Some Classical Music Fan Here ?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6412
Printed Date: February 22 2025 at 11:16
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Some Classical Music Fan Here ?
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Subject: Some Classical Music Fan Here ?
Date Posted: May 20 2005 at 10:54
|
In my opinion Prog Rock is very close to Classical Music in many aspects, not only for re/arrengements or trascriptions, but much more in spirit. Can you name your favourite Classical Composers and build up your personal top-ten ? Here's mine ! 1 - Mozart 2 - Beethoven 3 - Brahms 4 - Schubert 5 - Debussy 6 - Bartok 7 - Prokovfiev 8 - Stravinsky 9 - Hindemith 10 - Ravel
|
Replies:
Posted By: nacho
Date Posted: May 20 2005 at 11:02
|
1- Bach 2- Mahler 3- Shostakovich 4- Rachmaninov 5- Purcell 6- Telemann 7- Messiaen 8- Schnittke 9- Bruckner 10- Strauss (Richard, of course)
|
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 20 2005 at 11:06
Good List Nacho... and the Bruckner's 9th simphony for me is one of the best and deeper ever
|
nacho wrote:Posted By: Domitilla
Date Posted: May 20 2005 at 13:51
|
dear ita fan prog..
credo che la musica prog sia molto vicina alla classica!conosci" Concerto grosso per i New Trolls"??è uno dei miei album più consumati...ed è vicinerrimo(!)al prog..anzi! spero proprio che tu lo conosca..ne vale la pena!  ------------- tòn d'apameibomenòs prosephè podas okus Akilleus |
Posted By: Dragon Phoenix
Date Posted: May 20 2005 at 13:53
|
1. Bach (JS) 2. Brahms 3. Mahler 4. Shostakovich 5. Schubert 6. Dvorak 7. Debussy 8. Mendelssohn 9. Sibelius 10. Bruckner Of course, there are countless others that should have been mentioned as well, including well-known names such as Mozart and Beethoven, but also less well-known composers such as Respighi, Takemitsu, Bax, Gubaidulina and so on. |
Posted By: Manunkind
Date Posted: May 20 2005 at 14:36
|
I listen to a lot of classical, but mainly on the radio and my tastes are rather inclined towards contemporary classical such as Stockhausen, Ligeti, Webern, Cage or Xenakis. A few months ago I also had the great pleasure of listening to a piece by the modern Icelandic composer Snorri Sigfus Birgisson, but unfortunately didn't catch the title ------------- "In war there is no time to teach or learn Zen. Carry a strong stick. Bash your attackers." - Zen Master Ikkyu Sojun |
!Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 20 2005 at 14:41
|
Lo conosco, cara Domitilla... da quando avevo 14 anni !!!!!
|
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 20 2005 at 14:49
Among less known I can add Vaughan-Williams, Walton, Martinu, Malipiero and Duruflè (...but Respighi is quite well known)
|
Posted By: nacho
Date Posted: May 20 2005 at 16:00
|
I agree that Respighi is quite well known (btw, I was in Rome recently but I didn't see many pine trees), but you might be lapidated by some of the English members for considering Vaughan-Williams a less known composer, and the same could happen to you with Duruflè and French members... They are very well known as well!!!
