# How hard do you try before you give up?



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

As in, how far will you go into a composer's oeuvre before you decide that said composer is just not your "cup of tea", or, for that matter, a given piece of work? 

I. How many versions of the work do you go through? 
II. For opera, do you get to the end? Do you listen to it piecemeal and reject it whole? 

For example, Wagner is hard to digest whole even if you're a Wagnerite; there were many sections of Tristan that I thought I didn't like until I listened to Barenboim's recording, which was the 7th recording of said piece; he managed to make the melody truly "unending" to my ears. 

Die Walkure is supposedly one of Wagner's more popular operas but not until Furtwangler did it also reach the "unending melody" standard; Karajan and Solti both flubbed it. 

Mahler's 9th was a tough nut to crack, especially the Adagio; Giulini's recording with the CSO did it for me; it had the right balance of orchestral brilliance and rhythm; I found it after going to Karajan, Boulez, Solti, and Bernstein.

Bach's Goldberg Variations; hated, HATED Gould, found Murray lukewarm, and thought it was hopeless, then was surprised by Schiff. 

Mahler's 7th; Solti's is the only one that "holds it together" for me, especially in the final movement; all previous versions seemed slack and the finale sounded like a circus, albeit a beautiful one. 

Maybe Wagner and Mahler are just really easy to err on in a performance (or, looking at it glass half full, difficult to get right). 

I have yet to met a major composer that I didn't love, but for those who do give up, when do you give up?

For the longest time I thought Wagner was just good for the preludes but then I decided to see what the fuss was all about; initially it was torment, but I sat through, cumulatively, 3-4 hours of boredom before the music kicked in. The thing was that I'd get slogged down in the first acts and the first part of first acts in Wagner's operas are usually fairly boring.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

If it's not grabbing me within the first minute, I just stop listening. If it's a multi-movement piece, I'll do the same for the other movements to see if I can enjoy any of them, but if not, I just move on. Admittedly, I'll try harder for composers with huge fanbases like Brahms, Mahler or Wagner, and go through different recordings to see if I like any of them.

Oh, also, I hated Chopin's second piano sonata when I heard it played by Horowitz, but I fell in love with it when I heard it played by Pollini.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I have a theory about folks who prefer mediocrity to greatness.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

kv466 said:


> I have a theory about folks who prefer mediocrity to greatness.




I had to 'process' that post for a minute.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Still processing....


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

I guess endurance isn't popular around here.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Endurance doesn't seem like a good way to enjoy music.

I always tend to listen to a whole work once started, even if I might tune out a little, so I suppose that means I have more endurance than some. But if I don't like a some music I don't work at it, I will put it aside, maybe for years, there are plenty more CDs in the sea. I might well return to these works, especially if they are regarded as must hear masterworks, and many of them I have improved my opinion of.

Repeated listenings to works you don't like seems like an attempt to torture yourself into liking something, I never knowingly give up on music though.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I don't give up. I just leave it for later.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

If I'm ambivalent or undecided, I just keep trying and trying. If I decide I hate something, I give up then and there.

There is a difference between letting a piece grow on you, and simply conditioning yourself, it must be said.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I never give up, on either a "great work" or a composer. Eventually it always reveals itself to me. Always. 

I think it's a temperament thing, and that's all there is to it, but for some reason some things strike some people right away and the same things take a long, long time for other people. 

Bruckner 8 is a great example in my case. Took me a long time to appreciate that work. I've probably listened to it 30 times, but only in the last 4 or so times has it been a really pleasant, enlightening experience, and the most recent time it was simply a joy to hear.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2012)

Seems to me that trying hard and giving up are not useful concepts for listening to music. Or even pertinent concepts. Listening to music is a chore? Then you should probably be doing something else.

Bigshot put it best, I think. (Though I obviously agree wholeheartedly with science and quack.)

In other news, I have a theory about people who divide the world into "mediocre" and "great."


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

quack said:


> Endurance doesn't seem like a good way to enjoy music.
> 
> I always tend to listen to a whole work once started, even if I might tune out a little, so I suppose that means I have more endurance than some. But if I don't like a some music I don't work at it, I will put it aside, maybe for years, there are plenty more CDs in the sea. I might well return to these works, especially if they are regarded as must hear masterworks, and many of them I have improved my opinion of.
> 
> Repeated listenings to works you don't like seems like an attempt to torture yourself into liking something, I never knowingly give up on music though.


But what if endurance is rewarding? It's rewarded me in the past.



some guy said:


> In other news, I have a theory about people who divide the world into "mediocre" and "great."


Take it easy; it's just a light jab at me for being a Wagnerite.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Take it easy; it's just a light jab at me for being a Wagnerite.


I think it was a light jab for your comment on Gould...I'll leave it at that, as if I continue the real hay-makers could ensue. 

When I first started listening to classical I would give things more listens, now I'm more sure of what I like, I don't wait as long if I am not connecting before moving onto something else. Though I agree with bigshot, and do keep an open policy of just coming back to things.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

kv466 said:


> I have a theory about folks who prefer mediocrity to greatness.


Do tell. Am I missing something?

Edit-oh is this about Gould?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I never give up.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> I guess endurance isn't popular around here.


