who do you think is a betta composer beethoven or mozart

[v russo]

Originally posted by Rutradelusasa:
hehe, this is because you are new and not yet acquainted with this forum and its amazing capability of questioning our knowledge and introducing us to more classical music than we knew before.

Welcome, and feel free to change from Haydn to Bartók, from Bach to Orff in a snap.

oh, I love Orff, that neo-primitive- such an interesting 20th Century composer -right Gurn? 8)
There is much more to his output than 'Carmina Burana'.


------------------
v russo

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by v russo:
oh, I love Orff, that neo-primitive- such an interesting 20th Century composer -right Gurn? 8)
There is much more to his output than 'Carmina Burana'.

v.
You are probably going to be amazed to know that even though it is only "Carmina Burana", I have actually gone out of my way to see Orff live and in concert!! Before it became so cliche on all the TV advertisements of course. It was the version with all the dancing too, so I really stretched myself:
20th century music
Singing (after a fashion)
Dancing (see above)

So there too!



------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Cuprik:
Isn't it interesting that in a Beethoven forum, under a discussion initially about Beethoven and Mozart, we are instead discussing Haydn and Wagner.

There are so many criteria for determining the value that we place on art, both subjective and objective.

While absolutely impossible to defend, I place the highest value on the composer's ability to skillfully and directly give voice to the muse....And part of it is simply resonance. Sometimes I think we are like receivers tuned to a particular frequency. I would love to resonate to Bach or Mozart, but so far, we appear to be on a different bandwidth....

A very good observation. We have a lot of disagreement here about who are great composers and who not so great (or not great at all), and much of the time I think it is really a matter of what you call bandwidth and ability to relate to a particular frequency. Rather than being able to judge the intrinsic value of the music, people are often simply more or less able to pick up, or be moved by, a particular composer's emotional spectrum and vocabulary. That is why I think one must give due respect to the reactions expressed by legions of other people rather than relying merely on one's own reactions when judging a composer's greatness.

And Wagner? Woah. He sweeps me away each and every time. And why do i always feel so...tawdry afterwards. Like I've been lied to by a seductive lover I suppose. I always suspect that he is a brilliant fraud. But brilliant nonetheless.

This is like Nietzsche's judgment on Wagner. I don't feel the tawdriness you do. Perhaps its a matter of bandwith!

But I think 'Woah' is a good epithet for his music!


[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited March 17, 2004).]

[beetlover]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
"Betta" composer?

Is this more deliberate instant messaging-type abbreviation, or unintended misspelling?

Do we need a copy editor here?

Or should we be more open to the youth who will keep classical music alive and smile as the language is destroyed in front of our eyes?

Probably I'm just a crank, but I don't see much difference between this and someone playing a wrong note in a Beethoven sonata.

[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited March 05, 2004).]

I'm going to get totally off topic from the discussion to reply to this. I agree! I'm 15 and I hate going to teen message boards and seeing people write like that. Not all teen message boards are like that but still. I just hope this form of writing doesn't eventually become "normal."

Anyway, I've been gone for awhile, I don't think anyone remembers me but here I am!

[beetlover]

Originally posted by sweet_blu3berry:
Not true about what u said about Mozart doing little amount of contribution to the world. His music will live on forever. ( I think ...) (eg. Tinkle tinkle little star)

LOL. I assume you're talking about Twinkle Twinkle Little Star . I love those variations. I think it's so cool how something so easy is part of something more difficult.

[Cuprik]

Chassz I think we may actually be on the same page. I wouldn't go to any desert island without my Ring Cycle. I just don't always admit to it right away.

I also use 'palette' when talking about composers...for example, the transparent prussian blues and greens of Ravel, compared to the pastels of Debussy.

A good friend of mine took his Masters in music composition at Princeton. They used to play 'Horse, Bird, or Muffin'. I never quite understood this one. Beethoven might qualify as 95% horse and 5% bird. Hopefully no muffin. Schubert would probably rate 40% bird, 40% muffin, and 20% horse. Not very scientific, I agree.

I have always grouped composers as A or B. And this is not in the least heirarchical. An 'A' composer is essentailly symmetrical - if you threw him to the breeze he would land with both feet firmly on the ground, no matter how tumultuous the setting. Mozart. Schumann. Debussy... The 'B' composer is asymmetrical and indulges in diminished and unresolved chords. When he finally lands, he is none too sure of the footing. Beethoven, Schubert, Ravel... (Me I have an affinity to the 'B' composer)

Also, not very scientific. But it certainly gives us something to talk about.