# Ever had a piece of music which you just weren't sure if you liked?



## DGH (Nov 18, 2013)

Been lurking here for a while, this is my first post. Wonderful forum by the way, I've discovered so much music which has made my life better, so thank you everyone. 

I'm limited by space in the title bar in expressing what I want to discuss. I've loved 'classical music' since I was 18 and my university roommate gave me a disc of Beethoven's 8th, 14th and 23rd sonatas to listen to. Prior to that, I'd never really been exposed to classical music, but following that night, I was obsessed. I'm now 32. 

I'm not at all educated in it. I cannot read music, and feel huge frustration that sometimes I feel I just don't 'get' so much of what is going on. This frustration is most keenly felt when I listen to Bach. I sense I'm being told magnificent things, but I don't have the apparatus to receive it. I read Aaron Copeland's book "What To Listen For In Music", and was still left largely baffled. 

Anyway, enough biography...I'll finally say, my main passion is piano music. Beethoven, Alkan and Schubert primarily. 

My topic is this: Schumann's Opus 17 Fantasie. I have 3 recordings, perhaps my favourite of which is Pollini's (coupled with Schubert's Wanderer Fantasie - one of my favourite works, and the reason I got the disc and discovered the Schumann). For a decade, I have been returning to this work. I know its history, I have read a lot about its creation, and the story of Robert and Clara. It has never connected with me, clung to my soul, as other works have...but there is just something about it, some weird quality, which keeps taking me back to it. I listen to it, with total concentration, around once a week. And at the end, I'm left with very odd feelings. On the one hand, it's just not 'clicking' with me...but each time I listen, I find it stays with me for hours. 

I'll cut this short, because I'm not quite sure what exactly I'm trying to express, but basically - are there any pieces of music which for years you have been grappling with, never quite sure whether you love it or not, but something about it keeps bringing you back to it?


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

When I listen to Sibelius symphonies I have no idea if I'm enjoying them or not. But, I listen anyway.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Welcome to the forum, DGH

It sounds like Schumann's Op. 17 Fantasie is connecting with you, actually, if you are repeatedly being drawn back to it...

It has been a favourite of mine too for many years; I am quite sure that I love it.

I think the clearest example of something similar to what you describe above in my own musical experience came about when I heard the Second Viennese school's music for the first few times. I wasn't sure that I liked it at all (how strange Webern, especially, seemed). However there was something ineffable in the music that drew me back. I sometimes wondered if this was 'really' music (whatever that is) at all, but I found something in it that was exciting and really courageous as well.

Later on in life it became clear to me that I really loved it - it no longer seems a contentious issue. 

I guess the moral of the story is - keep listening; your thoughts and feelings may resolve!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DGH said:


> I'll cut this short, because I'm not quite sure what exactly I'm trying to express, but basically - are there any pieces of music which for years you have been grappling with, never quite sure whether you love it or not, but something about it keeps bringing you back to it?


All the time. Usually, if something's bringing me back, it's because there's something there that intrigues me, and maybe eventually I'll discover it, maybe I won't.

Great first post, by the way!


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

DGH said:


> I'm not at all educated in [music]. I cannot read music, and feel huge frustration that sometimes I feel I just don't 'get' so much of what is going on. This frustration is most keenly felt when I listen to Bach. I sense I'm being told magnificent things, but I don't have the apparatus to receive it. I read Aaron Copeland's book "What To Listen For In Music", and was still left largely baffled.


I remember feeling like that about Bach. It clicked for me eventually. I learned quite a bit about picking apart counterpoint from reading _Gödel, Escher, Bach_ (which is mostly about formal logic, funnily enough), but mostly you just have to listen a lot.

Do you have any interest in picking up a bit of theory? You can go a long way by reading Wikipedia articles and hanging around here and asking questions.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

This has happened to me countless times in nearly 50 years of listening to classical music since I was
a teenager . Sometimes it takes a number of repeated hearings before you "get" a work , which is why 
recordings are an advantage in hearing a work for the first time over a live performance, where you have only
one chance to hear it .' 
I suggest you get this book- "What to listen for in music" by the late ,great Aaron Copland . He explains the structure
and content of music in a very clear and vivid way without the slightest condescension . It should be easy to find
on Amazon, or check your local library which may have it .
You should never decide you don't like or get something the first time you hear it .


