# Turnabouts!



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Lately, it seems we've had a lot of threads listing what bores us, what he don't like, what we find overly sweet, etc. How about something more positive. 

Tell us about your musical "turnabouts". A composer (or genre, instrument, etc) that you didn't care for only to have a complete change of opinion/taste. Lastly, list what you would like your next turnabout to be, a composer you're attempting to understand and enjoy. I'll start.

*Solo piano music* - It was Pollini's interpretations of Beethoven's late piano sonatas that made me open my ears. Which leads me to...

*Chopin *- To be fair, I never really gave him a fair chance in the first place, but I've been enjoying his music immensely as of late (also played by Pollini).

*Chamber music* - Reading other people's posts, this seems to be somewhat common. Chamber music, especially for those new to classical, isn't always as accessible as the big orchestral works. It was the String Quartet that caused the turnabout, Quartettto Italiano's Beethoven late quartets.

*Debussy *- I struggled with his music in the beginning, now he's among my favorites.

Lastly,

*Mahler *- I struggled with his music the most, I listened to the 5th (and parts of others) on YouTube and just didn't understand it. I had some kind of block. When I created a TC account, I created a thread asking for help on the matter and now he's my second favorite composer. It was specifically symphony No. 6 "Tragic" which really made me have the "epiphany".

*I'm sure there are others but I can't think of them right now.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Mahler, Schoenberg, Chopin, Wagner, Liszt... I could go on. 

Going the other way, Brahms was my favourite composer at one point, but I rarely listen to him these days.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

*Mahler* I hadn't heard any Mahler at all until recently, when I listened to his wonderful Fifth Symphony. I have since listened to some of the others.

*Stravinsky* The piece that caused the "turnabout" was the same piece that caused the initial hatred: The Rite of Spring.

*Brass instruments except the horn* I always liked the horn, but I've only recently started to get used to the other brass instruments.

And lastly,
*Schoenberg* I still don't really like a lot of his music, but I think I'm getting there.


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

*Brahms symphonies*. I am really enjoying exploring these after an epiphany on hearing no.3 on the radio.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> A composer (or genre, instrument, etc) that you didn't care for only to have a complete change of opinion/taste.


not yet happened to me.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Two that come to mind right away for me is I had a turn around with Brahms when I heard the late piano pieces, and I had a turn around with Schoenberg after listening to his _Chamber Symphony No. 2_.

In the case of the Schoenberg I enjoyed the piece so much I had this strange experience where I felt like I got all this energy from it, and I had a hard time sleeping afterwards. It is written in his older style, but it caused me to realize how talented the man was and therefore hear the rest of his works with a new perspective.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2015)

*Brahms *- For many years I though his music was dull. It sounded to me like a poor imitation of Beethoven but without the catchy riffs. I kept trying and begin to like the fourth symphony, then the first. When I heard the Piano Concertos done by Freire and Chailly, the turnabout was complete. Now I'm going through his chamber works and loving them.

Lastly,
*Mahler *- I still have not been able to latch onto his music. I'm a little embarrased to say the works may be too long to keep my attention. I keep trying. Two days ago I begin to enjoy the 2nd Symphony. Reading about the meaning and program of the work on Wikipedia helped. But again I did not finish it. I will try again soon.

I would like to thank the OP for seeking positivity in a sea of curmudgeons.


----------



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

Max Reger - I posted about my change of heart on a not entirely dissimilar thread some time back. I mention 'change of heart' - that's a polite way of saying that I allowed historical caveats relating to his work and style to cloud my judgement for too long before completely ignoring them and giving the composer a proper chance.

As regards my next turnabout - well, nothing or no-one springs immediately to mind.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2015)

Classical music. Now that was one hell of a turnabout. About two and a half years ago, the only classical music I had in my collection was probably Beethoven's 5th. Now the favorite.

String quartets. Also one hell of a turnabout. I used to find those solo string sounds so screechy (rather than rich in timbre and such), and those things seemed to last ages with no other sounds to compliment them! Now a favorite.

