# Is it normal to hate Shostakovitch/Prokofiev at first?



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

I hear high praise for these particular composers but my attempts at appreciating their music are fruitless. In the case of Shosty, his music sounds like a loud dissonant mess with hardly a hint of musicality. Prokofiev, on the other hand, sounds like randomly generated MIDI input to me. 

Does everyone have the same experience at first? Or was it love at first sight for you?

And throw Stravinsky in the mix as well; I never got his music.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I loved Stravinsky, Shostakovich, and Prokofiev from my first acquaintance. 

"Normal" is fake news.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

The easy ways in:

Shostakovich: Piano Quintet, Symphony 5
Prokofiev: Violin Concerto 1, Romeo and Juliet
Stravinsky: Petrushka, Firebird


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Check out Shosty's:
Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk
Cheryomushki
Suite for a Variety Orchestra
Assault on Krasnaja Gorka
"Golden Mountains" Waltz
music from "The First Echelon"
Spanish Dance
Dance of the Colonial Slave Girl
Doll's Dances

Not everyone is a fan of Shostakovich because of symphonies or quartets...


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Is it anything more than a profound lack of sympathy with 20th century music? Is it only Russians? Anyway, don't bother trying if you dislike them. You'll probably end up coming back to them later.

For me, Stravinsky was a very great composer (mostly for his mature music - the stuff that came after the Rite and Petrushka, great as they are); Prokofiev had an extraordinary melodic gift and the best of Shostakovich (several of the symphonies and concertos, the quartets etc.) is among the best of the century.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

level82rat said:


> I hear high praise for these particular composers but my attempts at appreciating their music are fruitless. In the case of Shosty, his music sounds like a loud dissonant mess with hardly a hint of musicality. Prokofiev, on the other hand, sounds like randomly generated MIDI input to me.
> 
> Does everyone have the same experience at first? Or was it love at first sight for you?
> 
> And throw Stravinsky in the mix as well; I never got his music.


Your reactions are atypical. If Prokofiev sounds like random MIDI input to you, you might want to consider seeing a neurologist.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

For these composers, it depends on the piece, and perhaps on the listener.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

level82rat said:


> I hear high praise for these particular composers but my attempts at appreciating their music are fruitless. In the case of Shosty, his music sounds like a loud dissonant mess with hardly a hint of musicality. Prokofiev, on the other hand, sounds like randomly generated MIDI input to me.
> 
> Does everyone have the same experience at first? Or was it love at first sight for you?
> 
> And throw Stravinsky in the mix as well; I never got his music.


what got me into Prokofiev was his 2nd symphony, which most other people do not like, because it is too dissonant and aggressive. I think it is amazing. I can't say I loved it at first hearing, but I was intrigued.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I collected recordings and went to concerts almost 25 years before I acquired a taste for Shostakovich. There isn't much he wrote that is either easy listening or full of immediately catchy tunes like Beethoven, Tchaikovsky and Bach. I think his music takes more time, effort and commitment to understand and enjoy than composers like Dvorak and Mendelssohn whose tunes catch you right out of the box.

Outside of some bombastic film scores like *The Fall Of Berlin* I don't know of a single Shostakovich score I would call easy. The *First Symphony* is is highly accessible; if you can get that you may be able to move on to some of his greater psychological dramas.

Prokofiev is a little less daunting; he wrote some easy to hear scores like the *First or "Classical" symphony*, and *Lt. Kije suite*. If you start with those two you may be able to appreciate his rubric.

I think Sravinsky is even more complex because he is so multifaceted -- modern, post-classical, mystical, sometimes even in the same compositions. Books I own say beginners should start with *Petrouchka* and *La Sacre du Printemps*. My guess is you have and didn't like them.

If you've tried them and didn't like them try the lighter and more tuneful ballet *Pulcinella* that has sung roles, the *Suite Italienne *for cello or the *Song of the Nighteingale* (la chant du rossignol). if you like wind music he wrote a short piece called *Symphonies for Wind Instruments* that may move you though it is spiky.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Prokofiev's third piano concerto could also be a good entry point.

I still haven't come around to Shostakovich - sometimes a listener and composer just don't agree.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Everyone had blind spots. Assuming you've heard a decent cross-section of their music over a certain period of time and had no joy I imagine there's probably little chance of a lightbulb moment in the future. I personally never hit a wall with any of the composers you mentioned and they all rate highly with me, but if they leave you cold then that's just how it is.

The only time I was really sniffy about a composer and then ending up liking his work was Max Reger - because of my inexperience my knee-jerk reaction was to dismiss him as a stodgy third-rate Brahms. With perseverance and learning more about what Reger was trying to achieve the scales eventually fell from my eyes.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> Prokofiev's third piano concerto could also be a good entry point.
> 
> I still haven't come around to Shostakovich - sometimes a listener and composer just don't agree.


Yes. Shostakovitch is widely considered a major symphony composer. In spite of several attempts, made many years apart, I have never warmed to any of them. (For reference, I admit that my musical tastes, indeed my artistic tastes in general, are pretty conservative, and certainly lean to the late Romantics and earlier composers. In this, there is no shame, and perhaps enough to enjoy to satisfyingly fill a lifetime.) I do like some of his film music, and suggest The Gadfly as an example.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Dmitri is a phenomenal composer. He is at the same moment the greatest melodist ever existed and someone who many times is extremely dissonant. I chose wisely the Dmitri as great melodist and very slowly I attempt to understand his difficult music like the late symphonies. Prokofiev is also a composer of the superlative with the same character. His sonatas are difficult to be listened but at the same time are masterpieces. With these composers someone must go slowly and with program. (Stravie is even worse, but the same great)


----------



## DaddyGeorge (Mar 16, 2020)

If the composition doesn't interest me and I somehow suspect that it should be great, I let the music play as a background several times and gradually absorb it. When the work begins to seem familiar and understandable, I listen to it intently. It also helps me when I have score. This method usually works, but there still are pieces that are generally accepted with enthusiasm and tell me nothing. In that case, I'll let it be (temporarily) - there's a lot of another amazing music!


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

am I the only one who finds striking similarity between a movement from Prokofiev's 2nd symphony and the Basic Instinct soundtrack? I have known the Basic Instinct soundtrack for many years and listened to it before I discovered CM. Once I then heard the 2nd symphony, I immediately knew "this is Basic Instinct". Curiously, I cannot google anything about it. Do you hear the similarity too, or I am imagining things?

Prokofiev





Basic Instinct


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I certainly did not enjoy much of Shostakovich, Prokofiev, or Stravinsky when I first heard them. Now I love them and sometimes wonder how I did not enjoy the music when younger. I'm not sure how long you've been listening to them, but it could take awhile for your brain to become accustomed to the new sounds of early 20th century music. I had essentially the same issue with much of modern/contemporary music although Prokofiev and Shostakovich took less time for me to become familiar with their musical language. 

Have you heard Prokofiev's Symphony No. 1? I agree with larold that that might be a good introduction. I think I did actually like that when I first heard it. I'm not sure what would help with Shostakovich. Everyone is different. 

There are many here who do not like modern music, but many fewer who don't like Shostakovich and Prokofiev. I would guess that if you continue to listen to 20th century music with the view that you will eventually enjoy it, you will find some (or much) of Shostakovich's and Prokofiev's music that you enjoy.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

I can't be of much help here because I'm one of those who liked these three composers' music from the start. But I generally like the controlled dissonance of much 20th Century music. I think there's a lot more non-dissonant, very tuneful music by Prokofiev than by Shostakovich and Stravinsky. I don't know many CM lovers of a 19th Century and earlier bent who don't like _Alexander Nevsky_, Symphony No. 1, _Lieutenant Kijé_, and _Peter and the Wolf_. I can understand how people who don't do well with dissonance would have trouble with much of Prokofiev's other work. With the Shostakovich symphonies, there's always dissonance and a Modern melodic sensibility, but to me there's a gradient, with Symphony No. 5, for example, being more accessible than most of the rest. Then with Stravinsky, I think that if people not into dissonance can come to enjoy _Petrushka_, the rest will probably follow.


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

Shostakovich was my way in for classical music. When I initially decided to start listening to classical music as a teen I picked up several tapes (it was the mid-80's) at the record store, including well known names like Brahms, Beethoven, and Mozart, but it was Shostakovich's 5th symphony that really captured my imagination and made me want to explore more.

You're reaction to the music only tells you about yourself, not the music, and that is fine. Shostakovich and Prokofiev may not be for you right now but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the music. Listen to the music you know you like, and if you ever feel the need to expand your horizons then the music will always be there for you should you decide to try again. 

