Which are the best Paganini violin concertos?
Chi-yun Charles Kung
Simple question:
I have a recording of the Paganini Violin Concerto #1 in D. I like it a
lot. What are the best recordings of this work? (I have
Perlman/Foster/Royal Philharmonic)
Another simple question:
Are Paganini's other violin concertos of the same caliber? I seem to see
mostly recordings of the first...
Thanks for any responses. (Either post them here or send email)
Charles Kung
chi...@princeton.edu
Alan J. Briker
Chi-yun Charles Kung wrote:
>
> Simple question:
>
> I have a recording of the Paganini Violin Concerto #1 in D. I like it a
> lot. What are the best recordings of this work? (I have
> Perlman/Foster/Royal Philharmonic)
Stick w/the Perlman. You will not improve much on it. There are other
fine performances, e.g Shaham, Chang, Rabin
> Another simple question:
>
> Are Paganini's other violin concertos of the same caliber? I seem to see
> mostly recordings of the first...
>
> Thanks for any responses. (Either post them here or send email)
>
> Charles Kung
> chi...@princeton.edu
The others (there are 6 in all) are not in the same league. The 2nd is
known mostly for its last movement (La Campanella) but there are not
many recordings of it. The others are mostly curiosities. The 3rd was
only "rediscovered" in the late 60's and has a few nice moments. The 4th
was recorded by Ricci. All the Paganini concerti were recorded on DG by
S. Accardo, but I don't know if the set is still available.
Alan
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
Alan J. Briker wrote:
>
> Chi-yun Charles Kung wrote:
> >
> Are Paganini's other violin concertos of the same caliber? I seem to
see
> > mostly recordings of the first...
> >
> > Thanks for any responses.
All the Paganini concerti were recorded on DG by
> S. Accardo, but I don't know if the set is still available.
> Alan
An interesting note (though not necessarily a recommendation):
Salvatore Accardo is chosen by the city of Cremona to play Paganini's
Stradivarius quartet suite of instruments, and his Guarneri del Gesu,
because of his alleged direct link to Paganini. As I understand it,
Accardo studied with Luigi d'Abmbrosio, who studied with Camillo Sivori,
who was Paganini's one and only student. If you're interested in lines
of teaching, you might check him out.
Con
Con
MARK ADKINS
Just my two cents:
(1) The Sarah Chang / Philadephia Orchestra / Sawallisch / EMI recording
of the No. 1 concerto is excellent in both sound and performance. My
only objection is that much of the pizzicato is missing. Perhaps Chang
just didn't feel comfortable with this difficult (left-handed) feat. If
so, I respect her for the omission. I'd much rather hear a clean,
competent, slightly abridged performance than a complete but incompetent
performance (see next paragraph). This disc couples the concerto with
two more showpieces, Saint-Saens' Havanaise for violin and orchestra
and his Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso for violin and orchestra,
both knockouts.
(2) Stay away from the Salvadore Accardo set of six. He handles the
pizzicato well and seems to play an unabridged version of the No. 1,
but he is constantly flat or sharp, mainly during double-stopped
passages high on the fretboard; since there is actually quite a lot
of this in Paganini's violin concertos, the result is painful to
listen to.
(3) Unlike one of the other readers who commented in this thread,
I find most of the other six violin concertos to be more than mere
curiosities. Unfortunately, Accardo's is the only complete set
I know if which is still available and which wasn't recorded in
antediluvian times.
--
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu)
M.P.McCaffrey
CONSTANTIN MARCOU <conm...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<335018...@earthlink.net>...
> Alan J. Briker wrote:
> >
> > Chi-yun Charles Kung wrote:
> > >
> > Are Paganini's other violin concertos of the same caliber? I seem to
> see
> > > mostly recordings of the first...
> > >
> > > Thanks for any responses.
>
> All the Paganini concerti were recorded on DG by
> > S. Accardo, but I don't know if the set is still available.
> > Alan
Yes, the set is still available. I purchased it 6 mos. ago from BMG ( D
201550 ). It features Accardo and Charles Dutoit/LPO. As to whether all the
concertos are the same caliber, IMHO # 1, 2 and 4 are very good, # 3, 5 and
6 are lesser works, but still very listenable, if only for the stylistic
display of violin fireworks that is so distinctively Paganini. The support
playing here is as good as I've heard in any renditions of these works, and
Accardo is very good, including as he does many of the repeats that are not
often heard in other versions.
Bruce Lo
The recodrings Accardo has made aren't bad at all. In the first concerto
that he plays, he just uses the full Sauret cadenza (the really
difficult, but never-ending one, in which most people don't play or only
use an abridged version).
But aside from the concertoes, Accardo has recorded all theother
Paganini concert pieces, my favorites include I Palpiti and the best, Le
Strege (witches' dance, for those of you who took Suzuki :). Does anyone
know if he's recorded 'God Saves the King' for solo violin?
Bruce
Mark Starr
I happen to love Paganini's violin concerti and the short concert
pieces. Indeed, I love the entire genre of the virtuoso
showpiece--which
I think is usually condescendingly (and very unfairly) dismissed by
the musical intelligensia. As someone who discovered and edited for
publication manuscripts by Bottesini ("The Paganini of the Double
Bass"),
Demersseman ("The Pagannini of the Flute"), and Ponchielli (the opera
composer who wrote a super-virtuoso concert-piece for four woodwind
instruments and accompaniment), I think I can say that no other
musical genre requires more technical skill to compose. (That is why
there are actually so few pieces in this genre.) And when the
technical skill is combined with extraordinary charm, elegance, humor,
and melodic inspiration--as is unquestionably found in the works of
Paganini, Bottesini, Demersseman, and Ponchielli--the results are
musical diamonds.
Now another composer in this vein comes to mind whom I think deserves
a great deal of respect--not to mention lots more performances these
days by violinists and orchestras--is Sarasate. Many of his pieces
still remain unpublished (and, of course, unrecorded.)
Regards,
Mark Starr
M.P.McCaffrey
Mark Starr <st...@inow.com> wrote in article <335271...@inow.com>...
