# What enables one to DISLIKE a previously LIKED composer?



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

I believe this is a more important question than the interesting question asked recently: "what enabled you to LIKE a previously DISLIKED composer?"

So what enables one to DISLIKE a previously LIKED composer?

It seems to me fundamentally it is the desire for one's own imagination to flourish most honestly and innocently.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Beethoven14 said:


> I believe this is a more important question than the interesting question asked recently: "what enabled you to LIKE a previously DISLIKED composer?"
> 
> So what enables one to DISLIKE a previously LIKED composer?
> 
> It seems to me fundamentally it is the desire for one's own imagination to flourish most honestly and innocently.


You like a piece, then you listen over and over until it becomes unbearably familiar, like an unwanted houseguest. Time to move on!

"Familiarity breeds contempt."


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Not so much composers as it is individual pieces one falls out of love with.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I have never had the experience of disliking a work I previously liked, but I know many on TC have stated that they have. In general people say they have heard the work too often (as MR says above). Presumably this saturation can occur over a brief period (e.g. playing or hearing a work many times in a short period) or over many years.

Could people give a sense of the time period and type of listening that caused them to dislike a previously liked work?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Strange Magic said:


> Not so much composers as it is individual pieces one falls out of love with.


This. I've had composers drop in the ranking in my head, but that was more because other names came into the picture,not because I liked them less.

But some warhorses I loved when I started listening to classical music have clearly dropped in my appreciation (Eine kleine Nachtmusik, Four seasons, etc). Other warhorses i still love though.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Art Rock said:


> This. I've had composers drop in the ranking in my head, but that was more because other names came into the picture,not because I liked them less.
> 
> But some warhorses I loved when I started listening to classical music have clearly dropped in my appreciation (Eine kleine Nachtmusik, Four seasons, etc). Other warhorses i still love though.


Very idiosyncratic, I think: unique to each individual. While my policy is to never--or hardly ever--knock somebody else's music, I affirm that I cannot listen to the Dvorak 9th, or to Scheherazade, or to........ (several others) ...... without switching to something else. Not the music's fault; just too familiar in a boring way rather than in an "old friend" way.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

My fascination with electroacoustic works died pretty quickly once the dazzling effect of the new sounds wore off, which I don't suppose indicates any real failure if the piece's only apparent intention is to be an interesting collection of sounds. The things and parts of things that have persisted I can imagine remaining interesting even if they were transcribed to acoustic instruments, and the things that I cannot, have not.


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2019)

Beethoven14 said:


> I believe this is a more important question than the interesting question asked recently: "what enabled you to LIKE a previously DISLIKED composer?"
> 
> So what enables one to DISLIKE a previously LIKED composer?
> 
> It seems to me fundamentally it is the desire for one's own imagination to flourish most honestly and innocently.


The question raised in this and other thread about motives for first "liking" and then "disliking" (or vice versa) a work or composer, is an extreme position in both cases.

More likely, a certain composer or a particular work will either move up or move down among one's preferences relative to other works or composers. This is especially the case as more experience is gained by the individual of the overall classical music scene.

From my experience, it takes many years to get a proper feel for the vastness of the area. People who are fairly new to classical music are likely to have a different set of experiences in regard to how they changed their opinions about works or composers in comparison with people who have decades of experience.

The questions, both yours and the one in the other thread, are therefore not likely to evince any generally valid answers, as the situation will be dependent partly on experience, which varies considerably from member to member.

In my case, I would say that my top 30 favourite composers haven't changed much over many years, except at the extremity. They have by no means remained in the same order over that time. As an example, Mozart and Haydn are currently the way down a bit, and Schumann and Mendelssohn are on the way up a bit, according to the amount of attention they get from me.

As for individual works, it's not unreasonable to become tired or even fed up with some of one's former favourites after many repeated hearings. Normally, however, the work in question isn't dumped completely but just played less often. This applies regardless of experience levels. I can't think of any other answer to this one, as it seems so obvious.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

I don't actively dislike any music I've once enjoyed. Does not listening for some time really count as no longer liking something? I don't believe it does. 

Perhaps the first things people listen to when they come to classical music are the things everyone could fairly comfortably listen to. That's probably why these works occupy the position they do. Everything outside that is an acquired taste requiring a bit more effort.

I reckon this is a standard journey for most activities. The more you learn and become familiar with whatever it is you are pursuing, the more your entry level artifacts appear quaint and maybe even unsophisticated. Not everything because there are things I listened to 30 years ago that I will listen to now.

I think the 'problem' is that people are just easily bored.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

As noted elsewhere, not exactly dislike, but I used to enjoy most middle Verdi operas but over the years my tastes in other areas has evolved and now I find Verdi (mostly the orchestration) to be predictably and annoyingly trite. While I won't say the same thing about the bel-canto operas, I now find them uninteresting. Given that there is enough else to enthuse about and other things to discover, I feel no compulsion to spend time on those composers.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

mmsbls said:


> Could people give a sense of the time period and type of listening that caused them to dislike a previously liked work?


For me the time period is the period until I have learned enough to understand why the ideas of one composer seems to me far beyond those of another. The type of listening is listening more closely to the 'deeper' work. After some time on this forum I am beginning to see it is correct to let each person have their own personal path of exploration through the corpus. So as each listener grows in honesty and innocence they will define for themselves what is 'deeper' and they will discard/dislike the more superficial. But what matters is the heightened awareness and sensitivity to one's honesty and innocence.


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2019)

I have never found any "deeper meaning" in any piece of classical music by listening to it more often. 

As far as I'm concerned, all that's a load of hooey that some people talk about occasionally in an attempt to elevate the status of classical music above the rest. I don't regard classical music as any "better" than most other genres in terms of satisfying whatever it is that people look for in music. 

Classical music suits some people better than others. I much prefer classical music to most other genres, but I know that I'm in a minority. I know that if I tried to persuade other people whose musical interests lie outside classical music that they are missing out, I'd be sent off with a polite "no thanks, tried it but don't like".


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Partita said:


> I have never found any "deeper meaning" in any piece of classical music by listening to it more often.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, all that's a load of hooey that some people talk about occasionally in an attempt to elevate the status of classical music above the rest. I don't regard classical music as any "better" than most other genres in terms of satisfying whatever it is that people look for in music.
> 
> Classical music suits some people better than others. I much prefer classical music to most other genres, but I know that I'm in a minority. I know that if I tried to persuade other people whose musical interests lie outside classical music that they are missing out, I'd be sent off with a polite "no thanks, tried it but don't like".


Absolutely. I must confess to have being put off a certain composer whose music I once quite enjoyed by people banging on about how much 'deeper' it was. Sorta makes me resist. Music is there for my entertainment and my enjoyment and enrichment of life and when I listen the composer is my servant even though he is a staggering genius. After all, I shell out my money for the concert or the recordings!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I can't think of any classical piece or composer who I have fallen out of love with. If I get tired or a composer or piece for a while (it can be more than a year) I give it a rest. But I can always return later and find new things. Sorry, I can't think of a single example. It has happened for me with lots of (broadly) popular music and I think a feeling of embarrassment (I used to like _that_?!) is involved when it does. With classical music I have become more open to enjoying the less "serious".


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Partita said:


> I have never found any "deeper meaning" in any piece of classical music by listening to it more often.


This statement is strange and fascinating to me. If you really mean this then we are completely opposite people! For me the entire purpose of the arts is to find works worthy of studying repeatedly to gather deeper understanding each time.

I once saw Don Giovanni live 10-12 times over a 2 month span (almost every performance) and I was shocked that the piece somehow seemed to be becoming more beautiful and astonishing every time ... the n+1th performance always seemed better than the nth.

I'm genuinely curious to ask, have you never found deeper understanding from a poem or a film through repeated study?

Perhaps though I am missing your point.


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2019)

Beethoven14 said:


> This statement is strange and fascinating to me. If you really mean this then we are completely opposite people! For me the entire purpose of the arts is to find works worthy of studying repeatedly to gather deeper understanding each time.
> 
> I once saw Don Giovanni live 10-12 times over a 2 month span (almost every performance) and I was shocked that the piece somehow seemed to be becoming more beautiful and astonishing every time ... the n+1th performance always seemed better than the nth.
> 
> ...


My point is simply that it does not usually take me very long to decide whether I like a particular piece of classical music.

Sometimes I find that it may take several listens before I can decide one way or the other, but assuming I do gain an appreciation rather than a dislike then I rarely if ever find that further repeated listenings enhance that experience. In some cases, the opposite is true, that too many repeated listenings can have a deleterious effect on my enjoyment of the work.


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Absolutely. I must confess to have being put off a certain composer whose music I once quite enjoyed by *people banging on about how much 'deeper' it wa*s. Sorta makes me resist. Music is there for my entertainment and my enjoyment and enrichment of life and when I listen the composer is my servant even though he is a staggering genius. After all, I shell out my money for the concert or the recordings!


Don't they, just. It sends me to sleep.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Partita said:


> I have never found any "deeper meaning" in any piece of classical music by listening to it more often.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, all that's a load of hooey that some people talk about occasionally in an attempt to elevate the status of classical music above the rest.


I should think you'd inquire as to what "some people" mean before you dismiss their statement as "a load of hooey" and put your own (negative) spin on it.

Why is it incredible to you that some people might get more out of a piece with repeated listening? Some music is very complex and simply can't be taken in completely the first time around. I couldn't tell you what I got out of Mahler's symphonies the first time I heard them; I know I was impressed, but I was surely unable to follow the permutations of all his material, and I was certainly left with a tangled mass of feelings that only subsequent hearings could make sense of. This is even more true of some operas.

But we're not talking about mere repetition here. As we listen to music over our lifetimes, our perceptions of it don't remain stagnant. The music seems to change as we change, because we hear things in it we couldn't have heard before. The Tchaikovsky I hear at 70 is not the Tchaikovsky I heard at 16; whether I'm getting "deeper" meaning from it now is debatable, but I'm certainly getting something different. At the very least I have a different perspective on the qualities of feeling the music seems to want to communicate.

Some music seems to fall away as our life experience makes its emotional world less relevant to us (I find this true of much of Tchaikovsky's music). Other music stays with us, and may become even more meaningful as time passes. In the latter case people might very reasonably speak of finding deeper meaning in it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> *Some music seems to fall away as our life experience makes its emotional world less relevant to us (I find this true of much of Tchaikovsky's music).* Other music stays with us, and may become even more meaningful as time passes. In the latter case people might very reasonably speak of finding deeper meaning in it.


You mean, as we get older, and we've had all our hopes & dreams crushed out of us, and the grim reality of what our life has become begins to "set" like the concrete of destiny?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> You mean, as we get older, and we've had all our hopes & dreams crushed out of us, and the grim reality of what our life has become begins to "set" like the concrete of destiny?


Is that what _you_ would mean if you had said it?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

For awhile I liked Bolero and never have since. It turned out, it had more to do with Bo Derek.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> For awhile I liked Bolero and never have since. It turned out, it had more to do with Bo Derek.


I still like Bolero for a while. I just like it for a shorter while (three minutes, maybe, depending on the tempo.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I still like Bolero for a while. I just like it for a shorter while (three minutes, maybe, depending on the tempo.


Presto perhaps?


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I should think you'd inquire as to what "some people" mean before you dismiss their statement as "a load of hooey" and put your own (negative) spin on it.
> 
> Why is it incredible to you that some people might get more out of a piece with repeated listening? Some music is very complex and simply can't be taken in completely the first time around. I couldn't tell you what I got out of Mahler's symphonies the first time I heard them; I know I was impressed, but I was surely unable to follow the permutations of all his material, and I was certainly left with a tangled mass of feelings that only subsequent hearings could make sense of. This is even more true of some operas.
> 
> ...


What I said was that I have never found any deeper meaning from any piece of classical music by listening to it more often. From the context in which I made that comment, by "more often" I meant longer term changes in my perception and understanding of the work, assuming that it was a work I liked initially.

I accepted that it may take several attempts initially to decide whether the work in question is liked, and that during that early stage one's enjoyment may increase by repeated listening. Beyond that stage, I can only speak for myself that my appreciation generally has not improved any further with age. On the contrary, I can think of a few cases where my appreciation has declined as a result of growing boredom.

I don't doubt that some people may have a different reaction in the longer term to certain pieces of music. The explanation might be that some of them are genuine slow learners. In other cases their minds could be somewhat of a shambles, as a result of drugs or whatever else. I do wonder whether in some cases it's possibly a matter of the listener becoming a servant of the music rather than treating the music as an instrument for enjoyment over which the person himself has full control.

