# Music you don't like AND WHY



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Over on the "Sitting in Judgement" thread which, somewhat misleadingly, is not about Jehovah capriciously flinging apostates and homosexuals into fiery, abyssal torment, but is rather about people forming opinions on music, I've been having a discussion (mostly with Elgarian) about the use of *a*) forming opinions about the goodness or badness of a piece of music and *b*) bothering to tell other people about them.

My own take on it is that because there are plenty of times when we listen to people praise music in depth and detail, with significant knowledge both of emotional effects and intellectual qualities, it must also be fair to assume this exists in reverse - well-considered _negative_ responses.

So, on this thread, I would like you to pick _one_ area of music that you dislike - piece/composer/style/period - and _explain why_. You don't have to be knowledgeable about compositional techniques, just so long as you have actually thought about your opinion for more than two minutes. It would help, though, if you avoided vague emotional reactions like: "I don't think it sounds very personal" or "the mental constructs I associate with this piece are too salty for my veins."

Why I Don't Like Bach

I was tempted to say "why I don't like _Baroque_", but I'm not familiar enough with the period, and I do actually like a fair bit of Handel (more on that later).

I have made various genuine and substantial attempts with Bach, but, hand on heart, I am yet to listen to a piece of music that I like. I have enjoyed the Erbarme Dich from one of his masses (or something!), but only out of context.

Why? I think it's largely to do with what I shall helpfully term "melodic clouding", and perhaps a general difficulty I have with musical forms that are complex in _texture_ rather than in other ways (structure/harmony/whatever). When I listen to a piece by Bach, I _very_ often think: "this opening is very engaging; I think I might enjoy this", but the direction inevitably makes me lose interest quite quickly. I find that the introduction of so many parts, each of them arguably as important as each other, is too much for me to follow, and it ends up - to me - sounding like a wall of incomprehensible sound. It is harmonic rather than cacophonous, but still!

I'm not sure if it is generally accepted of Handel - maybe I have been listening to all the wrong Bach pieces - but the (still little) Handel I have heard has engaged me more because it has had a much stronger melodic foundation. Though the accompaniment is still interesting, it sounds more to me like melody and accompaniment, rather than melody accompanied by more melody[/i]. Thinking to my idol, Brahms, there is no lack of complexity in his music, but it tends to be structural, harmonic, often even rhythmic, but when you look at his pieces _vertically_ - though the passages can be bloody difficult to play! - you very much have a sense of a masterfully written accompaniment bolstering a great theme, rather than a complex interplay of multiple themes.

So, this may just be a listening deficiency of mine, but there you have it.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

You've described very well a big problem I've had with Bach in the past. You are a keyboardist though no? Have you played any of his music on the keyboard? I find that playing Bach was the key to me enjoying listening to Bach. There is nothing I love to play more than the Bach inventions. 

I'm not sure exactly what clicked, maybe it was helped by user Herlocksholmes fanaticism of fugues that rubbed off on me, as I drew a parallel between fugues and my love of the sonata form. Anyway, I wish I could explain it better, at first I also used to get annoyed when people talked about how emotional Bach was when I found nothing there and I think the fanaticism of so many people caused me to shy away and favor the music of his many sons more. That brings up another point, his sons were eventually the gateway into his music for me.

My deficiency thus far lies in opera, partly because its an investment unto itself to buy opera DVDs. I think many people have an issue with opera. The story combined with the music is often too much information at once in such a way that neither aspect, the music or the story seem to compliment each other. I'm often frustrated when I have to read subtitles as well. But I realize this is merely a limitation of my own that I will one day overcome when opera becomes an obsession of mine, as its bound to in the future. Bringing another point up, the only reason the things above get me down about opera, is because I'm so satisfied with the rules of the music that I love to listen to the most at this time, to take on another set of listening parameters is a slow and vague process.

Lieder are also new territory for me as well. But I think I made headway when I heard Mahler's Song's of Dead Children live at the symphony. I was very moved by two of the songs in particular. Its a little bit different for me, associating text with music, but I could see myself digging it one day.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Why? I think it's largely to do with what I shall helpfully term "melodic clouding", and perhaps a general difficulty I have with musical forms that are complex in _texture_ rather than in other ways (structure/harmony/whatever). When I listen to a piece by Bach, I _very_ often think: "this opening is very engaging; I think I might enjoy this", but the direction inevitably makes me lose interest quite quickly. I find that the introduction of so many parts, each of them arguably as important as each other, is too much for me to follow, and it ends up - to me - sounding like a wall of incomprehensible sound. It is harmonic rather than cacophonous, but still!


I used to have the same reaction, and it is understandable. Polyphonic music is complex and intellectually rigorous. That was the driving factor behind abandoning that style in favor of the more simplistic homophonic textures of the 18th century. My appreciation for Bach finally came about after I studied the structure of Ritornello form. Knowing how this form works is the key to understanding most Baroque music as much of it is in Ritornello form.

We as listeners are used to a homophonic texture simply because almost all popular music and most Art music since 1750 has employed the concept of one melody at a time with chords underneath. Keep trying with Bach. Get to know Ritornello form, look at a written score while you listen. The treasures that remain to be discovered are many.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Polednice, is this thread restricted to classical music only?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

This is an interesting thread to which I will contribute substantially in due course. Looks like I'm not the only one on the planet who is hit and miss with J.S. Bach. & I agree with Polednice in liking Handel far more, he's win-win with me every time. Basically I think Handel is easier listening overall, but he's still got the chops big time, he's still got substance.

& please people, it would be good to counter other's criticisms of your favourite composers in your own words, *NOT* endless youtube clips. It seems that every time the demigod J.S. Bach is criticised, even reasonably like Polednice, we get an endless barrage of youtube clips used to illustrate things like "if you don't connect with Bach you should listen to this...and this...and this...and this...etc...etc...etc." Ad nauseum. Even Satie's _Vexations_ looks like a more interesting prospect than that, to be honest. For god's sake, PUT IT IN YOUR OWN WORDS NOT SUBSTITUTE A ZILLION YOUTUBE CLIPS. If I want to hear Bach or anybody else, I can go on youtube now...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Forgive me Sid, but:






Now, WHAT? What do you want Poldenice? What is your game? What more could you want? Think of the happiest, most joyful memory you have. THIS IS IT. YOU'RE HEARING IT. Look/listen to the two violas prancing about joyfully in their intricate canon dance over lower strings plodding along like happy idiots until about 0:50 when they get together and start chattering excitedly, caressing each other. 1:40 we start getting frisky and a bit sassy, minor key now. Oh god, the total toe-curling perfection of the descending movement of 4:10. I'm too lazy to make this post any better. LOVE IT NOW. Even as a sit here now for the upteenth time I have a stupid ear-to-ear grin plastered on my face and tears in my eyes.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Wow, a lot of people seem to be getting on Polednice...I thought his explanation was one of the most lucid and reasonable explanations of composer dislike that I've read on this forum.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

I don't like Bachs music either, for the exact same reason as the OP.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Couchie, I have to say I'm not fond of that particular visualizer.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

violadude said:


> Wow, a lot of people seem to be getting on Polednice...I thought his explanation was one of the most lucid and reasonable explanations of composer dislike that I've read on this forum.


I can grant a person lenience for disliking almost any composer, even those greatest and personally dearest to me: Wagner, and *shiver* Beethoven. But not Bach. I believe it to be morally wrong.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I generally find Bach more interesting to play than listen to. It really is music that should be read and heard at the same time, otherwise it can be difficult to keep track of all the subjects and countersubjects.

I don't like the serialist music of Schoenberg. It seems clear to me that his importance in the history of music lies in the formation of serialism, not in having the most successful application of it. Listening to his serialist music, it is too abstract and devoid of interesting musical content, rather like hearing a mathematical problem worked out. I have the same problem with Babbitt. If we contrast these composers' music with that of Berg, for instance, we find that Berg successfully incorporated serialism in the context of emotionally attractive music.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

what I find helps in understanding bach's fugues and complex polyphonic pieces would be to focus on one voice at a time per listen, I usually listen to the lower voice first in the fugue, then the top voice, and a middle if it exists (middle is difficult for me if its all played on one instrument such as piano)


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

@Ravelian,

I agree about playing Bach's music, particularly the Well Tempered Clavier, which was intended for personal use and meditations. But I now find it quite listenable as well. Anyway, I was just joking when I implied before that this would be a "recommend me some of Bach's music" thread.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Couchie said:


> Forgive me Sid, but:
> 
> ...


No worries, you only posted one clip with a good explanation in your own words. The clip wasn't an end in itself but a prop for what you're saying. That's the good way, not the bad way I was saying, eg. 5 clips one after the other with little or no explanation/illustration of the music...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> ...
> 
> I don't like the serialist music of Schoenberg...Listening to his serialist music, it is too abstract and devoid of interesting musical content, rather like hearing a mathematical problem worked out. If we contrast these composers' music with that of Berg, for instance, we find that Berg successfully incorporated serialism in the context of emotionally attractive music.


I like all 3 of the c20th Viennese School but I agree that Berg is generally the most accessible atonal/serialist composer of that group. He didn't take the theories that seriously, he just applied them very freely the way he wanted. He was a bit of a "softie" in that way, not hard-core atonalist or serialist or whatever. I think Berg is more approachable & less of a leap from say Mahler, but Schoenberg's kind of on another planet. I like them both but I see what you mean. They're both interesting to me though, I like both their atonal and serial works which I have heard.



> ...I have the same problem with Babbitt...


I don't really know Babbit's music well, but I have heard a bit of Roger Sessions and he appears less daunting, dry, academic etc. than I thought...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm not a huge fan of *R. Strauss' tone poems* - probably due to their length, I find the orchestration overly colourful and on steroids, I find them long-winded & the material is drawn out for far too long. The opening of for example _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ is very impressive, but the rest kind of meanders and wanders endlessly, imo.

As a result, I have gone towards this composer's smaller scale and more intimate works, his _Metamorphosen for 23 solo strings_ has been a perennial favourite of mine, I always look forward to hearing it live, it's place in the string repertoire is fully deserved. I'm planning to get into his horn concertos, I already enjoy his oboe concerto & _Four Last Songs_. THIS recording I treasure, & some of the other things on THIS 2 disc set are also beginning to grow on me, but slowly (even _Don Quixote_ is better for me than some of his other tone poems, at least it has the 3 string soloists, so the concerto element draws me in more than with his "straight" tone poems)...


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I can appreciate his longer tone poems more than you do, but I agree on the Metamorphosen and Four last songs - for me, these are the best of R Strauss.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I think he expressed some personal feelings in those works, coming after the devastation of the war, and also reflecting on what had happened. They're not just pieces of music about philosophy, history, literature or whatever, they really came from the heart, I like this autobiographical element in those 3 late works on that Maestro von Karajan disc I did the link to, it was the first recording I got of R. Strauss music & it's probably going to stay my favourite...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Thank you to a number of you for your interesting responses, I hope we can keep the thread _reasonable_ in every sense of the word, and avoid the petty derailing that appeared on the first page. That kind of response is exactly the thing that was being lamented in the 'Sitting in Judgement' thread, and, given my introduction and lengthy post, I was still (perhaps naively) surprised to find people still being immature and ranty in response.

Clavi, I haven't often listened to Bach with a score, and I haven't often played him either because I don't have the motivation. I'll give it a try though.

Also, as Sid has mentioned, posting YouTube videos _as a reaction_ rather than an explanation is useless and actually extremely annoying. If it's to demonstrate a though-out reason for your views, then fine. But demanding that someone hear the metaphorically-described beauty is just plain idiotic.

K thx.


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

There isn’t much classical music I don’t like, perhaps there’s a few dull composers I avoid and some of that avant-garde stuff that’s just silly Radom noises I’ll give a miss.
The only music I really hate it rap music, but then that’s designed to have an attitude that not everyone could relate to!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

@Polednice: Listening with the scores is a good habit to get into. It'll actually improve your listening comprehension when you don't have any sheets. However, I don't quite benefit from it that way, because it's rare that I listen to music without reading the scores.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I can't remember who asked, but sticking to classical music would be useful.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Maybe Bach just isn't depressing enough for your tastes, Polednice. 

...Well, being serious, what I would suggest -- like others have said -- is to try playing Bach's music yourself. Personally I can't play the piano, but I know that many pianists enjoy the feeling polyphony under their fingers, and if you haven't experienced that, you're probably missing out. You do have to keep in mind that Bach was writing for the harpsichord, so the music doesn't fit the piano's registers properly. What would have been Bach's bass and treble end up being in the middle of the keyboard, which can make the sound a bit underwhelming. But that shouldn't necessarily prevent _playing_ Bach from being an enjoyable experience.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I shall be specific with this piece by Xenakis, which I dislike.

(1) It is physically painful to listen to it. My ears hurt when the volume is set sufficiently high when listening to this particular piece. (I even needed to reach out for the Johnson & Johnson Ear Care products afterwards).

(2) Volume aside, I don't think the piece is interesting in the slightest. It reminds me of mundane machine sounds one might come across outdoors. I don't find such sounds particularly musical nor do I have a sound perversion.

(3) The concept behind this piece does not strike me as particularly musical (nor artistic). I find it utterly pretentious in this respect.

So, if fellow members might consider me a complete failure for not liking this piece, then so very well be it. It is one of those unique instances in my life where I am very proud to be a "complete failure".

Just my humble two cents worth of crumbs. Thank you for reading.

_Warning: Ear damage could result if volume set too high._


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Bach has always been a composer I like to listen to, but the enjoyment is totally aural for me. That's why I'm drawn to the performances that have the most pleasing "sound" (The recent Concerto Italiano recording of the Brandenburgs, for example). His music has never made me "feel" anything, so strict interpretation, though not without _some_ effect, isn't as important to me as the tonal quality of the recording.

One type of music that makes my mind rebel a bit still, is recitative. I have always enjoyed Mozart's "Magic Flute" more than any of his other operas (yes, I know that, strictly speaking, "Flute" is a singspiel) because there is no talk-singing between the arias.
I have occasionally heard a passage of recitative that wasn't quite as tedious as the usual, but never to the point that I wanted it to go on and on. That's probably why I don't like most modern operas, because they all seem like non-stop recitative to me.

And, Sid, I agree that Zarathustra, after the opening, kind of bores me. Strauss' shorter tone poems, though, like "Don Juan" and "Till Eulenspiegel" seem to offer more substance and less rambling than some of the longer ones. But, I guess you've tried them already.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I shall be specific with this piece by Xenakis, which I dislike.
> 
> (1) It is physically painful to listen to it. My ears hurt when the volume is set sufficiently high when listening to this particular piece. (I even needed to reach out for the Johnson & Johnson Ear Care products afterwards).
> 
> ...


Well, I understand why you couldn't resist throwing in the "Johnson & Johnson", "perversion", and possibly (though not necessarily) the "pretentious", though I'm sure their inclusion will cause some folks here to question whether you were giving a direct and meaningful answer to the OP's question. 

By the way, there is nothing about this type of sound display (see, even I have a hard time referring to it as "music") that would draw me to listen to it again. It's not my thing, either. Whether or not it deserves the label of "art", I can't say. But, if it really causes permanent ear damage, than I'm agin' it.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> Well, I understand why you couldn't resist throwing in the "Johnson & Johnson", "perversion", and possibly (though not necessarily) the "pretentious", though I'm sure their inclusion will cause some folks here to question whether you were giving a direct and meaningful answer to the OP's question.
> 
> By the way, there is nothing about this type of sound display (see, even I have a hard time referring to it as "music") that would draw me to listen to it again. It's not my thing, either. Whether or not it deserves the label of "art", I can't say. But, if it really causes permanent ear damage, than I'm agin' it.


Well, I certainly wouldn't question the claim that it caused HC's ears to hurt, and I understand why he doesn't like the piece because of that. I don't understand the claim pretentious though. HC, if you could explain a little more what you mean when you use the word pretentious to describe music, it would be helpful.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Dang, it HC. It's been ten minutes since I listened to this (at relatively low volume) and I still have a headache (literally). You should change the warning to : "at ANY volume".


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

violadude said:


> Well, I certainly wouldn't question the claim that it caused HC's ears to hurt, and I understand why he doesn't like the piece because of that. I don't understand the claim pretentious though. HC, if you could explain a little more what you mean when you use the word pretentious to describe music, it would be helpful.


Sure, violadude. With regards to that piece by Xenkais above:-

(1) How would you tell if it was well performed (or badly performed for that matter)?

(2) Without prior knowledge beforehand, and if I were to blindfold you (or a hundred other people), and let you all hear this piece, would you have identified it as music? I suspect most of you would not have, without prior knowledge that it was music composed by a composer. You only would have believed it was music because you were told/read about it that it was something composed by a composer. In other words, the piece itself lacked something inherent about it that would naturally strike most as music. This makes me suspicious of some who declare that just about all pieces of music written by this composer "is pretty good".

(3) It was composed by Xenakis in the late 1970s. Much of his stuff (I'm no expert) infused other non-musical disciplines and explored the apparent artistic merits of music's structure and its relation with the non-musical disciplines he bothered to infuse (one of which is actually part of my very non-musical profession). Well, it's like marrying together say, strawberries and pigs. Some things in life are just not related.


----------



## waldvogel (Jul 10, 2011)

With rare exceptions, mostly by Alban Berg, I don't like twelve-tone music and despise serialism. It's music structured to resemble randomness, horrendously difficult to learn and to perform, and largely responsible for staffing endless university Music faculties with composition professors who have no ability whatsoever to compose music.

Duke Ellington once said that "if it sounds good, it is good." The contrapositive to this statement, which must be true if Ellington's axiom is true, is that "if it doesn't sound good, it is not good." Serial music illustrates this perfectly.

Ah, but what about my innate narrow-mindedness, unable to perceive the beauty of this wonderful genre? Yeah, me and 6.999 billion of the rest of the world. I don't care who you pick - !Kung tribesmen, ghetto kids, Chinese sweatshop workers, bankers, construction workers, religious fanatics - they all would hate it. Well, maybe not the religious fanatics. It causes pain, and they like that. Reminds them of Hell.

Ah, but what about the mindless masses who mocked Beethoven, Wagner, and Stravinsky? They also mocked Tiny Tim and Florence Foster Jenkins, and in these cases they were right.

So may I express that although Pierre Boulez wrote _Le marteau sans maìtre_, in actual fact he has turned out to be _Le maìtre sans cerveau_.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Sure, violadude. With regards to that piece by Xenkais above:-
> 
> (1) How would you tell if it was well performed (or badly performed for that matter)?
> 
> ...


Thanks for responding, HC. To me, it sounds like we are approaching this piece, and music in general, from very different perspectives, which may be the key to many disagreements on TC since we all have different backgrounds.

You are approaching it from purely a listeners point of view. So I suppose that means that it's only the final outcome, the sound of the piece, that matters to you, or maybe rather, the outcome is important above all other things.

I, on the other hand, being a composition major, am coming at it from a composers point of view. That means that for me, the process used to compose it and the philosophy/concept behind the composition, is just as interesting and important when I'm listening. It may sound bizarre but even if I don't particularly love the sound of a piece, I can still love to listen to it if the idea behind it is fascinating to me.

Not saying that one perspective is better than the other, but it is helpful to note these differences in the priorities and perspectives of the listener because I think it really is the root of most of the arguments here on TC.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

waldvogel said:


> With rare exceptions, mostly by Alban Berg, I don't like twelve-tone music and despise serialism. It's music structured to resemble randomness, horrendously difficult to learn and to perform, and largely responsible for staffing endless university Music faculties with composition professors who have no ability whatsoever to compose music.
> 
> Duke Ellington once said that "if it sounds good, it is good." The contrapositive to this statement, which must be true if Ellington's axiom is true, is that "if it doesn't sound good, it is not good." Serial music illustrates this perfectly.
> 
> ...


Funny you mention serialism, I was just listening to Boulez's piano sonata no. 2. I'd like to point out that, even though it may sound bad to you, it actually *is* constructed very well (using sonata forms no less) with, indeed, actual themes. Whether you would like it more if you started hearing the form and the themes I don't know.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

violadude said:


> Thanks for responding, HC. To me, it sounds like we are approaching this piece, and music in general, from very different perspectives, which may be the key to many disagreements on TC since we all have different backgrounds.
> 
> You are approaching it from purely a listeners point of view. So I suppose that means that it's only the final outcome, the sound of the piece, that matters to you, or maybe rather, the outcome is important above all other things.
> 
> ...


Reading a number of on-line articles on the definitions of music, the one thing that really stands out is that there is apparently no satisfactory way to define it for everyone.

Any individual can come up with a definition of music that suits her/him, but that same definition can not be imposed upon others except in the mind of the one imposing it.

Of necessity, what this leads to is that any individual can conceptualize and/or create something that he can present to others as "music" and there is absolutely no way for the receiver of that something to prove that it isn't.

Personally, I hate living in this never-never land of not being able to define anything. So, permit me to define "music" according to my definition, and I'll permit you to define it according to yours.

You are free to say that the Xenakis piece above, or 4'33" is music if you want to. And, I am free to say that the first is "noise" and the second is "silence", and hence, neither one of them is music. I will not take away from the fact that Xenakis and Cage had to purposely put together an idea and present it to others, or even that the effort to conceptualize such an idea took a certain measure of creative thinking. I won't even suggest that no one should act as a receptor for those ideas. If they wish to do so, they may.

But, just as I can not force someone else to say that these "ideas" are not music, no one else can force me to say that they are music. In my own mind, saying that noise and silence are music is like saying that black is white, and no amount of obfuscation will make that sensible to me. My most optimistic view of these works would be that they are creative acts involving sound or the absence of sound. That still doesn't make them music.

Whether they are worth the time it takes to experience them is another matter altogether. They aren't for me. They may be for you.

Does the same apply to anything composed by these two composers or other composers influenced by them? By no means. I wouldn't paint with such a broad brush. I'd have to judge each work on its own merit (if I'd wish to take the time to do so).

And, I really, really hope that I never, ever write anything this pretentious-sounding again.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Vesteralen, I entirely agree with your points. I would say that works by the likes of Cage and Xenakis can be interesting conceptually, but I think it is precisely because there is a conscious awareness in these works of presenting non-musical material as music, forcing us to question what music is. We may not have an answer for that, but those pieces are still not music.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2011)

VamPig - It's hard to write a thorough review of music you don't like because it requires listening to said disagreeable item. I'll try to write a few thoughts before my ears explode.

Bluebeard's Castle is my least favorite piece still in my collection (I haven't deleted it yet on the off chance that my tastes change). I dislike the opening notes, and it goes downhill from there. I find both voices on my version individually odious, and the combination of voices and orchestra nothing less than life-draining.

To be fair, it attempts to shock and unsettle. It wants us to pay attention to a metaphorical story which presumably will get us to think about relationships in a new way. Fair enough but (a) the metaphor doesn't work for me - I find it trite; and (b) I do not listen to classical music to be disturbed or even educated. I listen to music for pleasure.

For people who are receptive to Bartok's message and approach, I congratulate you for your intellectual vigor and openness. And please buy all available copies of the work -- for me, the music is torture.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Vesteralen said:


> Reading a number of on-line articles on the definitions of music, the one thing that really stands out is that there is apparently no satisfactory way to define it for everyone.


As far as I'm aware, there's never been a fully satisfactory definition of 'art' in general, so I presume the same problem pervades each of the various art forms, including music. I think it was Clive Bell who introduced the idea of 'significant form' as being the key factor common to all art, but I'm not sure that he really knew what he meant. I think he meant merely: this is the thing we find in all art that causes us to recognise that 'this is art'. But of course that doesn't get us any closer to identifying what the thing is, let alone actually agreeing about it. It just gives us a name to pin on it, once we think we've encountered it.

None of which has much bearing on the topic to hand. I'll start again ....


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> When I listen to a piece by Bach, I _very_ often think: "this opening is very engaging; I think I might enjoy this", but the direction inevitably makes me lose interest quite quickly. I find that the introduction of so many parts, each of them arguably as important as each other, is too much for me to follow, and it ends up - to me - sounding like a wall of incomprehensible sound. It is harmonic rather than cacophonous, but still!


I've experienced this puzzling response to Bach myself for decades, and I'm still not making any headway. Your comment about the many parts all equally vying for my attention parallels my experience too. It doesn't come over to me so much as a 'wall of sound' though: for me it feels like trying to listen to several different conversations at once, all taking place together, so that after a very short time I want to shout '_shut up_, all of you!'

I'm quite certain that this is a deficiency in me; for all I know, it may be physiological and permanent, in the sense that my brain just isn't wired up in the right way to be able to sort out music like this. Or it may be that some essential 'key' is lacking, which could be learned if only I knew how. I find, like you do, that Handel is a wholly different kettle of fish. This lunchtime, having read your initial post, I tried listening to one of Bach's Trio sonatas. I stuck it out for 10 minutes, by which time I felt so uncomfortable that I was spoiling my lunch! So I switched to one of Handel's sonatas from his Opus 1 - and all was sweetness and light, and my digestive system calmed down.

I think you're right about the melodic component in Handel being easier to follow, and in general his music seems more inclined towards the 'melody plus backing' end of the musical spectrum, as opposed to the 'several melodies battling with each other' end. (I'm using the word 'battling' to describe my _perception_ of what's going on.) That makes all the difference. The melodic thread is always there like a guide rail.

Obviously I'd like to be able to enjoy this great composer who, for many, reigns supreme. But so far, I just can't. And I think that's OK. It's not possible for me to enjoy every possible kind of conversation, so I don't see how it could be possible, either, to enjoy every kind of art, however noble, elevated, and _potentially_ enriching it may be. What I'd want to avoid, as far as I can, is projecting this deficiency in my perceptual capabilities onto the music itself, and blaming that. As we exchange notes like this about our experiences of Bach, we're both aware that the topics under discussion are our respective responses (or lack of them), not the stature of Bach as a composer.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

waldvogel said:


> With rare exceptions, mostly by Alban Berg, I don't like twelve-tone music and despise serialism. It's music structured to resemble randomness, horrendously difficult to learn and to perform, and largely responsible for staffing endless university Music faculties with composition professors who have no ability whatsoever to compose music.
> 
> Duke Ellington once said that "if it sounds good, it is good." The contrapositive to this statement, which must be true if Ellington's axiom is true, is that "if it doesn't sound good, it is not good." Serial music illustrates this perfectly.
> 
> ...


The twelve-tone system was not a well thought out idea on Schoenberg's part. The effect it was meant to have (preventing a tonal center from being perceived) doesn't bear much relation to what actually happens, which is that the listener's brain just hears the music as highly, highly chromatic to the point of incoherence. The fact that the twelve-tone system encouraged composers to disregard the vertical (harmonic) element in counterpoint was bad for 20th-century music, in my opinion.

