| Author |
Comment |
Lucy
Clifford
Registered User
Posts: 111
(3/10/01 2:24:55 am)
Reply
|
A new (MUSICAL)
topic to consider
It just occured to me that:
Mozart (b. 1756) developed the
symphony astronomically - changing it from the pretty and amusing
form that is prevalent even in Late Haydn, to the form which
Beethoven picked up and devloped it even further.
Gustav
Mahler was born in 1860, a mere 104 years after W.A.M. and carried
Romantic movement into the 20th Century.
He died a mere 120 years
after Mozart, and look at what had happened in between - the
exploration of tonality, harmony and creation which had been started
by Mozart's genius and carried on by Beethoven.
Beethoven's
9th Symphony was premiered in 1824, so close to the premiere of
Mahler's own first chorale effort.
It is only just over 85
(87) years, less than a life time, since the premiere of the Rite of
Spring, which if anything was the piece that brought in the 20th
Century, and (please don't laugh) seemed to prophesise the horror
and carnage which was so much a feature of the century.
So it
was just around those 157 years, from 1756 to 1913 when music
changed its meaning forever.
Hmmmm. Something for me, at
least to meditate on.
|
cellochris99
Registered
User
Posts: 95
(3/10/01 5:35:46
am)
Reply
|
Mozart
Just a little trivia tidbit. They say that Mozart had an IQ of
~150. Not too bad. But then again, his musical genious was off the
charts!
Chris
|
Lucy
Clifford
Registered User
Posts: 112
(3/10/01 7:41:24 pm)
Reply
|
I ask
myself?
Here is a totally non-contensious topic, deep and meaningful, and
has it got 80 replies? NO! Come on everybody, think a bit 
It
also strikes me that in the years since 1913 (RoS) nothing quite as
amazing has happened, or at least nothing has has caused such an
impact. Why is that? Is the age of 'classical' music no
more?
|
Matthew
Tifford
Registered User
Posts: 35
(3/11/01 1:15:48 am)
Reply
|
Mozart, Haydn,
and Beethoven
"Mozart (b. 1756) developed the symphony astronomically - changing
it from the pretty and amusing form that is prevalent even in Late
Haydn, to the form which Beethoven picked up and devloped it even
further."
I have to disagree with your description of late
Haydn as "pretty and amusing." While I am not a big Haydn fan, his
late works are quite complex. I should also point out that Mozart,
along with most everyone else, had a healthy respect for his work,
even dedicating six quartets to Haydn. This was quite unusual since
most of Mozart's works were dedicated to rich patrons, for obvious
reasons.
From New Grove 2:
(on Mozart and Haydn's
relationship)
"But there is no doubt of their mutual admiration
as composers: each acknowledged the other as his only peer and as
the only meaningful influence on his own music in the
1780s."
Also, while it is believed that Beethoven may have
taken a few lessons from Mozart, Haydn was his primary teacher and
influence.
The great symphonic composers of the
late-classical through the Romantic period derived their
compositional style from him. This is why he is commonly referred to
as the "father of the symphony".
This is not to dispute
Mozart's genius, it is interesting to contemplate what effect he
might have had on later composers if he had lived longer.
Regrettably, the Mozart school of composition died with him.
As for your comment about nothing amazing happening
in music after 1913, here are some exciting composers to check
out:
Andrew Lloyd Webber.
John Tesh
Yanni
Stephen
Sondheim (yeah, I think he sucks too)
|
zambocello
Registered
User
Posts: 488
(3/11/01 4:08:33
am)
Reply
|
apres
Sacre
I think a few amazing things have happened after 1913. The music of
Bartok, Debussy, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Prokofiev, Shostakovich,
Hindemith, Barber, Britten, Strauss, etc, etc. Plus the work of
living composers who do not yet qualify for canonization.
|
galois00
Registered
User
Posts: 12
(3/11/01 12:10:29
pm)
Reply
|
Re: A new
(MUSICAL) topic to consider
It's interesting to hear your suggestions about who has been
important (or not!) in this century. But Lucy's post raises another
interesting point. Looking back on the development from Haydn
through Mozart to Mahler, and what's happened since 1913, you have
to wonder: where do we go from here? I was thinking recently about
that funny Kingsley Amis quote about 20th century music. Some older
works, though initially controversial, gradually won acceptance.
