Classical Listening

Drkshadow, for a man who enjoys musicals as much as you, opera should be a no brainer. After all, Rent is just an Americanized La Boheme. Unlike StLukesGuild I've never been a big fan of Wagner. Try Verdi instead. In fact, try any of these:
Handel's Hallelujah Chorus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnHksDFHTQI
Mozart's Queen of the Night
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ODfuMMyss
Rossini's William Tell Overture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkymTHSbWe0
Schubert's Ave Maria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bosouX_d8Y
Verdi's La Donna e Mobile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A3zetSuYRg
Flotow's Martha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoFAxX9OQa4
Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V92OBNsQgxU
Wagner's Tannhauser Overture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDwiYOCnuao
Offenbach's Barcarolle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7czptgEvvU
Delibe's Flower Duet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qx2lMaMsl8
Bizet's Habanera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIQQakZPU3Y
Puccini's O Mio Babbino Caro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxy4qrnKwVo
Leoncavallo's Vesti La Giubba
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8WOKsdHuc4
Mascagni's Intermezzo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CVyf13B1vE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

After all, Rent is just an Americanized La Boheme.

---

I freaking hate Rent! I loathe that show! Matt and Trey said it best!

When you think about it, opera really should be one of the highest forms of art, if not the highest form of them all (maybe it really is?). It would seem to have everything on the surface, being a combination of music, song, dialogue, stagecraft, drama, costume - as penned by many of the greats, though I don't think for one minute that it is an easy form to immediately appreciate.

I seem to waver in and out of favour with opera. I would very much consider myself a beginner of it and tend to stick to the readily suggested "beginners" operas such as the Mozart's and the Puccini’s. I think that DVD performances are a good and inexpensive way to try to get into this area of theatre performance too and are worth checking out.

A large part of me however, for some reason I can’t quite fathom, thinks that I’ll never really be able to fully emerge myself in this particular form (like dance). Though I do hope that I am wrong here and begin to develop a taste for the opera because I feel it has so much potential that I would be missing out on something, if I couldn’t properly take to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I think that DVD performances are a good and inexpensive way to try to get into this area of theatre performance too and are worth checking out.

---

That's a good idea too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

In fact, try any of these:
Handel's Hallelujah Chorus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnHksDFHTQI
Mozart's Queen of the Night
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ODfuMMyss
Rossini's William Tell Overture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkymTHSbWe0
Schubert's Ave Maria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bosouX_d8Y
Verdi's La Donna e Mobile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A3zetSuYRg
Flotow's Martha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoFAxX9OQa4
Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V92OBNsQgxU
Wagner's Tannhauser Overture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDwiYOCnuao
Offenbach's Barcarolle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7czptgEvvU
Delibe's Flower Duet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qx2lMaMsl8
Bizet's Habanera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIQQakZPU3Y
Puccini's O Mio Babbino Caro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxy4qrnKwVo
Leoncavallo's Vesti La Giubba
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8WOKsdHuc4
Mascagni's Intermezzo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CVyf13B1vE

---

Once I listened through most of these pieces, I realized I knew most of them already and like them. I think my problem isn't appreciating individual songs within operas, but individual operas as complete works.

Neely... for all my love of opera... and vocal music in general... I am but an amateur aficionado. True opera fanatics are a breed unlike any other. The most nasty arguments I've seen here at Lit Net concerning this or that writer... no matter how bad (Ayn rand, Dan Brown, Bukowski...?) are but civil disagreements in comparison. Opera fanatics become absolutely vicious attacking this singer... often incredibly talented singers... because they personally prefer a different singer. Poor Anna Netrebko, Renee Fleming, and even Magdalena Kozena (all talented singers) get regularly bashed on opera discussion sites (as well as on Youtube) a called sluts, whores, and far worse... simply for having the audacity of not being Maria Callas or whomever the particular fanatics Diva of choice is. I have seen raging arguments about singers from the Paris Opera circa 1910 or La Scala from the 1890s... in spite of the fact that there are no recordings upon which anyone might base an opinion. The same cattiness applies to composers: this fanatic is a Wagnerian, and so he or she must mock Verdi or Puccini (although Strauss may be given the benefit of the doubt for having the good sense to have been a Wagner acolyte). Personally, I'm appreciative of all the singers and composers of real merit. Certainly I my personal favorites... but because I like Wagner does not mean that I dislike Verdi. On the less dark side of opera fanaticism one must credit the fanatics with an unmatched knowledge of opera history, the texts, the proper diction of a given text, and an unfailing support of their idols.

