# I Haven't Heard Much Classical I Dislike



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Aside from a lot of modern works, with all that atonality, most of it I find quite enjoyable.

I've been really digging into Classical over the past couple years, and it's a great journey, that never ends, to be on.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Aside from a lot of modern works, with all that atonality, most of it I find quite enjoyable.
> 
> I've been really digging into Classical over the past couple years, and it's a great journey, that never ends, to be on.


Yes, yes. Very true. Have you delved into the world of opera yet?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Yes, yes. Very true. Have you delved into the world of opera yet?


Yes, pelleas et melisande and bluebeard's castle were two favorites that stood out when I was in a big opera kick. Figaro was great as well! I saw Don Giovanni live.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Aside from a lot of modern works, with all that atonality, most of it I find quite enjoyable.
> 
> I've been really digging into Classical over the past couple years, and it's a great journey, that never ends, to be on.


It's too bad about your feelings for modern music "with all that atonality". There's more to it than just atonality, but I know what you mean. Still, exploration of contemporary art music makes for a great journey, too, and can take your ears and your sensibilities to areas you may never have dreamed could exist. It has for me.

Yet, there are still hundreds of years of good music to explore even without delving into the 20th or 21st century, and one could spend one's lifetime listening to just music from_ one_ of the five centuries prior to these two most recent ones. And, I truly believe, one will likely come to a stronger understanding of music as art if one does explore the past, which should make comprehending the recent and the present more accessible. After all, the "now" springs from the "then" and the "before" and the "previous". Modern music, even atonality, didn't form up in a vacuum. Schoenberg, one of the leading proponents of atonality is often said to be the progeny of Brahms, and Brahms of Beethoven, and Beethoven of Mozart and Haydn, and Mozart and Haydn of Bach, and Bach of … well, of all that came before. And so it goes.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I've heard a lot of classical music once.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Yes, pelleas et melisande and bluebeard's castle were two favorites that stood out when I was in a big opera kick. Figaro was great as well! I saw Don Giovanni live.


Four seen dozens to go


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

I regularly listen to Performance Today at YourClassical.org. They usually feature some modern pieces along with older music, not all atonal. I have discovered some great music.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

If you're up for it, I recommend giving "all that atonality" a chance. I know you probably have an immediate aversion to it right now, but from my experience, the more you listen to it the more your brain is able to connect everything going on. Pieces like Schoenberg's Wind Quintet for example sound perfectly natural to me now and the harmonies, melodies and counterpoint fit together in my head perfectly: 



 Of course, it will take a few more listening sessions and you'll have to trust me that it will come together for you eventually...but if you're not interested that's cool too.

Maybe you would like something more atmospheric: 




Anyway, for me there are a couple kinds of classical music pieces I don't care for. I don't like "lesser" (as defined by me) Romantic Era composers, specifically, because a "lesser" classical or Baroque era composer writes music that is pleasant but not impactful, a "lesser" Romantic era composer ends up writing hour long pieces that are a chore to get through.

I also don't care for composers like John Tavner or Karl Jenkins for no other reason than I find their music very uninspired.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

violadude said:


> Anyway, for me there are a couple kinds of classical music pieces I don't care for. I don't like "lesser" (as defined by me) Romantic Era composers, specifically, because a "lesser" classical or Baroque era composer writes music that is pleasant but not impactful, *a "lesser" Romantic era composer ends up writing hour long pieces that are a chore to get through.*


I certainly would put the long-winded requiems of Berlioz and Dvorak into that category. I prefer J. A. Hasse's vocal works better. In fact, with Berlioz I'm indifferent to just about anything, including Symphonie Fantastique. Aside from some creative ideas in orchestral effects, it is my opinion he is lesser than Mendelssohn and Schumann in every single way.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> I certainly would put the long-winded requiems of Berlioz and Dvorak into that category. I prefer J. A. Hasse's vocal works better. In fact, with Berlioz I'm indifferent to just about anything, including Symphonie Fantastique. Aside from some creative ideas in orchestral effects, it is my opinion he is lesser than Mendelssohn and Schumann in every single way.


Have to disagree with you about Berlioz. I enjoy all his major works. But some early Dvorak I could put in that category. Like his 3rd string quartet which is an hour long for no reason. It's just a normal mediocre classical string quartet with ridiculously large proportions that are not justified at all.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Aside from a lot of modern works, with all that atonality, most of it I find quite enjoyable.
> 
> I've been really digging into Classical over the past couple years, and it's a great journey, that never ends, to be on.


I agree; it's a wonderful journey. But who of us, walking through a great art museum, finds most of the paintings quite enjoyable? The sculpture? Who, broadly familiar with literature, also finds most quite enjoyable? Plays seen or read? I think we need to distinguish among experiences/works we find quite enjoyable, and those we find merely tolerable; those we choose to see/hear/read once; those that are so-so; those we make a note to not bother with again; those that trigger boredom or inattention or a desire to move quickly on to the next thing. Even with my amazingly low standards (a source of constant pleasure), I do not find most classical music quite enjoyable--nor most of anything in the arts for that matter. But i make up for it by really liking that minority of works that ring my bell.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I certainly would put the long-winded requiems of Berlioz and Dvorak into that category. I prefer J. A. Hasse's vocal works better. In fact, with Berlioz I'm indifferent to just about anything, including Symphonie Fantastique. Aside from some creative ideas in orchestral effects, it is my opinion he is lesser than Mendelssohn and Schumann in every single way.


I really enjoy Berlioz's music, and his requiem is one of my favorites.



Captainnumber36 said:


> *Aside from a lot of modern works, with all that atonality, most of it I find quite enjoyable.*
> 
> I've been really digging into Classical over the past couple years, and it's a great journey, that never ends, to be on.


I think that one of the most recommended atonal pieces in the member science's project is Crumb's _Black Angels_. Despite not having much exposure to more avant-garde works of the 20th century, I actually like this one, and suggest you to try it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I haven't either - although the classical, romantic, and even early modern periods jiggle me a little less than they used to.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Allerius said:


> Crumb's _Black Angels_. Despite not having much exposure to more avant-garde works of the 20th century, I actually like this one, and suggest you to try it.


Amen, brother!

If _Black Angels_ doesn't kick you in the pants, your pants can't be kicked. It's a very special work.


----------



## soni (Jul 3, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Aside from a lot of modern works, with all that atonality, most of it I find quite enjoyable.
> 
> I've been really digging into Classical over the past couple years, and it's a great journey, that never ends, to be on.


If you like nearly all classical works that aren't atonal, then I predict that you would also like nearly all atonal works too with a bit of effort! Of course I might be wrong, but there's no harm in finding out!


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

One caution about consciously avoiding "modern" music is that you may end up passing by some wonderful _tonal_ pieces, such as those from the English pastoral school (Vaughn Williams's 2nd or 5th symphonies, Bax's _Tintagel_, and Holst's _The Planets_ and _Brook Green Suite_, for examples) or the American neo-Romantics and neo-Classicists (which include Howard Hanson's Symphony No.2, Samuel Barber's and Erich Korngold's Violin Concertos, Aaron Copland's _Appalachian Spring_ Ballet, and the symphonies of Roy Harris and Walter Piston). And there is so much more "modern music" that has little or nothing to do with atonal utterances. The great proponent of atonalism, Schoenberg himself remarked that "there is still a lot of good music to write in C major!" If you want to test out the veracity of that comment, take a listen to Enescu's Symphony No. 3 (written in 1918), Sibelius's Symphony No. 7 (1924), Myaskovsky's Symphony 14 (1935) or Symphony 26 (1948), Bax's Symphony No. 6 (1935), Stravinsky's Symphony (from 1940), Alfred Hill's Symphony No. 10 (1958) or String Quartet (from 1938), or even Terry Riley's _In C_ (which was written in 1964 as a reaction to serialism) -- all 20th Century works more or less in C Major.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Allerius said:


> I really enjoy Berlioz's music, and his requiem is one of my favorites.
> 
> I think that one of the most recommended atonal pieces in the member science's project is Crumb's _Black Angels_. Despite not having much exposure to more avant-garde works of the 20th century, I actually like this one, and suggest you to try it.


I turned it on only to be turned off by it, unfortunately. Thanks for the suggestion though!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

SONNET CLV said:


> One caution about consciously avoiding "modern" music is that you may end up passing by some wonderful _tonal_ pieces, such as those from the English pastoral school (Vaughn Williams's 2nd or 5th symphonies, Bax's _Tintagel_, and Holst's _The Planets_ and _Brook Green Suite_, for examples) or the American neo-Romantics and neo-Classicists (which include Howard Hanson's Symphony No.2, Samuel Barber's and Erich Korngold's Violin Concertos, Aaron Copland's _Appalachian Spring_ Ballet, and the symphonies of Roy Harris and Walter Piston). And there is so much more "modern music" that has little or nothing to do with atonal utterances. The great proponent of atonalism, Schoenberg himself remarked that "there is still a lot of good music to write in C major!" If you want to test out the veracity of that comment, take a listen to Enescu's Symphony No. 3 (written in 1918), Sibelius's Symphony No. 7 (1924), Myaskovsky's Symphony 14 (1935) or Symphony 26 (1948), Bax's Symphony No. 6 (1935), Stravinsky's Symphony (from 1940), Alfred Hill's Symphony No. 10 (1958) or String Quartet (from 1938), or even Terry Riley's _In C_ (which was written in 1964 as a reaction to serialism) -- all 20th Century works more or less in C Major.


This is very true! I love exploring tonal 20th century music, much of which explores the boundaries of color, timbre, form, and harmony while still meeting my ears in a pleasant way. I love everything listed in the quoted post. Regarding the OP, I am in a very similar boat. I started listening to classical under 3 years ago, and it has been an amazing, life-enhancing journey that just keeps unfolding. Even the composers and styles that I didn't care for when I started out, I have come to appreciate. At first, I was adamantly against all modernist music. But then I heard Bartok, Messiaen, and Stravinsky and found quite a bit of great stuff to explore there. I also didn't like Mozart at all for my first year and a half of classical listening- I thought he was cheesy, juvenile, and repetitive. But then I heard the Clarinet Quintet and Sinfonia Concertante and was amazed at the purity and nonchalance of the music. He's now one of my favorites, though not top 5 like many. Until very recently, I just thought I couldn't connect with Schumann. Now I've been getting into his piano music and starting to understand what's he trying to say. And for a while I was totally convinced that opera just wasn't for me. Now...yup, it's clicked for me in a big way. All this to say- the world of classical music is too expansive to be closed-minded. I'd like to think I'll listen to anything and try my darndest to enjoy it. If I don't right away, I'll give it time, return to what I love, and come back sometime down the road. Chances are that the interval of time will do the trick, and at the very least, I'll be able to comprehend the previously esoteric music. I'm just enjoying the ride and embracing whatever comes my way!

Alright, there's two major areas that I'm still currently struggling with- the "British pastoral school" of Vaughan Williams's ilk (works like the 3rd Symphony I have yet to understand, but I love the 2nd and 5th and several other of his works) and chromatic, meandering late Romanticism like Schoenberg's Verklarte Nacht and the works of William Walton and Max Reger. But I'm working on it!


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ...
> Alright, there's two major areas that I'm still currently struggling with- the "British pastoral school" of Vaughan Williams's ilk (works like the 3rd Symphony I have yet to understand, but I love the 2nd and 5th and several other of his works) and chromatic, meandering late Romanticism like Schoenberg's Verklarte Nacht and the works of William Walton and Max Reger. But I'm working on it!


I'll take on Walton. This composer has some readily accessible tonal music. I think immediately of the _Crown Imperial _March, the _Orb and Sceptre_, and the _Henry V_ film music. But the strongest pieces of Walton's oeuvre do have an edge to them that probes deeper, in my opinion, than the less complex harmonies and colors of the mainstream Pastoral works. The great Symphony No. 1 in B-flat Minor is a case in point. This symphony ranks as one of the masterworks of the 20th century and may well be _the_ great British symphony; in any case, it has few true rivals for that top position. It's not an easy work, but it certainly isn't difficult either, and it rewards repeated listenings as do perhaps few other British symphonies of its era. The best way to get into this work, I believe, is through the recording by Andre Previn, a long-time (for me) favorite recording -- a true "desert island" disc. I'm pleased to have it on an original LP release as well as on CD. Previn, always a sensitive and informed musician, hits all the right buttons in this recording and it may well be his best recording ever from a critical point-of-view.









In any case, before you close the door on Walton, please take a listen to the Previn recording. If you hear anything like I hear, you'll want more of this master's works in your ears and in your consciousness. After the Symphony No. 1 try the Viola Concerto and the Violin Concerto.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Aside from a lot of modern works, with all that atonality, most of it I find quite enjoyable.
> 
> I've been really digging into Classical over the past couple years, and it's a great journey, that never ends, to be on.


I implore you, not to give up on those modern works.

While not as instantly recognizable as 'beautiful' in the same way as earlier works, their beauty can be discovered on further listening.

Not to mention, that many of these modern works have other attributes (besides beauty) that make them appealing to listen to. Sometimes there is a sense of catharsis that can occur while listening to atonal music. And sometimes, just appreciating the sheer complexity and musicianship required is worth listening to. Although, I find so much more to listen for.