BTW, those other composers that did not do much for me initially I have come to love. People's tastes do change over time.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

I was in my teens when I first heard these composers. For Shostakovich it was his 5th Synphony (Bernstein), Stravinsky either Firebird or Rite of Spring and Prokofiev either the 1st or 5th symphony. I loved them all from the start but don't expect anyone else to follow my likes or dislikes. However to ascribe the emotion of 'hate' to any music is a waste of time. There are many more important things in this world to hate and thus try and make better than music(of any kind) IMO.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

````````````````````````````````


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I can recommend Shostakovich's 5th Symphony as well. One of the first things from Shostakovich I listened to were the string quartets. I think I was so determined to finish them that I listened them all in two days but those were quite depressing :lol:. The symphonies worked much better and he has some great solo piano works that might be easier to enjoy at first! Some composers don't click with me in the beginning but I've seen that if I keep going back to their works then it often helps a lot to start enjoying them significantly more. That has been my experience with Shostakovich.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

One book that helped me with Shostakovich was David Hurwitz's Shostakovich, A Listener's Guide. Regardless of your opinion of Hurwitz as a critic, here he is speaking as an enthusiastic fan, giving a blow-by-blow account of his symphonies and concertos which is not overly technical and is easy to follow.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Everyone is so different. I have essentially liked all three composers to different degrees with minimal exposure. Some of the first classical pieces I fell in love with as a young teenager were Shostakovich Symphony no. 12 (youth symphony trumpet playing), Stravinsky Firebird and Rite of Spring, and Prokofiev Symphony no. 6.

BUT, I feel exactly like you have described when it comes to much of the music of beloved composers as different as Mahler, Wagner, and Boulez, so I don't think there is a *normal*. We are all different. Different personalities. Different life experiences.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> The easy ways in:
> 
> Shostakovich: Piano Quintet, Symphony 5
> Prokofiev: Violin Concerto 1, Romeo and Juliet
> Stravinsky: Petrushka, Firebird


I would suggest the two Shostakovich piano concertos--not typical Shostakovich but very easy on the ears; for Prokofiev, the 3rd piano concerto, and Lt. Kije along with Love for Three Oranges suites. For Stravinsky, right on with your selections!


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

Most peoples have the same reaction the first time with Mahler, Webern, shostakovich, prokofiev, Webern, Ferneyhough etc.

Your hearing will adjust. Now I can listen to BAby Shark without the need to murder:devil:. Took me only a million times of listening and lots of crying and desperation


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Disliking the music of various composers is as normal as can be. Liking the music of all composers might be a little abnormal.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I first heard Shostakovich and Prokofiev back in the 1980s when I was a teenager and I loved both at once. The first works I heard by Shostakovich were _Age of Gold_, _Symphony #5_ and _Symphony #11 "1905"_. The first I heard of Prokofiev were _Violin Concertos #1 & 2_. They were also my first composers of the "Modern" era, and it sounded so different from what I was then used to (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc.) that I thought it was so far-out and Ultra-Modern. Please note, at the time I knew nothing of the music of composers such as Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Varese, and Berio occupied the outer limits of the repertoire.

I also liked Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ right off the bat, and I'd blast Stravinsky's _Rite_ and Richard Strauss' _Zarathustra_ on my stereo the way other boys my age would blast heavy metal. I guess, in a way, _Rite_ and _Zarathustra_ was my heavy metal, the music that represented my coming of age and independence.

I was disappointed though, that when I went back to the record store to buy more Stravinsky and came back with the _Violin Concerto_ that I couldn't really enjoy it because it sounded so different from _Rite_. Where were the jagged edges and the wild rhythms? What I didn't know at the time was that liking Stravinsky depended upon _which_ Stravinsky we're talking about. Like his contemporary in the visual arts, Pablo Picasso, Stravinsky changed styles several times, and it took me a very long time to enjoy Stravinsky as the master craftsman he is, whether his works are from the Russian, Neo-Classiccal, or Serial stage.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

level82rat said:


> I hear high praise for these particular composers but my attempts at appreciating their music are fruitless. In the case of Shosty, his music sounds like a loud dissonant mess with hardly a hint of musicality. Prokofiev, on the other hand, sounds like randomly generated MIDI input to me.
> 
> Does everyone have the same experience at first? Or was it love at first sight for you?
> 
> And throw Stravinsky in the mix as well; I never got his music.


I don't think there's nothing not normal in disliking a certain composer, but I wonder on how much music of those composers is based your idea. Because they both made quite different things in their career, and I'm saying this not even being an expert. But it's hard to agree with generalizations like the ones you did.

For instance I really like some of the dissonant music (nothing wrong with dissonance for me) of late Shostakovich like the 15th symphony, but he made also things like:






hardly something that could be called "loud dissonant mess"

Same for Prokofiev. And there's no need to look for some esoteric less known work, how can this be defined as "randomly generated input"?






And we're talking of a composer who's often included in the list of the greatest melodists...


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

norman bates said:


> hardly something that could be called "loud dissonant mess"
> 
> Same for Prokofiev. And there's no need to look for some esoteric less known work, how can this be defined as "randomly generated input"?


Fair point. I should specify that I was referring to music more along the lines of Prokofiev's PCs and Shostakovitch's quartet/cello concerto, etc.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

level82rat said:


> Fair point. I should specify that I was referring to music more along the lines of Prokofiev's PCs and Shostakovitch's quartet/cello concerto, etc.


It took me a while to like those too, and IMO they're not the ideal places to start with the composers. Once I tuned my ears to the unique, gently dissonance-spiced harmonic language I was able to fall in love with them. You really need to hear Shostakovich's Piano Quintet if you haven't already. Try also his 2nd piano concerto. And for Prokofiev, avoid the piano sonatas and concerti right away and go for the 1st and 5th symphonies, violin concerti, and ballets.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Machiavel said:


> Most peoples have the same reaction the first time with Mahler, Webern, shostakovich, prokofiev, Webern, Ferneyhough etc.
> 
> Your hearing will adjust. Now I can listen to BAby Shark without the need to murder:devil:. Took me only a million times of listening and lots of crying and desperation


That seems to me very strange company to put Mahler in.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I certainly did not enjoy much of Shostakovich, Prokofiev, or Stravinsky when I first heard them. Now I love them and sometimes wonder how I did not enjoy the music when younger. I'm not sure how long you've been listening to them, but it could take awhile for your brain to become accustomed to the new sounds of early 20th century music. I had essentially the same issue with much of modern/contemporary music although Prokofiev and Shostakovich took less time for me to become familiar with their musical language.
> 
> Have you heard Prokofiev's Symphony No. 1? I agree with larold that that might be a good introduction. I think I did actually like that when I first heard it. I'm not sure what would help with Shostakovich. Everyone is different.
> 
> There are many here who do not like modern music, but many fewer who don't like Shostakovich and Prokofiev. I would guess that if you continue to listen to 20th century music with the view that you will eventually enjoy it, you will find some (or much) of Shostakovich's and Prokofiev's music that you enjoy.


You mentioned 'hate' in your topic headliner and then mentioned in your post that you did not enjoy Shostakovich, Prokofiev or Stravinsky when you first heard their music. 'Hate' is a far cry from simply disliking something. Anyway, just thought I would clear that up and I understand that you meant dislike instead of hate. Anyway, I loved Prokofiev on first-listen and Stravinsky, too. Shostakovich was a harder composer to get into. Now, I feel that I don't have much love for Stravinsky, but have nothing but love for Shostakovich and Prokofiev. What turned me around to Shostakovich was hearing his _Symphony No. 5_ under Bernstein. His 'Live in Japan 1979' recording on Sony is what floored me and I never have been quite the same. Shostakovich has a way of getting under my skin as does Prokofiev. I have always felt with Stravinsky that he composed some fine works (I love his ballets for example from _The Firebird_ to _Agon_ --- they're all fantastic), but he's just a composer I don't listen to very often. I suppose it could be a certain aesthetic quality about his music that I'm not particularly allured by. To be honest, I don't think you could come to any reasonable argument for enjoying 20th Century Russian music without enjoying Shostakovich and Prokofiev. Both of these composers, IMHO, are two of the finest this country has produced. Of course, I'm a huge Russophile, so I do enjoy many other composers, but I don't think I could call myself a fan without getting into Shostakovich and Prokofiev.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Likewise, I try to envision in my mind some heroic events of the Russian history, like the Fall of Berlin, when listening to their music. It's much like Rachmaninoff, albeit with a different harmonic language. I think they wouldn't sound "bad" if you were into the aesthetics.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I first started listening to Shostakovich when I was about 10 years old - loved it immediately. I had never heard music like that before (so militaristic, exciting and harrowing). I ate up the symphonies and then turned to the op. 87 preludes and fugues which were even better. That got me to Bach's WTC which was and remains my favorite music of all.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Neo Romanza said:


> You mentioned 'hate' in your topic headliner and then mentioned in your post that you did not enjoy Shostakovich, Prokofiev or Stravinsky when you first heard their music. 'Hate' is a far cry from simply disliking something. Anyway, just thought I would clear that up and I understand that you meant dislike instead of hate. ...


Did I ever say I hated Shostakovich, Prokofiev or Stravinsky? If so, I don't remember. I certainly had trouble with their music, but I'm not sure I ever even felt that I strongly disliked them.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

I find Shostakovich and Prokofiev to be two of the greatest and most accessible "modern" composers. I've never disliked either. I believe the first couple of works I heard by both were the Shostakovich fifth symphony and Prokofiev's Classical symphony, along with (of course) Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf (I think it was the one with David Bowie narrating, even).