|
Posted By: Dragon Phoenix
Date Posted: May 20 2005 at 16:50
| It boils down to what is "well-known". The classics for the millions listener probably never heard of Respighi, since even his Roman trilogy does not get much attention in that field. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 20 2005 at 20:34
| yes |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: May 20 2005 at 23:24
|
I'm a fan. Vavildi, Bach, And the rest are all good. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Arsillus
Date Posted: May 21 2005 at 00:06
|
1. Stravinsky 2. Debussy 3. Bruckner Those are my top 3 favourites. Almost anything else can follow, though I'm not a big Bach fan. |
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 21 2005 at 03:29
You could be lapidated for the same reasons by some Russian or Japanese ... I don't know how many pine trees are in Rome now... but surely you can still see a lot of fountains
|
Posted By: Dragon Phoenix
Date Posted: May 21 2005 at 08:47
|
Some composers less well-known even to real classical music lovers, and well worth checking out: Sculthorpe (Australia), Lilburn (NZ), Sallinen and Rautavaara (Finland), Moeran (UK), Vasks (Latvia I think). |
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: May 21 2005 at 13:12
|
I'm with Manunkind...more interested in the modern classical/ experimental/ avant-garde composers. George Crumb, Steve Reich and La Monte Young especially. But I also like several of the more classical orchestral composers, too. Mahler, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Stravinsky, Copland, et al ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi"> 
|
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: May 22 2005 at 19:39
|
1. Grieg 2. Rachmaninow 3. Beethoven 4. Brahms 5. Debussy 6. Ravel 7. Schumann 8. Bach 9. Mozart 10. Sibelius |
Posted By: Dan Yaron
Date Posted: May 22 2005 at 21:02
| I've grown up on classical music. My favourite composer at the moment at is Oliver Messiaen. His compositions aren't very "catchy" like the famous symphonies by the well known composers. |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: May 22 2005 at 21:34
|
Stravinski Rossini Tchaikovsky Beethoven Mozart Vivaldi Dvorak Bach (the ELP of classic music) Rachmaninov Saint-Saëns something like this  ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: nacho
Date Posted: May 23 2005 at 03:37
|
You want to start another nasty discussion here? I'll send you my seconds: pistol or sword?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 23 2005 at 04:19
|
My top-ten:
1. Prokofiev 2. Janacek 3. Shostakovich 4. Khachaturian 5. Bartok 6. Mussorgsky 7. Vivaldi 8. Bach 9. Ligeti 10. kabalevsky |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 23 2005 at 04:23
|
1-Debussy/Ravel
2-Many others! |
Posted By: Dragon Phoenix
Date Posted: May 23 2005 at 05:00
My feelings exactly..... |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 23 2005 at 09:51
sì, assolutamente don't forget franz liszt "...the great pianist Anton Rubinstein (1829-94), at the
height of his own career, is quoted as having said: In comparison
with Liszt, all other pianists are children..." also, george frideric handel excellent topic ita_prog_fan, by the way, i realmente ama la musica progressiva symphonic italiana
|
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 23 2005 at 13:33
WOW ! Your italian is better than my poor english
|
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 23 2005 at 13:35
|
I must admit... when i entered the maze of "Turangalila Simphony" i couldn't get out by myself... i was saved by a COAST GUARD CHOPPER !
|
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 23 2005 at 13:39
|
And what about Faurè ? Isn't he, a little bit, their Daddy ?
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 24 2005 at 05:02
|
Yes, it's great also!
Her's a list of composers close to Ravel: Camille Saint-Saëns Igor Stravinsky Modest Mussorgsky Ernest Chausson Francis Poulenc Sergey Prokofiev Albert Roussel |
Posted By: haas
Date Posted: May 24 2005 at 05:44
|
Debussy is the "progger" of the classical world. He is my favorite. I also like Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Moussorgsky, Ravel, Prokofiev, Andriessen, Grieg, Schubert and Bach.
------------- "the attraction of the virtuoso for the public is very like that of the circus for the crowd. there is always the hope that something dangerous may happen" - Claude Debussy |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 24 2005 at 06:12
Completely agree: it's the more modern classical composer! And what do you think of Ravel? He's very close |
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 24 2005 at 12:22
|
Some years ago i was listening to Debussy's trio for flute, viola (alto |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 24 2005 at 13:40
|
Yes!!!
Debussy's chamber music is great, especialy the trio you quote for flute, viola and harp. So etheral! |
Posted By: Sir Realist
Date Posted: May 24 2005 at 17:59
|
classical music? Definitely. What could be more Prog than "The Rite of
Spring" or the Bartok string quartets? ------------- I can have double standards, and you can't |
Posted By: haas
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 05:38
|
:) haha, he was in a way right, it is kind off new age. I personally like his piano works, the etudes, the preludes, Images (oubliees), they are simply great :D. ------------- "the attraction of the virtuoso for the public is very like that of the circus for the crowd. there is always the hope that something dangerous may happen" - Claude Debussy |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 06:22
| Orchestral versions of Images is great. |
Posted By: haas
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 07:25
|
I have never heard these Orchestral Version!! But most times I hate the orchestral versions because the composer didn't write it for an orchestra but for the piano. I really don't like these arrangers who arrange such a masterpiece to something it wasn't ment to be. ------------- "the attraction of the virtuoso for the public is very like that of the circus for the crowd. there is always the hope that something dangerous may happen" - Claude Debussy |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 07:48
|
Hmm...i see what you mean.
