It is a bit dispiriting to think that of the living composers of symphonies which have any great appeal to me personally so many are now approaching the end of their compositional career.
I can think of:
Henri Dutilleux: 95
Arthur Butterworth: 88
Hans-Werner Henze: 85
Einjouhani Rautavaara: 83
Rodion Shchedrin: 79
Krzystof Penderecki: 78
Sir Peter Maxwell Davies: 77
Aulis Sallinen: 76
Arvo Part: 76
Sir Richard Rodney Bennett: 75
Valentin Silvestrov: 74
John Corigliano: 73
John Harbison: 73
John McCabe: 72
David Matthews: 68
Ragnar Soderlind: 66
Petris Vasks: 65
Christopher Rouse: 62
Kalevi Aho: 62
Halvor Haug: 59
and the mere youngsters Carl Vine: 57 and James MacMillan: 52
I honestly cannot think of any others who really qualify as composers of symphonies that have made much impression on me or whose symphonies have any real basis in any form of tonality, traditional structure, symphonic coherence, whatever. Per Norgard or Poul Ruders don't "do it" for me, I am afraid.
Even some on my list are pretty heavy going for my tastes(like Henze) or have not written a symphony for a long time now(like Dutilleux or Bennett).
There is young Matthew Taylor in Britain, two of whose symphonies I am about to listen to, but I don't know of many others out there who might attract me back to their music :(
(...and, Yes, I do like lists ;D ;D)
As you say, although Dutilleux qualifies in a technical sense, he actually hasn't written a symphony for over fifty years. Bennett hasn't written one for nearly a quarter of a century, Rautavaara's 8th came twelve years ago, Henze's 10th was completed in 2000, as was Shchedrin's 3rd. Sallinen's 8th was written 10 years ago and McCabe's 'Six-Minute' Symphony was composed in 1997, so we may have seen the end of all these composers as symphonists - unfortunately...
You are of course perfectly correct, Alan, in the sense that I think we have virtually certainly had the last of Dutilleux, Henze and Rautavaara. Maxwell Davies and Bennett may well have given up writing symphonies too.
Silvestrov and Harbison have both written symphonies in recent years and Aho has reached his 15th, so he has a way to go yet apparently ;D
McCabe though is more active than you give him credit: his Symphony "Edward II"(his 5th) dates from 1998, the Symphony on a Pavane(his 6th) from 2006, and his Symphony "Labyrinth"(his 7th) from 2007.
But the cupboard is pretty bare these days and on the evidence I have now heard of Matthew Taylor's 1st and 3rd I don't really think he will do either :( Not much evidence of his mentor, Robert Simpson, in the music I heard this afternoon.
I will see what the symphony that arrived in my mailbox yesterday dated 2009 is like before I comment...
-Eric, who understands the periodic lament over the death of the symphony even if personally he is, after the death of Holmboe, Simpson, and Weinberg especially, more concerned over the future of the quartet
The symphony and quartet are stll alive and well in Finland, thank God. There is a current obsession among many artistic Finns with "diversity". So, all of this may end within the decade.
Ah, yes, Tapiola. Homogenization through "diversity"!
Oops, well that just shows my ignorance about McCabe's work. Many apologies!
But on the whole I think the symphony is in a bad way in 2011 - apart from David Matthews, and he's nailed his colours to the traditionalist mast...
I did not want to go on a rant about what I see happening every day in Britain and the USA. Sorry. I place most of it at the feet of serialism (destroyed any interest left in modern music among audiences since the early 50s) and "diversity" and of course TV and Rupert Murdoch. But enough!
I fear I can't add much to the list. Only Michael Hersch, who has written at least two symphonies, to my knowledge...and about those, the less said, the better, if you ask me... :D
Permit me to quote, at some length, I fear, from the closing page of the chapter by Robert Layton on "The Symphony in Britain"(the final chapter of the excellent book he edited in 1993 "A Companion to the Symphony"):
The future of the symphony as we know it is far from certain. After all, the epochs of Greek tragedy and Elizabethan drama can be measured in decades rather than centuries, and after evolving and flourishing for almost three centuries, there is no reason to imagine that the symphony might not follow the motet, the madrigal or the fugue into history. Moreover technological advances have altered our music life beyond recognition. The very means which make our symphonic inheritance so widely accessible also threatens its survival.............Even as late as the beginning of (the 20th century), Medieval and Renaissance music was the preserve of a handful of scholars. Now with the LP and CD explosion.....a creative mind is less certain of the tradition to which he can relate. Vaughan Williams could turn to Elgar, Parry and to folk music and the tradition of Tallis and Byrd; a modern composer is confronted with a repertoire extending back to the Middle Ages and outwards to the whole of the western world. In addition, he is more aware than any generation before him of the music of India and the Orient, which stands at the opposite pole to the kind of musical dynamic of Western symphonic music, and to some extent explains the fascination of certain kinds of minimalism.
Although this enriched repertoire may be a source of delight for listeners and music-lovers, to the creative mind it poses greater challenges than ever before. The sheer volume of musical impulses is intimidating and inhibiting. Moreover, folk music can no longer be the source of inspiration it was for the generation of Vaughan Williams, Bartok and Kodaly, for the wells have been polluted by the all-pervasive phenomenon of pop, with its impoverished(or indeed absence of) vocabulary...In addition, with the phenomenon of muzak, a generation has been fostered to regard music as background, to be disregarded, only its absence noted. This is hardly an environment in which a form as sophisticated as the symphony can be expected to flourish. Of course, composers of quality and imagination will battle against all these odds......."
Layton concluded by naming some composers who were attempting to "rise to the symphony's intellectual and spiritual challenge". He named Anthony Milner(dead), Hugh Wood(one symphony), Richard Rodney Bennett(nothing since 1987), Alexander Goehr, Oliver Knussen and (indeed) David Matthews..
First point: I have a huge regard for Robert Layton as a writer on music and an expert, in particular, on British and Scandinavian music.
Second point: I have always regarded-with the greatest of respect to lovers of Opera, Chamber Music and other forms of Music-the symphony as possibly the greatest form that music can take.
Thirdly: what Layton wrote was penned 18 years ago now and the situation is no better, in fact, in respect of the pervasion of popular music probably even worse.
There is a strong vein of pessimism pervading Layton's views as expressed above and-with a real sense of sadness- I have to admit sharing this outlook.
I'm afraid I share Layton's analysis too...
I'm more 19th century focussed than some of you, but I can of course understand your dismay at what Layton is saying. That said, his point that art forms have a natural life and that the symphony's has been longer than many is a very fair and plausible one. Added to which, as in the natural world, the decline and demise of the dominant species often leaves room for something else to emerge.
I am not quite as pessimsitic. I compare the symphony to the novel.
I remain very pessimistic - and not only about the future of the symphony, but about the capacity of new music in general to communicate to an audience. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not.
To offer one ray of hope, Finnish symphonies (by no means complete) most from the last ten years:
Harri Ahmas 2-2002, 2003
Atso Almila 2- 2003, 2008
Kimmo Hakola 1- 2009
Eero Hameenniemi 4 total ( last one2009)
Lasse Jalava 4
Jouni Kaipainen 4
Lars Karlsson 2
Ilkka Kuusisto 2
Kyllonen 2
Jukka Linkola 1- 2004
Pehr-Henrik Nordgren 8 great symphonies
Seppo Pohjola 2- 2001, 2006
Tapio Tuomela 2
Harri Vuori 2- 2003, 2007
Yes, the Finns love symphonies. My friend Juha T. Koskinen wrote one a few years ago, I think Oramo conducted it. Not sure. It was done in Helsinki. Then there's also Leif S...
Julian Anderson wrote a symphony not so long ago.
Curiously, Chris Dench renamed several of his pieces "symphony" as well.
Some experimental composers have been writing them. James Saunders wrote a Second Symphony a few years ago, following it with Second Symphony no.2. John White wrote 30 or so symphonies in the 70s, all about a minute long. He told me they quite annoyed the Richmond Philharmonic Society (or whatever is was).
In France, Christophe Sirodeau (a pianist you may know for his recordings of Feinberg and Skalkottas) has written at least 7, and this last one will be played in Montpellier next year.
So all is not lost!
Quote from: Tapiola on Friday 16 December 2011, 13:19
To offer one ray of hope, Finnish symphonies (by no means complete) most from the last ten years:
Harri Ahmas 2-2002, 2003
Atso Almila 2- 2003, 2008
Kimmo Hakola 1- 2009
Eero Hameenniemi 4 total ( last one2009)
Lasse Jalava 4
Jouni Kaipainen 4
Lars Karlsson 2
Ilkka Kuusisto 2
Kyllonen 2
Jukka Linkola 1- 2004
Pehr-Henrik Nordgren 8 great symphonies
Seppo Pohjola 2- 2001, 2006
Tapio Tuomela 2
Harri Vuori 2- 2003, 2007
Which are the best of these, do you think - and why?
I don't doubt that there are composers out there writing symphonies and I also agree that Finland has an admirable track record of producing fine symphonists in the decades since Sibelius was active. Composers like Melartin, Merikanto, Englund, Kokkonen, Rautavaara, Sallinen, Klami, and still today, Kalevi Aho have all certainly hugely enhanced the symphonic repertoire.
Of the names you listed however the symphonies I have heard by Hameenniemi, Kaipainen and Nordgren really do not appeal to me very much.
