting them to a catchy tune. He was no more a great composer, however, than he was a great poet. Pop music, for far too long, has confused writing some lyrics and setting them to a melody with composition. The composition of a work of classical music involves not merely composing a catchy melody but it involves the whole of developing this melody and counter-melodies through complex variations and through the scoring. To suggest that John Lennon was a great composer is akin to suggesting that Alexander Dumas was a great writer when essentially he established a frame works for the narrative and the characters and then allowed ghost writers, including the great Gerard Nerval to flesh these out. The end result is essentially the product of numerous hands... which in itself is not inherently bad. Films are essentially a collaborative effort as well. A great song by John Lennon, such as In My Life, in reality owes its strength to Lennon as well as to the creative efforts of the others in the band as well as to the creative input of the producer, George Martin. No clasical composer would be taken seriously if he or she were to simply compose a little melody and then leave it up to others to develop this theme and transition it through variations or into a new theme and score it.

But this does not address why Lennon of (cough cough) Jimmy Page are not great composers on the level of Beethoven or even Richard Strauss. Put in simple terms, they are not on the level of Beethoven for the same reason that the comic book artists are not on the level of Rubens, Vermeer, and Michelangelo. Mortal speaks continually of the need for an artist to prove him or herself with the work of real epic quality. John Lennon may have produced a couple dozen truly memorable songs lasting 3 or 4 minutes each. These songs are commonly composed with a simple structure: a primary melody followed by a chorus or refrain, repeat with changes in lyrics. Nearly every classical composer of any real merit can claim an equal body of memorable songs... lieder... chanson: Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Ravel, Chausson, Debussy, Mussorgsky, Shostakovitch, etc... In most instances the structure of the music is far more complex... rarely relying upon the simple ballad structure... and the lyrics were commonly drawn from the works of truly great poets: Baudelaire, Goethe, Mallrme, Verlaine, Schiller, etc... Where, among the works of John Lennon, do we find something of the complexity of a symphony by Beethoven, a cantata by Bach, or an opera? Almost all of the great composers wrote a decent body of lovely songs. They also composed sonatas, concertos, symphonies, cantatas, oratorios, operas, etc... all of which demand a far greater mastery of musical development, use of layers of instruments, etc...

What makes the work of an artist "great"? The breadth or range of the work. The scale of the work. The depth of the work. Of course if one is convinced that Jimmy Page is a brilliant composer it is no more possible to prove him wrong than if he or she is certain of the fact that Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings were the greatest works of literature ever written. All one can do is roll one's eyes and accept the fact that "Yep, I'm an elitist snob".:rolleyes::lol:

[stlukesguild]

Do you consider The Lord of the Rings "unsophisticated"?

I don't know if its "unsophisticated". Tolkein was certainly well-versed as an academic. On the other hand... perhaps its just bad. :D

[stlukesguild]

The proper way to play the Partita No. 3 in E, BWV 1006 by J.S. Bach:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waxat-_tRH8&feature=related

-by Nathan Milstein

[Veho]

Do you consider The Lord of the Rings "unsophisticated"?

I don't know if its "unsophisticated". Tolkein was certainly well-versed as an academic. On the other hand... perhaps its just bad. :D

Ahh, maybe you have a thing against giant spiders :p

[stlukesguild]

Now if I want mandolin music, here is where I turn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa8L2C9WK40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffhqOy_A8KM

[stlukesguild]

Ahh, maybe you have a thing against giant spiders

Big or small... I'm not overly fond of them.;)

[mortalterror]

StLukes is right. I don't classify The Beatles in the same rank as Mozart based largely upon the length, number of voices, and number of instruments of their compositions. John Lennon was not as great a composer as he was a great performer. He knew how to get the most out of his material. Can we give him that?

Jimmy Page is more of a virtuoso, like Yngwie Malmsteen, Eric Clapton, Steve Vai, and Eddy Van Halen. They occupy a place that guys like Paganini or even Liszt once occupied in the classical world and Yo-Yo Ma occupies today. They are known for being the best solo performers for a particular instrument.

[stlukesguild]

But don't forget... Liszt was also a major composer. Often underrated... yet he is credited with having developed the "symphonic tone poem" and has more than a few major compositions to his name. Paganini has the wonderful caprices... but essentially they are just show pieces for his skills (or a current performer's) upon the violin.

[Mathor]

A great song by John Lennon, such as In My Life, in reality owes its strength to Lennon as well as to the creative efforts of the others in the band as well as to the creative input of the producer, George Martin. No clasical composer would be taken seriously if he or she were to simply compose a little melody and then leave it up to others to develop this theme and transition it through variations or into a new theme and score it.


