How do you discover new music?

[lordlance]

I have been thinking on how I should discover new music and have had a few questions pop up:

Q1. When I listen to any new piece of music, it's always an amorphous blob of sound that I won't understand until after a few listens. Naturally, assessing if the music is any good would warrant repeated listening but then how does one know if one is wasting time with music that's sub-par? If I were to only listen to music that I liked, then I would have never stuck around with Mahler or Bruckner's music. I am referring to the perceived B-tier composers who have hardcore fans but a some people may dismiss like Raff or Bax.

Q2. Similarly, how do you all decide which music is just antithetical to your taste or music that you will never like? I see often people talk about composers who are a tough nut to crack like Peter Maxwell Davies.

Q3. Something which I often realize is that I don't really revisit music. I add new music that I like to a Spotify playlist but never feel inclined to revisit it for some reason. Do you actively decide to re-listen to new music?

[foxandpeng]

I have been thinking on how I should discover new music and have had a few questions pop up:

Q1. When I listen to any new piece of music, it's always an amorphous blob of sound that I won't understand until after a few listens. Naturally, assessing if the music is any good would warrant repeated listening but then how does one know if one is wasting time with music that's sub-par? If I were to only listen to music that I liked, then I would have never stuck around with Mahler or Bruckner's music.

Q2. Similarly, how do you all decide which music is just antithetical to your taste or music that you will never like? I see often people talk about composers who are a tough nut to crack like Peter Maxwell Davies.

Q3. Something which I often realize is that I don't really revisit music. I add new music that I like to a Spotify playlist but never feel inclined to revisit it for some reason. Do you actively decide to re-listen to new music?

Thoughtful post.

I have a similar experience to you in  your first question. I simply persevere until I know the piece and decide if I like it. Many gems amongst pieces I initially didn't understand or like.

[lordlance]

Thoughtful post.

I have a similar experience to you in  your first question. I simply persevere until I know the piece and decide if I like it. Many gems amongst pieces I initially didn't understand or like.

Do you not find it becoming masochistic if it's harsh music like that of PMD or Xenakis?

[vers la flamme]

I've never taken any masochistic pleasure in re-listening to something that I didn't fully understand the first time. Usually, if I'm revisiting a work or a composer, it's because there is something about that work or composer that deeply arouses my curiosity, and usually that sense of curiosity is enough to power through whatever I'm listening to. However, this does have its limits; for example, if the work in question is extremely long, and I didn't like it at all the first time, it's going to be a long time before I listen again. (For example, Havergal Brian's 1st symphony, which I still haven't made it back to, though the curiosity is definitely there.) The other thing is that I'm usually hearing at least SOMETHING that I like in a new work or composer. If I finish listening to something and my immediate impression is something like "I just hated every second of that", I'm probably not going to get back to it immediately, unless the urge to understand what it is that I'm missing out on is too great.

Excellent thread topic by the way, I hope my reply made sense.

[Brian]

This is a great subject. I'm not sure I know the answer for myself, but one thing I have noticed is that there is a real difference, listening to new music, between "I don't understand this" and "I hate this." In the first category, if it's things like "why did the composer choose that instrument for a solo? why did the piece end that way?" - then that is a sign that gradually, with more listens, I might be able to "solve" the piece and appreciate it. Often, a piece shows its promise by having one or two sections I really enjoy. So then a week or two later, I'll think about how I really want to re-hear that one melody, or that one rhythm, which compels me to go through the rest as well.

If it's in the "I hate this" category, I may listen one more time before giving up. In the "I don't understand" category, I'm more generous: probably around five listens before giving up.

One good example is Mahler's Second Symphony. The first time, it was just so angsty, overblown, too much. The second time, I was in a really shocked and sad mood because of some bad news, and thought, "this is the right emotional state to try Mahler's Second again." And that was correct!

