GMG Classical Music Forum

Quick simple poll.

I don't think anyone would be here if we didn't.  All classical music challenges our attention, expectations and emotions more than popular music does.

Some music I have decided that I'll have no use for -- I could as well listen to rush-hour traffic for something more interesting. But others, I will listen to it after a period of time (maybe days, weeks, or months...) even if there are just a few seconds in it that has my attention. And in the past five years, this was not restricted to the "moderns" but also included much of Romantic and late-Romantic music.

So to answer your poll, it depends.

Challenges - absolutely. Disturbs - not really.

Disturbs can have different meanings here. If you mean harder to grasp, upsets the balance - yes. If you mean it is disturbing in its sound (overly dissonant or unmelodic (is that a word?)) - not really.

Intrigued, no, but I do find such musical encounters interesting insofar as they make me ask questions about my own reactions, suppositions, prejudices, etc.

Quote from: James on April 16, 2011, 11:12:39 AM
That would be 'intrigued' then. So that's a Yes.

Had I meant "intrigued," I would have said so  ;D "Intrigued" implies a level of fascination or pressing intent to delve into a mystery that I don't feel with any music. More like a "Hmm, that's kind of interesting." For example, hip-hop disturbs and challenges because it's alien and ugly to me, but I have no pressing desire to learn its intricacies.

The music I enjoy the most always challenges me. If I didn't want a challenge then I would listen to pop music or some other lesser form of muzak, but my own mind thirsts for music with deeper meaning. As I mentioned in the Schnittke thread, I listen to music for enjoyment and this is my top priority, but I'm also interested in hearing new composers, so bearing this in mind, I become much more open to what I'm hearing, but overall there has to be something that grabs me on the initial listening for me to continue listening any further.

Of course I am! :D  As haydnfan said, I wouldn't be here otherwise.

If there is a piece that really disturbs me--and not very many do!--I'm like Aaron Copland, not satisfied until I understand exactly why it does.

If I weren't, maybe I wouldn't be delving so much into music by female composers.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on April 17, 2011, 12:44:17 PM
If I weren't, maybe I wouldn't be delving so much into music by female composers.

I have to nominate this for most absurd post of the month.

Fanny Mendelssohn was of course a notable writer of disturbing and challenging music. ¬_¬

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 17, 2011, 07:41:04 AM
but overall there has to be something that grabs me on the initial listening for me to continue listening any further.

But why, really? If it doesn't grab you initially, so what? What if you find that the work you initially resist, if heard again, or if discussed with friends on this forum or in "real life," comes to have more meaning than you initially expected? I can think of certain works that made very little impression on me at first, but when I returned to them I learned how to hear them better, and some are among my very favorite pieces now.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 17, 2011, 03:45:19 PM
But why, really? If it doesn't grab you initially, so what? What if you find that the work you initially resist, if heard again, or if discussed with friends on this forum or in "real life," comes to have more meaning than you initially expected? I can think of certain works that made very little impression on me at first, but when I returned to them I learned how to hear them better, and some are among my very favorite pieces now.

There has to be something that grabs my attention. It could be a short little motif, an interesting chord progression, etc. Obviously, I listen differently than you, but there have been plenty of works that did absolutely nothing for me on first listening, but I revisited later and enjoyed. It really depends on the music. Thankfully, I always do a good bit of research on the composers and their music before I make a purchase, so far I've only been disappointed a few times and those errors were made because I listened to other people. Listening to other people's opinions doesn't always help as much as they may think it would.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 17, 2011, 03:45:19 PM
But why, really? If it doesn't grab you initially, so what? What if you find that the work you initially resist, if heard again, or if discussed with friends on this forum or in "real life," comes to have more meaning than you initially expected? I can think of certain works that made very little impression on me at first, but when I returned to them I learned how to hear them better, and some are among my very favorite pieces now.

^ This.

I'll give a work a lot more time if someone I respect has time for a work. There's countless pieces where I've put them on the back burner for a while, then come back to them with new ears and it's clicked. This is why I keep coming back to Schumann once a year or so: too many people whose opinion I respect enjoy his music for me to be of the opinion I'll always continue to get little from it.

But as far as the OP's question goes: it depends on mood. Sometimes I want music that will take me along familiar byways but with a slightly different nuances, sometimes I want to subvert my musical expectations, and most often of all I want music that does both.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 17, 2011, 03:55:04 PM
Listening to other people's opinions doesn't always help as much as they may think it would.

Agreed. Otherwise I'd be listening to a lot more Arnold Bax.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 17, 2011, 06:32:22 PM
Agreed. Otherwise I'd be listening to a lot more Arnold Bax.

Lol...yeah Bax is definitely an acquired taste. I seldom listen to his music myself.

Quote from: edward on April 17, 2011, 04:37:55 PM
^ This.

I'll give a work a lot more time if someone I respect has time for a work. There's countless pieces where I've put them on the back burner for a while, then come back to them with new ears and it's clicked.

That recently happened with me and Bach's Musical Offering.  The recording I had sounded dry and tedious... a year goes by I try it again and it sounds melodic and mysterious.  And I like it.

The effect of performance and recording style can be enormous. A work can seem utterly mediocre until the right recording or performance comes along. In the case of minor repertoire, it is sadly the case that there will probably never be more than one recording, and if it's a poor one, the work may be sunk forever :(

Basically "yes." Whether it's Josquin des Prez, Gesualdo, Monteverdi or something written just last week, I'm up to listening to anything for a challenge. The only thing I don't bother much with is opera. Some pieces can be disturbing or surreal at first (eg. like Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire which I went to see on the weekend) but once I get to know them, they become just as understandable or meaningful as something more familiar.

I basically don't expect the music to adapt to me, I try to adapt myself to the music. This is why I don't have that much hang ups as to how a certain performer interprets a work. It's up do them, they're the professionals, they usually know what they're doing. It's just up to me as a listener to be open to appreciate what they're doing on a deeper level.

Of course, I don't enjoy everything. Bax mentioned above is one of them, Grofe, Langgaard, Rodrigo are three others. But it's like dipping your toes into the water, sometimes you end up going into the water and having a swim, other times you stay on the shore...

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 17, 2011, 12:51:44 PM
I have to nominate this for most absurd post of the month.

Mm, thus speak the ignorant.

Quote from: Coco on April 17, 2011, 01:03:22 PM
Fanny Mendelssohn was of course a notable writer of disturbing and challenging music. ¬_¬

Well challenging at least in her exploration of form.

Quote from: James on April 16, 2011, 11:12:39 AM
That would be 'intrigued' then. So that's a Yes.

Pfff, whatever, meathead.

Thread duty:

Some of the music which I like, other people seem to find disturbing.

Quote from: Apollon on April 18, 2011, 08:14:59 AM
Thread duty:

Some of the music which I like, other people seem to find disturbing.

You like Justin Bieber!? :o

;D

Quote from: Apollon on April 18, 2011, 08:12:51 AM
Pfff, whatever, meathead.

Double pfff upon you, ye wicked!    :P

  Unfortunately, an appalling number of people who attend orchestra concerts in America,and possibly Europe etc,though I'm not absolutely certain, want to keep on hearing their old favorites -the same old thrice familiar symphonies and con certos etc,but Beethoven,Brahms,Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Schubert,Mendelssohn,Schumann etc,what the late Virgil Thomson used to sneeringly call "50 pieces".
  They're extremely reluctant to hear works bt living or recently deceased ocmposers, even the more conservative ones.
Apparently,they'be been burned by hearing certain 20th century works by Schoenberg and other important 20th century composers.  Many would rather be waterboarded than listen to anything by Schoenberg,Berg and Webern,or Messiaen, etc. 
  It's not uncommon for some of these concertgoers to leave the concert hall when a work by any of these composers are played, and then to return when their favorite piece by Tchaikovsky or Rachmaninov is played. This music is a kind of security blanket for them.
   But I've never been like this.Sure,I love those popular works that audiences love to hear. But I've grown accustomed to the music of the second Viennese school and quite a few other important 20th century composers,and I'm very curious to hear challenging works by Carter,Boulez, Babbitt, Henze, and other important composers who are far from being easy listening.
   Last year, there was a fascinating profile on ABCs Nightline of a cultural anthropologist who is interested in food from an anthropological viewpoint; he travels the world to exotic places and regularly tries food which would make most people barf ; rats, insects, and all sorts of weird and extremely unappetizing things. 
   He doesn't like everything he tries, although he has enjoyed some of it.But he's totally unafraid to try it.
   I'm sort of like that musically; I'm very curious to try the most complex and challenging works by Boulez,Carter, et al.,and I have a fair amount of it in my CD collection.  Like the anthropologist, I don't necessarily like all these difficult works, but I'm always willing to try them, and I give recordings several hearings to try to comprehend them., and I always try to keep an open mind. 
  Recently,I boroowed a CD of the piano concerto by the late Milton Babbitt. It was certainly tough going.  Even Schoenberg's 12-tone works have recognizable melodic motifs; but there were none in the Babbitt concerto ; it seemed like a mass of disconnected notes ,and it was impossible to get my bearings. But I listened to it at least 5 or 6 times.  I still don't know what to make of it.  I  didn['t really enjoy it, but I don't  dislike it either.But I tried.
   I have a classical music program for residents at a nursing home in New Rochelle,just north of New York,and I play all kinds of works for them,ranging from baroque to contemporary on CD, and I tell them about the composers and the works before playing,and then I get their reactions.
  Most of the residents are game for whatever I play,and I sometimes do play challenging works for them,but there's one lady who hates almost anything that's more modern than Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov. Rachmaninov is her favorite composer, and she just loves his piano concertos.,and she also loves Tchaikovsky.
    But she sometimes walks out when she doesn;t like what she hears,or if she stays,she lets me no in no uncertain terms how awful that :"Modern": music by Prokofiev and Shostakovich etc is. 
   Unfortunately, too many people who attend concerts are like this.  And in opera houses, many people are horrified by masterpieces like Wozzeck and Lulu.  I've seen them do this at Met performances of Wozzecjk I've attended.  But the recent performace of this great opera at the Met with Jimmy Levine returning to the pit after so much physical difficulties was according to the critics,  a huge success with the audience.
   Several years ago, I heard a radio broadcast from the Met of Schoenberg's thorny Moses& Aron from the Met, also with Levine conducting, and some people were actually shouting "Bravo" at the end !   Hope springs eternal....
     

I don't see why you should be "appalled" that too many people like Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 18, 2011, 02:38:34 PM
I don't see why you should be "appalled" that too many people like Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc.

Heaven help us all if Mozart and friends are considered too facile and familiar to be worth our time anymore.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 17, 2011, 06:38:49 PM
Lol...yeah Bax is definitely an acquired taste.

Yes, like coprophilia.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 18, 2011, 03:02:17 PM
Yes, like coprophilia.

Ok, we get it, you don't like Bax, but you've gone to far now.   $:)

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 18, 2011, 03:06:33 PM
Ok, we get it, you don't like Bax, but you've gone to far now.   $:)

I want my lawyer.

So listening repeatedly to music you don't like makes you a better person?

Interesting post, Superhorn.

