For The Atheists: Do You Listen To Religious Xmas Music? If So, What's That Like?
mark
even though I'm not at all a believer.
Probably because I grew up with certain things - those Robert Shaw
Xmas albums, Messiah, Xmas Oratorio - I still listen to them for
nostalgic reasons as much as for musical reasons. For instance, I've
already listened to Shaw's RCA Messiah and Richter's DG version (in
English) in the car; I listened to the Harnoncourt Xmas Oratorio as
background music at the office this week, along with some Arthur
Fiedler and some Baroque & Renaissance Xmas music.
Back when I was a believer, I listened to these things as music, of
course, but with an added degree of belief that a real story was being
told. Now, I just listen to it as pure music. These days, the texts to
Xmas music more often than not has me shaking my head in disbelief,
rather than suspending disbelief to accept some religious message. The
story being told is no more real or historic to me than is the story
and text of Die Zauberflöte.
I can't say that I miss that added dimension one has as a believer
listening to religious music, but I do realize that it's not there any
more.
For the religious out there, imagine listening to Messiah as one would
listen to a Haydn piano sonata and you'll get the idea of what I'm
talking about.
So, my fellow non-believers, what's your experience like? Similar to
mine or different? Religious types are also welcome to chime in. :)
M forever
> I ask because I still listen to a fair amount of sacred Xmas music,
> even though I'm not at all a believer.
>
> Probably because I grew up with certain things - those Robert Shaw
> Xmas albums, Messiah, Xmas Oratorio - I still listen to them for
> nostalgic reasons as much as for musical reasons. For instance, I've
> already listened to Shaw's RCA Messiah and Richter's DG version (in
> English) in the car; I listened to the Harnoncourt Xmas Oratorio as
> background music at the office this week, along with some Arthur
> Fiedler and some Baroque & Renaissance Xmas music.
>
> Back when I was a believer, I listened to these things as music, of
> course, but with an added degree of belief that a real story was being
> told. Now, I just listen to it as pure music. These days, the texts to
> Xmas music more often than not has me shaking my head in disbelief,
> rather than suspending disbelief to accept some religious message. The
> story being told is no more real or historic to me than is the story
> and text of Die Zauberflöte.
What??? I thought that was based on a true story!
> I can't say that I miss that added dimension one has as a believer
> listening to religious music, but I do realize that it's not there any
> more.
Or maybe it is. One of my favorite quotes about music or musicians is
de la Grange's about Mahler, "he was a man who had religious feelings
rather than religious beliefs".
I think that totally nails it and it can also apply to other people. I
actually listen to quite a bit of sacred music of various kinds (not
just Xmas specifically), as well as music that is not nominally sacred
but no doubt inspired by a religious background. Which can both be an
actual "belief" or a "religious feeling". Good examples here are the
symphonies of Bruckner, a "believer", or the Requiem or 4 Pezzi Sacri
by Verdi who was a non-believer, but definitely not a "non-feeler", if
you get my meaning.
I am also very interested in and fascinated by mythology in general as
I think it opens up paths deep into our subconscious. I am not
interested in the bizarre belief "systems" people make up to imprison
those deep feelings of the "unknowable" in order to use them to
influence and control those in need of that kind of spiritual
nourishment, but I am very interested in the inner world they can lead
us into.
So I have no "problems" at all with religion-themed music (or art in
general). These are an important part of our cultural history and
development and complex, fascinating creations of the human psyche.
So being clear about that and understanding that religion/mythology is
an art form created by humans, not some "divine truth", does not
diminish the appreciation for and satisfaction potentially gained from
it.
On the contrary, the enlightened mind which understands that and can
put it into perspective will be able to appreciate all that far more,
without the silly and artificial boundaries of belief systems defined
by organized religions.
Bob Harper
> I ask because I still listen to a fair amount of sacred Xmas music,
> even though I'm not at all a believer.
>
> Probably because I grew up with certain things - those Robert Shaw
> Xmas albums, Messiah, Xmas Oratorio - I still listen to them for
> nostalgic reasons as much as for musical reasons. For instance, I've
> already listened to Shaw's RCA Messiah and Richter's DG version (in
> English) in the car; I listened to the Harnoncourt Xmas Oratorio as
> background music at the office this week, along with some Arthur
>
> Back when I was a believer, I listened to these things as music, of
> course, but with an added degree of belief that a real story was being
> told. Now, I just listen to it as pure music. These days, the texts to
> Xmas music more often than not has me shaking my head in disbelief,
> rather than suspending disbelief to accept some religious message. The
> story being told is no more real or historic to me than is the story
> and text of Die Zauberflöte.
>
> I can't say that I miss that added dimension one has as a believer
> listening to religious music, but I do realize that it's not there any
> more.
>
> For the religious out there, imagine listening to Messiah as one would
> listen to a Haydn piano sonata and you'll get the idea of what I'm
> talking about.
>
> So, my fellow non-believers, what's your experience like? Similar to
> mine or different? Religious types are also welcome to chime in. :)
I remember a somewhat similar thread here a few years ago. The subject,
as I recall, was whether a believer appreciated Handel's 'Messiah' more
than a non-believer. As you may imagine, there was disagreement. I think
your realization that there is an 'added dimension' afforded to the
believer--whether you miss it or not--says about all there is to say on
the matter.
Bob Harper
M forever
> On 12/3/10 9:39 PM, mark wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I ask because I still listen to a fair amount of sacred Xmas music,
> > even though I'm not at all a believer.
>
> > Probably because I grew up with certain things - those Robert Shaw
> > Xmas albums, Messiah, Xmas Oratorio - I still listen to them for
> > nostalgic reasons as much as for musical reasons. For instance, I've
> > already listened to Shaw's RCA Messiah and Richter's DG version (in
> > English) in the car; I listened to the Harnoncourt Xmas Oratorio as
> > background music at the office this week, along with some Arthur
> > Fiedler and some Baroque& Renaissance Xmas music.
