Nun Dankett alle Gott - Siegfreid Karg-Elert

[MusingMuso]

I am not medically qualified to make such a judgement.

 

 

 

 

I am not sure about this. To take one example - the Fugue from the Fantasy on the Chorale 'Wachet auf'. This is one of the most joyous (and ultimately triumphant) fugues (and fugue subjects) known to me. There are at least two other chorale fantasies which exhibit a similar mood (Hallelujah! Gott zu loben and Wie schön leucht' uns der Morgenstern).

 

Whilst there may be 'darkness' in some of Reger's works, compared to those of Liszt (for example), they are a glorious, sunnny morning.

 

 

=============================

 

 

Pointing towards something isn't necessarily making a medical judgement, but in many ways, your own words point equally convincingly.

 

"Darkness" on the one hand, and absolute "Joy" on the other, and all this when he was sober.

 

I coudn't agree more about "Hallelujah" Gott zu Loben," and the proof was in the learning thereof, because I don't like practising at all. The real exception was learning this magnificent work, which I enjoyed from beginning to end.....very strange, for me.

 

I don't like Liszt's organ works very much, whereas I would cross continents to hear a good Reubke. As for his "Christus," I think it is a scandal that he wasted so much paper. Still, each to their own, so to speak.

 

I have to say, that possibly the worst Reger ever heard is that played by a certain American virtuoso of to-day, who follows the metronome markings of the massive B-A-C-H work to the letter, resulting in the most absurdly unmusical performance.

 

MM

[pcnd5584]

=============================

 

 

Pointing towards something isn't necessarily making a medical judgement, but in many ways, your own words point equally convincingly.

 

Not really - I simply drew attention to the fact that there is a variety of moods in the composition (and that, even in his 'darker' moments, his music was still far from the opressiveness one finds in Liszt) - this, surely, would apply to many other works. Your assertion left me with the clear impression that you had already reached a conclusion regarding Reger's mental state.

 

"Darkness" on the one hand, and absolute "Joy" on the other, and all this when he was sober.

 

 

 

I coudn't agree more about "Hallelujah" Gott zu Loben," and the proof was in the learning thereof, because I don't like practising at all. The real exception was learning this magnificent work, which I enjoyed from beginning to end.....very strange, for me.

 

I don't like Liszt's organ works very much, whereas I would cross continents to hear a good Reubke. As for his "Christus," I think it is a scandal that he wasted so much paper. Still, each to their own, so to speak.

 

I have to say, that possibly the worst Reger ever heard is that played by a certain American virtuoso of to-day, who follows the metronome markings of the massive B-A-C-H work to the letter, resulting in the most absurdly unmusical performance.

 

MM

 

Indeed. I read somewhere that at the time Reger was writing his organ works, it was the custom for German organists to play everything rather steadily. Therefore, if he wished for a piece to be played at a reasonable Allegro, he would mark the score Prestissimo (or similar), in the hope that the performance would be played at a speed approaching that which he had in mind.

[MusingMuso]

Not really - I simply drew attention to the fact that there is a variety of moods in the composition (and that, even in his 'darker' moments, his music was still far from the opressiveness one finds in Liszt) - this, surely, would apply to many other works. Your assertion left me with the clear impression that you had already reached a conclusion regarding Reger's mental state.

 

 

 

Indeed. I read somewhere that at the time Reger was writing his organ works, it was the custom for German organists to play everything rather steadily. Therefore, if he wished for a piece to be played at a reasonable Allegro, he would mark the score Prestissimo (or similar), in the hope that the performance would be played at a speed approaching that which he had in mind.

 

========================

 

 

In a recent PM to a member of the board, I stated that have a golden rule with Reger. I treat it exactly as if it were urtext Bach....no metronome markings and no tempo indications of any kind.

 

I let the notes speak to me, and I choose what I regard as the right tempo.

 

That way, it is possible to be first a musician, and then something of a reluctant virtuoso; assuming that one gets at least most of the notes right and in the right order.

 

Of course, it's possible to miss a few out by drawing extra stops!!

 

MM

 

 

PS: I've always felt tempted to record a "5 minute Reger" video, like those splendid Shakespeare plays. It would save a lifetime!

[Vox Humana]

PS: I've always felt tempted to record a "5 minute Reger" video, like those splendid Shakespeare plays. It would save a lifetime!

 

Good idea - but could you get it down to 2 minutes, please?

[MusingMuso]

Good idea - but could you get it down to 2 minutes, please?

 

======================

 

 

Don't tempt me!

 

I once did a spoof Reger in the style of Herbert Howells. You keep the harmony but do away with the counterpoint; adding lots of passing notes instead, just so people know something is going on and it's not a problem with the organ.

 

MM

[Vox Humana]

I once did a spoof Reger in the style of Herbert Howells. You keep the harmony but do away with the counterpoint; adding lots of passing notes instead, just so people know something is going on and it's not a problem with the organ.

 

Good try, MM, but it sounds as though you know less Howells than I do Reger - and I would have said that was quite difficult! For my money, the effect of Howells's music relies much more on counterpoint than it does on harmony.

[MusingMuso]

Good try, MM, but it sounds as though you know less Howells than I do Reger - and I would have said that was quite difficult! For my money, the effect of Howells's music relies much more on counterpoint than it does on harmony.

 

==============================

 

 

No, no,no!

 

That's called imitation, unless I've overlooked a double-fugue he wrote. Please tell me there IS one.

 

 

MM

[pcnd5584]

... For my money, the effect of Howells's music relies much more on counterpoint than it does on harmony.

 

Surley this is the other way around?

 

Reger was, above all else, a supreme contrapuntist. His organ fugues are, to my mind, superbly worked out. With Howells, I would have said that the interest lies primarily in the harmonic language. The richness of the chordal writing in Howells' works, together with the harmonic nuances peculiar to him seem to me to be the essence of his music. There is certainly counterpoint, particularly in the choral works but, to me, this appears to be of secondary interest to the harmonic effects which result.

[Vox Humana]

No, no,no!

 

That's called imitation, unless I've overlooked a double-fugue he wrote. Please tell me there IS one.

 

As usual when in a corner you move the goalposts! So, having started merely with counterpoint, we are now discussing fugue. As I'm sure you realise, Howells preferred freer, more rhapsodic structures to the straightjacket of traditional forms. I think he probably took the view that previous generations of composers had done these forms to death and that they were not very relevant to the way he wished to express himself in music. If, like me, you had sat alongside him and watched snippets of counterpoint materialise effortlessly on paper, his brain clearly outstripping the speed of his pencil, you would have no doubt about his technical facility with counterpoint. If you want proof that he could write a fugue when he wanted to, look at the Poco Lento and Fugue that forms the last movement of his first organ sonata, written when he was 19 as part of the portfolio of works he submitted for the open scholarship at the RCM. OK, it's not quite a double fugue, but it does have two subjects, the second being the theme of the introductory Poco Lento, introduced towards the end - and very masterly it all is too. That he rarely turned to fugue thereafter simply proves to my mind that he had little interest in "cleverness".

 

Surley this is the other way around? ... With Howells, I would have said that the interest lies primarily in the harmonic language. The richness of the chordal writing in Howells' works, together with the harmonic nuances peculiar to him seem to me to be the essence of his music. There is certainly counterpoint, particularly in the choral works but, to me, this appears to be of secondary interest to the harmonic effects which result.

 

Well, this is the popular view and perhaps I'm straying onto quicksand, but I really don't think it quite hits the nail on the head. Look at the late organ pieces like the fourth Rhapsody, Flourish for a Bidding, Epilogue and the Partita. These to my mind are predominantly harmonic pieces. On paper they look (and are) contrapuntal in the extreme, but the counterpoint is all dashing around rather aimlessly and it's the harmony that holds the pieces together (or not). To my mind these pieces are strong on effect, short on music and don't amount to much more than a lot of hot air. I think it is no accident that they are not amongst his most treasured. In the classic pieces that have made his reputation the chords are very important, yes, but the real musical interest is in how the individual "voices" lead into and out of these chords, making the harmony evolve. Really, of course, the truth is that the effectiveness of these pieces lies in the perfect balance between the harmony and the counterpoint: one is nothing without the other.

[pcnd5584]

As usual when in a corner you move the goalposts! So, having started merely with counterpoint, we are now discussing fugue. As I'm sure you realise, Howells preferred freer, more rhapsodic structures to the straightjacket of traditional forms. I think he probably took the view that previous generations of composers had done these forms to death and that they were not very relevant to the way he wished to express himself in music. If, like me, you had sat alongside him and watched snippets of counterpoint materialise effortlessly on paper, his brain clearly outstripping the speed of his pencil, you would have no doubt about his technical facility with counterpoint. If you want proof that he could write a fugue when he wanted to, look at the Poco Lento and Fugue that forms the last movement of his first organ sonata, written when he was 19 as part of the portfolio of works he submitted for the open scholarship at the RCM. OK, it's not quite a double fugue, but it does have two subjects, the second being the theme of the introductory Poco Lento, introduced towards the end - and very masterly it all is too. That he rarely turned to fugue thereafter simply proves to my mind that he had little interest in "cleverness".

 

 

 

Well, this is the popular view and perhaps I'm straying onto quicksand, but I really don't think it quite hits the nail on the head. Look at the late organ pieces like the fourth Rhapsody, Flourish for a Bidding, Epilogue and the Partita. These to my mind are predominantly harmonic pieces. On paper they look (and are) contrapuntal in the extreme, but the counterpoint is all dashing around rather aimlessly and it's the harmony that holds the pieces together (or not). To my mind these pieces are strong on effect, short on music and don't amount to much more than a lot of hot air. I think it is no accident that they are not amongst his most treasured. In the classic pieces that have made his reputation the chords are very important, yes, but the real musical interest is in how the individual "voices" lead into and out of these chords, making the harmony evolve. Really, of course, the truth is that the effectiveness of these pieces lies in the perfect balance between the harmony and the counterpoint: one is nothing without the other.

 

Vox, there is much of interest here.

 

However, I do wonder if we are both in agreement, actually? As you state, the counterpoint in much of Howells' works is, in a way, incidental to the resulting harmonic effect. whereas, in Reger (well, certainly in many of his organ works) the counterpoint is of the greatest interest.

[MusingMuso]

As usual when in a corner you move the goalposts! So, having started merely with counterpoint, we are now discussing fugue. As I'm sure you realise, Howells preferred freer, more rhapsodic structures to the straightjacket of traditional forms. I think he probably took the view that previous generations of composers had done these forms to death and that they were not very relevant to the way he wished to express himself in music. If, like me, you had sat alongside him and watched snippets of counterpoint materialise effortlessly on paper, his brain clearly outstripping the speed of his pencil, you would have no doubt about his technical facility with counterpoint. If you want proof that he could write a fugue when he wanted to, look at the Poco Lento and Fugue that forms the last movement of his first organ sonata, written when he was 19 as part of the portfolio of works he submitted for the open scholarship at the RCM. OK, it's not quite a double fugue, but it does have two subjects, the second being the theme of the introductory Poco Lento, introduced towards the end - and very masterly it all is too. That he rarely turned to fugue thereafter simply proves to my mind that he had little interest in "cleverness". Well, this is the popular view and perhaps I'm straying onto quicksand, but I really don't think it quite hits the nail on the head. Look at the late organ pieces like the fourth Rhapsody, Flourish for a Bidding, Epilogue and the Partita. These to my mind are predominantly harmonic pieces. On paper they look (and are) contrapuntal in the extreme, but the counterpoint is all dashing around rather aimlessly and it's the harmony that holds the pieces together (or not). To my mind these pieces are strong on effect, short on music and don't amount to much more than a lot of hot air. I think it is no accident that they are not amongst his most treasured. In the classic pieces that have made his reputation the chords are very important, yes, but the real musical interest is in how the individual "voices" lead into and out of these chords, making the harmony evolve. Really, of course, the truth is that the effectiveness of these pieces lies in the perfect balance between the harmony and the counterpoint: one is nothing without the other.

