# Who are the hardest composers to "get into" ?



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

This isn't necessarily about accessibility (that's a term often used of modern music). I'm speaking of other factors of the composer's music that make it hard to "handle" so to speak, either because of its style, its "drawn-outness" or some other factor. It could be completely tonal, but something about it is "off-putting" for many people.

Nominate them! You may or may not be voting for your least (or most) favorite composers.

It seems to me Wagner, Bruckner and Mahler get up there because of the need for large attention span, and perhaps the reason behind using such a large-scale form might be lost in translation for the audience (the big picture is _too _big, if you know what I mean). Personally, that's not a problem for me.

Conversely, I think Verdi and Johann Strauss Jr. have some issues too. It's not so much the fact that they were "super-melodists" but the style in which they wrote it. There is "Stupid Verdi" and "Stupid Strauss" you know what I mean? I've normally not used those words for them though, but I've heard others say so.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I'll second the nomination for *Mahler*. I had a terrible time getting into him. I think as you say, you can't hear the symphony for the notes. I appreciate his work a lot now thanks to just trying a little harder, taking time for focused listening, and also some welcome guidance from Mahlerian.

Other composers I find difficult often just don't have themes I can relate to, or themes I cannot hold in memory long enough to hear what is done with them. It doesn't have to be a common practice theme. There are plenty of modern composers that present no thematic problems for me. It just needs to be a theme that grabs me unless I'm to work very hard at focusing. *Takemistu* is one such. I know I should _really_ enjoy his work. So far it is just okay. I think the themes are a little meandering or perhaps too lethargic and spacious for me to notice the motivic elements.

I've had a similar problem with *Max Bruch* recently (though I would never put him in the same league as Takemitsu or try to compare the two!). His themes just seem to wander aimlessly. I do love long meandering melodies, but they must have some kind of cohesion. Robert Schumann's piano concerto 3rd movement is an example of a long meandering theme that grabs me and has cohesion, but Bruch's themes seem to lack this elusive quality. So if there are any marvelous musical acrobatics with Bruch, they are lost on me.

None of this is to say these composers are impossible to "get." It just takes me longer with them.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Webern. I guess it's just me, but I seem to have a problem with "inaccessibility".
Sorry, but my other qualities are good.

Never had a problem with Mahler, possibly because we share similar roots.


----------



## Freischutz (Mar 6, 2014)

It's slightly difficult to pin-point why I can't get into composers I haven't got into yet because I'm not familiar enough with their styles for not having got into them.  But speaking to your points, I've always found Mahler hard and I'm still struggling, though Bruckner was very quick for me. I think you're right about the drawn-outness of them both, but there obviously must be some extra difference - personally, though I may be wrong, I find Bruckner's structures a little tighter while Mahler feels more rhapsodic, and that's harder to follow.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Not sure if I agree with Mahler and Wagner. They are among the composers whom new listeners first turn to because of the "big," "epic," "romantic" sound.

A lot of renaissance composers are probably harder to get into, e.g. Byrd or Victoria because the melodies aren't exactly that memorable.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2014)

Another thread to which the answer is another question: To whom?

As indicated in the OP's own remark;



Huilunsoittaja said:


> Personally, that's not a problem for me.


Otherwise, a non-question answer to this question could easily be this: None of them.

Different listeners have different responses to different things. I really liked _Valse Trist_e as a kid, but any other music by Sibelius just flew right past me.

So I went to the downtown library in Sacramento and checked out all the Sibelius records they had. A week later, Sibelius was one of my favorites.

For quite a long time, each new piece by Prokofiev sounded hollow and empty to me. Aimless note spinning. Then, as I got to know each piece, everything about it seemed perfectly fine. This went on for long enough that I was able to listen to a piece, react to it as empty and hollow, knowing full well that months or even weeks later, I would love this piece thoroughly.

Eventually this stopped happening and the last five or six pieces by Prokofiev that I'd never heard before seemed perfectly fine from the very first listen.

