# Is knowledge of music theory necessary to enjoy the more complex and intelligent works of J.S. Bach?



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Sometimes when I read about works of Bach like the Goldberg variations or the art of fugue it dazzles me. They seem very complex and have all sorts of smart use of counterpoint, harmony, variations and canon’s that I feel like I just shouldn’t start listening to them because I will never be able to understand how brilliant the music actually is just by listening to it because the music is so intelligent and I don’t know a lot about all the terms being used in these articles. So another question would be (apart from the title): Do you enjoy these works because you understand the compositional brilliance and intelligence of the works of because you just like what you hear?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

EvaBaron said:


> Sometimes when I read about works of Bach like the Goldberg variations or the art of fugue it dazzles me. They seem very complex and have all sorts of smart use of counterpoint, harmony, variations and canon’s that I feel like I just shouldn’t start listening to them because I will never be able to understand how brilliant the music actually is just by listening to it because the music is so intelligent and I don’t know a lot about all the terms being used in these articles. So another question would be (apart from the title): Do you enjoy these works because you understand the compositional brilliance and intelligence of the works of because you just like what you hear?


IMV, you like what you hear (because you seek new works, or accidentally) and then you study it like you would how weather is forecast, for example. The rewards are surprising and not at all limited to what the uninitiated assume.


----------



## cake (Oct 11, 2021)

EvaBaron said:


> Do you enjoy these works because you understand the compositional brilliance and intelligence of the works of because you just like what you hear?


What's the point of "compositional brilliance and intelligence" if I don't like the sounding result?


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

cake said:


> What's the point of "compositional brilliance and intelligence" if I don't like the sounding result?


That was badly worded, I just mean if music theory is needed to enjoy these incredibly musically complex works


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Good music is good music, and Bach to me is the best because he wrote so much of it (including, of course, all the masterpieces.)


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Music theory is another layer for appreciating. Like appreciating the detailed plans for an artistic/new example of architecture (or an older masterpiece of architecture or dance etc.). 
I think a quick analysis makes even the less attractive works much more interesting than they would be (it fits them nicely in between the master works of the times).


----------



## SoloYH (8 mo ago)

i can no longer tell if people on this forum are joking or not.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

SoloYH said:


> i can no longer tell if people on this forum are joking or not.


Please explain.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

It isn't necessary but it may help augment your understanding. You don't need to study a fugue to be able to hear the subject entering and re-entering, for example, though some of the more intricate contrapuntal devices might benefit from an analytic approach. And Bach wrote plenty of non-fugal music. You ask about the "more complex" works specifically, though, but my answer is that although they may benefit from a theoretic understanding, a good fugue is meaningless if it isn't also good music. An understanding of music theory may be needed to _fully appreciate_ some of these works, but this should not be confused with _enjoying_ them.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

EvaBaron said:


> Sometimes when I read about works of Bach like the Goldberg variations or the art of fugue it dazzles me. They seem very complex and have all sorts of smart use of counterpoint, harmony, variations and canon’s that I feel like I just shouldn’t start listening to them because I will never be able to understand how brilliant the music actually is just by listening to it because the music is so intelligent and I don’t know a lot about all the terms being used in these articles. So another question would be (apart from the title): Do you enjoy these works because you understand the compositional brilliance and intelligence of the works of because you just like what you hear?


An analytical understanding of a work by Bach is worthwhile as additional information for appreciating the music. However, it is not information that will necessarily enhance your enjoyment of the music. As a trained musician/composer I was taught how to analyze Bach's fugues and other works, and continue to read books about the theoretical aspects of the music. But my bottomline is the music itself, the aural experience of it.

That said, I don't know how much I have subconsciously benefitted from my training and might be taking it for granted.

Knowledge is never a bad thing. But there is no reason someone can't enjoy Bach without even being able to read music.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

Music theory is never needed for music appreciation because music theory in intuitive anyway.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

There are several avenues. You can just try and listen until you are too bored or too puzzled to enjoy it.

Or you can listen to shorter pieces with the intent of getting some of the structure. E.g. some of the two-part-inventions or a "typical" very clear "textbook" fugue like c minor from WTK 1, or a trio sonata movement or a trio chorale prelude like "Wachet auf" ("Sleepers awake", in the Schübler chorales, it's a version of the middle chorale verse in the Sonata BWV 140) with three rather easy to grasp/melodic lines.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

bagpipers said:


> Music theory is never needed for music appreciation because music theory in intuitive anyway.


...but only after you've learnt it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I love Bach - including (or even especially) those so-called difficult works - to such an extent that I consider him one of the three greatest ever. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. And I'm also sure that many of those who join me in feeling he is so great know no more about music theory than I do (i.e. nothing). I have seen the "theoreticians" discussing aspects of, say, the Art of Fugue - how to listen to it (not just whole as it comes to us, it seems). And I wonder if _*they *_are not missing something. Perhaps knowing too much about what he is doing and how clever it is gets in the way of feeling the impact it can deliver?


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> ...but only after you've learnt it.


Not really,music theory is surprisingly intuitive.Music theory just articulates what sounds and feels right.As a composer myself I always find if I go with what feels right I find I'm in line with theory.
Why is every pop song ever written I IV V I I IV V I right!


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

bagpipers said:


> Not really,music theory is surprisingly intuitive.Music theory just articulates what sounds and feels right.As a composer myself I always find if I go with what feels right I find I'm in line with theory.
> Why is every pop song ever written I IV V I I IV V I right!


I guess we are different sorts of composer. I understand what you mean of course but I personally believe the journey of learning and mastering theory is also a journey into one's own aesthetic - exploration and discovery of the self via discipline and learning if you like. For me, being in line with theory (I mean CPT theory here), is not something I aspire to as that has the danger that it may well lead to unoriginal or non too personal music. I tend to use theory as a springboard and a search engine for ideas, applying what I know laterally and seeing where it leads. As always though ymmv, especially when it comes to creativity and the marriage of technique and heart.
So as to not distract from the thread, I also think that knowing theory for appreciation of Bach is not necessary, but it certainly does add to the experience and if you know your counterpoint, oh boy.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> I guess we are different sorts of composer. I understand what you mean of course but I personally believe the journey of learning and mastering theory is also a journey into one's own aesthetic - exploration and discovery of the self via discipline and learning if you like. Also the more options learnt initially, the more readily they can inform and underpin choices at the composing stage. As always though ymmv, especially when it comes to creativity and the marriage of technique and heart.
> So as to not distract from the thread, I also think that knowing theory for appreciation of Bach is not necessary, but it certainly does add to the experience and if you know your counterpoint, oh boy.


I certainly learned a lot about counterpoint from playing Bach before I became a composer and Bach above all others influenced my own counterpoint.Although Bartok and Stravinsky influenced many of my bi-tonal works which are among my best.No one does counterpoint like Bach for sure!

I don't feel knowledge of counterpoint is needed for musical enjoyment alone!


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

To my opinion, any great music has structural aspects and emotional aspects. You can approach of either side.

Any attempt to decide "this aspect is much more important than that aspect" is prone to fail.

As Alfred Brendel said: "The more you know, the more you will be astonished."


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

I think that Eva is indirectly asking why are The Art of Fugue and The Goldberg Variations considered the best works of Bach if some of his pieces, like for example the concertos, work better for the simple purpose of entertainment. She then conclude that the two pieces are considered the best of Bach for their educational values.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> I think that Eva is indirectly asking why are The Art of Fugue and The Goldberg Variations considered the best works of Bach if some of his pieces, like for example the concertos, work better for the simple purpose of entertainment. She then conclude that the two pieces are considered the best of Bach for their educational values.


My favorites by Bach aside the Goldberg Variations (especially the Gould version) are not his keyboard works at all.Are his non keyboard works like the violin Partita's,cello suites and especially the lute suites (especially the E minor BWV 996)


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

bagpipers said:


> My favorites by Bach aside the Goldberg Variations (especially the Gould version) are not his keyboard works at all.Are his non keyboard works like the violin Partita's,cello suites and especially the lute suites (especially the E minor BWV 996)


Not only the keyboard concertos, but the concertos in general. There is a good spirit inside of them.

I think the same of Mozart: when I read the word "concerto" in a piece of Mozart I know that it's a masterpiece.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

HansZimmer said:


> I think that Eva is indirectly asking why are The Art of Fugue and The Goldberg Variations considered the best works of Bach if some of his pieces, like for example the concertos, work better for the simple purpose of entertainment. She then conclude that the two pieces are considered the best of Bach for their educational values.


Yes something like this. And in order to rate the art of fugue and Goldberg variations higher than the concertos like so many others do is an understanding of the educational side of his compositions necessary?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

No. But just ignore them for the time being. It took me almost 10 years to really get into Bach's keyboard music although I liked stuff like "famous organ works" or Brandenburg concertos right away as a teenager and also the b minor mass and St. Matthew, despite their lengths. [But to put it into perspective, it took me almost as long to get into all but the most famous ~10 of Beethoven's piano sonatas and Beethoven was my huge favorite as a teenager and in my early 20s, so it was more solo piano pieces in general I took longer to appreciate than Bach's in particular.]
For Bach's keyboard music I'd recommend starting with the French suites, the Partitas and maybe the Italian concerto. Almost everything is easier to stand than 60-90 min mostly in one key and focused on a single theme/bass/pattern with highly technical variations/elaborations.
(FWIW I think the sheer length is also a reason why people tend to rate GBV higher than a 15 min concerto.)


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> I think that Eva is indirectly asking *why are The Art of Fugue and The Goldberg Variations considered the best works of Bach* if some of his pieces, like for example the concertos, work better for the simple purpose of entertainment. She then conclude that the two pieces are considered the best of Bach for their educational values.


Are they? By whom? Best for what purpose? I'm a musicologist and composer and such a claim, if anyone actually made it, is meaningless to me. I think those particular works just happen to be ones for which kowledge and an analytical perspective are most likely to enhance ones experience. And there's nothing wrong with admiring the great craft and skill that went into making them but still finding them dry and boring. I doubt that the Art of Fugue was meant to be listened to as an aesthetic whole.

Anyway, Saint Anthony's perspective sounds about right to me.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

There was a similar thread less than an year ago ("A question for lovers of JS Bach").


hammeredklavier said:


> I think one big misconception people have about music theory is that it is all about dissecting intricacies of harmony and counterpoint, or it is only about examining music like Bach's.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

I love the Goldbergs and Art of Fugue without knowing much theory. No doubt I could appreciate them better if I did but the point of great music is that the layman can enjoy it for what it is


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

EdwardBast said:


> Are they? By whom? Best for what purpose?


Well, the Art of Fugue is is still the king.

It's difficult to say if it will win the competition, but in the actual trend is strong.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> Are they? By whom? Best for what purpose? I'm a musicologist and composer and such a claim, if anyone actually made it, is meaningless to me. I think those particular works just happen to be ones for which kowledge and an analytical perspective are most likely to enhance ones experience. And there's nothing wrong with admiring the great craft and skill that went into making them but still finding them dry and boring. I doubt that the Art of Fugue was meant to be listened to as an aesthetic whole.
> 
> Anyway, Saint Anthony's perspective sounds about right to me.


One can make a convincing argument that the Goldberg Variations were indeed meant for performance, commissioned for the purpose of a late night private recital. Conversely, the Art of Fugue was Bach's final demonstration of the contrapuntal art, mostly pedagogical in nature, and conceived more for study and analysis instead of performance, per se.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> I think that Eva is indirectly asking why are The Art of Fugue and The Goldberg Variations considered the best works of Bach if some of his pieces, like for example the concertos, work better for the simple purpose of entertainment. She then conclude that the two pieces are considered the best of Bach for their educational values.


What people say about the spirit of the works and the listening enjoyment, is all indisputable.

