Stravinsky said. . .
IS
by Villa-Lobos? - Igor Stravinsky
Boy do I agree with him whole heartedly. Tough it's not EVERY time I hear a
piece of music I don't like.
Stravinsky was so awesome, probably one of my favorites along with Mahler,
Prokofiev, Schoenberg and Shostakovich.
Thanks.
IS
Markanto
IS <no...@you.com> wrote in message news:3d5de142$1...@nopics.sjc...
> "Why is it that whenever I hear a piece of music I don't like, it's always
> by Villa-Lobos? - Igor Stravinsky
Haven't heard that quotation..One I did hear from Segovia, in answer to
Stravinsky's question "Why have you never asked me to write something for
your guitat?" Segovia replied; "Because I do not wish to insult you by not
playing it"
IS
Very common and very typical of him.
I think we all know how musically close minded Segovia was.
Just like he would never play Schoenberg's octet, he would never have played
Stravinsky.
IS.
"Markanto" <ice...@markanto.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ajkv7e$vvh$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
GuitarPoet
Well, how about this:
"His music used to be original. Now it's aboriginal." ---
Sir Ernest Newman on Igor Stravinsky
GuitarPoet
IS
Very common and very typical of him.
I think we all know how musically close minded Segovia was.
Just like he would never play Schoenberg's octet, he would never have played
Stravinsky.
IS.
"Markanto" <ice...@markanto.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ajkv7e$vvh$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
IS
Very common and very typical of him.
I think we all know how musically close minded Segovia was.
Just like he would never play Schoenberg's octet, he would never have played
Stravinsky.
IS.
"Markanto" <ice...@markanto.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ajkv7e$vvh$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
Greg M. Silverman
>
> "Why is it that whenever I hear a piece of music I don't like, it's always
> by Villa-Lobos? - Igor Stravinsky
>
> Boy do I agree with him whole heartedly. Tough it's not EVERY time I hear a
> piece of music I don't like.
Well, he was the one who also made insulting comments about the music of
Bela Bartok.
> Stravinsky was so awesome, probably one of my favorites along with Mahler,
> Prokofiev, Schoenberg and Shostakovich.
Awesome yes, incredible yes, but he had a warped sense of his own
importance.
Greg--
IS
Thank you.
Very common and very typical of him.
and musically.
Just like he would never play Schoenberg's octet, he would never have played
When you have two worlds, one highly trained and very much based on musical
theory and the other only based on feeling struggling to keep their face
above the surface, you can get a collision like that.
Segovia was very musically ignorant and his theory skills were close to
none.
When compared to Stravinsky he only knew the basics.
You should hear Segovia's compositions, what a disaster, and those are for
ONE guitar.
Can you imagine if he were to even attempt write a piece like Symphony in C
and Symphony of Psalms?
Bottom line one is a composer the other performer.
When Stravinsky said what he did about Villa Lobos he was talking about
another composer.
If you read your musical history you will find out that performers commonly
rejected pieces that had been written for their instrument, even pieces that
were dedicated to them.
I can give you a couple of names (won't give you the pieces, that's up to
you to discover):
Think about Brahms, Chopin, Penderecki, Mendelssohn, Saint Saens, and Bruch
to begin with.
IS.
"Markanto" <ice...@markanto.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ajkv7e$vvh$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
IS
IS.
IS
IS.
John W. Blossick
>From: "IS" no...@you.com
>Date: 8/17/02 6:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
wrote:
>That's just Segovia's musical ignorance at work.
>Very common and very typical of him.
>I think we all know how musically close minded Segovia was.
I think it would be rather fair to say Segovia had decent knowledge about music
being composed during his time. What he did have were definite ideas about
what he liked and did not like.
>Just like he would never play Schoenberg's octet, he would never have played
>Stravinsky.
For the record..he did play VL's music..I have recordings of him playing VL's
Etude #1 and Prelude # 3.
JohnB
John W. Blossick
>Message-id:
wrote:
>I think we all know how close minded Segovia was, both in playing technique
>and musically.
