# To Know It Is to Love It?



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The forum gets a lot of posts about how the poster doesn't like this or that music. But who listens to music that they don't like? But then how do you know that you don't like something if you don't give it a really good go?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There are two sides to this issue. First, many people have enough experience with various styles of music that they have reasonable expectations of disliking a work without listening extensively or even fully once. Why continue to listen to a work that has little chance of satisfying oneself when there is so much beautiful, interesting, enjoyable music available?

On the other hand, experience has shown that continued listening to a work, a composer, or an era, can heighten one's enjoyment. Continued listening may raise an enjoyable work to a loved work or change indifference to interest. A composer that one "doesn't get" can become a composer that one appreciates. I have seen many comments on TC about works a member disliked or even hated that eventually became very enjoyable. The real trick here is to know whether such continued listening will bring rewards with a given work or composer.


----------



## Potiphera (Mar 24, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> The forum gets a lot of posts about how the poster doesn't like this or that music. But who listens to music that they don't like? But then how do you know that you don't like something if you don't give it a really good go?


I'm sure posters have listened to music first and formed an opinion or it is just not to their taste, maybe too jarring or too brassy, for instance, I don't like Janacek's Symphonia, and other pieces by the same, so that has deterred me from listening to other of his works.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Three posts in and notice that already we've got two categories of concepts being used willy nilly.

On the one hand there are emotional concepts



> disliking , enjoy, loved, disliked hate, to their tastes.


And on the other hand there are cognitive concepts



> beautiful, interesting, indifference, rewards
> interest. "doesn't get" appreciates


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> The forum gets a lot of posts about how the poster doesn't like this or that music. But who listens to music that they don't like? But then how do you know that you don't like something if you don't give it a really good go?


With strong motivated intentions, I avoid most every composer pre 1900. I have no interest in that long bygone era. 
Except for Mozart, Some Wagner (only some recordings at that),,and perhaps Vivaldi and some Puccini, . 
99% of my 400+ cd collection begins with Debussy's Prelude,,,,,,after 35 yrs, it usually does not take more than 1 or 2 listens to know if I like it. But I am willing to go back and give a second chance, perhaps I missed something. Like in Kalabis, I wrote him off as he seemed to borrow too often from , either Sibelius and/or RVW,,can't recall which it was.

Then I went back 1 month later to revisit his 2nd sym,,,that same day order the 3 cd set from Supraphon. has his great 2nd sym.

After some 30 yrs, you will refine, define your sensibilities to which composers best connect with your inner self. 
It is a transformational process, we all go through this.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> TBut then how do you know that you don't like something if you don't give it a really good go?


Why do you presume that listeners who dislike certain works did not "give it a really good go"?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ My point is that we mostly do not spend time listening to music we don't like a few times ... so I ask the question, how do we know we don't like the music. So I don't presume anything.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ My point is that we mostly do not spend time listening to music we don't like a few times ... so I ask the question, how do we know we don't like the music. So I don't presume anything.


The word I was looking for is ,,resonates*.
I am prejudiced/biased, in what I have a good hunch/presumption/intuition, about what I will most likely, not come around to liking. 
Messiaen, Ligeti, many others, , I gave some fair listens, even bought several Messiaen cds. 
But alas, I only did so after strong recommendations, that I *must hear* these and other composers.

Messiaen, Ligeti both have a very strong following, Works for them. But how many who love these and other compoers are willing to give other minor composers a fair shake?
Everyone's top 10, top 20 fav composers will be completely different. 
We are all divided along many lines of styles and eras. 
Some will have Bach as #1 fav composer, whereas Bach is not on any list for me. How is this possible? As he and I both love all,,,well most things classical. 
The only other societal group interests/gatherings in the world today, which boasts more divisions in its rank and file, is the WWW church/religion cults. 
Protestantism has a new sect cropping up daily. 
You may have 2 Baptist churches just blocks away, neither group even greets the other ona sunday, Completely disconnected from each other, no personal contact at all.

At least here on TC we can gather together and share our dif opinions, beliefs in a camaraderie friendship. 
W all get along in spite of our wide ranging interests.

We are all united in one thing, love for the greatest living art, and man's greatest achievement in art forms.

We all hold the torch and will pass it on to the next generations. Who will need this music in order to face the new world with hope and courage.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

You're right: I don't listen to music I don't like. Life's too short to listen to "bad" music when there's so much great stuff available and so much I've still never heard. I've tried and tried to find something enjoyable in composers like Sessions, Carter, Babbitt, Cage, Stockhausen. You have no idea how much time and money I've put into 20th c music only to be usually disappointed. What I can't answer is why do I keep some really awful stuff in the library? I will never, ever listen to that god-awful symphony no. 2 by Schnabel (yes, the pianist) again. Or the Gilbert & Sullivan operettas (but I will listen to the overtures!). So much bad stuff that takes up so much valuable space.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ My point is that we mostly do not spend time listening to music we don't like a few times ... so I ask the question, how do we know we don't like the music. So I don't presume anything.


I think it's fairly obvious to us when we do not like some music (or really any other thing). Are you asking, "How do we know we won't eventually like the music?"

I knew I disliked Berg's Violin Concerto the first several times I listened. Eventually I came to love it.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

There's some confusion going on here concerning reasons. I've mostly expressed discontent about Schubert so I'm dealing with that here. Go back a way into that other Schubert thread on here and I stated that I have twice been forced to listen to Schubert in depth. the first time was at school when we did the usual school harmony course (using the old red & blue Oxford books) and the standard models we had to plough through for exercises were: Bach, Mozart and Schubert.

I didn't like much Bach at the time, but the Mozart was always interesting. No idea why the Schubert was even there because the harmony (despite the fantastical claims) is pretty ordinary.

Skip forward in time and I find myself again studying harmony. This time on an Open University summer course using the George Pratt text _The Dynamics of Harmony_ as a set text. What do I find? The required exercise models to acquire were: _371 Harmonised Chorales_ by Bach; _Piano Sonatas and Fantasies_ by Mozart; the song cycle _Die schöne Müllerin_ by Schubert.

It's like these _must_ be the models. Nothing else will do. No Beethoven? No Chopin who was a marvellous piano stylist to copy for piano writing who modulated with the best of them. I can even remember back all those years to where Schubert was used as an example: 'modulating to remote keys' (or in his case not modulating at all but just jumping from one chord to another). I would be dishonest if I said there were no examples of Schubert using skilful modulation to set the tone of the work. In the song 'Ungeduld' he uses part of the circle of fifths - but with no clear beginning or end - and so creates a disorienting effect of no tonal centre. Also instead of the expected completion back to the tonic he instead alters the dominant from major to minor to both delay the completion and add further tonal uneasiness.

What I have found is that there are certain people who just like Schubert. they'll do all they can to make sure he is the object of study even if other similar or better examples are available. My school harmony tutor Mr Read (or Reed) was a major fan of vocal music, so we were bombarded with vocal music. His successor in my last year or so was not particularly hot on vocal music, so we got varied examples from Haydn, Liszt, Debussy...

I have a problem not with Schubert as a musician particularly since many composers have strengths and weaknesses (while some like Bach and Mozart are just good all-round), but with his mega-fans who make outlandish claims seemingly predicated on a need to defend this wrongly-maligned character. Go and look at the thread. Any dissent is met with claims about needing one's ears unstopping or endless lists of Schubert's official champions.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ My point is that we mostly do not spend time listening to music we don't like a few times ... so I ask the question, how do we know we don't like the music. So I don't presume anything.


How many times have you brought this subject up? It's incredibly presumptuous. How do you know how much other grown adults have listened to modern works to decide whether they like them, or not. Not to mention that, once again, you assume that others dismiss all modern works as if it is a black or white judgment. Besides, as someone who has listened to classical music from the last 300 hundred years for decades, perhaps much longer than you, how many times do I have to listen to Stockhausen works to know that they cause the same autonomic response in me as a root canal. (Btw, I've had several root canals to be sure I'm judging them fairly and I still don't like them.)

I also forecast that having started a thread that is bound to result in responses from people who do not like a lot of modern/contemporary music, you and 2 or 3 others will inevitably comment about how tired you are of hearing it.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

There's a vast amount of music I didn't like the first time I heard it and go on not liking it permanently thereafter. There's also a small number of pieces I didn't think much of initially but developed an appreciation for after subsequent listenings. There are also works I swooned over initially that, after many listenings now bore me.

I find that even a piece that doesn't produce much of any reaction in me at first hearing can, nevertheless, demonstrate certain intriguing features that lead me to want to keep trying to see if there might be something more interesting going on that I'm not getting initially. Often it's those pieces that end up wowing me the most after 2, 3 or 4 listenings.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I pretty much always know at first hearing if it's music I want to come back to in the future or it's music I have no further interest in at all.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2019)

eugeneonagain said:


> There's some confusion going on here concerning reasons. I've mostly expressed discontent about Schubert so I'm dealing with that here. Go back a way into that other Schubert thread on here and I stated that I have twice been forced to listen to Schubert in depth. the first time was *at school when we did the usual school harmony course (using the old red & blue Oxford books)* and the standard models we had to plough through for exercises were: Bach, Mozart and Schubert.


Sounds better than the dull and extremely dry CH Kitson!!



eugeneonagain said:


> I didn't like much Bach at the time, but the Mozart was always interesting. No idea why the Schubert was even there *because the harmony *(despite the fantastical claims)* is pretty ordinary*.


Ouch!



eugeneonagain said:


> Skip forward in time and I find myself again studying harmony. This time on an Open University summer course using the *George Pratt text The Dynamics of Harmony as a set text.* What do I find? The required exercise models to acquire were: _371 Harmonised Chorales_ by Bach; _Piano Sonatas and Fantasies_ by Mozart; the song cycle _Die schöne Müllerin_ by Schubert.


I have that (I'm always on the look-out for teaching resources); I couldn't really use it, to be honest. I found it all to be a bit too much A Level JMB (Joint Matriculation Board), with this sort of advice: "_Play right through the movement on the piano or from a recording, if you have it, to experience the sudden acceleration in the pace of the harmonic journey through the exposition at this point_."



eugeneonagain said:


> *It's like these must be the models. Nothing else will do. No Beethoven?* No Chopin who was a marvellous piano stylist to copy for piano writing who modulated with the best of them. I can even remember back all those years to where Schubert was used as an example: 'modulating to remote keys' (or in his case not modulating at all but just jumping from one chord to another). I would be dishonest if I said there were no examples of Schubert using skilful modulation to set the tone of the work. In the song 'Ungeduld' he uses part of the circle of fifths - but with no clear beginning or end - and so creates a disorienting effect of no tonal centre. Also instead of the expected completion back to the tonic he instead alters the dominant from major to minor to both delay the completion and add further tonal uneasiness.


Well, no. To be fair to George PRATT, you've got to start somewhere! How many pages in a harmony book do you want? Hah!



eugeneonagain said:


> What I have found is that there are certain people who just like Schubert. they'll do all they can to make sure he is the object of study even if other similar or better examples are available. *My school harmony tutor Mr Read (or Reed) was a major fan of vocal music, so we were bombarded with vocal music. His successor in my last year or so was not particularly hot on vocal music, so we got varied examples from Haydn, Liszt, Debussy...*


Count yourself lucky your Mr Reed/Read wasn't into organum!

Otherwise, hope you will be getting your OU MA (Music) soon.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> The forum gets a lot of posts about how the poster doesn't like this or that music. But who listens to music that they don't like? But then how do you know that you don't like something if you don't give it a really good go?


This proves the point that when listening to music, you should suspend your judgement at first, until either love or hate sets in. If you feel neutral, give it another try, or walk away.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> This proves the point that when listening to music, you should suspend your judgement at first, until either love or hate sets in. If you feel neutral, give it another try, or walk away.


:lol::lol:

ROTFLMAO
Most humorous post not only for toady but in this entire TC site....

thing is its so true,,,exactly how you say it.,,how often have we walked away, but felt cheated that we spent $15 on a cd *because another members said *oh man you gotta try such N such composer*.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> You're right: I don't listen to music I don't like. Life's too short to listen to "bad" music when there's so much great stuff available and so much I've still never heard. I've tried and tried to find something enjoyable in composers like Sessions, Carter, Babbitt, Cage, Stockhausen. You have no idea how much time and money I've put into 20th c music only to be usually disappointed. What I can't answer is why do I keep some really awful stuff in the library? I will never, ever listen to that god-awful symphony no. 2 by Schnabel (yes, the pianist) again. Or the Gilbert & Sullivan operettas (but I will listen to the overtures!). So much bad stuff that takes up so much valuable space.


Every post on this topic is excellent, Your post sums up exactly how I feel.
I could not have said it any better. 
Thanks.

now what will I do with all my Janacek collection,,which has a inch of dust accumulating...….his cds go dirt cheap, so reselling is not a option....oh well , more cds for brotherinlaw from Guatemala, he gets happy with free cds.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

eugeneonagain said:


> There's some confusion going on here concerning reasons. I've mostly expressed discontent about Schubert so I'm dealing with that here. Go back a way into that other Schubert thread on here and I stated that I have twice been forced to listen to Schubert in depth.
> 
> I have a problem not with Schubert as a musician particularly since many composers have strengths and weaknesses (while some like Bach and Mozart are just good all-round), but with his mega-fans who make outlandish claims seemingly predicated on a need to defend this wrongly-maligned character. Go and look at the thread. Any dissent is met with claims about needing one's ears unstopping or endless lists of Schubert's official champions.


Schubert has always sounded to me so much ike Beethoven, but with a touch of more poetry, Schumann is better, but I avoid both.

Look at this YT upload, 1.6M hits, hundreds of over emotional comments,,,top comment man says he weeps at such beauty......It is this pro romantic crowd who never gives modern music a fair listen. They are biased, prejudiced and not willing to change. 
Which is why I make it a fervent objective to disregard most every pre 1900 composers, with few exceptions. 
I always seek the unique, the exceptional, the exquisite.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

There are pieces I turn off because "I don't feel like listening to that now," but at some point or other I will come back and see if that was just my mood at the time. And if someone whose opinion I respect has good things things to say I will come back periodically to give it another chance. (That said, there are people whose tastes differ from mine in significant ways and I take that into account.) But in general, I don't dismiss a work or a composer's style until I have both heard it on record and live and been unimpressed both times. Plus, after eons of listening I pretty much know my taste so it doesn't take as long to determine whether or not a particular style has possibilities.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

TalkingHead said:


> Sounds better than the dull and extremely dry CH Kitson!!


No, it WAS Kitson. Book one is red and book two is blue (at least the copies we used). However, you are right that it was dry.



TalkingHead said:


> I have that (I'm always on the look-out for teaching resources); I couldn't really use it, to be honest. I found it all to be a bit too much A Level JMB (Joint Matriculation Board), with this sort of advice: "_Play right through the movement on the piano or from a recording, if you have it, to experience the sudden acceleration in the pace of the harmonic journey through the exposition at this point_."


It's above A level, but there's nothing wrong with A level standard, though it's probably slipped below old O level. Do A levels still exist? That paraphrase is spot-on though. Reminds me of another book called _Advanced Melody Harmony and Composition_ where you start feeling like _you're_ doing all the work from tiny suggestions. Like a Knorr 'mix for lasagna' where you provide 99% of the ingredients and do all the work.



TalkingHead said:


> Well, no. To be fair to George PRATT, you've got to start somewhere! How many pages in a harmony book do you want? Hah!


I just think he (and others) could have done well enough with just the Bach/Mozart as 'extra material'. These are purchased separate to the main book so they could be anything.



TalkingHead said:


> Count yourself lucky your Mr Reed/Read wasn't into organum!
> 
> Otherwise, hope you will be getting your OU MA (Music) soon.


I no longer officially study music. That's from my youth. My area of interest is orchestration and I've learned more on my own (everyone always says that to make themselves appear an autodidact, so I'll say it :lol.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> The forum gets a lot of posts about how the poster doesn't like this or that music. But who listens to music that they don't like? But then how do you know that you don't like something if you don't give it a really good go?


Who listens to music they don't like? Me, but not as much as I used to. Over my lifetime I've listened with interest to a great deal of music I don't like. I'm interested in music as an art and a craft; I'm curious to know what's been done with notes. How much of a "go" I need to give a piece of music depends on how interesting what I'm hearing sounds.

When I was young and new to most of music, I would listen with persistence even to things I didn't immediately care for. Often I came to enjoy that music later, generally after a substantial hiatus from listening to it. But now, with decades of a musical life behind me, I find the opposite more likely to happen: listening again to music that I once found worthwhile but haven't heard for a time, I may be less impressed with it than formerly, and note that the things in it I once found attractive no longer hold my interest. I can often sense very quickly how long I'll need to let a piece play to decide how much I'll like it, and whether I'll want to come back to it soon. Besides the simple phenomenon of changing taste, I've acquired a context of musical knowledge which lets me judge things more quickly and, should I find that they don't impress me, decide without regret that I don't want to give any more of my shrinking lifespan to them. I'm in a more secure position regarding what I want out of music, and I'm less tempted to waste time on music I don't like.

That's how it's been for me. Everyone will have an individual pattern of listening and liking.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

paulbest said:


> Look at this YT upload, 1.6M hits, hundreds of over emotional comments,,,top comment man says he weeps at such beauty......It is this pro romantic crowd who never gives modern music a fair listen. They are biased, prejudiced and not willing to change.


Wait a minute. You have no idea what this man is listening to when he's not listening to Schubert. He could be listening to Allan Pettersson for all that you know. I recently posted a few Schubert videos myself and also wrote a brief review of Pettersson Seventh Symphony. You are making these assumptions on a regular basis, just guessing about what someone listens to. While it's true that some people do like to stick with the familiar, it's not always true. I find such prejudicial assumptions offputting and would much rather see what somebody likes about a composer, say, such as Pettersson with his strengths and weaknesses and his better recordings. Once a person gets past a certain age, they are not obligated to further someone's cause and I think it's more up to the young to champion the new and seldom heard, and the experienced listeners who have it in them to take it on. But I don't think others should be shamed for not being interested in someone like Patterson or any of the other more recent 20th century composers. I like to check them out because I'm still curious about the unexplored, including one of the great String Quartets written by Philip Glass. There is good stuff out there but some of it is very challenging and you have to be in the mood for it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think pre-conditioning has a lot to do with human feelings of a certain type of music. I used to hate dissonant music, and was forced to play Bartok by my piano teacher. I would have rather played Mozart, Telemann, and even pop songs. I could understand there is some craft in certain dissonant music, but couldn't get over the sound. I had to make a conscious choice (some would argue forced or unnatural) to explore my hate. What triggered my hate could in some other context be used for good? So I stifled that automatic knee-jerk reaction, and developed a new kind of love over time. What I hate now is when I feel certain composers imitate old avant garde masters, imitating the ugly sound, but without any of the original ingenuity, and sounds to me completely pretentious, and wanting to be accepted just for being in the idiom.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I must confess that I only very rarely listen to Liszt but would quite freely say that I don't very much like his music. I probably shouldn't as, if my past experiences of other composers is anything to go by, I will probably end up liking his music greatly. But so far I don't even feel tempted to try.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> Wait a minute. You have no idea what this man is listening to when he's not listening to Schubert. He could be listening to Allan Pettersson for all that you know. I recently posted a few Schubert videos myself and also wrote a brief review of Pettersson Seventh Symphony. You are making these assumptions on a regular basis, just guessing about what someone listens to. While it's true that some people do like to stick with the familiar, it's not always true. I find such prejudicial assumptions offputting and would much rather see what somebody likes about a composer, say, such as Pettersson with his strengths and weaknesses and his better recordings. Once a person gets past a certain age, they are not obligated to further someone's cause and I think it's more up to the young to champion the new and seldom heard, and the experienced listeners who have it in them to take it on. But I don't think others should be shamed for not being interested in someone like Patterson or any of the other more recent 20th century composers. I like to check them out because I'm still curious about the unexplored, including one of the great String Quartets written by Philip Glass. There is good stuff out there but some of it is very challenging and you have to be in the mood for it.


True enough, I am over zealous, which often leads me into comments which are warped and prejudiced. 
I agree. 
As I recall the LP shops, back then, the Schubert bins were packed full, radio, Schubert, concerts , Schubert.
This is what I am trying to rectify , this imbalance. It is a possibility the 1.6 M views on YT know Pettersson;'s music, but its such a improbable possibility (I picked that one up from some member's post the other day,,I kept it for time like this ).,,I'd bet any amount of $ less than 5% of the 1.6 M viewers , have anything of Pettersson, nor ever heard his name.
This is what gets my gall, and causes me to go overboard with outlandish comments.

I just can't help myself.

I see everyone over the at Who is it folks hate modern classical music so much,,,or actually the correct title, is ,,,why is modern classical not accepted by the other side,,,no actually it is* why is modern classical not more popular?*
Yes that's it.

Everyone is ignoring my posts. 
But at least everyone is respecting my comments, with no ugly rebuttal .....


----------



## Rubens (Nov 5, 2017)

The more I know Tchaikovsky's music, the more it gets on my nerves. I used to like his music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

That's an interesting point. We can know and love music but then get tired of it. I'm not sure this has ever happened to me, though. There are composers who I once loved but then get to feel cool about, and even be bored by, for a time - sometimes more than a year - but I seem always to be able to go back to it and love it again at some point. I have just come out of a prolonged period (almost two years) of finding Sibelius boring. It may have been the two recent blind tasting threads of his music but I now find myself listening to Sibelius most days and being wowed once again.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Rubens said:


> The more I know Tchaikovsky's music, the more it gets on my nerves. I used to like his music.


Excellent post, You see, this is exactly my reactions to Sibelius syms, even his 1st now gets on my neveres,,and I always loved that sym so so much, But his others, 2-7,,,nerve rackers.

Thanks for being honest.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> That's an interesting point. We can know and love music but then get tired of it. I'm not sure this has ever happened to me, though. There are composers who I once loved but then get to feel cool about, and even be bored by, for a time - sometimes more than a year - but I seem always to be able to go back to it and love it again at some point. I have just come out of a prolonged period (almost two years) of finding Sibelius boring. It may have been the two recent blind tasting threads of his music but I now find myself listening to Sibelius most days and being wowed once again.


 Trust me, other than his few OK tone poems, and his only masterpiece, Kullervo, you'll once again find yourself ignoring his syms,,,You may not think so, but it is bound to eventually happen. 
Once you make new fresh discoverings in 20th C composers, Sibelius syms will get on your nerves, 
With lone exception of his Kullervo, perhaps the 4 Legends may continue to be of interest.

The more I come to know the 20TH C masters, the more I wish to ignore other 20TH C composers.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ No, I don't trust you in that. Absolutely not. And why should I? Our tastes and knowledge are so different. You are quite simply wrong. You have a passing acquaintance with his music and it seems you just don't get it! But then you reject most of the tradition he was writing within. He may have been the last truly great symphonist although some would give that accolade to Shostakovich. As for Kullervo, it is a work I like a lot but is very early Sibelius are in no way as great as what he went on to write. Sibelius himself suppressed it. And really your reference to knowing 20th Century masters when you reject so many of the best seems like a joke. Sorry to be a bit rough.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

paulbest said:


> Trust me, other than his few OK tone poems, and his only masterpiece, Kullervo, you'll once again find yourself ignoring his syms,,,You may not think so, but it is bound to eventually happen.
> Once you make new fresh discoverings in 20th C composers, Sibelius syms will get on your nerves,
> With lone exception of his Kullervo, perhaps the 4 Legends may continue to be of interest.
> 
> The more I come to know the 20TH C masters, the more I wish to ignore other 20TH C composers.


Not my experience at all - the mature works of Sibelius represent the pinnacle of all music for me. The degree of crafting that he employs in the later symphonies and Tapiola is without parallel in my view.

Certainly there are some impressive modern pieces.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> ...As for Kullervo, it is...very early Sibelius are in no way as great as what he went on to write. Sibelius himself suppressed it...


I completely agree.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

paulbest said:


> True enough, I am over zealous, which often leads me into comments which are warped and prejudiced.
> I agree.


What baffles me is that although you recognize this yourself, you keep on doing this (your remarks on Sibelius just now is a good example). You would get far more response in discussions if you did not keep on posting personal preferences and experiences as if they were the obvious unavoidable truth.


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

Bluecrab said:


> Why do you presume that listeners who dislike certain works did not "give it a really good go"?


I'm sure some of them fail to give things a good go: I know people with conservative or narrow tastes who are like that. Ultimately I think these people are just not that interested in music. They like what they like and that's enough.

I _try_ not to be. One way I deal with music I find awkward is to put in on as background music from time to time. This helps me to get used to the general soundscape, which I find is often the stumbling block. The approach has worked for opera and somewhat for solo piano, neither of which I was fond of before. Other times I persist with famous pieces or composers which I initially disliked. This has paid off with the Goldbergs, The Rite of Spring, and Shostakovich. Seeing things live helps, especially if they involve big orchestras and lots of percussion.


----------



## Flutter (Mar 26, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ My point is that we mostly do not spend time listening to music we don't like a few times ... so I ask the question, how do we know we don't like the music. So I don't presume anything.


You do have a good point there.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ For me it is a dilemma which leads me to feeling that, if I don't like a piece or composer, that can only be an interim judgment on my part. Even if I try again and again over years, if I don't arrive at a feeling that it has meaning for me and invokes a rewarding response in me, then I feel I may be missing something. But I do also often know with music that I do not enjoy that trying again and again is not going to work for me. Sometimes, though, having listened a few times, and perhaps years ago, I can suddenly feel it "calling to me" and that is when listening again might work for me. But if I have a message on this it is that we should think of our dislikes as interim rather than as bedded down opinions. And, of course, I am no fan of resorting to theoretical underpinnings for such judgments: I don't think we can theorise about music we don't like. One day I will feel Liszt calling to me to try again with his music and in the meantime I am doing my best to ignore the siren that is giving me reasons for not liking Liszt.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I've listened to lots of music I don't like, often multiple times. Why? Because I have a general interest in the art of music and realize that only listening to what I like would limit my knowledge and appreciation. Because I like to understand why I don't respond favorably to music enjoyed by others whose judgment I respect. Because it helps to understand the tastes and preferences of others. At one time because it might appear on a doctoral exam where one is expected to be able to identify music of all eras and styles.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^ And have you ever changed your mind through all that effort?


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> The forum gets a lot of posts about how the poster doesn't like this or that music. But who listens to music that they don't like? But then how do you know that you don't like something if you don't give it a really good go?


I do listen to music I don't like sometimes, simply because other people say it's great music (e.g. Bach's) and I don't want to miss out. Also I like to listen to the classical music radio which forces me to listen to all kinds of music, including music I don't enjoy much. In this way I try to broaden my musical horizon and I feel like an open minded guy while listening to everything.  Yet I am not masochistic: if I can't find anything to enjoy I stop listening. But I feel like I must remain open to it so some time later I am willing to try and listen again!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^ And have you ever changed your mind through all that effort?


Occasionally, and more so when I was younger. But I tend to know the first time through a work whether I'm going to find it interesting, and interesting is what counts for me. Level of dissonance and other superficial qualities don't matter. Generally, when my tastes change it tends to be coming to really like something I already thought was good or just growing tired of something.


----------

