# Composers that require effort from the listener's end



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

Admittedly, this topic is about as subjective as it gets. For every person who feels like a certain composer needs time & effort to come around to them, there's someone else whom it clicks with instantly.

The premise can seem a bit inane too. If I like something, then I should just like it right? I shouldn't have to force myself to like it. This isn't groundless, but I don't think it's necessarily true either. You could try and try with a composer or still not like, or do put the effort in and have them finally click. It all really depends.

I think some composers are definitely more accessible than other. Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach go without saying, then you have others like Chopin or the intense drama of Mahler and Wagner. Other composers you have to dig a little deeper.

Here's my personal takes:

*Bruckner *

Long, repetitive. Not a colorful or flashy orchestrator the way you'd expect if your aural palate is pampered by the lushness of Mahler, Brahms, or Dvorak and can seem uninspired or bland at first. Builds ideas very methodically and gradually. The stop-go transitions can seem abrupt. Takes multiple listens to grasp all the subtle nuances.

*Bax*

Lacks cohesion, can meander. Has virtually no surface appeal. No catchy melodies. All of Bax's appeal is concentrated in the colorful palette he paints with, the soundscapes, and the texture and expression. One of the last bastions of late romanticism in the 20th century.

*Webern*

Doesn't take a genius to point out why. Amelodic, extreme brevity of his works, apparent arbitrary randomness until you really become familiar with his style. I'd be shocked if anyone listened to Webern and immediately got it on the first listen, without really knowing his musical philosophy and method and what he was going for.

*Hindemith*

Not very colorful music. On the contrary, he's very monochrome. No surface appeal or distinct memorable melodies that grab you. Sort of like Bax (but in a wholly different way), the appeal of his music is concentrated elsewhere. I'm not trying to diminish the gift of melodically inspired composers and melody driven compositions, but music can 100% succeed without it. I find Hindemith incredibly impressive and inventive.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Admittedly, this topic is about as subjective as it gets. For every person who feels like a certain composer needs time & effort to come around to them, there's someone else whom it clicks with instantly.
> 
> The premise can seem a bit inane too. If I like something, then I should just like it right? I shouldn't have to force myself to like it. This isn't groundless, but I don't think it's necessarily true either. You could try and try with a composer or still not like, or do put the effort in and have them finally click. It all really depends.


This is very true, and an interesting discussion. Generally the more famous the composer or the work, the more I am willing to try to get into the music. But sometimes it never clicks.



> *Bruckner *
> 
> Long, repetitive. Not a colorful or flashy orchestrator the way you'd expect if your aural palate is pampered by the lushness of Mahler, Brahms, or Dvorak and can seem uninspired or bland at first. Builds ideas very methodically and gradually. The stop-go transitions can seem abrupt. Takes multiple listens to grasp all the subtle nuances.


Don't agree about the repetitive bit. Intense, personal music. Not meant to be flashy or virtuosic. The challenge is taking the time to listen.



> *Hindemith*
> 
> Not very colorful music. On the contrary, he's very monochrome. No surface appeal or distinct memorable melodies that grab you. Sort of like Bax (but in a wholly different way), the appeal of his music is concentrated elsewhere. I'm not trying to diminish the gift of melodically inspired composers and melody driven compositions, but music can 100% succeed without it. I find Hindemith incredibly impressive and inventive.


What then is the appeal of his music? I'm not sure that I see any.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I think some composers are definitely more accessible than other. Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach go without saying, then you have others like Chopin or the intense drama of Mahler and Wagner. Other composers you have to dig a little deeper.


In my experience I haven't found Bach as easily accessible but I found Wagner to be easy. I think it also depends on what you listen to first by a composer. With Mozart I initially started with his overtures which are not his greatest pieces so you may get the impression that this is the level of all his music.

I have long listened to Brahms and Mahler and still don't think they're great. Whereas I have come to like Chopin more than I used to.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

AndorFoldes said:


> What then is the appeal of his music? I'm not sure that I see any.


Hard for me to describe with words what I find appealing about Hindemith without sounding really generic. I think he's very creative with harmonies and polyphony and that so-called "monochromatic " character of his music is really more just a different palette of sound that has its own interesting character. I take it you're not a fan, and how come?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Two of the most popular pieces by Hindemith, the Symphonic metamorphoses and the Mathis symphony are reasonably colorful. The early "Kammermusiken" (rather small ensemble concertos, not chamber music) have fairly unique ensembles and sounds. I am not saying it is particularly accessible music but for 1920-50s music I'd put Hindemith among the more accessible.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> *Bax*
> 
> Lacks cohesion, can meander. Has virtually no surface appeal. No catchy melodies. All of Bax's appeal is concentrated in the colorful palette he paints with, the soundscapes, and the texture and expression. One of the last bastions of late romanticism in the 20th century.


Bax can be a hard nut to crack, but I find that over time there is cohesion and catchy melodies to his music.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> If I like something, then I should just like it right? I shouldn't have to force myself to like it. This isn't groundless, but I don't think it's necessarily true either. You could try and try with a composer or still not like, or do put the effort in and have them finally click. It all really depends.


There's the dilemma. With all the music out there, is one particular composer worth the effort if he/she doesn't click with you? I've spent the past 30 years with the belief that every composer is worth the effort, and the work I've put in has paid off. But nowadays, I don't have a lot of free time, so I've had to come to terms with the fact that I don't have the time to invest in all the new/unknown composers/pieces that I stumble onto, so I'm more selective.

I've just discovered Scriabin, and that's becoming worth the effort. But it's a little frustrating that I probably won't ever fully appreciate Elliott Carter or Ferneyhough. As they say, ars longa, vita brevis.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I don't believe there is any composer that one needs conscious effort to appreciate the music of. I think it's all whether or not you're initiated to listen to it attentively, and the brain will involuntarily work in making sense as in certain associations, etc. I struggled with every composer at some point, except for the most basic tuneful stuff. The harder ones were probably Mahler and Carter. Never overcame any by putting conscious effort, except in the passive act of listening. I think the emancipation of the dissonance works for both tonal and atonal music. The brain can and will seek out a different sonority throughout the lifetime of a listener. It's all about building on conventions and previous experience. Knowing the forms would help, and even that is gained by experience just by passive, yet attentive listening.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Rhinegold and The first part of Gotterdammerung (Norns and then Act 1) are very physically demanding of the listener. You need stamina. 

Willaert and Gombert really do need you to know the poem they're setting and to thence relish the way they've captured a sentiment in the text of the motet. They demand a sort of verbal literacy. 

Long monophonic stophic songs in languages you don't understand spontaneously really need you to get to grip with the text, otherwise they sound too repetitive to be worth listening to. There are a lot of them in Early music. 

Much immersive music demands the development of a sort of listening skill which many people find challenging -- the ability to hear very small changes and then the affective ability to find a pleasure in that. I'm thinking of things like La Monte Young's second Chinese dream music or Eleane Radigie's Naldjorlak.

There are lots of composers who I don't enjoy, despite having made an effort -- Peter Maxwell Davies's later music is an example, as is most of Liszt's and Wolfgang Rihm's enormous output, or everything ever written by Palestrina. But that's a different thing.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> The premise can seem a bit inane too. If I like something, then I should just like it right? I shouldn't have to force myself to like it. This isn't groundless, but I don't think it's necessarily true either. You could try and try with a composer or still not like, or do put the effort in and have them finally click. It all really depends.


Just from observing my own changing reaction to classical music over the relatively brief time since I've begun listening to it, and the fact that nearly all classical music required some degree of "work" from me at earlier times in my life, I think the fact one doesn't "just like" something at a given time does not mean that they won't like it later. This gives us motivation to "work" towards liking something.

On the other hand, I'm not totally sure whether the evolution of tastes is something that can be directed. One can intentionally expose oneself to the music for long periods of time, and make attempts to understand it (reading history, theory, about the life of the composer, etc.). But, I think we are less in control of this process than we think that we are, and I think that when it's successful it often happens in a manner that doesn't feel like "work" at all, but more of a development and drawing out of an interest that is already there.

