# Music that Holds Up After Much Listening?



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

For me Mahler is at the very top of the list. How many times have I heard his 9th Symphony? Damn thing never gets old.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I imagine that the answers will depend more on each person than on the music itself. For me, much of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, and Wagner continue to thrill me long after many listenings. I suspect that many other composers will also fall into this same category as I listen to their music more and more often. I generally tend not to get tired of music so pertty much everything I adore continues to that way.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Right at the top of my list would be Mozart and Brahms. They seem to get better and more impressive the more often I hear them.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

For me it is Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

I'm thinking more in terms of specific pieces of music.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2016)

Schoenberg
Berg
Webern
Stockhausen
Cage
Boulez
Berio
Nono
Ligeti
Kurtag
Grisey
Lachenmann
etc etc.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Often I find the harder it is to warm to a piece the better its staying power of freshness.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Honestly, I think classical music in general holds up after much listening. I have loads of favourite composers and favourite pieces. There is no CM I have purchased on CD that I would not care to hear again. I enjoy hearing 'the old albums'  Actually, more than half of them are not that old, since I bought them since being active here on TC.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Schoenberg
Berg
Webern
Stockhausen
Cage
Boulez
Berio
Nono
Ligeti
Kurtag
Grisey
Lachenmann
etc etc.

They won't ever "get old" for me either. Then again that's because with the exception of Berg and a rare bit of Webern I'll likely never listen to any of them again.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Schoenberg
> Berg
> Webern
> Stockhausen
> ...









.....................


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)




----------



## Andrei (Sep 11, 2013)

Klassic said:


> I'm thinking more in terms of specific pieces of music.


_Soledad_, _Celos _and _Oblivion _by Piazzolla. A week does not pass without me playing those.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Any of Beethoven's late quartets hold up. 

I'd say Shostakovich's 4th & 8th symphonies you can return to many times over. 

Richard Strauss' Metamorphosen is eminently listenable. 

I'm sure I've got others but that's a good start.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

_ ._


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2016)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Schoenberg
> Berg
> Webern
> Stockhausen
> ...


I didn't know you felt that way because you've never expressed this opinion before, let alone a few thousand times. Thank you for sharing without being a broken record or a T word or anything. I value your participation in this discussion.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

A problem I have always had with threads like this is that classical music styles are so diverse I can never answer the question.

Now if a person requested choral works, no problem.

Walton: _Belshazzar's Feast_
Verdi: _Requiem_
Vaughn Williams: _Sea Symphony_
Berlioz: _Damnation of Faust_
Britten: _War Requiem_
Randall Thompson: _Testament of Freedom_
Bernstein: _Chichester Psalms_


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I never tire of my several dozen favorite piano concertos. If all but one CM genres were to be abolished by order of the Thought Police, I would cling to those concertos, as my choice.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

One of the things that we point to when demonstrating the factual superiority of classical music to all other types of music is that it bears repeated listening. If we dare to claim that some classical music bears repeated listening more than other classical music, we've opened up a can of worms that will lead us down a slippery slope, and ultimately Justin Bieber wins. I want no part of this.

In all seriousness, though, I can't think of anything I like (or _have liked_) that doesn't hold up well. Long-standing favourites remain as good as ever, while more ordinary fare that I would only listen to occasionally sounds no worse with every occasion.

ETA: Probably best to be boring and explicitly state for the record that the first paragraph was a joke.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> One of the things that we point to when demonstrating the factual superiority of classical music to all other types of music...


Mmmm....'scuse me while I put on Revolver again, and cue up Sticky Fingers...


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

I think Brahms as this effect for most of his works. The majority of composers have this lasting feeling you have even after quite some times but to me you really have to be in the moment with Brahms because once it's done that's it. Yet the more you listen to him the fresher it gets and you pick more about his works. Also the fact he was pretty much the only composer with this baroque foundation with classical above it with romantic harmony onto it with odd tempo rhythm and meter.I also think Mozart gets fresher the older you get.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

For me it's Prokofiev, and Prokofiev, and Prokofiev, and then whatever, and again Prokofiev


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

Baroque era fugues and fugal type music (whatever you call it) hold up better than pretty much everything else for me. The big names go without saying but there are movements from, say, Geminiani's concerti and obscure Telemann that are practically inexhaustible to me.






For months I had on repeat the second movement of the first piece that plays in this video, a violin sonata from Telemann's Essercizii Musici. I could still hear it several times in a row right now and enjoy it, whereas my favorite Mozart aria for instance would just give me a headache from overexposure.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

I would say most of the main repertoire and much new music as well and also the music yet undiscovered. I've been listening to music (mainly classical) for over forty years and although I don't play some of the things I did at the beginning such as the usual fare of popular concertos and symphonies these too seem fresh in a new light. I always believe great art reinvents itself each time you visit it, and so it is for the 1000th time you listen to Beethoven's 5th symphony!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Beethoven / Mahler/ Beethoven , never get tired of the symphonies :tiphat:


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

I don't have a phenomenal musical memory, so for me it's mostly a question of how sophisticated the music is, because if it's sophisticated enough, I'm not going to remember most of it except vaguely, regardless of how many times I listen to it. Gombert is a good example. I remember Dufay better, but he might be worth mentioning as well.