I will look at it and tell you the best "images" orchestral versions. |
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 12:31
|
You're right , for example the Ravel orchestrated version of Pictures at an Exhibition is very nice and skillful but the orignal for piano got a unrivalled beauty and poetic force
|
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 12:38
|
Very exerimental pieces of music... especially Bartok's quartets, difficult but rewarding, i don't find the so-much-praised Shostakovich quartets at same level About 20th century, i love Prokofiev and Hindemith quartets
|
.Posted By: Dragon Phoenix
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 13:17
|
To clear up some confusion here: the orchestral composition Images is a totally different work from the piano compositions Images. The orchestral Images consists of 3 parts: Gigues Iberia Rondes de printemps |
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 15:15
|
There is more than one composition called Images. "Images 1ere Serie" "Images 2eme Serie" "Images (oubliées)" all for piano, and "Images pour Orchestre" I don't know any orchestrated version of "Images" 1 and 2 or "Images (oubliées)" (and i have also the strangest Debussy's compositions, such as Rapsodie pour Saxophone, Khamma, Tarantelle Styrienne, etc.) but maybe there are a lot...
|
Posted By: Sir Realist
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 15:52
|
Actually, Beethoven is the ultimate prog. He pushed the boundaries of,
and redefined, every form in which he wrote. He made music louder, more dramatic, more searching, and more extended. ------------- I can have double standards, and you can't |
Posted By: nacho
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 16:04
|
What you have written is true, but I think I could write a number of names where you wrote Beethoven, keep the rest of the sentence, and it would still be true...
|
Posted By: Sir Realist
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 16:24
|
Great. Name some. ------------- I can have double standards, and you can't |
Posted By: nacho
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 16:37
|
Three names to start with: J.S. Bach, Berlioz, Wagner |
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 16:41
Beethoven was the first in many fields: the first muscian to be successfully manager of himself (ant not a servant), the first to understand what to do with the forma sonata, the first to put political ideas in music, the first to deeply explore piano possibilities, the first to write "real" violin sonatas, the first to wirte a violin concerto dedicated to music and not to the violinists' ego Bach brought to perfection existing musical forms, he is considered, mostly by people who deeply studied music (i got a lot of friends among that kind of peole), the greatest musician ever, but i think they do like to loose themselves in deep technicism... due to his kind of life, after his death was almost forgotten (when baron Van Swieten talked to Mozart about Bach, the fab Wolgang almost never heard about him before Wagner began to walk a line conducting to Schoenberg and the Wiener Schule... and then to total disintegration of music as kown before. Berlioz... wrote a very monumental and boring requiem... Bye |
and never, never he ceased to be the first inspiration to composers after him.
Posted By: nacho
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 16:48
|
Listen to Berlioz's Requiem and tell me when something like that had been composed before...
|
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 17:15
I just was talking about that..... |
Posted By: haas
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 18:59
|
Wauw, some real classical fans here. Listen to the first of the Images Oubliees, by Claude Debussy, It's so beautifull, emotional, and close to life, really fantastic.
I think i'm gonna play it myself right now ;). ------------- "the attraction of the virtuoso for the public is very like that of the circus for the crowd. there is always the hope that something dangerous may happen" - Claude Debussy |
Posted By: nacho
Date Posted: May 25 2005 at 19:06
OK, you edited a post that originally only said "Berlioz?", thus my answer about the Requiem. Boring? I don't think so, but... Actually, I started to enjoy it more after attending a quite impressive live performance a few years ago... Anyway, think in the Symphonie Fantastique: the first "Concept Symphony". But I see you are not a big Berlioz fan...
