Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Philip Glass' Cello Concerto - La Jolla Symphony and Chorus
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 бер 2008
- The La Jolla Symphony presents the North American premiere of Philip Glass' Cello Concerto. In addition to the dynamic performance, this program features comments from renowned cellist Wendy Sutter, conductor Steven Schick, and the composer himself. [2/2008] [Arts and Music] [Show ID: 13829]
This here is some real danged fancy music. My pet platypus done loves it.
A superb and very sensitive performance by Ms Sutter of this *great* work.
Thanks a lot to both M. Glass and his charming muse.
Proud of American culture - Philip Glass
Philip Glass is one of the Greatest Composer in history of MUSIC.
There are so many different kinds of people in the world, and all of them express themselves through different types of art. By diminishing any type of art, we diminish the people who make that type of art, and there is hardly ever a good reason to do that. We can learn from everyone while keeping our own musical preferences. There is plenty to learn from simplicity, just as there is plenty to learn from complexity. No need to hate either one.
Wonderful piece and Ms. Sutter hits it out of the park. Nothing like an orchestra that is dedicated to the music!
I know nothing about what it's like to be a composer, but I think it's unbelievable that he can write a piece without actually hearing it before it is performed.
...ok
As composers, we learn that some notes go good with other notes specifically compared to what mood we want to give off. ( aka harmony). This is learnt by a bunch of rules and stuff we learn in textbooks by our teachers. Then, we memorize the capabilities of all the instruments in the orchestra (yeah, ALL of them). Then comes the hard part: getting ideas. You cant learn that, that's all you.
Oh, was für ein wundervolles Stück! Heftig, sensibel und technisch höchst anspruchsvoll. Ein typisches GlassStück halt. Vielen Dank für die inspirierte Interpretation.
Spectacular performance by a great cellist.
I first heard Einstein about five years ago and I still think it sounds great. I listen to Glass all the time (really listen, not just background) and I always feel it in different ways and get new things out of the experience, just like one would expect from a great work of art. There is a lot of beauty in simplicity and simplistic art. Things don't have to be complicated to be meaningful. It's just your opinion that Einstein sounds out-dated, but it doesn't really bring much to the discussion.
I love that feeling! When your practically dying to go to rehearsals of a new and shining brilliant piece just for the first time, and you start playing, and everything starts to piece together, and then you get that weird feeling down the back of your neck! ;)
"Songs and Poems", especially parts from Naqoyqatsi is some of the best music written in this millenium. In fact, "Primacy of Number" may be THE best piece.
Primacy of Number is fantastic!
Bravo ! magnificent concerto, wish I could hear it live
Thank you.
Superbe, vraiment superbe, du beau violoncelle. Quelle énergie!
Glass is quite demanding of his soloists :-)
6:15
Wonderful !!!
Glass is a quite popular composer and I'll simplify his popularity into two reasons. First of all, where Carter and Wuorinen are continuing and refining the great tradition started by Schoenberg and that general school of composing, Glass and the minimalists have basically started their own compositional school. This is inherently interesting! (not to mention the fact that it's a musical movements with a uniquely American origin, also interesting.)
Wow,what a beginning, like thunder.
Thank you very much, I'm going after the recording on that CD! I've already found some beautiful pieces of Elliott Carter here on UA-cam, so I'm very curious and forward-looking to it indeed!
Great piece!
Thank you Mr. Glass
yeah i can tell. bravo!
all the best!
Ty ivan !
Young's early pieces were 12-tone. And one of Glass' earliest pieces is a 12-tone string trio composed in his teens after discovering and being inspired by Webern's music. Besides, his composition prof at Juliard was Persichetti, who composed in a varity of styles, from diatonic to atonal. So, I don't think you know what your talking about when you say they were "bored out their minds" studying serialism.
To each his own. If you don't get it , I can't help you.I think the entire record is groundbreaking from start to finihsh, especially in the contxt of the movie.
My problem with Barbarians is that it's all recitiative, and the chorus interludes are redundant if you've heard Koyaanisqatsi.
The 3rd mvt of Symph#3 is possibly my favourite Glass 'moment'. I agree with you about symph#1 too, and aside from the 1st mvt i never listen to #4. The operas are great, especially Akhnaten.
The concertos are well worth attention: try the timpani conc for sheer bombast, and the sax quartet conc to see how well Glass understands the instrument(s). It's delightful.
And as for Glass, I'm not surprised his opinions have changed since his student days. I mean, it's sort of obvious he isn't writing any serialist music any longer. But he used to be interested in it, that was my point. The reason we are talking about this is that I think you were implying that the minimalist movement started because a bunch of lazy composers were bored of studying serialism. To say that is to spin the real story to make minimalism look bad.
6:17 Performance starts
Secondly, people actually want to listen to Glass's music. You don't have to be a musical elitist to lget something out of listening to Glass's music. It's beautiful and interesting music that resonates with a large body of people, musicians and non-musicians alike.
It actually doesn't matter what you'd rather do than listen to them when deciding whether or not what they do is art. It also doesn't matter whether or not they can read music. It obviously took some skill to write a whole album of songs and lyrics, though we can dispute how much skill was involved, it doesn't matter. The defination doesn't say how much skill or imagination has to be involved to make art.
aswomeness.....i do like a good cello concerto.
It's a funny thing about Philip Glass.... He gets so many people riled up and spitting out vitriol at people who like Glass's music. Look, if you don't like Philip Glass, here's an idea: don't listen to him. Why are you wasting your time talking down to Glass fans on a UA-cam video comments section?
Glass is the GOAT
The performance begins at 6:18 .... ;-)
There sure is. Search Amazon for the product code B0002X4UBA and you'll find it. Julian Lloyd-Webber is the soloist on the recording, which also contains the excellent and bizarre timpani concerto.
Also consider the recording of Naqoyqatsi, which features yet more great cello writing by Glass, delicately and movingly played by Yo-Yo Ma. It's almost another cello concerto in its own right.
i'd love that philip would do some viola work, it will be very nice.
11:10 if you saw that instagram reel of Krabat this is it I think
I suppose I just connect to it in a different way to you, because I hear dynamism, passion and technical skill in much of Glass's music. There are exceptions, of course - I didn't like Waiting For The Barbarians, or the score for The Hours, for example, but I rate the symphonies and concertos pretty highly.
That doesn't mean that I don't like other artists, or artists working in the different styles. In fact, my tastes are extremely broad and cover prety much everything but hardcode rap and country.
What it all comes down to is that different people have different tastes and I honestly think that yes, Glass' best work does deserve to be comapred with all time greates. Also think that Stravisnky is overrated (and uneven).It's hard to put work like "Rite of Spring"in context.P.S.I was born in Russia
I'll accept your defination of art. I'm not really a fan of the Ting Tings, so it's kind of weird to be defending them as artists, but I thought there wasn't a lot of substance to what you said about them.
why is this not on spotify t.t!
It's pretty obvious to me that you simply don't get his type of music. I know it's a cliche to say that but it's true. I dare you to listen to something like Anima Mundi, Music in Twelve Parts, Koyaanisqatsi and then his 8th Symphony and tell me that it all sounds the same. I think his music is astonishing. I've been listening to it daily for many years not and I still can't get enough.
can we have this on hd? I know, I know... asking too much
Moving on to the Carter, Wuorinen objection. First of all, let's not be totally melodramatic about how they've been "ignored". From what I remember, Carter has two Pulitzer Prizes for music, for the String Quartets 2 and 3, and Wuorinen has also won at least one. And we don't need to even go into the fellowships, commissions, teaching posts, that each composer has been offered. They are not "ignored" composers, at least by the musical academy. How many Pulitzers does Glass have? Oh yeah, 0.
What about Reich's Three movements and Desert Music? I think they are an interesting example of textures combination.
The point is that people have recognized and praised the composers you want to pass off as "ignored" for the sake of your argument. But maybe we can agree that Glass has had more broad success than Carter, is more recognizable in the public. Can we?
Does any one know if there is a CD available of the Glass Cello Concerto?
30:25, great, I feel some 18th century russian feeling...
I enjoyed listening through the stretch of music you mention. In the following minute, it sounds to me like the composer has a problem with winding up this fairly brief expression. The section you mention is like a gate opening and the problem is to close the gate.
Thank you for posting about Elliott Carter, I'm curious, I will go find that concerto, could you tell me the name, is it the one from 2001?
Is it possible to purchase this recording (on a CD)?
what cello is she using? it looks like the top is rotting
"Art has always required some input from the receiver..."
I'd say there was some truth to this statement, but it simplifies the matter. There is plenty of art that is entertaining, but not nessecarily demanding on the listener/viewer.Many operas can be this way. I can go see a Mozart opera, be entertained for a couple hours, leave, and think no more about it. Of course, if I was to study the score of the opera, I would find lots of artistry.Art and entertainment are two sides of the same coin.
Mahler's symphonies are arguable the height of complexity, so if you compare his work to Glass's, obviously it's going to be less complex. So what piece would not be minimalist compared to a Mahler symphony? Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to tell me specifically what's so minimalist about this concerto. Or at least give me a definition of minimalism.
Hey, having music to dance to is something useful to the world! But I kid. Ok, then what did you mean when you said that art should be elitist? Why should it be? My point is that nobody chooses what is art or not. If it is the result of someone's creative imagination, it's art. Of course, we all have some genre of art or music that we claim is "the best", but really that just means that that's the art that speaks to us the most.
This is a very very old Cello that they bought for $600K
Sounds like the cello is playing from another room.
I agree with you on one count though. Some of the artists who try so-called "minimalism" really suck in it. They are lazy, and don't know what they are doing. The genre you describing (and doesn't apply to Glass' post 74 works) was never about simplicity or lazyness. It was about complexity and depth. Patterns building on on top of themselves. Granted, it's usually not easy listening as some his earlier take an effort.However, Einstein works perfectly for me and I don't consider it minimalism.
Uh oh, someone's a little sensitive about grammar. I wasn't picking on you, I mess up grammar too, it's just that the sentence I was refering to didn't make sense and so I was not sure how to respond to an ambigious statement. Some people like to know when they are not making sense. But hey, some don't...
