# Music you think you should like but don't



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Are there works or composers that you don't like much but feel a bit guilty about because you think maybe you should? Obvious questions are why don't you like them, and why do you think you should.

I'll start with Messiaen. He mostly gives me a headache. But lots of people seem to like his music, so what's wrong with me???


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I was going to say Messaien also. He's on my hopefully someday like list. I've been through his major works and read a huge book on his works. But my problem is, there are all those color chords, and I know I'll never hear what he was hearing/seeing, so I feel intimidated. 

Also, I just realized I've neglected Benjamin Britten. I never pushed far enough into his music to find out why; he just doesn't click from the get-go.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Hey Ken!

Just wondering... have you heard this?






It's a very warm, welcoming, soothing, heartful experience. Let us know what you think.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

KenOC said:


> so what's wrong with me???


I like Messiaen, you don't ... there's nothing _wrong_ with you and nothing _right_ with me. We just have different musical likes
I don't like Debussy, Ravel (and plenty others) and I don't feel a tiny bit guilty .... though I *DO* wish that I *got* Maxwell-Davies and Webern


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> Also, I just realized I've neglected Benjamin Britten. I never pushed far enough into his music to find out why; he just doesn't click from the get-go.


Maybe jump in at the deep end?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Hey Ken!Just wondering... have you heard this?


Thanks! I'll give it a listen today!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Hey Ken!
> 
> Just wondering... have you heard this? [Eclairs]
> It's a very warm, welcoming, soothing, heartful experience. Let us know what you think.


...and terribly slow and monotonous and (horizontally) simple monody, except for the bird bits.

Messiaen's most popular in his time was this:






which is still him but more conventional and with less overuse of added notes.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I would put Martinu and Rautavaara on my list. Martinu's harmonic language is alright, I guess I feel like his musical ideas are always half-developed. Like a schizophrenic stream-of-consciousness diary.

I've heard a few things I like by Rautavaara, but many of his most popular works - like his symphonies, make me scratch my head. 

(WRT Messiaen, I felt similarly until I heard a live piano recital with some of his works and I was floored!)


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Now I think about it, I could probably do an A-Z of composers I don't much care for (with the exception perhaps of 'Q' as I'm fairly certain I don't have a great deal of familiarity with composers beginning with that letter!)

No - tht isn't an invitation for a list copied from wikipedia, thank you :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I dislike a lot of music that many folks here like. But I don't feel there is anything wrong with me because of it.

Many folks here seem to love the Mozart Requiem, Schubert C Major Quintet and Dvorak Symphonies. Not me. I don't lay awake at night worrying about why I don't. I couldn't care less.

I am not that insecure.

Listen to whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Haydnn (Feb 22, 2015)

When asked, many people profess to like “all music”. I usually suspect that’s because they are “tone deaf”. In fact if measured by the pieces that I do like, I must admit I do not like music at all. I have over $5,000 worth of albums in all formats and I listen to the music I do like for about 2 hours per day. What I do listen to is very small in number when compared to the music available. I am convinced that “music” should be re-defined, with all the Weberns, Bergs, etc… in a separate category altogether than Haydn and Dvorak. I do not believe that music and what is considered music is subjective. “Anybody” can tell you if what you are listening to is music. Just ask “Anybody”. They, without snobbishness, can tell the difference between noon hour traffic and music. They may not like Mozart but they will always admit that is it music. When you get to some of the bizarre stuff “Anbody” will tell you it is not music. Too many composers have tried to be their Beethoven of their generation.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

There is no music I think I should like but don't.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Haydnn said:


> When asked, many people profess to like "all music".


Really? I can't say I've met many people like that. 
In practice, I find most people can readily identify a number of genres of music that they don't like

as for your statement: "I do not believe that music and what is considered music is subjective. "Anybody" can tell you if what you are listening to is music" you clearly haven't got very far into a couple of recent threads on this site


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

I'm fairly lukewarm on most music, even that which is considered great or even sometimes the pinnacle of western artistic achievement.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Haydnn said:


> I do not believe that music and what is considered music is subjective. "Anybody" can tell you if what you are listening to is music. Just ask "Anybody". They, without snobbishness, can tell the difference between noon hour traffic and music. They may not like Mozart but they will always admit that is it music. When you get to some of the bizarre stuff "Anbody" will tell you it is not music. Too many composers have tried to be their Beethoven of their generation.