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Neo Romanza said:


> You mentioned 'hate' in your topic headliner and then mentioned in your post that you did not enjoy Shostakovich, Prokofiev or Stravinsky when you first heard their music.


Isn't the topic headliner written by level82rat?


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

I need to check those two soon!
I 'm really obsessed with Schubert right now.
Actually, I used to hate a lot of bands and composers at first that I now love, after listening to their music with more care, and as long as my tastes were changing. So, even if i hate them at first, i'll keep trying to discover more about them!


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> Did I ever say I hated Shostakovich, Prokofiev or Stravinsky? If so, I don't remember. I certainly had trouble with their music, but I'm not sure I ever even felt that I strongly disliked them.


My apologies. I got you mixed up with the OP.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Neo Romanza said:


> Anyway, I loved Prokofiev on first-listen and Stravinsky, too. Shostakovich was a harder composer to get into. Now, I feel that I don't have much love for Stravinsky, but have nothing but love for Shostakovich and Prokofiev. What turned me around to Shostakovich was hearing his _Symphony No. 5_ under Bernstein. His 'Live in Japan 1979' recording on Sony is what floored me and I never have been quite the same. Shostakovich has a way of getting under my skin as does Prokofiev. I have always felt with Stravinsky that he composed some fine works (I love his ballets for example from _The Firebird_ to _Agon_ --- they're all fantastic), but he's just a composer I don't listen to very often. I suppose it could be a certain aesthetic quality about his music that I'm not particularly allured by. To be honest, I don't think you could come to any reasonable argument for enjoying 20th Century Russian music without enjoying Shostakovich and Prokofiev. Both of these composers, IMHO, are two of the finest this country has produced. Of course, I'm a huge Russophile, so I do enjoy many other composers, but I don't think I could call myself a fan without getting into Shostakovich and Prokofiev.


2 things:

1) I SUPER-APPRECIATE the recommendation of the Shostakovich Bernstein recording.

2) You articulated what I generally feel about Stravinsky, - that I appreciate his music and have a few works I treasure but if I had to give an overall gut check on Stravinsky it would be that his music is more brain than heart and as such is generally less endearing and doesn't make me want to drink of it over and over.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2020)

level82rat said:


> I hear high praise for these particular composers but my attempts at appreciating their music are fruitless. In the case of Shosty, his music sounds like a loud dissonant mess with hardly a hint of musicality. Prokofiev, on the other hand, sounds like randomly generated MIDI input to me.
> 
> Does everyone have the same experience at first? Or was it love at first sight for you?
> 
> And throw Stravinsky in the mix as well; I never got his music.


Love at first sight with the pieces I fell in love with.

What's 'normal' anyway? I can only comment on what I like. No-one here can make a declaration of what 'normal' is (because no-one will have done a comprehensive survey of people's reactions of first encountering them). They could only go so far as to acknowledge that all three composers have their followings and all three feature regularly on concert programmes.

In the case of DSCH, I probably heard and liked the 7th symphony first (although I recall the theme music from Crown Court was DSCH - not sure what composition that was) then the 11th, 5th, 10th, 9th, 3rd...

In the case of SP: Peter and the Wolf, Lt Kije, 1st Sym, 5th Sym, 6th, Sym...

In the case of IS: Rite, Firebird, Sym in C...

I'm not a fan of concertos or quartets, so can't comment on those.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

MacLeod said:


> In the case of DSCH, I probably heard and liked the 7th symphony first (although I recall the theme music from Crown Court was DSCH - not sure what composition that was) .


I think it was Janacek Sinfonietta, 4th movement. By the way, I think Janacek is an underrated composer, but one for another place.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

I loved Prokofiev the first time I ever heard his #3 piano concerto (in the movie The Competition). I went out and bought the Graffman/Szell CD the next week. I imagine that was an easy way in to his music. 

Shostakovich and Stravinsky have been a little harder for me. But I don't immediately think that I dislike something if I don't get it at first. Everyone talks about the Rite of Spring, which is pretty far outside my comfort zone, but I just heard the Fairy's Kiss yesterday and found it charming. Anyway there's a lot of stuff out there that I don't immediately take to, but I just set it down if that's the case. I'll come back to it later and see how I do.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

It's quite normal not to like them (I would not use the word 'hate'). Many of us have our blind spots among the big names.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Art Rock said:


> It's quite normal not to like them (I would not use the word 'hate'). Many of us have our blind spots among the big names.


It's quite difficult not to like things like Prokofiev's 3rd Piano Concerto or Shostakovich's 2nd, though isn't it? And what about either 5th symphony, or either 1st? They're not my favourite Prokofiev or Shostakovich works, but hard to resist, surely?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Eclectic Al said:


> It's quite difficult not to like things like Prokofiev's 3rd Piano Concerto or Shostakovich's 2nd, though isn't it? And what about either 5th symphony, or either 1st? They're not my favourite Prokofiev or Shostakovich works, but hard to resist, surely?


There's no accounting for personal tastes. Personally I adore Shosty, and like lots of Prokofiev, but I won't be surprised if they do not click with someone else. For instance, I love Schubert, but his famous 9th symphony leaves me cold. Handel is a complete non-starter for me.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Eclectic Al said:


> It's quite difficult not to like things like Prokofiev's 3rd Piano Concerto or Shostakovich's 2nd, though isn't it? And what about either 5th symphony, or either 1st? They're not my favourite Prokofiev or Shostakovich works, but hard to resist, surely?


It's not difficult not to like anything. The greatest piece of music you've ever heard? Someone out there hates it.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2020)

Eclectic Al said:


> I think it was Janacek Sinfonietta, 4th movement. By the way, I think Janacek is an underrated composer, but one for another place.


Thanks. That explains why I couldn't recall which DSCH it was!


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Eclectic Al said:


> It's quite difficult not to like things like Prokofiev's 3rd Piano Concerto or Shostakovich's 2nd, though isn't it? And what about either 5th symphony, or either 1st? They're not my favourite Prokofiev or Shostakovich works, but hard to resist, surely?


Actually, not difficult to resist at all. (Prokofiev symphony no 1 is perhaps a bit of a cheat since it is intentionally in another style, and certainly the one item in your list that I do like.)


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Art Rock said:


> There's no accounting for personal tastes. Personally I adore Shosty, and like lots of Prokofiev, but I won't be surprised if they do not click with someone else. For instance, I love Schubert, but his famous 9th symphony leaves me cold. Handel is a complete non-starter for me.


Yeah. I suppose what I'm imagining is that if you got 1,000 people who say they like "classical music" and got them to listen to a number of pieces and score them on a scale of 1 to 10 (say) then some pieces might get a wide variety of scores; some might get a narrower spread and a low average score; and some might get a narrow spread and a high average score,
I'm speculating that Messiaen's Turangalila might have a quite wide spread, and something like the 1812 Overture a fairly narrow spread around a low mean. My guess is that things like Prokofiev's 3rd PC might get a fairly low spread and high mean.
Clearly that might be well off the mark but it's my feeling. Obviously for any piece there is likely to be someone out there who hates it with a vengeance, but that's irrelevant.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

level82rat said:


> I hear high praise for these particular composers but my attempts at appreciating their music are fruitless. In the case of Shosty, his music sounds like a loud dissonant mess with hardly a hint of musicality. Prokofiev, on the other hand, sounds like randomly generated MIDI input to me.
> 
> Does everyone have the same experience at first? Or was it love at first sight for you?
> 
> And throw Stravinsky in the mix as well; I never got his music.


It obviously varies for some people. For me the answer is some works yes and some works no. I come from Mozart, Bach and Beethoven. Spent my early years listening to mainly those 3 guys with some Chopin thrown in. So, when it came around to listening to Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, etc. I found them quite "different"

Prokofiev, I liked Symphonies 1 & 5 instantly. The others all took a while. Shostakovich I liked Symphonies 1, 2, 5, 7 & 10 instantly. The others all took a while longer. Took me years to make anything of Prokofiev's piano sonatas or piano concertos. I'm still trying to "enjoy" Shostakovich's String Quartets. Stravinsky is another one who can be difficult for some who come from that background like I did. Best to start with his Neoclassical works. I still have a terrible time with Bartok. Everyone loves his String Quartets and after many years, I've still been trying to find something in them but as of this point I don't get any "enjoyment" out of listening to them, but all these years later I still try every so often. Some stuff I'm sure I will never "enjoy" listening too. I listen in my comfort zone most of the time but I travel outside it usually a few times a week.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

realdealblues said:


> I still have a terrible time with Bartok


Thank you for bringing that up, Bartok is another one I just simply struggle to understand.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

level82rat said:


> Thank you for bringing that up, Bartok is another one I just simply struggle to understand.


Why not try something like the last movement of the 4th string quartet, or the last movements of Piano Concerto 1 or 2 and play them very loud when you're feeling a bit cross. Very cathartic.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

level82rat said:


> I hear high praise for these particular composers but my attempts at appreciating their music are fruitless. In the case of Shosty, his music sounds like a loud dissonant mess with hardly a hint of musicality. Prokofiev, on the other hand, sounds like randomly generated MIDI input to me.
> 
> Does everyone have the same experience at first? Or was it love at first sight for you?
> 
> And throw Stravinsky in the mix as well; I never got his music.


I don't like seeing threads like this. The purpose appears to be to reinforce a very conservative taste spectrum which doesn't venture any further than late Romanticism, and is decidedly anti-modern. To include Shostakovich is especially conservative, since his music is very tonal. It's an insult even to advanced tonal music. And what gives with the reference to MIDI? Apparently this attitude includes all things modern.