>
> > Back when I was a believer, I listened to these things as music, of
> > course, but with an added degree of belief that a real story was being
> > told. Now, I just listen to it as pure music. These days, the texts to
> > Xmas music more often than not has me shaking my head in disbelief,
> > rather than suspending disbelief to accept some religious message. The
> > story being told is no more real or historic to me than is the story
>
> > I can't say that I miss that added dimension one has as a believer
> > listening to religious music, but I do realize that it's not there any
> > more.
>
> > For the religious out there, imagine listening to Messiah as one would
> > listen to a Haydn piano sonata and you'll get the idea of what I'm
> > talking about.
>
> > So, my fellow non-believers, what's your experience like? Similar to
> > mine or different? Religious types are also welcome to chime in. :)
>
> I remember a somewhat similar thread here a few years ago. The subject,
> as I recall, was whether a believer appreciated Handel's 'Messiah' more
> than a non-believer. As you may imagine, there was disagreement. I think
> your realization that there is an 'added dimension' afforded to the
> believer--whether you miss it or not--says about all there is to say on
> the matter.
What does it matter whether or not you who fancies himself a
"believer" thinks there is an "added dimension" there for you when
there are so many dimensions of these works of art which you obviously
don't get because you lack the cultural background and understanding
(plus the musical knowledge) to appreciate them thoroughly to begin
with?
Besides, we don't know what Mark in his specific case means by that,
but we can be sure that you won't understand the difference because
you have never had the same critical distance to the subject that he
developed.
Mark invited comments based on personal experience from "believers"
and "non-believers" but once again, you have no content to contribute
here except for hollow proclamations.
You really are a very shallow person, so your "dimensions" can hardly
be of any interest to anybody who has a more complex approach to this
subject.
SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT
"mark" <markst...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:b6050d9d-10a9-42f8...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
|So, my fellow non-believers, what's your experience like? Similar to
|mine or different? Religious types are also welcome to chime in. :)
Religious art, rites, cults, books and so on are attempts to make sense of
the world we live in. For me as an agnostic the attempts are magnificent
expressions of the human mind although the sense they are supposed to make
doesn't make sense to me.
Henk
Gerard
[the same blabla as always forever snipped]
The same blabla as always forever.
Ray Hall
> I ask because I still listen to a fair amount of sacred Xmas music,
> even though I'm not at all a believer.
>
> Probably because I grew up with certain things - those Robert Shaw
> Xmas albums, Messiah, Xmas Oratorio - I still listen to them for
> nostalgic reasons as much as for musical reasons. For instance, I've
> already listened to Shaw's RCA Messiah and Richter's DG version (in
> English) in the car; I listened to the Harnoncourt Xmas Oratorio as
> background music at the office this week, along with some Arthur
>
> Back when I was a believer, I listened to these things as music, of
> course, but with an added degree of belief that a real story was being
> told. Now, I just listen to it as pure music. These days, the texts to
> Xmas music more often than not has me shaking my head in disbelief,
> rather than suspending disbelief to accept some religious message. The
> story being told is no more real or historic to me than is the story
> and text of Die Zauberflöte.
>
> I can't say that I miss that added dimension one has as a believer
> listening to religious music, but I do realize that it's not there any
> more.
>
> For the religious out there, imagine listening to Messiah as one would
> listen to a Haydn piano sonata and you'll get the idea of what I'm
> talking about.
>
> So, my fellow non-believers, what's your experience like? Similar to
> mine or different? Religious types are also welcome to chime in. :)
I don't think I have ever appreciated religious music as anything other
than an opportunity to revel in a certain type of nostalgia consistent
with childhood memories and a church upbringing (C of E).
I have a reverence for places of worship, one which is far more due to
the sheer magnitude and grandeur of buildings such as cathedrals, and
some churches. I am also certain I would be as enthralled with mosques
as well, or any other place of worship, drawing shy of places where
quack religions such as scientology are practised. Enthralled of course
by the workmanship and testament to man's various faiths throughout the
ages.
I still regard hymns as an important nostalgic tool and a copy of the
New English Hymnal (all 1240 pages without counting the indexes) as my
most prized set of scores, together with those of George Shearing.
I am not one to condemn or criticise other's belief systems, and regard
Bach's faith as one of the pinnacles whereby *he* was sustained by it,
and inspired by it. The same holds true of many other composers.
Religious faith doesn't work for me however. Simple as really.
At the end of the day, a piece of music has to convince me by its
intrinsic worth, and not by its attachment to something else. I might be
convinced by the strength of conviction that some people place in
religion, far more than the religion itself. That is about as far as it
goes for me.
Ray Hall, Taree
Bob Harper
> On Dec 4, 1:38 am, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:(snip)
>>
>> I remember a somewhat similar thread here a few years ago. The subject,
>> as I recall, was whether a believer appreciated Handel's 'Messiah' more
>> than a non-believer. As you may imagine, there was disagreement. I think
>> your realization that there is an 'added dimension' afforded to the
>> believer--whether you miss it or not--says about all there is to say on
>> the matter.
>
> What does it matter whether or not you who fancies himself a
> "believer" thinks there is an "added dimension" there for you when
> there are so many dimensions of these works of art which you obviously
> don't get because you lack the cultural background and understanding
> (plus the musical knowledge) to appreciate them thoroughly to begin
> with?
>
> Besides, we don't know what Mark in his specific case means by that,
> but we can be sure that you won't understand the difference because
> you have never had the same critical distance to the subject that he
> developed.
>
> Mark invited comments based on personal experience from "believers"
> and "non-believers" but once again, you have no content to contribute
> here except for hollow proclamations.
>
> You really are a very shallow person, so your "dimensions" can hardly
> be of any interest to anybody who has a more complex approach to this
> subject.
>
Bob Harper
Roland van Gaalen
> "mark" <markstenr...@yahoo.com> schreef in berichtnews:b6050d9d-10a9-42f8...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> |So, my fellow non-believers, what's your experience like? Similar to
> |mine or different? Religious types are also welcome to chime in. :)
>
> Religious art, rites, cults, books and so on are attempts to make sense of
> the world we live in. For me as an agnostic the attempts are magnificent
> expressions of the human mind although the sense they are supposed to make
> doesn't make sense to me.