Why? Who knows. By the time that had happened, I was listening with increasing delight to Cage and Xenakis and Karkowski and such.

When I first heard M. Behrens' _Final Ballet,_ I thought it was simply tedious. But something made me hold on to my recording of it. Each year, or thereabouts, I would put it on again. Meh.

Then, after some serious immersion in Sachiko M and Keith Rowe and Otomo Yoshihide, especially the very sparse, minimalist (non-repetitive) work of theirs, I took out _Final Ballet_ for its annual spin. Incredible! Wildly beautiful and sensual and engaging music. Something I now listen to more often than once a year, for sure.


----------



## ProudSquire (Nov 30, 2011)

I've never had any problems with Mahler, I fell in love with his music at first listen, just like so many others. The only composer that I struggled with, well, it wasn't so much a struggle, but it did take me a while to warm up to his music; is Scriabin.

It's a bit odd, because I fell in love with the music of so many of the Russian greats almost immediately, but with Scriabin, it took a bit longer. There are still many composers to discover and who knows, perhaps a similar situation might materialize again, but at least, maybe partially, I know the solution: _Persist_! 

*Edit:*

I forgot to nominate!
Scriabin it is.

TPS


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

For me it's Cage. His music just doesn't affect me in any way.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

TheProudSquire said:


> I've never had any problems with Mahler, I fell in love with his music at first listen, just like so many others. The only composer that I struggled with, well, it wasn't so much a struggle, but it did take me a while to warm up to his music; is Scriabin.
> 
> It's a bit odd, because I fell in love with the music of so many of the Russian greats almost immediately, but with Scriabin, it took a bit longer. There are still many composers to discover and who knows, perhaps a similar situation might materialize again, but at least, maybe partially, I know the solution: _Persist_!
> 
> ...


Yes. Scriabin's another I still have trouble with, though I enjoy _Prometheus, The Poem of Fire_. His piano music is often played with so much rubato I can scarcely follow it. At least I think that's what I'm hearing. I sometimes need at least halfhearted swipe at rhythmic stability.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I feel like answering the other question: which composer is not that hard to get into?

I would say Stravinsky.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Scriabin remains a mystery to me. Whatever he's selling, I'm not buying.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Mahler and Bruckner for me.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Weston said:


> Yes. Scriabin's another I still have trouble with, though I enjoy _Prometheus, The Poem of Fire_. His piano music is often played with so much rubato I can scarcely follow it. At least I think that's what I'm hearing. I sometimes need at least halfhearted swipe at rhythmic stability.


Have you ever listened to one of his piano sonatas with a score?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

shangoyal said:


> I feel like answering the other question: which composer is not that hard to get into?
> 
> I would say Stravinsky.


Stravo seems to have something for everyone, including me. What a great, diversified businessman. 

I nominate Glazunov! From many years of personal experience and all the things that I've heard people tell about him, he's certainly an acquired taste. I think I know why it is too, it's his particular taste in thematic material. His orchestration and development techniques are as good as anyone else, but his particular material has a bit of a quirk to them sometimes. Hyper-chromaticism, thick counterpoint, extremely dense schmaltzy harmonies. They sort of overload the mind (this makes performing some of his music slowly a better idea than fast so it can be absorbed, perhaps his own mind could process his own music at a speed twice as fast as a regular person ). Even for me, it took me 3 or 4 times before I truly starting loving certain works, but what kept me going was my motivation. I just knew, "ok, you couldn't remember a single idea just now from that piece, but listen to it a few more times, and you'll remember it all in no time and you'll love it too." I've been right about that 98% of the time. So instead of getting bogged-down, I get refreshed.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl (Jul 21, 2013)

Mmmm.. For me Schoenberg, Cage and Ligeti. Schoenberg and Ligeti made me mad and Cage bores me, but probably in time I will get them. Who knows?


