Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What is your least favorite genre/period of "serious" (classical) music?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:03 PM
Original message
What is your least favorite genre/period of "serious" (classical) music?
I don't know what else to call it, other than serious music. Most people just call it all classical music, which of course is an error because classical refers to a certain period of "serious" music. And of course, the use of the word "serious" makes it sound like other music isn't serious - and while much of it isn't (pop, folk, etc.), some of it is (rock bands like Yes and Genesis, and other performers like Laurie Anderson, Kraftwerk, Meredith Monk).

So by serious I mean the music that tends most often to be written by classically/conservatory trained composers and performed by classically trained musicians, so this would be Bach, Mozart, Schoenberg, Glass, etc.

My least favorite period is actually the Classical period itself - the period that Mozart solidly fallsinto, and which early Beethoven sits. I enjoy Baroque, and I love the romantic period, but the stuff between Baroque and Romantic leaves me feeling veyr unfulfilled. So yes, that means that I am not a great fan of Mozart. Not that he's bad, it just doesn't excite me. Baroque is more interesting to listen to, and Romantic is much more emotionally fulfilling. I like fugues and chromaticism, I guess. :-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Romantic stuff. Well, most classical music, really.
Shit, i just really can't get into much pre-Stravinsky classical music in general. I like shit like "Ballet Mechanique" by George Antheil (I saw this performed by a 26-piece percussion ensemble in NAshville...it was fucking INSANE).

Give me dissonance, give me Wagnerian drama, give me Zappaesque absurdity, Varese-ian experimentation, and I'm happy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Burma Jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm with you.....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FuzzySlippers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. Electronic.
Edited on Tue Jan-17-06 05:14 PM by FuzzySlippers
I agree with you to a degree on Mozart, but there are some things, such as the Requiem, that are deeply moving.

Edit: typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Yes - and oddly enough, I'm listening to a new CD of his Requiem right
now! I just got it a couple days ago.

I still far prefer Penderecki's Polish Requiem, or the Durufle Requiem, but what the hell - one thing Mozart never is, is ugly. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. Agreed
I love Baroque.... fun to hear, fun to sing, but the stuff after.... :bored:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. Well, I don't know periods...
But I do know what I like. Chopin, Tchaikosky, Rachmaninoff and Vivaldi. That's what I wind up listening to the most. I'm totally uneducated on this stuff, but when I listen to it, I like how it makes me feel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. The first three are Romantic; Vivaldi is baroque
You, too, have skipped the Classical period!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ron Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
6. It took me a lotta years to understand that Mozart is much heavier than
Richard Strauss. I liked the bombastic and soaring stuff, 'cause it was fun to play. I liked the dissonant stuff, 'cause it was trick and edgy. Now as an older person, I believe that Mozart is the absolute pinnacle of "serious" music, because it says just what needs to be said and no more. It can never be played perfectly, because each time it's played it's brand new: an open line straight to the Muse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. Jazz should be considered serious classical music
Why it is not I have no idea - but Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" is every bit as deep and layered as anytyhing by Beethoven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WritingIsMyReligion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. "Burning," especially, always seems deep to me.
Expressions from the subconscious, and all that good philsophical stuff. ;)

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Certainly some of it should - Conltrane, Davis, Metheny, other guitar guy
But not the smooth bullshit, and some of the other boring, uninteresting forms.

Can't think of the other guitar guy I'm thinking of... starts with a V? Maybe an H? Crap, I had an old CD of his and another guy... damn!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Yes, not all Jazz is classic
Kenny G for example, is shit.

Pat Metheny had a great rant against Kenny G once...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. I hope it ended with him smashing a Fender Strat through Kenny G's
sternum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WritingIsMyReligion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Funny image, there....
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Well take a gander :)
ne 5, 2000) kenny g is not a musician i really had much of an opinion about at all until recently. there was not much about the way he played that interested me one way or the other either live or on records. i first heard him a number of years ago playing as a sideman with jeff lorber when they opened a concert for my band. my impression was that he was someone who had spent a fair amount of time listening to the more pop oriented sax players of that time, like grover washington or david sanborn, but was not really an advanced player, even in that style. he had major rhythmic problems and his harmonic and melodic vocabulary was extremely limited, mostly to pentatonic based and blues- lick derived patterns, and he basically exhibited only a rudimentary understanding of how to function as a professional soloist in an ensemble - lorber was basically playing him off the bandstand in terms of actual music. but he did show a knack for connecting to the basest impulses of the large crowd by deploying his two or three most effective licks (holding long notes and playing fast runs - never mind that there were lots of harmonic clams in them) at the keys moments to elicit a powerful crowd reaction (over and over again) . the other main thing i noticed was that he also, as he does to this day, play horribly out of tune - consistently sharp.

of course, i am aware of what he has played since, the success it has had, and the controversy that has surrounded him among musicians and serious listeners. this controversy seems to be largely fueled by the fact that he sells an enormous amount of records while not being anywhere near a really great player in relation to the standards that have been set on his instrument over the past sixty or seventy years.

and honestly, there is no small amount of envy involved from musicians who see one of their fellow players doing so well financially, especially when so many of them who are far superior as improvisors and musicians in general have trouble just making a living. there must be hundreds, if not thousands of sax players around the world who are simply better improvising musicians than kenny g on his chosen instruments. it would really surprise me if even he disagreed with that statement.

having said that, it has gotten me to thinking lately why so many jazz musicians (myself included, given the right “bait” of a question, as i will explain later) and audiences have gone so far as to say that what he is playing is not even jazz at all.

stepping back for a minute, if we examine the way he plays, especially if one can remove the actual improvising from the often mundane background environment that it is delivered in, we see that his saxophone style is in fact clearly in the tradition of the kind of playing that most reasonably objective listeners WOULD normally quantify as being jazz. it’s just that as jazz or even as music in a general sense, with these standards in mind, it is simply not up to the level of playing that we historically associate with professional improvising musicians. so, lately i have been advocating that we go ahead and just include it under the word jazz - since pretty much of the rest of the world OUTSIDE of the jazz community does anyway - and let the chips fall where they may.

and after all, why he should be judged by any other standard, why he should be exempt from that that all other serious musicians on his instrument are judged by if they attempt to use their abilities in an improvisational context playing with a rhythm section as he does? he SHOULD be compared to john coltrane or wayne shorter, for instance, on his abilities (or lack thereof) to play the soprano saxophone and his success (or lack thereof) at finding a way to deploy that instrument in an ensemble in order to accurately gauge his abilities and put them in the context of his instrument’s legacy and potential.

as a composer of even eighth note based music, he SHOULD be compared to herbie hancock, horace silver or even grover washington. suffice it to say, on all above counts, at this point in his development, he wouldn’t fare well.

but, like i said at the top, this relatively benign view was all “until recently”.

not long ago, kenny g put out a recording where he overdubbed himself on top of a 30+ year old louis armstrong record, the track “what a wonderful world”. with this single move, kenny g became one of the few people on earth i can say that i really can't use at all - as a man, for his incredible arrogance to even consider such a thing, and as a musician, for presuming to share the stage with the single most important figure in our music.

this type of musical necrophilia - the technique of overdubbing on the preexisting tracks of already dead performers - was weird when natalie cole did it with her dad on “unforgettable” a few years ago, but it was her dad. when tony bennett did it with billie holiday it was bizarre, but we are talking about two of the greatest singers of the 20th century who were on roughly the same level of artistic accomplishment. when larry coryell presumed to overdub himself on top of a wes montgomery track, i lost a lot of the respect that i ever had for him - and i have to seriously question the fact that i did have respect for someone who could turn out to have have such unbelievably bad taste and be that disrespectful to one of my personal heroes.

but when kenny g decided that it was appropriate for him to defile the music of the man who is probably the greatest jazz musician that has ever lived by spewing his lame-ass, jive, pseudo bluesy, out-of-tune, noodling, wimped out, fucked up playing all over one of the great louis’s tracks (even one of his lesser ones), he did something that i would not have imagined possible. he, in one move, through his unbelievably pretentious and calloused musical decision to embark on this most cynical of musical paths, shit all over the graves of all the musicians past and present who have risked their lives by going out there on the road for years and years developing their own music inspired by the standards of grace that louis armstrong brought to every single note he played over an amazing lifetime as a musician. by disrespecting louis, his legacy and by default, everyone who has ever tried to do something positive with improvised music and what it can be, kenny g has created a new low point in modern culture - something that we all should be totally embarrassed about - and afraid of. we ignore this, “let it slide”, at our own peril.

his callous disregard for the larger issues of what this crass gesture implies is exacerbated by the fact that the only reason he possibly have for doing something this inherently wrong (on both human and musical terms) was for the record sales and the money it would bring.

since that record came out - in protest, as insigificant as it may be, i encourage everyone to boycott kenny g recordings, concerts and anything he is associated with. if asked about kenny g, i will diss him and his music with the same passion that is in evidence in this little essay.

normally, i feel that musicians all have a hard enough time, regardless of their level, just trying to play good and don’t really benefit from public criticism, particularly from their fellow players. but, this is different.

there ARE some things that are sacred - and amongst any musician that has ever attempted to address jazz at even the most basic of levels, louis armstrong and his music is hallowed ground. to ignore this trespass is to agree that NOTHING any musician has attempted to do with their life in music has any intrinsic value - and i refuse to do that. (i am also amazed that there HASN’T already been an outcry against this among music critics - where ARE they on this?????!?!?!?!- , magazines, etc.). everything i said here is exactly the same as what i would say to gorelick if i ever saw him in person. and if i ever DO see him anywhere, at any function - he WILL get a piece of my mind and (maybe a guitar wrapped around his head.)

