Twentieth Century Chamber Music
Posted by: herm on 13 October 2002
Darius Milhaud
Complete String Quartets
For the past few weeks I have been listening to Milhaud's String Quartets, and I have to say they have been growing upon me in a way I had not expected.
Darius Milhaud (1892 - 1974) was one of the Groupe des Six composers (like Francis Poulenc and Eric Satie) and an unusually prolific one, with a catalogue comprising 450 pieces. He wrote 18 string quartets, which now have been recorded by the Paris Quartet (Quator Parisii) for the indispensable Naïve label. The booklet says this ensemble played the Milhaud Fourth Quartet for the first time in 1984, with Milhaud's widow Madeleine in the audience, and they made a vow to her to record the entire oeuvre one day.
I'm glad they did. This box contains five CDs with excellent booklets each, and from the Fifth quartet (1920) onwards this music is very special, and by the time the war years have arrived (Milhaud spent the war in the Americas), this is uniquely beautiful music.
Milhaud doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve the way Shostakovich does. It's modern music, so it doesn't necessarily have the clearly delineated vocal phrases of classical writing (though sometimes it does). It's French music (with a distinct Latin / Mediterreanean slant: Milhaud grew up in the Provence) so there's a cerebral element. The 14th and 15th quartet were composed in such a way (1948-49) that they can be played as quartets, but they can be played simultaneously, too, as an octet. Spectacular, of course, but actually I prefer the 15th as a quartet.
I really prefer his wartime quartets, say, nr 9 (1935, admittedly), through 13 (1946). Quartet nr 11, (1942) with a great, tragic slow movement, and 18 (1950) with an extraordinary slow opening movement are perhaps the best ways to begin.
It's great music to chill out to. Many of these movements, particularly the slow movements ask for a repeat to let the discourse seep into your mind one more time. The finales are invariably fun, festive, 'Latin' pieces.
OK, so this isn't Beethoven, Mozart or Shostakovich. But it is definitely in the next tier. It's just very interesting music. A couple of times I have thought, let's post about it, and then I felt, no, I want to listen some more. It's mysterious music in exactly the right way. One's intrigued, and one will never find out exactly why. And if you're really interested in twentieth century string quartets, I feel this ought to be in your collection.
I'm opening a new thread, too, to invite contributions on modern chamber music, please. StephenJohn. Jack Rubinson, Ross Blackman, Todd Arola, Nick Lees, JarrettH, what have you been up to in this department?
I'm curious
Herman
Complete String Quartets
For the past few weeks I have been listening to Milhaud's String Quartets, and I have to say they have been growing upon me in a way I had not expected.
Darius Milhaud (1892 - 1974) was one of the Groupe des Six composers (like Francis Poulenc and Eric Satie) and an unusually prolific one, with a catalogue comprising 450 pieces. He wrote 18 string quartets, which now have been recorded by the Paris Quartet (Quator Parisii) for the indispensable Naïve label. The booklet says this ensemble played the Milhaud Fourth Quartet for the first time in 1984, with Milhaud's widow Madeleine in the audience, and they made a vow to her to record the entire oeuvre one day.
I'm glad they did. This box contains five CDs with excellent booklets each, and from the Fifth quartet (1920) onwards this music is very special, and by the time the war years have arrived (Milhaud spent the war in the Americas), this is uniquely beautiful music.
Milhaud doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve the way Shostakovich does. It's modern music, so it doesn't necessarily have the clearly delineated vocal phrases of classical writing (though sometimes it does). It's French music (with a distinct Latin / Mediterreanean slant: Milhaud grew up in the Provence) so there's a cerebral element. The 14th and 15th quartet were composed in such a way (1948-49) that they can be played as quartets, but they can be played simultaneously, too, as an octet. Spectacular, of course, but actually I prefer the 15th as a quartet.
I really prefer his wartime quartets, say, nr 9 (1935, admittedly), through 13 (1946). Quartet nr 11, (1942) with a great, tragic slow movement, and 18 (1950) with an extraordinary slow opening movement are perhaps the best ways to begin.
It's great music to chill out to. Many of these movements, particularly the slow movements ask for a repeat to let the discourse seep into your mind one more time. The finales are invariably fun, festive, 'Latin' pieces.
OK, so this isn't Beethoven, Mozart or Shostakovich. But it is definitely in the next tier. It's just very interesting music. A couple of times I have thought, let's post about it, and then I felt, no, I want to listen some more. It's mysterious music in exactly the right way. One's intrigued, and one will never find out exactly why. And if you're really interested in twentieth century string quartets, I feel this ought to be in your collection.