Of course there are pieces from every era I can listen to a lot for a while, but if I want to find something that I never get tired of, for me the Renaissance aesthetic is the most conducive to that. The performances have to be of a certain kind though, polyphonic clarity being the most important thing. Some favorites:

"Media vita in morte sumus" by Gombert (performed by the Hilliard Ensemble; I also listen to Henry's Eight and the Huelgas Ensemble)

"O Jesu Christe" and "Sancta Maria" by Gombert (the same music set to different words; I haven't found an entirely satisfying performance or anything that's clearly superior to others, so I listen to both the version by Beauty Farm and the version by Sound and the Fury)

"Ecclesie militantis" by Dufay (probably Dufay's most complex motet; my choice is the Hilliard Ensemble even with the wrong notes; 2nd choice would be Orlando Consort)

"Salve flos" by Dufay (Musica Nova, although the balance could be better, like so often with these groups; 2nd choice the Hilliard Ensemble)

From this perspective some modernist music shares important aspects of the Renaissance aesthetic, most notably IMO the later works of Roger Sessions (I mention him in particular because compared with Schoenberg or Berg, he composed a lot more in that idiom if you discount opera, and his music is among my favorites).


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Isn't that the very definition of all of the masterpieces by the great composers?

"Music that holds up after much listening".

Too many to list.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Like some have said, the answer is "classical music".


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> Like some have said, the answer is "classical music".


Well, not _all_ classical music. A great deal has been forgotten and for good reason.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Morimur said:


> Well, not _all_ classical music. A great deal has been forgotten and for good reason.


You're tempting me to reply with "Well, then it never was _classical_ music in the first place!" but maybe we don't want to go there!

Maybe I should just change my statement to "core repertoire" or, "Nereffid's leaderboard top 500"!


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

I have lots of pieces that I don't tire of .... but for some of them, I *DO* tire of being told that such-and-such a piece isn't what someone else likes. But ... here goes ...

Berlioz - _Les Troyens_

Bach - _solo violin sonatas and partitas_ and _Well-tempered Clavier_ .... (both books)

Beethoven - _Symphony No 6 'Pastoral'_

Sibelius - _Violin Concerto_

Bellini - _la Sonnambula_ ... (any of the Callas versions)

Schubert - _Impromptus_ ... (all four of them)

Liszt - Schubert song transcriptions

..... just a few of the pieces that I listen to often that delight me every time I have listened to them in the last three decades


----------



## Chromatose (Jan 18, 2016)

I would consider the Rite of Spring a piece that I never tire of listening.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

TxllxT said:


> For me it's Prokofiev, and Prokofiev, and Prokofiev, and then whatever, and again Prokofiev


I agree. For me Prokofiev does hold up quite well-the Third Piano Concerto, the Second Violin Concerto and I still love one of the first classical pieces I ever encountered so many years ago-the First Symphony.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


>










Delicious:tiphat:


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

Bach: Toccata and Fugue in D minor; the Brandenburg Concertos
Handel: Fireworks and Water Music (well, not at the same time, obviously...)
Beethoven: 3, 5, 6, 7, 9
Mahler: (well, yes, all, of course, but): 2, 5, 6, 9, Das Lied von der Erde


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

I think this is one of the best threads on TC simply because its aim and focus is to identify pieces of music that have stood the test of time, pieces that can withstand much repetitive listening without losing their value. I would have to say that Mahler probably comes out at the top of the list for me.


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

I've also found that Mahler hasn't diminished over time with me, as well as Wagner.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Some new one's to add to my previous post:

Ligeti- Requiem

Walton - Both symphonies, there both superb..

Mozart- String Quintets, all are terrific but 4 & 5 stand out to me. 

Gesualdo- Madrigals book 5 & 6, since I've discovered his music in the past year I've replayed these ad infinitum and they are not getting old yet...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The Shostakovich Fourth Symphony. I don't know how many times I've played it (4 different performances) over the last several months.


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

hpowders said:


> The Shostakovich Fourth Symphony. I don't know how many times I've played it (4 different performances) over the last several months.


I think it's his greatest symphony. I have 17 recordings.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

dieter said:


> I think it's his greatest symphony. I have 17 recordings.


I agree! My favorite and best I ever heard is the one conducted by Daniel Raiskin. Two combined regional German orchestras play their hearts out and sound like a top 5 orchestra. Miraculous! Have you heard this one?

Which of the 17 is your favorite performance?

I can always use one more!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ives Concord Sonata is a kaleidoscope of wonderful sounds. One of the most moving and poetic pieces I have ever heard and a piano sonata as great as any of the greatest piano sonatas composed by Beethoven, in my opinion.