 

 

=======================

 

 

I'm not moving the goalposts at all; merely establishing which game they belong with. In some way, if you take the geatest composers, there are similar differences. Compare, for instance, the music of Brahms with that of Ravel; both among my top favourite composers. Brahms utilised classical formality harking back to Beethoven and Bach, whereas Ravel wrote in a much freer style altogether; often with exquisite harmonies as well as incredible virtuosity, inventiveness and fluidity.

 

Saint-Seans belongs to another tradition altogether; perhaps more German than French, and very much a part of the "academic" set which included Guilmant.

 

Perhaps I should know more about Howells, but I don't feel deprived that I do not. To me, the problem is one I would associate with a great deal of English music, in so much as the melodic takes precedence over everything else, and whatever counterpoint exists, is a combination of voice-leading and harmonic consenance. The fact that I can more or less improvise in the style of Howells, suggests to me that he started with melody, which was then clothed in late romantic harmony, but with a certain delight in temporary key-changes, almost for the sake of it. You don't have to take my word for it however, for I think it was Edmund Rubbra who stated that the biggest problem with English composers was a tendency to constantly change key.

 

If you do that with late romantic (Wagnerian) harmony, what you get is something akin to dissonance and twelve-tone music, but melodic structuring can keep this within acceptable bounds; as can rhythmic motifs and chordal counterpoint....Messaien for example.

 

Now I can never quite understand why people consider Reger dull, for in essence, with the organ-works, he restricted himself to classical, contrapuntul forms and adopted the extremes of late romantic/chromatic diatonic harmony....and then some.

 

Unless musicians understand that his works are essentially melodic, (in that the thematic material is dominant and the linear drive is essentially that of vocal, arching phrases), then it is all too easy to get bogged down in the "cleverness" of his counterpoint.

 

In this, he does not differ from Bach or Brahms in the slightest, yet the harmonies, if played too vertically, can kill the melodic and contrapuntal structures. As with Bach, the cleverness, (unless Bach and Reger were making an academic point), SHOULD go almost unnoticed, as indeed it does with Brahms. Digressing slightly, how many organists can really play Reger?

 

In my lifetime, I had the enormous privilege of hearing Germani perform Reger, and also other great exponents, such as Melville Cook, Jos van der Kooy, Simon Preston and Brian Runnet, while even on radio, I can still recall my response to performances by Anton Heiller and Heinz Wunderlich.

 

They all have or had one thing in common, which is that rare ability to keep the thematic/melodic material centre stage, no matter what else is going on. They all projected or project a rhythmic/melodic freedom, where rubato is at least, (if not more) important than changes of dynamics.

 

Knowing "Hallelujah! Gott zu loben!" pretty darned well, I did a bit of a survey from various sources.....records, CD's, radio archives etc. Out of perhaps 15 or more recordings, I came to the conclusion that 3 of them were supremely musical, and the rest were just dull and/or musically clumsy.

 

Germani still came out in top position, (as one might expect), a lady organist of Taiwanese origins was next, and Murray Somerville didn't disappoint. Unfortunately, I couldn't find on-line recordings of Heinz Wunderlich or Simon Preston, but I feel sure that they would be on a par with the very best.

 

It's so tempting to get bogged down with the detail, (where the Devil clearly lies in Reger), and to marvel at the formal contrapuntal devices such as strict imitation, inversions, fugue, stretto (etc etc), but if the wild, rhapsodic nature of the music is lost, you may as well do something useful and light the fire with the score. I'm sure Herbert Howells had facility, but it was nothing as compared with Reger.