_But_, recognizing the twelve-tone system as a flawed idea doesn't in any way contradict my belief that it still resulted in some great expressionist works. The arguments that Wagner gave for "music drama" are not very convincing, but that doesn't mean that his music dramas are no good. Similarly, the arguments that Schoenberg and his followers gave for the twelve-tone system are unconvincing and even silly, but that didn't stop them from using it to write a few dozen masterpieces, not least Berg's _Lulu_ and Violin Concerto, Schoenberg's _Moses und Aron_ and the String Trio, Webern's cantatas and orchestral variations, and several works by later composers like Krenek and Boulez.

It's also worth remebering that most people can't tell the difference between twelve-tone music and music that's just very dissonant. Elliot Carter is not a twelve-tone composers, and neither is Xenakis. Schoenberg composed _Pierrot Lunaire_ and the Five Pieces Orchestra years before inventing the twelve-tone system. The tendency to assume that any difficult piece of 20th-century music must be using the twelve-tone system can get a bit irritating.*

* I'm not directing this remark specifically at you, waldvogel.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> I'm quite certain that this is a deficiency in me; for all I know, it may be physiological and permanent, in the sense that my brain just isn't wired up in the right way to be able to sort out music like this. Or it may be that some essential 'key' is lacking, which could be learned if only I knew how. I find, like you do, that Handel is a wholly different kettle of fish. This lunchtime, having read your initial post, I tried listening to one of Bach's Trio sonatas. I stuck it out for 10 minutes, by which time I felt so uncomfortable that I was spoiling my lunch!


Could you say which of his trio sonatas you were listening to? Most of Bach's were originally for organ. That might partially explain why they seemed a bit heavy, even if on your recording they were transcribed for other instruments.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Webernite said:


> Could you say which of his trio sonatas you were listening to? Most of Bach's were originally for organ. That might partially explain why they seemed a bit heavy, even if on your recording they were transcribed for other instruments.


It was the C Major, BWV 530 (originally in G major it says here), and in this recording:








.

But truly, it wouldn't have made a difference no matter what it was. The pattern is very familiar to me by now.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> It was the C Major, BWV 530 (originally in G major it says here), and in this recording:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Have you tried some of the more galante works, like the Brandenburg Concertos or the Harpsichord Concertos, or the Goldberg Variations?


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Webernite said:


> Have you tried some of the more galante works, like the Brandenburg Concertos or the Harpsichord Concertos, or the Goldberg Variations?


Yes of course. As with many composers that I've found 'difficult', about once a year I have another go (I have a sprinkling of different Bach recordings to call on, all bought in moods of experimental optimism). And often, when the timing is right for some reason (the timing being a mystery!), something eventually clicks into place. (I used to think Haydn was incredibly dull, for instance; but one day the penny dropped and now I have a huge boxful of Haydn, which I find perpetually rewarding!) The most productive approach, in my experience, is not to force it but to let it catch me unawares. There's so much rewarding music available to me already that I'm not in a hurry.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Webernite said:


> Have you tried some of the more galante works, like the Brandenburg Concertos or the Harpsichord Concertos, or the Goldberg Variations?


There are sections of the Goldberg Variations that I like, but I can't stomach the whole thing. I think the theme is rather boring too; it just gets interesting later.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Have you tried listening to Bach's Sonatas for the flute?
They are melodic and fairly simple and not as complicated as his other works. 
I also have difficulty listening to some Bach's pieces as well, but his Brandenburg Concertos and the Sonatas for flute (along with the Cello ones) i admire a lot and find beautiful.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Thank you for the suggestions about Bach everyone. I think we have enough to be getting on with...


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> Yes of course. As with many composers that I've found 'difficult', about once a year I have another go (I have a sprinkling of different Bach recordings to call on, all bought in moods of experimental optimism). And often, when the timing is right for some reason (the timing being a mystery!), something eventually clicks into place. (I used to think Haydn was incredibly dull, for instance; but one day the penny dropped and now I have a huge boxful of Haydn, which I find perpetually rewarding!) The most productive approach, in my experience, is not to force it but to let it catch me unawares. There's so much rewarding music available to me already that I'm not in a hurry.


Well, I suppose I'll leave you alone now, reluctantly.



Polednice said:


> There are sections of the Goldberg Variations that I like, but I can't stomach the whole thing. I think the theme is rather boring too; it just gets interesting later.


Who's recording have you heard?


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Polednice said:


> There are sections of the Goldberg Variations that I like, but I can't stomach the whole thing. I think the theme is rather boring too; it just gets interesting later.


Well if you think the aria theme is boring, that shouldn't be a problem, since the variations are based on the bass pattern, not the theme. In that respect the piece is more closely related to a passacaglia than variations. Think the last movement of Brahms 4!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Goldberg Variations: Murray Perahia. That makes me cringe. All others make me want to die.

MOVING ON NOW!


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

And that's quite a good recording, too... Polednice, do you hate Chopin as well?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Webernite said:


> And that's quite a good recording, too... Polednice, do you hate Chopin as well?


Probably. Polednice lives in a little Brahms box. I don't get these people who idolize one composer over all others...


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Goldberg Variations: Murray Perahia. That makes me cringe. All others make me want to die.
> 
> MOVING ON NOW!


Poles...I have no words...let's just say Brahms wasn't chosen to represent humanity as a whole when they sent Voyager into the outer regions of space...don't get me wrong, I like and even love Brahms very much...but the best part about him is that if you replace the 'r' and 'a' with an 'a' and a 'c'; eliminate the 'ms.,...well, that's the best part.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Webernite said:


> And that's quite a good recording, too... Polednice, do you hate Chopin as well?


I do actually quite dislike Chopin, yes...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Wow, Bach advocates are almost as pushy as Jehova Witness...


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

^^ Agreed. Let people have their own opinions and own tastes. But i'm just wondering Polednice, which composers do you like?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Lisztian said:


> ^^ Agreed. Let people have their own opinions and own tastes. But i'm just wondering Polednice, which composers do you like?


My top 6 are Brahms, Dvorak, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, and Mendelssohn.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Nice list  Not the usual suspects for a top 6, and I like that.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Goldberg Variations: Murray Perahia. That makes me cringe. All others make me want to die.
> 
> MOVING ON NOW!


Ever hear them on a period instrument? It's more contemplative, less tame; Probably because of the flat tone of the pianoforte.






For me, unless it's a great pianist, I have a hard time listening to Baroque music on the pianoforte. The writing and the instrument do not match with one another.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I demand you all to accept that I have a problem with Bach _pieces_, not performances! Don't be so disbelieving! I know you love him so dearly, but come on! 

Now let me hear some more about things you hate.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

^^ I don't really like Bach AND Mozart at this point, fancy that. Then again I still have a lot of rep to look into for both composers, and I will definately look into the suggestion of playing their works to hopefully gain an appreciation (by the way, I do like Beethoven  A LOT).

I think the reason for this is that i'm only 17, haven't been listening to classical music for too long, and thus I fall for the extroverted, expressive works of the Romantic period for the most part...at this point Bach and Mozart seem incredibly boring and bland to me, but that will probably change as I mature and get to know more of their works...And when I don't listen to things purely on an emotional level.

I recently went to a Bach WTC recital (book one) and I was bored out of my mind.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

It would be helpful if someone who doesn't like Tchaikovsky or Rachmaninoff posted so I can get a better of why I don't like them. .


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> My top 6 are Brahms, Dvorak, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, and Mendelssohn.


That's a hefty diet of Romanticism you've got there! (And no, there's _nothing wrong_ with that!) I've not actually thought to put a top 6 together before, I think. This week, it would be:

Elgar, Handel, Wagner, Mozart, Haydn, and ..... probably Puccini.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> That's a hefty diet of Romanticism you've got there!


Indeed it is!  I think it's redeemed by the fact that there are many flavours of Romanticism there.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Lisztian said:


> Bach...incredibly boring and bland
















 (helps if you can read music for this one otherwise some of the lines are hard to decipher in the texture-heavy variations. Don't worry if you can't).


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I can see I'm going to have to go back to the Sitting in Judgement thread and take back everything I said about the opportunity for reasonable conversation...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I don't dislike Saint-Saens (I don't think there is any composer I truly dislike) but to me he is one of those take him or leave him type of composers. I think this might be due to the fact that I feel that his music tries to compete with Romanticism while trying to stay as classical as possible and while I enjoy his music quite a bit while I'm listening to him, at the end of the day when I think of great classicalism I think of Mozart or Beethoven, when I think of great Romanticism I think of Brahms or Tchaikovsky. Saint-Saens to me is neither here nor there, despite having enjoyed listening to many of his pieces.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

violadude said:


> I don't dislike Saint-Saens (I don't think there is any composer I truly dislike) but to me he is one of those take him or leave him type of composers. I think this might be due to the fact that I feel that his music tries to compete with Romanticism while trying to stay as classical as possible and while I enjoy his music quite a bit while I'm listening to him, at the end of the day when I think of great classicalism I think of Mozart or Beethoven, when I think of great Romanticism I think of Brahms or Tchaikovsky. Saint-Saens to me is neither here nor there, despite having enjoyed listening to many of his pieces.


