Listening Project
Sun, Dec 2 2012, 1:13PM
#2
RE: Listening Project
Do I have to, Guillaume?
In any case, I don't have them in my collection. I tried to listen to them in Youtube, but it is a very unfair way for any musical work to listen with poor listening conditions (from a computer audio devices).
Koppel is a more interesting figure, definitely in the Danish Symphonic and compositional tradition. Nyman, on the other, is beyond me (and Eliza, I trust).
Parla
Mon, Dec 3 2012, 1:10PM
#3
RE: Koppel - Symphony no. 3
Thanks for this Bazza! A composer completely new to me, and I am glad to have made his acquaintance. I thought it was a very fine work, and had a kind of appealing modesty about it too. Brooding yes, and heartfelt. There is no doubt you've been listening to something deeply felt.
Taking the sectional breakdown from the Naxos site;
Allegro Moderato - Presto - Tempo1 - Allegro Energico - Tranquillo - Poco Fluendo
Yes it is a bit unbalanced maybe Brumas in the lengths of sections. The scherzo type section (the Presto) is a bit long, and perhaps the first section is too, which is about ten minutes. But the remaining 4 sections felt about right.
Graham I enjoyed your fine description of it. Forget about writing for the magazine, we need more good writers on the forum!
Anyway, I'll get onto the Nyman so I can catch up!
Mark
‘Only the pure of heart can make good soup’ – Ludwig Van Beethoven
Mon, Dec 3 2012, 5:11PM
#4
RE: Listening Project
Hi all,
Glad to see that Koppel's 3rd went down pretty well. He was a new name to me once upon a time and I only downloaded the third as it was a cheap option in the days when Emusic.com charged the same for a 30minute track as it did for a 30sec one!
I agree that some of the juxtapositions of sections could be smoother but that matters little compared to the sheer power of the work. If you like it and want to explore further, then any of the symphonies that follow are worth hearing. 4 and 5 are three movement pieces in a similar vein. No.6 is a much more compact and cogent piece. Seven is a bit tougher but also excellent. 1&2 are lame in comparision so should be left for last. Also try to hear his superb Piano Quintet.
regards
Mon, Dec 3 2012, 5:26PM
#5
RE: Listening Project
Sorry, but the Memorial of Nyman did nothing for me. It sounds like an over-long tango by Piazzolla and I don't think anyone would pretend that was serious music. Not even the Argentineans.
Mon, Dec 3 2012, 10:37PM
#6
RE: Listening Project
If it (Memorial by Nyman) did sound like a tango (nuevo) by Piazzolla, that would constitute a high compliment, Bazza. Piazzolla was one of the great composers of the 20th century, his music is considered by many as serious (and most importantly truly beautiful) and the Argentineans are extremely proud of this very fine composer who lifted the tango to a completely new level of artform.
Nyman's Memorial sounds like a very odd funeral march instead.
I see you appreciate the art of Koppel. I'm a bit surprised to call his Piano Quintet superb. If that is the case, I wonder what we should call Shostakovich's, for that matter.
Parla
Tue, Dec 4 2012, 2:16AM
#7
RE: Listening Project
Prompted by this thread I gave a listen to the only Koppel I have - his Cello Concerto, a work I haven't heard in eons - to see if I'd been missing anything. No, is the short answer. Mind you the Vagn Holmboe on the flip side isn't much Kop (excuse me) either. It seems to me that most cello concerti only serve to underline the supreme achievements of Dvorak and Shostakovich. As with the guitar concerto discussion on another thread, getting the cello to speak idiomatically and actually say something meaningful is a challenge beyond most composers.
Thu, Dec 6 2012, 9:08PM
#8
RE: Listening Project
Re: the discussion about wether or not the Nymann piece is classical music or not - is 'classical music' really somehting we can define to a single sound or compositional approach? If we use the term to refer to anything from isorhythmic motets, concerti grossi, romantic symphonies, song-cycles and twelve-tone works, what is it that all this music has in common? I won't digress too much (perhas an idea for another thread?) but I would argue that classical music is composed and notated music that is meant to be performed by a variety of performers (as opposed to popular music, where there is a strong connection between a song and a single performer). So I don't see why the Nyman piece would not fit this catagory.
On Memorial: I knew the piece from The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover. It worked perfectly in the context of that film. However, I felt it was not too interesting to listen to on its own. In general, I'm not that fond of minimal music, although I like this a bit more than the music of the likes of Glass or Reich. But there's just too little substance for my taste.
