Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
Posted: October 09 2010 at 14:16
Noak wrote:
From this list, Stravinsky, without a doubt. If you had included some of the funnier ones like Scelsi, Penderecki or Schnittke it might have been a little harder for me.
Three of the funniest guys ever. Scelsi is a gem and Penderecki is (or was) a genius.
Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes
Find a fly and eat his eye
But don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Joined: September 07 2007
Location: Middle-Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 4214
Posted: October 09 2010 at 03:59
Sean Trane wrote:
No Dvorak???
Of course! The Symphony of all symphonies, conducted by The Conductor!
Edited by Gandalff - October 09 2010 at 14:36
A Elbereth Gilthoniel
silivren penna míriel
o menel aglar elenath!
Na-chaered palan-díriel
o galadhremmin ennorath,
Fanuilos, le linnathon
nef aear, sí nef aearon!
Joined: October 08 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Posted: October 08 2010 at 23:47
Mozart wrote amazing works that spanned the breadth of all areas of Classical composition (operas, symphonies, concertos, and chamber music) and he was a virtuoso keyboardist therefore he's my choice. It makes me sad to think how much more this genius could have contributed if his life had not been so tragically short.
Joined: January 04 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 544
Posted: October 08 2010 at 18:39
From this list, Stravinsky, without a doubt. If you had included some of the funnier ones like Scelsi, Penderecki or Schnittke it might have been a little harder for me.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: October 08 2010 at 18:34
BaldJean wrote:
moshkito wrote:
Hi,
This is a tough question ... I would think that an Italian like Puccini/Verdi would be more important, the reason being that a lot of those operas are massive on "melody" ... and defined it much better than had been done before.
Stravinsky, is a favorite of mine, and he would be the God for the 20th century, because he did with music what no one thought was possible, and in fact, when "The Rite of Spring" was first performed, it was trashed ... as were Petrouschka and the Firebird Suite. And of course, by the time that Leonard Bernstein got a handle on it ... it was over ... Stravinsky was fine ... it also helped that a cartoonist with a funny sense of humor had the brainstorm to put dancing hippos and alligators and and everything else ... which was a good idea to help people pick up and understand Stranvinsky ... it was hard to do if you were comparing it to the rest of music (just like here with "progressive" btw!), but if you took that reference out and merely appreciated what was there, the music all of a sudden stood out and became more important. I've always called this the "cubism" in music ... for fun!
The hard/weird part for me, is the appreciation for Bach and Beethoven. Bach, was, for all intents and purposes the very first DAW that was ever created, and helped cement a "requirement" in music that tied it to the meter and the composition ... the format of which is still used today, and over 90% of all the music that you and I listen to is ... controlled by those formats and precepts.
I remember a film ... "Isaac Stern Goes to China" ... and highly recommend it ... but there is a moment in there that shows one thing ... that is actually something else, but it does have it, and goes back to Bach ... one of the kids says that the music sounded "industrial" ... and the term then, was more a reference to the repetitive nature of the music itself and its themes, just like a machine ... if one dismisses the obviously politically charged nature of the comment -- the kids' parents/teachers against western culture and arts!
Both Bach and Mozart are "mechanical" for me. And I find that Mozart was probably trying to break that up a bit to get rid of the monotony, and is very well displayed in the movie "Amadeus" ... yes it's a movie but the idea is the same ... be it too many notes, or ... Salieri saying ... that would not be correct ... and Mozart saying just type it! ... and of course, years later ... it is right and fine!
