I am interested in reading if you have experienced an initial ho-hum, incomprehension, or even dislike toward a work, but then later you wondered how you could ever have had such a reaction!
When I was very young I found a recording of Schoenberg's Pelleas und Melisande at the library, and decided to give it a shot based on Schoenberg's Mahler connection. The work made no sense to me: I was something of a prodigy in music at the time, and could not understand why I could follow a Bruckner symphony, or Beethoven's Opus 111, but not Pelleas und Melisande. It gnawed my brain, for I knew that History had given Schoenberg a rightful place, and did not want to conclude that the problem lay with him! 0:)
A few months later I listened to the work again: Everything fell into place! And it became one of my favorite works! An "Aha!" moment came after weeks of perhaps subconscious mulling of what I had heard.
And I can pose the question the other way: which works did you initially embrace with great enthusiasm, but then decided for whatever reason to divorce yourself from? :o
Long list of works which didn't grab me the first listen, which I later came to treasure.
Including (but not limited to):
Shostakovich Fourth Symphony
Nielsen Symphonies
Vaughan Williams Symphonies
Prokofiev Symphony-Concerto for Cello and Orchestra
O, most of the composers in the beginning I could not approach and later on one by one they came to me.
I started with Chopin and then Brahms, and that was it. Bruckner/Mahler/Shostakovich/ to name a few were not palatable to me.
Took me ten years before I touched another composer outside the Chopin/Brahms realm.
Quote from: Harry on May 02, 2007, 05:33:52 AM
O, most of the composers in the beginning I could not approach and later on one by one they came to me.
I started with Chopin and then Brahms, and that was it. Bruckner/Mahler/Shostakovich/ to name a few were not palatable to me.
Took me ten years before I touched another composer outside the Chopin/Brahms realm.
Have you stepped outside to another, even more radical realm? Webern? Messiaen? Andrew Lloyd Webber? :o
Quote from: Cato on May 02, 2007, 05:46:13 AM
Have you stepped outside to another, even more radical realm? Webern? Messiaen? Andrew Lloyd Webber? :o
No never, but Pettersson/Krenek/Hartmann/ and some more are the most radical step I ever take.
After 35 years of listening, Webern or Messiaen are still no go area.
Quote from: Harry on May 02, 2007, 05:50:36 AM
No never, but Pettersson/Krenek/Hartmann and some more are the most radical step I ever take.
After 35 years of listening, Webern or Messiaen are still no go area.
Karl Amadeus Hartmann was an instant fave! I remember coming across the DGG recording of the
Symphony #8 with Kubelik conducting, when I was in high school 40 years ago or so. There was no gestation period needed for understanding it.
But by that time I had already embraced the New Musical Trinity of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern! Not to mention their Russian counterparts of Scriabin, Stravinsky, and Prokofiev!
"Rejected, then embraced" happens to me fairly often, and from this come good reasons to be at least a little skeptical of initial reactions. My favorite example is Verdi's Falstaff, and walking out at intermission of a concert performance of it some 20 years ago. :-[ My friend wasn't enjoying it either (I found out later) and she and I were hungry, and when she suggested we adjourn for margaritas... ;)
So fast forward: it is now one of my favorite operas. (As a matter of fact, I'm seeing it next week in Philadelphia.) How to explain this? After 20 years of listening to many different things, I am a more patient listener, and try not to judge a work based on criteria that the work cannot possibly meet. (John Adams will never be Schoenberg, and vice versa.) Further, I now hear Falstaff differently from other Verdi works, so my expectations and satisfaction are correspondingly different as well. (e.g., Falstaff is not La Traviata, nor is it Otello.)
I haven't had much experience liking something and having it turn sour, although I often experience overload or saturation, i.e., listening to a piece too often and then needing a break from it. But after a suitable "time off," I return to the score with pleasure.
--Bruce
On being skeptical of initial musical reactions: given the story by Bruce above on Verdi's Falstaff, one wonders at the complexity of the human earmotional system. How much did appetites - of various kinds apparently! 0:) - interfere with listening to the opera?
I often have heard people comment: "I don't like classical music, because I just want to hear something that relaxes me, or is just mindless fun, I don't want anything heavy," etc. The everyday stress of modern life might seem to be a factor against serous music.
But for those who have accepted classical music, I wonder if everyday stress does not cause perhaps these initial rejections. And then under restful conditions, the work is better appreciated.
Is one more open-eared in the autumn or spring, in the morning or on weekends? Since most concerts are at night, I do wonder if fatigue from the day's activities does not interfere with the open-earedness of the audience, when something "difficult" or just new is programmed. Thus if one hears the same work, which one at first rejected, at a different time under different circumstances, then comes the "Hey! This is really good!" reaction.
I do not believe I am moody like that, but... 8)
I found a similar challenge, Cato with the music of Debussy. Much of what prevented me from enjoying his works for solo piano, was my absolute insistence after listening to copious amounts of Haydn and Mozart, that great music must contain beautiful tonal melodies. I simply had to put down my paradigm for great music, and I could see the genius in Debussy and others. Music lacking in memorable melodies or complicated structures, could still be quite lovely. This discovery allowed me to move past the melodious High-Classical composers and into Romantics and 20th Century Music. Yet, the struggle continues. Minimalism still fails to strike a serious chord in my heart. :)
Many interesting points to ponder, Cato, related to stress and time of day of listening. I have heard similar comments, and it makes me wonder if people shy away from "difficult" books or films, for example, because they want something "relaxing"? Probably the answer is "yes."
And yes, other appetites sometimes interfere. Another example, also operatic: the first time I saw Berg's Lulu at the Met, I didn't do my homework, and by the time the second intermission rolled around at 11:00pm, with another hour to go, I was dead-tired and hungry, so I left, not knowing what I was missing. (Another opera that is now one of my favorites.)
In our contemporary world, I do appreciate knowing approximately what my time commitment is likely to be, e.g., notes in concert programs that include the approximate length of the pieces. Even as an experienced listener, I would like to know the difference between Morton Feldman's Coptic Light (c. 30 minutes) vs. his Second String Quartet (c. six hours!). :D
--Bruce
Quote from: Steve on May 02, 2007, 10:19:15 AM
I found a similar challenge, Cato with the music of Debussy. Much of what prevented me from enjoying his works for solo piano, was my absolute insistence after listening to copious amounts of Haydn and Mozart, that great music must contain beautiful tonal melodies. I simply had to put down my paradigm for great music, and I could see the genius in Debussy and others. Music lacking in memorable melodies or complicated structures, could still be quite lovely. This discovery allowed me to move past the melodious High-Classical composers and into Romantics and 20th Century Music. Yet, the struggle continues. Minimalism still fails to strike a serious chord in my heart. :)
That phenomenon occurred with me and jazz: I could tell there was something worth hearing in it, but I just couldn't wrap my head around it because it functions according to different paradigms than most of the classical and rock music I had been used to. Eventually it clicked, and now it makes perfect sense. When you take those leaps into radically different (or seemingly radically different) artistic territory, it's sort of like learning a foreign language.
What Harry is not telling you about is his enjoyment of Lutoslawski! 8)
Quote from: MrOsa on May 02, 2007, 11:04:46 AM
What Harry is not telling you about is his enjoyment of Lutoslawski! 8)
True true, you have the memory of a elephant my friend!
But I admit, that is also a fine discovery, thanks to the friendly people at GMG. :)
And I said some more, in my original post.....................
Many thanks for the fascinating replies!
Steve wrote:
QuoteMinimalism still fails to strike a serious chord in my heart.
It has the "melodiousness" (again and again and again) peple seek, yet it is the repetitious simplicity which for many people causes
incomprehension!
Looking at some of its roots, in meditative chant for exampe, this becomes easier to understand, but acceptance depends on how the composer manipulates the method. John Adams provided me with an "Okay" (if not quite an "Aha!") moment with
Harmonielehre, although I always had to admit the perfection of
Koyanisqaatsi by Glass for the movie it is meant to accompany.
bhodges wrote:
QuoteEven as an experienced listener, I would like to know the difference between Morton Feldman's Coptic Light (c. 30 minutes) vs. his Second String Quartet (c. six hours!).
Well, if a 17-hour music drama can be comprehended, what's a little 6-hour string quartet ? ;D
Whoops, the spirit of
Stockhausen 0:) just reminded me of his 30+-hour
Licht cycle!!!
Which is awaiting some people! >:D
Will people embrace such a work whole-heartedly, even if they don't live in Kürten, the Musical Center of the Cosmos? Time or Eternity will tell!
Graziosos wrote:
QuoteI could tell there was something worth hearing in it, but I just couldn't wrap my head around it because it functions according to different paradigms than most of the classical and rock music I had been used to. Eventually it clicked, and now it makes perfect sense. When you take those leaps into radically different (or seemingly radically different) artistic territory, it's sort of like learning a foreign language.
Precisely my experience with jazz: Peter Schickele, when he had his radio show, once remarked on the similarities between experimental jazz and composers like Webern and Boulez. You need new ears and attitudes.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 02, 2007, 05:29:00 AM
Vaughan Williams Symphonies
Very applicable here as well . . . . . . .
As I grew up with classical music from Bach through Shostakovich, I was comfortable with much of the mainstream repertoire from an early age.
So for me most of my initial false rejections were of 20th century music. I didn't like Prokofiev's 4th piano concerto for a long time, now it's my favourite of the five. I also hated Nono when I first heard his music, and he's now one of my favourite post-war composers.
I didn't like any Stravinsky beyond Petrushka and Symphonie des Psaumes until I tried to compose for a while. After a few months of playing around with jerky, uneven rhythms, I started to listen to all the Stravinsky I'd previously rejected, particularly from his middle and late periods.
Back when I was in my crusading modernist phase (a long time ago) I wrongly rejected Part and Kancheli. Nowadays, though I may not be a big fan of either's recent work, I recognize the blazing talent at work in their best pieces.
Oddly, there was a time lasting several years when I hated Tchaikovsky's Fifth Symphony and Beethoven's Violin Concerto, fervently.
That time is over. :)
Quote from: edward on May 02, 2007, 12:38:24 PM
As I grew up with classical music from Bach through Shostakovich, I was comfortable with much of the mainstream repertoire from an early age.
So for me most of my initial false rejections were of 20th century music. I didn't like Prokofiev's 4th piano concerto for a long time, now it's my favourite of the five. I also hated Nono when I first heard his music, and he's now one of my favourite post-war composers.
I didn't like any Stravinsky beyond Petrushka and Symphonie des Psaumes until I tried to compose for a while. After a few months of playing around with jerky, uneven rhythms, I started to listen to all the Stravinsky I'd previously rejected, particularly from his middle and late periods.
Back when I was in my crusading modernist phase (a long time ago) I wrongly rejected Part and Kancheli. Nowadays, though I may not be a big fan of either's recent work, I recognize the blazing talent at work in their best pieces.
Except for the first paragraph (practically no classical music to speak of when growing up) my experiences were roughly the same. When first becoming acquainted with classical music I rejected practically all of the modern stuff. Then, I had a "crusading modernist phase" of my own. I'm striving to be more sensible nowadays but of course that is not as easy as it sounds... ::)
Maciek
Oh, and I disliked most opera and vocal for a very long time. A couple of years ago this changed and currently that's about 50% of everything I listen to! :o (Maybe I'm not as sensible as I thought... ::))
Moniuszko (who is essentially an opera and song composer) is a current favorite, I keep listening and re-listening to his stuff, while until very recently I disliked almost everything he had written and thought him a primitive composer (how the thought could have ever crossed my mind is now completely beyond me :-[)!!!
Quote from: MrOsa on May 02, 2007, 01:57:55 PM
Except for the first paragraph (practically no classical music to speak of when growing up) my experiences were roughly the same. When first becoming acquainted with classical music I rejected practically all of the modern stuff. Then, I had a "crusading modernist phase" of my own. I'm striving to be more sensible nowadays but of course that is not as easy as it sounds... ::)
Maciek
(My emphasis above)
Does that come from a certain saturation in the traditional works, or a
maturation in yourself?
Or are both involved? I would think the latter, but it probably depends on the person, their age, etc.
Quote from: Cato on May 02, 2007, 11:53:23 AM
Many thanks for the fascinating replies!
Steve wrote:
It has the "melodiousness" (again and again and again) peple seek, yet it is the repetitious simplicity which for many people causes incomprehension!
Looking at some of its roots, in meditative chant for exampe, this becomes easier to understand, but acceptance depends on
how the composer manipulates the method. John Adams provided me with an "Okay" (if not quite an "Aha!") moment with
Harmonielehre, although I always had to admit the perfection of
Koyanisqaatsi by Glass for the movie it is meant to accompany.
Perhaps, I simply have not come across the appropriate piece. That, of course, is not something to be ruled out. As to you assertion that 'minimalism' can be melodious, when I use the term 'melody' I am referring to a recurring structure
occuring within a composition, not simply a repetative series of notes. Melody, here being a structure, which provides a sense of lyricism to a instrumental work. I simply haven't found 'melody' in minimalism. That's not to say that I haven't found repitative elements.
That's not to say that I can't appreicate anything without tonal melody- but I generally like some complex muscical form to hatch on to.
Quote from: Cato on May 02, 2007, 02:16:40 PM
(My emphasis above)
Does that come from a certain saturation in the traditional works, or a maturation in yourself?
Or are both involved? I would think the latter, but it probably depends on the person, their age, etc.
