Which composer would you most liike to have met and why?

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:37 pm

In all my time here I cannot recall this obvious topic ever coming up. What inspired me was the recent thread on the confusion of Schubert and Schumann. It made me realize that, in spite of the fact that he smoked cigars constantly (we have to deal with that problem with most composers, unfortunately), Schumann is probably the one I would most have liked to meet, because he was by all accounts both a generous person to strangers and a marvelous friend. My number two choice would be Mendelssohn. He reminds me of Byron's comment about Shelley, which was that in comparison everyone else seemed a beast.

My only ground rule is that it must be a generally well-known composer. I have actually met Karl Henning and a very fine fellow is he, but such acquaintances will not do for the purposes of this thread.

lmpower · Post by **lmpower** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:42 pm

I would like to meet them all, but Mozart is the first name that comes to mind. I just want to know what kind of person gushed forth such heavenly music. I think I can understand Beethoven and Brahms all too well. Mozart was someone different from me, who expressed a worldview that I can empathize with in a very positive way.

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:12 pm

Being a ballet music fan, I'm required to choose Tchaikovsky, who wrote three of the greatest scores for the art of dance.

dirkronk · Post by **dirkronk** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:19 pm

Probably Holst for me. His interest in religion and things spiritual--both Western and Eastern--would make for fascinating discussion, methinks.

Dirk

greymouse · Post by **greymouse** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:23 pm

Franz Schubert. Because he lived a bohemian lifestyle and gave himself completely to his art. He composed and played always, and collaborated with artists of other disciplines regularly. Sounds like a blast.

Arnold Schoenberg. He enjoyed chess, painting, and tennis. I share a lot of his values as far as music goes as well.

Not too many others I can think of. I picture them all being too busy and preoccupied to carry a decent conversation. Perhaps Schumann, you could be swept up in his romantic enthusiasm!

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:48 pm

greymouse wrote: Not too many others I can think of. I picture them all being too busy and preoccupied to carry a decent conversation.

Because of his deafness, Beethoven had to have most of his conversations posed to him in writing, and a lot of this is preserved. Of course, we only get one side, but once or twice the poor frustrated guy actually responded in writing even though he never lost the ability to speak. Evidently in spite of his noted eccentriciities he was an engaging conversationalist. A case has even been made that it was the social aspects of deafness that brought him to desperation; he could live with only ever hearing music in his head.

However, I left Beethoven off my list and Bach as well. I don't deal very well with beings who have only temporarily been lent out to us from higher realms.

Cyril Ignatius · Post by **Cyril Ignatius** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:57 pm

I would love to time-travel and meet ANY of these guys plus many more.

But if I could meet but one, I would have to say Anton Bruckner. Not only because I greatly admire his music but find him so inspired as a person who through his music sought God and expressed what is beautiful and sublime.

greymouse · Post by **greymouse** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:06 pm

jbuck919 wrote:He reminds me of Byron's comment about Shelley, which was that in comparison everyone else seemed a beast.

Without hesitation, I would choose to meet Shelley if I had to select a poet! Again, I picture him as a very enthusiastic figure and I'd want to get caught up in his vision. I'd meet Wittgenstein if I had to meet a philosopher.

I don't deal very well with beings who have only temporarily been lent out to us from higher realms.

Really, you'd have to talk about the weather or something trivial. It would be useless to try to talk music with people like that. If you want to know what they have to say about music, you just listen to their compositions.

mourningstar · Post by **mourningstar** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:27 pm

i would like to meet: Tchaikovsky ( i just love classical ballet).. Mozart (i want to discuss his opera's) and dittersdorf (he is swell, i am telling you) as well..

premont · Post by **premont** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:47 pm

J S Bach.

Brendan · Post by **Brendan** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:17 pm

Hildegard von Bingen - visionary, poet, gardener, healer composer and mystic wins by a country mile IMHO. Well, either her or Wagner so I could punch him out whilst praising his music.

dirkronk · Post by **dirkronk** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:17 pm

mourningstar wrote:... and dittersdorf (he is swell, i am telling you)

Stop that. You'll have Ralph going into paroxysms of gushing agreement.