I have never in the past allowed any music to influence my actions or to shape my outlook on life generally. The folk who claim that some types of music have had such an effect on their lives suggests to me the possibility of a dubious personality of some kind lurking in the background.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Partita said:


> I don't doubt that some people may have a different reaction in the longer term to certain pieces of music. The explanation might be that some of them are genuine slow learners. *In other cases* their minds could be somewhat of a shambles, as a result of drugs or whatever else. I do wonder whether *in some cases* it's possibly a matter of the listener becoming a servant of the music rather than treating the music as an instrument for enjoyment over which the person himself has full control.


These are strange musings. Some cases? How many cases do you suppose there are?



> *I have never in the past allowed any music to influence my actions or to shape my outlook on life generally. The folk who claim that some types of music have had such an effect on their lives suggests to me the possibility of a dubious personality of some kind lurking in the background.*


Well, I'm not acquainted with any such cases, except for musicians who may be inspired by certain works or composers to make greater efforts or alter the direction of their work. Wagner said that Beethoven's _Fidelio_ changed his life - and then he paid it forward to Reger, who said, "When I first heard _Parsifal_ at Bayreuth I was fifteen. I cried for two weeks and then became a musician." Mahler also saw Parsifal at Bayreuth and wrote, ""I can hardly describe my present state to you. When I came out of the Festspielhaus, completely spellbound, I understood that the greatest and most painful revelation had just been made to me, and that I would carry it unspoiled for the rest of my life."

Without a doubt, we artists are very dubious personalities, and always lurking somewhere waiting to ensnare the susceptible.


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> These are strange musings. Some cases? How many cases do you suppose there are?
> 
> Well, I'm not acquainted with any such cases, except for musicians who may be inspired by certain works or composers to make greater efforts or alter the direction of their work. Wagner said that Beethoven's _Fidelio_ changed his life - and then he paid it forward to Reger, who said, "When I first heard _Parsifal_ at Bayreuth I was fifteen. I cried for two weeks and then became a musician." Mahler also saw Parsifal at Bayreuth and wrote, ""I can hardly describe my present state to you. When I came out of the Festspielhaus, completely spellbound, I understood that the greatest and most painful revelation had just been made to me, and that I would carry it unspoiled for the rest of my life."
> 
> Without a doubt, we artists are very dubious personalities, and always lurking somewhere waiting to ensnare the susceptible.


Strange musings? All I said was that I don't allow music to rule my life, but plainly there are some people for whom music means a lot more to them for various reasons.

I didn't say that the groupings I identified were an an exhaustive list. There may be room for some finessing. Nor did I attempt to place you in any particular category but if you'd like to do the job for me that's your privilege.

You ask me to hazard a guess at numbers of "cases". I don't really know, but I'd guess that the vast majority of people who have an interest in classical music look upon it as a form of entertainment over which they have full control. I very much doubt that many would say that classical music changed their outlook on life in any way, or that certain works had a "deeper meaning" that took many years to unfold.

By contrast, I'd guess that the people who frequent classical music forums are probably atypical of the wider classical community, and may contain a disproportionate number of less common types. Many are probably are ordinary folk out simply to acquire a bit of extra knowledge and the opportunity to have some friendly chats about music. There may be some whose passion for the subject makes them look as if they believe they're a cut above the hoi polloi, in the way they present their views in a condescending manner as if only their opinions are valid.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Partita said:


> Strange musings? All I said was that I don't allow music to rule my life, but plainly there are some people for whom music means a lot more to them for various reasons.
> 
> I didn't say that the groupings I identified were an an exhaustive list. There may be room for some finessing. *Nor did I attempt to place you in any particular category but if you'd like to do the job for me that's your privilege.*
> 
> ...


So then you _don't_ know any people with "dubious personalities" who let music "shape their outlook on life generally," who "are genuine slow learners," whose "minds could be somewhat of a shambles, as a result of drugs or whatever else," or who "become a servant of the music rather than treating the music as an instrument for enjoyment over which the person himself has full control."

Well, that's good to hear. I don't know any either, and I've interacted with musicians and music-lovers all my life, all of whom have been able to decide whether, when, where, and how they want music.

I don't see what your purpose was in creating your gallery of dysfunctional unfortunates. How does it serve to reinforce your statement that once you know a piece fairly well you cease to get more out of it with further hearings? Must you resort to such extraordinary theoretical constructions in order to place your own "normalcy" into higher relief? Are those imaginary beings really the foil you need? Or were you hoping to lure some weirdos - people who go into trance states and take directions from Bruckner adagios - out of the TC woodwork?

Maybe it's just better not to worry about what music means to other people - better, in general, not to speculate on the psychology of those who value certain things differently from ourselves, so long as those people are not harming anyone.

(And no, I would not care to do "the job" for you, and it would not be a "privilege.")


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> So then you _don't_ know any people with "dubious personalities" who let music "shape their outlook on life generally," who "are genuine slow learners," whose "minds could be somewhat of a shambles, as a result of drugs or whatever else," or who "become a servant of the music rather than treating the music as an instrument for enjoyment over which the person himself has full control."
> 
> Well, that's good to hear. I don't know any either, and I've interacted with musicians and music-lovers all my life, all of whom have been able to decide whether, when, where, and how they want music.
> 
> ...


You seem to have a knack at misconstruing other people's posts when it suits you.

Allow me to spell out for you what i said in simple terms, as it may help:

1.	I was responding to a comment suggesting that the ideas of some composers may take some listeners longer to understand than other composers, and for the former it can take some time for the "deeper meaning" of their works to be understood.

2.	I said that in my case I have usually found the process of deciding whether I like a work to be quite quick, and if I like it then I have never found any "deeper meaning" by listening to it more often.

3. I speculated that one reason why some people may choose to discuss their slowness in coming to terms with certain examples of classical music in this way is to create a mystique about it in an attempt to place it above all other forms of music.

4. I further speculated that some people might genuinely have trouble in quickly coming to terms with a piece of music (or music generally by a particular composer) if they:

(a) are generally slow learners; 
(b) possibly have mental issues of some kind that make it difficult to absorb facts or meaning quickly and reliably;
(c) deliberately choose to become the servant of the music (e.g. as some kind of escape from reality) rather than treating it as an instrument for enjoyment over which they have control. ​
6. Against this, you ask me to quantify the number of cases in each category of 3 and 4 above. That was a ridiculous question as I clearly have not carried out any comparative study, and nor would I have the slightest intention of doing so even assuming it were possible in the confines of this forum. In any case, the membership of this forum is probably atypical of the wider classical music public.