No because why should I go to such lengths?
I treat books and films the same way , if they don't grab me at the beginning they go.
Music is supposed to be a pleasure not damned hard work----isn't it?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Do tell. Am I missing something?
> 
> Edit-oh is this about Gould?


Probably, you know he's fixated!


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

I also never give up.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

violadude said:


> I never give up.





Lisztian said:


> I also never give up.


Reminds me of this much copied and by now cliched image, which hung around many a staffroom in the last decade...


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

science said:


> Bruckner 8 is a great example in my case. Took me a long time to appreciate that work. I've probably listened to it 30 times, but only in the last 4 or so times has it been a really pleasant, enlightening experience.


Sorry ...but I just snorted coffee out my nose...:lol:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> As in, how far will you go into a composer's oeuvre before you decide that said composer is just not your "cup of tea", or, for that matter, a given piece of work?


Depends, I'm not a completist. I see it as a lifelong thing, a _work in progress._ I don't think I'll get through a lot of things before I give up the ghost.

But I'm more for quality and depth of listening (incl. history of the work, composer's life and historical events of the time, etc.). I'm not a person who's ticking boxes for sheer quantity, if that stereotype exists.



> ...
> I. How many versions of the work do you go through?


Usually, one version is enough. I can flex myself to the interpretation, I aim to just enjoy things without too many hangups on how it's performed.

I only go for another version if the first recording doesn't gel with me, but I still see potential in exploring this composer or work, etc.

My budget is not infinite so I invest wisely.

Key thing for me is flexibility and making investments that will last and be worth it (with the internet now sampling things & getting info before _pulling the trigger _on a purchase is easy).

There is also the time factor and I don't like having my head crammed with too much music. One step at a time.

& with many Australian composers, only one recording is available, or you get a chance to hear a premiere live, so you grab it. It's a joy though as our musicians are excellent.



> ...
> II. For opera, do you get to the end? Do you listen to it piecemeal and reject it whole?
> 
> ...


I split it into acts, usually. & get through it eventually. Have even done this with Wagner (not my favourite). But if it's a short opera, I can do it in the one go (eg. was like this when I first heard Berg's_ Wozzeck_). Other times I go for the highlights album and then get the whole work later, if I see it as worth the investment.


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2012)

moody said:


> I treat books and films the same way , if they don't grab me at the beginning they go.


How dare these books and movies not grab me? Didn't Homer and Dickens know what I would need? Why don't Godard and Miyazaki make the movies I want to see? Don't any of these people know what I want? I am supreme! All the measily little artists of the world must bow down to me and my needs.



moody said:


> Music is supposed to be a pleasure not damned hard work----isn't it?


If you make the effort to connect with it (not expecting it to simply do something to you but actively engaging with it yourself, in humility), then it will reward you with great pleasure, even though pleasure is not the point, no. (Enlightenment is maybe the point. Giving you something you could never achieve on your own, maybe. Pushing you out of your comfort zone, perhaps. And all of those things, if taken seriously, can give enormous pleasure, it's true.)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> *How dare these books and movies not grab me?* Didn't Homer and Dickens know what I would need? Why don't Godard and Miyazaki make the movies I want to see? *Don't any of these people know what I want? I am supreme! All the measily little artists of the world must bow down to me and my needs.*
> 
> If you make the effort to connect with it (not expecting it to simply do something to you but actively engaging with it yourself, in humility), then it will reward you with great pleasure, even though pleasure is not the point, no. (Enlightenment is maybe the point. Giving you something you could never achieve on your own, maybe. Pushing you out of your comfort zone, perhaps. And all of those things, if taken seriously, can give enormous pleasure, it's true.)


You can construct the straw man in precisely the opposite way: we must bow down to the artists! How dare we fail to appreciate their work! etc.

And it would be equally unhelpful and equally malicious.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> You can construct the straw man in precisely the opposite way: we must bow down to the artists! How dare we fail to appreciate their work! etc.
> 
> And it would be equally unhelpful and equally malicious.


Don't play that dichotomy (there, I said it again, say it every day, just as Couchie says Wagner!).

Dear ol' blue eyes, Frank Sinatra, had a bit to say about this kind of thing -

_Don't you know you little fool, you never can win
Why not use your mentality,step up, wake up to reality
And each time I do, just the thought of you
Makes me stop just before I begin
'Cause I've got you under my skin
Yeah, You breath me under my skin._

Wise words there? But I'm _geriatric_ so how should I know. I better take my horlicks and go to bedtime now.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Don't play that dichotomy (there, I said it again, say it every day, just as Couchie says Wagner!).
> 
> Dear ol' blue eyes, Frank Sinatra, had a bit to say about this kind of thing -
> 
> ...


I'm not sure about any of that! But I certainly don't think we need to go to any extreme in the case of artist v. audience.

Perhaps I'm naive and all, but why can't people - all the artists of all kinds, all the audiences - just do what they want? I personally will continue trying to overlook all the polemics and insults here and just hear music that I like, and if anyone else likes it we can share it.

Were I a musician I'd have to try to overlook all the polemics and insults and just make music that I like, and if anyone liked it we could share it.