I actually never minded the dyed in the wool conservatives who go to concerts, listen to the traditional things in the first half & leave en masse during interval before, say, a modern work is played. This often happens quite a bit here in Sydney. It is actually great because after the interval I am able go and occupy their better seats :o - the ushers didn't mind this at all, many of them actually encourage it.

I was at a Australian Chamber Orchestra concert of string orchestra works with a friend in 2009. In the first half, they played some more "accessible" music - Sculthorpe, Vaughan Williams, Bartok. During the interval, quite a few people ahead of us - in rows closer to the front - left. The second half was more challenging - Xenakis' Shaar & R. Strauss' Metamorphosen. When we came back from the interval, quite a few people had left, and the ushers said we could move to seats several rows ahead. The friend & I actually enjoyed all of the works pretty much equally. I don't really "get" these people who pay for the whole concert & only stay for half of it. But it's a "win-win" situation, really, for people like me but also for the ensemble - these people pay for the whole concert, even though they stay for only half.

I was talking to an acquaintance who I bumped into a concert on the weekend, and he also said this phenomenon often happens at the opera. He said "It's great, I get to take their better seats." He had his wife with him at that concert I met him at - he said she hated Schoenberg & he was okay with his stuff, but they both stayed to listen to it after interval. I think it's better to grin and bear it, maybe you'll end up getting something out of it. But pretty much no one leaves during interval at that series I was at on the weekend - the Australia Ensemble, who play a variety of repertoire of the past 250 years. Most of the audience is in their sixties, but they obviously like what is on offer. They've been subscribing to this series for 30 years since it started...

Quote from: Sid on April 18, 2011, 07:14:39 PMI was at a Australian Chamber Orchestra concert of string orchestra works with a friend in 2009. In the first half, they played some more "accessible" music - Sculthorpe, Vaughan Williams, Bartok. During the interval, quite a few people ahead of us - in rows closer to the front - left. The second half was more challenging - Xenakis' Shaar & R. Strauss' Metamorphosen.

You think Strauss' Metamorphosen is challenging? ??? It's as accessible as Sculthorpe or Vaughan Williams. Bartok is less accessible than all of them you mentioned except Xenakis. Name a musical conservative who can sit through the string quartets, The Miraculous Mandarin, or Concerto for Two Pianos, Percussion, and Orchestra without cringing, I don't know many. Bartok still has pussies running for the door.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 18, 2011, 07:24:02 PM
You think Strauss' Metamorphosen is challenging? ??? It's as accessible as Sculthorpe or Vaughan Williams. Bartok is less accessible than all of them you mentioned except Xenakis. Name a musical conservative who can sit through the string quartets, The Miraculous Mandarin, or Concerto for Two Pianos, Percussion, and Orchestra without cringing, I don't know many. Bartok still has pussies running for the door.

I disagree strongly. Most of Bartok's music is quite tonal and there is a strong tonal &/or thematic resolution at the end. It's not exactly like that in R. Strauss' Metamorphosen, which for the most part is largely "atonal" and only resolves in the last minute or so, with the quote from Beethoven's funeral march theme from the Eroica symphony (If you can call even that reference a "resolution" - many listeners out there won't recognise it). I was at another earlier concert of Metamorphosen in the late 1990's and after it, a guy sitting next to me said to his wife "that simply had no point." They played Bartok's Divertimento at that same concert, and he seemed happy with that. Bartok often tends to give a dancy upbeat ending with a positive vibe. You don't get that in Metamorphosen - the dark and the light are mixed together, part of a half hour stream of consciousness, and this is why it (in my opinion) is much less "accessible" (if we want to use such an inaccurate term?) than basically almost anything by Bartok. Bartok tended to use dissonance as a highlight to spice things up a bit, whereas in Metamorphosen, dissonance and more odd harmonies are fully integrated into the freely flowing structure...

Quote from: Sid on April 18, 2011, 07:48:38 PM
I disagree strongly. Most of Bartok's music is quite tonal and there is a strong tonal &/or thematic resolution at the end. It's not exactly like that in R. Strauss' Metamorphosen, which for the most part is largely "atonal" and only resolves in the last minute or so, with the quote from Beethoven's funeral march theme from the Eroica symphony (If you can call even that reference a "resolution" - many listeners out there won't recognise it). I was at another earlier concert of Metamorphosen in the late 1990's and after it, a guy sitting next to me said to his wife "that simply had no point." They played Bartok's Divertimento at that same concert, and he seemed happy with that. Bartok often tends to give a dancy upbeat ending with a positive vibe. You don't get that in Metamorphosen - the dark and the light are mixed together, part of a half hour stream of consciousness, and this is why it (in my opinion) is much less "accessible" (if we want to use such an inaccurate term?) than basically almost anything by Bartok. Bartok tended to use dissonance as a highlight to spice things up a bit, whereas in Metamorphosen, dissonance and more odd harmonies are fully integrated into the freely flowing structure...

I disagree with your disagreement. All of Strauss' music is accessible to me and Metamorphosen being one that is quite easy to follow. If you think Bartok's music has a positive quality then you haven't listened hard enough. You're all wrong about Bartok. Like I said, let's see if somebody doesn't actually cringe during the string quartets and The Miraculous Mandarin. Like I said, a lot of Bartok's music, not all of it, has people running for their mommies.

Let's agree to disagree on that then. I don't know why you have to negate my actual experience, at both concerts I mentioned. Maybe I was suffering from hallucinations and the guy's comments to his wife next to me were imagined, or the people who left during interval were also fabrications of my mind  :o ...

Quote from: Sid on April 18, 2011, 08:31:04 PM
Let's agree to disagree on that then. I don't know why you have to negate my actual experience, at both concerts I mentioned. Maybe I was suffering from hallucinations and the guy's comments to his wife next to me were imagined, or the people who left during interval were also fabrications of my mind  :o ...

Don't be a smartass, Sid. I'm just saying that Bartok's music isn't little kids stuff and still frightens many concert goers as much as anything composed by a Xenakis or a Boulez. The only difference between Bartok and the two composers I mentioned is he wasn't afraid to show his human side every now and again. He didn't need to prove anything to anybody like these post-WWII composers think they have to do. What has happened to melody? What has happened to harmony? Why can't these composers get their heads out of the damn clouds and start composing music that means something and can connect with people? Music doesn't always have to be on the cutting edge to be enjoyable. In fact, I would rather listen to composer who knew how to compose with his heart then someone who composes music that sounds like a musical exercise.

Shit even Morton Feldman wasn't afraid to use a melody. Wake up, Sid.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 18, 2011, 09:36:51 PM
I'm just saying that Bartok's music isn't little kids stuff and still frightens many concert goers as much as anything composed by a Xenakis or a Boulez.

May I ask when was the last time you attended a concert where people cringed because of Bartok's music?

I've never seen people cringe at Bartok's music.  I agree with Sid, R. Strauss' music is dense and hard to get into excepting a couple of well known works.  Bartok's rhythmic drive makes it easier to follow his music, and speaks more to modern ears imo.

I did attend a concert at Carnegie Hall where two old geezers walked out in the middle of Boulez's Four Notations for Orchestra and slammed the exit door quite loudly. Without turning around or missing a beat, David Robertson waved "bye-bye" from the podium in the direction of the offending door.

Bartoks string quartets are quite dense and flirt with atonality, I can imagine that they are for relatively more adventurerous listeners.  But most of his works for orchestra---Concerto for Orchestra, Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta, the Violin and Piano Concerti---seem to have been written with the intention of appealing to a broad audience.   The Miraculous Mandarin, well, I'm unsure who it is meant to appeal to.   ???

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 19, 2011, 06:59:21 AM
. . . The Miraculous Mandarin, well, I'm unsure who it is meant to appeal to.   ???

Like A kékszakállú herceg vára, it's masterfully lyrical music underpinning a dark, unsettling story. So, the story does not have surface appeal, strictly speaking, perhaps . . . but the music, great appeal, indeed.

   I didn't say that I'm appalled by the fact that so many people like Beethoven,Mozart nd Tchaikovsky.
   What I said is that I'm appaled that so many want to hear the same old familiar and beloved pieces over and over again, and the prospect of hearing something new and different frightens them.
   Their minds are closed. They're not willing to give unfamiliar music a chance. 
There's absolutely nothing wrong with loving Beethoven,Mozart and Tchaikovsky etc, but there's so much worthwhile
music outside the box.  To many concertgoers can't think outside it.

Quote from: Apollon on April 19, 2011, 07:11:06 AM
Like A kékszakállú herceg vára, it's masterfully lyrical music underpinning a dark, unsettling story. So, the story does not have surface appeal, strictly speaking, perhaps . . . but the music, great appeal, indeed.

The music is interesting, no doubt, but it is no symphony and some knowledge of the scenario would be helpful to to put it in context, but that scenario.   :P

Quote from: Superhorn on April 19, 2011, 07:22:30 AM
   I didn't say that I'm appalled by the fact that so many people like Beethoven,Mozart nd Tchaikovsky.
   What I said is that I'm appaled that so many want to hear the same old familiar and beloved pieces over and over again, and the prospect of hearing something new and different frightens them.
   Their minds are closed. They're not willing to give unfamiliar music a chance. 
There's absolutely nothing wrong with loving Beethoven,Mozart and Tchaikovsky etc, but there's so much worthwhile
music outside the box.  To many concertgoers can't think outside it.

Well, that's why I cancelled my subscription to Romanian NRSO concerts. If I want to hear Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Brahms and Rachmaninoff, then my CDs or LPs would deliver far better performances than theirs.  ;D

Quote from: haydnfan on April 19, 2011, 05:11:07 AM
I've never seen people cringe at Bartok's music.  I agree with Sid, R. Strauss' music is dense and hard to get into excepting a couple of well known works.  Bartok's rhythmic drive makes it easier to follow his music, and speaks more to modern ears imo.

Agreed.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 19, 2011, 06:59:21 AM
Bartoks string quartets are quite dense and flirt with atonality, I can imagine that they are for relatively more adventurerous listeners.  But most of his works for orchestra---Concerto for Orchestra, Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta, the Violin and Piano Concerti---seem to have been written with the intention of appealing to a broad audience.   The Miraculous Mandarin, well, I'm unsure who it is meant to appeal to.   ???

I agree that the first three quartets are very complex (probably the most complex music that Bartok ever wrote). But numbers 4 & 5, the ones that most commonly get outings in the concert halls, at least have a more predictable structure - being based on the language/structure of two of Beethoven's late quartets. The 6th quartet is probably the least complex, with the "mesto" theme recurring at the beginning of each movement.

Regarding the orchestral works - I agree, they usually don't present any problems to a fairly regular concert goer. They're actually some of the most popular and often-played works in the repertoire. Even I have seen most of them live at one stage or another. They fit in well basically with any concert program.

The Miraculous Mandarin shouldn't also be a problem. Like Prokofiev's Scythian Suite, it is a Rite of Spring spin-off. Provided the listener can appreciate Stravinsky's three early ballets to some level, Bartok's MM shouldn't present too many challenges, imo.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 19, 2011, 06:44:19 AM
I did attend a concert at Carnegie Hall where two old geezers walked out in the middle of Boulez's Four Notations for Orchestra and slammed the exit door quite loudly. Without turning around or missing a beat, David Robertson waved "bye-bye" from the podium in the direction of the offending door.