> I happen to love Paganini's violin concerti and the short concert
> pieces. Indeed, I love the entire genre of the virtuoso
> showpiece--which
> I think is usually condescendingly (and very unfairly) dismissed by
> there are actually so few pieces in this genre.) And when the
> technical skill is combined with extraordinary charm, elegance, humor,
> and melodic inspiration--as is unquestionably found in the works of
> Paganini, Bottesini, Demersseman, and Ponchielli--the results are
> musical diamonds.
>
> Now another composer in this vein comes to mind whom I think deserves
> a great deal of respect--not to mention lots more performances these
> days by violinists and orchestras--is Sarasate. Many of his pieces
> still remain unpublished (and, of course, unrecorded.)
>
> Regards,
> Mark Starr
There are many Sarasate pieces on the Vox Allegreto CD " Aaron Rosand plays
Sarasate " ( ACD 8160 ), but other than an occasional " Carmen Fantasy "
like Perlman, or " Zigeunerweisen ", lately by Shaham or Mutter, Sarasate
ia indeed hard to find. Rosand goes on at length in the liner notes about
the demise of showpiece playing, even to the point that he couldn't find
replacements for his wornout scores of Sarasate, and on this point I mourn
as well. Fireworks fiddling is a main attraction for me. A couple of other
composers in this genre are Saint-Saens ( Introduction & Rondo Capriciosso
e.g. or La Havanaise ) and Lalo (Parts of Symphonie Espagnole )and even
Ravel & Berlioz. Sibelius wrote 2 humoresques that Mutter recorded on her
Sibelius Cto. album, and there are a few others ( Vieuxtemps e.g.), but you
sure have to look !
Mike
AMD...@pol.net
In article <01bc4824$2facaf40$248c46cf@default>,
"M.P.McCaffrey" <good...@lcc.net> wrote:
[snip]
> As to whether all the
> concertos are the same caliber, IMHO # 1, 2 and 4 are very good, # 3, 5 and
> 6 are lesser works, but still very listenable, if only for the stylistic
> display of violin fireworks that is so distinctively Paganini. The support
> playing here is as good as I've heard in any renditions of these works, and
> Accardo is very good, including as he does many of the repeats that are not
> often heard in other versions.
I've long been a fan of Accardo's Pagannini recordings (and those of
Bruch; when will these ever be reissued?). My favorite concertos, in
contrast to most of those on this thread, are Nos. 3 & 5 (and the
Kreisler version of the first movement of No.1, preferably in Alfredo
Campoli's London recording). Henryk Szeryng also made an excellent
recording of No.3, which he "discovered" and edited.
Adam
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
M.P.McCaffrey
Con, thanks for mentioning Wieniawski, in my earlier reply I forgot to
include him and kicked myself afterwards. He, like Paganini and Sarasate
was a virtuoso player himself. Many other great composers were not, but
wrote great pieces. My question for you is, do you think that players have
a big advantge over non-players, or is the music just there if you have the
gift ? Speaking as one who doesn't have the gift, I am curious.
Mike
> Thank you for this intelligent and articulate defense of a genre that
> provides pleasant diversion from life's travails and harms no-one. I
> don't believe that all art must be seriously thought-provoking;
> sometimes man needs just simple entertainment. When participants in a
> discussion haughtily dismiss this or that composer or genre as
> lightweight, I am reminded of an old saying: there is no bad music, only
> bad performances.
>
> When I was in 2nd or 3rd grade, just beginning the violin, my teacher (a
> young lady who was herself a student) played "Zigeunerweisen" for me and
> I was entranced. I have the sheet music, and I have yet to master it --
> but I will always have a soft spot for it. By the way, the literature
> all seems to agree that Sarasate had tiny fingers, and found ingenious
> ways to overcome the shortcoming so that he could reach the intervals
> required by many virtuoso pieces -- including his own. I wish I knew
> his secret (and my hands are by no means small). Now, how about
> Wieniawski?
>
> Regards,
> Con
>
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
M.P.McCaffrey wrote:
>
****>
My question for you is, do you think that players have
> a big advantge over non-players, or is the music just there if you have the
> Mike
>
I think an objective examination of the question would probably lead to
the conclusion that the music is just there if you have the gift, and
being a player is no advantage. I say this because, to a certain
extent, ALL great composers were players and their composing skills
appear to be unrelated to their virtuosity, which they shared with
lesser composers. For example: although we agree that we like Sarasate,
certainly we can't compare him with Beethoven or Mozart. Yet Beethoven
and Mozart were also a violin virtuosi who got bored with the instrument
and moved on to keyboards. (I know I'm making it sound like the violin
is somehow inferior, but that's not what I mean.) Don't forget that
Beethoven's first gig was in the viola section of the local Elector's
orchestra in Bonn. Additionally, we know that Bach wrote most of his
violin music for himself to play as leader of whatever orchestra he
directed at the time (Coethen, for example). Some of it is fiendishly
difficult even by modern standards -- notably the Chaconne, and many
solo passages in works like the Mass and St. Matthew Passion are truly a
bear. Certainly, though, he cannot be compared with Paganini in any
sense -- either as a violin virtuoso (where Paganini probably ran
circles around anyone else) or as a composer (where Paganini sounds like
a child by comparison)
So, we have individuals of equal virtuosity on the instrument, but
vastly different levels of depth as composers. This would indicate that
virtuosity is no advantage.
On the other hand, there are composers of considerable depth and talent
who probably couldn't play a note on the solo instrument they were
composing for if their lives depended on it, ands yet wrote great music
for that instrument, e.g. Tchaikovsky and Bruch. Tchaikovsky, of
course, consulted Brodsky, and Bruch did the same with Joachim. I'm not
saying that their concertos are among the most profound pieces -- but
we've already agreed that there is room for a wide spectrum of feeling
and depth in the realm. In any event, they are more than merely minor
composers. So, again, we have composers with no virtuosity whatsoever
-- again indicating that virtuosity is no advantage in writhing great
music. In either event, it would appear that virtuosity is unrelated to
ability as a composer.
It's a very interesting question, and I'm not at all sure that my
analysis has any real foundation because I dont't know thing #1 about
composing -- only a little bit about playing and some history. This is
really one to throw out to the group.