Now...you will say that I am making a different point, that I am now lamenting the absence of Living Symphonists that I happen to like. That is fair enough comment ;D
But in my original post I did say:
"I honestly cannot think of any others who really qualify as composers of symphonies that have made much impression on me or whose symphonies have any real basis in any form of tonality, traditional structure, symphonic coherence, whatever".
So....if any of these Finnish composers are writing symphonies which can be compared in either subjective or objective ;D analysis to those being written by Aho then I too would very much like to meet their acquaintance :)
Seppo Pohjola's two, Kaipainen's and Vuori's are fine works to start with. Of course Nordgren's to me are among the greatest written in the last 50 years. I would love to hear Hakola's soon as he is a fascinating composer. As to the why, these works speak to the living and display a real individualism and are not academic in any way. Pohjola's particularly are melodically involving. There is no "note spinning" but real inspiration ( in my opinion of course). These composers prove that government support (without pressure or influence) works.
Hakola - how could I forget him!?
His piano concerto is written in such a way that suggests he would write a good symphony.
He invited me to play in Helsinki once so he's definitely a good bloke.
I can usually track down the YLE recording but haven't attempted the Hakola yet. Uljas Pulkkis has sent me his very fine, romantic 2011 piano concerto as a video. I'll find the link and post it.
I downloaded Kaipainen's 1st Symphony from Amazon the other day and I have his 2nd and 3rd on disc. I also have Nordgren's 3rd and 5th on disc.
What I shall promise you is that I shall give them another listen to see if they make a real impression on me :)
I just posted the video link to Pulkkis' piano concerto.
Do listen to Nordgren's 7th and 8th.
I shall try :)
I could of course point out that Nordgren is actually dead :( and therefore doesn't actually qualify as a "Living Symphonist" ::)
Kuusisto's 1st just came out on BIS and is quite marvelous. Sorry, Nordgren died relatively young and not that long ago. He was composing to the very end. But I just had to mention those great symphonies.
Judging by the excerpts available online, Kaipainen is a good deal more approachable than Vuori...
Quote from: Alan Howe on Friday 16 December 2011, 17:43
Judging by the excerpts available online, Kaipainen is a good deal more approachable than Vuori...
Oh........I am not sure that bodes terribly well for my tastes :(
I didn't say I liked it!
I have just listened to Kaipainen's 3rd again and now the Bassoon Concerto.
There is little real point in repeating that this is simply not music with which I can feel much empathy. There is a point beyond which I cannot go, where the absence of melody or a particular rich orchestral grandeur of sonority or a structural development I can understand and appreciate leaves me so uncomfortable that there is no emotional response, no pleasure to be obtained.
I am not a musician or a musicologist, I have little knowledge of musical technique. All I can claim is a fairly broad familiarity with the sort of music which I can appreciate and a reasonably detailed knowledge of even the more obscure composers who wrote that sort of music.
With this sort of music I am out of my depth. That is-beyond any doubt-my loss and I do not criticise or condemn those who can appreciate what is obviously beyond me. I have tried with what, to my ears, is less accessible music but...........
Now...Ragnar Soderlind is another story and I shall write about him shortly ;D
I'm trying to figure out for what kind of audience contemporary symphonists compose / have composed their music? For a broad audience? For a committed (small?) group lovers of modern music? For themselves ?
Quite frequently I read in newspapers sombre articles or concert reviews, stating that classical music (or music written for instruments used for a symphony orchestra) hardly attract people anymore, in particular young people. Modern symphonies can be less accessible, which might alienate people.
Any thoughts or comments?
I'm with you, Colin. While we might each have differing tolerance levels regarding such things as dissonance, absence of apparent rhythmic activity or melody, etc., I'm at a loss with almost all the symphonies being written today. My tolerance stops with symphonists such as Maxwell Davies - and even he's pretty thorny!
I can just about get there with the Maxwell Davies symphonies but no further ;D
There was(maybe still is) a time when music writers used the term 'neo-romanticism' to describe composers who wrote or, in some cases(Penderecki in Poland, George Rochberg in the USA, Rautavaara in Finland, Silvestrov in the Ukraine) had reverted to tonality and to a degree of 'beauty' in their music.
As I understood it-and, I reiterate, I am no musicologist-neo-romanticism was distinct from minimalism. Neo-romantic music could still be quite "tough" and absorbed some elements of modernism.
While I could not cope with early Penderecki the music he started to write after around 1979/80 did attract me and still does. Rautavaara's 3rd I loved (and still do) because I am a lover of Bruckner and the 3rd is, of course, remarkably Brucknerian. Silvestrov's 5th is sublimely beautiful. Although Sallinen, McCabe, Aho or David Matthews can write complex music which requires concentration and commitment they are still writing symphonies which I can recognize as being in a received tradition of symphonic development. The Robert Simpson definition of the symphony is one that has a lot of resonance with me ;D
And...just maybe...there comes a point in one's life when one is happy to settle for that and to be content to explore backwards, possibly sideways, but to leave the future to others :) :)
I think we're broadly on the same page. I feel I ought to like some of the music mentioned in this thread, but for me it's a bit like trying to accustom myself to drinking something that's just too bitter for my taste. In the end, if constituent elements such as harmony, rhythm and melody are beyond my comprehension or appreciation, then I'm simply lost.
Wolfgang Rihm - His symphonies 1-3 are worth hearing but I find the building power of Vers one Symphonie Fleuve I - V more to my current taste. Neo-Romantic but without being syrupy of boring. I-III are available on CD but you will have to ask some Soulseek friend for IV and V.
Luc Brewaeys - My favorite Spectralist composer...Symphonies 1-5 are excellent but he started losing me with 6 and 7. There are parts of those two that I really can get into but as an overall listening experience they just do not quite work for me.
Lera Auerbach - I am surprised that I keep going back to the two symphonies that I have of this Russian composer because when I think about it I find them a little too neat. But they do work at a certain level and have enough surprises to keep me interested. Her works for piano or violin are probably her best work but I have found little that I did not enjoy except when I want to really stretch my head.
Nicolas Baci - I only know two of his symphonies but #4 and #6good enough that I would love to have more. He has a lot of other music that is worth getting into.
Marc-Andre Dalbavie - I am going to use his 2005 Sinfonietta to get his name into this discussion. There is just lots of his music that I enjoy because it keeps my interest through the length of the piece. Rocks under the water is a major orchestral work that could be classified as a symphony.
Ib Norholm - This little known Dane has produced 12 symphonies that I have 10 of - if anyone has 10 and 12 I would love to have them. 1-3 should not offend anyone, 4-7 are to me the meat of his symphonies, the latter ones tend to have too much singing for me to really enjoy. Sopranos quickly lose my attention - I would rather just have instruments and electronics.
For those who are looking for living symphony composers who produces works that are more in keeping with earlier styles - I guess they would be called neo-romantics - I suggest Kaman Ince and Lowell Liebermann. Not my cup of tea but I am glad they are there for those who love their music.
Although-as far as I know-he has written only a Chamber Symphony-I should put in a good word for Thomas Ades :)
I freely admit that I had not heard a single note of his music until a young friend on another forum sent me a copy of "Tevot". As I listened to this 22 minute long piece I grew more and more impressed. One can sense the progression of the music, that sense that the music is actually going somewhere. And, of course, It moves towards a conclusion of genuine beauty.
If by any chance you don't know the work then here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_vVN7ONPnc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_vVN7ONPnc)
Please listen to it :) If you believed-as I did-that a modern composer was incapable of writing such music then this restored at least some of my faith ;D
A good word also for some ladies symphonists.
Not so much (from me) for the veteran (73 : ladies composers don't hide age) and prolific Gloria Coates, but praise from me for the slightly younger (72) Ellen Zaaffe Twilich: a very reliable composer IMHO.
I woul list also Alla Pavlova (59) and the "young" Victoria Borisova-Ollas (42), albeit author of just one symphony.
-------
Further gentlemen of different ages (and idioms)
Ned Rorem (88) and last symphony in 1958.
William Bolcom (73)
Oliver Knussen (59)
Aaron Jay Kernis (51)
Sergio Rendine (57): two symphonies not important, but very safe and comfortable.
If I were very fluent in English I would plea for the admittedly controversial G.Kancheli.
I have great hopes for Ades too: the only composer in my collection who is (three weeks) younger than me. If the symphony is dead: at least it was once alive, whereas for me minimalism has always been dead, however fashionable it is. I apologise to those who enjoy it, many of whom are people I respect.
Don't feel so bad if you don't get modern symphonies. Hardly anyone does. Most music listeners ears have trouble with a lot of 20th c music, even now. I've spent a long time listening to so-called modern music and there are still scores by the likes of Copland, Schoenberg, Bartok, even Stravinsky that I just don't get, and I don't like to listen to. It's as if the average human brain can only listen to music up to a certain level of abstractness and then it gives up. I feel bad for modern composers who want to write what they feel, but realize that no one wants to perform it, listen to it, or record it. But there are modern composers who do write music that people enjoy: film composers. Howard Shore, Danny Elfman, and John Williams just to name three haven't forgotten how to connect to an audience.
Quote from: alberto on Saturday 17 December 2011, 23:14
A good word also for some ladies symphonists.
Not so much (from me) for the veteran (73 : ladies composers don't hide age) and prolific Gloria Coates, but praise from me for the slightly younger (72) Ellen Zaaffe Twilich: a very reliable composer IMHO.
I woul list also Alla Pavlova (59) and the "young" Victoria Borisova-Ollas (42), albeit author of just one symphony.