Rite of Spring is considered a classic now. Will that process of
acceptance continue? Which contemporary works do you think people
will be enjoying 100 years from now?
|
zambocello
Registered
User
Posts: 489
(3/12/01 1:01:45
am)
Reply
|
Re: A new
(MUSICAL) topic to consider
Many pieces from the first part of the 20th century are already
"standard." Carmina Burana, Bartok Concerto for Orch, the violin and
piano concertos, Miraculaous Mandarin, quartets, etc; Shostakovich
and Prokofiev works, Barber fiddle concerto, Berg 3 pieces and
violin concerto, Copland ballet pieces and Sym #3, Menotti operas
etc.
It is fun to speculate which pieces of more recent
composers will have an enduring place in the repertoire. Corigliano?
Christopher Rouse's? Zwillich? Lieberman? Adams? Sheng? Shall we
start a pool and let the winner's grand child collect?
|
Lucy
Clifford
Registered User
Posts: 114
(3/12/01 3:41:38 am)
Reply
|
Ah ha!
Matthew
I acknowledge the Haydn/Mozart relationship, but the gist of what I
was saying was that Mozart spanned the gap, leading into Beethoven's
further developement.
Perhaps, in his way, Haydn was more
influential. I should have said that he turned the symphony from
something pretty and amusing into a more erudite form (the 'London'
for example).
I may sound rather philistine, but I'd choose a
Haydn/Beethoven S/Quartet over a Mozart any day (apart from the
Dissonant)
Andrew Lloyd Webber? A Great
Composer?????????????
Next you'll be telling me that Julian Lloyd
Webber is a great cellist!
JOKE!
JOKE! JOKE!
|
danielemanuel
Registered
User
Posts: 31
(3/12/01 6:38:57
am)
Reply
|
Mozart et
Co.
Interesting topic, I am very interested in musical history. If you
look back at the Viennese time it isn't hard to find connections
between the composers.
For example, G. C. Wagenseil wrote two
Cello Concertos. One of his pupils was L. Hofmann who was to write
eight Cello Concertos. Hofmann was the music director of the
cathedral. Hoping to get his job later, Mozart was Hofmann's unpaid
assistant for some time. (But Hofmann outlived Mozart). Mozart
actually wrote one Cello Concerto in F (K. 206a - unfortunately
lost).
At least one time Mozart played string quartet
together with Haydn, Dittersdorf and Vanhal. All of them had also
written Cello Concertos. To connect Haydn with Hofmann it is
probable that both Haydn and Hofmann composed Cello Concertos for
the cellist Weigl (the reciever of the Haydn C). It may also be that
Haydn heard a cello concerto by Hofmann before composing the C
concerto.
Beethoven did take lessons from Haydn. But their
temperaments didn't match. So Beethoven went on and took lessons
from Salieri (and som others) instead.
....and the history of
music continues just like this. For exemple one of Lizt's daughters
became the wife of Wagner.
\Daniel
|
Matthew
Tifford
Registered User
Posts: 36
(3/12/01 10:56:24 am)
Reply
|
Great
cellists
I would say that the greatness of these two brothers is exactly
equal! :-)
"Next you'll be telling me that Julian
Lloyd Webber is a great cellist!"
|
sarah
schenkman
Registered User
Posts:
279
(3/12/01 4:22:46 pm)
Reply
|
Re: apres
Sacre
I think orchestras should be constantly introducing new music
to their audience. A few years ago my orchestra had an assoc.
conductor who liked to program stuff like "Chairman Dances",
"Stomp", "Dead Elvis", Philip Glass. It made for exciting programs.
He's gone and now we do almost nothing but war-horses.
|
Gablety
Registered
User
Posts: 8
(3/17/01 1:07:56
pm)
Reply
|
Sarah McLachlan,
Jane Scarpentoni, CDs, mp3s
Right now I'm listening to Sarah McLachlan. I think her music is
absolutely marvelous. if you must listen to only one of hers, listen
to Fumbling Towards ecstacy, her third studio release; otherwise
listen to Touch, Surfacing, and Mirrorball as well. I love the
strong but realistic emotions expressed, and the ways they are
carried out. In "Plenty," track 3 of FTE, it starts with just a sort
of white noise/wave tone, which increases over about fifteen
seconds. the single drumbeat there makes a sort of "landscape" feel,
which is increased by the beautiful keyboards that come in, and then
the bassand drums, and eventually the haunting, tormented vocals
("..I looked into your eyes/ they told me plenty/ I already
know..."). The bass and drums combine to make a sort of "heartbeat"
tone. it is an absolutyely marvellous song!
Jane Scarpentoni
appears in Track 11, "Fear." There are three ways of listening to
this: at the same volume as the rest of the record, at about one and
a half times the volume as the rest of the record, or on the live
record, "Mirrorball." It starts with cool chord tones, very distinct
but so low you can hardly hear them. (hence the volume.) meanwhile
there's a sort of "doot-doot-doot" of background vocals. The vocals
begin, at the top of her register and softened with computers,
"Morning smiles/ like the face of a newborn child/ innocent,
unknowing..." it is absolutely beautiful. Then Jane scarpentoni
softly comes in with her beautiful cello and with only a few
questioning notes, plays off all of the existing melody: the
keyboards, background, and foreground vocals. This is one of the
most lovely moments i have ever heard.
The live Mirrorball
version is a little different. it sounds like they tried to open
with a computer, but there's absolutely no way to do that at rock
concert volumes. So they open with about the same chords, but played
by a piano and guitar playing off of each other. Then instead of
recruiting a cello, or cello part of a keyboard, McLachlan sings in
one of the lowest parts of her range, making a cello-like
atmosphere. This is so lovely there is no way it will soon fade from
public listening.
But one of the biggest reasons I am
listening to her is that the record companies promoted her. Apart
from the numerous photos and pictures of her on internet articles of
her and on and in her liner nots, she would be just a faceless
artist, sold in smooth cellophane-wrapped boxes in tiny stores in
the mall. She inspires all of these wonderful emotions in me with
little bits I have just tried to describe the tiniest corner of; she
is "good." One of the reasons I bought her CDs is beacuse she is one
of the select few artists that companies have tried tro push through
the system of mall CD outlets, public taste, the radio, and so on.
if the companies have their way, she will be forgotten tomorrow,
replaced by another artist i spend $16.98 per poor-sound-quality
record over and over. Yuck.
Hopefully, with the help of Sarah
mcLcahlan and Jane Scarpentoni fans who are cellists, and mp3s and
libraries, this awful system will come to an end. ideally, all
artists with a visiopn should be alloud to share it: i should listen
to everything I think about, whether by a cellist friend, at a
friend's house, from the library, or over the Internet via mp3. If
it means something to me, i will embrace it, make it a part of my
life, and buy the record and ideally the sheet music, giving as much
of that money to the artist. (I got it out from the library, spent
months ogling over it getting it out again and again, and finally
bought it through a record club for about $4 and then sent Sarah a
check. Well, actually I didn't send her a check, because I thought
she already had lots of money. *lol*)
Edited by: Gablety
at: 3/17/01 1:32:57 pm
|
Gablety
Registered
User
Posts: 53
(5/21/01 2:55:22
pm)
Reply
|
Ditto Lucy
Clifford!
"Here is a totally non-contensious topic, deep and meaningful, and
has it got 80 replies? NO! Come on everybody, think a bit "
|
SW
Registered User
Posts: 37
(5/21/01 3:23:21 pm)
Reply
|
Where do we go
from here?
Not that it makes me happy, but I think classical composition is
treading water and has been for some time because the art of musical
composition is waiting for the development of new instruments that
will take the craft to new levels. Even though the synthesizer, etc.
has been around for some time, the orchestra of today is still
populated with instruments of the 18th and 19th centuries. When that
changes, musical composition will experience a renaissance. I think
string and brass instruments and instrumentalists will suffer a less
dire fate than woodwinds or pianos,i.e., instruments that do not
have the capability of producing any desired frequency. However,
string and brass players will be expected to have total mastery to
do ANYTHING! The young players of that generation will be able to do
things that we may not be able to imagine. The woodwind instruments
of tomorrow may be unrecognizable if they exist at all.
|
Len
Thompson
Registered User
Posts: 193
(5/21/01 7:53:21 pm)
Reply
|
J Tesh
I find the music of John Tesh catchy but expendable. A big sound,
and flash in the pan. Classical music I think is just "complete",
and very lasting. Much modern music comes and goes, and little gets
resurected later. What will be the next pure, lasting music for the
future??
Len
|
cellochris99
Registered
User
Posts: 188
(5/22/01 1:51:54
am)
Reply
|
Re: Tesh
My music will be, it'll be out in a little while.
Chris
| |
Internet Cello Society
Forums
Email
This To a Friend
Topic Commands (Moderator only)