# Composers You Don't Understand



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Which composers you just don't understand what their music is about? For me Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, and Bruckner are some of the most popular composers but I just don't understand why. Their music is not interesting to my ears.


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

I agree about Bruckner, What a dull composer!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Brahms immediately comes to mind.


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

Stockhausen puzzles me (is he joking - I hope so!) I dont understand Messiaens Piano music either and find it pretty unbearable


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Handel, Verdi, Bartok. No clue why so many people rank them so highly.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I have trouble with impressionistic composers like Debussy, early Roussel, parts of Ravel. To me, their music often seems airy, aimless and non-descript.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Andreas said:


> I have trouble with impressionistic composers like Debussy, early Roussel, parts of Ravel. To me, their music often seems airy, aimless and non-descript.


Interesting, that's what I like of them. What pieces of Ravel, for example?


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Interesting, that's what I like of them. What pieces of Ravel, for example?


I was thinking of pieces like Ma mère l'oye and Daphnis et Chloé.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Xenakis, Stockhausen, Cage; all the usual from the Adams Family.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Which composers you just don't understand what their music is about? For me Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, and Bruckner are some of the most popular composers but I just don't understand why. Their music is not interesting to my ears.


Pretty much all the same people you mentioned, including Richard Strauss, Dvorak etc. I can enjoy their music, but not on the same level that I can enjoy something by Mozart or Beethoven. I'm particularly left uninterested by Wagner's music. He comes up with great ideas but stretches them out so much that I just end up getting sick of them.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Xenakis, Stockhausen, Cage; all the usual from the Adams Family.


So where does that leave John Adams?


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Xenakis, Stockhausen, Cage; all the usual from the Adams Family.


Agree: To me, those guys and many others like them, what they do was experiments on sound, which is perfectly admissible. But don't you dare to call it music.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Which composers you just don't understand what their music is about? For me Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, and Bruckner are some of the most popular composers but I just don't understand why. Their music is not interesting to my ears.


Or Mozart - from what I understand.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

For me it would have to be Britten - just don't know why he is ranked so highly in 20th C music.


----------



## Krisena (Jul 21, 2012)

I must admit I don't get Brahms' music, and why I should listen to Haydn is beyond me. Debussy doesn't do much for me either, although Ravel does, a lot. Anyone's of course free to enlighten me on this matter. I'm probably just misunderstanding their music in light of other composers who sound similar, but really aren't.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Why all this euphemism?. Some composers are simply not good enough and some people can recognise this. :devil:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I don't get Zappa but I love it anyway.


----------



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

Xenakis - a lot of his output is based on mathematical principles and other egg-headed criteria which were way over my head to begin with. I don't dislike the music of his that I've heard but what he often creates it around is something of a barrier to my enjoyment. I remember one disc where even reading the sleevenotes left me scratching my head.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I have a problem really opening up my heart to John Philip Sousa, who wrote American military and patriotic marches. I can see the appeal; but the 4/4 "marching" beat lacks swing, and the idea of using music as a tool to enhance a war machine is alien to my beliefs. The "bad" outweighs the good, in this case. Nationalism is weird...


----------



## Orpheus (Jul 15, 2012)

I don't feel very original for this, but am going to have to second quite a few names that have come up already on here. For now I'll just stick to the Romantics who perplex me to keep this post to a managable length. I might have something to say on Classical-era and Modernist composers later on. 

Brahms was the first that came to mind for me too. I simply don't "get" what people see in him at all. His music SOUNDS like it was intended to be full of drama in the true "Romantic" idiom, but the only time I would ever willingly listen to it is if I was suffering from gallumphing insomnia and needed something to stupify my brain into a state of total inactivity. I have no reason to have any specific objection to Brahms, I like quite a lot of Romantic music; yet I can't tolerate him in the least.

Elgar strikes me as a kind of junior version of Brahms. I don't think I will ever understand what people see in Elgar, till I learn to appreciate what they see in Brahms.

Schumann... I don't have any reaction to Schumann at all. It's just sort of there-ish. Apparently he's a great composer, or a much maligned one who draws many strong reactions on both sides of the divide. To me he's just remarkably forgettable. I can't recall a single note of Schumann even just after I listen to something, so he's clearly not having much effect on me either way.

Rachmaninoff gives me the impression of endless "dramatic" piano plunking with no particular goal in sight. I'm not sure I'm too convinced by his orchestration either, it seems mostly designed to provide background to the piano plunking (though he's still better than Chopin in that respect). His music certainly doesn't fill me with much enthusiasm, though I wouldn't say I actively disliked it either. Definitely a composer I just "don't get", though oddly, his contemporary and fellow student, Skryabin, is someone who often fascinates me.

Wagner is a special case of personal incomprehension. I've been intermittently trying to get into him lately, mostly because I was hoping to see what his legion of devoted fans were apparently getting from him in the way of uplifting spiritual epiphany. I hoped to learn enough about the religion to at least be able to visit their temple and sit through a whole (14 hour long) service in the best spirit of ecumenical fellowship, without being strangulated by my own rebellious innards. So far, I fail. I don't want to start some kind of bloody interfaith war by decrying his talent, by the way, I have no doubt that he had plenty. He did after all have a torrent of original ideas and wrote some very attractive and evocative music that fitted well with the structure of the drama (eg the Rhinemaidens' motif), which even I can appreciate. 

But the overall structure and feel of the music is just unbearably slow, heavy, and turgid to me; it seems to move along and develop its themes with all the athleticism and energy of an arthritic Galapagos Tortoise on a leisurely evening stroll to a waterhole. The singing style doesn't help to dispel the impression of slow, ponderous monotony either: it sounds almost as everyone is suffering from a collective attack of bellyache, perhaps it affects the performers in that way too.  

