You won second prize in a beauty contest--collect $10

Here’s some puffery from the Seattle Times:

Seattle Symphony takes on Mendelssohn’s ambitious 'Lobgesang'
Tom Keogh

However, there’s only so much you can say about the piece, because...

...sorry, Mendelssohn, you are not Beethoven.

"The 'Lobgesang' is a choral symphony," says [SSO music director Gerard] Schwarz. "Beethoven's Ninth [completed in 1824] was the first."

Eat Beethoven’s dust, bitch!

After Beethoven died, everyone was afraid of composing choral symphonies that would be compared to it. But Mendelssohn went ahead and did something unique.

Yeah? What was that?

The first three movements are purely instrumental.

...uh...

After that...

...

...

...

After that, profit!

Flow chart 1. The sales pitch

What if Bruckner was the pinnacle of classical music and nobody laughed?

Mark Swed of the LA Times is a good writer, and is certainly quite knowledgeable on the subject of classical music. I enjoy reading him from time to time because he is never afraid to share his opinion. An admirable trait in my eyes.

However, why must every piece performed in the LA area have epic historical context?

Music Review: Maazel's brilliant Bruckner Eighth

I must say that I'm getting a little sick and tired of the brilliance of Bruckner symphonies.

A little rain is not going to stop a Brucknerian.

Yes, but this might...

figure obvious joke: Referencing LA's traffic problems is funny because it's true.

And when it comes to the master’s Eighth Symphony, flood means nothing to a pilgrim.

figure doctored photo: Ah, making fun at the expense of the poor and unfortunate. It's nice to see, though, that they managed to save the necessities. A six pack is the only way I'd make it through Bruckner's Eighth too.

But for those not in the thrall of Bruckner’s massive frozen architecture, any excuse to stay home is welcome.

Frozen architecture? His music is an igloo?

figure frozen architecture: Brucknerian symphony.

On Thursday, when Lorin Maazel tackled Bruckner’s 84-minute symphony of symphonies, there were, as might be predicted, more empty seats than normal for a Los Angeles Philharmonic concert at Walt Disney Concert Hall.

Predicted? But this is Bruckner. He's fucking awesome. Plus his music is an igloo.

Nothing else was on the program. The mighty Eighth stands alone.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure a cloudy sky would have been enough to keep me away.

But the crowd was still sizable and mildly cultish. The Eighth is not exactly rare, but it doesn’t come our way all that often.

Kind of like a Phish concert tour, or the McRib sandwich.

figure McRib: Meat-like substance processed and molded into the shape of ribs. Yum.

For the symphonic purist, the Eighth, composed in the late 1880s and Bruckner’s last complete symphony, is not only the most magnificent of all symphonies, it is the end of the classical line.

[Okay, now the serious part.] Say what now?

The "end of the classical line"? That's quite the statement.

With his symphonic successor, Mahler, the symphony got grander still, but it no longer remained pure.

I think there are some serious problems with the idea of this Austro-German lineage of great composers. But yes, Mahler symphonies were larger and more grand on average than Bruckner.

But what of this idea of "pure"? The word pure implies there was some sort of de facto model of the symphony. As I'm sure you know, that isn't true. But the 19th century was an era of great symphonic composers, and after the likes of Bruckner and Mahler, the symphony became less important as a symphonic form. Is that your point?

The genre took on narrative meanings.

Guess not. May I direct you to Beethoven's Sixth Symphony (or his Third, or Ninth), Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique, and some Tchaikovsky's symphonies to name the most obvious pre-Mahlerian examples. Or, if we are to include other symphonic forms, the tone poems of Strauss, Dukas, and many of the orchestral works by hyphenated composers Nikolai Rimksy-Korsakov and Camille Saint-Saens.

But I suppose we're talking about the tried and true four-movement symphony symphony. Yes, Mahler's symphonies (and much of the music by composers of the era, including those who didn't write symphonies) did take on narrative meanings in some cases.

It found new ways to present messy emotions and reflect the ego and the excesses of its creators and of its times.

Unlike Beethoven whose music is the model of the humble, well-tempered composer.

As the symphony found new life in the 20th century, some thought it an unseemly, even decadent, turn of events.

Funny how some also found a way to hate all the other music of the 20th century as well, not just the symphonies.

And oh that "decadent"20th century music. Bruckner must have been rolling around in his grave when he heard the effete self-indulgence of Stravinsky's Symphony in C.

For Bruckner there had been only one Creator.

figure Creator: Bruckner was right. It just makes burning dvds so much easier.