Dirk

Mark Antony Owen · Post by **Mark Antony Owen** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:51 pm

On the basis that the following are all still on 'the other side' when I get there (and have not begun their journey back to earth to be reincarnated - yes, I am being serious), then they are all welcome to join me for dinner:

Spohr
Mendelssohn
Finzi
Beethoven
Rachmaninov
Saint-Saens
Faure

And I'll consider letting Berg wait table.

miranda · Post by **miranda** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:19 pm

Brendan wrote:Hildegard von Bingen - visionary, poet, gardener, healer composer and mystic wins by a country mile IMHO.

Seconded.

Ralph · Post by **Ralph** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:49 pm

dirkronk wrote:
mourningstar wrote:... and dittersdorf (he is swell, i am telling you)
Stop that. You'll have Ralph going into paroxysms of gushing agreement.

Dirk

*****

Yep.

Ralph · Post by **Ralph** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:50 pm

Actually, my first choice would be a composer I did meet but could hardly engage in extensive conversation: Leonard Bernstein. Second choice: mahler.

Harvested Sorrow · Post by **Harvested Sorrow** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:40 pm

Schumann and Chopin because I think both be able to carry on interesting conversations. (I have a thing about delving into a person's psychological issues if they allow me to, I must admit), Beethoven because he seems like an interesting character, and Brahms because he seems like he would have been good for a laugh (I enjoy being around someone who can perform the artform of smart-assery on the same level as myself

)

Jack Kelso · Post by **Jack Kelso** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:19 am

Great topic, great replies.

No, not Schumann---he tended to fall prey to mood swings and pensively drift into other worlds.

My first choice would be Franz Liszt: he knew Beethoven (as a child, he played for him), Mendelssohn, Chopin, Schumann, Wagner, Brahms and many other composers as well as all the literary greats of his time. Also, Liszt was of a modest nature concerning his own compositions, was very generous to others, and would have had a good understanding of what the "moderns" were all about.

Liszt would be an open and very astute conversationalist, one who would enter into all subjects with glee, wit, knowledge and understanding. AND I would have the opportunity to ask him what he thought of Bruckner (an answer no one seems to know...).

Jack

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:48 am

I do believe that for once Jack has made a better choice than I did.

Mark Antony Owen · Post by **Mark Antony Owen** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:57 am

Harvested Sorrow wrote: ... (I have a thing about delving into a person's psychological issues if they allow me to, ...

You and me both.

taisiawshan · Post by **taisiawshan** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:58 am

I don't know the composers much. Not many choices.

I'll like to meet Mozart, although I like Beethoven's music more.
Because I think Mozart will be more fun.
I always like those very "expressive", "creative", "playful" kind of artistic personality.

Holden Fourth · Post by **Holden Fourth** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:15 am

Chopin, but more just to hear him play than talk to him. Chopin's music, IMHO, has the widest range of interpretations that I've ever heard and to hear the composer himself play his music would be absolutely revelatory.

Fugu · Post by **Fugu** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:25 am

Tchaikovsky, without a doubt.

Jack Kelso · Post by **Jack Kelso** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:37 am

jbuck919 wrote:Schumann is probably the one I would most have liked to meet, because he was by all accounts both a generous person to strangers and a marvelous friend. My number two choice would be Mendelssohn....

Add to those reasons that both were tremendous J.S. Bach fans and presto!---you have your ideal conversationalists, John!

Best regards,
Jack

P.S.: Admitted....they also would be high on my list of people to meet.

val · Post by **val** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:36 am

In spite of his deafness, I would like to meet Beethoven. He was not a nice person, sometimes he could be very rude, but I am sure he would be more indulgent towards someone like me, that love so much his piano Sonatas and chamber music (of course, I would not ask why did he finish the 9th Symphony the way he did).

Haydn would be another fascinating person to meet.
Or Webern (I find much common traces between both composers).

Out of my list: Brahms and Wagner, no matter how much I love their music.

Harvested Sorrow · Post by **Harvested Sorrow** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:03 am

Mark Antony Owen wrote:
Harvested Sorrow wrote: ... (I have a thing about delving into a person's psychological issues if they allow me to, ...
You and me both.