-------
Further gentlemen of different ages (and idioms)
Ned Rorem (88) and last symphony in 1958.
William Bolcom (73)
Oliver Knussen (59)
Aaron Jay Kernis (51)
Sergio Rendine (57): two symphonies not important, but very safe and comfortable.
If I were very fluent in English I would plea for the admittedly controversial G.Kancheli.
Ellen Taaffe Zwilich, Ned Rorem, Kancheli and Bolcom(at a pinch ;D) are all composers I most certainly should have listed :)
The Symphonies of Thomas Schmidt-Kowalski might be worth investigating (2 of which I believe have been issued by Naxos).
Quite beautiful romantic works.
I fully agree with you, Greg. I also have a live recording of 10 November 2000 of Symphony No. 2 in B major "Symphonie zur Jahrtausendwende", op. 57, burned on CD (not commercial). If I only knew how to upload it with my old computer I would be very happy to do so.
As a reactionary amateur symphonist myself, I find most those composers mentioned in this thread way above my head. Maybe I should have been born 150 years earlier. :)
Well I had forgotten about Valentin Silvestrov whom I actually know and have worked with: his
FIFTH SYMPHONY is quite stunning... openly post-Mahlerian.
Don't know the others, but during the last ten years he has written in a tonal, quasi-traditional style, and one with his unmistakable personal imprint.
I have some broadcasts of later ones, and some home-made CDRs he did for me, so I will dig them out and consider whether it is possible to upload anything ...
Vasks, Kinsella and David Matthews would feature high on my list - and Eshpai who is very old now.
Two important living symphonists not yet mentioned:
John Corigliano (3 fine symphonies to date)
Per Nørgård (7 symphonies to date)
Corigliano was actually in my original list.
Norgard wasn't. I am afraid that his music is beyond my comprehension :(
How about Sergei Slonimsky (b. 1932)? He composed his 27th symphony "To the memory of Myaskovsky" recently: http://www.ruslania.com/language-1/entity-6/context-321/details-156908.html
Robert
Actually, I just found Slonimsky's 30th symphony written this year!!
http://www.ruslania.com/entity-6/context-321/details-157469.html
Robert
Quote from: John H White on Sunday 18 December 2011, 20:59
As a reactionary amateur symphonist myself, I find most those composers mentioned in this thread way above my head. Maybe I should have been born 150 years earlier. :)
Me too, I've written a symphony (I won't link it here, as I got a smack in the head the last time I tried to show my music in this forum and several other works but I can't stand the music of the last 100 years. None of the composers mentioned has yet taken hold of me.
Does anyone out there have detailed information about Sergei Slonimsky's later Symphonies, such as titles, years of composition, etc? Only a few of them are listed on the website of the publisher Rusliana. Any and all data would be appreciated, acknowledged and listed in my Russian and Soviet Symphonies Discography.
I know this thread is about living symphonists, but I hope you'll forgive me for using it to tell you that the question of the world's greatest living composer has been settled beyond doubt!
According to a promo for one of his concerts, currently running on Australian TV, the world's "greatest living composer" is .... yes, you guessed it .....
Burt Bacharach!
;D ;D ;D
OK - you can get back to the serious stuff now.... :)
QuoteAccording to a promo for one of his concerts, currently running on Australian TV, the world's "greatest living composer" is .... yes, you guessed it .....
Burt Bacharach!
I'm glad that question has been settled! (Pardon me while I vomit)
Those wacky Australians! Actually, I like Burt Bacharach's music a lot, but I wouldn't even name him the greatest living pop composer of the 1960s (that would have to be Paul McCartney). Still, this is not quite on the order of the French idolization of Jerry Lewis.
On my way to work this morning I listened for the first time to the 1st Symphony by Thomas Sleeper (b.1956, American). A very enjoyable work, somewhat reminiscent (to me, at least) of Halvor Haug. Another Albany Records offering.
I recall a review of a CD of Sleeper's horn concerto (coupled with Ticheli's first symphony and van der Slice's Specters). Diverse music that I'm hoping to hear.
Quote:
Me too, I've written a symphony (I won't link it here, as I got a smack in the head the last time I tried to show my music in this forum and several other works but I can't stand the music of the last 100 years. None of the composers mentioned has yet taken hold of me.
The people on this Forum to whom I've sent CDs of my 2nd symphony played on Sibelius Sounds have so far been too polite to make any comments about it! :)
Quote from: John H White on Thursday 22 December 2011, 16:53
Quote:
Me too, I've written a symphony (I won't link it here, as I got a smack in the head the last time I tried to show my music in this forum and several other works but I can't stand the music of the last 100 years. None of the composers mentioned has yet taken hold of me.
The people on this Forum to whom I've sent CDs of my 2nd symphony played on Sibelius Sounds have so far been too polite to make any comments about it! :)
Well, my post got deleted, moved to /dev/null, thrown into the Ether, multiplied by 0 etc.
On topic, I wonder to what degree can a piece of music still be called a symphony nowadays. But then I might just be rambling...
Slightly tangentially
I know that Harald Genzmer died 4 years ago, but that's the thing- "living" has a tendency to fluctuate; I was typing, or speaking to someone on the phone, to someone about Genzmer in late December 2007, noting that he was Germany's among greater living symphonists or somesuch, when it occurred to me to check the "living" part - and he'd died (at age 98) two weeks before that point, as I recall...
Still, the one symphony I've heard (no.4) was rather good. :(
Some other living symphonists to consider, to drag this post on topic :) (semi-on topic. Their styles matter less to me, but I gather some of their styles are more or less at latest early-20th century or eclectic.)
Haven't heard Ross Edwards' symphonies, but he was born in 1943.
Gary Kulesha (born 1954) had a symphony premiered 1998.
James Cohn (born 1928) has had some symphonies recorded on Naxos though again, haven't heard them.
(Likewise so has Gloria Coates. ...
Besides the fact that her music really does not interest me, at least Bartók asked Cowell for supernumerary permission to use toneclusters that he had - I am guessing - independently invented; Coates claims in an interview (Naxos online podcast) to have been the first to have used them, if I recall, which just makes me shake my head. ... erm. ... anyway.)
and 7 symphonies by Carl Vine (also *1954).
Composer Paul Wilkinson from Halifax mentioned on Twitter that he finished a Symphony in the last months, `after six years of work'. I wouldn't be surprised if his style were to Colin's (Dundonnell's) taste. :D
Quote from: Christo on Monday 02 January 2012, 08:40
Composer Paul Wilkinson from Halifax mentioned on Twitter that he finished a Symphony in the last months, `after six years of work'. I wouldn't be surprised if his style were to Colin's (Dundonnell's) taste. :D
Is that Halifax UK or Canada (or the Halifax banking group ;))?
Try this link...
http://www.paulwilkinson.co.uk/index.htm (http://www.paulwilkinson.co.uk/index.htm)
Quote from: vandermolen on Thursday 05 January 2012, 21:50
Is that Halifax UK or Canada (or the Halifax banking group ;))?
Oh dear. I didn't realize colonists from Yorkshire settled in Canada and started a bank instead of doing a proper job. :o I mean Halifax UK, of course. Where else would a composer find inspiration for a symphony? ;)
Quote from: Alan Howe on Thursday 05 January 2012, 21:56
Try this link... http://www.paulwilkinson.co.uk/index.htm (http://www.paulwilkinson.co.uk/index.htm)
Yes, that's him. He's also active on Twitter and for some reason, following me. (My tweets are in Dutch. 8))
Quote from: ArturPS on Monday 19 December 2011, 19:52
but I can't stand the music of the last 100 years.
...
wow. Nothing written since 1913, I guess that would be?
Ok... (though I guess Medtner's "Night Wind" sonata (1911) sneaks through barely, maybe...)
Quote from: ArturPS on Monday 19 December 2011, 19:52
but I can't stand the music of the last 100 years.
Oh, please!!
Sergei Slonimsky....awesome!!
Extremely prolific and extremely gifted..
Non believers - just listen here:
http://classical-music-online.net/en/composer/Slonimsky/985
Quote from: Delicious Manager on Friday 06 January 2012, 00:01
Quote from: ArturPS on Monday 19 December 2011, 19:52
but I can't stand the music of the last 100 years.
Oh, please!!
Of the last 100 years, what is good is magnificent, but what is bad is nauseating foolishness..eg..John Cage.
Quote from: Tapiola on Thursday 15 December 2011, 20:57
I did not want to go on a rant about what I see happening every day in Britain and the USA. Sorry. I place most of it at the feet of serialism (destroyed any interest left in modern music among audiences since the early 50s) and "diversity" and of course TV and Rupert Murdoch. But enough!
I do concur with your overall impression that for the most part, serialism has been a failed exercise in musical esoteria and nothing more.(some Frankel excepted) ..perhaps more rewarding to compose than to hear..I don't get Sessions, or Searle, or Reich, or Cage..and I thought it might be me. As far as Murdoch, I have not heard his symphonies..where can I listen to them? (Tongue in cheek)
Reich bores me to tears. I like Cage's ideas: he's an experimenter, and actually some of the sounds he produced were very beautiful, but like so many composers, he thought experimenting was the only thing that mattered in composition. Sometimes you have to act on the results of your experiments. I wouldn't want to eat food which was a chef's first attempt: I'd expect something he had perfected. Or, to use another analogy, I don't want to love a different person every night: after trying a few, it's nice to settle down and grow with one person.
