Eclectic vs. Specialized

[schweitzeralan]

Some time ago I initiated a tread which stated "If one loves music, the less music one likes." There were several responses, most of which had generally denied that asseveration courtesy of Roger Sessions.  What this post is inquiring is if there are many out there who, much like myself, appreciate composers who were composing during specific periods of development, over other periods, earlier or late than the "appreciated" one. For example, I fully respect Baroque, Classical, and early Romantic works, or the many masterpieces conceived  roughly from the late 16the century to the late 19th.  Yet my true passions, for some reason, involve those the music utilizing the techniques, modes, harmonies and so forth, of the music that was developed during  from the last decade of the 19th until (roughly) 1960, the time of Martinu's death.

I won't state the involved reasons or rationale here.  I simply wanted to ascertain if there were other forum members who are drawn to, or who prefer listening to composers writing during specific time periods. Many have tastes that are eclectic; mine tend to be specialized, as I happen to like the late romantics, the impressionists, and the neoclassical works conceived during the twenties through the fifties. The appreciation and adjudications on my part are strictly personal. The fact that one may not love Haydn does does mean that he or she does not love classical music.  Just a thought.

[jimmosk]

Certainly I find that most of my favorite pieces were composed from around 1860 - 1940. But it's not that there's a steep drop off if you go outside that range. I still like lots of music from earlier in the 19th century, and some from the 18th & before. And there are certainly pieces composed post-1940 that I very much enjoy... so if you were looking for people who are pretty specific in their eras I may not fill the bill.  What I have is an era I prefer; it's not the only one I enjoy.

[Cato]

Eclectic is the word for me, although lopsided: at times I want nothing but Charles Ives and Alexander Scriabin.  At other times only Perotin will do!  And then suddenly only Schumann's four symphonies, the Piano Concerto, and the Manfred Overture will satisfy me!

In general, I am heavy on the post-Romantics and the 20th Century, but today I happened to mention Gesualdo in connection with Hugo Wolf.  This afternoon the Sixth Book of Madrigals (mentioned under "Extreme Harmony") will grace my Victrola.   0:)

[schweitzeralan]

Eclectic is the word for me, although lopsided: at times I want nothing but Charles Ives and Alexander Scriabin.  At other times only Perotin will do!  And then suddenly only Schumann's four symphonies, the Piano Concerto, and the Manfred Overture will satisfy me!

In general, I am heavy on the post-Romantics and the 20th Century, but today I happened to mention Gesualdo in connection with Hugo Wolf.  This afternoon the Sixth Book of Madrigals (mentioned under "Extreme Harmony") will grace my Victrola.   0:)

Interesting. I'm just curious to determine if there are specialist "appreciators" not too unlike myself.  I forgot that Schman wrote a "Manfred' Symphony.  I'm familiar only with Tchaikovsky's superb work.

[jochanaan]

I'm pretty much the opposite.  The longer I listen and play music, the more eclectic my tastes get. I love stuff from every period in music history and every region of the world.

[some guy]

Schumann wrote a Manfred opera, of which the Manfred overture is the, um, well, overture.

Otherwise, I'm going to propose that eclectic and specialized are not related by the word vs. When I started out listening to classical music, around 1960, I was certainly what the OP would call eclectic, though I always had my favorites. Since 1972, when I "discovered" twentieth century music, I've been drawn more and more to the musics of now, whenever "now" is. (It's currently 2009.)

I listen primarily to music written in the past twenty years or so. In the hundred+ concerts I've attended since the 18th of August, I've heard pieces mainly from the past six or seven years. But that doesn't seem, oddly enough, like specializing. As I get deeper and deeper into the music of now, the more it feels like my horizons are expanding, not contracting, like I'm listening to more and more various. Plus, I don't stop listening to Palestrina and Bach and Berlioz and Poulenc and so on.

So I'd like to choose "both," please.

[rappy]

I'm one of the rarely met people who like just every classical composer being widely recognized as a "great" one. So, of course, I don't spend to much time listening to Dittersdorf, but I love every musical style if carried to perfection. Whenever I talk with friends or people from Internet forums, I will always find out that there are certain well-known composers they can't stand. Some never listen to Haydn or Mozart, some even ignore everything written from 1750 to Wagner. Some don't like 20th century music, some just can't stand Bruckner or Strauss.
I sometimes wonder how someone can love the music of Bach or Wagner but will not be moved to tears when listening to the Jupiter or London symphony - and how it's just the other way around when I ask another person.

[schweitzeralan]

I'm one of the rarely met people who like just every classical composer being widely recognized as a "great" one. So, of course, I don't spend to much time listening to Dittersdorf, but I love every musical style if carried to perfection. Whenever I talk with friends or people from Internet forums, I will always find out that there are certain well-known composers they can't stand. Some never listen to Haydn or Mozart, some even ignore everything written from 1750 to Wagner. Some don't like 20th century music, some just can't stand Bruckner or Strauss.
I sometimes wonder how someone can love the music of Bach or Wagner but will not be moved to tears when listening to the Jupiter or London symphony - and how it's just the other way around when I ask another person.

I believe that most forum poster are eclectic.  I have on occasion met individuals who were more drawn to specific composers, or certain periods.  Only very few I've met personally were interested in what was once 20th century avant-garde tendencies.  Almost all I've known appreciate Bach, Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, plus other "well knowns."  Very few I've met personally know Scriabin, Matetoja, Hanson, Barber, Suk, Martinu.  A former student of mine did get to listen to and to appreciate 20th century composers.  Of course, remember, my erstwhile acquaintances are not, nor were they ever Forum contributors.

[Bulldog]

I don't think of my tastes in terms of eclectic vs. specialized, but I suppose that most folks aware that I listened to just Bach organ music for three years would count me as specialized.  I don't do stuff like that these days; now I listen to other categories of Bach music as well (just kidding).

[DavidW]

It's a false dichotomy.  Most posters here specialize in certain music, while still enjoying all.  In that sense most posters are both.

[Superhorn]

  Schumann's Manfred overture is actually a concert overture inspired by the epic poem by Byron, on which Tchaikovsky's Manfred symphony is also based.
  Schumann's only opera is called Genoveva , and this has often been dimissed as a failure, but it contains some wonderful music. Both Kurt Masur and Nikolaus Harnoncourt have recorded the opera, with respectively, the Gewandhaus orchestra of Leipzig on Berlin classics (analogue),and Harnoncourt with the Chamber orchestra of Europe on Teldec (digital).  There is also a dVD conducted by Harnoncourt which I have not seen but would definitely like to.
  Leon Botstein did it recently at Bard college with the American Symphony .

[schweitzeralan]

It's a false dichotomy.  Most posters here specialize in certain music, while still enjoying all.  In that sense most posters are both.

Makes sense for knowledgeale listeners who have the proverbial long arm, or be it, the ear, in this context.  Yet there are individuals ( I myself will listen to music which was conceived and developed, along with its intricacies, well over several centuries ago but will not necessarily become all that involved nor enamored with it.  Strictly my problem! My particular "tastes" remain exclusionary and quite limited and specific. Now, the element of "Pop Music" I dare not arouse. As the Queen once stated elegantly, "anus horribilis." Please accept the spelling.

[DavidW]

I'm not denying that there others like you.  I don't like your A vs B since they're not mutually exclusive.  I think you hit upon a more appropriate word.  Replace specialized with exclusive and that would work better for me.

[DFO]

I begin with papa Bach, followed by Domenico Scarlatti; jump to papa Haydn and from him on, until middle 20th.century, and stop there.

[schweitzeralan]

I'm not denying that there others like you.  I don't like your A vs B since they're not mutually exclusive.  I think you hit upon a more appropriate word.  Replace specialized with exclusive and that would work better for me.

Sounds quite reasonable.

[CD]

This pretty much sums it up: