Classical Music Composer Cricket X1
Vezper
1. J.S.Bach (good, solid, reliable technique; nothing too erratic)
2. M.Haydn (only for a nominal resemblance to Matthew Hayden
3. F Chopin One of the most profoundly original composers in history.
4. P.I.Tchaikovsky (unreliable but on a good day immensely powerful)
5. W.A.Mozart (such elegance, nimble on his toes. The class of
classical music)
6. L.van Beethoven (the Botham of music. Can take the opposition to
pieces)
7. John Cage (eccentric and off-the-wall enough to be a wicket-keeper)
8. A.Vivaldi (medium pace, line & length bowler. Does it again and
again and again...) sounds bit like McGarth
9. G.Mahler (brutal fast bowler. Just when you think you've handled
him, along comes somthing else) Lillee no doubt
10.Shostakovich (Can really knock the stuffing out of you. Opens
bowling with Mahler)
11.I.Stravinsky (Leg spinner. Difficult to read, always ready to try
something new) SK Warne
12. Franz Schubert (A genuine all-rounder can do anything that's asked
of him, )
Cheers,
vezper
I don't like cricket, I Love it.
Bob Dubery
non-playing) captain. Whilst some might remember him as batting at 11
and not bowling, or for giving bejewlled tie pins to umpires BEFORE
the match, posterity will remember him as the composer of "Oriental
Moon" and several other pieces.
John Hall
I'd thought that this was going to be the "other way round", that is a
team of cricketers with the same names as classical composers. I can
think of Tony and Ian Greig (if a slight difference in spelling is
acceptable) and Andrew Strauss for starters.
I'd say that Trumper was the Mozart of cricket. :)
--
John Hall
"It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless
information."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
Jonivar Skullerud
> In article <7c9e4662.04040...@posting.google.com>,
> Vezper <vez...@sunguru.com> writes:
> >Something different for a change
> <snip>
>
> I'd thought that this was going to be the "other way round", that is a
> team of cricketers with the same names as classical composers. I can
> think of Tony and Ian Greig (if a slight difference in spelling is
> acceptable)
In fact, Edvard Grieg was of scottish ancestry, and the spelling of
the family name was changed from Greig to Grieg some time after his
great-grandfather settled in Bergen in 1770. So there is a valid
argument for accepting Greig...
jonivar
--
| jonivar skullerud | http://www.jonivar.skullerud.name/ |
---------------------------------------------------------------
There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can
seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it.
Always. -- MK Gandhi
Andrew Dunford
"Vezper" <vez...@sunguru.com> wrote in message
news:7c9e4662.04040...@posting.google.com...
> Something different for a change
>
> 1. J.S.Bach (good, solid, reliable technique; nothing too erratic)
Good choice. I'd prefer him to Carter.
> 2. M.Haydn (only for a nominal resemblance to Matthew Hayden
Not a patch on his father Joe.
> 3. F Chopin One of the most profoundly original composers in history.
Certainly better than Chopout. Or Chopra for that matter. Not so good in
the longer form of the game, he saves his best performances for Liszt A
matches.
> 4. P.I.Tchaikovsky (unreliable but on a good day immensely powerful)
> 5. W.A.Mozart (such elegance, nimble on his toes. The class of
> classical music)
> 6. L.van Beethoven (the Botham of music. Can take the opposition to
> pieces)
Beethoven's loss of hearing makes him an obvious candidate to join the Elite
Panel of umpires when he hangs up his playing boots.
> 7. John Cage (eccentric and off-the-wall enough to be a wicket-keeper)
A bit of a time-waster: sometimes just stands around doing nothing.
> 8. A.Vivaldi (medium pace, line & length bowler. Does it again and
> again and again...) sounds bit like McGarth
Sign him up for four seasons.
> 9. G.Mahler (brutal fast bowler. Just when you think you've handled
> him, along comes somthing else) Lillee no doubt
Mahler's main problem is a slow over-rate. Seldom gets through his quota
before night-fall.
> 10.Shostakovich (Can really knock the stuffing out of you. Opens
> bowling with Mahler)
> 11.I.Stravinsky (Leg spinner. Difficult to read, always ready to try
> something new) SK Warne
> 12. Franz Schubert (A genuine all-rounder can do anything that's asked
> of him, )
A bit of commentary to finish:
17.5 Bach to Carter, ooh! That one really flies. Might have got him in the
rib Cage, or perhaps hit the bat Handel. Either way, it took him A Part.
Batsman has gone into Haydn; umpires Brahms and Liszt call for drinks.
Andrew
Some Guy From Nowhere
>Something different for a change
>
>1. J.S.Bach (good, solid, reliable technique; nothing too erratic)
>2. M.Haydn (only for a nominal resemblance to Matthew Hayden
J.Haydn surely. Actually, his value as an opener is more than you
might think, being quite prolific and working well in a partnership
with Bach, developing a classical innings from Bach's coaching-book
foundation.
>3. F Chopin One of the most profoundly original composers in history.
>4. P.I.Tchaikovsky (unreliable but on a good day immensely powerful)
>5. W.A.Mozart (such elegance, nimble on his toes. The class of
>classical music)
>6. L.van Beethoven (the Botham of music. Can take the opposition to
>pieces)
>7. John Cage (eccentric and off-the-wall enough to be a wicket-keeper)
Behind the stumps I'd have John Williams, the film composer.
Brilliant in his own way, but his work is based solely on what is
bowled up to him by the film Director. Also, some of his work has
been accused on being too derivative, so there's his pads and gloves
for you - extra help.
>8. A.Vivaldi (medium pace, line & length bowler. Does it again and
>again and again...) sounds bit like McGarth
>9. G.Mahler (brutal fast bowler. Just when you think you've handled
>him, along comes somthing else) Lillee no doubt
Don't like Mahler. How about Wagner? - the perfect stock bowler, he
can give you a 4-hour spell on Day 2 and still have enough left for
another 5 hours on Days 3 and 4 as well. And his bowling is pretty
tight - he sets all his fielders in the Ring (sorry, bad joke, had to
use it).
>10.Shostakovich (Can really knock the stuffing out of you. Opens
>bowling with Mahler)
>11.I.Stravinsky (Leg spinner. Difficult to read, always ready to try
>something new) SK Warne
>12. Franz Schubert (A genuine all-rounder can do anything that's asked
>of him, )
Now to read the rest of the replies ...
SGFN
Shatadal
--->8---
Why this new name John?
>
> SGFN
Some Guy From Nowhere
>Some Guy From Nowhere wrote:
>
>--->8---
>
>Why this new name John?
Well, that was silly of me ... but why blow my cover for the
uninitiated, Shatadal?
SGFN
Aditya Basrur
"Some Guy From Nowhere" <do...@broadhalfpenny.not> wrote in message
news:40b59d7b...@news.optusnet.com.au...
A quick look at the "Reply-to" address revealed all. I was thinking of
commenting, before Shats did.
Aditya
Some Guy From Nowhere
Yes, that was the silly part - so long since I last used Agent that I
forgot to check all the prefs.
SGFN
Shatadal
"Some Guy From Nowhere" <do...@broadhalfpenny.not> wrote in message
news:40b59d7b...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Well welcome back. Are you going to run a mini TC for the Zim-Aus ODO
series?
>
>
> SGFN
Some Guy From Nowhere
>Well welcome back. Are you going to run a mini TC for the Zim-Aus ODO
>series?
Indeed, the TC will be in proportion to the meanigfulness of the
series.
I saw another header in this group, as I skimmed it earlier -
"Australia 1/3 vs Zimbabwe". My first thought was that that was
probably the right ratio of players to make it a contest.
SGFN
Michael Creevey
Some Guy From Nowhere wrote:
> "Aditya Basrur" <sandaa...@yahoo.com> was moved to say:
>
>
>>"Some Guy From Nowhere" <do...@broadhalfpenny.not> wrote in message
>>news:40b59d7b...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>>>Shatadal <gsha...@rediffmail.com> was moved to say:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Some Guy From Nowhere wrote:
>>>>
>>>>--->8---
>>>>
>>>>Why this new name John?
>>>
>>>Well, that was silly of me ... but why blow my cover for the
>>>uninitiated, Shatadal?
>>
>>A quick look at the "Reply-to" address revealed all. I was thinking of
>>commenting, before Shats did.
>
>
> Yes, that was the silly part - so long since I last used Agent that I
> forgot to check all the prefs.
>
>
> SGFN
Try mujraperformingexpert or Doctor John Smith, I believe both are
available.
Michael Creevey
Have been trying to steer clear of the ngs lately, but saw this and had
to reply.
George (John) Dyson
Franz Josef Haydn (I know I didn't think of this one, but so what)
Robert Simpson (!)
Edvard (Tony) Greig (Grieg's family was of Scottish descent, the name
originally being Greig)
George (Clive) Lloyd
Roy (Lord) Harris
William (M.C.) Byrd/Bird
Leroy (Peter) Anderson
Robert (Ian) Johnson
William (Keith) Boyce
Michael (S.S.) Schultz [Praetorius]
Thomas Tomkins/Randall Thompson (Jeff Thomson)
Peter Anderson, that fine Qld keeper who was superseded by Healy after
he (Anderson) sustained a finger injury, gets me out of a keeper
dilemma. All in all, I found that surprisingly easy, so for good measure
I'll throw in a few more:
James (Quintin) McMillan
Ann (David) Boyd
Sir Hubert (Deryck) Parry
John (Paul) Adams
Carl Maria von (Darren) Web[b]er
Joe Green/ Brigadier M.A. Green ,esq.
