By Request: Music

Live asks: "Since you've got that post up about Bush, I'm going to repeat my earlier question as to whether you (Matt) have any interest in any other kind of music. I'm not (just) snarking -- alt-rock is well and good, but it seems like someone of your intelligence, interests, background, and inquisitiveness would be attracted to other kinds of music as well."

Eh, not so much. I mean, I like mainstream commercial hip-hop pretty well though I don't follow it all that closely. And I like Shostakovich. But the overwhelming majority of what I listen to fits into a broad "rock of the past thirties years" category. I'm afraid I'm just not very interesting.

Comments

I'm afraid I'm just not very interesting.

I could have told you that.

Posted by Flippanter | June 18, 2008 2:37 PM

Shostakovich seems to be a good indicator of solid musical tastes, so good stuff. He was as classy and sophisticated as it gets. Usually goes in a matched pair with Bartok, so there's some more for you to check out.....along with the Captured by Robots! rec in the other thread.

Posted by Dan | June 18, 2008 2:40 PM

What abouts the Bossa Nova? Where do ye stand? Like fer instance, when yer bringin a female home fer the first time and ye set her down on the couch an go fix her a toddy, what kind er music do ye puts on on the way back to the couch? The Bossa Nova, right? "Best er Both Worlds" by Tom Jobim, getz, and Gilberto.

Posted by ol one eye | June 18, 2008 2:46 PM

How dare you like some things and not like other things!!!

Posted by Noah` | June 18, 2008 2:47 PM

Just click my name to discover your next favorite band...

Posted by Aaron | June 18, 2008 2:50 PM

I'm surprised that you have the good taste to like Shostakovich, considering the beard and all.

Posted by freddiemac | June 18, 2008 2:55 PM

Shostakovich . . . usually goes in a matched pair with Bartok

Shostakovich pairs up better with Mahler than Bartok, surely.

Posted by rea | June 18, 2008 2:57 PM

Shostakovich . . . usually goes in a matched pair with Bartok

Shostakovich pairs up better with Mahler than Bartok, surely.

Posted by rea | June 18, 2008 2:57 PM

considering the beard and all.

What beard?

Posted by rea | June 18, 2008 2:59 PM

Interesting, Shostakovich was one of my only classical music likes during college.

Any favorites? I'm partial to String Quartet #8 and the Cello Concerto #1, myself. But the Leningrad symphony's interminable, sarcastically jaunty march in the first movement is rather delightfully withering.

Posted by mk | June 18, 2008 3:01 PM

Agreed with rea about the Mahler pairing. I would suggest Das Lied Von Der Erde to any Shostakovich fan.

Posted by mk | June 18, 2008 3:06 PM

"rock of the past thirties years" category

So, you're not even a fan of classic rock? No Zeppelin, Floyd, Who, Doors, etc.?

Posted by Al | June 18, 2008 3:10 PM

Matt:

Based on your comments on this blog, your taste in alt-rock seems rather limited - basically anything after Nirvana. There is wonderful world of less well known, but more powerful alt-rock that was being produced before Nirvana. You need to reach back a little further.

Posted by blah | June 18, 2008 3:13 PM

sorry matt - i know you're a closet broadway-musical-listener. its just something that happens to sensitive downtown kids. don't blame yourself.

Posted by dbreger | June 18, 2008 3:16 PM

sorry matt - i know you're a closet broadway-musical-listener. its just something that happens to sensitive downtown kids. don't blame yourself.

Posted by dbreger | June 18, 2008 3:19 PM

I like mainstream commercial hip-hop pretty well

Dude, even people who make mainstream commercial hip-hop don't like it. It's straight garbage right now. Do you need suggestions?

Without knowing your tastes too well, I would recommend a little Pete Rock & CL Smooth from back in the day. Depending on how you react to that, we can go deeper from there.

