Discussion:
Andres Segovia speaking about Barrios
(too old to reply)
Luis Sanabria
2004-10-15 03:36:19 UTC
Permalink
This is part of a question/answer made during a Segovia Master Class
in 1981 found in "Internet Issue" by GUITARRA Magazine:

Question:
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF AUGUSTINE BARRIOS ?

SEGOVIA: " You know , I knew Augustine Barrios. I had great empathy
for him, but I think he lacked sufficient knowledge in music to
consider him a composer. It is a great pity because he had very
beautiful ideas, but the development of those ideas, according to the
eternal laws of composition, was absolutely absent, and this is why I
don't play anything by him. "

(It is very interesting to read what the British guitarist , John
Williams said in an album cover)

JOHN WILLIAMS: "Barrios is increasingly appreciated today as the
outstanding guitarist-composer of his time, I would say of any time,
for the qualities of inventiveness and obvious love of the instrument.
He was the first guitarist to make records from 1909, and the first
to play a complete Bach lute suite on guitar. "
Joseph Raymond
2004-10-15 16:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luis Sanabria
This is part of a question/answer made during a Segovia Master Class
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF AUGUSTINE BARRIOS ?
SEGOVIA: " You know , I knew Augustine Barrios. I had great empathy
for him, but I think he lacked sufficient knowledge in music to
consider him a composer. It is a great pity because he had very
beautiful ideas, but the development of those ideas, according to the
eternal laws of composition, was absolutely absent, and this is why I
don't play anything by him. "
(It is very interesting to read what the British guitarist , John
Williams said in an album cover)
JOHN WILLIAMS: "Barrios is increasingly appreciated today as the
outstanding guitarist-composer of his time, I would say of any time,
for the qualities of inventiveness and obvious love of the instrument.
He was the first guitarist to make records from 1909, and the first
to play a complete Bach lute suite on guitar. "
I think the key word here, uttered by Segovia, is "development."
Development of musical ideas is what distinguishes great composers
from lesser composers. Barrios had plenty of musical ideas but did
not development them as, say, Bach or Beethoven developed their ideas.
As such I think Barrios's compositions are fluff and do not bear
repeated listenings, at least for me anyway.

Best regards,
Joe
Tim Panting
2004-10-15 19:41:21 UTC
Permalink
What is 'fluff'?

C'mon dude....Barrios fluff??

Where is your head at?

Somewhere close to where that big ball in the sky refuses to glow as
brightly as it might. No?

TP
Post by Joseph Raymond
Post by Luis Sanabria
This is part of a question/answer made during a Segovia Master Class
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF AUGUSTINE BARRIOS ?
SEGOVIA: " You know , I knew Augustine Barrios. I had great empathy
for him, but I think he lacked sufficient knowledge in music to
consider him a composer. It is a great pity because he had very
beautiful ideas, but the development of those ideas, according to the
eternal laws of composition, was absolutely absent, and this is why I
don't play anything by him. "
(It is very interesting to read what the British guitarist , John
Williams said in an album cover)
JOHN WILLIAMS: "Barrios is increasingly appreciated today as the
outstanding guitarist-composer of his time, I would say of any time,
for the qualities of inventiveness and obvious love of the instrument.
He was the first guitarist to make records from 1909, and the first
to play a complete Bach lute suite on guitar. "
I think the key word here, uttered by Segovia, is "development."
Development of musical ideas is what distinguishes great composers
from lesser composers. Barrios had plenty of musical ideas but did
not development them as, say, Bach or Beethoven developed their ideas.
As such I think Barrios's compositions are fluff and do not bear
repeated listenings, at least for me anyway.
Best regards,
Joe
Olof Johansson
2004-10-15 21:18:52 UTC
Permalink
This is like comparing apples and oranges from different countries and
times. Many composers considered to be geniuses, like Bach, Beethoven
and Barrios, reach about up to the ankles of the great master of melody:
Charlie Parker.
Olof
Post by Tim Panting
What is 'fluff'?
C'mon dude....Barrios fluff??
Where is your head at?
Somewhere close to where that big ball in the sky refuses to glow as
brightly as it might. No?
TP
Post by Joseph Raymond
Post by Luis Sanabria
This is part of a question/answer made during a Segovia Master Class
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF AUGUSTINE BARRIOS ?
SEGOVIA: " You know , I knew Augustine Barrios. I had great empathy
for him, but I think he lacked sufficient knowledge in music to
consider him a composer. It is a great pity because he had very
beautiful ideas, but the development of those ideas, according to the
eternal laws of composition, was absolutely absent, and this is why I
don't play anything by him. "
(It is very interesting to read what the British guitarist , John
Williams said in an album cover)
JOHN WILLIAMS: "Barrios is increasingly appreciated today as the
outstanding guitarist-composer of his time, I would say of any time,
for the qualities of inventiveness and obvious love of the instrument.
He was the first guitarist to make records from 1909, and the first
to play a complete Bach lute suite on guitar. "
I think the key word here, uttered by Segovia, is "development."
Development of musical ideas is what distinguishes great composers
from lesser composers. Barrios had plenty of musical ideas but did
not development them as, say, Bach or Beethoven developed their ideas.
As such I think Barrios's compositions are fluff and do not bear
repeated listenings, at least for me anyway.
Best regards,
Joe
Aryeh Eller
2004-10-15 22:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olof Johansson
This is like comparing apples and oranges from different countries and
times. Many composers considered to be geniuses, like Bach, Beethoven
Charlie Parker.

Really?

I sure would like to hear you sing Ornithology and Donna Lee along with
a little Scrapple From The Apple!! ;-)


Aryeh
Greg M. Silverman
2004-10-16 00:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olof Johansson
Post by Olof Johansson
This is like comparing apples and oranges from different countries and
times. Many composers considered to be geniuses, like Bach, Beethoven
Charlie Parker.
Really?
I sure would like to hear you sing Ornithology and Donna Lee along with
a little Scrapple From The Apple!! ;-)
Methinks Olof is Praising the Bird (hmmm... good title for a tune, eh?).

gms--
Lutemann
2004-10-16 12:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Raymond
Barrios had plenty of musical ideas but did
not development them as, say, Bach or Beethoven developed their ide
Very few guitar composers did/do.

*****************************************************
Kent Murdick
Free Guitar Instruction CD/Video: Go to http://stringdancer.com/
and search for Murdick--also "Hear Lutemann Play (a little)"
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/NO.mp3
JoeT
2004-10-16 13:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Bach and Beethoven never played guitar ... nor did they live in South
America
Post by Lutemann
Post by Joseph Raymond
Barrios had plenty of musical ideas but did
not development them as, say, Bach or Beethoven developed their ide
Very few guitar composers did/do.
*****************************************************
Kent Murdick
Free Guitar Instruction CD/Video: Go to http://stringdancer.com/
and search for Murdick--also "Hear Lutemann Play (a little)"
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/NO.mp3
Richard F. Sayage
2004-10-16 14:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by JoeT
Bach and Beethoven never played guitar ... nor did they live in South
America
That's hardly the point. Bach worked his music to an extreme point,
sometimes decades later going back to refine a musical point. I'm not
certain that anyone went to the extremes of Bach, scientifically or
artistically within his own confines. Looking at the music written for
flute, violin or cello solo for example, we might find it difficult to again
rate comparisons. I say this in mind of the relative compositional
simplicity (lack of orchestral complexity is what I mean) allowed by the
music of the guitar (in general) versus the clearly simpler construction of
Bach's music for the solo instruments mentioned. Yet, look at the depth of
his construction and their development.

Rich
--
Richard F. Sayage
www.savageclassical.com

Remove ZEROSPAM to reply...thx

http://www.orphee.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html
http://www.savageclassical.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html
Post by JoeT
Post by Lutemann
Post by Joseph Raymond
Barrios had plenty of musical ideas but did
not development them as, say, Bach or Beethoven developed their ide
Very few guitar composers did/do.
*****************************************************
Kent Murdick
Free Guitar Instruction CD/Video: Go to http://stringdancer.com/
and search for Murdick--also "Hear Lutemann Play (a little)"
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/NO.mp3
Sarn Dyer
2004-10-16 15:26:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard F. Sayage
Bach worked his music to an extreme point,
sometimes decades later going back to refine a musical point. I'm not
certain that anyone went to the extremes of Bach, scientifically or
artistically within his own confines. Looking at the music written for
flute, violin or cello solo for example, we might find it difficult to again
rate comparisons. I say this in mind of the relative compositional
simplicity (lack of orchestral complexity is what I mean) allowed by the
music of the guitar (in general) versus the clearly simpler construction of
Bach's music for the solo instruments mentioned. Yet, look at the depth of
his construction and their development.
It could be asked if *any* composer's intellect has matched Bach's, but
that would just contribute to more 'it's all apples and no oranges'
comparisons.

To some composers, development was an exercise of the higher musical
intellect, to others, it was simply note-spinning. For the
'developmentally inclined' composer, there is always a danger of 'the
tail wagging the dog': the needs of development defining, to a greater
or lesser extent, the thematic materials. Much the same could be said of
the variations form.

Both Tchaikovsky and Villa Lobos - to throw together an 'apple' and an
'orange' - have been accused of a lack of development in their music: it
has been remarked that when VL ran out of new ideas in a piece, the
piece simply came to an end. It could be argued that, with more formal
training, VL might have been a 'better' composer, but he must surely
have seen himself as a complete original, a 'one-off' and that, indeed,
is what he was. For that reason, he was probably very wary - rightly or
wrongly - of too much familiarity with formal compositional techniques,
in the belief that these might compromise that originality. I've come
across this attitude occasionally: it's not that the composers in
question have no wish to learn traditional techniques, or have no
respect for them, but rather that they prefer to take from them whatever
they need *when* this is needed and not before.

Like Tim Panting, I don't think that it can be argued that skill -
inspired or otherwise - in the development of thematic materials
automatically defines a composer as 'great', although it certainly
contributes to our recognition of the great musical minds who, ermm,
developed that aspect.

Sarn
Richard F. Sayage
2004-10-16 16:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sarn Dyer
Post by Richard F. Sayage
Bach worked his music to an extreme point,
sometimes decades later going back to refine a musical point. I'm not
certain that anyone went to the extremes of Bach, scientifically or
artistically within his own confines. Looking at the music written for
flute, violin or cello solo for example, we might find it difficult to
again rate comparisons. I say this in mind of the relative compositional
simplicity (lack of orchestral complexity is what I mean) allowed by the
music of the guitar (in general) versus the clearly simpler construction
of Bach's music for the solo instruments mentioned. Yet, look at the
depth of his construction and their development.
It could be asked if *any* composer's intellect has matched Bach's, but
that would just contribute to more 'it's all apples and no oranges'
comparisons.
To some composers, development was an exercise of the higher musical
intellect, to others, it was simply note-spinning. For the
'developmentally inclined' composer, there is always a danger of 'the tail
wagging the dog': the needs of development defining, to a greater or
lesser extent, the thematic materials. Much the same could be said of the
variations form.
Both Tchaikovsky and Villa Lobos - to throw together an 'apple' and an
'orange' - have been accused of a lack of development in their music: it
has been remarked that when VL ran out of new ideas in a piece, the piece
simply came to an end. It could be argued that, with more formal training,
VL might have been a 'better' composer, but he must surely have seen
himself as a complete original, a 'one-off' and that, indeed, is what he
was. For that reason, he was probably very wary - rightly or wrongly - of
too much familiarity with formal compositional techniques, in the belief
that these might compromise that originality. I've come across this
attitude occasionally: it's not that the composers in question have no
wish to learn traditional techniques, or have no respect for them, but
rather that they prefer to take from them whatever they need *when* this
is needed and not before.
Like Tim Panting, I don't think that it can be argued that skill -
inspired or otherwise - in the development of thematic materials
automatically defines a composer as 'great', although it certainly
contributes to our recognition of the great musical minds who, ermm,
developed that aspect.
Sarn
Yes, exactly Sarn. I've come across this "exposure" thing, and even
posed the question to one of my highly regarded professors way back when.
What if you never heard anything else prior and wrote what was in your own
heart and mind? He wasn't too keen on it, but I forgave him his
indiscretion! :-)

Rich
Klaus Heim
2004-10-19 09:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sarn Dyer
Like Tim Panting, I don't think that it can be argued that skill -
inspired or otherwise - in the development of thematic materials
automatically defines a composer as 'great', although it certainly
contributes to our recognition of the great musical minds who, ermm,
developed that aspect.
I think 'great' composers are often those who have individuality and
innovativeness. Beethoven is considered a great composer, someone who would
write the 10th, 11th and 12th Beethoven symphony nowadays would hardly be
considered a great composer.

Naturally all these evaluations change over time.

Concerning Barrios, the general tenor here seems to be that he is considered
a 'great' composer. Why is it then, that I have never read his name in a
history of 20th century music, say alongside with Schoenberg, Berg, Webern,
Stravinsky, Varese, etc? Maybe that is an oversight, which will be corrected
in the next few decades.

