Barrios Tremolo pieces
Ron Ohara
I have the 4 volume Richard Stover set of Barrios music and I notice
there is only 2 tremolo pieces:"Song of Thread Spinner" and "An Alm for
the love of God".
Besides "Una Limosna por el amor de Dios" (available in
sheet music), did Barrios compose any other tremolo pieces?
Inc
edently...I'd love to work on "Una Limosna...".....just how tough is
it? :-)
Thanks alot.
--
------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| $$$ |
Ron O'Hara | |
r...@vcn.bc.ca | This space for rent. |
| |
------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
Ron Ohara
Aconquija (acon...@aol.com) wrote:
: Greetings,
: I'm curious....when you say you have the four volume Stover set you
: mean the set of scores right? Though it seems as though you implied a set
: that Stover had recorded. If this is the case, I was unaware of such a
: recording. Though I have to say his anthology of scores is very good.
Thanks for the reply...and yes it is his set of books ...:-)
: I can't recall seeing the "Song of The Thread
Spinner"....I'll have to go
It is in book 2 of the Stover set and is surprisingly easy.
: look for it. As far as Barrios temolo pieces, check out "Un Sueno In The
: Forest", which is one of his most popular pieces, and "Contemplacion",
Yes "Un Sueno in the Forest (floresta?)" is excellent. That is the
tremolo piece I was thinking of...don't know where I got "Una Limosna por
el amor de Dios" from.
You mention "Contemplacion"...I take it that is available in sheet format?
Or did I somehow miss it in the Stover set?
: which is also a very nice piece, though it doesn't get performed very
: often. Unfortunately the only recording I've heard of it is by Barrios
Yea I've been meaning to get his recordings....did he use a steel string
for high e when he made them?
Aconquija
Greetings,
I'm curious....when you say you have the four volume Stover set you
mean the set of scores right? Though it seems as though you implied a set
that Stover had recorded. If this is the case, I was unaware of such a
recording. Though I have to say his anthology of scores is very good.
I can't recall seeing the "Song of The Thread Spinner"....I'll have to go
look for it. As far as Barrios temolo pieces, check out "Un Sueno In The
Forest", which is one of his most popular pieces, and "Contemplacion",
which is also a very nice piece, though it doesn't get performed very
often. Unfortunately the only recording I've heard of it is by Barrios
himself. As far as difficulty, Sueno in my opinion is the most
difficult. An Alm For The Love of God is difficult also, with some wide
stretches for the left hand(but then again what Barrios piece isn't).
Contemplacion seems to be the easiest of the three, but thats only my
opinion. And like I said, I'm not aware of the Song Of The Thread
Spinner.
Anybody else have any thoughts?
John
Paul Fowles
>You mention "Contemplacion"...I take it that is available in sheet format?
>Or did I somehow miss it in the Stover set?
Chris Dumigan's edition of "Contemplacion", which is transcribed
direct from the original Barrios recording, appears in Vol.4 of the
BARRIOS ANNIVERSARY EDITION and is currently available from GSP.
Regards,
Paul F.
Aconquija
Greetings once again,
I haven't seen any of the transcriptions from the anniversary
edition. Who transcribed them? I can imagine it must have been quite a
project because the sound quality is pretty bad on most of those tracks.
Besides his collections, Stover also has separate editions for many of the
most popular Barrios pieces, such as The Cathedral, Sueno(in the forest),
An Alm for the love of God, Maxixe, some others that i cant think of, and
Contemplacion.
As far as steel strings went, Barrios did use them, mainly because thats
all he had access to. He used to place a piece of rubber or something
like that in between the string and the bridge to help muffle the sound.
Segovia likened his sound to that of a man playing a wire fence....and he
once left Barrios a set of gut strings as a snide joke. Its a shame that
Segovia didn't embrace Barrios and his music...that whole thing always
makes me very angry.
well, i hope i've been of help,
John
Bentley1
<Its a shame that
Segovia didn't embrace Barrios and his music...that whole thing always
makes me very angry.>
Actually, I thought Barrios went to see Segovia at a concert when Segovia
toured South America. Barrios played for Segovia after which Segovia
praised his playing and with the highest compliments asked for a copy of
La Catedral.
I read this in the folio included in the reissue double album set of
Barrios' recordings. I'll try and dig up the exact account and post it.
-Mark Bentley
MARGORA
dn a former article we saw...
d
---begin former article---
From: acon...@aol.com (Aconquija)
Subject: Re: Barrios Tremolo pieces
Date: 2 Aug 1996 12:03:32 -0400
John
---end former article---
and MAR...@ctrvx1.Vanderbilt.Edu (MARGORA) comments...
"Song of the Thread Spinner" is in one of the Stover editions --
Volume 2, I think (I am at work, not at home). It has been
recorded by guitarists other than Barrios -- Lendle, in
particular (again, I'm at work, not at home).