>
In my world, no suspension of disbelief can give the crucifixion story
any artistic or other redeeming value, as opposed to, for example, the
creation mythology of the book Genesis.
Yet "Come All Ye Faithful" sounds like a good tune, as long as the
organist doesn't try to improve it with distasteful improvisations and
the singers don't sing with a hysterical, wobbly vibrato.
While I can't stand any "Ave Maria" nonsense, or anything else having
to do with the Roman Catholic cult of "the Virgin Mary" (Roman
Catholicism being among the most thoroughly fraudulent forms of
Christianity), bits and pieces from the Old Testament make perfect
sense and can be highly effective themes in music, literature and the
visual arts.
As for Bach, I much prefer his organ music to his cantatas. The
"Passions" are over the top.
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
Kip Williams
It's like a lot of other music. A lot of the classical variety is pretty
good. So it a fair amount of the secular type, though there is more
absurd schlock that gets played around this time of year, awful (in the
contemporary sense) for any or all of several reasons from overbearing
attempt to simulate reverence to obnoxious rib-poking in the exact
opposite direction.
I was at Staples a couple of days ago and found their in-store selection
of cornball holiday tunes that seemed centered around the 1950s or so to
be somewhat refreshing. I wondered how the clerks felt about it (and how
long the loop was*). I was actually enjoying hearing a version of
"Nuttin' for Christmas" that wasn't sung by George Rock, and relieved to
be out before any of his vocal performances for Spike Jones could come
on. To paraphrase Elwood P. Dowd, I think the world and all of Spike,
but Rock's vocals make me want to throw the radio out the window.
Kip W
*I asked a young employee at Friendly's once how she felt about the
track of oldies from the 50s and 60s, and as I recall, she didn't think
it was so bad but wished she didn't hear the same songs so often.
Ördög
wrote:
>
> Yet "Come All Ye Faithful" sounds like a good tune [snip]
And it IS a good tune! [I speak as an atheist/lapsed Catholic]
Add to that "Hark the Herald Angels sing",( Mendelssohn, I think) and
the Czech "Rocking Carol"
> "Passions" are over the top.
I agree.
> Roland van Gaalen
> Amsterdam
Bob Lombard
Argh! Your post has managed to force realization: the blasted drummer
boy is returning to stores that I can't avoid entering. This year I hope
to remember to carry earplugs.
bl
SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT
"Roland van Gaalen" <rolandv...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:92711d9a-a40d-4834...@30g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
|As for Bach, I much prefer his organ music to his cantatas. The
|"Passions" are over the top.
For me Bach is the greatest composer ever, and I like every single one of
his compositions - unless performed by HIP-sters. I'm still hoping that one
day we can hear great romantic performances of the Mattheus Passion again in
the Concertgebouw. Koopmans' "Es donnert, es wettert", for example, sounds
as if his musicians have only one thing in mind: to run for cover.
Henk
mark
>
> Argh! Your post has managed to force realization: the blasted drummer
> boy is returning to stores that I can't avoid entering.
If the Inquisition had had "The Little Drummer Boy" and "Do You hear
What I Hear?" available to play on a loop they could had forced a lot
more confessions out of people while sparing the physical torture.
Gerard
> "Roland van Gaalen" <rolandv...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
> news:92711d9a-a40d-4834...@30g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> > As for Bach, I much prefer his organ music to his cantatas. The
> > "Passions" are over the top.
>
> For me Bach is the greatest composer ever, and I like every single
> one of his compositions - unless performed by HIP-sters. I'm still
> hoping that one day we can hear great romantic performances of the
> Mattheus Passion again in the Concertgebouw.
Only if a time machine will bring you back to the 19th century.
Those days are over, happily.
Ördög
Add "Jingle Bells" to the list and we can all commit suicide before
25th December.
(It was the only "carol" that most Brit kids seemed to know!)
number_six
> "Roland van Gaalen" <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:92711d9a-a40d-4834...@30g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> |As for Bach, I much prefer his organ music to his cantatas. The
> |"Passions" are over the top.
>
> For me Bach is the greatest composer ever, and I like every single one of
> his compositions - unless performed by HIP-sters. I'm still hoping that one
> day we can hear great romantic performances of the Mattheus Passion again in
> the Concertgebouw. Koopmans' "Es donnert, es wettert", for example, sounds
> as if his musicians have only one thing in mind: to run for cover.
>
> Henk
When I listen to music that has a religious dimension, I try to be
aware of that content. I suppose the question is whether music can be
transcendent purely on its own merits. The music may have something
for believers that others do not participate in, but I think I can
experience the transcendence in Bach's Ascension Oratorio without a
full measure of faith in the divinity of Jesus. Other examples would
include Die Himmel Erzahlen from Haydn's Die Schopfung, Nehama
Lifschitz singing the Shabbas, shabbas song, many others.
M forever
Only seconds ago, I gave you a few points for this mildly witty
comeback in the other thread, but now that I see it's just your new
standard snip&snipe phrase (rather like Abbedd's "this is way over
your head"), unfortunately, I have to take back the positive things I
said there.
I am disappointed! For about 30 seconds there, just before clicking on
this thread, I had actually thought you had made a little development.
But that's my fault. For a few seconds, I actually overestimated you a
little. Thanks for correcting my error.
M forever
> "Roland van Gaalen" <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:92711d9a-a40d-4834...@30g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> |As for Bach, I much prefer his organ music to his cantatas. The
> |"Passions" are over the top.
>
> For me Bach is the greatest composer ever, and I like every single one of
> his compositions - unless performed by HIP-sters. I'm still hoping that one
> day we can hear great romantic performances of the Mattheus Passion again in
> the Concertgebouw. Koopmans' "Es donnert, es wettert", for example, sounds
> as if his musicians have only one thing in mind: to run for cover.
