Rimsky's Symphonies
Tom Daish
discount the couple of shops selling LPs for DJs), they have a surprisingly
decent classical selection and since there's no VAT (one of the island's small
mercies), their CDs are quite reasonably priced. However, they seem to be having
a bit of a clear out and I've picked up half a dozen double CDs at Ł7.99,
including one today of Rimsky's 3 Symphonies, conducted by Neeme Jarvi on DG.
I've only just started listening, but so far appear to be fine pieces of work. I
was therefore amazed to discover that no CD or classical guides make any mention
of them, I certainly didn't know he'd written any symphonies, sheer fluke that I
found them. Are they that inferior to his other work or just neglected for no
particular reason?
I must admit that my Rimsky only extends to Capriccio espagnol and the Russian
Easter Festival Overture, mainly because I still can't get into opera and aside
from those and his opera, most guides don't really list much. Seems as though he
was more a composer who inspired and taught others, than one who's considered a
great composer in his own right. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but that's the
distinct impression I get.
--
Tom
Soundtrack Express, nice...
www.soundtrack-express.com
--
Van Eyes
news:3F0D9651...@soundtrack-express.com
> including one today of Rimsky's 3 Symphonies, conducted by Neeme Jarvi on DG.
> I've only just started listening, but so far appear to be fine pieces of work. I
> was therefore amazed to discover that no CD or classical guides make any mention
> of them, I certainly didn't know he'd written any symphonies, sheer fluke that I
> found them. Are they that inferior to his other work or just neglected for no
> particular reason?
I had that DG 2CD for a while. Re the R-K Syms, I found them to be fast
food...no staying power. They don't measure up to his better-known
orchestral works IMO. Fine playing...I'm a fan of the Gothenburg. The
included Capriccio Espagnol is exceptional...impressive finale.
BMG/Melodiya (oop?) and Naxos have the R-K Syms. There are probably
others.
Regards
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Joshua Kaufman
>
> Despite living on Guernsey and there being only one, fairly modest CD shop (I
> discount the couple of shops selling LPs for DJs), they have a surprisingly
> decent classical selection and since there's no VAT (one of the island's small
> mercies), their CDs are quite reasonably priced. However, they seem to be having
> a bit of a clear out and I've picked up half a dozen double CDs at Ł7.99,
> including one today of Rimsky's 3 Symphonies, conducted by Neeme Jarvi on DG.
> I've only just started listening, but so far appear to be fine pieces of work. I
> was therefore amazed to discover that no CD or classical guides make any mention
> of them, I certainly didn't know he'd written any symphonies, sheer fluke that I
> found them. Are they that inferior to his other work or just neglected for no
> particular reason?
>
Inferior? Maybe. Certainly not as memorable as his three biggies
(Cappricio Espagnol, Russian Easter, and Shererazade) but fine works in
their own right, especially the second one. I for one much prefer
listening to any of them than, say, the first three symphonies of
Brahms.
You might also want to seek out his concerti -- Piano Concerto, and the
three for solo and wind band (clarinet, trombone, oboe). Also his
symphonic poems -- Sadko and Fairy Tale (Skazka?), and the Concert
Overture on Russian Themes are all fine pieces. And of course the opera
suites...
> was more a composer who inspired and taught others, than one who's considered a
> great composer in his own right. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but that's the
> distinct impression I get.
>
Some of us consider him amoung the greatest :) But that's just me...
-Joshua
--
AOL-IM: TerraEpon
Alan Cooper
<t...@soundtrack-express.com> wrote:
>I must admit that my Rimsky only extends to Capriccio espagnol and the Russian
>Easter Festival Overture, mainly because I still can't get into opera and aside
>from those and his opera, most guides don't really list much. Seems as though he
>was more a composer who inspired and taught others, than one who's considered a
>great composer in his own right. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but that's the
>distinct impression I get.
When you do get into opera, you will discover why he most definitely
was "a great composer in his own right." Sadko, Golden Cockerel, Tsar
Saltan, Christmas Eve, and Invisible City of Kitezh are all
masterpieces, and should be in the standard repertoire. They are
colorful, exotic, and filled with splendid vocal and orchestral
writing. Frankly, I don't think that his orchestral or chamber works
are on the same level.
AC
Lookingglass
(The Golden Cockerel) is my favorite opera...
--
PEACE... Dave www.Shemakhan.com
...we know what we are, but know not what we may be.
Shakespeare
"Alan Cooper" <amco...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:8v9rgv4mn7lrbbclr...@4ax.com...
Joshua Kaufman
ASV, re-released on Brilliant (if you can find that set, GET IT!). Also
Chandos, which is a pretty good recording too.
-Joshua
--
AOL-IM: TerraEpon
Alan Watkins
I've played all the Rimsky operas, admittedly some of them not very
often, and I am familiar (I think) with all his published orchestral
output. As all these things are a matter of opinion and preferences,
I can't say that he was a "great composer" per se but Kitezh and
Golden Cockerel are most definitely up there with anything in the
operatic repertoire that I know. Sadko has weaknesses but very great
moments and Christmas Eve is a delight. I don't personally know the
recordings that have been mentioned earlier but both Svetlanov and
Rozhdestvensky have recorded all three symphonies (and I think very
well). The second, Antar, is very close to Scheherazade in
inspiration, in my opinion. It has some marvellous moments and (for
me) is a first cousin to The Golden Cockerel.
What I would say is that Rimsky-Korsakov was a great NATIONAL composer
which, I believe, is all he set out to be. He tried to create Russian
national opera and that he most certainly did.
He is, perhaps, among the most "nationalistic" of composers. The
Piano Concerto, although very brief, has some lovely moments....even
the Trombone Concerto is worth hearing. One of my favourite lesser
known orchestral works is the Fantasia on Serbian Themes.
His music, technically, is a delight to play because he most certainly
understood both instruments and orchestration to a very high level.
He wrote some of the best percussion parts in the business and it is
interesting that almost a century after his death his Treatise on
Orchestration is still a standard reference work for students all over
the world: not the only one, of course, but still there.
He was also a prolific writer for the Orthodox Church and the first
complete recording of these works are available at Musica Russica in
Madison CT.
Any of the orchestral works are still a thrill to play so far as I am
concerned and I always enjoy making his music. I still love playing
Scheherazade (and despite playing it probably 200 times plus avoiding
the pitfalls for the percussion department) but I always realise why
so many of his parts still turn up in percussion auditions all round
the world.
It is a rare percussion audition that does not include something from
Scheherazade or Capriccio Espagnol or Italien, or sometimes all three.
In the later stages of his life I would think that only Dvorak matched
his orchestration (in the symphonic poems and for subtlety in the
Slavonic Dances) and subsequently his most distinguished pupil,
Stravinsky. I realise that Rimsky could not have written Petroushka
and that this was a new genius: but I know where the orchestration
came from!
Isn't it amusing that quite a lot of Scheherazade was tried out on a
pub piano in Tilbury, Essex, England while R-K was stuck in port while
serving as an officer in the Russian Merchant Navy.....slightly less
romantic than what he created as anyone who has ever been anywhere
near Tilbury (even in 2003) will quickly realise. If Tilbury was in
America there would be trailer parks end to end. In Rimsky's day it
was just downstream from all the London docks and just as rough and
violent as they were.
Certainly a great Russian composer. Beyond that, I cannot say.
But if the poster likes Easter Festival Overture they would almost
certainly like a great deal more of what he wrote.