A lot of great musicians have relied on collaboration. Strauss often collaborated with his brothers, Chopin collaborated with others composers. The idea that collaboration takes away from music is just misguided. Film, opera, painting, theatre, etc makes use of collaboration. What kind of art is music that it does not allow for the collaboration of creative minds?

And as you said vocals for great classical works are often taken from well-respected poets. isn't that more-or-less collaboration? One person write the words, one person writes the music.

[stlukesguild]

A lot of great musicians have relied on collaboration. Strauss often collaborated with his brothers, Chopin collaborated with others composers. The idea that collaboration takes away from music is just misguided. Film, opera, painting, theatre, etc makes use of collaboration. What kind of art is music that it does not allow for the collaboration of creative minds?

I have no problem with collaboration. I've never heard anything about Richard Strauss collaborating with his brothers (did he have any?)... although you may be referring to Johann Strauss. Even so, Richard Strauss definitely collaborated with Hugo von Hoffmannsthal and others in the creation of his operas. There is no question about this... and the credit is given. But when we speak of John Lennon composing a song like In My Life where is the credit given to the other members of the band who helped flesh out the song? Where is the credit given to George Martin for composing the score for the electric piano/harpsichord solo? Where is his compositional credit for scoring the string quartet for Yesterday, the string octet for Here, There , and Everywhere, the French horn solo in For No One, or the score for the jazz band in Got to Get You Into My Life? Again, the composition is not limited to just coming up with a tune... it is comprised of fleshing this tune out with the scoring for all instruments involved and for developing this tune. There is a reason why classical composers laugh at the notion of Paul McCartney's composing classical works and it has nothing to do with snobbery. It has everything to do with the fact that "his" compositions are essentially not "his" but rather the product of a committee of composers who build upon his tunes, flesh them out, and score them.

Again, none of this undermines the merit of the final results... but it does make it somewhat laughable to compare Paul McCartney or John Lennon with Mozart or Beethoven. I have spoken of Jazz. If I take a musician like Duke Ellington or Dizzy Gillespie I can say that they are composers not far removed in manner from Mozart or Beethoven. They score the entire piece for all the instruments (in Ellington's case with Billy Strayhorn) although they may take suggestions from the various soloists. The end result is as tightly structured as a work by Bizet or Ravel. A musician like Miles Davis, on the other hand, produced in a very different manner. He might be seen more along the lines of a director in a film... controlling the overarching structure but relying on the creative input of multiple individuals. Kind of Blue is an unquestionable masterpiece, in my opinion... but it cannot be credited solely to Miles Davis. John Coletrane, Bill Evans, Cannonball Adderly, Paul Chambers, etc... all contributed to the end product... especially as one considers the improvisational nature of the work. Classical music allowed for such... especially during the Baroque era... and even later in the form of the cadenza where the soloist could improvise his or her own solo. Without a means to record the performances, earlier music needed to rely solely upon the composer as opposed to the performers.

Again... I don't think of "classical" music as a genre inherently superior to all others... for the very fact that it is not a genre at all. The music of Sephardic Spain, Gregorian chants, cantatas, fugues, Masses, Requiems, opera seria, opera buffa, lieder, chanson, Orthodox chant, symphonies, nocturnes, ballets, etc... represent a vast array of styles and forms drawing from a wealth of sources "high" and "low". Perhaps a better term might be "Art Music" (A similar term: "art song" is often used to denote the songs of Schubert, Schumann, Debussy, or even Ned Rorem as songs which attain a high level of art). Note... for every Mozart or Haydn whose work survives, there are hundreds if not thousands of composers with equal training and skills who are largely forgotten... while a simple folk tune like "Greensleeves" or "Folios" holds its place with the masters. Nevertheless, just as very few self taught or untutored painters will ever achieve something of such a level as to place them alongside the the best work of the highly trained painters, the same holds true of any genre of music. very few musicians in Pop, Rock, Bluegrass, Jazz, etc... lacking the serious training of the "classical" composer will achieve something to rival the best of them. Although I will be the first to acknowledge that the boundaries between genre may be becoming blurred, I still doubt that more than a few musicians who lack any serious ability beyond that of jamming out on a given instrument and coming up with a catchy tune now and then will achieve something of the highest order. On the other hand... considering the recording technology of today... it is quite possible that we will see an era not unlike that of medieval art/music in which collaboration is more common that the product of the unique individual genius. Of course... while the best works of medieval (Chartres Cathedral or the Book of Kells) art may rival those of the individual geniuses such as Michelangelo or Titian (or Mozart... speaking of music) we lack the geniuses themselves... which may or may not be good.

