WHO IS THE MOST PRETENTIOUS COMPOSER?
Philip Crouch
used to this computer.
Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of music,
judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content. My nominations
are:- (1) "Titan" - Mahler. (2) "Symphony of a Thousand" - Mahler. (3)
"Resurrection" - Mahler.
Are there any other nominations or is it to be a clean sweep for the plucky
Austrian lad?
(Okay, nomination 3 may be a bit unfair but you get the drift. I used to
keep quiet about Mahler until I discovered that some professional musicians
feel the same. I sell music for a living and in my neck of the woods the
Mahler bubble has well and truly burst. "You can`t get arrested with him",
as the saying goes.)
Anyone wishing to insult me, please do so elegantly and amusingly - I`ve
been insulted by professionals.
Yours cheerfully,
Phil the Sclez
Opus47
I would say not in any particular order:
Mahler 3rd - Not an intentionally inflated work. Actually very rich and
inspired.
(the longest most popular symphony in the regular repetory)
Shostakovich 7th - A large first movement of theme and variations with three
other movements attached. Shostakovich is much better than this, but nothing
in his 15 symphonies is so long. Generally overinflated. Like a large
Chinese dinner you eat until you are full, but are hungry an hour later.
Bruckner 9th - Time lapse humanity - 1. Creation of the World, 2. The Reign
of Man and Civilization, 3. The World after the Decline of Civilization.
My 2 cents
Fred
MT
department and wrote some very nice songs. His orchestral music is
bloated and padded, sometimes pompous (not as pompous as his declaration
that the symphony should be everything, etc.), with good bits few and
far between lengthy doses of pablum.
He lacked the ability to condense - which is why I absolutely cannot
consider him a contender for a great composer. I think orchestras like
to play his music at least in part because everybody gets to play and
make a raucus. No subtlety there. Igor once answered a question on
Mahler by saying that he didn't think anyone with an interest in Mahler
could have an interest in his (Igor's) music. This makes sense.
But is Mahler the most pretentious, or even pretentious at all? His
ambition was clearly incommensurate with his achievement, and possibly
with his ability as a composer. But, while mediocre, his music is not
actively bad, and I don't find it unlistenable.
I thing this distinction belongs to Wagner, hands down.
Regards,
MT
Adrian Hunter
|Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still getting
|used to this computer.
|Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of music,
|judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content. My nominations
|are:- (1) "Titan" - Mahler. (2) "Symphony of a Thousand" - Mahler. (3)
|"Resurrection" - Mahler.
(1)Mahler dropped this title after the second (?) edition. He also dropped
subtitles for the individual movements (and the same goes for the 3rd).
(2)Not Mahler's title: he didn't much like it either.
(3)Perfectly appropriate given the nature of the text, and Mahler makes
the music live up to it.
So, Mahler never used a pretentious title, in the final call, and I doubt
that he was a pretentious composer either.
But what about Strauss?
To write music with *yourself* as the hero: now THAT'S pretentious.
Adrian
David Bluestone
Philip...@btinternet.com (Philip Crouch) wrote:
> Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still
> getting used to this computer.
> Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of
> music, judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content.
I nominate Berlioz's "Fantastic Symphony": he ought to have been more
modest and called it the "Quite Good Symphony".
David
BANilsson
by a few orchestral flourishes.
Try Michael Balfe. His setting of "Excelsior" is a masterpiece of
pretentiousness. Or Henry Russell, whose "The Maniac" is nothing if not wholly
overblown. True pretentiousness results in obscurity.
Mike Painter
I don't think "fantastique" translates as "fantastic" in the sense of
"great" or "excellent." It means "having to do with a fantasy," which the
piece certainly is.
Mike
To respond via e-mail, remove * from address.
Doug McDonald
>
> Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still getting
> used to this computer.
> Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of music,
> are:- (1) "Titan" - Mahler. (2) "Symphony of a Thousand" - Mahler. (3)
> "Resurrection" - Mahler.
Oh come now.
Take Richard Strauss: "Ein Heldenleben", supposedly describing
the life of a "hero", which, of course, the quotes from his
previous works imply clearly is Strauss himself!
Or take a symphony by Scriabin ... How about "Symphony of Ecstacy"
for a title or just read some of the "programs".
Doug McDonald
Jeff Harrington
: Oh come now.
Plus, Scriabin was convinced that at the premiere of his last symphony,
which, lucky for us, he never completed, the world was going to end. He
apparently believed that he was the Messiah...
Ives' Universe Symphony is equally pretentious, in ambition. Always
seemed to me that music could be a meta-context for *anything*. Why
narrow that anything to anything? Even if that anything is *everything*!
Jeff Harrington [--->>[[ New Zion Pastorale for Orchestra MPEG ]]<<-----]
je...@parnasse.com [----->>[[ http://www.parnasse.com/zion.mp2 ]]<<--------]
http://www.parnasse.com/jeff.htm --------->>[[ My Music ]]<<--------------]
http://www.parnasse.com/vrml.shtml ------->>[[ My Worlds ]]<<-------------]
g brown
>
> Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still getting
> used to this computer.
> Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of music,
> judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content. My nominations
> are:- (1) "Titan" - Mahler. (2) "Symphony of a Thousand" - Mahler. (3)
> "Resurrection" - Mahler.
> Austrian lad?
> (Okay, nomination 3 may be a bit unfair but you get the drift. I used to
> keep quiet about Mahler until I discovered that some professional musicians
> feel the same. I sell music for a living and in my neck of the woods the
> Mahler bubble has well and truly burst. "You can`t get arrested with him",
> as the saying goes.)
> Anyone wishing to insult me, please do so elegantly and amusingly - I`ve
> been insulted by professionals.
> Yours cheerfully,
> Phil the Sclez
A well-stated post.Yes,Mahler is an abomination...but for the mother of
all overblown pieces of crap you have to go all the way back to the
"Choral" symphony of Beethoven.Everytime I am forced to sit through it I
promptly go and listen to Haydn symphonies to clean out my senses.
..and to think some nervy types actually have the temerity to criticize
Berlioz in this thread! cheers,gb
Mr. Mike
dtritter
>Yes,Mahler is an abomination...but for the mother of
> all overblown pieces of crap you have to go all the way back to the
> "Choral" symphony of Beethoven.Everytime I am forced to sit through it I> promptly go and listen to Haydn symphonies to clean out my senses.
> ..and to think some nervy types actually have the temerity to criticize> Berlioz in this thread! cheers,gb
well, so much for some 4 centuries of western civilization. this jurista
di tutti juristi will not doubt, as in his hysterical past, ascribe
those ninnies who enjoy mahler and beethoven, as well as haydn, as
knee-jerk liberals. it wouldn't be the first time. some of those nervy
types who recall and loathed joe mccarthy and j edgar cross-dresser
used to read the constitution to clean out their senses and recall the
freedom of expression bequeathed to us.
dft
Mr. Mike
<xsibelius**@dropdead.spammer-pig..erolls.com> wrote:
>A well-stated post.Yes,Mahler is an abomination...but for the mother of
>all overblown pieces of crap you have to go all the way back to the
>"Choral" symphony of Beethoven.
I remember once hearing this thing live, and though I wouldn't describe it as an
abomination, I kept saying to myself, "Geez, this is REALLY weird!!" ";-/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mike's True Crime Books For Sale -- http://www.truecrime.net/books
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Visit the Jack Olsen Home Page -- http://www.truecrime.net/jackolsen
g brown
>
> g brown wrote:
> >Yes,Mahler is an abomination...but for the mother of
> > all overblown pieces of crap you have to go all the way back to the
> > ..and to think some nervy types actually have the temerity to criticize> Berlioz in this thread! cheers,gb
>
> well, so much for some 4 centuries of western civilization. this jurista
> di tutti juristi will not doubt, as in his hysterical past, ascribe
> those ninnies who enjoy mahler and beethoven, as well as haydn, as
> knee-jerk liberals. it wouldn't be the first time. some of those nervy
> types who recall and loathed joe mccarthy and j edgar cross-dresser
> used to read the constitution to clean out their senses and recall the
> freedom of expression bequeathed to us.
>
> dft
Calm down,trit...I know your moral leader is in deep doo-doo at the
White House,but that's no reason to lose it yourself.Mebbe you should
just stay over in the opera group.Buy some Crisco oil and fit right
in....Cheers,gb
Alain DAGHER
: Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still getting
: used to this computer.
: Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of music,
: judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content. My nominations
: are:- (1) "Titan" - Mahler. (2) "Symphony of a Thousand" - Mahler. (3)
: "Resurrection" - Mahler.
: Are there any other nominations or is it to be a clean sweep for the plucky
: Austrian lad?
WHO IS THE BIGGEST PHILISTINE IN THIS THREAD? The winner gets the Newt
Gingrich Memorial prize.
Well, there's Mr Crouch for not knowing that "Titan" refers to a poem,
and that, anyway, the title was discarded by Mahler, or that "symphony
of a thousand" was not Mahler's title for the piece.
There's Mario, but he is excused because he has recommended so many
good things in the past and anyway his punishment will be to sit
through many performances of the symphony for wind instruments or the
symphony in three movements.
There's g.brown - but then there is always g.brown.
There's David Bluestone and Raymond Hall for not knowing the meaning
of the French word "fantastique". (Or indeed of the English word
"fantastic".)
There's Raymond Hall again for dismissing the Ring Cycle without ever
having seen it.
--
regards,
alain
BANilsson
>White House,but that's no reason to lose it yourself.Mebbe you should
>just stay over in the opera group.Buy some Crisco oil and fit right
>in
Careful, g, you're tipping your hand here. Your spiritual leader, an outsized
radio commentator, uses a similar tactic of spinning from
opinion-disguised-as-fact to ad hominem attacks when challenged.
You knew that you'd stir up folks by attacking Beethoven's Ninth Symphony; a
little decorum is in order when dealing with the replies.
g brown
Do you really classify personal attacks like "dtritter's"(that go on to
spout off-topic political rants) as legitimate replies?Fortunately the
repellent "trit' has now taken to attacking me via e-mail so perhaps the
rest of you will be spared his venom. gb
ps-perhaps I was a little hard on LvB...but the attacks on Berlioz were
more than any reasonable man should be expected to withstand.
pps to "the Canadian"(you are not worth a separate post):Do you really
think that by linking my name with that of Speaker Gingrich I will be
insulted?You must be getting your American news from the likes of your
Peter Jennings.
Wayne Reimer
> : for a title or just read some of the "programs".
>
> Plus, Scriabin was convinced that at the premiere of his last symphony,
> which, lucky for us, he never completed, the world was going to end. He
> apparently believed that he was the Messiah...