I don't really follow this. What is considered music is objectively defined, you say, but then are you saying that the music you dislike isn't even music?


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Retracted. I don't feel like arguing. :angel:


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Berlioz.

I know I'll offend a lot of people, but I simply hear nothing fantastic about the _Symphonie fantastique. _ Yes, it has chords and stuff. It does this for a while, then does a little of that, then something else. It quotes the _Dies Irae_ a bit. Oh, and I get that it has a program. But --- yawn.

I do enjoy the Berlioz great big Requiem though and some of his other works.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

For a composer whose works are pretty much generally accepted, Benjamin Britten is not a biggie with me. I have one album, his Suites for solo Cello, which I think are marvellous, as they pay homage to Bach, but all of those operas and song cycles leave me cold. The War Requiem is supposed to be widely loved, but find myself skipping through it every time I try to give it another go. Perhaps it's that requiems are rather low on the list of genres I love.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

Weston said:


> ... it has chords and stuff. It does this for a while, then does a little of that, then something else. It quotes the _Dies Irae_ a bit. Oh, and I get that it has a program. But --- yawn. ...


:lol:

I am currently in the kind of mood you are describing. So, thanks for making me laugh!


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I only like a few pieces by Messiaen, and the one I like the most, "O sacrum convivium" is one of the most beautiful, least-headache inducing pieces I've ever heard. But it also sounds like it could've been written in a much earlier time, which is probably why it appeals to me. A lot of the very avant garde composers that people continuously praise on this site I can't seem to get into or like at all, even though I feel like I should be liking them. I've listened to their music before for sure, sampled a lot of it. But nothing really appeals to me. I'm willing to accept that something is "wrong" with me, but I'm not going to worry about it. If I do end up liking them some day, I'll welcome it with open arms. I don't ever _refuse_ to like something. But I do sometimes find there are things I just can't seem to like.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Tristan said:


> I only like a few pieces by Messiaen, and the one I like the most, "O sacrum convivium" is one of the most beautiful, least-headache inducing pieces I've ever heard. But it also sounds like it could've been written in a much earlier time, which is probably why it appeals to me. A lot of the very avant garde composers that people continuously praise on this site I can't seem to get into or like at all, even though I feel like I should be liking them. I've listened to their music before for sure, sampled a lot of it. But nothing really appeals to me. I'm willing to accept that something is "wrong" with me, but I'm not going to worry about it. If I do end up liking them some day, I'll welcome it with open arms. I don't ever _refuse_ to like something. But I do sometimes find there are things I just can't seem to like.


I sang this piece in choir at my college. It's a great piece.


----------



## Haydnn (Feb 22, 2015)

GreenMamba said:


> I don't really follow this. What is considered music is objectively defined, you say, but then are you saying that the music you dislike isn't even music?


No; the music that I do not like is both defined by everyone as both the opposite of what Anybody would consider music and not music.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

From all the press it seems to get around here: Cage 4'33". But I don't and surely won't lose any sleep over it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 29, 2015)

I do *like* their music, but perhaps not enough? - Probably the big ones for me are the sons of Bach. A lot of it seems effective enough, but sometimes leaves me wanting to listen to the composers that book ended them... (J.S. Bach... Rameau... Haydn... Mozart... etc...). I guess I've found C.P.E.'s cello concerti fairly delightful, but I feel like I should appreciate his sinfonias or keyboard sonatas more, for instance.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

There have been many threads that have addressed this is issue. I have nothing new to add.

Classical music is such a diverse genre it impossible to like everything. My sentiments are exactly like 'hpowders'. A person's standing as a talented listener has nothing to do with what they like and dislike. No matter how great a composer is there will be listeners who hate him. So what. We still have to respect the ascetics of others even when they conflict with our own.

I do not think that _433_ is music. The difference between me and many others is I do not care if some listeners think it is music. I still acknowledge and respect their tastes in this situation. They do not have to provide me with an explanation concern their tastes.

Here is the irony of my love/hate relationship with Verdi. I have stated this before in other threads. Even though I hate Verdi one my desert island discs would be his _Requiem_. Why? I do not have the foggiest idea. I have performed some of Verdi operas and they are boring. I have performed the Verdi _Requiem_ twice and one of the times I played the first part including that great bassoon solo in the "Quid Sum Miser". See the 20 minute mark in the following video:






Verdi composed some great bassoon solos. Why does this music touch me and the rest of Verdi leaves me cold? I do not know. When I played it I had to fight back the tears. I barely got through it.

This is why I feel out of place here. Most everybody here can produce detailed explanations on why they like this and hate that. I do not know how to do that.

It is still possible to like the Verdi _Requiem_ and Elliot Carter. Each solicits different emotions in me.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I don't have this particular problem very much - I like pretty much everything I'm supposed to like, although I might not like Bruckner, Mahler, and Strauss _as much_ as I'm supposed to.

My problem is liking things I'm not supposed to.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

science said:


> I don't have this particular problem very much - I like pretty much everything I'm supposed to like, although I might not like Bruckner, Mahler, and Strauss _as much_ as I'm supposed to.
> 
> My problem is liking things I'm not supposed to.


That is not a problem. Unfortunately their are a few parties around here that make what one likes or dislikes a problem. If you like something the some of the highbrows disapprove of, scr*w em.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

arpeggio said:


> That is not a problem. Unfortunately their are a few parties around here that make what one likes or dislikes a problem. If you like something the some of the highbrows disapprove of, scr*w em.


I doubt you really feel that way; but if you do, you're a braver and maybe a better man than I.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Arnold Bax - symphonies ... but still trying
Peter Maxwell Davies - most of his less radical works, e.g. the Strathclyde concerti

...and then there are the pieces that others think that I should like, but...


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Becca said:


> Arnold Bax - symphonies ... but still trying
> Peter Maxwell Davies - most of his less radical works, e.g. the Strathclyde concerti
> 
> ...and then there are the pieces that others think that I should like, but...


'Some Guy' hates Bax and I love Bax. We have fun teasing each other about it. Bax's music is tonal but still sounds different than most tonal music. I can understand why many do not get Bax.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

arpeggio said:


> 'Some Guy' hate Bax and I love Bax. We have fun teasing each other about it. Bax's music is tonal but still sounds different than most tonal music. I can understand why many do not get Bax.


There are quite a few of Bax' works that I like, mostly the tone poems, Spring Fire, etc, but despite having recordings of all of the symphonies, I just have not been able to connect to them.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

For me it's called Opera
I like the music I love the sound of the human voice but put them together in an Opera and I fail to be captivated
I am aware it's just me and I shall continue dipping in and trying

Now ducking and running for cover


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Can't thing of a classical composer that I ought to like more! I can quite enjoy Opera live, but rarely recordings, I almost always feel that opera without the visual-tactile element is pointless and contrived! 
There are also some forms of post the 1960 Jazz that I "should" like on a purely intellectual basis (not least because of it's kinship with contemporary classical), but I often find it trying! 

/ptr


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I don't think there's any point in saying I don't like, say, Bellini. This is hardly a surprise - the whole type and style Bellini operates in holds no interest for me at all. More interesting perhaps is the fact that I don't especially like Mahler - I love lots of other late romantics so why not this guy? Same deal with K.A. Hartmann - the description sounds nice but the reality is not. I guess another is the Brahms piano concertos - I love Brahms alot, but these seem to be the embodiment to me of the things people that don't like Brahms say about his music


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

Theres probably many but the main one(s) that comes to mind are Schubert's Piano music and Symphonies.
I do somewhat like his great Symphony and D 960 Piano Sonata but I haven't found anything else that interests me yet!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

There is no music I think I or anyone else "should" like.
No music I feel guilty about not liking.
No music I feel guilty about liking.

Some posters above have mentioned disliking music that I happen to like, and others have dislikes that I share. The idea that one or other of us is "right" or "wrong" is an ugly one.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Schubert's String Quintet. Everyone says it's the best quintet ever written. I don't see it (yet) but I enjoy it fine.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

I love Schubert's 5th Symphony but don't connect to most Mozart symphonies.
I love Schumann's symphonies but don't get most of his piano music.
I love Debussy and Messiaen but don't really like Takemitsu.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Rameau Solo Harpsichord music. I've tried and tried but I find it boring. Just not on J.S. Bach's incredibly high level.


----------



## Hmmbug (Jun 16, 2014)

Bartok. I've tried again and again to try to appreciate what he has written, but it's not working. Given that I often listen to music far more "out there" than what he produced, it's kind of flummoxing.

I also do hear that Bartok is the composer that all young composers should listen to anyhow.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Barber's Piano Concerto. Second rate Prokofiev, IMHO. Dullsville!


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I'm no fan of Lizst, Bruckner and Wagner. I've heard some of their music, I don't own any CDs by these three composers. 

Wagner without words is fine, and I'll listen, but only in small doses. Bruckner's music I find too dense, like trying to swim in oatmeal. I once played in the orchestra for a performance of a Lizst piano concerto and I thought the music had too many notes, music is more than showing us how many piano keys you can hit in 30 minutes.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Are there works or composers that you don't like much but feel a bit guilty about because you think maybe you should? Obvious questions are why don't you like them, and why do you think you should.
> 
> I'll start with Messiaen. He mostly gives me a headache. But lots of people seem to like his music, so what's wrong with me???


Likewise about Messiaen. At least here at TC, he is well regarded but in a broader context amongst people I know in the real world, he is much less regarded anyway. I find his music a touch too long winded.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> Likewise about Messiaen. At least here at TC, he is well regarded but in a broader context amongst people I know in the *real world*, he is much less regarded anyway. I find his music a touch too long winded.


ArtMusic...

I don't think the discussions at TalkClassical are antiethical to the state of mind of the "real world". On the other hand, I think we are more socially intelligent and politically aware. I don't think we have our heads buried in the sand. In other words: we at TalkClassical are not ivory tower academics who aren't the "real world"!!!

And do you really find Sept Haikai






to be long winded? It's only 20 minutes. It's beautiful, kaleidescopic, and shimmering. Let me know if you enjoy it!


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

^^ I love my Ivory Tower and I aim to never let the "Real World" over my door step! (Find Messiaen's music very swift and acute for that! :clap


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ives 4th Symphony. 
Brahms 2nd and 3rd Symphonies. 
Schumann's 3rd and 4th Symphonies. 
Bruckner's 9th Symphony.
Richard Strauss tone poems and Salome.
Johann Strauss the Younger Waltzes.
Beethoven's Middle Period String Quartets.
Brahms String Quartets
Schumann's Piano Quintet.
Mendelssohn's Symphonies.
Rossini's operas. Simply leave me the overtures.
Verdi's Otello and Falstaff.
Wagner's Das Rheingold and Flying Dutchman.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

I don´t like Albert Lortzing despite that I like lots of other German operas from the same era. I must say I find him very boring. Zar und Zimmermann is just bla bla bla for me I can´t understan how it can be one of the most popular operas in Germany for a very long time it have even been the most popular German opera in Germany.

I don´t like Leoncavallo despite that I like many other Italian operas from the same era.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> Likewise about Messiaen. At least here at TC, he is well regarded but in a broader context amongst people I know in the real world, he is much less regarded anyway. I find his music a touch too long winded.


No, he's pretty well regarded in the "real world" too.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Haydnn said:


> I am convinced that "music" should be re-defined, with all the Weberns, Bergs, etc… in a separate category altogether than Haydn and Dvorak. I do not believe that music and what is considered music is subjective. "Anybody" can tell you if what you are listening to is music. Just ask "Anybody". They, without snobbishness, can tell the difference between noon hour traffic and music. They may not like Mozart but they will always admit that is it music. When you get to some of the bizarre stuff "Anbody" will tell you it is not music.


You are making the mistake of conflating what you understand and like now with objective reality as agreed by 'anybody', by which you mean anybody who agrees with you.

What you have posted here is the purest solipsism.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Rachmaninov's pathos escapes me to this day. 

And I know I am not alone in that sentiment here, but still strange, given my other listening habits. I suppose.


----------



## GhenghisKhan (Dec 25, 2014)

Since listenning to music is a purely selfish pursuit, the only standard of good taste is determined by my ears only

so none.

No argument will get in the way of pleasure.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

hpowders said:


> Barber's Piano Concerto. Second rate Prokofiev, IMHO. Dullsville!


How about the slow movement? There's some beautiful melody there.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Are there works or composers that you don't like much but feel a bit guilty about because you think maybe you should? Obvious questions are why don't you like them, and why do you think you should.
> 
> I'll start with Messiaen. He mostly gives me a headache. But lots of people seem to like his music, so what's wrong with me???


Just try a bunch of different pieces. Truthfully, I almost never get through Turangalila. As Mahlerian mentioned, it doesn't have a lot of depth. It's an exciting sound world, but I don't need 75 minutes of it, unless I could experience it in concert. I had no luck with his opera. I found it extremely dull. I like some of the organ music, the Quartet For The End Of Time, Eclairs... and the early vocal work Trois Petites Liturgies.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

I've recently had the thought that this basically describes my reactions to Sibelius and Mahler. The first movement of Mahler's 9th symphony, and Sibelius' _Finlandia_ are just about the only music of theirs that speaks to me. The rest bores me more than even the "vanilla" music of Haydn ever could.

yet I like:
Wagner, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky, Borodin, Kalinnikov, Scriabin, R. Strauss, Reger, Debussy, Ravel, Respighi, Korngold, Weingartner, Szymanowski, and many other "contemporaries".


----------



## Ulfilas (Mar 5, 2020)

I can only think of one, Janacek's operas.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Fabulin said:


> I've recently had the thought that this basically describes my reactions to Sibelius and Mahler. The first movement of Mahler's 9th symphony, and Sibelius' _Finlandia_ are just about the only music of theirs that speaks to me. The rest bores me more than even the "vanilla" music of Haydn ever could.
> 
> yet I like:
> Wagner, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky, Borodin, Kalinnikov, Scriabin, R. Strauss, Reger, Debussy, Ravel, Respighi, Korngold, Weingartner, Szymanowski, and many other "contemporaries".


At my current time more than ever, I've realized about Classical that a majority of the community were never suited to grasp the complexity or advancedness in music properly (or the way myself or composers do in their dedicated understanding and learning of musical craft.) These common 'greatest composer lists' that are inaccurate, stem from a psychological complex that overcompinsates for an early lack of compositional understanding, by instead appreciating 'perceived overcomplexity in music' without a reason to, that is, much of the Classical community and consumers are emotionally and inherently conditioned (from an early age) to overcomplexity for its own sake, confusing it with real compositional understanding. This highly irreversible psychological complex demonstrated with these types of lists, I must admit that while I understand 'why' these composers are considered great, I now disagree with much of it. Bach, Mahler, Mozart are exceptional top composers, but it makes little sense to also dismiss Tchaikovsky, John Williams or many laters from this category: there are several deep-rooted preferences in Classical consumers that simply don't follow from an analytical level. (1) Ideologies not just of 'this music is not part of tradition' but (2) in the more fundamental way, the inherent misconception that 'their output is too simple and unoriginal,' the former adjective stemming from listeners never having understood the difference between simplicity and compositional craft early on, and the latter adjective not only being irrelevant to the topic, but stemming from this same early misconception that music doesn't evolve 'originally' out of old influences. There's a majority ineptitude for discerning how great composers _construct_ music (see below post), so it follows that there's a complete misunderstanding in these greatest composer lists. The greats compose in the most advanced, clever, but more importantly, 'most sensible' way possible, regardless of if most people consider them great or not. Their greatness was always easily measurable by those who first understood compositional fundamentals.

I have a second part to this, 'What IS great Classical era music?' It has to do with properly _appreciating_ musical originality more than subscribing to originality as a requirement: advancement in music I believe occurs within changing our interpretation of the undertones of music, and not in the original details themselves, be they still there, but it's a bit heavier to go into at this time.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Definitely Schubert for me (all of it except the Octet). I keep buying different recordings of pretty much everything he wrote, but none of it has yet made me love it, and I do feel I probably should (for most of it, at least).

When even Britten and Pears doing _Winterreise_ leaves me for the most part cold, I know I have a problem!


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> At my current time more than ever, I've realized about Classical that a majority of the community were never suited to grasp the complexity or advancedness in music properly (or the way myself or composers do in their dedicated understanding and learning of musical craft.) These common 'greatest composer lists' that are inaccurate, stem from a psychological complex that overcompinsates for an early lack of compositional knowledge and understanding, for an appreciation of 'perceived overcomplexity in music' without a reason to, that is, much of the Classical community and consumers are emotionally and inherently conditioned (from an early age) to overcomplexity for its own sake without the base knowledge of composition to begin with, confusing the two in their mind. This highly irreversible psychological complex can be demonstrated with these types of lists which I no longer admit to agree with as much as I now understand 'why' these composers are considered great and disagree with much of it. Bach, Mahler, Mozart are acceptional top composers, but it makes little sense to also dismiss Tchaikovsky, John Williams or many laters from this category--there are several deep-rooted preferences in the majority of Classical consumers that simply don't follow from an analytical level. There are ideologies not just of 'this music is not part of tradition' but in the more fundamental way, the inherent misconception that 'their output is too simple and unoriginal', the former adjective stemming from them never having understood the difference between simplicity and compositional craft early on, and the latter adjective not only being irrelevant to the topic, but stemming from the same early misconception of how music evolves 'originally' out of old influences, overcompensating for an early weakness in not understanding how the greats actually construct music. The greats do so in the most advanced, clever, but more importantly, 'most sensible' way possible, regardless of if most people consider them great or not. Their greatness was always easily measurable by those who first understood compositional fundamentals.
> 
> I have a second part to this, 'What IS great Classical era music?'. It has to do with properly appreciating originality more than subscribing to it, but it's a bit heavier to go into at this time.


I sure will be interested to hear your follow-up article, but for now tell me (considering that you wrote all this as a response to my post): where do I fit into this?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

KenOC said:


> Are there works or composers that you don't like much but feel a bit guilty about because you think maybe you should?


Why would I feel like I "should" like certain composers or music? There's plenty of the standard repertory I don't care for and never listen to.

But do I think I "should" like it? No.

Just like I don't think other people "should" like the music I prefer over the standard classical repertory.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Fabulin said:


> I sure will be interested to hear your follow-up article, but for now tell me (considering that you wrote all this as a response to my post): where do I fit into this?


I'm not sure, but you listed some composers that fit my last (edited) part quite well. Haydn vs Mozart. Bruckner and Wagner vs Mahler and Sibelius. Subscribing to undertones of musical meaning VS subscribing to the originality and complexity of musical details themselves. The former is more intellectually advanced. The imagination itself is a powerful force even without substance. Think of how one can utilize it with music without ever writing an original note themselves. Scoring is one possible example, for instance, program music. You don't need to write a single note to score a film, ballet or play, but you need to have a great imagination to choose the right music. This philosophy is precisely the same for non-program music, but about the context within a piece.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Opera, probably.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> *Definitely Schubert for me* (all of it except the Octet). I keep buying different recordings of pretty much everything he wrote, but none of it has yet made me love it, and I do feel I probably should (for most of it, at least).
> When even Britten and Pears doing _Winterreise_ leaves me for the most part cold, *I know I have a problem!*


Damn! I teach harmony and counterpoint at my local Uni and have never _really_ used Schubert as a resource apart from one _lied_ in particular* for its use of the N6 (Neapolitan sixth). Strangely enough, I was speaking with my department director today about handing over one of my courses to a rather brilliant younger up-and-coming teacher so that I could concentrate more on Schubert. I hope my future students don't share your distaste!

*I'll leave you all to guess which one, hah!


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> I'm not sure but you listed some composers that fit my last (edited) sentence quite well. Haydn vs Mozart. Bruckner and Wagner vs Mahler and Sibelius. Subscribing to undertones of musical meaning, vs subscribing to the originality and complexity of musical details themselves. The imagination itself is a powerful force even without substance. Think of how one can utilize it with music without ever writing an original note themselves. Scoring is one possible example, for instance, program music. You don't need to write a single note to score a film, ballet or play, but you need to have a great imagination to choose the right music. This philosophy is precisely the same for non-program music.


100% agreed

It's a question whether one judges music by how well it avoids disasters (complexity being impressive when the composer manages to make it sound at least ok and come out of it alive) or by how great are its effects (complexity being worth as much (if anything) as its contribution to the overall impression, with incidental complexity being... well, incidental). I am certainly of the latter breed, even if that were to make me an unsportsmanlike lower ape.


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

A good live performance makes me love the piece.

I attended BFO's Haydn concert today. It was an excellent concert from one of the best orchestras of the world. I really enjoyed it despite I usually listen to music from the romantic period.

Sorry that I answered the opposite...


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Opera, probably.


Oh, that's a shame! I mean, I thought not 'getting' Schubert was a problem, but having a block on an entire 400 year-old art form that crosses national boundaries and musical styles with equal ease is a bit of a show-stopper. Is there nothing we can tempt you with?!


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Is there nothing we can tempt you with?!


I recommend this. It fixes unbelievedly unbalanced recordings, such as the majority of opera, and beautiful orchestras with thrice-the-volume screeching voices on top. Oh wait that is opera too.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Arnold Bax. As I've never had a problem with the more conservative end of the British music spectrum (Bantock, Elgar, Ireland, Vaughan Williams, Finzi etc.) it remains something of a mystery why the music of AB never clicked.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

elgars ghost said:


> Arnold Bax. As I've never had a problem with the more conservative end of the British music spectrum (Bantock, Elgar, Ireland, Vaughan Williams, Finzi etc.) it remains something of a mystery why the music of AB never clicked.


I mostly agree with this. I've tried Bax many times, particularly the much praised symphonies. The music still has yet to connect and I am not sure why.


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

Wagner, R.Strauss and most of Schumann's piano music. 

I suppose the fact that I continue to try to like these composers after decades is an indication that I think I should like them. As I mentioned in another thread, I am fond of Tristan and the great Four Last Songs. Siegried Idyll is pretty enjoyable. I do like more Schumann, but not too much. I would say the great Fantasie is easily my favorite piano piece by Schumann. Nevertheless, I have always felt that I should like his piano music more because of how much I enjoy listening to, and playing, Romantic piano music. It just seems that something is missing. It's never entirely satisfying.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

SearsPoncho said:


> Nevertheless, I have always felt that I should like Schumann's piano music more because of how much I enjoy listening to, and playing, Romantic piano music. It just seems that something is missing. It's never entirely satisfying.


I think it's the other way around. Nothing is missing from Schumann, but there may be too much going on in other composers.

Schumann was wholly unconcerned with showmanship or virtuosity. He wrote essentially zero cadenzas in his piano music and you won't find superfluous arpeggiation or use of the full range of the keyboard like most Romantics do, and yet his music is still harder to play than a lot of Romantic composers.

I think you should listen to Schumann as you would listen to Bach-forget about the finger gymnastics or long operatic melodies and just focus on pieces in a harmonic sense. Schumann was closer to Bach and Beethoven than any other Romantic composer, yet he is still a definite Romantic.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Mahler, especially when I visit this place and see the number of threads about his music and the posters I like and respect who are fans of his. Unfortunately I flat out dislike his stuff (though I highly respect the craft that went into it) and can't see that changing now after all these years.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

There are many good musical works I can never hear, because simply my life is too short. If someone concentrates on the music itself, there will be no room for such obligatory favors. I just want to preserve more good music for the posterity, no matter how few of them I can attain now. However, I definite hate bad music, no sorry for them.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Animal the Drummer said:


> Mahler, especially when I visit this place and see the number of threads about his music and the posters I like and respect who are fans of his. Unfortunately I flat out dislike his stuff (though I highly respect the craft that went into it) and can't see that changing now after all these years.


Yes, for me too. There are parts of his 2nd symphony that are sublime, then he spoils it. Again.


----------