By the same token, these attempts can fail purely because of timing. Lately, my favorite is Schumann, but I don't think I could've appreciated it on the same level if I hadn't spent a long time listening to and absorbing Ravel and Debussy beforehand. I try not to push music on friends (though I will describe to them why I like it), because I think that there's no guarantee that "working" to like it, even if they're inclined to try, would be successful at any given time. Everyone is on their own path.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Bax and Hindemith are among my most enjoyable listens. Hindemith's The Harmony of the World is a perennial favorite of mine, but I do understand why most would find it not so palatable.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Aside from Webern, I am indifferent to the other three composers. Actually, I am indifferent to most classical composers. There's about 50 composers whose music I enjoy and that is enough for me.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I reject the premise of this thread. All good music invites and rewards listener effort, whether subtly or overtly. For me, no music is "accessible" or "inaccessible," but rather simply holds my interest or doesn't.

An example of what doesn't: all of that sodden, glurgy piano music Rachmaninoff wrote. Now _that_ sludge is a trial for me to sit through! No thanks. (However, I adore his choral music, so go figure...)

P.S. How the heck anyone can claim with a straight face that the guy who composed _Symphonic Metamorphosis on Themes by Carl Maria von Weber_ writes "monochrome music" baffles me utterly. I'd gladly give up all of Rachmaninoff's indulgent piano music for one single page of Hindemith's Symphony in E-flat!


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

My own experience of introducing classical music to friends suggests that Bach is not as accessible as composers like Strauss Family, Tchaikovsky, Chopin etc. The themes/subjects in his music sometimes can be quite complicated and less tuneful compared with the ones by Vivaldi or Handel for example. Also, the development of the music materials and the structural design in Bach's pieces require considerable knowledge and practice to grasp, which, for me, is one of the important features that made him stand out among his peers. One is more likely to be attracted by Vivaldi's Spring Concerto and its Sonnet, than to follow a Bach violin concerto (lets say the BWV1042). The latter might be quite accessible for classical music fans, but some of my friends find it lengthy and unattractive.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> Aside from Webern, I am indifferent to the other three composers. Actually, I am indifferent to most classical composers. There's about 50 composers whose music I enjoy and that is enough for me.


What changed SA?


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

Knorf said:


> P.S. How the heck anyone can claim with a straight face that the guy who composed _Symphonic Metamorphosis on Themes by Carl Maria von Weber_ writes "monochrome music" baffles me utterly. I'd gladly give up all of Rachmaninoff's indulgent piano music for one single page of Hindemith's Symphony in E-flat!


I don't equate monochrome with "bland". I don't think his music is as conventionally colorful or attractive, that's all. 

As for the premise of the thread, I definitely am steadfast in believing some music is more accessible than others. The more accessible music is not more shallow nor does it not invite less effort, but it's certainly easier to get into.


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Admittedly, this topic is about as subjective as it gets. For every person who feels like a certain composer needs time & effort to come around to them, there's someone else whom it clicks with instantly.
> 
> The premise can seem a bit inane too. If I like something, then I should just like it right? I shouldn't have to force myself to like it. This isn't groundless, but I don't think it's necessarily true either. You could try and try with a composer or still not like, or do put the effort in and have them finally click. It all really depends.
> 
> I think some composers are definitely more accessible than other. Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach go without saying, then you have others like Chopin or the intense drama of Mahler and Wagner. Other composers you have to dig a little deeper.


The premise isn't inane as a lot of people here seem to be advocates of, as you say, trying and trying, putting in the effort and then having it finally click, whatever that means to them. For me, this is a pointless exercise. I'm not going to rewire myself in an attempt to "get" a composer I don't like. Your reference to Mahler and Wagner is a good example. I do not feel the need to try and try again with either. There is way too much other stuff out there. (And I'm not just talking about the old guys - I'm not spending anymore time with Enno Poppe either.)


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> As for the premise of the thread, I definitely am steadfast in believing some music is more accessible than others. The more accessible music is not more shallow nor does it not invite less effort, but it's certainly easier to get into.


I disagree. Outside of sheer attention span, "accessible" typically means only "music that sounds like stuff I already know." I.e. dependent on the listener's subjective experience and not inherently a characteristic of the music.

Again, for me, inaccessible and accessible have no meaning, simply because I am always willing to embrace music that sounds little or not at all like music I already know.

ETA: and really?! You'd state for all to read that you think _Symphonic Metamorphosis on Themes of Weber_ *isn't* colorful?! 

Maybe there's just a musical version of colorblind...


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

I don`t like the term "monochrome" for Hindemith either. But I think I have an idea on what the OP is meaning by it. Hindemith does not give you a full rainbow of colours in a single work like Stravinsky or Ravel. However he gives you a single main colour and every single shades, every single undertones related to it. So it is highly chromatic but not in the way one might think.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

For me the composers I had the most trouble with understanding were: Schoenberg, Webern and Carter. Now they are among my favorites.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> What changed SA?


I don't know what you mean. Nothing has really changed, Webern is has always been on my list but the other three have never interested me. I am still curious about new music and composers but I haven't heard something that would crack my list of ~50. The most recent composer I've added was Krzysztof Meyer.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

Knorf said:


> I disagree. Outside of sheer attention span, "accessible" typically means only "music that sounds like stuff I already know." I.e. dependent on the listener's subjective experience and not inherently a characteristic of the music.
> 
> Again, for me, inaccessible and accessible have no meaning, simply because I am always willing to embrace music that sounds little or not at all like music I already know.
> 
> ...


Really? Of course, it is always dependent on ones background what they're already familiar with, and is also incredibly subjective as stated in the OP, but I think some styles are a bit more 'enigmatic' for lack of a better word. Xennakis and Boulez are much more challenging and inacessible than Vivaldi. I'm not even talking about the music being "deeper" or more intellectual, as those are very wishy washy subjective statements, but the Vivaldi is much more accesible based on the respective nature of both musics themselves.

As for Hindemith, I don't even think of Symphonic Metamorphosis as particularly colorful. Hindemith is great at milking all sorts of interesting texture and timbre, but in a way that doesnt technicolor the way Ravel or DeBussy does. I think Highwayman describes it well. The "color" is subtle and understated, which is precisely what I like about it. If you'll indulge a silly analogy, male cardinals are very red and vibrant to attract mates whereas female cardinals are comparitively more "dull" and understated, but just as beautiful in a different way. The former is Tchaikovsky and the latter is like Hindemith, but that's just my brain's interpretation.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Xennakis and Boulez are much more challenging and inacessible than Vivaldi. I'm not even talking about the music being "deeper" or more intellectual, as those are very wishy washy subjective statements, but the Vivaldi is much more accesible based on the respective nature of both musics themselves.


Nope. Vivaldi is only "more accessible" because most people have heard more music like it. Boulez and Xenakis (note spelling) are inherently neither more "intellectual" or "demanding" . If anything, the opposite is true at least for Xenakis, because the dramatic trajectory of his music is typically very direct, even primal. It's not hard to get, at all, at least with an open ear.

Children are my proof. I witnessed my 7-yr old niece dancing around joyfully to Boulez, when the _Four Seasons_ left her bored. Without prejudice, she was attracted to Boulez's color and rhythmic energy. She loved it, in fact, and cheered at the end.

I've played tons of music for children, including the likes of Ligeti, Ruth Crawford, Harbison, and Hindemith, not to mention my own music, and they get into any of that just as easily and quickly as anything "standard." The only issue is attention span, not the complexity of construction, level of chromaticism, difficulty of rhythm, or even dissonance. Children accept any of that. In fact, they love it. Energy and enthusiasm are what they relate to most easily. Tonality is irrelevant.

Thinking the musical language of Boulez or Xenakis is inherently more complex than Vivaldi is solely an issue of familiarity. But then, very, very few fans of Vivaldi have much comprehension at all about the considerable complexities of tonality, figured bass, voice-leading, counterpoint, harmonic progression, or the ritornello form. And it doesn't matter whether they do, either. But the tunes are familiar, as is the harmony and so on, which have had 300 years to be absorbed by culture. It was all novel once. No longer.

In puberty is when the prejudices appear. What is familiar to and accepted by the peer group is good, anything other is bad.

Accessibility is 100% about familiarity or attention span, and little more.

Seriously. Boulez is not more inherently inaccessible than Vivaldi in any meaningful sense.



> As for Hindemith, I don't even think of Symphonic Metamorphosis as particularly colorful. Hindemith is great at milking all sorts of interesting texture and timbre, but in a way that doesnt technicolor the way Ravel or DeBussy does. I think Highwayman describes it well.


Utter rubbish. Hindemith's orchestration is easily as colorful as Ravel or Debussy. Bizarre in my opinion to say otherwise!

_De gustibus non est disputandum_ I suppose.