>
> Ives' Universe Symphony is equally pretentious, in ambition. Always
> seemed to me that music could be a meta-context for *anything*. Why
> narrow that anything to anything? Even if that anything is *everything*!
>
Scriabin was too crazy to be pretentious. Ditto Wagner.
Wayne
Dianne van Dulken
wrote:
Or, indeed, there is you, for condemning five different people for
VERY minor misdemeanors, which is a far greater sin than any of those
quoted above.
Cheers
Di
Dianne van Dulken
http://www.geocities.com/soho/studios/2497
My cool quote of the month:
"It is a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them."
Usual girly "Oooh Aaah you are so clever" noises apply to the first one to email me with the source
SForeman
Heldenleben has to be the most pretentious TITLE for a piece, given that
he was referring to himself.
Wagner jumped to my mind, too, after I read the topic; "most
pretentious composer" would put him in the top 5, IMHO, but I couldn't
think of any Wagner compositions (off the top of my head) that are
titled pompously. (at least if the ones that are, like Gotterdaemmerung,
are appropriately titled for their subject matter)
Mike
Being new to newsgroups I am not sure how to quote someone else from the
newsgroup, but in support of the comments, indicated below, I believe it was
Mark Twain who said "Wagner's music is better than it sounds."
Mike Garcia
>As for Wagner, you are correct in that I never attended or seen live a Ring
>Cycle - but on the evidence of the extreme snooze content that prevails upon
>me on HEARING some of it, I will spare myself the expense of any tickets to
>Bayreuth! More time to listen to all of Stravinsky's works.
>As for poor old Mario having to sit through multiple hearings of
>Stravinsky's "Symphony forWind Instruments" and his "Symphony in Three
>Movements" - can I, can I, please, please, take his punishment for him ;-)
>
>Regards,
>
>| Ray Hall: < hallr...@bigpond.com >
>| Only my dogs really know the high notes - and they
>| remain peacefully a'snoozin .......... /(-^-)\
>| ~*~
>
>
>
>
>
>
Raymond Hall
>In article <6t328r$mfc$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
>Philip...@btinternet.com (Philip Crouch) wrote:
>
>> Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still
>> getting used to this computer.
>> Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of
>> music, judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content.
>
>modest and called it the "Quite Good Symphony".
>
I wouldn't agree with your assessment of Berlioz's "Fantastique", except
that what a yawn is that 3rd movement, real snooze stuff that. Someone
should cut some chunks out of that. I nominate Richard Stauss's "Domestica"
Symphony, saved only by the master's genius, (I actually love the work).
But my final vote goes to Wagner and the whole bloody "Ring" cycle. And
speaking of blut, I'll stick with excerpts of his "bleeding chunks" thanks
very much.
Now who can tell me of humorous take-offs of the "Ring", that I can buy, in
order that I be spared the whole silly story anyway? Not that I intend ever
to get a Ring cycle - why waste time when there is Tubin, Holmboe, Simpson,
Boulez, etc., to get stuck into. Just leave me with the Rhine Maidens, and I
will happily forget the rest of Wagner's "inspiration" !!!
Already running .... well who cares, the whole point is the "Ring" IMHO is
the most pretentious crap I have heard yet.
Raymond Hall
>Philip Crouch (Philip...@btinternet.com) wrote:
>: Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still
getting
>: used to this computer.
>: Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of music,
nominations
>: are:- (1) "Titan" - Mahler. (2) "Symphony of a Thousand" - Mahler. (3)
>: "Resurrection" - Mahler.
>: Are there any other nominations or is it to be a clean sweep for the
plucky
>: Austrian lad?
>
>WHO IS THE BIGGEST PHILISTINE IN THIS THREAD? The winner gets the Newt
>Gingrich Memorial prize.
>
>Well, there's Mr Crouch for not knowing that "Titan" refers to a poem,
>and that, anyway, the title was discarded by Mahler, or that "symphony
>of a thousand" was not Mahler's title for the piece.
>
>There's Mario, but he is excused because he has recommended so many
>good things in the past and anyway his punishment will be to sit
>through many performances of the symphony for wind instruments or the
>symphony in three movements.
>
>There's g.brown - but then there is always g.brown.
>
>There's David Bluestone and Raymond Hall for not knowing the meaning
>of the French word "fantastique". (Or indeed of the English word
>"fantastic".)
>
>There's Raymond Hall again for dismissing the Ring Cycle without ever
>having seen it.
>
>
>alain
Anyway Alain, fair go, rap taken fairly on the knuckles. But I never
dismissed the symphony "Fantastique" at all. I might remind you that it was
left to other nationalities to persuade the French of a great composer in
their midst. As for being prententious, well you would have been better
advised to chastise me on not knowing the meaning of THAT word, in regard to
Berlioz. Perhaps you may like to look up a dictionary for the meaning of
'philistine' as well. The very fact that all those chastised are members of
a classical news group, would hardly qualify us for any title relating to
being philistine.
As for Wagner, you are correct in that I never attended or seen live a Ring
Cycle - but on the evidence of the extreme snooze content that prevails upon
me on HEARING some of it, I will spare myself the expense of any tickets to
Bayreuth! More time to listen to all of Stravinsky's works.
As for poor old Mario having to sit through multiple hearings of
Stravinsky's "Symphony forWind Instruments" and his "Symphony in Three
Movements" - can I, can I, please, please, take his punishment for him ;-)
Regards,
| Ray Hall: < hallr...@bigpond.com >
BANilsson
>more than any reasonable man should be expected to withstand.
Can't disagree there!
Marksten
Danse macabre: "If you've written something better, you may criticize
Saint-Saens." (paraphrased).
Mark Stenroos
Steve Forrest
I thought of Beethoven too, but since he actually was a supreme master,
his claims to greatness were not total pretence.
In article <35F570...@erols.com>,
g brown <xsibelius**@dropdead.spammer-pig..erolls.com> wrote:
[snipped] ....but for the mother of
>all overblown pieces of crap you have to go all the way back to the
>"Choral" symphony of Beethoven.
I wouldn't call it crap (I love the scherzo), but this is the one
LvB symphony I just don't get. I keep thinking there's something
there that I'm missing, just because it's a Beethoven work.
But maybe LvB should've just written Brahms' 1st instead.
-Steve
piper
<Philip...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still getting
>used to this computer.
>Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of music,
>judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content. My nominations
>are:- (1) "Titan" - Mahler.
Which symphony has that subtitle (the Third?), and who is responsible
for it?
> (2) "Symphony of a Thousand" - Mahler.
Descriptive. Written for very large orchestra and chorus.
> (3)
>"Resurrection" - Mahler.
In what way is a symphony about the Resurrection pretentious?
>Are there any other nominations or is it to be a clean sweep for the plucky
>Austrian lad?
[snip]
Neilsen: "Inextinguishable", though I understand that it refers to (I
think it was) the human spirit, not the undying quality of the work.
(I think the work is kind of OK, but when I performed it, we
orchestral musicians joked incessantly about the "Undistinguishable"
:-)
Michael
piper
Bluestone") wrote:
>In article <6t328r$mfc$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
>Philip...@btinternet.com (Philip Crouch) wrote:
>
>> Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still
>> getting used to this computer.
>> Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of
>> music, judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content.
>
>I nominate Berlioz's "Fantastic Symphony": he ought to have been more
>modest and called it the "Quite Good Symphony".
>
>David
Is that a joke? If so, it's rather funny. "Symphonie fantastique"
doesn't mean "Fantastic (= great) Symphony"; instead, it means
"Fantastic (=having to do with fantasy and phantoms) Symphony".
Besides, we disagree on the quality of the symphony. I think it's
fantastic in every sense of the word.
Michael
piper
<mcdo...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>Or take a symphony by Scriabin ... How about "Symphony of Ecstacy"
>for a title or just read some of the "programs".
>
>Doug McDonald
Please elaborate, Doug. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the
programs to Scriabin's tone poems, but I sure love them!
Michael
David M. Cook
<Philip...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of music,
>judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content. My nominations
>are:- (1) "Titan" - Mahler.
I think you've mistaken effusiveness for pretentiousness. There is no
pretense in Mahler's music IMO.
My choices would be Lou Harrison (more for his choice of texts than
necessarily for his music), Steve Reich, and Philip Glass (though more for
his unearned reputation than for his sometimes pleasant music).
Dave Cook
HOWARD HELLER
Pi> @FROM :pi...@interport.net
Pi> N @SUBJECT:Re: WHO IS THE MOST PRETENTIOUS COMPOSER?
Pi> N @UMSGID :<35f5f62d...@news.interport.net>
Pi> N @UNEWSGR:01rec.music.classical
Pi> N On Tue, 08 Sep 1998 11:32:27 -0500, Doug McDonald
Pi> <mcdo...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> ...Or take a symphony by Scriabin ... How about "Symphony of Ecstacy"
> for a title or just read some of the "programs".
> Doug McDonald
Pi> Please elaborate, Doug. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the
Pi> programs to Scriabin's tone poems, but I sure love them!
Pi> Michael
Scriabin was under the impression that he had been commissioned by God to
compose the background music for the end of the world. Taking this with
the utmost seriousness, he accepted the job and began to write the score.
One segment of this vast undertaking was the "Poem of Ecstasy". In the end
Scriabin died without completeing the job...which may explain why we're all
still here.
Regards,
Howard Heller
***************************************************
* Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations *
***************************************************
.. In the beginning, God didn't have any registered users.
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
David M. Cook
>g brown wrote:
>> all overblown pieces of crap you have to go all the way back to the
>>"Choral" symphony of Beethoven. Everytime I am forced to sit through it I
>>promptly go and listen to Haydn symphonies to clean out my senses ... and
>>to think some nervy types actually have the temerity to criticize Berlioz
>>in this thread! cheers,gb
>well, so much for some 4 centuries of western civilization.
Civilization can survive a little criticism.
The 9th can be a stifling bore, IMO. I'm glad someone had the courage to
say so.
Dave Cook
David Bluestone
Hall) wrote:
> "David Bluestone" wrote in message ...
> >In article <6t328r$mfc$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> >Philip...@btinternet.com (Philip Crouch) wrote:
> >
> >> Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still
> >> getting used to this computer.
> >> Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of
> >> music, judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content.
> >
> >I nominate Berlioz's "Fantastic Symphony": he ought to have been more
> >modest and called it the "Quite Good Symphony".
> >
> >David
>
> I wouldn't agree with your assessment of Berlioz's "Fantastique", except
> that what a yawn is that 3rd movement, real snooze stuff that.