Yes that certainly seems obsessively wild and far from being the civilized connotation that gets attached to the lover of opera! There seems to be a general sneering towards Puccini too, even from Noddy guides to opera, like the one I read this morning, the author of which not only attacked him for his sentimentality, but for the fact that they were popular and thus keeping other operas from off of the stage!

I must say though, I am attracted to the Italian ideal that sees opera not as something possibly stigmatised by the “high” or “elite” label, (not that anybody cares about gossip) but as something which is simply part of daily life, enjoyed by the many. I think that for Italians, art is something that is just the lifeblood of the country - that the fantastic and beautiful are just part of their everyday lives - really, what fabulous people they must be! Of course I’m sure that’s a generalisation, in many respects, but I would just rather believe that regardless...and maybe therefore I should never visit Italy, apart from in my head?

Anyway, personally I intend to keep digging into opera a little at a time.

I've been listening to a lot of 20th and 21st century music recently. There's such a wealth of amazing music in so many different styles.

Piano Concerto #1 - Charles Wuorinen
Symphonies - Igor Stravinsky
Synaphae - Iannis Xenakis
New England Triptych - Walter Piston
Symphony #9 - William Schuman
Pli Selon Pli - Pierre Boulez
Transfigured Wind - Roger Reynolds
Pierrot Lunaire - Arnold Schoenberg
Concerto for Bassoon and Orchestra - Ellen Taafe Zwilich
Time and Again - Tristan Murail
Septet - Ben Johnston
Dialogues - Elliott Carter
Violin Concerto - Unsuk Chin
Sons of Noah - Stephen Hartke
Requiem - Hans Werner Henze

I think it's unfair that people are still so biased against contemporary music that diverges too radically from the Romantic tradition. It's particularly disheartening to hear knowledgeable music fans smugly dismiss works for being too dissonant. I can't stand hearing people mock creative composers for their own unwillingness to meet them on their own terms.

My wife is an arts maven who loves Modernism in literature, art, and movies. But for some reason, musical Modernism irritates her immensely. We've gotten to the point where we joke about each other's tastes, but it still baffles me that she has such an aversion to music that doesn't toe the Romantic party line.

I think that movies bear a lot of the blame. Soundtrack composers have used Romantic-style music to convey sentiments like joy and grief, and atonal music only to convey confusion or anxiety. This has really reinforced people's negative opinion of non-tonal music. It's no wonder my wife calls it "mad slasher music."

I don't expect anyone to listen to exclusively avant-garde music. But the lack of appreciation for the great non-tonal music of the twentieth century is nothing to be proud of.

Regards,

Istvan

Last night my son and I enjoyed an evening with the Dallas Symphony Orchestra (DSO)performing Benjamin Britten's "Concerto for Violin and Orchestra, Op. 15" featuring Simone Lamsma on violin followed by the feature performance;
Dmitri Shostakovitch, Symphony No. 7 in C Major, Op. 60 - "Leningrad".

A coworker had given me a voucher for two tickets to any performance by the DSO this season. My son plays violin and he is currently in a Russian phase of life. (Don't ask, all I can say is he is consumed by everything Russian.) Givn that, we evaluated the performances for this year and settled on this one due to the emphasis on violin and the ties to Russia via Shotakovich and "Leningrad".