Find a second hand copy of "My Musical Life" by Rimsky-Korsakov and
treasure his vivid account of dinner with Borodin (usually held at
around midnight and a sort of surrealistic nightmare as Borodin's many
cats wandered down the dinner table and helped themselves).
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Marc Perman
"Alan Watkins" <alanwa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:62c8649c.0307...@posting.google.com...
>
> I've played all the Rimsky operas, admittedly some of them not
very
> often, and I am familiar (I think) with all his published
orchestral
> output. As all these things are a matter of opinion and
preferences,
> I can't say that he was a "great composer" per se but Kitezh and
> Golden Cockerel are most definitely up there with anything in
the
> operatic repertoire that I know. Sadko has weaknesses but very
great
> moments and Christmas Eve is a delight. I don't personally know
the
> recordings that have been mentioned earlier but both Svetlanov
and
> Rozhdestvensky have recorded all three symphonies (and I think
very
> well). The second, Antar, is very close to Scheherazade in
> inspiration, in my opinion. It has some marvellous moments and
(for
> me) is a first cousin to The Golden Cockerel.
I with all of this, though admittedly I don't know the operas in
their complete forms except for Kitezh, which is indeed a great
work. I prefer Svetlanov to Jarvi in the symphonies - Jarvi's is
better played but not particularly idiomatic (the same complaint I
have of his Borodin). With the exceptions of Antar and
Sheherazade, however, R-K's shorter orchestral works, including
operatic excerpts, are more enjoyable to me. Tjeknavorian (ASV,
Brilliant) is particularly good with these.
Marc Perman
Raymond Hall
news:skoPa.18797$GF2.4...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
The Golden Cockerel is indeed a superb piece which Tjeknavorian does
extremely well. Some works are not covered in the Brilliant box, such as the
Russian Easter Festival Overture and Capricio espagnol, especially, and
which should be in the collection of any Rimsky fan. But works such as The
Tale of Tsar Saltan, Flight of the Bumblebee, Christmas Eve suite, The
Tsar's Bride, Sadko, Overture on Russian themes and other works are also
well worth acquiring.
As for the symphonies, they are not the greatest symphonies ever written,
but they make up for any deficiencies with superb orchestral colour and
texture. I wouldn't ever like to be without R-K's symphonies. But his
smaller works, especially the Golden Cockerel, are on a higher level
altogether.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
Ray, Taree, NSW
MichaelB
City of Kitezh" are major operas; only the Russian language has kept
them out of the Western repertoire. I hope Gergiev gets around to
"The Golden Cockerel" soon. Of course, Rimsky got into a huge amount
of trouble with the Czarist government over "The Golden Cockerel."
They saw it,undoubtedly correctly, as a satire directed against the
incompetence of the government that had lost the war to Japan. Of
course, Rimsky was known as a liberal and an opponent of Czarist
autocracy antisemitism. When he ran the St. Petersburg conservatory,
he adopted an open-door, non-discriminatory policy with respect to
admission, which ran directly counter to Czarist quotas on Jews. His
daughter married M. Steinberg, the composer, with Rimsky's blessing,
almost unthinkable in Russia at the time. Although he was raised in
the Russian Orthodox tradition, he was an atheist as an adult. He did
use the Russian Orthodox chant as a musical basis, most famously in
the "Russian Easter Overture."
Thomas Muething
>
Are they that inferior to his other work or just neglected for no
> particular reason?
They are inferior, unmmemorable works. There is barely a hint of the
orchestral brilliance of Sheherazade and Capriccio Espagnol.
If you need to get these works, get the Brilliant box. The Yoav
Talmi-conducted performances are certainly adequate for this kind of
music, and you'll get some nice suites (The Golden Cockerel) conducted
by Tjeknavorian. Only the Sheherazade in this box is sub-standard.
Thomas
--
"There's just two things in this world that I can't stand. It's people
who are intolerant of other people's culture ... and the Dutch!"
(Michael Caine, in "Austin Powers: Goldmember")
Alan Watkins
Atheist or not, he wrote the most beautiful setting of The Lord's
Prayer I have ever heard.
It's not just the language problem that prevent his best operas (and
those of other people) reaching a wider audience. It's pure,
practical economics. No sets in store somewhere, no costumes in store
somewhere, possibly an orchestra which doesn't know a note of it,
language coaches......to take an opera like Kitezh into the
"repertoire" of a "foreign" country you are looking at hundreds of
thousands of pounds.
Lookingglass
place... I am not a great fan of opera... I like a few... but this one in
particular is a jewel... I hope someday to see a serious production of this
opera...
--
PEACE... Dave www.Shemakhan.com
...we know what we are, but know not what we may be.
Shakespeare
"Tom Daish" <t...@soundtrack-express.com> wrote in message
news:3F0D9651...@soundtrack-express.com...
> Despite living on Guernsey and there being only one, fairly modest CD shop
(I
> discount the couple of shops selling LPs for DJs), they have a
surprisingly
> decent classical selection and since there's no VAT (one of the island's
small
> mercies), their CDs are quite reasonably priced. However, they seem to be
having
> a bit of a clear out and I've picked up half a dozen double CDs at £7.99,
Henry Krinkle
> Tom Daish wrote:
> >
>
> Are they that inferior to his other work or just neglected for no
> > particular reason?
>
>
> They are inferior, unmmemorable works. There is barely a hint of the
> orchestral brilliance of Sheherazade and Capriccio Espagnol.
>
> If you need to get these works, get the Brilliant box. The Yoav
> Talmi-conducted performances are certainly adequate for this kind of
> music, and you'll get some nice suites (The Golden Cockerel) conducted
> by Tjeknavorian. Only the Sheherazade in this box is sub-standard.
>
> Thomas
I completely disagree with Mr. Muething on this. The symphonies are
fine works with great Russian orchestral colour. #2 "Antar" is as
good if not better than Sheherazade, especially if you have heard the
latter for too long. I have the recordings on Chandos, which contain
a very dissapointing Russian Easter Ov.
Regards,
Henry
David Hurwitz
>I completely disagree with Mr. Muething on this. The symphonies are
>fine works with great Russian orchestral colour. #2 "Antar" is as
>good if not better than Sheherazade, especially if you have heard the
>latter for too long. I have the recordings on Chandos, which contain
>a very dissapointing Russian Easter Ov.
>
>Regards,
>Henry
The first and third symphonies are extremely uninteresting, both suffering
terminally from the inhibitions that seize certain composers when the term
"symphony" is applied to an orchestral work. They are lifeless and drab,
unmemorable in thematic material, and almost laughable in their "symphonic"
development of what they have. The judgment of history, in this case, is
fundamentally sound.
Antar is interesting only to the extent that it prefigures Sheherazade. Its
outer movements are lovely, the inner ones far less inspired (the contrapuntal
writing in the second movement is particularly crude, and the march doesn't show
Rimsky's famed ability as an orchestrator at his best). Still, I like it very
much, and it's an important work in that it made a profound impression on
Debussy and the French impressionist school in general.
Let's not pretend, though, as so many here often do, that just because they like
something it must therefore be "great" music. In other words, let's not try to
insist that the Big Mac is really prime rib. Both have their place, but
ultimately greater enjoyment always comes from appreciating things for what they
are, rather than for what we need them to be to justify our affection for them.
Each has its place.
Dave Hurwitz
Samir Golescu
On 16 Jul 2003, David Hurwitz wrote:
> Antar is interesting only to the extent that it prefigures Sheherazade. Its
> outer movements are lovely, the inner ones far less inspired (the contrapuntal
> writing in the second movement is particularly crude, and the march doesn't show
> Rimsky's famed ability as an orchestrator at his best). Still, I like it very
> much, and it's an important work in that it made a profound impression on
> Debussy and the French impressionist school in general.
>
> Let's not pretend, though, as so many here often do, that just because they like
> something it must therefore be "great" music. In other words, let's not try to
> insist that the Big Mac is really prime rib. Both have their place, but
> ultimately greater enjoyment always comes from appreciating things for what they
> are, rather than for what we need them to be to justify our affection for them.
> Each has its place.
I happen to agree with what you say about Rimsky. [Moreover, I'd say it
takes a reaaaly good conductor to make me feel that even Sheherazade is
not too long -- I love the thematic material, but the conductor needs to
*overproject* the (to me insufficient) variation in orchestration and
harmonization in order to avoid a feeling of repetitiousness.]
However -- don't you think that the matter is not as "factual" as the
expression "let's not pretend" would imply? I can't help but notice
that, in appreciating a symphony, some listeners put more weight on the
quality/memorableness of the thematic material in (relative) isolation,
while some other (no lesser) listeners focus on the composer's
capacity to maintain interest in the development of the said material. To
the former, Borodin might reign supreme while, say, Beethoven would seem
a poor symphonist. To the latter -- the opposite. Of course, many
listeners enjoy both features (which don't exist in pure state anyway) in
various degrees etc.
My point: isn't all of this rather elusive, and much more a matter of
taste than a matter of fact?
regards,
SG
David Hurwitz
>
>However -- don't you think that the matter is not as "factual" as the
>expression "let's not pretend" would imply? I can't help but notice
>that, in appreciating a symphony, some listeners put more weight on the
>quality/memorableness of the thematic material in (relative) isolation,
>while some other (no lesser) listeners focus on the composer's
>capacity to maintain interest in the development of the said material. To
>the former, Borodin might reign supreme while, say, Beethoven would seem
>a poor symphonist. To the latter -- the opposite. Of course, many
>listeners enjoy both features (which don't exist in pure state anyway) in
>various degrees etc.
>
>
>My point: isn't all of this rather elusive, and much more a matter of
>taste than a matter of fact?
>
>regards,
>SG
Of course it's a matter of taste, and it can be very elusive; but these issues
always have to be taken on a case by case basis. Some are more elusive than
others. Here I think we can safely say "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like
a duck, then it's a duck." In the case of these particular works, we have some
pretty good factual evidence on which to draw: the composer's own
dissatisfaction with them; their reputation historically with musicians and
musical scholars; their dearth of live performances and lack of popularity with
the public; and of course the evidence of the music itself compared to other
works by the same composer and his contemporaries. Taken together, these factors
make a pretty compelling case for regarding these pieces as inferior. My problem
with these symphonies is not that they do not measure up to the standards of
great symphonic music as defined by Beethoven, but they are not even very good
compositions by the standard of Rimsky-Korsakov. And that is the primary context
within which I would consider them.
The secondary context is, of course, the style and aesthetic that the composer
shared with his contemporaries, the school in which he worked and the standard
of musical "greatness" that we would generally agree (for the sake of argument
at least) that it attained. We all know, for example, that Mussorgsky was not a
very good orchestrator, or a "well-schooled" composer. But he is admired and
respected for his personal style: his powerful (indeed unique) melodic and above
all harmonic gift. His is one standard of greatness. On the other hand,
Borodin's Second Symphony is a compact, glittering, masterfully crafted work
that for many represents the archetype of the Russian symphony. This is another
standard operative within the same general aesthetic. Now where do Rimsky's
symphonies fall in the spectrum of the primitive Mussorgsky (naturally talented
but untrained) to Borodin (the art of the Russian symphony at its most
successful), not leaving out Tchaikovsky, Balakirev, or Rimsky's own later works
with all of their manifold qualities?
Well, the First Symphony was a student piece, written as a composition exercise,
that the composer increasingly disliked as he grew older. The Third was admired
a bit in its day but was, according to the composer himself "too crowded with
counterpoint." It was another composition exercise intended to correct the
composer's own perceived deficiency in polyphonic writing. All three numbered
symphonies were revised, some more than once, as a result of the composer's
uncertainly regarding them. In the company of Borodin, Balakirev, Tchaikovsky,
or even Glazunov (and not to mention Rimsky's own late production), they compare
rather poorly by any purely musical criteria you might raise, and this, it seems
to me, allows some pretty fair factual assessments to be made in terms of their
overall quality as "great" works of Rimsky-Korsakov, let alone as examplars of
the art of symphonic composition.
Do the First and Third have Mussorgsky's earthy harmonic sense? Tchaikovsky's
melodic fecundity or emotional range? Borodin or Balakirev's formal freedom and
colorful orchestration? Or even the melodic and orchestral glitter of Rimsky's
own later works? Of course, he intended that they should be comparatively sober
and coloristically restrained--but is that what Rimsky did best? Would he even
say this is what his strengths were? The answer is "no," certainly in the case
of the First and Third Symphonies which were written more or less as "learning"
pieces in the first place and which to my virgin ears were instantly
identifiable as such before I even knew anything about the circumstances of
their composition. In fact, I was driven to find out more about them because
they sounded so uninteresting and atypically drab. The question with Antar is
different: here the issues were orchestration and the composer's agonizing over
calling it a "symphony" at all BECAUSE of the very qualities it has that we have
since come to regard as uniquely personal and attractive with respect to this
composer. It was the work in which Rimsky became Rimsky, and he got there by
turning his back on the very "symphonic" type of writing that makes the First
and Third such unhappy examples of their genre.
Now all this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one might like
these works or enjoy them. But I think the much bigger problem in getting to a
reasonable evalutation of their quality is that some people get offended when
they hear that a work they enjoy might not be "great," even when they have no
clear idea of what constitutes "greatness" musically or aesthetically other than
the fact that they like the work in question. So then the argument rapidly
becomes "I like it and you don't but it's all a matter of opinion and everything
is equally subjective." And THAT is nonsense. Mind you, I am NOT saying that
this is the case with anyone who likes Rimsky-Korsakov symphonies in this
thread. Let's be very clear about that. I don't know anyone well enough to make
that assumption. But I think you would agree that there are legitimate bases on
which to draw conclusions about the quality of a work other than the fact that
you happen to "like" it, and that the equation "I like them therefore they are
fine works" really means very little as a useful answer to the question "How
good are they?"
There are works I respect tremendously, that I would recognize as "great" of
their type for any number of reasons or from many different perspectives, and
could readily describe as such, but which I do not especially like or which do
not move me particularly (Brahms' German Requiem, for example). And there are
works that I love, but which I would never claim are great just because I love
them (Dvorak's Fourth Symphony). There are works that we all enjoy for specific
passages only, for reasons musical and non-musical, intellectual, emotional, and
every combination of these various factors, or because we admire or feel we can
discern the work's artistic "conception" even while admitting that perhaps it is
only imperfectly realized. And of course all of this is subject to change over
time. This to me makes art a living, human thing, and seeing a flaw, or defect,
or mistake for what it is--trying to discern the difference between excellence
and mediocrity in the most objective and rational (and fair) way
possible--strikes me as an activity as natural and normal as breathing. It is
not an indictment of another's taste, and while taste and preference admittedly
play a large part in the process, it's not a hopeless task to draw sensible
conclusions from reasonable premises and call them "facts."