[relm1]

For me, it's a very long tradition of listening to new music.  I always unwind by listening to something new so almost daily I'll encounter a piece of music I've never heard before.  The vast majority of which might be lumped in to a nice but not noteworthy category.  Sometimes I'll want to revisit a work and sometimes I'll love the work.  Those get starred or set aside for my revisit list.  In some cases, the revisit list turns in to a composer I must explorer further.  In some rare cases, I'm introduced to a very interesting composer through a concert.  My first exposure to Thomas Ades was hearing Asyla live in concert.  That made a very deep impression and might not have been as impressive if introduced purely by a recording.  I would say this is a pretty common approach to lots of things - have a list of works I want to hear through recommendation or review or random searches of music I've not encountered before, whittle the list down to works I want to revisit, whittle that list down to composers I want to investigate further in other works, etc.

[DavidW]

Since I've spent most of my life in the pre-streaming era I'm using to purchasing music.  If I spent money on a cd or a tape, I would listen to it many times to get my moneys worth.  If I also know that a work is a masterpiece, I would really make an effort to not give up.

Now I'm at a stage where I'm past discovery of the canon.  When I listen to new music, they are not necessarily masterpieces.  They won't stand up to much scrutiny, they will just become tiresome.  I find that the key is to listen once or a few times, but don't put it under a microscope or you'll quickly lose the magic.

[Todd]

Naturally, assessing if the music is any good would warrant repeated listening but then how does one know if one is wasting time with music that's sub-par?

If I dislike a given piece of music, I know relistening would waste my time, time I could devote to other music, some of it new.  For me, par is whether I like it. 

Similarly, how do you all decide which music is just antithetical to your taste or music that you will never like?

If I dislike music, it is antithetical to my taste.  I am open to all periods, genres, and styles, so it's really down to liking or disliking, and that's it. 

Do you actively decide to re-listen to new music?

Some new music earns repeated listens if I really like it.  So, composers like Vivan Fung or Stephen Hartke or Krzysztof Meyer pop up in my listening more frequently than others.  Some prior new discoveries, typically from deceased composers, like Morales or Mompou, become core rep for me.  It all comes down to how much I enjoy listening to given works.

[DavidW]

Q2. Similarly, how do you all decide which music is just antithetical to your taste or music that you will never like? I see often people talk about composers who are a tough nut to crack like Peter Maxwell Davies.

I don't make that decision.  My discovery was that music that I don't initially enjoy, I usually do years later.

[Luke]

...unless the urge to understand what it is that I'm missing out on is too great...

That's the thing for me. I feel that urge quite badly, so in general I will not give up on a composer. If I don't 'get it,' I want to know why, and I want to get it, too. The metaphor that works for me is that I am a radio and they are the transmitter. If I don't 'get it' it is probably not their fault, the problem is that I haven't found their wavelength yet. I need to retune. And I want to, because I can only gain from so doing.

I didn't always listen in that way. As a kid I arrogantly dismissed a few composers... Ives, for example, who I idiotically thought of as a single rather slapdash, simplistic idea masquerading as genius until I realised, one day, that actually it was just genius. I listened to the Concord almost every day for months, ashamed and embarrassed by my previous idiocy. It turned out - surprise, surprise - that the fault had been in me, and in my ignorance. After that experience I continued to struggle - for years - to see much point in an odd mix of composers (Copland was one, and Weber another) but I always knew that this was down to my not being on the right wavelength, not to a fault in the music, so I kept retuning myself until I hit the wavelength, too. 

Approach them on their own terms and try to enter their worlds. For instance, bracketing Maxwell Davies and Xenakis together (as 'harsh') when their aesthetics, their methods and their music are actually very different robs you of what makes them special and individual, which is what makes them lovable. In their own terms both may be harsh (at times - sometimes very much not so) but both are also beautiful and 'right.' But you won't find the beauty in Xenakis without understanding 'where he came from' (in every sense of the word) and the same is true of Maxwell Davies.

