Thread: Branching out with Classical : who next?

Posts: 27
Page: prev 1 2 3

Post by Cicero June 5, 2012 (21 of 27)
SnaggS said:

Your right of course, "beauty" is not the only thing to look for, but sometimes that is where your mood lies. Many years ago I spent a lot of time listening to the minimalists and the music coming out of Princeton-Columbia, i.e music concrete, serialism. Things like Pierre Schaeffer, Piere Henri, Milton Babbit etc.

Whilst some of this in indeed beautiful, some is more "interesting". At the moment, when I sit down at the end of a day, I'm looking for something that matches the sunset, thats all.

Talking about the sun rising and setting, this music really *is* beautiful:

Ravel: Daphnis et Chloé - Levine

or

Ravel: Daphnis et Chloe - Munch

Post by Polly Nomial June 5, 2012 (22 of 27)
Not forgetting Ravel: Daphnis et Chloé - Haitink & Ravel: Daphnis et Chloé, Boléro, Pavane - Gergiev

But for a first explore, I'd recommend the second suite instead of the whole shebang:
Ravel: Daphnis et Chloë Suites - Haitink, de Waart

Post by Kal Rubinson June 5, 2012 (23 of 27)
Polly Nomial said:

Not forgetting Ravel: Daphnis et Chloé - Haitink & Ravel: Daphnis et Chloé, Boléro, Pavane - Gergiev

The early released copies of the Haitink had their front channels mixed up. If you get one with really confusing imaging, you should get it exchanged.

Kal

Post by hiredfox June 6, 2012 (24 of 27)
Cicero said:

It seems to have become quite fashionable among some posters here - people with very narrow musical tastes, judging from this thread and others - to belittle music they appear not to have the means to understand or evaluate properly.

Maybe a little unfair. Music's appeal should be instantaneous not learned, surely no composer sets out knowingly to court antipathy and only minority acceptance?

Isn't the judgement of history the yardstick by which success should be measured?

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 June 6, 2012 (25 of 27)
hiredfox said:

Maybe a little unfair. Music's appeal should be instantaneous not learned, surely no composer sets out knowingly to court antipathy and only minority acceptance?

Isn't the judgement of history the yardstick by which success should be measured?

Agreed. Obscure composers are usually obscure for a reason. But, sometimes, that is just the fashion of the day. Bach was obscure for the better part of a century until Mendelsohn resurrected him into a permanent place among the greatest of the greats.

It is tough to tell about modern, living composers, since we do not have the filtering effects of history to rely on yet. As they say on Composer's Forum on NPR, all music was once new. It took awhile before even Beethoven received widespread acclaim. And many premiers by great composers of great works were not received all that well by critics and the public of the time.

The one very rich and rewarding place to discover often somewhat obscure music that is great is in early music from the middle Baroque on back. Unfortunately, like a lot of things, we do not have nearly enough of it on SACD. We need much more Heinrich Schuetz or Marc Antoine Charpentier among many others.

Post by Cicero June 6, 2012 (26 of 27)
hiredfox said:

Music's appeal should be instantaneous not learned ...

The music composed by many (most?) of the 'great' composers did not appeal instantaneously, whereas that composed by the likes of Hasse, L. Mozart or Paganini did.

Besides, my post was not intended to invite musings about the vicissitudes of musical history (as if "history" were innately just or always bound to be correct). I simply pointed out that it may be better not to use strongly judgmental language when talking about music one dislikes or does not understand, which has happened recently on several threads. Dislike or lack of understanding are perfectly acceptable reactions when one listens to music, but presenting these reactions as if they were virtues reflects adversely on the listener, not on the music s/he is ready to condemn.

Daniel, the original poster, for instance has explained why he likes to listen to beautiful music, with perfectly good reasons. Others, it seems, need to rationalize their likes and dislikes.

Too much on this from me already. I'll stop here.

Post by ClassicalDJ June 7, 2012 (27 of 27)
I am generally not attracted to the "classical" music composed over the last several decades, but Aaron Jay Kernis' Musica Celestis for String Orchestra has stuck strongly with me since I heard it performed live as a teenager. The piece was programmed with Beethoven's 9th, and the conductor curiously had the audience refrain from any applause at the music's closing, leaving the wispy A chords hanging in the air; turns out the conductor knew what he was doing, as this created a wonderful sense of anticipation for the following A chords that were to commence Beethoven's 9th. (I've tried recreating this in a playlist, but not quite to the same effect.)

None of Kernis' music is available on SACD that I can tell. I have the recording of Musica Celestis by Hugh Wolff and the Birmingham Symphony. The CD also includes his 2nd Symphony and the Invisible Mosaic III. Though I haven't fallen in love with them, the other compositions are alright for my tastes: The Invisible Mosaic is a somewhat frantic collage of sounds bordering on racket at times, yet its coda is remarkably resolute; the slow second movement of the symphony has a very lovely passage.

Good thread! Definitely pondering the recommendations.

Page: prev 1 2 3

new post