But really weird. I've literally never encountered anyone saying Hindemith is "monochrome." Like, what?! But ok. Subjectivity is a thing.


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

I believe it is easier to name individual works that are difficult rather than composers, although there are composers, such as Boulez, whose entire output will seem difficult to many music lovers. I tend to think that those who go out of their way to listen to Boulez will probably be open to his musical idiom, therefore, I'm not even sure if that's a good example. 

There is difficult Bach, such as the Art of Fugue, but there is also Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring or the Brandenburg Concertos. Wagner has The Ring, but there is also Siegfried Idyll. The two groups of works I thought of which do require some time and repeated listening, if one wants to consider that "effort," are Bartok's 3rd and 4th String Quartets and Beethoven's late trilogy of string quartets, namely, Op. 130, Op.131 and Op.132. Repetition, an attention span, and an open mind seem to be the relevant factors.

I believe it was Knorf who opined that it depends on what one is used to. I agree. If one starts out listening to Elliot Carter, that person would probably answer the original question differently than one who listens to Mozart first.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I'll add that I have taught music theory and analysis at the undergraduate and graduate levels at university schools of music for 25 years, including modal counterpoint, tonal counterpoint, diatonic and chromatic tonal harmony, voice leading, musical form, chromatic tonal transformations, and post-tonal theory, including "atonality" and serialism, among other topics.

I assure everyone, students learn post-tonal theory way, _way_ more quickly and easily than tonal. It's just significantly more straightforward. Chromatic tonal theory is the most difficult, but tonal counterpoint and diatonic harmony are harder to teach and learn than post-tonal theory. I'm not making this up. It doesn't matter that the music is tons more familiar; to really understand what is going on is more difficult.

Students are often nervous before going into a post-tonal theory course, because of their impression that the music is difficult. But once they're in it, there's typically considerable relief because _it's easier to grasp than tonal theory_. Starting from scratch, getting someone to understand what's going on in Boulez is actually a bit easier than Vivaldi.

By the way, teaching post-tonal ear training isn't more difficult, either. People often assume it will be, but at that point, with a proper pedagogical path, it really isn't.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I agree with Knorf, that the brain doesn't actually work more with more modern composers in the act of listening. I think the effort is only in unlearning past prejudices (music built on say Western triadic tonal harmony), and in becoming ready to be receptive to new and different music. But I also don't think a kid dancing to Boulez is necessarily getting the most out of the music.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

Knorf said:


> Children are my proof. I witnessed my 7-yr old niece dancing around joyfully to Boulez, when the _Four Seasons_ left her bored. Without prejudice, she was attracted to Boulez's color and rhythmic energy. She loved it, in fact, and cheered at the end.
> 
> I've played tons of music for children, including the likes of Ligeti, Ruth Crawford, Harbison, and Hindemith, not to mention my own music, and they get into any of that just as easily and quickly as anything "standard." The only issue is attention span, not the complexity of construction, level of chromaticism, difficulty of rhythm, or even dissonance. Children accept any of that. In fact, they love it. Energy and enthusiasm are what they relate to most easily. Tonality is irrelevant.


I would've never imagined that in a million years. The blank slate of children is really something to behold.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

There's an interesting parallel with fine arts. My wife is a professional artist who paints in an expressionist style, sometimes abstract. Many grown ups visiting our gallery have problems with that (they want a painting to be just like a photograph - incidentally, she can do that, but for her that is not art but crafts). We have also given special tours in our gallery for children (in various age groups between 8 and 16), and they love them for the strong colours and interesting shapes.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Admittedly, this topic is about as subjective as it gets. For every person who feels like a certain composer needs time & effort to come around to them, there's someone else whom it clicks with instantly.
> 
> The premise can seem a bit inane too. If I like something, then I should just like it right? I shouldn't have to force myself to like it. This isn't groundless, but I don't think it's necessarily true either. You could try and try with a composer or still not like, or do put the effort in and have them finally click. It all really depends.
> 
> ...


Just as a joke that has to be explained losing its effectiveness, music that needs to be explained does as well.

I mean, really; the radio is on and you think "Oh, I like that", or you tune to another station.

Now, if you know it's an artist you like, you might even give it an extra minute, or listen a bit more closely, to "benefit of a doubt".

If you *already* like, or at the least appreciate *Webern*'s music, you'll pay attention for a longer time than you might have otherwise. But if it just sounds like arbitrary randomness, and there's no explanation or context, then how can you appreciate it?


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> But I also don't think a kid dancing to Boulez is necessarily getting the most out of the music.


Not less than your average concert goer is getting out of another dull performance of _Four Seasons_.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^ That took me a lot of effort to get. But I think you're right.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Art Rock said:


> There's an interesting parallel with fine arts. My wife is a professional artist who paints in an expressionist style, sometimes abstract. Many grown ups visiting our gallery have problems with that (they want a painting to be just like a photograph - incidentally, she can do that, but for her that is not art but crafts). We have also given special tours in our gallery for children (in various age groups between 8 and 16), and they love them for the strong colours and interesting shapes.


Reminds me of the Monty Python sketch in which Michelangelo tells the Pope, "You don't want an artist. You want a f***ing photographer."


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I would've never imagined that in a million years. The blank slate of children is really something to behold.


There's so much one can learn from them! Adults in general don't give kids enough credit.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

pianozach said:


> Just as a joke that has to be explained losing its effectiveness, music that needs to be explained does as well.
> 
> I mean, really; the radio is on and you think "Oh, I like that", or you tune to another station.
> 
> ...


It took me a hot minute to get into late Webern when I first encountered his music! It needed some time to resonate with me before I truly learned to love it. But I can't generalize my own experience across other people of course. Like I said in the OP, its very, very subjective


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I "got" Webern the first time I heard it.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

With a premise like the OP I expected this thread to be a total bloodbath. I'm really disappointed in the level of civility in the disagreement here. We're better than this!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Generally, the modernists are thought to be "harder to understand", but a lot of modern music is used today as soundtrack for horror film. When watching a horror film, does anyone think the "background music" is hard to understand? So it depends on context.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Knorf said:


> There's so much one can learn from them! Adults in general don't give kids enough credit.


This is very very true. Adults may be more tempered and knowledgeable than children, but children are wiser. I really do believe that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Generally, the modernists are thought to be "harder to understand", but a lot of modern music is used today as soundtrack for horror film. When watching a horror film, _does anyone think the "background music" is hard to understand?_ So it depends on context.


No one thinks that movie music is hard to understand because no one is trying to understand it. They're too busy watching the movie. Sit them down with the music alone and see what they understand.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Generally, the modernists are thought to be "harder to understand", but a lot of modern music is used today as soundtrack for horror film. When watching a horror film, does anyone think the "background music" is hard to understand? So it depends on context.


In fact for me personally Mozart was the "hardest to understand" in the sense that it seemed trivial, too long winded, pointless and utterly boring (I did enjoy Haydn piano sonatas though.) I just didn't have the patience to get to the end of a piece. As far as modernists go, I recall getting acquainted with bits of Schoenberg played by Uchida in concert and having instant pleasure, and Webern by Richter, in the same way and same for for Stockhausen's Donnerstag aus Licht in a concert, and Birtwistle's Sir Gawain at Covent Garden. I don't know if Bartok's quartets are "modern" but if so, same there.

I'm not saying there's any rhyme or reason in any of this, just reporting how I recall my biography went.

Maybe, just maybe, part of my experience is due to the fact that I became acquainted with these pieces in live performance - where you can't just turn off the sound without walking out, and where you have the theatre, the circus, of performance, to help you understand.

(Re Mozart, I'll report that the last thing I saw was Cosi fan Tutte, and I felt exactly the same as I did when I was a kid, at least about the hour or so of boring, pointless music I had to suffer after coming back from the interval! It gets better at the end, and the first half is cool.)


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> This is very very true. Adults may be more tempered and knowledgeable than children, but children are wiser. I really do believe that.


The kids you're around with are much different than those I'm around.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

"Composers that require effort from the listener's end?"