7. The fact remains, however, that these are plausible possibilities, and no amount of wishful thinking on your part that they do not exist will make them disappear, however inconvenient that may be for your position.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Partita said:


> You seem to have a knack at misconstruing other people's posts when it suits you.


I think the problem is that your generalization of your experience, drawing in outsiders as evidence, is at odds with Woodduck's experience, which I assume involves "living" with a work for years, continually returning to it, and reaping ever-greater rewards from a deep immersion in the work.

He said


> Must you resort to such extraordinary theoretical constructions in order to place your own "normalcy" into higher relief?



Frankly, I'm surprised at the amount of effort he has invested in countering your relatively innocuous statement; but I suspect that he, like myself, view your statements as over-confident musings which lack depth of experience.

It points out that some people "like" classical music, and that the term is completely inadequate when approaching great works of art. It's much deeper than that, and we should approach the altar of art more humbly.

Tough love sucks, doesn't it?


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I think the problem is that your generalization of your experience, drawing in outsiders as evidence, is at odds with Woodduck's experience, which I assume involves "living" with a work for years, continually returning to it, and reaping ever-greater rewards from a deep immersion in the work.


Thanks for your comments.

I don't doubt that some people, Woodduck included, may have gained extra appreciation of certain classical music works by continually returning to them. Wagner's "Ring" is probably the prime example here, and maybe certain other Wagner's works. Because these works are so long, with complex plots, there may be some justification for this, and I mean no criticism of people in this position.

As I have explained, I personally have not experienced anything like that, and this is no accident. It's partly because I reckon I can assess whether or not I like a piece quite quickly. By "like", I mean appreciate it as well as I can. This is simplified because I'm not interested in the detail of great long opera works like the "Ring".

Also, I wouldn't have allowed myself to become so besotted with any piece of classical music that it gained some kind of hold over me, so that I felt the need to keep returning to it find out more. With some possible exceptions, I regard that kind of behaviour as verging on the obsessive, and indicative of a potential weakness of character.

Sorry if that explanation doesn't meet your approval either, but that's the essence of my view on this subject, and I'm sticking with it. What I have to say on the subject is, I trust, clearly set out in my post #28, points 1 through 7.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Beethoven14 said:


> I believe this is a more important question than the interesting question asked recently: "what enabled you to LIKE a previously DISLIKED composer?"
> 
> So what enables one to DISLIKE a previously LIKED composer?
> 
> It seems to me fundamentally it is the desire for one's own imagination to flourish most honestly and innocently.


Imagination is one of the key elements I have found to distinguish between music I connect with and that which I don't. Its less a case of likes and dislikes and more one of loves and likes. Loving something means I'm totally absorbed in it from beginning to end. There are some pieces that I knew over thirty years ago and my enjoyment of them hasn't diminished,e.g.:

Mozart Eine Kleine Nachtmusik
Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 1
Vivaldi The Four Seasons
Bizet L'Arlesienne suites
Gershwin Piano Concerto

There are others which I liked but for various reasons don't find a need to listen to. I don't own them on disc anymore although am willing to hear them if they come up on radio:

Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique
Beethoven all symphonies except Nos. 3 & 8
Brahms symphonies
Stravinsky Rite of Spring
Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 5
Bach Organ works
Anything by Wagner

Similar to what others have suggested, these have been supplanted by other music, including by the same composers. Apart from Wagner, Berlioz is my least favourite now of those listed above - only Harold in Italy retains a tenuous hold in my collection. Before, apart from Fantastique, I liked a handful of other works by him.

I'm still whittling down my classical collection, which started at around 1,000 and is now around 350. I think that the basic element of what I retain has been the music which is effortless to connect to, and that I want to listen to. With pressures of time I like that aspect of decluttering to focus on the essence. This has little to do with quality, for example I've been listening to Bernstein, a composer I like a lot. I love all the three symphonies but will retain only 1 and 2 because I find 3 too dark (the Holocaust theme). This doesn't apply to other composers. If I applied the same sort of reasoning to Shostakovich then I wouldn't retain anything by him except maybe his Piano Concerto No. 2 and Theme from the Gadfly and Waltz No. 2 (I have the latter two on an Andre Rieu cd that I intend to retain - most likely proving my lack of discernment in getting rid of the gamechanging masterpieces I listed above...but whatever). So when curating what I have, my criteria has to be flexible.

Overall I've found it useful and kind of liberating to get to a stage where I could sort out what I want and what I don't want.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2019)

Sid James said:


> Overall I've found it useful and kind of liberating to get to a stage where I could sort out what I want and what I don't want.


A nice'n simple post with no B.S, that I can easily understand and agree with. I must get around to doing similar with my collection. I hardly listen to most of it, including endless amounts of stuff from the likes of Handel, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Mahler, Tchaikovsky etc etc. If it all went up in smoke I'd quite enjoy starting over afresh, but I wouldn't need any help as I know exactly what I'd get.


----------



## Beebert (Jan 3, 2019)

Too much philosophy, a change of outlook on life...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Partita said:


> A nice'n simple post with no B.S, that I can easily understand and agree with. I must get around to doing similar with my collection. I hardly listen to most of it, including endless amounts of stuff from the likes of Handel, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Mahler, Tchaikovsky etc etc. If it all went up in smoke I'd quite enjoy starting over afresh, but I wouldn't need any help as I know exactly what I'd get.


Thank you, and I think that at least in terms of my own taste I need not talk ******

This has jogged my memory. I remember opening a discussion on culling:

Culling your collection...

There are a few things to note there, in particular how one member basically argued that if I didn't have the urge to listen to everything (the "shoulds") I'm a casual listener. It brings up how the internet can be a minus rather than a plus, we end up comparing eachother. That's where concepts like FOMO come into play. People present an uncomplicated version of themselves online - be it of a gourmand, traveller, listener, whatever - and everyone is expected to conform to that ideal. Of course, most of our lives are quite mundane but the internet covers over the cracks of reality.

In a sense I look back on the years when I started listening to classical. There was no internet, no FOMO. Apart from family members, very few people around me cared for this type of music. I liked that sense of serendipity when walking into a record store not knowing what I'd buy. I made similar discoveries when I started going to concerts, hearing some pieces for the first time ever live (e.g. Britten's Young Person's Guide, Mozart's Clarinet Concerto, Barber's Violin Concerto). I didn't have a sense that I'd need to conform to anybody's expectations of the ideal listener. I just did things as I went along, not minding things like gaps in my collection, or sound quality. As my interest evolved I got more experienced and started refining things.

