Dream concert

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
I have one or two mp3s by Bach which I will soon add there, I'm just being lazy lately. By the way, who is 'H' in your 2.5 supreme genius list? You listed it on the other thread as Mozart, Beethoven and 1/2 Mendelssohn. So which M is missing here, and who is the H being added?

(A list to which I, IMHO, would add Bach and Wagner and subtract the 0.5 Mendelssohn).

Yes, spaceray got it, I meant Haydn, inventor of the String Quartet, Piano Trio and modern Symphony, and also progenitor of Mozart and Beethoven. Even though they both went far beyond, Haydn had more musical ideas than nearly anyone. We tend to scoff at his symphonies as being 'lightweight', but considering what he was working with (strings and winds, in the main, and relatively small'forces') he was brilliant in his use of them to bring out so many themes. He did say at one point, after hearing Beethoven's 5th, that he deeply regretted that he hadn't had the big brasses etc. at his disposal, so he knew progress when he heard it. Oh well, don't want to do a dissertation as is my wont, but I do think Haydn was a gem. I won't argue about your changes, to each his own, but since I favor the romantic over the baroque, and think Wagner a bit 'over the top' (love his overtures and preludes though), I must stick with Mendelssohn, who served as a model for the next 50 years of composition, and who could have quit composing at 20 years old and still had more great works than most.
Regards, Gurn

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Yes, spaceray got it, I meant Haydn, inventor of the String Quartet, Piano Trio and modern Symphony, and also progenitor of Mozart and Beethoven. Even though they both went far beyond, Haydn had more musical ideas than nearly anyone. We tend to scoff at his symphonies as being 'lightweight', but considering what he was working with (strings and winds, in the main, and relatively small'forces') he was brilliant in his use of them to bring out so many themes. He did say at one point, after hearing Beethoven's 5th, that he deeply regretted that he hadn't had the big brasses etc. at his disposal, so he knew progress when he heard it. Oh well, don't want to do a dissertation as is my wont, but I do think Haydn was a gem. I won't argue about your changes, to each his own, but since I favor the romantic over the baroque, and think Wagner a bit 'over the top' (love his overtures and preludes though), I must stick with Mendelssohn, who served as a model for the next 50 years of composition, and who could have quit composing at 20 years old and still had more great works than most.
Regards, Gurn

Amen to that! Haydn is way underrated.

[Joy]

Originally posted by Sorrano:

Amen to that! Haydn is way underrated.

I agree. I don't think Haydn gets his due. Maybe a lot of people don't realize what he did for the world of music and all the musical developments that he came up with as Gurn was saying.

Joy

[Rod]

[quote]Originally posted by Chaszz:
[b]

Originally posted by Rod:
At least Bach has a temple; Handel barely has a shack!

Handel's operas are inceasingly popular in New York at least. Here is a quote from the New York City Opera website on the Handel 'Flavio' which they are doing this spring: 'The latest in City Opera's highly acclaimed series of works by George Frideric Handel. Past productions, including Rinaldo, Xerxes, and Partenope, have played to sold-out houses and critical praise.'

Unfortunately the acoustics at this house are very dull and dry because it is really a ballet theatre.

There are also concert versions of Handel's operas here at Carnegie Hall and Lincoln Center, and a fairly steady reporting in the press of an ongoing Handel rediscovery.
process.

Well, this is all for the good. I am not surprised that these operas have gone down well given the alternative garbage the (admittedly undeserving) opera goers are usually axposed to. It must be like a breath of fresh air!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited December 28, 2002).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
All,
I notice that the "Bach v Handel" thread is languishing at 188, which must be a source of consternation to Rod since it didn't make 200 like Andrea's did. However, if all the overflow discussion that has made it to this and other threads gets put back to B v H, I think we can put it over the top, maybe even surpassing "Quote of the Day". Oh, all right, just me being anti-baroque. And yet, I love Vivaldi, for the simple reason that he was the first composer in the classical style that eventually led away from baroque and into my guys, namely HM&B. If that inflames enough of you, perhaps I will start a new thread for it. ;-) Meanwhile,
Best Regards, Gurn

I was not concerned about the 188 figure, I could have easily boosted the figure beyond 200 myself! For the record, other than a very few pieces, I cannot say that anything had particularly interested me from Vivaldi.


