Hello

[North Star]

My list of favorites was very short and only with composers that directly came to my mind. A more accurate list would include Brahms, Bruckner, Bartok (of course), Carter, Chopin, Debussy, Luc Ferrari, Gershwin, Glass, Grisey, Gubaidulina, Haas, Hindemith, Ives, Janacek, Kurtag, Lachenmann, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Messiaen, Milhaud, Mozart, Nancarrow, Nono, Nyman, Oliveros, Orff, Pärt, Partch, early Penderecki, Prokoviev, Ravel, Reich, Riley, Rihm, Scelsi, Schönberg, Schumann, Schnittke, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Strauss, Wagner, Webern, Weill, Varese, Verdi, Vivaldi, Xenakis, B.A. Zimmermann 

I'm sure Haydn will soon enter the list too.

We're all just teasing of course, listing 50 favourites doesn't necessarily tell us more about you than listing 5 names does.
An excellent list, though! I don't see Martinu's name, though. 

[EigenUser]

Well there are many people out there, who have difficulties with Stockhausen. Maybe that's because his lyricism (that's probably not the case with you, if you do not like Schubert ) is not very obvious, but it is there if you listen careful enough. The things that fascinate me most about Stockhausens music is it's richness of crazy ideas and that it has so many layers to it, which you only get after repeated listenings. You can really hear that the man was very enthusiastic while writing his music. However for me this does maninly hold true for pieces he composed before say 1975. I don't really get most of his opera cycle. Some pieces like Oktophonie are great though.
I saw, that you like Pink Floyd. Have you heard his piece Hymnen? The fourth region is extremely psychedelic.
Looking forward to check out the large Stockhausen tread on this page .

P.S.: Shostakovich is great of course.

Stockhausen is a very interesting figure. About a year ago I hated him, but now I rather like his Mantra, Cosmic Pulses, and Tierkreis (orchestral version). He definitely does have a lyrical side to him, though. This really shines through in Tierkreis. Mantra clearly shows his indebtedness to Bartok (and not just in the scoring, though Bartok apparently decided to exclude ring modulators ). Then there is that crazy electronic work Cosmic Pulses -- the only purely electronic work I enjoy. None of them are favorites, but I do like them.

Your location indicates Hamburg. Go listen to Ligeti's Hamburg Concerto!

[Mirror Image]

Well there are many people out there, who have difficulties with Stockhausen. Maybe that's because his lyricism (that's probably not the case with you, if you do not like Schubert ) is not very obvious, but it is there if you listen careful enough. The things that fascinate me most about Stockhausens music is it's richness of crazy ideas and that it has so many layers to it, which you only get after repeated listenings. You can really hear that the man was very enthusiastic while writing his music. However for me this does maninly hold true for pieces he composed before say 1975. I don't really get most of his opera cycle. Some pieces like Oktophonie are great though.
I saw, that you like Pink Floyd. Have you heard his piece Hymnen? The fourth region is extremely psychedelic.
Looking forward to check out the large Stockhausen tread on this page .

P.S.: Shostakovich is great of course.

Thanks for your reply, I'll be honest here and say that there's nothing remotely interesting about any of Stockhausen's music to turn me into a fan or even admirer of his works. I prefer the darker, more visceral Germanic angst of composers like Schoenberg, Berg, and Hartmann! Stockhausen does absolutely nothing for me. I don't care for his concepts nor would I want to learn about them. Like I said, I'd take Xenakis over Stockhause any day of the week!

All of this said, I'm not merely interested in music from a pure sonority aspect, it has to mean something to me emotionally as well as intellectually for me to make a full connection with it.

[Jay F]

All of this said, I'm not merely interested in music from a pure sonority aspect, it has to mean something to me emotionally as well as intellectually for me to make a full connection with it.

Isn't this true for everyone?

[Mirror Image]

Isn't this true for everyone?

I would hope so, but then there's James.

[Ken B]

FWIW I resolved to listen to some more SH. (solidarity with James in a thread battle  ).  I have listened to Kontakte a couple times. Has some interest is all I'll say at the moment. Still dislike Junglike.

[ibanezmonster]

Give it some time M.I., you're still young .. once you start to actually listen to KS in a serious way, you'll come around and understand what others find ..

Yes, and everyone in the world will learn to like Stockhausen if they just listen again and again for years. 

[Mirror Image]

Give it some time M.I., you're still young .. once you start to actually listen to KS in a serious way, you'll come around and understand what others find ..

