>> 10. Saint-Sa?ns Carnival of the Animals
>> 9. Ravel Bolero
>> 8. Canteloube Songs of the Auvergne
>> 7. Berlioz Symphonie fantastique
>> 6. Debussy Pr?lude ? l'apr?s-midi d'un faune
>> 5. Bizet The Pearl Fishers
>> 4. Satie Gymnop?dies
>> 3. Faur? Requiem in D minor, Op 48
>> 2. Saint-Sa?ns Symphony No 3 in C minor, Op 78
>> 1. Bizet Carmen
> An interesting 1-10, in particular the Satie (works I once loved to play but
> hated - and still hate - to listen to). Although I'm not a fan of Bizet and
> Berlioz I can understand why they are so popular.
> Henk
Obviously I don't expect to agree with such a list, but a few random
observations,,,,
- I too am baffled by the popularity of the Satie. I'm also really
surprised to see "The Pearl Fishers" where it is.
- I do think Berlioz is deserving, the more the better. :) But
Romeo and Juliet as low as 98 is disgraceful.
- I'm surprised at the shortage of Poulenc chamber music, which I would
have thought to be more popular. (But probably I should be impressed
that the substantial chamber works of Debussy and Ravel are present.)
- Is Book II of the Debussy preludes (which doesn't appear) really
so much less popular than Book I (which has a fairly high place)?
It was a foregone conclusion that Pierre Boulez, Serge Nigg, Betsy Jolas, Jean Barraqué, Michel Philippot, Henri Pousseur (if a Belgian counts), Gilbert Amy, Jean-Claude Éloy, Jean-Pierre Guézec, Denis Cohen, Antoine Bonnet, Hugues Dufourt, Philippe Manoury, Marc-André Dalbavie, Bruno Mantovani, et al would be absent from this list. If you’re not familiar with ANY of the music of ANY of these composers, you aren’t entitled to judge this repertory, and your list should not pretend to encompass all French music. For that matter, where is Varèse? How much French music before Couperin has been considered? Where are Machaut and Philippe de Vitry? Are Franco-Flemish composers eligible for inclusion? If so, where are Dufay and Josquin? As remarkable as Carmen is, the fact that it made it to the head of the list says it all: “to be taken even less seriously than most such lists.”
On Oct 19, 6:41 pm, Tassilo <david7ga...@aol.com> wrote:
> It was a foregone conclusion that Pierre Boulez, Serge Nigg, Betsy Jolas, Jean Barraqué, Michel Philippot, Henri Pousseur (if a Belgian counts),
> Gilbert Amy, Jean-Claude Éloy, Jean-Pierre Guézec, Denis Cohen, Antoine Bonnet, Hugues Dufourt, Philippe Manoury, Marc-André Dalbavie,
> Bruno Mantovani, et al would be absent from this list. If you’re not familiar with ANY of the music of ANY of these composers, you aren’t entitled to > judge this repertory, and your list should not pretend to encompass all French music.
You forget Dutilleux! I can't believe you forgot Dutilleux!! So
obviously, you aren't entitled to judge this repertoire either.
> For that matter, where is Varèse? How much French music before Couperin has been considered? Where are Machaut and Philippe de Vitry? > Are Franco-Flemish composers eligible for inclusion? If so, where are Dufay and Josquin? As remarkable as Carmen is, the fact that it made it to > the head of the list says it all: “to be taken even less seriously than most such lists.”
"Even less"? You take any such lists seriously? I think that is a
mistake.
It is also a mistake that you take yourself way too seriously.
Tassilo wrote:
> It was a foregone conclusion that Pierre Boulez, Serge Nigg, Betsy Jolas,
Jean Barraqu , Michel Philippot, Henri Pousseur (if a Belgian counts)
, Gilbert Amy, Jean-Claude loy, Jean-Pierre Gu zec, Denis Cohen,
Antoine Bonnet, Hugues Dufourt, Philippe Manoury, Marc-Andr Dalbavie
, Bruno Mantovani, et al would be absent from this list.