Thu, Dec 6 2012, 11:42PM
#9
RE: Listening Project
Brumas, Classical Music is not anything "notated" and "meant to be performed by a variety of performers". Any sort of music can be notated, if the composer or the producer or the performer wishes. In the same vein, any sort of pop, folk, jazz music is not meant to be strongly connected only with one performer. Beatles' Songs are performed by anyone anywhere in the world. So are Brell's or folk songs. The difference, of course, is that there is no original score to be based upon, stricto sensu.
The key features of the notated music, which is called Classical are:
-great and clear melodic lines connected in counterpoint and creating a coherent harmonic language.
-specific instrumentation serving well the harmony and counterpoint.
-the form: in Classical works, the form constitute the alpha and omega of the work; it express the complex interconnection of melodic lines, harmony, the development of the narrative and the structure of the whole opus.
-high level of artistic complexity: a "classical" work is characterised by a complexity of thematic development, demanding harmony, a rich variety of modulations, a clean and rich texture and various ways to present, develop and fulfil the work, developing movements, sections within the movements, different phrases, etc.
Nyman's music and most of the minimalist composers confine themselves to...minimum service...So, if Nyman's music is at least notated, has some melodic lines, a specific but rather monotonous or simple orchestration, a minimum of form, etc., yes, you may call his music minimal classical music.
Parla
Fri, Dec 7 2012, 1:47PM
#10
RE: Listening Project
I chose Nyman's piece for this project hoping it would stimulate this kind of debate. I have to admit he is a composer right at the edge of my area of listening but I'm pleased that even his harshest critics seem to have grudgingly accepted that his music is classical. Otherwise I would have had to throw my CD's out!
Not everyone will agree with Parla's view that minimalism is a waste of time. The minimalist style or school is a valid part of the continuous development of music. Glass is about the only modern classical composer that people who do not listen to classical music will have heard of, which is actually quite an achievement for him.
A lot of the forum members here generally think that nothing very good has happened in modern music since Shostakovich and Britten passed away. I disagree and enjoy getting to understand the styles of Glass, Rautavarra, Ades, etc, etc. There is much to enjoy and if composers today are going to write music they need to know that there is an audience willing to listen. Otherwise they would not waste their time.
Having said that, listening to Schumann's piano quintet last night reminded me that the core classical repertory is unlikely to be rivalled. I am sure Parla and I agree on that one!
Best regards
Graham
Fri, Dec 7 2012, 3:39PM
#11
RE: Listening Project
Brumas, Classical Music is not anything "notated" and "meant to be performed by a variety of performers". Any sort of music can be notated, if the composer or the producer or the performer wishes. In the same vein, any sort of pop, folk, jazz music is not meant to be strongly connected only with one performer. Beatles' Songs are performed by anyone anywhere in the world. So are Brell's or folk songs. The difference, of course, is that there is no original score to be based upon, stricto sensu.
Difference is that a performance of a Beatles' song by someone else is considered a cover, whereas a performance of a Schubert song is not a cover of the piece but simply a performance. It's true that folk songs are performed by a variety of performers, but what distinguishes folk from classical is that with folk the composer is unknown. So, I would maintain that what makes a piece classial is that it is notated, with the score being its primary manifestation, and open to be played by any performer.
The key features of the notated music, which is called Classical are:
These are your key features, not the key features. If anything, the list below is a list of what you consider to be good classical music. The are by no means sine qua non of what makes something classical.
-great and clear melodic lines connected in counterpoint and creating a coherent harmonic language.
Classical music in its broadest sense also encompasses monophonic medieval music with no counterpoint whatsoever. Also, try to find any great and clear melodic lines in Xenakis....
-specific instrumentation serving well the harmony and counterpoint.
What about purely vocal music, or early music with no specified instrumentation?
-the form: in Classical works, the form constitute the alpha and omega of the work; it express the complex interconnection of melodic lines, harmony, the development of the narrative and the structure of the whole opus.
So what about a fantasia or an impromptu? Also, does the fact that romantic composers adhere less strictly to form mean that 19th century music is less 'classical'?
-high level of artistic complexity: a "classical" work is characterised by a complexity of thematic development, demanding harmony, a rich variety of modulations, a clean and rich texture and various ways to present, develop and fulfil the work, developing movements, sections within the movements, different phrases, etc.
This could easily apply to a lot of jazz, non-western musics such as Azeri mugâm or even some popular pieces.
Nyman's music and most of the minimalist composers confine themselves to...minimum service...So, if Nyman's music is at least notated, has some melodic lines, a specific but rather monotonous or simple orchestration, a minimum of form, etc., yes, you may call his music minimal classical music.
