|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
104.58.212.61
This is another one of those pieces about which you may justifiably wonder why it's not better known. No, it's not a major masterpiece, but it IS high quality music. It repays repeated listening, as the themes and Stanford's handling of them sink in and become familiar. I even found some of the themes playing in my head during the week after listening.
The only shortcoming is the ending. It seems that Stanford was going for consolation, but that's not quite the effect I get out of it.
Also - and very, very importantly - is that the thing doesn't end on the tonic. Instead, it stops on the leading tone. What the heck? Was there some uncorrected error in the score? Didn't conductor Hickox notice? It seems unlikely that a composer of Stanford's stripe - even in 1909 - would do something such as that.
As for the recording, it's in the echoic, distant Chandos vein. I really dislike that kind of sound. Live music never sounds that way - even from the lobby. On the plus side, the vocal soloists are solidly placed, and the organ is nicely audible. But, details such as the harp require effort to hear.
The choir is massive, and sounds that way. Later, after my first audition, I read the liner notes and found that the choir's about 200 strong. But - and it's a big but - it sounds as if they use nothing but boy sopranos. I really hate that. Of all of the annoying, irritating, provincial things about British culture, their adherance to the medieval, pseudo-homo use of pre-pubescent boys rather than women is the worse [eclipsing even their idiotic adding of the "r" sound to words ending in "a" - such as when they say 'AmericaR' or 'President ObamaR']. During the middle ages, women weren't allowed on stage in the theater, nor as singers in choirs - thus their use of young boys - 800 years ago. The fact that time has marched on seems to be lost on Her Majesty's empire.
Nevertheless, the music's enjoyable and worthwhile. So, thanks to Mr. Marks for bringing the music to our collective attention.
N. Thelman, SSI
Follow Ups:
This discussion has brought to the surface a number of very interesting points concerning late 19th century music generally, and Stanford specifically.
1. "...a number of modulations and chromatic wanderings - it's the late nineteenth century / early twentieth century style after all!)". That's what Chris wrote, and he's 100% correct. Having a talented proffesional around here such as he is so valuable.
The old school of music theorists and critics used to deplore the late Romantic period for exactly that kind of practice, but it seems never to have occured to any of those bushy-tailed, semi-communist haters that it was that precisely that kind of harmonic usage that made the music what it was. [Thankfully, most of those bitter old goats have died off, but there are still some of their like-minded stuadents around].
Imagine that if you removed all of those sophisticated harmonic twists out of the music of Bruckner, Wagner, Mahler, Alban Berg, Schoenberg [prior to atonality], Zemlinsky, Busoni, Scriabin, Holst, etc. etc. etc. etc. What would you have left?
Certainly not THEIR music. The harmonic adverturousness is in INTEGRAL part of the expression of the time.
----------BUT----------
2. HERE'S THE ESSENTIAL POINT to all of this.
Stanford seems to be known as a Brahms epigone. When Chandos first started releasing his symphonies back in the late 1980s- early 90s, all of the critics described him as a corn-cob conservative strictly in the Brahms mould. I've only briefly heard one of his symphonies, and it did actually sound Brahmsian, albeit, not quite as dry and conservative with 'rather a great deal more counterpoint' as one Fanfare critics dismissed it.
Still, I wouldn't have expected Stanford to have gone to the length he has in his Stabat Mater harmonically. Certainly, the ending is surprising coming from him. What all of that suggests is that our knowledge of Stanford needs to be expanded quite a bit before we may make summary judgements about him, as already the critics have. How'd he get from there [earlier phase] to here? Was the more advanced harmonic usage already there the whole time?
Even more, Stanford's harmonic scheme illustrates how pervasive chromatism was between approximately 1890 and 1920.
The decade from 1900-1909 was especially fecund, and saw the composition of Mahler's 6th and those which followed, and which saw Sibelius make a conscientious break from late Romanticism to his mature, 20th century style, to take only two examples.
That decade, and the one which followed, produced seminal work after seminal work [including The Rite of Spring], and great works from both greater and lesser composers. I regard it as the most artistically fertile period in history. That's saying a lot, and I know how naive that may sound, but the more you study those 20 to 30 years, the more you discover, and the more amazed you become. I'll be starting a new thread on the subject of 1900-1920 in the near future.
N. Thelman, SSI
Hoodwinked by a second-rate English composer on Saturday.
Validating Chris' points by Wednesday.
You've come quite a long way. ; )
. . . is that, often, one can't be 100% certain that a given analysis is even correct, especially the further one goes into the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The famous example of this is Wagner's "Tristan Chord" (highlighted below - from the Wikipedia article), which in itself does not form an actual chord (at least in terms of traditional structural harmony): what we hear as the "Tristan Chord" is actually a standard pre-dominant augmented sixth chord (the augmented sixth being the interval from the F-natural to the D-sharp), but with an appoggiatura (the G-sharp) which resolves to the actual chord tone at the very end of the bar - the A-natural - which passes by quickly (almost as if it were a passing tone rather than the actual chord tone!). (BTW, I don't agree with the part of the Wikipedia article that calls the G-sharp a suspension. If the G-sharp is a suspension, what's it suspended from?) It's the same with the following "chord" at the start of the third measure: the A-sharp. which seems to be part of the "chord", is just another appoggiatura, and the following B-natural is the resolution to the actual chord tone. That second chord thus becomes a familiar E7 chord, implying that the key is A-minor, although Wagner does not allow us to hear a resolution at this point. The "Tristan Chord" deceived many listeners, because it's held for so long that they thought it was an actual chord, rather than part of a chord, with that little eighth-note that follows being the actual component of it.