[Mathor]

A lot of great musicians have relied on collaboration. Strauss often collaborated with his brothers, Chopin collaborated with others composers. The idea that collaboration takes away from music is just misguided. Film, opera, painting, theatre, etc makes use of collaboration. What kind of art is music that it does not allow for the collaboration of creative minds?

I have no problem with collaboration. I've never heard anything about Richard Strauss collaborating with his brothers (did he have any?)... although you may be referring to Johann Strauss. Even so, Richard Strauss definitely collaborated with Hugo von Hoffmannsthal and others in the creation of his operas. There is no question about this... and the credit is given. But when we speak of John Lennon composing a song like In My Life where is the credit given to the other members of the band who helped flesh out the song? Where is the credit given to George Martin for composing the score for the electric piano/harpsichord solo? Where is his compositional credit for scoring the string quartet for Yesterday, the string octet for Here, There , and Everywhere, the French horn solo in For No One, or the score for the jazz band in Got to Get You Into My Life? Again, the composition is not limited to just coming up with a tune... it is comprised of fleshing this tune out with the scoring for all instruments involved and for developing this tune. There is a reason why classical composers laugh at the notion of Paul McCartney's composing classical works and it has nothing to do with snobbery. It has everything to do with the fact that "his" compositions are essentially not "his" but rather the product of a committee of composers who build upon his tunes, flesh them out, and score them.

Again, none of this undermines the merit of the final results... but it does make it somewhat laughable to compare Paul McCartney or John Lennon with Mozart or Beethoven. I have spoken of Jazz. If I take a musician like Duke Ellington or Dizzy Gillespie I can say that they are composers not far removed in manner from Mozart or Beethoven. They score the entire piece for all the instruments (in Ellington's case with Billy Strayhorn) although they may take suggestions from the various soloists. The end result is as tightly structured as a work by Bizet or Ravel. A musician like Miles Davis, on the other hand, produced in a very different manner. He might be seen more along the lines of a director in a film... controlling the overarching structure but relying on the creative input of multiple individuals. Kind of Blue is an unquestionable masterpiece, in my opinion... but it cannot be credited solely to Miles Davis. John Coletrane, Bill Evans, Cannonball Adderly, Paul Chambers, etc... all contributed to the end product... especially as one considers the improvisational nature of the work. Classical music allowed for such... especially during the Baroque era... and even later in the form of the cadenza where the soloist could improvise his or her own solo. Without a means to record the performances, earlier music needed to rely solely upon the composer as opposed to the performers.

Again... I don't think of "classical" music as a genre inherently superior to all others... for the very fact that it is not a genre at all. The music of Sephardic Spain, Gregorian chants, cantatas, fugues, Masses, Requiems, opera seria, opera buffa, lieder, chanson, Orthodox chant, symphonies, nocturnes, ballets, etc... represent a vast array of styles and forms drawing from a wealth of sources "high" and "low". Perhaps a better term might be "Art Music" (A similar term: "art song" is often used to denote the songs of Schubert, Schumann, Debussy, or even Ned Rorem as songs which attain a high level of art). Very few self taught or untutored painters will ever achieve something of such a level as to place them alongside the the best work of the highly trained painters. The same holds true of any genre of music. very few musicians in Pop, Rock, Bluegrass, Jazz, etc... lacking the serious training of the "classical" composer will achieve something to rival the best of them. Although I will be the first to acknowledge that the boundaries between genre may be becoming blurred, I still doubt that more than a few musicians who lack any serious ability beyond that of jamming out on a given instrument and coming up with a catchy tune now and then will achieve something of the highest order.

I was referring to Johann. And most of what you say in here makes a lot more sense to me now that you've explained it in fuller detail. I think there are lots of examples of Beatles songs that are entirely composed and performed by the Beatles, so I think you're being nitpicky.

Regardless, I would generally agree with you. It is hard to achieve such a success as someone like Vivaldi, but I do not think that musicians today should limit themselves from trying.

What then, in your opinion, is the future of music? You putting classical in quotes kind of showed me more of your stance on what classical music really is, which I would genuinely agree with. What area should music be going in, or, what kind of styles should the area of composing evolve into. I don't say this to try to undermine your tastes. But like you are an artist, I compose music. As a composer, what direction is the future of music?