And he just stands in such stark contrast to the polydeism of composers like Mendelssohn, Bach, and Handel.

Who could forget the blasphemous Messiahs by Handel, or the famous aria in Haydn's The Creation where Jesus makes fun of Ganesh's extra appendages and hilarious elephant head, but praised his long patronage of the arts and sciences?

The symphony, and the Eighth more than any other, was his ideal monument to the Divine.

This sounds a bit like narrative to me. Maybe not a program, per se, but I've seen narrative before, and this is definitely hinting at narrative...

The typical shorthand description of Bruckner is to point out that he captured the majesty and radiance of Wagner’s sound while staying true to Beethovenian structural ideals.

"...staying true to Beethovenian structural ideals"? That's quite the loaded statement. Do you have an example?

This statement seems to imply that any piece that doesn't meet the structural standards of Beethoven is somehow inferior. Or that there was actually some sort of quantifiable ideal established by Beethoven in the first place.

Forgetting for a moment that Beethoven actually was the first composer to prominently break away from classical forms in the symphony, and famously bring in his own ego and idea of narrative power to the symphony, Beethoven is just a single composer and does not (by himself) establish structural ideals. His symphonies, while great, do not represent some absolute model of perfection to which all symphonies should be compared.

He wrote Beethoven’s Ninth symphony over and over again.

That's sort of the standard Bruckner joke, yeah.

But yes, Bruckner (like Brahms and every other Romantic composer) felt a direct line of their symphonies to those of Beethoven as divined by God, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

--------------------

Let me clarify my comments a bit here. There is nothing wrong with writing that Bruckner's symphonic compositions are in a lineage with other great German composers who preceded and followed him. However, there is something wrong when you start to ascribe value to that lineage. This idea of purity of the symphonic form is simplistic version of history at best.

We see this same sort of over inflated importance of extra-musical circumstances in your reviews a here:

Music review: Tchaikovsky's 'Pathetique' Symphony 'unwound' by Pacific Symphony

Tchaikovsky has been saved by his sad story. At times when absolute music has been in fashion, the morbid Russian Romantic with a flair for melody and melancholy has been out of it. These days, narrative in music – possibly thanks to the ascendancy of pop culture – is prized. And, yes, we love a mystery. Did a tormented Tchaikovsky commit suicide? Was his last symphony testament of forbidden love?

Yes, maybe. But you're framing this question incorrectly. The extra-musical story associated with Tchaikovsky's symphony has been a subject of much debate for many years. Is it interesting? I suppose. But that's not why this music ever went in or out of fashion. As far as I can tell, no piece of music has ever suffered fewer performances solely on the fact that it may have a narrative associated with it.

Could it be, just possibly, that Tchaikovsky's music went out of favor because of its lush orchestration, or highly affected tonal language? Perhaps it went out of favor not because of something it did, but because orchestras wanted to play different, less often performed works...maybe even new music?

While there are relevant arguments of programmatic versus absolute music, or where Bruckner's symphonies fit historically, these are not the things that make a piece of music good or bad, enjoyable or unlistenable.

------------------------

I should also note, that despite my protestations, both of these reviews are quite nicely written with wonderful descriptions, and good information. Plus, in an unrelated note, Mark Swed did uncover this alarming piece of information...

Maazel, no mystic he, has no truck...

When will the powers that be snap into action and address the real crisis of America's truckless conductors? Ganesh be with us if Michael Tilson Thomas were to ever have his truck repossessed.

figure truck: MTT's baby. The only way he's able to navigate that decadent 20th century music.

Who's My Big, December Birthday Boy? That's Right! You Are!

Need a break from all the Christmas festivities? No problem. The Seattle Symphony has got your secular-seeking back.

The Seattle Symphony Orchestra celebrates Ludwig van Beethoven's 239th birthday this month...

You’re fucking shitting me. 200. And 39th. Birthday.

“Babe. Darling. Honey bear. It’s our twelve-thousand-four-hundred-and-twenty-eighth-week anniversary. I just wanted to... Because you’re so... Here. I know it’s a little soon... And I totally don’t expect anything in return... But here’s just a little token of my...”

200. And 39th. Couldn’t let Jesus take the spotlight just this once, could you, Beethoven?

Jerk.

Sure, he was born in December, too, so I guess he doesn’t get the birthday attention he inherently deserves. (Thanks Seattle Symphony) That, and today’s author, Tom Keogh, is most likely the one behind the ridiculous prime number. So, let's just forget that and get this thing under way!

The Seattle Symphony Orchestra celebrates Ludwig van Beethoven's 239th birthday this month with performances highlighting the German composer's early and late periods.