NOTE: this post is partially in response to the comments that people have made regarding a short video interview excerpt with me that was posted on the internet taken from a tv show for young people (kind of like MTV) in poland where i was asked to address 8 to 11 year old kids on terms that they could understand about jazz.

while enthusiastically describing the virtues of this great area of music, i was encouraging the kids to find and listen to some of the greats in the music and not to get confused by the sometimes overwhelming volume of music that falls under the jazz umbrella. i went on to say that i think that for instance, “kenny g plays the dumbest music on the planet” - something that all 8 to 11 year kids on the planet already intrinsically know, as anyone who has ever spent any time around kids that age could confirm - so it gave us some common ground for the rest of the discussion. (ADDENDUM: the only thing wrong with the statement that i made was that i did not include the rest of the known universe.)

the fact that this clip was released so far out of the context that it was delivered in is a drag, but it is now done. (it’s unauthorized release out of context like that is symptomatic of the new electronically interconnected culture that we now live in - where pretty much anything anyone anywhere has ever said or done has the potential to become common public property at any time.) i was surprised by the polish people putting this clip up so far away from the use that it was intended -really just for the attention - with no explanation of the show it was made for - they (the polish people in general) used to be so hip and would have been unlikely candidates to do something like that before, but i guess everything is changing there like it is everywhere else.

the only other thing that surprised me in the aftermath of the release of this little interview is that ANYONE would be even a little bit surprised that i would say such a thing, given the reality of mr. g’s music. this makes me want to go practice about 10 times harder, because that suggests to me that i am not getting my own musical message across clearly enough - which to me, in every single way and intention is diametrically opposed to what Kenny G seems to be after.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Wow! That's beautiful!!
Give 'em hell, Pat!!!

We need more serious musicians like Pat who are willing to topple over the shit and no longer kowtow to the bullshit of corporate music, like Kenny G or American Idol or Mariah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobo_baggins Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #15
41. Kenny G isn't jazz...hes smooth jazz, which is totally different
Edited on Wed Jan-18-06 05:00 PM by hobo_baggins
and infinitely shittier
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
35. Django Reinhardt?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. No, that's not it - someone who is still alive and making albums
Kind of an experimental jazz fusiony kind of guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Allan Holdsworth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #38
44. Nope. It might be Vernon Reid, or something similar to that.
But it might not be. It might be Vernon something, or someone Reid. Or not either of those names at all.

He did an album in the early 80s with another jazz guy.

I know that I'll know the name when I see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Ah! It finally came to me - Bill Frisell!
Edited on Wed Jan-18-06 05:14 PM by Rabrrrrrr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. And I just did a search, and see that Vernon Reid is a real person
who did the album WITH Bill Frisell that I bought - Smash and Scatteration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. I'm more familiar with Vernon Reid as the guitarist of Living Colour
(one of the better mid-late '80's-early '90's hard rock acts, in my opinion).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBHagman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
25. Having different genres does not denigrate jazz.
Edited on Tue Jan-17-06 05:43 PM by CBHagman
Jazz composers have done arrangements of classical music (Duke Ellington, for starters), but I don't think it's a useful exercise to start removing the separate categories for jazz, classical, bluegrass, rock, etc. Just placing the "classical" label on something does not automatically make it superior or inferior to any other type of music, nor does everything that gets called "jazz" in in the music industry or radio immediately rise to the standard of a particular jazz performer/composer (pick your own, or we'll get into a fight).

Then there's the whole business of something being CLASSIC without being classical.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoddessOfGuinness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
32. Duke Ellington preferred "music"
I think his philosophy was that our insistence on categorizing music into genres detracts from the purpose of music.

I would like to have met him, just to listen to his thoughts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. "If it sounds good, it IS good"
Wise words!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WritingIsMyReligion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
8. Is this a kind of copycat thread?
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Kind of, but a serious copycat thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WritingIsMyReligion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. What a novel idea!
Could use more of them...

:D :D :P

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CanuckAmok Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
13. I don't like "modern" classical: Philip Glass, Wendy Carlos, etc.
In fact, I don't think I've enjoyed a single piece of "classical" music written since after Stavinsky's Rite of Spring.

But maybe I just haven't hear enough.

But I'm busy, dammit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff30997 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
16. What about John Williams ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. He does soundtracks, which I think sits in a world by itself.
Though if I had to put him in a style of a period, I'd say he's pretty solidly high romantic, of the Wagnerian leitmotif through-composed tradition, which is pretty much what one needs in a soundtrack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjwmason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
17. Romantic.
Except Wagner, and some of the ultra-trashy Victoriana which fits into the "so bad it's good" box.

It never fails to take the obvious trick, and becomes far too much slush for my taste. Even Beethoven is getting towards this from my perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Strauss is very guilty of that -
and that is a valid critique of the some of the romantic musical literature (and the romantic written literature as well) - it can have a tendancy to go for the obvious, and thus become very much boring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neweurope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
23. Mozart, with the exception of his "Requiem".


------------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tarkus Donating Member (780 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
27. I am all about the baroque period
I like things to be fast, intricate, and not particularly emotional. And by things I guess I pretty much just mean music...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
28. Mid-Romantic, like Rossini. It's just blah.
I love early music, like Dufay and Josquin, and some modern stuff, like Phillip Glass and John Adams. Not too crazy about the atonalists; Berg makes me want to throw things. But the middle of the nineteenth century, after Beethoven and before Brahms, was just kinda dull.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Reverend_Smitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
29. I'm not too fond of the Classical period
I can't really explain why but I don't feel any emotion coming from the music. Maybe I'm not listening hard enough, I don't know. I also can't get into the modern "classical" like Philip Glass it's really painful to listen to. I'd pick the Baroque and Romantic period music any day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
30. Pompous late 19th century tone poems.
It's symphonic wanking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
31. Any opera.
Worked at the classical CD side of HMV for about a year, and God knows I tried.

Can't. Stand. Opera.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowdogintexas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
34. not too fond of the early 20th century atonal stuff. But I like some
composer (s) from every classical period, and each composer has works I like better than I do others.

Love Mozart, Baroque, Rachmaninoff, Tchaicovsky (spelled really wrong, I know) Brahms, Lizst, DeBussy, Schubert, Beethoven, Vivaldi, and opera played symphonically (in other words, I am an overture kind of gal)

Oh Yeah, in the 'light classical' genre: "The Mikado"; I love that operetta so much I would go see a Day Care perform it, I swear.


There are Jazz composition which are definitely "classical" in nature...Rhapsody in Blue, Concerto in F, Porgy & Bess by Gershwin and some lovely stuff by Ellington as well.


I am another who knows when the music is good because it fills me up inside and makes me feel wonderful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
37. Does Mozart qualify for his own period/genre?
If he does, then he's my least favourite. I don't really understand the near-religious raptures some people go into over Mozart; most of his work seems more surface than depth, and almost all of it leaves me pretty cold. (Have to love Gleen Gould's comment that Mozart was a tragic instance of a composer who 'died too late'.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dryan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. I just can't....
get into Mahler
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #39
47. Mahler is the greatest composer ever!
:grr:

But, that's okay that you can't get into him. Everyone is different.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
40. I'm not sure about the atonal stuff
I enjoy classical music, but I'm not an expert on composers. I listen to KING-FM in my store all day long. When they start playing what I call the "space oddity" compositions, I have a few classical CD's I throw in the player till it's over. My favorites probably would be comprised on one of those cheesy late-night infomercial CD's -- Handel, Beethoven, Vivaldi, Purcell, Debussy, etcetera. (You know, the usual -- "Hallelujah Chorus", "Moonlight Sonata," "The Four Seasons," Horst's "The Planets", bla bla bla.) I also like listening to Gregorian chants and early music, but again, I'm no expert.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
42. Mozart can leave me unfulfilled at times, so I sort of agree with you.
Edited on Wed Jan-18-06 05:04 PM by Misunderestimator
Performing it is MUCH more fulfilling than listening to it though. The Requiem is exquisite and deeply emotional, moreso than most of his work. I've performed as the Countess in Le Nozze di Figaro more than any other opera, and with each production I discovered more depth and nuance. The darkly comedic aspect of his operas is fascinating, and the arias and ensemble pieces are works of art by themselves. My voice lent itself more to Mozart and Strauss (Richard) as well as Puccini and Verdi than to Baroque composers (with the exception of JS Bach who I consider the most brilliant composer ever), so almost by necessity they became favorites of mine.

For purely listening... in instrumental music I prefer Baroque... Bach, Pachelbel, Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Telemann. And for vocal music I prefer Romantic... Mahler, Strauss, Dvorak, Wagner, Verdi, Puccini.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
43. The post-Modernists
With the advent of abstractionism in the visual arts came the post-Modernists in music (forgive me if I have the terms wrong), much of which written since WWII. Some of it I like-Copeland for example. However, composers like Penderecki and Z'Ev I find very difficult to listen to, even though I can appreciate them on an intellectual level. Even some of Stravinsky's works I find difficult.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertha katzenengel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-18-06 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
48. any period that has lots of flowery violins
overbearing strings = nails on a chalkboard

would that be baroque?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC