GMG Classical Music Forum

You're only allowed one choice. What composer from this random list do you have the most trouble with and please tell everyone why this is the case? Have fun!

Special note: This isn't a thread created to bash any composer, so please refrain from insults and put-downs. There's no need for any of that here. This poll/thread is meant to pick the minds of GMG members and not get a rise out of anyone. Thanks!

Stravinsky.
Beyond the big three early ballets (Firebird, Rite, Petrushka) there is very little of his music that I feel any connection to,  meaning anything that makes me feel I need to hear it again.

I chose Mahler and the reasons why can be detailed in the following list:

   
• I can never figure out where exactly he's going and where he's going to end. I've heard all of his symphonies, for example, on numerous occasions and I'm still left scratching my head.
• I don't understand the insistent need to stretch a listener back and forth to two totally different emotional extremes at all times without any rhyme or reason.
• What on earth is he so fussy about? I mean, sure, I'm all for drama in music, but Mahler just sounds like he can't quit whining.
• I'm all for longer movements in music, but, to me, Mahler's music just goes on and on with no end in sight. I also don't think the musical material holds up well to these kinds of lengths. Again, this is the Sibelian inside of me speaking, but, gosh, I really wished he would put a cork in it!
• There are some downright gorgeous moments throughout Mahler's oeuvre and there's a part of me that wishes he would have pursued a more lyrical path.

Okay, I think I've made my point. ;D I suppose I just haven't ever acquired the taste for Mahler and perhaps it's all a matter of time before I finally understand him. I sure hope so as there's many redeeming qualities about his music that I enjoy but just not enough for me to give him a thumbs up or complimentary head nod.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 28, 2015, 06:05:14 PM
Stravinsky.
Beyond the big three early ballets (Firebird, Rite, Petrushka) there is very little of his music that I feel any connection to,  meaning anything that makes me feel I need to hear it again.

I'm right there with you, Jeffrey. I seldom listen to Stravinsky these days and I can barely even bring myself to listen to the Rite or Petrouchka. Last time I listened to Petrouchka, I actually turned it off out of frustration!

Strauss, perhaps.  Much of his music just seems to be a busy mishmash to my ears.  Whereas I usually seem to have no trouble following Mahler, for example. 

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 28, 2015, 06:10:23 PM
I chose Mahler and the reasons why can be detailed in the following list:

   
• I can never figure out where exactly he's going and where he's going to end. I've heard all of his symphonies, for example, on numerous occasions and I'm still left scratching my head.
• I don't understand the insistent need to stretch a listener back and forth to two totally different emotional extremes at all times without any rhyme or reason.
• What on earth is he so fussy about? I mean, sure, I'm all for drama in music, but Mahler just sounds like he can't quit whining.
• I'm all for longer movements in music, but, to me, Mahler's music just goes on and on with no end in sight. I also don't think the musical material holds up well to these kinds of lengths. Again, this is the Sibelian inside of me speaking, but, gosh, I really wished he would put a cork in it!
• There are some downright gorgeous moments throughout Mahler's oeuvre and there's a part of me that wishes he would have pursued a more lyrical path.

Okay, I think I've made my point. ;D I suppose I just haven't ever acquired the taste for Mahler and perhaps it's all a matter of time before I finally understand him. I sure hope so as there's many redeeming qualities about his music that I enjoy but just not enough for me to give him a thumbs up or complimentary head nod.

With modifications, all those are reasons I like Mahler so much.
I like it that he doesn't take an obvious path.
I like the whiplash of moods he creates
I like that he tries to wring everything out of the music that he can, and the music never seems too long
And those lyrical moments...

Debussy. I know he's supposed to be a "prophet of modernism" and oh-so-subtle and deep, etc. I just don't hear what's so special.

On the other hand, some of my favorite composers (Martinu, Lutoslawski) were heavily influenced by him. Go figure.

Do my eyes deceive me, or did you leave Brahms off this list?

As for your blatherama about Mahler, Mahler couldn't care less whether you like him or not. And neither could I.

Quote from: Jay F on December 28, 2015, 07:04:10 PM
Do my eyes deceive me, or did you leave Brahms off this list?

As for your blatherama about Mahler, Mahler couldn't care less whether you like him or not. And neither could I.

Brahms wasn't meant for the list. This was a list that I put together at random. As for you not caring whether I like Mahler or not, I don't care that you don't care. :)

Quote from: Daverz on December 28, 2015, 06:28:53 PMStrauss, perhaps.  Much of his music just seems to be a busy mishmash to my ears.  Whereas I usually seem to have no trouble following Mahler, for example.

My initial problem with Strauss was I felt that his music was a bit superficial and just seemed to be nothing but a truckload of empty, hollow musical gestures. Thankfully, I was able to look past this and hear the real Strauss. I'm glad I was able to do this because I was pretty close to tossing him into the bin of no return (aka my trash can). :)

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 28, 2015, 06:53:02 PM
Debussy. I know he's supposed to be a "prophet of modernism" and oh-so-subtle and deep, etc. I just don't hear what's so special.

On the other hand, some of my favorite composers (Martinu, Lutoslawski) were heavily influenced by him. Go figure.

Debussy does seem to polarize listeners. I'm not a great fan, but I do think quite highly of his chamber music.

Perhaps in a selfish way, I created this thread in the back of my mind thinking I can work out the problems I have with Mahler. This could be quite therapeutic for us all and we could even get to the root of why we don't like the composers we chose and turn around and finally end up enjoying their music. I know, for many of you, your dislike for this or that composer goes well beyond a mere month or two and perhaps even some of you have had a lifelong dislike for the composer you chose from my list.

Ives. His music is often all over the place to me and the diverse elementes don't always jell. The rest of the list is almost all plain sailing and favorites to me, including Bartok, Stravinsky etc. No problem with Mahler either, except that his symphonies are uncomfortably bigscale and long for home listening.

Idk, I don't "struggle" with any of these composers. I struggle, maybe, with someone like Merzbow because the consistent high volume of his music makes it very difficult for me to listen to and assess the quality of, but composers like that are probably outliers.

I just don't listen to some of them very much (eg Mahler, Elgar, Strauss, Rachmaninov, Britten) and often don't particularly like many of their compositions (Mahler 2, The Dream of Gerontius, Shostakovich 10, Rach piano concertos, La Mer, most of the Strauss tone poems etc). Not in the sense of hating them with a fiery passion, more in the sense of "that was ok but whatever". So I just don't listen... or find the works I like, and listen to those (eg Mahler Wayfarer Songs, Elgar Piano Quintet, Strauss Violin Sonata, Rachmaninov Symphonic Dances, Britten Violin Concerto), and leave the others. I just don't see any sense in which struggling is involved, apart from struggling to stay awake through the entire length of Mahler 3 or whatever.

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 28, 2015, 06:14:01 PM
I'm right there with you, Jeffrey. I seldom listen to Stravinsky these days and I can barely even bring myself to listen to the Rite or Petrouchka. Last time I listened to Petrouchka, I actually turned it off out of frustration!

:o

Bartok...the Quartets and Bluebeard. Why? I really don't know.

Sarge

I struggle at times with Strauss even though he's often one of my favorite composers. The reason for that is that on first listening I can't always hear clear catchy melodies, it often takes several re-listenings for me to appreciate his genius. For ex. Rosenkavalier was a very tough opera to me first, I preferred (and still do) Elektra and Salome. The first act was unbearably dull and while I like challenging music this felt just boring. Later I have warmed to this work but I think it's not his best opera by a long shot. Then there are also compositions I adored instantly and, when spending my time with those, Strauss remains in my top10.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 29, 2015, 06:25:26 AM
Bartok...the Quartets and Bluebeard. Why? I really don't know.

Sarge

Bartok is certainly a difficult composer for me it seems. At one point, early in my listening, I couldn't stand his music, but thankfully that's far from the case nowadays as he's one of my absolute favorites.

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 28, 2015, 05:53:53 PM
Special note: This isn't a thread created to bash any composer, so please refrain from insults and put-downs.

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 28, 2015, 06:10:23 PM
I chose Mahler...
   

• I don't understand the insistent need to stretch a listener back and forth to two totally different emotional extremes at all times without any rhyme or reason.
• What on earth is he so fussy about? I mean, sure, I'm all for drama in music, but Mahler just sounds like he can't quit whining.
• I'm all for longer movements in music, but, to me, Mahler's music just goes on and on with no end in sight. I also don't think the musical material holds up well to these kinds of lengths. Again, this is the Sibelian inside of me speaking, but, gosh, I really wished he would put a cork in it!

Yes, please folks, don't bash the composer  ;D

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 29, 2015, 06:30:01 AM


Yes, please folks, don't bash the composer  ;D

Sarge

I really meant people insulting each other because they said something derogatory about one of their favorite composers or whatever. I really didn't say anything bad about Mahler of course other than mentioning why I didn't enjoy his music. :)

Where's some guy when you need him? ;)

Quote from: Brian on December 29, 2015, 08:02:35 AM
Where's some guy when you need him? ;)

:D ;) :D  ...I'm sure he sensed a disturbance in the force and will be here shortly  ;)

Sarge

None of the above.  I enjoy all of them, and several are among my lifelong favorites. ;D But you neglected to include Varese. :laugh:

Britten. Unlistenable, even if he wasn't a pedophile.

Quote from: Scion7 on December 29, 2015, 10:57:27 AM
Britten.

He's another one whose high reputation puzzles me. I can think of maybe 8-10 modern British composers I like better. But I haven't delved into his operas, which appear to be his main thing.

Quote from: The new erato on December 28, 2015, 10:16:41 PM
Ives. His music is often all over the place to me and the diverse elementes don't always jell.

It's supposed to be that way!

Quote from: Scion7 on December 29, 2015, 10:57:27 AM
Britten. Unlistenable, even if he wasn't a pedophile.

I could say the same about Ives being an insurance agent. ;)

Re Britten; He writes in so many styles that I cannot imagine there not being something somewhere for most. His string quartets for example. And I love his Paul Bunyan operetta.

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 29, 2015, 01:12:26 PMBut I haven't delved into his operas, which appear to be his main thing.

I'm not much of a Britten fan but Gloriana really opened my ears to his music. One of my favourite operas.

I should advise just listening, and not watching the . . . "film" . . . .

http://www.youtube.com/v/r-2fnwlfThs


Played (I think) by Ophélie Gaillard.

Ives as I have yet to find anything by him which registers with me.  For all the others there are at least a few of their works which I appreciate and in some cases, a lot.

