I have played "Falstaff" and fell in love with the work so much that I was going to suggest it to you as an underrated masterpiece! A veritable symphony which fleshes out this wonderful Shakespearian character....both the comic and the sad! I read Henry IV and Henry V as a result of this remarkable musical description of an unforgettable personality! And, the music is pure Elgar of course....
I had listened to Richard Strauss's symphonies in Fm and Dm, thinking "Hey, why do we ignore large works like these?" I did this twice because I forgot the first time I heard them. And I still don't remember anything about them.
In 2016, Edward Gardner conducted Falstaff with the National Symphony in Washington, adding surtitles to explain the events taking place in the music. If anything highlighted the work's problems, it was this rather frank acknowledgement that the music could not speak for itself.
Having played St Paul, I concur totally. Very dull in my opinion. But Prokofiev 4? It's wonderful and much more interesting than his Seven, They Are Seven cantata or even On the Dnieper. Now Elgar...it is a tough nut to crack, but as a student of orchestration it's a never-ending marvel. It's far more fascinating than The Black Knight.
I'm sure you get suggestions for lists all the time, but I want to add one possibility if you don't mind. Of course, there's always the possibility that I've missed this talk. If that's the case, I'll quote the words of the late Gilda Radner, "Never mind." The list I'm thinking of is a list of the most underappreciated works by major composers. I've heard you talk about more than a few pieces that fit that description from time to time, but a list or two of those pieces might make for good talks. Love the channel. Thanks for all you do to bring this great music to the public's attention.
You have to accept Falstaff as what it is, the symphonic study. And Elgar wrote it in this let's say technical, etude-like style. For this quality I can enjoy it. And Barenboim did it in Berlin with Philharmoniker and Staatskapelle.
Agree with you about Falstaff - a character study minus a character, I thought, but - a matter of opinion. I'v e never understood your dislike of the Elgar cello, though - I came to it relatively late, oddly late really, given I've had an interest in classical music for my whole life, starting at around 5 (at the latest) which was nearly 70 years ago. And I thought it was a great piece, and still do - do you, I wonder, have to be an English gloomster (most of us are...) to appreciate it? It's not because of Jacqueline Du Pré, either: I think the first time I heard it, it was played by Casals: complete with groans and grunts....
I once commented to Donald Steinfirst who reviewed the Pittsburgh Symphony concerts, that the Falstaff was like the poor man's Don Quixote. To my surprise, he quoted me the next morning.
A couple of my 'uninteresting works' seem to be popular, and I can't understand why' So here goes, and I know I'll upset some: Pachelbel's Canon, and Handel's Sarabande. Being repetitive is my reason, and I find the same when it comes to listening to other variations.
Do you know the utterly vacuous and painfully worthy 'Voices for Today'? BB's UN anthem. 'OW' surely has some very striking moments, even if the plot is simplistic, but yes, many very dull stretches.
I really wanted to like Falstaff when I first listened to it on TH-cam, but I just couldn’t get there. One of the most fascinating characters in literary history, but Elgar’s piece in Falstaff’s honor doesn’t reach that lofty standard.
Landon Ronald, a fine musician to whom Falstaff was dedicated, confided to Barbirolli that he never could make head or tail of the piece. I'm with him.
I love your list otherwise (though I would change Prokofiev's 4th for the 2nd) - but Lelio? It's a guilty pleasure to be sure, but I love it. The hodgepodge of different genres (melodrama, lieder, orchestral bombast etc) makes for an interesting change of pace compared to its contemporary symphonic works. In a sense it's just a selection of the kind of pieces one would hear in a typical concert in Berlioz' time. Moreover I think the "Tempest" (the final number actually, not "somewhere in the middle") is simply the best ever depiction of this wondrous play put to music... perhaps because it's so off the hinges it works so well.
I had my hard time with Prokofiev's 2nd too, but I tried and tried again and eventually I started to understand and love the piece who is I think way better then the 4th.
I met a big opera fan in a record shop trying to sell back the box set he had bought there of the original version of Hindemith's Mathis Der Maler, apparently also a very uninteresting work.
@@richfarmer3478 Totally AGREE with Rich Farmer; "Sinfonia Domestica" is a delight from beginning to end: great material, brilliantly employed, minimal slow spots, great shaping and build to the (ever-increasing) climaxes to the final bar. One of Strauss' true masterpieces. LR
@@robkeeleycomposer I wouldn't even hazard a guess here; Strauss wrote so much music, much of it with murky, complex, note-heavy passages, amidst all of the good stuff. Josephslegende has more imaginative, inspired music than his other ballet "Schlagobers", but they're both major works from a brilliant composer, and there's a lot of remarkable music in both...just not enough of it for their overall length. LR
We still have room for... JS Bach Rossini Schubert Chopin Liszt Verdi Bruckner (whinny!) Saint-Saens Dvorak Vaughan-Williams Ravel Bartok Villa-Lobos Shostakovich I'll pass on the twelve-tone music as usually incoherent and thus boring. I will be convinced of the merit of twelve-tone music when I encounter a folk song as twelve-tone music. For good reason, the most attractive melodies often resemble folk music or are even derived from them.
My understanding of uninteresting is that I neither like it, nor dislike it. If the piece makes a connection to me, positive or negativ, it is interesting in a sense. If it doesn't make any connection at all it is uninteresting.
I think we get into some really murky waters here. "Interesting" and "Appealing" are two similar but different things. Berloz's Lelio (except for the lovely final "Tempest" scene) does not APPEAL to me at all (neither does most of his Requiem); I basically respond negatively to it: boring, turgid, clumsy, labored melodies and awkward, often pointless harmonies and counterpoint. BUT...and there's the big difference: I find Lelio VERY interesting, even fascinating for what it represents; it's one-of-a-kind, and deserves to be known, if only for its unique concept and construction (another post somewhere here describes it quite well). APPEALING (our emotional response to the music) vs. INTERESTING (our more rational response to the music's value and significance). There's an important distinction here, at least for me. LR
I actually think the Rimsky-Korsakov symphony has quite a lot of "interesting tunes", it's just that they are not as fluid & well-developed as you're used to getting from RK. To be fair, it was his Op. 1, and you can already easily notice a lot of the underpinnings of his more mature works.
I like individual numbers from Mendelssohn's St. Paul-- the overture, the two false witnesses testifying against Stephen, the dark parts where Saul or crowds are braying for blood, and the part where Saul repents and pleads for forgiveness. Compared to Elijah, it's almost worthless.
Pity the poor alto, the soloist who has to sit around for two and a half hours with nothing to do until she gets her one aria, even if it is one of the better known items in the score.
OK -- Mahler... his Bach Suite, a selection of movements from Bach's suites for orchestra, which stand fully on their own. The problem is that we get nothing really new -- nothing outside the standard repertory. Were I to create a "Bach suite" I would excise more obscure movements from the cantatas or they harpsichord partitas and maybe throw in a fugue. So it is nothing new by either Bach or Mahler even as an interesting arrangement.
If there's one useful concept I take from 2022, it's 'dis-symphoniacal.' Meanwhile, no Beethoven piano sonatas yet? I'm sure I remember a couple of stinkers! There were times he was more in love with the brain than the ear!
I can't agree about the Prokofiev (in either version) or 'Falstaff'. P's dullest symphony surely is no 2, for all its mod-cons: dismally over-scored and the finale must have one of P's least memorable tunes - not great for a very long set of variations. The prelude to 'Paulus' is a very fine piece, an extended and highly developed chorale prelude. I'll admit I've never go any further. Agreed about the Schumann and Sibelius. Looking forward to exploring the Haydn and Grieg....
His "Bach suite", which little modifies movements of Bach that are now well known. It is possible to excerpts from comparatively-obscure works of J S Bach and combine them in an interesting collage or even reorchestrate them (as in "Sheep May Safely Graze"). Mahler did none of that in his "Bach Suite", a work that I have heard once and have had every cause to ignore. The irony is that Mahler was arguably the greatest master of orchestral counterpoint since Beethoven, and not for a lack of alternatives. I consider Mahler's rondo finale of his fifth symphony the most wondrous counterpoint by anyone other than J S Bach, and it falls short of qualifying as a fugue only because Mahler finally completes a phrase and shows the completion of a phrase (which he scrupulously avoids doing) as an anticlimax.