I have 5 recordings of this amazing work. My favorite is the recording by Easley Blackwood, which I consider as definitive.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

It is almost always the music that was not immediately evident that seems to hold up. In this sense Scriabin's piano music has many qualities lacking in Chopin; for one thing Scriabin is far more subtle than Chopin. I know I'm not the only one who perceives this.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

I have a disability against hearing a work too many times. I feel a sense of "repetition" even if its entirely made-up. I can't even help it anymore.

But for me, probably, Mahler, Bruckner and most modernist music. The latter mostly because I can't comprehend the music style!


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Herrenvolk said:


> But for me, probably, Mahler, Bruckner and most modernist music. The latter mostly because I can't comprehend the music style!


I think maybe, finally an honest person. I have tried to make this point several times. "What point?" The point that music from the Intellectual Era cannot simply be assimilated as though it were music from the Romantic Era. "Why?" Because music from the Intellectual Era has a conceptual component which is lacking in music from the Romantic Era. This does not mean music from the Intellectual Era is lacking in emotion, but that the nature of its emotion is the result of an entirely different experience [logical, abstract, anxiety of industrial society versus the tranquil delusion of a supernatural nature, lack of fate].


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Beethoven symphonies 5, 6 and 9; Choral Fantasy; Missa Solemnis, Fidelio.

Donizetti's three queens: Anna Bolena, Maria Stuarda, and Roberto Devereux

Wagner: Die fliegende Hollander, Lohengrin

Others I will think of later.

Edit: Mussorgsky, Pictures at an Exhibition. This is an extremely versatile work that can take all sorts of orchestrations from full orchestra, to brass, strings, accordion, concerto, etc. And even Emerson Lake and Palmer's progressive rock treatment.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Klassic said:


> I think maybe, finally an honest person. I have tried to make this point several times. "What point?" *The point that music from the Intellectual Era cannot simply be assimilated as though it were music from the Romantic Era.* "Why?" *Because music from the Intellectual Era has a conceptual component which is lacking in music from the Romantic Era.* This does not mean music from the Intellectual Era is lacking in emotion, but that the nature of its emotion is the result of an entirely different experience [logical, abstract, anxiety of industrial society versus the tranquil delusion of a supernatural nature, lack of fate].


Calling yourself honest before making false statements doesn't make them any more true.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> Calling yourself honest before making false statements doesn't make them any more true.


I agree with this. I was referring to the honesty of *Herrenvolk*.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Klassic said:


> I agree with this. I was referring to the honesty of *Herrenvolk*.


So you do agree that the statements in bold are false? Or am I being dishonest?


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> So you do agree that the statements in bold are false? Or am I being dishonest?


No, I agree that "calling yourself honest before making false statements doesn't make them any more true," I do not agree that this makes them false.

I stand by what I said regarding music from the Intellectual Era.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Klassic said:


> I think maybe, finally an honest person. I have tried to make this point several times. "What point?" The point that music from the Intellectual Era cannot simply be assimilated as though it were music from the Romantic Era. "Why?" Because music from the Intellectual Era has a conceptual component which is lacking in music from the Romantic Era. This does not mean music from the Intellectual Era is lacking in emotion, but that the nature of its emotion is the result of an entirely different experience [logical, abstract, anxiety of industrial society versus the tranquil delusion of a supernatural nature, lack of fate].


You sound a little technical right now. Or maybe I'm dumb. Probably both.

Are you saying that I should learn music theory and read up on the pieces before hearing them? Or have a score in hand while listening to better appreciate or even understand what it is that is going on?

Honest? Not really. More like lack of arrogance. Geezers'd rather blame the music than accept their own shortcomings. Age brings inflated sense of self-worth perhaps. No offence intended.

I still enjoy modernist music in a very different way though. It's an entirely different landscape, a different kind of music altogether. And it can be a refreshing change of pace at times.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Herrenvolk said:


> Are you saying that I should learn music theory and read up on the pieces before hearing them? Or have a score in hand while listening to better appreciate or even understand what it is that is going on?


Most certainly not. I think you should forget about the score altogether and just focus on what the composer is trying to convey. We should all be honest: comprehending the music of Pettersson is much harder than comprehending the music of Beethoven. If one talks about the ears general ability to assimilate dissonance one could even argue this is a scientific fact.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Klassic said:


> No, I agree that "calling yourself honest before making false statements doesn't make them any more true," I do not agree that this makes them false.
> 
> I stand by what I said regarding music from the Intellectual Era.


I didn't say that was the reason they were false. I said that you were praising Herrenvolk for being more honest because he expressed a sentiment which you hung some false statements on (and he didn't intend).

It may be true that some are unable to assimilate music of the modernist era as they can the Romantic era, and this is understandable given the differences in the language, but it is certainly not true that the music cannot be assimilated in the same way.

The idea, also, that there is a conceptual component to all modernist music is also nonsense. It may be structured around different things, at times, than common practice music, but that doesn't make those things any less musical.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> It may be true that some are unable to assimilate music of the modernist era as they can the Romantic era, and this is understandable given the differences in the language, but it is certainly not true that the music cannot be assimilated in the same way.


