I know I'm starting very broad, but I'm broadening (I swear I didn't intend this to get so punny early on) my own musical tastes. I've tended to be of the mindset that if the symphony is the be-all-end-all of a composer's strength. Something struck me in another post when someone said that the composer's piano concertos were his strengths.
I'd love to know what/why you tend to gravitate towards a particular piece of music.
Also, any "unsung" suggestions would be most appreciated!
Quote from: monafam on Wednesday 17 June 2009, 00:47
Something struck me in another post when someone said that the composer's piano concertos were his strengths.
I wouldn't know, without seeing the context, what you the poster you referred to meant but I would assume that he meant that particular composer's strength was piano concertos. I doubt he meant it as a general statement of fact.
Each composer has their particular strengths and weaknesses. Very few composers are gifted in all areas of composition. I also suppose a composers strengths generally lie with the instruments he knows best. Beethoven for instance was quite adept at playing the piano and knew how to write for it. His piano sonatas and piano concertos are some of the best ever written. His operas, on the other hand, are fine but, in my opinion, not the best of his work, outside of maybe Fidelio. Anyway, I think you get the idea.
As to why I gravitate to particular pieces of music is almost anybodies guess but I suppose mostly it has to do with melody, but not exclusively. Some of my favorite pieces may not offer much in the way of melody but are interesting to listen to none the less. Also, mood has a lot to do with influencing what I like and what I want to listen to. In my discovery of classical music I have gone through phases of interest. I might be really into symphonies for a while or even narrow it to modern or American symphonies. I go through periods where I won't listen to symphonies for months at a stretch but will listen regularly to piano sonatas and chamber music. I might dwell for periods on a particular composer's work or a particular artist or conductor. There is so much to explore in classical music the fields of inquiry and interest are indeed endless. I have been listening to classical music since I was 16 and that was 37 years ago now and I am still a learner. ;)
Kevin
Quote from: Kevin Pearson on Wednesday 17 June 2009, 04:57His operas, on the other hand, are fine but, in my opinion, not the best of his work, outside of maybe Fidelio.
And what other operas have you heard by him? o.O
Quote from: TerraEpon on Wednesday 17 June 2009, 06:08
And what other operas have you heard by him? o.O
There I go! Showing my ignorance again! ;D I hate opera so I know little about it and I was sure that Beethoven had written more than one. Oh well.... ::)
Kevin
The answer for me is probably the symphony, which I do regard as the ultimate form of musical expression.
However, Verdi's Otello is great music, as are Raff's Piano Quartets. And now I have discovered Klughardt's wonderful Violin Concerto, so, much as I think the symphony is the ultimate, I could not possibly limit myself to a particular form as the one I like best. Great music is great music, whatever form it takes, and in the end that is what I like best.
Thanks for the replies up to this point!
I probably should have clarified that the other posts was referring to a specific composer being more adept (or producing better) piano concertos than symphonies. I don't believe it was piece vs piece in the grand scheme of things.
That being said, maybe that's part of my issue. It's not like my collection is deplete of non-symphonic work, but those are the ones that catch my eye. Since I will normally gravitate towards symphonic work, I could be missing out on a composer's strengths? Maybe that is precisely the sorts of things I can ask this group.
Kevin mentioned not liking opera – this is a form of classical music I have never fully appreciated. The only full "opera" I have is Philip Glass' "La Belle et la Bête", which certainly doesn't fit the normal operatic mold. Anything else I have are just highlights (Dvorak's Rusalka is an example, but I only listen to one of the instrumental pieces). I think I've never appreciated the vocals in opera – maybe I need to expand in that area – plus they tend to be longer and possibly more expensive (?).
Alan is right though that great music is great music!
Symphony as the ultimate form of expression is valid.... if we are talking about ... say Beethoven or Schubert or Dvorak. But there are others who excelled in other forms of music. R. Strauss eg. was his best in Symphonic poems, Grieg in miniature piano pieces. Some composers weren't comfortable in the Symphonic medium or were simply couldn't get out of Beetoven's shadow... Brahms for eg. finished his 1st symphony much later in his career (although personaly I'm not a fan of his symphonies [Brahms fans sorry] I find the orchestration too thick except in the beautiful pastoral 2nd!). Even Schumann's symphonies sound a little muddy at times to me. They were simply good at other things. eg. Its interesting to speculate how a Debussy Symphony would sound (A never ending Monet dream???) but the fact still remains He DID NOT compose one; just shows each composer has his own medium of expression.