But to look at this huge question practically, there are FEW monumental works, AND musicians and theorists know them so well, every detail. In order to go beyond and get more and more (coming back every few years) I've found that exploring the scores systematically offers the view that the sum of the parts as a whole is surely worth another listen. 10 times, 20 times. How many times?
Listen to Schubert's last sonatas repeatedly, and then you need to put them aside. A year later you look at the scores, and wow, you're back at imagining where Schubert was.. It's so refreshing. Many avid listeners can probably do this same thing, but I don't know. I'd like to know more about the successes of dedicated CM listeners. I'm the worst one to describe it.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

bagpipers said:


> Music theory is never needed for music appreciation because music theory in intuitive anyway.


May I ask - if music theory is intuitive does that imply that learning to read music is simple and straightforward?


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

bagpipers said:


> Music theory is never needed for music appreciation because music theory in intuitive anyway.


No it isn't. Some people don't need music theory because they have excellent ears and musical experience, or because the music they are interested in is not too complex.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Malx said:


> May I ask - if music theory is intuitive does that imply that learning to read music is simple and straightforward?


I actually thought (with that typo?) that the point was, music theory ISN'T intuitively accessible. And therefore it offers a totally different experience of the large iconic achievements. I'm saying, a different take on the very same work is mind-expanding and so helpful. 

I think we hear every detail. ..and/but we don't need to remember every detail we see in the scores, so it's a more open-ended and mysterious perspective. 

I know I might be very different, since I work in a field of experimental science. Feel free to dismiss me. I offer it as a different take on this question (raised so often in our talk-backs at the end of our programs). I guess a lot of people wnat to know if the 'joys' of analysis are worth the time and effort.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

"You can just try and listen until you are too bored or too puzzled to enjoy it."

Or you can just listen to it and enjoy it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Malx said:


> May I ask - if music theory is intuitive does that imply that learning to read music is simple and straightforward?


Learning to read 'notes' isn't the goal of course, anymore than reading 'letters' is the goal for reading sentences and paragraphs. It's the starting point, yes. Like recognizing chemical formulae or noting the microscale data in a geostrophic wind field. These lead to bigger things.
If you approach reading the intervals and the groupings as a curious child does, with wonder and no negative experiences, it's not drudgery (maybe), (delayed gratification, children have no other approach available to them).


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Luchesi said:


> Learning to read 'notes' isn't the goal of course, anymore than reading 'letters' is the goal for reading sentences and paragraphs. It's the starting point, yes. Like recognizing chemical formulae or noting the microscale data in a geostrophic wind field. These lead to bigger things.
> If you approach reading the intervals and the groupings as a curious child does, with wonder and no negative experiences, it's not drudgery (maybe), (delayed gratification, children have no other approach available to them).


I understand that being able to read notes is simply like putting down the foundations for building a house, everything else is built using the notes as a basic building block, the music or the house then can become as complex or be as straightforward as the composer/builder chooses.
My question was really trying to understand if the poster 'bagpipes' was suggesting that listeners who are not musically trained or skilled but have an aural/emotional response and or understanding should be able to learn music theory easily because its 'intuitive'.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Malx said:


> I understand that being able to read notes is simply like putting down the foundations for building a house, everything else is built using the notes as a basic building block, the music or the house then can become as complex or be as straightforward as the composer/builder chooses.
> My question was really trying to understand if the poster 'bagpipes' was suggesting that listeners who are not musically trained or skilled but have an aural/emotional response and or understanding should be able to learn music theory easily because its 'intuitive'.


Reading and then theory became intuitive to (most) composers and players, I would say. What does this tell us?

Of course, I've known some rare individuals who can amaze me with playing solely by ear. When you listen closely, even their expert ears don't hear everything, or they don't include such details when they play. After all, they can only share what comes out of themselves and their own listening sessions. In jazz, this is expected!, no matter how well you read or analyze. You're much more on your own. It's a whole different outlet for a musician (but to get there takes many years, long past the days of sight-reading and fundamental understandings).


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> Not only the keyboard concertos, but the concertos in general. There is a good spirit inside of them.
> 
> I think the same of Mozart: when I read the word "concerto" in a piece of Mozart I know that it's a masterpiece.


Concerto's are great yes but I had thought we were discussing solo works?


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

In reply to the OP I would simply suggest the answer is no but maybe those with technical musical knowledge will understand it in a different way but as to if that is a better way will remain debatable.

My simplistic advice is enjoy the works in the way that gives you enjoyment but if you suspect deeper understanding of the construction of the works, the nuts and bolts if you like will lead to more enjoyment then follow that path.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

Malx said:


> May I ask - if music theory is intuitive does that imply that learning to read music is simple and straightforward?


Learning to read music not hard if you put in the time but one need not read music to enjoy it!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> One can make a convincing argument that the Goldberg Variations were indeed meant for performance, commissioned for the purpose of a late night private recital. Conversely, the Art of Fugue was Bach's final demonstration of the contrapuntal art, mostly pedagogical in nature, and conceived more for study and analysis instead of performance, per se.


You are right about the Goldbergs of course. It just happens that theme and variations is the standard form in which I tend to be least interested, no matter the composer. The Diabellis, for example, bore me to tears. The art of variation is an essential composition skill but I enjoy variations more when incorporated in other forms.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

Roger Knox said:


> Please explain.


there is clearly a group of people who are out there to have fun and take all the members for fools. It is not by accident that some threads are closed and our administrators slowly start to understand that they should intervene quicker, otherwise tc will lose the interest of members who are sincerely interested, like eva.
to allow a thread to discuss if film music is classical music, instead of analysing the differences between two fascinating categories is just an example. our gold digger was just another.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

bagpipers said:


> Learning to read music not hard if you put in the time but one need not read music to enjoy it!


Thanks for the clarification.

I believe that all children should be taught music theory in junior school when they are like sponges for information and at that stage I believe they will readily grasp the 'language' of music.
A few years back I tried to get a better understanding of music theory, having never had formal training at school I had no real base to build on so when I tried to self teach using on line aids I struggled and gave up deciding that I was content enjoying the music I was listening to in the way I already was doing. I should maybe add that I am in my mid sixties and learning anything these days is a bit of a chore - but I'm enjoying listening more than ever.

I'll move on now as I do not want to divert the OP's thread.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

cake said:


> What's the point of "compositional brilliance and intelligence" if I don't like the sounding result?


Once you like what you hear it is time to try and understand the basics of the composer's technique and intentions. i have a similar approach in the visual arts where i try to appreciate and guess what the artist tries to achieve. research and if possible direct contact with the artist are of course invaluable. the mystery is that most of the time what attracted you immensely during your first contact with a piece is vindicated by your research, because the work has an intrinsic value.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

justekaia said:


> *there is clearly a group of people who are out there to have fun and take all the members for fools.* It is not by accident that some threads are closed and our administrators slowly start to understand that they should intervene quicker, otherwise tc will lose the interest of members who are sincerely interested, like eva.
> to allow a thread to discuss if film music is classical music, instead of analysing the differences between two fascinating categories is just an example. our gold digger was just another.


Please explain.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

EdwardBast said:


> Please explain.


it is called trolling and when i mention this openly i get a yellow card from our administrators and my post is deleted. So if i answer you clearly my post will be deleted. But the end result is that the thread i mentioned (gold) has been stopped. Thks God. The utter s of the film/classical music thread is another example. There is much to do with such a subject and all we get is trivial comments from the group. The writer of the OP is smart enough and could have had a smash hit with an interesting comparison between film music and classical music, the close links between both etc.
To be honest with you i also think eva baron's thread about bach is without any interest at all but it will probably continue until the end of the century. It is about time that our members focus on works; meaningful works from the past and the present, instead of all this garbage talk.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> You are right about the Goldbergs of course. It just happens that theme and variations is the standard form in which I tend to be least interested, no matter the composer. The Diabellis, for example, bore me to tears. The art of variation is an essential composition skill but I enjoy variations more when incorporated in other forms.


Interesting. I tend to appreciate the T&V form, maybe because my background is in Jazz. 

For me, the craft is combining the series of short variations with constructing a large overall form. Beethoven had a definite plan with the Diabelli Variations (Rudolf Buchbinder discusses this at length in his new book), and Rachmaninoff did an excellent job with the Paganini Rhapsody.


----------



## wormcycle (Oct 14, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> You are right about the Goldbergs of course. It just happens that theme and variations is the standard form in which I tend to be least interested, no matter the composer. The Diabellis, for example, bore me to tears. The art of variation is an essential composition skill but I enjoy variations more when incorporated in other forms.


That's a great example how knowledge of music theory may hurt you enjoyment of great, emotional music.
Goldberg variations is an obvious example but to have no interest in something like Andante con variazioni from Beethoven violin sonata No 9? That looks like a problem to me.


----------



## Bkeske (Feb 27, 2019)

IMO, There is only one way to gain knowledge regarding any work; Listen to it. If it intrests you, you can then study it further to gain a greater appreciation. Or not.

I have no formal music education, let alone ’theory’, but it certainly does not stop me from learning, and most importantly, enjoying. Thus, not a ‘necessity’.

I would hate to think I must ’graduate’ from something in order to enjoy…..art.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

If anything, knowing too much about what's happening in a piece can inhibit enjoyment. My high school music teacher could never listen to classical while relaxing. He couldn't stop himself from overanalyzing it. He could only relax while listening to jazz.


----------



## OCEANE (10 mo ago)

Philidor said:


> To my opinion, any great music has structural aspects and emotional aspects. You can approach of either side.
> 
> Any attempt to decide "this aspect is much more important than that aspect" is prone to fail.
> 
> As Alfred Brendel said: "The more you know, the more you will be astonished."


Thanks for sharing. 
Totally agreed 'the more you know, the more you will be astonished'

I declare that I have no professional music background or knowledge. 
Lately, I studied a paper about the musical structure of Mahler Symphony 5. With reference of the paper, I intensively listened to this symphony several times in a short period & watched youtube. 

I would say that I have a better and even new understanding to this symphony of its musical structure and rationale behind each movement. I would also say that the understanding from theory perspective help me appreciate the music in details and definitely enrich my emotional gains. Vitally, I'm absolutely involved much more when I'm listening to it now.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

If one is blessed with an innate appreciation for the arts, knowledge of music theory is not necessary, but I imagine that it likely deepens one's admiration for well composed music.


----------



## OCEANE (10 mo ago)

Bkeske said:


> IMO, There is only one way to gain knowledge regarding any work; Listen to it. If it intrests you, you can then study it further to gain a greater appreciation. Or not.
> 
> I have no formal music education, let alone ’theory’, but it certainly does not stop me from learning, and most importantly, enjoying. Thus, not a ‘necessity’.
> 
> I would hate to think I must ’graduate’ from something in order to enjoy…..art.


Thanks for sharing.
I take slightly different approach to certain music. For my beloved Bach keyboard music, I have no intention at all to touch its music structure as I 'feel' I have already acquired what I wished from the countless listening and each time I'm deeply moved by the music itself. IMHO, maybe.... Bach's music is just too pure and natural and the so-called theory or structure means nothing.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

The way you listen to Bach depends on your purpose. For entertainment only, you do not need any knowledge or background. I find Baroque music surprisingly welcomed among non-classical audiences today for their relative objectivity compared to the later Romantic music. However, if you would like to study why the music sounds that way, then you definitely should study music theory because Baroque music obeys musical patterns better than Romantic etc. After all it still depends on your ear; I am an idiot on music theory but I still appreciate a lot of Baroque music especially by Bach and Handel. That's more of like my instinct towards music which differs based on people.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

justekaia said:


> there is clearly a group of people who are out there to have fun and take all the members for fools.


I think you are right. Sometimes in the interest of being "open to" all sorts of ideas we miss the negative intent you mention. I have read that we live in an "age of preposterism" and are vulnerable to being led down the garden path. When an OP is awkwardly or suspiciously written we need to intervene immediately to clarify what is going on.


