Enjoying very different composers for the same reason?

[Linus]

To listeners of wide taste:

Do you enjoy listening to e.g. Mozart for the same reason that you enjoy e.g. early Stravinsky, or does that reason change drastically with the composers' musical era?

What is the common denominator? How inclusive/universal is it? (I suppose an extreme of 'inclusive' would mean, "They both use string instruments", or the like.)

[Jo498]

There is a trivial answer: Yes, in some respect I enjoy all music I really like for the same reason: because it somehow moves me and keeps my interest.

The difficult thing is that I am not really sure myself whether "somehow moving" is sufficiently similar in different music or not. And if it is not, what are the different features responsible for my enjoyment.

E.g. in the case of a Mozart symphony and Le Sacre, I'd say that both music can have tremendous drive, "kinetic energy", dance-like qualities etc. Although one might admire in Mozart a fluency, elegance and melodicity Le Sacre is lacking and in Le Sacre more advanced orchestration and more sheer "power" and interesting rhythm the Mozart piece does not exemplify.

[Madiel]

I think that yes, the music I enjoy the most tends to share common characteristics, not just across different composers in 'classical' music but into popular music as well. I am a rather analytical person and find that I like my music to have a strong sense of form and structure. In particular, I like to be able to hear how ideas develop and are transformed, or reappear in a different context.

I like composers who give me a sense that they are building a bigger structure out of smaller cells. And this can work fairly well across different time periods because the nature of the cells is less important.

Another way of saying the same thing is that I like pieces of music that give me a sense they have set out their own particular musical 'rules' and then followed them. It's that sense of being a coherent whole, rather than episodic, that I appreciate.

[Karl Henning]

I think I enjoy Haydn and Nielsen for much the same reason (though each for specific reasons, too).

Also:  Monteverdi and Stravinsky.

[Linus]

I think that yes, the music I enjoy the most tends to share common characteristics, not just across different composers in 'classical' music but into popular music as well. I am a rather analytical person and find that I like my music to have a strong sense of form and structure. In particular, I like to be able to hear how ideas develop and are transformed, or reappear in a different context.

I like composers who give me a sense that they are building a bigger structure out of smaller cells. And this can work fairly well across different time periods because the nature of the cells is less important.

Structure is really interesting as the common denominator I think.

I wonder, would you say that you are less inclined to listen to post-1950 Classical? And if so, is this perhaps because you find that music to be less structured according to your tastes?

Another way of saying the same thing is that I like pieces of music that give me a sense they have set out their own particular musical 'rules' and then followed them. It's that sense of being a coherent whole, rather than episodic, that I appreciate.

I believe I have a similar (Kantian, I suppose) outlook. An original but complete aesthetic "universe" escapes the pitfalls of the superficiality of both mimicry and novelty.

[Linus]

I think I enjoy Haydn and Nielsen for much the same reason (though each for specific reasons, too).

Also:  Monteverdi and Stravinsky.

But why? Don't keep me hangin' here!

[Karl Henning]

But why? Don't keep me hangin' here!

You think I have words for this?

In part, Haydn and Nielsen for vigor and clarity.

Monteverdi and Stravinsky, for color and fearlessness.

[North Star]

Stravinsky & Monteverdi is a good pair.

https://www.youtube.com/v/ENvrUEuMLUY

[mc ukrneal]

I don't think structure is the key thing (though maybe I misunderstand what you mean). I understand structure to mean sonata form or set pieces in opera (as a couple of examples).  Is that what you meant?

The other answers don't really fit me and I am not sure my own is satisfactory. I would say that the music I like takes me on a journey and touches me spiritually, emotionally, or intellectually (or in combination). It transforms a bunch of notes into something more. SO I am connecting with the music, but what enables that connection - this is harder to identify. A number of 'items' are important to me, but they are not in themselves enough (either alone or necessarily in concert) including: melody, rhythm, clarity of line, quality of writing, collaboration of voices, idea behind the music, etc. These criteria don't really change much (if at all) across time and genres.

[Madiel]

I wonder, would you say that you are less inclined to listen to post-1950 Classical? And if so, is this perhaps because you find that music to be less structured according to your tastes?

