Messages

Coincidentally, last week I came across a live performance on YouTube of Cecil Forsyth's Viola Concerto.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS1_8bfhCgk

I found it to be on the sunny side of pleasant.  Even though it was written past the year 1900, I think it's very clearly within this site's remit.  I don't really know what general opinions are of it, but I liked it.  I'm not sure I'd eagerly seek it out in the near future for a second complete listen, but while it was playing, I got a fair amount of enjoyment.  Sounds to me like it was written in the 1890s or even 1880s, for what that's worth.

I'm about halfway through a biography on Chadwick that I just got last week, by Bill F. Faucett, and took a break from reading it tonight to look some stuff up online.  Looks like imslp now has Chadwick's Symphony #1 up!  It is, however, a scan of a very old version of the handwritten score.  On the dedication page, that may even be Chadwick's own handwriting!  Not sure.  At the end of the last page, there's what very much does look like his signature, though whether that's him signing a copyist's version to certify it, or whether this is the scan of the actual original, I don't know.  But I would love to know, I definitely would.  It would be really special were this a scan of his original, in my opinion.

Would be difficult - impossible in practical terms - to perform this symphony from this scanned version.  I've looked over it a bit, and even not knowing how to read an orchestral score, I can tell this needs to be put into a more clear version for performance.

Still, I was quite excited to see it, just looked it up on a whim and there it was!  Looks like it was uploaded to the site about 2 years after this thread petered out, in December of 2014.  I'm not sure whether it was gifted, or a charge was made by the NEC to copy it, and a generous individual donated the scan to IMSLP.  However it was done, I think this is fantastic in its own right, and potentially even more fantastic if it ever gets its day in front of recording equipment.  It's clear from this book that Faucett has examined the score and thinks it inferior to Chadwick's later 2 symphonies, but I'd sure love to hear it.

Sorry to dredge up such an old thread, but I was really excited about this accidental "discovery" and wanted to share it.  Also sorry if it was already mentioned in a more recent thread, but I didn't find anything when I looked to make sure before posting here.

I would like to nominate the sole known symphony of Ignaz Moscheles as an added candidate for discussion here.  People on this very board know virtually infinitely more than I do about music, and I not only respect, but almost depend on their opinions for my Romantic-era musical purchases!  Robert Schumann certainly couldn't be given less credit.  So why am I filled with a similar feeling when listening to the symphony of Moscheles as to what I experience when listening to the Symphony #3 Eroica of Beethoven?  Don't take this wrong: though the #3 and #8 are my "least favourite" of Beethoven's symphonies, they are still both probably at the least near my all-time favourite symphonies list, which is why to this day I feel Beethoven might be the greatest - by average- symphonist in my estimation.  Did Schumann's fairly negative review damage this late-Classical/early-Romantic symphony?  I'm not making a stand on this, just pointing out that the first time I listened to it, I had no idea Schumann even knew of its existence, and I feel in tremendous love with it.  I was honestly stunned to read translations of Schumann's reviews.  Did this have lasting impact on the reputation of Moscheles?  Maybe?  Schumann seemed in general favourable toward his other music.  Did that have a positive impact?  If so, that seems to have faded.  But Schumann surely is considered by the general experts as "great" as a composer... and he seems to have had a high opinion of Moscheles' music in general...  but now not even a single piece of Moscheles seems to be held in high regard!  Was his opinion worth anything?  And if so, how much?  And if not, why not? 

[prove]

I think the problem here is that people are making the old mistake of confusing "I like this" and "this is good". It is an objective truth that, in terms of taste, a fine burgundy is better than lemonade. That is provable - there is complexity and subtlety in the wine that is lacking in the soft drink. However, you may prefer lemonade, and that's fine. That is your taste, and on a hot day it may be that anyone will prefer the lemonade. But you cannot elevate the lemonade to the same status as the burgundy and say it's all subjective.