Almost all of them. Unless you want to reduce yourself to "light classics", "pops" material or classical radio breakfast/brunch Baroque bill-of-fare (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that); a deeper and more profound level of enjoyment takes some effort. As much as I love classical music, I also like pop music, popular songs, Broadway, Show-Tunes, and Country music; but even when I listen to my most favorite popular songs over and over again, after a while it starts to grate. Classical music to me, is just the opposite; the more I hear a certain symphony, concerto, piano work, chamber work, or vocal work by the likes of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, or Schoenberg; the more it makes sense to me, the more I "get" out of it; even if I am left mystified on the first, second, or third hearings. And even if I'm not mystified, and think upon first hearing that the music is awesome; after a few more listens I may even get more out of it, and hear things I didn't quite grasp the first or second time around. I'm a big believer that you get out of things what you put into things. It's like playing chess and having the patience to practice, and follow sound development and complete your calculations when making your moves; or gardening where you prepare the soil, prune the plants, and have the patients to allow the sun and the rain to make the plants grow.

When I first started listening to classical music as a teenager in the early 1980s I was drawn to Beethoven, Wagner, Richard Strauss, and Shostakovich; and while I still like them now; I now like them for different reasons than I did back then, because each time I listen I hear new things even after all these years. Composers I didn't really like very much, like Mozart, who I thought was "pretty but dull" Brahms who I thought was thick and austere; and Stravinsky and Schoenberg who (except for Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ and _Ebony Concerto_) completely mystified me; are now all favorites of mine. And as different as Mozart, Brahms, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg are from one another, I now see each one as a master craftsman who I've come to know and love.

Effort is always very important. People who make things look "effortless" are usually the ones who put in the most effort.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Coach G said:


> Effort is always very important. People who make things look "effortless" are usually the ones who put in the most effort.


There's a great Italian word for this: "sprezzatura."

The Italian writer who coined this word, one Baldassare Castiglione, defined it thus:
"a certain nonchalance, so as to conceal all art and make whatever one does or says appear to be without effort and almost without any thought about it...an easy facility in accomplishing difficult actions which hides the conscious effort that went into them...The great virtue of _sprezzatura_ is that it implies a greatness unseen, a potential implicit in its very subtleties and flaws, a strength held in reserve..."


----------



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

Pettersson requires effort. Even a relatively accessible work like the 7th Symphony.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

maestro267 said:


> Pettersson requires effort. Even a relatively accessible work like the 7th Symphony.


Agreed. Listeners who require some lighter moments or comic relief in their symphonies should probably apply elsewhere. His music isn't exactly filled to the brim with rainbows and unicorns.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Admittedly, this topic is about as subjective as it gets. For every person who feels like a certain composer needs time & effort to come around to them, there's someone else whom it clicks with instantly.
> 
> The premise can seem a bit inane too. If I like something, then I should just like it right? I shouldn't have to force myself to like it. This isn't groundless, but I don't think it's necessarily true either. You could try and try with a composer or still not like, or do put the effort in and have them finally click. It all really depends.
> 
> I think some composers are definitely more accessible than other. Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach go without saying, then you have others like Chopin or the intense drama of Mahler and Wagner. Other composers you have to dig a little deeper.


Some music is like an acquired taste, but it is no more or less valid than more mainstream music. Who would blame someone for liking 90 per cent cocoa chocolate? Just because few people like it doesn't mean it can't be liked.

I think that a basic grasp of aesthetics is a useful aid to the enjoyment of any art, including music. What might at first glance appear to be a limitation of the music can, with some understanding of the composer's intentions, be viewed as its main strength. The pared down and linear neo-classical idiom practised by Hindemith during the 1920's, for example, can sound dry and technical. However, it can make sense when understood in light of the composer's intention to create functional music (_Gebrauchsmusik_) originally designed for teaching purposes.

Given a certain amount of experience, listeners will develop their own preferences. They will have reasons for listening to certain types of music and not others. Somewhat related to this is Warren Burt's article "Ways of listening - an incomplete catalogue" (pages 96-103 of the following link). He lists over a dozen different ways of listening, ranging from the highly structured to the unconscious.

https://issuu.com/iscm/docs/iscm_wnmd_magazine_sydney_2010

I think he makes a great point on p. 102:

"Intolerance can often result from applying the wrong listening template to a given work. A trivial example of this might be a conservative Western musician who insists that all activities involving the use of acoustic musical instruments, from whatever culture, be heard in terms of European traditional (1550-1950) harmony."

You can substitute conservative with radical or any other ideology which, when sought to be imposed as universal, has a limiting effect. A more effective method is to try and appreciate each piece of music on its own terms, and this need need not conflict with his or her particular set of preferences, whatever they may be.

Years ago, a friend of mine invited me to a swish restaurant and treated me to a meal including one of the most expensive dishes on the menu. He did say it was an acquired taste, and although I didn't enjoy it I politely consumed it. His response was to add more of it to my plate, and I ate as much as I could tolerate. I realise his good intentions, but since that time I've had no inclination to becoming one of the select few who can enjoy that dish. This is not taking into account the fact that I can't afford it on a regular basis anyway. I wouldn't touch it again, even if I could.

Every listener's journey in music is unique. Listeners will inevitably develop their own strategies to deal with music which is initially challenging. That's different from force feeding, which is in effect negating your own needs and trying to copy someone else's journey. The problem is, you're not them. You can try to step into their shoes for a moment and try to experience what they're experiencing. Chances are that you won't react the same way as they do, and that's perfectly normal.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Knorf said:


> I assure everyone, students learn post-tonal theory way, _way_ more quickly and easily than tonal. It's just significantly more straightforward. Chromatic tonal theory is the most difficult, but tonal counterpoint and diatonic harmony are harder to teach and learn than post-tonal theory.


I am not sure if this is very important for the reception of music. Pre-impressionist academic painting is technically far harder than almost any other style of painting since then but for most people the realistic pictures produced by this style and method are "easy" whereas a lot of later visual art is not.

Similarly, listeners do not come to any music without background. The background in the Western world today is usually tonal popular music (or nursery/children songs) or additionally maybe some film music.

Finally, attention span is not a secondary factor; I'd say it is probably a central factor that hinders appreciation of classical music, especially if the sounds are so unfamiliar that it is hard to "latch on" to someting.

So while in theory, abstracting from preconditions it is probably true that to really appreciate Vivaldi is not easier than Boulez, it's just the fact that _almost nobody starts from scratch_. And many of the starting points make Vivaldi or Dvorak for many listeners easier than Boulez. One can of course always "cherry pick" and find something like one of Ligeti's Etudes or so that are short, spectacular and "cool" sounding and probably as accessible for many as anything else. 
So in brief, I don't think it is very helpful in practice to insist on everything being roughly equally accessible or difficult.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I guess any music can "require effort," at least in the sense that we can put effort into listening to it more attentively, or into learning more about its structures, values, and history. 

But in terms of "effort to reach enjoyment," I haven't found very much music in the classical tradition difficult. Boring is the worst I could say of any of it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> No one thinks that movie music is hard to understand because no one is trying to understand it. They're too busy watching the movie. Sit them down with the music alone and see what they understand.


O RLY? :angel: But here's how I do it; when listening to that sort of stuff, I just picture or imagine in my mind "horror, strange or grotesque scenes" that I feel are appropriate to the music,
then it all makes sense, and I wonder "what else is there to "understand"?"

For instance, I think




is essentially like





 (18:30)




in effect



Mandryka said:


> In fact for me personally Mozart was the "hardest to understand" in the sense that it seemed trivial, too long winded, pointless and utterly boring (I did enjoy Haydn piano sonatas though.)
> (Re Mozart, I'll report that the last thing I saw was Cosi fan Tutte, and I felt exactly the same as I did when I was a kid, at least about the hour or so of boring, pointless music I had to suffer after coming back from the interval! It gets better at the end, and the first half is cool.)


You forgot to say at the end:



Mandryka said:


> I've had enough of trolling. Good night.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> I am not sure if this is very important for the reception of music.


Apparently you missed that this is precisely my point.

My thesis is that the degree to which "accessibility" is meaningful is dependent on _familiarity_ and _attention span_, and little else, certainly not any objective assessment of complexity, whether apparent or real.

I'll repeat: the technical comprehension or understanding of music to any degree of complexity is _not_ a significant factor in terms of accessibility. But such is often used a cudgel against 20th-c. music, arising from an assumption-one that springs from non-familiarity-that this music is more complex, therefore harder to understand, and therefore less accessible than common-practice tonality. That assumption is a false one.

I reached the point where "accessibility" had no meaning to me decades ago, literally, when I was in my late-teens and early 20s. At that time there was tons of music I enjoyed without anything like a deep understanding of what was really going on, and that includes the supposedly "thorniest" or most "avant-garde" music of the 1950s-60s. And frankly, this is still true: there is still much music I enjoy without understanding it particularly deeply (mainly because I just haven't gotten around to taking a closer look.) And there is music I understand very well indeed and can barely stand.



> Pre-impressionist academic painting is technically far harder than almost any other style of painting since then but for most people the realistic pictures produced by this style and method are "easy" whereas a lot of later visual art is not.


Irrelevant.

Music theory is taught to music majors at schools of music so that they can understand the music they perform on a deeper level, ideally with the purpose that they can then use that understanding to assist in making informed interpretive decisions in their own performances. It is not in the first place about teaching composition; that is a very different discipline-but one I have also taught since the early 1990s.

Composition is typically employed as a tool to teach theory, but is not the end goal of teaching music theory. Music theory is typically employed as a tool to teach composition, but is not the end goal of teaching composition.

In other words, I was not talking about whether it's easier to _compose_ in the style of Brahms versus the style of Boulez. As far as that goes, to truly compose like either of those masters is beyond difficult. Their styles are both inimitable.

But in terms of getting to a reasonable understanding (for informed performance interpretation or "simply" a deeper level of appreciation) of what is going on in that music? It is easier to teach Boulez than Brahms. That's because Brahms comes at the tail end of a long tradition of tonal music, where the threads holding that tradition together are stretched nearly to breaking. To get at all of the implications involved, and how Brahms exploits them, requires much study, and a lot of willingness to accept multiple layers of ambiguity. Boulez severed those ties to create new ones, and the implications are way more straightforward.

Brahms is extremely familiar now, and listeners can skate along with minimal depth of understanding because the tunes are familiar and sound world comforting. It was not always so.



> Similarly, listeners do not come to any music without background. The background in the Western world today is usually tonal popular music (or nursery/children songs) or additionally maybe some film music.


I.e. familiarity. The pillar of my thesis about "accessibility."



> Finally, attention span is not a secondary factor; I'd say it is probably a central factor that hinders appreciation of classical music, especially if the sounds are so unfamiliar that it is hard to "latch on" to someting.


I never said it was "secondary." If we're talking American audiences especially, it's probably the greatest impediment to accessibility there is.



> So in brief, I don't think it is very helpful in practice to insist on everything being roughly equally accessible or difficult.


That's not my thesis.

My thesis is that "accessibility" is all about the mindset of the listener, informed by factors of which _familiarity_ and _attention span_ are the most salient, and not about any inherent quality of the music.

The fact is that the complexities of serialism need not be a factor informing "accessibility" any more than the complexities of double invertible counterpoint over a tonal harmonic progression are, because neither are well comprehended by the audience, nor do they need to be.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Sid James said:


> Some music is like an acquired taste, but it is no more or less valid than more mainstream music. Who would blame someone for liking 90 per cent cocoa chocolate? Just because few people like it doesn't mean it can't be liked.
> 
> I think that a basic grasp of aesthetics is a useful aid to the enjoyment of any art, including music. What might at first glance appear to be a limitation of the music can, with some understanding of the composer's intentions, be viewed as its main strength. The pared down and linear neo-classical idiom practised by Hindemith during the 1920's, for example, can sound dry and technical. However, it can make sense when understood in light of the composer's intention to create functional music (_Gebrauchsmusik_) originally designed for teaching purposes.
> 
> ...


Classical in particular, I believe it's more a matter of training one's ear than acquiring a taste. There was a time when Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, and Stravinsky's Rite of Spring sounded exotic to me. As I gained more understanding of what was actually happening in those pieces, they started sounding as tame as anything by Beethoven or Brahms. My ear is now trained to the point where I can detect themes, and even (gasp) a semblance of melody in atonal music.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> . . .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I find this sort of random juxtaposition irritating.

Whereas *Stockhausen* is pretty much electronic music and musique-concrète, *Dali*'s art is mostly in surrealism, and any correlation between these two styles is tenuous at best, and conflicting at worst.

*Picasso* (who's more of an abstractionist) might be more appropriate visually to be paired with Stockhausen.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I've come to appreciate diverse styles and composers by "active listening", patience and becoming somewhat of an experienced listener in the process... (and yet I've only scratched the surface in many areas). I guess what I'm saying is that I can appreciate a lot, as long as I take the time for it. Effort sounds like something that is required at the gym, or at work...


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

The dissonant stuff. Prokofiev and Bartok took a while. Twelve tone still makes no sense to me.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Opera ... from roughly Late Baroque period onward ... it's that bombastic vocal style (which characterizes it -- or maligns it in my case) that may have evolved to _shout_ above the loudness of the instruments. It's not like vocal styles pre-Classical ... where the acoustics of the abby or cathedral were used to carry voices (very sonorous) or voices captured by microphones and electronics.
So Opera is an "effort" -- because I really like the underlying / accompanying non-vocal music.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Radames said:


> The dissonant stuff. Prokofiev and Bartok took a while. Twelve tone still makes no sense to me.


Love me some *Prokofiev* and *Bartok*.

*12-tone* makes sense to me. But I don't usually enjoy listening to it.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

90% cocoa chocolate is objectively better than the **** that gets marketed to us today. People have such a sugar addiction, sheesh.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

progmatist said:


> Classical in particular, I believe it's more a matter of training one's ear than acquiring a taste. There was a time when Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, and Stravinsky's Rite of Spring sounded exotic to me. As I gained more understanding of what was actually happening in those pieces, they started sounding as tame as anything by Beethoven or Brahms. My ear is now trained to the point where I can detect themes, and even (gasp) a semblance of melody in atonal music.


True, getting used to the sounds and how they're put together is a significant part of it. In a sense, we are talking about the same thing. Increased familiarity with music broadens our understanding of it.

To further explain my chocolate analogy, I think that the full spectrum of classical can be slotted in between two extremes of white chocolate (very sweet) and 90 per cent dark (very bitter). At one extreme we could put say Andre Rieu, at the other something like electronic music. In between, in the milk chocolate category, and at dark 60, 70 and 80 per cent, you could slot in everything else.

Another analogy is a menu. Music has many things to offer, but sometimes what the listener expects isn't in line with what's being offered. This sort of mismatch brings to mind the Fawlty Towers Waldorf Salad episode, where the guest wants an item which is not on the menu - and then is outraged when he doesn't get it immediately.


----------



## golfer72 (Jan 27, 2018)

As far as Bax goes i think you can seperate his chamber and Instrumental works from his orchestral works. I find his solo piano works very accessible and agree his Symphonies require some work to come to terms with. Well worth the time though imo


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"On one occasion Debussy did not hesitate to express his theory in a statement which made a sensation,-for those were the days when musical intellectualism was at its height. In praising Massenet for having understood the true role of a composer-one who does not base his art on calculations-he declared: 'Music should humbly seek to please; within these limits great beauty may perhaps be found. Extreme complication is contrary to art. Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part. Take Leonardo da Vinci; take Mozart: these are the great artists!'"
< The Theories of Claude Debussy, Musicien Français / Léon Vallas / P. 13 >


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I believe all composers require effort from the listener's end. Even if the music appears on the surface to be accessible, IMO, there is something operating on a more subliminal level that can only be extracted with concentrated listening.

My entire life listening to Classical music has been one of digging deeper into the music, especially that written by composers whose music initially I found off-putting - with the eventual realization of what was there that I could love.

My only advice to anyone who is interested in Classical music is to not write off any composer. ON the contrary, spend more time with the music. Listen and re-listen to works which are difficult for you - and you may find that these are the very ones which you end up loving more than your formerly most treasured works.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Maybe the composers who aren't that popular to most, but yet super high-rated on TC. From our latest survey dubbed some of the "most essential composers to listen to":

Bruckner
Wagner
Mahler
Villa-Lobos
Haydn 
Stravinsky


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> I believe all composers require effort from the listener's end. Even if the music appears on the surface to be accessible, IMO, there is something operating on a more subliminal level that can only be extracted with concentrated listening.
> 
> My entire life listening to Classical music has been one of digging deeper into the music, especially that written by composers whose music initially I found off-putting - with the eventual realization of what was there that I could love.
> 
> My only advice to anyone who is interested in Classical music is to not write off any composer. ON the contrary, spend more time with the music. Listen and re-listen to works which are difficult for you - and you may find that these are the very ones which you end up loving more than your formerly most treasured works.


I agree very strongly and especially with the first paragraph. For me almost all classical music acquires life and depth (as in depth of field) only with some repeated listening or effort. If you know the composer well it is much easier but it is still there.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

> Composers that require effort from the listener's end


Yes, I've found this to be the case with my journey in music, though perhaps the statement is incomplete, since it doesn't state what that effort might achieve. Enjoyment? Comprehensive understanding? It also doesn't state what that effort might entail. Research? Multiple listens? Training?

When I decided I wanted to get to know the 'other' symphonies of Beethoven (I already knew the 6th), it required multiple listens, and, perhaps, some shift in the way I listened. The 4th required the most 'effort' as it had the least appeal, and it still holds limited interest.

But is it all subjective? I know others love the 4th, so I know that taste is at play, but do some compositions require less effort simply because they have certain features that make them more accessible?


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Knorf said:


> Apparently you missed that this is precisely my point.
> 
> My thesis is that the degree to which "accessibility" is meaningful is dependent on _familiarity_ and _attention span_, and little else, certainly not any objective assessment of complexity, whether apparent or real.
> 
> I'll repeat: the technical comprehension or understanding of music to any degree of complexity is _not_ a significant factor in terms of accessibility. But such is often used a cudgel against 20th-c. music, arising from an assumption-one that springs from non-familiarity-that this music is more complex, therefore harder to understand, and therefore less accessible than common-practice tonality. That assumption is a false one.


Meh. I've heard this before. Reminds me of Schoenberg's quip that in 50 years time everyone would _also_ be whistling _his_ tunes in the street. Never happened. Turned out everyone was whistling the Beatles 50 years later. The history and development of music simply disagrees with you (to the extent that "accessiblity" is dependent on famliarity and/or attention span). Your assertion simply hasn't played out. So, there's clearly something missing in your philosophy-otherwise teenagers would be listening to Schoenberg and Webern as avidly as any other music. But they don't. They listen to Adele.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

vtpoet said:


> So, there's clearly something missing in your philosophy-otherwise teenagers would be listening to Schoenberg and Webern as avidly as any other music.


Some do listen to Schoenberg and Webern. You are being reductive and painting all young people with too broad a brush.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> Some do listen to Schoenberg and Webern. You are being reductive and painting all young people...


I never said "all young people". But as a broad brush generalization, teenagers listen to Adele (and I write "Adele" figuratively rather than literally, as a synecdoche, lest we get into _that_ whole discussion) and not Schoenberg or Webern. I mean, if you want to quibble, cite your source. I'll cite mine. Namely, any sales figure or top ten chart from the last 50 years.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

vtpoet said:


> I never said "all young people". But as a broad brush generalization, teenagers listen to Adele (and I write "Adele" figuratively rather than literally, as a synecdoche, lest we get into _that_ whole discussion) and not Schoenberg or Webern. I mean, if you want to quibble, cite your source. I'll cite mine. Namely, any sales figure or top ten chart from the last 50 years.


The same is true for all people worldwide, all ages, i.e. only a tiny fraction listen to any Classical music compared to Pop, Rap, and Rock. IMO it doesn't much matter if Schoenberg and Webern make up a minority of Classical music listening.

"Variety is the spice of life." "Different strokes for different folks." "To each his own." "Live and let live."


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> The same is true for all people worldwide, all ages, i.e. only a tiny fraction listen to any Classical music compared to Pop, Rap, and Rock. IMO it doesn't much matter if Schoenberg and Webern make up a minority of Classical music listening.
> 
> "Variety is the spice of life." "Different strokes for different folks." "To each his own." "Live and let live."


Well yeah... which is why I wrote what I wrote.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

vtpoet said:


> Meh. I've heard this before. Reminds me of Schoenberg's quip that in 50 years time everyone would _also_ be whistling _his_ tunes in the street. Never happened. Turned out everyone was whistling the Beatles 50 years later. The history and development of music simply disagrees with you (to the extent that "accessiblity" is dependent on famliarity and/or attention span). Your assertion simply hasn't played out.


But in 1910 or 1920 people weren't whistling Brahms or Reger or Debussy or something else some people who dislike modernity/avantgarde or already 2nd viennese school would appreciate today either. 
They were whistling Lehar or other operetta or Broadway tunes and dances etc.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> But in 1910 or 1920 people weren't whistling Brahms


they weren't?


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Kreisler jr said:


> But in 1910 or 1920 people weren't whistling Brahms or Reger or Debussy or something else some people who dislike modernity/avantgarde or already 2nd viennese school would appreciate today either.
> They were whistling Lehar or other operetta or Broadway tunes and dances etc.


Yes, and? You write that as though we're in disagreement; but the point you're making ultimately undermines Knorf's philosophy no less than my own observations. I agree? I guess?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

vtpoet said:


> Well yeah... which is why I wrote what I wrote.


You seemed to be trying to make the point that the music of Schoenberg and Webern is somehow difficult (as compared to CPT), even possibly "unnatural" to the point of never being able to establish an audience.

If that were not your point, then what was your point?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

It's more that I doubt that Schoenberg was serious about the whistling in he first place. Although he probably hoped his music might become as popular as Brahms or Richard Strauss, he would not expect to be popular like Joh. Strauss (whom he admired!). 

I think there are degrees of accessibility and it seems naive to deny this. 
But it also makes things more confusing if one brings popular music into the mix. 
Sure, one can argue that if only 5% appreciate Brahms' symphonies which is not much compared to the Beatles, it should not be a problem if only 0.5 or 0.005% appreciate Schoenberg's string quartets, who is going to draw a line and where, at 1% or 0.1%? In all cases it will be a small minority compared to the friends of the Beatles or Beyonce.

I do have the suspicion that Knorf and others are "suffering"/benefitting from deformation professionelle, though. I am not a musician, but for me it is without any doubt that there are degrees and overall a wide spectrum of accessibility in music and other arts. (I mean, a lot of our education is based on sorting books, poems etc. into levels of accessibility. We don't give Shakespeare to pupils in primary school etc.)
This does not exactly or simply correlate with complexity or lack of tonality or other straightforward criteria. But there is probably some correlation and one could probably also try to apply some measures of easier/harder pattern recognition from cognitive psychology/physiology to art appreciation/reception. This would be a research project but would probably not yield straightforward results either.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> You seemed to be trying to make the point that the music of Schoenberg and Webern is somehow difficult (as compared to CPT), even possibly "unnatural" to the point of never being able to establish an audience.
> 
> If that were not your point, then what was your point?


This: "accessibility"....is dependent on familiarity and attention span"

Is contradicted not only by the relative popularity of different types of music but by your own post. Like Kreisler said: "[People] were whistling Lehar or other operetta or Broadway tunes and dances etc." Indeed they were. And even after 50 years, nobody was whistling Schoenberg.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Why should only "one side" (namely the listener) matter for aspects such as familiarity and attention span? Aren't such aspects also dependent on the piece, namely that some are short and/or or easy to get familiar with, while others are long and hard to get familiar with? 
And obviously there are feedback loops, such that an attention span can be trained or it can (in a culture with a collective attention deficit disorder) be poor and it is similar with pattern recognition, focus, openness for the not yet familiar. All these cognitive abilities can be developed or they can wither. And different pieces do have different demands on them.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> I do have the suspicion that Knorf and others are "suffering"/benefitting from deformation professionelle, though. I am not a musician, but for me it is without any doubt that there are degrees and overall a wide spectrum of accessibility in music and other arts.


I think it is true that level of exposure or experience with any kind of music will increase the chances of one's making sense of it. This is true for Classical music, including modern Classical music, as well as Jazz, as well as, Rap. I have heard distorted comments about Jazz ("it all sounds the same" - "anything goes" - "no structure") which expose a lack of depth of experience with a wide variety of Jazz, and having listened closely.

My claim is that there is no music which is outside the pale for appreciation and enjoyment. Of course our personal taste is intimately involved, but across humanity there will be an audience for every kind of music there is.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

vtpoet said:


> Meh. I've heard this before. Reminds me of Schoenberg's quip that in 50 years time everyone would _also_ be whistling _his_ tunes in the street. Never happened. Turned out everyone was whistling the Beatles 50 years later. The history and development of music simply disagrees with you (to the extent that "accessiblity" is dependent on famliarity and/or attention span). Your assertion simply hasn't played out. So, there's clearly something missing in your philosophy-otherwise teenagers would be listening to Schoenberg and Webern as avidly as any other music. But they don't. They listen to Adele.