Or could it be that the criteria guitarists set for 'great' composers is
different - dare I say lower? - than elsewehere?

Klaus
Aryeh Eller
2004-10-19 11:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Heim
Post by Sarn Dyer
Like Tim Panting, I don't think that it can be argued that skill -
inspired or otherwise - in the development of thematic materials
automatically defines a composer as 'great', although it certainly
contributes to our recognition of the great musical minds who, ermm,
developed that aspect.
I think 'great' composers are often those who have individuality and
innovativeness. Beethoven is considered a great composer, someone who would
write the 10th, 11th and 12th Beethoven symphony nowadays would hardly be
considered a great composer.
Hi Klaus,

Well I'm not so sure about that, there are composers writing in a
neo-classical language today, if a composer wrote a symphony in the
style of Beethoven that was just as profound as Beethoven's Eroica or
the 9th Symphony he would be considered great in my book, the problem is
I don't think that a composer with the inventiveness and supreme
structural mind of Beethoven exists anymore even though he may decide to
use the same harmonic language and even use the motives and structural
forms that Beethoven is famous for.
Post by Klaus Heim
Concerning Barrios, the general tenor here seems to be that he is considered
a 'great' composer. Why is it then, that I have never read his name in a
history of 20th century music, say alongside with Schoenberg, Berg, Webern,
Stravinsky, Varese, etc? Maybe that is an oversight, which will be corrected
in the next few decades.
Well I think there's different meanings to the word "great".
Post by Klaus Heim
Or could it be that the criteria guitarists set for 'great' composers is
different - dare I say lower? - than elsewehere?
I think when people say that Barrios is a great composer they're saying
he is a very good composer for the guitar and that his music is pleasant
to listen to and has nice memorable melodies, I don't think they're
saying his music bears the brilliant inventive and structural mind of
someone who composed the Berg Violin Concerto or Stravinsky's Octet!

Keep in mind that much of the common musical audience today especially
at guitar concerts would rather hear and certainly identify more with a
sweet Barrios piece like Sueno en la Floresta than Scoenberg's Moses und
Aaron....Just because a composer is labeled "great" in history books
written by academia in high out-of-touch with reality towers doesn't
mean that the average person on the street is going to agree, they may
recognize the greateness but not really take it to heart and truly love
their greatness in the way they may love Barrios or Tchaikovsky.


Aryeh
Klaus Heim
2004-10-19 13:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aryeh Eller
Post by Klaus Heim
Or could it be that the criteria guitarists set for 'great' composers is
different - dare I say lower? - than elsewehere?
I think when people say that Barrios is a great composer they're saying
he is a very good composer for the guitar and that his music is pleasant
to listen to and has nice memorable melodies, I don't think they're
saying his music bears the brilliant inventive and structural mind of
someone who composed the Berg Violin Concerto or Stravinsky's Octet!
Keep in mind that much of the common musical audience today especially
at guitar concerts would rather hear and certainly identify more with a
sweet Barrios piece like Sueno en la Floresta than Scoenberg's Moses und
Aaron....Just because a composer is labeled "great" in history books
written by academia in high out-of-touch with reality towers doesn't
mean that the average person on the street is going to agree, they may
recognize the greateness but not really take it to heart and truly love
their greatness in the way they may love Barrios or Tchaikovsky.
So Barrios is a 'great' composer in the sense that Marilyn Manson or Kid
Rock are? All three undoubtably have a great talent for writing music, which
appeals to large masses of people. There is no problem with that, actually I
enjoy listening to the music of one of those three a lot. But does the fact
that I like his music make him a better composer? If we take personal tastes
into the equation we're moving onto very unstable territory.

If you look at the guitar world today you could think that the 'greatest'
composers of all time were Andrew York and Carlo Domeniconi. And if
'Sunburst' and 'Koyunbaba' go out of fashion next year, will both only by
'mediocre' composers? There are so many problems with using personal taste
as a basis for an epithet such as 'great'. In your last sentence though you
do allude to the fact that there may be other criteria though.

Did I understand you correctly that you are saying that audiences at guitar
concerts are even more prone to wanting to listen to 'light' music than
other concert-goers would be?

Klaus
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
2004-10-19 13:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Heim
Post by Aryeh Eller
Post by Klaus Heim
Or could it be that the criteria guitarists set for 'great' composers is
different - dare I say lower? - than elsewehere?
I think when people say that Barrios is a great composer they're saying
he is a very good composer for the guitar and that his music is pleasant
to listen to and has nice memorable melodies, I don't think they're
saying his music bears the brilliant inventive and structural mind of
someone who composed the Berg Violin Concerto or Stravinsky's Octet!
Keep in mind that much of the common musical audience today especially
at guitar concerts would rather hear and certainly identify more with a
sweet Barrios piece like Sueno en la Floresta than Scoenberg's Moses und
Aaron....Just because a composer is labeled "great" in history books
written by academia in high out-of-touch with reality towers doesn't
mean that the average person on the street is going to agree, they may
recognize the greateness but not really take it to heart and truly love
their greatness in the way they may love Barrios or Tchaikovsky.
So Barrios is a 'great' composer in the sense that Marilyn Manson or Kid
Rock are? All three undoubtably have a great talent for writing music, which
appeals to large masses of people. There is no problem with that, actually I
enjoy listening to the music of one of those three a lot. But does the fact
that I like his music make him a better composer? If we take personal tastes
into the equation we're moving onto very unstable territory.
Exactly! Unless, of course, you can give me a totally objective and
objectifiable definition of the word "great". Certainly time is
necessary before we can say that Kid Rock is truly "great". Maybe we
need more time for Barrios too.

Steve
Post by Klaus Heim
If you look at the guitar world today you could think that the 'greatest'
composers of all time were Andrew York and Carlo Domeniconi. And if
'Sunburst' and 'Koyunbaba' go out of fashion next year, will both only by
'mediocre' composers? There are so many problems with using personal taste
as a basis for an epithet such as 'great'. In your last sentence though you
do allude to the fact that there may be other criteria though.
Did I understand you correctly that you are saying that audiences at guitar
concerts are even more prone to wanting to listen to 'light' music than
other concert-goers would be?
Klaus
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Aryeh Eller
2004-10-20 00:51:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Heim
Post by Aryeh Eller
Post by Klaus Heim
Or could it be that the criteria guitarists set for 'great' composers is
different - dare I say lower? - than elsewehere?
I think when people say that Barrios is a great composer they're saying
he is a very good composer for the guitar and that his music is pleasant
to listen to and has nice memorable melodies, I don't think they're
saying his music bears the brilliant inventive and structural mind of
someone who composed the Berg Violin Concerto or Stravinsky's Octet!
Keep in mind that much of the common musical audience today especially
at guitar concerts would rather hear and certainly identify more with a
sweet Barrios piece like Sueno en la Floresta than Scoenberg's Moses und
Aaron....Just because a composer is labeled "great" in history books
written by academia in high out-of-touch with reality towers doesn't
mean that the average person on the street is going to agree, they may
recognize the greateness but not really take it to heart and truly love
their greatness in the way they may love Barrios or Tchaikovsky.
So Barrios is a 'great' composer in the sense that Marilyn Manson or Kid
Rock are? All three undoubtably have a great talent for writing music, which
appeals to large masses of people. There is no problem with that, actually I
enjoy listening to the music of one of those three a lot. But does the fact
that I like his music make him a better composer? If we take personal tastes
into the equation we're moving onto very unstable territory.
Wait a second, now you're comparing Barrios, a composer who writes in a
romantic Chopinesque style on the guitar to post heavy metal and
rap-rock artists in the popular music world? (Are they even popular
anymore? I teach high school kids in NYC and I haven't seen or heard
talk about MM or KR in a few years now).

I think you're still not understanding what I mean by great here, there
are many different levels and aspects to the word. What I'm saying is
that Barrios is a very skillful and natural composer for the guitar who
writes in a romantic Chopinesque style mixed with folk elements from his
country. He does this very well and has produced some very memorable
pieces (mostly miniatures) on the guitar, he's really very good at that
and that makes him great. But that is not the greatness of someone like
Chopin himself who writes pieces like the gorgeous F minor Ballade for
piano. There is no equivalent whatsoever in Barrios' output to a Chopin
masterwork like the F min. Ballade. Barrios isn't a great composer like
Chopin, rather he is a minor great in the idiom he composed for, well
written works for the guitar that speak in their very charming melodic
way. He even approaches some amount of depth and inspiration that could
sort of hold comparison to a great composer like Chopin in pieces like
La Catedral and Choro de Saudade but of course Barrios is still not
capable of writing something like the Revolutionary Etude #12 Op.10 in C
min., he's just not on that level of compositional greatness even though
he may be writing in sort of the same style.
Post by Klaus Heim
If you look at the guitar world today you could think that the 'greatest'
composers of all time were Andrew York and Carlo Domeniconi. And if
'Sunburst' and 'Koyunbaba' go out of fashion next year, will both only by
'mediocre' composers? There are so many problems with using personal taste
as a basis for an epithet such as 'great'. In your last sentence though you
do allude to the fact that there may be other criteria though.
I don't think I used personal taste as a basis for for something being
great, I was just trying to show the difference between the composers
you mentioned who write/wrote music that is more difficult to absorb to
the average music lover. We're talking about Barrios and you're talking
about Stravinsky and Schoenberg, I can't think of any musical connection
between them, but I can think of truly "great" (in the full sense of the
word) composers that Barrios can be compared to like Tchaikovsky,
Schumann or Chopin and to these composers he holds up OK in terms of the
ingenious pieces he wrote for the guitar in the style of those
composers, he may not be truly great like they are but he definitely is
a petit, little great composer.
Post by Klaus Heim
Did I understand you correctly that you are saying that audiences at guitar
concerts are even more prone to wanting to listen to 'light' music than
other concert-goers would be?
Well in my experience in the USA going to guitar concerts and other
classical guitar gatherings over the years is that the guitar audience
is very closed and insular, that is they don't seem to be fully aware of
the larger music world out there besides the guitar and the pieces
written for it. And this is especially true of 20th century pieces. They
tend to be on the conservative tonal harmony end as far as what they
respond to when they listen.

I really think that the average guitar audience are no different than
the large audiences who go to Carnegie Hall to see their favorite
pianists. (though admittedly if you go to piano recitals there's a good
chance that your repertory of works will be broader)

Maurizio Pollini, a pianist known for playing the standard piano rep as
well as Stravinsky, Boulez, Nono, and Webern just gave a recital here in
NYC and he played Chopin and Debussy. What would the equivalent to those
composers be in the guitar world? Well you have the Tarrega and the
Segovia repertoire and more modern composers who write/wrote in a tonal
yet slightly spiky harmonic style like Villa-Lobos in some of his Etudes
and Leo Brouwer. These are our "great" composers, our Chopin and
Debussy, however weak the comparison may be when you look at the
masterworks of those two composers and compare them to guitar composers
like Barrios, Tarrega, Villa-Lobos or Brouwer writing in a similar
style. Yes they're not truly great in the full sense of the word,
they're petit, minor, little greats.


Aryeh
Joseph Raymond
2004-10-20 16:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Aryeh Eller <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bandoneon1800-***@nyctyp02-ge0.rdc-nyc.rr.com>...

Hi Aryeh,

To what you said I would like to add that there is something we
recognize as "musical genius." And as the song goes, some cats got
it, and some cats ain't. All such composers are, as Sarn said,
"dragons" whether small or big.

Any composer who has musical genius will produce music that is
satisfying regardless if the music is great or not. And that is
sufficient for just about all of us most of the time. After all, most
of what is played on CG is not great.

Great composers are a subset of the set of composers of musical
genius. Great works are large in scale. A minor composer plans a
dinner party; a great composer plans the Invasion of Normandy. Great
works hold up on a macroscopic and microscopic level. In fact, great
pieces bear examination and analysis on so many levels, harmony,
counterpoint, emotion, etc., that learned musicians have written a lot
about the great works.

Therefore, while I consider him to be a musical genius, I do not
consider Barrios to be a great composer.

Joe
Sarn Dyer
2004-10-20 18:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Raymond
Therefore, while I consider him to be a musical genius, I do not
consider Barrios to be a great composer.
That's indeed the nub of the whole question. Barrios was essentially a
performer who wrote for himself, on a continent with not much of a
market for virtuoso classical guitar music, and with little influence
elsewhere. He was the archetypal 'blank slate', and it's a tragedy that
there was so little incentive-by-demand to encourage him to go further
musically. And then there was the hostility: the Indian blood, the
steel strings, the famous eccentric costumes of one period. He was an
original, and, like so many originals, an 'outsider' and to some extent,
his own worst enemy.

He certainly had the necessary skills to write concertos for the guitar
and might have developed an international career by doing so. But his
playing style was rather intimate although intense and he probably never
gave this possibility much thought.