Samone Lamsma was amazing in the "Britten, playing with great emotion and passion.
"Leningrad" was magnificent in four movements described in Shotakovitch's words thus:

"The first movement tells how our pleasant and peaceful life was disrupted by the ominous force of war. I did not intend to describe the war in a naturalistic manner (the drone of aircraft, the rumble of tanks, artillery salvos, etc.) I wrote so called battle music. I was trying to present the spirit and essence of those harsh events. The exposition of the first movement tells of happy life led by the people...such as the Leningrad volunteer fighters before the war...the entire city...the entire country.
The second movement is a lyrical Scherzo recalling times and events tha were happy. It is tinged with melancholy.
The third movement, a pathetic Adagio expressing ecstatic love of life and the beuties of nature, passes uninterrupted into the fourth which, like the rest, is a fundemental movement of the symphony.
The first movement begins as astruggle, the fourth expresses approaching victory."

The symphony is conducted by Jaap van Zweden.

Here is a link to the performance program notes for further reading:

http://www.dallassymphony.com/attachments/Bk20_2.18.pdf

Next week (February 25th), we will be back at the DSO to see a one night performance by Itzhak Perlman:

http://www.dallassymphony.com/Ticket...1&selected=760


Gilliatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

My wife is an arts maven who loves Modernism in literature, art, and movies. But for some reason, musical Modernism irritates her immensely. We've gotten to the point where we joke about each other's tastes, but it still baffles me that she has such an aversion to music that doesn't toe the Romantic party line.

---

I tried listening to the first couple of your selections and oh my god it was torture! I do not understand this movement in the arts where something should be repellent before it's considered any good. This is what modern music means to me

Morricone's Ecstasy of Gold
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV0wPBYDQ6Y
and Copland's Fanfare for the Common Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzf0rvQa4Mc

That stuff gets you pumped, gets you movin', makes you feel good. As far as the rest of the 20th century art movement goes, it's not all Mondrian squares, Duchamp's fountains, or Georgia O'Keeffe's silly vagina flowers. There's some good stuff still being made like

Leonetto Cappiello: Umbrella Dance
Franz Marc: Fate of the Animals
Edward Hopper: Nighthawks
Kawase Hasui: Shiba-Zozoji Temple
Max Ernst: Robing of the Bride
Rene Magritte: The Son of Man
M.C. Escher: Relativity
Tamara de Lempicka: Portrait of Mrs. M
Salvador Dali:The Hallucinogenic Toreador
John Biggers: Nubia, Origins of Business and Commerce
Frank Frazetta: A Fighting Man From Mars
Werner Tübke: Early Bourgeois Revolution in Germany
Dai Dudu, Li Tiezi, and Zhang An: Discussing the Divine Comedy With Dante

It's like modernism isn't just weirdos like Joyce. It's cool guys like Hemingway and Fitzgerald too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

I tried listening to the first couple of your selections and oh my god it was torture! I do not understand this movement in the arts where something should be repellent before it's considered any good.

---

It seems that not only don't you understand it, but you blame the music for your inability to understand it. Maybe not all music is there to make you "feel good" in the first place.

Like I said before, to each his own. I'd personally feel silly criticizing Telemann or Gregorian chant for the fact that I don't enjoy them. However, when the subject is modern music, people feel well within their rights to revile composers for making music that's different, without taking more than a minute to engage with the work.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

I'd personally feel silly criticizing Telemann or Gregorian chant for the fact that I don't enjoy them.

---

I've listened to plenty of Telemann, and I don't like him. I think I thumbed up one of his songs once on my pandora station and I've never heard the end of it. As far as Gregorian chant goes, some of it I kinda' like but I've never found a song that really clicked with me the way that say, almost anything by Tchaikovsky does.