Cesar (C.N.) Franck/Frank
Abt (Albert) Vogler
Andrew (Richard) Strauss
And why not:
W.S. (David) Gilbert and
Arthur (J.) Sullivan
And just for a laugh:
Maurice (G.A.) Chevalier
Also for the XI more in line with the OP's intention,
Bruckner (would bore any attack into submission)
Wagner (ditto, but could also launch a blitzkrieg at any moment, and can
for no apparent reason go on a rampage and attack, burn or kill all his
opponents. Apparently had a nice swan song. As you know, when he's
around. it ain't over till the fat lady sings.)
J.S.Bach (the master at 3, will bowl as well as is a great allrounder)
Beethoven (comparable at no.4 with no.3, in similar range of class)
Brahms (careful, methodical couterweight to 3 and 4, with the emphasis
on weight. Has to be hidden in the field).
Mozart (mercurial genius at 6, can do anything, open the bowling and
take a hat-trick, or with his wiry frame slam bowlers all over the park.
Has a diquieting tendency to die between innings, unfortunately).
R.Strauss (another who can do anything, and will probably blast the
eardrums I mean deliveries of all who bowl rubbish within range of his
flailing baton sorry willow. A truly elektric player when on song, even
if they are his last. 4. Can be a bit capricious at times.)
Schumann (quite an exuberant bowler, but is subject to severe mood
swings. Usually rather dedicated.)
Schubert (somewhat short-sighted, which hinders his batting somewhat.
But his leggies really crack and fizzle off the pitch. Considers any
opponent still at the crease unfinished business. Is a bit of a wanderer
in the field, unfortunately, especially since (due to his vision
problems) he sometimes sees (his own) double.
Elgar (England expects, and Elgar delivers on frequent circumstances)
Mahler (The demon Mahler, will crush opposing batting lineups with his
withering pace, or alternatively, will smash jaunty young hopefuls with
cymbals and ketteledrums until dead).
Or for a straight list, 1-12 IMHO
J.S. Bach
Beethoven
Mozart
Schumann
Schubert
Chopin
R.Strauss
Brahms
Faure
Schutz
Elgar
Mussorgsky
This list is wrong, since I will definitely disagree with it in about 2
hours or less, but doesn't matter.
Have a love/hate relationship with Wagner, and have finally jettisoned
Mahler. Have heard some good (vocal) Vivaldi lately and would like to
include him somewhere, don't know where though.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Uday Rajan
> Beethoven (comparable at no.4 with no.3, in similar range of class)
Erratic at running between the wickets. When convenient, pretends
he didn't hear his partner's call. Or his own. Sounds like we
have our Compton.
> Mozart (mercurial genius at 6, can do anything, open the bowling and
> take a hat-trick, or with his wiry frame slam bowlers all over the park.
> Has a diquieting tendency to die between innings, unfortunately).
And this is our Miller. OK, not exactly a wiry frame. But the
rest fits; mercurial genius, likely to cause havoc with the ball
or bat, depending on his mood.
Some Guy From Nowhere
>And why not:
>W.S. (David) Gilbert and
>Arthur (J.) Sullivan
Half marks. Only one of those (Sullivan) is a composer.
>Or for a straight list, 1-12 IMHO
>J.S. Bach
>Beethoven
>Mozart
>Schumann
>Schubert
>Chopin
>R.Strauss
>Brahms
>Faure
>Schutz
>Elgar
>Mussorgsky
Beethoven
Wagner
Mozart
Tchaikovsky
Holst
John Phillip Sousa
John Williams (ie, the movie composer)
John Barry (ditto)
Prokofiev
Sullivan
Lloyd Webber
OK, not all of these are "classical music composers" in the generally
accepted sense, and indeed only two of them are classical composers in
the musicological sense. Perhaps only one of them, since I don't
listen to Beethoven's early work. The list reflects my own listening
frequency and, outside the first four named, is a lottery.
SGFN
Michael Creevey
Uday Rajan wrote:
> Michael Creevey wrote:
>
>> Beethoven (comparable at no.4 with no.3, in similar range of class)
>
>
> Erratic at running between the wickets. When convenient, pretends he
> didn't hear his partner's call. Or his own. Sounds like we have our
> Compton.
Yes, wasn't thinking that, but more a Compton than a Boycs, although
LvB's personality was probably more like the peevish Boycott than the
debonair Compton.
>
>> Mozart (mercurial genius at 6, can do anything, open the bowling and
>> take a hat-trick, or with his wiry frame slam bowlers all over the
>> park. Has a diquieting tendency to die between innings, unfortunately).
>
>
> And this is our Miller. OK, not exactly a wiry frame. But the rest fits;
> mercurial genius, likely to cause havoc with the ball or bat, depending
> on his mood.
>
>
Yes, that was what I was thinking about. And Strauss was my Gilly, in
this instance :-)
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
Some Guy From Nowhere wrote:
> Michael Creevey <eusl...@dodo.com.au> was moved to say:
>
>
>
>>And why not:
>>W.S. (David) Gilbert and
>>Arthur (J.) Sullivan
>
>
> Half marks. Only one of those (Sullivan) is a composer.
Umm...der John. I knew dat.
Musicolologically?
I'd say at least 7, I mean Arthur Sullivan is not usually considered a
great composer, but he is 'classical' in several senses of the word.
Probably John Williams is as well. So are Nino Rota, Korngold, possibly
even Morricone. And definitely Bernstein, even though he wrote musicals
(including the classic West Side Story).
Perhaps only one of them, since I don't
> listen to Beethoven's early work.
Que?
The list reflects my own listening
> frequency and, outside the first four named, is a lottery.
>
>
> SGFN
That's the nature of these kind of lists. Naming one's favourite
batsmen, composers, writers etc is a rather subjective business.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
Assuming 1 or 2 people are interested, I thought I'd add a few others,
which I stupidly forgot:
(AKA CMC A)
Ralph (Justin) Vaughan (Albert) Williams
Richard (Roy) Ro[d]gers
Cyril (Tup) Scott
Peter (C.) Heseltine [Warlock]
Thomas (Everton) Wee[l]kes
Cyril (C.B.) Lambert
John (Rod) Marsh
Elliot (Hanson) Carter
Peter Maxwell (Dai) Davies
William Sterndale (Murray) Bennett
Sir Alexander (Garth) M[a]ckenzie
Malcolm (Geoff) Arnold
Margaret [not forgetting Joan] (James) Sutherland
And of course William Lawes/Hamish Laws/Stuie Law
And even I am not far off a genuine composer, (just like Beethoven's
beadpan on occasion) so Michael/Brendon Creevey.
In my first composers xi I was perhaps remiss in omitting Johann
Strauss II who no doubt likes a good bat, and Tchaikovsky could be a
little miffed since he was the only left hander in contention. However
it was felt that he might like batting for the other team, and after one
gin or two can be a little off with the fairies. Doesn't like wearing a
box neither, so you can not 'arf imagine what kind of a mess that could
create. Sorabji was the only Indian in contention, although Ravi Shankar
might be worth a guernsey.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Assuming 1 or 2 people are interested, I thought I'd add a few others,
> which I stupidly forgot:
That's quite an assumption. Perhaps this should be confined to the
cricket group.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Michael Creevey
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Michael Creevey wrote:
>
>>Assuming 1 or 2 people are interested, I thought I'd add a few others,
>>which I stupidly forgot:
>
>
> That's quite an assumption. Perhaps this should be confined to the
> cricket group.
Well, its on topic for both. But I'm pretty sure that the thread will
end here.
Phil Wood
"Michael Creevey" <eusl...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:40B8B754...@dodo.com.au...
Where is here?
Phil
Yuk Tang
> Musicolologically?
> I'd say at least 7, I mean Arthur Sullivan is not usually
> considered a great composer, but he is 'classical' in several
> senses of the word. Probably John Williams is as well. So are Nino
> Rota, Korngold, possibly even Morricone. And definitely Bernstein,
> even though he wrote musicals (including the classic West Side
> Story).
Didn't he write one or more symphonies?
--
Cheers, ymt.
Peter T. Daniels
Three. He wrote considerably more "classical" than "Broadway" music.
Some Guy From Nowhere
>> OK, not all of these are "classical music composers" in the generally
>> accepted sense, and indeed only two of them are classical composers in
>> the musicological sense.
>
>Musicolologically?
>I'd say at least 7, I mean Arthur Sullivan is not usually considered a
>great composer, but he is 'classical' in several senses of the word.
OK, I was referring to periods of music history - Baroque, Classic,
Romantic. Beethoven is considered the first composer of the Romantic
era although he builds on and from the Classical tradition of Haydn
and Mozart. In my list, not yours, only Mozart and Beethoven are
(typically) classed as Classical-period composers.
