Allan Pettersson's Violin Concerto # 2, Swedish Radio Orchestra,Herbert Blomstedt,Ida Haendel, violin,studio recording from ca.1988. Not for the faint of heart.A huge test of conductor, orchestra,violinist in a one-movement work of 55 minutes, an intial 35 or so of very dark,anguished,intense music resolving then into some light, peace and hope -- perhaps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv19nLH9cqQ

Whew !

Seems to sound even worse than sibelius‘s… not sure yet which is worse… anyhow both are really bad…

JudeoN4zi wrote:

> Seems to sound even worse than sibelius‘s… not sure yet which is worse… anyhow both are really bad…

Thanks for listening, each to his own.The Sibelius is probably my fav VC.The Pettersson not, but kept my attention and more attractive than much other Pettersson works I've heard. Still considering getting a recording.

Bloomfield wrote:

> JudeoN4zi wrote:

>> Seems to sound even worse than sibelius‘s… not sure yet which is worse… anyhow both are really bad…

> Thanks for listening, each to his own.The Sibelius is probably my fav VC.The Pettersson not, but kept my attention and more attractive than much other Pettersson works I've heard. Still considering getting a recording.

Thanks for posting even though it’s not to my taste — just curious about music in general.

It’s too emotional for my taste — I feel physically repulsed by this composition (much more so than stuff by Mahler or Schumann). Mahler may have complained about Brahms not composing with his heart… but this is just too much ;D and I feel, especially in early Brahms there are moments of great intimacy and Zärtlichkeit (tenderness?) — Mahler or Schumann don’t come close.

Back in the days - long before listening to classical music - I’ve been called a music-nazi by a friend; I have a very low tolerance when it comes to bad music… and antisemitism ;D

Kant argued that - and I think there is truth to it - when we make an aesthetic judgement about a work of art we know it’s subjective but at the same time we claim universality… as in… the whole world shall feel about it the same as we do. And this is similar to moral judgements… don’t kill, don’t rape etc. They are subjective, but we want everyone to feel about it as we do.

JudeoN4zi wrote:

> Kant argued that - and I think there is truth to it - when we make an aesthetic judgement about a work of art we know it’s subjective but at the same time we claim universality… as in… the whole world shall feel about it the same as we do. And this is similar to moral judgements… don’t kill, don’t rape etc. They are subjective, but we want everyone to feel about it as we do.

I actually wrote a bit of shit here (I'm still waiting for a bit of time to read Kant a bit more); Kant makes a difference between moral and aesthetic judgements, saying that aesthetic judgements are subjective but claim unviversality, while moral judgements are objective and claim universality.

Sorry guys... anyway I think it's an interesting topic.