Classical music:still great guns.

[Rick]

does anyone here listen to classical music?
i was looking at the posts and none of you mentioned any of the classical compositions.

beethoven,vangelis,mozart i love them all...

anyone who wants to share any info these icons who shaped and made greatest music ever are welcome.
a little history of

==============================================
LUDVIG VAN BEETHOVEN
==============================================
The exact date of Beethoven's birth is unknown, but as he was baptised on the 17th Dec 1770 and the custom was for this to take place within 24 hours of birth, it is likely that he was born on 16th December 1770 in Bonn. Most of the information that we have of Beethoven's early years comes down through an account known as the 'Fischer manuscript' which was written by Gottfried Fischer and his sister Cäcilie Fischer who both lived in the house known as the Fischerhaus in the Rheingasse, where the Beethoven family also had lodgings intermittently from 1776-1786. When the Beethoven monument was unveiled in Bonn in 1845, the Fischers were still living in the Rheingasse. From their account, we learn that Beethoven attended elementary school in the Neugasse, he then went to the school attached to Bonn cathedral and subsequently to a school in the Bongasse. His father, Johann (a Court Tenor) gave him instructions in piano, Violin and possibly Viola. His first public concert was 0n 26th March 1778 when he was aged 7 (the same day he was to die 49 years later). Realising the boy's talents and his own limitations as a teacher, Johann found other tutors for Ludwig and the most notable of these was C.G.Neefe who was responsible for introducing Beethoven to the music of J.S.Bach. In 1782 Beethoven was assisting Neefe as deputy court organist and his first work, a set of variations on a march by Dressler was published. Soon he was playing the Viola in the court orchestra, gaining invaluable knowledge of orchestral music and the art of writing for the orchestra.

Beethoven had first visited Vienna in 1787 with the intention of studying with Mozart. Barely had he arrived when he was summoned back to Bonn to his dying mother. In 1792 a second visit was arranged, this time to study with Joseph Haydn (Mozart having died in 1791). Beethoven may not have known it at the time, but Vienna was to remain his home for the rest of his life. It was as a pianist rather than a composer that the young man first began to make an impression, with his virtuoso technique and dramatic improvisations. Beethoven was also meeting many influential people, particularly amongst the aristocracy - in this he was aided by the 'van' in his name, which many mistook to represent nobility (as with the German 'Von').

Beethoven's compositions are generally divided into 3 stylistic periods. His first period works although showing the influences of composers such as Haydn, Mozart, C.P.E.Bach and Clementi, reveal a marked originality with bold modulations, frequent unexpected turns of phrase and the replacement of the Minuet with the Scherzo. Beethoven also develops piano technique by placing greater demands on the performer. There is no sudden change of style as such, rather a natural progression which is probably best observed in the 32 Piano Sonatas. The first period covers the early works up until c.1802 and includes about 10 of the Piano Sonatas, the first 2 Symphonies, the ballet 'Creatures of Prometheus', the op.18 String quartets and the first three Piano concertos.

1802 is a significant date as it is the year of the so-called 'Heiligenstadt testament' in which Beethoven writes of his despair over his increasing deafness (which he had first noticed 5 or 6 years earlier) in a letter to his brothers that was never sent, but found (along with the letters to the 'Immortal beloved') amongst his possesions after his death. The work that really marks the start of the middle period is the Symphony no.3 'Eroica' (1803). In this work, Beethoven expands the dimensions of the Symphony considerably and introduces many novelties and complexities which baffled the ears of many at its first public performance. The following Symphonies up to and including no.8 (1812) all belong to the middle period, as do many of Beethoven's best loved works - 'Razumovsky' quartets, 'Waldstein' sonata, 'Appasionata' sonata, 'Archduke' trio, the opera 'Fidelio', Piano concertos 4&5 and the Violin concerto.

About 1813 there is a marked slowing in Beethoven's output of major works, and for the next 6 years or so, he produced mainly smaller pieces, songs and song arrangements. There are many reasons for this; his deafness by now was quite advanced (he had ceased giving public performances as a pianist) and this isolation was producing an inner transformation (spiritually). He was also taking more time over his works, with major compositions taking sometimes many years to perfect. In 1815, another burden in the form of his nephew Karl came into his life. For the next 5 years Beethoven was involved in legal disputes with Karl's mother for sole custody of the boy. Karl was to prove a source of anxiety to Beethoven from then on, resulting finally in Karl's failed suicide attempt of July 1826.

The late period works (from about 1816) include the last 6 Piano sonatas, Symphony no.9 'Choral', last 5 String quartets, and the 'Missa Solemnis'. Characteristic of the late period are a meditative quality, with the working out of themes and motives to their utmost potential. There is also an increase in the importance of contrapuntal textures. New sonorities are created, with wide spacing of parts (Piano sonatas). Trills are also of more significance as are silences. Beethoven no longer adheres to traditional classical forms and works may have just 2 movements (Sonata op.111) or as many as 7 (String quartet op.131).

Beethoven's method of composition changed as he developed. Particularly from the middle period on, he would refine an original idea, sometimes many times and over a period of years before he was satisfied. These working outs would be written in sketch-books (which he often carried around with him whilst out walking) and are fascinating to study as they demonstrate the many transformations a work would go through.

Beethoven was truely a living legend of his times,his compositions are just great and as good as they can be,they are good to hear even now...

any inputs regarding other great geniuses of the times may be welcome...

bye!

[John Como]

Thank you for terrific bio on Beethoven. Although raised on pop music and C&W, I was introduced to classical music 40 years ago and have been an ardent fan since then. I enjoy all the great composers and some of the more obscure. I love music for its own sake (classical 75% of the time) but am very short of musical knowledge. Also an avid reader, I've always focused on the product and have little interest in the author or composer.

[Rick]

Thanks John Commo,as i asked,you can submit any info if you have about them here...any style in particular you like...
meanwhile Lets talk about a Legend of his own times.even today.

Mozart's life and his requiem mass
==============================================
The Man who started for His own sister.A small brother who played harp just for sake of getting his sister Marianne later went on to become one of the legends,one of the unforgettable persons in the hisory of the mankind.Yes he is Mozart.A master musician,the unforgettable.
==============================================
REQUIEM
==============================================
It was a work that he was destined never to finish -- Mozart was absolutely sure of that. Some say that he even suspected his impending death from the moment he first received the commission. In any event, the composer rushed to complete his Requiem before he drew his last breath and, therefore, beat Mr. Death at his own game.


Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was only 35, but he had lived the equivalent of many lifetimes. He was barely six years old when his father, Leopold, had dragged his son and daughter over the length and breadth of Europe, showing off their considerable musical talents to anyone who would contribute to their coffers. When little Wolfie sat on the chair before the harpsichord, his feet didn’t even touch the floor.

