Great composers that are not your cup of tea

[karlhenning]

I think that all it takes to be thoroughly enamored of pre-Baroque music, is to be in a choir singing a Tallis, de Victoria or Palestrina motet.  There's nothing quite like making music, for learning to love music.

[Grazioso]

Not a bad period, mind you, but fairly limited IMO. 

Post-Classical through the beginnings of the Darmstadt School and Friends doesn't seem very limited: Mendelssohn and Schumann and Spohr through Wagner and Liszt to Mahler, Debussy, Bartok, Stravinsky... That's pretty wide ground to cover.

[Grazioso]

Yes, but not as wide an area as from Carl Friedrich Abel to Wu Fei.

Don't forget 50 Cent and Dolly Parton. Gotta draw the line somewhere 

[Grazioso]

Why?

Practicality. I'm all for exploring art with an open mind, but if you want to dig into and really get to know certain music by studying/playing it, it becomes impractical to try to do that and simultaneously devour everything out there. Unless you're Neemi Jarvi  You have to balance breadth and depth.

Of course, lots of folks (most folks?) listen to music just for casual entertainment, and if they still only want to listen to one thing, who cares? Let them have their fun--as long as they don't start spouting off nonsense about other music they know nothing about.

[westknife]

I would say that the most major composer I haven't really "cracked" yet is Debussy. Nothing against the guy, I'm sure I'll come around sooner or later, but right now my focus is elsewhere.

[Mirror Image]

You don't think that maybe this reflects more on the person, than on the music?

In other words, name ten pieces of music you feel are worth hearing, and I am sure we can find people to intellectualize them to death.  You like Pettersson, right? There's a composer whose music could be readily intellectualized to any extreme you wish.

Good point, Karl. For me, I'm affected by the music emotionally first and then comes in the intellectualizing aspect of it, which part of this, for me, is doing a lot research on the composer, his character, and what kind of goals they had set for themselves musically.

Do I like Pettersson? Yes, but only a few works. His Symphonies Nos. 6-8 and the Violin Concerto No. 2 are my favorite works by him. My view of Pettersson is he's a composer who suffered most of his life and had a pessimistic view of the world and this obviously comes out loud and clear in this music.

[AllegroVivace]

So, unless you are an Early Music lover, your taste is limited to the late 19th century and early 20th century composers - essentially a tonal landscape.  Not a bad period, mind you, but fairly limited IMO.  I am just the opposite from you since the Classical period composers and the post-1950 composers are my favorites, although, to be sure, there are many works written during your preferred time span which I also love.

I cannot identify any period for which there are not a good number of works which provide me with immense entertainment, and would consider myself musically beggared to the extent that large time periods of music making or particular schools of composition did nothing for me. 

Thankfully, I do not suffer from that problem.

You might be a richer person then. I wish I was able to enjoy every composition I've ever heard. The readers of this thread will see, though, that I've never said I'm hostile to anything post late-romantic. Some of my favorite composers are still alive.

In regards to some of the newer music, I am indeed a snob. For example, I think John Cage's composition made entirely of silence is pretentious, stupid and possibly a cheap scam to attract attention. Go ahead and think otherwise, if you like. I am tolerant to everyone's opinion.

[eyeresist]

For me, I'm affected by the music emotionally first and then comes in the intellectualizing aspect of it

This is the correct order.

As for the thread title, I'll throw the name Bartok out there. He's undeniably of terrific importance in the development of 20th c music, but most of his stuff just affects me like musical wallpaper. I can't remember any of it.

[Mirror Image]

This is the correct order.

As for the thread title, I'll throw the name Bartok out there. He's undeniably of terrific importance in the development of 20th c music, but most of his stuff just affects me like musical wallpaper. I can't remember any of it.

If a composer doesn't do anything for you, then you just can't help this, but I have to ask have you ever listened to Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle? I'm not sure how you feel about opera, but I've heard people who don't even like Bartok end up enjoying this work.