Quote from: JollyRoger on Friday 06 January 2012, 01:37
Quote from: Tapiola on Thursday 15 December 2011, 20:57
I did not want to go on a rant about what I see happening every day in Britain and the USA. Sorry. I place most of it at the feet of serialism (destroyed any interest left in modern music among audiences since the early 50s) and "diversity" and of course TV and Rupert Murdoch. But enough!
I do concur with your overall impression that for the most part, serialism has been a failed exercise in musical esoteria and nothing more.(some Frankel excepted) ..perhaps more rewarding to compose than to hear..I don't get Sessions, or Searle, or Reich, or Cage..and I thought it might be me. As far as Murdoch, I have not heard his symphonies..where can I listen to them? (Tongue in cheek)
I don't "get" most Sessions either-Symphony No.1 is an exception.
Searle is also a tough nut to crack, especially Symphonies Nos.3-5, but I think that the Searle 1st and 2nd Symphonies are quite magnificent ;D
Sir Adrian Boult conducted a brilliant performance of the Searle Symphony No.1 on a Decca LP which I hope to digitise soon(the performance has never been released on cd). The lento slow movement of Symphony No.2 contains one of the grandest and most baleful fortissimo climaxes I know in music. All but the First of Searle's symphonies is under 20 minutes on length. Their total neglect, outside of the CPO set, is quite astonishing.
(I shall start a separate thread about him, I think.... ;D)
Quote from: Dundonnell on Friday 06 January 2012, 12:46
(I shall start a separate thread about him, I think.... ;D)
Oh dear .. 8) ;)
One caveat about serialism though, REAL composers that try their hand at serialism still sound like themselves and use it only as one tool of many. Serial Copland sounds like Copland, so to Stravinsky, Kokkonen, Rochberg, Searle etc. And, I greatly admire Hugh Wood. Serialism from the hacks and intelligentsia all sounds the same. Bleak, empty and cerebral. As Prokofiev warned so long ago, if composers turn away from the noble, uplifting, beautiful, the crowds will look for it in "vulgar" music. Of course, it happened as he said.
Quite. There is nothing wrong with serialism as an invention, as a tool, but it should be added to the tools at a composer's disposal, not used to remove all the others. Any 'theory' or 'method', be it sonata form or Wagnerian Leitmotiven, is only creative if it adds to what is already there.
Yes, preserve us from academics who use serial techniques, like Dmitri Shostakovich and others.
I have a notion what you're trying to say as opposed to what you actually are saying, though I still disagree with all but the obvious part of it, quite possibly...
Getting back to "living symphonists" ::) - I see that back in 2002, on the occasion of his 88th birthday, Henry Brant described himself as "the second oldest living composer of nonpopular music, after Elliott Carter". Brant died in 2008, but Carter lives on, at 103.
I like Carter's verdict on serialism ("minimalism"):
"If you write one bar and then repeat it over again, the music ceases to have anything to do with the composer, from my point of view, anyway. It means a person's stopped living. It doesn't have anything to do with music. .....Well, it obviously does, because some people think it's very good. But I don't understand that. I think that one of the big problems we live with is that that kind of repetition is everywhere, in advertising, in public address systems, and in politicians always saying the same thing. We live in a minimalist world, I feel. That's what I think. Those other people can think what they think." 8) 8)
(Quotation from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalmusic/3599302/Minimalism-is-death.html )
... oh-kay, I can get that serialism and minimalism have a whole lot to do with each other, sort of like violins and serpents (both instruments, though one of those no longer exists)... and in each case one has made more inroads into popular culture than the other (minimalist music - a broad category, like serial music - sometimes uses popular rhythms and techniques - and has, I suspect some fans who are not otherwise into "classical music", and in fact is sometimes considered "crossover"; minimalist music is more likely to be heard in a film score than serial-technique music (can think of several examples of the former and fewer-- Frankel's Curse of the Werewolf, not many others- of the latter.)
More briefly, no, I'm pretty sure Carter knows what serial and minimalist music are more or less and the difference between them, and when he says one he means one, not both of them, m'kay? No calling on "authorities" for things they haven't even said.
Quote from: eschiss1 on Friday 06 January 2012, 23:21
Yes, preserve us from academics who use serial techniques, like Dmitri Shostakovich and others.
I have a notion what you're trying to say as opposed to what you actually are saying, though I still disagree with all but the obvious part of it, quite possibly...
I have spent countless hours trying to enjoy Carter, Searle and Sessions and it has not borne fruit for me. This has no doubt given rise to my negativity regarding serialism. I wish I were perceptive and intellectual enough to "get it".
DSCH has always been a favorite of mine..but till now I was unaware of his affinity for serialism. And if the 4th symphony is an example, I am all for it.
But what is most likely that I don't even know what serialism is..and I'm beginning to care less..
I was responding to the use awhile back of "academics" as some sort of insult (this always has my head spinning when I can be bothered to care at all - which is a more impersonal subject for another thread, since I at that point immediately cease to care about the attitude of the person expressing the sentiment, for what little that is worth) - but in regards Shostakovich am thinking more of - for example- works like his 12th quartet, actually. (Or sections perhaps of his - remarkable to my ears and also quite good to my ears - 14th symphony...?) (With Weinberg, even more thoroughgoingly and obviously, his 12th quartet, but if I recall, the example there is not good, since Weinberg, unlike Shostakovich, was neither professor nor held official positions.)
But you hit on something when you mention the 4th symphony, since serial techniques refer to one thing, and atonality (or non-tonality) another- quite a few times in the same work, but quite a few times not.
Still haven't listened to the Jeffrey Jacob 3rd of 2009, as to Living Symphonists, but meaning to soon.
Quote from: eschiss1 on Saturday 07 January 2012, 04:50
.......
More briefly, no, I'm pretty sure Carter knows what serial and minimalist music are more or less and the difference between them, and when he says one he means one, not both of them, m'kay? No calling on "authorities" for things they haven't even said.
Apologies, Eric! You are quite right. ::)
I was (mis)using the term 'serialism' to refer to the kind of repetitive compositions I associate with Philip Glass, whereas Carter uses the correct term, i.e. "minimalism". In any case it doesn;t alter the point of my quotation - i.e. Carter loathes repetitive compositions, and that I agree entirely with his views.
I really don't see a problem with serialism (correctly defined!) :)
Got it :)
(I don't have a problem with all the minimalists myself- certainly not with Reich. That said, I can't continue responding to this specific thread, as I have no way to respond to its opening post as worded, now that I reread it, and hence no way to avoid drifting therefrom... )
Personal tastes apart, those who are interested in fairly traditional or tonal symphonies can still find some new ones coming up. For instance, from Slovenia, in the last twenty years: Alojz Ajdič's No. 3, Darijan Božič's No. 2, Maksimiljan Feguš's No. 1, Igor Krivokapič's No. 1 (I have not heard No. 2 yet), the late Dane Škerl's Nos. 7 and 8, Črt Sojar Voglar's No. 2 (not yet heard Nos. 1 & 3). From Latvia, in addition to Vasks's Nos. 2 and 3, Romualds Kalsons has turned to a kind of neo-tonal writing. From neighbouring Lithuania, Osvaldas Balakauskas and Onutė Narbutaitė are active major symphonists whose recent music is more challenging, but still very approachable. Serbia's Jugoslav Bošnjak has also composed a successful, immediately appealing Symphony-Passacaglia. And this is only from a few countries.
I would also recommend Thierry Pécou's "Symphonie du Jaguar".
Been following Paul Wilkinson on twitter too. His updates are saying he has nearly finished it. I can play some of his preludes for piano they are really good. Think there is some on YouTube.
Quote from: ttle on Sunday 22 January 2012, 11:54
Personal tastes apart, those who are interested in fairly traditional or tonal symphonies can still find some new ones coming up. For instance, from Slovenia, in the last twenty years: Alojz Ajdič's No. 3, Darijan Božič's No. 2, Maksimiljan Feguš's No. 1, Igor Krivokapič's No. 1 (I have not heard No. 2 yet), the late Dane Škerl's Nos. 7 and 8, Črt Sojar Voglar's No. 2 (not yet heard Nos. 1 & 3). From Latvia, in addition to Vasks's Nos. 2 and 3, Romualds Kalsons has turned to a kind of neo-tonal writing. From neighbouring Lithuania, Osvaldas Balakauskas and Onutė Narbutaitė are active major symphonists whose recent music is more challenging, but still very approachable. Serbia's Jugoslav Bošnjak has also composed a successful, immediately appealing Symphony-Passacaglia. And this is only from a few countries.
I would also recommend Thierry Pécou's "Symphonie du Jaguar".
Great post. I know Vasks, Kalsons, Balakauskas and Narbutaitė, but all the other names are new to me. So much to learn! ;)
Hrm. I've heard of but not heard Skerl...
Another new - for me - name on the symphonic front comes from New Zealand: Ross Harris. Naxos is going to release his recent (2006/2008) second and third symphonies. I don't think the symphony is dead in places like Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand. ::)
Quote from: Christo on Monday 06 February 2012, 09:14
I don't think the symphony is dead in places like Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand. ::)
I think I can throw a little light on why NZ happens to be mentioned here. During the 1980s the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra (essentially a regional orchestra operating on a significantly smaller budget than the national orchestra the NZSO) was able to implement some progressive policies thanks to the General Manager of those years, Christopher Blake, being himself a composer. The orchestra systematically recorded onto CD works by local composers that had been performed in its Main Series concerts. Reading workshops took place where perhaps two days were devoted to reading through new works.