Maybe you should start with some pieces that kind of straddle the line between earlier, tonal composition techniques, and modern and contemporary atonality. Not to mention, that there are plenty of modern composers that have eschewed atonality, and compose very tonal pieces.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Go on a sonic journey! It's an exciting adventure  I sometimes make listening projects and these days it's a piece by Stockhausen every day.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

I'm with CN36 on the atonal stuff - doesn't do it for me. That said, it doesn't hurt to give it a shot. After all, I seem to recall someone here claiming that Mozart was the enemy, so anything is possible if it's given a chance!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

AeolianStrains said:


> I'm with CN36 on the atonal stuff - doesn't do it for me. That said, it doesn't hurt to give it a shot. After all, I seem to recall someone here claiming that Mozart was the enemy, so anything is possible if it's given a chance!


lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

SONNET CLV said:


> I'll take on Walton. This composer has some readily accessible tonal music. I think immediately of the _Crown Imperial _March, the _Orb and Sceptre_, and the _Henry V_ film music. But the strongest pieces of Walton's oeuvre do have an edge to them that probes deeper, in my opinion, than the less complex harmonies and colors of the mainstream Pastoral works. The great Symphony No. 1 in B-flat Minor is a case in point. This symphony ranks as one of the masterworks of the 20th century and may well be _the_ great British symphony; in any case, it has few true rivals for that top position. It's not an easy work, but it certainly isn't difficult either, and it rewards repeated listenings as do perhaps few other British symphonies of its era. The best way to get into this work, I believe, is through the recording by Andre Previn, a long-time (for me) favorite recording -- a true "desert island" disc. I'm pleased to have it on an original LP release as well as on CD. Previn, always a sensitive and informed musician, hits all the right buttons in this recording and it may well be his best recording ever from a critical point-of-view.
> 
> View attachment 129421
> 
> ...


I have heard the three big works by Walton that you listed (Symphony No. 1, Viola and Violin Concerti) and have found them an immense chore to enjoy. His music, to my ears, tends to wander aimlessly with no established path. But maybe I will try that Previn recording some day and see if I can crack Walton. I do like Belshazzar's Feast, though.


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Aside from a lot of modern works, with all that atonality, most of it I find quite enjoyable.
> 
> I've been really digging into Classical over the past couple years, and it's a great journey, that never ends, to be on.


I agree with everyone else here that you should give modern music another chance. The words "modern" and "atonal" cover a whole spectrum of pieces, with some of those pieces being easier to digest than others. Maybe you just need a more digestible starting point? Crumb's _Black Angels_, recommended above, is a fabulous piece, and I encourage you to try it again someday, but if you're not liking it now, maybe you need to go even simpler and work your way up to more difficult music. Perhaps try Lutoslawski's _Piano Concerto_ (links below). The textures are rather homogenous between piano and orchestra, the harmonies remind me a lot of jazz, and if you listen closely, you can even pick up on fragments of a melody trying to form.

Movement 1
Movement 2
Movement 3
Movement 4


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

calvinpv said:


> I agree with everyone else here that you should give modern music another chance. The words "modern" and "atonal" cover a whole spectrum of pieces, with some of those pieces being easier to digest than others. Maybe you just need a more digestible starting point? Crumb's _Black Angels_, recommended above, is a fabulous piece, and I encourage you to try it again someday, but if you're not liking it now, maybe you need to go even simpler and work your way up to more difficult music. Perhaps try Lutoslawski's _Piano Concerto_ (links below). The textures are rather homogenous between piano and orchestra, the harmonies remind me a lot of jazz, and if you listen closely, you can even pick up on fragments of a melody trying to form.
> 
> Movement 1
> Movement 2
> ...


Agree Lutoslawski's Piano Concerto is great. But I don't think the Capt'n likes atonality much, as it is more abstract than tonal music, rather than making strong impressions and gut feeling, which is the kind of man he is, and it reflects little of his personality. Did I get that right Capt'n?


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> Agree Lutoslawski's Piano Concerto is great. But I don't think the Capt'n likes atonality much, as it is more abstract than tonal music, rather than making strong impressions and gut feeling, which is the kind of man he is, and it reflects little of his personality. Did I get that right Capt'n?