It is strange how people look at music ... for me it's not a pillow, but can be! It's not viagra, but can be! It's not Darvocet, but can be! It's not a dream, but can be! And sometimes, it doesn't matter who did it ... which tells you that there is something inside us that "wakes up" which allows all of us ... to appreciate something ... and the inevitable question is ... is it you or the other person (or music, or ... )?
you should watch Bernstein's lectures on Bach at YouTube; it will teach you to listen to Bach differently. at the beginning of the lecture Bernstein mentions that some people find Bach mechanical and even admits that he used to belong to these people too before studying the works of Bach, he is then demonstrating that Bach is anything but that. watch it; it is highly instructive, and it will help you appreciate the music of Bach. he is the grand master of them all
Baldjean is talking about Bernstein's "Omnibus", a series of programs that aired in public tv here in the USA in the 50's. I just watched all of them on dvd (i bought it recently) and it's great (except the one on American Comedy theater...). His insights on Bach are great. He gives examples of what he founds as magnificent in the Matthaus Passion. As Baldjean said, he even said he didn't like Bach at all at first (lack of dynamics, lack of that typical "drama" that people without listening clerly might thing his music lacks) but then the magic was revealed in all its glory. Bach is the grand master of all music.
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
Posted: October 08 2010 at 16:42
moshkito wrote:
Hi,
This is a tough question ... I would think that an Italian like Puccini/Verdi would be more important, the reason being that a lot of those operas are massive on "melody" ... and defined it much better than had been done before.
Stravinsky, is a favorite of mine, and he would be the God for the 20th century, because he did with music what no one thought was possible, and in fact, when "The Rite of Spring" was first performed, it was trashed ... as were Petrouschka and the Firebird Suite. And of course, by the time that Leonard Bernstein got a handle on it ... it was over ... Stravinsky was fine ... it also helped that a cartoonist with a funny sense of humor had the brainstorm to put dancing hippos and alligators and and everything else ... which was a good idea to help people pick up and understand Stranvinsky ... it was hard to do if you were comparing it to the rest of music (just like here with "progressive" btw!), but if you took that reference out and merely appreciated what was there, the music all of a sudden stood out and became more important. I've always called this the "cubism" in music ... for fun!
The hard/weird part for me, is the appreciation for Bach and Beethoven. Bach, was, for all intents and purposes the very first DAW that was ever created, and helped cement a "requirement" in music that tied it to the meter and the composition ... the format of which is still used today, and over 90% of all the music that you and I listen to is ... controlled by those formats and precepts.
I remember a film ... "Isaac Stern Goes to China" ... and highly recommend it ... but there is a moment in there that shows one thing ... that is actually something else, but it does have it, and goes back to Bach ... one of the kids says that the music sounded "industrial" ... and the term then, was more a reference to the repetitive nature of the music itself and its themes, just like a machine ... if one dismisses the obviously politically charged nature of the comment -- the kids' parents/teachers against western culture and arts!
Both Bach and Mozart are "mechanical" for me. And I find that Mozart was probably trying to break that up a bit to get rid of the monotony, and is very well displayed in the movie "Amadeus" ... yes it's a movie but the idea is the same ... be it too many notes, or ... Salieri saying ... that would not be correct ... and Mozart saying just type it! ... and of course, years later ... it is right and fine!
It is strange how people look at music ... for me it's not a pillow, but can be! It's not viagra, but can be! It's not Darvocet, but can be! It's not a dream, but can be! And sometimes, it doesn't matter who did it ... which tells you that there is something inside us that "wakes up" which allows all of us ... to appreciate something ... and the inevitable question is ... is it you or the other person (or music, or ... )?
you should watch Bernstein's lectures on Bach at YouTube; it will teach you to listen to Bach differently. at the beginning of the lecture Bernstein mentions that some people find Bach mechanical and even admits that he used to belong to these people too before studying the works of Bach, he is then demonstrating that Bach is anything but that. watch it; it is highly instructive, and it will help you appreciate the music of Bach. he is the grand master of them all
Edited by BaldJean - October 08 2010 at 16:49
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18633
Posted: October 08 2010 at 16:06
Hi,
This is a tough question ... I would think that an Italian like Puccini/Verdi would be more important, the reason being that a lot of those operas are massive on "melody" ... and defined it much better than had been done before.
