The other day I went to my first classical concert since April. A very small gathering, just a hundred people or so in the audience. A pianist gave a recital of Chopin, Mozart, Debussy, etc. It was a debut, pretty good really. I reviewed it, quite favorably.
Nonetheless, after experiencing the excitement of a Björk concert several times - and being on stage as well! - it was a dull affair, even though it was a fine concert in itself. There is so much stagnation in the classical world. Why do people insist on playing Mozart and Chopin and Debussy, when you can get much better CDs of their works in the next record store?
Since I mentioned Debussy: Stephen King, who isn’t much into classical music, once said that on the few occasions he does listen to it, he prefers something powerful, like Wagner or Beethoven. Apparently he doesn’t understand people who listen to Debussy.
As he puts it: “Why fuck around?”
Of course, playing the classics is often quite a challenge for talented musicians. And hearing a really skilled pianist play Liszt or Rachmaninoff live beats any Die Hard movie. Nonetheless the most interesting concerts are those that feature new works, at least in my opinion.
Fortunately, the pianist whom I listened to played an impressive piece by a modern Icelandic composer, Snorri Sigfús Birgisson. It was a delightful composition, complex at first but becoming progressively more and more etherial and otherworldly. At the end it seemed to merge with a great void, dissolving into nothingness.
An overture to George Crumb, perhaps?
(Now, that is a composer I truly adore!)
Entries (RSS)
August 7th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Cool post, though I have to disagree about Debussy: “Clair de Lune” is one of the most gorgeous pieces of music ever composed, classical or not.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Hey, I love Debussy too! I’m just saying I wish people would play more new music in classical concerts.
I’m particularly in love with Debussy’s Preludes, BTW. There is an amazing prelude called Terrasse Des Audiences Du Clair De Lune (not to be confused with the FAMOUS Clair de Lune). Another favorite is Des pas sur la neige…
August 7th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Why insists Björk on playing her stuff live, when you can buy much more perfect versions of her songs on CD? It’s the energy of a live performance of course! Same for classical works, there is no difference in this regard!
I agree on the comment about playing more newer stuff, though (Frederic Rzewski anyone?)
August 7th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Yes, but that’s either new songs or mostly new versions of old songs! You don’t get that in a classical concert. Most interpretations of, say, a piece by Debussy, are quite similar, except when you are lucky enough to go to a concert with an exceptionally gifted musician.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
What I mean is that often classical concerts DON’T have the energy necessary to make the music sound fresh and exciting… At least, not in my experience.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I will speak from my experience that the world of Classical and to some degree Jazz has a much more serious and to say studious atmosphere than pop music in its various forms. Meaning that some like me who has little knowledge and hasn’t got the basic musical foundations by listening to all the various essential pieces won’t be taken to seriously and disregarded where as some one at Coachella who is their for their favorite and maybe new favorite acts is much more open to new stuff. Really I think its that with Classical music there is so much history and tradition about how pieces are preformed where as something like rock music which is still less than 100 years old is still growing and branching out so theirs that feeling that maybe history is being made and something new is being born. A good analogy is artistic teen and a middle-aged businessman that there is a sense of adventure and wanting to experiment.
August 10th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I think I understand what you mean about the concerts showcasing classical stuff, but with mediocrity. As a sculptor I relate everything back to sculpture and when I see people creating naturalistic sculpture that imitates the past too much, and with mediocrity and lack of energy it makes me sad and not like sculpture that day. But I truly believe in the classical tradition as a basis for springing into your own vision and energy…As a sculptor, as well, I might not recognize mediocrity in classical music unless I have heard a particularly dynamic version of something alot and then hear something lackluster. (Which happens) Likewise, the general public cannot always recognize mediocrity in sculpture if they don’t really have the right exposure to it. It’s good to have mediocrity around to rise above as long as it doesn’t turn people off from that particular genre of music or art too much….thats the danger with mediocrity…it can kill tradition.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Debussy changed the way we all look at music. We might really have jazz if it weren’t for Debussy. He looked at music as Monet looked at a landscape. It’s as if he was doing studies on light, instead of bombasting you with Wagner and hitting you over the head with the whole V-I progression glorified ad nauseum. He addressed texture, colors, the feel. Without Debussy, you’re stuck in German classicism, and you don’t get to be from another country. I think it’s just as refreshing to listen to Debussy today as it was when he was alive. Without Debussy, would we have had Erik Satie, John Cage, Bjork? …maybe.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:24 am
love the debussy’s preludes and adore the childeren’s corner and thought colliwogg’s cake-walk is so rock ‘n roll!