Overload...defcon10...overload
...you guys are awesome!!!
best
Michael
Overload...defcon10...overload
...you guys are awesome!!!
best
Michael
If it ain't acousmatique-It's crap
I did, a few hours earlier.
I'll admit that I mostly lurk these days, and even that lightly. So I frequently miss good threads. I started piano lessons early last year, after being away from any musical instruments for... some unknown number of decades. So I'm doing mostly classical these days in listening as well, and mostly classical piano. I'm currently working on one of the Gershwin preludes; it's fun music if I can wrap my fingers around it. It's about time to make another run at some of Shostakovich's piano works, also, probably starting with the 24 Preludes (Op. 34) rather than the Preludes and Fugues.
I think the subtext is rapidly becoming text.
Shostakovich had a reputation for very fast tempos marked in his scores. Someone complained about this to him once, and he replied that he had an old metronome at home, and it was probably broken and he should replace it, and anyway, he'd fix it in his next work. Which he never did.
Shostakovich symphonies often start with long slow movements, unlike many other symphonists. This is true of symphonies 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 particularly. In various compulsory self-criticism speeches, he once said that he could not write a proper symphonic allegro. (Which is bull.) He also said once that the first movement of his 10th was much too long, while the second movement was much too short. (The first movement typically runs about 21 minutes, while the second movement is just over 4 minutes, even though they are almost the same number of pages in the score.)
For a flavor of what "fast" means with Shostakovich, here's a two-piano arrangement of the 10th symphony, with Shostakovich and his friend Weinberg on piano. The second movement starts at 20:59, and it is absolutely demonic. Listen as it builds momentum and careens out of control; Shostakovich can't get the notes out fast enough!
For symphonies that start with a faster tempo, try symphony 1 (brittle and ironic), 4 (brutal and not at all ironic), or 9 (ironic, with sharp, nasty teeth). Most of the quartets start with faster movements, until you get to the late quartets (11 and beyond, although 14 is an exception). Quartet 8 is often recommended as a starting point, but it is not at all typical of the quartets. I'd recommend quartets 3, 7, 9, and 10 as a starter sample.
I think the subtext is rapidly becoming text.
Now, I find this an interesting read. Also the question about if Shostakovich is prog?
What I also want to discuss is: I really don't like Chamber music at all.
But I really do love Russian symphonic music and I think it is very much prog.
Since the day I was introduced to Russian classical music by Yes (Firebird, Stravinsky) and ELP (Skythian Suite, Prokofiev)
I have been collecting it. Almost the first album I bought was "Skythian Suite" coupled with Shostakovich First Piano concerto.
I bought it in 1977, in a supermarket in East-Berlin (!) when I was on a exchange trip from High School.
So, I have been collecting since, I have the full Prokofiev stuff on CD, and a really big lot of Shostakovich, Miaskovsky
(love the 16 Disc Svetlanov edition), Rimsky Korsakov, Glazunov, Kabalevsky, Moussorgsky, Rachmaninov, etcetera, etcetera.
I love the symphonies, orchestral works, cantatas, concerto, film music and ballets!
To the question: Is this prog? Yes it surely is. Lots of symphonic arrangements, orchestra sound with many layers, poly rhythms, in fact, if you ask me how to describe russian classical music, I would say: It's just like progressive rock.
But now to my statement... From all these fantastic composers, I really don't like any of the so called Chamber music stuff.
Please, no solo piano, small quartets, sixtets for me. If it doesn't sound symphonic, I am off.
(I do like some occasionally Debussy and Satie for that matter, but not much)
And note: I have tried many times, sometimes I like a fragment, but it gets forgotten afterwards.
So, if I were to suggest the TS some Shostakovich...
It's not quite simple, because Shostakovich really had many styles.
For me, I love both his Piano Concertos because they have very lovely romantic sections (the Andante from the second PC is breathtaking), and I love his symphonies 1,2,5,7,9,10,11,13. From these I would suggest the fifth offcourse, but for a starter I'd suggest his 11th with its slow symphonic starting.
But if you are new to Russian Classical music, I would not suggest Shostakovich, but a few more common works ( a bit easier on the ear) like The Firebird Suite (Stravinsky), Luitenant Kije Suite (Prokofiev), Snow Storm (Sviridov), Scheherazade (Rimsky Korsakov)
and try some heavier stuff afterwards: Rite of Spring (Stravinsky), Skythian Suite, Alexander Nevsky (Prokofiev) and Gayaneh (Khachaturian).
I have a friend who is really into Canterbury, and truly dislikes all of the above, so no guarantees! But if you like it there is a wealth on music you can explore the rest of your life! And maybe you also like the Chamber music stuff.
From that, I'll say that I like both classical chamber music and also chamber rock. I'll also suggest that Tchaikovsky's sextet "Souvenir de Florence" is quite symphonic, as are Shostakovich's quartets 2, 3, 5, and 12. Quartet 11 is definitely prog, and would fit in the world of Univers Zero with no problem.
I think the subtext is rapidly becoming text.
Nice post. I'm curious why you are shutting yourself out of anything that is not large scale orchestral/symphonic? Even something like Stravsinky's L'Histoire du soldat or Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time? I'm by no means criticizing, I just find it interesting that somebody could love large scale classical music but loathe anything that has more transparent or intimate orchestration, or even solo piano works. For me - if the music sounds good I dig it - regardless of genre.
If it isn't Krautrock, it's krap.
"And it's only the giving
That makes you what you are" - Ian Anderson
So Progressive Rock pre-dates the creation of Rock? How does that happen? Are you guys all different personas of Dr. Who, puttin' the Tardis through the paces?
Just pointing out the obvious.
Odd, but a good half of my classical collection is chamber music and quartets.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
I don't think folks are actually saying that some classical is progressive rock, but definitely progressive in nature. We all know that particular definition (as it relates to music) is for another time and place. Virtually everything that is discussed on this site has a history or indirect connection dating back to some classical composer from as early as the, geez, 14th century or so - they were already doing the odd time signatures, harmonies, modes, scales, orchestration, formal structures etc etc before most of the prog musicians were born. At least I believe this. Progressive rock does not exist in a vacuum, and you can't have your Univers Zero without first at least hearing Stravinsky or Bartok to use but one example.
If it isn't Krautrock, it's krap.
"And it's only the giving
That makes you what you are" - Ian Anderson
^ Frankie, everything you posted there is true. I'm just pointing out that "Prog" is short for "Prog-Rock," which is short for "Progressive Rock." We may not be able to say what Progressive Rock is, but that doesn't mean that we can't say what it is not. This is one of those instances. As you point out, very influential, but that's different from being.
It's why I hate the term "Prog." Some want to forget that it's connected to Rock and make it into a nebulous thing that retrofits music of other genres.
Thank you for your nice reply and genuine interest!
I am afraid I am derailing this thread a bit but I have an urge to reply and maybe the reader will have some benefit after all.
So, your question is why shutting out on Chamber music.
Note that it is not on purpose, it just happens. And yes, I'm missing out about 50% of e.g. Prokofievs work, whome I dearly love. The problem is 'it just doesn't click', and I think it is because it doesn't sound like something else that I do like. And this might be 'my' problem: I was 16-18 when I got in this nice Progressive Rock music I love to this day. In that period I listened a lot, learned a lot, was impressed by things and less impressed by other things. Classical Music was very impressive, but also difficult. Not knowing what to listen to, you just try and buy what you like. And Yes and ELP really showed some ways (Stravinsky, Moussorgsky, Prokofiev) but also the local music store which fortunately had a lot of Russian Music (Melodiya was very popular then in the Netherlands) where I could dive deeper into Prokofiev, Rimsky Korsakov etc.
For some reason, that were all large scale works. (I think the more popular things like Ballets and Symphonies)
Also, at that time I tried l'Histoire du Soldat and was very disappointed as it didn't sound as nice as the Firebird.
So, from then on, Chamber Music just doesn't fit my learned liking.
I just acquired Kabalevsky's Cantatas yesterday and there's that immediate click:
A symphonic work with a choir and a narrator. Nice! So I play it ten times and I am in love.
But that just does not happen with the Chamber stuff, I don't feel the need/urge to play it again.
And guess what, there are some works which are both available as Chamber piece or as larger scale work. Now, if I like the large-scale work, I can really appreciate the chamber work, because I 'know' it. (Pictures at an exhibition IS an example, but also Prokofiev's Andante from SQ4, and, in another setting, Canarios Cycles which finally got me into Vivaldi's Four Seasons (I don't like baroque either, except, as just mentioned, The Four Seasons).
So, yes, I agree fully with you: "if the music sounds good I dig it" but my mind has defined "sounds good" a really long time ago.
(And that may sound narrow-minded, it is, I can't change it, and it still is much broader than many other people).
And PS: Thank you and MissKittysMom for the tips. I will keep trying and maybe one day the click happens, (allthough it was not today).
In reference to Shostakovich quartet 11, it was written in 1966, so we can call it "proto prog."
I think the subtext is rapidly becoming text.
A handful of Shostakovich string quartets have been re-arranged by Rudolf Barshai for String Orchestra - notably #s 8 and 10(my personal favourite of his quartets) and a couple more were arranged recently. You may like the larger sound although I really don't feel there was a lot of arranging went into these 'orchestrations' seems like the quartet parts were simply multiplied.
Did Barshai's S5, S6, and S7 today (symphonies)...that's a lot of listening. I'll tell ya - these recordings kick some major ass. The sonics alone are pretty phenomenal - DDD recordings ranging from '92-'97 or thereabouts, and the playing is equally as great by the WDR Sinfonieorchester. Anybody that digs DSCH's symphonies should give these a test drive, I think you'd be pretty happy. The Tonmeister on these sessions is a chap named Siegfried Spittler - hats off to this guy for getting such a great sound down on "tape".
If it isn't Krautrock, it's krap.
"And it's only the giving
That makes you what you are" - Ian Anderson
Maybe a postscript to this thread since it's quiet for a few days.
First of all, thanks everyone who responded with recommendations! I've procured many of them already and have pretty much spent the week immersed in Shostakovich with the exception of...
...thanks for the sidebar about Appalachian Spring. I picked up the DG Orpheus Chamber Orchestra release and love it. Frankie, you never steer me wrong...ever!
...but back to Shostakovich. My first listening was to the Rostropovich version of #5 followed quickly by the Haitink version. Other than the noticeable sound differences, to be expected of course...I'm not sure which one I prefer. It's way to early in my journey to make a decision like that anyway...suffice to say I enjoyed them both. I also really dug #9 on that Haitink release as well. It reminded me of evil circus music in parts.
After that, I decided to really jump off the deep end so I got both the Kondrashin box and the Barshai box. I'm a bit of the way into the Kondrashin box and OMG! #3 and especially #4 were outrageously good. Beyond that, I only listened to #5 and #9 again but cant wait to dig deeper.
Time constraints did not allow me to even touch the Barshai box yet.
So any specific recs for his string quartets?
Again, thanks for all the input.
best
Michael
Last edited by neuroticdog; 06-24-2018 at 04:58 PM.
If it ain't acousmatique-It's crap
Oh boy here we go. My favourite is the Borodin Box which was the one I got in vinyl for my 18th birthday - at the time i think think they had only recorded 1-13 and the last two I had by the Beethoven Quartet. Later versions and formats had the entire series. I think the Borodin one is going to be hard to beat as they worked directly with the composer and various of the quartets were dedicated to each the members of that ensemble.
I also really loved the set by the Fitzwilliam Quartet who were early adopters of the cycle. Other nice versions are by the Manhattan Quartet, the Emerson Quartet and the Eder Quartet which is on the Naxos label.
[Big smile at that post Michael!]
So glad you're digging that stuff man! Appalachian Spring is such a gem, right? That piece sort of single-handily embodies Americana (living in Pennsylvania Appalachia country, etc). Not bad for a Jewish guy from Brooklyn, eh? Its just so beautiful - I will never get tired of hearing that piece - that sucker is going to the grave with me.
Congrats on those boxes too man! Both gems - you will enjoy that music forever, no exaggeration. There is just so much to take in with those 15 symphonies. You have two great accounts too - the Kondrashin set is legendary and both Barshai and Kondrashin were personal friends with DSCH himself, so there is tremendous insight there. There is not much more to stay other than just enjoy those sets - the music contained therein is beyond any lame description I could try to muster up here. Easily some of the best music written in the 20th century to my ears. How beautiful is the Largo (movement 3) in S5? I've been tearing up S10 and S11 over the past few days. Its nice to see that you are also digging S9 - I like that 'evil circus music' parallel
Last edited by chalkpie; 06-24-2018 at 11:59 PM.
If it isn't Krautrock, it's krap.
"And it's only the giving
That makes you what you are" - Ian Anderson
DSCH Quartets: You will get a bunch of different opinions from different people - some say the group HAS to be Russian, the Emersons are too clean (But extremely accurate), blah blah blah. Its a tough call since most of the great sets all have something different to offer: overall sonics, tonal character, recording spaces, group synergy, intonation, accuracy, Russian "grittiness", etc. You may want to sample some sets if you can on Spotify, YT, and then decide which one you want to hit first, but you really can't do wrong with the following. I would do some reading reviews and articles too. But generally speaking, these are the ones:
Emerson SQ
Fitzwilliam SQ
Borodin I (minus 14, 15) and Borodin II (Melodiya)
Shostakovich SQ
Eder SQ
Taneyev SQ (this gets very high marks in some circles and might be pricey if it can be found)
I have two discs with the Hagen SQ which I LOVE, but between the two you only get 4, 11, 14 and 3, 7, 8 but they are both phenomenal imo.
If it isn't Krautrock, it's krap.
"And it's only the giving
That makes you what you are" - Ian Anderson
CRANK this as loudly as you can without killing anything and you'll see what I mean with the Hagen SQ. They fucking slay this stuff.
If it isn't Krautrock, it's krap.
"And it's only the giving
That makes you what you are" - Ian Anderson
That’s just silly. For INSTRUMENTAL music? What possible difference could it make? There are good Russian ensembles and there are bad ones, just like any other country.
For VOCAL music maybe... but even then a good performer can learn a proper Russian accent.
And I wouldn’t know the difference anyway.
It usually goes with every composer - RVW will sound better with the LSO, Mahler and Bruckner with Vienna, Prokofiev, Stravinsky (early), and DSCH with Russian conductors and orchestras, etc etc. We're not the only ones with the crazies! I think their thought is that its in their "blood" somehow.....which may be the case in some aspects. I can't totally overlook that fact, but to say that non-native performers can't "get it" is absurd. The same theory is sometimes applied to Bartok's SQ's, and it has to be Takács and not Emerson or Juilliard for example.
If it isn't Krautrock, it's krap.
"And it's only the giving
That makes you what you are" - Ian Anderson
It's not silly (unless it's backed up by stuff like "it's in their blood" and such). Classical music is heavily linked to institutions and traditions. A russian musician has a greater deal of chance to have been musically educated (most of the time from an early edge) in the same tradition as the composer, to have studied where the composer has studied, to have learned with professors that were students of the composer, etc.
It is more true with some composer than other. Pretty much no european orchestra and conductor is capable of playing Charles Ives' music, because of all the stricly american content that is implied. They don't recognize it or don't know how to play it. On the other hand, Mahler's music, a cosmopolitan composer who, moreover, with his work as a conductor, have paved the way to modern orchestra practices, can be played by pretty much any orchestra musician.
That being said, you can totally prefer a non-topical version over a topical one. Sometimes not playing a piece has it should be played is better.
For the quartets, I'll vouch for both Borodin sets, Shostakovich SQ, Emersons, and Fitzwilliams. The Beethoven SQ premiered most of the quartets and their set is also interesting, but marred by poor audio quality for some quartets.
For the symphonies, my go-to set is Kondrashin... as a set. I have not heard Barshai, but have read excellent comments about it. On the other hand, most of my preferences in the symphonies are for individual recordings, not sets. My preferred 13th is a different Kondrashin recording; he conducted the premiere, and a second performance two nights later, which was recorded. It has a phenomenal tension, because no one knew whether the performance would actually be allowed. The SU did eventually force some changes in the text of the Babi Yar movement, but the original text has been restored in modern recordings. Kurt Sanderling is a must-hear for the 15th. Mravinsky's 1957 recording of the 11th is stunning in the rage it communicates (and it's a great example of why Russian performance of Shostakovich can stand out from others). Ashkenazy, best known as a pianist, has conducted several Shostakovich symphonies, and all that I've heard have been excellent. Ormandy does well with the 4th and 10th. Previn recorded the 8th twice; the first recording is one of the best available.
In generally, I haven't been impressed with Rostropovich as a conductor; he seems to understate. Also Haitink, who is too refined and polished.
And don't miss the concertos! The cello concertos were written for Rostropovich; the violin concertos were written for Oistrakh, and the second piano concerto was written for Maxim Shostakovich. You won't go wrong with any of these, although the best piano concertos available were conducted by Maxim and performed by his son, Dmitri.
I think the subtext is rapidly becoming text.
I haven't heard those recordings - I am familiar with the composer's recordings of the concertos and I must admit he does tend to speed his way through them - even the slow movements - almost as if he couldn't get offstage and out of the limelight fast enough. I used to have a magnificent recording of the 2nd by Eugene List on an old vinyl and an equally beautiful recording of the op 77/99 violin concerto played by David Oistrakh - now that was awesome.
There are a number of recordings of Shostakovich playing his own music, and his tempos are always fast. There's even a recording of the second piano trio with Shostakovich on piano and Oistrakh on violin.
He did write the first piano concerto with the intent to perform it, but that was before he started getting into conflict with the government. You may very well be right that he avoided the limelight, even as a performer, after that. (He also hated conducting, and only did it once.)
I think the subtext is rapidly becoming text.
Bookmarks