I don't know if you're saying it's better or worse than "Quite Good".
> should cut some chunks out of that. I nominate Richard Stauss's
> "Domestica"
> Symphony, saved only by the master's genius, (I actually love the work).
Yes, Strauss did have that attribute to fall back on.
> But my final vote goes to Wagner and the whole bloody "Ring" cycle. And
> speaking of blut, I'll stick with excerpts of his "bleeding chunks"
> thanks very much.
I like the Overture to "Mastersingers" because you get all the good tunes
in it, so there's no need to sit through another six hours of the ruddy
opera.
> Now who can tell me of humorous take-offs of the "Ring", that I can
> buy, in
> order that I be spared the whole silly story anyway? Not that I intend
> ever
> to get a Ring cycle - why waste time when there is Tubin, Holmboe,
> Simpson,
> Boulez, etc., to get stuck into. Just leave me with the Rhine Maidens,
> and I
> will happily forget the rest of Wagner's "inspiration" !!!
>
> Already running .... well who cares, the whole point is the "Ring" IMHO
> is the most pretentious crap I have heard yet.
It wouldn't be quite so bad if Wagner wasn't a Nazi.
David
David Bluestone
mjp*@sirius.com (Mike Painter) wrote:
> In article <EyywA...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
> sapp...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> ("David Bluestone") wrote:
>
> > In article <6t328r$mfc$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> > Philip...@btinternet.com (Philip Crouch) wrote:
> >
> > > Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m
> > > still getting used to this computer.
> > > Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of
> > > music, judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content.
> >
> > I nominate Berlioz's "Fantastic Symphony": he ought to have been more
> > modest and called it the "Quite Good Symphony".
> I don't think "fantastique" translates as "fantastic" in the sense of
> "great" or "excellent." It means "having to do with a fantasy," which
> the piece certainly is.
You are quite correct.
David
David Bluestone
(piper) wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:32:42 GMT, sapp...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("David
> Bluestone") wrote:
>
> >In article <6t328r$mfc$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> >Philip...@btinternet.com (Philip Crouch) wrote:
> >
> >> Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still
> >> getting used to this computer.
> >> Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of
> >> music, judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content.
> >
> >I nominate Berlioz's "Fantastic Symphony": he ought to have been more
> >modest and called it the "Quite Good Symphony".
> >
> >David
>
> Is that a joke?
Yes.
> If so, it's rather funny.
Thanks!
> "Symphonie fantastique"
> doesn't mean "Fantastic (= great) Symphony"; instead, it means
> "Fantastic (=having to do with fantasy and phantoms) Symphony".
This is indeed what M. Berlioz intended.
>
> Besides, we disagree on the quality of the symphony. I think it's
> fantastic in every sense of the word.
I think it's pretty good; but someone has pointed out that the third
movement does drag somewhat.
David
David Bluestone
xsibelius**@dropdead.spammer-pig..erolls.com (g brown) wrote:
> Philip Crouch wrote:
> >
> > Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still
> > getting
> > used to this computer.
> > Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of
> > music,
> > judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content. My
> > nominations
> > are:- (1) "Titan" - Mahler. (2) "Symphony of a Thousand" - Mahler. (3)
> > "Resurrection" - Mahler.
> > Are there any other nominations or is it to be a clean sweep for the
> > plucky
> > Austrian lad?
> > (Okay, nomination 3 may be a bit unfair but you get the drift. I used
> > to
> > keep quiet about Mahler until I discovered that some professional
> > musicians
> > feel the same. I sell music for a living and in my neck of the woods
> > the
> > Mahler bubble has well and truly burst. "You can`t get arrested with
> > him",
> > as the saying goes.)
> > Anyone wishing to insult me, please do so elegantly and amusingly -
> > I`ve
> > been insulted by professionals.
> > Yours cheerfully,
> > Phil the Sclez
>
> A well-stated post.Yes,Mahler is an abomination...but for the mother of
> all overblown pieces of crap you have to go all the way back to the
> "Choral" symphony of Beethoven.
You amaze me: Beethoven's 9th "the mother of all overblown pieces of
crap"? How can you possibly assign the feminine gender to such a butch
piece?
David
David Bluestone
sfor...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Forrest) wrote:
> Wagner, of course.
>
> I thought of Beethoven too, but since he actually was a supreme master,
> his claims to greatness were not total pretence.
>
> In article <35F570...@erols.com>,
> g brown <xsibelius**@dropdead.spammer-pig..erolls.com> wrote:
> [snipped] ....but for the mother of
> >all overblown pieces of crap you have to go all the way back to the
> >"Choral" symphony of Beethoven.
>
> I wouldn't call it crap (I love the scherzo), but this is the one
> LvB symphony I just don't get. I keep thinking there's something
> there that I'm missing, just because it's a Beethoven work.
> But maybe LvB should've just written Brahms' 1st instead.
Give Ludwig some credit! He would have to be stone cold dead to write
anything has dreadful as Brahms 1st. Brahms 1st is so constipated it just
_aspires_ to be crap.
David
David Bluestone
DAGHER) wrote:
> Philip Crouch (Philip...@btinternet.com) wrote:
> : Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still
> getting
> : used to this computer.
> : Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of
> music,
> : judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content. My
> nominations
> : are:- (1) "Titan" - Mahler. (2) "Symphony of a Thousand" - Mahler. (3)
> : "Resurrection" - Mahler.
> : Are there any other nominations or is it to be a clean sweep for the
> plucky
> : Austrian lad?
>
> WHO IS THE BIGGEST PHILISTINE IN THIS THREAD? The winner gets the Newt
> Gingrich Memorial prize.
>
> Well, there's Mr Crouch for not knowing that "Titan" refers to a poem,
No it doesn't, it refers to a novel.
> and that, anyway, the title was discarded by Mahler, or that "symphony
> of a thousand" was not Mahler's title for the piece.
>
> There's Mario, but he is excused because he has recommended so many
> good things in the past and anyway his punishment will be to sit
> through many performances of the symphony for wind instruments or the
> symphony in three movements.
>
> There's g.brown - but then there is always g.brown.
>
> There's David Bluestone and Raymond Hall for not knowing the meaning
> of the French word "fantastique". (Or indeed of the English word
> "fantastic".)
There's Alain Dagher for completely missing the joke, poor chap.
> There's Raymond Hall again for dismissing the Ring Cycle without ever
> having seen it.
David
MSten4MHS
"Symphony No. 1," which assumes that there exists at least a Symphony No. 2
(let alone Nos. 3-9) somewhere in his ouevre, correct? I wonder if any other
symphonic composer called their first effort Sym. 1 BEFORE they had writen
their second.
BTW - has Corigiliano written a second symphony?
Mark Stenroos
dtritter
>
> Do you really classify personal attacks like "dtritter's"(that go on to> spout off-topic political rants) as legitimate replies?Fortunately the> repellent "trit' has now taken to attacking me via e-mail so perhaps the> rest of you will be spared his venom. gb
no, gbrown, a public horse's ass should be identified as such in public,
though i confess that your garbage product does that very well without
further amplification. political rants? reread the thread and see the
fatal irony of that sewer keeper.
dft
po...@hotmail.com
nominated, but Olivier Messiaen. I always have to snort when I read
titles like Visions de l'amen, Quatour pour le fin du temps, or (the
worst) Eclairs sur l'au-dela, etc. etc. Messiaen was a fine composer,
but I think I would have taken him more seriously sooner if he'd avoided
the mumbo jumbo.
ciao,
J
P.S.: Jim Svejda says a friend of his always translates Vingt regards...&c
on the air as "give my regards to jesus".
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Philip Crouch
Philip Crouch wrote in message <6t328r$mfc$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
>Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still
getting
>used to this computer.
>Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of music,
>judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content.
a lot of interesting ideas and suggestions. I suggest we resolve the Mahler
question in a grown up way - by having a fight after school. Losers to
listen to "In Praise of Higher Intellect" until bedtime.
Cheerful as ever
Philistine the Sclezz
Steve Forrest
David Bluestone <sapp...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6t4rvi$eum$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>sfor...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Forrest) wrote:
>> In article <35F570...@erols.com>,
>> g brown <xsibelius**@dropdead.spammer-pig..erolls.com> wrote:
>> [snipped] ....but for the mother of
>> >all overblown pieces of crap you have to go all the way back to the
>> >"Choral" symphony of Beethoven.
>>
>> I wouldn't call it crap (I love the scherzo),
Oops, not "scherzo"; I meant 2nd mvnt., molto vivace.
>>but this is the one
>> LvB symphony I just don't get. I keep thinking there's something
>> there that I'm missing, just because it's a Beethoven work.
>> But maybe LvB should've just written Brahms' 1st instead.
>
>Give Ludwig some credit! He would have to be stone cold dead to write
>anything has dreadful as Brahms 1st.
Well maybe Ludwig _did_ write Brahms' 1st then. He had certainly been
dead long enough.
>Brahms 1st is so constipated it just _aspires_ to be crap.
:-D Good one! So, are you saying that LvB's 9th is crap, since
that's what Brahms' 1st aspires to be? (Or to be LvB's 10th?)
-Steve
Steve Forrest
MSten4MHS <mste...@aol.com> wrote:
>I'd nominate John Corigliano. He called his "AIDS" symphony of a few years ago
>"Symphony No. 1," which assumes that there exists at least a Symphony No. 2
>(let alone Nos. 3-9) somewhere in his ouevre, correct? I wonder if any other
>symphonic composer called their first effort Sym. 1 BEFORE they had writen
>their second.
Don't know; but Debussy labelled his only string quartet
'String Quartet no. 1".
-Steve
JID
(piper) wrote:
>Neilsen: "Inextinguishable", though I understand that it refers to (I
>think it was) the human spirit, not the undying quality of the work.
>(I think the work is kind of OK, but when I performed it, we
>orchestral musicians joked incessantly about the "Undistinguishable"
I was going to nominate Strauss' "Death and Transfiguration," which
inevitably became "Death and Disfiguration" for some of us in the
orchestra. (I don't dislike the guy's music, but I could live without that
title, so to speak.)
And I'd have to second the nomination someone gave to Messiaen (sp?).
--
Johanna (aka Joey): ow...@best.com
-------------------------------------------------------
"They honed his instinct for the jugular of weakness.
It got so sharp that sometimes he couldn't look at
himself in the mirror."
-- James Ellroy, "L.A. Confidential"
------------------------------------------------------
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern In Wonderland, American
Gothic, Jeunet & Caro: http://www.best.com/~owls
-------------------------------------------------------
MT
>>:-D Good one! So, are you saying that LvB's 9th is crap, since
>>that's what Brahms' 1st aspires to be? (Or to be LvB's 10th?)