All of which is a long way of saying that I think Rimsky's First and Third
Symphonies are comparative failures whether considered as self-consistent works
of art, as examples of symphonic form in Russia in the latter half of the 19th
century, and as compared to the best of which Rimsky was capable, and for me
these are audible facts. And I still love Antar, just as I like a Big Mac now
and again, and I couldn't care less if it's "great" or not. So I respect
anyone's right to enjoy these works, but if they claim that they like them
"because" they are great (especially if this REALLY means that they must be
great because they like them), then that is fair game for further discussion!
Now I am not foolish enough to believe that I have "proved" that I am "right"
about Rimsky's symphonies, but I do hope this clarifies my thinking about them.
Dave Hurwitz
Samir Golescu
On 16 Jul 2003, David Hurwitz wrote:
> Of course it's a matter of taste, and it can be very elusive; but these issues
> always have to be taken on a case by case basis. Some are more elusive than
> others Here I think we can safely say "If it looks like a duck, and
> quacks like a duck, then it's a duck."
Oh, please. I had enough of that expression. (-:
In the case of these particular works, we have some
> pretty good factual evidence on which to draw: the composer's own
> dissatisfaction with them; their reputation historically with musicians and
> musical scholars; their dearth of live performances and lack of popularity with
> the public; and of course the evidence of the music itself compared to other
> works by the same composer and his contemporaries. Taken together, these factors
> make a pretty compelling case for regarding these pieces as inferior. My problem
> with these symphonies is not that they do not measure up to the standards of
> great symphonic music as defined by Beethoven, but they are not even very good
> compositions by the standard of Rimsky-Korsakov. And that is the primary context
> within which I would consider them. [ . . . ]
Thanks for the well-considered answer.
regards,
SG
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
letters to be typed in
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.030717...@ux13.cso.uiuc.edu:
> On 16 Jul 2003, David Hurwitz wrote:
>
>> Of course it's a matter of taste, and it can be very elusive; but these
>> issues always have to be taken on a case by case basis. Some are more
>> elusive than others Here I think we can safely say "If it looks like a
>> duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck."
>
> Oh, please. I had enough of that expression. (-:
You're not the only one.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Mark Coy tossed off eBay? http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B734C02
RMCR's most pointless, dumb and laughable chowderhead: Mark Coy.
Henry Krinkle
I think the orchestral colouring is "great" not the pieces themselves,
which I rate at only "fine."
As far as your comment about let's not pretend that because I like a
work it must be "great" I would ask you then, do I need YOUR
permission to call something great? If YOU like it or if it meets
some subjective criterea of YOURS, then is it great? I'm sure you
will reply by citing some example of a work that you like but don't
consider "great." Still, whatever you consider great is based on some
subjective criterea that you or a group have decided upon. Even if
you try to claim the criterea is objective such as "must be over 20
minutes in length" it is still subjective for you to decide that it is
important.
Reading your next post, does the composer have to like it? A majority
of people? A committee? The faculty of most universities? I don't
see why I can't establish my own criteria of greatness just as you,
another person, or a group of people can. Unless you're better than
me, of course. So I'm not pretending anything. My opinion is my
opinion and if I say something is "great" or "fine" it is my opinion
which is worth as much as yours. Don't pretend it is otherwise, Mr.
Hurwitz.
Regards,
Henry
David Hurwitz
>Reading your next post, does the composer have to like it? A majority
>of people? A committee? The faculty of most universities? I don't
>see why I can't establish my own criteria of greatness just as you,
>another person, or a group of people can. Unless you're better than
>me, of course. So I'm not pretending anything. My opinion is my
>opinion and if I say something is "great" or "fine" it is my opinion
>which is worth as much as yours. Don't pretend it is otherwise, Mr.
>Hurwitz.
I have no idea what criteria you are using to decide that these symphonies are
"fine" since you decline to discuss them in any detail. You can certainly
establish any criteria you like--anyone can--but I don't see any reason why you
should insist that your opinion be regarded on an equivalent basis with the
judgment of history, the opinions of the majority of music lovers, the views of
composer himself, the considered thoughts of those more learned or experienced
than you (and I'm not necessarily saying that I am one of those), or the audible
evidence of the music itself in a carefully chosen comparative context, whether
alone or (in this case) in combination.
So I disagree with you about the value of your "opinion"--it has value for you
alone, but in order for it to have any relevance to anyone else or to say
anything worthwhile about the pieces other than "I like them," it has to take
cognizance of wider musical, historical, or aesthetic issues, and the extent to
which it does that, and the exent to which others can recognize that it does
that and agree with it, is the extent to which it has "value."
The only opinions that are of "equal" value are those framed on an equivalent
basis: if you say "I like it," and I say "I don't like it," those are equal. But
the minute I say "I don't like it because..." (or you say "I like it
because...") the "equality" of opinion, and its value, becomes a matter for
others to judge based on your rationale. And when the rationale rests upon
historical reality or arises reasonably from audible musical facts, then the
discrepancy between the two becomes wider still. A penny and a dollar are both
types of currency, but to say that they have equal value is silly, and so it is
with "opinions"--it all depends on what supports them: mere personal preference,
or a wider, broader, more learned and carefully considered perspective.
There are many unkown works, or neglected works, of great quality about which it
is impossible to speak of the "judgment of history", for example, because they
or their composers have not been given that chance. But when a series of works
by an acknowledged master, composer of some of the most popular and enduring
repertoire masterpieces, has achieved the near total neglect and almost
universal disinterest that Rimsky's symphonies (Antar excepted of course)
largely have, then the "value" of your opinion regarding their quality rather
speaks for itself, however much you may wish it were "worth the same" as any
other. You might as well say the same thing about the music: Rimsky's symphonies
are "just as good" and "just as valuable" as symphonies by any other composer.
Unless you are willing and prepared to defend that position with hard musical
and historical evidence, I'd think twice about insisting on the value of your
opinion of them!
By the way, those Chandos recordings are as dull as the music itself. You might
want to try Jarvi or (better still) Svetlanov on Melodiya, if you can find them.
Dave Hurwitz
Samir Golescu
["technical" note -- pls reset the default length of your email lines,
i.e. shorten them -- otherwise one needs to work a lot "re-formatting"
them or just leaves them in a "chaotic" state]
On 17 Jul 2003, David Hurwitz wrote:
<<So I disagree with you about the value of your "opinion"--it has value
for you alone, but in order for it to have any relevance to anyone else or
to say anything worthwhile about the pieces other than "I like them," it
has to take cognizance of wider musical, historical, or aesthetic issues,
and the extent to which it does that, and the extent to which others can
recognize that it does that and agree with it, is the extent to which it
has "value."
The only opinions that are of "equal" value are those framed on an
equivalent basis: if you say "I like it," and I say "I don't like it,"
those are equal.
But the minute I say "I don't like it because..." (or you say "I like it
because...") the "equality" of opinion, and its value, becomes a matter
for others to judge based on your rationale. And when the rationale rests
upon historical reality or arises reasonably from audible musical facts,
then the discrepancy between the two becomes wider still. A penny and a
dollar are both types of currency, but to say that they have equal value
is silly, and so it is with "opinions"--it all depends on what supports
them: mere personal preference, or a wider, broader, more learned and
carefully considered perspective.>>
I respectfully disagree with this. Incidentally I found your post on
Rimsky quite informative and well-articulated. Why proposing your views
as being "superior" with such forcefulness though? It may be that most
readers would be persuaded by them through your arguments alone. It is not
*such* a factual matter, really (all the while "facts" as you described
them surely count some!), and it is indelicate to a music lover who
only offers the fruits of his subjective experience with the music.
Perhaps you are able to back up your opinions better than many, and
perhaps your perspective is "more learned", as you say, than that of a
"simple" music lover but I can't help but feel that the "music lover"
needs not being treated condescendingly, if simply because it is this
community of music lovers that music is given sense through, in the end.
As you say, Rimsky's symphonies may have not received the ultimate seal of
approval of history in the way Tchaikovsky's did, but in the end rmcr
remains an informal gathering of, mostly, music lovers who refuse for good
reason to be regimented according to their professional prowess &
experience or lack thereof. There is no danger. Nobody would be "tricked"
by one poster's messages into believing that Rimsky was a greater
symphonist than Brahms. People read your thoughts, the others', and
make up their own mind.
regards,
SG
Joshua Kaufman
>
>
> Reading your next post, does the composer have to like it?
Hope not. Tchaikovsky hated The Nutcracker, for instance...
-Joshua
--
AOL-IM: TerraEpon
David Hurwitz
>Rimsky quite informative and well-articulated. Why proposing your views
>as being "superior" with such forcefulness though?
I suppose my views are forcefully articulated because (a) I believe in them, and
(b) that's the way I am. Others may propose their views timidly if they wish.
Please understand, there are two issues here: first, whether people "like" the
music, and second, whether or not these are "great" (or "good" or "fine" or
whatever) works to begin with. Regarding the first issue, all views are equally
valid. Regarding the second, there is plenty of room for vigorous discussion,
and to get beyond the question of "I think they're fine" and "I disagree" there
needs to be an exchange of views supported by whatever evidence the participants
bring to bear.
It may be that most
>readers would be persuaded by them through your arguments alone. It is not
>*such* a factual matter, really (all the while "facts" as you described
>them surely count some!), and it is indelicate to a music lover who
>only offers the fruits of his subjective experience with the music.
>
>Perhaps you are able to back up your opinions better than many, and
>perhaps your perspective is "more learned", as you say, than that of a
>"simple" music lover but I can't help but feel that the "music lover"
>needs not being treated condescendingly, if simply because it is this
>community of music lovers that music is given sense through, in the end.
Please bear in mind, Samir, that in my original response to your post I took
great care to be as "delicate" as possible while explaining why I felt the way I
did. The reply that you are concerned with now was mainly a response to the
contention that "all opinions are equally valid." I do not believe that, and I
think I am justified in expressing my perspective in this regard. I am not
trying to set myself on a pedestal or claim that MY views are necessarily right,
but rather to insist on the principle that knowledge, history, evidence, and
musical criteria MATTER in any discussion of whether particular works are good
or not.
>As you say, Rimsky's symphonies may have not received the ultimate seal of
>approval of history in the way Tchaikovsky's did, but in the end rmcr
>remains an informal gathering of, mostly, music lovers who refuse for good
>reason to be regimented according to their professional prowess &
>experience or lack thereof. There is no danger. Nobody would be "tricked"
>by one poster's messages into believing that Rimsky was a greater
>symphonist than Brahms. People read your thoughts, the others', and
>make up their own mind.
Exactly. At no point have I challenged anyone's right to like anything, but I am
suggesting that there should be a clear distinction between "I like it" and
"It's therefore great stuff." Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't, and in
this particular case, I merely set forth the evidence that it isn't. If someone
wants to come along and say "Well, I like it and I think it's great and my
opinion is as good as yours," then I don't see the harm in pointing out my
disagreement with that position, or that the evidence presented supporting my
position is not refuted by that sort of blanket assertion.
For example, let's digress for a moment and take a different case that has come
up hear recently (and in my recent listening): Joachim's Hungarian Concerto. I
think it's a great work, but it certainly has suffered as much neglect as
Rimsky's symphonies. So what are the differences between the two cases, and if I
were to assert the concerto's greatness despite the judgment of history, what
other evidence to we have that would refute my contention? What, in short, are
the reasons for its neglect?
First, with respect to Rimsky, we have a highly respected "great" composer. This
is not the case with Joachim, who gave up composition entirely and made his
career as a performer.
Second, very few people, including Rimsky himself, had much good to say about
his symphonies, and they were never given notable attention even in their own
day. The Joachim, on the other hand, was highly acclaimed in its day and
promoted by many of the most famous musicians of the time, including Brahms.
Third, the Joachim is very long, and very difficult; Rimsky's symphonies pose no
special technical problems in either respect.
Fourth, the logistics of performing unusual concerto repertoire today
(especially long and difficult ones) are very different from performing an
orchestral work without soloist.
Fifth, the Rimsky Symphonies, despite their pallor, have been available
consistently over the years in fine recordings, while the Hungarian Concerto has
not, and yet this has not altered their reputation in any meaningful or
measurable way.
So: if someone were to say "I think the Hungarian Concerto is a neglected
masterpiece," I could NOT marshal much serious evidence to refute this position,
and the discussion would range around the highly subjective issue of the
impression the work makes on each individual listener (or, depending on how much
agreement there is about what constitutes musical "greatness," we could attempt
to discern the extent to which the music lives up to the standards mutually
shared).
But here the situation is quite different, and beyond the purely subjective
question of whether or not one likes the Rimsky symphonies, there is a
fundamental reality out there which holds that most people don't, that they are
not very good pieces to begin with, and that they have been given a pretty fair
chance to stake their claim to greatness and they have failed. And it seems to
me that if someone's ego is so fragile that they cannot accept the possibility
that the music they love might not be all that great in the grand scheme of
things, however enjoyable it is to them personally, then they ought not to
assert that their affection is as valuable a guidepost in answering the question
"How good are they?" as opposed to the opinion of someone who simply summarizes
the reality of the situation. Remember, I am not claiming to be "better" than
anyone else, nor is the information that I raise in supporting my own view
original or in any way profound or arcane.
All I have said is that I don't think these works are very good, and there's
plenty of evidence to support this position. All the love and enthusiasm in the
world won't make that evidence go away, and I don't feel that I should have back
down when someone asserts that the evidence does't mean anything because "all
opinions are of equal worth." I haven't attacked, belittled, or otherwise
bullied anyone into accepting my view of the matter, nor have I ever suggested
that anyone's enjoyment is somehow illegitimate. I think I have been very clear
in this respect, and very careful. I'm sorry if you don't agree.
Dave Hurwitz
Alan Watkins
that there are some elements which have not been addressed but which
might be worthy of consideration.
Most importantly, it could perhaps be argued that not all compositions
are inspired throughout and that not all compositions are weak
throughout. Even works that are thought "poor" or "great" may have
moments that transcend both classifications.
Let us take for example one work which springs to mind personally:
Paganini Violin Concerto No 1. I would suggest that many people would
agree that this is a vehicle for great virtuosity on the violin and I
believe so but I would also be prepared to argue that the orchestral
accompaniment does not reach anywhere near the same standard.
Therefore I wonder what the "classification" is: great or poor? I
would humbly say that classification into either category is not easy.
Should the classification be that of the soloist or a listener
predominantly interested in violin or should it be from the orchestral
perspective?
Does a "poor" opera singer drag down a "great" opera. Does a "great"
singer lift a "poor" opera? Does a "great" soloist lift a "poor"
concerto or does a "poor" soloist demean a "great" concerto?
This is a forum for recordings but there is a further element which at
least should be mentioned: in addition to "poor" or "great" music
there are also "poor" or "great" parts depending upon which instrument
you happen to play (or like)......you may be playing poor or great
music but you can also easily have a poor or great part (the two may
not coincide) which again defies definition as to what is poor or
great. Should it be classified "poor" for composition, "great" for
instrument or vice versa?
