|
Ian Pace
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: 20:18:09, 20-03-2007 » |
|
How about -1 and -2, or as Stockhausen advocated - for his own works!, 1/2 and 1/3 (the so-far-undiscovered work which is so far destined to be labelled 000 would then be 1/4!)
of course, what you have to remember about Stockhausen is that he's an idiot. With idiots like that, who needs sensible people? At least with idiots like that up until the early 1970s... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #46 on: 14:39:49, 21-03-2007 » |
|
what you have to remember about Stockhausen is that he's an idiot.
What on earth is that supposed to mean? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tonybob
|
|
« Reply #47 on: 14:44:43, 21-03-2007 » |
|
what you have to remember about Stockhausen is that he's an idiot.
What on earth is that supposed to mean? it means i think Stockhausen is an idiot. it's a personal viewpoint, please don't take offence. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
sososo s & i.
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #48 on: 14:56:59, 21-03-2007 » |
|
So which of the following definitions of "idiot" might apply to Stockhausen, do you think? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiotI'm not taking offence. I just don't really see how you can call a composer of 200-odd musical works, not to mention volumes of theoretical writings, an idiot, whether or not you like the music he writes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tonybob
|
|
« Reply #49 on: 18:01:26, 21-03-2007 » |
|
So which of the following definitions of "idiot" might apply to Stockhausen, do you think? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiotI'm not taking offence. I just don't really see how you can call a composer of 200-odd musical works, not to mention volumes of theoretical writings, an idiot, whether or not you like the music he writes. , richard. Other similar words are d*ckhead, tw*t and *rsehole etc etc it matters not that he is 'a composer of 200-odd musical works, not to mention volumes of theoretical writings'. David Icke has many books published...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
sososo s & i.
|
|
|
|
Jonathan
|
|
« Reply #50 on: 18:18:44, 21-03-2007 » |
|
Excuse me chaps, but what has Stockhausen got to do with Bruckner?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Best regards,
Jonathan
*********************************************
"as the housefly of destiny collides with the windscreen of fate..."
|
|
|
|
tonybob
|
|
« Reply #51 on: 18:28:41, 21-03-2007 » |
|
Excuse me chaps, but what has Stockhausen got to do with Bruckner?
ha! quite right too! anyone know anything about the Symphonic Prelude in G minor that may or may not be by Bruckner? (it also may or may not be by Mahler, apparently...) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
sososo s & i.
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #52 on: 18:30:04, 21-03-2007 » |
|
what has Stockhausen got to do with Bruckner? Good question. I would say that some recent Stockhausen quite clearly comes from a "similar place" to Bruckner, although I wouldn't imagine that to be a case of direct influence, more that the "cosmic" aspirations of both composers led to some convergence (long developmental processes, block-like materials etc.). But I suspect that wasn't the reason for your question. It happened relatively often on the "old" R3 boards that composers were called "idiots" or worse, and one of the pleasant things about this board is that such talk seems not to happen; until now, that is. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tonybob
|
|
« Reply #53 on: 18:56:42, 21-03-2007 » |
|
 any road, Bruckner. Found this on Wikipedia; so ther speeling mistooks are, for once, not mine: The Overture in G minor is occasionally included in recordings of the Symphonies, and it is one of the works Bruckner wrote during his apprentice with Otto Kitzler. now why did i think it was possibly by mahler? did i dream it? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 19:01:25, 21-03-2007 by tonybob »
|
Logged
|
sososo s & i.
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #54 on: 19:47:28, 21-03-2007 » |
|
Isn't the idea of Bruckner as 'cosmic' every bit as much of a fiction as 'Bruckner the country bumpkin'? No, I don't think it is: given his well-attested religiosity, the size and ambition of his works, and their avoidance of what might be called "personal" modes of expression, it seems a fairly apposite description to me, as one-word descriptions go. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #55 on: 20:09:44, 21-03-2007 » |
|
That's not what I meant by "personal" - of course Bruckner's musical style is recognisable at every point, but he wasn't talking about himself, so to speak, but seemingly about something one might call transcendent, or at least that's how I read the situation, not having read anything that Cooke or Simpson had to say about Bruckner but certainly trying as a listener to situate it within its own place in history, geography and culture. A "religious" aspect to the symphonies might be read, for example, into the significant use of forms such as chorales, and is perhaps hinted at in the dedication of the Ninth.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #56 on: 20:31:11, 21-03-2007 » |
|
Well, Opilec, the only complete recording of the symphonies I have is by Jochum, although I do have nos. 3-9 conducted by Celibidache and a few other single symphonies, so I don't know where I'm getting these weird ideas from... unless it's from that arch-mystic Boulez!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
harrumph
Posts: 76
|
|
« Reply #57 on: 11:20:17, 22-03-2007 » |
|
Isn't the idea of Bruckner as 'cosmic' every bit as much of a fiction as 'Bruckner the country bumpkin'? It gained currency, probably, thanks to the complete misrepresentation of his music by the likes of Cooke and Simpson, which has led to colourless, reverential and ponderous performances of his symphonies being lauded to the heavens by anglophone critics.
This is interesting, Opilec. Might Wand and Tintner be among the conductors you do not favour? I can see why... I have Karajan's celebrated last recording of the Eighth with the VPO, and I must say I don't find it particularly ponderous or colourless - massive, yes. Barbirolli is certainly exciting, but I find the cumulative impact of the Karajan recording more satisfying in the end; Jochum's Eighth I can't remember, and must revisit, but his Fourth is certainly my favourite. Nobody else conjures quite the same sense of mystery that he brings to its opening. Please can you say which other conductors (aside from Jochum, Barbirolli and van Beinum) you think represent the less hidebound approach to Bruckner performance - I want to hear them  Furtwangler, presumably? Rosbaud? Horenstein? Have you heard the early recordings by conductors like Kabasta and von Hausegger? Do you have an opinion of Asahina? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #58 on: 11:51:24, 22-03-2007 » |
|
And would be very interested to hear a little more about what you find objectionable in the 'monumental' readings you disapprove of, opilec. Presumably it is not just the Edition but the style of performance as well (even in performances using the preferred Novak Edition)? I suppose what I'm interested to understand is what sort of practical characteristics in performance get the thumbs down. Is it slow tempi in themselves? Or keeping tempi steady over lengthy periods so that the structure becomes 'block' like? Or to do with style of melodic expression or smaller scale detail? I must say I find it quite natural and unforced to associate Bruckner, and the symphonies in particular, with terms like 'monumental', 'cosmic', 'awe', 'objective', 'externalised' and so on and it doesn't feel as if I have been tricked into it by anyone either consciously or unconsciously (but then I suppose it wouldn't feel that way anyway The terms themselves may seem a bit overused I suppose but the concepts themselves seem to me to fit very naturally. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 12:15:14, 22-03-2007 by George Garnett »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ernani
|
|
« Reply #59 on: 12:11:07, 22-03-2007 » |
|
Very interesting. I always find Knappertsbusch's Bruckner monumental in a good way, and Karajan's Bruckner monumental but in a less good way and I've never quite been able to work out why. But I think it probably has to do with articulation and chording...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