There are great "HIP" and great "non-HIP" performances, and many
grades in between. It's a pity that you can't see that and dismiss a
vast spectrum of performance styles in one vastly generalized sweep.
Which tells us that your own musical perception is just very basic and
general in itself. So your comments are of no interest at all to
anyone.
mark
> I remember a somewhat similar thread here a few years ago. The subject,
> as I recall, was whether a believer appreciated Handel's 'Messiah' more
> than a non-believer. As you may imagine, there was disagreement. I think
> your realization that there is an 'added dimension' afforded to the
> believer--whether you miss it or not--says about all there is to say on
> the matter.
Of course I realize that there's an added dimension for the believer.
That doesn't in any way make that added dimension anything more than
wishful thinking.
Children experience an added dimension in a visit to Santa that adults
no longer accommodate. Adults still enjoy watching their kids interact
with the mall Santa, even knowing that there are no elves and reindeer
waiting at the North Pole for Santa's return.
Realizing that believers experience religious music differently than
non-believers isn't exactly an earth-shaking realization.
Gerard
> unfortunately, I have to take back the positive things I
> said there.
HAHAHAHAHA!
You have said "positive things" here?
I hope you will feel better very soon.
>
> I am disappointed! For about 30 seconds there, just before clicking on
> this thread, I had actually thought you had made a little development.
> But that's my fault. For a few seconds, I actually overestimated you a
> little. Thanks for correcting my error.
Boring indeed.
Gerard
> So your comments are of no interest at all to
> anyone.
The same M(istake) forever.
You mean that his comments (and everybody's comments) are of no interest to YOU!
M forever
LOL
It is for Harper, apparently.
Here is another example: do you have to be German or *believe* in
Germanic mythology to appreciate, for instance, the Ring? Does it add
"another dimension" if you do?
It probably did for Hitler and those of his contemporaries who
identified themselves with the heroic figures beyond the level on
which "other" people would connect to them (meaning a general
psychological level). They probably experienced an "added dimension"
because they saw it not only as an exciting and interesting piece of
musical theater, but because they identified with the ideas behind, or
rather, just like in the case of Christianity and other religions,
with the ideas they *wanted* to read into it. So in that context, it
became more than just theater for them, it was part of a ritual of
reconfirming their assumed cultural and mythological identity.
Which is basically exactly the samt hing all these church rituals are.
Or any such rituals and displays. So the "added dimension" is really
nothing but a warm and fuzzy feeling of tribal membership of some sort
or another.
Nothing an intellectually independent and open-minded person really
needs.
mark
> On Dec 4, 1:46 pm, mark <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 10:38 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > I remember a somewhat similar thread here a few years ago. The subject,
> > > as I recall, was whether a believer appreciated Handel's 'Messiah' more
> > > than a non-believer. As you may imagine, there was disagreement. I think
> > > your realization that there is an 'added dimension' afforded to the
> > > believer--whether you miss it or not--says about all there is to say on
> > > the matter.
>
> > Of course I realize that there's an added dimension for the believer.
> > That doesn't in any way make that added dimension anything more than
> > wishful thinking.
>
> > Children experience an added dimension in a visit to Santa that adults
> > no longer accommodate. Adults still enjoy watching their kids interact
> > with the mall Santa, even knowing that there are no elves and reindeer
> > waiting at the North Pole for Santa's return.
>
> > Realizing that believers experience religious music differently than
> > non-believers isn't exactly an earth-shaking realization.
>
> LOL
>
> It is for Harper, apparently.
>
I was simply afraid that Harper was giving me more credit than I
deserved in stating that religious music has an added dimension for
believers. I don't know if that was his intention, but there you have
it. :)
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:4cfa751d$0$81484$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl:
> For me Bach is the greatest composer ever, and I like every single one of
> his compositions - unless performed by HIP-sters. I'm still hoping that one
> day we can hear great romantic performances of the Mattheus Passion again
> in the Concertgebouw. Koopmans' "Es donnert, es wettert", for example,
> sounds as if his musicians have only one thing in mind: to run for cover.
I recently bought MO-T's transfer of Mengelberg's St. Me Passion on Naxos,
and when I am able to set aside a morning for listening and contemplation, I
plan to listen to it and pretend the HIP movement never happened. (I'm not
AGAINST the HIP movement by any means -- except for perversities like Bach's
B Minor Mass with one singer to a part, and Brandenburgs played so goshdarn
fast that you hear more of the whacking bows and clacking keys than any of
the actual pitched notes -- I'm just open to many interpretations.)
--
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
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:d3b30c23-8ca4-40e1-aded-93ea788f5c80
@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
The only music with sleigh bells I want to hear are the Mahler Symphony #4
and maybe Mozart's K. 605. And you know, I could do without that Mozart.
> (It was the only "carol" that most Brit kids seemed to know!)
A friend of mine recently revealed to me that he had recently found out
that carols don't necessarily have to be about Christmas.
M forever
No, Harper doesn't want to give you credit for anything. He wants to
take credit for allegedly being someone who can experience and "added
dimension" in religious music because he fancies himself a "true
believer".
If you think about it, the question in that general sense is pretty
nonsensical, and my impression was that you didn't mean in such a
general way original, rather in a more personal way.
The question if there is an "added dimension for believers" in general
is really nonsensical because people experience music in vastly
different ways anyway. A musically sensitive "non-believer" probably
experiences many more dimensions of religious and non-religious music
than a musically less sensitive "believer" to begin with.
Like I said in the other post, it is really only the tribal/ritual
dimension that you are missing when you are not a member of the club
anymore.
But then OTOH, freeing oneself from that tribal/ritual adherence
actually makes it possible to experience so many things outside that
sphere, it's not one dimension less, it's many dimensions more.
BTW, I had to think of this this morning when I listened to the "Dies
Irae" from Honegger's "Symphonie liturgique. I don't believe in all
that stuff but I still think the music is extremely powerful and
evocative, actually a little frightening, kind of like a musical
Hieronymus Bosch painting. I don't think that believing that one day,
little demons will come torturing me actually enhances the
appreciation of this music at all.
