Messages

The point is, it's for Jim to reveal. And he hasn't chosen to. So let's leave it up to him.

So let me make sure I'm following...jiml starts a thread on an Internet messageboard to talk about something he doesn't want anyone to know about meanwhile offering enough clues to narrow it down to one person that most hardcore classicalphiles would know while you chide people for trying to guess who it is he's described?  What a strange site this is becoming.

I've enjoyed everything i have heard from this composer (symphonies 1-6, descent, piano concerto) and highly recommend his polished and concise works.

So interesting that Richard Wagner, whose music is imbued with passion, seems to have less in common with his son than he does with Richard Strauss.  It would seem that Siegfried had a lot to live up to with limited interest in pursuing that direction where others were more than ready to take up the cause of the father.  Of course, this is not that unusual historically, but very fascinating.

It seems like if I want to pursue the musical legacy of Richard Wagner, I should pursue Bruckner and Richard Strauss (his stylistic heirs) rather than his children.

I read on wiki that it took him a long time to "find his voice" at first starting a career as an architect then as an adult deciding to pursue music.  It might be presumptuous of me to infer reluctance to his part towards composition from this given he had the upbringing for it.  It seems like many of Richards descendants are still alive but none are in music.  The closest seems to be music administration which is probably more like managing an estate I would imagine.

Though Richard Wagner is about as sung as it gets, I was very curious about his more unsung son, Siegfried, since as a composer, he lived well into the 20th century - long enough to have heard developments such as Mahler, then the Second Viennese school, etc. 

Is there any similarity in style between the two?  I would imagine since Richard was such a dominent personality that it would be hard for the son to shake the influence.  Does his music have any of the characteristics of Richard, the gravitas, the lush harmonies, etc.?  Does it form a bridge between Richard and post Mahler at all or is it really just second rate? 

I agree entirely regarding the connection of Rihm with past symphonists - thanks very much indeed  for introducing me to him. I will put a CD of his symphonies on my wants list!

Glad you like it.  Fortunately his output is so extensive, there is much to explore, though not all of it will be to your liking.  His vast output consists of 12 string quartets, 9 symphonies, and many works on the same scale as Mahler's Symphony No. 8 and Schoenberg's "Gurrelieder".  For example, Rihm's  "Dies" oratorio is scored for 4 soloists, narrators, chorus, and gigantic orchestra which includes 8 horns, 12 trumpets, 10 trombones, 2 tubas, 2 timpani, 8 percussionists, organ, etc. 

Some of his works are neo-romantic and demonstrate his German heritage.  For example, his concise early symphonies are neo-romantic and showcase an impressive early structural and dramatic sensitivity rooted in tradition.  "Drei Walzer", "Das Lesen der Schrift", and "Ernster Gesang" have strong influences of Brahms.  The "Deus Passus" is rooted in Bach's great passion tradition.   His orchestral cycle: "Verwandlungen" shows influences of Bruckner and Mahler, Wagner and Richard Strauss.  I also enjoy his concerto for two pianos, "La Musique Creuse Le Ciel" and his Violin Concerto, "Lichtes Spiel" finding them easy to get in to.

But some of his other works are more stream of consciousness abstract, violent, and challenging.  Think Nono, Berg, Webern, Kurtag, Lachenmann, middle Rautavaara (symphonies 4 and 5), Per Norgard, late Schnittke, etc.  If those names don't scare you, you are safe with Rihm.  Some people take the stylistic range of his output as off putting because though you might have liked something he wrote, you can't be sure you'll like something else by him.  This stylistic range is common with many great composers – it is difficult to tell early Stravinsky and late Stravinsky are the same composer though the fingerprints are there.  Unlike Pendericki who has become very neo-romantic, it seems Rihm keeps the listener guessing and within the same work that might end on a D minor triad but that could be the only instance of tonality in the piece.  Sudden silences and sudden dissonant violences also characterize his style.

The pieces I mentioned above, though, are good places to start and I'm sure others have more suggestions.  I believe not all Beethoven is great.  I'm not a fan of "Wellington's Victory", for example, but he is undoubtably a great composer.  Basically when great, it's really great and connects deeply with a listener.  To me, there is some works of Rihm that I can't stand but others that really lingers in my memory and I keep returning to.  The works I've mentioned might not be his most famous nor the ones to which his reputation lies, but are good as starting points to see how he has taken the Germanic tradition to heart and personalized this tradition and use that as a starting place for further exploration of his output.

What I like about him is that he doesn't shy away from the Austro/Germanic tradition but incorporates it in his personal way much as Mahler, Beethoven, Bruckner did before him. 

Well, here is an example if that is what you are requesting.  To me, each of these excerpts represent the same artistic effort of expanding harmonic vocabulary within a vividly dramatic way... they seem to be saying the same thing in their time and in their own way which indicates a connection, an influence.

Please listen to the following links for about 45 seconds each:

Beethoven: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cHUY5U5_mFM#t=1756s
Mahler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ikTni7DPROM#t=501s
Rihm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t_ClwNU1XyU#t=102s

I'm not just pointing to these excerpts as just having superficial similarities but notice the same dramatic instinct – the near total silence before the devastating harmonic crash; the thickness of the orchestration, the transitional purposes of these dramatic moments.  These composers are dramatists.   When I first heard the Rihm symphony, this combination of pathos and harmonic intensity sounded familiar but also new just as the Mahler did to his contemporaries and the same with Beethoven.  It sounds shocking but somewhat approachable because it has an established framework from which it drew from.