My point is that I don't think the weirdest and most extreme examples should be the representatives of a movement. Lots of people that are turned off by Stravinsky, would probably like Prokofiev. When I see these modern art assemblages created using garbage and human feces, or splattered at random on a canvas, I think "Really, this is the best the age can produce?" 'Cause I know there are people out there with real talent who aren't getting the attention they deserve, since the only serious art is this new wave avante garde, over everybodys head type stuff. There have got to be great composers working in the traditional styles who are never seeing the light of day because of these freaks, these hacks, these worse than senseless things!

Besides, who says I'd like that type of music better if I understood it more. I think I have a pretty good read on the Goth scene without wanting to raid my mother's make up drawer and ritually cut myself, 'cause I'm all deep and full of ennui. Sometimes the more layers you peel from an onion the less impressive the onion becomes, and you're like "Damn, I knew this was an onion before I started peeling."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

There have got to be great composers working in the traditional styles who are never seeing the light of day because of these freaks, these hacks, these worse than senseless things!

---

The exact opposite is true. Those composers who decide to create in an accessible, familiar, old-fashioned style are generally the ones whose whose work is played.

The only composers who can afford to be uncompromising are people who've fought in the trenches for decades and are established pioneers: for instance, Elliott Carter, Charles Wuorinen, Harrison Birtwistle. And even their new works still garner criticism from people who resent even the smallest encroachment upon the musical museum that the concert hall has become. Praise is usually reserved for the interesting-but-unchallenging music of Osvaldo Golijov and Joan Tower.

You can't blame composers like Henryk Gorecki or Ellen Taafe Zwilich for creating in a much more listener-friendly idiom than they used to. If even mainstream modernists like John Corigliano, John Harbison, and Augusta Read Thomas are lumped in with the avant-garde by audiences who haven't kept up with the musical styles of the past half-century, what chance do composers like Unsuk Chin or Kaira Saariajo have for widespread acceptance?

Quote:

---

Besides, who says I'd like that type of music better if I understood it more.

---

I never said you would. But if you make no effort to understand it, and declare that you can't see the point of making the effort, it's pretty predictable that you won't like it.

And that's not the music's fault.

Regards,

Istvan

Istvan... I take something of a middle ground here. As mortal suggests I'm not certain that increased experience and understanding of a given work or style of art leads to an increased appreciation. It may lead to the exact opposite. My understanding of what Andy Warhol and Damien Hirst have meant to art have led me to a degree of hatred for all they represent that goes well beyond my initial disinterest. 100 years after the fact it appears that Anton Webern was wrong about the future in which even the postman would be whistling atonal tunes. All art is a language and the audience needs to develop an understanding of the vocabulary before they may glean any "meaning" or appreciation from the work. The question becomes whether the pleasure derived from the work is worth the effort. Many artistic innovations left the initial audience somewhat perplexed... but in most cases the new artistic languages were quickly absorbed... by academia, by later generations of artists, and by later generations of art lovers. This is not true of a good portion of the most extreme aspects of Modernism. The museums are filled with audiences for the latest show of Impressionism, Picasso, and Matisse... but one will not need to fight the long lines to get into the show of Duchamp or Piero Manzoni. Joyce's Finnegan's Wake, whether we care to admit it or not, demands so much of the reader and offers a degree of pleasure that does not seem commensurate with the difficulty so that the book is virtually irrelevant outside of academia. The same seems true of a good portion of Modern and Contemporary music.

Personally, I like a good portion of Modern music... even a good portion of that music that is more "difficult": Takemitsu, Messiaen, Tristan Murail, David Lang, Phillip Glass, Julian Anderson, Erkki-Sven Tüür, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Henze, Peter Lieberson. I recently purchased John Cage's Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano, and George Crumb's Ancient Voices of Children and I will admit to be intrigued by both. Still there is a great deal that leaves me baffled and a great deal that strikes me as little more than experimentation for the sake of experimentation... difficulty for the sake of difficulty... or as a result of the misguided idea that difficulty is inherently more profound: if the peons don't get it, it must be deep. I also find that there is a certain presumption of superiority among the adherents of the extremes of Modernist experimentation. It is often presumed that the most experimental or Avant-garde is that which is the most important and that which will last. But who decides what is Avant-garde? When the experimentations of atonalism, dissonance, etc... are taught and promoted in academia, is it not quite possible that they are just as "academic" as any other musical language? There are those who dismiss Puccini, Rachmaninov, Copland... even Philip Glass (he uses tonality, after all), Arvo Part, etc... Of course Bach and Brahms were both accused of being too conservative.