Schoenberg. This was probably the most essential turnabout to me besides the general "classical music" one. Not only because of Schoenberg, but because of where Arnie took me. Now, I never particularly disliked Schoenberg...but I didn't "get" it either. It was all just random sounds until one day, about 11 months ago, when I read some things about the twelve-tone technique and even ended up trying my hand at it. From then on, things started clicking more rapidly than they'd ever clicked in my musical life. Schoenberg, Berg, Webern. Click. Messiaen, Stravinsky, Varese. Click. Nono, Berio, Boulez. Click. Stockhausen, Ligeti, Birtwistle, etc etc ad nauseum. CLICK. A fun year in music indeed.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Rachmaninov, Liszt, Chopin, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Debussy

Liszt has become a composer I like quite a lot and have gotten numerous works of. Rachmaninov and Mendelssohn, similarly, although not quite to the same extent. I think with Chopin, it is that the majority of the music is for solo piano, and I only have a requirement for one or three discs of it by any one composer (Beethoven is an exception  ). Sure, there are the piano concerti and piano and orchestral works, which I also have. He wasn't involved in anything beyond that. Berlioz still hasn't grabbed me by the balls, but I find his Symphonie fantastique much more enjoyable than initially. I might even YT some of his other works some day, when I run out of ideas  Debussy was a composer I never hated, but I definitely underestimated and didn't understand. Now, I like his music a lot. I think Kapilow's _All you have to do is Listen_ really helped me get Debussy.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I've posted several times on my frustration with not appreciating Berg's Violin Concerto. After many attempts at listening without much change, I found an online audio segment discussing the work (unfortunately no longer available). I listened a couple of times to the segment, which included many short parts from the concerto itself. I continued listening and soon found myself humming the introduction and eventually loving the work.

I immediately enjoyed Schoenberg's Verklarte Nacht, but I did not enjoy other works by the 2nd Viennese school composers. Over time with repeated listening my experience slowly changed. What I find somewhat interesting is that Berg's Violin Concerto is my favorite work of the three, but I now enjoy Schoenberg and Webern more than Berg. 

Another large change concerns later modern composers. Until somewhat recently I found Boulez completely impenetrable. I could only hear bizarre sounds that generally sounded random (as most of the 2nd Viennese school compositions did). I listened to a youtube video of Boulez discussing and playing Sur Incises, and learned to hear the music differently than before. That seemed to translate to other Boulez works, and now I quite enjoy his short figures as they change timbre and duration throughout his works. 

Maybe the biggest change is my response to modern work I still do not enjoy. In the past I heard such works as very unpleasant and barely music at all. Now my response is simply that I don't enjoy them, but there is no longer a feeling of "Make it stop!"

Familiarity is everything - well, if not everything, it's critical.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

*Sibelius* had never really registered with me until last year. I didn't actively _dislike_ his music. It just didn't make much of an impression. Finally, at some point, the music seemed to 'break through' with me. Now I love Sibelius' music, and he's become one of my favorite composers. What's funny is that I'm not even sure what prompted the change. I suspect that it was simply a matter of exposure, listening to it over and over again until it made sense on a subconscious level. Then the barriers to appreciating it gave way.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

I really appreciate reading all your posts, one thing I've found is that familiarity (like mmsbls, JACE, and others have mentioned) is key. Music begins to "transform" and sound different after multiple listens.

When I began to listen to Schoenberg's 12-tone music, it sounded totally different than it does right now. Sometimes, I try to recreate that initial listening experience I had and I can't do it! It just sounds like wonderful music to me now, ditto for Mahler.

Something else interesting I have found is having a "_Gateway_" is important. For instance, I think Mahler was absolutely essential in enjoying some modern era composers, and enjoying those composers are helping me enjoy even newer music (like Messiaen, Nono). It's like the "Domino Effect". If you find a certain composer difficult, listening to who influenced him/her is very helpful.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Recently - French Baroque, especially Charpentier; Ravel; and Boulez.

I think there may be a certain French sensibility that I'm suddenly responding to.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Composers whom I disliked or didn't understand but now love?

Debussy, Mahler, Sibelius, Schoenberg, Boulez, Takemitsu, Haydn, Schumann, Adams, Copland, Webern...

I feel the list of composers I took to immediately is not nearly as long.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

That you have so long a list of 'turnabouts' shows what a passionate, open-minded and determined listener you are, Mahlerian.
If I don't like or understand a composer, I tend not to give him (her) much of a hearing.

So my list of 'took to immediately' is the longest!


