Messages

It's my favourite Wagner opera, actually.  I think it's pretty good, though I haven't given it a full listen but once.  I have cracked it out a few times to listen to a few parts now and then.

To my taste, it's not incredible or anything, but I do think it's worthwhile, and certainly not bad.  But then, I'm someone who adores Weber and doesn't like "top notch" Wagner!

I finally got around to listening to Herzongenberg's Symphony #2, and it's absolutely fantastic!  And I swear, the opening of the first movement sounds so much like the opening to a movie, I can't even believe it hasn't been used for that purpose yet.  I don't think I've ever, in my entire life, heard a more film-music-sounding passage from pre-film times.  Right now, this is one of my favourite openings to a symphony.  The whole thing is pretty nice and tuneful, has a lot of very interesting rhythmic content, and to my ears is very expertly orchestrated.  That scherzo is an odd, at times introspective, rambling journey that I found very attention-holding.   It's odd that none of the melodies really stick in my head, but the work as a whole makes a pleasant impression in all departments

This is one piece that I think would be well-received by a lot of listeners if they were exposed to it.  Have only this and the 1st symphony reached CD thus far?  I'm going to have to buy that cpo disc, especially since people keep talking up the Symphony #1 so much.

Going back a bit, to the very early Romantic (or perhaps slightly before), has anyone heard the orchestration of Clementi's symphonies?  I think some of the "thick" sounds that he used - like in the ending of the first movement of his so-called "Great National" Symphony - might have been completely original at that time.  Whether original or not, Clementi is one of my all-time favourite orchestrators, perhaps just behind Raff even.  Elaborate, complex, and expert, able to get a rich, often heavy sound without getting harsh.

Grab the Chandos 'Contemporaries of Mozart' disc with Clementi's earliest known surviving "big" symphony, go to the end of the slow introduction, and listen to 40 seconds or so.  If you're looking for intricate orchestral soundscapes to explore, Clementi is well worth checking out!  I'd rate him as an all-time great orchestrator.

So just let me say this, if Corigliano is OK, why not Haydn?   Nobody tries to post Bach or Buxtehude here.  But perhaps we should start creeping backwards as well.   That way we'd appeal to even more people and the moderators could make this a full time charity.

I cringe to even say this, but this exact sentiment has almost come off my fingers many times over the last few months.  And, as jerfilm said, there's no anger or malevolent intent in it.  But in all honesty, I feel that composers like Méhul are closer to Romanticism than the vast majority of the 20th century composers posted and talked about here lately.  And yet, I restrain myself from talking about Méhul, who wrote what I consider one of the greatest symphonies ever written (his 2nd).  Not because I don't like him, and don't want to talk about him, but because I have read the description of the message board and try to stick within those guidelines.

But then, are we back to using a year at each end to arbitrarily cut things off, like 1830-1910 or something?  I'm thinking Somervell's 1930 Violin Concerto and getting a sinking feeling.  I don't know if there even is a good answer to all this.  The bad part is that there probably isn't.  I'd almost rather it just go on as it is, just to avoid upsetting all the contributions/uploads, if it didn't bother Mark and Alan.  I mean, I admit that it's cut my postings almost to nil, and I've basically stopped sampling anything, but a lot of people are really getting into this, and I think it's a really positive thing.  I feel like it would be a shame to destroy so much enthusiasm for unsung music, whether I happen to like that music or not.  I wish there were some way to channel it without cutting it off cold.

It's probably not really fair for me to jump in as one of those shying away from the modern stuff, since as I've said in the past, my ears often have difficulty handling music from even the 1830s and 1840s. "Mostly-tonal" music from the 20th century usually begins to cause me a headache within about 60 seconds (and that's not an exaggeration or a joke).  But I've never thought anything wrong with people liking and talking about it.  I have barely participated lately, though, because when I've sampled the music mostly being discussed lately, it's just.... I can't take it.  I don't want to rub anybody the wrong way, so I won't go into any detail about some of my reactions.