----------



## OCEANE (10 mo ago)

KevinW said:


> The way you listen to Bach depends on your purpose. For entertainment only, you do not need any knowledge or background. I find Baroque music surprisingly welcomed among non-classical audiences today for their relative objectivity compared to the later Romantic music. However, if you would like to study why the music sounds that way, then you definitely should study music theory because Baroque music obeys musical patterns better than Romantic etc. After all it still depends on your ear; I am an idiot on music theory but I still appreciate a lot of Baroque music especially by Bach and Handel. That's more of like my instinct towards music which differs based on people.


Thanks for the advice!!
I would like to express that I listen to Bach, particularly his keyboard music, is not on any purpose but a 'kind of need' if I may say so. As for entertainment, no no, classical music to me is not the same things like movie or ball games....


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

OCEANE said:


> I would also say that the understanding from theory perspective help me appreciate the music in details and definitely enrich my emotional gains.


That's the point, thank you! It is not about doing some intellectual exercise, it is about recognizing more that sets your emotions on fire.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

wormcycle said:


> That's a great example how knowledge of music theory may hurt you enjoyment of great, emotional music.


Here's another:








Why I Hate The 'Goldberg Variations'


All this week, we've been delving into Bach's 'Goldberg Variations'




www.npr.org







> "the _Goldbergs_ have the unfortunate quality of being—a particular bugbear of mine—incredibly neat and organized. They don't need a life coach, their closets are immaculate. Every third variation is a canon, and these are organized in ascending order by interval. The theme is set up symmetrically, 16/16, in a set of perfectly balancing questions-and-answers. And the thirty-two bars of the theme, for good measure, correspond to the thirty-two sections of the _Goldbergs_ (30 variations plus framing theme on either side). Bach loves connecting the micro and macrocosm; he even creates a kind of hinge in the middle, a "false ending" after the 15th variation, and a re-beginning with a French Overture, to mirror on a large scale the binary symmetries of the theme."
> "Just the theme, for instance: a favorite inflection of mine, the way Bach gently moves into E minor at the beginning of the second half. It's so ideal and satisfying, the way he uses E minor as a melancholy foil to the prevailing G major, and having led us into it, subtly and affectingly leads us up out of it. Also (still just talking about the theme, without even moving on to the perfections of the next 77 minutes), the way the descending first four generative bass notes (G, F-sharp, E, D) are reflected or mirrored at the end of each phrase in the right hand, with a descending five note idea. It is damned subtle: the connection is made not at the beginning of each melodic phrase, but at the end; not the four notes, but five. And those five or four descending notes return marvelously, transformed, in the eliding gliding chain of the theme's conclusion: a connection that is profound but not obvious, just the perfect balance of cohesion and variety."
> -Jeremy Denk


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

EvaBaron said:


> Sometimes when I read about works of Bach like the Goldberg variations or the art of fugue it dazzles me. They seem very complex and have all sorts of smart use of counterpoint, harmony, variations and canon’s that I feel like I just shouldn’t start listening to them because I will never be able to understand how brilliant the music actually is just by listening to it because the music is so intelligent and I don’t know a lot about all the terms being used in these articles. So another question would be (apart from the title): Do you enjoy these works because you understand the compositional brilliance and intelligence of the works of because you just like what you hear?


I just like what I hear. If you look at Bach's opus as a whole, even though much of it is lost to us, it is highly impressive from a technical standpoint, and many other standpoints. But you don't have to look at it as a whole. The C-major and F-major two-part inventions, the Anna Magdalena Notebook, even the C-major Prelude and Fugue from Book I of the Well-Tempered Clavier, all staples for young piano students, all bring out in an elegant but simple way some basic ideas that Bach develops to a highly complex degree elsewhere. Once your ears get familiar with those, you can move them on to more complex material, no formal training in theory needed. Mozart, Schumann and Chopin also have piano music written for non-advanced students that will introduce you to their ideas in a less difficult way. Bartok has his wonderful Mikrokosmos and For Children.

One thing I sometimes forget about people here is that many of you didn't have the basic training in music that I had as a child. You come to classical music in your late teens or adulthood, and immediately go to the Goldberg Variations, or late Beethoven string quartets, or Bartok, or Schoenberg, or Boulez, or even John Cage (shudder!) and are mystified. Some of the more analytical or methodical, like Art Rock or mmsbls, patiently work their way through books, even though it is your ears that need training, not your eyes, and books tend to arrange things in chronological or alphabetical order, rather in the order needed to train your ears. But to each their own. Art Rock and mmsbls, and others here seem to have succeeded their way. If that isn't working for you, consider my first paragraph above.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

wormcycle said:


> That's a great example how knowledge of music theory may hurt you enjoyment of great, emotional music.
> Goldberg variations is an obvious example but to have no interest in something like Andante con variazioni from Beethoven violin sonata No 9? That looks like a problem to me.


Many listeners don't like music theory. They imagine it to be just the opposite of what they want out of music. They'll say over and over I haven't had any music theory and I'm just fine.

I can't think of another field in which this attitude is at all constructive. But maybe with music or other arts it's justified.. Or is it just the point that we need to be 'nice' to each other, as fellow music fans? Music should be escapist and not an unwinnable challenge.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Luchesi said:


> I can't think of another field in which this attitude is at all constructive.


That's so right. "I have no clue at all how it works, but I like it ..." ... strange enough.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Bach’s intended audience were mostly amateur musicians - as some amount of musical training was standard education for the elites at the time. The theory they would have known was some basic figured bass and part writing rules. More importantly, they had ears attuned to the style - no different than an experienced listener today - that could hear the lines, not that they could identify exactly what was happening ‘theoretically’. Also Bach did not think in terms of Roman numeral analysis, roots of inversions - staples of how theory gets taught today


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Philidor said:


> That's the point, thank you! It is not about doing some intellectual exercise, it is about recognizing more that sets your emotions on fire.


Reminds me, I can twist the Mahler quote;

The analytical tradition is not for the worship of ashes - but for the exploration and preservation of fire!
Gustav Mahler


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> If one is blessed with an innate appreciation for the arts, knowledge of music theory is not necessary, but I imagine that it likely deepens one's admiration for well composed music.


For me it's similar to craftsmanship in something like film- the good stuff works whether or not you have theoretical knowledge or not. You don't need to know what montage, cross-cutting, match-cutting etc are to experience the effects.

That said the AOF's status as a pedagogical work does raise questions. Is it "wrong" to appreciate it on an emotional/aesthetic level?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fbjim said:


> That said the AOF's status as a pedagogical work does raise questions. Is it "wrong" to appreciate it on an emotional/aesthetic level?


No, of course not. I find the work to be beautiful; and the nature of Bach's contrapuntal ingenuity only makes it more so.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

wormcycle said:


> That's a great example how knowledge of music theory may hurt you enjoyment of great, emotional music.
> Goldberg variations is an obvious example but to have no interest in something like Andante con variazioni from Beethoven violin sonata No 9? That looks like a problem to me.


To me, that Andante is one of the most wonderful, beautiful and glorious things in all classical music (as are the Goldberg Variations). I play it all the time, even though I don't have and have never seen the sheet music (sorry, Luchesi!) How about that minor key variation? Talk about ingenious simplicity.
I don't really understand threads like this, but any discussion involving that Beethoven Andante con variazioni is worthwhile. Another great Beethoven Andante with variations is in the Op. 25 Serenade. In his own take on that Serenade, Op. 77a, Max Reger has an utterly beautiful Andante with variations that expands on the Beethoven original in a complex and elaborate way. Too complex for me to play by ear, even though I've performed it many times. But I think anyone thoroughly familiar with the Beethoven Op. 25 will be able to appreciate the Reger Op. 77a. And it isn't such a big step from that Reger Serenade to Hindemith's chamber music, such as the Kleine Kammermusik Op. 24. And so forth.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> To me, that Andante is one of the most wonderful, beautiful and glorious things in all classical music (as are the Goldberg Variations). I play it all the time, even though I don't have and have never seen the sheet music (sorry, Luchesi!)


Wow, very good.
But you're trying to help mere mortals in here..


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

That Beethoven Andante main theme is very simple. Anyone here who can sing at all could soon learn to sing it. Anyone who can play an instrument could soon learn to play the (deceptively) simple variations (most of them, anyway). Beethoven did it that way intentionally, for the dramatic contrast with the outer movements. In my first post, I mentioned piano works for children, or at least no more than intermediate students, by Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Schumann and Bartok.

Great music need not be complex. These composers and others left us wonderful introductions to their musical worlds. Rather than sarcastically responding that my suggestions are of no use for "mere mortals", why not give them a try? Start simple and gradually move your way up to Bach's Goldberg Variations, Mozart's Piano Concerto no. 27, Beethoven's Op. 111 Sonata, Chopin's Sonata no. 2, Schumann's Davidsbündlertänze, Liszt's Années de pèlerinage, Bartok's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta, etc., etc.

There is no reason those who start listening to classical music as adults shouldn't begin with the basics as well-taught children do, and many good reasons to do so.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> That Beethoven Andante main theme is very simple. Anyone here who can sing at all could soon learn to sing it. Anyone who can play an instrument could soon learn to play the (deceptively) simple variations (most of them, anyway). Beethoven did it that way intentionally, for the dramatic contrast with the outer movements. In my first post, I mentioned piano works for children, or at least no more than intermediate students, by Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Schumann and Bartok.
> 
> Great music need not be complex. These composers and others left us wonderful introductions to their musical worlds. Rather than sarcastically responding that my suggestions are of no use for "mere mortals", why not give them a try? Start simple and gradually move your way up to Bach's Goldberg Variations, Mozart's Piano Concerto no. 27, Beethoven's Op. 111 Sonata, Chopin's Sonata no. 2, Schumann's Davidsbündlertänze, Liszt's Années de pèlerinage, Bartok's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta, etc., etc.
> 
> There is no reason those who start listening to classical music as adults shouldn't begin with the basics as well-taught children do, and many good reasons to do so.


I was saying that you're so expert with Brahms and Bach (details), can you relate to a new listener of CM? You probably have a mode of thinking for where they are.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> I was saying that you're so expert with Brahms and Bach (details), can you relate to a new listener of CM? You probably have a mode of thinking for where they are.


I started out as a new listener to CM. I'm still a new listener for any new genre of music I find. Many here are more expert than I in those other genres, and in some cases CM too. Being an expert isn't the point here. It just isn't. I don't know how else to put it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> I started out as a new listener to CM. I'm still a new listener for any new genre of music I find. Many here are more expert than I in those other genres, and in some cases CM too. Being an expert isn't the point here. It just isn't. I don't know how else to put it.


Good answer. 
It's just a foreign subject for me. I need to know the objective workings. I don't think of music as somehow different from a practical science, like backyard astronomy or a weather hobby. The rewards are great for so little effort.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

EvaBaron said:


> Do you enjoy these works because you understand the compositional brilliance and intelligence of the works of because you just like what you hear?


To take one of Bach's technical pieces, _The Musical Offering_, I can hear for example the theme and variations. I can appreciate at least that aspect. Its not as immediately attractive as say his violin concertos - still my desert island pieces by Bach - but its still among my favourites. I like how the parts relate to the whole. I even made the effort to go hear it live in concert.

I first heard it years ago on radio, and when I went into a store to buy a copy, the sales staff almost talked me out of it. She was a big fan of Bach, but found the piece too dry. I think that without the trio sontata, it may be so. Its still used for teaching purposes.