Ördög
> rd g <jansfarr...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
>
> > Add "Jingle Bells" to the list and we can all commit suicide before
> > 25th December.
>
> The only music with sleigh bells I want to hear are the Mahler Symphony #4
> and maybe Mozart's K. 605. And you know, I could do without that Mozart.
I can live without the Mozart jingle very easily. And talk about
coincidence! The score I bought today was... yes..... Mahler's 4th.
>
> > (It was the only "carol" that most Brit kids seemed to know!)
>
> A friend of mine recently revealed to me that he had recently found out
> that carols don't necessarily have to be about Christmas.
I once knew a girl called Carol. Apart from that, I have always
associated carols with Christmas. Must be the "Oirish" in me:-)
William Sommerwerck
> sters. I'm still hoping that one day we can hear great
> romantic performances of the Mattheus Passion again in
> the Concertgebouw. Koopmans' "Es donnert, es wettert",
> for example, sounds as if his musicians have only one
> thing in mind: to run for cover.
How can Bach be for you "the greatest composer ever", when you prefer
"romantic performances" that are almost certainly not the way Bach intended
them to be performed?
mark
wrote:
Following that thinking, we should all disown Jon Vickers'
interpretation of Peter Grimes as Britten was on record as disliking
it no end.
Dontait...@aol.com
[in part]
> The only music with sleigh bells I want to hear are the Mahler Symphony #4
> and maybe Mozart's K. 605. And you know, I could do without that Mozart.
The critic B.H. Haggin wrote in The Nation around 1943 that a
correspondent in Chicago had told him about the premiere of Frederick
Stock's orchestral transcription of Schubert's C Major string quintet.
It occurred after Stock's death in October 1942, conducted by
Associate Conductor Hans Lange, I believe. Haggin said his
correspondent wrote that in the last movement the large orchestra
"exploded" in a peal of bells and -- yes -- sleigh bells. (Haggin's
column was reprinted in one of the collections of his columns for The
Nation.) Naturally, I was always curious about the transcription, as
was everyone who knew about Haggin's description of it and/or that
Stock had transcribed it at all. The CSO hadn't performed it since the
premiere when the orchestra's then Associate Conductor Kenneth Jean
programmed it around 1993. Of course, I went.
Those seeking orchestral bizarrie could have been disappointed. The
bells stood mute until late in the fourth movement, and the sleigh
bells remained on their table. The bells were only struck for a few
times, and the percussionist might have only shaken the sleigh bells
about three times and then set them down again. So the orgy of
percussion bell-ringing reported by Haggin's correspondent was in fact
not that, and was very brief.
I need hardly say that the transcription couldn't replace Schubert's
original in any way. (But when Stock prepared it in 1941 or '42 or so
there were only a couple of recordings of it, 78 sets that were
relatively expensive for the time, and I imagine that he simply wanted
to enable most listeners to hear the music in any form, not supplant
the original by any means.)
Kenneth Jean's and the CSO's performance of the transcription was
broadcast on WFMT and syndicated, so there are probably recordings of
it around.
Don Tait
Bob Lombard
Yeah. If Bach objected to 'romantic' interpretations of his works, he
should have said so. whassamatterforhim, anyway?
bl
SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT
"M forever" <ms1...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:9f36cf60-0920-42ca...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
|There are great "HIP" and great "non-HIP" performances, and many
|grades in between. It's a pity that you can't see that and dismiss a
|vast spectrum of performance styles in one vastly generalized sweep.
|Which tells us that your own musical perception is just very basic and
|general in itself. So your comments are of no interest at all to
|anyone.
It's always slightly embarrassing when someone says that he is 'us' or
'everyone'. You want to take him seriously but you don't quite see how when
no one else is there.
Henk
Kip Williams
> Ördög<jansf...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
> to be typed in news:d3b30c23-8ca4-40e1-aded-93ea788f5c80
> @t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Dec 4, 5:08 pm, mark<markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> If the Inquisition had had "The Little Drummer Boy" and "Do You hear
>>> What I Hear?" available to play on a loop they could had forced a lot
>>> more confessions out of people while sparing the physical torture.
>>
>> Add "Jingle Bells" to the list and we can all commit suicide before
>> 25th December.
I'd listen to any and all of them again before any of the George Rock
vocal sides (his instrumentalism was exemplary), especially "(All I Want
for Christmas is) My Two Front Teeth." The only thing he recorded that
was worse was "Wanna Buy a Bunny?"
Anyway, Pierpont's original version of what became "Jingle Bells" is
undeserving of the acrimony, though it's unlikely most people will ever
hear it.
> The only music with sleigh bells I want to hear are the Mahler Symphony #4
> and maybe Mozart's K. 605. And you know, I could do without that Mozart.
I'm partial to Anderson's "Sleigh Ride," though I prefer to hear it as a
keyboard solo (piano or organ).
Kip W
Bob Lombard
And there may too be the question of whether he himself is 'all there'.
Only because both Henk and M do not have English as a first language do
I add that 'not all there' is sometimes expressed as 'a few bricks short
of a load'.
bl
M forever
Why? What's the problem there (I don't know that recording, BTW, so I
am just asking out of curiosity).
Ördög
> Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> > rd g<jansfarr...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
> > to be typed in news:d3b30c23-8ca4-40e1-aded-93ea788f5c80
> > @t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> On Dec 4, 5:08 pm, mark<markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> If the Inquisition had had "The Little Drummer Boy" and "Do You hear
> >>> What I Hear?" available to play on a loop they could had forced a lot
> >>> more confessions out of people while sparing the physical torture.
>
> >> Add "Jingle Bells" to the list and we can all commit suicide before
> >> 25th December.
>
> I'd listen to any and all of them again before any of the George Rock
> vocal sides (his instrumentalism was exemplary), especially "(All I Want
> for Christmas is) My Two Front Teeth." The only thing he recorded that
> was worse was "Wanna Buy a Bunny?"
>
> Anyway, Pierpont's original version of what became "Jingle Bells" is
> undeserving of the acrimony, though it's unlikely most people will ever
> hear it.
