# Composers/works that you struggle with



## Guest

I have spent all my musical life trying to appreciate Rachmaninoff, I have periods when I begin to see the light then it disappears, the only exceptions are his Piano Trios [Beaux Arts Trio] which to me are right at the top and have been favourites for ever, I am in a "like him" period at the moment with his Symphonies and P Concertos.
*Are there Composers or Works that you feel you should like but struggle with?? *


----------



## Weston

Oh goodness me - yes. Many.

Mozart! What is it with Mozart? I know he supposedly couldn't break wind without making music, and everything was perfect, etc. But I just can't stand all the Alberti bass and the what-do-you-call-thems. Appoggiaturas? Appoggiaturi? Whatever, they drive me nuts. They tease us with a note to delay the resolution of a phrase, but we all know what note is coming. Just get on with it, man. Now Beethoven would tease us like that and then play a completely unexpected note, so then it's cool. I have learned to enjoy some Mozart pieces though. Haydn does not have this averse effect on me.

Then there's Richard Strauss. I love the epic motifs he comes up with. Then he throws them in a blender and out comes this chaos that would have made Frank Zappa blush.

I could go on, but I'll spare you more negative stuff. I really do like the music I'm complaining about, it's just that I could like it so much more.


----------



## Mendelssohn

Even if it sounds unbelievable to Beethoven's funs (who are quite many and as we say in Greece "burned" by their love with his music), i simply couldn't understand neither his (or His for some people) "Grosse Fugue" nor his Missa Solemnis (op.123)...Many love these works, the first for its innovative character and the second for everything...Ok, after listening many times to the Missa, i have come to the conclusion that it is quite GooD (perhaps too-too-too many notes in the Gloria),but in the case of Grosse Fugue,i could think nothing else than "too-too-too many false notes"...and i still think that...I wanted to understand that work...many do love it...but ,sorry Beethoven's funs,i don't thing it is something more than an experiment...and of course not a masterpiece or at least a good music piece (always according to my opinion, preferences and aesthetics)!
Bruckner's symphonies are quite opposite to my love for elegant music (of course there are some exceptions), but the music that many love but i really,really hate is Wagner's...It is unbelievable how can exist people that like his music...Yes, he has composed some masterpieces (ex. The Ride of the Valkyries) but most of his work doesn't make any sense to me...no matter how hard I've tried to listen to them...As Rossini once said, "Wagner has some beautiful moments but some dreadful quarters of the hour"!!!


----------



## Elgarian

Andante said:


> *Are there Composers or Works that you feel you should like but struggle with?? *


Andante, this thread of yours has the same effect as someone opening a window in a stuffy room. I shall regard it as a safe haven, where we can bare all, and be understood without fear of retribution!

OK, briefly - Mozart. I know he's a genius. Everyone says so. There have even been moments when I could hear it (just as you say you find with Rachmaninoff) - so for instance there are a few things in _La Clemenza_ that I can see are truly wonderful. But I would damn almost everything with faint praise. Mostly, it sounds nice - I mean, what a _terrible_ thing that is to say about his music. It sounds _nice_. I realise how ignorant that is, to say that.

I loved Weston's comment:


> Appoggiaturas? Appoggiaturi? Whatever, they drive me nuts. They tease us with a note to delay the resolution of a phrase, but we all know what note is coming. Just get on with it, man. Now Beethoven would tease us like that and then play a completely unexpected note, so then it's cool. I have learned to enjoy some Mozart pieces though. Haydn does not have this averse effect on me.


Yes, yes. yes. All the time I feel as if I'm being asked to respond to a repetitive formula. All the time I feel almost as if I can predict what the next few notes are going to be. Again and again I find myself thinking, 'but didn't I hear that in the xyzth symphony, or in _Don Tutte's Flute_?'

It's a terrible state to be in. I live in hope that one day I too will see Mozart as God. But it hasn't happened yet.


----------



## Mendelssohn

Elgarian said:


> Yes, yes. yes. All the time I feel as if I'm being asked to respond to a repetitive formula. All the time I feel almost as if I can predict what the next few notes are going to be. Again and again I find myself thinking, 'but didn't I hear that in the xyzth symphony, or in _Don Tutte's Flute_?'


Indeed,that happens to me as well,but not always...it doesn't happen when i'm listening to Mozart's masterpieces but it does in the case of many of the quartets, sonatas and the early symphonies.But,try to listen to the late symphonies, the concertos, some of the operas (there the "problem" sometimes is "bigger").In that works even if he repeats himself, you won't notice it, or you will ignore it by the perfect (in my opinion) orchestration that gives you something different to listen to than the "common notes" of Mozart.For example, listen to the ending of Mozart's 40th Symph. (the last 40 sec.) where even if the skeleton is quite familiar from other of his works (the closing) you probably won't notice if you focus your attention to the flutes and the violoncellos!!!


----------



## PostMinimalist

Of all the compsers that I supposedly should like (English Second Renaissance and Post minimalism of course) Fredrick Delius has to be my sticking point. Harmonically he soundls like Ravel, Howells and Elgar all at once. Melodically there is a mid atlantic twang and formally he looks like debussy so he should be close to the topof my list but he has a victorian air which I find superficial and I cant get past that. I listen to Koanga and Paris ANd Eventyr and Brig Fair and I can't get into it! Will I ever? I doubt it but I'll keep trying!


----------



## David C Coleman

I find I struggle with a lot of composers, I tend to like and dislike pieces from all the main, recognised masters. 
I acknowledge Beethoven as one of the supreme geniuses of all time. 
I don't like a lot of Mozart because he wrote a lot of entertainment music for the courts, which although is attractive is rather light and superfluous. It's only when he gets later into his career that he wrote some really fine music. 
J. S Bach again, wrote a vast amount of music, highly skilled but just toooo many notes at times.
Wagner was mentioned. Yes you can get on two CD's of highlights what interesting stuff he wrote. The rest I can live without.
The same can go for Richard Strauss, love the four last songs, Don Juan and Also Sprach Z, don't care for much else...
Elgar, to me is overrated, again like Cello Concerto, Enigma Variations, but forget those Pomp & Circumstance marches!!


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

I've seen a variant of this question in "another place," to whit: 'Generally like composer X, but do not get on with composition Y.' (And yes, certain select overtures, the 'Battle Symphony' and _Missa Solemnis_ did come up when Beethoven was mentioned, IIRC.)

At this point, I'd like to draw a distinction between not entirely appreciating a composer vs. not entirely appreciating a compositional period. This, I think, is the OP's intent when he mentions the operative phrase "should like." For instance, I have an embarrassingly small selection of Bach works, but even less of Handel and Vivaldi. Therefore, even though maybe I ought to appreciate Handel more, I don't consider it strange that some qualities of his works escape me, as the ambit of my taste does not lie very strongly in the Baroque period.

So... (throwing it back to the people who mentioned Mozart)-- do you find Haydn (for instance) to be more accessible?!.... or is it possible that the ambit of _your_ tastes does not lie very strongly in the Classical period?


----------



## Elgarian

Chi_town/Philly said:


> So... (throwing it back to the people who mentioned Mozart)-- do you find Haydn (for instance) to be more accessible?!.... or is it possible that the ambit of _your_ tastes does not lie very strongly in the Classical period?


Brilliant question. Yes, I do find Haydn to be more accessible because (rightly or wrongly) I expect less. I _expect_ formulaic music; I _expect_ to find a lot of his music merely pleasant. The problem arises with Mozart because of the enormous claims that are made about him.

It's true, though - and you're right to raise it - that I'm also affected to some degree by a less than enthusiastic response to the period in general.


----------



## Elgarian

Mendelssohn said:


> But,try to listen to the late symphonies, the concertos, some of the operas (there the "problem" sometimes is "bigger").In that works even if he repeats himself, you won't notice it, or you will ignore it by the perfect (in my opinion) orchestration that gives you something different to listen to than the "common notes" of Mozart.


The operas are where I've had most success, and I do agree, there are some wonderful moments. It's not as if I can't find some wonderful things. I can. What troubles me is the fact that I find so _few_.


----------



## Mendelssohn

Elgarian said:


> The operas are where I've had most success, and I do agree, there are some wonderful moments. It's not as if I can't find some wonderful things. I can. What troubles me is the fact that I find so _few_.


I may be too young (18yo) to have a complete opinion, but believe me, i've heard more music than most people in their whole lives and i have a specific opinion for many composers...As you can imagine, i am perhaps the greatest fan of Mendelssohn!I hate Wagner, i dislike Beethoven (not all of his work though) mainly because of the beliefs of his fans that think of him as a god and greatest of all as if Bach, Haydn, Mozart were musicians of the roads!!!I love Schubert even if i think, disagreeing with many other musicians, that his orchestration technique is not a powerful part of his talent...And i like many other composers,love many others' works...

But with Mozart is something special...I might have given the wrong idea about my opinion on his music.Technically, he is my second favorite composer.If his works seem alike to some people is because, in order to live (musicians in the ages of Mozart were living only from their art, not as happened later, from mid 19th and forth) he had to write an enormous amount of music in a short time...so he had to use some tested "motif-techniques" for his works...

Something else...Mozart is not always the composer you will sit and hear to tell if you like him or understand his music...Mozart's magic is that when you sit to relax and read a book,and you have his music playing in the background, you ,without noticing, murmur the melody of feel comfortable with something familiar and friendly...when you don't try to find out whose is the music but you let it play while you read,and murmur,and read,and murmur...That is Mozart for me!


----------



## jhar26

Elgarian said:


> Brilliant question. Yes, I do find Haydn to be more accessible because (rightly or wrongly) I expect less. I _expect_ formulaic music; I _expect_ to find a lot of his music merely pleasant. The problem arises with Mozart because of the enormous claims that are made about him.
> 
> It's true, though - and you're right to raise it - that I'm also affected to some degree by a less than enthusiastic response to the period in general.


Well, enormous claims are made about Haydn as well. Chi_Town/Philly's question is a great one though. Maybe it would be interesting to check out the music of lesser (but by no means bad) composers of Mozart's/Haydn's time. People like Stamitz, Dittersdorf, Paisiello and Salieri, all of whom wrote some quality music IMO. Not that you would necessarily end up loving Mozart's music, but you'd probably get why some of us hold him in such high regard because although styles are more or less similar - Mozart (and Haydn) did it so much better.

Speaking for myself - almost everything pre-Monteverdi (everything I've heard anyway) is Chinese to me. I'm not critical of it, I just 'don't get it.' It bores me, which no doubt is my own fault and not the music's.


----------



## Weston

Chi_town/Philly said:


> So... (throwing it back to the people who mentioned Mozart)-- do you find Haydn (for instance) to be more accessible?!.... or is it possible that the ambit of _your_ tastes does not lie very strongly in the Classical period?


That's a perceptive question. Yes, for many years the Classical period was my least favorite. I don't think I quite forgave Johann Christian Bach and others for eroding the rich deep contrapuntal textures of the baroque period. Also when I was younger I found the entire period devoid of the huge romatic orchestral climaxes I found so important as a young headbanger.

But it has grown on me thanks to studying more about music via annotations and lectures and understanding more about its forms. It was a matter of thinking I knew what I liked, but really just liking what I knew. There are times now when I would choose classical period music over some of the bombast and cheesiness of the romantic period. More often though I still go for the bombast and cheese.


----------



## Lang

Well, there are two composers whose music I don't like, and unfortunately they are those which are most popular.

The first is Sibelius. When I hear Sibelius I hear orchestration that is sometimes clumsy, and music that never - to me - seems to rise above the mediocre.

The other is Schubert. As an accompanist I have had to play a fair amount, and I have to say I find the music totally uninteresting. All I get from it are aching wrists.


----------



## Tapkaara

Lang said:


> Well, there are two composers whose music I don't like, and unfortunately they are those which are most popular.
> 
> The first is Sibelius. When I hear Sibelius I hear orchestration that is sometimes clumsy, and music that never - to me - seems to rise above the mediocre.
> 
> The other is Schubert. As an accompanist I have had to play a fair amount, and I have to say I find the music totally uninteresting. All I get from it are aching wrists.


As a devoted Sibelian, I could not be more taken aback by Lang's comments. I assure you, Lang, if you continue to give Sibelius a try, his world may open up to you. I understand that he is a tough nut to crack for many admirers of music, but once you're in, you are in.

I do agree, however, with his comments on Schubert. I do not find anything of interest or depth with this composer.

And, dare I say, I am encouraged by the amount of Mozart skepticism in this thread. I have always had a very hard time coming to appreciate Haydn and Mozart, the only two composers of the Classical period. Did you know there were only two? Well, more like one and a half...Haydn only counts for half a composer.

