Violist

Bach's Chaconne. But then again, like Brahms, I would probably go insane with the ecstasy of having composed such a great work.

Mozart is quite inconsistent for me. Sometimes he's alright, but other times he's just boring (more often than not, actually)...

I personally think that music is now finally at a state of relative equilibrium, i.e. that composers can do practically do whatever the heck they want and still get away with it. Atonality, tonality, twelve-tone row, tonality, whole-tone, whatever you feel like, is all valid today. That's what I feel.

The end of Mahler's sixth always sends shivers down my spine, most recently because there's this feeling of absolute dread and doom there that just makes me want to cry, to help the proverbial "hero" out of the mess, but there's hopelessness, utter remorse for what one knows cannot be redone... it is certainly the single most brutally inexorable finale I've ever heard, and I would challenge anyone for a more pessimistically fatalistic end that's as good musically as is Mahler's. Zetetic: Of course, crying (or feeling such, for that matter) is in no way only caused by sadness. Most of Bach's pieces that are great feature such contrapuntal mastery and timing that it just transcends everything else if played right. Rachmaninoff called it the "point" of the music: the culmination, climax, that the whole rest of the piece must lead to and reach passably at least. If one does so, it's a true experience, and the climax is easily overwhelming. If not, then one may, whilst hearing it, not understand... and consequently dislike the piece he/she's never really "heard." It's a very interesting thing...

Sorry if I sound rude, but you actually looked through all 24 pages? If so, I have genuine respect for your patience in all our non-Wagnerian might... Back on topic... Debussy is now one of my favorite composers.

I prefer Mahler's second symphony and Sibelius' violin concerto far above anything Tchaikovsky has written (though I must admit the sixth symphony really is amazing). This subject is just too subjective... not everyone thinks the same way as do you.

I'm working on pieces for piano alone just now, orchestra is just beyond my capacity at the moment, and, frankly, I'm not terribly interested in orchestral pieces just now (except for Debussy-like pieces). I'll wait until I find out more of what my goals and objectives are, then write orchestra music for what it is supposed to be; a synthesis of mastery of form, texture, voices, and SELF, not just a playground.

Mahler's second (fifth movement) does it for me. I think Debussy could very easily do it were I to listen to more of his music... BACH'S CHACONNE for solo violin!!! It's like man's greatest imitation of the music God Himself would have written! I come so close to crying almost every time I listen to it...

But still, the point is in telling a story, not necessarily in conveying imagery. The story doesn't have to be totally fleshed out with razor-sharp images and colors and such (unless, of course, you're synesthetic...). I doubt many people would listen to the ending of Mahler's sixth and say, "Oh, it obviously ends happily!" as the rhythm of fate thunders over an a minor chord... Many would probably say (if indeed they think it's a story at all; not entirely necessary) that it ends with the abstract "protagonist's" death. This is, after all, only thoughts and passing opinions on my part. Sometimes I agree, sometimes not. I'm young, I have an excuse!

I would honestly think of music as sounds meant to be aesthetically or intellectually pleasing to whomever it pleases... tentatively, that is, please correct me if you feel differently. With some tone poems (R. Strauss and Sibelius, for example), the composer does make use of musical effects to induce an image, for example the grand climax of Sibelius' Tapiola (in which upper-register tremolo strings play fortissimo as the brass blare out the (somewhat modified) main theme; a storm) or the end of Strauss' Till Eulenspiegel, in which the title character seems to be joking with the executioner. At least with Tapiola, though, one doesn't need program notes, and that, I think, is the whole point of this discussion...

I'll be the first to say Sibelius' is my favorite. Why? It's just so mind-blowingly awesome, that's why!

I think of "greatest" in terms of achievement, honestly. Beethoven comes very close indeed to Bach's greatness, as Beethoven also turned the musical world on its head. But Bach did it a different way which, to me, is greater. I suppose that it's that Beethoven did it by force, whereas Bach just mastered everything...

Pieces I like include: Sibelius: Symphonies 3, 6, 7, Tapiola, Pohjola's Daughter, the Oceanides, Violin Concerto; Mahler: Symphonies 1, 2, 5, 6, Das Lied von der Erde; Brahms: Symphonies 1, 4, Ein Deutches Requiem; Rachmaninoff: Cinq Morceaux Tableau, probably others; Bach fugues and Chaconne (solo violin); and more...

Rachmaninoff's (so I've heard) is wickedly difficult, the intervals and such being often larger than most concerti (as Rachmaninoff had quite large hands, he could get away with it). Probably the Ravel would be the easiest one to do.

Sibelius' seventh symphony and Tapiola are so central to my compositional thought. The themes are so addictive, the development so suspenseful, and the whole piece just evolves and grows inexorably and in such a logical, beautiful way. I couldn't help listening to them over and over again in my Sibelius phase a couple of months ago, and I still listen to them when I feel like it. Mahler's second symphony is pure revelation and absolute inspiration. This is what music is for; the entire last movement had me almost in tears as it spiraled to its overwhelming climax and conclusion. Brahms' first was the first symphony I really sat down and listened to. It's amazing drama and controlled intensity make the brass chorale at the end overwhelming in a totally different way than anything by Mahler; the whole symphony was going right to that moment, whereas Mahler's seem to reel and sprint into oblivion. Rachmaninoff's C-sharp minor prelude (yeah yeah, overplayed, I know) and his second piano sonata (B-flat minor) gave me a different way of looking at tonality, as the music of Rachmaninoff is quite apt to do. He used the Romantic style of composing, but he also had a very unique palette of colors to utilize. He's definitely changed my life in several ways. Finally, Scriabin's D-sharp minor etude (solo piano) was what brought me to solo piano literature in the first place. I've never regretted it.