If you re not familiar with ANY of the music of ANY of these
composers, you aren t entitled to judge this repertory, and your
list should not pretend to encompass all French music. For that matter,
where is Var se? How much French music before Couperin has been considered?
Where are Machaut and Philippe de Vitry?
Are Franco-Flemish composers eligible for inclusion?
If so, where are Dufay and Josquin? As remarkable as Carmen is,
the fact that it made it to the head of the list says it all:
to be taken even less seriously than most such lists.
Probably for very good reason.
> For the record, I love Berlioz and Debussy.
So do most of us here. In fact La Mer is probably the greatest piece of music ever written in the last 200 years.
Tassilo wrote:
> It was a foregone conclusion that Pierre Boulez, Serge Nigg, Betsy
> Jolas, Jean Barraqu , Michel Philippot, Henri Pousseur (if a Belgian
> counts), Gilbert Amy, Jean-Claude loy, Jean-Pierre Gu zec, Denis
> Cohen, Antoine Bonnet, Hugues Dufourt, Philippe Manoury, Marc-Andr
> Dalbavie, Bruno Mantovani, et al would be absent from this list. If
> you re not familiar with ANY of the music of ANY of these composers,
> you aren t entitled to judge this repertory, and your list should not
> pretend to encompass all French music. For that matter, where is
> Var se? How much French music before Couperin has been considered?
> Where are Machaut and Philippe de Vitry? Are Franco-Flemish
> composers eligible for inclusion? If so, where are Dufay and
> Josquin? As remarkable as Carmen is, the fact that it made it to the
> head of the list says it all: to be taken even less seriously than
> most such lists.
Hmmm. Has one of these composers written a composition that deserves to be mentioned in the top 10, instead of Bizet, Saint-Saens, Faur , Satie, Debussy, Berlioz, Canteloube and Ravel? And on what grounds?
> It was a foregone conclusion that Pierre Boulez, Serge Nigg, Betsy
> Jolas, Jean Barraqu , Michel Philippot, Henri Pousseur (if a Belgian
> counts), Gilbert Amy, Jean-Claude loy, Jean-Pierre Gu zec, Denis
> Cohen, Antoine Bonnet, Hugues Dufourt, Philippe Manoury, Marc-Andr
> Dalbavie, Bruno Mantovani, et al would be absent from this list. If
> you re not familiar with ANY of the music of ANY of these composers,
> you aren t entitled to judge this repertory, and your list should not
> pretend to encompass all French music. For that matter, where is
> Var se? How much French music before Couperin has been considered?
> Where are Machaut and Philippe de Vitry? Are Franco-Flemish
> composers eligible for inclusion? If so, where are Dufay and
> Josquin? As remarkable as Carmen is, the fact that it made it to the
> head of the list says it all: to be taken even less seriously than
> most such lists.
Why do you think that the makers of that list are not familiar with the music by
Pierre Boulez, Serge Nigg, Betsy Jolas, Jean Barraqu , Michel Philippot, Henri
Pousseur, Gilbert Amy, Jean-Claude loy, Jean-Pierre Gu zec, Denis Cohen,
Antoine Bonnet, Hugues Dufourt, Philippe Manoury, Marc-Andr Dalbavie, Bruno
Mantovani, et al ?
> Tassilo <david7ga...@aol.com> typed:
>> It was a foregone conclusion that Pierre Boulez, Serge Nigg, Betsy
>> Jolas, Jean Barraqué, Michel Philippot, Henri Pousseur (if a Belgian
>> counts), Gilbert Amy, Jean-Claude Éloy, Jean-Pierre Guézec, Denis
>> Cohen, Antoine Bonnet, Hugues Dufourt, Philippe Manoury, Marc-André
>> Dalbavie, Bruno Mantovani, et al would be absent from this list. If
>> you’re not familiar with ANY of the music of ANY of these composers,
>> you aren’t entitled to judge this repertory, and your list should not
>> pretend to encompass all French music. For that matter, where is
>> Varèse? How much French music before Couperin has been considered?