What if he had moved to Europe, decided to use a pickup or some other
form of amplification, and had composed some highly successful
concertos? (Segovia's face would have been a study...)

My feeling is that Barrios was potentially a great composer, but so many
of the circumstances were against him. At the end of the day, the
guitar received from him exactly what it deserved at that point in its
history.

I think that we are still in the position of having to earn the
attention of great composers. Cometh the hour, cometh the man (or
woman), etc..

Sarn
thomas
2004-10-21 00:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sarn Dyer
And then there was the hostility: the Indian blood, the
steel strings, the famous eccentric costumes of one period. He was an
original, and, like so many originals, an 'outsider' and to some extent,
his own worst enemy.
Who was hostile to him because of "Indian blood"?
He engaged in playing Indian because he thought it
was helpful to his career, no?
Sarn Dyer
2004-10-21 14:32:12 UTC
Permalink
I'm told that the prejudice against 'mestizos' was fairly general in
Spanish-speaking SA. Native Indians were regarded as poor, ill-educated,
uncultured by European standards and probably worse. There was no
prestige in a mixed marriage.

It's difficult to say what the totality of Barrios' motives were. He
appears, idealistically, to have taken the bull of prejudice by the
horns, presenting himself not only as a full-blooded Indian of noble
lineage, but also as one of culture ('The Paganini of the Guitar from
the Jungles of Paraguay').

I wonder how far he took this role - apparently he spoke Guaraní. In the
event, the whole episode seems to have backfired, probably appearing
more as a promotional gimmick than as reflecting any well-intentioned
but naive idealism on Barrios' part.

SD
Post by thomas
Post by Sarn Dyer
And then there was the hostility: the Indian blood, the
steel strings, the famous eccentric costumes of one period. He was an
original, and, like so many originals, an 'outsider' and to some extent,
his own worst enemy.
Who was hostile to him because of "Indian blood"?
He engaged in playing Indian because he thought it
was helpful to his career, no?
thomas
2004-10-21 22:23:24 UTC
Permalink
There is a big difference between living as an Indian on the
one hand, and dressing up as an Indian for a stage performance on
the other hand. Even in a racist society, the Indian play-actor may
be well treated, while his country counterparts are getting the
shaft. Discrimination is never distributed equally across all
members of a minority group. Prominent minority individuals may
well be lauded for their exotic characteristics, even while their
co-ethnics are being discriminated against for the very same
characteristics.

I'm not sure that it's safe to assume that Barrios took a hit
for his Indian masquerade, without demonstrating that it
actually happened to him for that reason.
Post by Sarn Dyer
I'm told that the prejudice against 'mestizos' was fairly general in
Spanish-speaking SA. Native Indians were regarded as poor, ill-educated,
uncultured by European standards and probably worse. There was no
prestige in a mixed marriage.
It's difficult to say what the totality of Barrios' motives were. He
appears, idealistically, to have taken the bull of prejudice by the
horns, presenting himself not only as a full-blooded Indian of noble
lineage, but also as one of culture ('The Paganini of the Guitar from
the Jungles of Paraguay').
I wonder how far he took this role - apparently he spoke Guaraní. In the
event, the whole episode seems to have backfired, probably appearing
more as a promotional gimmick than as reflecting any well-intentioned
but naive idealism on Barrios' part.
SD
Post by thomas
Post by Sarn Dyer
And then there was the hostility: the Indian blood, the
steel strings, the famous eccentric costumes of one period. He was an
original, and, like so many originals, an 'outsider' and to some extent,
his own worst enemy.
Who was hostile to him because of "Indian blood"?
He engaged in playing Indian because he thought it
was helpful to his career, no?
Sarn Dyer
2004-10-21 14:33:43 UTC
Permalink
I'm told that the prejudice against 'mestizos' was fairly general in
Spanish-speaking SA. Native Indians were regarded as poor, ill-educated,
uncultured by European standards and probably worse. There was no
prestige in a mixed marriage.

It's difficult to say what the totality of Barrios' motives were. He
appears, idealistically, to have taken the bull of prejudice by the
horns, presenting himself not only as a full-blooded Indian of noble
lineage, but also as one of culture ('The Paganini of the Guitar from
the Jungles of Paraguay').

I wonder how far he took this role - apparently he spoke Guaraní. In the
event, the whole episode seems to have backfired, probably appearing
more as a promotional gimmick than as reflecting any well-intentioned
but naive idealism on Barrios' part.

SD
Post by thomas
Post by Sarn Dyer
And then there was the hostility: the Indian blood, the
steel strings, the famous eccentric costumes of one period. He was an
original, and, like so many originals, an 'outsider' and to some extent,
his own worst enemy.
Who was hostile to him because of "Indian blood"?
He engaged in playing Indian because he thought it
was helpful to his career, no?
Richard Jernigan
2004-10-26 07:55:34 UTC
Permalink
On a vacation trip to Argentina and Brazil 3 years ago or so, I
noticed I could spend a week in Paraguay with no additional airfare.
Never having been there, and wondering how the country was faring
post-Stroessner, I decided to visit Barrios' homeland.

It was very pleasant. Democracy was in full swing with a variety of
newspapers. Political candidates ranged from former Stroessner
generals to decided left-wingers. An sizable bookstall on a secondary
square in Asuncion represented a broad spectrum of world literature,
economic, political and philosophical thought and the performing arts.

Still, the dictatorship had throttled economic devlelopment enough
that the capital was rather like a Mexican or Argentinian provincial
capital in the late '50s. Not choked by traffic, not overrun with
modern architecture, and with a moderate pace of life. I'm sure the
Paraguayans are doing everything they can to correct these
deficiencies.

Paraguay has two official languages, Spanish and Guarani. Much is
made of the bicultural aspect of the country. At the corner of the
town square in Asuncion is a restaurant with most of the seating at a
serpentine counter. I was taken in hand by two waitresses of a
certain age, one an ample blonde, the other a rather olive skinned
woman I took to be mestiza or Guarani. They dictated my evening meals
to me when I ate there, giving me a good tour of the menu: a firm
white fish from the river, in a tasty cream sauce; meat and cheese
pastries deep fried in fat so hot they came out dry, with no grease at
all, and so on down the menu. They conversed with me in proper
Spanish, between themselves in Spanish and Guarani, and with regular
customers in both languages, dropping in and out. It is the only
place in Latin America where I have heard an Indian language spoken in
an urban middle class situation, and the only time I have ever heard
an average citizen of obvious European descent fluent in an Indian
language (except for anthropologists and the like). My culinary tour
guides assured me that everybody spoke both languages. It seemed to be
the case, as I wandered about the city and the country.

About the only place I heard no Guarani was in the dining room of what
may have been the best hotel, also on the town square. The
accommodations were a bit modern, but the dining room was run on
traditional lines. One Sunday afternoon I was enjoying a solitary
comida, when five ladies in their sixties, well dressed in Paris
fashion and wearing nice antique jewelry were seated at the next
table. I was glad I had put on a suit. By and by a group of men came
in. They were seated nearby as well. One of them, whose suit and
shoes were off the rack, not bespoke like the rest, had a cell phone.
He appeared to make a call at the direction of one of the others. The
ladies frowned at the maitre d', who went over and spoke to the cell
phoner. He signed off. Things progressed in decency and order, until
about a half hour later the cell phone rang. Its bearer engaged in
conversation. The ladies frowned at the maitre d'. He advanced on the
men, and gestured for the cell phoner to depart. Two of the men
dissented. The maitre d' promptly ejected the lot of them.

Seeing the ladies had progressed to coffee, I ordered a round of
Cognac for them and myself. Lifting the glass a half inch above my
lips, I saluted their assault upon the decline of civilization. They
nodded and smiled politely, taking ladylike sips.

Back to Barrios' Indian masquerade: It seemed to me that in Paraguay
the attitude toward Indians, mestizos and Indian culture was very
different from what I have seen elsewhere in Latin America. The
Paraguayans attribute it to historical circumstance. An attempted
colony at the present site of Buenos Aires was fiercely repulsed by
the Indians. The would be colonists made their way up to the wide spot
on the river at the site of Asuncion, where they were welcomed and
assisted by the locals.

Barrios was from a prosperous family, and had a decent education, both
general and musical. In some other parts of Latin America the Indian
act would have been nearly inconceivable, but in Paraguay it might
have been an acceptable novelty. Taking it on the road would have
been dicey in Argentina, Chile, Peru, Salvador, Guatemala, or Mexico
before the Revolution. (After the Revolution, the Mariachi Vargas de
Tecalitlan became the decidedly mestizo semi-official band of the
PRI.) Probably the Indian act was seen as an entertaining novelty in
Brazil. Indeed one wonders whether Barrios was trying to spread, or at
least to represent Paraguayan racial attitudes.....I guess you would
have to have been there.

RNJ
Post by Sarn Dyer
I'm told that the prejudice against 'mestizos' was fairly general in
Spanish-speaking SA. Native Indians were regarded as poor, ill-educated,
uncultured by European standards and probably worse. There was no
prestige in a mixed marriage.
It's difficult to say what the totality of Barrios' motives were. He
appears, idealistically, to have taken the bull of prejudice by the
horns, presenting himself not only as a full-blooded Indian of noble
lineage, but also as one of culture ('The Paganini of the Guitar from
the Jungles of Paraguay').
I wonder how far he took this role - apparently he spoke Guaraní. In the
event, the whole episode seems to have backfired, probably appearing
more as a promotional gimmick than as reflecting any well-intentioned
but naive idealism on Barrios' part.
SD
Post by thomas
Post by Sarn Dyer
And then there was the hostility: the Indian blood, the
steel strings, the famous eccentric costumes of one period. He was an
original, and, like so many originals, an 'outsider' and to some extent,
his own worst enemy.
Who was hostile to him because of "Indian blood"?
He engaged in playing Indian because he thought it
was helpful to his career, no?
Howard Posner
2004-10-26 15:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Jernigan
In some other parts of Latin America the Indian
act would have been nearly inconceivable, but in Paraguay it might
have been an acceptable novelty. Taking it on the road would have
been dicey in Argentina, Chile, Peru, Salvador, Guatemala, or Mexico
before the Revolution. (After the Revolution, the Mariachi Vargas de
Tecalitlan became the decidedly mestizo semi-official band of the
PRI.) Probably the Indian act was seen as an entertaining novelty in
Brazil. Indeed one wonders whether Barrios was trying to spread, or at
least to represent Paraguayan racial attitudes.....I guess you would
have to have been there.
I recall seeing, probably in Richard Stover's Barrios biography, a billboard
advertisement for a beer, consisting of a picture of Barrios in Guarani
costume (which was fairly minimal) and a message, in Spanish, comparing the
unique excellence of the beer to that of the "Indian Guitarist." The Indian
guitarist was not even named; apparently he was so well known that it wasn't
necessary. I haven't looked at it in a few years, so my memory is suspect,
but my recollection is that the billboard was in Bolivia or Colombia, not
Paraguay. The point is that Barrios-as-Indian seems to have had instant and
marketable popular recognition such that it could sell a mass-consumer
product that had nothing to with music.

