Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 91

Thread: Best 25 works of this century?

  1. #61
    Senior Member Phil loves classical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Ford Nation
    Posts
    4,175
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enthusiast View Post
    Statistics aren't part of my enjoyment of the work. I don't think noticing that would add anything to my listening. As I've said, I suspect it would get in my way.



    This baffles me. Why could I not articulate that Bartok was a great composer? I agree that his music is notably different to the music of the 2nd Viennese School. Did you think I wouldn't hear the difference?

    I do like both, though, but my experience with Bartok is much longer and deeper.
    You're mixing enjoyment from critique/analysis. A true critique analysis much involve more I'm saying. Not addressing you personally between Bartok/Webern, but I've known some who can't tell the difference (heck I was one of them).

    Quote Originally Posted by starthrower View Post
    You're describing technical musical analysis. That's not what a music critic is required to do. A classical music critic comments on the interpretation and performance of a piece. And the fidelity of the recording. I don't read classical music reviews. I can trust my own ears to know whether I'm enjoying a piece. And if I don't, I can file it away and come back to it.
    I agree with a classical recording critic, as in my subsequent post #56. But another type of critic goes to a work's premiere and writes about it, that are usually musically-trained. Since they aren't given the score, a lot of first impressions of acknowledged masterpieces like Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (only Ravel recognized its greatness right away) and one of Prokofiev's piano works (can't remember exactly which one, but a critic was claiming he was punching random notes) get bad reviews, but later the greatness is realized. But you're right, I might be mixing critic with scholar. But the main idea was the critic reviewing or ranking a piece in a greatest list should have some sort of musical training or education even if not formal. With Scaruffi there is no evidence, since he doesn't refer to the music itself but extraneous stuff surrounding the music. He only uses the most general terms such as "tonal", "chord" to associate with something else.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/i...lharmonic.html
    Last edited by Phil loves classical; Oct-02-2019 at 02:53.
    "Forgive me, Majesty. I'm a vulgar man. But I assure you, my music is not.“ Mozart

  2. #62
    Senior Member Trout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    7,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    196

    Default

    As a follow-up to this article, I drafted my own list of what I consider to be 50 great works of the 21st century. Whether they're the greatest is something I don't know if anyone can say. I tried to base this list not as much on how favorable the pieces are to me subjectively (admittedly impossible to isolate this entirely...), but rather if they are a "significant" accomplishment. More specifically, I researched and listened to see if each piece pushed the "boundary" of classical music forward; or if the piece contained some new, sui generis conception; or if the piece was at the height of an already established movement/genre/etc. I also was fairly stingy in awarding multiple entries to the same composer. Some corollaries of these criteria are that the pieces tended to a more "epic" scale in terms of length and the list tended to be fairly diverse but perhaps not very accessible.

    1. Haas: in vain (2000)
    2. Saariaho: L'amour de loin (2000)
    3. Abrahamsen: let me tell you (2013)
    4. Stockhausen: Cosmic Pulses (2007)
    5. Adams, JL: Become Ocean (2013)
    6. Kurtág: Fin de Partie (2010-18)
    7. Abrahamsen: Schnee (2008)
    8. Benjamin: Written on Skin (2012)
    9. Rihm: Jagden und Formen (1995-2001)
    10. Gubaidulina: In Tempus Praesens (2007)
    11. Chin: Cello Concerto (2006-08, rev. 2013)
    12. Birtwistle: The Minotaur (2008)
    13. Golijov: La Pasión según San Marcos (2000)
    14. Adams: The Dharma at Big Sur (2003)
    15. Haas: limited approximations (2010)
    16. Romitelli: An Index of Metals (2003)
    17. Shaw: Partita for 8 Voices (2009-12)
    18. Murail: Les Sept Paroles (2009-10)
    19. Adès: Violin Concerto "Concentric Paths" (2005)
    20. Neuwirth: Lost Highway (2003)
    21. Lang: the little match girl passion (2008)
    22. Richter: Sleep (2015)
    23. Chin: Violin Concerto (2001)
    24. Dillon: The Book of Elements (1997-2002)
    25. Barrett: Dark Matter (1990-2003)
    26. Furrer: Piano Concerto (2007)
    27. Adès: The Exterminating Angel (2016)
    28. Finnissy: The History of Photography in Sound (1995-2001)
    29. Dutilleux: Correspondances (2003)
    30. Sciarrino: Studi per l'intonazione del mare (2000)
    31. Soper: Ipsa Dixit (2010-16)
    32. Lachenmann: Grido (2001)
    33. Saunders: Skin (2016)
    34. Norman: Play (2013)
    35. Gibson: The Four Pillars Appearing from The Equal D under Resonating Apparitions of The Eternal Process in The Midwinter Starfield (2014)
    36. Gordon: Timber (2009)
    37. Ferneyhough: String Quartet No. 6 (2010)
    38. Steen-Andersen: Piano Concerto (2014)
    39. Greenwood: There Will Be Blood (2007)
    40. MacMillan: Stabat Mater (2015)
    41. Murail: Winter Fragments (2000)
    42. Glass: Etudes for Piano (1994-2012)
    43. Ablinger: Voices and Piano (1998-)
    44. Harvey: Speakings (2007-08)
    45. Berio: Sequenza XIV (2002)
    46. Ge: String Quartet No. 5 "The Fall of Baghdad" (2005)
    47. Billone: 1+1=1 (2006)
    48. Czernowin: MAIM (2002-06)
    49. Tavener: The Veil of the Temple (2002)
    50. Van der Aa: Blank Out (2015)

