recommend me classic classical?

The Freeman

what the title says basically ,i've generated an interest in classical rescently and i thought i'd ask yer humble educated opinion on what album/compilation to buy.

there was one piece that i thought was beautiful rescently, it was on the second episode on the second series of battlestar galactica(which is savage) it was 'metamorphosis five' by philip glass from his solo piano album, something along those lines would be great.....


thanks in advance

funky penguin

If you like Philip Glass then you like minimalism (although he prefers to call theatre music).

You like the metmamorphoses of the piano, so get the rest. They're gorgeous. Five altogether if I remember correctly. I personally like number three the best.

Try his symphonies as well, number three is his most popular. If its only piano music you're after, get the symphonies anyway!

You'd probably like Ludovico Einaudi. He's an Italian composer who used to compose film scores, but now focuses on solo piano work (mainly). Check out "Echoes" - its his 'best of' collection, or try "Una Mattina". You'll probably recognise some off the latter from television adverts. Actually....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCOLPUWL870

Thats one of his pieces playing there. Neuvole Bianche I think its called. Quite lovely really.

Eh, I'm not too familiar with minimalism to be honest, but for the early 20th c. music, try Eric Satie and his Gymnopedies and Gnossiennes. I just know I fooked up the spelling there.

Michael Nyman is cool as well. You will DEFINATELY recognise this one.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dPS-EHl-FE

.....why is that c sharp.....

I'm sure other posters know more about the music you like......but is it only music like Philip Glass you're after, or do you want to delve the murky depths of the likes of Mozart or Beethoven?

The Freeman

thanks for that funky penguin:D

ya i'm gonna get the metmamorphoses of the piano very shortly(really looking forward to it)

regarding the minilasm- i take that its a style of classical piano it is(please excuse my ignorance?)


regarding the murky depths of beethoven and mozart, hmmm! not yet, i will, but not yet, i want to get a feel for what i like at the moment and branch from there, i'm gonna check out the other artists you mentioned there aswell


i like(i think its called) aggio for strings, excuse my ignorance here but THAT TRACK FROM PLATOON:eek: where willem dafoe gets it!

funky penguin

Yeah its adagio for strings, by Samuel Barber, again quite minimalist and 'new'.

Minimalism is a style of compostion, where (as you might guess), the amount of differenciating notes and variation are minimal. Repetition and/or long drawn out notes are the hallmarks of minimalism.

Think of minimalist paintings (I don't know any). Eh, lets say a load of geometrically organised black dots on a huge white canvas. Its about getting the most out of something while using as little as possible. As a result, alot of minimalism is quite emotional and moving, such as Barbers adagio. It can also sound almost like its on a loop (or a "broken F*uckin record" as my mother has commented), creating a truely unique experience, like Glass's Symphony No. 3, eh 3rd movement I think.

Now, don't worry about not having the knowledge. I still get Haydn and Handel mixed up.

I think the most important thing to remember (because the amount of 'classical' music out there is so enormous) are your periods (in chronological order):

Baroque (Bach)
Classical (Mozart and Beethoven)
Romantic (Tchaikovsky, Chopin)

Anything after these is regarded quite modern, or contemporary (with the exception of a few early 20th c. composers). Classical is too loose a term, I think, to tag on the likes of Philip Glass et al.

Anyway, I think I may have been reaching a point, but it seems to have escaped. I'm far from the foremost authority on Classical and Modern Instrumental music on boards, but I hope I was some sort of help.

tSubh Dearg

You might also enjoy Holst's Planets. He's a fairly contemporary composer (he died in the 1930s).

The Planets orchestral suite is probably his best known work and I bet you'd probably recognise the tune of Jupiter and possibly Mars.

Sandwich

The Freeman wrote:

regarding the murky depths of beethoven and mozart, hmmm! not yet, i will, but not yet, i want to get a feel for what i like at the moment and branch from there, i'm gonna check out the other artists you mentioned there aswell

Overcome your prejudices and forget about Murky Depths. If you like music at all, you will like Mozart and Beethoven. And forget compilations - to hear the music properly, listen to the full works.