And yet I was thinking of starting a thread to ask Wagner fans exactly what they see in him, in the hope of learning to appreciate whatever precisely that is better than I currently do. I certainly haven't given up on him yet, but the devotion he inspires continues to baffle me completely.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Gluck comes to mind


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Krisena said:


> I must admit I don't get Brahms' music, and why I should listen to Haydn is beyond me. Debussy doesn't do much for me either, although Ravel does, a lot. Anyone's of course free to enlighten me on this matter. I'm probably just misunderstanding their music in light of other composers who sound similar, but really aren't.


Can't even begin to answer comments like this without knowing a lot more about the extent of a person's exposure to classical music. Someone who has just started, or is fairly novicial, will probably feel bamboozled by a lot of composers, including those you mention. On the other hand if you're a veteran listener, and like most other big name composers but have specific problems with just those three, then it's a different matter altogether.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Krisena said:


> I must admit I don't get Brahms' music, and why I should listen to Haydn is beyond me. Debussy doesn't do much for me either, although Ravel does, a lot. Anyone's of course free to enlighten me on this matter. I'm probably just misunderstanding their music in light of other composers who sound similar, but really aren't.


I know loads of people that hate Brahms - one chap I know calls it "turgid stuff". I believe Britten played through Brahms piano works every few years and could not fathom him. But anyway I think he's great - for the 1st movement of his violin concerto alone.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Wagner is an enigma - some of the greatest music ever composed - like the start of Die Walkure - amazing stuff - and the final 20 minutes of Tristan, or the overture to Tannhauser. But then there's all that goes in between and it seems so dull. Even Mozart has dull moments - like in Zauberflote - there is some boring dialogue which if you know like the back of your hand is painful to endure - but this is outweighed tenfold by the treasure. With Wagner it's the other way around.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Further to my previous comment, it would be very helpful if people could give some indication of how much exposure they've had to classical music generally, because I suspect that a lot of the comments about not liking or "getting" certain well-known composers are largely based on lack of experience rather than any genuine, thought-over problems. Otherwise this thread will simply turn into yet another listing of "over-rated" composers, of which this Forum has had dozens in the past under various guises.


----------



## Krisena (Jul 21, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> Further to my previous comment, it would be very helpful if people could give some indication of how much exposure they've had to classical music generally, because I suspect that a lot of the comments about not liking or "getting" certain well-known composers are largely based on lack of experience rather than any genuine, thought-over problems. Otherwise this thread will simply turn into yet another listing of "over-rated" composers, of which this Forum has had dozens in the past under various guises.


I've listened to classical music for 5 years approximately. I came from rock, metal and video game music and got in via late romanticism like Rachmaninoff and Grieg when I started playing the violin. I worked my way backwards from there, skipping classicism, till I started listening to baroque music. It took some time to understand classicism, but I got it eventually, though it's not my favourite period by any means (I still love Mozart). I've also become a great fan of 20th century music, and lately, I've developed a deep fondness of renaissance music. So, in five years I've gone from not speaking classical music's language at all to it being my most listened to "genre". I'd say my favourite composers are as follows: Bach, Janáček, Sibelius, Mendelssohn, Grieg and Ravel.

Now, fix me.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

elgars ghost said:


> Xenakis - a lot of his output is based on mathematical principles and other egg-headed criteria which were way over my head to begin with. I don't dislike the music of his that I've heard but what he often creates it around is something of a barrier to my enjoyment. I remember one disc where even reading the sleevenotes left me scratching my head.


Conversely, the egg-head criteria appeals to me, but sometimes the results can be gratingly visceral. His electronic pieces "Concret PH" (1958), or "S.709" (1992) have high-frequency sounds which are physically painful; and his sole work for organ, "Gmeeoorh" (1980), I use to drive away house-guests who have overstayed their welcome, and to scare children on Halloween. Ghod! I didn't know an organ could produce such horrific sounds!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> Further to my previous comment, it would be very helpful if people could give some indication of how much exposure they've had to classical music generally, because I suspect that a lot of the comments about not liking or "getting" certain well-known composers are largely based on lack of experience rather than any genuine, thought-over problems. Otherwise this thread will simply turn into yet another listing of "over-rated" composers, of which this Forum has had dozens in the past under various guises.


VSM, I see the solution in being as _specific_ as possible. Concerning the visceral aspects of Brahms, my favorite is Schoenberg's orchestration of the G minor Piano Quartet, Op.25, which I call Brahms' "Fifth Symphony;" but I have long struggled with his "Academic Festival Overture" and the Symphonies. Part of this is the orchestration, or perhaps the orchestral forces used. I began to warm-up to Mackerras' stripped-down period version, which is probably the way Brahms conceived it; or this one, which does the same, with a smaller horn section.

Musically speaking, I like the long, beautifully constructed lyrical melodies in Brahms, but I sense a lack of passion: some describe this as "turgidity," and it can be perceived intuitively, so I wonder how much "experience with classical music" has to do with such a intuitive, non-specific sense or "impression" of the music. Art speaks directly, and it doesn't necessarily require intellect, but merely a good ear.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

For those who struggle with Brahms' orchestral output, I would recommend listening to his chamber music, especially the string quintets, string sextets, piano quartets, clarinet sonatas, and his fantastic clarinet quintet.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Art Rock said:


> For those who struggle with Brahms' orchestral output, I would recommend listening to his chamber music, especially the string quintets, string sextets, piano quartets, clarinet sonatas, and his fantastic clarinet quintet.


Ah yes I agree - the piano qt no 1 - the quartets - sublime.


----------



## powerbooks (Jun 30, 2012)

The comments about John Philip Sousa remind me someone.

For me, I don't want to say I don't understand, but just I don't care:

Ralph Vaughan Williams

I don't understand why Britons are so brag about him. Yeah, I am sure the music must be very English. I just feel he is out of the league with his contemporary peers.


----------



## Noak (Jul 18, 2009)

Górecki. I just find him boring.
I never got the appeal of Philip Glass either.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Noak said:


> Górecki. I just find him boring.
> I never got the appeal of Philip Glass either.


But it's really John Adams who is better than Glass when it comes to _those_ composers.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Gluck comes to mind

Only to a mind addled by too much Ligeti!:devil:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Gluck comes to mind
> 
> Only to a mind addled by too much Ligeti!:devil:


You're opinion is *WRONG.*

There is no such thing as too much *Ligeti.*


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

VerySeniorMember- Further to my previous comment, it would be very helpful if people could give some indication of how much exposure they've had to classical music generally, because I suspect that a lot of the comments about not liking or "getting" certain well-known composers are largely based on lack of experience rather than any genuine, thought-over problems.

I agree quite a bit... and it may also be of use when naming a composer that you particularly dislike to give some indication of how well versed you are in their work. How many who have dismissed Mozart have never listened to the piano concertos or operas? How many who dislike Schubert never sat down with the lieder? And poor Vivaldi continually gets the usual criticism concerning his concertos by those who have never listened to the sonatas, choral, or operatic works.

Personally, I like pretty much all the major composers from Byzantine Chant to the 20th century. Of course I like certain composers more than others... Wagner more than Brahms... Mahler more than Stravinsky... but I seriously cannot imagine disliking Wagner, Mahler, Brahms, Bruckner, Vivaldi, Handel, Bartok, Debussy, Ravel, Richard Strauss, Mozart, Britten, Rachmaninoff, Schumann, Gluck, or any of the other "suspects" named... not at least until we get to Schoenberg. I am admittedly not fond of atonalism. In a sense I think dissonance lost its use as an unexpected element that could add a great sense of tension... angst... to a degree shock... to an otherwise tonal work, rather in the manner that abstraction or distortion lost its ability to intensify the expression of a figurative painting when painting wholly abandoned the figurative image. Personally, I like Berg, Bartok, Messiaen (to an extent), Takemitsu, Murail, Scelsi, a few things by Ligeti and even Cage, but I'll admit that a lot of the atonal works of late Modernism do little for me. Certainly I would far rather listen to Mahler, Brahms, Haydn, or Dufay. This is so after having listened to classical music "seriously" for 20+ years... and having given a good deal of effort to Contemporary music. This, I suspect, shouldn't be surprising.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

There is no such thing as too much Ligeti.

I suspect that even Ligeti himself couldn't listen to more than a few minutes of Ligeti before he began to long for some Mozart, Bach, Wagner... or the Louvin Brothers!!!










:devil::lol:


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

If I only had enough time in this world, I would end up liking almost everything. Understanding? I don't know.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Bruckner and R. Strauss remain the hardest for me, though I've made progress. 

Schumann's piano and chamber music is crystal clear for me, wonderful. But his symphonies and the piano concerto - I would never have guessed that a famous composer wrote them. I obviously don't understand them!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I don't get Beethoven.

But what's even more baffling to me is how people could cry to his music. They must be crying for a musical value that I don't have, _and I probably never will have_. So, I embrace by baffled self, and move forward.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I don't get Beethoven.
> 
> But what's even more baffling to me is how people could cry to his music. They must be crying for a musical value that I don't have, _and I probably never will have_. So, I embrace by baffled self, and move forward.


I think that Beethoven is one of those composers what you love or not love ( no middle ground).
No music has effected me more than his music!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

jani said:


> I think that Beethoven is one of those composers what you love or not love ( no middle ground).
> *No music has effected me more than his music!*


Yes, that baffles me. But whatever. You be yourself, and I'll be myself.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Mahler: I can appreciate the orchestral colour... but his melodic lines just seem to lack a characteristic impetus to make them interesting, and the accompaniment of endless punctuated meanderings of various instruments doesn't help either.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Schumann's piano and chamber music is crystal clear for me, wonderful. But his symphonies and the piano concerto

Have you tried:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I find all composers generally regarded as greats enjoyable and fascinating. I feel that way, because I like a lot of composers whose music is not as great as their's, so I feel extra waves of enjoyment listening to their even greater music. The more I like Sweelinck, Farnaby, and Tompkins, the more awesome Gibbons and Bull will seem and that makes Byrd a god. In some cases though, I prefer listening to Gibbons over Byrd or Medtner over Chopin. This is just because I like to discover great music that most people aren't aware of.

My major spot is with modern sound experiment type composers. They are an exception.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Odnoposoff said:


> Agree: To me, those guys and many others like them, what they do was experiments on sound, which is perfectly admissible. But don't you dare to call it music.


It was music  Besides, any act of composition is an "experiment in sound" to find something you like, as a composer, something that fits your vision. Also all 3 of them, awesome composers of beautiful music ^^


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Odnoposoff said:


> Agree: To me, those guys and many others like them, what they do was experiments on sound, which is perfectly admissible. But don't you dare to call it music.


Music is organized sound, period.

Some will, a bit like a dictator pronounces 'what is,' declare the organized sound they do not care for or do not understand 'not music.'

The majority of comments In this first page show the respondents do 'get' whatever music they have named, but they simply do not care for it.

All the declarations that some piece or genre of music 'is not music,' reveal a significant limitation on the part of the listener.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> VerySeniorMember- Further to my previous comment, it would be very helpful if people could give some indication of how much exposure they've had to classical music generally, because I suspect that a lot of the comments about not liking or "getting" certain well-known composers are largely based on lack of experience rather than any genuine, thought-over problems. I


Or not having been lucky enough to have been taught what they are listening for. It's amazing what a difference a tiny bit of education can make. To just have a piece described as "beautiful", "soothing", "rambunctious" or playful doesn't do it. When someone points out exactly what those phrases are doing, the listener gains a lot more understanding.

On that score, the leaflets that are enclosed with a recording are failing. Instead of analyzing the music, they spend the pages telling the composer's biography. Well, that's interesting, too, but I'd love so much to know what I am listening for in a composition. I did not enjoy Concierto De Aranjuez at all until I read a good analysis of the movements. Not it is one of my favourites.

Maybe it's the difference between a professional musician who studies much deeper and one who just appreciates good music. Aaron Copeland understood this need better than anyone.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Blah blah blah changed my mind


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Hazel said:


> Or not having been lucky enough to have been taught what they are listening for ....