[brewski]

This is a great topic—thanks, @lordlance, for getting it started.

...how does one know if one is wasting time with music that's sub-par? If I were to only listen to music that I liked, then I would have never stuck around with Mahler or Bruckner's music.

The thing is, you probably won't know "sub-par" until after you've heard it (or part of it) at least once. And even the phrase, "sub-par" might mean something like, "This is perfectly pleasant but won't hold up after 100 hearings." Does that mean it's garbage? No. There's plenty of music that I love, but that won't make it into a top 10 list. Does that mean it should never be heard? No.

Q2. Similarly, how do you all decide which music is just antithetical to your taste or music that you will never like? I see often people talk about composers who are a tough nut to crack like Peter Maxwell Davies.

One of the best criterions for judging music (not the only one) is "Do I want to hear it again?" for any reason. That reason may be solely, "Is this as awful as I first thought?" But a piece can pique interest for many reasons. This week I have been listening to the new St. Matthew Passion from Bent Sørensen, which is making a huge impression. The texts are fascinating, his music responds to them creatively, and the performers are all excellent. It might be a modern classic—or not—but that doesn't really matter at the moment.

Q3. Something which I often realize is that I don't really revisit music. I add new music that I like to a Spotify playlist but never feel inclined to revisit it for some reason. Do you actively decide to re-listen to new music?

On this one, I would follow your own curiosity. Again, being inclined to revisit is key, for whatever reason—whether to return to a pleasurable first impression, or to double-check an unfavorable one. Also, we live in an era, gratefully, in which we can listen to something hundreds of times.

I mean, never revisiting a new piece might deprive you of a potential favorite. Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is a great example, a favorite of millions. Imagine hearing it once—and never again. And it's a pretty radical piece, in some respects, e.g., the blaring opening of the last movement, which likely sounded awful to some people at the time.

-Bruce

[Spotted Horses]

My method of discovery is rather random. In old times I stumbled on several composers new to me just because a conductor I admired recorded it. My first exposure to Mahler was when I saw the 9th symphony LP by Karajan/BPO in the new release section. Same for Shostakovich 10.

Nowadays hints come from mentions on GMG, release schedule from independent record labels, wikipedia pages, etc. It still can be a composer taken up by a conductor I've had good experience with. Sometimes I decide to listen to a new composer because I like the sound of the name.

Often I listen to something and find myself utterly baffled, but I can get a sense that "I should like this," or "something is going on that I am not quite getting." That justifies perseverance, at least one or two repeat listenings. Other times, I get the sense that I just don't like the music language or aesthetic sense of the composer.

[foxandpeng]

Do you not find it becoming masochistic if it's harsh music like that of PMD or Xenakis?

Never really prodded Xenakis. PMD is different - even though I've found it perplexing and complicated, I've been fascinated by his music. The more I've listened, the more I've wanted to discover. Once I"ve become familiar with it, I can pick out things that initially seemed impenetrable. Familiarity leads to understanding. Understanding leads to enjoyment.

I rarely connect immediately with anything but the most straightforward classical music, but my experience shows that once I get my head round it, I'm hooked.

[foxandpeng]

That's the thing for me. I feel that urge quite badly, so in general I will not give up on a composer. If I don't 'get it,' I want to know why, and I want to get it, too. The metaphor that works for me is that I am a radio and they are the transmitter. If I don't 'get it' it is probably not their fault, the problem is that I haven't found their wavelength yet. I need to retune. And I want to, because I can only gain from so doing.

I didn't always listen in that way. As a kid I arrogantly dismissed a few composers... Ives, for example, who I idiotically thought of as a single rather slapdash, simplistic idea masquerading as genius until I realised, one day, that actually it was just genius. I listened to the Concord almost every day for months, ashamed and embarrassed by my previous idiocy. It turned out - surprise, surprise - that the fault had been in me, and in my ignorance. After that experience I continued to struggle - for years - to see much point in an odd mix of composers (Copland was one, and Weber another) but I always knew that this was down to my not being on the right wavelength, not to a fault in the music, so I kept retuning myself until I hit the wavelength, too. 