Regards,
Con
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
MARK ADKINS wrote:
>
> In a previous article, conm...@earthlink.net (CONSTANTIN MARCOU) says:
>
> >Mark Starr wrote:
> >>
> >> I happen to love Paganini's violin concerti and the short concert
> >> pieces. Indeed, I love the entire genre of the virtuoso
> >> showpiece--which
> >> I think is usually condescendingly (and very unfairly) dismissed by
> >> the musical intelligensia.
> >> Now another composer in this vein comes to mind whom I think deserves
> >> a great deal of respect--not to mention lots more performances these
> >> days by violinists and orchestras--is Sarasate. Many of his pieces
> >> still remain unpublished (and, of course, unrecorded.)
> >
> >provides pleasant diversion from life's travails and harms no-one. I
> >don't believe that all art must be seriously thought-provoking;
> >sometimes man needs just simple entertainment. When participants in a
> >discussion haughtily dismiss this or that composer or genre as
> >lightweight, I am reminded of an old saying: there is no bad music, only
> >bad performances.
>
> isn't, and that includes must classical music. What's so thought
> provoking about the Brandenburg Concertos, the Well-tempered Clavier,
> or most anything which Mozart wrote, from his piano concertos to his
> symphonies? What's so thought provoking about Beethoven's Fifth,
> or most of his other symphonies?
>
> I think when people use the term "thought provoking" with respect to
> art, what they really mean is that it's difficult to understand by
> contemporary standards and not very pleasant to listen to, usually
> because it is very dark and contorted. Sometimes they may also mean
> that it is contemplative in character rather than extroverted. I
> don't see why Paganini is any less of a "serious" composer than
> Mozart simply because his work is so melodious, pleasurable and sunny
> in disposition -- not that Mozart is known for his brooding qualities.
> Certainly his compositions are not any simpler than Mozart's, and they
> are certainly a good deal less repetitious than Mozart's. Mozart has a
> much larger published (and probably written) body of work, and his
> pieces are often easier to play *well* than Paganini's (certainly this is
> true where direct comparisons can be made, such as violin concertos),
> hence they are performed far more often.
You know, you make some very interesting points. I guess that I have
used the term "thought-provoking" as shorthand for all those other
qualities that you so aptly enumerate, like "dark" or "contemplative."
And yet, there are many works that I cannot hear without contemplating
the human condition, or our struggle to achieve nobility of spirit while
contending with mundane realities. Beethoven always does this for me.
When I hear some of the later Mozart works (the Requiem, the 2nd
movement of the Jupiter) I hear heartbreak and think of the pain of all
those miscarriages. (And you are doubtless correct that much of his
violin oeuvre is easier to perform than Paganini's) Even the
Brandenburgs can have this effect on me. Obviously, the composers did
not necessarily intend this or have me in mind when they wrote. I do
not, however, have such mental associations with "La Campanella." I
listen to it when I want to hear a cheerful tune. And you're right:
that shouldn't cause it to be judged inferior.
Regards
Con
Joe Deinet
Mark Starr <st...@inow.com> wrote:
>I happen to love Paganini's violin concerti and the short concert
>pieces. Indeed, I love the entire genre of the virtuoso
>showpiece--
I too think that the Paganin concerti are great. My favorite
recording is the entire six concerti played by Salvatore Accardo and
the London Symph. Orch. conducted by Charles Dutoit. I have this on
LP's, but I believe it is also available on CD's.
Joe
Mark Starr
M.P.McCaffrey wrote:
> Fireworks fiddling is a main attraction for me. A couple of other
> composers in this genre are Saint-Saens ( Introduction & Rondo Capriciosso
> e.g. or La Havanaise ) and Lalo (Parts of Symphonie Espagnole )and even
> Ravel & Berlioz. Sibelius wrote 2 humoresques that Mutter recorded on her
> Sibelius Cto. album, and there are a few others ( Vieuxtemps e.g.), but you
> sure have to look !
> Mike
I hope you know the violin part for Bottesini's Grand duo concertante
for violin, double bass and orchestra. Bottesini composed the violin
part for Camillo Sivori--Paganini's only pupil. Incidentally, last year
I heard for the first time (at the Levine Gala) the stupefying duo for
tenor and solo violin in Verdi's "I Lombardi". I was immediately struck
by Verdi's obvious and conscious use of Bottesini's concert pieces as
models for this, his one excursion into the realm of pyrotechnical
display music for the solo violin. Of course, Bottesini was Verdi's
life-long friend; and it was Bottesini's whom Verdi selected to conduct
the premiere of "Aida" in Cairo.
A modern violin showpiece of extraordinary brilliance (and humor) is the
Concert
Fantasy on Rossini's "Largo al factotum" by Mario Castelnuevo-Tedesco
--with which Jascha Heiftez sometimes closed his concerts. There are
very few violin concerti (including Castelnuevo-Tedesco's own violin
concerto) that
reach this level of virtuosity.
^^^^^
ธ.ทณฐจดฏฏดจฐณท.ธ(ฏ`ท._< Regards >_.ทดฏ)ธ.ทณฐจดฏฏดจฐณท.ธ
~~~~~~~)(~~~~~~ from: Mark Starr ~~~~~~)(~~~~~~~~
ธ.ทณฐจด> st...@inow.com <ดจฐณท.ธ
<<<< ~~~ >>>>
MARK ADKINS
In a previous article, conm...@earthlink.net (CONSTANTIN MARCOU) says:
>Mark Starr wrote:
>>
>> I happen to love Paganini's violin concerti and the short concert
>> pieces. Indeed, I love the entire genre of the virtuoso
Larisa Migachyov
Joe Deinet (jde...@shentel.net) wrote:
: Mark Starr <st...@inow.com> wrote:
: >I happen to love Paganini's violin concerti and the short concert
: >pieces. Indeed, I love the entire genre of the virtuoso
: >showpiece--
: I too think that the Paganin concerti are great. My favorite
: recording is the entire six concerti played by Salvatore Accardo and
: the London Symph. Orch. conducted by Charles Dutoit. I have this on
: LP's, but I believe it is also available on CD's.