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 03:16
That's great you enjoyed! There are other orchestral pieces like "nuages" (clouds)that you should try. |
Posted By: philippe
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 04:52
|
I've listened to Khatchaturian's violin Concerto yesterday night...maybe the most beautiful and emotionnal piece I've ever heard...for me it's better than pieces you mentionned about Debussy ------------- 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 05:21
| You go far, philippe! |
Posted By: philippe
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 06:13
|
that's just my personnal opinion...make the comparaison and you will see what I mean Also Dmitri Shostakovich's concerto in A minor figures among the top -------------
|
Posted By: haas
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 08:08
Did they play it at the Queen Elizabeth concours in Belgium? I will listen to it, if I can find it. ------------- "the attraction of the virtuoso for the public is very like that of the circus for the crowd. there is always the hope that something dangerous may happen" - Claude Debussy |
Posted By: philippe
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 09:05
|
I really don't know guy, the version I've listened to was performed by Leonid Kogan with Moscou national Orchestra during the 50s -------------
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 09:11
Try the Monteux version of Debussy's "Images". |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 12:04
Great composition, I love his piano concerto too |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 12:07
Have you listened to Shostakovich's string quartets no. 8 & 9? impressive! |
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 12:32
You're really right about the Simphonie... but i don't like either Did you attend a performance with all the fanfares at the corners of the church !? List of composers i really don't like: Berlioz
|
. 
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 12:35
Is the 8th that quartet made with several themes from previous DSCH's compositions ?
|
Posted By: haas
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 12:41
|
I'm really gonna purchase a cd with those concerto's off Khatchaturian on it! ------------- "the attraction of the virtuoso for the public is very like that of the circus for the crowd. there is always the hope that something dangerous may happen" - Claude Debussy |
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 12:45
|
Khatchaturian's violin concerto is a very exhilarant piece of music and very difficult to be perfomed (listen to 1965 Oistrach version, is the best... the concert was written just for him !), but IMHO is a virtuoso piece, it remains only on the surface of the musical matter. However i like it very much !
|
Posted By: nacho
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 12:56
|
It wasn't a church: it was the second concert in the recently opened Bridgewater Hall in Manchester (at the end of 1996 if I remember well); for the very first concert they had the Queen there and the Hallè Orchestra (with Kent Nagano) choose some "easier" music - with some Elgar, of course. The second one, Berlioz's Requiem, was the BBC Philharmonic conducted by Yan Pascal Tortelier and yes, the fanfares were in all the four corners, but noy only that: also parts of the choirs were divided in different places in all the corners of the auditorium. I still shiver when I remember that... I agree with your dislike of Tchaikovsky and Paganini. I think Tchaikovsky is to many other composers what ELP are to Genesis (pun intended), and Paganini... well that should be Dream Theater's "fireworks" (again intended) But I don't agree with you regarding Berlioz, Mendelssohn and, above all, Rachmaninov!!! I'm not familiar enough with Skryabin. Have you ever listened to Mendelssohn's Eliah Oratorio or some of his organ music? And Rachmaninov's 2nd Symphony or 2nd-3rd piano concertos? Anyway, taste is very personal. I can't stand music from the Renaissance, for example...
|
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 13:08
|
YES ! That's why i don't like them ! About Skryabin must be said that some piano sonatas are genial and they are worth a visit, but in general he represents all the boasting stupidity of his age (decadentism, M.me Blavatsky, laudanum, Gabriele Dannunzio... ). ... ABOUT ELP AND GENESIS... U R RIGHT !!!!!!! |
Posted By: nacho
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 13:35
OK, you go and clean your ears immediately!!! No, seriously, I had another look at your top ten list at the beginning, and I think it doesn't fit that you put Brahms and Schubert in the 3rd and 4th positions and then completely dislike Mendelssohn. What makes the big difference? I would put them quite close from a musical point of view... Just a curiosity. He hasn't been mentioned before: do you like Alban Berg?