No, I don't know..Perhaps you would care to fill me (us) in..
>Segovia was very musically ignorant and his theory skills were close to
>none.
I suppose you discovered this in speaking with him first hand?..Or deduced this
from careful study of his transcriptions?
>If you read your musical history you will find out that performers commonly
>rejected pieces that had been written for their instrument, even pieces that
>were dedicated to them
So what?
JohnB
Todd Tipton
IS wrote:
>
> I can give you a couple of names (won't give you the pieces, that's up to
> you to discover):
> Think about Brahms, Chopin, Penderecki, Mendelssohn, Saint Saens, and Bruch
> to begin with.
I don't even have a clue what you are hinting at here. The sonata Brahms wrote
for the guitar? Usually, when I have some piece of information that I wish
others to know, I -share- it. Whatever you had to say must not have been as
important as your silly game, Isis.
Todd Tipton
1371 Pebble Ct. #602
Cincinnati, Oh.
513-474-6195
http://toddtipton.com
"There are two sides to every issue; one side is right and
the
other is wrong, but in the middle is always evil."
--Ayn Rand
Angelo Gilardino
"IS" <no...@you.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3d5e6...@nopics.sjc...
> That's Segovia's musical ignorance at work. Right there, perfect exmple.
> Thank you.
> Very common and very typical of him.
> I think we all know how close minded Segovia was, both in playing
technique
> and musically.
> Just like he would never play Schoenberg's octet,
Despite my affection for Schoenberg's music and my dedicated study of it, I
do not know of an octet. Could you kindly tell me which opus number it
brings? It can't be the Serenade op. 24, because it has nine performers
(including a baritone and a guitarist) and the Suite op. 29, which employs
eight instruments (two of which offer an option), but which is not entitled
Octet and which does not employ a guitar. I am sure nobody would blame
Segovia for having missed to perform a chamber music work where the guitar
was unrequested, than I am really fascinated in the perspective of a
Schoenberg's Octet with a guitar. I remain in a warm wait.
> Segovia was very musically ignorant and his theory skills were close to
> none.
> When compared to Stravinsky he only knew the basics.
> You should hear Segovia's compositions, what a disaster, and those are for
> ONE guitar.
Please, could you tell in which points of one of his compositions - title,
page, measure, beat number - Segovia did what you describe as a disaster,
and describe it in strictly musical terms, with employing the
language of a composer (which, I have no doubts, you surely are)?
> Can you imagine if he were to even attempt write a piece like Symphony in
C
> and Symphony of Psalms?
It is as fair as thinking of Stravinskji giving a recital as a guitarist.
-------------------------------
Angelo Gilardino
Composer and Editor
The Artistic Director
of the "Andrés Segovia" Foundation of Spain
Greg M. Silverman
>
> IS wrote:
>
> >
> > I can give you a couple of names (won't give you the pieces, that's up to
> > you to discover):
> > Think about Brahms, Chopin, Penderecki, Mendelssohn, Saint Saens, and Bruch
> > to begin with.
>
> I don't even have a clue what you are hinting at here. The sonata Brahms wrote
> for the guitar? Usually, when I have some piece of information that I wish
> others to know, I -share- it. Whatever you had to say must not have been as
> important as your silly game, Isis.
Wow! Brahms wrote a sonata for the guitar. That is so bloody cool! And
Felix too, geeze, who woulda thunk it! And to think we needed more works
for guitar when there was a veritable treasure trove from the past
masters that has never been touched by ANY of the major players! :-)
Greg--
Steve Carl
news:3D5E4063...@cccs.umn.edu...
> IS wrote:
> >
>
> > Stravinsky was so awesome, probably one of my favorites along with
Mahler,
> > Prokofiev, Schoenberg and Shostakovich.
>
>
> Awesome yes, incredible yes, but he had a warped sense of his own
> importance.
>
> Greg--
Warped in what sense? Stravinsky is generally considered, along with
Schoenberg, to have been one of the most important composers of the
20th century. How much more important did he think he was?