I don't really like Saint Saens, and I once read a great description of him which I think perfectly described my indifference to him. Of course Saint Saens was probably the greatest musical child prodigy in history; the description said that he was so talented and writing music came so easily to him that his music often ended up less than fully inspired; the lack of conscious effort he put in to writing music shows through in places. An odd case of someone being too talented, perhaps? I think Mendelssohn had a similar problem but to a much lesser degree, he managed to produce quite a few works I care for a lot. It seems only Mozart could effectively combine that level of prodigious natural talent with consistently deep and intelligent music. But yeah, I'd take Faure over Saint Saens any day.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

jalex said:


> I don't really like Saint Saens, and I once read a great description of him which I think perfectly described my indifference to him. Of course Saint Saens was probably the greatest musical child prodigy in history; the description said that he was so talented and writing music came so easily to him that his music often ended up less than fully inspired; the lack of conscious effort he put in to writing music shows through in places. An odd case of someone being too talented, perhaps? I think Mendelssohn had a similar problem but to a much lesser degree, he managed to produce quite a few works I care for a lot. It seems only Mozart could effectively combine that level of prodigious natural talent with consistently deep and intelligent music. But yeah, I'd take Faure over Saint Saens any day.


In my personal ranking of composers, Faure is definitely way above Saint-Saens, that's for sure. His music is incredibly beautiful.

As for the description of Saint-Saens, ya it could be. We wouldn't know for sure unless we are Saint-Saens brain  but I think I definitely somewhat hear what you are talking about in his music.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I disagree with these expressed attitudes towards Saint Saens. He had an incredible facility for melody at his best, and worked well within conventional romantic structures. Might I ask which works you are judging Saint Saens by? I think that if one judges him by his best works which in my opinion are his two piano concertos 4 and 2 respectively, they find a truly profound and inspiring genius behind those works. Four in particular is in my opinion one of the best concertos of the romantic era, it has an incredible two movement connected structure, held together by incredibly memorable themes, the piece has such atmosphere like no one else. Regardless of whether he was conservative for his time or not, his best pieces are unmistakably by him, he had his own voice. Comparing him to someone as different as Faure is a big mistake. Those who like early-mid and conservative late romanticism will like Saint Saens, and those who prefer the progressive and the impressionist will like Faure, and there are other factors that can't be so easily delineated. 

So that's my half baked attempt at the other side of the story. Saint Saens has those who dislike him, and those who like him, and in my opinion he deserves a high status, he doesn't deserve to be written off based on how his mind seems to have worked.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Saint-Saens to me is neither here nor there, despite having enjoyed listening to many of his pieces.


Saint Saens was a great artist, not many composers can fuse clarity with romantic melody so effectively. He has grace and passion, a unique combination of those two things that never existed before and never will exist again, much like other great composers in their own respective unique ways. He has his place and its nothing to dismiss.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Saint Saens was a great artist, not many composers can fuse clarity with romantic melody so effectively. He has grace and passion, a unique combination of those two things that never existed before and never will exist again, much like other great composers in their own respective unique ways. He has his place and its nothing to dismiss.


Of course, I didn't mean to suggest that Saint-Saens was a bad composer, or has no place in history. All I meant was that his music has yet to interest me as much as some other composers have.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Lastly, I want to say that Saint Saens, is great for new listeners of classical music. I'm not just talking carnival of the animals, but any of his greater works. He is a great gateway drug, was for me, and I know people who didn't know much about classical and were instantly impressed with Saint Saens. Why? Because he has the tunes and he has a clear and memorable atmosphere. Faure's pieces on the whole will typically do more for a more experienced listener with repeated hearings especially, save for the very best of Saint Saens, which is just golden music.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Of course, I didn't mean to suggest that Saint-Saens was a bad composer, or has no place in history. All I meant was that his music has yet to interest me as much as some other composers have.


Saint Saens is a bit like Mendelssohn in a few respects. He has some extremely top notch, beautiful works, so does Mendelssohn, but the rest of the output is an acquired taste for those who like more complex music, or an instant pleaser for those who are more familiar with popular music until they are forced to listen to the whole piece...A lot of music from both composers falls through the cracks for these reasons. But if you start from the top and work your way down, their outputs become more fascinating to pay attention to. I use similar principals for classical era composers.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Saint Saens is a bit like Mendelssohn in a few respects. He has some extremely top notch, beautiful works, so does Mendelssohn, but the rest of the output is an acquired taste for those who like more complex music, or an instant pleaser for those who are more familiar with popular music until they are forced to listen to the whole piece...A lot of music from both composers falls through the cracks for these reasons. But if you start from the top and work your way down, their outputs become more fascinating to pay attention to. I use similar principals for classical era composers.


Well, don't worry, I'm not writing off Saint-Saens as a composer that I'll never like, or anything like that.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

There's a piece of Webern that I couldn't make much sense out of despite repeated listenings, his symphony op. 21. I'll put it on right now while I'm writing. I believe it is a 12 tone piece. I have not analyzed it, but it manages to evade my understanding completely every time I hear it. I feel like I'm on the verge sometimes of picking up on interesting patterns, but I haven't gotten my fix of musical inspiration out of it yet, and have major doubts.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> There's a piece of Webern that I couldn't make much sense out of despite repeated listenings, his symphony op. 21. I'll put it on right now while I'm writing. I believe it is a 12 tone piece. I have not analyzed it, but it manages to evade my understanding completely every time I hear it. I feel like I'm on the verge sometimes of picking up on interesting patterns, but I haven't gotten my fix of musical inspiration out of it yet, and have major doubts.


That was a tough one for me too. There is a recording on youtube with the score, that might be helpful.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Well, don't worry, I'm not writing off Saint-Saens as a composer that I'll never like, or anything like that.


The thing is, you might have missed Saint Saens when he would have been most pleasing to get to know in your musical development. I loved these works early on, due to the melody of them. You perhaps are past the point where this aspect of music fascinates you the most, but if you ever come back to it, do try out these works.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> The thing is, you might have missed Saint Saens when he would have been most pleasing to get to know in your musical development. I loved these works early on, due to the melody of them. You perhaps are past the point where this aspect of music fascinates you the most, but if you ever come back to it, do try out these works.


Well, I'd say I love good melody just as much as the next guy. So I'll try listening again to Saint-Saens and pay more attention to the melody.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> That was a tough one for me too. There is a recording on youtube with the score, that might be helpful.


Do you like it by now? Have you tried other works similar to it and developed a facility in your ear/mind for appreciating these works? I keep seeing Alban Berg recommended in these threads though for 12 tone composers, and perhaps that would be a gateway drug or if not, something that I would like from that category. If you have any Berg, do send!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Well, I'd say I love good melody just as much as the next guy. So I'll try listening again to Saint-Saens and pay more attention to the melody.


I've also heard people recommend Samson and Deliah as a good opera, but frankly I haven't heard this work. I tried his 5th piano concerto and don't find it to my tastes so much, but the aforementioned two piano concertos are what I'd recommend if you haven't heard them in full.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Do you like it by now? Have you tried other works similar to it and developed a facility in your ear/mind for appreciating these works? I keep seeing Alban Berg recommended in these threads though for 12 tone composers, and perhaps that would be a gateway drug or if not, something that I would like from that category. If you have any Berg, do send!


I use to have a lot of Berg. But then I lost it all because my computer crashed and they were downloaded, not on CD. I do have a back up of it somewhere though. I'll look for it during the weekend.

As for the Webern piece, I don't fully understand it, but I like the sound of it a lot.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

As much as I love the piano works of Balakirev, I always found the theme in the first movement of his first symphony lacking. It has many beautiful passages, but my emotions are always disappointed when this theme comes up. It hurts because I want Balakirev to be thought highly of for his output, I BELIEVE IN HIM and yet this theme just falls short of what I want it to be, that or the recording.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

jalex said:


> (helps if you can read music for this one otherwise some of the lines are hard to decipher in the texture-heavy variations. Don't worry if you can't).


Thanks for that. The first one I didn't mind, but it didn't do anything for me. The passion I enjoyed quite thouroughly, and the Passacaglia was pretty good, but not something i'd choose to listen to over a great deal of other stuff. There was certainly a lot going on and it was very complex, hard for me to digest, but i'm sure I will get used to it.. I do however like this stuff better than his piano works. I will continue to look into Bach in the future...i'm sure, seeing as it seems like it always clicks at some point for everyone, that I will start to really enjoy his work.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I disagree with these expressed attitudes towards Saint Saens. He had an incredible facility for melody at his best, and worked well within conventional romantic structures.


Oh, I agree.



> Might I ask which works you are judging Saint Saens by? I think that if one judges him by his best works which in my opinion are his two piano concertos 4 and 2 respectively, they find a truly profound and inspiring genius behind those works. Four in particular is in my opinion one of the best concertos of the romantic era, it has an incredible two movement connected structure, held together by incredibly memorable themes, the piece has such atmosphere like no one else.