|
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 15:17
"Der Platz ist verflucht !" Wozzeck says in the first act of the opera... but i'm not referring to this forums I ADORE Alban Berg for his mixture of atonalism and tonal music, it seems that tonality simply didn't want to abandon his brain and entered through backdoors in his music. My list of greatest violin concerto: Beethoven's, Brahms', Berg's, Bartok's 2, Prokofiev's 1, Mozart's (all the package Between Brahms and Mendelsshon there's an ocean of differences they belong to different world, despite form. Schubert is unique, though he lived in Vienna the same years in which Beethoven ruled, though he venerated Beethoven and also knew him in person, his musc was going towards completely different lands, he was der Wanderer and his music is wandering here and there with no apparent structure except what was coming out of his heart (you know that Lieder - songs - form the greater part of his output and in a simple song there's no place for much structural twistings); for these reasons he may be considered the first romantic, and Mendelsshon really romantic was, but he also was well structured, Schumann (who i like but not love) was more close to Mendelsshon. Anyway, do you want to know what i love the most ? GENIUS ! Brahms' and Schubert's melodies are unmistakable, their music is full of genius you can recognize it in almost every phrase, every chord, Mendelsshon's simply not. Between Schubert and Mendelsshon there's the same difference between your english and mine !
|
Posted By: haas
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 18:08
NOOOO  Bramhs and Schubert are completely different then Mendelsohn.
Brahms and Schubert have filosofy wisdom and intelligence in their music, it's fantastic, full of imagination and emotion. Mendelsohn on the other hand is very nice music but doesn't have the flair and the intelligent and the emotion of Brahms and Schubert. ps. This is not only my opinion but of a big part of the classical world (even in the time Mendelsohn lived) ------------- "the attraction of the virtuoso for the public is very like that of the circus for the crowd. there is always the hope that something dangerous may happen" - Claude Debussy |
Posted By: nacho
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 19:00
|
OK, it seems as if I'm in charge of poor Mr. Felix Mendelssohn' defence... I certainly don't agree with both of you on this "inferiority" of Mendelssohn as compared with Brahms and Schubert. On a second thought, if I have to order them it would be 1. Brahms - 2. Schubert - 3. Mendelssohn; so I also prefer the two former ones, but I can't establish such a big difference among them. Of course one always wonder what could Schubert and Mendelssohn have done had they not died as such an early age. I can't discuss the ideas of ita_prog_fan, since they are based on taste: you don't like Mendelssohn, it's OK. I do find genious in his music. Now, Haas claims that it's not only his opinion, but most of the classical world thinks like that, and adds that this happened even when Mendelssoh was alive. Let's see: during his short lifetime Mendelssohn was very appreciated by the public, not only as a performer, but also as a composer. He visited Britain 10 times where he was always acclaimed by the public. I quote from my booklet of the Elijah Oratorio: The première on 26 August (Birmingham, 1946) was a triumphant success, the 2000 strong audience lost all sense of decorum and, breaking with the prevailing custom regarding religious works, positively roared their approval. After Mendelssohn's death, this Oratorio was the most popular choral piece in the British repertoir (more that Messiah!) during the second half of the 19th Century. Beethoven himself expressed his admiration for the young composer and mentioned him as one of the great promises for the future of music. Very few composers were as successful as him in their life time... Oh, by the way, apart from a composer and a performer he was also a very good painter, a very good swimmer, a linguist and an expert in Philosophy... And now I quote from my Oxford Concise Dictionary of Music: ...his genious as a composer led Bülow to describe him as the most complete master of form after Mozart. In him, a classical upbringing was combined with romantic inclination, imparting to his work a poetic elegance which has caused it to be regarded as superficial because of its lack of impassionated features. The popularity of his work in the 19th century was followed by a severe reaction, partly caused by a puritanical feeling that his life had been too comfortably easy, but the pendulum has swung again and the best qualities of his music, its craftmanship, restraint, poetry, inventive orchestration, and melodic freshness are now highly valued. So, where is your pendulum now, Haas? Anyway, what I am doing? Mendelssohn is not even close to my top-10!!!
|
Posted By: haas
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 19:17
|
Off course Mendelsohn is a fantastic composer, who made great music. His music doesnt simply have the impact that for example Beethoven or Chopin has.
