# Branching out...Symphonic journey



## silmarillion (Oct 24, 2007)

Good evening.

I've for some time been enthralled by classical music and recently my curiosity for new music has spiked again. In a few weeks (two or three) I've familiarised myself with hours and hours of new music, from wellknown and lesser known composers ranging from Magnard to Bruckner, Brahms to Vaughan Williams, Rott to Respighi etc. I've looked into modernist composers, (Neo)classical, (Neo)romantic and even atonal/ highly dissonant music. I've had some successes, and a lot of failures. Sibelius, Brahms, Respighi, Magnard, Rachmaninov and Barber were among the many surprises. Nielsen, Ropartz, Enescu, Franck, Berlioz, Melartin, Sinding, Braga Santos and others among the many composers who failed to grab me.

The composers i'm still very ambiguous (is that correct?) are Bruckner, Rott, Mahler and Furtwangler. Superlatives abound in the many, many reviews and analyses of their works that I've read, but somehow I find their music very hard to get into. Some passages I love, many I cannot quite follow. Perhaps it would help if I had the music scores to read, i don't know. I have trouble finding the direction of their works. The music of Brahms, Mendelsohn, Beethoven etc. has a very strong sense of direction, with their use of sonata form in many instances. I miss that in the above composers.

So how do I get around these problems? What did it take for you to get into that late-Romantic school of heavyhanded, but in many instances also quite touching and profound symphonic writing?


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

silmarillion said:


> The composers i'm still very ambiguous (is that correct?) are Bruckner, Rott, Mahler and Furtwangler.


Furtwangler?



> but somehow I find their music very hard to get into. I have trouble finding the direction of their works. The music of Brahms, Mendelsohn, Beethoven etc. has a very strong sense of direction


That's EXACTLY the way I compare music I "get" and the ones I "don't get." Although, I'm not trained in music in any way, and our meanings of the word (direction) might differ, I think it's amazing we describe the situation in the same way. 



> So how do I get around these problems? What did it take for you to get into that late-Romantic school of heavyhanded, but in many instances also quite touching and profound symphonic writing?


You can attend the local Bruckner Clinic.  I haven't had the time to visit it, though.


----------



## ChamberNut (Jan 30, 2007)

silmarillion said:


> Good evening.
> 
> I've for some time been enthralled by classical music and recently my curiosity for new music has spiked again. In a few weeks (two or three) I've familiarised myself with hours and hours of new music, from wellknown and lesser known composers ranging from Magnard to Bruckner, Brahms to Vaughan Williams, Rott to Respighi etc. I've looked into modernist composers, (Neo)classical, (Neo)romantic and even atonal/ highly dissonant music. I've had some successes, and a lot of failures. Sibelius, Brahms, Respighi, Magnard, Rachmaninov and Barber were among the many surprises. Nielsen, Ropartz, Enescu, Franck, Berlioz, Melartin, Sinding, Braga Santos and others among the many composers who failed to grab me.
> 
> ...


Believe me, it took awhile and several listens to "get into" certain composers, Bruckner being one of them. Heck, I wasn't even "into" Mozart's music when I first started listening to classical music.

As for Bruckner and Mahler, perhaps a recommendation would be to listen to 1 movement at a time, from particular symphonies.

I'm still not "into" Mahler very much. I can't comment on the others you mentioned because I'm not familiar with their symphonies, except for Berlioz, and I do love the Symphonie Fantastique


----------



## silmarillion (Oct 24, 2007)

opus67 said:


> Furtwangler?
> 
> That's EXACTLY the way I compare music I "get" and the ones I "don't get." Although, I'm not trained in music in any way, and our meanings of the word (direction) might differ, I think it's amazing we describe the situation in the same way.
> 
> You can attend the local Bruckner Clinic.  I haven't had the time to visit it, though.


Yes, Furtwangler. Furtwangler wasn't just a famous conductor, but I learned recently (that being two days ago) that he was also a composer and I have listened to bits and pieces of his Symphony #2. He wrote three in total, though his second is the most recorded (Barenboim/Chicago Symphony Orchestra seems to be the most recommended, although I haven't heard it yet). His style is akin to that of Bruckner, as are the length and construction of his works. Hard to get into however.

My idea of direction probably comes from my 'conditioning' in sonata form symphonies: for years I only listened to Mozart and Beethoven. And it's always, wherever you start listening in their symphonies clear what the thematic material is, where the development and recapitulation takes place, where the variations are expanded. The thematic material is also often very tightly knit, very focused and no more than a couple of bars long (consider the themes of the first movements of Mozarts 40th/25th or Beethoven's 7th), and easy to follow. Same goes for Brahms (1st) and Mendelssohn.

What happens in Bruckner and Mahler is that to me the thematic material is less clearcut, less concise and not as memorable. Their music is also, I feel, often plagued by a lot changes in pace, in scoring (solo parts then tutti's, quiet woordwinds, suddenly a violent brass passage). Passages are much more drawn out, and often quiet passages are interrupted (Mahler) by violent climaxes. In short, I find the music much harder to follow and this lessens the emotional impact their music has on me. I'm sure I could follow if I learned, but I suspect this takes quite a lot of getting used to.

If any Mahler/Bruckner fan wants to tear me apart, now would be the time.


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

silmarillion said:


> Yes, Furtwangler. Furtwangler wasn't just a famous conductor, but I learned recently (that being two days ago) that he was also a composer and I have listened to bits and pieces of his Symphony #2. He wrote three in total, though his second is the most recorded (Barenboim/Chicago Symphony Orchestra seems to be the most recommended, although I haven't heard it yet). His style is akin to that of Bruckner, as are the length and construction of his works. Hard to get into however.


I was also a bit surprised because you put him on par with Bruckner and Mahler.  I think one other famous conductor has composed symphonies. I think it's Klemperer. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.



