"The right context would be to hear something within the development or progression of the theme, atmosphere, or such things. In classical music, this usually takes a matter of at least a few minutes to build and resolve."

Can't argue with that. But a good sound clip would get straight to the point, at least present the thematic part, the "good parts," if you will, if the intent is to convince someone to invest that time in listening to the development.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

The right context would be to hear something within the development or progression of the theme, atmosphere, or such things. In classical music, this usually takes a matter of at least a few minutes to build and resolve.

I'll grant you that one romantic composer can imitate or superficially SOUND like another, but in order to be truly romantic (meaning individual; I'm still hard-pressed to make the analogy between romantic fiction and so-called romantic music, technically speaking). Rand has a "Hugo-esque" aspect to her, but she is not a second rate Hugoist, but a first rate Rand.

(Rand had some insight on this, from Q & A, in answer to the question "Do the terms you apply to literature-for example, realism, naturalisim, romanticism-apply to the visual arts as well?" She replied that it's the same confusion she encountered in literature, "where there have been no firm definitions...For instance, what is considered romanticism in painting, I'd call rank naturalism. So I wouldn't claim that the classifications I've defined for literature hold for the other realms of art...People accept distinctions approximately and with no clear definitions.")

Actually, she had a really good point about this in ROMANTIC MANIFESTO, that Romantic fiction's very attributes contributed to its downfall, that it was easy to be a second or third rate romanticist, compared to the naturalists. "A third rate Naturalist may still have some perceptive observations to offer, a third-rate Romanticist has nothing...The value of a Romanticist's work has to be created by its author, he owes no allegiance to men (only to man)...".

So, in a nutshell, we have to be careful about what we call romanticism in music, because it's a much abused term, and because the nature of music and emotions is still not clear. If one is going to make that call, he's got to have a lot more than personal feeling to back that claim.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

"And again, define romanticism in music."

I'd need time to work on formulating an adequate definition beyond "you know it when you hear it." In descriptive terms, it usually involves lush harmonies that evoke emotions closely associated with those evoked by ideas of romance. The famous theme from Tchaikovsky's "Romeo and Juliet" is one such example.

"And show me one romantic composer that sounds like another ..."

Here's one for you: give a listen to Addinsell's Warsaw Concerto and tell me what it reminds you of.

"before you claim that if one doesn't like so and so, he's simply not into Romantic music."

I thought it was obvious: if you're into Romantic music, then clearly you have to be into Sibelius 2. Sorry, no way around it.

"You'd just have to hear them, and in their right context, not some shit 30-second bite."

Yeah, yeah, you said that already. What's the right context, then? Something dialectical, I'll bet...

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

A characteristic 'Rautavaara sound' might be a rhapsodic string theme of austere beauty, with whirling flute lines, gently dissonant bells, and perhaps the suggestion of a pastoral horn.
(From the wiki article.)

Actually, that describes some of his sound. In some of his works, a characteristic sound is what I had privately referred to as "Rautavaara drums." Short flurries of heavy drum sound, usually repeated, indicating a kind of buildup and release. And quite distinctive given all I've been exposed to in music so far, so I couldn't really compare it to something else or describe it well beyond that. You'd just have to hear them, and in their right context, not some shit 30-second bite. They won't show up in "Cantus Arcticus," but they'll show up in quite a number of other works such as "Anadyomene" or "Garden of Spaces" or "Isle of Bliss."

There are parts of his harp concerto that distinctly reminded me of the use of harp & orchestra in Bernard Herrmann's score to Taxi Driver, particularly the aftermath of the climactic shootout.

Chris"
"So I go to Napster and the first track on the list is called "Higher Ground." And what is it? A tasteless cover of the track by the same name by an actually talented musical legend, Stevie Wonder. Hmmmm....
I wonder if the philistinic young'uns running around today are even aware of this cheap ripoff."

Again, Chris, an unsolicited opinion based on no real substance. I thought this was a forum for Objective thought...if there's anything worse than a philistine, it's a snob...

And again, define romanticism in music. And show me one romantic composer that sounds like another (a contradiction in terms) before you claim that if one doesn't like so and so, he's simply not into Romantic music.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Is NOT which music service is better, or the validity or non-validity of a soundclip as the end all and be all of a pieces's worth...backtracking will reveal that Linz was or is ready to actually ORDER (re: spend money) on something based on a recommendation of little musical substance and more personal opinion. I was alerting Linz to the fact that he can PREVIEW the music first. Altruism? maybe. Or maybe I was trying to prevent another one of Linz's musical meltdowns.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

So I go to Napster and the first track on the list is called "Higher Ground." And what is it? A tasteless cover of the track by the same name by an actually talented musical legend, Stevie Wonder. Hmmmm....