 

MM

[Vox Humana]

I'm not moving the goalposts at all; merely establishing which game they belong with.

 

Well, make your mind up!

 

Perhaps I should know more about Howells, but I don't feel deprived that I do not.

 

Fair enough, but why then should you think this lack of knowledge qualifies you to expound about his style? How do you know that you can "more or less improvise in the style of Howells" when you clearly have only the most superficial idea about what his style is? At least I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about Reger; I just know that the heavily chromatic late German Romantic style isn't at all to my taste. I'm happy leave it at that - except occasionally for the purposes of winding people up.

 

The fact that I can more or less improvise in the style of Howells, suggests to me that he started with melody

 

Well, there you are, you see. Howells wasn't particularly interested in melody. He has even been criticised for being incapable of writing a tune. That's rubbish, of course, because he could certainly write one when he wanted to, just as he could write a fugue. The second of the Three Pieces for Violin and Orchestra and some of his songs are examples - and "Michael" isn't a bad tune either. But much of the time he saw no need for melody at all and it certainly wasn't central to his style. Where are the melodies in any of the organ pieces I cited above?

[Vox Humana]

As you state, the counterpoint in much of Howells' works is, in a way, incidental to the resulting harmonic effect. whereas, in Reger (well, certainly in many of his organ works) the counterpoint is of the greatest interest.

 

I was really trying to put it more the other way around. Howells, for me, is at his best when the harmony gives the illusion of evolving out of the ways in which the contrapuntal voices coalesce and interact, often with a held note acting as a tonal pivot for the next harmony. I don't think the counterpoint evolves out of the chords. Wouldn't that just result in passing notes? Howells's music is more organic than that.

[MusingMuso]

Well, make your mind up!

 

 

 

Fair enough, but why then should you think this lack of knowledge qualifies you to expound about his style? How do you know that you can "more or less improvise in the style of Howells" when you clearly have only the most superficial idea about what his style is? At least I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about Reger; I just know that the heavily chromatic late German Romantic style isn't at all to my taste. I'm happy leave it at that - except occasionally for the purposes of winding people up.

 

 

 

Well, there you are, you see. Howells wasn't particularly interested in melody. He has even been criticised for being incapable of writing a tune. That's rubbish, of course, because he could certainly write one when he wanted to, just as he could write a fugue. The second of the Three Pieces for Violin and Orchestra and some of his songs are examples - and "Michael" isn't a bad tune either. But much of the time he saw no need for melody at all and it certainly wasn't central to his style. Where are the melodies in any of the organ pieces I cited above?

 

=========================

 

 

I would hate to get into a note by note account of anything by Howells, but even I can sing the verious "unchained" (unfathomable?) melodies from the the Set 1 No.1 Rhapsody.

 

The trick seems to be to think up a tune about as adventurous as "Baa Baa Black sheep," splitting it up into individual lines and repeating each a couple of times while modulating in whatever direction takes your fancy; the harmony slithering about with the sort of classic, HEAVILY CHROMATIC side-slips, of which the Bentley Boys and the Battle of Britain Spitfire pilots would have been proud!!

 

The compositional "technique" then seems to consist of losing one's direction completely, in a mass of CHROMATIC HARMONY, before remembering a few notes of the original nursery rhyme and throwing them in again, just to keep everything recognisable: all the time getting louder or softer as the muse dictates.

 

So much for Set 1 No.1

 

What about "Master Tallis's Testi...sorry...Testament?"

 

Are we saying there is not melody?

 

God knows how I manage to remember it if there isn't.

 

It's obvious to me that Herbert Howells listened to Resphigi and liked what he heard, because there are certain similarities in the treatment of what sounds like an old melody. For once, Mr Howells seems to have moderated his chromatic tendencies; possibly because he found a beautiful melody instead.

 

I am just totally bemused by the idea of Reger being HEAVILY CHROMATIC all the time.