----------



## The nose (Jan 14, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> Recently - French Baroque, especially Charpentier; Ravel; and Boulez.
> 
> I think there may be a certain French sensibility that I'm suddenly responding to.


I never felt in Boulez's music such a French Sensibility.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

The nose said:


> I never felt in Boulez's music such a French Sensibility.


Me neither, until recently - I think that's why I suddenly started liking him. Though I'm sure I'm still missing important things about his music.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Composers whom I disliked or didn't understand but now love?
> 
> Debussy, Mahler, Sibelius, Schoenberg, Boulez, Takemitsu, Haydn, Schumann, Adams, Copland, Webern...
> 
> I feel the list of composers I took to immediately is not nearly as long.


Oh, my gosh!  I am surprised. I liked almost all of those at first hearing. It's only Adams I still hear as 'light' and some of Copland the same.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

When I returned to listening seriously to classical music 12 months ago it was pretty much the mainstream that I was familiar with Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven etc plus the usual Brits
Mahler, Debussy and Sibelius were composers I had touched on but had not warmed to, probably my lack of understanding.
Now with some advice from people here, a little patience and a liberal dose of Spotify my enjoyment is growing.
Perhaps the thing that has opened my eyes and ears most is listening to HIP performances of the classic works I already knew.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> That you have so long a list of 'turnabouts' shows what a passionate, open-minded and determined listener you are, Mahlerian.
> If I don't like or understand a composer, I tend not to give him (her) much of a hearing.
> 
> So my list of 'took to immediately' is the longest!


Well, my initial reactions to all those I listed varied widely from indifference through to confusion or dislike, but there was always at least some kind of interest there that brought me back, even if i didn't quite know why.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

As a kid I used to think that Haydn's music was boring but as I am a lot older now I am appreciative of the wit and complexity of his symphonies and string quartets. I haven't heard his operas yet but want to.


----------



## papsrus (Oct 7, 2014)

Opera.

Had no interest whatsoever. Then last year, prompted by a couple of friends, I took a class with them that examined the four operas that were part of the 2014 winter-spring season here in Sarasota -- Il Travatore, The Flying Dutchman, The Barber of Seville and Jerusalem. 

The class pried the door open a crack, but the instructor (a retired NY Met flutist) assumed a certain level of familiarity with the works that I did not have. So while his insights piqued my interest, it was actually attending the operas that really opened my eyes (and ears). I wouldn't say I'm an opera nut by any means, but the whole experience has given me a real appreciation for the art form, as well as vocal music more broadly. 

I would have never imagined a couple of years ago going to the opera. Now I can't imagine not going. 

Like others have said above, education seems to be the key; taking the time to learn even a little bit about whatever it is you hadn't previously found an appreciation for. Too bad I didn't make the effort years ago.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Wow, well I have a lot of turnabouts. It might take a couple sessions for me to write them all down.

*Mozart and Haydn (and the classical era in general)*: I was the kind of person who thought Mozart and Haydn were too "lightweight" and "fluffy" and that Beethoven brought "real emotion" back to classical music. I think what remedied those thoughts was when I started taking 18th century harmony and counterpoint classes in college and reading "The Classical Style" by Charles Rosen. Those classes and that book helped me to become more sensitive and receptive to the Classical Style (and music in general, honestly) and helped me see how Mozart and Haydn did things musically that were outside of the norm in their own right. It also helps that I'm no longer and angsty teenager who thinks that negative expression is more profound than positive expression.

*Schumann*: I used to think Schumann was too frivolous and I think I was thrown off by his "miniature" style. He seemed a little ADD to me cause he didn't stay on one idea for very long and I felt he didn't develop his themes very well. Much like Haydn and Mozart, I think studying harmony more closely was the Schumann gateway for me. It helped me to see Schumann's innovations in harmony and the way the melody interacts with it. From there I realized Schumann's unique and idiosyncratic way of composing was very intriguing and for a time was obsessively drawn back to his piano music. He hits the spot sometimes.

*Berlioz*: I had always heard that Berlioz was one of the great orchestrators and I guess I just didn't see it before. Compared to Mahler (who's music I was obsessed with throughout my late teens) his orchestra just seemed kind of dull. I just had to get used to listening to it for what it was. It wasn't the late 19th century/early 20th century, he composed in the early to middle 19th century and I just had to get used to accepting that. Once again my classes in college greatly helped my sensitivity and reception towards different elements of music and one day after really delving into some of his major works I had a near overnight conversion. They are powerful.