The thing is, Bach's music is at *least* as "complex" as anything from the 20th century onward. Here's the crucial difference to me: I fell in love with Bach's music before I knew anything about counterpoint or fugues or canons at the ninth. I didn't come to an appreciation of Schoenberg and Webern *until* I figured out somewhat what their method was.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

vtpoet said:


> This: "accessibility"....is dependent on familiarity and attention span"
> 
> Is contradicted not only by the relative popularity of different types of music but by your own post. Like Kreisler said: "[People] were whistling Lehar or other operetta or Broadway tunes and dances etc." Indeed they were. And even after 50 years, nobody was whistling Schoenberg.


I don't think this is an important point, since Schoenberg does enjoy a significant audience. Some people find Schoenberg easy others find his music hard. Such are the differences in personal taste and proclivities. I have known people who could whistle his music.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Kreisler jr said:


> I do have the suspicion that Knorf and others are "suffering"/benefitting from deformation professionelle, though.


As I do. I don't doubt Knorf's experience. Why should I? But it does sound as though his experience is drawn from a very distinct and self-selected group. In their case, exposure is all it took. In fairness to Knorf, his statement included the proviso that the acceptance of a given composer's work can't be defined by "any objective assessment of complexity".

Although it's hard to know exactly what is meant by "complexity", I was probably thinking of "_complexity_" in a different sense than Knorpf (in hindsight) or others here. I don't consider fugues or canons (or formalism of that sort) to be a measure of complexity. Schoenberg and Webern are far more "complex" than Bach, as I use the word, because they demand listeners move beyond their "tonal" comfort zone. Listeners are made to accustom themselves to a whole new "language" of music, of harmony and melody. I was just listening to Alban Berg's violin concerto (Faust & Abbado) and I find his language profoundly complex. You could probably count the number of people on one hand who can whistle his concerto That's not a value judgment so much as a measure of the music's "atonal" or "linguistic novelty". No amount of exposure is going to normalize a work like Berg's. The human ear is evolutionarily [sic?] attuned to tonality. We hear it in nearly every language and in nature. Even in foreign languages, we can tell the difference between comity and argument. We can almost universally recognize an animal in distress by its cry. We hear it in ambulance sirens (especially in Germany). There's a reason horror movie soundtracks, like that to John Carpenter's Halloween, is in a minor key. Minor seconds, repeated dissonances, screeching violins etc.... These all raise the hairs on our necks.

And so you get to the music of Schoenberg, Webern, Berg and others of this generation; and their music demands that we actively set aside those instincts and re-calibrate our expectations and learn an utterly new conception of harmony and melody. That's a level of complexity that appears to be beyond, or at least beyond the willingness, of the vast majority of music listeners. They prefer Adele.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

vtpoet said:


> Yes, and? You write that as though we're in disagreement; but the point you're making ultimately undermines Knorf's philosophy no less than my own observations. I agree? I guess?


It certainly does_does not_ undermine my point at all; it's one of the planks used to construct it.

Popular music is 100% a product designed to maximize profitability based on the most comfortingly familiar antecedents, a musical version of fast food.

Before mass media, there was nothing equivalent; the closest would be folk music. Mass media allowed for a commodification of music to an extant previously impossible and frankly inconceivable. By and large, what we term "classical music" has always been an extremely small part of the broader mass media industry, with extremely fleeting, few and far between "hits".

Those teens humming Adele or whomever aren't humming Beethoven's Fifth, either. But this is not a comment on Beethoven's accessibility, only of the power of peer groups and of fitting in, in accordance with the fashion of the times, now expanded multiple magnitudes beyond what would have ever been possible or imaginable before mass media. Adele's popularity is inseparable from this, and will rise and fall accordingly.

And it has nothing to do _inherent_ complexity or accessibility, only fashion and familiarity, as with all pop culture.

In other words, the relative popularity of a piece of music is a consideration orthogonal from its inherent complexity.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Knorf said:


> Popular music is 100% a product designed to maximize profitability based on the most accessible and comfortingly familiar antecedents, a musical version of fast food.


As distinguished from your average 18th century opera, piano sonata, symphony...how exactly?



Knorf said:


> But this is not a comment on Beethoven's accessibility, only of the power of peer groups and of fitting in, in accordance with the fashion of the times...


I guess I give teens more credit than you do. Their nose for good music is every bit as sharp as yours or mine. But anyway, the point I am making is that if your initial assertion were true, that "_accessibility....is dependent on familiarity and attention span_", then 100 years of exposure to Schoenberg would have today's teens whistling his tunes in the street. That hasn't happened. Clearly, there's more to it than just familiarity and attention span. It's a sort of chicken and egg dilemma I suppose. In order for there to be familiarity, there has to be exposure and an attention span, but in order for ones attention span to be engaged, there has to be a certain level of familiarity-that initial appeal. If you were to expose your average high school class to Berg or Schoenberg for a year on end (rather than self-selected students deliberately in your class to study music) you might be lucky to have one student with any desire to listen to them ever again. Again, that's not to put down the music (the odds might be higher for Bach or Mozart but not a lot) but to fundamentally disagree with your assumption.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> Turned out everyone was whistling the Beatles 50 years later.





Knorf said:


> Popular music is 100% a product designed to maximize profitability based on the most comfortingly familiar antecedents, a musical version of fast food.


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

The discussion has veered, as it often does, towards the Beatles. To inject a modicum of common sense: 1. All good classical music requires effort on the part of the listener. 2. Good listeneres are richly rewarded. 3. Bruckner, Mahler, other late romantics with their complex language are richly rewarding, as are Tallis and Josquin - and any other real composer. 4. Atonal (and other modern) "music" ostensibly requires effort, but the effort comes to nought, and the listener is defrauded. The idea that this kind of unsructured noise is real music because it requires "effort" as does real music is an ideological tosh. The diference between the two kinds of effort is simple: with the real music, it is the effort of building a beautiful architectural structure. With the modern music, it is the senseless struggle of Sysyphus. You see, simple. Nothing to do with jazz or the Beatles.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

vtpoet said:


> As distinguished from your average 18th century opera, piano sonata, symphony...how exactly?


Seriously? You need me to explain this?

Mass media did not exist then. It was a 20th-century development, and came with development of radio and mass reproduction of recordings, in other words 20th-century inventions.

Appealing to the tastes of at most few thousand educated and monied people in city of only a few hundred thousand total, people who were actively seeking novelty at the time and were not committed to an embalmed repertoire and in fact eschewed it, is totally a different scenario from appealing to tens of millions spread over vast distances. Those orders of magnitude are substantial.



> I guess I give teens more credit than you do. Their nose for good music is every bit as sharp as yours or mine.


Speaking only for myself and definitely not you, I am certain this is very far from correct.

But it also reveals you aren't debating in good faith, because at no point did I single out teens as lacking a "nose for good music," rather I pointed to to the power of peer pressure and social need to belong to a group, which to anyone paying a modicum of attention is huge part of what drives mass media and popular culture. It's also pressure which, while it is noted to be particularly strong at the onset of puberty, is hardly something faced exclusively by teens.



> But anyway, the point I am making is that if your initial assertion were true, that "_accessibility....is dependent on familiarity and attention span_", then 100 years of exposure to Schoenberg would have today's teens whistling his tunes in the street.


This is a risible comment. Very, very, _very_ few teens even over 100 years have ever been granted the chance to hear Schoenberg even once-_at all_-never mind in a positive educational context.

You know what they have definitely been exposed to often and very clearly care little for? Bach, Mozart, Beethoven...



> In order for there to be familiarity, there has to be exposure and an attention span, but in order for ones attention span to be engaged, there has to be a certain level of familiarity-that initial appeal.


If approaching without undue prejudice, there is _plenty_ that is immediately appealing in almost all of Schoenberg's music. Many have found it so.



> If you were to expose your average high school class to Berg or Schoenberg for a year on end (rather than self-selected students deliberately in your class to study music) you might be lucky to have one student with any desire to listen to them ever again.


This is an extraordinary claim for which you have zero evidence, one very obviously built on nothing beyond your own hatred and tightly-held, rationalized prejudices.

And those are of zero interest me.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Knorf said:


> Seriously? You need me to explain this?


You're sidestepping my comment, which was that the popular music of the 18th century was also "designed to maximize profitability based on the most accessible and comfortingly familiar antecedents..." Regardless of the medium.



Knorf said:


> Appealing to the tastes of at most few thousand educated and monied people in city of only a few hundred thousand total, people who were actively seeking novelty at the time and were not committed to an embalmed repertoire and in fact eschewed it, is totally a different scenario from appealing to tens of millions spread over vast distances. Those orders of magnitude are substantial.


