Chopin - Kopprasch wrote a bunch of Horn Etudes, but you don't see me playing them in concert. Why are Chopin etudes SO special?

:shock: :shock: :shock:

Chopin is mastery of a solo instrumental idiom the likes of which the world had never seen and may never see again... said with respect, of course :)

Interesting topic, and I'm not surprised to see Beethoven right up there at the top, Jeremy!

I like most of the big traditional names, and there's a few I don't quite "Get". Some of the traditional "Trio" music of the romantic era bugs me; usually the overwrought piano, cello and violin stuff, but that could be just me. I think I've just come to dislike that particular "sound" after hearing so much of it in my college years. (Too many recitals....) :? A few Mendelssohn works come to mind, although he's also written some gorgeous stuff.

My "desert island" list keeps changing these days. Fortunately, I get to hear a wide variety of stuff, so I haven't settled into just one or two composers, even after all this time. I've recently heard some Hans Gal choral pieces that just blow me away (even after all the work that went into our recordings), and Beiber, as well. Poulenc always seems to keep my interest as well. For Baroque music, there's a ton of lesser-known composers I'm getting to know better, as well: James Oswald, Boccherini, and of course those two heavyweights: Corelli & Vivaldi. Some of it is fluff, but there's some meat on those bones as well, at least in certain works.

I swear to god, though....If I never have to record another Haydn symphony.....I think i've done at least 70 of them over the years, and they truly have all blended into one huge mosh of sound in my brain.....

Over the last two years, I've been involved in recording some cutting-edge "New" music (The series is called "Fresh Ink" - duh!) and some of it is quite wonderful, some of it is really quite, um....dull? I'll restrain from naming any names (since they're all still alive). Much of it I confess that I do not "Get" at least at first listen. (Modern music, etc. :? ) A lot of it "looks good on paper." A lot of it seems to be very very "inside" type of stuff. One must read the program notes, know something about the subject matter (usually a human rights topic, or a mood or something generally intangible - why does new music always have to BE AOUT something, btw?) and the sonority of most new stuff is truly difficult to get past.

When I get asked how the music was, I may occasionally say: "Well, let's put it this way: It's NOT something the audience is going to walk out of the hall humming the main theme." (Good luck FINDING one...)

But of course if I'm mixing and editing the pieces, I do get a chance to live with them, learn even more about them, and sometimes really grow to like them. Not too long ago, I got a visit from one of the composers (backstage, at my rig) just after his piece was performed. (he was a most polite and wonderful man to deal with, btw.) Seems the pianist had missed a note in the last 2 or 3 measures, and the composer was DESPERATE to put that note back in before it went out on the air in the broadcast. He sent me a copy of the score, pointed out where the same passage was played earlier (WITH the correct note), and hoped I could use that one. I did, it worked, and the world continued to turn on its axis. He was thrilled, and I simply shrugged, but happy for him. Considering what the piece actually sounded like - what was going on in addition to the piano part - it's arguable that anyone would have noticed, save the composer. Ah well.....to each their own.

I still like Mozart in general (every time I hear the big ones - esp the Requiem and a few others, I'm still amazed at his talents). Even the 3+ hr operas are astounding - hard to figure out how he crammed "too many notes" into such things and still had them remain anywhere NEAR interesting, yet he did, and they are. (Kinda like the "musical junk food" (or crack cocaine?) of his era, I suppose!) I get to record Cosi fan tutte almost every other year, ditto for Marriage of figaro and Don Giovanni. They could ALL use a bit of trimming and cuts, but damnit all, they still pack 'em in.

How about more modern guys like Coplan, Bernstien, Ligeti, Menotti and even real current ones like Adams....anyone have any thoughts? Favorits? Least favs?

Record :

Sergei Rakhmaninov : Piano music, a joy with the right pianist
Dietrich Buxtehude : The true master of baroque organ
Segei Prokofiev : Master of rythmic intensity
Franz Schubert : Intrisic simplicity
Olivier Messiaen : Interesting sound world
Bela Bartok : Those string quartets sizzle

Listen : a partial list
D. Shostakovich
G. Mahler
H. Rosenberg
B. Bartok
V. Holmboe

Hate :

I don't hate any music as long as the artist and the enviroment is decent.

/ptr

Questionable subject to be sure. There are so many good pieces of music, and some geat people have written them. But there are some stinkers that cannot really be modified by opinion.

Haydn - BBBOOORRRIIINGGG (zzzzzzzz....)
I swear to god, though....If I never have to record another Haydn symphony.....I think i've done at least 70 of them over the years, and they truly have all blended into one huge mosh of sound in my brain.....

Haydn symphonies may not be very interesting but his chamber music is another matter entirely. Little jewels of string quartets and the lute chamber music is desert island stuff. Listen to Quatuor Mosaiques playing the Opus 20 string quartets, some of the finest chamber music ever.

Chopin - Kopprasch wrote a bunch of Horn Etudes, but you don't see me playing them in concert. Why are Chopin etudes SO special?

The piano repertoire would be nothing without Chopin and Rachmaninov, these two are on my desert island composers, Richter playing the Chopin concertos, Demidenko and Richter on the Rach preludes and etude tableaux, Pletnev for the nocturnes, Richter and Pogo for the Chopin Scherzos etc

Anything by JS Bach, Magdalena Kozena for the Erbarme dich, mein Gott, Hopkinson Smith for the lute suites, Starker and Wispelwey for the cello suites, Hilary Hahn for the violin partitas and sonatas, Phillipe Herrewege and Collegium Vocale for the choral works, etc etc

Music that has moved me the most in the last few years is Frank Martin's Mass for Double Choir, this is an astonishing piece of music, get any recording you can of it and listen.

Dvorak chamber music, Fischer Dieskau and Moore and others with Schubert leider, it goes on and on ...

Anything by Ravel, especially the string quartet, Le Tombeau de Couperin, Alborada del Gracioso, any Spanish Piano music with Alice Rocks playing it, on and on .....

Gilels playing the Beethoven sonatas, Berlin Phil with Abbado for the symphonies, the glorious chamber music and string quartets ...

Song, spanish, german, english, american, Barbara Bonney singing Grieg, Solvegs song, Anthony Rolf Johnson on Quilter Shakespeare songs, ....

Maria Joao Pires on Mozart chamber music ...

Puccini and Verdi Opera, Mirella Freni and Pavarotti with Karajan for Boheme and Butterfly, Angela Georgiou in Traviata, Callas in Tosca, ....

There is another five pages for me, so its a difficult question to answer. :)

I can't go on at length like you guys, but then my tastes are different as well, I think.

I like Dvorak, R. Strauss, Mussorgsky. I also like Bach, Mozart, the usual suspects, but Dvorak's "From the New World" really turns my crank...

I do more playing and listening than recording and, as an accompanist [collaborative artist], do not always get to choose what I play. We make the most of what we have to work with!

The Martin Mass for double choir is marvelous, though many of his duo [instrument w/piano] works have not won me over. Haydn Opus 76 Quartets are amongst my favorites.

I listen to, and enjoy, many things.

I think we're all a tolerant bunch regardless of how we may sound here..... We HAVE to be broad-minded and open to new things every time out. There's certainly much more to like than dislike.

By its very nature, this "recording business" means a new experience every time out, and it's never the same thing twice. Even when I know a work and have heard it many times over, there's often something new to notice.

And even in the worst of circumstances, it's all usually over in about 2 hrs or so, and we're usually paid for our troubles.

How bad is THAT, eh? 8-)

You know, the funny thing is - no matter how much I may dislike a piece or composer, I never really mind recording it.

Case in point, I hate J. Strauss with a passion. Yet, recently, the college here in town did their entire second half of the concert as Strauss waltzes. It's not like I wanted to take my own life, but it certainly would be better than me popping on an LP of Strauss waltzes.

That being said, there are those that say "I love all music because it's music..." While I appreciate the sentiment, I can't really believe that's true. Flipping the radio station, as much as I enjoy listening to music, I will find stuff that just doesn't captivate me and I have to flip again. I respect all music b/c it is music, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Dave: I agree Haydn's chamber works are far better than his symphonies. And if we look at history and see the reasons behind his various compositions, that just makes good sense too. Since his symphonies were sort of a regular duty and his chamber works were done out of sheer passion. That being said, I still find Haydn's work lacking the brilliance of both Mozart's and Beethoven's chamber pieces.