Posted by scythia | June 18, 2008 3:25 PM

Shostakovich, wow. You and every other young, well off, trying to be hip and yet sophisticated liberal. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by jacobus | June 18, 2008 3:29 PM

The past 30 years is indeed a strange place to draw the line. People with no appreciation for history listen to rock of the past 15-20 years. People who dig classic rock listen to rock of the past 40 years. People who like all rock-n-roll listen to rock of the past 50+ years. But 30 years ago was 1978. Not exactly a great starting place for rock music.

Posted by too many steves | June 18, 2008 3:38 PM

too many steves, what's wrong with 1978? the clash, the sex pistols, x-ray spex, wire, talking heads, television, pere ubu, the dead boys....

Posted by howard | June 18, 2008 3:42 PM

Shostakovich pairs up better with Mahler than Bartok, surely

Really.....I'm not in a position to evaluate styles or influences, so I'm guessing you know more about this than I do. And the bit of Mahler I do have is choral and hard to compare. Just that I usually see people that like one like the other.

Posted by Dan | June 18, 2008 3:45 PM

Point taken, howard. There's nothing wrong with 1978. In fact, when people say a particular era sucked in rock-n-roll terms, I almost always disagree, because I tend to think of the best from that period. Yeah, the time between Elvis going into the Army and the Beatles & Stones hitting their strides was kind of rough, but we still had the great girl groups, and Motown, and the Beach Boys, and some great R&B, and some early blues-rock bands like the Animals. None of that was as great as vintage Chuck Berry or late-60s Stones, but it was still pretty good. People rag on '80s rock, and sure, it produced Warrant, but it also gave us some pretty great Metallica and Guns N Roses albums.

Anyway, I just thought listening to rock from the late '70s, but not the early '70s, is an odd place to draw the line.

Posted by too many steves | June 18, 2008 3:54 PM

Okay, you know what? I've had a little time to think this over and I've changed my mind.

(Not really, PR & CL is still something you should check out ASAP, esp. "The Main Ingredient." If it helps, Pete Rock is the guy who produced Little Brother--and I know you like Little Brother.)

But if you want some really good music that nobody's copped yet?

http://www.onesevensevensix.com/amplive/

All the samples are Radiohead. Matt, I know you like Radiohead. You'll like this too, perhaps even more. I throw this on at parties where I'm unsure of people's musical tastes and it KILLS.

Plus, it's free, so you have no excuse not to listen.

It's also the first legitimate post-hyphy album to come out of the Bay. And while I'm sure those words probably mean very little to you, if you string them into something approximating a sentence you'll be able to impress any hip-hop hipster head for a good five minues. Check it out, all'a y'all!

Yaaaaayyyy Arrreeeaaaaa!

Posted by scythia | June 18, 2008 3:57 PM

too many steves, broadly speaking, i agree with you (i think great music exists in the eternal now, and in the modern history of recorded popular music - let's call it the last 90 years or so - there hasn't been a single year in which there wasn't some music recorded somewhere in this great land that isn't still worth hearing today, with the exception of the couple year recording ban during world war ii of course!).

i don't necessarily think, though, that matthew was drawing a hard line at 1978: i suspect what he's saying is that what is nowadays called "alt-rock" pretty much dates to the mid-late '70s, or roughly 30 years. (my own assessment is that what is today called "alt rock" begins with "the velvet undergound and nico" a decade earlier, but matthew doesn't claim to be a music historian!)

Posted by howard | June 18, 2008 4:02 PM

Gee, and I thought he went back to 1978 so that he could make sure to include disco among his favorites.

Posted by Al | June 18, 2008 4:04 PM

too many steves, what's wrong with 1978? the clash, the sex pistols, x-ray spex, wire, talking heads, television, pere ubu, the dead boys....

. . . The Police, Van Halen's debut, Patti Smith's Easter, Springsteen's Darkness on the Edge of Town, The Ramones, The Germs, The Damned, The Buzzcocks, Talking Heads, Blondie, Television, The Cars, Warren Zevon . . .

Yeah, the top of the charts in 1978 is depressing (Andy Gibb, Debbie Boone, "Boogie Oogie Oogie"), but 1978 was really the beginning of the end of AOR and Disco. Much of what is now known as indie/alt rock began in the mid-to-late 70's. 1978 is as good a place to start as any.