 

The "Hallelujah! Gott zu loben!" hardly shifts from E-minor/G major. Furthermore, the notation is quite economical, and whilst the Fugue is complex, the main part of the work is quite a straightforward set of variations. Indeed, it is more direct and approachable than even the Brahms organ Prelude & Fugue in G minor IMHO.

 

MM

[Vox Humana]

I would hate to get into a note by note account of anything by Howells, but even I can sing the verious "unchained" (unfathomable?) melodies from the the Set 1 No.1 Rhapsody.

 

The trick seems to be to think up a tune about as adventurous as "Baa Baa Black sheep," splitting it up into individual lines and repeating each a couple of times while modulating in whatever direction takes your fancy; the harmony slithering about with the sort of classic, HEAVILY CHROMATIC side-slips, of which the Bentley Boys and the Battle of Britain Spitfire pilots would have been proud!!

 

You call that melody? I think the fact you seem to have a problem with it rather proves my point. Perhaps there's a danger of descending into semantics here, but to me melody and tune are pretty much synonymous. Just because a strand of counterpoint might be singable, that doesn't automatically qualify it as a tune in my book. But it does depend on how you want to define the word.

 

What about "Master Tallis's Testi...sorry...Testament?"

 

Are we saying there is not melody?

 

No, there is a tune there. Like I said, he was perfectly capable of writing one when he wanted. What I asked is where are the tunes in the titles I quoted above.

 

It's obvious to me that Herbert Howells listened to Resphigi and liked what he heard, because there are certain similarities in the treatment of what sounds like an old melody. For once, Mr Howells seems to have moderated his chromatic tendencies; possibly because he found a beautiful melody instead.

 

I suspect the rest of us know perfectly well what the influences are in "Master Tallis" - and it's not Respighi.

 

I am just totally bemused by the idea of Reger being HEAVILY CHROMATIC all the time.

 

The "Hallelujah! Gott zu loben!" hardly shifts from E-minor/G major.

 

I grant you there are more chromatic pieces. I was scarred for life by learning the Chromatic Fantasy when I was young. What a waste of time and effort that was! I'll never forgive him for that piece.

 

I've heard some good chamber pieces by Reger though.

[MusingMuso]

You call that melody? I think the fact you seem to have a problem with it rather proves my point. Perhaps there's a danger of descending into semantics here, but to me melody and tune are pretty much synonymous. Just because a strand of counterpoint might be singable, that doesn't automatically qualify it as a tune in my book. But it does depend on how you want to define the word.

 

 

This morning, I played part of Alain's "Le Jardin Suspendu." (I can't play it all on a baroque organ, but the first two pages work quite well). There are ordinary members of the congregation who adore that piece, (and "Litanies"), yet it doesn't have a real melody as such. It works as an ethereal and mysterious wash of sound because it isn't key centred. Howells tried to do the same thing using diatonic harmony, with the result that you get a shifting, constant series of what sound like modulations.

 

My problem with Howells, is that he tried to be "free" of melody, but provided no alternative, either in terms of rhythmic motifs or any recognisable modality.

 

There is more than a grain of truth in my little joke about "The music of Herbert Howells is the polite Anglican response to the atheistic harmonic ramblings of Frederik Delius." (I was hugely disappointed to learn that he was not a man of faith, but anyway, he wrote church music, so no matter).

 

No, there is a tune there. Like I said, he was perfectly capable of writing one when he wanted. What I asked is where are the tunes in the titles I quoted above.

 

 

As I have neither heard not even seen the titles you mentioned, I'm afraid that I casnnot comment. I note that the entire world hasn't bothered to post them on YouTube, so they're obvious smash hits!

 

 

 

I suspect the rest of us know perfectly well what the influences are in "Master Tallis" - and it's not Respighi.

 

 

 

Now I may have got the bit wrong about Resphigi, but actually, I wasn't far wrong, because Vaughan-Willams was also influenced by folk-song and the renaissance, and I believe had a common link by having studied with Ravel. Gustav Holst was probably another influence. but he was far more talented and out on a musical limb all his own.