Let's say that the Ninth was a very heavy meal, and Brahms's First its
result....
Regards,
MrT
David_U
the temerity to call anything he writes "music."
--
*********************************
* From the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* Del.& from address e=k.
http://www.robertstech.com/gallery/page13.htm
piper
>I was going to nominate Strauss' "Death and Transfiguration," which
>inevitably became "Death and Disfiguration" for some of us in the
>orchestra. (I don't dislike the guy's music, but I could live without that
>title, so to speak.)
I rather disagree. I think that the piece is a musical depiction of a
person in the process of dying, fighting it, and finally experiencing
resignation and release. I actually think that it's rather profound.
The really pretentious work by R. Strauss has been mentioned several
times in this thread: Ein Heldenleben. It's a great work, but
nonetheless very pretentious.
>
>And I'd have to second the nomination someone gave to Messiaen (sp?).
I think I'll choose not to comment on him at this time. :-)
Regards,
Michael
Raymond Hall
>In article <35f55...@139.134.5.33>, hallr...@bigpond.com (Raymond
>Hall) wrote:
>
>> "David Bluestone" wrote in message ...
>> >Philip...@btinternet.com (Philip Crouch) wrote:
>> >
>> >> getting used to this computer.
>> >> Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of
>> >> music, judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content.
>> >
>> >modest and called it the "Quite Good Symphony".
>> >
>>
>> I wouldn't agree with your assessment of Berlioz's "Fantastique", except
>> that what a yawn is that 3rd movement, real snooze stuff that.
>
>I don't know if you're saying it's better or worse than "Quite Good".
>
maintain the 3rd movement is too long - still it gives me a chance to make a
cup of coffee, and be ready for the "March to the Scaffold".
>> should cut some chunks out of that. I nominate Richard Stauss's
>> "Domestica"
>> Symphony, saved only by the master's genius, (I actually love the work).
>
>Yes, Strauss did have that attribute to fall back on.
>
And what an attribute too. He wrote some great music.
>> But my final vote goes to Wagner and the whole bloody "Ring" cycle. And
>> speaking of blut, I'll stick with excerpts of his "bleeding chunks"
>> thanks very much.
>
>I like the Overture to "Mastersingers" because you get all the good tunes
>in it, so there's no need to sit through another six hours of the ruddy
>opera.
>
Yes, I agree the overtures are OK, and so are some orchestral parts of the
"Ring". I have his music condensed onto 2 CDs (Szell's chunks from
Gotterdammerung are excellent) - and that will suffice for me.
>> Now who can tell me of humorous take-offs of the "Ring", that I can
>> buy, in
>> order that I be spared the whole silly story anyway? Not that I intend
>> ever
>> to get a Ring cycle - why waste time when there is Tubin, Holmboe,
>> Simpson,
>> Boulez, etc., to get stuck into. Just leave me with the Rhine Maidens,
>> and I
>> will happily forget the rest of Wagner's "inspiration" !!!
>>
>> Already running .... well who cares, the whole point is the "Ring" IMHO
>> is the most pretentious crap I have heard yet.
>
>It wouldn't be quite so bad if Wagner wasn't a Nazi.
>
Agreed, but he was before the Nazi era actually, but he most probably
would have been an avid Nazi had he lived during the 3rd Reich. He was by
all accounts a pretty rotten human being.
| Ray Hall: < hallr...@bigpond.com >
| Only my dogs really know the high notes - and they
| remain peacefully a'snoozin .......... /(-^-)\
| ~*~
>David
HOWARD HELLER
DU> @FROM :davidl&ka...@earthline.net
DU> N @SUBJECT:Re: WHO IS THE MOST PRETENTIOUS COMPOSER?
DU> N @UMSGID :<35F71ED6...@earthline.net>
DU> N @UNEWSGR:01rec.music.classical
DU> Surely John Cage could be considered pretentious for having
DU> the temerity to call anything he writes "music."
I gotta tell ya, I'm not particularly a fan of Cage's music, however
I find statements like this to absolutely amazing. If this is type of
nonsense you're looking for, then how about this:
Surely Tchaikovsky and Chopin could be considered pretentious for having
the temerity to call anything they wrote "music". Not to mention
Glen Gould for his pretentious and self-absorbed style of performing.
Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it ?
Regards,
Howard Heller
***************************************************
* Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations *
***************************************************
.. There's just not enough sax and violins on television.
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
Ryan Hare
: Surely John Cage could be considered pretentious for having
: the temerity to call anything he writes "music."
You must know very little about John Cage--neither his music nor the man
himself. Cage was anything but pretentious. He was a very humble (albeit
very serious) man, and one of most compelling musicians of the last half
of the 20th century.
But just out of curiosity, what's so pretentious about, say, about
"Amores"? Or the "Second Construction" for percussion quartet? Or "Sonatas
and Interludes" for prepared piano? Or "Roaratorio"? Please do tell us
where the pretense lies.
Ryan Hare
rh...@u.washington.edu
David Bluestone
sfor...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Forrest) wrote:
> In article <Ez0J2...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
> David Bluestone <sapp...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <6t4rvi$eum$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> >sfor...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Forrest) wrote:
> >> In article <35F570...@erols.com>,
> >> g brown <xsibelius**@dropdead.spammer-pig..erolls.com> wrote:
> >> [snipped] ....but for the mother of
> >> >all overblown pieces of crap you have to go all the way back to the
> >> >"Choral" symphony of Beethoven.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't call it crap (I love the scherzo),
>
> Oops, not "scherzo"; I meant 2nd mvnt., molto vivace.
>
> >>but this is the one
> >> LvB symphony I just don't get. I keep thinking there's something
> >> there that I'm missing, just because it's a Beethoven work.
> >> But maybe LvB should've just written Brahms' 1st instead.
> >
> >Give Ludwig some credit! He would have to be stone cold dead to write
> >anything has dreadful as Brahms 1st.
>
> Well maybe Ludwig _did_ write Brahms' 1st then. He had certainly been
> dead long enough.
Good point. Death clearly has an adverse effect on a composer's taste and
technique.
> >Brahms 1st is so constipated it just _aspires_ to be crap.
>
> :-D Good one! So, are you saying that LvB's 9th is crap, since
> that's what Brahms' 1st aspires to be? (Or to be LvB's 10th?)
I admire your logic: but what Brahms aspired to and what his symphony
aspired to are two different things :)
David
David Bluestone
Hall) wrote:
> "David Bluestone" wrote in message ...
> >In article <35f55...@139.134.5.33>, hallr...@bigpond.com (Raymond
> >Hall) wrote:
> >
> >> "David Bluestone" wrote in message ...
> >> >In article <6t328r$mfc$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> >> >Philip...@btinternet.com (Philip Crouch) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m
> > > still
> >> >> getting used to this computer.
> >> >> Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of
> >> >> music, judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual
> > > content.
> >> >
> >> >I nominate Berlioz's "Fantastic Symphony": he ought to have been
> > more
> >> >modest and called it the "Quite Good Symphony".
> >> >
> ==================================================
> >>
> >> I wouldn't agree with your assessment of Berlioz's "Fantastique",
> > except
> >> that what a yawn is that 3rd movement, real snooze stuff that.
> >
> >I don't know if you're saying it's better or worse than "Quite Good".
> >
> I really meant to say it was much better than "Quite Good". But I still
> maintain the 3rd movement is too long - still it gives me a chance to
> make a cup of coffee, and be ready for the "March to the Scaffold".
I agree: it's well worth waiting for. Does the caffeine enhance the
hallucinatory experience of the "March"?
> >> should cut some chunks out of that. I nominate Richard Stauss's
> >> "Domestica"
> >> Symphony, saved only by the master's genius, (I actually love the
> > work).
> >
> >Yes, Strauss did have that attribute to fall back on.
> >
> And what an attribute too. He wrote some great music.
I agree.
>
> >> But my final vote goes to Wagner and the whole bloody "Ring" cycle.
> > And
> >> speaking of blut, I'll stick with excerpts of his "bleeding chunks"
> >> thanks very much.
> >
> >I like the Overture to "Mastersingers" because you get all the good
> tunes
> >in it, so there's no need to sit through another six hours of the ruddy
> >opera.
> >
> Yes, I agree the overtures are OK, and so are some orchestral parts of
> the
> "Ring". I have his music condensed onto 2 CDs (Szell's chunks from
> Gotterdammerung are excellent) - and that will suffice for me.
I have a cassette entitled "Wagner's Greatest Hits", and although I've
managed to get through it without too much distress, I'm glad there isn't
a Vol. II. It has a frightening picture of Mr Wagner on the cover, but
then he looks frightening in all his pictures, as though he's in a
permanent bad mood and wants to stab someone. I shouldn't like to meet
him down a dark alley.
> >> Now who can tell me of humorous take-offs of the "Ring", that I can
> >> buy, in
> >> order that I be spared the whole silly story anyway? Not that I
> > intend ever
> >> to get a Ring cycle - why waste time when there is Tubin, Holmboe,
> >> Simpson,
> >> Boulez, etc., to get stuck into. Just leave me with the Rhine
> > Maidens, and I
> >> will happily forget the rest of Wagner's "inspiration" !!!
> >>
> >> Already running .... well who cares, the whole point is the "Ring"
> > IMHO
> >> is the most pretentious crap I have heard yet.
> >
> >It wouldn't be quite so bad if Wagner wasn't a Nazi.
> >
> Agreed, but he was before the Nazi era actually,
Yes, but I don't think that matters.
> but he most probably
> would have been an avid Nazi had he lived during the 3rd Reich.
No doubt about it. But the good news is, sooner or later he would
probably have got shot by Goebbels, who didn't like culture.
> by all accounts a pretty rotten human being.
I don't know much about him, but he looks horrible.
David
Frank Eggleston
> Philip Crouch wrote in message <6t328r$mfc$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
> >Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still
> getting
> >used to this computer.
> >Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of music,
> >judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content.
> It`s nice to see that at least one person has insulted me, as I read through
> a lot of interesting ideas and suggestions. I suggest we resolve the Mahler
> question in a grown up way - by having a fight after school. Losers to
> listen to "In Praise of Higher Intellect" until bedtime.
