Greetings!

[NorthNYMark]

Hi, GMG forum members!

As my screen name suggests, my name is Mark and I live in Northern New York State, near the border with Canada.  As a relative newcomer to classical music, I've been lurking here for a few weeks, and have found the site to be an incredible resource.  I found out about the site from George P, who also posts on the Steve Hoffman music site where I've been a member for some years (as "Progfan").  Currently in my early-mid forties, I've spent most of my life listening mainly to progressive rock and a smattering of jazz, and have been branching out into the world of classical mainly just in the past year.  I already had a basic knowledge of the basic musical periods, styles, and composers from some university music appreciation courses, but after beginning with a few Living Stereo classical SACDs a few years ago, what really got me started on the classical journey was the "Decca Sound" bargain megabox I bought a year ago.  I absolutely loved it, as its stylistic and chronological breadth is perfect for a curious beginner.  I followed that up with the similar sets from DG, Mercury, and Phillips (though haven't made it through them all yet).

In general, I'm a somewhat unusual "newbie" in that I find avant-garde modernism (at least some of it) relatively accessible, as it is not far removed from the more "out" aspects of King Crimson (my favorite rock group) or avant jazz.  Nevertheless, I've been committed to listening to a broad swath of classical music with as open a mind as possible.  So far, what has appealed to me most has been my slightly modified version of "the three Bs": Beethoven, Brahms, and Bartok (as well as modernists like Schoenberg, Webern, Messiaen, Ligeti, Varèse, etc., although I knew I liked that stuff ahead of time).  Late romantics like Bruckner, Mahler, and Sibelius intrigue me as well, though none of them has yet connected with me as much as the aforementioned three Bs. Baroque and even early music (to which I've had less exposure) has some appeal as well, though I've found the classical period (especially Mozart and Haydn) and the minimalism of Glass and Reich somewhat tougher going. Still, I'm rarely willing to dismiss a composer or style out of hand--if something about a composition bothers me, I assume that I, rather than the composition, am at fault.

Anyway, I've been tempted to respond to various threads, but wanted to introduce myself first.  Thanks to everyone involved in maintaining this great site!

Mark

[Sean]

Hi there Mark, good to read your thoughts on music; there's no reason not to follow your inclinations at any time, I'm sure I do, and there's some life-changing material in most of the figures you mention. Don't worry about your opinions, if you don't relate to something it'll either develop in you or your initial response will gain in assurance... Sean

[Sean]

And nice Tower of Babel, by that medievalist, what's his name... My music is better than my painting...

I wonder why you like it?

[mc ukrneal]

Welcome and interesting background! There are so many interesting composers out there. While I was reading your intro, Ives jumped into my head as someone you might want to try. A very unusual composer (you never know how someone will react). You might also like Medtner, but he may be too close to romanticism for you (but who knows).

The classical style is just so different from everything you listed, I am not surprised it takes more effort on your part. For me, that period is just so joyful - the music is admittedly on the lighter side (certainly from what you described) with entirely different textures than what you are used to. Enjoy your exploration!

[North Star]

Welcome! My path to classical lead through Rock and Jazz, too, about 5 years ago. All the composers you list are dear to me. May I suggest the three B's to you: Berlioz, Berg, and Britten! (and try Bach, too, even if he isn't modern - a Rock and Jazz fan should like his music alright. Passacaglia & Fuga in C minor, the Brandenburg Concertos, or the cantata Es ist genug - Berg quotes it in his VC's 2nd movements opening). And lovely to meet a Sibelius fan! Try Ravel and Janacek, too. And try Arvo Pärt (Cantus, Fratres) and John Adams (Harmonielehre) to give the minimalists another chance.

[Beorn]

*shakes hand* 

[bhodges]

Hi Mark, and welcome from NYC. Nothing wrong with those "three B's"! Enjoy yourself here; lots of fine folks running about.

--Bruce

[Karl Henning]

Welcome, Mark!

[Gurn Blanston]

And nice Tower of Babel, by that medievalist, what's his name... My music is better than my painting...

I wonder why you like it?

That's Pieter Brügel. What's not to like? Totally representative of GMG on a daily basis. At least for me. 

Hello, Mark. Welcome. It's OK, the world needs modernists too.   We'll help with the rest.

[NorthNYMark]

Thanks for the kind welcome, everyone!   

[NorthNYMark]

That's Pieter Brügel. What's not to like? Totally representative of GMG on a daily basis. At least for me. 

Hello, Mark. Welcome. It's OK, the world needs modernists too.   We'll help with the rest.

[/quote]

And nice Tower of Babel, by that medievalist, what's his name... My music is better than my painting...

I wonder why you like it?