Since those early days, Mozart had been working steadily, not only as a composer but also as a conductor and performer. He was one of a new breed, a musician who did not depend on royal patronage to survive. He was the first of the free-lance composers, gathering commissions on his own to write operas, symphonies, concertos, and other works. He organized concerts for his own benefit and performed his own piano concertos as part of the program. He seldom taught music -- one of the steadiest ways a musician could earn a living in those days -- simply because he didn’t have the patience to work with musicians less skillful than himself. He had far more pressing things to do.


People like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart -- people larger than life -- leave great legends behind them. The circumstances surrounding the composition of Mozart’s last major work, the “Requiem in D,” is rampant with that kind of myth -- highly romantic to be sure, but largely untrue.


All through his adult life, Mozart had powerful feelings that he would die early. He also tended to be superstitious, so when a mysterious messenger arrived bearing a letter asking him to compose a Requiem Mass -- a mass for the dead -- Mozart took it as an omen of his own imminent departure from the world. What made the episode even more mysterious is that the letter was unsigned.


On the afternoon of the eve of his death, after three of his friends arrived to comfort the dying composer, Mozart conducted an impromptu rehearsal of the completed parts of the Requiem, with himself and each man taking one of the parts. Then, as the group began singing the opening bars of the Lacrimosa, Mozart broke down completely and the rehearsal was aborted.


So goes the myth of the famous “Requiem in D” and its composer’s last day. Throughout the years the tale has been embellished and added to by countless scribes. The truth behind the composition of the Requiem is much more difficult to discover than the folklore. Only two facts are known for certain. The first is that the commission for the work was delivered by an unknown party. The second was that Mozart died before he had completed even half of the Requiem Mass. But here is the best guess at what actually happened.


The story begins in July 1791. There is a knock at Mozart’s door. A perfect stranger hands him a letter asking if he would be interested in writing a Requiem Mass, his fee for composing the work, and a possible delivery date. Would he be kind enough send his reply to a certain address?


After consulting with his wife, Constanze, Mozart accepted the commission, quoted a price, but said that he could not promise a date for delivery. Lately Mozart had been rather sickly and not able to work a great deal.


Some days later, the stranger reappeared bearing a fat bag of money for the composer. He said that Mozart’s price had been so reasonable that his employer had promised a hefty bonus, and that he should complete the work as quickly as possible.


Today, we can be fairly certain that Mozart’s unknown patron was Count Franz Walsagg, an amateur musician who often commissioned works from well-known composers and passed them off as his own. Walsagg wanted the Mass as a memorial to his wife who had passed away the year before. The mysterious messenger was probably Walsagg’s steward, Franz Anton Leutgeb.


Mozart began composing. After he had finished about 40 pages, he laid the work aside to concentrate on completing his Italian opera, “La clemenza di Tito” and the German singspeil, “The Magic Flute”. When these were done, he returned to the Requiem.


All during this time, Mozart was getting sicker and he began thinking that the end was near. However, he didn’t believe he was dying from any ordinary disease. He firmly believed that he was being poisoned. Constanze tried to soothe her husband and convince him that it was all in his imagination, but Mozart would not be comforted. He became increasingly depressed and melancholy. And he started spending more time with his unfinished Requiem, in spite of his rapidly failing health. It became an obsession.


On his last day on earth, Mozart could have hardly been able to sing any part of the Requiem, or even work on it very much. His swollen body would have caused him excruciating pain. In fact, he was barely able to move. At about one o’clock in the morning, on December 5, 1791, he turned his face to the wall and died.


Constanze, who was now in a desperate financial condition, turned the unfinished Requiem manuscript over to Mozart’s pupil, Franz Xavier Süssmayr. She knew that Mozart and Süssmayr had often discussed the Requiem and that the composer had left instructions on how he wanted certain passages completed. The final result was about half Mozart and half Süssmayr.


Constanze presented the manuscript to Walsagg a year after Mozart died, but not before she had made a copy of the music. This was fortunate because the Requiem might have been lost to the world if Walsagg had claimed authorship. As it was, he could hardly do that since Mozart’s composition was already being performed by others. So he decided to sue as one whose rights of ownership had been violated. Constanze headed off the attempt with borrowed money to buy the rights back from Walsagg. The thwarted plagiarizer could do nothing else but comply.


And so Mozart’s last major composition -- and probably one of the most popular things he ever wrote -- was finally completed. The composition of the “Requiem in D” may be sheathed in legend, but its truth is apparent to everyone who basks in its beauty.

When you listen to his compositions,you feel that great Ambience inside your own heart,that depths are present within your hearts and Mozart the great is telling us to view them.

Hats Off To Him...

bye!

[Biggles]

Zion.. thankyou so much for your last post.

I'm a big fan of classical music ever sine being forced to watch "Amadeus" at the flicks. The film ended with his reqiuem, naturally. Genius piece of work... certainly one of my favorites... morbid, but wonderfully beautiful.

Ever since an age of about thirteen I've loved the classics of Bach and Verdi. Needless to say, the other kids at school laughed when I said that I preferred Puccini to Bros! Look who's having the last laugh now!:D

Again, thankyou for a detailed piece of research. Very informative!

[orthogonal]

I discovered classical music through my failed attempt to learn to play the violin.

You might think it was just another case of parents pushing their reluctant child to take music lessons. Not at all. As a teenager I sold newspapers and mowed lawns to earn the money to buy my violin and take the lessons.

As it happened, I fell in love with my violin teacher. I've no idea how old she was, 25 or 30 perhaps? She often wore her sandy blonde hair in a sort of a Germanic or Trachten-like braid. God, she was beautiful. She had a soft voice and near infinite patience as a teacher. I remember she once played for me one of J.S. Bach's Partitas for solo violin. As she played little pink fluttery hearts danced over my head. My weekly lessons couldn't arrive too soon.

For nearly a year I practiced in my basement. I always kept a mute on the bridge so as not to annoy my family. My father in particular, used to look disgusted when mention of my violin was made. I did my best to stay out of his way. Sometimes I'd wait till my mother was washing clothes so that the machine would drown out my noise.

In time my teacher had become noticably pregnant (don't even think it), and asked that we resume the lessons after she'd given birth. Actually, I think she worried that my tortured vibrations might somehow be picked up by her unborn child. Rather than risk a birth defect, the lessons were put on hold.

By that time I'd advanced to playing a few of the less demanding pieces by the well known composers, certainly not Paganini, but I began to enjoy the music itself.

She called me a couple of months later. I dropped by to see her baby though it didn't make much of an impression on me. Strangely, the entire business of her being pregnant had upset me. I gave her an excuse for not resuming my lessons and said goodbye to her. I gave up playing.

Still, the violin has always remained my favorite instrument. I've an enormous respect for those who can make it sing. Besides, my failed attempt to play the violin left me with a love for classical music. To this day, my intense feelings for classical music are inseparable from my thoughts of her. Classical music expresses the most pure and sweet emotions of life. Oddly, my failure with the violin stands out as the best memory from my otherwise miserable childhood.