Anyway, did both craft music that had good tunes? Yes. Were their various works well written and structurally sound? Sure. Does it make for "pleasant" listening? I suppose it does! But beyond that, what does this type of music really offer? Not much, I'd say. Music REALLy started to mean something greater than rising and falling pitches after Beethoven stepped forward and said "Why stagnate in the salon? Let's plunge into the soul of man!" (Ok, maybe he didn;t say that, but you know what I mean.)

I am not bashing Mozart or Haydn. Both had fluent musical minds and could write a winning tune in their sleep. Both should be recognized for that. But not for more than that.

I also have a hard time cracking much of a smile while listening to Glazunov, Copland, Gershwin, Schonberg, Berg, Webern, Brahms and I'm sure a few others.

But please, Lang...don't give up on Sibelius.


----------



## Elgarian

Tapkaara said:


> I am not bashing Mozart or Haydn. Both had fluent musical minds and could write a winning tune in their sleep. Both should be recognized for that. But not for more than that.


That's what troubles me - that perception of limitation, 'not for more than that'. I know too many people for whom there's Mozart, up there alone in the musical stratosphere, and then everyone else down below, for me to trust my own judgement on this. If I actually disliked it, I'd feel happier, in a way. I'd think there was something to really work at - a barrier to overcome. But to find something as marvellous as ''Or sai chi l'honore" (which is indeed indicative of sheer genius, in my view, so I must be doing _something_ right, to mitigate this mass of evidence for my musical listening incompetence), I have to listen to a tremendous amount of the apparently formulaic stuff that just comes over as 'quite nice'.

I hope I'm not upsetting any devoted Mozartians by saying all this. I'm expressing my bafflement and frustration, and indeed exposing my own limitations; but I'm not in any way having a go at the Great Man.


----------



## Tapkaara

I'm not "having a go" at him either, I'm just expressing an honest opinion in the spirit of this thread. In clearly expressing my opinion, I am trying to remain respectful, and I hope all the Mozart lovers out there will treat me with the same respect.


----------



## jhar26

Elgarian said:


> I know too many people for whom there's Mozart, up there alone in the musical stratosphere, and then everyone else down below.


Maybe he's not up there alone for me, but only a select few can keep him company.


----------



## SPR

Generally, I have a gigantic inability to appreciate the so-called avante-garde pieces. Thats fairly nonspecific, I know.

You know the kind... tuneless, arythmic, jangly, tempo shifting, discordant... steaming piles of near-random note-heaps. Schoenberg springs to mind, but frankly I have not listend to much of it because I have little patience for it. I do find the idea that pieces like this are somehow 'advanced' and that I should 'get it' if I was only more apt & perceptive, and open minded pure rubbish.

not that I would use the dictionary to define what music is, but alas.... (websters)...

"Music: The science and the art of tones, or musical sounds, i. e., sounds of higher or lower pitch, begotten of uniform and synchronous vibrations, as of a string at various degrees of tension; the science of harmonical tones which treats of the principles of harmony, or the properties, dependences, and relations of tones to each other; the art of combining tones in a manner to please the ear. Note: Not all sounds are tones. Sounds may be unmusical and yet please the ear. Music deals with tones, and with no other sounds. "


----------



## Kuhlau

At the risk of sounding impossibly eclectic, there are no composers or works that I struggle with.

There are those whom I adore (Beethoven, Saint-Saens and Sibelius, to name just three composers), those whom I admire (Debussy, Ravel and Schoenberg, to name just three more), and then there are the works and composers whom I do not yet fully understand or appreciate.

But struggle? No, I don't wrestle with anything in art. If I'm not ready for it, I approach it at another time, and then I may (or may not) find myself ready. And if I'm never ready? Well, then that's just me.

Composers for whom I wasn't ready for many years include Shostakovich, Brahms and Mozart. I don't claim to fully understand or appreciate any of these three men or their music, but I do recall once being quite repulsed by much of their work. Happily, with a little more maturity came a broader view, a wider perspective. Now I enjoy much music by all three of these composers. And if I come across something by them for which I'm not yet ready? Then it goes back onto the shelf for another day ...

FK


----------



## Guest

I notice that a few posts say "_I do not or can not understand this composer or work_" OK, but so what?? that should not stop you enjoying the music, so perhaps the word understand is not the best choice e.g. You do not have to understand how a car works to enjoy driving or how to cook to enjoy a good meal, sorry if I am being picky but you will know what I mean.


----------



## Tapkaara

SPR said:


> Generally, I have a gigantic inability to appreciate the so-called avante-garde pieces. Thats fairly nonspecific, I know.
> 
> 
> 
> Generally I agree with this. I am not s sucker for atonal/serialist works that usually fall under the moniker of "avant-garde."
> 
> There are a few composers of this ilk that I have been known to enjoy: Jon Leifs (Iceland), Toru Takemitsu, the later works of Alberto Ginastera, to name a few.
> 
> However, Schonberg, Berg, Werbern et al do not appeal to me in the slightest. Schonberg's twelve-tone system is a failed experiement, as far as I am concerned. The concept is certainly interesting, but the results of the experiment seem to be at odds with the meaning of the word "music" in my humble estimation. Twelve-tone music is more philosophy or methodology than true art. The ends do not justify the means, here.
> 
> Just one man's opinion!
Click to expand...


----------



## nefigah

Hope it's okay for a newbie to contribute his views!

I've been listening for about 2-3 months now, and as such I'm naturally drawn to the works I hear the most about. However, I'm trying to go slow and appreciate each one, giving it many listens, before I buy a new CD. (Sometimes I'm helped out in this by being a poor college student and having to wait for the ole paycheck.)

A symphony orchestra came to my town, however, not long ago. They were putting on Bruckner's 4th, and although from my readings, I didn't feel the most ready to attack Bruckner quite yet, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to see my first live symphony! It was good, but I still don't feel like I've _gotten_ it yet, as I continue to listen. I do love the first movement now, and think it's brilliant, but the rest seems to be so darn subtle!

So yes, at the moment, I would say Bruckner, based on the limited sample of his music that I've tried to digest.


----------



## David C Coleman

nefigah said:


> Hope it's okay for a newbie to contribute his views!
> 
> I've been listening for about 2-3 months now, and as such I'm naturally drawn to the works I hear the most about. However, I'm trying to go slow and appreciate each one, giving it many listens, before I buy a new CD. (Sometimes I'm helped out in this by being a poor college student and having to wait for the ole paycheck.)
> 
> A symphony orchestra came to my town, however, not long ago. They were putting on Bruckner's 4th, and although from my readings, I didn't feel the most ready to attack Bruckner quite yet, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to see my first live symphony! It was good, but I still don't feel like I've _gotten_ it yet, as I continue to listen. I do love the first movement now, and think it's brilliant, but the rest seems to be so darn subtle!
> 
> So yes, at the moment, I would say Bruckner, based on the limited sample of his music that I've tried to digest.


Don't worry nefigah, you are not alone in saying Bruckner is a composer you struggle with.
Personally I love his music. But I think he is one of those composers you either love or loath and nothing in between.
One tries to compare Bruckner with the surrounding musical scene at his time and basically, it's impossible!, because he stands out as an isolated figure with his totally unique soundworlds, construction & vision.
It's good that you started with the 4th symphony, persevere and try the 7th next time.
All the best....


----------



## Elgarian

SPR said:


> You know the kind... tuneless, arythmic, jangly, tempo shifting, discordant... steaming piles of near-random note-heaps. Schoenberg springs to mind, but frankly I have not listend to much of it because I have little patience for it.


I can't listen to that sort of stuff either, but I don't struggle with it because it basically doesn't interest me. There's a big difference - do you think? - between 'struggling' to enjoy a composer that we think one day we _may_ be able to appreciate (or even suspect we 'ought' to be able to appreciate), and the incomprehension and indifference we may feel towards music that we know we never will (or at least, not in the foreseeable future).

I'm not rubbishing the 12 tone stuff; it's obvious that some people find it enormously stimulating. But I just have no interest in exploring it, so it doesn't really trouble me. That doesn't exclude the possibility of one day being surprised by it, but I wouldn't actively seek it out.


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> But struggle? No, I don't wrestle with anything in art.


'Struggle' may be a misleading word, though it feels appropriate for some instances. Usually it arises when I've seen or heard something that I don't understand, nor apparently enjoyed, yet which inexplicably niggles away in the back of my mind until I'm provoked to revisit it. That may repeat and continue for some time, and that's the process that I refer to as 'struggling'. I fell for Wagner like that, after revisiting repeatedly, baffled, trying to find out what the niggle was; and it was the same with Cezanne; and with abstract art - so for me that 'struggle' (if it's the right word) can prove to be of great value.


----------



## David C Coleman

SPR said:


> Generally, I have a gigantic inability to appreciate the so-called avante-garde pieces. Thats fairly nonspecific, I know.
> 
> You know the kind... tuneless, arythmic, jangly, tempo shifting, discordant... steaming piles of near-random note-heaps. Schoenberg springs to mind, but frankly I have not listend to much of it because I have little patience for it. I do find the idea that pieces like this are somehow 'advanced' and that I should 'get it' if I was only more apt & perceptive, and open minded pure rubbish.
> 
> "


That's just about what it is - a load of rubbish!, it's a con-trick, just like yellow flourescent tubes or a workbench with tools on it the Tate Modern Gallery. It's not creativity. Anybody can do that sort of nonsense. (Ok I know I've upset someone!!)..


----------



## SPR

Elgarian said:


> I can't listen to that sort of stuff either, but I don't struggle with it because it basically doesn't interest me. There's a big difference - do you think? - between 'struggling' to enjoy a composer that we think one day we _may_ be able to appreciate (or even suspect we 'ought' to be able to appreciate), and the incomprehension and indifference we may feel towards music that we know we never will (or at least, not in the foreseeable future)...


agree. I think.


----------



## Elgarian

David C Coleman said:


> It's not creativity. Anybody can do that sort of nonsense. (Ok I know I've upset someone!!)..


I hasten first to say no, no, I'm not upset. But I've tripped myself up far too often by declaring 'anybody can do that', only to discover, later, that I simply didn't understand what was being attempted. Abstract art was the source of my biggest humiliation. Having spent years insisting that 'anybody could slosh colours around any old how like that', I had a series of quite overwhelming experiences that demonstrated forcibly that I'd been completely blinded by my own prejudice and ignorance.

So ... about the 12 tone stuff and the random toots on the horns and bangs on the drums - I simply don't know, and can't say. Since quite a lot of musically literate people seem to find it fulfilling to listen to, then that suggests there's something involved that I'm missing, though I haven't reached a position yet where I care to find out if that's true.


----------



## Elgarian

SPR said:


> agree. I think.


I could ask no more of you ....


----------



## Guest

Elgarian said:


> Since quite a lot of musically literate people seem to find it fulfilling to listen to, then that suggests there's something involved that I'm missing....


And a very cheering and perceptive remark this is to be sure. You're back on my Christmas card list, Elgarian!!


----------



## Guest

Elgarian said:


> There's a big difference - do you think? - between 'struggling' to enjoy a composer that we think one day we _may_ be able to appreciate (or even suspect we 'ought' to be able to appreciate),


That is exactly my meaning in starting the post  but nobody has taken me up on my comments in post # 21 refering to undrstanding the music


----------



## Elgarian

some guy said:


> And a very cheering and perceptive remark this is to be sure. You're *back* [my emphasis] on my Christmas card list, Elgarian!!


Well I'm delighted, obviously - though it leaves me wondering:

1. What good thing did I do to deserve being put on your list in the first place?
2. What terrible thing did I do to get struck off?

Cheers, some guy.


----------



## Elgarian

Andante said:


> That is exactly my meaning in starting the post  but nobody has taken me up on my comments in post # 21 refering to undrstanding the music


I'm not sure what _other_ people mean when they speak of 'not understanding' the music, but if _I _were to say it, I think I'd mean that I can't find a way into it. I can hear the _sounds_ - I may even think they're quite pleasant - but I'm continually struggling to stay interested in what's going on. Delius would be an example of a composer whose music I vaguely like (not much, mind you), but don't understand. I hear the notes, and they're pleasant enough, but I can't find anything to lock onto, or to keep my attention. The structure eludes me. So it's like listening to someone reading out loud, attractively, in a foreign language that I can't speak. It wouldn't be true to say I don't like it; but 'I don't understand it' is more accurate.

But I guess other people may mean something else.


----------



## Kuhlau

Tapkaara said:


> SPR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generally, I have a gigantic inability to appreciate the so-called avante-garde pieces. Thats fairly nonspecific, I know.
> 
> 
> 
> Generally I agree with this. I am not s sucker for atonal/serialist works that usually fall under the moniker of "avant-garde." ... Schonberg, Berg, Werbern et al do not appeal to me in the slightest. Schonberg's twelve-tone system is a failed experiement, as far as I am concerned. The concept is certainly interesting, but the results of the experiment seem to be at odds with the meaning of the word "music" in my humble estimation. Twelve-tone music is more philosophy or methodology than true art.
Click to expand...