I'm opening a new thread, too, to invite contributions on modern chamber music, please. StephenJohn. Jack Rubinson, Ross Blackman, Todd Arola, Nick Lees, JarrettH, what have you been up to in this department?
I'm curious
Herman
Posted on: 13 October 2002 by DJH
At some point, you have to move forward from the twin peaks of Beethoven's and Bartok's quartets, and try to follow the line further into the 20th century. It's quite a difficult line to follow, partly because there is still an appreciable "shock of the new", which makes it difficult for new work to compete with the accepted repertoire, which leads to there being relatively few good recordings of seminal works.
My own view of Webern has been completely changed by the recordings by the Artis Quartet (on Nimbus). For example, the "Sechs Bagatellen" are infused with a range of light, colour and emotion which is a world apart from the ascetic Juilliard versions on Sony. In the first half of the 20th century, I now see Bartok, Webern, Berg and Janacek as the key figures. Schoenberg and Shostakovich are not quite in the same league - although my view of Schoenberg has recently changed again by being able to listen to the Arditti Quartet's versions of his four quartets.
Going forward into the second half of the century, I think that the key works in terms of continuing the line include all of Elliot Carter's quartets and Ligeti's second quartet. I am still coming to terms with several pieces by Schnittke, Lutoslawski, Kurtag and Gubaidulina - in particular, Schnittke's second quartet is an immensely powerful grief-stricken piece. UK composers also figure - Thomas Ades' "Arcadiana" is a very elusive piece that I keep coming back to. Some, but not all, of Simpson's quartets are interesting (e.g. no.14), as well as McCabe's.
I am very interested in others' views as to what the key works are and how the string quartet line developed - there are several composers whose chamber works I have never heard, e.g Milhaud , Malipieri, Scelsi, Rihm, Reynolds, etc.
[This message was edited by DJH on MONDAY 14 October 2002 at 08:36.]
My own view of Webern has been completely changed by the recordings by the Artis Quartet (on Nimbus). For example, the "Sechs Bagatellen" are infused with a range of light, colour and emotion which is a world apart from the ascetic Juilliard versions on Sony. In the first half of the 20th century, I now see Bartok, Webern, Berg and Janacek as the key figures. Schoenberg and Shostakovich are not quite in the same league - although my view of Schoenberg has recently changed again by being able to listen to the Arditti Quartet's versions of his four quartets.
Going forward into the second half of the century, I think that the key works in terms of continuing the line include all of Elliot Carter's quartets and Ligeti's second quartet. I am still coming to terms with several pieces by Schnittke, Lutoslawski, Kurtag and Gubaidulina - in particular, Schnittke's second quartet is an immensely powerful grief-stricken piece. UK composers also figure - Thomas Ades' "Arcadiana" is a very elusive piece that I keep coming back to. Some, but not all, of Simpson's quartets are interesting (e.g. no.14), as well as McCabe's.
I am very interested in others' views as to what the key works are and how the string quartet line developed - there are several composers whose chamber works I have never heard, e.g Milhaud , Malipieri, Scelsi, Rihm, Reynolds, etc.
[This message was edited by DJH on MONDAY 14 October 2002 at 08:36.]
Posted on: 13 October 2002 by stephenjohn
Hi Herm
The last pieces of C20th chamber that I bought were Schoenberg and Carter string quartets[late spring]. Then something came along in my work that meant music took a back seat for a while. When I again got the time to listen to music as much as I like I found myself listening again to late baroque [Bach, Handel, Purcell, and Montiverdi] and ever so slightly dipping in to Shostakovich's quartets. I guess for the while I broke the continuity and had to go back to the beginning.
The last pieces of C20th chamber that I bought were Schoenberg and Carter string quartets[late spring]. Then something came along in my work that meant music took a back seat for a while. When I again got the time to listen to music as much as I like I found myself listening again to late baroque [Bach, Handel, Purcell, and Montiverdi] and ever so slightly dipping in to Shostakovich's quartets. I guess for the while I broke the continuity and had to go back to the beginning.
Posted on: 14 October 2002 by Todd A
I've been focusing more on 20th Century opera lately, but I did pick up a disc of string quartes by some Norwegian composers noted elsewhere. Most of the big names - nay, the essential names - have already been mentioned but I'll just list the most important in order: Bartok, Bartok, and then Bartok. After that, Shostakovich, Ligeti, Webern, Janacek, Carter, Lutoslawski, Berg, Kurtag, Dutilleaux, Pascal Dusapin, and Karl Amadeus Hartmann all come to mind. The first seven are all on the majors, the last four on Naive and CPO. (Hartmann's first quartet demands to be heard.)
I'll make another pitch for Erwin Schulhoff here. The Petersen Quartet's traversal on Cappricio is indispensable. The Hot Sonata for sax and piano is delicious. Schulhoff is one of my favorite modern composers.
Don't forget Heitor Villa Lobos. The Cuarteto Latinoamericano have a fine cycle on Dorian. Alberto Ginestara deserves inclusion, too. Zemlinksy ain't too shabby, neither. As luck would have it, I'm in the middle of the second disc of his string quartets on the possibly defunct/possibly revived label Nimbus. Korngold, too is good, as is Gubaidulina.
I have not tried too much Milhaud yet, though his quartets are on my list of things to buy along with Vagn Holmboe and Nikos Skalkattos [sic?].
I must update my original message, for I forgot to include Arnold Schoenberg. Obviously he is one of the greats - indeed, one of the greatest - yet I forgot to include him. Shame on me. His quartets are monumental and belong in every collection.
[This message was edited by Todd Arola on MONDAY 14 October 2002 at 18:57.]
I'll make another pitch for Erwin Schulhoff here. The Petersen Quartet's traversal on Cappricio is indispensable. The Hot Sonata for sax and piano is delicious. Schulhoff is one of my favorite modern composers.
Don't forget Heitor Villa Lobos. The Cuarteto Latinoamericano have a fine cycle on Dorian. Alberto Ginestara deserves inclusion, too. Zemlinksy ain't too shabby, neither. As luck would have it, I'm in the middle of the second disc of his string quartets on the possibly defunct/possibly revived label Nimbus. Korngold, too is good, as is Gubaidulina.
I have not tried too much Milhaud yet, though his quartets are on my list of things to buy along with Vagn Holmboe and Nikos Skalkattos [sic?].
I must update my original message, for I forgot to include Arnold Schoenberg. Obviously he is one of the greats - indeed, one of the greatest - yet I forgot to include him. Shame on me. His quartets are monumental and belong in every collection.
[This message was edited by Todd Arola on MONDAY 14 October 2002 at 18:57.]
Posted on: 20 October 2002 by DJH
In case anyone is interested, the Arditti Quartet site has a listing here of many of the 20th century string quartet compositions.
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by stephenjohn
Toru Takemitsu. A Bird came down to walk. Nobuko Imai. This thread inspired me to start listening to C20th chamber again. Now I've ordered this. [and some Szymanowoski, qt 1, Maggini].
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by herm
I like Takemitsu's small-scale pieces, too.
http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=srch&f=38019385&s=67019385&findw=takemitsu
Herman
http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=srch&f=38019385&s=67019385&findw=takemitsu
Herman
Posted on: 29 October 2002 by DJH
Several of Takemitsu's chamber pieces sound to me like a more accessible version of Messiaen - there are several phrases in T's Distance de Fee or Hika which appear to directly echo M's Quatuor pour la fin du temps, especially the two Louanges.
Posted on: 31 October 2002 by stephenjohn
Hi
The Toru Takemitsu hasn't arrived yet. In the meantime I have been listening again to Bax's 2nd string quartet on Naxos by the Maggini. It's got to be worth £4.99 of anyone's money. Interestingly it's his 1st [also on the disc] that seems to have recieved the most plaudits.
The Toru Takemitsu hasn't arrived yet. In the meantime I have been listening again to Bax's 2nd string quartet on Naxos by the Maggini. It's got to be worth £4.99 of anyone's money. Interestingly it's his 1st [also on the disc] that seems to have recieved the most plaudits.
Posted on: 31 October 2002 by herm
DJH,
of course Takemitsu sounds like Debussy or Messiaen at times. Just like there's an occasional whiff of Schumann in Tchaikovsky. I love it; in fact it's much harder to pay homage to a master this way than to be a bad original.
One more thing about Milhaud, with whose string quartets I opened this thread. I got his symphonies, too, twelve pieces on on five cds, by the Basel Radio Orchestra, Alun Francis conducting.
Much as I like the string quartets, I have to say these symphonies have up till now (starting at number 12) failed to make the slightest contact with me. It's just a shower of musical ideas, weird episodes and, also, below par ensemble in the orchestra.
Herman
of course Takemitsu sounds like Debussy or Messiaen at times. Just like there's an occasional whiff of Schumann in Tchaikovsky. I love it; in fact it's much harder to pay homage to a master this way than to be a bad original.
One more thing about Milhaud, with whose string quartets I opened this thread. I got his symphonies, too, twelve pieces on on five cds, by the Basel Radio Orchestra, Alun Francis conducting.
Much as I like the string quartets, I have to say these symphonies have up till now (starting at number 12) failed to make the slightest contact with me. It's just a shower of musical ideas, weird episodes and, also, below par ensemble in the orchestra.
Herman
Posted on: 01 November 2002 by Wolf
Take a listen to John Adams' Gnarly Buttons CD from Nonesuch. It is actually the London Sinfonietta but the first part is "John's Book of Alleged Dances" by the Kronos Quartet and is really a lot of fun. They have names like Toot Nipple, Dogjam, Rag the Bone, Aligator Escalator and really are fun to listen to and challenging. Hope this turns someone else onto one of the great contemporary compposers of our time.
Glenn-"Toot Nipple"
Glenn-"Toot Nipple"
Posted on: 01 November 2002 by herm
Let's make the link then, Glenn:
http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=67019385&f=38019385&m=6501984765&r=2421964965#2421964965
http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=67019385&f=38019385&m=6501984765&r=2421964965#2421964965
Posted on: 04 November 2002 by Wolf
Thanks for the connection, I never did see all the comments after my original post. I just heard N&S Music a fortnight ago in LA with Salonen concucting and Adams conducting another young composer's work. However, I like hearing all the detail on the CD. I had an intense Sat. night listening to his works and laying on the floor changed the sound so that Alleged dances had distinct separation. I like the sense of humor of those pieces. He has a really fresh approach to music that I like.
Glenn
Glenn
Posted on: 05 November 2002 by herm
Hi Jack,
I just listened to the Schnittke's 4th Quartet, on that great recording by the Kronos. Of course it's really music you want to witness at a performance: Schnittke is very introspective and theatrical at the same time.
If you're interested in the Milhaud string quartets I would like to add to my opening post that Milhaud is (like a lot of French composers) not one to wear his heart on his sleeve. Compared to Shostakovich's almost confessional late pieces there's perhaps less person to person communication in Milhaud, though there is a distinct reaching for serenity in the slow mvts and festiveness in the faster ones. These are of course more 'objective,' less dramatic moods than some expect from music.
Also, like most of his fellow 'Groupe de Six' members* Milhaud decidedly took a side step out of the Progressive Tradition that starts with Mozart's six Haydn Quartets and the Middle and Late Beethoven Quartets. Listening to Schnittke (or Bartok for that matter, or late Shos) one is firmly in that tradition: these pieces are meant to be major statements on life and the music one can make
[hello, HiFi fans! See: this is what happens when you tune into the Music Room].
Unless I'm mistaken / really stupid Milhaud doesn't do major statements. He just makes music. Obviously that's another way of making a major statement too, i.e. that there's something too confining in the Progressive Tradition, and the way artists are expected to make vatic pronouncements all the time.
Incidentally, I started the Milhaud symphony box from the other end - the beginning rather than the end - and those early symphonies are much better. The orchestra remains awfully mediocre. Lord I'm glad I don't live in Basle.
I should try to get hold of those Scelsi pieces sometime
Herman
* I'd happily stand corrected but if memory serves Poulenc, Auric, Honneger, Satie were also in the Groupe de Six.
I just listened to the Schnittke's 4th Quartet, on that great recording by the Kronos. Of course it's really music you want to witness at a performance: Schnittke is very introspective and theatrical at the same time.
If you're interested in the Milhaud string quartets I would like to add to my opening post that Milhaud is (like a lot of French composers) not one to wear his heart on his sleeve. Compared to Shostakovich's almost confessional late pieces there's perhaps less person to person communication in Milhaud, though there is a distinct reaching for serenity in the slow mvts and festiveness in the faster ones. These are of course more 'objective,' less dramatic moods than some expect from music.
Also, like most of his fellow 'Groupe de Six' members* Milhaud decidedly took a side step out of the Progressive Tradition that starts with Mozart's six Haydn Quartets and the Middle and Late Beethoven Quartets. Listening to Schnittke (or Bartok for that matter, or late Shos) one is firmly in that tradition: these pieces are meant to be major statements on life and the music one can make
[hello, HiFi fans! See: this is what happens when you tune into the Music Room].
Unless I'm mistaken / really stupid Milhaud doesn't do major statements. He just makes music. Obviously that's another way of making a major statement too, i.e. that there's something too confining in the Progressive Tradition, and the way artists are expected to make vatic pronouncements all the time.
Incidentally, I started the Milhaud symphony box from the other end - the beginning rather than the end - and those early symphonies are much better. The orchestra remains awfully mediocre. Lord I'm glad I don't live in Basle.
I should try to get hold of those Scelsi pieces sometime
Herman
* I'd happily stand corrected but if memory serves Poulenc, Auric, Honneger, Satie were also in the Groupe de Six.
Posted on: 05 November 2002 by David Hobbs-Mallyon
I've heard a couple of orchestral pieces by Scelsi - very very minimal. I half remember (i.e. could be complete nonsense) a story about how his compositional style developed out of his time in a mental health institution where he got obsessed with getting different sounds out of the same note on the piano which he used to play all day. All sounds a bit dire, but the works I heard were reasonably compelling.
I'd expect his chamber music to be extremely spare. Jack any more comments on what these are like?
David
I'd expect his chamber music to be extremely spare. Jack any more comments on what these are like?
David
Posted on: 08 November 2002 by stephenjohn
Between Tides. Very good. Piece for Cello, Violin, and Piano written in 1993. It doesn't remind me of Debussy though. More Bartok without the rhythmic bits. Dreamily enjoyable.
Also been listeniong to Britten and Rostropovich play the Cello Sonata B wrote for R. Very very good music. Does Britten get much of a mention outside the UK? or in these topics?
Also been listeniong to Britten and Rostropovich play the Cello Sonata B wrote for R. Very very good music. Does Britten get much of a mention outside the UK? or in these topics?
Posted on: 10 November 2002 by DJH
Jack; I picked up a copy of the Scelsi quartets last weekend when I was passing through the UK, together with some Dutilleux and Carter pieces that I hadn't been able to source in HK.
I started with the fourth and fifth quartets, which seemed impossibly dense. Then I tried the third, and some sense began to emerge. In some ways, the third appears like an opened out version of the later pieces, with the linkages between events more obvious and accessible. Some of its movements, particularly the third and fifth, have a gravitas which is compelling. By contrast, the later pieces are so condensed that they appear like some intricate origami that you would find difficult to have been conceived on or from a sheet of musical paper. This is some of the strangest music I have come across and I will be making time for it over the coming months as I am sure that there is further depth and subtlety to find.
I started with the fourth and fifth quartets, which seemed impossibly dense. Then I tried the third, and some sense began to emerge. In some ways, the third appears like an opened out version of the later pieces, with the linkages between events more obvious and accessible. Some of its movements, particularly the third and fifth, have a gravitas which is compelling. By contrast, the later pieces are so condensed that they appear like some intricate origami that you would find difficult to have been conceived on or from a sheet of musical paper. This is some of the strangest music I have come across and I will be making time for it over the coming months as I am sure that there is further depth and subtlety to find.
Posted on: 10 November 2002 by stephenjohn
I've been intrigued by this thread and the descriptions of music that I have never heard, so I have just ordered: Gubaidulina Garden Of Joys And Sorrows, Scelsi’s Quartets by the Arditti, and Black Angels by George Crumb. All for under £20, perhaps a bargain? I'll find out in the listening. On another note, I would be interested to know if anyone else listens to Britten or Bax and if so what they think.
Posted on: 11 November 2002 by herm
quote:
Originally posted by stephenjohn:
I would be interested to know if anyone else listens to Britten or Bax and if so what they think.
I listen to Britten occasionally, and I'm not even British. Favorite pieces are the third string quartet (la Serenissima, with the Passacaglia at the end) by either the Amadeus Quartet or the Lindsays. The second and third Cello Sonata are pretty good to, though not by Rostropovich, who is just too big, fuzzy and slavic to me, for this kind of music.
Downside of Britten is he hardly ever sounds as if the music comes totally naturally. I hate to say this, but he is a bit of a secondary talent, who came to music not as a maker but as a listener first. I mean, compare him to his close coevals Prokofiev or Shostakovich... They would seem to compose out of a completely unmediated animal urge.