Would be curious to see who voted for Mahler besides me. REVEAL YOURSELVES!!! ;D

Mahler.  But I have not given up the ship.  Before him it was Bach.  Stuck with him and now he is a favorite.  I do not worry much about it though.  Heck, I think Martin Denny is a genius and not too many threads on boards about him.  I just know what I like when I like it.   :)

Quote from: Bogey on December 29, 2015, 07:10:26 PM
Mahler.  But I have not given up the ship.  Before him it was Bach.  Stuck with him and now he is a favorite.  I do not worry much about it though.  Heck, I think Martin Denny is a genius and not too many threads on boards about him.  I just know what I like when I like it.   :)

I hear ya, Bill. I'm not giving up on Mahler either. There are still many works of his that I do like. I just have to head for the shed and listen more attentively. :)

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 29, 2015, 07:12:33 PM
I hear ya, Bill. I'm not giving up on Mahler either. There are still many works of his that I do like. I just have to head for the shed and listen more attentively. :)

Too many people on this board that enjoy him that I respect their opinion.  So I figure he has something that I just have not connected with. 

Quote from: Bogey on December 29, 2015, 07:18:17 PM
Too many people on this board that enjoy him that I respect their opinion.  So I figure he has something that I just have not connected with.

But surely even you can find beauty in that heartbreakingly beautiful Adagietto from his Symphony No. 5?

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 29, 2015, 07:20:59 PM
But surely even you can find beauty in that heartbreakingly beautiful Adagietto from his Symphony No. 5?

There are moments.  Though for the specific one you referred to I would have to revisit it.  But that's the thing.  For LvB, Haydn, Miles Davis, The Beatles, Les Baxter, etc., I do not have to skim off moments.  They play and I enjoy almost all of what they have to offer.

Ask me this time last year and I would have said Elgar, but I find a lot of his music quite attractive now.

One composer I don't 'struggle' with (I only struggle in learning music on an instrument! Certainly not listening to music!) but I haven't yet come around to enjoy a huge amount of is Rachmaninov. Many of his orchestral pieces I've heard (and a chamber work or two and a couple of piano pieces) were at times I had a certain aesthetic in mind which I wanted to discover in a new composer; I had certain expectations in my mind and a biased imagination. I should never take this approach when discovering a new composer because many times I often don't enjoy the music as much as if I would have come to it with no expectations of style or anything like that. With an open mind, really, and I my mind wasn't quite open enough to listen to Rachmaninov and it has unfortunately tainted my appreciation of his music. :(

I hope to fix that soon! 8)

One more thing though...how did you come up with this list? What were your reasons for these composers in particular, Mirror Image? It doesn't seem quite so 'random' as you say..  :-[

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 29, 2015, 07:09:10 PMWould be curious to see who voted for Mahler besides me. REVEAL YOURSELVES!!! ;D

Guilty as charged. At times, I hear tremendous beauty (the last movement of the 4th, most of Das Lied von Der Erde..), at many other times, I hear a guy totally confused about what he's trying to achieve. Mahler's a puzzle, but one that I enjoy returning to.

Of those in the list whose music I have heard, it must be Stravinsky.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 28, 2015, 06:05:14 PM
Stravinsky.
Beyond the big three early ballets (Firebird, Rite, Petrushka) there is very little of his music that I feel any connection to,  meaning anything that makes me feel I need to hear it again.

My feelings exactly.

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on December 29, 2015, 07:50:47 PM
Ask me this time last year and I would have said Elgar, but I find a lot of his music quite attractive now.

One composer I don't 'struggle' with (I only struggle in learning music on an instrument! Certainly not listening to music!) but I haven't yet come around to enjoy a huge amount of is Rachmaninov. Many of his orchestral pieces I've heard (and a chamber work or two and a couple of piano pieces) were at times I had a certain aesthetic in mind which I wanted to discover in a new composer; I had certain expectations in my mind and a biased imagination. I should never take this approach when discovering a new composer because many times I often don't enjoy the music as much as if I would have come to it with no expectations of style or anything like that. With an open mind, really, and I my mind wasn't quite open enough to listen to Rachmaninov and it has unfortunately tainted my appreciation of his music. :(

I hope to fix that soon! 8)

One more thing though...how did you come up with this list? What were your reasons for these composers in particular, Mirror Image? It doesn't seem quite so 'random' as you say..  :-[

Rachmaninov was a composer I avoided for years (for whatever reason) and have only come to fully appreciate this year. He's one of my favorites now. I used to think his music was the syrupy, sugary sweet Romantic musings of a sentimentalist, but, now, that couldn't be any further from the truth. There's a reason why his music sounds the way it does. As my buddy Karlo (North Star) said before, "He's the most nostalgic composer I know." The feeling of longing, yearning for something lost are strong elements in his music. For me, the music is so undeniably anguished at times that I can barely listen to it as I feel all kinds of emotional pain. When I really heard the melodies that permeate the slower music in his masterful Symphony No. 2 in E minor, for example, I just melted in my chair. Such sorrow and heartfelt beauty.

As for my list, it really was random and didn't require much thinking on my part. With the exception of Mahler, these are some of my favorite composers and most of them are the greatest of the early 20th Century and since the early 20th C is my favorite period of music, why not make a list? :)

Quote from: The new erato on December 29, 2015, 01:19:14 PM
Re Britten; He writes in so many styles that I cannot imagine there not being something somewhere for most. His string quartets for example. And I love his Paul Bunyan operetta.

Aye, Paul Bunyan is cracking good fun.

I puzzle that my fellow music-lovers struggle with Игорь Фëдорович;  but of course, if it just doesn't grab you, it just doesn't grab you.

http://www.youtube.com/v/b_evamyegfg

Quote from: karlhenning on December 30, 2015, 04:39:09 AM
Aye, Paul Bunyan is cracking good fun.

But it contains one piece which is not meant to be fun, but is some of the best music written in the 20th century, the Quartet of the Dispossessed.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 30, 2015, 06:26:01 AM
But it contains one piece which is not meant to be fun, but is some of the best music written in the 20th century, the Quartet of the Dispossessed.

Yes, time I revisited it, thanks!

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 28, 2015, 06:05:14 PM
Stravinsky.
Beyond the big three early ballets (Firebird, Rite, Petrushka) there is very little of his music that I feel any connection to,  meaning anything that makes me feel I need to hear it again.

Stravinsky is one those composers I can admit is great without feeling the need to listen to him often. I overdosed on the Big 3 ballets years ago, and rarely want to go back to them. His stuff from the 30s-40s is good, but IMHO is surpassed by other composers working in similar style (Martinu, Hindemith). The late stuff, when he was playing around with serialism, is also interesting, but not as compelling as the works produced by the original 2nd Viennese School guys.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 29, 2015, 06:25:26 AM
Bartok...the Quartets and Bluebeard. Why? I really don't know.

This is interesting. The quartets are certainly among the tougher pieces but I bet "Bluebeard" is listened to by many who don't listen to much else by Bartok.

Quote from: Bogey on December 29, 2015, 07:10:26 PM
Mahler.  But I have not given up the ship.

Did you (and Mirror Image) try the orchestral songs?
While I liked most of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th symphonies almost immediately, for quite a while my favorite Mahler pieces as a beginner were the orchestral song cycles (except for the Rückert-Lieder that contain my absolute favorite "Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen" but I don't much care for the rest), especially the "Wunderhorn"-Lieder.

R Strauss:
I think that Tchaikovsky said that he had never seen such lack of talent coupled with such pretentiousness. I know that many admire his music. I find it an inflated bore and much prefer the music of composers allegedly influenced by R.Strauss, such as Novak, for example.

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 28, 2015, 06:14:01 PM
I'm right there with you, Jeffrey. I seldom listen to Stravinsky these days and I can barely even bring myself to listen to the Rite or Petrouchka. Last time I listened to Petrouchka, I actually turned it off out of frustration!

I very much agree with this too and not just because I'm also named Jeffrey. 8)

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 30, 2015, 04:28:03 AM
Rachmaninov was a composer I avoided for years (for whatever reason) and have only come to fully appreciate this year. He's one of my favorites now. I used to think his music was the syrupy, sugary sweet Romantic musings of a sentimentalist, but, now, that couldn't be any further from the truth. There's a reason why his music sounds the way it does. As my buddy Karlo (North Star) said before, "He's the most nostalgic composer I know." The feeling of longing, yearning for something lost are strong elements in his music. For me, the music is so undeniably anguished at times that I can barely listen to it as I feel all kinds of emotional pain. When I really heard the melodies that permeate the slower music in his masterful Symphony No. 2 in E minor, for example, I just melted in my chair. Such sorrow and heartfelt beauty.

As for my list, it really was random and didn't require much thinking on my part. With the exception of Mahler, these are some of my favorite composers and most of them are the greatest of the early 20th Century and since the early 20th C is my favorite period of music, why not make a list? :)

I have still found it more pleasurable, perhaps a bit easier, to pick out the contrapuntal melodies in Schoenberg than Rachmaninov...I'm still coming around!

Quote from: Jo498 on December 30, 2015, 08:27:45 AM
Did you (and Mirror Image) try the orchestral songs?
While I liked most of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th symphonies almost immediately, for quite a while my favorite Mahler pieces as a beginner were the orchestral song cycles (except for the Rückert-Lieder that contain my absolute favorite "Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen" but I don't much care for the rest), especially the "Wunderhorn"-Lieder.

Oh yes, I do like Mahler's orchestral songs and, like I mentioned, I'm still coming around to this symphonies. I love the 4th, 5th, and 7th, but I really need to spend more time with the rest.

Quote from: vandermolen on December 30, 2015, 11:52:13 AM
R Strauss:
I think that Tchaikovsky said that he had never seen such lack of talent coupled with such pretentiousness. I know that many admire his music. I find it an inflated bore and much prefer the music of composers allegedly influenced by R.Strauss, such as Novak, for example.

I used to share this opinion as well until I was able to look past all the criticisms and find the real Strauss who often is hiding behind a huge orchestral flourish. :)

Quote from: vandermolen on December 30, 2015, 11:53:30 AM
I very much agree with this too and not just because I'm also named Jeffrey. 8)

:P

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 30, 2015, 02:57:06 PM
Oh yes, I do like Mahler's orchestral songs and, like I mentioned, I'm still coming around to this symphonies. I love the 4th, 5th, and 7th, but I really need to spend more time with the rest.

Respect!

That one is my favourite

8)

3 people voted for Ives...I wonder who and why?

Quote from: The new erato on December 28, 2015, 10:16:41 PM
Ives. His music is often all over the place to me and the diverse elementes don't always jell. The rest of the list is almost all plain sailing and favorites to me, including Bartok, Stravinsky etc. No problem with Mahler either, except that his symphonies are uncomfortably bigscale and long for home listening.

Oh thank you, new erato, sorry I missed your post before! I admit I only flipped through this thread without reading every post in full detail...