While you're entitled to your opinion, I'm equally entitled to disagree with it.  Schoenberg's musical system and its results were not 'true art'? All art is artifice, whatever truth it may claim to contain or reflect in and/or of itself. So your assertion makes no sense ... even though I understand what you mean. 



David C Coleman said:


> ... you are not alone in saying Bruckner is a composer you struggle with. ... I think he is one of those composers you either love or loath and nothing in between.


Without meaning to be deliberately contrary, I respectfully disagree with this, also. I have a general ambivalence towards Bruckner's music - so no strong liking or disliking.



Elgarian said:


> ... I've tripped myself up far too often by declaring 'anybody can do that', only to discover, later, that I simply didn't understand what was being attempted. Abstract art was the source of my biggest humiliation. Having spent years insisting that 'anybody could slosh colours around any old how like that', I had a series of quite overwhelming experiences that demonstrated forcibly that I'd been completely blinded by my own prejudice and ignorance.


Been there, done that. I, too, used to display what was, at times, stupendous ignorance where any kind of 'challenging' art (in any form, music being no exception) was concerned. As I've become older - and perhaps, a fraction wiser - I've discovered how wrong I was. Where once I dismissed Kandinsky and Schoenberg, now I better see their intentions - and, as a result, admire them at the very least, and even enjoy their output.

FK


----------



## Elgarian

nefigah said:


> Hope it's okay for a newbie to contribute his views!


You're not a newbie! You joined in August, so you've been here for, oh... 1, 2, 3 ... well, ever so many weeks. So Speak, Friend, and Enter!

(I struggle a bit with Bruckner, too, though I confess to not having tried really hard.)


----------



## BuddhaBandit

jhar26 said:


> Well, enormous claims are made about Haydn as well. Chi_Town/Philly's question is a great one though. Maybe it would be interesting to check out the music of lesser (but by no means bad) composers of Mozart's/Haydn's time. People like Stamitz, Dittersdorf, Paisiello and Salieri, all of whom wrote some quality music IMO. Not that you would necessarily end up loving Mozart's music, but you'd probably get why some of us hold him in such high regard because although styles are more or less similar - Mozart (and Haydn) did it so much better.


This is a great point. I used to wonder why there was so much fuss about Mozart- like other posters, I felt his music was pleasant, but bland. However, after listening to the second-rate classical-era composers (CPE Bach, Hummel, Stamitz, etc.), I can appreciate the complexity of Mozart's music.

In addition, there's a terrific book by Charles Rosen called The Classical Style that gives a pretty in-depth analysis of symmetry in Mozart. This book also helped to "awaken" me.

Now, back to the original question: which famous composers don't I like? Well, I really can;t stand Vivaldi, and Puccini's operas get too sappy for me. I don't like most of the minimalists, and Tchaikovsky is a little to Romantic (read: syrupy) for my tastes. Although, he was an excellent melodist.


----------



## Guest

Elgarian said:


> Well I'm delighted, obviously - though it leaves me wondering:
> 
> 1. What good thing did I do to deserve being put on your list in the first place?
> 2. What terrible thing did I do to get struck off?
> 
> Cheers, some guy.


Damn, now I have to be logical in my jokes?

(Any road, the answers to your questions are Nothing and Nothing!!)


----------



## Guest

BuddhaBandit said:


> Now, back to the original question: which famous composers don't I like? Well, I really can;t stand Vivaldi, and Puccini's operas get too sappy for me. I don't like most of the minimalists, and Tchaikovsky is a little to Romantic (read: syrupy) for my tastes. Although, he was an excellent melodist.


Not the original question at all BB  the OP had a different intent, 
I also find W A M a bit on the light side and of no great complexity but I may be trouble saying that


----------



## World Violist

I struggle with Mozart as well... There's something about him I just don't get. His forms and such are perfect, yes, but I just don't care for the content so much...

And yes, I do realize I am placing myself yet again in danger of being lynched.


----------



## Guest

World Violist said:


> I struggle with Mozart as well... There's something about him I just don't get. His forms and such are perfect, yes, but I just don't care for the content so much...
> 
> And yes, I do realize I am placing myself yet again in danger of being lynched.


Yes, superficial, very pretty, and really its not too bad but compaired to say Beethoven 
no more need be said


----------



## Weston

Elgarian said:


> 'Struggle' may be a misleading word, though it feels appropriate for some instances. . . .


I think struggle isn't a bad thing. If something is just on the fringes of my understanding I'll strive all the more because I'm probably intrigued. It shouldn't all be easy. That would get boring fast.

As to the really avant-garde composers, Schoenberg and others, I think grasping their work is simply a matter of understanding the newer musical languages they favor. It's like this poem I wrote:

Mip! Mip - da fiar tonn ecklesmeek
Fing findit piartet roog o reak.
Pord. Na pord fiar be stonnitslone
Ersus phar cen pord nath po firone.

Barsh ti bar har tonn da lokroob -
Seern ti bar cen roog ah fing gloob.
Mookle spuckle mip da migblug
Mook ti bar cen jigglebugglug!

Now, this is a truly artistic and moving poem. If it doesn't strike you that way, it's only because you're not up on the newer language. You're going to have to trust the cognoscenti (that's me) that it's a work of art. But I don't care if others are stuck forever reading poems in the language we've all already agreed on. My extremely esoteric knowledge will sustain me, knowing at least one person will understand it. It is for the few and the future.

It sure is lonely though. 

[Please folks. Don't get your feathers ruffled. I intended this to be self effacing in the spirit of good fun, not as an attack.]


----------



## msegers

Thank God! I thought I was the only person on earth who claims to like classical music but just does not "get" Mozart.
I have encountered people who feel that those of us who love classical music just accept what we are told to like. (Dead white guys?) (In powdered wigs?)
So, this is very refreshing. Sometimes, the emperor has no clothes, or, at least, some of us do not like the cut of them.


----------



## Lang

SPR said:


> Generally, I have a gigantic inability to appreciate the so-called avante-garde pieces. Thats fairly nonspecific, I know.
> 
> You know the kind... tuneless, arythmic, jangly, tempo shifting, discordant... steaming piles of near-random note-heaps. Schoenberg springs to mind, but frankly I have not listend to much of it because I have little patience for it. I do find the idea that pieces like this are somehow 'advanced' and that I should 'get it' if I was only more apt & perceptive, and open minded pure rubbish.


So are you saying that those of us who are moved by the music of Schoenberg are being fraudulent? That seems to be what you are saying. It is an interesting human characteristic that we tend to take our own subjective experience as being an objective view of the world. It is always a mistake, but one that is often made.


----------



## jhar26

Andante said:


> Yes, superficial, very pretty, and really its not too bad but compaired to say Beethoven no more need be said


Mozart and Haydn were earlier links in the evolutionary chain of music than Beethoven. But consider, say, the eight minute overtures or divertimentos that were called symphonies in Mozart's youth and when Haydn started composing them. What an amazing achievement to turn a relative simple genre like that into something that made the *K.40 in G Minor* and the *Jupiter* or the *London Symphonies* possible - what progress! Beethoven couldn't have composed the *Eroica* without Mozart and Haydn establishing the symphony first as a genre that made a creation like the *Eroica* a possibility. And they did it for many genres that would come to dominate music in the future. String quartets, piano trios and post-baroque concertos were entertaining little ditties when they started out - they were mature genres which made a much broader palette of expression possible by the time they were through with them. Their contribution to the history of music simply can not be overestimated in my modest opinion.


----------



## SPR

World Violist said:


> I struggle with Mozart as well... There's something about him I just don't get. His forms and such are perfect, yes, but I just don't care for the content so much...
> 
> And yes, I do realize I am placing myself yet again in danger of being lynched.


Laugh!

I find this all terribly amusing. I really have only been into classical music for a few years, but have not really discussed it much. Mozart is by far my favorite. Now I show up on a discussion board and the first thing I see is not only several people are only luke warm on it, and in fact seem completely ashamed at not loving it completely. Are the masses that judgemental?! 

I listened to the Beethoven Late quartets again. Im going to stand firm that the Grose Fuge in Op 130 is pure rubbish. It is evident the man was both deaf and incredibly self-absorbed at that point...and likely mentally unstable. (yikes thats harsh, isnt it?) What good is an amazing, perhaps sublime structure - if the result is abhorrent to the ears? Greeeaaaat.....a fuge that sounds like a train wreck. I hope my musical sensibilites never become so pliant and indescriminate that nothing is ever repellent. Its all lovely? no, thank you.

Its called "Demanding". "Challenging". with "Intellectual Depth" & "Personal Self Expression".. ahh there is the rub. Beethoven had no desire to speak to me, he was mumbling to himself in a closet.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Große_Fuge
"Most 19th century critics dismissed the work. Daniel Gregory Mason called it "repellent", and Louis Spohr called it, along with the rest of Beethoven's late works, an *"indecipherable, uncorrected horror"*. However critical opinion of the work has risen steadily since the beginning of the 20th century. The work is now considered among Beethoven's greatest achievements. Igor Stravinsky said of it, "[it is] an absolutely contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever."[3]"

Greatest Achievement? Indecipherable Horror? That my friends is for each to decide. Of course all this angst because I feel like I should be able to penetrate the 'genius' of it. Perhaps too much Laudanum that day. Beethoven is supposed to be talented right?

(that last was a joke. Really.)


----------



## jhar26

World Violist said:


> I struggle with Mozart as well... There's something about him I just don't get. His forms and such are perfect, yes, but I just don't care for the content so much...
> 
> And yes, I do realize I am placing myself yet again in danger of being lynched.


Don't worry. Reading this thread it seems to me that those of us who admire Mozart are much more in danger of being lynched than those who don't like him.


----------



## nefigah

> I listened to the Beethoven Late quartets again. Im going to stand firm that the Grose Fuge in Op 130 is pure rubbish. It is evident the man was both deaf and incredibly self-absorbed at that point...and likely mentally unstable. (yikes thats harsh, isnt it?) What good is an amazing, perhaps sublime structure - if the result is abhorrent to the ears? Greeeaaaat.....a fuge that sounds like a train wreck. I hope my musical sensibilites never become so pliant and indescriminate that nothing is ever repellent. Its all lovely? no, thank you.


Wow, that was scathing enough that I had to go and listen to it (I'd never heard it before). Unfortunately my musical sensibilities must be pretty "pliant and indiscriminate," because I thought it was pretty awesome!  Quite the build-up of energy.

Anyhoo, sorry to disagree, but thank you for turning me on to it


----------



## Tapkaara

Kuhlau said:


> While you're entitled to your opinion, I'm equally entitled to disagree with it.  Schoenberg's musical system and its results were not 'true art'? All art is artifice, whatever truth it may claim to contain or reflect in and/or of itself. So your assertion makes no sense ... even though I understand what you mean.


Well, I am certainly not the final authority on what art is or isn't, and neither are you, or anyone in this forum, or anyone on earth. "Art is in the eye of the beholder" is, no doubt, one of the truest observations made by man. And in classical music, "art is in the EAR of the beholder."

All art is artifice? Well, in a painting of a castle, the castle is not real, but the painting is. The work that went into creating the painting is real. And the emotions that the artist tries to convey with his painting are real. So I disagree that all art is artifice. That is putting it much too simply.

So, back to the Second Viennese School. The music of Schonberg, Berg, Webern, etc. obviously means something to you, Kulau, and that is fine! I suppose I wish I could share your appreciation for them. But I do not. In your ears, you hear music, something that touches you. I do not hear music, I hear sound effects that eminate from a methodology that seems to restrict true music and reduces it, by its very nature, to random sounding rising and falling pitches.

So, is it music, or is it noise? The jury will be out on this one for a long time! But I do struggle with the Second Viennese school, the same way I struggle with getting enjoyment out of listening to car alarms, the neighbor dragging the trash can to the curb or primates blowing into oboes while elephants sit on concert grand pianos. (Just remember to appalud when it's all over!)


----------



## Elgarian

jhar26 said:


> Their contribution to the history of music simply can not be overestimated in my modest opinion.


This introduces another interesting dimension into the discussion, doesn't it? - I mean the business of 'contributing to the history of music'. I've no difficulty in believing that Mozart's contribution to the development of music is outstanding. I don't have the technical knowledge to perceive it myself, but I'm happy to accept the opinions of those who do.

Looking at it that way, one can almost see how he might come to be regarded as a godlike figure, and yet still be unmoved by the music.


----------



## Kuhlau

Tapkaara said:


> Well, I am certainly not the final authority on what art is or isn't, *and neither are you*, or anyone in this forum, or anyone on earth.


Was I suggesting as much? I don't think so.



Tapkaara said:


> All art is artifice? Well, in a painting of a castle, the castle is not real, but the painting is. The work that went into creating the painting is real. And the emotions that the artist tries to convey with his painting are real. So I disagree that all art is artifice. That is putting it much too simply.


