A Great Man And Composer...

teddy

Duckmeister
Thank you CD. A most interesting thread. We do not hear much about it over here. And a beautiful piece of music.

teddy
 

JHC

Chief assistant to the assistant chief
I looked him up on wiki quite a man, if I am not being rude and nosey can I ask what instrument you play, please don't say Organ
 

wljmrbill

Member
What music he writes.. right up there with the best of them I would say. I have never heard of him prior. Thanks for posting. Enjoyed the Heavenly clips of his work.
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Br. Colin,

No musical instruments are allowed in the Liturgy of the Russian Orthodox Church. I used to play the Pipe Organ for a living. Now, I can only get about 3 hours/week on a 3-man/ped. Cavaille-Coll at the Conservatory.
 
Last edited:

JHC

Chief assistant to the assistant chief
Br. Colin,

No musical instruments are allowed in the Liturgy of the Russian Orthodox Church. I used to play the Pipe Organ for a living. Now, I can only get about 3 hours/week on a 3-man/ped. Cavaille-Coll at the Conservatory.

as I thought another knob puller, (ps that is meant as a joke)
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Br. Colin,

No worries - I have been called much worse and nastier than that and I will not share what that nastiness was. Anyway, so now I do research in Russian Choral Singing and oh what a wonderful complement to my understanding of different traditions. My American and European acqauintances say that I have lost the "Western Richness". I submit that I have gained a whole other Universe. Thankfulness is the operative word here. To think that a simple man like I who was living in the middle of the Pacific now find myself in.............It is an honor and privilege that I have been entrusted with.

Respectfully,

CD :tiphat::tiphat::tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:
 

Soubasse

New member
Hail Br CD, what a thoroughly good time you seem to be having of it since you moved to Russia.

The YT clip (and the others of his which I watched) shows very strongly the tradition in which Hilarion Alfeyev has clearly immersed himself. I will avoid using the word "conservative" as it can have negative connotations, but rather, his style of "Modern Baroque" demonstrates a highly astute and for my ears, natural affinity with the stylings of JSB and his contemporaries (and influences). It's not a "pastiche" but (I think) a very affectionate and deeply felt tribute to a style of writing with which he obviously has a strong emotional connection. Colin summed it up nicely with his use of the word richness too.

Thanks for introducing him to this thread.

So, 3 hours on a C-C eh? Hell, I'd be happy with 1 hour you lucky so-and-so! :D
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Hi Soubasse,

The instrument was conceived by C-C but built by Charles Mutin, C-C's long-time disciple - He added two mixture stops to the original spec.

Yes, Metropolitan Hilarion as his title is, is very well versed in JSBach. He might very well become the next Patriarch of the Russian Church. He currently serves in the Department of Foreign Relations.

Correct, his music is definitely not "Pastiche".

Yes, I love living in Moscow more than I did living in Manhattan - This City has such a pulse.............
 

some guy

New member
But Corno (and Soubasse), pastiche is exactly what this is, the precisely accurate description of this piece. Such comments as "very well versed in JS Bach" and "'Modern Baroque'" would not be possible were not pastiche le mot juste.
 

Soubasse

New member
Well, the reason I wasn't keen to use the term "pastiche" is due to my understanding of the word, in that it implies an imitative work that is "cobbled together" from several other original works. And it's often without due regard to the precise form or style of the original work, but merely a simple or basic reference to it.

Alfeyev's pieces (the ones that I heard on the YT links anyway) don't sound like someone trying to be Baroque, they are Baroque! Furthermore, I suspect that his work could pass the most stringent of Baroque analysis with flying colours from everything down to symmetry of melody, use of harmony, instrumentation, form, etc, etc. I feel sure that someone listening to it for the first time, and not being aware of who wrote it and when, could reasonably assume that it was a work of JSB. I've yet to hear a "pastiche" work that can lay claim to that sort of reaction (from start to finish anyway)

But again, that's based on my understanding of the word - it may well have different meanings elsewhere.

It's also one of the reasons why the famous Toccata and Fugue in d minor, still being attributed to JSB, just doesn't make the grade for me. There's too much about it that's too un-Baroque and too un-Bach. That piece always has sounded like a pastiche to me (and not an overly convincing one either).

... now, do I put the lid back on this potential can of worms, or will I leave it off for a while ... ? ;)
 

some guy

New member
Well, the reason I wasn't keen to use the term "pastiche" is due to my understanding of the word, in that it implies an imitative work that is "cobbled together" from several other original works.
One of the meanings of the word, true.

Alfeyev's pieces (the ones that I heard on the YT links anyway) don't sound like someone trying to be Baroque, they are Baroque!
We'll have to disagree about this part. Only someone working in the 18th century could write Baroque music (and of course, that's not what they were calling it!). We're not in the 18th century, however. We're in the 21st. Any piece written today that reminds us of the 18th century can only be pastiche. That is, can only be an imitation of forms and styles and sounds. The spirit of the time that produced that music, that we now call "baroque," is not the spirit of this time. That some people want to reject the present and live in the past (live in a carefully sanitized and edited past, I might add) is clear. But the past is over. All the things that led people in the 18th century to write the music they wrote are all over. Now is now.

Furthermore, I suspect that his work could pass the most stringent of Baroque analysis with flying colours from everything down to symmetry of melody, use of harmony, instrumentation, form, etc, etc. I feel sure that someone listening to it for the first time, and not being aware of who wrote it and when, could reasonably assume that it was a work of JSB.
Only if that someone were an extraordinarily inattentive listener. Of course, many people are. So much so, that they're actually ordinary....

I don't think his pieces would pass any analysis, either, but if they did, so what? Anything from the past is familiar and can therefore be imitated. Of course, given that the piece in question is on Youtube, and anyone can see quite clearly (even if they're deaf) that the ensemble isn't anything like a baroque ensemble, I suppose it would fail the instrumentation part of the test first.:)
 

Alban Berg

Banned
very difficult to find

Just wanted to introduced a wonderful acquaintance of mine:


www.en.rian.ru/russia/20101211/161728372.html


One of his many compositions performed here:


www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsUbmCoMP1Y


Since I am a paid musician at Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow I have come to know him - A really affable and humble man.
=======================================
I bought his 2 Cds (very difficult to find) . This guy's music is AWESOME! Do you know him? You're honoured! His music is wonderful!

I bought them here:

http://www.musicarussica.com/file.lasso?file=contact_us.htm

I hope I'll get it! I don't know this place...

Martin
 

Soubasse

New member
@ some guy

First of all, I can't say I appreciate the tone of that post which, to me, came across as condescending and patronising (I have been told that I'm oversensitive, but I'm not going to change that because as far as I'm concerned, it's one of the things that makes a me a decent musician!). I also don't appreciate my listening skills being insulted as "innattentive" and "ordinary." Nor do I need reminding which century I'm in as if I'm some sort of moron. I've suffered too long at the hands of the tall poppy syndrome in this country and I'm a little fed up with having even the simplest and relatively innocent of opinions challenged and belittled.

I regularly hold listening tests in all my classes (which, judging by the way I've been addressed here, I don't seem qualified to teach) wherein they're played recordings from CDs and asked to identify the Era they believe it to be from. I then ask them to justify their answer based on what we've been covering in class. Now I'm no idiot - I'm not going to be playing them a recording of a two-part invention on the piano and tell them it's Baroque because it's a two-part, contrapuntal work being played on a keyboard, that would be grossly misleading and stupid. If I'm going to do that, I'll make sure I can find a recording on the harpsichord. Neither would I play them a highly Romanticised arrangement replete with massed brass and percussion and expect them to identify it as Baroque.

that the ensemble isn't anything like a baroque ensemble, I suppose it would fail the instrumentation part of the test first.:)
In classes we examine texture, orchestration, style of writing, the presence of or predominance of certain instruments, and the usage of the instruments within the texture (less importance is given as to whether it's a historically correct instrument - it would be a pedantic set of ears that could pick the difference in an ensemble between a viola da gamba or a more recent viola). I don't see how Alfeyev's pieces could fail to be indentifiable as Baroque on a cursory listen. In fact, whilst I was typing this, I had the Alfeyev clip playing in the background, one of the other music staff walked in to borrow something and asked "Is that one of the Bach Passions?" Are my colleagues in this locally well-regarded music school now "innattentive" and "ordinary" listeners as well?

Granted, the string orchestra is on the large size for a Baroque ensemble (I think we can blame Mendelssohn for that little "tradition"), and one could argue that there should be a harpsichord in there as well. However, the use of the instruments within the ensemble is appropriate for the Baroque. Perhaps I should have qualified my initial statement, by "instrumentation" I did not mean "instruments", I was referring more to the use of or function of instruments within the ensemble, not whether they were historically accurate.

By your own admission, it was the scholarly documentation of history that named the eras "Baroque" "Classical" "Romantic" etc, etc, which is perfectly true, but is this now confined to referring to chronology only? Have I been wrong all these years to refer to a work as Baroque or Classical in terms of genre, rather than solely meaning "it's from the "N"teenth century"?

In the context of genre I was referring to Alfeyev's work as Baroque, not as "being from the 17th century" - that would be singularly idiotic. If it's alright for people to refer to a piece of poetry or a painting produced in contemporary times as "Baroque art" or "Renaissance art" then I don't see why the same can't be afforded to music.

Any piece written today that reminds us of the 18th century can only be pastiche.
Can you qualify this statement please? If this a documented fact that I've missed then I'm happy to be elucidated. If it's not, then it's akin to a bit of a sweeping statement - something one of my Uni lecturers used to pick me up on in my assignments, so I've tried to remain careful in justifying certain statements since then.

Let me qualify my assertion that I do not find Alfeyev's work to be pastiche. Based on what I have studied, have come to understand, and continue to study, his music does not sound "cobbled together", nor does it sound a simple "carbon copy." I'm not even sure I agree with the notion of imitation, since imitation tends to be lumped in with impersonation (which can have negative connotations). Rather, I feel that he has referred to, and used faithfully well, Baroque methods and strictures.

All the things that led people in the 18th century to write the music they wrote are all over. Now is now.

Again, I'd like some qualification and/or context here. As written, it could be interpreted that historical styles have no relevance today, and that where we are now is vastly superior and better than anything previously. If that is the case, we had best stop discussing it right now lest it lead to further argument, as I disagree quite vehemently. There are aspects of the past that I, for one, think would be much more agreeable than today (regardless of how "edited or sanitised" it may or may not be), for example: A less frenetic pace of lifestyle, less unreasonable social demands, a perception of the musician as an honourable profession, (the absence of the internet perhaps?;):grin:).

Apologies if I've come across as overly defensive, but I gave my reasons earlier (the "tall poppy syndrome" bit). If it's going to happen here ... well, at least I have the option of leaving, but I'd rather not, since lively academic discussions such as this are usually worth sticking around for. (would that I had the option to leave the country :rolleyes:).

All of the above has been delivered with no desire whatsoever for any kind of conflict or unfriendliness. If we're still disagreeing after this, then I guess it's all down to semantics!

Respect.

:)
 
Last edited:

teddy

Duckmeister
soubasse
We had a very good music teacher at my grammer school, in that he taught us to appreciate music, but I would have appreciated someone like yourself, who could have taught us a more indepth understanding of all the aspects. Your pupils are very lucky

teddy
 

some guy

New member
I don't see how Alfeyev's pieces could fail to be indentifiable as Baroque on a cursory listen.
Cursory. Exactly. My point.

In fact, whilst I was typing this, I had the Alfeyev clip playing in the background, one of the other music staff walked in to borrow something and asked "Is that one of the Bach Passions?" Are my colleagues in this locally well-regarded music school now "innattentive" and "ordinary" listeners as well?
Yes. For that moment at least. For that colleague. I've been in many music departments in many universities. I've spent most of my life hanging out with musicians. No matter how well regarded a music school is, the members of its faculty will not all be of equal capacity, nor will they all be equally attentive at all times.


Have I been wrong all these years to refer to a work as Baroque or Classical in terms of genre, rather than solely meaning "it's from the "N"teenth century"?
Yes. I would say.

If it's alright for people to refer to a piece of poetry or a painting produced in contemporary times as "Baroque art" or "Renaissance art" then I don't see why the same can't be afforded to music.
I've never heard of this. But I don't think it's alright, no.

some guy said:
Any piece written today that reminds us of the 18th century can only be pastiche.

Can you qualify this statement please? If this a documented fact that I've missed then I'm happy to be elucidated.
Just a matter of definition. That was my only point from the beginning. If we know a style from the past, and there's a piece from the present that reminds us of that style, so that we can even call it by that style's name, then that's pastiche. "[H]as referred to and used Baroque methods and strictures." That's pastiche. Only in its time, and not even called by that name yet, but just what's being done in that time, of that time, is something that sounds like what we now call baroque genuine.

We don't have the same background of assumptions about the world and art, we don't think the same way, we don't build the same kind of buildings, or make the same kind of art. We only know the baroque as a style, in short, not as a living art, of and in its time. And we can reproduce that style, well enough for a cursory inspection (no more than that though). It's not congruent with who we are now, though, for better or for worse. We can have nostalgia for earlier times (though only sanitized and edited, note!), but that's about it. Longing for earlier (and by default considered better) times is not at all like living and working in your own time, and not at all like what living in that earlier time would have been like for those people doing it.

[What you wrote] could be interpreted [as meaning] that historical styles have no relevance today, and that where we are now is vastly superior and better than anything previously.
No. Historical styles may be studied and enjoyed. But they are historical. They are not for the creators of today to redo, except as an exercise. They are for us to enjoy and appreciate and learn from. They are not for us to mimic or even to try to produce as if nothing had happened between then and now. Things have happened. To act as if they haven't can't be good! As for now being vastly superior, or even just marginally superior, well, no. It's just now, that's all. It's the time we are in. Now. For better or for worse.

It seems that many people have grown up distrusting now, thinking of it as necessarily worse than before, as a time to repudiate or escape from. But even a cursory (!) reading of history will show that in any time there were horrible things; in any time there were splendid things. Any time.

I've seen over and over again, and I'm sure you have too, the comment that "modern" music is ugly and discordant and fragmented because these times are ugly and discordant and fragmented. And what was the nineteenth century, for instance? We forget what life was like in the past, seeing only what the familiar and safe, what now seems familiar and safe. But the things we see that way now, after time has passed, were not seen then as either familiar or safe, but strange and threatening, just as many people see "modern" music today. For those people, composers like Alfeyev must seem very consoling. And consoling can be a good thing.

If it's the only thing, however....
 
Last edited:
Top