Britten's songs are perhaps the most authentic pieces. The 'Winter Words' cycle, poems by Thomas Hardy, is perhaps the best he wrote outside of opera.
Herman
Posted on: 13 November 2002 by stephenjohn
thanks for that Herm. As someone living in England, I've grown up with the idea that Britten was one of the greats of the C20th. I wondered whether this was just provincialism. I enjoy some of his music immensely, but that maybe because I am English.
Posted on: 13 November 2002 by DJH
Several Britten pieces are extraordinarily good - e.g. Peter Grimes, Billy Budd, Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings and many of his folk-song arrangements. The Serenade in particular I find very moving. I still think that the Pears version is the best, but the recent Bostridge is growing on me. I heard a version with Peter Langridge which had the most exquisite horn playing, but which was ruined by his mannered singing. There is also much other work by Britten that I don't rate as highly, e.g. Curlew River, Turn of the Screw, Spring Symphony and his string quartets. I have the third quartet by the Lindsay's coupled with an awful Tippett piece - the Tippett never gets played, and the Britten only very occasionally.
Anyway - one other piece that I would like to mention in this thread is the first quartet by Karl Hartmann which I have just encountered on a CD by the Zehetmair Quartet on ECM, coupled with Bartok's fourth quartet. I'd strongly recommend the Hartmann even if it is a little derivative of Bartok - the first movement in particular is sublime. However their version of the Bartok fourth is a real eye-opener - it is quite different from the other versions I have (Lindsays, Vegh, Talich) and I could honestly say that it has given me a new perspective on this great work.
Cheers
Anyway - one other piece that I would like to mention in this thread is the first quartet by Karl Hartmann which I have just encountered on a CD by the Zehetmair Quartet on ECM, coupled with Bartok's fourth quartet. I'd strongly recommend the Hartmann even if it is a little derivative of Bartok - the first movement in particular is sublime. However their version of the Bartok fourth is a real eye-opener - it is quite different from the other versions I have (Lindsays, Vegh, Talich) and I could honestly say that it has given me a new perspective on this great work.
Cheers
Posted on: 14 November 2002 by herm
"We all fall into the trap of using the Late Quartets as the standard upon which all chamber music is judged. The fact is that most music will not come up to this standard; and, we can not sustain our enjoyment of music on just 16 string quartets."
This could well be the way Adorno looked at the matter, but as I hinted in a previous post, I really don't. For one thing, I probably like Beethoven Rasumovsky quartets (the opus 59 threesome) just as much as the late quartets, and play them more often. Last week I got the box with the sixties recordings of the complete Beethoven String Quartets by the Juilliard Quartet, and literally wallowed in these middle works.
If I had to name one absolute standard of string quartet composing, that would have to be Mozarts string quartets from K 387 onwards - the Celebrated Ten.
As for Adorno, isn't he one of those funny Germano-centric professors who basically regard everything that is not German not up to snuff, dismissing Tchaikovsky and most other Russian composers as hysterical and degenerate? I have some ancient middle-brow musicological books coming from this tradition and it's really shocking to see the racist undertow as soon as it's not about good, clean composers like Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. Of course, hats off to you, Jack, for reading convoluted prose like Adorno's but I'm a little wary of guys like him.
There was a pretty solid dismissal of Adorno's music writings in the New York Review of Books, recently, by pianist and essayist Charles Rosen (his book about the Romantic composers is very good, btw). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15769
Let me end in a nice way, though, by plugging one of my absolute favorite string quartets, the one and only by Gabriel Fauré, completed in 1923. "It's a genre made particularly famous by Beethoven," Fauré wrote to his wife, "so anyone who is not Beethoven is scared to death of it." Fauré was nearly eighty years old when he composed this piece, his last, and it is one of the most accomplished pieces in the genre. Perfect from start to finish. Also the cheap Naxos recording is one of the best (and few available), so just give it a shot.
Herman
This could well be the way Adorno looked at the matter, but as I hinted in a previous post, I really don't. For one thing, I probably like Beethoven Rasumovsky quartets (the opus 59 threesome) just as much as the late quartets, and play them more often. Last week I got the box with the sixties recordings of the complete Beethoven String Quartets by the Juilliard Quartet, and literally wallowed in these middle works.
If I had to name one absolute standard of string quartet composing, that would have to be Mozarts string quartets from K 387 onwards - the Celebrated Ten.