[stlukesguild]

I don't think I could guess what direction painting will be going in ten years from now, let alone music. To my mind we are in no way living in one of the peak periods in terms of the arts. Coming on the heels of such a huge shift as wrought by Modernism I suspect that were are going through a long drawn-out period of reassessment... struggling to come to terms with what has happened and what the possibilities are. In this way I feel the present is not unlike the long and somewhat confused period of Mannerism which came upon the heels of the Renaissance. This seems as true of popular music (which seems to be spinning its wheels without really offering anything truly "new") as with any other genre including "classical", jazz, etc... Certainly there are a number of truly talented individuals offering up work of real merit... but the art(s) itself(themselves) seems rather directionless.

I somewhat suspect that we are in a period in which the possibilities are so broad that they inspire a degree of paralysis. If I look at another period in time... shall we say 1860 in Europe... there was a single dominating mode of working for the painters as well as for the composers. Innovation came about by building upon this tradition or rebelling against it. In either case, there was a clear starting point. The composer, not unlike the painter/artist, is today confronted with seemingly endless possibilities. Like anything... this may be as bad as it is good.

As I stated earlier, I believe pop... rock, rap, etc... is as stagnant at present as jazz or any "classical" genre. Personally, I don't see one genre as having more of less of an advantage over another. The only real limitations may be in financial terms where admittedly "classical" (or shall we say "symphonic" music) is at a distinct disadvantage considering the cost of properly preparing and staging such. Unquestionably, the boom in Bop and small group jazz owed as much to the prohibitive cost of operating the old style "big bands" as it did to anything else. On the other hand, the range of "colors" and sounds offered by "symphonic" music offers a potential far beyond that available with two guitars, a bass, and drums. It must also be noted that electronic and digital technologies... especially through the use of sampling... have allowed for the creation of original symphonic music utilizing little more than a keyboard and some computer equipment... although these will never sound like a recording using real musicians, etc... I'm fascinated with the current glut of choral music of real quality being composed. Starting with the so-called "holy minimalists" (Henryck Gorecki, Arvo Part, etc...) I find a great deal of the strongest music in the "classical" or "symphonic" realm coming from this direction. Perhaps it is something of a response to a real void of the spiritual quality in music for the last century.

However, I suspect that the greatest potential for music will come (as it often does in the arts) from a merger or blurring of multiple sources. John Zorn, for example, blends elements of popular music with jazz, klezmer, and Middle-Eastern sounds. Osvaldo Golijov may be one of the most interesting figures active today. Golijov is himself a real merger of cultures. His parents were from Romania and the Ukraine; he was raised in Argentina and later the family moved to Israel. From there he moved to the US where he completed his studies. His music was profoundly influenced by the music of Latin-America (including the work of Astor Piazzolla), Jewish liturgical music, klezmer, traditional and contemporary Israeli/Hebrew music as well as the whole of Middle-Eastern and European classicism. His opera, Ainadamar, based uponthe death of Federico Garcia-Lorca, as well as Oceana and Voices of Light are some of the strongest music being written today.

Other hybrid composers include the Chinese composer Tan Dun (known especially for his score to the films Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hero, as well as his Water Passion written as part of a J.S. Bach commemorative), the Japanese composer Toru Takemitsu, the Finnish composer Einojuhani Rautavaara (who is the leading figure in the current wealth of Scandinavian composers), the Mexican composer, Daniel Catán, (who has written several lush opera including Rappaccini's Daughter), the English opera composer, Thomas Ades (whose works include the recent marvelous Tempest and the notorious Powder Her Face which dramatizes the sexual excesses of Margaret, the "dirty" Duchess of Argyll complete with a scene of musical fellatio), Erkki-Sven Tüür (one of the leading figures following Arvo Part and the boom of composers in Russian, the Ukraine, and Estonia), and I would be remiss to forget Anouar Brahem... part of a boom of composers working in traditional Middle-Eastern modes... or as with Brahem, in a merger of styles. Brahem has recorded several albums with the French pianist Francois Coutrier in which he blends the sounds of his native Tunisia with those of France (both French folk music and the Impressionism of Debussy, Ravel, and especially Erik Satie) and jazz.

[Mathor]

Other hybrid composers include the Chinese composer Tan Dun (known especially for his score to the films Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hero, as well as his Water Passion written as part of a J.S. Bach commemorative)

Good point, Tan Dun's work is brilliant. Unfortunately, his scope of work isn't that great. But at his current rate of masterpieces, I believe Tan Dun has a lot more to show us in film and otherwise.