As a child, I hated Mozart. The older I get, the more I appreciate his work and just downright love it. As far as Beethoven is concerned - I firmly believe that there is a fine line between absolute genius and genuine insanity. Beethoven's works tread on that fine line and do it beautifully.

And no matter how much anyone says about Chopin, I just can't get into his music. Particularly his etudes. My sentiments echo Robert Schumann's about Chopin's music - "It is mindless prattling..." (Of course these are simply my opinions and I do know that Chopin is dear to many of you...)

I'm curious about Tchaikowsky. No one here has listed him. That's interesting to me. While I enjoy playing and recording his works, I often find that Tchaik wrote works almost to hear the sounds not to express emotions.

Just 2 more cents...

MOZART

I love Mozart as well. He didn't feel that Haydn had much to teach him but was very respectful of Haydn's string quartets. It took him [Mozart] a long time to write his quartets due to Haydns skill in this genre.

The 'Mozart Effect' has been beneficial to my cat's mental capacity.
Mozart is his favorite composer.

Schubert is another favorite of mine - I don't mind the length of many of his works.

I'll step up for P.I. Tchaikovski. He is not my most favorite though.
In my opinion you got to dig for the right record to enjoy listening
to it. Those records are usually made by some of the best Russian
orchestras/conducters. The same counts for Rachmaninov, Stravinsky,
Shostakovitch, Glinka, Prokofiev, ecc. Just what I think...

I love most Rachmaninov, Bethoveen, Paganini, Stravinski. Love to
listen I mean.

I think, I also can join the J.Strauss hate-club...

Costy.

Ok, here's a modified diversion of the thread; instead of who you "hate" (hate is such a strong word ;-) )

How about which composer you don't "GET". While there's much of Bartok I DO like, there's a lot that absolutely leaves me cold. (Including those awful Microcosmos piano studies they made me work on. HIDEOUS, IMHO. Didn't get it at all, and it made no sense to me. )

Ligeti, on the other hand is endlessly fascinating, yet there's much of his stuff I also "don't quite get."

And J. Strauss.......yeah, it's tough defending that one, alright.

THere are others that I don't quite "Get" - most of them the really "modern" types. How bout you?

Bring on the contemporary stuff here!!!! I'll sign up for the Tchaikovsky hate club. I find his stuff repetitive and boring in the extreme (try counting the number of times the theme is repeated exactly in the last movement of the second symphony for example... Ugh :? ) The guy writes an ok melody, but the music is boring as hell.

I like Arvo Pärt, Michael Daugherty, Christopher Rouse, Joseph Schwantner, Ian Krouse, and John Adams to name a few... Of the older stuff- some Brahms, Stravinsky (yes, he isn't modern anymore), some of Schoenbergs stuff (especially Transfigured Night or the orchestration of the Brahms Piano Quartet), Late Mozart has its genius, "Latin" Classical- Rodrigo, Turina, Ginastera, etc... Some of Bach's stuff is heavenly... There is so much good music out there to listen to- much of it unknown. There is a ton of great Modern stuff out there. To think that all of it is unlistenable is to be uninformed of what is out there. Babbit may have said "Who cares if you listen" (well, paraphrased), but there are a lot of composers since then that write music that is enjoyable and approachable by anybody.

--Ben

FifthCircle wrote: Bring on the contemporary stuff here!!!! I'll sign up for the Tchaikovsky hate club. I find his stuff repetitive and boring in the extreme (try counting the number of times the theme is repeated exactly in the last movement of the second symphony for example... Ugh :? ) The guy writes an ok melody, but the music is boring as hell.

I like Arvo Pärt, Michael Daugherty, Christopher Rouse, Joseph Schwantner, Ian Krouse, and John Adams to name a few... Of the older stuff- some Brahms, Stravinsky (yes, he isn't modern anymore), some of Schoenbergs stuff (especially Transfigured Night or the orchestration of the Brahms Piano Quartet), Late Mozart has its genius, "Latin" Classical- Rodrigo, Turina, Ginastera, etc... Some of Bach's stuff is heavenly... There is so much good music out there to listen to- much of it unknown. There is a ton of great Modern stuff out there. To think that all of it is unlistenable is to be uninformed of what is out there. Babbit may have said "Who cares if you listen" (well, paraphrased), but there are a lot of composers since then that write music that is enjoyable and approachable by anybody.