As an art historian by profession, I'm glad some have asked about Brueghel's Tower of Babel.  It's kind of an odd choice for me in that I'm mainly a modernist in the art historical field as well, but it has some personal resonances.  In my grad school days I spent some time in Belgium and the Netherlands, and at one point had an internship at the museum in Rotterdam where the painting (or at least one of its versions) hangs.  I've always loved its jewel-like colors  and almost outrageous detail (both more evident in person than in reproduction).  When choosing  an avatar, I took the path of least resistance and picked one of those offered on the site itself, and of the available artworks, this seemed particularly appropriate,  due both  to its intimation of multiple, ever-expanding points of view and to its implicit warning against hubris. Especially as someone new to this field (let alone this community), it may be helpful to remind myself to stay as open as possible to new ideas and perspectives. 

[Karl Henning]

Incidentally, I'm a huge Bartók fan, Mark . . . and by an interesting coincidence, recently passed on my enthusiasm for the quartets to another friend of the name Marc.  What Bartók are you especially keen on?

[NorthNYMark]

Welcome and interesting background! There are so many interesting composers out there. While I was reading your intro, Ives jumped into my head as someone you might want to try. A very unusual composer (you never know how someone will react). You might also like Medtner, but he may be too close to romanticism for you (but who knows).

The classical style is just so different from everything you listed, I am not surprised it takes more effort on your part. For me, that period is just so joyful - the music is admittedly on the lighter side (certainly from what you described) with entirely different textures than what you are used to. Enjoy your exploration!

Thanks for the suggestions.  I have heard some Ives--I recently got the Leonard Bernstein "Original Jackets Collection" (I don't understand why anything is ever reissued in anything other than original jackets), and one of Ives's symphonies (I think it was #2) is part of it.  I enjoyed it quite a bit, although, being somewhat of a Europhile, it was an interesting challenge to get past some of my not especially positive associations with traditional American music (though I liked where he took it toward the end, with the nearly clashing/crashing simultaneity of "songs" acting almost like an unrecognizable form of contrapuntal compostion).  Do most of Ives's compositions refer so explicitly to American vernacular styles?  It struck me as an intriguing, almost "postmodern" approach, which is especially surprising given how old the work actually is!

This is the first time I've ever heard of Medtner, however--I'll be looking him up!  Out of curiosity, what is it about his work that particularly appeals to you?

By the way, I have enjoyed some works from the classical period--it just requires me to really move out of my comfort zone and get beyond stereotypical associations with bewigged Rococo aristocrats in ostentatiously elegant drawing rooms.  I have some versions of Mozart's clarinet, bassoon, and horn concertos--one by Böhm from the DG 111 (2) boxed set, and another by Maag as a Speakers Corner vinyl reissue.  What I enjoy most about them is mainly the sonorities of the lead instruments, which often have a glowing quality that really pulls me in.  The short, "curlicued" melodies and regularly chugging backing ostinati (is that the right term?) are the elements with which I struggle somewhat; at those times, I try to think of them as frameworks to bring the glowing, ever so slightly melancholy sonorities of the wind instruments into more vivid relief. I've also heard a few Mozart piano concertos, one set with Curzon/Britten and one with Pires/Abbado: I enjoyed the former much more than I had expected to, and the latter perhaps a bit less (I'm not sure why, though, at this point--I'll have to return to them at some point for a direct comparison).

Thanks again for the encouragement!

[NorthNYMark]

Welcome! My path to classical lead through Rock and Jazz, too, about 5 years ago. All the composers you list are dear to me. May I suggest the three B's to you: Berlioz, Berg, and Britten! (and try Bach, too, even if he isn't modern - a Rock and Jazz fan should like his music alright. Passacaglia & Fuga in C minor, the Brandenburg Concertos, or the cantata Es ist genug - Berg quotes it in his VC's 2nd movements opening). And lovely to meet a Sibelius fan! Try Ravel and Janacek, too. And try Arvo Pärt (Cantus, Fratres) and John Adams (Harmonielehre) to give the minimalists another chance.

Thanks!  I've heard at least something by every composer you've mentioned except for the latter two.  I've been meaning to try Pärt for some time, and I actually bought an old record with an Adams composition ("Shaker Loops") along with something by Reich (with Edo de Waart and the San Francisco Symphony) a while ago, but haven't had the chance to listen yet.  I wonder if listening to minimalism might not require similar approach (from me) to that required by listening to Mozart and Haydn--trying to see the repetitive framework as a means of highlighting the sonorities of the instruments themselves rather than the movement of the composition.  I imagine that minimalism is meant to be experienced in a Zen-like state where you become hyper-sensitive to the qualities of sound itself--is that the general consensus, or am I "off" in my assumptions?

As to those other three Bs, I haven't had particularly strong reactions to them one way or another--I get the sense that I need to hear more from them, though.  Interestingly, the first time I heard Symphony Fantastique, it was the Paray version from the Mercury set, and I enjoyed it a lot, as I recall.  Later I heard the more well-known (from what I can tell) version by Colin Davis on the Philips set, and it sounded a lot less adventurous than I had remembered.  Again, it will be interesting to compare them directly sometime.  People describe this work in ways that make me want to revisit it, because there must be something going on in it that I didn't notice when I listened to the Davis version. From Britten, I've only heard the War Requiem (the overall darkness of which I enjoyed, though I suspect that I would have gotten more out of it if I knew more about the conventions of the requiem format and if I were following along with the text), the Violin Concerto (Janssons and Järvi), and the Simple Symphony (only heard on the radio in the car).  They were all different enough that I don't yet have a feel for his overall style.  Berg is someone I expect to learn more about, though for some reason his somewhat thick sonic palette has not yet appealed to me as much as those of his contemporaries Schoenberg and (especially) Webern.  I'm going mainly on the basis of the Dorati set on Mercury, so I expect my initial responses to change with more exposure.

I definitely have had positive impressions (no pun intended) of both Ravel and Janacek, though, again, my exposure has been relatively limited.  With Ravel, I've enjoyed everything I've heard expect for Daphnis et Chloe, which seemed pretty but got tedious (to me) after a while (again, more listens may change that, but perhaps people have suggestions on approaching that particular work).  From Janacek, I've only heard the Sinfonietta (the main theme of which was already familiar due to Emerson, Lake, and Palmer's "appropriation" of it in "Knife-Edge") and part of Taras Bulba conducted by Mackerras on the Decca set.  It made me curious to hear more!

[Sean]

Mark, I don't fuss about hubris too much myself, not here anyway, as there's always your own counsel over the babble around you... Interesting point about the painting's seeming array of perspectives.

As for Medtner he's a gentle, subtle and rewarding composer sometimes compared with a figure like Faure; I can't agree with mc though that he should be much of a priority with the amount of more important music you might want to get into first.

I was at a concert a couple of years back with Maria Joao Pires in a Beethoven concerto under Trevor Pinnock and it was awful, with all kinds of affected ideas about authentic performance being dragged in, not least a refusal to distinguish between quavers and crotchets. Her Mozart is probably a bit better but I don't care for her personality.

[Sean]

Big minimalist fan here. Some works I'd argue are extremely successful aesthetically and some much less so; among the most interesting for now that I've explored are Glass's Dance No.1 and Satyagraha, Reich's Six pianos and the Variations you might have there, and Adams's Nixon in China though that's more post-minimalist with traditional development. Part's Tabula rasa is a remarkable short work.

[Papy Oli]

Hi Mark, Welcome to GMG !

[Florestan]

Welcome, have fun and post often! 

[NorthNYMark]

Incidentally, I'm a huge Bartók fan, Mark . . . and by an interesting coincidence, recently passed on my enthusiasm for the quartets to another friend of the name Marc.  What Bartók are you especially keen on?

Hi, Karl!  (I feel like I know you a bit already, since you've been a frequent poster on many of the threads I've been following as a "lurker").

Interestingly, the Bartók string quartets were the first classical purchase I ever made, well over a decade ago.  I learned that they were a big influence on Robert Fripp of King Crimson, so I went out and bought the Novak Quartet version.  Honestly, they were a bit of a struggle for me as my first classical purchase--not because of their much vaunted modernist angularity (of which I was expecting even more, to be honest), but because of trying to follow such long compositions involving instruments in the same family.  Basically, they just felt somewhat tedious to me due to the string quartet format more than anything else--they required an extreme focus of attention that I wasn't used to at the time.  What I most enjoyed were the third and fourth quartets, as they seemed the most distinct and the least "background-y."  I've been meaning to revisit them now--from what I've read, it sounds like the Emerson and/or the Takács Quartet might offer more engaging performances than the Novak Quartet does.

Beyond that, I've heard (and absolutely loved) the three piano concertos (and the concerto format seems to be the most immediately accessible for me in general), the Concerto for Orchestra, the violin and viola concertos, the Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celeste, Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion, and the Miraculous Mandarin.  For me, they are fun, intense, and colorful, with just enough modernist angularity to maintain a certain level of tension and unpredictability.  I've also heard the Dance Suite and several of the folk tunes/dances, but they didn't resonate with me so much.  For some reason, the "ethnic dances" format so popular in the late 19th century has yet to connect with me, although I seem to enjoy composers who were influenced by them in some way.

[Sean]

The Bartok quartets are not a great place to start at all, and they're more than a bit overrated at times; you're certainly right about the Third and Fourth being the most significant though. But you seem to have missed his greatest works, the first two piano concertos.