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Rod:
I was not concerned about the 188 figure, I could have easily boosted the figure beyond 200 myself! For the record, other than a very few pieces, I cannot say that anything had particularly interested me from Vivaldi.

Rod,
Oh, I knew that, just being provocative in any case, since that topic is now spread out across the whole forum. As far as Vivaldi goes, he wrote many interesting pieces, although most people think "Ah yes, the Four Seasons" and that's it. In terms of Violin Concertos alone, he finally put a stake through the heart of the old Concerto Grosso and developed the solisti of one virtuoso instrument versus the ritornello of the remainder that became the standard for the next 200 years or so. He also got away from polyphony and into homophony, which I believe is a melodic line accompanied by a harmonic, and which led directly to the music that followed, with the exception of fugues and the like, which as much as we may like them, were aberrant by the time of Beethoven. I think that like many pioneers Vivaldi is discounted, also because he was so prolific that few can beieve that he could maintain quality across that much work, and perhaps to some extent they are correct, but the stake throught the heart was the dim-witted comment by some later composer/critic to the effect that if you had heard one Vivaldi concerto you had heard them all. This simply proves to me that he had no ear whatsoever. The comment stuck though, obviously longer than the name of its utterer, as I have forgotten it. In any case, while Bach (who greatly admired Vivaldi, BTW) and Handel were still writing baroque counterpoint, Vivaldi was writing Classical melody. That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
Regards, Gurn

[spaceray]

Originally posted by Rod:
I cannot say that anything had particularly interested me from Vivaldi.

Next time you are at the cd shop give a listen to Cecilia Bartoli singing Vivaldi's
"Gelido in ogni ven"This will curl your hair!
It is a huge range of vocal sound from pure bell like tones all the way over to gutteral utterances.In my humble opinion it is absolutely glorious sound.
I took a survey amongst the people I sing with at the post Messiah party last night,not a single one of them listens to vocal music,most of the teachers in the group say they don't listen to music at all,and the amature singers choose only instrumental music ,and mostly chamber music the collective all time favorite composer,
Bach!

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Chaszz: Handel's operas are selling out at the NY City Opera.

Originally posted by Rod:
Well, this is all for the good. I am not surprised that these operas have gone down well given the alternative garbage the (admittedly undeserving) opera goers are usually axposed to. It must be like a breath of fresh air!

Sorry, Rod. Handel has not replaced the usual opera draws in NYC, just been added to them. Verdi, Puccini, Wagner, Mozart and Strauss are still selling out also. As well as Beethoven.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Rod,
Oh, I knew that, just being provocative in any case, since that topic is now spread out across the whole forum. As far as Vivaldi goes, he wrote many interesting pieces, although most people think "Ah yes, the Four Seasons" and that's it. In terms of Violin Concertos alone, he finally put a stake through the heart of the old Concerto Grosso and developed the solisti of one virtuoso instrument versus the ritornello of the remainder that became the standard for the next 200 years or so. He also got away from polyphony and into homophony, which I believe is a melodic line accompanied by a harmonic, and which led directly to the music that followed, with the exception of fugues and the like, which as much as we may like them, were aberrant by the time of Beethoven. I think that like many pioneers Vivaldi is discounted, also because he was so prolific that few can beieve that he could maintain quality across that much work, and perhaps to some extent they are correct, but the stake throught the heart was the dim-witted comment by some later composer/critic to the effect that if you had heard one Vivaldi concerto you had heard them all. This simply proves to me that he had no ear whatsoever. The comment stuck though, obviously longer than the name of its utterer, as I have forgotten it. In any case, while Bach (who greatly admired Vivaldi, BTW) and Handel were still writing baroque counterpoint, Vivaldi was writing Classical melody. That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
Regards, Gurn

Well I accept in many ways Vivaldi was more at the cutting edge of musical development, and that to a degree Handel was a conservative, but Handel had a great many ideas - I find to often a lack of anything of particular thematic interest in a lot of things of Vivaldi I have heard. So in this respect I could bundle Vivaldi with Bach!

