# Are you more emotional or analytical in your tastes?



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

How do you react to music the best:

With works more academic, logical and disciplined like, e.g. Bach's fugues, or those pieces that denote austerity (small ensembles, shorter lengths). Or music whose purpose is only that: to be and to express pure music in the most abstract sense of the word, where emotions are often repelled (or a great part of them). Bach Well-Tempered Clavier, Boulez Le Marteau sans maître, Buxtehude's motets, Rihm's string quartets, Frescobaldi keyboard pieces, or whatever akin to.

Or like with, say, late-Romantic symphonies or concertos like those by Rachmaninov or Sibelius. Works that use a larger ensemble, the way and the unashamed intense emotions they convey. Beethovenian symphonies a la Eroica or 5th, Prokofiev epic cantatas, Suk Asrael or so.

The range of expressivity in a great orchestra and the heartrendingly merciless myriad of emotions, sentiments, feelings, depictions, moods, grandeus, etc. I belong to this field. I have to admit it. Analytical is of my most admired interests, unhesitatingly so too! It works like a counterweight.

Haydn is a name that blends both features almost 50-50 in a masterly way.

I would claim in my case that I'm around 70% emotional - 30% analytical.

What about you? This is not about if analytical is better or viceversa. Just your impressions about it. Express as you feel better.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2020)

I don't find there is a clear dichotomy, either from the point of view of enjoyment or creation of music. The works you categorize as austere and abstract evoke just as much emotion when I listen, although the composer doesn't inform me in advance what emotion I am intended to experince by a title, explicit program or nonmusical reference.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I like pretty much everything mentioned in the OP- I don't restrict my classical tastes at all (except serialist/avant-garde). Just today I listened to Bach, Palestrina, Sibelius, Hanson, Mozart, and Poulenc. My personality is extremely analytical and rational, but that doesn't necessarily translate to my musical tastes. I don't find Bach "dry and academic" at all- for me, he is the most piercingly emotional composer I know. I also seem to connect with epic, Romantic, passionate music, literature, films, paintings, etc. even though, outside of art, I can't stand that kind of stuff. So in general, I'd like to think I'm an equally analytical and emotional listener of music. The ideal work, for me, balances formal perfection with aesthetic beauty. I can appreciate both within all sorts of styles and periods.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I would say 80% analytical - 20% emotional


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Most of the music I like best gratifies both the mind and the emotions, but if it's a choice between a quadruple fugue or a theme and variations that doesn't touch me and a simple song that does, I'll generally go for the song.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I don't find there is a clear dichotomy, either from the point of view of enjoyment or creation of music. The works you categorize as austere and abstract evoke just as much emotion when I listen, *although the composer doesn't inform me in advance what emotion I am intended to experince by a title, explicit program or nonmusical reference.*


Good point. That is a subliminal message beneath the notes in my view.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I like pretty much everything mentioned in the OP- I don't restrict my classical tastes at all (except serialist/avant-garde). Just today I listened to Bach, Palestrina, Sibelius, Hanson, Mozart, and Poulenc. My personality is extremely analytical and rational, but that doesn't necessarily translate to my musical tastes. I don't find Bach "dry and academic" at all- for me, he is the most piercingly emotional composer I know. I also seem to connect with epic, Romantic, passionate music, literature, films, paintings, etc. even though, outside of art, I can't stand that kind of stuff. So in general, I'd like to think I'm an equally analytical and emotional listener of music. The ideal work, for me, balances formal perfection with aesthetic beauty. I can appreciate both within all sorts of styles and periods.


It's rather what I am, I like a _right_ balance between them.

I've been always careful of using any link between academic and Bach like a sin or a silliness, so sorry if anyone could misunderstanding me.  But yes, much depends on personal views.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

I care for the technical side only if music moves me. Otherwise I am not interested in investigating the claims of its mastery. For example Berlioz's orchestration is something I consider weak, so I didn't care to remember his opinions when I read about them and listened to his examples.

To clarify: vast majority of my listening is to unknown music, and usually only a specific part of said music (melody, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, structure) appeals to me, and this is what I listen to on a repeat or try to analyze. I don't know if this would be called emotional or analytical in OP's dichotomy.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Most of the music I like best gratifies both the mind and the emotions, but if it's a choice between a quadruple fugue or a theme and variations that doesn't touch me and a simple song that does, I'll generally go for the song.


Point taken. Hence the importance of feeling good with yourself too.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Fabulin said:


> I care for the technical side only if music moves me. Otherwise I am not interested in investigating the claims of its mastery. For example Berlioz's orchestration is something I consider weak, so I didn't care to remember his opinions when I read about them and listened to his examples.
> 
> To clarify: vast majority of my listening is to unknown music, and usually only a specific part of said music (melody, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, structure) appeals to me, and this is what I listen to on a repeat or try to analyze. *I don't know if this would be called emotional or analytical in OP's dichotomy.*


It would perfectly be both.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fabulin said:


> Berlioz's orchestration is something I consider weak, so I didn't care to remember his opinions when I read about them and listened to his examples.