Well, actually Carter's Pulitzer's are from 1973 (the 3rd quartet) and 1960. And he did get a Pulitzer for the 3rd q-tet. Anyways, when you say general public, I assume you mean people who frequent classical musical concerts. There are of course "ear-candy" composers, but I don't think you should necessily lump the minimalists in with them, at least the "big four." FYI, I think you screwed up the pronouns in your sentence "anyway, I was meaning...", although I think I know what you mean to say.
Anyways, the definition of art doesn't say how much talent or profundity has to be involved. Nor does it say anything about being musically trained or how old you are or what clothes you wear. So, are you going to say that the definition of art that you gave is wrong, or are you going to admit that more things are art than just what is created by the musical elite?
"Standards have fallen, and now anyone can pass off as an artist but where they should be is in the realm of entertainment, not art." I thought your last statement was very interesting, quite telling, and totally biased. It implies a strict division between art and entertainment, but the question that remains is 'who gets to decide what is art and what's not?' What exactly do you mean by "standards have fallen"? Can you cite examples and say exactly what you mean?
Why would you compare a Mahler symphony to the Glass cello concerto to see which is more minimalist? It's redundant. It's obvious Glass's goal in life is not to create music that closely approximates Mahler's. And besides, the minimalist movement didn't happen until decades after Mahler died, so why would anyone think Mahler would be more minimalist than the composer who practically started the movement?
"Art should be elitist". I don't think art should be delibrately elitist (or spelled with a rediculous capital a) to be considered art. I think that just because something is elitist doesn't make it art. Historically, the things we consider art nowadays were not always "elitist" in the time they were written, nore were they always written by members of the elite. I think that when you say "Art should be elitist", what you imply is, "Elitists get to choose what is art and what is not."
"One can understand this within the context of the serialist days, when Glass, Reich, Young were getting bored out their minds studying this rigid serial technique."
Um, well actually, no.
This isn't minimalism though. By the time mimalism first hit the mainstream, Glass had already decided it wasn't what he wanted to do anymore, and moved on.
You can spell art with a capital A if you like, but to me "Art" conotes something different from "art". This is what my whole paragraph was about. And the actual arguments of this paragraph, like some of the others, you completely ignored in your sarcastic response. I was sort of disapointed in your post, that you couldn't look past the trival things and say something interesting at least about the things that mattered.
Another Emporor's clothes story. Missing is the small boy who has the courage to declare: "The games's up".
My attempt couldn't have been that laughable, or you wouldn't have responded to it. I seriously doubt that you understand minimalism "perfectly". Or perhaps you didn't actually listen to the cello concerto? It's not minimalist. Hardly anything he's written in the last ten years is true minimalism, at all. His style has matured and become more complex, while retaining certain stylistic traits. You tell me what is so minimalist about this piece. At least it will get you to listen to it.
We can argue about the merits of minimalism if you want, but maybe you should figure out what's minimalist and what's not. Just because Glass wrote it doesn't make it minimalist, this piece being a prime example. Did you know not everything Schoenberg wrote was 12-tone, or even atonal? Shocking.
I don't think many are entertained by sitting through 5 hour long operas that have no plot and unconventional melodies, orchestrations, and librettos. And I don't think someone who was trying to be "entertaining" would produce that. I know Glass' primary focus is not entertainment or meditation because he's addressed it in interviews. Glass' music takes attention and listening to really understand. It's a fallacy to assume that music that is repetive is inherently trying to be entertaining.
Debussy but not Glass?
It's not helpful to say something outrageous like the sentence beginning, "Glass and his disciples" without really supporting such a assertion. Glass' music is complex and for whatever it lacks in "traditional" melodic counterpoint, it makes up for in rhymthmic counterpoint and complexity.
Besides, to understand the minimalist movement, one has to understand how they came as a reaction to the 2nd Viennese school...a perfect excuse to study a book on music history!
I think that we cannot compare so happyly and write comments such as "Bach is not like Mahler" and so on. And also there is no "basis", since we can write whatever we desire.
I think Glass' music become poor. His third symphony has nothing to do with this concert, which looks like an attemp to approach Adams' style. Of course, it's very well orchestrated, but I still prefer his violin concert.
Uh-uh, SequenzaVII, I understand that you don't like minimalism, but you cannot underrate an style by itself. Minimalism is not only Glass and Reich, but also Ligeti and even Sciarrino. Maybe you are talking about "repetitive music".
And I think that Reich is a good composer.
it is luckily more about music than about making as much money as possible.. commercial jingles? it would inevitably lose its value
she f-d up the first note, but after that pretty good
houh;
un-well recording, no good balance for the cello, sorry!
para mi no es minimalista en las orquestaciones. es su propio afán lo que nos hace reflexionar repetitivamente en su ritmos impuestos. Cuando quiere tiene hasta un aire barroco y bohemio
una composizione ECCEZIONALE. E punto.
Glass keeps ringing the changes on the same very limited set of ideas. Mildly pleasant, but inconsequential. He's a likeable fellow, however, with a winning personality and modest demeanor. Who's managed to parlay a very limited talent into a hugely successful career. Only in 21st Century America.