# Acquired Tastes... Music that presents a challenge



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

I've recently begun to explore some composers mentioned by some of the TC members ( George Crumb, Bohuslav Martinu, Karlheinz Stockhausen to name a few) some of these composers I wonder if you had an immediate liking for or if they presented a challenge for you but you just had to keep coming back to it. Sometimes the things we enjoy the most we didn't like at all at first but for some reason or other it just gets under the skin and we continually return to it till it has won us over (for me it's Charles Ives' work)

Musical background is important as well for example, if you love and listen to oh I don't know John Cage or Iannis Xenakis and thats what you listen too most, what composers did you start with? was someone like Mozart or Bach your gateway? Did anyone here start with the post modernists and work there way back and now all you listen to is Vivaldi and Albrechtsberger? What music posed the biggest challenge for any of you's guys? Really Im interested...

I know I'm asking more that one question but feel free to answer which ever ones you want or just name someone who you like to get into but they just haven't done it for you yet. 

I've got to admit I'm having a hard time understanding the appeal of Cage, or this Morton Feldman character... I want to get it but I just don't yet... hopefully some of you will follow suit even if its embarrassing.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Havergal Brian is a composer I have been trying hard to listen to but somehow I gave up during his Symphony no. 1.

I need to drink 2 liters of Pepsi then see the results.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I consider myself a fan of contemporary (or modern or 20th/21st century) music, whether it be neo-Romantic stuff like Howard Hanson's Symphony No. 2; atonal stuff from the likes of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern; cataclysmic noise as from Xenakis, Penderecki, or Stockhausen; or noodlings from the likes of Cage, Feldman, and (to some degree) the minimalists. My own record/CD collection, which numbers in the thousands of discs, is quite heavily tilted towards modern works, and I find I tend to purchase more modernistic classical music than any other formats. (As I type this I'm listening to Christopher Gunning's Symphony No. 1, written in 2002.)

I came to modernism by way of exploring deeper into classical music which started out, for me, with Tchaikovsky and Brahms and Schubert and couple of fellers named Mozart and Beethoven.

I still remember when I was not a big fan of Bach or Baroque music, but in the last 30 years or so that has changed greatly and now Bach and Baroque masters make up a substantial portion of my listening pleasure. I probably delve less and less in the Classical and Romantic masters nowadays, though it's only because I know that music so well any more and also because I listen to so much music that I can fit in a symphony by Mahler or Schumann or Beethoven quite often even if I've spent most of my time with 20th century sounds or Bach.

Just today I listened to the three symphonies of Swedish master Blomdahl (works from mid-20th century), a symphony by Finnish composer Rautavaara, a disc of music on NAXOS by Jeffrey Ryan (including his Symphony "Fugitive Colors" written in 2006), Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata", and the Gunning. I also played some Bread (the 70s rock band) and practiced the jazz classic (not the Led Zeppelin piece) "Tangerine" on my guitar.

I also managed a couple hours of yard work, cooked dinner, and watched some TV. Did I mention the Face-Time visit with my grandson?

Overall, a good day.

I came to modern music in my pursuit for adventure in sound. Some of the first "modern" music I heard was Penderecki and Xenakis, and John Cage and Lukas Foss on old NONESUCH discs. That was pretty wild stuff back in the 60s. Of course, I was familiar with Schoenberg and Hindemith and the Soviet masters Shostakovich and Prokofiev. Too, I managed to hear _Time's Encomium_ by Charles Wuorinen and some Milton Babbitt quite a while back, and those sounds intrigued me, though at the time I considered myself mainly a Romantic who worshipped at the shrines of Tchaikovsky and Brahms. But the adventurousness of the modern compositions proved enticing.