Quote from: vandermolen on December 30, 2015, 11:52:13 AM
R Strauss:
I think that Tchaikovsky said that he had never seen such lack of talent coupled with such pretentiousness. I know that many admire his music. I find it an inflated bore and much prefer the music of composers allegedly influenced by R.Strauss, such as Novak, for example.

I wonder if Tchaikovsky said that. As I recall it, Stravinsky said about Strauss "the talent that once was a genius".
Because while I am not a big Strauss fan, what he wrote during Tchaikovsky's lifetime shows an immensely gifted composer who could emulate "mainstream German classicist romanticism" very convincingly in his teens and wrote a brilliant piece like Don Juan in his early/mid 20s. Hardly anyone seems to doubt his "technical" abilities. The general disappointment seems to be rather with his trajectory after Elektra...

I cannot say that I "struggle" with his music. I don't do much opera (I have seen Rosenkavalier on stage and am somewhat familiar with Salome and Elektra but do not know any of them well). I love Don Juan, Till Eulenspiegel, 4 last and a few more songs,  kind of like a few others of the tone poems (also Burleske and the violin sonata) and don't care about the rest, rather disliking (in my ears overblown) stuff like "Heldenleben".

I don't have much time to struggle much with composers. I concentrate on music I do like.

Barber, Britten, Copland, Ives, Mahler and Sibelius of these are in the caterory "I rather listen to Katy Perry's bubblecum pop than struggle with this)."

Sibelius of these is the one I have struggled the most because I am a Finn. The rest I can ignore much more easily.

I generally don't have a problem/struggle with any of the composers in this selection. This said, depending on interpretation, I sometimes find Bruckner quite going nowhere in the same way I have little patience with Glass or Pärt's music (both bores me to death).

/ptr

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 28, 2015, 06:40:14 PM
With modifications, all those are reasons I like Mahler so much.
I like it that he doesn't take an obvious path.
I like the whiplash of moods he creates
I like that he tries to wring everything out of the music that he can, and the music never seems too long
And those lyrical moments...

Well said, Jeffrey, so well said in fact that I'm prepared to forgive your Igor problem.   8) :laugh:

Wonderful illustration of how we can tell out the characteristics of a composer's work, and for Listener A they are pluses; for Listener B, minuses.

Quote from: 71 dB on December 31, 2015, 01:39:36 AM

Barber, Britten, Copland, Ives, Mahler and Sibelius of these are in the caterory "I rather listen to Katy Perry's bubblecum pop than struggle with this)."

Sibelius of these is the one I have struggled the most because I am a Finn. The rest I can ignore much more easily.

I love Sibelius enough to consider trading citizenship in order to be closer to him.  You into this, if possible?  But then you'd be closer to Barber, Ives, and Copland!  :laugh:

I'm trying to regard Poju's remark about Katy Perry as being something other than scorn for Barber, Britten, Copland, Ives, Mahler, and Sibelius.

Without much success, I admit.

I struggle with his readiness to post rubbish.

I don't find any of these composers intimidating.  Instead, I would say that together they constitute an astounding body of exceptionally talented, creative, and expressive artists that one would have to go to considerable lengths to rival, from any period in musical history.  Yum them up each and every one.

Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on December 31, 2015, 05:21:08 AM
I don't find any of these composers intimidating.  Instead, I would say that together they constitute an astounding body of exceptionally talented, creative, and expressive artists that one would have to go to considerable lengths to rival, from any period in musical history.  Yum them up each and every one.

Aye.

90% of the time, my first instincts at to whether or not I'll like a composer or musician are correct.

Quote from: Super Blood Moon on December 31, 2015, 05:25:09 AM
90% of the time, my first instincts at to whether or not I'll like a composer or musician are correct.

Do you have an example to furnish, illustrating part of the 10%?

Quote from: karlhenning on December 31, 2015, 05:30:21 AM
Do you have an example to furnish, illustrating part of the 10%?

Bach and Elvis Costello. :D

Cool.

Quote from: karlhenning on December 31, 2015, 05:19:08 AM
I'm trying to regard Poju's remark about Katy Perry as being something other than scorn for Barber, Britten, Copland, Ives, Mahler, and Sibelius.

Without much success, I admit.

I struggle with his readiness to post rubbish.

I simply see it as a frank statement that he does not care for/connect with the music by those gentlemen, and therefore he focuses on music of composers he does like. Most of us might make similar statements regarding other composers.  It is merely his choices of who he does not care far that seem unconventional. 

I for instance could make the same statement about the music of Stockhausen, or selected works (not the whole swathe, however) by Schoenberg.

But does not "struggle" somehow involve that one "wants to like/appreciate certain music more"? I wonder why? Because one likes some but not most or the most famous ones? Or because one thinks one should like them because they are famous? Probably not as simple as that.
Mirror Image might feel he should like more of Mahler's better (because he already likes a considerable portion of his music) but probably does not care enough about, say, Zelenka, to bother with struggling. (Zelenka is a random example, no offense intended to either him nor any listener).

Quote from: 71 dB on December 31, 2015, 01:39:36 AM"I rather listen to Katy Perry's bubblecum pop than struggle with this)."

Hmmm....

Hmmm....

Hmmm....

I'm at a lost for words with this comment.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 31, 2015, 08:58:23 AM
I simply see it as a frank statement that he does not care for/connect with the music by those gentlemen, and therefore he focuses on music of composers he does like. Most of us might make similar statements regarding other composers.  It is merely his choices of who he does not care far that seem unconventional. 

I for instance could make the same statement about the music of Stockhausen, or selected works (not the whole swathe, however) by Schoenberg.

Fair enough.

Quote from: karlhenning on December 31, 2015, 05:19:08 AM
I'm trying to regard Poju's remark about Katy Perry as being something other than scorn for Barber, Britten, Copland, Ives, Mahler, and Sibelius.

Without much success, I admit.

I struggle with his readiness to post rubbish.

There is no scorn for those composers. Maybe the worship of Sibelius in Finland feels sometimes over the top (while e.g. Einar Englund is ignored).

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 31, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Hmmm....

Hmmm....

Hmmm....

I'm at a lost for words with this comment.

Well, there is room for easy and entertaining music. Katy Perry is one of the best pop artists of the last decade. Ten years ago I woudn't have believed I would like that kind of pop music, but things happen when you are open-minded.  ;D

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 31, 2015, 08:58:23 AM
I simply see it as a frank statement that he does not care for/connect with the music by those gentlemen, and therefore he focuses on music of composers he does like. Most of us might make similar statements regarding other composers.  It is merely his choices of who he does not care far that seem unconventional. 

You see it correctly.  :)

I could have written I rather listen to the music of James Aikman, Gavin Bryars, Margareth Brouwer, Joseph Schwantner, Mieczyslaw Weinberg and Sergio Rendine. I could have also listed The Prodigy, Jonny L, Autechre, Tangerine Dream, The Beatmasters and B12. Struggling with Mahler seems pointless when there is so much music I love (and I find more all the time).

Now that I think of it, I don't know if there is a real struggle with Ives. I have not heard his music hardly at all. I am actually struggling with the mental image (preconceptions) of his music. I don't think I have Ives' music on any of my CDs. The first thing to do in 2016 is to check out Ives.

I don't like "western films" -kind of heroic music, which is the reason I have avoided many american composers, Ives included.

I was surprised to see how much Naxos has released Ives.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 01, 2016, 12:32:24 AM
Now that I think of it, I don't know if there is a real struggle with Ives. I have not heard his music hardly at all. I am actually struggling with the mental image (preconceptions) of his music. I don't think I have Ives' music on any of my CDs. The first thing to do in 2016 is to check out Ives.

I don't like "western films" -kind of heroic music, which is the reason I have avoided many american composers, Ives included.

I was surprised to see how much Naxos has released Ives.

Interesting.....I've not heard any American music I associate with these 'western film' themes apart from, say, a couple of pieces by Copland. Carter, Ives, Feldman, Oliveros, Partch, Cage, Zwilich, Crumb, Babbit, Adams, Adams, Reich, Diamond, David Lang, Crawford-Seeger, Riley, Julia Wolfe, Glass, Harris, Higdon, Bernstein, Coates and Barber are pretty much the only composers I know in addition to Copland who come from the U. S. of A. and I find all their works so starkly different to one another that I can't seem to associate American music with 'heroic, western-film-like music.' And that is a very small sample of composers!

Why did you skip my favorite Piston?

Quote from: The new erato on January 01, 2016, 02:48:39 AM
Why did you skip my favorite Piston?

...and William Schuman! :)

Quote from: 71 dB on December 31, 2015, 11:42:05 PM
There is no scorn for those composers. Maybe the worship of Sibelius in Finland feels sometimes over the top (while e.g. Einar Englund is ignored).

I see, thanks.

Quote from: 71 dB on December 31, 2015, 01:39:36 AM
Barber, Britten, Copland, Ives, Mahler and Sibelius of these are in the caterory "I rather listen to Katy Perry's bubblecum pop than struggle with this)."

... "bubblecum"? ???

Quote from: The new erato on January 01, 2016, 02:48:39 AM
Why did you skip my favorite Piston?

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 01, 2016, 04:23:47 AM
...and William Schuman! :)

I haven't got around to them just yet, but I surely will....... 8)

Quote from: Brian on January 01, 2016, 12:02:08 PM
... "bubblecum"? ???

Whatever you want to call it.  ;)

...but, tsk, tsk ~ you forgot the "none of the above" option.

I gather this poll's point is whether for some reason or other listeners find one or more of these composers 'inaccessible,' and what it is not about is composers whose works 'we get' while their ouvre simply does not engage or hold our interest?

Poll Answer, then, "None."

I find all of them quite readily 'accessible' composers with no barriers to listening, while I could readily name six listed there whose works for me do next to nothing or nothing at all, [those likely the more generally 'popular' on that list] but I ain't namin' no names.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 01, 2016, 01:10:36 PM
...but, tsk, tsk ~ you forgot the "none of the above" option.

I gather this poll's point is whether for some reason or other listeners find one or more of these composers 'inaccessible,' and what it is not about is composers whose works 'we get' while their ouvre simply does not engage or hold our interest?

Poll Answer, then, "None."

I find all of them quite readily 'accessible' composers with no barriers to listening, while I could readily name six listed there whose works for me do next to nothing or nothing at all, but I ain't namin names.

Fair enow.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 01, 2016, 01:10:36 PMI could readily name six listed there whose works for me do next to nothing or nothing at all, [those likely the more generally 'popular' on that list] but I ain't namin' no names.

Aw, c'mon. Brahms?

Quote from: Jay F on January 01, 2016, 05:53:44 PM
Aw, c'mon. Brahms?