BTW, was it in one of his concerti that Paganini used the same theme as
his 24th Caprice? Or was it in another piece? I have a CD of the
Caprices, and the notes just say that "this theme was also used elsewhere
by Paganini", and don't say where.
Larisa
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
First, I should express to you how flattered I am that you forward an
advance copy of this posting. What you say has made me rethink some of
my approach to music. Permit me, however, to point out a few areas
where you do me a disservice, and also some areas that I think may
benefit from expanding your discussion:
>
> Beethoven always does this for me.
>
> violin sonatas, and symphonies? I don't. I hear music. Perhaps
> it is shallow of me to hear music while listening to music, but
> I just don't hear "the human condition" or "the struggle to achieve
> nobility of spirit while contending with mundane realities" when
> listening to, say, his Symphony No. 8 or his Violin Sonata No. 3
> or his Piano Concerto No. 2. And I doubt very much whether
> Beethoven intended his music to be a kind of universal theme for
> these things.
No, you are absolutely right. I only "hear" these things in some of
the more wrenching works such as the Eroica and, yes, absolutely, the
violin concerto and the 4th and 5th piano concertos. You're right: I
don't hear such titanic struggles in the early violin sonatas or the
early symphonies and concertos -- and you are not shallow for not
hearing these things.
Let me digress for a moment: whren I wrote this, perhaps I did not make
it clear enough that these are things that I read into the music. They
are not intrinsic in it, but I feel that the music lends itself to such
contemplations much more than, say, a Boccherini cello concerto.
Secondly, I think that your statements could benefit from a further
explanation of what it is that makes music great as opposed to schlock.
Don't laugh; many of us are lay people -- not professional musicians or
academics who have had the time and guidance to dissect these things,
and your explanation may shed a lot of new light for some of us.
>
> >When I hear some of the later Mozart works (the Requiem, the 2nd
> >movement of the Jupiter) I hear heartbreak and think of the pain of all
> >those miscarriages.
> Most of Mozart's works don't speak of heartbreak and pain,
I didn't say they do. I was referring specifically to portions of those
two pieces.
and some
> of Paganini's are melancholy. Does that mean that Mozart is only
> a "serious composer" during those few pieces which make you think
> of miscarriages, or that Paganini is "serious" provided he isn't
> writing joyful music?
>
> Sadness, struggle, and introversion are *facets* of the human experience,
> as are joy, triumph, humor, wit, and intimacy. I don't see why you
> insist on the primacy of the former...
Because sadness, struggle, and suffering can lead to compassion, wisdom,
understanding and sensitivity. Joy, triumph and humor alone, without
the former, cannot. You are correct in saying that the latter are
equally valid human experiences worthy of reflection in art, and that
they are no less worthy than the former, but the former are more likely
to form character traits that we consider desirable.
>
> I also have problems with any validation of music as "serious"
> which relies upon your subjective emotional responses
[Again, I admit that I "read" these things into the music where they are
not necessarily present]
> and excludes aesthetic considerations.
Now here is where you can be of enormous service by explaining those
considerations. What makes one piece more aesthetically pleasing than
another? Why -- given that both pieces represent absolute music to me
without any other associations in my mind -- do I prefer to hear
Beethoven's 2nd Symphony over, say, Clementi's etudes? What makes a
piece "better"? I am being completely sincere her, and not just
facetious or argumentative, or asking in a rhetorical sense.
Are Debussy's
> Etudes for solo piano not serious music because they fail to make
> the listener think about miscarriages or the struggle to achieve
> nobility?
Well, I don't think that they necessarily fail to do that. I'm
exaggerating now by including ALL Debussy solo piano music. But...
there is another item that many great pieces bring to my mind (notice I
said MY mind -- it ain't necessarily in the music), which is the
grandeur and wonder of nature -- whether on a massive or intimate scale.
The more obvious examples of this are Beethoven's Patorale and Debussy's
La Mer. However, solo piano pieces can have the same effect on me, such
as "Une Barque sur l"Ocean," "Jardins sous la Pluie," "Poissons d'Or,"
etc. So, yes, a lot of Debussy does it for me too, and he doesn't fall
into my "airhead" category of musicians (if any there be).
("I hear another miscarriage in *that* bar! Whoops,
> there goes another one!")
Would you stop with the miscarriages, already! You know damn well what
I meant, and you don't need to beat a dead horse.
>
> Paganini is a "serious" composer because he is serious about
> his compositions. They embody a musical craft and aesthetic
> sensibility whose sophistication and eloquence cannot be
> denied. The fact that they may also make you feel joy -- while
> engaging and delighting the intellect with their complexity --
> is an added bonus, and one which is no less "serious" than the
> ability of other compositions to elicit a sense of tragedy.
> What makes Paganini's virtuoso style "serious" is that it is seldom
> an empty display: the devilish pyrotechnics are a means through which
> he *enthralls* or *engages* the listener with wonderfully inventive
> and memorable music.
>
> Nor is this to gainsay more abstract virtuoso formats, which are
> just as serious despite their lack of warmth *provided they engage the
> listener intellectually or aesthetically*. "Serious music" isn't
> restricted to those works which express some negative emotional aspect
> of the human condition -- or which even address the human condition.
So basically, what you are saying is that a cold intellectual exercise
also qualifies as serious music. Well, I certainly don't gainsay that.
But why do we admire one composer's etudes while dismissing others?
All this is fantastic! It's exactly the kind of expalnation I'm asking
for earlier as to what makes music great. Now, could you give an
example of something that regularly makes the concert or recording
rounds that does not possess any of these qualities (including evocation
of some human condition or appeal to some emotion) or co, so that I can
compare?
Regards,
Con
P.S. In case I've left you wondering, I can love something cute, happy,
zippy or energetic (like, say "Golliwogg's Cakewalk" or Ravel's Piano
Concerto or Mother Goose Suite) just as much as the breast-beating,
hair-shirt, hell-fire and brimstone stuff.
