I guess, Tagalie, we repeat ourselves (definitely, you do it and I found myself unable to escape from doing the same thing). However, I never claimed I know a bit of you (that's why I never attributed any "qualities" to you) and, by the way, I always try to answer your posts not to analyze you.
However, I won't just "butt out" (!) because of your suggestion. I discuss music too, whenever I'm...allowed.
By the way, if you (simply) "enjoy" Wagner, you have room to be a critical observer of his work, as anyone who merely enjoys the Late String Quartets by Beethoven or Mozart's String Quintets or Bach's Preludes and Fugues. I don't only "enjoy" this music. I try to study it, to attain it, to comprehend it, to deserve it.
I don't only "enjoy" this music. I try to study it, to attain it, to comprehend it, to deserve it.
I know what study and comprehension mean. Despite stuying this post in an effort to comprehend it, I'm nonetheless at a loss to understand how I can 'attain' a piece of music, still less how I might 'deserve' it.
Mark, old pal, I just said that Shostakovich's 15th is an undisputed masterwork, but I didn't imply, necessarily, that any other work mentioned therein is not a masterwork. The key work was about the "undisputed", not about the masterwork. I hope you may admit that Lutoslavsky's 3rd, no matter how much it can inspire or fulfill you, it never managed to reach a universal appeal or appreciation.
Personally, I never found any work of this celebrated Polish composer to carry me away. So, even his third couldn't convince me that much. Technically, it is a definite masterwork, at least as for its innovation, creativity and complexity. However, the orchestration is unusually heavy and not at all easy to handle. Along with the complexity of the score, the orchestration makes things more complicate. So, I cannot find the inspirational thread of Shostakovich, which makes me always to wish to listen more, to study his work and indulge in his musicianship and artistry. I don't think I am the only one or even the minority.
Shostakovich, at least among quite a few circles (at least, outside UK), is considered as The composer of the 20th century. I was surprised that, even in his native Poland, Penderecky is more widely respected than Lutoslavsky, who is revered mostly among the artists.
So, I hope Mark, with your calm approach, you may get my points above.
JKH, if you can accept that a work like Beethoven's op. 133, or Mozart's K. 593 or Mahler's 3rd are undisputed, difficult, complex, highly inspired and realized pieces of music, you may admit that, as a listener you cannot treat them as a mere listening experience. You have, through repeated listening, study, learning, etc to comprehend what is going on in the work, musically, aesthetically, artistically, to indulge in its nuances, connotations and any possible aspect of it. Through the gradual comprehension, you may start attaining the complexity, the inspirational forces, the actual qualities of the composition itself. This process is a lifetime work, but by constantly pursuing it, you may feel, one day, that you "deserve" to listen e.g. to Bach's Chaconne or Beethoven's Grosse Fugue.
There is a similar process for the performers. A violinist cannot play from his early career Bach's Chaconne. He has, through relentless study, rehearsals and performances to attain all the possible aspects of it and to deserve to perform it. That's why performances even from the same soloist can never be quite identical, since the artist has always to try to...attain the composer's vision.
I may guess from your posts, JKH, that you have reached a very high level of this goal, at least in the Opera.
Ok. If I accept your statement that there is innovation and creativity alright in Lutoslawski's third, I might quibble with you still on undisputed:
In other words, you are saying that Dimitris' 15th is accepted as a masterpiece universally, as it were, while Lutoslawski's third isn't, yet you admit that it is a masterwork.
Lutoslawski's third enjoyed a massive, almost cult following. Apart from the two concerts where I heard it, I also remember tuning in to a radio 3 prom broadcast where it likewise enjoyed the adulation of the audience.
And apart from the recording I mentioned there was another one released pretty quickly conducted, I think, by the composer himself.
So we have two symphonies from the last 30 years of the 20th Century which have been massive, and apart from Gorecki's immensely popular 3rd, it is difficult to think of others that have had the same widespread appeal.
I think you somehow see Shostakovitch as the last successor to St. Peter's throne of the classical tradition. He may well have been, but there are other symphonists - admittedly not that many - who in recent years have produced something innovative, fresh and appealing - and Lutoslawski is one of them.
And still, on and on and on.
Why does he do it? He convinces no one.
Apparently, listening to music must lead him to "attaining" it.
And he wonders why he comes under such attack.
However, that is the least infuriating of his pronouncements.
Teflon man. Nothing sticks. Nothing persuades.
He should go into politics.
OMG, what have I said...!?
"Lutoslawski's third enjoyed a massive, almost cult following. Apart from the two concerts where I heard it, I also remember tuning in to a radio 3 prom broadcast where it likewise enjoyed the adulation of the audience..."
I remember being at some concerts that Esa Pekka Salonen led with the Philharmonia in the 1980's. At one Lutoslawski gave a pre-concert talk. I found him extremely interesting, particularly sparking off Salonen when they discussed the music. Salonen also commissioned the 4th symphony, if I am not mistaken, and remains a strong advocate for the composer.
