Name some perhaps obsure Classical Pieces you like.

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Imdmn04

Originally posted by: Rob9874
My theory: popular classical pieces are popular for a reason. Why the interest in obscure pieces?

No, popular classical pieces are popular because they usually have a strong chorus, such as fur elise or canon in d, which their chorus are catchy and stands out. That is why most pop songs are popular, because they have a strong chorus that captures peoples attention easily.

Most real musicans will agree that the many popular classical songs perceived by the common people are not all that musically sophsticated.

Or they are both. Sphisticated and yet appealingto the masses. Don;t tell me Bach and Beethoven just jumbled down tunes to impress a rich aristocrat.

Haydyn perhaps, but not everyone....

And to answer that one, Bach and Beethoven didn't have the harmonic devices of later composers available to them. Dumbing down simply wasn't necessary

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Rob9874
My theory: popular classical pieces are popular for a reason. Why the interest in obscure pieces?

You do not even BEGIN to understand the "popular" ones until you delve deep into all. Only then do you realize why the masters are Bach, Mozart Beethoven.

I don't understand why people are so enthralled by Mozart, Beethoven and Bachs various. Music has moved on so much since Beethoven died - Listen to a good piece of Prokofiev or Shostakovich and the wealth of tonal colours and harmonic variety makes Beethoven seem very drab. It's like going back to black and white TV after watching HDTV.

Yes, but what about "citizen kane" I haven't seen the HDTV version, but I assume it will not be in color


THe reason the elders are so great is because of the breakthroughs the led the way for. The thing about Prokofiev or Shostakovich is that they are russians. They were in hard times when they composed, and to many emotion speaks volumes through music..greater than any orator can hope to accomplish.

Honestly, I LOVE SIBELIUS regardless of what the NY Herald Tribune said about him in the 40s. His Violin Concerto in D is truely the most gorgeous pice of music I have yet to hear, and Smetana's Ma vlast is not far behind.

Even so, you begin to see how interesting Beethoven's works become. No real emotion to speak of in comparision, yet he "came up" with such powerful stuff.

 

[alkemyst]

La Villa Strangiato

 

[Woodchuck2000]

You're missing the point though, it's not about the circumstances under which music was composed, it's about the compositional devices used and range of tonal colours available.

A baroque orchestra has no tonal or dynamic range compared to a full late-romantic ensemble. Harmonic devices from concepts such as bitonality and atonality to specific moments like the neopolitan cadence were simply not available.

Regardless of the inspiration for the music, nothing from the classical era can compare to a Shostakovich symphony in terms of sheer colour and variety. I'm not saying that Beethoven or Bach wrote bad music - I'm just saying that they are working from a more limited colour palette and therefore cannot produce music on the same level as later composers.

 

[ThePresence]

Caucasian Sketches by Ippolitov-Ivanov.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
You're missing the point though, it's not about the circumstances under which music was composed, it's about the compositional devices used and range of tonal colours available.

A baroque orchestra has no tonal or dynamic range compared to a full late-romantic ensemble. Harmonic devices from concepts such as bitonality and atonality to specific moments like the neopolitan cadence were simply not available.

Regardless of the inspiration for the music, nothing from the classical era can compare to a Shostakovich symphony in terms of sheer colour and variety. I'm not saying that Beethoven or Bach wrote bad music - I'm just saying that they are working from a more limited colour palette and therefore cannot produce music on the same level as later composers.

ah

:beer:

But what they did with their "limited " palette is stil lastounding.

 

[Goosemaster]

DP

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
You're missing the point though, it's not about the circumstances under which music was composed, it's about the compositional devices used and range of tonal colours available.

A baroque orchestra has no tonal or dynamic range compared to a full late-romantic ensemble. Harmonic devices from concepts such as bitonality and atonality to specific moments like the neopolitan cadence were simply not available.

Regardless of the inspiration for the music, nothing from the classical era can compare to a Shostakovich symphony in terms of sheer colour and variety. I'm not saying that Beethoven or Bach wrote bad music - I'm just saying that they are working from a more limited colour palette and therefore cannot produce music on the same level as later composers.

ah

:beer:

But what they did with their "limited " palette is stil lastounding.

True - a Bach Trio Sonata is beautiful and skillfully constructed within it's own tonal constraints (and great fun to play for that matter)...

:beer:

 

[SWScorch]

it's probably not all that obscure, but Handel's "Arrival of the Queen of Sheba" is one of my favorites. I'm 19, btw.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Rob9874
My theory: popular classical pieces are popular for a reason. Why the interest in obscure pieces?

You do not even BEGIN to understand the "popular" ones until you delve deep into all. Only then do you realize why the masters are Bach, Mozart Beethoven.

I don't understand why people are so enthralled by Mozart, Beethoven and Bachs various. Music has moved on so much since Beethoven died - Listen to a good piece of Prokofiev or Shostakovich and the wealth of tonal colours and harmonic variety makes Beethoven seem very drab. It's like going back to black and white TV after watching HDTV.

They don't write in the same style... if you were to compare Correli and Vivaldi you might have a point.

 

[Howard]

17

 

[AEnigmaWI]

contemporary but good: Waternight, and others by Eric Whitacre (choral)

my papa's waltz - Ned Rorem

Peter Quince and the Clavier - Dominic Argento...

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Rob9874
My theory: popular classical pieces are popular for a reason. Why the interest in obscure pieces?

You do not even BEGIN to understand the "popular" ones until you delve deep into all. Only then do you realize why the masters are Bach, Mozart Beethoven.

I don't understand why people are so enthralled by Mozart, Beethoven and Bachs various. Music has moved on so much since Beethoven died - Listen to a good piece of Prokofiev or Shostakovich and the wealth of tonal colours and harmonic variety makes Beethoven seem very drab. It's like going back to black and white TV after watching HDTV.

They don't write in the same style... if you were to compare Correli and Vivaldi you might have a point.

Eh? The whole point I'm making is that they don't write in a similar style! Correli [sic] is less interesting than Shostakovich or Ravel in every respect because of the stylistic differences between them...

 

[badmouse]

Right now I'm going through a big Brahms phase. I love the quartets. Such depth, so much going on at once and yet so simple. Ahhhh.

Why I still love Bach, Beethoven, etc: they do the most with the resources they had. They wrote the music equivalent of Elegant Code.

For example, I began playing the Bach Goldberg Variations when I was in high school in the 60's. I played them in concert when I was at the conservatory. I've gone back to them from time to time. There's a new (to me at least) recording by Murray Perahia that I've been listening to. And of course there are the two sets of Glenn Gould recordings. And EVERY TIME I hear or play these pieces, I hear something different.

That, to me, is a GREAT composer.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Rob9874
My theory: popular classical pieces are popular for a reason. Why the interest in obscure pieces?

You do not even BEGIN to understand the "popular" ones until you delve deep into all. Only then do you realize why the masters are Bach, Mozart Beethoven.

I don't understand why people are so enthralled by Mozart, Beethoven and Bachs various. Music has moved on so much since Beethoven died - Listen to a good piece of Prokofiev or Shostakovich and the wealth of tonal colours and harmonic variety makes Beethoven seem very drab. It's like going back to black and white TV after watching HDTV.

They don't write in the same style... if you were to compare Correli and Vivaldi you might have a point.

Eh? The whole point I'm making is that they don't write in a similar style! Correli [sic] is less interesting than Shostakovich or Ravel in every respect because of the stylistic differences between them...

Hmm... Why did I spell that wrong?

Anyway, is a composer "inferior" because you think their style is less "interesting" than the moderns?

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: Imdmn04

Originally posted by: Rob9874
My theory: popular classical pieces are popular for a reason. Why the interest in obscure pieces?

No, popular classical pieces are popular because they usually have a strong chorus, such as fur elise or canon in d, which their chorus are catchy and stands out. That is why most pop songs are popular, because they have a strong chorus that captures peoples attention easily.

Most real musicans will agree that the many popular classical songs perceived by the common people are not all that musically sophsticated.

I agree, popularity has never been an accurate measure of quality.

 

[sobriquet]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Rob9874
My theory: popular classical pieces are popular for a reason. Why the interest in obscure pieces?

You do not even BEGIN to understand the "popular" ones until you delve deep into all. Only then do you realize why the masters are Bach, Mozart Beethoven.

I don't understand why people are so enthralled by Mozart, Beethoven and Bachs various. Music has moved on so much since Beethoven died - Listen to a good piece of Prokofiev or Shostakovich and the wealth of tonal colours and harmonic variety makes Beethoven seem very drab. It's like going back to black and white TV after watching HDTV.

They don't write in the same style... if you were to compare Correli and Vivaldi you might have a point.

Eh? The whole point I'm making is that they don't write in a similar style! Correli [sic] is less interesting than Shostakovich or Ravel in every respect because of the stylistic differences between them...

Perhaps if you simply compare the SOUND of the two, the more modern composer will be more interesting. Obviously if you listen to Corelli or Vivaldi or Bach you're going to hear simple harmonies - nothing beyond a few augmented sixth chords. But listen to a Bach invention and trace the formation of canonic elements, analyze the relation of the subject to the countersubject in a fugue, or follow the development of a single motive into an entire Beethoven symphony. If you actively listen to everything going on in the music, Baroque can be just as interesting as modern Soviet realism.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Rob9874
My theory: popular classical pieces are popular for a reason. Why the interest in obscure pieces?

You do not even BEGIN to understand the "popular" ones until you delve deep into all. Only then do you realize why the masters are Bach, Mozart Beethoven.

I don't understand why people are so enthralled by Mozart, Beethoven and Bachs various. Music has moved on so much since Beethoven died - Listen to a good piece of Prokofiev or Shostakovich and the wealth of tonal colours and harmonic variety makes Beethoven seem very drab. It's like going back to black and white TV after watching HDTV.

They don't write in the same style... if you were to compare Correli and Vivaldi you might have a point.

Eh? The whole point I'm making is that they don't write in a similar style! Correli [sic] is less interesting than Shostakovich or Ravel in every respect because of the stylistic differences between them...

Perhaps if you simply compare the SOUND of the two, the more modern composer will be more interesting. Obviously if you listen to Corelli or Vivaldi or Bach you're going to hear simple harmonies - nothing beyond a few augmented sixth chords. But listen to a Bach invention and trace the formation of canonic elements, analyze the relation of the subject to the countersubject in a fugue, or follow the development of a single motive into an entire Beethoven symphony. If you actively listen to everything going on in the music, Baroque can be just as interesting as modern Soviet realism.

Yes, but it takes effort..something the public is not used to

basically

1st round:

Bach OWZ JOO! OGM BEETHOVEN DA-AMN HE IS THE SHIZNOIT!!!!!

2nd round:

I didn't realize ther was more. And this stuff sounds fantastic. The combinatiosn are fabulous.Prokofiev, sibelius, tcichovsky[sic] and etc prodcued some awe-inspiring works

3rd:

oh, now i get them[bach, beethoven, mozart etc...]. It's like I am listening for the the first time, but now I understand the nuances and yet the complexity of their work