Yes, some people are stuck in about 1945 (or even earlier) and can't stand much music that came after that. It's an issue with their limitation, attitude whatever. But judging from concerts here in Sydney, there is also a small but dedicated audience for post 1945 classical music. Synergy Percussions concerts are almost always sold out.

Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on April 19, 2011, 10:12:50 AM
Well, that's why I cancelled my subscription to Romanian NRSO concerts. If I want to hear Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Brahms and Rachmaninoff, then my CDs or LPs would deliver far better performances than theirs.  ;D

Ditto me with all of the mainstream groups in Sydney. Although I might be a casual visitor to one or two of their concerts throughout the year, I don't subscribe to these (or any groups). I like to be flexible and keep my ear open to more interesting things than just the usual regurgitations of standard repertoire that I've heard millions of times.

[EDIT: Bartok's solo violin sonata and sonatas for violin and piano are probably quite complex, granted, but hardly anyone listens to those :o )...

Quote from: Sid on April 19, 2011, 05:38:40 PM

Yes, some people are stuck in about 1945 (or even earlier) and can't stand much music that came after that. It's an issue with their limitation, attitude whatever. But judging from concerts here in Sydney, there is also a small but dedicated audience for post 1945 classical music. Synergy Percussions concerts are almost always sold out.

Ditto me with all of the mainstream groups in Sydney. Although I might be a casual visitor to one or two of their concerts throughout the year, I don't subscribe to these (or any groups). I like to be flexible and keep my ear open to more interesting things than just the usual regurgitations of standard repertoire that I've heard millions of times.

You know I heard a work by Boulez the other day ("Notations" for orchestra) and then turned around and listened to a work by Xenakis and I noticed one remarkable difference between what just sounded like chicken scratch to me, the Boulez work had that clarity in the orchestration which the French are widely known for while the Xenakis just sounded like the work of a mad scientist. I felt the urge to vomit, but I held back until both works were finished. I feel better now as I'm listening to Malipiero and all the world is well again. This is what these composers like Boulez and Xenakis do for me. They are like cold sores on the lips of classical music if I could use this ever expressive analogy. They hurt while they're there, but one is relieved when they're gone.

I don't think it's that I'm purposely trying to dislike composers like Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Nono, Carter, among others, it's just that they're music doesn't make any kind of emotional connection with me. There are no lyrical moments, which even Berg and Schoenberg has these moments in their music. There's nothing to keep me interested. It's just a wash of loud, clashing dissonance. The structure of the music I heard just seems non-existent. The rhythms don't interest me as they just fade in and out and have no purpose within the music itself or at least to me they don't.

Anyway, my point to this little rant, is that some people don't like certain music based entirely on the way the music sounds. It has nothing to with how dissonant it is, it has more to do with how it's orchestrated and presented to the listener. I relish dissonance as much as any other modern listener, but I don't like it for it's own sake. I don't want to listen to somebody performing a science experiment or a mathematical problem, I want to hear music of purpose and directness. Surely somebody of your intellect can understand that it's not always people's limitations or even their own attitudes, but the way the music is projected to them?

I think you're a very adventurous person with music, Sid, but you listen for completely different reasons than everybody else. Not everybody thirsts for new, exciting contemporary sounds like you do, so please keep this in mind. Don't fault people who aren't as inquisitive as you are.

Special note: Classical police please take two steps back. This is just my opinion. It doesn't reflect the opinion of anybody else. I have not committed any wrong doing other than stating my opinion. If you have a problem with this, then just get over it, because I'm certainly not going to spend an hour defending it.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 19, 2011, 07:40:25 PM
I don't think it's that I'm purposely trying to dislike composers like Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Nono, Carter. There are no lyrical moments, which even Berg and Schoenberg has these moments in their music. It's just a wash of loud, clashing dissonance.

I don't think this is an accurate description of Boulez, to start. There's considerable delicacy and even lyricism in much of Boulez, including Dérive I, orignale, the three Improvisations from Pli selon Pli, much of Le Marteau, and probably more. Stockhausen less so, though he attains similar qualities in one of his most Boulezian pieces, the Refrain for piano, celesta, and vibraphone. Xenakis can be very aggressive, Carter is very varied, and Nono is a composer I have not been able to find interesting. I did see X's Oresteia when performed at Columbia University about 2-3 years ago, and to be honest I did not like it much; I prefer the more aggressive Xenakis.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 19, 2011, 07:53:17 PM
I don't think this is an accurate description of Boulez, to start. There's considerable delicacy and even lyricism in much of Boulez, including Dérive I, orignale, the three Improvisations from Pli selon Pli, much of Le Marteau, and probably more. Stockhausen less so, though he attains similar qualities in one of his most Boulezian pieces, the Refrain for piano, celesta, and vibraphone. Xenakis can be very aggressive, Carter is very varied, and Nono is a composer I have not been able to find interesting. I did see X's Oresteia when performed at Columbia University about 2-3 years ago, and to be honest I did not like it much; I prefer the more aggressive Xenakis.

I'll probably explore more Boulez at some point as he seems more up my alley, but Xenakis and Stockhausen don't interest at all. Any recommendations for recordings of Boulez?

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 19, 2011, 07:56:13 PM
I'll probably explore more Boulez at some point as he seems more up my alley, but Xenakis and Stockhausen don't interest at all. Any recommendations for recordings of Boulez?

Sure, but at it's midnight here now, it will have to wait until the ayem. But let me just warn that you're not going to find big Romantic tunes; instead, there's a kind of delicacy of texture and restraint in the use of dynamics that creates what I would call a lyrical atmosphere.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 19, 2011, 08:02:18 PM
Sure, but at it's midnight here now, it will have to wait until the ayem. But let me just warn that you're not going to find big Romantic tunes; instead, there's a kind of delicacy of texture and restraint in the use of dynamics that creates what I would call a lyrical atmosphere.

I know pretty much what I'm getting into with Boulez. You have to remember that I'm a Romantic at heart, but I have an ear for textural music. I am a fan of Dutilleux and Ligeti after all. ;)

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 19, 2011, 07:53:17 PM
I don't think this is an accurate description of Boulez, to start. There's considerable delicacy and even lyricism in much of Boulez, including Dérive I, orignale, the three Improvisations from Pli selon Pli, much of Le Marteau, and probably more. Stockhausen less so, though he attains similar qualities in one of his most Boulezian pieces, the Refrain for piano, celesta, and vibraphone. Xenakis can be very aggressive, Carter is very varied, and Nono is a composer I have not been able to find interesting. I did see X's Oresteia when performed at Columbia University about 2-3 years ago, and to be honest I did not like it much; I prefer the more aggressive Xenakis.

There's lyricism to be found in almost any composer's oeuvre.

Here's some enjoyable Nono:
http://www.youtube.com/v/KQlLDE1tymo

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 19, 2011, 07:40:25 PM
...and listened to a work by Xenakis...what just sounded like chicken scratch to me...

I actually remember you describing Schoenberg and Berg's violin concertos as "chicken scratch" over at TC two years ago. You had similar negative opinions regarding Dutilleux, Frank Martin, Ligeti and Arvo Part, among others. Now you're listening to their music & appreciating it. I'd bet that in about 1 or 2 years from now, you'll come to appreciate Xenakis the same way. Remember, don't judge a book by it's cover, as the old saying goes...

Quote...the Boulez work had that clarity in the orchestration which the French are widely known for...

Well maybe you should go with Boulez then & leave guys like Xenakis on the backburner for now. I've been listening to Boulez's Le marteau... (The hammer without a master) song cycle since purchasing it last week (coupled with Stockhausen's wind quintet "time measures" and klavierstucke XI). That Boulez work is quite ravishing, so many rich sonorities from the deep contralto voice and the flute and percussion. I'm actually beginnning to hear some vestige of cross reference in the work, not literal repetition but at least similarities in mood between the different movements. Stravinsky said this was the finest work he had heard come from Boulez' generation, and it's not hard to understand why. As for the Stockhausen, it's also interesting, but those works come from his more "hard core" total serialist phase.

QuoteThe structure of the music I heard just seems non-existent. The rhythms don't interest me as they just fade in and out and have no purpose within the music itself or at least to me they don't.

There are plenty of works post WW2 that have discernible structure after a few listens. One I can think of in particular which got the ball rolling for me is Carter's 1st string quartet. In that work, he takes a theme on a journey throughout the entire 40 or so minutes - in a similar way as Beethoven in his late quartets. But if you say you usually don't like chamber & close yourself off from this & go straight to his far more complex orchestral works, then you are shooting yourself in the foot, imo...

QuoteI think you're a very adventurous person with music, Sid, but you listen for completely different reasons than everybody else. Not everybody thirsts for new, exciting contemporary sounds like you do, so please keep this in mind. Don't fault people who aren't as inquisitive as you are.

I hope I wasn't "faulting" people as you say. I just have little time for people who expect things post 1945 (or today) to be carbon copies of what happened before. It's just an unhelpful way to approach music of any kind - be it new or old - and just leads the listener down a dead end. It's far better to take each composer and each piece on it's own terms, rather than uselessly comparing it to the music of a generation or two before...

Quote from: Sid on April 19, 2011, 08:20:09 PM
I actually remember you describing Schoenberg and Berg's violin concertos as "chicken scratch" over at TC two years ago. You had similar negative opinions regarding Dutilleux, Frank Martin, Ligeti and Arvo Part, among others. Now you're listening to their music & appreciating it. I'd bet that in about 1 or 2 years from now, you'll come to appreciate Xenakis the same way. Remember, don't judge a book by it's cover, as the old saying goes...


Well maybe you should go with Boulez then & leave guys like Xenakis on the backburner for now. I've been listening to Boulez's Le marteau... (The hammer without a master) song cycle since purchasing it last week (coupled with Stockhausen's wind quintet "time measures" and klavierstucke XI). That Boulez work is quite ravishing, so many rich sonorities from the deep contralto voice and the flute and percussion. I'm actually beginnning to hear some vestige of cross reference in the work, not literal repetition but at least similarities in mood between the different movements. Stravinsky said this was the finest work he had heard come from Boulez' generation, and it's not hard to understand why. As for the Stockhausen, it's also interesting, but those works come from his more "hard core" total serialist phase.

There are plenty of works post WW2 that have discernible structure after a few listens. One I can think of in particular which got the ball rolling for me is Carter's 1st string quartet. In that work, he takes a theme on a journey throughout the entire 40 or so minutes - in a similar way as Beethoven in his late quartets. But if you say you usually don't like chamber & close yourself off from this & go straight to his far more complex orchestral works, then you are shooting yourself in the foot, imo...

I hope I wasn't "faulting" people as you say. I just have little time for people who expect things post 1945 (or today) to be carbon copies of what happened before. It's just an unhelpful way to approach music of any kind - be it new or old - and just leads the listener down a dead end. It's far better to take each composer and each piece on it's own terms, rather than uselessly comparing it to the music of a generation or two before...