Nearly everything composed up through the 1820's is music to my ears. After Beethoven's time it becomes hit or miss, though Tchaikovsky and Saint-Saens are notable exceptions. Mozart and Vivaldi seem to have been incapable of composing unhappy music. They invariably lift me out of a melancholy. And small wonder, but I've still a soft spot in my heart for the music of J.S. Bach :)

Michael

[Yogamojo]

I understand the difficulties that the violin presents, I've been playing it since 1986 and still study privately. This has caused me to pay more attention to classical music, although both of my parents exposed me to it long before I played an instrument.

As far as violin repertoire goes I have a few favorites, and anyone who appreciates this instrument and is unfamiliar with any of the following composers should download some MP3s, you will probably be most enamored...

1) Henri Wieniawski:.... Scherzo Tarantella
Polonaise Brillant in D major
Violin concerto #2
2) Pablo de Sarasate:... Carmen Fantasy
Spanish Dances
3) Henri Vieuxtemps:.....Violin Concerto #5
4) Niccolo Paganini:.......The 24 Caprices
La Campanella
La Streghe
The Violin Concertos
5) Fritz Kreisler:.............Caprice Viennois
Tambourin Chinois
Praeludium and Allegro
Tempo di Menuetto
Anything by Kreisler really...
6) Max Bruch..................The Scottish Fantasie
The 2 violin Concertos
7) Edouard Lalo.............Symphonie Espagnole

And if you can get recorded versions of Itzhak Perlman or Michael Rabin you're in luck because no one has done it better...

Check some out if you have the time and volition...!!

[orthogonal]

Yogamojo,

That's a super list, especially the Kreisler and Bruch, thanks!

BTW, I happened to read recently that Albert Einstein took his violin everywhere with him. A well known virtuoso remarked that Einstein's fingering was very delicate, but that he bowed like a lumberjack. The article went on to say that Einstein didn't get very upset if someone questioned his theory of relativity, but he would become quite angry if his playing was criticized. :)

Michael

[Yogamojo]

It is interesting that the intellectual part of his work was safe behind his security in its accuracy, but felt more vulnerable when it came to right-brained functions...In contrast Mozart was so sure of the "soundness" (pun intended) of his life's work that he went to no one for critique while socially his relationships sagged.

Apparently this sort of compromise is not always necessary though. Ignasz Paderewski, Franz Liszt, and Frederick Chopin (all pianists) were extremely dexterous, illustrious, each with many solid contributions to the repertoire of his instrument, yet all three were sound social figures.

Has anyone heard any of the odd stories about Niccolo Paganini, Giuseppe Tartini, or Ol' Borneman Bull? There are many mysterious tales afloat; perhaps later I will post some for the appreciation of those who are interested.

[spacecat27]

I've often wondered if there is a specific age parameter for 'classical' music..... for example, many folks say an 'antique' HAS to be at least 100 years old. Is this true for classical music- and if so, what is the time frame?

We all agree 'old-timers' like Brahams, Beetoven, Bach, Mozart are classical..... where does this leave Copeland? His style is certainly classical- but he was still with us till what, a couple decades ago? The opening post mentioned Vangelis- who's still very much alive, I believe.... so is he 'classical' yet?

Any thoughts? Particularly from persons with advanced studies in music?

[orthogonal]

Hey Yogamojo,

I read a biography about Paganini some years ago. As I remember, he was a bit of an eccentric rock-star in his day. Again, if I remember correctly, he told reporters that he never practiced playing once he became an adult. He also seems to have had an aversion to food. It seems that critics tended to be hard on him, describing him as nothing more than a trickster, etc. I can't say that I am particularly fond of his compositions that I've heard, they seem to be full of too many "special effects" for my taste.

Michael

[Rick]

ever heard of windows XP?.
OKAY so when you see media player skin,you see something written called ""windows classic"",right.thats gonna give you more ideas...


bye!

[Yogamojo]

Spacecat 27,

"Classical" music, unlike "antique" furniture actually refers to an ongoing genre of music which is still being composed, albeit under some different rules (12 tone, quartertone, polyharmonic, free-form) than were traditionally used before the last century. In most well fortified classical music sections you will find music ranging from the earliest baroque through the renaissance into the romantic, post-romantic, and up to the modern/contemporary classical music (which includes abstract, modernist classical music and music for film scores, etc.). Although if you listen to some Witold Lutoslawski or Olivier Messiaen I doubt if anything as classical as a Mozart Symphony will come to mind...

Orthogonal,

Yep. Paganini was a weirdo, sort of vampiric and eccentric in appearance and attitude. He had some disorder which was treated with mercury which caused a pallor in his skin and a sensitivity to bright light for which reason he wore dark, blue-lensed spectacles most of the time. He also and a rare tendon disorder which enabled him to simultaneously finger four Gs. He womanized as often as he could, played entire pieces on one string just because he could, and the rumor was that his mother sold her soul to the devil in exchange for her son's virtuosity on his instrument. From the pictures I've seen, sketches, a couple of old photographs, he looked how the devil might look. And I agree, much of his music is pretty pyrotechnical and acrobatic, sometimes too much of that sort of thing can seem to impede the musical importance of a work.

[James R]

Classical music rocks! :D

[in vivo]

This is an interesting thread...good bios; Michael---enjoyed your little jaunt down memory-lane...
Classical music---good stuff.

May I recommend a little collection cleverly entitled "Classical Music for People Who Hate ClassicaL Music" for those who aren't sure if classical is right for them. :)

[DerSteppenwolf]

my personal favorite: mozarts magic flute. also love wagner's tanhauser(although he tends to over orchestrate), händel's trumpet tune and most of schubert's work.

[cosmictraveler]

The 9th, oh my the 9th! :)

[Xev]

zion:
There's an excellent book called "The Mozart Myths" that explains the facts behind the requiem myth.

Suprised none have mentioned Wagner. While he's unpopular in our current climate, he revolutionized opera and, more on topic, he had quite an interesting "rock star" personality.

Worthy mentions -
Dvorak, Smetana, Sibelius

[Rappaccini]

Leave it to a semi-proto-fascist Nietzschean idolater to bring up Wagner.

He was great though. The greatest, in my opinion.

Der Ring des Nibelungen? Magnificent.

[Xev]

Leave it to a Christian to try to spark an argument in an otherwise civil thread. Do us a favor and choke to death on the next cock you suck, mmkay?

Amusing that you assumed that fondness for Nietzsche implies fondness for Wagner, when Nietzsche hated Wagner's guts for years after their split.
Even in works that show Nietzsche's influence most prominently - namely the Ring cycle - Wagner is not a true Nietzschean.
If there is an ideology connecting the two before Wagner flipped his wig and became a Jesus-freak, it is that the earlier works of Wagner and the later works of Nietzsche show the inspiration of Wotanaz.

The Ring cycle, Tristan und Isolde and the Meistersinger and Tannhauser overtures are amazing. Wagner does have a tendancy for bombast - in general, I don't like this in classical, see my recommendations of Smetana and Sibelius - but he pulls his bombast off quite well.

