Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Score

  • Rank
    Regular Poster

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

9315 profile views
  1. I know that some people have that opinion, good for you if you love it It's difficult to explain why I am not enthusiastic about it. I would say that I don't see it as the right conclusion of a large work that starts with movements 1 and 2. In itself, it's a very good piece, of course. In that place, I find it lacks something... it sounds too static. Maybe I just don't connect with what Brahms was trying to say there.
  2. Try Karajan's recording. I am curious to check Szell, as recommended by other people. Brahms is often a mixed bag, for me... The 3rd and the 4th are my two favourite symphonies of his, but there is a big difference between movements. In the 4th, the first two movements are stunning, among the best orchestral works composed up to that time. The last two sound to me as if he had to add two more movements to call it a symphony, but he didn't have as much inspiration as with the first two, and the result feels anticlimactic. The problem of how to structure a symphony was a typical one in the Romantic period and later, of course. I have a similar issue with some of Mahler's works: when it's good, it's exceptional and among the greatest stuff ever composed; at other times, it is boring.
  3. This is evidence that machines are not ready to rule the world (yet)!
  4. Mahler's 4th. The shortest symphony he wrote ("only" 57 minutes...), but so beautifully balanced, and showing many different faces of this amazing composer.
  5. It's dangerous to be a screenwriter nowadays!
  6. Thank you @Disco Stu , for advertising this nice piece! I only knew Piston because of his fundamental books on Harmony and Orchestration, but never had a chance to explore his compositions. Concerning the chord we were talking about, it does not have a function that can be explained in terms of standard harmonic terms such as "resolution" (it does not really resolve into anything, it just fades away, and then something else begins). As @Ludwig says, it can be described in terms of a collection of intervals of a fifth (one of which augmented). I only add that the specific choice of notation of enharmonic sounds (e.g., F# instead of Gb) clearly seems to be due to melodic (rather than harmonic) thinking. In the context of what the first violins are playing, notating F# instead of Gb is perfectly logical, just as Bb from A in the 2nd violins, Eb from G in the violas, and Ab from C in the celli. So, I would say that the particular enharmonic notation is not due to any harmonic function, but rather reflects the fact that the chord results from the combination of four melodic notes.
  7. No problem! Just a curiosity... why did you want to transpose from bass to tenor clef (of all clefs)? This is a very nice example, @Ludwig ! So, that combination of notes can exist in classical harmony (who is more classical than Beethoven?) as a double harmonic appoggiatura. In that example, Ab delays its resolution to G of the Eb major chord, while F# is reached melodically and also resolves to G. I think the different voicing is crucial here. In the Beethoven example, the bass note is Eb, which has a strong tonic character due to the presence of the perfect fifth (Bb) and the previous Bb7 chord; the final stable chord (reached when the two appoggiaturas resolve) has the major third (G) doubled one octave apart. In @Disco Stu 's example, if the resolution were the same, with that voicing we would reach (from bottom to top): G - Eb - Bb - G, which would be a first-inversion Eb major with the bass note doubled in the highest register. Such a doubling of the major third, when the major third is in the bass, is considered quite "bad" from the perspective of classical harmony, as far as I know. The voicing given in Beethoven's case, instead, is considered correct, because the Eb is in the bass and so the doubling of the major third is not "disturbing". Of course, principles of aesthetics changed with time. But it's interesting to see that the mere transposition of one note (Ab) one octave down can lead to such a big difference; the two resolutions to Eb definitely have very distinct effects. So, we really need to know what comes before and after that chord!
  8. No, that would be made of Ab - Bb - Db - F# (the given chord has Eb and no Db). Also, the interval of perfect fifth between the lowest note (Ab) and the first note on the top of it (Eb) enforces the perception of Ab as the fundamental of the chord. The interval of a perfect fifth between Eb and Bb, on the other hand, could make one perceive Eb as the fundamental and, because of the top F# = Gb, it could be perceived as Ebm/Ab (Eb minor with Ab in the bass); however, it is not written like that. Anyway, for chords that fall out of standard pre-1900 harmonic schemes, there is no real point in trying to give names, except if one wants to express in a compact way the list of notes. And then, any version is correct as long as the notes are right.
  9. Ab9/13#, without the third, so it is neither major nor minor. The 13# is enharmonically equivalent to a minor 7th (F# = Gb), but the fact that it is notated as F# rather than Gb seems to suggest that it is going to resolve upwards to G. What is the next chord?
  10. The Matrix SW: The Phantom Menace Angela's Ashes The Mummy The Red Violin It was a great year, music-wise. I was a film score fan already, and I remember my high expectations for The Phantom Menace, and the joy to get another SW score in a relatively new style, but totally worthy of its predecessors (and who can forget the memorable track titled "Qui-Gon's Noble End", one of the greatest accidental spoilers of all times, since the CD was released before the movie was in the theaters!). Then we got The Matrix, which I consider today as one of the greatest film scores ever written by anyone else than John Williams. And one of Goldsmith's last masterpieces, The Mummy.
  11. Try Alien, the "as-intended" version. Perhaps the best sci-fi score of all times.
  12. JW: 1. Star Wars 2. A.I. 3. The Empire Strikes Back 4. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 5. Schindler's List non-JW: 1. The Matrix (Don Davis) 2. The Fellowship of the Ring (Howard Shore) 3. Alien (Jerry Goldsmith) 4. The Adventures of Robin Hood (E. W. Korngold) 5. The Mission (Ennio Morricone)
  13. Indeed, I don't consider it a valid substitute of the whole work.
  14. Well, then even a single piece can be a valid listening experience on its own. What I meant is that, if I can get the whole thing, I don't need having a compilation of chosen "best pieces", because I prefer to judge on my own what my favourite pieces are, in a large multi-movement work. In almost all the ballet suites that I can think of (e.g., Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, ...), many of my favourite pieces were left out in favour of things that I would have dropped, and this applies also to many OSTs. My OCD is certainly much more valid than yours!!
  • Create New...