Howard Posner
Enlightenme01
2004-10-26 15:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Nice post! :) Did you happen to see the statue of Barrios in Asuncion?
Post by Richard Jernigan
On a vacation trip to Argentina and Brazil 3 years ago or so, I
noticed I could spend a week in Paraguay with no additional airfare.
Never having been there, and wondering how the country was faring
post-Stroessner, I decided to visit Barrios' homeland.
It was very pleasant. Democracy was in full swing with a variety of
newspapers. Political candidates ranged from former Stroessner
generals to decided left-wingers. An sizable bookstall on a secondary
square in Asuncion represented a broad spectrum of world literature,
economic, political and philosophical thought and the performing arts.
Still, the dictatorship had throttled economic devlelopment enough
that the capital was rather like a Mexican or Argentinian provincial
capital in the late '50s. Not choked by traffic, not overrun with
modern architecture, and with a moderate pace of life. I'm sure the
Paraguayans are doing everything they can to correct these
deficiencies.
Paraguay has two official languages, Spanish and Guarani. Much is
made of the bicultural aspect of the country. At the corner of the
town square in Asuncion is a restaurant with most of the seating at a
serpentine counter. I was taken in hand by two waitresses of a
certain age, one an ample blonde, the other a rather olive skinned
woman I took to be mestiza or Guarani. They dictated my evening meals
to me when I ate there, giving me a good tour of the menu: a firm
white fish from the river, in a tasty cream sauce; meat and cheese
pastries deep fried in fat so hot they came out dry, with no grease at
all, and so on down the menu. They conversed with me in proper
Spanish, between themselves in Spanish and Guarani, and with regular
customers in both languages, dropping in and out. It is the only
place in Latin America where I have heard an Indian language spoken in
an urban middle class situation, and the only time I have ever heard
an average citizen of obvious European descent fluent in an Indian
language (except for anthropologists and the like). My culinary tour
guides assured me that everybody spoke both languages. It seemed to be
the case, as I wandered about the city and the country.
About the only place I heard no Guarani was in the dining room of what
may have been the best hotel, also on the town square. The
accommodations were a bit modern, but the dining room was run on
traditional lines. One Sunday afternoon I was enjoying a solitary
comida, when five ladies in their sixties, well dressed in Paris
fashion and wearing nice antique jewelry were seated at the next
table. I was glad I had put on a suit. By and by a group of men came
in. They were seated nearby as well. One of them, whose suit and
shoes were off the rack, not bespoke like the rest, had a cell phone.
He appeared to make a call at the direction of one of the others. The
ladies frowned at the maitre d', who went over and spoke to the cell
phoner. He signed off. Things progressed in decency and order, until
about a half hour later the cell phone rang. Its bearer engaged in
conversation. The ladies frowned at the maitre d'. He advanced on the
men, and gestured for the cell phoner to depart. Two of the men
dissented. The maitre d' promptly ejected the lot of them.
Seeing the ladies had progressed to coffee, I ordered a round of
Cognac for them and myself. Lifting the glass a half inch above my
lips, I saluted their assault upon the decline of civilization. They
nodded and smiled politely, taking ladylike sips.
Back to Barrios' Indian masquerade: It seemed to me that in Paraguay
the attitude toward Indians, mestizos and Indian culture was very
different from what I have seen elsewhere in Latin America. The
Paraguayans attribute it to historical circumstance. An attempted
colony at the present site of Buenos Aires was fiercely repulsed by
the Indians. The would be colonists made their way up to the wide spot
on the river at the site of Asuncion, where they were welcomed and
assisted by the locals.
Barrios was from a prosperous family, and had a decent education, both
general and musical. In some other parts of Latin America the Indian
act would have been nearly inconceivable, but in Paraguay it might
have been an acceptable novelty. Taking it on the road would have
been dicey in Argentina, Chile, Peru, Salvador, Guatemala, or Mexico
before the Revolution. (After the Revolution, the Mariachi Vargas de
Tecalitlan became the decidedly mestizo semi-official band of the
PRI.) Probably the Indian act was seen as an entertaining novelty in
Brazil. Indeed one wonders whether Barrios was trying to spread, or at
least to represent Paraguayan racial attitudes.....I guess you would
have to have been there.
RNJ
Post by Sarn Dyer
I'm told that the prejudice against 'mestizos' was fairly general in
Spanish-speaking SA. Native Indians were regarded as poor, ill-educated,
uncultured by European standards and probably worse. There was no
prestige in a mixed marriage.
It's difficult to say what the totality of Barrios' motives were. He
appears, idealistically, to have taken the bull of prejudice by the
horns, presenting himself not only as a full-blooded Indian of noble
lineage, but also as one of culture ('The Paganini of the Guitar from
the Jungles of Paraguay').
I wonder how far he took this role - apparently he spoke Guaraní. In the
event, the whole episode seems to have backfired, probably appearing
more as a promotional gimmick than as reflecting any well-intentioned
but naive idealism on Barrios' part.
SD
Post by thomas
Post by Sarn Dyer
And then there was the hostility: the Indian blood, the
steel strings, the famous eccentric costumes of one period. He was an
original, and, like so many originals, an 'outsider' and to some
extent,
Post by Sarn Dyer
Post by thomas
Post by Sarn Dyer
his own worst enemy.
Who was hostile to him because of "Indian blood"?
He engaged in playing Indian because he thought it
was helpful to his career, no?
Dave Anno
BugBuster
2004-10-26 18:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for this informative post about Paraguay. Are there other posts
about your travels in South America?
Post by Richard Jernigan
On a vacation trip to Argentina and Brazil 3 years ago or so, I
noticed I could spend a week in Paraguay with no additional airfare.
Never having been there, and wondering how the country was faring
post-Stroessner, I decided to visit Barrios' homeland.
...
Aryeh Eller
2004-10-20 21:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Raymond
Hi Aryeh,
To what you said I would like to add that there is something we
recognize as "musical genius." And as the song goes, some cats got
it, and some cats ain't. All such composers are, as Sarn said,
"dragons" whether small or big.
Any composer who has musical genius will produce music that is
satisfying regardless if the music is great or not. And that is
sufficient for just about all of us most of the time. After all, most
of what is played on CG is not great.
Great composers are a subset of the set of composers of musical
genius. Great works are large in scale. A minor composer plans a
dinner party; a great composer plans the Invasion of Normandy. Great
works hold up on a macroscopic and microscopic level. In fact, great
pieces bear examination and analysis on so many levels, harmony,
counterpoint, emotion, etc., that learned musicians have written a lot
about the great works.
Therefore, while I consider him to be a musical genius, I do not
consider Barrios to be a great composer.
Hi Joe,

I see what you're saying but surely there are great composers that wrote
great works that aren't large in scale, Chopin's Mazurkas and Preludes
are undoubtedly great works but they're miniatures compared to a Sonata.
The works of Anton Webern are also very short and the entire ouvre of
his pieces can be played in about 3 hours yet those short little works
are great and they certainly hold up on the macro and microscopic
levels, Webern is a great composer.

Here's a great site about Webern with downloadable mp3's:

http://www.antonwebern.com/


I think besides great works on a large scale another ingredient to being
a great composer is an unbelievably huge amount of inspiration and
ingenuity given the time the composer lived in or now lives in. Chopin's
works, each one of them, even the small short ones are works of
incredible genius and profound inspiration, take pieces like the "Ocean"
Etude Op.25 in C min or the second Prelude Op. 24 in A min., these
pieces which take a few minutes to play are just plain great and
extremely inspired yet they aren't this kind of grand scale "Invasion of
Normandy" that you're describing a great composer needs to write.

I think greatness can be achieved in small and large forms and I don't
think thematic development is essential to achieving greatness, there
are other things like melodic and harmonic greatness too. Beethoven is a
thematic melodist but Tchaikovsky or Chopin write better melodies even
though they doesn't have the developmental skills of Beethoven (though
Tchaikovsky for example is certainly is no developmental slouch, just
listen to his masterpiece symphony # 6 Pathetique).

To me the fact that Barrios' works are short and not this grand scale
invasion - this alone is not what disqualifies him from being a great
composer, the problem is that even as a small scale composer the melodic
inspiration and sheer ingenuity is not as profound as other composers
who also wrote short works but they pack much more inspiration and
supreme mastery into them. If you compare Barrios' Mazurka Appassionata
which is one of his better pieces to Chopin's Mazurka in A min Op. 17 #4
- There's no question that Chopin is the great composer and Barrios is a
minor figure compared to him, the inspiration, the melodic genius in
Chopin's mazurka is ten times more profound, he is one of the world's
greatest composers.

Yours,

Aryeh
Joseph Raymond
2004-10-21 16:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aryeh Eller
http://www.antonwebern.com/
Hey, thanks for that link. I haven't heard a piece by Webern in many
years. This will give me a chance to revisit his work for free since
I'm not inclined to buy this stuff. In the past I liked his
stuff,little gems that left a question mark floating above my head,
but not that much. I think I'll make a CD from that website and
listen to it all. Who knows, maybe I'll get hooked on it. However, I
think playing Webern all the time can be considered grounds for
divorce in a court of law. I am prone to addiction. My current
addiction is the Prelude to the 6th Cello Suite by JSB.

Joe
John Wasak
2004-10-22 01:45:10 UTC
Permalink
com>...
Post by Joseph Raymond
Post by Aryeh Eller
http://www.antonwebern.com/
Hey, thanks for that link. I haven't heard a piece by Webern in many
years. This will give me a chance to revisit his work for free since
I'm not inclined to buy this stuff. In the past I liked his
stuff,little gems that left a question mark floating above my head,
but not that much.
Try Maurizio Pollini - Anton Webern, Variationen fur Klavier, Op.27.

(includes: 'Trois Movements de Petrouchka' - Stravinsky; 'Klaviersonate Nr.
7' - Prokofiev; 'Deuxieme Sonate pour Piano - Boulez.



jw
Post by Joseph Raymond
I think I'll make a CD from that website and
listen to it all. Who knows, maybe I'll get hooked on it. However, I
think playing Webern all the time can be considered grounds for
divorce in a court of law. I am prone to addiction. My current
addiction is the Prelude to the 6th Cello Suite by JSB.
Joe
Aryeh Eller
2004-10-22 21:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Raymond
m>...
Post by Aryeh Eller
http://www.antonwebern.com/
Hey, thanks for that link.
Anytime Joe!
Post by Joseph Raymond
I haven't heard a piece by Webern in many
years. This will give me a chance to revisit his work for free since
I'm not inclined to buy this stuff. In the past I liked his
stuff,little gems that left a question mark floating above my head,
but not that much. I think I'll make a CD from that website and
listen to it all. Who knows, maybe I'll get hooked on it.
Post by Aryeh Eller
However, I
think playing Webern all the time can be considered grounds for
divorce in a court of law.
Well there's some Webern that your wife may actually enjoy like the
Passacaglia Op. 1 for orchestra and there's an early work not part of
his published opus written in a late romantic style called "In
Sommerwind" that's quite nice, he wrote it when he was only 20 years
old. But of course the whole genius of Webern is that he broke out of
the late-romantic mold and created something new. I'll never forget
seeing Pierre Boulez at Carnegie conducting the LSO in the Webern Op. 6
Six Pieces for Orchestra, the 4th movement which is a funeral march was
one of the most intense musical experiences I've ever experienced, heavy
stuff!! ;-)
Post by Joseph Raymond
I am prone to addiction.
My current addiction is the Prelude to the 6th Cello Suite by JSB.
You will surely enjoy Webern's orchestration/arr. of Bach's
Fuga/Ricercare a 6 voci from the monumental Musical Offering, he uses
all the instruments in a very colorful way which adds much beauty to the
original.


Take care,

Aryeh
Terlizzi
2004-10-22 23:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aryeh Eller
You will surely enjoy Webern's orchestration/arr. of Bach's
Fuga/Ricercare a 6 voci from the monumental Musical Offering,
Beautifully used in Pier Paolo Pasolini's " Gospel According to St. Matthew" .
mark
Aryeh Eller
2004-10-23 04:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terlizzi
Post by Aryeh Eller
You will surely enjoy Webern's orchestration/arr. of Bach's
Fuga/Ricercare a 6 voci from the monumental Musical Offering,
Beautifully used in Pier Paolo Pasolini's " Gospel According to St. Matthew"
.

Sometimes I Feel Like A Motherless Child

(sung by Odetta)
Joseph Raymond
2004-10-23 18:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aryeh Eller
Post by Joseph Raymond
m>...
Post by Aryeh Eller
http://www.antonwebern.com/
Hey, thanks for that link.
Anytime Joe!
Post by Joseph Raymond
I haven't heard a piece by Webern in many
years. This will give me a chance to revisit his work for free since
I'm not inclined to buy this stuff. In the past I liked his
stuff,little gems that left a question mark floating above my head,
but not that much. I think I'll make a CD from that website and
listen to it all. Who knows, maybe I'll get hooked on it.
Post by Aryeh Eller
However, I
think playing Webern all the time can be considered grounds for
divorce in a court of law.
Well there's some Webern that your wife may actually enjoy like the
Passacaglia Op. 1 for orchestra and there's an early work not part of
his published opus written in a late romantic style called "In
Sommerwind" that's quite nice, he wrote it when he was only 20 years
old. But of course the whole genius of Webern is that he broke out of
the late-romantic mold and created something new. I'll never forget
seeing Pierre Boulez at Carnegie conducting the LSO in the Webern Op. 6
Six Pieces for Orchestra, the 4th movement which is a funeral march was
one of the most intense musical experiences I've ever experienced, heavy
stuff!! ;-)
Post by Joseph Raymond
I am prone to addiction.
My current addiction is the Prelude to the 6th Cello Suite by JSB.
You will surely enjoy Webern's orchestration/arr. of Bach's
Fuga/Ricercare a 6 voci from the monumental Musical Offering, he uses
all the instruments in a very colorful way which adds much beauty to the
original.
Take care,
Aryeh
Since the ball 'n' chain is not a musician, before I played the CD I
warned her. To my astonishment, she said she liked it! In particular
she said she liked the high quality of the voices and what Webern did
with them.

I liked it too. What impressed me most, never having heard an entire
hour of Webern before, was the richness and variety of his ideas and
the range of feeling. I'm not hooked yet as it will require several
more listenings before I internalize this stuff. But it so cool that
I can put the whole thing on a Windows Media Player Playlist and let
it roll.

And I'll be on the lookout for your latest recommendation. (Say,
you're quite the teacher! Are you working on your PhD?)

One comment about the Musical Offering, is it just me or, does anyone
else feel that the so called "royal theme" is a little weird? It
makes it all the more amazing that JSB was able to improvise a fugue
on the spot.