Aconquija
Hello again,
It is true that Barrios played the Cathedral for Segovia....and
Segovia offered his highest praise for Barrios and asked him for the score
so that he could play it. Barrios was flattered by this and gave Segovia
the score; yet he never learned it or played it. I dont claim to be an
expert on the subject and don't want to offend anybody, but my gut tells
me that Segovia felt threatened by Barrios. Not only because he was an
excellent composer for the guitar, but maybe also because his virtuosity
was beyond that of Segovia himself. I also think Segovia looked down upon
Barrios, thinking he was not a respectable musician because of the way he
dressed up as Nitsuga during the time when he was doing that whole bit.
But whatever the reason, I can't understand how a man who wanted to make
the guitar a concert instrument wouldn't have done more to help Barrios
and his music gain more of a foothold in Europe.
John
Spencer Doidge
Segovia lacked Barrios' talent, and he was busy running his own career. He never helped anybody
except as it contributed to his own image. Barrios didn't need Segovia's help in any way, and so he
and Segovia passed like two ships in the night. The memory of Barrios will outlive that of Segovia,
and Barrios must have been serene in the knowledge of that. We are the last generation who will
remember Segovia. End of story.
Ron Ohara
Aconquija (acon...@aol.com) wrote:
: Greetings once again,
: As far as steel strings went, Barrios did use them, mainly because thats
: all he had access to. He used to place a piece of rubber or something
: like that in between the string and the bridge to help muffle the sound.
Thanks for the reply. Did he not use just 1 steel string on the high
e...or was it all steel strings?
What does it sound like on his recordings?
Aconquija
Good day all,
I guess Barrios used a standard set of steel strings...though I'm
not sure if he used a wound g. A lot of the recordings he made are REALLY
poor as far as sound quality, but if you ever have a chance check them out
anyway. Its really fun to hear how the pieces were meant to sound, and
Barrios was quite the virtuoso. Very well said Spencer
Doidge!!!....I'm not sure that Segovia will be forgotten that easily, but
as far as Segovia goes for me, he is merely a grain of sand in my Barrios
sand castle.
Regards,
John
Matanya Ophee
acon...@aol.com (Aconquija) wrote:
>I'm not sure that Segovia will be forgotten that easily, but
>as far as Segovia goes for me, he is merely a grain of sand in my Barrios
>sand castle.
Just out of curiosity: when do you expect your Barrios sand castle to
be washed out? the next high tide? the next big wave?
I was under the impression that, John Williams, Dick Stover and other
Barrios aficionados notwithstanding, the Barrios sand castle collapsed
even before it washed out to sea. But have no fear. Many other sand
castles are being built, and wash out to sea with the same predictable
regularity. Koshkin, Domeniconi, Kleynjans, etc, etc. Where are the
_real_ castles of the classical guitar? those made of stone on
concrete foundation safely anchored to solid rock? Let me know when
you find one.
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphée, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N
Columbus, OH, 43235-1226
Phone: 614-846-9517
Fax: 614-846-9794
Check out Orphée Catalogue at:
http://www.orphee.com
Now including the first on-line guitar magazine titled:
What The Pluck!
John Michailidis
Were you aware that John Williams was introduced to many "lost" Barrios
pieces by Jason Waldron, the Australian guitarist. Jason, in fact,
arranged many of the pieces John went on to record.
I heard John reccently play with Tim Cain in Australia at the Sydney
Opera House. Check out their new collaboration "The Mantis & the Moon."
John
David Rastall
mop...@iwaynet.net (Matanya Ophee) wrote:
>acon...@aol.com (Aconquija) wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure that Segovia will be forgotten that easily, but
>>as far as Segovia goes for me, he is merely a grain of sand in my Barrios
>>sand castle.
>
>Just out of curiosity: when do you expect your Barrios sand castle to
>be washed out? the next high tide? the next big wave?
Your seaside metaphors are not very clarifying. If a composer's music is
to be likened to sand which can be washed away by the sea, then what is
the sea supposed to be? Public opinion? Well, Barrios's music is out
there and people like it well enough. Academic integrity? Very elusive
criterion for judging "sand castles." Artistic integrity? Oh, please!
That's the most elusive one of all. So what fatal quality of Barrios's
music are you referring to?
>...Where are the
>_real_ castles of the classical guitar? those made of stone on
>concrete foundation safely anchored to solid rock? Let me know when
>you find one.
Do you mean that you can't see any "solid rock" in any of the classical
guitar literature at all? There must be something there somewhere that
qualifies as "solid rock."
David Rastall
Matanya Ophee
David Rastall <dras...@novagate.com> wrote:
>mop...@iwaynet.net (Matanya Ophee) wrote:
>>acon...@aol.com (Aconquija) wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not sure that Segovia will be forgotten that easily, but
>>>as far as Segovia goes for me, he is merely a grain of sand in my Barrios
>>>sand castle.