Still the public goes mad and dictonionary's love it, but the fact that he isn't such a emotional, intelligent and great composer as the real big ones, remains. ps. I will search for the sources I have to sustain my opinion, but I have to translate them from Dutch. ------------- "the attraction of the virtuoso for the public is very like that of the circus for the crowd. there is always the hope that something dangerous may happen" - Claude Debussy |
Posted By: nacho
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 19:25
|
OK, don't worry too much about it. In fact I think we bassically agree that there is a difference; it's only the size of that difference what divides us. Now, if you write something like that about Bach or Mahler we will have a lenghty discussion here!
|
Posted By: kingofbizzare
Date Posted: May 26 2005 at 19:40
| I like pretty much all of the classical music I've heard (except for the really ligjt and fluffy stuff). One of my favorite pieces is The Planets by Holst (bought it on vinyl after we played Mars in band class). I frequently listen to Moussorgsky John Cage is also very good (if you can call him classical). But my all time favorite composer would definantly have to be Nobuo Uematsu (bonus points if you know what stuff he's done without looking it up). |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 27 2005 at 03:55
|
good, my friend!
try Debussy and Ravel, you'll like them! |
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 28 2005 at 04:17
A very long discussion to discover that... we agree !!!! |
Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: May 28 2005 at 13:46
|
Favourite classical composers : Most of them are polish classical music composers : Gorecki, Preisner, Zarebski, Paderewski, Kilar / Enesco/ Vaughan Williams / Britten / Bach / Lekeu / Chausson / Koechlin/ Prokofiev ------------- "Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood) |
Posted By: Vieux Prog
Date Posted: May 28 2005 at 17:43
|
Hard to write my top-10 list since it would contain 30 or 40
composers  , but let me try... in no particular order:
Schubert JS Bach Debussy Prokofiev Haydn (for his string quartets) Mussorgsky Ravel Brahms Beethoven (his chamber music more than his symphonies, but it's mostly a matter of overexposure to the latter) Some composers I didn't see in previous posts that I enjoy a lot: Albéniz De Falla Gershwin Copland Strauss (Richard, not Johann) Satie WA Mozart & Chopin leave me just a little cold (not that I don't really like them, they wrote beautiful things; it's just that they are not what I find myself listening the most). Paganini, I couldn't care less. Wagner... has anyone seen a very old Bugs Bunny cartoon called "What's opera, doc?" It's a pastiche of Wagner and, once I saw it, I cannot listen to Wagner without laughing
|
Posted By: Vieux Prog
Date Posted: May 28 2005 at 17:50
What about the 2 violin concertos by Prokofiev? |
Posted By: ita_prog_fan
Date Posted: May 29 2005 at 14:15
|
Better than Khatchturian's of course |
Posted By: nacho
Date Posted: May 31 2005 at 18:11
|
Anybody here has heard Esa Peka Salonen's "Wing on Wing". It has just been recomended to me by a friend but I'd like to have more opinions... I guess I'll go tomorrow to the music store anyway, but just in case... |
Posted By: nowax
Date Posted: February 03 2006 at 16:23
|
HI ! JS BACHS Mozart Beethoven Vivaldi Grieg And I am lookng for metal bands who played classical music. For exemple, Patrick Rondat (seen on progarchives) played the fourth seasons (summer presto), Symphony in one of their titles use a part of N°1052 (harpsichord, by JS BACH). Savatage played Mozart (in the ttitle Mozart and madness). Do you know some of them, can you help me ? |
Posted By: Rosescar
Date Posted: February 03 2006 at 16:48
Something like that, don't know a lot. ------------- http://www.soundclick.com/rosescar/ - My music! "THE AUDIENCE WERE generally drugged. (In Holland, always)." - Robert Fripp |
Posted By: arnold stirrup
Date Posted: February 04 2006 at 20:02
|
JS Bach Beethoven Chopin Debussy Ravel Sibelius Stravinsky Bartok Copland Ives Ligeti That's 11 but who's counting? Many for honorable mention. ------------- So much music. So little time. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: February 05 2006 at 05:39
| I hate classical. I'm a jazz man all the way through. |
Posted By: arnold stirrup
Date Posted: February 05 2006 at 15:12
Many notable jazz composers/performers (Mingus, Monk, Ornette Coleman, Coltrane, to name a few) were influenced by and appreciated the likes of Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, and Bartok. Maybe you should give 'em a try! ------------- So much music. So little time. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: February 05 2006 at 15:45
|
True. Let me refine my statement. I hate pre-Romantic era classical music. And as much as I admire Ravel and Bartok, I dislike a genre where there are so few composers and so many re-enactments. The classical vibe makes me sick. In jazz, every musician is a composer in his own right. Classical music isn't an art, it's a cold and calculating science. |
Posted By: arnold stirrup
Date Posted: February 05 2006 at 23:12