The several occasions I listened to Gruppen didn't count as serious listens? I have a disc with Gruppen on it (Abbado/Berliners) and disliked it more and more each time I listened to it. The Kurtag works on this recording, on the other hand, were fantastic, especially Stele. That's my cup of Modernism.

[Mirror Image]

I'll say this: I don't have to listen to anything that my heart and mind isn't into. Stockhausen is just one of those composers that gives zero satisfaction. I think a listener should walk away from music being glad they just listened to a composer's work, but this isn't what I felt when listening to Stockhausen. The music has some interesting sonorities and textures, but it goes nowhere and I don't actually feel anything from the music. Someone like Xenakis I can listen to and at least walk away with some kind of appreciation for what he did. I don't feel the same way about Stockhausen. I can admire his courage for doing what he wanted to do musically, but I can't bring myself to saying that I actually like the kind of music he composes. It's as simple as that really. Another case in point, I didn't like Bruckner the first time I listened to one of his symphonies BUT there was something there in his music that I found curious but also mysterious. When I cracked the Brucknerian code, I went back to the symphony I dismissed out-of-hand and I really connected with it. My whole point here is even though I struggled with Bruckner's music, I actually felt something powerful and emotional in his music, it's just the exterior gruffness of his music was off-putting. Stockhausen exhibits no such qualities for me and while James may come back with one of his one line rebuttals, it won't do any good, because I'll never understand what he hears in this music, so it's not really a question of 'serious' listening, it's a question of making some kind of connection with the music.

[ibanezmonster]

I'll say this: I don't have to listen to anything that my heart and mind isn't into. Stockhausen is just one of those composers that gives zero satisfaction. I think a listener should walk away from music being glad they just listened to a composer's work, but this isn't what I felt when listening to Stockhausen. The music has some interesting sonorities and textures, but it goes nowhere and I don't actually feel anything from the music. Someone like Xenakis I can listen to and at least walk away with some kind of appreciation for what he did. I don't feel the same way about Stockhausen. I can admire his courage for doing what he wanted to do musically, but I can't bring myself to saying that I actually like the kind of music he composes. It's as simple as that really. Another case in point, I didn't like Bruckner the first time I listened to one of his symphonies BUT there was something there in his music that I found curious but also mysterious. When I cracked the Brucknerian code, I went back to the symphony I dismissed out-of-hand and I really connected with it. My whole point here is even though I struggled with Bruckner's music, I actually felt something powerful and emotional in his music, it's just the exterior gruffness of his music was off-putting. Stockhausen exhibits no such qualities for me and while James may come back with one of his one line rebuttals, it won't do any good, because I'll never understand what he hears in this music, so it's not really a question of 'serious' listening, it's a question of making some kind of connection with the music.

I could have written this post. 

And likewise, I've listened to Gruppen probably a dozen times (while reading the score) and probably like it even less each time. I like everything about Stockhausen except the actual music. His ideas, approach, and the visual appeal of his scores are very interesting (uncompromising, alien must appeals to me) but I can sit down and listen to what are his most well known works and not enjoy any of it at all. When I listened to Mantra recently after not having heard it for ten years, I can't say I actually enjoyed it. I'm open to listening to more of his stuff, but it's pointless to listen to a piece of music repeatedly when you know there is nothing about it you enjoy and nothing that you know will grown on you. Bruckner, Mahler, Prokofiev and Shostakovich didn't click right away for me, but there was something that made me come back to the music and eventually love it, but I find none of that in Stockhausen.

[Mirror Image]

I could have written this post. 

And likewise, I've listened to Gruppen probably a dozen times (while reading the score) and probably like it even less each time. I like everything about Stockhausen except the actual music. His ideas, approach, and the visual appeal of his scores are very interesting (uncompromising, alien must appeals to me) but I can sit down and listen to what are his most well known works and not enjoy any of it at all. When I listened to Mantra recently after not having heard it for ten years, I can't say I actually enjoyed it. I'm open to listening to more of his stuff, but it's pointless to listen to a piece of music repeatedly when you know there is nothing about it you enjoy and nothing that you know will grown on you. Bruckner, Mahler, Prokofiev and Shostakovich didn't click right away for me, but there was something that made me come back to the music and eventually love it, but I find none of that in Stockhausen.

I could have written this post. Anyway, I agree.

[EigenUser]

I'll say this: I don't have to listen to anything that my heart and mind isn't into. Stockhausen is just one of those composers that gives zero satisfaction. I think a listener should walk away from music being glad they just listened to a composer's work, but this isn't what I felt when listening to Stockhausen. The music has some interesting sonorities and textures, but it goes nowhere and I don't actually feel anything from the music. Someone like Xenakis I can listen to and at least walk away with some kind of appreciation for what he did. I don't feel the same way about Stockhausen. I can admire his courage for doing what he wanted to do musically, but I can't bring myself to saying that I actually like the kind of music he composes. It's as simple as that really.

Fair enough. That's kind of how I feel, but I still occasionally give him a listen just because he is such a towering figure.

[amw]

With Stockhausen it's worth trying lots of different things. I personally think his best work comes from the 60s, during the years after he'd abandoned serialism and was searching for a new method—he experimented with live electronics (Mikrophonie I & Mantra), spectralism (Stimmung & Klavierstuck... IX?), minimal procedures (Tierkreis & Aus die sieben Tagen), and all sorts of other "formulas" before setting out on his later path (Licht & Klang) which I actually find much less interesting. One could think of him as the Wagner of the 21st century. After Wagner no notable figure ever wrote a music-drama, and while a cult did spring up around his work it devoted itself mostly to perpetuating the correct performance practices set down by the composer himself—on the world of opera, his legacy was minimal. Yet all these other things he came up with while creating his music-dramas went on to permeate the concert music tradition via Bruckner and Liszt and so forth and proved enormously influential—just on other genres. For the same reason, Stockhausen is a marginal figure in classical music, but looms large in psychedelic/alternative rock and sonic arts circles, among others.

[chadfeldheimer]

We're all just teasing of course, listing 50 favourites doesn't necessarily tell us more about you than listing 5 names does.
An excellent list, though! I don't see Martinu's name, though. 

One of the main reasons to me for joining the forum is (as for most of you I presume)  to become aware of worthwhile new music. Up to know I do only know the name Martinu, but nothing of his music. I will keep him in mind for the next listening session at Spotify.

[chadfeldheimer]

Your location indicates Hamburg. Go listen to Ligeti's Hamburg Concerto!

Oh - I listen to both Stockhausen and Ligeti's Hamburg Concerto. Not at the same time of course. 

[Karl Henning]

One of the main reasons to me for joining the forum is (as for most of you I presume)  to become aware of worthwhile new music. Up to know I do only know the name Martinu, but nothing of his music. I will keep him in mind for the next listening session at Spotify.

I am particularly fond of the Harpsichord Concerto

http://www.youtube.com/v/XyPKmFfYHOQ

[chadfeldheimer]

Regarding Stockhausen, while I agree with a lot of what you say (i.e. the lyricism that's there, plethora of musical ideas, layers, totally into it for the art and loving it), the later music (being opera) is even more consciously lyrical than the earlier stuff .. you can tell he was going for that singable quality much stronger than before. And it is less aperiodic too. Even if you ignore the mythos of LICHT and focus on the music (the core of it anyway) there is a lot of extraordinary stuff there, and it is a modular work - so much of it's fractals can stand on their own divorced from the operas.

Perhaps I should give the operas another try. One thing that tends to put me off from the operas is also the lyrics, which seem a bit awkward to me. Being German I have difficulties to ignore them like I could do it if they were in English or even better in Italian or whatever language.

[bhodges]

Up to know I do only know the name Martinu, but nothing of his music. I will keep him in mind for the next listening session at Spotify.

Fantastic composer, with a huge output. My favorite (so far) is the Double Concerto for Two String Orchestras, Piano and Timpani (1938), foreshadowing the coming WWII. There are quite a few good recordings; my fave is with Jiří Bělohlávek and the Czech Philharmonic (the original recording includes an equally good reading of the Symphony No. 1).

Just saw Karl's post - haven't heard the piece but others echo his praise.

--Bruce

[North Star]

Both of the Martinů recommendations are beauties. I'd also add the Nonet (no. 2).

[chadfeldheimer]

The several occasions I listened to Gruppen didn't count as serious listens? I have a disc with Gruppen on it (Abbado/Berliners) and disliked it more and more each time I listened to it. The Kurtag works on this recording, on the other hand, were fantastic, especially Stele. That's my cup of Modernism.

Maybe your dislike for "Gruppen" is due to the weak performance from Abbado and the Berliners. I bought the same disc because of the (I agree) fantastic Kurtag works and also listened 2 or 3 times to this version of Gruppen. I have to say, that the Eötvos recording is much superior and my favorite is still the recording from the Stockhausen-Verlag with Boulez, Maderna, Stockhausen himself conducting the piece in a really vivid, energetic manner.