Oh, I understand the Capt'n doesn't like atonal music. But I didn't like it either at one time, and until a few years ago, I would've never imagined that in 2020 I would listen to only modern and contemporary music. I don't think it's set in stone that a person's reluctance towards modern or atonal music is a permanent feature of their listening experience. Maybe temperament or "personality", as you put it, can make the journey easier or more difficult, or maybe personality does, in fact, put an upper limit on what's considered acceptable. But surely, we can get Capt'n to like at least _some_ modern pieces. I think the Lutoslawski is a good starting candidate -- for what it's worth, it was the first modern piece I liked.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I say we ought to live and let live and not concern ourselves if somebody doesn't like Black Angels.


----------



## Forsooth (Apr 17, 2018)

starthrower said:


> I say we ought to live and let live and not concern ourselves if somebody doesn't like Black Angels.


Yep, agreed. Black Angels did not appeal to me in the least, but who cares? As long as the work has value to some, long live Black Angels.

My "listening Bible" was laid out by Debussy in just a few words: *"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."*

That being said, a lot of Debussy's output does not appeal to me. But his words seem to suggest that Claude wouldn't mind at all. "Move along then, fellow traveler," he might say. "Here is hoping you will pass this way again."


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

The main composers I've most connected with were Haydn, Schubert, and Mahler. After Mahler I decided to take on Schoenberg. After that I listened to Elliot Carter to continue listening to modern music. After I was satisfied that I could, in fact, enjoy modern music I just listened to various composers for a long while. Now I've started listening to a lot of Liszt. I'm really interested in his music and I like his music a lot. 

Enjoy your journey.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The thing is what you look for and expect when you listen to music that is from a new era and/or in a very different idiom. If you approach Boulez or Carter (or even Webern and Schoenberg) expecting that it will give you the same thing as Classical and Romantic music does then you are going to be baffled. If you only knew music of the Classical period you would probably find Romantic music difficult.


----------



## soni (Jul 3, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> The thing is what you look for and expect when you listen to music that is from a new era and/or in a very different idiom. If you approach Boulez or Carter (or even Webern and Schoenberg) expecting that it will give you the same thing as Classical and Romantic music does then you are going to be baffled. If you only knew music of the Classical period you would probably find Romantic music difficult.


This. I'm so used to serial music now that when I go back to listen to tonal works by composers like Mozart, it seems to me like something is lacking, since the things you get from the music are so different.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Agree Lutoslawski's Piano Concerto is great. But I don't think the Capt'n likes atonality much, as it is more abstract than tonal music, rather than making strong impressions and gut feeling, which is the kind of man he is, and it reflects little of his personality. Did I get that right Capt'n?


Yes, sounds about right Phil.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

My comment earlier was more tongue in cheek. In reality, I know my tastes, and they have been honed well over the decades. Atonal has also felt abrasive to me, as does much of modern (as a generic umbrella) visual arts.

People like what they like. It's fine to share enjoyment, but when advocacy turns into preachiness, then it becomes unbearable. Hopefully no one else will chime in and say "explore more atonal music!" without adding anything else of substance to the conversation.

Also, it doesn't really matter why someone might not like something. Trying to pathologize someone's tastes is the best way to ensure they won't budge.


----------



## soni (Jul 3, 2018)

AeolianStrains said:


> My comment earlier was more tongue in cheek. In reality, I know my tastes, and they have been honed well over the decades. Atonal has also felt abrasive to me, as does much of modern (as a generic umbrella) visual arts.
> 
> People like what they like. It's fine to share enjoyment, but when advocacy turns into preachiness, then it becomes unbearable. Hopefully no one else will chime in and say "explore more atonal music!" without adding anything else of substance to the conversation.
> 
> Also, it doesn't really matter why someone might not like something. Trying to pathologize someone's tastes is the best way to ensure they won't budge.


Sorry about this, yes on reflection it must be quite annoying


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I don't mean to be preachy, but certainly I can talk about my own musical experiences without it coming across as such, no? To me, abrasiveness is a valuable musical expression! If all music was nice sounding it would be no fun.


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

violadude said:


> I don't mean to be preachy, but certainly I can talk about my own musical experiences without it coming across as such, no? To me, abrasiveness is a valuable musical expression! If all music was nice sounding it would be no fun.


Completely agree , I have heard classical music that I disliked...at first! That is the point , isn't it , one has to grow into it ... Some I have never come to like though tbh... 
I feel it's very personal , nobody can claim to know best imho


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> The thing is what you look for and expect when you listen to music that is from a new era and/or in a very different idiom. If you approach Boulez or Carter (or even Webern and Schoenberg) expecting that it will give you the same thing as Classical and Romantic music does then you are going to be baffled. If you only knew music of the Classical period you would probably find Romantic music difficult.


That's what 's happening to me atm I feel . Somebody kindly proposed some works from Alban Berg to me on this forum. I listened to them but it was difficult for me to understand the music. I have predominantly listened to classical and Romantic music up until now , with the exception of composers like Barber, Rachmaninov ,Shostakovich ,Stravinsky and Prokofiev maybe . I have an open mind and I don't tend to quit listening to a composer's music after a first experience... Berg's work didn't immediately appeal to me , but I haven't explored it enough... Don't you think that is the problem? Give it a chance to grow on you I feel


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I don't recommend listening to something you don't enjoy! I never did and spent a lot of my listening life stopping at the Romantics. I guess I had tried enough that I sort of knew what I was missing ... and one day I felt it calling to me, often at the rate of one composer at a time! Over the last 15 or so years I have grown to love (I do mean love) a lot of atonal and avant garde music ... but there are still many modern composers who I dislike.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

AeolianStrains said:


> My comment earlier was more tongue in cheek. In reality, I know my tastes, and they have been honed well over the decades. Atonal has also felt abrasive to me, as does much of modern (as a generic umbrella) visual arts.
> 
> People like what they like. It's fine to share enjoyment, but when advocacy turns into preachiness, then it becomes unbearable. Hopefully no one else will chime in and say "explore more atonal music!" without adding anything else of substance to the conversation.
> 
> Also, it doesn't really matter why someone might not like something. Trying to pathologize someone's tastes is the best way to ensure they won't budge.


Maybe this is cheeky of me but wasn't that also a bit of a sermon?

My experience is that what I like is an ever growing category (and I have been listening to classical music for more than 50 years) so I really like it when people share their enthusiasms with me ... even when I don't and can't go along with them. I wonder why, when someone tells you that something you don't like is wonderful, do you feel they are preaching at you? There are composers I don't greatly like - Saint-Saens, even Mendelssohn are among them - but I don't feel put down when others tell me how wonderful they are.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

To paraphrase the late, great someguy:

_Not liking is certainly a valid response. __Expressing dislike is where things get tricky.

"I like modern music/I dislike modern music" is perfectly fine.

But if the contrast is "Modern music is great/Modern music is crap," this is a contrast *that pretends to be saying something about the music itself.*
_


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

My problem with most contemporary stuff is not about beauty vs ugliness. I don't see much merit in it in terms of "pure art music". I find that, the general style only sounds good when there's pictorial/visual content appropriate with the music going simultaneously with the music: it's way too much like film-music. It feels as if you can take any random piece of BGM for a modern-day movie and pass it off as a good piece of contemporary classical music. (John Williams even took passages directly from Stravinsky.) And conversely, use any contemporary music as BGM for film scenes that fit the music. I think you can get a way better contemporary classical music listening experience at a cinema than at a concert hall. Try playing Stockhausen in the background of horror movie scenes - everything about the music starts to make sense: "Wow, this is really good horror film music!"










Another problem I have with contemporary classical music is a "lack of standard of quality". How do you differentiate good from bad in serial music? Can anyone give us an example of a mediocre serial composer and explain in a convincing way why he's mediocre without just saying "I don't like his work"? Surely not every one of these composers is good, right? 
Someone once jokingly said: "It's ok to make a mistake in performing a Boulez piece, because the audience won't even notice the mistake." I laughed, but couldn't come up with logic to argue against him.
The best logic used to defend contemporary music - if you don't like a composer and his work - you're just "not getting it." (Most common practice composers on the other hand are judged by strict criteria of discipline, or melody, harmony, counterpoint, structure, instrumentation, etc. Berlioz, for example, was praised for his orchestration, but criticized for his harmony and counterpoint.)
It always involves schools of composers deriving from all sources, doing experiments endlessly on a ton of various styles, and always disagreeing with one another, and never really arriving at a firmly established style through assimilation. There's no sense of objectivity and no standard for evaluation because there is no established style; everyone constantly makes up their own rules. In my eyes, it's a load of mess. It's much like the Japanese writing system.






And *some* of the composers and fans are too obsessed with avant-gardism, they sometimes strike me as pretentious. I see that some did cause a bit of stir here in the past: Mozart vs. Modernism


----------



## soni (Jul 3, 2018)

In response to the above:
Firstly, contemporary music is rarely ever about ugliness. Dissonance has a beauty to it which can be uncovered through repeated listening. Although you can find specific examples that deal with ugliness, they are *by far* in the minority.