But despite where you'd clearly guess my sympathies lie on this discussion, I wanted to say that I'd also be a bit nervous about locking down things based around a year (ie. 1918).  I just downloaded this really pleasant Piano Quartet #3 in F minor by Ladislav Kupkovic, which was from 1989!  This to me sounds more truly Romantic than another example piece that springs to my mind, and that is Sommervell's Violin Concerto of 1930.  Sommervell's VC is chronologically closer to the Romantic period, but for the most part sounds even more modern, and yet it does feel almost like it could have been written around 1900.  But then, there we go, that's opinion.  I'm so excited today by learning about Kupkovic, and if there were a solid break on the forums at a defined year, this terrific discovery would have been lost to me, probably forever.  Leaving eras/times out of it, getting to experience works like this Kupkovic PQ are what I love most about this site.

I had the opportunity to hear van Gilse's third symphony, and I have to admit that I just couldn't handle it. It contained a lot of what I hate about much of 20th century orchestral music (though much, much milder in van Gilse's case).  I actually physically cringed a few times early on... and no, I wasn't faking it for anyone's benefit, as nobody else was anywhere in sight or earshot!  I was alone in my house, and I was flinching from the sounds that just hit my ears totally wrong.  I really wanted to give it a shot, since it didn't sound as "bad" (to my 18th century ears) as most contemporary, similar works, but it was just too much for me.  Don't let my taste dissuade you, since even though I'm a big fan of Dvořák, even I find his harmonies a bitter pill to swallow; I just find his melodies outweigh the unpleasant, harsh sounds in most cases. As far as van Gilse's 3rd goes, I did not avail myself of the afore-mentioned opportunity to listen to the whole work.  But from what I absorbed, I just couldn't pick anything really positively remarkable about it.


SOMEWHAT OFF-TOPIC: Van Gilse's Symphony #2 ramblings follow

Very different experience, I have to say. I know this thread is specifically dedicated to his 3rd, so I apologise for this, but I wanted to say something to anybody who'd never heard his 2nd and was skimming this thread. Seriously, please don't let the 3rd turn you off from giving his 2nd a shot, if you haven't heard it!  I wouldn't go so far as to say I strongly like it, but I do find it at the least tolerable.  It's fairly tuneful, though admittedly with nothing really memorable. This work was a real surprise to me, in a mildly positive way.  It did look backward in a lot of ways, and to me, when talking about post-1900 symphonies, that's always a plus.

The first movement starts out by setting the mood. I have no idea what van Gilse was going for, but I'll tell you how I feel about the mood of this work: inoffensive!  But honestly, what's wrong with that?  You're brought in with only horns and winds, for quite a while, more than 90 seconds.  And this makes me want to point out that van Gilse, if nothing else in this work, made a very big point of giving non-strings a lot of lead time.  It's all nice, but fairly somber, an abbreviated slow introduction that I found pretty interesting and even engaging.  And it's short, you don't have to wait long for a sudden (but not harsh!) burst of bright colour!  Without any wasting of time, you get an immediate bright tune to perk things up, and for the rest of the movement, you have van Gilse trying to serenade the listener with tunes.  I don't feel like he had huge natural talent in this department (at least, from my extremely limited exposure), but I like what I hear.  And any 20th century composer trying to do this gets an automatic sympathetic ear from me.

It's pretty odd, but if I were catching this completely blind,  there are passages in the 2nd movement that I'd swear were composed for quasi-naîve films from the 1950s or 1960s, even though this work was written from 1902-1903. And you know what? I like it! I don't love it, but I do think it's nice.  This is totally dominated by tunes, and if you could only hear one movement, I'd probably pick this one.  In some ways, it's the least interesting, but the most pleasant... I'm not sure if that makes sense.

The third movement contains a whole lot of non-string domination, and that's something of a refreshing change from a lot of symphonies. This movement actually makes a few stabs in the direction of being intense or serious, each time being swiftly allayed by something pastoral or even bright.  I have to think this was done deliberately, since the effect is so striking.  And, like the other two movements, it's definitely tuneful enough!  And, also like the other two movements, nothing I can really remember afterwards.