I betcha he loves his hi-res television, though, with a ham sandwich. :lol:

All of the "tolerant" responses for such limited taste is very gracious, but I find it condescending and irrelevant. And please, please, don't try to "convert" him by suggesting the fourth movement of Bartok, etc. It's embarrassing. He knows exactly what he's doing, and who he's messing with.

Let's keep our pride, shall we, and continue to listen to the broad spectrum of classical music with open ears and hearts. We can leave the little old ladies to their tea & Mozart, as we have bigger fish to fry.

Oh, I almost forgot to ask: is this attitude of mine normal?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't like seeing threads like this. The purpose appears to be to reinforce a very conservative taste spectrum which doesn't venture any further than late Romanticism, and is decidedly anti-modern. To include Shostakovich is especially conservative, since his music is very tonal. It's an insult even to advanced tonal music. And what gives with the reference to MIDI? Apparently this attitude includes all things modern.
> I betcha he loves his hi-res television, though, with a ham sandwich. :lol:
> 
> All of the "tolerant" responses for such limited taste is very gracious, but I find it condescending and irrelevant. And please, please, don't try to "convert" him by suggesting the fourth movement of Bartok, etc. It's embarrassing. He knows exactly what he's doing, and who he's messing with.
> ...


I feel the OP doesn't mean to make any conclusive statements about the composers themselves but rather the way he/she perceives their music. Maybe I'm mistaken. But there's a huge difference nevertheless. Musical taste is something which is in constant development and change and it's entirely okay not to understand some music at the first listen (I didn't understand _Tristan_ at first but now I love it very deeply!). I mean, what can I do?!

I don't think it's our place criticise the musical taste of others but rather, if we really want to do something, help them develop it. What pride can the listener even take from listening? Both Mozart and Shostakovich can be sometimes difficult to appreciate for people who come from different backgrounds. I think one should knowingly seek exposure to music that is out of their comfort zone to develop the musical taste and hopefully eventually truly start enjoying the difficult composers but, in the very end, it's still largely about the enjoyment I get from the music and not necessarily about frying the biggest possible fish.

This is my opinion at least and I'm a person who finds lots of music from the 20th century and Romantic era emotionally much more appealing than that of for example Classical era. Something I'm trying to work on but my goal is certainly not to propagate some anti-modernist mindset with this post.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't like seeing threads like this. The purpose appears to be to reinforce a very conservative taste spectrum which doesn't venture any further than late Romanticism, and is decidedly anti-modern.


Threads are not required for this outcome.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't like seeing threads like this. The purpose appears to be to reinforce a very conservative taste spectrum which doesn't venture any further than late Romanticism, and is decidedly anti-modern. To include Shostakovich is especially conservative, since his music is very tonal. It's an insult even to advanced tonal music. And what gives with the reference to MIDI? Apparently this attitude includes all things modern.
> I betcha he loves his hi-res television, though, with a ham sandwich. :lol:
> 
> All of the "tolerant" responses for such limited taste is very gracious, but I find it condescending and irrelevant. And please, please, don't try to "convert" him by suggesting the fourth movement of Bartok, etc. It's embarrassing. He knows exactly what he's doing, and who he's messing with.
> ...


You quite missed the point of my post. I wish i could enjoy these composers as much as everyone else does but have had no such success. My question was whether everybody else starts like me and then learns to love this music


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't like seeing threads like this. The purpose appears to be to reinforce a very conservative taste spectrum which doesn't venture any further than late Romanticism, and is decidedly anti-modern. To include Shostakovich is especially conservative, since his music is very tonal. It's an insult even to advanced tonal music. And what gives with the reference to MIDI? Apparently this attitude includes all things modern.
> I betcha he loves his hi-res television, though, with a ham sandwich. :lol:
> 
> All of the "tolerant" responses for such limited taste is very gracious, but I find it condescending and irrelevant. And please, please, don't try to "convert" him by suggesting the fourth movement of Bartok, etc. It's embarrassing. He knows exactly what he's doing, and who he's messing with.
> ...


I don't know if it's normal, but it sure is obnoxious. How terrible that the guy doesn't appear to like modernist music and will have to listen to only the music of the past few centuries! You have needlessly insulted the OP, one of our moderators, his spouse, and plenty of other TC members.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

level82rat said:


> You quite missed the point of my post. I wish i could enjoy these composers as much as everyone else does but have had no such success. My question was whether everybody else starts like me and then learns to love this music


My hat's off to you for trying to enjoy the music of composers not yet in your comfort zone. :tiphat:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

flamencosketches said:


> It's not difficult not to like anything. The greatest piece of music you've ever heard? Someone out there hates it.





Bulldog said:


> Disliking the music of various composers is as normal as can be. Liking the music of all composers might be a little abnormal.


There are varying degrees of hating or disliking something. Being indifferent about something is not exactly the same thing as hating it. Even when you're just expressing "reservations" for something, people can misunderstand you as having "hatred" for it.
I don't exactly "hate" any composer. For example, I feel that the melodies of Schubert (in works such as the Arpeggione sonata) are beautiful, and would recognize him as a great composer in many ways, but at the same time I often feel there's something peculiar about the way people treat him (in comparison with other major composers). This is not exactly the same thing as purely expressing "hatred".


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

level82rat said:


> You quite missed the point of my post. I wish i could enjoy these composers as much as everyone else does but have had no such success. My question was whether everybody else starts like me and then learns to love this music


I can only speak from my own experience, but I have a feeling that you eventually you will learn to love it. Your OP could have been written by me two years ago when I was just getting into CM. Now I'm listening to, and what's more, immensely enjoying, atonal and contemporary music of all sorts and I listen to music from the 12th century to the present day. Certainly you're not "expected" to like everything that the vast, rich world of Western art music has to offer right away, but experience and repeated listening will clarify your tastes, and, more felicitously: open up horizon after horizon of glorious music.

One practical tip, though: try to hear the music of both these supreme Russian composers as deeply expressionistic and lyrical.


----------



## That Guy Mick (May 31, 2020)

Given the remarkable dissimilarity in musical approach between the two, Shostakovitch and Prokofiev, it seems odd that the two composers are mentioned in the same breath. So much that I am barely interested in the output of Shostakovitch, but go back to Prokofiev again and again. 

Yes, they are both 20th century modern Russian composers and neither wore a powdered wig...


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, I almost forgot to ask: is this attitude of mine normal?


Alas, it can be quite common. 'Normal' is a different matter.

In the meantime, the rest of us are taking the OP's question at face value and sharing our experience of the two composers in question.



That Guy Mick said:


> Given the remarkable dissimilarity in musical approach between the two, Shostakovitch and Prokofiev, it seems odd that the two composers are mentioned in the same breath. So much that I am barely interested in the output of Shostakovitch, but go back to Prokofiev again and again.
> 
> Yes, they are both 20th century modern Russian composers and *neither wore a powdered wig*...


I like your last point. But you miss that they both wore glasses. That's highly significant.

I suspect that the reason they are mentioned in the same breath is precisely _because _they are they are the two most significant 20th C 'modern' Russian composers after Igor.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

level82rat said:


> I hear high praise for these particular composers but my attempts at appreciating their music are fruitless. In the case of Shosty, his music sounds like a loud dissonant mess with hardly a hint of musicality. Prokofiev, on the other hand, sounds like randomly generated MIDI input to me.
> 
> Does everyone have the same experience at first? Or was it love at first sight for you?
> 
> And throw Stravinsky in the mix as well; I never got his music.


It took me a while to like many of their works. Shostakovitch's Symphony # 5 and Prokofiev's #5 were immediately likable. Also Prokofiev's 7th Symphony.Check out his overture on Hebrew Themes too. Shostakovitch's 1st piano concerto stunned me when I first heard it. Prokofiev's 1st and 3rd piano concertos are very accessible. It took me a while to get into the 2nd concerto - I heard Bronfman play it live and I was enlightened. Prokofiev's 6th Symphony finally became clear to me after seeing it live with Litton conducting at the students at NEC. I don't think I will ever like Shost 7 or 15 though.

edit - Prokofiev's Violin Concerto # 2 has an incredibly gorgeous slow movement. He had mellowed out a lot by then.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

annaw said:


> I feel the OP doesn't mean to make any conclusive statements about the composers themselves but rather the way he/she perceives their music. Maybe I'm mistaken. But there's a huge difference nevertheless. Musical taste is something which is in constant development and change and it's entirely okay not to understand some music at the first listen.


Well, it certainly sounds like a put-down of modernism to me:



level82rat said:


> In the case of Shosty, his music sounds like a loud dissonant mess with hardly a hint of musicality. Prokofiev, on the other hand, sounds like randomly generated MIDI input to me...And throw Stravinsky in the mix as well; I never got his music.


Instead of trying to justify statements like this, I think that such an attitude is...weird, or contrived to get a response. It's abnormally conservative. And the way he is "asking" for "help" like a maiden with a sprained ankle is disingenuous for an adult.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> I don't know if it's normal, but it sure is obnoxious. How terrible that the guy doesn't appear to like modernist music and will have to listen to only the music of the past few centuries! You have needlessly insulted the OP, one of our moderators, his spouse, and plenty of other TC members.


Then if it's so "insulting," why don't you report me, Bulldog?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Then if it's so "insulting," why don't you report me, Bulldog?


I don't report people unless they insult the femininity of a close friend or mess with my games big-time.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

That Guy Mick said:


> Given the remarkable dissimilarity in musical approach between the two, Shostakovitch and Prokofiev, it seems odd that the two composers are mentioned in the same breath. So much that I am barely interested in the output of Shostakovitch, but go back to Prokofiev again and again.
> 
> Yes, they are both 20th century modern Russian composers and neither wore a powdered wig...


I think Prokofiev and Shostakovich are grouped together more-or-less according to space and time. They were the Soviet Union's two most important composers. Early Shostakovich seems to imitate much of Prokofiev and some Stravinsky, but later Shostakovich seemed to follow more-so along the lines of Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Mussorgsky's really passionate embrace of Russian soul and cultrure. Then, of course, Shostakovich came to use Mahler as a template to his own all-encompassing symphonic visions. The first movements of Mhler's 6th and Shostakovich's 7th seem to mirror one another.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> Instead of trying to justify statements like this, I think that such an attitude is...weird, or contrived to get a response. It's abnormally conservative. And the way he is "asking" for "help" like a maiden with a sprained ankle is disingenuous for an adult.


I was not asking for help, I was asking for people to disclose their experience with modern composers. And the reason I used such harsh descriptions of these composer's music is because
1. Its what i really think (with exceptions)
2. To explain why I "hate" these composers rather than just dislike them or find them uninteresting


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

level82rat said:


> I was not asking for help, I was asking for people to disclose their experience with modern composers. And the reason I used such harsh descriptions of these composer's music is because
> 1. Its what i really think (with exceptions)
> 2. To explain why I "hate" these composers rather than just dislike them or find them uninteresting


I think you need to use your ears and stop with this nonsense of 'hating' these composers. Life's too short to actually 'hate' anything and, not only that, when you truly hate something you basically closed a door into understanding their music, which brings me to this point and question: if you're not going to make any effort in understanding these two composers, then why create a thread in the first place? You could easily go on both composers' threads and say you hate their music and saved yourself a lot of time.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Neo Romanza said:


> I think you need to use your ears and stop with this nonsense of 'hating' these composers. Life's too short to actually 'hate' anything and, not only that, when you truly hate something you basically closed a door into understanding their music, which brings me to this point and question: if you're not going to make any effort in understanding these two composers, then why create a thread in the first place? You could easily go on both composers' threads and say you hate their music and saved yourself a lot of time.


Exactly; I wish I'd said that.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

Neo Romanza said:


> I think you need to use your ears and stop with this nonsense of 'hating' these composers. Life's too short to actually 'hate' anything and, not only that, when you truly hate something you basically closed a door into understanding their music, which brings me to this point and question: if you're not going to make any effort in understanding these two composers, then why create a thread in the first place? You could easily go on both composers' threads and say you hate their music and saved yourself a lot of time.


Using the word hate in the OP has derailed this thread multiple times and I see that it was a mistake now. Let me reword my post:

For those of you who like the more modern 20th century composers, were you initially put off by their music or did you enjoy them from the very beginning? I personally struggle to hear the musicality in their work.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2020)

Or we can all just continue to share our experiences, positive and negative, of these two wonderful composers.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

Neo Romanza said:


> if you're not going to make any effort in understanding these two composers


Where did you get that idea? Look at my title again and notice how I said "at first" implying that it is possible for tastes to change. In reality I am jealous of others who are able to enjoy these composers and it bothers me that I can't hear what everybody else hears


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

level82rat said:


> Using the word hate in the OP has derailed this thread multiple times and I see that it was a mistake now. Let me reword my post:
> 
> For those of you who like the more modern 20th century composers, were you initially put off by their music or did you enjoy them from the very beginning? I personally struggle to hear the musicality in their work.


Shostakovich and Prokofiev are not among the more modern 20th century Russian composers. Check out the music of folks like Schnittke.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Listen to nothing but Elliott Carter’s string quartets for 12 hours straight and Shostakovich and Prokofiev will sound like Mozart.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

level82rat said:


> Using the word hate in the OP has derailed this thread multiple times and I see that it was a mistake now. Let me reword my post:
> 
> For those of you who like the more modern 20th century composers, were you initially put off by their music or did you enjoy them from the very beginning? I personally struggle to hear the musicality in their work.





level82rat said:


> Where did you get that idea? Look at my title again and notice how I said "at first" implying that it is possible for tastes to change. In reality I am jealous of others who are able to enjoy these composers and it bothers me that I can't hear what everybody else hears


Where did I get the idea that you hated these composers' music? Well this post of yours pretty much told me everything I needed to know:



level82rat said:


> I was not asking for help, I was asking for people to disclose their experience with modern composers. And the reason I used such harsh descriptions of these composer's music is because
> 1. Its what i really think (with exceptions)
> 2. To explain why I "hate" these composers rather than just dislike them or find them uninteresting


In this post of your own, you made no indication that you wanted to make a genuine effort to get to know their music or try to understand it. Yes, it would be a good idea to choose your words more wisely as it has obviously led to much confusion. To be even more honest, I don't think anyone can help you understand Shostakovich's or Prokofiev's music. You are the only one who can decide whether their music is worth the effort in getting to know and understand, but from what you've written thus far, it appears that you haven't made any effort at all and those that did share their experiences of these composers with you, you keep saying things like you can't find any musicality with their works, which, to me, tells me you're hoping to find someone that agrees with you so you can then make this thread about hating these composers, which is what I believe your intention was to begin with instead of legitimately and genuinely asking for help in understanding their music.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

Neo Romanza said:


> Where did I get the idea that you hated these composers' music?


No, my question is where did you get the idea that I will not make any effort in trying to understand these composers. The fact that I hate their music (or better put: find it deeply unpleasant) is not for debate. I admit I have not done the best job at communicating but can you at least TRY to give a genuine effort at representing what I say.



Neo Romanza said:


> but from what you've written thus far, it appears that you haven't made any effort at all and those that did share their experiences of these composers with you, you keep saying things like you can't find any musicality with their works, which, to me, tells me you're hoping to find someone that agrees with you so you can, in turn, make this thread about hating these composers instead of legitimately and genuinely asking for help


1. When I say I can't find musicality in their works, I am not replying to people who are giving me suggestions ("*those that did share their experiences of these composers with you*, you keep saying things like you can't find any musicality with their works"). I am simply repeating and clarifying the main issue in my OP.

2. I'm hoping to find someone who USED to agree with me (but now enjoys said music) so that I, in turn, can know whether it is possible for me to enjoy said music as well.

3. Again, look at the title: "AT FIRST." I was not looking to create a Prokofiev/Shostakovich/Stravinsky hate party and in fact found it disheartening when certain replies said that they do not enjoy one (or more) of these composers either, because I fear that the same fate might fall on me


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

level82rat said:


> No, my question is where did you get the idea that I will not make any effort in trying to understand these composers. The fact that I hate their music (or better put: find it deeply unpleasant) is not for debate. I admit I have not done the best job at communicating but can you at least TRY to give a genuine effort at representing what I say.
> 
> 1. When I say I can't find musicality in their works, I am not replying to people who are giving me suggestions ("*those that did share their experiences of these composers with you*, you keep saying things like you can't find any musicality with their works"). I am simply repeating and clarifying the main issue in my OP.
> 
> ...


Your whole thread was intended to be negative from beginning, but now you're trying to change my own perspective on what I perceive to be the truth and the truth is you just want to complain about these composers. I'm done talking to you about this. It's quite clear what your intentions are.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

Neo Romanza said:


> Your whole thread was intended to be negative from beginning, but now you're trying to change my own perspective on what I perceive to be the truth and the truth is you just want to complain about these composers. I'm done talking to you about this. It's quite clear what your intentions are.


Very well, I likewise have intention of conversing with mind readers.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> We can leave the little old ladies to their tea & Mozart, as we have bigger fish to fry.





Allegro Con Brio said:


> Listen to nothing but Elliott Carter's string quartets for 12 hours straight and Shostakovich and Prokofiev will sound like Mozart.


I don't exactly know what you mean by "sounding like Mozart", but I count Mozart as one of common practice masters who knew how to skillfully control dissonance in the "contrapuntal harmony". He moves between "warmth" and "coldness" so organically he can make you feel certain later music has "too many useless notes". I find that it's just the idiomatic language that's different. He doesn't have "outwardly bangy" stuff, but that's the nature of pre-Romantic music. There are almost always sections of diatonicism complementing sections of chromaticism. I know the way they coexist can give an impression of "being too neat" to some, but this is what makes Mozart so expressive in terms of mood contrast.

*3:00 ~ 3:24
5:39 ~ 6:41
7:12 ~ 7:20
7:30 ~ 7:50
13:13 ~ 15:27*