Secondly, I don't understand the point about film music. The contemporary music I listen to provides an intimate encounter with sound and human experience. Why on earth that would only be appropriate in a film I do not understand, especially as often the music would not even be appropriate for most films.

Thirdly, you can tell a serial work is good by how powerful an effect it can have on you, just like you can with a Mozart work. However, the reason people always say "you just don't get it" is that for most people this is true. It's not intended to be an offence, but rather it's simply something you have to accept before starting to listen, as appreciating contemporary music requires a different mindset. Once you've acquired the mindset, then it's glaringly obvious what is good and bad music.

Fourthly as for whether anyone can hear a mistake in a Boulez piece, if you made a couple of mistakes in the whole piece I might not notice it, but serial listeners are not as gullible as you seem to suggest, and I would certainly notice a bad performance of the Second Sonata.

EDIT: forgot to give a bad modernist piece. I wasn't too impressed with this piece although I'll listen to it again later today just in case there's more to it than I thought.


----------



## soni (Jul 3, 2018)

Just realised that I missed out some vital information in my previous post. The "mindset" I was talking about is not some mysterious thing I made up to defend my music taste. Instead let me give an example. In order to appreciate the value of counterpoint and to be able to tell what composers used counterpoint well, you should first have explored the music of Bach. Thankfully I have explored Bach, so I have a good instinctive feel for how counterpoint is used well.

The modernist counterpart to Bach is Anton Webern. Webern's music is indisputably great on all the points you mentioned previously: harmony, melody and counterpoint (it's really beautiful too!). However it is also the standard by which you can measure the majority of later uses of atonality and serialism. Without having explored Webern, you won't have a reference point to start exploring serialism, and much of it will sound like a random mess to you.

I suggest that if you seriously want to know the answers to the questions you asked, you take some time to explore Webern. This isn't something you can do in a day - for me it took months from first liking a Webern piece to being able to appreciate his complete atonal oeuvre. This is what I suggest - for a period of one month listen to a minimum of two Webern pieces per day, making sure to repeat pieces you have heard on previous days. This is easy to do as Webern's pieces are short, but it requires some trust that I'm not making this up. You should at least work through the following pieces:

Five Movements, op. 5
Five Pieces, op. 10*
String Trio, op. 20
Symphony, op. 21
Concerto, op. 24
Piano Variations, op. 27

*Hint: the Five Pieces for Orchestra aren't thematically connected to each other, so it helps to listen to them separately.


----------



## Forsooth (Apr 17, 2018)

:tiphat: *Hall of Fame 2020 post!*


hammeredklavier said:


> My problem with most contemporary stuff is not about beauty vs ugliness. I don't see much merit in it in terms of "pure art music". I find that, the general style only sounds good when there's pictorial/visual content appropriate with the music going simultaneously with the music: it's way too much like film-music. It feels as if you can take any random piece of BGM for a modern-day movie and pass it off as a good piece of contemporary classical music. (John Williams even took passages directly from Stravinsky.) And conversely, use any contemporary music as BGM for film scenes that fit the music. I think you can get a way better contemporary classical music listening experience at a cinema than at a concert hall. Try playing Stockhausen in the background of horror movie scenes - everything about the music starts to make sense: "Wow, this is really good horror film music!"
> 
> Another problem I have with contemporary classical music is a "lack of standard of quality". How do you differentiate good from bad in serial music? Can anyone give us an example of a mediocre serial composer and explain in a convincing way why he's mediocre without just saying "I don't like his work"? Surely not every one of these composers is good, right?
> 
> ...


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Maybe this is cheeky of me but wasn't that also a bit of a sermon?
> 
> My experience is that what I like is an ever growing category (and I have been listening to classical music for more than 50 years) so I really like it when people share their enthusiasms with me ... even when I don't and can't go along with them. I wonder why, when someone tells you that something you don't like is wonderful, do you feel they are preaching at you? There are composers I don't greatly like - Saint-Saens, even Mendelssohn are among them - but I don't feel put down when others tell me how wonderful they are.


I don't feel that way. I said advocacy is just fine. We all do it here. There's nothing wrong with anyone saying they like something. I was just noting how it seemed quite a few people all at once jumped to tell the OP to do something he in all likelihood has long done. Each individual post is fine (casting no stones here), but it easily can descend into a gang-up of sorts, and if tastes aren't changing, then it's a tiresome exercise.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

To Paraphrase the late great someguy:

Some opinions are worth stating and some are not. The difference? Knowledge and understanding. An opinion based on knowledge and understanding is more valuable than one based on lack of understanding and intolerance.