To refer to all writers of symphonies as "classical composers" is to
confuse form with style, is it not?
SGFN
Peter T. Daniels
>
No, it is not. In context, there is virtually no possibility of
confusing "classical music" with the "Classical period."
Why do you not admit Haydn and Gluck to the Classical period?
Michael Creevey
Yuk Tang wrote:
snip
Arthur Sullivan is not usually
>>considered a great composer, but he is 'classical' in several
>>senses of the word. Probably John Williams is as well. So are Nino
>>Rota, Korngold, possibly even Morricone. And definitely Bernstein,
>>even though he wrote musicals (including the classic West Side
>>Story).
>
>
> Didn't he write one or more symphonies?
>
>
Yep, not bad either. Wrote some excellent choral works as well including
the tremendous Chichester Psalms. Just heard his 'Trouble in Tahiti'
which although not opera is more than pop pap, for sure. Still he didn't
realize his ambition to become 'a classical composer just like Mahler'.
But as has been pointed out by others, its better to write good music
that the man in the street can enjoy, (I think I'm paraphrasing
Schoenberg incidentally) than reams of dreary classics.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
He didn't mention Haydn and Gluck, however obviously the whole notion of
clearly delineated 'periods' of music is not really tenable, although as
a general generalization such a notion is of some usefulness.
Classifying a composer like Max Reger who wrote around the turn of the
20th cent in a fairly 'modern' harmonic style for the time, but wrote
generally in decidedly baroque or classical forms, is 1 example of many.
So is Strauss, who started composing in a late romantic vein in the
late romantic period, experimented briefly with atonalism to reach his
own distinctive style which incorporated some polytonal elements into a
basically romatic style, up until his 'Indian Summer' period,
contemporaneous with people like Carter and Webern, which was a pure
distillation of the romantic spirit.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
Some Guy From Nowhere wrote:
> Michael Creevey <eusl...@dodo.com.au> was moved to say:
>
snip
> OK, I was referring to periods of music history - Baroque, Classic,
> Romantic. Beethoven is considered the first composer of the Romantic
> era although he builds on and from the Classical tradition of Haydn
> and Mozart.
Actually, that's not as cut and dried as you might think. Most reference
works I've seen nominate Beethoven as classical. I was a bit confused by
your reference to 'early' Beethoven. Personally I don't see beethoven
becoming more romantic, romanticism was evident very early on, from opp.
1 and 2 onward. Even before (the title of the piece I'm thinking of is
Funeral Cantata for Emperor Leopold, or something like that, which is a
powerful work, predating his first published works). Its true that some
of the early sonatas betray (often) Haydnesque traits, like the first
movement of the 2nd sonata in A, and the slow movements often have a
Mozartian quality. The 2 early concertos are quite Mozartian as well.
I think of the Archduke Trio as a very 'classical' work, although its
something like op.99. And don't forget that much in Mozart presages
romanticism, like parts of the Requiem and the C Minor mass, amongst
many other examples, including most of the works in minor keys.
In my list, not yours, only Mozart and Beethoven are
> (typically) classed as Classical-period composers.
This seems to contradict somewhat your previous statement, but is
correct as far as it can be.
>
> To refer to all writers of symphonies as "classical composers" is to
> confuse form with style, is it not?
>
> SGFN
Perhaps, but funny thing is, several composers writing in the midst of
the romantic period,
who wrote symphonies, are often called 'classic-romantic'. Examples
include, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Reger and even
Bruckner. And there are others, and these names span the length of the
19th century. Many writers of 'classical music' similarly haven't
written any symphonies as such, like Wagner (unless you include his own
completely worthless attempt)Faure, Debussy, Ravel, Verdi and Wolf, not
to mention the vast corpus of those who predated the invention of the
symphony.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
At my place. 10 o'clock. See you soon.
Dr.Matt
Michael Creevey <eusl...@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>Yep, not bad either. Wrote some excellent choral works as well including
>the tremendous Chichester Psalms. Just heard his 'Trouble in Tahiti'
>which although not opera is more than pop pap, for sure. Still he didn't
>realize his ambition to become 'a classical composer just like Mahler'.
>But as has been pointed out by others, its better to write good music
>that the man in the street can enjoy, (I think I'm paraphrasing
>Schoenberg incidentally) than reams of dreary classics.
Sounds like Schoenberg, perhaps even from his defense of Gershwin.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
"Hey, don't knock Placebo, its the only thing effective for my hypochondria."
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jerry Kohl
> Some Guy From Nowhere wrote:
> > Michael Creevey <eusl...@dodo.com.au> was moved to say:
> >
> snip
>
> > OK, I was referring to periods of music history - Baroque, Classic,
> > Romantic. Beethoven is considered the first composer of the Romantic
> > era although he builds on and from the Classical tradition of Haydn
> > and Mozart.
>
> Actually, that's not as cut and dried as you might think.
Let me first say that this is spot on, but ...
> Most reference
> works I've seen nominate Beethoven as classical. I was a bit confused by
> your reference to 'early' Beethoven. Personally I don't see beethoven
> becoming more romantic, romanticism was evident very early on, from opp.
> 1 and 2 onward. Even before (the title of the piece I'm thinking of is
> Funeral Cantata for Emperor Leopold, or something like that, which is a
> powerful work, predating his first published works). Its true that some
> of the early sonatas betray (often) Haydnesque traits, like the first
> movement of the 2nd sonata in A, and the slow movements often have a
> Mozartian quality. The 2 early concertos are quite Mozartian as well.
Keep going, and you'll soon get to the op. 18 string quartets and the first
two symphonies (and the Fourth, perhaps). You're building a fairly good
case here for what you express confusion about. Still, it is true that
there
are both early and late Beethoven works that do not fit the model, even if
a general trend is quite clear.
> > To refer to all writers of symphonies as "classical composers" is to
> > confuse form with style, is it not?
> >
> > SGFN
> Perhaps, but funny thing is, several composers writing in the midst of
> the romantic period,
> who wrote symphonies, are often called 'classic-romantic'. Examples
> include, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Reger and even
> Bruckner. And there are others, and these names span the length of the
> 19th century. Many writers of 'classical music' similarly haven't
> written any symphonies as such, like Wagner (unless you include his own
> completely worthless attempt)
Why not include it? Is it a symphony, or is it not? Never mind whether
it is sublime or ridiculous.
> Faure, Debussy,
Debussy did in fact write a symphony, in B Minor (1880) though
he did not get as far as orchestrating it.
The point is nevertheless well-taken, that symphonies are not
in and of themselves a demonstration of Classical Period style.
With a little effort, I imagine we could find contemporaries of
Haydn and Mozart, working in Vienna or Salzburg, who never
composed a symphony and yet would clearly qualify as
Classical Period composers.
--
Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Michael Creevey
Yes I agree, but as you say there are works that don't fit the model.
Well quite a few actually...Like the Pathetique sonata, which is surely
full blown romanticism, although strangely enough it (like several
Beethoven works in the same key) does make some Mozart references. Some
of the late stuff is hard to classify within simple classical/romantic
paradigms, would you agree? Even though many romantic composers have
used this territory as a model/starting point.
>
>
>>>To refer to all writers of symphonies as "classical composers" is to
>>>confuse form with style, is it not?
>>>
>>>SGFN
>>
>>Perhaps, but funny thing is, several composers writing in the midst of
>>the romantic period,
>>who wrote symphonies, are often called 'classic-romantic'. Examples
>>include, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Reger and even
>>Bruckner. And there are others, and these names span the length of the
>>19th century. Many writers of 'classical music' similarly haven't
>>written any symphonies as such, like Wagner (unless you include his own
>>completely worthless attempt)
>
>
> Why not include it? Is it a symphony, or is it not? Never mind whether
> it is sublime or ridiculous.
Fair enough. But I'm sure he would have been hopeless facing fast bowling.
>
>
>>Faure, Debussy,
>
>
> Debussy did in fact write a symphony, in B Minor (1880) though
> he did not get as far as orchestrating it.
>
> The point is nevertheless well-taken, that symphonies are not
> in and of themselves a demonstration of Classical Period style.
> With a little effort, I imagine we could find contemporaries of
> Haydn and Mozart, working in Vienna or Salzburg, who never
> composed a symphony and yet would clearly qualify as
> Classical Period composers.
Salieri perhaps? Myslivecek, Mozart's alcoholic Czech friend? Soler?
Arriaga? Loewe? Zelter? Zumsteeg? Paisiello? Piccini? Gluck?
(these are just guesses on my part, but I am not aware of any symphonies
by the above composers. Of course many composers who specialize in
opera/vocal music do not write symphonies, which explains why most of
these composers spring to mind).
BTW how is our slightly demented friend?
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
Dr.Matt wrote:
> In article <40B9F2AD...@dodo.com.au>,
> Michael Creevey <eusl...@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Yep, not bad either. Wrote some excellent choral works as well including
>>the tremendous Chichester Psalms. Just heard his 'Trouble in Tahiti'
>>which although not opera is more than pop pap, for sure. Still he didn't
>>realize his ambition to become 'a classical composer just like Mahler'.
>>But as has been pointed out by others, its better to write good music
>>that the man in the street can enjoy, (I think I'm paraphrasing
>>Schoenberg incidentally) than reams of dreary classics.