SLG,

You're way ahead of most others in your degree of appreciation of modern music. There are few composers I admire more than Messiaen, Crumb, or Henze.

Once again, I never said that increased exposure to new music would necessarily make everyone a fan. What I did say was that a lack of exposure is certain to foster nothing but misunderstanding of new music.

However, I'll stick my neck out and say that I think new music would be a lot better understood if it were programmed more by orchestras. The Rite of Spring, for instance, is a radical work which still has the power to annoy conservative listeners. Not everyone loves it, but it's part of the standard repertoire. There's nothing mysterious about this, and it's got nothing to do with its musical character or artistic aims. Because it's frequently performed (thanks, Disney), it's familiar enough to audiences to make a dent in the popular consciousness. This, in turn, serves to motivate future performances.

I'm not even convinced that audiences resist new music merely because they can't understand its language. I don't honestly think that audiences understand the complex music of Beethoven, they're just familiar with certain parts of his works and are used to playing it as background music for whatever they happen to be doing. For people who claim that new music could be played wrong and no one would notice, I'd love to play a Beethoven work with a few bars missing or different and see if they notice.

I'm amused to hear that people object to the "presumption of superiority" that characterizes arrogant Modernists. This represents the same double standard I mentioned above. Listeners are not going to get much out of new music without hearing a little about the compositional methods, and that might seem overly cerebral to casual listeners. But how much are they getting out of Mozart or Schubert's painstakingly crafted works if they know nothing about sonata form, for example? I'm not a composer or music theorist myself, but I at least realize I have to know the basics about this music or I'm just using it as ear candy.

Once again, this isn't necessarily about avant-garde music. Serial techniques and dissonance have been around for the better part of a century, and in and of themselves don't make a work boldly experimental. New music isn't supposed to sound like Romantic music any more than Romantic music was supposed to sound like Medieval music. The bottom line is that there's a highly emotional quality to music appreciation, and new music just isn't as cozy and familiar to most listeners as Romantic music.

Regards,

Istvan

However, I'll stick my neck out and say that I think new music would be a lot better understood if it were programmed more by orchestras. The Rite of Spring, for instance, is a radical work which still has the power to annoy conservative listeners. Not everyone loves it, but it's part of the standard repertoire. There's nothing mysterious about this, and it's got nothing to do with its musical character or artistic aims. Because it's frequently performed (thanks, Disney), it's familiar enough to audiences to make a dent in the popular consciousness. This, in turn, serves to motivate future performances.

That is fair enough. I'll admit to having first been exposed to opera through Looney Tunes cartoons and the Little Rascals. I suspect that a great portion of the problem may be the dominance of popular music through the mass-media. Stravinsky, Bartok, Shostakovitch, etc... all benefited from exposure on TV, radio, film, etc... Little of late Modernism and Contemporary music has had this advantage (although I can think of exceptions such as Kubrick's use of Penderecki, Glass' and Tan Dun's film scores). I also suspect that the situation may be an evolution of an ever larger gap between the audience and the composers: the audience fails to support the given artist and so he or she in turn pays less and less attention to the needs or wants of the audience. The composers become increasingly irrelevant to the larger audience just as they become increasingly irrelevant to the composer. How does one stop this downward spiral? I often thought that this was a great part of the dilemma which Hermann Hesse presented in his novel The Glass Bead Game.

