New Sub-Forum: Composers

[doversoul1]

.

... wot no Couperin, Rameau, Scarlatti? I'm sure we've had traffic on these gents

....No Biber, Buxtehude, Byrd, and ….NO HANDEL


[ed.] Just a Thought. With the size it has grown, doesn’t the Composer Forum deserve a Board of its own?

[EdgeleyRob]

Many thanks for sorting out the Weinberg thread ferney.

Any chance you could cobble together an Alkan one from these ?

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?14405-New-Alkan-cd&highlight=Alkan

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?14555-Alkan-and-Sorabaji/page2&highlight=Alkan

Or would it be easier for me to just start a new one ?

[Richard Barrett]

I like this composer sub-forum idea. I was just looking through the Xenakis compilation, quite an enjoyable read (with certain exceptions!). I don't however think there needs to be a mad rush to give every supposedly deserving composer his/her thread though, is there? Better to start a thread when someone has something interesting to say.

[Lat-Literal]

I like this composer sub-forum idea. I was just looking through the Xenakis compilation, quite an enjoyable read (with certain exceptions!). I don't however think there needs to be a mad rush to give every supposedly deserving composer his/her thread though, is there? Better to start a thread when someone has something interesting to say.

Fully agree on the mad rush point. There has been no mad rush to date, nor has one been proposed. What has been suggested in at least one post above is that it is likely to develop organically so this thought which keeps cropping up in minds is imaginative at best. Approximately 20 new threads in 7 days. That is the gist of it. There are direct parallels in other parts of the forum. "Interesting", though, is an angle. Significant numbers of the threads moved across are on the lines "I've just heard a disc by X and had never thought of X before; any recommendations?" Those were never subjected to censorship by forum members. To wish to influence content would be a somewhat questionable alt road.

See highlighted text:

The Addressing Any Loose Ends Post

1. Thank you to ferney for managing it and for doing most of the work. I wouldn't have wanted to have had to move the threads and didn't have the expertise to do so.

2. This is Dave2002's Brahms post, as promised - http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...ez-vous_Brahms. It will require a decision.

3. I like RB's suggestion in the final part of his post above but it could be trickier than it appears. If someone gives me the temporary tools to do it, I could try. Otherwise, no.

4. On RT's question, it was an imprecise science. I said at the outset I wouldn't be hacking into CotW. As ferney implies, when the searching started, one thread that kept cropping up was "Talking About Music". The easiest ones to move had titles of composers names and not much else with the content being along the lines "I've just heard this record by X and think I might like X now - has anyone recommendations of music by X I might like?". Others were suggested for moving on the grounds that they began with a broad sweep of a composer's characteristic compositions - eg Y's symphonies or Z's piano music. Even better if the discussion then went on to other things. Alternatively, the original focus was on a composer's background and then that led to a discussion of her music. Good suggestions were often good threads in places they had never been well suited to, with hindsight.

5. What I personally tried not to offer were threads with two or more composers in the title, threads about a specific record, radio programme or performance especially where those threads didn't lead onto broad discussion or they fitted into a regular pattern (as happens, for example, in early music and to some extent in Hear and Now), and RIP threads, among others. I did tentatively put forward the idea that a few birthday threads could be used but I wasn't keen on the idea and it wasn't taken up. It didn't seem worth pressing.

6. On your point, ferney, about ones that may have missed, I've been carrying some assumptions as to why most which have not been taken forward were not taken forward. One thought is some people may have said "we don't want that one moved" or "leave our section of the forum entirely alone". I have had to guess on the nuances or machinations behind the scenes, then sort of adapt. But in point 7, I will list for you the ones that have not gone forward with post numbers in case you wish to have a rethink about them.

7. Clarke (71), Xenakis (75), Simpson (78), Prokofiev (79), Szell (79), Gilbert and Sullivan (82), Harris (84), Liszt (84), Nielsen (84), Rameau (84), Debussy (110), Handel (110), Henze (110), Messiaen (110), Mendelssohn (110), R Strauss (110) - these are the ones other than Brahms that haven't been taken up as far as I can see. You've done Monteverdi.

8. Here is my list of key composers other than those mentioned in 7 for which we don't have a thread. I suppose threads can arrive for them - and ones in 7 we don't take forward - over time ie organically unless designed - Barber, Beethoven, Borodin, Byrd, Carter, Copland, Dvorak, Falla, Gershwin, Gibbons, Granados, Janacek, Josquin, Khachaturian, Kodaly, Mussorgsky, Paganini, Parry, Puccini, Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Rodrigo, Rossini, Satie, Schubert, Schoenberg, Stanford, Stravinsky, Suk, Tallis, Telemann, Verdi, Wagner, Walton.

9. I am pleased that Radigue could be included. However, at the risk of making a nonsense of early posts, I think it would be better to spell her name with a g rather than a q.

10. Finally, we need an A composer. I am uncomfortable with not having an A composer. An A composer is the priority. But I'm not doing one as I don't want to be first on the list.

That's all folks!

[Lat-Literal]

A few numbers, now that I have checked on the up-to-date position -

The number of posts transferred across is just under 70 and those have led to an interest level of just over 30 responses. (approx 0.5 per thread)

The number of new posts is now closer to 30 than 20 and those have led to an interest level of just under 210 responses. (approx 7.0 per thread)

[Beef Oven!]

John Adams was introduced on the TV the other day as the greatest living classical composer. An introduction that Adams didn’t flinch from.

It made me very sad. Not because of the obviously misguided presenter’s nonsense, but because I thought Penderecki had died. Turns out all's still well.

If someone has something interesting to say about a composer whose surname begins with A, then at some point they will start a thread. I can wait. I know how to wait.

[Lat-Literal]

John Adams was introduced on the TV the other day as the greatest living classical composer. An introduction that Adams didn’t flinch from.

It made me very sad. Not because of the obviously misguided presenter’s nonsense, but because I thought Penderecki had died. Turns out all's still well.

If someone has something interesting to say about a composer whose surname begins with A, then at some point they will start a thread. I can wait. I know how to wait.

The Adams thread was moved across from another part of the forum having been started in 2014.

It was originally in the list under J - almost a week ago, I think, before I was ever involved in it.

Is there any thread that is currently there that you feel should be removed for not being interesting?

What speed do you propose for future entries from forum members so that your needs are fully met?

(As a guideline from you to us, perhaps, in order to help get the forum underway, my rate is the highest - it's just over two on average per day since the 15th)

[Bryn]

... I can wait. I know how to wait.

Al can't.

[Beef Oven!]

Al can't.

Et Al?

[Richard Barrett]

"Interesting", though, is an angle. Significant numbers of the threads moved across are on the lines "I've just heard a disc by X and had never thought of X before; any recommendations?"

But that counts as having something interesting to say! I'm not talking about learned disquisitions or anything like that. Several people have said that the speed with which new threads are added, or moved, makes it hard to keep up. I don't think that's all in their imaginations. But it's by no means an unpleasant problem. As I said, I like the idea.

[Lat-Literal]

But that counts as having something interesting to say! I'm not talking about learned disquisitions or anything like that. Several people have said that the speed with which new threads are added, or moved, makes it hard to keep up. I don't think that's all in their imaginations. But it's by no means an unpleasant problem. As I said, I like the idea.

I thought that when you said:

"I don't however think there needs to be a mad rush to give every supposedly deserving composer his/her thread though, is there? Better to start a thread when someone has something interesting to say."

.......that you were drawing a distinction between a theoretical level of speed of posting and what is likely to be interesting.

But your clarification tells me that it is about keeping up.

[oddoneout]

Can someone help me with a query? Initial online searches haven't been very helpful. The music of Joseph Bologne has been heard quite a lot in the past 2 or 3 years, which is welcome. However the past few times he has appeared on R3 it is as Chevalier de St Georges, with a certain presenter even contracting it down, post broadcast, to just St Georges. I had assumed that Chevalier was some kind of title and as such it is Joseph Bologne who is the composer, not Chevalier de St Georges (and why that final "s"?)

[Richard Barrett]

Can someone help me with a query? Initial online searches haven't been very helpful. The music of Joseph Bologne has been heard quite a lot in the past 2 or 3 years, which is welcome. However the past few times he has appeared on R3 it is as Chevalier de St Georges, with a certain presenter even contracting it down, post broadcast, to just St Georges. I had assumed that Chevalier was some kind of title and as such it is Joseph Bologne who is the composer, not Chevalier de St Georges (and why that final "s"?)

The Wikipedia article on Joseph Boulogne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges, explains the complicated story of his name.

[oddoneout]

The Wikipedia article on Joseph Boulogne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges, explains the complicated story of his name.

Thanks Richard. I thought I had read the Wiki entry but it looks as if I got side-tracked. It is a bit convoluted and I found the inconsistency in the entry regarding the s of (St) George(s) didn't help. Perhaps there won't ever be agreement about how he should be styled - Chevalier etc does sound better than Joseph Bologne I suppose, but it still feels to me like using a title as and instead of a name. Never mind the main thing is that he should be know about and his music played.

[Bryn]

We're doomed!