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

Watch this, in its entirety:






It's a question of whether you are in the moment, with the music. Getting there isn't automatic but requires an act of will, and courage.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

I felt that way about Shostakovich for a long time before starting to love his music, and I still feel that way about Debussy. I think not being sure of how you feel about a composer or piece of music is generally a positive thing, because at least you're still interested in the music, and that can develop into long-lasting appreciation even if you end up not "liking" the music.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

EricABQ said:


> When I listen to Sibelius symphonies I have no idea if I'm enjoying them or not. But, I listen anyway.


Muahahaha, you love it. It's simply bypassing your mental recognition and going straight to the heart. Your mind is saying "Why?"... and your heart is saying "Shutup, it's not for you dammit!"


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

This happens to me all the time, even with pieces I've already decided I love. Sometimes they're not quite the same, or not quite what I thought they were. 

Actually Schumann is a great example. I find his piano pieces are sort of okay while I'm hearing them, but I think I'm only drawn back to them on the strength of his magnificent piano concerto, I feel they must be almost as good whether I'm getting it or not. I think I'm one of the very few who actually prefers his orchestral work over his solo piano work, but I cannot put my finger on why this would be exactly.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Took me a while to warm up to Beethoven's Mass in C, but that may have been as much due to my initial infatuation with Beethoven's Missa Solemnis overshadowing my experience with Mass in C. I recently got a Rilling performance of Mass in C and it is wonderful.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Often  Not for years, but for days, when I've gotten something new. In my experience, much of the very best music takes a while to sink in.


----------



## SarahO (Nov 16, 2013)

I wanted very much to like Bernstein's MASS: A Theatre Piece for Singers, Players, and Dancers. But I'm not there yet.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

You've all passed the test, and are now ready to move onto *Zimmermann's* Die Soldaten. :tiphat:


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

^^^
I listened to Bernstein's mass recently. I liked some parts, didn't care for others. Same for Bruckner's symphonies. I just got the complete symphonies of Ernst Krenek (I know, who's he?) and I'm not sure if I like any of these. I'm not sure if I like most of Stravinsky's music? I have the 22 CD set, and I tried The Rake's Progress last night. Meh! It's in English, and it sounds kind of old fashioned for a 20th century opera.


----------



## Llyranor (Dec 20, 2010)

All the time.

I don't write them off if I feel like I don't get them. I just set them aside and try again some other time. Sometimes a revisit makes me fall in love with it, and sometimes it still doesn't click (then I set it aside again for some other time).

You don't have to feel like you HAVE to like everything, either.



DGH said:


> I'm not at all educated in it. I cannot read music, and feel huge frustration that sometimes I feel I just don't 'get' so much of what is going on. This frustration is most keenly felt when I listen to Bach. I sense I'm being told magnificent things, but I don't have the apparatus to receive it.


I think it's a learning process. My appreciation of Bach came from being able to pay attention to his counterpoint. When you listen to one of his pieces, try to follow one melody (the 'main' one, if there IS a main one), then try to identify other ones (there might be 2, 3, 4 different 'voices'/melodies). Then, when you're comfortable with that, try to listen to them all at once. It sounds better than if there were fewer melodies at once!

One potential starting point could be the double violin concerto, where you keep tabs on the 2 solo violins. The Brandenburg concerti could also be a good starting point, as you'd be able to keep tabs on different instruments more easily maybe.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

starthrower said:


> I tried The Rake's Progress last night. Meh! It's in English, and it sounds kind of old fashioned for a 20th century opera.


Quite intentionally so! It's both a satire of and homage to all of opera from Monteverdi through Verdi (intentionally ignoring Wagner), but especially Mozart. It's even set in the 18th century. Still, it's loaded up with Stravinskyisms from start to finish.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

I'm not sure yet if I like Debussy even though I've heard his music a decent amount. I understand that his music is maybe best compared to painting a scene rather than telling a story so maybe I haven't really connected with that yet. But I keep coming back so I'm sure I'll eventually really warm up to it. I saw La Mer at the Houston Symphony and that was a pretty nice experience.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Dustin said:


> I'm not sure yet if I like Debussy even though I've heard his music a decent amount. I understand that his music is maybe best compared to painting a scene rather than telling a story so maybe I haven't really connected with that yet. But I keep coming back so I'm sure I'll eventually really warm up to it. I saw La Mer at the Houston Symphony and that was a pretty nice experience.


