Pieces You Love, But Don't Like

[AdamFromWashington]

Your description (OP) makes me think the music clicks with you rationally/intellectually (brain), but not emotionally (heart). If that's not it, I really don't quite get it, but that's ok.

Yup. It's when I really like something intellectually, but it doesn't click emotionally. Which is the "veil" I was talking about. I enjoy the parts on an intellectual level, and then that intellectual enjoyment gives me a consistent and very real emotional enjoyment that still doesn't live up to what it would be like if it went straight to the "heart." I love the music at one level, but it's a colder and less exciting level than if I liked it both emotionally and intellectually. If I only like something emotionally, it's very exciting whilst I'm listening to it, but it doesn't stick in my memory as a profound or three dimensional experience. I might think: "I was very happy when I heard that." Or: "That was beautiful and somewhat sad." If something is both intellectually and emotionally stimulating, I will think: "I was happy, I was sad, the structure was wonderful, and then I felt angry, and the polyrhythms were so innovative..."

But it's very weird to love something intellectually--and not feel anything that matches that emotionally. It's like eating delicious food while you have a cold. Everything is there, but something from you is missing. 

That's what I meant.

"Less than the sum of its parts" is basically the feeling, I just had to figure out why I had that feeling in these particular cases (Janacek, Bartok).

Thanks for helping me figure that out!

[Chris L.]

Yup. It's when I really like something intellectually, but it doesn't click emotionally. Which is the "veil" I was talking about. I enjoy the parts on an intellectual level, and then that intellectual enjoyment gives me a consistent and very real emotional enjoyment that still doesn't live up to what it would be like if it went straight to the "heart." I love the music at one level, but it's a colder and less exciting level than if I liked it both emotionally and intellectually. If I only like something emotionally, it's very exciting whilst I'm listening to it, but it doesn't stick in my memory as a profound or three dimensional experience. I might think: "I was very happy when I heard that." Or: "That was beautiful and somewhat sad." If something is both intellectually and emotionally stimulating, I will think: "I was happy, I was sad, the structure was wonderful, and then I felt angry, and the polyrhythms were so innovative..."

But it's very weird to love something intellectually--and not feel anything that matches that emotionally. It's like eating delicious food while you have a cold. Everything is there, but something from you is missing. 

That's what I meant.

"Less than the sum of its parts" is basically the feeling, I just had to figure out why I had that feeling in these particular cases (Janacek, Bartok).

Thanks for helping me figure that out!

For me, with my previous example of Ein Deutsches Requiem, I feel so strongly emotional as well as intellectual about the first two movements of the work but the others don't resonate with me anywhere near the same level. I can only appreciate the other movements on an intellectual level, but that alone is not enough. It's like going to a nice restaurant and only being able to have the main course. While you delight in eating your steak and lobster, you suddenly realize that's all you'll be getting, no soup, no salad, no sides and no desert. You can only look at the menu helplessly at all the other stuff you'd like to have but cannot get. That's the way I feel about the other movements in Ein Deutsches Requiem, and the way I feel about parts of other works from other composers as well. I hope my strange analogy makes sense.

[Ken B]

Perfect example for me last year would be Messiaen's Turangalila-Symphonie (now I like it and love it!). It had wonderfully sappy and bombastic melodies (which I'm a sucker for ), complex (yet beautiful) harmonies, and all sorts of rhythmic games. Not to mention the superb orchestration. I had trouble with his sound-world initially because of (1) repetition and (2) lots of high-pitched bells (i.e. celesta, glockenspiel, etc. -- made my ears ring). I guess I just got used to it.

I know exactly what you mean, though. "According to (x,y,z) qualities I should like this, but I don't!"

Here's the thing Nate. Adam is worried he is insane. "No, it's like how great Turangalila is" is the wrong way to reassure him.

[AdamFromWashington]

Here's the thing Nate. Adam is worried he is insane. "No, it's like how great Turangalila is" is the wrong way to reassure him.

I'm slowly learning to accept the insanity. It's not so bad.

It's like, well, it's like...

Wait, one moment, Messiaen is at my window... He wants to play me some bird song recordings!

How nice of him.

[Wanderer]

Adam, it sounds as if what you're really saying is that you love individual moments or sections in the music of which you speak, but not the whole.  In other words, for you the whole is less than the sum of its parts...?