 I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

I don't know a rising fifth from a rissole. I respond to music viscerally, with just a modicum of the cerebral.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Fabulin said:


> ...Berlioz's orchestration is something I consider weak...


What?????? I've never heard anyone say or write that. His orchestration is certainly different - but then every great composer has his own unique sound. But weak? I've played Symphonie Fantastique, Roman Carnival Overture, Romeo and Juliet, Harold in Italy, and several of the other overtures and "weak" just never crossed my mind. Berlioz could summon up a demonic storm or a purifying religious experience as well as anyone, and better than most. His orchestration only seems crude in the hands of a crude orchestra or conductor. With good musicians Berlioz sounds fantastic. Powerful, rich, subtle, tender...and he did after all write a textbook on orchestration that was used for many years and is still worth reading by conductors and others interested in 19th c. practices.

When I listen to Berlioz it's always at an emotional level. That's what he wanted to appeal to anyway. You want weak orchestration, look at Mussorgsky or Rubinstein!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I have zero theoretical background. I can recognize things like fugues, but I don't enjoy the technical aspect of them. For me my reaction to music is basically 100% emotional. Which is funny, because generally speaking I have a very analytical type of mind (confirmed by tests).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

For me, there is a kind of minimal threshold that music has to achieve emotionally -- not upsetting or disgusting me -- and past that I'd say it's intellectual, but with the admission that actually I know very little so my understanding is extremely shallow.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> What?????? I've never heard anyone say or write that. His orchestration is certainly different - but then every great composer has his own unique sound. But weak? I've played Symphonie Fantastique, Roman Carnival Overture, Romeo and Juliet, Harold in Italy, and several of the other overtures and "weak" just never crossed my mind. Berlioz could summon up a demonic storm or a purifying religious experience as well as anyone, and better than most. His orchestration only seems crude in the hands of a crude orchestra or conductor. With good musicians Berlioz sounds fantastic. Powerful, rich, subtle, tender...and he did after all write a textbook on orchestration that was used for many years and is still worth reading by conductors and others interested in 19th c. practices.
> 
> When I listen to Berlioz it's always at an emotional level. That's what he wanted to appeal to anyway. You want weak orchestration, look at Mussorgsky or Rubinstein!


To me his sound is thin. It can get loud, but still makes the orchestra sound smaller than it really does. Perhaps this has to do with his desire to make orchestras bigger and bigger (with several conductors---even), and compensate that way. His style might have worked better with huger orchestras, but that is completely against my philosophy of maximizing the forces at one's disposal.

And as for quieter passages, again, nothing particularily impressive to me here either.



Woodduck said:


> I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.


Bless you


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I find it weird when it comes to the fugue form, the general classical community often has this mindset*: "too old-fashioned", "too much like Bach's way of writing". We don't consider Schumann's sonatas, (the form of which originates from the classical era) for example, "outdated". - Why should fugues be treated any different? Fugues from different eras sound very different and distinct, adhering to their own idioms and styles. (Take Rachmaninoff's, or Shostakovich's, or Grieg's fugues or Bartok's Music for strings, percussion, celesta, or Mozart's adagio and fugue for string orchestra for example.) I think this* has to do with the fact a lot of people consider fugues mathematical and boring, and aren't really interested in looking at how different traditions and their richness of expression flourished and existed through history. I'm convinced Et vitam venturi from Beethoven's Missa solemnis, for example, adheres more to the ways of the "Classicist" school for effect. Something like the sense of "excitement" through the use of strettos in the Et vitam venturi triple fugue of Mozart Missa longa:

[ 17:02 ]

17m2s







hammeredklavier said:


> One thing to remember is, just because something is fugal or contrapuntal it doesn't automatically mean it's of Bachian origin or influence. For example, a lot of 18th century composers (including Mozart in his Salzburg years) also implemented fugal techniques without knowing a lot of Bach works at the time.
> One thing I find interesting about Mozart's Salzburg period is that it shows certain purely Classical aspects of fugal writing. Unlike Bach, Classicists seem to use fugal writing as means to an end, to reach some kind of climatic conclusion.
> 
> I find the Et vitam venturi (17:39) from Missa in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis K167 remarkable how, in the middle of the fugal development, Mozart starts to gradually hint, nudge, and wink at the original Credo material (18:42) with strings, and uses the material to eventually reach a climax (19:19). Not sure how to describe it, but it conceptually reminds me of what the piano does in the midst of orchestral tutti in the beginning of Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No.2 (albeit they're completely different in style and genre).
> ...


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> I find it weird when it comes to the fugue form, the general classical community often has this mindset: "too old-fashioned", "too much like Bach's way of writing". We don't consider Schumann's sonatas, for example, "outdated". Why should fugues be treated any different?


