How many of the Schubert symphony broadcasts were of No 9? It seemed to me to have cropped up rather more times than I would have expected - twice in one week I seem to remember. Are conductors and modern orchestras rethinking their perception of it as a marathon play?
-
-
This can be done - it had crossed my mind as a(nother) useful FoR3 service …Originally posted by Anna View PostCan we assume this information will be sent to the new controller via FoR3? If not then I think it should because I'm sure no-one at R3 has such detailed information available and it may spur him on to have a look at those unfairly neglected composers. (I always live in hope!)
Great job as usual Suffy
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
-
Is it possible to show the statistics excluding TTN which seems to me is R3's only time some composers and many complete works are broadcast ?Comment
-
Does anyone know what R3's attitude is to the analysis, if it has one?Comment
-
I'm not sure that the new Master of the Queen's Music will be to happy at being referred to a as a 'Dead Man' Mr GG!Originally posted by MrGongGong View PostThe living art of 'Classical Music'
Comment
-
Originally posted by Suffolkcoastal View Post
Missed that one
Many apologies
But I think the point still stands (NOT that there's anything wrong with the music by the rest of them)Comment
-
Here’s the symphony breakdown – complete symphonies only for those who had 10 or more symphonies broadcast complete – except for some 18th Century symphonies where the numbering etc is more difficult to ascertain.
BEETHOVEN – 1=14, 2=7, 3=12, 4=10, 5=10, 6=12, 7=17, 8=10, 9=6
BERLIOZ – FANTASTIQUE=8, HAROLD=3, ROMEO & JULIET=1, FUNEBRE=3
BRAHMS – 1=3, 2=8, 3=12, 4=7
BRUCKNER - 3=3, 4=7, 5=1, 6=4, 7=1, 8=4, 9=2
DVORAK – 3=3, 4=1, 5=2, 6=4, 7=10, 8=7, 9=8
ELGAR – 1=5, 2=8
HAYDN F J – 8=1, 9=1, 11=1, 17=1, 22=4, 26=4, 28=2, 30=1, 37=1, 38=1, 39=4, 43=1, 44=5, 47=2, 48=1, 49=7, 52=1, 53=1, 54=1, 59=2, 64=1, 68=3, 73=4, 74=1, 83=4, 85=4, 87=1, 90=2, 93=1, 94=6, 98=1, 100=3, 101=1, 102=3, 103=4, 104=4,
MAHLER – 1=10, 2=4, 3=5, 4=9, 5=6, 6=3, 7=1, 9=3, 10=2
MENDELSSOHN = STRING=5, 1=6, 3=9, 4=14, 5=7
MOZART W A – K75=1, KV111=1, 4=3, 5=2, 9=1, 11=1, 16=3, 17=1, 19=2, 21=1, 22=1, 23=1, 25=5, 26=1, 29=8, 31=2, 32=1, 33=6, 34=3, 35=9, 36=3, 38=7, 39=2, 40=6, 41=15
NIELSEN – 1=4, 2=6, 3=5, 4=8, 5=7, 6=7
PROKOFIEV – 1=12, 3=3, 4=1, 5=12, 6=1, 7=1
RACHMANINOV – YOUTH=1, 1=1, 2=8, 3=1
SCHUBERT – 1=1, 2=1, 3=1, 4=3, 5=11, 6=1, 8=12, 9=9
SCHUMANN R – ZWIKAU=1, 1=7, 2=8, 3=4, 4=6
SCRIABIN – 3=4, 4=7
SHOSTAKOVICH – 1=2, 4=1, 5=4, 6=1, 7=2, 8=1, 9=2, 10=8, 11=1, 14=1, 15=4
SIBELIUS – KULLERVO=3, 1=8, 2=9, 3=5, 4=6, 5=17, 6=6, 7=14
STRAVINSKY – PSALMS=6, IN C=2, IN 3 MOVEMENTS=7
TCHAIKOVSKY P I – MANFRED=1, 1=4, 2=1, 4=8, 5=2, 6=10, 7=1
VAUGHAN WILLIAMS – 1=2, 2=6, 3=3, 4=1, 5=3, 6=1, 7=1, 8=1, 9=1Comment
-
On the other hand, were it not for all those Dead White Men, 'classical music' wouldn't exist. The vast majority of classical composers being DWM, it's not surprising that they're so strongly represented.Originally posted by MrGongGong View PostIt isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
(NOT that there's anything wrong with the music by the rest of them)Originally posted by french frank View PostComment
-
Basically, there is a reason for the most popular composers being the most popular. Their music appeals to the most listeners, however strange that may seem to some in the case of Brahms.Originally posted by french frank View Post
Most works of genuine quality will emerge to achieve greater popularity eventually. I don't see any great conspiracy to prevent that, tbh.
Whether a piece of quality art has been produced by a white man or black woman, and whether they are now dead or alive, is wholly irrelevant to the listener with a truly open and receptive mind.
The general acceptance of the music (however long-delayed) is the only real judge. 'Bums on seats' is the valid, if appalling, modern term.
And long may it be so!Comment
-
Who are you quoting there, Tippsy? Joe Stalin, or Andrei Zhdanov?Originally posted by P. G. Tipps View PostBasically, there is a reason for the most popular composers being the most popular. Their music appeals to the most listeners, however strange that may seem to some in the case of Brahms. Most works of genuine quality will emerge to achieve greater popularity eventually. I don't see any great conspiracy to prevent that, tbh.
Whether a piece of quality art has been produced by a white man or black woman, and whether they are now dead or alive, is wholly irrelevant to the listener with a truly open and receptive mind.
The general acceptance of the music (however long-delayed) is the only real judge. 'Bums on seats' is the valid, if appalling, modern term.
And long may it be so!Comment
-
-
Oh, you are unduly obsessed with things political, S_A ... unless you mean Zhdanov the footballer?Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
Music is surely a means of communication. at least as far as public performance is concerned.
It it fails to 'communicate' to a significant number of listeners over time it's 'unpopular' fate inevitably will be sealed.
Of course some composers are 'discovered' long after their deaths (peace, Mr GG!), but even then they still have to convince significant numbers from the grave!
It can happen ...Comment
-
Treason GG - you could be (in your own words) a DEAD MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Originally posted by Suffolkcoastal View PostComment
Comment