I don't really think it has anything to do with maturation, unfortunately. :-\ It's more like taking the "excitement and elation of discovery" part too far. You know, you say to yourself: hey, this is great! why didn't I like it before? And that's where it should end. But you go one step further: well, I was stupid not to appreciate it until now. But, boy, am I glad I do because now I know that modern music that doesn't sound "modern" obviously sucks... There's nothing mature about that - it's quite childish, I'd say. But it does pass, eventually - that's the good (and probably more mature) part. ;D
But maybe it was different with Edward. I don't know, we'll have to wait for his thoughts...
I think a lot of it is to do with the "shock of the new". To me, here was a music that sounded quite unlike the classical music I'd grown up with, and it was great. I wanted to hear a lot more like it, and tended to dismiss a lot of the more "radically conservative" new music as it wasn't fitting in with what I was looking for at the time.
Once I'd discovered more of the really modern repertoire, I was more sated and able to look at other areas (early music, in particular, but also some of the new music I'd previously rejected).
I also credit the music of Morton Feldman with teaching me to love the late Schubert sonatas. There's a slightly odd one for you. :)
Composers I was less enthusiastic in the beginning but have warmed up later:
Mozart
For some time I considered his music "artsy-craftsy". Listening to his concertos opened my eyes.
Schubert
I don't even know why I rejected him. I still haven't heard much of his music but he was clearly a remarkable composer.
Prokofiev
I didn't care about him first, I just ignored him. lately I have become much more interested of his music.
Composers I was enthusiastic in the beginning but do not care much anymore:
Sibelius
I really enjoyed his symphonies before I started exploring classical music seriously. I just found composers so much better...
Chopin
I found his piano concertos mindblowing before exploring classical music seriously. Last time I listened them I was shocked how mediocre they sound.
Tchaikovsky
I call him the door into classical music. His music is easy and seductive but has little to offer for advanced listeners. I got bored of his music fast.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 02, 2007, 04:57:35 PM
Composers I was less enthusiastic in the beginning but have warmed up later:
Mozart
For some time I considered his music "artsy-craftsy". Listening to his concertos opened my eyes.
Schubert
I don't even know why I rejected him. I still haven't heard much of his music but he was clearly a remarkable composer.
Prokofiev
I didn't care about him first, I just ignored him. lately I have become much more interested of his music.
Composers I was enthusiastic in the beginning but do not care much anymore:
Sibelius
I really enjoyed his symphonies before I started exploring classical music seriously. I just found composers so much better...
Chopin
I found his piano concertos mindblowing before exploring classical music seriously. Last time I listened them I was shocked how mediocre they sound.
Tchaikovsky
I call him the door into classical music. His music is easy and seductive but has little to offer for advanced listeners. I got bored of his music fast.
Chopin, really? What besides the concerti are you familiar with? His
solo piano demands repeated listening. I own his entire oeuvre almost twice over...
Oh for one more Polonaise!
Quote from: Steve on May 02, 2007, 07:25:50 PM
Chopin, really? What besides the concerti are you familiar with?
Scherzi/Impromptus/Allegro de concert - Idil Biret
Trio, Op. 8/Polonaise brillante, Op. 3/Sonata for Cello & Piano, Op. 65 - Emanual Ax, Pamela Frank & Yo-Yo Ma
I still like Chopin's music but not as much as I used to. It's not that versatile.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 02, 2007, 08:13:45 PM
Scherzi/Impromptus/Allegro de concert - Idil Biret
Trio, Op. 8/Polonaise brillante, Op. 3/Sonata for Cello & Piano, Op. 65 - Emanual Ax, Pamela Frank & Yo-Yo Ma
I still like Chopin's music but not as much as I used to. It's not that versatile.
My is that
all.?
versatile: able to adapt to various functions.
Sorry, for the semantics, but how could that apply to an inanimate composition? :)
Quote from: Steve on May 02, 2007, 08:31:55 PM
My is that all.?
versatile: able to adapt to various functions.
Sorry, for the semantics, but how could that apply to an inanimate composition? :)
Our friend 71 Db, has strong opinions! He is a freethinker, and therefore he allows himself this privilege. ;D
However what he says about those three composers is his personal opinion, motivated by reasons for us unfathomable.
I take strong issue first with his opinion about Tchaikovsky, which is absolute nonsense, and that's me Freethinking also!
If he gets bored, well oke, but to say that T music has little to offer for advanced listeners is balderdash. And boring.
Chopin had scored his pianoconcertos badly yes, all true, but he has written history by the rest of his oeuvre.
The piano part however is as excellent as the rest, just the Orchestral part sucks a bit.
About Sibelius well as a Freethinker he is entitled to his opinion, but for me Sibelius belongs to the best what music has to offer.
No offense meant 71Db. :)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 02, 2007, 08:13:45 PM
Scherzi/Impromptus/Allegro de concert - Idil Biret
Trio, Op. 8/Polonaise brillante, Op. 3/Sonata for Cello & Piano, Op. 65 - Emanual Ax, Pamela Frank & Yo-Yo Ma
I still like Chopin's music but not as much as I used to. It's not that versatile.
Common my friend, it is not so versatile for you, for you think that Chopin's music is easy to understand.
It takes time and effort to hear, that Chopin's music is really a mirror of the human soul, in all its perfection and inperfections.
Quote from: Steve on May 02, 2007, 07:25:50 PM
Chopin, really? What besides the concerti are you familiar with? His solo piano demands repeated listening. I own his entire oeuvre almost twice over...
And which cycles may that be
Steve? :)
Sometimes an initial bad impression can be modified by further auditions or by different interpretations.
I heard Berg's Violin Concerto for the first time in a concert, and I didn't like it. Later I heard the version of Perlman and Ozawa and I still didn't like. I couldn't see its form, it seemed to me a long and amorphous deploration.
Until I heard Suk and Ancerl, and suddenly I understood the structure of the work and, from then, I could enjoy its beauty.
It is very difficult to me to enjoy an work when I cannot understand how it is made, how to follow the connection of the different moments. This applies in special to long works.
That is, perhaps, the reason because, until today, I couldn't enjoy Schönberg's Pélleas et Melisande.
Quote from: edward on May 02, 2007, 03:00:58 PM
I also credit the music of Morton Feldman with teaching me to love the late Schubert sonatas. There's a slightly odd one for you. :)
Fascinating,
Edward!
Quote from: 71 dB on May 02, 2007, 04:57:35 PM
Tchaikovsky
I call him the door into classical music. His music is easy and seductive but has little to offer for advanced listeners. I got bored of his music fast.
Oh, even allowing for us just speaking raw opinion, I won't that one slide.
Most would account me an "advanced listener" rather than otherwise, and I find that
Tchaikovsky has a great deal to offer.
