# Any so-called masterpieces you have a problem with?



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

Mine is Shubert’s 9th symphony (the Great)
I had a recording many years ago on LP and no matter how many times I played it the work didn’t do anything for me.
It’s a lengthy work and I found it seems to just plod along and I got bored.
I’ve heard in since many times with no change in attitude. 
I have nothing against Shubert, the 8th (unfinished symphony ) is a work I love and find arresting and always grabs my attention but alas the 9th just don’t do it for me.
Anyone else have an issue with a work that’s meant to be a masterpiece?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Perhaps you might like to try a different performance of the piece? You didn't mention the orchestra/conductor. Schubert's orchestral lyricism works well to my ears when played light, if I can put it that way, but if made to sound like a Bruckner symphony, then it could sound like it was plodding along.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Well, I second your feeling about Schubert's 9th. The 8th is one of my all-time favourite symphonies, but the 9th does not do it for me.

Perhaps even more surprising: I loathe Beethoven's 9th, thanks to the 4th movement. I love the 6th and the 5th, appreciate many of his others, I love the use of voices in symphonies (Mahler!), but not this one which many consider the ultimate achievement in music.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Most so called 'masterpieces' I love on some level... there are some where I feel like I'm not as into it as others though. Tchaikovsky's 6th for example. The only movement I really love is the 1st, and the ending of the piece is cool... everything else is well written but kinda meh. Schubert's Winterreise is another, but I think I just had high expectations for it. I love it and think it's eerily gorgeous, but the kind of music written was just what I'd expect any composer to write- no huge surprises. Stravinsky's Firebird I also have some trouble with, which is weird cause it's supposed to be the most accessible of his ballets, and Petroushka and Rite of Spring I have no problems with.


----------



## Il_Penseroso (Nov 20, 2010)

Many for me : Mahler's symphonies for example, there are beautiful short moments in his symphonies of course, but never enjoyed a single one from beginning to end. When I was a child, a friend told me you're too young to understand Mahler, now I'm not a young man, over 30, with many tragic experiences in my life but still don't understand Mahler ! So this has nothing to do with the age. I always remember that famous discussion on the thematic issue in symphonies when Sibelius met Mahler and simply think Sibelius was right on the matter.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No.1 with emphasis on "so-called".


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

Well It's sure I'm not appreciating Beethoven's 9th as others are.
Maybe Mendelssohn's symphonies. I think they're nice but his chamber works are far far better.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Brahm's 4th symphony...sorry Polednice..lol

I don't know why, but for some reason I think Chaccones (or Passicaglias, whatever you prefer to label it as) generally sound kind of cheesy. Maybe it is because when I fist started composing as a 12 year old I wrote a lot of (bad) ones and listening to one reminds me of that.


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Perhaps you might like to try a different performance of the piece? You didn't mention the orchestra/conductor. Schubert's orchestral lyricism works well to my ears when played light, if I can put it that way, but if made to sound like a Bruckner symphony, then it could sound like it was plodding along.


I cant remember the performance but as I said I've heard it since and it still doesn't do anything for me.
I'm not going to worry myself too much over it as there is so much other music to hear, life is too short!
I just find it interesting that a work so universally accepted as being a masterpiece should completely pass me by!


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

Pieck said:


> Maybe Mendelssohn's symphonies. I think they're nice but his chamber works are far far better.


I agree, I actually enjoy the 12 youthful string symphonies far more than the later full orchestral ones.
I have a "gut" feeling Mendelssohn wrote his best works for string instruments!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

presto said:


> I agree, I actually enjoy the 12 youthful string symphonies far more than the later full orchestral ones.
> I have a "gut" feeling Mendelssohn wrote his best works for string instruments!


Pun intended?


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

violadude said:


> Pun intended?


Pun and sentiments intended, :lol:


----------



## bassClef (Oct 29, 2006)

Mozart's 40th


----------



## Sofronitsky (Jun 12, 2011)

Everything Mozart wrote.

Edit: With the exception of one piano sonata and one violin concerto, in retrospect.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Sofronitsky said:


> Everything Mozart wrote.
> 
> Edit: With the exception of one piano sonata and one violin concerto, in retrospect.


May I ask which ones?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Bartók's famous works like sonata for two pianos and percussion, concerto for orchestra and stuff. I don't dig this and the percussion is so annoying that I'm not bored but simply upset and I can't stand it.

Brahms op. 118, pieces for piano. It's peak of Brahms boring conventionalism, as much as he had something special to offer in orchestral music, chamber works and concertos his solo piano works, with op. 118 on the forehead, seem to me as boring, uninspired, conventional pieces offering nothing more than calque of piano music by really great composers for piano, like they say "it all was done before and much better". So many forgotten works of obscure piano composers are much better.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Aramis said:


> Bartók's famous works like sonata for two pianos and percussion, concerto for orchestra and stuff. I don't dig this and the percussion is so annoying that I'm not bored but simply upset and I can't stand it.
> 
> Brahms op. 118, pieces for piano. It's peak of Brahms boring conventionalism, as much as he had something special to offer in orchestral music, chamber works and concertos his solo piano works, with op. 118 on the forehead, seem to me as boring, uninspired, conventional pieces offering nothing more than calque of piano music by really great composers for piano, like they say "it all was done before and much better". So many forgotten works of obscure piano composers are much better.


Aramis, you mentioned not liking Bartok's concerto for Orchestra and sonata for two pianos and percussion. What do you think of his string quartets?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

violadude said:


> Aramis, you mentioned not liking Bartok's concerto for Orchestra and sonata for two pianos and percussion. What do you think of his string quartets?


I gave them only one, brief listen and the only thing I can say is that they didn't draw me in. I suppose that I'll start with them when I will feel like attempting his music once more.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Aramis said:


> I gave them only one, brief listen and the only thing I can say is that they didn't draw me in. I suppose that I'll start with them when I will feel like attempting his music once more.


I have spent quite a lot of time with Bartok's string quartets so if you ever have any questions anything about how to understand them, or get into them, if you feel like go ahead and shoot me a PM!


----------



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

Gorecki's ubiquitous 3rd symphony. Apart from it being perhaps too long I haven't a problem listening to it as such but the hype/praise/exposure it received (and still does) seems to have all but snuffed out any interest in most of his other works. For me, his 2nd symphony ('Copernican') is a more satisfactory composition yet it now has undeserved 'poor relation' status due to all the fuss made over the 3rd.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

elgars ghost said:


> Gorecki's ubiquitous 3rd symphony. Apart from it being perhaps too long I haven't a problem listening to it as such but the hype/praise/exposure it received (and still does) seems to have all but snuffed out any interest in most of his other works. For me, his 2nd symphony ('Copernican') is a more satisfactory composition yet it now has undeserved 'poor relation' status due to all the fuss made over the 3rd.


It annoys me too when a composers hyped up piece of music overshadows his other great works. It reminds me of the hype surrounding Beethoven's Pathetique sonata. It's a great piece, but the D Major sonata that comes before it is perhaps even more interesting in my opinion, but sadly no nickname=not as well known in many cases.

Gorecki's third symphony is a beautiful piece. I haven't heard the 2nd but I would love to sometime!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

> Any so-called masterpieces you have a problem with?


Can't say I do, except maybe Sibelius' symphonies. Nevertheless, I quite like the _Lemminkainen Suite, Finlandia, Karelia Suite, Tapiola & Violin Concerto_ (basically his popular things like these). With his symphonies I generally find this "closed in" feeling, like being in a "fish bowl" if you get my drift? There is this general bleakness, isolation, sense of depression in a lot of them (if not on the surface, then definitely just below the surface). But in any case, I suppose it's how they're played? Sir Colin Davis seems to be pretty good notwithstanding all this, imo.

Generally, I have steered away from dark & depressing things like Tchaikovsky's Pathetique, Mahler's & Bruckner's 9th's, these types of things. I've only read about - & never heard any of - Alan Pettersson's symphonies, but reading about them and his rather tragic life, I have no desire to hear them right now. This is not a reflection on the man's artistic integrity and strength of vision, which from what I can tell is very high (he's been called a kind of Swedish Mahler), but rather at heart I think I'm an optimist (or at least on the middle ground of the emotional spectrum) so I generally don't want to hear things that get me down, no light at the end of the tunnel, that sort of thing. Eg. my favourite symphonies by Mahler is his 4th, by Bruckner his 6th, Tchaikovsky his 2nd, which are their lightest symphonies...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

There are legions of masterpieces I don't appreciate.

I've never "gotten" *Mahler*, no matter how many times I try (I'm older than he lived to be by the way.) Someday I intend to sit down with one of his symphonies and a book of annotations so I can understand what I'm supposed to be hearing in them, but for now they are all just lengthy ramblings with no direction to me.

I'll second the sentiment about *Gorecki*'s 3rd. It may be beautiful in places, but it reminds me too much of new age music. I'm not against that type of music, but generally got bored with it a long time ago after first embracing it as a new genre in the late 70's when we called it "space" music.

I have a love/hate relationship with *Richard Strauss*' _Also Sprach Zarathustra_. Being a life long science fiction fan, naturally I always loved the introduction, but then the remainder is mostly one long anticlimax. I often wondered how it would sound if the delivery service hadn't dropped the score and gotten the pages all mixed up on the way to the publisher, for that is how it sounds to my ears. Oddly though, there are times when I can enjoy this piece with great intensity. None of his other works have quite this strange attraction and repulsion for me.

Finally I must mention* Hector Berlioz* who does even less for me than Mahler. I've tried with the _Symphonie Fantastique_, I really have. It's just so much aimless noodling to me. I see no genius in it whatsoever, no matter how loudly Berlioz himself proclaimed to be one.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Weston said:


> I've never "gotten" *Mahler*, no matter how many times I try (I'm older than he lived to be by the way.) Someday I intend to sit down with one of his symphonies and a book of annotations so I can understand what I'm supposed to be hearing in them, but for now they are all just lengthy ramblings with no direction to me.


Yes, our Gustav can be quite complex! Even was told by a friend who went to a recent performance of his 9th symphony here in Sydney (Ashkenazy's Mahler cycle project) that a young couple left halfway through the work. Maestro Ashkenazy saw them & kind of shrugged, he kind of took it lightly. BTW Weston - I didn't know you were older than 50! In your writing, you come across as appearing quite younger...



> I'll second the sentiment about *Gorecki*'s 3rd. It may be beautiful in places, but it reminds me too much of new age music. I'm not against that type of music, but generally got bored with it a long time ago after first embracing it as a new genre in the late 70's when we called it "space" music.


I actually like that work quite a bit, and find it quite moving when I listen to it, which isn't often (it has moved me to tears on occassions). But my sister is in the same "camp" as you regarding it. When she was in primary school, a teacher of hers played this work ad nauseum to get the children in his class to relax and kind of meditate. She is now sick of it as a result. The teacher obviously did not know much about this work - the text of the central movement written by a Gestapo prisoner in the Holocaust. Not exactly the sort of music I'd meditate to - but I've heard anecdotally that when it was a "big seller" back in the '90's some people used this work as a background to their cocktail/dinner parties. That just doesn't sound "right" to me at all...



> I have a love/hate relationship with *Richard Strauss*' _Also Sprach Zarathustra_. Being a life long science fiction fan, naturally I always loved the introduction, but then the remainder is mostly one long anticlimax. I often wondered how it would sound if the delivery service hadn't dropped the score and gotten the pages all mixed up on the way to the publisher, for that is how it sounds to my ears. Oddly though, there are times when I can enjoy this piece with great intensity. None of his other works have quite this strange attraction and repulsion for me.


I feel the same way about that and many other large scale R. Strauss works. They seem too complex and overblown. I much prefer his late chamber-like works like Metamorphosen (have seen it live thrice!), the Four Last Songs, and the Oboe Concerto. I aim to try to get into Der Rosenkavalier, because I think it's probably the closest thing he wrote to operetta, a genre I am increasingly enjoying now. I have the waltz suites from that opera, so I will give a listen to them soon to kind of test the waters before I get into the opera itself...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

One of the "greats" that I've never really been able to get into is Ralph Vaughn-Williams. I like a few of his stuff, but mostly his "englishy" pastorale musical language doesn't really gel with me. The lark ascending can be very beautiful, I had to play it once in my youth symphony and that ruined it for me for a while because it has the most boring viola part ever. I much prefer the "second tier" english composers like Rubbra, Bax and Alwyn.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Weston said:


> There are legions of masterpieces I don't appreciate.
> 
> I've never "gotten" *Mahler*, no matter how many times I try (I'm older than he lived to be by the way.) Someday I intend to sit down with one of his symphonies and a book of annotations so I can understand what I'm supposed to be hearing in them, but for now they are all just lengthy ramblings with no direction to me.
> 
> ...


I'm with you regarding Berlioz. I can see what made his music revolutionary, but for whatever reason it just doesn't do it for me. Sometimes I feel like he was still a little too hesitant to go all the way with his ideas. I mean, the witches sabbath movement at the end of SF still sounds kind of goofy to me for what it's supposed to be representing.

I also agree with Strauss, although there are some very lovely parts in ASZ, I think it starts getting kind of boring after the 3rd or 4th section. Although I haven't listened to it all the way through in quite some time. Maybe I should do that.

I do, however, completely disagree with you about Mahler, who is one of my all time favorites. Go figure.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I sometimes find in Bruckner's, Brahms, and Shostakovich's large scale works, I have a problem with how everything is 'tied together' in different ways for each three. For Brahms sometimes his music sounds overly thought-out and it loses the 'flow'. The second movement of the German Requiem is one of the most powerful large scale themes in music in ways, but at times I can't help but think the orchestration sounds too clunky and not perfectly layered like I find in Bach and Mozart large scale works - this really sticks out and hinders my enjoyment of this piece.

With Bruckner, I sometimes find he builds and builds and builds, and never gets to a specific point, like he is searching for something really profound to say, but what that is never clearly comes through for me (except perhaps in his unfinished ninth).

With Shostakovich I notice in a lot of his symphonies he has really great sounding moments too interspersed with very long and quiet almost noodling moments. Like the start of the fourth - so much action, and interesting, exciting sounds I hear at the start - then I have to sit through seemingly endless quiet rambling before we get to anything else like the introduction again. I also find sometimes his choices of instrumentation are somewhat lacking in 'punch' in the large scale works compared to say Mahler or R Strauss. 

But I'll also say that all three of these composers have moved me at times in pretty profound ways - even in their larger scale works. So I do find redeeming qualities in all three - and perhaps the problem lies more in my expectations - or limited understanding of their musical vocabulary. That is why I think to say I 'have a problem' with these masterpieces might be a bit harsh, and I admit it might just be me (or my current recordings) that have the problems. I try to not make hasty judgements on such complex pieces of art.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Very many... Beethoven 9th symphony, Mahler 5, Mozart...anything really, Tchaikovsky symphonies 4 and 5 and piano concerto 1, most any violin showpiece you can think of that focuses on the violinist, and actually most of Beethoven's other symphonies aside from 2 and 4. The list could go on but I'm not in the right mood just now.

Edit: And everything I've heard from Richard Strauss just sounds cheap to me. A lot of orchestration covering what sounds to me like nothing in particular. Don Juan, for instance. Who the heck makes up a theme that spans like 5 octaves and then doesn't do anything with it? Seriously.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I've never disliked a major work of a composer whose works in general I really like. For me it's more that I don't enjoy a composer's work in general.

Of great pieces probably the two major ones are:

Berg: violin concerto
Stravinsky: Rite of Spring

I think this has less to do with those particular pieces than with the general style of Berg and Stravinsky.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I don't particularly care for the Bach Orchestral Suites or the first Brandenburg.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

This thread seems to be a celebration of failure. I have my share of them, some with music mentioned here - but I've only had half a century (or so) to make corrections.

I do concede defeat with Schubert's last symphony - it's just too damn long for what's in it.

:tiphat:


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I know, it's heresy and the problem is my own unutterably shameful ignorance, but Beethoven's Ninth.

If I didn't know that he was deaf, if I wasn't aware that music didn't _really_ exist before this, if you hadn't told me it was Beethoven and therefore it's unreasonably muscularly inspired, I might actually think it was a little bit pompous, long-winded and dreary... 
:tiphat:


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

The Rite of Spring? But you all already knew that. 

Beethoven's symphonies. I've seen both the 5th and 7th performed live, did nothing for me. The performance was great, that's not the point. It's the melodies in general. So _boring!_ Man, if I have to play any of those in an ensemble, I hope it will be better. Sometimes playing a piece is more stimulating than only listening to it.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Unfortunately, most of Brahms' piano output still remains an enigma to me. I think it's the early works that click with me most so far, the op. 10 Ballades for example, but once I get to the sets of variations he's lost me. I don't feel anything from the music, just the constrictions of form. Maybe it's my general disdain for variations that's preventing me from appreciating these works but I have a similar bewilderment with the late piano works, and those are not variations in the least. The problem is that these pieces just feel too tight, too safe and scared to let go - that they really don't command the same sort of excitement from me like Chopin and Schumann do. Sure, I will admit that they are beautifully constructed but I still can't really grasp how a work like the op. 119 intermezzi match up to the exoticism and keen lyricism of a Chopin Ballade or the sprawling passion and fantasia of a work like Schumann's Kreisleriana or Liszt's Piano Sonata. They're just another set of short, lovely piano pieces that I wouldn't mind hearing on the radio but probably wouldn't 'go for' if I myself wanted to listen to solo piano music that stood out to me personally. 

But I will continue trying.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Air said:


> [...]
> Sure, I will admit that they are beautifully constructed but I still can't really grasp how a work like the op. 119 intermezzi match up to the exoticism and keen lyricism of a Chopin Ballade or the sprawling passion and fantasia of a work like Schumann's Kreisleriana or Liszt's Piano Sonata. They're just another set of short, lovely piano pieces that I wouldn't mind hearing on the radio but probably wouldn't 'go for' if I myself wanted to listen to solo piano music that stood out to me personally.
> 
> But I will continue trying.


Chopin's Ballades are 'tellings', as is Schumann's Kreisleriana. The Liszt Sonata is actually a set of variations, just not the kind of variation the term usually points to.

The late Brahms piano pieces are evocations of moods; maybe you are not a moody guy.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Ralph Vaughan Williams (I can never understand why so many people have a problem getting this composer's name right).


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

My contender is the oh-so-overplayed 1st Violin Concerto by Max Bruch. To my ears this is a seriously second-rate piece that does not deserve to overshadow other concertos (eg the Dvořák, which no-one ever seems to play). In thirty years programming for orchestras, I never programmed this overrated piece once. Plenty of better pieces to choose from!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Delicious Manager said:


> Ralph Vaughan Williams (I can never understand why so many people have a problem getting this composer's name right).


Oops, my bad.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

violadude said:


> One of the "greats" that I've never really been able to get into is Ralph Vaughn-Williams. I like a few of his stuff, but mostly his "englishy" pastorale musical language doesn't really gel with me. The lark ascending can be very beautiful, I had to play it once in my youth symphony and that ruined it for me for a while because it has the most boring viola part ever. I much prefer the "second tier" english composers like Rubbra, Bax and Alwyn.


Have you listened to *Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis? *If that doesn't do it for you, I reckon nothing by Vaughan Williams will, then.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

:scold:Heretic that I am, I must admit that despite repeated listenings, I simply cannot wrap my ears--or mind, what little may be left of it--around Beethoven's 9th Symphony. I still am not comfortable with choral singing in an otherwise all instrumental piece {sorry, GoneBaroque  }. Indeed, I must confess that I really am not much for choral pieces or operas period.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It's rare that I find myself agreeing with anything stated by member someguy, but in this instance I cannot help but recognize that I share a similar feeling that all the imagined shortcomings of the composers being tossed about here have far more to do with shortcomings on the part of the listeners. Seriously, the inability to appreciate Mozart, or Strauss, or Beethoven's or Schubert's 9th, or the whole of opera and choral music has nothing to do with flaws in the music.

Certainly, I won't let myself off the hook here. I have been forced to recognize my own shortcomings as a listener any number of times as I suddenly "discovered" the "genius" in the works of a composer or in an entire musical genre that once left me cold. Not long ago I would have had nothing to do with Renaissance and Baroque madrigals. Even today I find that chamber music... string quartets, etc... don't really grab me as much as many other musical genre. And yet I know there are those who swear by Beethoven's late quartets or Shostakovitch' or Bartok's. I suspect that one of the reasons it took me so long to really warm up to Brahms is that his strongest music is quite likely his chamber works

Only recently I have begun to really "discover" the music of Berlioz after long having dismissed most of his work... and only begrudgingly admitted to the notion that there was actually something to the _Symphonie Fantastique_. Schoenberg remains closed to me. I find most of his music crude and lumpen... even the works before breaking away from traditional tonality. And yet I quite like a great deal of what I have heard by Berg, Webern, and many later composers.

I would be careful in dismissing any composer of merit... without periodically returning to them with an open mind... perhaps exploring their work in new or different interpretations. Quite often a particular performer and/or performance can make of break a work for me.


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

samurai said:


> :scold:Heretic that I am, I must admit that despite repeated listenings, I simply cannot wrap my ears--or mind, what little may be left of it--around Beethoven's 9th Symphony. I still am not comfortable with choral singing in an otherwise all instrumental piece {sorry, GoneBaroque  }. Indeed, I must confess that I really am not much for choral pieces or operas period.


You are forgiven. We cannot be expected to like everything, nor should we try

Rob.


----------



## Sofronitsky (Jun 12, 2011)

violadude said:


> May I ask which ones?











Those are the only 'large' works I could ever listen to/play. Besides a few little, ridiculously famous pieces every other time I try to listen to Mozart it's in one ear and out the other. I even heard his 30th symphony played by the Philidelphia Philharmonic once and all I could think about was how good the playing was. Mozart's music has never made a lasting impression on me.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@violadude, here's the piece to which I was alluding in my post from yesterday:


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Sofronitsky - if you like the A minor sonata of Mozart, you must try the other one - No. 14 in C minor which is equally emotional and profound piece of music. That is if you didn't hear it already.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> It's rare that I find myself agreeing with anything stated by member someguy, but in this instance I cannot help but recognize that I share a similar feeling that all the imagined shortcomings of the composers being tossed about here have far more to do with shortcomings on the part of the listeners. Seriously, the inability to appreciate Mozart, or Strauss, or Beethoven's or Schubert's 9th, or the whole of opera and choral music has nothing to do with flaws in the music.


Well, I agree and it's nice to see the boundaries. But with electronic and pretentious farts and swirls, different story.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It's rare that I find myself agreeing with anything stated by member someguy, but in this instance I cannot help but recognize that I share a similar feeling that all the imagined shortcomings of the composers being tossed about here have far more to do with shortcomings on the part of the listeners. Seriously, the inability to appreciate Mozart, or Strauss, or Beethoven's or Schubert's 9th, or the whole of opera and choral music has nothing to do with flaws in the music.

Well, I agree and it's nice to see the boundaries. But with electronic and pretentious farts and swirls, different story.

Do get me wrong; I'm not going over to the side of cultural relativism and the notion that there is no "good" nor "bad" music. However, when a work of art or literature, or music survives for generations... even centuries... and enters into the canon of what is deemed "great art" the fact that we individually dislike this or that work has no bearing whatsoever upon its real merits. I am not suggesting we must like everything deemed "great" by others, but rather I am suggesting that it is perhaps essential to recognize that just because one personally dislikes a work of art is no reason to assume that said work of art sucks. That seems hardly better than the average teenager's critical abilities: "Dude, that Mozart guy sucks, Black Sabbath rules."


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Air said:


> Unfortunately, most of Brahms' piano output still remains an enigma to me. I think it's the early works that click with me most so far, the op. 10 Ballades for example, but once I get to the sets of variations he's lost me. I don't feel anything from the music, just the constrictions of form. Maybe it's my general disdain for variations that's preventing me from appreciating these works but I have a similar bewilderment with the late piano works, and those are not variations in the least. The problem is that these pieces just feel too tight, too safe and scared to let go - that they really don't command the same sort of excitement from me like Chopin and Schumann do. Sure, I will admit that they are beautifully constructed but I still can't really grasp how a work like the op. 119 intermezzi match up to the exoticism and keen lyricism of a Chopin Ballade or the sprawling passion and fantasia of a work like Schumann's Kreisleriana or Liszt's Piano Sonata. They're just another set of short, lovely piano pieces that I wouldn't mind hearing on the radio but probably wouldn't 'go for' if I myself wanted to listen to solo piano music that stood out to me personally.
> 
> But I will continue trying.


I'm not that fond of the variation sets either, but most of them aren't completely mature works, so they were never going to be perfect. That said, they probably make a lot more sense on a mid-19th-century piano. People sometimes find it hard to understand why Schumann was so impressed with Brahms's early piano sonatas: the answer is that they were much more exciting on the pianos of the time. I read somewhere that the F minor Sonata, for example, deliberately uses a lot of notes that were at the extreme ends of the piano (like the bottom C), sometimes combining very high notes with very low notes in a single chord. That must have been exciting and original at the time, but the effect is mostly lost today because pianos are octaves wider. Seeing as those early works have clicked with you any way, it doesn't really matter - but it's an example of the sort of thing that can be lost when old music is played on new instruments. Obviously, things can also be gained; I'm not arguing that music always sounds better on period instruments. But in the end you do have to keep in mind that the _Handel_ and _Paganini Variations_ were intended for pianos with a deeper, more three-dimensional sound than the modern Steinway (something like this, although it's not very well miked).

By the time Brahms started writing his late piano music, concert pianos were closer to what they are today (though there were still some big differences). I think the problem here might be more that you're just expecting too much. The Liszt Piano Sonata and Chopin's Ballades are large-scale works. Brahms's late piano pieces are more like bagatelles, sarabandes, mazurkas, etc. It's true that _Kreisleriana_ is made up of small pieces, but they're intended as a cycle, whereas the pieces in Op. 119 can be played individually. So you have to think about them in a different way - but they definitely are worth the effort. Once you get to know to them they seem much better than the Op. 10 Ballades you mentioned.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

samurai said:


> :scold:Heretic that I am, I must admit that despite repeated listenings, I simply cannot wrap my ears--or mind, what little may be left of it--around Beethoven's 9th Symphony. I still am not comfortable with choral singing in an otherwise all instrumental piece {sorry, GoneBaroque  }. Indeed, I must confess that I really am not much for choral pieces or operas period.


I feel the need to clarify my above quote. I am not "blaming" the composer or the genre, but rather my own shortcomings in that I can't seem to appreciate certain works or genres. At the same time, though, I also recognize the merit in GoneBaroque's point that we "can't be expected to like everything" {paraphrasing here}. I suppose there is a "happy medium" between these two seeming polarities, and I am still searching for it. I do remain open to new possibilities, and shall continue to try to.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Not directed at anyone in particular, but why all the talk about [your] own shortcomings as a listener? Whatever happened to self-esteem? If you've really made up your mind about something, sometimes it's alright to say "in my opinion, this is crap. Total doodie from a horse's bum." or something to that effect.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Not directed at anyone in particular, but why all the talk about [your] own shortcomings as a listener? Whatever happened to self-esteem? If you've really made up your mind about something, sometimes it's alright to say "in my opinion, this is crap. Total doodie from a horse's bum." or something to that effect.


@regressivetransphobe, Your point is well-taken. I guess I still have to gain more confidence in my abilities in listening and understanding cm, as I am a basic newcomer to its positive and negative features. Maybe more time and exposure on my part are needed, but I'm always cognizant of my self-esteem. {Although you made it clear that your comment was aimed at "nobody in particular", I still felt the need to respond.}


----------



## Vazgen (May 24, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Not directed at anyone in particular, but why all the talk about [your] own shortcomings as a listener? Whatever happened to self-esteem? If you've really made up your mind about something, sometimes it's alright to say "in my opinion, this is crap. Total doodie from a horse's bum." or something to that effect.


And by all means, post it on a message board so the entire world can see what a mature, open-minded person you are.

-Vaz


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

*I agree with regressivetransphobe. After all, with the possible exception of Bach, haven't all the major composers been trashed talked by other major composers?  *

"Rossini would have been a great composer if his teacher had spanked him enough on the backside." - Ludwig van Beethoven

"Take the Spanish airs and mine out of the score, and there remains nothing to Bizet's credit but the sauce that masks the fish." - Charles Gounod on Bizet's "Carmen"

"A most inferior work, the summit of banality." Stravinsky on on Bizet's "Carmen"

*"Wagner has wonderful moments, and dreadful quarters of an hour." - Gioachino Rossini*

"One can't judge Wagner's opera Lohengrin after a first hearing, and I certainly don't intend to hear it a second time." - Gioachino Rossini

"Rossini's melodic cynicism, his contempt for dramatic expression and good 
sense, his endless repetition of a single form of cadence, his eternal puerile 
crescendo and brutal bass drum, exasperated me" - Berlioz on Rossini

"Though I had some instruction from Haydn, I never learned anything from him." - Ludwig van Beethoven

*"I have played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless *******!" - Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky*

"The extravagances of [Beethoven's] genius have reached the non plus ultra, and Beethoven must be quite ripe for the madhouse." - Weber

"Pretty monotonous and monotonously pretty." - Stravinsky on Boulez

*"I say, where do you buy your music paper? First rate!" - Brahms when asked by Bruch for his opinion on his 1st Violin Concerto*

*"It is a mistake to conclude each act with people going to sleep." - Stravinsky on Britten's Midsummer Night's Dream

"I liked the opera very much. Everything but the music." - Britten on Stravinsky's Rake's Progress*

"Bruckner? That is a swindle which will be forgotten a year or two after my death. Take it as you will, Bruckner owes his fame solely to me, and but for me nobody would have cared a brass farthing for him. Do you really believe that anyone in this immature crowd has the least notion what these symphonic boa-constrictors are about?. . . And Bruckner's works immortal, and 'symphonies'? It is ludicrous!" - Brahms on Bruckner

"My fingers itch to do battle, to begin to write anti-Liszt" - Brahms

*"He'd be better off shoveling snow." - Richard Strauss on Arnold Schoenberg*

"If he'd been making shell-cases during the war it might have been better for music." - Ravel on Saint-Saens

"A book of mazurkas by Chopin and a few new pieces of his are so mannered that they are hard to stand." - Mendelssohn

"Everyone who either hears them or plays them must feel that as com- 
positions they are worthless. They contain no remarkable or striking pas- 
sages except those in sixths and octaves. And I implore my sister not to 
practise these passages too much, so that she may not spoil her quiet, 
even touch and that her hand may not lose its natural lightness, flexibility 
and smooth rapidity. . . . What he really does well are his passages in thirds; 
but he sweated over them day and night in London. Apart from this, he 
can do nothing, absolutely nothing, for he has not the slightest expression 
or taste, still less, feeling." - Mozart on Clementi's Sonatas

"La Mer is poorly orchestrated. If I had the time, I would re-orchestrate La Mer." Ravel on Debussy

"The Rhapsody [in Blue] is not a composition at all. It's a string of separate paragraphs stuck together--with a thin paste of flour and water. " - Bernstein on Gershwin

*"Bonbons stuffed with snow." - Debussy on Grieg's compositions*

"Why do you compose like that? You don't need to--you have talent." Richard Strauss on Hindemith

*"I'm rather indifferent to Prokofiev's music now and listen to his compo- 
sitions without any particular pleasure." - Shostakovich on Prokofiev

"Prokofiev was the contrary of a musical thinker. He was, in fact, startlingly 
naive in matters of musical construction." - Stravinsky on Prokofiev

"He is a talented but somehow "unprincipled" composer and . . . bereft of 
melodic invention." - Prokofiev on Shostakovich

"The style of Shostakovich's Lady Macbeth of Mtzensk is extremely dis- 
turbing, and the score is a work of lamentable provincialism in which the 
music simply serves as illustration. . . . The music plays a miserable role 
of illustration, and in an embarrassingly miserable style. Formless, mo- 
notonous music. . . . This is not the work of a musician but the product of 
a total indifference to music in the country of the Soviets." - Stravinsky on Shostakovich*

"This is disgusting, Sir. No Sir, it is not permissible to write such nonsense until one is sixty." -Rimsky-Korskakov to young Stravinsky

*"[Derisive laughter]" - Mahler throughout watching Puccini's "La Boheme"*

"Construction was not his strong side. And as far as orchestration is concerned there is a certain degree of helplessness." - Sibelius on Schumann

"As if I'd been beaten unmercifully with sticks." - Taneyev's opinion after listening to Scriabin

"Every phrase, line, and chord, and beat went over and over the way you'd exactly expect it would--trite, tiresome awnings of platitudes, all a nice mixture of Grieg, Wagner and Tchaikovsky" - Ives on Sibelius

"I found [the Second Symphony] vulgar, self-indulgent, and provincial beyond all description. I realize that there are sincere Sibelius-lovers in the world, though I must say I've never met one among educated professional musicians." - Virgil Thomson on Sibelius

*"Such an astounding lack of talent has never before been united to such pretentiousness." - Tchaikovsky on R. Strauss*

"I don't know myself what to make of Strauss. How is one to explain his unequalness and jumbling together of good and bad?" - Mahler on R. Strauss

"Verdi is a man of great talent who lacks the essential quality that makes great masters" - Bizet on Verdi

*"The most repugnant thing I have ever seen or heard in all my life" - Clara Schumann on Wagner's Tristan und Isolde*


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Nice, although you have to be careful with quotes sometimes. Stravinsky says quite nice things about _Carmen_ in one of his books.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

My favorite:

*"Outside of music, he's an idiot." *
- Stravinsky on Prokofiev.

An other great one:

*"An ugly duckling"*
- Glazunov on Prokofiev


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Couchie said:


> *"[Derisive laughter]" - Mahler throughout watching Puccini's "La Boheme"*


He? What kind of quote is that? And from what source? Also, I remember other quote by Mahler where he expressed his disliking for Puccini's Tosca but admitted that it was "written by hand of master".

Some other from Richard Strauss:

There is nothing in it... no music... no progression... it doesn't stick together. No musical phase. No developement... - Strauss while watching Debussy's Pelleas and Melisande

His music can't be good - Penderecki on me


----------



## Vazgen (May 24, 2011)

Of course, a bunch of teenagers and old codgers criticizing the classics is pretty much the same as Stravinsky criticizing the classics.

Isn't it?

-Vaz


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Vazgen said:


> Of course, a bunch of teenagers and old codgers criticizing the classics is pretty much the same as Stravinsky criticizing the classics.
> 
> Isn't it?
> 
> -Vaz


But wasn't Stravinsky old codger himself?

Wasn't he?

-Ara


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Vazgen said:


> Of course, a bunch of teenagers and old codgers criticizing the classics is pretty much the same as Stravinsky criticizing the classics.
> 
> Isn't it?
> 
> -Vaz


Yes, it is.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Aramis said:


> He? What kind of quote is that? And from what source? Also, I remember other quote by Mahler where he expressed his disliking for Puccini's Tosca but admitted that it was "written by hand of master".


----------



## Vazgen (May 24, 2011)

Argus said:


> Yes, it is.




Glad we cleared that up.

-Vaz


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I agree with St. Luke's that when it comes to masterpieces that have withstood the test of time, you have no one to blame except yourself if you do not enjoy the music. Often the problem occurs because we give the piece a single brief listen while only half-paying attention, and we decide we do not like what we managed to hear. But isn't that akin to skimming through a book without taking time to read carefully?

I'm also not saying that there is no 'good' and no 'bad' music; certainly some music is more inspired than others, even among greats.. but with the likes of Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Tchaikovsky... with the exception of some early pieces, their music really only ranges from "pretty good" to "amazing".. so you're pretty safe. I've also become a bit less enthusiastic of Sibelius recently; the more I listen to him, the more 'filler' in his symphonies I hear..


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Vaz- Of course, a bunch of teenagers and old codgers criticizing the classics is pretty much the same as Stravinsky criticizing the classics.

Isn't it? 

Argus- Yes, it is.



Vaz- Glad we cleared that up.

Well... it's quite possible that Argus' opinions are no better than that of a bunch of teenagers.

"Sabbath rulez!"


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

There are plenty of these for me...what actually bothers me more are 'so-called' masters who are not


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

tdc said:


> With Shostakovich I notice in a lot of his symphonies he has really great sounding moments too interspersed with very long and quiet almost noodling moments. Like the start of the fourth - so much action, and interesting, exciting sounds I hear at the start - then I have to sit through seemingly endless quiet rambling before we get to anything else like the introduction again. I also find sometimes his choices of instrumentation are somewhat lacking in 'punch' in the large scale works compared to say Mahler or R Strauss.


Surely it's the long slow sections that make the climaxes all the more impressive.
Shostakovich knows exactly what he's doing to get maximum effect.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

presto said:


> Surely it's the long slow sections that make the climaxes all the more impressive.
> Shostakovich knows exactly what he's doing to get maximum effect.


Yes, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that with Shostakovich, (and Bruckner and Brahms for that matter), the problem (as StLukes suggested in his post) is more on my end than theirs. With Shostakovich one probably needs a little more patience and appreciation for restraint when its necessary. These composers may not be exactly my 'cup of tea' at the time being, but no composer is for everybody all the time. Clearly these three are all great masters, and I am starting to appreciate each of them more and more the more I listen to them.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

what actually bothers me more are 'so-called' masters who are not

Such as...?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

kv466 said:


> There are plenty of these for me...what actually bothers me more are 'so-called' masters who are not


You meant Johnny Cage, didn't you? Fine by me.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*@ Couchie* - re those critical quotes by composers about other composers. I can see that a good number of them (but not all) are from a composer from one country attacking another composer from another country. It seems that national &/or political boundaries between the nations & empires of Europe (& the world if we include the USA, which really entered the classical realm in a big way post-1900) were a HUGE part of what those guys were saying about eachother's music. In some cases, this is now thought to be fact. Berlioz was highly critical of Italians like Rossini & Donizetti during his younger years (i.e. the 1830's-'40's) basically because Italian opera had a stranglehold on the opera houses of France. Not one of Berlioz's own operas could even approach the box office success of those of the Italian guys during his time. French opera only became successful in money terms on it's home soil with Gounod's _Faust_ (first performed in Paris in 1859). Until then, French opera as a mass art form had been languishing in the doldrums since the days of Lully & Rameau (but their operas were not really what we'd call operas today in terms of their content & also, they were really only consumed by the nobility & aristocracy of the _Ancien Regime_). So no wonder Berlioz was quite bitter. It was more a case of sour grapes & what were percieved as rock solid national boundaries which, in our current age of "globalism" is no longer such a big issue.

So basically when I read about one composer rubbishing another composer, I realise that there are many "external factors" that are at play for sure...


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I've actually liked almost all works that are commonly regarded as masterpieces... after a listen or twenty  With most pieces, you get this feeling that although you don't grasp/like it yet, you're slowly getting there. The work is opening up to you, and it's a great feeling. Unfortunately, there are still some works and composers with whom I don't feel any progress. That's discouraging, but I usually keep whacking my head to the wall and trying anyway!

Shostakovitch is for me an example of the former. I still don't quite get all his music, but every time I hear it, I think: "now that was interesting!", and my mind is excited. Of the latter type... well, baroque music doesn't have enough drama for me and 100% atonal music does not have enough structure for me. My mind just goes "blah" after hearing those... but still, I don't want to give up on them.


----------



## Vazgen (May 24, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You meant Johnny Cage, didn't you? Fine by me.












-Vaz


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Well, obviously this is all subjective...I don't wanna insult anybody but there are big names out there, mostly pianists, that I just don't understand and am baffled at how they are revered and others that truly are magnificent, not...one I'll throw out there that I never understood until having explored further and actually finding some stuff that is great he played is Horrorwitz...now, I like his Mozart very much and select Chopin pieces but I was introduced to him as a great performer of the Rachmaninov concerti and I think he just destroys these pieces and makes them mush...anyway, he has redeamed himself to me through his tender approach Haydn and W.A.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Although I like Bach a lot, and I enjoy many of his pieces, I have a slight problem with his cello suites. I have listened to all of them several times, and I still can't get most of them.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Just listened to Mahler 8, and as I was doing so, I realized, "I don't get this music." 

Mahler is usually a composer that I get easily, or fairly easily at least, but this one is over my head. 

Bruckner is constantly over my head, and R. Strauss often is.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

science said:


> Just listened to Mahler 8, and as I was doing so, I realized, "I don't get this music."
> 
> Mahler is usually a composer that I get easily, or fairly easily at least, but this one is over my head.
> 
> *Bruckner* is constantly over my head, and R. Strauss often is.


My real love/hate experience in classical music is definitely the Bruckner symphonies. There are so many parts of the symphonies that are fantastic, but time after time after time it's those long slow build-ups to climaxes that never come - the music just drops away to a whisper. I guess it has something to do with him being an organist, but I just find it frustrating as a listener.

That being said - my experience in music would be a lot poorer without at least significant portions of his Fourth, Eighth and Ninth symphonies.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Vazgen said:


> -Vaz


Seconded...Jesus, does there NEED to be a jab at John Cage or Stockhausen in every single thread?...


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

Mozart's Jupiter Symphony, Schubert's so-called "great" symphony come to mind


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Yeah...Erwartung (Arnold Schönberg)...I can't understand this mini-opera

Martin, puzzled


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Norma. It's nauseating. 

Nauseating. 

That's probably it.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

But are we using "masterpiece" correctly in this thread?

It doesn't mean great work - it refers to a work which an artist produces to demonstrate (or which is considered to demonstrate) their mastery. Poor composers have masterpieces in the context of their other music and their masterpieces may be lesser works than others' masterpieces.


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

I find sitting through Handel's Messiah a trial. Fifteen or twenty minutes of glorious music and a two hour sit with wiggly itches for the rest is my experience of it. Have no idea why. I have heard it live several times by people I admire greatly. I even sang a Messiah 'from scratch' once. I simply cannot get into it. I never feel like that about other long religious choral works.


----------



## everythingthrume (May 1, 2012)

I don't see the greatness of Beethoven's 9, yes the symphony. Beethoven's 4th symphony is my favorite.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

everythingthrume said:


> I don't see the greatness of Beethoven's 9, yes the symphony. Beethoven's 4th symphony is my favorite.


OMG another person who feels this way! I don't feel so alone anymore


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Stravinsky's Rite of Spring
I do enjoy certain elements of it, but altogether I find it rather crude as a piece of music (I don't care about the ballet aspect, so maybe that's not fair). It moves along pretty much aimlessly... quiet moment here, outburst there.... without any real direction, focus, build up. I don't get any specific emotion or a deeper meaning from it.
I don't understand why it is considered as such an important and innovative piece (in the use of dissonance etc.), especially compared to Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy and Prometheus: The Poem of Fire. Both predating Rite of Spring and far, far greater and more sophisticated works of art.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I dunno if Ravel's Bolero is a masterpiece, but anyway I dislike it.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I dunno if Ravel's Bolero is a masterpiece...


It isn't.



Hilltroll72 said:


> but anyway I dislike it.


As did Ravel.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

DeepR said:


> Stravinsky's Rite of Spring... I don't understand why it is considered as such an important and innovative piece (in the use of dissonance etc.), especially compared to Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy and Prometheus: The Poem of Fire. Both predating Rite of Spring and far, far greater and more sophisticated works of art.


Isn't it just an "accident of history". The _Rite _famously created an uproar - which was great for publicity. No doubt Stravinsky and Diaghilev milked that for all it was worth. Scriabin just didn't have the right agent.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Romantic Symphonies in general. Just make melodic music. Not a fan of trying to make the most complex movement ever. But I guess some like 70 minute Symphonies. Just not my thing.


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

DeepR said:


> Stravinsky's Rite of Spring
> I do enjoy certain elements of it, but altogether I find it rather crude as a piece of music (I don't care about the ballet aspect, so maybe that's not fair). It moves along pretty much aimlessly... quiet moment here, outburst there.... without any real direction, focus, build up. I don't get any specific emotion or a deeper meaning from it.
> I don't understand why it is considered as such an important and innovative piece (in the use of dissonance etc.), especially compared to Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy and Prometheus: The Poem of Fire. Both predating Rite of Spring and far, far greater and more sophisticated works of art.


My first experience (when I was an adolescent with little classical prowess) with Rite of Spring has scarred me forever. I very much felt like a member of that audience that rioted when they heard the premiere (as the story goes).


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I dunno if Ravel's Bolero is a masterpiece, but anyway I dislike it.


Not a masterpiece. But perhaps too often performed for the masses?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

The Berlioz requiem. I like it ok, but I've never loved it because I find it bombastic. Probably my fault and not Hector's.  Same goes for Beethoven's Missa Solemnis - the only one of his most important works that has never quite clicked with me.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

As i've said before, I can't stand German-Austrian symphonic music. Also operas, any kind of them.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Odnoposoff said:


> As i've said before, I can't stand German-Austrian symphonic music. Also operas, any kind of them.


This is interesting, it's a rather large chunk of the standard repertoire, isn't it? But I like your opinion, even if it's the direct opposite of mine, it's clear and concise. You do have a clearly defined taste!


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Mozart is my favorite composer by far. Don Giovanni, the Magic Flute and Figaro are my three favorite operas of all time, but I've never been able to connect with Cosi Fan Tutte.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I hate Elgar. Especially his tedious cello concerto.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Elgar's Cello Concerto in a famous performance by Jacqueline Du Pré:


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> Elgar's Cello Concerto in a famous performance by Jacqueline Du Pré:


Yep. This is good 

I would say as far as individual pieces, Steve Reich's Music for 18 Musicians really fails to do it for me. As far as composers, Haydn consistently underwhelms me, as does Mahler. This is no to say they're bad by any stretch, and I listen to them on occasion, I just find Haydn blandly pleasant, and Mahler meandering and plotless.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I would say as far as individual pieces, Steve Reich's Music for 18 Musicians really fails to do it for me.


I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in this regard. I gave up on it many years ago after three or four attempts to listen to it. I find it utterly banal. It baffles me that there are people who consider it one of the greatest works of the 20th century.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I have a problem with much of Mahler. I feel the symphonies contain some good moments, but when you combine the moments into the symphony, it does not work as a whole. As a consequence, I find it a real effort to listen to any Mahler symphony, because due to its incoherence, it starts to bore me / annoy me quite fast. Mahler is probably the only major composer, whom I do not "get" or do not like.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Jacck said:


> I have a problem with much of Mahler. I feel the symphonies contain some good moments, but when you combine the moments into the symphony, it does not work as a whole. As a consequence, I find it a real effort to listen to any Mahler symphony, because due to its incoherence, it starts to bore me / annoy me quite fast. Mahler is probably the only major composer, whom I do not "get" or do not like.


I largely share this sentiment outside of a few symphonies (especially the 9th), and as I have said before I find his song cycles much more appealing because his melodic gifts and genius for orchestral color work wonderfully in conjunction with texts in a more compact format.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I would have echoed that sentiment a few weeks ago but I'm a full fledged member of the Mahler hive now. It just "clicked". I haven't heard everything, but even the longest symphony of his I've heard, the 2nd, was full of drive, movement, and beautiful pacing. 

In response to the OP, I have a lot of trouble with Brahms' symphonies, as well as most operas. I expect these things will "click" one day as well. 

By the way, music for 18 musicians is an incredible work. It's Too bad many do not enjoy it.


----------



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

_Così fan tutte_. Some of Mozart's finest music bails out what is, even by 18th century standards, one of the lamest operatic plots I've ever encountered.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Isn't it perfectly fine to have a problem with masterpieces? Masterpieces are something that broke the mold in their day, it doesn't mean they're any good now


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ I don't think being radical is a necessary feature of masterpieces. Some masterpieces were radical in their time but many, although full of invention, were not the mold breakers.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I do not know if it is a masterpiece, but I also dislike the voice of Philippe Jaroussky


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

We saw The Magic Flute a couple of years ago, and I enjoyed it, but I struggled to understand why the Queen of the Night is supposed to be so villainous.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> We saw The Magic Flute a couple of years ago, and I enjoyed it, but I struggled to understand why the Queen of the Night is supposed to be so villainous.


There was some interesting discussion on this topic in a thread in the opera forum not too long ago:

"The Magic Flute" by Mozart

A quote from one post:



> Its main conflict is between the star-flaming Queen of the Night and the sun-lit Egypitian wise man, Sarastro. The queen is one of a long line of matriarchs in the history of literature and religion. She has been compared to Isis and Ishtar, to Demeter and Juno. Grieving and sympathetic at first, then turning savage and vindictive. The Sarastro who opposes her is akin to the Persian Zoroaster, who heralds the destruction of one era and the dawn of a new one. This makes him neither good nor evil, but an ambivalent force like the Queen he confronts, reperesenting different principles. And though they both see each other as evil and villanous, neither is right. What we see depicted is the movement from magic to ritual, and taboo giving way to morality. Looked at symbollically, even Monostatos can be viewed differently. He serves the ambivalent Sarastro, who abducts those he is to purify, subjecting them to cruel ordeals, yet behind the frightening exterior is ultimately benevelont and just. Monostatos is a shadow figure who, like the Satans of literature (Lucifer in Paradise Lost, Caliban in The Tempest, Mephostophiles in Faust) is not so much evil as the unwitting instrument of good.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> We saw The Magic Flute a couple of years ago, and I enjoyed it, but I struggled to understand why the Queen of the Night is supposed to be so villainous.


No need to understand the plot which is a mystery to all but freemasons. Just enjoy the super music.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Sofronitsky said:


> Everything Mozart wrote.
> 
> Edit: With the exception of one piano sonata and one violin concerto, in retrospect.


Why have a problem with it? Just don't listen to it. I don't. Actually, I have enjoyed Mozart's music in the past, and Bach and Haydn too, but I left them all behind for others (Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovitch, ...)


----------

