fable's Q&A on classical music

[fable]

You're welcome. I should add that there are some instances of either cultural backwardness or upset in European nations that have historically proved unfriendly to composers. Pre-nationalistic Scandanavia in the 19th century was as hidebound a place, culturally, as you could find, and its most talented people left it for greener pastures. Those who returned didn't receive the attention they deserved until long after deaths--a good example being Franz Berwald, probably Sweden's greatest composer.

As for hostile periods, roughly 1775 to 1825 was very bad for the arts throughout much of Europe. It was a time of war and revolt, the loss of traditional sources of patronage from the nobility, and the development of a cullture-seeking middle class. Composers who could adapt to the changing rules survived, though they often found that giving up their roles as household servants to the entitled meant giving up the opportunity to compose regularly, as well, which they traded for long hours teaching, traveling, and/or giving recitals.

[Naffnuff]

Contrary to popular myth, nearly all composers were very well understood during their lifetimes, and so were most painters, too. Those who did very poorly were usually very poor salesmen of their own work. Consider Schubert: he dressed poorly, didn't bathe regularly, and had a habit of cringing before publishers. Other musicians knew his merit, but he let the commercial side of things slide through his own personality quirks.

Or consider Mozart. Contrary again to popular myth, he was extremely well paid through most of his life, almost always ending up in the top 5% of the payscale for Viennese musicians. But he lent money unwisely to friends, even when he needed it, and refused to take lucrative offers outside Vienna, even after the city went into severe economic depression due to Joseph II's disastrous war schemes. There is good reason to believe that, had he lived another couple of years, Mozart would have been secure financially with one of three positions that might have come his way, plus an English tour on which his good friend and fellow composer, Haydn, was then engaged. But it wasn't to be.

What is true is that several composers were suckered early in their careers by publishers who bought works cheaply, that then turned into popular hits. This happened to both Sibelius and Dvorak, among others. They usually turned the tables later in life, however, and Dvorak in particular made his publisher Simrock sweat for his compositions, occasionally giving business to his competitors in revenge.

Hope all this helps. Feel free to ask further, if I haven't been clearer, or I just engender more questions.

What about J. S. Bach? I have often heard it said that he was most underappreciated during and some 80 years after his lifetime (except, famously, by Mozart and Beethoven). If nothing else there is that quote by one of his employers: "Since the best man could not be obtained, mediocre ones would have to be accepted." Is this a myth as well?

[fable]

What about J. S. Bach? I have often heard it said that he was most underappreciated during and some 80 years after his lifetime (except, famously, by Mozart and Beethoven). If nothing else there is that quote by one of his employers: "Since the best man could not be obtained, mediocre ones would have to be accepted." Is this a myth as well?

It is. Leipzig Councilman Platz did state that to his fellow councilmen, but it leaves out two important points. First, the statement of mediocrity was an exasperated one, based on the fact that none of the applicants--the world-famous Telemann, Kauffmann, Schott, or Bach--wanted to teach Latin, which was a prerequisite for the job of Kantor. So the disparagement was aimed at the self-willed nature of the musicians who applied, their lack of "enlightenment" (in several senses), and not at Bach's musical skill.

Second, it was not directed at Bach. It was directed at the group. And nobody but nobody at that time would have ever thought of calling Telemann "mediocre," since he was the most celebrated musician in all the German States.

The idea that Bach was unappreciated is largely a fabrication of late 19th century German musicologists who started up the Bach Cult. Instead, JS Bach needs to be viewed in context. He held very coveted posts, and was handsomely paid. He never came close to being dismissed from any of them, though he was extremely territorial about his job--as were/are most Germans. When he applied for a post, he did so in a highly competitive atmosphere, against other musicians who were quite good, and in a few cases far better known.

Bach also received numerous commissions and tokens of respect from presiding nobility, ecclesiastical authorities, and universities throughout the German States. The best known of these comes from Frederick II (the so-called "Great"), who was extremely conservative in his musical tastes, and therefore appreciated old Bach far more than his eldest son, who served Frederick in several musical capacities.