>>
>>Just out of curiosity: when do you expect your Barrios sand castle to
>>be washed out? the next high tide? the next big wave?
>Your seaside metaphors are not very clarifying.
_WHOSE_ seaside metaphors you are referring to? mine or the _previous_
poster? Need I underline the obvious that I simply took the metaphor
Aconquija used, it seems to me, to indicate that in comparison to his
Barrios, Segovia is only a grain of sand, to point out that a sand
castle is a silly metaphor to use in reference to anything of value or
permanence? I guess I may have to. Let me know if you want me to draw
you a picture. In the sand.
>If a composer's music is
>to be likened to sand which can be washed away by the sea, then what is
>the sea supposed to be? Public opinion? Well, Barrios's music is out
>there and people like it well enough.
Sure enough. A lot of people like to play it and a lot of people like
to listen to it. That does not make it "good" music. I may have
different yardsticks than you, and that's OK, I am sure you will
agree. My main yardstick is not concerned with the opinion of the
general public, (although had I a crystal ball by which to predict
this, I would have been a very rich man today!) but with the opinions
of my colleagues in music who do not play the guitar.
>Academic integrity? Very elusive
>criterion for judging "sand castles." Artistic integrity? Oh, please!
>That's the most elusive one of all.
I am not sure _who_ exactly you are arguing with here. I, for one,
would certainly agree with all the posits you formulated in the above
soliloquy.
>So what fatal quality of Barrios's
>music are you referring to?
Aha, now you are talking! First of all, there is nothing "fatal" in
_any_ music. The "fatal quality" is your expression, not mine.
However, pressing me to the corner as you do here, let me say this:
more than the music itself, I find the _hype_ which keeps surrounding
it for well over 25 years now a most distasteful expression of the
worst of ills which were so symptomatic of this miserable discipline:
the personality cult, the cloying sycophant adulation of the
primadonna du jour. There is certainly room for Barrios' type of
music. Great gig stuff. Works great in weddings and bar-mitsvahs. I
used to play it myself, years before it became so popular, in an
Italian restaurant in Chicago (1962). Wonderful stuff, particularly
when accompanied by the slurping of spaghetti. Having read _all_ of
Dick Stover's versions of this _one_ article which he has been
publishing about Barrios since the late 1970s (Guitar and Lute
magazine, Chelys, Soundboard, Classical Guitar, Guitar Review and I am
sure I must have missed a couple here and there... Oh yes, the
silvermoon beams thing...) I am simply not convinced that this is
music one should place side by side, quality wise, with _any_ of the
monuments of our vast literature. You may be able to program Barrios
and Dowland into the same evening, and good for you if you can sell
it. But don't expect me, though, to show up.
>>...Where are the
>>_real_ castles of the classical guitar? those made of stone on
>>concrete foundation safely anchored to solid rock? Let me know when
>>you find one.
>Do you mean that you can't see any "solid rock" in any of the classical
>guitar literature at all? There must be something there somewhere that
>qualifies as "solid rock."
Certainly. A lot of it, if I may be permitted to blow my own horn, is
carefully tabulated on line in the catalogue of my publishing house. I
would not have published it, if I did not think it was good stuff. In
the exchange of metaphors above, all I tried to indicate is that the
Barrios phenomenon has outlived its usefulness, to me at least, a long
time ago. By the same token, similar upsurges of popularity, do not
seem to last as long as they used to. Take Koyunbabble, for example.
There was a time you couldn't go to a guitar festival without hearing
it at least twice a day. Can you, by any stretch of the imagination,
compare this piece of cutesy trickery to, say, Britten's Nocturnal?
Aconquija
Greetings friends and fellows,
I've been silently reading the posts for the last few days and now I
feel compelled to respond . The seaside metaphor which i used last week
was drastically overanalyzed....all I was trying to say was that I
personally admired Barrios over Segovia, and I wanted to say it in an
interesting way. It kind of reminds of when I was in high school and
teachers always tried to get us to find the hidden meanings in great
pieces of literature....sometimes to the point of silliness, when a lot of
times it seemed as though they had missed the main point entirely. Well,
regardless, I was just trying to have fun with words. Though I think it
is kind of neat the way my metaphor can be seen metaphorically and that I
didnt even realize it when i wrote it.
But anyway, for the life of me I can't understand why everybody
admires modern
atonal music so much....such as twelve tone and all the rest. Lets face
it, to anybody but a musician this music is unapproachable. Play a ten
year old something like Britten's Nocturnal and he/she might run away
frightened, instead of being inspired to actually listen to classical
music or much less play an instrument . Perhaps this can account for the
decline in popularity of classical music(at least as far as I can see in
my area). Doesn't it seem like atonal music serves more of a theoretical
purpose than a musical purpose at times?