Well this all depends on what we mean by assimilate. I sense you and I have a different meaning here.



Mahlerian said:


> The idea, also, that there is a conceptual component to *all* modernist music is also nonsense. It may be structured around different things, at times, than common practice music, but that doesn't make those things any less musical.


I admit that I'm speaking generally. I admit that I cannot say ALL music from the Intellectual Era has a conceptual component (but from this it does not logically follow that no music, or the majority of music from the Intellectual Era does not have a conceptual component). My point must be taken in contrast to the Romantic Era. No distinction or category will ever be absolute; we merely seek to classify in terms of general attributes.

I also agree with you that Intellectual Era music is musical.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> It may be true that some are unable to assimilate music of the modernist era as they can the Romantic era, and this is understandable given the differences in the language, but it is certainly not true that the music cannot be assimilated in the same way.


Correct. Even so-called 'difficult' music can be enjoyed just by _listening_ to it .... at least by some people


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Klassic said:


> Well this all depends on what we mean by assimilate. I sense you and I have a different meaning here.
> 
> I admit that I'm speaking generally. I admit that I cannot say ALL music from the Intellectual Era has a conceptual component (but from this it does not logically follow that no music, or the majority of music from the Intellectual Era does not have a conceptual component). My point must be taken in contrast to the Romantic Era. No distinction or category will ever be absolute; we merely seek to classify in terms of general attributes.
> 
> I also agree with you that Intellectual Era music is musical.


You really have to stop calling modernist music "intellectual". It's demeaning to the previous generations/eras. The works of those Eras were revolutionary and "intellectual" just like today's work. Difference is that through centuries of listening and further development, we have acclimatized to pre-modernist music perfectly well. Perhaps a millennium from now, Rihm and Ligeti won't be so frowned upon. Besides, isn't Beethoven's Eroica Symphony or Schubert's Ninth Symphony "intellectual"?


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Herrenvolk said:


> You really have to stop calling modernist music "intellectual". It's demeaning to the previous generations/eras. The works of those Eras were revolutionary and "intellectual" just like today's work. Difference is that through centuries of listening and further development, we have acclimatized to pre-modernist music perfectly well. Perhaps a millennium from now, Rihm and Ligeti won't be so frowned upon. Besides, isn't Beethoven's Eroica Symphony or Schubert's Ninth Symphony "intellectual"?


I don't deny your use of the term intellectual, but you seem to misunderstand mine.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Klassic said:


> I don't deny your use of the term intellectual, but you seem to misunderstand mine.


I suppose that's possible. Could you explain your side of the story, sir?


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Herrenvolk said:


> I suppose that's possible. Could you explain your side of the story, sir?


http://www.talkclassical.com/42562-if-there-romatic-era.html


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Oh geeze, Klassic. I would quit while you're kind of still ahead on this "intellectual era" hypothesis thing you have going here. Frankly, it's a little embarrassing. 

No one thinks of "intellectual concepts" when listening to modernist music, unless it's just part of the listening process in general. The only intellectualizing happens when you study the piece, in which case the intellectualizing would happen in modernist music and Romantic Era music. What's the difference between studying the score of one era compared with the other?


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

violadude said:


> Oh geeze, Klassic. I would quit while you're kind of still ahead on this "intellectual era"...


The point is not to get ahead the point is to be accurate.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Klassic said:


> The point is not to get ahead the point is to be accurate.


But it's not accurate either. That's what I'm trying to say.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Klassic said:


> http://www.talkclassical.com/42562-if-there-romatic-era.html


I figured as much. My paragraph remains unchanged. I would say that you are no better than the 99% of the public which puts modernist music down because it's more of an intellectual exercise or relies on philosophies. In actual fact, these composers express just as much as the Romantics did but in an entirely different framework - and this framework isn't easy for newcomers. One must patiently listen and repeat. It make take a day or a month or a year or perhaps, never. But that's your own loss and not the music. Again, arrogance.



Klassic said:


> Ok fine, you made me do it. 1) it's not my fault you're a Schoenberg fan and 2) to name a few pieces, "Transcribed Midnight" and his Piano Concerto (which has to be one of the most unoriginal pieces ever written in the history of mankind). These prove that Schoenberg was merely using ideology to indoctrinate people into believing that his music was actually music and not random noise.
> 
> someone sent a message to my private inbox that read, "Klassic you ought to be ashamed of yourself amusing yourself the way you do." I said they are probably correct, but that I simply wanted to liberate mankind from the bondage of terrible music. In this sense I believe I am a* persecuted martyr for the cause of good music*.


You have Narcissistic personality disorder if you think that you're a "martyr" in any way whatsoever, honestly. Also, if you believe music can be classified as 'good' or 'bad', there's something fundamentally wrong in the way you percieve music. There is no 'good', 'bad' or 'fantastic' in music - it simply exists.

(Yes, One Direction is good music for some people. So is kids' cartoon music. Don't be judgmental.)


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> Calling yourself honest before making false statements doesn't make them any more true.


Oh! Do you mean furthering his propaganda?


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Herrenvolk said:


> Oh! Do you mean furthering his propaganda?


You seem like an exceedingly honest fellow, which I greatly respect. Unfortunately I'm a bit of a villain because there are times when I cannot help but amuse myself. (In my defense I am not the only one who does this). The secret to liking me is to know that I am not always serious, I do try to make it obvious when I'm not by saying things which are so outrageously over the top that few could believe them. That said, I most certainly stick to my guns regarding the Intellectual Era (I am correct when I speak of _era-contrast_ and _descriptive-accuracy_, but what I very well could have wrong is the use of the word intellectual: I am ready to concede this, ready to exchange the word for one that is better, nevertheless I doubt a concession here would appease those who seem to have a problem with the abstract nature of post-romantic music in contrast to the Romantic Era). My point is that the word we use to classify the "Modern Era" should be descriptive of the music which generally makes up that Era. Here I am correct. I am also correct about the nature of this music in contrast to the Romantic Era, these Eras have different emphases. It is not my fault that Schoenberg is more abstract than Haydn, however, it is my fault if I pretend there is no difference, or classify against the nature of the music itself. I mean no harm... I just want to be accurate.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Klassic said:


> You seem like an exceedingly honest fellow, which I greatly respect. Unfortunately I'm a bit of a villain because *there are times when I cannot help but amuse myself.* (In my defense I am not the only one who does this). *The secret to liking me is to know that I am not always serious*, I do try to make it obvious when I'm not by saying things which are so outrageously over the top that few could believe them. That said, I most certainly stick to my guns regarding the Intellectual Era (I am correct when I speak of _era-contrast_ and _descriptive-accuracy_, but what I very well could have wrong is the use of the word intellectual: I am ready to concede this, ready to exchange the word for one that is better, nevertheless I doubt a concession here would appease those who seem to have a problem with the abstract nature of post-romantic music in contrast to the Romantic Era). My point is that the word we use to classify the "Modern Era" should be descriptive of the music which generally makes up that Era. Here I am correct. I am also correct about the nature of this music in contrast to the Romantic Era, these Eras have different emphases. It is not my fault that Schoenberg is more abstract than Haydn, however, it is my fault if I pretend there is no difference, or classify against the nature of the music itself. I mean no harm... I just want to be accurate.


Then there's no point in engaging you in conversation or discussion if I'm not going to hear your actual opinion, but rather some little joke you're playing insincerely. And it won't be "obvious" because you'll be saying things that others say in earnest, no matter how proposterous.

This also gives you an all to easy out for any argument you may be losing, or being asked to back up.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

SimonNZ said:


> Then there's no point in engaging you in conversation or discussion if I'm not going to hear your actual opinion, but rather some little joke you're playing insincerely. And it won't be "obvious" because you'll be saying things that others say in earnest, no matter ho proposterous.
> 
> This also gives you an all to easy out for any argument you may be losing, or being asked to back up.


I see your point, but I do try to make it obvious. I have thought about this several times (I do have a conscience)... I thought perhaps it is unethical to jest with people that are serious (this is why I try to make it seem utterly preposterous). Also, there is another advantage to this procedure... come on, sometimes points are so obvious that they don't require exhaustive argumentation, on can, as it were, make the point by emphasizing the ridiculousness of its antithesis. But you are mistaken if you think I am the only lady on here that does this, I might be the only honest person, and I suspect this counts for something ethical. Also, come on dude, some of the s*** I say is so outrageous that it's actually funny: Schoenberg's Transcribed Midnight!


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Again: I want to hear your opinion, not that of your imaginary friend. And you should be aware its not "obvious" if you're actually creating the wind-up responses that "amuse" you. 

Nor have you been saying "hey, it was just a joke" after I and other are arguing with you. You've been letting it stand. Its not a "joke" if you're the only one laughing.


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

hpowders said:


> I agree. For me Prokofiev does hold up quite well-the Third Piano Concerto, the Second Violin Concerto and I still love one of the first classical pieces I ever encountered so many years ago-the First Symphony.


I prefer the 2nd Piano Concerto and the first Violin Concerto, especially Szigeti's performance with Beecham.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

SimonNZ said:


> Again: I want to hear your opinion, not that of your imaginary friend. And you should be aware its not "obvious" if you're actually creating the wind-up responses that "amuse" you.
> 
> Nor have you been saying "hey, it was just a joke" after I and other are arguing with you. You've been letting it stand. Its not a "joke" if you're the only one laughing.


My apologies. I will try to make it even more obvious in the future. I fully agree with you on Schoenberg and very much appreciated your input. Also, it is not a total loss because people all over the world will read your accurate refutation of my satire, which they will take to be real ignorance.


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

hpowders said:


> I agree! My favorite and best I ever heard is the one conducted by Daniel Raiskin. Two combined regional German orchestras play their hearts out and sound like a top 5 orchestra. Miraculous! Have you heard this one?
> 
> Which of the 17 is your favorite performance?
> 
> I can always use one more!


