5 minutes to make a newcomer fall in love with classical music

[PerfectWagnerite]

I'm not sure what I would recommend, but when my parents have drafted me to play piano to entertain guests/provide background music, Mendelssohn Songs Without Words & Grieg Lyric Pieces have always gotten good reactions from committed non-classical listeners, and most of them are under 3 minutes.

I think the key word is "background" music. To entertain guess you need something that is easy to listen to, not too loud, not too fast, not too dramatic and not too long. Those pieces you mentioned fit the bill nicely.

I have only been present once at a grown person's first classical music concert.

My girlfriend's best friend came with us to a concert of Bruckner's eighth symphony.

She was very pleased with it. Enjoyed herself, so she said, thoroughly.

I took my wife to hear Mahler's 5th and 9th and also Bruckner's 8th and 8th. She enjoyed those immensely, normally she cannot stand listening to classical music.

[Florestan]

I think the key word is "background" music. To entertain guess you need something that is easy to listen to, not too loud, not too fast, not too dramatic and not too long. Those pieces you mentioned fit the bill nicely.

I will never tire of stressing that some of the best music ever written was originally conceived either as background or as entertaining music --- and of expressing my firm conviction that writing good background or entertaining music is far more difficult than writing boring symphonies and string quartets.

I took my wife to hear Mahler's 5th and 9th and also Bruckner's 8th and 8th. She enjoyed those immensely, normally she cannot stand listening to classical music.

Precisely. The live, concert hall experience is on a higher plane than simply listening to recordings.

[amw]

I'm not that sure. In a hall with very good to excellenrt acoustics an orchestral blast is felt inside one's head, too.

There are not many halls like that—and also a lot of classical newcomers wouldn't necessarily be able to afford the best seats. (Also there's a tendency to book solo piano recitals, string quartets, etc in large halls acoustically unsuited to them in order to sell more tickets, which gives a bad impression of anything smaller than an orchestra.)

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

There are not many halls like that—and also a lot of classical newcomers wouldn't necessarily be able to afford the best seats. (Also there's a tendency to book solo piano recitals, string quartets, etc in large halls acoustically unsuited to them in order to sell more tickets, which gives a bad impression of anything smaller than an orchestra.)

That's not my experience. One of the last concerts I attended was of the local University Orchestra playing the 6th symphony of Tchaikovsky. It was a far more impressive experience than any recording I ever heard, including Mavrinsky, Karajan or Markevitch. The hall was not so large and there was no issue of getting a good seat.

Everyone has probably heard the most appealing bits of classical music somewhere or another on their little earbuds or as background music. I think what will make an impression is how intense the live experience of a symphony orchestra is, both the enveloping sound and the spectacle of a large body of performers doing their work.

[Florestan]

That's not my experience. One of the last concerts I attended was of the local University Orchestra playing the 6th symphony of Tchaikovsky. It was far more impressive than any recording I ever heard, including Mavrinsky, Karajan or Markevitch. The hall was not so large and there was no issue of getting a good seat.

Everyone has probably heard the most appealing bits of classical music somewhere or another on their little earbuds or as background music. I think what will make an impression is how intense the live experience of a symphony orchestra is, both the enveloping sound and the spectacle of a large body of performers doing their work.

Agreed 100% with all of the above. The excitement of a live performance is far beyond anything a recording can offer.

[some guy]

I'd like to back up all the way to the subject line for the thread.

And question the word "make."

I received a box of mostly 78s from my father's half-brother when I was around 9. (I wasn't keeping any calendars at the time, so I can't be entirely sure.) And most of those discs contained classical music.

I had only heard Hollywood music up the that point, that being all that my parents ever played. (And, as you perhaps know, Hollywood did rely pretty heavily on a few classical pieces and a few classical cliches.)

I was pretty gobsmacked by what I heard. Haydn. Rachmaninoff. Prokofiev. Beethoven. Tchaikovsky. Grieg.

And much, much more. (One of the 33s was a 50 snippet thing, with Bellini and Wagner and Berlioz and Schumann and two or three different Strausses.)

I didn't like everything I heard. But it never went beyond "I don't like this particular piece (or snippet)." The world as a whole was entrancing and delightful.

No one had to "make" me do anything. It was love at first hearing and is a love that has never left me. (Though nowadays I do spend more time with the "second" love, contemporary music. Also there, I don't like everything I hear. But there, too, it never goes beyond "I don't like this particular piece." I add that because we've all seen anti-modernists trash the whole world of contemporary music on the basis of a handful of disliked pieces.)

One other thing, while I agree that live is best, all of my early listening was from the vinyl discs and from a very cheap radio. My first concert was when I was in high school. It was before I had a driver's license, as my mom took me too it. At my insistence. But the love? That predates my first live concert by at least five years, maybe more.