*Schoenberg (and modernism in general)*: I was introduced to Schoenberg's musical ideas very badly (in a book) as most people are: by way of generic claims about his music being more about math and less about "inspiration". So for a while I simply avoided his music because of this spoon-fed preconception. Years later, I really enjoyed Veklarte Nacht but was having a hard time getting into his other music. My entryway into his more difficult stuff was actually his 3rd string quartet. I chose it specifically because I thought it was the most difficult sounding of his string quartets. I listened to it over and over again determined to find out why music experts thought highly of his music and then I started putting the pieces together. I moved onto to his 4th string quartet a little later and realized that I could immediately hear themes and development and such just as easily as in any Beethoven work. From there on it didn't seem that difficult to get into other pieces of this nature. A little while later my mom got me the Simon Rattle documentary "Leaving Home: Orchestral Music of the 20th century" for my birthday and as cheesy as it sounds, hearing him describe composer's like Webern and Boulez's music in a "poetic way" broke the final barrier for me in terms of accepting any 20th century composer. I realized I just had to think about their music a little differently than I did other composers and from there I realized that I could hear all the great things that I've heard in past music from nearly any "difficult composer" of the 20th century, including Carter and such.

*Sibelius:* I think with Sibelius I was originally turned off by the bare "sectional" orchestration and the way he slowly builds his material over time. I had to get used to how long Sibelius takes to build his music up, especially considering the less than colorful orchestration compared to his contemporaries. I took a close listen to all his symphonies one week and found them very good. Playing the viola part of his 2nd symphony in the last year I was in the Tacoma Youth Symphony helped a lot too.

*Brahms: * I used to think that Brahms was dull and his music never fully went where I wanted it to go. I thought it was too full of pregnant climaxes that were never fulfilled. The former TC member Polednice was always talking about Brahms and recommended that I listen to his Op. 76 piano works. I took about a quarter of the summer listening to, not only the opus 76 piano pieces, but all of his piano pieces. What I found when I got past my minor complaints and preconceptions was a mastery of structure and form, a beautiful gift for melody (despite popular notions to the contrary), a supreme sensitivity towards harmony and treatment of inner voices and overall just a downright satisfying consistency in quality. Now he's certainly one of my favorite composers.

*Liszt:* Liszt was a case of not listening to the right pieces. I thought he was just a composer that liked to write bombastic show offy pieces but when I discovered his better, less show offy pieces I immedietly changed my mind about him.

*Pre-Baroque music*: I can see how it can be difficult to get into a lot of pre-baroque classical music. There is not that much to hold onto except for the counterpoint and the melodic lines, which are often long and unbroken, not too similar in nature to what we generally find to be "toe tapping, 4 square, catchy tunes". Once again, college classes in 16th century counterpoint helped me tremendously. A couple months after that class ended I listened to a Josquin piece and could hear all the intricacies of the counterpoint and the way they interacted with each other much clearer than before, it was beautiful. After that I was pretty hooked. Clavichorder was also a big influence on me exploring earlier music, although his forte is more for Elizabethan Era stuff.

*Vivaldi*: Vivaldi was actually my first favorite composer. I listened to the Four Seasons constantly in Middle School. He fell out of my favor when I started getting more into the Romantic Era stuff. It took a re-acquaintance with the Baroque Era in general as well as a re-introduction to Vivaldi via his vocal music rather than his violin concertos, for Vivaldi to get back onto my "good list".

*Handel:*: When I first started listening to Bach versus Handel, I thought Bach was by far the composer that spoke more to the human emotions while Handel was just a upper class snob that loved to clink wine glasses with inbred royalty and write music just to entertain their whims. At that time in my life I hated music that sounded like it was meant for royalty. I don't think anything specific happened but I eventually just dropped this preconception about music that sounded like royalty and just listened to Handel's music as music like any other music. It also helped that I became more interested in opera, since that's such a large part of his output.