I too like the 3rd symphony, though if I was giving those unfamiliar with Lutoslawski suggested listening I think I would probably point them in the direction of the Concerto for Orchestra and the Paganini Variations. The concerto really is great piece, which never fails to sparkle when I listen to it. If I have one concern sometimes when listening to Lutoslawski it is that his music is a little too 'well tailored' occassionally; I apologise for the expression but I could not find another more suitable. that's very hard on Lutoslawski, because I mosly feel that when comparing him to Bartok, who is of course an extraordinary composer (maybe better than Stravinsky?). I would also add that I have always, since first encountering the music, thought that Berio's Sinfonia is a sensational piece of music. But then again, as one friend replied when I made this statement, "Yes, but you are barking mad you know..."
You guys are dragging this board down. Seriously.
I try to study it, to attain it, to comprehend it, to deserve it.
Unfortunately it seems to lead to pontification and confusion.
Troyen et al, perhaps if we ignore him he'll go away.
Dimitri, feel free to raise the tone of this board any time.
This is a profound misunderstanding of the Parla psyche. Surely you have worked out by now that what primarily drives our obsessive friend is the imperative to be seen to be the expert on each and every subject raised, always to be in the right, and to have the last word at all costs.
If consistency, logic and coherence have to be sacrificed to this end, so be it. You will tire well before he does because the proselytising of his omniscience is the imperative.
This endless back and forth of opinion will get nowhere. What works is to wait for a logical absurdity - like self-destructing reissues, classical music as proof of the existence of god, or the objective criteria for greatness in music - wait for one of those - and then pursue it till he gives up. It has happened only three times, but boy is it worth it when it happens!
Not that it will stop him, of course, but it will make you feel better.
JKH, if you can accept that a work like Beethoven's op. 133, or Mozart's K. 593 or Mahler's 3rd are undisputed, difficult, complex, highly inspired and realized pieces of music, you may admit that, as a listener you cannot treat them as a mere listening experience.
Well one thing's certain, at least. Your posts are never a mere reading experience.
This process is a lifetime work, but by constantly pursuing it, you may feel, one day, that you "deserve" to listen e.g. to Bach's Chaconne or Beethoven's Grosse Fugue.
I'm still clueless, but many thanks for the explanation.
"..his Captain's hand on his shoulder smote"
Parla - just a friendly word of advice.
I don't think you quite get it: what matters to me on this forum is the quality of the dialogue (like the quality of the music), not taking up an entrenched position where your judgements and opinions are always right!
Vic has told you before to think more in terms of 'in my opinion' or 'it seems to me'' and YOU'RE STILL NOT LISTENING!
I'm with you that somebody starting with Lutoslawski might be well advised to start with some of the earlier works like the Concerto for Orchestra and the highly impressive Musique Funebre. (I remember once speaking to someone who was new to modern music, but who had heard the Funeral Music in concert, and who even struggled to say the composer's name. It came out as Lutowski, but he said the piece was 'absolutely brilliant'!)
The only works in my opinion to avoid at first by him are some from the mid-sixties, in particular the String Quartet (1964 I think) and the Second Symphony (1967). These two are a bit tortuous - great big banks of sound piled on top of each other.
The Berio Sinfonia is a great piece - not normally someone who buys different versions of a piece to compare, but to my vinyl CBS of this work with the composer himself and the Swingle Singers/New York Phil, I have recently added one of the 20/21 series that you mentioned on another thread - Peter Eotvos and the Goteborgs Symfoniker. They are both very strong versions.
Shostakovich's 15th symphony is a masterwork and Lutoslawski's 3rd is not because Shostakovich is a master and Lutoslawski is a name it is fashionable to bring out at dinner parties. One wrote works of real importance and the other dabbled with sound and convinced a few avant garde liberals that his weak arguments had real depth, the same is true with Messiaen. Throw a few notes together or pile up a few cluster chords and the fashionable avant garde will heap praise on you. Time will tell you who is important and who is not, the 50's and 60's are full of these great avant garde composers who are now being placed in the bin. Fashion fades very quickly, where is my tie dyed t-shirt and flares maaaaan.
Vic, thanks a lot for devoting some of your (I guess precious) time to analyze my psyche (what a word!). Despite you might sound right to some members of the forum, you are on the wrong side of the real thing, but, anyhow, it's quite entertaining to me, at least.
I have to remind you that in all these three matters of "logical absurdity"(I thought absurdity cannot be "logical", but, anyway...I guess "Les petits riens" may be some sort of "logical absurdity"), it was a kind of mutual understanding to cease the debate, since it didn't lead in any convergence of views, while, in the issue of "God in Classical Music" we ended up (at that time along with JKH) as three "old chums" (the words you used), who, somehow had reached a sort of common approaching of our different views. At least, it sounded as an amical rapprochement.
However, if it makes you feel better that I was (use any verb you like: stopped, defeated, given up, etc.), so be it. Anyway, as a man of logic, you should be always right. By the way, even if you don't see it, I'm as "obsessive" as anybody else in this forum. The difference is that most of the other members name their strong positions and convictions as "opinions", while I refuse to use this term, except where it is applicable.
Mark, it is not that "Im still not listening" (is Vic's suggestion an order that I had to follow?). I "listened" to it, but it does not concern me. If my positions are "entrenched", some day, you'll have to consider if I am not the only one and how other's opinions and judgements might sound equally "entrenched" to me and to some other forum members, being silent or less willing (than the usual suspects) to participate in fierce debates. By the way, Mark, I've always considered our (and not only) exchanges as "quality dialogue".