Weird. I've thought that fugues have always been and still continue to be---rather well-liked, even if they are not being composed frequently.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> I care for the technical side only if music moves me. Otherwise I am not interested in investigating the claims of its mastery. For example Berlioz's orchestration is something I consider weak, so I didn't care to remember his opinions when I read about them and listened to his examples.


I've always thought harmony and counterpoint were the area Berlioz struggled the most. But his orchestral techniques were considered to be "innovative". (as confirmed by Ravel)


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> I've always thought harmony and counterpoint were the area Berlioz struggled the most. But his orchestral techniques were considered to be "innovative". (as confirmed by Ravel)


Perhaps "weak" was too strong of a word; however---since harmony and counterpoint are what gets orchestrated, it shouldn't be so shocking that someone can be left unconvinced by the composer's aesthetic arguments. I rarely separate (in my notebooks) orchestration from its specific application.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm not sure I recognise the distinction. Listening to music is an emotional experience whether it is a Bach fugue or a Rachmaninov symphony. It may be that for people with a lot of musical training it is possible to *like *something simply for what it does technically but *liking *is emotional. Nor do you need to know music theory to enjoy fugal Bach ... it gets you just as surely as the adagio from Mahler 5. There is also music you don't like (also an emotional response) but I don't think taste can be reduced to emotion vs. analysis (even if it can be reduced to, say, Classical vs. Romantic).


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Both..............


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Very little music moves me emotionally. I can count the composers that do more consistently on my hand: Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, Vaughan Williams. But i find more interest in some composers that don't move me one bit like Bartok, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Shostakovich. That must be the more analytical.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I'm just about one hundred percent emotion - though I would stress that I don't see emotion as something divorced from intelligence. Sensitivity is a big component of my appreciation of beauty (which I consider an emotional response), and sensitivity requires intelligence, though not ratiocination.

Of course, while I am good at analysing literary effects (I'm a retired English teacher), I am not good at discerning musical. But even though I might enjoy seeing how a poet achieves his/her effects, it comes *after* my emotional response and simply enhances my admiration and appreciation.

With music, I have the immediate effect, an emotional or appreciative response, but can't enhance it through analysis.

I had to develop my ability to analyse literary effects, but it doesn't seem worthwhile to do the same for music. I'm simply grateful to have turned to music in retirement - truly, life more abundant.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Both equally 50/50.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> ...For example Berlioz's orchestration is something I consider weak...


Perhaps you meant Berlioz's use of harmony? The composer is famous for his pioneering use of the orchestra, and I remember having read somewhere someone claiming that the _Symphonie Fantastique_ alone was like a masterclass in early 19th century orchestration. For example, he was the first great composer to use saxophones in the orchestra if I remember correctly. Berlioz even wrote a famous treatise in the subject of orchestration. Mussorgsky famously had this treatise with him in his deathbed, and people like Wagner, Mahler, R. Strauss and Rimsky-Korsakov also studied it.

Saying that Berlioz was weak in orchestration sounds to me like telling someone that Bach was a bad contrapuntist, Mozart a bad melodist, Chopin a bad harmonist etc.



Fabulin said:


> Perhaps "weak" was too strong of a word; however---since harmony and counterpoint are what gets orchestrated, it shouldn't be so shocking that someone can be left unconvinced by the composer's aesthetic arguments. I rarely separate (in my notebooks) orchestration from its specific application.


So you think that Ravel's _Bolero_ is also weak in orchestration? 



hammeredklavier said:


> I've always thought harmony and *counterpoint* were the area Berlioz struggled the most. But his orchestral techniques were considered to be "innovative". (as confirmed by Ravel)


Then perhaps you should listen to that double fugue in his (IMO very underrated) _Te Deum_. 



MusicSybarite said:


> *Are you more emotional or analytical in your tastes?*


Emotional. But I love when a work is great both in expression and details (if I can understand them). I think that there can be good music that appeals to the senses in a non-emotional fashion, but my favorite pieces are those that in my opinion can stir profound emotions.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

This thread reinforces my position that all aesthetics is personal--extremely so. We like what we like, first and foremost, then retroactively root about like truffle hounds for the "reasons" why we like it--and should like it: it was good, and thus deserved our appreciation, which redounds to both the piece's benefit (it's good) and our own (we're perceptive). I am reminded of Marvin Gaye's line in _Let's Get It On_: "We're all sensitive people, with so much to give!", sung with quite a twinkle in his eye.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> Sensitivity requires intelligence, though not ratiocination.
> 
> Of course, while I am good at analysing literary effects (I'm a retired English teacher), I am not good at discerning musical. But even though I might enjoy seeing how a poet achieves his/her effects, it comes *after* my emotional response and simply enhances my admiration and appreciation.