I'm not even convinced that audiences resist new music merely because they can't understand its language. I don't honestly think that audiences understand the complex music of Beethoven, they're just familiar with certain parts of his works and are used to playing it as background music for whatever they happen to be doing. For people who claim that new music could be played wrong and no one would notice, I'd love to play a Beethoven work with a few bars missing or different and see if they notice.

Of course the audience I am referring to is not that of the disinterested masses, but rather those who are passionate about classical (or "serious"?) music. Certainly there are those who would be quite happy with those discs of excerpts: Mozart's and Tchaikovsky's "greatest hits" that contain all the famous bits that they are familiar with. Still there are a good number of those who are quite knowledgeable of classical music who have little interest in most contemporary classical. There are others, such as myself, who have invested a good deal of time and effort into the exploration of contemporary classical and who admit that there are certain styles and composers who simply do not resonate just as there are certain artists and art styles that I have little or no use for.

I'm amused to hear that people object to the "presumption of superiority" that characterizes arrogant Modernists. This represents the same double standard I mentioned above. Listeners are not going to get much out of new music without hearing a little about the compositional methods, and that might seem overly cerebral to casual listeners.

I understand... and I agree that there are those who make judgments of contemporary art, music, literature, etc... without having made a serious attempt to explore it. I agree that there are incidents in contemporary art that strike me as worthy of the overused analogy with the "Emperor's New Clothes"... but quite often this analogy is presented by those who have made little or no attempt to understand, let alone appreciate, what they would denigrate. Where the "presumption of superiority" irritates me is when academics or tied-in-the-wool Modernists would dismiss the opinions of anyone who does not embrace their musical idols or artists/composers who dare to work within an accessible (hence outdated) style. It is quite possible to be well acquainted with and knowledgeable of Modern art and dislike Duchamp, DeKooning, and Warhol, just as it is quite possible to be knowledgeable of contemporary classical music and not be all that fond of Ligetti or Stockhausen. (By the way... I actually quite like Ligetti's Mechanical Music... elements of Bach and contrapuntal structure... but found the 100 Metronomes piece so retarded as to virtually ruin the disc)

But how much are they getting out of Mozart or Schubert's painstakingly crafted works if they know nothing about sonata form, for example? I'm not a composer or music theorist myself, but I at least realize I have to know the basics about this music or I'm just using it as ear candy.

Again, I agree... but doesn't this come to the issue of whether the artist can make the appreciation of the art seem worthy of the effort? That which intrigues or piques the interest of the audience surely has a far better chance of being further explored than that which seemingly assaults the senses. I have long been intrigued with medieval music... even plainchant... but admittedly it was little more than "ear candy"... something which established a given relaxing and seductive mood. But this eventually led me to a further exploration of the forms and history and individual composers. I was struck with the manner in which composers such as Pérotin and Léonin made the first forays into polyphony the results were rejected as being as Godless and Satanic as Elvis and Little Richard.

Once again, this isn't necessarily about avant-garde music. Serial techniques and dissonance have been around for the better part of a century, and in and of themselves don't make a work boldly experimental. New music isn't supposed to sound like Romantic music any more than Romantic music was supposed to sound like Medieval music.

Again I agree. Atonalism, serialism, Musique concrète, and even electronic music has been around long enough to now be just as academic as Romanticism or Impressionism. The problem is that we cannot know what the new music which most resonates and lasts will or should sound like. Certainly it shouldn't sound like Romanticism... but it may employ Romanticist elements just as Neo-classicism (in art and music) employed classical forms and some camps of minimalism employ elements of modal music derived from Medieval or even non-Western sources. As for a work being "boldly experimental" one never knows where such experimentation lies. Bach is surely one of the most boldly experimental and original composers who ever lived... in spite of the fact that his music clearly adheres to the Baroque traditions he inherited.

Right now, by the way, I'm listening to Hindemith's Kammermusik no. 2. He is someone I have been making a concerted effort as of late to explore in greater detail.