I may even go so far as to say, I consider that
Tchaikovsky has at least as much to offer me as, oh,
Elgar ;D
Quote from: Harry on May 03, 2007, 12:24:00 AM
Our friend 71 Db, has strong opinions! He is a freethinker, and therefore he allows himself this privilege. ;D
Oh, he certainly has strong opinions,
Harry.
But the mere fact that he repeatedly calls himself a freethinker, does not make it so.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 02, 2007, 04:57:35 PM
Prokofiev
I didn't care about him first, I just ignored him. lately I have become much more interested of his music.
oh yeah! 8)
what have you been getting into lately?
Quote from: karlhenning on May 03, 2007, 04:04:20 AM
Oh, he certainly has strong opinions, Harry.
But the mere fact that he repeatedly calls himself a freethinker, does not make it so.
Indeed my friend, that is true.
For me the definition of a freethinker is something else too, but I was referring to what 71 Db tells us, and not what I think.
Slight difference here I think. :)
Most aptly observed, Harry.
From the vice-versa folder . . . I was ga-ga over John Adams's The Wound-Dresser when first I heard it; but it did not wear well with me over time.
Even more than ga-ga, I was bowled over by Steve Reich's The Desert Music at first (it is probably significant in this post's regard, that I am a great fan of both Whitman and Carlos Williams). Maybe about three years after my initial infatuation with the piece, I lost sonic patience with it. Then, sometime around the past year, I revisited the piece; I find that, overall, I like it again, but with nothing like that initial ardor, long ago . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on May 03, 2007, 05:35:04 AM
From the vice-versa folder . . . I was ga-ga over John Adams's The Wound-Dresser when first I heard it; but it did not wear well with me over time.
Even more than ga-ga, I was bowled over by Steve Reich's The Desert Music at first (it is probably significant in this post's regard, that I am a great fan of both Whitman and Carlos Williams). Maybe about three years after my initial infatuation with the piece, I lost sonic patience with it. Then, sometime around the past year, I revisited the piece; I find that, overall, I like it again, but with nothing like that initial ardor, long ago . . . .
I had very much the same initial reaction to
The Wound-Dresser, but it hasn't worn well for me either.
A work I had a very poor initial reaction to was Carter's Piano Concerto: it just seemed so unremittingly dense that I could get nothing from it. Then I revisited it in the midst of the post-9/11 constant media babble and the whole work made total sense--the soloist a single voice trying to hold herself together in the midst of chaos and brutality. It remains my single favourite Carter work today.
I am sorry about my remarks about
Sibelius,
Tchaikovsky and
Chopin. I can't help it their music does not mean to me what it used to. I don't have problems with Tchaikovsky and Chopin. I have problems with Sibelius, I dislike his use of orchestra and the national romantism.
Quote from: greg on May 03, 2007, 04:52:00 AM
oh yeah! 8)
what have you been getting into lately?
Piano Concertos 1, 3 & 4
Quote from: 71 dB on May 03, 2007, 06:50:37 AM
I am sorry about my remarks about Sibelius, Tchaikovsky and Chopin. I can't help it their music does not mean to me what it used to.
That's all right, and especially when you put it like that. It is comments that take your experience of the music, as somehow a property of the music — like that ghastly remark about
Pyotr Ilyich supposedly having "little to offer for advanced listeners" — to which you will find that others, with very different experience of the same music, will take sharp objection, I believe.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 03, 2007, 06:54:11 AM
That's all right, and especially when you put it like that. It is comments that take your experience of the music, as somehow a property of the music — like that ghastly remark about Pyotr Ilyich supposedly having "little to offer for advanced listeners" — to which you will find that others, with very different experience of the same music, will take sharp objection, I believe.
Tchaikovsky for the advanced listener:
The Manfred Symphony,
Hamlet, and
Francesca da Rimini!
71db: Dude, don't worry! I will wager that some day you will return to Chopin, Sibelius, and Tchaikovsky with different ears, and will find new things there because of your deeper advancement into Music.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 03, 2007, 06:50:37 AM
I am sorry about my remarks about Sibelius, Tchaikovsky and Chopin. I can't help it their music does not mean to me what it used to. I don't have problems with Tchaikovsky and Chopin. I have problems with Sibelius, I dislike his use of orchestra and the national romantism.
Piano Concertos 1, 3 & 4
excellent stuff!!!
and make sure you don't forget #2, it may be found swimming around somewhere in your toilet
Quote from: Cato on May 03, 2007, 07:06:45 AM
Tchaikovsky for the advanced listener: The Manfred Symphony, Hamlet, and Francesca da Rimini!
71db: Dude, don't worry! I will wager that some day you will return to Chopin, Sibelius, and Tchaikovsky with different ears, and will find new things there because of your deeper advancement into Music.
I do agree. Perhaps a new, exciting recording of something you failed to connect with earlier?
Connection with a composer's emotional/musical language I think is key to embracing any of their works. Some works I've heard I could tell were very well written, but I did not understand/connect with what the composer was trying to convey, and thus had very little interest.
Quote from: Cato on May 03, 2007, 07:06:45 AM
Tchaikovsky for the advanced listener: The Manfred Symphony, Hamlet, and Francesca da Rimini!
I have never heard these works. Back then I didn't have this forum to advice me. Thanks!
Quote from: greg on May 03, 2007, 07:55:11 AM
excellent stuff!!!
and make sure you don't forget #2, it may be found swimming around somewhere in your toilet
Toilet? ???
I need to buy 2 & 5 (Naxos)
In a sense our friend 71Db adds lush colors to the forum, and therefore we must be grateful. :)
Right? Its one of his assets I like most.
Quote from: Harry on May 04, 2007, 02:25:52 AM
In a sense our friend 71Db adds lush colors to the forum, and therefore we must be grateful. :)
Right? Its one of his assets I like most.
That's a nice compliment Harry! I appreciate it!
Btw: dB, not Db, DB or db. ;)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 02, 2007, 04:57:35 PM
Tchaikovsky
I call him the door into classical music. His music is easy and seductive but has little to offer for advanced listeners. I got bored of his music fast.
You assume you're an advanced listener in a position to judge. What makes you say that? I find that no matter how long I've listened to, played, and studied music, I'm always learning more, always becoming a better listener, always opening up to new musical experiences and reconsidering older ones. It's not like you can simply listen for X number of years and reach the "advanced" stage where you're suddenly an expert with infallible taste and extraordinary insight.
And getting bored with a piece can be as much a reflection of the listener as the music.
Quote from: Cato on May 02, 2007, 05:26:11 AM
I am interested in reading if you have experienced an initial ho-hum, incomprehension, or even dislike toward a work, but then later you wondered how you could ever have had such a reaction!
