# Blind spots, anyone?



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

Ok, I’m not picking a fight or inviting upon me the usual rant, just wonder what your blind spot might be (if you have one)? And any idea why? 

My own blind spot is the symphonies of Gustav Mahler (heresy, I know, so I usually keep it to myself). I love his song cycles and a big Bruckner fan, so it’s not the period which I don’t get. The symphonies are in my collection since I have been working hard on getting rid of this blemish. So far however, every repeated listening fills me with more dread. I read that John Culshaw suffered from this problem too.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Late Beethoven - Brahms entire solo piano output


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Glenn Gould and opera.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Mozart. Can't stand it. I walked out of The Magic Flute at the Vienna Opera I was so bored. A couple of the later symphonies are about all I can listen to. Despise the piano concertos, horn concertos, violin concertos. Will never ever listen to the Concertante thing for violin and viola ever again. Loath the Requiem. He's supposed to be the greatest composer of all time. Beloved by two of my favorites: Mahler and Tchaikovsky. But something in his music just grates on me and I do not appreciate it. I've tried and I'm sure the problem is with me. But Mozart and I just do not connect. I also don't really care for Verdi or Bach.


----------



## ldiat (Jan 27, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> Mozart. Can't stand it. I walked out of The Magic Flute at the Vienna Opera I was so bored. A couple of the later symphonies are about all I can listen to. Despise the piano concertos, horn concertos, violin concertos. Will never ever listen to the Concertante thing for violin and viola ever again. Loath the Requiem. He's supposed to be the greatest composer of all time. Beloved by two of my favorites: Mahler and Tchaikovsky. But something in his music just grates on me and I do not appreciate it. I've tried and I'm sure the problem is with me. But Mozart and I just do not connect. I also don't really care for Verdi or Bach.


OOHHH AM I READI........................wait i just came to, i fainted. walked out on the Magic Flute! AAAAAHHHHH! for shame


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

ldiat said:


> OOHHH AM I READI........................wait i just came to, i fainted. walked out on the Magic Flute! AAAAAHHHHH! for shame


I took a friend to Zauberflote - as a way to introduce her to opera. Who could not be enchanted.

After the perf - me - "Papageno got the biggest cheer at curtain call,"

Her: "Well no wonder, he was the only character that kept everyone from falling asleep!"

Needless to say - I never mentioned opera to her again.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

mbhaub said:


> Mozart. Can't stand it. I walked out of The Magic Flute at the Vienna Opera I was so bored. A couple of the later symphonies are about all I can listen to. Despise the piano concertos, horn concertos, violin concertos. Will never ever listen to the Concertante thing for violin and viola ever again. Loath the Requiem. He's supposed to be the greatest composer of all time. Beloved by two of my favorites: Mahler and Tchaikovsky. But something in his music just grates on me and I do not appreciate it. I've tried and I'm sure the problem is with me. But Mozart and I just do not connect. I also don't really care for Verdi or Bach.


Now this is the kind of response to Mozart I actually think is quite reasonable. I dont think the fault is with you at all. I like your summary - no attempt to back up your loathing with reasons why it is so awful - just plain dislike. I actually prefer people who hate all Mozart - than those who say - well I like the symphonies but the operas are so boring - so predictable.


----------



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

1. Gilbert and Sullivan. I like operetta/light opera in general but I have an aversion to those by them despite how clever and witty they are - to me it comes over as smug and trite. 

2. Modern classical which has associations with new-age/world music - just sounds too precious for my taste. 

3. Anything before the late baroque period - simply have no interest in delving into anything pre-Bach, Handel etc.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Bruckner .


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

ldiat said:


> OOHHH AM I READI........................wait i just came to, i fainted. walked out on the Magic Flute! AAAAAHHHHH! for shame


I am with Ludwig on this. Mozart's music is great, but his opera stores are trashy. I don't really listen to Mozart, but then I don't listen to Bach either. I have too much else to listen to and tend to focus into things. I actually bought a Mozart opera on CD and DVD. Haven't watched it yet and only listened to the CD once. Some obscure opera from his catalog.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I am with Ludwig on this. Mozart's music is great, *but his opera stores are trashy. * I don't really listen to Mozart, but then I don't listen to Bach either. I have too much else to listen to and tend to focus into things. I actually bought a Mozart opera on CD and DVD. Haven't watched it yet and only listened to the CD once. Some obscure opera from his catalog.


Many opera stories are. However, Mozart's are among the best


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Dvorak symphonies and most everything by Vivaldi, Hanson and Mozetich.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> Dvorak symphonies and most everything by Vivaldi, Hanson and Mozetich.


Ooh! Controversial! :lol:


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

90% of Bach’s output.
Handel apart from 3 or 4 arias. Zadok the Priest I loathe beyond all reason.
Puccini, whose arias sound to me like introductions which never get round to the actual tune. 
Gilbert & Sullivan - possibly clever and amusing in Victorian times but now just sound really childish. I can’t stand all those silly names (don’t like Dickens for the same reason).


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2018)

Anything with caterwauling.


----------



## SomeAustrianBloke (Nov 1, 2018)

The Romantic period and Beethoven. I don't get it.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Never admit to what others may have long suspected or is already apparent. It looks bad.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I don't have blind spots, only educated and refined tastes


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Many opera stories are. However, Mozart's are among *the best*


or worst! Depending on what kind of stories one likes.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I am with Ludwig on this. Mozart's music is great, but his opera stores are trashy.


That's horrible!  Were the aisles not properly swept? Were the items on the shelves in disarray? Perhaps Mozart was cutting labor hours.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

FWIW, the only Mozart opera Beethoven criticized for its "scandalous" story was Don Giovanni. At least I don't have any references to another. He fairly worshipped Magic Flute.


----------



## pianoville (Jul 19, 2018)

stomanek said:


> Late Beethoven - Brahms entire solo piano output


You can't be serious... I can understand why you wouldn't like Brahms early output, but the late pieces are all great masterpieces! Have you listened to his Intermezzo op. 118 no. 2? I think it's impossible to not be moved by it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Interminable, portentous, gaseous late 19th-century/early 20th-century symphonies (there are a lot of them). This is at least my third repetition of this particular dislike, and, as is my custom, I decline to name names because this only irritates/saddens/annoys others. Just think of any particular interminable, portentous, gaseous late 19th-century/early 20th-century symphony that you loathe, and let the emotion sweep over you: you'll then share my experience.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

I can say I don't have important/major blind spots. If anything, only for what I would consider very minor works. That is, I either love or at least enjoy what is commonly regarded as the best music in any genre by (let's say) the 70 or so greatest composers.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Fritz Kobus said:


> or worst! Depending on what kind of stories one likes.


Compared with most operas they are extremely good! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I dislike all so-called 'avant-garde' music. Sorry it just seems to me a load of tuneless stuff. Also the minimalists. I just don't have the patience for their constant repetitions


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I have no blind spots. There are composers and pieces I dislike, but I am merely perceiving, clearly and correctly, their many deficiencies.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Death of Bach to late Mozart, approximately the 40 years of early classical era music. CPE Bach, WF Bach, Boyce, Haydn etc. I like some Mozart and I do like Beethoven, but from the classical era of music, that's about it. If you were to play me a series of Haydn symphonies but you muddled up each of the movements (Symphony no 34 movement one followed by Symphony no 17 movement two followed by Symphony no 48 movement three followed by Symphony no 21 movement four all as one symphony), I wouldn't know. 

Medieval and Renaissance music is all quite a blind spot for me. 

And a lot of piano music is a blind spot, particularly solo piano. Also some piano concerti are a blind spot. I often like it, but I don't know much about it. Mozart wrote about 24 piano concerti that all sound the same to me. 

We all have our likes and dislikes. But generally what I wrote here is what I don't like. 

I don't really have any blind spots of music I like. But maybe there is some music I would like but I don't know it exists. I guess I really don't know what's in my blind spot.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

senza sordino said:


> Death of Bach to late Mozart, approximately the 40 years of early classical era music. CPE Bach, WF Bach, Boyce, Haydn etc. I like some Mozart and I do like Beethoven, but from the classical era of music, that's about it. If you were to play me a series of Haydn symphonies* but you muddled up each of the movements* (Symphony no 34 movement one followed by Symphony no 17 movement two followed by Symphony no 48 movement three followed by Symphony no 21 movement four all as one symphony), I wouldn't know.
> 
> Medieval and Renaissance music is all quite a blind spot for me.
> 
> ...


I'm no massive fan of Haydn but I do enjoy a lot of his music - I'm as surprised to read the statement about muddling movements as I am that you find all Mozart PCs sound the same.

I concur with you feelings about early music. I enjoy a bit of Tallis and occasional early music but 10 minutes per year on the radio will suffice for 400 years of music.

'


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Maybe the music I never heard. It comes right out of nowhere and then I see


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

senza sordino said:


> ...If you were to play me a series of Haydn symphonies but you muddled up each of the movements (Symphony no 34 movement one followed by Symphony no 17 movement two followed by Symphony no 48 movement three followed by Symphony no 21 movement four all as one symphony), I wouldn't know.


Some time back, supposedly, there was a late night/early morning classical DJ who routinely mixed movements from various Haydn symphonies, always announcing them as legit works. Over several years, nobody ever gave any indication of noticing.

I believe I heard that from Jim Svejda on the radio…


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Operetta

The Complete Violin Exercises of Antonio Allegro Baroccolini

The Complete Wailings on the Cross of Johann Seabass Barockenstein

Romantic composers that keep their fans believing that all music should be Romantic...

Russian composers whose names start with M or U, or V.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

pianoville said:


> You can't be serious... I can understand why you wouldn't like Brahms early output, but the late pieces are all great masterpieces! Have you listened to his Intermezzo op. 118 no. 2? I think it's impossible to not be moved by it.


OK just listened on youtube - good piece.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Some time back, supposedly, there was a late night/early morning classical DJ who routinely mixed movements from various Haydn symphonies, always announcing them as legit works. Over several years, nobody ever gave any indication of noticing.
> 
> I believe I heard that from Jim Svejda on the radio…


I would have thought at least one haydn fan would notice. Even non Haydn fans like me - if the mix was truly random and I heard 2 fast mvts in a row I would think something is wrong.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I've always assumed he used a standard Haydn movement order...


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Practically anything sung by the King's Singers. Their constant bob-a-dob-a-dob-a-dooba-dobba-doo b*llocks makes my teeth go into permanent grit mode. Even worse they always appear somewhere on tv over xmas, murdering some Xmas carol with their irritating flob-a-dob-a-dobbin. Rareley do i reach for the virtual baseball bat to pummel anyone with but those tossers really rattle my cage.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> Mozart. Can't stand it. I walked out of The Magic Flute at the Vienna Opera I was so bored. A couple of the later symphonies are about all I can listen to. Despise the piano concertos, horn concertos, violin concertos. Will never ever listen to the Concertante thing for violin and viola ever again. Loath the Requiem. He's supposed to be the greatest composer of all time. Beloved by two of my favorites: Mahler and Tchaikovsky. But something in his music just grates on me and I do not appreciate it. I've tried and I'm sure the problem is with me. But Mozart and I just do not connect. I also don't really care for Verdi or Bach.





Fritz Kobus said:


> I am with Ludwig on this. Mozart's music is great, but his opera stores are trashy. I don't really listen to Mozart, but then I don't listen to Bach either. I have too much else to listen to and tend to focus into things. I actually bought a Mozart opera on CD and DVD. Haven't watched it yet and only listened to the CD once. Some obscure opera from his catalog.


We are brothers in ...rejection! :lol:

Ok... I love the Requiem, I like some Verdis operas (the Luisa Miller...) and I don't listen the Bach. (because what is played today isn't Bach, but something like Bach) Also I find the late Mozarts symphonies very good and with a great tonal and rhythmic complexity. But the Mozart operas, for me, are a no go. (I was listening Grauns, Montezuma. A friend came to visit me. A! You are listening Mozart, he told me. Montezuma is very mediocre opera. Only for collectors and musical freaks...) Ok... Because I don't like something doesn't mean it isn't great or valuable. The taste and the opinion are like the A....


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I have too many blind spots to mention. The older I get the more I have, and it isn't macular degeneration.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

French opera.
I love French music,
but can't stand the operas.
Britten's operas.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Itullian said:


> French opera.
> I love French music,
> but can't stand the operas.
> Britten's operas.


I listen only Berlioz's operas... I see a point to your statement.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

*The Ring*...............


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Anything earlier than about 1920. 

Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. I still own, and have owned, many of the major works by most of of the major composers, and as of yet, none of it does anything for me.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Itullian said:


> Britten's operas.


Yep, i have a severe allergic reaction to Billy Budd. It just sounds like some people attempting to sing and shout along to a group of musical pieces with no discernable tune. I dont think i'll ever tolerate it again (once was enough). A good story spoiled. Agree with many aboutthose awful Gilbert and Sullivan comic operas, too.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I've actually come around to quite a bit of music I previously couldn't get into. But I still can't get too excited about Bruckner. Richard Strauss, Liszt, and Schumann don't excite me but for a few pieces. Mozart and Haydn symphonies don't thrill me either. Pre 20th century string quartets are another blind spot. As are most baroque concertos, and many romantic ones.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Dan Ante said:


> *The Ring*...............


Philistine!!!!!!!


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I have difficulty with early (before Lully) and atonal music (much more with the latter than with the former). I've tried Pierrot Lunaire a few times already but this work seems to stay beyond my comprehension.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Merl said:


> Practically anything sung by the King's Singers. Their constant bob-a-dob-a-dob-a-dooba-dobba-doo b*llocks makes my teeth go into permanent grit mode. Even worse they always appear somewhere on tv over xmas, murdering some Xmas carol with their irritating flob-a-dob-a-dobbin. Rareley do i reach for the virtual baseball bat to pummel anyone with but those tossers really rattle my cage.


GROAN. I grabbed a CD of them for 50 cents and wished I hadn't.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Itullian said:


> French opera.
> I love French music,
> but can't stand the operas.
> Britten's operas.


I have found very few French operas that I like, Saint-Saens Henry VIII being one of them and Gounod's Romeo and Juliet only because of Alagna and Gheorghiu.

Of course Italians writing opera in the French language is fine, such as Donizetti's La fille du Regiment.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Forgot to add...

The Complete Anthems Odes & Royal Booty-kisses by Henry Blow Percival


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Mozart I'm afraid. For me, listening to Mozart is like listening to someone crying for pain but unfortunately I sense no pain. It's a bit like watching Neymar doing a quadruple axel, but on the grass, rather than through the air.

TBF I've been trying to put on a Mozart symphony like once a years and see how far I could go. After so many years, I can now reach the slow movement with reasonable confidence that I won't get up from my chair. 

At least I am trying!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Fritz Kobus said:


> GROAN. I grabbed a CD of them for 50 cents and wished I hadn't.


That's so irritating.

It reminds me of a quartet of english guys who came to St Petersburg - madrigals. I was invited by a russian friend who for some reason thought me being english I would be sure to love and evening of english madrigals. The concert hall was packed. There were lots of smiling faces at the start - after all - what could be more charming to russians than 4 real englishmen singing 16thC music. Well 1 song was charming, 2 songs a treat, but after 5 songs I noticed people starting to fidget. i was personally trying to suppress yawns. 2 hours of madrigals!

To be fair they did get a standing ovation or maybe people were just so happy it was all over. A dreadful night.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

Woauw, I didn’t think that many learned forum contributors had so many blind spots. 1 or 2, perhaps, but the entire output of Mozart - that’s almost impressive. Even the string quintets? And, are you seeking a cure for your blind spot?

Personally, I have Walter, Klemperer, Bernstein giving me therapy for this Mahler antipathy. I’m not proud of It. 100% accept that the deficiency is with me. I would like to take part in the regular discussion about Mahler on these pages. But, so far, it’s closed territory for me. Help!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mbhaub said:


> Philistine!!!!!!!


No he just doesn't like Wagner


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Fritz Kobus said:


> GROAN. I grabbed a CD of them for 50 cents and wished I hadn't.


Give it away to a charity shop. Bound to be bought by someone who likes it


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

stomanek said:


> That's so irritating.
> 
> It reminds me of a quartet of english guys who came to St Petersburg - madrigals. I was invited by a russian friend who for some reason thought me being english I would be sure to love and evening of english madrigals. The concert hall was packed. There were lots of smiling faces at the start - after all - what could be more charming to russians than 4 real englishmen singing 16thC music. Well 1 song was charming, 2 songs a treat, but after 5 songs I noticed people starting to fidget. i was personally trying to suppress yawns. 2 hours of madrigals!
> 
> To be fair they did get a standing ovation or maybe people were just so happy it was all over. A dreadful night.


reminds me of a (very expensive) concert I went to with the Tallis Scholars. Even my wife was bored and she actually likes that sort of music! But of course that sort of music was never meant to be listened to for two hours at a stretch. Like a concert of the Bach WTC I went to. Great music but I think Bach would have told us all we were mad listening to a whole book of it at one go


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Tchaikovsky
Britten
Puccini
Verdi
Elgar (although considering having a listen to one of his symphonies today.....in this case I do believe I am 'missing out!)


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mbhaub said:


> Philistine!!!!!!!


You're really not liable to convert someone to your Wagnerian cause by calling him names! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Allerius said:


> I have difficulty with early (before Lully) and atonal music (much more with the latter than with the former). *I've tried Pierrot Lunaire a few times already but this work seems to stay beyond my comprehension.*


Yes I have a couple of recordings of it but they stay on my shelf.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Bad and uninspired music is my blind spot.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Blind spots, rather than music I really do not like (Britten is in the latter category)? In other words composers who you sense you ought to like, but they really don't quite hit the spot?

The most obvious ones for me are:
Richard Strauss - I like some pieces, but I often struggle to identify the "beautiful soaring melodies" he is so famous for. Too often they sound bland. I do have some pieces I like very much (weirdly, the Sinfonia Domestica is among them....go figure!)

Edward Elgar - I'm British for God's sake! And yet, while some pieces are great (Enigma, Cello Concerto, Intro & Allegro), others sound like meandering meaningless noise (BOTH symphonies esp No.2, the Violin Concerto, the Nightmare of Geronimo)

I should also add a complete indifference to the big Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto. After the grand opening, what's the point of the next 30+ minutes? 

Italian Opera - I like but don't go loopy about it.

I am perfectly happy to put my hands in the air and recognise these blind spots as faults on my part. Hope you get better luck out of an Elgar symphony than I do, Jim!!


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Robert Pickett said:


> Blind spots, rather than music I really do not like (Britten is in the latter category)? In other words composers who you sense you ought to like, but they really don't quite hit the spot?
> 
> The most obvious ones for me are:
> Richard Strauss - I like some pieces, but I often struggle to identify the "beautiful soaring melodies" he is so famous for. Too often they sound bland. I do have some pieces I like very much (weirdly, the Sinfonia Domestica is among them....go figure!)
> ...


Bob!!!......your blind spots resemble mine and I had even forgotten my essential dislike of Richard Strauss as well.

Probably will not bother with Ted's 1st....spending the morning with The Band.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Excellent, I'm feeling quite satisfied. There are members here with far more blind spots than I have! I thought my failure to worship Franz Schlubert was a major defect, but compared to not being moved by ANY Mozart it's trivial.

My major blind spot is opera. Britten's operas annoy me particularly because I think he wasted his talents creating hours of noise. If opera magically disappeared one dark night I wouldn't miss it at all.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

eugeneonagain said:


> Excellent, I'm feeling quite satisfied. There are members here with far more blind spots than I have! I thought my failure to worship Franz Schlubert was a major defect, but compared to not being moved by ANY Mozart it's trivial.
> 
> My major blind spot is opera. *Britten's operas *annoy me particularly because I think he wasted his talents creating hours of noise. If opera magically disappeared one dark night I wouldn't miss it at all.


It can be worse: The King of the Pagodas! :lol: (this is a ballet, or something like this.)


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> Excellent, I'm feeling quite satisfied. There are members here with far more blind spots than I have! I thought my failure to worship Franz Schlubert was a major defect, *but compared to not being moved by ANY Mozart it's trivial.*
> 
> My major blind spot is opera. Britten's operas annoy me particularly because I think he wasted his talents creating hours of noise. If opera magically disappeared one dark night I wouldn't miss it at all.


Quite - not getting any Mozart must be one of the most disastrous deficiencies in the history of artistic creation.

As for Britten - I finally found some Britten to enjoy last year when I listened to the VC. The rest of what I have heard makes me wonder why he is esteemed as Britains' first composers from the 20ThC - I would have thought RVW should hold that title.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

stomanek said:


> Quite - not getting any Mozart must be one of the most disastrous deficiencies in the history of artistic creation.
> 
> As for Britten - I finally found some Britten to enjoy last year when I listened to the VC. The rest of what I have heard makes me wonder why he is esteemed as Britains' first composers from the 20ThC - I would have thought RVW should hold that title.


How Britten ever displaced William Walton is a mystery to me. Apart from his cycles of tedious operas there's little to get your teeth into. I consider it another case of how composers who didn't write operas were thought of as having 'failed'. The fact Walton only wrote one major opera seems to me a victory (and a relief).


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

^^^^^^I personally have derived far more enjoyment (for one of a better word) from Rubbra, Finzi Moeran and Walton than I ever have (or am likely to) from Ben Britten.....a real 'blind spot'.....


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> How Britten ever displaced William Walton is a mystery to me. Apart from his cycles of tedious operas there's little to get your teeth into. I consider it another case of how composers who didn't write operas were thought of as having 'failed'. The fact Walton only wrote one major opera seems to me a victory (and a relief).


Interesting that Britten wrote a magical piece 'Serenade for horn, tenor and strings' and 'Young person's guide' (an unbelievably imaginative work) and then Peter Grimes which is his only opera that has really become popular. Then, apart from the War Requiem not much that is accessible.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

This thread seems to be descending into a session of Britten bashing.....

.....excellent! :devil:

In terms of the "Best of British", I'd come down firmly on the side of Vaughan Williams. I think he is a major symphonist - there are a couple of weaker works in his nine, but fewer than, for example, Shostakovich managed - and there are dozens of other works of his I love. The "minor" rough contemporaries of his - Walton, Rubbra, Bax, Moeran, Finzi, Alwyn to name but a few - all made significant contributions to the world of music, (apologies, but I'd probably also add George Lloyd to that list!) and it is clear that, if you dig further, individuals such as Walton have something remarkable in their hinterland too.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Robert Pickett said:


> This thread seems to be descending into a session of Britten bashing.....
> 
> .....excellent! :devil:
> 
> In terms of the "Best of British", I'd come down firmly on the side of Vaughan Williams. I think he is a major symphonist - there are a couple of weaker works in his nine, but fewer than, for example, Shostakovich managed - and there are dozens of other works of his I love. The "minor" rough contemporaries of his - Walton, Rubbra, Bax, Moeran, Finzi, Alwyn to name but a few - all made significant contributions to the world of music, (apologies, but I'd probably also add George Lloyd to that list!) and it is clear that, if you dig further, individuals such as Walton have something remarkable in their hinterland too.


which are the weaker RVW sy?


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Just an opinion, but I'd put No.1 and No.7 as the weaker ones, the former because it doesn't feel Vaughan Williamsy enough, and Antartica because it still betrays vestiges of being film music, so I don't sense the symphonic nature of it as much as the others.

2,3,4,5,6 are all stupendously good works, although it has only been in the past few years that I have appreciated the Pastoral/No.3 as a picture in the numbness of tragedy rather than the derogatory "cow pat music". It's now my favourite of his symphonies. The last two are far more enigmatic, No.9 still leaves me very puzzled indeed...


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Robert Pickett said:


> ...
> 
> In terms of the "Best of British", I'd come down firmly on the side of Vaughan Williams. I think he is a major symphonist - there are a couple of weaker works in his nine, but fewer than, for example, Shostakovich managed - and there are dozens of other works of his I love. The "minor" rough contemporaries of his - Walton, Rubbra, Bax, Moeran, Finzi, Alwyn to name but a few - all made significant contributions to the world of music, (apologies, but I'd probably also add George Lloyd to that list!) and it is clear that, if you dig further, individuals such as Walton have something remarkable in their hinterland too.


Oh, George Lloyd. At least he is "different" from other late 20th century composers by being old fashioned. He's not a blind spot for me. In fact I quite like the inventiveness in some of his symphonies. Havn't listened to him for a long time. Might as well go do that now.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Robert Pickett said:


> Just an opinion, but I'd put No.1 and No.7 as the weaker ones, the former because it doesn't feel Vaughan Williamsy enough, and Antartica because it still betrays vestiges of being film music, so I don't sense the symphonic nature of it as much as the others.
> 
> 2,3,4,5,6 are all stupendously good works, although it has only been in the past few years that I have appreciated the Pastoral/No.3 as a picture in the numbness of tragedy rather than the derogatory "cow pat music". It's now my favourite of his symphonies. The last two are far more enigmatic, No.9 still leaves me very puzzled indeed...


No 4 I heard the 1st mvt on the radio many years ago not knowing who it was thinking - wow. No 9 - caught the last mvt again on r3 and was impressed - big ending. Must really go through them properly and put Mozart aside for a while.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Anything before Schubert can be a bit monotonic... but his descendants made up for it... I didn't like Strauss, except for the 4LS, until I became fascinated with his constant modulations that made him modern without being avant garde... I think he may be the greatest of opera composers, although he is no substitute for Verdi...

Britten can certainly make some unharmonious noise at times, Prince of the Pagodas gave me a headache one night and I've never played it again... but seeing Zimmerman play the VC live was a surprisingly good experience.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I was going to say Bruckner but really I mean the whole category that Strange Magic called "interminable, portentous, gaseous late 19th-century/early 20th-century symphonies" upthread. I call it a blind spot because I suspect most of this music isn't bad (except Tchaikovsky), but the entire project repels me.

I recently tried to listen to Sibelius' first symphony for the first time in years and couldn't make it five minutes - the piece isn't even that long but it's very much of this category. Later Sibelius is of course terrific.

Also, Handel's instrumental music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I tend to work on them and slowly they become less blind. Recently I've made a lot of progress with a lot of Debussy (specially the piano music), Vaughan Williams in his more contemplative modes, Messiaen and Szymanowski. I still have quite a blind spot with early (polyphonic) music and I do find most Italian opera difficult to listen to without being able to see it (but have no such problem with Handel, Mozart, Wagner, Britten etc). Breaking through with a blind spot tends to open all sorts of new "avenues of understanding" of other music. And it doesn't always work in chronological order. My recent breakthrough with Messiaen was probably aided by my growing love for George Benjamin's music - music that might itself have once been a blind spot!


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Robert Pickett said:


> In terms of the "Best of British", I'd come down firmly on the side of Vaughan Williams. I think he is a major symphonist - there are a couple of weaker works in his nine, but fewer than, for example, Shostakovich managed - and there are dozens of other works of his I love. The "minor" rough contemporaries of his - Walton, Rubbra, Bax, Moeran, Finzi, Alwyn to name but a few - all made significant contributions to the world of music, (apologies, but I'd probably also add George Lloyd to that list!) and it is clear that, if you dig further, individuals such as Walton have something remarkable in their hinterland too.


any reason you did not name Arthur Bliss?


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

No reason, those listed were the first to spring to mind! Admittedly I haven't delved far with Bliss, not beyond the more famous orchestral works, but what I've heard has been excellent.


----------



## Dorsetmike (Sep 26, 2018)

I'd say maybe 90% of classical from after 1800, and nearing 100% after about 1950; if I have the radio on and the announcer says Einaudi or Gorecki it's instant switch off.

I think part of the problem is the way these days radio stations rarely play anything outside of their Top 300, so a lot of works are "done to death" . The record industry is nearly as bad, just how many recordings of say Bethoven's 9th or Tchaikovsky's 1812 do we need? Is there anything that hasn't already been done with them?.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

Mike - Radio 3 from 9.00 till 12.00 every weekday is really very good these days. There’s often stuff that’s new to me and Ian Skelly is an excellent presenter. He alternates fortnightly with Suzy Klein who I don’t like quite as much, but that’s just me.
They don’t play the dreaded Einaudi! I never go near Classic FM.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

eugeneonagain said:


> Excellent, I'm feeling quite satisfied. There are members here with far more blind spots than I have! I thought my failure to worship Franz Schlubert was a major defect, but compared to not being moved by ANY Mozart it's trivial.
> 
> My major blind spot is opera. Britten's operas annoy me particularly because I think he wasted his talents creating hours of noise. If opera magically disappeared one dark night I wouldn't miss it at all.


What operas have you tried? Surely there are some you would like. There is considerable variety in opera so that most anyone should be able to find a few they like unless perhaps they just don't like vocal music in the Classical realm. I have tons of operas and don't have any Britten, and looking at the list of Britten operas, I don't expect I ever will have any. English opera has never really sat well with me, nor French.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> You're really not liable to convert someone to your Wagnerian cause by calling him names! :lol:


Wagner does have a history of inspiring totalitarians.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> Wagner does have a history of inspiring totalitarians.


Woody will be gritting his teeth and muttering to himself right now. Expect a reply, soon.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Robert Pickett said:


> Blind spots, rather than music I really do not like (Britten is in the latter category)? In other words composers who you sense you ought to like, but they really don't quite hit the spot?


I think you have that the wrong way around. A blind spot is a composer who you _don't _"sense you ought to like" but many other informed and experienced listeners do like. Their taste is inexplicable to you - therefore it is a blind spot for you. Or, I suppose, you could consider all the others to be morons?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I have too many blind spots to mention. The older I get the more I have, and it isn't macular degeneration.


I am genuinely interested in this enveloping darkness. I am the opposite (as I have posted far too many times over the year). I wonder how others experience aging - a retreat to the things they love most (perhaps so as to go deeper into them) or the chance to use their growing experience to explore more and further?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Merl said:


> Woody will be gritting his teeth and muttering to himself right now. Expect a reply, soon.
> 
> View attachment 110021


Don't get me wrong: I love Wagner. So there is no need to cart me away or lock me up.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Any Shostakovich symphony with 'vocal contributions'. Whilst i like some Shostie symphonies, symphonies 13 and 14 are less of a blind spot and more of a massive irritation. I tried again with Babi Yar, a few weeks ago. Only managed 15 minutes and by then i was thinking of excuses to turn the awful racket off. It actually made me angry.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I am genuinely interested in this enveloping darkness. I am the opposite (as I have posted far too many times over the year). I wonder how others experience aging - a retreat to the things they love most (perhaps so as to go deeper into them) or the chance to use their growing experience to explore more and further?


Interesting post. No definite answer on my part, other than as we age, we become more familiar with the outer boundaries of what pleases or fulfills us. This may be something of a general check on how far beyond our established boundaries we push. But serendipity plays its part: in my dotage I have explored more genres--blundered into--of non-western music--Moroccan, Mauritanian, Malian, southeast Asian, Other. Also more 20th-century composers with whom I was less familiar. In retrospect, I think my balance between the familiar and the novel is now pretty much what it's always been.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I think you have that the wrong way around. A blind spot is a composer who you _don't _"sense you ought to like" but many other informed and experienced listeners do like. Their taste is inexplicable to you - therefore it is a blind spot for you. Or, I suppose, you could consider all the others to be morons?


I'm happy with my definition. I "don't get" Strauss et al, I actively dislike Britten. A blind spot is something that you don't see _where you're looking. I avoid Britten as a no-go area._


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> Any Shostakovich symphony with 'vocal contributions'. Whilst i like some Shostie symphonies, symphonies 13 and 14 are less of a blind spot and more of a massive irritation. I tried again with Babi Yar, a few weeks ago. Only managed 15 minutes and by then i was thinking of excuses to turn the awful racket off. It actually made me angry.


Intrigued to know why that made you feel angry. Feeling the need to find excuses to turn it off? Didn't want to accept the fact that you felt irritated thinking it should not have been irritating?

I felt bad, almost angry with myself, whenever I tried to listen to Turangalîla and always had to stop in the middle because I just felt lost what Messiaen was doing. Much as I love modern music, I feel bad about not being able to sit through a wildly recognized heavy weight piece like Turangalîla. I still keep trying once in a while though.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

In response to the opera haters, I wonder if what you really dislike is opera distangled from its visionary aspect? Is it that the music without the spectacle which displeases? I’m suggesting this because I have been going to Wexford festival opera for many years to watch obscure operas which I no doubt wouldn’t be interested in without the spectacle.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Merl said:


> Any Shostakovich symphony with 'vocal contributions'. Whilst i like some Shostie symphonies, symphonies 13 and 14 are less of a blind spot and more of a massive irritation. I tried again with Babi Yar, a few weeks ago. Only managed 15 minutes and by then i was thinking of excuses to turn the awful racket off. It actually made me angry.


I don't have the same reaction but find #13 really depressing, even though that's a givens with Shostakovich. I had the recording by Solti who described it as a masterpiece, and I have no doubt it is. At the same time, its one of his works which I no longer own on disc, its just too hard to take.

Years ago I watched a documentary on Babi Yar which included testimony of survivors. I realised how masterfully Shostakovich conveyed the horror of this event.

There is a section (I'm quite sure its the last movement) which is like a slow moving vortex, bringing to mind the enormous pit where people where shot and then the bodies covered. The gloomy monochromatic shades are only highlighted by gently tolling bells. Shostakovich doesn't do anything to sweeten what is - and should be - a very bitter pill. Its nothing if not genuine, a symphony about mass murder shouldn't have some cosy resolution.

I cant comment on #14, I'm not familiar with it.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Kiki said:


> Intrigued to know why that made you feel angry. Feeling the need to find excuses to turn it off? Didn't want to accept the fact that you felt irritated thinking it should not have been irritating?
> 
> I felt bad, almost angry with myself, whenever I tried to listen to Turangalîla and always had to stop in the middle because I just felt lost what Messiaen was doing. Much as I love modern music, I feel bad about not being able to sit through a wildly recognized heavy weight piece like Turangalîla. I still keep trying once in a while though.


I think it made me angry as i already knew i hated it so I'd wasted my time listening to it again. Also i like many of the other symphonies so part of me says '"Why did he write this pile of crap instead of a decent purely orchestral work"?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Hermastersvoice said:


> In response to the opera haters, I wonder if what you really dislike is opera distangled from its visionary aspect? Is it that the music without the spectacle which displeases? I'm suggesting this because I have been going to Wexford festival opera for many years to watch obscure operas which I no doubt wouldn't be interested in without the spectacle.


It's an entirely different experience going to see an opera live in person. No recording can capture that experience. In fact experiencing any music live can remove your blind spots most likely easier than trying to force yourself to like a recording.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Hermastersvoice said:


> In response to the opera haters, I wonder if what you really dislike is opera distangled from its visionary aspect? Is it that the music without the spectacle which displeases? I'm suggesting this because I have been going to Wexford festival opera for many years to watch obscure operas which I no doubt wouldn't be interested in without the spectacle.


If I want a visual spectacle I go to a play, where they speak the dialogue rather than sing it - there might even be a few songs, but they are distinguishable from the main dialogue. Or the ballet. Or to the circus where it's all movement.

I don't actually dislike vocal music within art-music, so it isn't necessarily the singing bothering me. On the other hand I do dislike singing shoehorned into other areas. Whichever numpty had the idea of putting a soprano into a string quartet should be put into the town stocks. I agree with Merl, just when you're getting into a symphony a shrieking voice comes out of nowhere..horrible.

I've seen a few operas live. The last I saw was Tannhäuser. Woodduck informed me that it is his worst opera (Wagner's, not Woodduck's). I've seen a Mozart opera, which was good until I fell asleep after the intermission, I had been drinking a lot of scrumpy that day.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> If I want a visual spectacle I go to a play, where they speak the dialogue rather than sing it - there might even be a few songs, but they are distinguishable from the main dialogue. Or the ballet. Or to the circus where it's all movement.
> 
> I don't actually dislike vocal music within art-music, so it isn't necessarily the singing bothering me. On the other hand I do dislike singing shoehorned into other areas. Whichever numpty had the idea of putting a soprano into a string quartet should be put into the town stocks. I agree with Merl, just when you're getting into a symphony a shrieking voice comes out of nowhere..horrible.
> 
> I've seen a few operas live. The last I saw was Tannhäuser. Woodduck informed me that it is his worst opera (Wagner's, not Woodduck's). I've seen a Mozart opera, which was good until I fell asleep after the intermission, I had been drinking a lot of scrumpy that day.


Well I'm not with you on opera- a night at the opera is the best experience for me.

But I do agree about symphonies with voice - Beethovens 9th included - I generally cant stand choral symphonies though I do like choral music.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

starthrower said:


> *It's an entirely different experience going to see an opera live in person. No recording can capture that experience.* In fact experiencing any music live can remove your blind spots most likely easier than trying to force yourself to like a recording.


absolutely agree


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> If I want a visual spectacle I go to a play, where they speak the dialogue rather than sing it - there might even be a few songs, but they are distinguishable from the main dialogue. Or the ballet. Or to the circus where it's all movement.
> 
> I don't actually dislike vocal music within art-music, so it isn't necessarily the singing bothering me. On the other hand I do dislike singing shoehorned into other areas. Whichever numpty had the idea of putting a soprano into a string quartet should be put into the town stocks. I agree with Merl, just when you're getting into a symphony a shrieking voice comes out of nowhere..horrible.
> 
> I've seen a few operas live. The last I saw was Tannhäuser. Woodduck informed me that it is his worst opera (Wagner's, not Woodduck's). I've seen a Mozart opera, which was good until I fell asleep after the intermission, I had been drinking a lot of scrumpy that day.


Whether we can make the step of suspending disbelief is often a matter of personality type. My wife (a vastly superior musician than me, as are most people! :lol does not like opera for much the same reasons as you. I've heard people say, "Why do they have to sing? Why don't they just speak." It is a mindset associated with certain personality types. Nothing wrong with it. Just proves we are all different. Nothing wrong with disliking opera - Just leave opera to those who do like it and enjoy other forms of music


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Regarding B Britten, I remember about 20 – 25 years ago Rostropovich said Britten’s time has now arrived.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I suppose the popular composer of high repute I have the least sympathy with is Shostakovich. I have almost no interest in hearing his music and generally get irritated when I do. It isn't a judgment on his abilities as a composer; his stuff (or most of it) sounds like good music, and the esteem of others for it reinforces that belief. I can't be around bitter and depressed people, and Shosty wrote what seems to me an awful lot of bitter and depressed music (not saying that he didn't have reason to be bitter and depressed). Oddly enough, I rather like his last symphony, finding it somehow bewitchingly weird. Otherwise I can enjoy the first and fifth symphonies, the violin concertos, and a few light pieces, but I more or less avoid even these.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

For me this is the season for Shostakovich, and I've been to two live performances this month already. But I approach his music with caution, and recently found words to explain why - there is probably no composer that affects my mood more than Dmitri. Scary stuff.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck, what about DSCH's 7th quartet?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> Woodduck, what about DSCH's 7th quartet?


It's been a long time... I recall having mixed feelings about the quartets, but haven't been tempted back. Someday, I suppose.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> It's been a long time... I recall having mixed feelings about the quartets, but haven't been tempted back. Someday, I suppose.


Here's a nice way to approach the quartets...note that this is actually the Op. 110a, from the String Quartet No. 8.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Looking at the bright side of Shostakovich, or, rather, hearing the bright side, we have the two delightful piano concertos of the usually lugubrious DSCH. Perhaps, like Bishop Cranmer, Dmitri held the hand that set down the notes to these cheerful pieces in an all-consuming fire of the privacy of his inner thoughts....


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Looking at the bright side of Shostakovich, or, rather, hearing the bright side, we have the two delightful piano concertos of the usually lugubrious DSCH.


I much prefer the Shostakvich dark side which is the primary reason why I only have moderate affection for his piano concertos.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Here's a nice way to approach the quartets...note that this is actually the Op. 110a, from the String Quartet No. 8.


Yup. Bitter and depressed. Music for the gulag. My stomach is growling. When do they bring the bread and water?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> I much prefer the Shostakvich dark side which is the primary reason why I only have moderate affection for his piano concertos.


Maybe the Commissars forced Shosty to be happy (for those two pieces), Or Else.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Yup. Bitter and depressed. Music for the gulag. My stomach is growling. When do they bring the bread and water?


Hey, ya gotta learn to see the sunshine through those clouds of greasy smoke billowing up from the crematoria. 

Anyway, it's Wednesday. Stones and water today.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

I absolutely love his quartets and like Bulldog I prefer his dark side.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Here's a nice way to approach the quartets...note that this is actually the Op. 110a, from the String Quartet No. 8.


"Apparently, when the Borodin Quartet played his String Quartet No. 8 for him in 1962 in hopes of getting his criticism, Shostakovich couldn't help but cry after hearing the audible manifestation of his pain. The musicians left shortly thereafter and Shostakovich remained in tears."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I see the work as entirely autobiographical and not tied to any external events. It's riddled through and through with the notes "DSCH," his musical signature. There are quotes from his 1st and 5th Symphonies, 1st Cello Concerto, and from the 2nd String Trio -- even some Klezmer music. Quite an intense piece!


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Some of my favorite Shostokovich CDs are the ones he plays on. Jewish Folk Poetry with Dorliac is the real deal. Same for the PCs. Cluytens, who Dmitri recorded the PCs with, also has a great #11...

I'll never forget buying the EMI Borodin box of quartets. Tower had em stacked like pink bricks and they cost almost $100...


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

I have made numerous good faith efforts to hear something of value in the singing of Maria Callas.

I have failed.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

ribonucleic said:


> I have made numerous good faith efforts to hear something of value in the singing of Maria Callas.
> 
> I have failed.


 Thank goodness I thought I was the only one.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ribonucleic said:


> I have made numerous good faith efforts to hear something of value in the singing of Maria Callas.
> 
> I have failed.


Just out of curiosity, what opera singers seem to you to offer something of value?


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

There are plenty of things in the canon I outright dislike, sometimes for reasons I can semi-articulate, but the interesting blindspots to me are things that sound like something I should be in love with but inexplicably am not. Debussy and Ravel are the biggest two for me. 

Their music is so colorful, varied, full of great, memorable melodies, and all this I feel without being shallow or containing only surface prettiness (as some other impressionist classical seems to sometimes) - it sounds like there is a lot to it, and yet I've never experienced the profound reaction that it seems the music should have on me. 

I always enjoy it, but I think that first big climax in Daphnis et Chloe is intended to give you fantastical goosebumps, not to make you just shrug your shoulders and go "Yeah that was cool I guess." I could sort of explain why I don't like the things I don't like about Mahler, Bruckner, Verdi, Wagner, and etc, but not really Debussy and Ravel.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Merl said:


> Any Shostakovich symphony with 'vocal contributions'. Whilst i like some Shostie symphonies, symphonies 13 and 14 are less of a blind spot and more of a massive irritation. I tried again with Babi Yar, a few weeks ago. Only managed 15 minutes and by then i was thinking of excuses to turn the awful racket off. It actually made me angry.


Interesting. Do you dislike modern song cycles and the like? Or Russian songs? I think 14 might be his best symphony - at least that is what I think when listening to the Currentzis recording (which is quite aurally gentle compared to others).


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Dan Ante said:


> Regarding B Britten, I remember about 20 - 25 years ago Rostropovich said Britten's time has now arrived.


I think he was pretty mainstream long before that - at least in Britain. Of course, lots of people hate his music but I think many of them were not people who would have listened to modern music but got to hear a lot of Britten because his music was so ubiquitous in the 1960s and 1970s.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

The early Romantics who tried to make up for their limitations (with regards to skills of orchestration, counterpoint, structure) with minor key melodrama. 
-Schumann symphonies and piano concerto in A minor (where he 'doubles the hell out of everything'. Not very ingenious)
-Chopin's piano concertos and hundreds of 'A-B-A' miniatures
-All Schubert's works that use repeated bass notes and arpeggios (such as Piano Trio in E flat 2nd movement)
-Mendelssohn (generally better than the others, but I still find his organ works uninspired)
etc
I don't hate them, I just think they simply didn't live up to the standards set by the previous period composers.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

*Blindspot Scale:*
- total blindness
- partial blindness
- astigmatism
- nearsightedness
- farsightedness
- 20/20 vision
- X-ray vision 
- Nirvana


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

starthrower said:


> It's an entirely different experience going to see an opera live in person. No recording can capture that experience. In fact experiencing any music live can remove your blind spots most likely easier than trying to force yourself to like a recording.


I would say I mostly dislike opera but thoroughly enjoyed the three I went to see - a completely different experience.

First was Traviata, great tunes and an easy to follow story. Also memorable for the collapse of the bed beneath a rather substantial Violetta, unfortunately causing great hilarity among the Liverpool audience.
Next was Janáček's Jenufa, a very grim story but great music and an excellent production.
Different again was Philip Glass's 'The Trial' which was true to the book and very funny. I was listening so hard to the dialogue I almost didn't notice the music. Loved it. Can't see how it would work as a recording.
I'd forgotten (it was very forgettable) Rufus Wainwright's attempt at opera - 'Prima Donna' which I saw in Manchester. I've been a big fan of Rufus for 20 years, he's a fantastic singer/songwriter but he well over-reached himself this time. The music was dreary, the banal lyrics were in French with surtitles and the excellent singers and production were wasted. Such a disappointment. I see his just premiered ''Hadrian' has got slightly better reviews but I wish he'd concentrate on the day job.
Anyway I've mostly still got an opera blind spot.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Oh dear, don't kill me, but Schubert's Lieder. 

Not that I know enough of them to make an informed judgement, but when an erstwhile TC friend raved about them, I tried a few of his suggestions, and it just seemed to be a bloke warbling about something trivial as if it was highly significant. Arch and fruity. 

 I know, I know....


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> Oh dear, don't kill me, but Schubert's Lieder.
> 
> Not that I know enough of them to make an informed judgement, but when an erstwhile TC friend raved about them, I tried a few of his suggestions, and it just seemed to be a bloke warbling about something trivial as if it was highly significant. Arch and fruity.
> 
> I know, I know....


Me too - I love schubert and apart from maybe 1 or 2 of the famous lieder, I cant stand them, or any other lieder for that matter.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Larkenfield said:


> Of course, the Romantics did. In other words, anyone who wasn't Mozart... Schubert wasn't Mozart, nor Mendelssohn, Chopin or Schumann. And to think that they had no contributions to make in expanding the entire emotional and harmonic range of music, making it far more personal and expressive, and who deserve these continual carping complaints.* But even Mozart had his shortcomings and limitations.* They all do.


What?

He was bad with money - true


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

Like Opera blind spots, I'm convinced the Lieder apathy can be cured by going to a recital. The intense communication between say a Benjamin Appl and his audience will have you hooked.


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Just out of curiosity, what opera singers seem to you to offer something of value?


Perhaps because I started with rock music, what thrills me is power. So Birgit Nilsson and Jessye Norman are the first two that come to mind. Cecilia Bartoli also goes down smooth in any repertoire.

Perhaps seeing Callas in person - without limitations of 1950s sound reproduction and having the ability to watch her acting - might have compensated for the deficiencies in her instrument. But I didn't, so it doesn't.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

ribonucleic said:


> Perhaps because I started with rock music, what thrills me is power. So Birgit Nilsson and Jessye Norman are the first two that come to mind. Cecilia Bartoli also goes down smooth in any repertoire.
> 
> Perhaps seeing Callas in person - without limitations of 1950s sound reproduction and having the ability to watch her acting - might have compensated for the deficiencies in her instrument. But I didn't, so it doesn't.


You should listen to the earlier mono recordings and various live recordings from the early 50s - there were no imperfections.

I dont bother listening to Heifetz stereo recordings he did in the 60s as he was well past his best. Having said that I would still rather listen to a flawed Callas than any other soprano in her star roles.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> There are plenty of things in the canon I outright dislike, sometimes for reasons I can semi-articulate, but the interesting blindspots to me are things that sound like something I should be in love with but inexplicably am not.


Yes, it's strange - I 'ought to' like Ralph Vaughan Williams' arrangements of English folk tunes, since I do love the melodies, and owe RVW a debt of gratitude for collecting from Herefordshire gypsies some of the ballad texts that I studied for my MA.
And Taggart does love RVW's 'folk stuff'.

But I don't - it's just too smooth and Hovis-advert for my taste.


----------



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

Blind spots in the composers I like:

Bach: Brandenberg Concertos
Mozart: Horn Concertos
Haydn: Seven Last Words
Brahms: German Requiem
Debussy: Pelleas and Melisande
RVW: Tallis Fantasia
Sibelius: Symphony No.4
Ravel: Daphnis and Chloe


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ribonucleic said:


> Perhaps because I started with rock music, what thrills me is power. So Birgit Nilsson and Jessye Norman are the first two that come to mind. Cecilia Bartoli also goes down smooth in any repertoire.
> 
> Perhaps seeing Callas in person - without limitations of 1950s sound reproduction and having the ability to watch her acting - might have compensated for the deficiencies in her instrument. But I didn't, so it doesn't.


So musicianship and interpretive insight are not part of the equation for you? Callas was a musician's musician, esteemed by other singers, conductors, violinists, pianists, etc. for her precise articulation and phrasing, and her ability to make the notes on the page "speak," finding meaning in music that most singers just skate over. Many people don't care for her vocal timbre; some love it, for others it's an acquired taste, if it's ever acquired at all, and the voice did decline later in her career. But her insight into the roles she sang was unique. Perhaps, as you suggest, seeing her in action might open your ears as well as your eyes to her power as an artist. We have few samples of her performing a role onstage, but I can't recommend highly enough the film of her in the second act of Puccini's _Tosca_ made at Covent Garden in 1964. Unfortunately the full video has disappeared, but here are a couple of excerpts from it:











To illustrate the refined musicianship of this singer I can't do better than the "mad scene" from Bellini's _I Puritani._ No other singer spins out the phrases of the music with such sensitive rubati and dynamic shadings, and fills them with such emotional nuance and dark pathos as she does. The recording is old, but the vocal art shines through:






Pianist Claudio Arrau used to have his students listen to Callas to learn about phrasing. It's been said that had she been a violinist she'd have been the greatest of them all. Taste in voices is highly subjective, but music-making at the level of hers is a lesson for any musician, or anyone for whom singing is more than an exciting noise.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> Interesting. Do you dislike modern song cycles and the like? Or Russian songs? I think 14 might be his best symphony - at least that is what I think when listening to the Currentzis recording (which is quite aurally gentle compared to others).


Tbh, I'm not a fan of most vocal music (I prefer purely orchestral or chamber music) but there are plenty of exceptions (Mahler 2, Mahler 4, LvB 9th, some Schubert Lieder, etc). There's no reasoning to what I don't like... Some things connect some don't. However I really can't stand requiems at all. I like bits of opera but not that much and Cantatas leave me cold. As I said, there's no reasoning behind likes and dislikes (no certain style, language, etc). Maybe I'm just weird. ut:


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

Hermastersvoice said:


> Ok, I'm not picking a fight or inviting upon me the usual rant, just wonder what your blind spot might be (if you have one)? And any idea why?
> 
> My own blind spot is the symphonies of Gustav Mahler (heresy, I know, so I usually keep it to myself). I love his song cycles and a big Bruckner fan, so it's not the period which I don't get. The symphonies are in my collection since I have been working hard on getting rid of this blemish. So far however, every repeated listening fills me with more dread. I read that John Culshaw suffered from this problem too.


Me too. But likewise, I'll keep trying. Right now I'm going to listen to his 9th, since it's been talked about in another thread. Wish me luck.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I'm not sure if people are distinguishing between simply not liking a composer or work and disliking the music. Other than some modern/contemporary composers and works, I can't think of any music I would say I dislike. Clearly there are plenty of composers and pieces that I don't love and many that I would not wish to play because there are others I enjoy more. Maybe the clearest bind spot would be Spanish music. It's not that I dislike Granados, Albeniz, or de Falla, but I haven't found any of their works that I want to buy (well, I might buy Iberia someday). 

In what has always seemed miraculous to me, continued listening seems to always lead to more enjoyment of works or composers I initially dislike. I do understand how becoming familiar with the music can break down listening barriers, but it's such a joy to suddenly find that I really like at least some works by Berg, Schoenberg, Stockhausen, and others. 

Of at least modestly famous composers, my biggest blind spot (in the sense of disliking music) is Xenakis. I like Rebounds but I don't think there are other works of his that I think are OK.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

Pyotr, which version are you listening to? Not that it seems to matter too much to Mahler cogniscenti. While there’s around a handful of acclaimed Bruckner interpreters on record, it seems that Mahler in particular have been subjected to any number of “have-a-go-Harrys”. I think it was Walter Legge who commented on the vast number of Mahler conductors while it is much more difficult to find somebody who knows how a Strauss waltz goes - or words to that effect. I wonder if my blind spot could be rooted in this?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I purposefully wear blinders so that I don't get too overwhelmed with all the great music out there.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> *I'm not sure if people are distinguishing between simply not liking a composer or work and disliking the music.* Other than some modern/contemporary composers and works, I can't think of any music I would say I dislike. Clearly there are plenty of composers and pieces that I don't love and many that I would not wish to play because there are others I enjoy more.
> 
> Of at least modestly famous composers, my biggest blind spot (in the sense of disliking music) is Xenakis. I like Rebounds but I don't think there are other works of his that I think are OK.


That's a valid distinction. Another distinction is the difference between simply not liking something and not liking something we think or suspect is very much worth liking. I would consider the latter a blind spot, but not the former.

For me, not caring for Shostakovich is a blind spot because I hear things in his work that seem deeply meaningful, things that might speak more to me if my emotional makeup were somewhat different (in addition to which I do like some of his music). On the other hand, not caring for Xenakis or Ferneyhough isn't something I'd give a second thought to, since they seem to have put a lot of creative effort into making things that say nothing to me at all.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure if people are distinguishing between simply not liking a composer or work and disliking the music. Other than some modern/contemporary composers and works, I can't think of any music I would say I dislike. Clearly there are plenty of composers and pieces that I don't love and many that I would not wish to play because there are others I enjoy more. Maybe the clearest bind spot would be Spanish music. It's not that I dislike Granados, Albeniz, or de Falla, but I haven't found any of their works that I want to buy (well, I might buy Iberia someday).
> In what has always seemed miraculous to me, continued listening seems to always lead to more enjoyment of works or composers I initially dislike. I do understand how becoming familiar with the music can break down listening barriers, but it's such a joy to suddenly find that I really like at least some works by Berg, Schoenberg, Stockhausen, and others.
> 
> Of at least modestly famous composers, my biggest blind spot (in the sense of disliking music) is Xenakis. I like Rebounds but I don't think there are other works of his that I think are OK.







Try this for some different Spanish music.


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

Hermastersvoice said:


> Pyotr, which version are you listening to? Not that it seems to matter too much to Mahler cogniscenti. While there's around a handful of acclaimed Bruckner interpreters on record, it seems that Mahler in particular have been subjected to any number of "have-a-go-Harrys". I think it was Walter Legge who commented on the vast number of Mahler conductors while it is much more difficult to find somebody who knows how a Strauss waltz goes - or words to that effect. I wonder if my blind spot could be rooted in this?


I've heard that too, good point. I have also heard that the "book" says that the order in which one is supposed to "discover" Mahler symphonies is 1 then 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. I never got past one and a little of two so I'm trying a different tactic.

I got tired of all the ads on YouTube, so I recently signed up for amazon Music Unlimited - $1.09 for the first two months. Type in Mahler Symphony No 9, and it gave me over 140 choices. The BPO had (at least) four versions alone with Leonard Bernstein, Claudio Abbado, Sir John Barbirolli and Herbert von Karajan 1984. I chose the latter. Downloaded the four movements which would not fit on a single CD, so I put them on two CDs(I still only listen to music on a CD player). Listened to the first two movements. The first movement was more-of-the-same. The second movement was better. Looking forward to the third and fourth for another time because the wife wants me to get ready for the Turkey dinner. I really am looking forward to the last two movements and will report back.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> ... *Another distinction is the difference between simply not liking something and not liking something we think or suspect is very much worth liking. I would consider the latter a blind spot, but not the former. *
> 
> For me, not caring for Shostakovich is a blind spot because I hear things in his work that seem deeply meaningful, things that might speak more to me if my emotional makeup were somewhat different (in addition to which I do like some of his music). On the other hand, not caring for Xenakis or Ferneyhough isn't something I'd give a second thought to, since they seem to have put a lot of creative effort into making things that say nothing to me at all.


This is like as one definition of a blind spot. The other is that I don't know what is in my blind spot. There might be music there I've never explored. I'm fairly unfamiliar with the music of Arnold Bax and Malcolm Arnold. What I have heard, which is very little, I've liked. Their oeuvre is a blind spot for me. And there is probably music by composers I've never heard of that I might like.



> Donald Rumsfeld. There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Just out of curiosity, what opera singers seem to you to offer something of value?


That Renee woman... love her.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> That's a valid distinction. Another distinction is the difference between simply not liking something and not liking something we think or suspect is very much worth liking. I would consider the latter a blind spot, but not the former.
> 
> For me, not caring for Shostakovich is a blind spot because I hear things in his work that seem deeply meaningful, things that might speak more to me if my emotional makeup were somewhat different (in addition to which I do like some of his music). On the other hand, not caring for Xenakis or Ferneyhough isn't something I'd give a second thought to, since they seem to have put a lot of creative effort into making things that say nothing to me at all.


I agree with the first paragraph. Perhaps due to my lack of musical education, I do not consider my estimation of a work's value to be a good indicator of whether that work is "worth liking." Therefore, I resort to using the musical community's estimation of a composer's value (or my best sense of how the musical community values that composer's works). I struggle with both Xenakis and Ferneyhough, but I'm not sure the musical community values Ferneyhough high enough for me to place him in the "ought to like" category.

I accept people's view that there are composers whom they do not like but whom they, themselves (rather than others), recognize as producing exceptional music. That's not something I can do, and I've always wondered what that feeling is like.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

LezLee said:


> Try this for some different Spanish music.


Thanks for the suggestion. I did enjoy that piece. There certainly are Spanish works I like, for example, I love Joaquín Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez. I suspect that I could listen to more Granados, Albeniz, or de Falla and find myself enjoying more of their music. For whatever reason, I have not chosen to explore their music much.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

Debussy is probably my biggest blind spot. I just don't get the appeal. I mean, I suppose I kind of get it, but it's just not my cup of tea. I've heard a good chunk of his repertoire, and I feel I know it fairly well, but most of it simply bores me.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

musicrom said:


> Debussy is probably my biggest blind spot. I just don't get the appeal. I mean, I suppose I kind of get it, but it's just not my cup of tea. I've heard a good chunk of his repertoire, and I feel I know it fairly well, but most of it simply bores me.


These posts reflect the infinite variety of human taste. And yet, out of such disparate materials, we are expected (by some) to fashion a overarching structure of aesthetics wherein we can assign ascending and descending levels of quality/excellence among the materials of music and art..


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

If you've spent a sufficient amount of time listening to a composer and you know the work but it still doesn't move you, I wouldn't call that a blind spot. More like too much wasted time. I could spend a hundred hours listening to Haydn to find some nuggets I might treasure but I've got other fish to fry. I've heard enough to know it's not my kind of music.

And on the other end if the spectrum, I've listened to enough of that bright, glassy Spectral school of music to know I'm never going to warm up to that stuff. I don't like that much reverb in my music to where I feel like I'm falling off a cliff into and icy fiord. I prefer a bit more groundedness.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> These posts reflect the infinite variety of human taste. And yet, out of such disparate materials, we are expected (by some) to fashion a overarching structure of aesthetics wherein we can assign ascending and descending levels of quality/excellence among the materials of music and art..


Its not that difficult to do though if one sets aside one's preferences and looks at more objective attributes. I'm not into Haydn's music but it is easy to see he was a great and important composer based on his prolific output, his impact, influence, his contributions to sonata form etc. Can I argue I'm as great a composer as Haydn? Of course not. Just because composers don't fall into exact measurable compartments that are completely objective, does not mean that we cannot assign generalized ascending and descending levels of quality/excellence in music and art.


----------



## Templeton (Dec 20, 2014)

Agree with musicrom regarding Debussy and for similar reasons. Likewise, Sibelius, I can listen to his works and whilst I don't actively dislike them, I just don't see why he is so highly regarded. Shostakovich, I just don't get, although I try periodically and Tchaikovsky, most of whose symphonic works I find quite turgid. I had better stop there, before I get myself banned. Maybe if I had formal music training, I might see things differently.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

You Debussy naysayers must be Saint Saens fans, no?


----------



## Templeton (Dec 20, 2014)

starthrower said:


> You Debussy naysayers must be Saint Saens fans, no?


Haha, no, not really but Ravel, oh yes, although I much prefer the orchestral arrangements, so please don't get me started on piano concertos, sonatas...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> These posts reflect the infinite variety of human taste. And yet, out of such disparate materials, we are expected (by some) to fashion a overarching structure of aesthetics wherein we can assign ascending and descending levels of quality/excellence among the materials of music and art..


Isn't that a rather pretentious way of saying that you can't tell s*** from Shinola?


----------



## FleshRobot (Jan 27, 2014)

My blind spot is Trap rap.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Isn't that a rather pretentious way of saying that you can't tell s*** from Shinola?


Like much else, pretentiousness is in the eye of the beholder. As do you also, I prefer to somewhat elevate my remarks to reflect my personal assessment of the level of discourse here on TC. And you have yet to reveal which flavor(s) of ice cream are best. I myself fully enjoy a rich vanilla; I certainly prefer it to both _scheiss und Shinola_.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Like much else, pretentiousness is in the eye of the beholder. As do you also, I prefer to somewhat elevate my remarks to reflect my personal assessment of the level of discourse here on TC. And you have yet to reveal which flavor(s) of ice cream are best. I myself fully enjoy a rich vanilla; I certainly prefer it to both _scheiss und Shinola_.


There's more to art than flavor, and there's more to Bach than to Xenakis.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

tdc said:


> Its not that difficult to do though if one sets aside one's preferences and looks at more objective attributes. I'm not into Haydn's music but it is easy to see he was a great and important composer based on his prolific output, his impact, influence, his contributions to sonata form etc. Can I argue I'm as great a composer as Haydn? Of course not. Just because composers don't fall into exact measurable compartments that are completely objective, does not mean that we cannot assign generalized ascending and descending levels of quality/excellence in music and art.


We've moseyed down this familiar trail so many times now that all count has been lost. Suffice it to say that the only aesthetics that count, really, are one's own. We can establish all sorts of objective facts about music and composers and art and artists, but then the deciding of which qualities are the most likely to tell us what is "good" or "bad" in the arts--and what ultimately is good and bad--becomes a popularity contest, a vote taken among a group. Which group is important though: Almost without exception, the "best people" like the "best art". I took a vote, and everybody agreed.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> There's more to art than flavor, and there's more to Bach than to Xenakis.


Actually, (in my opinion) there is no more to art than flavor.


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Actually, (in my opinion) there is no more to art than flavor.


Well, it's certainly an opinion. But there are others who hold art in much higher regard.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> We've moseyed down this familiar trail so many times now that all count has been lost. Suffice it to say that the only aesthetics that count, really, are one's own. We can establish all sorts of objective facts about music and composers and art and artists, but then the deciding of which qualities are the most likely to tell us what is "good" or "bad" in the arts--and what ultimately is good and bad--becomes a popularity contest, a vote taken among a group. Which group is important though: Almost without exception, the "best people" like the "best art". I took a vote, and everybody agreed.


We've moseyed down it so many times because you seem to prefer to dance around the obvious, and obfuscate rather than use common sense.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Actually, (in my opinion) there is no more to art than flavor.


You can say that about anything, and none can prove you wrong. Love is one flavor. Hate is another. Honesty is one flavor. Deceit is another. Life is one flavor. Death is another.

Bon appetit.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

I really just don't get how highly regarded Joan Sutherland is/was. 

For me her voice fails to enunciate words clearly and everything I have heard seems to produce a superficial gloss on everything she sings.

However a multitude of opera devotees who are much more knowledgeable than I would disagree most strongly.
My loss I'm sure.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

Templeton said:


> Agree with musicrom regarding Debussy and for similar reasons. Likewise, Sibelius, I can listen to his works and whilst I don't actively dislike them, I just don't see why he is so highly regarded. Shostakovich, I just don't get, although I try periodically and Tchaikovsky, most of whose symphonic works I find quite turgid. I had better stop there, before I get myself banned. Maybe if I had formal music training, I might see things differently.


While we have similar reasons regarding our dislike of Debussy, the other composers you list are among my very favorite composers! So... that's interesting.



starthrower said:


> You Debussy naysayers must be Saint Saens fans, no?


I prefer Saint-Saens to Debussy. That said, with a lot of his music, I enjoy it on the first listen, but then I get sick of it pretty quickly. In general, French classical music is just not my thing, for whatever reason. Bizet and Poulenc would probably be my favorites, although they still probably wouldn't crack my top 15.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

David Phillips said:


> Blind spots in the composers I like:
> 
> *Bach: Brandenberg Concertos*
> Mozart: Horn Concertos
> ...


Interesting that you cite the Brandemburg. Perhaps they are some kind of blind spot for me also, as I can't really understand how people can think as highly of them as much more profound and sublime works of J.S. Bach in my opinion such as the Art of Fugue, the St. Matthew Passion, the Missa in B minor and the Passacaglia, for example. I do like them, but for me they are to Bach what the Moonlight sonata is to Beethoven and the Symphonie Fantastique is to Berlioz - a great and famous early work, that nonetheless is not among what I consider to be the best of the best of what the refered composer could produce.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Why don't blind spotters post actual performances of a composer or work that blind spots them so others can hear?-words can only go so far. Not that a different performance would change anyone's mind, but there _is_ such a thing as an ineffective or lousy performance. One interpretation of a blind spot is that a person might like to enjoy something or understand it but there may be something standing in the way of that appreciation. And sometimes it could a lousy performance that fails to communicate.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

WildThing said:


> Well, it's certainly an opinion. But there are others who hold art in much higher regard.


I hold art, personally, in extremely high regard. Maybe even higher than some other people. My favorite art is very important to me. Is there anyone here who does not hold art in high esteem?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

tdc said:


> We've moseyed down it so many times because you seem to prefer to dance around the obvious, and obfuscate rather than use common sense.


In other words, you disagree with my position. So noted.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> Why don't blind spotters post actual performances of a composer or work they don't care for so others can hear what's being disliked?-words can only go so far. Not that a different performance would change anyone's blind spot, but there is such a thing as a poor or lousy performance. One interpretation of a blind spot is that a person might like to enjoy something or understand it but there may be something standing in the way of that appreciation. And sometimes it could be a lousy performance.


Well, about me and the Brandemburg then: I have five different recordings of these concertos, but most of the time when I listen to them it's with a certain Muller-Bruhl and the Cologne Chamber Orchestra. This happens to be my favorite performance of the harpsichord and the violin concertos for the moment, which I love and favour over the Brandemburg, and this is the reason for the choice. BWV's 1052 and 1043 are my current absolute favorite concertos of Bach and of the Baroque period.

My favorite Brandemburg are Nos. 2, 3 and 6, and the ones which I like but not so much are Nos. 1 and 4.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> *You can say that about anything, and none can prove you wrong.* Love is one flavor. Hate is another. Honesty is one flavor. Deceit is another. Life is one flavor. Death is another.
> 
> Bon appetit.


You post this in a spirit of play, but we know that art offers a different matrix within which to discuss "good" and "bad" than do, say, medicine, engineering, public health and safety, innumerable other areas (the sciences) where there are measurable, meaningful parameters where success/failure or other gradients of good/bad can be determined with some repeatability, clarity. People are ill or well, buildings and bridges stand or fall, chemical reactions occur at a desired speed or do not, etc.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> You post this in a spirit of play, but we know that art offers a different matrix within which to discuss "good" and "bad" than do, say, medicine, engineering, public health and safety, innumerable other areas (the sciences) where there are measurable, meaningful parameters where success/failure or other gradients of good/bad can be determined with some repeatability, clarity. People are ill or well, buildings and bridges stand or fall, chemical reactions occur at a desired speed or do not, etc.


It's true that aesthetic values generally have few practical consequences ("success/failure or other gradients of good/bad"), and so in a sense it doesn't matter what one likes or why (as it doesn't matter whether one likes chocolate or vanilla). But values are not determined entirely by their utility, and those which are not, are not necessarily held arbitrarily or accidentally.

The issue of consequences is relevant only to instrumental values, i. e. values which are means to further ends. The ends themselves are not judged in the same way; we're free to pursue any ends we fancy or find preferable to their alternatives, including ends that most people would not like or pursue, and we can quite rationally justify the pursuit of instrumental values as ways of attaining those ends. However, certain values, whether they function as ends or means, strike most mentally and emotionally sound people as intrinsically desirable or undesirable, admirable or repugnant, apart from (or in addition to) any practical consequences, and for a variety of reasons that have quite definite foundations in our biological nature and existential condition as humans. Some values - fine manners, a warm, clear gaze, an open, spontaneous nature, self-confidence, articulate speech and writing, a well-organized workplace, a quiet street free of litter, a civically engaged population, a healthy population of bald eagles, a sunny landscape, a rose - may or may not have any specific consequences for us, but we value them in principle because they represent, symbolize, or are conducive to life on earth at its healthiest and most interesting and agreeable.

The question relative to the valuation of art is whether art possesses qualities which are similarly expressive of aspects of our nature and condition, and are therefore likely to be considered generally desirable or undesirable, admirable or not, when we encounter them. If art can exhibit qualities which may in some ways represent, symbolize, or be conducive to a better or higher kind of life, then its possession of such qualities may invite evaluation which recognizes them as such, and which pronounces art superior for possessing them - or, conversely, pronounces it inferior for lacking them or possessing opposite qualities.

Those of us who think that art - including music - can possess such qualities and that humans can recognize them, are confident in claiming that the intellectually powerful (a virtue), imaginative (a virtue), expressively rich and subtle (a virtue), enduringly beloved (a virtue in consequence of other virtues) music of Bach is superior in quality and meaning to that of Travis Tritt. Whether one prefers to listen to Bach or to Tritt may be a factor influencing one's perception of the content of their work, but that may not be an insuperable barrier to a just appreciation, and certainly will not be such in the ears of posterity.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Hey, get Bach on topic. I prefer Dwight Yoakam, so I suppose I have a blind spot when it comes to Travis Tritt. On The Other Hand, I don't mind me some Randy Travis occasionally.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^Actually, I completely agree with Woodduck's post above. What difference there is, is that I affirm the primacy, the singularity of the unique personal aesthetic sense of each of us. We have our own unique value system we bring to any encounter with art--it is a one-to-one relationship, with no (for me) appeal, or any need to appeal, to any outside authority for authentication or legitimacy of my response. It's fine when one finds oneself in agreement with others; with experts, it's even better. But once we cast away our inherent ability (and our own authenticity) to judge of an artwork, we of necessity get into the voting booth with some general or peer group and the result--a popularity contest--then becomes a substitute Procrustean framework within which we must reconcile our views. Not my thing. This entire thread again demonstrates to me the intrinsic correctness of my position. Most everyone consciously or unconsciously really does endorse a very personal aesthetic, but many choose to deny it in favor of a kind of group solidarity, a dedication to a shared view with our perceived peers of the "Nobility" of Art.

If you're in the mood for Travis Tritt, Bach just won't do. You can quote me.


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

Hermastersvoice said:


> Personally, I have Walter, Klemperer, Bernstein giving me therapy for this Mahler antipathy. I'm not proud of It. 100% accept that the deficiency is with me. I would like to take part in the regular discussion about Mahler on these pages. But, so far, it's closed territory for me. Help!


I have avoided mentioning Mahler on talkclassical because more informed opinion is that he is one of the greats. More importantly, I couldn't see any point in offending people who love him. But, as this thread has been started:

Decades ago I fell in love with Mahler's thrilling, self-dramatising, broadly themed, colourful sounds, the powerful rhythms, the fortissimos, the cosmic significance - "ewig, ewig"... To me it was a world of sheer ravishing sound.

Then I just couldn't take any more of that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> If you're in the mood for Travis Tritt, Bach just won't do. You can quote me.


I won't have to. I have vowed to myself never to utter the name "Travis Tritt" again.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jenspen said:


> I have avoided mentioning Mahler on talkclassical because more informed opinion is that he is one of the greats. More importantly, I couldn't see any point in offending people who love him. But, as this thread has been started:
> 
> Decades ago I fell in love with Mahler's thrilling, self-dramatising, broadly themed, colourful sounds, the powerful rhythms, the fortissimos, the portentousness - "ewig, ewig"... To me it was a world of sheer ravishing sound.
> 
> Then I just couldn't take any more of that.


I'm smiling, and wondering if your changed feelings about Mahler are in part a function of age. I'm pushing 70, and I find myself now seldom attracted to big, sprawling, rhetorical, emotionally strenuous works, deriving much more satisfaction from shorter, tighter pieces, especially chamber music. I never was a real fan of Mahler, but a friend a little older than I says he was a fanatical devotee of Mahler and other late Romantics in his younger years but no longer feels drawn to that sort of expressive extravagance.

If this is a blind spot, it must be encroaching glaucoma.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

jenspen said:


> I have avoided mentioning Mahler on talkclassical because more informed opinion is that he is one of the greats. More importantly, I couldn't see any point in offending people who love him. But, as this thread has been started:
> 
> Decades ago I fell in love with Mahler's thrilling, self-dramatising, broadly themed, colourful sounds, the powerful rhythms, the fortissimos, the cosmic significance - "ewig, ewig"... To me it was a world of sheer ravishing sound.
> 
> Then I just couldn't take any more of that.


 Of course, no mention of the magnificent slow movements in his Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Symphonies.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

jenspen said:


> *I have avoided mentioning Mahler on talkclassical because more informed opinion is that he is one of the greats.* More importantly, I couldn't see any point in offending people who love him. But, as this thread has been started:
> 
> Decades ago I fell in love with Mahler's thrilling, self-dramatising, broadly themed, colourful sounds, the powerful rhythms, the fortissimos, the cosmic significance - "ewig, ewig"... To me it was a world of sheer ravishing sound.
> 
> Then I just couldn't take any more of that.


Yet another most interesting and revealing illumination of the essential correctness of my position. "Informed opinion" indeed! What if informed opinion was that Mahler was not one of the greats? (I'm discussing Mahler here because jenspen's post discussed Mahler; you can insert here any composer that suits; this isn't about Mahler. Or is it?)


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Yet another most interesting and revealing illumination of the essential correctness of my position. "Informed opinion" indeed! What if informed opinion was that Mahler was not one of the greats? (I'm discussing Mahler here because jenspen's post discussed Mahler; you can insert here any composer that suits; this isn't about Mahler. Or is it?)


 ¿Que?

Not meaning to be contentious. I thought I was replying to the original post in this thread by nominating the acknowledged "great composer" about whom I, an amateur in both musical senses of the word, have developed a 'blind spot' and, as honestly as I could and some detail, explaining why. If he hadn't been an acknowlged "great composer" but just a composer whose music I'd fallen for, I'd have developed the same eye problem.

It's midnight down here now, time for bed.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

jenspen said:


> ¿Que?
> 
> Not meaning to be contentious. I thought I was replying to the original post in this thread by nominating the acknowledged "great composer" about whom I, an amateur in both musical senses of the word, have developed a 'blind spot' and, as honestly as I could and some detail, explaining why. If he hadn't been an acknowlged "great composer" but just a composer whose music I'd fallen for, I'd have developed the same eye problem.
> 
> It's midnight down here now, time for bed.


We have no disagreement. Your post and Woodduck's are just further confirmation of my thesis that one's personal aesthetics "trump" Informed Opinion when the rubber actually hits the road.


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> It's true that aesthetic values generally have few practical consequences


Unless Stalin is in the audience.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> We have no disagreement. Your post and Woodduck's are just further confirmation of my thesis that one's personal aesthetics "trump" Informed Opinion when the rubber actually hits the road.


What about informed personal aesthetics?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> We have no disagreement. Your post and Woodduck's are just further confirmation of my thesis that one's personal aesthetics "trump" Informed Opinion when the rubber actually hits the road.


Assuming that "when the rubber hits the road" means "when the needle hits the groove" (older technology provides better metaphors), was your thesis ever in question?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Improbus said:


> What about informed personal aesthetics?


"Personal" always overrides "Informed". Aesthetics is Opinion, neither more nor less; the opinion can be collective (vote/popularity contest) or personal/idiosyncratic. But it's still opinion. Thank Goodness, or what would we have to talk about here on TalkClassical? :lol:


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

jdec said:


> I can say I don't have important/major blind spots. If anything, only for what I would consider very minor works. That is, I either love or at least enjoy what is commonly regarded as the best music in any genre by (let's say) the 70 or so greatest composers.


I agree with all of that.

I often listen and then I'll stop and then I think could I have composed this? With some minor composers the answer is, I think I could, BUT it would be difficult, and very time-consuming. So I guess that's my standard. It's quite a low standard, but I'm involved in a lot of music-making and evaluating, and I'm continually impressed by what composers come up with.

I wasn't always like this. If you try your hand at composing you'll probably be very humbled by it all.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> "Personal" always overrides "Informed". Aesthetics is Opinion, neither more nor less; the opinion can be collective (vote/popularity contest) or personal/idiosyncratic. But it's still opinion. Thank Goodness, or what would we have to talk about here on TalkClassical? :lol:


Really? I wonder if you've ever attempted to study music with the same approach as you would study to understand a branch of math. And therefore, I wonder if you know what you're missing?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Really? I wonder if you've ever attempted to study music with the same approach as you would study to understand a branch of math. And therefore, I wonder if you know what you're missing?


It's still opinion, whether informed or not. And it's personal opinion that ultimately guides us. I'd obviously wish I knew more about music than I do, just as I wish I knew more about anything or everything. But when a favorite piece of music deeply moves me--or moves you, or anyone--can we say Oh, I'd be even more deeply moved by this incredibly deeply moving piece if I knew more about music? This, I think, is asking too much in most cases for most people. There may, of course, be those special few who sit hunched over a score, trembling with ecstasy. I'm certainly not one of them.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> It's still opinion, whether informed or not. And it's personal opinion that ultimately guides us. I'd obviously wish I knew more about music than I do, just as I wish I knew more about anything or everything. But when a favorite piece of music deeply moves me--or moves you, or anyone--can we say Oh, I'd be even more deeply moved by this incredibly deeply moving piece if I knew more about music? This, I think, is asking too much in most cases for most people. There may, of course, be those special few who sit hunched over a score, trembling with ecstasy. I'm certainly not one of them.


I hear this often teaching piano to adult beginners. They're set in their ways unlike young students. There are a few reasons I hear again and again over the years.

-- It will diminish the joy of hearing music if they learn the rudimentary elements and how it's all logically reasoned/constructed.

-- It's not relevant for me - not my particular notion as I think about music. It's fine for other types of people.

-- It's not interesting. Too dry and reductionist when compared to their experience of music.

How much do you have to study chess or geology to more fully appreciate them?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^I certainly hope that my posts above are not being (mis)interpreted as a rejection of learning more about music, or about anything. That would be a strange reading of them indeed. My point, put another way, is that there is no certain way we can assess the degree to which another is moved by a musical or art experience. There may be a correlation between technical knowledge of music or art and its enjoyment but it would be difficult to accurately quantify. And there is in the back of the mind a curious imaginary dialogue: A) "I really, really like this concerto by X; it moves me to tears every time I hear it." B) "No, you only think you like it. You'd like it even more if you knew music theory."

It's a personal thing. Some are moved by X, others by Y or Z. Some are affected more; others less. Some know music/composition intimately and love The Blues. Others just love The Blues.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> If I want a visual spectacle I go to a play, where they speak the dialogue rather than sing it - there might even be a few songs, but they are distinguishable from the main dialogue. Or the ballet. Or to the circus where it's all movement.
> 
> I don't actually dislike vocal music within art-music, so it isn't necessarily the singing bothering me. On the other hand I do dislike singing shoehorned into other areas. Whichever numpty had the idea of putting a soprano into a string quartet should be put into the town stocks. I agree with Merl, just when you're getting into a symphony a shrieking voice comes out of nowhere..horrible.
> 
> I've seen a few operas live. The last I saw was Tannhäuser. Woodduck informed me that it is his worst opera (Wagner's, not Woodduck's). I've seen a Mozart opera, which was good until I fell asleep after the intermission, I had been drinking a lot of scrumpy that day.


Could you point me in the direction of the post where Woodduck said that Tannhäuser was Wagner's worst opera please. I may have to take this calumny up with Woodduck.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^I certainly hope that my posts above are not being (mis)interpreted as a rejection of learning more about music, or about anything. That would be a strange reading of them indeed. My point, put another way, is that there is no certain way we can assess the degree to which another is moved by a musical or art experience. There may be a correlation between technical knowledge of music or art and its enjoyment but it would be difficult to accurately quantify. And there is in the back of the mind a curious imaginary dialogue: A) "I really, really like this concerto by X; it moves me to tears every time I hear it." B) "No, you only think you like it. You'd like it even more if you knew music theory."
> 
> It's a personal thing. Some are moved by X, others by Y or Z. Some are affected more; others less. Some know music/composition intimately and love The Blues. Others just love The Blues.


But you said, "Personal" always overrides "Informed". In my opinion since I've spent a considerable amount of time learning all about music, that attitude which we've heard so often from rebellious teenagers about many serious subjects, requires a lot of clarification. From your gut you're trying to bring something new to that attitude. You believe you're justified and can succeed.

I'm thinking about the perspective and the ramifications and I know from experience it's a harmful attitude to support.

Oh, but it's just a personal thing..
It reminds me of the example of creationist belief. We all might prefer the concept of god creating everything and then welcoming us home to Him at the end of our lives. Why study and learn about the very technical, fast-moving science of evolution? We have a personal preference and it overrides being informed?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^I have tried my best to carefully put forward my views in the several posts above. It seems, though, that "What we've got here is failure to communicate.", to quote Strother Martin in _Cool Hand Luke_. All I can suggest at this point is that you reread my posts and perhaps their meaning will become more clear. You certainly don't have to agree with me.

I'll just repeat here, again, that my posts are not a repudiation of learning more (about anything/everything); my point is that our own personal intellectual/aesthetic chemistry is what we follow when we decide what we like (what is "good") and dislike (what is "bad") in music and the arts, and that there is no quantifiable correlation between knowing music theory and whether we like X or Y. If I could make this clearer, I would.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^I have tried my best to carefully put forward my views in the several posts above. It seems, though, that "What we've got here is failure to communicate.", to quote Strother Martin in _Cool Hand Luke_. All I can suggest at this point is that you reread my posts and perhaps their meaning will become more clear. You certainly don't have to agree with me.
> 
> I'll just repeat here, again, that my posts are not a repudiation of learning more (about anything/everything); my point is that our own personal intellectual/aesthetic chemistry is what we follow when we decide what we like (what is "good") and dislike (what is "bad") in music and the arts, and that there is no quantifiable correlation between knowing music theory and whether we like X or Y. If I could make this clearer, I would.


Yes there is. That's the point. If not then there's no reason to study music at all. The knowledge isn't applicable or transferable to anything else.

Even performers could just memorize the notes and not understand anything more about the subject.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Yes there is. That's the point. If not then there's no reason to study music at all. The knowledge isn't applicable or transferable to anything else.
> 
> Even performers could just memorize the notes and not understand anything more about the subject.


I rest my case.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I rest my case.


Ask what a casual listener gets out of a great work and then ask a knowledgeable person. You'll get a short paragraph about feelings and emotional reactions and from the knowledgeable person you'll get a chapter in a book, because there's so much more to appreciate than just the personal experience of the great works. That's not qualifiable?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Ask what a casual listener gets out of a great work and then ask a knowledgeable person. You'll get a short paragraph about feelings and emotional reactions and from the knowledgeable person you'll get a chapter in a book,*because there's so much more to appreciate than just the personal experience of the great works.* That's not qualifiable?


Again, I rest my case, though I am looking forward eagerly to the trans-personal experience of the great works. I will have achieved a high state indeed.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I have to eat my words concerning Haydn. I am really enjoying some of the string quartet movements I've been listening to online. Don't ask me which ones because it's going to take me a while to get familiar with all the opus and quartet numbers.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Again, I rest my case, though I am looking forward eagerly to the trans-personal experience of the great works. I will have achieved a high state indeed.


Heh! I assume you can't tell us what transpersonal is in this regard, because it's transpersonal?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

starthrower said:


> I have to eat my words concerning Haydn. I am really enjoying some of the string quartet movements I've been listening to online. Don't ask me which ones because it's going to take me a while to get familiar with all the opus and quartet numbers.


Yes. Is there any other great composer with such a slow burn on the uptake? I mean I think it takes a long time to appreciate his understated achievements. Many people just give up and that's too bad.

Imagine if Mozart had never been born -- what would we think of Haydn and Hummel?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Heh! I assume you can't tell us what transpersonal is in this regard, because it's transpersonal?


I was hoping that you could tell us all about the trans-personal experience of the great works--all I know about the trans-personal is that you allude to there being so much more to appreciate beyond the personal experience; hence, the *trans-personal* experience. I'm eager to explore it! :lol: Maybe it's like experiencing the _Semuta_ music in _Dune_.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm taking a break from the modern music, and I've been exploring older composers I've ignored in the past.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I was hoping that you could tell us all about the trans-personal experience of the great works--all I know about the trans-personal is that you allude to there being so much more to appreciate beyond the personal experience; hence, the *trans-personal* experience. I'm eager to explore it! :lol: Maybe it's like experiencing the _Semuta_ music in _Dune_.


Maybe you think I'm pursuing consciousness beyond the limits of mundane every-day awareness and personal identity. No, it's not necessary. With just so-called dry academics music can be appreciated very deeply for a lifetime, I mean it's not just a transitory personal experience when you're hearing the sounds. If that's all it was I don't think musicians would be devoting their lives to it.

Look at Horowitz and Serkin and Arrau in old age playing, at least in private, many of the same works over and over and over. There must be a broad spectrum of appreciation in addition to their own personal experiential journey.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Since I have an artificial left eye I have a pretty huge blind spot: I can't see composers too far to the left. Except... when I turn my head a little further I can see them all the same! In the land of the blind....


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

starthrower said:


> I'm taking a break from the modern music, and I've been exploring older composers I've ignored in the past.


Enjoy this. It's something I started doing a few years ago. It's pot luck; some remain as dull as I found them first time around, but others are like freshly-mined gems.

Listening to Bruckner has been my greatest success. I'm also slowly warming to Brahms beyond the late piano music.

The thing is I just take what I like rather than hoping to find masterpiece after masterpiece and listening to the entire output. this is something you already referred to with regard to Haydn.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Barbebleu said:


> Could you point me in the direction of the post where Woodduck said that Tannhäuser was Wagner's worst opera please. I may have to take this calumny up with Woodduck.


'twas, I believe, in one of those back-room conversations via pm. Too appalling to utter on a public forum (even though I did).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> 'twas, I believe, in one of those back-room conversations via pm. Too appalling to utter on a public forum (even though I did).


I have nothing to hide, mainly because none of you know where I live.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I have nothing to hide, mainly because none of you know where I live.


...however for an appropriate bribe...


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I have nothing to hide, mainly because none of you know where I live.


I know where you live, thanks to the CDs you sold and shipped to me.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Just kidding Mr. Woodduck.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> Just kidding Mr. Woodduck.


You're either kidding, or you have two accounts on TC.

In any event, I've moved.


----------



## geralmar (Feb 15, 2013)

Early-middie 20th Century New England composers. Why am I expected to celebrate mediocre East Coast composers when we had equally mediocre composers here in the MidWest?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Luchesi said:


> Look at Horowitz and Serkin and Arrau in old age playing, at least in private, many of the same works over and over and over. There must be a broad spectrum of appreciation in addition to their own personal experiential journey.


Surprisingly enough, Arrau had other musical interests in private than what he was usually known for (Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Brahms), but he seldom performed them in public. What I like about Arrau is that he never _blurs_ things, passages. You can hear complex works in great detail and have a better chance of taking them in to appreciate and understand.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

eugeneonagain said:


> Enjoy this. It's something I started doing a few years ago. It's pot luck; some remain as dull as I found them first time around, but others are like freshly-mined gems.
> 
> Listening to Bruckner has been my greatest success. I'm also slowly warming to Brahms beyond the late piano music.
> 
> The thing is I just take what I like rather than hoping to find masterpiece after masterpiece and listening to the entire output. this is something you already referred to with regard to Haydn.


I suppose everyone has those moments in life when we start to hear what we've missed in the past. Bruckner still hasn't clicked for me beyond a few passages here and there. Trying different recordings can really help to make things click. Classical era was always hardest for me to enjoy but I'm starting to come around to it lately.

But I may lose interest in a couple of weeks. Right now, gulp, I'm listening to Mozart. The third time in my life I've given him a go. Listening to some of the later piano concertos. I started with a couple CDs by Schiff. He plays almost too refined and beautiful. I switched to Brendel/Marriner and I find I'm a bit more engaged. Maybe I'll find another pianist I like even more?


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> You're either kidding, or you have two accounts on TC.


Hehe. The first. I'm really a joker (a bad one, I know)


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

starthrower said:


> ...
> 
> But I may lose interest in a couple of weeks. Right now, gulp, I'm listening to Mozart. The third time in my life I've given him a go. Listening to some of the later piano concertos. I started with a couple CDs by Schiff. He plays almost too refined and beautiful. I switched to Brendel/Marriner and I find I'm a bit more engaged. Maybe I'll find another pianist I like even more?


You're better than me then. I don't particularly listen to Mozart's piano concertos. With Mozart I prefer his keyboard sonatas, divertimenti, and particularly his string music. This string trio (divertimento) is an object lesson and masterclass in how to write a string trio:


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Larkenfield said:


> Surprisingly enough, Arrau had other musical interests in private than what he was usually known for (Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Brahms), but he seldom performed them in public. What I like about Arrau is that he never _blurs_ things, passages. You can hear complex works in great detail and have a better chance of taking them in to appreciate and understand.


Many of us wouldn't expect such an expressive rendition, but I want all the interpretations. Thanks.

I'll criticize the accuracy of one's playing, but never their interpretation (unless it's an obvious imitation of someone else).


----------