I suppose it [Jingle Bells] is a slight improvement on "Rudolph The
Red Nose Reindeer", but not by very much.
Christmas? Bah! Humbug! (And I think I'm drunk)
M forever
> "M forever" <ms1...@gmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:9f36cf60-0920-42ca...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Nor did I say there was. Nor did I say "us", nor "everyone". I just
pointed out how extremely limited your musical perception obviously
is, so I can't see how your comment might be of any interest for
anyone. Because there is nothing there, nothing at all behind it apart
from your very limited and crudely generalized understanding of music
performance styles.
How can that be of any interest to anyone? That like saying I farted
this morning (I actually did, BTW). That's about how interesting and
relevant your comments are.
M forever
My comment was correctly worded and clearly expressed. There is no
need to remind us that you don't have any other languages that you can
express anything in, you provincial asshole.
Ördög
> That like saying I farted
> this morning (I actually did, BTW).
Did you fart in English or German?
O
<b6050d9d-10a9-42f8...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
mark <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> So, my fellow non-believers, what's your experience like? Similar to
> mine or different? Religious types are also welcome to chime in. :)
Well, I'm not necessarily a religious type, but I was brought up
Catholic and that's hard to shake.
There is a certain majesty in most of the better religious music that
either isn't there in the non-religious music either because such music
naturally requires it, or we as listeners expect it to be there. My
Catholic upbringing was during a time of upheaval, as the Church was in
the process of jettisoning the old Latin music and adopting Kum-by-yah
hippie songs, which absolutely sucked. I've heard that some of the
newer Catholic inspired music is better.
I've three contributions to this thread:
1) For those interested in the older - Latin Catholic Hymns, Beth
Nielson Chapman's "Hymns" (may be OOP) adds the right blend of
reverence and musicianship to take us back to those old hymns when the
Mass was still in Latin and we had to endure them during High Mass. We
hated them back then because they stretched out the time for a Mass
from a half hour to up to and hour and a half, but hearing them again
strikes a particular chord with me. (Dona Novis Pacem, Tantum Ergo,
etc.) Most are sung in four part harmony. You can still get the sheet
music to these from her web site.
2) On the Protestant side of the aisle, there are a lot of wonderful
songs that really have become a part of the world's fabric. While
there are many good Gospel albums around, I'd recommend Randy Travis's
"Worship and Faith," which despite the solemn title provides this music
with a lot of the spunk and high virtuosity of the Nashville country
scene, but also Travis's heartfelt sincerity in his singing. It's
music like this that helped those Religious Right preachers hit a big
audience but if you approach this from a purely musical facet, you'll
hear great singing and playing.
3) My personal Christmastime treat, when we're able, is to go see the
Boston Camerata and their Christmas program, which they do for five or
six concerts around the New England area. Last year, they did an
entire concert of songs of celebration from Spain, Provence, Italy &
the Middle East for Christmastime, in which I became acquainted with a
bewitching Andalusian song entitled "En Belen tocan a fuego." Like
anyone else, they're better heard live, though you can find them at
their best in "Sing We Noel," though the CD sound seems not as good as
the original LP.
-Owen
SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> schreef in bericht
news:ide661$h7b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> How can Bach be for you "the greatest composer ever", when you prefer
> "romantic performances" that are almost certainly not the way Bach
> intended
> them to be performed?
The notion of the importance of the intentions of the artist is a romantic
notion. Probably Bach didn't intend anything at all. He did his job as
professionally as possible with the means he had.
Personally I prefer romantic performances of Bach's works because these
alone do full justice to the greatness of Bach's music in a concert hall.
Henk
M forever
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> schreef in berichtnews:ide661$h7b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> > How can Bach be for you "the greatest composer ever", when you prefer
> > "romantic performances" that are almost certainly not the way Bach
> > intended
> > them to be performed?
>
> The notion of the importance of the intentions of the artist is a romantic
> notion.
Very wrong. It's actually a very modern notion.
> Probably Bach didn't intend anything at all. He did his job as
> professionally as possible with the means he had.
Indeed he did. And he would no doubt have adapted his works to the
requirements of large concert halls as we have them now if he had
worked in them. But he didn't. So one might say that it does not make
sense to mount a "HIP" performance in a large concert hall. I can
actually agree with that. But that doesn't mean that the whole "HIP"
thing is automatically devalued. That is a crude and nonsensical idea.
> Personally I prefer romantic performances of Bach's works because these
> alone do full justice to the greatness of Bach's music in a concert hall.
So the "greatness of the music" for you lies in the grand gesture, not
the musical fine detail. That's just your limited perception though.
There is much more in the music than just that.
M forever
In Chinese. I passed by San Francisco the other day and got some great
and, as far as I can tell, rather "authentic" Chinese food, including
really nasty beef organs (great!). It was a little hard to digest
though.
SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT
"Ördög" <jansf...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:af46ca39-f772-49e8...@i18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
In whatever language, M. seems to be someone who believes it necessary not
only to say what he did but to add that he actually did what he says he did.
This is what happens when he attempts to be himself rather than 'us'.
Henk
Gerard
>
> My comment was correctly worded and clearly expressed. There is no
> need to remind us that you don't have any other languages that you can
> express anything in, you provincial asshole.
Monster forever.
Gerard
Church music in a concert hall?
Have you ever tried to hear it elsewhere?
Bob Harper
> HvT wrote:
>> "Roland van Gaalen"<rolandv...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:92711d9a-a40d-4834...@30g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> As for Bach, I much prefer his organ music to his cantatas. The
>>> "Passions" are over the top.
>>
>> For me Bach is the greatest composer ever, and I like every single
>> hoping that one day we can hear great romantic performances of the
>> Mattheus Passion again in the Concertgebouw.
>
> Those days are over, happily.
>
*Happily?* What a narrow-minded attitude!