I admit that I thought of Debussy as a sort of second-rate Ravel before I heard his _Études_.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Thirty years back I used to listen to Scriabin and scratch my head about it. I didn't like it much at all. Thirty years later he is one of my favorite composers for piano and I love most everything he wrote. Sometimes it just takes the right amount of time and experience with music to appreciate certain things. I'm sure there are others but Scriabin comes foremost to my mind.

Kevin


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ahammel said:


> I admit that I thought of Debussy as a sort of second-rate Ravel before I heard his _Études_.


Ouch. Although I suppose I should admit here that I have at times felt that Ravel was a second-rate Debussy...

Now I suppose I just accept them both for what they are. Though I still think Debussy's by far the better composer...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Quite intentionally so! It's both a satire of and homage to all of opera from Monteverdi through Verdi (intentionally ignoring Wagner), but especially Mozart. It's even set in the 18th century. Still, it's loaded up with Stravinskyisms from start to finished.


I'm not much of a classical era music listener, but I'll give Rake another try. Sometimes I feel like Stravinsky was a bit too reverential concerning past musical eras.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Ouch. Although I suppose I should admit here that I have at times felt that Ravel was a second-rate Debussy...
> 
> Now I suppose I just accept them both for what they are. Though I still think Debussy's by far the better composer...


I still marginally prefer Ravel, I suppose. But it's clearly a choice between excellences.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Kevin Pearson said:


> Thirty years back I used to listen to Scriabin and scratch my head about it. I didn't like it much at all. Thirty years later he is one of my favorite composers for piano and I love most everything he wrote. Sometimes it just takes the right amount of time and experience with music to appreciate certain things. I'm sure there are others but Scriabin comes foremost to my mind.
> 
> Kevin


I'm 30 years behind you on Scriabin, neither liking nor disliking although for a time I had enthusiasm for his _Prometheus: The Poem of Fire. _ His piano works are largely just a great many notes that seem to more or less follow one another. I'm the same way with Liszt.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

There's loads of music that I hated when I was young but love now (and vice versa). I think everyone's tastes change with experience.
As for music you're unsure about...you may just require a different recording.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

I've always wanted to listen to all the symphonies of Shostakovich in chronological order, but I've never managed to summon the courage to do it yet. As of today, I still haven't listened to his symphonies 11-14, and maybe 6 and 8. Maybe it's because I've heard less than positive opinions about some of his weaker symphonies. I can be very particular about listening to only the "best of the best" sometimes. This can often be a hindrance rather than a benefit.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2013)

César Franck. I rest my case, m'luds.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2013)

Celloman said:


> I've always wanted to listen to all the symphonies of Shostakovich in chronological order, but I've never managed to summon the courage to do it yet. As of today, I still haven't listened to his symphonies 11-14, and maybe 6 and 8. Maybe it's because I've heard less than positive opinions about some of his weaker symphonies. I can be very particular about listening to only the "best of the best" sometimes. This can often be a hindrance rather than a benefit.


Courage. What an odd word in the context.

Listening to music is fun. And it's not at all dangerous. Doesn't take any courage at all. Just desire.

As for hearing "less than positive opinions" and "weaker," these all point to a very common trend among a lot of listeners, namely, to let other people decide for them what is worth listening to and what is not.

Really? I'm constantly amazed at how willing people can be to let other people decide things for them. For things as personal as music, I'm extremely amazed.

I would think that the way to find out what you like and what you do not like is to listen to everything. One does not save any time, either, by turning over this activity to others. One still has to check the opinions of others by doing some listening for oneself. If listening is a burden--and I have read dozens, maybe hundreds, of posts to a half a dozen music boards that strongly suggest that listening to music _is_ a burden--then "oh, well."

But if it's not....

Besides, "best of the best" is just about as meaningless a concept as it is possible to imagine. I would think that it is always a hindrance!

Besides besides, it depends so much on who one is talking to. If one is talking to me, then one will hear only positive things about Shostakovich's 8th. Not so much about 14.

But if one is talking to someone else, then 14 could very well be feline slumber apparel and number 8 be simply meh. And, if one chooses who to believe according to one's own tastes, then why would one be relying on anyone besides one's own self, anyway?


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

Yes, one of the biggest negative things the Internet has done is substitute other peoples' judgment for your own. It's far easier, and lazier, to just post a request for a "best of" list than try to go out and explore yourself.

If you only limit yourself to the same national park backcountry trails recommended in all the guidebooks, all you'll find is a pre-defined experience trod out by others, not your own path.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Weston said:


> I'm 30 years behind you on Scriabin, neither liking nor disliking although for a time I had enthusiasm for his _Prometheus: The Poem of Fire. _ His piano works are largely just a great many notes that seem to more or less follow one another.


I haven't been listening to Scriabin's piano music for very long, but your glib assessment seems to suggest a linear concept. To my ears, it sounds more vertically oriented.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

some guy said:


> Courage. What an odd word in the context.
> 
> Listening to music is fun. And it's not at all dangerous. Doesn't take any courage at all.


I wish everybody felt this way, but oddly enough, people do fear music. And radio programmers fear their listeners' fear of music. This is why I quit radio. I couldn't deal with this absurd notion.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Yes, one of the biggest negative things the Internet has done is substitute other peoples' judgment for your own. It's far easier, and lazier, to just post a request for a "best of" list than try to go out and explore yourself.

I agree. Yet, there's only so much time in a day to listen to music. I have to decide what I will listen to and what I will simply save for another day, which may be very far in the future or may not come at all. Since I can't listen to everything, it is sometimes helpful to take advantage of other peoples' opinions. Think of it this way. If a book gets very bad reviews, then I can save myself the trouble of reading it and read something much more worthwhile, instead.

I don't see anything wrong in letting the opinions of others decide what I will or will not listen to. This is acceptable.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Essentially I hated choral music and it took me a long time to warm up to it, but now it is my favorite music.

When I first started listening to classical music I was mostly into hard rock so the classical I sought out was powerful stuff like Wagner overtures, Beethoven's Fifth, E. Power Biggs playing Bach, 1812 Overture (for the cannon blasts). I did also get into Beethoven's Ninth, the only choral work I would listen to. Then I got to where I needed more than just the music and so began attending operas. Then I didn't listen to much classical for about 25 years (how horrible in retrospect). 

About 2011 I was mostly listening to blues (primarly Johnny Winter--about 850 songs on shuffle!) when one day I grabbed a classical compilation disc for a dollar at a dollar store and suddenly I was caught up, listening and buying all sorts of music. Then at one point it was only unaccompanied piano music, and of course ALL of Beethoven's piano sonatas. It is funny because I avoided vocal works like the plague other than Beethoven's Ninth and Handel's Messiah. But now my mp3 player has only choral works on it and I can't imagine spending much time on non vocal listening. 

Now to the point:

I know several people who listen to classical music and have for years, but when any vocal music comes on they change the channel. They can't stand it. But I learned that the human voice can be viewed as another musical instrument, and a more perfect one in many ways. When you look at it that way, you can get a lot more enjoyment out of choral works that are in a language that you do not know. Of course it is always nice to understand the foreign language as the words do add to the experience. I guess that may be part of the reason Handel's Messiah and Chandos Anthems are among my favorite choral works.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2013)

It's certainly not a crime. But then no one has come even close to suggesting such a thing. Well, until now!

As for having only so much time, surely that applies only to things that one is not passionately interested in. For me, that would be film. I like a lot of films I've seen, but there are just so many other things to spend time on.

For me, one of those is music. I never feel like I don't have enough time to listen to music. There's always plenty of time for that. Because I am passionately involved with it. I never don't have enough time for music.

For film? I rarely have enough time for film. Even though I have thoroughly enjoyed many many films. It's just not something I want all that much for myself. (In a group of people, I'm always up for a nice film. By myself, however? Well, I'm always up for listening to music.)

So it's not really about right or wrong--it's certainly not about criminality!!

It's just about interest and passion. 

Celloman, you may be about film as I am about music. And may be equally bewildered by people who post to film threads about not having enough time to watch every film ever made. I have a friend who is that way about film. He loves music, too, but he doesn't have enough time ever to explore every little thing. Film, though? I sometimes think he has genuinely and literally seen ever single movie ever made. And he has the DVDs to prove it, too.

I think that if I were ever on a film discussion board, I would probably sound a lot like you do here.

In fact, I so totally understand, that what you and many others have said about not having enough time does not bewilder me at all any more. It's not my way. But it's a way. (And for other things I like besides music, why, it IS my way!!) So thanks for that. (I always have time to learn, too.)

Still, if a book gets very bad reviews, I'm likely to think that the reviewers are jerks (on no evidence, just a feeling), and I'll read the book just to prove that they're jerks!!


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

As massive a Mozart fan I am (figuratively), I opened up to his sonatas only recently, mostly prefering his concerti, chamber music and opera. I used to find his sonatas a little too "simple" musically and largely wrote them off, using the fact that they were written for his students as a rationale and assuming, therefore, that they could not possibly embody much of the composer's soul and creative spirit. But, I started listening more carefully to recordings by a great variety of artists (the usual Mozart crew - Haskill, Lupu, Perahia, Uchida, Barenboim, Argerich, Brendel, Pires) and even some less typical interpreters like Lang Lang, Kissin, Pletnev and Li. I was amazed at how each sonata varied based on the performer. The way I began to understand the Mozart sonata is as follows: the performer must first construct an extremely delicate porcelain white vase. What's inside the vase and how it can affect the listener remains a great mystery.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

DGH said:


> I'll cut this short, because I'm not quite sure what exactly I'm trying to express, but basically - are there any pieces of music which for years you have been grappling with, never quite sure whether you love it or not, but something about it keeps bringing you back to it?


It's a very good question & have always had this feeling with Bruckner & Mahler and with others it is a similar feeling but one of, 'I should like this but get can't get into it.' In fact I have a set of Knappertsbusch's Parsifal which looks at me from the bookshelf and begs to be played, but never is; in other words I'm drawn to the piece but never get round to exert the effort in playing and absorbing it.
I think the same applies to art in general and you don't have to love the piece to appreciate it; in fact much art can be repulsive (think Francis Bacon) but there is something disturbing and ghastly which keeps us coming back.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Copperears said:


> Yes, one of the biggest negative things the Internet has done is substitute other peoples' judgment for your own.


In my now near antique youth of yesteryears, you found people whose taste / opinions you admired, and / or those who were knowledgeable and neutral enough to assess you, your taste, your taste right now, know what would be the 'next thing' which was a slight stretch but not a miss, and you took your recommends from them and not from anonymous maybe anybody's or settling on a common-denominator list of "classical pops favorites."

If you've ever had the gift of experiencing a friendly librarian, bookseller, a knowing clerk on the floor of the record / CD store, you will recognize what I'm talking about....

Go about finding that equivalent on TC. They're here, and if you are selective, you'll find them, and they will serve you quite well.

Though you consider yourself musically "illiterate," I think you would be more than surprised what you can read of a musical score while following it with a recording playing -- unlike letters, music notation is highly graphic, the rhythm placed on the page so it has a spatial ratio to that activity, the notes, well, they go up, or down, and that is enough to "see" what is going on. A lot of it, literate or not, is seeing contours, pattern, and that is not at all the intimidating rocket science, or "reading Chinese" as many would make it out to be.

Try it with a piano score, say, of a Bach prelude and fugue. You will be amazed at how the visual aid actually pulls what you hear, and your hearing in general, into sharper focus!

Attraction: to different pieces, composers, at different times, I've had "no take" on pieces I later began to like, then later loved and still love, and the opposite -- instant infatuations which were short lived.

I think with more accumulated experience one becomes cannier, quicker to recognize at least what interests and what does not. Even then years down the road, one can have the same or similar experience with any other work, either new to the hearing or an old familiar, that you have ongoing with the Schumann. I wouldn't worry about it at all... clearly, there is some attraction / fascination you have which keeps you returning to that piece, which is very telling of the power of that music to you -- and that in a way is "all that counts."


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I've sort of had this with Haydn's Op. 33 - but the Buchberger interpretations did make me a fan of that quartet set as well. Also, I'm still a bit split on Haydn's Seven Last Words - I like the atmosphere, but sometimes I find that the melodies could have been better, especially when comparing them to the adagio introductions of the London symphonies.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I'm not sure if I like the music of Insane Clown Posse. o3o *shrugs*


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

starthrower said:


> ^^^
> I listened to Bernstein's mass recently. I liked some parts, didn't care for others. Same for Bruckner's symphonies. I just got the complete symphonies of Ernst Krenek (I know, who's he?) and I'm not sure if I like any of these. I'm not sure if I like most of Stravinsky's music? I have the 22 CD set, and I tried The Rake's Progress last night. Meh! It's in English, and it sounds kind of old fashioned for a 20th century opera.


"A Rake's Progress" (1733) is a series of eight paintings by Hogarth . They illustrate the story of Tom Rakewell , a young man who follows the path of vice and self destruction, he ends up in Bedlam.
It is very English and so it makes sense that it should be sung in English.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Ouch. Although I suppose I should admit here that I have at times felt that Ravel was a second-rate Debussy...
> 
> Now I suppose I just accept them both for what they are. Though I still think Debussy's by far the better composer...


D)

Well, certainly I feel that Debussy is more imaginative. But I think the key point is that they were interested in quite different things, and had quite different approaches. And, of course, when one compares one of them in the framework of the other, the second would appear as superior.
I see Debussy as the great innovator and a great source of imagination. It was him the one who introduced all those new harmonies and scales. More or less for their own sake.
Ravel took some of these things, but as an influence, his style and his aims are others. The two composers had quite different approaches to form. Debussy is more free and innovative sometimes, while Ravel looks for the exploration of the traditional forms in new and more intricate ways. This is related, I think, with the description I made of Debussy in the first paragraph.
Ravel's writing for the piano is more idiomatic for the instrument and there's a search for new realms of virtuosity, but always as an expansion of the past.
And now, one of the main differences is in the emotional approach, to me. Debussy's music is more absolute, like Mozart for example. Ravel's music often is more clearly evocative of strong emotion, quite often in the obscure and melancholic side (Sad Birds, Piano Concerto for the left hand). Also it's often more lyrical.
So, I would say that Debussy was a full modernist while Ravel sought for an extension and development of the traditional techniques (of form, emotion, melody, pianism, etc.) but also with the influence of the new trends.
I think the two composers excelled in their goals. If one judges Ravel in Debussy's standards, I guess he would appear as a rather lean innovator. On the other hand, in Ravel's standards, Debussy's music would appear as rather cold an objective. I couldn't choose, both give me different and unique things. Ravel gives me that fantastic and desolate sadness of Sad Birds, or the melancholy of La vallée des cloches; while Debussy gives me those fantastic and abstract landscapes of the Préludes.


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

Iannis Xenakis -- Pithoprakta
Ludwig van Beethoven -- Triple Concerto


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Sometimes I feel like Stravinsky was a bit too reverential concerning past musical eras.


And what's the problem with that?. 

Classical music is a "tradition", it's very likely that composers are going to admire and be inspired by composers of previous eras. Nobody builds a house from nothing.
Of course, what I mentioned is different from explicitly using techniques and devices of previous eras in new music. Depending on the way in which it's used, that's certainly more close to conservatism. But that also can be relative. Ligeti, for instace, used a lot of techniques from previous era, like the canon, fugue, even hocketing!. But they are implemented in a novel way.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I'm not sure if I really like Mahler in general. I like moments, perhaps, but as a whole? I just don't know...


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

SarahO said:


> I wanted very much to like Bernstein's MASS: A Theatre Piece for Singers, Players, and Dancers. But I'm not there yet.


Just my two cents: I'm not sure you will be.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm always grappling with something. This week it was Schnittke's 4th symphony. I know there's something great there, but I got lost in the middle of it.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

All pieces I like, I'm not sure if I like them. I'm not even sure if I like Beethoven's 5th. Perhaps I just dream of liking it, since the life is but a dream. The work might not exist in reality, whatever...... and wherever....... it may...... be.......... <disappears in the mist>


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I'm not sure if I really like Mahler in general. I like moments, perhaps, but as a whole? I just don't know...


From a player's perspective, it might be frustrating, because (especially as a flute player) you end up playing a lot of fragments of melodies as much as or more than you play full melodic lines. From my perspective, of course, that's not an issue...


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Aramis said:


> All pieces I like, I'm not sure if I like them. I'm not even sure if I like Beethoven's 5th. Perhaps I just dream of liking it, since the life is but a dream. The work might not exist in reality, whatever...... and wherever....... it may...... be.......... <disappears in the mist>


You bring up an interesting philosophical point. Does any musical work actually exist outside it's live performance? And if not, then it is an ephemeral existence but for the repeat performances. What is on paper in the score is not the actual musical work, just the notation explaining it. Does it exist when played back on a turntable or CD player? Probably, but in a lesser state (nothing like live music).


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

TallPaul said:


> You bring up an interesting philosophical point. Does any musical work actually exist outside it's live performance? And if not, then it is an ephemeral existence but for the repeat performances. What is on paper in the score is not the actual musical work, just the notation explaining it. Does it exist when played back on a turntable or CD player? Probably, but in a lesser state (nothing like live music).