Of course that state cannot ever be regained but its worth keeping in mind why I started listening in the first place. It certainly wasn't to satisfy other people, conform to some undisclosed perfect archetype, or fit in to some pocket (here on TC its been fashionable at one point or another to be conservative, modernist and omnivore). I just want to be me.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_You like a piece, then you listen over and over until it becomes unbearably familiar, like an unwanted houseguest. Time to move on!_

Agree, overexposure does more to ruin a composition than anything. A second reason would be your own extended exposure to and knowledge of music. That helps you better define music and understand the great from the good from the average. Some people call this taste: the learned experience.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I agree with the idea of overexposure as the cause of a dislike, though I rarely have that kind of a reversal of a like and simply lose interest instead then rediscover it later. But in the event of a rare dislike, it's like the subconscious mind starts setting up a resistance that the work can't be that good. I'd rather not play something to death out of a liking and maintain something of a future for it by not getting saturated or overexposed. I do believe there is something called having "too much of a good thing."


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Fickleness, lack of conviction. You can dislike a piece after awhile but not a whole body of work unless you have no character. In any case it's quite rare, most people are loyal.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

1996D said:


> Fickleness, lack of conviction. You can dislike a piece after awhile but not a whole body of work unless you have no character. In any case it's quite rare, most people are loyal.


Is there a difference between A) never having liked the music of a particular composer, and B) liking that composer's works once, then losing one's affection for that composer's works? And do they both absolutely, necessarily demonstrate that one has "no character"?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Is there a difference between A) never having liked the music of a particular composer, and B) liking that composer's works once, then losing one's affection for that composer's works? And do they both absolutely, necessarily demonstrate that one has "no character"?


It's like when someone isn't your friend anymore, he was never your friend to begin with, it's just fickleness with no substance: things that should only happen in your early development. Of course you can be briefly fooled by superficial music, but if you truly liked a composer then you'll always like him, unless again, you have no character.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

1996D said:


> It's like when someone isn't your friend anymore, he was never your friend to begin with, it's just fickleness with no substance: things that should only happen in your early development. Of course you can be briefly fooled by superficial music, but if you truly liked a composer then you'll always like him, unless again, you have no character.


Thank you. I always seek to be instructed on matters of character, especially regarding music, so I know which path to follow.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Has anyone actually had the experience of liking a composer and later disliking that composer? Certainly many have talked about disliking a previously liked work, but has anyone disliked a previously liked composer? I'm not asking theoretically but rather wondering if any TC members have had that experience.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

1996D said:


> It's like when someone isn't your friend anymore, he was never your friend to begin with, it's just fickleness with no substance: things that should only happen in your early development. Of course you can be briefly fooled by superficial music, but if you truly liked a composer then you'll always like him, unless again, you have no character.


When people write: "like a composer," as in the title of this thread, it's usually short for "like the music of a composer." You know that, right? Loyalty to a piece of music or a body of music is an absurd thing to make into a moral issue. Tastes change. What once seemed meaningful and moving can come to seem trite, boring, and derivative with the expansion of ones knowledge and experience. Likewise, a person who likes and respects another person and professes friendship can, to their great dismay, come to realize that over time their friend is becoming, for example, a tedious, overbearing, judgmental, hypocritical jerk. Falling out of sympathy with a former friend because they are changing for the worse is the most natural thing in the world. It can indicate not fickleness, but a consistency of moral judgment confronted with the sad moral choices of someone they formerly respected.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> Has anyone actually had the experience of liking a composer and later disliking that composer? Certainly many have talked about disliking a previously liked work, but has anyone disliked a previously liked composer? I'm not asking theoretically but rather wondering if any TC members have had that experience.


Yes; I have had that experience. It does not matter for the purposes of this discussion who that or those composers might be; such reactions are idiosyncratic and naming names will only aggravate some and delight others. But, again, the answer in my case is Yes. Perhaps I lack character? I dread finding out!


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2019)

mmsbls said:


> Has anyone actually had the experience of liking a composer and later disliking that composer? Certainly many have talked about disliking a previously liked work, but has anyone disliked a previously liked composer? I'm not asking theoretically but rather wondering if any TC members have had that experience.


Liking initially and disliking at a later time are two extreme positions, as in "on" and "off".

If that is precisely what you mean, then I have not had that experience with any composers.

I have certainly changed my mind about how much I like some composers compared with others. As an example. Schumann has shot up to near the top end of my top 20, and Mahler has gone down to the lower end of that range. That's a big difference, but I would definitely not say I dislike Mahler.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Partita said:


> Liking initially and disliking at a later time are two extreme positions, as in "on" and "off".
> 
> If that is precisely what you mean, then I have not had that experience with any composers.
> 
> I have certainly changed my mind about how much I like some composers compared with others. As an example. Schumann has shot up to near the top end of my top 20, and Mahler has gone down to the lower end of that range. That's a big difference, but I would definitely not say I dislike Mahler.


The above perfectly sums it up for me, substituting in other composers. When I was quite young Rachmaninoff was near the top of my list, Shostakovich wasn't on my radar yet and I didn't know a lot of Prokofiev's best work. The latter two are now at the top and Rachmaninoff has dropped. I still like them all.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Has anyone actually had the experience of liking a composer and later disliking that composer? Certainly many have talked about disliking a previously liked work, but has anyone disliked a previously liked composer?_

Certainly, it happened to me with Mahler and his gargantuan symphonies. While I was discovering him in the 1980s and 1990s he was a remarkable new find, a voice unlike any other I knew. I had been a Bruckner addict for 20 years but it took much longer to come to grips with Mahler. But I did and for some years he was at or near the top of my playlist.

In particular the symphony No. 2 was at one time in the 1990s my favorite symphony; I owned about 10 versions of it, played it regularly, read the score, etc.

But over time I changed and it no longer appealed to me. Neither did many of his works. Now I only have a few in my collection and only play them irregularly except for the songs which I find more tolerable and likeable because of their briefness and compact design.

For me it was a matter of understanding Mahler and his idiom and how it turned me away from his music. I came to believe what people like Toscanini believe in him in the 1950s before he became popular -- that his music is so imperfect with so many gear changes that I could no longer sit through it. The last time I sat through the Resurrection symphony in concert the conductor took 85 minutes to do it. It was interminable for me.