This was a limiting factor for Bach. Despite his organ improvisations which ran the stylistic spectrum, he was fundamentally conservative and adamantly North German in style. Bach was behind the times in this regard, and he felt the sting of it: JA Scheibe, who published an influential journal entitled Der criticsche Musikus, acknowledged his remarkable skill as a keyboard performer but stated that Bach "by his bombastic and intricate procedures deprived them of naturalness and obscured their beauty by an excess of art." This is exactly the same stylistic criticism leveled against Bach to this day by people by no means unknowledgable about classical music. Bach chose to write this way; it was perfectly sound, but it was no longer universally popular, and he took it further than any of his predecessors. If he was hurt by the responses he sometimes received (and he was; we know this), then he had the remedy at hand in writing differently. He usually didn't. Exposing the craft of music, instead of hiding it, meant much to him.

Two more points: Beethoven didn't appreciate Bach anywhere nearly as much as Mendelssohn, who restarted public interest in the Leipzig cantor with his concerts arranging and conducting the St. Matthew Passion. This was when Mendelssohn was only 20, and it caused a sensation.

As for Mozart, he admired Bach, but also Handel, and other Baroque masters. Again, putting Bach up on a solitary pedestal is very much a 19th century German musicologist approach, in part because it furthered political goals. Unlike Handel, Bach didn't emigrate. Unlike Telemann, Bach was hardly cosmopolitan. That's not to say Bach wasn't an excellent composer; merely that he was hoisted to a position for reasons that may have had nothing to do with his considerable merits.

[Naffnuff]

Wow! There you certainly taught me a thing or two!

Thanks for a great answer and for a very interesting thread altogether!

[Moonbiter]

2. And second: if the Rach 3 isn't the hardest piano piece in the world, can you think of a piece that would deserve that title, or is at least harder than the Rach 3?

I would just like to add a few things to the already sterling answers: The difficulty of a particular piece of piano music is very much up to the pianist. Everything from sense/understanding of the music to the size/span of the hands. Technical ability plays a part , but it doesn't count for much if you don't have a feel for the music, or you have too small/large hands to do it justice. I've known phenomenally successful pianists who couldn't deal with the seemingly "simplest" pieces because of these issues. My personal "Vietnam" on the piano happened after I'd done Schubert's "Die Forelle" (The Trout Quintet) to much media hoopla because we were all really young, 12-15 years old, and played it like a dream. It's a fairly non-threatening piece. So then my piano teacher, who was a "slight bit" pushy, figured out that I should try the Liszt "variations" of the same piece. I had NO idea how difficult they would be. It was almost like you needed 4 hands! I sat there banging my head against the keyboard for nearly a year before I could churn out a passable interpretation, and to this day it's quite possibly the most difficult piece I've ever encountered.

I would also like to mention that some piano music that is not necessarily considered "classical" yet, like some ragtime etc, can be near impossibly hard to learn.:laugh: A lot of great piano players, like Vladimir Ashkenazy, has been mangling classical pieces that they should never have played for ages, while being brilliant on other material. Listening to him play Chopin's piano waltzes is like listening to the Sex Pistols trying to play the "Moonlight Sonata." As I said initially, it's all up to the pianist.

[Kree]

Hello Fable and all, I do occasionally listen to Classical though I wont suggest I know anything about the topic lol. Simply put, I do enjoy Debussy (favourite being La Mer) and my other favourite is Handel's Water Music. Anyway I have a few questions for you...
1) I quite enjoy classical which has a strong Brass section which gives a fast upbeat tempo (one of the reasons I also enjoy Valkyrie) however I just don't know where to look specifically... Do you have any suggestions???
2) also just a preference question... Do you prefer any period to another??? Baroque, Romantic, classical, Renaissance??? Also for you which period was most fruitful??
3) And finally, is there any possible way to 'rate' modern day classical renditions??? Does it really matter who performs or are there telltale signs I should look out for to ensure quality??? Anyway thanks in advance.

[fable]

1) I quite enjoy classical which has a strong Brass section which gives a fast upbeat tempo (one of the reasons I also enjoy Valkyrie) however I just don't know where to look specifically... Do you have any suggestions???