NOTE TO SELF: Never get engaged in a serious, in-depth conversation with Mark. He may delve a bit too deep and find some scary stuff.

Mark Antony Owen · Post by **Mark Antony Owen** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:26 am

Harvested Sorrow wrote:
Mark Antony Owen wrote:
Harvested Sorrow wrote: ... (I have a thing about delving into a person's psychological issues if they allow me to, ...
You and me both.
NOTE TO SELF: Never get engaged in a serious, in-depth conversation with Mark. He may delve a bit too deep and find some scary stuff.

Ha ha! Women find it most disarming: a man who can talk about feelings and emotions. They tend to open up to me ... emotionally, you understand, not in the other sense. I'm married.

Anyway, I'm adding another guest to my dinner party: Gesualdo. I want to know what drove him to murder.

karlhenning · Post by **karlhenning** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:10 am

Berlioz; what a cultivated and gracious spirit (and what a quicksilver wit!)

davidzalman · Post by **davidzalman** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:43 am

karlhenning wrote:Berlioz; what a cultivated and gracious spirit (and what a quicksilver wit!)

You of course mean what a bitter and spiteful spirit don't you (I'll allow the "quicksilver wit").

As for my choices, I wouldn't want to actually meet any of the immortals (What could I possibly say to any of them that wouldn't be trivial?), but I sure would like to be a fly on the wall at the daily doings of Mozart and Wagner; most especially while they were in the heat of composition.

karlhenning · Post by **karlhenning** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:56 am

davidzalman wrote:
karlhenning wrote:Berlioz; what a cultivated and gracious spirit (and what a quicksilver wit!)
You of course mean what a bitter and spiteful spirit don't you (I'll allow the "quicksilver wit").

No, I meant what I said.

But you knew that, of course.

karlhenning · Post by **karlhenning** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:02 am

But I'll grant that, if all that we knew of any of a dozen composers, were what Wagner had to say of them (that bottomless pit of gracelessness), no, we shouldn't be inclined to spend any time with them, should we?

davidzalman · Post by **davidzalman** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:18 am

karlhenning wrote:But I'll grant that, if all that we knew of any of a dozen composers, were what Wagner had to say of them (that bottomless pit of gracelessness), no, we shouldn't be inclined to spend any time with them, should we?

Yet once again, here as on the other forum (GMG), you put on public display for all to see your appalling ignorance of everything to do with Wagner.

Wagner — as a matter of documented fact — was extremely fond of, and sympathetic to, Berlioz as a person and as a misunderstood composer, and many times expressed that fondness and sympathy in writing, private and public. What Wagner -- who was incapable of dissimulating in matters of art -- thought of Berlioz's musico-dramatic works was less sympathetic and anything but fond. He merely gave his honest (and — as it's no surprise — perfectly on-target) assessment of their hugely faulty dramatic construction. Berlioz was no master music dramatist, and it shows in his work. Wagner merely said what needed to be said, and the honest truth.

diegobueno · Post by **diegobueno** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:40 am

I'm sure that of all the great composers Wagner is the one I definitely would not want to meet, but I take comfort in the knowledge that Wagner would leave me alone the instant he realized I didn't have any money to give him.

Berlioz, I'm sure, would be charming. I think I would enjoy the company of Haydn or Mozart. I would especially be interested in playing them recordings of their music and seeing what they had to say about the performances.

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:45 am

diegobueno wrote:

Berlioz, I'm sure, would be charming. I think I would enjoy the company of Haydn or Mozart. I would especially be interested in playing them recordings of their music and seeing what they had to say about the performances.

Take them on a plane and tell them they're seven miles above the surface of the Earth and travelling at 600 miles per hour and will be in New York in nine hours. That they would find interesting.

RebLem · Post by **RebLem** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:14 am

Four choices, and all for mostly extramusical reasons,

1) Brahms, because he'd know where all the good hookers were.

2) Mahler, but more for the chance to meet Alma. (See above)

Seriously,

3) Dvorak, because he was the earliest great composer with an extensive and serious association with the US, and because he had an enormously more farsighted view of the role of African Americans in the then future of American music than almost any white American of the time, and a more sophisticated understanding of American racism and the need to overcome it.

4) Willam Byrd. He was a Catholic in Elizabethan England, a time when it was dangerous to be a Catholic. QEI liked him, but killed off all his friends. I'd like to talk with him about how he felt about that. If I could, I'd take Furtwangler along with me to participate in the conversation.

paulb · Post by **paulb** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:56 am

Well i have to break the rules here, as I would love to have met and known 2 composers, cannot limit it to one. I'm breaking a second rule in that one of them is not well known.
First the lesser known, Allan Pettersson.
Alittle more well known is Alfred Schnittke.
Too many reasons to list as to why. Both speak to my depths, to the heart.
If you get a chance pick up Schnittke's book, edited by his close friend Ivashkin, A Schnittke Reader. /indiana U Press/2002. though much of it is essays on the tech aspects of other major composers, there is some profound thoughts from Schnittke in the first part, and testimonies of high praise from many very important 20th century artists.
To me Schnittke had "one of the" greatest minds among 20th century composers.

Harvested Sorrow · Post by **Harvested Sorrow** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:10 pm

Mark Antony Owen wrote:
Harvested Sorrow wrote:
Mark Antony Owen wrote:
Harvested Sorrow wrote: ... (I have a thing about delving into a person's psychological issues if they allow me to, ...
You and me both.
NOTE TO SELF: Never get engaged in a serious, in-depth conversation with Mark. He may delve a bit too deep and find some scary stuff.
Ha ha! Women find it most disarming: a man who can talk about feelings and emotions. They tend to open up to me ... emotionally, you understand, not in the other sense. I'm married.

Hell, it scares people I talk to if I'm open about any potential psychological issues and things of that nature. Then again, I'm brutally honest in general and most people hate that despite claiming to want honesty...

karlhenning · Post by **karlhenning** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:15 pm

Honesty without kindness is not necessarily a virtue.

karlhenning · Post by **karlhenning** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:16 pm

Not to imply that you are unkind; I'm just saying.

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:14 pm

karlhenning wrote:Honesty without kindness is not necessarily a virtue.

They call that "being brutally frank".

Harvested Sorrow · Post by **Harvested Sorrow** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:47 pm

karlhenning wrote:Honesty without kindness is not necessarily a virtue.

Indeed. I don't really set out to be unkind (unless it's warranted), but if the choice is between being unkind and lying it's still likely for me to be honest.

Jack Kelso · Post by **Jack Kelso** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:20 am

davidzalman wrote:
karlhenning wrote:Berlioz; what a cultivated and gracious spirit (and what a quicksilver wit!)
You of course mean what a bitter and spiteful spirit don't you (I'll allow the "quicksilver wit").

As for my choices, I wouldn't want to actually meet any of the immortals (What could I possibly say to any of them that wouldn't be trivial?), but I sure would like to be a fly on the wall at the daily doings of Mozart and Wagner; most especially while they were in the heat of composition.

Berlioz would be fascinating to meet. He was passionate, direct and honest. I find no artifice in his music, despite the occasional bombast. "Herold in Italy" has become one of my favorite pieces.

Jack

paulb · Post by **paulb** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:10 am

karlhenning wrote:Berlioz; what a cultivated and gracious spirit (and what a quicksilver wit!)

There is something revealing about ourselves in which composer(s) we'd like to meet.
Maybe i need to get to know more about Berlioz. What i do recall of Berlioz's music was not my cup of tea.

karlhenning · Post by **karlhenning** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:38 am

Harvested Sorrow wrote:
karlhenning wrote:Honesty without kindness is not necessarily a virtue.
Indeed. I don't really set out to be unkind (unless it's warranted), but if the choice is between being unkind and lying it's still likely for me to be honest.

I am also thinking, of another set of circumstances, in which (e.g.) somone has a character flaw (say, an ingrained prejudice and hostility towards Esquimaux), but he is perfectly honest in his expression of that hostility.

paulb · Post by **paulb** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:12 am

karlhenning wrote:
Harvested Sorrow wrote:
karlhenning wrote:Honesty without kindness is not necessarily a virtue.
Indeed. I don't really set out to be unkind (unless it's warranted), but if the choice is between being unkind and lying it's still likely for me to be honest.
I am also thinking, of another set of circumstances, in which (e.g.) somone has a character flaw (say, an ingrained prejudice and hostility towards Esquimaux), but he is perfectly honest in his expression of that hostility.

Who is Esquimaux?
Oh I see a fabeled name.
then how could anyone be flawed in character in this circumstance. A non-exsistent composer.
You're nopt refering to me as the flawed subject, [er chance.
No, sorry for having a guilty conscience. Karl I know you for better than to feel towards me with such prejudice.
Nice Day
Buddy Paul

karlhenning · Post by **karlhenning** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:10 am

paulb wrote:Who is Esquimaux?
Oh I see a fabeled name.

An alternate spelling for Eskimo.

You're nopt refering to me as the flawed subject, [er chance.

You know I am not, mon ami!

Your strange views of Sibelius and Bartók notwithstanding :-)

(It would be a funny world if we all thought the same, Paul!)

Cheers,
~Karl

paulb · Post by **paulb** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:21 am

karlhenning wrote:
paulb wrote:Who is Esquimaux?
Oh I see a fabeled name.
An alternate spelling for Eskimo.

You're nopt refering to me as the flawed subject, [er chance.
You know I am not, mon ami!

Your strange views of Sibelius and Bartók notwithstanding

(It would be a funny world if we all thought the same, Paul!)

Cheers,
~Karl

Thanks Karl as you know what I went through in my "last days" at "the other forum". Was brutal, but was worth the experience.
Barytok, I love all but a few of his works. Not sure how you consider my dislike of 3 or 4 of his works, as "odd:". Concerning the 3rd pc, Todd and i have gone over that before, my opinion holds today...if I were to hear it again, which i;'ll admit its been a year+ since last hearing. but I trust my past to hold true today.
As for Sibelius, post 1905, syms 2-7, again if I have to struggle to maintain interest throughout a work, I simply get up and put on a cd that i like, which does not ahve me cringing nor feeling blasse (french for boredom).
That does not alter my intense love for Sibelius pre 1905.
Why is this odd or even strange to you?

Glad to have found a forum where differences in opinion can be a good thing and welcomed without disgrace.

karlhenning · Post by **karlhenning** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:35 am

paulb wrote:Barytok, I love all but a few of his works. Not sure how you consider my dislike of 3 or 4 of his works, as "odd:"

No, I don't think that in itself odd; again, if you don't like the Third, or if you simply prefer the Second, fine, of course! what I found odd, was your statement that the first two concerti are 'superior in craftmanship' to the Third (I also contest the idea that the Third is 'trite' or 'bland', but if you don't like it, you don't like it).

As for Sibelius, post 1905, syms 2-7, again if I have to struggle to maintain interest throughout a work, I simply get up and put on a cd that i like, which does not ahve me cringing nor feeling blasse (french for boredom).
That does not alter my intense love for Sibelius pre 1905.
Why is this odd or even strange to you?

Simply because those works maintain my interest without any effort at all on my part; that's all!

Glad to have found a forum where differences in opinion can be a good thing and welcomed without disgrace.

Certainement!

Cheers,
~Karl

premont · Post by **premont** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:51 am

paulb wrote: Not sure how you consider my dislike of 3 or 4 of his works, as "odd:". Concerning the 3rd pc, Todd and i have gone over that before, my opinion holds today...if I were to hear it again, which i;'ll admit its been a year+ since last hearing. but I trust my past to hold true today.

With due respect to your personal opinions about Bartok´s piano concertos (which I BTW find to be some of his most important works), I find you difficult to understand, when you say, you like as well as all his other works. In my ears the piano concertos are very typical Bartok and his different style(s). How can you like a composer, but dislike his most typical works?

paulb · Post by **paulb** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:00 pm

Always loved the 2nd concerto, and very fond of the 1st. the 3rd from fisrt listen and a few hearings since has not appealed to me. Tell you what......I'll spin it today, right after Berg's opera Lulu.
I'll post a comment in the listening topic.

The Classical Music Guide Forums

Which composer would you most liike to have met and why?

Which composer would you most liike to have met and why?

Re: Which composer would you most liike to have met and why?

Who is online