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

I think that some music is harder for performers to get into than listeners. Like music with a lot of repetition. Glass, or even some Scarlatti sonatas. The performer is thinking "I have to do this again??" but the listener is happily swept away on a continuous ocean of sound and does not care.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

hreichgott said:


> I think that some music is harder for performers to get into than listeners. Like music with a lot of repetition. Glass, or even some Scarlatti sonatas. The performer is thinking "I have to do this again??" but the listener is happily swept away on a continuous ocean of sound and does not care.


*Bolero* must be the ultimate nightmare then, especially for the poor snare drummer!


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

I actually can't think of any musicians I know who like Bolero.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

hreichgott said:


> I actually can't think of any musicians I know who like Bolero.


From what I've heard from some of my more well-informed colleagues on this and other music forums to which I belong, neither did Ravel!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hreichgott said:


> I actually can't think of any musicians I know who like Bolero.


Was Bolero based on Grieg's In the Hall of the Mountain King? I have suspicions...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

violadude said:


> Have you ever listened to one of his piano sonatas with a score?


Not yet. Does that help? I suppose I could find one of those YouTube videos with the scrolling score.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2014)

I listened to Stockhausen for the first time today. Specifically Kontakte. Remarkably accessible, given what people say around here, really.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Yeah music nowadays are more accessible due to being so-called less accessible.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Scriabin remains a mystery to me. Whatever he's selling, I'm not buying.


Have you tried listening to Le poème de l'extase and Prometheus simultaneously?

; I guess Bruckner is the hardest. I quickly fell in love with his 9th (and I was already a Sibelian) but it took me many listenings to get into his other symphonies. Then I cheated and looked at the scores, marvelous worlds of hidden details one misses if one listens without sufficient attention.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Weston said:


> Not yet. Does that help? I suppose I could find one of those YouTube videos with the scrolling score.







Try it out.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

I have trouble getting into mahler, bruckner, richard strauss and schoenberg. I don't really dislike it but find it hard to "digest"


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I like Strauss. Schoenberg a different story though. And mixed feelings for Mahler and Bruckner.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*There are some neat solos.*



hreichgott said:


> I actually can't think of any musicians I know who like Bolero.


I guess you do not know any soprano saxophone, tenor saxophone, trombone or bassoon players.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

There are some composers I don't get now but might in the future because they've made great moments amongst some stuff that hasn't attracted me much - Mahler, Sibelius, Mussourgsky, Stockhausen, Handel, Nono come to mind

There are others that I didn't get at first but have persevered with and found some delight - Bach, Wagner, Chopin and Liszt would probably top that list

Then there are a bunch of composers I'm not especially concerned about getting - no need to name names!


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

To me many composers are not worth hearing like MAHLER,they make a fuss about him his music is not as powerful as these guys-DVORAK,BEETHOVEN,MOZART,TCHAIKOVSKY,SCHUBERT,CHOPIN,JOPLIN,BACH,ELGAR,GRIEG & FELIX.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Webern. I guess it's just me, but I seem to have a problem with "inaccessibility".
> Sorry, but my other qualities are good.
> Never had a problem with Mahler, *possibly because we share similar roots*.


What, you too come from the village of Kalischt, Bohemia, in what was then the Austrian Empire, now Kaliště in the Czech Republic? Blimey!


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Shostakovich for me - although I did like some parts of his 5th symphony.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

This Mahler fixation working for you bro? Not getting at all boring?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Scriabin isnt hard to get into unless you start with the late sonatas right away. Half of his piano music and all orchestral music is quite accessible. Start with his early piano music (from before 1900), the concerto, symphony no. 1... anything before opus 40 or so. Dont generalize his music because it changes a lot over time and there's more variety than you might think. Im convinced theres something for almost everyone if you look into it.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

For me, Debussy's music was hard to get into because his harmonic language lacks the same kind of push and pull that common era tonality has, his music often lacks a traditional sense of melody and his rhythms are many times ambiguous. So when I was a younger less experienced listener his music didn't seem very grounded or driving. 

