Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Being obsessed with the old. Good or bad?

The CD recording I have (which appeared last year) is by Laura Mikkola, a Finnish pianist. You could be the first Estonian pianist to perform it.......

Last year? wow, I must've missed something.

That would be kinda cool... Though I would have to get the shost 1 and Rhapsody in Blue off my back first, and i'm pretty sure some estonian pianist has already performed it by now, heh

I LOVE Arvo Pärt too.
PS: Concerning old vs new, I think most of the composers mentioned in that thread are immortal and their music is just part of being human and doesn't have to do with a certain era. That's exactly the mark of genius - to compose or write something that will always resonate with people. I know it may sound cliché, but that's my opinion. I don't really care about trends either. If I like their music I like it. Personally their music helped me to survive, and I am very grateful for having it.
PPS: That doesn't mean I don't like modern composers when I discover some I do resonate with, like Arvo Pärt, as I said. I am open-minded!

True art never dies. It doesn't matter how different their world was. It's about expressing the human condition. It is my opinion that those old, "irrelevant" composers did a much better job than we are doing today.

But the environment, artistic and otherwise, in which they live has changed. You should remember that people 200 years ago were not obsessed with music from 200 years earlier. In Beethoven's day, almost all of the concert music people heard was not more than 25 years old, i.e., it was music by their own living composers that expressed their own time. This living in the past thing is a relatively recent phenomenon, and, in light of that fact, the "it's timeless" argument is basically nonsense.

Is it fair to say that the members of this forum are obsessed? Don't most of us also listen to at least some modern music? I play modern music, it just isn't classical.

Maybe in music, but.....the idea of 'timelessness' and 'immortality' seemed to come from the fact that in the 1800s people were still quoting Virgil and Aristotle.

Why? When people say "it's timeless" aren't they saying that certain music is timeless? As far as I can see, the fact that people in Beethoven's day weren't listening to music from 200 years earlier isn't relevant.

But it's interesting, don't you think?

To try to give an honest answer and not place blame...

There are certain pieces by living (and recently living) composers that I feel a deep attachment to, but not so far one composer who has been as prolific as Haydn, Mozart or Beethoven and whose works I have gotten to know to the same degree. I'm not saying it won't happen. It might happen with Hovhaness actually... and he was as prolific as Haydn and Beethoven put together! But it hasn't yet.

Some of the pieces I have learned by living/recent composers that I feel very attached to:
Higdon - Secret & Glass Gardens
Harrison - Reel: Homage to Henry Cowell
Walker - "Caper" from Cantos for the End of Summer
Bellissimo - Problems for Piano
Sideris - Toccata "Burning Kiev" -- and I'm not just saying that because you wrote it!

Some pieces by living/recent composers that I very much want to learn soon, and am sure I will become attached to upon learning:
Rzewski - Winnsboro Cotton Mill Blues
Hovhaness - Sonata "Total Eclipse of the Moon"
Part - Sonatine
Maslanka - Piano Concerto no. 2
Southam - Rivers

Why am I attached to individual pieces more than composers? Either there isn't very much literature for the piano by the composer, or I am not that interested in all the composer's other works, or I just haven't gotten around to investigating all the pieces yet. Some of these composers are also quite young and have probably not written most of my favorite works yet

I'm sure the hugely increased number of active composers nowadays also plays a role. For classical period, I'm pretty much just limited to Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and a bunch of stuff by maybe 8 other guys that isn't as good. Since I love classical period I just keep playing lots of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.

For my other favorite period, namely right now and recently, there are hundreds and hundreds of composers with works available to the inquisitive pianist. I have an interest in knowing "what's out there" generally, which makes me more inclined to sample a few works by a variety of composers, rather than latching on to one in particular.

First of all to be very honest an clear: You do know that the opening post was rather rude and provoking on purpose, right? It was a direct reply to the other thread by Joel. You know that I'm definitely not as rude as I seem to be here! ^_^

That said,

If I was to not have this crusade of mine to promote contemporary music, I think that in Joel's thread I'd also reply something like "Prokofiev" or something equally interesting and... well... dead. I'm not out of the loop, myself.

For me, one of the things that actually keeps me from "latching" to a particular composer is the fact that they're still alive, so there's every golden opportunity available to do the wrong thing in the future. If I am to love something, to resonate with something it better be perfect. And it can't be perfect, if the composer can ruin it in the meantime.

Plus all my social and political thoughts go into play and it's very very difficult to find someone to resonate with. Composers either lack political thought (A piano concerto? Bliah... Even though you know how much I want to compose my own piano concerto), or overdo it (Again this specific political thought? Duh!).

Of course I understand that it's unfair to be comparing anything really. Even in a very mathematical sense, if you get 450 years of classical music (roughly) and are asked of your top three composers basically, the chances of getting someone from the last 50 years is pretty slim, especially if the golden age of classical music is long gone.

Well, I'm talking about music, seeing that we are in a forum that purportedly is concerned with it.

If the "timeless" thing were really a major criterion, people here would be deeply familiar with the works of Ockeghem and Perotin, and I don't believe they are.

It's because in Beethoven's day the music from 200 years earlier was vastly inferior to the music of that time, while today the music from 200 years ago is vastly superior to the current music.

You read my mind. I was just about to write a similar comment (without using the words superior or inferior, but the essence was similar I think).

While I'm involved with a large project all about Beethoven and all, is it, then, true that Beethoven (or the x composer) is the pinnacle of evolution in classical music?

Yes.

Yes. It's not about listening to old or new music, but the best music.

Interesting that you expect of modern composers, for them to meet a standard that no person has ever met in the history of time - to be perfect. To truly resonate with someone you must love the imperfections as well. It could be a fact of the 21st century that in the era of computers and high technology, anything less than perfection is socially unacceptable, but why then do we consume so much imperfect art?

I think Horowitz had a point when he said that perfection itself is imperfection.

So, according to you, all composers still living should just give up and jump out the window! Interesting!