>
>
> Sounds like Schoenberg, perhaps even from his defense of Gershwin.
>
I seem to recall this remark describing G&S, but that of course doesn't
necessarily
contradict your above statement.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Jerry Kohl
As I said to begin with, your observation is spot on.
>
> Well quite a few actually...Like the Pathetique sonata, which is surely
> full blown romanticism, although strangely enough it (like several
> Beethoven works in the same key) does make some Mozart references. Some
> of the late stuff is hard to classify within simple classical/romantic
> paradigms, would you agree?
As I said to begin with, your observation is spot on.
> >>several composers writing in the midst of
> >>the romantic period,
> >>who wrote symphonies, are often called 'classic-romantic'. Examples
> >>include, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Reger and even
> >>Bruckner. And there are others, and these names span the length of the
> >>19th century. Many writers of 'classical music' similarly haven't
> >>written any symphonies as such, like Wagner (unless you include his own
> >>completely worthless attempt)
> >
> >
> > Why not include it? Is it a symphony, or is it not? Never mind whether
> > it is sublime or ridiculous.
>
> Fair enough. But I'm sure he would have been hopeless facing fast bowling.
So you wouldn't put him on your XI, fair enough. But I think
it's a little unfair to say Wagner didn't write a symphony, just
because the symphony he wrote is a stinker. And to be scrupulously
fair, it really is a student effort. As such Beethoven imitations go,
it isn't all that bad.
> > The point is nevertheless well-taken, that symphonies are not
> > in and of themselves a demonstration of Classical Period style.
> > With a little effort, I imagine we could find contemporaries of
> > Haydn and Mozart, working in Vienna or Salzburg, who never
> > composed a symphony and yet would clearly qualify as
> > Classical Period composers.
>
> Salieri perhaps? Myslivecek, Mozart's alcoholic Czech friend? Soler?
> Arriaga? Loewe? Zelter? Zumsteeg? Paisiello? Piccini? Gluck?
>
> (these are just guesses on my part, but I am not aware of any symphonies
> by the above composers.
Salieri, Myslivecek, Arriaga, Paisiello, Piccini and Gluck all composed
symphonies (although of course "sinfonie" in some cases are
indistinguishable from opera overtures, and then there are the
so-called "serenade-symphonies"). Carl Loewe is a bit late for the
period in question (or is there a different Loewe, with whom I am
unfamiliar?). Certainly at least some of the rest must be sterling
candidates for what I mean--thanks for providing the list.
> Of course many composers who specialize in
> opera/vocal music do not write symphonies, which explains why most of
> these composers spring to mind).
>
> BTW how is our slightly demented friend?
Who he?
Michael Creevey
Jerry Kohl wrote:
snip
> As I said to begin with, your observation is spot on.
Will you stop arguing!!!!
>>>>several composers writing in the midst of
>>>>the romantic period,
>>>>who wrote symphonies, are often called 'classic-romantic'. Examples
>>>>include, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Reger and even
>>>>Bruckner. And there are others, and these names span the length of the
>>>>19th century. Many writers of 'classical music' similarly haven't
>>>>written any symphonies as such, like Wagner (unless you include his own
>>>>completely worthless attempt)
>>>
>>>
>>>Why not include it? Is it a symphony, or is it not? Never mind whether
>>>it is sublime or ridiculous.
>>
>>Fair enough. But I'm sure he would have been hopeless facing fast bowling.
>
>
> So you wouldn't put him on your XI, fair enough. But I think
> it's a little unfair to say Wagner didn't write a symphony, just
> because the symphony he wrote is a stinker. And to be scrupulously
> fair, it really is a student effort. As such Beethoven imitations go,
> it isn't all that bad.
Not as bad as the 'Festmarch'. Some of his (admittedly small) piano
output is also screamingly funny, but I don't need to tell you that.
>
>
>>>The point is nevertheless well-taken, that symphonies are not
>>>in and of themselves a demonstration of Classical Period style.
>>>With a little effort, I imagine we could find contemporaries of
>>>Haydn and Mozart, working in Vienna or Salzburg, who never
>>>composed a symphony and yet would clearly qualify as
>>>Classical Period composers.
>>
>>Salieri perhaps? Myslivecek, Mozart's alcoholic Czech friend? Soler?
>>Arriaga? Loewe? Zelter? Zumsteeg? Paisiello? Piccini? Gluck?
>>
>>(these are just guesses on my part, but I am not aware of any symphonies
>>by the above composers.
>
>
> Salieri, Myslivecek, Arriaga, Paisiello, Piccini and Gluck all composed
> symphonies (although of course "sinfonie" in some cases are
> indistinguishable from opera overtures, and then there are the
> so-called "serenade-symphonies").
Yes of course, I remember, but not all these works are true 'symphonies'
in the Haydn/C.P.E. Bach sense. I mean Bach's 3 part inventions could be
symphonies on that basis.
Carl Loewe is a bit late for the
> period in question (or is there a different Loewe, with whom I am
> unfamiliar?).
Yes, you're right, although without checking he was a contemporary of Haydn.
>Certainly at least some of the rest must be sterling
> candidates for what I mean--thanks for providing the list.
No worries. Also could have mentioned virtuoso/composers like Dussek,
Cramer, Field, Punto, Quantz (?), Viotti, Kraft, Bochsa, and undoubtedly
others. Clementi is a very worthwhile virtuoso/composer that did write
symphonies, although it appears most are lost. You like him? (iirc,
Beethoven did. Also iirc he nominated Cherubini, another classical
symphonist, as his greatest contemporary, and said that C.P.E. Bach's
music was ideal for performance or study, or something like that.)
>
>
>>Of course many composers who specialize in
>>opera/vocal music do not write symphonies, which explains why most of
>>these composers spring to mind).
>>
>>BTW how is our slightly demented friend?
>
>
> Who he?
>
> --
> Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
>
>
Dr Dave?
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Nightingale
>>>
>>> BTW how is our slightly demented friend?
>>
>>
>>
>> Who he?
>>
>> --
>> Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
>> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
>>
>>
> Dr Dave?
>
Slightly demented?
Tholen hasn't been around in over a month.
--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
To all musicians, appear and inspire:
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.
Jerry Kohl
> Jerry Kohl wrote:
> snip
> > As I said to begin with, your observation is spot on.
>
> Will you stop arguing!!!!
As I said to begin with ... ;-)
> >>>>Many writers of 'classical music' similarly haven't
> >>>>written any symphonies as such, like Wagner (unless you include his own
> >>>>completely worthless attempt)
> >>>
> >>>Why not include it? Is it a symphony, or is it not? Never mind whether
> >>>it is sublime or ridiculous.
> >>
> >>Fair enough. But I'm sure he would have been hopeless facing fast bowling.
> >
> > So you wouldn't put him on your XI, fair enough. But I think
> > it's a little unfair to say Wagner didn't write a symphony, just
> > because the symphony he wrote is a stinker. And to be scrupulously
> > fair, it really is a student effort. As such Beethoven imitations go,
> > it isn't all that bad.
>
> Not as bad as the 'Festmarch'. Some of his (admittedly small) piano
> output is also screamingly funny, but I don't need to tell you that.
Some of his early operas are screamingly funny, and not because he
thought of them as comic operas, either. I think we've discussed this
before, but I have attended one staged performance of Das Liebesverbot.
> >>>I imagine we could find contemporaries of
> >>>Haydn and Mozart, working in Vienna or Salzburg, who never
> >>>composed a symphony and yet would clearly qualify as
> >>>Classical Period composers.
> >>
> >>Salieri perhaps? Myslivecek, Mozart's alcoholic Czech friend? Soler?
> >>Arriaga? Loewe? Zelter? Zumsteeg? Paisiello? Piccini? Gluck?
> >>
> >>(these are just guesses on my part, but I am not aware of any symphonies
> >>by the above composers.
> >
> > Salieri, Myslivecek, Arriaga, Paisiello, Piccini and Gluck all composed
> > symphonies (although of course "sinfonie" in some cases are
> > indistinguishable from opera overtures, and then there are the
> > so-called "serenade-symphonies").
>
> Yes of course, I remember, but not all these works are true 'symphonies'
> in the Haydn/C.P.E. Bach sense. I mean Bach's 3 part inventions could be
> symphonies on that basis.
Because they were composed as preludes to operas? I don't think so!
However, it becomes difficult to distinguish on formal grounds when
an Italian opera sinfonia falls into three-movement form.
> >Certainly at least some of the rest must be sterling
> > candidates for what I mean--thanks for providing the list.
>
> No worries. Also could have mentioned virtuoso/composers like Dussek,
> Cramer, Field, Punto, Quantz (?),
Quantz is a bit early to be classed a contemporary of Haydn, much
less of Mozart or Beethoven.
> Viotti, Kraft, Bochsa, and undoubtedly
> others.
Sure. Which of course in turn raises the question of whether
concertos and sonatas (including the sonata-form chamber music
of string quartet, piano trio, etc.) are not really a better measure
of what Classical Period instrumental composition was about
than the "symphony", which is after all just an inflated sonata
or string quartet.
> Clementi is a very worthwhile virtuoso/composer that did write
> symphonies, although it appears most are lost. You like him?
Not a lot. Certainly a very competent composer, but not really my
dish of tea.
> >>BTW how is our slightly demented friend?
> >
> >
> > Who he?
> >
> > --
> > Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
> > "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
> >
> >
> Dr Dave?
Ah. Out of sight, out of mind, AFAICT. Out of sight is
good; out of mind is "no change there, then".
Michael Creevey
Jerry Kohl wrote:
> Michael Creevey wrote:
>
>
>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>snip
>>
>>>As I said to begin with, your observation is spot on.
>>
>>Will you stop arguing!!!!
>
>
> As I said to begin with ... ;-)
I'm glad you've learnt your lesson :-)
>
>
>>>>>>Many writers of 'classical music' similarly haven't
>>>>>>written any symphonies as such, like Wagner (unless you include his own
>>>>>>completely worthless attempt)
>>>>>
>>>>>Why not include it? Is it a symphony, or is it not? Never mind whether
>>>>>it is sublime or ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>Fair enough. But I'm sure he would have been hopeless facing fast bowling.
>>>
>>>So you wouldn't put him on your XI, fair enough. But I think
>>>it's a little unfair to say Wagner didn't write a symphony, just
>>>because the symphony he wrote is a stinker. And to be scrupulously
>>>fair, it really is a student effort. As such Beethoven imitations go,
>>>it isn't all that bad.
>>
>>Not as bad as the 'Festmarch'. Some of his (admittedly small) piano
>>output is also screamingly funny, but I don't need to tell you that.
>
>
> Some of his early operas are screamingly funny, and not because he
> thought of them as comic operas, either. I think we've discussed this
> before, but I have attended one staged performance of Das Liebesverbot.
>
I'm not sure how you feel, but to me even Tannhaeuser is a weak work,
with some impressive bits. So much of it seems very conventional, with
inevitable and watery and predictable cadences, and the whole rather,
well...Meyerbeerian.
>
>>>>>I imagine we could find contemporaries of
>>>>>Haydn and Mozart, working in Vienna or Salzburg, who never
>>>>>composed a symphony and yet would clearly qualify as
>>>>>Classical Period composers.
>>>>
>>>>Salieri perhaps? Myslivecek, Mozart's alcoholic Czech friend? Soler?
>>>>Arriaga? Loewe? Zelter? Zumsteeg? Paisiello? Piccini? Gluck?
>>>>
>>>>(these are just guesses on my part, but I am not aware of any symphonies
>>>>by the above composers.
>>>
>>>Salieri, Myslivecek, Arriaga, Paisiello, Piccini and Gluck all composed
>>>symphonies (although of course "sinfonie" in some cases are
>>>indistinguishable from opera overtures, and then there are the
>>>so-called "serenade-symphonies").
>>
>>Yes of course, I remember, but not all these works are true 'symphonies'
>>in the Haydn/C.P.E. Bach sense. I mean Bach's 3 part inventions could be
>> symphonies on that basis.
>
>
> Because they were composed as preludes to operas? I don't think so!
No, but both Bach's 3 part 'inventions' and introductions to French
operas were called symphonies. Scarlatti's 'Esercizi' are called sonatas.
> However, it becomes difficult to distinguish on formal grounds when
> an Italian opera sinfonia falls into three-movement form.
Works somewhat in the character or nature of the classical period sonata
can be found in earlier works, no doubt at all. The old 'sonata da
chiesa' could at times, iirc, exemplify the kind of movement contrast
expected from later sonatas. Some of the French and Italian overtures
also apparently used a rudimentary kind of sonata form which I assume
would be necessary to considering such pieces 'real' symphonies in some
sense. The multi-movement overtures by composers like Rameau,
Charpentier and Campra e.g. didn't in any way suggest close comparison
with the classical symphony to my ear, but this could reveal perhaps
other possible povs such as 1. my ear isn't very good or 2. your above
reference to "Italian opera sinfonia" could apply only to opera
sinfonias composed by Italian people, not French, which seems a possible
interpretation.
>
>
>>>Certainly at least some of the rest must be sterling
>>>candidates for what I mean--thanks for providing the list.
>>
>>No worries. Also could have mentioned virtuoso/composers like Dussek,
>>Cramer, Field, Punto, Quantz (?),
>
>
> Quantz is a bit early to be classed a contemporary of Haydn, much
> less of Mozart or Beethoven.
>
>
>>Viotti, Kraft, Bochsa, and undoubtedly
>>others.
>
>
> Sure. Which of course in turn raises the question of whether
> concertos and sonatas (including the sonata-form chamber music
> of string quartet, piano trio, etc.) are not really a better measure
> of what Classical Period instrumental composition was about
> than the "symphony", which is after all just an inflated sonata
> or string quartet.
I think, in a sense, I have already alluded to that. A bit of historical
post-analysis, that the symphony is the be-all and end-all of a
classical composer's aspiration. Beethoven has to be blamed for that.
Even Beethoven though aspired to writing great operas, just as mozart
did, calling Fidelio his 'crown of martyrdom' (not sure whether it is
great or not, even if others are)
>
>
>>Clementi is a very worthwhile virtuoso/composer that did write
>>symphonies, although it appears most are lost. You like him?
>
>
> Not a lot. Certainly a very competent composer, but not really my
> dish of tea.
Not dishy enough for ya?
Did Hummel write a symphony/turn your boat?
>
>
>>>>BTW how is our slightly demented friend?
>>>
>>>
>>>Who he?
>>>
>>>--
>>>Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
>>>"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Dr Dave?
>
>
> Ah. Out of sight, out of mind, AFAICT. Out of sight is
> good; out of mind is "no change there, then".
>
> --
> Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
:-)
Perhaps he should be out of mind in the psychedelic sense more often. At
least he qould be enjoying his neurosis.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
Nightingale wrote:
> Michael Creevey wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> BTW how is our slightly demented friend?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Who he?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
>>> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
>>>
>>>
>> Dr Dave?
>>
>
> Slightly demented?
>
> Tholen hasn't been around in over a month.
>
>
Cryonically frozen no doubt. But he shall return......
bwahahaha
Mike Girouard
Does Christoph Willibald Gooch count?
Jerry Kohl
> Jerry Kohl wrote:
> > [on Wagner]
> > Some of his early operas are screamingly funny, and not because he
> > thought of them as comic operas, either. I think we've discussed this
> > before, but I have attended one staged performance of Das Liebesverbot.
> >
>
> I'm not sure how you feel, but to me even Tannhaeuser is a weak work,
> with some impressive bits. So much of it seems very conventional, with
> inevitable and watery and predictable cadences, and the whole rather,
> well...Meyerbeerian.
I'm not all that keen on Tannhäuser myself, and I generally agree with
your characterization. But, trust me, it is nothing like as Meyerbeerian
as Liebesverbot, which somewht disconcertingly veers back and forth
between Meyerbeer and Rossini!
> >>Yes of course, I remember, but not all these works are true 'symphonies'
> >>in the Haydn/C.P.E. Bach sense. I mean Bach's 3 part inventions could be
> >> symphonies on that basis.
> >
> > Because they were composed as preludes to operas? I don't think so!
>
> No, but both Bach's 3 part 'inventions' and introductions to French
> operas were called symphonies. Scarlatti's 'Esercizi' are called sonatas.
We've been around the block a few times on this already, on other threads,
but if you go back far enough in history, you will find that "symphonia"
is merely the Greek equivalent of the Latin/Italian "Concerto". (Consider
the Symphoniae Sacrae of Giovanni Gabrieli, or the ones by Heinrich
Schütz, which individually are called "concerti". The significance in both
cases is "sounding together".
> > However, it becomes difficult to distinguish on formal grounds when
> > an Italian opera sinfonia falls into three-movement form.
>
> Works somewhat in the character or nature of the classical period sonata
> can be found in earlier works, no doubt at all. The old 'sonata da
> chiesa' could at times, iirc, exemplify the kind of movement contrast
> expected from later sonatas.
Oh, absolutely. And the Venetian sonata in three movements (as opposed
to the Roman, in four or five movements) almost certainly is the model
upon which the Classical sonata is based.
> Some of the French and Italian overtures
> also apparently used a rudimentary kind of sonata form which I assume
> would be necessary to considering such pieces 'real' symphonies in some
> sense.
I don't think that "sonata form" as such is necessary to the
conception of the multi-movement sonata, though the "rudimentary
sonata form" is found in the larger binary movements of many
early 18th-century sonatas. Domenico Scarlatti is usually credited
with developing the rounded-binary form to such a degree that it
virtually becomes the sonata form--but his Essercizi are basically
one-movement forms, even if the paired-sonata hypothesis holds
true.
> The multi-movement overtures by composers like Rameau,
> Charpentier and Campra e.g. didn't in any way suggest close comparison
> with the classical symphony to my ear, but this could reveal perhaps
> other possible povs such as 1. my ear isn't very good or 2. your above
> reference to "Italian opera sinfonia" could apply only to opera
> sinfonias composed by Italian people, not French, which seems a possible
> interpretation.
I wouldn't regard the French Ouverture, either as a single-movement
form or in the extended meaning of a suite beginning with such a
movement, as having a lot to do with the symphony as it emerged
in the later 18th century.
> > Sure. Which of course in turn raises the question of whether
> > concertos and sonatas (including the sonata-form chamber music
> > of string quartet, piano trio, etc.) are not really a better measure
> > of what Classical Period instrumental composition was about
> > than the "symphony", which is after all just an inflated sonata
> > or string quartet.
>
> I think, in a sense, I have already alluded to that. A bit of historical
> post-analysis, that the symphony is the be-all and end-all of a
> classical composer's aspiration. Beethoven has to be blamed for that.
> Even Beethoven though aspired to writing great operas, just as mozart
> did, calling Fidelio his 'crown of martyrdom' (not sure whether it is
> great or not, even if others are)
And of course the common misconception, voiced frequently on this
newsgroup in recent months, that anything at all composed for
orchestra is somehow a "symphony", or even "classical music".
> >>Clementi is a very worthwhile virtuoso/composer that did write
> >>symphonies, although it appears most are lost. You like him?
> >
> >
> > Not a lot. Certainly a very competent composer, but not really my
> > dish of tea.
>
> Not dishy enough for ya?
> Did Hummel write a symphony/turn your boat?
Same problem. Perfectly competent composer, especially for
chamber music, but not a composer to whose music I turn very
often.
> >>>>BTW how is our slightly demented friend?
> >>>
> >>>Who he?
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
> >>>"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
> >>>
> >>
> >>Dr Dave?
> >
> >
> > Ah. Out of sight, out of mind, AFAICT. Out of sight is
> > good; out of mind is "no change there, then".
> >
> > --
> > Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
> > "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
> :-)
> Perhaps he should be out of mind in the psychedelic sense more often. At
> least he qould be enjoying his neurosis.
He "quold", indeed!
Christopher Eva
> Arthur Sullivan is not usually considered a great composer...
Yes he is. (Or ought to be.) But as Eric Blom put it, he had greatness
thrust upon him in a form that he neither expected nor in fact
relished.
Christopher Eva
Michael Creevey
I don't think he did, at least not whilst wearing gloves/boots. Otoh
Arthur Meulemans, Alfred Hill, Matthew Lock(e), John Jenkins, Frank
Martin, Thomas Morley, Jeremiah Clarke, Haydn Wood, Elliott Carter,
Arthur Benjamin, Ethel Smyth, John Stanley, Bernard Stevens, Ambroise
Thomas, Virgil Thomson, Robert White, and William Wallace may. But not
Billie-Joe Armstrong.
If there was ever a match involving composers, I'm sure Neville Cardus
would write about it, making operatic references and describing drives
in front of the wicket 'as pure as a Mozart piano concerto'.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
Jerry Kohl wrote:
> Michael Creevey wrote:
>
>
>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>
>>>[on Wagner]
>>
>
>>>Some of his early operas are screamingly funny, and not because he
>>
>
>>>thought of them as comic operas, either. I think we've discussed this
>>>before, but I have attended one staged performance of Das Liebesverbot.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not sure how you feel, but to me even Tannhaeuser is a weak work,
>>with some impressive bits. So much of it seems very conventional, with
>>inevitable and watery and predictable cadences, and the whole rather,
>>well...Meyerbeerian.
>
>
> I'm not all that keen on Tannhäuser myself, and I generally agree with
> your characterization. But, trust me, it is nothing like as Meyerbeerian
> as Liebesverbot, which somewht disconcertingly veers back and forth
> between Meyerbeer and Rossini!
What I like about Rossini is that he doesn't take himself seriously. Yes
a lot of it is pretty insubstantial, but he could write a good tune on
occasion. But I agree that a meyerbeer/Rossini combo would be
screamingly funny. And Meyerbeer's best stuff is masterful compared with
the tedious/ridiculous pre-Rienzi stuff that I've heard (not that I'm a
big fan of Rienzi, but perhaps parts of it are passable)
>
>
>>>>Yes of course, I remember, but not all these works are true 'symphonies'
>>>>in the Haydn/C.P.E. Bach sense. I mean Bach's 3 part inventions could be
>>>> symphonies on that basis.
>>>
>>>Because they were composed as preludes to operas? I don't think so!
>>
>>No, but both Bach's 3 part 'inventions' and introductions to French
>>operas were called symphonies. Scarlatti's 'Esercizi' are called sonatas.
>
>
> We've been around the block a few times on this already, on other threads,
> but if you go back far enough in history, you will find that "symphonia"
> is merely the Greek equivalent of the Latin/Italian "Concerto". (Consider
> the Symphoniae Sacrae of Giovanni Gabrieli, or the ones by Heinrich
> Schütz, which individually are called "concerti". The significance in both
> cases is "sounding together".
Yes, and sonata is Italian for something 'sounded' or played, as opposed
to cantata, something sung. Do the words 'non cantare piu' mean anything
to you?
>
>
>>>However, it becomes difficult to distinguish on formal grounds when
>>>an Italian opera sinfonia falls into three-movement form.
>>
>>Works somewhat in the character or nature of the classical period sonata
>>can be found in earlier works, no doubt at all. The old 'sonata da
>>chiesa' could at times, iirc, exemplify the kind of movement contrast
>>expected from later sonatas.
>
>
> Oh, absolutely. And the Venetian sonata in three movements (as opposed
> to the Roman, in four or five movements) almost certainly is the model
> upon which the Classical sonata is based.
>
Vivaldian influence perhaps?
>
>>Some of the French and Italian overtures
>>also apparently used a rudimentary kind of sonata form which I assume
>>would be necessary to considering such pieces 'real' symphonies in some
>>sense.
>
>
> I don't think that "sonata form" as such is necessary to the
> conception of the multi-movement sonata, though the "rudimentary
> sonata form" is found in the larger binary movements of many
> early 18th-century sonatas. Domenico Scarlatti is usually credited
> with developing the rounded-binary form to such a degree that it
> virtually becomes the sonata form--but his Essercizi are basically
> one-movement forms, even if the paired-sonata hypothesis holds
> true.
Its possible, at times, although of course no slow movements, since
Scarlatti rarely wrote any slow sonatas. Iirc, his father Alessandro who
is all but forgotten, wrote the first string quartets.
>
>
>>The multi-movement overtures by composers like Rameau,
>>Charpentier and Campra e.g. didn't in any way suggest close comparison
>>with the classical symphony to my ear, but this could reveal perhaps
>>other possible povs such as 1. my ear isn't very good or 2. your above
>>reference to "Italian opera sinfonia" could apply only to opera
>>sinfonias composed by Italian people, not French, which seems a possible
>>interpretation.
>
>
> I wouldn't regard the French Ouverture, either as a single-movement
> form or in the extended meaning of a suite beginning with such a
> movement, as having a lot to do with the symphony as it emerged
> in the later 18th century.
Okay.
>
>
>>>Sure. Which of course in turn raises the question of whether
>>>concertos and sonatas (including the sonata-form chamber music
>>>of string quartet, piano trio, etc.) are not really a better measure
>>>of what Classical Period instrumental composition was about
>>>than the "symphony", which is after all just an inflated sonata
>>>or string quartet.
>>
>>I think, in a sense, I have already alluded to that. A bit of historical
>>post-analysis, that the symphony is the be-all and end-all of a
>>classical composer's aspiration. Beethoven has to be blamed for that.
>>Even Beethoven though aspired to writing great operas, just as mozart
>>did, calling Fidelio his 'crown of martyrdom' (not sure whether it is
>>great or not, even if others are)
>
>
> And of course the common misconception, voiced frequently on this
> newsgroup in recent months, that anything at all composed for
> orchestra is somehow a "symphony", or even "classical music".
Don't knock Ferd Grofe! But seriously folks, James Last's orchestra and
Richard Clayderman and his band do play classical moosic, uh-huh,
uh-huh. I'm not making this up you know.
>
>
>>>>Clementi is a very worthwhile virtuoso/composer that did write
>>>>symphonies, although it appears most are lost. You like him?
>>>
>>>
>>>Not a lot. Certainly a very competent composer, but not really my
>>>dish of tea.
>>
>>Not dishy enough for ya?
>>Did Hummel write a symphony/turn your boat?
>
>
> Same problem. Perfectly competent composer, especially for
> chamber music, but not a composer to whose music I turn very
> often.
Some of the best works of Clementi and Hummel IMO are quite worthwhile,
even if a little dry in comparison with Beethoven and Chopin, e.g., 2
composers who were writing at the same time as these guys. However their
best works to me are stimulating and of course excellently constructed.
I think that Clementi's most interesting works are his sonatinas, and a
few of the etudes. The bigger works are perhaps a little too ambitious
at times, but even some of the sonatas have consistent good ideas- the
ones in G Minor and F# Minor iirc are 2 examples. Hummel can be
exceedingly dry and even dull, but I have heard chamber works of his
that reminded me of Beethoven. I think the fact that I am a pianist
helps me to appreciate the works of these composers (although it doesn't
help with Steibelt or Kalkbrenner)- although I am not overly enamoured
of the piano concertos or solo works of Hummel.
>
>
>>>>>>BTW how is our slightly demented friend?
>>>>>
>>>>>Who he?
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
>>>>>"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dr Dave?
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah. Out of sight, out of mind, AFAICT. Out of sight is
>>>good; out of mind is "no change there, then".
>>>
>>>--
>>>Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
>>>"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
>>
>>:-)
>>Perhaps he should be out of mind in the psychedelic sense more often. At
>>least he qould be enjoying his neurosis.
>
>
> He "quold", indeed!
>
Are you sure? Perhaps he quoldn't.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
[BTW, due to house-moving hijinks, I may be going on one of my enforced
sabbaticals. Any rumours of incarceration are likely to be exaggerated]
Jerry Kohl
> Jerry Kohl wrote:
> > Michael Creevey wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Jerry Kohl wrote:
> >>
> >>>[on Wagner]
> >>
> >
> >>>Some of his early operas are screamingly funny, and not because he
> >>
> >
> >>>thought of them as comic operas, either. I think we've discussed this
> >>>before, but I have attended one staged performance of Das Liebesverbot.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I'm not sure how you feel, but to me even Tannhaeuser is a weak work,
> >>with some impressive bits. So much of it seems very conventional, with
> >>inevitable and watery and predictable cadences, and the whole rather,
> >>well...Meyerbeerian.
> >
> >
> > I'm not all that keen on Tannhäuser myself, and I generally agree with
> > your characterization. But, trust me, it is nothing like as Meyerbeerian
> > as Liebesverbot, which somewht disconcertingly veers back and forth
> > between Meyerbeer and Rossini!
>
> What I like about Rossini is that he doesn't take himself seriously. Yes
> a lot of it is pretty insubstantial, but he could write a good tune on
> occasion. But I agree that a meyerbeer/Rossini combo would be
> screamingly funny. And Meyerbeer's best stuff is masterful compared with
> the tedious/ridiculous pre-Rienzi stuff that I've heard (not that I'm a
> big fan of Rienzi, but perhaps parts of it are passable)
Of course the big difference is that Rossini and Meyerbeer are being
genuinely themselves, whereas when Wagner imitates them, it is
self-conscious and, inevitably, not up to the original. Juxtapose two
such style-imitation exercises and the results are even more comical--
and pathetic, when you realize the composer wasn't doing it on purpose!
> > We've been around the block a few times on this already, on other threads,
> > but if you go back far enough in history, you will find that "symphonia"
> > is merely the Greek equivalent of the Latin/Italian "Concerto". (Consider
> > the Symphoniae Sacrae of Giovanni Gabrieli, or the ones by Heinrich
> > Schütz, which individually are called "concerti". The significance in both
> > cases is "sounding together".
>
> Yes, and sonata is Italian for something 'sounded' or played, as opposed
> to cantata, something sung. Do the words 'non cantare piu' mean anything
> to you?
I have enough Italian to know it means, literally "sing no more", and that
"cantare" also means, figuratively, "proclaim", "speak loudly and plainly".
But if this is an idiom meaning, for example, "say no more", or "shut your
gob", then I am not aware of it, no.
> > Oh, absolutely. And the Venetian sonata in three movements (as opposed
> > to the Roman, in four or five movements) almost certainly is the model
> > upon which the Classical sonata is based.
> >
>
> Vivaldian influence perhaps?
Through the parallel form of the concerto, yes, most likely. Vivaldi's
sonatas did not appear to impress his contemporaries as much as his
concertos did--and it is certainly true today that his sonatas are
comparatively disregarded.
> > I don't think that "sonata form" as such is necessary to the
> > conception of the multi-movement sonata, though the "rudimentary
> > sonata form" is found in the larger binary movements of many
> > early 18th-century sonatas. Domenico Scarlatti is usually credited
> > with developing the rounded-binary form to such a degree that it
> > virtually becomes the sonata form--but his Essercizi are basically
> > one-movement forms, even if the paired-sonata hypothesis holds
> > true.
>
> Its possible, at times, although of course no slow movements, since
> Scarlatti rarely wrote any slow sonatas.
Yes, that's precisely what I mean. Even if Kirkpatrick's hypothesis
is accepted (and he argued persuasively for it), the result is not much
like the multi-movement sonata that we find later. So I think we need
to keep separate the ideas of sonata-allegro form and multi-movement
sonata.
> Iirc, his father Alessandro who
> is all but forgotten, wrote the first string quartets.
He certainly composed some of the first quartets for that
combination of instruments. Whether they were *the* first
or not, I cannot say. The Neapolitan school (of which Alessandro
became a driving force in the first quarter of the 18th century)
had more of an impact on the development of the sonata than is
generally recognized. Francesco Mancini, in particular, is one
of the composers who--before Domenico Scarlatti--had begun
in his sonatas to push the rounded-binary form in the direction
of the sonata-allegro. Domenico S. would surely have known
Mancini, whose influence did not, however, extend as far as
that of Francesco Veracini who, though a Florentine, in his
youth had close contact with the Neapolitans, including A.
Scarlatti and Mancini. Veracini then spent quite a lot of time
in Venice, where he was something of a thorn in the side of
violinist-composers like Vivaldi and Tartini, but also adopted
many aspects of the Venetian style. If I had to point to one
composer apart from Domenico Scarlatti who might have
been of equal influence in bringing into existence the sonata-
allegro principle, it would be Veracini.
> > And of course the common misconception, voiced frequently on this
> > newsgroup in recent months, that anything at all composed for
> > orchestra is somehow a "symphony", or even "classical music".
>
> Don't knock Ferd Grofe! But seriously folks, James Last's orchestra and
> Richard Clayderman and his band do play classical moosic, uh-huh,
> uh-huh. I'm not making this up you know.
Right ;-)
> Some of the best works of Clementi and Hummel IMO are quite worthwhile,
> even if a little dry in comparison with Beethoven and Chopin, e.g., 2
> composers who were writing at the same time as these guys. However their
> best works to me are stimulating and of course excellently constructed.
> I think that Clementi's most interesting works are his sonatinas, and a
> few of the etudes. The bigger works are perhaps a little too ambitious
> at times, but even some of the sonatas have consistent good ideas- the
> ones in G Minor and F# Minor iirc are 2 examples. Hummel can be
> exceedingly dry and even dull, but I have heard chamber works of his
> that reminded me of Beethoven.
Yes. I think I said that, of Hummel compositions that I have heard, the
chamber music stands out as the best.
> I think the fact that I am a pianist
> helps me to appreciate the works of these composers (although it doesn't
> help with Steibelt or Kalkbrenner)- although I am not overly enamoured
> of the piano concertos or solo works of Hummel.
And probably the fact that I am *not* a pianist makes it more
difficult to appreciate this music.
And best of luck with your house-moving--always a stressful time.
Michael Creevey
Sounds like a complete nightmare. I have to agree, this stretches the
risible muscles in a big way,
>
>
>>>We've been around the block a few times on this already, on other threads,
>>>but if you go back far enough in history, you will find that "symphonia"
>>>is merely the Greek equivalent of the Latin/Italian "Concerto". (Consider
>>>the Symphoniae Sacrae of Giovanni Gabrieli, or the ones by Heinrich
>>>Schütz, which individually are called "concerti". The significance in both
>>>cases is "sounding together".
>>
>>Yes, and sonata is Italian for something 'sounded' or played, as opposed
>>to cantata, something sung. Do the words 'non cantare piu' mean anything
>>to you?
>
>
> I have enough Italian to know it means, literally "sing no more", and that
> "cantare" also means, figuratively, "proclaim", "speak loudly and plainly".
> But if this is an idiom meaning, for example, "say no more", or "shut your
> gob", then I am not aware of it, no.
:-)
No that wasn't directed at you. Should've been 'non cantando piu'- a
line from Anna Russell's take on coloratura singing. As she said,
'there's not a lot of market for it, since the only people who really
like coloratura singing are coloratura sopranos'. But I digress.
>
>
>>>Oh, absolutely. And the Venetian sonata in three movements (as opposed
>>>to the Roman, in four or five movements) almost certainly is the model
>>>upon which the Classical sonata is based.
>>>
>>
>>Vivaldian influence perhaps?
>
>
> Through the parallel form of the concerto, yes, most likely. Vivaldi's
> sonatas did not appear to impress his contemporaries as much as his
> concertos did--and it is certainly true today that his sonatas are
> comparatively disregarded.
>
>
>>>I don't think that "sonata form" as such is necessary to the
>>>conception of the multi-movement sonata, though the "rudimentary
>>>sonata form" is found in the larger binary movements of many
>>>early 18th-century sonatas. Domenico Scarlatti is usually credited
>>>with developing the rounded-binary form to such a degree that it
>>>virtually becomes the sonata form--but his Essercizi are basically
>>>one-movement forms, even if the paired-sonata hypothesis holds
>>>true.
>>
>>Its possible, at times, although of course no slow movements, since
>>Scarlatti rarely wrote any slow sonatas.
>
>
> Yes, that's precisely what I mean. Even if Kirkpatrick's hypothesis
> is accepted (and he argued persuasively for it), the result is not much
> like the multi-movement sonata that we find later. So I think we need
> to keep separate the ideas of sonata-allegro form and multi-movement
> sonata.
Can be confusing for some, can't it? I have seen sonata form used in the
sense of the multi-movement form, as well as the more usual 1st movement
'sonata form'. I haven't read Kirkpatrick's book. Does he argue that all
or most of Scarlatti's sonatas were part of larger structures, or just a
few of them? I know he only edited a few for publication.
BTW didn't Beecham say that the sound of the harpsichord reminded him of
skeletons copulating on a tin roof?
>
>
>>Iirc, his father Alessandro who
>>is all but forgotten, wrote the first string quartets.
>
>
> He certainly composed some of the first quartets for that
> combination of instruments. Whether they were *the* first
> or not, I cannot say. The Neapolitan school (of which Alessandro
> became a driving force in the first quarter of the 18th century)
> had more of an impact on the development of the sonata than is
> generally recognized. Francesco Mancini, in particular, is one
> of the composers who--before Domenico Scarlatti--had begun
> in his sonatas to push the rounded-binary form in the direction
> of the sonata-allegro. Domenico S. would surely have known
> Mancini, whose influence did not, however, extend as far as
> that of Francesco Veracini who, though a Florentine, in his
> youth had close contact with the Neapolitans, including A.
> Scarlatti and Mancini. Veracini then spent quite a lot of time
> in Venice, where he was something of a thorn in the side of
> violinist-composers like Vivaldi and Tartini, but also adopted
> many aspects of the Venetian style. If I had to point to one
> composer apart from Domenico Scarlatti who might have
> been of equal influence in bringing into existence the sonata-
> allegro principle, it would be Veracini.
Interesting. Veracini, from what I've heard, was a great composer. I
find his concerti easily equal to the general standard of Vivaldi or
Handel, for instance, and superior to Tartini or others like Locatelli,
Geminiani etc who seem to be better known. That whole 17th-early 18th
cent. period of Italian music is one of those somewhat neglected areas
which seems to be full of composers worth listening to. Not just the
known names either. However Veracini's music I find rather bewitching.
>
>
>>>And of course the common misconception, voiced frequently on this
>>>newsgroup in recent months, that anything at all composed for
>>>orchestra is somehow a "symphony", or even "classical music".
>>
>>Don't knock Ferd Grofe! But seriously folks, James Last's orchestra and
>>Richard Clayderman and his band do play classical moosic, uh-huh,
>>uh-huh. I'm not making this up you know.
>
>
> Right ;-)
Another Anna Russell reference- from her Ring Cycle monologue. I think
it was prompted by laughter after her statement that Gutrune was the
first woman Siegfried had met that wasn't one of his aunts.
>
>
>>Some of the best works of Clementi and Hummel IMO are quite worthwhile,
>>even if a little dry in comparison with Beethoven and Chopin, e.g., 2
>>composers who were writing at the same time as these guys. However their
>>best works to me are stimulating and of course excellently constructed.
>>I think that Clementi's most interesting works are his sonatinas, and a
>>few of the etudes. The bigger works are perhaps a little too ambitious
>>at times, but even some of the sonatas have consistent good ideas- the
>>ones in G Minor and F# Minor iirc are 2 examples. Hummel can be
>>exceedingly dry and even dull, but I have heard chamber works of his
>>that reminded me of Beethoven.
>
>
> Yes. I think I said that, of Hummel compositions that I have heard, the
> chamber music stands out as the best.
>
>
>>I think the fact that I am a pianist
>>helps me to appreciate the works of these composers (although it doesn't
>>help with Steibelt or Kalkbrenner)- although I am not overly enamoured
>>of the piano concertos or solo works of Hummel.
>
>
> And probably the fact that I am *not* a pianist makes it more
> difficult to appreciate this music.
>
> And best of luck with your house-moving--always a stressful time.
>
> --
> Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
>
>
Thanks, Jerry- I appreciate that. Has been stressful so far :-)
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Jerry Kohl
Oh, I wouldn't go that far! Ludicrous, yes, but a nightmare? Well, a
couple of glasses of Sekt and a sandwich at each of the two intermissions
helped make Das Liebesverbot more amusing than it otherwise might
have been, perhaps!
> >>>We've been around the block a few times on this already, on other threads,
> >>>but if you go back far enough in history, you will find that "symphonia"
> >>>is merely the Greek equivalent of the Latin/Italian "Concerto". (Consider
> >>>the Symphoniae Sacrae of Giovanni Gabrieli, or the ones by Heinrich
> >>>Schütz, which individually are called "concerti". The significance in both
> >>>cases is "sounding together".
> >>
> >>Yes, and sonata is Italian for something 'sounded' or played, as opposed
> >>to cantata, something sung. Do the words 'non cantare piu' mean anything
> >>to you?
> >
> > I have enough Italian to know it means, literally "sing no more", and that
> > "cantare" also means, figuratively, "proclaim", "speak loudly and plainly".
> > But if this is an idiom meaning, for example, "say no more", or "shut your
> > gob", then I am not aware of it, no.
>
> :-)
> No that wasn't directed at you. Should've been 'non cantando piu'- a
> line from Anna Russell's take on coloratura singing. As she said,
> 'there's not a lot of market for it, since the only people who really
> like coloratura singing are coloratura sopranos'. But I digress.
Ah! But of course she was entirely incorrect. Coloratura baritones
and coloratura mezzos are also enamoured of coloratura singing ...
though they are exceedingly difficult to find these days, which
accounts for the demise in the standard repertoire of certain once-
popular operas.
> >>>I don't think that "sonata form" as such is necessary to the
> >>>conception of the multi-movement sonata, though the "rudimentary
> >>>sonata form" is found in the larger binary movements of many
> >>>early 18th-century sonatas. Domenico Scarlatti is usually credited
> >>>with developing the rounded-binary form to such a degree that it
> >>>virtually becomes the sonata form--but his Essercizi are basically
> >>>one-movement forms, even if the paired-sonata hypothesis holds
> >>>true.
> >>
> >>Its possible, at times, although of course no slow movements, since
> >>Scarlatti rarely wrote any slow sonatas.
> >
> > Yes, that's precisely what I mean. Even if Kirkpatrick's hypothesis
> > is accepted (and he argued persuasively for it), the result is not much
> > like the multi-movement sonata that we find later. So I think we need
> > to keep separate the ideas of sonata-allegro form and multi-movement
> > sonata.
>
> Can be confusing for some, can't it? I have seen sonata form used in the
> sense of the multi-movement form, as well as the more usual 1st movement
> 'sonata form'. I haven't read Kirkpatrick's book. Does he argue that all
> or most of Scarlatti's sonatas were part of larger structures, or just a
> few of them?
Just some of them. It's been a long time since I read Kirkpatrick, but
I keep running across references to the pairing hypothesis in
programme notes.
> I know he only edited a few for publication.
> BTW didn't Beecham say that the sound of the harpsichord reminded him of
> skeletons copulating on a tin roof?
He may well have done. And the instruments being palmed off as
harpsichords in Beecham's day often justified the comment. (I have
heard those Neupert 4' 8' 8' 16' double-manual, seven-pedal jobs
described as "German plucked pianos"; I have also see a pair of
them used as continuo instruments with a Brucknerian-sized
orchestra where they were completely and utterly inaudible.
Interestingly, this was the night before I attended Das Liebesverbot
in Munich.)
> > If I had to point to one
> > composer apart from Domenico Scarlatti who might have
> > been of equal influence in bringing into existence the sonata-
> > allegro principle, it would be Veracini.
>
> Interesting. Veracini, from what I've heard, was a great composer. I
> find his concerti easily equal to the general standard of Vivaldi or
> Handel, for instance, and superior to Tartini or others like Locatelli,
> Geminiani etc who seem to be better known.
I don't know his concertos, but his sonatas are absolutely astonishing.
Luigi Torchi, writing in 1901, compared the power of Veracini's op. 1
sonatas to that of Beethoven's Eroica and Coriolanus. A bit hyperbolic,
perhaps, and Torchi is clearly looking for an Italian hero to stand
against the German hegemony which he perceived to have crushed
Italian music in the 19th century, but I believe the comparison is not
wholly unjustified.
> That whole 17th-early 18th
> cent. period of Italian music is one of those somewhat neglected areas
> which seems to be full of composers worth listening to. Not just the
> known names either. However Veracini's music I find rather bewitching.
Yes. Unfortunately, it is also chock-a-block with third-rate
composers who are well worth forgetting. Today, with the
experience of the music of the later 18th century and beyond
saturating our perceptions, it is sometimes too easy to dismiss
the whole lot of them and, in so doing, throw out the baby
with the bath.
> >>Don't knock Ferd Grofe! But seriously folks, James Last's orchestra and
> >>Richard Clayderman and his band do play classical moosic, uh-huh,
> >>uh-huh. I'm not making this up you know.
> >
> > Right ;-)
>
> Another Anna Russell reference- from her Ring Cycle monologue. I think
> it was prompted by laughter after her statement that Gutrune was the
> first woman Siegfried had met that wasn't one of his aunts.
Oh, I see, the "I'm not making this up you know" part. I remember
that well. (I don't remember Anna Russell bringing in Ferde Grofé,
James Last, or Richard Clayderman, though ;-)