Lookin' for a new composer

Bruch,
Britten,
Bach,
Butterworth,

To name but a few.......

BRAHMS! Has to be...

Berlioz
Borodin
bruckner
Byrd
Bizet
Barbor
Bartok
Berg
Bellini

Boccherini?

Busoni?

quote:

I've checked some of the old classical threads but they are just that; old.

I am sure that being as you put "old" makes them no less relevant.

Only in the case of living composers is there likely to be a huge divide over what is significant and what is effemeral.

My vote would be for Byrd as a new composer.

ATB from George

Thanks for the recommendation George! By 'old' my concern is not in those threads' informational value, in which you are absolutely correct about their relevance; but in their timeliness. My hope is that new posts will tap into a kind of zeitgeist of current forum thought about classical music.

I suggest Brokofieff, Bozart, or perhaps even Bendelssohn, but certainly not Babbitt.

I'm with Dan Carney here,Brahms is your man

Redkev, you have excellent taste

Once you start Brahms, you'll never finish!

quote:

Originally posted by Naijeru:
My previous outing with Mahler was a real blast as the one with Shostakovich was before that.
... Any suggestions?

I'm thinking that, if the direction so far is Mahler and Shostakovich, you'll find Brahms a tad - there's no other word for it - dull.

I suggest try another geographic strand and go to Sibelius. Symphonies 1 and 2, Violin concerto, Karelia suite, Four legends, En saga, Finlandia, and other relatively early stuff will lead you nicely into the sparer and ultimately more satisfying later stuff.

That would be Bibelius then if you stick to be an alphabetic limitations to composers whose name begins with B!

Brahms, dull? You can't be serious.

Suspensions, hemiolas, art of development, master of harmonic pace...

Shost is largely insignificant when placed next to Brahms.

There is nothing dull about Brahms, if you concentate at the start. It has the depth of Bach or Beethoven [sticking to Bs] or Haydn, if we open up the field to the other twenty five letters.

Well I'm not entirely dogmatic about the B thing, Sibelius and Haydn have been noted. I really do enjoy Sibelius' second symphony so I think he's made the short list. Brahms also seems to be highly regarded so I will check him out too. I would ask for contemporary recommendations but I imagine that stuff would be hard to get recordings of? I'm also not too keen on the whole prepared instrument thing, unless some forum members can point me to some worthwhile pieces.

Once you appreciate the Brahms, the Shostakovitch and Mahler may be the ones you find dull.

Three single compositions by Bs:

Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique (recorded by Amsterdam CO/Colin Davis on Philips)

Brahms's Fourth Symphony (recorded by Vienna PO/Carlos Kleiber on DGG)

Bruckner's Fourth Symphony (recorded by Vienna PO/Karl Boehm on Decca)

It would be easy to come out with another 20/30 discs, before trespassing onto repertoire by the two greatest Bs, Bach and Beethoven, but I think that the premise is too silly (with all respect) to pursue.

quote:

Originally posted by Dan Carney:
Brahms, dull? You can't be serious.

I didn't say Brahms was dull. I said Mr Naijeru might find Brahms dull if his listening experience had been largely of Mahler and Shostakovich. I was attempting to answer the question from the questioner's perspective, not mine. I find this a useful technique professionally as a coach, so I was trying it out here.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy Marchant:
I didn't say Brahms was dull. I said Mr Naijeru might find Brahms dull if his listening experience had been largely of Mahler and Shostakovich. I was attempting to answer the question from the questioner's perspective, not mine. I find this a useful technique professionally as a coach, so I was trying it out here.

Seems dangerously close to judging [without evidence to support it] and patronising the person you are advising.

Perhaps not the greatest approach for the Forum even it may be more valuable when you know more about the recipient of your advice.

And Brahms is not even remotely dull!

ATB from George

I'll be damned by all for saying I think Brahms is dull. I've tried numerous times to like him and now have a box set of his but I think it's still a snooze. Berlioz for me if you HAVE to stick with Bs. Other than that I think Strauss, as in Richard, for tone poems or operas, will knock your socks off, and that 20th C thing going on I so love.

Or try Schubert, glorious music that sparkles instead.

Dear Glenn,

Isn't it such a strange one?

It would not be only mine but a historical verdict. Brahms is one of the few composers of the the top tank, whilst Richard Strauss is now consigned to a second division musicans whose noisiness is inversely proportional to his depth.

To be honest, I agree with one of R Strauss's closest acquaintainces, and possibly greatest of interpreters, Hans Knappertsbusch, who noted that Strauss was a horrible man at a personal level, and who wrote very loud music that will not last.

Perhaps the perception of R Strauss is different in the USA, but he is even more rarely performed in the UK these days than Mahler, or Schoenberg. Yet his music started out with an immense populist appeal. "Noisy, but empty," as Klemperer noted, and he was one of the few great musicians who presented Brahms, Schoenberg, Mahler, and R Strauss with complete mastery of the music.

ATB from George

Brahms... good call!

The equal best with the other big "Bs," Bach, and Beethoven!

Don't forget the big "Hs," Haydn, and Handel, either!

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
Once you appreciate the Brahms, the Shostakovitch and Mahler may be the ones you find dull.

Mike, couldn't agree with you more!

Richard Strauss is a great deal of fun to play, if you buzz your lips into a mouthpiece. You don't have to worry about the music itself. You can concentrate on how loud you can play in tune.

I remember starting with the ffff passages, and seeing how loud I could play in tune with good articulation, and then scaling everything else to that. I was not alone. Today, it seems a lame conception, but I don't wish to forget what it was. It really happened, and it needs remembering.

You never have to go very long before a climax, no matter where you are in the music with R. Strauss.

The range of expression is exhausted on deciding where f, ff, fff and ffff are - you know, layering loudness.

Short of that, there is nothing much to yearn for.

Of them all (the tone poems), I still find pleasure in "Don Quixote", as it is possessed of whimsy, and a genuine sense of fun, and offers many opportunities for musical expression. He must have been in a rare mood those days.

But it's not something I seek out very often. It is more of a memory, than a new experience.

Richard Strauss was quite popular in the 60s and 70s. Things have changed.

Were I doing it all over again today, I would carefully study my part, to find the places where I would be a principle voice. Then I would study those passages in the score, and determine the correct loudness of those passages. From that basis, everything in dynamics would be tailored to that ideal.

That is how I would try to make music today, were it be mine a second time :-)

In the end, it only means if offered a second chance, I would play softer.