>
> Cheerful as ever
> Philistine the Sclezz
I'm pleased to see most of the responses to this thread (most unrelated to the
original premise) characterized so accurately by Phil the Sclezz. I've seldom
seen so many expressions of --- words fail me -- the kindest thing I can think
of is "ignorance". It also saddens me that one of the stupidest remarks was
quoted from Igor Stravinsky who expressed his own anti-Mahler prejudice. I'm
one of those people who he said couldn't exist -- Mahler and Stravinsky are two
of my favorite composers. There's also Benjamin Britten's aversion to Johannes
Brahms -- I like both of them, too. My own aversions to composers (and that to
the works I;ve actually heard) are mainly to Gorecki, Part, and others of the
currently popular crossover group -- people who I think (entirely without any
rational support) spun off from Bruckner (who I like), and who I lump together
under the label "composers of music of low harmonic eventuation". I hope I'm
always open to alteration in my musical positions, e.g., after many years of
strong anti-George-Rochberg prejudice, I actually heard a Rochberg work which I
liked (a song cycle on Indian poetry). But the expressions of adamantine
opinion I've seen stated in the postings on this thread have actually caused me
distress -- so many people seem to be cutting themselves off from so much of the
musical world, often for what seem to me to be for reasons unrelated to the
music.
I think I'll put on Perlman's recording of the Berg Violin Concerto and calm
down.
Frank Eggleston
--
"Must ... control ... fist ... of ... death!!"
--- Alice, from "Dilbert"
MT
<<But the expressions of adamantine
opinion I've seen stated in the postings on this thread have actually
caused me distress -- so many people seem to be cutting themselves off
from so much of the musical world, often for what seem to me to be for
reasons unrelated to the music.>>
Look, people have likes and dislikes, and the dislikes aren't
necessarily well described by "cutting themselves off...". Besides, the
reasons why, for example, I don't listen to Mahler very often are purely
musical. I find that much of it is hot air. I dislike Mahler for the
same reasons Igor did. It's not prejudice, just what my ears and
temperament tell me.
<<I think I'll put on Perlman's recording of the Berg Violin Concerto
and calm down.>>
Do that. You can never have enough of Berg.
Regards,
MrT
Dave Dalle
Since there's been a lot of Mahler-bashing coupled with praise of
Stravinksy, I'll put in my bit: I find much of Stravinksy sounds like
circus music, much too cartoonish and burlesque for my taste. I do like
the Symphony of Psalms, The Rite, and the Violin Concerto, but I love Mahler.
Pretentious? I'm very fond of big, bold, and bombastic (as well as
understated, delicate, miniature). I would vote for R. Murray Schaffer.
His whole communing with nature bit, which is just a whole load of
hippie-bullshit, the birds and the bees really don't give a damn about
what humans are playing on their trombones or whatever.
Dave
Derek Haslam
Raymond Hall <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Now who can tell me of humorous take-offs of the "Ring", that I can buy, in
> order that I be spared the whole silly story anyway? Not that I intend ever
> to get a Ring cycle - why waste time when there is Tubin, Holmboe, Simpson,
> Boulez, etc., to get stuck into. Just leave me with the Rhine Maidens, and I
> will happily forget the rest of Wagner's "inspiration" !!!
Anna Russell was a hoot on this subject. I don't know whether her synopsis
of the Ring has been transferred to CD but, if it has, buy it! I love the
Ring BTW but also find this irreverent piss-take quite irresistible.
Derek
--
__ __ __ __ __
/ \ | ||__ |__)/ | | |_ Derek Haslam: Acorn Computer Enthusiast
\_\/ |__||__ | \\__ |__| __| que...@argonet.co.uk
\ Mastery of the rules is a pre-requisite for creatively breaking them.
Derek Haslam
myself wondering whether I was having a vast con trick played on me.
Finally, I decided the answer was yes. I'm not simply anti-Messiaen BTW:
much of the organ music I find very impressive.
Donning his asbestos underpants....
Alain
> Frank:
>
> <<But the expressions of adamantine
> opinion I've seen stated in the postings on this thread have actually
> caused me distress -- so many people seem to be cutting themselves off
> from so much of the musical world, often for what seem to me to be for
> reasons unrelated to the music.>>
>
> Look, people have likes and dislikes, (snip)
That is fine for colours, foods, favourite sports teams, but not for art.
Blithely shrugging off great artists and calling their work crap, especially
if you haven't even heard it, is the ultimate form of ignorance. This
doesn't apply to you Mario, but to that tiny Algonquin round table for two
currently exchanging lame putdowns of Wagner on this thread.
To me *that* is philistinism. And being on rmc(r) doesn't make one cultured.
This is in repsonse to Ray Hall who says:
> Perhaps you may like to look up a dictionary for the meaning of
> 'philistine' as well. The very fact that all those chastised are members of
> a classical news group, would hardly qualify us for any title relating to
> being philistine.
>
Finally, Igor's quote is not a dismissal of Mahler, and in any case it is
wrong. Many people appreciate both composers, and in fact one of the best
living conductors of both Mahler and Stravinsky is Pierre Boulez. Besides,
Mahler's influence on 20th century classical music is gigantic. Only
Beethoven and Wagner, two other inductees into the rmc "this is crap"
hall-of-fame, could be said to be more influencial. This objective fact
should convince you that his music is very unlikely to consist solely of hot
air.
Ironically, the first time I posted to rmc (1993 I think) you took me to
task for calling Sartre a buffoon (an opinion which seems pretty
non-controversial nowadays). Remember?
regards,
alain
Jeff Harrington
: Messiaen: Turangalila "symphony". The last time I listened to this I found
: myself wondering whether I was having a vast con trick played on me.
: Finally, I decided the answer was yes. I'm not simply anti-Messiaen BTW:
: much of the organ music I find very impressive.
: Donning his asbestos underpants....
Good idea! Actually, I was listening to it night before last with wine
and my wife and we both started thinking... you know, this is one of the
most god awful pieces ever written. But I really really like it. The
tunes, like most of his tunes are ordinary, even mediocre. The climaxes
are often dully repetitive. The orchestration is intentionally crass,
even seemingly a bizarre mix of Gamelan, Hollywood, Cartoon Music,
Debussy/Ravel...
The achievement, for me, in Turangalila *is* the pretentiousness itself.
Somehow, maybe like Joyce or some of the other "encylopedic" artists
(artists that try to digest everything and then regurgitate it into a new
form) he just makes it work.
Jeff Harrington [-->>[[ Mercurealities for Flute, Viola, Cello MPEG ]]<<--]
je...@parnasse.com [->>[[ http://www.parnasse.com/mercurealities.mp2 ]]<<--]
http://www.parnasse.com/jeff.htm --------->>[[ My Music ]]<<--------------]
http://www.parnasse.com/vrml.shtml ------->>[[ My Worlds ]]<<-------------]
robert seigler
TITAN derives from a modest novel, and RESURRECTION from that of the
poem in the last movement. SYMPHONY OF A THOUSAND merely refers to the
forces called for to perform it - like calling a string quartet a
quartet.
that mahler is now passe seems to be news which has previously escaped
the notice of this newsgroup. that he's been over-recorded goes without
saying, but that doesn't translate automatically to over-rated. what i
am tired of is the notion that every conductor on earth has to commit a
whole mahler cycle to disc to be taken seriously. the problem is with
record companies, not this defenseless dead composer.
bob
Why is the American public such a sucker for any drama unfolding live? -
MARCIA CLARK
David_U
>
>
> You must know very little about John Cage--neither his music nor the man
> himself. Cage was anything but pretentious. He was a very humble (albeit
> very serious) man, and one of most compelling musicians of the last half
> of the 20th century.
Well I will agree that he was certinly compelled.
>
> But just out of curiosity, what's so pretentious about, say, about
> "Amores"? Or the "Second Construction" for percussion quartet? Or "Sonatas
> and Interludes" for prepared piano? Or "Roaratorio"? Please do tell us
> where the pretense lies.
Personally I hve this tin ear you see and when I hear
garbage can lids, cowbells, dropped pieces of iron and othe
compelling collections of sound, I just do not hear the
music. So I guess that it is my tin ear.
Fotunately I can still hear the Beethoven Violin Concerto,
and those other antiquities without wincing.
Frank Eggleston
> Messiaen: Turangalila "symphony". The last time I listened to this I found
> myself wondering whether I was having a vast con trick played on me.
> Finally, I decided the answer was yes. I'm not simply anti-Messiaen BTW:
> much of the organ music I find very impressive.
>
> Donning his asbestos underpants....
>
> Derek
I rather agree about Turangalila. It sounds to me like music for a movie that I
don't really want to see. Considering that I really like a lot of the other big
orchestra Messiaen -- maybe it's that theremin.
Mario De Angelis
Vestale was stolen
directly from his works. That's what I call pretentious (especially from a
composer almost
completely forgotten today).
Regards,
- Mario
Mario De Angelis
MSten4MHS wrote:
> I'd nominate John Corigliano. He called his "AIDS" symphony of a few years ago
> "Symphony No. 1," which assumes that there exists at least a Symphony No. 2
> (let alone Nos. 3-9) somewhere in his ouevre, correct? I wonder if any other
> symphonic composer called their first effort Sym. 1 BEFORE they had writen
> their second.
>
Maybe Bruckner after writing his symphony no 0? ;-)
- Mario
> BTW - has Corigiliano written a second symphony?
>
> Mark Stenroos
Steve Forrest
Frank Eggleston <eggl...@erols.com> wrote:
>> Philip Crouch wrote in message <6t328r$mfc$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
>> >Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of music,
>> >judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content.
>
>I'm pleased to see most of the responses to this thread (most unrelated to the
>original premise)
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
Hmm, I see. I was thrown off by the question recurring in the subject
field: WHO IS THE MOST PRETENTIOUS COMPOSER?, while the original premise
was snipped from most follow-ups.
-Steve
miro szczeskiewicz
>
> In article <6t328r$mfc$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> Philip...@btinternet.com (Philip Crouch) wrote:
>
> > getting used to this computer.
> > music, judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content.
>
> modest and called it the "Quite Good Symphony".
>
I always thought "fantastique" refered to fantasy, as in all the drugs
he's taken while writing this beast ...
honestly, i think its quite good
later, michal
piper
But La Vestale is really a fine opera. There is an available recording
of it, which I took out of the library. I really recommend it.
Michael
Ross Williams
my misfortune to play or listen to.
