# Personal blind spots



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

What are yours?

By "blind spot," I don't mean when you can understand why a composer's music is well-regarded, but it's just not to your taste. I mean when you just don't get it at all, and have to trust that everyone else is hearing something you don't.

Mine is Schumann, with exactly two exceptions: the piano concerto and Dichterliebe. Today I listened to the first movement of his piano quintet and the first few Davidsbundlertanze and felt nothing.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Mine is Mozart. Yes, one of the big three, but not mine. Exceptions are a few late symphonies and piano concertos and the Magical flute. I just don't follow the admiration and find most of his music just not interesting.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Germanic Romantic in general. While I'm heavily drawn to any of the surrounding nations, there's even something about symphonic music in general that can be off-putting: it feels like it's well-thought, but just way too *heavy*, in *harmonic* *stiffness* and *emotions*, and needs much more 'instrumental subtlety' and 'harmonic casualness' closer to Folk Classical or vaguely even sounding like this 



 I say vaguely, because this example is very boring. Complexity in classical is essential, but when it comes to just orchestration, this interpretation is vaguely more complete in its Neo-Renaissance pleasantness. I'm talking about a complete shift in orchestration where a composer could spend more time perfecting the style. Less 'heavy' instrumentation, a more casual and free harmonic language. The problem with Renaissance is it still has too much harmonic stiffness, that's why I bet on Neo and folk.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

As I have made a god of my own tastes, I have no blind spots--just things I like and things that I've heard and just ignore thereafter. But one never knows what gem might turn up in the œuvre of any given composer. I guess the moral is Just Keep Listening.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I have difficulty with Handel. I acknowledge him as a great composer and admire his _Messiah_, but can't understand how could someone place him side by side with (for me) geniuses of music such as Mozart and Bach. I much prefer Vivaldi over Handel at this moment. My personal idol and favorite composer, Beethoven, placed Handel above all other composers, and this always seemed odd to me.

I acknowledge that much of his large oeuvre is still unknown to me at this point though, and I always keep coming back to him to challenge my current perspective.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Most of sacred and chamber music. Feels very samey and boring to me.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Schubert 9th. Mozart opera. Anything by Babbitt, Carter, Nono, Stockhausen.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Perhaps my largest present blind spots are organ music, some art songs, and certain modern composers. I don't seem to enjoy the timbre of organs. Perhaps it's the background drone. I do adore some art songs, but I think in general I enjoy art songs considerably less than many others. I can't say exactly why. Modern composers are a moving target since I liked almost none of them when I first came to TC, but now like a high percentage. Ferneyhough, Nono, and Babbit have eluded me pretty much completely. Maybe the biggest difference between my tastes and the average TC taste (based on polls) is Liszt. I like Liszt but clearly not as much as the average TC member. 

One thing that I have found fascinating is how listening has greatly affected my taste. Maybe 10-15 years ago, I was surprised that Haydn was rated so highly. Now I am not surprised at all and adore much of his music. Wagner has continually risen in my estimation to being just a bit below the Big Three. In general I find that continued listening brings my view of composers more in line with the average TC view.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Tchaikovsky and Charles Ives. Mozart piano sonatas. :lol:


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Francis Poulenc. I can't stand the mincing preciosity and all that affected Parisian chi-chi and frou-frou . Insufferably cute .
Frederick Delius . Just about the only English composer I dislike . Very pretty , but his music is monotonously languorous in mood and his harmonies are cloyingly sentimental . Elgar's music has real GUTS . 
Charles Gounod . His two best known operas Faust & Romeo & Juliette have a lot of nice melodies , but they're blanc, bland, bland . Utterly insipid . His Faust is a total trivialization of the mighty Faust legend . His St. Cecilia mass is just as bland and insipid . If I want a French treatment of the Faust legend, give me the Berlioz Damnation de Faust any day !


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

This thread is definitely a nice alternative to the “overrated” thread that often gets heated. Like the OP, one of mine is Schumann. I have certainly learned to appreciate his music more lately - he was a consummate master of art song and chamber music - but a lot of his solo piano stuff and all of his symphonies leave me cold. However, Scriabin is an even bigger one for me. I simply do not get why he is considered so great among a choice few. Also Tchaikovsky to a somewhat lesser degree. Mozart operas. Schubert’s "Death and the Maiden.” Electronic music. And late-Romantic, heavily chromatic, aimlessly meandering stuff like most of Szymanowski, Walton, and Reger.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> Tchaikovsky and Charles Ives. Mozart piano sonatas. :lol:


to me some of the best things made by Ives are in his short works. For instance his In the night to me is just wonderful:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

isorhythm said:


> What are yours?
> 
> By "blind spot," I don't mean when you can understand why a composer's music is well-regarded, but it's just not to your taste. I mean when you just don't get it at all, and have to trust that everyone else is hearing something you don't.


For me it is *Mahler*, *Bruckner* and *Wagner*. But I don't feel that I am missing anything since I enjoy the music by other composer enough it makes up for whatever it is I am not "getting" about these other three.

It is interesting to see the choices by other posters include some of my favorite composers, e.g. *Poulenc* and *Schumann*. But don't ask me why I like them, I just do. And *sacred* and *chamber music* are my two most favorite genres.

So, go figure.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> This thread is definitely a nice alternative to the "overrated" thread that often gets heated. Like the OP, one of mine is Schumann. I have certainly learned to appreciate his music more lately - he was a consummate master of art song and chamber music - but a lot of his solo piano stuff and all of his symphonies leave me cold. However, Scriabin is an even bigger one for me. I simply do not get why he is considered so great among a choice few. ...


Oh, yeah, +1 on that. I forgot about that one. I am certainly not among the Scriabin fan base. I just don't get it.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

superhorn said:


> Francis Poulenc. I can't stand the mincing preciosity and all that affected Parisian chi-chi and frou-frou . Insufferably cute .


I dare say there's a lot more to Poulenc's music than what you imagine.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Most atonal music, most bel canto sans Callas, most minimalist music. There's a handful of composers who have corners in their oeuvre that I don't listen to much, like Schubert and Mendelssohn orchestral works. But I'd hardly say I dislike those.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

When I posted my answer I purposefully said the most popular and controversial thing that applies to me. Admittedly, I have found better composers for myself than the mainstream, although unlike the main Romantics, I struggle to see these composers reaching their full potential. I doubt this is an inherent issue of their harmonic and orchestrative language itself, but rather the lower standards of the time period. Hence I emphasize a Folk and Neo-Renaissance revival! If we're going to be blind with a blind spot, let's do it right!


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Rachmaninoff. I see him as gushing, long-winded, and ultimately artificial.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

ORigel said:


> Rachmaninoff. I see him as gushing, long-winded, and ultimately artificial.


I felt that somewhat also. Now I prefer to just say I find him boring.

My personal blindspot is 20th century Opera and some choral like by Britten, and Mahler's 8. I love the old stuff like in the Renaissance and Classical Eras, not so hot on the Romantic era choral stuff (except Faure).


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Baroque opera, Bruckner, the "Manfred" Symphony, Faulkner, symbolic logic.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Most atonal music, it drives me nuts.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

This turns out to be a nice thread! I already contributed Mozart as mine. I find it really interesting to read about blindspots for some of my favorite music. The stiffness/seriousness of the German Romantics for instance, I do understand the idea. I sometimes feel the urge to say: please listen to this or that, but I resist it, as clearly tastes are so different. And it is great to have a thread where we can just say what we think!


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Sibelius and Handel. No, I'm not sorry.


----------



## SallyR (May 22, 2020)

Mine has to be Vaughan-Williams! The English Folksong Suite and that ruddy Lark! Sorry - I know many people adore the piece....


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Liszt does little for me. I am starting to like more of Shostakovich's works but his symphony 7 and cello concerto are like having my teeth drilled.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Mahler. For all the skill and expertise which clearly went into the compilation of those gigantic scores, I simply don't enjoy the music itself.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Sibelius and Handel. No, I'm not sorry.


Sibelius is my favourite - can I just ask what you have heard so far?


----------



## toshiromifune (May 24, 2019)

Shostakovich, Bartók, Beethoven late quartets...


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

relatively Mahler. I say relatively, because there are pieces of his that I enjoy - the Lieder, the 8th symphony, and individual movements from his other symphonies. But I dislike some other movements of his symphonies. My least favorite is probably the 3rd symphony. I don't hate Mahler, but I value him less than some other people, hence the word relatively


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

NLAdriaan said:


> Mine is Mozart. Yes, one of the big three, but not mine. Exceptions are a few late symphonies and piano concertos and the Magical flute. I just don't follow the admiration and find most of his music just not interesting.


I share your view about Mozart (my exceptions are the 40th symphony, Sull'aria, beginning of the 1st movement of the 'Dissonance' quartet, the adagio from the 23rd Piano concerto and some parts of the Requiem).

I would be interested if you would say what it is you dislike...but no worries if you can't quite explain.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> Germanic Romantic in general. While I'm heavily drawn to any of the surrounding nations, there's even something about symphonic music in general that can be off-putting: it feels like it's well-thought, but just way too *heavy*, in *harmonic* *stiffness* and *emotions*, and needs much more 'instrumental subtlety' and 'harmonic casualness' closer to Folk Classical or vaguely even sounding like this
> 
> 
> 
> I say vaguely, because this example is very boring. Complexity in classical is essential, but when it comes to just orchestration, this interpretation is vaguely more complete in its Neo-Renaissance pleasantness. I'm talking about a complete shift in orchestration where a composer could spend more time perfecting the style. Less 'heavy' instrumentation, a more casual and free harmonic language. The problem with Renaissance is it still has too much harmonic stiffness, that's why I bet on Neo and folk.


Forgive me for raising it but, given what you say above, isn't it a little surprising that your avatar is a picture of the young Brahms?


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

Almost all minimalist music.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Animal the Drummer said:


> Forgive me for raising it but, given what you say above, isn't it a little surprising that your avatar is a picture of the young Brahms?


Only half of the reason I have his avatar is because I like him. The other half is because I edited his hair. It looked too long in the original so I made it longer!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Handel
Mozart operas
Some famous Beethoven works
Verdi operas
Wolf
Some famous Bartok works
Most of Stravinsky post-Sacre


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Schubert
Messiaen (apart from the Turangalila)


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Schubert
> Messiaen (apart from the Turangalila)


I assume you've heard his Quartet for the End of Time?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I've had many blind spots that are no longer blind - composers that I have come to love. Messiaen was a big one. What a great composer! And how I hated his music ...

Now there are composers who I feel I get but who I value less highly than many. I enjoy their music but don't think it is as special as the ones I am totally in love with. I like Saint Seans and Mendelssohn but feel certain they are not as great and Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, Schubert, Mahler .... . Others think differently. Is that a blind spot for me? Or a dim spot? Or is it merely me being discriminating?

And then there are modern composers who I really don't have time for these days - Glass, Adams, MacMillan etc. etc. It is too early to say if this is my blind spot or merely my not participating in a passing fad. I have listened to quite a lot of their music. I think I have got to the heart of what is liked about it. But I haven't developed any interest in hearing more. I feel the return on their music is less than I need from composers I spend time with. Do I just need glasses or a torch?


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

janxharris said:


> I assume you've heard his Quartet for the End of Time?


I have his complete works as far as I can tell. I've _heard_ all of it. I wouldn't choose to listen to anything of it again, really, apart (as I say) from Turangalila.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Of the composers sometimes hailed by the classical music press and others around here, Pierre Boulez as a composer and Elliott Carter with Messiaen, Eric Whitacre, John Corigliano, Steve Reich, Arvo Part, John Tavener and Thomas Ades is in similar territory,


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

Scriabin, most Schönberg and all Serialism, Lutosławski, Virgil Thompson, Arthur Sullivan, John Field. I know these are my blind spots because when I see them on a concert program or playlist I think, “oh no.”


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

My blind spot concerns Wagner, who is one of my favorite composers. While _Siegfried Idyll_ would qualify as one of my favorite works, and while I also love the excerpts, I can't seem to listen to an entire Wagner opera without saying "Whew, I'm glad that's over with."

This frustrates me because I know there are many sincere Wagnerians, and they are a devoted lot. The late Stephen Hawkings of physics/universe fame, identified Wagner as his favorite. Richard Strauss, Mahler, Bruckner, Schoenberg, and Berg, all revered Wagner. I mean, there's got to be _something_ to a complete Wagner opera if the likes of Solti, Furtwangler, Karajan, Bernstein, and Boulez, are going to go to all the trouble of studying and conducting hours of it. As an aside I think that Hitler's alleged Wagner fixation has been overplayed, as a friend of mine, who is also a great Wagnerian, told me that Hitler was listening to Lehar and not Wagner during his final days in the bunker.

That same friend told me that he was once at a performance of _Die Miestersinger_ and the family sitting in front of him seemed completely mystified that after the wonderful _Overture_, nothing seemed to be happening. He said that he suggested that they go out, get the kids some hamburgers or something, and then come back for the final act. He said the family took his advice and later thanked him for making the evening a success.

Maybe for some us Wagner can't be digested all at once.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

janxharris said:


> I share your view about Mozart (my exceptions are the 40th symphony, Sull'aria, beginning of the 1st movement of the 'Dissonance' quartet, the adagio from the 23rd Piano concerto and some parts of the Requiem).
> 
> *I would be interested if you would say what it is you dislike...*but no worries if you can't quite explain.


To me Mozart's music lacks depth. Much of it just goes by as if nothing happens. It doesn't mean all music has to be heavy and serious. I love many Haydn symphonies, I love chamber music and sonatas of many other composers. And most of Mozart's operas are not doing it for me, as Monteverdi's, Rameau's and Purcell's will.

Most people are crazy about Mozart, he pops up in every top three. So he must absolutely be my blind spot.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Coach G said:


> My blind spot concerns Wagner, who is one of my favorite composers. While _Siegfried Idyll_ would qualify as one of my favorite works, and while I also love the excerpts, I can't seem to listen to an entire Wagner opera without saying "Whew, I'm glad that's over with."
> 
> This frustrates me because I know there are many sincere Wagnerians, and they are a devoted lot. The late Stephen Hawkings of physics/universe fame, identified Wagner as his favorite. Richard Strauss, Mahler, Bruckner, Schoenberg, and Berg, all revered Wagner. I mean, there's got to be _something_ to a complete Wagner opera if the likes of Solti, Furtwangler, Karajan, Bernstein, and Boulez, are going to go to all the trouble of studying and conducting hours of it. As an aside I think that Hitler's alleged Wagner fixation has been overplayed, as a friend of mine, who is also a great Wagnerian, told me that Hitler was listening to Lehar and not Wagner during his final days in the bunker.
> 
> ...


Great to find someone else who feels the same way as me! Too lazy to make a meme, but:

_Parsifal Prelude and Good Friday Music_ = GREATEST MUSIC EVER
_All of Parsifal_ - WATCHING PAINT DRY

_Act I of Gotterdammerung and the Vassal Chorus_ = CAN MUSIC GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS
_All of Gotterdammerung_ = PLEASE SOMEONE SPARE ME

I know that there is great stuff to fill in the gaps if I devote all my time and attention to it, but I always can't help but feel that I have better things to do than listen to a 5-hour opera when the musical selections by themselves are so sublime. Someday I know I'll overcome this. I do want to try and listen to the complete _Tristan_ for the first time one of these days and see if that makes things click. But for now, it is absolutely beyond my comprehension how dedicated Wagnerians can listen to the complete operas so frequently...


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

George Frideric Handel...


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Great to find someone else who feels the same way as me! Too lazy to make a meme, but:
> 
> _Parsifal Prelude and Good Friday Music_ = GREATEST MUSIC EVER
> _All of Parsifal_ - WATCHING PAINT DRY
> ...


In addition to the wonderful Tristan Prelude to Act I, *that of Act III* is also excellent.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Church Organ music for me. I love Jimmy Smith on his B3 though... 
I don't know much Mozart opera neither. In fact there are a lot of popular staples I only have a passing acquaintance with too.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I think it's fascinating to hear about people's blind spots especially where it seems fairly specific to one or a few composers. If we like a wide variety of composers' music, what makes us differ from the rest of the classical music community in that particular composer? 

In my experience, continued listening to music that many other hold in high regard almost always increases my enjoyment of that music. Of course not everyone has the time or desire to continue listening to music they don't presently enjoy. Also, continued listening does not guarantee a conversion from dislike to enjoyment. 

I guess it's similar to other areas in our experience. I love just about all fruit, but I hate olives. Apparently they are related to mangos, cherries, and peaches, all of which I love, but I hate the smell of olives to the point where I have to bypass bowls of olives at the grocery store. 

Overall, disliking one or a few composers would seem not to matter much given the extraordinary number of wonderful composers and their music.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

No offense to the British, but another one for me is most British composers from the late 19th century on, including Elgar apart from the first 8 or 9 measures of his cello concerto. Vaughan Williams, Walton (except for some of his transcriptions), Delius, Bax, Bliss, Davies...all a big blank for me except for Britten.
I feel the same way about a lot of American composers like Virgil Thompson, Howard Hanson, Walter Piston, Elliott Carter and Roger Sessions.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

For me, a big one is Rachmaninoff's piano music, and also his symphonies. Glurgy, formless dreck, if you ask me. I know I'm in the minority, here; plenty of musicians and music lovers I know and respect adore that music.

However, I will always assert that Rachmaninoff was very definitely a first-rate _choral_ composer. His "All-Night Vigil" is a towering masterpiece! Among other vocal works, such as _The Bells_. And I do like some of his tone poems, such as _The Isle of the Dead_, and also his _Symphonic Dances._

But that piano music? Ugh. Y'all can keep it.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Opera ..........


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Knorf said:


> For me, a big one is Rachmaninoff's piano music, and also his symphonies. Glurgy, formless dreck, if you ask me. I know I'm in the minority, here; plenty of musicians and music lovers I know and respect adore that music.
> 
> However, I will always assert that Rachmaninoff was very definitely a first-rate _choral_ composer. His "All-Night Vigil" is a towering masterpiece! Among other vocal works, such as _The Bells_. And I do like some of his tone poems, such as _The Isle of the Dead_, and also his _Symphonic Dances._
> 
> But that piano music? Ugh. Y'all can keep it.


I can't agree with you on at least some of the piano music and the first two symphonies but I must congratulate you on the phrase "glurgy, formless dreck".


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Animal the Drummer said:


> I can't agree with you on at least some of the piano music and the first two symphonies but I must congratulate you on the phrase "glurgy, formless dreck".


Well Rachmaninoff was heavily influenced by Tchaikovsky. :lol:


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

“Glurgy, formless dreck” describes my reaction to most Tchaikovsky. I would be surprised if you thought the same about Rach’s piano concerti; I think the structure of the 3rd is one of the most ingenious of all concerti.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> "Glurgy, formless dreck" describes my reaction to most Tchaikovsky. I would be surprised if you thought the same about Rach's piano concerti; I think the structure of the 3rd is one of the most ingenious of all concerti.


Yeah, I much prefer Rachmaninoff to anything by Tchaikovsky. Rach's piano sonatas aren't my favorites though, but I do love his Corelli Variations, the op. 33 etudes, the op. 23 preludes and the Paganini Rhapsody as well as the piano concertos.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Animal the Drummer said:


> I can't agree with you on at least some of the piano music and the first two symphonies but I must congratulate you on the phrase "glurgy, formless dreck".


Haha, I'll take it.

I heartily dislike Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano Concerto. The Fourth is boring, but the Third is alright. I've never heard the first. The problem with the 3rd Piano Concerto is too many performers add glurge on top of the (quite ample) existing glurge, and so for me it's far too glurgy. I'll take Tchaikovsky over Rachmaninoff any day of the week for concertos and symphonies.

But really, all y'all: Rachmaninoff's choral and vocal music is _truly_ great. Give it a try if you haven't heard it.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Oh dear, I have a lot.  . . .

Most Baroque Era music. So far, I seem to enjoy Rameau's music a lot more than most Baroque composers. I love Handel's _Messiah _and Bach's _Magnificat_, but overall I don't get the fascination with Bach, Handel, or Vivaldi.

Most Classical Era music. The exception is Beethoven. I listened to Mozart a lot when I first got into Classical music, but I've since gotten bored with his music. Other than _The Creation _I'm not crazy about Haydn either.

Most music composed after 1950. Things just get too weird for me. A lot of it just seems like it's trying to insult people's intelligence. I'm not sure how to put it, but I just don't like it.

Most concertos. I feel like these are just written for one person to show off. That's nice and all, but for 30 or 40 minutes? Nah... I've seen so many concertos at concerts, and those are always the hardest thing for me to get through. Although I hate to admit it, when I hear concertos, I usually end up impatiently waiting for whatever the next piece is.

Most chamber music. Some people say they prefer chamber music because it's more intimate or something, but I don't think so. Compared to the power of a full orchestra, chamber music seems too small to me.

I feel very narrow minded now! :lol:


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

consuono said:


> Yeah, I much prefer Rachmaninoff to anything by Tchaikovsky. Rach's piano sonatas aren't my favorites though, but I do love his Corelli Variations, the op. 33 etudes, the op. 23 preludes and the Paganini Rhapsody as well as the piano concertos.


This is what I find absolutely fascinating. I worship in the temple of Tchaikovsky, yet you find him wanting. Hurray for diversity and to each his own!


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I've honestly tried to get into Lizst, but it's still more a duty than a joy, though his Christus stands out from the pack. Also, I've made a couple stabs at Elliott Carter, but I haven't penetrated that outer shell.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

mikeh375 said:


> Church Organ music for me. I love Jimmy Smith on his B3 though...


Yes and yes. And it bothers me about the church organ music, because I spent several years taking organ lessons. As Stravinsky said, "I dislike the organ's legato sostenuto and its mess of octaves as well as the fact that the monster never breathes."

Jazz organ, that's another story. I wish I would have been able to learn jazz/soul organ.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Manxfeeder said:


> Also, I've made a couple stabs at Elliott Carter, but I haven't penetrated that outer shell.


Suggestion: give his Variations for Orchestra a listen. It might click for you, given what I have come to know about your tastes and interests. (Levine has two recordings, both better than any rival for this piece.)


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

I'll keep out of the Rachmaninoff debate...

For me, the big blind spot is Verdi. Good bloke and all the rest of it, and I'm sure it's fabulous music for those who love the genre, but for me it's all just too much, too rich, too congested. Give me a nicely chilled glass of Sibelius...


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

Mozart for me.
It may be over exposure prior to me becoming more interested in "classical music"
I struggle with his compositions
I do keep trying though


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

cwarchc said:


> Mozart for me.
> It may be over exposure prior to me becoming more interested in "classical music"
> I struggle with his compositions
> I do keep trying though


And I'll continue revisiting Rachmaninoff's piano music from time to time.

Not his Symphony No. 2, though. Every time I hear it, I think less of it. Oh, well!


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

-Bruckner
-Most of what Mendelssohn wrote after the age of 20


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

haziz said:


> This is what I find absolutely fascinating. I worship in the temple of Tchaikovsky, yet you find him wanting. Hurray for diversity and to each his own!


Yeah, maybe it's a cyclical thing in my life or something. I was much more of a Tchaikovsky fan when I was younger than I am now. Maybe I ODed on it and if I live long enough my attitude will change. I don't *hate* his music by any means. I don't hate much at all except hip hop and "modern" country music. Now with those I don't even want to hear snippets.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

NLAdriaan said:


> This turns out to be a nice thread! I find it really interesting to read about blindspots for some of my favorite music. The stiffness/seriousness of the German Romantics for instance, I do understand the idea.


I think the issue with something seeming too serious, heavy, or stiff, lies in taking it too seriously to begin with. As a creative composer similar to other composers, I have unique ideals about sounds and texture that can be like 'intense revelation' defining my life. Thus while I get an overbearing effect of heaviness if I'm taking German Romanticism overly seriously, I really thoroughly enjoy it if I'm listening at a more easygoing 'entertainment' level. Then it's very inspirational. The actual music that speaks to me most seriously I was referring to, I haven't even found, but have found only traces of its potential, traces in folk and Russian classical, and in maybe 15% of that weak example I linked (not even the right video actually, can't find it on youtube.) On the other hand, Wagner, Brahms, Mahler, Schubert, are all just great fun when I put in time to listen much more casually. I tend to have two lists of favorite composers. One list includes the Romantic greats which I often enjoy listening to on a lower wavelength. Many people here might put them as composers in their highest wavelength, and put pop music in their low wavelength instead. A lot of German Romanticism I feel I already know how to craft and construct, but don't have a desire to consider the monumental task. I don't know how many creative composers are on this forum, but I imagine if these German Romantics hadn't existed, more people here would be more creatively trying to achieve their sound, because it's more instinctive, a gravitational direction to pursue. A big part of creativity is just a need to express natural patterns we mentally derive. Since these composers have been thorough in their achievements, we're left with just the creative minds that are looking elsewhere.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

NLAdriaan said:


> To me Mozart's music lacks depth. Much of it just goes by as if nothing happens. It doesn't mean all music has to be heavy and serious. I love many Haydn symphonies, I love chamber music and sonatas of many other composers. And most of Mozart's operas are not doing it for me, as Monteverdi's, Rameau's and Purcell's will.
> 
> Most people are crazy about Mozart, he pops up in every top three. So he must absolutely be my blind spot.


Your first two sentences could have been penned by me but also the lack of a unique harmonic atmosphere (though, for me, this would apply to the era rather that just Mozart).


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

trazom said:


> -Bruckner
> -Most of what Mendelssohn wrote after the age of 20


I'm with you on Bruckner - but what about the Adagio from his 9th symphony - I enjoy some of that movement:


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

After many years of trying, I still have a problem with Mozart's music. Treating his late symphonies and piano concertos like elegant little pieces has helped. I can nowadays put it on in the background while doing something else and not getting annoyed by it. But then I can do the same with an ELO album, so it's hardly progress. Attentive listening? Still can't sit through a whole symphony. Something deep inside me still revolts against it. But I'm trying.

Another blind spot of mine is Bruckner's finales. While I love the first three movements of all his symphonies, I keep wondering what he's doing in his finales. It often sounds like a medley of tunes pasted onto a scaffold, like an End Title from a John Williams soundtrack, even though I'm sure there must be more to it. This definitely falls into the "I don't get it" territory.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

The biggest ones for me have been Handel, Haydn and Beethoven, indeed I even think there is something vaguely similar about all of them but it is hard to pinpoint and explain quite what it is. 

However when this happens, I don't really trust to others that they are good, I learn about their music.(this is also true for all things in general, really learning about topics I think is preferable to automatic trust in 'authority figures'.) I have read about all 3 of these composers and I understand exactly why they are highly regarded, and I know it is deserved. 

Also I think Handel has grown on me a little lately after I worked on some of his keyboard pieces.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Coach G said:


> As an aside I think that Hitler's alleged Wagner fixation has been overplayed, as a friend of mine, who is also a great Wagnerian, told me that Hitler was listening to Lehar and not Wagner during his final days in the bunker.


Have a look at this:
Rienzi and Adolf Hitler
"August Kubizek, a boyhood friend of Adolf Hitler, claimed that Hitler was so influenced by seeing Rienzi as a young man in 1906 or 1907 that it triggered his political career, and that when Kubizek reminded Hitler, in 1939 at Bayreuth, of his exultant response to the opera Hitler had replied, "At that hour it all began!" Although Kubizek's veracity has been seriously questioned, it is known that Hitler possessed the original manuscript of the opera, which he had requested and been given as a fiftieth birthday present in 1939. The manuscript was with Hitler in his bunker; it was either stolen, lost or destroyed by fire in the destruction of the bunker's contents after Hitler's death (the manuscript of Wagner's earlier work Die Feen is believed to have met with the same fate). Thomas Grey comments:
In every step of Rienzi's career - from ... acclamation as leader of the Volk, through military struggle, violent suppression of mutinous factions, betrayal and ... final immolation - Hitler would doubtless have found sustenance for his fantasies."
Albert Speer claims to have remembered an incident when Robert Ley advocated using a modern composition to open the Party Rallies in Nuremberg, but Hitler rejected this idea:
"You know, Ley, it isn't by chance that I have the Party Rallies open with the overture to Rienzi. It's not just a musical question. At the age of twenty-four this man, an innkeeper's son, persuaded the Roman people to drive out the corrupt Senate by reminding them of the magnificent past of the Roman Empire. Listening to this blessed music as a young man in the theater at Linz, I had the vision that I too must someday succeed in uniting the German Empire and making it great once more."


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

"...making it great once more."
>shudder<

Reminds me uncomfortably of a certain parallel political situation. 

Apologies. Politics don't belong here. I'll say no more about that.

I used to have a blind spot for Mahler 8, but I've gotten over that. Now I love it!


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

- Opera and Lieder. Yet objectively, I think the human voice is one of the most glorious instruments. I just can't get into it. I can greatly enjoy many wonderful arias and choruses in many Operas, but as a whole, I'm just not a fan. I wish I was.

- Most Chamber music (therapy for insomnia). Brahms would be an exception.

- Atonal: Stockhausen, Babbit, Milhaud, et al. However, I do not believe this is such a blind spot. I completely reject much of the philosophy that motivates this era and style of music.

Stravinsky's Le Sacre. I listen to it every few years (i just listened to it again a few weeks ago), and I still think it awful.

V


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Varick said:


> - Atonal: Stockhausen, Babbit, Milhaud, et al. However, I do not believe this is such a blind spot.


If you think lumping Milhaud, Stockhausen, and Babbitt together makes sense, then, I hate to tell you, it still is. Those three are totally different from each other philosophically! Yes, even Babbitt and Stockhausen. And Milhaud is nothing like those two at all.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> By "blind spot," I don't mean when you can understand why a composer's music is well-regarded, but it's just not to your taste. I mean when you just don't get it at all, and have to trust that everyone else is hearing something you don't.


In terms of "just don't get it at all", for me it's the likes of Ferneyhough. I hate the "it's just random notes!" criticism of modernists, but really I have to admit I'm taking it on trust that the composers have a deliberate intent. Often I'm left feeling that _it might as well be_ random.

But as regards "just not to your taste", it's fascinating to me why among, say, the Romantics, some sequences of notes stir the soul but other sequences of notes in the same idiom are just dull.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Ferneyhough was very difficult for me until I heard his music live, and then it totally clicked. I don't know why it has to be the way it is, but it makes an amazing effect, especially live with a committed performer. 

And then I had the good fortune to get to study with him, and soon realized he's a musical genius. He can teach any composition student where there are, no matter the style, and he was always dead on for whatever it was, no matter how far removed from his own work. 

So, I rate Ferneyhough even without getting it 100%. But I think you're not supposed to, anymore than one is expected to truly comprehend the vastness of space.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I don't really consider negative reactions to a lot of newer classical music (new as in post wwII) to be necessarily a 'blind spot'. I think the jury is still out on the long term value of music of a composer like Stockhausen or Ferneyhough etc. They may actually fade into obscurity (they may not), but I don't think we can really say for sure at the moment. Music like that doesn't interest me and I am not going to genuflect at that kind of thing just because some people in academia do.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Most modern music which sounds horribly discordant to me. Music is meant to be enjoyed not endured.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Knorf said:


> Ferneyhough was very difficult for me until I heard his music live, and then it totally clicked. I don't know why it has to be the way it is, but it makes an amazing effect, especially live with a committed performer.
> 
> *And then I had the good fortunate to get to study with him,* and soon realized he's a musical genius. He can teach any composition student where there are, no matter the style, and he was always dead on for whatever it was, no matter how far removed from his own work.
> 
> So, I rate Ferneyhough even without getting it 100%. But I think you're not supposed to, anymore than one is expected to truly comprehend the vastness of space.


ok..I'm impressed @Knorf.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Most modern music which sounds horribly discordant to me. Music is meant to be enjoyed not endured.


Quite a few of us _do_ genuinely enjoy the modern music that presumably is what sounds "horribly discordant" to you. Just to be clear.

(And I assume you're well aware there was a time when Brahms was considered a horror to listeners. Among other composers.)



mikeh375 said:


> ok..I'm impressed @Knorf.


Thanks, but, I mean... yeah, ok it was pretty cool. And I corrected the typo! Oops...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Knorf said:


> Quite a few of us _do_ genuinely enjoy the modern music that presumably is what sounds "horribly discordant" to you. Just to be clear.
> 
> (And I assume you're well aware there was a time when Brahms was considered a horror to listeners. Among other composers.)
> 
> Thanks, but, I mean... yeah, ok it was pretty cool. And I corrected the typo! Oops...


I've no problem whatsoever with you enjoying it. As long as you don't expect me to enjoy it as well!


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I've no problem whatsoever with you enjoying it. As long as you don't expect me to enjoy it as well!


Expect? No, of course not. Hope? Absolutely. I think I've noticed that you and I have enough musical interests in common that if I really like something, there's a decent chance you could, too. And, why not? It's not like enjoying modern music is unhealthy or something...

ETA: for anyone curious, the music I write is probably not what anyone here would reasonably call "horribly discordant." Not that I think it would necessarily be a bad thing if it were. But, it isn't.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Knorf said:


> ETA: for anyone curious, the music I write is probably not what anyone here would reasonably call "horribly discordant." Not that I think it would necessarily be a bad thing if it were. But, it isn't.


What's your rhythm like.........


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> I think the jury is still out on the long term value of music of a composer like Stockhausen or Ferneyhough etc. They may actually fade into obscurity (they may not), but I don't think we can really say for sure at the moment. Music like that doesn't interest me and I am not going to genuflect at that kind of thing just because some people in academia do.





DavidA said:


> Most modern music which sounds horribly discordant to me. Music is meant to be enjoyed not endured.


It has its uses. It works well as soundtrack for spooky media contents such as documentaries on mysteries, horror films. I think the modern culture encourages composers to keep developing skills in this area:


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Pat Fairlea said:


> I'll keep out of the Rachmaninoff debate...
> 
> For me, the big blind spot is Verdi. Good bloke and all the rest of it, and I'm sure it's fabulous music for those who love the genre, but for me it's all just too much, too rich, too congested. Give me a nicely chilled glass of Sibelius...


Then u have a NORTHERN, colder spirit inside! I thought similar of Signor Giuseppe...But then I got deeper into his work and now they give me much pure pleasure...Strangely but Sibelieus is always in my top 5 as well!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Knorf said:


> Expect? No, of course not. Hope? Absolutely. I think I've noticed that you and I have enough musical interests in common that if I really like something, there's a decent chance you could, too. And, why not? It's not like enjoying modern music is unhealthy or something...
> 
> ETA: for anyone curious, the music I write is probably not what anyone here would reasonably call "horribly discordant." Not that I think it would necessarily be a bad thing if it were. But, it isn't.


Frankly there is so much really enjoyable music out there to listen to that I don't want to afflict myself with the sort of stuff that sounds as if a piano is being pushed downstairs or people are trying to saw a violin in half. I do find it perfectly horrible. I can remember a guy I knew going on spec to a Prom concert in London and it was full of this sort of avant-garde stuff. Oh boy! He said he didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the noise!


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

consuono said:


> Yeah, maybe it's a cyclical thing in my life or something. I was much more of a Tchaikovsky fan when I was younger than I am now. Maybe I ODed on it and if I live long enough my attitude will change. I don't *hate* his music by any means. I don't hate much at all except hip hop and "modern" country music. Now with those I don't even want to hear snippets.


It is curious that as I get older I actually appreciate more and more Tchaikovsky's gift for melody, and his ability to instill and extend interest in sometimes very slight material. The exception is perhaps a couple of pieces that I have heard a few too many times, like the 1812 Overture, Romeo and Juliet, and Capriccio Italien.

Mostly, I find his music (and not just _his_ music) to be a wonderful respite from a world that grows ever coarser and meaner, and seems increasingly to be descending into chaos and madness.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Most opera is a big blind spot for me, including full Wagner operas. I've never been able to make it through an entire opera. I suspect this will change when I'm older and more patient, but who knows—I can listen to an hour and a half of Mahler easily, but three hours of Wagner is just pushing it. My favorite operatic composer is definitely Mozart. I've only heard two of his operas in full, Don G & The Magic Flute, but I really loved both, and found the music connected with me much more than I expected it to.

Edit: Tchaikovsky's symphonies. Until recently I'd have said Nielsen, but he has grown on me greatly! Another one I'm almost ashamed to admit: Schubert's string quartets, especially no.15. I am sure there's great music going on here but I'm more or less deaf to it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

NLAdriaan said:


> *I love many Haydn symphonies*, I love chamber music and sonatas of many other composers.


Now that's a surprise, =) because I've seen you expressing your enthusiasm for Mahler, Schubert, Bruckner, Chopin like a zillion times on this forum, but never Haydn. Isn't this like, the second time you're mentioning Haydn's name on this forum after this.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Now that's a surprise, =) because I've seen you expressing your enthusiasm for Mahler, Schubert, Bruckner, Chopin like a zillion times on this forum, but never Haydn. Isn't this like, the second time you're mentioning Haydn's name on this forum after this.


Your point being...?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

flamencosketches said:


> Your point being...?


NLAdriaan rarely ever expresses enthusiasm for Haydn, it's surprising he does it now. What's so hard to understand about my post...?


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Frankly there is so much really enjoyable music out there to listen to that I don't want to afflict myself with the sort of stuff that sounds as if a piano is being pushed downstairs or people are trying to saw a violin in half. I do find it perfectly horrible. I can remember a guy I knew going on spec to a Prom concert in London and it was full of this sort of avant-garde stuff. Oh boy! He said he didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the noise!


I was the same as you are, bnut in last couple of years I have developed a strange allure and love towards modern ''classical musick''...:angel:


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> NLAdriaan rarely ever expresses enthusiasm for Haydn, it's surprising he does it now. What's so hard to understand about my post...?


I don't understand why you posted it at all. It's as if you were challenging him to "prove" that he likes Haydn by digging up some of his back catalog of posts. Why do you care?


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> What's your rhythm like.........


I do like trying to discover novel rhythmic combinations, but I _don't_ do "new complexity," with all the extreme, irrational nested tuples. Having said that, I have gotten feedback that counting in my music is often a challenge, but to be fair anything novel is going to be so, from sheer lack of familiarity.



DavidA said:


> Frankly there is so much really enjoyable music out there to listen to that I don't want to afflict myself with the sort of stuff that sounds as if a piano is being pushed downstairs or people are trying to saw a violin in half. I do find it perfectly horrible.


In all fairness, there is very, very little music that can be fairly described this way.

But here's the thing: you're shutting yourself off from the possibility of novel surprise, of a new, transcendent experience. You're not wrong that there's tons of music very similar to what you already like, and by all means, enjoy yourself. But, without risking the unknown, the greatest transcendent experiences are unavailable.

If you'll pardon the metaphor, imagine you're a fan of French wine. It's lovely stuff, with more great wineries than you can shake a stick at, and you'd spend a lifetime and never get through tasting it all. But then imagine you hear there's some great wine coming out of California. You've had some CA wine, a cheap overoaked Chardonnay with flabby, uninteresting fruit. You think, "CA wine? Eh, I had some, and it was rubbish. There is plenty of French wine I'll never finish trying, so why bother." ... Do you see why such an attitude might be a mistake?


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Frankly there are so many really enjoyable people out there to listen to that I don't want to afflict myself with the sort of stuff that sounds as if a "genre" is being entirely generalized or people are trying to triviliaze other's interests. I do find it perfectly horrible. I can remember a guy I knew going on spec to a Prom concert in London and it was full of these sort of trash talking audience members. Oh boy! He said he didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the noise!


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Knorf said:


> In all fairness, there is very, very little music that can be fairly described this way.
> 
> But here's the thing: you're shutting yourself off from the possibility of novel surprise, of a new, transcendent experience. You're not wrong that there's tons of music very similar to what you already like, and by all means, enjoy yourself. But, without risking the unknown, the greatest transcendent experiences are unavailable.
> 
> If you'll pardon the metaphor, imagine you're a fan of French wine. It's lovely stuff, with more great wineries than you can shake a stick at, and you'd spend a lifetime and never get through tasting it all. But then imagine you hear there's some great wine coming out of California. You've had some CA wine, a cheap overoaked Chardonnay with flabby, uninteresting fruit. You think, "CA wine? Eh, I had some, and it was rubbish. There is plenty of French wine I'll never finish trying, so why bother." ... Do you see why such an attitude might be a mistake?


Yes and No. I will always listen to a composer I don't know or am unfamiliar with their works. But after hearing part or entire 5, 6, 8, 10 or so pieces and it's like fingernails on a chalk board to you, I don't believe one has to go through their entire catalog to maybe finding one gem. That Stockhausen piece above is probably the most coherent piece of his I've ever heard (& imo, still nothing to write home about. It can work in a movie or similar context), but I have heard enough of his material to never have a desire to actively seek more. Like the piece above, If there is a link to something in a thread I am reading, I almost always click on it if I'm not familiar.

Once you've heard multiple pieces by multiple atonal and discordant composers, you start getting wary. Personally, I think there is PLENTY of music that can be fairly described that way (refering to DavidA's piano down a stairs ex).

I'm also not sure the above wine metaphor is quite accurate. You use two major wine regions in the world: France and CA. I think that's like loving a bunch of music by Bach, and having only heard a few Beethoven Bagatelles performed by Don Dorsey on his synthesizer, rejecting Beethoven.

I think a more accurate analogy would be being familiar with and enjoying multiple regions of wine such as France, Italy, CA, Spain, and even South Africa, etc., then tasting 3 or 4 Vineyards each from Southern New Jersey and Virginia and saying, "no thanks" to the rest. After a while, you get a feel of what to pursue and what not to pursue. Not to say if someone at a party had a NJ wine they said was excellent, you wouldn't have a taste, but nothing you would go out of your way to seek just to try.

It may not be a perfect analogy, but I think it may be a more accurate one.

V


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

California is a major wine growing region, _now_. It was not considered such in the 1970s, and in fact people would laugh in your face, and call you an idiot without a palette, if you dared to compare them. Those people were wrong.

Dismissing all modern music is just as short sighted.

But someone who thinks a lot of it sounds just like a piano falling down the stairs clearly has never heard anything close to that, because it's just a totally absurd, embarrassingly over-the-top comparison.

ETA: I'm starting to think a piano falling down stairs might actually be quite novel and interesting to hear :lol:


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Knorf said:


> Dismissing all modern music is just as short sighted.


Making a somewhat short-handed statement that dismisses "modern" music is not short sighted, as long as it is based on actually having heard a lot of it. (I put "modern" in quotes to denote it as a style or approach rather than a specific period as much of it is no longer modern chronologically speaking.)


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

JAS said:


> Making a somewhat short-handed statement that dismisses "modern" music is not short sighted, as long as it is based on actually having heard a lot of it.


It almost never is based on anything close to "a lot." If it were, that person would _know_ there is a huge range of style, technique, and affect in modern music, which is more diverse and divergent than any previous age of art music.

So, it would still be short-sighted, because it reveals a prejudicial attitude and an unwillingness to try to be open to something new.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Knorf said:


> In all fairness, there is very, very little music that can be fairly described this way.
> 
> But here's the thing: you're shutting yourself off from the possibility of novel surprise, of a new, transcendent experience. You're not wrong that there's tons of music very similar to what you already like, and by all means, enjoy yourself. But, without risking the unknown, the greatest transcendent experiences are unavailable.
> 
> If you'll pardon the metaphor, imagine you're a fan of French wine. It's lovely stuff, with more great wineries than you can shake a stick at, and you'd spend a lifetime and never get through tasting it all. But then imagine you hear there's some great wine coming out of California. You've had some CA wine, a cheap overoaked Chardonnay with flabby, uninteresting fruit. You think, "CA wine? Eh, I had some, and it was rubbish. There is plenty of French wine I'll never finish trying, so why bother." ... Do you see why such an attitude might be a mistake?


As recently as four months ago, I was convinced that atonal music, and therefore, the majority of contemporary music just wasn't for me. I had nothing against it, I just didn't derive any enjoyment from it.

Then I decided to give Schoenberg a fair shot and heard _A Survivor From Warsaw_. It was a special experience - with that 7-minute work I discovered that atonality and modern musical language could be used to incredibly powerful effect; and that this music was not just dry, academic, and theoretical but could be used to convey profound expression and an immediately accessible beauty and variety of sound that I never could have imagined music could give me. From there I got into Webern and Messiaen and haven't looked back. Did I instantly learn to love all modern music since then? Of course not. I still struggle with lots of stuff, but I have discovered so many new favorite composers in my short time exploring since then, and it's like a whole new horizon has been opened up to me. I would encourage anyone who's skeptical about modern music to persevere. Eventually you will probably find the work that piques your interest, and from there you will adjust your ears until you'll routinely look forward to the exciting new places that modern composition can take you. And as Knorf says, "modern music" is an extremely wide brushstroke that encompasses everything from the sensuous soundworlds of Takemitsu and Dutilleux to the fiercely human drama of Ives and Carter to the meticulous precision of Boulez to the spiritual universes of Messiaen, Gubaidulina, and Part; plus too many more styles to list.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Knorf said:


> It almost never is based on anything close to "a lot." If it were, that person would _know_ there is a huge range of style, technique, and affect in modern music, which is more diverse and divergent than any previous age of art music.
> 
> So, it would still be short-sighted, because it reveals a prejudicial attitude and an unwillingness to try to be open to something new.


There are, of course, a nearly infinite number of ways that one can make noise. (I presume that the piano falling down stairs was not intended as a precise comparison, but a kind of summary evaluation.) I have listened to a great deal of "modern" music, a fair amount more than once, Diversity is not the problem of why so much of it does not appeal to me.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> As recently as four months ago, I was convinced that atonal music, and therefore, the majority of contemporary music just wasn't for me. I had nothing against it, I just didn't derive any enjoyment from it.


My general view is that atonality is like salt; it serves chiefly as a way of enhancing other flavors. Food with no salt can be bland, but too much salt is never a good thing. And, of course, an entire meal of salt is not recommended.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Well said, Allegro Con Brio!

Look, I would never expect someone to like everything in modern music. I don't come close to loving, or even liking, all of it myself. And I've long since learned "atonal" for most people just means stuff they don't like, hence totally absurd comparisons that lump Milhaud and Stockhausen together. But there is a ton of modern music that is not like either of them.

If someone gives a specific piece, or even a specific composer, a truly fair chance, listening with ears open and curious, and they still don't like it, who can argue? Not I. Merl has become a friend, and he couldn't stand Carter's Third Quartet. No judgment from me. But he still gave Ruth Crawford's String Quartet a chance, and maybe heard something he liked. (Ruth Crawford is much closer to Carter than Milhaud is to Stockhausen, but different enough.) _That_ is an attitude towards art I can respect.

I can barely stand Rachmaninoff's piano music, but I am not proud of that, and recognize it as my loss, a weakness in me. Not a virtue. And I will continue to give that music a chance from time to time.

I used to detest Italian opera. Yes, seriously. Now I love it. I used to loathe Wagner, which I found bloated and overly sentimental. Then I heard _Tristan und Isolde_ live, and was hooked for life.

The day I stop changing my mind, stop being willing to reconsider, or stop being willing to experience new things, even those that I'm not sure I like, is the day I have dropped dead. Not every day, not every week, maybe not even every month, but without such willingness at least occasionally I may as well climb into the coffin at once.

None of the blind spots mentioned in this thread are anything to be proud of. This thread is better considered as a confessional.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

JAS said:


> My general view is that atonality is like salt; it serves chiefly as a way of enhancing other flavors. Food with no salt can be bland, but too much salt is never a good thing. And, of course, an entire meal of salt is not recommended.


Ok, I'll be sure to send each new composition of mine to you to ensure the JAS-ASQ (JAS-Anticpated Salt Quotient) does not exceed clear established health limits, which I'm sure are as authoritative as JAS's understanding of what atonality is.

My most recent piece for solo piccolo was 17.3 on the JAS-ASQ scale, high but still under the 18.4 limit for solo piccolo works.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Knorf said:


> Ok, I'll be sure to send each new composition of mine to you to ensure the JAS-ASQ (JAS-Anticpated Salt Quotient) does not exceed clear established health limits, which I'm sure are as authoritative as JAS's understanding of what atonality is.
> 
> My most recent piece for solo piccolo was 17.3 on the JAS-ASQ scale, high but still under the 18.4 limit for solo piccolo works.


Please don't. I have spent far too much of my life as it is on such stuff. (I am, of course, basing my assumption on your posts, which might not be fair, but such is life.)


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

JAS said:


> My general view is that atonality is like salt; it serves chiefly as a way of enhancing other flavors. Food with no salt can be bland, but too much salt is never a good thing. And, of course, an entire meal of salt is not recommended.


Or as Prokofiev said (and I paraphrase), "Dissonance is like a spice. Too much of it and it ruins the dish, too little and the result is bland."


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Knorf, Both times when I read your reference of grouping Stockhausen and Milhaud together I thought, "Who did that?" Lmao. I don't know why, but I have done this more than once, I say Milhaud when I mean Boulez (I also call Gerard Butler, Tom Berenger - go figure!). They don't even start with the same letter. I know more of Boulez than I do Milhaud and what I do know of Milhaud, I kinda like, and at worst, I find very interesting.

Of course a "piano down the stairs" is over the top. JAS got it right as it made a point. A more accurate analogy is not being to tell when the orchestra stops tuning up and when it starts the music, or the difference between some of the piano "music" and a cat walking across the keys.

I will always listen to a piece that I haven't heard before, even if I couldn't stomach anything else I've ever heard by the same composer. I have sat through self imposed torture sessions listening, analyzing (I have a masters in music), really trying to hear something, anything, that I could at least "appreciate," never mind enjoy on some of the atonal and dissonant composers.

I agree with you, there are plenty of 20th Century and modern composers that are enjoyable. I also find plenty of them composing rubbish.

There are genres, sub genres, and some composers that I will absolutely consider blind spots. Ie: Opera, Most Chamber Music, Debussy, and Ravel, etc. But there are certain composers I can't stand, and the very last thing I would consider it to be is a "blind spot." In fact, I truly believe my sight is perfect 20/20 on them.

V


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> As recently as four months ago, I was convinced that atonal music, and therefore, the majority of contemporary music just wasn't for me. I had nothing against it, I just didn't derive any enjoyment from it.
> 
> Then I decided to give Schoenberg a fair shot and heard *A Survivor From Warsaw*. It was a special experience - with that 7-minute work I discovered that atonality and modern musical language could be used to incredibly powerful effect; and that this music was not just dry, academic, and theoretical but could be used to convey profound expression and an immediately accessible beauty and variety of sound that I never could have imagined music could give me. From there I got into Webern and Messiaen and haven't looked back. Did I instantly learn to love all modern music since then? Of course not. I still struggle with lots of stuff, but I have discovered so many new favorite composers in my short time exploring since then, and it's like a whole new horizon has been opened up to me. I would encourage anyone who's skeptical about modern music to persevere. Eventually you will probably find the work that piques your interest, and from there you will adjust your ears until you'll routinely look forward to the exciting new places that modern composition can take you. And as Knorf says, "modern music" is an extremely wide brushstroke that encompasses everything from the sensuous soundworlds of Takemitsu and Dutilleux to the fiercely human drama of Ives and Carter to the meticulous precision of Boulez to the spiritual universes of Messiaen, Gubaidulina, and Part; plus too many more styles to list.


I had never heard of this piece before you mentioned it here. I looked it up on YouTube and found a performance conducted by Horst Stein with Hermann Prey narrating. The comments seemed to be a bunch of people saying that they were there because of a class. It didn't seem like a lot of people were really _listening _to the piece or actually enjoying it which is a real a shame, especially considering the subject matter. Now there's an example of people not having an open mind. 

I found the work incredibly moving and very interesting. I afterwards listened to another performance.

There's not much modern classical music that I like as of yet, but once in a while I find a gem. And this is certainly a gem! Thank you for mentioning it.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Knorf said:


> California is a major wine growing region, _now_. It was not considered such in the 1970s, and in fact people would laugh in your face, and call you an idiot without a palette, if you dared to compare them. Those people were wrong.
> 
> Dismissing all modern music is just as short sighted.
> 
> ...


....3' 24" in.....


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Knorf said:


> The day I stop changing my mind, stop being willing to reconsider, or stop being willing to experience new things, even those that I'm not sure I like, is the day I have dropped dead. Not every day, not every week, maybe not even every month, but without such willingness at least occasionally I may as well climb into the coffin at once.
> 
> None of the blind spots mentioned in this thread are anything to be proud of. This thread is better considered as a confessional.


spoken like a real composer.


----------



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

^
^

I also liked the sounds made when a car runs over Laurel's harmonium in _Below Zero_ (6:57):


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

elgars ghost said:


> ^
> ^
> 
> I also liked the sounds made when a car rums over Laurel's harmonium in _Below Zero_ (6:57):


love it. Those guys where genius.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> love it. Those guys where genius.


Like so many actual geniuses, what they do is the result of lots of skill and hard work, but looks so simple. And, most importantly, no explanation is required for it to be enjoyed (although explanation can foster a different kind of appreciation.)


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> As recently as four months ago, I was convinced that atonal music, and therefore, the majority of contemporary music just wasn't for me. I had nothing against it, I just didn't derive any enjoyment from it.
> 
> *Then I decided to give Schoenberg a fair shot and heard A Survivor From Warsaw. It was a special experience - with that 7-minute work I discovered that atonality and modern musical language could be used to incredibly powerful effect; and that this music was not just dry, academic, and theoretical but could be used to convey profound expression and an immediately accessible beauty and variety of sound that I never could have imagined music could give me.* From there I got into Webern and Messiaen and haven't looked back. Did I instantly learn to love all modern music since then? Of course not. I still struggle with lots of stuff, but I have discovered so many new favorite composers in my short time exploring since then, and it's like a whole new horizon has been opened up to me. I would encourage anyone who's skeptical about modern music to persevere. Eventually you will probably find the work that piques your interest, and from there you will adjust your ears until you'll routinely look forward to the exciting new places that modern composition can take you. And as Knorf says, "modern music" is an extremely wide brushstroke that encompasses everything from the sensuous soundworlds of Takemitsu and Dutilleux to the fiercely human drama of Ives and Carter to the meticulous precision of Boulez to the spiritual universes of Messiaen, Gubaidulina, and Part; plus too many more styles to list.


Schoenberg's _Survivor for Warsaw_ is an excellent work, though not at all pleasant. It's incredible that the 7 or 8 minutes of it actually seem much longer as Schoenberg brings the struggle of the oppressed to the fore in stark colors. The finest rendition in my opinion is from Pierre Boulez with Gunther Reich as narrator because unlike other versions I've heard Reich achieves Schoenberg's ideal that is _sprechgesang_ or loosely translated _song-speech_. _Warsaw_ is actually a great piece to use as an introduction to 12-tone or _serial _music because the narration can be easily followed even by those who are untrained or unschooled in music theory (Berg's _Violin Concerto_ is another very listenable _serial_ work).

I think that Schoenberg's ideas regarding his system has been misunderstood. While he's looked at as some kind of apostle of the Ultra-Modern, Schoenberg might have seen himself as a traditionalist and a Romantic. He was very much entrenched in the German culture and saw Brahms and Wagner as the ideals and probably saw himself as the next logical step in German music. He called his style of composing _Expressionist_, and saw it as aligned with what German painters were doing around the same time, and he himslef was also an _Expressionist_ painter. In this sense he might have never intended his legecy to be one of cool intellectualism, but rather a new way of expressing deep-felt emotion.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Coach G said:


> I think that Schoenberg's ideas regarding his system has been misunderstood. While he's looked at as some kind of apostle of the Ultra-Modern, Schoenberg might have seen himself as a traditionalist and a Romantic. He was very much entrenched in the German culture and saw Brahms and Wagner as the ideas and probably saw himself as the next logical step in German music. He called his style of composing _Expressionist_, and saw it as aligned with what German painters were do9ing around the same time, and he himslef was also an _Expressionist_ painter. In this sense he might have never intended his legecy to be one of cool intellectualism, but rather a new way of expressing deep-felt emotion.


It might be interesting, for purposes of detail and research, but in the end it matters very little how Schoenberg might have seen himself, or what he intended. We rarely get to control all of the consequences of what we do when we open Pandora's box.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

JAS said:


> It might be interesting, for purposes of detail and research, but in the end it matters very little how Schoenberg might have seen himself, or what he intended. We rarely get to control all of the consequences of what we do when we open Pandora's box.


What you say makes sense, as far as how others have taken Schoenberg's ideas and ran with it. Harold Schonberg (the music critic) indicated that it was Webern more than Schonberg who was the spiritual leader of the world-wide serial movement. Even so, when I listen to Schoenberg's serial works, I try to approach it as if I am listening to Brahms or Wagner , if that makes any sense. I read in the liner notes of George Solti's recording of Schoenberg's _Moses and Aaron_ that he instructed the musicians to think _Brahms_ as they were playing the music.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Coach G said:


> What you say makes sense, as far as how others have taken Schoenberg's ideas and ran with it. Harold Schonberg (the music critic) indicated that it was Webern more than Schonberg who was the spiritual leader of the world-wide serial movement. Even so, when I listen to Schoenberg's serial works, I try to approach it as if I am listening to Brahms or Wagner , if that makes any sense. I read in the liner notes of George Solti's recording of Schoenberg's _Moses and Aaron_ that he instructed the musicians to think _Brahms_ as they were playing the music.


I think it would tend to make the differences more glaring, and not to Schoenberg's benefit, but if it works for you, go for it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Knorf said:


> I
> 
> In all fairness, there is very, very little music that can be fairly described this way.
> 
> ...


Funny there's lots and lots of music they can be described is really enjoyable. So why bother with the horrible jangly stuff? No I'm not shutting myself off from the possibility of a new transcendent experience because I've had plenty of those in my life. They certainly don't come through the janglings of modern music. I sometimes give it a go on the radio before reaching for the off switch. My wife and I actually listened to a whole piece on a car journey some time ago and came to the conclusion that it was a vastly unmemorable experience. 
Afraid your metaphor with the wine is not applicable as I do not drink alcohol due to health reasons. But even so I can't see how it applies. May I just say if you feel and other members of TC feel that hearing pianos pushEd down a flight of stairs is a transcendental experience that changes your lives, then don't let my techies stop you enjoying the experience. The only thing I would advise is not to be under the piano when it lands else your funeral may fall flat!


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

DavidA said:


> . . . Afraid your metaphor with the wine is not applicable as I do not drink alcohol due to health reasons. But even so I can't see how it applies.


Many people who feel insufficiently appreciated, or that something they like or advocate is insufficiently appreciated, often invoke some instances where initial judgements were eventually overturned by time. (The wine example is actually a rather bad one because my understanding, partly from people who actually make wine, is that it was not so much the opinion of California wines that improved, but the wine itself.) It grants them a hope that they too will, at some future time, achieve what they are currently denied. Of course, it must be noted that the vast majority of people who do this never actually get that recognition, deserved or not.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

JAS said:


> Many people who feel insufficiently appreciated, or that something they like or advocate is insufficiently appreciated, often invoke some instances where initial judgements were eventually overturned by time. It grants them a hope that they too will, at some future time, achieve what they are currently denied. Of course, it must be noted that the vast majority of people who do this never actually get that recognition, deserved or not.


I don't think Schoenberg needs to be validated, even if a majority of classical music listeners are mystified by his work.

I mean, if such luminaries as Pierre Boulez, George Solti, Herbert Von Karajan, Glenn Gloud, Yehudi Menuhin, Yo-Yo Ma, Seiji Ozawa, and Jessye Norman, are going to go through all the trouble of studying and recording Schoenberg's works on to an album that they know is not going sell well, then there's got to be something about his musical vision that makes sense. Right?


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

My blind spot is Mendelssohn. I’ve tried. Aside from the Octet I just don’t get it.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Most modern music which sounds horribly discordant to me. Music is meant to be enjoyed not endured.





DavidA said:


> Frankly there is so much really enjoyable music out there to listen to that I don't want to afflict myself with the sort of stuff that sounds as if a piano is being pushed downstairs or people are trying to saw a violin in half. I do find it perfectly horrible. I can remember a guy I knew going on spec to a Prom concert in London and it was full of this sort of avant-garde stuff. Oh boy! He said he didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the noise!





DavidA said:


> Funny there's lots and lots of music they can be described is really enjoyable. So why bother with the horrible jangly stuff? No I'm not shutting myself off from the possibility of a new transcendent experience because I've had plenty of those in my life. They certainly don't come through the janglings of modern music. I sometimes give it a go on the radio before reaching for the off switch. My wife and I actually listened to a whole piece on a car journey some time ago and came to the conclusion that it was a vastly unmemorable experience.


You do a good job of describing your reactions to your classical music blind spot as you have in the past. I' don't know how discordant music must be to fall into your blind spot. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Cage's Sonatas and interludes for prepared piano, Stockhausen's Gruppen, or Boulez's Sur Incises. If so, would you include those works as horribly discordant? Or are you referring to more extreme avant-garde music?


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Funny there's lots and lots of music they can be described is really enjoyable. So why bother with the horrible jangly stuff? No I'm not shutting myself off from the possibility of a new transcendent experience because I've had plenty of those in my life. They certainly don't come through the janglings of modern music. I sometimes give it a go on the radio before reaching for the off switch. My wife and I actually listened to a whole piece on a car journey some time ago and came to the conclusion that it was a vastly unmemorable experience.
> Afraid your metaphor with the wine is not applicable as I do not drink alcohol due to health reasons. But even so I can't see how it applies. May I just say if you feel and other members of TC feel that hearing pianos pushEd down a flight of stairs is a transcendental experience that changes your lives, then don't let my techies stop you enjoying the experience. The only thing I would advise is not to be under the piano when it lands else your funeral may fall flat!


I am going to side with you on this musical point. I do think that whatever exposure one has had 
to composers may shape how one wishes to enjoy music. And, no doubt coming across new composers is a joy.

However, the clue to where the best of the unknown are in books, amazon, musical sites and so forth, for me.

As far as musical highs go I have taken in all the big names and none of them have put me in a state of joy that other non musical activities have done so and so by my reckoning, no unknown obscure composer writing in some new form my mind cannot decipher will not replace any prior experiences, mainly with Beethoven.

Yep, I an't missing anything, and if anything I am missing out on possible torture that I would not wish on my worst enemy.....:lol: I think.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

I think for those of us amateurs who play an instrument, there are certain compositions that we become "blind" to out of not being able to play it very well on the first few go-rounds. For me it was Bach's BWV 831 (the "French Overture"). Tried it when I was in my teens, couldn't handle that massive first movement cleanly, tossed it aside and didn't think much of it... until recently. Now that I can technically handle it I find that it's actually glorious.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

^For me that’s Debussy’s Clair de Lune. Utterly numb to it after practicing it for months on end for a competition.

BTW Consuono, based on your exhortations I’ve been trying to play through the Goldberg Variations and ordered the WTC sheet music. You’re right, it’s so rewarding. For a while I thought Chopin and Romantic stuff was easiest for me to play, but there is such a special thrill that results from working through Bach’s sublime webs of counterpoint. It takes effort to master, but I can’t imagine it’s anything less than worth it.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> And late-Romantic, heavily chromatic, *aimlessly meandering* stuff like most of Szymanowski, Walton, and *Reger*.


Reger is about as far as it gets from "aimlessly meandering", IMO.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Reger is about as far as it gets from "aimlessly meandering", IMO.


It's been a while since I've visited his music. What would you recommend?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^For me that's Debussy's Clair de Lune. Utterly numb to it after practicing it for months on end for a competition.
> 
> BTW Consuono, based on your exhortations I've been trying to play through the Goldberg Variations and ordered the WTC sheet music. You're right, it's so rewarding. For a while I thought Chopin and Romantic stuff was easiest for me to play, but there is such a special thrill that results from working through Bach's sublime webs of counterpoint. It takes effort to master, but I can't imagine it's anything less than worth it.


Hey, good for you! Glad to hear that. Just take your time and try to "get it right". With some Bach if you're not really experienced at playing his music it might be a good idea to have a fingered edition on hand some of the time, just to get occasionally-helpful suggestions.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> It's been a while since I've visited his music. What would you recommend?


Op. 132 (variations & fugue on a theme by Mozart) is a good place to start if you're not too familiar with his output.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Coach G said:


> My blind spot concerns Wagner, who is one of my favorite composers. While _Siegfried Idyll_ would qualify as one of my favorite works, and while I also love the excerpts, I can't seem to listen to an entire Wagner opera without saying "Whew, I'm glad that's over with." You should try the Wagner operas one act at a time . Take a breather, and return to th next one later . This should help you get accustomed to them . Do the same with DVDs .
> 
> This frustrates me because I know there are many sincere Wagnerians, and they are a devoted lot. The late Stephen Hawkings of physics/universe fame, identified Wagner as his favorite. Richard Strauss, Mahler, Bruckner, Schoenberg, and Berg, all revered Wagner. I mean, there's got to be _something_ to a complete Wagner opera if the likes of Solti, Furtwangler, Karajan, Bernstein, and Boulez, are going to go to all the trouble of studying and conducting hours of it. As an aside I think that Hitler's alleged Wagner fixation has been overplayed, as a friend of mine, who is also a great Wagnerian, told me that Hitler was listening to Lehar and not Wagner during his final days in the bunker.
> 
> ...


 With CDs and DVDs , you should try them one act at a a time . Tae a breather in-between , maybe a few hours, and try the next act .


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> It's been a while since I've visited his music. What would you recommend?


For orchestra, the Mozart variations as suggested. Or the Boecklin tone poems.
For chamber, try the solo viola suites and the clarinet quintet.
For organ, maybe first try the Fantasy and fugue on BACH.*

I love organ music, and for me Reger is the #2 composer in the genre after Bach.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> You do a good job of describing your reactions to your classical music blind spot as you have in the past. I' don't know how discordant music must be to fall into your blind spot. *I'm not sure if you are familiar with Cage's Sonatas and interludes for prepared piano, Stockhausen's Gruppen, or Boulez's Sur Incises. I*f so, would you include those works as horribly discordant? Or are you referring to more extreme avant-garde music?


I'd include these. Horrible imo! But if other people enjoy listening to them then they are welcome as long as I am out of earshot.


----------



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

Bartok for me. I don't feel any emotion or feeling from his music, it feels kind of stale


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Art Rock said:


> For orchestra, the Mozart variations as suggested. Or the Boecklin tone poems.
> For chamber, try the solo viola suites and the clarinet quintet.
> For organ, maybe first try the Fantasy and fugue on BACH.*
> 
> I love organ music, and for me Reger is the #2 composer in the genre after Bach.


Yes; I don't know the viola suites, but the rest of these are great. I'd also check out the fiery piano quartets; underrated gems. I think Messiaen might be my #2 for organ music, but Reger is definitely up there.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I'd have to say that Boulez is a blind spot.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Knorf said:


> None of the blind spots mentioned in this thread are anything to be proud of. This thread is better considered as a confessional.


"Confessional" is too strong a word for me, as I think having a few blind spots is inevitable and normal and nothing to be ashamed of, but this is the spirit in which I meant the question. Some responses have gone in a different direction.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

BenG said:


> Bartok for me. I don't feel any emotion or feeling from his music, it feels kind of stale


I get some emotion from Bartok, but his music is never played on my stereo while I'm cooking up a nice dinner or when I want to hear something "beautiful, moving, or powerful" in music. However, I do believe he may be the greatest 20th Century composer. To me, he is one of the greatest studies of music there is. Structure, form, & theory. There is complexity and design in his music that I believe is nothing short of brilliant.

I don't "enjoy" listening to about 1/2 of Bartok's music (at least the 1/2 that I have listened to. Plenty of his pieces I have yet to hear.), but I find almost all of it fascinating on an academic and cerebral level. When I'm in the mood to really concentrate on a musical piece, I often turn to Bartok. I learn something almost all of the time.

V


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I'm lucky in that I like most of the composers that are highly regarded, as well as some other, more obscure favorites. Perhaps my biggest "blind spot" is opera. Outside of Mozart and Wagner, there isn't really much that I like. (Though I absolutely love Mozart and Wagner operas...)

Other than that some of my biggest blind spots are American composers like Copland, Barber and Bernstein (I like Ives and Babbitt), and British composers like RVW and some of Britten (I like Elgar). And, outside of a few works, I don't really connect with a lot of Shostakovich as much as many people on this forum seem to. Same with Dvorak, though admittedly I haven't listened to him in a while.

However, even when I don't "like" a particular work of music, I can still usually find some intellectual, historical, and/or cultural value in it, and so I don't mind listening. This goes for all genres of music, actually.


----------



## Owen David (May 15, 2020)

I'd say for me it's Brahms...I like a lot of his individual pieces...but for me his best work doesn't hang together as the voice of one person in the same way that the works do of composers like Sibelius, Bach, Tchaikovsky, Vaughan Williams or Beethoven to name a few of my favourites. 

For some reason I feel this lack of "coherence" is a bit suspect and so harbour some hostility towards him as a composer!


----------



## sstucky (Apr 4, 2020)

Mahler and Bruckner. Schumann, other than the symphonies. Brahms, other than the symphonies and vocal/choral music.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Elgar
Tchaikovsky
Opera


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Flamme said:


> Then u have a NORTHERN, colder spirit inside! I thought similar of Signor Giuseppe...But then I got deeper into his work and now they give me much pure pleasure...Strangely but Sibelieus is always in my top 5 as well!


Colder spirit, eh? Maybe I am a closet Moomin.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

jim prideaux said:


> Elgar
> Tchaikovsky
> Opera


Having a rough idea of your current tastes I'd hazard a suggestion that you'll come to like Elgar. For years I seemed to have a blind spot with him but finally I got there. 
I'd suggest the Violin Concerto rather than the Cello Concerto as a decent starting point and the new Symphony No 2 recording from Barenboim is pretty impressive. Perhaps oddly my two current favourite recordings of the 2nd Symphony are the Barenboim and Sinopoli.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

My only 'blind spot' is anything that involves a narrator - plus recitative in operas.


----------



## Dulova Harps On (Nov 2, 2018)

Brahms just doesn't do it for me.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I've never got Elgar symphonies very much but last week I played Elder's Elgar Symphony 2 and thoroughly enjoyed it. I've always had a blind spot with vocal works. I have a particular problem with cantatas and Mahler 8ths. As an example I really like Arvo Part's instrumental works but the vocal works leave me dry. I'm not mad on opera either but like the odd bit (arias esp).


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Merl said:


> I've never got Elgar symphonies very much but last week I played Elder's Elgar Symphony 2 and thoroughly enjoyed it. I've always had a blind spot with vocal works. I have a particular problem with cantatas and Mahler 8ths. As an example I really like Arvo Part's instrumental works but the vocal works leave me dry. I'm not mad on opera either but like the odd bit (arias esp).


That's what I initially thought about opera. I thought opera is just a few nice bits with boring stuff in between. Then I got a CD of _Carmen _and started listening through it. To my surprise, I liked all of it! Now I particularly enjoy opera. 

Maybe you just need to find the one that sits well with you.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Someone mentioned Bruckner. I agree he's a blind spot for me as well. I continually listen to his symphonies now and then because I remember going through this with Mahler. I didn't "get" Mahler for about 20 years. Then after about 3 or 4 years without listening to him, I put him back on and bam: Revelation!!!! It was magnificent. I suspect that this will happen with Bruckner but alas not yet. I can "appreciate" some of Bruckner, but he just doesn't ring my bell.

V


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Malx said:


> Having a rough idea of your current tastes I'd hazard a suggestion that you'll come to like Elgar. For years I seemed to have a blind spot with him but finally I got there.
> I'd suggest the Violin Concerto rather than the Cello Concerto as a decent starting point and the new Symphony No 2 recording from Barenboim is pretty impressive. Perhaps oddly my two current favourite recordings of the 2nd Symphony are the Barenboim and Sinopoli.


Will follow your advice Malx…...I have the Violin Concerto on vinyl and oddly enough do recall years ago appreciating it more than I had imagined I would.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Strongly agree about the Violin Concerto rather than the Cello Concerto as a starting-point but, as far as the symphonies go, I wonder whether No.1 might be that bit better suited to serve as an introduction than its more conflicted, even tortured successor. Try Solti's marvellous Decca performance, modelled to some extent on Elgar's own.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Tbh, my personal blind spots could change over the coming years. There's lots of music I couldn't stomach even 5 years ago but now love it. For example I never liked Britten's SQs and even 4 years ago was saying so on a thread on this site. Now I love them, have got multiple performances of them and play them regularly. When I came to TC I never rated Brahms symphonies that highly (but did have a few cycles). Now I adore them and have stupid numbers of them. I'm not someone with a fixed mind. I'm always open to new experiences and don't mind being wrong or accepting change. I'll never write anything off completely but accept that there are possibly some pieces I will never like, no matter how much I try. Sometimes I feel like Sam-I-Am.."would you like it on a boat.... '?


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

That's a challenging qualifier, that it not just be something I respect but don't personally like. Handel might be my favorite composer, and I acknowledge that in moments of inspiration he wrote beautifully for the voice, but I genuinely think that 70 percent of his arias contain some of the most bland and obvious vocal melodies I have ever heard from a major composer, like they border on mere pronunciations of the words at times. 

Some other comment on here helped me to realize why I have such a love/hate relationship with his works, and it's that Handel's orchestral voice is my favorite of all time. I'm just so, so in love with that glittering texture he gets from the strings, and with the angelic little motifs he weaves with them.... before transitioning into another standard vocal part that isn't half as memorable, and that just leaves me waiting for the orchestra to come back in, and wishing there were 5 more orchestral suites for me to listen to rather than 10 more oratorios.

Again, there's another 20 or 30 percent of Handel that contains none of these issues and is perfect, but I do think there's a reason so many of his oratorios and operas get reduced to highlights, and are generally not as popular as the exceptional Messiah. There are large sections that strike me as pleasant but forgettable, not as brilliant but simply not to my taste.

I always get a kick out of the contrast between Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn's opinions of Handel (great effects with simple means, master of us all, I would kneel at his tomb, and etc), and of Tchaikovsky's (fourth-rate, not even interesting). They're somehow both accurate, I think.


----------



## Boltzmann Brain (Jan 12, 2020)

Schoenberg, Berg and Webern. It's strange but I do like lots of later avantgarde, Ligeti, Messiaen, Varese, Penderecki... but for some reason I have never appreciated the Viennese school. To me lots of their music just sounds "ugly" without making me feel anything else. It might click some day.


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

I hope it's not too contrary to the spirit of the OP to say that I'm less and less interested in my blind spots. I used to think in a way they helped define me. Now I think that many (though perhaps not all) are simply the matter of the right moment and right mood not having yet arrived to reveal the worth of a piece. 

The problem is I simply don't have enough time to find the good in everything, so a bit of cherry-picking and pragmatism is inevitable. But when one does connect with sth that has previously been dismissed, it can be a very inspiriting thing.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

I've never warmed to the orchestral music of Schumann and Brahms, despite loving their chamber music, piano music and Lieder. Other composers who leave me cold, regardless of the genre they're writing in, are Hindemith, Schnittke and Thomas Adès.

It's not through want of trying, and I can appreciate their compositional skills, but they've never "clicked" for me.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Chopin and Ferneyhough are a struggle for me.


----------



## John Lenin (Feb 4, 2021)

Handel, Mendelssohn, Tchiakovsky...


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> This thread is definitely a nice alternative to the "overrated" thread that often gets heated. Like the OP, one of mine is Schumann. I have certainly learned to appreciate his music more lately - he was a consummate master of art song and chamber music - but a lot of his solo piano stuff and all of his symphonies leave me cold. However, Scriabin is an even bigger one for me. I simply do not get why he is considered so great among a choice few. Also Tchaikovsky to a somewhat lesser degree. Mozart operas. Schubert's "Death and the Maiden." Electronic music. And late-Romantic, heavily chromatic, aimlessly meandering stuff like most of Szymanowski, Walton, and Reger.


It is certainly interesting what a year of musical exploration can do. Since I posted this I have definitely turned the corner on Schumann and I would now count him among my 20 or so favorite composers. Mozart operas, "Death and the Maiden," and the three composers I listed last are also getting there. But still no luck on Scriabin and Tchaikovsky. Since then I also learned that most electronic music inspires some sort of physical reaction that gives me headaches, so it's more of a physiological limitation, I guess.

Right now I would say some of my bigger blind spots include Wagner operas (taken as a whole, I could listen to the juicy extracts all day long), Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, Mozart's piano concerti, and Minimalism.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Maybe not exactly a blind spot but I do find a lot of late Schubert overlong - 9th Symphony, late piano sonatas & string quartets, good ideas strung out too long. 
In the last year I've also gone off Brahm's & Verdi's Requiems but as I have long discovered that could be a temporary situation so the recordings I have are going nowhere.

ETA - still don't like anything with narrators, that hasn't changed.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

E. Carter was, and with some works still is a personal blind spot. I just recently feel I 'got' his String Quartet 2. Looking at the notes and score sure does help with him more than any other composer for me.

https://www.elliottcarter.com/compositions/string-quartet-no-2/


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Mozart.

This is actually a weird one- of course I've heard Mozart, and played him, and all that- his music is inescapable. What I've never really done is dive into his work in the way I've done with other composers - he's just a mix of his work being rather familiar (_everyone_ plays Mozart) and also a massive, towering body without obvious entry points, especially as someone allergic to opera.


----------