So with this in mind I ask how can Britten's Nocturnal be compared
fairly to Koyunbaba? Yes, Koyunbaba is performed because it sounds good
and people like it. Is that really such a bad thing?
just some thoughts,
John
Keith Erskine
Aconquija (acon...@aol.com) wrote:
: But anyway, for the life of me I can't understand why everybody
: admires modern
: atonal music so much....such as twelve tone and all the rest. Lets face
: it, to anybody but a musician this music is unapproachable.
False - I know several non musicians who listen to very atonal music.
: Play a ten
: year old something like Britten's Nocturnal and he/she might run away
: frightened, instead of being inspired to actually listen to classical
: music or much less play an instrument .
You make large assumptions about the tastes of ten year olds.
I bet many of them would rather hear Nocturnal (one of my favorite pieces)
than Beethoven's Pastorale symphony. A business mall owner has found the
Pastorale (and opera) particularly effective in driving away loitering
teenagers. Perhaps we can get him to A/B test Pastorale vs. Nocturnal. ;-)
I think today's youth prefer to hear something new and different, as
opposed to a highly structured, harmonically predictable classical era
symphony. I know I dislike several famous symphonies for this very reason.
: Perhaps this can account for the
: decline in popularity of classical music(at least as far as I can see in
: my area). Doesn't it seem like atonal music serves more of a theoretical
: purpose than a musical purpose at times?
It is silly to try to blame decline of popularity in classical music
to the atonality of 20th century music. Most casual listeners never
hear any atonal 20th century music.
: So with this in mind I ask how can Britten's Nocturnal be compared
: fairly to Koyunbaba? Yes, Koyunbaba is performed because it sounds good
: and people like it. Is that really such a bad thing?
Many people dislike both Nocturnal AND Koyunbaba, preferring amazingly
annoying music such as the Cranberries. Different strokes for different
folks.
Keith Erskine
Allan Jones
r...@vcn.bc.ca (Ron Ohara) wrote:
>
Did he not use just 1 steel string on the high
> e...or was it all steel strings?
>
I'm no authority on Barrios - whose music does nothing for me - but
I recall reading that he used a steel first string, but all the rest
were gut.
Allan Jones
Lutemann
**ATTENTION***GUITARISTS AND GUITAR TEACHERS***
"Swipsey", an exciting rag by Scott Joplin, is now ready for the solo
guitar!!. 98% of this arrangement lies within the the first five frets;
it can be played by a first year student, but sounds good enough to be
performed by the professional player.
Price: $3.00 + $.75 postage. Order two items and I'll pay the postage!
MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE!!!!!!!!!! SEND ORDERS TO:
Kent Murdick
302 Chatham St.
Mobile, AL 36604
If you are not completely satisfied any of my music, return it in its
original condition, and I will refund your money.
MORE MUSIC!!
"Bethena", the famous 3/4 time rag by Scott Joplin, is now is now
available for the solo guitar at the low price of $3.00 + $.75 postage.
All modulations are to guitar keys, making this the most playable
arrangement ever done. More than 90% of the piece is played within the
first five frets. The level of difficulty is about the same as the first
Sor Study (Segovia Edition).
"Five Rhythmic Preludes" : $6.50 + $.75 mailing. These simple, jazzy,
easy to play, Latin style pieces are appropriate for the first year
student. Teachers! give your beginning students something interesting to
play! All in the first position.
Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" (1st Movt.), $3.00 + $.75 mailing cost.
This easy to play, carefully fingered, guitaristic arrangement is the
best one ever done. It's level of difficulty is about the same as the Sor
E minor etude (#17 of the Segovia edition). A real show stopper!! It flows
just like the piano version.
FREE LESSON!!!
Want to arrange in the genuine BOSSA NOVA STYLE? Send a self-addressed,
stamped envelope to address listed below, and I'll send you a
comprehensive lesson, with musical examples, on how to arrange in this
exciting style.
Also available:
"Three Tangos For Solo Guitar" (level: easy-intermediate), $6.50 + $.75
postage.
Contents:
1) Aaron's Tune
2) Tangolita
3) Genevieve's Tango
These beautifully syncopated, original Latin pieces are sight-readable,
but sound good enough to play at a gig.
"Three Easy Rags For The Classical Guitar" (level: easy to intermediate),
$6.50 + $.75 mailing.
Contents:
1) Rebecca Jane Rag--Kent Murdick
2) Ollie Folly Cakewalk--Kent Murdick
3) Two In One--Weidt/Mudick
The level of difficulty of these rags is about the same as the first Sor
study (Segovia edition).
For a FREE sample of my music, check out the Spring issue of the
"Soundboard" or send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to:
Kent Murdick
302 Chatham St.
Mobile, AL 36604
SOON TO BE COMPLETED!!
"Mel Bay Presents: Easiest Classic Guitar Solos" by Kent Murdick (Mel Bay
Pub.)
This book is meant to be used guitar students in their first six months of
study. These simple pieces are not only entertaining, but they introduce
the
novice to advanced musical devices such as mixed meter, key changes,
secondary dominants, chromatic harmony, modern dissonance and blue notes.
"Green Samba with tremolo variation" (level: intermediate). Latin- jazz
version of Greensleeves. $3.00
"Four Latin American Pieces" (level: intermediate) $6.50
"Four More Latin American Pieces" (level: intermediate) $6.50
Marches, Tangos, Rags and Waltzes From The Golden Age Of the Classic
Guitar 1900-1920, Volume 1 (level: easy to intermediate) $6.50
"Marches, Tangos, etc., Vol. 2 $6.50
Thanks for listening to my blurb.
Kent
e-mail: lute...@aol.com
John Sloan
Aconquija wrote:
>
> Greetings friends and fellows,
> But anyway, for the life of me I can't understand why everybody
> admires modern
> atonal music so much....such as twelve tone and all the rest. Lets face
> it, to anybody but a musician this music is unapproachable. Play a ten
> year old something like Britten's Nocturnal and he/she might run away
> frightened, instead of being inspired to actually listen to classical
> music or much less play an instrument . Perhaps this can account for the
> decline in popularity of classical music(at least as far as I can see in
> my area). Doesn't it seem like atonal music serves more of a theoretical
> purpose than a musical purpose at times?
>
> just some thoughts,
> John
I agree that Britten's NOCTURNAL can sound atonal when you first hear it,
but that's as much a matter of ear training as subjective enjoyment. The
first time I ever heard the NOCTURNAL I couldn't make sense of it. The
same went for Abel Carlevaro's PRELUDIOS AMERICANOS. But, after
listening to that and similar music for a few years (part of getting my
music degree), I found that the music contained many harmonies I'd never
heard before. Now I can listen to either Britten or Carlevaro and find
plenty of good stuff there. In fact, I consider both to be beautiful
music. The NOCTURNAL is one of the greatest 20th century compositions
for guitar, in my opinion.
NOCTURNAL is definitely NOT an atonal nor twelve tone composition.
I do agree that purely atonal music is very hard to listen to, and some
of it very unpleasant. However, much of it is quite good, as are many
twelve tone pieces. Not all atonal pieces are twelve tone, just as not
all twelve tone pieces are atonal. If something doesn't sound good the
first time, it might be worth a second listen just to be sure.
JS
Keith Erskine
John Sloan (jsl...@agt.net) wrote:
: Aconquija wrote:
: >
: > Greetings friends and fellows,
: > But anyway, for the life of me I can't understand why everybody
: > admires modern
: > atonal music so much....such as twelve tone and all the rest. Lets face
: > it, to anybody but a musician this music is unapproachable. Play a ten
: > year old something like Britten's Nocturnal and he/she might run away
: > frightened, instead of being inspired to actually listen to classical
: > music or much less play an instrument . Perhaps this can account for the
: > decline in popularity of classical music(at least as far as I can see in
: > my area). Doesn't it seem like atonal music serves more of a theoretical
: > purpose than a musical purpose at times?
: >
: I agree that Britten's NOCTURNAL can sound atonal when you first hear it,
: but that's as much a matter of ear training as subjective enjoyment. The
: first time I ever heard the NOCTURNAL I couldn't make sense of it. The
: same went for Abel Carlevaro's PRELUDIOS AMERICANOS. But, after
: listening to that and similar music for a few years (part of getting my
: music degree), I found that the music contained many harmonies I'd never
: heard before.
Excellent point - music that best bears repeated listenings is often
too complex to be entirely absorbed, and thus fully appreciated, on
a first listening. Nocturnal is challenging in this respect because the
variations on the theme (from a John Dowland *RENAISSANCE* piece) are
most varied at the beginning, converging closely to the original,
very tonal Dowland melody in the end.
Keith Erskine
Tim
John Sloan <jsl...@agt.net> wrote:
>Aconquija wrote:
>>
>> Greetings friends and fellows,
>> But anyway, for the life of me I can't understand why everybody
>> admires modern
>> atonal music so much....such as twelve tone and all the rest.
I agree with John's polite answer. I remember my parents' reactions to
much of the rock music I was listening to in the 60's. To them, this was
the most discordant noise they could imagine. To my ear today, that stuff
sounds pretty tame. At times, I have a reaction similar to my parents to
some of the experimental punk music my sons find so inspiring. When I was
studying music at San Diego State, I listened to enough of the modern
repetoire that it eventually sounded pretty mainstream - not just
academically - but emotionally as well. Try listening to some of
Schoenberg's orchestral works during his 12- Tone period. This is truly
sublime stuff. Atonal is a state of mind - its reference point shifts all
the time.