Disagree that they eschewed it or were actively seeking novelty. Salieri was picked over Mozart for a reason.



Knorf said:


> But it also reveals you aren't debating in good faith, because at no point did I single out teens as lacking a "nose for good music,"...


My mistake. Maybe. But in using the term "peer pressure", I didn't think you were referring to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 year olds. Peer pressure usually refers to teen-aged groups.



Knorf said:


> It's also pressure which, while it is noted to be particularly strong at the onset of puberty, is hardly something faced exclusively by teens.


Not exclusively, but the term is generally applied to the teen-aged age group.



Knorf said:


> This is a risible comment. Very, very, _very_ few teens even over 100 years have ever been granted the chance to hear Schoenberg even once-_at all_-never mind in a positive educational context.


Try it. Prove me wrong.



Knorf said:


> You know what they have definitely been exposed to often and very clearly care little for? Bach, Mozart, Beethoven...


Right. And I wrote that as well. But all of them can whistle a tune by either of those composers.



Knorf said:


> This is an extraordinary claim for which you have zero evidence, one very obviously built on nothing beyond your own hatred and tightly-held, rationalized prejudices.


Projecting.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

vtpoet said:


> Schoenberg and Webern are far more "complex" than Bach, as I use the word, because they demand listeners move beyond their "tonal" comfort zone. Listeners are made to accustom themselves to a whole new "language" of music, of harmony and melody.


I think that's more "different" or even "idiosyncratic" than "complex" in a mathematical or logical sort of sense. But it ends up (imo) being complexity for its own sake.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Back on topic a bit.

My entire history of music listening has been steps of effort on my part, as my tastes have evolved.

Before I became a classical fan, I was a early 70's hard rock fan (Deep Purple, Ten Years After, Uriah Heap, Zeppelin, etc), when I first discovered prog (YES, King Crimson, PFM, Banco, Genesis, etc) it took a bit of effort to understand and get into, the increased complexity and musicianship of those types of bands. But Gentle Giant, with their use of dissonance, was a harder nut to crack. A couple of their recordings were in my collection for over a year before repeated listening finally paid off. They remain one of my favorite bands.

Then, it was pretty much the entire avant-prog subgenre of prog. These bands are known for their (as ProgArchives.com puts it):

-Regular use of dissonance and atonality.
- Extremely complex and unpredictable song arrangements.
- Free or experimental improvisation.
- Fusion of disparate musical genres.
- Polyrhythms and highly complex time signatures.

Again, a hard nut to crack. But once I did, with effort on my part, this entire subgenre continues to reveal bands of endless creativity. Thinking Plague, Aranis, Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, Henry Cow, Far Corner, Yugen and many more.

I actually found it took a bit less effort to appreciate avant-garde, modernism, contemporary, atonal classical, because my mind was already primed by the avant-prog subgenre.

So far, despite years of effort, it is CP classical that I am having the problems getting into.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> Peer pressure usually refers to teen-aged groups.


I'm only 22, but I can already tell that this is ********.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I'm only 22, but I can already tell that this is ********.


I'm a long way past 22, and I can tell that whilst peer pressure is something that can be enjoyed by all age groups, it does tend to be deployed as a negative about teens.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Simon Moon said:


> Back on topic a bit.
> 
> [etc]


For me, whilst I can trace "progression" in my teen years, these were already informed or primed by my early years. And that progression was not exactly linear. So, while pop/rock dominated in the household (Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Animals, Manfred Mann etc) classical was always there too (Holst, Dvorak specifically, and the same bits of popular Bach and Prokofiev that everyone was exposed to).

I started buying for myself at age 12 - three albums at once, 2 classical, 1 rock. But from 12-19 (when I left home) I was hearing Zappa, KC and the Sunshine Band, Stravinsky, Zeppelin, Ives, Schoenberg, Horslips, Satie in the house, while I bought O'Jays, ELO, 10cc, Genesis, Beethoven, Vivaldi.

I can't really say what my ears made of this, except that what I bought, I had no difficulty with. It wasn't until I was 40+ that I made the conscious effort to expand my experience of classical as I referred to in my last post. Even so, I was still trying out new artists from the 'popular' music genre.

Currently, I'm "making an effort" to get to know Vaughan Williams. The effort is paying off, but I don't think it's to do with "complexity/simplicity" or "difficulty/easy". It's still an effort, to give up time to listen to something that, yes, has some initial appeal that caught my interest in the first place, but won't necessarily result in the adrenalin/serotonin rush of the highs of Elbow or Mahler.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

For me music is to be enjoyed whether it was written 400 years ago or last week. Yes I will make an effort to listen to something but if I don’t like it I will not listen to it again. I did make an effort to pay my money to see Wozzek but it was one f the most miserable evenings of my life. I will not pay to see a story about horrible people destroying each other set to discordant music. Once is enough thank you and I will not make any effort to try and ‘enjoy’ it. Life is too short for that when I can be listening to Bach’s St Matthew Passion or countless other masterpieces I do enjoy and which enrich my soul. I have a pretty Catholic tasting music from Monteverdi to Stravinsky but I leave out music I don’t like as there is plenty I enjoy that I don’t have time to listen to. Music is for balm to the soul not for self-flagellation


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Simon Moon said:


> I actually found it took a bit less effort to appreciate avant-garde, modernism, contemporary, atonal classical, because my mind was already primed by the avant-prog subgenre.
> 
> So far, despite years of effort, it is CP classical that I am having the problems getting into.


One thing that I have to point out when we talk about "young people" - there is always a large audience, no matter what the age, who don't have any interest in art music. I don't think this percentage really changes- there are people who don't have interest in any music, people who mainly listen to chart pop because that's the extent of their interest in music, and the artsy people. It's easy to go "Oh, most kids just like listening to chart pop", but most adults don't have any affinity for art music either- they just don't listen to chart pop because they tend not to be as interested in modern pop culture as a 20-year-old.

Prog isn't really an active thing anymore among the art-school kid set- these days it tends to be electronic, ambient, and noise. For obvious reasons I tend to see more of them respond positively to modernist works than CPT stuff.

I also want to point out that the most adventurous music tends to be produced by the young- even within the pop and rock genres.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

JTS said:


> For me music is to be enjoyed whether it was written 400 years ago or last week. Yes I will make an effort to listen to something but if I don't like it I will not listen to it again. I did make an effort to pay my money to see Wozzek but it was one f the most miserable evenings of my life. I will not pay to see a story about horrible people destroying each other set to discordant music. Once is enough thank you and I will not make any effort to try and 'enjoy' it. Life is too short for that when I can be listening to Bach's St Matthew Passion or countless other masterpieces I do enjoy and which enrich my soul. I have a pretty Catholic tasting music from Monteverdi to Stravinsky but I leave out music I don't like as there is plenty I enjoy that I don't have time to listen to. Music is for balm to the soul not for self-flagellation


I broadly agree with this. Certainly music is not for self-flagellation, but I'm not sure I would describe it as balm for the soul. That's rather too reminiscent of ClassicFM's mission to have us all relaaxxx....ahhhh!


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Forster said:


> I broadly agree with this. Certainly music is not for self-flagellation, but I'm not sure I would describe it balm for the soul. That's rather too reminiscent of ClassicFM's mission to have us all relaaxxx....ahhhh!


Well, none of us listen to art to have a bad time or become worse people. It's just that some people into art find the expression of negative feelings rewarding and cathartic- I mean, classical drama is based on this to an extent.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

advokat said:


> 4. Atonal (and other modern) "music" ostensibly requires effort, but the effort comes to nought, and the listener is defrauded.


Nothing about atonal music _inherently_ requires more effort. What it can require is stepping out of the bounds of classical timbre - but there are lots of atonal and avant-garde works which are actually very simple, because they are primarily explorations of timbre and sound, rather than structure in a way Brahms is.

(and of course structurally complex atonal music exists as well- but something like Crumb's "Night of the Electric Insects" doesn't really require "effort" - one either hears the music and has an affinity for that kind of adventurous timbre, or doesn't. Just about everything the work is trying to do is on the surface- in the same way that something like Debussy's appeal is pretty much self-evident even without digging into his scores)


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

fbjim said:


> Well, none of us listen to art to have a bad time or become worse people. It's just that some people into art find the expression of negative feelings rewarding and cathartic- I mean, classical drama is based on this to an extent.


I don't think catharsis necessarily entails self-flagellation.


----------