Steve Carl
Greg M. Silverman
Yes he was extremely important, but he was quite an iconoclast. Charles
Ives was the same way. Don't get me wrong, I immensely love the music of
both composers, it's just the sorts of comments they made were at times,
frightening either dogmatic in nature or just plain bujectively biased.
Kind of like what Stravinski said about Bartok and his love for
researching native folklore: "This devotion was certainly real and
touching, but I couldn't help regretting it in the great musician [viz.,
Bartok]." It should be noted that he said this in 1958 (in an inteview
with Robert Craft), when he himself had brushed aside his past
neo-classicist excursions and use of Russian folk music in favor of
12-tone serialism. If this isn't a dogmatic statement, I don't know what
is. Again, I love Stavinski's works from all his creative periods, I
just don't agree with his ideas.
Greg--
Richard Spross
I think we all know how close minded Segovia was, both in playing technique
and musically.
Could it also be that Segovia, had a superior take on the audiences
of his day and what they would enjoy?
Hence his inevitable popularity.
Just like he would never play Schoenberg's octet, he would never have played
Stravinsky and bunch of other really good 20th century pieces.
Again, perhaps he knew that if he played really good contemporary forward
thinking music it would not be well received and that would damage his
"mission" to popularize the classical guitar world wide.
Further more I can see the quote about Segovia not wanting to play
Stravinsky's work as a polite way to avoid being mistakenly accused of
disliking Stravinsky's music.
When you have two worlds, one highly trained and very much based on musical
theory and the other only based on feeling struggling to keep their face
above the surface, you can get a collision like that.
I think both people, Segovia and Stravinsky had to struggle to keep their face above water until they received sufficient public acknowledgment.
Segovia was very musically ignorant and his theory skills were close to
none.
When compared to Stravinsky he only knew the basics.
Perhaps in his ability to orchestrate he lacked in knowledge, but I don't
actually know. A composer can know theory quite well and yet still not
use it in large scale works. Think of Federico Mompou, who is best known
as a miniaturist for piano.
Would you say he lacked in musical theoretical skills? I doubt it.
You should hear Segovia's compositions, what a disaster, and those are for
ONE guitar.
Estudio sin Luz, a disaster? Five daily anecdotes? The Canciones Populares? A different more conventional style , but in no way a disaster.
Can you imagine if he were to even attempt write a piece like Symphony
in C
and Symphony of Psalms?
Segovia I am sure understood his limitations and worked successfully encouraging composers to write music which in his mind was contemporary with the publics understanding and as a consequence we have the great concertos by Tedesco, Ponce, Villa-Lobos and Rodrigos Fantasia, to show for it. This work accustomed the public to even hearing the guitar with orchestra, now many modern composers are being commissioned world wide to write for the combination. Think of Ms Isbin's accomplishments in that regard. I believe it would never have happened for her had it not been for Segovia's pioneering accomplishments.
Bottom line one is a composer the other performer.
Different fields of endeavor require different marketing approaches, doesn't mean that musical understanding never overlaps.
If you read your musical history you will find out that performers commonly
rejected pieces that had been written for their instrument, even pieces that
were dedicated to them.
Happens all the time.
snip.
IS.Regards,
Richard Spross
IS
Doesn't make him a bad composer
IS.
IS
Difficult piece of music to play live. I've done it once and if you loose
your place you're really lost. Have no idea where the other players are.
IS.
"Angelo Gilardino" <ange...@inwind.it> wrote in message
news:ajltsn$1cbq3s$1...@ID-91010.news.dfncis.de...
IS
Besides the works that I had in mind from the below composers are not guitar
works at all. They are more violin and piano works.
Sorry you misunderstood me.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
Thanks.
IS.
IS
the composition world.
IS
Greg M. Silverman
>
> Doesn't make him a bad composer
Indeed, it did not. Made him a bad critical thinker though.
>
> >
> > Awesome yes, incredible yes, but he had a warped sense of his own
> > importance.
> >
> > Greg--
Greg--
IS
you think of Wagner?
Another one of my favorites. Incredible orchestrator, almost as good as
Stravinsky.
IS.
"Greg M. Silverman" <g...@cccs.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:3D5E8E24...@cccs.umn.edu...
Greg M. Silverman
>
> If you think Stravinsky had a "warped sense of his own importance" what do
> you think of Wagner?
Oh geeze. Don't get me started on the music of Wagner. PLEEZE! :-)
> Another one of my favorites. Incredible orchestrator, almost as good as
> Stravinsky.
Okay, you asked for it (of course, my view is my own, and not so
humble): Wagner is completely overrated. Notwithstanding the whole
Wagnerian cult thing, his music is BORING! I do like his early attempts
to mimic Beethoven though, such as in his string quartets, and his early
symphonies, but beyond these few triffles, the rest is bombastic boredom
in all its grandiosity. The ubiquitous 'Siegfried Idyll' a prime example
of this type of noise. I remember trying to stomach a live broadcast of
"Parsifal" on PBS once. Turned it off after Arthur's ascension to the
throne went on for what seemed like at least 30 minutes. A true snoozer,
if ever there was! The funny thing about Stravinski was that he was a
student of Debussy, and we all know that Debussyists are so far removed
from Wagner in terms of harmonic lanhguage and style. Brahms too was not
so easily impressed by Wagner as was the case of Tchaichovsky (who
himself was a major influence on Debussy). So, in all comes down to the
fact that modern music could well exists without the Wagner influence. I
am sure Mahler still would have been great without his idol.
Greg--
Greg M. Silverman
>
> If you think Stravinsky had a "warped sense of his own importance"
> what do
> you think of Wagner?
> Another one of my favorites. Incredible orchestrator, almost as good
> as
> Stravinsky.
>
BTW: did you ever see the PBS production about Wagner and Bayreuth with
Richard Burton giving a stunning performance of the despicable man
himself? Probably one of the best productions broadcast on Masterpiece
Theater to date.
Greg--
Richard Spross
Well said. Segovia was a big sell out and wanted popularity over musicality. IS. I doubt that he wanted popularity over musicality, he simply recognized the limits of the audience's musical understanding.This does not necessarily mean that he condemned moderen music per se but that such music was way ahead of it's time.
My piano instructor in college an MM of music from Yale told us that audiences were generally 50 years behind what composers were writing. If that estimate is correct, then the music of the middle 20th century is only now beginning to be appreciated by audiences and I think that goes for classical guitar music as well. Besides no audience, no moola. Heh heh.Thus, again perhaps Segovia knew that if he played really good contemporary forward thinking music it would not be well received and that would damage his "mission" to popularize the classical guitar world wide. It is reasonable to believe that as he grew older he could have felt threatened by the likes of Julian Bream and John Williams, believing he had not done enough to secure the guitars place in the musical fermament.
How many of us today feel comfortable with the most far reaching expositions of imaginative musical explorations?
I would dare say few.
It should be noted that throughout his career he was championing new music which he believed nourished the human spirit of the times and in my not so humble opinion he succeeded beyond what any single comtemporary player has accomplished. This is based on the observation that he was working in a vacuum and had to literally drag the guitar from obscurity to the the limelight. All the others who either were contemporaneous or who came later benefited from his work.
Those who battled him for limelight didn't win because winnning in that field takes more than ability, it takes political savvy, the abiltiy to gather financial resources to work on one's behalf and vision to know what steps are needed to accomplish one's vision in the face of adversity and competition. Those who were out smarted lost, and that is how it is in any business endeavor. So I take a dim view of the Segovia detractors such as JW. He may have had legitimate complaints, and personal hurts, (happens all the time, even to me! ) but for him to whine about it after the man has deceased is to me poor social form. I'm refering to the recent WHYY (whatever, not good at remember call numbers ) radio interview.
