Daniel, I'm not quite clear, are you talking about understanding music, or learning to play it (on the piano)?
Do you really want to go there? In addition to making a mistake and altering my words, shooting holes in your comment would result in someone's insufficient ability to comprehend the type of foundation one needs to nurture understanding of music, not in building a house.
Yes, it would be a good idea to back up your statement with reasons. Just remember to drain the sand well, we wouldn't want the sugar plum fairy coming along and knocking it down.
33lp, you wrote:
"I was amused to read in Musical Thoughts and Afterthoughts about the log fire heating the room in the Viennese mansion where they were recording having to be put out because its crackling could be heard!"
More than that! He [Brendel] wrote "the logs in the fireplace where we recorded crackled so loudly that we had to throw them out of the window into the snow." !!
Chris and 33LP,
What an amusing story LOL!
I wonder, though, how were they able to stay warm enough? Any sounds of chattering teeth on these recordings? Or missed notes due to freezing hands?! ;-)
Do you have any favorite recordings (or sets overall) of Beethoven's piano sonatas?...
May I mention Jean-Efflam Bavouzet - by coincidence I've just read about him in The Week. He's completed all 56 of Haydn's sonatas and is in the throes of the Beethovens with volume one out now. 'This is one of the biggest discoveries I have come across on years,' said Andrew Clark in the FT.
Hi Kev! Sorry, I almost missed your posting! Bavouzet is wonderful! I love his Bartok concertos album. I recently purchased a newish one with Debussy, Ravel, etc. on Chandos...not quite as enthralled with that album (believe that it was the Ravel that I wasn't as keen on). I do want to check out at least some of his solo piano Debussy volumes though. I've heard good things about his Haydn sonatas by another forum friend too who has some of them.
What is "The Week" by the way?
Hope to get back to some more listening soon (been watching a lot of tennis being played and broadcast from across the pond. ;-) ).
Apologies for the length of the post, some may want to skip
this and enjoy the sunny Sunday afternoon.
I have drifted a bit to the ’learning piano’ side when Strauss was thrown in.
However, those other 3 are very valid starting points in
Your inability to start the debate using the most simplistic principles practised in any field, the continuous use of tedious metaphors and absence of musical education (though it is not essential), makes me want to put this down as simple as possible or even simpler to that matter.
When it comes to Mr. Beethoven, have you ever studied who influenced him and drawings from those influences; his sonata framework, extensive baroque knowdledge that penetrated his early works? Naming all of them will not do any good, Interenet and music literature is at your service. Note: If you were by any chance referring to him due to his amplitude of work, Mozart may very well be a better choice. In addition, do you possibly believe you can form foundation with a transitional composer? If one starts 'understanding music' with studying such a massive figure, one would be better off starring at at rectangle called TV.
Understanding <classical> music (1) starts with separate comprehension of different genres - sonatas, concertos, fugues, etudes, operas in which you have technical/tone variables such as extended chords or modulations; moving to peculiarities of single eras, e.g. 11th,13th, tertian harmonies or chromatic median relationships. For to understand Symphony in E flat major (Op.55), one must comprehend the sonata form and Beethoven's eccentricity to experiment - to start with a figure who loved to bend the rules (and was very good at it), whose countless pieces do not fit into the tight framework of any genre usually results in blind misunderstandment for beginners. Furthermore, if you were to grasp the sonata form thus the foundation of classical era genres, and seemingly forget to mention Clementi, you are way out of your depth. We can only conceive value by comparing things and in order to do so, we need to understand what we are observing in relation to its knowdledge. Trying to comprehend patterns out of the mold is used in disproving theories in science, whereas music is fundamentally about induction and subjectivity. One may strive to do so though minories succeed - only an adult with sufficient intellectual capabilities and infatuation in music can endure this prolonged process which requires certain levels of supervision. Is it more enjoyable or resulting in better understanding? If you were to prove that, I would rest my case. Furthermore, trying to find meaning and expression of music (2) using various means, e.g. semantics (regards to Mr. Bernstein) contributes to the true understanding of music - 'dialogues' within Bach's preludes or the present idea of Beethoven's sonatas canvassing compassion; this being the most subjective and susceptible component of music.
If you were to take on a particular field of interest, would you attempt to understand the implications of certain ideas without knowing the framework of its yield? Probably not.
To say that one should start with Beethoven and Schubert (the latter one not being as excessive) would signify the need to rewrite generations of Wester Art education and its principles, wiping out its academia and astute constituency to the general public.
(i) Apologies for the length of the post, some may want to skip
this and enjoy the sunny Sunday afternoon.
(ii)Understanding <classical> music (1) starts with separate comprehension of different genres - sonatas, concertos, fugues, etudes, operas in which you have technical/tone variables such as extended chords or modulations; moving to peculiarities of single eras, e.g. 11th,13th, tertian harmonies or chromatic median relationships. For to understand Symphony in E flat major (Op.55), one must comprehend the sonata form and Beethoven's eccentricity to experiment - to start with a figure who loved to bend the rules (and was very good at it), whose countless pieces do not fit into the tight framework of any genre usually results in blind misunderstandment for beginners.
(iii) Furthermore, if you were to grasp the sonata form thus the foundation of classical era genres, and seemingly forget to mention Clementi, you are way out of your depth.
(iv)To say that one should start with Beethoven and Schubert (the latter one not being as excessive) would signify the need to rewrite generations of Wester Art education and its principles.
(i) It's raining and I don't fancy watching a spoilt Scottish brat make a fool of himself.
(ii) I think you have too much love of 'the rules', by all means learn the rules but then go out and break them, please. The rules are historical, they weren't even the rules until they became the rules, the rules are constantly changing, they are more like guidelines anyway.
(iii) Clementi was someone who understood the rules, Beethoven was someone who understood music.
(iv) What a great idea, education and principles (like the rules) should be in a state of constant flux.
(v) Has your house fallen down yet?
Daniel1, welcome to the club.
Uber Alice is an "ally", if you get to know him (her) better.
Anyway, I appreciate your views, to a great extent...
As rain started to pour over the Wimbledon Park arena, I will spare you a few minutes to finish this debate in which concern of quality has been very one-sided.
(i) It's sunny in Oxfordshire although getting cloudy.
(ii) You've watched to many movies and heard to many sayings ''rules are there to be broken''. Your statement is flawed itself- by saying 'rules' that make up music, you are contradicting the essential laws that pertrain sound, rhythm and sileence of classical music in addition to overhelming stubbornness.
(iii) You do realize that Beethoven learned the sonata form and continued to learn its boundaries from Clementi. The statement ''Clementi was someone who understood the rules'' is absolutely ludicrous, so did Beethoven.
(iv) Mutual agreement on the constant review of education is a must. However, shaking pivotal principles of approach is not how it starts. If you do not follow the basic of valid reasoning you are one of those ''I understand what I am talking although I do not know what it means''. Principles are not rules.
(v) Fake confidence, impeded efforts and arrogant neglect will not get you anywhere - it is a pity to see an individual wasting his or her intellect on mere conconctions of few initial instances.
Thank you. I hope to have see some great discussions and ingeniuos views on classical music.
Edit: his or her
Trying to comprehend patterns out of the mold is used in disproving theories in science, whereas music is fundamentally about induction and subjectivity.
First you say music is not science and then you say the rules are actually essental laws that cannot be broken. If you want to listen to the rules, play a Clementi sonata, if you want to listen to music, play Beethoven. You need to make up your mind and quickly, the Wolf is coming. Little pig, little pig, let me come in ........
It's sunny in Devon now too.
Do you actually read what you type in?
You are trying to cling on words though failed miserably, again. What you should do is attack an argument or outline impediments in the ideas, again. You were the one to say 'rules' should be broken, I said you will contradict the laws that petrain sound, rhythm and silence of classical music. Not all rules are laws, some rules are irrelevant to the nature of the laws, they are established during activity modifications. Different interactions of rules make up laws, and others displace them. Rules that are ingrained in the aforementioned components cannot be broken. Quote me where I said music is not science? 'To hear what I want to hear' example. I said music is fundamentally about induction and subjectivity, not all about them. Music is not science nor art, trumpeting a single role will lead to stupid excuberance. By the way, you surely seem to be unaware of countless layers of subjectivity in science as well. Surely you can try attacking the laws with deductivity in music though I am not sure whether you, Madam, or anyone else can do it in single file. Oh well, a young and immature wolf lost the path to the house.
Oh sweet Mother of God. I am not fully sure that you've read what you typed in there.
If you had atleast a tad of competence, you should already see that this debate requires a lot more mediums to enable to assert our strong views about the topic. Acknowledgement and possible change of the reference points would help though you will still probably assert your profound truthfulness in the next post.
That being said, I will check this thread next week. As for now, one of the best matches of the year is on air.
Quote me where I said music is not science? 'To hear what I want to hear' example. I said music is fundamentally about induction and subjectivity, not all about them. Music is not science nor art.
You sort of implied it before, then you actually said it at the end of the above sentence.
Hi Petra, I'm glad that you enjoyed the tennis - now that there's a roof on centre court, there are no frustrating interruptions because of the rain.
The Week is a news, arts, opinion etc. media digest magazine. There are versions for the USA, UK, Australia (maybe more).
I'm not sure of the significance, if any, that Bavouzet was mentioned there. The magazine will have readers who don't buy music magazines but might buy the Bavouzet CD because it was recommended there I suppose. Anyway, I found it refreshing to read something in the media about Bavouzet instead of Lang Lang.
'After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music'.
Aldous Huxley brainyquote.com
What do you mean "now that there is a roof on centre court, there are no frustrating interruptions due to the rain"?! LOL Wrong! ;-) Though at least, in the end, they can close it and play can continue. :-) One of these days, I hope to see some tennis at Wimbledon--live! Hope that you were able to see at least some of the games? Sorry, I'm sidetracking things here!
And thanks for the explanation of "The Week" too.
They are your assumptions to the words you've read, not mine. Although my apologies are needed for opening room for interpretation as I had assumed elaborations will not be needed to prove my point.
Music is not science nor art.
For individuals who still didn't understand: Music is not science nor art, it's both of them at any particular moment of time. Henceforth, you cannot call music 'only' as a matter of science nor exactly an act of 'art'.
P.S. All the people who had a chance to participate in the opening night of BBC Proms are very lucky, the atmosphere induced by Elgar (best live rendition I've ever heard) must have been truly amazing.
Daniel, you are back. I thought that hungry wolf had gobbled you up. Interesting you say 'Only' when refering to science, science is infinate and magnificent, indeed science was once practised like an art. Yet when refering to something which is less 'tangible', Art, you say 'exactly'. 'Only science' and 'Exactly art', I'm confused.