Yes, I guess I do eat my words quite often, but I'm still not that impressed with Schoenberg's VC and after I've heard multiple times. :) I do, however, like his PC much better. Have you heard it? Anyway, I understand what you're saying, but I just struggle with some of these composers like Xenakis and Stockhausen. Boulez seems a little bit easier for me to access as I do like the textures he conjures in his music. I'm just trying to figure out the structure which may take some time.

Perhaps, you need to eat your own words as well, and listen to some late-Romantic music. You have often expressed a distaste for this style, but when I express any distaste for contemporary music (i. e. Boulez, Stockhausen, etc.), you're telling me I need to listen harder. You should definitely follow your own advice, Sid.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 19, 2011, 08:39:08 PM
Yes, I guess I do eat my words quite often, but I'm still not that impressed with Schoenberg's VC and after I've heard multiple times. :) I do, however, like his PC much better. Have you heard it?

Yes, I have heard Schoenberg's PC - got it a few weeks ago with Brendel on LP. But I've only heard it twice - a very interesting work, the rhythm of the soloist & orchestra seems slightly out of sync in some parts, and these things - the harmonies as well - are interesting.

QuoteAnyway, I understand what you're saying, but I just struggle with some of these composers like Xenakis and Stockhausen. Boulez seems a little bit easier for me to access as I do like the textures he conjures in his music. I'm just trying to figure out the structure which may take some time.

Well, speaking personally, if it all gets too hard, I just sit back and let it all wash over me, just enjoy the sounds of the music (without too much of a concern for structure or tonality, etc.). Another composer I would strongly recommend is Harry Partch, his music is very complex and rhythmic, but far more tonal than some of the atonal composers...

QuotePerhaps, you need to eat your own words as well, and listen to some late-Romantic music. You have often expressed a distaste for this style, but when I express any distaste for contemporary music (i. e. Boulez, Stockhausen, etc.), you're telling me I need to listen harder. You should definitely follow your own advice, Sid.

I have my limitations just like anyone else around here. For close to 20 years I was daunted by Beethoven's late quartets, scared of listening to them. In the past few years I have begun to listen to them and found nothing but joy, engagement, pure musicality. I think those opinions that I read that these works were highly complex, dense and came from a source of divine inspiration where basically rubbish. You just sit down & listen to the music without such preconceptions, and just engage with it on it's own terms (& your own terms) it suddenly becomes very human.

So basically I wasn't bringing up the past to criticise you so much as to say that EVERYONE has the ability to appreciate any music they like if they make a bit of effort and are open to the experience. This applies to something like Monteverdi as to Beethoven or Xenakis or anyone. Golly, I just listened to Messiaen's song cycle "Poemes pour Mi" for the umpteenth time since I got it on disc about 18 months back, and for the first time heard the theme that is present in all of the songs. I loved this work from my first acquaintance with it, but only today did I discover it's tight thematic unity. It was a big "a-ha!" experience for me, just like a little kid discovering something for the first time. This is why I love listening to this type of music, I always discover something fresh and new...

Quote from: Sid on April 19, 2011, 09:21:57 PM
Yes, I have heard Schoenberg's PC - got it a few weeks ago with Brendel on LP. But I've only heard it twice - a very interesting work, the rhythm of the soloist & orchestra seems slightly out of sync in some parts, and these things - the harmonies as well - are interesting.

It's actually a favorite Schoenberg work of mine, but I only own one recording of with Emanuel Ax/Esa-Pekka Salonen. I have enjoyed this version so well that I have an interest getting another performance of it sometime. Glad you enjoy it as well.

Quote from: Sid on April 19, 2011, 09:21:57 PMWell, speaking personally, if it all gets too hard, I just sit back and let it all wash over me, just enjoy the sounds of the music (without too much of a concern for structure or tonality, etc.). Another composer I would strongly recommend is Harry Partch, his music is very complex and rhythmic, but far more tonal than some of the atonal composers...

I've heard of Partch, I'll check him out. Thanks. I will say that, yes, sometimes it's good to just sit back and enjoy the music, but there other times where I want to study it and try and get inside the composer's head emotionally speaking. You certainly can't do this by simply sitting back and letting the sounds wash over you. Sometimes when you do this, you miss some of the more beautiful moments that happen.

Quote from: Sid on April 19, 2011, 09:21:57 PMI have my limitations just like anyone else around here. For close to 20 years I was daunted by Beethoven's late quartets, scared of listening to them. In the past few years I have begun to listen to them and found nothing but joy, engagement, pure musicality. I think those opinions that I read that these works were highly complex, dense and came from a source of divine inspiration where basically rubbish. You just sit down & listen to the music without such preconceptions, and just engage with it on it's own terms (& your own terms) it suddenly becomes very human.

Yes, and I have my limitations as well. I don't hide them.

Quote from: Sid on April 19, 2011, 09:21:57 PMSo basically I wasn't bringing up the past to criticise you so much as to say that EVERYONE has the ability to appreciate any music they like if they make a bit of effort and are open to the experience. This applies to something like Monteverdi as to Beethoven or Xenakis or anyone. Golly, I just listened to Messiaen's song cycle "Poemes pour Mi" for the umpteenth time since I got it on disc about 18 months back, and for the first time heard the theme that is present in all of the songs. I loved this work from my first acquaintance with it, but only today did I discover it's tight thematic unity. It was a big "a-ha!" experience for me, just like a little kid discovering something for the first time. This is why I love listening to this type of music, I always discover something fresh and new...

As I said, you should take your own advice and listen to more late-Romantic music or listen to some opera. Hell, even I have found a few operas I have enjoyed and I enjoyed them because I put down my own pre-conceived notions of the genre and just listened to the music. Is opera something I listen to everyday? Absolutely not, but I have found some works in the genre that I like. Perhaps you could do the same? I even enjoy a lot of chamber music and string quartets, but I have made the effort to find out what I enjoy and what I don't enjoy. If you blow off late-Romanticism because you dislike the style, aren't you essentially doing the same thing I was doing about contemporary music?

I think, with music, a person has to accept that not everything is for them no matter how much effort they put into it. There are some things we simply will never wrap our heads around no matter how hard we try and I'm certainly okay with that.

For a way in to Boulez - I would recommend Pli selon pli, a work which obsessed me as a teenager (BBCSO/Lukomska/Boulez). Its first section, Don, opens with such a dramatic gesture - an almighty chord in the orchestra and then a haunting, to-the-heart melodic line in the soprano (a row, I guess, but for me it was once heard, never forgotten, one of the great melodic moments of the 20th century). And then the music retracts into itself, the soprano disappears. Everything becomes about sonority, mystery, clouds of sound from which emerge the most incredible things, clatterings, muted screams...it seems to possess a dream-logic, and I don't know any other piece like it. The three central improvisations, as Sfz said, are also full of melodic lines and delicate colours, but it is Don which is particularly iconic in my mind

A second recommendation would be the early cantata Le soleil des eaux, whose two movements are very clear, dramatic, sumtuously orchestrated and full of good things. The first movement, describing a lizard on a rock, is essentially a set of unaccompanied recitatives (all, like the melodiy in Don, utterly memorable, beautiful...I can hear them seductively in my mind right this second!) separated by short, wildly inventive orchestral interludes. The second movement involves a choir, and is more violent, stormy, lyrical, episodically depicting a river. A really fabulous piece, and very short - you won't lose many minutes out of your life trying it out! The companion cantata (not really a companion, but the two are essentially contemporary and comparable in many ways) is Le visage nuptial - and it's as sumptuously scored as Le soleil des eaux, perhaps more so; and erotically charged, buzzingly vibrant piece. Something about Le soleil des eaux holds me more (perhaps it's only the fact that, having the score to it, I know it very intimately) but Le visage nuptial is every bit as attractive a piece.

This disc contains all of the above works, and is the Boulez disc I return to most frequently - one of my favourite discs of all, really, and of the post 1950 hardcore stuff in particular. It's not the Lukmska Pli selon pli, though, and that is still my favourite

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51beMypOhVL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

For a way into Xenakis, I'd recommend Oresteia (as I did on another thread yesterday) for its blatantly Ancient Greek soundworld, its formal clarity, and its use of a kind of referential vocabulary - IOW, fanfares where there should be fanfares, homophonic choral writing where there should be homophonic choral writing etc. As I said yesterday, its a piece which reminds the listener that the abrasiveness in Xenakis is the abrasiveness of thistles and thorns and rocks and sand under your bare feet, the wind in your hair, the blood in your veins; it's not the barbed wire, angsty abrasiveness of Xenakis' contemporaries. It comes from a much deeper, more primal place.

There are plenty of other pieces which offer an entry into this world. Jonchaies is often mentioned, and it's a very good place to begin. Another one, one that has always stunned me, is the quasi piano concerto Synaphai. But maybe the greatest disc(s) of Xenakis of all are the set of chamber music discs made by the Arditti Quartet and Claude Helffer. I know you aren't a chamber music fan particularly, but the techniques in these pieces are the same as in the orchestral pieces, the sonorities are just as wild - it's just that one can hear the detail more fully and more clearly, and they are the most fabulous adventures in sound. The string quartet Tetras is absolutely unbelievable in this respect; the later, more auster quartet Tetora is equally fine. There are many standout pieces on that 2 CD set, but for me, as a cellist, the solo cello work Nomos Alpha stands above all ove them (and on this recording only, don't bother with any other - Rohan de Saram is the only one who can play it, I think, of those I've heard!). The last page, in which scales play against each other from both ends of the instrument, is absolutely mind-boggling, I can't for the life of me imagine how he can play it - I mean, I know, I've studied the score, I know how it works, but to have the technique to pull it off....well, as I say, only de Saram has it, that I've heard. The recording I'm talking about was a critical success and is available in a few editions, the most luxurious of which is this one:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414oPMWhahL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/417kasE0zvL._AA300_.jpg)

As for Stockhausen, James is the one to ask... I'd tentatively suggest something like Inori, a huge, sonically beautiful and formally clear orchestral piece from the 70s - we had an online discussion of this piece hosted by the missed Al Moritz years ago (Al even supplied some of us with CDs) which was revelatory to me. I'm not the one to recommend you Carter or Nono, there are others here who know the music much more intimately than I do (there are others here who know their Boulez and Xenakis better too, but I have very strong feelings about the pieces I've just described)

We're talking about newish composers as challenging... but I bet there are a few listeners that don't find that music challenging, but would never get through a Haydn symphony or a Mozart opera.

How about this: ol' stuck in the mud pre-20th century listeners challenge themselves with 20th century music, if the super avant garde crowd challenge themselves with pre-Schoenberg tonal, not so dissonant music. >:D

Well, I walk on the wild side with the occasional Mozart viola quintet, as you know, Davey . . . .

Quote from: Apollon on April 20, 2011, 05:57:49 AM
Well, I walk on the wild side with the occasional Mozart viola quintet, as you know, Davey . . . .

Ah yes indeed but I'd like to see James, Sid, Philo or MI pull that off. >:D

James doesn't dig the Mozart viola quintets, he ain't got no soul . . . .