Parla
If we want to continue this debate I suggest we open a thread titled 'the ontology of classical music' to avoid going too far off-topic here...
Fri, Dec 7 2012, 6:37PM
#12
RE: Listening Project RE: Listening Project
It's true that folk songs are performed by a variety of performers, but what distinguishes folk from classical is that with folk the composer is unknown.
I agree with 95% of your post, but here you're going with only half of the current dictionary definition of folk: music handed down by popular tradition of the people or contemporary music of a similar style. Obviously contemporary folk composers are well-known.
If we want to continue this debate I suggest we open a thread titled 'the ontology of classical music' to avoid going too far off-topic here...
Or you could go back to one of the many threads in which this topic has been done to death. Parla is back on his hobby horse here, one that he handles like a novice buckaroo at the Calgary Stampede.
Fri, Dec 7 2012, 10:59PM
#13
RE: Listening Project
Brumas, if "Classical" is any notated music, we would not call it Classical but simply..."notated" music. Beatles' songs are notated too; there are published ones and there are the edited ones as well. The point is that the performers do not have to follow a specific score necessarily, since the simplicity of pop (or folk, etc) does not require precise performances. The performers do not have to recreate the original, when they perform, while in a Schubert lied the "performance" means precise recreation of the existing score. As Tagalie pointed out there are quite a few composers of folk music which are known and quite a few works of Classical Music by unknown (till now) composers too. By the way, the score of a Classical work is not "open to be played by any performer"; he/she/they have to be professional performers, properly trained and educated.
If the "key features" are mine, which are the key features? And if they are "by no means sine qua non of what makes something (?) classical", what eventually does make "it" classical?
The "monophonic medieval music as well as Xenakis" constitute the "outer space" (or the outer borderline) of what we define as Classical Music. They are the traces and the leftovers of it.
When we speak of "instrumentation", we mean the broader use of any form of instruments or voices the composer is to use. In a Piano/Violin Sonata, a good instrumentation means a superb balance between the two instruments, idiomatic writing for both instruments and so on. In this way, in a purely vocal work, the importance lies in the brilliant use of the different voices involved, possible soloists, the harmony between them etc. Again the early music is not judged as full compositions, since the notation had not been developed fully, there was not enough instruments to choose for a formal instrumentation, counterpoint and harmony have not even fully initiated and developed.
A "fantasia" or "impromptu" do not exclude the use of form: there are clear melodic lines connected in harmony, there is development of the thematic elements (Franck's Violin Sonata is a superb example of that). The fact that "romantic composers" have a more free way of writing, it does not mean that their works have no or even loose form. Actually, the form in the Romantic era reaches some of its very heights (Wagner, Bruckner, Brahms, most of Schumann).
"This" (high level of artistic complexity) can not "easily apply to a lot of jazz", since the later is not notated and it is based on almost pure improvisation. So, in jazz we talk about "performances", not compositions. By the way, where are the "movements" the various "sections" within the movement (like in Sonata form or in Sonata-Rondo, for that matter) in a jazz piece? As for the "non-western musics (!)", the issue is not applicable. Classical Music is the development of the Occidental music! Let the "Azeri mugam" defend their thing.
We do not need a new thread on the..."ontology...". This digression was necessary, based on the development of the debate on Nyman. If you chose something from the "core repertory", Graham, we would never have this extra debate. By all means, I agree with you Graham on the "core repertory" not being rivalled, but, then, why do we need to deal with the "very edge and beyond" of the Classical Music?
Parla
Sat, Dec 8 2012, 7:40AM
#14
RE: Listening Project
[By all means, I agree with you Graham on the "core repertory" not being rivalled, but, then, why do we need to deal with the "very edge and beyond" of the Classical Music?]
The point of this thread was for participants to pick a relatively unknown piece of music and others to listen and offer honest opinions, which I did, although you have not. It did not state in the terms and conditions that you could only pick a piece which Parla liked or from an era which he approved of!
Anyway, onto Vermeulen's 5th Symphony, assuming it is safe enough ground to qualify for inclusion in the project.
Graham
Sat, Dec 8 2012, 2:13PM
#15
RE: Listening Project
Tagalie: When I refered to folk, of course I meant the tradtion of orally transmitted musical works, the musical commons, if you will. Folkrock/folkpop might be considered folk in its sound, but pop in its ontology, if that makes any sense...