I also had a hard time getting into early Romantic orchestral music because I had discovered late Romantic orchestral music first, so I felt like the early Romantics were just trying to do what the late Romantics were doing but with less success and a more limited orchestral palette. It took me a while before I could listen to them on their own terms. This was especially true of Berlioz.

I also found Schumann really hard to get into. I can't tell you why on this one, I just didn't like him at first. His music seemed really goofy to me or something, like he was just messing around. Now he is #3 on my top favorite piano composers.

I think Mozart is hard for a lot of people to get into because the happy disposition of his music is often mistaken for lack of seriousness and the subtleties of his craft are lost on some people.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

For me it was Mozart. His music is just too classical, too much of the polite dining room fussiness cliché. Don't worry i'm "into" his music in a big way now but his music was a major hurdle when getting into classical and I think it must be the same for others judging by the god or garbage thread. There are so many ways into classical, more every year, doors in from rock or jazz or pop or folk or dubstep or film scores etc means there's never going to be one ultimate challenge composer for everyone.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Mozart's music has endured a battering under Hollywood film director hacks who use his music in their garbage productions.


----------



## TitanisWalleri (Dec 30, 2012)

I would like to second Stravinsky. His music is just so spontaneous that it nearly hurts.

I would also substantiate Bruckner. COnsidering how much I like Mahler, I thought I would immediately like his works, but, Alas! not so.

I think a composer that has been overlooked thus far is Nielsen. His symphonies are seemingly very random, especially in the percussion. The percussion in his Symphony 4 is ungodly.

Bolero took me arounf four listens to appreciate. I now really enjoy it, but maybe that is because I am a trombonist. :lol:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> What, you too come from the village of Kalischt, Bohemia, in what was then the Austrian Empire, now Kaliště in the Czech Republic? Blimey!


My roots are derived from Eastern Europe.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Never had a problem with Mahler, possibly because we share similar roots.


Dude, your "roots" died when they were hauled through several thousands of miles of salt water on the way to "the new world."


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Personally, Mozart. I'm not joking.

edit: I've seen now the post of Quack, I'm not alone


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

violadude said:


> I think Mozart is hard for a lot of people to get into because the happy disposition of his music is often mistaken for lack of seriousness and the subtleties of his craft are lost on some people.


No, it's not that, at least for me. One of my very favorite musician composed what some would call happy "light music" like Mozart. And altough I'm not really into the music of classical period often I enjoy music with a similar style of obscure composers of that period like Samuel Wesley (who someone consider the "english Mozart"). So I don't really know.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Dude, your "roots" died when they were hauled through several thousands of miles of salt water on the way to "the new world."


I don't know about that. The "music recognition" genes are still part of my DNA.
We are who we were.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2014)

My roots are in Northern California - other than for genealogical purposes, my European heritage is rather pointless.

There are several composers that still elude me - I can't really get into them that much. Elgar and Vaughan Williams are at the top. I like Elgar's Cello Concerto, but that is pretty much it. Can't point to anything by Vaughan Williams that I care at all about. Then there is Schumann. He does nothing for me. I have all of his symphonies by both Szell and Gardiner. Nothing. I have his piano works by Kempff. Nothing. Shostakovich is similar to Elgar for me - like his cello concertos, nothing else really gets any kind of regular airplay.

Wagner was tough for me, but I am slowly coming around. Takes a lot more work than others - I have to focus and sit there with the libretto.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I don't know about that. The "music recognition" genes are still part of my DNA.
> We are who we were.


I agree with that. When I see apes bashing stones and sticks (yes, I have seen that film 2001: A Space Odyssey) I have this uncontrollable urge to start tapping my foot in time with the pulse.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

TalkingHead said:


> I agree with that. When I see apes bashing stones and sticks (yes, I have seen that film 2001: A Space Odyssey) I have this uncontrollable urge to start tapping my foot in time with the pulse.


