'Classical' music from the last 50 years (or so)

[David Ayers]

Props to Minotaur and Written on the Skin, each of which I *think* has featured in more than one season (not sure...). Gawain certainly has featured in several seasons and the NMC recording will no doubt be a retread of the old Collins Classic version. BBCSO is performing a concert version of Gawain this season.

[A Lark Ascending]

I get the impression 'Written on Skin' has been something of a 'hit'. Read a great deal about it over the last year.

It lives up to expectations. I like the strange blurring between the 13th and 21st centuries. Nicely ambiguous.

Both are extremely violent and bloody.

Edited January 27, 2014 by A Lark Ascending

[ejp626]

The last pieces by Mieczyslaw Weinberg fit into this timeframe. I wouldn't say I am terribly familiar with his work. Pacifica String Quartet put his 6th String Quartet on one of the sets in their complete Shostakovich string quartet cycle (definitely worth seeking out). I believe Naxos has a complete or nearly complete set of the Weinberg string quartets, but I haven't gone through them. I'll try to get to this over the spring.

In any event, I saw a review of an interesting concert in Chicago where Gidon Kremer led the Concertino for Orchestra and Weinberg's 10th Symphony. Obviously, that has come and gone, but Kremer is putting out a 2 CD set of Weinberg's works on the ECM label. It's a bit pricey, so I'll wait to see if it comes down, but this definitely looks of interest to me: http://www.amazon.com/Mieczyslaw-Weinberg-Gidon-Kremer/dp/B00GY6Z3LA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1391880448&sr=8-2&keywords=Gidon+Kremer

It seems Kremer performs fairly regularly in Chicago, though I can't recall catching him. He may perform semi-regularly in Montreal, and indeed will play a couple of concerts next weekend. He only seems to come to Toronto every 3 or 4 years. He's scheduled to play Jan 2015, so I'll try to put a note in my calendar for that.

Edited February 8, 2014 by ejp626

[A Lark Ascending]

Lots of Weinberg on Naxos and Chandos - between them they seem to be recording all the symphonies. Same sound world as Shosty but I really like them. Probably too tame for hard core avant-gardistas.

Edited February 8, 2014 by A Lark Ascending

[ejp626]

Lots of Weinberg on Naxos and Chandos - between them they seem to be recording all the symphonies. Same sound world as Shosty but I really like them. Probably too tame for hard core avant-gardistas.

I'm a big fan of Shostakovich, particularly the string quartets and the later symphonies. I also have a soft spot for the violin and cello concertos. I imagine I'll like Weinberg, as I get to know his work.

Edited February 9, 2014 by ejp626

[David Ayers]

Lots of Weinberg on Naxos and Chandos - between them they seem to be recording all the symphonies. Same sound world as Shosty but I really like them. Probably too tame for hard core avant-gardistas.

I'm a big fan of Shostakovich, particularly the string quartets and the later symphonies. I also have a soft spot for the violin and cello concertos. I imagine I'll like Weinberg, as I get to know his work.

You might not. Whatever Shostakovich's limitations, his works generally have meaning. I don't find that thread in Weinberg, though it may be there.

[A Lark Ascending]

What 'meaning' would that be? That suggested by the titles? Or the 'alternative' meaning suggested from 'Testimony' onwards? Although it's hard not to think of those things when listening to Shostakovich, in the end it's the pure sound of the music that keeps me coming back rather than any 'meaning'.

The biggest difference I'd suggest between Shostakovich and Weinberg is that the former seemed to fashion a very distinctive and personal sound world, despite being trapped in his desire to explore by what was allowed. Weinberg seems to take up that sound world and explore it further.

In a world where only the original counts Weinberg is not going to get much credit (some would dismiss Shostakovich too); but I've always felt that the 'avant' desire to pioneer the untrod prairies actually leaves vast swathes of land behind, worthy of further exploration even though it might not be on the frontier. Let's hear it for the cattlemen and homesteaders; not just Lewis and Clark.