I haven't heard the Raiskin but I have it lined up on Spotify: will play today.
I have:Haitink; Decca, Rostropovich, Barshai, Jansons, Haitink; Chicago,Inbal, Kondrashin; Dresden, Kondrashin, Gergiev,Wigglesworth, Rattle, Salonen, Petrenko;Naxox,Kofman, T.Sanderling;You Tube download, M.Shostakovich;Prague.

I like the Barshai, the Russian Kondrashin, the Thomas Sanderling, the Salonen. I don't like the Gergiev and the Rattle. I think Rattle is a dud built up by British hype, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Oh, and he's charming...Inbal's is a bit under-powered. I also really like the Ormandy. Now there was a conductor!


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Klassic said:


> My apologies. I will try to make it even more obvious in the future. I fully agree with you on Schoenberg and very much appreciated your input. Also, it is not a total loss because people all over the world will read your accurate refutation of my satire, which they will take to be real ignorance.


No: what happens is my (and a few others) blood pressure goes up at the silliness, the Schoenberg haters see another vote for their position, and the site becomes ever more divisive.

Don't "make it more obvious", make it your actual opinion.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

dieter said:


> I haven't heard the Raiskin but I have it lined up on Spotify: will play today.
> I have:Haitink; Decca, Rostropovich, Barshai, Jansons, Haitink; Chicago,Inbal, Kondrashin; Dresden, Kondrashin, Gergiev,Wigglesworth, Rattle, Salonen, Petrenko;Naxox,Kofman, T.Sanderling;You Tube download, M.Shostakovich;Prague.
> 
> I like the Barshai, the Russian Kondrashin, the Thomas Sanderling, the Salonen. I don't like the Gergiev and the Rattle. I think Rattle is a dud built up by British hype, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Oh, and he's charming...Inbal's is a bit under-powered. I also really like the Ormandy. Now there was a conductor!


I have the Ormandy, Slatkin, Chung and Raiskin.

Raiskin puts them all in second place. A monumental, inspired live performance, which I now play exclusively.


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

hpowders said:


> I have the Ormandy, Slatkin, Chung and Raiskin.
> 
> Raiskin puts them all in second place. A monumental, inspired live performance, which I now play exclusively.


I've just started to listen to the Raiskin: I can see what you mean. What a work, what a work....


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Klassic said:


> You seem like an exceedingly honest fellow, which I greatly respect. Unfortunately I'm a bit of a villain because there are times when I cannot help but amuse myself. (In my defense I am not the only one who does this). The secret to liking me is to know that I am not always serious, I do try to make it obvious when I'm not by saying things which are so outrageously over the top that few could believe them. That said, I most certainly stick to my guns regarding the Intellectual Era (I am correct when I speak of _era-contrast_ and _descriptive-accuracy_, but what I very well could have wrong is the use of the word intellectual: I am ready to concede this, ready to exchange the word for one that is better, nevertheless I doubt a concession here would appease those who seem to have a problem with the abstract nature of post-romantic music in contrast to the Romantic Era). My point is that the word we use to classify the "Modern Era" should be descriptive of the music which generally makes up that Era. Here I am correct. I am also correct about the nature of this music in contrast to the Romantic Era, these Eras have different emphases. It is not my fault that Schoenberg is more abstract than Haydn, however, it is my fault if I pretend there is no difference, or classify against the nature of the music itself. I mean no harm... I just want to be accurate.


I am sure someone out there will possibly get where exactly your joke starts and ends. For the rest of the majority, you'll seem like backing out when pushed.

You can't really "classify" the Era that we call modernist/contemporary. The range of styles and techniques employed are far too many. That's why we're sticking to time-based titling. Besides, I hardly think you've heard all the styles and techniques to know for certainty that _all _of it is abstract.

"Accurate"? Well, you can't be accurate with the Eras, sir. Because there is no clearly defined point where one starts and ends. Within the Romantics we had the neoclassicists and of course _when _exactly the Romantics began is a point which can be endlessly debated. Then there are the proto-Romantics. So really the classifications by eras is merely for convenience than accuracy.


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

dieter said:


> I've just started to listen to the Raiskin: I can see what you mean. What a work, what a work....


I'm now halfway through the 3rd movement - our daughter came home and switched the volume to zero - and I agree this is fantastic. I've ordered it from Presto.
Regards
Dieter


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

Herrenvolk said:


> I am sure someone out there will possibly get where exactly your joke starts and ends. For the rest of the majority, you'll seem like backing out when pushed.
> 
> You can't really "classify" the Era that we call modernist/contemporary. The range of styles and techniques employed are far too many. That's why we're sticking to time-based titling. Besides, I hardly think you've heard all the styles and techniques to know for certainty that _all _of it is abstract.
> 
> "Accurate"? Well, you can't be accurate with the Eras, sir. Because there is no clearly defined point where one starts and ends. Within the Romantics we had the neoclassicists and of course _when _exactly the Romantics began is a point which can be endlessly debated. Then there are the proto-Romantics. So really the classifications by eras is merely for convenience than accuracy.