Approach them on their own terms and try to enter their worlds. For instance, bracketing Maxwell Davies and Xenakis together (as 'harsh') when their aesthetics, their methods and their music are actually very different robs you of what makes them special and individual, which is what makes them lovable. In their own terms both may be harsh (at times - sometimes very much not so) but both are also beautiful and 'right.' But you won't find the beauty in Xenakis without understanding 'where he came from' (in every sense of the word) and the same is true of Maxwell Davies.

Yeah, this.

[foxandpeng]

My method of discovery is rather random. In old times I stumbled on several composers new to me just because a conductor I admired recorded it. My first exposure to Mahler was when I saw the 9th symphony LP by Karajan/BPO in the new release section. Same for Shostakovich 10.

Nowadays hints come from mentions on GMG, release schedule from independent record labels, wikipedia pages, etc. It still can be a composer taken up by a conductor I've had good experience with. Sometimes I decide to listen to a new composer because I like the sound of the name.

Often I listen to something and find myself utterly baffled, but I can get a sense that "I should like this," or "something is going on that I am not quite getting." That justifies perseverance, at least one or two repeat listenings. Other times, I get the sense that I just don't like the music language or aesthetic sense of the composer.

This too.

[lordlance]

Let me share my story and perhaps why I asked this question will make more sense:

I started listening to classical randomly one day. I didn't like it instantly and stuck for the energetic bits in orchestral music because who doesn't love Tchaikovsky 6.II or Bruckner 9.II? I didn't like the slow movements and a decade later I still don't. At most I shrug as with Bruckner's adagios and at worst it can be unbearable like Mahler 4. There are exceptions like Beethoven whose symphonies' adagios I do enjoy (some of them.)

Fast forward to a few years later, I dive deep into modern music which is quite unrelenting and unnerving. I have anxiety issues already so the music only worsens that. I stuck with it for a few years hoping to crack the code and "get" it but realized that it bore almost no fruit (75-80%?) and I just wasted time trying to enjoy a lot of composers that I still don't. I do like some modern music unlike baroque era (like Schnittke's or Arnold's symphonies.)

Similarly, in the last decade I have tried chamber, solo piano and vocal music quite often but have just simply never liked it. As a result, when I talk about classical music with people, people think that I have very narrow tastes (i.e. generally high-voltage orchestral music from Beethoven and onwards...) and need to "broaden my horizons." Well I have been trying that and it only leads to more frustration.

Of course one might say that the natural solution is to stick to music that you enjoy but that's also not great advice because I find that I just don't enjoy new music all that often. It's more of a problem in non-classical where I can't find any new artist that I really like. I've tried diving into other genres to no success either which is a bit annoying because I would like to have wide tastes but I can't seem to.

The issue with sticking to what I just like also is the fact that well everything is a blob of music as I wrote in my original post. Amusingly, even Mendelssohn 5 was confusing and annoying when I first heard it (I tend to get annoyed by not being able to make sense of the music) and on the second or third listen I couldn't figure out what I didn't understand because it is obviously such melodic music.

That is why I created this thread because I would like to be able to appreciate more music (or even just art) but don't find much success.

[Mapman]

Of course one might say that the natural solution is to stick to music that you enjoy but that's also not great advice because I find that I just don't enjoy new music all that often. It's more of a problem in non-classical where I can't find any new artist that I really like. I've tried diving into other genres to no success either which is a bit annoying because I would like to have wide tastes but I can't seem to.

The issue with sticking to what I just like also is the fact that well everything is a blob of music as I wrote in my original post. Amusingly, even Mendelssohn 5 was confusing and annoying when I first heard it (I tend to get annoyed by not being able to make sense of the music) and on the second or third listen I couldn't figure out what I didn't understand because it is obviously such melodic music.