As my rednecky relatives would say, "But nooooooooooo." We can't do it that way, can we? We've got to insult people for liking this or not liking that, wish the music itself didn't exist, fantasize about destroying it, set up elaborate intellectual arguments justifying our prejudices and criticizing others', conduct an endless online campaign of attack and defense. Because music itself just isn't all that enjoyable without someone being wrong and someone being right about it!


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

An internet forum without dichotomies is just a blog no one reads.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

quack said:


> An internet forum without dichotomies is just a blog no one reads.


Well, then, let us build dichotomies!

You start, I'll go later.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

some guy said:


> How dare these books and movies not grab me? Didn't Homer and Dickens know what I would need? Why don't Godard and Miyazaki make the movies I want to see? Don't any of these people know what I want? I am supreme! All the measily little artists of the world must bow down to me and my needs.
> 
> If you make the effort to connect with it (not expecting it to simply do something to you but actively engaging with it yourself, in humility), then it will reward you with great pleasure, even though pleasure is not the point, no. (Enlightenment is maybe the point. Giving you something you could never achieve on your own, maybe. Pushing you out of your comfort zone, perhaps. And all of those things, if taken seriously, can give enormous pleasure, it's true.)


Yeah ,yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah, heard all thia before especially from you. At 74 I want to stay in my comfort zone. Can you not really understand that were all at different levels, some are starting, some are half way through and some have tried all these things and have decided which way to go. For one reason or another I won't be around much longer so leave me to my fate as I obviously can't be saved.
One last thing, i read the books and saw the movies of the directors you mentioned. Now I read crime novels and watch Bruce Willis.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Lisztian said:


> I also never give up.


Of course you should not at your stage in life there's so much new to sample.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

I usually give up after the 5th or 6th try _if_ *I. I'm making no progress whatsoever in understanding and II. there isn't a large enough contingency of trustworthy forerunners who also appreciated the piece. *

Paradigmatic examples of pieces I've given up on: Boulez' Sonata no.2, Webern's 5 movements for Orchestra, Stockhausen's work for solo piano, Boulez' Le Marteau Sans Maitre.

If there is a I. large enough contingency of listeners, arbitrarily defined of course, and II. I make progress I make it to the end. Berg, Bruckner, Verdi, and Wagner were all more or less "boring" at first but I marched you and eventually reached the light at the end of the tunnel, but not before I. cursing the world and the first composer for writing a senseless concerto in atonal II. falling asleep multiple times, quite literally on the soft rug during a warm summer afternoon, while first listening to the second's first three symphonies III. wondering if there was more to the man than cheap melodies and jocular arias and IV. scratch my head over how so boring a composer could have inspired Mahler and be considered by Barenboim to be miles ahead of Mahler.


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2012)

Do I dare mention that at every stage of life, there's so much new to sample? No, probably not. Too risky. People won't like me if I do.

I already KNOW that I don't dare point out that "stage of life" is a silly expression. (I'm not entirely dim.)

Anyway, yeah yeah yeah blah blah blah we're all entitled to our own opinions (EXCEPT if those opinions call anyone else's opinions into question--there's always exceptions), but surely y'all must see that the "if they don't grab me" idea implies that the energy only flows one way, that the whole responsibility for connection is on the side of the composers, and that that image of the world not only absolves the consumer of all responsibility but shields the consumer from a lot of possibly worthwhile experiences. Well, of course if the consumer doesn't want those experiences....*

And also anyway, pointing out that one can put all the responsibility on the consumer, too, which is equally bad misses the whole point, which is that the energy flows both directions. Connection really implies that everything is working from both ends. My only point in these futile conversations (which I almost every day think I've really just got to give up on) is that the composers (who don't know any of you, by the way, especially the ones who are already dead) have ALREADY done their part. They've composed the music. Now it's your turn. Step up. Do your part. (Or, as I suggested before, do something else already!)

*At the last symphony concert, a patron buttonholed me with the news that she hated the symphony playing all this modern music and she was going to complain about it. I heard her going at another patron a little later, who said "But I liked that music." To no avail. Patron 1 didn't like it and therefore it must be banned.

(The music that so incensed her? Britten's _Four Sea Interludes and Passacaglia from Peter Grimes._ and Sibelius' symphony no. 7. And, if I suspect, she was also crabby about the trend of the entire season, then that would include Janacek's _Sinfonietta,_ too. Hideous modern music to be sure, eh? Never mind that if her nineteenth century equivalent had actually had her way, then this patron would never have had the chance to hear Tchaikovsky's piano concerto no. 1, which she enjoyed. You know it. That's the one that's broken and incoherent and ignores all the rules and forms of the past, the one that's extremely difficult, strange, wild, and ultramodern. Yeah. That one.)


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2012)

No, what I'm saying is that the composers have already done their part. (I didn't call it work, even though it is, because it's a great pleasure.)

Since they've already done their part, it is now up to us to do our part, which is for us to do the grabbing. Grab the music. Don't wait for it to grab you. Do some grabbing on your own. (I don't refer to that grabbing as work, even though it does require effort, because it's a great pleasure.)