Once audiences learned that they could enjoy the classical guitar and come away profoundly moved ( even in a large hall which at the time was considered an outrage.( How, stammer stammer could it be? Why we'll never hear a thing! )
The rest is history and the consequence is that enormous doors were opened for people to pursue this path world wide without having to reestablish their legitimacey for being on stage.Composers having learned that they could write solo began attempts at writing for guitar and orchestra, knowing that there was a grow audience for the medium.
No audience, no commisions. No example, few pioneers. Segovia was the most daring of pioneers to which we all need to say.
THANK YOU MAESTRO.!!!
Richard Spross
Alain Reiher
Thank you."
An apple on the head, a bow and arrow ... a little more to the right ... higher .. higher ...
OK! right you have an ouverture.
Alain
IS
Some of the Wagner operas go on and on for a long time BUT even though the
subject and the story drag on the music while it's happening is still very
good. With lot's of interesting (frequent) key changes.
With some of them (his operas) you can listen to a woman (or a man)
agonizing about dying for 'hours, by the end you're just wishing they'd die,
'please , , , just die already'.
Wagner was perfectly aware of this.
Again his music and orchestration is still good, very good.
IS
"Greg M. Silverman" <g...@cccs.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:3D5E9711...@cccs.umn.edu...
Richard Spross
Well said. Segovia was a big sell out and wanted popularity over musicality. IS.
I would like to add, that if one follows the career path of say, Sharon Isbin, one can see that she exhibits all the same characteristics necessary for succees in the highest world of the performing arts as Segovia did. She has political savvy, she has demonstrated the ability to garner financial resources, and she has figured out how to carve her path in the musical fermament such that she continues to be successful,, musically adventurous and popular as well. It must be remembered that cultural tastes today encompass a vast spectrum of music making which far exceeds the cultural awareness of Segovia's day.Even Sharon has stated that she recognizes the limitations the market plays on her abiltiy to sell modern music. For example her statement that she has to play the Aranjuez a lot inorder to get the respect of conductors and whoever decides orchestral programing to program more adventurous music. In this regard she is doing the exact same thing that Segovia did, only in different times and cultural tastes. Thus she becomes an invite to be daring and open hearted to the audience.
In other words she not only is in the forefront championing modern music at a level the audience can understand by open hearted she understands their limitations and thus does not arrogantly abuse them with her own ideas of what she thinks they should be listening to, which for all we know, could be something entirely different.The fact that Segovia never threw away the manuscripts which he didn't play and that he lamented in the book about corespondance with Ponce, that he had lost them, shows that he really did care about the value of the musical effort offered him by the many composers of the day. Had he up and played it all, he would have been run out of town and dismissed as
some one not to be taken seriously, in which event none of the good that has come to this planet through him and continues to grow yearly would have occured.Thank you,
Richard Spross
She is a great example.
Greg M. Silverman
>
> Nope, haven't seen that production.
If you can find it, is is well worth the effort. Burton was almost made
for the role!
> Some of the Wagner operas go on and on for a long time BUT even though the
> subject and the story drag on the music while it's happening is still very
> good. With lot's of interesting (frequent) key changes.
> With some of them (his operas) you can listen to a woman (or a man)
> agonizing about dying for 'hours, by the end you're just wishing they'd die,
> 'please , , , just die already'.
> Wagner was perfectly aware of this.
Funny! :-)
This of course was part of his role as the cult leader. He was a nut
case. Not a very nice man, especially to Cossima (which makes hearing
the "S. Idyll" all the more sickening). Bad man and bad music all
around! Yuk, hope I never hear 'Valkyries' ever again.
My idea of hell: 24-hours a day nonstop Wagner.
> Again his music and orchestration is still good, very good.
Well, good is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps good bombast and at
times overtly schmaltzy? Yeah, I'll buy that. In Lenny Berstein's case,
I had no idea why he was so attracted to the music (at least he too
recognized what a complete jerk wagner was). And the whole flap that
Daniel Barenboim caused by wanting to perform Wagner in Jerusalem? Why
bother? The music is so overrated anyway.
