Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2013 20:31:35 GMT -5
. . . No evidence. I just know it. . . It was Plato was it not - a man to whom the whole subsequent course of Western civilization is but a foot-note - who reminded us that everything we learn we know already?
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on May 22, 2013 1:35:42 GMT -5
. . . I suspect that very few members there would concur - even those who are great RVW fans... Actually Gustave Mahler would give Dr. Williams a spanking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 2:34:54 GMT -5
Good morning, once again, to you all! If I may address your question directly, Sydney Grew: . . . No evidence. I just know it. . . It was Plato was it not - a man to whom the whole subsequent course of Western civilization is but a foot-note - who reminded us that everything we learn we know already? According to Wikipedia, Platonic epistemology holds that knowledge is innate, so that learning is the development of ideas buried deep in the soul, often under the midwife-like guidance of an interrogator. In several dialogues by Plato, Socrates presents the view that each soul existed before birth with the Form of the Good and a perfect knowledge of everything. Thus, when something is "learned" it is actually just "recalled." Wikipedia - Platonic epistemologyThere may be a sense in which this is true, Sydney Grew. What do I know, anyway? Not a lot! As for Gerard, I do not know the exact relationship between Gustav Mahler and Ralph Vaughan Williams. I reckon that Mahler was the better composer, although both were very good indeed. So back on topic, what is to be done with the Radio 3 Forum? Well, french frank can write for kleines c. That solves my particular problem. For everyone else, however, I leave it to your better judgement.
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on May 22, 2013 5:13:41 GMT -5
So what music do you think that the majority of members there think should be played in the harpsichord, then?... Elliott Carter's Harpsichord Concerto?
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on May 22, 2013 5:35:23 GMT -5
the exact relationship between Gustav Mahler and Ralph Vaughan Williams. One is famous all over the world. His music addresses themes topics like the meaning of life, the fear of death, the possibility of an afterlife, Oriental philsophy, and so forth. As a world-famous conductor, his grasp of orchestration is breathtaking in its diversity. He moved through all ranks of society and was in demand all over the world. Although born in a family of street pedlars, he rose to become the artistic director of the Metropolitan Opera in New York. The other is famous in High Wycombe, and the posher parts of Chichester. His music addresses topics such as teacakes, tweed jackets, choral evensong, and cricket on the village green. As a second-rate organist, his orchestration is of the on/off variety, and rarely strays from what he found in textbooks. He was born into the Upper Middle Classes and never left his native country. He hated woofters, and went out of his way to wreck their careers wherever he could - and did so with great enthusiasm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 6:04:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on May 22, 2013 6:29:58 GMT -5
I was prompted to check out the Classic FM Hall of Fame [/url] ..... Out of interest, what would you put at Number 1?[/quote] Well, that is a station with an overwhelming majority of British listeners, of course I find these kinds of 'charts' very unpleasant, I'm afraid - so I would not only decline to nominate a "Number 1", I would also register a protest vote against the existence of the chart itself. If there are just 7-8 people who happen to enjoy some particular piece of music - rather like the fans of the Unsung Composers on the other board - then why should their tastes and enthusiasms be trampled underfoot by a hoard who don't know anything else anyhow? I'd warrant that if you looked at such 'charts' in France, or Italy, or Germany, you'd find the top positions occupied by Lully, Saint-Saens, and Messiaen; or Verdi, Bellini, and Donizetti; or Wagner, Bach and Henze, respectively. The only reason the Fiends of Radio 3 don't vote for wall-to-wall Havergal Brian is that half of his output has never been recorded or professionally performed at all But these are the same po-faced Handelians who spent the entire Anniversary year complaining about the broadcasts of his operas - they only like his pious works. By the way, I am still waiting for the broadcast of "the fifty operas of Haydn"... I hope to hear more from the Fiends of R3 admin staff soon! Those very same French literature 'experts' who told us there are no operas based on Victor Hugo stories...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 6:50:25 GMT -5
For the record, I have no objection, at all, to charts, Neil. Indeed, I rather like to attach a number to such things, because it helps me order them in my head.
According to Classic FM, Rach 2 is a non-mover, 3 years in a row at Number 1, the highest of Rachmaninov's 5 entries. Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No. 2 is often described as the greatest ever written. The critics were enthralled when it was composed in 1900. Glorious melody after glorious melody flowed from the keyboard, the dialogue between orchestra and soloist was divine and Rachmaninov undoubtedly had a hit on his hands.
I love it! I suppose that what this means is that I have unashamedly populist taste when it comes to Classical Music, and much else, besides!
Upon reflection, I do not think that it is necessary, nor important, to have favourites, whether in terms of music, or anything else, really. Nevertheless, it is interesting how our tastes differ!
As far as the Radio 3 Forum is concerned, Friends of Radio 3 (FoR3), BBC Radio 3 and art, culture and society in general, my own feeling is that it is very much horses for courses, so to speak. Each to his or her own, Neil?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 22, 2013 10:20:14 GMT -5
the exact relationship between Gustav Mahler and Ralph Vaughan Williams. One is famous all over the world. His music addresses themes topics like the meaning of life, the fear of death, the possibility of an afterlife, Oriental philsophy, and so forth. As a world-famous conductor, his grasp of orchestration is breathtaking in its diversity. He moved through all ranks of society and was in demand all over the world. Although born in a family of street pedlars, he rose to become the artistic director of the Metropolitan Opera in New York. The other is famous in High Wycombe, and the posher parts of Chichester. His music addresses topics such as teacakes, tweed jackets, choral evensong, and cricket on the village green. As a second-rate organist, his orchestration is of the on/off variety, and rarely strays from what he found in textbooks. He was born into the Upper Middle Classes and never left his native country. He hated woofters, and went out of his way to wreck their careers wherever he could - and did so with great enthusiasm. What you write about Mahler is entirely correct. What you write about Vaughan Williams is for the most part incorrect. A great-great-grandson of the potter Josiah Wedgwood and great-nephew of Charles Darwin, his fame in High Wycombe and Chichester is no greater than it is in many other places. There is no evidence that teacakes, tweed jackets or cricket on the village green or elsewhere were ever addressed, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, intentionally or otherwise, in his music and, as to choral evensong, whilst he undoubtedly made contributions to liturgical music, his second wife Ursula described him as "an atheist ... [who] later drifted into a cheerful agnosticism"; if you can identify the presence of teacakes and tweed jackets in his fourth and sixth symphonies, cricket on the village green in Serenade to Music or choral evensong in his ninth symphony, please do so. Had he never left his native country, it would have been impossible for him to have studied in Paris with Ravel nor indeed to have served as a stretcher bearer in France and on the Macedonian front during WWI. That he was born into upper middle class society and Mahler wasn't is of little importance to the music of either composer. That he may well have been a second-rate organist is also of little importance to his work as a composer and, for what it may or may not be worth, I doubt that Mahler was a better organist than he was. I have no idea of whose careers he is supposed to have wrecked, with or without enthusiasm, but apparently he stood up for Alan Bush when Bush's music was banned by BBC during WWII and got that ban lifted.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 22, 2013 10:27:08 GMT -5
The only reason the Fiends of Radio 3 don't vote for wall-to-wall Havergal Brian is that half of his output has never been recorded or professionally performed at all Whilst I take leave to doubt that any kind of majority of Friends of Radio 3 would indeed vote for "wall-to-wall Havergal Brian" in the first place, I suspect not only that rather more than half of his output has by now been recorded and/or performed but also that, even if only half of it had (as you suggest), that leaves a very great deal more!...
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on May 22, 2013 13:51:17 GMT -5
That he may well have been a second-rate organist is also of little importance to his work as a composer and, for what it may or may not be worth, I doubt that Mahler was a better organist than he was. You miss my point - although in truth I have made it badly. Mahler was a professional conductor, and as such his business was getting the sweetest and most varied textures out of an orchestra. Therefore his writing for the orchestra is outstandingly good, and he knows how to get the best out of it. By contrast RVW was a dull orchestrator, because he didn't play an orchestral instrument, and didn't deal with orchestras. Organists rarely orchestrate well, in fact - they seem to hear music more abstractly, and less spectrally than the rest of us? I'm not aware of Mahler having the slightest desire to play the "King" of instruments I am sure it was noble of RVW to have been a WW1 stretcher-bearer, but it hardly relates to his compositional career - whereas Mahler was a musician that the entire musical world was seeking to employ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 15:47:06 GMT -5
It may well be the case, Neil, that Gustav Mahler was a first rate composer whereas Ralph Vaughan Williams was a second rate composer. I am probably not qualified to judge, but I note that I am now attaching numbers and rankings to two very different musicians. I know that Sydney Grew has some very strong ideas on this particular subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 20:06:18 GMT -5
That is true kleines c; I use the scientific method, and apply categories, just as the philosopher Kant did. The paradox of course is that Kant himself was an uninspired second-rater . . . Ne puero gladium what!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2013 0:56:42 GMT -5
As I regard Immanuel Kant as the greatest of philosophers, Sydney Grew, I would give the boy a sword after all! Immanuel Kant, whose ' Critique of Judgment' is generally considered the most important and influential work on aesthetics in the eighteenth century, argued that instrumental music is beautiful but ultimately trivial - compared to the other fine arts, it does not engage the understanding sufficiently, and it lacks moral purpose. In order to display the combination of genius and taste that combines ideas and beauty, respectively, music must be combined with words, as in song and opera. Wikipedia - Aesthetics of musicUpon reflection, I would disagree with Immanuel Kant here. Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is not greater than his Third because he uses words. Aesthetically, the use of words is beside the point. The point is the sound of the music. Much the same may be said for Gustav Mahler's orchestration and Ralph Vaughan Williams. All that ultimately matters, in the opinion of kleines c, is the sound of the music. Anyway, I sense that we have now strayed off-topic, Sydney Grew. What is to be done with the Radio 3 Forum? Nothing! The Radio 3 Forum
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 23, 2013 7:57:19 GMT -5
Mahler was a professional conductor, and as such his business was getting the sweetest and most varied textures out of an orchestra. Therefore his writing for the orchestra is outstandingly good, and he knows how to get the best out of it. By contrast RVW was a dull orchestrator, because he didn't play an orchestral instrument, and didn't deal with orchestras. Organists rarely orchestrate well, in fact - they seem to hear music more abstractly, and less spectrally than the rest of us? That Mahler was indeed a superb orchestrator and that the fact that he was so had much to do with his remarkable work as a conductor can be in no doubt. RVW wasn't even what you could call a professional organist, although the remainder of your point has merit, certainly, although I'm not sure that one could say that Bach's handling of the kinds of orchestral forces at his disposal in large scale works was compromised by the fact of his being an organist! I'm not aware of Mahler having the slightest desire to play the "King" of instruments Nor am I! Incidentally, I once heard the modern Bösendorfer 290 piano described as "the King of instruments". The person who did so was Kevin Bowyer, one of today's most remarkable organists who added that one of his great keyboard heroes is John Ogdon... I am sure it was noble of RVW to have been a WW1 stretcher-bearer, but it hardly relates to his compositional career - whereas Mahler was a musician that the entire musical world was seeking to employ It was not RVW's nobility of purpose in this that I sought to address; I referred to it, alongside his going to Paris to study with Ravel (quite a courageous step to take, given that Ravel was some three years his junior), purely to correct your statement about his never having left his home territory.
|
|