Bob Harper
M forever
> On 12/4/10 9:13 AM, Gerard wrote:> HvT wrote:
> >>news:92711d9a-a40d-4834...@30g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> As for Bach, I much prefer his organ music to his cantatas. The
> >>> "Passions" are over the top.
>
> >> For me Bach is the greatest composer ever, and I like every single
> >> one of his compositions - unless performed by HIP-sters. I'm still
> >> hoping that one day we can hear great romantic performances of the
> >> Mattheus Passion again in the Concertgebouw.
>
> > Only if a time machine will bring you back to the 19th century.
> > Those days are over, happily.
>
> *Happily?* What a narrow-minded attitude!
Indeed. So many things were so much better back then, weren't they,
Harper? Like black people were still niggers and slaves back then. The
churches still had much more influence and interfered in people' lives
much more.
I can see why you would rather go back to that time. In fact,
mentally, you are still there.
Ördög
> " rd g" <jansfarr...@gmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:af46ca39-f772-49e8...@i18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
In other words: he talks too much. What I mean is: he doesn't discuss
- he lectures. Perhaps he should stay as himself; then his posts would
be a lot easier to read and take up a lot less space.
BTW, I try to fart in Irish. It sounds a bit like "O'brrraaarrrrp!
Gerard
Do I care when a religion and freemarket fanatic uses these words?
Ördög
> HvT wrote:
> > "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> schreef in bericht
>
> - Show quoted text -
Church music sounds pretty good in a church. Or a concert hall.
Gerard
But do you need "romantic performances" to do "full justice" to Bach's baroque
music in a concert hall?
Why does the guy not hire Bayreuth or Mickey Mouse Hall if he wants to guzzle
romantic orchestral and/or vocal sounds?
Kip Williams
I may also say in its favor that it wasn't written as a Christmas song.
This, like its present arrangement, is something that has been done to
it since it was created.
> Christmas? Bah! Humbug! (And I think I'm drunk)
Have you seen "Blackadder's Christmas Carol"? There's a good Humbug
scene, right at the beginning.
Kip W
Ördög
> rd g wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 9:37 pm, "Gerard" <g_nospam_hendrik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > HvT wrote:
> > > > "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> schreef in
>
> > > > > How can Bach be for you "the greatest composer ever", when you
> > > > > prefer "romantic performances" that are almost certainly not the
> > > > > way Bach intended
> > > > > them to be performed?
>
> > > > The notion of the importance of the intentions of the artist is a
> > > > romantic notion. Probably Bach didn't intend anything at all. He
> > > > did his job as professionally as possible with the means he had.
>
> > > > Personally I prefer romantic performances of Bach's works because
> > > > these alone do full justice to the greatness of Bach's music in a
> > > > concert hall.
>
> > > Church music in a concert hall?
> > > Have you ever tried to hear it elsewhere?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Church music sounds pretty good in a church. Or a concert hall.
>
> But do you need "romantic performances" to do "full justice" to Bach's baroque
> music in a concert hall?
No, but I prefer Bach's organ/piano music to his orchestral music -
with the exception of the 'Brandenburg Concertos', which sound good
just about anywhere. I don't belong to the 'HIP' brigade, but I have
yet to hear the BCs performed "romantically" by anyone. OTOH, due to
sick wife (now deceased) I haven't been to a concert anywhere for 5
years.
> Why does the guy not hire Bayreuth or Mickey Mouse Hall if he wants to guzzle
> romantic orchestral and/or vocal sounds?- Hide quoted text -
Well, you never know; it might just work!
Ördög
Sorry Henk, I misunderstood you, but I get it now.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Ördög
> On 12/4/10 1:05 PM, rd g wrote:> On Dec 4, 8:51 pm, M forever<ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> That like saying I farted
> >> this morning (I actually did, BTW).
>
> > Did you fart in English or German?
>
>
> Bob Harper
Of course it is! "Calm sea and preposterous fart". (Sorry, Herr
Mendelssohn)
Ördög
> rd g wrote:
>
> > Christmas? Bah! Humbug! (And I think I'm drunk)
>
> Have you seen "Blackadder's Christmas Carol"? There's a good Humbug
> scene, right at the beginning.
>
> Kip W
Not yet, but I will catch up on it when I can. I loved those
'Blackadder' series!
Allen
> "M forever"<ms1...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
> news:9f36cf60-0920-42ca...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> |There are great "HIP" and great "non-HIP" performances, and many
> |grades in between. It's a pity that you can't see that and dismiss a
> |vast spectrum of performance styles in one vastly generalized sweep.
> |Which tells us that your own musical perception is just very basic and
> |general in itself. So your comments are of no interest at all to
> |anyone.
>
> It's always slightly embarrassing when someone says that he is 'us' or
> 'everyone'. You want to take him seriously but you don't quite see how when
> no one else is there.
>
> Henk
>
>
>
own words why he/she/it has been in my killfile for a long time.
Allen
Bob Lombard
> The last sentence in M's post, as quoted by you, says perfectly in his
> own words why he/she/it has been in my killfile for a long time.
> Allen
But then I, the veritable personification of tact, am also in Allen's
killfile. What strange company we keep.
bl
graham
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9E44745DA32...@216.168.3.70...
> A friend of mine recently revealed to me that he had recently found out
> that carols don't necessarily have to be about Christmas.
>
It's just a word for "song" i.e., one that contains words{:-)
Graham
O
Harper <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote:
You show by your revealing comments that you have no idea what it means
to fart in German, it not being your native flatulence, and you have
had no training or experience in it. Thus, you reveal your own
ignorance of the vast shades of cultural stink available, and by not
dismissing a whole spectrum of odoriferousness which someone with real
knowledge of stench would immediately discard.
Thus, your comments can only be irrelevant, much like those farts which
possess no smell at all.
-Owen
Bob Lombard
An excellent parody of our resident expert on things Germanically
superior. To expand on the subject... classic German flatulence is based
on sauerkraut. This supplies not only the propulsive charge, but also
the base fragrance. The rest is decoration.
bl
graham
Bob Harper
Alas, I have been found out. Curses!