Adrian Hunter
|In article <35f55...@139.134.5.33>,
| Raymond Hall <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
|> Now who can tell me of humorous take-offs of the "Ring", that I can buy, in
|> order that I be spared the whole silly story anyway? Not that I intend ever
|> to get a Ring cycle - why waste time when there is Tubin, Holmboe, Simpson,
|> Boulez, etc., to get stuck into. Just leave me with the Rhine Maidens, and I
|> will happily forget the rest of Wagner's "inspiration" !!!
|
|Anna Russell was a hoot on this subject. I don't know whether her synopsis
|of the Ring has been transferred to CD but, if it has, buy it! I love the
|Ring BTW but also find this irreverent piss-take quite irresistible.
|
|Derek
Indeed it is available on CD. Very recently a friend of mine let me hear
it, and it is quite hilarious (and an accurate synopsis ;-) )
The Anna Russell Album Sony Masterworks MDK47252
(it was $8.97 at Music Boulevard. Don't know about the others)
I'm waiting on it to arrive with my next MB order (I am NOT
affiliated BTW)
Adrian
MT
<<Ironically, the first time I posted to rmc (1993 I think) you took me
to task for calling Sartre a buffoon (an opinion which seems pretty
non-controversial nowadays). Remember?>>
Indeed I do. But I cannot imagine what musical matters we could have
been discussing that brought up Sartre. Was this part of the Big
Meta-Meta-Meta Discussion of Everything caused by the infamous
Margaret-Mary Petit (a pen name of Stirling Newberry)? The old days were
fun (??).
Regards,
Mario Taboada
John Gavin
pretentious.....they don't even come close to Phillip Glass, and the
many compositional atrocities by Leonard Bernstein. Bernstein's Mass
makes the Tarangalila Symphony sound like heaven.
John Gavin
Raymond Hall
>
> Being new to newsgroups I am not sure how to quote someone else from the
>newsgroup, but in support of the comments, indicated below, I believe it
was
>Mark Twain who said "Wagner's music is better than it sounds."
>
You are doing fine. In actual fact there seems to be a lot of inconsistency,
with regard to replies. The original post is usually left if quite short
(but snipped if way too long), with your reply added to the bottom. But many
posters make their reply at the top. Just read the threads to get the drift.
Anyway, with regard to Mark Twain's comments, I tend to agree, and thanks
for reminding me of the quote. I am pretty certain it was Mark Twain who
made that quote also.
Alain
MT wrote:
> Alain:
>
> <<Ironically, the first time I posted to rmc (1993 I think) you took me
> to task for calling Sartre a buffoon (an opinion which seems pretty
> non-controversial nowadays). Remember?>>
>
> Indeed I do. But I cannot imagine what musical matters we could have
> been discussing that brought up Sartre.
Musical discussions? On rmc?
> Was this part of the Big
> Meta-Meta-Meta Discussion of Everything caused by the infamous
> Margaret-Mary Petit (a pen name of Stirling Newberry)? The old days were
> fun (??).
That was before my time.
alain
Philip Crouch
robert seigler wrote in message
<3697-35F...@newsd-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
in fairness to mahler, it should be pointed out that the title of the
TITAN derives from a modest novel, and RESURRECTION from that of the
poem in the last movement. SYMPHONY OF A THOUSAND merely refers to the
forces called for to perform it - like calling a string quartet a
quartet.
that mahler is now passe seems to be news which has previously escaped
the notice of this newsgroup. that he's been over-recorded goes without
saying, but that doesn't translate automatically to over-rated. what i
am tired of is the notion that every conductor on earth has to commit a
whole mahler cycle to disc to be taken seriously. the problem is with
record companies, not this defenseless dead composer.
bob
Fair points. In the original posting I was really interested in the gulf
between a piece of music and what a new listener might expect given the
title. I thought Mahler was big enough to stand a bit of teasing, but I
don`t think "tongue in cheek" humour survives the journey through cyberspace
very well! For example I thought the nomination of the Fantastic Symphony
was a joke - and quite a good one. But some people seem to have taken it in
earnest. In the same spirit I would like to nominate Schubert`s "Great"
Symphony. On second thoughts I withdraw that as he was honest enough about
the "Tragic" symphony. In fairness to those with no room in their heads for
a sense of humour, those heads are probably more full of knowledge and music
than mine will ever be.
Cheerful as ever
Phil the Sclezz
Nicolai P. Zwar
>
> In article <6t328r$mfc$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> Philip...@btinternet.com (Philip Crouch) wrote:
>
> > Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still
> > getting used to this computer.
> > Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of
> > music, judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content.
>
> I nominate Berlioz's "Fantastic Symphony": he ought to have been more
> modest and called it the "Quite Good Symphony".
LOL!! Thanks for the good one.
--
Nicolai P. Zwar
Remove "NOT THESE FOUR WORDS" to reply.
Nicolai P. Zwar
Nazi (historical not possible). However, I would be careful with the
assertion that he *would* have been an avid Nazi. Maybe he would have
been indeed... but then again, a lot of artists who were influenced by
the common anti-Semititism of the time reconsidered their values under
Hitler's horror regime. Again, I'm not saying Wagner would have done it,
too -- no one can ever say this -- but being an anti-Semite before the
holocaust and being one after the holocaust are two different things.
Raymond Hall wrote:
> >
> Agreed, but he was before the Nazi era actually, but he most probably
> would have been an avid Nazi had he lived during the 3rd Reich. He was by
> all accounts a pretty rotten human being.
Nicolai P. Zwar
> I'm
> one of those people who he said couldn't exist -- Mahler and Stravinsky are two
> of my favorite composers. There's also Benjamin Britten's aversion to Johannes
> Brahms -- I like both of them, too.
Same here, same here...
> My own aversions to composers (and that to
> the works I;ve actually heard) are mainly to Gorecki, Part, and others of the
> currently popular crossover group
Fact is, I like those, too. In my cd collection there's even Bach and
Reith next to each other (well, okay, there are other discs in between).
The music I enjoy has also a lot to do with the circumstances under
which I listen to it (e.g. Anton Webern in the car just doesn't do it
for me, Beethoven does). Heck, I even listen to classical, jazz *and*
rock music. Why not? The one unfortunate thing about my diverse musical
taste is: it is getting expensive.
Nicolai P. Zwar
> >
> Finally, Igor's quote is not a dismissal of Mahler, and in any case it is
> wrong. Many people appreciate both composers, and in fact one of the best
> living conductors of both Mahler and Stravinsky is Pierre Boulez.
He certainly is. He even does well with Debussy and Ravel. I can enjoy
one type of music (or one composer) without having to have the feeling
that I need to devaluate the work of another. For instance, Ludwig van
Beethoven is somebody whose music I like, as are Peter Gabriel, Jerry
Goldsmith, Alfred Schnittke, and Bela Bartok. Now, they all are really
different cups of tea, but then again I like different types of tea as
well.
Robert F
<eggl...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>I rather agree about Turangalila. It sounds to me like music for a movie that I
>don't really want to see. Considering that I really like a lot of the other big
>orchestra Messiaen -- maybe it's that theremin.
>
>Frank Eggleston
>--
Classically and historically, Messiaen's "Turangalila Symphony"
features the ondes Martenot rather than a theremin.
Robert Froehner
The Musical Saw and Theremin Page
http://www.cyberramp.net/~sawman
If replying in Email, please remove the term NOJUNK from the Email
address in the header.
Frank Eggleston
> On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:39:23 -0400, Frank Eggleston
> <eggl...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >I rather agree about Turangalila. It sounds to me like music for a movie that I
> >don't really want to see. Considering that I really like a lot of the other big
> >orchestra Messiaen -- maybe it's that theremin.
> >
> >Frank Eggleston
> >--
>
> Classically and historically, Messiaen's "Turangalila Symphony"
> features the ondes Martenot rather than a theremin.
>
> Robert Froehner
> The Musical Saw and Theremin Page
> http://www.cyberramp.net/~sawman
Ondes Martenot it is, of course, though to be candid, I honestly don't know what the
difference is.
I was going entirely from that peculiar "Spellbound" sound (which I think was a
theremin). Perhaps Mr. Froehner could give us a brief course.
Musical saw, I'm more familiar with. I've seen George Crumb's "Ancient Voices of
Children" performed both ways, once with the saw played by the violinist (Elizabeth
Adkins of the National Symphony Orchestra, who did a very good job) and another time
by a specialist on the saw. I forget his name, but it seems he also solos on musical
glasses and contrabass-clarinet. I kid not.
Mike Painter
<Philip...@btinternet.com> wrote:
[SNIP]
> I thought Mahler was big enough to stand a bit of teasing, but I
> don`t think "tongue in cheek" humour survives the journey through cyberspace
> very well!
One thing that I have tried to get used to, although I hated them
originally, is using the stupid little symbols ;-) and :-) They help
clarify one's intentions and state of mind with regard to humor. The
problem is that the Net is used by so many different people with different
levels of understanding, but it remains a printed medium, so all other
context, such as tone of voice, is missing. Thus a writer doesn't know who
will be reading and a reader doesn't really know who the writer is, making
confusion rampant.
> For example I thought the nomination of the Fantastic Symphony
> was a joke - and quite a good one. But some people seem to have taken it in
> earnest. In the same spirit I would like to nominate Schubert`s "Great"
> Symphony. On second thoughts I withdraw that as he was honest enough about
> the "Tragic" symphony. In fairness to those with no room in their heads for
> a sense of humour, those heads are probably more full of knowledge and music
> than mine will ever be.
Here in America, I only know Berlioz's piece by it's French name, so I
don't call it "fantastic." And although I think I have a good sense of
humor, I was one of the ones who thought it was meant in earnest. It has
nothing to do with having "no room in their heads for a sense of humour."
But I do think Schubert's Ninth is Great, no matter how the word is meant.
And only the intro to the Fourth is really tragic.
Mike
To respond via e-mail, remove * from address.
za...@dial.pipex.com
eggl...@erols.com wrote:
> I rather agree about Turangalila. It sounds to me like music for a movie that
I
> don't really want to see. Considering that I really like a lot of the other
big
> orchestra Messiaen -- maybe it's that theremin.
>
> Frank Eggleston
Hang on! Isn't it an Ondes Martenot? We had an orchestra do the piece here in
Cambridge back in 1997, and dozens of people from the audience climbed on to
the stage afterwards to get a closer look. Not all men, either - though, as
we know, 'Gentlemen prefer Ondes'...
Mark Doran.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Robert F
<eggl...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>Ondes Martenot it is, of course, though to be candid, I honestly don't know what the
>difference is.
>I was going entirely from that peculiar "Spellbound" sound (which I think was a
>theremin). Perhaps Mr. Froehner could give us a brief course.
