Going back to the start.

[Philo]

Well, it shrunk on me. 

Mahler is probably the major composer who was sunk the most in my estimation over time. He was a favorite then a much liked then ... It got to the point when one friend told me Mahler was his favorite I said "Take 2 Stravinkys and call me in the morning." He has rebounded a bit, probably because I gave him up for a few years, and found Chailly, so different from Bernstein.
I think I would like Boulez in Mahler.

Personally, I think Boulez is the the best conductor of Maher.

[Ken B]

Personally, I think Boulez is the the best conductor of Maher.

I find that 100 % plausible as his precision and coolness are what I want. Not Lennie whipping himself to an orgasm.

[Philo]

I find that 100 % plausible as his precision and coolness are what I want. Not Lennie whipping himself to an orgasm.

And especially in a symphony as wild as his Third. I think it shines best under the utmost control and precision.

[Mirror Image]

Two of my greatest examples of indifference turned awestruck were Shostakovich and Schoenberg. Both of these composers opened up different possibilities to what were quite different paths taken in the 20th Century. With Shostakovich, it was all a matter of finding some kind of meaning in the music for myself and how his own music related to his own life and also what it reflected. Of course, the music would mean absolutely nothing had it not have touched me without all the historical references. His music just by itself, unadorned if you will, is remarkable on it's own that the horror that surrounded it doesn't really need to be read too much into. The important thing is you can feel that fear, sense of isolation, anxiety, and heartbreak in the music. With Schoenberg, it was a matter accessing, and challenging, the whole notion that here was a composer who felt strongly that his music wasn't a break from tradition and that his music was merely a continuation of it. This idea gives his music a Romantic sensibility whether it's implied or simply toyed around with. He initially came under the influence of Wagner and Brahms, but I think he soon realized that this music had been exhausted and with works like the sextet Verklarte Nacht and the massive tone poem Pelleas und Melisande he helped in this exhaustion. What attracts me to all of his periods of development is the fact that he always sounded like himself and was completely honest and genuine about it. Whether orchestrating Brahms' Piano Quartet or composing the imposing opera Moses und Aron, which took up a good portion of his life, he remained focused on expressing his own voice. And for these reasons I've come to not only admire both Shostakovich and Schoenberg but realized how important they were to my own development as a listener.

[Pat B]

Mahler.

My first exposure was back in my youth, a live performance by a third-rate orchestra. It put me -- and my companions -- to sleep. I heard snippets here and there and it always seemed mostly bombastic.

Then, about a year ago, I heard part of radio program. I think they were introducing a live performance. The discussion emphasized the folk-melody aspect. I thought, I really should give this another chance, so my next visit to a local used store produced the 4th (Bernstein/Sony). My reaction was immediate: "Huh? Is this the same composer that I thought I didn't like?"

I read some of the Mahler thread, and the consensus seemed to be to listen to the symphonies in order, which I have approximated: 4-1-2-5-3-6-7 with most of the lieder mixed in. 4 and 1, both very accessible to me, was a good way to re-start. The others have taken more time, but I have come around to all of the first 6. Now I listen to Mahler on a near-daily basis, more than any other composer. I will proceed to 8 after I've digested 7 a bit more.

Tonight, the 5th.

[Philo]

Mahler.

My first exposure was back in my youth, a live performance by a third-rate orchestra. It put me -- and my companions -- to sleep. I heard snippets here and there and it always seemed mostly bombastic.

Then, about a year ago, I heard part of radio program. I think they were introducing a live performance. The discussion emphasized the folk-melody aspect. I thought, I really should give this another chance, so my next visit to a local used store produced the 4th (Bernstein/Sony). My reaction was immediate: "Huh? Is this the same composer that I thought I didn't like?"

I read some of the Mahler thread, and the consensus seemed to be to listen to the symphonies in order, which I have approximated: 4-1-2-5-3-6-7 with most of the lieder mixed in. 4 and 1, both very accessible to me, was a good way to re-start. The others have taken more time, but I have come around to all of the first 6. Now I listen to Mahler on a near-daily basis, more than any other composer. I will proceed to 8 after I've digested 7 a bit more.

Tonight, the 5th.

A very interesting narrative. The opening of the 5th is probably still my favorite opening of any symphony ever. There is also a recording of Mahler playing it on the piano, which is also quite extraordinary.

[Ken B]

Two of my greatest examples of indifference turned awestruck were Shostakovich and Schoenberg. Both of these composers opened up different possibilities to what were quite different paths taken in the 20th Century. With Shostakovich, it was all a matter of finding some kind of meaning in the music for myself and how his own music related to his own life and also what it reflected. Of course, the music would mean absolutely nothing had it not have touched me without all the historical references. His music just by itself, unadorned if you will, is remarkable on it's own that the horror that surrounded it doesn't really need to be read too much into. The important thing is you can feel that fear, sense of isolation, anxiety, and heartbreak in the music. With Schoenberg, it was a matter accessing, and challenging, the whole notion that here was a composer who felt strongly that his music wasn't a break from tradition and that his music was merely a continuation of it. This idea gives his music a Romantic sensibility whether it's implied or simply toyed around with. He initially came under the influence of Wagner and Brahms, but I think he soon realized that this music had been exhausted and with works like the sextet Verklarte Nacht and the massive tone poem Pelleas und Melisande he helped in this exhaustion. What attracts me to all of his periods of development is the fact that he always sounded like himself and was completely honest and genuine about it. Whether orchestrating Brahms' Piano Quartet or composing the imposing opera Moses und Aron, which took up a good portion of his life, he remained focused on expressing his own voice. And for these reasons I've come to not only admire both Shostakovich and Schoenberg but realized how important they were to my own development as a listener.

Shosty I liked right from the start. I had at age 17 or 18 as one of my first albums the 8th quartet. He is wildly inconsistent of course. Something about staying alive. But judging him by the dross is like judging Ives by his insurance policies.
The Schoenberg I like best, and this seems to be really unusual, is the quartets.
And I strongly prefer the sextet transfigured night.

[amw]

Mahler.

My first exposure was back in my youth, a live performance by a third-rate orchestra. It put me -- and my companions -- to sleep. I heard snippets here and there and it always seemed mostly bombastic.

Replace "third-rate orchestra" with the New York Phil and you have my experience also. (However I did like a few early sections of the piece.)

At the same time... on every subsequent occasion that I heard a Mahler work I found myself with no desire to ever hear it again, and that situation has continued to the present day. I do not think that really counts as "struggling" with Mahler though—I might struggle to sit through an entire Mahler symphony in concert, but I am not currently making an effort to enjoy Mahler, I don't e.g. put on the 5th symphony and see how far I can make it through this time before getting bored, noting down my endurance records in an Excel spreadsheet. Perhaps as with Webern one day he'll just "work" for me but I'm not holding my breath.

Because I hate coming across as overly negative, here's one of the parts of that initial Mahler symphony I did actually like. Good tune, interesting counterpoint, engaging development, great orchestration, no bombast, no self-pity. I'm not asking for a lot!
[audio]http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32084883/mahler.mp3[/audio]

[Philo]

Replace "third-rate orchestra" with the New York Phil and you have my experience also. (However I did like a few early sections of the piece.)

At the same time... on every subsequent occasion that I heard a Mahler work I found myself with no desire to ever hear it again, and that situation has continued to the present day. I do not think that really counts as "struggling" with Mahler though—I might struggle to sit through an entire Mahler symphony in concert, but I am not currently making an effort to enjoy Mahler, I don't e.g. put on the 5th symphony and see how far I can make it through this time before getting bored, noting down my endurance records in an Excel spreadsheet. Perhaps as with Webern one day he'll just "work" for me but I'm not holding my breath.

Because I hate coming across as overly negative, here's one of the parts of that initial Mahler symphony I did actually like. I'm not a hater. :\
[audio]http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32084883/mahler.mp3[/audio]

I wouldn't classify you as a hater. You just haven't found that thing that makes it click, like me with Mozart and Haydn symphonies.

I highly recommend Boulez conducing Mahler's Third Symphony.

[Ken B]

You just haven't found that thing that makes it click, like me with Mozart and Haydn symphonies.

Hater.



Have you tried HIP? Seriously for Haydn there is nothing like the Hogwood set or the Kuijken or Weil/Tafelmusik other HIP stuff.

For Mozart there are only really 4 major symphonies. The rest are on a much lower plane. In traditional performances I like Bohm as first choice by a lot. For HIP Pinnock or Hoggy again.

[Philo]

Hater.



Have you tried HIP? Seriously for Haydn there is nothing like the Hogwood set or the Kuijken or Weil/Tafelmusik other HIP stuff.

For Mozart there are only really 4 major symphonies. The rest are on a much lower plane. In traditional performances I like Bohm as first choice by a lot. For HIP Pinnock or Hoggy again.

Ha!

I've tried pretty much everything, but it hasn't stopped me, and I've continued to look for new recordings in hopes of finding the one that will make it all click.

I will take your recommendations seriously though. Thanks.

[Bogey]

It took me a long time to appreciate Bach....now he is a lock.

Still: Mahler.  I like the "idea" of Mahler and want to participate in Mahler banter here...I might even go to the local festival they hold in his name here in Colorado just to part of the Mahler crowd.  I'm workin' on it, but it is difficult at times.

[Philo]

It took me a long time to appreciate Bach....now he is a lock.

Still: Mahler.  I like the "idea" of Mahler and want to participate in Mahler banter here...I might even go to the local festival they hold in his name here in Colorado just to part of the Mahler crowd.  I'm workin' on it, but it is difficult at times.

Nice on both fronts. I'd give you the same recommendation as I gave to the others: Boulez conducting Mahler Symphony No. 3.

[Ken B]

It took me a long time to appreciate Bach....now he is a lock.

Still: Mahler.  I like the "idea" of Mahler and want to participate in Mahler banter here...I might even go to the local festival they hold in his name here in Colorado just to part of the Mahler crowd.  I'm workin' on it, but it is difficult at times.

TO PARTICIPATE IN MAHLER BANTER IS QUITE EASY. LOUD IS GOOD, LONG IS GOOD, REALLY LOUD IS REALLY GOOD, REALLY LONG IS REALLY GOOD, EVEN LONGER IS EVEN BETTER. TRY SHOUTING A LOT. THIS IS MAHLER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!

[North Star]

For (HIP) Mozart, I'd recommend René Jacobs' recordings.

I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but what composers have you at first rejected and now you have come to appreciate them.

To continue this line of thought, let's also address the corollary, which composers do you still struggle with for whatever reason?

1: Bruckner,    Verdi, Puccini & Wagner (mom listened too much opera aria recordings), Messiaen (first exposure was hearing Fête des belles eaux live in a church)

2: Cage? I like Sonatas and Interludes.

[Philo]

For (HIP) Mozart, I'd recommend René Jacobs' recordings.
1: Bruckner,    Verdi, Puccini & Wagner (mom listened too much opera aria recordings), Messiaen (first exposure was hearing Fête des belles eaux live in a church)

2: Cage? I like Sonatas and Interludes.

Thanks for the recommendation.

What bothers you about Cage?

[North Star]

I'm listening to Five Stone Wind now, and although I don't hate it, I don't really feel anything else either, perhaps mild irritation, like it was just noise.

I do like the Harmonies and Melodies, though.

[Octave]

I still have that experience with a chunk of Cage's music, esp. the non-pretty stuff.  Just this past year or so with an appreciable amount of Joan La Barbara's SINGING THROUGH collection.  Also, further back, with Eberhard Blum's recording of SIXTY TWO MESOSTICS RE MERCE CUNNINGHAM.  I think glossolalia might be a generic stumbling block for me, with exceptions.  (Robbie Basho.) 
But recitative used to be a problem for me, as well; I cannot now relate to that old me.

I was going to say that spiky (~post-)~serialism tended to generate problems for me, but that has been contradicted by some listening I've done and quite naturally gotten into over the past several months. 
I think my portable nervous complaint has tilted me from spiky to smoove in terms of disposition, over just the past several years.  Not a general proposition, though.  I think I dislike authority a lot more than dissonance.  And the exceptions are often worth the irritations.  The Cage/La Barbara mentioned above is one thing, but then I will put on Ami Yoshida after several years' hiatus and it's magic.  Or I will think I am fed up with, say, "serialism"; but then I will hear some Barraque or Webern or Babbitt or any number of those guys, and it is jammin'. 

I am going to have a much better YT listening apparatus soon, so that might become a boon to me hearing The New Music.  I want to make sure I am not "dropping in" on music I am disinclined towards....or on any music, really. 

EDIT: added a couple lines to second paragraph.  Also removed lots of swear words.

[not edward]

I think my biggest problems in appreciating music tend to be with works from the classical and early Romantic period.

I still have somewhat limited interest in Mozart (there are various works I have grown to like in recent years, but most of them leave me rather cold). Haydn's symphonies are a hit and miss affair for me, but the quartets are almost all hit.

Chopin: intellectually I can appreciate him but to a large extent the music leaves me emotionally uninvolved. Mendelssohn is hit and miss (as with Haydn, the chamber music tends to be more hit than miss for me). Schumann simply baffles me.

[DavidW]

Well, it shrunk on me. 

Mahler is probably the major composer who was sunk the most in my estimation over time. He was a favorite then a much liked then ... It got to the point when one friend told me Mahler was his favorite I said "Take 2 Stravinkys and call me in the morning." He has rebounded a bit, probably because I gave him up for a few years, and found Chailly, so different from Bernstein.
I think I would like Boulez in Mahler.

My favorites are Gielen and Bertini.  Gielen like Boulez takes a modernist approach to Mahler, but unlike Boulez he never sounds dry to my ears.  Bertini is a straight laced almost classical interpretation.  While Gielen and Boulez might be bent towards modernism, Chailly and Levine towards romanticism (and Bernstein in his own little world) Bertini takes an unassuming approach that is more about the music than the conductor.