Question

[Wunderhorn]

I had gone a long period without sleep and am now regretting my long bellyaching in this thread Perhaps you might see, like Daminfino, what I was getting at, though it could have been said far better without having been stupidly offensive.

Apologize to all who stomached me!

[david johnson]

not to worry.  some of us have worked upon our grand stomachs for awhile, now.  i think i've been too successful and must currently take that part of anatomy in the other direction.

dj

[barry guerrero]

Really, your point is understood, Wunderhorn. But you have to keep in mind that not everybody objects to what composers have done since Mahler. Like you, I feel that there's been a drop-off of sorts. But yet, some music since Mahler has been incredibly effective and interesting. I also like some of today's "neo-romantic" composers. I especially like Jennifer Higdon and Esa-Pekka Salonen; both of whom are excellent orchestrators.

There is a computer generated work attributed to Mozart: it's a Sinfonia Concertante; but not the famous one for violin and viola. Instead, it's one for winds. K. two ninety-something or other. I went to a chamber orchestra where it was performed. Before the concert, the conductor talked about how he thought it was wonderful, and sounded like authentic Mozart. It thought it sounded like total garbage! Actually, I think it's called a "Concertone", as opposed to "Concertante".

[Amphissa]

Of the composers who wrote after Mahler, I would say that there are some who wrote very good music, and even a few masterpieces that will make the list of music worth hearing forever.

At the top of my list would be Gliere's magnificent Symphony No. 3 "Ilya Mourometz", which is on a scale, with the power, substance and beauty of Mahler (but without all the marching). Farberman's 93 minute recording is as intense an experience as any work by Mahler or Bruckner in my opinion. (Yes, I know it is heresy to say such things on this board, but that's my opinion and it is what it is.)

In addition, I would include the following composers/works written after Mahler's death that are equal in quality (although not necessarily in scope).
Rachmaninoff - Symphonic Dances, The Bells, Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini
Myaskovsky - late symphonies
Nielsen - Symphony No. 4
Barber - Adagio for Strings
Gershwin - Rhapsody in Blue
Hovhaness - Symphony No. 2 "Magic Mountain"
Tubin - Symphonies 3 & 5
Ralph Vaughan Williams - Symphony No. 8
David Diamond - Symphony No. 3

There are surely others that haven't popped into my head this morning.

I have not heard much by living composers, but of the dozen or so that I have heard pieces by in concert, I have especially liked Stephen Paulus. His symphonic work called Sea Pictures (not yet recorded) is very fine. I've also liked some of the music I've heard from Joan Tower.

Like you, I have little interest in cacaphony and noise without point. But I don't want composers to write more music that sounds like Mahler and Bruckner. We've already got more than 20 works by those composers to listen to. They were who they were, they wrote what they wrote. I want to hear voices that are just as compelling and just as immersive, but unique.

Saying that no one since Mahler and Bruckner are great composers is like saying no one since Shakespeare is a great writer. I don't want more writers to write like Shakespeare. I want more writers who write great literature in their own voice. And many have.

[Ivor]

   Asking for more Mahler sounds a bit like,"I want more,I want as much as possible plus". And Deryck Cooke/Joe Wheeler et al obliged once.

   i think that's about it,tho'.

    Fresh composers can offer nrw pleasures. Most of the music written in every age isn't much cop;today is no different. And we can't agree on what's the most enjoyable (enjoyable for whom?),or on what's the best,or any good. So we each have to make our way on our respective journeys. Pointing out what's appealed to us and offering arguments/reasons may be the best we can do. SAs some posters have already done.

   And get some more sleep.

   2 more thoughts.

   Friedrich Witt did a good job of warmed-over early Beethoven. Took 'us' nearly 50 years to rumble the Jena symphony.

   I heard a Prokofiev violin concerto early in my listening  career, and afterwards couldn't understand why anyone would compose,want to play or broadcast,or publish or listen to anything  so spikey and annoying. Some years later,after much listening , I heard it again and thought it was beautiful.

   Moral: If you hate it,move on to summat else. One day,perhaps,who knows ...............



    Ivor

[barry guerrero]

"I heard a Prokofiev violin concerto early in my listening  career, and afterwards couldn't understand why anyone would compose,want to play or broadcast,or publish or listen to anything  so spikey and annoying. Some years later,after much listening , I heard it again and thought it was beautiful".


hmmmmmm; maybe it's time now for me to revisit the Prokofiev violin concertos. Why?   .  .   because I still find them spikey and annoying!   

[Ivor]

   Barry,

  I must add thast between the two hearings,about 2-3 years apart,I'd allowed myself to listen to anything (classical !). I think what happened was as my listening experience of all and sundry continued,the horizons of what was enjoyable and tolerable,grew/widened.

   Which is also a reply to the "I know what I like". That's a recipe for inertia. "If you keep on doing what you've always done,you'll keep on getting what you've always got."



     Ivor