>> Where are Machaut and Philippe de Vitry? Are Franco-Flemish
>> composers eligible for inclusion? If so, where are Dufay and
>> Josquin? As remarkable as Carmen is, the fact that it made it to the
>> head of the list says it all: “to be taken even less seriously than
>> most such lists.”
> Why do you think that the makers of that list are not familiar with the > music by
> Pierre Boulez, Serge Nigg, Betsy Jolas, Jean Barraqué, Michel Philippot, > Henri
> Pousseur, Gilbert Amy, Jean-Claude Éloy, Jean-Pierre Guézec, Denis Cohen,
> Antoine Bonnet, Hugues Dufourt, Philippe Manoury, Marc-André Dalbavie, > Bruno
> Mantovani, et al ?
Because we Aussies are simple folk who only know what is played on the radio which is distinctly MOR.
Some top 100 lists have been awful - this one just seems off to me in little ways.
Debussy's Petite Suite included but no Images or Etudes?
Faure's Pavanne is basically a very pretty melody repeated over and over, why not one of the Piano Quartets or the wonderful VIolin Sonata #1 instead?
Saint-Saens' Intoduction and Rondo Capricioso?
Isn't there a French violin virtuoso piece that is far more original, daring, and imaginative called "Tzigane"??
Again, not an outrageously bad list, but it reads a bit like one of those old TV commercials for 100 Greatest Classical Hits from the Longines Symphoniette Society.
> Faure's Pavanne is basically a very pretty melody repeated over and over, why not one of the Piano Quartets or the wonderful VIolin Sonata #1 instead?
You're right, basically. In playing it, though, it's impressive how he never really repeats something the same way. The next time through, the melody reaches for a different second phrase, or whatever. He's not just varying ornaments, but putting things together differently — not enough to be a variation, but going a different way to achieve the same feeling.
It's a popularity contest, though, and as such it's kind of a marvel that Ravel's trio penetrated the consciousness of the listeners. If the list is viewed as a bell curve, it could be the middle part that really has the best stuff in it.
Tassilo <david7ga...@aol.com> wrote:
> It was a foregone conclusion that Pierre Boulez, Serge Nigg, Betsy Jolas, > Jean Barraqué, Michel Philippot, Henri Pousseur (if a Belgian counts), > Gilbert Amy, Jean-Claude Éloy, Jean-Pierre Guézec, Denis Cohen, Antoine > Bonnet, Hugues Dufourt, Philippe Manoury, Marc-André Dalbavie, Bruno > Mantovani, et al would be absent from this list. If you¹re not familiar with > ANY of the music of ANY of these composers, you aren¹t entitled to judge this > repertory, and your list should not pretend to encompass all French music.
> For that matter, where is Varèse? How much French music before Couperin has > been considered? Where are Machaut and Philippe de Vitry? Are > Franco-Flemish composers eligible for inclusion? If so, where are Dufay and > Josquin? As remarkable as Carmen is, the fact that it made it to the head of > the list says it all: ³to be taken even less seriously than most such > lists.²
> For the record, I love Berlioz and Debussy.
Other French composers: Wagner, Chopin, Liszt, hey just about
all the great composers composed in France.
On Oct 20, 8:35 am, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JohnGavin wrote, On 10/20/12 10:14 AM:
> > Faure's Pavanne is basically a very pretty melody repeated over and over, why not one of the Piano Quartets or the wonderful VIolin Sonata #1 instead?
> You're right, basically. In playing it, though, it's impressive how he
> never really repeats something the same way. The next time through, the
> melody reaches for a different second phrase, or whatever. He's not just
> varying ornaments, but putting things together differently not enough
> to be a variation, but going a different way to achieve the same feeling.
> It's a popularity contest, though, and as such it's kind of a marvel
> that Ravel's trio penetrated the consciousness of the listeners. If the
> list is viewed as a bell curve, it could be the middle part that really
> has the best stuff in it.