Surprise! Happy (prime-numbered) birthday, Beethoven! This is your life!* (Except the middle bits.)

Figure 1. Happy (non-prime) 234th birthday to you, Jane Austen! I hope you weren’t expecting a party; but you should’ve known that we don’t care.

Also, I don’t know about you, but I’m beginning to welcome Handel’s Messiah as a breath of fresh air, at least next to the average, everyday (literally just about every day) Beethoven celebration. It's like truck month: Essentially, every month is truck month. And all that saturation of trucking sort of undermines the festive spirit.

Table 1. Using your imagination, replace Toby Keith with your favorite conductor and the word Truck with Beethoven.

Table 1a. Truck Month turned into Truck Winter. Truck Winter turned into Truck Spring. Truck Spring changed into Truck Summer. Truck Summer changed back into Truck Winter. And Truck Winter gave Truck Spring a miss and went straight on into Truck Autumn.

Whatever. Sorry for getting sidetracked. We have some puffery to attend to.

On Dec. 30 and 31, music director Gerard Schwarz will conduct Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 in D minor — arguably the most popular symphony in the world...

And, arguably, our author thinks his readers are really dumb. Just saying. If someone has the wherewithal to read a puff piece about the Seattle Symphony, it stands to reason that... well... write as low as you think you have to.

Anyway, how about some real information?

Premiering in Vienna in 1824, the Ninth was the final new work of the 54-year-old, largely deaf Beethoven's pieces to marshal large, musical forces. (He died at age 56.)

Uh-huh. I guess it was time for some confusing information, information that could have been clearer with the appropriate use of a comma. So, just to make sure we are all on the same page: Beethoven never marshaled large, culinary forces, just musical ones.

Also, what's up with the eye-crossing chronological work. Personally, if I were to rewrite it, it would read like this: The Ninth premiered in Vienna in 1824. For the 54-year-old, deaf composer, it was the last piece to marshal large orchestral forces. He died shortly thereafter in 1827.

I think my version is pretty clear. But does Tom have a strategy? Is he using an ancient rhetorical device known to only the wiliest of wordsmiths? I sure hope so. (Also, happy 185th birthday, Ninth?)

Anyway, if we keep moving, maybe we'll find out. Are there any other culinary musical forces at work?

Beethoven wasn't through, however: He turned his attention to a final series of string quartets...

That’s a smooth segue, especially if they’re going to play some of those late behemoths. Don’t you agree? I mean, things become clearer and the chronology becomes more apparent: later pieces follow earlier pieces.

Great. I think I'm beginning to get it.

"The string quartets are a true window on Beethoven, spread out over his life," says Seattle Symphony violinist Stephen Bryant.

They sure... do... having... true... windows... on... Beethoven... over his life.

...

Well, if anything else, it sounds like a wonderful endorsement.

And not for nothing, I think it's nice that Tom's bringing a performer to the conversation in order to build up good, old-fashioned, first-hand, puff-piecey anticipation for the string quartets--shrewd, topical, effusive, effective...

"They're intimate, spiritual, even more than the symphonies. The bare bones of what the composer is about is on display."

...vague, inarticulate, hyperbolic, over-generalized, playing down the Ninth...

Oversell much? Whew!

Anyway, the incredibly bloated language makes one wonder if any other composers ever wrote string quartets.

(thinks super hard for at least seven seconds)

Meh. Probably not. It’d be kinda pointless to try. I mean, this Beethoven chap apparently has the ability to hijack a popular deity's birthday party with ease. Don’t fuck with this guy or he'll open your presents and then pee in the pool. (So don't swim in his toilet.)

But before Beethoven focused on quartets, says Bryant, he explored other chamber-music possibilities [...]

Huh?

On Tuesday Bryant will perform with a handful of other SSO musicians in "Beethoven's Birthday Celebration," a program of works for quintet, trio and septet.

WHAT!? No quartets? But... but... you promised.

...

You promised, I think.

Figure 2. Dramatization of Empiricus conversing with Tom Keogh

"They're all pre-First Symphony," says Bryant. "This is untroubled Beethoven, happy works, full of charm with a minor key, at times, but not so serious as later in life when he was dealing with all the problems that afflicted him."

What happened to my quartets!!? And you, get off my lawn!

Figure 3. The brusque, brooding composer contemplates his next masterpiece. (Previous two images generated at Cheezburger.com)

I'm really confused. I don't know how we got here. At all.