Hmm ... now I think _you're_ being too simplistic. Don't confuse the reality of the methods of and motivations for _producing_ art with the art itself.

An artist is compelled to produce a piece of art for a variety of reasons. This isn't artifice. The artist uses any number of methods to realise, as best as possible, his or her original intentions for that work of art. These methods aren't artificial, either. The act of producing the art, and the further revisions that ensure it matches the artist's vision as closely as he or she can attain to _is_ artifice, however. So is the finished work. Why? Because the dictionary defines artifice as a skillful or artful contrivance. And that's what all art is, no matter how pure, spontaneous or 'truthful' are the original impulses that drive artists to want to produce it.



Tapkaara said:


> But I do struggle with the Second Viennese school, the same way I struggle with getting enjoyment out of listening to car alarms, the neighbor dragging the trash can to the curb or primates blowing into oboes while elephants sit on concert grand pianos. (Just remember to appalud when it's all over!)


This comes across as mildly sneering and arrogant, so I'm not going to grace it with a serious response. 

FK


----------



## jhar26

Elgarian said:


> This introduces another interesting dimension into the discussion, doesn't it? - I mean the business of 'contributing to the history of music'. I've no difficulty in believing that Mozart's contribution to the development of music is outstanding. I don't have the technical knowledge to perceive it myself, but I'm happy to accept the opinions of those who do.
> 
> Looking at it that way, one can almost see how he might come to be regarded as a godlike figure, and yet still be unmoved by the music.


I don't think that any technical knowledge is required to hear that, say, by the time he composed the *Jupiter* the symphony was a whole different animal from when he wrote his early ones. Let's just say that people like CPE Bach, Johann Christian Bach, Gluck, Stamitz and others layed down the foundations of the classical style, Haydn and Mozart build the walls and Beethoven the roof. But there's no roof without walls, and they were beautiful - richly ornamented walls at that.  All in my modest opinion of course.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*A taxonomy of lack of appreciation*

I think that *Andante*'s initial post referred to a specific kind of lack of appreciation- feeling that one _should_ like a composer or work, but don't. That kind of lack of appreciation falls into two categories- 1) the "donut hole" where one composer's efforts escape you in spite of one's general high regard for works of parallel period, nationality, and/or style. ]I think a great example of that was *post-minimalist*'s offering back on page 1 of this thread], and 2) lack of fondness for a famous composer more seriously rooted in lack of appreciation for the sylistic period in which he composed. [But again, with the humble understanding that the lack of personal resonance says more about the listener than it says about the composer or the period.]

It's not my intention to exercise prior restraint here, but if one _genuinely_ feels that the compositional efforts of an entire period are particularly unworthy, then it falls outside the realm of discussion about works you _*should like*, but don't_. In other words, dismissal of the works of an entire span of time (_avant-garde_ is a frequently cited example) is wholly unremarkable, as the person who holds that belief probably has already concluded that he or she _shouldn't like_ such compositions.

Likewise, the *haters* who rail against Wagner fall outside the original poster's scope and intent, unless they make the case that either a) they recognize that their reaction is in no way a reflection upon the undeniable greatness of the composer (c.f.: my reaction re: Handel, although I don't "hate on" Handel, I just don't "get him" as well as I think I should), or b) have an affinity for similarly constructed/orchestrated compositions, but just can't deal with Wagner. [E.g.: if someone were to possibly say "I _love_ all of the late Bruckner symphonies, think that Mahler's 8th is one of the masterworks of the early 20th century, can listen to the uncut R. Strauss _Rosenkavalier_ by the hour, but just can't get into Wagner, then that would be remarkable.]

In keeping with my status as a card-carrying Wagnerian, I used to react more strongly to the haters than I do now. However, I will note that haters might consider that that this thread, or possibly this one might be a more appropriate repository for one's vituperation.


----------



## Elgarian

Chi_town/Philly said:


> *the lack of personal resonance says more about the listener than it says about the composer or the period.*


I think it's worth having that in bold type....

I've found that one of the most helpful things ever said about art (and one which I frequently remind myself of) is the one by Marcel Duchamp, about the artist doing 50% of the work in any particular artistic engagement, and the observer (or listener, in this case) doing the rest. If the listener (for whatever reason) doesn't have suitably receptive antennae, and can't provide his 50%'s worth, then the thing simply won't work properly. It'll be a non-engagement, or a very limited one.

The problem is, of course - how does the listener acquire (in my case, for example) a Mozart antenna? I seem to have been born with Elgarian, Vaughan Williamsian, and Wagnerian antennae; but my Mozartian seems to be damaged with no clear means of repair. (I've no hope of pursuing the suggestion of trying to play some Mozart myself, which I can see may well be a solution for those who could.)

But surely the response of damning the _music_ (when there are so many advocates of it whose opinion is clearly valuable) is the wrong move. We all _do_ it, of course, through frustration. ("Dammit, Wolfgang, just step outside the blasted formula for a couple of minutes, will you?") But that can't be taken as serious criticism of the music. Despite our irritation, or even anger, it's surely obvious that _all_ these guys wrote great music; and that's why it's so frustrating when we can't see it.


----------



## Tapkaara

Kuhlau, it was not my intention to come off as sneering or arrogant. In fact, I purposefully try to avoid this sort of thing on the internet because there is so much of it around. It's so easy to be a jerk online, and I don't want to be yet another person who takes pleasure from hurling insults at people, all from the comfort of your laptop.

I suppose in my point making, however, I might have come off this way, so I wish to say sorry, no harm intended!

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the art/artifice issue. I think neither one of us can be completely right or wrong on this, so it would be a fool's errand to drag it out.

At any rate, I recall you once mentioned you were a Sibelius fan, which I give you much credit for. I am a huge fan of the man myself, and composer that Lang said he struggles with, per the subject of this thread. This is do not understand!

Now, regarding some other posts in this thread...

I, too, struggle with Bruckner, but this is a composer I could see myself enjoying quite a bit if everything snapped into place. I have a few recordings of some of the symphonies, but I'm not quite sold yet, yet there are times where I felt I have come close.


----------



## Elgarian

jhar26 said:


> I don't think that any technical knowledge is required to hear that, say, by the time he composed the *Jupiter* the symphony was a whole different animal from when he wrote his early ones.


Yes OK, I see that. The difference is obvious, as you say. I wonder, though, if the difficulty (and I think this is where the technical knowledge comes in) is in seeing it as an artistic _advance_, rather than mere difference. But I know so little that I can hardly hold up my half of a conversation on the matter ....


----------



## jhar26

Elgarian said:


> Yes OK, I see that. The difference is obvious, as you say. I wonder, though, if the difficulty (and I think this is where the technical knowledge comes in) is in seeing it as an artistic _advance_, rather than mere difference. But I know so little that I can hardly hold up my half of a conversation on the matter ....


Don't sell yourself short, Elgarian. You're very eloquent in stating your position on any given issue and you always do so with respect for the opinions of others. I'm just a listener like you - I don't play any instrument. If we both were musicians I doubt that our opinions would be very different from what they are now although we might be better able to explain why we feel the way that we do. Having said that, keeping our limitations in mind I don't think we're doing too badly.


----------



## Herzeleide

SPR said:


> Generally, I have a gigantic inability to appreciate the so-called avante-garde pieces. Thats fairly nonspecific, I know.
> 
> You know the kind... tuneless,


The C major prelude from WTC1 does not have a 'tune'.



SPR said:


> arythmic,


Not possible...



SPR said:


> tempo shifting,


The tempo shifts in many common-practice period pieces.



SPR said:


> discordant... steaming piles of near-random note-heaps.


The concord/discord consonance/dissonance dichotomy is meaningless in an atonal context. Most post-tonal music shows just as high a degree of organisation and attention to structure as music that preceded it.



SPR said:


> Schoenberg springs to mind, but frankly I have not listend to much of it because I have little patience for it. I do find the idea that pieces like this are somehow 'advanced' and that I should 'get it' if I was only more apt & perceptive, and open minded pure rubbish.


Schoenberg wasn't an avant-garde composer. His music isn't more 'advanced' than tonal music.

If you can't overcome prejudices of taste, it's your loss.


----------



## Herzeleide

Elgarian said:


> So ... about the 12 tone stuff and the random toots on the horns and bangs on the drums - I simply don't know, and can't say. Since quite a lot of musically literate people seem to find it fulfilling to listen to, then that suggests there's something involved that I'm missing,


Precisely. And the very definition of 'twelve-tone' contradicts any accusations of randomness!


----------



## Kuhlau

Tapkaara said:


> Kuhlau, it was not my intention to come off as sneering or arrogant ... so I wish to say sorry, no harm intended!


The apology should come from me to you, not the other way about. Who am _I_ to insinuate (albeit lightheartedly, as I'd hoped my '' would've indicated) that someone I don't know is either sneering or arrogant? So I'm sorry for that.  Though I will just add that it was your _remark_ that I took to be both of those disagreeable things, not you personally. 



Tapkaara said:


> I think we will have to agree to disagree on the art/artifice issue. I think neither one of us can be completely right or wrong on this, so it would be a fool's errand to drag it out.


On purely technical grounds (dictionary definition), my assertion that all art is artifice stands as incontrovertibly correct. However, I was referring only to the _mechanical realisation_ and _finished product_ of art, not its initial impulses or its many inspirations. It's in this latter that I see the 'true art'. 



Tapkaara said:


> At any rate, I recall you once mentioned you were a Sibelius fan, which I give you much credit for. I am a huge fan of the man myself ...


I am indeed. I'm eagerly awaiting the completion of the Complete Sibelius edition from BIS, then I'm going to buy it all and devour it. 

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Herzeleide said:


> Precisely. And the very definition of 'twelve-tone' contradicts any accusations of randomness!


I didn't express myself quite clearly enough there. I meant that to the uninitiated (like myself), the toots and bangs may _sound_ random, even if they're not.

I suppose the situation is not so unlike an abstract painting by Wilhelmina Barns-Graham. What may appear to be an intuitively placed series of rapidly executed brushstrokes, often has a detailed geometric structure underlying it, based on subdivided Golden sections. (Of course the mere presence of such a hidden 'order' doesn't necessarily mean it's great art. But it does mean it's not random.)


----------



## Elgarian

jhar26 said:


> Don't sell yourself short


Oh believe me, I won't! Words are my stock in trade, so don't be misled if I seem to have the gift of the gab: I'm _acutely_ aware of the shallowness of my technical knowledge and understanding of music. That's not false modesty - just the truth. My impression is that you have a far more extensive acquaintance, knowledge and understanding that I do, even if (like me) you don't play an instrument.

No matter. As you say, we seem to be coping OK.


----------



## Tapkaara

Kuhlau said:


> The apology should come from me to you, not the other way about. Who am _I_ to insinuate (albeit lightheartedly, as I'd hoped my '' would've indicated) that someone I don't know is either sneering or arrogant? So I'm sorry for that.  Though I will just add that it was your _remark_ that I took to be both of those disagreeable things, not you personally.
> 
> On purely technical grounds (dictionary definition), my assertion that all art is artifice stands as incontrovertibly correct. However, I was referring only to the _mechanical realisation_ and _finished product_ of art, not its initial impulses or its many inspirations. It's in this latter that I see the 'true art'.
> 
> I am indeed. I'm eagerly awaiting the completion of the Complete Sibelius edition from BIS, then I'm going to buy it all and devour it.
> 
> FK


Great, I'm glad we can move forward with discussion!


----------



## Guest

jhar26 said:


> Mozart and Haydn were earlier links in the evolutionary chain of music than Beethoven. But consider, say, the eight minute overtures or divertimentos that were called symphonies in Mozart's youth and when Haydn started composing them. What an amazing achievement to turn a relative simple genre like that into something that made the *K.40 in G Minor* and the *Jupiter* or the *London Symphonies* possible - what progress! Beethoven couldn't have composed the *Eroica* without Mozart and Haydn establishing the symphony first as a genre that made a creation like the *Eroica* a possibility. And they did it for many genres that would come to dominate music in the future. String quartets, piano trios and post-baroque concertos were entertaining little ditties when they started out - they were mature genres which made a much broader palette of expression possible by the time they were through with them. Their contribution to the history of music simply can not be overestimated in my modest opinion.


Correct, that is just evolution, but I never tire of Haydn or Beethoven


----------



## SPR

Herzeleide said:


> If you can't overcome prejudices of taste, it's your loss.


----------



## SPR

Laugh.

Here is some more 'music' to struggle with. Enjoy, if you are so inclined, and are not prejudiced against this sort of thing. (grin)

*4' 33"*





I for one, found it entertaining... though not perhaps for the intended reason. Then again - perhaps that *is* the indednded reason. I think.


----------



## Elgarian

SPR said:


> Laugh.
> 
> Here is some more 'music' to struggle with. Enjoy, if you are so inclined, and are not prejudiced against this sort of thing. (grin)
> 
> *4' 33"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I for one, found it entertaining... though not perhaps for the intended reason. Then again - perhaps that *is* the indednded reason. I think.