Tim Stephanos step...@rosenet.net
Allan Jones
mop...@iwaynet.net (Matanya Ophee) wrote:
>
> Sure enough. A lot of people like to play it and a lot of people like
> to listen to it. That does not make it "good" music. I may have
> different yardsticks than you, and that's OK, I am sure you will
> agree. My main yardstick is not concerned with the opinion of the
> general public, (although had I a crystal ball by which to predict
> this, I would have been a very rich man today!) but with the opinions
> of my colleagues in music who do not play the guitar.
Mantanya: Like you I find Barrios worship tedious. Like you I find Barrios's
music tedious. Like you I try to occupy myself with 'good music'
(but everyone reading this would claim to do the same). But
what is good music? Answering that question brings the doctor
and the priest running across the fields in their long coats (to
mangle a line of poetry by Philip Larkin).
Good music? Here are a few implicit definitions that often
underlie what people say when thet discuss musical merit.
None should be dismissed immediately.
Good music is popular music (i.e. the fact that people want it
proves that it's doing its job). This is the market forces argument.
Andrew Lloyd-Webber is the greatest living composer.
Good music endures. That is, time acts like a filter. However,
the music of Glenn Miller endures, but wouldn't one claim there's
much better big band music of that era than his?
Good music embodies novel technical features that make it original.
So people like Elliott Carter are giants, though hardly anyone
understands their music. (Actually I think Carter is a giant, but
that's another discussion.)
Good music is what well educated, connoisseurs consider to
be good.
Well, that's enough listing. Those categories seem to cover most
of what I detect in other people's discussions. Your own comment
suggests that your criterion is the last in my list because
you say you are concerned '...with the opinions
of my colleagues in music who do not play the guitar'.
OK. I'm with you this far. Guitar enthusiasts are apt to overvalue
the instrument and its repertoire, and it's salutary to look at both
in a wider 'serious' musical context. In that context, the guitar
really is small beer.
However, appealing to other people to
adjudicate on what's good and bad doesn't solve the problem. We still
haven't come up with a decent criterion. All we've done is hand
the responsibility to others.
Sorry if this is a long winded way of reaching my last sentence.
Allan Jones
demed...@aerovax.com
usd5...@pop3.interramp.com
In Article<4usofa$l...@clyde.open.ac.uk>, <a.j...@open.ac.uk> write:
> Path: interramp.com!psinntp!psinntp!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!uknet!strath-cs!clyde.open.ac.uk!adminmbx
> From: Allan Jones <a.j...@open.ac.uk>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.classical.guitar
> Subject: Re: Barrios Tremolo pieces
> Date: 14 Aug 1996 14:39:38 GMT
> Organization: The Open University
> Lines: 12
> Message-ID: <4usofa$l...@clyde.open.ac.uk>
> References: <4ttmq1$f...@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4u3adj$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4u8sl3$o...@milo.vcn.bc.ca>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: ck34017j1x5.open.ac.uk
Not true!
Barrios never used steāl strings!
David Rastall
Allan Jones <a.j...@open.ac.uk> wrote:
>I try to occupy myself with 'good music'
>(but everyone reading this would claim to do the same). But
>what is good music?
>
>underlie what people say when thet discuss musical merit.
>None should be dismissed immediately.
I agree with what you're saying, Allan, but I think all the definitions
of
musical merit can ultimately be dismissed as not being universal enough
to embrace all music.
>
>Good music is popular music (i.e. the fact that people want it
>proves that it's doing its job). This is the market forces argument.
>Andrew Lloyd-Webber is the greatest living composer.
I know some people who would completely agree with that! But they might
really hate some other Broadway composer who might be equally popular.
>Good music endures. That is, time acts like a filter. However,
>the music of Glenn Miller endures, but wouldn't one claim there's
>much better big band music of that era than his?
Right. Plus, if longevity is a criterion for quality, then I guess the
more longevity, the better the music? That would make the troubadours
and trouvers greater composers than Bach; except, of course, in their
own time, when they were nothing because they hadn't yet stood the test
of time.
>
>Good music embodies novel technical features that make it original.
>So people like Elliott Carter are giants, though hardly anyone
>understands their music. (Actually I think Carter is a giant, but
>that's another discussion.)
Yes, that's one yardstick to measure quality, but there's also a lot of
total garbage out there that is elevated far above its stature by that
criterion.
>
>Good music is what well educated, connoisseurs consider to
>be good.
Ew, yees, well we all kneew about what good taste is dewn't we?? In the
real world, though, that means that to most other people "good music" is
BOR_ING!!! (not to mention arcane and elitist...definitely not criteria
for quality). Once again, the definition is not universal enough.