Well put. It's not a bad list, compared to what might have been, and
most of the problem is heavy influence of popularity at the top of the
chart. The middle has some of the best pieces.
That said, there are some glaring omissions. As mentioned already, the
Franck Quintet was pushed out by more popular offerings of the same
composer.
The bigger problem is the lack of anything by Dutilleux or Boulez,
perhaps also the omission of Barraque. Manoury, Dalbavie, Dusapin, or
Mantovani could be on the list. I've only heard a handful of pieces by
each, and they certainly deserve consideration, especially one feels
that such a list has to be "representative". There are lots of great
pieces, like Ravel's String Quartet, that are missing probably because
the someone felt the list should be balanced and representative. So,
under that logic, the absence of the best composers of the last
quarter century is glaring and misguided.
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 1:39:06 PM UTC-4, jrsnfld wrote:
> On Oct 20, 8:35 am, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > JohnGavin wrote, On 10/20/12 10:14 AM:
> > > Faure's Pavanne is basically a very pretty melody repeated over and over, why not one of the Piano Quartets or the wonderful VIolin Sonata #1 instead?
> > You're right, basically. In playing it, though, it's impressive how he
> > never really repeats something the same way. The next time through, the
> > melody reaches for a different second phrase, or whatever. He's not just
> > varying ornaments, but putting things together differently not enough
> > to be a variation, but going a different way to achieve the same feeling.
> > It's a popularity contest, though, and as such it's kind of a marvel
> > that Ravel's trio penetrated the consciousness of the listeners. If the
> > list is viewed as a bell curve, it could be the middle part that really
> > has the best stuff in it.
> Well put. It's not a bad list, compared to what might have been, and
> most of the problem is heavy influence of popularity at the top of the
> chart. The middle has some of the best pieces.
> That said, there are some glaring omissions. As mentioned already, the
> Franck Quintet was pushed out by more popular offerings of the same
> composer.
> The bigger problem is the lack of anything by Dutilleux or Boulez,
> perhaps also the omission of Barraque. Manoury, Dalbavie, Dusapin, or
> Mantovani could be on the list. I've only heard a handful of pieces by
> each, and they certainly deserve consideration, especially one feels
> that such a list has to be "representative". There are lots of great
> pieces, like Ravel's String Quartet, that are missing probably because
> the someone felt the list should be balanced and representative. So,
> under that logic, the absence of the best composers of the last
> quarter century is glaring and misguided.
> --Jeff
Ernst Chausson is absent and shouldn't be, on the other hand, I misspoke when I said it omitted Debussy's Images - so I will now stop picking on this well meaning list.
> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 1:39:06 PM UTC-4, jrsnfld wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 8:35 am, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > JohnGavin wrote, On 10/20/12 10:14 AM:
> > > > Faure's Pavanne is basically a very pretty melody repeated over and over, why not one of the Piano Quartets or the wonderful VIolin Sonata #1 instead?
> > > You're right, basically. In playing it, though, it's impressive how he
> > > never really repeats something the same way. The next time through, the
> > > melody reaches for a different second phrase, or whatever. He's not just
> > > varying ornaments, but putting things together differently not enough
> > > to be a variation, but going a different way to achieve the same feeling.
> > > It's a popularity contest, though, and as such it's kind of a marvel
> > > that Ravel's trio penetrated the consciousness of the listeners. If the
> > > list is viewed as a bell curve, it could be the middle part that really
> > > has the best stuff in it.
> > Well put. It's not a bad list, compared to what might have been, and
> > most of the problem is heavy influence of popularity at the top of the
> > chart. The middle has some of the best pieces.
> > That said, there are some glaring omissions. As mentioned already, the
> > Franck Quintet was pushed out by more popular offerings of the same
> > composer.
> > The bigger problem is the lack of anything by Dutilleux or Boulez,
> > perhaps also the omission of Barraque. Manoury, Dalbavie, Dusapin, or
> > Mantovani could be on the list. I've only heard a handful of pieces by
> > each, and they certainly deserve consideration, especially one feels
> > that such a list has to be "representative". There are lots of great
> > pieces, like Ravel's String Quartet, that are missing probably because
> > the someone felt the list should be balanced and representative. So,
> > under that logic, the absence of the best composers of the last
> > quarter century is glaring and misguided.
> > --Jeff
> Ernst Chausson is absent and shouldn't be, on the other hand, I misspoke when I said it omitted Debussy's Images - so I will now stop picking on this well meaning list.
That's something you have in common with the list: you mean well, but
you often come across as rather trivial.
> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 1:39:06 PM UTC-4, jrsnfld wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 8:35 am, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > JohnGavin wrote, On 10/20/12 10:14 AM:
> > > > Faure's Pavanne is basically a very pretty melody repeated over and over, why not one of the Piano Quartets or the wonderful VIolin Sonata #1 instead?
> > > You're right, basically. In playing it, though, it's impressive how he
> > > never really repeats something the same way. The next time through, the
> > > melody reaches for a different second phrase, or whatever. He's not just
> > > varying ornaments, but putting things together differently not enough
> > > to be a variation, but going a different way to achieve the same feeling.
> > > It's a popularity contest, though, and as such it's kind of a marvel
> > > that Ravel's trio penetrated the consciousness of the listeners. If the
> > > list is viewed as a bell curve, it could be the middle part that really
> > > has the best stuff in it.
> > Well put. It's not a bad list, compared to what might have been, and
> > most of the problem is heavy influence of popularity at the top of the
> > chart. The middle has some of the best pieces.
> > That said, there are some glaring omissions. As mentioned already, the
> > Franck Quintet was pushed out by more popular offerings of the same
> > composer.
> > The bigger problem is the lack of anything by Dutilleux or Boulez,
> > perhaps also the omission of Barraque. Manoury, Dalbavie, Dusapin, or
> > Mantovani could be on the list. I've only heard a handful of pieces by
> > each, and they certainly deserve consideration, especially one feels
> > that such a list has to be "representative". There are lots of great
> > pieces, like Ravel's String Quartet, that are missing probably because
> > the someone felt the list should be balanced and representative. So,
> > under that logic, the absence of the best composers of the last
> > quarter century is glaring and misguided.
> > --Jeff
> Ernst Chausson is absent and shouldn't be, on the other hand, ....
I agree...however, I would say that the absence of Boulez and
Dutilleux is a more puzzling absence. They are giants of their times;
Chausson, not so much.
jrsnfld wrote:
> On Oct 20, 11:07 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ernst Chausson is absent and shouldn't be, on the other hand, ....
> I agree...however, I would say that the absence of Boulez and
> Dutilleux is a more puzzling absence. They are giants of their times;
> Chausson, not so much.
I like all of Dutilleux's music for solo piano and like some of Boulez's music for solo piano but their gigantism comes as a surprise to me. How do you measure their greatness? Or is it a matter of taste?
On Oct 20, 2:45 pm, "HvT" <hvtuijl- SPAM- @xs4all.nl> wrote:
> jrsnfld wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 11:07 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Ernst Chausson is absent and shouldn't be, on the other hand, ....
> > I agree...however, I would say that the absence of Boulez and
> > Dutilleux is a more puzzling absence. They are giants of their times;
> > Chausson, not so much.
> I like all of Dutilleux's music for solo piano and like some of Boulez's
> music for solo piano but their gigantism comes as a surprise to me. How do
> you measure their greatness? Or is it a matter of taste?
> Henk
I think Dutilleux' "Métaboles" is pretty awesome. I haven't found much
access to Boulez' music either but it is indisputable that he is a
very highly regarded and influential composer.
> - I do think Berlioz is deserving, the more the better. :) But
> Romeo and Juliet as low as 98 is disgraceful.
I think it may well be his greatest work.
-- Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
> On Oct 19, 6:51 pm, mandryka <howie.st...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Buxtehude was 17th century wasn't he? And F Couperin was later I think.