--Ben

Just a quick aside....I had the "pleasure" of doing some of Michael Daugherty's recordings. He wriites some very good music but he is not very nice to work with. The recordings I was doing for him HAD to be done at 2:00 am in the morning (his requirement) since we we doing them in a chapel at the college I worked for and there was too much traffic noise during the day. I was also doing some construction supervison during the same period of time which meant that I had to be at the 6 am meetings and I had concerts to record at night. Michael was a task master and was never satisfied with anything. I guess that is good for a composer but not for a recording session that is going on into the wee hours of the morning. When he finally left for Michagan there was a big sigh of relief here. Lots of other stories but not for public comment.

-TOM-

I have to give a bit shout for Sibelius. Strange no-one else has though of him. :shock:

Speaking of Michigan, I like a lot of William Bolcom's music and have enjoyed playing some of William Albright's stuff. When I first got to Ann Arbor [as a grad student] I approached Albright about performing his 'Stipendium Peccati' for organ, piano, and percussion. He got me the big performance hall and I included it in a chamber music recital. My teacher hated it [a strong word!] as it was minimalist and very, very wild. Albright, God bless him, told me he had written it during a particularly sinful time in his life.

Any John Zorn fans around here? I have much admiration for his work.

In general, the more musicians in the group, the less interested in recording I become. Big forces are usually a mess, physically, acoustically, politically, ... and so is the music.

Small force chamber orchestras, chamber music, lieder, small choral or vocal groups are where some of the most exciting acoustic music can be heard and recorded.

Unfortunately, our local station, like many round this country, think "classical" music is "orchestral" music and consequently put way too much of it to air. Its a real shame. They are planning a "bigger than Ben Her" performance of one of Havergil Brians choral symphonies with multihundred choristers (groan, hands over ears) and multihundred players in the orchestra (double groan, ear plugs in), I will be running fast in the opposite direction. Too many people, and it becomes a circus, no good for microphones.

Symphonic music is a live experience, squeezing a recording of it out some loudspeakers or mono clock radio is lunacy.

Get Barbara Bonney in a room with a lute, and thats where I will be with my mics and possibly a bottle of wine. :)

DavidSpearritt wrote: They are planning a "bigger than Ben Her" performance of one of Havergil Brians choral symphonies with multihundred choristers (groan, hands over ears) and multihundred players in the orchestra (double groan, ear plugs in), I will be running fast in the opposite direction. Too many people, and it becomes a circus, no good for microphones.

Do You imply that You Ozzies are going to perform the "Gothic" in Brisbane? Whoooza - I've only heard it in the less than optimal Naxos/Marco Polo recording..

When? - Am I to late to plan a holiday down under? :lol:

Small force chamber orchestras, chamber music, lieder, small choral or vocal groups are where some of the most exciting acoustic music can be heard and recorded.

I quite agree that its more rewarding to record smaller ensembles in good rooms! Listening I'm not sure, I've had som fantastic listening experiences tuning in to orchestral concerts on the 50 year old tube Luxor radio I that my gramps left me. You know, much of the illusion of recorded music stems from your mind!

/ptr

I had a hard thinking about this. Find that I really like some pieces of most composers and not other pieces by the same composer. Often tend to like the pieces I have had good experiences of, such as playing together with some really great players.

Just a choice here:

Nino Rota, just about everything. Mostly film music (Godfather theme, Amarcord). Great contra bass concerto. We played this one a few years ago.

Rossini - the ouvertures!

Britten - his piano concerto. (Perhaps because we played this, and I tell you, at times, we were all in love with the piano solist. Purely platonic of course.)

Brahms - his symphonies. Seems to be favourites among most musicians.

Lars-Erik Larsson. For example his Vintersaga (Winter Tale?) or Förklädd gud (Disguised god).

Bach - aah, his treatment of voices in fugues, his MS scorebook for Cello.

The list goes on and on and on. Seems I like almost all music except for some of the very modernistic stuff, Schönberg and so is mostly off me.

Gunnar

Lots of great choices but if push comes to shove give me a couple English guys.

Vaughan Williams, Holst, etc... instrumental and choral

Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of the stuff mentioned earlier, but those guys could make an orchesta sing. Being a vocalist, maybe I'm partial.

I also love Verdi, Puccini, Rossini and the big opera composers especially when it gets "over-the-top" lush and romantic. I'm a sucker for it- I could sit through operas back-to-back

I'm too impatient for Mahler/ Wagner and the "more is better school"

Mozart gets better every year that I age. JS Bach is the alpha and omega- but rarely performed in a way that translates/speaks to me- too often passionless - it doesn't need to be romanticized, but its still music. Brahms created moments of absolute perfection.

Too many others to mention.

Great Thread!

If you like the vocal stuff, you should check out Joseph Schwantner's songs.. Some absolutely beautiful stuff with amazing orchestration.

--Ben

Like the old story goes, when the angels play for God they play him (JS) Bach. When the angels play for themselves they play Mozart and God evesdrops. Mozart Rules!

Bach IS God!

Handel is amazing, but I don't think he gets enough credit.
Monteverdi
Xenakis
Penderecki
Ligeti
Ives

Brahms Piano Concs.
Liszt Sonata
All of the other usual subjects.

But if I had to choose just one, it would be Purcell.

John

John Stafford wrote: Bach IS God!

funny, I was under the impression all these years that Chick Corea was god... :D I guess it must be another religion :P

Do I get kicked out or flamed for offering up a non-classical composer?

Ralph Towner from the group Oregon. It took me years to finally understand that band (on a non-theoretical basis).

Vivaldi speaks to me, too.

dpd wrote: Do I get kicked out or flamed for offering up a non-classical composer? Ralph Towner from the group Oregon. It took me years to finally understand that band (on a non-theoretical basis).

Well not flamed but you will get a turned up nose from me. With all due respect to Mr Towner, putting him in the same sentence as Mr Bach or Mr Mozart is pushing it hard.

This is why some of us are sheltering in this forum. We want to talk about the classics.

I've worked with Oregon and Ralph is a pretty cool guy, but a technophile, he is not... Personally (especially being a woodwind player), I think Paul McCandless is a genius...

Not going to get any complaints from me about any of the guys from Oregon.

--Ben

I've enjoyed the group Oregon and have been a fan of Ralph Towner and Paul McCandless for years. Saw them back in the mid-80's. They certainly beat 'artists' like Yawn-ee by miles!

By the way, Ralph Towner's cousin, Miles, was a friend of mine back when I lived in Eugene. He owned a bike shop.

DavidSpearritt wrote: [quote=dpd]Do I get kicked out or flamed for offering up a non-classical composer? Ralph Towner from the group Oregon. It took me years to finally understand that band (on a non-theoretical basis).

Well not flamed but you will get a turned up nose from me. With all due respect to Mr Towner, putting him in the same sentence as Mr Bach or Mr Mozart is pushing it hard.

This is why some of us are sheltering in this forum. We want to talk about the classics.

David - no argument, there. However, the thread is titled 'your favorite composer', not the 'best classical' composer. :D

Yep - McCandless is a monster, too!

Yeah I know. But most people who listen to "pop" music think that their favourite artist is a "composer" and can be compared to the "classics".

I got a great deal of my formative musical interest and passsion from listening to James Taylor and how he plays the guitar. He forced me to go and listen to more complex music and then I found most of the "classical" composers and for that I thank him, but I would never say he was a "composer" in the sense that Bach, Mozart are

I have also listened to Ralph Towner as well and like his stuff but again his contributions may be largely forgotten in 300 years.

Maybe there will be no music remembered then and it will remain an obscure eccentric hobby for weirdos. Much like now really. If you want to find some the weirdest psychologically disturbed folk on the net, go read the classical music news forums.

Hahaha.....I hear you Dave, on those Classical music forums.... :?

Not to veer off into "modern" musicians and composers, I am always astounded when watching/listening to James Taylor play the guitar and sing. TOTALLY underrated and ignored by many, but WOW, anytime there's a chance to see/hear him do his thing, I always take a minute and REALLY pay attention...and he makes it look easy.

David - just for the sake of argument (and neglecting the overwhelming genius of the classical composers), how much of the '300 year test' can be attributed to the fact that much of non-classical music is not formally notated impacts this issue?

Too bad we won't be around to find out. OK, in some cases, we all probably don't want to know.