A few. Consider the following:

Vaughan Williams: English Folk Song Suite (original version)

Holst: Suites 1 and 2 for millitary band (The third movement march of the first suite is an old favorite of mine. I once met a friend who was a fellow oldtime player in Gemstone III, and a well-thought of high school bandleader. We started humming the treble and bass lines for the whole thing together over lunch while my wife burst out laughing.)

Tchaikovsky: Marche Slav. (Not a work I care for, but there are a few passages of wonderful brass.)

Bruckner: Sym #4. (The scherzo makes wonderful use of the brass. It's also a good introduction to this composer.)

Delalande: Symphonies for the King's Supper.

Rimsky-Korsakov: Scheherazade. (Though he often favored the strings, R-K does quite a bit with the brass, especially in the last movement.)

Schumann: Concerto for Four French Horns. (A must for sheer manic high spirits.)

Hindemith: Symphonic Metamorphosis of Themes by Carl Maria von Weber. (I suggest Decker and the New Zealand SO, on Naxos. Not only is it cheaper than many others, it's also a lot lighter and faster where it should be.)

You might also want to look for classical works featuring various brass ensembles, such as the Canadian Brass, or the Philip Jones Brass Ensemble. Check out the latter's "Greatest Hits" album, which really does live up to its name, for a change. Or try the Empire Brass's "Baroque Music for Brass and Organ," which includes a few very well known Baroque marches and voluntaries that are traditional favorites.

2) also just a preference question... Do you prefer any period to another??? Baroque, Romantic, classical, Renaissance??? Also for you which period was most fruitful??

I don't really have a preference as such by period or nation, though at certain times, in certain places, more classical music of quality was composed for differing reasons. For example, During the 16th century, the heads of Italian city states treated the ownership of small male choirs as a status symbol. They vied for the finest singers, directors, and composers, paid huge sums for their services, and on even employed their diplomatic representatives at one another's courts to bribe singers to move (without permission, of course). As a result, a large amount of excellent sacred and secular Italian choral music exists from this period. Similarly, in latter half of the 20th century, the Finnish government made a great many grants and commissions available for operas. They've since developed a huge number of excellent operas--probably better than anything as a group since the early 20th century--and a great many fine singers to perform them.

3) And finally, is there any possible way to 'rate' modern day classical renditions??? Does it really matter who performs or are there telltale signs I should look out for to ensure quality??? Anyway thanks in advance.

Tough one, that. Let me try a few suggestions.

Performers should always be technically adroit, able to surmount the challenges of the music not merely without flubs, but without any sense of holding back slightly because of technical issues.

While there's no reason to be rigid about tempos and composer's markings, the composer placed those markings there for good reasons. If the performer seriously neglects them, it gives me the impression that they either want to do things the easy way, or at least, not do them the composer's way.

There are also quite a few recent conductors who completely neglect tempo markings, especially during the classical and baroque periods, performing everything very fast. If you ever encounter an adagio or andante movement (which is meant to be moderately slow) that sounds very quick, you're listening to a conductor who prefers something they've read by a modern theorist to the living music in front of them.

Listen for such things as balance between sections of an orchestra. Compare identical versions of the same work in the same passage, and ask yourself: why do I like it so well in this performance, but it doesn't do much at all for me, in this performance?

There are quite a number of other issues involved, but I think that might help.

[C Elegans]

I would just like to add a few things to the already sterling answers: The difficulty of a particular piece of piano music is very much up to the pianist. Everything from sense/understanding of the music to the size/span of the hands. Technical ability plays a part , but it doesn't count for much if you don't have a feel for the music, or you have too small/large hands to do it justice.

As a former pianist, I must agree with Moonbiter. I played Rachmaninov's 2nd and 3rd as a teenager and never found them as hard as Chopin's etudes. Chopin was really killing me, he was really my musical trauma, I hated those etudes to the extent that it took me 10 years to be able to appreciate listening to them. Strangely, Rachmaninov had very large hands (I had to cheat and use two very swift keystrokes + the damper pedal) whereas Chopin had very small hands, and I also have quite small hands.

Apart from Chopin's etudes, I would also say that Liszts's etudes are very difficult. From just listening and never having played them, I would also think some of Ligety's etudes are very difficult too, but they are not as well known and most people wouldn't be able to tell if the pianist makes an error or not

A lot of great piano players, like Vladimir Ashkenazy, has been mangling classical pieces that they should never have played for ages, while being brilliant on other material. Listening to him play Chopin's piano waltzes is like listening to the Sex Pistols trying to play the "Moonlight Sonata.