> Oh, just thought. Maybe Buxtehude wasn't German!
I thought he was Danish.
-- Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
>> On Oct 19, 6:51 pm, mandryka <howie.st...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> Buxtehude was 17th century wasn't he? And F Couperin was later I think.
>> Oh, just thought. Maybe Buxtehude wasn't German!
> I thought he was Danish.
Born in Denmark from a German father and a Danish mother, L beck where he spent most of his life was a free Hanseatic city, but it was a German city, not a Danish one. His church music is in German, of course.
> >> On Oct 19, 6:51 pm, mandryka <howie.st...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>> Buxtehude was 17th century wasn't he? And F Couperin was later I think.
> >> Oh, just thought. Maybe Buxtehude wasn't German!
> > I thought he was Danish.
> Born in Denmark from a German father and a Danish mother, Lübeck where
> he spent most of his life was a free Hanseatic city, but it was a German
> city, not a Danish one. His church music is in German, of course.
M forever wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2:45 pm, "HvT" <hvtuijl- SPAM- @xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> jrsnfld wrote:
>>> On Oct 20, 11:07 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Ernst Chausson is absent and shouldn't be, on the other hand, ....
>>> I agree...however, I would say that the absence of Boulez and
>>> Dutilleux is a more puzzling absence. They are giants of their
>>> times; Chausson, not so much.
>> I like all of Dutilleux's music for solo piano and like some of
>> Boulez's music for solo piano but their gigantism comes as a
>> surprise to me. How do you measure their greatness? Or is it a
>> matter of taste?
>> Henk
> I think Dutilleux' "M taboles" is pretty awesome. I haven't found much
> access to Boulez' music either but it is indisputable that he is a
> very highly regarded and influential composer.
Indeed. Boulez deserves to be mentioned in any list of great composers of the XXth century. The question is whether he has written anything that deserves a place in a list of the top 100 French works. I disagree with many nominations (Jarre, for example) but wouldn't replace them by anything Boulez has written.
> M forever wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 2:45 pm, "HvT" <hvtuijl- SPAM- @xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> jrsnfld wrote:
> >>> On Oct 20, 11:07 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Ernst Chausson is absent and shouldn't be, on the other hand, ....
> >>> I agree...however, I would say that the absence of Boulez and
> >>> Dutilleux is a more puzzling absence. They are giants of their
> >>> times; Chausson, not so much.
> >> I like all of Dutilleux's music for solo piano and like some of
> >> Boulez's music for solo piano but their gigantism comes as a
> >> surprise to me. How do you measure their greatness? Or is it a
> >> matter of taste?
> >> Henk
> > I think Dutilleux' "Métaboles" is pretty awesome. I haven't found much
> > access to Boulez' music either but it is indisputable that he is a
> > very highly regarded and influential composer.
> Indeed. Boulez deserves to be mentioned in any list of great composers of
> the XXth century. The question is whether he has written anything that
> deserves a place in a list of the top 100 French works. I disagree with many
> nominations (Jarre, for example) but wouldn't replace them by anything
> Boulez has written.
Sure he has. Le marteau sans maître, …explosante-fixe…, Pli selon pli,
Notations, and others are widely recognized as signifcant and highly
influential master pieces. I have no problem recognizing that even
though, as I said, I haven't found direct access to his music myself
yet. A lot of the pieces on that list are nice, but insignificant and
trivial pieces. But we aren't taking that kind of list seriously
anyway (I hope).
>>> On Oct 19, 6:51 pm, mandryka <howie.st...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> Buxtehude was 17th century wasn't he? And F Couperin was later I
>>>> think.
>>> Oh, just thought. Maybe Buxtehude wasn't German!
>> I thought he was Danish.
> Born in Denmark from a German father and a Danish mother, Lübeck where > he spent most of his life was a free Hanseatic city, but it was a German
> city, not a Danish one. His church music is in German, of course.
Thanks.
-- Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