That is why I created this thread because I would like to be able to appreciate more music (or even just art) but don't find much success.

It also sometimes takes me several listens to understand a piece of music. Something that helped me in the past was listening to music in the background (such as while washing dishes). Then when I was ready to listen while paying full attention there would be familiar melodies.

I also find reading scores while I listen to be very helpful. One reason is that I can look back at what I just heard; this can be helpful for identifying returning themes, their inversions, etc. Following the scores is very helpful for me in following counterpoint, such as in Bruckner's symphonies. (Of course, there are members here who don't read music and follow scores too.) Playing music also helps me appreciate it. (When I was in high school and college I played in student orchestras; now I sometimes play along with recordings.)

Educating myself about music is also helpful; I don't think I would appreciate Haydn as much if I didn't understand Sonata form. I've also learned a lot from conducting masterclasses, to understand how the musicians think about the music. Iván Fischer's masterclasses with the Concertgebouw are some of my favorites. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaYRvyN2Zc

Are there any instruments you particularly like? I play clarinet, so I tend to prefer music that includes clarinets. So perhaps you would be more likely to enjoy chamber music that includes some particular instrument. (Or just chamber music for larger groups.)

Enjoy whatever music you enjoy listening to!

[lordlance]

It also sometimes takes me several listens to understand a piece of music. Something that helped me in the past was listening to music in the background (such as while washing dishes). Then when I was ready to listen while paying full attention there would be familiar melodies.

I also find reading scores while I listen to be very helpful. One reason is that I can look back at what I just heard; this can be helpful for identifying returning themes, their inversions, etc. Following the scores is very helpful for me in following counterpoint, such as in Bruckner's symphonies. (Of course, there are members here who don't read music and follow scores too.) Playing music also helps me appreciate it. (When I was in high school and college I played in student orchestras; now I sometimes play along with recordings.)

Educating myself about music is also helpful; I don't think I would appreciate Haydn as much if I didn't understand Sonata form. I've also learned a lot from conducting masterclasses, to understand how the musicians think about the music. Iván Fischer's masterclasses with the Concertgebouw are some of my favorites. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaYRvyN2Zc

Are there any instruments you particularly like? I play clarinet, so I tend to prefer music that includes clarinets. So perhaps you would be more likely to enjoy chamber music that includes some particular instrument. (Or just chamber music for larger groups.)

Enjoy whatever music you enjoy listening to!

I can neither read music nor play an instrument something which I have realized is probably something I will have to inevitably get around to (reading music that is).

I have to say that the only instrument I can enjoy solo is the piano and to a lesser extent violin (I enjoy the warhorses such as Beethoven or Brahms VC.) Do you have chamber recommendations for music that is generally busy?

[San Antone]

I have an active curiosity about new music being written in a variety of genres.  There are several publications I scan, as well as some Youtube channels I subscribe to which feature new classical music, as well as other genres.

Some streaming services also have active playlists for new music, and recordings.

To be honest there is no genre of music which is off limits to me.  Almost everyday I find something that I find wonderful that has been written in the last few months or year.

I would say that my listening is 90% new music and 10% old works from the canon.

[Mapman]

I can neither read music nor play an instrument something which I have realized is probably something I will have to inevitably get around to (reading music that is).

I have to say that the only instrument I can enjoy solo is the piano and to a lesser extent violin (I enjoy the warhorses such as Beethoven or Brahms VC.) Do you have chamber recommendations for music that is generally busy?

Reading music is a useful skill, although several members here do fine without it. In complex music, I often don't read every note; I more look at the shape of phrases.

Since you like Beethoven and violins, you might like Beethoven's String Quartet #11, Op. 95. It's a piece that made me immediately want to hear it again. I also recently enjoyed Mendelssohn's Octet, which is almost symphonic.