LOL I completely agree, but he is great with Rachmaninov IMO!

[Kree]

Thank you very much Fable. Thanks for the concise answers - will check out the songs soon

By the way, I totally agree with modern day composers attempting to speed up the songs, as if it increases how good the piece is or how good the group is.


Also willing to accept suggestions from other classical enthusiasts on Brass based pieces

[Kree]

Just like to thank you again Fable - BTW Marche Slav has quickly become one of my favourite pieces

Anyway, this is another personal question but what makes an 'epic' piece for you? Strong string ensemble, woodwind??? (for me its brass, as you know lol)

Can you also recommend some pieces which you would consider 'epic' in a sense that it seems absolutely humongous and strong (I think a high tempo is most important for me)

Anyway, sorry to bother you, just asking for a few more suggestions.... IM ADDICTED NOW lol

[fable]

Anyway, this is another personal question but what makes an 'epic' piece for you? Strong string ensemble, woodwind??? (for me its brass, as you know lol)

There's no traditional use of the word "epic" in classical music, though I've seen it applied to works that are large in scope (compared to others in the same genre). Examples would be Wagner's Ring Cycle of four operas, Gliere's Ilya Murometz Symphony, and Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum, which takes a pianist four hours to play. These aren't merely long works, however. They are also epic in the sense that they deal with largescale structures, and in two cases, have ties to important literary works.

Can you also recommend some pieces which you would consider 'epic' in a sense that it seems absolutely humongous and strong (I think a high tempo is most important for me)

Have you considered a CD of opera and incidental music overtures? Overtures tend to employ tempos on the fast side, extrovert themes, and bright coloration. (Of course, there are exceptions.) For example:

Smetana: The Bartered Bride Overture
Mozart: Marriage of Figaro Overture
Vaughan Williams: The Wasps Overture
Bernstein: Candide Overture
Rimsky-Korsakov: May Night Overture
Borodin: Prince Igor Overture (also his Polovtsian Dances)
Balakirev: Islamey
Nicolai: Merry Wives of Windsor Overture
Rossini: Any overture of his
Dukas: The Sorceror's Apprentice
Saint-Saens: Danse Macabre
Glinika: Ruslan and Ludmilla Overture

Some of these pieces start slowly and softly, but only by way of introduction. You might want to check some of them out.

Anyway, sorry to bother you, just asking for a few more suggestions.... IM ADDICTED NOW lol

Glad to hear it. The nice thing about classical music is that it covers such a huge range of material, most anybody can find a large niche to explore of things they like. As tastes change, there's just that much more to encounter.

[Kree]

Thank you so much Fable - I am now much more enlightened from this thread - I absolutely love this stuff lol

[TheAmazingOopah]

As a former pianist, I must agree with Moonbiter. I played Rachmaninov's 2nd and 3rd as a teenager and never found them as hard as Chopin's etudes. Chopin was really killing me, he was really my musical trauma, I hated those etudes to the extent that it took me 10 years to be able to appreciate listening to them. Strangely, Rachmaninov had very large hands (I had to cheat and use two very swift keystrokes + the damper pedal) whereas Chopin had very small hands, and I also have quite small hands.

Wow, you played those two as a teenager? Cool! How was that like? Really hard, or managable? How long did it take you before you first performed it? And how many time did you need before you were satisfied with your performance? Sorry for the curiosity, but that really sounds interesting. I mean, at what age did you actually started playing as a professional (?) pianist? And was it like a side thing where you performed say once a month and still went to a regular school, or did you have a private teacher or went to a school with extra musical attention?

More of a Q&A for C Elegans this post, I hope that Fable won't mind.

[Kree]

Also, anyone have any suggestions for good reading material on any period????

[Tricky]

Double post, sorry. My browser didn't respond.

[Tricky]

Say Fable, this is kind of a long shot, but how's your Q&Aing on modern Jazz?

