Has anyone read....

[Shagdac]

Just finished "Evenings with Horowitz" by David Dubal. Really enjoyed it, wondered what anyone else thought.

Also, just started this other book "Classical Music, The 50 Greatest Composers and their 1,000 Greatest Works" by Phil G Goulding. I have just started this book as I said, but am very surprised as he lists the top 50 composers right from the beginning, and I was amazed that Rachmaninoff was not included. Nor Gottschalk (outraged )
and several others. I have not gotten far enough to make a fair evaluation of this book, but wondered if anyone else had read it, and your thoughts?

Thanks,
Shag

[julie391]

rach wasnt in it?!!?!?!  ridiculous!

[rachlisztchopin]

I demand you to list the top 50 composers as soon as possible!!!!  lol jk but it would be nice of you if you did for i am fairly interested on what he has to say...go here: https://www.carissimi.com/
you can buy a composers poster there (in which i have already bought and it is an amazing poster worth the money) it even ranks the composers in 4 ranks according to their musical importance (to musical history that is...meaning they would have had to discovered something new or done something amazing to be a first rank composer) rachmaninov is a 2nd rank which i actually quite agree with....he may have quite some importance to piano but he really isnt too crucial to musical history
Alkan is of course 4th rank (which i also agree with...plz dont hit me or yell at me for saying that) but the poster is quite accurate in my opinion and is listed chronologicaly, is pretty huge and lists over 900 composers...i reccommend you check it out

[julie391]

alkan was just as innovative as chopin, and nearly as innovative as liszt.

his influence has been hampered due to his obscurity.

ranking composers on their influence is kind of possible objectively

but i would actually rank alkan at his best - among the greatest composers of all, but thats just me

[brewtality]

hahaha ok me julie 

[Shagdac]

Okay...here is the AUTHORS list: (judge for yourself)

IMMORTALS:
1   Bach
2   Mozart
3   Beethoven

DEMIGODS:
4   Wagner
5   Haydn
6   Brahms
7   Schubert
8   Schumann
9   Handel
10 Tchaikovsky

COMPOSERS OF GENIUS:
11 Mendelssohn
12 Dvorak
13 Liszt
14 Chopin
15 Stravinsky
16 Verdi
17 Mahler
18 Prokofiev
19 Shostakovich
20 Strauss

ARTISTS OF A HIGH ORDER:
21 Berlioz
22 Debussy
23 Puccini
24 Palestrina
25 Bruckner
26 Telemann
27 Saint-Saens
28 Sibelius
29 Ravel
30 Ravel
30 Rossini
31 Grieg
32 Gluck
33 Hindemith
34 Monteverdi
35 Bartok
36 Franck
37 Vivaldi
38 Bizet
39 Mossorgsky
40 Rameau
41 Faure
42 Rimsky-Korsakov
43 Donizetti
44 Williams
45 Smetana
46 Strauss
47 Weber
48 Janacek
49 Couperin
50 Borodin

He then goes on to actually give "honorable mentions" to a few additional composers in each period. The author makes mention of the fact that he knows he will get bashed for leaving out Rachmaninoff, however offers explainations as to his listings.
I am reserving final judgement until I have all the information he offers and at least will continue reading until I have finished making sense of his reasoning, or become so disgusted I can no longer continue!


S

[m]

 or become so disgusted I can no longer continue!

Yeah, the list looks kinda funny. Really enjoed some of the choices and classification. Not even curious, as for his reasonings. Besides, not bying this book will save me a few shekels. 

[rachlisztchopin]

hmmm i guess that is rather somewhat accurate....he probably had that composers poster to help him out

[m]

Just finished "Evenings with Horowitz" by David Dubal. Really enjoyed it, wondered what anyone else thought.

About book or about Dubal? Do you want my honest opinion?  
Well, I don't have much to comment on both. Enough to say that, as far as I know, after this book was published, doors of Vladimir Horowitz's house were closed for Mr. Dubal forever.
I had chances to talk to Dubal in person, and also heard some of his lectures and broadcasts. Mostly, bunch of nonsenses and BS (if any kids are reading this--sorry). Besides, his persona... oh well....

[Shagdac]

I don't think Mr. Dubal had much reason to visit Horowitz house after writing the book.....after all he was already dead.


S

[m]

I don't think Mr. Dubal had much reason to visit Horowitz house after writing the book.....after all he was already dead.