I'd say the main reason I'm less inclined to listen to post-1950 Classical is because I'm less exposed to it. One of my favourite composers, as set out on this forum repeatedly  is Vagn Holmboe, so I listen to a lot of classical music written after 1950 just by virtue of him! And also Shostakovich, and a few others, but I'm not sure I've listened to or been exposed to a lot that is what you would call cutting-edge post-1950 music.

I will make one observation, which is that the 'minimalism' of someone like Glass is thoroughly unappealing because it lacks the sense of development that I'm looking for. Adams is rather better. On the more 'holy minimalist' front, all I really know is Gorecki's 3rd symphony which I quite like. I'm actually very fond of structures that are constructed out of only a few elements, so long as it still feels to me like a structure rather than mindless repetition. It's the balance between pattern and variation that I'm looking for.

[Madiel]

I don't think structure is the key thing (though maybe I misunderstand what you mean). I understand structure to mean sonata form or set pieces in opera (as a couple of examples).  Is that what you meant?

Well, no, not in the sense of just ticking a box and going "oh look, there's a sonata form, so I'm happy". It's more about how the composer manipulates the ideas and motivic cells within that form. Something like 'sonata form' is only a very bare framework for how to organise the music, and I've read somewhere that the real difference between the average composers and the genius ones is that the average ones dutifully tick all the boxes, and the genius ones know just when to do something unexpected to subvert the standard expectations, eg by delaying the pay-off.

To pick an example off the top of my head, in one of my favourite Mozart piano sonatas he switches the order of ideas in the recapitulation, so that a relatively bold idea which interrupts the flow of the music a fraction doesn't reappear until later and is a more climactic moment as a result.

(EDIT: Somewhere in the back of my mind is an article that says the fundamental compositional problem of sonata form is to satisfy the formal requirements of the key relationships (first group tonic, second contrasting, then development, then first group tonic and second group tonic) at the same time as satisfying the dramatic/emotional requirements of the particular piece.)

Another example I've recently revisited is the finale of Brahms' first piano quartet (the G minor op.25) which I love. It's a rondo, but it's far from a mindless repetition of sections in obedience to what we'd call the basics of rondo form. Wikipedia suggests that it resembles  ABACDBCADCBA but then adds 'actually it's more nuanced than that'. To me, it's a piece perfectly constructed as to how often a recognisable chunk of music returns, and when.

EDIT: I'd find some other aspects of my notions easier to talk about by reference to popular music, but the last time I tried to suggest that popular music had anything of significant value the sound of noses turning upwards was a little too loud.

[Linus]

You think I have words for this?

In part, Haydn and Nielsen for vigor and clarity.

Monteverdi and Stravinsky, for color and fearlessness.

Well, I think the words you did choose are very interesting: they are generally quite inclusive, but here they have become something that connects these particular composers.

If anything, it would mean that vigor/clarity and colour/fearlnessness are criteria which span centuries of great art.

This is the stuff that keeps me awake at night.

[Karl Henning]

Cheers, Linus!

[EigenUser]

To listeners of wide taste:

Do you enjoy listening to e.g. Mozart for the same reason that you enjoy e.g. early Stravinsky, or does that reason change drastically with the composers' musical era?

What is the common denominator? How inclusive/universal is it? (I suppose an extreme of 'inclusive' would mean, "They both use string instruments", or the like.)

Good question!

I actually enjoy Haydn and Ligeti for at least one same reason: they both have a great sense of humor in their music and it shows in many pieces. They seem to go well together for this reason. I think that Haydn's 60th symphony would go really well with one of the lighter (more humorous) pieces Ligeti composed -- maybe the Piano Concerto or the Mysteries of the Macabre.

[Linus]

The other answers don't really fit me and I am not sure my own is satisfactory. I would say that the music I like takes me on a journey and touches me spiritually, emotionally, or intellectually (or in combination). It transforms a bunch of notes into something more. SO I am connecting with the music, but what enables that connection - this is harder to identify. A number of 'items' are important to me, but they are not in themselves enough (either alone or necessarily in concert) including: melody, rhythm, clarity of line, quality of writing, collaboration of voices, idea behind the music, etc. These criteria don't really change much (if at all) across time and genres.

