They say deaths come in threes, and the music world suffered a third major loss in less than a week: Ravi Shankar:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/ar...anted=all&_r=0
Printable View
They say deaths come in threes, and the music world suffered a third major loss in less than a week: Ravi Shankar:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/ar...anted=all&_r=0
I really don't understand what the 'notorious density' of Brahms is. I have never heard reference made to it before and I don't personally find his orchestral work dense. Yes, there is a lot going on but its all thematically and logically interwoven. If you want to hear what over scoring really sounds like try listening to much of Delius.
http://youtu.be/4t9QUr0YPx4
I'm sorry this thread is going through an obituary phase, but Charles Rosen just passed away on Sunday at age 85. He was a musicologist and author as well as a pianist. Skilled in the standard repertoire, he was also dedicated to modern and contemporary works too.
I saw him perform in Elliott Carter's Double Concerto at Tanglewood for the composer's centenary festival. And his performance of Webern's Variations for Piano op. 27 was particularly sensitive.
I am aware of the divide between HIP vs. modern approaches, but unlike many I'm not dogmatic about either, but rather base my preferences on a case-by-case basis. I love Gardiner as a conductor, especially with the classical and pre-classical era, but when it comes to the Romantics I tend to prefer the modern approaches of the Klemperers, Karajans, Bohms, etc. Klemperer, even more than Karajan, I think, nails my own perception of what Brahms' symphonies are; of course, everyone is entitled to their conductors who nail their own vision.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I definitely plan to. I tend to start listening to composers through complete collections and then base my future purchases on the works that most strike my fancy.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I think the fact that there's a lot going on is why they're considered dense. Brahms was an extremely intellectual composer, so of course everything is thematically and logically interwoven, but that doesn't make it any less dense. Beethoven's Gross Fugue is logically interwoven, but still dense as all hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
This is an amazing performance in which Toscanini brings his immense authority to give the piece classic status. Although the sound doesn't match that of Karajan's, I can hear things here that I don't on the 1976 Deutsche Gramaphon recording. The battle scene is truly terrific and Toscanini takes no prisoners.
http://youtu.be/Yf4bnU-D_Tw
Emil Miller- I really don't understand what the 'notorious density' of Brahms is. I have never heard reference made to it before and I don't personally find his orchestral work dense. Yes, there is a lot going on but its all thematically and logically interwoven. If you want to hear what over scoring really sounds like try listening to much of Delius.
MorpheusSandman-I think the fact that there's a lot going on is why they're considered dense. Brahms was an extremely intellectual composer, so of course everything is thematically and logically interwoven, but that doesn't make it any less dense. Beethoven's Gross Fugue is logically interwoven, but still dense as all hell.
Emil... I think that Morpheus has hit upon what I mean by "density". I am not speaking of lushness of orchestration... which is nothing in comparison to Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Wagner, Richard Strauss, or even, as you note, Delius. Bach can also be incredibly dense... although the Baroque formal structures may make the complex underlying forms quite a bit more clear than with Brahms. Still, if one compares Bach to Vivaldi or Handel or Alessandro Scarlatti is is clear that Johann Sebastian is far more complex... knotty... dense while the other composers are lighter... more transparent. Obviously, as I acknowledge Bach as the greatest composer ever, I am not making a negative value judgment when I speak of a composer as being more "dense".
I participate on several classical music forums, and with a number of classical music lovers IRL... and I have repeatedly come upon those who find themselves stumped... or even put off by Brahms' symphonic works... much in the same manner as they are put off by Bruckner and Schumann. Many of these same individuals love Wagner and Mahler... and I suspect there is something more open... airy... transparent... even lyrical to their work. It may also have something to do with the very formal classical structure of composers like Brahms and Schumann vs the more open-ended compositions of Wagner and Mahler. The same individuals who have expressed a dislike of Brahms' and Schumann's symphonic works repeatedly express the highest admiration for their chamber works... and one suspects that the complexity of form becomes clearer with fewer instruments. Something similar occurs with the HIP approach to Brahms' symphonic works... as with the recordings by Gardiner. This is not to say that I imagine Gardiner as the last word on Brahms. I personally found that after hearing Gardiner's interpretations I was relate better to performances by Karajan, Bohm, Walter, etc...