Sleigh Ride by Leroy Anderson is probably not a "great" piece of music
in simple terms of profundity or construction or execution but if you
happen to be playing the sleigh bells on the night
it's......errmmm......a great piece. As well as poor and great music
there are also poor and great parts and, as mentioned, they don't
always come together.
Suppe's Overture La Pique Dame is probably not a "great" piece of
music in terms of public acclamation or performance statistics but it
is if you are playing the snare drum part. I would just say that what
may be "great" or "poor" to listen to may not be "great" or "poor" to
play. Sometimes in what might be discerned as a "poor" work there are
great technical challenges which may be a real thrill for the player
and that, perhaps, is a further level on which music exists.
Alan Watkins
>
> I happen to agree with what you say about Rimsky. [Moreover, I'd say it
> takes a reaaaly good conductor to make me feel that even Sheherazade is
> not too long -- I love the thematic material, but the conductor needs to
> *overproject* the (to me insufficient) variation in orchestration and
> harmonization in order to avoid a feeling of repetitiousness.]
I cannot say whether Scheherazade is too long or not but the feeling
of repetition might come from the fact that specific
instruments/sections have a leitmotif in this work.....somewhat like
some Wagner scoring. This is one of the disadvantages of the
leitmotif approach.....you keep on hearing the same thing. Funnily
enough, the same thing happened to me in the Ring cycle the last time
I played it....the same music kept coming up again and again.
Whether it is repetitious I cannot say but oddly enough Scheherazade
is one of the works on which orchestral musicians are mostly agreed (a
fairly rare event): it's a great work to play whatever your
instrument. And all that rubato and all those subtle changes of
tempi......probably repititious.
You may be correct in your comments about "variation in orchestration"
but who else wrote before Scheherazade for small percussion in such a
way? Who took them into the modern symphony orchestra? Who took
suspended cymbal into a symphony orchestra? Who wrote first such
music for the tambourine? Do you know a harder "romantic" era part
for the snare drum than Scheherazade and halfwitted old chap (along
with Mr Karajan's player in the Berlin Philharmonic) attempts to play
ALL the grace notes.
It may indeed be boring or repititious but not if you are playing or
counting it. I have not had the advantage of playing for a reaaaly
good conductor except in Scheherazade Chalabala, Ancerl, Svetlanov,
Fedoseyev,Melik-Pashiev, Kosler.
I understand that it is perfectly possible to pee all over
Scheherazade but I doubt you would wish to do so if you were required
to play it....repititive or not.
Samir Golescu
On 17 Jul 2003, Alan Watkins wrote:
> It may indeed be boring or repititious but not if you are playing or
> counting it. I have not had the advantage of playing for a reaaaly
> good conductor except in Scheherazade Chalabala, Ancerl, Svetlanov,
> Fedoseyev,Melik-Pashiev, Kosler.
>
> I understand that it is perfectly possible to pee all over
> Scheherazade but I doubt you would wish to do so if you were required
> to play it....repititive or not.
"Kind regards" or not, your irony is without any object. When it is
performed really well, I enjoy Scheherazade as much as anybody else, even
without possessing the ultimate refinement of extracting the drum part and
enjoying in itself and for itself. I think the suite could have been
composed in slightly shorter movements without any loss, but I enjoy it
nevertheless when it is performed brilliantly and with conviction. You
will have to look for some other Scheherazade-peeing candidate, I am
afraid I don't qualify for this exquisite strawman job. And, by the way, I
nourish a tremendous respect for most if not all the great composers, and
that goes without saying even when I dare to emit a humble critical
reservation. Kindly take that as a given premise for all my "repititious"
postings.
regards,
SG
David Hurwitz
>but who else wrote before Scheherazade for small percussion in such a
>way? Who took them into the modern symphony orchestra?
Berlioz, Bizet, Saint-Saens, Delibes, Balakirev, Tchaikovsky, Massenet, Verdi,
Meyerbeer...
Who took
>suspended cymbal into a symphony orchestra?
Again Berlioz, Wagner, Mahler (who had completed his First Symphony by the time
Sheherezade was written), and others. Actually, the suspended cymbal writing in
the finale (that last crescendo aside) isn't very effective--the rapid rhythmic
figures seldom sound clearly articulated (unless one uses very hard sticks near
the dome of the cymbal, a rather poor sound). It's very interesting that Mahler
had similar writing for suspended cymbal in the original version of the Sixth
Symphony, but he removed all such passages on revision doubtless for this very
reason--they simply sound noisy and rhythmically messy, as they usually also do
in Sheherazade.
Who wrote first such
>music for the tambourine?
Frankly, and I say this as a percussionist, who cares?
Do you know a harder "romantic" era part
>for the snare drum than Scheherazade and halfwitted old chap (along
>with Mr Karajan's player in the Berlin Philharmonic) attempts to play
>ALL the grace notes.
>
Maybe not "harder," but an even larger part and more significant for the history
of the instrument in terms of soloistic importance: Rossini's Overture to La
Gazza Ladra.
No one is saying that Sheherazade isn't brilliantly scored, but this doesn't
mean it isn't repetitious--that it surely is--but then so are Bruckner
symphonies, and both are examples of great music. That isn't really the point
and I don't think it's doing the work any disrespect for Samir to point out the
obvious as it appears to him. I love the piece very much, and it's great fun to
play, but it was written in 1888, and by this date it's impossible to say that
it contains very much by way of innovation, and that's certainly not why it
enjoys the reputation that it does today. And with all due respect, there's more
to a piece of music than tambourines and snare drums, and what matters is not
who did what FIRST, but rather who does it BEST.
David Hurwitz
Simon Roberts
alanwa...@aol.com says...
[snip]
>
>Suppe's Overture La Pique Dame is probably not a "great" piece of
>music in terms of public acclamation or performance statistics but it
>is if you are playing the snare drum part.
Wouldn't it be better simply to say "Suppe's Overture La Pique Dame" has a snare
drum part that's fun/enjoyable (etc.) to play" (or even "has a great snare drum
part")? Surely no-one would say: "It was a great meal - true, the bread was
stale, the vichyssoise lukewarm, the lamb tough, the vegetables overcooked, the
pasty limp, but what butter!"
I would just say that what
>may be "great" or "poor" to listen to may not be "great" or "poor" to
>play. Sometimes in what might be discerned as a "poor" work there are
>great technical challenges which may be a real thrill for the player
>and that, perhaps, is a further level on which music exists.
Maybe; but except in music written for one instrument/singer, the musician never
gets to play "the music," only his part. Listeners, by contrast, listen to "the
music" (unless they're overhearing a rehearsal or some such).
Simon
Alan Watkins
> >You may be correct in your comments about "variation in orchestration"
> >but who else wrote before Scheherazade for small percussion in such a
> >way? Who took them into the modern symphony orchestra?
>
> Berlioz, Bizet, Saint-Saens, Delibes, Balakirev, Tchaikovsky, Massenet, Verdi,
> Meyerbeer...
Did any of them write a little concerto for percussion as in
Scheherazade? Did any of them write for small percussion to the
quality of Espagnol or Italien or Russian Easter Festival (with the
possible exception of Delibes?)
>
> Who took
> >suspended cymbal into a symphony orchestra?
>
> Again Berlioz, Wagner, Mahler (who had completed his First Symphony by the time
> Sheherezade was written), and others. Actually, the suspended cymbal writing in
> the finale (that last crescendo aside) isn't very effective--the rapid rhythmic
> figures seldom sound clearly articulated (unless one uses very hard sticks near
> the dome of the cymbal, a rather poor sound). It's very interesting that Mahler
> had similar writing for suspended cymbal in the original version of the Sixth
> Symphony, but he removed all such passages on revision doubtless for this very
> reason--they simply sound noisy and rhythmically messy, as they usually also do
> in Sheherazade.