BTW, I apologize - I realize I'm not telling you anything you probably don't already know, but I wanted to make the point that harmonic analysis is not a cut and dried methodology by any means, and is often subject to different points of view (and arguments!).
Sure, many have encountered at least some analysis of the famous Tristan chord. It's sinewy influence - almost serpentine - on subsequent generations of composers and even other art forms [No Tristan - No Schoenberg - no exeggeration] can't be overstated. Lot's has been written about it, including lots of liner notes, which for many, have served as their sole exposure to analysis.
And yet, the post above has been presented in such an illuminating way.
In fact, your post right here is the kind of thing that this place needs. Personally, that one paragraph of yours is the best thing I've read all month.
This is exactly the kind of thing that opens up insights into the music - like shafts of light entering a cave - and in addition, illuminates the historic practice of the time. It even affects how we may proceed to view the latest, up-to-the-minute-mod-dude conclusions of the HIPs.
Most folks [at least those around here] haven't spent years of their short lives pouring over books of music analysis and history. But, if you have, then over and over and over and over you find, in books and articles, the condemnation of the practices of the Romantics for precisely the kinds of harmonic procedures that you've outlined. In the endless tomes produced during the 20th century, the attitude veers from hostility to flat out war-like aggression and anger aimed at Romantic composers - ALL OF WHOM - ironically, created the most popular music in the literature of classical music.
Armed with one's own insightful analysis, such as yours above, it's easy to see how the hostile musicologists came to their source of irritation. None of the music of the Romantic period fits the classical era forms to which the Romantics clung. The sonata had to be stretched, and as we say today - morphed - to accomodate the Romantic style of expression.
Indeed, musicologists have even developed a new model with which to grapple with the harmonic procedures of the late Romantics: SONATA DEFORMATION, or the distorted sonata form.
The old school scholars and critcs - all of them, to a man - with out a SINGLE EXCEPTION - concluded that the Romantics had corrupted music with their unruly practices, and thus that their music was pretty much worthless.
Thankfully, audiences don't read much music analysis, and blissfully continue to love Tchaikovsky, Brahms [yep - even he suffered some "corruption"], Berlioz, Mahler, Strauss, Wagner, Dvorak, Sibelius, etc., etc.
It's staggering to consider that nobody's ever challenged that academic view. EXCEPT ME.
It's so simple. Of course, the old sonata form had been changed by the Romantics. And - this is the bombshell right here----> >
IT IS ABSOLUTELY 100% VALID IN IT'S THEN NEW, ROMANTIC TRANSFORMATION.
The application of powdered-wig, aristocracy-ruled-society-with-zero-human-rights, Haydn/Mozart-era-music rules was now OBSOLETE. NULL AND VOID.
The orderly movement from tonic to dominant, with clever and witty accouterments along the way, was no longer RELEVANT. No longer applicable. The walls had long ago been shattered. The Romantic symphony was a new invention; partly based on the old, but filled with its own bolder, newer harmonic adventure and mode of expression.
Thus, the constant and constantly growing harmonic restlessness and wandering that increased as the 19th century progressed was, in fact, progress towards the goal of ever greater self-expression; NOT evidence of corruption and ineptitude.
Ralph Vaughan-Williams speaks more deeply to me than Mendelssohn, and Mendelssohn more deeply than any single note of Mozart. They speak more immediately and deeply because their expression reaches a deeper and more personal level than the formal, solid and stolid rule-abiding style of the classicists. And, millions of listeners feel the same way.
Your analysis [which, BTW, is, as you've said, nothing we haven't seen before - but very clearly laid out] demonstrates with crystal clarity why the old rules of analysis no longer apply, and were no longer relevant to a bold new style of expression. Rather than accepting and understanding that, the academics and professional analysts stubbornly insisted on applying Mozart-era standards to a new age.
Oh, and they haven't completely stopped. Although much of the modernist/serialist-fueled hatred toward late Romanticism has faded somewhat, it still persists. I often wish I could throttle some of those bozos in person.
N. Thelman, SSI
concluded that the Romantics had corrupted music...."You go on:
"It's staggering to consider that nobody's ever challenged that academic view. EXCEPT ME."
Wow. Saviour of the art world!
It's a rookie move to assume that Romantic composers' premieres received only hostile reviews/critiques. It's like claiming that Furtwangler never sped up the music he conducted.
Moreover--and deliciously-ironic--is that the conservative, and/or negative critics of the times were more concerned with the immorality associated with Romantic Art; not necessarily the music itself. You also neglect to consider critics who changed their personal views over the years or even months.
Took about 5 minutes to find three examples which are contrary to your claims:
On Wagner's Tristan in London: "Of all the articles to come out of the period leading up to the premiere, the one that stands out as the most overwhelmingly positive is 'Tristan and Isolde An Analysis of Richard Wagner's Music-Drama" by Frederick Corder." It was published in the Musical Times and Singing Class Circular on 1 March 1882."
On Strauss Salome premier in NYC: "STRAUSS'S "SALOME" THE FIRST TIME HERE; A Remarkable Performance at the Metropolitan. MME. FREMSTAD AS SALOME Superb Impersonations by Messrs. Burrian and Van Rooy -- Alfred Hertz Wins New Laurels. -- New York Times 23 Jan 1907"
On Mahler's 1st: "Mahler conducted this fourth performance [of his 1st Symphony] on 16th March 1896 in Berlin. The composer and music critic Ernst Otto Nodnagel, approved of these major revisions which addressed previous criticisms he had raised in his review of the 2nd performance (published in the Berliner Tageblatt and Magazin für Litteratur), regarding the confusing programme notes and the "Trivial" 'Blumine' movement. He wrote that the latest version of the work received "lively approval, even from part of the hostile press."