Parla: I think we agree on the 'notated' thing. English is not my first language, so perhaps I was not fully clear on what I meant. Of course, not any piece of music that can be notated is classical music. What I tried to say was that with classical music, this notated score is its primary manifestation, and, as you say, the point of a performance is that you stay as closely to the score as possible. In the popular tradition, the 'score' is often published afterwards; the primary manifestation of pop is the record, not the score.
By the way, the score of a Classical work is not "open to be played by anyperformer"; he/she/they have to be professional performers, properly trained and educated.
Again, we agree here: with 'any performer', I of course mean 'any performer capable of performing the piece'. The important point here is that we consider a performance of the Golberg Variations by Barenboim just as much a performance of the work as a performance by Gould. In pop, the Beatles playing Hey Jude is different from the Rolling Stones playing the same song: the second is a cover, a deviation from the norm in popular music that a certain piece is connected to a certain performer.
If the "key features" are mine, which are the key features? And if they are "by no means sine qua non of what makes something (?) classical", what eventually does make "it" classical?
I think it is very hard to pin down what makes music classical music by giving a set of features it must adhere to. I don't believe the key features exist. That's what I tried to say in my post.
The "monophonic medieval music as well as Xenakis" constitute the "outer space" (or the outer borderline) of what we define as Classical Music. They are the traces and the leftovers of it.
Who is this we you speak of? In current day musicology, Gregorian chant, organum, Xenakis, Cage, Bernard Parmegiani, Pierre Schaeffer, Reich, Adams and a whole group of other composers who do not adhere to the features you gave are all considered to be part of the classical tradtion. Whether you like the work of these composers or not is a different discussion... On the discussion of form: define 'form' please. An impromptu might have clear melodic lines, but that is not the same thing as a predefined structure of the various parts of the work, as in for instance a sonata. Also, in a lot of popular music, we do not find any 'clear melodic lines, connected to harmony' or 'development of the thematic elements', but there defninitely is a very clear form of verse-chorus-verse-bridge-chorus. (In fact, it might be said a lot of pop is only form!). On Jazz: to call jazz 'pure improvisation' would go (way) too far for most jazz. It's true for (some) freejazz, but mostly the improvisation takes place in a certain predefined structure, albeit a looser one than in the classical tradition. In for instance bebop, there usually is a 'head': the melody of the work; then, one by one the various instruments take there turns giving improvised solo's on the melody, and at the end the 'head' returns.I'm just trying to say that a 'high level of artistic complexity' does not suffice to define classical music: there are a lot of musics (both in the occidental and oriental world) with a very sophisicated harmonic language and artistic complexity. Anyway, if we want to continue this discussion, I suggest we revive one of these older threads that were mentioned and keep this one dedicated to its original purpose. So, on to Matthijs Vermeulen's 5th symphony!I got to know Vermeulen through my reading of Erik Menkveld's superb novel Het Grote Zwijgen (sadly not translated into English). The novel explores the cultural life in the Netherlands during the late 19th and early 20th century, and is mostly about the friendship between composer Alphons Diepenbrock and Matthijs Vermeulen. After reading the book, I gave both men's works a listen and was pleasantly surprised. What I like about this work in particular is its constant thematic variations and the exuberant, dyonisian feel of the work. The orchestration is als great; an influence of his infatuation with the French tradition I guess...Hope you enjoy the piece!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy_AC9C4Vnc
Despite the Danes tried to present Herman Koppel as the worty heir of their Nielsen, the ugly reality did not prove kind to him.He has not convinced even the rest of the Nordic people.
I happen to have one CD with his Piano Quartet and Piano Quintet, which, somehow, are interesting works but nothing exceptional or memorable, and one with his oratorio "Moses", supposedly a "significant" work. Still, it is far from becoming my cup of tea.
In any case, for those who interested (it is "fascinating" how many members of this forum are interested in 20th century's all sort of figures of composition rather than the Masters of previous centuries) in his works, there is a quite informative discography by the very good Danish labels, dacapo and danacord, on his vocal, Concertante and Symphonic opus.
As for Nyman, after such a discography, publicity, film music involvement, promotion in various ways, still he cannot convince he is a composer of serious music, let alone Classical. Like all these sort of minimalist composers, he offers...minimum service. Sometimes, it is at least pleasurable (The Piano). Even his Chamber Music projects (String Quartets and Piano Trios), recently released on his own label MN, simply use these mediums, without serving them. It is not surprising that the Classical Music magazines are not dealing, but only very occasionally, with his music. By the way, is he "Classical enough" for you, Graham?
Parla
So you didn't think much of Koppel's 3rd, or Nyman's Memorial?