Compositions you initially misjudged?

[relm1]

With some works, one can immediately recognize their greatness.  Others take time to reveal their magic to the listener.  What is a work you disliked on first encounter but perhaps years later you realized you greatly misjudged it (or perhaps had evolved in taste and sophistication)? 

For me, it might be Nicholas Maw's Odyssey which I hated the first time I heard the EMI Simon Rattle recording but after listening to now maybe twenty years after my first listen found much more interesting and enjoyable.  I misjudged it. 

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I used to enjoy some minimalist 'process music' but now there are quite a few pieces where the pure process is interesting enough but barely anything more is done in the music to keep my interest beyond one or two listens.

[Maestro267]

For me, it might be Nicholas Maw's Odyssey which I hated the first time I heard the EMI Simon Rattle recording but after listening to now maybe twenty years after my first listen found much more interesting and enjoyable.  I misjudged it.

Nice. I'm a big fan of that work too. I need to listen again.

I'm not sure for me. Maybe some of Sibelius' symphonies. I still need to be in the mood for them, but when I am I really enjoy them.

[Mahlerian]

Lots of things, especially when I was first began seriously digging into the repertoire.  These ones come to mind:

Brahms's First Symphony, which I didn't like well at all the first time I heard it, and assumed that the simplicity of the main tune in the finale was a fault on Brahms's part (and I actually also wanted to hear it more often unornamented, go figure).
Mahler's Ninth, and a lot of his other works, which seemed disjointed and often ugly to me.
Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony No. 1, which I just couldn't follow at all, so I failed to hear the profusion of wonderful melody in the work.
Sibelius's Fourth Symphony.  After the First Symphony I went straight to the Fourth, which left me utterly nonplussed.  Part of me wondered whether or not it was simply a lessening of invention for Sibelius.
Stravinsky's Threni, which struck me as utterly boring.
Takemitsu's music generally, but A Flock Descends into the Pentagonal Garden was the first piece I heard (BSO/Ozawa on DG), and it sounded very harsh and discordant.

Needless to say, I'm a lot more hesitant to trust my snap judgments of pieces now than I was then.

[vandermolen]

Maybe I should listen to 'Odyssey' again as I found it overblown and pretentious.

Other works I didn't initially appreciate.

A Sea Symphony by Vaughan Williams

Symphony 13 'Babi Yar' by Shostakovich.

Both of those are favourites now.

Nice thread idea.

[aleazk]

...Takemitsu's music generally...

Mahlerian disliking Takemitsu is simply a mental image that I cannot form.

On my side, I guess it was some uneasiness with the harmonic language of modern music, nothing really surprising. Fortunately, it was only a very ephemerous phase. I joined the good side of the force and since then the force is in me, well and alive.

Another was Mozart, mainly due to the harmonic language of the classical style, since my first exposure, and, since then, homeplace, to classical music was through the impressionism and its colorful, non-functional harmonies. But, still today, Mozart is more the exception, because of his incredible genius, rather than the rule in my liking for music from that era.

On the other hand, I have never been able to relate to the way of expression, and its associated musical devices, characteristic of the late romantic period.

[Karl Henning]

Like many of us, quite a long list.  I'll start with the Nielsen Wind Quintet, because, as I am a clarinetist, it is utterly appalling that I should mismeasure it on first acquaintance.

I've since done ample penance.

[ritter]

Most of Shostakovich. I explored him enthusiastically some 20/25 years ago, thought some of his symohonies were really striking, and was favourably impressed by a performance of Lady Macbeth... here in Madrid (conducted by Rostropovich, no less). As time passed, the allure of this man's music vanished in my case, and I got the impression that what drew me to him was the easy effect much of his output has, and that (in my case) didn't resist the passing of time. I now find that his music is diametrically opposed to my aesthetic sensibility, and when I listen to him, only the (widespread) negative epithets come to mind: derivative, vulgar, "battleship gray", "third pressing of Mahler"...

With one notable exception: the 24 Preludes and Fugues, op. 87, which I greatly admire.

