Rejected, then Embraced! And Vice-Versa!

Started by Cato, May 02, 2007, 05:26:11 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Cato

I am interested in reading if you have experienced an initial ho-hum, incomprehension, or even dislike toward a work, but then later you wondered how you could ever have had such a reaction!

When I was very young I found a recording of Schoenberg's Pelleas und Melisande at the library, and decided to give it a shot based on Schoenberg's Mahler connection.  The work made no sense to me: I was something of a prodigy in music at the time, and could not understand why I could follow a Bruckner symphony, or Beethoven's Opus 111, but not Pelleas und Melisande.  It gnawed my brain, for I knew that History had given Schoenberg a rightful place, and did not want to conclude that the problem lay with him!    0:)

A few months later I listened to the work again: Everything fell into place!  And it became one of my favorite works!  An "Aha!" moment came after weeks of perhaps subconscious mulling of what I had heard.

And I can pose the question the other way: which works did you initially embrace with great enthusiasm, but then decided for whatever reason to divorce yourself from?   :o
"Meet Miss Ruth Sherwood, from Columbus, Ohio, the Middle of the Universe!"

- Brian Aherne introducing Rosalind Russell in  My Sister Eileen (1942)

karlhenning

Long list of works which didn't grab me the first listen, which I later came to treasure.

Including (but not limited to):

Shostakovich Fourth Symphony

Nielsen Symphonies

Vaughan Williams Symphonies

Prokofiev Symphony-Concerto for Cello and Orchestra

Harry

O, most of the composers in the beginning I could not approach and later on one by one they came to me.
I started with Chopin and then Brahms, and that was it. Bruckner/Mahler/Shostakovich/ to name a few were not palatable to me.
Took me ten years before I touched another composer outside the Chopin/Brahms realm.

Cato

Quote from: Harry on May 02, 2007, 05:33:52 AM
O, most of the composers in the beginning I could not approach and later on one by one they came to me.
I started with Chopin and then Brahms, and that was it. Bruckner/Mahler/Shostakovich/ to name a few were not palatable to me.
Took me ten years before I touched another composer outside the Chopin/Brahms realm.

Have you stepped outside to another, even more radical realm?  Webern?  Messiaen?  Andrew Lloyd Webber?   :o
"Meet Miss Ruth Sherwood, from Columbus, Ohio, the Middle of the Universe!"

- Brian Aherne introducing Rosalind Russell in  My Sister Eileen (1942)

Harry

Quote from: Cato on May 02, 2007, 05:46:13 AM
Have you stepped outside to another, even more radical realm?  Webern?  Messiaen?  Andrew Lloyd Webber?   :o

No never, but Pettersson/Krenek/Hartmann/ and some more are the most radical step I ever take.
After 35 years of listening, Webern or Messiaen are still no go area.

Cato

Quote from: Harry on May 02, 2007, 05:50:36 AM
No never, but Pettersson/Krenek/Hartmann and some more are the most radical step I ever take.
After 35 years of listening, Webern or Messiaen are still no go area.

Karl Amadeus Hartmann was an instant fave! I remember coming across the DGG recording of the Symphony #8 with Kubelik conducting, when I was in high school 40 years ago or so.  There was no gestation period needed for understanding it.

But by that time I had already embraced the New Musical Trinity of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern!  Not to mention their Russian counterparts of Scriabin, Stravinsky, and Prokofiev!
"Meet Miss Ruth Sherwood, from Columbus, Ohio, the Middle of the Universe!"

- Brian Aherne introducing Rosalind Russell in  My Sister Eileen (1942)

bhodges

"Rejected, then embraced" happens to me fairly often, and from this come good reasons to be at least a little skeptical of initial reactions.  My favorite example is Verdi's Falstaff, and walking out at intermission of a concert performance of it some 20 years ago.  :-[  My friend wasn't enjoying it either (I found out later) and she and I were hungry, and when she suggested we adjourn for margaritas... ;)

So fast forward: it is now one of my favorite operas.  (As a matter of fact, I'm seeing it next week in Philadelphia.)  How to explain this?  After 20 years of listening to many different things, I am a more patient listener, and try not to judge a work based on criteria that the work cannot possibly meet.  (John Adams will never be Schoenberg, and vice versa.)  Further, I now hear Falstaff differently from other Verdi works, so my expectations and satisfaction are correspondingly different as well.  (e.g., Falstaff is not La Traviata, nor is it Otello.)

I haven't had much experience liking something and having it turn sour, although I often experience overload or saturation, i.e., listening to a piece too often and then needing a break from it.  But after a suitable "time off," I return to the score with pleasure.