I wonder if the philistinic young'uns running around today are even aware of this cheap ripoff.

I didn't say a lot about the music itself, because a bunch of words isn't a substitute for actually hearing the music. The main purpose of my post was to draw attention to the fact that there is at least one contemporary composer that may be to the liking of the more "traditionalist" classical fans. Moreover, I noted that whether or not you find him to your liking, if you're into Romantic-style classical music, he's worth checking out.

If there are members of this audience that don't like Sibelius 2 (and, on quite similar bases I am sure, don't like Howard Hanson's 2nd), then they're just not really into Romantic-style classical music, that's all.

And I also did point out the fact that there's a lot of Rautavaara's work (in the symphonies, say) that really is overloaded with modernist-contemporary ideas, not very Romantic ones. You'll notice that I didn't point any attention to those works.

I'm just glad I have the option to hear before I buy. If all we had today was live performances where you had to pay to get in...well, there's a reason that unknown bands play for "exposure" instead of money...I've seen bands who were a real mess get pissed at people for leaving, and start to berate the audience: "we're trying to give you something new! You have to give it time! Philistines!" I'm reminded here of Rand's defense against modern music: it's not the ear that has to be conditioned, but the mind...

And the days of having to buy the cd "sight unseen" are gone, thank goodness...

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

BTW, if iTunes is giving only 30 second clips, it's not doing its job well enough. (See? Just one example where it falls short.) The Amazon.com pages at least go so far as to offer full-minute clips on a lot of classical stuff.

Of course, neither is a substitute for listening to the full tracks on Rhapsody or, of course, just becoming a Rhapsody or Napster subscriber for a few lousy bucks a month once the 25 free listens are used up.

(My current music setup is a Napster To Go subscription. It's $15 a month, you need a compatible player (lots of the leading players aside from the iPod; mine is a Creative Zen), and you can upload as much music to the player as can fit on it. It's so inexpensive compared to the $.99 a track route, given that you can listen adequately before deciding whether you need to own it. I didn't even have to buy the Rautavaara CDs; I could simply keep the extensive catalog I already have on my player indefinitely and listen to it whenever I want, along with just about anything else of note in classical music, as long as I stay subscribed. Some artists you won't get, either with Napster or with iTunes. With a group like Radiohead, it's the old-fashioned route of buying the CDs or the new-fashioned, not-so-legal route of unauthorized downloading.)

Chris:
"For recent/newer films, the only thing I have much of an idea about is what I can safely ignore. As to what's genuinely good, the critics and moviegoers of the present simply aren't perceptive enough to be useful, reliable as a source of recommendation for me."

Well, in all seriousness, what's to stop someone from making the same claim about your review of Rautavaara?

Personally, I checked out the music based on your enthusiasism. But I didn't glean much from your review about the actual music, despite your claim that it was "neo-romantic" (a term that is much abused, anyway, especially since the romantics in music and philosophy often had no relation to the romantics in literature that Rand wrote about.) Read out of focus, your recommendation sounds exiting. But there was a lot of personal opinion, but little in concretes.

The wiki entry on the composer, in contrast, gives a little more meat in its description, enough to give a more solid idea of what the music may sound like, and more info to base a calculated risk:

"Rautavaara served as a non-tenured teacher at the Sibelius Academy from 1957 to 1959, music archivist of the Helsinki Philharmonic Orchestra from 1959 to 1961, rector of the Käpylä Music Institute in Helsinki from 1965 to 1966, tenured teacher at the Sibelius Academy from 1966 to 1976, artist professor (appointed by the Arts Council of Finland) from 1971 to 1976, and professor of composition at the Sibelius Academy from 1976 to 1990.

Rautavaara is a prolific composer and has written in a variety of forms and styles. Much of his work is quite accessible and has proved to be quite popular. He experimented with serial techniques in his early career but left them behind in the 1960s and even his serial works are not obviously serial. His third symphony, for example, uses such techniques, but sounds more like Anton Bruckner than it does a more traditional serialist such as Pierre Boulez. His later works often have a mystical element (such as in several works with titles making reference to angels). A characteristic 'Rautavaara sound' might be a rhapsodic string theme of austere beauty, with whirling flute lines, gently dissonant bells, and perhaps the suggestion of a pastoral horn.
A number of his works have parts for magnetic tape, including Cantus Arcticus (1972, also known as Concerto for Birds & Orchestra) for taped bird song and orchestra, and True and False Unicorn (1971, second version 1974, revised 2001–02), the final version of which is for three reciters, choir, orchestra and tape."

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

I have to say that so far, I've gotten almost nothing out of Sibelius except for the 2nd.

As for movie advertisements, or "trailers," I find them, too, to be utterly lousy at giving me any idea of the movie's worth -- IF THE MOVIE IS GOOD. I can tell plenty from some trailers whether the movie is going to be formulaicly lousy -- but even then, I could probably come up with examples were it was just a matter of bad advertising, an attempt to pitch it to a wide audience that wouldn't appreciate the film on its actual merits, etc.

For recent/newer films, the only thing I have much of an idea about is what I can safely ignore. As to what's genuinely good, the critics and moviegoers of the present simply aren't perceptive enough to be useful, reliable as a source of recommendation for me. (A movie like The Big Lebowski got jackshit for critical praise or box-office receipts, but I saw its comic genius right off . . . and, sure enough, it took off over time.) But for older films (say, 10 years old or so), the films that have had time to age (gracefully or not), the best single guide that I've seen is the IMDb user ratings.

Chris: "Walking out on Pirates is fine, but would be utterly stupid to do so after only 5 minutes."

Not if I'm not a fan of pirate movies in general! Course, then I wouldn't be there. And I woudn't be there because I'd have seen the thirty second clips on tv.

Chris, you're starting to sound like the guy who tells the lesbian that she simply hasn't been with the right guy (meaning him.) Or the jobhunter who tells his employer he's an idiot not to hire him just because his resume is poor, that he deserves time to prove himself. We all get that feeling that we can convince someone of something's worth, just given enough time...

Oh, and since you claim you didn't call iTunes "shit," I'll be fair and quote you correctly:
"I occasionally buy stuff off iTunes, but it strikes me as such a huge service for lemmings who for whatever reason (that I can't fathom) don't grasp the advantages of a service like Napster."

So I apologize for my "soundbite" of your full meaning, my 3 second clip (the summarizing of your opinion of iTunes as "shit" did not fully convey the subtlety and nuance of your full meaning.

Now let's parse the meaning of "is...."

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

You have to give it time not as some "obligation to the artist," but to yourself. That goes without saying.

Walking out on Pirates is fine, but would be utterly stupid to do so after only 5 minutes. Think on it a second, and do a duration comparison. The whole of Sibelius 2 is about 45 minutes. Getting 2 minute soundbites compares roughly to getting 5 minutes of Pirates.

Even listening to a full movement may not be enough on first listen. Back when Jeff Riggenbach was around and mentioned that the 2nd movement of Sibelius 2 was a masterpiece, I specifically went and listened to it, twice, right then and there. Didn't click. But for it to click the time down the road that it did, probably required my having given it a shot the previous times.

I have not referred to iTunes as shit. I use it on occasion to buy tracks and burn onto disc. What I said was that the criteria that many people that use it seem to use, are lousy, and many do act exactly like lemmings, going there to buy music because of its and the iPod's brand name and recognition, not because it has something superior to offer. And we already know that tons of much-bought pop music out there is boring, banal shit, but all these people buy because it's mainstream, well-recognized, safe, etc. (Two very prominent cases in point right now: Red Hot Chili Peppers and Green Day. To my ears, these groups offer nothing to someone well-versed in the heights that classical music can deliver. Precisely the kind of headbanging caterwauling stuff that Linz talks about. Okay, I'll make a slight exception for the Chili Peppers, in the case of "Under the Bridge." At least that one's quite all right, actually. Maybe they have more that are good; come to think of it, I'll actually spend a bit of time to check it out and see.)

Do movie advertisements show the slow sections of the movie? No, they show the highlights. If the quality of the advertisements is poor, or don't get the theme across, you can't blame the audience for that. Your argument is the equivalent of a stockbroker who berates an investor for refusing to buy an unpromising stock on the premise that it needs "time" to develop.

Jason, I'd argue your point about classical music, simply because there's no such thing, beyond a marketing category. There's orchestral music, there's chamber music, there's romantic music, there's contrapuntal, etc. But one can make educated guesses, (If I've heard one Brandenburg Concerto, I've heard em' all!) and take calculated risks. It really is a value judgement more than an objective decision in some ways. For example, a person might hear a snippet and decide that it's just not working, not worth it, but later may have a different assessment. Or that snippet may be appealing, and someone decides to take a risk, only to be disappointed at the end of a full listening.

