This is quite well documented, but on Saturday I was able to look over a copy of the 5th edition of Grove's dictionary (1954) and look out the infamous article on Rachmaninov. On reading the last two paragraphs I'm reminded that it's a good idea to leave it a good few decades before pontificating about any recent composer. :o

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn161/nicrobinson/P1030888.jpg

Hehe!

It's often pointed out on this forum that it's quite meaningless to read review of hardware equipment, I find it equally meaningless to read musical reviews. My taste is not the same as the reviewer.

JohanR

I saw a good comment recently in the form of someone's post signature. It may even have been on here. It said: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

To be honest, I can't see anything to quibble about in the penultimate para.

I saw a good comment recently in the form of someone's post signature. It may even have been on here. It said: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

Good quote, that one; it was one of Frank Zappa's I believe.

Good quote, that one; it was one of Frank Zappa's I believe.

Just after a bad review.

Just after a bad review.

Re: Our gig at Deptford Abyss
Who the hell does Jeff Dreadnought think he is?
Was he even there? (I ask myself)
Does he even care? (don’t kid yourself)
Wait ’til our PR men hear of this

It’s a bad review, we got a bad review …oh Lord
It’s a bad review – wotta we gonna do? …oh Lord
I can’t walk down the street ‘cos other groups I might meet, and they’ll smirk
Oh, it’s a rum old do, is a bad review …oh Lord
And my girlfriend’s fuming

You hacks don’t know where it’s at
You can’t appreciate the master of the Strat
Not that I’m concerned (’course you’re not)
Your paper’s full of crap (’course it is)
I only read the gig guide anyway

It’s a bad review, a b-b-b-bad review …oh Lord
We got a bad review, I can’t believe its true …oh Lord
Well I know what you look like, so don’t ever come near Stroud,
Page 32, it’s a bad review …oh Lord
My girlfriend’s fuming

OK – let’s go to chapel

Oo-oo – what’s to do? It’s a bad review
Oo-oo – what’s to do? It’s a bad review

The fearsome hollow boom of the older boys in the deep end
The green shoots of recovery shrivelled up in harsh tomorrows
Left to pick dry sticks and mumble to myself
A melancholy emblem of parish cruelty

To be honest, I can't see anything to quibble about in the penultimate para.

You make yourself to look very ignorant with such a comment, I fear. His music is being seen by each successive generation to be yet greater and greater.

Cheers,

Nic.

You make yourself to look very ignorant with such a comment, I fear.

Call me ignorant as well then, because it reads pretty fair to me too. Public taste is a different matter though and the last paragraph was not the greatest piece of prediction ever!

The famous 'dancing about architecture' quote is glib but meaningless. It is not definitely Zappa either. "Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk in order to provide articles for people who can't read." definitely is a Zappa-ism.

It's easy to criticise critics. Critics at their best can inform and inspire and several have truly increased my appreciation of music. It helps if you have some idea about their tastes of course.

I would be delighted to buy Duncan, Jeremy (or anyone who's not sure about this composer’s ability) a pint and bring along a few of my Rachmaninoff scores to help them discover his melodic, harmonic, textural and orchestrating genius. Not to mention his unrivalled ability to write for the piano. In fairness to the original critic, his music wasn’t that well known (other than the 3 or 4 works he mentions) in the 1950s. However the penultimate paragraph of the article is unsupportable by any musicologist today. That’s not to say that you have to like the stuff, though; but that’s another conversation!

Cheers,

Nic.

I wonder if "Brief Encounter" was responsible for bringing Rachmaninov in from the cold, if you'll pardon a Soviet analogy?

Brief Encounter was made in 1945, although I'm not sure of the actual date the Grove article was written (the edition above was 1954) so the film was quite early. It certainly did the C minor concerto no harm at all, although it was well known by then, having been written in 1901 and much loved by British audiences of which Noel Coward would have been a member.

TBH I don't think there was much doubt in the public's mind from early on about how much they liked the handful of the most popular pieces (concertos 2/3, Paganini Rhapsody, C# minor prelude, some other piano miniatures etc). Horowitz used to play the third concerto all over the place from the late ‘20s onwards. What took time to become known was the consistent quality of the slightly less accessible music (piano sonatas, fourth concerto, Cello and piano sonata, third symphony etc). Even the composer wasn't sure about some of his greatest music based on its reception in performance. This last phenomenon is, of course, far from unprecedented in history. The author makes the point (slightly disingenuous) of the popularity of the opus 30 being on account of its similarity to the opus 18. It was certainly popular, but what was not known in the '50s was the amazing in popularity of much, much more repertoire by the early 21st century.

There are many instances of the cream rising to the surface, but only long after a composer’s death. The example of Bach is one; his music had to go through a period of unfashionable-ness before it could be seen as a perfect example of its own period many decades later. The same is true of Rachmaninov who was an unashamed Romantic and completely out of his time in the second half of his lifetime and in the years that followed. One can’t really blame the author of the article; this was the height of the Avant-Garde after all.

Cheers,

Nic.

You make yourself to look very ignorant with such a comment, I fear. His music is being seen by each successive generation to be yet greater and greater.

Either it's great (eg Monteverdi) or it's not.
It's greatness can't change as a function of time!

Just because lots of people like something, doesn't make it good. If more people like it, it isn't better. Our friends on the forum with more knowledge of popular music than I could no doubt provide plenty of examples.

And your evidence that "His music is being seen by each successive generation to be yet greater and greater" is what exactly?

Either it's great (eg Monteverdi) or it's not.
It's greatness can't change as a function of time!

Just because lots of people like something, doesn't make it good.

Indeed. Although just because lots people like something, doesn't make it bad, either.

Most 20th century classical music sounds like a film soundtrack to me (the more 'tuneful' stuff that is, not yer Stockhausen or yer Schoenberg)

Either it's great (eg Monteverdi) or it's not.
It's greatness can't change as a function of time!

Dur. Of course its intrinsic greatness doesn't change. It's the perception of greatness which changes over time. See Mozart and Bach. I thought that was made clear in my post.

Just because lots of people like something, doesn't make it good. If more people like it, it isn't better. Our friends on the forum with more knowledge of popular music than I could no doubt provide plenty of examples.

Indeed. But the music of Rachmaninov is not just popular, it's good. In fact it's better than good. Just because you dislike it changes nothing. I have already offered to demonstrate this to you through musicological means.

And your evidence that “His music is being seen by each successive generation to be yet greater and greater” is what exactly?

1. The increasingly universal view of critics from the 1960s on that this was actually a major composer. The above article’s views aren’t held by any serious musicologists anymore, except, perhaps, your good self.
2. The increasing popularity of the less obviously tuneful work (as I have said, the op 18 and 30 concertos and the Paganini Rhapsody were the only extended works to get much of a performance for many a year).
3. The increasing number of pianists and conductors championing this music, not just for its “warhorse” qualities or competition winning abilities but from an increasingly scholarly perspective. See the recent Stephen Hough recordings for a good example of this.

Will that do?

Cheers,

Nic.

The famous 'dancing about architecture' quote is glib but meaningless. It is not definitely Zappa either. "Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk in order to provide articles for people who can't read." definitely is a Zappa-ism.

Just to clarify, I'm aware of the uncertainty of the origin of the first quote, which is why I added the words "I believe". I'm not sure why you describe the second quote as a "Zappa-ism" however as it's more widely attributed to FZ.

The Rock Journalism quote should now be Football Journalism or Gossip Journalism.

Going back to the OP, what I like about the paragraphs in question is the absolute authority with which these opinions are presented. There is no pansying around with it, it's just laid out as absolute judgement. Opinionated arrogance like this is something we should have more of, whether we agree with the sentiment or not. I admire that unapologetic approach, and it makes me laugh. :)

I worked as a rock journalist for 17 years.

I think they should all have their hands chopped off for writing lies.

I never interviewed Zappa. Wish I had.

Jack

Nic,
Call me superficial, but I find that Rachmaninov rambles on a bit, so tend to agree with the Grove article. Ditto Glazunov. Must be my lack of musicological training. Maybe it's "good", but I just get a bit bored by more than 10' of that particularly kind of "good".

There are fashions in music as in most things, and there must be a bit of a Rachmaninov revival going on. This is great: scores are dusted off, and people who like late Romantic music get to hear something a bit different.

There are fashions in music as in most things, and there must be a bit of a Rachmaninov revival going on. This is great: scores are dusted off, and people who like late Romantic music get to hear something a bit different.

If there's a Rachmaninov revival going on it's been well in excess of 40 years, and counting!:rolleyes: You will not see Bach, Mozart or Beethoven going out of fashion, nor will you see Rachmaninov do so.

Call me superficial, but I find that Rachmaninov rambles on a bit, so tend to agree with the Grove article.

Based on critical listening to which works, precisely?

I honestly think you are confusing what you like with what's great. I personally dislike much of Wagner and Mahler but know that they are both very great composers.

Cheers,

Nic.

[QUOTE=Nic Robinson;926484]

I honestly think you are confusing what you like with what's great.

QUOTE]

Where have I done that? I just said I found him a bit boring.

Sorry. You're more than entitled to say you find the music boring.

However, what you said was I find that Rachmaninov rambles on a bit, so tend to agree with the Grove article which is an entirely different thing. The (now universally discredited) Grove article makes no mention of the music rambling on, nor of it being boring. The use of the word "monotonous" was strictly apropos texture; a technical point.

Cheers,

Nic.

Ah, silly me. So you suggest I shouldn't agree with the Grove article after all. This is probably in my best interest, as the article is now thoroughly discredited. Phew, that was close.

So class, let's sum up what we've learnt:
- Rachmaninov was a great composer, to be mentioned in the same breath as Bach, Mozart, Wagner and Mahler.
- The greatness of his work is easily ascertained and objectively assessed by using musicological techniques and something called critical listening. But it was 1960 before advanced musicologists realized this.
- The Grove article is totally discredited, because R. is in fact great.
- Monotonous texture does not make music boring.

Did I miss something?

- Rachmaninov was a great composer, to be mentioned in the same breath as Bach, Mozart, Wagner and Mahler.
Yes. Certainly at least as great as the last two.
- The greatness of his work is easily ascertained and objectively assessed by using musicological techniques and something called critical listening. But it was 1960 before advanced musicologists realized this.
Yes. This is not without precedent and occurred in the case of Bach, Mozart and Wagner. It invariably takes time for the dust to settle. In fact Wagner is a good example. I urge you to google Eduard Hanslick.
- The Grove article is totally discredited, because R. is in fact great.
Yes. You're keeping up well.
- Monotonous texture does not make music boring.
Correct. Arguably Mozart could be victim of the same accusation, as his treatment of texture is often similar in similar works. However his melodic, harmonic and structural genius puts most of his music beyond any possible accusation of being boring. The author of the piece at the top of this thread in no way accuses Rachmaninov's music of being boring, merely that his textural techniques are, in his opinion, similar.

Did I miss something? Apparently not. You scored 4/4.

Cheers,

Nic.

The famous 'dancing about architecture' quote is glib but meaningless.

I'm not so sure. "Dancing about Architecture" is an example of how one form of art can be re-contextualized into another. An example may help: The literary technique découpage was used by William Burroughs where he would cut-up words and reassemble them. This aleatory literary approach was re-used musically by the Beatles on "Being for the benefit of Mr Kite", where they took 1-second cut up tapes of Calliopes, mixed them randomly and stuck them together again in random order. Thus processes that initially appear unconnected behind one form of art can be re-utilized to reference others.

"Dancing about Architecture" can be viewed in exactly the same way with regard to principles of artistic expression that utilize people inside a dynamic space in both forms in different ways but can easily reference each other. Architecture and Dance can employ interchangeable expressions when they are given a context.

As for Architecture and music... well...

Architecture is frozen music. -- is a quote attributed to both Friedrich von Schelling and Goethe and implies this idea goes back way before the 20thC. (thanks to Martin Clark for putting me onto this quote).

I wish I had more time to put into this and maybe I will when I've read up some tangential issues. In the meantime...

The art of dancing stands at the source of all the arts that express themselves first in the human person. The art of building, or architecture, is the beginning of all the arts that lie outside the person; and in the end they unite - Havelock Ellis, The Dance of Life (1923)

I bought some old 1958-59 Gramophone Magazines at a record fair a few months back and just noticed this little gem in a review of Miles Davis - Milestones:

Coltrane plays with more continuity than many previous records and certainly has a personality of his own. Once he has overcome the tendency to shun convention in matters of phrasing and melodic invention he should develop into an important soloist.
...
Although I would not hesitate to recommend this LP wholeheartedly, it is not to my mind the most representative example of Davis's group on record. The "Relaxin'" LP on Esquire is still the best album available, and the fact that [Cannonball] Adderley is not present on that is of little consequence, for on the evidence of this Fontana LP he has little of value to add to the group.

Tony.

Just because you dislike it changes nothing. I have already offered to demonstrate this to you through musicological means.


Nowhere have I said I disliked Rachmaninov's music - I just have a realistic view of its absolute merit. Please don't attribute views to me I don't hold. In fact the Symphonic dances are one of my favourite twentieth century works.

Richard Strauss said that he may not have been a first class composer, but he was a first rate second class composer. Let's be generous and put R in the same category. It is idle word spinning to suggest R is on a level with the likes of Haydn and Mozart, never mind truly great composers such as Monteverdi, Dufay and Josquin.

I

I honestly think you are confusing what you like with what's great. I personally dislike much of Wagner and Mahler but know that they are both very great composers.

Cheers,

Nic.

Could you post the objective criteria for "great" music please.

My father was a great Wagner enthusiast. Personally, I subscribe to the view (first articulated by whom, I know not) that Wagner has wonderful moments, but terrible half-hours. When he's hot, he's hot, but when he's not...

Berlioz, I think.

GBS, I think.

Could you post the objective criteria for "great" music please.

That would not be possible given the limited time and space I have. However, Wagner's contribution to the medium of opera and Mahler's to that of the symphony are unquestionable and very well documented.

Go Google.

GBS, I think.

It was Rossini!

It was Rossini!

Evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wagner

Others who resisted Wagner's influence included Gioachino Rossini ("Wagner has wonderful moments, and dreadful quarters of an hour").

[Though I first read it in Matthew Parris' book 'Scorn'.]

That would not be possible given the limited time and space I have.

Go Google.
Thought so, there aren't any...

Nowhere have I said I disliked Rachmaninov's music - I just have a realistic view of its absolute merit.

Fair enough. You are wrong, though.

Symphonic dances are one of my favourite twentieth century works.

A great piece. Funnily enough, far from my personal favourite from this composer.

Richard Strauss said that he may not have been a first class composer, but he was a first rate second class composer. Let's be generous and put R in the same category.

Strauss was being modest, and let's not be generous about Rachmaninov. His enduring popularity and scholarly acclaim need no generosity. If he hadn't been obliged to perform for a living in his American years, who knows what would have come from his pen.

It is idle word spinning to suggest R is on a level with the likes of Haydn and Mozart, never mind truly great composers such as Monteverdi, Dufay and Josquin.

May I make so bold as to say it's idle word spinning to suggest Monteverdi, Dufay and Josquin are greater than Haydn and Mozart. You cannot compare the men who lived and wrote in such different periods.

Cheers,

Nic.

Thought so, there aren't any...

If that's what you choose to believe, that's fine.

Cheers,

Nic.

If that's what you choose to believe, that's fine.

Cheers,

Nic.

My point is that in the absence of objective criteria all else is merely opinion. If you are suggesting, in your dismissive post, that there are objective criteria lets see them...if you can't, that's fine.

My point is that in the absence of objective criteria all else is merely opinion. If you are suggesting, in your dismissive post, that there are objective criteria lets see them...if you can't, that's fine.

Cav,

Just go and read some books. There are plenty of musicological criteria upon which composers of Western art music are judged. If popular opinion were the main arbiter of quality, whatever shite is in the charts at present would be greater than Bach. Unfortunately, this is a massive, multi-faceted subject and would take several simultaneous threads. If you think that's ducking the issue, that's a shame but it can't be helped. Sorry.

Cheers,

Nic.

Cav,

Just go and read some books. There are plenty of musicological criteria upon which composers of Western art music are judged. If popular opinion were the main arbiter of quality, whatever shite is in the charts at present would be greater than Bach. Unfortunately, this is a massive, multi-faceted subject and would take several simultaneous threads. If you think that's ducking the issue, that's a shame but it can't be helped. Sorry.

Cheers,

Nic.

Why do you care what other people think about the music you like?

Why do people get so caught up in this idea of ' quality '

You either like it or you don't , end ov.

Be brave , dare to simply like something without needing to be told you're right.

Why do you care what other people think about the music you like?

Why do people get so caught up in this idea of ' quality '

You either like it or you don't , end ov.

Be brave , dare to simply like something without needing to be told you're right.

You haven't read the thread. Earlier I stated that I disliked Mahler and Wagner but knew them to be great. I know Mozart and Monteverdi to be two of the greatest who ever lived but don't spend too much time listening to them. I probably spend as much time listening to (and playing on piano) John Ireland as I do Haydn. That is not to equate them as composers. The debate about Rachmaninov is based on criteria which can be discussed objectively, not on how much I like his music.

Cheers,

Nic.

You haven't read the thread. Earlier I stated that I disliked Mahler and Wagner but knew them to be great.
Nic.


How do you know they're great if you dislike them?

You really haven't read the thread, have you. Please see post 32.

Cheers,

Nic.

It just looks like you can't really answer the question.

Take Frank Zappa , an artist mentioned earlier.

I don't particularly like anything I've heard by him , and I've heard quite a lot.

Lot's of people love his work , they think he's great.

I respect him as an artist , but I am unable to see any greatness there 'cos I don't like 'im. Even if I really , really wanted to , I am incabable of thinking he's great , how could I ?

So , I 'm interested in how you can.

D ' yer see what I mean ?

I think it might be different in popular music as I don't have much understanding of it (especially in relation to its attractiveness other than the fact of its instant accessibility). I doubt it, though. It's, I think, more to do with not wanting to study and explore for the purpose of understanding, something one doesn't enjoy. I'll try and explain quickly what I mean in relation to Wagner:

His music has in places extraordinary complexity and mastery of uber-chromatic yet tonal writing. His ability to transform motifs and to combine melodic elements is stunning; he was a Romantic master of polyphony. His use of leitmotif in his work as a signposting and unifying agent is monstrously clever and arguably necessary given the monumental structure of his operas. He could also write music of enormous excitement and fabulous, enduring melodies. His vision for the capabilities of the operatic medium was stunning and arguably took opera to a new level. He certainly had a mega vision for the capability of the medium. Now I'm no Wagner buff. Far from it, but the above I can work out for myself through reading and study of some scores.

However, I don't like the stuff. I find his operas over-long in the main and the sheer density and complexity of his artistic vision too much to digest in one (very lengthy) sitting for my taste. I also have some political problems with Wagner's vision and find the music rather bombastic. I also like my Romantic music in slightly smaller doses! All in all it's less than satisfying to me.

Therefore, I don't like Wagner but would be a fool to deny his importance/greatness.

I hope that helps.

Cheers,

Nic.

So you are prepared to accept the greatness of those whose output you dislike if someone sufficiently clever tells you? How do you know their opinion is worth anything? It's still subjective but you accept someone else's subjective opinion.

"monstrously clever and arguably necessary given the monumental structure of his operas. He could also write music of enormous excitement and fabulous, enduring melodies. His vision for the capabilities of the operatic medium was stunning and arguably took opera to a new level. He certainly had a mega vision for the capability of the medium."

Objective?

So you are prepared to accept the greatness of those whose output you dislike if someone sufficiently clever tells you? How do you know their opinion is worth anything? It's still subjective but you accept someone else's subjective opinion.

"monstrously clever and arguably necessary given the monumental structure of his operas. He could also write music of enormous excitement and fabulous, enduring melodies. His vision for the capabilities of the operatic medium was stunning and arguably took opera to a new level. He certainly had a mega vision for the capability of the medium."

Objective?

Cav,

Which sufficiently clever person are you referring to? I said that stuff. I have read about Wagner and studied some of his scores. From my own research and listening have I concluded his objective greatness for myself and wrote what you believed to be the opinion of another. LOL. I don't need to be told what I can see, hear and understand.

If you're uncomfortable with the concept of a musically educated person having his own likes and dislikes, and them not necessarily equating with his understanding of the importance of the composers in question, that's your problem. I cannot help you further.

Cheers,

Nic.

Nic
I am entirely comfortable that you have concluded that musical greatness is something you can deduce for yourself.

I am also entirely comfortable that we each make our own judgement on musical merit, whether that is from personal knowledge or by relying on the opinions of others we trust.

If you think that is objective, then we have quite different definitions of that term. But again, it does not matter in so far as we recognise what we both mean.

Fair enough.

Cheers,

Nic.

His Preludes in G minor and B minor are the real masterpieces - the C# minor one is great, but tends to get played too fast for my liking.

The B minor one is probably the piece of piano music i'd most like to be able to play, but unfortunately I didn't start playing when I was 5 so there isn't much chance of that happening.

My father was a great Wagner enthusiast. Personally, I subscribe to the view (first articulated by whom, I know not) that Wagner has wonderful moments, but terrible half-hours. When he's hot, he's hot, but when he's not...
Personally I can't think of Wagner without wanting to "Kill the Wabbit"

Ruined me forever Elmer did.

Personally I can't think of Wagner without wanting to "Kill the Wabbit"



Me neither. And why there is an otter dwarf lop chez foxwell called Brunehilde.

Slightly OT, but weren't Wagner and Berlioz the only composers to score for the Octo-Bass? (An instrument that has always fascinated me.)