If possible I'd like your help figuring out this 23 second audio sample I extracted from a video file. The people I asked are scraping their heads over this. Well.. I like it and I would love to hear more, but I have no information on it whatsoever.

I can't keep the sample below the maximum attachment size, not even in mp3 form. I could mail it? It would be about 300 kb.

[Noober]

I was wondering, Fable, if you could suggest a specific set to introduce me to Mozart's operas. They seem to be the only operas that I simply don't care for (probably because I just don't like light voices unless they have godlike coloratura mastery), but given the barren opera scene in Melbourne, I'm probably going to have to see a Mozart some time soon.

I'm currently considering three sets which I have been referred to, but my knowledge of the popular/definitive Mozart sets are quite limited and I'm really just guessing by reputation. I'm not particularly concerned with sound quality (good mono, or a half-decent live recording are all acceptable), but I should state I absolutely loathe a certain unmentionable New Zealand Dame.

The 1966 Klemperer/Ghiaurov/Gedda/Ludwig/Freni Don Giovanni is the first option (as it's currently being staged), the next is the 1968 Böhm/Mathis/Dieskau/Janowitz/Troyanos Figaro (I quite enjoyed Il Barbiere) and lastly the 1964 Klemperer/Gedda/Janowitz/Popp/Frick/Unger/Schwarzkopf/Ludwig Magic Flute (I like Gedda and Popp).

I would be grateful for any input you can offer.

[fable]

Say Fable, this is kind of a long shot, but how's your Q&Aing on modern Jazz?

Do you mean very recent jazz styles, performers, or compositions? And how modern is modern? Many would assert that 1960s third stream jazz was more modern than anything that's appeared, since.

The 1966 Klemperer/Ghiaurov/Gedda/Ludwig/Freni Don Giovanni is the first option (as it's currently being staged), the next is the 1968 Böhm/Mathis/Dieskau/Janowitz/Troyanos Figaro (I quite enjoyed Il Barbiere) and lastly the 1964 Klemperer/Gedda/Janowitz/Popp/Frick/Unger/Schwarzkopf/Ludwig Magic Flute (I like Gedda and Popp).

Avoid the Klemperer. During the 1960s his recordings suddenly became incredibly slow, after having been relatively fast through all of his life. Most of the singers can't handle his tempi in that Don Giovanni, though the Giovanni, Ghiaurov, and the Leporello, Berry, do a fine job. Consider, instead, the version led by Giulini. It has a superb cast, and an excellent conductor.

Good choice on the Figaro, and also on the Magic Flute, nowhere near as stodgy as Klemperer's Don Giovanni. As I recall, though, much of the German dialog was excised. That may be the best way to enjoy it, but you should at least have a libretto of the complete work so you can follow along on the dialog sections that aren't included.

Good luck.

[Tricky]

Do you mean very recent jazz styles, performers, or compositions? And how modern is modern? Many would assert that 1960s third stream jazz was more modern than anything that's appeared, since.

Sorry for my late reply. There's all kinds of stuff going on atm.

The base and drum are modern enough to remind me of Ska. Sax sounds bebop, but there aren't enough notes in the sample to determine any type of scale. Drums have definitely too much structure in it to be bebop. Base.. I don't know. Can't hear it that well.


Edit: I rigged up a YouSendIt tranfer. Don't know why I didn't think of this earlier.
YouSendIt - Sample

The link should be enough, but it won't work forever.

[Noober]

Avoid the Klemperer. During the 1960s his recordings suddenly became incredibly slow, after having been relatively fast through all of his life. Most of the singers can't handle his tempi in that Don Giovanni, though the Giovanni, Ghiaurov, and the Leporello, Berry, do a fine job. Consider, instead, the version led by Giulini. It has a superb cast, and an excellent conductor.

Interesting, I always thought that Mozart singers are meant to have superior breath control (but then again I haven't gone far past McCormack's Il Mio Tesoro), and I wouldn't have thought that Gedda with his easy 20 second phrases would have that much trouble. Thanks for the advice, I'll be sure to pick up the Guilini set next time I'm out.

Btw, is the Der Holle Rache from the Klemperer set (Popp + slow tempo seems right)?:
YouTube - "Queen of the Night" Lucia Popp: "Der Hölle Rache"