Incidentally, I've listened to the Sibelius second, based not on sound clips, but on my love of the Fifth. And I still found it boring (which is different from saying it's boring, but that I was bored by it.) Ce la vie.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Utter, worthless shit.

See, you can tell from 30 seconds!

It isn't really a question of obligation. With more serious types of music you can't pass judgment after 30 seconds. It would be like reading 2 pages of a novel and deciding not to go any further. Classical music isn't like regular music with a formulaic beat and an obvious pattern that you can just pick on. Some of the better music takes extra effort to understand. Just like a novel takes several hundred pages to unfold.

(Don't take this as a specific endorsement of the quality of Rautavaara -- I am not qualified on to make comments on this composer)

- Jason

Just tried it out at Amazon's site. (The very recent LSO release with Colin Davis conducting.) Absolutely ridiculous. Okay, so the clip of the 4th movement actually gave some idea of something memorable. The only other thing that gave you some idea was the clip for the 3rd movement, which is everybody's least favorite movement anyway.

The sound clips for the first two movements? Utter, worthless shit.

"With music, you just have to give an artist or work time."

Chris, I don't have to do squat for an artist. There's no obligation there. But technically speaking, yes, music is a temporal art and obviously it takes SOME time to determine whether or not one wants to continue. Just like a novel or a movie. But one can also determine whether or not one wants to continue. I walked out of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN before it was over. And don't regret it.

Chris, you're getting pretty nasty, referring to people as lemmings and iTunes as shit. You're not taking one negative opinion personally, are you? Or are you somehow involved with the composer? You seem to have a lot at stake here to be taking that tone in your posts.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Sorry, but that rationale just doesn't work when it comes to music. Would you determine the potential worthiness of a film on a similar basis? I couldn't fathom it.

With music, you just have to give an artist or work time. That's how I've come to enjoy a lot of stuff that didn't grab me in at first. Good thing is, there is tons of time in one's life to explore music if one really loves music. I can't imagine being a music lover and doing that 30-second shit. ESPECIALLY, as I noted, when it comes to classical.

With "Legend of the Pianist," to make a worthwhile assessment of it, you need to give it the 8 minutes. Simple as that. The lousy 30 second clip at iTunes gives you nothing to go on.

With pop or rock music, I might see an argument, but the 30-second thing has never really worked for me there, either. Some of, say, Pink Floyd's best stuff is their epic works lasting 10 or more minutes, and you really have to take the full thing in, as a whole.

Superficial radio pop is about the only thing I could imagine that might translate half-decently into the 30-second format. Pretty much tells you what I think of the 30-second format right there.

To determine whether something is worth my time. Think of it this way, there's a glut of information out there, competing for one's attention. There's no time to listen to it all. Without denying that some things require more than 30 seconds to be grasped, if it doesn't grab the customer, for whatever reason, they're gonna move on. If your gonna sell something, and it ain't selling, you're not going to sell more by calling your customers lemmings. Salesmanship by intimidation? Fuggedabowdit. The onus is one the one claiming the value to do the convincing.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

RE Hugo, not a swipe at him or Rand, and not saying that he's not worth it. Just a personal assessment; after Rand, it felt like a step backwards. But Rand was standing on the shoulders of a giant, for sure, warts and all.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Chris, it took me less than 30 seconds to determine that I don't need to continue reading your posts!

Seriously, since you meant well with your review, and even though I was pretty polite, I think, I think it's a good time to repost this bit from Ayn Rand re recommendations:

"Speaking of one's inability to know another's sense of life, now might be a good time to make a request: Please don't send me records or recommend music. You have no way of knowing my sense of life, although you have a better way of knowing mine than I have of knowing yours, since you read my books, and my sense of life is on every page...I hate the painful embarresment I feel when somebody sends me music they KNOW I'd love-and my reaction is the opposite: It's impossible music. I feel completely misunderstood, yet the person's intentions were good. So please don't try it. It's no reflection on you or on me. It's simply that sense of life is very private."

-Ayn Rand Answers

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

I occasionally buy stuff off iTunes, but it strikes me as such a huge service for lemmings who for whatever reason (that I can't fathom) don't grasp the advantages of a service like Napster. 30 second samples suck, a ton of the music you hear over the radio sucks, word of mouth recommendations are only so useful (as we're all well aware, I recognize that), so how the hell is it that many iTunes users are making their buying decisions other than on criteria that suck? Maybe someone can fill me in on whatever it is that I'm missing . . .

Sibelius 2, boring? Sure enough, there's lots of sound and fury going on in it, but also plenty of kick-ass moments to make it worth it. I have no idea if you guys are even listening to the same thing that I am when I listen to it.

I didn't care for it much at first myself, either. Took a few listens over the course of a few months before something clicked.

You do realize how fucking boring it gets after a while listening to just the neat-and-proper stuff, right? I mean, Beethoven's great; for some while I figured that he was the man and no one else came close. But his is only one style amongst many great styles, and eventually I came around and got used to (many of) those styles as well. These other styles are rather more challenging, which I've come to embrace more as I seek out new and interesting stuff.

I love Radiohead's Kid A. You know how much of a mess it sounds to many ears, especially on the first few listens? The climax of noisy horns in "National Anthem" may well come across as self-indulgent, pretentious wanking. But for self-indulgent, pretentious wanking, it's great stuff and works within the format of the album. What, are we just supposed to stick with only unintrusive stuff like Coldplay (which I like, BTW)?

Anyone who knows anything about music knows that 30-second clips on iTunes or wherever else are for shit.

Especially for classical, where the "tune" is hardly simple enough to be gleaned from 30 seconds.

Try out Morricone's "Legend of the Pianist" on a 30-second sample, then hear the whole thing on Rhapsody, and come back and tell us that the 30 seconds gave you a single fucking clue about the quality of the piece. I dare you. Double and triple dare you.

And . . . as for whether it's as "bad as" Sibelius 2, I'd still put Sibelius 2 at the very top of the great symphonies, so . . . it's "worse than" Sibelius 2.

.... music for empiricists. Goes off in all directions, settles nowhere in particular. Not so much incoherent as uncohered. Music for folks with splayed brains. Hehehehehe.

Oddly enough...I was going to make that comparison. I don't think the Sibelius is bad as much as it is boring, but if you don't like 2, you won't like this. Kind of tuneless and meandering in the same manner...I thought all the pieces sounded the same, as well, couldn't really differentiate. (Again, based on 30-second snippets.)

Chris, I hate to rain on your parade, if you like it, more power to ya. I really liked the enthusiasm in your post, but I've learned not to get my hopes up over music reviews, because I've read so many that just didn't match the music experience (a common phenomenon, I'm sure.) I'm hoping to post something on the topic soon, although not about music, but Rand's recommendation of Victor Hugo (just read Les Miserables for the first time, on her suggestion.) While I found it a learning experience, and lots of great lines, it just didn't live up to her hype. Though, in this case, I think it's because I read Rand first, and as one commentator put it, she "out-Hugo'd" Hugo.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Giuseppe, is it really as bad as the Sibelius 2?

Just hearing some 30 seconds free clips on iTunes will tell you what your in for...

Sorry, Chris, didn't get the appeal.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Jason, you might want to check out a few other pieces by Rautavaara that I've come to like as well. I actually bought 3 CDs; the Last Frontier one, the Naxos recording of "Angel of Light," and another CD on the Ondine label that groups "Cantus Arcticus" along with another masterpiece, "Garden of Spaces" (which is moving towards the top of my list of favorites by him) and the Clarinet Concerto. The Amazon.com page for this one. The three I got actually come to the same total cost as the two I mentioned in the first post. Maybe it's better going that route, but I didn't want to make clutter with recommendations.

These are all available for listening on Napster, BTW.

[EDIT: Actually, it comes to about to about seven dollars more going the route I did, $45 vs. $38 for the two I recommended in the first post. I was thinking of something else -- namely, the cost of the two I recommended at first plus buying the album with "Garden of Spaces" quite cheap off of Napster for about $7, which would cost the same as getting the three that I got. I thought the better of it and got the ones I wanted all in original hard copy.]

"I'll be extremely grumpy if they don't satisfy."

Uh oh.

In any case, thanks for the suggestions Chris. I only have 1 Rautavaara CD.

- Jason

You can listen to all kinds of stuff before you decide whether you like it enough to buy. $10 a month.

Heck, you could sample 25 tracks for free right now on Rhapsody. The final movements of symphony 7 and Cantus Arcticus are a good first sample.

I just remembered, you don't care for Sibelius 2. Well, shit. If that doesn't satisfy you -- and it's the Romantic symphony at its best, no less -- then I make no guarantees whatsoever that this will, either. (You did notice he's Finnish, right?)

I've ordered the essentials. I'll be extremely grumpy if they don't satisfy. Hung, drawn and quartered doesn't begin to describe what will happen ...