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
MARK ADKINS wrote:
> I really don't see what
> relevance all this psychoanalysis has for our discussion of music,
***>
> Aesthetic qualities include form, structure,
> style, the use of instruments (both by exploiting the natural timbre of
> single instruments and by combining them effectively), complexity
> (or conversely, elegant simplicity), grace, precision, various melodic,
> harmonic, and contrapuntal qualities, etc., etc., etc. The point
> being that a master craftsman can build a sad, tragic piece of music
> or a joyful, uplifting piece of music (or an emotionally neutral
> piece of music) *as he chooses* and we can pick and choose the products
> of various masters as they suit our own temperaments, sensibilities,
> and changing moods.
>
>
> Well, you certainly do seem to be gainsaying it. "Cold intellectual
> exercise" is a phrase dripping with contempt.
No, I'm not. Now you are reading emotional content into my words.
Perhaps I should have said "detached" instead of cold. I was just
responding to your own description of warks that are purely abstract and
(in your own words) lack warmth.
I admit I don't find much emotional content in many abstract works of
music and art,
> whether these be pieces from Bach's Well Tempered Clavier or
> drawings by M.C. Escher.
I don't see that Escher's drawings are all that devoid of emotional
content. You've been reading too much Douglas Hofstadter :-)
That doesn't make them any less great.
> You should acknowledge that "serious music" embodies a much broader
> range than commentaries on human suffering or tone poems about nature.
> Music is fundamentally about sound and pattern (just as visual art
> is fundamentally about light, shadow, texture, color, and pattern),
> and these are aesthetic qualities. These may be used to elicit strong
> emotions or literal descriptions if that is the intent of the composer,
> but they are also ends in themselves. If you cannot appreciate the
> purely aesthetic in music then you will miss out on at least half of
> the great works, whether fully in the case of works which do not pander
> to your emotions, or partially in the case of works whose emotional
> or programmatic content rests upon a sound aesthetic foundation.
>
I think you've put your finger on our difference, here -- especially
with your analogy to visual arts. I think arts in general originally
develop in a society or culture to fulfill a perceived practical
purpose: representation of objects in the case of painting, and
evocation of feelings in the case of music (and the feeling can be "I
feel like dancing and partying"). As the culture develops (and I speak
here strictly as sn ordinalry layperson, not as a sociologist or art
historian), the potential and possibilities for these arts to provide a
vehicle of expression for the artist (and for the audience), apart from
the original practical purpose, becomes evident, and the artist begins
to use light, shadow, pattern, sound, etc. as ends in themselves rather
than to "pander to your emotions" (I really resent this; is the use of
the second person singular aimed directly at me, or do you intend it to
mean any listener, in general?)
I am not saying that music as an end in itself does not move me absent
some psychological associations. I think, though, that we go through
cycles in our appreciation of art in the course of our development as
human beings -- both as a society and individually. First, we expect it
to do something for us unassociated with the art itself. Then, we
realize that it doesn't have to do any thing of the sort, and become
afraid to see any other associations in connection with it. Then, we
loosen up and allow it to have other associations if we feel like it at
the moment. I don't know if the cycle continues further or has other
developments. I am not saying that music for its own sake cannot or
should not be appreciated for its form, structure, elegance, complexity,
etc. Why do you want to denigrate the idea that we are permitted to
make personal associations of certain pieces with certain feelings if
that is how we react to those pieces? It comes down to the age-old
observation that it takes two to create art: those who create and those
who perceive.
All this, of course, has nothing to do with your original proposition,
which I now better understand and agree with, which is that music need
not fulfill my personal agenda for greatness or noble feeling -- or any
feeling at all -- in order to be serious.
As for the request for an example, it was clumsily worded, you're
right. Since I wrote it very late at night, I don't even recall exactly
what I had in mind, but I think what I meant was: can you give me an
example of what you consider to be a frequently performed piece that
has, in your opinion, NONE of the criteria we've discussed for "serious"
music, i.e. no attempt to appeal to any emotion, and no serious attempt
to explore form, sound or texture -- and yet has gained wide popularity.
(And I don't mean "Louie, Louie" -- I'm talking about works considered
to be "classical music"). You can decline to answer on the ground that
this would be a purely subjective evaluation, and I'll understand, but I
was just curious.
Regards
Con
MARK ADKINS
In a previous article, conm...@earthlink.net (CONSTANTIN MARCOU) says:
>You know, you make some very interesting points. I guess that I have
>used the term "thought-provoking" as shorthand for all those other
>qualities that you so aptly enumerate, like "dark" or "contemplative."
>And yet, there are many works that I cannot hear without contemplating
>the human condition, or our struggle to achieve nobility of spirit while
>contending with mundane realities. Beethoven always does this for me.
Really? You hear this in most of Beethoven's piano concertos,
violin sonatas, and symphonies? I don't. I hear music. Perhaps
it is shallow of me to hear music while listening to music, but
I just don't hear "the human condition" or "the struggle to achieve
nobility of spirit while contending with mundane realities" when
listening to, say, his Symphony No. 8 or his Violin Sonata No. 3
or his Piano Concerto No. 2. And I doubt very much whether
Beethoven intended his music to be a kind of universal theme for
these things.
>When I hear some of the later Mozart works (the Requiem, the 2nd
>movement of the Jupiter) I hear heartbreak and think of the pain of all
>those miscarriages. (And you are doubtless correct that much of his
>violin oeuvre is easier to perform than Paganini's) Even the
>Brandenburgs can have this effect on me. Obviously, the composers did
>not necessarily intend this or have me in mind when they wrote. I do
>not, however, have such mental associations with "La Campanella." I
>listen to it when I want to hear a cheerful tune. And you're right:
>that shouldn't cause it to be judged inferior.
Most of Mozart's works don't speak of heartbreak and pain, and some
of Paganini's are melancholy. Does that mean that Mozart is only
a "serious composer" during those few pieces which make you think
of miscarriages, or that Paganini is "serious" provided he isn't
writing joyful music?
Sadness, struggle, and introversion are *facets* of the human experience,
as are joy, triumph, humor, wit, and intimacy. I don't see why you
insist on the primacy of the former, or why you don't consider
Paganini's first violin concerto a "serious" work simply because
it embodies the latter in various ways.