There was nothing much in the rock world to match what the classical composers were doing. I did discover a wealth of "free jazz" and experimental ambient music along the way, but it never seemed to reach even the extremes of such folks as George Crumb or Milton Babbitt. Besides, for as much as I liked jazz, I loved classical more, and classical symphonies especially. Exploring the route of the modern symphony through the 20th and later the 21st century has proved quite a trip. I can still tap into Mozart and Beethoven and Schubert and Brahms and Mahler, and I do with quite regularity; but there is so much out there after Sibelius and Nielsen and Stravinsky and Webern and ... etc etc, that the search is exhaustive.

I subscribed for many years to the Louisville Symphony recording program which featured monthly new releases of largely contemporary works by often relatively unknown composers, and found the adventure of hearing new works via the subscription was highly stimulating. Classical music radio (of which there never was much in my area) and symphony concerts tended to play it safe with established "old masters". And they're good, too. But the lure of the new and the different was always enticing to me.

I still purchase quite a few CDs and in recent years almost all of my purchases have been of "new music". Sure, I have some two dozen or so complete Beethoven symphony sets, but I also have the complete symphonies of folks like Penderecki, Benjamin Frankel, Allan Pettersson, Vagn Holmboe, Humphrey Searle, William Alwyn, Einer Englund, Hans Werner Henze, William Schuman ... so many others. And that's just the symphonies.

I also have collected sets of modern works including the releases of the Donaueschinger Musiktage on the Col-Legno and NEOS labels, the Darmstadt Aural Documents also on NEOS, and several other such collections of strictly modern, experimental work. Glorious stuff.

But good music is good music, whether it be madrigals by Gesualdo, cantatas by Bach, sonatas of Beethoven, or the sound creations of Pierre Boulez or Luigi Nono. And, as the ads for National Public Radio's classical programming suggest, "all music was once new."

So ... I listen attentively to new music. I seek out ever more creative and bold sound worlds. And I try to keep an open mind and open ears. I subscribe to the belief of Charles Ives who suggested that most people listen to music with their feet. I prefer to listen to it with my intellect, my awareness, my philosophical bents, and, of course, my ears. In other words, I'm willing to give a new composer a chance to be heard. I may not always "like" what I hear, but I'm also aware that my personal preferences have little to nothing to do with intrinsic quality or lastability (if that's a word) of art. Time will sort out the great from the shlock. Unfortunately, with modern day music (or art) one will tend to encounter much more shlock than quality. With the older stuff, the sorting out has already begun and much of the dribble has already fallen by the wayside. But such is a price to pay for the appreciation of modern art (music).

But that works for me.

The nice thing is, if you don't like something you've heard, you needn't listen to it again. But don't assume that just because you didn't like a certain composer's pieced that you won't enjoy any other of his music. One of the qualities of modern music is that it allows for such variety, even within the oeuvre of any single composer. Schoenberg presents perhaps the ultimate case of this; the man's music is so wide ranging in style that one would never guess the same guy who wrote, say, _Verklärte Nacht _or _Gurrelieder_ also composed _Pierrot lunaire_, _Moses und Aron_, or the Cello Concerto in D after Monn.

In fact, there is enough music out there that you really never need ever listen to a piece a second time, and you'll still never have enough time to hear everything.

Part of my philosophy is to attempt to hear as much as I can. I'm always finding something new. Every other day or so I encounter a new piece. And internet music makes this all the more easy to accomplish.

So listen. Enjoy. Explore.

And if you want to go back an re-hear a Bach Brandenburg Concerto for the umpteenth time, you can do that too. It's legal, and it's all right.

But the new music calls as well. Don't dismiss it. You'll miss so much if you do.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

For me it's Bruckner, Richard Strauss, and Sibelius.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

Schoenberg, Mahler (I think I must be the only one), Norton.
Sometimes Bach can actually sound quite shallow on first hearing, as well. When I listen a few more times, of course, the true beauty of Bach is revealed.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Fugue Meister said:


> Sometimes the things we enjoy the most we didn't like at all at first but for some reason or other it just gets under the skin and we continually return to it till it has won us over


I disagree with this - or at least that's not been my experience (with one significant exception). I can't think of anything that I didn't like _at all_ at first that has won me over enough to say I enjoy it. There's always been _something_ there to make me persevere enough to keep listening. It might be a single movement from a work, or it might just be an indefinable quality to the composer's style that somehow attracts me without understanding the music. But there's always something to bring me back. If the music lacks a "something" I won't go back, or at best if I go back I'll come to dislike the music less without ever really liking it. (And of course, sometimes there's a "something" and I come back but don't find anything else).
And I find enough music that I enjoy, and sufficiently varied too, that I don't feel too bad about not coming back to try again with what doesn't initially appeal at all.

The "significant exception" I referred to is where I've heard something, didn't like it, and then heard it years later and did like it. What's happened isn't that I've persisted till the piece wins me over - it's that my musical experiences have broadened over time and I can now instinctively hear things I couldn't before. "Leave it for a few years" of course isn't a guarantee of liking something, either; there's plenty of times I've revisited music and still not liked it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2015)

Fugue Meister said:


> I've recently begun to explore some composers mentioned by some of the TC members ( George Crumb, Bohuslav Martinu, Karlheinz Stockhausen to name a few) some of these composers I wonder if you had an immediate liking for or if they presented a challenge for you but you just had to keep coming back to it. Sometimes the things we enjoy the most we didn't like at all at first but for some reason or other it just gets under the skin and we continually return to it till it has won us over (for me it's Charles Ives' work)
> 
> Musical background is important as well for example, if you love and listen to oh I don't know John Cage or Iannis Xenakis and thats what you listen too most, what composers did you start with? was someone like Mozart or Bach your gateway? Did anyone here start with the post modernists and work there way back and now all you listen to is Vivaldi and Albrechtsberger? What music posed the biggest challenge for any of you's guys? Really Im interested...
> 
> ...


OK I'm game to be embarrassing!
You present the options as being "immediate liking" OR "presented a challenge". I don't approach/perceive music as being as one of those two either/or options. Sure I like some new stuff immediately, but I never think of any music as presenting a challenge. I simply have levels of like/dislike; I make assessments/judgments quite quickly. If I really can't see any (potential) appeal in something I won't go back to it again in the foreseeable (life's too short for such masochism!). Some new stuff I really like a great deal straight off; other stuff grows with repeated listening.

My background is, until a year or so ago one of popular music, mainly rock but also some jazz, blues and various indigenous musics. I've often enjoyed the less mainstream stuff and this seems to be the case as I get more into classical music. The stuff I particularly seem to be enjoying is often by composers I'd never even heard of until very recently.

As classical was a whole new field to me I used a roadmap; specifically a chronologically arranged book (The Vintage Guide to Classical Music by Jan Swafford). So my exposure essentially started with the pre-Baroque and went through to current (ish).

Personally if you're having a "hard time" with particular composers or styles I'd go with my own preference/instinct and accept it's not for me (at least not at this time). There's too much out there, a lot of which I'm enjoying as I discover it, to spend precious (hard) time trying to "get" stuff that doesn't float my boat.
I'm intrigued as to WHY you want to "get" something that you aren't liking?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I've been exposing myself to Schönberg-the violin and piano concertos-a positive experience.

Based on recommendations from TC posters. No "gateways".


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2015)

hpowders said:


> I've been exposing myself to Schönberg


That's a very liberal country you live in there, Mr Powders.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Wagner took me a long time. I was one of those 'adverse to the style of singing' peeps. Happily I got over that by my 30's - then I immersed myself in Wagner in my mid-late 30's. 
Now he's come from the bottom of my pile to near to the top. Parsifal and Tristan are amongst my favourite works.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

dogen said:


> That's a very liberal country you live in there, Mr Powders.


Try the Homeland Act for Liberal.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Difficult composers have won me over (or not) in as many different ways as there are composers.

