Larry Kart

Jerry Figi's beautiful, wise piece (to get so much just right in a from-the-front-lines dispatch) was written for and appeared in a fat mimeographed magazine edited by poet-impresario John Sinclair (of MC5 fame) -- don't recall the name of it (John Litweiler might), but it was something hip or apocalypytic, or both. I used to have some or all of its several issues. As I recall, a good deal of the writing was fairly unhinged; Jerry wrote several other pieces for it, and they were all in this vein of ... I don't know, soothsaying. Jerry was maybe fifteen years older than most of the other contributors and probably had thirty-year's-worth more of life experience.

The actual Stravinsky quote, about one of Janacek's operas (this is second-hand via the Net, which doesn't say which opera; my music books are unavailable right now, so I can't check myself), seems to be: "...the thinnest, longest, and least succulent noodle I have ever tried to swallow."

Again, I like Krivda a lot, but thinking of my friend's inability to take Krivda and my sense of why that was, I'm reminded of Stravinsky's negative response to Janacek -- I.S. saying something on the order of "Listening to Janacek is liking trying to swallow a long and very stringy Czech noodle." To put it a bit differently, what I like about Krivda is the way everything is joined together, cumulatively builds, motivically and rhythmically; my friend I think found the principles by which Kridva joins things together and builds up steam to be very simplistic and, in terms of the "flavor" of his melodic choices, so drenched in what might be called paprika that that's about the only thing one tastes.

Bev -- It's not a matter of close analysis by "those with a deep understanding of musical theory" versus "the listener who is just moved by music without really understanding the technicalities of how it works." It's a matter of paying attention moment by moment to (as in just plain noticing) the sort of music that works in a fairly urgent, moment-to-moment manner (as I think Nielsen's major works do) -- though not all good music (not even IMO all great music e.g. some Tchiakowsky) does work that way, at least not to the same degree. You write: "So although I would not recognise the "long-range, storytelling harmonic tension/conflict" consciously (although I do recall reading sleeve notes about Nielsen's 'progressive tonality' many years ago), I suspect my brain picks up on the effects Nielsen intended that to have subconsciously." I'm sure you do just that. But that's almost certainly because you were paying attention moment by moment and thus coudln't help but feel the effects of Nielsen's "progressive tonality," not because you could put that name onto what you were hearing or break down and tag all its component parts. (I couldn't do that either.) You write: "I think I'm reacting against this sentence of yours - 'Much of the American subscription-concert public tends, I believe, to listen in a "choice moments" manner.' Probably not your intention, but it comes across as rather dismissive of the ordinary listener." I could be wrong about that "listen in a 'choice moments" manner' generalization, I could be right. But I said "much of the American subscription-concert public," which is not the same thing as "the ordinary listener." First, "American" -- not British or European. Second, "subscription-concert." I've been part of those audiences on many occasions, and I think I know those people pretty well -- my late father and mother were core members. While such audiences include many "ordinary listeners" (my mother, at heart, was one) who pleasurably pay close attention (and in my book, pleasure of some sort is the sole reason to do that), they also include many people (my father definitely was one of those) who are there on something of a "be there to be seen" or "this is what people like us do on a Saturday night" basis. And I would say that that portion of the American subscription-concert public is not only significant in size but also listens for the "choice moments" that tell them that this is Beethhoven's Fifth, the Pathetique, the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto, etc. Those are great works, but ... I hope you see what I mean. About subscription audiences in other countries, I don't have enough direct experience to generalize, though the one time I was in Royal Albert Hall, it seemed pretty clear that the audience was far more diverse, socially and economically, than the audience in Chicago's Orchestra Hall. I'd add that, of course, that there are plenty of ordinary listeners who don't have much if any opportunity to attend subscription concerts.

I have both. Can't get at them right now, but I recall that the RVG sounded much better because RVG was working with the recently discovered/found original metal parts (or would it have been tapes?) while all previous reissues had been working from secondary sources.

Simon Phillippo in the Musical Times, writing about Robert Simpson's view of Nielsen in a way that I hope touches upon my point about the close-argument nature of Nielsen's musical language: "Unlike Schenker's conception of a tonal composition as the `composing-out' of the triadic Ursatz, for Simpson such a work need not form the expression of a single key, but may form a progression from one to another. All attention is fixed on the 'middleground' of a tonal structure, which, rather than indicating the unity and coherence of a composition, is best thought of as the deepest aspect of a work's 'evolutionary' content. This is true even in his analysis of classical music, where 'momentum' is the result of `destroying the original tonic by means of a screwing-up of tension', creating 'a sense of travelling.' In the opening tutti of Nielsen's Third Symphony, the tritonal excursion `from one end of the tonal world to the other' is described as 'a vivid expression of energy.' Herein lies Simpson's connection between tonality and dynamic movement. "[simpson's] assumptions of teleology lead him to class even a progressive-tonal outcome as inevitable. Of Nielsen's Second Symphony he wrote, `The touches of A major and G major near the beginning ... serve to hint, in turn, at the end of the whole symphony,' and in the Fifth he similarly hunts down 'justification' for the E flat ending, despite his remark that much of the symphony deals with `the problems raised by not deciding in advance exactly where the music was to go.'"

I like Krivda a lot, especially his current quintet with Carmen Intorre (drms.) and Dominic Faranicci (tpt)., but my impression is that he's a significantly better player these days than he was back then. On the other hand, one of the best and most broad-minded judges (in terms of being responsive to what's successful in all styles) of jazz I know, finds Krivda virtually unlistenable.

Nothing you've ever said here makes me think that you're a superficial listener. Nor do I think that following the close argument of Nielsen's best music is "the exclusive preserve of the intelligentsia," any more than following the close argument of Beethoven or Schubert's music would be. On the other hand, if you mean by "The third symphony is every bit as bucolic as any contemporary piece of musical pastoralism" that the Nielsen Third is merely a piece of musical pastoralism or that it's not much different (in nature and quality) than other other contemporary pieces of musical pastoralism, I disagree a lot. Here is the beginning of Robert Simpson's chapter on the Third, which cuts off much too soon but may be enough to convey his drift. Yes, that curtailed final sentence does look as though it's going to support the "Nielsen the ordinary guy speaking directly to other ordinary guys, and that's that" approach, but that is not where Simpson is going: "The period before the First World War found Nielsen at the
height of his musical powers and the two main works of the
years 1910-11, the Sinfonia espansiva and the violin Concerto,
express to the full that warm and sunny aspect of him that has
led to the popular over-simplification of the comparison
between him and Sibelius: the Finn is said to be 'grim' and
the Dane 'genial.' As in all popular generalizations, there is
some truth in this; Nielsen's personality is far more approach­
able than Sibelius's, but the Danish composer's fifth and
sixth Symphonies and his clarinet Concerto are in some ways
tougher in fibre even than such a work as the concentrated
fourth Symphony of Sibelius. It is undoubtedly the popularity of The Four Temperaments, and perhaps to a slightly
greater extent the Espansiva, that has given rise to the impression
that Nielsen's music is always smiling. In relation to the rest
of Scandinavia, the Danish atmosphere might almost be called
Mediterranean, and the third Symphony completely sums up
this attractive side of the country and its generous, hospitable
people. Besides this, the work has an enormous vigour and its
title betokens the composer's now full consciousness of his own
powers; he feels now not only a keen interest in the temperaments and characters of his fellows; he understands that this is
not a mere feeling of sympathy, but one of actual identity of
purpose. He realizes what he at first only sensed, that he and
his music are dependent on and of value to the ordinary…" The whole book can be accessed here, for a fee (don't know how much): http://www.questia.com/library/book/carl-n...ert-simpson.jsp

No. Nor should there be IMO. And I used to own the sucker. It is better than Ruth Laredo's set though.

No -- that was Wayland Flowers' Blavatsky.

I've already seen madame's Blavatsky.

I did hear Roscoe sit in at a jam session (at the Brown Shoe on Wells St. I think) that included Elvin -- stepping up on the stand from the audience in mid-tune as I recall (like a scene from a movie) -- on a weekend afternoon during what must have been a time that Coltrane was in town. First time I heard Roscoe, had to ask someone "Who was that masked man?" He sounded damn good -- Dolphy-esque, strong like bull.

No.

Madge's Busoni set is a perfect example. It was Nicolas Hodges, by way of me, and he didn't say anything about responding to "every" harmonic change but noted that MAH was responsive to none of them in the examples Nic gave, which violated the nature of the music. Nic BTW is excellent both in his modern music areas of speciality and in 19th Century stuff as well. I think his site had a link to a brilliant Schumann Arabesque: http://www.nicolashodges.com/index2.htm

Where is you're from again, Bluenote82?

There's a lot of B.S. in that Ross/Nielsen piece, and he doesn't even mention what probably is the main thing about Nielsen's musical language (and the chief subject of Robert Simpson's fine Nielsen book) -- long-range, storytelling harmonic tension/conflict. In fact, that's almost certainly the reason why Nielsen's music hasn't caught on with the American subscription-concert public (a question that Ross raises and drops). While the surface of Nielsen's music is not forbiddingly modern, you need to listen to him in a concentrated, long-range manner or you don't get what's up. (Much of the American subscription-concert public tends, I believe, to listen in a "choice moments" manner.) The same could be said of Bruckner as of Nielsen in this regard (Bruckner being the subject of another fine Simpson book), but at least the sound of Bruckner tells you that something important is afoot; Nielsen music, by contrast, has little or no "aura" to it, just its intense purposefulness, and sometimes even that is masked by apparent geniality.

I thought he was mine, all mine.

If you're looking for a bargain, there's Szidon, which EDC mentioned. I've been impressed by Bernd Glemser's Vols. 1 & 2 on Naxos, but Vol. 3 hasn't appeared yet, and it's been a while since Vol. 2; maybe Glemser flew the Naxos coop.

Avoid at all costs.

Great line, Chris: "That was before filter tips..." Deservedly cracked her up.

Or compare this excerpt from the opening of Alma Petchersky's "Rudepoema" http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?...style=classical to Hamelin's frigid YouTube performance

Compared to Nelson Friere and David Bean, for two, MAH's Rudepoema is nada. As for the "best we have" syndrome, especially with a composer as quirky as Alkan who needs special understanding and advocacy, I can't count the number of times I've settled for that "the best we have" crap, only to discover that you're not only much better off with someone who gets it, no matter his or her less than perfect pianism, especially with a composer where "getting it" is so crucial, but that some of those "best we have" performances are so misleading as to be almost worse than nothing at all. For Alkan, I'd much rather be in the various and variable hands of Raymond Lewenthal, Ronald Smith, Huseyin Sermet et al. than listen to MAH's fluent inconsequentiality. As for Medtner, I'm forgetting some good people right now, but certainly there's f------ Medtner himself.

I've heard tell that this Joanna Domanska Szymanoswki recital is as good as it gets: http://www.berkshirerecordoutlet.com/cgi-b...Some&RPP=25 A copy is making its way toward me. Haven't heard Hamelin's Szymanowki but have never liked anything he has done that's crossed my path. In particular, I can't stand his Medtner, which would be not a good sign for his Szymanoswki, for me at least. Here are two back-and-forth posts about Hamelin's Alkan from the estimable pianist Nicolas Hodges that say everything I could say about Hamelin and much more: Nic: You simply hear the notes with Hamelin, not the music. >I think his playing the Concerto is one of the most masterful performances >by a pianist today, precisely because he is able to ignore issues of the >music's difficulty and concentrate entirely on an effortless demonstration >of Alkan's structural integrity. Nic: He demonstrates only his own deafness to harmonic change. This is apparent on page 1, and on. I can take you through it's weaknesses bar by bar if you'd like. Seriously. The Hyperion Alkan disc is much better - and the only disc of Hamelin's which to me sounds like the work of a musician of any stature (and I have virtually all of them, for my sins). >Generally speaking, Hamelin is not an >UNDERLINER of harmonic changes. He doesn't feel the need to present >details to his audience on a silver platter. Nic: It's not a matter of underlining but of following what (for me at least) are the basic, undeniable impulses that come about because a modulation is something other than a change in a pattern of dots. >For his admirers, the >details speak by virtue of his clarity, sensitivity, and concern for the >long-line. Nic: Clarity yes, but not of structure, only of text. Sensitivity to what? Not to line, not to harmony, not to texture (ever heard him produce a half-light?). For me at least, Hamelin denies the music its very existence. Some examples: p2, line 2, first 3 bars. Passing through 3 keys, but Hamelin plays them all the same. There is no sense of modulation, or of moving up, or moving anywhere come to that. p2, line 3, bar 3. Alkan reiterates the f of the start, implying either a further reinforcement or a return after some different colouring. This is a crucial moment in the first paragraph. It's the highest point registrally and the most impassioned. Hamelin plays this chord as cleanly and flatly as everything else before it. No sense of arrival, or questioning. This is a disaster structurally. p2, line 3, last 3 bars. Passes through 5 keys in the space of 10 beats, Hamelin again fails to notice it, or do anything with it at all. p2, line 4 and 5. Two fortissimo phrases identical on the page apart from harmonic position and function. It would be suicide to play them the same. What does Hamelin do? He plays them the same. And it's tedious. p3, line 1. Why is this verbatim repetition there? Does Alkan want intensification, confirmation, a dance-like swing? Either way Hamelin does nothing with it. Each of the three repetitions is identical. The first time Hamelin does anything differently from a player piano is p3, line 2, bars 3-4. He is sensitive to something for a moment (it passes), but it has taken 31 bars for him to find some music. Need I go on?

These clips, and even more so a few others on YouTube from 1959, where he's leading a group of Canadian All-Stars, make it clear that MF was one hell of an in-there, body-language bandleader, a la Dizzy but in his own way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr7CC43w2hE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX24hA2Qhrs...feature=related Soloists in addition to MF are Joe Farrell, Frank Hittner (dig his Serge Chaloff lick on "Old Man River"), Willie Maiden (second tenor solo on "Old Man River"), and on alto either Lanny Morgan or Jimmy Ford (sounds more like the latter to me but someone else IDs the former). Pianist is Jaki Byard? Drummer is Rufus Jones; you'll see why his nickname was Speedy.