Edits: 10/29/15
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
There you go again, getting the whole thing WRONG.
You've COMPLETELY missed my point.
That's NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT what I was talking about.
How can you keep being WRONG every time?
'Scuse me, but I didn't say ONE WORD about "Romantic composers' premieres"? Where'd you git that from?
> > It's a rookie move to assume that Romantic composers' premieres received only hostile reviews. < <
You're so intent on catching me making some kind of error, that you're tripping over yourself shooting at me. I didn't say ONE WORD about 19th century premiers. I wasn't referring to critical - or audience - reception at premiers, or during the composer's lifetime, or during the 19th century at all. In my post, all of the words and paragraphs above the sentence you've quoted and after CLEARLY discuss 20th century scholarly and critical analysis of 19th century music. You have to be DENSE not to understand that.
In fact, delving into actual 19th century history is just that - serious assed historical research. A little bit of internet clipping doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. That's why there're such things as whole university-level historical research departments employing professional musicologists and professional historials who engage in such research. I actually have a bit of training in that sort of thing, so I know the what a monumental task it is.
Be that as it may, what I was talking about was the 20th century attitude on the part of musicologists and critics toward the 19th century, particularly after WWII. If you'd actually read my posts, rather than just skimming and picking out a sentence or phrase as you seem to usually do [and actually, I doubt that you're even reading this far right here], then you'd have seen that I took pains to specify 20th century writings. Here's an example:
"In the endless tomes produced during the 20th century, the attitude veers from hostility to flat out war-like aggression and anger aimed at Romantic composers - "
See that?? See that???? "..during the 20th century...".
'Ja git that part? TWENTIETH CENTURY. Git it?
That'd be the century starting with a 19xx, NOT 18xx. We're in the 21st century now, by the way, and the numbers start with 20xx, as in "2015". You may have to think about that for a while.
I also said "Most folks [at least those around here] haven't spent years of their short lives pouring over books of music analysis and history...".
That was my way of saying that I've done exactly that. Having done all of that, I can tell you that, over and over, book after book, article after article, one finds nothing but, well, hostility towards anything after Beethoven and prior to hardcore serialism - FROM 20th CENTURY ANALSYTS [jeez]. The more snippy musicologists don't even regard Schoenberg's atonal phase as anything much more than extreme, hyper-late-Romantic chromatism. That's how viscious those bozos were. And, there're plenty of them still around in academia today, just as there're plenty of neo-commies [and dried-up, bitter ancient commies] hanging around.
But, you managed to miss my point entirely. By a solar mile. Are you still reading this far? Concentrate now - focus, dude, focus.
What I was talking about was how 20th century musicologists analyzed the use of sonata forms during the 19th century, especially the late Romatic period. Even today, they savage it. The reason is that 19th century composers had to twist, turn, expand, and METAMORPHOSE the form to make it work for them. I said all of that SPECIFICALLY.
How'd you miss it?
Go back and re-read my post. OTOH, don't. Don't bother. It won't sink in. You seem to suffer from poor reading comprehension and/or limited attention span. Seriously. I'm not just taking a shot at you here. It's been a pattern. You seem to just land on one sentence or another in a post, and you go crazy with that. It may sound uncivil - some have warned me about it, but the evidence is becoming really clear. I think you've got some sort of - trying to be polite here - cognitive deficit. Not my problemo, but it affects me when you use your personal issues to try to disparage me and what I post.
N. Thelman, SSI
What do you mean by that?You're elevating one group of critics (the enemy) by ignoring their more prescient and insightful peers in order to fancy yourself the savior of Romantic/post-Romantic Art?
That's sick.
There are--and were--plenty of "academics" who are and were quite fond and supportive of artists of those eras.*
And there were plenty of critics who weren't.
And there were some critics who evolved over their lifetimes.
*Based upon your previous behavior, you were worth three examples this morning.
Edits: 10/29/15
Limited. It really is. Don't feel diminished. You can't, and don't have to know everything.
I know this stuff cause I canvassed and read it since 1972. I can see just from your posts that you don't have knowledge in this particular corner. Your errors range from being a bit off base to way off base. I'm too tired to type up a full response, but just quickly:
> > ignoring their more prescient and insightful peers in order to fancy yourself the savior of Romantic/post-Romantic Art? < <
Not doing that. Those "prescient" peers - during what? The latter 20th cent? Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how hard the serialist/modernists ruled and how comprehensive their influence was?
There's no point in belaboring this point with me. The published record is all there, in tons of books and articles which they produced.
> > There are--and were--plenty of "academics" who are and were quite fond and supportive of artists of those eras.* < <
Off of the point again. Yes, there always were devoted supporters of composers. That's NOT what I was talking about. READ MY STINKING POSTS ALL THE WAY THROUGH. I've had to make my same point about the 5th time to you already. I was talking about the way the musicologists/academics/critics took apart the Romantic sonata. And, from that disembowelment, the proceeded to disparage the composers and eventually the whole period. Go back a read my post. If you still have questions, ask.
Done with typing for tonight.
N. Thelman, SSI
Yes, Serialism (though you realize there's more to modernism than Serialism?) was all the rage for awhile, but: are you saying that *no one* has ever challenged their alleged negative attitudes toward the Romantic era? Ever? Except you?What do you really know about these people? Psst: sometimes they've even challenged themselves! And, darn it, even before you got the chance to set them straight.
