accesible Bartok
Tom Farrell
be a universally admired composer so I would be eager to explore his
work.
I have the three piano concertos (Anda/Fricsay) and although I enjoy 3,
1 and 2 are a bit too much for me at present. That might give you some
idea of my dissonance threshold... (and no I don't want to argue about
that, I'm sure that my tastes will change with time but for the moment I
want the sort of thing I will enjoy now).
I have a fondness for budget reissues.
Tom
Tony Movshon
Tom Farrell <tfar...@iona.com> writes:
> I have the three piano concertos (Anda/Fricsay) and although I enjoy 3,
> 1 and 2 are a bit too much for me at present. That might give you some
> idea of my dissonance threshold... (and no I don't want to argue about
> that, I'm sure that my tastes will change with time but for the moment I
> want the sort of thing I will enjoy now).
> I have a fondness for budget reissues.
You would probably enjoy the Concerto for Orchestra (Reiner on RCA is a
good inexpensive choice, as is Skrowaczewski on Vox/Turnabout/Carlton if
you can find it); the Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste (ditto
on performers, or Marriner on Decca Classic Sound, or Bernstein on
CBS/Sony); and Bluebeard's Castle (the best ones here are full price; my
current favorite is Haitink on EMI).
--
Tony Movshon mov...@nyu.edu
Center for Neural Science New York University
William A. Dirks
wrote:
>Any suggestions for a curious listener as to where to start? He seems to
>be a universally admired composer so I would be eager to explore his
>work.
>I have the three piano concertos (Anda/Fricsay) and although I enjoy 3,
>1 and 2 are a bit too much for me at present. That might give you some
>idea of my dissonance threshold... (and no I don't want to argue about
>that, I'm sure that my tastes will change with time but for the moment I
>want the sort of thing I will enjoy now).
>I have a fondness for budget reissues.
>
>Tom
For accessibility, the Concerto for Orchestra is the most likely place
to start. The recently released Leinsdorf/BSO on the High Performance
series would be good; I favor that slightly for both performance and
recording over the often recommended Reiner. Among digital
recordings, I also have the Dutoit/Montreal, which I think is
excellent. Others can and will undoubtedly recommend many other
versions of the Concerto for Orchestra for you to consider.
Next would be the Divertimento, a smaller scale work, but also one
from late in his career, and highly enjoyable and accessible as well.
The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra does well with it on DG; so does Dorati
on Hungaroton; and Gatti on a new release with the C for O (though I
like his performance of that less than others, this is an excellent
coupling).
The violin concerto would challenge your dissonance threshold somewhat
more, but might be a good transition work to lead you from the above
toward the more "difficult" works.
--Bill Dirks
rneil...@my-deja.com
> I started out with the solo piano music; but another way
in is via the violin sonatas or the quartets -- the latter
with the Takacs, whose take is a little more lyrical than the more
modernist one taken by the Emerson. The quartets are the heart of
Bartok, so the sooner you get there the better. It's never
going to be Stravinsky, so don't get your hopes up! It's a
very different place, but inhabitable nevertheless.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
tlst...@tpgi.com.au
> Any suggestions for a curious listener as to where to start? He seems to
> be a universally admired composer so I would be eager to explore his
> work.
> I have the three piano concertos (Anda/Fricsay) and although I enjoy 3,
> 1 and 2 are a bit too much for me at present. That might give you some
> idea of my dissonance threshold... (and no I don't want to argue about
> that, I'm sure that my tastes will change with time but for the moment I
> want the sort of thing I will enjoy now).
> I have a fondness for budget reissues.
>
> Tom
Well, everyone seems to like the Comcerto for Orchestra and it's certainly
a very likable work. Colourful, too! The first violin concerto is always
very attractive and accessible too. You could try the Divertimento for
String Orchestra (IMP Classics PCD-1000) but in a sense that's begging the
question. Bartók IS a bit spiky, and fiddling around with early works,
written before he had developed his true individuality, is missing the
point. It's rather tempting to suggest that you jump in at the deep end,
say with the string quartets, and hang in there until you get to know his
particular language and colour.
A couple more discs that you could try at minimal cost are Naxos 8.550886
(Two rhapsodies and the piano quintet) and Naxos 8.550868 (Sonata for
violin alone, plus some wonderful violin duets).
--
Cheers!