I'm the opposite. I've studied music's nuts and bolts but not so much literature, so I approach music like you approach literature. And I wish I had time to explore literature, especially poetry, like you do. I was just looking at T.S. Eliot's _Marina_ and Gerard Manley Hopkins' _God's Grandeur_, and they got to me even though I don't get all the technicalities of how they wrote it.

As to music, I'm looking to feel a connection with a piece, whether it is emotional or cerebral, so I guess I'm 50/50.

And thanks for the new word, ratiocination. I'm a court stenographer, and I love learning new words before they get thrown at me in a courtroom at 250 words per minute.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

It depends… When I listen Beethoven or Bach, I could say that I'm more analytical. When I listen some romantic composers I tend to be more emotional. I also forgive mistakes made in romantic interpretations. I never forgive mistakes made with Beethoven and Bach. As I can say: We can ''play'' with a lot of things but never with the two big Bs''


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Why choose? Just listen to Mahler


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> What?????? I've never heard anyone say or write that. His orchestration is certainly different - but then every great composer has his own unique sound. But weak?....
> he (Berlioz) did after all write a textbook on orchestration that was used for many years and is still worth reading by conductors and others interested in 19th c. practices.


Right, Berlioz' orchestration is quite unique, and at times very spectacular (Sym Fant.)



> You want weak orchestration, look at Mussorgsky or Rubinstein!


Or Rachman'ff!!


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

He just wrote the book about orchestration who was followed roughly for the next 100 years. One if not the most original composer of all time. I fact he was probably the first avant-garde composer. Evrything points out to the future. THe bridge between old music and new music. Without him, wagner, mahler, tchaikovky, bruckner, strauss list would sounds different.

If Berlioz had a german name , we would put him in the top10. The father of orchestration and he was bad at it. 

Sincerely I do hope you are not a teacher or do not go to school .


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

It tends to depend on my mood.

Sometimes I can listen from an analytical perspective, others from an emotional one. Even the same piece can strike my form both perspectives at different times. 

The vast majority of my listening is music of the 20th century and contemporary eras.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Heck148 said:


> "You want weak orchestration, look at Mussorgsky or Rubinstein!"Or Rachman'ff!!


I hear nothing "weak" about Rachmaninoff's orchestration. Maybe a bit heavy in the early orchestral works, but still powerful in effect. In the concertos it complements his piano writing beautifully, and in the later works it becomes wonderfully sensuous and piquant.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I have a hard time seeing how anyone could be a weaker orchestrator than Chopin.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Scriabin's orchestration was severely criticized by his contemporaries like Rimsky-korsakov.


----------



## TMHeimer (Dec 19, 2019)

It's a tough question. Maybe 50-50? One thing for sure is when listening to any style of music I get bored sooner than most and switch to something else.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I hear nothing "weak" about Rachmaninoff's orchestration. Maybe a bit heavy in the early orchestral works, but still powerful in effect. In the concertos it complements his piano writing beautifully, and in the later works it becomes wonderfully sensuous and piquant.


We've had this discussion before  - no need to beat it to death again...I just think that Rachmaninoff is a very poor orchestrator - who makes so many basic errors it's hard to list them all - but you are right - [way] too heavy, too thick and murky - far too much unison/octave 2bling/3pling/4pling - too much low, low-mid-range use of instruments, too much obscuring of valuable details...
very frustrating to perform....the orchestration, for me, just doesn't work; interesting parts simply covered by the murk....I've always wondered how Rach's orchestral music would sound if re-orchestrated by Stravinsky or Shostakovich...two acknowledged masters of the art.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I have a hard time seeing how anyone could be a weaker orchestrator than Chopin.


He wrote some very wonderful bassoon parts in his Piano Concerti!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Heck148 said:


> We've had this discussion before  - no need to beat it to death again...I just think that Rachmaninoff is a very poor orchestrator - who makes so many basic errors it's hard to list them all - but you are right - [way] too heavy, too thick and murky - far too much unison/octave 2bling/3pling/4pling - too much low, low-mid-range use of instruments, too much obscuring of valuable details...
> very frustrating to perform....the orchestration, for me, just doesn't work; interesting parts simply covered by the murk....I've always wondered how Rach's orchestral music would sound if re-orchestrated by Stravinsky or Shostakovich...two acknowledged masters of the art.


It would be interesting to know how widely your view of Rach's orchestration is shared. Not too widely, I'm guessing. It may well be true that some details in certain passages don't "sound" - covered by the "murk," as you put it - but what _does_ sound, sounds pretty darned good, and often quite ravishing, to me. I simply cannot recall reading negative assessments of his instrumental choices, but I've read plenty of praise for the sumptuous and expressive colors in his late works. I also think Rachmaninoff was a sensitive enough musician to know what kind of sound he wanted. He conducted performances of his own music, as well as played his concertos with his orchestra arrayed around him, and he could easily have made changes if he'd found the sound unsatisfactory.

