Last week I listened to, commented on and rated Eric Ewazen's Triple Concerto for Three Trombones and Orchestra (HERE) -- and I ended up with this piece after I wondered if Johannes Brahms had ever written a concerto for trombone (it's explained in the post) -- so this week I thought I'd listen to yet another concerto. My selection process began with a Google-search of "the best" concertos ever written -- I figured I would check to see if one was listed that I had not heard before -- and I ended up with this list, "These are the 16 most essential concertos in all of classical music," HERE. From the list, of course, I selected Aaron Copland's Clarinet Concerto. However, before I get to Copland's concerto, I have to admit that I was "highly suspect" of Classic FM's list of "16 most essential concertos" from the start. Why? BECAUSE THE LIST DID NOT INCLUDE RACHMANINOFF'S PIANO CONCERTO NO. 2 IN C MINOR -- MY ALL-TIME FAVORITE CONCERTO (nor does it include Felix Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto in E Minor) -- and the Rach 2, especially the second movement, is utterly sublime. LOL -- I should have closed that list immediately and moved on. But...I didn't -- and since I had heard all but one of the concertos listed, I decided that it was time to listen to Aaron Copland's Clarinet Concerto. And what did I think of Copland's work? I'll get to that in a minute. SPOILER ALERT: Meh. First, let me pause here for an aside: I suppose that some of my weekly listening selections, comments, and ratings could be a study in the psychology of my biases and preconceived notions. For example, a year ago I listened to and rated Missy Mazzoli's "Sinfonia (For Orbiting Spheres)" (HERE), and I made this comment: "I know you’re familiar with that old adage, 'you can’t judge a book by its cover,' so I suppose an extension of that saying would be not to judge a piece of classical music by its title, but I think I did just that. I’m not quite sure exactly what I was expecting, but I was expecting something a little more spherical and a lot more orbital (whatever that means)." In that case, I know my impression and judgement of the work was swayed by its title. In this case, I'm sure my view of Copland's concerto was affected by the Classic FM inventory of "the 16 most essential concertos in all of classical music." I suspect that that list set me up to expect more, much more, from Copland's work. The concerto, written in 1948, has an interesting history: "Soon after Copland composed his Symphony No. 3, in 1947 jazz clarinetist Benny Goodman commissioned him to write a concerto for clarinet." More of that history is HERE. The concerto also has an interesting structure -- it has just two movements played back-to-back, linked by a cadenza. From the same article linked above, "The first movement is written in A-B-A form and is slow and expressive, full of bittersweet lyricism. The cadenza not only gives the soloist an opportunity to display his virtuosity, but also introduces many of the melodic Latin American jazz themes that dominate the second movement." So yes, the first movement is lyrical and haunting, and the second is considerably jazzy -- but "a most essential" concerto in the realm of classical music?
Similarly, Copland's work -- with its interesting history and structure -- might belong on some list of significant concertos -- but one of the "most essential in all of classical music"?
**sigh** I don't think so.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
A New Hope:As the header above says, each week I will listen to a piece of classical music that I've never heard before, and then I will report out what I thought about it. Archives
September 2023
Categories
All
|