As for Adorno, isn't he one of those funny Germano-centric professors who basically regard everything that is not German not up to snuff, dismissing Tchaikovsky and most other Russian composers as hysterical and degenerate? I have some ancient middle-brow musicological books coming from this tradition and it's really shocking to see the racist undertow as soon as it's not about good, clean composers like Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. Of course, hats off to you, Jack, for reading convoluted prose like Adorno's but I'm a little wary of guys like him.
There was a pretty solid dismissal of Adorno's music writings in the New York Review of Books, recently, by pianist and essayist Charles Rosen (his book about the Romantic composers is very good, btw). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15769
Let me end in a nice way, though, by plugging one of my absolute favorite string quartets, the one and only by Gabriel Fauré, completed in 1923. "It's a genre made particularly famous by Beethoven," Fauré wrote to his wife, "so anyone who is not Beethoven is scared to death of it." Fauré was nearly eighty years old when he composed this piece, his last, and it is one of the most accomplished pieces in the genre. Perfect from start to finish. Also the cheap Naxos recording is one of the best (and few available), so just give it a shot.
Herman
Posted on: 16 November 2002 by stephenjohn
Hi
The Gubaidulina came yesterday. It’s the wrong CD. It has Seven Words, Silenzio, and In Croce on it. Can’t say it has grabbed me. Sadly as yet neither has the Dutilleux. Both seem to me to be a bit weird. I’m sure that is intentional weirdness, as in an eerie weirdness. I’ve had the experience in the past of things growing on me, but I think these might take some time.
I’ve had more time to listen to the Takemitsu now. I like the piece for violin, cello and piano called between the tides. The CDs I have are by the Ensemble Kai and Nobuki Imai & Roland Pontinen, both on BIS. But I ha find I don’t want to listen to anything else on the discs as they seem very similar. 15 minutes of Between the Tides feels like enough wandering aimlessly about.
Like you said Herm [concerning Britten] these guys are certainly not Shostakovichs or Bartoks. But having tried most of the composers, not all admittedly, that have been talked about on this thread I have come to realize that they are all second division.
Currently, are there any guys of truly great stature around?
The Gubaidulina came yesterday. It’s the wrong CD. It has Seven Words, Silenzio, and In Croce on it. Can’t say it has grabbed me. Sadly as yet neither has the Dutilleux. Both seem to me to be a bit weird. I’m sure that is intentional weirdness, as in an eerie weirdness. I’ve had the experience in the past of things growing on me, but I think these might take some time.
I’ve had more time to listen to the Takemitsu now. I like the piece for violin, cello and piano called between the tides. The CDs I have are by the Ensemble Kai and Nobuki Imai & Roland Pontinen, both on BIS. But I ha find I don’t want to listen to anything else on the discs as they seem very similar. 15 minutes of Between the Tides feels like enough wandering aimlessly about.
Like you said Herm [concerning Britten] these guys are certainly not Shostakovichs or Bartoks. But having tried most of the composers, not all admittedly, that have been talked about on this thread I have come to realize that they are all second division.
Currently, are there any guys of truly great stature around?
Posted on: 16 November 2002 by stephenjohn
quote:
No one mentioned Britten: War Requiem yet? (While we're partially on the subject.)
I like the Sinfonia da Requiem, and the Cello Symphony but didn't mention them because they aren't chamber
[This message was edited by stephenjohn on SUNDAY 17 November 2002 at 09:24.]
Posted on: 16 November 2002 by herm
forget hierarchy
Stephen John: "Like you said Herm [concerning Britten] these guys are certainly not Shostakovichs or Bartoks. But having tried most of the composers, not all admittedly, that have been talked about on this thread I have come to realize that they are all second division."
Sorry SJ, that's not quite what I was aiming for when I said Britten was a secondary talent, coming to music as a listener first and a maker second. I don't want to be in the business of telling which composers are first rate and which are second and third, if that would mean you infer we'd be wasting our time listening to anything but Mozart and J.S. Bach.
For example, composers like Gabriel Fauré or indeed Britten are obviously not of the same stature as Mozart, but we need every good piece they wrote (and remember: more than a third of Mozart's output is a distinct level below his best).
Remember also the whole nature of music production got different in the twentieth century. It's very hard to not be a listener first with so much on record - both printed and recorded. Mozart had already written more than 350 opus numbers when he discovered a major cache of J.S. Bach pieces in a patron and friend's library, which had a major impact of his mature composing. Prior to that he'd mostly been familiar with the music of the Bach sons who at the time were much more famous than J.S..