But everything you list just involves complexity.  Complexity is not objectively BETTER than simplicity.  Nothing that you said there proves anything is objectively better than anything else, you're just stating that a given Brucker symphony is better than some unidentified salon waltz because it has "subtle twists" (your opinion).  Why isn't brevity in music "better"?  Why isn't simplicity in music "better"?

And yes, yes I can say that a lemonade is better than a fine burgundy, since there's nothing whatsoever objective in the statement one way or another.  If it's objectively better, then a computer with no feeling and no taste buds would be capable, using some kind of mathematical formula or something, to prove beyond all argument that it is so, since objectivity doesn't require (or account for) taste: it deals purely with factual reality.  I'd also like to see how a tribe of people which has never encountered alcohol or lemons would react to blindly sampling both.  What if they have a discussion and decide that, clearly, it is an objective fact that the drink with alcohol in it is inferior, and seem to think it's just blatantly obvious that this is so?  If it's objective, then surely a majority should not draw a factually incorrect conclusion based on tasting each?  But I'd bet, based on initial reactions many have to alcohol, such a result would be very possible, no matter how fine the burgundy is.

But as you well know, Humans can't and will never be capable of proving good or bad, better or worse (which means they are not objective concepts, by definition).  Or, if it is objective, then I have to ask by which science or method this objectivity will be proven, and by what formula.  Mathematics? Physics?  What is the absolute, exact mathematical formula for "good"?

Such an argument of 'if an individual feels it, then it must be true,' strikes me of solipsism.

I'm saying that saying something is good or bad can't ever be "true".  Regardless of the sheer number of individuals who share in it, an opinion never becomes an objective, mathematical reality.  It's nothing to do with solipsism, it's just pointing out that giving out grades of what is better or worse than something else cannot ever, by definition, be objective.  It's not provable by any science that Beethoven was "better" than Hummel, just as it's not objectively true to say that anything is "better" or "worse" than anything else.  These concepts are the opposite of objectivity.

Everyone seems to be using the word "objective" to simply mean "mass opinion".  I'm not saying mass, or established, opinion has no value to me; I think it has much less for me than it might for most others, but still has some.  Otherwise, why would I love reading people's thoughts and feelings on composers and works on this board so much?  Not only that, by using the "mass opinion" at times of this site I've spent quite a bit of money buying CDs and been delighted.  I'm not claiming to be completely unplugged from the system.  I only brought all this up in the hopes that people won't feel that they are obligated to feel that certain composers or works are good or bad, better or worse, based on what anyone else - or indeed everyone else - says.

I've noted a disc or two in my time that I had considered buying when first learning of it, but opinions on this board dissuaded me.  I chose to heed the opinions of people here I've come to trust quite strongly.   But it was just that: a choice.  Might I have bought these discs anyway, and possibly loved them tremendously?  Yes.  But I see there is value in choosing to heed expert opinion.  But I'm not obligated to, nor am I required to agree with what they say is good or bad, better or worse.  And when/if I do listen to those works, my eventual feelings about them will be completely unaffected by anything that anyone else says, purely by how my own nervous system and various chemicals in my body happen to react as I listen.

And I feel a lot of composers are unsung today because of a calcified composer/work hierarchy that depends largely on people never being willing to even accept the possibility that they might have a different reaction to those composers/works than that mandated from on high.  It's partially never listening, but it's also listening with a pre-judgment already in their heads.  They don't let their body react naturally, but instead set up a barrier in advance to block out what might be a purely positive experience, and artificially force it to become only lukewarm.  I've loaned people music CDs of unsung composers before and seen the look on their face, the tone of their voice clearly conveying their low expectations.  And there'd probably be a fair shaking up of this hierarchy if people would just listen with no expectations.

Everything I was saying was under the assumption that you were a composer also!
But even in this case, it would only be objective to say:
"Beethoven was a composer.  Alan Howe is not a composer."
It has nothing to do with anything being better or worse than anything else; even saying something existent is "better" than something non-existent is still subjective.  It can't ever be proven by science or mathematics, and is still an opinion.  Even if an opinion were, as I shared, truly 100% universal amongst all Humans, it's still subjective.