Aside from the matter of supposedly hidden details - maybe some of those are for the bassoon? - I think you're expressing a distaste for a certain kind of sonority which is, obviously, very different from that sought by Berlioz, Stravinsky or Shostakovich. The plush, smoldering darkness of works such as the Second Symphony and Isle of the Dead is just not to your taste. Your need to pile disparaging adjectives on Rach's work, and your fantasy that it could have been suitably orchestrated by Stravinsky, suggests a lack of affinity for the composer's temperament and aesthetic goals.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I hear nothing "weak" about Rachmaninoff's orchestration. Maybe a bit heavy in the early orchestral works, but still powerful in effect. In the concertos it complements his piano writing beautifully, and in the later works it becomes wonderfully sensuous and piquant.


I agree. As someone not versed in the niceties of orchestration, my reaction to Rachmaninoff's orchestral "sound" is that it is--Rachmaninovian--as Sibelius' sound is Sibelian, etc.: distinct, idiosyncratic, uniquely his own.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Although I'm by nature somewhat analytical (some would say pedantic, though they may be confusing pedantry with literalism...), I certainly respond more to emotional music. Hence my choices for listening tend to be from mid-19th to mid-20th century but not the 2nd Viennese School. However, if the emotion lacks form and direction, it just doesn't work for me. So out of that period of music, I just don't 'get' Delius.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Some violinist colleagues expressed their views after (yet another) performance of the tedious, overblown, over-long Rach 2nd symphony - "All of those notes, just constant playing, it's so heavy"....and "the part has hundreds of thousands of notes, about 90% of which are completely inaudible to the audience".....it isn't just me....that this overblown musical dinosaur gains so much programming time is a real setback for concert music...so many other, better symphonies to present.

Rachmaninoff's approach to orchestration is reminiscent of journeymen composers who write educational pieces for middle school concert bands - everybody must play all of the time....always in the low, mid-range of the instruments....the saving grace is that those pieces don't go on for an hour!!
Regarding the sonority - other composers, like Sibelius, Vaughan William's, Prokofiev, favored an often low, bass-oriented sound....but they manage it with artistry...the pitch ranges are expanded, instruments used with great skill, the excessive 2blings and mid-range thickness avoided.
Rachmaninoff, for me, remains a 3rd or 4th string composer, at least his orchestra works. I know this is "throwing mud on the sacred cow"....but that's how it is....no point beating it to death.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Pat Fairlea said:


> ...... I just don't 'get' Delius.


Same here...does nothing for me...


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Delius is sometimes too greasy for me. Slippery sliding harmony. Chromaticism and not in a good way for my tastes.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Heck148 said:


> Some violinist colleagues expressed their views after (yet another) performance of the tedious, overblown, over-long Rach 2nd symphony - "All of those notes, just constant playing, it's so heavy"....and "the part has hundreds of thousands of notes, about 90% of which are completely inaudible to the audience".....it isn't just me....that this overblown musical dinosaur gains so much programming time is a real setback for concert music...so many other, better symphonies to present.
> 
> Rachmaninoff's approach to orchestration is reminiscent of journeymen composers who write educational pieces for middle school concert bands - everybody must play all of the time....always in the low, mid-range of the instruments....the saving grace is that those pieces don't go on for an hour!!
> Regarding the sonority - other composers, like Sibelius, Vaughan William's, Prokofiev, favored an often low, bass-oriented sound....but they manage it with artistry...the pitch ranges are expanded, instruments used with great skill, the excessive 2blings and mid-range thickness avoided.
> Rachmaninoff, for me, remains a 3rd or 4th string composer, at least his orchestra. I know this is "throwing mud on the sacred cow"....but that's how it is....no point beating it to death.


This is fighting with the audience--a can't-win scenario. The Experts disparage Rachmaninoff, and with cause; yet he struggles on, with the Public his only defender.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

mikeh375 said:


> Delius is sometimes too greasy for me. Slippery sliding harmony. Chromaticism and not in a good way for my tastes.


LOL!! good way to put it...it just doesn't seem to go anywhere...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I just want everyone to be happy and warm. Is anybody hungry?

Rachmaninoff was the last Romantic, only possible because Russia was socially and culturally retarded.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Heck148 said:


> Some violinist colleagues expressed their views after *(yet another) performance of the tedious, overblown, over-long Rach 2nd symphony *- "All of those notes, just constant playing, it's so heavy"....and "the part has hundreds of thousands of notes, about 90% of which are completely inaudible to the audience".....it isn't just me....*that this overblown musical dinosaur gains so much programming time is a real setback for concert music...so many other, better symphonies to present.*
> 
> *Rachmaninoff's approach to orchestration is reminiscent of journeymen composers who write educational pieces for middle school concert bands - everybody must play all of the time*....always in the low, mid-range of the instruments....*the saving grace is that those pieces don't go on for an hour!!*
> Regarding the sonority - other composers, like Sibelius, Vaughan William's, Prokofiev, favored an often low, bass-oriented sound....but they manage it with artistry...the pitch ranges are expanded, instruments used with great skill, the excessive 2blings and mid-range thickness avoided.
> *Rachmaninoff, for me, remains a 3rd or 4th string composer, at least his orchestra. I know this is "throwing mud on the sacred cow"*....but that's how it is....no point beating it to death.


