Printable View
By coincidence I was listening to him playing on BBC3 radio a couple of hours ago where they gave a rave review of his recording of the Bach Cello Suites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilde woman
I couldn't find him playing on You tube but here's Yo Yo Ma in Suite No.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZn_VBgkPNY
Yo-Yo Ma is great. I've had the opportunity to see him perform the entire Bach cello suites some years ago. My favorites for these works are Pierre Fournier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmQwkvlwjTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQg2T...eature=related
and of course Rostropovitch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR9lC...eature=related
I personally prefer the slower, darker interpretations... but I would not be without Rostropovitch' fluid and fiery interpretation.
Current Listening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5fRjrTtb0M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR6m4...ext=1&index=10
Ach!!! Bach!!!:)
I was listening to one of my Pandora stations yesterday, and I heard Steve Reich's Cello Counterpoint and I was really feeling it. I thought, "Finally, something from the last sixty years which I actually enjoy!" But when I went to find a clip for it on youtube, all I could find were substandard amateur versions that didn't give me anything like what I first felt.
Masaaki Suzuki
Bach Collegium Japan
Opening Movement
St John Passion
BWV 245
April 2000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0Vg...eature=related
This recording of a concert given in 1948 has all of the worst effects of a poor acoustic and, by present day standards, a primitive recording process.
Toscanini's recordings with the NBC Symphony orchestra are bedeviled by bad acoustics but despite that, the sheer brilliance of his conducting shines through; notwithstanding the ongoing dispute regarding tempi.
The ending to this video is as colossal as Wagner's vision of music's possibilities in conveying the greatness that humans aspire to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InPRlxxOpOc
Well, I'm delighted at the moment. After being handed a fist-full of Amazon vouchers the other day for participating in a particularly nasty neuroscience experiment (have you ever had your brain electrocuted? It's very painful, I can assure you...), I splurged on the complete works of Chopin (having previously owned only a CD of the etudes).
Even as I type this, the opening bars of the first piano concerto are filling the room. It was worth every second of pain!
What is confirmed by Music is that God has given us a strong mind. And, as for this mad world, what care we ?
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind
2 Timothy 1:7
Concerto
BWV 1051/1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecteWNfxYR8
Brandenburg 3
BWV 1048/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXBmy...eature=related
:smile5:
Russian pianist Yulianna Avdeeva -2010 winner of the International Chopin Competition in Warsaw.
Frederic Chopin - Concerto No. 1
2nd Movement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96kbY...ayer_embedded#!
While I don't buy any of Robert's conspiracy theory nonsense concerning Mozart and Haydn, I must admit that the era of music known as the "classical era" in which Mozart and Haydn were the dominant composers is perhaps the least appreciated... and least explored of all the eras in classical music. Romanticism, Post-Romanticism, and Early Modernism seem to be the most popular with the classical music listeners for a variety of reasons. The music is often quite emotional and dynamic and the orchestration incredibly varied and rich. The composers of the era include an incredible range: Schubert, Schumann, Berlioz, Chopin, Wagner, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, Bizet, Offenbach, Puccini, Verdi, Mahler, Richard Strauss, Debussy, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Stravinsky, Ravel, etc... An incredible wealth of musical genius.
It has only been since the mid-80s and the development of the historically informed performances (HIP) which stressed performances of music employing appropriate instruments, numbers of performers, and performing styles that the interest in "early music" (music from the Baroque and earlier) has blossomed. Among the realm of classical music their are now endless early music and Baroque music fanatics. As a result, not only have we found the work of J.S. Bach become recognized as perhaps the greatest achievement in the whole of Western music... but we have uncovered the incredible depth of Handel beyond the Messiah and Water Music and Vivaldi beyond the Four Seasons. Composers such as Jan Dismas Zelenka, Heinrich Ignaz Franz von Biber, Georg Philipp Telemann, Alessandro and Domenic Scarlatti, Jean-Philippe Rameau, Jean-Baptiste de Lully, jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck, Dieterich Buxtehude, and Claudio Monteverdi have all been recognized as musical geniuses. Even a great many composers have been unveiled from the Renaissance and Medieval periods: Carlo Gesualdo, Hildegard of Bingen, Leonin, Perotin, Purcell, Melani, Ockeghem, Sylvius Weiss, Oswald von Wolkenstein, Guillaume de Machaut, Lorenzo da Firenze, John Dunstaple, Guillaume Dufay, Thomas Tallis, John Taverner, Orlando Gibbons, William Byrd, etc...
The classical eras however...? This is a period that outside of a few towering giants seems to get little attention. I must admit that I am no better here. Like a great many, I began to develop my classical music collection with the central canonical figures. After this, I began to flesh out the collection with composers from the Romantic, Post-Romantic, and Early Modernist periods. Over the last several years I have made a conscious effort to explore late Modern and contemporary composers as well as baroque, Renaissance, and Medieval composers. But the "classical era"? In spite of my admitted love of Mozart and Haydn I must admit to but a scant effort at further exploration.
Of course it seems as if the arts of the 18th century as a whole are lacking any real love. Few art lovers prefer Rococo or Neo-Classicism to Romanticism, Impressionism, or Modernism. Even fewer literary buffs seem to prefer Pope, Swift, Johnson, Voltaire, or Gibbons to Keats, Shelley, Coleridge, Blake, Dickens, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, etc...
The general ignorance of the music of the "classical era" is sad because there are indeed some marvelous composers beyond Mozart and Haydn. I have just begun to explore Johann Nepomuk Hummel. Hummel was virtually of the same generation as Beethoven... the late classical era. He was a pupil of Mozart and studied with Salieri before being recommended by Haydn for a position in the court of Prince Esterházy (the same court at which Haydn had long been employed). He made whirlwind tours of Europe and was recognized as one of the most highly regarded composers and musicians. Today he often seems to be known for little more than his famous trumpet concerto:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBRwz...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR8H8...eature=related
But Hummel also composed some wonderful piano concertos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dool...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VSZ2...eature=related
But as a great choral music fan I am most intrigued with Hummel's choral work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTgd4fOR49w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYQCHbtRgBg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bOoe...eature=related
Hummel is clearly someone to explore in greater depth... as is the whole of the classical era.
I have just listened to the 2nd and 3rd movements and, as always, am bowled over by this music. Avdeeva is wonderful in her authoritative account of this great romantic piano composition. Thanks for posting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
I assume, stlukes, you're saying that the classical-era composers, other than Mozart and Haydn, are undervalued. Or do you include Mozart and Haydn there?
Considering that Mozart is generally ranked among the "3 Immortals" (Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart) and generally thought to only have been surpassed by Bach, I don't see that he could possibly be undervalued. Haydn might be undervalued by those with little or no real appreciation of classical music... but he is generally credited with establishing the form of the string quartet, his piano sonatas may surpass Mozart's (whose were written more often for students than for himself), his final symphonies form a bridge from Mozart to Beethoven, and his choral works are spectacular. What I am suggesting is that whereas many classical music collections include a large array of composers from the Romantic, Post-Romantic, and Early Modern periods... and where the Baroque is no longer limited to Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi... the classical era seems largely ignored outside of Haydn and Mozart.
Thanks for explaining. I've just become obsessed with Mozart, but I've never listened to any Haydn other than "The Creation". What are his best works?
I've never listened to any Haydn other than "The Creation". What are his best works?
His choral work is fabulous: The Lord Nelson Mass, Harmoniemesse, Paukenmesse, Theresienmesse, St. Cecilia Mass, Great Organ Mass... and of course his other oratorio, The Seasons.
Among his symphonic work, the last 12 symphonies, known as the London Symphonies are magnificent... but another great selection can be found in this set:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/...583eec9c87.jpg
Of his "smaller" or more intimate compositions the string quartets are his greatest achievement... and the Kodaly Quartet which records for the budget label, Naxos, are top-notch... often unrivaled. Among the best quartets are the Seven Last Words (of Christ), Op. 76, Op. 77, and Op. 103
I have the complete piano sonatas but would recommend starting with any number of fine performances of selected sonatas. The sets by Marc-Andre Hamelin, Leif Ove Andsnes, Emanuel Ax, Jean-Efflam Bavouzet, Alain Planès and especially Alfred Brendel are all to be recommended.
After these...? The cello concertos are perhaps next in line followed by the piano trios.
I think we can include Beethoven under the label of 'classical', surely? And there's certainly an argument for considering Schubert as a bridging force between the classical and romantic period.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
That would give us four noted composers: Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and Schubert. While they may be dwarfed in number by all the Romantic composers, I suspect that these four would find a place on almost anybody's 'Top 10' list of composers. I think we have a quality/quantity problem here...
St Luke's Guild writes -
''While I don't buy any of Robert's conspiracy theory nonsense concerning Mozart and Haydn''
No, but you 'buy in' to the fraternal nonsense of the Mozart/Haydn paradigm instead. And that's great. So did I. For most of my youth and adulthood. The difference between us is I started to realise I knew as much of 18th century music as I did of that from Classical Greece or Imperial Rome. Which was close to zero. That was my starting position. Quite a humbling experience after a decade of compliling notes on Mozart - all the time accepting them at face value as honest, truthful accounts, you may agree. Now, if a person admits to being ignorant of more than 99.9% of all music of an entire period (even the period of Josef Haydn and Mozart), and finally discovers for himself/herself (by spending many years on it) that dozens, even hundreds of musical works attributed to Josef Haydn and Mozart are not actually by Josef Haydn or W.A. Mozart would he/she not be right to conclude at that point (at least for himself) that there is a problem ? Would they not be in a position, as they studied these works in detail and from many angles, over decades (plus what has been said and written of them ad nauseum by the monochrome perpetuators of the Mozart cult) that they could predict there would be problems in each and every work they studied from that time onwards, in advance of actually examining them, chronologically, that is ? Which is precisely what we find, in reality ! What conclusion would we draw from that experience ?
Let us suppose, however, we have been vaccinated against 'conspiracy theories' of any kind. So that we subscribe wholesale to the 'source documents' and to 'convention' (whatever that means). What 'source documents' are these ?
Let's take a famous work. The opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. You can see the autograph for yourself. It's even being sold in reproduction by the Packard Institute on the internet. Wow ! See it for yourself ! There it is - indisputable evidence of Mozart's musical genius. The icon himself. From 1786. Right before your very eyes. The ACTUAL musical score. Who could argue with that ? I mean, a million experts can't be wrong, can they ? (What 'experts' is never said).
http://mozartfacsimiles.org/mf/samples.html
Well, the first thing is, it's NOT actually an 'autograph' score ! Let me repeat this. It's NOT an 'autograph' score at all. It was actually made years later. In fact 'Le Nozze di Figaro' was first published long after the time of Mozart's death. But let's not spoil the party. Let's continue to reject all conspiracy theory and take ourselves to the Austrian National Library. Where, if you are polite enough and rich enough, you can make a microfiche of the little known, ACTUAL, musical score used in Vienna at the premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' on 1st May 1786. It's quite a document, you may agree. Does that matter ? Surely it does ! But not in 'Mozart Studies'. It's kept there in that library in 2 volumes. Strange, yes ? What does this document show us ? I mean, is it relevant ? Well, the first thing you will find out is nobody studies it ! Not even the Mozarteum in Salzburg !! Nor do any publications on that work in print. They never have. Isn't that strange ? There are no articles on its contents. Not one. Nor has anyone else examined it. Strange, yes ? Till 2008. When its contents were at last examined independently by Bianchini/Trombetta of Italy (experts in 18th century opera) and their published report was shown to an amazed Mozartean 'establishment'. And nor has anyone else studied that score today in the entire Mozart world of 'expertise' ! Strange, yes ? But if this is not strange, then, let's look for a definition of what 'strange' means. On such a world famous opera.
Let's forget conspiracy theories and now examine the contents of this particular document. This being the actual score used at the Vienna premiere in May of 1786. Wow ! What does it contain ? It contains so many clear examples of basic musical errors that it's virtually unplayable/unperformable. Ask ANY teacher of music to examine it for you and listen to their judgement on its contents. Perhaps this explains why this very production was booed and hissed off the stage there in Vienna in a few days during that May of 1786 in Vienna ? (Since the newspapers of the time said so). It's nothing but a hastily made and clumsy ARRANGEMENT of music that already existed with a German (yes, German) text. Newly cobbled together as an Italian language arrangement by Mozart and his friend Lorenzo da Ponte for that 'premiere' of May 1786. As an 'autograph' of that music it's sheer nonsense. But that's exactly what Mozart/da Ponte made and provided for that Vienna 'premiere'. So much for the 'autograph', yes ?
Let's ignore such damning evidence. Let's continue to celebrate the genius of Mozart regardless of actual evidence, on score after score, chapter after chapter, of indisputable, documentary, verifiable evidence. And let's not subscribe to 'outrageous conspiracy theories'. Let's subscribe, instead, to conspiracy facts.
Let us, during this transition period, above everything else, pretend we are 'educated' and 'cultured' while the entire universe fills itself with fantasies, fakes, wholesale exaggerations and false attributions on W.A. Mozart alone, from items K1 to KV 626 in the Mozart catalogue. And, as for criticism (an essential part of any valid science or academic study) let us leave such irrelevancies to one side in our conservative, elitist fashion, while the entire music industry laughs its way to the bank, and while the corporate delusion continues, at the expense of the education of students, of course - also ignoring (in our time honoured fashion) the lives and musical achievements of countless unknown composers. Whose music goes unperformed, unpublished and completely ignored decade after decade and century after century. This, we believe, is 'culture' and 'education'.
Welcome to the new world order of fraternal control of what is taught, believed and performed in the name of the Salzburg 'genius' - and of musical achievement - ('genius' being a term never defined, of course, and applying only to the cardboard creation of the usual mythmakers of western civilization).
I do not blame you. Teddy bears and Mozart are much more cuddly and iconic than the hard job of convincing St Luke's Guild that honesty actually matters. That music and its history matters also. But that's my priority. It always has been - to persuade those who care to examine the evidence (evidence of many kinds) there is a subject worthy of their attention.
Thank you to Brian - the Chopin was wonderful, yes ?
Herr Bach
Aria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWKCV...eature=related
and -
Aria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW9Wl...eature=related
Regards