>Well, that's enough listing. Those categories seem to cover most
>of what I detect in other people's discussions.
Perhaps I could add one of my own here. Good Music is well-crafted
music: well-composed, well-arranged, well-performed, well-recorded etc.
Even for 19th-century Romantic music, I think that craftsmanship tells,
and I think it's possible that that's where the universal criteria lie.
Allan, It may sound as though I'm fighting with you, but I'm really not.
I'm agreeing with you completely, and just adding my own $.02 worth.
I'd be curious to hear other people's ideas on how to define that most
elusive of concepts: "good music."
Regards,
David Rastall
Root
David Rastall wrote:
> I'd be curious to hear other people's ideas on how to define that most
> elusive of concepts: "good music."
Well, to quote Peter Schickele quoting Duke Ellington,
"If it sounds good, it IS good"... :)
David Rastall
I guess that's a pretty universal definition!
DR
John Rethorst
> David Rastall wrote:
> > I'd be curious to hear other people's ideas on how to define that most
> > elusive of concepts: "good music."
>
> Well, to quote Peter Schickele quoting Duke Ellington,
>
> "If it sounds good, it IS good"... :)
Which is one way to look at it. The question of what counts as good is an
issue in aesthetic philosophy, and is as easily asked of literature and
painting. Not that I have any answers . . . ;-)
John
Ron Ohara
David Rastall (dras...@novagate.com) wrote:
: Allan Jones <a.j...@open.ac.uk> wrote:
: >I try to occupy myself with 'good music'
: >(but everyone reading this would claim to do the same). But
: >what is good music?
I think it depends on the definition of good. To one person a piece of
music may be good because he enjoys the melody. Another person might find
it good because he appreciates the underlying theory,etc.
Actually before defining good music it might be interesting to go back a
step and define what is music.
.........................................................................
. . .
. Ron O'Hara . ...and now for something completly different.
. r...@vcn.bc.ca . .
.........................................................................
Spencer Doidge
> I'd be curious to hear other people's ideas on how to define that most
> elusive of concepts: "good music."
At the risk of sounding facile, one might say that the goodness of music is in the ear of the
beholder. I've seen bumper stickers saying, "If it ain't country it ain't shit." Okay. Why is my
contrary opinion any more valuable than that person's? To him/her it ain't. Amen.
PBrown1923
BARRIOS is the greatest guitar composer\player ever end of story.....did
you know he was the first to record and he played with steel strings!
David N. Hudson
David Rastall wrote:
(snip)
>
> I'd be curious to hear other people's ideas on how to define that most
> elusive of concepts: "good music."
>
Good Guitar music:
1. An evocative melody (the notion of "melody" leaves out vitually
all atonal 'music,' which aesthically has a lot in common with "a
washtub full of cats thrown down the stairs" (P.J. O'Rourke). It
makes good "art" film background, though.)
2. Changes to the melody during the piece that "fits" and yet
surprises and delights.
3. Accompanyment in the bass/chordal structure that enrich the piece
beyond what the melody alone can provide.
4. Regular rythmic patterns that undergo some variation during the
piece and is a progression from the original pattern but also
surprises and delights.
5. Return to the original theme and rythms at the end.
TonyJ2765
Barrios was a composer extraordinaire! His compositions are timeless and
absolute beauty in structure and sound!
With regard to Andrew Lloyd Weber and any other "Pop" music, the
success/failure is entirely dependent on whether a FEW in the
cultural-elite think they can promote and commercialize and turn a buck!
As soon as ALW falls out of grace with these people (or falls yet another
victim to aids) his star will fall faster than the blink of an eye. It's
not that his stuff so superior, it is "waveriding" by investors and those
who dont want to be considered "un-hip"!
Lutemann
>I think it depends on the definition of good. To one person a piece of
>music may be good because he enjoys the melody. Another person might find
>it good because he appreciates the underlying theory,etc.
>
>Actually before defining good music it might be interesting to go back a
>step and define what is music.
>
>
>
There are different levels of art, not just good and bad. Stephen King is
a good writer but Fitzgerald is a lot better, and you could get almost
100% agreement with that statement. I write and arrange good music, but
it is recreational music, not Bach.
In other words, it's not a dichotomy.
Kent Murdick
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For Guitar and Lute Music...
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/guitar.html
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/lute.html
Now available: "Ragtime Dance" by Scott Joplin
Matanya Ophee
Allan Jones <a.j...@open.ac.uk> wrote:
>mop...@iwaynet.net (Matanya Ophee) wrote:
>>
>> My main yardstick is not concerned with the opinion of the
>> general public, (although had I a crystal ball by which to predict
>> this, I would have been a very rich man today!) but with the opinions
>> of my colleagues in music who do not play the guitar.