[DaveF]

Discounting early judgments from one's teenage years (I can remember, after about a year of wearing out the LPs of the Schmidt-Isserstedt Beethoven cycle, hearing Bruckner 8 and laughing incredulously at the grinding of the infernal machines in the scherzo - or are they heavenly machines?), it took me a long, long time (as a church musician especially) to appreciate Howells.  I'd sung a number of pieces, some like Coll. Reg. and Like as the Hart many times, and found the "more minor than minor" tonality, those endless appogiaturas onto a tonic (minor) triad, the wandering Anglo-Catholic warbling murkiness of it all, so annoying as to be depressing.  "Please, just one perfect cadence," I cried.  Then I sang the Gloucester Service, and suddenly it all made sense.  Can't get enough of Howells now.  This all happened within the last 10 years, which would make me 50 or so at the time, so can't attribute my Howells-deafness to youthful folly.

[relm1]

Nice. I'm a big fan of that work too. I need to listen again.

I'm not sure for me. Maybe some of Sibelius' symphonies. I still need to be in the mood for them, but when I am I really enjoy them.

Interesting.  I always found Sibelius to be an immediately revealing composer.  Many great composers feel the same.

[relm1]

Maybe I should listen to 'Odyssey' again as I found it overblown and pretentious.

Other works I didn't initially appreciate.

A Sea Symphony by Vaughan Williams

Symphony 13 'Babi Yar' by Shostakovich.

Both of those are favourites now.

Nice thread idea.

Oh my!  Some of my all time favorite choral works ever are A Sea Symphony by Ralph Vaughan Williams and Symphony 13 'Babi Yar' by Shostakovich!!  Do you also hate Rachmaninoff's The Bell's? 

[Ken B]

Most of Shostakovich. I explored him enthusiastically some 20/25 years ago, thought some of his symohonies were really striking, and was favourably impressed by a performance of Lady Macbeth... here in Madrid (conducted by Rostropovich, no less). As time passed, the allure of this man's music vanished in my case, and I got the impression that what drew me to him was the easy effect much of his output has, and that (in my case) didn't resist the passing of time. I now find that his music is diametrically opposed to my aesthetic sensibility, and when I listen to him, only the (widespread) negative epithets come to mind: derivative, vulgar, "battleship gray", "third pressing of Mahler"...

With one notable exception: the 24 Preludes and Fugues, op. 87, which I greatly admire.

*munches popcorn*

PS Op 87 is the closest there is to WTC Bk III

[Brian]

Oh my!  Some of my all time favorite choral works ever are A Sea Symphony by Ralph Vaughan Williams and Symphony 13 'Babi Yar' by Shostakovich!!  Do you also hate Rachmaninoff's The Bell's?

He said "both are favourites now"

[Alek Hidell]

Well, interestingly enough (cf. relm1's comment), the Sibelius symphonies didn't immediately click with me either. I didn't dislike them at all, but it wasn't love at first listen. It's hard for me to understand that now as I truly do love all seven of them.

The same thing happened with the Braga Santos Fourth, which I found rather nice at first - no more than that - but now love.

On the flip side, a lot of people seem to have trouble with Mahler at first but I clicked with his symphonies right away (well, almost - the first one I heard all the way through was the Fifth, and I found it rather tiresome after the famous opening ).

[amw]

Serial and post-serial music: on first exposure I didn't like it at all, and spent about eight years not liking it when I was exposed to it, and then at some point heard a performance of Elliott Carter's 1st string quartet, was intrigued and started to explore further. Now I generally like serial music, although weirdly enough, not Elliott Carter anymore but instead all the ones I initially hated (Webern, etc).

Shostakovich. I initially really liked his music, and then I started to dislike most of it (not under the influence of Boulez; I just started to find it bombastic and grey and undifferentiated) with the exceptions being his light music, which I will still maintain is extremely high quality. The Suites for Variety Orchestra are masterpieces deserving of their position alongside Johann Strauss II. But anyway from there I evolved to a current position where I appreciate some of Shostakovich's more "serious" work in small doses.

I really disliked Wagner after exposure to Tristan und Isolde, but it turns out he also wrote some other operas and at least the Ring Cycle is listenable if broken up sufficiently.

Uh I used to find the Rite of Spring thrilling and everything but now I feel somewhat browbeaten and manipulated every time I hear it, as though I'm listening to some kind of agitprop about how pagan primitive Russia was actually great or w/e. I swear I have never read Adorno, but in this one very specific respect I can see where he was coming from.

[vandermolen]

Oh my!  Some of my all time favorite choral works ever are A Sea Symphony by Ralph Vaughan Williams and Symphony 13 'Babi Yar' by Shostakovich!!  Do you also hate Rachmaninoff's The Bell's?

Those are amongst my favourites as well now. Took me a while to appreciate choral/vocal music.

No, I always loved the Bells oddly enough.

Vaughan Williams's 'Five Tudor Portraits' I found too 'Hey-nonny-no' at first but like now.

[Karl Henning]

Discounting early judgments from one's teenage years (I can remember, after about a year of wearing out the LPs of the Schmidt-Isserstedt Beethoven cycle, hearing Bruckner 8 and laughing incredulously at the grinding of the infernal machines in the scherzo - or are they heavenly machines?), it took me a long, long time (as a church musician especially) to appreciate Howells.  I'd sung a number of pieces, some like Coll. Reg. and Like as the Hart many times, and found the "more minor than minor" tonality, those endless appogiaturas onto a tonic (minor) triad, the wandering Anglo-Catholic warbling murkiness of it all, so annoying as to be depressing.  "Please, just one perfect cadence," I cried.  Then I sang the Gloucester Service, and suddenly it all made sense.  Can't get enough of Howells now.  This all happened within the last 10 years, which would make me 50 or so at the time, so can't attribute my Howells-deafness to youthful folly.

"Play-to-destruction" experiences are another kettle of fish entirely.

Viz. Howells, I was lucky – my first experience was in an Evensong at the Cathedral, I forget just which set of Canticles we sang (how many sets did he copose, in all?)  They were a challenge to put together, but it was a thoroughly gratifying musical experience.

[some guy]

Reading through the posts, it seems that the conclusion is that any judging is misjudging.

That is, it's not so much the "initially" part that's wrong; it's the judging part.

I'd like to add to that--a that I wholeheartedly agree with, by the way--that perhaps it's not even the judging part, just that the wrong thing is being judged.

Probably more useful to judge yourself and your listening. Judge your assumptions, of greatness, say, or the lack of it.

One thing is certain--those pieces that you started out liking--or disliking--and then changed your mind about? Those pieces have not changed. They're just as they always have been and always will be. You are the one in the equation that has done the changing thing. Hence the usefulness of looking at yourself whenever you have difficulties with a piece. The piece is just itself. And it's not going to change.

[Karl Henning]

One thing is certain--those pieces that you started out liking--or disliking--and then changed your mind about? Those pieces have not changed. They're just as they always have been and always will be. You are the one in the equation that has done the changing thing. Hence the usefulness of looking at yourself whenever you have difficulties with a piece. The piece is just itself. And it's not going to change.

Very good.

[Maestro267]

Reading through the posts, it seems that the conclusion is that any judging is misjudging.

That is, it's not so much the "initially" part that's wrong; it's the judging part.

I'd like to add to that--a that I wholeheartedly agree with, by the way--that perhaps it's not even the judging part, just that the wrong thing is being judged.

Probably more useful to judge yourself and your listening. Judge your assumptions, of greatness, say, or the lack of it.

One thing is certain--those pieces that you started out liking--or disliking--and then changed your mind about? Those pieces have not changed. They're just as they always have been and always will be. You are the one in the equation that has done the changing thing. Hence the usefulness of looking at yourself whenever you have difficulties with a piece. The piece is just itself. And it's not going to change.

100% totally this.