Not liking is certainly a valid response. Expressing dislike is where things get tricky.

The opinion stated here is about "Modern music", which pretends to be saying something about the music itself. Whether you like Modern music or not, its importance for composers and listeners and performers alike is inarguable.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

AeolianStrains said:


> I don't feel that way. I said advocacy is just fine. We all do it here. There's nothing wrong with anyone saying they like something. I was just noting how it seemed quite a few people all at once jumped to tell the OP to do something he in all likelihood has long done. Each individual post is fine (casting no stones here), but it easily can descend into a gang-up of sorts, and if tastes aren't changing, then it's a tiresome exercise.


Yes, it can. I'm not sure what the solution is except for us all to try to be as empathetic as possible. But at least we are discussing the music we love! I've had quite a few good steers from here over the years.


----------



## soni (Jul 3, 2018)

I'll stop discussing this issue here (I'm happy to discuss further in PMs with those who are interested). I think this was a difficult one, since the way the original post was worded, it was hard not to say anything - in that case silence could be interpreted by some as agreeing with the sentiment about atonality.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, say "frog" and they jump, magnificently, resplendent, through the tepid air of the orthodox swamp! 

The music we love? To hear late Webern, to stand in awe, uncomprehending, before the great stone edifice he has constructed! To lose oneself in complex chaos, and all that one holds dear and familiar, and to experience the fire of total annihilation! A force of nature, more than Man alone conjures, mysterious maze, labyrinth of wonder! "To save you, why must I destroy you?"


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm trying to hone in on my tastes. So far I have Chopin, Beethoven, Debussy, and DSCH as top composers. Who else do you think I'd like, and what works?


----------



## soni (Jul 3, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm trying to hone in on my tastes. So far I have Chopin, Beethoven, Debussy, and DSCH as top composers. Who else do you think I'd like, and what works?


Hmm, Stravinsky?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm trying to hone in on my tastes. So far I have Chopin, Beethoven, Debussy, and DSCH as top composers. Who else do you think I'd like, and what works?


All of them!

But seriously, how about...

Chopin --> Mompou and Scarlatti 
Beethoven --> Berlioz and Brahms 
Debussy --> Ravel and Takemitsu 
Shostakovich --> Myaskovsky and Britten

Just suggestions, not guarantees!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

soni said:


> Hmm, Stravinsky?


Good idea, I do love the firebird and ROS.


----------



## soni (Jul 3, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Good idea, I do love the firebird and ROS.


Les Noces is brilliant, although weird on first listen!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

soni said:


> Les Noces is brilliant, although weird on first listen!


Just put it on now!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

That was great, .


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I am listening to Strav's Mass now. It's not in the spirit of other works by him, but still very nice.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> To Paraphrase the late great someguy:
> 
> Some opinions are worth stating and some are not. The difference? Knowledge and understanding. An opinion based on knowledge and understanding is more valuable than one based on lack of understanding and intolerance.
> 
> ...


Just to clarify, I'm pretty sure someguy is alive and well. I talked to him a week or two ago on another board. Unless you know something that I don't, and this is a different person with the same username and profile picture as someguy on this forum...?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

flamencosketches said:


> Just to clarify, I'm pretty sure someguy is alive and well. I talked to him a week or two ago on another board. Unless you know something that I don't, and this is a different person with the same username and profile picture as someguy on this forum...?


"The late great someguy" was a figure of speech; any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> "The late great someguy" was a figure of speech; any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.


OK, good. You had me a little concerned.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

flamencosketches said:


> OK, good. You had me a little concerned.


That doesn't make sense. If you know him as a real person, and also on on another board, you could just contact him. I don't see why you are asking me to confirm anything, _except to let me know that you know him._


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> That doesn't make sense. If you know him as a real person, and also on on another board, you could just contact him. I don't see why you are asking me to confirm anything, _except to let me know that you know him._


Concerned for you, that you thought he was dead. I did not ask you to confirm anything.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I am listening to Strav's Mass now. It's not in the spirit of other works by him, but still very nice.


I don't know which recording you are listening to but personally I would avoid Bernstein's recording which is too rich for such austere music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

flamencosketches said:


> Concerned for you, that you thought he was dead. I did not ask you to confirm anything.


Oh, come on. I don't believe that.


----------