You just can't help tapping your feet to it, can you? And I can't get the tune out of my head, now.


----------



## jhar26

Elgarian said:


> You just can't help tapping your feet to it, can you? And I can't get the tune out of my head, now.


Great conductor too - just the right tempo.


----------



## Lang

I did an arrangement of 4' 33" for string quartet.


----------



## World Violist

I'm working on an arrangement of 4'33" for solo viola, actually. It's coming along quite well.

In all seriousness, though, I don't mind 4'33" except for the fact that you don't have to go to a concert hall or put on a CD to listen to... if people would just shut up they'd realize it.


----------



## Elgarian

World Violist said:


> I'm working on an arrangement of 4'33" for solo viola, actually. It's coming along quite well.


When it's finished, may I beg a CD of it? I think a viola version would be perfect to listen to while lying in a warm bath.


----------



## Weston

SPR said:


> Laugh.
> 
> Here is some more 'music' to struggle with. Enjoy, if you are so inclined, and are not prejudiced against this sort of thing. (grin)
> 
> *4' 33"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I for one, found it entertaining... though not perhaps for the intended reason. Then again - perhaps that *is* the indednded reason. I think.


See, I don't think any of us struggled with it. Great performance, by the way, if a bit rushed in the last movement, I thought. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Guest

As Igor Stravinsky said when he first heard it performed “I look forward to hearing his longer works”
I totally agree and wish all his music was like this,


----------



## Rondo

One work I have constantly struggled with is Nielsen's 6th. I love his first 5 symphonies, especially 3 through 5, but...6? I love his violin and flute concertos, his tone poems (what is a Scandinavian composer without them?), and incidental music. _Semplice_ just sounds too far removed from what I am used to hearing in his work that it just doesn't do anything for me.


----------



## Guest

Nielsen's sixth is the pinnacle, the culmination and full-flowering of everything he had done up to that point.

It is not so much "far removed" (c.f., the flute concerto at least) as the logical extreme to which all the earlier pieces point.

It helps if you've got a decent recording of it, of course. The way some conductors perform it, you know that they're just as puzzled by it as Rondo is! Blomstedt's probably the easiest to get a hold of, but no one (so far as I know, and I stopped paying attention to this particular piece's recording history about 10 or fifteen years ago, so be warned!) has surpassed Ormandy's perfect account.

Maybe someone who _has_ been paying attention can jump in at this point and recommend more recent recordings.


----------



## Rondo

Blomstedt/SF Sym. is the recording I have.

EDIT: Another piece I struggled with for the _longest_ time but came to enjoy was Shostakovich's 15th. The conductors I had first heard were Sanderling and Järvi. I lost interest in the piece, until I started listening to (ironically) Ormandy, whom I do not really consider a favorite for Shostakovich. So, if there is in fact anything special about Ormandy's _Semplice,_ maybe it should receive a fair trial?

There is a similar story with _Rite of Spring_, by Ozawa/Chicago Symphony. First impressions aren't always the best.


----------



## Guest

Good. So at least you know that it's not a crappy performance that's getting in the way. That simplifies things considerably.

So how do you like the clarinet and flute concertos? The latter particularly shares some elements with the sixth symphony. Similar sound worlds.


----------



## Rondo

The concertos are good, but I don't hear any similarities. Ill have to listen to it a little more.



Funny, I seem to recall talking about the same piece (6th) a while back. With you, perhaps? I can't remember what I said. I can't find the thread...


----------



## Herzeleide

Crikey... I'm amazed a people's propensity for the difficult task of ridiculing 4'33"...


----------



## SPR

Herzeleide said:


> Crikey... I'm amazed a people's propensity for the difficult task of ridiculing 4'33"...


Actually, I have undertaken the selfless task of burning DVD videos of 4'33" for all of you.

I have taken out the visuals, since I feel it detracts from the performance, but the audio is intact. Together, it makes a fully engaging DVD sensory experience. I have also made sure to exclude DVD menus, credits, and other unnecessary ornaments that would clash horribly with the theme of the piece. IMHO of course.

To cover my considerable time and effort, not to mention my expert mastering techniques and shipping - I only ask $7 U.S. If you prefer the 'minamalist collectors edition' for an extra $2... I will simply send a digitized (at 10 megapixels) photo of the DVD since there really is no need to send physical media. The accompanying download is a mere 72 bytes... a file containing the name of the piece.



(sorry, I have gone seriously off topic. Carry on...)


----------



## Elgarian

Herzeleide said:


> Crikey... I'm amazed a people's propensity for the difficult task of ridiculing 4'33"...


You misunderstand us. We're not laughing _at_ 4'33". We're laughing _with_ it.


----------



## Elgarian

SPR said:


> Actually, I have undertaken the selfless task of burning DVD videos of 4'33" for all of you. ...
> To cover my considerable time and effort, not to mention my expert mastering techniques and shipping - I only ask $7 U.S.


Thanks. I'll take a dozen. That solves my Christmas present problems for all my family and close friends this year, and guarantees peace on earth for ... well a bit less than 5 minutes.


----------



## jhar26

Elgarian said:


> You misunderstand us. We're not laughing _at_ 4'33". We're laughing _with_ it.


Which Ligeti probably would have appreciated.


----------



## Lang

jhar26 said:


> Which Ligeti probably would have appreciated.


So would John Cage.


----------



## jhar26

Lang said:


> So would John Cage.


Best thing for me to do is to pretend that I ain't senile yet but that I make an idiot of myself intentionally. The idea is NOT to laugh at me but WITH me.


----------



## World Violist

Lang said:


> So would John Cage.


I dunno if John Cage would have appreciated it; he would have told us to shut up and listen to the beauty of the car horns, police sirens, barking dogs, etc. 

It isn't that hard to ridicule 4'33", really. Just stop and hear the music.

Another composer I've really struggled with: Richard Strauss. Nothing I've heard of his moves me. Seriously. Someone please recommend stuff to me if you think you can help. Anything.


----------



## SPR

World Violist said:


> ..
> Another composer I've really struggled with: Richard Strauss. Nothing I've heard of his moves me. Seriously. Someone please recommend stuff to me if you think you can help. Anything.


Alpine Symphony?

not really a symphony.. but... well there you go...


----------



## jhar26

World Violist said:


> I dunno if John Cage would have appreciated it; he would have told us to shut up and listen to the beauty of the car horns, police sirens, barking dogs, etc.
> 
> It isn't that hard to ridicule 4'33", really. Just stop and hear the music.


But surely he must have known that this music you're talking about also would include some laughter. And obviously I'm only guessing, but I think he would have been ok with it. Just because a composer is 'serious' doesn't mean he can't have a sense of humour as well and 4'33" is Cage's way of pulling our leg. How can it be anything else? He's selling us 4 minutes and 33 seconds of absolutely nothing. It's taking the concept of the charlatan artist about whom's art the highbrow explanations about what it all means are more interesting than the creations themselves to it's ultimate extreme. I can imagine that he found it funny that listeners took it seriously.



> Another composer I've really struggled with: Richard Strauss. Nothing I've heard of his moves me. Seriously. Someone please recommend stuff to me if you think you can help. Anything.


Gee - I don't know. I guess you must have heard most of the important pieces. Nevertheless, I can only recommend what never fails to move me myself and that would be - if I have to single out just one work - the *Four Last Songs*.


----------



## SPR

jhar26 said:


> ...and 4'33" is Cage's way of pulling our leg. How can it be anything else?


Actually, the story goes that he once went into a soundproof, deadened room at MIT (I think). and he could *still* hear his heartbeat, and reportedly other noise as well. He wanted to make people realize that sound never (never ever) stops, and that anything could be considered music.

I think. 

Its easy to laugh at, and to me.. certainly not music. But I get his drift, as well as his statement.


----------



## Guest

4'33" aka 4 foot 33 inches, its amazing that it even warrants talking about, 
 
How about we bin it


----------



## jhar26

SPR said:


> Actually, the story goes that he once went into a soundproof, deadened room at MIT (I think). and he could *still* hear his heartbeat, and repotedly other noise as well. He wanted to make people realize that sound never (never ever) stops, and that anything could be considered music.
> 
> I think.
> 
> Its easy to laugh at, and to me.. certainly not music. But I get his drift, as well as his statement.


You're probably right, but the idea that he actually got payed royalties for it is hilarious IMO - and I hope his as well.


----------



## SPR

Andante said:


> 4'33" aka 4 foot 33 inches, its amazing that it even warrants talking about,
> 
> How about we bin it


agreed. Sorry, my original 'contribution' that one. I didnt think it would grow legs though.


----------



## Guest

SPR said:


> agreed. Sorry, my original 'contribution' that one. I didnt think it would grow legs though.


Its all the Bull s*** in it, makes any thing grow, well almost


----------



## Elgarian

World Violist said:


> Another composer I've really struggled with: Richard Strauss. Nothing I've heard of his moves me. Seriously. Someone please recommend stuff to me if you think you can help. Anything.


You must know this already, but I'm glad to have any excuse to dig it out and listen to it again:






Roses from Heaven. Indeed, music from Heaven.


----------



## Elgarian

SPR said:


> Its easy to laugh at, and to me.. certainly not music. But I get his drift, as well as his statement.


I'm not entirely sure that I do get it, myself, though I agree with the drift of your comment. Those works of art which break new ground are often perceived to hover on the edge of absurdity, aren't they? (One only has to think of the ridicule heaped on the Impressionists in the 1870s to realise that from a previously held, established viewpoint, the new can be made to appear ridiculous.) I think it's entirely acceptable - indeed, human - to be amused by 4'33" _as well as_ being provoked into serious thought about it. One can have a similar dual response to Malevich's _Black Square_ (1913):

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/M/malevich/b_square.jpg.html

But leaving all that aside: I have made a breakthrough. I have been listening to _The Magic Flute_ and enjoying myself! Even being moved by it! So you see, this curious 'I don't get it but I wish I could' thread is having an effect. It drove me back to revisit some Mozart that I'd given up on some time ago, only to discover that a door had opened. Well, partly, at any rate.


----------



## Herzeleide

World Violist said:


> I dunno if John Cage would have appreciated it; he would have told us to shut up and listen to the beauty of the car horns, police sirens, barking dogs, etc.
> 
> It isn't that hard to ridicule 4'33", really. Just stop and hear the music.
> 
> Another composer I've really struggled with: Richard Strauss. Nothing I've heard of his moves me. Seriously. Someone please recommend stuff to me if you think you can help. Anything.


_Anything_ can be ridiculed. Even Beethoven. Which makes ridiculing nothing special and completely pointless.

I'm not particularly keen on the Alpine Symphony, though his orchestration is obviously very good. That's the problem (often) with Strauss - tries to compensate for lack of inspiration and note-spinning by creating interesting orchestral textures and sonorities.

As well as (obviously) the Four Last Songs, I can recommend his operas _Salome_ and _Elektra_. I'm told that he also wrote quite a few excellent songs other than the four last ones.


----------



## Herzeleide

I myself despise almost all the Shostakovich I've heard.

Here's my response to listening to his Fifth:



> I've just submitted myself to Shostakovich 5. What an utter travesty: his happy parts are nauseating Stalinist triumphalism punching Mahler in the face (the second movement is a grotesque amalgamation of the third movement of Mahler 2 and the second of Mahler 9). The sad parts are painful: ennui and Weltschmerz written into the music: the music exemplifies these qualities rather than expresses them. This can be seen most clearly in the third movement, which again is bastardized Mahler. And of course the finale is ultimately triumphant. His chromaticism is half-***** and simply grating when juxtaposed with his most puerile and banal diatonic passages. The rhythmic language is military through and through: soul-crushingly repetitive and regular.
> 
> Still, at least I feel now I can understand much more what it was like to live in Soviet Russia.


----------



## Lang

jhar26 said:


> Best thing for me to do is to pretend that I ain't senile yet but that I make an idiot of myself intentionally. The idea is NOT to laugh at me but WITH me.


Sorry - I couldn't resist. But we all do it, me in particular.


----------



## Elgarian

Herzeleide said:


> _Anything_ can be ridiculed. Even Beethoven. Which makes ridiculing nothing special and completely pointless.


I think you've missed the gentleness, and indeed the sympathy, underlying most of the humour that's been expressed here. It may look like ridicule, but it's by no means antagonistic (at least, as far as I'm concerned). As various people have commented, there is a sense in which the piece invites such a response. In fact I'd say that our responses have been very much in the spirit of the purpose of this thread - that is, as part of the process of seeking to understand or appreciate that which we find difficult, or even repelling.