*Extreme Avant-garde/soundscape music:* I used to be the kind of person that would consider this type of composition "not music". I can't remember where I heard it, maybe multiple places all around the same time, but I started hearing people wiser on the subject than I talk about how much of music was about tension and release and in the absence of harmony and melody to provide these sensations they could be achieved through other means, like time and rhythm. This kind of talk made me listen to this type of music in a new light and that's really all it took for me.

*Debussy:* Debussy's music used to make me feel very indifferent. I think it was the lack of the same kind of push and pull that CPH provides in his music that was throwing me off. Once I identified the problem (lack of CPH gravitational pull), it wasn't too hard for me to overcome it and hear Debussy's music more from Debussy's point of view rather than my own.

*Tchaikovsky and Romantic Music in general:* Back when I first started listening to Classical Music, I found Romantic Era music hard to listen to because of the length. The first Romantic Era piece that I worked at deciphering was Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony. Being able to sit through the entire symphony and keep track of what was going on throughout it all was a major turning point for me. Since then Tchaikovsky has dropped a bit in my estimation but I don't consider him a bad composer by any means.

*Scriabin:* Even before Schoenberg, I think Scriabin was the first modernist composer that I had encountered the music of. I bought a recording of his piano sonatas because there were 10 of them and I thought 10 was a good number of piano sonatas to delve into. I also thought some of the nicknames were cool and I liked the cover album and I liked Scriabin's mustache. I listened to the first couple piano sonatas and thought they were pretty good, but starting around the 4th I thought things just got too weird. I actually thought that Scriabin's harmonies were legitimately creepy as hell, like they came from some freaky spirit world. I found them seriously hard to listen to because I just was not used to that kind of music at all. I found it hard to even grasp that they were real piano sonatas somehow. Could people actually play this? Is the recording "worked" on at all. Obviously, I got used to it eventually and following along with the sheet music for Sonata #5 really helped a lot. I think I was just too young and sheltered for those pieces at the time that I listened to them for the first time.

*Mussorgsky:* "Mussorgsky? You mean that guy who wrote that annoying Night and Bald Mountain piece that everyone knows? Did he even write anything else? Pictures at an Exhibition? Okay, this is okay I guess."

It took listening to Boris Gudonov for me to really see the true genius of Mussorgsky. It made me very sad that he didn't write very much. But I now consider him probably the best of the 5, with RK competing closely for that position.

*Post-Rite Stravinsky:* "What happened to you Stravinsky?? You were so HARDCORE when you wrote the Rite of Spring. Then you just started writing fluffy fluffy bo buffy bananna fanny fo fluffy music"

I don't think it is a coincidence that I started accepting the music of Post-Rite Stravinsky the same time I started accepting the music of Mozart and Haydn. I think it was all just part of learning how to listen to music with an ear for nuance and growing out of that "Only dark, dramatic and sad pieces are good" phase of my teenage years.

Well there it is, if I think of more I'll add them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

My God, violadude, that is an impressive chronicle of a musical life. :tiphat:

My story is different. By way of background: I took to classical music almost as soon as I heard it as a kid - maybe I was nine or ten - and it included whatever came along from any source. I didn't grow up surrounded with it, but there was music in the piano bench, most of it short Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and early Modern pieces, and my mother and grandmother played (not too well). Eventually I started playing by ear and took a few lessons (which I didn't enjoy and soon quit). I also had a few opera records, old 78 rpms with great singers from the old days. I enjoyed most of what I heard by almost any composer and was just hungry for more. I didn't know much twentieth century music except some excerpts from Prokofiev's _Cinderella_ ballet, which I had on a record of the story told for children. Later I bought Mahler's first symphony out of curiosity through a record club, and was enchanted by the opening and baffled by some other parts (Frere Jacques in the minor?!).

My first real obsession, at about age 10, was Johann Strauss and family - I loved the Viennese waltz and learned to play it on the piano with the authentic "lift" on beat two. Then it was on to Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Bach, Handel, Bellini, Verdi, Puccini, Mussorgsky, etc. etc. At about 14 I ran smack into Wagner - and after one slightly baffled hearing of music from _Tristan_ I suddenly "got" chromatic harmony totally and dove head first into his entire musical universe, which was my "alternate reality" for years. Unfortunately, Wagner's harmonic richness and intensity rather spoiled me for some less extravagant music...