When I was very young I found a recording of Schoenberg's Pelleas und Melisande at the library, and decided to give it a shot based on Schoenberg's Mahler connection. The work made no sense to me: I was something of a prodigy in music at the time, and could not understand why I could follow a Bruckner symphony, or Beethoven's Opus 111, but not Pelleas und Melisande. It gnawed my brain, for I knew that History had given Schoenberg a rightful place, and did not want to conclude that the problem lay with him! 0:)
A few months later I listened to the work again: Everything fell into place! And it became one of my favorite works! An "Aha!" moment came after weeks of perhaps subconscious mulling of what I had heard.
And I can pose the question the other way: which works did you initially embrace with great enthusiasm, but then decided for whatever reason to divorce yourself from? :o
I listened several times to Stockhausen's
Lichter-Wasser without any success or penetration into the thing, and had pretty much decided that it might be (--horrors!--) one of his duff pieces; then one day I was out painting the picket fence, of all things, and put it in for background music. One more chance, as it were. (Headphones, of course -- around here they'd call you the antichrist if something like Stockhausen came from your vicinity. I had to live down the name "Bela Lugosi" because I played Schoenberg's
Variations on a Recitative where others could hear it...) Anyway, as I painted I suddenly realized that
Lichter-Wasser had chosen that moment to reveal itself; the formulae unfolded in order, the melodies obvious, the form of the piece came clear.
It's now one of my recommended Intro-to-Stockhausen works.
Quote from: Grazioso on May 04, 2007, 03:22:23 AM
You assume you're an advanced listener in a position to judge. What makes you say that? I find that no matter how long I've listened to, played, and studied music, I'm always learning more, always becoming a better listener, always opening up to new musical experiences and reconsidering older ones. It's not like you can simply listen for X number of years and reach the "advanced" stage where you're suddenly an expert with infallible taste and extraordinary insight.
And getting bored with a piece can be as much a reflection of the listener as the music.
What I find disturbing on this forum is that fact that it is a crime to criticize any established composer but mocking less known composers is okay. ??? All Tchaikovsky works are supreme masterpieces and if the listener does not see that it is listener's fault. On the other hand, it's okay to totally ignore ALL works by such composers as Dittersdorf, Taneyev, Wolfrum, Bruhns, Fasch, Hasse, Torke and Rosenmüller to mention few. I apply exactly the same critisism to ALL composers because that's the right thing to do! I am not a fasist.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 04, 2007, 04:05:11 AM
What I find disturbing on this forum is that fact that it is a crime to criticize any established composer but mocking less known composers is okay.
Well, if you're spooked by strawmen, that's your affair, laddie.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 04, 2007, 04:05:11 AM
What I find disturbing on this forum is that fact that it is a crime to criticize any established composer but mocking less known composers is okay. ??? All Tchaikovsky works are supreme masterpieces and if the listener does not see that it is listener's fault. On the other hand, it's okay to totally ignore ALL works by such composers as Dittersdorf, Taneyev, Wolfrum, Bruhns, Fasch, Hasse, Torke and Rosenmüller to mention few. I apply exactly the same critisism to ALL composers because that's the right thing to do! I am not a fasist.
Either way, your comments should be substantiated with some justification. No one is preventing you from airing your preferences, but don't be alarmed when many people disagree. Attacking a canonical composer is difficult because vast numbers of people appreciate his work. While, you might believe that Chopin's music doesn't suit you, you have to understand that its in the standard repoitoire for a reason. While my opinion is no more valid than your's, by no means will that mean that you will have many members here who agree with you. Their thoughts are predicated on their experiences just as your's are.
Never confuse dislike with mockery. I may not appreciate some composers as wholeheartedly as you do, but I would never consider mocking their contributions to music.
Quote from: Steve on May 04, 2007, 01:19:51 PM
Attacking a canonical composer is difficult because vast numbers of people appreciate his work. While, you might believe that Chopin's music doesn't suit you, you have to understand that its in the standard repoitoire for a reason.
Yep, the standard University of Chicago line - the market is always right.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 04, 2007, 01:24:26 PM
Yep, the standard University of Chicago line - the market is always right.
I believe you may have misinterpreted that quote. I simply meant that because it is in the repotoire, many people have come to appreciate it. I did not mean it to say that composers are in the canon because they are superior to others.
But, yes, on an unrelated note, the market is, indeed, always right :)
Quote from: Steve on May 04, 2007, 01:29:21 PM
I believe you may have misinterpreted that quote. I simply meant that because it is in the repotoire, many people have come to appreciate it. I did not mean it to say that composers are in the canon because they are superior to others.
But, yes, on an unrelated note, the market is, indeed, always right :)
Actually the canon is proof of how well markets work - the market in this sense being the collective wisdom of musicians and fans. Mozart really is better than Dittersdorf
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 04, 2007, 01:36:46 PM
Actually the canon is proof of how well markets work - the market in this sense being the collective wisdom of musicians and fans. Mozart really is better than Dittersdorf
I would agree with that point, but it's a far more contentious interpretation of my original post.
Bach Goldberg Variations
Schoenberg Piano and Violin Concertos
Mahler Second Symphony
Shostakovich Seventh Symphony
Prokofiev Violin Concerti
Brahms Symphonies
Quote from: Danny on May 04, 2007, 02:02:17 PM
Bach Goldberg Variations
Schoenberg Piano and Violin Concertos
Mahler Second Symphony
Shostakovich Seventh Symphony
Prokofiev Violin Concerti
Brahms Symphonies
My list is actually quite similar. I only recently began to appreciate Schoenberg. Now that I've crossed that bridge, I've been on a bit of a binge. :)
Quote from: Steve on May 04, 2007, 02:04:02 PM
My list is actually quite similar. I only recently began to appreciate Schoenberg. Now that I've crossed that bridge, I've been on a bit of a binge. :)
Hey, me too! I can't get enough of Arnold now! :o
I just purchased a great compilation on DG with Berg, Webern, and Schoenberg. Just a wonderful set. Any Schoenberg reccomendations, Danny?
Quote from: Steve on May 04, 2007, 02:29:03 PM
I just purchased a great compilation on DG with Berg, Webern, and Schoenberg. Just a wonderful set. Any Schoenberg reccomendations, Danny?
I assume that is the compilation with Karajan?
Jakobsleiter is always highly recommended!
Quote from: Cato on May 04, 2007, 06:04:40 PM
I assume that is the compilation with Karajan?
Jakobsleiter is always highly recommended!
Yes, it features HvK. Thanks for the recc. :)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 04, 2007, 04:05:11 AM
What I find disturbing on this forum is that fact that it is a crime to criticize any established composer but mocking less known composers is okay. ??? All Tchaikovsky works are supreme masterpieces and if the listener does not see that it is listener's fault. On the other hand, it's okay to totally ignore ALL works by such composers as Dittersdorf, Taneyev, Wolfrum, Bruhns, Fasch, Hasse, Torke and Rosenmüller to mention few. I apply exactly the same critisism to ALL composers because that's the right thing to do! I am not a fasist.