A few days ago, level82rat pointed out Mozart's K.546 has qualities anticipating Shostakovich's fugues. I wonder what he thinks about them in relation to the Mozart.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't exactly know what you mean by "sounding like Mozart", but I count Mozart as one of common practice masters who knew how to skillfully control dissonance in the "contrapuntal harmony". He moves between "warmth" and "coldness" so organically he can make you feel certain later music has "too many useless notes". I find that it's just the idiomatic language that's different. He doesn't have "bangy" stuff, but that's the nature of pre-Romantic music. There are almost always sections of diatonicism complementing sections of chromaticism. I know the way they coexist can give an impression of "being too neat" to some, but this is what makes Mozart so expressive in terms of mood contrast.
> 
> *3:00 ~ 3:24
> 5:39 ~ 6:41
> ...


I didn't mean that comparison in a negative sense


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> We can leave the little old ladies to their tea & Mozart, as we have bigger fish to fry.


I'll be cooking up a big swordfish for dinner tonight, but on the grill. Grilling to the sounds of Mozart's clarinet quintet should be quite enjoyable. Once cooked, Ellen Jane and I will have a romantic eating session accompanied by the melodic and unjustly neglected Lawrence Welk. Does anyone want to dance?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

^^^ tanka you boyz. A onea and a twoa and a threea . . .


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

When I was a kid in the 1970s, I lived with my grandparents. We watched Welk every Saturday night. When Welk's assistant conductor, George Cates, conducted the Lawrence Welk Orchestra, I thought in my child-like mind that it was really high-brow classical music. Cates sure looked the part of a great conductor.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> A few days ago, level82rat pointed out Mozart's K.546 has qualities anticipating Shostakovich's fugues. I wonder what he thinks about them in relation to the Mozart.


I linked to one of shostys fugues in A minor in that thread which I do not mind all too much. And now that you bring it up, when I first heard Mozarts c minor fugue I thought it sounded atrocious but now I adore it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Coach G said:


> When I was a kid in the 1970s, I lived with my grandparents. We watched Welk was every Saturday night. When Welk's assistant conductor, George Cates, conducted the Lawrence Welk Orchestra, I thought in my child-like mind that it was really high-brow classical music. Cates sure looked the part of a great conductor.


That's what the 1812 needs - cheesy facial hair and accordion.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

Neo Romanza said:


> Your whole thread was intended to be negative from beginning, but now you're trying to change my own perspective on what I perceive to be the truth and the truth is you just want to complain about these composers. I'm done talking to you about this. It's quite clear what your intentions are.


Upon further reflection I think you might be right. My apologies for being so argumentative and defensive. If it is any consolation I have tried listening to more Shostakovitch and Prokofiev and I have to admit that my original descriptions of their music were only aimed at specific examples of their work and were overly exaggerated even then.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

level82rat said:


> Upon further reflection I think you might be right. My apologies for being so argumentative and defensive. If it is any consolation I have tried listening to more Shostakovitch and Prokofiev and I have to admit that my original descriptions of their music were only aimed at specific examples of their work and were overly exaggerated even then.


No worries, level82rat.  I was just trying to be honest with you and it's good that you're trying to enjoy their music. Sometimes what helps me is reading a short biography on the composer I'm listening to. Perhaps in doing this, it gives me some kind of background into what their life was like and what, perhaps, could have been an influence. The important thing to remember about Shostakovich is that early in his career, he enjoyed a lot of creative freedom (as many Russian composers did), but when Stalin came into power, a lot of what he wanted to do creatively was stifled all in the name of 'music for the people'. What is remarkable about Shostakovich and that still astonishes me today is how his _Symphony No. 5_ marked a new style. His _Symphony No. 4_ was never performed until after Stalin's death, because this symphony would have surely ended his life. Stalin was already unhappy with Shostakovich since he was at a live performance of his opera _Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District_ (he left during the intermission) and two days later a newspaper article came out accusing Shostakovich of anti-patriotism and of being 'an artist against the people'. Here was a composer that looked over his shoulder constantly to see if someone was either coming up behind him or waiting by the door to be carried off by to the Gulag at any given time. Friends of his who were poets, artists, musicians, etc. would disappear only to never return. So you can understand the stress that Shostakovich must have been under and how paranoid he became with each increasing year. It was only when Stalin died that he was able to breath a little bit better, but he still had to deal with censorship and the dreadful Union of Soviet Composers headed by Tikhon Khrennikov. Thankfully, things did get better for Shostakovich, but not by much. By the late 60s, his health became increasing worse and he died in 1975. Anyway, I hope this gives you a little background into Shostakovich and perhaps _why_ his music sounds the way it does --- that kind of nervous energy and restlessness, but there is a lot powerful music to be heard within his oeuvre and I urge you continue to listen and try to understand the composer's musical language.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2020)

Neo Romanza said:


> Yes, it would be a good idea to choose your words more wisely as it has obviously led to much confusion.


Well I wasn't confused, and nor were the first dozen posters who responded.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I came to this late. I have skipped the kerfuffle and am only addressing the OP.

I would bet it's probably pretty normal to find Prokofiev and Shostakovitch hard to get into at first.

With that said, Prokofiev's first symphony should be appealing to anyone who loves 18th/19th century main-line classical music, since he was intentionally trying to mimic their forms. It's delightful.

As far as Shosty, I think getting a really good recording is key. His music is more challenging to be sure, but great playing and great sound quality can help you dial it in and follow it.

One suggestion is to try Richard Strauss first. I find him a good transitional composer to lead in to the 20th century. Sibelius also, to some degree.

As some others have said, just go at your own pace. I've been at this for two years seriously now, and I still can't get into Mahler.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Just for reference: Back in the day I subscribed to the Columbia Record Club (remember those?) Anyway, I somehow purchased a stereo LP of Prokofiev's two violin concertos, I think they were by Isaac Stern and the Columbia Symphony Orchestra.

Long story short, they made no sense to me at all. I was very disappointed. Today, though, they're among my favorite concertos. The music certainly hasn't changed, so I guess the change was in me.

OTOH quite a few works that left me cold then still leave me cold now. What's the difference? Darned if I know. So the moral is (if it matters at all) hang in there!


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> As some others have said, just go at your own pace. I've been at this for two years seriously now, and I still can't get into Mahler.


Mahler! Hated him to begin with. With a passion. I posted here to that effect (though not inconsiderately in his guestbook). I finally relented after listening to Gergiev do the 6th Symphony at the Proms in 2014. I'm now working my way through Chailly's boxed set of symphonies.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I find it hard to believe these days that I too had some initial trouble with DSCH. These days I listen to him at least once a week if not more. If pushed, I'd choose him over Prokofiev, but they are both superb imv. I took to Mahler straight away but I don't listen to him as often.

As always with unfamiliar music, it's often down to how much effort you are willing to expend in getting familiar with a composer. I've often found that becoming familiar with a piece that has less instantaneous ear candy can be as rewarding and often more so, than music with immediate (and perhaps throw away) appeal.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> Mahler! Hated him to begin with. With a passion. I posted here to that effect (though not inconsiderately in his guestbook). I finally relented after listening to Gergiev do the 6th Symphony at the Proms in 2014. I'm now working my way through Chailly's boxed set of symphonies.


Is Gergiev/LSO a good combo for Mahler? I've been considering some of their FLAC downloads.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Is Gergiev/LSO a good combo for Mahler? I've been considering some of their FLAC downloads.


The Proms concert was the World Orchestra for Peace, so I only sampled Gergiev/LSO when I was looking for a 6th on CD. I went for Jansons/LSO on a Gramophone recommendation about its hammer blows.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Let's take a piece of piano music, and suppose you are initially restricted to using notes within 1 octave (8 notes), and you search for inspiration and come up with 5 notes as your initial "theme". This gives 8 to the power of 5 possible themes. That is 32,768 themes.
Now suppose you follow approach A, where you have a rule book which tells you how to generate a piece of 5,000 notes from any 5 note theme. That is, each note at all future points (T) is a function of the previous notes. That is: N(1) to N(5) are given as the theme, and for T = 6 to 5,000 we have N(T) = f(N(T-1), N(T-2), .... N(2), N(1)).

An alternative is approach B where you simply ignore your theme in the subsequent notes, so that N(1) to N(5) are your theme, and N(6) to N(5,000) are just random.

If you listen to a lot of Style A music, I guess you will become familiar with the way the rule book works, so the music will become predictable, in that given a theme you know where it's going to go.
On the other hand, if you listen to a lot of Style B then you will not generate any expectations (except that the piece will end after 5,000 notes), as all the notes are random after the first 5. (The first 5 may not be random, because a certain composer may have a tendency to favour particular styles of theme.) To amplify this point, suppose you come in late to a recital, and you miss the first 5 notes. In the case of Style A there is a pattern (and if you are familiar with Style A you may recognise what is happening), whereas with Style B all you will hear is random notes.

To my mind Style B is not meaningfully music at all. Style A is music, but an awful lot of it is down to the Style book, rather than the composer.

If you come new to a Style A piece, and you have not previously listened to much Style A then it may seem fairly random to you. As you listen to more Style A you may start to recognise the patterns.

Now imagine that Style A(1) was written by Joseph Haydn, and embodies a classical aesthetic. You may get into classical music by listening to lots of Style A(1). Style A(2) may be Rachmaninov's playbook, so by listening to lots of that you get into a lush romantic aesthetic. Different Style books may be evolutions of others, so you may also be able to get into Style(4) by listening to a lot of Style(2) and Style(3).

However, having listened to a lot of Style A(X), for some value of X, you are likely to find that this is too predictable (as might Haydn or Rachmaninov). Hence, the composer will want to throw in a few "mistakes" while sticking to the book generally. How they deploy their mistakes is their personal Signature.

You can therefore have Style A(1) with Signature(Hummel). If the Signature starts to dominate over the Style, then you might feel that what you really have is a new Style entirely. This might be Haydn developing new forms that were then widely accepted, but with his innovations coming out of earlier Styles.

So what is needed in order to appreciate a piece of music? To my mind the music itself needs to embody a certain Style, and you need to be familiar with that Style or with Styles of the same family (- not sure what I mean by that). If you have listened to a good deal of music of the Style I think you will also want a fair amount of personal Signature (to avoid predictability).

I think the above reflects what the helpful posts in this thread have been aiming for (- taking the OP positively). So what music represents the Styles which may get someone into DSCH or SProk? Well one possibility is that you have listened to all the helpful Styles, but you just don't like their individual Signatures. If so, then you don't like them, so give up for a while (and maybe come back later, as you might change). On the other hand, if there's more hope then I think the chances depend on where you're coming from in terms of prior preferences and experiences (ie known and appreciated Styles and Signatures), and as we don't know that I'm not going to guess. Cop out!


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> As always with unfamiliar music, it's often down to how much effort you are willing to expend in getting familiar with a composer. I've often found that becoming familiar with a piece that has less instantaneous ear candy can be as rewarding and often more so, than music with immediate (and perhaps throw away) appeal.


I certainly feel I've been rewarded by my perseverance with the unfamiliar. Once I'd set out to get to know to all of LvB's symphonies, it was some considerable time before I felt I knew the Eroica, and the 9th still had that awful singing to get past. I bought my boxed set of DSCH (Haitink) in 2012 or 13, but I've still not listened to every symphony properly. And similarly with Prokofiev, I realised that whilst I knew 1,2,4,5 and 6 pretty well, I'd not bothered much with 3 and 7.

Having settled on a number of composers whose unfamilar works I want to mine, I don't feel compelled to roam across the centuries in constant search of different delights. It's partly because for me, getting to know a composer is about enjoying their company, not just their music.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I certainly feel I've been rewarded by my perseverance with the unfamiliar. Once I'd set out to get to know to all of LvB's symphonies, it was some considerable time before I felt I knew the Eroica, and the 9th still had that awful singing to get past. I bought my boxed set of DSCH (Haitink) in 2012 or 13, but I've still not listened to every symphony properly. And similarly with Prokofiev, I realised that whilst I knew 1,2,4,5 and 6 pretty well, I'd not bothered much with 3 and 7.
> 
> Having settled on a number of composers whose unfamilar works I want to mine, I don't feel compelled to roam across the centuries in constant search of different delights. It's partly because for me, getting to know a composer is about enjoying their company, not just their music.


I think we have the same DSCH set Macleod, the recordings with the Concertgebouw right? They are a great set. I too have 'gaps' in my listening, more so with Prokofiev than DSCH and especially his symphonies, which I am still getting to know.

The 'cult of personality' plays a part in how one decides who and what to listen too I feel, that and inclination on the listeners behalf. I understand wanting to know the composer as well as the music but I don't need to know in order to enjoy the work, although I do like programme notes for some context.

For me, being in the game so to speak, I've always hunted around and still do for anything exciting enough to stir the creative juices. Youtube is a remarkable place for finding the obscure and sometimes wonderful.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> I think we have the same DSCH set Macleod, *the recordings with the Concertgebouw right? *They are a great set. I too have 'gaps' in my listening, more so with Prokofiev than DSCH and especially his symphonies, which I am still getting to know.
> 
> The *'cult of personality' *plays a part in how one decides who and what to listen too I feel, that and inclination on the listeners behalf. *I understand wanting to know the composer as well as the music* but I don't need to know in order to enjoy the work, although I do like programme notes for some context.
> 
> For me, being in the game so to speak, I've always hunted around and still do for anything exciting enough to stir the creative juices. Youtube is a remarkable place for finding the obscure and sometimes wonderful.


Yes, the Concertgebouw. It is a good set, though like all sets, if you're already familar with, and have a preference for a different interpretation, it can seem to have 'gaps'. I prefer the 11th by the NOW with Thomas Sondergard live at the Proms which I recorded failry successfully directly off the TV.

'Cult of personality'. Not sure I'd considered this before, but now I think about it, the composers whose work I have spent the most time listening to certainly had either cult or personality or both.

I might have misled when I referred to 'getting to know a composer'. I didn't mean to imply that this was about getting to know their personal history, only about getting to know their music. It's just that I think liking a composer's works might also be about liking whatever sense of the composer's personality I get from listening to the music. It's why I think there can be such sharp loyalties (and, consequently, divisions) towards one composer over another. I don't just like the music of Sibelius; I like being in his company when I am listening to his music.

I have found YTB useful too, especially when someone here makes mention of something and I go looking for it - if I'm in the mood for adventure!


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Yes, the Concertgebouw. It is a good set, though like all sets, if you're already familar with, and have a preference for a different interpretation, it can seem to have 'gaps'. I prefer the 11th by the NOW with Thomas Sondergard live at the Proms which I recorded failry successfully directly off the TV.
> 
> 'Cult of personality'. Not sure I'd considered this before, but now I think about it, the composers whose work I have spent the most time listening to certainly had either cult or personality or both.
> 
> ...


I see, wasn't Sibelius was a drinker and a gambler in his younger days .......

I've wondered about how much 'real' personality is in the music of a composer. I feel composing requires a certain amount of detachment in order to make the music intelligible and at some stage, the music can start to dictate its own needs too. That demand by the music is obviously met by the composer's imagination and any dots on the final page are shall we say approved by the composer, so one could say there is personality of sorts in the choices made.

btw I love Sibelius too and am beguiled at present by the Hahn violin concerto performance on YT. Apologies for the digression to the OP, but here's the link if you want a listen, I do think very highly of it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Just for reference: Back in the day I subscribed to the Columbia Record Club (remember those?) Anyway, I somehow purchased a stereo LP of Prokofiev's two violin concertos, I think they were by Isaac Stern and the Columbia Symphony Orchestra.


A similar thing happened to me, but I was sent "New Music by Leaders of the Avant Garde" by mistake. It had John Cage, Milton Babbitt, and Henri Poussueur.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> I see, wasn't Sibelius was a drinker and a gambler in his younger days .......
> 
> I've wondered about how much 'real' personality is in the music of a composer. I feel composing requires a certain amount of detachment in order to make the music intelligible and at some stage, the music can start to dictate its own needs too. That demand by the music is obviously met by the composer's imagination and any dots on the final page are shall we say approved by the composer, so one could say there is personality of sorts in the choices made.
> 
> btw I love Sibelius too and am beguiled at present by the Hahn violin concerto performance on YT. Apologies for the digression to the OP, but here's the link if you want a listen, I do think very highly of it.


I think that becoming a great composer, or even a second-rate or third-rate composer requires tremendous training, knowledge, skill, and an incredible work ethic. The search for beauty, truth, "personality", and so forth can't come to the fore without the means to bring it. We are the lucky ones who can easily enjoy the fruits of their hard work. I've read that Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich, Sibelius, and others were heavy drinkers but I wonder to what extent they were full-blown alcoholics in that they were able to produce so much beautiful and prolific work. Mussorgsky, on the other hand, probably was a full-blown alcoholic in that he died young, was evidently undisciplined, but even he managed to work hard enough to bring forth a comparably slim body of work that demonstrates stunning originality, passion, beauty, and "personality".

This brings me back to the theme of this thread. Be it Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Mahler, or whoever; with all the trouble it took them to put their wonderful pieces together, figuring the orchestration, the points and counterpoints, key signatures, revisions, and so forth; the least we can do is give the music an even chance as we sit back and listen.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Coach G said:


> I think that becoming a great composer, or even a second-rate or third-rate composer requires tremendous training, knowledge, skill, and an incredible work ethic. The search for beauty, truth, "personality", and so forth can't come to the fore without the means to bring it.


Amen to that Coach G.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

MacLeod said:


> Yes, the Concertgebouw. It is a good set, though like all sets, if you're already familar with, and have a preference for a different interpretation, it can seem to have 'gaps'. I prefer the 11th by the NOW with Thomas Sondergard live at the Proms which I recorded failry successfully directly off the TV.
> 
> 'Cult of personality'. Not sure I'd considered this before, but now I think about it, the composers whose work I have spent the most time listening to certainly had either cult or personality or both.
> 
> ...


"Cult of personality" is very important. In many cases we like what we want to like, in that we are willing to give an even chance to music that we find interesting are worthy of our time and effort for whatever reasons there may be. So when I'm sitting in my house trying to listen to Mozart and my neighbors are blasting music, _pumping up the bass_, so the whole thre street can hear it; maybe I'm at fault for not being open-minded enough for giving their music an even chance.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

