who yours favorite composer

beethoven. his music spans the universe of human thought and feeling.

gardiner/ORR for the symphonies.
pollini for the piano sonatas.
still trying to comprehend the string quartets with the emerson quartet's help.
jochum/concertgebouw missa solemnis.

I can't even really understand this type of question. Who's my favorite composer? That's like asking who's my favorite author, or favorite movie director, or favorite painter, or whatever. With all of the musical riches out there, why be so limiting?

--

quote:

Originally posted by Todd A:
I can't even really understand this type of question. Who's my favorite composer? That's like asking who's my favorite author, or favorite movie director, or favorite painter, or whatever. With all of the musical riches out there, why be so limiting?

--

these are all questions that can be asked repeatedly, each time producing a different answer. people change, as do their musical appetites.

so every answer must be for the here and now.

Bach
Always

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
so every answer must be for the here and now.

My answer is for the here and now. I don't have a single favorite composer, and find the whole idea a bit ludicrous.



--

quote:

Originally posted by Todd A:

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
so every answer must be for the here and now.

My answer is for the here and now. I don't have a single favorite composer, and find the whole idea a bit ludicrous.



--

well, that's one view.

when i listen to a piece, i give it my full attention. that may lead to more than one listen. after a while, i feel i "stand beside" that composer (as a listener), and am especially receptive to his musical message. like any good guest, that composer becomes my favorite, at least for the time being.

isn't that just good manners?

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
Bach
Always

Agreed

There are many great composers, but J S Bach remains the towering genius.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
like any good guest, that composer becomes my favorite, at least for the time being.

isn't that just good manners?

No, not at all. In fact, composers and listeners make for a very poor analogy to hosts and guests.


--

when i attend a live performance, i feel i am being invited to participate in a fully realized interpretation of a work by a composer. invited to listen.

when i extend that expectation to a new recording, i find it a more enjoyable experience.

that's enough for me.

i try to listen in a way that will make every cd special. that way you can find new loves.
in terms of VFM, this approach to new recordings ranks very highly :-) you get many more hours of satisfaction in a way that always leaves a door open to new experience.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
when i attend a live performance, i feel i am being invited to participate in a fully realized interpretation of a work by a composer. invited to listen.

Well, you and I definitely differ here. When I go to a concert, I'm attending a pre-planned event that I paid to attend, and unless the work is by a living composer (rare), everyone involved is enjoying work by a (generally long) dead person. For me feeling invited requires an actual invitation.

Also, how does your reasoning work with respect to other art? I own half a dozen paintings by four different painters. I paid for them, and the paintings are in my home. Should I still feel "invited" to look at the paintings? Should I find each painter the best painter while I look at his or her work? Seems rather fickle to me. Same applies to the recordings I own.


--

quote:

and find the whole idea a bit ludicrous.

aren't all the best ideas ludicrous - sensible and rational ideas are not always that interesting - of course, I believe Ipswich Town will one day win the Premier League and on today's performance you can't get more ludicrous than that

My favourite composer is Leoš Janácek, of course - don't see how it could possibly be anybody else except maybe Jean Sibelius, Edgard Varèse, Thomas Tallis, John Dowland or .... hmmm, there's a lot of a pretty good ones - I guess if I can't have Janácek then I'd go for A Nony Mouse.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd A:


When I go to a concert, I'm attending a pre-planned event that I paid to attend.

Also, how does your reasoning work with respect to other art? I own half a dozen paintings by four different painters. I paid for them, and the paintings are in my home.

--

to fully enjoy art, it is always a good idea to separate the purchase from the object. if you fixate on the price of admission, you diminish the object of your affection.

this concept may have application in other life endeavors, as well.

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:
aren't all the best ideas ludicrous

Not at all. For instance, some people thought the idea of invading Iraq was ludicrous.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
to fully enjoy art, it is always a good idea to separate the purchase from the object. if you fixate on the price of admission, you diminish the object of your affection.