If nothing else, it's better-than-harmless music to play while doing other things, if you're okay with that. Personally, I don't really see anything wrong with "inoffensive" music, especially when the composer was really giving a good faith effort to put in good tunes. No, from my two experiences with van Gilse, I don't find him to be a melodic heavyweight, but not everyone can be, and I think the world has plenty of room for that.  I don't feel like the 2nd Symphony was a waste of my time, and at least passages of it have been in my ears on at least 5 separate occasions.  And, coming from someone who finds Dvořákª almost unbearably modern, that's saying something!


ª I'm a surprisingly big Dvořák fan, so don't think I'm knocking him! I just mean some of his harmonic sounds are very harsh to my ears, and it took his huge melodic gift to give enough awesome tunes to outweigh my difficulties with the overall soundscape of some of his (especially orchestral) music.

Except that Dittersdorf wrote a symphony with 7 movements in 1771.  That's just off the top of my head (well, I had to look up the year it was written, but I remembered it being in my collection).  Actually, while typing this message, I went ahead and started it up!  It's his symphony D.16 Il combattimento delle passioni umani ("Battle of the Human Passions").  Here are the movements:

1 Il Superbo (Andante con maesta)
2 Il Humile (Andante)
3 Il Matto (Minuetto poco allegro); Il Amante (Trio)
4 Il Contento (Andante)
5 Il Constante (Minuetto e trio)
6 Il Malinconico (Adagio)
7 Il Vivace (Allegro assai)


As for a cyclical piano concerto, what about Moscheles #6? Wasn't that from the early 1830s?

There is no composer that I've come across in my entire life that has gone up so far in my estimation after first contact.  No other composer even comes close in that.  I can't even explain it.  Reinecke is now one of my favourite composers, whereas some of the works of his that get full marks from me, at one time simply were "okay".

Has someone been re-writing his music over the last few years, then pushing the updates out to my CDs?

[Nach der Geburt ihres Sohnes]

I really can't wait to get this!  I'm a bit amazed that this hasn't been done before.  What I've heard of Raff's solo piano music - and his writing for the piano in songs - is some of the most sublime keyboard music I've ever come across.  Just listening to the piano part for Op.172#9 Nach der Geburt ihres Sohnes, for instance, or the opening minute and five seconds or so of his Op.14 Piano Sonata... and that's to say nothing of how he handles the piano with orchestra.

By the way, has his Suite for Piano & Orchestra, Op.200 ever hit commercial recording?  The 2nd movement of that also contains some of the most gorgeous piano-involved passages known to me.

Sorry to get a bit off-topic, but what I meant to say was that I'm tremendously excited.  I've yet to hear a piece by Raff that I thought was less than good, and I know there will be works on these discs that I've never heard.  Let's see if his perfect record with my ears continues!  Based on past experience, I'm optimistic!

[La Cenerentola]

I'm glad someone mentioned Rossini.  I suppose he's more properly a Classical composer, than Romantic, but since it seems almost nothing is talked about lately but 20th century non-Romantics, maybe cheating a little in the other direction is okay!

I just was listening to my all-time favourite non-Mozart opera, La Cenerentola, today, and in the second act, the little "flash storm" thing is superb.  He also had the infamous stormy music from Guillaume Tell, which I suppose in most circles would technically be considered in the early Romantic era (1828).  Rossini is often derisively seen as almost nothing but musical happiness, but I don't think anyone ever did musical storm depictions better.  (I probably consider him the most under-rated "sung" composer.)

[OUTSTANDING]

Ever heard Wagner's 1 complete symphony, and the half of a 2nd?  His Piano Sonatas?  OUTSTANDING!  Honestly, Wagner's Symphony in C is one of my favourite symphonies, ever, by any composer.

Not to mention, Die Feen is not bad a bad opera at all.  It's the one exception to Rossini's comment amongst his operas, in my opinion.  I don't personally rate it among my favourites, but I don't think it has anything truly awful in it.  (Then again, I don't think it has any really beautiful moments, either).  Anyway, I may be alone, but I like it.

This must be false.  There is only a single living Brit who hasn't been knighted: Tommy Wilson, an 8-year old from Salford who, by unfortunate coincidence, was playing hide&seek with friends when the Knight-dispensary lorry came by.