With my young impressionable plastic brain having been irretrievably molded by *Ligeti* when I was 11 or 12 in 2001: a space odyssey, you would think it would be easy for me to move on to other modern works, but this was not so. Spectralism is a whole different universe than say serialism.

So Ligeti wasn't really a gateway, but I did notice I came to like Atmospheres because of hearing it over over, not having that many albums back then. I memorized it and that helped immensely in liking that one piece. (The other spacey weird sounding Ligeti works associated with the movie I liked instantly of course.) In later years I am trying memorization as the key to "inaccessible" works, when I have the time, and other methods too.

*Varese.* I should have liked his music since Zappa was so taken with it. I tried and tried. I hated the misplaced silly sounding siren thing in a lot of his music. But I did have a good version of Acrana and listened to it over and over, almost memorizing it. I can semi-like it today, but it is among the more accessible of Varese's works. I still hated Ionisation and Amériques for example. Too much percussion. It's like stopping the rock concert for a drum solo. No matter how many pretty lights and smoke bombs, it's still pee-break inducing unless it's Neil Peart or Bill Bruford. And then that annoying siren. However I've found that performance can make all the difference. I heard a fantastic version of Amériques on YouTube rather than my cheesy Naxos version, and the siren was extraordinary. Who knew there was such a thing as virtuoso siren? The difference is staggering. So I'm well on my way to getting Varese now, though I'm still not fond of percussion as the main sound world of a piece.

*Schoenberg:* His reputation had more to do with my dislike than his actual music. I used to say, "I love surprises, but if all the notes are a surprise then none of them are. We need a tradition in order to break with it." Then patient people gave me examples of more mainstream style Schoenberg, Verlacht Night or Pelleas und Melisande, but these I found to be gushingly romantic with few memorable themes to gush with. What needed to happen was for me to quit trying. One day at work chamber suite Op. 29 came on at random on my iPod. I was barely paying attention but was suddenly swept away in the intricate rhythmic conversation between these very different instrumental timbres. It was glorious! Like listening to Gentle Giant played backwards under the influence of an entheogen. So now I'm well on my way into exploring Schoenberg. I love the violin concerto and I enjoy the piano concerto while not quite grasping the latter yet.

*Messiaen:* Sounded like so much disorganized notes falling out of a cupboard at first, but I was drawn to him by the ondes Martenot, having a long love affair with synthesizers and other electronic instruments. Turingalillywhatever was a gateway and a lot of fun. My first hearing of that gave me hope for Messiaen, but when it came to his other works, I just couldn't get into them. There was nothing to grab hold of. Then one day Quaretet for the End of Time came on at work in the same way the Schoenberg Op. 29 did earlier. It blasted its way into my synapses with no effort on my part. And maybe this is the key in a lot of this music. We have to let our barriers down. (And now for some reason I find the Turangalîla tedious and his other works fascinating.)

*Boulez:* My problem with Boulez was not so much "atonality" (quotation marks here for the benefit of Mahlerian's blood pressure), but his seeming rhythmic disorder. The rhythms can become so complex as to seem completely arrhythmic. I hated that. I felt I need either rhythm or common practice voice leading to have an anchor. Do away with both and you have nothing at all. But I knew there had to be an order there. People wouldn't just say there was, a kind of emperor's new clothes syndrome. So for Boulez I tried an experiment. I signed up for Spotify premium and left a playlist of Boulez and other avant garde composers playing softly through the night while I slept, figuring it might seep in subliminally. Whether this worked or not I can't say. I enjoy Boulez a lot now, but this could as easily have been because of the breakthroughs with Schoenberg and Messiaen above. Either way I have no problem with Boulez rhythm now.

I'm certainly glad I stuck with these composers. I have much remaining to learn and enjoy. I'm going to continue to try all the different approaches, memorizing, lowering barriers, and subliminal exposure.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

When I was a kid, I found Mahler challenging-not the music; the length.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Weston said:


> Boulez: My problem with Boulez was not so much "atonality" (quotation marks here for the benefit of Mahlerian's blood pressure), but his seeming rhythmic disorder. The rhythms can become so complex as to be completely *arrhythmic*. I hated that.


More quotations marks are needed!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Replacing "be" with "seem" and that should work.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

I'll always remember *Mahler* as my biggest challenge (with Debussy perhaps being the next). I had some kind of block, I found it to be wandering and erratic. I remember watching the 5th on YouTube and just being completely perplexed. Yet, I knew there was something there, something that grabbed me that made me persist in trying to "crack the code".


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I began with the modern/contemporary music of about 1900-1980. Many believe it must be an acquired taste gained only by the influence of higher powders. That wasn't the case: I was in my late teens and it just hit me the right way. If anything, it was working back to the common practice that did take some doing. It was a gradual evolution, as I matured and learned more about music and began to become interested in other composers. I'd be listening to one composer and, through the music, I'd become interested in another. I seemed to make these discoveries, almost just when I was ready. I read a lot of liner notes that gave me clues, I suppose. I don't listen exclusively to modern music now, as my collection of earlier works has begun to considerably outnumber the moderns, but I continue to enjoy the music I began with.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I confess Mahler still gives me trouble if only because of the length. Bruckner and others too. I have no trouble relating to each moment, it's all of them together - well not together, strung out over a couple of hours that challenges my memory. This is not a failing of the composers necessarily, but they might keep in mind they are composing for humans.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

Fugue Meister said:


> I've recently begun to explore some composers mentioned by some of the TC members ( George Crumb, Bohuslav Martinu, Karlheinz Stockhausen to name a few) some of these composers I wonder if you had an immediate liking for or if they presented a challenge for you but you just had to keep coming back to it. Sometimes the things we enjoy the most we didn't like at all at first but for some reason or other it just gets under the skin and we continually return to it till it has won us over (for me it's Charles Ives' work)
> 
> Musical background is important as well for example, if you love and listen to oh I don't know John Cage or Iannis Xenakis and thats what you listen too most, what composers did you start with? was someone like Mozart or Bach your gateway? Did anyone here start with the post modernists and work there way back and now all you listen to is Vivaldi and Albrechtsberger? What music posed the biggest challenge for any of you's guys? Really Im interested...
> 
> ...


Martinu seems a bit out of place in this company: his music is defiantly tonal, and certainly very approachable: Virgil Thompson's often quoted reference to the 'radiance' of his First Symphony could be applied to much of his music.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I've been listening to some different CDs of attempted recreations of the music of Ancient Greece. The results may be considered somewhat suspect, since in spite of scholarly research there still must, of necessity, be a lot of guesswork involved. It is interesting, though, how many of the results do bear striking similarities to each other. Some have the edges smoothed out a bit, while others are pretty raw and uncompromising. But, I can still identify it easily for what it attempts to be. At that, however, it is definitely an acquired taste. I still haven't really acquired it. It remains a curiosity for me.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

MagneticGhost said:


> Wagner took me a long time. I was one of those 'adverse to the style of singing' peeps. Happily I got over that by my 30's - then I immersed myself in Wagner in my mid-late 30's.
> Now he's come from the bottom of my pile to near to the top. Parsifal and Tristan are amongst my favourite works.


This was the same for me. I fell in love with a couple of his overtures as a child, but didn't like opera at all until my late teens so listening to his operas was out of the question. It wasn't until I finally tackled the Ring cycle a few years ago that I really came to recognize the genius of his music. Now I'm helplessly addicted to his operas and I have 3 recordings of the Ring cycle and two Tristans to boot. _Tristan_ is, without the least bit of doubt, my favorite piece of music - I can listen to it straight on without any breaks and I'm left wanting more.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

His inclusion was only because I had never heard of him until a TC member brought it up... Oh and I'm really enjoying him..


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Many of you have brought up length and that was also a stumbling block for me until I got into Shostakovich over a decade ago.. It was his 5th and 8th symphonies that opened me up to longer structures of music... in my case I never gave Mahler a decent go until after Shosty...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

dogen said:


> That's a very liberal country you live in there, Mr Powders.


First exposure gets a warning. Second one, you must register where you live as a "Certified Schönberg Offender".


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2015)

hpowders said:


> First exposure gets a warning. Second one, you must register where you live as a "Certified Schönberg Offender".


Oh right, a similar thing to the UK then: I'm on the Ligeti Lechery List.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Buying the entire Scott Ross Scarlatti Keyboard Sonata boxed set and resolving oneself to listen to the entire oeuvre non-stop.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Some of my favorite music now was definitely an acquired taste - notably 16th century vocal polyphony, which I thought was a total snooze when I first heard it.

There's a fair amount of modern music that I took to immediately. It tends to be the music that does really dramatic things with sonority (early Ligeti, Xenakis). Some more subtle stuff like Boulez was acquired.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

hpowders said:


> OP: Buying the entire Scott Ross Scarlatti Keyboard Sonata boxed set and resolving oneself to listen to the entire oeuvre non-stop.


Did you not once equate this with torture?


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

For me, the most rewarding music I've discovered, was initially challenging. In fact, being challenged is one of my main motivations when searching out new music.

Bach, Beethoven and Mozart were not my gateway to 20th & 21st century music. I still do not listen to too much classical music from before the 20th century.

I came to classical music from avant-garde progressive rock. Bands that were highly influenced by 20th century and contemporary composers, and exploring similar territory, but in a 'rock' vein. With the added element of extended improvisation. 

For bands like Henry Cow, Thinking Plague, Universe Zero, Art Zoyd, Motor Totemist Guild, etc, acquiring the taste for some of these avant-prog bands took awhile for me, but extremely rewarding. 

Since I already had the mind set of wanting to be challenged by music, it took me less time to get into contemporary classical. It seemed like the obvious progression.


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2015)

Challenge is relative to what you're ready for. If you come to two contemporary composers of relatively similar complexity, dissonance, etc... the one you approach first will probably be the most challenging to you. 

I didn't find Ferneyhough as challenging as Hindemith, nor did I find Stockhausen as challenging as Schoenberg. Why? Because my first encounters with every composer occur at different points in my musical journey.

One might draw the conclusion from this post that pressing on is rewarding, because there's not a lot out there that is impossibly challenging if you're, ya know...ready for it.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> *Many of you have brought up length *and that was also a stumbling block for me until I got into Shostakovich over a decade ago.. It was his 5th and 8th symphonies that opened me up to longer structures of music... in my case I never gave Mahler a decent go until after Shosty...


Indeed, a commitment to music as a passion demands a sacrifice of that most precious (and irreplaceable) thing we have -- time. As they say, you can always get back possessions. But when you lose time, it's gone forever. Which makes a dedication to music such a critical decision.

I'm always aware as I sit and listen to a piece of music (and I've heard all of the Mahler symphonies quite a number of times from start to finish, as well as hundreds of other symphonies and thousands of other works) that I could be doing many other things. But I don't feel guilty, because I've chosen music as a base in my life.

Sure. It can't replace grandkids. And the horses are pretty important, too. And I like to go fishing for trout, and pick mushrooms in the fall. Play some guitar with friends.

But music is certainly a top priority, and I expend time to enjoy it. Which means I must enjoy it. Otherwise I'm simply wasting my time, and my life.

I sometimes wonder if our modern age and it's preoccupation with shortened attention spans will put an end to the Mahler listening experience I have enjoyed on so many occasions. I regret that it may. Still, there will always be some searching soul who will find a passion in lending an hour or so of his time to Mahler. I count myself one of those persons. I have no regrets.