Was he even on that list? I'm still not namin' no names, but since he is not, at least, in the six I was thinking of, I happily disclose that I more than like me some Brahms.

Having already claimed that most people's struggle with composer A or B is mainly due to accumulated constraints via personal listening habits, I think it important to also say that some composer's music is relatively dense, in texture [with Brahms, that usually includes loaded for bear counterpoint and rhythm which obliterates the sense of bar-lines], the amount of ideas presented, or scale and length of the architecture of the piece. Brahms has works which embody all three of those elements, and anyone unaccustomed to that type of writing could find any or all of that a bit daunting.

Sometimes I feel that it is merely a case of peer pressure or even advertising pressure which begins any sense of 'struggle'

By 'struggle' I suppose I mean 'wanting to like music that one hasn't previously liked.' Mirror Image loves music that I have previously not liked and at the moment I am coming to terms with many of these composers. But 'struggle' implies work, and learning to enjoy something isn't work really, it's just looking at (or listening to) something from another perspective. Easy really!

Perhaps M. Croche isn't compelled to listen to certain composers on the list from another perspective just yet and therefore 'struggle' is entirely out of the equation, but I can't speak for him!

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 01, 2016, 06:37:45 PM
Was he even on that list? I'm still not namin' no names, but since he is not, at least, in the six I was thinking of, I happily disclose that I more than like me some Brahms.

Having already claimed that most people's struggle with composer A or B is mainly due to accumulated constraints via personal listening habits, I think it important to also say that some composer's music is relatively dense, in texture [with Brahms, that usually includes loaded for bear counterpoint and rhythm which obliterates the sense of bar-lines], the amount of ideas presented, or scale and length of the architecture of the piece. Brahms has works which embody all three of those elements, and anyone unaccustomed to that type of writing could find any or all of that a bit daunting.

That is indeed a frequent complaint made against Brahms by those who struggle with him :(  Texture and density are the very words they use and I've never been able to persuade naysayers otherwise nor ever personally known anyone to break the negative spell they are under.  One can merely sigh and remember - maybe it was Bill McGlaughlin - who said that "Musicians typically have two favorite composers, Brahms and someone else..."    8)

Well I used to dislike Brahms when I was young.

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 02, 2016, 03:56:54 PM
Well I used to dislike Brahms when I was young.

So glad you saw the light, his!

Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on January 02, 2016, 05:03:51 PM
So glad you saw the light, his!

8)

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 02, 2016, 03:56:54 PM
Well I used to dislike Brahms when I was young.

My first encounters with Brahms were like banging my head against a dense, unfriendly wall of sound. But I stuck with him, and eventually realized that, while he may have a few equals in the art of composition, he has no superiors.

It's the "texture and density" that does it. Someone on this board once said that if Brahms made chili, you'd be able to stand a fork in it.

Also fascinating is the way he looks both forward and backward. Part of the density of his work comes from his studies of Renaissance polyphony and other early music, an unusual interest for his time. Later, Schoenberg called him "Brahms the Progressive."

Yes, Brahms was basically the forerunner of the second Viennese school. And Bach as well. Without those two composers, the 20th century would be very dull indeed!

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 02, 2016, 02:00:50 PM
Sometimes I feel that it is merely a case of peer pressure or even advertising pressure which begins any sense of 'struggle'

By 'struggle' I suppose I mean 'wanting to like music that one hasn't previously liked.' Mirror Image loves music that I have previously not liked and at the moment I am coming to terms with many of these composers. But 'struggle' implies work, and learning to enjoy something isn't work really, it's just looking at (or listening to) something from another perspective. Easy really!

Perhaps M. Croche isn't compelled to listen to certain composers on the list from another perspective just yet and therefore 'struggle' is entirely out of the equation, but I can't speak for him!

I've never felt peer pressure or pressure of public opinion, I suppose because I started young and those mentioning this composer or that piece were all older professional musicians, including teachers, and later, adding to that group, my professional peers.

You've already experienced the far from empirically opinionated and somewhat clinical detachment within the trade when discussing these things -- from the outside that may look dispassionate, while it ain't.

So... I've listened, a lot, to all 'those guys on that list,' and of my own volition and at my own pace, repeatedly, with scores, played through their piano stuff, etc. yada ya. Checked them again, and again, on no particular schedule and without any sense of obligation -- or mystery. I re-visited because I know my tastes have broadened and changed over time. That done several times over, and over more than just a couple of decades, I 'just know' that seven of those composers works could not exist at all and I would not feel deprived of any great listening experience, or would have missed an opportunity to learn something from them which was unique and could not be found elsewhere about 'how music works.'

Sometimes you really know, without needing at all to dis perfectly good and 'great' composers, that their stuff does nothing for you at all, and so it is simply "not your cuppa."

After five solidly immersed decades of instrumental training, study in theory and comp and listening. playing through and analyzing scores, with an ocean of classical rep 'covered' while knowing there are literally oceans more not yet covered, allowing a little time to listen to some works one does want to listen to somewhat repeatedly, and with brand spanking new works coming out all the time which you also want to explore --  well, there ain't the time one has in ones earlier years.

Since I never 'struggled' with the music by any of the composers on that list, even initially [one exception, one Stravinsky neoclassical piece, which was more a one time speed bump / hiccup where only a bit later the work 'fell into place' on a second listen] i.e. found it all immediately accessible, got quite familiar with a fair amount of the output of each, 'get them quite completely,' and that allows me to abandon, without shame, guilt or feeling that any opprobrium is deserved.

[[Edit add: I had, against my previously given word, named those seven composers I can happily live without and without any regret. I've removed them from this post, not to be coy or provoke curiosity, but because I realized after posting that my original impulse was 'correct,' i.e. I saw and now see again no worthwhile purpose in naming them.]]

There is nothing wrong with any of those seven composers, I suppose. They all certainly knew how to compose well enough to gain international play and world-wide recognition.]

Best regards to my young composer friend, and stand up straight, put a feather in your cap, and pat yourself on the back... congratulations on that composition scholarship. I'm thrilled for you!

You and I are quite different I suppose. With me, my curiosity always draws me to the path of enjoying every composer I ever explore. But then again, because I am not as old as you, there is still the potential for me to decide I don't like certain music any more...but I hope that never happens!

And thanks, by the way, on congratulating me for that scholarship!  8)

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 02, 2016, 09:37:19 PM
You and I are quite different I suppose. With me, my curiosity always draws me to the path of enjoying every composer I ever explore. But then again, because I am not as old as you, there is still the potential for me to decide I don't like certain music any more...but I hope that never happens!

And thanks, by the way, on congratulating me for that scholarship!  8)

When in my teens, I could say the same when first investigating just about any composer. I have to qualify a rather wide swath lacuna in my druthers, though, and this was not much less true when I was 'young' -- post Schumann, the later romantics [Brahms is a major exception] have never done much for me, though I eagerly hop back on board with Mahler and as just as heartily love and admire some Nielsen. As a pianist I do like and admire Chopin [far more aggressively wild and modern than many think or render him], while I think his music is far more satisfying to play than to listen to.

A colleague of mine 'blames' this preference [or maybe better, aversion] on the fact I first teethed on listening to Prokofiev, Janacek and Bach, and then at six started piano straight away learning to simultaneously read and play with both hands via Bartok, then was given some simple Bach  :) I'm not certain he is either wholly or partially correct about that. I'm as sentimental as the next guy, maybe even a bit more than most, but that is just not in a generally 19th century way, I guess.

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on January 02, 2016, 06:41:15 PM
My first encounters with Brahms were like banging my head against a dense, unfriendly wall of sound.

I can't even imagine that... When I first heard his chamber music (the big Brilliant box) my reaction was: "This is the most beautiful music I have ever heard!". I stand by it, with a minor correction: "This is some of the most beautiful music ever composed."

I really mean it: Brahms is one of those composers who instantly won my heart, mind and unconditional admiration and devotion.

Fascinating how different people hear different things in one and the same music.  :)

Quote from: Florestan on January 03, 2016, 06:41:43 AM
I can't even imagine that... When I first heard his chamber music (the big Brilliant box) my reaction was: "This is the most beautiful music I have ever heard!". I stand by it, with a minor correction: "This is some of the most beautiful music ever composed."

Maybe because I started with the symphonies. I didn't actually dislike them at first hearing; it was more like, there's something really impressive and monumental going on here, but I can't quite figure it out.

I do think that the chamber music of Brahms is even greater than his orchestral music, and as a totality constitutes one of the world's greatest musical achievements.

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on January 03, 2016, 08:20:25 AM
Maybe because I started with the symphonies. I didn't actually dislike them at first hearing; it was more like, there's something really impressive and monumental going on here, but I can't quite figure it out.

That is indeed a very apt description of the First Symphony.

Quote from: Florestan on January 03, 2016, 06:41:43 AM
I can't even imagine that... When I first heard his chamber music (the big Brilliant box) my reaction was: "This is the most beautiful music I have ever heard!". I stand by it, with a minor correction: "This is some of the most beautiful music ever composed."

I really mean it: Brahms is one of those composers who instantly won my heart, mind and unconditional admiration and devotion.

Fascinating how different people hear different things in one and the same music.  :)

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on January 03, 2016, 08:20:25 AM
Maybe because I started with the symphonies. I didn't actually dislike them at first hearing; it was more like, there's something really impressive and monumental going on here, but I can't quite figure it out.

I do think that the chamber music of Brahms is even greater than his orchestral music, and as a totality constitutes one of the world's greatest musical achievements.

I found it peculliar, too, that when I first heard Brahms' chamber music, I liked it. I liked it immediately. Yet at the same time (literally), twenty years after first hearing his symphonies, I still felt neutral towards them. This is the only struggle I've really had in classical music. In music, period. I know there's something good about Brahms' orchestral music, but it did not reveal itself for a very long time. I listen to Honeck and Abbado's versions for the most part. They'll never be Mahler, but I like them somewhat, now. The chamber music, OTOH, I can listen to for hours.

When I say I have no other struggle, it's because I can decide quickly whether I want to listen to something or not. I don't listen to music I don't like, generally. There's too much music I do like, in numerous areas.

What I have found, and I suppose most of the active musicians on this forum have found also, is that as I have begun to play some of the music in question, any "struggle" in appreciating it as a listener disappears.  It becomes a case of "Oh, so that's how it goes!" 8) And many of us have discovered that it is in fact the music we struggle to play, the things we go over and over and over just to get those notes and rhythms exactly so, that becomes our favorite music to perform.  The struggle becomes part of the mastery, which evokes great joy as we play and listen.