This is interesting. There are people replying to the topic and there are posts as the above which are basically an exchange of verbal fisticuffs, much like a game of football where on a corner of the pitch players are throwing punches and for the rest the game goes on.
It's what makes these forums so boring yet so compelling. I'm sure it brings out the latent humanoid blood lust in all of us.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I think longer pieces hold up better than shorter ones.
For example the Shostakovich Fourth Symphony keeps me more involved than a Scarlatti keyboard sonata.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

I rather sit trough all sonatas then one symphony of Shostakovich ( except the 10 Th)


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Sitting through Shostakovich sym. no. 7 (Leningrad), you'll feel like you experienced all of WW2. It's intense in that way like no other symphony. His stuff is not for the weak-kneed.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Pugg said:


> I rather sit trough all sonatas then one symphony of Shostakovich ( except the 10 Th)


Too bad for you that you can't hear the amazingness of his music.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

dieter said:


> This is interesting. There are people replying to the topic and there are posts as the above which are basically an exchange of verbal fisticuffs, much like a game of football where on a corner of the pitch players are throwing punches and for the rest the game goes on.
> It's what makes these forums so boring yet so compelling. I'm sure it brings out the latent humanoid blood lust in all of us.


For what its worth, I didn't mean to sound condescending. I was asking for real justification.


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

Richard8655 said:


> Sitting through Shostakovich sym. no. 7 (Leningrad), you'll feel like you experienced all of WW2. It's intense in that way like no other symphony. His stuff is not for the weak-kneed.


The 7th is easily the weakest of his symphonies. It's Hollywood...


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

dieter said:


> The 7th is easily the weakest of his symphonies. It's Hollywood...


Have you heard all his symphonies, I'm sure 2 & 3 take the cake for weakest.. The 7th while not his best is still a great work.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Fugue Meister said:


> Have you heard all his symphonies, I'm sure 2 & 3 take the cake for weakest.. The 7th while not his best is still a great work.


My vote goes to 12...personally.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> Have you heard all his symphonies, I'm sure 2 & 3 take the cake for weakest.. The 7th while not his best is still a great work.


2 and 3 are better than 7, which, bathetic as it may be, is still not as bad as 12.


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

Mahlerian said:


> 2 and 3 are better than 7, which, bathetic as it may be, is still not as bad as 12.


It did occur to me that the 12th is worse than the 7th: 7 wins because it has masqueraded as a great work, scooped from the gutter by Allied propaganda. As I said, it's Hollywood.
If you persevere with 2 and 3 you find interesting things.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

To me, there are 4 stages of a positive listening history.

Stage 1: Very shallow appreciation, but interest nonetheless. First impressions
Stage 2: Fervent admiration, deep interest in exploring all aspects of the work, analysis of the first impressions comparatively. Ability to listen to something repeatedly without fatigue.
Stage 3: A decline in interest due to "too much" knowledge, which leads to a sense of dullness, potentially irritation. Rock bottom.
Stage 4: Getting out of rock bottom, a meta-admiration where you accede that your fatigue is irrelevant to the work, and you gain a new admiration through a feeling of nostalgic familiarity, like having an old friend. Ability to hear the music again without fatigue.

Pieces that have reached "Stage 4" for me, that is, tested Time and came out of rock bottom "fatigue" would include:

Tchaikovsky: Nutcracker (good thing it's heard only one time of year, that helps)
Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerto No. 3 (though I would still choose to decline listening to this piece for months at a time)
Shostakovich: Symphony No. 5 (it's not so emotionally investing to me anymore, and I listen to it in a different way than I use to)

I must admit there is a huge number of Russian works in stage 3 for me right now, more than I care to name. I'd say it's usually just the "war horses" that get the worst beating, and that most works stay in the healthy range of 1 and 2, and a more friendly version of 3. One day they will be pulled out of the well, but that's going to take years for some of them...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

All music holds up after much listening. 

The question is, which music holds up to much analysis?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

science said:


> All music holds up after much listening.


I very much doubt it.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

science said:


> All music holds up after much listening.
> 
> The question is, which music holds up to much analysis?


I am very much doubt that to.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> 2 and 3 are better than 7, which, bathetic as it may be, is still not as bad as 12.


I'm non plussed to read this from you... I think your dead wrong on this issue but as still curious to hear your reasoning, and not only why 2 and 3 are better but why 7 is bad in your words.

I can respect some of the things going on in the 2cd symphony but the 3rd? As for the 12th, I always thought it was weaker than most but thought it made for some excellent "film" music (even though it's not but if looked as such is adventurous enough and it's nostalgic so I listen to it more often than 2 or 3...


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

dieter said:


> It did occur to me that the 12th is worse than the 7th: 7 wins because it has masqueraded as a great work, scooped from the gutter by Allied propaganda. As I said, it's Hollywood.
> If you persevere with 2 and 3 you find interesting things.


It's not the 7th's fault that it's associated with allied propaganda and it was not written to be that way.


----------



## Lucashio (Mar 11, 2016)

Canon in D major - Johan Pachelbel

I put that piece on once upon a time when the repeat button first appeared on cd players and it still runs and I still love it! for some strange reason my neighbors have all moved away and I left alone in my little villa on the countryside, lulling along Latatta attatatatat, la tatata tatattototoarara labibdibiddibiddibam biddibiddibiddibam, my cat loves it too, though she must be dead by now I suppose...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> I'm non plussed to read this from you... I think your dead wrong on this issue but as still curious to hear your reasoning, and not only why 2 and 3 are better but why 7 is bad in your words.
> 
> I can respect some of the things going on in the 2cd symphony but the 3rd? As for the 12th, I always thought it was weaker than most but thought it made for some excellent "film" music (even though it's not but if looked as such is adventurous enough and it's nostalgic so I listen to it more often than 2 or 3...


The second movement of the Seventh is alright but the rest is severely underwritten and lacks the content necessary to sustain such a lengthy work. I find the climax of the first movement (after the "invasion theme" variations, when the first theme returns in the minor) embarrassingly silly sounding, for all of its pretensions to serious emotion, and pretty much the whole finale is either dull or bombastic.

Overall, the symphony sounds like hackwork dashed off without much inspiration, and the severe drop in quality from either of the two symphonies surrounding it in the sequence is clear.

Symphonies 2 and 3, for all of their problems, are more interesting musically and formally than 7 or 12.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Klassic said:


> Most certainly not. I think you should forget about the score altogether and just focus on what the composer is trying to convey. We should all be honest: comprehending the music of Pettersson is much harder than comprehending the music of Beethoven. If one talks about the ears general ability to assimilate dissonance one could even argue this is a scientific fact.


I enjoyed Pettersson's Symphonies on an emotional level long before I ever grokked the complexity of Beethoven's Piano Sonatas.

Your own artistic preferences aren't universal laws.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Fugue Meister said:


> Have you heard all his symphonies, I'm sure 2 & 3 take the cake for weakest.. The 7th while not his best is still a great work.


I agree. While the 7th may sound a little over-dramatic and maybe even theatrical, it's a high caliber symphony of his. But I tend to favor his 5th as his best. HP likes his 4th. Interesting the variety of takes on his symphonies.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Salonen's Violin Concerto has held up well for me.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Richard8655 said:


> I agree. While the 7th may sound a little over-dramatic and maybe even theatrical, it's a high caliber symphony of his. But I tend to favor his 5th as his best. HP likes his 4th. Interesting the variety of takes on his symphonies.


Well just for the record, Hp is right... His 4th symphony is his best and one of his masterpieces, it's my favorite of his.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Fugue Meister said:


> Well just for the record, Hp is right... His 4th symphony is his best and one of his masterpieces, it's my favorite of his.


HP is usually right, but this time off just a bit. 5 is it.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Richard8655 said:


> HP is usually right, but this time off just a bit. 5 is it.


5 is pretty good, but the finale ruins it imo. I'll take 4 and the last 3 over 5 any day. Probably 8 and 10 too.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

violadude said:


> 5 is pretty good, but the finale ruins it imo. I'll take 4 and the last 3 over 5 any day. Probably 8 and 10 too.


Yeah, I was just joking a bit. It's all subjective obviously. 5's first 2 movements are what make it for me. But I like the whole thing, and everyone's opinion on which symphony they like is just as valid.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Most everything that's on my iPod. I didn't download it unless I thought I would be willing to listen to it every time it comes up. (That said, I have found I downloaded several pieces I wind up skipping over more often than not.)


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

MarkW said:


> Most everything that's on my iPod. I didn't download it unless I thought I would be willing to listen to it every time it comes up. (That said, I have found I downloaded several pieces I wind up skipping over more often than not.)


This is a kool and interesting idea.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

hpowders said:


> I think longer pieces hold up better than shorter ones.


Ha, wait what?! Says the guy who is all about "keeping it pithy" and to the point!



Mahlerian said:


> 2 and 3 are better than 7, which, *bathetic *as it may be, is still not as bad as 12.


My favorite word, along with _effulgence_. First time reading it here. Liked the post for that alone.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

For me, Bach's WTC has to be the most satisfying work I can listen to almost on a weekly basis - also the 1812 Overture is pretty good.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Avey said:


> Ha, wait what?! Says the guy who is all about "keeping it pithy" and to the point!
> 
> My favorite word, along with _effulgence_. First time reading it here. Liked the post for that alone.


Musically, that is. I still prefer pithy posting-both outgoing and incoming.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Okay - every time I see "CM", I think it means " center of mass ". Tbh, I had to think quite a bit before I figured out it also means " classical music ". 
Then again, I'm there one who thought OP meant organophosphates and STFU was the Southern Tenant Farmers' Union from the Roosevelt presidency (thanks Zinn).


----------