Bob Harper :)
Bob Harper
beer supplies the propulsion. Have I erred in my understanding of this
abstruse subject?
Bob Harper
Gerard
> Allen wrote:
>
> > The last sentence in M's post, as quoted by you, says perfectly in
> > his own words why he/she/it has been in my killfile for a long time.
> > Allen
>
> But then I, the veritable personification of tact,
Eh?
> am also in Allen's
> killfile. What strange company we keep.
>
> bl
We all belong in that killfile. Maybe he needs some rest.
M forever
> On 12/4/10 6:19 PM, Bob Lombard wrote:
>
>
>
> > O wrote:
> >> Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On 12/4/10 1:05 PM, rd g wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 4, 8:51 pm, M forever<ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> That like saying I farted
> >>>>> this morning (I actually did, BTW).
>
> >>>> Did you fart in English or German?
>
> >>> superior.
>
> >> You show by your revealing comments that you have no idea what it means
> >> to fart in German, it not being your native flatulence, and you have
> >> had no training or experience in it. Thus, you reveal your own
> >> ignorance of the vast shades of cultural stink available, and by not
> >> dismissing a whole spectrum of odoriferousness which someone with real
> >> knowledge of stench would immediately discard.
>
> >> Thus, your comments can only be irrelevant, much like those farts which
> >> possess no smell at all.
>
> >> -Owen
>
> > An excellent parody of our resident expert on things Germanically
> > superior. To expand on the subject... classic German flatulence is based
> > on sauerkraut. This supplies not only the propulsive charge, but also
> > the base fragrance. The rest is decoration.
>
> > bl
>
> I would have thought that the sauerkraut supplies fragrance, while the
> beer supplies the propulsion. Have I erred in my understanding of this
> abstruse subject?
It's quite amazing, but at the same time also very telling and sad how
even an irrelevant side remark I make automatically and immediately
triggers all the silly nationalistic prejudices you idiots have. And
you all line up immediately - O, Harper, Lombard. Yes, you guys really
are inferior human beings. But not because of where you come from nor
for any other reason than that you are bigots and ignorant jingoists.
And that you even like to celebrate that fact. But it's obvious that
it has nothing to do with what I say. I just trigger you cultural
inferiority complexes and challenge your silly, feeble "patriotism".
How easily unsettled you all are...
Which also proves that I was right in attributing Sowell's
characterization of southern white trash to Harper. First he denies it
and acts offended, next he rushes to confirm it. What an idiot. What a
piece of trash. Southern white trash. But thanks for pointing me to
Sowell. He really made it even more clear for me exactly what Harper
is.
Gerard
>
> It's quite amazing, but at the same time also very telling and sad how
> even an irrelevant side remark I make automatically and immediately
> triggers all the silly nationalistic prejudices you idiots have.
Q.E.D.
>
> And
> you all line up immediately - O, Harper, Lombard. Yes, you guys really
> are inferior human beings.
Q.E.D.
>
> But not because of where you come from nor
> for any other reason than that you are bigots and ignorant jingoists.
Q.E.D.
>
> And that you even like to celebrate that fact. But it's obvious that
> it has nothing to do with what I say. I just trigger you cultural
> inferiority complexes and challenge your silly, feeble "patriotism".
Q.E.D.
>
> How easily unsettled you all are...
HAHAHAHA.
What a selfoverestimation!
>
> Which also proves that I was right in attributing Sowell's
> characterization of southern white trash to Harper. First he denies it
> and acts offended, next he rushes to confirm it. What an idiot. What a
> piece of trash. Southern white trash. But thanks for pointing me to
> Sowell. He really made it even more clear for me exactly what Harper
> is.
Q.E.D.
Bob Harper
> On Dec 4, 10:05 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/4/10 6:19 PM, Bob Lombard wrote:
>>> O wrote:
After much thought, I've decided that your most (un)attractive quality,
Michael, beyond even your nastiness, your pomposity, and your conviction
that everyone (everyone!) is your inferior, is your utter humorlessness.
What you really couldn't stand in the exchange Owen, Bob L. and I had
was that *we made fun of you*. If you are ever to be happy--and despite
any protestations to the contrary you manifestly are not--then learn to
laugh *with* others, and at your own absurdity. We are all absurd at
times; it's part of the human condition. Failing to realize it is a
problem, and it's one you need to overcome.
Bob Harper
William Sommerwerck
>>> sters. I'm still hoping that one day we can hear great
>>> romantic performances of the Mattheus Passion again in
>>> for example, sounds as if his musicians have only one
>>> thing in mind: to run for cover.
>> How can Bach be for you "the greatest composer ever",
>> when you prefer "romantic performances" that are almost
>> certainly not the way Bach intended them to be performed?
> Following that thinking, we should all disown Jon Vickers'
> interpretation of Peter Grimes as Britten was on record as
> disliking it no end.
The point I was making was about thinking highly of a composer because one
prefers highly un-idiomatic performances of his works.* This has nothing to
do with a composer's opinion about a particular performance of one of his
works.
Besides, he probably said that because Peter was upset with the high quality
of Jon's performance and had thrown a hissy fit.
* As I've said before, I prefer Puccini in performances that most Puccini
lovers don't care for.
M forever
Instead of pontificatng, better start with yourself. Realize the
absurdity of your childish religious beliefs. Realize what horrible
prejudices you have.
Start with these two, then come back for more tasks.
But - why would I want to laugh with trash like you? What makes you
think you can declare when and why people are happy and when and why
not? And when they are supposed to laugh with you. Oh yes, right - you
are a religious fanatic who wants to force his world view on everybody
else. So it makes sense you feel you can decide whether other people
are happy or not, and what should make them happy.
Are you really that big of an idiot that you don't realize how you
reveal your primitive mindset involuntarily all the time?
But yes, right, Germans don't have a sense of humor anyway. I know.
Just another of your idiotic prejudices - and one which you never fail
to fall back on whenever you want to act the terribly, terribly
misunderstood victim.
Gerard
>
> But yes, right, Germans don't have a sense of humor anyway.
And you even less so.