Joe
Mike P.
2004-10-21 17:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aryeh Eller
I think greatness can be achieved in small and large forms
I have no dog in this fight, but Aryeh I thought this was succinct and
well said, and wanted to say so. I always liked this phrase E.M.
Forster used, I think in Howard's End, to describe this: "the phantom
of bigness."
Post by Aryeh Eller
the problem is that even as a small scale composer the melodic
inspiration and sheer ingenuity is not as profound as other composers
who also wrote short works but they pack much more inspiration and
supreme mastery into them.
Insightful and again, nicely put.

Later,
Mike P.
John Wasak
2004-10-22 01:28:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike P.
Post by Aryeh Eller
I think greatness can be achieved in small and large forms
I always liked this phrase E.M.
Forster used, I think in Howard's End, to describe this: "the phantom
of bigness."
"The phantom of bigness, which London encourages, was laid for ever when she
paced from the hall at Howards End to its kitchen and heard the rain run
this way and that where the watershed of the roof divided it."

Better, I think, is "The civilisation of luggage had been here for a
month, and then decamped."
[from the same chapter]


jw
Aryeh Eller
2004-10-22 21:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike P.
Post by Aryeh Eller
I think greatness can be achieved in small and large forms
I have no dog in this fight, but Aryeh I thought this was succinct and
well said, and wanted to say so. I always liked this phrase E.M.
Forster used, I think in Howard's End, to describe this: "the phantom
of bigness."
Post by Aryeh Eller
the problem is that even as a small scale composer the melodic
inspiration and sheer ingenuity is not as profound as other composers
who also wrote short works but they pack much more inspiration and
supreme mastery into them.
Insightful and again, nicely put.
Later,
Mike P.
Thanks Mike!


Aryeh
Gérard Cojot
2004-10-21 07:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Raymond
Great composers
About Andrès Segovia, did you know that John Williams was his hidden son
?
--
'Si tu dis une parole et que l'on ne t'écoute pas, tu perds une parole.
Si un Homme te parle et que tu ne l'écoutes pas, tu perds un Homme.'
Kongfuzi
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/gerard.cojot/
John Wasak
2004-10-22 02:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gérard Cojot
Post by Joseph Raymond
Great composers
About Andrès Segovia, did you know that John Williams was his hidden son
?
Tell us, if you will.


jw
Post by Gérard Cojot
--
'Si tu dis une parole et que l'on ne t'écoute pas, tu perds une parole.
Si un Homme te parle et que tu ne l'écoutes pas, tu perds un Homme.'
Kongfuzi
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/gerard.cojot/
DBurch7672
2004-11-16 21:26:41 UTC
Permalink
A minor composer plans a
dinner party; a great composer plans the Invasion of Normandy.

Where can I find the works of Eisenhower and/or Montgomery; so I can judge for
myself? :)
William D Clinger
2004-10-20 22:05:53 UTC
Permalink
John Wasak hasn't been around, so I'm going to speak up in favor of
personal taste.
....But does the fact
that I like his music make him a better composer? If we take personal tastes
into the equation we're moving onto very unstable territory.
[....]
If you look at the guitar world today you could think that the 'greatest'
composers of all time were Andrew York and Carlo Domeniconi. And if
'Sunburst' and 'Koyunbaba' go out of fashion next year, will both only by
'mediocre' composers? There are so many problems with using personal taste
as a basis for an epithet such as 'great'. In your last sentence though you
do allude to the fact that there may be other criteria though.
I don't think I used personal taste as a basis for for something being
great...
There are no objective criteria by which to judge the greatness
of a composer. More accurately, there _are_ objective criteria
(e.g. number and length of works, number of instruments for which
they were composed, number of letters in the composer's last name)
but there are no objective criteria that are objectively valid as
criteria for greatness. If anyone wants to propose objective
criteria, the only way to validate them would be to see whether
the composers they identify as great coincide with the composers
we would identify as great using our ordinary subjective criteria.

The popularity of a composer's works is as objective and valid a
criterion as anything else we're going to come up with. We can
argue about our measures of popularity---do we mean popularity
among the unwashed masses? among musicians? among composer
peers?---but popularity does and should count.

Not because music is Entertainment, but because music is Art,
and Art is one of the Humanities. An extraterrestrial composer
whose works occupy the tonal range from 30 kHz to 300 kHz with
MM 2400 for a slow dance is not a great composer by human
standards, no matter how great it may be regarded in its own
culture. Nor is a terrestrial composer great if he/she writes
music that doesn't appeal to humans.

To deny that is to move into extremely unstable territory.

Will
Roman Turovsky
2004-10-20 23:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Well said.
RT
________________
http://polyhymnion.org
Post by William D Clinger
There are no objective criteria by which to judge the greatness
of a composer. More accurately, there _are_ objective criteria
(e.g. number and length of works, number of instruments for which
they were composed, number of letters in the composer's last name)
but there are no objective criteria that are objectively valid as
criteria for greatness. If anyone wants to propose objective
criteria, the only way to validate them would be to see whether
the composers they identify as great coincide with the composers
we would identify as great using our ordinary subjective criteria.
The popularity of a composer's works is as objective and valid a
criterion as anything else we're going to come up with. We can
argue about our measures of popularity---do we mean popularity
among the unwashed masses? among musicians? among composer
peers?---but popularity does and should count.
Not because music is Entertainment, but because music is Art,
and Art is one of the Humanities. An extraterrestrial composer
whose works occupy the tonal range from 30 kHz to 300 kHz with
MM 2400 for a slow dance is not a great composer by human
standards, no matter how great it may be regarded in its own
culture. Nor is a terrestrial composer great if he/she writes
music that doesn't appeal to humans.
To deny that is to move into extremely unstable territory.
Will
DBurch7672
2004-11-16 21:32:04 UTC
Permalink
An extraterrestrial composer whose works occupy the tonal range from 30 kHz to
300 kHz with MM 2400 for a slow dance is not a great composer by human
standards, no matter how great it may be regarded in its own
culture.

1. Scientist-English translation, please?
2. Shouldn't that be "his" or "her"; (unless the alien comes from an
biologically asexual or bisexual species?); NOT "its"? (English DOES need a
gender for non-male/female persons,such as God and sentient species like the
kind I just mentioned; though in my opinion!)
Ashby
2004-11-16 23:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by DBurch7672
An extraterrestrial composer whose works occupy the tonal range from 30 kHz to
300 kHz with MM 2400 for a slow dance is not a great composer by human
standards, no matter how great it may be regarded in its own
culture.
1. Scientist-English translation, please?
2. Shouldn't that be "his" or "her"; (unless the alien comes from an
biologically asexual or bisexual species?); NOT "its"?
First, the sentence is awkwardly constructed and also syntactically
ambiguous. It can be parsed so that "it" has "dance" as its antecedent (not
"composer"). In that case the use of "it" and "its" is correct. This is a
question of anaphora, which is a branch of semiotics.
Post by DBurch7672
(English DOES need a
gender for non-male/female persons,such as God and sentient species like the
kind I just mentioned; though in my opinion!)
Old English did have a neutral gender, but that was around a thousand years
ago. Some artifacts still remain in the language. For example, many English
speakers use 'it' when referring to animals: 'It (the dog) ran away'. In
some cases 'it' can apply to humans, such as when talking about a baby:
'What is its name?'. As for God, look no further than the opening line of
the Lord's Prayer: 'Our Father Which art in Heaven.' Most churches have
changed 'which' to 'who', but many churches still use the old version.

I was going to suggest that "extraterrestrial composer" is a contradiction
because we normally think of 'extraterrestrial' as having the feature of
nonhuman and 'composer' as being human. But it occurs to me that there may
be some extraterrestrial composers in this newsgroup.

Ashby
Richard Yates
2004-10-19 13:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Heim
Concerning Barrios, the general tenor here seems to be that he is considered
a 'great' composer. Why is it then, that I have never read his name in a
history of 20th century music, say alongside with Schoenberg, Berg, Webern,
Stravinsky, Varese, etc?
Political history is written by the winners; music history is written by the
academics.

Richard Yates
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
2004-10-19 13:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olof Johansson
Post by Klaus Heim
Concerning Barrios, the general tenor here seems to be that he is
considered
Post by Klaus Heim
a 'great' composer. Why is it then, that I have never read his name in a
history of 20th century music, say alongside with Schoenberg, Berg,
Webern,
Post by Klaus Heim
Stravinsky, Varese, etc?
Political history is written by the winners; music history is written by the
academics.
Richard Yates
True, but aren't the academics writing about the "winners" too?

Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Sarn Dyer
2004-10-19 14:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Heim
Post by Sarn Dyer
Like Tim Panting, I don't think that it can be argued that skill -
inspired or otherwise - in the development of thematic materials
automatically defines a composer as 'great', although it certainly
contributes to our recognition of the great musical minds who, ermm,
developed that aspect.
I think 'great' composers are often those who have individuality and
innovativeness.
Yes, but, then again, even those two qualities are insufficient in
themselves. I wonder which composer would be nominated as the first, in
the history of music, to merit those qualities. Gesualdo, perhaps?
Whatever 'greatness' may be, it seems to require a consensus of informed
and uninformed opinion. Perhaps uninformed opinion itself relies on a
degree of consensus with regard to the famous so-called 'tingle
quotient' in a composer's work.

The 'tingle factor' might suggest that some composers have a greater
grasp of what might be termed the psychology of music: the ability to
time musical events in such a way as to maximise their emotional effect
on the listener. This seems to me to presuppose a high degree of
'emotional intelligence' together, of course, with the necessary
specialised intellectual intelligence to make full use of it.
Post by Klaus Heim
Concerning Barrios, the general tenor here seems to be that he is considered
a 'great' composer. Why is it then, that I have never read his name in a
history of 20th century music, say alongside with Schoenberg, Berg, Webern,
Stravinsky, Varese, etc? Maybe that is an oversight, which will be corrected
in the next few decades.
I think we can agree, probably not! But then a place in musical history
doesn't guarantee greatness and, as you say, evaluations may change with
time. One thing that this discussion has shown is the degree of
compartmentalization in music as a whole. In the classical field, a
mainstream instrument (the orchestra is probably the most mainstream
'instrument') will usually be able to lay claim to more great composers
than one that is, like the harp, not in the mainstream. The organ is a
mainstream instrument only by virtue of the fact that great composers
who have written for it. It can also lay claim to its share of other
'great' composers unknown to many non-organists. Brahms wrote for the
organ but if he had written only for the organ, would he be considered a
great composer today? I doubt it.

If the appellation of 'greatness' was sufficient in itself, then we
would not need the category of 'petit maitre' ('little master). I take
this as meaning that, if the 'petit maitre' in question had written more
music of the quality that had earned that title, then he/she might have
been a 'grand maitre'. Others might define the term as meaning 'almost
great', but even a small dragon is still a dragon.
Post by Klaus Heim
Or could it be that the criteria guitarists set for 'great' composers is
different - dare I say lower? - than elsewehere?
I think it's as much related to the above 'compartmentalization' factor
than to guitarists' sometimes over-enthusiastic appreciation of a
composer who wrote exceptionally well for the guitar. Assessing Barrios'
output as a whole is complicated by the fact that we have little
information about which pieces he would have chosen to publish if he had
had such a choice and what might have been the outcome if he had been
influenced - as many composers have been - by any specific demands on
his creativity.

Who else but Barrios could have written, for example, the 'Choro de
Saudade'? In fact, my own answer to that question surprises me a little.
Imagine that, without knowing the piece or the composer, you are hearing
this music not played on the guitar, but by full orchestra. Would you be
reminded of another composer who was a contemporary of Barrios?

Sarn
Klaus Heim
2004-10-19 16:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sarn Dyer
Post by Klaus Heim
I think 'great' composers are often those who have individuality and
innovativeness.
Yes, but, then again, even those two qualities are insufficient in
themselves. I wonder which composer would be nominated as the first, in
the history of music, to merit those qualities. Gesualdo, perhaps?
Whatever 'greatness' may be, it seems to require a consensus of informed
and uninformed opinion. Perhaps uninformed opinion itself relies on a
degree of consensus with regard to the famous so-called 'tingle
quotient' in a composer's work.
The 'tingle factor' might suggest that some composers have a greater
grasp of what might be termed the psychology of music: the ability to
time musical events in such a way as to maximise their emotional effect
on the listener. This seems to me to presuppose a high degree of
'emotional intelligence' together, of course, with the necessary
specialised intellectual intelligence to make full use of it.
I can hardly imagine a composer being viewed as 'great', whose music only
appeals to the academic side and which lacks this 'tingle factor' (nice
term!) I would like to view this tingle factor as more than a simple "nice
tune" or "great rhythm" sort of emotion, rather an emotional understanding
of (complex) musical structures. Bach for example is highly structured and
complex music, but it easily connects with the audience. The 'tingle factor'
is there and I would venture to say, that listeners have an emotional
understanding of the structure of the music, even if they do not
intellectually grasp it. The listening experience between Bach and Barrios
is different and this is probably one of the reasons.