>
The theremin was invented in 1919 by Lev Termen, a Russian military
scientist working on a method to locate enemy radio transmitters, when
he accidentally noted that his body's electrical charge could detune a
radio receiver. He refined the principle and came up with the
theremin, the world's first electronic musical instrument. A theremin
has two antennas, one for volume and one for pitch. It is the only
instrument played without touching it. By varying the hand distance
from the pitch and volume antennas, changes in those parameters can be
achieved, allowing one to play a range of approx. 4.5 or more octaves.
The theremin proved to be a very difficult instrument to master,
however, because of the infinite number of pitches and the difficulty
of playing in thin air without any frets, valves, strings, etc. for
guidance. There were a handful of professional thereminists in the
30's and 40's who toured the country, performing with professional
orchestras. The greatest of these was Clara Rockmore, who performed
on several occasions under the baton of Leopold Stokowski and others.
Hollywood discovered the theremin in the 1940's when Miklos Rozsa used
it in Hitchcock's "Spellbound." Other films included Rozsa's "The
Lost Weekend", Bernard Herrmann's "The Day the Earth Stood Still," and
a large number of science-fiction and horror films in the 1950's-60's.
It is heard more recently in the "Ed Wood" soundtrack, and to a small
degree in "Mars Attacks!" where it is overshadowed by the ondes
Martenot.
The ondes Martenot was invented in 1928 by Maurice Martenot, and
although it might be considered a "cousin" to the theremin there are
some important differences. The most obvious is that is played with a
keyboard, so pitch is much more predictable. The keyboard is "loose"
so that vibrato can be created with the wrist, while a ring on the
finger is attached to a wire and "ribbon" to allow for glissando's,
etc. There are then three different diffusers to give different
colors to the sound. The ondes can be heard in Messiaen's
"Turangalila Symphony", Jolivet's "Concerto for Ondes Martenot and
Orchestra", as well as works by Milhaud, Honneger, and others.
Hollywood, too, has been a frequent user of the ondes. It has been
used in several filmscores by Elmer Bernstein (since his associate
Cynthia Millar is an ondiste), such as "Ghostbusters", "Age of
Innocence", and others. More recently it was used in "Mars Attacks".
To learn more about the ondes Martenot and see pictures, go to this
website:
http://www.chez.com/cslevine/Ondes/WAVES.html
To learn more about theremins, visit my website and the Webring link
will take you to about 14 other theremin sites.
Photos of theremins can also be seen at:
Good luck!
Robert Froehner
The Musical Saw and Theremin Page
http://www.cyberramp.net/~sawman
If responding in Email, please remove the term NOJUNK from the Email
address in the header.
Raymond Hall
to someone else whilst quoting part of my post, A. Dagher has shown the
height of complete ignorance. The simple fact is he did not make a reply
tome, or ever has, either because, (1) he couldn't, or (2) ignorance is his
common trait.
He has obviously missed the whole point of the initial subject, which
centres around prententiousness in musical art. Most people here are taking
the subject in the 'light-hearted' manner it deserves. And if the fact that
I personally find the Ring cycle of Wagner totally pretentious, then I am
going to say so, and I am saddened by the mere fact that it is has
completely upset A. Dagher's little apple-cart. I will reiterate, I
personally find Wagner's Ring cycle a monumental bore and pretentious
(analagous to ostentatious and of vulgar display). I am most sorry if my
view has obviously offended A.Dagher. One other poster in this thread who
admires the Ring, took my comments in the correct spirit, as witness his
reply. My comments on the Ring had no effect on him - and conversely if
others have called Mahler, or Bruckner pretentious (composers I love and
regard as being unpretentious), I too have accepted their comments in the
spirit of the whole thing. Not so for A.Dagher.
A.Dagher even completely misconstrued my original post in his
first'contribution' to the thread - obviously he couldn't have actually read
it and then make the necessary apology. But then I would never ever need one
from him. I can live comfortably without one from A. Dagher.
I stated, in reply to a David Bluestone post, to quote,
"... I wouldn't agree with your assessment of Berlioz's "Fantastique",
except that what a yawn is that 3rd movement, real snooze stuff that".
A. Dagher's totally inept and inaccurate reply was as follows, to quote,
"...There's David Bluestone and Raymond Hall for not knowing the meaning of
the French word "fantastique". (Or indeed of the English word "fantastic".)"
I will leave other posters to work out the logic or sense of his reply.
In addition, by not replying to any of my posts, I could assume that
A.Dagher did not understand the meaning of the word "philistine". And yet he
is the pompous self-appointed judge of, and again quoting him,
" WHO IS THE BIGGEST PHILISTINE IN THIS THREAD? The winner
gets the Newt Gingrich Memorial prize."
My reply was a very light-hearted one, but obviously something had got right
into the grubby little craw of A. Dagher. Was it the very fact that I had
the temerity to called his beloved Wagner's Ring cycle a pretentious piece
of crap? A. Dagher himself was supposed to have called Sartre a buffoon some
years ago, which only goes to show what a hypocrite and philistine he is. I
award to the prize to him.
And yet again, to quote more nonsense from Mr Dagher,
"that tiny Algonquin round table for two currently exchanging lame putdowns
of Wagner on this thread."
In reply to this nonsense, perhaps Mr Dagher should have also mentioned
other round tables inhabited by posters who have mentioned Mahler, Messaien,
Berlioz, Beethoven, Brahms, etc. Mr Daigher doesn't want to sit at this
table, or others, because (1) he doesn't even bother to reply, and (2) he
has taken the whole matter far too seriously. The whole discussion had been
a light-hearted one until A.Dagher poked his nose in.
I could quote numerous other bits of nonsense from A. Dagher's posts - just
read them and figure for yourselves.
I urge anyone reading A. Dagher's future posts, in any group, to be well
aware of his standards of etiquette and decency, and to reply with extreme
caution. Better still, save yourselves time and simply ignore them.
| Ray Hall: < hallr...@bigpond.com >
| Only my dogs really know the high notes - and they
| remain peacefully a'snoozin .......... /(-^-)\
| ~*~
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Alain wrote in message <35F83065...@nospam.bic.mni.mcgill.ca>...
>MT wrote:
>
>> Frank:
>>
>> <<But the expressions of adamantine
>> opinion I've seen stated in the postings on this thread have actually
>> caused me distress -- so many people seem to be cutting themselves off
>> from so much of the musical world, often for what seem to me to be for
>> reasons unrelated to the music.>>
>>
>> Look, people have likes and dislikes, (snip)
>
>That is fine for colours, foods, favourite sports teams, but not for art.
>Blithely shrugging off great artists and calling their work crap,
especially
>if you haven't even heard it, is the ultimate form of ignorance. This
>doesn't apply to you Mario, but to that tiny Algonquin round table for two
>currently exchanging lame putdowns of Wagner on this thread.
>
>To me *that* is philistinism. And being on rmc(r) doesn't make one
cultured.
>This is in repsonse to Ray Hall who says:
>
>> Perhaps you may like to look up a dictionary for the meaning of
>> 'philistine' as well. The very fact that all those chastised are members
of
>> a classical news group, would hardly qualify us for any title relating to
>> being philistine.
>>
>Finally, Igor's quote is not a dismissal of Mahler, and in any case it is
>wrong. Many people appreciate both composers, and in fact one of the best
>living conductors of both Mahler and Stravinsky is Pierre Boulez. Besides,
>Mahler's influence on 20th century classical music is gigantic. Only
>Beethoven and Wagner, two other inductees into the rmc "this is crap"
>hall-of-fame, could be said to be more influencial. This objective fact
>should convince you that his music is very unlikely to consist solely of
hot
>air.
>
>Ironically, the first time I posted to rmc (1993 I think) you took me to
>task for calling Sartre a buffoon (an opinion which seems pretty
>non-controversial nowadays). Remember?
>
>regards,
>
>alain
>
Raymond Hall
get the humourous gist either, despite a smiley I added in reply to him. His
mode of etiquette and standard of decency was to ignore any reply to me, and
to later simply quote me to someone else, with his usual disparagements,
totally bereft of any wit or knowledge.
But aside from this one idiot, the title and the many replies were all good
humoured, and in good spirit. The title itself was never meant for serious
musical discourse.
But I agree with you also, these little 'smileys' can be so important, as
the written word can be a very difficult medium, for portraying feelings
such as humourous intent. I always add them now, although at first, I was
loathe to do so. But they are important in conveying a 'tongue-in-cheek'
effect.
Even Mahler took a bit of a pounding in this thread, but most people here
respect that everyone has their own opinions - whether for or against
Mahler. But as the thread was basically lighthearted anyway, and gave people
a chance to air their thoughts, I took the Mahler digs in good spirit,
totally by default, apart from which I have been taught to respect other
people's opinions.
In any case, I think it important we do endeavour through whatever devices
to make our 'intent' clear. Maybe we should devise some more rules in order
for us to more easily achieve this.
Cheers,
| Ray Hall: < hallr...@bigpond.com >
| Only my dogs really know the high notes - and they
| remain peacefully a'snoozin .......... /(-^-)\
| ~*~
Mike Painter wrote in message ...
Philip Crouch
Mike Painter wrote in message ...
>In article <6tbri2$o3d$1...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>, "Philip Crouch"
><Philip...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>> I thought Mahler was big enough to stand a bit of teasing, but I
>> don`t think "tongue in cheek" humour survives the journey through
cyberspace
>> very well!
>
>
>
>One thing that I have tried to get used to, although I hated them
>originally, is using the stupid little symbols ;-) and :-) They help
>clarify one's intentions and state of mind with regard to humor. The
>problem is that the Net is used by so many different people with different
>levels of understanding, but it remains a printed medium, so all other
>context, such as tone of voice, is missing. Thus a writer doesn't know who
>will be reading and a reader doesn't really know who the writer is, making
Mea culpa :-(
Phil
g brown
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ha!...great punch line. gb
Peter H. Granzeau
<hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>I will reiterate, I personally find Wagner's Ring cycle a monumental bore
>and pretentious (analagous to ostentatious and of vulgar display).
A lot of huge works from late in the Romantic period seem pretentios.
90 minute symphonies, scored for an orchestra of over 100 players,
with every movement dead slow, for instance. At least Richard Wagner
didn't write symphonies; if he had, they would have lasted three or
more hours, with no movement less than 30 minutes, all marked "dead
slow" (whatever that is in German). As it is, I can avoid Wagner
easily, by avoiding opera houses. <G>
Regards, PHG
(To reply by mail, send to my initials at the same site)
Eric Schissel
Distribution:
Peter H. Granzeau (pgr...@exis.net) wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Sep 1998 18:22:36 +1000, "Raymond Hall"
><hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>I will reiterate, I personally find Wagner's Ring cycle a monumental bore
>>and pretentious (analagous to ostentatious and of vulgar display).