Terry
Tom Babbin
among the most accessible works. Either the original piano pieces or the
orchestral transcriptions are worthwhile. I know and love the Orpheus
Chamber Orchestra version of the orchestral version.
-Tom B.
Tom Farrell <tfar...@iona.com> wrote in message
news:3784C5...@iona.com...
Bob Lombard
It's never
>going to be Stravinsky, so don't get your hopes up! It's a
>very different place, but inhabitable nevertheless.
>
Stravinsky's. Hang in there.
bl
rneil...@my-deja.com
probably be easier for this particular guy, who's a little
afraid of dissonance, to enjoy Stavinsky than Bartok, who
demands a little more from the listener, asks you to come a
little farther. The heart of the Bartok Quartets is very far
from the heart of Pulcinella. Love 'em both, but as a listener
starting out, it took me longer to get to the former.
William A. Dirks
>In article <3784C5...@iona.com>, tfar...@iona.com wrote:
>
>> Any suggestions for a curious listener as to where to start? He seems to
>> be a universally admired composer so I would be eager to explore his
>> work.
>> I have the three piano concertos (Anda/Fricsay) and although I enjoy 3,
>> 1 and 2 are a bit too much for me at present. That might give you some
>> idea of my dissonance threshold... (and no I don't want to argue about
>> that, I'm sure that my tastes will change with time but for the moment I
>> want the sort of thing I will enjoy now).
>> I have a fondness for budget reissues.
>>
>> Tom
>
>Well, everyone seems to like the Comcerto for Orchestra and it's certainly
>a very likable work. Colourful, too! The first violin concerto is always
>very attractive and accessible too. You could try the Divertimento for
>String Orchestra (IMP Classics PCD-1000) but in a sense that's begging the
>question. Bartók IS a bit spiky, and fiddling around with early works,
>written before he had developed his true individuality, is missing the
>point.
If you're referring to the C for O and the Divertimento, those are
late works; and its not really missing the point since the poster
already gave some suggestion of what he finds accessible.
--Bill Dirks
Andy Evans
Bartok's music is vastly superior to Stravinsky's. >>
enormous contribution to the history of music, right down to Renard and Les
Noces, and passing the obvious Rite and Petrushka on the way, would simply
say "bollocks".
Andy Evans, email: arts.ps...@cwcom.net
Our Website: www.artspsychology.mcmail.com
Pascal Jeanblanc
> While not the most typical Bartok, The Rumanian Folk Dances are certainly
> among the most accessible works. Either the original piano pieces or the
> orchestral transcriptions are worthwhile. I know and love the Orpheus
> Chamber Orchestra version of the orchestral version.
> -Tom B.
>
> Tom Farrell <tfar...@iona.com> wrote in message
> news:3784C5...@iona.com...
> > Any suggestions for a curious listener as to where to start? He seems to
> > be a universally admired composer so I would be eager to explore his
> > work.
Rumanian folk dances piano pieces are wonderful and I've always been
impressed by Zoltan Kocsis's former recording with Denon. And I must
also say that I discovered Bartok, and also classical music, with
Bartok's ballet, "The miraculous Mandarin", directed by Antal Dorati
with Detroit SO... I've been told that his former performer at
Minneapolis was more outstanding but I've never heard it. But this work
sounds always fascinating to me...
Pascal
JHenry1975
>Bartok's music is vastly superior to Stravinsky's.>>
>This is an old warhorse, but those who rightly appreciate Stravinsky's
>enormous contribution to the history of music, right down to Renard and Les
>Noces, and passing the obvious Rite and Petrushka on the way, would simply
>say "bollocks".
Not to mention those who like the Piano Concerto, Oedipus Rex, the Symphony of
Psalms, the Symphony in Three Movements, Agon, the Variations in memoriam
Aldous Huxley, and the Requiem Canticles!
Although, admittedly, I do like Bartok more overall.
Joseph Henry
Bob Lombard
>Bartok's music is vastly superior to Stravinsky's. >>
>This is an old warhorse, but those who rightly appreciate Stravinsky's
>enormous contribution to the history of music, right down to Renard and Les
>Noces, and passing the obvious Rite and Petrushka on the way, would simply
>say "bollocks".
"the history of music"? Ain't that a different subject? And considering what
Bartok did to bring Eastern European peasant/folk music to our attention, I
submit that the bollocks are in your court. (That's about as subtle as I can
get on this subject.)
bl
Larry Friedman
Gentlemen, gentlemen (and any ladies listening), please! I think Mr Evans missed
the point and is getting his bollocks into an uproar over an overreaction
(something about which I am an expert, after all). To say that Bartók was a
superior composer to Stravinsky is not to reduce the latter to insignificance.