This makes clear that my suspicion is correct: you just don't have much sympathy for Rachmaninoff's artistic temperament and aims. Calling well-loved pieces of music "sacred cows" implicitly disparages the people who love them. Why not just admit that there are some things we all fail to "get" and leave Rachmaninoff to those who actually like the sound of his music? There's nothing wrong with disliking any music, but realize that there are plenty of people as musically sophisticated as you who savor every moment of that "tedious, overblown" 2nd symphony, complete with repeats, and who consider it a unique and wonderful specimen of late Romanticism. I think it's safe to say that a work of such length wouldn't be played and recorded by great numbers of world-class conductors if they didn't consider it an important contribution to the repertoire.

I don't argue with your contention that there may be some needless doubling in the scoring of the 2nd symphony. There's no question that Rach was going for a dark, rich sound, more so than in most of his works. But to your violinist friends who whine that 90 percent of what they play can't be heard - a ridiculous statement, if real - I can only say "Who cares?" How would they even know how many notes someone in the audience is hearing? The perspective of an orchestral player is obviously quite different from that of someone sitting in the auditorium, much less someone listening at home to a recording engineered in the studio. Your friends can always get together with friends and play chamber music, where every nuance of sound they produce is all-important. To me - as, I suspect, to most listeners - the possibility that not every instrumental contribution to the overall sound of the orchestration can be picked out by the ear is a matter of supreme indifference, and it may even be by design; sometimes it isn't a composer's intention that every note, and the individual timbre of every instrument, be heard.

BTW, how can you characterize Prokofiev's orchestral writing as "bass-oriented"? If Prokofiev seems bass-oriented to you, it's no wonder that you find Rachmaninoff "murky."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Heck148 said:


> LOL!! good way to put it...it just doesn't seem to go anywhere...


I'll agree with you here. Delius does sometimes have trouble with form. Not every composer can handle a heavily chromatic idiom with Wagnerian confidence. Listening to half an hour of Delius's perpetually dissolving harmonies can be a bit like watching the slow melting of a scented pink candle. Not that that's something I'd ever do...

(Rachmaninoff, by contrast, handles chromaticism brilliantly. I listen to the _Symphonic Dances_ in amazement at its harmonic subtlety. The sense of direction and coherence are never in doubt.)


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> This makes clear that my suspicion is correct: you just don't have much sympathy for Rachmaninoff's artistic temperament and aims.


I don't presume to know Rachman'ff's temperament or his artistic aims...to me, [I've played tons and tons of orchestra music] he's a lousy orchestrator - whether his incompetence in this regard originates with a flawed concept of orchestra sonority, or just ignorance of the art of orchestration, I do not know...maybe he knew exactly what he was doing, and simply didn't realize the problems, or, he simply never mastered the art, as did some of his great Russian contemporaries, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, and Prokofieff...Rachmaninoff commits so many basic errors that he gets in his own way, so much detail in his scores is obscured...the constant, thick heavy sonic murk becomes tedious to the ear...



> Calling well-loved pieces of music "sacred cows" implicitly disparages the people who love them. Why not just admit that there are some things we all fail to "get" and leave Rachmaninoff to those who actually like the sound of his music?


I'm not disparaging anyone, I have no problem with people enjoying Rachman'ff or any other composer...to each his own....I'm sorry if my justifiable criticism of his orchestration offends you...you are free to think it is great....I just vehemently disagree with you for the aforementioned reasons, which is my right... 


> There's nothing wrong with disliking any music, but realize that there are plenty of people as musically sophisticated as you who savor every moment of that "tedious, overblown" 2nd symphony,


fine, go for it....I just think that the programming time should go to other, lesser known works that are of much higher quality, and deserve more exposure....I want concert music to survive, not just repeat the same old warhorses.



> BTW, how can you characterize Prokofiev's orchestral writing as "bass-oriented"? If Prokofiev seems bass-oriented to you, it's no wonder that you find Rachmaninoff "murky."


Prokofieff is not bass-oriented to the degree of Rachmaninoff, for sure - but - Prokofieff makes extensive use of the bass choir, awards it many important melodies, first introductions of prominent themes etc...his writing for tuba and trombones was quite original....very substantial, demanding parts - but he maintains a clarity - and he uses the ranges effectively to avoid a thick muddy sound...the same with low woodwinds - low clarinets, bass clarinet, bassoons ....Vaughan Williams does the same - very important parts for low instruments...but again, he keeps the texture clear.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Heck148: "...fine, go for it....I just think that the programming time should go to other, lesser known works that are of much higher quality, and deserve more exposure....I want concert music to survive, not just repeat the same old warhorses."