We have a lot to do. I don't think it's useful to see that effort on our part as work or as a chore, both of which imply tedium. So no, in neither instance am I saying we must not ask ourselves to expend much effort. I'm saying that the effort we expend will be rewarded by the effort the composers have already expended. And that if it's not, so what? Move on. Whinge not, ye of little faith!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

some guy said:


> Do I dare mention that at every stage of life, there's so much new to sample? No, probably not. Too risky. People won't like me if I do.
> 
> I already KNOW that I don't dare point out that "stage of life" is a silly expression. (I'm not entirely dim.)
> 
> ...


It is of course really quite impossible to communicate with you. I have got to like or dislike music by often chance bursts of sound or the radio or attending concerts, I have never sat down and said to myself: You will sit here and listen to this until you like it." This is what you are advocating and it is completely ridiculous.
I heard Bartok in about 1952 and decided i didn't like 80% of his music. I heard Stravinsky in "Fantasia" when I was eleven and decided I liked him, but later decided I did not like late Stravinsky.
Do you think I haven't had time to change my mind since then, but I haven't.
Now, unlike so many people here I actually bought all my recordings and bought what I wanted to hear. Not what some know-all told me to buy.
Enough of this nonsense!!


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2012)

moody said:


> It is of course really quite impossible to communicate with you.


Likewise.



moody said:


> I have never sat down and said to myself: You will sit here and listen to this until you like it." This is what you are advocating and it is completely ridiculous.


It is a completely ridiculous parody of what I actually said, yes. I agree.



moody said:


> I heard Bartok in about 1952 and decided i didn't like 80% of his music. I heard Stravinsky in "Fantasia" when I was eleven and decided I liked him, but later decided I did not like late Stravinsky.
> Do you think I haven't had time to change my mind since then, but I haven't.


Thanks for sharing, but how does this affect people who have always liked Bartok and Stravinsky or, even better, those who started out disliking but then came to enjoy very much. Failure stories such as yours are all well and good. I prefer success stories, myself. (I know, what a negative attitude I have....)



moody said:


> I actually bought all my recordings and bought what I wanted to hear. Not what some know-all told me to buy.
> Enough of this nonsense!!


I actually buy all my recordings, too. All but the ones that composers give me themselves. (I buy what I don't know if I'll like or not.)

And who is this fictitious know-all who's telling you what to buy? Say what?

Enough of that nonsense.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

It's interesting to hear how others go about listening, especially to works they do not yet appreciate. Although I would say TC members tastes have much in common, we clearly have differences in what we like. I immediately enjoyed Mahler, Wagner, and Bruckner while others struggled to like them or never did. I did not immediately enjoy Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bartok, Debussy, or Ravel, but after listening to their works and others, I have come to enjoy much of their music without "working too hard". When I try to remember how I felt about their music when I first heard it, I wonder if I really did dislike it strongly or if I just didn't respond positively. Could I really have ever found Rite of Spring, Prokofiev's or Shostakovich's piano concertos, or Debussy's orchestral works ugly? How would that be possible? Maybe I didn't find them ugly, but I know I disliked them.

I have yet to penetrate some more modern composers, but I have not given up and don't expect that I will for quite awhile (or until I like some of them). I certainly put works or composers aside as I agree that sometimes we need breaks and should move on to other things. I'm currently putting a lot of effort into Berg's Violin Concerto. I have tried repeatedly in the past without any success. I found a audio presentation that works through the piece discussing parts and then playing those parts. I listened several times and started listening to the full work (each movement separately). All of a sudden I realized that I liked parts. I remember seeing a quote from Schoenberg about wishing people would sing/hum his melodies. At the time I thought that was hilarious. But a few days ago I found myself humming a melody from Berg's concerto. Amazing! Some parts truly are now beautiful to me. I still have more "work" to do especially on the second movement, but I consider this breakthrough a huge success.

Who knows what else I will like, but this experience has convinced me that the world of modern (I guess at least atonal) music _can_ open up to me. It will just take more effort, but at least for now, I'm happy to continue trying.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> ...
> I have yet to penetrate some more modern composers, but I have not given up and don't expect that I will for quite awhile (or until I like some of them). I certainly put works or composers aside as I agree that sometimes we need breaks and should move on to other things. *I'm currently putting a lot of effort into Berg's Violin Concerto. I have tried repeatedly in the past without any success*. ...Some parts truly are now beautiful to me. *I still have more "work" to do especially on the second movement, but I consider this breakthrough a huge success.*
> ...


What you say especially, and others say, reminds me how musicians who play all kinds of music think in similar ways. I am currently reading a musician's kind of memoir of working in orchestras, and in it she mentions how hard and frustrating it was for her and other musicians to play a new piece by Lutoslawski (under the baton of the composer!) for a premiere back in around the 1970's or '80's. She said it was very hard and for some it didn't make sense and they saw it as kind of unrewarding.

So what I'm saying is, if the experts - the musicians who play this stuff on professional level - are sometimes at least baffled by certain pieces of music, why can't the listener be (at first, or subsequent fresh listens?). It's not only with new or newer music of course, it's with any music unfamiliar to the listener. Everyone's approach and background, taste and so on will be different.

So that's why I like it how people here are sharing their own ways and stories, I think it's fine to reflect on how we grapple with these things in our own way. Many, like myself don't know how to hold a violin properly let alone play it. So that's what I'm saying, each to his own, if it's fine for musicians playing under a great composer, it's fine for me. I hope it is?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The OP question reminded me somehow of the fact Benjamin Britten, annually, would sit down and read-through and play through ALL Of Brahms, supposedly for the purpose of thinking he might change his mind and find it appealing and / or worthwhile music, each time confirming to Britten that his assessment had not changed. (That Britten was right.)

There is something inherently comic and profoundly ironic about that, on which I'm sure Ziggy would have had a thing or two to say.

But, little to contribute here, will point out that neither Britten, nor any of us signed up For Classical Music, have 'given' up on music in any way.

There are some greats I wholly recognize - their works are brilliantly crafted, fine music, strength of structure, whether those structures are towering edifices or perfectly cut and faceted miniature jewels - whose music, thrust, aesthetic, 'emotional import' all leave me not rapt, but disinterested and feeling nothing. What appreciation and recognition I have, 'those composers could seriously write,' being intellectual only.

Some have great worry they are 'not getting' something, as if there were something wrong with their person. I really do not see the point in worrying too much in 'what you do not get' about it. Certainly, there seem to be many who have no problem not worrying about what they think of the works of the master composers of the modern and contemporary eras 

I have over time 'changed my mind,' on some music, or heard a piece, work from an era, or by one composer, quite differently in having returned to it later, on whim. Some of those occasions were the happenstance of the piece being broadcast when I had FM radio on: I think being caught unawares, without premeditation of any sort, including a data bank of past thoughts and reactions not so very present, allows a fresh and open-eared listen where it is more likely the work can be heard anew. These are instances where one realizes "I have changed: that piece is the same as before."

I don't think 'how long do you stay at it, should involve saying, "Well, I'll give ole ______ another go," by appointment and with a goal -- I don't think that set-up is going to allow much to happen.

This recording vs. that recording - if they're all high quality performances, that too can be more an indication of personal taste. One forum member here seems to revere Dutoit. I admire the rigorous demands he makes on his players and to a degree what results, but have yet to hear anything conducted by him which I did not consider as played considerably 'too fast,' so really can not get much past that insofar as listening pleasure or finding any lights shone on or revelations about the work revealed.

There _are_ works where 'pulling it all together' and us being convinced _is_ a matter of a better performance: those are likely works which are generally known as 'problematic,' requiring of even the best of musicians that much more attention and care needs to be taken in order for the piece 'to work well.' Sometimes it is a clear but elusive enough matter of the 'just right tempi' in ratio to each other from movement to movement.

I really cannot find a benefit in methodically 'playing through all of Brahms,' or listening to six or more recordings of a work in order to 'get it,' or testing your preference for something else, etc. There is plenty of great music. It's alright to not care for or 'get' composer ______. That is not 'giving up on music,' as much as it is recognizing that not everything is to your taste - if it were, you could argue that is a sign of a kind of lack of discernment or taste. ... and of course all of us, on this forum at any rate, are highly discerning and have impeccable taste.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Yes you're right, we do change, the music stays the same, our experiences kind of evolve.

Re Britten I didn't know that about his opinion of Brahms. But I do know that in his younger years, Britten disliked Elgar's music, whenever he heard it on the radio, he would switch off the radio. But in his older years, about the 1960's, Britten actually made recordings of Elgar's music. So obviously something changed in between those times. Or maybe he just did it for the money? :lol: Dunno, just being *whimsical.*


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> ^^Yes you're right, we do change, the music stays the same, our experiences kind of evolve.
> 
> Re Britten I didn't know that about his opinion of Brahms. But I do know that in his younger years, Britten disliked Elgar's music, whenever he heard it on the radio, he would switch off the radio. But in his older years, about the 1960's, Britten actually made recordings of Elgar's music. So obviously something changed in between those times. Or maybe he just did it for the money? :lol: Dunno, just being *whimsical.*


To be whimsical back, the first thought I had was, "To dislike Brahms _is to dislike Elgar (toss in a bit of Richard Strauss into that Elgar salad)... and it could have been for the money. It might have been a gesture involving nationalism. It also could have been Britten accepting the challenge to lliterally test himself, like an actor taking on a role for which they have no real sympathy, just to see if they can pull it off

[[Britten was a superb pianist, accompanist, and conductor who possessed a very keen musical intelligence. His recording of the Mozart G minor symphony, K.KV 550 (recorded in The Maltings, with its wonderful acoustics), includes all the repeats in the second movement andante. It is marvelous and elucidating.]]_


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PetrB said:


> ...and it could have been for the money. It might have been a gesture involving nationalism. It also could have been Britten accepting the challenge to lliterally test himself, like an actor taking on a role for which they have no real sympathy, just to see if they can pull it off...


Yeah and sometimes that kind of experiment or going out on a limb, out on your comfort zone can work. Eg. some conductors did not touch certain areas of the canon, but when they did, they produced good results. Carlo Maria Giulini admitted that he had little empathy or interest with most modern music, but I remember having an LP with him conducting Britten's _Serenade for tenor, horn & strings _(funnily enough) with the recently departed Robert Tear as tenor, and it was my favourite recording of that work so far, & I've heard a couple more, and also heard it in concert.

I think that repeats what I said before, that if musicians have their comfort zones it doesn't necessarily mean they can't go outside them. Flexibility is the key and it's an attitude more than anything else, and I think this applies to listeners too.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> As in, how far will you go into a composer's oeuvre before you decide that said composer is just not your "cup of tea", or, for that matter, a given piece of work?
> 
> I. How many versions of the work do you go through?
> II. For opera, do you get to the end? Do you listen to it piecemeal and reject it whole?
> ...


I mostly go far for the composers who have a style that I find interesting, because then I enjoy most of their variations of that style, regardless of the era of the composer. By doing so, I also learn to appreciate works that were not immediately appealing to me, but then became some of my favorites after I made connections between those and other of their pieces that I liked immediately.

Sometimes I return to styles that I once thought had great potential and find them to be naive, so it would have been less substantial for me to have "worked" at the breadth of those, instead of seeking the depth of a single composer that was more profound by comparison and eventually gave me a different perspective.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I go far enough that I feel I would not need criticize myself for not having looked well into it. Another answer as to when I've given up, with that first in mind, is one kind of 'never.' I still check music I have decided 'is not for me.' It may never be for me, but I don't want to be ignorant in what is good about it.

[[ ADD: Since music is my trade, there is a professional regard toward any and all of it I think necessary because it is ones trade. That professional criterion is in no way necessary for those who are the consumer. ]]


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

I GIVE it a few times then stop i am not spending to much on stuff that sounds bad.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mtmailey said:


> I GIVE it a few times then stop i am not spending to much on stuff that sounds bad.


What if others tell you that it sounds great to them and you know they're not lying? Aren't you interested in finding out what they enjoy about it?


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I usually listen to the "Popular or Recommended works" from different artists first. If I don't like any of them then it probably isn't for me. Sometimes I will give them a few years and try them again.

I did that with Bartok.

I started with the Concerto For Orchestra. Didn't care for it.
I like Piano music so I tried the Piano Concertos. Didn't like them either.
I tried the Piano Sonatas. More I didn't like.
I tried the String Quartets. Again didn't like them at all.
I finally tried his opera Bluebeard's Castle and while it didn't knock me off my feet, I did find some enjoyment in it.

Probably 5 years later I tried a few different recordings of the works I didn't care for, and I still didn't like them. Occasionally someone on here posts something about some work from him I haven't listened to and so I'll give it a listen. But so far I'm just not a Bartok fan and I don't keep trying to like something just because someone says "I should". 

I gave it what I feel was an honest try, but found nothing in it that resonated with me so why keep beating a dead horse? I'd rather discover new things that do resonate with me rather than try to force myself to like something just because someone else thinks I'm missing out.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Time is the best answer to giving works another chance, expecting to like everything straight away isn't realistic. Having a break from something for a while can help as your mind develops musically by listening to other music in the meantime.

The truth is though we don't have the time to give everything a second chance, or a third or a fourth etc. Spare a thought for those who aren't considered 'major' or their works 'great' (to quote two posts here), they don't tend to be given many chances compared to others. And yet it's conceivable that some of those works even if they aren't hyped up as summits of classical music might actually deserve more than one chance, and indeed more than the very few recording options they might have.

I've been more interested in discovering new music than going other stuff I've already known about, but there's always time to retrace my steps with some of that in the future.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

I like to explore things. If some oeuvre feels difficult, I took my time, I put it aside for a while and then, later on, I give it another try. Most of the time happens that the difficulty was not so or it has gone. For me, moments or periods of silence helps to empty the mind and refresh it for new musical material. It happened that some time ago I listened to a CD and I said, oh god, why did I bought this garbage. Years later I played it again and found it very enjoyable. This happens.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

I'll give pieces second and third chances. But, I'm also willing to move on from things I don't enjoy. I haven't taken on some project to appreciate every thing I ever hear. For example, I've all but given up on most chamber music, and romantic era symphonies are getting close to that status as well.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

I think it's strange that a few people in this thread said that they move on if a piece of music doesn't grab them within the first minute. Maybe it gets better later. Or maybe it'll start to grow on you. My musical experience would be greatly impoverished if I gave up music that didn't immediately engage me after just one minute. (Or maybe I'm just a bit slower than these other people...?)

I also think it's strange that a few people said that enjoying to music shouldn't require effort, or work. It doesn't always have to, but isn't this how we grow, through conscious effort to stray from your comfort zone and a willingness to work a little bit?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> I guess endurance isn't popular around here.


Not for losing games, things which will not take -- we're not talking about fifteen minutes and just walking away, I think.

Nor is there a generally common current aesthetic to keep putting on a hair shirt, self-scourging, etc.

Knocking away at some piece of music ceaselessly in the now really makes not much sense. I've told elsewhere of coming back to something much later, accidental or willfully, to find I had changed, the music not, and what I thought had not been 'good' or 'for me' was indeed both. But that is over years, not the same day, a week later, a month later -- enough for an individual to have shifted who and what they are.

There is just so much music, and I think it takes realizing that no one "gets" everything. There is a type who seems to think it a cool boast, in a way, to announce they don't get something, I've seen it most in art galleries when overhearing a viewer comment on mainly abstract works


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

I just leave it for later. If I gave up Bruckner when I first listened his music (the 8th) and hated it, I would miss what became one of my favorite symphonists. The same with Sibelius, I started with the 4th and doesn't liked it, now I just love everything of his music. Sometimes we are not ready.


----------



## Borodin (Apr 8, 2013)

Some music is catchy right away then gets boring, some is boring right away then gets catchy after you 'get it' or whatnot. So if you don't like a composer just play their music 3 days in a row on repeat, should be good.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

Composers can write whatever garbage they want to, and I can listen to whatever garbage I want to. I punish composers I think are bad by ignoring them. Until I don't. 

No one can criticize - I am an artiste! Hell, I'm more than that - I am a co-creator of the universe!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

apricissimus said:


> I think it's strange that a few people in this thread said that they move on if a piece of music doesn't grab them within the first minute. Maybe it gets better later. Or maybe it'll start to grow on you. My musical experience would be greatly impoverished if I gave up music that didn't immediately engage me after just one minute. (Or maybe I'm just a bit slower than these other people...?)
> 
> I also think it's strange that a few people said that enjoying to music shouldn't require effort, or work. It doesn't always have to, but isn't this how we grow, through conscious effort to stray from your comfort zone and a willingness to work a little bit?


I am in full agreement with you, including the 'argument' of your ultimate question.

I am so deep in for so long, that I am trained and have cultivated, over decades, a reflex to fully participate, i.e. make an effort from the get go, since for me, anything worthwhile, music, book, film, theater, painting, etc. are anything but passive entertainments.

Contemporary culture, at least American -- but I think it now global -- expects to be 'immediately in' whether it is music or a novel, a film. Ergo, the longer introduction, the seventy page set-up of a novel, is not the average person's cup of tea.

I'm quite willing to give anything I think _might_ be of interest or worthwhile that time, but I read relatively quickly, too. I won't dismiss something instantly because of lack of immediate visceral appeal. Conversely, a lifetime of practice has me very quick to assess "what kind of piece it is," and even more, though unknown, "what else it is likely to be doing for the next twenty minutes." I don't think that a background like mine is necessary for many a layman to have similar equipment.

I know very much what I am generally in for at the start of a Philip Glass piece, have listened through to only two, I think, of his pieces, and am quite ready to dismiss the rest, unless at the outset I would hear some major discernible change in his basic vocabulary and M.O. I recall an acquaintance advocating listening to his Symphony No. whatever, because, said acquantance claimed, Glass had very much changed, so I gave a bit of the first movement a go, and determined "Not nearly enough change for me." I can guarantee you I missed nothing I would hate to miss by dropping that piece after a few minutes 

I get repeatedly miffed when I hear the word 'relax' used in conjunction with classical music, because I don't "Use It" to relax. Others do, or go to it because it defines something pleasant, sentimental, deep, with which they feel both an affinity and immediate familiarity, and they are also not looking to be at all adventurous, at least with their musical consumption.

I think you not only have to allow it, but it is vital to assess how music is used and thought of by an individual with whom you are discussing music. I think that prudent and wise when one is especially on a forum, before you lock horns in what you thought might be an interesting discussion, only to find less common ground than you wished for.

Those more casual listeners may love some of what you do, genuinely as much, but at the same time be on another planet as to their regard of how one approaches it.

This forum has an array of music lovers, of all types: some are the 'entertain me and don't make me work at it' sort, others expect to and want to work at it, getting that much more of _their kind of enjoyment_ out of it. I'd say the majority of classical music fans, though, are ones who are ready and willing 'to work at it.'


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

I keep trying, but not continuously. I listen to it twice maybe, then come back to it after a period of time, then wait a few months and try again.


----------



## worov (Oct 12, 2012)

I have tried several times on Alban Berg's music and keep trying. But it never works. I have sat through Lulu or Wozzeck several times and still don't enjoy it. What's the problem with me ?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

worov said:


> I have tried several times on Alban Berg's music and keep trying. But it never works. I have sat through Lulu or Wozzeck several times and still don't enjoy it. What's the problem with me ?


You don't like his aesthetic? You don't recognize the themes/motifs? You dislike the sound of the German language? One of those, probably.


----------



## worov (Oct 12, 2012)

I'm very fond of works with german language. Bach's Matthäus Passion is one of my favourite pieces. Mahler, Schubert, Schumann lieder are among my favourites too. So is Die Zauberflöte. German language doesn't bother in the slightest way.

Indeed you hit right on the nose with the motif thing. I can't identify the motives in these works.

I guess the fact it uses atonal harmony may be another reason. I'm not familiar with Schoenberg and Webern yet. Maybe I should.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I usually don't 'give up' listening to Composers which I don't 'get' right away. Each great composer has his/her own language which is distinct from all others. They all want to achieve something different with their sound and use different means to do this. So I try not to be too hasty with judgements and let Composers grow on me. This doesn't always occur quickly but has proven to be rewarding.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

worov said:


> I'm very fond of works with german language. Bach's Matthäus Passion is one of my favourite pieces. Mahler, Schubert, Schumann lieder are among my favourites too. So is Die Zauberflöte. German language doesn't bother in the slightest way.
> 
> Indeed you hit right on the nose with the motif thing. I can't identify the motives in these works.
> 
> I guess the fact it uses atonal harmony may be another reason. I'm not familiar with Schoenberg and Webern yet. Maybe I should.