I have to disagree somewhat regarding the Grieg symphony; the first movement shows real promise, hangs together well and contains beautiful music. However, by comparison the rest of the work feels a bit throwaway. Svendsen's First is way better as a whole, and it shows the sort of Gade-esque drive that Grieg's symphony lacks. It just feels much more like a symphony. No argument about the worthlessness of Elgar's _Falstaff_ , though.
I couldn’t agree more about Lelio, but not about Prokofiev’s 4th - the first version. It’s not a great symphony, but it is a fun piece of music and I think its tunes are memorable. The expanded version is a failure. Svendsen? I must re-listen to those, it’s been a while. You have said before that you hate Elgar’s Falstaff, but is it uninteresting? I would disagree. It’s structurally piecemeal and needs a very good conductor to make it into something coherent, and one or two motifs come back too often, but it’s still got something. I find his Symphony No. 1 the least interesting of his major orchestral works,. Too much pomp and solemnity in it; not as patch on the 2nd.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Well I know what I meant! Let's say the work has a 'personality', which is not always true of English music, despite its problems.
One masterwork (let us say Franck's violin sonata) is enough to establish one as a master. That is enough for me to establish Juan Crisostomo Arriaga as a master even if he died at age 20. Elgar's Enigma Variations are enough to make Elgar a master even if one considers everything else trite or inadequate.
Schumann's Genoveva has to be the worst opera ever written by a major composer in his maturity. Munch, I know, liked to play the overture for some reason but even that's a bore, right up there with the Julius Caesar overture. The opera itself is an exercise in futility and less operatic than Paradise and the Peri which is terrific fun.
I've followed your reviews with some interest for quite some time. I personally have to say the Prokofiev's 7th is worse than the 4th. Just sounds dated. The original 4th has some interesting moments and is quite a different style from the 3rd and 5th. Alas, its premiere wasn't met with the most enthusiasm. Could also put the Stone Flower up there among least interesting works. The 4th Symphony has its moments but the Prodigal Son (and most of his Paris ballets) aren't particularly noteworthy. In response to Elgar, I agree that the Falstaff has its flaws. My impression has been that he doesn't end it that well. However, it too, in my opinion has some redeeming qualities. Never have particularly taken to the 2nd symphony or the oratarios. Elgar's best piece, imho, is his String Quartet. I see another person's comment on Prokofiev 2. It's my understanding when that was premiered Prokofiev stated that he wasn't sure what they'd just heard. It is a bit more adventurous than the 7th symphony though. Never have been able to get myself to take to the 2nd symphony.
Agreed about The Stone Flower, but a suite (there are probably several!) could possibly just about get by. But not a patch on Romeo and Juliet or Cinderella.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I know. 🤣For them, Elgar is a kind of saint. But if I'm looking for a musical saint in England, I'd rather go to Arnold Bax or Ralph Vaughan Williams.
@@paxpaxart4740 I have been waiting for this reaction 😂 To put it another way, you find this ludicrous. On the other hand I personally think that Elgar's two symphonies sound as if Brahms had been ordered on Wish. The String Serenade, Enigma Variations and Cello Concerto are beautiful and good works in an otherwise unappealing oeuvre of a solidly composing imperialist. That's how I feel about it. You are very welcome to find this ludicrous.
@@derphysiker1774 It sounds as if you are wary of Elgar because he was a composing imperperialist! Dont interject modern sentiments into your opinions...I love Elgar.....the composer of the time of "The Wind in the Willows" and that "green and pleasant land"......
Well yes Julien, wasn’t somehow the romantic thing. If Horowitz and Pollini can’t stop me drifting off in the third one, well there’s a problem. But I have some affection for number 1and 2, whatever the formal issues, they have that intriguing Schumannesque thing going on. There are many good recordings of those
"Lelio... it's a grab-bag" Ha - a perfect, vivid description. Great vid ! thanks
The funny thing is that when I learn about your lists, I immediately want to hear the pieces to check if they are really that uninteresting!
As Dave has said himself multiple times- there's no such thing as bad publicity!
I have played "Falstaff" and fell in love with the work so much that I was going to suggest it to you as an underrated masterpiece! A veritable symphony which fleshes out this wonderful Shakespearian character....both the comic and the sad! I read Henry IV and Henry V as a result of
this remarkable musical description of an unforgettable personality! And, the music is pure Elgar of course....