Music exists in the score. A performance is an expression of the score, which is (hypothetically) the same from performance to performance. If music were not in the score, then something that has never been performed would not be music, which is just absurd.

Put another way: if the music were not in the score, the music known as Schubert's Ninth would not have existed until years after Schubert's death.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Music exists in the score. A performance is an expression of the score, which is (hypothetically) the same from performance to performance. If music were not in the score, then something that has never been performed would not be music, which is just absurd.
> 
> Put another way: if the music were not in the score, the music known as Schubert's Ninth would not have existed until years after Schubert's death.


The score itself isn't music. It's directions to manifest the music. Just like a blueprint isn't a house... it shows you how to get the house.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> Put another way: if the music were not in the score, the music known as Schubert's Ninth would not have existed until years after Schubert's death.


It's not as ridiculous. When ideologists of communism (just some example) wrote their first manifests, did the communism exist or did it only happen when the conception was brought to life in functional society for the first time? Score is the conception, realization of which (during performance) is the work itself. Of course, that's just a point of view.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Aramis said:


> It's not as ridiculous. When ideologists of communism (just some example) wrote their first manifests, did the communism exist or did it only happen when the conception was brought to life in functional society for the first time? Score is the conception, realization of which (during performance) is the work itself. Of course, that's just a point of view.


Some would argue that communism has never existed except as a theory, as it has never been instantiated.

Similarly, every performance of a piece is a different realization of the same music. It can be faster or slower, harsher or softer, and the music itself does not change its identity. The only thing which encompasses all performances which have occurred and will occur of a given piece is the score.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Platonists vs Aristotelians!

Round 1, fight!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Platonists vs Aristotelians!
> 
> Round 1, fight!


The Platonist view would be that the music has always existed in the Universe, and Beethoven merely instantiated it.
The Aristotilian view would be that the music began to exist when Beethoven wrote the score down, thus creating the first exemplar.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Uh oh, I think I threw the thread off track.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2013)

Two things are essential, someone to play and someone to listen. When you have both, there's music.

However, that's as may be. 

(I'd do thread duty, but I'm off to make a new thread of my own.)


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> The Platonist view would be that the music has always existed in the Universe, and Beethoven merely instantiated it.
> The Aristotilian view would be that the music began to exist when Beethoven wrote the score down, thus creating the first exemplar.


It also depends on what you consider music. I don't consider something music until it has reached tonal manifestation. But some consider music to also be the very idea of it... You can play either way, and I understand both perspectives... But I can't listen to a sheet of paper with notes on it.

:tiphat:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> It also depends on what you consider music. I don't consider something music until it has reached tonal manifestation. But some consider music to also be the very idea of it... You can play either way, and I understand both perspectives... But I can't listen to a sheet of paper with notes on it.


Well, that means that you have to accept that if Schubert's Ninth Symphony is a piece of music, and not merely a symbol which gives rise to multiple mutually exclusive pieces of music consisting of the same notes in the same arrangement in more or less the same rhythm, then it did not begin to exist until over a decade after Schubert's death.

Incidentally, many of us _can_ hear notes on a page in our mind's "ear".


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, that means that you have to accept that if Schubert's Ninth Symphony is a piece of music, and not merely a symbol which gives rise to multiple mutually exclusive pieces of music consisting of the same notes in the same arrangement in more or less the same rhythm, then it did not begin to exist until over a decade after Schubert's death.
> 
> Incidentally, many of us _can_ hear notes on a page in our mind's "ear".


Hmm, something to think about. It can be argued either way I suppose.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, that means that you have to accept that if Schubert's Ninth Symphony is a piece of music, and not merely a symbol which gives rise to multiple mutually exclusive pieces of music consisting of the same notes in the same arrangement in more or less the same rhythm, then it did not begin to exist until over a decade after Schubert's death.
> 
> Incidentally, many of us _can_ hear notes on a page in our mind's "ear".


Absolutely! How else could Beethoven have gone on composing after he went deaf if not for this ability?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Well, he was a prodigy.

... but I see what y'all are saying and it certainly holds water.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Although... that's just a testament to the mind having tonal memory. I don't think someone who has never heard music before, or has been deaf all their life, can do that.


----------



## Rocco (Nov 25, 2013)

I took a while to warm up to vocal music. I always was one to purposely avoid works with vocals....now vocal music is my favorite! My first introduction to vocal music was with a Handel's Messiah highlights disc....after I heard that I was hooked.


----------