I am making an objective statement which seems true: value judgments are never objective by definition.  My statement does not state whether this is good or bad, or better or worse than anything else, simply that it is so.

I can say murder is bad, and will.  It's just not objectively provable.  It can't be proven one way or another that something is good or bad.  Only mathematics and other pure factual things are objective.  They are true regardless of any feelings or opinions, they are just facts.

Saying Beethoven was born in 1770 is an objective statement.
Saying Beethoven was a good composer is a subjective opinion.

Even if there were a statement declaring something as good and this view was shared by every Human being who ever lived, lives now, and ever will live, even then it is not objective.  It's still subjective.  Any statement of something being good, bad, better or worse is automatically subjective.  You can break down music as it's playing and identify all the various soundwaves, &c., but you can't look at a chart of two of these broken down side by side and prove that one set of vibrations is "better" than another.  There is no mathematical formula to prove good or bad.  Wikipedia puts it well: "sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through some medium (such as air or water), composed of frequencies that are within the range of hearing."  Now you are in the position of having to prove that one set of oscillations is somehow objectively superior to another set of oscillations.  If it's objective, it's provable, or at the very least a method by which pure, irrefutable proof COULD theoretically be obtained should be available.

Let me put it another way: if Beethoven is a better composer than you, then prove it.  If it's an objective statement, it should be provable.  Is there a mathematical formula which proves "good"?

Saying 2+2=4 is an objective statement.
Saying 4 is better than two is subjective.
Good and bad can't ever be objective, by their very nature.  The only objective criteria that could be used with regards to Beethoven would be statements of chronology or mathematical realities, and other absolute statements of fact (such as naming specific notes in a specific work).

I'm not sure why this truth would make debate impossible!

If someone listens to your music and honestly finds you are as good a composer as Beethoven, then so what?  I know someone who used to be an announcer for decades for a local radio station, and we talked about music a lot, and he liked practically nothing written before 1900 - really odd how much I loved talking music with him, though, considering his taste was very, very different from mine.  He strongly disliked and/or hated practically every work by Beethoven.  I was visiting with him at the radio station once and he made a statement regarding Wolfgang Mozart along the lines of "I have to say he's great because they say he was, but I don't like his music".  The point of all this is... unless your music is written in emulation of pre-1900s styles, then this guy probably would have honestly thought you were as good a composer as Beethoven!  Well, I don't know that for sure, and he passed away a couple of years ago so can't be asked.  And he wasn't a kook or a nut, by the way, and was extremely knowledgeable about music of all eras; he wasn't a brash kid just saying stuff for shock value, either (he was in his 60s).  He just thought the 20th century was where it was at, and that older music tended to be - even at its best - boring in comparison.

(I won't post his name publicly here, but if someone wants it I will send it via private message and you can look him up quite quickly; he was regionally very well-known.)

[in advance]

"you just know in your gut that it is a masterwork" - mbhaub

But I listen to pieces that seem virtually universally deemed masterworks and don't know it in my gut at all; often, quite the opposite impression.  With some universally-acclaimed masterpieces which I could name, I experience outright revulsion.  Then I might listen to a piece that is generally considered "lesser music ... [which] no matter how much the audience may like it, you just don't get that same feeling", but I do get that feeling on some of those very pieces that you probably mean.  I feel that sensation - and I think I do know what you mean by it.

Part of me thinks that the "canon" is often imposed from on high by respected authorities.  I've experienced many direct, personal insults just by questioning in the politest possible way the rigidity of this "canon" (and on at least one occasion received something flat-out shocking).  A great many people will know in advance that they won't feel a work is great simply because it's not established as such.  I'd probably say this is a majority of music-listeners, at some level they absolutely will pre-judge to some extent.  Professional reviewers simply can't even review a CD lesser-known music without including at least some kind of negative statement, some kind of qualifier to let the reader know that the reviewer is well aware that this isn't "great" music.  And the sad part is, those particular elements of the reviews could very well have been written in advance by most of these reviewers, they were going to say it no matter, and they don't listen in a "pure" state.

