# What enabled you to like a previously disliked work or composer?



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

In many threads TC members ask, "Help me to like composer X." Most members respond with a suggested work or works by that composer. I'd like to get a better sense of what members actually did that changed their view of a composer from dislike or indifference to like or love. 

Did you listen to one or more suggested works and quickly change your view? 
Did you listen repeatedly for some time until you came to understand the composer's language better and ultimately change your view? 
Did you listen to similar composers and later come back to composer X only to realize you now liked her music? 
Have you had this experience (dislike to like) with many composers?
Were these experiences correlated with your age (e.g. they occurred when you were young)?

The above questions are straightforward, but this one is a bit harder:

What fundamentally changed that allowed you to like a composer's music that you previously disliked?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> What fundamentally changed that allowed you to like a composer's music that you previously disliked?


Time.................


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

The desire to understand is key. I’ve always felt that all composers, and artists or thinkers generally, were worth understanding on their own terms. So if I struggle to understand a composer, I just keep at it because I think they’re worth the time. It’s kind of like respect; I respect the makers and their work enough that even if it doesn’t click for me immediately, I know it’s worth taking the time to come to understand. I also don’t have any notions of who is the best composer, or what is the ideal symphony, string quartet, etc, to hamper my listening.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

I used to dislike Tchaikovsky's violin concerto. There's too much opportunity for a soloist to overdo the virtuoso posturings, and they almost always do. (This is true of an awful lot of post-baroque violin concerti, so I don't know why I found the Tchaikovsky particularly annoying.) I listened to a lot of big name violinists in this piece and found none of them satisfying. 

Then I heard a youtube performance by a more modest violinist and orchestra, not big names, and was able to actually hear the music better. The conductor did not pander to the soloist, but conducted the entire piece. I particularly liked the orchestral parts, which always seemed overshadowed before. It's still not one of my favorite pieces, but I find it enjoyable enough in this kind of performance.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

I have not had many dislike-to-like experiences, and that makes me worry a bit that I'm inflexible, incapable of change. As a result I don't challenge myself enough with the unfamiliar when it comes to listening.

It's bad in the 21st century to be loath to change because the world is changing fast.


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

It's happened to me for different reasons. Sometimes it was simple as listening at a different point in time, sometimes it was changing my listening habits, and other times it was actually playing the piece with an orchestra that got me to like it more. That was how it happened for Shostakovich 5. I went from being confused and indifferent about it to it to loving it in no time.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Often with a composer I don't like or don't understand, sometimes it will just take one work for it all to "click" for me, totally turning my outlook around on the rest of their works. For example, with Schoenberg, I didn't care for his music at all until I heard the 6 Kleine Klavierstücke (seriously). After obsessively listening to this piece for a while, I branched out to the op.11 Klavierstücke, the op.23 Klavierstücke, then the Piano Suite, and then the 2nd string quartet, and so on and so forth. Before I knew it, I was a true Schoenberg fan. 

Same thing happened to me with Mahler. I never cared for any of his symphonies that I'd heard, found his music pompous, and thought that it had nothing to say to me, until one day I listened to the 4th symphony in full. This one really clicked with me. Something about the melodic language, the flow of the whole piece, the more accessible length, and everything else really just fell into place for me. I loved it, listened to it many times, then the 1st symphony, then the 2nd, then the 5th... ever since then I have been a Mahler guy. Happy to rate him as one of my favorites. I'd had him all wrong before, and understanding that one piece was really a gateway to understanding the rest of them, despite their differences. 

Sometimes all it takes is the right entry point.


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> Often with a composer I don't like or don't understand, sometimes it will just take one work for it all to "click" for me, totally turning my outlook around on the rest of their works. For example, with Schoenberg, I didn't care for his music at all until I heard the 6 Kleine Klavierstücke (seriously). After obsessively listening to this piece for a while, I branched out to the op.11 Klavierstücke, the op.23 Klavierstücke, then the Piano Suite, and then the 2nd string quartet, and so on and so forth. Before I knew it, I was a true Schoenberg fan.
> 
> Same thing happened to me with Mahler. I never cared for any of his symphonies that I'd heard, found his music pompous, and thought that it had nothing to say to me, until one day I listened to the 4th symphony in full. This one really clicked with me. Something about the melodic language, the flow of the whole piece, the more accessible length, and everything else really just fell into place for me. I loved it, listened to it many times, then the 1st symphony, then the 2nd, then the 5th... ever since then I have been a Mahler guy. Happy to rate him as one of my favorites. I'd had him all wrong before, and understanding that one piece was really a gateway to understanding the rest of them, despite their differences.
> 
> Sometimes all it takes is the right entry point.


Sounds almost like my Mahler story, except the Fourth is my least favorite - and, in annoying irony, the only one I've ever seen performed live.. :lol:


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

The last time I went though this was at the start of my attempts to get into classical music (around 1986). After mainly listening to Bach, Mozart, Haydn and the main romantic composers, I bought Stravinsky's Sacre du printemps. It was a shock, and not a good one. But I played it a couple of times over the weeks (after all, CDs were expensive and I did not want to give up), and after the fourth or fifth time, I started to like it, and then to love it. It opened my ears for other 20th (and later 21st) century music.

Since then, there are works that I liked more after hearing them more often, but I never went from dislike to like. Dislikes or indifferents stayed dislikes or indifferents even if I tried a number of times - which I did for a number of famous compositions or composers.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I try to hear (or see in the score) what is important to the composer, the underlying principle theme, motif, pattern, or technique. It's all too easy to think "it's not for me", I did so many times. Usually the barrier is in casting aside some value or order that I naturally don't want to let go of. 

Here are Schumann's own words in regards to Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique:
"Now that I have gone through Berlioz' symphony countless times, astonished at first, then horrified and, finally with wonder and admiration, I shall try to sketch it for you."


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

The change for me always came naturally--I never force myself to understand a composer but to understand purely my own mental processing. There's very little reason to adhere to others tastes, but my tastes always change through the process of maturity: I used to be drawn to more thematic creativity in music, like that found in contemporary classical and late romantic. Now I'm more drawn to early romantic because it's getting more to the core of emotional creativity and spotaneity without the "idealism" of later music. I think this happens this way because I'm not always overfocused on music, but have a variety of perspectives and obstacles to identify with. Beethoven is great, but I've always been much more interested in the whole evolution of music, because Beethoven was fully transitional with past music history, but to me, he's always been open to be improved upon or interpreted as a mere movement. Understanding comes through internal perspective, because that's the illusion: it is "illusion" which leads to understanding, to creativity. So far.

Research, I suppose, is also a good answer to the thread question. Researching composers you want to understand more deeply.


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2019)

In the case of any highly regarded composer (say one normally found in a top 30), I made a point of finding some way to get to like that composer by one means or other. Mostly, however, I didn't have any problems, as I liked most of them from the start.

In the very few cases of not liking a particular composer initially (e.g. Messiaen, Wagner), I reckoned that if I didn't happen to like that composer then the problem was with me, not the composer, as the said composer must be "good" by virtue of him/her being in the top ranks. Usually, it was just a matter of time, trying out different works to find something that I did like, and thereafter things fell into place more easily. I found that this always worked.

In the case of a particular work I didn't much care for by a composer whom I generally liked, then it wouldn't bother me to exclude that work, and simply move on to another work, if I didn't like it after a few more attempts. There's no point flogging a dead horse. After all, there are several works by the most famous composers, among my top favourites, I don't much care for.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

Persistence generally helps me with "dense" music, whether that's Bach or Schoenberg, and so I don't put much stock in my own impressions of a piece until I've somewhat perceived its structure and have memorized it as much as one can without an intimate knowledge of the score itself. If someone were to ask me how Schoenberg's Wind Quintet, after at least three years of responding with curiosity and little else, became one of my favorite pieces, the answer would pretty much be that I listened to it (not always all the way through, and usually to various movements out of order or independently) dozens of times.

One asterisk to that answer would be that I became emotionally available to the abrasive and disoriented sound of serial and other modern music during a period of unemployment, and so I found the music therapeutic and relatable even before I'd learned to actually "like" it.

I think it's also important to understand the difference between disliking something and simply not being receptive to it. I very much like Mozart's 23rd piano concerto and his Clarinet Concerto, but after at least one hundred listens to each I've never once felt that visceral response of pleasure that we're often seeking from music, and I couldn't tell you why. In these cases, I find it's pointless to keep trying until enough time has elapsed that you can only distantly recall how the piece quite goes. That will usually do the trick.

I have far more hope of eventually clicking with something that I actively dislike. My taste developed pretty much chronologically, and when the romantic era just sounded sappy and melodramatic, the key was for me to drown myself in the baroque and classical eras until I was exhausted with them, and at that point my ears were ready for something new. All the way up to contemporary classical that pattern continued for me. I think anyone lamenting that their taste seems stuck in one era or category should just stay where they are until their ears start to get rowdy. 

There is one nuclear option that I genuinely think would rain eureka moments on all the members of this forum, but it's hard to choose for an avid fan. Just take an extended break from listening to any music, or if that's too extreme, then to any classical music. Every time I've (failed) to attempt this the results have been brilliant. 

If I spend three weeks with other genres, my third favorite sinfonia by CPE Bach will, for at least a few minutes, sound like the most luminous masterpiece I've ever heard when I return. Just the other day I spent a long car ride with my dad bonding over heavy metal, and when I played him some Mozart at the end I was shocked by my own responsiveness. It was like an old black and white movie had burst into full color and high definition. 

It's easy to forget the innate beauty of the timbres and orchestration in classical music when you're constantly inundated with it, and I suspect that's a problem for many of us. At the point that I can listen to Ravel and be totally blasé about the rich textures, or to Renaissance polyphony and not get chills, I have to wonder if the real issue is that my ears are just over-saturated. I also wonder if the sparser listening habits which preceded our technology, when opportunities were limited to the availability of a live performance, yielded greater returns as far as the "adrenaline rush" reaction to music is concerned. I can't imagine welling up at one of Mozart's string quintets the way Tchaikovsky wrote that he did, but then again I've probably had the opportunity to hear one of Mozart's works more times than he heard any Mozart work in his entire lifetime. My receptors are just blown.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Becca said:


> Time.................


Yes, time must pass for one to change one's opinion of a composer. Presumably in that period of time other things changed. If you have specific examples, do you feel that simply listening to more music enabled the change or was it listening to more of that composer's music? Or something else? Obviously there could be more than one cause.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

ECraigR said:


> The desire to understand is key. I've always felt that all composers, and artists or thinkers generally, were worth understanding on their own terms. So if I struggle to understand a composer, I just keep at it because I think they're worth the time. It's kind of like respect; I respect the makers and their work enough that even if it doesn't click for me immediately, I know it's worth taking the time to come to understand. I also don't have any notions of who is the best composer, or what is the ideal symphony, string quartet, etc, to hamper my listening.


I agree that desire to understand or appreciate a composer is essential. I'm never sure how much listening will be necessary for me to learn to appreciate a composer I presently do not enjoy. One important question is when, if ever, to give up on a particular composer. Do you ever decide that you've tried "enough" and accept that maybe this composer is simply not for you?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Minor Sixthist said:


> It's happened to me for different reasons. Sometimes it was simple as listening at a different point in time, sometimes it was changing my listening habits, and other times it was actually playing the piece with an orchestra that got me to like it more. That was how it happened for Shostakovich 5. I went from being confused and indifferent about it to it to loving it in no time.


I have several friends who've told me that playing a work enabled them to hear it differently and consequently enjoy it. I don't play music well enough to have this experience, but I know that playing works on the piano have increased my appreciation for that work.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> The last time I went though this was at the start of my attempts to get into classical music (around 1986). After mainly listening to Bach, Mozart, Haydn and the main romantic composers, I bought Stravinsky's Sacre du printemps. It was a shock, and not a good one. But I played it a couple of times over the weeks (after all, CDs were expensive and I did not want to give up), and after the fourth or fifth time, I started to like it, and then to love it. It opened my ears for other 20th (and later 21st) century music.
> 
> Since then, there are works that I liked more after hearing them more often, but I never went from dislike to like. Dislikes or indifferents stayed dislikes or indifferents even if I tried a number of times - which I did for a number of famous compositions or composers.


This may sound like an odd question. Given your experience with Sacre du printemps, does it ever surprise you that you have not been able to move from dislike or indifference to like a composer or work after several (many) attempts?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> This may sound like an odd question. Given your experience with Sacre du printemps, does it ever surprise you that you have not been able to move from dislikes or indifference to like a composer or work after several (many) attempts?


Not really. The sacre experience was early on, when I had had limited exposure, and it was way out of my comfort zone established at the time. When I now mention works or composers that I do not get/like (even much later, and even after several tries), those are ones that I would "logically" be expected to appreciate. Examples are several famous works by Beethoven (Symphony 9, Missa solemis, triple concerto, cello sonatas), although he is a composer I like in general, or the total output of Handel (well, as far as I've tried - there's a limit to my patience, but still it's about a dozen of CD's plus selected excerpts at youtube), whereas Bach is my #1 composer. Or Bartok's string quartets, whereas I love many 20th century composers and I love string quartets in general.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Becca said:


> Time.................


This can work in different ways. Starting out 40 years ago I wasn't really moved or attracted to many baroque or classical era pieces I would hear on the radio. And I didn't care for most romantic or classical violin and piano concertos. It's pretty much the same today with some exceptions.

I had despised opera for most of the past 40 years as well but something changed in the past 6 years or so. I decided to explore some works on my own instead of being turned off by all that 19th century Italian stuff on the Met broadcasts. I bought some Russian operas and some Wagner, and my outlook changed. And I mean no disrespect to the Italian opera lovers. My wife is one of them. I've warmed to some of it myself. Late Verdi in particular.

As far as Bartok the string quartets, they are thorny works, and not the easiest pieces to warm up to even after spending a fair amount of time listening.

With the passage of time I do like to return to previously disliked pieces to see if my brain and ears have become more receptive to the music. It worked wonders in the case of Mahler symphonies. In many cases I suspect listeners don't always spend enough time with a particular piece of music. It's certainly true in my case. Getting out to hear live music can be a transformational experience. There are so many nuances and aspects to live performance that will never be captured and translated to the listener on a recording.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

You grow (usually), you change, you learn, and your tastes evolve.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> Yes, time must pass for one to change one's opinion of a composer. Presumably in that period of time other things changed. If you have specific examples, do you feel that simply listening to more music enabled the change or was it listening to more of that composer's music? Or something else? Obviously there could be more than one cause.


Any number of reasons, and probably various combinations of them in different cases. A few that I can think of at 7.15am <groan> are:
- Getting to know other works by that composer (typically earlier but not always) that provide a key,
- Getting to know works by other composers that provide a key.
- Hearing different interpretations.

And, of course, natural evolution of interest and taste over time. It should be added that this can work in both directions.


----------