(As an oboist, I find I am in nearly the best seat in the orchestra, surrounded by sound and in close contact with the other musicians, to whom I am listening with all my attention as I play. 8) )

Quote from: karlhenning on December 29, 2015, 06:01:33 AM

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 28, 2015, 06:14:01 PM
I'm right there with you, Jeffrey. I seldom listen to Stravinsky these days and I can barely even bring myself to listen to the Rite or Petrouchka. Last time I listened to Petrouchka, I actually turned it off out of frustration!

:o

+  :o

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 03, 2016, 12:30:17 AM
When in my teens, I could say the same when first investigating just about any composer. I have to qualify a rather wide swath lacuna in my druthers, though, and this was not much less true when I was 'young' -- post Schumann, the later romantics [Brahms is a major exception] have never done much for me, though I eagerly hop back on board with Mahler and as just as heartily love and admire some Nielsen. As a pianist I do like and admire Chopin [far more aggressively wild and modern than many think or render him], while I think his music is far more satisfying to play than to listen to.

A colleague of mine 'blames' this preference [or maybe better, aversion] on the fact I first teethed on listening to Prokofiev, Janacek and Bach, and then at six started piano straight away learning to simultaneously read and play with both hands via Bartok, then was given some simple Bach  :) I'm not certain he is either wholly or partially correct about that. I'm as sentimental as the next guy, maybe even a bit more than most, but that is just not in a generally 19th century way, I guess.

Nice story there! As I came to music when I was young I basically just listened to the radio. Reading books about music, especially contemporary classical music, made me extremely curious to find out what it sounded like. A lot of romantic music is what I've been coming to enjoy only in recent years, probably because I never found it interesting to read about when I was 8 years old.

Quote from: Jay F on January 03, 2016, 10:26:36 AM
I don't listen to music I don't like, generally. There's too much music I do like, in numerous areas.

My listening philosophy too.

Of the composers in this list, I chose Sibelius. I prefer the larger and more colourful orchestral canvasses of the likes of Mahler, Strauss and Shostakovich. I really have to be in the mood to listen to Sibelius, and those times don't come along all that often.

Shostakovich, I guess - but my struggles related to these composers are financial.

Quote from: North Star on January 08, 2016, 06:14:06 AM
Shostakovich, I guess - but my struggles related to these composers are financial.

Hah!

Though I a fan of many Finn composers, Sibelius has never done it for me...

Quote from: Rons_talking on February 01, 2016, 01:08:55 PM
Though I a fan of many Finn composers, Sibelius has never done it for me...

...and why?

Finally voted for Mahler.

Quote from: Brian on December 29, 2015, 08:02:35 AM
Where's some guy when you need him? ;)

Not looking into the poll forum, that's where.

And kind of sorry I did just now.

But I do have a plaintive little some guy kind of question. Are classical music fans the only kind who essentially define themselves by their struggles, by what they don't like, don't connect with?

There's been a voice or two on this poll who have deprecated the lack of a "none" option. Add mine.

I enjoy music. There are lots and lots of pieces and lots and lots of composers that I do not like. But I rarely if ever talk or even think about them. Why, if someone were to find out who my least favorites were and made a thread just to bash them, I wouldn't be interested in playing. My dislikes are simply not interesting, not even to me. But that's because I'm a fan, in the traditional sense of that word. My fellow classical fans seem many of them to have made a new category of fandom, the "I struggle and dislike quite a lot of classical music" category.

It does not seem like a category to me. It seems like a contradiction. If you don't like listening to classical music, then why do you post to classical music sites? (And the answer seems to be, "To participate in the 'I don't like this or that' threads." In fact, there's even more to that: "To turn even positive threads in praise of this or that into their opposite by going on at length about what I don't like and why.")

Other than that, if you're still reading this ( ;D), the other trend I have seen in the decade or so I have spent on classical forums is that classical fans don't listen to very many things. You'll occasionally get people who claim to listen to everything, but on this or that other thread--like this one, maybe, you'll find out that they have never heard anything by Nielsen yet or Bartok or Haydn, that they've never even heard of Lidholm or Oliveros or Berwald, and that they can identify huge swaths of music that they're sure is horrible and that they would never listen to, there's just not enough time.

To a fan, all of this sounds very strange, I must say. I love music. I have always had time to listen to it. I have always had time to read and play chess, too. I always have had time to play with my various cats and to hang out with my three sons. I always have time to spend with pretty girls. I always have time to paint and to write. Does this sound strange to you? That there's always time for the things you enjoy? I wonder. :laugh:

Quote from: some guy on February 06, 2016, 12:35:31 AM
But I do have a plaintive little some guy kind of question. Are classical music fans the only kind who essentially define themselves by their struggles, by what they don't like, don't connect with?

I do not think that this is a good description. Most classical music listeners do not define themselves by what the do not like. There might be some tribalism but not at all to the extent want found in my youth in the 1980s between e.g fans of heavy metal and other popular music tribes.

Still, if one likes everything almost equally well, this can seem like lack of discernment and basically lack of developed taste. Sure there is also pseudo-elitism around but if someone finds a quartet by Dittersdorf as good as one from Haydn's op.76 I will doubt his ability to discern differences that are relevant for musical quality.

Quote
Other than that, if you're still reading this ( ;D), the other trend I have seen in the decade or so I have spent on classical forums is that classical fans don't listen to very many things. You'll occasionally get people who claim to listen to everything, but on this or that other thread--like this one, maybe, you'll find out that they have never heard anything by Nielsen yet or Bartok or Haydn, that they've never even heard of Lidholm or Oliveros or Berwald, and that they can identify huge swaths of music that they're sure is horrible and that they would never listen to, there's just not enough time.

Maybe we can agree on trivial truths like those: There is a limited amount of time for focussed listening. It is often easier (and gives more pleasure in a sense) to listen again to already familiar music (maybe in a different interpretation) than to listen to (stylistically very different) unfamiliar music. So one has to decide whether to listen to the Eroica for the 100th time or to a symphony by e.g. Niels Gade (or whatever). It is also a fairly recent thing that CDs are quite cheap and one can listen to almost everything on the web in decent quality. Independent of that not everyone is "musical" enough to absorb unfamiliar music in unfamiliar styles quickly and it might take time for several listenings sessions (that could be spend more pleasureable with already familiar music).

Quote from: some guy on February 06, 2016, 12:35:31 AM
I have always had time to listen to it. I have always had time to read and play chess, too. I always have had time to play with my various cats and to hang out with my three sons. I always have time to spend with pretty girls. I always have time to paint and to write.

Lucky you! I feel I hardly have 10 % of the time I need for everything!

Quote from: Jo498 on February 06, 2016, 01:50:03 AMSure there is also pseudo-elitism around but if someone finds a quartet by Dittersdorf as good as one from Haydn's op.76 I will doubt his ability to discern differences that are relevant for musical quality.

I have to say sometimes I enjoy Dittersdorf even more than Haydn. I simply can't see what makes Haydn "superior" of the two. Nobody is able to explain it.

Quote from: some guy on February 06, 2016, 12:35:31 AM
I enjoy music.

Welcome to the club!

Quote
There are lots and lots of pieces and lots and lots of composers that I do not like. But I rarely if ever talk or even think about them. [...] My fellow classical fans seem many of them to have made a new category of fandom, the "I struggle and dislike quite a lot of classical music" category.

It seems to me that you are unable or unwilling to understand that some people like not only listening to, but also talking about, music.

QuoteIf you don't like listening to classical music, then why do you post to classical music sites?

This is an entirely fictitious category. Show me one single GMG member who doesn´t like listening to classical music.

Quote
Other than that, if you're still reading this ( ;D), the other trend I have seen in the decade or so I have spent on classical forums is that classical fans don't listen to very many things. You'll occasionally get people who claim to listen to everything, but on this or that other thread--like this one, maybe, you'll find out that they have never heard anything by Nielsen yet or Bartok or Haydn, that they've never even heard of Lidholm or Oliveros or Berwald, and that they can identify huge swaths of music that they're sure is horrible and that they would never listen to, there's just not enough time.

That there isn´t enough time is a truism. There is only a finite amount of time one can spend listening to music. Choices have to be made and priorities have to be set, inevitably. We cannot  listen to everything. You don´t listen to everything. Okay, maybe you listen to everything that comes your way, but for every recording you listen to there are probably a few hundreds more you´ll never get to listen to. So there.

Then there is another thing: we cannot like everything. You don´t like everything. Sure, we can try to like everything but inevitably (again) there will be things that we cannot like no matter how much and hard we try. Therefore, spending most of the time listening only to music one likes, or is likely to like based on what one likes (excuse the clumsy wording) makes a lot of sense and is far from being that prejudiced as you seem to think it is.

Quote
I love music. I have always had time to listen to it.

It might come as a surprise to you but we all love music and always have time to listen to it.

Quote
I have always had time to read and play chess, too. I always have had time to play with my various cats and to hang out with my three sons. I always have time to spend with pretty girls. I always have time to paint and to write.

As I said above, it´s a question of making choices and setting priorities. You seem to have got them both straight --- and to be lucky enough to have the job of your dreams, I suppose. You know, for all our desire to live as we wish, jobs (or lack thereof) oftenly stand in the way.

EDIT: As you can see, I have patiently and attentively read through your whole post. How many points do I get?  :D

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 02:49:58 AMIt seems to me that you are unable or unwilling to understand that some people like not only listening to, but also talking about, music.

Um, no. I obviously enjoy talking about music.

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 02:49:58 AMShow me one single GMG member who doesn´t like listening to classical music.

I can show you dozens who can talk about what they don't like, at length, who spend the bulk of their time online talking about what they don't like.

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 02:49:58 AMThat there isn´t enough time is a truism. There is only a finite amount of time one can spend listening to music. Choices have to be made and priorities have to be set, inevitably. We cannot  listen to everything. You don´t listen to everything. Okay, maybe you listen to everything that comes your way, but for every recording you listen to there are probably a few hundreds more you´ll never get to listen to. So there.

This is a matter of perspective. I was only saying that I don't think of time when I'm doing something enjoyable. I am not aware of time when I am doing something enjoyable. I do use clocks and calendars to make and to meet appointments. I know where I'll be at 20h on the 4th of May, for instance. And I will have to get to the airport by a certain hour in order to do so. But what of that?

Anyway, yeah, I suppose that to someone looking at what I do will see that I am making choices and setting priorities. It's just that me being me, living and doing (the doing is the living), it doesn't feel like making choices and setting priorities. It feels like doing things. Sure, I have to choose what to do at any given "time." But I'm not focussed on or obsessed with or even aware of the choosing. Too busy doing the doing.

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 02:49:58 AMThen there is another thing: we cannot like everything. You don´t like everything. Sure, we can try to like everything but inevitably (again) there will be things that we cannot like no matter how much and hard we try. Therefore, spending most of the time listening only to music one likes, or is likely to like based on what one likes (excuse the clumsy wording) makes a lot of sense and is far from being that prejudiced as you seem to think it is.

You have a very poor track record accurately understanding what I think.

In any event, I enjoy listening to music. I don't have to try. It's fun. Again, the perspective thing here. I spend very little time thinking about or even acting according to my likes and dislikes. I have said before that my dislikes are not interesting, not even to me. In a way, my likes are not interesting, either. That is, dividing up the world into things I like and things I dislike just doesn't seem very useful or interesting to me. Here's the one thing I like, for sure, which is interesting--I like to explore. I like to learn, to go places and study things and experience things that I don't know. The not knowing is what makes the liking and disliking impertinent. How can I like or dislike something I don't know? And the process of getting to know is all about the thing, not about me.

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 02:49:58 AMIt might come as a surprise to you but we all love music and always have time to listen to it.

From what I've read over and over again about there being not enough time to do everything, from what I've read over and over again about this that or the other thing being unlistenable or difficult or distasteful, yes, after years of reading those kinds of things from numerous people over and over again, I would be surprised. Indeed.

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 02:49:58 AMAs I said above, it´s a question of making choices and setting priorities. You seem to have got them both straight --- and to be lucky enough to have the job of your dreams, I suppose. You know, for all our desire to live as we wish, jobs (or lack thereof) oftenly stand in the way.

I suppose I'm lucky. As for the rest, you have no idea. Truly. I do more than suspect that it's because for me it is not a question of making choices and setting priorities, but of doing, that I seem to have gotten the choices and priorities straight. I'd say more, but I don't like talking about private things in public. Maybe next time I get to București, I can tell you about my life. ;D

EDIT: As you can see, I have patiently and attentively read through your whole post. How many points do I get?  :D
[/quote]You don't get any points. Life is not about accruing points, grasshopper. As soon as you understand that, I'll give you a point, though. :laugh:

Quote from: some guy on February 06, 2016, 03:39:26 AM
I can show you dozens who can talk about what they don't like, at length, who spend the bulk of their time online talking about what they don't like.

I don´t need dozens. Show me only three.

Quote
This is a matter of perspective. I was only saying that I don't think of time when I'm doing something enjoyable. I am not aware of time when I am doing something enjoyable.

I should have thought that most humans fall in this category.

Quote
I know where I'll be at 20h on the 4th of May, for instance.

Really? Wow! I have no idea whatsoever where I'll be at 20h on the 4th of May.

Quote
Anyway, yeah, I suppose that to someone looking at what I do will see that I am making choices and setting priorities. It's just that me being me, living and doing (the doing is the living), it doesn't feel like making choices and setting priorities. It feels like doing things. Sure, I have to choose what to do at any given "time." But I'm not focussed on or obsessed with or even aware of the choosing. Too busy doing the doing.

You are so Zen!

Quote
You have a very poor track record accurately understanding what I think.

Maybe you should try to write in plainer English...  >:D ;D :P

Quote
I enjoy listening to music. I don't have to try. It's fun.

For you it´s fun. For me listening to, say, Boulez or Xennakis or Stockhausen is far from being fun: it´s at best boring and at worst aurally unbearable --- and I cannot help it.

Quote
dividing up the world into things I like and things I dislike just doesn't seem very useful or interesting to me.

Don´t you dislike being misunderstood time and again? I should have thought you did, judging by what you wrote about my poor track record of... what, never being able to accurately understand your thinking?

Dividing the world into likes and dislikes is all too human. You are probably among the very few who don´t do that, or claim not to do that.

Quote
Here's the one thing I like, for sure, which is interesting--I like to explore. I like to learn, to go places and study things and experience things that I don't know. The not knowing is what makes the liking and disliking impertinent. How can I like or dislike something I don't know? And the process of getting to know is all about the thing, not about me.

You don´t speak Romanian, I am sure --- ie, it is unkown to you. Do you feel the urge to learn it? Do you ever contemplate learning it at some point in the future?

I know for an undeniable fact that I dislike some types of music (ie, the experience of hearing them is not pleasant and not fun --- it is boring or unbearable). What fault do you find in my avoiding them?

Quote
From what I've read over and over again about there being not enough time to do everything, from what I've read over and over again about this that or the other thing being unlistenable or difficult or distasteful, yes, after years of reading those kinds of things from numerous people over and over again, I would be surprised. Indeed.

You confuse having time to listen to everything with having time to listen to what one likes.

Heck, I haven´t even listened to all the major works by my top-10 favorite composers yet --- and you´d want me to spend more time with works I know for an undeniable fact that I did not and would not enjoy?

Quote
I don't like talking about private things in public. Maybe next time I get to București, I can tell you about my life. ;D

First of all, I do appreciate that you took the pain to properly write the name of my home city.

Secondly, next time you get here make sure you let me know in advance. I am sure we could have a very interesting and genial dinner talk.

Quote
Life is not about accruing points, grasshopper.

No shit, buddy?  ;D

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 04:58:31 AM
I don´t need dozens. Show me only three.

Well, my point was that they're ubiquitous. I don't want to take the time (!!) to list even three.

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 04:58:31 AMI have no idea whatsoever where I'll be at 20h on the 4th of May.

I have an appointment then.

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 04:58:31 AMYou are so Zen!

I suppose. Seems like just living to me.

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 04:58:31 AMFor you it´s fun. For me listening to, say, Boulez or Xennakis or Stockhausen is far from being fun: it´s at best boring and at worst aurally unbearable --- and I cannot help it.

Well, without being you, I'm going to still go ahead and believe that you can help it. Other people have said the same and have helped it. As it were.

Put it this way. I am a human. I like music. I like a lot of the same music you like. I find listening to Boulez and Xenakis and Stockhausen to be quite fun a lot of the time. (No, I don't like everything. We've covered this one already, right?) So one difference between us is that I like Xenakis et al., and you do not. Another difference might explain why we differ about Xenakis: I do not need music to be any particular way. I am happy to let each type of music be itself. It's not aurally unbearable to me because I am able to accept it for what it is without repining about what it is not. (NOTE: this may be a very unfair and inaccurate characterization of how you think--I have read many of your posts, though. I think I'm pretty close. But let's say that I'm not. The point still remains, if Xenakis can be liked, then he's likable. If your idea of how music should sound does not include Xenakis' sounds, then you won't like Xenakis. If you can change your idea of how music should sound, then you might end up liking Xenakis.

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 04:58:31 AMDon´t you dislike being misunderstood time and again?

I dislike trick questions.

In any event, I have no control over your ability to understand.

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 04:58:31 AMDividing the world into likes and dislikes is all too human. You are probably among the very few who don´t do that, or claim not to do that.

Oh, I do it, too. I have just found that it's more interesting and more useful to explore and to understand--and even to enjoy not understanding. I have said before that I would very much like to hear some music that baffles me. It's been many years since that has happened. It's fun. I hope someone comes up with something that will baffle me before I die.

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 04:58:31 AMYou don´t speak Romanian, I am sure --- ie, it is unkown to you. Do you feel the urge to learn it? Do you ever contemplate learning it at some point in the future?

No, yes, and yes.

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 04:58:31 AMI know for an undeniable fact that I dislike some types of music (ie, the experience of hearing them is not pleasant and not fun --- it is boring or unbearable). What fault do you find in my avoiding them?

I know for a fact that unless I listen to something, I will not know--not for certain sure--whether I will like it or not. I also know that I don't listen to things in order to like them. I like listening to music. I listen to a lot of things I have never heard before. I don't know if I will like or dislike what I don't know yet, so liking or disliking can hardly be the point is all. I listen in order to experience.

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 04:58:31 AMYou confuse having time to listen to everything with having time to listen to what one likes.

No, I don't. The confusion, I'm sure, comes from your trying to understand what I'm saying in terms that are not appropriate to what I've said. I have said many times over the years that I listen horizontally rather than vertically--that is, I listen to things for themselves, not for how they stack up in comparison with other things. Every time I've said something of that sort, someone else has concluded that I think everything is equally good.

No. What I think is that equality/inequality is not a useful concept for thinking about or for listening to music. "Nielsen's 4th symphony is better than Glière's 3rd" is a type of statement I find of no utility. Nielsen's 4th is different from Glière's 3rd. Two different composers trying to make two different things. I prefer one over the other. I listen to one more than I listen to the other. But if I'm ever listening to the other, I'm not constantly thinking, "Wow, I should be listening to 'one.'"

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 04:58:31 AMHeck, I haven´t even listened to all the major works by my top-10 favorite composers yet --- and you´d want me to spend more time with works I know for an undeniable fact that I did not and would not enjoy?

OK. I don't want you to do anything. I also do not think that you can know what you claim to know. And I have listened to all the major works by hundreds of composers. It's no thing. It's what I do. It seems to go without saying. So now color me incredulous. Why? Why have you not yet listened to all the major works by your top-ten favorite composers yet? Don't you like your favorites?

Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2016, 04:58:31 AMI do appreciate that you took the pain to properly write the name of my home city.

Secondly, next time you get here make sure you let me know in advance. I am sure we could have a very interesting and genial dinner talk.

I certainly hope so. I will let you know in advance, for sure. My life is not very certain at the moment--and probably for many moments to come. If you don't hear from me for several years, it's because I've not come to București in all that time. I hope it's not that long before I get back there. Oh, and de nada about București. It's one of my little quirks to call places what the inhabitants call them. :)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having likes and dislikes just as long as we know why we like/dislike something. I'm reminded of this Copland quote: "I don't at all mind actively disliking a piece of contemporary music, but in order to feel happy about it, I must consciously understand why I dislike it. Otherwise it remains in my mind as unfinished business." But the 'contemporary music' in his quote can apply to any music from any era.

Quote from: Mirror Image on February 06, 2016, 07:15:29 AM
There's absolutely nothing wrong with having likes and dislikes...

Funny how often this assertion is made.

Even funnier is how infrequently anyone says that there's something wrong with having likes and dislikes. (I cannot recall anyone ever saying that there's something wrong with having likes and dislikes.)

But the assertion continues to be made, as if there were a context for it.

Curious.

Of course, in this instance, it may be no more than simply finding this statement troublesome, "I don't know if I will like or dislike what I don't know yet, so liking or disliking can hardly be the point is all. I listen in order to experience" but not having any counter-argument, so substituting the non sequitur for that. It may even be that the troublesome statement was mis-read as a blanket condemnation of having likes and dislikes, which it in no way is.

Anyway, I've seen this same point confidently asserted in many many instances over the years, with no corresponding assertion for it to be a counter to.

[A] plaintive little some guy kind of question.  I like that.


