Feel free to share your own, of course. But the idea for this thread comes with a very interesting NY Times project asking bigtime musicians for their nominees. Esa-Pekka Salonen, Yannick Nezet-Seguin, John Eliot Gardiner, Caroline Shaw, Nico Muhly, and more share their choices:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/arts/music/5-minutes-that-will-make-you-love-classical-music.html
Quote from: Brian on September 06, 2018, 07:17:44 AM
Feel free to share your own, of course. But the idea for this thread comes with a very interesting NY Times project asking bigtime musicians for their nominees. Esa-Pekka Salonen, Yannick Nezet-Seguin, John Eliot Gardiner, Caroline Shaw, Nico Muhly, and more share their choices:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/arts/music/5-minutes-that-will-make-you-love-classical-music.html
Nice.
I wouldn't have picked any of those, but then choosing one that would engage everyone equally is impossible. I think age is an important consideration too though. There's a reason so many of us liked Tom and Jerry, Woody Woodpecker or Bugs Bunny (to name a few), and I always liked the episodes where they had classical music (often Liszt or Rossini).
Quote from: mc ukrneal on September 06, 2018, 10:16:46 AM
I wouldn't have picked any of those, but then choosing one that would engage everyone equally is impossible.
There is that, indeed, indeed.
i can agree with most of the list mentioned.
However i would like to add one that personally would be more applacable for the ones who say, "I don't like classical music, ________ (an excuse of some variation upon being sleepy.)
my first response would be a HIP recording of the first movement of Winter. (which i feel is what made me fall back in love with Vivaldi...'s music.)
But, after consideration i would pick the first movement of Stravinsky's Song of the Nightingale. it will effectively wake most folk up with in seconds. then just let Song of the Nightingale to do it's work on captivating them. :3
It definitely depends on the age and I'd add it also depends on the other musical tastes people like.
I mention these ones:
Beethoven - Moonlight Sonata - 1st movement or 3rd movement (thesis and antithesis)
Dvorák - Symphony No. 8 - 1st movement or 4th movement (some of the funniest movements I know)
Respighi - Pini di Roma - Pini della Via Appia (because of its ineffable excitement), Belkis - War Dance (it lasts much less than 5 minutes, though).
Chopin - Ballade No. 4 (because of its sheer poetry)
Strauss - An Alpine Symphony (lots of different 5 minutes to let yourself to get marveled)
Sibelius - Symphony No. 2 - 4th movement (especially the minutes near the ending)
Ravel - String quartet - 2nd movement (I attended a concert and people got crazy with this movement that is out of this world)
I like the suggestion of selections from Mother Goose, Firebird (those make a good coupling), and Janacek's Sinfonietta.
Prokofiev: Lt. Kijé - Troika. Selections from R & J are also good.
Wiren: Serenade - Andante expressivo
Grieg: Symphonic Dance in D major
Peer Gynt - In the Hall of the Mountain King
Ives: The Unanswered Question
Chabrier: España
Selections from Dvorak's Slavonic Dances, not sure which. Perhaps the ones that Szell coupled with the 8th on EMI.
Moncayo: Huapango
Bruckner: Symphony No. 9 - Scherzo
Of course, this is the sort of thing that turned me on. I had a friend who could not connect to any kind of classical music but solo harpsichord.
I can do it in under 5 minutes
4'33' even ;D
The burden (or curse) of knowledge applies to classical music.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
Quote from: -abe- on September 07, 2018, 04:20:40 AM
The burden (or curse) of knowledge applies to classical music.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
so very true. *nods.
We don't know what we don't know.
The last 5 minutes of Mahler's Resurrection or 3rd symphony. Maybe the last 5 minutes of Shostakovich's 5th.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on September 06, 2018, 10:16:46 AM
I wouldn't have picked any of those, but then choosing one that would engage everyone equally is impossible. I think age is an important consideration too though. There's a reason so many of us liked Tom and Jerry, Woody Woodpecker or Bugs Bunny (to name a few), and I always liked the episodes where they had classical music (often Liszt or Rossini).
You 'n' me both, brother! 8)
Von Suppe overtures are always fun!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 07, 2018, 05:06:24 AM
We don't know what we don't know.
I'm not sure about that.
My choices would be:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28bkMgDsAvw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28bkMgDsAvw)
50% of those to whom it was offered would be in tears. The other 50% would run for cover.
2.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_0FHyF3Pyk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_0FHyF3Pyk)
If this didn't work, there would be no hope.
Quote from: SymphonicAddict on September 06, 2018, 11:05:28 AM
It definitely depends on the age and I'd add it also depends on the other musical tastes people like.
I mention these ones:
Beethoven - Moonlight Sonata - 1st movement or 3rd movement (thesis and antithesis)
Dvorák - Symphony No. 8 - 1st movement or 4th movement (some of the funniest movements I know)
Respighi - Pini di Roma - Pini della Via Appia (because of its ineffable excitement), Belkis - War Dance (it lasts much less than 5 minutes, though).
Chopin - Ballade No. 4 (because of its sheer poetry)
Strauss - An Alpine Symphony (lots of different 5 minutes to let yourself to get marveled)
Sibelius - Symphony No. 2 - 4th movement (especially the minutes near the ending)
Ravel - String quartet - 2nd movement (I attended a concert and people got crazy with this movement that is out of this world)
V much agree with this list although unfamiliar with Chopin and not a great fan of R. Strauss.
Much more interesting than the choices are the reasons behind them: these people seem to have generally missed the point big time, with Nico Muhly winning the first prize by a very large margin:
Steve Reich's "Duet," for two violins and orchestra, is a wonderful distillation of his processes. There is a clear pulse, moving through a series of chords, each lasting just a few seconds. Each chord feels like it's finding repose from the previous one, creating a sense of release without feeling repetitive. On top of this, two violins play politely interlocking canons and patterns. A minute before the end, he lands on a sort of jazzed-up F-major chord, which, after a brief move to a minor key, resolves itself back into F — a moment of deep structural satisfaction.
Oh yeah, I'm absolutely sure that what a newcomer to classical music look for is first, a distillation of Steve Reich's processes and second, a moment of deep structural satisfaction.
No Vivaldi, Handel, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven (with one exception), Schubert, Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti, Verdi, Puccini, Paganini, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Chopin, Brahms, Bizet, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, Dvorak, Rachmaninoff, Faure etc etc etc --- ie, not a single one of those works which have been loved and cherished for centuries by the general audiences and which require no academic knowledge of music in order to be enjoyed. Looks like for the professionals of music everything that's eminently hummable and immediately appealing to the heart is anathema.
Quote from: Florestan on September 08, 2018, 12:29:52 PM
Much more interesting than the choices are the reasons behind them: these people seem to have generally missed the point big time, with Nico Muhly winning the first prize by a very large margin:
Steve Reich's "Duet," for two violins and orchestra, is a wonderful distillation of his processes. There is a clear pulse, moving through a series of chords, each lasting just a few seconds. Each chord feels like it's finding repose from the previous one, creating a sense of release without feeling repetitive. On top of this, two violins play politely interlocking canons and patterns. A minute before the end, he lands on a sort of jazzed-up F-major chord, which, after a brief move to a minor key, resolves itself back into F — a moment of deep structural satisfaction.
Oh yeah, I'm absolutely sure that what a newcomer to classical music look for is first, a distillation of Steve Reich's processes and second, a moment of deep structural satisfaction.
On the one hand, your point is taken.
On the other, however Nico Muhly may have missed the point—there is of course no reason why that five minutes should not enrapture a listener new to classical music. (It may, it may not.)
So the problem, which is orthogonal to the actual request, was Muhly's need to overexplain his choice.
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on September 08, 2018, 12:14:08 AM
I'm not sure about that.
I'm sure I didn't know that you were unsure!
Quote from: Florestan on September 08, 2018, 12:29:52 PM
ie, not a single one of those works which have been loved and cherished for centuries by the general audiences and which require no academic knowledge of music in order to be enjoyed. Looks like for the professionals of music everything that's eminently hummable and immediately appealing to the heart is anathema.
Did you miss the Berlioz selection? and the Stravinsky? the Strauss? the Janacek? the 2x Ravel? the Couperin? the Gibbons? the Wagner? All "hummable and appealing to the heart." The one choice you complain about, and damn the entire article for, is actually an attractive piece of music (and that's coming from someone, me, who generally dislikes minimalism). Muhly has convinced me to give Reich a closer listen.
My 5 minute choice would be the piece that led me into classical music: Wagner, The Ride of the Valkyries.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 08, 2018, 01:15:57 PM
Did you miss the Berlioz selection? and the Stravinsky? the Strauss? the Janacek? the 2x Ravel? the Couperin? the Gibbons? the Wagner? All "hummable and appealing to the heart." The one choice you complain about, and damn the entire article for, is actually an attractive piece of music (and that's coming from someone, me, who generally dislikes minimalism). Muhly has convinced me to give Reich a closer listen.
My 5 minute choice would be the piece that led me into classical music: Wagner, The Ride of the Valkyries.
Sarge
Ho jo to ho,
Sarge!