Posted by Shine | June 18, 2008 4:07 PM

Interesting Shostakovich talk:
-Comparing Shostakovich to Mahler is pretty easy, since Dmitri cited Mahler as an influence (as well as Hindemith early on but later outgrown). For a good intro to Mahler I suggest his 5th symphony. The elegaic trumpet solo in the 2nd movement has shades of Tchaikovsky, another lasting influence on Shostakovich.
- young, well off, trying to be hip and yet sophisticated liberals like Shostakovich? I haven't read the entry in stuffwhitepeoplelike.com yet. Is it in the book? Honestly, outside of music majors I'm the only Shostakovich fan I've ever personally known.
-"What beard?" -rea
http://www.prospect.org/galleries/img_authors/yglesias.matt.gif
That beard
-If you like Shostakovich, might I suggest Villa-Lobos? I see him as the opposite side of the same coin. Tropical climate rather than Soviet tundra, no formal schooling rather than prodigy phd, etc. However they were both prolific in many genres including string quartets and both absorbed the local folk music (jewish and Amazonian). I suggest starting with the Bachianas Brazilieras.

Posted by freddiemac | June 18, 2008 4:12 PM

hey al and shine: better be careful about dissing disco or some of us might start to wonder why you hate the whole genre!

now, you want to say that in the disco era a lot of crap was packaged over a repetitive beat, i won't disagree, but there's any number of disco songs that are welcome on my soundsystem anytime....

Posted by howard | June 18, 2008 4:13 PM

You should just say "I like Jazz", it's the equivalent of saying "I like Bread" (no, not the band Bread!).

Posted by tom.a | June 18, 2008 4:22 PM

That beard

One can see you're not up to date on your Yglesias trivia . . .

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/a_new_day_1.php

Posted by rea | June 18, 2008 4:34 PM

Another Shostakovich fan here, although I haven't listened to him in ages. My introduction to Shostokovich came when I used to play trumpet in a youth orchestra way back when...we did the entire 5th Symphony. Horn-players love Shostakovich because many classical compositions don't have much in the way of brass. Shostakovich includes some nice and challenging interval jumps, too.
When I used to teach teenagers, I would play the 1st movement of 7th Symphony(I think that's the one)to supplement World War II content. If you want to hear a symphony that reflects both the 'banality' and horror of the Nazis(and perhaps, Stalin as well), this is the one. Once you hear the main melody, you'll never forget it(even though you may want to!).

Posted by kristi | June 18, 2008 4:39 PM

Disco sucked in 1978 and it still sucks now. Disco essentially acted as a solvent for R&B music, stripping away all the "black" so-soon-to-be-known-as-yuppies could and dance and snort blow guilt and irony free. Slave, P-Funk, and The Brothers Johnson and even mid-70's O'Jays were just to Militant Negro.

Disco killed R&B, it took hip-hop to bring to back it to life. Buy the Saturday Night Fever Soundtrack and junk the rest.

Posted by Shine | June 18, 2008 4:49 PM

beard no more? I stand corrected.

Posted by freddiemac | June 18, 2008 5:01 PM

Shine, if you can't appreciate (just to name off the top of my head) "Shame" or "We are Family" or "Good Times" or "Fly Robin Fly" or "Disco Inferno" or "Gonna Make you Sweat" or "ain't no stopping us now" or "Turn the Beat Around" or "Best of my Love" or...well, you get the picture...i'm sorry for you but i think you're confusing the mass marketing and early yuppie culture with actual "disco" (a music much-smapled by hiphoppers).

Posted by howard | June 18, 2008 5:25 PM

I have been a Shostakovich fan since I first heard excerpts of some of symphonic pieces as part of the musical soundtrack for Carl Sagan's Cosmos series. My favorite Shostakovich pieces are the 8th Symphony (the Stalingrard Symphony) the 11th Symphony (The Year 1905 Symphony), and the 5th Symphony as well.

I think Matt would also appreciate works by other great 20th Century Russian composers, such as Stravinsky and Prokoviev. I think Matt also should sample some of the great 19th century Russian composers, like Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, and Tchaikovsky.

Posted by eltoro | June 18, 2008 5:46 PM

Obligatory Corrs post.

The Corrs Live in The Royal Albert Hall
When He's Not Around
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djK5mW5EJO4

The Corrs - All In A Day - Live In London 2001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bMDVlzXN24

The Corrs - Breathless - Live in Trafalgar Square
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuI1BdUayJE&feature=related

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 18, 2008 6:01 PM

But the last 90 years would omit Alexander's Ragtime Band as well as most Ragtime. In 1978 Springsteen was already going (check out "Rockin' Tonight" on youtube). Check out Fats Domino singing "Yes Indeed and I'm In Love Again," and the original rendition of "Mockingbird." In my book though, no music (with a few exceptions) can compare with the greatest of the Beatles. "In My Life," "Come Together," "Things We Said Today" "I Will" And speaking of the Beatles, anyone notice how great a drummer Ringo Starr is. We tend to discount him because of his voice and the songs they chose to have him sing. But like the late, great Al Jackson, he could keep a beat.

Posted by Jim | June 18, 2008 6:30 PM

I'm partial to String Quartet #8

Just an awesome piece, the most unsettlingly beautiful music I'm aware of.

Eras can suck, sometimes even so badly that they can derail legendary acts - the 80s had that overbearing keyboard sound that took chunks out of giants like Dylan, the Dead, Rush....almost no one made it through unscathed. I wouldn't say the late 70s had that effect on bands.

Posted by Dan | June 18, 2008 6:45 PM

Shine, if you can't appreciate (just to name off the top of my head) "Shame" or "We are Family" or "Good Times" or "Fly Robin Fly" or "Disco Inferno" or "Gonna Make you Sweat" or "ain't no stopping us now" or "Turn the Beat Around" or "Best of my Love" ...

I don't consider any of those tunes as Disco, except maybe "Turn the Beat Around". How so? Because I like those songs and I hate disco, so there. I could go on and on about how trance, dance, electronica, house are better than disco but ultimately I would be called out as inconsistent and hypocritical. But you know what? I don't care. Disco still sucks.

Posted by Shine | June 18, 2008 7:18 PM

Matt, since I know you like punk rock, I think a good place to expand your tastes would be the Doklands audio blog. It's about as eclectic as possible, but the bloke's sensibilities clearly owe a lot to old punk and post-punk. Plus, if you explore the archives, you can find him abusing for being a troll (as so many have, and will).

Beyond that, just go to the hype machine, search for your favorite artists, and you'll eventually find an eclectic audio blog that appeals to you, I'm sure.

Posted by godoggo | June 18, 2008 10:14 PM

thirties years...heh

Posted by Kyle | June 18, 2008 10:20 PM

Right now I am thinking Monster Magnet, Kyuss, Nebula and Fu Manchu are pretty cool...that is if you like heavy fuzzed out guitars and music categorized as "stoner rock".

I like psychedelic, jazz-rock, blues, heavy metal (in its many different sub-genres), punk, new wave, grunge, folk, stoner rock, hard rock, progressive rock and funk. Did I forget any? :-P

I guess I like (or can tolerate listening to) everything except disco...

Posted by Porn Store Owner Dude... | June 18, 2008 10:32 PM

I never dis people for what they like, but I have no problem dissing the *music* itself. It is insulting and wrong to pair Bartok with Shost. For one thing, Bartok is just so much finer, and for another, Bartok didn't think that much of him - Bartok actually mocks Shostakovich in his 'Concerto For Orchestra' (a must-listen, BTW)! Shotakovich's career was warped by the Soviets, but who knows if he would've been so much better absent them. Neo-classicalism was a blind alley, no better when Shost. employed it than when Stravinsky did.

Shostakovich seems to be a good indicator of solid musical tastes, so good stuff. He was as classy and sophisticated as it gets.

He is a good indicator of someone who is not a very critical listener. If you like it, you like it, - fine; enjoy. But I'd check out Prokofiev, Mussorgsky or early (or late) Stravinsky if I were you. And don't miss Bartok's 'Concerto For Orchestra' - the Boulez recording is killer.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 18, 2008 10:36 PM

Some examples for you listening pleasure(?).

Nebula
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SHGZwpIxIU

Monster Magnet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsZfkEVZfcg

Fu Manchu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBuDe7wn6Oc

Posted by Porn Store Owner Dude... | June 18, 2008 10:38 PM

I'd add 1 more to the classical suggestions: Lutoslawski. His stuff ranged from stuff reminiscent of Shostakovich to full-on (orchestral) noise, and all of masterfully crafted. Really ought to be known better.

For Prokofiev, I really like "Cinderella."

Can't go wrong with Bartok, but I really like the Miraculous Mandarin.

Posted by godoggo | June 18, 2008 11:51 PM

People who like all rock-n-roll listen to rock of the past 50+ years.

And blues. And rockabilly. And old school R&B. And every other genre that contributed to the emergence of rock and roll as we know it.

For me, my tastes have expanded on a fairly direct backward line from listening solely to 90's alt-rock, to listening to Led Zeppelin, to listening to the Beatles and early Stones, to listening to Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry, to listening to Hank Williams and Howlin' Wolf. I don't think it's possible to fully appreciate modern rock music without understanding its evolution - certainly the 12 year old me who thought Pearl Jam and Nirvana invented music in 1991 didn't come close.

Classical's a whole different ballgame, but I'd say that anyone who loves music should find at least some that s/he appreciates.

Posted by Xeynon | June 19, 2008 12:52 AM

People who like all rock-n-roll listen to rock of the past 50+ years.

And blues. And rockabilly. And old school R&B. And every other genre that contributed to the emergence of rock and roll as we know it.

For me, my tastes have expanded on a fairly direct backward line from listening solely to 90's alt-rock, to listening to Led Zeppelin, to listening to the Beatles and early Stones, to listening to Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry, to listening to Hank Williams and Howlin' Wolf. I don't think it's possible to fully appreciate modern rock music without understanding its evolution - certainly the 12 year old me who thought Pearl Jam and Nirvana invented music in 1991 didn't come close.

Classical's a whole different ballgame, but I'd say that anyone who loves music should find at least some that s/he appreciates.

Posted by Xeynon | June 19, 2008 12:54 AM

Matt, you're on a real slippery slope here. Seems like you might be getting a little intoxicated by how popular the book, the blog, and your ideas are. It's understandable. I can only imagine how exciting it must be.

But this is how great minds go down. They get a little too caught up in their own greatness and stop thinking about the things that made them interesting in the first place.

I don't mind the basketball posts, the goofy posts, or the music posts. You're making insightful (or funny) comments about the world. That's what I come here for. But I really think you need to steer clear of posts that are about your likes and dislikes, what you should do with your facial hair, etc. In other words, posts that are *about* Matt Yglesias.

This blog has always been about your very insightful views on current events. Please don't turn it into a blog about you.

Posted by Anonymous Coward | June 19, 2008 5:30 AM

He is a good indicator of someone who is not a very critical listener.

In very broad strokes, most people instinctively don't like modernism in music since it's hard on the ears and listening to music is such a visceral affair. In the case of the "young, well off, trying to be hip and yet sophisticated liberal" they like a bit of modernism mixed in with a lot of neo-classical umpf, which is why they prefer Mahler and Shostakovitch to Bartok and Stravinsky.

That said, listening to e.g. Bach's Sonatas and Partitas or Beethoven's Sonatas 109-11 is not a picnic either.

Posted by novakant | June 19, 2008 5:41 AM

listening to e.g. Bach's Sonatas and Partitas or Beethoven's Sonatas 109-11 is not a picnic either.

(Bach's 'sonatas'?) Those partitas *are* a picnic, especially if Glenn Gould (or Rosalyn Tureck) is playing them. They are a funeral if Wanda L is playing them, but so is anything.

The idea (which I'm not blaming novakant for!) that regular people can only enjoy certain kinds of music is elitist. It's expressed in a a common conservative trope these days ('art/music went horribly wrong during modernism') and was also common, in a different form, among the Soviets ('formalism') and the Nazis ('decadent'). Fuck all of them.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 19, 2008 9:09 AM

"He is a good indicator of someone who is not a very critical listener. If you like it, you like it, - fine; enjoy. But I'd check out Prokofiev, Mussorgsky or early (or late) Stravinsky if I were you. And don't miss Bartok's 'Concerto For Orchestra' - the Boulez recording is killer."

"The idea (which I'm not blaming novakant for!) that regular people can only enjoy certain kinds of music is elitist. It's expressed in a a common conservative trope these days ('art/music went horribly wrong during modernism') and was also common, in a different form, among the Soviets ('formalism') and the Nazis ('decadent'). Fuck all of them."

These are two contradictory statements. The second jonnbutter is telling the elitist first to fuck off. Curious.

Posted by freddiemac | June 19, 2008 9:17 AM

You guys are aware that Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra features a middle-finger salute to Shostakovich's "Leningrad" Symphony (No. 7)?

Shostakovich lovers might check out the Czech composers Bohuslav Martinu (Symphonies Nos. 3 or 6) and Leos Janacek (Sinfonietta, string quartets) and the Danish composer Carl Nielsen (Symphony No. 4 ["Inextinguishable"]).

Second the motions on Mussorgsky (his original orchestrations, not Rimsky-Korsakov's rewrites) and Villa-Lobos (his bigger piano pieces and string quartets are more interesting than his orchestral music).

"Gateway" pieces that can lure alt- and pop listeners into classical music:
- Bach's "Brandenburg" Concerto No. 1 and "Italian" Concerto for solo keyboard
- Handel's "Royal Fireworks Music"
- Domenico Scarlatti's keyboard sonatas
- Mozart's Symphony No. 35 ("Haffner"), Piano Concerto No. 20 in D minor, and opera overtures
- Beethoven's Symphony No. 7 and Piano Sonata No. 21 ("Waldstein")
- Schubert's String Quartet No. 14 ("Death and the Maiden")
- Schumann's Symphony No. 4
- Bizet's "Carmen" Suite
- Saint-Saens' Piano Concerto No. 2
- Dvorak's Symphony No. 9 ("New World") and Piano Quintet, Op. 81
- Stravinsky's "The Soldier's Tale"
- Messiaen's "Quartet for the End of Time"

Posted by allbetsareoff | June 19, 2008 11:00 AM

The second jonnbutter is telling the elitist first to fuck off. Curious.

No.

There's nothing elitist about a.) knowing what the fuck you're talking about, and b.) developing your musical taste buds. The combination of moderism and the rise of popular music (particularly African-American music/ rock) has the seeds in it for getting rid of elitism, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in doing that. Instead we get a lot of reverse-snobbery on the one hand - which involves variants of 'I don't know anything about music, since I'm not an elitist, and I'm intensely proud of my ignorance, but I know what I like' - and preciousness on the other: "I found this really intense-looking Russian composer dude from the olden days who was like a total genius, and his music is really SERIOUS'.

I don't happen to like Shostakovich. I think he's humorless and I don't think neo-classicalism worked very well for anyone. Neoclassicalism was sort of the Minimalism of its day - government-approved, cheap to produce, and it allowed(s) people to pretend they're 'elevated'.

It is elitist to assume that all 'classical' (or 'serious') composers are roughly equal in quality, since they all dressed up, went to conservatory, wrote for orchestras, etc. Just like any other music (including rock, hip hop, et. al.), some 'serious' music is shitty and some of it is good and most of it is inbetween. If you enjoy Shostakovich, by all means, enjoy. But I can at least *tell* you why I don't like his music so much, and would suggest people try to broaden their horizons. There's a lot of music of that period way better than Shost., and you would enjoy that too, maybe.

These music discussions tend to be another version of 'Bittergate'. We live and (most of us) have grown up in, a pretty utilitarian-industrial culture, with mostly ugly cultural exponents, and a basic ignorance of the culture we have inherited. Getting beyond this requires admitting and accepting current reality. Most want to cling to what makes them feel 'good about themselves', rather than develop taste. But unfortuantely, reverse-snobbery and preciousness both feed true elitism.

BTW, I feel very sad for Shotakovich, and for any artist who had to operate in the USSR. And I'm not suggesting that he was just a soviet toady. He did push back as best he could, and he obviously did have talent. I just don't care for the music. The soviets were not just squelching a composer for the hell of it. They knew what they were doing: what gets written actually matters.

The Soviets (and the Nazis and, in a 'lite' version, current anglo-american super-capitalists) all have/had a similar view of Art: most of it should first and foremost have an industrial function, ie, make money/keep the peasants happy. The rest of it is there to maintain a cultural elite which must be: non-revolutionary, non-jewish (in a cultural sense), and non-meaningful. Elitism and proud vulgarianism are symbiotic.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 19, 2008 11:22 AM

You guys are aware that Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra features a middle-finger salute to Shostakovich's "Leningrad" Symphony (No. 7)?

Yeah, I mentioned that way upthread, but evidently knowing that, or thinking it matters is 'elitist'.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 19, 2008 11:47 AM

I was just listening to the Good Vibrato blog on hypemachine, and what should come up a movement from Shostakovich's Piano Quintet in G minor? - and it's just beautiful. I'm not even normally much of a Shostakovich fan, but music like this is the ultimate answer to these prejudices.

http://goodvibrato.org/?p=659

Posted by godoggo | June 19, 2008 1:36 PM

Nevermind, that track won't play, and what I heard was something else. Oh, well.

Posted by godoggo | June 19, 2008 1:40 PM

I'm not even normally much of a Shostakovich fan, but music like this is the ultimate answer to these prejudices.

'Prejudices'?! wtf?

Posted by jonnybutter | June 19, 2008 2:38 PM

Bach's 'sonatas'?

Uhm, yes, he wrote a couple of those and when people are referring to the Sonatas and Partitas they mean the the ones for solo violin (1000-1006). You can listen to an excerpt here. I love them (the recording by Henryk Szeryng), but it's heavy going and it's beyond obvious that "regular people" will struggle listening to them at first (as did I), while anyone seems to be just fine right off the bat with, say, the Brandenburg Concertos.

Posted by novakant | June 19, 2008 6:31 PM

Been traveling but just saying hey cool you answered my request!
Music is good.

Posted by live | June 19, 2008 11:01 PM

yes, he wrote a couple of those and when people are referring to the Sonatas and Partitas they mean the the ones for solo violin

Yes, sorry. I forgot that there is some solo violin stuff called 'sonatas'. Haven't heard them in a while, but they are pretty boring as I recall, or at least I thought so.

I think Bach is the greatest tonal western composer - I have studied his fugues for years and still find them beautiful and fascinating. But he is occasionally boring, which I guess is an occupational hazzard of producing the sheer volume of music that Bach did.

I guess what I was driving at is that performance really does matter a lot. I think that the solo violin or cello stuff is going to be only so-interesting no matter who plays it (even the vaunted Yo Yo Ma), since Bach was the supreme contrapuntalist (contrast the solo stuff to his wonderful, and relative easy, two voice little Preludes); since you need at least two voices for counterpoint (the occasional double stop doesn't really count), the solo material is not going to play to his strength. I would note that the aforementioned Glenn Gould sold millions of copies of the Goldberg Variations (and lots of other collections of Bach keyboard music). The Goldbergs are very sophisticated and advanced, yet Gould made them a 'hit'. Boulez has done good work in this regard, too. He has made some modern music more 'accesable' by simply demanding an accurate, musical performance. I wouldn't put Bach's solo instrumental work, which is minor, in the same category with late Beethoven piano sonatas or string quartets, which aren't. They can be turgid, but they aren't minor!

Posted by jonnybutter | June 20, 2008 10:07 AM