I had listened to Richard Strauss's symphonies in Fm and Dm, thinking "Hey, why do we ignore large works like these?" I did this twice because I forgot the first time I heard them. And I still don't remember anything about them.
Oh, the F minor is a fine piece, and the finale theme particularly has proven itself an irresistible earworm. Of course, that's personal, but still.
In 2016, Edward Gardner conducted Falstaff with the National Symphony in Washington, adding surtitles to explain the events taking place in the music. If anything highlighted the work's problems, it was this rather frank acknowledgement that the music could not speak for itself.
I totally agree that Lelio is an uninteresting work. But that chorus of brigands - o my god it’s so catchy!
Sort of reminds me of the song of the railroads
@@adrianoseresi3525 I really like the final "Miranda" scene and closing chorus, though the rest of the work is a real chore. LR
“Chorus of Brigands”? How Berliozian.
Having played St Paul, I concur totally. Very dull in my opinion. But Prokofiev 4? It's wonderful and much more interesting than his Seven, They Are Seven cantata or even On the Dnieper. Now Elgar...it is a tough nut to crack, but as a student of orchestration it's a never-ending marvel. It's far more fascinating than The Black Knight.
Lelio was once described (I forget by whom) as "one of the craziest works ever written by a man not actually insane."
I’ve never heard “Lelio”, but now I’m going to have to listen to it, just to find out if that’s true.
I'm sure you get suggestions for lists all the time, but I want to add one possibility if you don't mind. Of course, there's always the possibility that I've missed this talk. If that's the case, I'll quote the words of the late Gilda Radner, "Never mind." The list I'm thinking of is a list of the most underappreciated works by major composers. I've heard you talk about more than a few pieces that fit that description from time to time, but a list or two of those pieces might make for good talks. Love the channel. Thanks for all you do to bring this great music to the public's attention.
You have to accept Falstaff as what it is, the symphonic study. And Elgar wrote it in this let's say technical, etude-like style. For this quality I can enjoy it. And Barenboim did it in Berlin with Philharmoniker and Staatskapelle.
That is a truism. I don't have to accept anything that's dull and uninteresting.
Agree with you about Falstaff - a character study minus a character, I thought, but - a matter of opinion. I'v e never understood your dislike of the Elgar cello, though - I came to it relatively late, oddly late really, given I've had an interest in classical music for my whole life, starting at around 5 (at the latest) which was nearly 70 years ago. And I thought it was a great piece, and still do - do you, I wonder, have to be an English gloomster (most of us are...) to appreciate it?
It's not because of Jacqueline Du Pré, either: I think the first time I heard it, it was played by Casals: complete with groans and grunts....
I think that the Rhapsody No.2 is a very good piece
I once commented to Donald Steinfirst who reviewed the Pittsburgh Symphony concerts, that the Falstaff was like the poor man's Don Quixote. To my surprise, he quoted me the next morning.
Mazel Tov!
Oh I disagree....if you know the plays from which the episodes are extracted, Falstaff is wonderfully Shakespearian,......
Curious what you’ll say for Poulenc, Saint-Saëns, Franck, Nielsen…
Got to say, I have a soft spot for Grieg's Symphony!
So do I!
Same here. It’s got some great tunes and plenty of foreshadowing of his mature style. I don’t think it deserves its bad reputation.
I like the scherzo, but have given up on the rest.
@@markzacek237 yes. So often the scherzo is the best part in an otherwise dull symphony!
I didn't know that Grieg wrote a symphony until I watched this video. I googled it, and listened to it on TH-cam. I actually found it interesting.
And so it is...once or twice.
You've done an ideal but can you do the BEST Prokofiev symphony cycle?
Jarvi. That's it.
By the way, is the whole concept of melodrama essentially hopeless, or has there ever been one that's enjoyable to listen to?
It's pretty hopeless, I think.
Perséphone?
I have a soft spot for Enoch Arden by Strauss
A couple of my 'uninteresting works' seem to be popular, and I can't understand why' So here goes, and I know I'll upset some: Pachelbel's Canon, and Handel's Sarabande. Being repetitive is my reason, and I find the same when it comes to listening to other variations.
