# extremely challenging music



## deprofundis

I really tried to lisen to* Stockhausen *since he was an inspiration to gorecki, but i dont like is music, i dont know if i heard enought of him but, it either borred me to death or annoy me, the other composer is* Xenakis*, even if i like modernism i can't get into there music, why??

I consider myself open minded and i try to lisen and lisen some of there works but the more i lisen to em the more i hate them.

Maybe these two are in a league of there own you either love this to death for a reason i dont know aquirred taste or you hate this whit passion.

Am i too harsh on these composers ??

So i was wondering who like em here and who hate em?


----------



## Mahlerian

They both certainly have their fans and detractors around here. Of the period, I enjoy Boulez, Nono, Berio, and Ligeti more in general than Stockhausen or Xenakis, though I've discovered pieces from both that I find interesting, particularly the electronic pieces of the former, and some of the Klavierstucke.


----------



## Morimur

I think the most important thing is to listen with an open mind and accept that certain music requires the listener to work; to concentrate, listen intently and discard any and all preconceived notions of what music is or should be. With the avant-garde, one must prepare to be challenged and persist until one's ears are opened to the wondrous beauty of these sonic universes.


----------



## DavidA

I never see why I should listen to music that seems to me an infernal racket just to be 'challenged'. Music is to be enjoyed not endured.


----------



## brotagonist

Too harsh 

I got into both of them in my late teens and was hopelessly hooked through my early 20s, after which time I had also discovered the composers mentioned by Mahlerian and other greats of the era, as well as having branched out into the common practice period. I still enjoy both of them, however, and have lots and lots of Xenakis CDs and a few Stockhausen ones (his are not available through regular distribution, but only through his costly private label, but there is You Tube :tiphat: ).

If you are looking for some ideas about great pieces, I suggest these:

*Stockhausen* :

Kreuzspiel, Schlagtrio, Zeitmasze, Kontakte, Mantra, Gesang der Jünglinge, Stop, Ylem, Opus 1970 (Stockhoven-Beethausen), Ceylon, Bird of Passage, Cosmic Pulses

Of these, Opus 1970 is likely the weirdest, Kontakte and Gesang der Jünglinge are earlier electronic pieces, and Cosmic Pulses is a late electronic piece. The remainder are primarily earlier chamber works. Some have said that Ceylon and Bird of Passage are more easily accessible, as Stockhausen had gotten a recording contract with Chrysalis Records. In any case, they are very nice pieces!

*Xenakis* :

Atrées, Morsima-Amorsima, ST4, Nomos Alpha, Orient-Occident, Bohor, Metastasis, Eonta, Persepolis, À l'île de Gorée, Pléiades, Kottos, Akrata, Achorripsis, Jonchaies, Syrmos, Oresteia

I could go on and on  There is not much I can say, except just "give it a chance and listen to it." I mean, really listen. Approach it when you actually feel like it and have the time to do so. Pick perhaps only one or two pieces, as they are pretty dense, if you are not used to him. Don't make it a task or chore.


----------



## Morimur

DavidA said:


> I never see why I should listen to music that seems to me an infernal racket just to be 'challenged'. Music is to be enjoyed not endured.


You say 'Why?' and I say 'Why not?'.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I never see why I should listen to music that seems to me an infernal racket


You shouldn't. Is someone forcing you?


----------



## brotagonist

DavidA said:


> I never see why I should listen to music that seems to me an infernal racket just to be 'challenged'. Music is to be enjoyed not endured.


I think Stockhausen is misunderstood. People heard the craziest stuff, like Momente, and, from that point on, all they could hear is noise. He also wrote a lot of chamber pieces, unconventional ones, to be sure, but they are accessible.

Particularly with Xenakis, however, I can see how many might just hear noise. His music often is a challenge, but it is one that has great rewards. Have you ever looked at those crazy pictures that become 3-D images, when you cross your eyes? That's sort of like Xenakis  But if you just sit back and listen, really follow along, you will hear that the chaotic noise is actually highly ordered and the moment you hear that, you will be hopelessly enraptured :trp:


----------



## Morimur

I actually found Xenakis to be quite accessible. Stockhausen was a challenge and it was awhile before I truly began enjoying his work.


----------



## Sid James

deprofundis said:


> I really tried to lisen to* Stockhausen *since he was an inspiration to gorecki, but i dont like is music, i dont know if i heard enought of him but, it either borred me to death or annoy me, the other composer is* Xenakis*, even if i like modernism i can't get into there music, why??
> 
> I consider myself open minded and i try to lisen and lisen some of there works but the more i lisen to em the more i hate them.
> 
> Maybe these two are in a league of there own you either love this to death for a reason i dont know aquirred taste or you hate this whit passion.
> 
> Am i too harsh on these composers ??
> 
> So i was wondering who like em here and who hate em?


There's plenty of other fish in the sea.

Maybe its that Gorecki was avant-garde early on, then (like quite a few composers in the 1970's) abandoned that direction. I doubt that _Symphony of Sorrowful Songs _has anything much to do with Stockhausen, but I could be wrong. Recently I read that Steve Reich, of all people, was to an extent influenced by Webern. Not the aspect of serialism or row hunting but more the whole 'less is more' pared down aesthetic. Of course Reich had other more significant influences too.

I'm no expert in either, I have enjoyed music by both, probably leaning towards Xenakis more than Stocky. With the latter, there tends to be a theatrical element to his music. Here is an excerpt from Tierkreis for example, a work putting to music the 12 signs of the Zodiac. It can be quite fun, especially when seen as a theatrical work as was originally intended. In any case, in purely musical terms, this is not what I call a challenging work. Its got a good dose of humour and some element of melody.


----------



## DavidA

brotagonist said:


> But if you just sit back and listen, really follow along, you will hear that the chaotic noise is actually highly ordered and the moment you hear that, you will be hopelessly enraptured :trp:


I will hear chaos is highly ordered? Hmm. I think I will look elsewhere to be hopelessly enraptured!


----------



## Couac Addict

brotagonist said:


> I think Stockhausen is misunderstood. People heard the craziest stuff, like Momente, and, from that point on, all they could hear is noise.


...that noise is probably just the helicopter rotors.


----------



## Guest

Coming from a background of listening to "weird" non-classical music in my past already, I found both of these composers (Stockhausen moreso than Xenakis) pretty accessible in comparison to various other composers.


----------



## ptr

I think that this is just a sign that modern man is hooked on instant gratification, if You have to work on understanding something that is perceived as difficult then its boring or annoying. 
Listening to Contemporary Music is an exercise in growing as a human more then anything!

/ptr


----------



## Guest

The _implications_ from a couple of people here seem to be that contemporary music is, in a way, superior art because it is less accessible. But it took me more listens to truly enjoy Beethoven's 14th string quartet than it did for Stockhausen's Kontakte (immediate enjoyment, in that case), therefore I could use the same logic to say that Beethoven is superior to Stockhausen, but then all the contemporary fans would be up in arms in a heartbeat.

The fact is, this accessibility stuff is as relative and subjective as the art forms in question.

And please do note my use of the word "implications". I could be completely wrong, and fans of various types of music are just tooting their own horns, as they often should.


----------



## Manxfeeder

deprofundis said:


> I really tried to lisen to* Stockhausen *since he was an inspiration to gorecki, but i dont like is music, i dont know if i heard enought of him but, it either borred me to death or annoy me, the other composer is* Xenakis*, even if i like modernism i can't get into there music, why??
> 
> I consider myself open minded and i try to lisen and lisen some of there works but the more i lisen to em the more i hate them.


We had a Stockhausen enthusiast here for a while, and he tried to get me into his music. I tried; alas, it hasn't clicked yet. Xenakis bothers me because he tends to use pitches so high, they hurt my ears.

As of today, I don't bother much with either of them outside of an occasional dabble. I've found that there are some composers that I immediately connect with, like Grisey. But others, I can tell the only frame of reference I can establish will require hours with instructive books and possibly scores. I might have done that a few years ago, but right now, I don't have that kind of time.

So as of right now, I think those two composers are doing just fine without me. And I'm not discounting that someday a connection will finally be made.


----------



## cjvinthechair

Challenging - yes, indeed; to some of us more than to others !
Worth persevering ?...well, entirely up to you; no rights or wrongs there !
I...am trying, in my way (yes, very trying - I know, I know); slowly, and with many failures along the way,found pieces of Berio, Ligeti, Murail, Scelsi..& even Xenakis ( Akrata, A l'Ile de Goree, Komboi) that I can listen to.
No joy so far with Stockhausen (or Boulez...and Nono is wonderfully named for me !), but if someone had said to me even 5 years ago that I would one day tolerate any of these I'd have laughed them to scorn.
So, if you want to stick with it, good on you. If you don't want to touch it, just as good; there's so much else !


----------



## mmsbls

cjvinthechair said:


> I...am trying, in my way (yes, very trying - I know, I know); slowly, and with many failures along the way,found pieces of Berio, Ligeti, Murail, Scelsi..& even Xenakis ( Akrata, A l'Ile de Goree, Komboi) that I can listen to.
> No joy so far with Stockhausen (or Boulez...and Nono is wonderfully named for me !), but if someone had said to me even 5 years ago that I would one day tolerate any of these I'd have laughed them to scorn.
> So, if you want to stick with it, good on you. If you don't want to touch it, just as good; there's so much else !


I fully understand your view since five or so years ago I was exactly where you were. I maybe have had a bit more success since I've found works I truly like by all of the above except Xenakis and Nono. But to be fair, I have not listened to Xenakis is over a year, so who knows, maybe when I try him again, I'll find I like something. I'll give Akrata, A l'Ile de Goree, and Komboi a try since you were able to make real progress on those works.


----------



## DavidA

Lope de Aguirre said:


> You say 'Why?' and I say 'Why not?'.


Because I pay for my own CDs and the Hi-Fi they are played on. They are also kept in my house which I own jointly with my wife. As we are both allergic to infernal rackets that masquerade as music, that is why not!


----------



## Morimur

DavidA said:


> Because I pay for my own CDs and the Hi-Fi they are played on. They are also kept in my house which I own jointly with my wife. As we are both allergic to infernal rackets that masquerade as music, that is why not!


One man's infernal racket is another's music.


----------



## csacks

Music should be a pleasure, not a challenge. If you do not like something that others seems to enjoy, wait and see if that joy cames to you. I am still waiting for Bach. Can hardly imagine how long would it be my wait for these two.
There are some things to suffer about, but music is not in my list.


----------



## Guest

These are all perfectly valid questions and responses. All I can say is that I remember sitting through a 1.5h recital of harpischord music (the usual suspects) and thinking, after about 35", that I'd rather be in front of a string quartet playing god-knows-what in a helicopter.


----------



## deprofundis

I dont consider Ligeti that challenging(but accessible) and i like his string quartet no 1-2 bought this cd a while ago like 2 month ago


----------



## Ravndal

TalkingHead said:


> These are all perfectly valid questions and responses. All I can say is that I remember sitting through a 1.5h recital of harpischord music (the usual suspects) and thinking, after about 35", that I'd rather be in front of a string quartet playing god-knows-what in a helicopter.


That sounds like hell! Id rather enjoy a helicopter ride as well.


----------



## deprofundis

I might in the future investigate more Xenakis and give it another chance ,since i heard more stuff from him based on your subjections l'ile de gorée seem nice.But after lisening to Stockhausen lieder and piano mantra i'm turn off to is work, maybe someday maybe never .


----------



## Alypius

For me, the way into Xenakis's music is via his percussion works. Here's a couple:

*Pleiades - Peaux*






*Rebonds B*


----------



## scratchgolf

ptr said:


> I think that this is just a sign that modern man is hooked on instant gratification, if You have to work on understanding something that is perceived as difficult then its boring or annoying.
> Listening to Contemporary Music is an exercise in growing as a human more then anything!
> 
> /ptr


While I completely understand your logic here, I must respectfully disagree, as I feel it's an unfair comparison. Perhaps a music critic, by trade, should be willing or required to endure musical challenge. Imagine telling someone who both enjoys and excels at tennis, golf, billiards, and swimming that he should welcome the challenge of basketball although he's both terrible and annoyed by it. Music is, after all, a pastime and hobby to most, therefore the level of challenge one is willing to assume is entirely up to him, and unwillingness to assume such a challenge should never be seen as an indictment on his generation or era. I've experienced some of the most daunting challenges a man can endure and they're activities I'd never allow to encroach on my leisure time. Unfortunately, my helicopters did not include string quartets. I realize nobody here has come close to suggesting one should be required to listen to anything against their will. That's the beauty of it all. Free will, regardless of challenge.


----------



## DavidA

Lope de Aguirre said:


> One man's infernal racket is another's music.


That is fine! If someone wants to listen to stuff I consider an infernal racket he is free to do so and good luck to him. As long as I'm not obliged to listen as well!


----------



## SONNET CLV

Few things about classical music annoy me more than hearing folks say "Oh, I just love classical music; it's so relaxing." In fact, I've heard people say complementingly that classical music is good because it puts them to sleep. What? Music that puts me to sleep is boring music -- music of limited chords, range, orchestral color, philosophical depth. In other words, heavy metal, polkas, rap, and britney spears.

Music should be dynamic and inspiring, stimulating to the ears and the sensibility, a wake up call, not a somnolence pill.

Classical music at its best is exciting to the ears. It needn't be loud and threatening to be exciting. The opening of Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" is a vastly interesting piece of music -- the tensions created by the chord changes are sublime, the melody is haunting, and the interplay of dynamics is breathtaking. Also vastly interesting is the music of Iannis Xenakis and Karlheinz Stockhausen, though one will never mistake it for the "Moonlight Sonata". Both composers, Xenakis and Stockhausen, organize sounds in unique, original, creative, and artistically cogent fashions. Their music demands attention. It provokes listening. It unfolds sound patterns in much the way a kaleidoscope unfolds visual color patterns. There are so many "Ah" moments, moments of delight and wonder, of intrigue and provocation. This is essential music -- sounds meant for hearing and contemplation and wonderment and surprise. It is highly creative music -- music of new rhythms, forms, timbres.

Sure, such music defies traditional definitions, but that is what makes it important. It expands our soundscape. Like modern painting, it provides us with a fresh outlook on what art really is. When the Russian painter Kazimir Malevich presented his iconic painting "White on White" he was forcing us to realize that _all_ paintings are merely colors of paint applied to blank white canvas. They are not landscapes or faces or figures or trees or waterfalls. They are paint on canvas. Modern composers ask us to look at what a musical work really is: sound and combinations of sounds, organized into some sort of pattern or non-pattern. A Mozart concerto, a Beethoven symphony ... they are organized sounds of various instruments from an orchestra. And so is the music of Xenakis and Stockhausen. One can revel in the same things listening to a piece by Xenakis as one can listening to a piece by Mozart -- form, color, structure, harmonies, melodies. The music of both masters provokes responses. That's what makes it good.

We may not look at a Jackson Pollock painting with the same expectations as we study a DaVinci, but the essence of both is that they consist of paint on blank canvas. We may not see a provocative smile on a Jackson Pollock painting, but we see other provocative shapes. And just as we explore the background, that mysterious landscape in the distance, behind the Mona Lisa, we can peer deep into a Jackson Pollock painting and find strand upon colored strand of paint snaking this way and that and opening up an entirely new world of interest well beyond the surface texture. It's interesting, in other words. And modern music it, too.

Modern music is worth your time. It's a sound world of unique beauties and original pleasures. Don't deny yourself this intriguing experience. And there is no better place to start on a modern music odyssey than with either Xenakis or Stockhausen. When you realize just how different the two composers' music is, you'll intuit, properly, that other composers (Penderecki, Nono, Henze, Babbitt, Lindberg, Hába, Cage, Eisler, Maderna ...) will be different, too. And you will then joy in discovering the range of styles available in "modern music". It's a life changing adventure. Don't deny yourself this pleasure.

Finally, a word on "pleasures" itself. We know simple pleasures and difficult pleasures. Perhaps modern music is a difficult pleasure. But the most rewarding pleasures are difficult pleasures. The Olympic skater revels in doing "stunts" that defy the abilities of most ice skaters who enjoy the simple pleasure of gently sailing round in circles over the frozen lake. But that simple pleasure, of gently sailing round in circles, wears thin, and one seeks to ever expand one's range and skill on skates -- to perform ever more daring and elaborate "tricks". And when one is finally at the level of the Olympic skater, the simple pleasure of sailing gently round in circles on the ice is no longer very satisfying at all. The same goes with music. Once you reach past your present comfort zone, your range increases, and you can never go back. Those who speak multiple languages would never wish to settle for speaking only one, those who play multiple musical instruments would feel limited to be reined back to only one, those who confine their music listening habits only to the "tonal" compositions are missing out on a vast canvas of beauty where once you have acclimated you will never wish to return from. Difficult pleasures. Those are the ones most worth experiencing, and prove the most lasting and satisfying in the end.


----------



## mmsbls

SONNET CLV said:


> It unfolds sound patterns in much the way a kaleidoscope unfolds visual color patterns.


This description is wonderfully vivid, and for me, seems to perfectly describe some of my experience with Stockhausen (e.g. Gruppen) and some of Boulez's works (e.g. Sur Incises). It took me awhile to discover how to hear these unfolding patterns, but once I did, I found myself loving the ride.



SONNET CLV said:


> ...those who confine their music listening habits only to the "tonal" compositions are missing out on a vast canvas of beauty where once you have acclimated you will never wish to return from. Difficult pleasures. Those are the ones most worth experiencing, and prove the most lasting and satisfying in the end.


When I first came to TC, my view of modern music was similar to seeing others enjoying a wonderful party, and I was outside unable to participate. I could appreciate 4 centuries of gorgeous music, but I was missing out on almost a century of potential beauty. Now I'm inside making my way from room to room. It's impossible to imagine going back to where I came from.


----------



## PetrB

There will always, I think, be some listeners who think modern-contemporary music is "infernal racket" -- and there is a usual suspects lists of adjective phrases used to say pretty much what those people feel, or think they hear.



Lope de Aguirre said:


> You say 'Why?' and I say 'Why not?'.


For some, when they say they _never_ listen to that jangly jarring infernal racket satanic noise, and that they never will, that "Never" is a 100% certain _obdurate_ "never."

I.e. for that sort of listener, a certain level of 'modernity' in music will always and only elicit in response a list of adjectives the likes of "jangly / yucky / horrible / infernal" -- followed by the likes of "racket / noise / scrapings" etc.

Ergo "Why not keep trying it, or try it once in a while?" doesn't even enter into the non-discussion, nor does it register as any kind of valid response.

It seems there are always a few who feel this way about modern and contemporary music, having various cut-off demarcations, their responses similar, sounding near the same from one comment to the next when it comes to this topic.

I've always found it odd that people who dislike a particular period or style so consistently show up to repeatedly voice their displeasure, often in responses nearly cut-and paste similar, but that is fora, i.e. if a subject comes up, and comes up again, people "get to vote often."

The more regular appearances of some who seem to have but one limited and repeated response make them readily identifiable as repetitive installments of the same ole same ole, which has me glancing right over those very predictable reads.


----------



## science

I think the most "challenging" work I've heard is Crumb's Black Angels. 

If that is a challenge, it's worth it.


----------



## SONNET CLV

science said:


> I think the most "challenging" work I've heard is Crumb's Black Angels.
> 
> If that is a challenge, it's worth it.


An excellent choice of "challenging work" since it proves challenging for both performers and audience. The wonderful thing about this piece is that there are several recordings of the work so comparative listening is now possible, and proves fascinating. (I still recall when only one recording existed.)

The work is, of course, a companion piece, in a sense, to Crumb's "Ancient Voices of Children", a sure challenger to your selected challenging work. Both pieces are anti-war statements, written during the Viet Nam War. Those of you familiar with the horrors of that war will not find the music especially harsh on the ears. Rather, it attempts to echo the experience in a metaphorical way.

One work that rivals these two is the earlier written _Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima_ by Krzysztof Penderecki. It, too, is challenging for both players and listeners. The work, originally composed as an etude for string orchestra, seems to render into orchestral sound the very agony of the victims of the Hiroshima bombing. It is ugly music (which is beautiful in its own way) that captures the essential ugliness of war and mass death. In order to communicate such ugliness, Penderecki had to create an entirely new vocabulary of music to express the horror.

Crumb creates a unique vocabulary too in the two pieces mentioned above. It's as if the musical vocabulary of Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, and even Schoenberg proves incapable of communicating the horrors of 20th century warfare.

I used to incorporate the above works into a literature course I taught. The poetic emphasis was the work of Federico Garcia Lorca. It is Garcia Lorca's poetry that Crumb sets to music in "Ancient Voices of Children". Too, I incorporated Shostakovich's Fourteenth Symphony into the mix. That dark, dire contemplation on death also sets a Garcia Lorca verse. I suspect the Shostakovich Fourteenth qualifies as a challenging work, too, because it's a lot of gloom to stomach for a near hour of playing time.

By the way, poet/playwright/musician Garcia Lorca was killed during the Spanish Civil War. There remains a recording of Garcia Lorca playing piano in accompaniment to Spanish flamenco singer "La Argentinita". It's a fascinating document of a multi-talented artist who died, brutally, much too young. Alas ... the horrors of war.


----------



## Chronochromie

Apparently Beethoven's Kreutzer Sonata is so difficult that Kreutzer, who was considered one of the best violinists of his time, refused to play it because it was too difficult.


----------



## aajj

Beethoven's 'Hammerklavier' sonata is one that comes to mind. 

I don't think of music by Ligeti, Berio and others as something to endure; my initial approach to such music it to experience the sound world and textures for the sake of it; then, on additional listens, if i feel like it, i try to dig deeper into what is happening on the structural level. But it can be enjoyed on any level.

For Penderecki's Threnody, i don't think of it as challenging but rather as something that is necessarily disturbing and essential. He provided a service with that piece. It's the sound of the 20th century at its most horrific.


----------



## 20centrfuge

Stockhausen has yet to float my boat, though I'll probably give him another shot sooner or later.

Xenakis, for me has to be approached from a very cerebral viewpoint. His music, IMO, is not so much about emotion, but about the very interesting and unique treatment of the orchestra (or piano or whatever medium he is composing for). Xenakis, if memory serves, was originally a mathematician. The work Jonchiaes (spelling?) I think is an ideal introduction. It is a wonderfully unique piece of music.

But for the record, I believe musical taste is highly personal and noone ever need to apologize or even explain why they do or do not like something. The best any of us can do is to give something repeated listenings and actively listen to what we hear.


----------



## Albert7

Morton Feldman's String Quartet 2 was worth it. Only 2 bathroom breaks but I brought my iPhone into the bathroom with me so I wouldn't stop the music.


----------



## hpowders

For me it was the Schoenberg Piano Concerto and after many months, I'm now at one with it.

Worth the effort I put in!


----------



## starthrower

aajj said:


> Beethoven's 'Hammerklavier' sonata is one that comes to mind.
> 
> I don't think of music by Ligeti, Berio and others as something to endure; my initial approach to such music it to experience the sound world and textures for the sake of it; then, on additional listens, if i feel like it, i try to dig deeper into what is happening on the structural level. But it can be enjoyed on any level.
> 
> For Penderecki's Threnody, i don't think of it as challenging but rather as something that is necessarily disturbing and essential. He provided a service with that piece. It's the sound of the 20th century at its most horrific.


I don't necessarily associate extreme dissonance with horror, death, war, or other negatives. Sometimes I like the way it's used in a piece, and sometimes not. I like the Penderecki work. I have the Timpani orchestral set of Xenakis, but it's too much of the same thing. Lots of dark, sawing, dissonant sounds. I could use more variety in sound textures, timbres.

I got about half way through Black Angels. I don't find it difficult to listen to, but I'm not that crazy about it anyway. I'm not a fan of those high pitched glassy sounds.


----------



## maestro267

I think it's best to listen with an open mind and let the sounds wash over you. Which is easier to do with shorter pieces like Penderecki's _Threnody_ and _Polymorphia_. Bit harder for longer works like his _Utrenja_.


----------



## Lord Lance

*Opera*

That's right. The entire _genre _of opera. I've tried all eras of opera. All unequivocally leave me angry and in unbearable pain. The screeching, the screaming [what some call singing], the music, the staging, the gimmickry, the happy endings [personal grudge against happy endings]. Equally baffling is the fact people re-watch an opera. Even watch a film again is a bit puzzling, but opera?

Side note: Ballet. Yes, the dancing.


----------



## Celloman

Lord Lance said:


> That's right. The entire _genre _of opera. I've tried all eras of opera. All unequivocally leave me angry and in unbearable pain. The screeching, the screaming [what some call singing], the music, the staging, the gimmickry, the happy endings [personal grudge against happy endings]. Equally baffling is the fact people re-watch an opera. Even watch a film again is a bit puzzling, but opera?
> 
> Side note: Ballet. Yes, the dancing.


You mentioned "happy endings". Many operas, perhaps more, are actually tragic. I would recommend a healthy dose of _La Boheme_ for you, in which the female lead dies of _*consumption*_. Not a happy ending at all.

And if you ever saw the cartoon "What's Opera, Doc?", Bugs Bunny would give it to you straight: "What did you expect, a happy ending?" The majority of well-known operas seem to be tragic rather than comedic.

And screeching? Come on now, it ain't all that bad...


----------



## SONNET CLV

Lord Lance said:


> That's right. The entire _genre _of opera. I've tried all eras of opera. All unequivocally leave me angry and in unbearable pain. The screeching, the screaming [what some call singing], the music, the staging, the gimmickry, the happy endings [personal grudge against happy endings]. Equally baffling is the fact people re-watch an opera. Even watch a film again is a bit puzzling, but opera?


Opera remains the most collaborative of the art forms, incorporating nearly every other major art form in its structure; it certainly presents "something for everyone", if not in the whole then in the parts. Yet, so often is that "whole" a step towards the sublime.

As for generating anger or pain? The Greeks recognized and allowed for their greatest tragedies to be vehicles of catharsis. And so for "grand opera". Yet, I can only howl with genuine laughter each time I experience _Le nozze di Figaro_, for that Mozart work takes one of the greatest comedies ever conceived and presents it with music of the highest order, certainly achieving a level of sublime that leaves even the sublime underfoot.

To experience this again and again is not puzzling, but rather healthy. Sort of like laughter among friends and family and other such joys we can never get enough of.


----------



## Lord Lance

SONNET CLV said:


> Opera remains the most collaborative of the art forms, incorporating nearly every other major art form in its structure; it certainly presents "something for everyone", if not in the whole then in the parts. Yet, so often is that "whole" a step towards the sublime.
> 
> As for generating anger or pain? The Greeks recognized and allowed for their greatest tragedies to be vehicles of catharsis. And so for "grand opera". Yet, I can only howl with genuine laughter each time I experience _Le nozze di Figaro_, for that Mozart work takes one of the greatest comedies ever conceived and presents it with music of the highest order, certainly achieving a level of sublime that leaves even the sublime underfoot.
> 
> To experience this again and again is not puzzling, but rather healthy. Sort of like laughter among friends and family and other such joys we can never get enough of.


You can't rationalize interest in opera by stating its merits. If that is what you were going for....

For _you. _You may find it "sublime" or "whole step toward the sublime" or be able to laugh at it. For me, it is endless screeches like a bat. In fact, at least bats have that cute bat factor and they stop... eventually.


----------



## Lord Lance

Celloman said:


> You mentioned "happy endings". Many operas, perhaps more, are actually tragic. I would recommend a healthy dose of _La Boheme_ for you, in which the female lead dies of _*consumption*_. Not a happy ending at all.
> 
> And if you ever saw the cartoon "What's Opera, Doc?", Bugs Bunny would give it to you straight: "What did you expect, a happy ending?" The majority of well-known operas seem to be tragic rather than comedic.
> 
> And screeching? Come on now, it ain't all that bad...


Like Der Ring's ending of the lead heroine igniting herself to her fiery death? Is that sad? I guess she deserved it?

For the rest, I can read the synopsis. :-D


----------



## nightscape

Enescu is a good example of a "tonal" composer whose music is challengingly complex. There's so much going on that it take quite a few listens to really get a grasp on it. Probably one of the main reasons he's not well known as a composer outside the Romanian Rhapsody No. 1, which is fairly obvious and digestible melodic hooks.


----------



## Albert7

Stockhausen's electronic music is extremely difficult to play I suspect as much as hearing it.


----------



## hpowders

The Bach fugues from WTC Books One and Two.

A challenging mental exercise to follow all the intertwined voices.


----------



## Oliver

hpowders said:


> The Bach fugues from WTC Books One and Two.
> 
> A challenging mental exercise to follow all the intertwined voices.


What are your favourite fugues, out of interest?


----------



## Albert7

Feldman's opera Neither was very difficult listening for me. But worth it.


----------



## vamos

I think that immediate clicking is actually kind of important with music.

I do think that the appreciation of abstract music is good.

At the same time, with a composer like Ravel I felt a deep and immediate connection to the music. I liked it. And it fascinated me. Same with Scriabin and some Ligeti. Those three (also schnittke and zorn in addition) are big for me because they captivate... You can really reach a structural understanding I guess and better appreciate.

With Stockhausen, Xenakis, Boulez, Babbitt, Carter, etc... I genuinely enjoy listening. I get something out of all their work, and it is a great thing to have.

At the same time, when I think of pieces that really had an effect on me and my way of thinking, it's not those. It's Ligeti's etudes, Scriabin and Ravel's piano work. As much as I admire and am enriched by the other more serial composers, I never really had that same feeling of being enraptured and immersed, thrilled and drawn in, excited, really. I think that sort of excitement and immediacy is actually kind of important with music. That could be an immature view. I think piano music is the best genre of classical because it is pure intellect and tone. It is the smallest and most controlled form and undiluted.

I love big works, but the ability to express a simple idea with keys is no less important than large scale works.


----------



## Albert7

vamos said:


> I think that immediate clicking is actually kind of important with music.
> 
> I do think that the appreciation of abstract music is good.
> 
> At the same time, with a composer like Ravel I felt a deep and immediate connection to the music. I liked it. And it fascinated me. Same with Scriabin and some Ligeti. Those three (also schnittke and zorn in addition) are big for me because they captivate... You can really reach a structural understanding I guess and better appreciate.
> 
> With Stockhausen, Xenakis, Boulez, Babbitt, Carter, etc... I genuinely enjoy listening. I get something out of all their work, and it is a great thing to have.
> 
> At the same time, when I think of pieces that really had an effect on me and my way of thinking, it's not those. It's Ligeti's etudes, Scriabin and Ravel's piano work. As much as I admire and am enriched by the other more serial composers, I never really had that same feeling of being enraptured and immersed, thrilled and drawn in, excited, really. I think that sort of excitement and immediacy is actually kind of important with music. That could be an immature view. I think piano music is the best genre of classical because it is pure intellect and tone. It is the smallest and most controlled form and undiluted.
> 
> I love big works, but the ability to express a simple idea with keys is no less important than large scale works.


Wow, you just said this in a way that sums up how I feel too.


----------



## Oliver

vamos said:


> I think that immediate clicking is actually kind of important with music.
> 
> I do think that the appreciation of abstract music is good.
> 
> At the same time, with a composer like Ravel I felt a deep and immediate connection to the music. I liked it. And it fascinated me. Same with Scriabin and some Ligeti. Those three (also schnittke and zorn in addition) are big for me because they captivate... You can really reach a structural understanding I guess and better appreciate.
> 
> With Stockhausen, Xenakis, Boulez, Babbitt, Carter, etc... I genuinely enjoy listening. I get something out of all their work, and it is a great thing to have.
> 
> At the same time, when I think of pieces that really had an effect on me and my way of thinking, it's not those. It's Ligeti's etudes, Scriabin and Ravel's piano work. As much as I admire and am enriched by the other more serial composers, I never really had that same feeling of being enraptured and immersed, thrilled and drawn in, excited, really. I think that sort of excitement and immediacy is actually kind of important with music. That could be an immature view. I think piano music is the best genre of classical because it is pure intellect and tone. It is the smallest and most controlled form and undiluted.
> 
> I love big works, but the ability to express a simple idea with keys is no less important than large scale works.


Music that immediately clicks also gets old rather quickly though.


----------



## Nope

I have been listening to Penderecki lately, and I encountered the same situation. I started off with his famous Threnody, which sounded absolutely a mess the first time. However, I got the score, did some research, and learned his way of writing the music, it then started to fascinate me. So if you ask me, I would recommend you to study the music, rather simply by ear. That will grant you a much better vision to look at the music


----------



## SONNET CLV

Nope said:


> I have been listening to Penderecki lately, and I encountered the same situation. I started off with his famous Threnody, which sounded absolutely a mess the first time. However, I got the score, did some research, and learned his way of writing the music, it then started to fascinate me. So if you ask me, I would recommend you to study the music, rather simply by ear. That will grant you a much better vision to look at the music


I read the above post a day after receiving in the mail the DUX label "Special Edition" set of THE COMPLETE PENDERECKI SYMPHONIES, Nos. 1-8 on 5 discs featuring the Polish Sinfonia Iuventus Orchestra conducted by the composer. Arguably definitive accounts. (I have various recordings of the symphonies on other labels and by various forces, but this DUX set caught my eye because all were conducted by the composer with a single orchestra.)

It remains fascinating to trace Penderecki's development through his symphonies. Where Number One arises out of a sound world similar to that of the _Thren_, the following seven occupy a somewhat more expansive sound world, one which incorporates more of the past heritage and certainly much tonality. One realizes that Penderecki the composer was educating himself as he went onward in composition, ever expanding and opening new doors to allow for sounds of the past to breathe in his music. He learned to reject that asinine idea that one must reject everything from the past in order to create the new. And frankly, in my opinion, the music is better for it. I find much more of interest in the later symphonies than I do in Number One, as interesting as that piece is. But each Penderecki Symphony is a revelation, and perhaps that's how a musical oeuvre should proceed.

The score for Penderecki's _Thren _has long resided in my personal library of scores. It is quite a unique work of art by itself, quite something to look at and study. And to listen to the _Thren_ while "reading" this score provides a unique experience almost unlike any other in music. Perhaps no recording or sound system (or even concert hall experience) can allow for such a complete "hearing" of this work as a following of the score as the music plays provides. Of course, before you do that, you have to spend some time learning what each of the symbols stands for -- the plucks and snaps and raps. And that certainly expands one's understanding of music.

There are those who naively contend that "modernistic abstract" artists do what they do because they don't have the talent or skill to render "traditional realism". I like to contend that Jackson Pollock, the famous American abstract expressionist from Wyoming, could paint horses in a field with the best of them, but chose to do something else. Following Penderecki's progress through the symphonies certainly confirms that the composer could write anything he wanted to -- orchestrating in the style of Mozart if he chose to -- and that the style of music he wrote for _Thren_ and the Symphony No. 1 was a "choice", not the result of him not being able to do anything else.

Perhaps the best musical example of this notion is Arnold Schoenberg, who seems to have been able to do it all. Compare the early _Verklärte Nacht _with the later _Pierrot Lunaire _with the Chamber Symphonies with _Gurrelieder _with the String Quartets with the _Moses und Aron _with the Cello Concerto composed after Monn .... And I could mention the Johann Strauss waltz arrangements, too.

Music provides for such variety. There is certainly something for everyone. But perhaps the greatest joy is capable when one can appreciate the largest scope of it rather than a narrow band. Just as I would rather know many languages and many books and many people and many cities and many colors ... rather than just one, I would also rather know many "musics".


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

I don't understand how people can make an effort to like music they don't sart off liking. It's been many years since I've found the music of many of the most beloved, 'safest' composers largely understimulating......most of their works just do not reach me anymore.....so I tried listening to the more arcane composers of modern music (i.e., the ones considered to be important in academia) hoping that they would, and boy was I wrong.

I believe that all you have to do for greatness to speak is put your attention on it.....sometimes it will even command attention on its own.


----------