Here is the heart of the situation: it isn't really about the muddy orchestration (that the Mob seems to love); it's about the fact that the Mob loves R's music and wants to hear it. And thus R is using up all the oxygen in the room because people like his music so much. I would love to see more concerts featuring Prokofiev symphonies, more Bartók, etc. But is the reason these are not heard as much as they should due to Rachmaninoff and his muddy orchestration?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Here is the heart of the situation: it isn't really about the muddy orchestration (that the Mob seems to love); it's about the fact that the Mob loves R's music and wants to hear it. And thus R is using up all the oxygen in the room because people like his music so much. I would love to see more concerts featuring Prokofiev symphonies, more Bartók, etc. But is the reason these are not heard as much as they should due to Rachmaninoff and his muddy orchestration?


I don't know why Prokofiev's symphonies don't get more play. Personally I much prefer them to most of Shostakovich's, to whom I have an aversion I could rant on about but won't. But that's just me. I guess it'll have to satisfy us that we can hear them whenever we want on recordings. I'd just like to know why Ludovic Nielsen's 3rd Symphony is never played by anyone.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> Here is the heart of the situation: it isn't really about the muddy orchestration (that the Mob seems to love); it's about the fact that the Mob loves R's music and wants to hear it.


2 different issues, really....
1. Rachmaninoff's ineptitude as an orchestrator, and
2. the prevalence of popular warhorses on concert programs, to the neglect of other very worthwhile works.



> But is the reason these are not heard as much as they should due to Rachmaninoff and his muddy orchestration?


people seem to like that lush, romantic sound [maybe orchestras could just program Addinsell's Warsaw Concerto!! it's a lot shorter!! :lol:]....the thing is, people don't know that they dislike symphonies of Prokofieff, or Hanson, or Roussel, or Schuman, Mennin, etc, etc....it's that they've never heard them...programs are filled with yet another Tchaikovsky 4 or 5, Rach 2 ,etc....


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Heck148 said:


> [maybe orchestras could just program Addinsell's Warsaw Concerto!! it's a lot shorter!! :lol:]


And a lot poorer. Rachmaninoff was aked to write the music for the film, "Dangerous Moonlight," and when he declined Addinsell was brought in to provide some fake Rachmaninoff. Even as a kid I knew it was fake.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

It's the closest thing to a Rach concerto that I can play though Wooduck. There would have been a time when it would have got you girls too I bet.....


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Heck148 said:


> 2 different issues, really....
> 1. Rachmaninoff's ineptitude as an orchestrator, and
> 2. the prevalence of popular warhorses on concert programs, to the neglect of other very worthwhile works.
> 
> people seem to like that lush, romantic sound [maybe orchestras could just program Addinsell's Warsaw Concerto!! it's a lot shorter!! :lol:]....the thing is, people don't know that they dislike symphonies of Prokofieff, or Hanson, or Roussel, or Schuman, Mennin, etc, etc....it's that they've never heard them...programs are filled with yet another Tchaikovsky 4 or 5, Rach 2 ,etc....


I understand that these are two different critiques you offer; I was very gently pulling your leg a bit with my reply. But can we not say, as experienced, thoughtful, perceptive music lovers, that no audience--whether for CM, Rock, Jazz, Pop, even Flamenco--is worthy of the wonderful music it could/should be listening to?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mikeh375 said:


> It's the closest thing to a Rach concerto that I can play though Wooduck. There would have been a time when it would have got you girls too I bet.....


It seems to have worked for Anton Walbrook.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> It seems to have worked for Anton Walbrook.


Not that he'd have been interested in real life. (I admit I had to look him up).


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2020)

I came back and this thread somehow has turned to the topic of how Rachmaninoff is a bad orchestrator, and lush heavy orchestral music is emotional and other music is not. Huh? (People still listen to Rach after a hundred years, he must have done something right.) Music will evoke emotions, and it doesn't have to be couched in "lush" orchestration (whatever that is). I love Contrapuntus VIII from Bach's AoF, and it always seems to evoke a unique mood when I listen, despite the fact that it is supposedly "cerebral" and lacks any orchestration at all.

What makes music great, in my experience, is when it works on all levels at once. Great music touches the spirit and has the structural, harmonic, melodic, thematic underpinnings to keep your attention and keep up the intensity as it unfolds. I see no dichotomy between "cerebral" and "emotional" music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> And a lot poorer. Rachmaninoff was aked to write the music for the film, "Dangerous Moonlight," and when he declined Addinsell was brought in to provide some fake Rachmaninoff. Even as a kid I knew it was fake.