In 1990 a Composer-in-Residence scheme started up (12 month residency), the major work produced being presented in the Main Series Concert of the following year. It seems that so many works were being produced that the CD production couldn't keep up, although everything will certainly exist in the radio archives etc.
Great to learn, many thanks! I'll order for the Ross Harris disc with this great story in mind. :)
I just tracked down this page (it had moved on the Radio NZ Concert site); recordings in the Radio New Zealand archive recently brought to light in a program called "Resound". Symphonic and chamber music all mixed in here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/concert/audiofeatures/resound (http://www.radionz.co.nz/concert/audiofeatures/resound)
If you will listen to Lowell Leiberman's Symphony No. 2, you will see that the traditional symphony is far from dead.
At least this marvelous symphony makes me feel that way..
There is such an abundance of "music" today, things of real value get lost in all the noise..
Quote from: JollyRoger on Thursday 08 March 2012, 03:08
If you will listen to Lowell Leiberman's Symphony No. 2, you will see that the traditional symphony is far from dead.
At least this marvelous symphony makes me feel that way..
There is such an abundance of "music" today, things of real value get lost in all the noise..
Interesting how perspectives differ. I consider Leiberman's Symphony No. 2 a perfect example of the poor state of modern symphonies. Though it is extremely tonal, this is absolutely 3rd rate composing with nothing original nor distinctive to say. What do you think makes this worth hearing? It reminds me of bad film music.
Quote from: karelm on Thursday 08 March 2012, 03:19
Quote from: JollyRoger on Thursday 08 March 2012, 03:08
If you will listen to Lowell Leiberman's Symphony No. 2, you will see that the traditional symphony is far from dead.
At least this marvelous symphony makes me feel that way..
There is such an abundance of "music" today, things of real value get lost in all the noise..
Interesting how perspectives differ. I consider Leiberman's Symphony No. 2 a perfect example of the poor state of modern symphonies. Though it is extremely tonal, this is absolutely 3rd rate composing with nothing original nor distinctive to say. What do you think makes this worth hearing? It reminds me of bad film music.
If you didn't like watermelon and someone else did, would you criticize them for it? And what music credentials do you have to call this third rate composing? Are you also an expert on religion and politics?
I love Liebermann's 2nd symphony, especially IIRC the second movement.
Quote from: fr8nks on Thursday 08 March 2012, 03:49
Quote from: karelm on Thursday 08 March 2012, 03:19
Quote from: JollyRoger on Thursday 08 March 2012, 03:08
If you will listen to Lowell Leiberman's Symphony No. 2, you will see that the traditional symphony is far from dead.
At least this marvelous symphony makes me feel that way..
There is such an abundance of "music" today, things of real value get lost in all the noise..
Interesting how perspectives differ. I consider Leiberman's Symphony No. 2 a perfect example of the poor state of modern symphonies. Though it is extremely tonal, this is absolutely 3rd rate composing with nothing original nor distinctive to say. What do you think makes this worth hearing? It reminds me of bad film music.
If you didn't like watermelon and someone else did, would you criticize them for it? And what music credentials do you have to call this third rate composing? Are you also an expert on religion and politics?
The point here, gentlemen, is that it is not enough simply to exchange personal likes and dislikes - it would be far more interesting to hear some solid reasons for those likes and dislikes...
Or perhaps we could simply agree to disagree. If we can't express an offhand opinion about some composer/piece without displaying our credentials and/or offering a cogently reasoned defense of that opinion, this website is going to become terribly anodyne terribly quickly.
Agreeing to disagree is fine, but it's much more interesting to hear a spirited exchange of views, with reasons. As I've said before many times, the mere expression of likes or dislikes is itself pretty boring. It is actually cogently (and respectfully) reasoned arguments that will keep this site from ever becoming anodyne.
There's an interesting conflict of views on Liebermann 2 here:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2001/May01/Liebermann.htm (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2001/May01/Liebermann.htm)
Quote from: Alan Howe on Thursday 08 March 2012, 16:57
There's an interesting conflict of views on Liebermann 2 here:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2001/May01/Liebermann.htm (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2001/May01/Liebermann.htm)
While it is a conflict of views all right Alan, I don't think David's Wright's contribution passes your own test of being 'cogently argued'. Rather, it strikes me as merely gratuitously belligerent. I am not grinding any axes here -- I don't know Liebermann's work but any dialectic that seeks to undermine its artistic validity needs to do so with considerably more subtlety than Wright displays here.
I take your point, Alan. My point (a little too bluntly expressed, perhaps) is that if someone says, "I think the color blue is awfully overrated", I wouldn't take it as an attack on my taste in colors, nor would I respond with, "What makes you an expert in hue-ology?"
Actually, I agree, Lionel - and I didn't say it did 'pass my test', I merely said there was a conflict of views. You are, of course, quite correct: Wright's 'review' is an example of the sort of bullying assertion of one's opinions that gets musical criticism a bad name. Poor old Andrew Litton - written off as a bad conductor in a few lines...
<<...nor would I respond with, "What makes you an expert in hue-ology?>>
Well, David, if you painted the brickwork of your house blue, I might be interested in your reasons for doing so...
QuoteWhat do you think makes this worth hearing? It reminds me of bad film music.
QuoteIf you didn't like watermelon and someone else did, would you criticize them for it? And what music credentials do you have to call this third rate composing? Are you also an expert on religion and politics?
Apart from the fact that I
like blue, Alan . . . :)
What rubbed me the wrong way was the pugnacious defensiveness (or would that be the defensive pugnacity?) of the second writer. A disagreement is not an attack. And sometimes we just can't really explain exactly why we like or dislike (or feel indifferent to) something.
Quote from: dafrieze on Thursday 08 March 2012, 18:12
And sometimes we just can't really explain exactly why we like or dislike (or feel indifferent to) something.
Therein lies an essential problem, I think. As Mendelssohn wrote, '...words seem to me so ambiguous, so vague, so easily misunderstandable in comparison with genuine music, which fills the soul with things a thousand times better than words' (or something to that effect). If one could reduce music to words, there would be no point in it. I was listening only this morning to Vadim Gluzman's recording of the Bruch 1st concerto and even that familiar old war-horse had the blood coursing through my veins and the hairs on the back of my neck rising -- but don't ask me to 'explain why' because I couldn't; and I'm very glad of that fact.
I have the Gluzman CD too and it is indeed superb. Something to do with his superlative technique and singing tone, maybe? He's certainly a 'big' player. And then there's Litton's far-from-routine conducting - the opening is a case in point, as is the magnificent orchestral climax approx. six minutes in.
Of course, it's very hard to put into words exactly what is so great about a particular performance. But I don't believe it's impossible - otherwise there'd be no such thing musical journalism. And all we'd have is the comment: 'I'd like X, but I can't say why...'
Anyway, my apologies - back to living symphonists. Now, shall I order Liebermann 2...?
I have made enough posts on this site that you all should know that I try to be friendly. I do respect the opinions of others but what upset me here was the wording:
"Though it is extremely tonal, this is absolutely 3rd rate composing with nothing original nor distinctive to say. What do you think makes this worth hearing? It reminds me of bad film music."
I wouldn't have a problem if it started..."In my opinion this is absolutely 3rd rate...." but the actual wording deems it a verdict and not an opinion. I'm sorry if I upset anyone.
Quote from: fr8nks on Thursday 08 March 2012, 19:42
I'm sorry if I upset anyone.
You certainly didn't upset me! (I entirely agree with you :-X )
Anyway, back to living symphonists...
Now, should I order Liebermann 2? Is the music pale neo-Romanticism or a musical statement worth hearing?
I did not intend to generate a firestorm about Leiberman's symphony, I simply felt it was an inspired work and wanted to share that opinion.
My musical tastes vary widely, all the way from Veremeulen to Copland.
I will not condemn any music for fear that others may find pleasure in it, but I will not waste my time with esoteric drivel and with witless comments of my opinions. Leiberman's Symphony is a full-throated and epic tonal work based on Wordworth's quotations.
Perhaps it is too high minded for some mentalities. but it really spoke to me. End of story
I'm all for music providing the highest pleasure. No disagreement there. But by 'Wordworth' might you possibly mean 'Whitman'? Important to clarify such things.
These have been fascinating exchanges! It's great to see the passion that the love of music can arouse. ;)
As this is about "Living Symphonists" .......... is a "symphonist" anyone who purports to have written a symphony? or maybe has published a symphony? or had one performed? It's an odd term really - after all, Bizet isn't commonly called a symphonist, nor Bernard Herrmann, but both have a symphony to their name. How about Vierne and Dupre - are they symphonists?
I'm not trying to start a debate about the definition of a symphony, of course ( ;D), but just asking what the parameters are for this thread.
I guess a 'living symphonist' would be someone who (on past performance) seems likely to write another symphony. Obviously an extremely subjective judgement, but I can't think of another.
Symphonists have to have written at least three symphonies but preferably at least four ;D If a composer has only written two symphonies then he is 'a composer of two symphonies' rather than a 'symphonist' ;D
That is my definition but it is totally personal, subjective and I would not for one second expect anyone else to agree with it :)
It's a reasonable working definition, but it may be a bit case-by-case. I would be more likely to think of Elgar, who only completed two symphonies as a symphonist, than Britten, who wrote four, since Britten didn't number his, they have no common characteristics (and thus the sense of a 'cycle'), and only one of them (the 'Spring Symphony') is really popular. Sorry, I do basically agree with your definition, but just wanted to say it doesn't always hold true for me. I don't think I'd call Bantock a symphonist either, despite the seven to his name. Anyway, none of these are living, so I suppose it's irrelevant.
