Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Omollo on December 22, 2014, 07:16:16 PM
-
I have selected the most thrilling (and Common) classical hits. Enjoy:
-
That is thrilling? Trumpet screeching, a dozen fiddlers sawing away (why a band should require more than one fiddler is unclear), .... plenty of mindless noises. It made me feel like banging my head on a wall and poking a sharp stick into my eye, which, I suppose is a sort of "secondary thrill"?
-
I am interested in getting some more than passing appreciation for this type of music. What should I be listening for?
-
Listen to it about ten times then you will figure. Otherwise a very original critique. Let me seriously respond:
1. Many trumpets: The trumpet used in these is the piccolo trumpet. It is meant to be heard singularly. I guess they needed at least three to be heard in a big concert hall at a time when there were no acoustic aids such as amplifiers, microphones and loudspeakers as of today;
2. Mindless Noise: For a first time encounter with classical music that is pretty much the verdict. Classical music as we know it - recorded and played - is abstracted from its context. Hence people long to go to a chamber or hall where they would encounter it. Some of the pieces are often part of a drama - an opera - and once the visual element is removed, there is a void;
3. I think you would change your mind if you attended a proper opera or concert for that matter.
That is thrilling? Trumpet screeching, a dozen fiddlers sawing away (why a band should require more than one fiddler is unclear), .... plenty of mindless noises. It made me feel like banging my head on a wall and poking a sharp stick into my eye, which, I suppose is a sort of "secondary thrill"?
-
I am going on a long drive. So I will have time to listen to this and others a few times.
I tend to like music I can dance to. Even if gently, not to the point of ballet. Something that I would have trouble resisting shaking shoulder here. Bending a knee there.
If you watched Amistad, the movie, you might recall the point where some musicians came to perform for the captives. It was a hilarious exchange with Cinque suggesting that they were mourning or something along those lines.
I liked Edward Elgar's Nimrod. I got to listen to it a few times and liked it.
-
For xmas drive I would recommend you buy George Friedrich Händel's Messiah. If on CD they will be two of them and you can cover a very long distance. It is the music for xmas and Easter.
If you are in the US, then look for the rendition by Chicago Symphony orchestra - Sir. Georg Solti Messiah, with Dame Kiri Te Kanawa, Anne Gjevang and Gwynn. Here is a taste of the famous Chorus:
-
For a first time encounter with classical music that is pretty much the verdict. Classical music as we know it - recorded and played - is abstracted from its context. Hence people long to go to a chamber or hall where they would encounter it. Some of the pieces are often part of a drama - an opera - and once the visual element is removed, there is a void.
First, let me say that I do not have problems with "classical music" in general---just with that type of noisy big-band racket. If, for some strange reason, I were minded to listen to "classical music", I'd probably consider mellow & musical things---on one to a maximum of four instruments---by the likes of Ravel, Satie, Debussy, etc.
I don't know what you mean by "abstracted from its context"; so that doesn't help me at all in understanding that mish-mash you hit us with. I can also think of numerous horrible pieces that are not meant to be "part" of anything (visual or otherwise); so that argument too doesn't help me.
-
For xmas drive I would recommend you buy George Friedrich Händel's Messiah. If on CD they will be two of them and you can cover a very long distance. It is the music for xmas and Easter.
If you are in the US, then look for the rendition by Chicago Symphony orchestra - Sir. Georg Solti Messiah, with Dame Kiri Te Kanawa, Anne Gjevang and Gwynn. Here is a taste of the famous Chorus:
Te Kanawa certainly has a nice voice, and for that sort of thing I would also consider her Ave Maria, with the Choir of St. Paul's Cathedral. She's also done an even better CD---Songs Of Inspiration---with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
-
I hit you with baroque. It is intended to thrill. It belongs to a specific period. It refers to the ornate and heavily ornamented music of the said period ( from approximately 1600 to 1750). Perhaps the most easily identified is the compositions of Pachelbel, Handel, Vivaldi and Henry Purcell.
Abstracted Context: It's like you watch Madonna on stage and then have to listen to her recorded audio without the drama on stage.
Your criticism is not new. In fact that is what dogged the composers of baroque for a long time. The term itself was negative for some time.
Ravel and Debussy were masters of Impressionist music. Let me give you one of the best known compositions of Maurice Ravel: Bolero. As you can notice, there are few if any sound aids. There is therefore need to multiply the instruments so the person sitting at the very end on the cheaper tickets can hear it. The idea of the composer is to to fill up the chamber with music - even at crescendo. Ravel, like Wagner believed in multiple instruments and truly delivered a concert with all those instruments playing in turns and ending together in one big effort!
First, let me say that I do not have problems with "classical music" in general---just with that type of noisy big-band racket. If, for some strange reason, I were minded to listen to "classical music", I'd probably consider musical things---on solo piano, piano+violin, piano+violin+cello, or at worst, one of those four-fiddler things---by the likes of Ravel, Satie, Debussy, etc.
I don't know what you mean by "abstracted from its context"; so that doesn't help me at all in understanding that mish-mash you hit us with. I can also think of numerous horrible pieces that are not meant to be "part" of anything (visual or otherwise); so that argument too doesn't help me.
-
A very gifted Soprano like no other!
Te Kanawa certainly has a nice voice, and for that sort of thing I would also consider her Ave Maria, with the Choir of St. Paul's Cathedral. She's also done an even better CD---Songs Of Inspiration---with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
For xmas drive I would recommend you buy George Friedrich Händel's Messiah. If on CD they will be two of them and you can cover a very long distance. It is the music for xmas and Easter.
If you are in the US, then look for the rendition by Chicago Symphony orchestra - Sir. Georg Solti Messiah, with Dame Kiri Te Kanawa, Anne Gjevang and Gwynn. Here is a taste of the famous Chorus:
Te Kanawa certainly has a nice voice, and for that sort of thing I would also consider her Ave Maria, with the Choir of St. Paul's Cathedral. She's also done an even better CD---Songs Of Inspiration---with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
-
Abstracted Context: It's like you watch Madonna on stage and then have to listen to her recorded audio without the drama on stage.
Ah. But then---and your example shows it---that covers most music, the way most people listen to it today. So it is not clear why the "classical music" should get a pass.
Ravel and Debussy were masters of Impressionist music. Let me give you one of the best known compositions of Maurice Ravel: Bolero. As you can notice, there are few if any sound aids. There is therefore need to multiply the instruments so the person sitting at the very end on the cheaper tickets can hear it. The idea of the composer is to to fill up the chamber with music - even at crescendo. Ravel, like Wagner believed in multiple instruments and truly delivered a concert with all those instruments playing in turns and ending together in one big effort!
As soon as I see a band of 100 people, I tune out. Even for those two guys, as I indicated, I have a limit on the number of acceptable instruments: four .... six if I am pushed hard. Here, dig this:
-
Then yours is a chamber orchestra. Few musicians and a smaller theatre (Chamber). There are compositions for just that as well. I guess you are royalty :D
Abstracted Context: It's like you watch Madonna on stage and then have to listen to her recorded audio without the drama on stage.
Ah. But then---and your example shows it---that covers most music, the way most people listen to it today. So it is not clear why the "classical music" should get a pass.
Ravel and Debussy were masters of Impressionist music. Let me give you one of the best known compositions of Maurice Ravel: Bolero. As you can notice, there are few if any sound aids. There is therefore need to multiply the instruments so the person sitting at the very end on the cheaper tickets can hear it. The idea of the composer is to to fill up the chamber with music - even at crescendo. Ravel, like Wagner believed in multiple instruments and truly delivered a concert with all those instruments playing in turns and ending together in one big effort!
As soon as I see a band of 100 people, I tune out. Even for those two guys, as I indicated, I have a limit on the number of acceptable instruments: four .... six if I am pushed hard. Here, dig this:
-
That's a piano rendition of the same piece. You can find Organ, Cello and harp versions. The "modernists" even have a guitar rendition - my God!
-
A very gifted Soprano like no other!
In that sort of vein, I would also recommend Jessye Norman, a dramatic soprano. Look for the CD Amazing Grace, which consists of normal music (as opposed to her primary diet of dead-white-guy stuff).
Kathleen Battle also comes to mind; she's a light lyric soprano. Here are the two in performance:
And on her own:
-
That's a piano rendition of the same piece. You can find Organ, Cello and harp versions. The "modernists" even have a guitar rendition - my God!
Exactly. No band of 10 screeching trumpeters, 24 rackety fiddlers, .... is required!
-
-
Paradise on earth.