You conflate "holding an offbeat opinion" with "free thinking". Taste is not thought. If you don't like Tchaikovsky or whomever, no problem, but if you start making generalizations about the nature of his work on a classical music forum without supplying evidence, you're going to get called on it, if only to facilitate discussion instead of simple "I (dis)like X" posts.
And like Karl said, you're setting up a straw man. Maybe someone here does reflexively mock/ignore non-canonical composers and unthinkingly bow before the established "greats," but I haven't witnessed that, and I'm not one of them. I see rather the opposite, with a lot of enthusiasm here for exploring the byways of the classical music.
I both like, and mildly distrust, the market analogy, Steve & Steve; I do enjoy how you've both worked it here.
The 'market' offers sound enough evidence that, by now (with centuries of cultural absorption), it would be most peculiar to 'buck the market' and claim that (say) Dittersdorf were a greater composer than (or even, as great a composer as) Mozart. There's a case where the 'market' sustains a quasi "PepsiCo VS. Coca-Cola" comparison.
Across stylistic eras (and partly because a composer from 400 years ago has been part of the landscape to a degree impossible for a composer born 120 years ago), our musical market has less reliable tools for a comparison (unlike qualified metrics for comparing, to say at random, Caterpillar and Kimberley-Clark). Perhaps it were something eccentric to claim that (say) Elgar is a composer equally great to Mozart. Meanwhile, we know at least one virtual neighbor who will passionately aver that Elgar is not worthy to unlatch Dittersdorf's sandal 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 05, 2007, 06:21:30 AM
I both like, and mildly distrust, the market analogy, Steve & Steve; I do enjoy how you've both worked it here.
The 'market' offers sound enough evidence that, by now (with centuries of cultural absorption), it would be most peculiar to 'buck the market' and claim that (say) Dittersdorf were a greater composer than (or even, as great a composer as) Mozart. There's a case where the 'market' sustains a quasi "PepsiCo VS. Coca-Cola" comparison.
Across stylistic eras (and partly because a composer from 400 years ago has been part of the landscape to a degree impossible for a composer born 120 years ago), our musical market has less reliable tools for a comparison (unlike qualified metrics for comparing, to say at random, Caterpillar and Kimberley-Clark). Perhaps it were something eccentric to claim that (say) Elgar is a composer equally great to Mozart. Meanwhile, we know at least one virtual neighbor who will passionately aver that Elgar is not worthy to unlatch Dittersdorf's sandal 8)
I'm only waiting for his response,
Karl
Quote from: Steve on May 04, 2007, 01:19:51 PM
Either way, your comments should be substantiated with some justification. No one is preventing you from airing your preferences, but don't be alarmed when many people disagree. Attacking a canonical composer is difficult because vast numbers of people appreciate his work. While, you might believe that Chopin's music doesn't suit you, you have to understand that its in the standard repoitoire for a reason. While my opinion is no more valid than your's, by no means will that mean that you will have many members here who agree with you. Their thoughts are predicated on their experiences just as your's are.
Never confuse dislike with mockery. I may not appreciate some composers as wholeheartedly as you do, but I would never consider mocking their contributions to music.
I agree with you on this except that I want to bring up the idea that people tend to prefer already prefered things (imitation process). I think many people "force" themselves to like/prefer things others like too (feel of alliance). I think this happens if a person starts to listen music in early age. A young person doesn't have good judging ability. So, he/she starts to listen Beethoven and reads how good this composer was. The brain is programmed to prefer Beethoven and later this person has difficulties to realise Dittersdorf composer very good music too. It sounds non-Beethovenic and is declared inferior music for a stupid reason.
I started to listen to music when I was 18! Later I understood this was a good thing as I skipped all kind of naive things. I was old enough to have some judging ability. I treat all composet equally, they all have to earn my respect. Beethoven does not get bonus points and Dittersdorf is not ignored.
sometimes it may seem I mock some composers. I am only very critical. Generally all classical music is very good but I am very demanding. 95 % of all popular music is UTTER CRAP for me.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 04, 2007, 01:36:46 PM
Mozart really is better than Dittersdorf
Perhaps, but Dittersdorf does not enjoy the respect he deserves. Being second best doesn't mean you are bad. Listen to Dittersdorf's
Giob. It's fantastic, surely better music than many works by Mozart.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 05, 2007, 08:45:57 AM
I agree with you on this except that I want to bring up the idea that people tend to prefer already prefered things (imitation process). I think many people "force" themselves to like/prefer things others like too (feel of alliance). I think this happens if a person starts to listen music in early age. A young person doesn't have good judging ability. So, he/she starts to listen Beethoven and reads how good this composer was. The brain is programmed to prefer Beethoven and later this person has difficulties to realise Dittersdorf composer very good music too. It sounds non-Beethovenic and is declared inferior music for a stupid reason.
I started to listen to music when I was 18! Later I understood this was a good thing as I skipped all kind of naive things. I was old enough to have some judging ability. I treat all composet equally, they all have to earn my respect. Beethoven does not get bonus points and Dittersdorf is not ignored.
sometimes it may seem I mock some composers. I am only very critical. Generally all classical music is very good but I am very demanding. 95 % of all popular music is UTTER CRAP for me.
Yes, I do recall such a phenomenon from my Psychology course, but I must say, you still manage to fall into a hasty generalization fallacy. While that sort of "imitation" might be the cause some listener's proclivities, you say that "many" people here are guilty of this sort of thing. Where, Sir, is your evidence? I pointed out in my previous post, that canonical composers are generally appreciated by masses of people, and so calling them 'crap' will generally not sit to well here. I found that point to be rather uncontentious. Now, while you do agree about the mass support of canonical composers, you've invented a plausible explaination to account for it.
Your argument, if I understand correctly, refutes my market analogy, by accusing people of the inablility to make judgements about music for themselves. My friend, If that accusation has any ground whatsoever, you have failed to demonstrate it. You might have refuted my arguement with something along the lines of 'popularity is not a measure of greatness'. Now that argument could have weight. But, accusing people of being easily impressionable, simply does not. Especially, at this forum. Have you read the numerous, diverse, and intelligent responses on this board? This is a poor rhetorical scam on your part.
Quote from: Steve on May 05, 2007, 08:56:57 AM
Where, Sir, is your evidence?
Haydn, Beethoven and Mozart are
significantly more popular composers than Dittersdorf. The tiny difference in the quality of music can't explain this huge difference.
Quote from: Steve on May 05, 2007, 08:56:57 AMYour argument, if I understand correctly, refutes my market analogy, by accusing people of the inablility to make judgements about music for themselves.
Well, people are bad at making judgements about music! People have tons of fixations about how things should be done in music. If something is done differently, people freak out and call that music bad. Musicality is a by-product of communication skills and pretty useless in evolutionary point of view. It shows! Only the most musical people understand something.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 05, 2007, 09:12:25 AM
Haydn, Beethoven and Mozart are significantly more popular composers than Dittersdorf. The tiny difference in the quality of music can't explain this huge difference.