Which brings me to my first turnabout: *Brahms.* I'm amused when I look back and realize that I was on the Wagner side of the Wagner/Brahms debate, only about a century too late! I found Brahms dry and stodgy, his orchestration dull brown, and remained of that opinion for years. It wasn't until college that someone introduced me to the _Requiem_. I don't know how the miracle occurred, but after hearing that I suddenly understood Brahms. I now find his music not only powerfully crafted but passionate, sensuous, melodious, and immensely satisfying.

The other significant turnabout has been *Mozart*. There was always _some_ Mozart I liked - I thought the 40th symphony was pretty good, the last movement of the "Jupiter," and a few arias from the operas. But I was much too accustomed to Tristanesque passion to hear the Classical style properly. Like violadude, I read Rosen's book in college and began to hear things differently. I've come to love some of the piano concertos and chamber works and to admire even works I like less, such as the operas (which I like better when I can see them). Even to this day, though, Mozart, although I grasp his greatness totally, is less to my liking than that happy fellow Haydn. Exposure isn't everything in developing our tastes!

*Mahler* has always been a hard sell for me. For some reason I loved _Das Lied von der Erde_ all the way back in high school (and still do), but at the same age disliked some of the symphonies viscerally, especially the 4th (and have never learned to really like them). I'll probably always have mixed feelings about Mahler, and it's no longer a question of familiarity. I'm not too worried about it though. What will be will be.

*Stravinsky*, except for _Firebird_, didn't do anything for me at first. Even the sharp rhythms of _Rite_ were disturbing rather than exciting. Very opposite to Wagner (which of course is just what Igor wanted to be). I'm still mixed about a lot of his later music, finding it more clever than inspiring, but at least I have little trouble taking it in, and enjoy some of it quite a bit.

*Verdi* and *Puccini*, of all people! It's funny that I liked them both before I went to college, but by my twenties I had little use for any of their operas except _Otello_ and _Falstaff_. I think sometimes our tastes narrow as we grow up and discover who we are. But growth doesn't ever really stop, and now I feel those guys coming out of Wagner's enormous shadow. Of course I was delighted to hear that Puccini kept Wagner scores on his piano to play when he needed inspiration!

For the future? I'm making no predictions, and have no plans for conquering the unknown. But I think I'll return periodically to the Second Viennese School, even if I never graduate.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> But I think I'll return periodically to the Second Viennese School, even if I never graduate.




I didn't have many turnabouts. Music was something that delighted me. I didn't like everything, but I liked a lot and didn't let the dislikes hold me back from wanting to explore everything.

Sibelius was one, though. I never liked his _Valse Triste,_ which was the first thing of his I ever heard. And I still don't like it. But something about it intrigued me, and I decided to just check out all the Sibelius LPs from the downtown library in Sacramento and listen to them over and over again.

Well, I succeeded in "getting" Sibelius, which for me meant enjoying what I heard, but I will never forget that in that week of intense and intensive listening I also lost something which I could never regain, that twilight land of partial comprehension in which Sibelius was strange and mysterious and baffling.

I still like Sibelius quite a lot. I have sound files of all of his work, and enjoy most of it quite well. But it is none of it strange or mysterious or baffling. That only lasted for that one magical week. For awhile, I could recapture some of that magic in the seventh symphony, which I decided to listen to very infrequently so that sense would last. Eventually, even the seventh couldn't do it. So I feel I've lost something very valuable.

It's something that is not possible to keep, with anything, of course. Years later, only three or four years ago, in fact, I read in an essay by Herbert Brün, whom I recommend highly, about this very phenomenon, in which he advises to value the time of getting to know as it is so fleeting.

The other turnabouts I've had were simple ones. I didn't like Scelsi. I didn't listen to Scelsi. A friend recommended that I listen again, having listened to so many other things in the meantime. I liked Scelsi.

Same with minimalism. Not the pattern or repetition types, but the original sparse (minimal!), spare, stripped down type--few sounds, lots of silence, no "movement." I had a piece by M. Behrens called _Final Ballet,_ which I immediately disliked. For over ten years I would take it out for a spin every so often. Nothing. But, fortunately, I kept the CD. Because after some exposure to the minimal compositions (and improvisations) of Rowe, Nakamura, Yoshihide and, especially, Sachiko M, whom I recommend highly, I took out _Final Ballet_ again.

Magic.


----------

