Charles Ives: What Can You Make Of His Music?

I am a big fan of Charles Ives' music - because there is no beginning or end to him, no source that we can point to as a "school of thought." no commercial proposition that made him write the things that he did. It seems that it all came out of nowhere.

They say that he is distinctly American and I agree with that. What do you think about this most anachronistic composer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKJw74JWYwg

I am an Ives fanatic. I love his music and musical philosophy and have drawn inspiration directly from him in a few of my piece (namely my saxophone concerto). I have also did a through analysis of his fourth symphony, one of my favorite pieces of his, during my undergrad. I also have sung his songs for a number of auditions. 

I was lucky enough to attend the dress rehearsal of an Ive's piece by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra a while back. There were two orchestras and two conductors. It was awesome! But I can't remember the title. Do you know, Plutokat? Know any good books about his methodology?

I was lucky enough to attend the dress rehearsal of an Ive's piece by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra a while back. There were two orchestras and two conductors. It was awesome! But I can't remember the title. Do you know, Plutokat? Know any good books about his methodology?

It sounds like you saw them rehearse either the Holiday Symphony or his Fourth, those are the two I can think of off the top of my head that require two conductors. I also know Chicago has done his Fourth and have recorded it too. I have that CD of that studio recording. 

As far as methodology books, that is hard. When I wrote the paper on the analysis of his symphony I didnt find much and mainly used the program notes in the score for methodology. 

Fantastic composer and one of my favourites. I recently arranged three of his songs, "Evening", "Cradle Song" and "West London" for my chamber ensemble to play at a concert next year, alongside some of my own pieces.

You know I've never really listened to him yet, but this thread may have changed that!

I love Ives.  Two works of his I can recommend are "General William Booth Enters Into Heaven" (voice and piano) and Two Contemplations (orchestra).

Ives' father, George Ives, gave his son some words of wisdom that represent, in my opinion, a truly wonderful philosophy of music.  Referring to the off-key singing of the town blacksmith, the elder Ives advised: "Look into his face and hear the music of the ages. Don't pay too much attention to the sounds--for if you do, you may miss the music. You won't get a wild, heroic ride to heaven on pretty little sounds."  For listeners trying to connect with Ives' music for the first time, this may be a great place to start.

Ezra

I love Ives.  Two works of his I can recommend are "General William Booth Enters Into Heaven" (voice and piano) and Two Contemplations (orchestra).

 

General William Booth Enters in Heaven must be the piece which got me into contemporary composition. It's written so incredibly effectively, it's almost like some kind of Christian metaphor, with salvation army tunes, dissonant chords... 'are you washed in the blood of the lamb' always feels controversial, and word painting all over the place

Ives is not anachronistic. He straddles romance and modernity perfectly, his developments laid part of the foundation of the rise of dissonance.

It's said that Ives was foreshadowing the decade of the 60s during Mahler and Debussy's heyday.

This might be why I find him so puzzling - but nevertheless worthy of much more than a single listen.

It's said that Ives was foreshadowing the decade of the 60s during Mahler and Debussy's heyday.

The music of Ives would make little to no sense outside the time period it was written (ca 1900-1920). It rightfully belongs not only with Mahler and Debussy but also Skryabin, Puccini, Russolo, Schoenberg, Hindemith, Roslavets, Cowell, Joplin, Stravinsky, Malipiero [...]

It's easy to forget how many different kinds of music are being written during any given 20 year period. The only reason Ives is perceived as anachronistic is because he locked up most of his compositions for 20-30 years to tinker with them until he was satisfied/sell insurance to people. So by the time most of them were first heard, yeah, they were pretty anachronistic.

Maybe anachronistic was the wrong word. Ives was an anomaly. A mix of so many things. Essentially American. His main talent was mood. He elevated it through orchestral textures at the expense of narrative. His idiom, if that's the right word, might have been romanticism, but he was as modern as Penderecki is now, and for the same reason: texture. When you listen to either men, you come away with, "How did he get that sound?"