Another part of me thinks that certain components of taste in many areas just happen to be more widely shared among Humans, especially those within the same upbringing.  Speaking of taste, there are certain foods, for example, that you could test out on all the population of western Europe, and probably come up with fairly consistent results in which people thought was better or worse.  Leaving nutrition out of it, speaking purely about flavour, most would agree that a fine-dining restaurant's version of, say, a burger tastes better than a fast food chain's rendition.  There's no objective reason that it tastes better, it's just that probably most people in a given group are very innately similar to each other when it comes to taste.

This might hold true for music, also.  The composers widely considered Great might just have been those who happened to be most capable of manipulating the most widely common, widely shared similar innate taste in the widest number of Humans.  Those who feel very strongly that certain masterpieces are not masterful at all, or that certain "second-rate" works are indeed Great with a capital G, might be a bit "off", maybe even something genetic.

I can only say that if I ever say that I find a piece to be truly great, I honestly, deep down, and with 100% conviction feel that that is the case, the exact same that someone else does when talking about how Beethoven's Symphony #5 is Great (I agree with that one, by the way).  But it's - and this is very important - not objective.  There's nothing objective whatsoever in saying one thing is better than another.  Any measure of quality is subjective, simply because it's impossible to prove mathematically or scientifically that one thing is superior to another.  You can't prove concepts like good&bad, better&worse, because by their very nature they are absolutely not objective by any means.

And by the way, with complete sincerity I will state here, flat out, that I feel and find Raff to be Great, and Brahms to not be.  I can't help it.  I don't wish to think it (or not to), I don't plan it, and am not saying it to try to make some point or to try to be different: it just is.  I don't know why, or how this happened.  I didn't study on it, plan for it, wish for it, or want it to happen, it's just how their musics play out in my brain and how my emotions and intellect react in general to each.  Although try to take away my Brahms Op.25 Piano Quartet from my collection and we'll have a huge problem. 

[everything]

This may be inappropriate, and if so, I apologise.  But I almost beg the moderators to not lock this thread.  I've never heard the piece, as I said before.  And I grapple with a lot of music after 1830 or so, which makes me one of the least likely of people to fight for the survival of this discussion.  But I speak merely as someone who thinks that the modern world's greatest advantage in all forms of art is that we can have close to everything.  Some further people who happen upon this board may end up loving this work (for that matter, even I might!).  But partly, that is immaterial.  I really don't see hostility in this discussion, even in the debating portions about Bax's early symphony.  Is disagreement, even in drastic pendulum swings, in and of itself worth halting and locking?  I'm actually interested - in a very positive way - to read both the pros and cons on this work.

As one of those so-called completionists, I'm all for recording everything that Human beings can lay hands on; after all, what's the harm?  Especially with modern digital storage, it just seems like a win-win, since at the very worst it does no damage to anyone.  But I'm also interested in "patchy" works, those that have passages I find redeemable, as mentioned above.  And what's more... I might end up loving this piece when I hear it!  And in the end, all of these outcomes are fine, and there are probably others reading this who are in the same boat.  And more discussion is perfectly fine to many of us in this boat.

I just hope that the widely differing opinions don't suggest for the moderators a necessity of locking this thread.  I've never heard anything of Bax that I liked before, but I'm honestly fascinated by this project, and was a bit intrigued by the tiny sample snippets that have been made available.  And one of the people* with whom I've enjoyed discussing music the most in person is someone that shared with me practically nothing in common as far as musical tastes.  And not one bit of these discussions was acrimonious or unpleasant, but on the contrary, quite enlightening, enjoyable, and door-opening for both of us.  Sorry about the long plea, and it may not matter at all if minds have been made up, but though there are no true votes here, I still vote to not lock this!