Stravinsky, is a favorite of mine, and he would be the God for the 20th century, because he did with music what no one thought was possible, and in fact, when "The Rite of Spring" was first performed, it was trashed ... as were Petrouschka and the Firebird Suite. And of course, by the time that Leonard Bernstein got a handle on it ... it was over ... Stravinsky was fine ... it also helped that a cartoonist with a funny sense of humor had the brainstorm to put dancing hippos and alligators and and everything else ... which was a good idea to help people pick up and understand Stranvinsky ... it was hard to do if you were comparing it to the rest of music (just like here with "progressive" btw!), but if you took that reference out and merely appreciated what was there, the music all of a sudden stood out and became more important. I've always called this the "cubism" in music ... for fun!
The hard/weird part for me, is the appreciation for Bach and Beethoven. Bach, was, for all intents and purposes the very first DAW that was ever created, and helped cement a "requirement" in music that tied it to the meter and the composition ... the format of which is still used today, and over 90% of all the music that you and I listen to is ... controlled by those formats and precepts.
I remember a film ... "Isaac Stern Goes to China" ... and highly recommend it ... but there is a moment in there that shows one thing ... that is actually something else, but it does have it, and goes back to Bach ... one of the kids says that the music sounded "industrial" ... and the term then, was more a reference to the repetitive nature of the music itself and its themes, just like a machine ... if one dismisses the obviously politically charged nature of the comment -- the kids' parents/teachers against western culture and arts!
Both Bach and Mozart are "mechanical" for me. And I find that Mozart was probably trying to break that up a bit to get rid of the monotony, and is very well displayed in the movie "Amadeus" ... yes it's a movie but the idea is the same ... be it too many notes, or ... Salieri saying ... that would not be correct ... and Mozart saying just type it! ... and of course, years later ... it is right and fine!
It is strange how people look at music ... for me it's not a pillow, but can be! It's not viagra, but can be! It's not Darvocet, but can be! It's not a dream, but can be! And sometimes, it doesn't matter who did it ... which tells you that there is something inside us that "wakes up" which allows all of us ... to appreciate something ... and the inevitable question is ... is it you or the other person (or music, or ... )?
Edited by moshkito - October 08 2010 at 16:12
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: October 08 2010 at 11:42
People, you should watch "The Little Drummer Boy", a documentary where Bernstein talks about Mahler and the relation of his music to his own emotional states. Excellent... Nobody understood Mahler like Lenny.
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20631
Posted: October 08 2010 at 09:52
No Dvorak???
let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
Posted: October 08 2010 at 06:45
I think Bernstein's interpretation of Mahler's 9th is unsurpassed. you should see him talk about it in his lectures on music; when he talks about the 9th movement he quotes Mahler's notes on it in German: "ganz langsam, ersterbend" ("very slowly, dying away"), and his face has a dreamy expression as he says this. that 4th moverment n the uinterpretation of Bernstein is what I wish to be played at my funeral
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Joined: September 28 2008
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 500
Posted: October 08 2010 at 04:13
Mahler is for Bruno Walter, he knows how to play it, he was Mahler's assistant in Hamburg, I think Bernstein's strength is Mendelssohn, Bartók and Bernstein. Bruno Walter is good in Brahms too, like Böhm, Karajan, Sawallisch, Klemperer, Sanderling etc. But Brahms is remembered by me for his piano pieces, mostly variations (Julius Katchen and Claudio Arrau is unstoppable in them, though the Kisszin-one is also great), though his Haydn-variations for orchestra is also superb, I have it several times in my collection with Walter, Sanderling, Mackerras, Klemperer, and two piano version as well played by Argerich and Rabinovich.
Mindez elmúlt. Ma már tudom köszönteni a szépséget.
Joined: January 24 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8849
Posted: October 07 2010 at 21:19
Johnnytuba wrote:
To me, Mahler, who is a major composer missing from this poll, is king. In his stead, I will choose Brahms for his generous usage of lush major 6th chords in his Symphonies. Brahms 3rd is simply the best of his 4.
Man, i love Mahler, especially the symphony recordings with conductors Bruno Walter and the overlooked F. Charles Adler-my fave Mahler works are symphonies 1,3, 4 and 6 i can really appreciate Brahms when i am in the mood-all four symphonies are striking-you should hear them done by conductor Felix Weingartner-superb!