Try any of the following (each is 1 disc) and you will not be disappointed :

Beethoven : Symphonies No5 and No6 - easily found on one disc
Mozart : Piano Converto No.21 (+ what ever other concerto is on the disc)
Dvorak : Symphony No.9
Vivaldi : The four Seasons (+ few other concertos on the disc also)
Handel : Water Music, and Fireworks Music ( you should find a disc containing both)
Copland : Appalacian Spring, Rodeo + anything else
Offenbach : Gaite Parisienne
Rossini : Overtures
Schubert : The 'Trout' Quintet

more recently, in a 'classical' style and if you like paino, try the soundtrack to the 2005 movie Pride and Prejudice - Beethoven slash Chopin with a modernish light feel.

This is not even scratching the surface............

Enjoy

The Freeman

cheers for that lads

got the solo piano album yeaterday, listened to it bout 3 times in total, lovely arrangements/compositions indeed.


listened to Ludovico Einaudi on youtube last night too, he's my type of style aswell,very good, any other pianist's like these two guys that ye'd recommend?

also found 'the only classical album you'll ever need' on the creative zen this morning on the bus to work, listened to sour seasons
VERY POWERFUL, it has....



carl orff-o fortuna
delibes-flower duet
dvorak-new world symphony
grieg- morning
puccini- che gelida manina
debussy-claire de lune
verdi-anvil chorus
pachelbel-canon
mozart-alleuia
faure-pavane
elgar-minrod
tchaikovsky- 1812 overture
and sour seasons-spring(very recognisable)

is this in-fact the only classical album that you need ladies and gentlemen?:p

funky penguin

Good lord no!

What it is though, is a great introduction to Classical music.

For instance, It's only given one movement of Vivaldi's Four Seasons (there are 12 in all).

What you should do, is listen a few more times (as you're doing).

Then, tell us which composer you're finding most enjoyable, and we can recommend some other pieces by the same composer that you should listen to. Or you can just go and buy a "Best of" CD devouted to him/her.


Oh, and to be honest I'm not to sure of any pianists like Einaudi. I am, however, positive that there must be hundreds like him, so someone may know.

Doshea3

Another suggestion I could give you is to listen to some of the general interest programmes on Lyric FM, such as Lyric Breakfast (6.30am-9.00am), Lunchtime Choice (I think the new time is 12.00pm-2.30pm), and Drivetime Classics (again, the new time is roughly 4.30pm-7.00pm). You'll find a lot of "popular classical" music on these programmes, as well as other stuff.

Personally I'm not a fan of either Glass or Nyman, but I'll reiterate Funky Penguin's suggestion for Erik Satie, who is just great. The Gymnopédies and Gnossiennes are good places to start, but the Sarabandes are my favourites (particularly Nos. 1 and 3). There's a good CD you'll come across in HMV on the Sony Essential Classics label—it's a sort of orangey-red colour, and the pianists are Phillipe Entremont and Daniel Varsano. Neither would be my ideal Satie pianist, but it's a good place to start.

I'll think it over and give you a few more suggestions later on. Hope those are of help, anyway!

The Freeman

Doshea3 wrote:

Another suggestion I could give you is to listen to some of the general interest programmes on Lyric FM, such as Lyric Breakfast (6.30am-9.00am), Lunchtime Choice (I think the new time is 12.00pm-2.30pm), and Drivetime Classics (again, the new time is roughly 4.30pm-7.00pm). You'll find a lot of "popular classical" music on these programmes, as well as other stuff.

Personally I'm not a fan of either Glass or Nyman, but I'll reiterate Funky Penguin's suggestion for Erik Satie, who is just great. The Gymnopédies and Gnossiennes are good places to start, but the Sarabandes are my favourites (particularly Nos. 1 and 3). There's a good CD you'll come across in HMV on the Sony Essential Classics label—it's a sort of orangey-red colour, and the pianists are Phillipe Entremont and Daniel Varsano. Neither would be my ideal Satie pianist, but it's a good place to start.

I'll think it over and give you a few more suggestions later on. Hope those are of help, anyway!

Satie pianist=> is that a pianist in the style of erik satie or is it a pianists rendition of a number by satie or even a session pianist that is paid to play satie and to be sold commercially?

cornbb

a pianists rendition of a number by satie

That would be the most accurate description I think, that or the one after it. "Rendition" would be accurate as most talented musicians/performers are said to "interpret" a composer's work, rather than just spout it out mechanically.

If you like Satie's piano stuff, check out the Drukqs album by Aphex Twin. I know its not classical, but there are a lot of piano tracks on it inspired by Satie, with a really good contemporary experimental twist. Debussy's stuff is also really nice, along the same lines as Satie but not quite as insane most of the time

Doshea3

Yeah, sorry for the confusion, what I meant was that their ways of playing Satie aren't the best on record (in my opinion, at least), but are still worth a look. There is a good bargain set of most of Satie's major piano works played by the excellent and very much underrated Norwegian pianist Hakon Austbo (plus diacritics) on the Brilliant Classics label, but you might find for a first-time buyer there is just too much on the CD to pick the good stuff from. That's why I recommended the Sony CD compilation.

Other recommendations... In the line of piano music, there is a lot to choose from, but one composer I think you might like is Alexander Scriabin. His piano music can be hard to get one's hands on (except for the sonatas, but the sonatas from No. 5 onwards might scare you off as a first-time listener!), but look out for his pieces cropping up on CDs by Vladimir Horowitz. Oh, there's a suggestion: there are two good compilations of Horowitz available on the Sony Label, one is called "Favourite Encores", and the other "A Reminiscence". Each contains a wide variety of piano music. Though you won't find any Satie in Horowitz's repertoire, he's a great pianist and his choice of music is generally interesting.

Meldince

Can't believe that a whole conversation about minimalism has gone on without any mention of Steve Reich (or maybe he was mentioned and my bleary sunday morning eyes missed his name), effectively the creator of minimalism. I would think that Glass would represent a certain point at the developement of minimalism, where he tried to introduce a more developemental sense, and Nyman is taking that on to the next stage.

But for pure minimalism, try listening to some of Reich's music; his phases for example...Piano phase is literally one bar of music being played over and over simultaneously by two piano players; one is playing fractionally faster than the other so the the bar sounds like it's going out of phase with itself before eventually coming full circle to unison again. It's immensely difficult to describe but well worth a listen.

cornbb

Wasn't under the impression that this discussion was about minimalism, if I did I would have been ranting about his stuff non-stop

I love Music for 18 Musicians, its incredibly easy to listen to, for a 70 minute piece.

The Mad Hatter

Sandwich wrote:

Overcome your prejudices and forget about Murky Depths. If you like music at all, you will like Mozart and Beethoven. And forget compilations - to hear the music properly, listen to the full works.

Ok, that's not true: Glenn Gould for instance didn't like Mozart at all.

And I think compilations are good if you don't know what you're into yet. Helps give a wide spectrum of choice.

Freeman: Naxos (a record label) are particularly good for this, and their CDs are generally very affordable.

Incidentally, compliments on the choice of avatar

Doshea3

That's very true, actually: neither was Gould too fond of Beethoven, over whom he had severe doubts. (He absolutely hated the middle and late sonatas, for instance.)

In fairness, also, I've been a music fan for a long time, but it's only quite recently I've actually become genuinely interested in Mozart and Beethoven, who held a certain but minor appeal for me beforehand. Bach, on the other hand, grabbed my attention from the very beginning. Though that said, I know someone who's been a music fan for almost three times as long as I'm alive and she still hasn't got into Bach. It's all a matter of taste, really: what some people may love others will hate. Gould was a perfect example of this: all the music that was said to be brilliant (Mozart, Schubert, Chopin and Liszt come immediately to mind) he believed were grossly overrated.

The Mad Hatter

Doshea3 wrote:

That's very true, actually: neither was Gould too fond of Beethoven, over whom he had severe doubts. (He absolutely hated the middle and late sonatas, for instance.)

In fairness, also, I've been a music fan for a long time, but it's only quite recently I've actually become genuinely interested in Mozart and Beethoven, who held a certain but minor appeal for me beforehand. Bach, on the other hand, grabbed my attention from the very beginning. Though that said, I know someone who's been a music fan for almost three times as long as I'm alive and she still hasn't got into Bach. It's all a matter of taste, really: what some people may love others will hate. Gould was a perfect example of this: all the music that was said to be brilliant (Mozart, Schubert, Chopin and Liszt come immediately to mind) he believed were grossly overrated.

Funny, I approached that from the other side. Took me far longer to get into Bach than Mozart or Beethoven. I still love the three, though.

I think Gould's opinion is a real indicator of what can be considered 'good' music, though. I mean, if someone of his abilities couldn't see any appeal in the classical or romantic composers, it kind of rejects so many of the criteria that we use to analyse music. It's why I think it's far more important to find music that you like, for whatever reason, than music you think is 'good'. It's also how I excuse some of the music I listen to.

(please note, I have a cold, so this may be a bit rambley/ranty)

funky penguin

The Mad Hatter wrote:

It's why I think it's far more important to find music that you like, for whatever reason, than music you think is 'good'.

Excellent point.

Doshea3

Yeah, I can see how it could work either way all right: I'm still a huge Baroque fan, and so Bach took my fancy long before Mozart did. I guess it just depends on what a person likes themself. Though I love Mozart, I wouldn't rave about him the way some people do, though I'd happily rave about Bach.

As for Gould, though I admire him greatly, his prejudices were often without substance. He dismissed Schubert as being "too repetitive": fair enough, Schubert's sonatas and piano pieces contain a good bit of repetition, but didn't he praise the same quality in Schoenberg and (late) Scriabin?...double standards anyone? As for Beethoven, he saw nothing in the heroic musical gestures of his middle and late middle works: I agree to a very small extent, but this seems to me yet another unfounded prejudice. As regards Mozart, Gould just had a grudge against the poor guy. In fairness, he had a point: Mozart, like Haydn, has a lot of "nice" moments. But that didn't stop him from praising all of Haydn's piano sonatas, many of which are much weaker than Mozart's weakest.

On that subject, if you haven't already heard Gould's Haydn recordings, they're excellent. He plays two of my favourite sonatas (the late two-movement C major and the late E-flat major), and his renditions are far superior to Horowitz's ones of the same pieces.

funky penguin

Eek! Same as me. I love Baroque, but not too fond of classical, though the latter pulled me into thies type of music. Mozart: extremely prolific, especially when you consider the age he died. At the same time, it can be tough to wade through his works to find those moments of pure genius.

Bach.....the mathematician. The pieces I have learned by Bach are by far the most difficult I have ever had to learn, which makes it all the more enjoyable.

Sandwich

funky penguin wrote:

Bach.....the mathematician. The pieces I have learned by Bach are by far the most difficult I have ever had to learn, which makes it all the more enjoyable.

Not sure how dfficulty leads to greater musical enjoyment if that what you're saying. But agree about Bach the mathematician - some of his 'Great' works, Art of Fugue or Musical Offering for eg, always just sound like musical Sudoku puzzles transcribed to the staff to me - very clever but hard to find the 'music' in there.

funky penguin

Eek! Let me clarify..... basically I find it extremely rewarding to tackle a difficult piece and come out on top. I jump on any Bach piece I can in grade examinations, as I always find his the hardest to learn.

It could, of course, just be a psychological thing on my part.

lld

Recommendations:

Beethoven (symphonies 3,5,6,7 & 9)
Brahms (symphonies 1 & 4, german requiem)
Bruckner (symphonies 2,5,7,8)
Ó Riada (Mise Éire)
Schumann (Piano concerto, Symphonies 2 3 & 4)
Bach (inventions, art of fugue, musical offering)

Classical music reviews at the american nihilist underground society

The Mad Hatter

Doshea3 wrote:

As for Gould, though I admire him greatly, his prejudices were often without substance. He dismissed Schubert as being "too repetitive": fair enough, Schubert's sonatas and piano pieces contain a good bit of repetition, but didn't he praise the same quality in Schoenberg and (late) Scriabin?...double standards anyone? As for Beethoven, he saw nothing in the heroic musical gestures of his middle and late middle works: I agree to a very small extent, but this seems to me yet another unfounded prejudice. As regards Mozart, Gould just had a grudge against the poor guy. In fairness, he had a point: Mozart, like Haydn, has a lot of "nice" moments. But that didn't stop him from praising all of Haydn's piano sonatas, many of which are much weaker than Mozart's weakest.

Yeah, but I think there's a reqeuirement on people in the art music industry to qualify statements like that with reasons - Gould couldn't just simply say 'I don't like Mozart', because it would be perceived as heresy. So he came up with insubstantial reasons for it.

On that subject, if you haven't already heard Gould's Haydn recordings, they're excellent. He plays two of my favourite sonatas (the late two-movement C major and the late E-flat major), and his renditions are far superior to Horowitz's ones of the same pieces.

Haven't, actually - will have a look for them.

Doshea3

I guess you're right. Gould was better off trying to explain himself, rather than just have his "loony" image reinforced by silly prejudices.

There is a CD usually available in either HMV or Tower Records (though I haven't seen it recently) of Gould's five late Haydn sonatas. (I believe he recorded six, but there are only five on this CD.) It has a white cover with a black and white picture of a young Gould, and the back is a sort of beige colour. Look out for it—the C major sonata which comes first on the disc is particularly remarkable for the slow tempo he takes the first movement and the contrapuntal clarity of the second.

The Mad Hatter

Doshea3 wrote:

I guess you're right. Gould was better off trying to explain himself, rather than just have his "loony" image reinforced by silly prejudices.

There is a CD usually available in either HMV or Tower Records (though I haven't seen it recently) of Gould's five late Haydn sonatas. (I believe he recorded six, but there are only five on this CD.) It has a white cover with a black and white picture of a young Gould, and the back is a sort of beige colour. Look out for it—the C major sonata which comes first on the disc is particularly remarkable for the slow tempo he takes the first movement and the contrapuntal clarity of the second.

Ha! I saw this today in Tower, but I'd forgotten about it. Bought him playing some Brahms instead.

Doshea3

Oh, good choice. Gould and his "sexy" Brahms. I particularly like his recording of the Intermezzi Op. 117, particularly No. 2.

Robbiethe3rd

I think Gould is overrated. I think he sees FAR more than is actually there and I think he's really a bit arrogant with his whole manner and approach to piano/music. Every time he comes out with a new recording theres this big obsession which is never worth it! 5m an Ashkenazy & Kissin fan myself; good meaningful playing without the oddities which many modern pianists seem to need for success!

If you want to talk Brahms nothing beats the concertos!

Kevster

I second the motion for Gustav Holst's 'The Planets'; In particular, you must get Jupiter!


Also:

• Georges Bizet - March Of The Toreadors

• Giacomo Puccini - Nessun Dorma (From 'Turandot')

• Giuseppe Verdi - Vedi! Le Fosche Notturne (Anvil Chorus) (From 'Il Trovatore')

• Johann Strauss II - Blue Danube Waltz
  Johann Strauss II - Tritsch Tratsch Polka

• Ludwig Van Beethoven - Fifth Symphony, First Movement
  Ludwig Van Beethoven - Ninth Symphony

• Michael Nyman - The Heart Asks Pleasure First

• Piotr Tchaikovsky - Piano Concerto #1
  Piotr Tchaikovsky - 1812 Overture

• Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - Overture (From the 'Marrriage of Figaro')

• Edward Elgar - Pomp & Circumstance March #1 (Land Of Hope & Glory)

• Johann Pachelbel - Canon In D Minor

• Léo Delibes - Flower Duet

• Julius Fučík - Entry Of The Gladiators

• Luigi Boccherini - Minuet

• Stanley Myers - Cavatina

• Sergei Rachmaninov - Rhapsody On A Theme Of Paganini

If you want any of these I'll send them to you.


Take care,
Kevin.

The Mad Hatter

Robbiethe3rd wrote:

I think Gould is overrated. I think he sees FAR more than is actually there and I think he's really a bit arrogant with his whole manner and approach to piano/music. Every time he comes out with a new recording theres this big obsession which is never worth it!

Um...he's been dead for twenty-five years...not much chance of any new recordings...

As to how he plays, what he hears is certainly there. He wouldn't be able to play it otherwise. I suppose his recordings of classical and romantic music might be a bit debatable, depending on your own tastes, but his Bach really is unparallelled.

Doshea3

I agree with Mad Hatter on Gould: his playing (generally speaking) is revelatory. His oddness is generally exaggerated: apart from some questionable departures from the score and curious tempos (listen to his disturbingly fast Mozart K330 sonata first movement, and then his absolutely plodding recording of the first movement of Beethoven's "Appassionata"), the "oddness" is his unusual musical sensibility which is a personal uniqueness no more odd than, say, Horowitz's interpretations of Chopin.

In Gould's playing I regularly find things that I never heard before: take the E-flat minor fugue from the first book of the "48", in which Gould clearly delineates the many veiled appearances of the subject, particularly in the remarkable augmentation episode towards the end of the fugue. The most amazing thing I found about this was how clear he made the appearances of the subject in the middle voice, which, having played this piece myself, is remarkably difficult to do without sounding exaggerated.

Gould isn't for everyone, but, like Mad Hatter said, only a Baroque purist can dare deny how convincing he is in Bach.