This is not to suggest that 'good' music has to be difficult or complex.
Quite the contrary, if it can be kept simple, all for the better. For
example, I think "Trivium" by René Eespere is one of the best chamber music
pieces with guitar ever written and the guitar part could probably be
sight-read by an intermediate player.
Post by Sarn Dyer
Post by Klaus Heim
Concerning Barrios, the general tenor here seems to be that he is considered
a 'great' composer. Why is it then, that I have never read his name in a
history of 20th century music, say alongside with Schoenberg, Berg, Webern,
Stravinsky, Varese, etc? Maybe that is an oversight, which will be corrected
in the next few decades.
I think we can agree, probably not! But then a place in musical history
doesn't guarantee greatness and, as you say, evaluations may change with
time. One thing that this discussion has shown is the degree of
compartmentalization in music as a whole. In the classical field, a
mainstream instrument (the orchestra is probably the most mainstream
'instrument') will usually be able to lay claim to more great composers
than one that is, like the harp, not in the mainstream. The organ is a
mainstream instrument only by virtue of the fact that great composers
who have written for it. It can also lay claim to its share of other
'great' composers unknown to many non-organists. Brahms wrote for the
organ but if he had written only for the organ, would he be considered a
great composer today? I doubt it.
I think this compartmentalization is a big problem. Over in
rec.music.classical.contemporary a similar discussion is going on at the
moment, where one poster suggested a composer is only eligible if he has
written in diverse genres. I am not adverse to that idea, at least it makes
judgement somewhat easier. I do tend to be skeptical about composers who
only write for the instrument they play. It all tends to get a bit inbred,
some fresh outside air might be quite healthy to clear the fog a bit.
Post by Sarn Dyer
If the appellation of 'greatness' was sufficient in itself, then we
would not need the category of 'petit maitre' ('little master). I take
this as meaning that, if the 'petit maitre' in question had written more
music of the quality that had earned that title, then he/she might have
been a 'grand maitre'. Others might define the term as meaning 'almost
great', but even a small dragon is still a dragon.
I never understood this term as referring to the composer having written few
masterpieces, but rather of him having a consistent level of less great
pieces. The term can be used either derogatorily (well, he didn't quite make
it), as well as a compliment (well-crafted music but without the tingle
factor). Sticking to certain genres (ie salon music) could also earn you
that title.
Post by Sarn Dyer
Post by Klaus Heim
Or could it be that the criteria guitarists set for 'great' composers is
different - dare I say lower? - than elsewehere?
I think it's as much related to the above 'compartmentalization' factor
than to guitarists' sometimes over-enthusiastic appreciation of a
composer who wrote exceptionally well for the guitar. Assessing Barrios'
output as a whole is complicated by the fact that we have little
information about which pieces he would have chosen to publish if he had
had such a choice and what might have been the outcome if he had been
influenced - as many composers have been - by any specific demands on
his creativity.
Who else but Barrios could have written, for example, the 'Choro de
Saudade'? In fact, my own answer to that question surprises me a little.
Imagine that, without knowing the piece or the composer, you are hearing
this music not played on the guitar, but by full orchestra. Would you be
reminded of another composer who was a contemporary of Barrios?
Oh my, very interesting point! I'll have to try and compare. It also raises
the question, if as a composer you enter another level, when you write your
Saudades for orchestra or piano, or if you write them for guitar.

Klaus
Gerry
2004-10-16 16:21:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard F. Sayage
Post by JoeT
Bach and Beethoven never played guitar ... nor did they live in South
America
That's hardly the point. Bach worked his music to an extreme point,
sometimes decades later going back to refine a musical point.
Barrios did just that. I don't think that makes either of them good or
better.

One thing I like about newsgroups is how easy it is to compare a Buick
to celery, or a camera to a river.
--
Invest wisely: Over the past 75 years, stocks have averaged annual gains of 2.3
percent under GOP administrations, compared with 9.5 under Democratic ones.
-- Jerry Heaster
Richard F. Sayage
2004-10-16 16:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry
Post by Richard F. Sayage
Post by JoeT
Bach and Beethoven never played guitar ... nor did they live in South
America
That's hardly the point. Bach worked his music to an extreme point,
sometimes decades later going back to refine a musical point.
Barrios did just that. I don't think that makes either of them good or
better.
One thing I like about newsgroups is how easy it is to compare a Buick
to celery, or a camera to a river.
--
Hi Gerry,

I don't recall saying "better" or good for that matter. I was speaking
of development and instruments/music and the known fact that Bach would go
back to adjust a single note in a lengthy score, sometimes years later. He
seemingly understood his own mortality and the longevity of the written
score. This was to shore up Kent's simple and mostly accurate statement
regarding Bach and Beethoven.
I understand the differences and appreciate the music of both Bach and
Barrios. Rating a comparison never occurred to me, but I thought I
indicated that in my post. If I wasn't clear, well, the forum doesn't allow
for lengthy and fully explained dissertations. Neither does my time.

Peace,
Richard
Lutemann
2004-10-16 21:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard F. Sayage
That's hardly the point. Bach worked his music to an extreme point,
sometimes decades later going back to refine a musical point. I'm not
certain that anyone went to the extremes of Bach, scientifically or
artistically within his own confines. Looking at the music written for
flute, violin or cello solo for example, we might find it difficult to again
rate comparisons. I say this in mind of the relative compositional
All the good composers gravitated toward the keyboard which allowed them to
realize their ideas. The keyboaed allows for free modulation to any key and
allows for just about any voicing imaginable. The guitar is not a composer's
instrument and has suffered because of it.
*****************************************************
Kent Murdick
Free Guitar Instruction CD/Video: Go to http://stringdancer.com/
and search for Murdick--also "Hear Lutemann Play (a little)"
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/NO.mp3
memyself&1
2004-10-17 18:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lutemann
allows for just about any voicing imaginable. The guitar is not a composer's
instrument and has suffered because of it.
Depends on the composer. One who understands the guitar can exploit it,
though few do/have. Simply put; composers need to conform to the guitar
instead of, as is the case with the piano, the instrument conforming to the
composer. Just as development takes great imagination so does the
composition for guitar.

I can't imagine that if any of the great composers had taken pains to
understand the instrument that they could not have done some great things.

I agree with your point.
Joseph Raymond
2004-10-17 18:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lutemann
All the good composers gravitated toward the keyboard which allowed them to
realize their ideas. The keyboaed allows for free modulation to any key and
allows for just about any voicing imaginable. The guitar is not a composer's
instrument and has suffered because of it.
I don't think the guitar suffered because it is not a "composer's
instrument." Imo, the guitar suffered because it is not an orchestral
instrument. It is not loud, has little sustain, and has a narrow
dynamic range.

Joe
Gerry
2004-10-18 00:11:36 UTC
Permalink
The guitar is not a composer's instrument and has suffered because of
it.
After 35 years playing the instrument I'm surprised to hear this. Are
piano and organ then the only "composer's instruments", then?
--
Invest wisely: Over the past 75 years, stocks have averaged annual gains of 2.3
percent under GOP administrations, compared with 9.5 under Democratic ones.
-- Jerry Heaster
JoeT
2004-10-18 12:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Well it seems that the original topic was the development of musical ideas
...
Post by Gerry
The guitar is not a composer's instrument and has suffered because of
it.
After 35 years playing the instrument I'm surprised to hear this. Are
piano and organ then the only "composer's instruments", then?
--
Invest wisely: Over the past 75 years, stocks have averaged annual gains of 2.3
percent under GOP administrations, compared with 9.5 under Democratic ones.
-- Jerry Heaster
DBurch7672
2004-11-16 21:19:16 UTC
Permalink
The guitar is not a composer's instrument and has suffered because of it.

Speaking of this subject; have there been any people who have been both great
composers and great performers on an instrument or instruments, besides?
Tom Kirke
2004-11-16 21:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by DBurch7672
The guitar is not a composer's instrument and has suffered because of it.
Speaking of this subject; have there been any people who have been both great
composers and great performers on an instrument or instruments, besides?
A quick & no doubt partial list

Organ - JS Bach

Piano - several including Beethoven, Chopin, List, Gottschalk (sp?),
Ellington, Monk, etc etc etc.

Violin - There are great performers who also composed, ( ie Joachim,
Chrysler ) but were they also great composers?

Double Bass - Mingus.

Mozart played keyboards, violin, & viola very well.

tom
--
We have discovered a therapy ( NOT a cure )
for the common cold. Play tuba for an hour.
Greg M. Silverman
2004-11-16 22:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Kirke
Post by DBurch7672
The guitar is not a composer's instrument and has suffered because of it.
Speaking of this subject; have there been any people who have been both great
composers and great performers on an instrument or instruments, besides?
A quick & no doubt partial list
Organ - JS Bach
Piano - several including Beethoven, Chopin, List, Gottschalk (sp?),
Ellington, Monk, etc etc etc.
And Stravinsky, who "admitted" he composed AT the piano (as oppossed to
the idea of the composer doing it all in their head).

gms--
Post by Tom Kirke
Violin - There are great performers who also composed, ( ie Joachim,
Chrysler ) but were they also great composers?
Double Bass - Mingus.
Mozart played keyboards, violin, & viola very well.
tom
Paul Magnussen
2004-11-17 15:51:48 UTC
Permalink
have there been any people who have been both great composers
and great performers on an instrument or instruments, besides?
Don't forget Dowland and Weiss.

Paul Magnussen

To send me e-mail, adjust aol's name in the signature.
Larry Deack
2004-11-17 16:01:30 UTC
Permalink
"Paul Magnussen"
Post by Paul Magnussen
Don't forget Dowland and Weiss.
Don't you think it would be easier to name composers who did NOT play some
instrument at a concert level?

Allar ?unapuu
2004-10-23 17:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Raymond
Post by Luis Sanabria
This is part of a question/answer made during a Segovia Master Class
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF AUGUSTINE BARRIOS ?
SEGOVIA: " You know , I knew Augustine Barrios. I had great empathy
for him, but I think he lacked sufficient knowledge in music to
consider him a composer. It is a great pity because he had very
beautiful ideas, but the development of those ideas, according to the
eternal laws of composition, was absolutely absent, and this is why I
don't play anything by him. "
(It is very interesting to read what the British guitarist , John
Williams said in an album cover)
JOHN WILLIAMS: "Barrios is increasingly appreciated today as the
outstanding guitarist-composer of his time, I would say of any time,
for the qualities of inventiveness and obvious love of the instrument.
He was the first guitarist to make records from 1909, and the first
to play a complete Bach lute suite on guitar. "
I think the key word here, uttered by Segovia, is "development."
Development of musical ideas is what distinguishes great composers
from lesser composers. Barrios had plenty of musical ideas but did
not development them as, say, Bach or Beethoven developed their ideas.
As such I think Barrios's compositions are fluff and do not bear
repeated listenings, at least for me anyway.
Best regards,
Joe
Segovia has here very narrow view to musical development as such. He
obviously sees only the one possibility, which is used mostly in music
played by him. The harmonical development isn't the only possibility
of development though. There are tempo, dynamics and rhytm as well.
There are many ways of developing and "going forward" in music. What
about indian classical music or local, ancient national regi-song
(regilaul), monotonous melodic repeating of lyrics here in Estonia.
This music includes the whole world and there is still no segovian
development at all. Or, what goes to mind, electronic ambient music.
Is it totally w/o development? It's paradox, that monotonous drum
beats of shaman can in time drive human beings to trans. Which
sophisticated harmonical development can do that?

Segovia had his opinion and my respect to him for it. That kind of
brave opinion gains more and more value in modern world, where you
must carefully choose every word. Man is'nt obliged to like things he
hates. One must admit, that Segovia had right for personal taste. (In
Europe it's dangerous to admit, that one don't like homosexualists
soon)

What bother's me regarding to historical Barrios'es life handling
most, is the egoistic look to world's culture from european side.
"..if he could travel to Europe, he could be a great composer, if
Segovia could invite him to play in Europe...". I think, that Barrios
felt himself very well in his own culture. There is no need to travel
to Europe to be "real" or "great". There is culture in other
continents than Europe, too, as surprising as it can be.

And, at least, isn't the social influence one of the factors, that
makes music great? From this logic the greatest composers can maybe
found amongst anonymous bards from era of aural musical tradition. You
can argue, that they did'nt have any constructions or inventions in
their music. But they did have great meaning and influence to
contemporary people for sure. Isn't this the most important trademark
of great composer/musician? (the specialization between them is
historically quite a new thing considering, that homo sapiens has been
living on earth 1M years).