Stravinsky was a major composer of the twentieth century - of that there can be
no doubt - and his contributions to the history of music are indeed enormous.
What is being said (I believe) is that Bartók was *even* better than Stravinsky.
It is possible that, in a couple of centuries, Stravinsky will be discussed more
in musical history books simply because of his contribution IN GENERAL, but
Bartók will be discussed as the finer composer who dug somewhat deeper than most
composers of his time. This does not specifically demean Stravinsky; it simply
elevates Bartók to the lofty place he deserves...something like comparing Wagner
and Brahms, but I am not going to state my opinions on that (I burn easily).
Best regards,
-Larry
Bob Lombard
not have avoided the fire, though. If that is the case, since your stated
opinion seems to match mine, I hope the heat will come on me. Bartok is one
of my Great 3 composers (sometimes that expands to 4 or 5).
Wagner was a self-publicizing, overrated bigot, whose music palls compared
to Brahms'. There, that should do it.
bl
Chuck Nessa
CN
Imindu13
>be a universally admired composer so I would be eager to explore his
>work.
>1 and 2 are a bit too much for me at present. That might give you some
>idea of my dissonance threshold... (and no I don't want to argue about
>that, I'm sure that my tastes will change with time but for the moment I
>want the sort of thing I will enjoy now).
>I have a fondness for budget reissues.
>
genuine Hungarian feel to the music.
Fred
>Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
Rodger Whitlock
>Well, everyone seems to like the Concerto for Orchestra...
I don't want to sound flippant, having just been thoroughly flamed for
flippancy over in sci.lang, but when I read your sentence quoted
above, I immediately thought of Miss Manners' remark "Everyone likes
scrambled eggs." I'm sure you didn't mean it, but your words could be
misinterpreted as damning with faint praise.
The Concerto for Orchestra is on a *much* higher plane than
"orchestral scrambled eggs." Perhaps we can rephrase along these lines
to get the point across to Tom Farrell, the original poster:
"Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra contains a entire musical universe,
devised by one of the great composers, and in it nearly everyone will
find things that appeal to them."
--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
William A. Dirks
<dis...@bluemoon.net> wrote:
>Bob Lombard wrote:
>
>> >Bartok's music is vastly superior to Stravinsky's. >>
>> >This is an old warhorse, but those who rightly appreciate Stravinsky's
>> >enormous contribution to the history of music, right down to Renard and Les
>> >Noces, and passing the obvious Rite and Petrushka on the way, would simply
>> >say "bollocks".
>>
>> "the history of music"? Ain't that a different subject? And considering what
>> Bartok did to bring Eastern European peasant/folk music to our attention, I
>> submit that the bollocks are in your court. (That's about as subtle as I can
>> get on this subject.)
>>
>> bl
>
>the point and is getting his bollocks into an uproar over an overreaction
>(something about which I am an expert, after all). To say that Bartók was a
>superior composer to Stravinsky is not to reduce the latter to insignificance.
>Stravinsky was a major composer of the twentieth century - of that there can be
>no doubt - and his contributions to the history of music are indeed enormous.
>What is being said (I believe) is that Bartók was *even* better than Stravinsky.
>It is possible that, in a couple of centuries, Stravinsky will be discussed more
>in musical history books simply because of his contribution IN GENERAL, but
>Bartók will be discussed as the finer composer who dug somewhat deeper than most
>composers of his time. This does not specifically demean Stravinsky; it simply
>elevates Bartók to the lofty place he deserves...something like comparing Wagner
>and Brahms, but I am not going to state my opinions on that (I burn easily).
All this depends on what criteria are being used. If simply liking
the music of one or the other is the only criteria, there is nothing
more to be said. But other criteria are possible too. As much as I
like Bartok, I simply don't think he compares to Stravinsky at all.