[Rappaccini]

Christian?

Okay... whatever... either you're doing a bang up job of insulting me or you took my idiotic trolling in the Religious forums a little too seriously.


Yes, I know all about "Contra Wagner". Neitzsche was probably just starting to die of syphilis when he wrote that... *chuckle chuckle*


Please don't assume I'm defaming you when I'm merely being playful, Xeva, you silver-tongued, pugnacious semi-proto-fascist.



Anyone here have a fondness for Tchaikovsky?

[Xev]

I don't read the religion forum. However, since your pea-brain automatically associates elitism with fascism, I assumed you're of Christian tendancy - if not belief.

Nietzsche's criticism of Wagner are not limited to Contra Wagner. I believe The Case of Wagner and one other essay.
I never saw precisely what Nietzsche's objection to the music itself was. Yes, later Wagner reeks ideologically, yes, Wagner's conception of love is pathetic. But then again so is most men's, and the final scene of Die Walkurie always brings tears to my eyes.

Although Nietzsche does make the most wonderful observation:
"What becomes of the "Wandering Jew" whom a woman loves and makes stable? He simply ceases to be eternal; he gets married, he is of no further concern"

The problem with Wagner is that he so desperately wanted to be redeemed and loved without end or limit, that he so desperately wanted to have a mission, and that it soils his music. Art cannot be divorced from the artist, on the other hand, there's something pathetic about splaying your weaknesses onto canvas or sheet.

Wagner's music is bad in that it reflects Wagner's personality - needy, domineering, bombastic, absolutist. Wagner's music is also good in this - but if one knew him personally, I'm sure one would come to dislike his music.

Tchikovsky is quite grand. Rhapsodic with quite interesting substructures.

[tablariddim]

Last night I went to see the St Petersburg choir perform Carmina Burana and it was amazing. If I hadn't heard a snatch of the famous bit, that I recognised, on the radio ad for it, I wouldn't have known what or who Carmina Burana was and I would have missed this beautiful performance. Classical music (like jazz and Blues, ethnic world music and all genres of quality music) needs promoting through popular media to become better known to the masses. Movies don't seem to feature anything more than about 50 years old and tend to stick to mainly rock n roll and some soul music.

[Rappaccini]

I don't read the religion forum. However, since your pea-brain automatically associates elitism with fascism, I assumed you're of Christian tendancy - if not belief.

Perhaps you're not as blindly irascible and venomous as you seem.
Perhaps you're more than a pretender to righteous anger, more than a 'superficially deep,' easily embittered, feminist dilettante?

More than I am, anyways...

I am of a frenetic Christian tendency, but I think that has more to do with a sublimation of my masochistic leanings than a true intellectual penchant for the stuff.
You see, religiousity is bleak to me, but a wrathful God... that's charming, even pleasurable in a backwards flagellant-esque sort of way.



Nietzsche's criticism of Wagner are not limited to Contra Wagner. I believe The Case of Wagner and one other essay.

Ja, I glanced over it.
Not like you. You probably pored over it.


I never saw precisely what Nietzsche's objection to the music itself was.
[/qupte]

Ah, but there was none.
Neitszche had seen himself and Wagner as fellow members of an iconoclastic but meaningful clique, and Fredrich felt betrayed when Richard chose Christian weakness over their own brand of empowered, 'godless uprightness,' if you will.

[quote]But then again so is most men's, and the final scene of Die Walkurie always brings tears to my eyes.

Hold! You've lost me! Tears... in a good or bad way?



Although Nietzsche does make the most wonderful observation:
"What becomes of the "Wandering Jew" whom a woman loves and makes stable? He simply ceases to be eternal; he gets married, he is of no further concern"

But he made so many! A great man must, I guess.
I feel sad that I have not studied this area in the depth which you have treated it.
I have long preferred French literature modern theater to the Opera and social philosphy, though I've read a little, to be sure.

Greater Thinking? ... blah... there's no money in it.

It is practicality, not life, that is the bitch, and through the fomer the latter it made to seem one.


Art cannot be divorced from the artist, on the other hand, there's something pathetic about splaying your weaknesses onto canvas or sheet.

I am reminded of something Oscar Wilde once wrote, though I cannot say what definitely.
They say he was dry, but I say the flowery fag could write.
Egad, I can't stay on topic!



Tchikovsky is quite grand. Rhapsodic with quite interesting substructures.

Substructures?
What an educated word.
Sounds like "subset" or "structrual integrity".

Are you a phoppish fraseologist, or do you study music? :rolleyes:




This will probably upset you to no end, but I can't resist Handel's oratorio, Messiah.

[Xev]

Rappanici:

Perhaps you're not as blindly irascible and venomous as you seem.
Perhaps you're more than a pretender to righteous anger, more than a 'superficially deep,' easily embittered, feminist dilettante?

No, I can't say I'm really angry in a embittered feminist way or in a rightous way.


You see, religiousity is bleak to me, but a wrathful God... that's charming, even pleasurable in a backwards flagellant-esque sort of way.

How boooring.
I can see how some other God, say Apollo or Ianovit or even Odin himself, may radiate a certain sexuality, but Yahweh? Bad taste, bad taste.

That's the problem with you masochists. You lack a real aesthetics of power, instead you focus on the sturm und drang of its manifestations.
*Smiles*


Ja, I glanced over it.
Not like you. You probably pored over it.

Not really. He has the cutest observations about love in there, but otherwise it's not awfully important a work.


Hold! You've lost me! Tears... in a good or bad way?

*Sniffle*
Oh come on. Brunnhilde has broken with Allfather, who is angry, tired and disillusioned. He rages and threatens to leave her, broken and vulnerable, to the uncertain mercies of men. The scenerio is amazing - Wuotan spends the Ring cycle trying to cope with the incredible burdens of his Godhood, and here the Valkyrie, incarnation of his own will, has defied him. Most readings of the opera make Odin out to be the ultimate authority figure, but he's not -if you read closely he's almost happy that she's defied him, because his own power is sterile.
Odin, betrayed and exhausted, finds again the strength to protect his daughter. It's quite moving, almost as much as when Brunnhilde appears to Siegmund and witnesses his love for his sister-bride Sieglinde, or in the Siegfried opera when Brunnhilde is realizing what she's lost - and what she's gained in Siegfried.


But he made so many! A great man must, I guess.
I feel sad that I have not studied this area in the depth which you have treated it.
I have long preferred French literature modern theater to the Opera and social philosphy, though I've read a little, to be sure.

I'm actually not much of a opera fan myself. Carmen - and the Marriage of Figaro and Magic Flute I enjoy, but when it comes to classical I like something very disciplined and mathematical like Bach or Telemann or romantic like Beethovan and Grieg. Blame it on the Teuton in me, or my overexposure to black metal.

As for the Ring, I have this complete fetish for anything to do with the Norse-Germanics, and especially with Odin.