Quote from: haydnfan on April 20, 2011, 05:50:56 AM
...How about this: ol' stuck in the mud pre-20th century listeners challenge themselves with 20th century music, if the super avant garde crowd challenge themselves with pre-Schoenberg tonal, not so dissonant music. >:D

How about it?  But I've never actually met anyone like that.  Most of the contemporary music aficionados I've actually talked to have a deep respect for the Old Masters. 8)

Quote from: jochanaan on April 20, 2011, 07:12:35 AM
How about it?  But I've never actually met anyone like that.  Most of the contemporary music aficionados I've actually talked to have a deep respect for the Old Masters. 8)

I'm talking to gmg forumites, laying down a challenge.  I'm not characterizing all listeners everywhere! :D

Quote from: haydnfan on April 20, 2011, 06:10:28 AM
Ah yes indeed but I'd like to see James, Sid, Philo or MI pull that off. >:D

I like Lortie playing Mozart's Piano Concertos.

Quote from: Philoctetes on April 20, 2011, 11:22:06 AM
I like Lortie playing Mozart's Piano Concertos.

:o  Well I take it back Philo.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 20, 2011, 12:33:51 PM
:o  Well I take it back Philo.

There's really not any music, that I can think of, that I don't enjoy, on some level.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 20, 2011, 06:10:28 AM
Ah yes indeed but I'd like to see James, Sid, Philo or MI pull that off. >:D

I listen to music that I like as we all do (I hope), so I will definitely back down from this challenge and say that there's enough music in this universe for all of us to enjoy.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 20, 2011, 05:50:56 AM
We're talking about newish composers as challenging... but I bet there are a few listeners that don't find that music challenging, but would never get through a Haydn symphony or a Mozart opera.

How about this: ol' stuck in the mud pre-20th century listeners challenge themselves with 20th century music, if the super avant garde crowd challenge themselves with pre-Schoenberg tonal, not so dissonant music. >:D

No, I couldn't get through a Mozart opera because I don't like Mozart. I don't have a problem with Haydn. I enjoy a lot of his music in particular his VCs.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 20, 2011, 06:29:30 PM
I don't have a problem with Haydn. I enjoy a lot of his music in particular his VCs.

Awesome. 0:)

I will, openly admit, that the music that I have the hardest time listening to is from the classical period. Namely, the symphonies of Mozart and Haydn (although I like Mack-a-rack's renditions).

Philo, have you tried Harnoncourt's recording of the Paris Symphonies?  Well there is alot more to the classical era than just symphonies.  Heck my favorite works of the classical era are chamber works anyway.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 20, 2011, 07:20:45 PM
Philo, have you tried Harnoncourt's recording of the Paris Symphonies?  Well there is alot more to the classical era than just symphonies.  Heck my favorite works of the classical era are chamber works anyway.

Indeed, I have tried Harnoncourt. I know there is a lot more, but I was just talking about my problem area. I enjoy the chamber and solo music of the era.

The most difficult period of music for me to get into is Renaissance vocal music (pre-Josquin).

Quote from: Luke on April 19, 2011, 11:44:35 PM
For a way in to Boulez - I would recommend Pli selon pli, a work which obsessed me as a teenager (BBCSO/Lukomska/Boulez). Its first section, Don, opens with such a dramatic gesture - an almighty chord in the orchestra and then a haunting, to-the-heart melodic line in the soprano (a row, I guess, but for me it was once heard, never forgotten, one of the great melodic moments of the 20th century). And then the music retracts into itself, the soprano disappears. Everything becomes about sonority, mystery, clouds of sound from which emerge the most incredible things, clatterings, muted screams...it seems to possess a dream-logic, and I don't know any other piece like it. The three central improvisations, as Sfz said, are also full of melodic lines and delicate colours, but it is Don which is particularly iconic in my mind

A second recommendation would be the early cantata Le soleil des eaux, whose two movements are very clear, dramatic, sumtuously orchestrated and full of good things. The first movement, describing a lizard on a rock, is essentially a set of unaccompanied recitatives (all, like the melodiy in Don, utterly memorable, beautiful...I can hear them seductively in my mind right this second!) separated by short, wildly inventive orchestral interludes. The second movement involves a choir, and is more violent, stormy, lyrical, episodically depicting a river. A really fabulous piece, and very short - you won't lose many minutes out of your life trying it out! The companion cantata (not really a companion, but the two are essentially contemporary and comparable in many ways) is Le visage nuptial - and it's as sumptuously scored as Le soleil des eaux, perhaps more so; and erotically charged, buzzingly vibrant piece. Something about Le soleil des eaux holds me more (perhaps it's only the fact that, having the score to it, I know it very intimately) but Le visage nuptial is every bit as attractive a piece.

This disc contains all of the above works, and is the Boulez disc I return to most frequently - one of my favourite discs of all, really, and of the post 1950 hardcore stuff in particular. It's not the Lukmska Pli selon pli, though, and that is still my favourite

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51beMypOhVL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

For a way into Xenakis, I'd recommend Oresteia (as I did on another thread yesterday) for its blatantly Ancient Greek soundworld, its formal clarity, and its use of a kind of referential vocabulary - IOW, fanfares where there should be fanfares, homophonic choral writing where there should be homophonic choral writing etc. As I said yesterday, its a piece which reminds the listener that the abrasiveness in Xenakis is the abrasiveness of thistles and thorns and rocks and sand under your bare feet, the wind in your hair, the blood in your veins; it's not the barbed wire, angsty abrasiveness of Xenakis' contemporaries. It comes from a much deeper, more primal place.

There are plenty of other pieces which offer an entry into this world. Jonchaies is often mentioned, and it's a very good place to begin. Another one, one that has always stunned me, is the quasi piano concerto Synaphai. But maybe the greatest disc(s) of Xenakis of all are the set of chamber music discs made by the Arditti Quartet and Claude Helffer. I know you aren't a chamber music fan particularly, but the techniques in these pieces are the same as in the orchestral pieces, the sonorities are just as wild - it's just that one can hear the detail more fully and more clearly, and they are the most fabulous adventures in sound. The string quartet Tetras is absolutely unbelievable in this respect; the later, more auster quartet Tetora is equally fine. There are many standout pieces on that 2 CD set, but for me, as a cellist, the solo cello work Nomos Alpha stands above all ove them (and on this recording only, don't bother with any other - Rohan de Saram is the only one who can play it, I think, of those I've heard!). The last page, in which scales play against each other from both ends of the instrument, is absolutely mind-boggling, I can't for the life of me imagine how he can play it - I mean, I know, I've studied the score, I know how it works, but to have the technique to pull it off....well, as I say, only de Saram has it, that I've heard. The recording I'm talking about was a critical success and is available in a few editions, the most luxurious of which is this one:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414oPMWhahL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/417kasE0zvL._AA300_.jpg)

As for Stockhausen, James is the one to ask... I'd tentatively suggest something like Inori, a huge, sonically beautiful and formally clear orchestral piece from the 70s - we had an online discussion of this piece hosted by the missed Al Moritz years ago (Al even supplied some of us with CDs) which was revelatory to me. I'm not the one to recommend you Carter or Nono, there are others here who know the music much more intimately than I do (there are others here who know their Boulez and Xenakis better too, but I have very strong feelings about the pieces I've just described)

Luke, thank you for this very informative post. I shall be seeking out some Boulez. As I mentioned earlier, I'm less interested in Xenakis and Stockhausen.

Quote from: Coco on April 20, 2011, 07:25:21 PM
The most difficult period of music for me to get into is Renaissance vocal music (pre-Josquin).

Same here.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 20, 2011, 06:10:28 AM
Ah yes indeed but I'd like to see James, Sid, Philo or MI pull that off. >:D

I enjoy a lot of the pre-c20th music - from composers of the Renaissance onwards. I even go to concerts where this music is played - eg. saw Mozart's Clarinet Quintet (twice!) & Great Mass in C live last year. Of course, I avoid composers I don't like like the plague, but it has nothing to do with what century they were born in or active in. Today I just bought a secondhand cd of highlights of Bizet's Carmen of all things. So I'm definitely not welded on to listening just to music of the past 50-100 years. I'm a musical omnivore and a true eclectic, I like variety (it's the "spice of life" as they say  :o )...

Quote from: Philoctetes on April 20, 2011, 05:13:34 PM
There's really not any music, that I can think of, that I don't enjoy, on some level.

Ditto.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 20, 2011, 06:29:30 PM
No, I couldn't get through a Mozart opera because I don't like Mozart. I don't have a problem with Haydn. I enjoy a lot of his music in particular his VCs.

How about Haydn's symphonies and string quartets?

But honestly you puzzle me here. Granted, there are differences in Mozart's and Haydn's styles, but also many points in common. What about Haydn appeals to you where Mozart does not? And have you in fact ever heard a Mozart opera?

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 20, 2011, 06:29:30 PM
No, I couldn't get through a Mozart opera because I don't like Mozart.

I'm surprised! I almost think it impossible not to like Le nozze di Figaro.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 20, 2011, 06:29:30 PM
No, I couldn't get through a Mozart opera because I don't like Mozart.

I don't like Xenakis yet I got through several of his works in the last two days.   :D

They do have one major virtue, though: they're very short.  ;D

Quote from: Coco on April 20, 2011, 07:25:21 PM
The most difficult period of music for me to get into is Renaissance vocal music (pre-Josquin).

And the funny thing is, you don't see people around here agitating about Medieval or Renaissance music like they do more mainstream music (20th-century modernism, Bach, Classical era, etc.).

Quote from: Philoctetes on April 20, 2011, 07:16:28 PM
I will, openly admit, that the music that I have the hardest time listening to is from the classical period. Namely, the symphonies of Mozart and Haydn (although I like Mack-a-rack's renditions).

I would recommend trying some other genres from that period (chamber, opera, concerto, etc.) and some other composers beside the big two: Boccherini, Rosetti, Vanhal, Kraus, etc.

Quote from: Grazioso on April 21, 2011, 04:25:55 AM
I would recommend trying some other genres from that period (chamber, opera, concerto, etc.) and some other composers beside the big two: Boccherini, Rosetti, Vanhal, Kraus, etc.

Seconded. I'd suggest Spontini's Li puntigli delle donne, a delicious opera buffa with a libretto by Goldoni. Great fun and some of the most beautiful tunes I've ever heard.

Quote from: Sid on April 20, 2011, 09:53:24 PM
I enjoy a lot of the pre-c20th music - from composers of the Renaissance onwards. I even go to concerts where this music is played - eg. saw Mozart's Clarinet Quintet (twice!) & Great Mass in C live last year. Of course, I avoid composers I don't like like the plague, but it has nothing to do with what century they were born in or active in. Today I just bought a secondhand cd of highlights of Bizet's Carmen of all things. So I'm definitely not welded on to listening just to music of the past 50-100 years. I'm a musical omnivore and a true eclectic, I like variety (it's the "spice of life" as they say  :o )...

After reading on the modern thread (on the other forum) that you just started your modern exploration a year go, I think "oops" sorry I had you pegged wrong.

Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on April 21, 2011, 04:30:15 AM
Seconded. I'd suggest Spontini's Li puntigli delle donne, a delicious opera buffa with a libretto by Goldoni. Great fun and some of the most beautiful tunes I've ever heard.

Thanks, though it doesn't sound like something that disturbs and/or challenges. But Spontini is (IMO) a very much neglected composer whose operas ought to be heard more. La Vestale is still well enough known, but even the cut and translated version of Agnes von Hohenstaufen under Vittorio Gui reveals a very powerful composer.