If I were to ever form a band, recruiting a gorilla for the percussion section would be at the top on the list of priorities.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

*Chopin*, *Liszt*, *Bruckner*. I was listening to the wrong recs.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

TalkingHead said:


> I agree with that. When I see apes bashing stones and sticks (yes, I have seen that film 2001: A Space Odyssey) I have this uncontrollable urge to start tapping my foot in time with the pulse.


Humans have not evolved from apes. We have a common ancestor. We are more like cousins as opposed to grandchildren.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> I agree with that. When I see apes bashing stones and sticks (yes, I have seen that film 2001: A Space Odyssey) I have this uncontrollable urge to start tapping my foot in time with the pulse.


You could have been a stand-in I guess. The money was good.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

My difficulty in enjoying composers is almost directly correlated with time. Starting roughly around 1900 composers began to get difficult and some have remained inaccessible. Unlike almost everyone posting here, I have never had problems with any remotely major composer before 1900 including Renaissance music. I had modest difficulty with Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich. After listening to them for a modest time, I began to love many works. The 2nd Viennese School composers were more difficult and later modern composers (Stockhausen, Xenakis, Messiaen, Boulez, etc.) were harder still. 

I have come to agree with a student composer friend of mine who believes that one must understand or become familiar with each composer's language before enjoying them. Many earlier composers use a language most of us are quite familiar with due to hearing music through our lives. Many modern composers' language is not so often heard, and therefore, requires an education of sorts. I am still in the process of learning many of these composers' languages, but I am making progress.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I've always found repetition allows me to get a composer's intentions after a while.
I hated William Schuman's and Persichetti's music after several hearings. Couldn't get into them at all.
So I "locked myself up" in my listening room and devoted several weeks to each, and now I like their music quite a bit.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> My difficulty in enjoying composers is almost directly correlated with time. Starting roughly around 1900 composers began to get difficult and some have remained inaccessible. Unlike almost everyone posting here, I have never had problems with any remotely major composer before 1900 including Renaissance music. I had modest difficulty with Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich. After listening to them for a modest time, I began to love many works. The 2nd Viennese School composers were more difficult and later modern composers (Stockhausen, Xenakis, Messiaen, Boulez, etc.) were harder still.
> 
> I have come to agree with a student composer friend of mine who believes that one must understand or become familiar with each composer's language before enjoying them. Many earlier composers use a language most of us are quite familiar with due to hearing music through our lives. Many modern composers' language is not so often heard, and therefore, requires an education of sorts. I am still in the process of learning many of these composers' languages, but I am making progress.


I just think we all grew up with a bunch of tonal music. So listening to some of these 20th Century Composers is like a foreign language. It takes a lot of time to get our ears acquainted with it. I find Debussy, Ravel, and Poulenc the most accessible of this Modern style.


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford (Feb 8, 2014)

There are some of the most famous composers that have their downfalls in the minds of thousands of listeners. Beethoven, although I LOVE his music, is not popular all the time in some of his music. I think sometimes you have to really know of something beyond beauty itself to fully appreciate composers, including Beethoven. His piano sonatas, for example, are sometimes strewn with what some term as "morbid passages," but to one who understands that there is something much more, much deeper in his music, his music is easier to listen to.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

For me it has been Mahler and Bruckner so far.
I am debating which of the two to make a sustained go at again and at present think Mahler will get the vote


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Haydn man said:


> For me it has been Mahler and Bruckner so far.
> I am debating which of the two to make a sustained go at again and at present think Mahler will get the vote


Agreed on Bruckner but never on Mahler.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

hpowders said:


> I've always found repetition allows me to get a composer's intentions after a while.
> I hated William Schuman's and Persichetti's music after several hearings. Couldn't get into them at all.
> *So I "locked myself up" in my listening room and devoted several weeks to each, *and now I like their music quite a bit.


Sounds like brainwashing 
time to deprogram


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The _only_ composer among those I have made any effort to 'hear' that I have failed to make _some_ sort of connection with is Boulez. Doesn't matter how simple he made it, I don't get it. David Gable probably considers me subhuman.


----------