And Takemitsu was pretty grand, unfortunately he died before he could make much of an impact on Western culture. I find that his work in Akira Kurosawa's Ran was his greatest and grandest work, as it is a near-perfect film score.

[stlukesguild]

I just gave a second listen to Daniel Catán's opera, Rappaccini's Daughter... followed almost immediately by still another listening. I cannot recommend this opera enough. Catán is a contemporary Mexican composer currently living in the US. Rappaccini's Daughter was the first opera composed by a Mexican to be performed in the US and his next opera, Florencia en el Amazonas was the first original Spanish-language opera to be commissioned by a major US venue and the most successful original opera ever staged in the history of the Houston opera (which commissioned the work).

Rappaccini's Daughter is based upon the Mexican poet, Octavio Paz' dramatization of the original story by Nathaniel Hawthorne. The tale has all the making of a classic opera: an impossible love, a jealous father, a tragic ending... and absolutely exquisite music. Catán has been called a Neo-Romatic and a Neo-Impressionist... and there are elements of both Romaticism and Impressionism in this work: melodies are rich, broad, and expansive, drifting along like spun gold... shimmering with sensual, exotic... even erotic tonal delight and rising to blissful crescendos. The scoring glows with a painterly use of orchestration. I believe, Brian, if you can get beyond your usual avoidance of opera you would be more than enthralled... especially considering the grossly inexpensive price of the Naxos edition of the premier recording of the highlights from this work. Looking for more info on Catán after having been admittedly seduced, I discovered that the composer has attained something of a reputation as the leading Latin-American operatic composer and has received the most glowing reviews from any number of esteemed music critics. Outside of Osvaldo Golijov's Ainadamar (and perhaps not even that) I cannot think of a recent opera... or symphonic work of any genre... that has so immediately captivated me.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3456/3844481548_4db526676c_o.jpg

I am already ordering his next opera:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2559/3844481562_345e833661_o.jpg

[kasie]

A quick note to the OP - one of my favourite orchestras, the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightment, is playing at the Albert Hall Prom on the evening of Tuesday 25 August at 7pm. The concert is being broadcast on BBC Radio 3 and is being recorded for a television broadcast on BBC2/BBC HD on 5 September. The radio broadcast will be available on BBC i-Player for a week after the live broadcast. The programme consists of works by Purcell, Handel, Haydn and Mendelssohn.

This orchestra plays on period instruments in an attempt to reproduce the sound that the original orchestras of the late Baroque to early Romantic periods would have produced. Their sound quality is crisp and full, not reedy and thin, as with some period instrument groups. But what really makes them stand out, to my mind, is the vitality and vigour of their performances which, with the close attention to dynamics and tempo, bring out the musicality and innovation that the compositions of the period have sometimes lost through over-familiarity or overly reverent performances.

[LitNetIsGreat]

One of the best resources for the initiate, from my experience, is Phillip G. Goulding's Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and their 1,000 Greatest Works. The book gives a solid grounding in musical forms, musical styles, eras, national traditions, as well as short bios on the 50 of the greatest composers (and recommendations to 100s of others) and their works. To this I would add a recent guide to classical music on CD by Gramophone or Penguin.


I just want to second this book for anybody looking to develop a good understanding of classical music, it is a very useful and informative guide. It represents a great way to develop an understanding of each of the major works of 50 of the top composers and dozens of those that didn't quite make the list. It can be helpful in many ways, for example take Bach (no.1) with over 1000 recorded works to his name where do you start? Well, this book offers a more structured approach to selecting his more important works, giving you a platform to build upon, instead of just randomly selecting (as I more or less was) and it does this for all 50 listed composers. It is also helps to cut through some of the jargon which naturally surrounds classical music. Great investment I think, and even worth it for those who are much more experienced too.

[stlukesguild]

One of the best resources for the initiate, from my experience, is Phillip G. Goulding's Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and their 1,000 Greatest Works.

I think a large part of the strength of the book lies in the fact that Goulding is a "non-expert" directing his book at other "non-experts" and he clearly spells out the means to which he came to his rankings while admitting that he himself may not actually agree with these at times. He admits, for example, that Telemann's position within the rank of great composers is earned for any number of reasons... and yet he suggests that anyone who actually would prefer Telemann to Copland, for example, must be a little bit "off".:lol: The book also offers up a good working notion for the beginner of musical forms and terms, national traditions, historical periods, etc... From this point one can refer to Gramophone or penguin or some other guide for assistance in selecting which version or performance of a given masterpiece might be of the most merit... and which to avoid.