Composers like Messiaen or Bartok are obviously completely original voices, designing their own musical language. I could imagine Messiaen writing music even if he'd never heard art music. Britten, I don&rsquot know. Perhaps it's the British curse. British arts are never extreme in any way, because you do want to get that OBE.
But even Shostakovich, a big and immediately recognizable voice, is literally brimming with quotes, and indeed in the fifties and sixties most people in the West thought he was a distincly second rate 'vulgar' composer. On the other hand for me Schumann is an entirely first rate composer, with an unique voice that has since become a virtually universal language - but many people would say Schumann is second rate because his symphonies are not as good as his piano pieces or whatever.
So I wouldn't worry about the exact hierarchy. There's great, unique pieces of music all over the place.
Herman
Stephen John: "Like you said Herm [concerning Britten] these guys are certainly not Shostakovichs or Bartoks. But having tried most of the composers, not all admittedly, that have been talked about on this thread I have come to realize that they are all second division."
Sorry SJ, that's not quite what I was aiming for when I said Britten was a secondary talent, coming to music as a listener first and a maker second. I don't want to be in the business of telling which composers are first rate and which are second and third, if that would mean you infer we'd be wasting our time listening to anything but Mozart and J.S. Bach.
For example, composers like Gabriel Fauré or indeed Britten are obviously not of the same stature as Mozart, but we need every good piece they wrote (and remember: more than a third of Mozart's output is a distinct level below his best).
Remember also the whole nature of music production got different in the twentieth century. It's very hard to not be a listener first with so much on record - both printed and recorded. Mozart had already written more than 350 opus numbers when he discovered a major cache of J.S. Bach pieces in a patron and friend's library, which had a major impact of his mature composing. Prior to that he'd mostly been familiar with the music of the Bach sons who at the time were much more famous than J.S..
Composers like Messiaen or Bartok are obviously completely original voices, designing their own musical language. I could imagine Messiaen writing music even if he'd never heard art music. Britten, I don&rsquot know. Perhaps it's the British curse. British arts are never extreme in any way, because you do want to get that OBE.
But even Shostakovich, a big and immediately recognizable voice, is literally brimming with quotes, and indeed in the fifties and sixties most people in the West thought he was a distincly second rate 'vulgar' composer. On the other hand for me Schumann is an entirely first rate composer, with an unique voice that has since become a virtually universal language - but many people would say Schumann is second rate because his symphonies are not as good as his piano pieces or whatever.
So I wouldn't worry about the exact hierarchy. There's great, unique pieces of music all over the place.
Herman
Posted on: 17 November 2002 by stephenjohn
Herm, I seem to have misrepresented the point that I was trying to make. Which was that I have failed in my search to find another modern composer whose works that I consistently enjoy as much as Shostakovich or Bartok. I have found lots of beautiful pieces of music which give me great pleasure but no composers that seem to me as having produced as much music over a range of genres that I enjoy. I have also bought, a lot of music that has been disappointing.
I agree wholeheartedly that heirarchies and league tables are crude and pointless as devices for informing the musical taste of any individual. But I think that we all try and organize our experiences to try and make sense of the world and make predictions, in this case about what music we might enjoy if we listen to it. In these threads the comments :"it's not Shostakovich [for example], but..." are often seen. As someone who listens to some music who does not have a musical education my question is: is there any consensus of opinion about any individual that he or she may be great in the sense of their music being enjoyable?
PS In fact Herm, your opinion concerning Messiaen will mean that I now am going to buy some of his work. Thank you.
[This message was edited by stephenjohn on SUNDAY 17 November 2002 at 10:11.]
[This message was edited by stephenjohn on SUNDAY 17 November 2002 at 10:12.]
I agree wholeheartedly that heirarchies and league tables are crude and pointless as devices for informing the musical taste of any individual. But I think that we all try and organize our experiences to try and make sense of the world and make predictions, in this case about what music we might enjoy if we listen to it. In these threads the comments :"it's not Shostakovich [for example], but..." are often seen. As someone who listens to some music who does not have a musical education my question is: is there any consensus of opinion about any individual that he or she may be great in the sense of their music being enjoyable?
PS In fact Herm, your opinion concerning Messiaen will mean that I now am going to buy some of his work. Thank you.
[This message was edited by stephenjohn on SUNDAY 17 November 2002 at 10:11.]
[This message was edited by stephenjohn on SUNDAY 17 November 2002 at 10:12.]