----------



## SPR

Elgarian said:


> I think you've missed the gentleness, and indeed the sympathy, underlying most of the humour that's been expressed here. It may look like ridicule, but it's by no means antagonistic (at least, as far as I'm concerned). As various people have commented, there is a sense in which the piece invites such a response. In fact I'd say that our responses have been very much in the spirit of the purpose of this thread - that, as part of the process of seeking to understand or appreciate that which we find difficult, or even repelling.


indeed yes.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Herzeleide said:


> I myself despise almost all the Shostakovich I've heard.


Hmmm....

Have you ever made the acquaintance of Syd?


----------



## Lang

Elgarian said:


> I think you've missed the gentleness, and indeed the sympathy, underlying most of the humour that's been expressed here. It may look like ridicule, but it's by no means antagonistic (at least, as far as I'm concerned). As various people have commented, there is a sense in which the piece invites such a response. In fact I'd say that our responses have been very much in the spirit of the purpose of this thread - that is, as part of the process of seeking to understand or appreciate that which we find difficult, or even repelling.


Yes, indeed. Personally speaking I don't find 4' 33" at all repellent, although I agree with Schoenberg's dictum that Cage was not a composer - but an inventor of genius. However, having said that, I feel that 4' 33" *had* to be written, and I for one am glad that it exists.


----------



## Rondo

Herzeleide:

Just out of curiosity, what are your feelings toward Prokofiev (and, if I may also ask) Stravinsky? This is not a rhetorical question in any way.


----------



## Elgarian

I feel that I really ought to say a bit more about my _Magic Flute_ revelation. I saw the light while listening to this:










and I can identify two factors in this, for sure. The first is Lucia Popp. Ye Gods! She is amazing in this. The second is the fact that Klemperer (oh bless you, good man) _left out all that blitheringly turgid dialogue!_ So, none of that tedious waiting for what seems half a lifetime between decent tunes! Oh glory!

So, what I need now is to find good recordings of Mozart operas with all the dialogue cut out. Go away, purists, I don't care what you say. I've struggled with Mozart long enough, and now I'm striking gold.


----------



## Herzeleide

Rondo said:


> Herzeleide:
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are your feelings toward Prokofiev (and, if I may also ask) Stravinsky? This is not a rhetorical question in any way.


I like the Prokoviev I've heard.

Stravinsky though is _way_ ahead of both of them in terms of quality and originality. I adore a great deal of his music.


----------



## jhar26

Elgarian said:


> I feel that I really ought to say a bit more about my _Magic Flute_ revelation. I saw the light while listening to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I can identify two factors in this, for sure. The first is Lucia Popp. Ye Gods! She is amazing in this. The second is the fact that Klemperer (oh bless you, good man) _left out all that blitheringly turgid dialogue!_ So, none of that tedious waiting for what seems half a lifetime between decent tunes! Oh glory!
> 
> So, what I need now is to find good recordings of Mozart operas with all the dialogue cut out. Go away, purists, I don't care what you say. I've struggled with Mozart long enough, and now I'm striking gold.


Well, GREAT that the walls between you and Mozart are crumbling down. I never thought it would take good old Klempie to do it!  I guess it's less of a barbarous act to omit the dialogue from a singspiel than it would be to do away with the recitatives of *Cosi Fan Tutte* or *Le Nozze di Figaro*. So maybe you should try *Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail* next (?). Lots of spoken dialogue in that one as well, but you can program your cd player to skip those if you want.


----------



## Guest

Elgarian said:


> So, what I need now is to find good recordings of Mozart operas with all the dialogue cut out. Go away, purists, I don't care what you say. I've struggled with Mozart long enough, and now I'm striking gold.


Recitatives and dialogue do get tedious and the condensed versions are easier to get on with, an Austrian friend tells me that we are missing nothing as they are childish in content and language


----------



## Elgarian

jhar26 said:


> So maybe you should try *Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail* next (?). Lots of spoken dialogue in that one as well, but you can program your cd player to skip those if you want.


Yes! No bad idea, on two counts. First, I have tickets to see a performance of that very opera next year, so I need to be clued up on it. Second, I've just downloaded a recording of it from Saltzburg 1997, and of course with the magic of Audacity (the software, not my bravado), I can chop out all the borin' bits!

The link for the Saltzburg recording is below, if anyone wants it. No idea if it's any good:
http://www.operatoday.com/content/2008/08/mozart_die_entf_6.php


----------



## Elgarian

Andante said:


> Recitatives and dialogue do get tedious and the condensed versions are easier to get on with, an Austrian friend tells me that we are missing nothing as they are childish in content and language


Normally, I'd be reluctant to mess about with the original work, but it's different when something very identifiable (as here) is getting seriously in the way.


----------



## Air

Bach's Well Tempered Clavier.

I *dislike* Baroque Music in general, even when I've been trying as hard as I can, but the only song I can actually listen to without waiting for the end is the Presto from Vivaldi's summer . Some of Bach's solo violin pieces are playable but they are just TOO DRY.

Every year, my teacher forces me to play Baroque music, lots of it. And when I ask her why, she says it's her favorite genre, and Bach is her favorite composer!!!!! How is that possible?


----------



## PostMinimalist

I was listening to Schuman's Violin concerto this morning (the one Jochim buried claiming that it was a product of his sifylitic madness) and realised that I never really 'got' Bob Schuman. This is wierd since I love Brahms, so what's missing? I guess he's just a bit predictable. I've played some of his symphonies and the F sharp minor Piano concerto and as a player you get the impression that the 'seams show'. Too many tempo changes and badly set up recapitulations etc. His harmony is not completely convinvcing when he goes chromatic. The bass part in the piano concerto was particularly awful to play with odd inversions and no real interst. A boring day day in the office, that one!
FC


----------



## Herzeleide

airad2 said:


> And when I ask her why, she says it's her favorite genre, and Bach is her favorite composer!!!!! How is that possible?


Because he's the greatest, most perfect composer ever?

About Bach:

* "The immortal god of harmony" -- Ludwig van Beethoven
* "The most stupendous miracle in all music" -- Richard Wagner
* "Study Bach: there you will find everything" -- Johannes Brahms
* "To strip human nature until its divine attributes are made clear, to inform ordinary activities with spiritual fervor, to give wings of eternity to that which is most ephemeral; to make divine things human and human things divine; such is Bach, the greatest and purest moment in music of all time" -- Pablo Casals
* "O you happy sons of the North who have been reared at the bosom of Bach, how I envy you" -- Giuseppe Verdi
* "If one were asked to name one musician who came closest to composing without human flaw, I suppose general consensus would choose Johann Sebastian Bach" -- Aaron Copland
* "If Bach is not in Heaven, I am not going!" -- William F. Buckley
* "I would vote for Bach, all of Bach, streamed out into space. But this would be bragging" -- Biologist Lewis Thomas, on what message to send to an extraterrestrial civilization
* "Bach almost persuades me to be a Christian" -- Roger Fry
* "Why waste money on psychotherapy when you can listen to the B Minor Mass?" -- Michael Torke
* "The only human who passed God's exam" -- I.N. Galidakis


----------



## Guest

Elgarian said:


> Normally, I'd be reluctant to mess about with the original work,


Now, how would that go with Bruckner nudge nudge wink wink


----------



## s4bryant

I have a tough time appreciating Prokofiev. I'd rather have a full orchestra perform Bartok's concerto for orchestra on my wedding day than to have to play or listen to, say, his rendition of Romeo and juliet...maybe someday his work will grow on me...


----------



## Elgarian

Andante said:


> Now, how would that go with Bruckner nudge nudge wink wink


At this point I'd better admit that I don't know enough about Bruckner to get your joke, Andante ... my apologies!


----------



## ecg_fa

I have trouble appreciating Bruckner-- also some 'modern' composers like Terry Riley,
much of Cage and Stockhausen, Phillip Glass (though I like some pieces), & some of the classical guitar repertoire (& Flamenco) I get bored with though I like in small doses. Those
come to mind anyway.

Ed


----------



## jhar26

I usually struggle with the last movements of Bruckner's symphonies.


----------



## jurianbai

I think I work hard to enjoy any music beyond Romantic era, and some extreme even in romantic. Example the piano works by Listz were challenging. Wagner, Shostakovich, Bartok. all twelve tones stuffs will make me listen like a baby.

but so far works by Dvoraks can be enjoyed really nice, even he was somewhere in the era.


----------



## phoenixshade

*Verdi cries*

Among the recognized greats in opera, the one I really struggle with is Verdi. To my ears his melodies sound formulaic and predictable. In some passages I can appreciate his mastery of counterpoint, but even in those I often feel I'm listening to compositional technique applied without the benefit of artistic direction.

Overall, I get the impression that he's so well-liked simply because the experts tell us we're "supposed" to like him. But maybe I'll get it one day. I do keep trying. Everyone else can't be wrong... can they?


----------



## Elgarian

phoenixshade said:


> Among the recognized greats in opera, the one I really struggle with is Verdi. To my ears his melodies sound formulaic and predictable.


If it's any consolation, I've had similar difficulties myself, and more or less abandoned Verdi many years ago. To my great delight, however, I've recently been listening to _Don Carlo_ (because I have tickets to see a performance of it next year), and I've been finding a lot more to enjoy than I expected. None of these failures of appreciation are carved in stone; we do change, sometimes unexpectedly, and actually I'm finding it quite a lot of fun not knowing just which of my old prejudices might be broken down with the next listening session.


----------



## nefigah

Herzeleide said:


> Because he's the greatest, most perfect composer ever?
> 
> About Bach:
> 
> * "The immortal god of harmony" -- Ludwig van Beethoven
> * "The most stupendous miracle in all music" -- Richard Wagner
> * "Study Bach: there you will find everything" -- Johannes Brahms
> * "To strip human nature until its divine attributes are made clear, to inform ordinary activities with spiritual fervor, to give wings of eternity to that which is most ephemeral; to make divine things human and human things divine; such is Bach, the greatest and purest moment in music of all time" -- Pablo Casals
> * "O you happy sons of the North who have been reared at the bosom of Bach, how I envy you" -- Giuseppe Verdi
> * "If one were asked to name one musician who came closest to composing without human flaw, I suppose general consensus would choose Johann Sebastian Bach" -- Aaron Copland
> * "If Bach is not in Heaven, I am not going!" -- William F. Buckley
> * "I would vote for Bach, all of Bach, streamed out into space. But this would be bragging" -- Biologist Lewis Thomas, on what message to send to an extraterrestrial civilization
> * "Bach almost persuades me to be a Christian" -- Roger Fry
> * "Why waste money on psychotherapy when you can listen to the B Minor Mass?" -- Michael Torke
> * "The only human who passed God's exam" -- I.N. Galidakis


These are great quotes, thank you.


----------



## LindenLea

I adore Schubert above almost every other composer, but I have never liked his 9th Symphony, the so called 'Great'. 

I have struggled with this and heard it in recordings and in the concert hall numerous times, but I still heartily dislike it.

It seems to me to be the exact opposite of everything else he ever wrote, his music throughout is either unpretentious, moving, utterly charming, melodic, or with an underying sadness running through much of it, and quite often all of those things at the same time. 

The 9th on the other hand to my ears is brash, bombastic, overblown, noisy, and even at some points verging on the discordant.

Not for me at all. I have to say that I have hardly ever been able to find anyone who agrees with me on this, but I am still stuck with hating it regardless!!


----------



## Lisztfreak

There are a few for me.

Hovhaness, for example. Someone said long ago in another thread that his music 'does nothing'. I think it's a perfect description. There's breadth, there's sweep and epic melody, but in the end it comes to very little. There is simply no interaction between musical ideas, no tense movement that would keep my attention fixed. That said, I find the motto theme of his 6th symphony to be one of the ten or so most beautiful melodies I've ever heard.

Prokofiev to an extent. I LOVE his piano concertos (except no.3), I also find the Classical Symphony and his two violin sonatas excellent, but I could never properly get into his 5th symphony or the Russian Overture, for example. Too nervous and twitching.

A lot of Schönberg (though I appreciate a lot and often listen to Verklärte Nacht, Pierrot lunaire and the Piano Concerto), Webern, Penderecki, Varese, Henze... although I prefer 19th and 20th century music to the polished classicism of the Age of Enlightenment, I still like music to be at least half-tonal. Bitonal, polytonal, in other scales - but I like to feel a system behind it.

And I too don't like Mozart very much. Except the Requiem - DON'T mess with the Requiem! 

As for Schubert and Brahms, they're brilliant for me, with little or no exceptions. Same goes for Delius.


----------



## howlingmadhowie

Herzeleide said:


> The C major prelude from WTC1 does not have a 'tune'.
> Not possible...
> The tempo shifts in many common-practice period pieces.
> The concord/discord consonance/dissonance dichotomy is meaningless in an atonal context. Most post-tonal music shows just as high a degree of organisation and attention to structure as music that preceded it.
> Schoenberg wasn't an avant-garde composer. His music isn't more 'advanced' than tonal music.
> If you can't overcome prejudices of taste, it's your loss.