Where is there any single work of Bartok's which has had the lasting
effect of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring"? It has been said that in
that work Stravinsky "did away with the bar line once and for all" in
modern music. Bartok never wrote anything that produced such a broad
change or breakthrough; nor was he ever capable of the enormous
stylistic range, experimentation, and variety of Stravinsky--and the
fact that much of Stravinsky's music centers on the genre of ballet
doesn't alter the fact of that stylistic and expressive range, any
more than Scarlatti or Chopin writing primarily for solo keyboard
instruments alters theirs. I'm not sure what "dug somewhat deeper"
means with reference to Bartok, other than that the writer is moved by
what he hears; my opnion is that it was Stravinsky who dug deeper. I
still listen to a broad range of his works on a regular basis, whereas
only a few of Bartok's still hold that kind of appeal for me. What
does it mean to say that Stravinsky will be discussed more because of
his contribution "in general", while Bartok will be considered "finer"
(because of ...? ) ? I think it means that Stravinsky was more likely
*the* major composer of the 20th Century, not *a* major composer.
--Bill Dirks
Jens Arvidsson
>While not the most typical Bartok, The Rumanian Folk Dances are certainly
>among the most accessible works. Either the original piano pieces or the
>orchestral transcriptions are worthwhile. I know and love the Orpheus
>Chamber Orchestra version of the orchestral version.
Agreed to that.
Also try these:
Dance suite (try Solti's version from 1981, coupled with the C for O.)
Cantata Profana
Bluebeard
Miraculous Mandarin
Wooden Prince
Music for strings, percussions and celesta
--
Jens Arvidsson, hosarv...@algonet.se
Ernest Jones
with any of it! I started with Quartets 5 & 2.
Ernest Jones
Retired Music & Cruise Crazy Brit.
On Sunny Isles Beach
Life is an Opera
Matthew B. Tepper
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/index.htm
My main music page --- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/berlioz.htm
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
"Compassionate Conservatism?" * "Tight Slacks?" * "Jumbo Shrimp?"
Diane Wilson
> Bob Lombard wrote:
>
> >
> > "the history of music"? Ain't that a different subject? And considering what
> > Bartok did to bring Eastern European peasant/folk music to our attention, I
> > submit that the bollocks are in your court.
Which somewhat ignores the origins of much of Stravinsky's early ballets;
those pieces have a few roots in Russian folk music. What Bartok did
with peasant and folk music was unlike what anyone had ever done before
him, and without the work that he (and Kodaly) did, that herritage might
have been lost by now.
> Gentlemen, gentlemen (and any ladies listening), please! I think Mr Evans missed
> the point and is getting his bollocks into an uproar over an overreaction
> (something about which I am an expert, after all). To say that Bartók was a
> superior composer to Stravinsky is not to reduce the latter to insignificance.
> Stravinsky was a major composer of the twentieth century - of that there can be
> no doubt - and his contributions to the history of music are indeed enormous.
> What is being said (I believe) is that Bartók was *even* better than Stravinsky.
> It is possible that, in a couple of centuries, Stravinsky will be discussed more
> in musical history books simply because of his contribution IN GENERAL, but
> Bartók will be discussed as the finer composer who dug somewhat deeper than most
> composers of his time. This does not specifically demean Stravinsky; it simply
> elevates Bartók to the lofty place he deserves...something like comparing Wagner
> and Brahms, but I am not going to state my opinions on that (I burn easily).
Nor will I step into that fray. There is a case to be made for each
of Bartok, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, and perhaps others as "the"
composer of the century, but in the end such judgments are subjective,
and are so strongly biased by individual perceptions and values that
true ranking becomes impossible.
(Yes, Shostakovich, but not for innovation, a direction which simply
was not available to him. It has been said, for instance, that his
quartets did not extend the technical range of the genre, but that they
did extend the genre's emotional range. As a composer, he was a genius,
and he did not waste his talent. But, to reinforce me point, this
is getting rather subjective.......)
--
Diane Wilson (di...@firelily.com, anon-...@anon.twwells.com)
Web design: http://www.firelily.com/
Personal: http://www.firelily.com/goddess/
It is neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never
question anything. (Joseph Heller)
Marc Perman
>On Fri, 09 Jul 1999 21:38:38 -0400, Larry Friedman
><dis...@bluemoon.net> wrote:
>>Bob Lombard wrote:
>>
>>> >Bartok's music is vastly superior to Stravinsky's. >>
>>> >This is an old warhorse, but those who rightly appreciate Stravinsky's
>>> >enormous contribution to the history of music, right down to Renard and Les
>>> >Noces, and passing the obvious Rite and Petrushka on the way, would simply
>>> >say "bollocks".