How to remedy this? Hmm. I just want my quartets back. (sob)

I know! I should retrace my steps and maybe I'll see something I didn't see before. Fantastic! Let's give it a try:

There's a couple of symphony concerts celebrating Beethoven's 239th birthday; they'll play the Ninth Symphony; Beethoven's quartets are really, really, really, good--better than the symphonies; those won't be performed; instead, they'll play some early chamber works on a different concert, which were written before most of the quartets; they were also written before the First Symphony (celebrating its 209th birthday this year), which means they are generally happy (few minor keys), but not as good as the quartets, because life hadn't inflicted him with problems yet.

Hmm.

...

Nope. Didn't learn anything.

So here we are, in the bitter present, quartetless. (sigh)

"Beethoven's Birthday Celebration" includes his Quintet in C major for Two Violins, Two Violas and Cello; the Serenade in D major for Violin, Viola and Cello; and the Septet in E-flat major for Clarinet, Horn, Bassoon, Violin, Viola, Cello and Double Bass.

Good to know; but personally I like opus numbers. They’re helpful. Beethoven thought so, too; that’s why he added them. No biggie, though. Please, continue.

Bryant says the septet "was the single most popular chamber work in Beethoven's lifetime."

Maybe so, but Beethoven might have been a bit perturbed about that. In fact, when he contemplated arranging it to include flute, he thought that flute enthusiasts would “swarm around it and feed on it like insects” (Anderson, Letters of Beethoven, The, 1961, pp. 51). He did finally make an arrangement, though, which we know as the Piano Trio, Op. 38 (celebrating its 206th birthday). There is also evidence that he attempted to arrange it for military band; but this was never published. Interestingly, there were many successful arrangements made by others--so there was definitely money out there to be made by riding the coattails of this work. Yet, in spite of the possible financial gains to be had, Beethoven’s reluctance to add even more velocity to the Septet’s popularity might have suggested that he didn’t think this ranked among his more important works.

So, to make a long story short: popularity does not always mean good. And in some cases, it can be a negative. Besides, haven’t we already learned this lesson? Beethoven did.

Figure 4. The birthday boy was a fan of re-gifting.

Figure 5. Sorry for missing your 240th birthday bash, N-Bone. It wasn't my fault, I swear. The Seattle Symphony had me planning this year's Beethovenmas celebration. And, well, sorry. That took precedence.

Of the [string] quintet, [Bryant] says "no book says he was trying to get to Mozart's level, but it clearly pays homage to Mozart. Beethoven admired him tremendously."

Read: I don’t know what I'm talking about, but am willing to make nonsensical assertions, nonetheless.

Now, I don’t want to pretend to know what was trying to be expressed, but my impression is that Beethoven thought he wasn’t as good as Mozart, so he tried to imitate (or borrow, quote, whatever), instead. I don’t know; but it sounds like more downplaying, to me. You know, something like, "It's not exactly Mozart, but Beethoven really, really tried, because he liked him sooooo much."

And it's at this point that I begin to wonder if Mr. Bryant has overstayed his welcome and is beginning to do more damage than good to this year's Beethovenmas puffery. But, it needs to be mentioned that it's not just Mr. Bryant's wacky words--here, it takes three to tango. Someone has to type it into the article...

(I'm looking at you, Tom.)

... and someone has to publish it.

(Seattle Times, that means you!)

Meanwhile, the trio "is charming and beautiful with some sad moments in the scherzo."

Really? "Sad"? Is that as descriptive as we're gonna get? I mean, are you speaking to me or third graders?

"Nobody complains when you play him.”

Well, that's the spirit! What a festive endorsement! I simply can't top that, so let's call it a day. Job done.

-

I suppose, after all this, I think it’s undeniably time for a festive song. How 'bout it?

Sweet. I knew I could count on you.

Alright. Ready? 1, 2...

[all sing] Happy 239th birthday to you! Happy 239th birthday to you! Happy 239th birthday dear Ludwig! Happy 239th birthday to you. But not you, Jane Austen--nobody cares about you.

Figure 6. Not quite as good as the quartets, but can't complain.

*Funny. There's no mention of the other piece on that particular concert program: Brahms' Liebeslieder Waltzes. Is the symphony concert really a Beethoven celebration, as the preview implied? The Seattle Symphony press release, found on the Seattle Symphony website (linked above), notes that the Ninth is an annual tradition.

-

One-Hour Crash Course in Music History

This article is about Mahler. Gustav Mahler.

He was a composer, and is fairly well-known today. Sometimes, major orchestras even program some of his symphonies.

Kyle MacMillan, Denver Post, Mahler Symphony Electrifies

Mahler, right? Mahler.

Got it.

Beethoven...

The first word in this article about Mahler is...Beethoven.

Beethoven, of course, is the first and last word in music history. There was music B.B. (Before Beethoven), then Beethoven, then music After Beethoven (A.B.). The date 1 A.B. is commonly set at 1805, when his Symphony No. 3 was premiered on April 5th. Specifically, it was the C# in measure 7 of the first movement that ushered in the common era from which time is judged today. Any musicologist will tell you that.

That's common knowledge, though, and I don't mean to sound pedantic; in these days (204 A.B.) that hardly needs explaining.

What does need explaining, though, is Mahler. What's the deal with this Mahler fellow anyway, and how does he relate to Beethoven?

Beethoven reinvented the symphonic form, transforming it into a journey of heroism and redemption and investing it with new depth and meaning.

It is also commonly known that music before Beethoven was just a bunch of melodies and stuff. Beethoven changed all of that by investing music with emotion and meaning for the first time. Never before had the motion of tones through musical space been regarded as somehow reflective of the inner thoughts of the composer. Thus, also in 1 A.B. were born the twins radical subjectivity and hopeless anthropomorphism.

At the end of the 19th century, Gustav Mahler seized on his predecessor's vision and pushed it to its fullest possible expression, creating works that stand as some of the greatest achievements in the form.

Born in 55 A.B., Mahler was heavily influenced by Beethoven's idea of making music seem profound.

Among them is the composer's Symphony No. 2 in C minor, "Resurrection," which conductor Jeffrey Kahane and the Colorado Symphony presented Friday evening, putting an exclamation point on the ensemble's 2008-09 season.

I think you mean "2008-09 SEASON!!1!1".

Because of the length of this five-movement work — 80 minutes — and the supplementary forces it requires, including chorus and two vocal soloists, it is infrequently heard.

Yeah, except for the part where it's not infrequently heard. Last season (203-204 A.B.) it was played by "major" [a quibble for another time] symphonies in New York, Cincinnati, and Houston, by diverse international powerhouses like Halle, and smaller cities like Petersboro, England, and La Jolla, California. To name a few. (It's also been recorded a few times.)

Sorry about the linkfest, but it's really, really not infrequently heard, at all.

This paucity combined with the work's exceptional power make any performance an anticipated event and a precious one, when it receives the kind of masterful treatment it did Friday.

That's fair enough, as is the balance of the review (which can be found via the [first] link above). But the insinuations that a) this is somehow all contingent on Beethoven, and b) that the performance was special specifically because it's seldom performed, are silly.

Some fussy Mahler die-hards no doubt found something to quibble over — a tempo that was too slow or fast or whatever — but most listeners no doubt agreed that it was an electrifying, deeply moving experience.

The "fussy Mahler die-hards" constitute a classic straw man construction, and are admittedly imaginary. Equally apocryphal, and in a parallel construction, are the "most listeners" who "no doubt agreed" that the imaginary "die-hards" were full of shit.

What?

The imaginary purists' (die-hards'?) imagined complaints were trumped by the imaginary every-listeners' imaginary contentions that the music was electrifying and moving.

Oh.

Thankfully, this is all in the A.B. era, because music written B.B. was never moving, heroic, or redemptive.

Here is the rest of the review, which seems perfectly cromulent by itself:

Kahane invested this epic work with deep musical understanding and a razor-sharp sense of drama, bringing incisive definition to its constant shifts in sound and mood, from sweeping gestures and grand exclamations to moments of quiet vulnerability and wonder.

The well-matched vocal soloists were both first rate, but special kudos go to mezzo-soprano Sasha Cooke, who highlighted the third movement with her affecting simplicity of expression.The final movement possessed all the redemptive force and musical thunder it should, with Cooke and soprano Janice Chandler Eteme nicely meshing, and the CSO Chorus deftly building from a hushed opening to a thunderous climax.

This milestone evening ranks among the finest moments of Kahane's tenure, and it served as a reminder of how difficult it will be to bid farewell to him as music director at the end of 2009-10.

That all seems perfectly reasonable, well-reviewed, and about a good performance to boot. Why, then, the speculative and Beethoven-framed introduction? It seems like a bizarre supplement to the review proper, and that supplement implies a lack (but that seems beyond the scope of this afternoon's project).

Derrida, trying to think about Mahler as that which is naturally prior to Beethoven.

Perhaps someday, someone will pen a massive, 4000-page four-volume study on Mahler's life and music to flesh out this little-known composer for us.

It is, after all, going to be 205 A.B. before we know it.