When I listen to Berg's operas, I hear the motifs constantly, like in Wagner. Honestly his use of harmony is not that far removed from late (9th and 10th symphonies) Mahler, with a few additions like quartal chords (stacked fourths), just more compacted (quicker harmonic rate of change). With Wozzeck, try listening to the Act 3 interlude (which begins as an arrangement of a D minor movement Berg wrote as a student) by itself. From the middle part onward, pretty much every major motif of the opera is presented in rapid succession, climaxing _FFF_ on the "Wir arme leut" motif, which is the most important.






I don't have the score in front of me, but as far as I could hear from a single listen:

1:05 Lullaby motif
1:38 Andres' Hunting Song
1:53 Captain and Doctor's motifs
2:07 Drinking song motif
2:24 Drum major rondo motif
2:36 "Wir arme leut!"
3:13 Lullaby motif

The Lulu suite makes a good introduction to the full opera. But probably even better would be the Violin Concerto, which was written around the same time and has a similar musical language. It's still Berg's sole popular hit off the stage.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> But probably even better would be the Violin Concerto, which was written around the same time and has a similar musical language. It's still Berg's sole popular hit off the stage.


Vielleicht es ist genug.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

brianwalker said:


> I. How many versions of the work do you go through?
> II. For opera, do you get to the end? Do you listen to it piecemeal and reject it whole?


I. instrumental work has to appeal within 2min but if it's a very famous piece I will listen to it until the end before I dismiss it. If it did not completely alienate me I will listen to it one more time and if I think there is potential I will try other versions.

II. opera - I will listen to the best known arias first to see if I'm feeling it. If there are no arias to speak of I will try to listen to act I at least. There have been some cases where I couldn't stand more than 20min. If I make it through the entire thing I will listen to it again when time permits. The second listen tends to make it or break it. If I hated it but it's very famous I will return to it (a different version) when I'm feeling adventurous. If I'm in a good/curious mood I will occasionally listen to previously disliked arias, just to check where I currently stand.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)




----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Better than that is Sean Connery's last Bond film _Never Say Never Again_. Its so bad that it wasn't even accepted as part of the official Bond franchise. There's a cheesy theme song attached to it if you want to look for it on youtube. Ah, the eighties...when Sean still had some hair on his head...and wasn't yet establishment enough to be able to refuse such crap roles ...


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I approach this rather simply: if I don't enjoy the music and it becomes a chore to listen to than I put in the 'will listen to again much later' file. It should never be a chore to listen to music. You either enjoy the music in that moment or you don't. But I've learned it's never wise to shut the door completely. Tastes do change in time.


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

In so many occasions I didn't enjoy something the first time or even after second or more listen but later became my favorite. If the work is considered a masterpiece then I basically never give up. Likewise, I would never dismiss a composer of classical music.

Currently, opera still remains to be discovered for the most part. I still listen to Wagner's ring cycle few times a year.. I bought the set almost ten years ago.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Not hard enough...

I usually give a film ten or fifteen minutes before deciding it's not worth it; new music, about eight minutes if I really don't cotton to it - just long enough to find out if something is going to change. For example, I was listening to a Poulenc gloria this morning and I hated it, but after four minutes this gorgeous soprano started up, and I changed my mind! 

If I have a reason to listen - for example, I have given my word to try Mahler's symphonies - then I will persevere for the hour plus that it takes. But it's not been an effort so far. Mahler - where have you been all my life? <3


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

violadude said:


>


Jeez.

He is X-er than I [am], Bieber.

I blame orality for this. If only we could be forced to communicate solely through texts, hand-written and edited! But no, people _will_ go on being informal, and - oh, so much worse! - clever. Especially when they talk.


----------



## worov (Oct 12, 2012)

> The Lulu suite makes a good introduction to the full opera. But probably even better would be the Violin Concerto, which was written around the same time and has a similar musical language. It's still Berg's sole popular hit off the stage.


Thank you. I will give a try to his Violin Concerto.


----------



## Jovian (May 4, 2013)

I don't think you should give up. If it won't come naturally, study about it a little maybe? Just recently I saw a post on this site that gives free courses on practically everything and as I looked one of the topic included composing songs.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Jovian said:


> I don't think you should give up. If it won't come naturally, study about it a little maybe? Just recently I saw a post on this site that gives free courses on practically everything and as I looked one of the topic included composing songs.


Well there are two kinds of giving up, in the short term or the long term. Giving up in the short term can be productive if you aren't getting anywhere. And not all pieces are necessarily worth persevering with anyway, life is too short and music is too vast to do that. You have to use time wisely.


----------



## Namito (Oct 12, 2012)

For Bach, I was listening to all works of him from start. There were of course some pieces that I didn't really like at first but I kept listening. For other composers, I generally listen to first movement and if I don't like, I quit. But in Romantic Era, there may be some movements I like and some that I don't. So I generally listen to all. And if I still don't like some movements, I just get the movement I like. For operas, I listen to everything if I'm not REALLY bored. I find it interesting. However if there is no vision but only sound, I usually get bored.


----------