(the forum software seems to have cut out the OP's comments. they were about schoenberg being bad.)

i think your last sentence is going a bit too far, herzeleide. we spend years learning what a major and a minor chord are, what the relationship between the dominant and the tonic is, when substitution is best used and other things (although few of us could provide the names for these things). a failure of schoenberg's music to elicit a similarly powerful emotional response in us as the music of let's say beethoven has little to do with 'prejudices of taste' as much as an inability to understand his language.


----------



## howlingmadhowie

Andante said:


> Recitatives and dialogue do get tedious and the condensed versions are easier to get on with, an Austrian friend tells me that we are missing nothing as they are childish in content and language


my musicologist friends tell me that the recits are rarely from mozart as well (which surprises me, because i learned at university that mozart was one of the few classical composers to write his own recits).

works that i struggle with:
at the moment, beethoven op.2 nr.2. i have no idea how to play the first movement. is it just joyous frolicking?

brahms, zwei rhapsodien nr. 2. difficult to find a good tempo and the proportions of the work surprise me.

while i'm mentioning strange proportions, what's beethoven trying to do in the last movement of the c-minor trio? (is it opus 1, nr. 3?) not going for a fortissimo at some stage after the shock b-minor makes the coda a hard-sell.


----------



## Sid James

The composer I struggle with most is *Mahler*, particularly his longer symphonies (especially the ones that take up two CDs). I can stomach the 1st, 4th and 5th but I borrowed the 9th from the local library a few months back and I couldn't get past the first movement. It seemed to be a jumble of ideas and themes and rather incoherent. It is much less immediately understandable for me than, say, the 4th which seems to be more tighter and less liberal in the amount of ideas packed into a single movement. I'm also not a big fan of choral works, and so this, to some extent, excludes works like the _Resurrection Symphony _or the _Symphony of a Thousand_.

Somehow I am more receptive to Mahler's contemporary Bruckner. He seems to be more focused and concentrates on a number of ideas in each movement, but these are presented in a kind of cyclical format - he returns to the same themes over and over again, with slight changes in emphasis, tone and orchestration.

That said, I do enjoy the shorter symphonies of Mahler alot. Perhaps they have a stronger relationship to the classical canon, and thus, are easier to digest. There are alot of good moments there, but perhaps I have to break up the longer symphonies into chunks and listen to them over a number of sittings to get more out of them...


----------



## JoeGreen

Elgarian said:


> If it's any consolation, I've had similar difficulties myself, and more or less abandoned Verdi many years ago. To my great delight, however, I've recently been listening to _Don Carlo_ (because I have tickets to see a performance of it next year), and I've been finding a lot more to enjoy than I expected. None of these failures of appreciation are carved in stone; we do change, sometimes unexpectedly, and actually I'm finding it quite a lot of fun not knowing just which of my old prejudices might be broken down with the next listening session.


once you listen to his last Operas; Don Carlo, acts 3 & 4 of Aida, Otello, and Falstaff.
and you look back on his earlier works and they really do shine in a whole new light. Well at least that's how I came to appreciate his earlier stuff.

But a composer I struggle with would have to be "Operatic" Richard Strauss. I love his tone poems though.


----------



## Sid James

JoeGreen said:


> But a composer I struggle with would have to be "Operatic" Richard Strauss. I love his tone poems though.


Yes, you remind me that I also should have mentioned *Richard Strauss*. I struggle with his tone poems as they seem to go on for so long, so many themes and ideas. Presents the same problem I have with Mahler's longer symphonies. I haven't heard any of Strauss' operas.

Yesterday, I just bought the Deutshe Grammophon Eloquence 2 cd set of some of R. Strauss' works, because I really wanted to listen to _Metamorphosen_ again. I owned it years ago, and I think it is the only work by him that I have connected with. Very emotional, basically written in memory of those who died in WWII. It has its light moments, though, and parts are very nostalgic about the past. To me, it seems to ask how do we move on after such a tragedy has occured? Do we try to find solace from the past or do we have to forge new paths? To me, its a very moving piece.

_Metamorphosen_ is the reason why I bought the set, but it will also kind of force me to become more familiar with some of the other works on the 2 cds, which I haven't heard before such as orchestral excerpts from _Capriccio, Der Rosenkavalier & Salome _but also the tone poems _Don Quixote _and _Till Espenguel's Merry Pranks_. I haven't listened to all of the music yet, and it will be interesting if I connect with these other works in the way I have with _Metamorphosen_.

I have listened to the _Four Last Songs _as well in the past, and I thought they were ok. Again, many metaphors in the text about moving from Winter to Spring, reflecting how Europe had to move on from the destruction of WWII.


----------



## JoeGreen

Andre said:


> Yes, you remind me that I also should have mentioned *Richard Strauss*. I struggle with his tone poems as they seem to go on for so long, so many themes and ideas.


In fact I think the variety of ideas going on in the music are what draws my attention to Strauss' Tone Poem as opposed to his operas which I feel tend to be a bit drawn out andmeandering. But who knows, that might have been initial impressions and I should gave them a second shot. 

_Metamorphosen _is a very powerful and gorgeous melancholic work. If you liked _Metamorphosen_ you might like _Death and Transfiguration_.


----------



## JTech82

JoeGreen said:


> In fact I think the variety of ideas going on in the music are what draws my attention to Strauss' Tone Poem as opposed to his operas which I feel tend to be a bit drawn out andmeandering. But who knows, that might have been initial impressions and I should gave them a second shot.
> 
> _Metamorphosen _is a very powerful and gorgeous melancholic work. If you liked _Metamorphosen_ you might like _Death and Transfiguration_.


I love Strauss' work, especially orchestral works like "Alpine Symphony," "Oboe Concerto," "Sinfonia Domestica," "Don Juan," "Ein Heldenleben," etc. He's truly great.


----------



## Conor71

At the moment I am struggling with Bruckner - I have a disc with his masses that I really like but I am finding his symphonies a bit impenetrable! The main difficulties I have with these works is their length (I am struggling to maintain concentration & interest as they are so long) and the lack of "development" in each movement (they seem to go nowhere!).
From what I have been reading these are common enough problems with Brucker when listening initially and I am hoping that some repeated listening will improve my appreciation of these Symphonies (although in some instances I have listened 3-4 times already!).


----------



## andruini

wow, good question, i never really thought of it..
i sincerely enjoy a Mahler symphony when i listen to it, but honestly, it's very hard to get me to hear one.. i know they're these amazing masterpieces of flawless orchestration and all that, and i do appreciate them, i seriously do.. i really don't know what it is, i just really struggle when faced with the prospect of listening to Mahler..
there, i said it..
i also get quite bored quite fast when listening to much Haydn, never knew why
and i guess i'm not the only music theory n00b bored to death by Schönberg and his peeps.. 
oh, and after sitting for what seemed to be like 10 hours listening to Bruckner 2, i just get pissed everytime anyone even mentions listening to another one of his symphonies.. (i will someday, don't worry)


----------



## JTech82

There are a lot of composers I struggle with. I think I struggle the most with Schoenberg and the Second Viennese School. I also struggle with most of today's composers like Glass, Reich, Adams, Gorecki, etc. I find they're music just almost unlistenable. Reich is probably the only one I understand, but he's still uninteresting to me.


----------



## Lisztfreak

I'm slowly getting into a phase of not wanting to bother myself anymore with that with which I struggle. I'll start listening only to music I like. If I don't like it - farewell, I've got more important matters to attend to.

(That was in fact my rant over the _avant-garde_.)


----------



## JTech82

Lisztfreak said:


> I'm slowly getting into a phase of not wanting to bother myself anymore with that with which I struggle. I'll start listening only to music I like. If I don't like it - farewell, I've got more important matters to attend to.
> 
> (That was in fact my rant over the _avant-garde_.)


I think I shared that similar outlook at one point in time, but then I think it's like as Elgarian was telling me that it's not wise to close doors and keep them closed. I think that's at least an honest way to approach music, but like you Lisztfreak, there are so many composers that I just don't want to even make that effort, but sometimes the effort is payoff is it not?

I mean I completely dismissed Hindemith a couple of weeks ago, but now he's one of my favorite composers, so I think it's wise to at least leave the door cracked, because maybe someday you'll realize how foolish it was of you to dismiss someone who you obviously can't get enough of now.

I'm just trying to be more open-minded and I think it's really helped me digest a lot of music I otherwise would dismiss out-of-hand.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Yes, I admit I've been in a somewhat radical mood lately. 

I also dismissed Richard Strauss once long ago. Then I bought Eine Alpensinfonie just for the hack of it, and was much bewilderingly and pleasantly surprised 
Since then, I play it whenever there's only a day or two left before I part for my family cabin in the mountains. And on other days during the year, of course.


----------



## JTech82

Lisztfreak said:


> Yes, I admit I've been in a somewhat radical mood lately.
> 
> I also dismissed Richard Strauss once long ago. Then I bought Eine Alpensinfonie just for the hack of it, and was much bewilderingly and pleasantly surprised
> Since then, I play it whenever there's only a day or two left before I part for my family cabin in the mountains. And on other days during the year, of course.


"Eine Alpensinfonie" is a beautiful piece. Full of majestic colors and beautiful melodies. It's one of my favorite Strauss compositions. I would urge you, though, to check out more of his music. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by what you hear.

What version of "Eine Alpensinfonie" do you own? I own several versions now, but my favorite is Karajan and the BPO. Karajan was a great Strauss interpreter.


----------



## chung

I struggle with Bruckner's "real" symphonies. The only symphony that I could sit through was Symphony no. 0. The rest I just tuned out after a couple of movements in each as nothing really grabbed me.

I also have little love for music by Haydn and much of Mozart's.


----------



## blays

I used to be quite narrow minded about Mozart. I remember thinking he was simplistic and a perfectionist in doing so. But once I started playing some of his sonatas, I actually could see some degree of depth in them. Mind you, they're still not my favorite music, but I learned to appreciate it, as opposed to thinking it was rubbish. I read somewhere that Mozart often composed to tailor the taste of audiences, instead of exploring his own likings. And the taste of the masses have ofcourse changed in the past 300 years! Maybe that explains why there is a lot of "hostility" toward his works by engaged classical music fans (and the ones who instead listen to classical music superficially, tend adore his 'cute' upbeat melodies).

Personally, I find it hard to enjoy Schoenberd or Messiaen. I still have not developed any liking to that kind of dissonant music, and I'm not sure if I ever will. Granted I haven't really given them a real chance, but to me they don't evoke any kind of human emotion.


----------



## Bach

I don't believe you could have heard any Messiaen in order to harbour those views..


----------



## blays

As I've said, I haven't given them a real chance, but the little that I remember hearing, did not inspire me at all. That is not to say it can't, ofcourse.


----------



## Bach

Time to listen to _Quatuor pour la fin du temps_.


----------



## jhar26

blays said:


> I used to be quite narrow minded about Mozart. I remember thinking he was simplistic and a perfectionist in doing so. But once I started playing some of his sonatas, I actually could see some degree of depth in them. Mind you, they're still not my favorite music, but I learned to appreciate it, as opposed to thinking it was rubbish. I read somewhere that Mozart often composed to tailor the taste of audiences, instead of exploring his own likings. And the taste of the masses have ofcourse changed in the past 300 years! Maybe that explains why there is a lot of "hostility" toward his works by engaged classical music fans (and the ones who instead listen to classical music superficially, tend adore his 'cute' upbeat melodies).


Glad you've changed your mind about him. 

People who dislike Mozart tend to dislike virtually all music from the second half of the 18th century. Mozart was active in the classical era and he composed much of the best music in that style and of his time. What more could anyone possibly want? If he had been born fifty years earlier or fifty years later maybe he would have been one of the favorite baroque or romantic composers of those that don't like music from the classical era. But the fact is that he was a classical composer. That some people don't like the music of that particular era takes nothing away from his genius - it's their problem that they don't like classical music, not his.


----------



## Bach

'classical fans' often know very little about music, and ignore Mozart because he doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve in a brash and materialistic fashion. In short, they don't understand it.


----------



## trazom

> 'classical fans' often know very little about music, and ignore Mozart because he doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve in a brash and materialistic fashion. In short, they don't understand it.


I agree, and I think it also has to do with the fact that emotion, while it is in many of Mozart's works, is subtler and just harder to find than in most Romantic pieces. A lot of people are just lazy when they "listen" to music and only get an emotional reaction when the music is overwhelming and bombastic.


----------



## Bach

Yes, well put.


----------



## Herzeleide

Mozart, like Haydn, is perceived as a trivial bourgeois light composer.

It's a terrible shame. Both were masters of counterpoint (finale of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony: quintuple invertible counterpoint! And just check out all those canons...) Mozart in his time was considered Romantic and I find Haydn to be the most abstract of composers: 'music made of music'; he's for the connoisseur, not someone who wants the meretricious.


----------



## Mirror Image

trazom said:


> I agree, and I think it also has to do with the fact that emotion, while it is in many of Mozart's works, is subtler and just harder to find than in most Romantic pieces. A lot of people are just lazy when they "listen" to music and only get an emotional reaction when the music is overwhelming and bombastic.


I can agree with this. It takes much more effort on the listener's part to really hear the emotion, but it is certainly there no question about it. It's just a different kind of emotion. The Neo-Classical style is also a good example of this. There is a lot of counterpoint in these works as well. Like Hindemith for example.


----------



## chung

Hey, hey, let's not get carried away here with the bashing of people who aren't the biggest fans of Mozart. I posted that I don't have much love for Haydn's and most of Mozart's music. Haydn's music to me seems too repetitive - almost like late Baroque played by classical ensembles.

Much of Mozart's music also seems repetitive and too "light". However the stuff of his that I do like ranks among my favourites. I can't get enough of Piano Concerto No. 20 or the last movements of Nos. 24 and 27. I also enjoy listening to Symphonies Nos. 25 and 38 more than any of his other symphonies.


----------



## Rasa

Me, I have a problem with piano solo works of the romantic composers, but mostly with one: Liszt.

Some critic once called a Brahms symphony "trop sérieuse, trop lourde". That person clearly hadn't heard Liszt's 2nd Ballade yet. After a few mesures of this Ballade my attention slips and I'm bored with teh whole messy sound pallet.


And then there are those "modern" composers: Schoenberg (excepting Gurrelieder), Berg, Webern. Boulez. Stockhausen. I puke on their works! It's too ridiculous for words


----------



## Air

Rasa said:


> And then there are those "modern" composers: Schoenberg (excepting Gurrelieder), Berg, Webern. Boulez. Stockhausen. I puke on their works! It's too ridiculous for words


I'm sure many of us feel the same way (me included!), but this "composer-bashing" is a little bit too extreme.



Rasa said:


> Me, I have a problem with piano solo works of the romantic composers, but mostly with one: Liszt.
> 
> Some critic once called a Brahms symphony "trop sérieuse, trop lourde". That person clearly hadn't heard Liszt's 2nd Ballade yet. After a few mesures of this Ballade my attention slips and I'm bored with teh whole messy sound pallet.


I can agree with you on this, it's one of liszt's messiest works. But he wrote some great things as well for the piano, like the Piano Sonata, hungarian rhapsodies, and numerous waltzes (Mephisto Waltzes, Waltz from faust, Valse oubliees, Valse impromptu). As for the other "romantic" piano solo works, have you told me you have liked nothing you've heard by Schumann, Chopin, Alkan, Mendelssohn, Rubinstein, Schubert, Brahms, Saint-Saens, Mussorgsky, Grieg, Mozkowski, Dvorak, MacDowell, Tchaikovsky, Gottshalk, or Rachmaninoff?


----------



## Rasa

Drat, I've been curbed in my extremism once more.

Ofcourse each of these composers has written beautiful things. But most of the piano solo pieces of that repertoire are just a bore


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

blays said:


> Personally, I find it hard to enjoy Schoenberd or Messiaen. I still have not developed any liking to that kind of dissonant music, and I'm not sure if I ever will. Granted I haven't really given them a real chance, but to me they don't evoke any kind of human emotion.


I find it strange to hear two very different composers - one who for the most part wrote atonality (if there is such a thing) and the other who wrote tonally - just with new tonalitys. I have to agree, there is no way you could have heard much Messiaen to make such an opinion. For me, Messiaen is the most important composer in the last fifty years because he highlighted the need for tonality. Messiaen was also a devout Roman Catholic and sort to evoke God in ever work. He also had synesthesia and so consequently his music is full of colour... and very emotional - which cannot be denied regardless of whether or not you like his music!

The first time I heard any Messiaen I didn't understand his tonal world - it just sounded like random keys to create a very dissonant effect - but this is just the way our ears are atuned and after a while I began to understand his use of modes and except them as a tonality. It might take a couple of listenings - but I bet this piece would do it for most people:






Annddd my Messiaen rant is over for another day 

In reply to the actual topic - composers who don't do it for me:
- Mozart (sorry!) I appreciate his genius, but am just not a fan.
- I find the second vienese school very difficult - I striggle immensely with the concept of "atonality" full-stop, because apart from the fact that I don't really believe it exists, I believe tonality is fundermental to music.
- Boulez - I met the guy but it just alls goes completley over my head. He is so intelligent, but I feel no emotion, and I don't realy like the separation of colour/timbre and emotion... hmm. 
- The vast majority of romantic music... I just can't bear the slushyness of it all! 
- I embarraessed to even say it since I love so many English composers... but I just cannot bear Elgar! I think he was a great composer, hugely important, but it is way to much for me - too English, too pompous! I prefer the painting of countryside that Vaughan-Williams achieves.


----------



## Herzeleide

Drowning_by_numbers said:


> For me, Messiaen is the most important composer in the last fifty years because he highlighted the need for tonality.


To call Messiaen's music 'tonal' is to stretch the meaning of that word beyond any coherence.



Drowning_by_numbers said:


> - Boulez - I met the guy but it just alls goes completley over my head. He is so intelligent, but I feel no emotion, and I don't realy like the separation of colour/timbre and emotion... hmm.


Major jealousy on my behalf! And Boulez's music isn't meant to convey emotion. I think to understand Boulez better one needs to familiarise oneself with Oriental music - Indian and Gamelan, Japanese Gagaku etc. and medieval music as well as Webern. It is often disinterested and cool, but intensely beautiful and exquisitely crafted music. Boulez is renowned for the acuity of his ear - the musicians of the New York Philharmonic used to say that he could hear a pin drop and tell you what key it's in! One can sense the influence of Boulez in some of Messiaen's music - _Chronochromie_, _Quatre Études de Rhythme_ and scene seven of _Saint François d'Assise_.


----------



## World Violist

Bruckner used to be about the topmost name on this list, but as each minute goes by as I type this, he drops further down said list.

That said, I'm not so sure about which composer is the one I struggle with most. I suppose I struggle with most classical composers in some way still. Mozart, I suppose, is now the #1 on my "least understood composer" list.


----------



## Mirror Image

World Violist said:


> Bruckner used to be about the topmost name on this list, but as each minute goes by as I type this, he drops further down said list.
> 
> That said, I'm not so sure about which composer is the one I struggle with most. I suppose I struggle with most classical composers in some way still. Mozart, I suppose, is now the #1 on my "least understood composer" list.


Bruckner's closing in on you WV....LOOK OUT!!!!  You'll be hooked in no time.


----------



## JoeGreen

For a long time I had trouble listening to Messiaen's Oiseaux Exotiques (not that I didn't like his other works for example the Turangalila Symphonie) but just recently I hear it again under the direction Boulez with Pierre-Laurent Aimard at the piano and well...

OH MY GOD!!!

It was like someone had turned on the color on a black and white tv, it was fantastic and enjoyable!!!


----------



## Guest

Well I must agree with *Herzeleide* in that, quote [To call Messiaen's music 'tonal' is to stretch the meaning of that word beyond any coherence] I will have force myself to listen again as my taste is changing in regard to this kind of music


----------



## Mirror Image

I struggle with almost all atonal music. It's just something I don't understand.


----------



## Guest

Mirror Image said:


> I struggle with almost all atonal music. It's just something I don't understand.


Yae, who does understand it, and how many _really_ like it??


----------



## Sid James

Sometimes it is a pleasure to listen to works that are more challenging. They actually bring you out of your comfort zone, and stretch you a bit. This is what I have found with *Lutoslawski*'s music, particularly his _Symphony No. 2_. Same could be said of the music of *Schoenberg, Varese, Penderecki & Messiaen.*

On the other hand, there are cases where the struggle doesn't seems to yield any significant fruits. I have found this to be the case recently with *Takemitsu*'s music. I've discussed this in depth on the Japanese composers thread. Basically, his music seems to be repetitive in both it's ideas & techniques. I might come around to a different view, but maybe it's better to listen to only one or two works at a time rather than the whole disc. Otherwise, I feel as if I'm just listening to the same work repeated _ad infinitum_.


----------



## World Violist

Andre said:


> Sometimes it is a pleasure to listen to works that are more challenging. They actually bring you out of your comfort zone, and stretch you a bit.


I totally agree with this statement. There are several pieces in the viola repertoire that are quite wild in their (sometimes lack of) tonality. These works, however, are still brilliant.

And I love those crazy, extraordinarily dense pieces, like some of Ives, Penderecki's Threnody, Shostakovich's Lady Macbeth, and so on. However, these works are very expressionistic, so the notes don't matter so much as the sheer impact it has on the listener.

As to stranger works... I don't know. I'll figure out my views on it sooner or later, I suppose. For right now, I'm keeping my distance for the most part. I think Rautavaara's 4th symphony is atonal. I guess I'll find my views on atonal music through that then. Hah.


----------



## Herzeleide

Andante said:


> Yae, who does understand it, and how many _really_ like it??


I do, as well as many extraordinarily talented musicians that I know.


----------



## Mirror Image

World Violist said:


> I totally agree with this statement. There are several pieces in the viola repertoire that are quite wild in their (sometimes lack of) tonality. These works, however, are still brilliant.
> 
> And I love those crazy, extraordinarily dense pieces, like some of Ives, Penderecki's Threnody, Shostakovich's Lady Macbeth, and so on. However, these works are very expressionistic, so the notes don't matter so much as the sheer impact it has on the listener.
> 
> As to stranger works... I don't know. I'll figure out my views on it sooner or later, I suppose. For right now, I'm keeping my distance for the most part. I think Rautavaara's 4th symphony is atonal. I guess I'll find my views on atonal music through that then. Hah.


This makes sense, WV. There are elements in Shostakovich's work of expressionism. This is also found in Martinu's work.

I agree, it's good to listen to a composer that sometimes stretches the limits of tonality, but I guess where I'm going my own view is that I don't like for the music to sound just completely out-of-control. I'm a big fan of structure.

I also agree that sometimes just the sheer musical impact of something makes you forget sometimes what is actually going on in terms of tonality. Shostakovich seemed to push this a lot and actually Nielsen did too.


----------



## Bach

Herzeleide said:


> I do, as well as many extraordinarily talented musicians that I know.


I adore it, and I worship Boulez. Greatest living musician, by a considerable margin.


----------



## PostMinimalist

As for struggling with composers I once got into a fight (real fisticuffs, drunk in a bar) with Martin Eastwood. Does that count?


----------



## World Violist

post-minimalist said:


> As for struggling with composers I once got into a fight (real fisticuffs, drunk in a bar) with Martin Eastwood. Does that count?


Um... yes, I daresay that does count as struggling with a composer. Sounds like one heck of a story too.

...

Who won?


----------



## PostMinimalist

Actually it was Kenneth Depster. Kenny had gone to America to do a PhD in composition and I was in my post grad year at the RAM in London. I hadn't seen Kenny in about 5 years when he came to London. When he heard that I was at the RAM he came one evening to the Students union bar to find me. I had no idea he was coming. When he arrived he came up behind me and grabbed my shoulder and said, 'I hear you can't string two chords together!' In his time in America Kenny had changed quite a bit and I diidn't recognise hism at all. One insult lead to another and before I we knew it we were brawling on the floor with Kenny shouting, ' It's me, Kenny! Kenny Demster!' Once I realised who it was we stopped and I bought him a drink and we chatted about old times. Kenny is now a composition professor at Naiper University in Edinburgh and a fine composer.

Here's a link to some of his stuff. (That's him with the black eye!)

http://www.napier.ac.uk/sci/staff/Pages/KennethDempster.aspx


----------



## aeschylus

Interesting thread.

To me, Mozart is a genius and a highly original composer; what distinguishes him is his ability to surprise. It may be that you have to play the music for this to come out. The first movement of the piano concerto in A major K488 is full of the unexpected.

I wonder whether- to bring in another strand- our musical palate changes as we get older. I used to see nothing in Schubert but now I think he's got some very important things to say.

My absolute blind spot is Britten. Four Sea Interludes, good; everything else, sheer torture.

Is there something wrong with me?


----------



## Mahlerian

aeschylus said:


> Is there something wrong with me?


No.

Everyone has blind spots. They won't always make sense to the people around us or even to ourselves. Sometimes they go away with time, sometimes they don't. You shouldn't think there's something wrong with you if you never love Britten (though there's much Britten I myself love).


----------



## Tristan

I used to struggle with Brahms; I don't anymore. Brahms has become one of my favorite composers, and I own a ton of his music.

I used to have an issue with Ives, and I've come to love Ives recently (finding some of his music on vinyl seemed to helped) -_-

I still don't care much for the Second Viennese School and almost nothing I've heard of Schoenberg's has appealed to me much, but I did like Berg's _Lulu_.


----------