For example:
Did you know Milton Babbit loved cheesy musical theater? And even wrote a broadway show?
Did you know that Boulez listens to Tchaikovsky for...pleasure??? OMG!!!!
Stravinsky, who hailed Eliot Carter's "thorny" Piano Concerto a masterpiece and later wrote in the "modernist" style himself, said that there's still plenty of good music to be written in C Major, which brings me to my point:
"Modernists" don't hate the Romantic style, they simply hate poor, warmed-over, derivative re-hashings of said style.
Tell us: which Academic held a gun to Barber's or Rachmaninoff's head and forbade them to write?
Did you know that those evil "modernist academics" voted to give Samuel Barber the Pulitzer prize at the height of you so-called war? Twice! (For his "old school" piano concerto and opera, Vanessa.) These are things that a poseur simply can't know.
You've put together nothing but a patchwork knowledge to serve your own ego and conspiracy theories. Your posts are nothing but gross generalizations, betraying your extreme discomfort with the genre. Every time you venture beyond simple rote memorization/recall to synthesis, your posts devolve into pure sophistry.This typical combination of cluelessness, condescension and ego is precisely why you're such a laughing stock. History--and the people in it--are far more complex than you seem to care to know.
Edits: 10/30/15
Here we go again. This is getting tiresome. I feel as tho I'm lecturing a mentally deficient child, going over the SAME STINKING POINTS, over and over and over and over again.
> > You said, "EXCEPT ME." (Your caps.) Really? Except you? < <
Yes, really. I fully aware of how ridiculous it sounds, and I've typed it out a bit tongue-in-cheek, but to anyone fluent in musicological studies [which you are NOT - demonstrably], no one's put forward my idea in the 45 years that I've been reading and studying this stuff. Frankly, I'm discouraged and disgusted that a world full of bright people hasn't produced someone who could have done so, but the reason lays in the nature of academic research and the politics involved. That, however, is another topic for another time.
> > ...are you saying that *no one* has ever challenged their alleged negative attitudes toward the Romantic era? Ever? Except you? < <
NOPE. I DIDN'T SAY THAT. Never said that. Re-read my posts. Either your trying to construct a straw man in order to knock down, or it's your mental deficiency and lack of reading comprehension showing again. Maybe you should seek medical help.
> > Did you know that Boulez listens to Tchaikovsky for...pleasure? < <
> > Did you know that those evil "modernist academics" voted to give Samuel Barber the Pulitzer prize at the height of you so-called war? Twice! < <
For the Nth time [jeez, you're dense] - I'M TALKING ABOUT MUSICOLOGISTS! ANALYSTS! NOT COMPOSERS.
Did that sentence sink in at all. Jiminy? Probably not. Probably just flew right over that dim skull of yours. Can you even discern the difference?
> > your posts devolve into pure sophistry. \ < <
Sophistry? Huh? Let's see. If it's something you don't understand, and on evidence of all of your posts that seems to include pretty much everthing, if it's something you can't grasp - it's sophistry. Hmmm. How do you feel about nuclear physics? "Sophistry"? Nevermind.
Do yourself a favor and get smarter, rather than raving and hollering in ignorance. Go read Prof. Julian Horton's article linked to my Sonata Deformation post. That may at least get you started in the right direction.
N. Thelman, SSI
> Did you know that Boulez listens to Tchaikovsky for...pleasure? <
> > For the Nth time [jeez, you're dense] - I'M TALKING ABOUT MUSICOLOGISTS! ANALYSTS! NOT COMPOSERS. < <
> > > Sigh. Boulez is a musicologist and an analyst, as well as a composer. < < <
> your posts devolve into pure sophistry. <
> > Sophistry? Huh?> >
> > > See Boulez comments above. < < <
Simply denying historical events doesn't mean that they didn't occur.
You're denying actual history. That you're unaware of it's not surprising. Most people don't know musicological history, and frankly, we're better off for it.
What's unfortunate is that rather than learning, you're NOT learning. You're doing he opposite. Not only are you yelling your brains out that the musicological history of which you're ignorant never occurred, but your using that to blast AD HOMINEM attacks on me.
It's sad how you turn EVERY SINGLE learning opportunity into an opportunity to fight instead. Not only that, but every time you've posted something -- IT'S WRONG!! What do we can people such as that? Hmm, let's see? Ignoramus comes to mind, but I'm sure that there're better terms.
DO THIS--> > GO TO MY DEFORMED SONATA THREAD
CLICK ON THE ATTACHED ARTICLE
READ IT
Assuming that you possess normal or better IQ, that should get you on the road to being musically informed. Maybe then you can stop yelling your head off like an ignoramus.
N. Thelman, SSI
Jiminy Daniels has descended into doing nothing but hurling insults at me.
There's no more constructive or instructive dialog taking place here.
I have no wish to entertain or encourage a truculent troll. Therefore, I shall no longer post or reply in this thread, and I urge the moderator to use the option to freeze this thread to future posts.
Thank you.
N. Thelman, SSI
Please, anyone in the Newian camp--his fellow connoisseurs, etc.-- don't help, thanks. He's be so insulted; I'm sure he couldn't live with himself.
Edits: 10/31/15
Seriously, no problem. Did my time with the Tristan chord but it's always fun to take another look.
Crude, tasteless, profanity. So original. Nobody IN THE WORLD does that sort of thing these days, right? Have you considered coaching or even providing gangster rappers with lyrics? I'm sure they've never, EVER even thought about using sexual obscenities.