I'll go back to sleep now - there's just too much to read here about mic techniques and the like...

DavidSpearritt wrote:
. . . Get Barbara Bonney in a room with a lute, and thats where I will be with my mics and possibly a bottle of wine. :)

It was my pleasure to get Emma Kirkby in a room with a lute a few times! :twisted:

You lucky beggar. I love Emma Kirkby's Dido on Chandos, still one of my favourites. But I am fickle and now like Barbara Bonney and the new Mrs Simon Rattle, Magdalena Kozena.

John Stafford wrote:
But if I had to choose just one, it would be Purcell.

I read this article about (don't know what it was about), where it said. "Purcell is one of the most famous British composers of Classical music, so much that he is often referred to as "the British Mozart". Strange enough though, no one ever called Mozart "an Austrian Purcell".

Shutting up already...

For me: Bach (everything), Beethoven (piano sonatas, string quartets), Schubert (lieder, piano works), Bruckner, Mahler, Wagner, Berg, Stockhausen, Zorn, Sumner, Jobim...

Rainer

DavidSpearritt wrote: In general, the more musicians in the group, the less interested in recording I become. Big forces are usually a mess, physically, acoustically, politically, ... and so is the music.

Small ... groups are where some of the most exciting acoustic music can be heard and recorded.

I have this same sense of aesthetic. It is extremely difficult for a large (~25+) ensemble to perform the same musical thought. The more humans you have performing, the more individual perspectives will be offered in that performance, thereby introducing discord. I feel that a soloist or small group is more likely to have agreement and be consonant in their interpretation of a composition: more art, less noise.

As far as an absolute best composer... no such thing, only the composer of the moment with whom I am presently connecting with. But one composer that surprisingly returns to my personal playlist regularly is D. Scarlatti. His keyboard compositions are a kick and just OUT. His music was the Jazz of the eighteenth century.

Zilla wrote: But one composer that surprisingly returns to my personal playlist regularly is D. Scarlatti. His keyboard compositions are a kick and just OUT. His music was the Jazz of the eighteenth century.

I'm always astonished by Scarlatti. Did he have some bizarre ability to see into the future?

John

It's interesting to read your comments on smaller groups, David & Zilla. I've probably had the most success in my recording career with chamber music, and I love it.

My main "flagship" client for over 20 years (The Chamber Orchestra of Philadelphia, formerly Concerto Soloists) has gone from a very small elite 12-15 member chamber/soloist group to their present force of about 25 or so (and sometimes even more on the bigger works.) They still do the smaller ensemble things as well, but it's a really nice niche to be part of, regardless.

Their music director (Ignat Solzhenistyn) enjoys exploring orchestral works in their original intended (smaller orchestra) forms. Tonight and yesterday we recorded their performance of Beethoven's 4th as well as the "Emperor" Piano concerto. We've done many of the other Beethoven Symphonies in the past, and will do more in next season. It's really a treat to hear them as they were originally intented, without the huge symphonic ensemble. I find the tiny details stunning and the interplay just a delight to hear. They perform in a 650-seat recital hall/theater, and the sound is just gorgeous. (And I'm able to capture it all with just a primary pair of DPA 4006's omni's, with the occasional touch-up mic, and two ambient mics out in the house for applause, etc.)

Nowadays I get almost as much choral work (big and small - including big oratorio stuff) and 90-plus orchestral stuff, but my favorite is and will probably always be classic(al) Chamber ensembles.

Of course, we all "fall in love" with the jobs we have in front of us, and there's nothing like the thrill of a 100-piece ensemble working in total perfection with a genius at the helm....I'm not knocking that so much, either!

I thought that i would try to keep this thread alive.

Heres my top 10 of composers before 1500 (in roughly chronological order)
Leonin
Perotin (of course)
Machaut
Philippe de Vitry
Ciconia
Dunstable
Dufay
Binchois
Ockeghem
Josquin

Perotin wrote: Heres my top 10 of composers before 1500 (in roughly chronological order)
Leonin
Perotin (of course)
Machaut
Philippe de Vitry
Ciconia
Dunstable
Dufay
Binchois
Ockeghem
Josquin

Oh YEAH!

The Masses of Tournai and Barcelona are amazing.

John