Kurt Schwertsik

[petershott@btinternet.com]

Simple enough question(s): what should one make of Kurt Schwertsik? Which of his works might have an enduring value? Is he a phoney maverick? An ultimately uninteresting musical parasite upon the tradition, or what?

I feel a little awkward in asking such questions here because, after all, the forum centres upon unsung, or neglected, romantic composers (and I, for one, am glad of the restriction for otherwise I'd have to wade my way through all sorts of posts on subjects that lie outside my own particular preferences and prejudices).

However Alan did set a precedent when, a few weeks ago, he asked what others thought of Hovhaness. That set up quite a flurry, and among the general mud-slinging (mine included!) there were some especially interesting points made, and I came away a little wiser (yet with little inclination to give Hovhaness another try).

So: Schwertsik?

[allison]

I always make a point to collect Schwertsik when I can, I find it just as interesting and exciting as anyone else's music, and again, no real educated response, but when something makes me listen and not multitask, I deem it worthwhile.

[Delicious Manager]

I don't think of Schwertsik as a 'maverick'; he seems to me a neo-classicist whose cheek is sometimes (but not always by any means) gently in his cheek. He is an accomplished composer of music that is rooted firmly in Classical tradition, but which still has a clear and discernible voice.

[JimL]

...whose cheek is sometimes (but not always by any means) gently in his cheek...

His cheek is in his cheek?  Quite a trick, that.

[fr8nks]

I think Kurt Schwertsik is an excellent composer who writes well crafted music which is charming, melodious, sumptuous, evocative, mysterious and majestic. I will upload one of his compositions shortly.