The role of technology needs to be stated. People talk about "getting to know" a composer, or "getting to know" a piece of music. While the internet has made it possible to sample almost anything you want when you want it, it can also be overwhelming. Back in the 1980s when I was a teenager just starting with classical music, I worked a part-time job and spent every dollar on buying classical music records at the store. So I'd buy two or three records a week and live with those recordings for a while, and even the process of carefully taking the record out of the sleeve, gently placing on the turn-table, and then gently positioning the needle, lent the recording a degree of respect. Then I'd listen and read the liner notes; listen again, and again, to the same recording; and gradually the recording starts to make sense. Now with YouTube and so forth, I think it's really difficult to not move from one thing to another without really _listening_.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Is Gergiev/LSO a good combo for Mahler? I've been considering some of their FLAC downloads.


I think this is about as close as you could get to a universally disliked Mahler cycle. It's pretty hideous. But if you're just concerned about sound quality there's no problems there.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I think this is about as close as you could get to a universally disliked Mahler cycle. It's pretty hideous. But if you're just concerned about sound quality there's no problems there.


Don't trust general off-the-wall statements which offer no explanations.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I guess the OP "freaked out" when he saw Fantasia, with that Stravinsky music in it.

Prokofiev's "Classical" symphony is _easy_ to get into, for anybody with an open mind. To imply otherwise is just downright...weirdly conservative. Unnatural.


----------



## Donna Elvira (Nov 12, 2017)

Prokofiev, in a lot of his music, is witty, irreverent, sarcastic and for exactly those reasons his music, the concertos and piano music immediately appealed to me. Also fun works like Lieutenant Kije exhibited that, plus parts of the Suites from Romeo and Juliet (the tragic parts were also well handled).I guess I expected something more orderly and traditional from the symphonies, but in time I've grown to appreciate especially the 5th, and the last movement of the 7th(which sounds like the old witty Prokofiev that I love). Also, in general, he was more sombre and serious in the symphonies, so less appeal for me.
Perhaps that's why Shostakovich is also a more acquired taste, even though I had a very strong desire to appreciate his music.
I will never appreciate quite a few of his symphonies and his operas, the symphonies because that are often bombastic and depressing and well, I like Italian opera mainly so, for me, Russian opera takes too much out of me, also the subject matter.
BUT-- his chamber music (the string quartets up to #12, the piano quintet, and especially the piano trio, which is shocking and violent) and his Preludes and Fugues for Piano (which are based on a form that I love), plus all of his concertos that explore, especially those for piano, a more diverse and even could be described as more "playful" side of his personality (like his colleague) were mostly immediately appealing to me.
So we get around to Stravinsky...here we again have the appeal of something just not quite "kosher," a bit "naughty, " like Prokofiev, in the Rite of Spring, but Firebird is just the overblown Romanticism I hate, like in Strauss (Except for a few of his operas and the great 4 Last Songs) but, luckily (for me), with Stravinsky that stage was very temporary. We then get his Neoclassic period, which takes classical forms, which I love, and deals with them in a new a, a bit, irreverent way (think Pulcinella, which often has me smiling and laughing out loud.) My fascination with Stavinsky ends with his serial period, when he finally gave in. 
People mentioned Mahler, a great composer, like Strauss, but whose long winded works have less appeal now than when I was younger. I don't know why, as I've grown older that I have less tolerance for heavy Romanticism.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I guess the OP "freaked out" when he saw Fantasia, with that Stravinsky music in it.


The dinosaurs really do help, I think, especially for us dinosaurs.


----------



## Donna Elvira (Nov 12, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I guess the OP "freaked out" when he saw Fantasia, with that Stravinsky music in it.
> 
> Prokofiev's "Classical" symphony is _easy_ to get into, for anybody with an open mind. To imply otherwise is just downright...weirdly conservative. Unnatural.


That 1st Fantasia and my mother's habit of putting on Rite of Spring for us kids to play dinosaurs might be one reason why Stravinsky was easy for me to appreciate when I was an adult.
But it's not "open mind," I realize, after all these years, it's rather some kind of psychological click that lets some aspect of the music appeal to the listener, and then open their ears to listen for more. 
This is not the "fault" of the composer or the listener...it's just the "natural" way we each are made. (plus, as I mentioned, early childhood experiences)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

My first Prokofiev piece was the suite from the Love For 3 Oranges. I was a small child and had a high fever, high enough for my visual perceptions to be distorted. I can remember being fascinated by these hallucinations and by how the Prokofiev music went so well with them! I've loved that piece ever since but tend to hear it as much more serious than Prokofiev intended.


----------



## PierreN (Aug 4, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> btw I love Sibelius too and am beguiled at present by the Hahn violin concerto performance on YT. Apologies for the digression to the OP, but here's the link if you want a listen, I do think very highly of it.


That's not a useless digression. Hahn's performance of this Sibelius concerto is coupled, on the same CD, with a remarkable performance of Schönberg's Violin Concerto. There is also a CD with her performing both Mendenssohn's Violin Concerto and Shostakovich Violin Concerto no.1!

(On edit: How did I forget to mention that Hilary Hahn also produced a CD with the Violin Concertos of both Brahms and Stravinsky!)


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> btw I love Sibelius too and am beguiled at present by the Hahn violin concerto performance on YT.


I'm sure we can cope with a minor digression!

However, I have yet to find that I can enjoy the company of the solo violin - whoever the composer.

(Having said that, I'm quite enjoying the concerto - is this good violin playing?)


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> Prokofiev's "Classical" symphony is _easy_ to get into, for anybody with an open mind.


I just recently heard the Symphony #1 for the first time in my new Karajan box and it was was SO easy to classical sounding I had to check and make sure I was playing the right track. It was a total throwback to the earlier forms with none of the characteristic brief forays into dissonance you get in other of his works. It was really nice. His 5th is in the same box and I also heard that for the first time. This one sounds more like Prokofiev but I still found it immediately enjoyable. I've realized I need to spend some time listening to his symphonies.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

BlackAdderLXX said:


> I just recently heard the Symphony #1 for the first time in my new Karajan box and it was was SO easy to classical sounding I had to check and make sure I was playing the right track. It was a total throwback to the earlier forms with none of the characteristic brief forays into dissonance you get in other of his works. It was really nice. His 5th is in the same box and I also heard that for the first time. This one sounds more like Prokofiev but I still found it immediately enjoyable. I've realized I need to spend some time listening to his symphonies.


Those might have been the first Prokofiev recordings I heard as well!


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

Coach G said:


> This brings me back to the theme of this thread. Be it Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Mahler, or whoever; with all the trouble it took them to put their wonderful pieces together, figuring the orchestration, the points and counterpoints, key signatures, revisions, and so forth; the least we can do is give the music an even chance as we sit back and listen.


This right here. While my motives aren't the same my sentiment is: a work from a great composer can at the very least be appreciated from the perspective of the level of ability it took to create it. All it takes is willingness to try.

I have over the years tried to like opera music. While I don't hate it, it's not something that I enjoy listening to. I can still appreciate the composer's work as well as the talent necessary to sing the piece. I'll listen to opera every now and again, and maybe someday it will click. Or maybe it won't. But I'll continue to give it a fair shot from time to time.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Donna Elvira said:


> That 1st Fantasia and my mother's habit of putting on Rite of Spring for us kids to play dinosaurs might be one reason why Stravinsky was easy for me to appreciate when I was an adult.


Aww, that is a super-cute story! Thanks for relating it. :lol:


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

annaw said:


> Those might have been the first Prokofiev recordings I heard as well!


I haven't been a hard core classical listener long but there have been several recordings I've had and have listened to regularly for about 30 years. One of them is Graffman/Szell performing the #1 & #3 piano concertos which has been a favorite of mine and has been on my 'desert island' list for all of that time along with various jazz, rock and country albums.

What was interesting for me was listening to those two symphonies for the first time after 30 years of Prokofiev PC #1 & #3. They didn't seem like Prokofiev to me - well the first one didn't - as compared to the piano concertos. I expected a lot more dissonance. They were excellent, BTW, but shockingly conservative by way of comparison. I really need to listen to the others.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

While it is not often listed by others as a favorite Prokofiev symphony, I find the 3rd symphony, the one constructed in part from surplus materials from _The Fiery Angel_, to be utterly engrossing. It starts out in quite a burst but repeated hearing brings out details and bits of theme that grow on one, me anyway.

I also strongly recommend Prokofiev's 2nd String Quartet, with its "oriental" colors.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I'm sure we can cope with a minor digression!
> 
> However, I have yet to find that I can enjoy the company of the solo violin - whoever the composer.
> 
> (Having said that, I'm quite enjoying the concerto - is this good violin playing?)


Hell yes MacL. She is sensational imv and a superb musician.


----------



## Tinker2Evers2Chance (Jul 3, 2020)

'Hate' is a strong term, although usefully familiar and always ready to hand. To answer the question - at least in part - I kind of think an initial reaction to Shostakovich and Prokofiev can be somewhat colored by where you're coming from. Much like life in general your own home landscape takes on a different contrast and texture by how the light of an external source falls upon it. Right now I'm about to listen to Haydn, but if I directly follow that up with something like Prokofiev's overture on Hebrew themes it's a shift. Then follow the that with Shostakovich's string quartet no. 8 and the sky is of a different hue entirely.

But it's all good and speaking for myself if after repeated listenings a composer (or even a part of their body of work) is causing some kind of consternation, I'll simply move on. There's other music a plenty last a lifetime and more. 
Enjoy, regardless!


----------