>>>
>>> "the history of music"? Ain't that a different subject? And considering what
>>> Bartok did to bring Eastern European peasant/folk music to our attention, I
>>> submit that the bollocks are in your court. (That's about as subtle as I can
>>> get on this subject.)
>>>
>>> bl
>>
>>Gentlemen, gentlemen (and any ladies listening), please! I think Mr Evans missed
>>the point and is getting his bollocks into an uproar over an overreaction
>>(something about which I am an expert, after all). To say that Bartók was a
>>superior composer to Stravinsky is not to reduce the latter to insignificance.
>>Stravinsky was a major composer of the twentieth century - of that there can be
>>no doubt - and his contributions to the history of music are indeed enormous.
>>What is being said (I believe) is that Bartók was *even* better than Stravinsky.
>>It is possible that, in a couple of centuries, Stravinsky will be discussed more
>>in musical history books simply because of his contribution IN GENERAL, but
>>Bartók will be discussed as the finer composer who dug somewhat deeper than most
>>composers of his time. This does not specifically demean Stravinsky; it simply
>>elevates Bartók to the lofty place he deserves...something like comparing Wagner
>>and Brahms, but I am not going to state my opinions on that (I burn easily).
>
>
>All this depends on what criteria are being used. If simply liking
>the music of one or the other is the only criteria, there is nothing
>more to be said. But other criteria are possible too. As much as I
>like Bartok, I simply don't think he compares to Stravinsky at all.
>Where is there any single work of Bartok's which has had the lasting
>effect of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring"? It has been said that in
>that work Stravinsky "did away with the bar line once and for all" in
>modern music. Bartok never wrote anything that produced such a broad
>change or breakthrough; nor was he ever capable of the enormous
>stylistic range, experimentation, and variety of Stravinsky--and the
>fact that much of Stravinsky's music centers on the genre of ballet
>doesn't alter the fact of that stylistic and expressive range, any
>more than Scarlatti or Chopin writing primarily for solo keyboard
>instruments alters theirs. I'm not sure what "dug somewhat deeper"
>means with reference to Bartok, other than that the writer is moved by
>what he hears; my opnion is that it was Stravinsky who dug deeper. I
>still listen to a broad range of his works on a regular basis, whereas
>only a few of Bartok's still hold that kind of appeal for me. What
>does it mean to say that Stravinsky will be discussed more because of
>his contribution "in general", while Bartok will be considered "finer"
>(because of ...? ) ? I think it means that Stravinsky was more likely
>*the* major composer of the 20th Century, not *a* major composer.
But how do they both compare to the Beatles? :)
Marc Perman
Len Mullenger
Bartok was deeply influenced by the folk music of Hungary and used it as a
basis for many works. I reviewed an album that had on it some of his
original field recordings, performances by Muzsikas, and some of the
classicla pieces he wrote incorporating these. I fould it an informative and
delightful recording
http://www.musicweb.force9.co.uk/music/classrev/march99/bartok.htm
regards
Len
............................................................................
..............
Len Mullenger
Music on the Web (UK)
http://www.musicweb.force9.co.uk/music/music.htm
............................................................................
.............
--
............................................................................
..............
Len Mullenger
Music on the Web (UK)
http://www.musicweb.force9.co.uk/music/music.htm
............................................................................
.............
Tom Farrell wrote in message <3784C5...@iona.com>...
>Any suggestions for a curious listener as to where to start? He seems to
>be a universally admired composer so I would be eager to explore his
>work.
>I have the three piano concertos (Anda/Fricsay) and although I enjoy 3,
>1 and 2 are a bit too much for me at present. That might give you some
>idea of my dissonance threshold... (and no I don't want to argue about
>that, I'm sure that my tastes will change with time but for the moment I
>want the sort of thing I will enjoy now).
>I have a fondness for budget reissues.
>
>Tom
Owen Hartnett
> Any suggestions for a curious listener as to where to start? He seems to
> be a universally admired composer so I would be eager to explore his
> work.
> I have the three piano concertos (Anda/Fricsay) and although I enjoy 3,
> 1 and 2 are a bit too much for me at present. That might give you some
> idea of my dissonance threshold... (and no I don't want to argue about
> that, I'm sure that my tastes will change with time but for the moment I
> want the sort of thing I will enjoy now).
> I have a fondness for budget reissues.
>
> Tom
I had trouble getting into his music as well but what started me off was
his ballet "the Miraculous Mandarin." I heard a live performance of it
with the BSO with Ozawa conducting over the radio about a year ago and I
enjoyed it right from the start. Be forewarned that it is extremely
dissonant in areas, but the exciting rhythms made this piece completely
accesible to me. Even though it's not a budget CD, I would look for Ivan
Fischer's account on Phillips because not only is it a great recording,
but it also contains many dances written by Bartok which are completely
tonal.
-owen
William A. Dirks
wrote:
Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . As posters below note, its all highly
subjective. I was just ticked off by the subjective assumptions that
Bartok was "greater" or "the greatest", and thought I'd offer a
competing, equally subjective view as counterweight.
--Bill Dirks
Chloe Pajerek
> Where is there any single work of Bartok's which has had the lasting
> effect of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring"?
This is surely an unfair comparison. The "Rite of Spring" occupies a
unique place in music history, comparable to that occupied by, say,
Beethoven's 9th symphony in an earlier century. It is not only Bartok
who can't offer a single work that compares; I can't think of another
work by *Stravinsky* that had a similar impact. IOW, "Le Sacre"
is unique even among Stravinsky's own works.
> What
> does it mean to say that Stravinsky will be discussed more because of
> his contribution "in general", while Bartok will be considered "finer"
> (because of ...? ) ? I think it means that Stravinsky was more likely
> *the* major composer of the 20th Century, not *a* major composer.
>
> --Bill Dirks
From where we sit now, in 1999, I think it's fair to say that Stravinsky
will be the *consensus* choice as the century's greatest composer.
At the same time, however, we can cite other composers whose works
are equally indispensable, and Bartok is almost certainly one of them.
Compare, for example, the relative importance of Bartok's works for
the piano with those of Stravinsky, and most especially the works
for string quartet.
- Chloe
mt
<<From where we sit now, in 1999, I think it's fair to say that
Stravinsky will be the *consensus* choice as the century's greatest
composer.>>
Not among people I know (and, dare I say, among people in this group). I
think that Bartok is now more generally viewed as the greatest composer
of the century, though certainly Igor is among the best. I also think,
at the risk of incensing some, that Schoenberg cannot be included among,
say, the top five of the century. Too much competition has come to light
(thanks to recordings) in the last 20 or 30 years. Take Schulhoff, a
masterly composer who was totally unknown, or Roberto Gerhard, or
Martinu, and so on.
Regards,
mt
Bob Lombard
man's compositions of this century. I am very grateful for the enrichment.
That said, Shostakovich is the composer who's works place him on a plane
with the giants of the 19th and 18th centuries. Stravinsky is on a level
with Debussy and Ravel; a great composer.
bl
Marc Perman
I would take Shostakovich over all of the above, as much as I love
Bartok, Stravinsky, and Martinu.
Marc Perman
Raymond Hall
> In article <3786fb0d...@netnews.hinet.net>, dirk...@ms14.hinet.net writes:
>
> > Where is there any single work of Bartok's which has had the lasting
> > effect of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring"?
>
> This is surely an unfair comparison. The "Rite of Spring" occupies a
> unique place in music history, comparable to that occupied by, say,
> Beethoven's 9th symphony in an earlier century. It is not only Bartok
> who can't offer a single work that compares; I can't think of another
> work by *Stravinsky* that had a similar impact. IOW, "Le Sacre"
> is unique even among Stravinsky's own works.
>
> > What
> > does it mean to say that Stravinsky will be discussed more because of
> > his contribution "in general", while Bartok will be considered "finer"
> > (because of ...? ) ? I think it means that Stravinsky was more likely
> > *the* major composer of the 20th Century, not *a* major composer.
> >
> > --Bill Dirks
>
> From where we sit now, in 1999, I think it's fair to say that Stravinsky
> will be the *consensus* choice as the century's greatest composer.
> At the same time, however, we can cite other composers whose works
> are equally indispensable, and Bartok is almost certainly one of them.
> Compare, for example, the relative importance of Bartok's works for
> the piano with those of Stravinsky, and most especially the works
> for string quartet.
>
> - Chloe
Frankly, I find Bartok more difficult, but acknowledge his great importance. I'd
hate to be without both and declare an honorable tie for second place. Shostakovich
would be the greatest composer of this century for me.
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
William A. Dirks
wrote:
>In article <3786fb0d...@netnews.hinet.net>, dirk...@ms14.hinet.net writes:
>
>> Where is there any single work of Bartok's which has had the lasting
>> effect of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring"?
>
>This is surely an unfair comparison.
As I acknowledged in my reply to Marc Perman, much of this is
ultimately subjective, but having said that, let me continue:
I don't think it's unfair in any sense. You admit that the work is
uniquely influential and important in music history; why not just
leave it at that? At least Stravinsky wrote one such piece, Bartok
didn't. That Stravinsky could write such a piece, I think, is an
indication of an overpowering imaginative and musical genius,
unmatched in this century.
The "Rite of Spring" occupies a
>unique place in music history, comparable to that occupied by, say,
>Beethoven's 9th symphony in an earlier century. It is not only Bartok
>who can't offer a single work that compares; I can't think of another
>work by *Stravinsky* that had a similar impact. IOW, "Le Sacre"
>is unique even among Stravinsky's own works.
Yes, and because Bartok had no individual work of such stature, we
take each of his works on its own, without such a standard of
comparison; what is unfair is that so many of Stravinsky's own works
are judged by the greatness of another of his own works, and tend to
pale beside it, when in fact if judged on their own without reference
to the Rite, they'd likely be judged differently. And we often
expect, or wish, that his other works would be a replay of the Rite:
thus works such as his Orpheus, utterly unique in style, richly
expressive and beautiful, but with an entirely different atmosphere,
very difficult to bring off (only Stravinsky himself really does, I
think), remain little appreciated by even many devoted classical
listeners. Unfair to both Stravinsky and listeners, I think.
>> What
>> does it mean to say that Stravinsky will be discussed more because of
>> his contribution "in general", while Bartok will be considered "finer"
>> (because of ...? ) ? I think it means that Stravinsky was more likely
>> *the* major composer of the 20th Century, not *a* major composer.
>>
>> --Bill Dirks
>
>From where we sit now, in 1999, I think it's fair to say that Stravinsky
>will be the *consensus* choice as the century's greatest composer.
>At the same time, however, we can cite other composers whose works
>are equally indispensable, and Bartok is almost certainly one of them.
>Compare, for example, the relative importance of Bartok's works for
>the piano with those of Stravinsky, and most especially the works
>for string quartet.
I certainly have no argument with Bartok's "indispensability", or the
importance and greatness of many of his works. This thread and others
have prompted me to return to some of those works that I haven't
listened to in some time.
--Bill Dirks
tlst...@tpgi.com.au
> Chloe:
>
> <<From where we sit now, in 1999, I think it's fair to say that
> Stravinsky will be the *consensus* choice as the century's greatest
> composer.>>
>
> Not among people I know (and, dare I say, among people in this group). I
> think that Bartok is now more generally viewed as the greatest composer
> of the century, though certainly Igor is among the best. I also think,
> at the risk of incensing some, that Schoenberg cannot be included among,
> say, the top five of the century. Too much competition has come to light
> (thanks to recordings) in the last 20 or 30 years. Take Schulhoff, a
> masterly composer who was totally unknown, or Roberto Gerhard, or
> Martinu, and so on.
For me, and taking into account the sheer range of his output, Benjamin
Britten is a shoe-in. No question!
--
Cheers!
Terry
Chloe Pajerek
Sez you.
The composer of "Le Sacre du Printemps" and "Agon" (among others too
numerous to list here) is IMO in a league of his own.
I think your estimation of Shostakovich is about right.
- Chloe
Diane Wilson
qpc...@frontiernet.net says...
> In article <93183571...@news.remarQ.com>, @vermontel.net writes:
>
> > That said, Shostakovich is the composer who's works place him on a plane
> > with the giants of the 19th and 18th centuries.
>
In some works, especially middle-period, sometimes. In early works,
he was an iconoclast and a modernist; in later years, he returned
to a very individual style, and there's little I can think of from
the 18th or 19th century that compares with the last ten years
of Shostakovich's life. He was well-trained in theory and
technique, but not bound by it.
It's worth remembering that Russian culture in general, and Soviet
culture in particular, has tended to look to the past; modernism in
music simply wasn't tolerated for most of the time period of
Shostakovich's career. 12-tone music was banned until 1971,
but Shostakovich wrote a fugue (Op. 87, no. 15, D-flat major)
based on an 11-note tone row--very typical of his humor.
No matter when they lived, the giants of music have redefined
the world around them. Shostakovich achieved that, though in
different terms from Stravinsy and Bartok, or from Bach or
Mozart.