I entirely agree :)
I was not being really serious. Elgar wrote two very big, major symphonies. It would be silly to deny him the status of a symphonist. Equally, Britten's use of the word 'symphony' is open to considerable debate. Having just attended a BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra concert in Glasgow at which the Britten Cello Symphony-a work which, frankly, I have never warmed to- was followed by RVW's Sixth Symphony (a work of genius :))) the Britten case is fresh in my mind ;D
Quote from: petershott@btinternet.com on Thursday 08 March 2012, 23:46
I'm all for music providing the highest pleasure. No disagreement there. But by 'Wordworth' might you possibly mean 'Whitman'? Important to clarify such things.
Glad to see this has generated so much interest in Leiberman's wonderful 2nd symphony.
Horror of Horrors..it is Walt Whitman..sorry for the misqueue and thanks for the correction..
this article describes it much better than I..I guess I'm a foolish old romantic..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._2_(Liebermann)
Quote from: JollyRoger on Friday 09 March 2012, 00:54
..........I guess I'm a foolish old romantic..
..... that's OK, as long as you aren't implying that the second two terms entail the first! ;D ;D
Quote from: Alan Howe on Thursday 08 March 2012, 20:19
Anyway, back to living symphonists...
Now, should I order Liebermann 2? Is the music pale neo-Romanticism or a musical statement worth hearing?
Based upon what I have seen of your musical tastes, I think you will find it a worthy investment...As far as pale neo-romanticism, pale schmaltz it is not certainly not that.. If Samuel Barber, Stephen Albert or Steven Paulus (and oh yes, heavens..Bernard Herrmann!!!) do not appeal to you, this music is not for you. It may not be musically innovative for some ..and perhaps there's the rub. I hope raised expectations do not jeopardize a good listening experience.
And how do we call a writer of over 215 symphonies? A symphoniac? ::)
Quote from: Christo on Friday 09 March 2012, 07:02
And how do we call a writer of over 215 symphonies? A symphoniac? ::)
;D ;D ;D
...and maybe those who listen to them
symphomaniacs? (careful with the typing there!! ;D)
OK, to Liebermann 2 (which I've now had a chance to hear thanks to the kindness of a member of this forum):
1. My first impressions are very positive - but I am a sucker for this sort of robust, tonal writing, so I must declare my prejudice straight away.
2. I think that Liebermann's Symphony may point to the hazards of writing in a neo-Romantic idiom in the modern era (it was premiered in 2000). So much music has flowed under the bridge, so to speak, in the past decades that such a straightforwardly communicative work is almost bound to remind us of all sorts of things, including film music (not necessarily bad) and similar works back in musical history. Thomas Schmidt-Kowalski faces the same set of challenges...
3. Liebermann 2 seems to be music that 'has legs'. There's plenty to get one's teeth into, plenty of melody and some passages of breathtaking majesty. Equally, I suppose, it could be dismissed as backward-looking and derivative. However, that doesn't bother me at all - but then, the romanticism of Schmidt-Kowalski doesn't bother me either. So, for me, it's a definite thumbs-up. Just don't expect cutting-edge stuff, that's all!
Now I am intrigued by the Lieberman symphony ;D (which I have never heard ;D)
People should try Liebermann's Piccolo Concerto if they REALLY want an interesting romp.
Referring back to my original post which launched this thread I notice (with some surprise) that I omitted Philip Glass :o Glass is now 75 but, as the composer of nine symphonies, certainly qualifies as a 'symphonist' ;D
There have been only a few passing comments on Glass throughout this thread and I get the impression that those who have mentioned him have little regard for Glass's music.
To be honest, I must confess the guilty secret that I rather like Glass ;D Not to sit and study but as hypnotically restful music. I do think that there is a place for this kind of thing for at least some people and I also applaud the fact that Glass did revert to the use of traditional musical forms in middle-age. I have actually just finished listenening to his Tirol Concerto for piano and string orchestra and, although the finale is rather tediously and, obviously, repetitively jolly, the rest of the concerto is actually rather beautiful.
I wouldn't want to have to listen to a surfeit of Glass but just now and again it is actually rather pleasant ;D
Quote from: Dundonnell on Friday 09 March 2012, 20:18
I must confess the guilty secret that I rather like Glass ;D
:o ::) ;)
I personally can't stand his 'symphonies', but do play his other music. As you say: for entertainment. ;D
I don't possess any Glass, though I have a regretted purchase of John Adams, but I have a friend who likes all that minimalist stuff and plays it at dinner parties, where I admit it makes quite reasonable background music, less grating that 'pop' and less demanding to be listened to than 'classical'. For myself, I usually play ballet music when I entertain. The latest Dutton Holbrooke, Aucassin and Nicolette is the latest, though sadly none of my guests have enquired about its composer.
Rather Adams and Glass than Boulez, Stockhausen or Ligeti any day, say I ;D
Little by little I have been taking in the substance of older comments, before I joined up. I notice that this discussion seemed to begin with Finns. And yet nowhere do I recall anyone commenting on Erik Fordell who, in my 1977 ASCAP catalogue, is credited with some 25 symphonies. I have have never heard a note of his music although I would very much like to.
But the question as to who is a "symphonist" seems a subjective one. Our Alan Hovhaness is not a "symphonist" with however many - 63? - in the same sense that my cousin, Roger Sessions, was with a mere 9. Something about the nature of one's response to the masterpieces of the past determines the
designation; the habit, I think, not the number of times that a composer has written "Symphony" on his manuscript.
Best to all.
Like shamokin88, I too would like to hear some Fordell - don't ask my why, I just have a feeling i would like it. :) Incidentally, there is one tiny piece of his currently available, a little string piece called I Folkton. It's on this CD:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sibelius-Rakastava-Fordell-Svendsen-Himmelens/dp/B0042NP4TS
Sorry - slightly OT.
Lee
Quote from: semloh on Friday 09 March 2012, 02:41
Quote from: JollyRoger on Friday 09 March 2012, 00:54
..........I guess I'm a foolish old romantic..
..... that's OK, as long as you aren't implying that the second two terms entail the first! ;D ;D
No indeed.....at age 72 , I'm old, lean to late and modern romantic in musical tastes,perhaps foolish at times...and let me add somewhat cantankerous.
Quote from: Christo on Friday 09 March 2012, 21:32
Quote from: Dundonnell on Friday 09 March 2012, 20:18
I must confess the guilty secret that I rather like Glass ;D
:o ::) ;)
I personally can't stand his 'symphonies', but do play his other music. As you say: for entertainment. ;D
I hesitate to post as this is off-topic but will be breif. Glass has written some engaging music when he dosen't outdo his stay, listen to the fascinating Concerto for Saxophone Quartet here on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF8oaYY7S7Q&feature=plcp&context=C457a627VDvjVQa1PpcFPZ06_LvJY8kwnEOw1R7ZkGE0u9GqrrPYc%3D
But in his more grandiose efforts(symphonies), I just can't conjure up the imagery required to stay attentive to music that appears contrived (IMHO) rather than inspired..So back to the thread, Glass is indeed a symphonist..he has created enough to qualify as such...
I try with some of these modernists. Silvestrov, for example, has been described as post-Mahlerian, neo-classical, that sort of thing. His music is not as abrasive as some, qualifies as tonal I suppose. but it is far from lyrical.
That said, I have uploaded a Silvestrov piece that, if not exactly endearing, is at least atmospheric and worthy of a listen.
I do have some more Silvestrov works that I can upload, if there is interest, including a symphony or two. Personally, I find his music ... (oh, the worst of all pejoratives a composer can suffer) .... boring.
Quote from: Amphissa on Sunday 11 March 2012, 23:26
I try with some of these modernists. Silvestrov, for example, has been described as post-Mahlerian, neo-classical, that sort of thing. His music is not as abrasive as some, qualifies as tonal I suppose. but it is far from lyrical.
That said, I have uploaded a Silvestrov piece that, if not exactly endearing, is at least atmospheric and worthy of a listen.
I do have some more Silvestrov works that I can upload, if there is interest, including a symphony or two. Personally, I find his music ... (oh, the worst of all pejoratives a composer can suffer) .... boring.
Silvestrov's relatively new Symphony No.8 (2007) is the only Silvestrov symphony I don't have a copy of.
Hrm. Even Dennis Busch (born 1947) only had 80 symphonies in storage with the American Music Center in New York City (as of 1994, but I don't think any later ones were stored*) (no.67 has been recorded.)
*they changed their policies at some point I gather. Whether his even larger number (ok, not several hundred- misremembered) of chamber serenades (mentioned in the NY Public Library catalog as also having been deposited there) had anything to do with that I couldn't rightly say but I feel like I'm gossiping in even so suggesting...) (Actually, it seems his 100 or so string trios take up the plurality of the 300-odd works there.)
Quite sure "modernist" is not the word for Silvestrov, objectively speaking- the term does have a fairly definite meaning and refers to a fairly definite period (and attitude) in the visual and musical (and other) arts. (It does not mean the same as modern or current, or even "progressive" or "avant-garde".) Based on what little I have seen in score and heard.
Quote from: Amphissa on Sunday 11 March 2012, 23:26
I try with some of these modernists. Silvestrov, for example, has been described as post-Mahlerian, neo-classical, that sort of thing. His music is not as abrasive as some, qualifies as tonal I suppose. but it is far from lyrical.