> My idea of direction probably comes from my 'conditioning' in sonata form symphonies: for years I only listened to Mozart and Beethoven. And it's always, wherever you start listening in their symphonies clear what the thematic material is, where the development and recapitulation takes place, where the variations are expanded. The thematic material is also often very tightly knit, very focused and no more than a couple of bars long (consider the themes of the first movements of Mozarts 40th/25th or Beethoven's 7th), and easy to follow. Same goes for Brahms (1st) and Mendelssohn.
> 
> What happens in Bruckner and Mahler is that to me the thematic material is less clearcut, less concise and not as memorable. Their music is also, I feel, often plagued by a lot changes in pace, in scoring (solo parts then tutti's, quiet woordwinds, suddenly a violent brass passage). Passages are much more drawn out, and often quiet passages are interrupted (Mahler) by violent climaxes. In short, I find the music much harder to follow and this lessens the emotional impact their music has on me. I'm sure I could follow if I learned, but I suspect this takes quite a lot of getting used to.


I couldn't have said it any better.  I tried to listen to Bruckner's 8th earlier today, and my mind started wandering a few minutes into the work, and soon after I started wandering into another room. But I realise that tastes evolve. One year ago, I wouldn't have listened to 3/4th of the music I listen to now - rarely would I listen to something that's a tad beyond late-Classical!


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

I don't think you need a lecture about how to listen to classical music since you've familiarized a lot of music apparently. But I would just iterate an important point that definitely applies to some of the composers you mentioned who don't always follow the standard sonata form recipes: it takes many hearings to "get" a lot of the experimental or late-Romantic music. For the longest time I didn't "get" Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique. I thought the first movement dragged, the second movement boring, and only remembered the work for the latter half that integrated the Dies Irae. Yet I didn't give up on it and kept listening. I'd put it aside for a while and try it again... and again. And today it's one of my favorite orchestral works.

So what happened? ChamberNut offers the best advice and the answer: just listen and relisten to one movement. I know this is not "proper" listening for large-scale compositions that rely on multi-movement unity, but it's how I approach new music. I can't listen to a gigantic symphony all the way through and make a judgment or even determine if I like it. It's a rarity for someone to pop in Bruckner's Seventh and say "Fantastic! I want to listen to this while I jog tomorrow!" As an aside, I think Bruckner's Third Symphony is the most accessible, but I confess I familiarized myself with it through a two-piano recording (no "violent brass climaxes" there). 

You seem to have a wide knowledge of various composers, but keep in mind that you might not be listening to the best examples. Franck and Sinding for example... I don't particularly love Franck's Symphony in D minor, but his orchestra and piano works and his symphonic poems resonate more with me. Sinding's Symphony No. 1 is also not a favorite, but I adore his piano concerto. If you're giving one specific work a lot of effort and are not feeling rewarded, try another and maybe that one will touch you. Just don't conclude that Mahler, Nielsen, Bruckner, Enescu, and Berlioz are off limits if one or two of their works did not appeal to you.

Since you've made it clear, however, that you like the classical symphonic models of Mozart and Beethoven, why not just branch out into the symphonic works of their contemporaries? If the extravagant chaos of the late-Romantics aren't attracting your attention, try Haydn, Weyse, Ries, Clementi, Spohr, and Schubert. Early Romantics like Mendelssohn, Schumann, Lachner, Berwald, (I'd even throw in Bennett and Raff) might also strike your fancy.


----------



## silmarillion (Oct 24, 2007)

Thank you for the lengthy advice Hexameron. The names of the composers I wrote down are by far not all that I've listened to (Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Faure, Elgar, Tchaikovsky are among the many I haven't even mentioned), and of most of them I've listened to many more than one work. To take the examples you chose: I've heard all of Sinding's symphonies and found them way too long for the thematic material they provided. I have heard Nielsen's fourth and fifth and found them lacking the depth I was seeking. This is actually the essence of my problem.

I'm looking for music that will give me more emotional (and intellectual(?), whatever that means in this context) satisfaction. Although Mozart's symphonies are fine any time of the day I find them to be very lightweight and lacking impact. Same with Haydn. Hence my ventures into the Romantic idiom. Beethoven stands alone as a classical composer who also packs the punch I'm looking for. But many Romantic composers, especially of the Wagnerian/Brucknerian/Mahlerian school (if such an animal exists) have written much music that to me at times feels like it collapses under it's own weight. Which in trying to be powerfull, overpower so much as to leave me unimpressed, despite their vigorous attempts to assault me with a sledgehammer. 

Enough ranting. I have found many works I did like. Brahms was a true discovery and his 1st and 4th are already among my favorites. Sibelius was a revelation and Rachmaninov and Vaughan Williams (whose symphonies I should give more time) I find quite exquisite at times. (The slow movement of R.'s second Symphony is a Hollywood score if there ever was one, but that is not at all intended as an insult). I've already sort of grown to like Rott's symphony, so that's a start.

Apologies for the incoherence and lack of direction in my response.


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

Well, I stand corrected... you've pretty much heard *all* of the major works of the composers you question. I don't know what other advice to give you except try some of the composers I mentioned at the bottom of my previous post; Schubert and Schumann, especially.

You can also check out this Wikipedia list of symphonic composers and do some audio sampling on Amazon.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2007)

Well i used to be in sortove the position you are now in with Bruckner and Mahler. I disliked them and lost interest, no direction what so ever. I am also very A.D.D. so sitting i would lose concentration very quickly. The only way that i really discovered Bruckner inside of the Bruckner was to sit in the dark, not move a muscle, and listen to the entire 9th without interruption. It was almost like a meditative state but i understood it, and i loved it. The only way i can describe it is the music is like a whale (i know this sounds ridiculous but stay with me) it moves slower than most creatures but in each move it makes it’s so large and grandiose. You have to calm your mind to understand the music moving slower, but when you hear it move it is much grander that most other music. It's really cool but it took me a couple of years to "get it." 

Mahler I still find hard to listen to. It's more harsh and it's moves are not as graceful.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2007)

Hexameron said:


> Well, I stand corrected... you've pretty much heard *all* of the major works of the composers you question. I don't know what other advice to give you except try some of the composers I mentioned at the bottom of my previous post; Schubert and Schumann, especially.
> 
> You can also check out this Wikipedia list of symphonic composers and do some audio sampling on Amazon.


Silmarillion's problem is that he finds Haydn and Mozart too lightweight and Bruckner too heavyweight, and wants advice on how to find something in the middle that will satisfy his intellectaul curiousity. It reminds me of Goldilocks and the 3 Bears:

_The Story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears

Once upon a time, there was a little girl named Goldilocks. She went for a walk in the forest. Pretty soon, she came upon a house. She knocked and, when no one answered, she walked right in.

At the table in the kitchen, there were three bowls of porridge. Goldilocks was hungry. She tasted the porridge from the first bowl.

"This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed.

So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl.

"This porridge is too cold," she said

So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge.

"Ahhh, this porridge is just right," she said happily and she ate it all up.

After she'd eaten the three bears' breakfasts she decided she was feeling a little tired. So, she walked into the living room where she saw three chairs. Goldilocks sat in the first chair to rest her feet.

"This chair is too big!" she exclaimed.

So she sat in the second chair.

"This chair is too big, too!" she whined.

So she tried the last and smallest chair.

"Ahhh, this chair is just right," she sighed. But just as she settled down into the chair to rest, it broke into pieces!

Goldilocks was very tired by this time, so she went upstairs to the bedroom. She lay down in the first bed, but it was too hard. Then she lay in the second bed, but it was too soft. Then she lay down in the third bed and it was just right. Goldilocks fell asleep.

As she was sleeping, the three bears came home.

"Someone's been eating my porridge," growled the Papa bear.

"Someone's been eating my porridge," said the Mama bear.

"Someone's been eating my porridge and they ate it all up!" cried the Baby bear.

"Someone's been sitting in my chair," growled the Papa bear.

"Someone's been sitting in my chair," said the Mama bear.

"Someone's been sitting in my chair and they've broken it all to pieces," cried the Baby bear.

They decided to look around some more and when they got upstairs to the bedroom, Papa bear growled, "Someone's been sleeping in my bed,"

"Someone's been sleeping in my bed, too" said the Mama bear

"Someone's been sleeping in my bed and she's still there!" exclaimed Baby bear.

Just then, Goldilocks woke up and saw the three bears. She screamed, "Help!" And she jumped up and ran out of the room. Goldilocks ran down the stairs, opened the door, and ran away into the forest. And she never returned to the home of the three bears.

THE END_​
The moral is that most people work out what's best for themselves by trial and error and the application of a bit of intelligence.


----------



## silmarillion (Oct 24, 2007)

Notserp89m said:


> Well i used to be in sortove the position you are now in with Bruckner and Mahler. I disliked them and lost interest, no direction what so ever. I am also very A.D.D. so sitting i would lose concentration very quickly. The only way that i really discovered Bruckner inside of the Bruckner was to sit in the dark, not move a muscle, and listen to the entire 9th without interruption. It was almost like a meditative state but i understood it, and i loved it. The only way i can describe it is the music is like a whale (i know this sounds ridiculous but stay with me) it moves slower than most creatures but in each move it makes it's so large and grandiose. You have to calm your mind to understand the music moving slower, but when you hear it move it is much grander that most other music. It's really cool but it took me a couple of years to "get it."
> 
> Mahler I still find hard to listen to. It's more harsh and it's moves are not as graceful.


Your experiment actually sounds like a very healthy experience and a good way to experience the music. Perhaps, if i find time, I'll try something similar. A handicap for me is that I ofter cannot do just one thing at a time: I mostly listen to music while working on assignments for college so I perhaps do not take the time to appreciate the music in full. I should go to the concert hall again some day


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2007)

Well my two bits worth, for what it's worth (about a quarter), is to stop trying to like things. Just listen and keep listening. Don't worry if Bruckner or Nielsen or whomever ever don't grab you right away. Don't be so quick to judge them as shallow or overbearing or whatever, either!! The people on your "don't like" list are just as good--many of them better--than any on your "like" list, after all.

Indeed, there may be a clue in your own posts. You mention emotional impact, for instance, saying one place that you're looking for music that will give you emotional satisfaction. Not that there's anything wrong with emotions or with satisfying them, but you may be limiting your own enjoyment by insisting that music fit in with _your_ plans! Forget about yourself for awhile and let the music speak.

Your reaction to the late-Romantics, for instance (Which in trying to be powerfull, overpower so much as to leave me unimpressed, despite their vigorous attempts to assault me with a sledgehammer), will only keep you from ever enjoying them. Literally, they're not trying to assault you--why, they were all dead long before you were even born!!

So what am I? Up to about 23 cents? OK, here's my last two cents worth, then: relax. Listen. Reserve judgement. You may find, indeed I believe you WILL find, that your emotions will end up getting a much more vigorous and much more satisfying workout if you just ignore them.

Enjoy!


----------



## silmarillion (Oct 24, 2007)

Mango said:


> Silmarillion's problem is that he finds Haydn and Mozart too lightweight and Bruckner too heavyweight, and wants advice on how to find something in the middle that will satisfy his intellectaul curiousity. It reminds me Goldilocks and the 3 Bears:
> 
> _The Story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears
> 
> ...


Point well taken, although I've yet to wake up and run away from my CD stack (that would be a sight). I find that I'm really looking for my own voice in music, without having the skill to write it myself. There are many times I wish I had at least some talent for original composition, but alas, that muse has not bestowed me any talents.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2007)

silmarillion said:


> Point well taken, although I've yet to wake up and run away from my CD stack (that would be a sight). I find that I'm really looking for my own voice in music, without having the skill to write it myself. There are many times I wish I had at least some talent for original composition, but alas, that muse has not bestowed me any talents.


I'm glad you took the bedtime story in the jocular spirit it was intended.

I know what you mean about Bruckner etc. It's daunting stuff compred with Mozart and Beethoven, and not easily likeable for many people on a first encounter. Bits of Bruckner sound grandiose and clever, but then you get deluged with lots of apparently boring stuff, leaving an overall negative impression.

Although others above have given some very good advice, my take would be to pick on the most accessible of their symphonies and get to know them inside out before trying others. For Bruckner that's got to be No 4. For Mahler, I'd take 1 and 4 first of all. Forget all the rest until you can honestly say you like these. Then move onto 7, 8, 9 for Bruckner and 5, 9, 2 for Mahler.

You didn't mention Schumann and Dvorak. Both are excellent composers. For Schumann, try No 3 (Rhenish) first of all. You can sense the flowing river Rhine. For Dvorak it's got to be No 9, the "New World" first of all. Ater that try 7 and 8.


----------



## silmarillion (Oct 24, 2007)

I must learn to write more comprehensive lists. I just couldn't be bothered to write down every single composer I'd listened to. My point being: Dvorak should be in the 'like' list. I found some older recordings of his 7th, 8th and 9th symphonies and I was pleasantly surprised. Actually, I was sort of shocked by the 9th. I previously only knew the beautiful Largo movement and was taken aback, but not deterred, by the firepower of the outer movements.
Schumann's Rhenish I must have heard once sometime. I think I was led to it because I liked James Horner's score to the movie Willows. As more often (Troy) is the case, his main themes were not entirely his own and reviewers of the soundtrack referred to Schumann's symphony, so I checked it out and was somewhat charmed if not overly impressed. I should try and see if I can recover it somewhere.


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

This is very simple for me to see why you are not able to appreciate the music of Mahler or Bruckner fully. You are simply not a good enough listener yet. It takes years of practice to be good at listening, and one day you will realize that "Listen" is not a simple act of letting noise flowing into your ears, there is much more to that. And, Composers like Bruckner is especially demanding on the listener, if you are not a good enough listener, i guess you really don't deserve to hear Bruckner's music.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

> Yes, *Furtwangler*. Furtwangler wasn't just a famous conductor, but I learned recently (that being two days ago) that he was also a composer and I have listened to bits and pieces of his Symphony #2. He wrote three in total, though his second is the most recorded (Barenboim/Chicago Symphony Orchestra seems to be the most recommended, although I haven't heard it yet). His style is akin to that of Bruckner, as are the length and construction of his works. Hard to get into however.


He composed a lengthy piano concerto also.


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

Furtwangler's music is not often performed today, the reason Barenboim even performed his 2nd symphony is due to his personal relationship with Furtwangler. There is a good reason why you are not into Furtwangler's music, don't feel ashamed or anything, I don't get him either.


----------



## silmarillion (Oct 24, 2007)

Gustav said:


> This is very simple for me to see why you are not able to appreciate the music of Mahler or Bruckner fully. You are simply not a good enough listener yet. It takes years of practice to be good at listening, and one day you will realize that "Listen" is not a simple act of letting noise flowing into your ears, there is much more to that. And, Composers like Bruckner is especially demanding on the listener, if you are not a good enough listener, i guess you really don't deserve to hear Bruckner's music.


Now, Gustav, I'm not entirely sure you mean your words as harshly as I read them, but I do not like the phrase "and one day you will realize that "Listen" is not a simple act of letting noise flowing into your ears, there is much more to that". It establishes a weird reasoning: if people dislike Bruckner, they do not listen to music well enough, and since I do not like Bruckner, I must be a bad listener. I might come across as an inexperienced lightweigt from my previous posts, but to claim I do not listen well? How can you know I actually don't listen to the music carefully, except by assuming what you try to prove?

Second, I'm not entirely sure you are completely wrong in your assessment, as I too believe I have much to learn about listening to the nuances. But..."i guess you really don't deserve to hear Bruckner's music"??

Anyway, I did not come back to this thread to rant and rave, and I do apologize if anyone found it unappropriate.

I've been listening to the symphonies of the composers I mentioned some more during the past days and have come to appreciate some of their music a bit more, although I'm still far away from wholeheartedly embracing them. Actually, the slow movements of Mahler's symphony no. 10, and no.5 were interesting. Bruckner's music is still a tough nut, although I like the adagio of the Seventh. Major surprise for me was how fast I warmed to Hans Rott's charming symphony, especially the finale. Furtwangler....his 2nd Symphony seems a bit too long for it's own good, but nearly all the movements have interesting material. The 2nd Symphony's 2nd movement and Finale are the best.


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

silmarillion said:


> Now, Gustav, I'm not entirely sure you mean your words as harshly as I read them, but I do not like the phrase "and one day you will realize that "Listen" is not a simple act of letting noise flowing into your ears, there is much more to that". It establishes a weird reasoning: if people dislike Bruckner, they do not listen to music well enough, and since I do not like Bruckner, I must be a bad listener. I might come across as an inexperienced lightweigt from my previous posts, but to claim I do not listen well? How can you know I actually don't listen to the music carefully, except by assuming what you try to prove?
> 
> Second, I'm not entirely sure you are completely wrong in your assessment, as I too believe I have much to learn about listening to the nuances. But..."i guess you really don't deserve to hear Bruckner's music"??
> 
> ...


I might've sound a little harsh, but i didn't mean to offend. I am deeply passionated about Bruckner's music, that's all. I've been through the exact same situation you are going right now. At one time of my life, i didn't understand Bruckner, and even "hated" his music. But, once i became more mature, i realized that there was nothing wrong in the music, but my own inability to listen to all the nuances in Bruckner's wonderful symphonies. My inability to keep focused for 80 minutes, and my inability to make musical connections both cost me dearly. It took me years to finally "understand" Bruckner. So, even if Bruckner is not making sense to you right now, don't give up. One day, you might wake up, and be moved to tears by the glorious conclusion of his 8th; or you can also choose to ignore his music altogether. Whichever way you choose i guess.


----------



## silmarillion (Oct 24, 2007)

Gustav said:


> I might've sound a little harsh, but i didn't mean to offend. I am deeply passionated about Bruckner's music, that's all. I've been through the exact same situation you are going right now. At one time of my life, i didn't understand Bruckner, and even "hated" his music. But, once i became more mature, i realized that there was nothing wrong in the music, but my own inability to listen to all the nuances in Bruckner's wonderful symphonies. My inability to keep focused for 80 minutes, and my inability to make musical connections both cost me dearly. It took me years to finally "understand" Bruckner. So, even if Bruckner is not making sense to you right now, don't give up. One day, you might wake up, and be moved to tears by the glorious conclusion of his 8th; or you can also choose to ignore his music altogether. Whichever way you choose i guess.


I might have overacted my response a bit too. I can completely understand what you are saying and it wasn't that I disagreed with what you were saying, rather the rather crude logic as I saw it. But perhaps I will share the same passion for Bruckner at some point. Which reminds me(perhaps slightly OT): are there any sites that have scores of Bruckner of Mahler symphonies that are public domain. It's not that I'm boycotting the publishing industry, but full scores can be very costly.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Some thought-provoking observations by *Gustav*, who is currently our number 1 ranking Bruckner fan-boy. I think I bid fair for second place on that list, though- so I'll add to the following:


Gustav said:


> At one time of my life, I didn't understand Bruckner


 Me neither.


Gustav said:


> It took me years to finally "understand" Bruckner.


It took me a couple of decades. I sampled 7 as a teenager, thought WT , and continued with my more "mainstream" listening. In my 30s I heard 5 (on a Furtwängler mono-disc, no less) and have not looked back since. Point being that one oughn't "dose" Bruckner like so much medicine- but those who don't "get it" now shouldn't conclude that they'll never "get it."

When sampling wine for the first time, most conclude that Moscato is _much_ tastier than Chardonnay. Nothing wrong with a nice Moscato... but after appreciating its impact, many couldn't imagine their cabinets without several versions of Chardonnay.

I'm curious, *Sil*, to discover how you feel about the concluding trio of Tchaikovsky symphonies. That was more of a case of "love at first listen," in my experience.


----------



## O00Joe (Nov 22, 2007)

Just out of curiousity, what do people have against Mahler's 8th symphony? To me it's the closest music has come to divinity. (Listen to the ending starting at the piccolo solo.)

Anyway, I have the same problem with Bruckner. I bought his 4th symphony and found it hard to get into. However, I'm sure it has to grow on me. For example, the first time I listened to Mahler's 5th, I thought it was dreadful and going nowhere. Now I can't listen to it without getting chills.


----------



## silmarillion (Oct 24, 2007)

Chi_town/Philly said:


> Some thought-provoking observations by *Gustav*, who is currently our number 1 ranking Bruckner fan-boy. I think I bid fair for second place on that list, though- so I'll add to the following: Me neither.It took me a couple of decades. I sampled 7 as a teenager, thought WT , and continued with my more "mainstream" listening. In my 30s I heard 5 (on a Furtwängler mono-disc, no less) and have not looked back since. Point being that one oughn't "dose" Bruckner like so much medicine- but those who don't "get it" now shouldn't conclude that they'll never "get it."
> 
> When sampling wine for the first time, most conclude that Moscato is _much_ tastier than Chardonnay. Nothing wrong with a nice Moscato... but after appreciating its impact, many couldn't imagine their cabinets without several versions of Chardonnay.
> 
> I'm curious, *Sil*, to discover how you feel about the concluding trio of Tchaikovsky symphonies. That was more of a case of "love at first listen," in my experience.


I haven't listened to all three yet, though I've listened to the sixth symphony at least once, maybe twice (or parts anyway). Some time ago though. I can only recall that while the final movement was touching in a way, it seemed to last much longer than it's actual development of material could sustain. Or, in less words, I found it to strike a nerve, but become repetitive.

Perhaps a new listen will yield a new perspective.


----------



## Dividend (Mar 14, 2008)

My advice is based on the observation that, listening to a piece, if there are some order to the sounds you're listening to, eventually (!) you will like it.

´Someone that has never heard classical music (like a mongolian shepherd that moved to beijing i knew) will if you repeat, for example, beethovens 5th, to them, begin to like it. He had a job as a caretaker around where i lived in beijing, and liked to whistle on mongolian folktunes.

After a while, this guy began mixing the mongolian folktunes with the most famous themes in beethovens symphonies (especially 5 and 9), because he often visited me. He spoke only chinese with mongolian accent and no english. 

It doesnt matter if it is jazz, wagner, pop or even beethoven: If there exist some kind of order to it, our brains will begin to like it after a few listens. 

This is my own theory of course, but i doubt i am alone arriving at the same conclusion.
Art is a mixture of chaos and order. Some like a proportion chaosrder that is high (much unexpected things happening, "chaos"), others low (much order). In any case beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you dont like something, even as background music, don't listen to it. Why waste your time and well-being?  
Having new kinds of music as background music instead of focusing on it 100% is btw good for getting our brains used to the new ideas and how the music is modelled by the composer.

All of this is, of course, my own pseudophilosophical ideas on art and music. Take it or leave it


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Interesting story about your Mongolian friend.



Dividend said:


> My advice is based on the observation that, listening to a piece, if there are some order to the sounds you're listening to, eventually (!) you will like it.
> 
> It doesnt matter if it is jazz, wagner, pop or even beethoven: If there exist some kind of order to it, our brains will begin to like it after a few listens.
> 
> ...


It is my observation (with me as the lab rat ) that one's definition of order is bound to change as one explores more music. It's been two years since I started listening to western classical, and only now have I started truly enjoying music from the mid/late-Romantic era. (Brahms and Rachmaninoff to name two composers.) What started from purely Baroque, Mozart and some Beethoven, moved to Tchaikovsky, almost any violin concerto from any period, to Mendelssohn and Schubert. What didn't sound all that good a year ago (or so I thought) are some of the most beautiful tunes I know of today.

I've also noticed that I can't really _force_ myself to hear music by some composer I'm not familiar/comfortable with. I have tried this with Bruckner, Shosty and Messiaen. On a related note, I recently did manage to sit through Bruckner's 9th symphony, albeit in a different room reading something. I wouldn't say I was enjoying it in the same way as I do, say, Beethoven's 9th, but I was "following" it, if you know what I mean. That usually doesn't happen with me. I usually find a movement or a part of a larger work easy/nice to listen to, and from there, the whole work, and then to other works of the composer.


----------



## Cyclops (Mar 24, 2008)

I dont understand this constant need to 'get' music. If you dont like it, if its not your thing then forget about it and stick to the music you do like. Dont torture yourself by keep trying to listen to something that doesnt suit you, just enjoy what you enjoy!


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

opus67 said:


> It is my observation (with me as the lab rat ) that one's definition of order is bound to change as one explores more music. It's been two years since I started listening to western classical, and only now have I started truly enjoying music from the mid/late-Romantic era. (Brahms and Rachmaninoff to name two composers.) What started from purely Baroque, Mozart and some Beethoven, moved to Tchaikovsky, almost any violin concerto from any period, to Mendelssohn and Schubert. What didn't sound all that good a year ago (or so I thought) are some of the most beautiful tunes I know of today.


That's certainly true. Brahms usually appears in due course!

Wait until you've been listening for 20 years. You'll discover all sorts of new composers, change your mind about who like best at least a dozen times, develop a boredom with all for all the "old hat", then re-discover it 10 years later, find that you prefer Composer X's piano sonatas to his symphonies which you originally thought were the best of his works, have debates and arguments with people about the best recordings, go back in musical time and re-evaluate the whole lot asking yourself how on earth you missed composer Y first time round, suddenly begin appreciating a completely new genre you once openly professed a dislike of, go off music you once thought fantastic. It's never ending.

Some of us have been there.


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Artemis, that reminds me of this part from the '_Seven Phases..._'



> The second danger is the tendency...to make exaggerated claims for music that really isn't all that special or interesting just because its novelty excites your fancy. People will look at you strangely as you vigorously try to defend the assertion that Havergal Brian was England's greatest composer, Sorabji a genius, or that Beethoven was a musical pygmy compared to Ferdinand Ries. This phase can go on for years, with literally thousands of discs passing through a typical collector's hands in an endless crusade for that Holy Grail of classical music: the neglected masterpiece. If you seriously believe that the "three Bs" means Bax, Boughton, and Bach (W.F. of course!), then you've gone too far...


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

Cyclops said:


> I dont understand this constant need to 'get' music. If you dont like it, if its not your thing then forget about it and stick to the music you do like. Dont torture yourself by keep trying to listen to something that doesnt suit you, just enjoy what you enjoy!


There are reasons why one should "Get" the music, 1) to draw deeper pleasures from it 2) to learn from it. It just happens whenever you are trying something new and alien for the first itme, you brain rejects it, because it never has seen such a thing, but if you let your brain to get exposed to this new material, your brain will grow become accustomed with it. 
So, of course you should never "Torture" yourself by listening things you don't like (i don't listen to atonal music), but it doesn't hurt by being more "open", if you are not "bothered" by the music of say, Bruckner, it doesn't hurt by just sit there and listen to it for a little longer, maybe you'll "get" it, or maybe not.


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

opus67 said:


> Interesting story about your Mongolian friend.
> 
> I've also noticed that I can't really _force_ myself to hear music by some composer I'm not familiar/comfortable with. I have tried this with Bruckner, Shosty and Messiaen.


i can't either, and i don't force myself to hear through anyone's music that i dislike. But, just like the legal procedures, the accused should have his/her say too, so even music that you have some bias against, you should at least listen through it, thoroughly, at least once. Otherwise, who can take you seriously when they find out that you haven ACTUALLY listened through the entire piece?



opus67 said:


> On a related note, I recently did manage to sit through Bruckner's 9th symphony,






opus67 said:


> albeit in a different room reading something.






opus67 said:


> I wouldn't say I was enjoying it in the same way as I do, say, Beethoven's 9th, but I was "following" it, if you know what I mean. That usually doesn't happen with me. I usually find a movement or a part of a larger work easy/nice to listen to, and from there, the whole work, and then to other works of the composer.


well, you must always "follow" it, i even get out the full orchestral score, because i know that my limitations of listening won't let me fully appreciate the music. I don't know how much music you know, but that helps too. IF you have some knowledge about music theory, practice, history, etc... it helps to "decode" some of the more complex pieces.


----------



## Cyclops (Mar 24, 2008)

Gustav said:


> There are reasons why one should "Get" the music, 1) to draw deeper pleasures from it 2) to learn from it. It just happens whenever you are trying something new and alien for the first itme, you brain rejects it, because it never has seen such a thing, but if you let your brain to get exposed to this new material, your brain will grow become accustomed with it.
> So, of course you should never "Torture" yourself by listening things you don't like (i don't listen to atonal music), but it doesn't hurt by being more "open", if you are not "bothered" by the music of say, Bruckner, it doesn't hurt by just sit there and listen to it for a little longer, maybe you'll "get" it, or maybe not.


Well, I have 2 Bruckner Symphonies, 4 and 7, both excellent in my opinion, just nice and slow and leisurely.
You have to be in the mood for it though, but thats why music is so diveres. There's a piece for every mood! I like to try new music, and would like to try some Stockhausen and Cage, might not like it but I'd like to give it a try(I'm very interested in electronic experimental music)
I have listened to Pierre Boulez in the past but hated it-can't ever see that view changing. some music just seems so well 'unmusical' for want of a better word. 
I also like some of the music in 2001 A Space Odyssey,(my favourite film of all time, RIP Sir Arthur) specifically Ligeti. Anything out of the ordinary gets my attention but we just never find such works in our library but how else to sdample new stuff? I suppose theres always good old you tube!


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Gustav said:


> But, just like the legal procedures, the accused should have his/her say too, so even music that you have some bias against, you should at least listen through it, thoroughly, at least once. Otherwise, who can take you seriously when they find out that you haven ACTUALLY listened through the entire piece?


True. But as I said, in some cases, it's a movement that makes me listen to the whole work. (Brahms 1st piano concerto, a case in point. )



>


It was on an internet station, and I was doing stuff on the computer for the a movement or two. After that, I cranked up the volume and moved to the next room. 



> well, you must always "follow" it, i even get out the full orchestral score, because i know that my limitations of listening won't let me fully appreciate the music. I don't know how much music you know, but that helps too. IF you have some knowledge about music theory, practice, history, etc... it helps to "decode" some of the more complex pieces.


Nope. I don't understand the technical side of music at all, and that is what I usually mean when I say I don't "get" music. It's just not a wholesome experience, to me at least, to be able to only hum along with a tune. At the least, I want to understand the articles on the compositions at places like allmusic.com and Wikipedia. (and the CD reviews also. ) I'm planning to get this (or a similar book) when I have the time to read. Please feel free to make suggestions or recommend others.

Regarding "following" a piece of music, there was the time I played a CD with Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony (and I wasn't too familiar with its "inside-out" structure). It was the last work on the disc...I was writing something and the music was playing. Right after the last adagio movement was over, and I noticed the unusually long duration of silence, I wondered "Hey! Where's the next movement?!"


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

opus67 said:


> Nope. I don't understand the technical side of music at all, and that is what I usually mean when I say I don't "get" music. It's just not a wholesome experience, to me at least, to be able to only hum along with a tune. At the least, I want to understand the articles on the compositions at places like allmusic.com and Wikipedia. (and the CD reviews also. ) I'm planning to get this (or a similar book) when I have the time to read. Please feel free to make suggestions or recommend others.


For non-musicians, all you need to know is the fundamentals. Keys, chords, scales, etc.... basically, to have an idea how the music was written. Not all music are "spontaneous", most are laboriously worked out. There is a website, musictheory.net, which is a nice intro-level music theory website, if you spend the time and go through the lessens and practices from that website, then you don't need to spend a dime on that "idiot's guide", which is really idiotic, since you can probably get better help for less money.



opus67 said:


> Regarding "following" a piece of music, there was the time I played a CD with Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony (and I wasn't too familiar with its "inside-out" structure). It was the last work on the disc...I was writing something and the music was playing. Right after the last adagio movement was over, and I noticed the unusually long duration of silence, I wondered "Hey! Where's the next movement?!"


DO NOT "multi-task"! Always listen to music ONLY. Don't do anything else, especially complex symphonic music, otherwise you are just wasting your time, all the rich symphonic details simply pass you by, and none registers in your mind. Do what i do, pick a time slot of the day, and spent 1 hour or 2, just listen to music, don't read, don't write stuff, don't watch TV, don't do anything.... Just listen to music, and try to follow (with your ear) the main melody (it's not always possible, since not all symphonic music have that at all times), but pay attention to the parts that are "changing" or "dynamic"; pay less attention to the harmony part, most of the times they are "static", and quite boring to listen to.


----------



## Cyclops (Mar 24, 2008)

Gustav said:


> DO NOT "multi-task"! Always listen to music ONLY. Don't do anything else, especially complex symphonic music, otherwise you are just wasting your time, all the rich symphonic details simply pass you by, and none registers in your mind. Do what i do, pick a time slot of the day, and spent 1 hour or 2, just listen to music, don't read, don't write stuff, don't watch TV, don't do anything.... Just listen to music, and try to follow (with your ear) the main melody (it's not always possible, since not all symphonic music have that at all times), but pay attention to the parts that are "changing" or "dynamic"; pay less attention to the harmony part, most of the times they are "static", and quite boring to listen to.


Oh I agree there! Music of this kind demands attention and time, something I dont get that much of as yet. I'm listening to mozart at the moment but its pretty much background music while I transfer CDs to my mp3 player. Plus my 2 year old son is on the prowl.....
But if you do as you say, pick an hour a day, a certain slot then I feel that listening to the music becomes regimented, a chore, you lose the spontaneity of it.


----------



## BuddhaBandit (Dec 31, 2007)

opus67 said:


> Nope. I don't understand the technical side of music at all, and that is what I usually mean when I say I don't "get" music. It's just not a wholesome experience, to me at least, to be able to only hum along with a tune. At the least, I want to understand the articles on the compositions at places like allmusic.com and Wikipedia. (and the CD reviews also. ) I'm planning to get this (or a similar book) when I have the time to read. Please feel free to make suggestions or recommend others.


Don't spend the money on either the Idiot's or Dummies music theory guides. They're pretty crappy, to be frank. You might, however, want to seriously consider buying Aaron Copland's What to Listen for In Music. It's a great, well-written book that has helped many of my friends to "get" music.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

The more you listen the more you like. Took me years to enjoy Wagner Strauss and Mahler. Their works are so heavy, but I daresay that i now love them as much or more than most other composers.


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Gustav said:


> For non-musicians, all you need to know is the fundamentals. Keys, chords, scales, etc.... basically, to have an idea how the music was written. Not all music are "spontaneous", most are laboriously worked out. There is a website, musictheory.net, which is a nice intro-level music theory website, if you spend the time and go through the lessens and practices from that website, then you don't need to spend a dime on that "idiot's guide", which is really idiotic, since you can probably get better help for less money.





BuddhaBandit said:


> Don't spend the money on either the Idiot's or Dummies music theory guides. They're pretty crappy, to be frank. You might, however, want to seriously consider buying Aaron Copland's What to Listen for In Music. It's a great, well-written book that has helped many of my friends to "get" music.


Thanks for the tips and rec's, guys. I have tried musictheory.net before, but since I prefer reading a real book, I tend to stop with a few lessons. If it's available as a pdf, I could at least print it out, but it's done in Flash, and I've to keep going back and forth to get to the next lesson, or go back to an earlier one. 



Gustav said:


> DO NOT "multi-task"!


I learnt that lesson a long time ago.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

Why not multi task? Are you saying that in every piece you have to engage the music intellectually?Can't you just enjoy it simply as well? If I half listen to music, listen intently but just let the emotions warm over me,or listen analytically, I get different results, and none are bad.


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Sometimes it just isn't possible to multi-task. The music draws you away from whatever you are doing. Having said that, whenever I hear a piece for the first time, I tend to do something else. I might catch a nice melody here, or a passage with a solo instrument there. The next time I listen, I'll look for the melody and learn a little more of the work. And the process continues till I familiarise myself with the work.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Interactions such as those which came to pass on this thread have shown that the whole "multi-tasking" issue can become a "hot-button" topic. To repeat myself, I think that the point that great music is appreciated _best_ by undivided focus might be the closest thing to a unanimously accepted statement that we are likely to make on this board.

However, to say that Classical Music should be approached _exclusively_ in that manner takes the assertion too far, I think. For example, my car (like virtually all other cars) has a radio... and two of my radio "pre-sets" are to stations that broadcast significant amounts of Classical Music. I'm not going to stop listening to their broadcasts because I'm auditioning their repertoire in sub-optimal circumstances.

I also feel confident in saying that there probably are a few more people on this board who have Classical stations on their car-radio "pre-sets."


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

On the subject of gaining a deeper understanding and appreciation of classical music, an excellent radio programme I try not to miss is "Disovering Music", which is broadcast on the BBC's Radio 3 on Sundays at 5 pm. A knowledgeable presenter takes a well-known piece of music and dissects it, and at the end play the whole work is played. It really is an excellent way to learn all about the way classical music is put together.This week it's Schubert Piano Quintet (Trout). The programme is streamed, and it's possible to get a recording of it up to week later.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/discoveringmusic/pip/oqlhp/


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

Artemis said:


> On the subject of gaining a deeper understanding and appreciation of classical music, an excellent radio programme I try not to miss is "Disovering Music", which is broadcast on the BBC's Radio 3 on Sundays at 5 pm. A knowledgeable presenter takes a well-known piece of music and dissects it, and at the end play the whole work is played. It really is an excellent way to learn all about the way classical music is put together.This week it's Schubert Piano Quintet (Trout). The programme is streamed, and it's possible to get a recording of it up to week later.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/discoveringmusic/pip/oqlhp/


yep, that's a great website, i discovered it a couple years ago, and it taught me a good deal. I especially like Stephen Johnson's commentaries.


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

Yagan Kiely said:


> Why not multi task? Are you saying that in every piece you have to engage the music intellectually?Can't you just enjoy it simply as well? If I half listen to music, listen intently but just let the emotions warm over me,or listen analytically, I get different results, and none are bad.


this depends on how "serious" you are, obviously if you don't care about really getting to "know" a piece of rather complicated music. You don't have to read biographies on the composer, buy multiple recordings, or listen to it and following it with the score.... But, if you are like me, I am very serious about the music i love, so I devote all my attention to a piece of music, and this is includes listening to it for many times with undivided attention, and doing studies on the composer, and the history of the work. Of course, it the music is complex to a point where my ears can't separate the dense orchestral passages, i'll go to the libraries and borrow scores, and follow it while listening to the music.

of course, you don't have to do what i do, but surely, you can't learn anything without devoting time and attention to it, right?


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

Chi_town/Philly said:


> However, to say that Classical Music should be approached _exclusively_ in that manner takes the assertion too far,


what i say all have to do with "learning", and "self-improvement", of course you don't have to exclusively listening to music that way, but you run the risk of not gaining anything substantial from listening, it's rather outrageous for me to think that there is someone out there who uses a symphony as mere "Background" music.



Chi_town/Philly said:


> I think. For example, my car (like virtually all other cars) has a radio... and two of my radio "pre-sets" are to stations that broadcast significant amounts of Classical Music. I'm not going to stop listening to their broadcasts because I'm auditioning their repertoire in sub-optimal circumstances.


I don't listen to radio, for obvious reasons, they don't always cater to my tastes, and i can't stand the lack of sound quality. That said, people drive with the music on all the time, they even text-messaging, and eat too! That's a special case, but if i were you situation, i wouldn't do any "serious" listening, i would just listen for relaxation purposes, and if there is something that caught my interest, i would probably go home and replay that piece of music, and dissect it in detail.



Chi_town/Philly said:


> I also feel confident in saying that there probably are a few more people on this board who have Classical stations on their car-radio "pre-sets."


Radio is good for getting exposed to new music, but i am talking about music that you are already familiar with.


----------



## Cyclops (Mar 24, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> Why not multi task? Are you saying that in every piece you have to engage the music intellectually?Can't you just enjoy it simply as well? If I half listen to music, listen intently but just let the emotions warm over me,or listen analytically, I get different results, and none are bad.


I find it hard to do. I used to read a book while listening to classical but I found myself torn between the two and I either close the book and just enjoy the music or continue reading and the music just plays in the background. I find that pretty pointless though! Might as well just read in silence(I find it difficult to concentrate on more than one thing anyway, a typical guy thing I think!)
I don't drive a car but if I did I couldnt play classical, not even on the radio as my brother does. I'd get too into the music and end up in a tree!


----------