Personally, I have no bias for or against HIP recordings. I prefer Bach played by Gould, Hewitt, Perahia, and Schiff... all on piano as opposed to harpsichord. I love Bohm's and Karajan's "old school" performances of Haydn's Creation and Seasons... but I also love Gardiner, William Christies, Marc Minkowski, and other HIP practitioners. Ultimately, it comes down to the individual performance... and what it brings to the music.
*****
Death notices seem to be a recent theme. Unfortunately, I cannot ignore the latest great loss to the classical music world:
Lisa della Casa (2 February 1919 – 11* December 2012)
http://www.iletisimhaberajansi.com/h...87_510_310.jpg
Lisa della Casa was a Swiss soprano most admired for her interpretations of major heroines in major operas by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Richard Strauss, of German lieder, and for her great beauty. She was dubbed “the most beautiful woman on the operatic stage”. Della Casa sang the part of Zdenka in the performance of Richard Strauss's Arabella at Zurich Municipal Opera House at the Salzburg Festival in 1947, in a performance starring Maria Reining and Hans Hotter. After the premiere, Richard Strauss himself commented, "The little Della Casa will one day be Arabella!" Indeed, Arabella became della Casa's defining role. She made the first commercial recording of Richard Strauss's Four Last Songs (Karl Böhm) in 1953 for Decca, and many classical music lovers claim this recording to be the greatest available. It has been suggested that Strauss may have composed these songs with della Casa's voice in mind. The singer established herself repeatedly as one of the greatest performers of Strauss' music. On 26 July 1960, the newly-built Salzburg Festspielhaus opened with a performance of Der Rosenkavalier under Herbert von Karajan. She sang the part of the Marschallin in this performance with Sena Jurinac as Octavian and Hilde Gueden as Sophie. Originally, Karajan and film director Paul Czinner planned to make a film of the performance, they asked Della Casa to sing the part of the Marschallin in the film too and she gladly accepted. But due to Walter Legge, well-known recording producer of EMI and husband of Dame Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, Della Casa was replaced by Schwarzkopf for the film. Shocked with being betrayed by this last-minute decision, although she sang the scheduled performances of the season (the Marschallin and Countess Almaviva in The Marriage of Figaro, Della Casa decided never to sing there again. When asked several times subsequently to do so, she declined, replying: "No, sir, for me, Salzburg is dead." The singer was also particularly admired for her performances of Mozart and Johann Strauss.
I only came upon Della Casa's work over the last two years... and immediately found her performances as beautiful and aristocratic as she herself was. Among her "essential" recordings, I would include:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGeCjq3uYX0
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...isa-della-casa
(* There seems to be some confusion as to whether della Casa dies on December 10 or 11)
For whatever reason, Bach has never really gelled with me, even though I continue to listen to him with somewhat frequency. I keep thinking it will eventually click, but of all the greats he certainly leaves me the coldest. I much prefer Handel, Vivaldi, and Purcell, even while acknowledging they are certainly much less intellectually complex and demanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I think that's a good analysis. Schumann and Brahms both certainly took very intellectually acute approaches to the classical forms, so unless a listener is inclined to listening to that kind of language, it can sound difficult and severe. Schumann was a bit more experimental than Brahms, though, especially in his solo piano works and some of his chamber music.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Shame. I have her Mozart recordings and they are wonderful.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Since my answers to this question would include mostly classical music I thought I'd cross post this question here:
I have long thought of Christmas and the holidays in general as accompanied by a musical soundtrack. What music are you listening to for the holidays?
For me Bach has always been intimately linked with Christmas. My first real exposure to classical music took place in the Lutheran Church I attended as a child. My mother sang in the church choir (soprano) and as a result I developed a love for Bach and choral music in general. Today I listened to Monica Groop's marvelous performance of Bach's alto cantatas... some of his greatest achievements in the genre... and one of my favorite recordings:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg
right now... I am listening to the joyful Christmas Oratorio performed by Philippe Herreweghe:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg
And you?