I found issues with almost every symphony -- No. 1 can have 4 or 5 movements, No. 2 comes to a convenient ending in the finale, then goes on another 25 minutes, No. 3 is a cantata surrounded by a symphony, No. 6 can have two endings, No. 7 has a weird 5-movement setup, No. 8 is a lot of poppycock in the vocal score, etc. As I knew more about the music it became easier to focus on its faults more so than any benefit I was receiving.

While I would not say I "dislike" Mahler there is enough about enough of his music that he no longer is someone I'll listen to much. If I hear one of his symphonies on the radio I might listen for a while -- until I reach a point of saturation, then turn away and look elsewhere. I will not again spend money collecting his works or time examining them. What I found over time repelled me.

This same phenomenon became true for me to much lesser extent about other composers, as well, including much of the output of Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, some of Brahms, and some other famous and no so famous composers.

That's what led me to believe that, generally speaking, it is overexposure that is the principal villain in the like/dislike game. To me a lot of music becomes like a television series after while; it either becomes too familiar, it reveals too many knots or holes or shortcomings, or it just becomes boring.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> When people write: "like a composer," as in the title of this thread, it's usually short for "like the music of a composer." You know that, right? Loyalty to a piece of music or a body of music is an absurd thing to make into a moral issue. Tastes change. What once seemed meaningful and moving can come to seem trite, boring, and derivative with the expansion of ones knowledge and experience. Likewise, a person who likes and respects another person and professes friendship can, to their great dismay, come to realize that over time their friend is becoming, for example, a tedious, overbearing, judgmental, hypocritical jerk. Falling out of sympathy with a former friend because they are changing for the worse is the most natural thing in the world. It can indicate not fickleness, but a consistency of moral judgment confronted with the sad moral choices of someone they formerly respected.


Music doesn't change. It is indeed fickleness and it reflects a lack of character or a degradation, at best an improvement or maturing of taste if you were young. This is common among teenagers who are still developing.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

larold said:


> _Has anyone actually had the experience of liking a composer and later disliking that composer? Certainly many have talked about disliking a previously liked work, but has anyone disliked a previously liked composer?_
> 
> Certainly, it happened to me with Mahler and his gargantuan symphonies. While I was discovering him in the 1980s and 1990s he was a remarkable new find, a voice unlike any other I knew. I had been a Bruckner addict for 20 years but it took much longer to come to grips with Mahler. But I did and for some years he was at or near the top of my playlist.
> 
> ...


Maybe you never understood Mahler, especially since you were able to listen to Bruckner's repetitiveness for 20 years. A couple of listens are often enough to memorize his entire symphonies.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

1996D said:


> Music doesn't change. It is indeed fickleness and it reflects a lack of character or a degradation, at best an improvement or maturing of taste if you were young. This is common among teenagers who are still developing.


Speaking of teenagers, a familiar urge is to _épater les bourgeois_. See above .


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

1996D said:


> Music doesn't change. It is indeed fickleness and it reflects a lack of character or a degradation, at best an improvement or maturing of taste if you were young. This is common among teenagers who are still developing.


Maybe this rule of thumb is just vague TC dogma, but it is usually common practice to _read_ the comment to which you reply before you write a 'reply with quote' response. Veterans correct me if I'm wrong, of course.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

I once was listening to Prokofiev symphony no 5 in the assumption it was Shostakovich. And I was thinking hmm.. Shostakovich is a genius after all. When I looked at the cd box and saw it was Prokofiev immediately 2 (3) things happened: Prokofiev fell off his pedestal because I had mistaken him for a lesser God AND because immediately standards rose because I wasn't listening to a lesser God anymore. Shostakovich at his turn was even further away from any pedestal because if he can't even reach the knees of a work assumed his own but apparently being that of a genius who fell of his pedestal, where does he stand at all?? And thirdly my objectivity, which wasn't really a thing to begin with, finally got it's final blow.

For someone who doesn't value objectivity much, this event was still quite confusing!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Minor Sixthist said:


> Maybe this rule of thumb is just vague TC dogma, but it is usually common practice to _read_ the comment to which you reply before you write a 'reply with quote' response. Veterans correct me if I'm wrong, of course.


Yes, and it's also reasonable to assume that someone replying to a post has, in fact, read the post. If you feel the response has misunderstood the original post, you can add _helpful_ comments to hopefully correct the mistake. If you feel the response is simply wrong in some way, you can rebut the response.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

larold said:


> _Has anyone actually had the experience of liking a composer and later disliking that composer? Certainly many have talked about disliking a previously liked work, but has anyone disliked a previously liked composer?_
> 
> Certainly, it happened to me with Mahler and his gargantuan symphonies. While I was discovering him in the 1980s and 1990s he was a remarkable new find, a voice unlike any other I knew. I had been a Bruckner addict for 20 years but it took much longer to come to grips with Mahler. But I did and for some years he was at or near the top of my playlist.
> 
> ...


I found this description of coming to dislike a composer interesting. You originally had to "come to grips" with Mahler. Once you did, you greatly enjoyed his music. Over time you came to view his music as imperfect for various reasons.

I generally think of music as having an aesthetic and an intellectual component. Music can sound wonderful to us (aesthetic) but it can also be very interesting (intellectual). You may view music a bit differently, but I want to ask more about how you "came to grips" with Mahler and then how you came to view it as imperfect.

When you originally "came to grips" with the music, was that an intellectual process? Did you find the music aesthetically pleasing but not quite satisfying? Or did the coming to grips process allow you to find the music aesthetically pleasing?

It sounds as though the process of finding the music imperfect was also an intellectual one. Once you viewed his music as imperfect, was it still aesthetically pleasing but no longer satisfying?


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

mmsbls said:


> Yes, and it's also reasonable to assume that someone replying to a post has, in fact, read the post. If you feel the response has misunderstood the original post, you can add _helpful_ comments to hopefully correct the mistake. If you feel the response is simply wrong in some way, you can rebut the response.


It would be reasonable to assume any reasonable person _would_ read what they're replying to, yes, ideally. But when the poster blatantly ignores all of OP's points and chooses instead to just beat out their same point with no regard to the quote they allege to rebut, it becomes less apparent that the replier even read the OP. In this case, the OP gave a well-reasoned response to the replier's earlier statement, even offering a comprehensive analogy to back his thinking, all of which the replier just ignored. I tend to think it's even bordering on disrespectful to ignore the points of people engaging with you, on top of failing to be conducive to any good conclusion. This just outlines the difference there exists between people who want to have a dialogue, and people who just want to shout their monologue at a wall.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Beethoven14 said:


> I believe this is a more important question than the interesting question asked recently: "what enabled you to LIKE a previously DISLIKED composer?"
> 
> So what enables one to DISLIKE a previously LIKED composer?
> 
> It seems to me fundamentally it is the desire for one's own imagination to flourish most honestly and innocently.