I also have problems with any validation of music as "serious"
which relies upon your subjective emotional responses and excludes
aesthetic considerations. Schlock isn't limited to music which
makes people smile. There is plenty of schlock which makes people
teary-eyed, too. And a lot of music appeals to the intellect or
to *subtle* emotional connections (if at all) rather than playing
the listener's heart like a stringed instrument. Are Debussy's
Etudes for solo piano not serious music because they fail to make
the listener think about miscarriages or the struggle to achieve
nobility? ("I hear another miscarriage in *that* bar! Whoops,
there goes another one!")
Paganini is a "serious" composer because he is serious about
his compositions. They embody a musical craft and aesthetic
sensibility whose sophistication and eloquence cannot be
denied. The fact that they may also make you feel joy -- while
engaging and delighting the intellect with their complexity --
is an added bonus, and one which is no less "serious" than the
ability of other compositions to elicit a sense of tragedy.
What makes Paganini's virtuoso style "serious" is that it is seldom
an empty display: the devilish pyrotechnics are a means through which
he *enthralls* or *engages* the listener with wonderfully inventive
and memorable music.
Nor is this to gainsay more abstract virtuoso formats, which are
just as serious despite their lack of warmth *provided they engage the
listener intellecually or aesthetically*. "Serious music" isn't
restricted to those works which express some negative emotional aspect
of the human condition -- or which even address the human condition.
MARK ADKINS
In a previous message, conm...@earthlink.net (CONSTANTIN MARCOU) said:
>Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu) wrote:
>
>>Sadness, struggle, and introversion are *facets* of the human experience,
>>as are joy, triumph, humor, wit, and intimacy. I don't see why you
>>insist on the primacy of the former...
>
>Because sadness, struggle, and suffering can lead to compassion, wisdom,
>understanding and sensitivity. Joy, triumph and humor alone, without
>the former, cannot. You are correct in saying that the latter are
>equally valid human experiences worthy of reflection in art, and that
>they are no less worthy than the former, but the former are more likely
>to form character traits that we consider desirable.
Sadness, struggle, and suffering can just as easily lead to bitterness,
depression, withdrawal, insensitivity, indifference, and derangement.
Triumph on the other hand implies a successful resolution to struggle,
and the other positive qualities can just as easily imply balance,
intelligence, perspective, grace, and the ability to transcend adversity
to appreciate the better things in life. I really don't see what
relevance all this psychoanalysis has for our discussion of music,
however. I repeat: all of these things are *facets* of the human
condition and it is a mistake to construct a theory of music (or
art in general) which fails to recognize this and instead denigrates
the positive and elevates the negative.
>
>>I also have problems with any validation of music as "serious"
>>which relies upon your subjective emotional responses and excludes
>>aesthetic considerations.
>
>Now here is where you can be of enormous service by explaining those
>considerations. What makes one piece more aesthetically pleasing than
>another?
That is an entirely different question. I said that any validation
of music as "serious" should rely primarily upon its aesthetic
qualities rather than insisting that it satisfy some particular
emotional sensibility. Aesthetic qualities include form, structure,
style, the use of instruments (both by exploiting the natural timbre of
single instruments and by combining them effectively), complexity
(or conversely, elegant simplicity), grace, precision, various melodic,
harmonic, and contrapuntal qualities, etc., etc., etc. The point
being that a master craftsman can build a sad, tragic piece of music
or a joyful, uplifting piece of music (or an emotionally neutral
piece of music) *as he chooses* and we can pick and choose the products
of various masters as they suit our own temperaments, sensibilities,
and changing moods.
>Why -- given that both pieces represent absolute music to me without
>any other associations in my mind -- do I prefer to hear Beethoven's
>2nd Symphony over, say, Clementi's etudes?
To answer that I would need to know both you and Clementi's etudes,
and I know neither.
>But there is another item that many great pieces bring to my mind
>(notice I said MY mind -- it ain't necessarily in the music), which
>is the grandeur and wonder of nature -- whether on a massive or intimate
>scale. The more obvious examples of this are Beethoven's Pastorale and
>Debussy's La Mer.
Well, I agree that these are great works (I would also add Strauss'
Alpensinfonie), and the ability to effectively paint nature through
music is one particular musical talent. But most works -- great or
otherwise -- do not aspire to represent nature. Many of those which
try, fail. I think the Pastorale succeeds *in this regard* only
in the slow movement, and La Mer in spots. (Of course, I don't
believe any of these three composers intended their works to be
mere literal representations of nature.)
>
> Paganini is a "serious" composer because he is serious about
> his compositions. They embody a musical craft and aesthetic
> sensibility whose sophistication and eloquence cannot be
> denied. The fact that they may also make you feel joy -- while
> engaging and delighting the intellect with their complexity --
> is an added bonus, and one which is no less "serious" than the
> ability of other compositions to elicit a sense of tragedy.
> What makes Paganini's virtuoso style "serious" is that it is seldom
> an empty display: the devilish pyrotechnics are a means through which
> he *enthralls* or *engages* the listener with wonderfully inventive
> and memorable music.
>
> Nor is this to gainsay more abstract virtuoso formats, which are
> just as serious despite their lack of warmth *provided they engage the
> listener intellectually or aesthetically*. "Serious music" isn't
> restricted to those works which express some negative emotional aspect
> of the human condition -- or which even address the human condition.
>
>>So basically, what you are saying is that a cold intellectual exercise
>>also qualifies as serious music. Well, I certainly don't gainsay that.
Well, you certainly do seem to be gainsaying it. "Cold intellectual
exercise" is a phrase dripping with contempt. I admit I don't find
much emotional content in many abstract works of music and art,
whether these be pieces from Bach's Well Tempered Clavier or
drawings by M.C. Escher. That doesn't make them any less great.
You should acknowledge that "serious music" embodies a much broader
range than commentaries on human suffering or tone poems about nature.