[steve ridgway]

That's great. The older brother of one of my school friends came into possession of a box of more adventurous rock albums that had a similar effect on me - suddenly realising there was a whole world of music out there to be explored . But you either like it or you don't - as you say it's not something one gets talked into.

[Karl Henning]

I'd like to back up all the way to the subject line for the thread.

And question the word "make."

Encourage were far better.

[some guy]

Encourage were far better.

A hearty "amen" to that.

[Pat B]

I'd like to back up all the way to the subject line for the thread.

And question the word "make."
...
No one had to "make" me do anything. It was love at first hearing and is a love that has never left me.

It was clear to me that they meant "make" meaning "cause," not "force."

[Elgarian Redux]

I will never tire of stressing that some of the best music ever written was originally conceived either as background or as entertaining music ...

We've joked about this elsewhere Andrei, I know, but it's been a source of much thought for me since we did, because it is manifestly an accurate statement. There is no law that declares 'this must be listened to attentively'. And I'm starting to see that a certain part of me has been assuming that there was, if not such a law, at least, an internalised expectation: that there was a kind of duty incumbent upon me to listen seriously (I include joyfully, happily, etc in that notion of seriousness). I hope you'll bear with me while I think aloud.

I am thinking back to a glorious summer of something like 1964, when a friend lent me a tape recording of Scheherezade. I had a small tape recorder, plugged into an extension lead so I could use it outside, and would lie on the lawn playing that tape at least once a day, sometimes twice. Sometimes I read; sometimes I just lay quietly; sometimes I chatted to a friend who might call by. I didn't discriminate between these experiences. They were all ways of listening. Scheherezade provided an ambience which I could dip into, to any degree, just as I liked. I wandered around the house whistling it. Sometimes I imagined stories to accompany the music.

Have I ever enjoyed Scheherezade so much as I did, for all my wandering attention and almost zero musical knowledge, that memorable summer? Honestly, no. I simply loved being in its presence.

Anyway .... yesterday lunchtime I was intending to read a book, took out a CD of Corelli violin sonatas from that lovely Andrew Manze set "The art of the violin", and set about my business of paying little attention to the music. I had some difficulty at times - the music does have a tendency to induce a certain pleasurably painful longing now and then that can't be ignored - but I must say it was a lovely combination, and I felt no guilt whatsoever. I propose to try harder at listening inattentively.

[Karl Henning]

We've joked about this elsewhere Andrei, I know, but it's been a source of much thought for me since we did, because it is manifestly an accurate statement. There is no law that declares 'this must be listened to attentively'. And I'm starting to see that a certain part of me has been assuming that there was, if not such a law, at least, an internalised expectation: that there was a kind of duty incumbent upon me to listen seriously (I include joyfully, happily, etc in that notion of seriousness). I hope you'll bear with me while I think aloud.

I am thinking back to a glorious summer of something like 1964, when a friend lent me a tape recording of Scheherezade. I had a small tape recorder, plugged into an extension lead so I could use it outside, and would lie on the lawn playing that tape at least once a day, sometimes twice. Sometimes I read; sometimes I just lay quietly; sometimes I chatted to a friend who might call by. I didn't discriminate between these experiences. They were all ways of listening. Scheherezade provided an ambience which I could dip into, to any degree, just as I liked. I wandered around the house whistling it. Sometimes I imagined stories to accompany the music.

Have I ever enjoyed Scheherezade so much as I did, for all my wandering attention and almost zero musical knowledge, that memorable summer? Honestly, no. I simply loved being in its presence.

That, too, is attending to the music.

Great stuff.

[Florestan]

We've joked about this elsewhere Andrei, I know, but it's been a source of much thought for me since we did, because it is manifestly an accurate statement. There is no law that declares 'this must be listened to attentively'. And I'm starting to see that a certain part of me has been assuming that there was, if not such a law, at least, an internalised expectation: that there was a kind of duty incumbent upon me to listen seriously (I include joyfully, happily, etc in that notion of seriousness). I hope you'll bear with me while I think aloud.

I am thinking back to a glorious summer of something like 1964, when a friend lent me a tape recording of Scheherezade. I had a small tape recorder, plugged into an extension lead so I could use it outside, and would lie on the lawn playing that tape at least once a day, sometimes twice. Sometimes I read; sometimes I just lay quietly; sometimes I chatted to a friend who might call by. I didn't discriminate between these experiences. They were all ways of listening. Scheherezade provided an ambience which I could dip into, to any degree, just as I liked. I wandered around the house whistling it. Sometimes I imagined stories to accompany the music.

Have I ever enjoyed Scheherezade so much as I did, for all my wandering attention and almost zero musical knowledge, that memorable summer? Honestly, no. I simply loved being in its presence.

Anyway .... yesterday lunchtime I was intending to read a book, took out a CD of Corelli violin sonatas from that lovely Andrew Manze set "The art of the violin", and set about my business of paying little attention to the music. I had some difficulty at times - the music does have a tendency to induce a certain pleasurably painful longing now and then that can't be ignored - but I must say it was a lovely combination, and I felt no guilt whatsoever. I propose to try harder at listening inattentively.

By Jove, Alan! I am delighted that you understood perfectly what I meant by "inattentive listening" and while I didn't have in mind your examples when I wrote about background or entertaining music I agree that they can fit in the bill quite nicely.

And I want to stress this point of yours:

[Corelli's] music does have a tendency to induce a certain pleasurably painful longing now and then that can't be ignored

Absolutely. "Background" or "entertaining" in no way implies "lack of quality" or "uninteresting".

Actually, I don't do attentive listening even when I attend a live concert. The visual element of musicians playing their instruments and conductors waving their hands is an important part of my enjoyment, too. I know that some people prefer to close their eyes in order not to be distracted by anything else than the music but I don't. For me live means alive: flesh-and-blood people making music, and seeing the bodily movements that musicians make in direct response to the music they play is fascinating.

And I certainly agree that the joy of hearing something for the first time without any knowledge whatsoever (also without the prejudices that inevitably come with knowledge) is an exhilarating experience which is very difficult to have a second time.

[Elgarian Redux]

That, too, is attending to the music.

I'm reassured by your agreement, Karl. And I think my point is (I am still in the process of discovering what my point is) that 'attentiveness' covers a wide spectrum of awareness, from Total Immersion at one end, to Total Obliviousness at the other - only this last extreme being, strictly, inattentiveness.

[Elgarian Redux]

The visual element of musicians playing their instruments and conductors waving their hands is an important part of my enjoyment, too.

Yes!

For me live means alive: flesh-and-blood people making music, and seeing the bodily movements that musicians make in direct response to the music they play is fascinating.

Yes again, I say!

And I certainly agree that the joy of hearing something for the first time without any knowledge whatsoever (also without the prejudices that inevitably come with knowledge) is an exhilarating experience which is very difficult to have a second time.

You are spot on with the concept of knowledge as a potential source of prejudice. In the case of my Scheherezade summer, the raw, knowledge-free delight extended for at least a couple of weeks - familiarity not being quite the same as knowing more. No, scratch that. What I was gaining came in the form of connaître. Savoir didn't really enter into the business.

It is a difficult balance, this, with all art. Too much printer's ink can clog up the ears as well as the eyes.

[bwv 1080]

John Cage 4'33
Webern 5 Pieces for Orchestra #3 (Boulez)

there that is exactly 5 minutes

[Florestan]

You are spot on with the concept of knowledge as a potential source of prejudice. In the case of my Scheherezade summer, the raw, knowledge-free delight extended for at least a couple of weeks - familiarity not being quite the same as knowing more. No, scratch that. What I was gaining came in the form of connaître. Savoir didn't really enter into the business.

A nice, and apt, distinction.

I'll follow your example and think aloud. As time went by I have come to appreciate more and more simplicity and naturalness in music; but can't it be that what is actually needed is simplicity and naturalness in listening?

It is a difficult balance, this, with all art. Too much printer's ink can clog up the ears as well as the eyes.

Oh, absolutely, not to mention that it can endanger one's soul, as a certain gentleman holding multiple PhDs in Theology from several universities, mostly German, knows only too well. 

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

The one time I do not want to see the performer is an oboe solo. There is something disturbingly incongruous between the beautiful sound and the absurd, grotesque contortions of the performer blowing into that little reed on the end of a wooden tube. The same would apply to bassoon, I guess, if something beautiful were actually produced.

[Elgarian Redux]

can't it be that what is actually needed is simplicity and naturalness in listening?

Well, let's run with it for a moment and see what happens.

Winding back the clock yet again to 1964/65, I vividly remember an English teacher walking into the classroom carrying a gramophone and a copy of Symphonie Fantastique. He announced that today there would be no formal English lesson. We were going to listen to this piece of music instead. He told us very little, but he did mention Berlioz's obsession with Harriet Smithson, and that the first movement was inspired by a dream. 'See if you can hear him dreaming about her,' he suggested.

Now, that was it - all I needed. I jolly well could hear him dreaming about her, without any further prompting, and I liked it. I went off and bought an LP and proceeded to wear out the grooves. That, I think, comes close to the kind of 'simplicity and naturalness' that you speak of. And, I guess, it's likely to be a beguiling way into classical music for many people other than myself.

[PerfectWagnerite]

The one time I do not want to see the performer is an oboe solo. There is something disturbingly incongruous between the beautiful sound and the absurd, grotesque contortions of the performer blowing into that little reed on the end of a wooden tube. The same would apply to bassoon, I guess, if something beautiful were actually produced.

I would add the French Horn.