|
Post by Bob Porter on Sept 28, 2017 22:40:02 GMT
I guess what I'm really saying is that I can't say that any composers have influenced me as much as have various individual pieces. Night on Bald Mountain, the G minor fugue, Pirates of the Caribbean, Star Wars, Wellington's Victory, Come Again (Damn Yankees), the Toccata and Fugue, and the like. Pieces that I never tire of. I don't really like the rest of the Firebird that much. But the finale....
|
|
|
Post by mcanales on Oct 10, 2017 3:08:13 GMT
From the Germans: Beethoven Wagner and Brahms From the Viennese: Mozart and Berg From the Italians: Verdi Puccini, and more recently Vivaldi From Spain: Rodrigo and Falla From the Burgundians: Mauchat From the French: Ravel From the Russians: Shostakovitch
|
|
|
Post by pantonal on Oct 17, 2017 16:33:57 GMT
I believe it was Stravinsky who said, "Good composers borrow, great composers steal!" However, I like to think I stand on the shoulders of giants, but I like to believe I stand on the shoulders of a lot of giants. I think we all take something from almost every piece of music we enjoy and maybe even some that we don't enjoy (lessons on what not to do). Still there are many composers I have great affinity for and some of them may be a bit obscure.
Bach, Brahms, Mahler, Franck, Widor, Durufle, Allain (I like organ music), but also Shostakovitch, Prokoviev, Rachmaninov,and on the choral music side Whitacre, Lauridsen, Stroope, Paulus, even Rutter (to assuage the occasional hunger for something sweet). Then there's Schumann (William more than Robert), the young Stravinsky is more interesting than the old one. Debussy and Ravel, Dvorak and Williams, Chopin and Liszt and many more, but those are the composers that come to mind quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 21, 2017 1:04:23 GMT
I think a more interesting question would be not just who. But why. What is it about the way a certain composer wrote that does it for you?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Oct 22, 2017 9:00:56 GMT
That's a good question Bob...the why? I love Britten, why, well he has complete mastery in every department of composing and was one of the finest pianists of his generation. Imogen Holst (Gustavs' daughter) became his amanuensis and reported that he would write around 12 pages of full score a day, almost without thinking ( he also had perfect pitch). The music shows utter economy of means, an original approach to tonality that is incredibly expressive and moving, sheer brilliance in his approach to scoring and unfettered invention in his writing. He was/is a 20thC undisputed master with a talent and genius to rival the greatest names in music. When the agreement between Britten and Boosey and Hawkes deteriorated, Faber was approached and their chief said at the time words to the effect that when Mozart comes knocking, you do not turn him away. I can't recommend him highly enough.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 22, 2017 10:57:02 GMT
Can you recommend your top 3 Britten works (or perhaps the top 3 most likely to appeal to my unsubtle, bombastic tastes)? All I really know is the Young Person's Guide, and that was because you mocked up a portion of it.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Oct 22, 2017 11:27:45 GMT
I'd certainly recommend you check out the whole of Young Persons if you haven't already. Apart from that, try the Simple Symphony, made up of tunes he wrote pre-teen. I know you are into vocal music too Dave, did you know that Brittens' vocal writing is often acknowledged to be a pinnacle in setting the English language so try the Hymn to St. Cecilia. A little heavier perhaps are the Four Sea interludes from Peter Grimes. Have a listen below to the sheer exhilaration of this piece....go in about 3'30" and listen to 'Sunday Morning', but I'd recommend giving the whole piece a try. I hope the hairs on your neck get a little stiff around 5'20" linkThen jump to 11'40" for one of the most vivid renditions of a storm at sea..listen for the woodwind lightning at c.13'20". The ending is incredibly powerful too.
|
|
|
Post by king2b on Oct 22, 2017 12:15:51 GMT
I am not aware of any particular influence, much like Bob.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Oct 28, 2017 5:49:15 GMT
Maurice Ravel because of where he stands in history. He is my favorite composer of the last era when modern and older styles of music were conjoined. I would estimate that about 80% of classical music was produced before 1950. But if you compose in an older style your work is considered pase or pastiche. At least in America and in American universities you must compose in a more modern or avant garde style to be taken seriously. In other words discard 80% of the musical palette and be satisfied with %20. As if steak and mashed potatoes are forbidden. You will eat tofu and quiche and you will like it.
|
|
|
Post by David Unger on Oct 28, 2017 10:33:50 GMT
Lawrence, I have often found this to be a bit of an enigma. Since much of the audience appriechiates the "old" (read: pre-modernist) music they often also appriechiate new music written in that idiom (that is to say if they don't know that it is new). That the avant garde is just that is what it is and that is just how it should be, but I think that classical music is sometimes trying hard to cut off it's own roots by not allowing a greater diversity and taking all sorts of music seriously (that is to say - at least when the quality is equal). And as we all know a tree can not survive without its roots - is that so? Another thought that has crossed my mind is - if the older styles are not of interest for the initiated in the classical world of today, why then so keen to make the label their own. If you want to write new music but not be connected to other music your music does not get worse for calling it something else. Lastly programming often joins the avant garde with the old to suit all tastes. But I always keep wondering if it would be so bad if all music in these concert were new. Why not replace the Beethoven symphony after the brake with a new symphony in traditional style, then it would still satisfy "everyone" but in a better way show the diversity of the music being written todah and show that classical music as a whole still is relevant and alive today.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Oct 31, 2017 1:29:23 GMT
David, This is a subject for another thread, but briefly, no one goes to an art gallery to purchase reproductions of old masterpieces. They want good quality new work. No one pays $20 to see Gone with the Wind in black and white. No one goes to a country western concert to hear a mock up of Roy Rogers and Sons of the Pioneers. No one goes to the book store or Amazon to buy Shakespeare or Tolstoy, so why in the world would we expect people to pay good money to hear Beethoven for the 16th time?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 31, 2017 13:08:35 GMT
Why not replace the Beethoven symphony after the brake with a new symphony in traditional style, then it would still satisfy "everyone" but in a better way show the diversity of the music being written todah and show that classical music as a whole still is relevant and alive today. Probably because, though I and many others would give it our best shot, there's no guarantee we'd write as good a symphony as Beethoven. Beethoven, though, is guaranteed to have written as good a symphony as Beethoven. As a small part of the classical concert-going audience in general, I go to see music performed that I know, not that I don't, and since that's a common trait concerts of old legendary works continue.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 31, 2017 16:14:04 GMT
But, classical music has never been relevant to society as a whole, anyway. To a certain segment, sure. That segment is more likely to buy a ticket to hear Beethoven than something new, no matter how well written. New music needs to quit trying to be something it's not and find it's own place in history. That might not be with the classical music audience.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Nov 1, 2017 0:01:21 GMT
Why not replace the Beethoven symphony after the brake with a new symphony in traditional style, then it would still satisfy "everyone" but in a better way show the diversity of the music being written todah and show that classical music as a whole still is relevant and alive today. Probably because, though I and many others would give it our best shot, there's no guarantee we'd write as good a symphony as Beethoven. Beethoven, though, is guaranteed to have written as good a symphony as Beethoven. As a small part of the classical concert-going audience in general, I go to see music performed that I know, not that I don't, and since that's a common trait concerts of old legendary works continue. Beethoven isn't as good as Beethoven. At least there is plenty of variability in his symphonies. There are only three that I really like. How can you grow as a composer if you never hear anything new? If we write something really bad we might attract the country western crowd. I think a dearth of quality is one of the least relevant reasons why new works are not being performed.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Nov 1, 2017 0:43:17 GMT
Lawrence: so this: "This is a subject for another thread, but briefly, no one goes to an art gallery to purchase reproductions of old masterpieces. They want good quality new work. No one pays $20 to see Gone with the Wind in black and white. No one goes to a country western concert to hear a mock up of Roy Rogers and Sons of the Pioneers. No one goes to the book store or Amazon to buy Shakespeare or Tolstoy, so why in the world would we expect people to pay good money to hear Beethoven for the 16th time?" wasn't sarcasm? You're actually serious?
There's a lot of old music that I've never heard, or heard once. That means there's a lot of music which is new to me, even before starting on the last few decades. I could never get past 1850 and experience pretty considerable growth.
|
|