Music is fundamentally about sound and pattern (just as visual art
is fundamentally about light, shadow, texture, color, and pattern),
and these are aesthetic qualities. These may be used to elicit strong
emotions or literal descriptions if that is the intent of the composer,
but they are also ends in themselves. If you cannot appreciate the
purely aesthetic in music then you will miss out on at least half of
the great works, whether fully in the case of works which do not pander
to your emotions, or partially in the case of works whose emotional
or programmatic content rests upon a sound aesthetic foundation.
>But why do we admire one composer's etudes while dismissing others?
Who is "we"? Personal tastes and standards vary.
>All this is fantastic! It's exactly the kind of explanation I'm asking
>for earlier as to what makes music great. Now, could you give an
>example of something that regularly makes the concert or recording
>rounds that does not possess any of these qualities (including evocation
>of some human condition or appeal to some emotion) or co, so that I can
>compare?
Haven't you just said that these qualities are often imposed by the
listener rather than intrinsic to the work itself? How can I give
you an example of something which does not possess qualities which,
by your own admission, are the product of your own subjective
associations? I admit I have been startled by some of these, as
no doubt you would by some of my own personal associations. There
is no right or wrong way to think about these works in that regard,
at least, not within very wide bounds.
>Many of us are lay people -- not professional musicians or
>academics who have had the time and guidance to dissect these things,
>and your explanation may shed a lot of new light for some of us.
For the record, I am a "lay person" myself and not a musician or a
music academician.
Harold Zamansky
A listing of great recordings of the first Paganini Concerto must include
that by Menuhin, with Monteux cond., made when Yehudi was still a mere
lad. A remarkable performance. This is available in several CD
incarnations.
Regarding Sarasate, did you know that he recorded about 10 sides,
mostly of his own music, including Zigunerweisen? These, too, are
available on CD. So, by the way, did Joachim (5 sides).
Harold Zamansky (Zama...@neu.edu)
MARK ADKINS
In a previous message, CONSTANTIN MARCOU <conm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu) wrote:
>
>>Well, you certainly do seem to be gainsaying it. "Cold intellectual
>>exercise" is a phrase dripping with contempt.
>
>No, I'm not. Now you are reading emotional content into my words.
>Perhaps I should have said "detached" instead of cold. I was just
>responding to your own description of warks that are purely abstract
>and (in your own words) lack warmth.
I have a difficult time taking this seriously. First, you have
clearly and repeatedly demonstrated a style of arch commentary which
combines sly insult with superficial expressions of agreement. (For
example, "Paganini is just something to listen to when you want to
hear a cheery tune, but it isn't in any way inferior"; or, "So basically
what you are saying is that a cold intellectual exercise qualifies as
serious music; I certainly wouldn't gainsay that.")
Second, the phrase describing music as an *exercise* (particularly
in the context of the phrase "cold intellectual exercise") obviously
IS a dismissive description: not only do you have to consider
the full phrase, but you also have to consider who is using it and
what their attitude and intent is. Given your position, that in
your own listening you require music to elicit strong emotional
responses, preferably negative ones (e.g., "sadness", "suffering"),
your intent in employing the phrase "a cold intellectual exercise" is
anything but respectful.
My attitude is rather more broad: as a listener I have both a mind and
a heart, and I can appreciate music which stimulates either or both,
whether subtly or with full romantic gusto. That isn't to say that at
any given moment I'm equally ready for anything.
>
>>I don't find much emotional content in many abstract works of
>>music and art, whether these be pieces from Bach's Well Tempered
>>Clavier or drawings by M.C. Escher, though that doesn't make
>>them any less great.
>
>I don't see that Escher's drawings are all that devoid of emotional
>content. You've been reading too much Douglas Hofstadter :-)
I didn't say devoid, I said there wasn't much, and what they do
elicit emotionally is rather subtle. That's true for most of them.
Here again, though, I can't stop you from reading anything at all
into any of them. Perhaps you can tell me where in "Rippled Surface",
"Dewdrop", "Drawing Hands", "Up and Down", "Magic Mirror", "Reptiles",
"Day and Night", "Sky and Water", etc., you see all that emotion.
My reactions to Escher are my own, though reading Douglas Hofstadter's
commentary and Buddhist reflections has considerably broadened and
deepened my appreciation of them.
It seems to me that instead of responding to things naturally, you
construct ex post facto explanations which permit you to justify
their worth to yourself (according to your conditioned values), hence
your inability to enjoy Mozart without hearing miscarriages, etc..
Try enjoying Mozart for his wit, elegance, grace, virtuosity, and
creative inventiveness. For that matter, try listening to Paganini,
Liszt, Debussy, or Ravel for these qualities. You said that you
liked Debussy's piano work Poissons d'or, in the context of a remark
you made about music which depicts the "grandeur or wonder" of nature.
I love works which effectively depict the grandeur or wonder of nature,
but I don't think Debussy intended this when he wrote this delightful,
playful little piece whose title translates into English as "Goldfish".
That doesn't make me respect it any less. It's a small creative
masterpiece.
>"pander to your emotions" (I really resent this; is the use of
>the second person singular aimed directly at me, or do you intend it
>to mean any listener, in general?)
It's used as an indefinite pronoun. I could have said "pander to
one's emotions" but that sort of phrasing, particularly with repetition,
can sound pedantic. It was a cheap linguistic manipulation in any case,
but I was annoyed by your "cold intellectual exercise" comment when I
wrote it.
>All this, of course, has nothing to do with your original proposition,
>which I now better understand and agree with, which is that music need
>not fulfill my personal agenda for greatness or noble feeling -- or
>any feeling at all -- in order to be serious.
Well, that's gratifying. I'm glad I haven't wasted my time.
>As for the request for an example, it was clumsily worded, you're
>right. Since I wrote it very late at night, I don't even recall exactly
>what I had in mind, but I think what I meant was: can you give me an
>example of what you consider to be a frequently performed piece that
>has, in your opinion, NONE of the criteria we've discussed for "serious"
>music, i.e. no attempt to appeal to any emotion, and no serious attempt
>to explore form, sound or texture -- and yet has gained wide popularity.
>(And I don't mean "Louie, Louie" -- I'm talking about works considered
>to be "classical music").
Who said that any attempt to appeal to any emotion automatically makes
a composition serious?
I tend to forget, not remember, works which I don't at any level take
seriously, i.e., which neither move me nor delight me intellectually
nor stimulate me aesthetically. In fact, I tend to stop listening to
them immediately. There's plenty of pablum out there, though. Just
turn on your radio to a classical station and you're sure to hear some
sooner or later (probably sooner). I suppose there is a distinction
to be drawn between works which I appreciate and works which I consider
"serious attempts" in themselves. From the latter category I exclude
uninspired commercial efforts to grind out whatever musical forms or
styles happen to be in fashion at the time.
M.P.McCaffrey
Mark,
I indeed know the piece, I am listening to it as I type this ! I'll admit
you surprised me with that one. The list of great violin pieces is very
long indeed, but is fortunately one of the few things that we all agree on.
This commonality is refreshing in an area of such subjective likes and
dislikes which is so aptly represented in this NG. I may prefer Mozart, and
" you " may prefer Schoenberg, but if we can't sit and listen to
Ziguenerwiesen together and say " wow " after, then there truly is no
common ground for people in the musical world.
Mike
--
Mike
Mark Starr <st...@inow.com> wrote in article <33547E...@inow.com>...
Michael Laderman
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 06:37:37 -0700, CONSTANTIN MARCOU
<conm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Now, could you give an
>example of something that regularly makes the concert or recording
>rounds that does not possess any of these qualities (including evocation
>of some human condition or appeal to some emotion) or co, so that I can
>compare?
[snip]
Yeah. Ravel's "Bolero".
Michael
Michael Laderman
On 17 Apr 1997 13:09:22 GMT, eme...@aztec.asu.edu (MARK ADKINS)
wrote:
[snip]
> I admit I don't find
>much emotional content in many abstract works of music and art,
>whether these be pieces from Bach's Well Tempered Clavier[...]
[snip]
You may not, but an 18th-century audience would have. Baroque music is
based on the "Doctrine of the Affections," in which each aria or
movement presents a particular emotion. That includes fugues.
You have done a lot of rather deep philosophical thinking about music,
and I'm reading your dialogue with interest. When specific facts are
known, however, general philosiphizing should take a back seat. The
currency of the concept of the "Doctrine of the Affections" in the
18th century is a fact and there are many period sources in which you
can read about it.
Michael
Eric Schissel
Even now, can that charge be fairly laid against the Well-Tempered
Clavier? What of, say, the f minor prelude from book 2, or (I think) the
e-flat minor prelude from book 1?
-Eric Schissel
Bill Palmer
In article <335018...@earthlink.net>,
CONSTANTIN MARCOU <conm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Alan J. Briker wrote:
>>
>> Chi-yun Charles Kung wrote:
>> >
> > Are Paganini's other violin concertos of the same caliber? I seem to
>see
>> > mostly recordings of the first...
>> >
>> > Thanks for any responses.
>
> All the Paganini concerti were recorded on DG by
>> S. Accardo, but I don't know if the set is still available.
>> Alan
>
>Salvatore Accardo is chosen by the city of Cremona to play Paganini's
>Stradivarius quartet suite of instruments, and his Guarneri del Gesu,
>because of his alleged direct link to Paganini. As I understand it,
>Accardo studied with Luigi d'Abmbrosio, who studied with Camillo Sivori,
>who was Paganini's one and only student. If you're interested in lines
>of teaching, you might check him out.
Sorry, I can't let that go by uncorrected. Cremona has no quartet of
Stradivari instruments. It does have a collection which includes the
following violins:
'Charles IX' by Andrea Amati (1566)
'Hammerle' by Nicolo Amti (1658)
'Quarestani' by Giuseppe 'filius Andreae' Guarneri (1689)
'Cremonese' by Antonio Stradivari (1715)
'ex-Zukerman' by Giuseppe 'del Gesu' Guarneri (1734)
There's also a copy of a decorated Stradivari violin executed by
Sacconi, the master repairer of this century.
Accardo had the job of playing the life back into Cremona's violin
collection a few years ago, which is where the confusion probably
arises. There's a double CD available from the Strad magazine
featuring Accardo playing the 5 violins in various compositions and
arrangements by Fritz Kreisler which is quite enjoyable, and if you go
to the Antonio Stradivari museum in Cremona (not to be confused with
the municipal collection) you can see a video of Accardo playing the
instruments before viewing the tools and drawings that survive from
Stradivari's workshop. This might also be available on Fone 951.
There *is* a Paganini quartet of Stradivari instruments, and if you
want to hear it, buy tickets the next time the Tokyo String Quartet is
in town.
If hearing specific violins is of interest, there's a recording on
Dynamic 175 of Accardo playing Paganini's 'Cannon' Guarneri 'del Gesu'
violin. Bein & Fushi, a violin dealer in Chicago, will be selling a
recording of Elmar Oliveira playing 30 great Stradivari and Guarneri
violins. And last but not least, there's an older recording of
Ruggiero Ricci playing a bunch of fine old Cremonese violins, also
available from the Strad magazine.
Getting back to recordings of the music in question, as far as I know,
Accardo has the only complete set of the concerti, on DG. It
currently appears to be in print in the US, at least. The 1st
concerto is definitely the most widely performed and recorded,
probably followed by the 2nd. The music to some of the others has
only recently (early 70's) been made available. Arthur Grumiaux
recorded 1 and 4. Henryk Szeryng gave the 1st public performance of 3
since Paganini's death. Franco Gulli recorded either number 5 or 6.
Unfortunately, I believe all of these recordings are essentially
unavailable at the current time. Uto Ughi has a recording of 2 and 4
on Dynamic. Michael Rabin had a dazzling account of 1 on EMI.
Sarah Chang played 1 better than any kid has any business doing on
her recording for EMI.
If you like the 1st concerto, my suspicion is that you'll probably
find something enjoy in the other 5. They all have the operatic grand
recitative style, dramatic melodies, more technical fireworks than you
could shake a stick at, and really are much better than they are often
given credit for being. It's unfortunate that the one complete set
doesn't quite have what one might view as perfect performances,
because some don't seem to be readily available outside that set.
Bill