Greg--
John Wasak
Modern music without Wagner?! hmmm..... I think, Greg, you've neglected
Tristan und Isolde! The very important Tristan und Isolde, from which we
get the famous "Tristan-chord" - that dissonant chord hanging there
open-ended and resolutely unresolved. It was the music of Tristan und Isolde
that helped to spread an increase in dissonance, chromaticism, and harmonic
fluidity and ambiguity in the music of the late nineteenth century and that
walked down the path knocking on Debussy's door and ultimately leading down
the road to the atonality of Schoenberg. Debussy himself had early on,
before eventually rejecting Wagner's ideas, highly admired Tristan und
Isolde and Parsifal and certainly synthesized something out of their
chromaticism. And Debussy and Impressionism were surely influenced by
Wagner's treatment of orchestral color (listen to Parsifal) and the richness
of his chords.
I think it would be hard to make the case that Wagner wasn't influential on
the mainstreams of musical dvelopment.
JW
Greg M. Silverman
>
> I think it would be hard to make the case that Wagner wasn't
> influential on the mainstreams of musical dvelopment.
>
Suffice it to say, it is a twisted fantasy of mine that music without
Wagner would be the same. Sure it's not quite true, but one can always
dream, can't they? :-)
Greg--
GuitarPoet
>
>
> If you read your musical history you will find out that performers commonly
> rejected pieces that had been written for their instrument, even pieces that
> were dedicated to them.
> I can give you a couple of names (won't give you the pieces, that's up to
> you to discover):
> "Think about Brahms"
>
> IS.
Which Brahms work are you referring to? The piano concertos he
premiered himself, and the Violin Concerto in D major was dedicated to
Joseph Joachim who never thought it wasn't playable or disliked its
music, corresponding with Brahms for three months to work out what
would work musically and technically on the violin. The only person
who didn't like it was composer and pianist Hans Von Bulow who
immediately after its premiere on New Year's day in Leipzig in 1879
thought it was written "against the violin" (Brahms and Joachim
revised the score for six months after its premiere before publishing
the work) The only reason the great spansh virtuoso Pablo De Sarasate
didn't want to play it is was not because of any difficulty, rather he
queried rhetorically, "Do you think I would stand there with my violin
in my hand and listen while the oboe plays the only melody in the
entire piece?" (referring to the beautiful second movement) The
concerto in A minor for violin and cello wasn't rejected by anybody
either, and was premiered by Joachim and cellist Robert Haussman on
October 18th. 1887
GuitarPoet
GuitarPoet
>
>
> If you read your musical history you will find out that performers commonly
> rejected pieces that had been written for their instrument, even pieces that
> were dedicated to them.
> I can give you a couple of names (won't give you the pieces, that's up to
> you to discover):
> "Think about, Chopin, Mendelssohn,"
>
> IS.
OK maybe you can help me here, Chopin performed most of his own works,
and even the difficult "Etudes" op. 10 and 25 Franz Liszt could pull
off more securely and brilliantly than the composer himself. (Chopin
was frail, think the great Dinu Lipatti's playing compared to
Sviatislov Richter or Lazar Berman) I know of no work that was
"rejected" or deemed unplayable by any pianist in Chopin's time,
rather his works fit the instrument naturally and the music is
gorgeous as we all know.I really can't think of any of Chopin's works
that fall under this discovery question you pose here. As for
Mendelssohn,The only really famous virtuoso piece is his beautiful
Violin Concerto in E minor written for virtuouso Ferdinand David. It's
also interesting to note that David was unable to play a second
performance after its spring premiere in 1845 and Schumann's piano
concerto was substituted: Clara also couldn't play her husband's piece
because she fell ill and a fourteen year old student of David was
brought in to play the Mendelssohn. His name is Joseph Joachim, one of
the greatest violin virtuosos of the 19th century. And he never
rejected Brahms's only violin concerto either, Thank God!!
Let me give you a composer for whom your discovery question of
"rejected" really exists:
Tchaikovsky. Please name the work in question and the rejecter (and
any other pertinent info). Thank You.
GuitarPoet
IS
Hint: Read this excerpt carefully.
IS.