Allar
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
2004-10-23 17:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Allar ?unapuu
Post by Joseph Raymond
Post by Luis Sanabria
This is part of a question/answer made during a Segovia Master Class
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF AUGUSTINE BARRIOS ?
SEGOVIA: " You know , I knew Augustine Barrios. I had great empathy
for him, but I think he lacked sufficient knowledge in music to
consider him a composer. It is a great pity because he had very
beautiful ideas, but the development of those ideas, according to the
eternal laws of composition, was absolutely absent, and this is why I
don't play anything by him. "
(It is very interesting to read what the British guitarist , John
Williams said in an album cover)
JOHN WILLIAMS: "Barrios is increasingly appreciated today as the
outstanding guitarist-composer of his time, I would say of any time,
for the qualities of inventiveness and obvious love of the instrument.
He was the first guitarist to make records from 1909, and the first
to play a complete Bach lute suite on guitar. "
I think the key word here, uttered by Segovia, is "development."
Development of musical ideas is what distinguishes great composers
from lesser composers. Barrios had plenty of musical ideas but did
not development them as, say, Bach or Beethoven developed their ideas.
As such I think Barrios's compositions are fluff and do not bear
repeated listenings, at least for me anyway.
Best regards,
Joe
Segovia has here very narrow view to musical development as such. He
obviously sees only the one possibility, which is used mostly in music
played by him. The harmonical development isn't the only possibility
of development though. There are tempo, dynamics and rhytm as well.
There are many ways of developing and "going forward" in music. What
about indian classical music or local, ancient national regi-song
(regilaul), monotonous melodic repeating of lyrics here in Estonia.
This music includes the whole world and there is still no segovian
development at all. Or, what goes to mind, electronic ambient music.
Is it totally w/o development? It's paradox, that monotonous drum
beats of shaman can in time drive human beings to trans. Which
sophisticated harmonical development can do that?
Segovia had his opinion and my respect to him for it. That kind of
brave opinion gains more and more value in modern world, where you
must carefully choose every word. Man is'nt obliged to like things he
hates. One must admit, that Segovia had right for personal taste. (In
Europe it's dangerous to admit, that one don't like homosexualists
soon)
What bother's me regarding to historical Barrios'es life handling
most, is the egoistic look to world's culture from european side.
"..if he could travel to Europe, he could be a great composer, if
Segovia could invite him to play in Europe...". I think, that Barrios
felt himself very well in his own culture. There is no need to travel
to Europe to be "real" or "great". There is culture in other
continents than Europe, too, as surprising as it can be.
And, at least, isn't the social influence one of the factors, that
makes music great? From this logic the greatest composers can maybe
found amongst anonymous bards from era of aural musical tradition. You
can argue, that they did'nt have any constructions or inventions in
their music. But they did have great meaning and influence to
contemporary people for sure. Isn't this the most important trademark
of great composer/musician? (the specialization between them is
historically quite a new thing considering, that homo sapiens has been
living on earth 1M years).
Allar
One of the arguments I hear among afficianados of so-called "world
music" is that it cannot be properly "understood" outside of its native
cultural context. In other words, you just ain't gonna get it.
There's probably some truth in that, just as our parents didn't dig
rock and roll.
The problem for Barrios is that he was self-consciously trying to
straddle two cultural traditions. It's no surprise to me that Segovia
would consider him essentially useless, since he didn't fully buy into
Segovia's cultural milieu, which put Segovia at the center of the universe.
Segovia of course wasn't the only one to put himself in the middle of
his own universe, but it's to a very large extent the universe we are in
here in this newsgroup. But what about Barrios? Is Segovia's inability
to appreciate him ego, or simply not getting it?
I remember watching a television program maybe 15 years ago about the
physicist Richard Feynman. Near the end of his life, he made a voyage
to Tuva in central Asia. One of the interesting facts I remember about
that program was that there were sounds in the Tuvan language that were
outside the Western experience. In the case of two sounds, linguists
and neurologists found that they could be distinguished by the Tuvan
ear, but not by the adult Western ear. Furthermore (and even more
intriguing to me) they discovered that children were able to learn to
distinguish these two sounds up until the age of nine (IIRC), and that
after that the ability to learn this vanished forever.
So does this mean that I can not learn to appreciate Tuvan "throat
singers"? Probably.
Maybe our parents who hated rock and roll couldn't help it.

Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
John Wasak
2004-10-26 00:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Post by Allar ?unapuu
Post by Joseph Raymond
Post by Luis Sanabria
This is part of a question/answer made during a Segovia Master Class
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF AUGUSTINE BARRIOS ?
SEGOVIA: " You know , I knew Augustine Barrios. I had great empathy
for him, but I think he lacked sufficient knowledge in music to
consider him a composer. It is a great pity because he had very
beautiful ideas, but the development of those ideas, according to the
eternal laws of composition, was absolutely absent, and this is why I
don't play anything by him. "
(It is very interesting to read what the British guitarist , John
Williams said in an album cover)
JOHN WILLIAMS: "Barrios is increasingly appreciated today as the
outstanding guitarist-composer of his time, I would say of any time,
for the qualities of inventiveness and obvious love of the instrument.
He was the first guitarist to make records from 1909, and the first
to play a complete Bach lute suite on guitar. "
I think the key word here, uttered by Segovia, is "development."
Development of musical ideas is what distinguishes great composers
from lesser composers. Barrios had plenty of musical ideas but did
not development them as, say, Bach or Beethoven developed their ideas.
As such I think Barrios's compositions are fluff and do not bear
repeated listenings, at least for me anyway.
Best regards,
Joe
Segovia has here very narrow view to musical development as such. He
obviously sees only the one possibility, which is used mostly in music
played by him. The harmonical development isn't the only possibility
of development though. There are tempo, dynamics and rhytm as well.
There are many ways of developing and "going forward" in music. What
about indian classical music or local, ancient national regi-song
(regilaul), monotonous melodic repeating of lyrics here in Estonia.
This music includes the whole world and there is still no segovian
development at all. Or, what goes to mind, electronic ambient music.
Is it totally w/o development? It's paradox, that monotonous drum
beats of shaman can in time drive human beings to trans. Which
sophisticated harmonical development can do that?
Segovia had his opinion and my respect to him for it. That kind of
brave opinion gains more and more value in modern world, where you
must carefully choose every word. Man is'nt obliged to like things he
hates. One must admit, that Segovia had right for personal taste. (In
Europe it's dangerous to admit, that one don't like homosexualists
soon)
What bother's me regarding to historical Barrios'es life handling
most, is the egoistic look to world's culture from european side.
"..if he could travel to Europe, he could be a great composer, if
Segovia could invite him to play in Europe...". I think, that Barrios
felt himself very well in his own culture. There is no need to travel
to Europe to be "real" or "great". There is culture in other
continents than Europe, too, as surprising as it can be.
And, at least, isn't the social influence one of the factors, that
makes music great? From this logic the greatest composers can maybe
found amongst anonymous bards from era of aural musical tradition. You
can argue, that they did'nt have any constructions or inventions in
their music. But they did have great meaning and influence to
contemporary people for sure. Isn't this the most important trademark
of great composer/musician? (the specialization between them is
historically quite a new thing considering, that homo sapiens has been
living on earth 1M years).
Allar
One of the arguments I hear among afficianados of so-called "world
music" is that it cannot be properly "understood" outside of its native
cultural context. In other words, you just ain't gonna get it.
There's probably some truth in that, just as our parents didn't dig
rock and roll.
The problem for Barrios is that he was self-consciously trying to
straddle two cultural traditions. It's no surprise to me that Segovia
would consider him essentially useless, since he didn't fully buy into
Segovia's cultural milieu, which put Segovia at the center of the universe.
Segovia of course wasn't the only one to put himself in the middle of
his own universe, but it's to a very large extent the universe we are in
here in this newsgroup. But what about Barrios? Is Segovia's inability
to appreciate him ego, or simply not getting it?
I remember watching a television program maybe 15 years ago about the
physicist Richard Feynman. Near the end of his life, he made a voyage
to Tuva in central Asia. One of the interesting facts I remember about
that program was that there were sounds in the Tuvan language that were
outside the Western experience. In the case of two sounds, linguists
and neurologists found that they could be distinguished by the Tuvan
ear, but not by the adult Western ear. Furthermore (and even more
intriguing to me) they discovered that children were able to learn to
distinguish these two sounds up until the age of nine (IIRC), and that
after that the ability to learn this vanished forever.
So does this mean that I can not learn to appreciate Tuvan "throat
singers"? Probably.
Listen to "Kongerei" arranged by Steven Mackey, of the Throat Singers of
Tuva.

Excellent Halloween music! ;-)...


[to be found on on Kronos Quartet CD 'Night Prayers'.]


jw
Post by Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Maybe our parents who hated rock and roll couldn't help it.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
2004-10-26 13:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wasak
Listen to "Kongerei" arranged by Steven Mackey, of the Throat Singers of
Tuva.
Excellent Halloween music! ;-)...
[to be found on on Kronos Quartet CD 'Night Prayers'.]
jw
But..did Mackey "get" the throat singing? Or is it just atmospherics?

Steve
Post by John Wasak
Post by Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Maybe our parents who hated rock and roll couldn't help it.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
John Wasak
2004-10-27 17:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Post by John Wasak
Listen to "Kongerei" arranged by Steven Mackey, of the Throat Singers of
Tuva.
Excellent Halloween music! ;-)...
[to be found on on Kronos Quartet CD 'Night Prayers'.]
jw
But..did Mackey "get" the throat singing? Or is it just atmospherics?
Steve
Well, Steve, I'm surely no expert on Throat Singing, but 'Kongerei' is just
a traditional arranged by Steven Mackey. There is genuine throat singing
here and the singers are of a group that call themselves "Throat Singers of
Tuva" and whose members are Kaigal-ool Khovalyg, Anatoly Kuular, Kongar-ool
Ondar.


jw
Chris Erwich
2004-10-15 21:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Didn't Segovia overlook more then just Barrios?
Besides the fact that he made several humiliating remarks on the personality
of Barrios concerning his surgery on his upper lip and so on, I think mr.
Segovia didn't like this rival. Barrios gave him a copy of La Cathedral. and
I think as everybody loved this piece, one cannot denie its beauty, but he
did.
When for instance Ravel and Strawinski asked for his help with writing a
composition for guitar he didn't make time. The Milhaud Segoviana he never
played.
His entire life he played just a few pieces by Sor and Giuliani, while
everything was in his reach. He had Ponce write a Sonata in the style of Sor
and several others, which might have been normal in the period this all
happened (see Fritz Kreisler!), but he actually denied the biggest part of
Sor and so on. It was just waiting for him to be played!
He more or less directed the composers that wrote for him.
Torroba might have written a substantial amount of works for the guitar, but
he was a second grade composer and therefor it might have been very
interesting to know what pieces Ravel and Stravinsky would have written for
the guitar. On the question of Strawinski he answered that he didn't want to
insult him by not playing it.
We cannot pass Segovia in what he did for the guitar, but in my opinion he
also had a negative influence. As we look for instance to the enormous
influence and dedication of Julian Bream concerning contemporary music, I
think Segovia is nowhere.
He was a man from the old times. He loved romantic pieces as he was a
romantic figure himself. Barrios would have matched with this personality.
It is easy to recall why he didn't play it
..........................................
Post by Luis Sanabria
This is part of a question/answer made during a Segovia Master Class
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF AUGUSTINE BARRIOS ?
SEGOVIA: " You know , I knew Augustine Barrios. I had great empathy
for him, but I think he lacked sufficient knowledge in music to
consider him a composer. It is a great pity because he had very
beautiful ideas, but the development of those ideas, according to the
eternal laws of composition, was absolutely absent, and this is why I
don't play anything by him. "
(It is very interesting to read what the British guitarist , John
Williams said in an album cover)
JOHN WILLIAMS: "Barrios is increasingly appreciated today as the
outstanding guitarist-composer of his time, I would say of any time,
for the qualities of inventiveness and obvious love of the instrument.
He was the first guitarist to make records from 1909, and the first
to play a complete Bach lute suite on guitar. "
Steven Bornfeld
2004-10-16 02:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Erwich
Didn't Segovia overlook more then just Barrios?
Besides the fact that he made several humiliating remarks on the personality
of Barrios concerning his surgery on his upper lip and so on,
Very mature. Do you know anything about the lip surgery?

Professinally interested,
Steve
Mike Harris
2004-10-16 07:09:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Chris Erwich
Didn't Segovia overlook more then just Barrios?
Besides the fact that he made several humiliating remarks on the personality
of Barrios concerning his surgery on his upper lip and so on,
Very mature. Do you know anything about the lip surgery?
Professinally interested,
Steve
I would add that in my opinion a large amount of what John Williams
played in his concerts when I used to hear him in the seventies and
early eighties and has recorded is also either the standard
"warhorses" which don't interest me very much [I also don't listen to
Beethoven's Fifth very often anymore..]or also "fluff". Barrios is
definitely mostly "fluff".

The Myers "Cavatina" is cute but is real MUZAK. Makes me "zvracet" as
they say in Czech.

cheers, Mike
JoeT
2004-10-15 17:20:42 UTC
Permalink
I would suspect that this comment was made during a period when classical
guitar was still in the process of being justified as a real instrument. As
far as I can tell Barrios was brilliant. Great player, great composer ...

Joe
Post by Luis Sanabria
This is part of a question/answer made during a Segovia Master Class
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF AUGUSTINE BARRIOS ?
SEGOVIA: " You know , I knew Augustine Barrios. I had great empathy
for him, but I think he lacked sufficient knowledge in music to
consider him a composer. It is a great pity because he had very
beautiful ideas, but the development of those ideas, according to the
eternal laws of composition, was absolutely absent, and this is why I
don't play anything by him. "
(It is very interesting to read what the British guitarist , John
Williams said in an album cover)
JOHN WILLIAMS: "Barrios is increasingly appreciated today as the
outstanding guitarist-composer of his time, I would say of any time,
for the qualities of inventiveness and obvious love of the instrument.
He was the first guitarist to make records from 1909, and the first
to play a complete Bach lute suite on guitar. "
Lutemann
2004-10-16 21:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sarn Dyer
For the
'developmentally inclined' composer, there is always a danger of 'the
tail wagging the dog': the needs of development defining, to a greater
or lesser extent, the thematic materials. Much the same could be said of
You mean for anyone who ever wrote a sonate?
*****************************************************
Kent Murdick
Free Guitar Instruction CD/Video: Go to http://stringdancer.com/
and search for Murdick--also "Hear Lutemann Play (a little)"
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/NO.mp3
Mark Antony
2004-10-17 10:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luis Sanabria
This is part of a question/answer made during a Segovia Master Class
In Phillipe Lemaigre's CD of the Complete guitar works of Barrios
there is a copy of a letter written by Segovia dated 1985, in Spanish,
in Segovia's own hand, printed in the accompanying booklet. Not easy
to decipher Segovia's handwriting, especially in my limited Spanish,
but the gist of it is something like;

Barrios was a maestro of the poetic guitar. The beauty of
compositions by these masters is that they instruct, as well as
entertain, both for the student and aspiring professional. Many
falicitations to my friend Agustin for their nobelman effort.

The exact wording may be slightly different, but my Spanish is as I
say limited! Segovia here though perhaps accknowledges Barrios place
as he saw it in the guitar reportory.

Mark
Edward Bridge
2004-10-17 12:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Did Andres have a little racist thing against Barrios ?
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
http://www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com/
Gerry
2004-10-17 15:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bridge
Did Andres have a little racist thing against Barrios ?
I always thought Segovia simply wanted everyone to think/agree that he
was the only "real" living guitarist. And so he gets petty and catty
with others in a fit of pique. Later, when it behooves him to be
semi-diplomatic, he makes a real attempt not to insult directly, but
with more subtlety.
--
Invest wisely: Over the past 75 years, stocks have averaged annual gains of 2.3
percent under GOP administrations, compared with 9.5 under Democratic ones.
-- Jerry Heaster
Edward Bridge
2004-10-17 18:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry
Post by Edward Bridge
Did Andres have a little racist thing against Barrios ?
I always thought Segovia simply wanted everyone to think/agree that he
was the only "real" living guitarist. And so he gets petty and catty
with others in a fit of pique. Later, when it behooves him to be
semi-diplomatic, he makes a real attempt not to insult directly, but
with more subtlety.
I should have ask my question in a more general way "did the people of
Madrid, in the early 20 century have a racist problem with Naive South
Americans " I guess what I implying is, Andre was just be a child of his
times, but I don't have the solid knowledge, that 's why I ask.
--
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
http://www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com/
Paul Magnussen
2004-10-18 17:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry
I always thought Segovia simply wanted everyone to think/agree that he
was the only "real" living guitarist.
And the guitar the only "real" instrument: the 'cello is incapable of harmony,
the piano is incapable of tonal variation, the harpsichord sounds like a guitar
with a cold (etc.)...

If you look at Segovia's comments over the years about other guitarists, a
pattern soon becomes apparent in those about disciples of his, and those about
the others.

In the latter case, the pattern is moderate praise, but always followed by some
little putdown.

A good example is his remarks about Ida Presti in the memorial issue of Guitar
Review.

Seems strange, the insecurity felt by so many of the greatest artists in the
world. I got the distinct impression Sabicas was extremely insecure about Niño
Ricardo, and even more so about Paco de Lucía -- he just wasn't as obnoxious
about it.


Paul Magnussen

To send me e-mail, adjust aol's name in the signature.
DCaswellUK
2004-10-18 20:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Date: 18/10/2004 18:25 GMT Daylight Time
Post by Gerry
I always thought Segovia simply wanted everyone to think/agree that he
was the only "real" living guitarist.
And the guitar the only "real" instrument: the 'cello is incapable of harmony,
the piano is incapable of tonal variation, the harpsichord sounds like a guitar
with a cold (etc.)...
If you look at Segovia's comments over the years about other guitarists, a
pattern soon becomes apparent in those about disciples of his, and those about
the others.
In the latter case, the pattern is moderate praise, but always followed by some
little putdown.
A good example is his remarks about Ida Presti in the memorial issue of Guitar
Review.
Seems strange, the insecurity felt by so many of the greatest artists in the
world. I got the distinct impression Sabicas was extremely insecure about Niño
Ricardo, and even more so about Paco de Lucía -- he just wasn't as obnoxious
about it.
The fact is that Segovia was a very strong personality, and probably he
could not have achieved all that he did if he had been different.
In the same video that you quote, 'Segovia at Los Olivos', he also said
that he loved the true flamenco, and he spoke some words of flamenco poetry. It
would be strange indeed if he didn't like it, after all he was from Andalucia,
the cradle of flamenco..
If we consider his achievement for a moment, then imagine that without
him there would have been no music for guitar by Tedesco, Ponce, Torroba,
Turina, etc etc etc
Then maybe we can forgive some of his less desirable traits...
With regard to Barrios, I once asked Alirio Diaz about Segovia and his
attitude towards Barrios. He told me that Segovia was looking at that time for
guitar compositions from serious 'symphonic' type composers........
To my own ears I prefer the Barrios pieces to many of the more serious
compositions that Segovia inspired, but nevertheless we must acknowledge
Segovia's tremendous contribution.
Regards,
David Caswell
Matt McNabb
2004-10-18 21:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by DCaswellUK
Date: 18/10/2004 18:25 GMT Daylight Time
Post by Gerry
I always thought Segovia simply wanted everyone to think/agree that he
was the only "real" living guitarist.
And the guitar the only "real" instrument: the 'cello is incapable of harmony,
the piano is incapable of tonal variation, the harpsichord sounds like a guitar
with a cold (etc.)...
If you look at Segovia's comments over the years about other guitarists, a
pattern soon becomes apparent in those about disciples of his, and those about
the others.
In the latter case, the pattern is moderate praise, but always followed
by
Post by DCaswellUK
some
little putdown.
A good example is his remarks about Ida Presti in the memorial issue of Guitar
Review.
Seems strange, the insecurity felt by so many of the greatest artists in the
world. I got the distinct impression Sabicas was extremely insecure
about
Post by DCaswellUK
Niño
Ricardo, and even more so about Paco de Lucía -- he just wasn't as obnoxious
about it.
The fact is that Segovia was a very strong personality, and probably he
could not have achieved all that he did if he had been different.
In the same video that you quote, 'Segovia at Los Olivos', he also said
that he loved the true flamenco, and he spoke some words of flamenco poetry. It
would be strange indeed if he didn't like it, after all he was from Andalucia,
the cradle of flamenco..
If we consider his achievement for a moment, then imagine that without
him there would have been no music for guitar by Tedesco, Ponce, Torroba,
Turina, etc etc etc
Then maybe we can forgive some of his less desirable traits...
With regard to Barrios, I once asked Alirio Diaz about Segovia and his
attitude towards Barrios. He told me that Segovia was looking at that time for
guitar compositions from serious 'symphonic' type composers........
To my own ears I prefer the Barrios pieces to many of the more serious
compositions that Segovia inspired, but nevertheless we must acknowledge
Segovia's tremendous contribution.
Regards,
David Caswell
Very well put.
Sarn Dyer
2004-10-18 21:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by DCaswellUK
With regard to Barrios, I once asked Alirio Diaz about Segovia and his
attitude towards Barrios. He told me that Segovia was looking at that time for
guitar compositions from serious 'symphonic' type composers........
From Segovia's programmes around the time that he met Barrios (IIRC,
some of these are illustrated in Graham Wade's book on Segovia), it's
very hard to see how Barrios' music would have fitted in.

Sarn
BugBuster
2004-10-18 16:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luis Sanabria
This is part of a question/answer made during a Segovia Master Class
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF AUGUSTINE BARRIOS ?
SEGOVIA: " You know , I knew Augustine Barrios. I had great empathy
for him, but I think he lacked sufficient knowledge in music to
consider him a composer. It is a great pity because he had very
beautiful ideas, but the development of those ideas, according to the
eternal laws of composition, was absolutely absent, and this is why I
don't play anything by him. "
Spoken by one who, by today's standards, would not be considered as
highly as he was in his lifetime. He didn't play Barrios because he
couldn't handle it, and he didn't want the world to know that under
their noses in South America there was a super nova of classical
guitar activity going on that would have eclipsed him and all his
disciples.

bb
Paolo
2004-10-18 16:30:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by BugBuster
Post by Luis Sanabria
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF AUGUSTINE BARRIOS ?
SEGOVIA: " You know , I knew Augustine Barrios. I had great empathy
for him, but I think he lacked sufficient knowledge in music to
consider him a composer. It is a great pity because he had very
beautiful ideas, but the development of those ideas, according to the
eternal laws of composition, was absolutely absent, and this is why I
don't play anything by him. "
Spoken by one who, by today's standards, would not be considered as
highly as he was in his lifetime. He didn't play Barrios because he
couldn't handle it, and he didn't want the world to know that under
their noses in South America there was a super nova of classical
guitar activity going on that would have eclipsed him and all his
disciples.
bb
I am willing to take Segovia's comments at face value even if I don't
agree with them. I am sure there are guitarists with the
technical capabilities to do Barrios' music justice who choose not to
because they don't like it, or perhaps just don't feel very strongly
about it. I don't think Barrueco, for example, plays Barrios, does he?
Paolo
2004-10-18 16:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paolo
Post by BugBuster
Post by Luis Sanabria
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF AUGUSTINE BARRIOS ?
SEGOVIA: " You know , I knew Augustine Barrios. I had great empathy
for him, but I think he lacked sufficient knowledge in music to
consider him a composer. It is a great pity because he had very
beautiful ideas, but the development of those ideas, according to the
eternal laws of composition, was absolutely absent, and this is why I
don't play anything by him. "
Spoken by one who, by today's standards, would not be considered as
highly as he was in his lifetime. He didn't play Barrios because he
couldn't handle it, and he didn't want the world to know that under
their noses in South America there was a super nova of classical
guitar activity going on that would have eclipsed him and all his
disciples.
bb
I am willing to take Segovia's comments at face value even if I don't
agree with them. I am sure there are guitarists with the
technical capabilities to do Barrios' music justice who choose not to
because they don't like it, or perhaps just don't feel very strongly
about it. I don't think Barrueco, for example, plays Barrios, does he?
Oops, I stand corrected. Barrueco recorded lots of Barrios, but you get
the point.
Ken Savich
2004-10-18 18:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luis Sanabria
This is part of a question/answer made during a Segovia Master Class
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF AUGUSTINE BARRIOS ?
SEGOVIA: " You know , I knew Augustine Barrios. I had great empathy
for him, but I think he lacked sufficient knowledge in music to
consider him a composer. It is a great pity because he had very
beautiful ideas, but the development of those ideas, according to the
eternal laws of composition, was absolutely absent, and this is why I
don't play anything by him. "
(It is very interesting to read what the British guitarist , John
Williams said in an album cover)
JOHN WILLIAMS: "Barrios is increasingly appreciated today as the
outstanding guitarist-composer of his time, I would say of any time,
for the qualities of inventiveness and obvious love of the instrument.
He was the first guitarist to make records from 1909, and the first to
play a complete Bach lute suite on guitar. "
In the Segovia at Los Olivos video, he proclaims that he had to "rescue
the guitar from the noisy hands of the flamenco guitarists". This is
indicative of his attitude toward anything that he didn't officially
approve of. He was very opinionated, but not always correct in his
assessments.

No, Segovia did not shit gold. Sorry.

Additionally, the Lutemann's comment that the guitar is not a
composer's instrument does not hold water. Any instrument is a
composer's instrument. Tell Leo Brouwer that the guitar is not a
composer's instrument, and I'm sure you'll be in for a discussion. In
Cage's world, living room furniture is a composer's instrument.
Composition is the act of painting silence with ideas, and development
of said ideas, using any means the composer feels neccisary...even
silence.
Loading...