I am sorry that in the performances you have heard the suspended
cymbals have not been effective.
>
> Who wrote first such
> >music for the tambourine?
>
> Frankly, and I say this as a percussionist, who cares?
I respect your view but I care. Quite a lot of tambourine parts turn
up in orchestral auditions, principally Carnival Overture (Dvorak). I
wish I shared your confidence on this instrument.
>
> Do you know a harder "romantic" era part
> >for the snare drum than Scheherazade and halfwitted old chap (along
> >with Mr Karajan's player in the Berlin Philharmonic) attempts to play
> >ALL the grace notes.
> >
>
> Maybe not "harder," but an even larger part and more significant for the history
> of the instrument in terms of soloistic importance: Rossini's Overture to La
> Gazza Ladra.
Old age has probably overtaken me but what is the comparison between
the technical difficulty for the snare drum in Scheherazade and that
in La Gazza Ladra?
there's more
> to a piece of music than tambourines and snare drums, and what matters is not
> who did what FIRST, but rather who does it BEST.
I cannot comment on who does things "best" because I honestly do not
know. Of course you are correct in saying there is more to a piece of
music than tambourines or snare drums: Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and
Barber: Adagio for Strings as but two examples but perhaps not so in
Dvorak: Overture Carnival or Bolero?
Kinf regards,
Alan M. Watkins
David Hurwitz
>I cannot comment on who does things "best" because I honestly do not
>know. Of course you are correct in saying there is more to a piece of
>music than tambourines or snare drums: Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and
>Barber: Adagio for Strings as but two examples but perhaps not so in
>Dvorak: Overture Carnival or Bolero?
>
>Kinf regards,
>Alan M. Watkins
Of course, Alan, I would never argue that the percussion parts in Scheherazade
aren't important! They certainly are (if not quite as original in my view as you
seem to think, but that's really not important). But I'm simply making the point
that to respond to Samir's talk of length and repetitiousness with "Yes, but the
percussion parts are great" is really like comparing apples to oranges.
Naturally there are compensating positives: this is a great piece of music, I
think we all agree. But it doesn't make logical sense to contrast questions
about the work's formal structure and architecture with details concerning its
orchestration. Ultimately the music has to work (and does work) on both levels,
any reservations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Kinf regards to you too!
Dave Hurwitz
Richard Schultz
: Whether it is repetitious I cannot say but oddly enough Scheherazade
: is one of the works on which orchestral musicians are mostly agreed (a
: fairly rare event): it's a great work to play whatever your instrument.
You weren't by any chance the timpanist on the Previn/LSO recording? The
liner notes contain that comment almost word for word.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
Richard Schultz
: I suppose my views are forcefully articulated because (a) I believe in them,
: they wish.
It's not a question of forceful vs. timid: it's a question of your apparent
inability to accept the notion that you *might* not be the smartest person
on the planet.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in
[snip]
>>Kinf regards,
>>Alan M. Watkins
[snip]
> Kinf regards to you too!
Well, I'll be a silly duck!
David Hurwitz
>It's not a question of forceful vs. timid: it's a question of your apparent
>inability to accept the notion that you *might* not be the smartest person
>on the planet.
>
>-----
>Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
I know I'm not--you are.
Dave Hurwitz
Richard Schultz
:>It's not a question of forceful vs. timid: it's a question of your apparent
:>inability to accept the notion that you *might* not be the smartest person
:>on the planet.
: I know I'm not--you are.
That's very kind of you to say, but we both know that it isn't true. On
the other hand, if you really believe that you are not the smartest person
on the planet, then maybe you should learn to take people's criticisms of
your opinions a bit less personally.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"We cannot see how any of his music can long survive him."
-- From the New York Daily Tribune obituary of Gustav Mahler
David Hurwitz
>That's very kind of you to say, but we both know that it isn't true. On
>the other hand, if you really believe that you are not the smartest person
>on the planet, then maybe you should learn to take people's criticisms of
>your opinions a bit less personally.
>
I don't take anything that goes on here personally. And that's a fact.
Dave Hurwitz
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
@drn.newsguy.com:
That's probably the sanest approach of all.
Ramon Khalona
> Let us take for example one work which springs to mind personally:
> Paganini Violin Concerto No 1. I would suggest that many people would
> agree that this is a vehicle for great virtuosity on the violin and I
> believe so but I would also be prepared to argue that the orchestral
> accompaniment does not reach anywhere near the same standard.
> Therefore I wonder what the "classification" is: great or poor? I
> would humbly say that classification into either category is not easy.
Interesting that you bring up this particular work. I grew up
listening to this concerto in the abridged (Sauret) version that
Francescatti recorded with Ormandy. I thought it was such an elegant
piece, full of virtuosity and "fun" orchestral accompaniment (I was
probably about 6-7 years old at the time).
It wasn't until several years later that I came across the original
version (Tretyakov/Jarvi/Moscow Phil.) and it was such a revelation.
The soloist's contribution became greatly enhanced, in my view, just
as the orchestral part became less fun and less original, but the
balance was still an enhancement.
So it appears that not only personal appraisal is a component, but how
well you know the background of the piece that can have an impact on
your view.
I still love the concerto although I don't listen to it nearly as much
as I did then.
Ramon Khalona
Alan Watkins
> In article <62c8649c.03071...@posting.google.com>, Alan Watkins <alanwa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : Whether it is repetitious I cannot say but oddly enough Scheherazade
> : is one of the works on which orchestral musicians are mostly agreed (a
> : fairly rare event): it's a great work to play whatever your instrument.
>
> You weren't by any chance the timpanist on the Previn/LSO recording? The
> liner notes contain that comment almost word for word.
No. The timpanist would have been either Kurt-Hans Goedicke or Alan
Taylor. But most orchestral musicians love Scheherazade for the
beauty of the writing for "their" section and the technical challenge,
including the tambourine and the extremely difficult part for the
snare drum.
Mr Hurwitz tells me that the tambourine is an instrument he can do
without but not so for Old Chap. Even if you don't like the
tambourine, the counting in Scheherazade or Carnival: Dvorak helps you
progress to more worthwhile instruments.
Henry Krinkle
> Please understand, there are two issues here: first, whether people "like" the
> music, and second, whether or not these are "great" (or "good" or "fine" or
> whatever) works to begin with. Regarding the first issue, all views are equally
> valid. Regarding the second, there is plenty of room for vigorous discussion,
> and to get beyond the question of "I think they're fine" and "I disagree" there
> needs to be an exchange of views supported by whatever evidence the participants
> bring to bear.
Sure, now you want the evidence. Your first reply was just a remark
about posters who confuse "great" steak with the Big-Mac. You didn't
show the slightest interest in why I thought the R-K symphonies were
"fine." You made your judgment both on the works and on the people
who rated them well. You might have asked, "I'm curious to know why
you think these works are fine, Henry." You didn't. So it didn't
occur to me to bother bringing evidence.
Since you now want to know, I rate them as "fine" because of the
enjoyable tunes (the 3rd movement of the 3rd symphony is beautiful),
the excitement, the great, fake-out ending to the 3rd, the wind solos,
and as I mentioned, the great Russian orchestral colour.
It's true, I can't write like you can. You are a professional music
critic and a good writer and I admire you for that. That doesn't make
your opinions better. It makes your expression of them better (in my
opinion). It makes your posts more enjoyable and helpful to read (in
my opinion). It does not make your opinions better or objective fact.
