Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Double Bass Overrated Orchestral Repertoire
- Thread starter PaulCannon
- Start date
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Philip Glass stands out as one of the few composers who has been successful in symphonic, operatic, chamber, and film composition.
He was also a student of Nadia Boulanger - a teacher who taught the likes of Daniel Barenboim, Aaron Copland, and Elliot Carter.
Philip Glass stands out as one of the few composers who has been successful in symphonic, operatic, chamber, and film composition.
He was also a student of Nadia Boulanger - a teacher who taught the likes of Daniel Barenboim, Aaron Copland, and Elliot Carter.
Paul and Jeff - You certainly are entitled to your opinions, but they would be much more valuable if you actually gave reasons.
Mike actually gave a reason, and a reference I remember well. I have no problem with all the notes, but unfortunately with Mozart and Beethoven the basses often do have to play them all. What makes it harder still is that Mozart is so often played at very "lively" tempos. I like Mozart very much but as a player I always felt "frantic" when playing it.
I used to think that it was just my lack of experience and techique that made me so unhappy with the tempos used for Mozart. But even when listening critically to recordings, I still had the feeling that I was missing so much in the music, when it was played at those tempi. My brain simply couldn't absorb all that great stuff that was going on. (Yes, I often doubt my own mental gifts).
Then I happened on a couple of recordings that were not at such a "frantic" tempo, and there was a difference for me in my ability to appreciate what was written and played.
All "classical" period music has certain characteristics. I happen to enjoy the the fact that this music has so many nice melodic lines, yet also has a structure you can feel and depend on, plus I feel much of it is "real foot tapping" music. I am somewhat ashamed to say that I often prefer the two middle movements of symphonies precisely because they are dance like movements.
Mike actually gave a reason, and a reference I remember well. I have no problem with all the notes, but unfortunately with Mozart and Beethoven the basses often do have to play them all. What makes it harder still is that Mozart is so often played at very "lively" tempos. I like Mozart very much but as a player I always felt "frantic" when playing it.
I used to think that it was just my lack of experience and techique that made me so unhappy with the tempos used for Mozart. But even when listening critically to recordings, I still had the feeling that I was missing so much in the music, when it was played at those tempi. My brain simply couldn't absorb all that great stuff that was going on. (Yes, I often doubt my own mental gifts).
Then I happened on a couple of recordings that were not at such a "frantic" tempo, and there was a difference for me in my ability to appreciate what was written and played.
All "classical" period music has certain characteristics. I happen to enjoy the the fact that this music has so many nice melodic lines, yet also has a structure you can feel and depend on, plus I feel much of it is "real foot tapping" music. I am somewhat ashamed to say that I often prefer the two middle movements of symphonies precisely because they are dance like movements.
- Jan 24, 2002
- 2,117
- 950
- Disclosures
- NS Design / AER Endorsing Artist
You know, you don't see me in the "Underrated" section demanding people explain why they think what they think and insinuate that an opinion is less meaningful if someone in the press hasn't already said it.
Chris Fitzgerald said:
Chris,
I'll take you up on that Guinness next time I'm in Luhvuhl, hopefully between sets at the Jazz Factory!
As for this subject at hand, I gave up a long time ago the futile and pointless exercise of trying apply a rating system to something as subjective and personal as music, classical or otherwise.
Hell, my own tastes in music change from day to day.
Mike Goodbar said:
I agree entirely Mike - where is this universal rating of music that everybody seem happy to refer to ....
I've never seen anybody rate say Shostakovich versus Mozart or Messiaen vs Haydn - it 's just ridiculous!!!
There is no over-rated or under-rated music - it's just good and bad!!
Would there be any bass litterature in this category?
I care more for J Haydn myself. . His writing is much more idiomatic for the bass. He tells a good story as well without any Freemasonry....
As for WAM. well sometimes his effect on me is like a good hollywood film. I am blown away and yet at times left with only that. Sort of like getting smacked in the face.
Like the first time I heard the Cleveland Symphony live.
I haven't really grown in a Dr Phil sort of way. More like a "Macgyver" sort of way. You know like "Holy crap howd he write that, sort of thing.
Dig? or no?
I care more for J Haydn myself. . His writing is much more idiomatic for the bass. He tells a good story as well without any Freemasonry....
As for WAM. well sometimes his effect on me is like a good hollywood film. I am blown away and yet at times left with only that. Sort of like getting smacked in the face.
Like the first time I heard the Cleveland Symphony live.
I haven't really grown in a Dr Phil sort of way. More like a "Macgyver" sort of way. You know like "Holy crap howd he write that, sort of thing.
Dig? or no?
I try not to think of music as good or bad, but rather music that speaks to me (some kind of connection kinetic or emotional) and music that doesn't. Of course that can change a bit from day to day.
When I read this thread title (and the other one in this forum) I didn't take "Underrated" to mean substandard, but rather music that is viable (speaks to me) that isn't performed often. The opposite for "Overrated".
There are works that are played with some regularity and just don't I just don't get. And that says something about me as a person and a musician. I don't care for Berlioz and I've tried, I really have, but he just doesn't speak to me. I don't care for most Country music, but I do like Bonnie Rait (sp?) and some things by Willie Nelson.
The list could continue, but who would care? When we speak our opinions, we are waving our own flag.. nothing wrong with that.
When I read this thread title (and the other one in this forum) I didn't take "Underrated" to mean substandard, but rather music that is viable (speaks to me) that isn't performed often. The opposite for "Overrated".
There are works that are played with some regularity and just don't I just don't get. And that says something about me as a person and a musician. I don't care for Berlioz and I've tried, I really have, but he just doesn't speak to me. I don't care for most Country music, but I do like Bonnie Rait (sp?) and some things by Willie Nelson.
The list could continue, but who would care? When we speak our opinions, we are waving our own flag.. nothing wrong with that.
Bruce Lindfield said:I agree entirely Mike - where is this universal rating of music that everybody seem happy to refer to ....
I've never seen anybody rate say Shostakovich versus Mozart or Messiaen vs Haydn - it 's just ridiculous!!!
There is no over-rated or under-rated music - it's just good and bad!!
oh g*d. I'm sorry I started the "underrated" section. If I knew there were sticklers like yourself in talkbass I wouldn't post at all. Overrated...Underrated...bad...good. WHO CARES?!?! Just post already and stop whining.
I think this whole Overrated/Underrated thing happens because of the people that attend concerts. A lot of them go to concerts just to be "hip" or "in" (where I live, at least it's that way). Because of this people, orchestras have to play "big names" (mozart, bach, beethoven), or people woudn't come to listen to Brahms or Mahler, just because they "don't ring a bell" to most (here). Okay, so the problem starts with the listeners, but it also continues because of the musicians, it's a cycle. Just my opinion though.
On the good/badd music:
Good music: the one *I* like
Bad music: the one *I* don't like
And I don't care what anyone says, It's like that, crucify me
On the good/badd music:
Good music: the one *I* like
Bad music: the one *I* don't like
And I don't care what anyone says, It's like that, crucify me
I don't necessarily think that we can "blame" listeners for anything. To me the people that are coming to be "in" or "hip" would rather pretend that they knew the Brahms or Mahler piece.
If the local symphony plays the same pieces or composers every year, that's no one's fault but there own.
And man, at school the only RPO (Rochester Philharmonic) concert I've gone to was all Beethoven, and I don't go to concerts just to be hip, I love Beethoven (they played 5 and it was amazing). The RPO plays plenty of concerts of other "lesser known" (in quotes because I would question that statements accuracy) such as Listz's Les Preludes, Mahler 1, etc.
Plenty of people go to all of the concerts, no matter what, they buy season tickets. I don't think that the many 30+ year olds are still trying to make people think that they are hip for going to classical concerts either.
Just a thought.
Oh and just for the note and so its out there somewhere in cyber space, I like Philip Glass.
Enough from me.
If the local symphony plays the same pieces or composers every year, that's no one's fault but there own.
And man, at school the only RPO (Rochester Philharmonic) concert I've gone to was all Beethoven, and I don't go to concerts just to be hip, I love Beethoven (they played 5 and it was amazing). The RPO plays plenty of concerts of other "lesser known" (in quotes because I would question that statements accuracy) such as Listz's Les Preludes, Mahler 1, etc.
Plenty of people go to all of the concerts, no matter what, they buy season tickets. I don't think that the many 30+ year olds are still trying to make people think that they are hip for going to classical concerts either.
Just a thought.
Oh and just for the note and so its out there somewhere in cyber space, I like Philip Glass.
Enough from me.
Didn't mean to be aggressive. Sorry if it came off that way.
Just trying to discuss.
Sorry again.
Just trying to discuss.
Sorry again.
Bruce Lindfield said:I agree entirely Mike - where is this universal rating of music that everybody seem happy to refer to ....
I've never seen anybody rate say Shostakovich versus Mozart or Messiaen vs Haydn - it 's just ridiculous!!!
There is no over-rated or under-rated music - it's just good and bad!!
Compeltely Completely disagree. There is over and under rated music. Tchaikowsky's 1st Symphony is rarely played. Many people without even hearing it like perhaps yourself will say "that's because it's bad." Funny because I think it's a great piece, whereas someone else might have an opinion of his 5th to not be so great. It's all preference. PS: Tchaikowsk'y 1st was actually the symphony he spent the greatest amount of time on, so don't giove me this good/bad bs. It's performed/not performed often
Snakewood said:
No!! Show me the evidence of this - where are these mysterious "ratings" - where can I read them ...?
Well ....Yes !! Why not put this as the title then?
jazzbassnerd said:
Yup - agree entirely !!
There may be many reasons - like abilities of players/sections, what music they have, lack of imagination, limited view of what they think their audience will like etc. etc.
But definitely not due to any imaginary "ratings" of music ...
BassChuck said:
That's not what I was saying - I just think that under-rated or over-rated, is a meaningless concept in this context (it could apply to a sportsman who has been rated at a certain level, for example - but not music) and that as you say : all that matters, is what music speaks to you!