>A lot of huge works from late in the Romantic period seem pretentios.
>90 minute symphonies, scored for an orchestra of over 100 players,
>with every movement dead slow, for instance. At least Richard Wagner
>didn't write symphonies; if he had, they would have lasted three or
>more hours, with no movement less than 30 minutes, all marked "dead
>slow" (whatever that is in German). As it is, I can avoid Wagner
>easily, by avoiding opera houses. <G>
Actually, he did, and the one-and-a-half he wrote are early, rather nice,
and pretentious only briefly- the very opening of the C major. Also quite
manageably fit on one CD together. As to mature Wagner, what do you have
to say of the Siegfried Idyll?
What 90 minute symphony from the late Romantic period has every movement
dead slow? I can't think of one, off-hand.
-Eric Schissel
--
schi...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/schissel ICQ#7279016
standard disclaimer
Carl Tait
Mike Painter <mjp*@sirius.com> wrote:
>
>One thing that I have tried to get used to, although I hated them
>originally, is using the stupid little symbols ;-) and :-)
I'm the other way around: fearful of misunderstanding, I used to use
the dreaded "emoticons," but found them so annoying in other people's
posts that I dumped them years ago. They often have the effect of
crippling a good joke -- sort of like asking, "Get it?" after delivering
the punchline.
>They help
>clarify one's intentions and state of mind with regard to humor. The
>problem is that the Net is used by so many different people with different
>levels of understanding, but it remains a printed medium, so all other
>context, such as tone of voice, is missing. Thus a writer doesn't know who
>will be reading and a reader doesn't really know who the writer is, making
>confusion rampant.
Yes, but this is also true of writing in general. The main problem
is that newsgroup posts are in a grey area between formal writing and
printed speech. Quite reasonably, people usually don't take as much
care in composing postings as they do with text that will be circulated
in printed form. The same issue applies with e-mail: many people
send hastily written, semi-literate messages they would find frankly
embarrassing to commit to paper and deliver via traditional mail.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Quick-and-dirty writing has
some value, and one of the great glories of computers and networks
is rapid dissemination of information. Nonetheless, if you're
going to tell a good joke, you might as well take the time to
phrase it in an unambiguous way -- or at least tell it in a forum
where the deliberate fuzziness will be appreciated.
--
Carl Tait IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
cdt...@us.ibm.com Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Raymond Hall
message <35f98...@news.piro.net>...
>Wagner was an anti-Semite, yes, but of course he could not have been a
>Nazi (historical not possible).
I did indeed state that fact in my post.
>been indeed... but then again, a lot of artists who were influenced by
>the common anti-Semititism of the time reconsidered their values under
>Hitler's horror regime.
An excellent point you have just made. On the other hand, many would have
had their racial views reinforced, under Herr Clubfoot's propaganda.
>Again, I'm not saying Wagner would have done it,
>too -- no one can ever say this -- but being an anti-Semite before the
>holocaust and being one after the holocaust are two different things.
I disagree on one point. Being an anti-Semite means the same thing at any
time, anywhere. Racial and religious intolerance are absolute. Is a
pre-holocaust anti-Semite any different from one after the holocaust? And
yes, I do agree that we cannot say for certain that Wagner would have become
an avid Nazi, as we are talking hypothetically. As shown below, I was
careful to include the adverb 'probably' in my post.
Cheers.
>
>Raymond Hall wrote:
>
>> >
>> Agreed, but he was before the Nazi era actually, but he most probably
>> would have been an avid Nazi had he lived during the 3rd Reich. He was by
>> all accounts a pretty rotten human being.
>
| Ray Hall: < hallr...@bigpond.com >
| Only my dogs really know the high notes - and they
| remain peacefully a'snoozin .......... /(-^-)\
| ~*~
>Nicolai P. Zwar
Nicolai P. Zwar
> An excellent point you have just made. On the other hand, many would have
> had their racial views reinforced, under Herr Clubfoot's propaganda.
Also quite true, of course.
> I disagree on one point. Being an anti-Semite means the same thing at any
> time, anywhere. Racial and religious intolerance are absolute.
Hmmm... This properly belongs in a philosophy newsgroup, I guess, but I
am not so sure about that. I hasten to add though that personally I'm
with the old saying that the one thing I find intolerable is
intolerance. But especially in our times, where we have at least
achieved some racial and religious tolerance to a degree (which is a
good thing) I find no place to base absolut values on (which can be a
dangerous thing).
> Is a pre-holocaust anti-Semite any different from one after the holocaust?
Depending on what you mean by that, yes. Anti-Semitism was (like all
intolerance) never a "good" thing, but it was a common and "acceptable"
view to hold, and in many ethical/moral/religious/philosophical
discussions of the day one could call oneself an anti-Semite and "mean"
something else as what we think of it today. Many racial (and
anti-Semitism was to a large degree racially and not religiously
motivated) views of the time would be considered completely outrageous
and offensive today, but they were (in the late 19th/early 20th century)
themes of many (admittedly controversial) discussions in those days.
Many "races" (American Indians, Australien Aborigines and many more)
were considered -- backed up by controversial but nevertheless heavily
considered "scientific" arguments -- as obviously inferior by many
respectable people. For instance, the Constitution of the United States
begins with the words "We the people...", but it took quite some time
until black slaves and American Indians were considered "people".
Depending on your philosophical point of view, it seems that either
human "values" are "evolving" (in that case, they are not absolute), or
that our understanding of the "absolute values" is (in that case, people
a hundred years ago did not know "as much" as we do now and people in a
hundred years may consider us barbarians).
The holocaust, in any case, opened many people the eyes as to the horrid
consequences racial supremacist thinking ultimatly leads to; in this it
was also "educational" for mankind as a whole. If somebody even today
calls himself an "anti-Semite" or whatever, he shows that he is not
willing to learn that lesson or even approves of what has been done, a
person who did the same before may also have been ignorant, but because
he was on "safer" ground to a lesser degree.
> And
> yes, I do agree that we cannot say for certain that Wagner would have become
> an avid Nazi, as we are talking hypothetically. As shown below, I was
> careful to include the adverb 'probably' in my post.
Oh, I know, and I included your quote. I was just adding my two cents
and not rebuking you in any way. Also, in no way do I find Wagner's
anti-Semitism "acceptable", it's just that the "Hitler/Wagner
connection" was Hitler's doing, not Wagner's.
Cheerio
Steve Forrest
>>Mark Twain who said "Wagner's music is better than it sounds."
The last time this frequently cited quotation arose, I also falsely
attributed it to Twain. Long ago (perhaps over a year) one contributor
correctly identified the source as Bill Nye (not the science guy, but
the American humorist Edgar Wilson Nye), but did not give a citation.
Until yesterday, I had not gotten around to checking. So, for the sake
of completeness, here is what I found in Caroline Thomas Harnsberger's
book _Everyone's Mark Twain_ :
[General Sickles'] talk is full of interest and
bristling with points, but as there are no emphases scattered
through it anywhere, and as there is no animation in it, it soon
becomes oppressive by its monotony and it makes the listeners
drowsy.... The late Bill Nye once said, "I have been told that
Wagner's music is better than it sounds." That felicitous
description of a something which so many people have tried to
describe, and couldn't, does seem to fit the general's manner
of speech exactly. His talk is much better than it is.
- _Mark Twain's Autobiography_, Paine, vol. 1, p.337
-Steve
Deryk Barker
: Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still getting
: used to this computer.
: Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of music,
: are:- (1) "Titan" - Mahler. (2) "Symphony of a Thousand" - Mahler. (3)
: "Resurrection" - Mahler.
OK: 1) Titan - this was the title of a 3 volume "novel of ideas" by
Jean Paul (Richter) inspiration of many Romanitc composers
(esp. Schumann). Mahler only ever used to subtitle for the 1893
revision of the symphony, it should never, Never, NEVER be attached to
the 1898/9 final revision,which is what is almost always played and
recorded.
2) Symphony of a Thousand. Not Mahler's title and one he disliked
(referred to it as "Barnum & Bailey").
: Are there any other nominations or is it to be a clean sweep for the plucky
: Austrian lad?
: (Okay, nomination 3 may be a bit unfair but you get the drift. I used to
: keep quiet about Mahler until I discovered that some professional musicians
: feel the same. I sell music for a living and in my neck of the woods the
: Mahler bubble has well and truly burst. "You can`t get arrested with him",
: as the saying goes.)
Nomination number 3 is the *only* fair one...and I'd still say it is
unfair.
--
|Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept. | Music does not have to be understood|
|Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada| It has to be listened to. |
|email: dba...@camosun.bc.ca | |
|phone: +1 250 370 4452 | Hermann Scherchen. |
Deryk Barker
: Mahler should have stayed with vocal music - he was gifted in that
: department and wrote some very nice songs. His orchestral music is
: bloated and padded, sometimes pompous (not as pompous as his declaration
: that the symphony should be everything, etc.), with good bits few and
: far between lengthy doses of pablum.
Your opinion.
:
: He lacked the ability to condense - which is why I absolutely cannot
: consider him a contender for a great composer. I think orchestras like
: to play his music at least in part because everybody gets to play and
: make a raucus. No subtlety there.
Perhpas he wasn't trying to condense....
No subtlety? You've listened carefully to the orchestration in the 9th
symphony and Das Lied?
Mahler was one of the greatest orchestrators in history and one of the
subtlest.
Deryk Barker
: In article <6t328r$mfc$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
:
: > Forgive "blank" previous attempt to introduce this topic - I`m still
: > getting used to this computer.
: > Nominations are invited for the most pretentiously titled piece of
: > music, judged by the gulf between pompous title and actual content.
: I nominate Berlioz's "Fantastic Symphony": he ought to have been more
That's not what the French word "Fantastique" means - nor, I suspect,
the English word Fantastic into well into this century.
Deryk Barker
:
:
: Being new to newsgroups I am not sure how to quote someone else from the
: newsgroup, but in support of the comments, indicated below, I believe it was
Twain wrote (in his autobiography) "I have been told that..."
Apparently it was one Bill Nye (not *that* one) who did the telling.
Deryk Barker
[...]
: Neilsen: "Inextinguishable", though I understand that it refers to (I
: think it was) the human spirit, not the undying quality of the work.
Actually "music, like life, is inextinguishable".
Probably Inextringuishable is but a pale shadow of the true meaning of
the Danish Uudslukellige. (Pardon my spelling).
: (I think the work is kind of OK, but when I performed it, we
: orchestral musicians joked incessantly about the "Undistinguishable"
: :-)
And did you think you were the first to make this joke?