Great composers that are not your cup of tea

[johnshade]

Same can be said about Shostakovich, you either put the effort and try to understand it, or you won't like it. He didn't write it to please anybody, if you want that kind of music, listen to his film music or jazz suites.

~
I will try some chamber music of Shostakovich. I certainly have no interest in film music or jazz. I know what you mean about spending effort to appreciate some composers, but have not been attracted to  Shostakovich based on symphonies I have heard in concert and on records. Apparently not my cup of tea.

[cx]

(a) I compared their complexity only here, not the composers.

(b) If I give you a set of letters E & S like this: {EEEEEEEESEEEEESEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE} one can without any math come to an conclusion that there are 10-20 times more E letters compared to S. Similarly I can tell my brains have to work 10-20 more in order to "decode" Elgar's music.

The fact is you are making an estimate based on a quantitative representation of something. How is musical comparison measured, even if roughly, quantitatively?

[71 dB]

People who know the first few symphonies, the Swan of Tuonela and so forth often dismiss Sibelius in this way. But truth be told, Sibelius offers something quite new in symphonic music, a new approach, above all to structure and texture, that simply hadn't been dreamt of before. For you to dismiss that as with a simple 'I noticed that Sibelius' music isn't that remarkable after all' ought to be astonishing. But somehow it isn't.

Anyone can offer something new but what does it help if it sounds bad? Sibelius might be intersting to those who study scores but for me music does not exist before it's performed and heard. Elgar might have been old-fashioned composer (so was Bach), but at least he composed music that sounds good. As I have said, some compose with notes, some compose with sounds.

Again with the misrepresentation of Sibelius! Perhaps you don't know his last 4 symphonies or Tapiola, but these, just for a start, offer both great sophistication and entirely new structural thinking (sorry to repeat myself!). Another aspect of Sibelius's writing which doesn't exist in, say, Elgar to the same extent, is his fascinating motivic methods. Easy music this ain't!

I like Sibelius' 6th symphony the most. 7th is good too. Elgar's music isn't lacking anything. It's internally in total balance.

So the Sevillana is the only failure you can think of? And Beethoven's first two symphs are comparable in this respect?

Not the only one but one example of weaker Elgar. It's still nice music but far from Elgar's best moments. Same with Beethoven's symphonies 1 & 2.

Well, complexity and sophistication aren't the be-all-and-end-all but trust me, a little study of Sibelius and Elgar reveals their levels of 'complexity and sophistication' to be different, but probably about equal, I'd say. Structurally, Sibelius certainly offers things Elgar never did; harmonically, too, and in terms of melodic variety, he is probably more innovative, inventive and interesting; Sibelius's new approach to orchestral strata is also more developed than Elgar's basically traditional orchestral conception; OTOH Elgar has more events-per-square-cm and a more fragmented, mosaic-like orchestral texture which may sometimes make his music sound more complex on the surface.

Elgar do not have more "events-per-square-cm" in his scores but his events have much more effect due to the musical dimensions. Sibelius is a non-relative composer and Elgar is a relative composer. Music is very much relative as an artform. Things have their meaning mostly when they are compared to each other. Non-relative composers are blind to musical dimensions and their music tend to be flat.

EXAMPLE: If violins and cellos play with the same rhythm we have only one rhythm but if they play different rhythms we have actually 3 rhythms: Violin, cello and their interaction rhythm (illusionary structure). So, just giving violin and cello different rhythms we have 3 times more complex music not to mention about other benefits (huge harmonic possibilities due to note overlap).

[71 dB]

Maybe that means that Elgar's music is worse than Sibelius's.

Composers don't earn awards just for making their music more turgid, do they?

No because decoding means musical interest.

[karlhenning]

No because decoding means lack of musical interest.  It means code interest.

[BachQ]

(b) If I give you a set of letters E & S like this: {EEEEEEEESEEEEESEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE} one can without any math come to an conclusion that there are 10-20 times more E letters compared to S. Similarly I can tell my brains have to work 10-20 more in order to "decode" Elgar's music.

My brain must work 10-20 times more in order to "decode" your post . . . . . .

[71 dB]

The fact is you are making an estimate based on a quantitative representation of something. How is musical comparison measured, even if roughly, quantitatively?

It's based on the musical impact of the music. Work A "kicks ass" two times more than work B. So, Work A is 2 times better. Understanding musical impact is another issue and not an easy one.

[karlhenning]

My brain must work 10-20 times more in order to "decode" your post . . . . . .

When they can't dazzle you with brilliance, they baffle you with bullfeathers.

[BachQ]

No because decoding means musical interest.

You betcha . . . . . . .  

[looja]

Dmitri Shostakovitch - don't really care much about his work in whole. I have listened to some of his most important symphony's and I can't find anything special about them. At some point they are interesting but what annoys is that they are usually too long for me and it gets boring. But I really enjoy some of his smaller pieces. I have to admit also that I don't really enjoy modern music that much and "new music" makes a big part of Dmitri's life work.

[karlhenning]

It's based on the musical impact of the music.

Which you quantify how?

Work A "kicks ass" two times more than work B. So, Work A is 2 times better. Understanding musical impact is another issue and not an easy one.

What is being quantified?

Which word do you not understand?

[Florestan]

Gentlemen, please! As OP, I beg you to stop these spiral-running parallel monologues. Let  us each enjoy what we like and respect - and let others know, that's the idea of the topic - what we don't like!

[BachQ]

What is being quantified?

And are you expecting a coherent answer to this question?  

[karlhenning]

Dmitri Shostakovitch - don't really care much about his work in whole. I have listened to some of his most important symphony's and I can't find anything special about them. At some point they are interesting but what annoys is that they are usually too long for me and it gets boring. But I really enjoy some of his smaller pieces. I have to admit also that I don't really enjoy modern music that much and "new music" makes a big part of Dmitri's life work.

Welcome to the Forum!

And what a fascinating post!  From my viewpoint, actually, Shostakovich is hardly new at all (the fellow has been dead already some 30 years, after all).

But if his symphonies are leaving you cold, leave them be for a spell;  listen to other music which fires your interest.  You may find your ears have changed towards Shostakovich five, ten years from now.

[karlhenning]

And are you expecting a coherent answer to this question?  

How absolute the knave is! 

No, as indeed you guessed, mon vieux!

[karlhenning]

Gentlemen, please! As OP, I beg you to stop these spiral-running parallel monologues. Let  us each enjoy what we like and respect - and let others know, that's the idea of the topic - what we don't like!

Well, I don't like people taking things as vague as their feelings about music, and pretending that they've quantified them 

[Florestan]

Well, I don't like people taking things as vague as their feelings about music, and pretending that they've quantified them 

I completely agree with you. But this is a never-ending story.

[71 dB]

Which you quantify how?

My brains just do it automatically.

What is being quantified?

Which word do you not understand?

Musical dimensions, structures and other attributes a sound can have.

Somehow fans of Sibelius have been able to quantify his music in order to keep him in high esteem. I am just doing the same with Elgar.

[Harry]

I think 71 Db is really enjoying his sparring partners.

[71 dB]

I think 71 Db is really enjoying his sparring partners.

I enjoy explaining things important to me but sometimes things get frustrating... 

Decibel = dB. B is uppercase because it comes from the name Bell.