V once boasted that he could compose a concerto quicker than a copyist could type it out, and I believe him, but perhaps as a result they sound like they were written for one-off purposes whereas Handel's were so full of good tunes he would always rob them as other opportunities arose (though Handel was no slouch himself I accept, don't know about Bach in this respect). Interestintgly I heard a perfomance of a Vivaldi piece that was not from the 4 seasons, yet had one of these familiar movements as its finale. I presume V borrowed it for use in the 4S, which confirms, at least in a small degree, my suspicion that they were not originally composed with the 'seasons' specifically in mind.

With regard to the transition to Classical structures I think it was Beethoven, and Beethoven alone, that truely mastered these structures. The development of sonata form means nothing if the composer cannot supply a sufficiant amount of quality ideas of (importantly) the right proportions to justify its use.

Regarding the 188 figure again it would have easily surpassed 200 if sufficient interest has been shown in the music that was presented, but not many people seemed interested so I shelved the other tracks I had in mind. Also please consider that most of the posts in the Beethoven quotes chain are just that, quotes, and that the number of posts that are actually discussion points is far less than that of the Beethoven/Bach chain. Not that I am making an issue of anything.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin


[This message has been edited by Rod (edited December 29, 2002).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by spaceray:
Next time you are at the cd shop give a listen to Cecilia Bartoli singing Vivaldi's
"Gelido in ogni ven"This will curl your hair!
It is a huge range of vocal sound from pure bell like tones all the way over to gutteral utterances.In my humble opinion it is absolutely glorious sound.
I took a survey amongst the people I sing with at the post Messiah party last night,not a single one of them listens to vocal music,most of the teachers in the group say they don't listen to music at all,and the amature singers choose only instrumental music ,and mostly chamber music the collective all time favorite composer,
Bach!

Perhaps this explains why the vast majority of singers I've heard can't sing. I have no faith in Bartoli, she is more likely to make my toes curl. Your survey does not surprise me, most serious music fans I know are always in ecstacy over Bach, of course what they know of Handel you can write on a postage stamp!

How did the Messiah go? This is typically one of the worst performed pieces in all music I have heard. On cd I have now heard all the recommended versions (including McCreesh and Hogwood etc) but I can only recommend one - by Pinnock and the English Consert on Archiv label - this is first rate, I guarantee it.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited December 29, 2002).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
Sorry, Rod. Handel has not replaced the usual opera draws in NYC, just been added to them. Verdi, Puccini, Wagner, Mozart and Strauss are still selling out also. As well as Beethoven.

I did not expect them to be replaced. But any relief from the Romantic monstrosities I'm sure will be appreciated, if not fully understood, by the operatic 'community'.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Rod:
Well I accept in many ways Vivaldi was more at the cutting edge of musical development, and that to a degree Handel was a conservative, but Handel had a great many ideas - I find to often a lack of anything of particular thematic interest in a lot of things of Vivaldi I have heard. So in this respect I could bundle Vivaldi with Bach!

V once boasted that he could compose a concerto quicker than a copyist could type it out, and I believe him, but perhaps as a result they sound like they were written for one-off purposes whereas Handel's were so full of good tunes he would always rob them as other opportunities arose (though Handel was no slouch himself I accept, don't know about Bach in this respect). Interestintgly I heard a perfomance of a Vivaldi piece that was not from the 4 seasons, yet had one of these familiar movements as its finale. I presume V borrowed it for use in the 4S, which confirms, at least in a small degree, my suspicion that they were not originally composed with the 'seasons' specifically in mind.

With regard to the transition to Classical structures I think it was Beethoven, and Beethoven alone, that truely mastered these structures. The development of sonata form means nothing if the composer cannot supply a sufficiant amount of quality ideas of (importantly) the right proportions to justify its use.

Regarding the 188 figure again it would have easily surpassed 200 if sufficient interest has been shown in the music that was presented, but not many people seemed interested so I shelved the other tracks I had in mind. Also please consider that most of the posts in the Beethoven quotes chain are just that, quotes, and that the number of posts that are actually discussion points is far less than that of the Beethoven/Bach chain. Not that I am making an issue of anything.

Rod,
Certainly B was the ultimate classical style composer, naturally, that's why we are here! But he was also the at the end of a long chain, and he took the 100 years that came before him and perfected them (in his so-called Early Phase). His first 2 syphonies, his first 6 string quartets, his first 2 piano concertos, his first 3 piano trios, etc., are written, IMHO, for the express purpose of showing the world of music that he had mastered that form better than anyone before him, and he had. It was only after he had gotten that statement out of his system, as it were, that he moved on to the musical ideas that he had that needed expression, e.g. Opus 27 #2 "Quasi una Fantasia", that was a new style unlike others that came before it. My point about Vivaldi is that, even though he may have repeated himself (after all, turning out a concerto for mass every Sunday and for the orphan girls to play every afternoon was his JOB), he had no one to draw on but himself, since he was at the beginning of the chain rather than at the end. I don't compare him to B in any way, I am merely saying that he began the chain that B ended, and for that I am delighted. And even in a well-worn standard like the 4 Seasons, anyone who can't bring himself to listen to the 3 minute presto from the e minor concerto (Summer) and enjoy the sudden demand for virtuosity from a fiddler that really didn't exist before is missing out on something. Also, V himself realized that he was changing music, witness Opus 3, which has a deliberate contrast between concerto grosso and modern concertos, it was written for (and named L'Estro Harmonico) to show that he was now doing something entirely different. I don't think that it lowers one's standards to listen to the beginning of history as well as the end, they both have their point of interest. That's my opinion, I may be wrong,
Regards, Gurn
BTW - Perhaps you heard the V themes in Bach while you were exploring him, since he transcribed no fewer than 8 of the 12 concertos of Opus 3 for the keyboard. ;-))

[spaceray]

Originally posted by Rod:
Perhaps this explains why the vast majority of singers I've heard can't sing. I have no faith in Bartoli, she is more likely to make my toes curl. Your survey does not surprise me, most serious music fans I know are always in ecstacy over Bach, of course what they know of Handel you can write on a postage stamp!

How did the Messiah go? This is typically one of the worst performed pieces in all music I have heard. On cd I have now heard all the recommended versions (including McCreesh and Hogwood etc) but I can only recommend one - by Pinnock and the English Consert on Archiv label - this is first rate, I guarantee it.

Well never mind about Cecilia then,and yes I listen to the Pinnock as my radio station has never failed to play it on Christmas morning just as one is getting the turkey in the oven and peeling the spuds.
I might have told you this already but the Messiah I went to had the same conductor as the Dixit Dominus,it seems his trousers for his tuxedo were too small and he spent the evening adjusting them for all of us to see.
Most distracting!Otherwise I loved it ,it probably was terrible I'm no good at judging these things as I'm so awestruck by the Music
I adore Handel he is my all time favorite and I always leave in swoons of exaltation.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
With regard to the transition to Classical structures I think it was Beethoven, and Beethoven alone, that truely mastered these structures. The development of sonata form means nothing if the composer cannot supply a sufficiant amount of quality ideas of (importantly) the right proportions to justify its use.

Well I disagree! I suggest Haydn truly mastered the form (more so than Mozart who was at his best in the operas and piano concertos) - Just to show what he could do, none of the London symphonies are alike in construction - each work is unique and unpredictable.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Peter:
Well I disagree! I suggest Haydn truly mastered the form (more so than Mozart who was at his best in the operas and piano concertos) - Just to show what he could do, none of the London symphonies are alike in construction - each work is unique and unpredictable.

Bravo, Peter! As I think I said elsewhere, only B's first 2 symphonies were "classical", and were indeed excellent, but Haydn wrote 104 of them, and each one is unique, as you point out. If one looks at Haydn's total oeuvre, there is absolutely so much there, with so little repetition, that even given his longevity it is hard to comprehend. It is no wonder that Mozart and Beethoven both thought so highly of him, and when they looked for a target to set their sights on, it was "Papa". Oh, if you really want to hear the best recording of any Haydn symphonies (IMHO), see if you can get your hands on Bernstein/VPO doing Nos. 88 & 92. It's on DG, unfortunately out of print but I got it used.These 2 symphonies alone are both actually superior (again IMHO) to even the London set. Also, not to be an apologist for Mozart (he doesn't need one!), but you might be intrigued by both the Piano Quartets (which he invented, BTW) and the 6 String Quintets (K 515 & 516 are sublime). As you know, I'm a chamber music guy, so I probably look for different qualities than others, but Mozart was a lot more than just opera and Piano Concertos, or you are depriving yourself!
Regards, Gurn