Goebbels was (in some people's opinions) a skilled communicator. It
did not make his opinions better than a first-grader's views on an
ideal society or anything else.
The reply that you are concerned with now was mainly a response to
the
> contention that "all opinions are equally valid." I do not believe that, and I
> think I am justified in expressing my perspective in this regard. I am not
> trying to set myself on a pedestal or claim that MY views are necessarily right,
> but rather to insist on the principle that knowledge, history, evidence, and
> musical criteria MATTER in any discussion of whether particular works are good
> or not.
But it is your OPINION that knowledge, history, evidence, and musical
criteria determine that a piece is "fine." That is your opinion just
as much as "R-K's 3rd is not good" is your opinion. Let's look at
each of these. My evaluation of these is MY opinion. I don't claim
to state objective truth. I just want to show you that your opinions
are not fact and are open to criticism.
Knowledge: Are you saying that if you study enough, you can make
statements of objective truth regarding aesthetics? A better argument
might be that someone who has heard 300 symphonies can make more
helpful comparative judgments than someone who has heard 5. But, even
there, having heard 300 symphonies doesn't give you the powers of
objective truth. The person who heard 5 might be more helpful if you
happen to agree with the person (a point I will expand on later).
History: Definately not objective truth. Consider Vivaldi. In the
19th century, the person who equates history with "great" would say he
is "not great." The person who sees Vivaldi's reputation today, would
at least rate him at "good" if using historical criteria (lots of
recordings). How could he be "great" at one time and not another if
great is objective truth? It can't. History is only helpful if you
happen to agree with the majority of listeners in history. If your
taste sometimes agrees and sometimes doesn't, then history is not
helpful in the slightest.
Evidence: What is evidence? Evidence can help prove objective truth
like a fingerprints on a gun prove that Mr. Green once held it
(although it really doesn't prove it, since they could be planted).
How can evidence "prove" an aesthetic judgment, which is a complete
abstraction? You can try to explain why you like something, but it
doesn't prove anything.
Musical criteria: Obviously, something in the music is going to
influence the outcome, but what criteria is HIGHLY subjective. I
admire Mr. Watkins for sticking to his criteria on the timpani without
pretending that his opinion is better than anyone's, when others wish
to tell him that his criteria is somehow of less importance. Timpani
parts mean a lot to me and his opinions are actually highly valuable
to me.
Let's consider how I feel about the opinions of RMCR posters. I tend
to follow the opinions of Simon Roberts and avoid those of Samir
Golescu. Why? I respect both greatly as people. Both are great
writers who can back up their opinions with wonderful words, "musical
criteria," and "evidence." In the end, what matters is that Mr.
Roberts has recommended many recordings I liked and Mr. Golescu has
recommended recordings I didn't like. Mr. Golescu wrote one of the
finest essays I've seen on RMCR. It was on Enescu's symphonies. I
didn't care for the works. It doesn't matter how much you articulate.
It's all a matter of taste.
Thus, my opinions my in the end only be important to me, but I write
them because I wonder if there isn't someone out there who has
followed my opinions and decided "I tend to agree with Henry. Let me
see what else he likes, and I'll investigate it too." That's how I
feel about Ray Hall's posts. Again, it is not a matter of "evidence."
It's shared taste that makes his posts "valuable" to me.
> But here the situation is quite different, and beyond the purely subjective
> question of whether or not one likes the Rimsky symphonies, there is a
> fundamental reality out there which holds that most people don't, that they are
> not very good pieces to begin with, and that they have been given a pretty fair
> chance to stake their claim to greatness and they have failed. And it seems to
> me that if someone's ego is so fragile that they cannot accept the possibility
> that the music they love might not be all that great in the grand scheme of
> things, however enjoyable it is to them personally, then they ought not to
> assert that their affection is as valuable a guidepost in answering the question
> "How good are they?" as opposed to the opinion of someone who simply summarizes
> the reality of the situation. Remember, I am not claiming to be "better" than
> anyone else, nor is the information that I raise in supporting my own view
> original or in any way profound or arcane.
Or perhaps your ego is so fragile that you do not even consider that
your criteria of what makes a work "great" is simply an opinion. Even
if it is shared by everyone in the world except me (and it HARDLY
is...look at the criticism you've taken over the years), it is still
an opinion. There is nothing inherently better about it.
>
> All I have said is that I don't think these works are very good, and there's
> plenty of evidence to support this position. All the love and enthusiasm in the
> world won't make that evidence go away, and I don't feel that I should have back
> down when someone asserts that the evidence does't mean anything because "all
> opinions are of equal worth." I haven't attacked, belittled, or otherwise
> bullied anyone into accepting my view of the matter, nor have I ever suggested
> that anyone's enjoyment is somehow illegitimate. I think I have been very clear
> in this respect, and very careful. I'm sorry if you don't agree.
Why are you sorry if I don't agree? Do you think so highly of your
opinions that you pity those who disagree?
It's only evidence to you and those who agree with you. The opinions
of others on a work are not evidence of anything to me except that
these people feel a certain way.
That said, I still think R-K's symphonies are only "fine." That's a
pretty low level for me :)
Regards,
Henry
David Hurwitz
>That said, I still think R-K's symphonies are only "fine." That's a
>pretty low level for me :)
>
>Regards,
>Henry
Well, there you are. All you had to do was explain your personal rating system
and we would never have had this conversation! But seriously, Henry, I don't
think there's any value or virtue at all in trying to convince someone who has
clearly made up their mind that they should NOT like something. In this very
subjective world, I am always curious about what we can agree on as facts, how
concrete we can say these facts are--what elements go into such opinions and
judgments--and in particular how much really is "opinion". My intention is not
to attack you personally for your tastes or preferences.
I do respect your opinion, and most of all I don't think there's any point in
belaboring this issue when we've both made our feelings abundantly clear. I've
enjoyed this stimulating exchange of views very much.
Dave Hurwitz
Henry Krinkle
I have enjoyed this discussion as well. You really got me thinking
and that is always appreciated! Now go take another listen to R-K's
1st! :)
But seriously, thank you.
Regards,
Henry
David Hurwitz
>1st! :)
Actually, I did just that (and the Third as well). I still think those Chandos
recordings are boring--Svetlanov's (on Melodiya, not the RCA remakes) raw energy
is something the music needs--but listening to them, it struck me quite forcibly
that we always need to distinguish between "the point" for the sake of argument,
and "the reality" in the sense of the way the music strikes each individual
listener. Certainly these works are tuneful, tonal, and easy on the ear. They
are by no means incompetent (I never said that they were), which of course was
why I stressed the need to view them comparatively, in the context of their own
time and the composer's total output.
But when confronted with the (taken on their own terms) rather pleasing reality,
I find that the purely intellectual question of "How good are they?" isn't
terribly relevant to the question of "Can I enjoy them?" Clearly the answer to
the second question is "Yes," and having answered the second question, it's kind
of hard to care about the first one. And that, I think, is a valuable point to
keep in mind. And as the subject of this thread and ng is MUSIC, I think one's
sponteneous reaction to the act of listening is far more important that any
amount of subsequent verbiage ABOUT the specific works in question. So: good,
bad, or indifferent, Rimsky's symphonies are surely "listenable." They pose no
insurmountable barriers to personal enjoyment, and that is far more relevant to
a real-world listening experience than the question of whether or not they are
"good" music.
Thank YOU, Henry, for the chance to hear that. Even better, having arrived at
this conclusion, I don't have to listen to them ever again :)!
Best regards,
Dave Hurwitz