Favorite classical piece?

[Dragonfly]

Giving a list of my favorite classical works is a hopeless task, there just are too many. But let me give a try.

No. 1: Bach and Chopin. Far too many pieces to write down a selection.

Brahms, most works.

Liszt: Études d'exécution transcendente, Sonate b min., Au bord d'une source, Vallée d'Obermann, Les jeux d'eaux à la Villa d'Este, Bénédiction de Dieu dans la solitude, Deux Légendes, Funérailles.

Franck: Prélude, choral et fugue, Prélude, fugue et variation, violin sonata.

Milhaud: Scaramouche.

Granados: Goyescas.

Mendelssohn: Variations sérieuses, some of the Lieder ohne Worte.

Poulenc: works for piano, piano duet and two pianos.

Schubert: Lieder, chamber music, fantaisie f min. for piano duet, several variations for piano duet, piano sonatas A, B flat, Arpeggione sonata.

Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven: selected works, too much trouble to list them here.

No doubt more works that just don't come to mind at the moment...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Although the following quote from Francisco's speech in Atlas Shrugged deals with sex and not art, the approach is very similar:

Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself.

Rand saw this as cause and effect, with the mind being the cause and sex being the effect:

Do you remember what I said about money and about the men who seek to reverse the law of cause and effect? The men who try to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind? Well, the man who despises himself tries to gain self-esteem from sexual adventures—which can’t be done, because sex is not the cause, but an effect and an expression of a man’s sense of his own value...

Rand's all-or-nothing stance on volition made her claim that performing sex is a result of volition, and there is no biological cause other than "capacity" (a word she explicitly used many times to describe the innate part of sex). See here from "Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968, 2.

Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man’s mind—by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously.

Incidentally, you can read more of Rand's thoughts on sex in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. The above quotes can be found there, except the second, which I decided to fill out more.

With aesthetics, Rand has a similar approach, that the volitional mind is the cause and the aesthetic reaction the result.

Ultimately, this all boils down to Rand believing that all emotions can be programmed by volition. And here I find myself at odds with her on a premise level, twice actually:

1. Just because volition can end up impacting an emotion, retraining it or otherwise changing it, that does not mean that volition is the cause of that emotion. At best it is only a partial cause of the final result.

2. Just because volition can end up impacting some emotions, that does not mean it can impact all emotions.

As I have said before, this is a problem of scope, not capacity. Volition actually can mold emotions. This part is correct. But volition cannot mold all emotions and even when it does, it is not the sole cause.

All-inclusiveness is Rand's premise. If the premise has a problem of scope, the logical extensions like sex and aesthetics will obviously reflect and magnify that same problem.

I believe we can keep what is correct and modify the overreached part and still stay within an Objectivist context.

Michael

[Judith]

I wonder how much of the music we love is the result of associations. For instance, all during my teens, it was Frank Sinatra I heard -- at dances, at parties, on the radio, at night clubs, in coffee shops. As someone once said,"We fell in love to the singing of Frank Sinatra and we fell out of love to his singing." Ever since then, his singing has been very special and evocative to me -- but I don't know if it would have been, to nearly the same extent, if it did not bring back those years of discovery.

I feel that way about some of the rock music that was popular during my early teens. I was at work once when I was in my mid-20s and a particular song came on, and I started bopping along. The guys in the office stared at me open-mouthed in astonishment, having pigeon-holed me as being rather staid in my tastes. One of them said something to the effect of not believing I'd ever like something that "raucous". :-) But I do still enjoy those songs simply because of the associations.

Judith

[antihero3000]

Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto No. 1 in D, Op. 35.

There are so many violinists playing it. So far, I find two of them play it so brilliantly are Jascha Heifetz and Leila Josefowicz.

- Antihero3000

[Indignant]

Edited December 15, 2008 by Indignant

[arete1952]

In response to various posts regarding how we may value some music based on the result of associations, I believe the 'association' factor is very important. I listen primarily (95% of my listening time) to Western art music (aka classical music). The popular music to which I listen is from the 60s and early 70s, i.e, music I grew up with.

What is essential, I think, is for people to be objective and realize the vast qualitative difference between the art and popular music and, if one enjoys popular music, accept it for what it is: entertainment not art. It is the musical equivalent of fast food: at its best it can be tasty and enjoyable to consume, but there really isn't much, if any, 'nutritional' value there.

What I get out of the popular music I like is nostalgia and fun...it reminds me of a certain time in my life, etc. On a purely musical level it has nothing to offer. When I want to hear MUSIC I listen to Monteverdi, Bach, Haydn, Stravinsky, etc.

Best to all,

Ken

[John Tate]

Moonlight Sonata by Beethoven. Tchaikovsky is also a favorite.

[tjohnson]

In response to various posts regarding how we may value some music based on the result of associations, I believe the 'association' factor is very important. I listen primarily (95% of my listening time) to Western art music (aka classical music). The popular music to which I listen is from the 60s and early 70s, i.e, music I grew up with.

What is essential, I think, is for people to be objective and realize the vast qualitative difference between the art and popular music and, if one enjoys popular music, accept it for what it is: entertainment not art. It is the musical equivalent of fast food: at its best it can be tasty and enjoyable to consume, but there really isn't much, if any, 'nutritional' value there.

What I get out of the popular music I like is nostalgia and fun...it reminds me of a certain time in my life, etc. On a purely musical level it has nothing to offer. When I want to hear MUSIC I listen to Monteverdi, Bach, Haydn, Stravinsky, etc.

Best to all,

Ken

If you were to separate the music from the lyrics I would agree with you but much folk music is a combination of music and poetry - like James Taylor, Simon and Garfunkel, for example. Although classical music is far more complex than folk music when you add the lyrics it is a whole other dimension that you don't have in classical music.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... but much folk music is a combination of music and poetry - like James Taylor, Simon and Garfunkel, for example.

GS,

Say what?

These dudes are pop artists, not folk artists. Their work has a folk-like flavor, but there are strong differences between their work and true folk music (which btw I often find boring).

Michael

[tjohnson]

GS,

Say what?

These dudes are pop artists, not folk artists. Their work has a folk-like flavor, but there are strong differences between their work and true folk music (which btw I often find boring).

Michael

Well, for the purposes of my discussion I don't care what you call their music, but my point is about the combination music and words vs. music alone.

[Brant Gaede]

GS,

Say what?

These dudes are pop artists, not folk artists. Their work has a folk-like flavor, but there are strong differences between their work and true folk music (which btw I often find boring).

Michael

Well, for the purposes of my discussion I don't care what you call their music, but my point is about the combination music and words vs. music alone.

I can listen to classical music for hours and generate continuous images. It's a great aid to creative thinking. Popular music wears me out the same way magazines and newspapers wear me out but books do not. One of Nathaniel Branden's recent books had continual text interruptions with short out-takes from what I just read. I couldn't stand the format. My concentration was broken up on each page. Reason magazine has made the problem qua magazines much worse, by jumbling up various types of stories on a single page with multi-colored print and stupid cartoon strips. I've been a subscriber for over 35 years but in a few months--no more!

--Brant

[Judith]

If you were to separate the music from the lyrics I would agree with you but much folk music is a combination of music and poetry - like James Taylor, Simon and Garfunkel, for example. Although classical music is far more complex than folk music when you add the lyrics it is a whole other dimension that you don't have in classical music.

And I think therein lies a big difference in what many people find to value in music. Look at country music. The "music" doesn't change much, but it's the words that many people find moving and interesting. I've heard that lesbian music finds the "music" so uninteresting that the writers often borrow old tunes and just write new words to it. Whereas I find the words so uninteresting most of the time that when I learn choral music I memorize the "music" after two or three repetitions, but even almost at performance time I have to fight not to have my nose in the score because I have trouble remembering the words, even when they're in English. Occasionally, when the words really mean something to me, that doesn't happen, but I often find myself forgetting words even to my favorite pieces. Never happens with the notes. (And I sing alto, which means I don't have the melody.)

Judith

[Judith]

One of Nathaniel Branden's recent books had continual text interruptions with short out-takes from what I just read. I couldn't stand the format. My concentration was broken up on each page.

Thank you for saying that. I also hated the change to the new format. After "Honoring the Self" and "How to Raise Your Self-Esteem" his stuff changed in a way that included this new "sound-bite" formula and exhaustive numbers of examples. I still find great value in his work and will always read anything he has to say, but before this "line" it seemed that he was addressing intelligent readers, and after it it seemed that he was "talking down" to "the masses" or something, and I found the works much harder to read.

Judith

[kiaer.ts]

I can listen to classical music for hours and generate continuous images. It's a great aid to creative thinking. Popular music wears me out the same way magazines and newspapers wear me out but books do not. One of Nathaniel Branden's recent books had continual text interruptions with short out-takes from what I just read. I couldn't stand the format. My concentration was broken up on each page. Reason magazine has made the problem qua magazines much worse, by jumbling up various types of stories on a single page with multi-colored print and stupid cartoon strips. I've been a subscriber for over 35 years but in a few months--no more!

--Brant

Oh, god. Just as Bill Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinski because he could, so do the magazine art directors destroy magazines by "enhancing" them because they can. Computer assisted layout has mad it just so damn easy to use multiple fonts and colors. The time that used to be spent looking to prevent errors is now spent jazzing up the page. the number of errors has skyrocketed, and the readability of periodicals has plummeted.

People read magazines for the conceptual content, not the prettines of the friggin fonts!

I was hospitalized for a significant period of time after 9/11 with a gentleman whose company had acquired Scientific American. I told him how I had used to subscribe, but how I had ended my subscription after they had begun to run articles in the mids 80's about how science proved that foreign aid was rational, and how game theory proved that Reagan's SDI was not. He said that the editorial staff had "realized" the problem, and had responded by cutting down on the number of technical articles and had started making the magazine user friendly... Oh, god....

[Wrighty]

For me it is about the fusion of a variety of elements - melody, rhythm, harmony and dissonance, lyrics, performance, performer(s), associations and visceral responses. Within all these there are sub-elements like voice quality, instrumental tone, diction, tempo etc.

Balance this lot up (plus the ones I've missed) and you get a recipe for a catholic taste - which probably sums me up.

Moderation coms into it as well - imagine endless hours of one musical genre.....even the sharpest and widest of palates can become dulled then.

However, I guess it can best be defined as something with enduring quality on a personal level. What would you happily take with you to be left with on that "desert island".

I posted my favourites a while back - and while one or two might change on a re-visit, there will always be those perennials that actually mean more to you every new time you hear them. For me that has to be the Eroica and Mahler 2nd.

PW

[jeff]

What's everyones favorite cassical piece? I actually have two of them; 'Toselli's Serenade', by Enrico Toselli, and 'Time to Say Goodbye' with Sarah Brightman and Andre Bocelli. I get the feel-good goosebumps whenever I listen to them.

Asturias (Leyenda) performed by John Williams (John Williams the guitar player):

Edited April 21, 2009 by jeff

[syrakusos]

What's everyones favorite cassical piece? I actually have two of them; 'Toselli's Serenade', by Enrico Toselli, and 'Time to Say Goodbye' with Sarah Brightman and Andre Bocelli. I get the feel-good goosebumps whenever I listen to them.

"... and ..." is two pieces.

My favorite piece is Rachmaninoff's Second Piano Concerto.

After that, I have the usual long list of "classical" and "romantic" works by:

Rachmaninoff

Chopin

Beethoven

Wagner

Mozart

among others

Von Dohnanyi, for instance...

Dvorak

4th Movement to Beethoven's Seventh...

[anonrobt]

And while it is not 'really' classical, there is much uplifting enjoyment in hearing 'Classical Gas'...

as for true 'classical', it has always been the second movement of Rach's Second Piano Concerto that has held so much to me, yes, from association very intimate and singularly unique to me...

[RightJungle]

Charles Ives - "The Unanswered Question". I was twenty something when I came upon this piece. I listened to it over and over and visualized meaningful cosmic ballets starring one lone naked, beautiful man climbing a mountain on a planet with a dark sky, arriving at the very top and looking out at the stars and with his arms spread straight out, his head thrown back, he calls and calls for the answer. I didn't even know what the question was back then, but I knew that I would find the answer some day.

[rodney203]

My favorite classical piece of all is Beethoven Piano Concert No. 5

Did anyone else list it, or know it well?

It's perfect.

[Philip Coates]

my all-time favorite is the Pachelbel Canon in D.

[Xray]

One of my favorites is Plácido Domingo singing the aria "E lucevan le stelle".

The poignancy of Domingo's voice is incredible. It shakes me to the core each time I listen to this tragic aria sung by my one of my favorite opera singers.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Xray

[rodney203]

I will say this much about Cannon in D; Since it is a shorter piece of work, without a lot of theme variation, it more easily and quickly suffers the same fate of other music in that the new-ness of the beauty wears off. But prior to it's new-ness wearing down (as when one first hears it), I concur, it is one of the most beautiful works.

[Peter]

On 12/29/2006 at 1:54 PM, blackhorse said:

and 'Time to Say Goodbye' with Sarah Brightman and Andre Bocelli. I get the feel-good goosebumps whenever I listen to them.

Thanks for the Wow! Andrea Bocelli and Sarah Brightman: “Time to Say Goodbye” live From Teatro Del Silenzio, Italy / 2007.

[Guyau]

 

Shostakovich excerpts.

—Second Movement of 2nd Piano Concerto

—7th Symphony  ("Leningrad")

—11th Symphony ("The Year 1905")

—5th Symphony

—Piano Trio no. 2 in e-mjnor (Op. 67)