Curious Dislikes
Sun, Jan 20 2013, 11:44PM
#2
RE: Curious Dislikes
Well written, Schiller, but I did not mean what you wish to "read". What I tried to say is that a Shostie's "dross" is not trash to be dismissed or even discarded but works to be further examined and listened as an integral part of the composer's opus. In the same vein, one has to listen seriously "Fur Elise", as an integral part of the Piano Music of Beethoven and not as a mere flop (which, in any case, it is not, but only at a superficial glance).
To remember another quote from dear and Wild Oscar: one has to treat trivial things seriously and serious things with triviality.
Parla
Mon, Jan 21 2013, 1:08PM
#3
RE: Curious Dislikes
Yeah, seen in the context of Wolfie's entire oeuvre, Leck mich im Arsch is quite an undisputed, brilliant masterpiece of Music!
Mon, Jan 21 2013, 2:28PM
#4
RE: Curious Dislikes
...Leck mich im Arsch is quite an undisputed, brilliant masterpiece of Music!
Indeed. And I am sure the four-note motif with which it opens will remind the astute listener of the finale of the Jupiter Symphony. lol
Mon, Jan 21 2013, 4:05PM
#5
RE: Curious Dislikes
Not exactly, Bazza. The canon is in B flat, while the Finale of "Jupiter" is in C major, to mention a basic difference.
As for Brumas' bright example, still the question is: Mozart's small canon, as a musical piece, is "equal" to its sordid and contemptible lyrics or it is still the musical work of a great and genius composer. Here, we examine the music, not the occasional lyrics, libretti, texts etc.
Parla
Mon, Jan 21 2013, 4:26PM
#6
RE: Curious Dislikes
Obviously not a musician. lol
Mon, Jan 21 2013, 4:42PM
#7
RE: Curious Dislikes
Not exactly, Bazza. The canon is in B flat, while the Finale of "Jupiter" is in C major, to mention a basic difference.
As for Brumas' bright example, still the question is: Mozart's small canon, as a musical piece, is "equal" to its sordid and contemptible lyrics or it is still the musical work of a great and genius composer. Here, we examine the music, not the occasional lyrics, libretti, texts etc.
Parla
It is the work of a great composer, sure. But the thing you seem to find very hard to understand is that 'a work by a great composer' ≠ 'a great work'. I think it's high time to let these nineteenth century notions of the composer genius go. No matter how devine some of their works, composers are not Gods.
Mon, Jan 21 2013, 6:04PM
#8
RE: Curious Dislikes
Leaving aside our possible excessive 'veneration' of the lesser works of greater composers, I can't help but feel that there are serious practical difficulties for most listeners in comparing lesser works of great masters with the finest works of 'lessser' composers. Read any commentary on, say, Beethoven's First Symphony and you will find numerous references to aspects, as yet not fully developed, that became the essence of his mature style. So it is for the listener. Once we know the great works of the great composers, try as we may, it is impossible not to notice the hints even in minor works of what is to come. That option (or problem) is not there for the possibly comparable works of lesser composers. Because it has to stand on its own, arguably, to be appreciated fully, a solitary masterpiece by a second class composer has to be even finer than its counterpart?
Of course one shouldn't push this too far! As far as the little canon humorously referred to by Bazza, well, on the one hand we should not necessarily be put off by Mozart's lewd titles (think of all the rude comments he wrote for poor Leutgeb on the scores of his Horn Concertos), and on the other hand, many scholars believe that the little canon in question is not the work of Mozart at all. You pays your money....
Chris
Mon, Jan 21 2013, 7:51PM
#9
RE: Curious Dislikes
...many scholars believe that the little canon in question is not the work of Mozart at all.
In which case the Jupiter "quote" is an elaborate hoax. :-D
Tue, Jan 22 2013, 12:50AM
#10
RE: Curious Dislikes
Of course, no matter how divine their works, composers are not "Gods". However, most of those who composed these divine works are definitely and undisputedly Good and that's enough. We don't need "Gods" in music; just solid Good composers and musicians.
Parla
Tue, Jan 22 2013, 9:33AM
#11
RE: Curious Dislikes
1) who says most composers are good? Wagner was a rabiate antisemite, as was Bruckner, Händel had quite a temper, Gesualdo was a murderer, Strauss had a problematic relationship with the nazi party, Mozart was quite vulgar at times... You may deny that you think composers are gods, yet your posts suggest you still adhere to the old romantic notion of the composer genious...
and more importantly,
2) why is this relevant? As you said, we are dealing with music here, not with liberetti, texts or biographies. It's about the art, not the artist. Great art always transcends its maker. Read Roland Barthes. The autor is dead.
Tue, Jan 22 2013, 9:35AM
#12
RE: Curious Dislikes
I took Parla's remark to mean good as in the quality of the music they wrote. To suggest that someone would have to lead a good life and be pure in spirit is really saying 'god' and of course ridiculous, but I don't think anyone did. And to suggest that Strauss had a problematic relationship with the nazi party, everyone had a problematic relationship with the nazi party, they were the nazi party.
Tue, Jan 22 2013, 9:58AM
#13
RE: Curious Dislikes
Ah, if he meant 'aesthetically' rather than 'morally' good, I agree. Yet even then, the fact that someone is a great composer does not mean we have to venerate every single note they have composed. That sort of idolatry ought to have died in the nineteenth century.
Tue, Jan 22 2013, 10:06AM
#14
RE: Curious Dislikes
Yes I agree, along with 'key and character'.
Tue, Jan 22 2013, 3:56PM
#15
RE: Curious Dislikes
Schiller almost always got me correct. Of course, I meant "good" composers as an understatement of the great and as a word closer to the supposed (and proposed) God.
By all means, I don't mean we have to "venerate every single note they composed", but we don't have either to dismiss every tiny, weaker, lesser work at a superficial first glance. A minor work by a great composer is always useful to examine, to indulge, to relate it to the integral opus of the composer.
Parla
OK, 78, no problem. I think we understand each other by now.
Dear Schiller, Shostie might have composed some "dross" (as you may call his weaker compositions), but his dross is more important than some finer works of some less significant composers.
Parla
More important maybe but the finer work from the lesser composer is still the better work. And if it looks like dross, sounds like dross and smells like dross, then you can bet it's dross, whoever signed it. Important dross maybe, but still dross. But let's not judge shosti on his dross. Shosters looked to the stars but sometimes just lay in the gutter said Oscar Wilde after playing his complete set of Shostakovich symphonies.