--Bruce

Cato

On being skeptical of initial musical reactions: given the story by Bruce above on Verdi's Falstaff, one wonders at the complexity of the human earmotional system.  How much did appetites - of various kinds apparently!   0:)   -  interfere with listening to the opera? 

I often have heard people comment: "I don't like classical music, because I just want to hear something that relaxes me, or is just mindless fun, I don't want anything heavy," etc.  The everyday stress of modern life might seem to be a factor against serous music.

But for those who have accepted classical music, I wonder if everyday stress does not cause perhaps these initial rejections.  And then under restful conditions, the work is better appreciated.

Is one more open-eared in the autumn or spring, in the  morning or on weekends?  Since most concerts are at night, I do wonder if fatigue from the day's activities does not interfere with the open-earedness of the audience, when something "difficult" or just new is programmed.  Thus if one hears the same work, which one at first rejected, at a different time under different circumstances, then comes the "Hey! This is really good!" reaction.

I do not believe I am moody like that, but...    8)
"Meet Miss Ruth Sherwood, from Columbus, Ohio, the Middle of the Universe!"

- Brian Aherne introducing Rosalind Russell in  My Sister Eileen (1942)

Steve

I found a similar challenge, Cato with the music of Debussy. Much of what prevented me from enjoying his works for solo piano, was my absolute insistence after listening to copious amounts of Haydn and Mozart, that great music must contain beautiful tonal melodies. I simply had to put down my paradigm for great music, and I could see the genius in Debussy and others. Music lacking in memorable melodies or complicated structures, could still be quite lovely. This discovery allowed me to move past the melodious High-Classical composers and into Romantics and 20th Century Music. Yet, the struggle continues. Minimalism still fails to strike a serious chord in my heart.   :)

bhodges

Many interesting points to ponder, Cato, related to stress and time of day of listening.  I have heard similar comments, and it makes me wonder if people shy away from "difficult" books or films, for example, because they want something "relaxing"?  Probably the answer is "yes."

And yes, other appetites sometimes interfere.  Another example, also operatic: the first time I saw Berg's Lulu at the Met, I didn't do my homework, and by the time the second intermission rolled around at 11:00pm, with another hour to go, I was dead-tired and hungry, so I left, not knowing what I was missing.  (Another opera that is now one of my favorites.) 

In our contemporary world, I do appreciate knowing approximately what my time commitment is likely to be, e.g., notes in concert programs that include the approximate length of the pieces.  Even as an experienced listener, I would like to know the difference between Morton Feldman's Coptic Light (c. 30 minutes) vs. his Second String Quartet (c. six hours!).  :D

--Bruce

Grazioso

#10
Quote from: Steve on May 02, 2007, 10:19:15 AM
I found a similar challenge, Cato with the music of Debussy. Much of what prevented me from enjoying his works for solo piano, was my absolute insistence after listening to copious amounts of Haydn and Mozart, that great music must contain beautiful tonal melodies. I simply had to put down my paradigm for great music, and I could see the genius in Debussy and others. Music lacking in memorable melodies or complicated structures, could still be quite lovely. This discovery allowed me to move past the melodious High-Classical composers and into Romantics and 20th Century Music. Yet, the struggle continues. Minimalism still fails to strike a serious chord in my heart.   :)

That phenomenon occurred with me and jazz: I could tell there was something worth hearing in it, but I just couldn't wrap my head around it because it functions according to different paradigms than most of the classical and rock music I had been used to. Eventually it clicked, and now it makes perfect sense. When you take those leaps into radically different (or seemingly radically different) artistic territory, it's sort of like learning a foreign language.
There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact. --Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Maciek

What Harry is not telling you about is his enjoyment of Lutoslawski! 8)

Harry

Quote from: MrOsa on May 02, 2007, 11:04:46 AM
What Harry is not telling you about is his enjoyment of Lutoslawski! 8)

True true, you have the memory of a elephant my friend!
But I admit, that is also a fine discovery, thanks to the friendly people at GMG. :)


And I said some more, in my original post.....................

Cato

Many thanks for the fascinating replies!

Steve wrote:

QuoteMinimalism still fails to strike a serious chord in my heart.

It has the "melodiousness" (again and again and again) peple seek, yet it is the repetitious simplicity which for many people causes incomprehension!

Looking at some of its roots, in meditative chant for exampe, this becomes easier to understand, but acceptance depends on how the composer manipulates the method.  John Adams provided me with an "Okay" (if not quite an "Aha!") moment with Harmonielehre, although I always had to admit the perfection of Koyanisqaatsi by Glass for the movie it is meant to accompany.

bhodges wrote:

QuoteEven as an experienced listener, I would like to know the difference between Morton Feldman's Coptic Light (c. 30 minutes) vs. his Second String Quartet (c. six hours!). 