S :)

Sorry, I did not say it right--after Horowitz saw draft, doors of his house were closed for Mr. Dubal forever, and this is not about Dubal had no reasons to visit Horowitz anymore.
IMO, this book is not about Horowitz, but about Dubal--his tremendous, enormous ego. Who he thinks he is? Most of his "insights" are ridiculous--everything on the surface. His main object is gossip--sex, food, relationships, why in the house smells, and so on. His name dropping is dusgusting--"Menuhin told me", "When I talked to Arrau", "My friend Vladimir Horowitz" and so on. Besides, he put into the book many facts which he got in intimate private  conversations, and which were not for publishing.
How dare you Mr. Dubal to call yourself friend of V. Horowitz, when you were thrown out of his house???? Who do you think you are Mr. Dubal, and how in the world you entitled to insult the GREAT VLADIMIR HOROWITZ, presenting him as a kind of ridiculous infant???? Who do you think you are, trying to connect yourself with Horowitz triumth in Moscow in 1986?????? Who do you think you are Mr. Dubal to dictate your opinions--your reputation among serious musicians is way below zero! Are you trying to say that you are also a pianist???--give me a break Mr. Dubal!!!! Many people know what's your worth!!! Most definitely, word "ethics" doesn't tell you a *** thing!!! Your shameless manipulations are disgusting, as your persona is!!! I wish you'd vanished from music world, and stop fooling people and music lovers!!!

Sorry Shag,

You asked for opinion, so here was mine.
In my opinion Harold Schonberg's "Horowitz: His Life and Music" is a serious book, and I would heartly recommend it to anyone who is interested in music, piano, Horowitz and his life.

[julie391]

hahaha ok me julie 

ok you what? *confused*

[julie391]

i notice johann strauss is in the list......enough said really 

[bernhard]

Okay...here is the AUTHORS list: (judge for yourself)

IMMORTALS:
1   Bach
2   Mozart
3   Beethoven

DEMIGODS:
4   Wagner
5   Haydn
6   Brahms
7   Schubert
8   Schumann
9   Handel
10 Tchaikovsky

COMPOSERS OF GENIUS:
11 Mendelssohn
12 Dvorak
13 Liszt
14 Chopin
15 Stravinsky
16 Verdi
17 Mahler
18 Prokofiev
19 Shostakovich
20 Strauss

ARTISTS OF A HIGH ORDER:
21 Berlioz
22 Debussy
23 Puccini
24 Palestrina
25 Bruckner
26 Telemann
27 Saint-Saens
28 Sibelius
29 Ravel
30 Ravel
30 Rossini
31 Grieg
32 Gluck
33 Hindemith
34 Monteverdi
35 Bartok
36 Franck
37 Vivaldi
38 Bizet
39 Mossorgsky
40 Rameau
41 Faure
42 Rimsky-Korsakov
43 Donizetti
44 Williams
45 Smetana
46 Strauss
47 Weber
48 Janacek
49 Couperin
50 Borodin

He then goes on to actually give "honorable mentions" to a few additional composers in each period. The author makes mention of the fact that he knows he will get bashed for leaving out Rachmaninoff, however offers explainations as to his listings.
I am reserving final judgement until I have all the information he offers and at least will continue reading until I have finished making sense of his reasoning, or become so disgusted I can no longer continue!


S

No Scarlatti?

[julie391]

my point exactly

interestingly - liszt is 1 above chopin

[claudio]

i always have problems with such lists. they are always subjective and
force the reader to consider the author's perspective. i find this kind of
offending.

besides, for me such a list would always be incomplete when people like
fats waller, charlie parker, duke ellington or george gershwin are missing.

[Shagdac]

No, thats fine Marik, I was interested in knowing others opinions on the book. I've never had the opportunity to hear Mr. Dubal speak or read anything else he has written. I really didn't get the impression that he was being disrespectful to Horowitz, or defaming him at all though. I thought he presented his story in an interesting light, and was actually very complimentary most of the time. I'm not surprised that some of the Horowitz remaining family may have been offended, I think that usually happens when anyone writes a book about anyone other than themselves. There were several times within the story when he was not welcome at their home for other reasons...but again, I didn't get the feeling that he told these incidents in a too harsh of manner.

As for the other book I am reading, no, I definately don't agree with the entire list, but am interested in reading further to find out WHY the writer feels the way he does. Also, there are some interesting facts about some of the composers I had never read before, so if nothing else, I'm bound to learn something!

S

[rachlisztchopin]

Ok first of all....these lists are NOT usually made according to the listeners taste. Just because a composer has good music (like Alkan) does NOT mean he contributed a lot music history. I mean thats why we hear so much about Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven....they are't necisarily my favs...and some of their music is even boring, but boy they contributed a hell load to music...just about every composer/pianist looks up to them and composes their music after the styles of their music. And why was Johann Strauss on the list!?!?!? and Scarlatti wasnt!?!?!...lol well we do know Johann Strauss as the Waltz King don't we? His music is amazing...He basically made the waltz famous (along with Chopin). And Scarlatti just composed a hell load of small sonatas. I guess that would be important to the baroque era since no one else of such composed 500 sonatas of that era (or more?) but geez he did nothing new.  Read the Oxford dictionary biographies of composer,...the definition of Sonata, Symphony, Nationalist music, various music forms (like waltz), etc...and if you practically read everything worth reading in that dictionary, you will gather the importance of composers and how they contributed to music and even maybe did something completely new (and also read the composers poster). Well I'm done bickering. I honestly don't know a ton about Music history because I have only been playing piano and listening to classical music for less then two years. But I do learn quickly and know the basic philosophy behind things. Note also that Rachmaninov is one of my favorite composers (by my name) and that he isnt on the list of top 50 composers and that I ACTUALLY agree on that. well bye. look forward to your responses.

[m]

I thought he presented his story in an interesting light, and was actually very complimentary most of the time.

That's true. But lets take even a couple examples--just from top of my head.
Horowitz was probably the first person who introduced and started playing Scriabin extensively in the West. Many of his Scriabin recordings are nothing, but spectacular, and are among the very best ever recorded. Lets take a Mr. Dubal's "insight" on that--something like: "they are pleasant and insightful" (sorry, I don't remember exact phrase, but that's the wording).
In 1932 Horowitz was probably the first pianist to record Liszt Sonata in B minor, which was in obscurity. Mr. Dubal's offhand pick on it: "this recording retains its importance". C'mon Dubal! Are we talking about this pioneering recording, which together with absolutely demonic performance, has influenced at least whole generation of great pianists, and still remains one of the greatest recordings of this piece ever made? Or are we talking about Moszkowsky etudes, Andante Spianato, or Czerny Variations, you are so excited about?

[julie391]

Ok first of all....these lists are NOT usually made according to the listeners taste. Just because a composer has good music (like Alkan) does NOT mean he contributed a lot music history. I mean thats why we hear so much about Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven....they are't necisarily my favs...and some of their music is even boring, but boy they contributed a hell load to music...just about every composer/pianist looks up to them and composes their music after the styles of their music. And why was Johann Strauss on the list!?!?!? and Scarlatti wasnt!?!?!...lol well we do know Johann Strauss as the Waltz King don't we? His music is amazing...He basically made the waltz famous (along with Chopin). And Scarlatti just composed a hell load of small sonatas. I guess that would be important to the baroque era since no one else of such composed 500 sonatas of that era (or more?) but geez he did nothing new.  Read the Oxford dictionary biographies of composer,...the definition of Sonata, Symphony, Nationalist music, various music forms (like waltz), etc...and if you practically read everything worth reading in that dictionary, you will gather the importance of composers and how they contributed to music and even maybe did something completely new (and also read the composers poster). Well I'm done bickering. I honestly don't know a ton about Music history because I have only been playing piano and listening to classical music for less then two years. But I do learn quickly and know the basic philosophy behind things. Note also that Rachmaninov is one of my favorite composers (by my name) and that he isnt on the list of top 50 composers and that I ACTUALLY agree on that. well bye. look forward to your responses.

what constitues 'contributing alot to music history'?

if its innovation - yes rach maybe shouldnt be there, and surely johann strauss shouldnt

but alkan, SHOULD - if you are familiar with his work he is profoundly original - forshadowing debussy, bartok, prokofiev - and mahler. among others.

alkan is the first composer i know of to compose blatantly bastardised music, and music that it wierd - often for the sake of being wierd.

[dinosaurtales]

Looks like his list is built from a music appreciation standpoint rather than a compositional standpoint, since Chopin and Prokofiev arent higher up - they definitely had more compositional interest than , say Mendelssohn.  Very weird concept here.

[julie391]

Looks like his list is built from a music appreciation standpoint rather than a compositional standpoint, since Chopin and Prokofiev arent higher up - they definitely had more compositional interest than , say Mendelssohn.  Very weird concept here.

so wierd in fact - that i dont fully understand what you just said

[rachlisztchopin]

well i must admit that these lists are very contradicting

[Ludwig Van Rachabji]

I wouldn't pay attention to a list like this. That's just my 2 cents, though.

Is Sorabji on the list?

- Ludwig Van Rachabji

[DarkWind]

Okay...here is the AUTHORS list: (judge for yourself)

...

29 Ravel
30 Ravel

...

Hmm...

[rachlisztchopin]

isnt sorabji a contemporary? contemporaries are not noted until they die...with the exception of john williams...lol

[julie391]

no, sorabji is dead

[rachlisztchopin]

oh ok sorry for my ignorance

[julie391]

and there are quite a number of contemporaries who are famous

philip glass was mentioned in a rap song

[DarkWind]

There is a movie based on Philip Glass' Music, too. Koyaanisqatsi, anyone?

[julie391]

not me, but still a rap song is more remarkable 

[Shagdac]

...

29 Ravel
30 Ravel...

Sorry Darkwind, please excuse my typo....I was in a hurry, and didn't have time to proof.  29 - Ravel, 30 is Rossini. Guess I accidently typed in Ravel twice. Sorry if this was confusing.

S

[Shagdac]

....by the way, not quite 1/2 way thru, interesting, but I don't think the author has much merit. Will let you know more when I have finished.


S