SLG was quoting something I had written previously about the importance of listening experience in resolving one's attitude towards difficult composers. I agree with your additional point that it's not just the amount of listening experience that's relevant but the extent to which education has played a role in being taught how to appreciate music.

In my case I learned piano at school but I didn't get very far with exams. The main longer term benefit was that I learned how to read music. As I tried to make progress I felt that this wasn't sufficient, so I supplemented my knowledge by seeking musical information from several sources. I read many useful articles/biographies I found in various places on the Net. I listened and took notes from various radio programmes offering analyses of composers' works. I found a few classical music forums very useful.

Mainly, however, it was discussion with various friends and relations who are, or were at the time, more knowledgeable than me who straightened out various prejudices I once held against certain composers. Once it's all explained it becomes even clearer why the "greats" are great. I recall being given analysis of the Hammerklavier sonata by a good pianist friend and was left speechless with admiration.

I hope I'm not being a bore!


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

Very Senior Member said:


> SLG was quoting something I had written previously about the importance of listening experience in resolving one's attitude towards difficult composers. I agree with your additional point that it's not just the amount of listening experience that's relevant but the extent to which education has played a role in being taught how to appreciate music.
> 
> In my case I learned piano at school but I didn't get very far with exams. The main longer term benefit was that I learned how to read music. As I tried to make progress I felt that this wasn't sufficient, so I supplemented my knowledge by seeking musical information from several sources. I read many useful articles/biographies I found in various places on the Net. I listened and took notes from various radio programmes offering analyses of composers' works. I found a few classical music forums very useful.
> 
> ...


Exactly. That is what I am trying to say. I also took piano lessons for some years and then violin. Never once did I hear anything about what the compositions were supposed to be saying, what we should be hearing and playing. The only important thing was hitting the right keys. Students of music - those headed for professions in music - get the rest. Their instructors will be saying "Make it light-hearted; the violins and flutes are chasing each other around while the rest of the orchestra scolds. Smile when you play it." It's hearing what those phrases and movements are supposed to be picturing. I have, in my life heard Peter and the Wolf so often that I don't want to ever hear it again but what was going on was a conductor explaining to school students what those phrases were saying, what the instruments were doing. I just wish he'd had more than one composition for illustraton.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Hazel said:


> Exactly. That is what I am trying to say ......


I'm reminded of a once common expression used in Yorkshire, England, which was where my mother came from: _"You Don't Get Owt for Nowt"._

It means simply that you don't get anything for nothing, i.e if you make no effort you'll get nothing in return.

Some people evidently think that if they don't understand or like a particular composer it's the composer's fault. This might be justified if the composer is someone who is relatively obscure, but for any of the "greats" it's unlikely to be justified.

The answer is to stop bleating it about and get learning. Nothing you say here will help. As my headmaster once told a class of 18 year olds of which I was a member coming up for their A-level exams, don't stop revising until you start bleeding behind the ears.


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

I don't get Wagner, Mahler and _sometimes_ Prokofiev and other modern composers (surprise surprise). Why all this Brahms hate??? I like Brahms.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> I don't get Wagner, Mahler and _sometimes_ Prokofiev and other modern composers (surprise surprise). Why all this Brahms hate??? I like Brahms.


Did you just call Prokofiev a _modern composer?_ :lol:

No it isn't Brahms hate. It's just we don't understand why on earth Brahms bothered composing.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> But it's really John Adams who is better than Glass when it comes to _those_ composers.


Glass has more of a conceptual purity than Adams and his ridiculous operas and attempts to cash-in on disasters ("On the Transmigration of Souls"), especially in early hard-core works like "Music In 12 Parts" and "Dance Nos. 1-5." There's too much harmonic movement in Adams, he's too tonal in the old sense; he uses traditional devices, like transitions.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Orpheus said:


> Wagner is a special case of personal incomprehension...the overall structure and feel of the music is just unbearably slow, heavy, and turgid to me; it seems to move along and develop its themes with all the athleticism and energy of an arthritic Galapagos Tortoise on a leisurely evening stroll to a waterhole.


Or on its way to a hot spring. For me, the epiphany of Wagner came on the radio, during rush-hour traffic. The music was like soaking in a warm bath, with wave after wave of harmonic ecstasy washing over me. You can't get it if you're too rigid; it's about surrender. When you're tired and weak, and your ego barriers are low, might be the best time.


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

Brahms, Bruckner, and Mahler bore me. Their symphonies are too muddy and dull.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Art Rock said:


> Handel, Verdi, Bartok. No clue why so many people rank them so highly.


For Handel, try this:









Also, Handel arias sung by the late Lorraine Hunt-Lieberson.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I used to think that Brahms symphonies were too "leaden"... but I must admit that gardiner's HIP performances opened these works up to me.










This is not to say that they are the sole recordings that really capture Brahms or that work for me. rather, they opened my ears so that I can appreciate other recordings as well.

Bruckner is very similar... if not more dense. I think you either "get" him or you don't.

Mahler...? Ah well... your loss.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Handel, Verdi, Bartok. No clue why so many people rank them so highly.

For Handel I would start with the elegant, Italiante cantatas. These are truly delicious works:










This whole collection is marvelous:










Then look especially to The Sixteen:




























I would also highly recommend Jordi Savall:










His recordings fully rehabilitated the water Music and Royal Fireworks Music for me with such drive and passion.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

It's not the music, it's your brain! If I can't get into a piece of music, or a composer, I'll come back to them later. There just isn't enough time in life to devote large chunks of focused concentration to all of the world's great music. If you're young with few responsibilities, or old and retired, maybe you can find the time? I've also taken the advice given here to try some chamber/vocal works if a composer's symphonies are not interesting or inspiring to my ears. I've had some good results with Brahms, Penderecki, and Mahler.

It will be interesting to see what happens when I receive my Xenakis orchestral box. Maybe the intensity and visceral qualities will wear thin after a few spins, or maybe the music will prove to possess a level of depth and originality that will keep me coming back for more? It was Messiaen who encouraged Xenakis to pursue his mathematical approach to composition. He recognized Xenakis's superior intelligence and aptitude in this field, and recommended he forgo the conventional route of studying harmony and counterpoint.

And speaking of Messiaen, I find a lot of his pieces contain beautiful as well as uninteresting writing. Those jumpy intervals he uses for piano and mallet percussion aren't all that interesting or inventive to my ears. I think Frank Zappa did it much better with beautiful melodies and a signature sound based on the harmonic content.


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Did you just call Prokofiev a _modern composer?_ :lol:
> 
> No it isn't Brahms hate. It's just we don't understand why on earth Brahms bothered composing.


 Well he's almost modern. And I still say there is nothing wrong with Brahms.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Compsers who talk too much about concepts in their music rather than let the music speak for itself.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I understand everything.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Music is organized sound, period.
> 
> Some will, a bit like a dictator pronounces 'what is,' declare the organized sound they do not care for or do not understand 'not music.'
> 
> ...


Technically, I agree with this; however, I would guess that almost no one cares what the technical definition of music is. All they care about is what sounds like music to them. I have heard quite a few works that I intellectually know are music, but they do not sound like music to me. I would not call them "not music", but there is no way for me to emotionally connect with them as music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I'd like to ask a follow on question. If there is a notable composer that you don't understand (or appreciate, find beautiful, etc.), how does that make you feel? By notable I simply mean a composer that a significant number of classical music listeners enjoy. 

Personally, I enjoy pretty much all composers from early periods through early 20th century. Starting with some early 20th century composers (2nd Viennese School) and continuing with other atonal and then avant-garde composers, I have found that I don't enjoy much of their music. Since I know that many listeners who love earlier music as I do also love atonal and avant-garde, I feel as though I am missing out on enjoying music that could potentially give me much pleasure. I would love to "learn" to enjoy these composers because that would open up numerous works that I could explore just as I did with say Romantic composers years ago. The joy of finding a new work that one loves is one of life's great pleasures.

I joined TC for precisely that reason - to learn to enjoy more 20th century music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I'd like to ask a follow on question. If there is a notable composer that you don't understand (or appreciate, find beautiful, etc.), how does that make you feel? By notable I simply mean a composer that a significant number of classical music listeners enjoy.
> 
> Personally, I enjoy pretty much all composers from early periods through early 20th century. Starting with some early 20th century composers (2nd Viennese School) and continuing with other atonal and then avant-garde composers, I have found that I don't enjoy much of their music. Since I know that many listeners who love earlier music as I do also love atonal and avant-garde, I feel as though I am missing out on enjoying music that could potentially give me much pleasure. I would love to "learn" to enjoy these composers because that would open up numerous works that I could explore just as I did with say Romantic composers years ago. The joy of finding a new work that one loves is one of life's great pleasures.
> 
> I joined TC for precisely that reason - to learn to enjoy more 20th century music.


I feel similarly. I don't want to miss anything.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> No it isn't Brahms hate. It's just we don't understand why on earth Brahms bothered composing.


Schoenberg seemed to have understood.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Which composers you just don't understand what their music is about?


At the moment, only those whose music I've not given sufficient time to. For example, my older brother "introduced" me to Schoenberg, Berg, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Ives...but so far, I've only taken the trouble to follow up with multiple listens to the two Russians, and I like what I've persevered with. I've introduced myself to Ligeti (via a certain well-known sci-fi classic) Debussy and Beethoven and given up, perhaps for the moment, on the Ligeti.

I think there are some composers whose work I "understand": but I just don't like it!


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Orpheus said:


> Rachmaninoff gives me the impression of endless "dramatic" piano plunking with no particular goal in sight. I'm not sure I'm too convinced by his orchestration either, it seems mostly designed to provide background to the piano plunking (though he's still better than Chopin in that respect). His music certainly doesn't fill me with much enthusiasm, though I wouldn't say I actively disliked it either.


If you're talking about the concertos I can understand that, but a lot of his solo piano music isn't like that IMO. Besides, he wrote a large variety of other music.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

Ligeti? I've just spent an early morning hour with his music. What a variety he wrote but almost all of them "breath-holding". Does that make sense? "Out in space"? I can understand why someone would not want to hear too much of Ligeti but the experience of just hearing Lux Aeterna or Violin Concerto is worth the time. I haven't decided about that piano piece - you're in hell and want to get out. I expected a grand surprise ending but it wasn't there. Maybe that means you don't get out?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hazel said:


> Or not having been lucky enough to have been taught what they are listening for. It's amazing what a difference a tiny bit of education can make. To just have a piece described as "beautiful", "soothing", "rambunctious" or playful doesn't do it. When someone points out exactly what those phrases are doing, the listener gains a lot more understanding.
> 
> On that score, the leaflets that are enclosed with a recording are failing. Instead of analyzing the music, they spend the pages telling the composer's biography. Well, that's interesting, too, but I'd love so much to know what I am listening for in a composition. I did not enjoy Concierto De Aranjuez at all until I read a good analysis of the movements. Not it is one of my favourites.
> 
> Maybe it's the difference between a professional musician who studies much deeper and one who just appreciates good music. Aaron Copeland understood this need better than anyone.


I more than agree the 'cult of personality' has come to dominate the information which accompanies recordings, and that is no help at all. Education, the most basic, in the arts, at least in the states, is now nearly non-existent.

What truly saddens me, though, is when I do hear a comment such as you made about the Concierto d'Aranjuez, in that it seems some negative conditioning led you to believe you needed some 'formal' education to listen to what many would call 'straightforward' eminently listenable music. Indeed, you really do not / did not need 'a road map' to follow or enjoy the music, but the 'myth' is so routinely perpetuated that you could not follow it until you thought you did have a road map!

I am certain this is generally imparted when the wrong people present classical music to 'the people' -- and it seems the majority of presentations are bad, in schools or music appreciation classes. One wrongly implied or directly stated dictum that one must have a technical or intellectual grasp on what one listens to is enough to intimidate the casual listener, and that makes for fearsome issues about just listening to music as a 'simple' pleasure.

As a professional with a truckload of formal training, I have to say there is little or no more visceral 'pleasure' to be had while listening because I "understand the structure of a piece." That other intellectual grasp is only intellectual, can add to a cerbral excitement, but it has nothing to do with the basic visceral pleasure which can be had by anyone listening to any sort of music.

It is not, truly, necessary to know 'structure' in order to fully enjoy a classical symphony, the Concierto de Aranjuez, or any other piece of 'classical' music.

No one needs to know beans about the technical aspects of dance to enjoy watching a ballet: No one needs technical engineering information to appreciate a beautiful building. The fact music is so often badly presented as to intimidate people in regard to their intellectual grasp of music is a really sad state of affairs.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

PetrB said:


> I more than agree the 'cult of personality' has come to dominate the information which accompanies recordings, and that is no help at all. Education, the most basic, in the arts, at least in the states, is now nearly non-existent.
> 
> What truly saddens me, though, is when I do hear a comment such as you made about the Concierto d'Aranjuez, in that it seems some negative conditioning led you to believe you needed some 'formal' education to listen to what many would call 'straightforward' eminently listenable music. Indeed, you really do not / did not need 'a road map' to follow or enjoy the music, but the 'myth' is so routinely perpetuated that you could not follow it until you thought you did have a road map!
> 
> ...


Does the New York Times still use its famous motto: "I wholly disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" or something like that? We have to say what works for one may not work for another. I can oversimplify it with a personal experience - something that might drive professional musicians up a wall. A group of sixth/seventh grade boys had put together a guitar band. At their performance, I could not understand one word they sang. When asked later how I like it, I said the music was lovely but I couldn't understand what they were saying. The answer: "You aren't supposed to understand the words. The voices were the accompaniment to the guitars." In other words, the boys were experimenting with something I'd never have thought of until they explained it. It was only an experiment, something to think about, and knowing that improved the performance for me.

Yes, I at least need to know something about the composition before I can start appreciating it. Surely I am not alone in that?


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2012)

PetrB said:


> it seems some negative conditioning led you to believe you needed some 'formal' education to listen to what many would call 'straightforward' eminently listenable music. Indeed, you really do not / did not need 'a road map' to follow or enjoy the music


I can listen to some very straightforward music and it grabs me viscerally - Maid with the Flaxen Hair, for example, moves me to tears - but once you try to listen to a composer whose purpose seems to be to construct something where the intellectual formality is of prime importance, you lose a proportion, perhaps a significant proportion of understanding.

It's like those who say "maths is beautiful!"

No, it isn't. It's a mystery, and unless you can gain some access to the mystery, it's downright ugly.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> I can listen to some very straightforward music and it grabs me viscerally - Maid with the Flaxen Hair, for example, moves me to tears - but once you try to listen to a composer whose purpose seems to be to construct something where the intellectual formality is of prime importance, you lose a proportion, perhaps a significant proportion of understanding.
> 
> It's like those who say "maths is beautiful!"
> 
> No, it isn't. It's a mystery, and unless you can gain some access to the mystery, it's downright ugly.


There is a fine line, isn't there? I need to reword what I wrote. If I am just going to sit back and relax to some good music, all I need is "I don't know much about music but I know what I like". It is beautiful relaxation. However, if I am asked to understand a piece of music (which is what started this thread), I need to know what the composer was intending and the more I know what to listen for, the more I'll understand what he created.

I agree with you about "Maths is beautiful". I never did understand that concept and I don't understand "maths is" as opposed to "math is" or "maths are".

Sorry about that. I speak American. Carry on.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2012)

Hazel said:


> and I don't understand "maths is" as opposed to "math is" or "maths are".
> 
> Sorry about that. I speak American. Carry on.


My bad! I speak British English.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> My bad! I speak British English.


Not bad at all. We just speak two different languages. Some day I am going to take a course in British English.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> I can listen to some very straightforward music and it grabs me viscerally - Maid with the Flaxen Hair, for example, moves me to tears - but once you try to listen to a composer whose purpose seems to be to construct something where the intellectual formality is of prime importance, you lose a proportion, perhaps a significant proportion of understanding.
> 
> It's like those who say "maths is beautiful!"
> 
> No, it isn't. It's a mystery, and unless you can gain some access to the mystery, it's downright ugly.


But maths _is_ beautiful.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I have to agree with Brahms. Many times I tried to listen to his piano music but I always lose my attention quickly. It just seems so generic and bland. I'm sure that it really isn't and that I'm simply not hearing it.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I can listen to some very straightforward music and it grabs me viscerally - Maid with the Flaxen Hair, for example, moves me to tears - but once you try to listen to a composer whose purpose seems to be to construct something where the intellectual formality is of prime importance, you lose a proportion, perhaps a significant proportion of understanding.
> 
> It's like those who say "maths is beautiful!"
> 
> No, it isn't. It's a mystery, and unless you can gain some access to the mystery, it's downright ugly.


 I've had a similar experience. There are a few composers where one can hear the wheels of their logic and intellect turning and spinning and calculating and adding and subtracting, and I get tired of hearing them think. Birtwistle is one of them and so is Ferneyhough. Thinking and thinking, stopping and starting, endlessly endless...


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> I've had a similar experience. There are a few composers where one can hear the wheels of their logic and intellect turning and spinning and calculating and adding and subtracting, and I get tired of hearing them think. Birtwistle is one of them and so is Ferneyhough. Thinking and thinking, stopping and starting, endlessly endless...