I never dislike a composer I once liked. But my interests may have changed, and considering the fact that life isn't endless, I may have decided to prioritize my time differently.


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

larold said:


> _Has anyone actually had the experience of liking a composer and later disliking that composer? Certainly many have talked about disliking a previously liked work, but has anyone disliked a previously liked composer?_
> 
> Certainly, it happened to me with Mahler and his gargantuan symphonies. While I was discovering him in the 1980s and 1990s he was a remarkable new find, a voice unlike any other I knew. I had been a Bruckner addict for 20 years but it took much longer to come to grips with Mahler. But I did and for some years he was at or near the top of my playlist.
> 
> ...


I found your account interesting, and I feel like I do encounter many people who "grew out" of Mahler in some way or another, perhaps in a similar way I've seen people "grow out" of Tchaikovsky. I know that's not the best verb to describe the specifics of what's happening, and you brought up Mahler's "so many gear changes"- indeed. It seems to me there's a certain arc for some listeners who started listening to classical early on: starting out not having the patience for Mahler, then doing a 180 by taking a deep dive into the symphonies, enjoying all that emotional fickleness and intensity, and then as time goes on, growing distant from the symphonies, though not enough to stop enjoying them altogether. For me, that's at least how my Mahler arc started, though I've not entered the distancing phase yet- far from it, really; I feel like I still have a lot of listening to do to wrap my mind around everything he wrote, on top of simply not even having fully listened to a couple of the symphonies (just the third and eighth, by this point.) To tell the truth, I don't really want to go through that distancing phase, and I'll be interested to see if I could hold out and stay a Mahler lover for life. Maybe it's naive of me, but who knows.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Minor Sixthist said:


> It would be reasonable to assume any reasonable person _would_ read what they're replying to, yes, ideally. But when the poster blatantly ignores all of OP's points and chooses instead to just beat out their same point with no regard to the quote they allege to rebut, it becomes less apparent that the replier even read the OP. In this case, the OP gave a well-reasoned response to the replier's earlier statement, even offering a comprehensive analogy to back his thinking, all of which the replier just ignored. I tend to think it's even bordering on disrespectful to ignore the points of people engaging with you, on top of failing to be conducive to any good conclusion. This just outlines the difference there exists between people who want to have a dialogue, and people who just want to shout their monologue at a wall.


You're out of your league.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

That's perhaps the best way to describe our changes, we grow out of and expand into other composers/music.
I mean to say,,,consider our compoers, they all began in the conservatoire , many were chastised by the superiors for being *out of line*, *unruly*,,,and so they grew up in the teachings of the past masyers, but developed into their own styles,. we too are like composers, we grow out of and develop into. 
all our music is like one big symphonic masterpieces,,,
my music begins with Vivaldi's op3, op4, only minor key concertos please, not his majors,,those I always skip on the cd player,,,then move on to other composers, ending with a flourishing of late 20th C.
The coda to the whole epochal deal, would be a mix of 
Schnittke, Pettersson, Carter, Henze. 
nice coda, eh?


Jung has life in some sort of stages, early, mid, late life. and he sees psychological changes place along with these life stages..so its really nothing new here we are discussing.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Minor Sixthist said:


> I found your account interesting, and I feel like I do encounter many people who "grew out" of Mahler in some way or another, perhaps in a similar way I've seen people "grow out" if Tchaikovsky. I know that's not the best verb to describe the specifics of what's happening, and you brought up Mahler's "so many gear changes"- indeed. It seems to me there's a certain arc for some listeners who started listening to classical early on: starting out not having the patience for Mahler, then doing a 180 by taking a deep dive into the symphonies, enjoying all that emotional fickleness and intensity, and then as time goes on, growing distant from the symphonies, though not enough to stop enjoying them altogether. For me, that's at least how my Mahler arc started, I've not entered the distancing phase yet- far from it, really; I feel like I still have a lot of listening to do to wrap my mind around everything he wrote, on top of simply not even having fully listened to a couple of the symphonies (just the third and eighth, by this point.) To tell the truth, I don't really want to go through that distancing phase, and I'll be interested to see if I could hold out and stay a Mahler lover for life. Maybe it's naive of me, but who knows.


I hear you. I feel the same way. The last few Mahler symphonies I've listened to, I started to feel like I was "losing the magic" a bit. So I'm taking a short break. I definitely think I overdid it for a bit. He is a great composer, a favorite, and I want it to stay that way. But I don't know if his music is meant to be heard all the time...

And I should note that it took me some time to warm up to Mahler. I am still a young classical fan.


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

1996D said:


> You're out of your league.


Really? Want to elaborate?


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> I hear you. I feel the same way. The last few Mahler symphonies I've listened to, I started to feel like I was "losing the magic" a bit. So I'm taking a short break. I definitely think I overdid it for a bit. He is a great composer, a favorite, and I want it to stay that way. But I don't know if his music is meant to be heard all the time...
> 
> And I should note that it took me some time to warm up to Mahler. I am still a young classical fan.


Agreed. And you're right, that feeling of 'losing the magic'...I think we're on similar pages, though again, I haven't reached the very depths of my Mahler exploration yet enough that I've started that 'losing the magic' part of the arc yet. I do see how it's possible for it to start happening even when you least expect it. I agree, a break sounds like a great idea at this point for you, because it might clean your slate up a bit so you could potentially return to Mahler, but even if you don't ever return entirely, leaving it for a little might be the best chance you could give it. I definitely understand how Mahler could be the kind of music you could easily overindulge in. Case in point, whenever I find myself in the worst part of some sadness, bitterness, hopelessness, etc.. It's generally either a slow movement of Mahler or Tchaikovsky, or an Ewald brass quintet that I turn to to 'let it out.' I think Mahler just matches that cathartic, mercurial mood well enough that he's just very suited to the young, emotional temperament. But as much as that might be true, the optimistic side of me wants to think you could keep a deep love for the symphonies even when you've phased out of the fickle, more emotional part of youth. I mean, as much as you're spot-on with the 'losing the magic,' it's kind of sad for that to happen to a piece that at once held so much depth. Well, I think it's sad.