One of the things about Bach is that he was a brilliant improviser, and I see his music as improvised music that has been captured and written down. Perhaps this can be said about many different kinds of music, to more or less extent. In this regard, Bach's works which where originally designed for pedagogical purposes can be enjoyed in the same way as his other music. The variations can be seen as many points of departure from the same tune - like improvisations set in stone.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Sid James said:


> To take one of Bach's technical pieces, _The Musical Offering_, I can hear for example the theme and variations. I can appreciate at least that aspect. Its not as immediately attractive as say his violin concertos - still my desert island pieces by Bach - but its still among my favourites. I like how the parts relate to the whole. I even made the effort to go hear it live in concert.
> 
> I first heard it years ago on radio, and when I went into a store to buy a copy, the sales staff almost talked me out of it. She was a big fan of Bach, but found the piece too dry. I think that without the trio sontata, it may be so. Its still used for teaching purposes.
> 
> One of the things about Bach is that he was a brilliant improviser, and I see his music as improvised music that has been captured and written down. Perhaps this can be said about many different kinds of music, to more or less extent. In this regard, Bach's works which where originally designed for pedagogical purposes can be enjoyed in the same way as his other music. The variations can be seen as many points of departure from the same tune - like improvisations set in stone.


The Musical Offering resulted from Bach's greatest patron, King Frederick the Great, giving him a seemingly simple theme to see what he could do with it. The result is fearsomely complex, dense and elaborate, a bit like the Goldberg Variations, both examples of Bach "flexing" (i.e., showing off his prowess), to use a term of today's young 'uns. I've performed the Trio from the Musical Offering many times, and it certainly deserves its place in the canon, but it probably isn't my favorite Bach music either. I too probably prefer the violin concertos, or the English Suites, or the Brandenburg Concertos.

There is a huge range in the Western 18th and 19th century classical music canon from the simplest to the most complex, elaborate large-scale conceptions. Bach's music fully reflects that. But the same is true of any classical art form, or architecture, isn't it? Do you have to be an architect to appreciate the Eiffel Tower or the Parthenon? Isn't the answer a firm "yes and no"? You know they're great, though maybe not exactly why in every detail.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)




----------



## Jedothek (Oct 27, 2017)

No. Music is music. But as with any art, knowledge of technique will increase your enjoyment.


----------



## Fritzb43 (Mar 29, 2020)

justekaia said:


> it is called trolling and when i mention this openly i get a yellow card from our administrators and my post is deleted. So if i answer you clearly my post will be deleted. But the end result is that the thread i mentioned (gold) has been stopped. Thks God. The utter s of the film/classical music thread is another example. There is much to do with such a subject and all we get is trivial comments from the group. The writer of the OP is smart enough and could have had a smash hit with an interesting comparison between film music and classical music, the close links between both etc.
> To be honest with you i also think eva baron's thread about bach is without any interest at all but it will probably continue until the end of the century. It is about time that our members focus on works; meaningful works from the past and the present, instead of all this garbage talk.


Of course you also have the option of simply ignoring any post that offends you. We don't care if you're offended or not.
Even my post is OT, so let us concentrate on the music OK? and dispense with the musical snobbery.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

Fritzb43 said:


> Of course you also have the option of simply ignoring any post that offends you. We don't care if you're offended or not.
> Even my post is OT, so let us concentrate on the music OK? and dispense with the musical snobbery.


I hope one day you will make a positive contribution to TC. I make one a day.


----------



## Laraine Anne Barker (8 mo ago)

wormcycle said:


> That's a great example how knowledge of music theory may hurt you enjoyment of great, emotional music.
> Goldberg variations is an obvious example but to have no interest in something like Andante con variazioni from Beethoven violin sonata No 9? That looks like a problem to me.


We all have holes in our tastes, Edward. My late friend Walter (the only musical friend I have ever had) couldn't stand Bach and I think there was a lot of Beethoven he didn't like. He was a keen Wagner fan, and I hate Wagner. My holes are that I'm not all that keen on the 20th century and can't stand anything after it. I didn't deliberately develop that way. I never knew what I was going to like or dislike when I started collecting LPs. My late middle sister (who joined me in my quest) developed into preferring the big orchestral music of the 19th century (which is where we started from) while my big passion became solo and chamber music. There are Beethoven works I don't like: The thing called Wellington's Victory and the Grosse Fugue. I can't say I care for Mozart's fugues either, though that doesn't include fugal movements in his other works.


----------



## wormcycle (Oct 14, 2020)

Laraine Anne Barker said:


> We all have holes in our tastes, Edward. My late friend Walter (the only musical friend I have ever had) couldn't stand Bach and I think there was a lot of Beethoven he didn't like. He was a keen Wagner fan, and I hate Wagner. My holes are that I'm not all that keen on the 20th century and can't stand anything after it. I didn't deliberately develop that way. I never knew what I was going to like or dislike when I started collecting LPs. My late middle sister (who joined me in my quest) developed into preferring the big orchestral music of the 19th century (which is where we started from) while my big passion became solo and chamber music. There are Beethoven works I don't like: The thing called Wellington's Victory and the Grosse Fugue. I can't say I care for Mozart's fugues either, though that doesn't include fugal movements in his other works.


Bach and a lot Beethoven is not a hole is a crater.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

Knowing music theory might help you notice details in the music that you wouldn't notice from listening casually, but then again, you can also listen to the music closely & look for easy-to-miss details without any knowledge of music theory whatsoever.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

4chamberedklavier said:


> Knowing music theory might help you notice details in the music that you wouldn't notice from listening casually, but then again, you can also listen to the music closely & look for easy-to-miss details without any knowledge of music theory whatsoever.


After working with music theory (analysis) for years you can see the whole achievement on paper in front of you. You can go right to a location of interest (or a challenging section) instead of having to wait for the music to get there.
When the music does get there you're already aware of what's coming and you can better experience the effectiveness of the composer's ideas as you hear the emotional effects they produce. It's so helpful.

The final result is similar to listening to a piece over and over.


----------



## ttc359 (12 mo ago)

"If it sounds good, it IS good." DE
If I hear something 3 times and it still doesn't do anything for me, I'm generally done with it. I dont care what anyone else says. The vast majority of Bach I think is a total bore and is excellent for putting me to sleep. That said, theres maybe 4-6 pieces by him that is at the summit. If it sounds good, it is good! Let your ear be your guide.


----------



## mollig (Nov 20, 2021)

cake said:


> What's the point of "compositional brilliance and intelligence" if I don't like the sounding result?


An interesting question with regard to most "classical" music written in the last century: the stuff most lauded by the critics as groundbreaking and brilliant is met with difference or even aversion by the public. Wherea composers like Shotakovich, derided by many priests of high art as derivative or second-rate, is loved by audiences (and even then not by all).


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

ttc359 said:


> "If it sounds good, it IS good." DE
> If I hear something 3 times and it still doesn't do anything for me, I'm generally done with it. I dont care what anyone else says. The vast majority of Bach I think is a total bore and is excellent for putting me to sleep. That said, theres maybe 4-6 pieces by him that is at the summit. * If it sounds good, it is good! Let your ear be your guide*.


This is a very subjective verdict but maybe useful in practice. To give an example of the opposite: I have let my ears be my guide. This is why I have been occupied with Bach's music for more than fifty years. On the contrary I find Wagner a total bore, excellent to put me to sleep - if it wasn't for the unbearable noise his music makes.


----------



## LKB (Jul 27, 2021)

EvaBaron said:


> Sometimes when I read about works of Bach like the Goldberg variations or the art of fugue it dazzles me. They seem very complex and have all sorts of smart use of counterpoint, harmony, variations and canon’s that I feel like I just shouldn’t start listening to them because I will never be able to understand how brilliant the music actually is just by listening to it because the music is so intelligent and I don’t know a lot about all the terms being used in these articles. So another question would be (apart from the title): Do you enjoy these works because you understand the compositional brilliance and intelligence of the works of because you just like what you hear?


Firstly, I'd suggest the OP avoid using adjectives such as " intelligent " in describing a given work of art. Intelligence is a measure of intellectual capacity, and related specifically to living animals: humans, cetaceans, whatever. It's better to refer to a specific creation as, " intelligently constructed ".

Now as regards the main point, I'd opine that any music lover will benefit from knowing some theory, or at least the ability to read music. About ten years ago l knew a guitarist who loved playing his instrument but was unlearned. It so happened that he was a general contractor in construction, and l was able to explain the value of reading music by comparing sheet music to blueprints or plans ( people in the construction industry always refer to blueprints as " plans " ). Once l did that, he agreed that it made sense to have the ability to read music. 

In short: Yes, some background in theory can be helpful when listening to music which employs certain compositional tools such as retrograde, inversion etc. Not vitally important for _enjoying_ the music, but helpful in understanding what is happening at the technical level.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

First man made music. Then thousands of years later he invented notation. 

Q.E.D.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

mollig said:


> An interesting question with regard to most "classical" music written in the last century: the stuff most lauded by the critics as groundbreaking and brilliant is met with difference or even aversion by the public. Wherea composers like Shotakovich, derided by many priests of high art as derivative or second-rate, is loved by audiences (and even then not by all).


Well the public primarily consists of morons. Your guide to quality should be what pieces top tier musicians devote their time to perform. Shostakovich for sure, but also most all the modernist composers you are trying to throw shade on here.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

LKB said:


> Firstly, I'd suggest the OP avoid using adjectives such as " intelligent " in describing a given work of art. Intelligence is a measure of intellectual capacity, and related specifically to living animals: humans, cetaceans, whatever. It's better to refer to a specific creation as, " intelligently constructed ".
> 
> Now as regards the main point, I'd opine that any music lover will benefit from knowing some theory, or at least the ability to read music. About ten years ago l knew a guitarist who loved playing his instrument but was unlearned. It so happened that he was a general contractor in construction, and l was able to explain the value of reading music by comparing sheet music to blueprints or plans ( people in the construction industry always refer to blueprints as " plans " ). Once l did that, he agreed that it made sense to have the ability to read music.
> 
> In short: Yes, some background in theory can be helpful when listening to music which employs certain compositional tools such as retrograde, inversion etc. Not vitally important for _enjoying_ the music, but helpful in understanding what is happening at the technical level.


Do you think the time it takes to learn to read music is shorter (or longer) than learning to read words and sentences at a useful level? I find that students (and especially adult beginners) underestimate the amount of time and practice, and therefore they have difficulty and assume it's their fault.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

ttc359 said:


> "If it sounds good, it IS good." DE
> If I hear something 3 times and it still doesn't do anything for me, I'm generally done with it. I dont care what anyone else says. The vast majority of Bach I think is a total bore and is excellent for putting me to sleep. That said, theres maybe 4-6 pieces by him that is at the summit. If it sounds good, it is good! Let your ear be your guide.


Which are the 4-6 pieces of Bach that you save?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

mollig said:


> An interesting question with regard to most "classical" music written in the last century: the stuff most lauded by the critics as groundbreaking and brilliant is met with difference or even aversion by the public. Wherea composers like Shotakovich, derided by many priests of high art as derivative or second-rate, is loved by audiences (and even then not by all).


I find it hard to relate to this. There has been so much, and such varied, music since 1922 and critical opinion is generally receptive to the breadth that is there. To take composers from earlier in this period many composers are established and widely appreciated by audiences with some experience of classical music: Shostakovich, who you mention, is widely admired by critics as is Prokofiev and Bartok and Stravinsky and Britten and Schoenberg and Berg and Webern. It is simply not true to say that their music meets with aversion from even only slightly experienced music lovers. What is making you say that the public hate most of them? Do you just mean that you do? 

Coming to more recent times, the cutting edge and distinctive composers - the ones whose names will join the list - may be less welcomed by audiences. I guess it is critics job to draw our attention to them. But many are really becoming quite popular - for example, composers as diverse as Adams and Ligeti - while others are widely known and loved by those with more highbrow musical tastes. There are also lowbrow composers but I suspect they will mostly be forgotten in fifty years.


----------