Interestingly Russian composers seem to be born orchestrators. Take some of the symphonies of Borodine, Kallinikov, Rimsky-Korsakov, Glazunov ,Tchaikovsky, Lyapunov....
Quote from: FBerwald on Wednesday 17 June 2009, 20:01
Interestingly Russian composers seem to be born orchestrators. Take some of the symphonies of Borodine, Kallinikov, Rimsky-Korsakov, Glazunov ,Tchaikovsky, Lyapunov....
...... and all the 6 symphonies by Anton Rubinstein...... although these are not as good as the heavenly 4 Brahms's masterpieces...... ;)
Back to more serious talk. In my opinion the symphony is the most complete musical expression, followed by the concerto for one (or more) solo instruments and orchestra. However, listening to a symphony by Rufinatscha gives me a happy feeling, but after the coda of Tchaikovski's
Pathétique I'm not in a joyous mood, although I find this one of the greatest symphonies ever written. Some music lovers think that the string quartet is the most intimate musical form, and I can go along with that. If I had a tough working day, with a lot of people keeping me busy, and I get home and want to relax, I love to listen to smooth piano music, and Xaver Scharwenka can be my choice. If I want to get into a sad mood (don't ask me why), I might listen to Strauss's
Vier letzte Lieder (I'd better say, these songs, especially
Im Abendrot, make me sad). If I'm busy at home, but like to listen to easy classical background music, it can be short piano pieces by Heller. In wintertime, sitting near the fire with a nice bottle of bordeaux, I love chamber music e.g. Raff's piano trios. Dreaming away is good possible while listening to something like the
Siegfried-Idyll. A piano concerto like the Henselt certainly keeps me awake. So it also depends on the situation.
Summa summarum, like Alan says, "great music is great music, whatever form it takes". And I fully agree on that. No art influences my mood more than music.
The symphony --- no question. In particular the symphonies written from say 1875 to 1925? I like the big orchestral sound of the late romantics and the colorful writing of the nationalists from Russia, Poland, and elsewhere. There's a lot of it that may not be great music in the Mozartian/Beethoven sense, and some it may be quite shallow, but I just love the infinitely varying sounds composers could draw from a large orchestra. Also, the symphony allows a composer to display many different moods if you will in one large composition. I'll take a Balakirev 1, Bloch C# minor, Atterberg 6, Schmidt 4 any day over anything by Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Schumann et al.
I would agree with the majority on this forum in that I find the symphony the most satisfying musical form. From the age of 12 when I discovered those of Haydn and Mozart I was hooked. I later found out about sonata form from a BBC educational program for children. I still take the later Haydn and Mozart symphonies as a yardstick by which to judge other works in the same genre. However, I'm also inclined to agree with those who regard Beethoven's last few quartets as his greatest masterpieces. I tend to think of music for strings alone or for keyboard alone as being in monochrome whereas music written for full orchestra or a mixed chamber combination as being in full colour.
I'm just an old concertohead! ;D Love symphonies, but concertante works, especially for my first love, the piano, are my thing. Of course, I'll never turn down solo or chamber music either, but concertos top my list, along with brown paper packages tied up with strings... ::)
It's nice to know I'm not alone with my symphonial (spell check tells me this isn't a word...but I like the way it sounds) tastes. That being said, I do think I will do what I can to go after other instrumental pieces. I am going to need some help appreciating opera or other vocal (although I am usually open to religious vocal works) music.
There's no such word as "symphonial". "Symphonic" would be appropriate. However, if there were such a word as symphonial, well, then I guess you spelled it correctly! :D
Quote from: JimL on Thursday 18 June 2009, 22:36
There's no such word as "symphonial". "Symphonic" would be appropriate. However, if there were such a word as symphonial, well, then I guess you spelled it correctly! :D
"Symphonic" certainly is the more appropriate choice. I was at work and my mind was clearly not working!
Quote from: JimL on Thursday 18 June 2009, 22:36
There's no such word as "symphonial". "Symphonic" would be appropriate. However, if there were such a word as symphonial, well, then I guess you spelled it correctly! :D
Symphonial may not be a "proper" word but monafam certainly was not the first one to ever use it. I think I'll go open a bottle of Symphonial wine! ;)
Kevin
Not as ambitious as the Symphony, the serenade in a form I enjoy. Dvorak and Suk are my fav!