    I'd be happy to hear any suggestions on notable omissions and/or bizarre inclusions.
    Last edited by Trout; Oct-01-2019 at 20:32. Reason: substituted Karkowski for Van der Aa

  3. Likes Kjetil Heggelund, mmsbls, Enthusiast and 3 others liked this post
  4. #63
    Senior Member Enthusiast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    5,973
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil loves classical View Post
    You're mixing enjoyment from critique/analysis. A true critique analysis much involve more I'm saying. Not addressing you personally between Bartok/Webern, but I've known some who can't tell the difference (heck I was one of them).
    I have been responding to your earlier comments and disagreeing with the part I have highlighted -

    in Classical how is anyone going to praise Mozart's Jupiter's coda intertwining the 5 themes introduced previously, or Bach's use of dissonance in his counterpoint, Beethoven's expansion of the sonata form, Stravinsky's innovations in rhythm. Sure some qualities can be picked up, but to articulate even more generally what makes the music great needs some bit of more formal analysis.
    I say again - no formal analysis is needed to appreciate those features. They either work or they don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil loves classical View Post
    I agree with a classical recording critic, as in my subsequent post #56. But another type of critic goes to a work's premiere and writes about it, that are usually musically-trained. Since they aren't given the score, a lot of first impressions of acknowledged masterpieces like Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (only Ravel recognized its greatness right away) and one of Prokofiev's piano works (can't remember exactly which one, but a critic was claiming he was punching random notes) get bad reviews, but later the greatness is realized. But you're right, I might be mixing critic with scholar. But the main idea was the critic reviewing or ranking a piece in a greatest list should have some sort of musical training or education even if not formal. With Scaruffi there is no evidence, since he doesn't refer to the music itself but extraneous stuff surrounding the music. He only uses the most general terms such as "tonal", "chord" to associate with something else.
    I am not defending Scaruffi as I have not read his stuff. But I don't think musical training is needed to "understand" a new piece, either. It isn't really cleverness that makes music great. And if the cleverness is hidden so much the better.

    I also do not see why musical training is needed to arrive at a ranked list of the greatest. Why should it be? Would you have it that half the members here should just keep quiet while the experts discuss technicalities to arrive at definitive evaluations of the masterpieces of music?
    Last edited by Enthusiast; Oct-02-2019 at 09:34.

  5. #64
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    39
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enthusiast View Post
    I haven't read it, yet, but feel sure I will not agree with everything! This article is from The Guardian today:

    https://www.theguardian.com/music/20...e-21st-century

    Do you agree with any of the choices?
    I do not know many of these pieces, but I do note that very many are operas, song cycles, or choral works. Most interesting.
    Last edited by hoodjem; Oct-02-2019 at 16:14.

  6. #65
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    39
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by starthrower View Post
    The Guardian ought to stick to their left of center journalism and leave music to other publications. Aren't they the rag that published the opera is stupid article? A composer from Spain that I find very impressive is Jose Sanchez-Verdu. Check out his release on the Kairos label. it's superb!

    https://www.amazon.com/Philharmonie-...s=music&sr=1-3
    Today Eisenhower would be regarded as left-of-center, and FDR would be labeled as a radical socialist.

    Also intriguing:
    https://www.amazon.com/Sánchez-Verdú...0029440&sr=8-1
    Last edited by hoodjem; Oct-02-2019 at 16:24.