I feel like nostalgia is also an important factor here, and the emotions you associate with other things about your life at the time you were first listening definitely play a part. For me, even the smallest and least emotionally grave pieces that I have played with my orchestras in the past resonate in a special way with me. They open a web of memories so beyond just the piece; I might listen and all of a sudden I remember that conductor's joking (or yelling,) or my standmates and I fooling around in our 'tacit' that one time, or that principal trumpet player I had a crush on (this was was the case for me with _An American In Paris,_ and to this day I don't know if I will ever be able to listen to the piece without attaching his face to that solo... always him belting out that stupid solo.. ) It's different listening back to a piece you played when there's actually a name and face behind all the instruments, and closing your eyes and envisioning sitting in the back of the orchestra again with all those people around you, for me, makes it an extremely emotional experience. Nostalgia could really cut deep, especially when you're having a day where you're far removed from the happiness you felt in a certain memory. It's like the past is laughing at you.

Long story short, I wonder whether playing the piece in question actually does do something to extend the 'shelf-life' one gives that piece. In my experience, it seems to- I actually anticipate playing Mahler 9 this fall, so I am looking forward to getting that chance to potentially reserve it a deeper spot in my memory than it might have gotten before.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2019)

I've been saying in several threads over the past few months, whenever a suitable opportunity has arisen, that I've become a lot less interested in certain composers over the many years I've been interested in classical music.  The two names that I have mainly referred to as the biggest "fallers" are Mahler and Tchaikovsky.

In this particular thread, looking back several posts, I believe that I may have been the first to have named Mahler as the composer who has made the biggest drop in my top 20 favourites, @ post #44. 

In doing so I have always felt nervous about making any such comments because I knew I would find it very difficult to justify a change of opinion with any clear evidence, given that both of these composers are generally highly rated, especially Mahler. I was pretty sure that whatever I said could well come over as being lame and ill-thought out. Thus, I always kept my comments brief, so as to reduce the risk of facing questions I knew that I'd have trouble answering.

And then came along larold at post # 46 with his quite detailed comments about why he has lost his former interest in Mahler, which has sparked off a longish discussion so far. I thought that larold's post was very good indeed. It sets out more or less exactly my own feelings about Mahler. For me personally, in addition to the strange structures of several of his symphonies and their general long-windedness, I'm no longer so keen as I once was on the full-blown romanticism they exhibit. For quite some time now, I have much preferred the tighter, more concise structures of the early "romantic" composers, especially in the style of Schumann and Mendelssohn. 

From my experience, and evidently that of some other listeners, this decline in interest in late romanticism, Mahler especially, is something that can happen in due course. I fully realise that to many people, especially those who are still at the early exploratory stage of classical music, this may sound like very unconvincing criticism. It may well also sound unconvincing to people who have admired these composers consistently for a long while. Trying to clarify the position any further is not possible since, as has been said many times, it's all a matter of personal taste.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Partita said:


> And then came along larold at post # 46 with his quite detailed comments about why he has lost his former interest in Mahler, which has sparked off a longish discussion so far. I thought that larold's post was very good indeed. It sets out more or less exactly my own feelings about Mahler. For me personally, in addition to the strange structures of several of his symphonies and their general long-windedness, *I'm no longer so keen as I once was on the full-blown romanticism they exhibit. For quite some time now, I have much preferred the tighter, more concise structures of the early "romantic" composers, especially in the style of Schumann and Mendelssohn. *
> 
> *From my experience, and evidently that of some other listeners, this decline in interest in late romanticism, Mahler especially, is something that can happen in due course. * I fully realise that to many people, especially those who are still at the early exploratory stage of classical music, this may sound like very unconvincing criticism. It may well also sound unconvincing to people who have admired these composers consistently for a long while. Trying to clarify the position any further is not possible since, as has been said many times, it's all a matter of personal taste.


I know someone in his late seventies who had a long-lasting passion for Mahler symphonies and other supersized, histrionic late Romantic works, but hasn't wanted to hear them for many years. I'm slightly younger, but also tend to avoid that repertoire (Mahler, Bruckner, Liszt, Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Elgar, etc.) I now usually gravitate to works with more restrained, intimate expression and an emphasis on form, especially chamber music. I'll return to the big Romantic pieces once in a while, but a steady diet of them sounds as repulsive as a steady diet of rich desserts. There's probably also the factor of overfamiliarity; I consumed some of this music gluttonously when I was young. It's rarely a question of losing respect for the music I no longer care to listen to.

An exception to the above generalization seems to be opera; I still prefer late Romantic opera to that of any other period. But I'd guess that that has to do with opera having always been for "special occasions" when I could set everything else aside and immerse myself in the imaginative world of "dramma per musica." There's also the peculiar appeal of the human voice, and the fact that different singers bring very different qualities to the same music.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

To each his/her own. I'm 62, and still love to listen to Mahler and other late romantics.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It's a rare thread indeed that allows criticism of our "icons." The Mahler criticisms are all accurate; he does lack focus at times. Yet, isn't this what makes him endearing? BTW, welcome back Paul Best, who has done the same thing as this thread, but got a temporary ban for it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Add me to that group increasingly favoring smaller, perhaps shorter works where a few musical ideas are displayed with great care and "cleanliness" (if that attribute can be applied to music). Woodduck has mentioned chamber works; I also like concentrated, pithy concertos such as the Bach D minor keyboard concerto. Another example of a crisp, clean work complete within its boundaries would be Ravel's Introduction and Allegro. I long ago lost any enthusiasm for "vast, portentous, gaseous, interminable late 19th- early 20th- century symphonies" though I name no names.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

The only composer who comes to mind is Stravinsky. I don't dislike his music, but I find it less fascinating and engaging than I did, say, 30 years ago.
Another change is that I find small chamber ensembles more interesting. It's not that I no longer listen to huge symphonic works, but I am more likely to settle down with a string 4tet or piano trio than would have been the case.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I cannot imagine Toscanini conducting Mahler. Toscanini was proud, vain, and heartless. Mahler's music necessarily strips these qualities away from the performer. For Toscanini this would have felt demeaning.

I hope I never stop loving Mahler, especially the 9th and Das Lied von der Erde.

Regarding the general topic, I cannot think of a composer I appreciate less over time. Usually I appreciate the works of the great composers more over time, not less. Maybe it's because I never start out overrating in the first place. Usually I take time to warm up to something. I also don't subscribe to fads. I could say, for example, that I am less enamored with period performance than I was 30 years ago, but I was never that enamored of it to begin with. It always struck me as a new, hip craze.


----------