You're the only one, and you just so plumb pleased with yourself. Just so darn---witty. Clever. Why, crude sex references and even outright graphic sex act descriptions just never, ever, ever occur anywhere in the world today - not even nearly every issue of Stereophile, much less mainstream magazines by the score, tweets, etc.
You are an original. Singular. Unique. You might even get a Nobel Prize nomination. Sky's the limit for a mind such as yours.
**
What a twit. A profane, wrong-way-Jackson twit. Gets everything wrong, even off-the-cuff throw away posts. Soon, I may post a catalog of errors. There'd be a lot of typing, however, so I'm not inclined to hurry.
N. Thelman, SSI
King Marke discovers Tristan having sex with his wife in Act 2. Wagner defers the Tonic right at the "point of no return." The cadence is completed, finally, at the very end of the opera, after Tristan is dead.
It's a famous moment with which any freshman music student would be familiar, and very relevant to our discussion.
I Stand Corrected
You're right. Very good analogy there. Excellent.
I just completely missed it.
However, you'd have made incalculably more impact if you had chosen a less sophomoric, hormonal-15-year-old-snot-nose type head mast. Try something normal; a witty but non-screaming head mast is much better. Shows active brain function and intelligence, rather than drug use and atrophy.
See how easy that is, Jiminy? When you're wrong, just admit that you're wrong. Learn from your mistake. Learning is better than unhinging your jaw and running your mouth. Someday, even you may come to understand that.
N. Thelman, SSI
...rolls her eyes and screams, "oh brother," it's not because she just read one of your narcissistic posts!*
Anyway, your heros, which I happen to like too:
Read the actual text behind Sibelius' Kullervo, or Mendelssohn's Mid-Summer Night's Dream. Eyebrow-raising stuff about Summer that Shakespeare wrote.
Mahler's 8th Symphony, a fusion of the Sacred and Secular--big no no.
I think you get the idea about Wagner, LOL.
Then, of course, Stravinsky's Rite--a ritual murder of a teenaged virgin. No immorality there.
Firebird? Busoni's Faust? Berlioz Fantastique? The occult. OOOOooooh.
Ravel's Daphnis, soft-core porn.
Which Newey are you today? It's hard to tell from one post to the next.
*(Is that lively discussion, or a below the belt retort? I don't know.)
The content of your post was excellent. It was the subject line head mast that was juvenile and unnesessary.
I don't feel like typing more about it.
N. Thelman, SSI
beyond cut and paste. It's because you've spent a lifetime putting symbol before sound; obsessing with symbol over sound.
For example: How can you even begin to discuss or appreciate the Tristan chord without being familiar with the music? Without even knowing the story?
g
N. Thelman, SSI
by composers to suggest a state of uncertainty, transmutation, or a sense of infinity.
The OP has been here before over the years, using other monikers, though perhaps some of those old posts have been deleted. I think you get my drift, so I won't bother resolving this post on the tonic. ;-)
I'd like to express my delight at the level of discussion found here today. This is what I'd hoped to have found when I was participating here back some 10-15 years ago.
Back then, what I found instead was a vast ocean of musical ignorance, and stubbornly entrenched adherence to opinions formed out of that ignorance. Things deteriorated from there, which led the rancor to which Rob Law and others have referred.
I hasten to add that I wasn't the bad guy. I merely couldn't tolerate ignorance about music and opinions blasted out into cyberspace based on that ignorance as if they were fact. Also, at times, I also wasn't exactly pleased when someone disagreed with me [but only when I knew that I was 100% correct].
OTOH, there were several characters who simply attacked others with no cause. I sure as hell wasn't going to back down from some rage-a-holic looking to take out his BS frustration and aggression on the internet.
So far, only JDaniels has shown a predisposition towards attacking me without cause. I've held back from responding as the situation deserves to avoid being banned right away, but also because he's recently shown some fluency in harmonic analysis, which is generally a rare thing these days.
Unfortunately, he's also shown a regretful tendency to be wrong, either slightly off-center wrong or way-the-hell-out-in-left-field wrong, about everything else, so I'll have to apply corrective measures as needed.
I'm hoping that, given the possibly higher level of discussion now possible, we may avoid any repetition of past unpleasantness.
*****
N. Thelman, SSI
For my part, I'll cheerfully apologize for any hostility in my comments in this thread, my intent was not to "attack" you, and I don't think I have attacked you in previous years either. In fact, this thread reminded me of an interesting passage in a Charles Rosen book that I have now dug out:
"The history of progress in music runs from the composer who thinks wrong notes are funny, as in the polytonal cadences and the whole-tone scale in Mozart's Musical Joke, to composers like Debussy who employ them seriously."
The evolution of harmony in Western music is a fascinating topic. However, one's perception of harmony, or music generally, is a deeply personal and sensitive thing (Rosen, for one, well understands this). Labeling people ignorant or wrong not only is not useful, when applied in topics like this it is more often than not itself wrong, and, more importantly, insensitive.
I am not a moderator or Bored member (and don't worry, you won't receive any more lectures from me), but I think if you keep this in mind, you won't find yourself banned and your posts deleted.
psychological point.... ; )
No question about it - you're a giant in you own mind.
Funny thing though. I've barely noticed your annoying fruit fly posts; but, now I've and read them, and they're such a sad - but aforementioned, flying pest annoying - bid for attention; like that of a dumb little kid continually interrupting the adults engaged in conversation with irritating antics.
One could feel sorry for you - but---hmmmm-----I don't.
N. Thelman, SSI
Classic ad hominem.
Not the behaviour of someone who is confident in his claims/arguments.
> > "Fruit fly posts" Effeminization of discretion and good taste; < <
> > Classic ad hominem. Not the behaviour of someone who is confident in his claims/arguments. < <
WHAT AD HOMINEM attack?????????????
Listen, homeboy. If I want to attack you, I'll come at you with full force. You'll know it; no question about it, no secret codey weasel words.
Das how I roll -- you feel me -- Homes?
What part of my post was some feminized ad hominem attack? Fly? Insect? The image of an flying insect - the common fly being the most common type - harrassing a human, or any large animal further up the food chain - has been used as a metaphor for trivial irritants since the DAWN OF HUMANITY!!!
Fruit flies, and all flies, as with most animals on the planet, come in male and female pairs. How is using a flying insect analogy "effeminization"??????? Are insects now considered to be all females???
If so, I've got a rude awakening for you, Jiminy. Cockroaches reproduce in the billions. They can only do that with male and female pairs.
Is this all news to you? Is basic biology something unknown to you? Are you even aware of the addage "...the birds and the bees..."?
Jeez, this place sure attracts a lot of abberant types. Insects = feminization. Unbelievable.
Apparently, to YOU, a fruit fly means something else. If so, whatever the **k it means, it's local to your little circle of whomever you call your associates. I can assure you that I used the analogy to indicate a flying, buzzing, trivial irritant -----NOT SOMETHING ELSE -- whatever YOU may think it may be.
********************BUT*******************
That's not the end of the story. We're not done yet.
YOU - the apparent innocent, pure-as-driven-snow victum of insect insults, actually fired the first shot of a REAL ad hominem attack, and you did it in a greasy loser kind of way, when you weakly tried to deflect away the attention from your lack of grasp of Beethoven's cannon by alleging that I collect boxed sets, and as such, I was a neophite.
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/music/messages/21/217375.html
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or - does that also have some other weird ad hominem meaning for you?
N. Thelman, SSI
Jeez. I used to run into EXACTLY this sort of this 10 years ago, when this place was filled with music dummies. Yes - dummies. There's no better word for them. Those folks just weren't educated musically. But, each and every one of them had stubbornly held opinions. They'd read a crap load of liner notes, jumped to conclusions on the basis of that, and filled in the yawning gaps in their knowledge with crap they made up.
I'd post something, such as what I've posted above, and I'd get exactly JDaniels's sort of loud, raging response - 100% missing my point or just being 100% wrong.
After I'd explain the whole error to them, they'd respond with even MORE rage and stubborn insistence on their untenable and erroneous positions. There was one enormously lengthy thread where I'd corrected a rock n roller about his erroneous attempts at harmonic analysis. I gave him the correct answer. For weeks, he shot back post after increasingly hysterical, angry post desperately trying to assert his erroneous ideas and save face.
One particular handful was called Rob. He was from Amsterdam. You couldn't convince him of anything, no matter how wrong he was [which he was most of the time]. I understand that he eventually killed himself. No - I didn't lead him to it.
N. Thelman, SSI
Is Beethoven's 4th more popular or recognizable than his 5th? No.
Is his 8th more popular than his 5th? No.
Is his 2nd? No.
Do composers sometimes defer the tonic or weaken the final cadence in order to make a psychological point? Yes.
Are there Academics who are supportive of the Romantic/post-Romantic era? Yes.
Have there always been? Yes.
Are my retorts indicative of a vast and knowledge of--and comfort with--the genre? Yes.
Any disagreement?
> > Is Beethoven's 4th more popular or recognizable than his 5th? No.
Is his 8th more popular than his 5th? No.
Is his 2nd? No. < <
Reply: Less popular? Arguably. Less well known to the classical listener? NO. You're equating popularity with familiarity. And, even then, really, the whole Nine are so popular - TO CLASSICAL LISTENERS, not motorcycle driving Jesse James - that's it's absurd to make much distinction. They're not "less well known" to the classical music listening audience. It's less well known, if known at all, to the typical Red Bull guzzling millenial. But, they're outside the focus of your thread, as they should be.
You could've saved yourself a world of trouble if you said "Let's listen to the slightly less popular members of the Beethoven Nine". That'd have shown that you knew what you were talking about, and had something interesting to add to our appreciation.
See the difference?
> > Do composers sometimes defer the tonic or weaken the final cadence in order to make a psychological point? Yes. < <
Reply: no argument there. Spot on, and a very good point. Of course [and yet again], that wasn't the point I was making. My point was that a conservative such as Stanford would be unlikely not to resolve to the tonic chord, as it was the last and final chord and note of a huge composition. And, he didn't use some other, more typical method of avoiding the tonic, had he been so inclined. BTW, even the late Romantics who did avoid a V-I cadences [or any approach to tonic resolution] might steadfastly did so through out a given work, but then provided the final tonic close. Either listen to the Sibelius 5th, or have a look at the score. He assiduously avoided any tonic cadences - until that genius last chord. Genius.
With clarification from all of the other participants in the thread, I now have a better understanding of Stanfords ending, but it still sounds to me like one chord to go to get to the tonic kind of ending.
> > Are there Academics who are supportive of the Romantic/post-Romantic era? Yes. < <
Reply: Today, maybe a few more, especially among the critics. Sure, they're writing in Fanfare and ARG. But, I'm not referring to them at all.