  7. Likes Enthusiast liked this post
  8. #66
    Senior Member Enthusiast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    5,973
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    ^ And The Guardian would still be regarded as "dead centre".

  9. #67
    Senior Member Phil loves classical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Ford Nation
    Posts
    4,175
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Moon View Post
    Magnus Lindberg had several pieces in the 21st century better than most of the pieces on this list. Including incredible concertos for piano, 2 for violin, cello.

    Narong Prangcharoen's great Phenomenon for orchestra is pretty special.

    Augusta Read Thomas' EOS (Goddess of the Dawn) from 2015 is worthy of being on that list.

    Estonian composer, Erkki-Sven Tüür has several pieces that are better than some on this list.

    These are off the top of my head.
    Agree. I believe Lindberg is the greatest (or one of them) tonal composer of our times. Also a great orchestrator.
    "Forgive me, Majesty. I'm a vulgar man. But I assure you, my music is not.“ Mozart

  10. #68
    Senior Member Enthusiast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    5,973
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    ^ Really? Can you suggest a few works that are memorable and inspiring? Maybe I am missing something. So far, I have found some his music enjoyable on first hearing but get a little bored of it quite quickly. For me I need to know that I can listen to a piece tens (or even hundreds) of times and keep hearing more and more invention and inspiration. It isn't about getting it on first hearing (at a concert, for example) and I don't expect to get very new music until I have heard it a few times. I am not that sure what it is that makes me keep listening to an intriguing piece sufficiently to actually get to know it. I suppose my favourite work of Lindberg's is the clarinet concerto but that may be more because I love the instrument and feel that a lot more needs to be written for it.

  11. #69
    Senior Member Phil loves classical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Ford Nation
    Posts
    4,175
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enthusiast View Post
    ^ Really? Can you suggest a few works that are memorable and inspiring? Maybe I am missing something. So far, I have found some his music enjoyable on first hearing but get a little bored of it quite quickly. For me I need to know that I can listen to a piece tens (or even hundreds) of times and keep hearing more and more invention and inspiration. It isn't about getting it on first hearing (at a concert, for example) and I don't expect to get very new music until I have heard it a few times. I am not that sure what it is that makes me keep listening to an intriguing piece sufficiently to actually get to know it. I suppose my favourite work of Lindberg's is the clarinet concerto but that may be more because I love the instrument and feel that a lot more needs to be written for it.
    Check out his cello concerto 2 violin concerto 2, piano concerto.
    "Forgive me, Majesty. I'm a vulgar man. But I assure you, my music is not.“ Mozart

  12. Likes Enthusiast liked this post
  13. #70
    Senior Member Phil loves classical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Ford Nation
    Posts
    4,175
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    BTW, Scaruffi replied to my email:

    "musical education can be a problem, not a solution, whether it's Western, Indian or Chinese
    it's technique not art
    and it may make you miss the historical context and a thousand other facts that
    IMHO are much more important
    i did study music theory but luckily i forgot all about it :-)"

    You always hear the example of those who study music, but don't hear it. I believe in these cases, they wouldn't have heard it anyway if they didn't study it. Personally, I was only able to get E Carter by seeing how he used the technique he used, otherwise I could easily dismiss his music based on hearing alone. It still doesn't suit my taste, but at least now I can follow what he is expressing. Also Scaruffi couldn't explain how conductors, who know the music inside/ out, can find lots of detail and aspects in the music that casual listeners couldn't (yes you have to be musically educated to be a conductor) https://study.com/articles/How_to_Be...r_Roadmap.html

    On historical context, I say it can add to the understanding, or take away from the music. 17 year old Mozart wrote his Symphony 25 shortly after the success of an opera. How does this context depict the angst in the music, which is more readily noted by analysis (his first in a minor key).

    Also take Mahler's 9th. Many interpret the last movement as Mahler acknowledging his own impending death, but Mahler didn't know about his heart condition and was successful at the time. Also Walter, who knew Mahler best, interpreted it differently. Here is a good article on the danger of reading too much into the historical context of it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/music/to...symphony-guide
    Last edited by Phil loves classical; Oct-03-2019 at 16:59.
    "Forgive me, Majesty. I'm a vulgar man. But I assure you, my music is not.“ Mozart

  14. #71
    Senior Member AfterHours's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    1,519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil loves classical View Post
    BTW, Scaruffi replied to my email:

    "musical education can be a problem, not a solution, whether it's Western, Indian or Chinese
    it's technique not art
    and it may make you miss the historical context and a thousand other facts that
    IMHO are much more important
    i did study music theory but luckily i forgot all about it :-)"
    Not a surprising answer from him & Im glad you finally got one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil loves classical View Post
    It still doesn't suit my taste, but at least now I can follow what he is expressing. Also Scaruffi couldn't explain how conductors, who know the music inside/ out, can find lots of detail and aspects in the music that casual listeners couldn't (yes you have to be musically educated to be a conductor) https://study.com/articles/How_to_Be...r_Roadmap.html
    I dont see how or where or from what you assume "Scaruffi couldnt explain" this. Of course you have to be musically educated to be a conductor. I am sure he would agree with you. And of course a conductor is likely to notice way more details of "how" the music is expressed which can of course expedite one's understanding of the work, but I dont think its an absolute that the conductor will hear the "end result" much differently than a very attentive listener.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil loves classical View Post
    On historical context, I say it can add to the understanding, or take away from the music. 17 year old Mozart wrote his Symphony 25 shortly after the success of an opera. How does this context depict the angst in the music, which is more readily noted by analysis (his first in a minor key).
    I think your confusing what is meant by historical context to mean only/mainly "external influences/social/cultural changes separate from the music" or something similar. What is meant are in essence (1) historical context that influenced/inspired the content of the musical expression; (2) the composer's own artistic history/development: as in his/her own development of ideas/expressiveness throughout his works, leading up to and through the work under evaluation; (3) other works/arts that served to inspire this development or the general culture of art of the time or before that served to inspire this development (such as: a major reason Bach sounds as he does is because he composed during the Baroque period. Had he composed in the Romantic period he would've sounded much different even if with the same skills/musical IQ.); (4) The composer's personality or personal life, their own personal history, that in many cases can be an integral part in his/her expressiveness (some more than others, perhaps Mahler and Shostakovich among the most "explicit")

    ^^^ Obviously there's overlap amongst those and thats in a nutshell...

    Scaruffi tends to listen to a composer's works more or less, perhaps entirely, "from the ground up", so he is following his/her development/expressive changes as they happen. One can observe the changes in Mozart (or whoever) very closely this way. One can hear them. One doesnt need to know the key is Minor to hear angst (or what have you), one just has to have a good grasp of how to hear emotional states expressed musically. Knowing a work is, say, D Minor is only a very general clue that the composer may be expressing such states. But obviously all works in that key are not the same emotional expression (Mozart's 20th PC and Bachs 2nd Violin Partita are quite different expressive states ... one is much more lush and ornate, one is much more solemn ... etc ... But if you just judged by the key you might think they will sound and express the same things ... this can of course be extrapolated into a much wider sphere where many details could be missed if one only judged by such details).

  15. #72
    Senior Member Phil loves classical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Ford Nation
    Posts
    4,175
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AfterHours View Post
    I dont see how or where or from what you assume "Scaruffi couldnt explain" this. Of course you have to be musically educated to be a conductor. I am sure he would agree with you. And of course a conductor is likely to notice way more details of "how" the music is expressed which can of course expedite one's understanding of the work, but I dont think its an absolute that the conductor will hear the "end result" much differently than a very attentive listener.



    I think your confusing what is meant by historical context to mean only/mainly "external influences/social/cultural changes separate from the music" or something similar. What is meant are in essence (1) historical context that influenced/inspired the content of the musical expression; (2) the composer's own artistic history/development: as in his/her own development of ideas/expressiveness throughout his works, leading up to and through the work under evaluation; (3) other works/arts that served to inspire this development or the general culture of art of the time or before that served to inspire this development (such as: a major reason Bach sounds as he does is because he composed during the Baroque period. Had he composed in the Romantic period he would've sounded much different even if with the same skills/musical IQ.); (4) The composer's personality or personal life, their own personal history, that in many cases can be an integral part in his/her expressiveness (some more than others, perhaps Mahler and Shostakovich among the most "explicit")

    ^^^ Obviously there's overlap amongst those and thats in a nutshell...

    Scaruffi tends to listen to a composer's works more or less, perhaps entirely, "from the ground up", so he is following his/her development/expressive changes as they happen. One can observe the changes in Mozart (or whoever) very closely this way. One can hear them. One doesnt need to know the key is Minor to hear angst (or what have you), one just has to have a good grasp of how to hear emotional states expressed musically. Knowing a work is, say, D Minor is only a very general clue that the composer may be expressing such states. But obviously all works in that key are not the same emotional expression (Mozart's 20th PC and Bachs 2nd Violin Partita are quite different expressive states ... one is much more lush and ornate, one is much more solemn ... etc ... But if you just judged by the key you might think they will sound and express the same things ... this can of course be extrapolated into a much wider sphere where many details could be missed if one only judged by such details).
    I think you're underestimating the role of the conductor. He is the conduit of the music from the composer to reaching the listener. A less gifted conductor can obscure certain details in execution, even if they are aware of it in their head. A listener could never appreciate all the considerations the conductor has taken, unless they look at the score themselves. Even then, the conductor's has the expertise is to make it come together and make sense.

    The key is just one of many indications. Also a work should never be judged primarily by historical context. Scaruffi read way too much into the influences in Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica, that isn't in the music, as much he would like to say it is by hearing. Like linking him to Ives just because Beefheart probably said he was an influence on the interview. Ives music is nothing like that album, except in the most superficial sense as in using cacaphony, where many others since Ives did the same. The influence of Mozart in Schoenberg is more clear in his quartet (and as Schoenberg suggested, by studying. It's easy to read this context, listen to Schoenberg and say "Sure I hear Mozart"). That was also my biggest beef of your interpretation of Robert Wyatt's Rock Bottom. By reading too much into his accident, there was autosuggestion in hearing that first song as very depressed. That rhythm was in fact light-hearted, especially with a modulation up in the intro. Either he was poor at expressing that depression, or it wasn't really depressed.
    "Forgive me, Majesty. I'm a vulgar man. But I assure you, my music is not.“ Mozart

  16. #73
    Senior Member AfterHours's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    1,519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    RE: "Also take Mahler's 9th. Many interpret the last movement as Mahler acknowledging his own impending death, but Mahler didn't know about his heart condition and was successful at the time. Also Walter, who knew Mahler best, interpreted it differently. Here is a good article on the danger of reading too much into the historical context of it."

    I assume youre referring to Walter's famous 1938 rendition which is much faster than most, which alters greatly such an interpretation with its swift (imo glib) tempos. The problem with such a rushed interpretation is that it can sort of work for the first 3 movements but in the last movement Walter smears the contrapuntal lines, climaxes and expressive gestures, smothering the clarity of textures and causing a very murky sonic profile. Mahler, being among (perhaps THE) greatest composer of orchestration ever, I think it is VERY unlikely he intended it this way.

    I think its far more likely an extension (or on the order of) similar themes he was contemplating through his Das Lied. I think its a major error to dismiss themes of death and tragedy from the work, as had been so prominent throughout his life, as an inspiration through his most monumental symphonic creations. Regardless of how aware he was of his own medical state, I think it's probably an error to dismiss the probability the "harbinger of death" was not on his mind as he was rather aware and superstitious about this being a death knell to a composer that had reached such a tally as Beethoven.

    Personally I think the work is a monumental synthesis of his whole self/life probably conflated to larger preoccupations/existential questions.

    The final movement only seems to work structurally/texturally at (roughly) a minimum of 22 min, which gives it an unmistakable sense of overwhelming tragedy for that tempo and anything slower.

    However I dont think its that simple. It also seems to be expressing both a monumental ecstacy and eternity. This synthesis and conflation of emotional expression is how the entire symphony works in that all its gestures and climaxes are conflated by multiple levels of simultaneous expression, by dichotomies, juxtapositions. I do believe it to be Mahler's monumental synthesis of his life, tragedies, joys & preoccupations, and a culmination of what he had been attempting with the symphony itself:

    "A symphony must be like the world. It must contain everything."
    Last edited by AfterHours; Oct-04-2019 at 06:36.

  17. #74
    Senior Member Phil loves classical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Ford Nation
    Posts
    4,175
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AfterHours View Post
    RE: "Also take Mahler's 9th. Many interpret the last movement as Mahler acknowledging his own impending death, but Mahler didn't know about his heart condition and was successful at the time. Also Walter, who knew Mahler best, interpreted it differently. Here is a good article on the danger of reading too much into the historical context of it."

    I assume youre referring to Walter's famous 1938 rendition which is much faster than most, which alters greatly such an interpretation with its swift (imo glib) tempos. The problem with such a rushed interpretation is that it can sort of work for the first 3 movements but in the last movement Walter smears the contrapuntal lines, climaxes and expressive gestures, smothering the clarity of textures and causing a very murky sonic profile.
    That is impossible. Do you know the speed Walter took it? At about 25 bpm, and well within Mahler's marking. Any orchestra can play multiple times that speed without loss of clarity, no effect on sonic profile. Here you're mixing the quality of the recording which at 1938 can't compare with other recordings. Plus I can hear all the parts just fine.
    Quote Originally Posted by AfterHours View Post
    Mahler, being among (perhaps THE) greatest composer of orchestration ever, I think it is VERY unlikely he intended it this way.
    Did you check the score?

    Quote Originally Posted by AfterHours View Post
    I think its far more likely an extension (or on the order of) similar themes he was contemplating through his Das Lied. I think its a major error to dismiss themes of death and tragedy from the work, as had been so prominent throughout his life, as an inspiration through his most monumental symphonic creations. Regardless of how aware he was of his own medical state, I think it's probably an error to dismiss the probability the "harbinger of death" was not on his mind as he was rather aware and superstitious about this being a death knell to a composer that had reached such a tally as Beethoven.

    Personally I think the work is a monumental synthesis of his whole self/life probably conflated to larger preoccupations/existential questions.

    The final movement only seems to work structurally/texturally at (roughly) a minimum of 22 min, which gives it an unmistakable sense of overwhelming tragedy for that tempo and anything slower.

    However I dont think its that simple. It also seems to be expressing both a monumental ecstacy and eternity. This synthesis and conflation of emotional expression is how the entire symphony works in that all its gestures and climaxes are conflated by multiple levels of simultaneous expression, by dichotomies, juxtapositions. I do believe it to be Mahler's monumental synthesis of his life, tragedies, joys & preoccupations, and a culmination of what he had been attempting with the symphony itself:

    "A symphony must be like the world. It must contain everything."
    Sounds nice on paper. Walter used more rubato than other conductors, making his interpretation is less rigid than others, and more flexible in expression and less one-dimensional or purely full of dread as others.
    "Forgive me, Majesty. I'm a vulgar man. But I assure you, my music is not.“ Mozart

  18. #75
    Senior Member AfterHours's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    1,519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    It's not impossible, it's what happened. Listen and directly compare to Ancerl, then Masur's, then Karajan's (each of those are successively longer from 23 to 26 to 28 min). Much clearer/symmetrical articulation, delineation of the lines/texture/counterpoint that Walter obfuscates (it's not just the sound quality of recording, he actually does smear/misalign the delineation/counterpoint which messes up the momentum, structure, ascending, inter-weaving development of the movement). Whether the tempo is technically okay or not, maybe there's a reason he himself thought it was a poor performance (in his words "deeply disappointing" if I remember correctly) and perhaps influencing his reconsideration where his 1961 version was in line with current performance practice (educated guess/speculation on my part; Im not a big fan of his 1961 rendition either but its much improved). I guess one has to look at whether the 1938 rendition aligns to Mahler's expressive goals. Personally I think it obviously doesnt -- including the liberal rubato that you mention, which clips it too much expressively in my view and (along with the rushed tempo) I personally think the work becomes glib, emotionally incoherent & mitigated (none in a compelling way) -- and I think Mahler suffers greatly if expressively mitigated much or too little vibrato.

    22 min was probably an exaggeration (re: "minimum") and I should re-phrase that to that's approx where the rendering seems to work most unanimously (22 on up to about 30). You're probably right in that it does seem plausible the work could be done at faster speeds; I just haven't heard it successfully. Walter's later 21.5 fourth (1961) is fine with no loss of anything structurally/texturally like 1938.
    Norrington's similar (to Walter/1938) 19.5 min 4th maybe works "structurally", but it's expressively awful (lacking in vibrato which is clearly needed to pull the piece off. The idea this is "HIP" for Mahler especially is very dubious imo) ... maybe just a better Mahler conductor needs to give it a go at those faster tempos to prove it can be pulled off -- but it's probably an indication of workability that the great Mahler conductors uniformly opt for 22+ min speeds ...

    RE: Rock Bottom ... Nope. Unfortunately, you still don't seem to know what I was talking about. I eventually just came to the conclusion that you must've never read what I said (in the analysis, nor when I kept replying: which was mainly about its multiplicity/ambiguity/fusing of emotion/expressive states, not "depression from his fall" or what-have-you).

    Here's a good symphony guide for Mahler's 9th that makes some interesting correlations:
    https://utahsymphony.org/explore/201...stening-guide/
    Last edited by AfterHours; Oct-04-2019 at 18:17.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •