Date: |
Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:24:04 +0200 |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Baris Kilicbay wrote:
>The greatness of a composer is not measured with his "revolutionary"
>compositions. If that would be the criterion, most of the composers
>that we praise above all would be qualified as "minor". Purcell is not a
>revolutionary but he is a genius; he left great melodies, great harmonies
>and great dissonances...
I couldn't agree more. Bach wasn't exactly a "revolutionary" composer,
was he? It's a 19th century criterion. I very much like Purcell. For me,
he is in the same league - as far as the baroque period is concerned - as
Monteverdi, Schutz and Bach. One of the characteristics is that - like
Bach - he was able to write great music on texts which are below par - at
least to our ears (like the Welcome and Birthday Odes). His anthems are
magnificent. And take the Funeral Music for Queen Mary: I don't know any
music which is more moving (especially 'Thou knowest, Lord'). His dramatic
works: everyone thinks of Dido and Aeneas, but what about his incidental
music (Don Quixote for instance) and his semi-operas. And could there be
a more dramatic piece of about 3 minutes than 'In guilty night'? Then there
is the consort-music. And so on .... Purcell is definitely one of the
greatest of all time.
Johan van Veen
Utrecht (Netherlands)
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|