Quote from: James on April 21, 2011, 03:08:27 AM
I'm shocked by the poll result i must admit (at least one person was honest) ... so i guess we'll have everyone diggin' on Berio, Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,18324.0.html) etc, eventually.

Two comments, and this (for once) is not a slam on James. ;)

1. GMG forum-goers are hardly representative of the whole population.  We're here because we are fascinated by and care deeply about music that's quite a ways outside most people's mainstream; we are the sort who tend to enjoy artistic challenges.  (I'd venture that many of us have more than a passing acquaintance with Shakespeare and Michelangelo too. 8))

2. Different musics challenge different people.  The comments about Mozart remind me that many folks still find his music challenging, although in different ways than that of Varèse or Boulez.  (Remember the comment about Mozart attributed to Stravinsky: "Too easy for amateurs, too hard for professionals." :o)  Same with Medieval and Renaissance music.  (Grazioso, there are several folks here, including the esteemed zamyrabyrd, who favor and promote early music.  I love it myself; if I weren't doing so many other musical things, I'd love to join an EM consort. 8))

Quote from: jochanaan on April 21, 2011, 09:16:47 AM
2. Different musics challenge different people.  The comments about Mozart remind me that many folks still find his music challenging, although in different ways than that of Varèse or Boulez.  (Remember the comment about Mozart attributed to Stravinsky: "Too easy for amateurs, too hard for professionals." :o)  Same with Medieval and Renaissance music.

It took me many years to come to appreciate Mozart and Co. When I first came to classical music, big, bold, tuneful Romantics like Bruckner, Mahler, and Wagner were what I took to immediately. Thank goodness I came around to appreciating--nay, deeply loving--the Classical aesthetic.

Quote(Grazioso, there are several folks here, including the esteemed zamyrabyrd, who favor and promote early music.  I love it myself; if I weren't doing so many other musical things, I'd love to join an EM consort. 8))

I know some here dig it; my point was rather that it doesn't seem to generate the same intensity of debate--or level of acrimony. "You will like this mass, or I will start killing the bunny rabbits..."

Quote from: James on April 21, 2011, 02:13:26 PM
Really? Well .. i suppose i could believe that if they were jumping into it from nothing or pop,jazz,rock music .. but it's about as safe & polite as you can get.

To our ears, that's true--and that's exactly what's challenging to many!  They hear only the "safe, polite" main melodies and completely miss, say, the subtle yet considerable dissonances in the famous Adagio from Piano Concerto #21 (the "Elvira Madigan" movement), the threatening trombones in Don Giovanni's climactic scene, the very remote key shifts in Symphony #40's first and last movements, or the dense counterpoint in Symphony #41's legendary finale.  Or if they hear them, they forget just how radical they were compared to what other composers, even Joseph Haydn, were doing at the time.  (Haydn recognized this, and said to Wolfgang's father Leopold something like "Before God and as an honest man, your son is the greatest composer I know!"  Wolfgang returned the compliment by dedicating some of his most advanced music, the "Haydn" quartets, to him.)

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 21, 2011, 04:00:15 AM
How about Haydn's symphonies and string quartets?

But honestly you puzzle me here. Granted, there are differences in Mozart's and Haydn's styles, but also many points in common. What about Haydn appeals to you where Mozart does not? And have you in fact ever heard a Mozart opera?

Quite honestly, I'm not really a fan of either, although Haydn's VCs I have enjoyed recently. I'm not that interested in the symphonies or any of his music. In regard to Mozart, I have not heard one of his operas, but, then again, I never bothered nor cared to hear one of them. I don't like the Classical era that much. For me, there's just not much to latch onto. I have enjoyed some Baroque, but, as I will mention again, I'm a late-Romantic/20th Century guy all the way.

Quote from: James on April 21, 2011, 02:13:26 PM

Quote from: jochananThe comments about Mozart remind me that many folks still find his music challenging

Really? Well .. i suppose i could believe that if they were jumping into it from nothing or pop,jazz,rock music .. but it's about as safe & polite as you can get.

But the fact that all you can hear in Mozart is safeness and politeness just hints at deficiencies in your own listening, James. Everyone knows what you are referring to, it's bloody obvious that Mozart's music has an elegant, cultured and 'safe' musical surface, and to point it out doesn't exactly make you the musicological equivalent of the small boy in The Emperor's New Clothes. It's particularly ironic, given your frequent injunctions to others to listen harder, think more carefully etc., and especially in the light of your recent lambasting of Grazioso over the issue of 'profundity', that you fail to hear any deeper in Mozart than this, that you can't get beyond the surface prettiness. The people that jochanaan was talking about have done that - they've listened into Mozart and found him disturbing not because they are more limited listeners than you (as you imply, pfff, they must have just come from pop or rock or something) but because they hear more deeply and sensitively. In context, James, the sort of things that jochanaan outlined in his last post are profoundly disturbing; another example I'd give is a gliding, graceful dissonance in the second subject of the last piano concerto which goes by almost unnoticed - the musical surface remains immaculate - but which sets up deep, disturbing tremors, hints at darker, hidden places, to any listener prepared to listen. It's a beautiful, shocking moment, but so subtly done, like all the finest effects in which Mozart abounds.

And actually, that kind of subtle, artful disturbance, concealed within a sheen of elegant phrasing and conventional formulae, intruiges me (to refer to your OP) just as much if not more as many a more obvious bit of 'disturbing music'

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 21, 2011, 08:32:29 PM
Quite honestly, I'm not really a fan of either, although Haydn's VCs I have enjoyed recently. I'm not that interested in the symphonies or any of his music. In regard to Mozart, I have not heard one of his operas, but, then again, I never bothered nor cared to hear one of them. I don't like the Classical era that much. For me, there's just not much to latch onto. I have enjoyed some Baroque, but, as I will mention again, I'm a late-Romantic/20th Century guy all the way.

Then I would point you to the responses by Luke and Jochanaan as a start. Trust me, I'm not being any kind of "PC police" in trying to "force" you to like music you don't like. Yet by your own admission you don't know the music you claim you dislike, which leads me to believe you have simply absorbed a cliché about this music and have not encountered it for itself. Bernstein, for instance, in his The Unanswered Question lectures, compared some of Mozart's procedures in the second-act finale of Don Giovanni to 12-tone practice. Stravinsky, whom you quote in your signature, called Beethoven's quartets "the highest articles of his musical faith" and in particular referred to the Great Fugue as "this absolutely contemporary piece that will remain contemporary forever" - meaning that Beethoven's procedures in this work not only anticipate the 20th century but are far more radical than some supposedly 20th-century music.

I'm bringing this up to you solely because I think there's a chance that perhaps you might be somewhat more open to reversing your prejudices than someone like our late friend Iago, who made his rabid hatred towards Mozart and Bach perhaps the dominant claim to fame of his existence, or our current friend James, who is somewhat better informed but also a lost cause, at least as far as Mozart and Beethoven are concerned. Your purported dislike, and theirs, of Mozart or Bach has nothing to do with the merits of Mozart or Bach, both of whose survival in the musical culture has been validated by generations of musicians great and small. It's your choice which way you want to go.

Quote from: James on April 22, 2011, 05:17:05 AM
doesn't change things.

Exactly.

Quote from: James on April 22, 2011, 05:17:05 AM
(and who cares what Bernstein says, he wasn't much of a composer himself so what insights does he really have?)

Righto. I suspect you're not much of a composer either. And I'll take Brahms's and Stravinsky's insights over yours any day.

Quote from: Luke on April 21, 2011, 11:17:38 PM
...But the fact that all you can hear in Mozart is safeness and politeness just hints at deficiencies in your own listening, James. Everyone knows what you are referring to, it's bloody obvious that Mozart's music has an elegant, cultured and 'safe' musical surface, and to point it out doesn't exactly make you the musicological equivalent of the small boy in The Emperor's New Clothes. It's particularly ironic, given your frequent injunctions to others to listen harder, think more carefully etc., and especially in the light of your recent lambasting of Grazioso over the issue of 'profundity', that you fail to hear any deeper in Mozart than this, that you can't get beyond the surface prettiness. The people that jochanaan was talking about have done that - they've listened into Mozart and found him disturbing not because they are more limited listeners than you (as you imply, pfff, they must have just come from pop or rock or something) but because they hear more deeply and sensitively. In context, James, the sort of things that jochanaan outlined in his last post are profoundly disturbing; another example I'd give is a gliding, graceful dissonance in the second subject of the last piano concerto which goes by almost unnoticed - the musical surface remains immaculate - but which sets up deep, disturbing tremors, hints at darker, hidden places, to any listener prepared to listen. It's a beautiful, shocking moment, but so subtly done, like all the finest effects in which Mozart abounds.

And actually, that kind of subtle, artful disturbance, concealed within a sheen of elegant phrasing and conventional formulae, intruiges me (to refer to your OP) just as much if not more as many a more obvious bit of 'disturbing music'

Obviously, Luke, I'm with you.  Yes, Mozart is anything but a "safe" composer! :D  But with all respect, I was actually pointing out what many if not most listeners fail to hear. :)

Quote from: James on April 22, 2011, 10:34:53 AM
Give it a rest.  .. I don't fail to hear that crap, I don't find it 'challenging' to absorb, understand & listen to at all .. nope not a bit. It's about as safe, tame, soft, polite and pleasing as you can get. (little glittery cutesy supposedly 'great challenging' subtleties notwithstanding)

Then I pity you.

Gents (and you know who you are) let's keep it civil. After all, it's Easter.  0:)

--Bruce

Quote from: Brewski on April 22, 2011, 11:14:27 AM
Gents (and you know who you are) let's keep it civil. After all, it's Easter.  0:)

--Bruce

Then I pity him civilly.

I don't see why the mods don't simply ban him instead of asking him to be civil, as they've been doing as long as I've been here, and which he's never done, and instead continues to poison every thread he posts on.

Quote from: Coco on April 22, 2011, 04:22:47 PM
I don't see why the mods don't simply ban him instead of asking him to be civil, as they've been doing as long as I've been here, and which he's never done, and instead continues to poison every thread he posts on.

There are posters way more troublesome than James, and one of the reasons I enjoy this forum so much, is the latitude they give, in such a graceful fashion.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 22, 2011, 03:05:30 AM
Then I would point you to the responses by Luke and Jochanaan as a start. Trust me, I'm not being any kind of "PC police" in trying to "force" you to like music you don't like. Yet by your own admission you don't know the music you claim you dislike, which leads me to believe you have simply absorbed a cliché about this music and have not encountered it for itself. Bernstein, for instance, in his The Unanswered Question lectures, compared some of Mozart's procedures in the second-act finale of Don Giovanni to 12-tone practice. Stravinsky, whom you quote in your signature, called Beethoven's quartets "the highest articles of his musical faith" and in particular referred to the Great Fugue as "this absolutely contemporary piece that will remain contemporary forever" - meaning that Beethoven's procedures in this work not only anticipate the 20th century but are far more radical than some supposedly 20th-century music.

