Judith Zaimont:

>== Would listmembers care to discuss in similar respects Hindemith's
>equally prolific, near-contemporary: Milhaud?

I love Milhaud's music, but I find him far more uneven than Hindemith
(read "I like some pieces a lot more than others").  Also, it's hard to
find works by Milhaud written past 1945, and the stuff  that gets played
all the time usually comes from the 1920s.  While Hindemith's music seems
capable of being divided into 3 periods - the Expressionist 1920s, the
neo-classical late 1920s through about 1948, and the final densely
chromatic period, Milhaud's seems far more mercurial in terms of  style,
particularly after World War II.  Furthermore, there seems to be less for
amateurs in Milhaud's catalogue - although it's so huge, there's always
something.  For example, an amateur choir can get through Hindemith's 6
Chansons.  You need a near-professional or better choir to get  through
Milhaud's 2 Cites.  By chance, I was listening this morning to the String
Quartets 14 and 15 and the Octet, which results from playing those two
quartets simultaneously.  I loved the  quartets and found them full of
poetry, but the Octet struck me as a stunt.  It may be because I was trying
to separate the strands into the component quartets, rather than  listening
to the Octet as a work in its own right.

Steve Schwartz