Joined: January 02 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 377
Posted: October 07 2010 at 19:51
To me, Mahler, who is a major composer missing from this poll, is king. In his stead, I will choose Brahms for his generous usage of lush major 6th chords in his Symphonies. Brahms 3rd is simply the best of his 4.
"The things that we're concealing, will never let us grow.
Time will do its healing, you've got to let it go.
Joined: April 08 2010
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 956
Posted: October 07 2010 at 18:50
LUDWIG VAN BEETHOVEN is my prefered one. The perfect combination between pompous and melodic is superb. 5ş, 7ş, 8ş and 9ş symphonies are stunning. Some pieces as the Victory of Wellington are really great too.
Others I like are Wagner (mainly the instrumental parts of his composition, as Tanhauser or Lohengrin), and some things from Haendel, Tchaykovsky, Borodin, Brahms or Schubert.
Joined: September 28 2008
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 500
Posted: October 07 2010 at 17:56
The T wrote:
Lynx33 wrote:
The T wrote:
presdoug wrote:
Lynx33 wrote:
presdoug wrote:
my three favourite composers are missing-
1) Anton Bruckner-to really live life is to hear his symphonies
2) Hector Berlioz-a really important link between the early and late romantics, and ahead of his time and redefined what an orchestra could do
3) Richard Strauss-the greatest composer of the twentieth century-Elgar was right about him-the musical genius of his day
i do relate to your list, though, as i listen to about 45 different classical music composers in total, some of which are already listed
you're quite right, Bruckner, Berlioz, R. Strauss, Elgar are great missing ones, due to lack of space. and of course, Mahler as well, how could I forget him!. And you're right too that Bruckner symph's are to be heard just like his masses, I have the symphonies with Klemperer, Karajan and Jochum as well, I think Jochum is the best at them. Berlioz's Te Deum and Requiem is also immortal. From Strauss my favourite is op. 28 and Metamorphosen, but he has many great works. As for Elgar, though he also wrote many huge musics, we can never forget his e-minor cello concertos championed by J. Du Pré, Casals, Fournier etc.
i love Klemperer's, Karajan's , and Jochum's Bruckner as well, though my favourite Bruckner is done by Bruno Walter (Walter also does my favourite R. Strauss and Mahler) i love my Elgar done with Sir John Barbirolli-magnificent! I love the Berlioz Te Deum and Requiem very much (with Sir Thomas Beecham) and the Berlioz symphonies are wonderfull as well-for me, R. Strauss's tone poems are works of genius, especially Ein Heldenleben, which i consider to be just about the greatest musical work done by anybody (with Mengelberg or Beecham preferred)
Fantastic. As you can see in my signature, Bruckner is one of my favorite masters. I would point you in the direction of two of the greatest Brucknerians ever: Georg Tintner and Gunter Wand. The former recorded all his symphonies including Die Nullte and the Study Symphony (00) and in many cases chose not the typical version of the works (we all know how historians have had a field day with Bruckner's revised editions of his works). His cycle is superb, though in individual numbers there might be better recordings. Gunter Wand is a consumate Brucknerian, probably the greatest ever. His accounts of 3, 4, 5 and 7 are among the best. For the 7th, I choose Karajan's last recording in DG with the Wiener Philarmoniker, with a magnificent adagio (using the cymbal crash). For the 8th I chose Karajan again. The ninth has strange proponents like Carlo MAria Giulini, a master performance, though I just acquired Bruno Walter's. I've yet to hear it though.
For Strauss the answer is clear: Karajan or Solti. Bernstein has a great Don Quixote though.
Berlioz is great but for me it's the Fantastique and the Requiem; his other symphonies leave me cold. Sir Colin Davis' Fantastique is good, though I've yet to find the perfect one.
But my towering composer is and will always be Bach. I have almost 40 cds of works of his. I just finished listening to St Matthew Passion with Chailly and the Gewandhaus Leipzig, good but failed in the crucial choruses; I have at least 3 versions of most of the works I have. Mozart is another great, with his Requiem and his 41st symphony as my favorites. Beethoven's symphonies are the greatest achievement in the form, Karajan's cycle is my choice (though Toscanini is amazing and quite necessary if you can stand mono). Shostakovich is the greatest symphonist since Bruckner; it's obvious the Symphony is my preferred form. I like concertos and sonatas and other kind of works but the Symphony is and always will be my musical love.