 

 

I grant you there are more chromatic pieces. (by Reger). I was scarred for life by learning the Chromatic Fantasy when I was young. What a waste of time and effort that was! I'll never forgive him for that piece.

 

I'm not sure, but do you mean the Bach Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue transcription by Reger?

 

Child's play on the piano of course......

 

 

Just think yourself fortunate that you didn't have to learn the Bach "Three part" Inventions, which Reger created for organ from the Two Part Inventions.

 

The following programme is an absolute delight throughout. The things people do to Bach's music!

 

http://pipedreams.pu...ings/2003/0310/

 

 

I've heard some good chamber pieces by Reger though.

 

This could be the start of your rehab programme!

 

In fairness to Herbert Howells, he was part of that movement away from the tyranny of Tonic/Dominant dependency, which gave us some splendid marches, but did rather hold us back.

 

Back to listeneing to the "Downland Suite" by John Ireland

 

MM

 

 

[Vox Humana]

There is more than a grain of truth in my little joke about "The music of Herbert Howells is the polite Anglican response to the atheistic harmonic ramblings of Frederik Delius."

 

Delius's harmony was a major influence, for sure.

 

As I have neither heard not even seen the titles you mentioned, I'm afraid that I casnnot comment. I note that the entire world hasn't bothered to post them on YouTube, so they're obvious smash hits!

 

Exactly. Like I said, they're not amongst his most treasured pieces. That doesn't mean they are bad, though. Howells was by no means alone in eschewing melody in pieces like these. It was a bit of a trend in the mid twentieth century and I remember some professors at the RCM lamenting the fact. Fairly or unfairly I have Tippett filed in the same draw, though that may be my ignorance because I have never "clicked" with his music, so have never really investigated it properly.

 

I'm not sure, but do you mean the Bach Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue transcription by Reger?

 

Sorry, wrong title. I meant this one. I remember playing this after an evensong once with my revered teacher turning the pages for me. At the end he ruminated for a moment (if he'd had a beard I'm sure he would have stroked it) and said thoughtfully, "Hmm... It's a good piece..." in a tone of voice that clearly meant, "What a thoroughly hateful racket - but one must judge composers objectively." For various reasons, I couldn't get anywhere near it today, alas.

 

This could be the start of your rehab programme!

 

Hang on, I didn't say I liked them! (See above.)

[MusingMuso]

 

 

Sorry, wrong title. I meant this one. I remember playing this after an evensong once with my revered teacher turning the pages for me. At the end he ruminated for a moment (if he'd had a beard I'm sure he would have stroked it) and said thoughtfully, "Hmm... It's a good piece..." in a tone of voice that clearly meant, "What a thoroughly hateful racket - but one must judge composers objectively." For various reasons, I couldn't get anywhere near it today, alas.

 

 

 

 

======================================

 

 

If you'd said the "Inferno," we'd have understood!

 

It is a bit obtuse and perverse in equal measure, and if it is played brilliantly, it's just such hard work listening to it; that much I concede

 

The Fugue is more tolerable because it is grounded in something.

 

In a way though, It possibly demonstrates how important themes and motifs are, and where would the harmony of Wagner be without them?

 

Reger was at his best when he was variously using chorale melody, fugue or passacaglia form, and with all those, he created organ masterworks which withstand comparison with Bach.

 

Considering his enomous output, it would be difficult to imagine any composer creating works of equal musical success and stature; especially since he sits at an awkward time in the development of western music, when everything was suddenly thrown into the melting-pot.

 

Was he as great as Bach himself?

 

I'm not sure I know the answer, but I think I can say with some certainty that his music is much less approachable, and therefore much less memorable.

 

Perhaps the music of Reger should be a matter for careful selectivity, but I suspect that few would argue that some of the quieter Chorale Preludes, the D minor Toccata & Fugue, the (shorter) Introduction & Passacaglia and, of course, "HGZL" are wonderfully wrought works, which do not require the listener to go into training and/or take pills before hearing them.

 

MM