>Mantanya:
What can I say? it must be a nervous tick, inherent in the American
idiom. Never had to put up with it with my English, French, German,
Italian, Russian, Japanese, Polish, Norwegian, Danish friends and
enemies.
>However, appealing to other people to
>adjudicate on what's good and bad doesn't solve the problem. We still
>haven't come up with a decent criterion. All we've done is hand
>the responsibility to others.
No, I am not asking other people to adjudicate the problem. But as a
working musician who has many friends who are main stream, orchestral
musicians, I value _their_ opinion a lot more than I value the
ephemeral response of a non-critical public. You may not choose to
follow my example and that's OK. Yet, reading your lengthy post, one
ends up thinking that perhaps you too, agree there is no way to "come
up with a decent criterion" that will be acceptable to all. My main
argument, and I'll repeat once more: even the schlockiest piece of
crap can be made into good music, if given the proper _context_. As
the music of Augustin Barrios proves again and again, the reverse is
equally true.
Allan Jones
pbrow...@aol.com (PBrown1923) wrote:
>
> BARRIOS is the greatest guitar composer\player ever end of story..
Looks like a very short story to me.
Terry Wallace
Matanya Ophee wrote:
>
> Allan Jones <a.j...@open.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >mop...@iwaynet.net (Matanya Ophee) wrote:
>
> >>
> >> My main yardstick is not concerned with the opinion of the
> >> general public, (although had I a crystal ball by which to predict
> >> this, I would have been a very rich man today!) but with the opinions
> >> of my colleagues in music who do not play the guitar.
>
>
> What can I say? it must be a nervous tick, inherent in the American
> idiom. Never had to put up with it with my English, French, German,
> Italian, Russian, Japanese, Polish, Norwegian, Danish friends and
> enemies.
>
> >However, appealing to other people to
> >adjudicate on what's good and bad doesn't solve the problem. We still
> >haven't come up with a decent criterion. All we've done is hand
> >the responsibility to others.
>
> No, I am not asking other people to adjudicate the problem. But as a
> working musician who has many friends who are main stream, orchestral
> musicians, I value _their_ opinion a lot more than I value the
> ephemeral response of a non-critical public. You may not choose to
> follow my example and that's OK. Yet, reading your lengthy post, one
> ends up thinking that perhaps you too, agree there is no way to "come
> up with a decent criterion" that will be acceptable to all. My main
> argument, and I'll repeat once more: even the schlockiest piece of
> crap can be made into good music, if given the proper _context_. As
> the music of Augustin Barrios proves again and again, the reverse is
> equally true.
>
On Monday I attended a concert by Berta Rojas at the Organization of
American States in Washington DC. I had never heard of this artist and I
had no idea what the program was but since I try to attend as many live
performances as I can I went. It didn't hurt that it was free. Low and
behold it was a complete program of Barrios (the Paraguayan One).
Considering the bandwidth this artist has generated lately I had to
smile. Before Matanya replies with his usual barf the program was quite
understandable since Ms. Rojas just happens to be a Paraguayan
presenting the music of her countryman. Her playing was quite beautiful
and sensitive but the second half of the recital was unfortunately
marred by a muffed Cueca followed by a curiously indifferent Maxixe.
Now what has this to do with the present discussion? First, I think
there is nothing wrong with Barrios's music. If a person wants to
embrace his music so what? It seems to be quite well crafted and at
least on par with Llobet and Tarrega. There are sins worse than sitting
through an hour and a half of Barrios (how about an hour and a half of
Madonna for instance.) Second, this music requires flawless technique
and must be perfectly performed. It is so emotional that any mistake
breaks it's mood and an indifferent playing can never establish it.
Finally, I've decided I longer care about Mr Orphee's opinions.
Everything he writes seems to be poison in the form of an oblique,
personal attack. I seem to be perfectly capable of forming my own
opinions without any guidance from him.
BTW, if you are curious about my credentials I am a total amateur in
regards to the guitar without a modicum of skill. My instrument is a
$400 Seagull which seems perfectly suited to my skill level. I've never
had a guitar lesson but I learned to read music from piano lessons that
started at the age of eight. It's a good thing that I'm good with
computers since I play the piano as poorly as I play the guitar. None
the less, I love playing music on the guitar - particularly Villa-Lobos
and Bach. I'm simply merciful and don't play in the presence of others.
Terry Wallace
MARGORA
In a former article we saw...
---begin former article---
From: Terry Wallace <dsc...@imc220.med.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Barrios Tremolo pieces
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:30:43 -0500
Terry Wallace
---end former article---
and MAR...@ctrvx1.Vanderbilt.Edu (MARGORA) comments...
I am glad that Berta's concert went well. Aside from
being a fine player, she recently produced a guitar
festival in Ascuncion that attracted much attention.