tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3645259.post4796615676166802423..comments2024-02-05T20:15:28.086+00:00Comments on Musicke & Food: Ignatz Waghalter (who?)Harry Collierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431442988080082664noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3645259.post-75515525217742010422012-10-14T07:41:02.780+01:002012-10-14T07:41:02.780+01:00Looks like old Ignatz has a real fan club going. G...Looks like old Ignatz has a real fan club going. Good for him. The human ear notoriously works with many different operating systems. There is a list of well-loved composers to whom I am pretty indifferent -- including Haydn, Mahler's symphonies, the orchestral music of Richard Strauss. There is also another -- long -- list of composers with whom I gel: Purcell, Handel, Bach, Schubert, Harry Collierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431442988080082664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3645259.post-87472713402256846622012-10-14T05:42:08.204+01:002012-10-14T05:42:08.204+01:00"There is no passion, no emotion in Waghalter..."There is no passion, no emotion in Waghalter's music..." Are you joking? Are we listening to the same music? I refer your readers to an excerpt from Waghalter's music (which also contains interesting commentary by the conductor and the soloist): http://www.knuckle.tv/clients/the-waghalter-project/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07271264128526819911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3645259.post-23342638137939111832012-10-14T03:32:00.555+01:002012-10-14T03:32:00.555+01:00Thank you for your thoughtful reply. But to my ear...Thank you for your thoughtful reply. But to my ear, the Waghalter's concerto is brimming with ideas. The second movement, in particular, is of extraordinary beauty and has great emotional depth. As for the comparison to Shostakovich, his music is the product of an entirely different historical experience. His music comes out of a revolution, the Stalinist terror, the horrors of World War II. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11582784128172870394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3645259.post-40490157162911031062012-10-13T19:37:30.307+01:002012-10-13T19:37:30.307+01:00" The question that must be addressed is whet..." The question that must be addressed is whether Waghalter, working within this idiom, gave expression to musically significant ideas? What is the quality of his thematic material? What use does he make of it?"<br /><br />I agree, 100%. But I do not think he has many musically signifcant ideas. I do not find the quality of his thematic material interesting (cf, for example, ShostakovichHarry Collierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431442988080082664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3645259.post-91763224085047765982012-10-13T19:26:03.752+01:002012-10-13T19:26:03.752+01:00It seems that you are overly in love with the word...It seems that you are overly in love with the word "generic." Composers are "generic." Soloists are "generic." Orchestras are "generic." You write that Waghalter's work is "generic German in the line of Brahms, Schumann and Bruch." If that is really the case, what is the criticism? Clearly, Waghalter composed in an intensely melodic idiom. TheAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11582784128172870394noreply@blogger.com