> > Have there always been? Yes. < <
Reply: very few, but the more powerful and published [same thing in the academe] - NO. Just take a look at the old editions of Groves. Or, pick up Aaron Copland's book about music for the general reader. There's tons and tons of material. You're not familiar with it and really out of your depth with this particular topic. There's nothing to be gained in continued retorts with me, since you just don't have knowlegde in this area. You can't hide it from me - I'm very well versed in it. It's OK. You don't have to know everything - and no one expects you to. I suggest that you use my posts as a springboard to learning more about the issues if you're at all interested, rather than wasting my time and yours in endless and unconstructive retorts. At some point, those grow tiresome, and totally unproductive.
> Are my retorts indicative of a vast and knowledge of--and comfort with--the genre? Yes. < <
Reply: some are and some aren't, but they sure are indicative that my ego's way, way larger than yours.
> > Any disagreement? < <
Reply: those could continue for hours. Tired of typing right now. Blinking out for the night.
N. Thelman, SSI
,
d
N. Thelman, SSI
That's what I mean when I say that you're trying too hard impress.
I doing what comes naturally to me. I think about music all the time. Tons of ideas. I should write a book.
N. Thelman, SSI
. . . POOF! - This whole thread will become just a distant memory. (And I'd be sorry to lose some of the contributions in it.)
As an official from the Thought Police here, I'm willing to let a number of things slide, but these attacks are just too frequent and heavy handed - so lay off the ad hominem posts please.
I really regret that you've been placed in this position, and that I've played a role in it. Let me assure you at the outset that I had no idea that my use of an insect analogy had any meaning other than trivial irritation, for which the same analogy has been used for countless millennia. Apparently, it's acquired some other code meaning for JDaniels.
But, that code meaning isn't universally known. Nor do I think that anyone participating here must be automatically knowledgeable of every local slang expression. If that were the case, then nothing could be posted without fear of offending someone, and we'd all be communicating in some incomprehensibly crude subculture patios.
The contributions in this thread have been by and large informative, interesting, and they've enlarged our knowledge and appreciation of music. At least that's been my experience. I find discussions of this type to be very appealing and satisfying.
Let me also point out that Mr. Daniels has also contributed at least one positive, informative post. However, most of his contributions have either been some juvenile attempt to irritate me, or far far worse, they've been sad attempts to grab some attention. Note the childish use of screaming head masts:
> > Well, that explains the sexual anxiety. nt < <
> > Coitus Interruptus Dammitus! I forgot about Tristan, the most famous tonic-tease of all time < <
> > "The old school scholars and critics (sic) - all of them, to a man - with out a SINGLE EXCEPTION < <
> > It's cool; I've been riding him a bit hard. And he's right, no composer has ever delayed a tonic to make a < <
and, of course:
> > "Fruit fly posts" Effeminization of discretion and good taste; let it stand. < <
One can't help but form an image of some poor kid jumping up and down, feverishly waving his arms, shouting "ME ME ME". To no small degree, he's been disruptive, rather than constructive.
I don't see why I should be held accountable for someone else's attempts to provoke me, and someone else's bad behavior. However, as the grown up in the room so to speak, I'll attempt to curtail some of my impulses to respond in kind in the future. I'll take your warning and I hope that we won't have future discussions of this sort. Let me thank you for being patient and putting up with all of this childishness emanating from grown men.
N. Thelman, SSI
I thought I recognized that tone of voice. Perhaps the initials "SSI" should have been a clue.
Happy listening,
Jim
"The passage of my life is measured out in shirts."
- Brian Eno
g
N. Thelman, SSI
Let's start by never telling anyone "You Have NO Idea What You're Talking About". Ok?
Happy listening,
Jim
"The passage of my life is measured out in shirts."
- Brian Eno
Stick to crap you understand, such as "lesser known" whatever.
With that post, you've demonstrated that you're not worth my time or attention.
N. Thelman, SSI
Newey said "With that post, you've demonstrated that you're not worth my time or attention"
He sounds like a nice friendly guy!!!???
I am, actually.
But Jiminy Daniels drew first blood, after I corrected his errors concerning Beethoven symphonies. He kept shooting off his mouth like a little kid, even after I warned him, and pointed out some more of his music errors.
Now, he's lurking around and taking shots at anything that I post - again, like some bad little boy, trying to get some attention.
N. Thelman, SSI
the tonic G, which can be disorienting to diatonically-oriented ears. Perhaps that's why you didn't think the piece ended very decisively. In Mixolydian and other modes BTW, the "leading tone" (or 7th note) is best called the subtonic.
The final alternating chords are F/Bb/D (connected by E, F) and landing on G/B natural/D. So your claim that the piece ends on the leading tone simply is incorrect. It ends on the tonic "G".
Something of substance, rather that the hitting slump of errors you were posting, day after day.
As I've mentioned under Chris Lafayette's post, I going through and seeing if your analysis works out.
However it goes, the outstanding fact is that Stanford did something such as this, even [and I said initially], in 1909. It tells us a lot about the musical climate of the day.
N. Thelman, SSI
Exactly two people bothered to take the time to help you out.
Do wonder why that is?
. . . in which case, the B-natural in the final (G-major) chord sounds like the leading tone to him? Speaking for myself, I hear it modally (with that aforementioned B-flat in the earlier measure giving it a touch of chromatic complexity) just as you do.
I can sing what I hear should actually be the final tonic note, one which the tonic chord would be built. I'm not sure if I'm experiencing C, although that's one explaination.
But, the point is that:
1. Stanford has masterfully succeeded in creating an ending that really does end on the tonic, but sounds as if it's away from the tonic. Not lost blundering in a far away key, in the home key, just not on the first note and chord of the scale.
The way he prepares all of that's genius. Not to take a sophomoric swipe at another work, but it makes Strauss's ending to Zarathustra seem simplistic.
Thanks to Chris -and- grudgingly but with confirmation - to JDaniels; both for revealing and helping to unveil the harmonic structure of this marvelous musical experience.
N. Thelman, SSI
.
If the OP wants to check it out, my link to the vocal score is further below.
Actually, as I look at the final chords (starting 10 bars before the end), I'm seeing G maj - B-flat major (8 before the end) - E-dim (maybe you could say C 4/3, but without the root!) - F major (second half of the bar, seven before the end) - G major (last six bars). It certainly has a mixolydian cast to it, but that B-flat IMHO gives it more complexity than pure mixolydian.
As we both suggest, it's a very vulnerable, beautiful effect - Stanford certainly had his moments!
I agree that it doens't really sound mixolydian. I'm going through the thing, following your analysis, to see if I can connect it up that way.
N. Thelman, SSI
Yes, the Bb adds a nice flavour. Too bad Stanford didn't dabble in modes more often. But VW certainly took up the slack.
Was listening to Boult's first mono performance of VW's Sea Symphony and man, does the music take off. Incredible mono sound as well.
I recorded the Chorus of Westerly's rehearsal of it in the RC Cathedral in Providence, before 2001.
Scott Markwell said it was one of the best orchestral recordings he had ever heard.
Dunno 'bout "best," but the scoring of the Prelude sure is grandiose!
The spirit of Wagner hovers over it, methinks...
OK, Class: Discuss and or refute!
JM
Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)
.
g
N. Thelman, SSI
.
. . . for instructors in high school. They're probably very unhappy with their results in my case. ;-)
I'd be proud to tell you. But, things appear to be heating up here, and it's probably not the best idea to do so at the moment.
In the future, I shall.
N. Thelman, SSI
If you don't remember this guy, Chris, ask your fellow Bored members about him. ;-)
Did you happen to find something offensive or objectionable in my head post in this thread? Are you insulted by the discussion of Late Romantic harmony? Or, choir sonorities? The sound of Chandos? Or, is it Stanford who you find to be intollerable as a subject of music discussion?
Have you found anyone else coming up with such thought provoking ideas on music as I?
So, what's the problem?
Did I insult you at some time 10, 15 years ago? Long time to carry a grudge. I, OTOH, hold no rancor towards you, and, looking over the last 3 or 4 current pages, find you to be a great guy with interesting ideas. At least so far. Who knows what you may suddenly metamorphose into, Mr. Law.
N. Thelman, SSI
But that's just me.
Link below:
NOT implying they are the same person.
Romy is in a class all his own. Hear tell he's even mellowed a bit.
The trouble with these types is that as amusing as they may be in the short run, they soon become a tiresome series of variations on one note. Of course, that one note is loud and discordant.
Thank you for the insults about my accent and country. I have never felt a reciprocal need to make any comment about that of Americans even though your countrymen are generally unable to say all of the syllables in "mirror" or make the phrase "I couldn't care less" meaningless by rendering it as "I could care less" (work it out).Of course Stanford was British (by birth) so your comment is as fatuous as complaining about singers of Verdi using an Italian accent.
Edits: 10/25/15
Actually, like many Americans, I find many British accents to be really wonderful. They automatically make the impression of intelligence, erudition, and so on.
Not all, of course. Cockney sounds awful, and grates like nails on a chalkboard.
But, boy sopranos are a musical issue. And, that I just can't stand.
N. Thelman, SSI
.
When he started the Tallis Scholars, Peter Phillips had no idea whether they would be successful, but, if he were given the choice to travel the world with prepubescent boys or with grown women, he'd take the grown women...
When I met him I told him that I hoped he would not mind if I told him that my favorite TTS CD was one of the most obscure. He brightened up a bit and asked which one, and when I told him Isaac's Missa de Apostolis, he exclaimed, "One of my favorites!"
Of course, that could be just his being a smart cookie.
BTW, you missed my favowite cringe-inducing Brit musical tic:
"Father, Son, and Holy Ghosse..."
ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!
ATB,
john
Edits: 10/26/15
First, the father, son and the holy goat
Then, the father son and the holy spigot
My wife thought she was going to lose me when we first saw that together in a theatre
From time to time I, totally involuntarily, come forth with Soppnerisms.
Oops, I really meant to type Spoonerisms.
Years ago I was at a reception for newly-arrived grad students and professional students and when asked what my undergraduate major had been, I started by saying that I entered Brown as a French Literature major, and then humblebragged "and to this day, I can remember Frenches of Snatch poetry."
In the stunned silence that followed, I blushingly assured one and all that I could never come up with something like that, even if I tried.
I also introduced a girlfriend to the parents of a friend of mine, calling her "Dana, the bed breaker" instead of "Dana, the bread baker."
There have been others.
jm
g
N. Thelman, SSI
r
N. Thelman, SSI
The introit (Requiem aeternam) starts in A major and the final movement (Lux aeterna) ends in A major. Sounds as if what you heard must have been an editing mistake? Or were you listening on vinyl? ;-)
Stabat Mater or Requiem?
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
The vocal score of the Stabat Mater is on IMSLP too, with a four-hand reduction of the opening. That instrumental first movement begins in D minor, changing to D major, which is the dominant of the opening chorus in G minor (although it's a long movement, with a number of modulations and chromatic wanderings - it's the late nineteenth century / early twentieth century style after all!). And the last movement ("Paradisi gloria") ends in G major. Looks fairly standard to me.
Edits: 10/25/15
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: