Interesting romantic composers

[Wanderer]

...composers in 20th century ... who are influenced by Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert, Mendelssohn or Debussy instead of Liszt, Wagner, Mahler...

I assume you're already familiar with Medtner, but I'm going to mention him anyway. Beethoven (predilection for motivic development) and Schumann (whimsical theatricality and sense of humour) are often cited as his most obvious influences and in the past he was sometimes called "the Russian Brahms" (an epithet he particularly disliked).

"Interesting Romantic" = oxymoron, no??

No, just redundant. 

[Franco]

The thing is however that music can seduce you, so you can't hear what's bad in it, when seduced you think it's beautiful. So you have to take care of this in some way.

I completely disagree with this statement.

One of the signs of good music is its power to effect you, and part of this process includes seduction and beauty.  If you find these characteristics questionable, it begins to seem that you are primarily interested in a cerebral experience.

That is fine, for what it is worth (not much IMO) - but most of the art in music is not experienced cerebrally.

[Henk]

I completely disagree with this statement.

One of the signs of good music is its power to effect you, and part of this process includes seduction and beauty.  If you find these characteristics questionable, it begins to seem that you are primarily interested in a cerebral experience.

That is fine, for what it is worth (not much IMO) - but most of the art in music is not experienced cerebrally.

Good music doesn't need to be seductive. It's good in in itself, which can cause spontaneous exaltation!

[Franco]

Good music doesn't need to be seductive. It's good in in itself, which can cause spontaneous exaltation!

Wrong.  Good music has to be seductive.   We might have different meanings of the word seduction.  It does not imply cheap effect, to me - but an effective use by the composer of the skill of manipulating musical elements in a piece of music which creates interest in the audience, and to lead the audience on the journey the composer has in mind.

Seduction is a crucial element in the process.

[Henk]

Wrong.  Good music has to be seductive.   We might have different meanings of the word seduction.  It does not imply cheap effect, to me - but an effective use by the composer of the skill of manipulating musical elements in a piece of music which creates interest in the audience, and to lead the audience on the journey the composer has in mind.

Seduction is a crucial element in the process.

Agree completely if the statement "Good music has to be seductive" is changed in "Bad music has to be seductive" (in order to have reason for existence). But you don't have to follow me in this.

I prefer spontaneous exaltation. What's wrong with that?

[Franco]

Agree completely if the statement "Good music has to be seductive" is changed in "Bad music has to be seductive" (in order to have reason for existence). But you don't have to follow me in this.

I prefer spontaneous exaltation. What's wrong with that?

"Spontaneous exaltation" sounds to me like something produced in a listener but not a part of the music.  And spontaneous exaltation is a result, not a cause, and must be achieved by a composer through a well thought-out and executed compositional process, and to my way of thinking before you can feel spontaneously exaltation you first have to be seduced into following the music closely enough to be effected.

Trying to define good or bad music is futile, actually.  There is little about Richard Wagner that I find good, but many others do, and I will not tell them that they are wrong.  I find Wagner's music to be "seductive" in the extreme, and yet, he is widely considered a genius and his music masterful.  It is not the seductive quality of his music that I object to, it is where he is taking me that I don't like.

[ChamberNut]

Henk, it kind of sounds to me like you want to 'hand pick' what you like and what you don't like in music, even though you may like what you don't like, and not like what you like.  At least, that's how I'm reading it.

Do you automatically dismiss a composer and their music just because:

a) composer influenced by Wagner
b) sounds seductive

If so, it seems to me like you are doing yourself the biggest disservice, and depriving yourself of some great music.

Just sayin', of course.  Just my opinion. 

[Chaszz]

...The thing is however that music can seduce you, so you can't hear what's bad in it, when seduced you think it's beautiful. So you have to take care of this in some way.

Henk

Satan is behind the seductive beauty-seeming of Wagner, Liszt and Mahler. Bad. Bad. Bad. Must maintain your guard. Do not get sucked in by this beauty-seeming. Dangerous. Heretic. Bad. Bad. Bad. Will go to hell for eternity.

[greg]

Satan is behind the seductive beauty-seeming of Wagner, Liszt and Mahler. Bad. Bad. Bad. Must maintain your guard. Do not get sucked in by this beauty-seeming. Dangerous. Heretic. Bad. Bad. Bad. Will go to hell for eternity.

They have little boys sing the "Bing-Bong" movement in hell forever, mockingly...

[Diletante]

... and every hour they bang your head with a hammer twice three times twice three times twice three times.

(To the OP: see what you get when you upset Mahler fans? Now your thread is derailed and you'll never get your answer.  )

[zamyrabyrd]

The thing is however that music can seduce you, so you can't hear what's bad in it, when seduced you think it's beautiful. So you have to take care of this in some way.

Henk

St. Augustine, (4th century) was likewise concerned that people would be carried away by the beauty of church music and miss the message. This has been a perennial theme in the Church.

I also complain about the choice of music by my kids that appeal to the guts and not the mind.

ZB

[Henk]

Satan is behind the seductive beauty-seeming of Wagner, Liszt and Mahler. Bad. Bad. Bad. Must maintain your guard. Do not get sucked in by this beauty-seeming. Dangerous. Heretic. Bad. Bad. Bad. Will go to hell for eternity.

Nice try. But my motive is completely aesthetic. I want to sort out the good music from the bulk of (bad) music that has been made in the last 100 years. And yeah, I think that's an important task, and it should probably be a task for anyone listening to classical music.

[Henk]

"Spontaneous exaltation" sounds to me like something produced in a listener but not a part of the music.  And spontaneous exaltation is a result, not a cause, and must be achieved by a composer through a well thought-out and executed compositional process, and to my way of thinking before you can feel spontaneously exaltation you first have to be seduced into following the music closely enough to be effected.

Trying to define good or bad music is futile, actually.  There is little about Richard Wagner that I find good, but many others do, and I will not tell them that they are wrong.  I find Wagner's music to be "seductive" in the extreme, and yet, he is widely considered a genius and his music masterful.  It is not the seductive quality of his music that I object to, it is where he is taking me that I don't like.

Highly interesting! Will think about it.

[Henk]

Henk, it kind of sounds to me like you want to 'hand pick' what you like and what you don't like in music, even though you may like what you don't like, and not like what you like.  At least, that's how I'm reading it.

Do you automatically dismiss a composer and their music just because:

a) composer influenced by Wagner
b) sounds seductive

If so, it seems to me like you are doing yourself the biggest disservice, and depriving yourself of some great music.

Just sayin', of course.  Just my opinion.  

a) Yes I dismiss then
b) when it sounds late-romantic or when composers only seem to make use of superficial effects I recognize and (only) think of it could be music of low values. But still listen further because I may like it.

Henk

[Henk]

People, I continue to listen to music I suspect of being inferior. I know that that's more a thought then that it's based on (much) listening. Don't let there be misunderstanding about this. However I have explained what are the things I'm aware of when listening to classical music. I think that's well explained and I've argumented that it are rather beliefs then arguments. It's important for me however to stay as little prejudiced as possible while listening. I want to hear what's bad in "bad music", and what's good in "good music".

Henk

Expected some rewarding comments after having made clear this. Now I think you guys want me to act as "some kind of fool"!

Henk

[monafam]

Quoting yourself or linking to your comments in other threads seems a bit self-serving.  I imagine you feel the point was eloquently stated enough making additional comment on your part unnecessary; however, we still obviously aren't fully comprehending.  This does lead to some lively discussions at times though......

[Henk]

Wrong.  Good music has to be seductive.   We might have different meanings of the word seduction.  It does not imply cheap effect, to me - but an effective use by the composer of the skill of manipulating musical elements in a piece of music which creates interest in the audience, and to lead the audience on the journey the composer has in mind.

Seduction is a crucial element in the process.

"Spontaneous exaltation" sounds to me like something produced in a listener but not a part of the music.  And spontaneous exaltation is a result, not a cause, and must be achieved by a composer through a well thought-out and executed compositional process, and to my way of thinking before you can feel spontaneously exaltation you first have to be seduced into following the music closely enough to be effected.

Trying to define good or bad music is futile, actually.  There is little about Richard Wagner that I find good, but many others do, and I will not tell them that they are wrong.  I find Wagner's music to be "seductive" in the extreme, and yet, he is widely considered a genius and his music masterful.  It is not the seductive quality of his music that I object to, it is where he is taking me that I don't like.

Another related point I made is the pose you have when listening to music. When you want to like it, you often will like. But the preferable pose imo is just listening to it and observe what the music does to you.

I think you're right in what you are saying about seduction and that exaltation is a result not a cause. That makes things more clear to me. The point however I wanted to made that some music is seductive in order to transform from bad music to good music. I don't agree that "trying to define good or bad music is futile". Nietzsche wrote interesting things about it.

Henk

[Wanderer]

...act as "some kind of fool"!

One example of this is that while the subject itself is to ask for advice about "composers", you don't really seem to care; you haven't even mentioned one name that meets your own specifications, as laid out in your first post. Trying to engage others, instead, in some mumbo-jumbo generic "good vs. bad music" fluff-talk is neither perceptive nor sincere.

[greg]

St. Augustine, (4th century) was likewise concerned that people would be carried away by the beauty of church music and miss the message. This has been a perennial theme in the Church.

This must explain why almost all church music is horrible, even (ahem, especially) the contemporary stuff...

[Henk]

This must explain why almost all church music is horrible, even (ahem, especially) the contemporary stuff...

Don't agree. While I'm not religious I like the music of Messiaen. I like the religious sound. Religion has brought forth very beautiful things (but also war).