[犬のおまわりさん]

At least one Japanese children's song is even known in the US: 犬のおまわりさん, which is by 大中 恩 (I don't know how to read many names yet. Is it "Ounaka Megumi" ??, and I don't even know the character 恩 at all so I had to look it up)... who also writes "serious" music.  I don't find it so unusual that a composer who writes children's songs would be able to write appealing works in other forms, because the ability to compose a catchy melody is worth a whole lot!

I actually think that the overall greatest melodist of all time is a still-living Japanese composer: 植松 伸夫 (Uematsu Nobuo).  A great deal of his music for video games has been performed in full orchestral concerts, and recorded.  I think fans of Romantic-era music would probably like some of his game overtures, such as for Final Fantasy VI, and some of his solo piano works are terrific.  He seems to have a real knack for writing extremely catchy piano rags:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HizdlmU0wwE

I also really like this, a nice little string quartet piece:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdHVyAaAwKQ

At long last, I finally got this CD just about a week ago.  To me, the highlight ends up being a work I'd never heard before: Die Braut von Messina.  This ends up being somewhat bizarre and a touch rambly (not necessarily in a bad way).  The orchestration is, as with all Rufinatscha I've heard, rich and complex without being overly syrupy or bombastic, and even at its harshest moments doesn't offend my ears.  I especially like the last 2 minutes or so, it's quite dramatic and exciting.  This is a work definitely worth hearing.

The Symphony #6 was already one of my favourite symphonies, and I thought with Chandos we'd get exceptional audio quality.  Yep, they delivered, as usual.  What I'm not so sure about is the performance.  The orchestra demonstrates superior clarity to the world-premiere recordings from the Tiroler Landesmuseen, and this is not just about the great audio quality from Chandos.  I really like orchestral clarity, where individual parts are more easy to pick out.  But to be honest, there are certain elements to the original recording that I prefer, but it's really hard to put my finger on.

I'd rarely ever think that having two recordings of the same work is necessary, but in this case, if someone has the money, I'd probably recommend getting both.  The orchestral clarity and overall sound quality from this Chandos disc is just excellent, and it gives a chance to get a more clean and nuanced "view" of Rufinatscha's extraordinary orchestral abilities.  The orchestral terrain that he lays down would be worth exploring even if he completely lacked any gift for melody, climax, &c., but he most definitely was not lacking in other departments!

coat and tie. Looked sharp. At least one player refusing to surrender his standards.

There's another way to look at this.  I, for example, think that the coat and tie look utterly absurd.  It's absolutely ludicrous to me.  I can't even fathom why anybody, anywhere, could possibly think it looks good, or that it has any logical sense to it whatsoever.  The only two clothings I can thing of that look more stupid to me are the tuxedo, and high-heeled shoes.  Wasteful, inefficient, and laughable-looking.  I don't particularly care about fashion one way or another, other than thinking those three things are idiotic-looking.  And wearing a suit is miserably uncomfortable, with absolutely no logical sense behind being so uncomfortable.  It's just that almost everyone is brainwashed into thinking that it's just the thing to do.  But why?  Why can't people sit down and think about things that are "this is just how it is", and question them?  WHY is this "just how it is"?  Who thinks it's a good idea?  Why does it look good?  How can I be expected to enjoy or fully participate in any activity (or concert) when almost my whole attention is wrapped up in how miserable I am wearing such an idiotic-looking, inefficient collection of uselessly-piled cloth. I'm honestly not sure that I'd consider dressing up in a clown outfit to look any more ridiculous than the tuxedo.  And I'm not just being facetious about any of this, I'm completely serious.  I suppose I just tend to consider things from a very "clean slate" perspective, even things that are very well-established.  And when it comes to clothing, I think notions of comfort and efficiency need to be given much higher priority than they currently are.  I wonder what people 200 years from now will think of the suit&tie?  I have a suspicion it will be looked on as good for a laugh, with much shaking of heads over the wastefulness of it all.

I don't know.  Maybe this is the mindset that lets me listen to any piece of music by any composer, regardless of how "great" I'm told the composer is, and like/dislike it completely independently.