It is practicality, not life, that is the bitch, and through the fomer the latter it made to seem one.

Yes the - compromise - that survival demands.
I like Wilde, especially when he gets rather morbid and soft like in "Vera, the Nihilist" or in his children's tales, especially "The fisherman and his soul"
His witticisms get...annoyingly catty.


Substructures?
What an educated word.
Sounds like "subset" or "structrual integrity".

Actually the word isn't "educated" - I don't really know how to express myself here, because I don't *know* music theory.


This will probably upset you to no end, but I can't resist Handel's oratorio, Messiah.

And I like Bach's "St. Matthew's Passion" when I feel guilty.

[Rappaccini]

No, I can't say I'm really angry in a embittered feminist way or in a rightous way.

I wasn't suggesting you weren't one.
I think you are.

I was suggesting that you weren't one blindly, or let us say...

you did not spurn me without good reason.


You did not whimfully asperse me as "Christian".
Oh no, you smelled Christianity in me, and went on the offensive with determined candor.



I s'ppose I look too deeply into the phrase "pea brain".



I can see how some other God, say Apollo or Ianovit or even Odin himself, may radiate a certain sexuality, but Yahweh? Bad taste, bad taste.

Ianovit... Celtic? No.
Hmmmm... ah! The Slavic god of War?

Odin is a little too stark. You might argue that Jehovah, the "invisible god" is even more so, but please rember that I was raised on His milk and honey, on his body and blood.
He is immeasurably more complex, poignant, and personal for me than any other divinity could ever be.

As you may now suspect, I have a soft spot for Mephistopheles too.



That's the problem with you masochists. You lack a real aesthetics of power, instead you focus on the sturm und drang of its manifestations.


Storm and stress!
I don't think I could've rendered that better myself.

I would probably have related it to French Romanticist painting... Gericault, in particular.

Grace and fluidity are not exigencies of power, but their beauteousness does add to it a certain flair. The tight, versatile sinews of horse are themselves powerful but are made all the more impressive by a sleek coat.

All I need is the muscle, in truth, the tangled, writhing bodies of Gericault's Raft of the Medusa, the power of a forbidding, insulating ocean that offers to the lost souls no relief and all relief.

But must you have the far off ship to which a few rejoicing passengers wave, the distant beacon, hardly visible, which adds to the tale an ultimate expression, a completeness of purpose, a palatable conclusion, and a romantic explanation?

You must have these "aesthetics of power"?



Not really. He has the cutest observations about love in there, but otherwise it's not awfully important a work.

At least you know well, as I do not.




Most readings of the opera make Odin out to be the ultimate authority figure, but he's not -if you read closely he's almost happy that she's defied him, because his own power is sterile.
That's actually quite interesting.


Blame it on the Teuton in me, or my overexposure to black metal.

All right. I will.


As for the Ring, I have this complete fetish for anything to do with the Norse-Germanics, and especially with Odin.

I have a fetish for unpopular, foreign and British novellas.

Colonel Chabert, by Balzac, was delightful. Hugo's The Last Day of a Condemned Man is good too.
Tolstoy's The Kreutzer Sonata was very insightful, though I didn't actually finish it.

Have you read anything by Thomas Hardy?
I've been considering picking up his My Fellow Townsman.

By the way, I've forgotten. Who composed In the Halls of the Mountain King?



I like Wilde, especially when he gets rather morbid and soft like in "Vera, the Nihilist" or in his children's tales, especially "The fisherman and his soul"
His witticisms get...annoyingly catty.


I swear that I've read the word 'catty' applied to his writings... somewhere.

You know the story of Wilde, "The Happy Prince"?
I'll admit, no matter how trite it was, it's story was so pitiful it brought tears to my eyes.



Actually the word isn't "educated" - I don't really know how to express myself here, because I don't *know* music theory.

Don't fret over that. Not knowing the subject never stopped me from talking about it, either.

[Xev]

Rappaccini:

you did not spurn me without good reason.
You did not whimfully asperse me as "Christian".
Oh no, you smelled Christianity in me, and went on the offensive with determined candor.

Oh yes, but I sniff it on everyone - even myself, at times.


I s'ppose I look too deeply into the phrase "pea brain".

One must never overanalyze my childish insults.


Ianovit... Celtic? No.
Hmmmm... ah! The Slavic god of War?
Odin is a little too stark. You might argue that Jehovah, the "invisible god" is even more so, but please rember that I was raised on His milk and honey, on his body and blood.
He is immeasurably more complex, poignant, and personal for me than any other divinity could ever be.

Odin, stark how so?
There is a certain sternness to him - there is also the element of bestial chaos. He's as much a God of ecstacy as he is of disciplined warfare, as much a source of comfort as of illumination.
I don't see Odin as one of authority at all.

Jehovah - I was not raised Christian, or in any sort of organized religion. I can sense the power of Christianity only secondhand, for the sensations it involves are alien to me.


As you may now suspect, I have a soft spot for Mephistopheles too.

But one implies the other.
Do you like Lucifer? He strikes me as a nonpareil.


Storm and stress!
I don't think I could've rendered that better myself.

German romanticism is wonderful for this.


I would probably have related it to French Romanticist painting... Gericault, in particular.

And you have reminded me of Laocoon or the sculptors of the Baroque. See chaste Daphne twist away and transform as the God reaches to possess her. Ha! Or we have David, resolute and rippling with tension as he prepares to throw his rock. There's such a feeling of - movement and frozen time there, but then I am only speaking of Bernini.


All I need is the muscle, in truth, the tangled, writhing bodies of Gericault's Raft of the Medusa, the power of a forbidding, insulating ocean that offers to the lost souls no relief and all relief.

Now Gericault is interesting. He captures movement, but he does not freeze it. There's instead the sense of observing action, which is absurdly confined and hopeless in its own potency.


But must you have the far off ship to which a few rejoicing passengers wave, the distant beacon, hardly visible, which adds to the tale an ultimate expression, a completeness of purpose, a palatable conclusion, and a romantic explanation?

If your patrons demand it?
The sense of conclusion is rushed.


You must have these "aesthetics of power"?

Of course.


I have a fetish for unpopular, foreign and British novellas

Of those you named, I know only the Kreutzer Sonata. Illuminating, yes.


I swear that I've read the word 'catty' applied to his writings... somewhere.

How do I say, his plays can get too witty. I had the misfortune of sitting through Sheridan's School for Scandal once - same effect.
But then, that isn't fair to Wilde.


You know the story of Wilde, "The Happy Prince"?
I'll admit, no matter how trite it was, it's story was so pitiful it brought tears to my eyes.

Finest sentimentality there. Pitiful is the right word - but there's something about his children's tales.


Don't fret over that. Not knowing the subject never stopped me from talking about it, either.

Wa-yull, I dawn't know art, but ah know what ah like!

[Rappaccini]

Odin, stark how so?
There is a certain sternness to him - there is also the element of bestial chaos.
I don't see Odin as one of authority at all.