I'm bringing this up to you solely because I think there's a chance that perhaps you might be somewhat more open to reversing your prejudices than someone like our late friend Iago, who made his rabid hatred towards Mozart and Bach perhaps the dominant claim to fame of his existence, or our current friend James, who is somewhat better informed but also a lost cause, at least as far as Mozart and Beethoven are concerned. Your purported dislike, and theirs, of Mozart or Bach has nothing to do with the merits of Mozart or Bach, both of whose survival in the musical culture has been validated by generations of musicians great and small. It's your choice which way you want to go.

You don't know anything about me nor do you know what I've heard/haven't heard. I think it's pretty presumptuous on your part to assume that I haven't put in the work that's necessary for anyone to form their opinion. I have said this many times, and I'll say it again, I do not like the Classical era. The music, itself, doesn't interest me. It's not Haydn's or Mozart's fault that I dislike their music and I accept that, but there's nothing wrong with my ears nor is there anything wrong with my opinion. You simply can accept it or not. Whatever you choose to do, my opinion will remain the same, so let's try to find more common ground and go from there.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 22, 2011, 06:36:59 PM
You don't know anything about me nor do you know what I've heard/haven't heard.

"In regard to Mozart, I have not heard one of his operas" — which are, by general consent, among his very greatest works. QED. But if you don't want to listen to Mozart, don't listen to Mozart. One can only do so much.  ;)

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 22, 2011, 07:05:08 PM
"In regard to Mozart, I have not heard one of his operas." QED. You don't want to listen to Mozart, don't listen to Mozart.  ;)

And if you knew me, you would know that I don't like opera, so obviously I wouldn't bother listening to Mozart's.:)

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 22, 2011, 07:26:11 PM
And if you knew me, you would know that I don't like opera, so obviously I wouldn't bother listening to Mozart's.:)

I would not have expected that, considering that from the long list of names of composers you like - Janacek, Ravel, Berg, Debussy, Ligeti, and more - many have been notable composers of opera (even though not primarily composers of opera in the sense of Wagner or Verdi).

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 22, 2011, 07:35:53 PM
I would not have expected that, considering that from the long list of names of composers you like - Janacek, Ravel, Berg, Debussy, Ligeti, and more - many have been notable composers of opera (even though not primarily composers of opera in the sense of Wagner or Verdi).

Well there are only a few operas I enjoy: both of Berg's, Ravel's L'Enfant et les sortileges, and Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle. I'm still "discovering" Janacek's operas, so this is a work still in progress. This said, all of these composers have composed amazingly well in other genres, especially orchestral which is what I mainly listen to.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 22, 2011, 07:50:53 PM
Well there are only a few operas I enjoy: both of Berg's, Ravel's L'Enfant et les sortileges, and Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle. I'm still "discovering" Janacek's operas, so this is a work still in progress. This said, all of these composers have composed amazingly well in other genres, especially orchestral which is what I mainly listen to.

That is undoubtedly true. I can see, for example, admiring Debussy without taking an interest in Pelleas, or Ligeti while ignoring Le Grand Macabre. It becomes harder to claim an interest in Berg or Janacek without wanting to know their operas, as in both cases opera is central to these composers' careers.

Some of Dawn Upshaws music is 'different' and somewhat challenging.

I saw her in London perform Kafka Fragments which she has done before, but I found it somewhat disturbing.  ???

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 23, 2011, 02:17:38 AM
That is undoubtedly true. I can see, for example, admiring Debussy without taking an interest in Pelleas . . . .

We can all see that, especially, meseems ; )

Quote from: Musician on April 23, 2011, 02:26:51 AM
Some of Dawn Upshaws music is 'different' and somewhat challenging...

She composes? ;D

Quote from: jochanaan on April 24, 2011, 03:37:17 PM
She composes? ;D

There was nothing in the original question that excluded performers.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 24, 2011, 06:05:09 PM
There was nothing in the original question that excluded performers.

True. :)

Quote from: haydnfan on April 16, 2011, 06:14:03 AM
All classical music challenges our attention, expectations and emotions more than popular music does.

All?  Than all of popular music?  That seems a big generalisation.

Quote from: starrynight on April 27, 2011, 07:44:16 AM
All?  Than all of popular music?  That seems a big generalisation.

Indeed, considering that "popular music" also includes such names as Charlie Parker, Miles, Dylan, and even Lennon/McCartney. :)

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 19, 2011, 09:42:36 PM
I think, with music, a person has to accept that not everything is for them no matter how much effort they put into it. There are some things we simply will never wrap our heads around no matter how hard we try and I'm certainly okay with that.

Each person will look at things in their own way.  Everybody has some stylistic preferences and music they will listen to more than others, but other music outside of that will take more time to explore and understand.  How much time someone devotes to doing that is an individual choice.  It can seem like a large amount of effort for not such a large success rate sometimes, but as long as I like a few things in another style I see it as a success.

Those who listen to classical music have normally already made a decision to go outside of the modern mainstream by listening to some classical, but inevitably they will still vary in how much effort they want to put in listening to other music. 

Quote from: starrynight on April 27, 2011, 07:44:16 AM
All?  Than all of popular music?  That seems a big generalisation.

Well there could possibly be exceptions, but when most pop music is a song with a catchy but simple melody (more of a motif) in 4/4 time...

Quote from: haydnfan on April 27, 2011, 09:39:17 AM
Well there could possibly be exceptions, but when most pop music is a song with a catchy but simple melody (more of a motif) in 4/4 time...

Sounds like Die Erlkönig! :D

There's a witty song on the Daryl Hall album Sacred Songs (produced by Robt Fripp) that goes, "You've gotta have something in 4/4 time, / You've gotta have something that rhymes" . . . .

Quote from: jochanaan on April 27, 2011, 12:21:36 PM
Sounds like Die Erlkönig! :D

Glad I'm not the only one :) I always think of Lieder like "Die Forelle" or "Heidenröslein" (or things like Grieg's Lyric Pieces) when someone starts talking about classical music being larger, more complex, more sophisticated, etc. than popular music.

Quote from: Superhorn on April 19, 2011, 07:22:30 AM
   I didn't say that I'm appalled by the fact that so many people like Beethoven,Mozart nd Tchaikovsky.
   What I said is that I'm appaled that so many want to hear the same old familiar and beloved pieces over and over again, and the prospect of hearing something new and different frightens them.
   Their minds are closed. They're not willing to give unfamiliar music a chance. 
There's absolutely nothing wrong with loving Beethoven,Mozart and Tchaikovsky etc, but there's so much worthwhile
music outside the box.  To many concertgoers can't think outside it.

There is a place for some music as a kind of comforting familiar friend which you return to now and again.  Recordings themselves foster this with us knowing exactly how the piece will be played having heard it before.  Of course to just restrict listening to that would be very limited, but that's an individual's choice I suppose.

But broadening out this idea I think there is a very conservative strain to some of the classical music audience, particularly older people perhaps.  This can be reflected in a very backward looking approach not just to music in general but to other things from a snobby cliquey attitude and a desire that the 'great unwashed' (as they would think of them) should not be allowed to access culture too easily through things like the internet.  A bemoaing of the passing of the cd, or a record company, or record shops, just a general unwillingness to move forward with how things change and to accept that change.  I don't see that here so much as on some other forums but it is something that I find a bit annoying.  Things survive by changing and adapting, if they don't they are in danger of ending up in a museum sooner rather than later.  By extension this could be a danger for classical music itself.

I agree with David, and could maybe venture to phrase it as something along the lines of:

Classical music rewards further listening not simply due to its relative complexity alone, but in the the duality of the surface content and the deeper structural, emotional, intellectual or interpretive content: the more you listen, the more that aspects such as long-line, shaping and so on become apparent.

Pop music in this respect is different, and even when it is technically complex, that complexity tends to be surface-oriented with little else to offer.

Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on April 28, 2011, 02:13:27 PM
I agree with David, and could maybe venture to phrase it as something along the lines of:

Classical music rewards further listening not simply due to its relative complexity alone, but in the the duality of the surface content and the deeper structural, emotional, intellectual or interpretive content: the more you listen, the more that aspects such as long-line, shaping and so on become apparent.

Pop music in this respect is different, and even when it is technically complex, that complexity tends to be surface-oriented with little else to offer.

I don't know if I can fully agree with that (viz your last paragraph). Some composers of "pop" music have been trained in the classical ways. Eg. Burt Bacharach studied under Milhaud and others, if I'm correct. Many of his hits have just as complex time signatures as found in many types of classical music. Indeed, I'd say that Bacharach could probably put some of the "sell by the yard" contemporary classical composers (as the late Harry Partch used to call them) to great shame. But it's true that not all pop composers have Bacharach's talent or facility, neither do they all have major performers of the talent of someone like Dionne Warwick to sing their songs.

I basically think that some of the traditional distinctions between classical and non-classical music have been reduced for a long time, but especially since the last hundred years. Eg. I just saw Schoenberg's song-cycle (or melodrama for voice and ensemble as he called it)  Pierrot Lunaire a few weeks ago, and the truth be told, it had more to do with the contemporary cabaret world than things like Schubert or Schumann lieder of a couple of generations before. & virtually all of today's electronica and the more sophisticated forms of techno sprang out of the work of electroacoustic pioneers of the classical world, eg. Varese, Stockhausen, Xenakis, etc. Charlie Parker was a huge admirer of Varese, as was Frank Zappa, and the Beatles paid homage to Stockhausen (whose lectures they had attended) by putting his face on the cover of Sargeant Peppers. Techno has even entered the concert halls, Thomas Ades orchestral work Asyla (a symphony in all but name) has a pivotal section which is basically the Rite of Spring meets techno...

Quote from: starrynight on April 27, 2011, 08:14:10 AM
Each person will look at things in their own way.  Everybody has some stylistic preferences and music they will listen to more than others, but other music outside of that will take more time to explore and understand.  How much time someone devotes to doing that is an individual choice.  It can seem like a large amount of effort for not such a large success rate sometimes, but as long as I like a few things in another style I see it as a success.

I agree with this, particularly your last sentence. 20 years ago I was mainly a listener of orchestral music, now I enjoy every other genre except opera (but even that I plan to get into slowly during the next couple of years; & I am familiar with the famous opera arias because my mother liked to listen to them when I was young). I'm now getting into composers like Beethoven, Boccherini, Mozart & Monteverdi (to name a few) and have found that they were just as innovative as any major composer of the Twentieth Century, which used to be my main domain. Flexibility pays off in the end, but the listener has to come to the music and adapt him/herself to it, not the other way round. Once you are open to engaging with the music, this whole process of discovery becomes a joy, as I have found in the past couple of years...

Since we're talking about being more open to things, I've been getting a bit back into film scores lately and I want to dive more into the genre as I have always enjoyed it. Ennio Morricone has been a favorite of mine for quite some time, so I've purchased four of his more popular scores a few days ago. Jerry Goldsmith and Bernard Herrmann are two film giants I want to tackle pretty soon. There's a big box of Danny Elfman's scores for Tim Burton films coming out pretty soon. That looks interesting.

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 28, 2011, 07:37:51 PM
Jerry Goldsmith and Bernard Herrmann are two film giants I want to tackle pretty soon.

Yes!

Quote from: Sid on April 28, 2011, 07:18:08 PM
I don't know if I can fully agree with that (viz your last paragraph). Some composers of "pop" music have been trained in the classical ways. Eg. Burt Bacharach studied under Milhaud and others, if I'm correct. Many of his hits have just as complex time signatures as found in many types of classical music. Indeed, I'd say that Bacharach could probably put some of the "sell by the yard" contemporary classical composers (as the late Harry Partch used to call them) to great shame. But it's true that not all pop composers have Bacharach's talent or facility, neither do they all have major performers of the talent of someone like Dionne Warwick to sing their songs.

Really?  Burt Bacharach??  What's New Pussycat is musically superior to composers such as Schnittke in your opinion? ??? :'(

The metrical changes in "Promises, Promises" are lovely in their way, but it's no Le sacre, is it?

My issue with Sid's paragraph about Bacharach, the Ferneyhough of the pop world  ;) is twofold - firstly the example itself which I find very unconvincing in a number of ways; secondly, if there is some 'complexity' in Bacharach's time signatures* it's precisely the kind of surface-complexity about which Lethe was talking when she said:

Quote from: LethePop music in this respect is different, and even when it is technically complex, that complexity tends to be surface-oriented with little else to offer'

- this was the point Sid was trying to counter, but it seems to me his example only reinforces it. I do believe that there is pop music with considerable complexity and sophistication and which uses formal techniques similar to those in classical music to reach rather deep down in a way that is also comparable to classical music. But not much, and it doesn't include Bacharach.

*  it seems odd to me to even write that sentence because unless we are talking about wildly Bartokian additive rhythms or new Complexity irrational time signatures or, at least, time signatures that change in a Rite of Spring-like way, time signatures in themelves are not in themselves really indicative of complexity

Quote from: Luke on April 29, 2011, 08:43:12 AM
*  it seems odd to me to even write that sentence because unless we are talking about wildly Bartokian additive rhythms or new Complexity irrational time signatures or, at least, time signatures that change in a Rite of Spring-like way, time signatures in themelves are not in themselves really indicative of complexity

That's my fault, this discussion of time signatures came from me describing pop music as songs with a catchy tune and 4/4 time.  I meant it as a cheeky throw away line, but other posters took my response as a serious indictment of pop music.

All I meant is that I find classical music to have a rich, heady depth that I don't find in pop music.

Greater technical complexity doesn't necessarily mean better music, indeed it might even get in the way of the music in some cases.  What did Beethoven like about Handel?  The greatest effects with the simplest means?

Quote from: starrynight on April 29, 2011, 11:37:34 AM
Greater technical complexity doesn't necessarily mean better music, indeed it might even get in the way of the music in some cases.  What did Beethoven like about Handel?  The greatest effects with the simplest means?

ftw. I see no reason to laud complexity (or simplicity) unless it helps deliver a moving artistic experience.

And what is this distinction between some sort of apparent surface complexity and hidden depth? How much one hears in--or attributes to--a piece of music depends at least as much on the listener's ear, knowledge of music history and theory, and personal interests and preoccupations as it does on the music itself.

Most pop music is (by definition) designed to appeal to the largest audience and not very complicated.  It still may require tremendous technical sophistication to pull off but the message is simple.  But "pop" music which is more "artsy" and less commercially driven can be quite sophisticated.  It still lacks large scale organization.  I can think of pop songs which to me seem every bit as subtle as a Schubert lieder, but none that can be compared with a Brahms symphony.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 29, 2011, 12:03:23 PM
It still lacks large scale organization.  I can think of pop songs which to me seem every bit as subtle as a Schubert lieder, but none that can be compared with a Brahms symphony.

And that's no discredit to pop songs. It's like pointing out that a haiku can't compete in scale with Paradise Lost.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 29, 2011, 12:03:23 PM
Most pop music is (by definition) designed to appeal to the largest audience

Chart music is a very small proportion of popular music.  Most popular music is aimed more at different niche audiences now anyway.   Not that the size of an audience reflects on whether something is good or not anyway, that's often more about how much it was marketed than the music.  Classical music too gets hype around performers.

Quote from: James on April 29, 2011, 03:24:36 PM
Small,medium or large scale ..best 'art music' is just so much richer, and more valuable.

Quote from: starrynight on April 29, 2011, 09:50:53 PM
Most popular music is aimed more at different niche audiences now anyway.   

I think you don't understand what the word "popular" means! :D  Since you've directly contradicted the meaning of the word. :P

Quote from: haydnfan on April 30, 2011, 05:12:23 AM
I think you don't understand what the word "popular" means! :D 

Or maybe you don't understand what the word popular means in this forum. It's the opposite of classical. Popular music genres include jazz, country, R&B, rap, Americana, folk, bluegrass, rock, metal....and pop. Only pop is really popular with the masses  ;D

Sarge

Well Sarge, frankly that's stupid.  Do you really think that our fellow forumites are so shallow that they see music purely in terms of a classical/non-classical dichotomy? :-\

Quote from: haydnfan on April 30, 2011, 06:37:08 AM
Well Sarge, frankly that's stupid.  Do you really think that our fellow forumites are so shallow that they see music purely in terms of a classical/non-classical dichotomy? :-\

James does  ;D

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 30, 2011, 06:22:07 AM
Only pop is really popular with the masses  ;D

Many people don't like mainstream pop nowadays though.  I think even the pop audience is split now, with some preferring older pop, foreign pop, indie pop etc.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 30, 2011, 06:37:08 AM
Well Sarge, frankly that's stupid.  Do you really think that our fellow forumites are so shallow that they see music purely in terms of a classical/non-classical dichotomy? :-\

I am one of these horrible shallow people. :D But really, it all comes down to how you engage with whatever particular type of music. I expect non-classical music to delight and classical music to stimulate. Music that self-consciously "blurs" the lines between the two either comes off as pop musicians aiming for classical depth, but lacking the taste or proficiency to do so — or it comes off as a contrived attempt by serious composers to reach a larger audience in a gross market research kind of way.

Coconut Crew DVD Boxed Gift Set with fold-out poster of St. Boulez!

Parents, you know how hard it can be to find Profound Entertainment for your kids. How do you separate the pap from the Real Stuff? Now, with the Coconut Crew animated series, you can rest assured that your children are getting fun entertainment with a High Art message! And like all Pff Productions products, the Coconut Crew series is certified 100% free of any harmful soundtrack music.

Kids will be delighted at the adventures of the Coconut Crew: Tommy, Susie, LaQuesha, and little puppy Karlheinz. Thrill as they solve the mysteries of Coconut Island and outwit the evil mastermind Cage. Kids of all ages will laugh at the antics of the Crew's giant robot pal, Stockhausen, who can transform into a swing set, or an attack submarine.

At the end of every episode, kindly Grandpa Boulez teaches the Crew--and your little crew!--the Sayings of James with a fireside chat. They'll learn how to separate profound music from the shallow stuff just by looking at the CDs!

Classic episodes include:

The Curse of Coconut Cove
The Mystery of Ligeti Jetty
Dr. Nono's Volcano Lair
Cage and the 433 Ghosts
A Licht in the Dark
Apple Pie for LaQuesha
And more!

Only 3 Easy Payments of $19.95!

Other fine Pff Productions products include:

WWJD (What Would James Do) Bracelet (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,18249.msg503561.html#msg503561)
Sacred Syllable Prayer Bandana (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,18249.msg504391.html#msg504391)
Depth Charge 3000 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,18348.msg506058.html#msg506058)

Quote from: James on April 30, 2011, 05:08:23 AM
Nothing in pop music (or jazz) can touch the profundity of a Bach chorale for instance.

Obviously you're not a fan, but I would say that John Coltrane's A Love Supreme, for example, has a deeply meditative 'profundity' as you call it. You can't compare it to a Bach chorale, though; it's apples to oranges. But it's just as powerful in its own way.

Quote from: James on April 30, 2011, 05:08:23 AM
Nothing in pop music (or jazz) can touch the profundity of a Bach chorale for instance.

Yeah, those ol' drinking songs with words by Martin Luther can be really deep! ;D

I find Tool disturbing.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BO9oRiOyL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

Coltrane says: "But I could swing!"

Quote from: James on May 01, 2011, 05:00:05 AM
"Swing" has to do with the placement of the 'line' in relation to the pulse and accents within the phrase, that's all.
No mystery & challenge there. All music does this when you think about it, as all music deals with 'time' & 'feel'.

Oh, there's mystery and challenge in the subtle nuances of phrasing and rhythmic feel, and those come from the player, not the music; it's part of what separates competent musicians from outstanding ones.

Listen to this midi "performance" of Bach to hear what I mean: http://www.8notes.com/scores/1467.asp?ftype=midi

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 30, 2011, 06:22:07 AM
Or maybe you don't understand what the word popular means in this forum. It's the opposite of classical. Popular music genres include jazz, country, R&B, rap, Americana, folk, bluegrass, rock, metal....and pop. Only pop is really popular with the masses  ;D

Contra haydnfan's rebuke, I think it is important to point out the generally confused use of "pop" and "popular" in this thread. "Pop" can refer to a particular aspect of the music industry which aims to sell music to the masses, but it's also the abbreviation for "popular music", which term in fact includes much music which is not, technically, popular. I'd call it "folk" music, as it's made by the "folk", as opposed to the trained specialists of the classical realm.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 29, 2011, 12:03:23 PM
I can think of pop songs which to me seem every bit as subtle as a Schubert lieder, but none that can be compared with a Brahms symphony.

This is true. I can think of a couple of good songs which leave me asking "Why didn't they take it further?"

Making comparisons between things with completely different purposes is a clever way of siding with something you like more but I don't really see it as being useful.

Quote from: starrynight on May 02, 2011, 07:34:19 PM
Making comparisons between things with completely different purposes is a clever way of siding with something you like more but I don't really see it as being useful.

Quite right. It tends, though, to be SOP for a few posters here.

Quote from: Grazioso on May 03, 2011, 04:05:17 AM
Quite right. It tends, though, to be SOP for a few posters here.

I'm sorry Grazioso but your post is just not as tasty as an orange. :)

:D

DSCH's String Quartet No. 8 - There's a version for smaller orchestra?! On YT, I found http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s0jKGsJO8o
Does it have an own Opus number? Hints, please!

EDIT: OK, it's Chamber Symphony, op. 110

Quote from: Tapio Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on May 03, 2011, 08:27:01 AM
DSCH's String Quartet No. 8 - There's a version for smaller orchestra?! On YT, I found http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s0jKGsJO8o
Does it have an own Opus number? Hints, please!

EDIT: OK, it's Chamber Symphony, op. 110

A number of them have been transcribed.

[asin]B0007DHPQM[/asin]

Quote from: haydnfan on May 03, 2011, 05:06:09 AM
I'm sorry Grazioso but your post is just not as tasty as an orange. :)

:D

But I can defend myself against a man armed with a banana  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/v/piWCBOsJr-w

  Am I intrigued by music that disturbs and/or challenges?

  Yes of course I am intrigued by disturbing (eg. Berg's Lulu, Strauss' Elektra etc.) and /or challenging (eg. Bach's Art of Fugue, Wagner's Ring Cycle) music! I enjoy a challenge but there better be substance (artisitic merit) behind it.   

  marvin