Well, people are bad at making judgements about music! People have tons of fixations about how things should be done in music. If something is done differently, people freak out and call that music bad. Musicality is a by-product of communication skills and pretty useless in evolutionary point of view. It shows! Only the most musical people understand something.
No, not what is your evidence of their popularity. The meaning of my statement was 'what is you evidence that we are being disingenuous.' That is not evidence! 'small difference in quality'!! Quality, is just another term here for preference which is entirely subjective. You might not appreciate Mozart as highly as I do, but that does not make my statement of his music any more reliable than yours. Who are you to decide that there is only a small difference in quality between Dittersorf and Mozart? You're scale of sophistication? That scale is entirely laughable.
Have you even considered the possiblily that more people simply appreicate the music of Mozart. Perhaps he is so popular, because there exists a vast difference in quality- one your scale could never detect.
Quote from: Steve on May 05, 2007, 09:16:52 AM
You might not appreciate Mozart as highly as I do.
Mozart is number 4 in my list of greatest composer ever. How high is he in your list?
Quote from: Steve on May 05, 2007, 09:16:52 AMHave you even considered the possiblily that more people simply appreicate the music of Mozart.
I don't just accept everything in the world if it does not make sense to me.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 05, 2007, 10:08:19 AM
Mozart is number 4 in my list of greatest composer ever. How high is he in your list?
I don't just accept everything in the world if it does not make sense to me.
We aren't talking about scientific hypotheses, but rather people's musical preferences. No one needs a rational justification for enjoying a piece of music. I enjoy listening to Elgar, but I find my admiration for him is far less that that of Mahler, who is, probably my favorite composer. This is not something you will ever be able to 'accept' because we hve different tastes/preferences in music. If you consider sophistication, as an objective characteristic that can be quantified, than there can no debate on the topic. Months ago, I found the music of Arnold Schoenberg to be minimalist, and lacking in any real intrinsic complexity. Now, after some exposure to his music, my opion has entirely changed. The music is still the same, but I now consider sufficiently complicated to warrant repeated listening. Which perspective is correct? Neither is more correct than the other, of course. Schoenberg's music is neither intrinsically good or bad; that judgement is predicated upon the invidual tastes/preferences of each listener.
Once again, you may not see a great deal of difference in the quality of Dittersdorf and Mozart, but I do. Whereas the former has offered me some moments of pleasure, the latter has afforded countless hours of discovery. Perhaps someday, I will come to appreciate the music of Dittersdorf more than I do now. If I do, it will not be that I have arrived at a more valid judgement than I am at now.
Sophistication, Quality, Greatness, and Perfection, are all predicated not on a piece of music, but on the listener. As no two listeners experience music in the same fashion, there can be no one value of each of these characteristics for every composer. Your opinions, are no more valid than mine. Your formula may adequatley account for your preferences, but they cannot account for mine. Your theories, therefore, could only be verififable, if they accounted the preferences of every listener in the world. Trust me, many thinkers before you, (Aristotle, Plato, James...) have tried to arrive at a formula for the instric value of art, but none have succeeded. They failed because they were trying to objectify, characteristics which are inherantly subjective.
My opinons, and yours, are not verifiable scientific hypotheses, and so can never be demonstratably correct. Use your mathematical prowless as I do, to understand more about individual pieces, instead of wasting your time trying to objectify art.
People's preferences are not for you to accept or reject.
As a free thinker I can make only one conclusion:
My opinions and thoughs have no value to anyone except myself.
This makes me ask:
What is my place in this world if everything I say is nonsense to others?
What can I give to the world?
Quote from: 71 dB on May 05, 2007, 01:13:14 PM
As a free thinker I can make only one conclusion:
My opinions and thoughs have no value to anyone except myself.
This makes me ask:
What is my place in this world if everything I say is nonsense to others?
What can I give to the world?
endless frustration due to your apparent "free-thinking".
Quote from: MahlerTitan on May 05, 2007, 01:19:58 PM
endless frustration due to your apparent "free-thinking".
Yes, free thinking is frustrating.
Occupational intellectual disease.
I "see" oddities everywhere, it's my sixth sense.
Meanwhile, back to the topic . . . .
I suppose I should add the Shostakovich First here.
The first time I heard the piece was live in Tallinn, Estonia, and it made no great impression on me.
Since then, I have seen the Light, of course 0:)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 05, 2007, 01:44:10 PM
Meanwhile, back to the topic . . . .
I suppose I should add the Shostakovich First here.
The first time I heard the piece was live in Tallinn, Estonia, and it made no great impression on me.
Since then, I have seen the Light, of course 0:)
You mean the title of this forum wasn't 'intellectual skirmish' ;D
Karl, I would add 2 and 3 to that list. Until I heard the Jansons set, I really coudn't bring myself to listen to these.
Quote from: Steve on May 05, 2007, 11:40:59 AM
We aren't talking about scientific hypotheses, but rather people's musical preferences. No one needs a rational justification for enjoying a piece of music. I enjoy listening to Elgar, but I find my admiration for him is far less that that of Mahler, who is, probably my favorite composer. This is not something you will ever be able to 'accept' because we hve different tastes/preferences in music. If you consider sophistication, as an objective characteristic that can be quantified, than there can no debate on the topic. Months ago, I found the music of Arnold Schoenberg to be minimalist, and lacking in any real intrinsic complexity. Now, after some exposure to his music, my opinion has entirely changed. The music is still the same, but I now consider sufficiently complicated to warrant repeated listening. Which perspective is correct? Neither is more correct than the other, of course. Schoenberg's music is neither intrinsically good or bad; that judgement is predicated upon the invidual tastes/preferences of each listener.
(My emphasis above)
In a sense it is the
experience itself which has changed your judgment perhaps. Walking away with a shrug and not returning to, in your example, Schoenberg's music, would prevent the possibility of a future embrace.
This is exactly parallel with how my wife and I met: she was actually somewhat hostile to me in our first meeting, because of some comments I made (which were true, but...) and for which she scolded me. However, I did not shrug and walk away: this scolding made me wonder: "I wonder if that girl maybe likes me?"
Rejected, then embraced! Many times since then! ;D
Quote from: Steve on May 05, 2007, 02:42:11 PM
Karl, I would add 2 and 3 to that list. Until I heard the Jansons set, I really coudn't bring myself to listen to these.
Steve? You there,
Steve? :-)
Not strictly on topic, since I hadn't heard them before; but I have enjoyed initial listens to the
Maksim Dmitriyevich accounts of the
Second &
Third.
Oh, the prime example for me is Mahler. When I was a teenager, I found his music longwided, boring and unmelodic. (Though I think I might have come in the wrong door. A friend of ine played the second for me before I heard the first. Big mistake.) I had to force myself to listen, but I came around eventually. Now Mahler is perennially in my top 10.