Um, huh? The price of a concert is irrelevant – I pay because I want to go. That should predispose me to enjoy the concert. That’s decidedly different from thinking the composers of the works on the program are my favorite while their music is playing. Your argument doesn’t make any sense.

Further, how would this apply to the paintings I own, or even to ones I may view for free in an art gallery? I’m simply trying to understand your earlier reasoning and how it applies to other forms of art. If I’m simply viewing paintings in a gallery, are you saying that the one I’m viewing at any given moment should be my favorite because, somehow, I’m a guest? That’s ludicrous.

Here’s some cold, hard reality: All art is not equally good. Same applies to composers.



--

OK.

in evaluating and comparing two recordings of a single piece, i had to allocate 27 minutes times 2.

in that precise amount of time, i heard every single shred of material that might be used or needed to compare the two recordings. i may have to do this multiple times to get at every "itch", but the recordings will not change on repeated listenings, i will.

so here's a question :

For any Edward Hopper (substitute who you will),
what precise amount of time will expose me to everything that helps me "get" the painting.

in the musical experiment, others can do the same as i did in 2X27 minutes. not so for the Hopper.

and composers become my favorites, they aren't born that way :-)

Uh, okay.

--

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
..in evaluating and comparing two recordings of a single piece, i had to allocate 27 minutes times 2.

in that precise amount of time, i heard every single shred of material that might be used or needed to compare the two recordings. i may have to do this multiple times to get at every "itch", but the recordings will not change on repeated listenings, i will.

But, in your piece on Monteux's Fantastique today, you write:

"This recording is "thin", as you would expect in a 1930 recording. But it is also exceptionally clear, especially in the higher partials. The bass is quite rolled off, but the upper partials are clear as a bell.

The Paris Symphony Orchestra is exquisite, a beautiful intonation and a rhythmic sense of line possessed by few orchestras.

Because of this, it is easy for your mind to "fill in the blanks" in the recording."

When you compare two recordings how can you differentiate between what's there ("...every single shred of material...") and what you create yourself ("...it is easy for your mind to "fill in the blanks"...")?

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy Marchant:

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
..in evaluating and comparing two recordings of a single piece, i had to allocate 27 minutes times 2.

in that precise amount of time, i heard every single shred of material that might be used or needed to compare the two recordings. i may have to do this multiple times to get at every "itch", but the recordings will not change on repeated listenings, i will.

But, in your piece on Monteux's Fantastique today, you write:

"This recording is "thin", as you would expect in a 1930 recording. But it is also exceptionally clear, especially in the higher partials. The bass is quite rolled off, but the upper partials are clear as a bell.

The Paris Symphony Orchestra is exquisite, a beautiful intonation and a rhythmic sense of line possessed by few orchestras.

Because of this, it is easy for your mind to "fill in the blanks" in the recording."

When you compare two recordings how can you differentiate between what's there ("...every single shred of material...") and what you create yourself ("...it is easy for your mind to "fill in the blanks"...")?

the piece i was referencing was hindemith's mathis der maler. i have one conducted by the composer and one by abbado, each 27 minutes in length.

both recordings are in good stereo, one from 1953 the other from 1996. you can hear all the notes in both recordings (not just partials).
in large tuttis (i.e. loud with brass) the 1953 recording suffers from an overload in the high partials, whereas the 1996 recording does not suffer from that distortion.

so these two, of the hindemith work, are "close enough" to allow for some comparison.

i haven't attempted that level of comparison on the Berlioz. i did, however, notice similarity of tempi in the Monteux and Gardiner readings.

ultimately, the recordings available limit how much, and establish what type, of specifically comparative listening is possible.

still, there are techniques you can use to "hear through" older recordings. for example, if all you hear the partials and they are perfectly in tune, then your brain will provide a fundamental, your brain will preserve the rhythm when doing this. and it is important to remember that melody and rhythm are important aspects of "hearing" a piece. the oldest "good" recordings completely preserve melody and rhythm.