Well, if a 17-hour music drama can be comprehended, what's a little 6-hour string quartet ?    ;D

Whoops, the spirit of Stockhausen    0:)     just reminded me of his 30+-hour Licht cycle!!! 

Which is awaiting some people!   >:D

Will people embrace such a work whole-heartedly, even if they don't live in Kürten, the Musical Center of the Cosmos?  Time or Eternity will tell!

Graziosos wrote:

QuoteI could tell there was something worth hearing in it, but I just couldn't wrap my head around it because it functions according to different paradigms than most of the classical and rock music I had been used to. Eventually it clicked, and now it makes perfect sense. When you take those leaps into radically different (or seemingly radically different) artistic territory, it's sort of like learning a foreign language.

Precisely my experience with jazz: Peter Schickele, when he had his radio show, once remarked on the similarities between experimental jazz and composers like Webern and Boulez.  You need new ears and attitudes.



"Meet Miss Ruth Sherwood, from Columbus, Ohio, the Middle of the Universe!"

- Brian Aherne introducing Rosalind Russell in  My Sister Eileen (1942)

BachQ


not edward

As I grew up with classical music from Bach through Shostakovich, I was comfortable with much of the mainstream repertoire from an early age.

So for me most of my initial false rejections were of 20th century music. I didn't like Prokofiev's 4th piano concerto for a long time, now it's my favourite of the five. I also hated Nono when I first heard his music, and he's now one of my favourite post-war composers.

I didn't like any Stravinsky beyond Petrushka and Symphonie des Psaumes until I tried to compose for a while. After a few months of playing around with jerky, uneven rhythms, I started to listen to all the Stravinsky I'd previously rejected, particularly from his middle and late periods.

Back when I was in my crusading modernist phase (a long time ago) I wrongly rejected Part and Kancheli. Nowadays, though I may not be a big fan of either's recent work, I recognize the blazing talent at work in their best pieces.
"I don't at all mind actively disliking a piece of contemporary music, but in order to feel happy about it I must consciously understand why I dislike it. Otherwise it remains in my mind as unfinished business."
-- Aaron Copland, The Pleasures of Music

Brian

Oddly, there was a time lasting several years when I hated Tchaikovsky's Fifth Symphony and Beethoven's Violin Concerto, fervently.

That time is over.  :) 

Maciek

Quote from: edward on May 02, 2007, 12:38:24 PM
As I grew up with classical music from Bach through Shostakovich, I was comfortable with much of the mainstream repertoire from an early age.

So for me most of my initial false rejections were of 20th century music. I didn't like Prokofiev's 4th piano concerto for a long time, now it's my favourite of the five. I also hated Nono when I first heard his music, and he's now one of my favourite post-war composers.

I didn't like any Stravinsky beyond Petrushka and Symphonie des Psaumes until I tried to compose for a while. After a few months of playing around with jerky, uneven rhythms, I started to listen to all the Stravinsky I'd previously rejected, particularly from his middle and late periods.

Back when I was in my crusading modernist phase (a long time ago) I wrongly rejected Part and Kancheli. Nowadays, though I may not be a big fan of either's recent work, I recognize the blazing talent at work in their best pieces.

Except for the first paragraph (practically no classical music to speak of when growing up) my experiences were roughly the same. When first becoming acquainted with classical music I rejected practically all of the modern stuff. Then, I had a "crusading modernist phase" of my own. I'm striving to be more sensible nowadays but of course that is not as easy as it sounds... ::)

Maciek

Maciek

Oh, and I disliked most opera and vocal for a very long time. A couple of years ago this changed and currently that's about 50% of everything I listen to! :o (Maybe I'm not as sensible as I thought... ::))

Moniuszko (who is essentially an opera and song composer) is a current favorite, I keep listening and re-listening to his stuff, while until very recently I disliked almost everything he had written and thought him a primitive composer (how the thought could have ever crossed my mind is now completely beyond me :-[)!!!

Cato

Quote from: MrOsa on May 02, 2007, 01:57:55 PM
Except for the first paragraph (practically no classical music to speak of when growing up) my experiences were roughly the same. When first becoming acquainted with classical music I rejected practically all of the modern stuff. Then, I had a "crusading modernist phase" of my own. I'm striving to be more sensible nowadays but of course that is not as easy as it sounds... ::)

Maciek

(My emphasis above)

Does that come from a certain saturation in the traditional works, or a maturation in yourself?

Or are both involved?  I would think the latter, but it probably depends on the person, their age, etc.

"Meet Miss Ruth Sherwood, from Columbus, Ohio, the Middle of the Universe!"

- Brian Aherne introducing Rosalind Russell in  My Sister Eileen (1942)