That said, I have uploaded a Silvestrov piece that, if not exactly endearing, is at least atmospheric and worthy of a listen.
I do have some more Silvestrov works that I can upload, if there is interest, including a symphony or two. Personally, I find his music ... (oh, the worst of all pejoratives a composer can suffer) .... boring.
I first heard a Silvestrov on an Olympia CD I bought years ago and was sorry I bought it have since disposed of it.
..I still do not know what all the fuss is about..
Perhaps its was not his best.
Quote from: eschiss1 on Wednesday 21 March 2012, 19:29
Quite sure "modernist" is not the word for Silvestrov, objectively speaking- the term does have a fairly definite meaning and refers to a fairly definite period (and attitude) in the visual and musical (and other) arts. (It does not mean the same as modern or current, or even "progressive" or "avant-garde".) Based on what little I have seen in score and heard.
This is rather like saying that "classical" refers only to music written during the period defined as the "Classical" period and that "romantic" refers only to music written during the "Romantic" period. Silvestrov incorporates many of the same approaches to composition used by "Modernist" composers, including serial. So, to me he is a modernist, even if he was born later than the original "Modernists." I'm not sure why he is commonly referred to a Mahlerian, because I hear very little in his music that sounds anything like Mahler. He certainly lacks the lyricism of Mahler.
Quote from: Dundonnell on Saturday 10 March 2012, 00:40
Rather Adams and Glass than Boulez, Stockhausen or Ligeti any day, say I ;D
I agree with this completely, although I like Glass better than I do Adams. I tend to like Glass better as background music to video, dance, etc. Not so much just to sit and listen.
Quote from: Amphissa on Saturday 24 March 2012, 15:22
I'm not sure why he is commonly referred to a Mahlerian, because I hear very little in his music that sounds anything like Mahler. He certainly lacks the lyricism of Mahler.
Silvestrov 5 seems to me contain a lot of music that looks back to Mahler...
QuoteSilvestrov 5 seems to me contain a lot of music that looks back to Mahler...
The music also often has an air of bittersweet nostalgia (Weltschmertz of sorts) that brings Mahler to mind. Also, unexpected shifts from major to minor, from tranquility to foreboding -- mood swings similar to Mahler. Certainly, none of Mahler's lyricism as such, but lovely, tender bits of melody throughout. In coming to grips with the work, I think it helps to sort of stand back and view it (hear it?) as an entirity, or at least in large sections, rather than trying to make too much send of isolated moments. There's a unique sweep to this work, with smaller units making up huge, sweeping phrases. A bit of Pettersson at times, too, I think.
I couldn't agree more with what you have written, Maris :)
Early Silvestrov-the Silvestrov certainly of at least the first three symphonies-are too avant-garde for me but the 5th Symphony embraces a richly late-romantic soundworld and melds that with modernist musical techniques to produce a work which (I agree) taken as a whole has a strangely alluring and often beautiful appeal.
Symphony No.7 by Arthur Butterworth (b.1923), his latest, will be given its premiere on 28th April 2012 at Huddersfield Town Hall (Huddersfield Philharmonic conducted by Nicholas Smith).
:)
Quote from: Albion on Sunday 25 March 2012, 16:40
Symphony No.7 by Arthur Butterworth (b.1923), his latest, will be given its premiere on 28th April 2012 at Huddersfield Town Hall (Huddersfield Philharmonic conducted by Nicholas Smith).
:)
Will this be a live or delayed broadcast on the internet? If so, where?
Quote from: fr8nks on Sunday 25 March 2012, 18:54Will this be a live or delayed broadcast on the internet? If so, where?
Neither - you'll have to be there to hear this latest offering from one of our foremost symphonic composers, I'm afraid...
:(
... unless Dutton already have it lined up, of course (hopefully with No.6).
;)
Disgraceful!! The BBC should be there to broadcast this important premiere. Oh, but, sorry - I forgot - this is music by a respected and talented British composer who writes interesting, strongly constructed music, accessible to all, and whose artistic roots are in the pre-Glock era. Well, naturally, let's ignore him - after all, there are plenty of precedents for so doing. We are only the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation.
Quote from: Albion on Sunday 25 March 2012, 19:06
Quote from: fr8nks on Sunday 25 March 2012, 18:54Will this be a live or delayed broadcast on the internet? If so, where?
Neither - you'll have to be there to hear this latest offering from one of our foremost symphonic composers, I'm afraid...
:(
... unless Dutton already have it lined up, of course (hopefully with No.6).
;)
....or Dutton could record the 2nd and 3rd symphonies and then the 6th and 7th ;D
Quote from: Gareth Vaughan on Sunday 25 March 2012, 19:50
Disgraceful!! The BBC should be there to broadcast this important premiere. Oh, but, sorry - I forgot - this is music by a respected and talented British composer who writes interesting, strongly constructed music, accessible to all, and whose artistic roots are in the pre-Glock era. Well, naturally, let's ignore him - after all, there are plenty of precedents for so doing. We are only the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation.
Oooh.......bitter ;D
You are of course quite correct...but I fear that the sort of 'young' people the BBC currently employ as Music Producers have probably never heard of Butterworth or regard him as some relic whose music is only played by those wierd folk 'up North'.
Still.......with the BBC now locating to Salford there might be some hope ??? Nah, unlikely, when did the BBC Philharmonic last do a Butterworth symphony ???
The BBC is not alone in her dismissal of Arthur Butterworth:
I don't remember the source of the following story and so cannot guarantee for its truth. (Was it perhaps Music Web International?)
A few years ago Chandos wanted to commission a bassoon concerto from a British composer for Karen Geoghegan.
Despite the fact that Arthur Butterworth had already written his Summer Music Op. 77, a kind of bassoon concerto, he was asked if he would like to write another one and he accepted.
Then Chandos declared that they wouldn't record a piece by Butterworth and the commission was cancelled. It went to Howard Blake, I think.
Here's a tiny bit of information about the Geoghegan-Blake connection:
http://www.howardblake.com/music/Orchestral/String-Orchestra/840/CONCERTO-FOR-OBOE-AND-STRING-ORCHESTRA.htm (http://www.howardblake.com/music/Orchestral/String-Orchestra/840/CONCERTO-FOR-OBOE-AND-STRING-ORCHESTRA.htm)
Can anybody confirm this outrageous story?
I hope it is NOT true... :-\
Edit: part of my memory has come back. Though I still cannot remember the source of the story it was NOT Chandos who commissioned the piece.
As far as I know Chandos doesn't commission pieces at all. Sorry, Chandos, I didn't want to blame you for a 'crime' you didn't commit! ;)
But as Geoghegan records exclusively for Chandos and Chandos wasn't willing to record Butterworth the commission had to be withdrawn.
Now, who can confirm or refute this story with facts?
possibly 7 years (symphony 5), possibly less...
One advantage of living in Huddersfield was that I was able to get along to the Arthur Butterworth premiere, in a well-attended concert at the Town Hall. Butterworth's 7th Symphony is in a single movement of about 20 minutes for normal orchestral forces, with the addition of a third trumpet. Sibelius' 7th is name-checked in the programme note, but this piece is loosely a rondo and based on a 3 note theme developed rhythmically and harmonically. There are some striking passages, notably in the slower section about two thirds into the symphony, with groups of woodwind/brass playing to a background of shimmering strings. A well-argued work, which I would enjoy hearing again.
The composer was at the performance and acknowledged the deserved acclaim. If I'm fortunate to live to my late 80s, it would be good to look as well as Arthur Butterworth .
Lucky man...or, rather, men ;D Butterworth to still be, apparently, hale, hearty and composing at 89 years of age and you to have been able to hear the new 7th Symphony :)
It REALLY is incumbent on Dutton to celebrate Butterworth's 90th birthday by recording the rest of his symphonies plus the Violin and Cello Concertos. We have Symphonies Nos. 1, 4 and 5 on disc. Let's have the others, please, as a tribute to a living British composer whose music is tonal, lyrical, and eminently accessible and attractive but who has been ignored by the London-based critical mafia :( Yes, he is heavily influenced by his beloved Sibelius, and by Vaughan Williams and Bax......but SO WHAT?
Although Benjamin Lees died in 2010, his symphonies are still very much alive. They certainly bear repeated hearings, and I'm starting to suspect that they may be a major cycle.
Quote from: Dundonnell on Wednesday 02 May 2012, 00:56
It REALLY is incumbent on Dutton to celebrate Butterworth's 90th birthday by recording the rest of his symphonies plus the Violin and Cello Concertos.
No, it isn't! Desirable, certainly - but Dutton don't have any moral responsibility here. They're a commercial company with all sorts of interests and priorities to balance. Let's get a little perspective here...
My apologies for upsetting you, Alan :)
I admit I was somewhat carried away with my indignation about Butterworth's neglect at the hands of the other parts of the musical fraternity :-[
Dutton have done a lot for Butterworth's music and that is very much to their credit :) I readily withdraw the word "incumbent" and happily subsitute the words "devoutly to be be wished" :)
No need for any apology, I'm sure. As you will no doubt agree, the recording companies have given us enormous riches in recent times for which we are all extremely grateful. Of course, we all want more of our own particular favourites and find it hard (even impossible) to understand their neglect, but one never can tell what might be round the corner.....
BTW I feel your pain. I've been hoping some company might feel it incumbent upon them to record some more Draeseke, but realise that all I can do is fervently hope...