There are parts of Henze and Rihm's output where their connection to the tradition of Beethoven and Mahler is clear.   Are you asking for an excerpt?

I was listening to some Einojuhani Rautavaara yesterday and was thinking, is it likely the Austro-Germanic symphonic tradition is broader than it was in the 19th century?  What I mean is, in listening to Rautavaara, some of his early symphonies have a strong Bruckner tendency (with combinations of Shostakovitch and of course Sibelius) but during the 1930's alot of composers who would have been Austro-Germanic based left due to the rise of Nazism.  Perhaps if Korngold/Steiner/Waxman, etc., didn't leave that region resulting in a somewhat diluted epicenter for that tradition of Haydn, Mozart, Schumann, Schubert, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, etc, it would still have a border specific region but now, those tendencies have today been absorbed elsewhere.  I might be totally wrong about this though.  Sometimes, I can still hear the legacy of that tradition in Wolfgang Rihm and Hans Werner Henze in some works but I hear it more directly in non Austro/German composers today.

Isn't a 'trend' and a 'fad' the same thing? They are both transient and victim to musical 'fashion'. This is why I always ignore all and any trends or fashions in ANYTHING because I am quite capable of making up my own mind.

I don't think a 'trend' and a 'fad' are the same thing.  I believe a fad has a burst of zealous followers but fizzles out for various reasons - it fails to live on.  But a 'trend' would have far reaching impact and would be incorporated into the greater body of music and assimilated into the collective repertoire, generally speaking. 

I think some examples of musical fads might be stylistic particulars of an age – like the Viennese style waltz around 100 years ago.  A trend might be more like the continued increase in extended harmonies.  For example – a few hundred years ago, most western music utilized mostly minor or major scales.  But through various influences, our ears expect some increasingly complex harmonies.  It seems a lot of very tonal music that is contemporary might make use of extended harmonies such as a dominant 7th, flat 9, 13th, tri-tones, etc.  I know this is subjective, but it seems that this increasing harmonic complexity is a long trend and probably not a passing phase.  It seems a tonal composer who is not concerned with recent "trends" in harmony ends up sounding as if they are ignoring a century or two worth of stylistic development and in doing so are "bucking the trend".  Perhaps another fad was how Faust took hold of the musical/intellectual imagination in such a sincere way from around 1810-1910.  Though there are recent examples of works using the Faust story, perhaps another fad is they offer a more cynical reaction to the themes.   

I agree that styles go in and out of fashion but there are some generally observable persistent directions.  I think you raise an interesting point when you say "it is a huge shame that any music has to go 'out of fashion'. Can't people just enjoy thing on their own merits?".  To me, context is very important.  For example Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique is revolutionary because of how different it is in conception from what was happening at that time.  I suppose I have a difficult time listening to music without wondering what was happening in the world during its creation.  How does one separate the Shostakovich War Symphonies from those events in his place in history?

Something I've been thinking about lately is how hard it is to predict what fad might actually evolve into a trend and transcend time.  I wondered if the question "what of today's musical fashion will last and transcend our current age?" was asked back in 1900 or 1910, I'd assume the response would be mostly wrong.  For example, if we were asking this question in 1900, we would likely suppose the trend towards increasingly gigantic works would continue and that most orchestras fifty years from now (presuming this were asked in 1900) would consist of 200 players with concert halls that fit 10,000 audience members.   

If we asked this same question in 1910, we might believe the trend is against tonality since there were major proponents advocating its imminent demise; an increased awareness and incorporation of world music (Debussy's Javanese influences, etc.); constantly increasing rhythmic complexity (we might suppose future works might require four conductors), and perhaps an increasing economy of means ("eight horns is so 1890's"). 

I guess it is always difficult to predict how the things happening around us will play out in the future.  Back in the 1980's, it might have seemed plausible that electronic instruments would find their way into the orchestral roster since so much music would have been written to capitalize on these new electronic timbres.  But now, I'm starting to wonder if the electronics was just a passing fad (or perhaps it is just waiting for that knock out piece that makes everyone realize its capabilities ala Beethoven's pianoforte sonatas impact on future pianists).  One thing that seems evident is that composers increasingly look outside their borders for unique colors and combinations.   Perhaps even merging different era's (Schnittke's or Part's collages).  Perhaps the trend of our time is anything goes as long as it is sincere and competently done?

He was a kind and talented man, a real loss that he died so young.  I have some nice correspondences from him where he describes his plans for future works including an opera.  I was shocked and saddened by his early death.  I very much enjoy his sound world and am glad to see there is much unrecorded to continue exploring in future years.  His earlier works have a quasi-John Adams/Sibelian feel but his later works merge sparse texture, structural tautness, and tense moments of drama.  I think his late Cello Concerto and Symphony No. 6 are excellent.  Actually, I like almost everything I've heard from him.

This is an interesting composer and I enjoyed traversing his output on the BIS complete symphonies set.  It's quite a journey.

What would you say are recent compositional/musical trends in the last quarter century or so?  Which of these do you think are fads instead of trends?  I'd define the difference between trend and fad in that a trend is adopted beyond the composers reach whereas a fad might cause a composer (or group of) to embrace and share a common approach even with some zeal but it is short lived and fizzles. 

I saw this on musicweb about Soderlind: "Thus far he has produced 9 numbered Symphonies" but it might have been a mistake because I can't find anything else about it.  No official word from the MIC Norwegian music publishing.