The typical imagery of Odin appears grim in my eyes. Was he not represented by three tenebrous, stern figures, all enthroned, authoritative?
Maybe I am not well enough informed.



Jehovah - I was not raised Christian, or in any sort of organized religion. I can sense the power of Christianity only secondhand, for the sensations it involves are alien to me.

It's an appreciation, I believe, imprinted in most Western children very young, especially the Catholic ones.

The religion itself is not polytheistic, of course, and, thus, it's potential for intricacy is stunted.
However, it still has it's sagas, it's peculiar mythos.
It's not the Christian tenets that I remember fondly, the hopes for salvation or the blessedness of God's word (As I stated, religiousity is bleak.). It is the irrepressible legend itself.

Xeva, Christianity is more than the Bible, more than the credo of a despairing slave-race, and more than a mere religion. It's a cultural drive, a corruscating, inescapable motif, an art form.

It's not Jesus alone that defines Christianity! It's Spenser, Dante, Milton, Goethe, Aquinas, Rapheal, Wagner, Kepler even.

For me personally, it's Samsonite Agonistes that sticks, not the Sermon on the Mount!

All of that art, sprung from the thought of a benevolent but vengeful God, a God, who has for all practical purposes cotrolled the destiny of human society for over a millenium.



But one implies the other.
Do you like Lucifer? He strikes me as a nonpareil.

I like the Devil for only his irrevocable, inconceivable pride, a power that does not threaten God, but complements Him.
You could call him a "substructure" of Jehovah.

I think there have been technical, rough parallels of Lucifer, say, those of Zoroastianism and Hinduism, but, stylistically, they are lacking.

The Devil is the paragon of pride, unmatched aesthetically. He is the inerrant expression of an emotion; he is the center-piece of man's tragedy, the beginning and end of history.
He is the incarnation of creativity, caught up the gusto of suave sin, just as God is the incarnation of aimless power, caught up in the gusto of divine charity.


Or we have David, resolute and rippling with tension as he prepares to throw his rock. There's such a feeling of - movement and frozen time there, but then I am only speaking of Bernini.

Bernini was the first, so why not speak of him alone? Bah! What could be more important than the beginning?

Bernini's David is his magnum opus in my opinion. It is... formidable. Very volatile and dynamic, in comparison with Michelangelo's earlier piece of the same name.


If your patrons demand it?

Whether or not you realized it, that could be a bit of profundity.

Is the sadist not the patron of the masochist, then? Is the sadist not the one who demands grace and power?

I am too confused by my own convoluted comparisons! Yikes!


Finest sentimentality there. Pitiful is the right word - but there's something about his children's tales.

Yes, definitely so.

[Ozymandias]

I enjoy classical music, although some of the earlier composers ... their pieces were too mechanical for me. Debussy, Dvorak, Holst, Saint-Saëns ... they're my favorites, definitely.

[Xev]

Rappaccini:

The typical imagery of Odin appears grim in my eyes. Was he not represented by three tenebrous, stern figures, all enthroned, authoritative?
Maybe I am not well enough informed.

Stern, with his ravens on his shoulders and his wolves at his feet, and yet contemplative.
"Grim" is the perfect word.

Perhaps I have taken the wrong psychological meaning of "authority". Odin enforces a strict honour of contracts, when one makes oaths, one does not break them under any circumstances. One must remember that the mechanisms of social control we live under now were not shared by the Norse - rather, their society was contractually based. Hence Odinic authority stems from oath-enforcing and so much from alotted duties and privileges.


It's an appreciation, I believe, imprinted in most Western children very young, especially the Catholic ones.

I am by upbringing more familiar with Catholicism, yet I think the Protestant personal God has a great imprint as well. Protestantism is considerably more gory and fond of that "personal" relation to God.


The religion itself is not polytheistic, of course, and, thus, it's potential for intricacy is stunted.

Oh! Tell me Catholicism isn't desperately trying to be polytheistic.
Intricate it is, perhaps simply convoluted but how else can you describe the various interpretations of the Trinity, the conflicts and demands of salvation, or the ever popular debate on free will?


Xeva, Christianity is more than the Bible, more than the credo of a despairing slave-race, and more than a mere religion. It's a cultural drive, a corruscating, inescapable motif, an art form.

It's not Jesus alone that defines Christianity! It's Spenser, Dante, Milton, Goethe, Aquinas, Rapheal, Wagner, Kepler even.

Donne and Milton.
Very well - I'll stipulate that Christianity is more than a Jewish creed, but then what is it?

I called you a Christian, as I noted I find traces of it everywhere. For the past thousand years, Christianity has woven itself into the very institutions of Western culture. Even those who most successfully attacked it still found themselves consumed by its influence. Our art reflects it, for the longest time our science reflected it, and still our thought reflects it.

Freud analyzed it, and found a reflection in God-the-Father of our own primal Father. But then, isn't our very ideal of the Father rooted in the Christian ideal of God? Feminists reject it for being the eldest patriarchial model, and yet what could be more Christian than their demands for equality? Many attack it on humanitarian grounds, without realizing how Christian their humanitarianism is.
Christianity works on the same principle as the HIV virus does. It latches onto the individual's drives and never leaves.


For me personally, it's Samsonite Agonistes that sticks, not the Sermon on the Mount!
All of that art, sprung from the thought of a benevolent but vengeful God, a God, who has for all practical purposes cotrolled the destiny of human society for over a millenium.

True.
And why so?
Christianity is both the source and the symptom of some of our most demanding human needs.


I like the Devil for only his irrevocable, inconceivable pride, a power that does not threaten God, but complements Him.
You could call him a "substructure" of Jehovah.

Complements and defies.
One is not really enough without the other.


I think there have been technical, rough parallels of Lucifer, say, those of Zoroastianism and Hinduism, but, stylistically, they are lacking.

Rough parallels - I am not familiar with Zoroastianism - but they match the Devil only in the relentlessness of their destruction and the fury of their creation. They do not signify - his opposition.


The Devil is the paragon of pride, unmatched aesthetically. He is the inerrant expression of an emotion; he is the center-piece of man's tragedy, the beginning and end of history.
He is the incarnation of creativity, caught up the gusto of suave sin, just as God is the incarnation of aimless power, caught up in the gusto of divine charity.

"That durst dislike his reign, and me preferring,
His utmost power with adverse power oppos'd
In dubious Battel on the Plains of Heav'n,
And shook his throne. What though the field be lost?
All is not lost; the unconquerable Will,
And study of revenge, immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield:
And what is else not to be overcome?
That Glory never shall his wrath or might
Extort from me. To bow and sue for grace
With suppliant knee, and deifie his power
Who from the terrour of this Arm so late
Doubted his Empire, that were low indeed,
That were an ignominy and shame beneath
This downfall"
-Milton, of course

He's more than creativity.


Bernini was the first, so why not speak of him alone? Bah! What could be more important than the beginning?

I'm most familiar with him of all the Baroque artists. His work is supple, evoking the ripple of muscle underneath skin and a tautness, a building up of potential energy that captures so perfectly the Renaissance soul.


Bernini's David is his magnum opus in my opinion. It is... formidable. Very volatile and dynamic, in comparison with Michelangelo's earlier piece of the same name.

Michelangelo depicts a haughty young man, victorious and rather cocky. Bernini depicts a fighter who is confident but still uncertain, with resolution and angst coloring his movements.
Of the two, the latter is far more interesting.


Whether or not you realized it, that could be a bit of profundity.

It goes back to the conflict between the demands of artistry and the demands of one's creditors.

No - actually it goes deeper than that. Did Gericault depict something that came too close to the truth without the addition of a rescue ship? I think so.


Is the sadist not the patron of the masochist, then? Is the sadist not the one who demands grace and power?

I should think it's the other way around. I doubt true sadism exists, save in the vulgar sexual sense or in those who pull the wings off insects. Rather the demand is on the part of the masochist for another to be the flesh of one's ideal of precision, grace and unquestionable power.

Grace and power! What a couple of fags we are, as if either of the two exists any longer.

[water]

Tchaikovsky!

Oh, Peter Ilijich wrote some Music ... with a capital M.
I love his work, the fantastic Romeo and Juliet, A Fantastic Uverture, and the symphonies, the 4th, the 5th, ... and the 6th. And the ballets! And the Serenade for the string orchestra op. 48.

For a long time, I wondered how life is possible after the 6th. How music is possible after the 6th.

Strange things happen sometimes. I was at a concert where the Mariinsky Teatr - Orchestra of the Kirov Opera of St. Petersburg conducted by Valery Gergiev performed the 6th. The concert was held in a rich hall, and most of the audience were important (" ") people and other big shots.
The piece ends quietly, slowly, fades out. They did a wonderful performance. The conductor puts down his stick, one man in the audience starts to applaud, 3 times, then embarrassing silence, for seconds. Nobody applauded. I sat close enough to see how the conductor looked worried and sad, almost confused. Then, finally, someone started to applaud, and everyone joined in, and it lasted for quite a while.
All those rich, dressed-up people, regarded as the cream of society -- they went to a concert and they didn't even know the piece!! It was bizzare.
I know the piece by heart, yet I didn't feel like so "important" to applaud in the beginning. I sure will next time!
The audience at classical concerts is often quite snobish, and unless you are a big shot like them, they don't talk to you, hell, they don't even say "Good evening" when they have a seat next you.
So much for the "practical impact" of classical music on some of today's audiences ...


I'm surprised Mahler hasn't been mentioned yet.

[Rappaccini]

I am by upbringing more familiar with Catholicism, yet I think the Protestant personal God has a great imprint as well. Protestantism is considerably more gory and fond of that "personal" relation to God.


Everything from the beliefs of Calvin to the writings of Hawthorne has me convinced that Protestantism is far too morally robust to make for fine talk and high thoughts.
The dissident denominations are too true to their precepts, far too faithful to suit me; they really do live by the book!

The "new" churches have no grandiose legend, no indelible history, no delicacy. All they have is the formality and the fervor, none of the power and grace.

As Gendanken might put it, Protestantism is for the proles.


Oh! Tell me Catholicism isn't desperately trying to be polytheistic.
It tries, yes.



Donne and Milton.
Very well - I'll stipulate that Christianity is more than a Jewish creed, but then what is it?

A force. That's why is appealing to me.


... woven itself into the very institutions of Western culture. ... those who most successfully attacked it still found themselves consumed... Our art reflects it, for the longest time our science reflected it, and still our thought reflects it.
Christianity works on the same principle as the HIV virus does. It latches onto the individual's drives and never leaves.

Exactly!
Jesus wasn't too accurate when he spoke of being "born again". All it takes is one birth, and you're entangled, forever.
It could be worse, Xeva.


Of the two, the latter is far more interesting.

I'm really not so sure about that.


No - actually it goes deeper than that. Did Gericault depict something that came too close to the truth without the addition of a rescue ship? I think so.

Recall that, for all it's Romanticism, this painting was still simply Gericualt's well-informed take on what was an international scandal, a real event in histroy. He did his utmost to maintain truth, doing so in his own dramatic manner, of course.

I was just trying to compare your sturm und drang reference to somthing more familiar to me. Nothing more meant by it.


Rather the demand is on the part of the masochist for another to be the flesh of one's ideal of precision, grace and unquestionable power.

We tread on no new grounds here.
The traditional sadomasochistic pairing of individauls has oft been termed an "exchange" by those more voceriferous and knowledgeable on this topic than we.
An exhange of services it is, mutually advantageous.


Grace and power... as if either of the two exists any longer.

They exist, though rarely ever vested in a single being they are today.

[Xev]

Rappaccini:

Everything from the beliefs of Calvin to the writings of Hawthorne has me convinced that Protestantism is far too morally robust to make for fine talk and high thoughts.
The dissident denominations are too true to their precepts, far too faithful to suit me; they really do live by the book!

Correct - Protestantism is just fucking boring. It has no soul, and it grew up in northern climates. Christianity is a tropical disease, freeze it, and it loses its virulence.


A force. That's why is appealing to me.

And not because you grew up with it?


Exactly!
Jesus wasn't too accurate when he spoke of being "born again". All it takes is one birth, and you're entangled, forever.
It could be worse, Xeva.

Because it operates by working its way into the psychic life of a person or nation and becomes indispensible.
It could be worse...one must remember that it is only 1000 years popular, if that. However, the development of Christianity occured in the same areas which developed industrial society. Oh dear.


Recall that, for all it's Romanticism, this painting was still simply Gericualt's well-informed take on what was an international scandal, a real event in histroy. He did his utmost to maintain truth, doing so in his own dramatic manner, of course.
I was just trying to compare your sturm und drang reference to somthing more familiar to me. Nothing more meant by it.

Now that, I did not know.
In which case I'm off. Still, I do think there's something about the painting that - without a rescuing ship in the distance - would be just too unnerving.


They exist, though rarely ever vested in a single being they are today.

They are, granted.
However, their manifestation on a large scale is very rare these days. Instead of Fredrich the Great, you have Hitler. Instead of Elizabeth I, you have Maggie Thatcher. Pardon, I sound awfully morbid but power has been subsumed by control, once industry dominates the human becomes industrialized. We can accomplish feats that make the Olympians look dwarfish, but we do not. Instead, we create institutions to do them for us.
Here I still don't "tread on new grounds" - thinkers as diverse as Goethe and Theodore Kaczynski have been noting this.
Does this mean the death of power and grace? No. But power - real power, the elegant kind - exists in opposition to the very spirit of our age.
It's playtime for bored yuppies, in other words.

[Hastein]

Orff
Grieg
Wagner
Beethoven
Mozart
Chopin
Stravinsky
Bach- I worship his organ works, but his other works bore me.

Does anyone like Rodrigo, the blind guitarist?