That's how I understand it, as well. For me, this mainly refers to some "black sheep" works I don't like or care for by composers I generally love, e.g. Dvořák's cello concerto or Shostakovich's string quartets.

[Mirror Image]

That's how I understand it, as well. For me, this mainly refers to some "black sheep" works I don't like or care for by composers I generally love, e.g. Dvořák's cello concerto or Shostakovich's string quartets.

Sounds like you're trying to make sense of something that can't be made sense out of. I could never love a piece of music without initially liking it to begin with.

[AdamFromWashington]

Sounds like you're trying to make sense of something that can't be made sense out of.

It's my favorite hobby. 

But for the record, I'm usually not this arcane. In fact, that's the reason I started this thread--because I thought it would be confusing, different, and interesting.

Otherwise I'm too introverted to bother. 

[EigenUser]

Here's the thing Nate. Adam is worried he is insane. "No, it's like how great Turangalila is" is the wrong way to reassure him.

Ken, see thread: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,24053.0.html

[Mirror Image]

It's my favorite hobby. 

But for the record, I'm usually not this arcane. In fact, that's the reason I started this thread--because I thought it would be confusing, different, and interesting.

Otherwise I'm too introverted to bother. 

So Adam of the NW, who are some of your favorite composers?

[Abuelo Igor]

More specifically, who are some of the composers whose music you're crazy about in spite of not really approving of it?

(Maybe you need to lighten up a little and go with the flow  )

[AdamFromWashington]

So Adam of the NW, who are some of your favorite composers?

Hmm...

Let's see what pops into my mind, free association style:

Ives

Copland

Sibelius

Shostakovich

John Adams

John Luther Adams

Nielsen

Mahler

Schubert

Prokofiev...

Schnittke

Stravinsky

And Bartok, no matter what I said about his 2nd Violin Concerto.

I've also started exploring Bruckner recently, and the results are promising.

[Wanderer]

Sounds like you're trying to make sense of something that can't be made sense out of.

No big thing. Lawyers do that for a living. 

[AdamFromWashington]

No big thing. Lawyers do that for a living. 

Which is why from now on, all my posts will fit neatly within a logical positivist philosophy.

"Do you ever activate your stereo and then sit down and listen to the vibrations in the air?"

Everyone can answer "Yes," and then we can move on to the next poll topic:

"Composer heights."

Nothing about "favorites," just a list.

[Brian]

Sibelius 6 (and 4) leaves me incredibly drained and depressed, same with Vaughan Williams 5.

For music I love despite it having no redeeming qualities whatsoever: Liszt's Album d'un voyageur III (the Swiss paraphrases) and more than a few Hungarian Rhapsodies. And anything by Johann Strauss II.

I'm glad somebody else feels that way about Sibelius 6 - and about Johann Strauss II, who, along with Franz von Suppe, makes up maybe 15% of my songs-playing-in-head.

[Jo498]

If you like Strauss and Suppé check out Fucik. There is more to him than "Entry of the Gladiators", several nice ouvertures and waltzes on the scale of Strauss' great ones.

[jochanaan]

Hmm...

Let's see what pops into my mind, free association style:

Ives

Copland

Sibelius

Shostakovich

John Adams

John Luther Adams

Nielsen

Mahler

Schubert

Prokofiev...

Schnittke

Stravinsky

And Bartok, no matter what I said about his 2nd Violin Concerto.

I've also started exploring Bruckner recently, and the results are promising.

You have good taste already.

[amw]

I'm glad somebody else feels that way about Sibelius 6 - and about Johann Strauss II, who, along with Franz von Suppe, makes up maybe 15% of my songs-playing-in-head.

J Strauss II is either the greatest composer ever, or the worst one. I can't decide.

Right now I am ashamed to admit that most of my head-playing-time is dominated by the Ranz de chèvres paraphrase.

[jochanaan]

J Strauss II is either the greatest composer ever, or the worst one. I can't decide...

If "greatest" equates to "greatest number of waltzes," then JSII is undoubtedly the greatest.

[North Star]

If "greatest" equates to "greatest number of waltzes," then JSII is undoubtedly the greatest.

Objectively speaking, Leif Segerstam and Rossini must be two of the very greatest composers. 

[Jo498]

What is the difference between ranz de chévres and ranz de vaches? Which actual paraphrase do you have in mind?