modern composers use of the orchestra when compared with the classical masters...

[Preston]

Sorry if this is somewhat of an unintellectual thread (Philip, are you satisfied, ?), though I do not do good with specifics, that and I think I am somewhat of a fool. Well, I do not think, I know. So, while I am at it- I apologize for any foolishness on these boards in the past, present, and future. Being a fool is not good, in fact it is terrible- it is somewhat mindless depending on what type of fool you are. Life has been very hard on me. However, I know that I brought up my foolishness, though, please no one tell me that I am not a fool- I am not looking for sympathy. If you say anything tell me what a fool I am, !

Anyway, what I am thinking is the modern composers who use the orchestra seem to have an entirely different approach towards the orchestra- such as use of articulation. It seems to me that the use of articulation with modern composers is a completely different use than the way Beethoven, etc. used it? It almost like- true articulation- such as that used by the masters should not even exist to the modern composers? The reason why, I feel, is because it seems that they have no understanding (not that I do have an understanding) of how the masters used articulation? It seems, a modern composer could get by with the basic articulations. I am not saying they are not good at music, by any means, just that it is like the whole point of the orchestra is now misunderstood when compared to what it used to be centuries ago?

Also, is there one modern composer who has true understanding of theory and form. What I mean by “true understanding” is it seems to me now that Beethoven based all of his music around form and theory, and was he not one of the greatest musicians to ever live? Though, in modern times are there any modern composers who can write, reasonably, in the true classical style and not mimic it?

Anyway, I was just thinking about the way modern composers use the orchestra while I was listening to some of the music from LotR. Again, I am not saying the modern composers are not talented, but what has happened to a thorough knowledge of form, theory, and perhaps most of all the use of the orchestra? Does it exists anymore?

Also, for some reason I am convinced that Beethoven was not just a master of the classical style- now it is if I believe he was the classical style. Yes, Mozart and Haydn, etc. may have started to attempt to make the classical style- though, it seems to me (and perhaps I am completely wrong?) that while they attempted to master the classical style they came so far from it. While, on the other hand, Beethoven mastered every single theory, part, etc., etc., of the classical style. Therefore, to my mind, making Beethoven by far a complete master of form and theory- and the greatest of all composers of the classical style. So, by no means, as of now do I think Beethoven was the slightest bit a Romantic? I think he probably would have disagreed with the form and theory of the Romantics, though I do not know. Does that make sense? Also, please let me know what you think- it will help me to understand?

Thanks as always.

[Peter]

I have to say Preston I disagree with all your views on this. The orchestra has evolved a great deal since the classical period and there have been many great orchestrators - amongst the finest are Berlioz, Wagner, Richard Strauss, Elgar.
Beethoven was not the dry academic you suggest - he was actually not a very good student of counterpoint and theory as the many corrections in his studies with Albrechtsberger reveal. Like all great composers he knew the rules but broke them!!

You are also not right in suggesting that Haydn and Mozart were not masters of the classical style - they were! Beethoven expanded the form and took it to its limits, but that does not diminish the achievements of his predecessors.

[Preston]

I have to say Preston I disagree with all your views on this. The orchestra has evolved a great deal since the classical period and there have been many great orchestrators - amongst the finest are Berlioz, Wagner, Richard Strauss, Elgar.
Beethoven was not the dry academic you suggest - he was actually not a very good student of counterpoint and theory as the many corrections in his studies with Albrechtsberger reveal. Like all great composers he knew the rules but broke them!!

You are also not right in suggesting that Haydn and Mozart were not masters of the classical style - they were! Beethoven expanded the form and took it to its limits, but that does not diminish the achievements of his predecessors.

There has been some, well a lot, of confusion, as usual with understanding the orignal post, . I was not clear enough. Thank you Peter for replying and saving the post from the abyss!

I agree the orchestra has evolved a great deal for the better. I was talking about classical music, not the classical period, except when referring to Beethoven. So as for, Wagner, Strauss, and Elgar- I absolutely agree. I was talking about the present (should have used that term) day composers- such as, John Williams, Howard Shore, James Horner, etc.

I am not saying Beethoven was a dry academic, . I am saying that I believe he seemed to have an unimaginable knowledge of form and theory and that he took both very seriously. For instance, I have heard that the Grosse Fugue is as complex as music can be!!! Imagine the form and theory behind a piece of music that is as complex as music can be!?

Mozart and Haydn to my mind were masters in their own right of the classical style- though at the same time they did not master it as Beethoven did, at least it seems.

Does that make more sense? Please let me know what you think of the present day composers when concerning the classical musicians. I imagine you will not agree with me about Mozart and Haydn though, .

[Quijote]

I never realised the word "intellectual" could be such a poisoned barb. But my skin is far thicker than that. Besides, stinging nettles are - in French - but "mauvaises herbes" (= weeds, or literally, "bad grass"). Peter offers his usual satisfactory encapuslation of a subject which is the basis of many an undergraduate seminar course. I don't offer the McDonald "fast-food", low-fat version.

[Preston]

I never realised the word "intellectual" could be such a poisioned barb. But my skin is far thicker than that. Besides, stinging nettles are - in French - but "mauvaises herbes" (= weeds, or literally, "bad grass"). Peter offers his usual satisfactory encapuslation of a subject which is the basis of many an undergraduate seminar course. I don't offer the McDonald "fast-food", low-fat version.

Philip, would you please clarify in the common tongue, so that I (not others) can understand better?

I thought (that is only me though) that the questions were interesting and may be good for a discussion? Perhaps, I am completely wrong.

When I referred to your name in the original post- I was agreeing with you that a lot of my postings have been foolish (which I apologize to all for)- so, I meant what I said with kindness.

[Quijote]

I note the above post.

[Preston]

I note the above post.

Philip, I am quite confused about your 2 previous post. What do you note about the above post? And would you please explain to me your first post in this thread?

I think I now see some of what you are saying regarding the undergraduate thing and the cheap McDonalds? Though, could the questions in this thread not provide for light and enjoyable discussion?

[Quijote]

I hereby and henceforth abstain from this thread.

[Preston]

Philip, I asked you simple and basic questions- and you abstain from the thread. Why?

Though, I see you have abstained from the thread so you will probably not reply.

You somewhat speak in riddles to me. All I asked was that you clarify, and you will not.

[Peter]

There has been some, well a lot, of confusion, as usual with understanding the orignal post, . I was not clear enough. Thank you Peter for replying and saving the post from the abyss!

I agree the orchestra has evolved a great deal for the better. I was talking about classical music, not the classical period, except when referring to Beethoven. So as for, Wagner, Strauss, and Elgar- I absolutely agree. I was talking about the present (should have used that term) day composers- such as, John Williams, Howard Shore, James Horner, etc.

I am not saying Beethoven was a dry academic, . I am saying that I believe he seemed to have an unimaginable knowledge of form and theory and that he took both very seriously. For instance, I have heard that the Grosse Fugue is as complex as music can be!!! Imagine the form and theory behind a piece of music that is as complex as music can be!?

Mozart and Haydn to my mind were masters in their own right of the classical style- though at the same time they did not master it as Beethoven did, at least it seems.

Does that make more sense? Please let me know what you think of the present day composers when concerning the classical musicians. I imagine you will not agree with me about Mozart and Haydn though, .

The Grosse Fugue is complex, but so is the 40 part writing in Tallis's Spem in Alium or Bach's Art of Fugue - Beethoven was not the only composer with a mastery of counterpoint, nor necessarily the greatest.

No I cannot agree that Mozart and Haydn didn't achieve mastery - they did and their greatest works are as perfect in their own way as the greatest works of Beethoven.

Very little of the present composers interests me at all I'm afraid, maybe in 100 years time!

[Peter]

I never realised the word "intellectual" could be such a poisioned barb. But my skin is far thicker than that. Besides, stinging nettles are - in French - but "mauvaises herbes" (= weeds, or literally, "bad grass"). Peter offers his usual satisfactory encapuslation of a subject which is the basis of many an undergraduate seminar course. I don't offer the McDonald "fast-food", low-fat version.

Thank you Philip but I find concision more appropiate on forums such as these, waffle best suited to the lecture room!

[Quijote]

Thank you Philip but I find concision more appropiate on forums such as these, waffle best suited to the lecture room!

Waffle? When I studied orchestration it was a regular, 1.5-hour weekly tutorial over three terms. I loved it, though it remained a "paper exercise" around the lecturer's piano. We could never hear our work performed. One thing I mentioned to my lecturer at the time : we could have orchestrated some of the Satie 'Gymnopédies' and compared it directly with Debussy's efforts. Good suggestion, he said. Actually, he was a very good musician; good ears (in fact, very good ear), but lacking in imagination, and vehemently anti modern music.
Still, if you are able to condense such issues into a few lines for Preston's delectation, I salute you. My suggestion to Preston : listen, and read about it. The textbooks are there, and most quite good. Go for the Walter Piston and Gordon Jacob.

[Quijote]

I shall not return to this thread.

[Sorrano]

Philip's recommendations here will give you, Preston, some good background into the study of orchestration. Also, Alfred Blatter offers a pretty decent introduction to the instruments of the orchestra, as well.

[Preston]

My suggestion to Preston : listen, and read about it. The textbooks are there, and most quite good. Go for the Walter Piston and Gordon Jacob.

Now, that makes much more sense to me, .