Will there be a part 3? I’d nominate “Owen Wingrave” as Britten’s snoozer! I would love to know if you have a choice for Vaughan Williams.
Do you know the utterly vacuous and painfully worthy 'Voices for Today'? BB's UN anthem. 'OW' surely has some very striking moments, even if the plot is simplistic, but yes, many very dull stretches.
@@robkeeleycomposer I hadn’t heard it. It’s not great….
I never heard most of these pieces. Going to stay that way.i got the grieg in 2cd collection and that's it.
Being proud not to listen to music is ... interesting.
I really wanted to like Falstaff when I first listened to it on TH-cam, but I just couldn’t get there. One of the most fascinating characters in literary history, but Elgar’s piece in Falstaff’s honor doesn’t reach that lofty standard.
Landon Ronald, a fine musician to whom Falstaff was dedicated, confided to Barbirolli that he never could make head or tail of the piece. I'm with him.
I love your list otherwise (though I would change Prokofiev's 4th for the 2nd) - but Lelio? It's a guilty pleasure to be sure, but I love it. The hodgepodge of different genres (melodrama, lieder, orchestral bombast etc) makes for an interesting change of pace compared to its contemporary symphonic works. In a sense it's just a selection of the kind of pieces one would hear in a typical concert in Berlioz' time. Moreover I think the "Tempest" (the final number actually, not "somewhere in the middle") is simply the best ever depiction of this wondrous play put to music... perhaps because it's so off the hinges it works so well.
Nice try. It's still Berlioz' least interesting work, wherever he put the Tempest fantasy.
I had my hard time with Prokofiev's 2nd too, but I tried and tried again and eventually I started to understand and love the piece who is I think way better then the 4th.
I met a big opera fan in a record shop trying to sell back the box set he had bought there of the original version of Hindemith's Mathis Der Maler, apparently also a very uninteresting work.
No, it's a very great work.
@@DavesClassicalGuide OK. Shall look forward to hearing your talk on it.
What do we think about the Prokofiev 9th Piano Sonata?
My latest candidate for this distinction: Strauss's :Sinfonia Domestica."
Totally disagree. I find it to be one of Strauss's most joyously tuneful scores with his only loud happy ending.
@@richfarmer3478 Differences of taste, I think. I've never been much of a Strauss fan anyway. But I'm open to hearing anything with fresh ears.
@@richfarmer3478 Totally AGREE with Rich Farmer; "Sinfonia Domestica" is a delight from beginning to end: great material, brilliantly employed, minimal slow spots, great shaping and build to the (ever-increasing) climaxes to the final bar. One of Strauss' true masterpieces. LR
@@HassoBenSoba Strauss' dullest work: Josephslegende?
@@robkeeleycomposer I wouldn't even hazard a guess here; Strauss wrote so much music, much of it with murky, complex, note-heavy passages, amidst all of the good stuff. Josephslegende has more imaginative, inspired music than his other ballet "Schlagobers", but they're both major works from a brilliant composer, and there's a lot of remarkable music in both...just not enough of it for their overall length. LR
We still have room for...
JS Bach
Rossini
Schubert
Chopin
Liszt
Verdi
Bruckner (whinny!)
Saint-Saens
Dvorak
Vaughan-Williams
Ravel
Bartok
Villa-Lobos
Shostakovich
I'll pass on the twelve-tone music as usually incoherent and thus boring. I will be convinced of the merit of twelve-tone music when I encounter a folk song as twelve-tone music. For good reason, the most attractive melodies often resemble folk music or are even derived from them.
@@paxpaxart4740 Verdi wrote a lot, so there must be something...
My understanding of uninteresting is that I neither like it, nor dislike it. If the piece makes a connection to me, positive or negativ, it is interesting in a sense. If it doesn't make any connection at all it is uninteresting.
It’s a good point. For me, the most truly uninteresting works are works that I can’t remember at all.
I think we get into some really murky waters here. "Interesting" and "Appealing" are two similar but different things. Berloz's Lelio (except for the lovely final "Tempest" scene) does not APPEAL to me at all (neither does most of his Requiem); I basically respond negatively to it: boring, turgid, clumsy, labored melodies and awkward, often pointless harmonies and counterpoint. BUT...and there's the big difference: I find Lelio VERY interesting, even fascinating for what it represents; it's one-of-a-kind, and deserves to be known, if only for its unique concept and construction (another post somewhere here describes it quite well). APPEALING (our emotional response to the music) vs. INTERESTING (our more rational response to the music's value and significance). There's an important distinction here, at least for me. LR
I seem to recall that you were excited about Martinon's performance of Lelio. Was that more because of the performance, not so much for the piece?
Yes.
Disagree on Prokofiev, Elgar and Gershwin. Wholeheartedly and with all due respect.
MTT conducting from the piano the La Phil in the Second Rhapsody is as exciting as it gets.
I actually think the Rimsky-Korsakov symphony has quite a lot of "interesting tunes", it's just that they are not as fluid & well-developed as you're used to getting from RK. To be fair, it was his Op. 1, and you can already easily notice a lot of the underpinnings of his more mature works.
I like individual numbers from Mendelssohn's St. Paul-- the overture, the two false witnesses testifying against Stephen, the dark parts where Saul or crowds are braying for blood, and the part where Saul repents and pleads for forgiveness.
Compared to Elijah, it's almost worthless.
Pity the poor alto, the soloist who has to sit around for two and a half hours with nothing to do until she gets her one aria, even if it is one of the better known items in the score.
OK -- Mahler... his Bach Suite, a selection of movements from Bach's suites for orchestra, which stand fully on their own. The problem is that we get nothing really new -- nothing outside the standard repertory. Were I to create a "Bach suite" I would excise more obscure movements from the cantatas or they harpsichord partitas and maybe throw in a fugue. So it is nothing new by either Bach or Mahler even as an interesting arrangement.
What's your opinion on Rachmaninoff's first Symphony ?
Watch the video on it.
How about Beethoven's vocal thing, the Glorious Moment? And his childhood piano concerto?
Apparently, juvenile works do not count unless as masterworks, such as Mendelssohn's overture to A Midsummer Night's Dream.
If there's one useful concept I take from 2022, it's 'dis-symphoniacal.' Meanwhile, no Beethoven piano sonatas yet? I'm sure I remember a couple of stinkers! There were times he was more in love with the brain than the ear!
I can't agree about the Prokofiev (in either version) or 'Falstaff'. P's dullest symphony surely is no 2, for all its mod-cons: dismally over-scored and the finale must have one of P's least memorable tunes - not great for a very long set of variations. The prelude to 'Paulus' is a very fine piece, an extended and highly developed chorale prelude. I'll admit I've never go any further. Agreed about the Schumann and Sibelius. Looking forward to exploring the Haydn and Grieg....
I would have picked Elgar's rambling, incoherent first symphony.
I would be interested for Mahler... Piano quintet?
No. It's just an ephemeral torso and not important in any sense.
His "Bach suite", which little modifies movements of Bach that are now well known. It is possible to excerpts from comparatively-obscure works of J S Bach and combine them in an interesting collage or even reorchestrate them (as in "Sheep May Safely Graze"). Mahler did none of that in his "Bach Suite", a work that I have heard once and have had every cause to ignore.
The irony is that Mahler was arguably the greatest master of orchestral counterpoint since Beethoven, and not for a lack of alternatives. I consider Mahler's rondo finale of his fifth symphony the most wondrous counterpoint by anyone other than J S Bach, and it falls short of qualifying as a fugue only because Mahler finally completes a phrase and shows the completion of a phrase (which he scrupulously avoids doing) as an anticlimax.
I wonder what all those Elgarian society people would think of your declaring the March of the Moughal Emperors his greatest work?
I think just...🤨 Falstaff is far greater.
I have to disagree somewhat regarding the Grieg symphony; the first movement shows real promise, hangs together well and contains beautiful music. However, by comparison the rest of the work feels a bit throwaway. Svendsen's First is way better as a whole, and it shows the sort of Gade-esque drive that Grieg's symphony lacks. It just feels much more like a symphony.
No argument about the worthlessness of Elgar's _Falstaff_ , though.
I couldn’t agree more about Lelio, but not about Prokofiev’s 4th - the first version. It’s not a great symphony, but it is a fun piece of music and I think its tunes are memorable. The expanded version is a failure. Svendsen? I must re-listen to those, it’s been a while. You have said before that you hate Elgar’s Falstaff, but is it uninteresting? I would disagree. It’s structurally piecemeal and needs a very good conductor to make it into something coherent, and one or two motifs come back too often, but it’s still got something. I find his Symphony No. 1 the least interesting of his major orchestral works,. Too much pomp and solemnity in it; not as patch on the 2nd.
Everything has "something." That is a meaningless statement, in my opinion.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Well I know what I meant! Let's say the work has a 'personality', which is not always true of English music, despite its problems.
@@philscott6085 Fair enough!
Funny enough, no Beethoven on the list. Then again, Beethoven is generally uninteresting, so it might be hard to pick any specific work.
He was on the last list, so there. And don't make a fool of yourself.
Rienzi was indeed surprisingly uninterested, the best music is in Liszt's Rienzi-fantasy.
Whether you regard Elgar as a "major composer" (see below) is a matter of debate but Falstaff his most uninteresting work? Are you serious?
Are you?
I'd have picked his first symphony, a real bow-wow of a symphony.
One masterwork (let us say Franck's violin sonata) is enough to establish one as a master. That is enough for me to establish Juan Crisostomo Arriaga as a master even if he died at age 20.
Elgar's Enigma Variations are enough to make Elgar a master even if one considers everything else trite or inadequate.
@@paulbrower4265 That's pretty debatable.
Schumann's Genoveva has to be the worst opera ever written by a major composer in his maturity. Munch, I know, liked to play the overture for some reason but even that's a bore, right up there with the Julius Caesar overture. The opera itself is an exercise in futility and less operatic than Paradise and the Peri which is terrific fun.
I've followed your reviews with some interest for quite some time. I personally have to say the Prokofiev's 7th is worse than the 4th. Just sounds dated. The original 4th has some interesting moments and is quite a different style from the 3rd and 5th. Alas, its premiere wasn't met with the most enthusiasm. Could also put the Stone Flower up there among least interesting works. The 4th Symphony has its moments but the Prodigal Son (and most of his Paris ballets) aren't particularly noteworthy. In response to Elgar, I agree that the Falstaff has its flaws. My impression has been that he doesn't end it that well. However, it too, in my opinion has some redeeming qualities. Never have particularly taken to the 2nd symphony or the oratarios. Elgar's best piece, imho, is his String Quartet.
I see another person's comment on Prokofiev 2. It's my understanding when that was premiered Prokofiev stated that he wasn't sure what they'd just heard. It is a bit more adventurous than the 7th symphony though. Never have been able to get myself to take to the 2nd symphony.
Agreed about The Stone Flower, but a suite (there are probably several!) could possibly just about get by. But not a patch on Romeo and Juliet or Cinderella.
I would not even count Elgar as a "major composer". Just my humble opinion...
Don't every try to go to the UK. You are on their watch list.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I know. 🤣For them, Elgar is a kind of saint. But if I'm looking for a musical saint in England, I'd rather go to Arnold Bax or Ralph Vaughan Williams.
@@paxpaxart4740 I have been waiting for this reaction 😂
To put it another way, you find this ludicrous. On the other hand I personally think that Elgar's two symphonies sound as if Brahms had been ordered on Wish. The String Serenade, Enigma Variations and Cello Concerto are beautiful and good works in an otherwise unappealing oeuvre of a solidly composing imperialist.
That's how I feel about it. You are very welcome to find this ludicrous.
@@derphysiker1774 It sounds as if you are wary of Elgar because he was a composing imperperialist! Dont interject modern sentiments into your opinions...I love Elgar.....the composer of the time of "The Wind in the Willows" and that "green and pleasant land"......
I think all Schumann sonatas are terrible, he even said that the sonata was a dead form, but I think he just didn't know how to write one.
Shush!
@@notrueflagshere198 Had to be said
Well yes Julien, wasn’t somehow the romantic thing. If Horowitz and Pollini can’t stop me drifting off in the third one, well there’s a problem. But I have some affection for number 1and 2, whatever the formal issues, they have that intriguing Schumannesque thing going on. There are many good recordings of those