[Hastein]

Correct - Protestantism is just fucking boring. It has no soul, and it grew up in northern climates. Christianity is a tropical disease, freeze it, and it loses its virulence.

The Catholic faith was always more entertaining and artistic. Original Christianity wasn't harsh enough for the northern europeans, so they had to mold it into a warrior religion. They even made Jesus into a warrior divinity and the saints became their new pagan gods. Not to mention the jaw dropping architecture. Still, it remains a desolate and ignorant religion that pretty much destroyed western civilization.

Xev, have you ever gone to this site?

http://www.northvegr.org/main.php

Has all of the essential 'teutonic' texts and truckloads of information.

[Xev]

Hastein, do you frequent Spinoza Ray Prozak's site? Pardon, but there's just something eerie about another person who's into metal, into classical and knows that nihilism is more than a doctrine for pallid teenagers.

Also - how can you find Bach boring? He's very structured, but extremely energetic at times, for instance in his cantatas.


The Catholic faith was always more entertaining and artistic. Original Christianity wasn't harsh enough for the northern europeans, so they had to mold it into a warrior religion. They even made Jesus into a warrior divinity and the saints became their new pagan gods. Not to mention the jaw dropping architecture. Still, it remains a desolate and ignorant religion that pretty much destroyed western civilization.

True...but good Christian architecture flourished in the soulth and not so much in the northern climates.

Christianity can never be a religion for warriors. It can be a religion for rulers and inquisitors, but it lacks the sense of personal power that a warrior religion nourishes. Witness Beowulf - one can tell where the Christians added things. It simply jars with the story, like the Donation of Constantine in 8th century clerical Latin being passed off as 4th century Latin.

I agree with Rappaccini that Christianity cannot be dismissed as simple slave morality - Nietzsche's analysis was profound yet inadequete in explaining the popularity of this religion. I don't know anyone who has completely explained it - surely fire and sword were not adequete, as the Christians subdued healthy races who were their military superiours (i.e the Scandinavians, the Poles and Balts)

Good site, thank you.

[Oxygen]

I can't name one piece from another (except for the more common ones, like Beethoven's 5th, the William Tell Overture, etc.), but I've heard a lot of it that I do like. Couldn't tell you the names or the composers, but there are just some pieces that flood my mind with imagery and wrest the emotions from me. I have found that if I hear a piece I really really like, it's usually from Bach.

My father was the same way. When we were little, he wanted to make sure that we knew about the myriad of music that was available in the world, so he'd put on records (those big black vinyl discs of yesteryear) from every genre he could lay his hands on. When he would play classical, he'd have us describe what the piece made us think of, no matter how silly it was. To this day, classical music stirs up images in a way that no other music can. Unfortunately, other sources of imagery have stuck in relation to classical music. I can't hear the Barber of Seville without seeing little flowers sprouting out of Elmer Fudd's head.

[chunkylover58]

Tchaikovsky!

Oh, Peter Ilijich wrote some Music ... And the Serenade for the string orchestra op. 48.

For a long time, I wondered how life is possible after the 6th. How music is possible after the 6th.


Both heart-wrenchingly beautiful pieces of music. Right up there with Mozart's Requiem (the Lacrimosa and the Kyrie, in particular) in the "Why don't I just lie down and drown in a pool of my own tears" category.

[chunkylover58]

To this day, classical music stirs up images in a way that no other music can. Unfortunately, other sources of imagery have stuck in relation to classical music. I can't hear the Barber of Seville without seeing little flowers sprouting out of Elmer Fudd's head.

Heh. I can't hear Schubert's Symphony Number 8 ("Unfinished") without thinking of the Smurfs. One section from that piece is Gargamel's theme.

[storni]

Erik Satie and the furniture music

We are never the same with others as when we are alone. We are different, even when we are in the dark with them.
Maurice Maeterlinck

For some people, Erik Satie is known as an eccentric who gave his works odd titles that seem almost derisive and ridicolous: Chilled Pieces, Drivelling Preludes (for a Dog), Dried up Embryos...

Many believe that this was not only a result of his bizarre wit but also a way of offending the music critics at the time. It was known that Satie didn't like music critics and that the feelings were mutual.

Those performing his works are well aware of his weird instructions to the performer.The instructions are meant as a dialogue between the composer and the performer only:

To whoever. I forbid anyone to read the text aloud during the musical performance. Failure to obey to my instruction will provoke my just indignation against anyone so presumptuous. No exception to this rule will be granted.

Start with Gymnopedie 1 if you havent heard him before, and dont try to stop then :) I listen to him when I write, and when I can enjoy my solitude

http://www.af.lu.se/~fogwall/intro.html

Blessed be your solitude Erik Satie, a cow damn hard to milk.

[Hastein]

Hastein, do you frequent Spinoza Ray Prozak's site? Pardon, but there's just something eerie about another person who's into metal, into classical and knows that nihilism is more than a doctrine for pallid teenagers.

Are you saying I sound like Spinoza? I might have been to his site before, what is the address? I'm not involved in any scene, I just like different varieties of music. I know what I know from reading Lords of Chaos and I know you are into that stuff from what you have posted. After reading that book I read up on a lot of the bands, so I'm well informed as to how they tick. A lot of people who enjoy metal enjoy classical. For me it was the other way around, I enjoy classical so I like metal, but I'm not some hardcore fanatic and I don't associate with odd metal ideologies. I know that WANDERER had something of his posted in a metal forum by a previous member here.


I don't know anyone who has completely explained it - surely fire and sword were not adequete, as the Christians subdued healthy races who were their military superiours (i.e the Scandinavians, the Poles and Balts)

I think its because Christianity had a lot more promise to it, and a lot more devotion. Whereas a god like Zeus couldn't be trusted, Jesus could. There was also a clear understanding of an afterlife.

[Xev]

Hastein:

Are you saying I sound like Spinoza?

No, he's terser and thinks I'm Jewish.


I might have been to his site before, what is the address? I'm not involved in any scene, I just like different varieties of music.

www.anus.com
I'm not involved in the BM scene either - not like it'd be possible, being asocial as I am and living in Michigan to boot - but Prozak has some fine music reviews and lucid viewpoints.


I think its because Christianity had a lot more promise to it, and a lot more devotion. Whereas a god like Zeus couldn't be trusted, Jesus could. There was also a clear understanding of an afterlife.

Hmm.
I was talking about this with someone last night.
Does anyone really give a shit about potential afterlifes? You want there to be something, emotionally, but your observations don't make the idea look likely. There's just something odd about the idea that I have a soul, that it's this thing, this entity that is indestructable and will survive my death.
A lot of Pagan religions didn't even pay especial attention to the afterlife, and if it did play a role, it wan't as paradisical as the Christian one is.

storni:

Do you like Xenakis?

[storni]

I haven't hear any Xenakis yet. Is he good? Any suggestions?

I heard his music tends to be electronically performed, I am a minimalist in that sense though.