Indeed, I have a feeling that these more general qualities are what makes many people enjoy music. The question is how far most of us can narrow it down, if this applies only to a few composers/eras and if there are listeners who are more prone to demand very specific qualities in their favourite music.

[Linus]

I'd say the main reason I'm less inclined to listen to post-1950 Classical is because I'm less exposed to it. One of my favourite composers, as set out on this forum repeatedly  is Vagn Holmboe, so I listen to a lot of classical music written after 1950 just by virtue of him! And also Shostakovich, and a few others, but I'm not sure I've listened to or been exposed to a lot that is what you would call cutting-edge post-1950 music.

I will make one observation, which is that the 'minimalism' of someone like Glass is thoroughly unappealing because it lacks the sense of development that I'm looking for. Adams is rather better. On the more 'holy minimalist' front, all I really know is Gorecki's 3rd symphony which I quite like. I'm actually very fond of structures that are constructed out of only a few elements, so long as it still feels to me like a structure rather than mindless repetition. It's the balance between pattern and variation that I'm looking for.

Ah! That anti-Glass sentiment is interesting. This could mean that (at least to you), Glass is where the Western art music tradition "breaks", where its experiments and progression has gone "too far" to provide enjoyment, at least structurally.

Am I right in assuming that your primary interest in music is its sense of transition?

[Linus]

Good question!

I actually enjoy Haydn and Ligeti for at least one same reason: they both have a great sense of humor in their music and it shows in many pieces. They seem to go well together for this reason. I think that Haydn's 60th symphony would go really well with one of the lighter (more humorous) pieces Ligeti composed -- maybe the Piano Concerto or the Mysteries of the Macabre.

Cool! I had never considered humour as a criterion at all.

I had better search the forum for a post on humour in music throughout the ages, it seems to me a fascinating subject.

[EigenUser]

Cool! I had never considered humour as a criterion at all.

I had better search the forum for a post on humour in music throughout the ages, it seems to me a fascinating subject.

Oh, absolutely! It is one of my favorite aspects. Here is what I am talking about:

For the Haydn, skip to 23:05 (the start of the finale) for the most blatant form of humor in the work -- it seems that the violins need to suddenly retune! In the score, the violin sections are instructed to tune the low G-string down to an 'F'. Then, when they start "tuning" again, the violin sections are told to raise it back to a 'G' while playing. This symphony was formed from incidental music Haydn wrote at Esterhazy for a comic play.
http://www.youtube.com/v/7FeiecKYcZo

Then there is this, which pretty much speaks for itself, I think -- but I'll say something anyways. This is an aria from Ligeti's opera Le Grand Macabre, where a modern and falling-apart utopian town is on the verge of an apocalypse. In this scene, the chief of secret police "Gepopo" is trying to warn the prince that the town will soon be destroyed by a comet. Unfortunately, she only seems to be able to speak in a series of unintelligible codewords. The music is completely atonal and highly dissonant, but there are many strong rhythmic motifs (and a general high rhythmic drive) that make it easier to grasp than you'd think. If you are laughing at how ridiculous it is, then Ligeti has succeeded (also, this sounds far different than most Ligeti).
http://www.youtube.com/v/f-p1utKFxCg

[Florestan]

Monteverdi and Mahler
Boccherini and Bartok
Haydn and Henning
Rossini and Rachmaninoff

All for the same, one and single reason: I love music, period.

[Florestan]

I would say that the music I like takes me on a journey and touches me spiritually, emotionally, or intellectually (or in combination). It transforms a bunch of notes into something more. SO I am connecting with the music, but what enables that connection - this is harder to identify. A number of 'items' are important to me, but they are not in themselves enough (either alone or necessarily in concert) including: melody, rhythm, clarity of line, quality of writing, collaboration of voices, idea behind the music, etc. These criteria don't really change much (if at all) across time and genres.

+ 1

To elaborate a bit, I am a "Romantic" listener. I couldn't care less for structure, form, rules and the like. What I care for is the music to "take me on a journey and touch me spiritually, emotionally, or intellectually (or in combination)" --- a very apt formulation, Neal! Kudos!