Mainly by the second and third symphonies and the cello concerto (sorry, I have an aversion to Romantic PCs, and although I have heard 2 at some point I don't really recall it), and to a lesser extent the few orchestral poems, suites and chamber works I have heard/played. I believe he considered the third symphony his best work, I'm not placing heavy emphasis on Carnival of the Animals!



> Comparing him to someone as different as Faure is a big mistake.


Ah, I miscommunicated. I meant that only in the sense that Faure was the next major French composer. Though I don't think they are so different as to make comparison useless anyway. I'm sure you know that Faure was his pupil, and I believe they were friends?



> So that's my half baked attempt at the other side of the story. Saint Saens has those who dislike him, and those who like him, and in my opinion he deserves a high status, he doesn't deserve to be written off based on how his mind seems to have worked.


I don't want to write him off. I actually don't mind the third symphony. I just feel that he often lacked profundity (relatively speaking).


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

jalex said:


> I just feel that he often lacked profundity (relatively speaking).


The key there is "often." I agree that he's spotty. I would rate piano concertos 4 above even the Organ Symphony and 2 is on par with it. I think his three violin concertos are also very nice, as is Rondo Capricio for violin and orchestra.

Now, the piece that really bugs me, is "The Swan". I've never been a fan.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

violadude said:


> I use to have a lot of Berg. But then I lost it all because my computer crashed and they were downloaded, not on CD. I do have a back up of it somewhere though. I'll look for it during the weekend.
> 
> As for the Webern piece, I don't fully understand it, but I like the sound of it a lot.


Are they works you legally bought? If not...you had for the price you paid for it...n'est-ce pas?


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Goldberg Variations: Murray Perahia. That makes me cringe. All others make me want to die.
> 
> MOVING ON NOW!


I have the Glenn Gould version, it is very nice.

Martin


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Vesteralen said:


> ...
> 
> And, Sid, I agree that Zarathustra, after the opening, kind of bores me. Strauss' shorter tone poems, though, like "Don Juan" and "Till Eulenspiegel" seem to offer more substance and less rambling than some of the longer ones. But, I guess you've tried them already.


I have got_ Till Eulenspiegel _& I have heard _Don Juan_. Basically, it's "no cigar" with them either. I'm glad though that I've connected with his chamber music, concertos and songs & these are the areas I want to expand upon with R. Strauss. I'm not a masochist, I don't listen to anything because I have to. If I'm middling on something, I will make an effort to appreciate/like it, whatever, but if I get nothing out of it time after time, the effort is not worth it, I only have limited time/energy, etc. & just move on to things better for me.



BPS said:


> VamPig - It's hard to write a thorough review of music you don't like because it requires listening to said disagreeable item...


I like your honesty there.



> ...Bluebeard's Castle is my least favorite piece still in my collection ... I find both voices on my version individually odious, and the combination of voices and orchestra nothing less than life-draining.
> ...
> For people who are receptive to Bartok's message and approach, I congratulate you for your intellectual vigor and openness...


I have heard that a few time on air, & I agree it doesn't make me want to rush out and buy it. Of course, opera isn't usually my forte. However, hearing a guy sing "Judith...Judith...Judith..." ad nauseum above all this orchestral swelling just doesn't rock my boat one bit, to be honest...



Couchie said:


> ...I don't get these people who idolize one composer over all others...
> ...


I don't get that either, but it's just as bad to have a limited ideology or dogma. Eg. all choral music is boring, all electro-acoustic music is rubbish, everything has to be innovative, everything has to be traditional, etc. etc.



violadude said:


> ...Wow, Bach advocates are almost as pushy as Jehova Witness...


Yes, Bach is a religion, but I have found that on these forums, some or even many people who tend to idolise BOTH Bach and Wagner come across as kind of like, well (I'll say it "nicely"), objectionable people...Like someone said on the radio here, you read a novel by Ayn Rand, you like it, and then you automatically become an a***hole for three months...



Polednice said:


> I demand you all to accept that I have a problem with Bach _pieces_, not performances! Don't be so disbelieving! I know you love him so dearly, but come on!  ...


Sometimes performances do make a difference, but more often than not, I'm with you on that, if I like a composer, the performance is not all that important, people on these forums sometimes overrate performances, imo. It has a lot to do with stroking egos sometimes. Funny how if say I don't like a piece by a post-1945 composer, nobody will offer me umpteen performances. They will just accept that I don't like this contemporary composer (but it's not the same with sacred cows, is it?) & often, there are no alternative performances, esp. for new music, you're lucky to have one performance on disc. I like Australian composers, for example, but compared to say European or USA composers, there's not a lot of their music on youtube. So I just "make do" with what's there. Some people are too fussy in this era of a zillion choices. They complicate things too much, imo.



> Now let me hear some more about things you hate.


Well I've ranted enough so I'll come back to do that later...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Are they works you legally bought? If not...you had for the price you paid for it...n'est-ce pas?


Ya I bought them from the Itunes store. But lost them when my computer broke.


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

I have'nt yet come across a Composer that I have'nt been able to appreciate on some level - My listening experience is perhaps not as extensive as some of the other members which might account for this but I also think it is because I don't have very fixed ideas about what I do and don't like 
I dont find the need to disagree with anyone either if they don't happen to like any of my favourite Composers - that's life! Maybe I dont have the best attitude to be a Member of an Internet Discussion Group, I have seriously considered that but I do enjoy reading other peoples opinions even when they don't align with my own.
I could easily name a few Composers who I did'nt take to right away though - Bruckner, Mahler, Bartok and Xenakis for instance have all required me to stretch my listening boundaries a bit.
Anyway I think its great that many people here know what they like and don't like in Music right now - I can easily see this changing in future though as they grow as listeners


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*Rued Langgaard *is another one I don't like. I have listened to two of his symphonies plus other things on a disc I bought a while back. I returned it to the store. It's not only that his music was on steroids like R. Strauss' large scale orchestral things, but Langgaard came across to me as mixing too many styles. A polyglot, speaking a kind of esperanto, a combination of many languages but not a "real" language. One minute a Bachian fugue, then some late-Romantic bombast, then some lush almost Impressionist vibe. I mean others like Martinu or Villa-Lobos were like this but somehow due to their strong overall personality or individuality or whatever they could get away with it. Langgaard was just rehash in those symphonies, which would be okay if it had something extra, something "value-added."

Recently, I listened to his _Music of the Spheres _on youtube, which I admit was more interesting, but in the end, not by much. Ligeti admired this piece, he said it was very good, but maybe I'm just kind of over this "atonal" type of music? I don't know & don't really care. There are plenty of bigger fish to fry for me than Langgaard as they say...


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Conor71 said:


> I have'nt yet come across a Composer that I have'nt been able to appreciate on some level - My listening experience is perhaps not as extensive as some of the other members which might account for this but I also think it is because I don't have very fixed ideas about what I do and don't like
> I dont find the need to disagree with anyone either if they don't happen to like any of my favourite Composers - that's life! Maybe I dont have the best attitude to be a Member of an Internet Discussion Group, I have seriously considered that but I do enjoy reading other peoples opinions even when they don't align with my own.
> I could easily name a few Composers who I did'nt take to right away though - Bruckner, Mahler, Bartok and Xenakis for instance have all required me to stretch my listening boundaries a bit.
> Anyway I think its great that many people here know what they like and don't like in Music right now - I can easily see this changing in future though as they grow as listeners


Conor, I would say that you are blessed with a rare quality - that of an open and accepting mind. It is a goal that I am always striving for, but often find myself falling short of. It is sometimes the case that I feel like I am "forcing" myself to accept and see the good in everything, even when I know it is not really what I think. The best I can do is to be open to opportunities, as judgement is never wrong until it turns into stifling, unrelenting dogma. To judge is but a natural process of the human mind, and I believe it is only fair to be accepting of this fact too.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I actually enjoyed reading the conversation about* Saint-Saens *between two of you guys above. It was more reasonable than saying "his music is [insert put down]." I think that's what Polednice is driving at with this thread. At least you didn't compare him to Berlioz which is often done & it's not a really useful comparison, imo. I think comparing him with Faure is a bit iffy imo, but at least not the usual ideology of "progress" rubbish, eg. "Berlioz was far more innovative than Saint-Saens." Actually, Saint-Saens in his early years was allied with Liszt, who was seen as one of the spearheads of the Romantic movement, so not a conservative. Saint-Saens did do some amazing things, as mentioned his piano concertos are very fine & imaginative, I'd also add his chamber works which look forward to the neo-classical movement which would only emerge when he was very old, and also the whimsy of the _Carnival of the Animals_, which is almost kind of Dadaesque in some ways. I was myself critical of him, as well as Gounod to a lesser extent, but now they're composers I quite like in some ways, esp. in terms of elegance & a kind of classicism/restraint in some of their music...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Air said:


> ...
> The best I can do is to be open to opportunities, as* judgement is never wrong until it turns into stifling, unrelenting dogma.* ...


Gold my friend, absolute pure gold!...


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Sid James said:


> I think comparing him with Faure is a bit iffy imo


Sure, but like I said I only meant this in the sense that Faure was the next great French composer.



> but at least not the usual ideology of "progress" rubbish, eg. "Berlioz was far more innovative than Saint-Saens." Actually, Saint-Saens in his early years was allied with Liszt, who was seen as one of the spearheads of the Romantic movement, so not a conservative.


Saint Saens was himself something of a progressive at the beginning of his musical career, he was a strong advocate of the work of Wagner and Liszt and introduced the orchestral poem to France. I'm actually interested in having a listen to his later chamber pieces now after reading their Wikipedia description:



> The later chamber music pieces, such as the second violin sonata, the second cello sonata, and the second piano trio, are less accessible to a listener than earlier pieces in the same form. They were composed and performed when Saint-Saëns was already slipping out of popularity and, as a result, they are little known. They show a willingness to experiment with more progressive musical language and to abandon lyricism and charm for more profound expression.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

jalex said:


> Sure, but like I said I only meant this in the sense that Faure was the next great French composer.
> ...


Right, I see your point.



> ...
> I'm actually interested in having a listen to his later chamber pieces now after reading their Wikipedia description:
> ...


I am as well, I've heard them on radio but never owned them. THIS superb local release of some of his chamber works is piquing my interest for sure. I remember these works & others like them by him as being quite like the things to make fruition in the neo-classical style that emerged between the two world wars. He was kind of ahead of his time in a way, they reminded me of _Les Six _very strongly...


----------



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

G & S. I find the whole premise just too shallow, frothy, trite and sugar-coated (and yes, I do quite like comic opera/operetta) even if Sullivan had an undeniable gift for melody and Gilbert a similar talent for satire. Although anything that pokes fun at England's national institutions during the apogee of Empire would normally appeal to me the fact remains that G & S leaves me cold and unmoved. At the time I imagine it was an all-in package tailored towards a specific type of concert-goer who wanted to be entertained (and seen) rather than seek profundity and D'Oily Carte's productions certainly seemed to dovetail well with what the audience was looking for, even if I do think such evenings at the Savoy were not too many steps removed from being a more socially prestigious version of the music hall. Perhaps it reflected the stature - such as it was - of music in the UK during the Victorian era that Sullivan was her most celebrated composer. Sadly G & S remains my main and possibly only blind spot in my love of CM.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I've always found the music of Francis Poulenc (1899-1963) very irritating and off-putting.
It's tuneful and clever, but insufferably cute. All that mincing preciosity, that affected Parisian chi-chi and frou -frou gets on my nerves. 
It reminds me of an adult at a party who behaves really childishly at a party and thinks he's being oh so witty and clever but is really making a fool of himself.
When Poulenc tries to be serious, as in his opera Les Dialogued Du Carmelites, he's merely glum and boring. Humor in music is great, but I can't stand mincing preciosity and cuteness.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

@ Superhorn, I've had a similar problem with Poulenc's sweetness. Nice one.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

My top 6 are Brahms, Dvorak, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, and Mendelssohn.

Romanticism... with strong roots in classical form. Tchaikovsky excepted this list avoids the extremes of Romanticism (Wagner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, the Russians). I can easily understand an aversion to Bach. Personally, I loved the complex multi-layered aspects of Bach... which I also love in medieval and Renaissance polyphonic music as well as the extremes of Romanticism... not that I dislike the simpler classical music. My own top six would probably be Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Handel, Schubert, and Wagner.

As for my own dislikes... I'm not overly fond of atonal music... although there are moments I am up for it. I like to give a listen to even the most experimental strains of music before passing judgment, but I will admit that I find a lot of it to be crap (although a good portion of all music is crap). I would never think to say I don't like Modern or even Contemporary music because there are so many composers there that I truly love: Daniel Catan, Osvaldo Golijov, Arvo Part, Dutilleux, David Lang, Peter Lieberson, Philip Glass, etc...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I want to hear people's opinions on Medtner. I LOVE Medtner for those of you haven't seen many of my posts. I don't know why, but I just want to hear what the haters have to say. I used to find Medtner, like Brahms and much of Rachmaninoff, needlessly thick and not chromatic enough for all its chordal texture, but I love it now and feel completely removed from my original feelings.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

elgars ghost said:


> G & S. I find the whole premise just too shallow, frothy, trite and sugar-coated (and yes, I do quite like comic opera/operetta) even if Sullivan had an undeniable gift for melody and Gilbert a similar talent for satire. Although anything that pokes fun at England's national institutions during the apogee of Empire would normally appeal to me the fact remains that G & S leaves me cold and unmoved. At the time I imagine it was an all-in package tailored towards a specific type of concert-goer who wanted to be entertained (and seen) rather than seek profundity and D'Oily Carte's productions certainly seemed to dovetail well with what the audience was looking for, even if I do think such evenings at the Savoy were not too many steps removed from being a more socially prestigious version of the music hall. Perhaps it reflected the stature - such as it was - of music in the UK during the Victorian era that Sullivan was her most celebrated composer. Sadly G & S remains my main and possibly only blind spot in my love of CM.


G&S are great to see live. It all seems so quaint and cute, and Sullivan has a good dramatic sense in the operetta style. I'd be interested in exploring more of his works and seeing if he wrote anything more serious. But they are pretty formulaic. Its 19th century pop music in a way.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Sure, violadude. With regards to that piece by Xenkais above:-
> 
> (1) How would you tell if it was well performed (or badly performed for that matter)?
> 
> ...


1. So music is to be dictated by performance? Can't this ideal be considered pretentious on it's head? After, it seems on it's face to make an ego driven presumption. (no offense, I'm just classifying the logic used)
2. Without prior knowledge of tonality and pitch, would someone be interested in music? Isn't music the invitation for someone to make an inference from context, after all?
3. This doesn't specify why this mixture is bad, and why one is "strawberries" and the other is "pigs".


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

So, LukeCash... do you actually enjoy the Xenakis piece in question?


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> 1. So music is to be dictated by performance? Can't this ideal be considered pretentious on it's head? After, it seems on it's face to make an ego driven presumption. (no offense, I'm just classifying the logic used)
> 2. Without prior knowledge of tonality and pitch, would someone be interested in music? Isn't music the invitation for someone to make an inference from context, after all?
> 3. This doesn't specify why this mixture is bad, and why one is "strawberries" and the other is "pigs".


Ouch!! Oh. I just listened too to that piece. I cant realy enjoy it much. sorry. (I think the poster was talking about that particular piece by its own though).


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> So, LukeCash... do you actually enjoy the Xenakis piece in question?


Yes, I do enjoy it. There is actually a mixture of instrumental and electronic sounds in there, and the piece happens to be an aural representation of a piece of architecture. The bell-like noises at the beginning signify a departure, and it eventually makes it's way into a fantastical, futuristic realm (with simple motifs being lightly played by real instruments), and the journeyer finally returns home at the end. There are all sorts of scenic twists and turns between, with the accompanying instruments suggesting something about the place, and onomatopoeia to characterize the place as well.

Just as the title says, it is a legend.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I've blocked that member obsessing about Xenakis' _La Legende de'Eer_, but I read his opinions in quotes of him by others. I say he's obsessed by this because he's given this as an example of bad music like 3 or 4 times now over the past few weeks. That work is one of the finest electronic works, it's the best of that type of music I have on disc. It is very intense, so I don't listen to it often. Listening to a five minute clip of it doesn't do it justice. The work lasts about 45 minutes in total, and in that time goes through a series of 5 or so crescendos, it starts with quiet but high pitched sounds and ends that way. The kind of curved/parabolic structure reflects the architecture of a part of the Georges Pompidou Centre in Paris, for which the piece was composed as a house-warming/opening kind of piece. I can go on about this, I quite like Xenakis overall, I went to a concert of his percussion piece _Pleaides_ & other things earlier in the year & it was awesome. I actually didn't review that concert on the "latest concerts" thread for fear of being attacked for listening to "atonal junk" or somesuch. I might actually put my thoughts on the Xenakis thread, I hope that doesn't get polluted by this kind of objectionable behaviour (as I don't go on the Wagner or Bach threads saying "they're rubbish" do I?), I actually set that thread up in 2009 when I heard a string orchestra piece by him live here...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> I want to hear people's opinions on Medtner. ...


He's a guy I've read more of than heard. I did hear a radio program totally devoted to his music of various sorts - concertos, sonatas, even songs. It was a good all-round introduction and I remember that I enjoyed it. He is on the backburner to get on disc, I'm looking at getting maybe a concerto and a chamber work, I think Naxos has two on the one disc as part of the survey they did of Medtner's stuff. In terms of developing keyboard technique, he was up there with other Russians of his time, eg. Scriabin & Rachmaninov. Good that you're promoting him, & I think Air has also discussed him in some depth over the years...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Honestly, from what I've heard, _La Legende de'Eer_ doesn't do much for me. As for the idea of music "illustrating" architecture, I can't help but recognize that this is not an original idea. Frank Lloyd Wright was known for his quote equating music with "frozen architecture"... and this in itself was inspired by Goethe's statement to the same effect. Indeed, music has often been equated with architecture. J.S. Bach's layers of sound have frequently been compared to a Gothic Cathedral while I have come across comments equating the repetition of Islamic chant and Persian music with the pattern-obsessed architecture of the Middle-East.