Perhaps your hatred is more directed toward the classical music business and "establishment"? That is, a business whereby the major orchestras of the world thrive on performance of a standard repertoire as opposed to newly composed music. Re-enactments of musical performances of music written by guys who've been dead for a long time as opposed to premieres of current orchestral works by living composers (because its much easier for the orchestra and conductor, and besides the dead guys don't have to get paid). I can fully empathize with you on this point. The business of classical music is indeed a cold and calculating science. There are a great many composers, just very few who actually get their music performed. But there are orchestras devoted to performance of 20th century music. Ensemble Modern for example. Jazz improv and through-composed music are apples and oranges, imo. The ability to compose on the spot through improvisation, and the ability to express a fully developed idea in one's head in musical terms with pen and paper (or computer) are both quite astonishing. Whichever one I like more depends on what I'm into at the time! ------------- So much music. So little time. |
Posted By: chromaticism
Date Posted: February 06 2006 at 00:14
|
Here's my list: 1. Johann Sebastian Bach
2. Franz Liszt
3. Claude Debussy
4. Frederic Chopin
5. Igor Stravinsky
6. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
7. Gustav Holst
8. Hector Berlioz
9. Bela Bartok
10. Modest Mussorgsky
By the way, as a side note, Jazz fans should listen to Debussy, Stravinsky, Gershwin or Scott Joplin since among classical composers they seem to have an affinity towards Jazz. It's worth mentioning that composers such as Chopin compose music by improvising first, much like Jazz musicians. It's also worth noting that Baroque music is closest to Jazz in concept since it gives a lot of room for improvisation (basso continuo etc.); it's not a very popular idea since most classically-trained musicians/performers tend to play note for note (what a sad fact |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: February 06 2006 at 01:35
You seem to know very little about classical music. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven or Liszt (to name but a few) were renowned to be great improvisors. What you seem to overlook is that there were no recording devices at that time. -------------  BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: February 06 2006 at 09:04
Actually, I am very much aware of that. The problem is that we have no idea what they sounded like. I see no reason to admire someone's abilities if I've never actually HEARD them play. For all I know, they were awful and people merely admired them because of how DIFFICULT it was back thejust to improvise. P.S. Bach (and I assume you mean Johann Sebastian) wasn't known for his improvisation skills at all. You see, he was a very uptight fellow, which is why he devopled fugues. Besides, he hated pianos. |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: February 06 2006 at 10:19
You are VERY wrong about Johann Sebastian Bach; he was very famous for his improvisation skills. He once improvised a 6-voiced fugue for Friedrich the Great. He could definitely NOT have composed it, because Friedrich had composed the theme himself, and Friedrich gave it to him and asked him to improvise a fugue for him, based on the theme. At another time he was challenged for a contest by another harpsichord player (French virtuoso Louis Marchand), who decided to take a leave and not attend the contest at all when he heard Bach improvise. And to say Bach hated the piano is also totally off the target; one of the most famous works of Bach is his "Well-Tempered Piano", 24 preludes and fugues for piano, one in every minor and major key. From an online-encyclopedia entry about J.S. Bach: Bach, and many other composers of his time, were experts at improvisation, composing musical pieces at instantly, on the spot - similar to jazz players today. It was not considered rude to add whatever the player desired into the written context of the composer himself. Thus, early music was very free and flexible to play. Unfortunately, because Bach improvised so much, most of his pieces were not contained on paper. Some people consider that most of Bach's works that are on paper are not worth saving anyway, since music written for one occasion (in Bach's case, church) should be discarded anyhow. But all people have a certain level of curiosity, to hear what Bach had to say with the language of music. More than a thousand of Bach's works have been saved, but it is mind-boggling to think of how many more - and how much greater - his other thousand or so compositions could be. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: February 06 2006 at 14:13
Yes, well... uhm... he was still uptight!! |
Posted By: arnold stirrup
Date Posted: February 06 2006 at 23:12
The actual name of the work is "The Well-Tempered Clavier"...clavier meaning keyboard. I think. I also think he composed it for harpsichord...I don't think pianos were around yet. But I could be wrong. Nonetheless, my favorite versions of this piece are all performed on the piano (Gould, Tureck, Hewitt) More than anything else, Bach loved the organ.