I should guess that the majority of music lovers will place symphonic music as the highest compositional achievement because, to be appealing and successful, a symphony requires of the composer a universal understanding and mastery of numerous structural forms, instrumentation, thematic development and logic and is infused throughout by the unique personality of the composer. Only think of Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn for example, to see (and hear) all of these in full measure.
However, few would argue that Wagner and Verdi did not achieve the ultimate expression of 19th century opera, without having much to say in symphonic or chamber music.
I would argue that equal to symphonic composition, which requires the widest compositional techniques, the string quartet and string quintet must be placed. Success in these two genres requires a highly specific understanding and disciplined handling of narrow resources, as well as the same knowledge of form, thematic development and so forth. Jim will quite rightly say that similar disciplines are demanded in concerto composition - it's just that I find concertos less appealing (probably because of the obvious virtuosic display and bravura qualities they elicit from the performers).
Most composers lean one way or the other: symphonies and concertos or chamber or choral, but few excel at all. Even Beethoven produced only one complete opera (though there are numerous fragments of an earlier work, 'Vestas Feuer' of 1803). Raff was the great 19th century exception (even ahead of Mendelssohn and Ries, I think), excelling in all forms and it is thanks to his genius that we are talking to each other so happily now!
Cheers, Lew
You're right about Raff, Lew, but don't forget my all-round hero Rubinstein... ;)
You're right, Peter - Rubinstein was prolific in all forms. He'd slipped my memory!
Lew
Quote from: Lew on Friday 19 June 2009, 14:55Jim will quite rightly say that similar disciplines are demanded in concerto composition - it's just that I find concertos less appealing (probably because of the obvious virtuosic display and bravura qualities they elicit from the performers).
Ah, but Lew, it is precisely due to the addition of those qualities to the ones you have already enumerated in your post that I esteem the concerto above all other musical genres!
Draeseke excelled in almost every genre too. A shame very few people seem to know his music.
My personal preference is for tonal music generally described as orchestral: That universe includes symphonies, concertos, tone poems, ballets, overtures, and string orchestra. Sorry(I know this is a blind spot for me), but solo or small ensemble pieces seldom interest me. Having a hummable melody, or a memorable theme is helpful. Lengthy pieces(>30 minutes) tend to loose me unless they are quite variable and do not meander endlessly or repeat the main theme unchanged over and over again. But I do like most variations on a theme...which might be a subect for another thread.
Necropost! This was partially touched on the thread I started on purchasing decisions.
My mother used to contrast orchestral music and chamber music by saying that an orchestral piece is like the beauty of a summer landscape, while (say) a string quartet was like the beauty of a tree in winter - outlines more than colouring. But she would never listen to piano music, which I would say is the same analogy.
One of my favorite, though now quite obsolete, definitions of chamber music was, music written by and played by instrumentalists for themselves, the audience being welcome guests on a conversation but not the primary and actual _audience_... the same (I think) author claimed this was even the case for some of the almost-earliest chamber music, from the 16th century or so (iirc.)
(There was also something about how the particular instrumental qualities of the viola da gamba, an instrument that cannot be played loudly without sounding badly "off", affected... well, that's only historically relevant- well, no, not only historically, but making the connection is beyond my sleepy self right now... :) :)
Speaking in very, very broad strokes indeed and generalities of the most unspecific and easily contradicted manner, there's a chamber-music way of writing that involves close conversation between instrumental lines and a larger-ensemble way of writing that more emphasizes, relatively speaking, the larger gesture - or so "one" wants to say, with the realization that there's too many counterexamples for me to feel comfortable in making such statements. (So why did I? ... hrm. ... *begs off with sleepiness and rewrites in the morning*)
Quotethe audience being welcome guests on a conversation but not the primary and actual _audience_
... pretty much a definition of why I heartily dislike live jazz!
Or any jazz, come to that.
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Tuesday 21 May 2013, 10:44
Or any jazz, come to that.
You obviously have not heard me play the plectrum banjo ;D
Thal
It's probably for the best, Thal!
Or to quote the punchline of an old cartoon, "So much for the electric Jew's harp".
For the most part I like to delve into new territory by exploring a composers solo piano works. The piano is the instrument that speaks to me more than any other...
And I don't play, so Ive no idea why...