Edited February 9, 2014 by A Lark Ascending

[David Ayers]

I guess I'd be grateful if somebody just picked one Weinberg piece to play in concert and really showed that something could be made of it. The completist approach of labels like Naxos and Chandos points to the world of collectors. That said, NEOS have also been doing Weinberg which at least suggests the cultural cachet which those other labels lack. Anyone care to recommend one Weinberg Symphony and say that they find it as meaningful as Shostakovich 8?

Music is about pure sound? Ha! Happy Birthday to You.

[A Lark Ascending]

What is the meaning of Shostakovich 8?

Apparently, once Christianity has finally died a death in Britain there are plans to demolish all the churches, abbeys and cathedrals apart from a handful. After all, why bother visiting a little medieval church in Lincolnshire when it has nothing like the meaning of Salisbury or York Minster.

No doubt they'll rank them first, however. Then use the metadata to organise the cull.

Edited February 9, 2014 by A Lark Ascending

[David Ayers]

To you evidently it has none. Probably puzzles you that the Soviet authorities destroyed every copy they could find.

So is there any piece by Weinberg you prefer or are they not to be ranked?

[A Lark Ascending]

To you evidently it has none. Probably puzzles you that the Soviet authorities destroyed every copy they could find.

So is there any piece by Weinberg you prefer or are they not to be ranked?

I suspect the Soviet authorities destroyed an awful lot of other music that you wouldn't consider 'meaningful'. Hyperion and Chandos are probably recording it as we speak. What a totalitarian regime considers bound to suppress has no correlation with the actual 'worth' of what is being suppressed. On the issue of 'meaning' in music, I'm with Stravinsky. Unless it has a specific text or label I'd say it stands or falls by how it 'sounds' (and that word contains a lot of things), regardless of the composer's intent. To me Strauss' 'Ein Heldenleben' is a marvellous piece of music (trying not to use the word 'great' there), in spite of the signalled programme.

And, of course, we constantly project our own meanings onto music, regardless of the composer's intent. As a non-believer I have no empathy with the 'meaning' that almost certainly inspired music with a religious connection like the B-minor Mass or Bruckner's symphonies. It's never stopped me finding listening to those pieces to be one of the most fulfilling parts of life. You might argue that because I don't have faith I can't really 'get it'. I'd disagree.

Takes me years to get my head round a composer (more so now when I can afford to buy more music than is sensible; back in the days when music was rationed I'd spend much more time replaying individual discs immediately). Shostakovich escaped me for 10-15 years before he clicked (I'm not talking about 'understanding', just evoking an emotional response). So I can't claim any expertise over Weinberg. But, having listened to the Shostakovich symphonies many times over the years (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 stand out for me - 7 is probably my favourite, 10 the most perfectly balanced [i've just done some ranking!]) it is nice to hear other music in that world. When I have a favourite, I'll let you know. Though I've played this one a lot:

I'm currently listening to (yes, I'm typing as well; not sitting to attention with a score, scowling over my pince-nez):

A first listen but I'd recommend going over to Spotify and trying the slow movement of 12. It's completely in the mould of one of those spare, chilling Shostakovich adagios; even down to the tuned percussion segue into the final, warmer final movement. The Suite, as you'd imagine, is a frothier affair, similar to Shostakovich's more functional theatre or cinema music.

What does it mean? God only knows. But it's a very pleasurable way to spend a Sunday morning before hitting the books. I ask no more of music.

Edited February 9, 2014 by A Lark Ascending

[David Ayers]

I guess if you were interested in the question of musical meaning you'd have worked your way through Adorno and Dahlhaus by now, for starters. I thought you hated art-for-art's sake?

In this case meaning can be read as giving a purposive shape to scored music, as we are accustomed to, say, in Sibelius. The Weinberg I have heard on Spotify - ther is quite a lot - is the product of rehearse-record sessions for collector's labels and I don't find the passages where the musicians have really got hold of it and made it bloom. So the notes are there but the sense of shape and purpose which might eventually bind people to this music is not.

Sadly that sym no. 12 is not yet on spotters. If you are wondering what it 'means' there is a small clue in the title...

[king ubu]

If I'm allowed to intrude for a sec, I've got two Weinberg discs so far and enjoy both (without pretending to find them "great" or whatever):

Edited February 9, 2014 by king ubu

[Д.Д.]

I have a few Weinberg CDs, and I was not too impressed by the music - I thought it was Shostakovich-lite, with fewer hooks (and I am not that much of a Shostakovich fan to begin with).

Soviet authorities "destroyed every copy of Shostakovich's 8th they could find"? I don't think so. It was not performed much till after Stalin's death (typical fate of many a works at the time), but not "destroyed".

Edited February 9, 2014 by Д.Д.

[David Ayers]

My source for that claim is, I think, Fay.

[A Lark Ascending]

I guess if you were interested in the question of musical meaning you'd have worked your way through Adorno and Dahlhaus by now, for starters. I thought you hated art-for-art's sake?

No, I hate 'Art' (luvvie!).

Not even heard of Dahlhaus; I did read something by Adorno on Sibelius some time back which struck me as self aggrandising tosh. Reminded me of Marxist historians who try and twist and stretch the past so it can be squashed into a Marxist historical framework.

He struck me as one of those critics who take more delight in how hard he is to please than in actually engaging (in an emotional sense) with the music. Unfortunately some non-academics have a bad habit of adopting that posture too - identifying being a 'connoisseur' with having oh-so-rarefied tastes.

The Weinberg I have heard on Spotify - ther is quite a lot - is the product of rehearse-record sessions for collector's labels and I don't find the passages where the musicians have really got hold of it and made it bloom. So the notes are there but the sense of shape and purpose which might eventually bind people to this music is not.

I think you are projecting what you want to hear with that. You already have your judgement. Now you are going listen to the music in order to hear what your judgement has already told you. Like my second car mechanic.

Edited February 9, 2014 by A Lark Ascending

[David Ayers]

I listened to it, then judged. Why do you assume others act and speak in bad faith? And you think you are better worked out on the philosophy of modern music than Adorno? Good luck persuading people of that.

[A Lark Ascending]

I listened to it, then judged. Why do you assume others act and speak in bad faith? And you think you are better worked out on the philosophy of modern music than Adorno? Good luck persuading people of that.

The philosophy of modern music has little traction outside of academia. Angels dancing on the heads of pins.

Most of us are listening to music for enjoyment, not to whet our sense of self-importance.

As long is we stick with prog-rock, Blue Note titles or Miles Davis we're safe. But show the slightest interest in music that academia likes to keep for itself and watch the bristles rise.

[David Ayers]

Get that chip off your shoulder!

[JSngry]

And also get that head out of you ass. David's right - just executing the score is not the end game, it's just the beginning of the game. Sore-headed reactionary projections to the contrary, "Interpretation" does not mean the simple projection of one's scoiological fetishes onto a piece of music. No, it means exmining the socre and then finding greater shapes, contours, transitions, ccolors, main points, secondary points, passages that reinforce, passages that contrast, finding all these disparate elements and making them come together into a unified statement, a true composition, not just a composite of materials.

The beauty of interpreting music is that there's not necessarily one correct "interpretation". Lots (well, sometimes) of different ways to interpret any given piece and still have it speak. A recording or a live performance is not just a score for the ears.

Now, yes, I lot of socioscatlogical baggage gets thrown around in terms of trying to tell people what something "means", and ok, that's a whole 'nother world right there, and for me, make that universe a parallel one, please, but jesus christ, a listener who has a broad and/or deep resource bank, one who knows music well enough to understand the musical aspects of interpretation, they can, do, and should have ideas about what works or not, and then can, will, and should not necessarily reflect any particular "conventional wisdom". Anybody who listens seriously has this ability, and anybody who produces music seriously has an imperative to to this, although the rewards for not doing it are greater now than ever before.

Personally, I have found Adorno and his crew to be irksome pecking hecklers of big minds and small spirits, the type of people who may be right more often than not, but you'd still rather be anyplace in the world than in a room with them, even if they should accidentally be keeping their mouths shut, but when David says that:

In this case meaning can be read as giving a purposive shape to scored music, as we are accustomed to, say, in Sibelius. The Weinberg I have heard on Spotify - ther is quite a lot - is the product of rehearse-record sessions for collector's labels and I don't find the passages where the musicians have really got hold of it and made it bloom. So the notes are there but the sense of shape and purpose which might eventually bind people to this music is not.

I get what he means - simply that for him, the music has not yet been examined, put together, and interpreted to the point that a cohesive vision for it as music (quite apart from any sociological meanings) has not yet been found, that work remains to be done in finding the music inside the music, that so far, what he's hear is just a score for the ears, with the upshot of that being that if you can in fact read a score, there's really no need to actually hear the music itself, and is that really what the object of the game is?

And the whole rehearse-record syndrome, that is endemic to some many different musics. On a good day with good participants, good things can happen, but there is no substitute for living with the music you record for a while before you record it. I don't care what the idiom is. At some point, there's a peak right before ongoing discovery starts rolling downhill into complacency, and in a perfect world, that peak is what you document. But in a regular world, you just try to get the best that's there a the time.

Now, I've never heard this Weinberg cat, nor can I guarantee that I ever will. But it's highly unlikely that it's anything that is so self-evidently brilliant that all you have to do is play it once and listen to it once and BAMWHOOSH there you are at the top of the Weinberg Mountain. Nothing's like that.

[Stefan Wood]

There needs to be a contemporary Bernstein-like conductor who can do for some of the contemporary conductors like he did for Mahler back in the 60s.

[A Lark Ascending]

Mahler was hardly contemporary in the 1960s. And Bernstein was only part of the story of his growing popularity at that time.

But yes, having conductors prepared to champion the new alongside the old can only be good. And there are a fair few who do - though even they fall victim to 'who's best?' syndrome. I see Rattle and Salonen regularly rubbished. Good god, Rattle even did an entire series on 20thC music - looks a bit old now, but at least he tried to present the music to a wider audience rather than leave it the preserve of an elite.

I suspect the problem is the music, not the conductor. Which is not a comment on the quality of the music; merely that much contemporary music does not have the structures or signposts that most people look for in music. When it does (Adams, Glass) - howls of protest from the self-anointed guardians of the portals of culture.

Edited February 9, 2014 by A Lark Ascending

[JSngry]

Animal, Vegetable, Mineral by Steven Mackey

https://play.spotify.com/album/7IVmcE50FFn1Jon2ROCxip

"Jackass" is a particular favorite.

[JSngry]

There needs to be a contemporary Bernstein-like conductor who can do for some of the contemporary conductors like he did for Mahler back in the 60s.

Internet radio might have to do the same thing these days...I use this one a fair amount:

http://www.live365.com/stations/20classics

I have it on my Roku, and what I really like is that there's a feature there that will email me the track info of any given thing that they're playing. So if I hear something that sounds like something I want to get more into, I just hit that button, and then at some point, check the email, do the research, and then, if desired, go shopping, all from the same chair.

[king ubu]

Seems Amsterdam's Concertgebouw does present contemporary music with regularity and success. 2000 persons every saturday afternoon ... not sure if the Dutch are all masochists or what, but some premises here are definitely proven wrong.

German article from a few days back on this, just in case:

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/buehne-und-konzert/neue-musik-in-amsterdam-das-glueck-ist-mit-den-furchtlosen-12785242.html