I don't think anyone can really hear the math in serial music. It is not translatable in a way that the math itself can be appreciated. I think it's that emperor's clothes deal. Serialism can be used to organize musical parameters like density, duration, etc. to make the most basic elements more intelligible than random, really no better than by manual manipulation, but is usually self-reverential, listeners can only get a taste of the most basic elements. Anything beyond is totally imagined by fanciful listeners.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bruckner remains baffling to me.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Bruckner remains baffling to me.


try his adagios. Listen to it with closed eyes and see what kind of emotions, images the music conjures in your head








if it does not work, then leave him be and try him later (in a couple of months, years etc)


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> try his addagios. Listen to it with closed eyes and see what kind of emotions, images the music conjures in your head
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks.
I know the 9th adagio pretty well.


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2018)

For a long time I have been listening again and again to Higdon's music, but I have found no accessible entry into loving her music, I really don't understand it as much as I wish I could, considering her concert hall success.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

shirime said:


> For a long time I have been listening again and again to Higdon's music, but I have found no accessible entry into loving her music, I really don't understand it as much as I wish I could, considering her concert hall success.


Indeed - Blue Cathedral is a big hit at the concert hall. Not sure what to make of her myself.


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2018)

janxharris said:


> Indeed - Blue Cathedral is a big hit at the concert hall. Not sure what to make of her myself.


I feel the same way about Haas, but I think I've worked out what it is about his music that _doesn't_ appeal to me (now I just have to wait for that glorious moment when I change my mind, as has happened with every other case of me not initially enjoying someone's music).


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

shirime said:


> I feel the same way about Haas, but I think I've worked out what it is about his music that _doesn't_ appeal to me (now I just have to wait for that glorious moment when I change my mind, as has happened with every other case of me not initially enjoying someone's music).


you mean Georg Friedrich Haas or Pavel Haas? I don't know the first one, but enjoy the second one


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2018)

Jacck said:


> you mean Georg Friedrich Haas or Pavel Haas? I don't know the first one, but enjoy the second one


Georg Friedrich. I haven't heard anything by Pavel Haas, but his name doesn't really come up so often so I just assume he isn't as often performed as GF Haas is.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

shirime said:


> Georg Friedrich. I haven't heard anything by Pavel Haas, but his name doesn't really come up so often so I just assume he isn't as often performed as GF Haas is.


I don't know about live performances, but Pavel has more than twice the number of recordings.


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> I don't know about live performances, but Pavel has more than twice the number of recordings.


Well, I mean, I don't have to specify _Pavel_ Haas when I google search _Haas composer_. That's what I mean when I say that Pavel Haas doesn't really come up so often and I just assumed he isn't as well known as GF Haas.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

shirime said:


> I feel the same way about Haas, but I think I've worked out what it is about his music that _doesn't_ appeal to me (now I just have to wait for that glorious moment when I change my mind, as has happened with every other case of me not initially enjoying someone's music).


Do tell! I was quite surprised as the only piece by Haas that I know - In Vain - seems attractive (atmospheric) and memorable and seems to have a clear direction, too. It reminds me of something Ligeti might have written (if probably more briefly!). Anyway, I have been coming to like it a lot!


----------



## Texas Chain Saw Mazurka (Nov 1, 2009)

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't think anyone can really hear the math in serial music. It is not translatable in a way that the math itself can be appreciated. I think it's that emperor's clothes deal. Serialism can be used to organize musical parameters like density, duration, etc. to make the most basic elements more intelligible than random, really no better than by manual manipulation, but is usually self-reverential, listeners can only get a taste of the most basic elements. Anything beyond is totally imagined by fanciful listeners.


It's a flattering thought... it would mean I'm not missing anything.

Webern comes to mind for me: his music sounds really fascinating when I read about it, less so when I actually hear it. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be hearing in there, or if it's something I would ever be able to discern just by repeated listening. Possibly playing his music backwards wouldn't make it sound much more or less appealing. Well, I still want to like it.


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Do tell! I was quite surprised as the only piece by Haas that I know - In Vain - seems attractive (atmospheric) and memorable and seems to have a clear direction, too. It reminds me of something Ligeti might have written (if probably more briefly!). Anyway, I have been coming to like it a lot!


I actually think In Vain is a pretty satisfying piece to listen to, but most of his other works seem to be just a collection of New Music cliches strung together rather than anything with the same kind of substance In Vain has.


----------



## adrien (Sep 12, 2016)

Composers I don't understand are those who write music that isn't music to my ears. 

Noise that sounds like someone rolling a garden shed down a long slope, or noise that sounds like a train-load of pianos derailing.

Noise that sounds like someone bashed notes randomly into Sibelius for 5 minutes then printed it out.

It makes me suspect the composer would really write a melody if he/she could, but there's nothing there.

If I can't walk away from a performance with a tune stuck in my head, it's pretty much lost on me, so it needs to have a tune, although there are lots of pieces I'll listen to that are largely rhythmic rather than musical, and I'll go wow at the time, I don't tend to revisit them and they are gone pretty quickly from my memory.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

shirime said:


> I actually think In Vain is a pretty satisfying piece to listen to, but most of his other works seem to be just a collection of New Music cliches strung together rather than anything with the same kind of substance In Vain has.


What about limited approximations? Anyway, I agree with your perception. Actually, currently I only like two or three pieces (in vain, lim.app., and a string quartet, can't remember the number.) But the rest can be rather bland and empty.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2018)

aleazk said:


> What about limited approximations? Anyway, I agree with your perception. Actually, currently I only like two or three pieces (in vain, lim.app., and a string quartet, can't remember the number.) But the rest can be rather bland and empty.


Limited Approximations is pretty cool


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

It’s not that I don’t necessarily understand them; it’s that I sometimes feel that I understand them all too well—and that’s the problem, when some of their works can sound like finger nails on a blackboard.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

janxharris said:


> Bruckner remains baffling to me.


This from Jean Sibelius:

_"Yesterday I heard Bruckner's B-flat major symphony [the 5th] and it moved me to tears. For a long time afterwards, I was completely transformed. What a strangely profound spirit formed by a religious sense. And this profound religiousness we have abolished in our country as something no longer in harmony with our time"_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> It's not that I don't necessarily understand them; it's that I sometimes feel that I understand them all too well-and that's the problem if they sound like this and teach at a university:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Robert Shaw did it even better.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Some composers take longer to understand than others, typically those whose messages or language is less straightforward. I would say Edward Elgar, among more prominent tonal composers, is one of those. So is Sibelius in some of his less straightforward music. But to not understand a composer is not to not like it, in my opinion. Sounds to me like that's what people are saying around here -- I don't like so-and-so, not I don't understand them.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Two composers that I have tried to understand and have given up on because they weren't doing enough for me to merit the trouble are Xenakis and Elliott Carter. Fortunately, other people have found enough merit in their music to keep it going without me.


----------



## Bruce (Jan 2, 2013)

Carter's a tough one, I have to admit. I've been working on his Variations, Op. 5, for quite a few years, and only recently have been able to get a grip on them. What helped was realizing that he was varying three themes at the same time, and was varying the tempo as well as other aspects of those themes. His cello sonata's not bad, but most of his works remain impenetrable to me.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Carter sounds very dry to me, Babbitt too with the exception of the early serial works and some few odd pieces further in his career.


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

All Wagner except orchestral parts. 15min of great music each hour. The singing, the libretto, the story. I think he was full of himself like a megalomaniac. 


Brahms says so much out of almost nothing but Wagner says almost nothing out of so much.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

I don't understand Bach.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I don't understand Bach.


too bad for you 
Bach's music can convert even the atheist Japanese to Christianity 
https://cruxnow.com/church/2016/06/04/how-bachs-music-evangelized-japan/
play one of his pieces 10times and if it does nothing, leave him alone. His keyboard music needs some time to sink in before you can differentiate its melodies etc.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> too bad for you
> Bach's music can convert even the atheist Japanese to Christianity
> https://cruxnow.com/church/2016/06/04/how-bachs-music-evangelized-japan/
> play one of his pieces 10times and if it does nothing, leave him alone. His keyboard music needs some time to sink in before you can differentiate its melodies etc.


I'm in that process of multiple listens right now.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I'm in that process of multiple listens right now.


I did that with the English suites (as my first entrance to Bach). I played them in the background while reading a book or working. At first it sounded like some mathematical music, but after playing it like 3-4 times, it started sounding amazing. There is actually a lot of melody and emotion in this mathematical form. I think I listened to Perahia. I also was not that impressed with the cantatas at first, but now after getting myself used to baroque and vocal classical music, they are also great and each has a distinct character


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> I did that with the English suites (as my first entrance to Bach). I played them in the background while reading a book or working. At first it sounded like some mathematical music, but after playing it like 3-4 times, it started sounding amazing. There is actually a lot of melody and emotion in this mathematical form. I think I listened to Perahia. I also was not that impressed with the cantatas at first, but now after getting myself used to baroque and vocal classical music, they are also great and each has a distinct character


I'm doing the english kbd suite no1.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I'm doing the english kbd suite no1.


it is also worth checking out the different instruments. Sometimes Bach can sound better on harpsichord or lute-harpsichord (I like him on all instruments, but some people have preferences)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

How can we tell the difference between "not getting" and "not liking"? I suppose there also position of "liking but not getting" and "not getting or liking". I feel that I know which one of these applies in any case but I could also be wrong! 

A part of sensing that I don't get something is when I don't like it but know that many of those who usually seem to have similar tastes to me do like it. As for getting, I do have a sense - probably we all do - that music is talking to me and when I get that sense I think I am getting the music. Without that sense I suspect that I am not getting it. It can sometimes take quite a while for me to really get some composers but if I also dislike or am bored by the music (in all my different moods) during this interim period then I probably will not give it the time. I'm not sure whether that is not liking or not getting!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Carter sounds very dry to me, Babbitt too with the exception of the early serial works and some few odd pieces further in his career.


I don't really know about Babbitt yet - the little I have heard does sound dry to me, too - but found myself going beyond finding Carter dry some time ago. He just suddenly clicked - which is in itself a wonderful feeling - and I can't even remember how I used to find his music now. I didn't really try with Carter, I just listened occasionally when I felt like something ... er ... dry. And one day boom!


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Jacck said:


> I did that with the English suites (as my first entrance to Bach). I played them in the background while reading a book or working. At first it sounded like some mathematical music, but after playing it like 3-4 times, it started sounding amazing. There is actually a lot of melody and emotion in this mathematical form. I think I listened to Perahia. I also was not that impressed with the cantatas at first, but now after getting myself used to baroque and vocal classical music, they are also great and each has a distinct character


I'm playing the Well-Tempered Clavier Right Now (Currently on F Minor Book 2), and it's such a joy! I don't think I've ever had the same experience with any other pieces I've played. Bach's keyboard music does sound the same at first, but as you go along, listening and musically "analyzing" there is so much creativity there... in WTC there are 96 different bundles of creativity that just blow my mind... I could honestly rant for a whole page about great Bach's keyboard music (and honestly his music in general).

As for the choral music... perhaps since I am not a singer I can't really understand Bach's choral music very well, since the main thing that got me into his keyboard music was playing it on piano. I love the Mass in B Minor, St. Matthew Passion, St. John Passion, and Christmas Oratorio- but his other cantatas (with the exception of a couple like 4, 21, and 78) leave me kind of cold. I'll definitely start listening to them more, I'm still in the "background reading music" stage of his choral music. Do you have a favorite cantata or choral piece I should start with?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Do you have a favorite cantata or choral piece I should start with?


I am no expert and have listened only to maybe 15 of them. The one I posted above is great. The most complex in terms of polyphony is the Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott cantata

here is a list compiled by another
http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/works/bachjs/rateindx.php
but I would say that everyone has to find his own favorites. The cantata I posted above is rated relatively low on the list, but I like it more than other cantatas from the list he rates much higher.


----------