We have talked about Brucker and R. Strauss, then let's talk about Bach. I have Klemperer's St. Matthew with the PO and PO.Ch., which is divine, Chailly is too blood-worm. You can hear Solti's in the film Casino, it's a bit pale. I am rather a Bach-keyboard ethuisiast. There have been many words on keyboardists, orgonists, pianists playing Bach music, I have so many recordings selected of course by professionalism, and after hearing Gould, Tureck, S. Richter, K. Richter, Rosen, Yudina, Rübsam, Schnabel and so on, the best UNDOUBTEDLY is Wanda Landowska, though I like the others as well. It's a great pity that she didn't record as many Bach works as Glenn Gould did, who is one one of the greatest as well. I don't really like new-comers in the Bach-Keyboard-Universe for example Angela Hewitt or Schiff, sounding colourless to me.Of course Bach's concertos for 1-2-3 pianos-cembalos are also great, solo cello and violin works, and his lure pieces, contrapoint pieces (M. Opfer), and organ and church music of his are also great, but I stick to solo piano compositions of his suites, toccatas, partitas, variations, etc
I love all of Bach's music but my focus seems to be on orchestral and choral music. I have only two version of the Matthaus Passion, I need one with original instruments (probably'll do Herreweghe) and I need a grandiose, bloated one like Solti to make up for Chailly's Mozart-ized direction. I just acquired the Easter Oratorio, I just need a version of the Ascension one. St. John's I have under Britten, good enough. The Mass in B minor exists in two form in my collection: Karajan (quite strange but interesting) and Boston Baroque/Pearlman on period instruments (yet to hear). The Christmas Oratorio is another magnificent work. I own two versions, Harnoncourt and Herreweghe. Also, I own a few cantatas. For orchestral music, I'll just say I have 6 versions of the violin concertos, probably my favorite concertos ever. Add that to mulyiple Brandenburgs and Suites and you get the idea.
For one-instrument only, I love Walcha's organ works though for the justly famous D-minor tocatta I prefer Richter. Partitas (for cembalo and violin) and sonatas are favorites, too. One question for you: do you prefer your keyboard-Bach in cembalo or piano? I prefer cembalo 100%, in fact I don't own ANY piano Bach. Even a cd I have with Glenn Gould playing it's on the cembalo (not a common event).
As I was trained to be a pianist but failed in the way to be a real good one, I must say I prefer piano as usual, Scriabin is my favourite, mostly his late pieces, which are highly recomended to any modern/minimalist/atonal etc music enthusiasts, but in case of Bach I must say Wanda Landowska's cembalo playing, as she almost exlusively played that instrument, is UNBEATABLE. I'm absorbed, amazed and touched by her playing ANYTIME I listen to it, it is the music of walking out of life into the stars. By the way, Herreweghe (I have his Christmas Orat. with the Müncheners) is grandoise in playing Bach's music in the authentic way on authentic instruments. As for Bach's organ works, Karl Richter, Ton Koopman, Hans Fagius, Simon Preston are in my collection. I also like Bach transcription whether they are orchestral (Stokowski's works are interesting) or pianistic (by Busoni, Bauer, Ziloti, Kempff, Friedman, Hess, Murdoch etc.).
Mindez elmúlt. Ma már tudom köszönteni a szépséget.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.182 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Classical Composers
Topic Options
Noak wrote:
???
. Bruno Walter is good in Brahms too, like Böhm, Karajan, Sawallisch, Klemperer, Sanderling etc. But Brahms is remembered by me for his piano pieces, mostly variations (Julius Katchen and Claudio Arrau is unstoppable in them, though the Kisszin-one is also great), though his Haydn-variations for orchestra is also superb, I have it several times in my collection with Walter, Sanderling, Mackerras, Klemperer, and two piano version as well played by Argerich and Rabinovich.