Personally, Xenakis has never really grabbed me. I have come across a few small works on line that I have enjoyed to a certain extent, and others that I found quite painful... far more so than _La Legende de'Eer_:






For music in a similar vein, I far prefer Gerard Grisey:






and especially Tristan Murail:











Ultimately, on the question of "liking" or "not liking" a work of music it seems to me that we are exploring the question of what does or does not give us pleasure and to impose judgment upon what another finds pleasurable or not seems rather more than pretentious. I personally appreciate Penderecki's _Threnody for the Victims_ of Hiroshima... but I don't really enjoy listening to it. In a contrary manner, there are certainly works that sound lovely enough... but leave me indifferent or bored because I find them excessively obvious or cliche... or whatever. Can we fully analyze why we don't like something? I hate Lima Beans. But I love dark beer (which surely can be an acquired taste). I'd be hard pressed to analyze the reasons for my like of dark beer or dislike of Lima Beans, and I certainly doubt that someone is going to convert me into a lover of Lima Beans by logically pointing out how good they are and how good they are for me.

The danger of a thread like this... of declaring that you dislike this or that certain work of music... is that people begin to take such statements personally. Most of the comments here have made it clear that the individual poster is simply voicing a personal opinion based upon what they like/dislike. But what happens? I love Bach... someone else suggests that they don't like Bach... thus my taste and my opinions... me, myself, and I are being attacked. And this is true when most are avoiding the use of "absolutes": "X is the best", "Y sucks", etc...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Honestly, from what I've heard, _La Legende de'Eer_ doesn't do much for me. As for the idea of music "illustrating" architecture, I can't help but recognize that this is not an original idea....


It's not only about illustrating architecture, it's about the story of a man who goes into the netherworld and sees these things but then is bought back from the dead. Xenakis was quite creative in fusing that ancient story with the structure of the building in Paris. HERE is my review of this work on the Xenakis thread, which is not a bad resource for people wanting to get into his music beyond the "it sounds ugly" kind of mantra which seems to be repeated endlessly on these forums. Or using him as a whipping boy, along with whoever else you don't like - it can be Philip Glass one minute, or Schoenberg, or whoever is an easy target or takes your fancy. Yet if I say that J.S. Bach's cantatas bore and irritate me, as do Wagner's epic operas, I get a barrage of accusations, or worse, having that used against me, ramming that down my throat in an argument/discussion about something totally different. This seems to only happen on the internet, in real life if you used these tactics repeatedly, you'd probably get a punch in the face & rightly so imo...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> The danger of a thread like this... of declaring that you dislike this or that certain work of music... is that people begin to take such statements personally. Most of the comments here have made it clear that the individual poster is simply voicing a personal opinion based upon what they like/dislike. But what happens? I love Bach... someone else suggests that they don't like Bach... thus my taste and my opinions... me, myself, and I are being attacked. And this is true when most are avoiding the use of "absolutes": "X is the best", "Y sucks", etc...


I don't take it personally if someone says a composer whose music I like is rubbish. I'm over that, if people want to think that way, let them. However, what I do not like is when someone says that a composer or piece is rubbish AND the people who enjoy that have something wrong with them, they're abnormal, they're fit for an asylum or whatever. It's okay (maybe) to say something you dislike is rubbish, but it is not okay to say people who like it are rubbish. So yes, I have a right to take this kind of thing personally, esp. if someone somehow gets off on doing this day in day out on this forum. It's worse than a broken record, it is extremely rude, primitive and insulting behaviour...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Andre... my response wasn't aimed at you... or anyone in particular. Indeed, examples of what I was speaking of occurred almost immediately in this thread. Polednice admitted to a dislike of Bach... and immediately an effort was made to convert him. certainly, I would probably jump into the fray if he had declared that Bach is overrated or his music sucks or some such comment... but for him to simply say "I don't like Bach"... Fine. No skin off my nose. The same is true whether we are speaking of Brahms, Wagner, Strauss, Cage, Glass or Xenakis. 

I understand the frustration of those who love Modern and Contemporary composers when others repeatedly seem to attack these same. But let's face it... fans of Medieval and Renaissance music may be actually worse off. They hardly ever get the least response one way or another and it leads one to think of the old adage, "No publicity in bad publicity". At least Cage and Stockhausen and Xenakis are continually in the limelight... and being discussed. And then there's poor Mozart and Haydn who face continual charges of being "lightweights"... essentially because they aren't Romantics... to speak nothing of Vivaldi... who faces that continual charge of all his music sounding the same. 

Obviously, it is only human nature to want others to enjoy what we enjoy. When I come across a great new piece of music or art the first thing I want to do is share it with others. But of course not everyone will share our enthusiasm, and it is pointless to become angered because someone dislikes a composer or specific work of art that we like. Again, I don't think we can fully control what we like in art anymore than we can control what we like in food and drink. The best we can do is attempt to avoid absolutes: "X sucks" or "Q is the greatest" as opposed to "Personally X does nothing for me" or "I can't stand Q". 

Of course, with the internet we also face the challenges of relying upon other's abilities to grasp our meaning solely from the texts (and "smilies") we post. Even in real life, we face instances in which another "misreads" our intentions... and here we lack the inflections of the voice, the body language, etc...that help us discern when another is just joking about.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...Indeed, examples of what I was speaking of occurred almost immediately in this thread. Polednice admitted to a dislike of Bach... and immediately an effort was made to convert him...


I want to clarify that it's okay to try and not necessarily "convert" but suggest how a person can better appreciate a composer/piece, etc. But I think that only/mainly if the person wants that, is asking for it, is open to it, etc. & I personally try put it in my own words & some kind of personal bent or from what I've read, not just posting half a dozen youtube clips. We are all of reasonable intelligence, capability, inquisitiveness here to use our own initiative, etc.



> ...
> I understand the frustration of those who love Modern and Contemporary composers when others repeatedly seem to attack these same...


Well I can take the attacks - eg. with the ignore function - but I cannot take people throwing things in my face, I don't need to repeat this. If one here says you don't like something, that can be a liability, if you say you do like something, then that can be also. This kind of behaviour doesn't belong to adults, it is that of immature children. I am just as critical as the hard conservatives as the hard progressives. Neither are doing their respective "causes" any justice, imo.



> ...
> ...But let's face it... fans of Medieval and Renaissance music may be actually worse off. They hardly ever get the least response one way or another and it leads one to think of the old adage, "No publicity in bad publicity". At least Cage and Stockhausen and Xenakis are continually in the limelight... and being discussed. And then there's poor Mozart and Haydn who face continual charges of being "lightweights"... essentially because they aren't Romantics... to speak nothing of Vivaldi... who faces that continual charge of all his music sounding the same...


This is true, and on the other forum I was on, but quit, I did quite a bit of discussion & advocation if you like of Monteverdi's _Vespers of 1610_. I had just discovered it and I was very enthusiastic about it. This actually got some other members there interested. I was just talking naturally about it. I did the same posts here on TC, I copied them, but you guys already know Monteverdi or love him more than those guys on the other forum, which is more biased towards music since the Romantics than here. So it was kind of refreshing for these people, my advocacy which was basically from the heart, without bias. So yes, rather than dismissing music of any era as being like some stereotype, it's far better to engage with it and actually listen to it. Or just leave it if it's not for you. There's no need to elevate something you like & then in the same breath diss something you don't like. I don't think that kind of thing really serves any real purpose, other than telling us what you like and what you don't.



> ...
> Of course, with the internet we also face the challenges of relying upon other's abilities to grasp our meaning solely from the texts (and "smilies") we post. Even in real life, we face instances in which another "misreads" our intentions... and here we lack the inflections of the voice, the body language, etc...that help us discern when another is just joking about.


This type of "misread" can happen if it's an isolated incident, but not if it's a daily barrage of dissing certain composers and also the people who enjoy their music, in a quite direct and in your face/blunt way. Basically it's not on, it's not a mistake (eg. like now gone members of the past who we can call "highly objectionable"). I don't get this in real life & in terms of people I personally know, I'm the odd one out, all of them basically love Bach's music. But they don't worship him so they're okay with me not feeling the same way. Wagner is more controversial, a lot of people I know strongly dislike his music, they think it's kind of bloated, or over doing things like a 20 course meal, and highly "pretentious" (see how that word means absolutely nothing, or at least not much?)...


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

violadude said:


> Wow, Bach advocates are almost as pushy as Jehova Witness...


I know nothing about Jehovas but I have been witness to some of most amazing music ever written...if one can't see it,...sad for them. Plus, I would never consider 'pushing' greatness on someone who simply can not comprehend it.


----------