He's mentioned under the Australian Composers thread, but this seems a good place also to nominate the symphonies by Benton Broadstock. Absolutely dazzling, vividly colourful and intensely dramatic works, they would go down a storm IF (along with 90% of the 20th/21st century repertoire) they ever stood a snowballs chance in hell of getting performed here: but this would involve a reassessment of the desperately limited and parochial core repertoire so drastic it'll simply never happen. (And indeed, to reinforce the point on record they're performed (bizarrely, but stunningly well) by a Siberian orchestra! )
Following your post I went to the downloaded file of the Brenton Broadstock Symphony No.2 "Stars in a Dark Night" which I don't think I had ever listened to before.
Good stuff, indeed as you say ;D What are the other symphonies like in comparison ???
You can hear some excerpts here...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Broadstock-Good-Angels-Tears-Brenton/dp/B002YZHF4S/ref=sr_1_1_digr?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1336295101&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Broadstock-Good-Angels-Tears-Brenton/dp/B002YZHF4S/ref=sr_1_1_digr?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1336295101&sr=1-1)
I have the Etcetera set of Broadstock's first five symphonies (I believe there's now a sixth). They gather a bit of dust I'm afraid - interesting enough stuff, but then I find there's an awful lot of contemporary music that I find more interesting and rewarding.
My impressions? Certainly colourful and vivid music. But all - and I hope I'm not unfair - pretty much heart on the sleeve stuff. Frequently violent and a lot of it 'works' by making a full frontal assault on the ears - especially with great outbursts of brass. Think a kind of updated Australian Malcolm Arnold (though Arnold seemed to me a much more gifted composer). And certainly nothing like so interesting as Peter Sculthorpe.
Broadstock certainly attracts his enthusiasts - but, just like Hovhannes, people are either zealous in proclaiming his musical gifts or else content to give the stuff a miss thinking they haven't lost out by doing so. I can understand Dylan's enthusiasm, but I remain a Broadstock agnostic.
Quote from: shamokin88 on Saturday 10 March 2012, 01:02
And yet nowhere do I recall anyone commenting on Erik Fordell who, in my 1977 ASCAP catalogue, is credited with some 25 symphonies. I have have never heard a note of his music although I would very much like to.
There seems to be at least 44, actually. The FIMIC website provides composition dates, and titles when relevant, for 38 of them. How do they sound, now that is a different story.
As for the Hovhaness vs. Sessions comment, while I do personnaly think that Sessions is indeed the greatest American symphonist ever, even is Harris's Third might be the best single symphony, I would not be so harsh as to deny Hovhaness the qualification of "symphonist". Several of his works called symphonies are worthy achievements in their own right (the relatively famous No. 2, but also Nos. 9, 19, 50...).
May I ask a potentially unanswerable question? >
Is it possible to put the symphonists writing over the past, say, 30-40 years, in particular categories so that we can 'map the symphonic terrain'?
Quote from: Alan Howe on Thursday 24 May 2012, 08:16
May I ask a potentially unanswerable question? >
Is it possible to put the symphonists writing over the past, say, 30-40 years, in particular categories so that we can 'map the symphonic terrain'?
How would the categories be defined? How many categories? There may also be some overlap between categories...
I was hoping we might be able to come up with groups or families of like-minded symphonists. Perhaps, though, the terrain is too disparate in order to attempt such a thing?
Quote from: Alan Howe on Thursday 24 May 2012, 11:44
I was hoping we might be able to come up with groups or families of like-minded symphonists. Perhaps, though, the terrain is too disparate in order to attempt such a thing?
It surely must be far too disparate for that; indeed, one could argue that it
should be so today, given the vast diversity of approaches to the composition of music nowadays compared to 100 years ago, let alone 200 years ago! That said, one could also argue that there is something about "the symphony" - and even more so "the string quartet" - that endures come what may, otherwise we'd have few or no living symphonists to discuss.
Suppose one looks at major living British symphonists who either have five or more symphonies to their credit or have been composing symphonies throughout most of their careers (or both); the first names that probably come to mind would be Peter Maxwell Davies, John McCabe and David Matthews, but one would hardly think to lump them together as members of some kind of present-day "English symphonic school"! Broadening the British symphonic horizons to include habitual symphonists who have lived and worked into the last quarter of the 20th century, far more names spring to mind, perhaps the most notable being Simpson, Hoddinott, Jones, Rubbra, Lloyd and Arnold with some 65 symphonies between them - and Searle, too, of course - but, once again, all that really "links" them is the very fact that the symphony remained a vital creative means for each of them throughout most of their composing lives. Most of Searle's symphonies lean towards atonality for quite a bit of the time (rather as most of Sessions's do), but the symphonies of both are real symphonies, without question. Oh - and let's not forget that Elgar also finished a symphony during that last quarter!...
Quote from: Christo on Friday 09 March 2012, 07:02
And how do we call a writer of over 215 symphonies? A symphoniac? ::)
I'm not sure what you would actually
call such a composer but you'd have to acknowledge his/her Segerstamina in having written at least that many...
He obviously needs to get a leif.... ;)
Quote from: ahinton on Thursday 24 May 2012, 14:14
Quote from: Christo on Friday 09 March 2012, 07:02
And how do we call a writer of over 215 symphonies? A symphoniac? ::)
I'm not sure what you would actually call such a composer but you'd have to acknowledge his/her Segerstamina in having written at least that many...
well, there is one (still living) composer of (a.o.) symphonies, one William Louis Schirmer (°1941), who's at present ever-growing catalog now numbers over 4,000 works in all genres, and includes at least 258 symphonies, 403 piano sonatas and 217 string quartets! That makes for some Segerstammering....!
All best,
Gijs
Quote from: Alan Howe on Thursday 24 May 2012, 14:40
He obviously needs to get a leif.... ;)
He already has one - as one of today's most remarkable conductors (of course) - so perhaps he should instead consider taking a leif out of someone else's book...
Quote from: Gijs vdM on Thursday 24 May 2012, 14:40
Quote from: ahinton on Thursday 24 May 2012, 14:14
Quote from: Christo on Friday 09 March 2012, 07:02
And how do we call a writer of over 215 symphonies? A symphoniac? ::)
I'm not sure what you would actually call such a composer but you'd have to acknowledge his/her Segerstamina in having written at least that many...
well, there is one (still living) composer of (a.o.) symphonies, one William Louis Schirmer (°1941), who's at present ever-growing catalog now numbers over 4,000 works in all genres, and includes at least 258 symphonies, 403 piano sonatas and 217 string quartets! That makes for some Segerstammering....!
All I know of him is the name; have you ever heard any of his music? I haven't. I wonder how many more works he has completed since you posted about him here?(!). I have at least heard a few pieces by Segerstam...
Ahem...
Right now, I'm listening to Slonimsky Symphony № 27, Lyrical (2009), at:
http://classical-music-online.net/en/production/29283 (http://classical-music-online.net/en/production/29283)
I'm rather happy, finding my way back to 1952 in Leningrad...without actually having to be there.
Quote from: swanekj on Saturday 23 June 2012, 01:25
Right now, I'm listening to Slonimsky Symphony № 27, Lyrical (2009), at:
http://classical-music-online.net/en/production/29283 (http://classical-music-online.net/en/production/29283)
You can find a recording of a concert containing Slonimsky's 30th symphony here:
http://panovnik.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/vladimir-altshuler-slonimsky-08042012.html
and his 32'nd symphony is about to be premiered:
http://www.mikhailovsky.ru/en/afisha/shows.html?date=2012-07-09&sh=1138 (http://www.mikhailovsky.ru/en/afisha/shows.html?date=2012-07-09&sh=1138)
I've enjoyed this forum for at least a few years, but I'm not sure I have ever posted anything. I am fond of several of the composers talked about here and have learned of new ones. I hope I am not overstepping if I introduce my own music here. These are two movements of a suite for strings I wrote 2 years ago. It is all about things to do with space. The music is neo-romantic (which is usually the way I go). The suite is called Scenes Unseen: Views from Ivory Towers and has been published and performed. Unfortunately I could not get a good recording of the live performance, so this Garritan virtual orchestra will have to do.
I am including links here to two Youtube videos (my first ones). Schiaparelli's Dream is the second movement of the suite and has to do with the intoxication of a grand dream and the sobering effect of reflection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F14qpqpX14 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F14qpqpX14)
The second link is the third movement and is called Through a Wormhole. It's just a cosmic rollercoaster ride: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKdqcxnc4es (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKdqcxnc4es) .
Thank you for listening!
Scott Aaron Miller
QuoteYou can find a recording of a concert containing Slonimsky's 30th symphony here:
http://panovnik.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/vladimir-altshuler-slonimsky-08042012.html
I cannot figure out how to download this. It seems to want a username and password.
Amphissa - Copy the link that appears in the comments at http://panovnik.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/vladimir-altshuler-slonimsky-08042012.html into your URL. You'll get a page with a request, in Russian, to copy a set of letters/numbers into the space provided - do that, then click on the green box below it. The web page will then change, and you'll see a web link in blue near the top (don't click on the green box!); click on that blue web address and you'll get the download. Be warned that it is a 308MB file! ???
Thanks, Colin. Very helpful.
Just a quick reminder for those resurrecting older threads such as this one: the remit of UC changed in August 2012 to cover romantic-style music only. You will find our changed remit here:
http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,3681.0.html (http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,3681.0.html)