Thread Duty:  I struggle with none of those composers.  I'm not sure I struggle with any.

I think Some Guy really got to the crux of the matter of what the most exciting thing about music is....learning more about it. Rather than refining my personal taste and working out what I like and what I don't like, I prefer to expand my tastes. One side effect to keeping an open mind is that more often than not I find that I actually like repertoire and interpretations I've previously disliked............I have come across people who have said I am very odd because of how I begin to like music that I've disliked, but I don't see how that is unusual. I never used to like fried onions but I love them now.

It's okay not to like everything. It's okay to like anything for what it is.

It's perfectly normal to come to like music one did not like at first.

Quote from: some guy on February 06, 2016, 12:35:31 AM
But I do have a plaintive little some guy kind of question. Are classical music fans the only kind who essentially define themselves by their struggles, by what they don't like, don't connect with?

"Plaintive"? You'd better hold back any of the deep stuff!! :D

But honestly I don't see what the problem is with your query. It's as fair as anything else I've seen on this board.

I would say any person willing to dive into this classical mosh pit should expect to have their senses challenged, their beliefs rocked, etc... After all, this isn't preschool (although the board seems that way sometimes ;D). Yes, the learning curve might be daunting but, hey, either run with it or skip to the next hobby!

That said, nothing wrong with throwing a help line...as long as it's a **help** line. 

But what sucks is too often the "struggle to understand" is not taken as the challenge it should be but becomes an opportunity to foam at the mouth (witness the "Unpopular Dumb Ass Opinions" thread! ;D). Erudition goes out the window. In its place is little more than pseudo-intellectualized vomiting.

To those people I'd say, this hobby isn't for you.

Quote from: some guy on February 06, 2016, 07:55:14 AM
Funny how often this assertion is made.

Even funnier is how infrequently anyone says that there's something wrong with having likes and dislikes. (I cannot recall anyone ever saying that there's something wrong with having likes and dislikes.)

But the assertion continues to be made, as if there were a context for it.

Curious.

Of course, in this instance, it may be no more than simply finding this statement troublesome, "I don't know if I will like or dislike what I don't know yet, so liking or disliking can hardly be the point is all. I listen in order to experience" but not having any counter-argument, so substituting the non sequitur for that. It may even be that the troublesome statement was mis-read as a blanket condemnation of having likes and dislikes, which it in no way is.

Anyway, I've seen this same point confidently asserted in many many instances over the years, with no corresponding assertion for it to be a counter to.

I'm either allured by the sounds that are hitting my eardrums or I'm not. I always like finding out why I don't enjoy something, but it's obviously more important for me to continue to listen to music I enjoy the most.

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on February 06, 2016, 04:50:21 PM
Rather than refining my personal taste and working out what I like and what I don't like, I prefer to expand my tastes. One side effect to keeping an open mind is that more often than not I find that I actually like repertoire and interpretations I've previously disliked............

Expanding musical tastes with an open mind can have very surprising consequencies. A few years ago I realised I like a lot the pop music of Katy Perry and Kesha (formelly known as Ke$ha).  :o  ;D

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on February 06, 2016, 04:50:21 PMI have come across people who have said I am very odd because of how I begin to like music that I've disliked, but I don't see how that is unusual. I never used to like fried onions but I love them now.

This is another aspect of "widening" one's tastes. Most of the time I feel other people have ridiculously narrow taste in music. For example People in Tangerine Dream forum like ONLY electronic ambient music. They don't care about electronic dance music or classical music. I feel like an alien among them. People lock themselves into styles and think everything in "other" styles is crap. It's almost sad.

I think we born disliking all music. We are exposed to some music and we learn to like it. Narrow minded people start to think the music they like is the "right" music and everything else is "wrong".

I also believe our personality makes it hard to like some music. I have never learned to like any heavy metal or blues. I feel I'd had to open my skull to be open minded enough!  ;D

Quote from: 71 dB on February 07, 2016, 12:56:32 AMI think we born disliking all music.

I immediately disagreed with this and almost responded that we are born liking all music, but then I realized that that was just as wrong. "We" like and dislike all sorts of things, from the very start.

So what I eventually came up with was this: "We are born."

Otherwise, yeah--narrowminded people have narrow minds. No disagreement there.

Quote from: some guy on February 06, 2016, 05:58:11 AM
Well, my point was that they're ubiquitous. I don't want to take the time (!!) to list even three.

I saw that coming. There's way too much empty rhetoric in your posts.  ;D

Quote
Why have you not yet listened to all the major works by your top-ten favorite composers yet?

Time, my friend, time. Strange as it might sound to you, I don't usually listen to music 24/7 (and at the end of those days when I do listen for hours long to music I realize the experience has not been entirely satisfactory and much of what I listened to was actually lost on me the second after the music ended.) There have even been, and probably there will still be, extended periods of time, up to a few weeks or even months, when I didn't listen to music at all. You see, music for me is a passion (my dearest alongside literature) but not an obsession. And were I able to play an instrument, my listening time would be even shorter because I'd rather be involved in actually making music myself.

Besides that, had I listened to my favorite composers only I would have missed discovering so many others whose music I thoroughly enjoy.

Last but not least, the thought that there is still so much music by my favorite composers that I have not heard yet is quite exciting.

Re: Xenakis et al, I am really not interested in coming to terms with their music and persevering in listening to it until I finally see the light. All I know is that I do not enjoy listening to their music --- end of story. Look at it this way: the music which I enjoy now is more than enough to fill my needs for the whole remainder of my life (I include in this each and every composer I have not heard of yet, whose music is right up my alley); wasting my time on Xenakis or Boulez in the hope that some day I would enjoy their music too would be like walking through a 1,000-mile-wide desert for the sole purpose of dropping a glass of water into the ocean.  :)

Quote from: Florestan on February 08, 2016, 05:07:42 AM
I saw that coming. There's way too much empty rhetoric in your posts.  ;D

Ah. Well, I think there's way too much tedious challenging in yours. (Anyone who has read a coupla dozen threads on any board will have seen dozens of examples. There's really no need to waste time calling them up for you. If you have not noticed them--and this is the real crux, I think--that's because you don't think that they exist. And if I gave you examples--two, twenty, two hundred--you would reject all of them. Come on, you know you would. :P

So I just thought I'd give your challenge a miss this time.

Otherwise, these two things strike me as having no sort of connection to each other at all:

Quote from: Florestan on February 08, 2016, 05:07:42 AMThere have even been, and probably there will still be, extended periods of time, up to a few weeks or even months, when I didn't listen to music at all.

Quote from: Florestan on February 08, 2016, 05:07:42 AMYou see, music for me is a passion...

Even the rest of that sentence

Quote from: Florestan on February 08, 2016, 05:07:42 AMbut not an obsession

didn't really help me. "Music for me is a passion" still seems like a non sequitur.

Anyway, we clearly do not have similar concepts of time at all. I think there's plenty of time. But you think that if you had listened to your favorite composer only, you would have missed discovering many others. I don't follow that. I've listened to everything by my favorite composers and have discovered many others. Easy. Indeed, I've done that so much that I no longer have favorites. I just listen to music.

Quote from: Florestan on February 08, 2016, 05:07:42 AMLast but not least, the thought that there is still so much music by my favorite composers that I have not heard yet is quite exciting.

Here we are in complete agreement. There is no music by my (erstwhile) favorite composers that I have not heard yet. And if there were--when there was--that was quite exciting. Indeed.

Now I have to wait for some new composer to write something else. Fortunately, new composers are writing stuff alla time.

Quite exciting.

Just by the way, I had an image of "walking through a 1,000-mile-wide desert" just now, and if I had enough food and water for that trek, it might turn out to be quite fun. OK, maybe 10 miles only.

I would probably not drop any glasses of water into the ocean, however, regardless.

Quote from: some guy on February 08, 2016, 09:16:10 AM
Anyway, we clearly do not have similar concepts of time at all.

Seems to me that we do not have similar concepts of pretty much anything at all.  :D

Quote from: Florestan on February 08, 2016, 10:46:57 AM
Seems to me that we do not have similar concepts of pretty much anything at all.  :D

It's true, huh?

Why, I just now noticed your tag from Mr. Luigi: "Music without feelings and passions is meaningless.."

That statement seems completely meaningless to me. For one, it's not music that has feelings and passions, it's people. And every person has feelings and passions. For two, some people are passionate about this music over here, some about that music over there. That is, any music will be something that someone is passionate about.

I made a very rude remark about a composer once, thinking that there would be no one who could possibly like his stuff. And after my remark, someone said, "I like his stuff. I think it's fine." Well, that cured me. No music, even what I consider to be obviously awful, fails for everyone.

Lol, people seriously don't think that music is sentient do they? :laugh:

Quote from: some guy on February 08, 2016, 12:14:54 PM
it's not music that has feelings and passions, it's people. And every person has feelings and passions.

IOW, music is written by people with feelings and passions, yet nothing of those feelings and passions is to be found in their music.

One can as well say, novels, dramas and poems are written by people with feelings and passions, yet nothing of those feelings and passions is to be found in their novels, dramas and poems.

Or, paintings and sculptures are made by people with feelings and passions, yet nothing of those feelings and passions is to be found in their paintings and sculptures.

More generally, although art is the work of people with feelings and passions and artists have historically been known to be among the most sensitive and passionate people, art in itself expresses not, and cannot express, any feelings and passions whatsoever. Whatever the purpose of art is, if indeed it has any at all, it is not and cannot be to express feelings and passions, albeit distilled and filtered through the personality of the artist and according to the aesthetics to which he subscribes.

How anyone can maintain such a view, which is contrary to everything that the history of art and the implicit or explicit testimony of all great artists teach us, is utterly incomprehensible to me.

To return to music, it is well documented that for Beethoven at a certain stage in his life composing meant utterly agonizing torture and anyone witnessing him in those moments could take him for a madman seized by a violent bout of fury. Yet you seem to think and believe, and would like me to think and believe as well, that the final musical product of those pains bears no trace whatsoever of the feelings and passions he was agonizing about, and that in fact all his tortures and pains were about whether the combinations of sounds he was putting to paper were interesting or not interesting enough...

Quote from: Florestan on February 09, 2016, 03:27:02 AM
IOW, music is written by people with feelings and passions, yet nothing of those feelings and passions is to be found in their music.

Music is written by people who experience sleepless nights, the odd bit of indigestion, periodic occasion to be impatient with one's fellow man, yet nothing of that sleeplessness, indigestion, or impatience may be found in the music.

Quote from: karlhenning on February 09, 2016, 04:05:45 AM
Music is written by people who experience sleepless nights, the odd bit of indigestion, periodic occasion to be impatient with one's fellow man, yet nothing of that sleeplessness, indigestion, or impatience may be found in the music.