[AllegroVivace]

since it does not matter one way or the other what you think of it

This is generally a very poor style in debates...Does it actually matter what anyone thinks of it?

Why talk this way when you're perfectly capable of talking like an intelligent person...

[eyeresist]

If a composer doesn't do anything for you, then you just can't help this, but I have to ask have you ever listened to Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle? I'm not sure how you feel about opera, but I've heard people who don't even like Bartok end up enjoying this work.

No, I'm not a great opera fan, but I will try to get around to this one day. I gather this was an early work? How does it differ from his later stuff?

[Mirror Image]

No, I'm not a great opera fan, but I will try to get around to this one day. I gather this was an early work? How does it differ from his later stuff?

Checkout this Wiki article when you have time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard's_Castle

The Wooden Prince and Bluebeard's Castle were written around the same time. The music still has some leftover R. Strauss and Debussy residue, but the opera is one of Bartok's most ingenious I think.

[eyeresist]

Thanks, MI.

[Daverz]

In regards to some of the newer music, I am indeed a snob. For example, I think John Cage's composition made entirely of silence is pretentious, stupid and possibly a cheap scam to attract attention. Go ahead and think otherwise, if you like. I am tolerant to everyone's opinion.

Judging Cage's music by 4'33" is asinine.  If you're judging him based on a representative selection of works, fine, but otherwise your opinion on the matter is less than worthless.

[Mirror Image]

Judging Cage's music by 4'33" is asinine.  If you're judging him based on a representative selection of works, fine, but otherwise your opinion on the matter is less than worthless.

Cage's whole philosophy about music was a joke. The fact of the matter is the man didn't compose music that came from his heart but rather music than came to him through a science and mathematics textbook. I mean who composes a piece of music for a toy piano and expects to be taken seriously?

[Mirror Image]

By the way, Daverz, it seems to me that you don't understand the intent behind this thread. This thread is for composers that are not your cup of tea. AllegroVivace has the right to dismiss any composer he wants to. Any kind of research on Cage will give the reader the information he/she needs in order to decide whether he's a composer that's worth their time. I don't need to hear 10 works by Cage to say that it's garbage. I don't need to hear 20 works by Stockhausen to say that he's a waste of time. Research enables a person to get a feel for what kind of music the given composer has written and as to whether or not they want to pursue their music or if they want to simply ignore, or in my own case, avoid it.

[eyeresist]

[Superhorn]

   If you're having difficulty getting into Wagner, try listening to to he operas one act at a time and give yourself a breather
  between acts. This should be helpful.
     Chopin is not my cup of tea.  If you'll pardon my use of alliteration ,  it's music of   pallid prettiness,
  perfumed preciosity and  swooning salonish sentimentality .  You can't deny the elegant craftsmanship of the music,
   but it's just too swooningly pretentious for me. 

[Amfortas]

   If you're having difficulty getting into Wagner, try listening to to he operas one act at a time and give yourself a breather
  between acts. This should be helpful.
     Chopin is not my cup of tea.  If you'll pardon my use of alliteration ,  it's music of   pallid prettiness,
  perfumed preciosity and  swooning salonish sentimentality .  You can't deny the elegant craftsmanship of the music,
   but it's just too swooningly pretentious for me.

I agree that the single act approach is very helpful in getting to know Wagner. However, it's been my experience that Wagner is a composer who engulfs a sympathetic listener completely, almost taking over his/her life for years on end. Wagner seems to be an all-or-nothing composer. Some despise him, but those who love the music are consumed by it.

As for Chopin, I'd not call him pretentious (his music never seems ambitious in that way), but I don't get much out of his music either, apart from moments of poetic prettiness that never hold my attention and never make me want to go on investigating him.

[Luke]

Cage's whole philosophy about music was a joke. The fact of the matter is the man didn't compose music that came from his heart but rather music than came to him through a science and mathematics textbook. I mean who composes a piece of music for a toy piano and expects to be taken seriously?

Hate Cage, by all means. But this description of him is wrong - science and maths textbooks? Really?