*This man sadly passed away in 2011, name of Seth Williamson.  He was a local radio host and a very generous, knowledgeable, and kind person.  The only flaw I ever found in him was that (in general) the only pre-20th music he liked was by J.S. Bach!  He didn't even care much for W.A. Mozart... blasphemy!  But the radio station for which he worked might interest many who read this board:  wvtf.org is the website.  It's well worth checking out!  Tons of unsung music is played there, and I do mean tons.  I'd explain more about how that station flat-out changed my life when I was younger, but that'd be a long and very boring story.  Suffice it to say that both Raff and Bax get way, way more than the norm there in terms of playtime!

Hopefully, this comment won't be seen as a continuation on how good this work might be, mainly since I've never heard it!

But I did want to talk about something related.  It seems that almost everyone who has listened to this completed symphony seem to find at least some passages to be worthwhile.  Which is something I've often wondered about.   I know of a few works where there is a passage or two that I consider incredible, surrounded by content I dislike (or, in some cases, loathe), but sometimes I'll bring out one of those pieces and skip around to just what I want to hear.  Not something I normally do, but there are some cases, and indeed some composers in general (ie. Sibelius) that get such treatment from me.  For example, I hate 98% of Sibelius' 7th Symphony, but in particular the very ending is one of the most incredible orchestral "scenes" I've ever run across... strange as it may sound, I've only listened to this entire work throughout one time, but of the last minute or so I've heard at least 5 different versions, some of them multiple times!!

Sorry if this shows me out as extremely bizarre; actually, it probably reveals me as the equivalent of a perpetual fastfood lover talking of my preferred eating habits while sitting among frequenters of Michelin Guide 3-star restaurants.  I just regret that with music, there's not really a reasonable way to separate what might make for a few fine, smaller à la carte items out from only being obtainable by eating a large, dissatisfying meal.  (Again, I mean in general, not about this Bax symphony in particular, I'm not saying it's dissatisfying!)

That's really interesting Josh, but did it sound anything like the scherzos associated with Haydn's late quartets or Beethoven's early symphonies?

I sent you a private message concerning this several days ago.  I'm replying publicly because I'm not sure if you received it; it may not have actually been delivered, or has gotten lost somehow.  Or possibly you - like me - don't normally check for private messages and haven't noticed that you've received one.

The chronologically earliest scherzo involving orchestra that I have - and am aware of - is the last movement of a Harpsichord Concerto in G by Jiří Antonín Benda.  He wrote several harpsichord/keyboard concerti in this key (at least 3 that I've heard).  I believe it was written around 1780 or so.

This is a bit of a tough one for me. I'm taking it as an exercise: if I could pick only one melody to suggest to a skeptical someone in the hopes of getting them to say "wow, I have to admit, that's incredible", what would it be?

Considering my virtual worship of Raff, obviously things like the main theme from the first movement of his Symphony #9 spring to mind, but actually I keep coming to the Arpeggione Nocturne in A minor by Friedrich (no, not Norbert) Burgmüller.  As far as I know, this is incredibly obscure, but a tune of the highest beauty and memorability.  If you haven't heard this before, I feel safe in assuring that you would feel well-rewarded even if you expended considerable effort to seek it out.

And I know I'll definitely be doing some seeking of my own to find the ones people are mentioning on here!

[something]

Not to give too trivial a reply, but if you like listening to it, isn't that all that matters?

And if Merda d'artista by Piero Manzoni is "art" to some people (why, I can't even begin to imagine), then I'd say just about anything is.  I mean, one edition of this "work" sold at Sotheby's in 2007 for €124,000, so somebody thinks it's something worthwhile.

I hope people here won't consider me outrageous when I make the art-related claim that the worst musical piece ever by Thalberg should have more value than all the editions of Merda d'artista combined...