I can't go a Christmas without listening to Handel's Messiah. This Christmas it was the Linn version conducted by John Butt. It's a much pared down version, but sung and recorded with such purity and clarity that I don't miss the sonic bombast of more classic interpretations. Susan Hamilton is quickly becoming one of my favorite sopranos, as well. Besides that I have various compilations of traditional Christmas songs/music by classical performers. One of my favorites is Christmas at Carnegie Hall with Kathleen Battle, Frederica von Stade, Wynton Marsalis, and Andre Previn.
I also was brought up with Bach in a Lutheran church where father and grandfather played pipe organ and conducted the choir. Classical musical was played occasionally at home but playing a Reader's Digest record set of classical symphonies converted me to Classical, late in high school. All except Bach.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Only a decade later, hearing by chance a Bach cantata (they're all fabulous) did the penny drop. For me the difficulty with Bach lay in his using the outdated polyphonic style of his predecessors (Heinrich Schutz, for instance). Once I began to consciously separate the two or more, simultaneous strains of melody, Bach's music suddenly made sense. Other baroque music tends to be less polyphonic and no harder to grasp than music of the Classical and Romantic periods.
I actually LIKE polyphonic music. I'm a huge fan of Monteverdi, Byrd, Josquin, Palestrina, and the polyphonic writing of Handel and Purcell (which, admittedly, isn't as frequent or as dense as Bach's), so it's not the polyphony for me. So much of Bach just sounds mechanical to my ears; a friend of mind described it as clockwork, which is a good adjective. While I can listen and admire the complexity and compositional intelligence, I rarely feel that emotional gut-punch that I get with the others mentioned. However much talent Bach had for pure musical expression, I do feel he wasn't much of a dramatist. Monteverdi, Handel, and Purcell were very much influenced by opera, so they infused much of their polyphony with that kind of drama, and even the others showed an interest in word painting, which Bach rarely seemed interested in in his vocal music.
Bach's music fascinates me, but I agree with the comments above. His appeal for me is the subtlety and intricacy of his music. It's not as exciting or dramatic as that of Monteverdi or Mozart, but I don't find it dry or academic.
ETA: Of course, I'm also a fan of Schoenberg and Babbitt, so I have a higher tolerance for cerebral music than many folks. YMMV.
I think Bach's partitas and cello concertos are more than "clockwork" - but I do see where you get the idea.
Bach's music can indeed be quite complex... almost mathematical in terms of structure... but is can also be quite delicate... and emotional:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS-HWIFyLsE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fCDV4Mw8W8
However much talent Bach had for pure musical expression, I do feel he wasn't much of a dramatist. Monteverdi, Handel, and Purcell were very much influenced by opera, so they infused much of their polyphony with that kind of drama, and even the others showed an interest in word painting, which Bach rarely seemed interested in in his vocal music.
I agree with this. Listening to Handel's oratorios I am struck at just how dramatic... theatrical... operatic they are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5HefO1_W4M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB0cPhSYRss
Bach... in contrast... can be far more dense... but he also can be far more intimate. I recently attended a performance of the complete St. Matthew Passion at Oberlin College. This work is generally acknowledged as one of the pinnacles of not only Bach's oeuvre but also of the whole of choral music. yet what struck me is just how reserved Bach was with regard to his use of the entire orchestral/vocal forces. There are but a few movements in which he pulled out all the stops and gave us the whole orchestra and chorus. For most of the work, we are presented with something akin to chamber music: small ensembles of singers and instruments in an endless array or variety. This is true of much of his choral works. Undoubtedly, this was owed to the composer working with the talents he had at hand in the small town church orchestra and choir. When he had a particularly talented alto vocalist on hand... he wrote music that made the best use of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCSj0fu4sHs
at another time... in another movement... he might employ a combination of soprano, bass and violin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDZED15I8eU
Oddly enough, while my preferences lean toward the symphonic and operatic, Bach remains my absolute favorite composer.