"GuitarPoet" <guita...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d488ba4f.02081...@posting.google.com...
IS
in music history and musicology your self. Your question might as well have
been: When was Mozart born?
There actually were three pieces (not one as you indicate) by Tchaikovsky
that were rejected. First was his #1 Piano concerto 1875 (that's probably
THE work you're thinking about), rejected by Rubinstein. He claimed it was
unplayable, clumsy, and awkward. But in reality he was insulted that
Tchaikovsky did not ask for his advise about the piano part.
Then his violin concerto was rejected by Leopold Auer, one of the more
important Russian violinists.
Undina was also rejected by the directors at the theater. Snow maiden
although not rejected was not successful.
Of course there were others but these three are the big ones that were
actually rejected.
Not just a public or a fellow composers opinion.
One more major rejection in his life: Tchaikovsky him self was also
rejected by Rimsky-Korsakov and Balakierev ( this is of the top of my head
so not sure about spelling these names??) for being too trained, or as they
called it "too conservatory trained." And Cosmopolitan and not enough
Russian. They thought his music was too western influenced.
Thanks.
IS.
GuitarPoet
> If you read your musical history you will find out that performers commonly
> rejected pieces that had been written for their instrument, even pieces that
> were dedicated to them.
> I can give you a couple of names (won't give you the pieces, that's up to
> you to discover):
> "Think about Bruch"
>
> IS.
>
>
>
I assume you're referring not too exactly to Max Bruch's Violin
concerto in G minor (there is another concerto in D minor that is not
as popular) where just after finishing writing it in 1868 he played it
for Brahms, with great enthusiasm and a lot of sweat. Brahms who
wasn't known for his tact listened without much interest to the end of
the piece. He walked over to the piano and took a sheet from the
score. "What do you think? " asked Bruch to which Brahms replied "The
manuscript paper is very impressive!" as he felt a sheet between his
fingers. This story doesn't really fit your question because you
specifically asked about works that were written for a specific
instrument and were rejected by those instrumentalists or dedicatees.
Both Brahms and Bruch were pianists, therefore I do not know what
phantom work you are referring to here, please help. There is a work
by Tchaikovsky that fits your discovery question. Maybe you can tell
me what it is and who rejected it.(and any other pertinent info)
GuitarPoet
IS
That's a GREAT story though.
Good one Mr. Poet.
Thanks.
Steve Carl
"IS" <no...@you.com> wrote in message news:3d5eb352$1...@nopics.sjc...
> If you think Stravinsky had a "warped sense of his own importance" what do
> you think of Wagner?
> Another one of my favorites. Incredible orchestrator, almost as good as
> Stravinsky.
>
> IS.
>
"Wagner has lovely moments but awful quarters of an hour" - G. Rossini
(of Gotterdammerung) "It seems like a great deal of work over nothing." - C.
Ives
"I have been told that Wagner's music is better than it sounds." - M. Twain
"Richy Wagner is a soft-bodied sensualist - pussy." - C. Ives
(quotes from "A Dictionary of Musical Quotations" by Crofton & Fraser)
Steve Carl
GuitarPoet
IS - I must disagree with you. I think Sir Ernest was very aware of
what was happening in the composition world, "Le Sacre Du Printemps"
is very primal and aboriginal.
GuitarPoet
Richard Spross
In my university years, it was pointed out, that when "Le Sacre Du Printemps"
was premiered in Paris, it caused the audience to erupt in violent protest.
However in the U.S.A. when it was premiered, nothing of the sort happened and
it was lauded in the reviews for it's imaginative writing ( To sum up ).
I always thought the above information to be rather funny. I wonder what that
says about us as a people?
Richard Spross
GuitarPoet
> Dude, If you're trying to challenge me, you need to do some major studying
> in music history and musicology your self. Your question might as well have
> been: When was Mozart born?
>
> There actually were three pieces (not one as you indicate) by Tchaikovsky
> that were rejected. First was his #1 Piano concerto 1875 (that's probably
> THE work you're thinking about), rejected by Rubinstein. He claimed it was
> unplayable, clumsy, and awkward. But in reality he was insulted that
> Tchaikovsky did not ask for his advise about the piano part.
> Then his violin concerto was rejected by Leopold Auer, one of the more
> important Russian violinists.
IS- The first piano concerto was rejected by Rubinstein at first but
he actually offered to play it if Tchaikovsky would change it to meet
his specifications.He originally stated (according to Tchaikovsky
three years after he played it for Rubinstein at the St. Petersburg
Conservatory) that the "concerto was worthless and unplayable...bad,
trivial,vulgar. Only one or two pages had any value." Tchaikovsky,
not Rubinstein was the one who was insulted here and replied to
Rubinstein "I shan't alter a note, I shall publish it as it stands."
He then crossed off Rubinstein's name and rededicated it to Hans Von
Bulow (the same person who panned Brahms's Violin concerto:married to
Liszt's daughter, but she dumped him in favor of one of your
favorites, Richard Wagner) Van Bulow called the piece "lofty, strong
and original" and premiered it right here in the USA in Boston and New
York. It's also important to note that Rubinstein admitted his
misjudgement of the concerto later in life and performed the work many
times. So it wasn't a complete rejection now, is it?
I was actually thinking about the violin concerto which was dedicated
to Auer but he deemed it "unviolinistic". Tchaikovsky later dedicated
it to Adolph Brodsky who premiered the work.There is an infamous
critique by the viennese critic Hanslick of the concerto where he says
among other things "We see plainly the savage vulgar faces, we hear
curses, we smell vodka..Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto gives us for the
first time the hideous notion that there can be music that stinks to
the ear." Auer, the dedicatee admitted his mistake about the concerto,
misjudging its musical worth and value and later added it to his
repertoire. So I guess the music won out against all the nay-sayers.
It would have been smarter for you to say that there
were three Tchaikovsky works that were rejected and then turn the
question on me and ask me to find them since I mistakenly stated that
there was only one. I don't have your musical knowledge, but I was
challenged and intrigued by your original question and I've been
trying to figure out some answers.
GuitarPoet
Terlizzi
their names- where they interview Segovia and the Maestro quotes Stravinsky as
saying "the guitar does not sound loud but far".
I found this intriguing because it means that Stravinsky gave the guitar some
thought.
....there is the Ebony Concerto, the Tango and
and the Four Russian Songs but how much I wish Stravinsky wrote a solo piece,
especially from his late period !!!
but the dream of it is maybe even better and more delicious.
mark delpriora
>Haven't heard that quotation..One I did hear from Segovia, in answer to
>Stravinsky's question "Why have you never asked me to write something for
>your guitat?" Segovia replied; "Because I do not wish to insult you by not
>playing it"
GuitarPoet
perverse and unnatural choreography of Nijinsky which the audience was
not quite accustomed to.The audience was treated first to the ballet
"Les Sylphides" which is based on works by Chopin so seeing "The Rite"
right afterward would definitely be the opposite of one's expectations
especially since Nijinsky's choreography broke every classical ballet
rule in the book. While The Rite is definitely a musical masterpiece,
it has never quite worked as a ballet, from Martha Graham to Walt
Disney. Balanchine never even touched it. There's a great version by
Paul Taylor that utilizes the two piano score which is smart because
he knew that he couldn't compete with an orchestra of immense size and
power. As for the USA premiere, let me share with you a poem I found
written by a certain Ward Botsford in the Boston Herald after a local
premiere of "Le Sacre"
"Who wrote this fiendish Rite of Spring,
What right had he to write this thing,
Against our helpless ears to fling
Its crash, cling, clang, bing,bang,being?
"And then to call it "Rite of Spring"
The season when on joyous wing
The bird's harmony in everything!"
"He who would write the Rite of Spring
If I be right, by right should swing!"
I guess Mr. Botsford is swinging away forgotten for the most part,
while "The Rite" is a modern day masterpiece but at least he left us
this amusing poem! Remember, he said it was "fiendish"
GuitarPoet