I can't think of any classical music I have turned against after liking it. Pop music is another matter completely. I don't want to hear the Police ever, ever again.
Well, and it isn't every day you meet someone who has both Mahler and Carter in his top ten.
Unless one meets Joe every day, of course
For me, Mahler was more or less instant wheras Carter was an acquired taste, although I never outright rejected him. The first Carter work I heard was Changes on the old David Starobin disc and oddly enough I found the Babbitt piece on the same disc much more comprehensible.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 14, 2007, 12:21:30 PM
For me, Mahler was more or less instant wheras Carter was an acquired taste, although I never outright rejected him.
Carter too was an acquired taste, as was Ives, but I never thought I would never get to like them, which was the case with Mahler, and is still the case with Shostakovich.
There were pieces by Ives and Carter I liked immediately, others I was glad to work on, because I thought there ws something there I should be getting. I had tpo force myself to listen to Mahler, which I did because people whose opinions I respected swore by him. Turns out they were right.
Having discovered Bruckner I eventually of course wandered toward Mahler: I came across the Mahler 9th Symphony in the early 1960's through an Everest recording (they were not the peak of recording perfection) with Leopold Ludwig conducting.
Mahler led me to Schoenberg, whose early works were no problem, but the post-String Quartet #2 works remained a problem: rejected, until one day I decided to give Erwartung a spin on the old player. The rejection phase was over, and now things like Erwartung, Jakobsleiter, the Piano and Violin Concertos, etc. are all-around faves!
Busoni is a case of embrace and reject simultaneously. Doctor Faustus I embraced immediately, and still believe it his masterpiece. But almost everything else for orchestra I still find lacking, with the stellar exception of the Piano Concerto.
I used to like Boulez alot less than I do now. Thought the works were too long for the material employed (I still think Ritual suffers from this)
QuoteI had to force myself to listen to Mahler, which I did because people whose opinions I respected swore by him. Turns out they were right.
Me too! I just wrote him off as too lengthy and difficult for far too long. But I heard snippets over the years on the radio, and thought, my there's a lot of great things going on there if I could ever make a concentrated effort. And boy, is it rewarding me a hundred times over. He was so incredibly clever. I love finding the links between his works. Like I was just listening to M2 today and noticed the sly looking forward of the Scherzo to the macabre
scordatura violin solo of the M4 1st mvmt!
I am excited like a kid in a candy store about Mahler. In fact, I have a confession to make, I'm afraid Mahler is danger of knocking Wagner off his place for most of my conscious life as my #1 composer! :-[ Me, a self-professed Wagnerite! :o
While I went to a divine all-Wagner concert last week and my soul still thrilled hearing the familiar strains of the
Tannhauser Overture and the gaiety that is
Die Meistersinger, it's so familiar to me, like a comfortable old shoe, and Mahler is like um, a a shiny red pair of stilettos! They look so pretty....you hate to take them off.... and Mahler just seems to have taken up residence in my computer room CD player.
And my other CD player is filled with an endless succession these days of contemporary/modern composers I wouldn't have dreamed I could handle back in the Wagner/Verdi/Tchaikovsky days. I will confess to being a bit closed minded to after say, 1940. Past 1980 I was fine with. Well I'm slowly working my inwards and finding some real goldmines. Hindemith chamber music, Ligeti (almost anything of his it seems), Finnish composers! Lutoslawski!
But it's time for me to give the toughest a chance, Webern, Berio, Boulez, Carter, later Schoenberg...I'm doing well with early Schoenberg so far, and am finding a surprise connection with Messiaen. :D
So I can imagine in 10 more years, my tastes will be completely different yet again!
Greta: your last line is always the goal! Musico-spiritual development! 0:)
If you follow Mahler long enough, thou shalt accept his disciple Schoenberg even in his later mainfestations! :o
I can recommend a book about the lines connecting Bruckner through Mahler to Schoenberg called, oddly,
Bruckner, Mahler, Schoenberg by Dika Newlin. (She was one of the latter's students.) In her late 50's and 60's she became an orange-haired punk-rocker, and even appeared in a punk-horror movie of no renown, the whole adventure no doubt the result of arteriosclerosis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/arts/music/28newlin.html?ex=1311739200&en=dfc5964624279a4d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Quote from: Greta on May 14, 2007, 03:09:47 PM
Webern
If you only knew the rewards that await you...
For me one of the greatest resources for turning me on to 'rejected' composers has been my car radio.
It's that "cloak of mystery" that does it: dialing in to an unknown work smack dab in the middle without a hint of who the composer is.
So without preconceptions it's just me and the piece until the DJ chimes in at the end and announces the name of the piece. And if I've stuck it out that far (given time) I'm sure to want a recording of whatever piece it is.
That's what happened with two composers who up 'till my chance car radio encounter had been booted off my radar with contempt: Berlioz and Britten.
Now, thanks to the trusty car radio that's all changed!
Quote from: Cato on May 14, 2007, 03:26:04 PM
If you follow Mahler long enough, thou shalt accept his disciple Schoenberg even in his later mainfestations! :o
And, in harmony with the topic . . .
Schoenberg himself started out with a low opinion of
Mahler, and then Saw Light 0:) 8)
Rejected and then Embraced: I would say Frederick Delius, I judged him sugarcoated, then learned to appreciate his elegant sweetness and naturalistic skills, mainly thru "In a summer garden", even if I still consider his orchestral works as divertissment and little more.
Berg's Violin Concerto. I hated it on first hearing. It epitomised everything (I thought) I hated about atonality. I actually threw the CD in the trash, and forgot about it.
Then, less than three years later, I heard it again ... and it made perfect sense to me. I don't remember if it was the work which unlocked the door that had barred me from understanding/enjoying atonal music, but it stands out in my memory as being a significant watershed.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 15, 2007, 04:01:17 AM
And, in harmony with the topic . . . Schoenberg himself started out with a low opinion of Mahler, and then Saw Light 0:) 8)
(wondering if Karl will ever follow in Schoenberg's footsteps)
Quote from: donwyn on May 14, 2007, 07:11:56 PM
For me one of the greatest resources for turning me on to 'rejected' composers has been my car radio.
It's that "cloak of mystery" that does it: dialing in to an unknown work smack dab in the middle without a hint of who the composer is.
So without preconceptions it's just me and the piece until the DJ chimes in at the end and announces the name of the piece. And if I've stuck it out that far (given time) I'm sure to want a recording of whatever piece it is.
That's what happened with two composers who up 'till my chance car radio encounter had been booted off my radar with contempt: Berlioz and Britten.
Now, thanks to the trusty car radio that's all changed!
I second that. NPR was *instrumental* (ha-ha) in building my interest in Classical-era composers, especially Haydn.