Lame (and I am truly sorry having to write it, Karl, because I''m sure you know very well what I meant).

Quote from: Florestan on February 09, 2016, 04:10:57 AM
Lame

As you like.  I'm the guy who actually composes, and I cannot assure anyone of any definite, observable relationship between my feelings and passions, and the music I write.  So I'll shut up, and let the thinkers tell me what it's all about.

Quote from: karlhenning on February 09, 2016, 04:21:01 AM
I'm the guy who actually composes, and I cannot assure anyone of any definite, observable relationship between my feelings and passions, and the music I write. 

I was actually talking about Beethoven and others of his ilk. But your point about the difference between your music and theirs is certainly well taken.




(Sorry, Karl I really couldn't resist...  >:D  ;D :P)

OK, so we are capable of making simple correspondences between the emotional realities of a creator's life and the emotional content of that person's work.

How lovely for us.

But even with Beethoven, it's not that simple. Why, it's not really that simple with Tchaikovsky or Shostakovich or Pettersson, either.

Anyway, as you probably already know, your simplistic distortion of my point is not even close to anything I have ever actually said.

IOW, your "IOW" is a total crock.

Quote from: some guy on February 09, 2016, 06:43:01 AM
OK

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,25581.msg954105.html#msg954105 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,25581.msg954105.html#msg954105)

Quote from: Florestan on February 09, 2016, 03:27:02 AM
IOW, music is written by people with feelings and passions, yet nothing of those feelings and passions is to be found in their music.

Yes, but it's hard to draw a fixed correspondence between the circumstances of a composer's life and the emotional content of his music. IIRC, Stravinsky, for example, wrote the Symphony in C, one of his lighter works, during a low emotional ebb in his life after the passing of his wife and during the 2nd WW. Melville after writing Moby Dick: "I have written a very wicked book, yet I feel spotless as the lamb."

Quote from: karlhenning on February 09, 2016, 04:21:01 AM
As you like.  I'm the guy who actually composes, and I cannot assure anyone of any definite, observable relationship between my feelings and passions, and the music I write.  So I'll shut up, and let the thinkers tell me what it's all about.

Funny how whenever a composer responds to the romanticised view of emotions in music it suddenly seems all the more realistic. I agree with what you say here.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 09, 2016, 10:23:59 AM
Yes, but it's hard to draw a fixed correspondence between the circumstances of a composer's life and the emotional content of his music. IIRC, Stravinsky, for example, wrote the Symphony in C, one of his lighter works, during a low emotional ebb in his life after the passing of his wife and during the 2nd WW. Melville after writing Moby Dick: "I have written a very wicked book, yet I feel spotless as the lamb."

Emotions recollected, and subsequently expressed in the art...a not uncommon inspiration for art. It has nothing to do with a current emotional state, which, anyway, is never held for long. I go through many emotions during a typical day. I doubt composers are any different...well, except for Karl, who appears to be at an even keel 24/7  ;D

Sarge

Ives, by far.

But on the other hand I still haven´t really taken up the rather difficult challenge constituted by Janacek´s operas, even though he is otherwise one of my favourite composers. 

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 09, 2016, 11:55:49 AM
Emotions recollected, and subsequently expressed in the art...a not uncommon inspiration for art. It has nothing to do with a current emotional state, which, anyway, is never held for long. I go through many emotions during a typical day. I doubt composers are any different...well, except for Karl, who appears to be at an even keel 24/7  ;D

Sarge

Appearances, well . . . that would be telling  8)

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 09, 2016, 11:55:49 AM
Emotions recollected, and subsequently expressed in the art...a not uncommon inspiration for art.

I can confirm either end of this, the emotions recollected, and the art which is somehow the result.  The middle puzzles me;  as often as I have done it, it does not seem to me anything like a straightforward transaction.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 09, 2016, 11:55:49 AM..well, except for Karl, who appears to be at an even keel 24/7  ;D

Sarge

You mean, when he's not pounding a table or bursting out laughing so hard that the entire block is shaking?  8)

(* chortle *)

Quote from: karlhenning on February 09, 2016, 12:12:45 PM
I can confirm either end of this, the emotions recollected, and the art which is somehow the result.  The middle puzzles me;  as often as I have done it, it does not seem to me anything like a straightforward transaction.

Indeed, and memories of past emotions are very fickle things indeed, coloured more and more different as time passes.

Quote from: karlhenning on February 09, 2016, 12:08:32 PM
Appearances, well . . . that would be telling  8)

Quote from: karlhenning on February 09, 2016, 12:12:45 PM
I can confirm either end of this, the emotions recollected, and the art which is somehow the result.  The middle puzzles me;  as often as I have done it, it does not seem to me anything like a straightforward transaction.

I'm waiting for--eagerly anticipating, actually--a full-blown emotional work by you. I know you can do it!  And it would make Florestan so happy 8)

Sarge

Quote from: North Star on February 09, 2016, 12:13:00 PM
You mean, when he's not pounding a table or bursting out laughing so hard that the entire block is shaking?  8)

"chortle" (what other response can I possibly give).

Sarge

Well, you know . . . I consider Another Think Coming quite honestly emotional music.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 09, 2016, 12:15:48 PM
"chortle" (what other response can I possibly give).

Sarge

:-)

Quote from: Turner on February 09, 2016, 12:04:45 PM
Ives, by far.

But on the other hand I still haven´t really taken up the rather difficult challenge constituted by Janacek´s operas, even though he is otherwise one of my favourite composers.

You've got to hear Kata Kabanova. One of my favorite operas and I'm not a big fan of the genre.

Quote from: Mirror Image on February 09, 2016, 06:22:24 PM
You've got to hear Kata Kabanova. One of my favorite operas and I'm not a big fan of the genre.

Yeah, I´ve got the Mackerras recording and another one with orchestral excerpts, so at least the foundation for some focused listening is there :).

It was Janáček who got me "into" opera. That is, I liked Janáček, a lot. But the amount of music that's not opera is not very much. Coupla hours or so. With most other composers, there are plenty of symphonies and concertos and chamber works to keep one occupied quite nicely without ever listening to any operas. Dvořák, for instance, thought of himself as an opera composer, but there's so much other stuff--I must have been in my forties before I ever heard even Rusalka.

With Janáček, there's not so much choice. If you really like Janáček, you eventually have to listen to some operas if you want to hear any more Janáček. Fortunately, his operas are all pretty cool. And Káťa is certainly a most delightful work.

But once I was snagged, I started listening to other people's operas. Berlioz was next. Then Prokofiev and Shostakovich and Dvořák. And so forth. What a huge world the Janáček operas opened up for me. Eventually, I started buying operas by people I had never even heard of before. Kutavičius was the first: Lokys. Wow. That one's a stunner, to be sure. My first taste of the Lithuanian brand of minimalism. (Which was, of course, only one example of several varieties of minimalism from that area.) And that led to me visiting Lietuva (Vilniaus), hearing more pieces by Kutavičius, meeting Kutavičius (he is lovely, what I imagine Karl being like in 30 or 40 years :)), and falling in love with Lietuva.

What fun!!

Quote from: some guy on February 10, 2016, 12:25:53 AM
It was Janáček who got me "into" opera. That is, I liked Janáček, a lot. But the amount of music that's not opera is not very much. Coupla hours or so.

In the interest of truth, it must be said that Janacek wrote at least 11-12 hours of non-operatic music, maybe close to 13 hours or more.

Examples:
Decca 5CD set = 6 hours
supplementary orchestral = at least 2 hours
choral works, folk songs = at least 2 hours
supplementary piano works = 1/2 hour
supplementary vocal works, cantatas etc. = at least 1 hour

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 09, 2016, 11:55:49 AM
Emotions recollected, and subsequently expressed in the art...a not uncommon inspiration for art. It has nothing to do with a current emotional state, which, anyway, is never held for long.

Of course. Besides, one does not need strictly biographical events to feel something. Verdi led a pretty bourgeois existence yet the depth of feelings and the intensity of passions in his music could not have come but from someone who experienced them. If I were "Josquin des Prez" I would say that this is the mark of genius. I am not, though, so I will content myself with agreeing.

Quote from: Turner on February 09, 2016, 09:38:32 PM
Yeah, I´ve got the Mackerras recording and another one with orchestral excerpts, so at least the foundation for some focused listening is there :).

Sounds good to me. 8)

Quote from: Turner on February 10, 2016, 12:43:09 AM
In the interest of truth, it must be said that Janacek wrote at least 11-12 hours of non-operatic music, maybe close to 13 hours or more.

Examples:
Decca 5CD set = 6 hours
supplementary orchestral = at least 2 hours
choral works, folk songs = at least 2 hours
supplementary piano works = 1/2 hour
supplementary vocal works, cantatas etc. = at least 1 hour

;D

Quote from: Florestan on February 10, 2016, 03:16:38 AMVerdi led a pretty bourgeois existence yet the depth of feelings and the intensity of passions in his music could not have come but from someone who experienced them.

You're not one of those "de Vere wrote Shakespeare's plays" types, are you? :laugh:

Anyway, so many things seem to have gotten turned around somehow--you know, like music being a language instead of the much more sensible (and obvious) language being quite musical--and here's another one, I think. Feelings and passions being in the music instead of in the humans who listen to music. Oh, and the humans who make the music.

Of course, some music is quite remarkably good at eliciting emotions from those humans. The problem as I see it with focussing on emotions and on emotional content is that that is so often the chief reason for rejecting new music, "new" being a condition of unfamiliarity, at first, and hence not as good at elicitation as the more familiar stuff. Besides, humans are emotional creatures--you may have noticed it, yourself--and can make emotional responses to all sorts of things: clouds, kittens, romantic movies, advertisements, English landscape paintings, little kids with unusually large eyes, the list is extensive, and it includes music by Webern, Xenakis, Karkowski, and Sachiko M.

Here's a wee anecdote that I've retailed before, so apologies to those for whom it is old hat: When I hear Prokofiev's Eugene Onegin, there is one bit that seems impossibly melancholy to me. I can tear up just thinking about it. But what about Prokofiev's purpose, as expressed by the dramatic situation? Well, in the drama, it's where Onegin is singing about how inexpressibly jejune girls are, how bored he is with them.

This is a tune that Prokofiev used again, Eugene Onegin being a treasure trove of mineable music for him, in his comic opera The Betrothal in a Monastery, where the tune is now accompanying the words that it's a great privilege to serve a beautiful woman.

Two very different "meanings" for the same tune, neither of them even close to the almost despair that I feel from the music.

Indeed, I think the whole phenomenon of a composer recycling music in different contexts needs to be a part of any sensible discussion of meaning in music. But I think lots of things....