Here's some Real Rachmaninoff


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I'll agree with you here. Delius does sometimes have trouble with form. Not every composer can handle a heavily chromatic idiom with Wagnerian confidence. Listening to half an hour of Delius's perpetually dissolving harmonies can be a bit like watching the slow melting of a scented pink candle. Not that that's something I'd ever do...
> 
> (Rachmaninoff, by contrast, handles chromaticism brilliantly. I listen to the _Symphonic Dances_ in amazement at its harmonic subtlety. The sense of direction and coherence are never in doubt.)


"Slow melting of a scented pink candle": that's genius.

And I agree with you re Symphonic Dances. Superb.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

They say Mozart sounds perfect while Beethoven sounds full of surprises. I never understood what that means, but I'd translate it as, it's easy to understand technicals with Mozart and understand emotion with Beethoven. The former so elegantly mimics theory to a science and _from_ that you can extrapolate the awesome emotion of expression. The latter on the other hand so clearly follows his creativity, his gut, that only as an after-thought you may begin to understand something technical or scientific in there, as to why it sounds so different but why it works anyway. Sometimes music just _works._ Playing around with unique harmonies, rhythm and line-writing that hits just the right spot, there's a _creativity_ to it that's hard to understand via technicals, but you can try to analyze it and oftentimes get nowhere as truly significant as where you began. For me, you have to start with emotion, because that's the source of why 'good' is attributed to a sound. Without attributing music with a positive emotion, there's no reason to be attached to it.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I consider myself to be more on the analytical side of things when it comes to music, but I find that listening with an analytical framework does not in the slightest preclude an emotional response. In fact, on the rare occasion that I am (nearly) brought to tears by music, it is never because of sappy sentimentality and always because of the structural beauty and intellectual profundity that I find within a work. With rare exceptions, I almost never feel that emotions are the "goal" of classical music (or at least my personal "goal" as a listener).

However, as Baron Scarpia said, this whole dichotomy is a bit silly, and - contrary to the somewhat presumptuous claims of the OP - far more to do with the listener than the music and thus is not a strong indicator of preference. I know fans of contemporary popular music who have a far more analytical approach to music than many members here who enjoy Bach, Beethoven, and Boulez.

(Just to clarify, I'm not trying to suggest that there's anything inherently better or worse about enjoying music a certain way).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I consider myself to be more on the analytical side of things when it comes to music, but I find that listening with an analytical framework does not in the slightest preclude an emotional response. In fact, on the rare occasion that I am (nearly) brought to tears by music, it is never because of sappy sentimentality and always because of the structural beauty and intellectual profundity that I find within a work. With rare exceptions, I almost never feel that emotions are the "goal" of classical music (or at least my personal "goal" as a listener).
> 
> However, as Baron Scarpia said, this whole dichotomy is a bit silly, and - contrary to the somewhat presumptuous claims of the OP - far more to do with the listener than the music and thus is not a strong indicator of preference. I know fans of contemporary popular music who have a far more analytical approach to music than many members here who enjoy Bach, Beethoven, and Boulez.
> 
> (Just to clarify, I'm not trying to suggest that there's anything inherently better or worse about enjoying music a certain way).


I agree with everything you said here. I just don't agree with your username.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Five pages in and I am still not sure if I am analytical or emotional in my responses to music. Both maybe. Or neither. Analytical seems to imply following the music to hear what it is doing but, even if the more technical aspects of this are forgiven, this is not what I do _*consciously*_. Emotional seems to imply, I don't know, getting tearful or excited which I do do to some extent - music can excite me or take me somewhere new - but am I being emotional? I think probably I am unconsciously analytical and consciously "moved".


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I prefer classical music by religious composers, I admit that I emphasize on emotional experiences more than analytical qualities. However, controlled emotional response is also recommended for serious music, like Bach and other church music. I only allow myself to have strong emotional upheaval when the music corresponds to something happened recently. Over all, smooth, introspective, uneffusive emotional experiences to baroque music is the best, or requisit for long term enjoyment and informed taste.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Listening to half an hour of Delius's perpetually dissolving harmonies can be a bit like watching the *slow melting of a scented pink candle.*


Please ensure this nugget of gold is included in the inevitable (and genuinely much-desired) 'Woodduckk - Selected Writings on Aesthetics'.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Ariasexta said:


> I prefer classical music by religious composers, I admit that I emphasize on emotional experiences more than analytical qualities.


I don't know if religious and analytical are uncorrelated, in the same sense that it's important to know that most _analysts_ throughout time were religious, and so of course the artists we enjoy are. Still to this day it's a concern most people have, built into our innate sense of survival beyond this life, and I think "analysis" complements this existential mindframe as much as emotion does.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I have a hard time seeing how anyone could be a weaker orchestrator than Chopin.


I suspect you are not familiar with the orchestrations of _Für Elise_ prepared by my classmates and me as first-year music theory students.


----------