I would much regret losing my hearing. I do not regret losing time communing with great music.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> I would much regret losing my hearing.


I don't even like to think about that... Going deaf may well be the only thing that would make me not want to live.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

hpowders said:


> OP: Buying the entire Scott Ross Scarlatti Keyboard Sonata boxed set and resolving oneself to listen to the entire oeuvre non-stop.


Sounds like a good time to me!


----------



## zozzaby (Apr 8, 2015)

I personally love Kodaly, Shubert, Shumann, and Tchaikovsky.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

*Elliott Carter. *

The beginning of his Third Quartet pretty much sums up my mind while listening to his music.

But, please, this is not to say I don't enjoy some of his works. The thread is discussing difficult music to appreciate. For me, that is (was) Carter.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

zozzaby said:


> I personally love Kodaly, Shubert, Shumann, and Tchaikovsky.


Yes but were any of these guys a challenge really?

What about Schnittke? Haven't really gotten around to him... he sounds difficult... :devil:


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

zozzaby said:


> I personally love Kodaly, Shubert, Shumann, and Tchaikovsky.


Schumann I presume?


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

For me, it was:

*Berlioz:* it did take me a very long time to "get" him, mostly due to his eccentric use of rhythms and melodies. I used to detest him so much before I discovered _La damnation de Faust_ and _Benvenuto Cellini_. The oddities in melodies of the former (says Marguerite's ballad _Autrefois, un roi de Thulé_) and in rhythms of the latter gradually became addictive for me. Finally, it was repeated listening to his majestic _Les Troyens_ and noting down his use of _idée fixe_ that won me over. Now he rests firmly in my top 10.

*Berg:* Schoenberg's vocal music (Erwatung, Moses und Aron) and Webern's chamber music were sort of instant hookups for me, but not anything by Berg. My first impression about him was "Richard Strauss got drunken". I was converted after listening to a good performance of Wozzeck.

*Wolf:* only repeated listening while following the texts could help me get his lieder.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

silentio said:


> ...not anything by *Berg*.


silentio, have you tried to listen to _Lyric Suite_? It may surprise you. If you like modern string quartets at all, I think you might enjoy it.

For me... pretty much anything by both Steve Reich and Philip Glass. I've tried a number of times to come to like their music, with no success every time. I remember buying _Music for 18 Musicians_ about 20 years ago after reading rave reviews of it online (including more than one that called it one of the most important pieces of the 20th century). The first time I listened to it, I was basically indifferent, thinking perhaps it would come to sound better with repeated listening. But it never did. How anybody could call that work one of the most important of the 20th century is utterly beyond my comprehension. But then, I love Elliot Carter's string quartets, and I realize that many people find them unlistenable. I'll content myself to remain baffled at the great critical acclaim that Reich and Glass receive.

To each his own, I suppose. Taste is a wonderfully subjective thing.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Often, but not always, a new or unfamiliar work or style will have a greater impression on you if you hear it live at a concert, than on a disembodied recording. This can lead to one of two results: 1) When you get the recording you bring to it the remembered experience of the concert, and it's not so daunting. Or 2) You listen closely to the recording and find that what you had thought was an enjoyable experience, leaves you wondering "What could I have been thinking?"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Celloman said:


> This was the same for me. I fell in love with a couple of his overtures as a child, but didn't like opera at all until my late teens so listening to his operas was out of the question. It wasn't until I finally tackled the Ring cycle a few years ago that I really came to recognize the genius of his music. Now I'm helplessly addicted to his operas and I have 3 recordings of the Ring cycle and two Tristans to boot. _Tristan_ is, without the least bit of doubt, my favorite piece of music - *I can listen to it straight on without any breaks and I'm left wanting more.*


I remember being young enough to do that (sigh).

:tiphat:


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Another composer that I took a long time to inure myself when I was around 14 was Richard Strauss. Now I really enjoy his works immensely.


----------