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 08, 2018, 01:15:57 PM
Did you miss the Berlioz selection? and the Stravinsky? the Strauss? the Janacek? the 2x Ravel? the Couperin? the Gibbons? the Wagner? All "hummable and appealing to the heart." The one choice you complain about, and damn the entire article for, is actually an attractive piece of music (and that's coming from someone, me, who generally dislikes minimalism). Muhly has convinced me to give Reich a closer listen.
My 5 minute choice would be the piece that led me into classical music: Wagner, The Ride of the Valkyries.
Sarge
The Reich piece was very beautiful indeed. It can be found on this excellent recording:
[asin]B000AOVL4K[/asin]
My own pick would be Oiseaux tristes from Ravel's Miroirs. One of the most haunting pieces of music I know.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 08, 2018, 12:54:29 PM
I'm sure I didn't know that you were unsure!
I'm sure I was unsure, but I didn't know how sure you were. Or whether you knew.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 08, 2018, 01:15:57 PM
The one choice you complain about, and damn the entire article for
I actually forgot Yuval Sharon's claim that
4'33" can make a newcomer (newcomer, for God's sake, not a veteran GMGer) fall in love with classical music. Come on, this is nonsense on stilts.
They were not asked to name the one piece that gives them deep personal satisfaction --- which is how they actually answered --- but the one they would play (notice, they would play) to a newcomer to make them fall in love with classical music. To suppose, or imply, that whatever piece they, as seasoned musicians or musicologists, love is bound to make people with no knowledge of classical music love them too is to miss the point. Badly.
The honorable exception is Julia Bullock, whose answer is a recollection of her own first classical music experience and who hits the nail:
I didn't know what she was singing about; I didn't know what harmonies were being played; I didn't know the composer, or the poet, or the content, but I knew that it was affecting my body and mind in ways that I had yet to experience. [...] I didn't understand what I was listening to, and I didn't need to, but it made me want to listen on, and on and on and on.That's the kind of experience that can indeed make a newcomer fall in love. It might or might not be had by listening to the suggested choices, but that nobody nominated Bach, Mozart, Schubert or Tchaikovsky puzzles me greatly.
Quote from: Florestan on September 08, 2018, 11:59:00 PM
I actually forgot Yuval Sharon's claim that 4'33" can make a newcomer (newcomer, for God's sake, not a veteran GMGer) fall in love with classical music. Come on, this is nonsense on stilts
Oh I agree. That was an absolutely asinine response to the question posed.
Sarge
Quote from: Florestan on September 08, 2018, 11:59:00 PM
I actually forgot Yuval Sharon's claim that 4'33" can make a newcomer (newcomer, for God's sake, not a veteran GMGer) fall in love with classical music. Come on, this is nonsense on stilts.
Rickety stilts, at that.
Listen to 5 minutes of any of Nickelback's songs, that should get you running to classical music.
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on September 11, 2018, 07:30:24 AM
Listen to 5 minutes of any of Nickelback's songs, that should get you running to classical music.
;D :D ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 08, 2018, 01:15:57 PM
Did you miss the Berlioz selection? and the Stravinsky? the Strauss? the Janacek? the 2x Ravel? the Couperin? the Gibbons? the Wagner? All "hummable and appealing to the heart."
And the Beethoven!
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 11, 2018, 06:42:43 AM
Oh I agree. That was an absolutely asinine response to the question posed.
...and then the explanation that demanded it "must be experienced live in concert." What newcomer is going to do this? I'll grant that it would be a boring read if
every answer was the 1st movement of Beethoven's 5th, but Sharon's answer is just incredibly pretentious.
The idea strikes me as absurd. Even 5 minutes to make a newcomer curious about classical music would be a challenge.
Probably the best advice is to drag them to the concert hall so they can hear the intensity of it, compared with hearing in tinkling away on a little speaker in an elevator. What is played is probably less important, as long as there is no harpsichord involved. :)
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on September 11, 2018, 10:03:58 AM
What is played is probably less important, as long as there is no harpsichord involved. :)
Oh, I'm feelin' the love . . .
http://www.youtube.com/v/Kobv4P_m_Do
4'33" made me realise when dining alone in a restaurant that the sounds made by a food chiller cabinet were far more worthy of attention than the pop music being played in the background, but the idea that because of this I should start listening to classical music never entered my head ::). The rest of this list would only have reinforced what I as a non-fan already believed classical music to sound like - the one exception being Unsuk Chin's 'Su' which has that sense of mystery and atmosphere I'm looking for and would actually have made me think there could be something exciting hidden in the genre I'd never suspected was there. What might be more helpful is a list for people that don't like the classical music they've been exposed to on the TV and radio.
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on September 11, 2018, 10:03:58 AM
The idea strikes me as absurd. Even 5 minutes to make a newcomer curious about classical music would be a challenge.
There it is.
And for once it didn't have to be me saying it.
Bravo, Ghost. And thanks.
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on September 11, 2018, 10:03:58 AM
The idea strikes me as absurd. Even 5 minutes to make a newcomer curious about classical music would be a challenge.
That was my initial reaction too, but on second thoughts it might not be as absurd as it appears to be at first sight. It's actually a thought-provoking question and it touches upon other issues such as the nature of classical music, its purpose and its relationship with other genres of music.
It is actually entirely possible to program a "classical music" concert featuring only five-minute (or only slightly longer) stand-alone pieces which will still be varied and interesting: take any number of Lieder / art songs, intersperse them with solo piano pieces, throw in for good measure some violin/cello/flute/whatever & piano works and after intermission have an orchestra play
Liadov's
Baba Yaga,
Chabrier's
Espana,
Glinka's
Jota aragonesa and
Milhaud's
Le boeuf sur le toit. Such a concert would actually give the lie to the notion --- unfortunately widespread among fans of other genres --- that classical music is turgid and dreary. More on this below.
But besides that, we must consider that many, if not most, of the potential newcomers to classical music come from the fandom of other musical genres, mostly song-based. They are often derided as having a very short attention span --- hence the 5 minutes limitation --- but I'm not sure this is true or fair. After all, the average length of a "pop" album (I use "pop" as a very large umbrella term) is not much shorter than the average length of a "classical" album --- it's the structure that is different, but only with respect with symphonic or chamber music; I don't see any structural difference between a sequence of more or less related "pop" songs and a Lieder cycle or a Lieder recital. Therefore I think that Lieder / art songs would actually make a good introduction for such newcomers because they offer them something they can relate to: a sequence of instrumentally accompanied short "songs" which make for a more or less coherent whole. I admit, though, that the language barrier is a huge problem since most Lieder are either in Italian, German or French --- but Julia Bullock's experience shows that a cathartic experience can be had even if one doesn't understand a iota of what is sung. I'm not saying it would work with all, or even most, "pop" fans but I think that it could have more chances of converting some of them than symphonies or string quartets.
Back to "turgid and dreary", there is another thing to consider: "pop" fans experience music as mostly entertainment and fun, individual or collective (the latter in the form of "pop" concerts, where it's not only the music but also the socializing it occasions that matters); they are less concerned, if at all, with the meaning of art and life or with philosophizing about them. Suggesting them "classical" music which deals precisely with these issues is probably the surest way to make them turn their back to it for good. Concentrating on "classical" music which is fun and entertaining is imho a better strategy. Again, it might not work for all, or even most, of them, but it could work for some people nevertheless.
And even if they ended up listening to nothing but "songs" (ie, Lieder) and / or instrumental/orchestral miniatures or longer but lighter works (there's plenty of them in every era, and actually some of the best music ever penned falls within these categories) their musical horizon would have still expanded considerably and their appreciation of "classical" music would have still increased a lot.
So, bottom line: I believe a more relaxed approach might perhaps be better than the maximalist one: "Loewe or Liadov" is preferably, methinks, to "Bruckner or nothing".
My two cents, anyway. YMMV.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on September 06, 2018, 10:16:46 AM
I wouldn't have picked any of those, but then choosing one that would engage everyone equally is impossible. I think age is an important consideration too though. There's a reason so many of us liked Tom and Jerry, Woody Woodpecker or Bugs Bunny (to name a few), and I always liked the episodes where they had classical music (often Liszt or Rossini).
How about this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKZgi06fVsk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKZgi06fVsk)
or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpAjbaNBPqA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpAjbaNBPqA)
Quote from: Florestan on September 18, 2018, 05:34:21 AM
"Bruckner or nothing".
I have only been present once at a grown person's first classical music concert.
My girlfriend's best friend came with us to a concert of Bruckner's eighth symphony.
She was very pleased with it. Enjoyed herself, so she said, thoroughly.
Quote from: some guy on September 19, 2018, 02:54:25 AM
I have only been present once at a grown person's first classical music concert.
My girlfriend's best friend came with us to a concert of Bruckner's eighth symphony.
She was very pleased with it. Enjoyed herself, so she said, thoroughly.
Yes, I can imagine. Experiencing Bruckner live (or Mahler) is very different from listening to a recording --- a much more intense, interesting and rewarding experience, even for a newcomer.
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on September 11, 2018, 10:03:58 AM
Probably the best advice is to drag them to the concert hall so they can hear the intensity of it, compared with hearing in tinkling away on a little speaker in an elevator. What is played is probably less important, as long as there is no harpsichord involved. :)
Honestly, a non-classical listener would have a hard time at a concert hall because the sound would be coming from quite far away (instead of from amps all around them, or headphones/earbuds so the sound is actually inside their head) and could not be adjusted in any way. You'd have better luck convincing them with a track they could put on their spotify playlists.
I'm not sure what I would recommend, but when my parents have drafted me to play piano to entertain guests/provide background music, Mendelssohn Songs Without Words & Grieg Lyric Pieces have always gotten good reactions from committed non-classical listeners, and most of them are under 3 minutes.
Quote from: amw on September 19, 2018, 07:58:10 AM
Honestly, a non-classical listener would have a hard time at a concert hall because the sound would be coming from quite far away (instead of from amps all around them, or headphones/earbuds so the sound is actually inside their head) and could not be adjusted in any way.
I'm not that sure. In a hall with very good to excellenrt acoustics an orchestral blast is felt inside one's head, too.
Quote
I'm not sure what I would recommend, but when my parents have drafted me to play piano to entertain guests/provide background music, Mendelssohn Songs Without Words & Grieg Lyric Pieces have always gotten good reactions from committed non-classical listeners, and most of them are under 3 minutes.
Aligns perfectly with my own views on the matter.
Quote from: amw on September 19, 2018, 07:58:10 AM
I'm not sure what I would recommend, but when my parents have drafted me to play piano to entertain guests/provide background music, Mendelssohn Songs Without Words & Grieg Lyric Pieces have always gotten good reactions from committed non-classical listeners, and most of them are under 3 minutes.
I think the key word is "background" music. To entertain guess you need something that is easy to listen to, not too loud, not too fast, not too dramatic and not too long. Those pieces you mentioned fit the bill nicely.
Quote from: some guy on September 19, 2018, 02:54:25 AM
I have only been present once at a grown person's first classical music concert.
My girlfriend's best friend came with us to a concert of Bruckner's eighth symphony.
She was very pleased with it. Enjoyed herself, so she said, thoroughly.
I took my wife to hear Mahler's 5th and 9th and also Bruckner's 8th and 8th. She enjoyed those immensely, normally she cannot stand listening to classical music.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 19, 2018, 11:02:08 AM
I think the key word is "background" music. To entertain guess you need something that is easy to listen to, not too loud, not too fast, not too dramatic and not too long. Those pieces you mentioned fit the bill nicely.
I will never tire of stressing that some of the best music ever written was originally conceived either as background or as entertaining music --- and of expressing my firm conviction that writing good background or entertaining music is far more difficult than writing boring symphonies and string quartets.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 19, 2018, 11:02:08 AM
I took my wife to hear Mahler's 5th and 9th and also Bruckner's 8th and 8th. She enjoyed those immensely, normally she cannot stand listening to classical music.
Precisely. The live, concert hall experience is on a higher plane than simply listening to recordings.
Quote from: Florestan on September 19, 2018, 10:22:22 AM
I'm not that sure. In a hall with very good to excellenrt acoustics an orchestral blast is felt inside one's head, too.
There are not many halls like that—and also a lot of classical newcomers wouldn't necessarily be able to afford the best seats. (Also there's a tendency to book solo piano recitals, string quartets, etc in large halls acoustically unsuited to them in order to sell more tickets, which gives a bad impression of anything smaller than an orchestra.)
Quote from: amw on September 19, 2018, 02:48:29 PM
There are not many halls like that—and also a lot of classical newcomers wouldn't necessarily be able to afford the best seats. (Also there's a tendency to book solo piano recitals, string quartets, etc in large halls acoustically unsuited to them in order to sell more tickets, which gives a bad impression of anything smaller than an orchestra.)
That's not my experience. One of the last concerts I attended was of the local University Orchestra playing the 6th symphony of Tchaikovsky. It was a far more impressive experience than any recording I ever heard, including Mavrinsky, Karajan or Markevitch. The hall was not so large and there was no issue of getting a good seat.
Everyone has probably heard the most appealing bits of classical music somewhere or another on their little earbuds or as background music. I think what will make an impression is how intense the live experience of a symphony orchestra is, both the enveloping sound and the spectacle of a large body of performers doing their work.
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on September 19, 2018, 02:57:44 PM
That's not my experience. One of the last concerts I attended was of the local University Orchestra playing the 6th symphony of Tchaikovsky. It was far more impressive than any recording I ever heard, including Mavrinsky, Karajan or Markevitch. The hall was not so large and there was no issue of getting a good seat.
Everyone has probably heard the most appealing bits of classical music somewhere or another on their little earbuds or as background music. I think what will make an impression is how intense the live experience of a symphony orchestra is, both the enveloping sound and the spectacle of a large body of performers doing their work.
Agreed 100% with all of the above. The excitement of a live performance is far beyond anything a recording can offer.
I'd like to back up all the way to the subject line for the thread.
And question the word "make."
I received a box of mostly 78s from my father's half-brother when I was around 9. (I wasn't keeping any calendars at the time, so I can't be entirely sure.) And most of those discs contained classical music.
I had only heard Hollywood music up the that point, that being all that my parents ever played. (And, as you perhaps know, Hollywood did rely pretty heavily on a few classical pieces and a few classical cliches.)
I was pretty gobsmacked by what I heard. Haydn. Rachmaninoff. Prokofiev. Beethoven. Tchaikovsky. Grieg.
And much, much more. (One of the 33s was a 50 snippet thing, with Bellini and Wagner and Berlioz and Schumann and two or three different Strausses.)
I didn't like everything I heard. But it never went beyond "I don't like this particular piece (or snippet)." The world as a whole was entrancing and delightful.
No one had to "make" me do anything. It was love at first hearing and is a love that has never left me. (Though nowadays I do spend more time with the "second" love, contemporary music. Also there, I don't like everything I hear. But there, too, it never goes beyond "I don't like this particular piece." I add that because we've all seen anti-modernists trash the whole world of contemporary music on the basis of a handful of disliked pieces.)
One other thing, while I agree that live is best, all of my early listening was from the vinyl discs and from a very cheap radio. My first concert was when I was in high school. It was before I had a driver's license, as my mom took me too it. At my insistence. But the love? That predates my first live concert by at least five years, maybe more.
That's great. The older brother of one of my school friends came into possession of a box of more adventurous rock albums that had a similar effect on me - suddenly realising there was a whole world of music out there to be explored 8). But you either like it or you don't - as you say it's not something one gets talked into.
Quote from: some guy on September 24, 2018, 02:55:50 AM
I'd like to back up all the way to the subject line for the thread.
And question the word "make."
Encourage were far better.
Quote from: some guy on September 24, 2018, 02:55:50 AM
I'd like to back up all the way to the subject line for the thread.
And question the word "make."
...
No one had to "make" me do anything. It was love at first hearing and is a love that has never left me.
It was clear to me that they meant "make" meaning "cause," not "force."
Quote from: Florestan on September 19, 2018, 11:05:35 AM
I will never tire of stressing that some of the best music ever written was originally conceived either as background or as entertaining music ...
We've joked about this elsewhere Andrei, I know, but it's been a source of much thought for me since we did, because it is manifestly an accurate statement. There is no law that declares 'this must be listened to attentively'. And I'm starting to see that a certain part of me has been assuming that there was, if not such a law, at least, an internalised expectation: that there was a kind of duty incumbent upon me to listen
seriously (I include joyfully, happily, etc in that notion of seriousness). I hope you'll bear with me while I think aloud.
I am thinking back to a glorious summer of something like 1964, when a friend lent me a tape recording of
Scheherezade. I had a small tape recorder, plugged into an extension lead so I could use it outside, and would lie on the lawn playing that tape at least once a day, sometimes twice. Sometimes I read; sometimes I just lay quietly; sometimes I chatted to a friend who might call by. I didn't discriminate between these experiences. They were all ways of listening.
Scheherezade provided an ambience which I could dip into, to any degree, just as I liked. I wandered around the house whistling it. Sometimes I imagined stories to accompany the music.
Have I ever enjoyed
Scheherezade so much as I did, for all my wandering attention and almost zero musical knowledge, that memorable summer? Honestly, no. I simply loved being in its presence.
Anyway .... yesterday lunchtime I was intending to read a book, took out a CD of Corelli violin sonatas from that lovely Andrew Manze set "The art of the violin", and set about my business of paying little attention to the music. I had some difficulty at times - the music does have a tendency to induce a certain pleasurably painful longing now and then that can't be ignored - but I must say it was a lovely combination, and I felt no guilt whatsoever. I propose to try harder at listening inattentively.
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on September 25, 2018, 02:22:42 AM
We've joked about this elsewhere Andrei, I know, but it's been a source of much thought for me since we did, because it is manifestly an accurate statement. There is no law that declares 'this must be listened to attentively'. And I'm starting to see that a certain part of me has been assuming that there was, if not such a law, at least, an internalised expectation: that there was a kind of duty incumbent upon me to listen seriously (I include joyfully, happily, etc in that notion of seriousness). I hope you'll bear with me while I think aloud.
I am thinking back to a glorious summer of something like 1964, when a friend lent me a tape recording of Scheherezade. I had a small tape recorder, plugged into an extension lead so I could use it outside, and would lie on the lawn playing that tape at least once a day, sometimes twice. Sometimes I read; sometimes I just lay quietly; sometimes I chatted to a friend who might call by. I didn't discriminate between these experiences. They were all ways of listening. Scheherezade provided an ambience which I could dip into, to any degree, just as I liked. I wandered around the house whistling it. Sometimes I imagined stories to accompany the music.
Have I ever enjoyed Scheherezade so much as I did, for all my wandering attention and almost zero musical knowledge, that memorable summer? Honestly, no. I simply loved being in its presence.
That, too, is attending to the music.
Great stuff.
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on September 25, 2018, 02:22:42 AM
We've joked about this elsewhere Andrei, I know, but it's been a source of much thought for me since we did, because it is manifestly an accurate statement. There is no law that declares 'this must be listened to attentively'. And I'm starting to see that a certain part of me has been assuming that there was, if not such a law, at least, an internalised expectation: that there was a kind of duty incumbent upon me to listen seriously (I include joyfully, happily, etc in that notion of seriousness). I hope you'll bear with me while I think aloud.
I am thinking back to a glorious summer of something like 1964, when a friend lent me a tape recording of Scheherezade. I had a small tape recorder, plugged into an extension lead so I could use it outside, and would lie on the lawn playing that tape at least once a day, sometimes twice. Sometimes I read; sometimes I just lay quietly; sometimes I chatted to a friend who might call by. I didn't discriminate between these experiences. They were all ways of listening. Scheherezade provided an ambience which I could dip into, to any degree, just as I liked. I wandered around the house whistling it. Sometimes I imagined stories to accompany the music.
Have I ever enjoyed Scheherezade so much as I did, for all my wandering attention and almost zero musical knowledge, that memorable summer? Honestly, no. I simply loved being in its presence.
Anyway .... yesterday lunchtime I was intending to read a book, took out a CD of Corelli violin sonatas from that lovely Andrew Manze set "The art of the violin", and set about my business of paying little attention to the music. I had some difficulty at times - the music does have a tendency to induce a certain pleasurably painful longing now and then that can't be ignored - but I must say it was a lovely combination, and I felt no guilt whatsoever. I propose to try harder at listening inattentively.
By Jove, Alan! I am delighted that you understood perfectly what I meant by "inattentive listening" and while I didn't have in mind your examples when I wrote about background or entertaining music I agree that they can fit in the bill quite nicely.
And I want to stress this point of yours:
Quote[Corelli's] music does have a tendency to induce a certain pleasurably painful longing now and then that can't be ignored
Absolutely. "Background" or "entertaining" in no way implies "lack of quality" or "uninteresting".
Actually, I don't do attentive listening even when I attend a live concert. The visual element of musicians playing their instruments and conductors waving their hands is an important part of my enjoyment, too. I know that some people prefer to close their eyes in order not to be distracted by anything else than the music but I don't. For me live means alive: flesh-and-blood people making music, and seeing the bodily movements that musicians make in direct response to the music they play is fascinating.
And I certainly agree that the joy of hearing something for the first time without any knowledge whatsoever (also without the prejudices that inevitably come with knowledge) is an exhilarating experience which is very difficult to have a second time.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 25, 2018, 03:02:05 AM
That, too, is attending to the music.
I'm reassured by your agreement, Karl. And I think my point is (I am still in the process of discovering what my point is) that 'attentiveness' covers a wide spectrum of awareness, from Total Immersion at one end, to Total Obliviousness at the other - only this last extreme being, strictly, inattentiveness.
Quote from: Florestan on September 25, 2018, 03:15:37 AM
The visual element of musicians playing their instruments and conductors waving their hands is an important part of my enjoyment, too.
Yes!
QuoteFor me live means alive: flesh-and-blood people making music, and seeing the bodily movements that musicians make in direct response to the music they play is fascinating.
Yes again, I say!
QuoteAnd I certainly agree that the joy of hearing something for the first time without any knowledge whatsoever (also without the prejudices that inevitably come with knowledge) is an exhilarating experience which is very difficult to have a second time.
You are spot on with the concept of knowledge as a potential source of prejudice. In the case of my
Scheherezade summer, the raw, knowledge-free delight extended for at least a couple of weeks - familiarity not being quite the same as knowing more. No, scratch that. What I was gaining came in the form of
connaître.
Savoir didn't really enter into the business.
It is a difficult balance, this, with
all art. Too much printer's ink can clog up the ears as well as the eyes.
John Cage 4'33
Webern 5 Pieces for Orchestra #3 (Boulez)
there that is exactly 5 minutes
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on September 25, 2018, 05:57:20 AM
You are spot on with the concept of knowledge as a potential source of prejudice. In the case of my Scheherezade summer, the raw, knowledge-free delight extended for at least a couple of weeks - familiarity not being quite the same as knowing more. No, scratch that. What I was gaining came in the form of connaître. Savoir didn't really enter into the business.
A nice, and apt, distinction.
I'll follow your example and think aloud. As time went by I have come to appreciate more and more simplicity and naturalness in music; but can't it be that what is actually needed is simplicity and naturalness in listening?
Quote
It is a difficult balance, this, with all art. Too much printer's ink can clog up the ears as well as the eyes.
Oh, absolutely, not to mention that it can endanger one's soul, as a certain gentleman holding multiple PhDs in Theology from several universities, mostly German, knows only too well. ;)
The one time I do not want to see the performer is an oboe solo. There is something disturbingly incongruous between the beautiful sound and the absurd, grotesque contortions of the performer blowing into that little reed on the end of a wooden tube. The same would apply to bassoon, I guess, if something beautiful were actually produced.
Quote from: Florestan on September 25, 2018, 06:33:29 AM
can't it be that what is actually needed is simplicity and naturalness in listening?
Well, let's run with it for a moment and see what happens.
Winding back the clock yet again to 1964/65, I vividly remember an English teacher walking into the classroom carrying a gramophone and a copy of
Symphonie Fantastique. He announced that today there would be no formal English lesson. We were going to listen to this piece of music instead. He told us very little, but he did mention Berlioz's obsession with Harriet Smithson, and that the first movement was inspired by a dream. 'See if you can hear him dreaming about her,' he suggested.
Now, that was it - all I needed. I jolly well
could hear him dreaming about her, without any further prompting, and I liked it. I went off and bought an LP and proceeded to wear out the grooves. That, I think, comes close to the kind of 'simplicity and naturalness' that you speak of. And, I guess, it's likely to be a beguiling way into classical music for many people other than myself.
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on September 25, 2018, 08:36:27 AM
The one time I do not want to see the performer is an oboe solo. There is something disturbingly incongruous between the beautiful sound and the absurd, grotesque contortions of the performer blowing into that little reed on the end of a wooden tube. The same would apply to bassoon, I guess, if something beautiful were actually produced.
I would add the French Horn.
This just for Scarpia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ1Nz3UOOas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ1Nz3UOOas)
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on September 25, 2018, 05:40:30 AM
I'm reassured by your agreement, Karl. And I think my point is (I am still in the process of discovering what my point is) that 'attentiveness' covers a wide spectrum of awareness, from Total Immersion at one end, to Total Obliviousness at the other - only this last extreme being, strictly, inattentiveness.
Indeed.
Quote from: Florestan on September 25, 2018, 06:33:29 AM
I'll follow your example and think aloud. As time went by I have come to appreciate more and more simplicity and naturalness in music; but can't it be that what is actually needed is simplicity and naturalness in listening?
This seems to me pretty much what I was suggesting when, in the pre-concert lecture for
Plotting, I told the audience that I wanted them to enjoy the piece, more than I wanted them to
understand it.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 25, 2018, 09:26:28 AM
This seems to me pretty much what I was suggesting when, in the pre-concert lecture for Plotting, I told the audience that I wanted them to enjoy the piece, more than I wanted them to understand it.
The current listening thread impresses me with the detailed comments about aspects of the music but I find it extremely hard to write that sort of thing. I don't have the faintest idea of how what I'm listening to might relate to music theory or notation, but can enjoy it very much by just concentrating on hearing the sounds, being in the moment, not remembering the sections that have gone before or anticipating those that are yet to be played. Possibly music that is unpredictable or that has several apparently unrelated parts playing simultaneously helps with this, it takes more attention to follow what the different instruments are doing.
Quote from: 2dogs on September 25, 2018, 08:59:17 PM
The current listening thread impresses me with the detailed comments about aspects of the music but I find it extremely hard to write that sort of thing. I don't have the faintest idea of how what I'm listening to might relate to music theory or notation, but can enjoy it very much by just concentrating on hearing the sounds, being in the moment...
I like your quote,
2dogs. That's what matters when listening, you don't have to understand theory to enjoy the music.
While there is nothing wrong with and there are many great 5 minutes pieces I think that one of the most important aspects of classical music appreciation is to develop the ability to listen attentively for more 5 minutes. Therefore I would not answer the question because it can lead to a false start.
I think I'd have to know the person I was trying to seduce before I chose the 'five minutes worth'.
A reflective person - I'd go with the poster above who suggested Beethoven, Moonlight Sonata. However often you hear it, what other word can sum it up but beautiful?
An extrovert - Liszt, Hungarian Rhapsody. For the sheer joy of it.
I think it is possible for five minutes to make you 'fall in love' or change your life in some way - I remember reading about an American tourist in the UK who heard Welsh spoken at a bus stop, had never heard anything so beautiful, and went home to make arrangements to return to Wales, learn the language, and (after a few years) to live there permanently.
That is not to say that most people don't fall in love instantly, but instead 'grow to love'.
Yet still - those first impressions, the first few moments, can be crucial.