Charles Mingus often said that he was doing the same thing as Bach. ------------- So much music. So little time. |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: February 07 2006 at 04:01
The German word "Klavier" (older spellings "Clavier") means "piano" and not "keyboard" (the German word for "keyboard" is "Klaviatur"). It may be true though that at the time of Bach the word just referred to the manual of the instrument. The first piano (full name "pianoforte") was built 1726 by Bartolomeo Francesco de Cristofori. They were definitely around already when Bach composed. Gottfried Silbermann (famous for his organs) built the first piano in Germany. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: arnold stirrup
Date Posted: February 07 2006 at 07:54
I thinks Bach's intention with the WTC was to write a work for "keyboard", and not specifically a piano. He wanted to create a universal means of tuning a keyboard instrument, which, in fact, he did. He may certainly have had the pianoforte in mind as one of the purposes of composing WTC. The vast majority of Bach's keyboard works were written for either organ or harpsichord. WTC was initially written for and performed on harpsichord, but was meant to be applied to any keyboard instrument. PS- I like your sig pic. RIP PM. I saw him perform in the early 80's. ------------- So much music. So little time. |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: February 07 2006 at 08:44
My favourite prog-drummer, and highly underrated; he rarely ever appears in drum polls, although he would definitely belong in any. No other drummer influenced my own style of drumming more. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: arnold stirrup
Date Posted: February 07 2006 at 21:56
Wholeheartedly agree. I love his style. I always like to mention him in threads which list fave drummers, because usually no one else does. Time Is The Key has been a long standing favorite album. ------------- So much music. So little time. |
Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: March 03 2006 at 16:55
|
Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Shubert, Copeland, Grieg, Handel,Bach and Stravinsky. You can't go wrong with those guys and they start my every work day on the commute to work. In proper disc rotation, of course! ------------- "Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain |
Posted By: helofloki
Date Posted: March 05 2006 at 17:08
|
Mozarts for pussies!!! just kidding, he's awsome. Especially his operas. He knows how to take an insipid melody and fashion it in a fantastic way. I always loved Rachmoninov and Stravinsky, both very good at keeping things interesting while straying far from tradition but at the same time keeping it well in mind, but recently I've found some other guys who really kick ass. The first time I heard Messaen I just feell in love with the way he just kind of loses time and brings you to this alternate universe with a strange atmosphere that's hard to describe, can only really be reached by listening to his music. His work with birdcalls and rhythm is awsome and innovative too. I've grown a liking for Brahms and Berlioz, thought their styles differ quite a bit. Each has their own aspects that just kick ass. Wagner is pretty awsome too, with his intensity and epicness and whatnot. Everyone knows Beethoven is great, because he is, denying it is being stupid. In light of this, however, many people often over look his contemporary Schubert who writes some of the most amazing works out there. You all need to go buy the C Major string quintet, arguably one of the best works of all time. Oh and respect the Bach, he's the man. His children, specifically Carl Philip Emanuel, kicked ass too. alright yeah, "classical" is the ownage. |
Posted By: helofloki
Date Posted: March 05 2006 at 17:20
|
I'm sorry you guys have it almost all wrong, thought you're completely right about well tempered. Before then, there was no consistent tuning system where like say half steps were equal. It was based on arbitrary things or the overtone series. BUT, the Klavier is actually an instrument independent of Organ, Piano, or Harpsichord, but in english it's called a Clavichord (sp?). It was Bach's personal favorite as far as keyboards were concerned because it was fairly flexible. I'm not exactly sure how it worked, but I think it was something similar to tapping a guitar, hammers would push down the strings. As you can imagine it really wasn't loud enough at all to play with any other instruments really, but many of he composers loved it for composing. |
Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: March 06 2006 at 15:45
|
Hope you caught the excerpts from Aaron Copeland's "Appalachian Spring" and "Rodeo" on one of the many montages last night at the Oscar ceremonies. That is one composer who knew the effectiveness of contrasts and dynamics. Love his stuff. ------------- "Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain |