Anti-Desert Island Discs

[PDG]

Nice avatar! It fits!

Thanks, Sorrano. That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me.

Actually, it looks a bit 'loud' to me. If Chris wants to make me a bit smaller, he has my blessing, in which case my ego will be only ever so slightly deflated....

[Chris]

Thanks, Sorrano. That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me.

Actually, it looks a bit 'loud' to me. If Chris wants to make me a bit smaller, he has my blessing, in which case my ego will be only ever so slightly deflated....

Looks like a standard avatar size to me...

[Michael]

PDG, I think your avatar is just dandy!

[PDG]

Michael, not for the first time, I doff my hat in your direction. A Korking observation on your part.

Purrrrrrr.........

[Michael]

Michael, not for the first time, I doff my hat in your direction. A Korking observation on your part.

Purrrrrrr.........

There can beano doubt about that!

[PDG]

[Chris]

Other Anti-Desert Island Discs : A lot of what Christopher Hogwood does, after much reflection. I once asked this question* on another forum ("Magic Mountain", as Peter refers to it), but received no satisfactory answer.

*The question was (at that time, on another forum) : Why does Taruskin hate Hogwood? Engaging both my brain and my ears, I now see his point.

What don't you like about him? He's not my favorite, but I generally like his work. I love his set of the Mozart symphonies.

[Roehre]

I'll have to dig out the specific comments by Taruskin, but in essence : sloppy sight-reading by professional musicians conducted by a half-baked musico-historian-cum-conductor.

That's definitely besides the truth for his recordings of the concertante works with solo violin of Martinu's (on Hyperion), or the Stravinsky and Britten works he recorded (on Arte Nova)

[Bonn1827]

I don't mind Hogwood, but a lot of what he did earlier has now been "superceded", so to speak. His tempi were too fast, but I would be cautious about making comments about his role as a musicologist/performer/academic as these can be often formulated by disgruntled colleagues or musical jealousies. The culture of classical music is full of these jealousies, so we need to use balance and caution before listening seriously to diatribes and working out whether they have merit.

I dislike Mahler, despite several attempts to get into his music. Bruckner doesn't appear on my radar at all. But I find Mahler inflated and pompous and his music probably would be more suitable as background to films than anything else. Honestly, I've really tried with him. I used to travel 1 hour each way to work in my last teaching post and a colleague gave me a CD of the 4th symphony and I listened and listened and listened. I just couldn't cut through and he asked me why. I said I think it lacked that kind of architectural tautness and structure that I look for in music. Meandered and conflated and, finally, pompous - like some Elgar symphonies. Sorry!

[Roehre]

I dislike Mahler, despite several attempts to get into his music. Bruckner doesn't appear on my radar at all. ... I said I think it lacked that kind of architectural tautness and structure that I look for in music. Meandered and conflated and, finally, pompous - like some Elgar symphonies. Sorry!

Mahler, Bruckner and Elgar symphonies are just as concisely structured as any of the Beethovens, especially the Eroica and the Ninth. The only exception arguably is the opening movement of Mahler's 3rd symphony, but even there "meandering" is an overstatement.

[Bonn1827]

You may well be right about the structure in Mahler and Bruckner. I only said "I think" this is the reason, as I found it nearly impossible to say why I just couldn't get into it. I do think, in terms of sheer listening, classical composers seem to have a tighter structure - leaving aside analysis. I'm sorry I don't get Mahler, as many people obviously do, but I've tried too many times now. I like music from as far back as Machaut and his "Masse de Notre Dame", right through to composers (apart from the obvious ones) as varied as Josquin, Palestrina, Monteverdi, Purcell, Rameau, Gluck, Brahms, Debussy, Scriabin, Granados, Ravel, Milhaud, Webern, Messiaen, Copland,Glass, Adams AND I STILL CAN'T FIND A PLACE FOR MAHLER.

[Peter]

You may well be right about the structure in Mahler and Bruckner. I only said "I think" this is the reason, as I found it nearly impossible to say why I just couldn't get into it. I do think, in terms of sheer listening, classical composers seem to have a tighter structure - leaving aside analysis. I'm sorry I don't get Mahler, as many people obviously do, but I've tried too many times now. I like music from as far back as Machaut and his "Masse de Notre Dame", right through to composers (apart from the obvious ones) as varied as Josquin, Palestrina, Monteverdi, Purcell, Rameau, Gluck, Brahms, Debussy, Scriabin, Granados, Ravel, Milhaud, Webern, Messiaen, Copland,Glass, Adams AND I STILL CAN'T FIND A PLACE FOR MAHLER.

Try Mahler's 6th symphony - I think the first movement has a very classical structure, more so than the other symphonies. The slow movement is simply wonderful - I prefer it even to the famous adagietto from no.5.

[Bonn1827]

Thanks, I'll give it one more try because you say so!!

[Peter]

Thanks, I'll give it one more try because you say so!!

I hope it works for you!