# When you listen to a piece, you feel disappointed if:



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

the harmony is poor, the melody is poor, the rhythm is poor, lacks of form, lacks of counterpoint, lacks of "emotion", lacks of "surprise", other??. Of course, the lack of something for some people is the presence of it for others, we know of this, so, please, don't put the center of the discussion on this point. I'm appealing to your subjectivity in this sense.
Personally, sometimes, the lack of interesting harmonies is frustrating for me (this also applies to "atonal" music). On the other hand, the lack of form is something that I don't care very much. Maybe, for these reasons, I'm such a fan of Impressionism.:tiphat:


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Are you asking which of those we find disappointing if they're absent?

I tend to be disappointed by artifice, and prim & properness; I suppose that fits "lack of emotion". I can wrap my brain around and enjoy anything else, but when _"elegant balance"_ is the agenda, I just hate it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

"Other" for me.

I basically hate rehash, or don't enjoy it much at all.

I don't mind if a composer is not 110 per cent "original" (which is hard to define in any case, nothing new under the sun, all that stuff). I was just listening to some music by Max Bruch & he very much leaned on other composer's style, esp. Mendelsssohn & maybe also Brahms, but in the end I think his music passes muster with me in terms of engagement.

So maybe there's different types of rehash along a spectrum, with rehash with nothing else or much to offer except rehash, to rehash that can and does engage the listener to a high level, for some reason/s, so in the end it's not exactly rehash.

Anyway, this is complicating things, but I think people can get my point. Prokofiev said something to the effect that he hated music that was imitative and just a carbon copy of something already done before. Shostakovich said that with every new piece, a composer is trying to find different solutions to different problems posed by the new piece.

As for harmony, melody, rhythm, counterpoint, technical stuff like that, often I can't separate these. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't. I mean I was just listening also to some Elliott Carter, and without being a musician with a score in front of me, how the hell can I seperate those things in his music, which can be quite complex and full on? So I just go with the gist of this type of music, get something out of it, sometimes I don't even know exactly what I do or don't get out of it, but who cares if I enjoy the ride?...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I recall being initially disappointed with Brahms because the melodies didn't 'go where they should go'. That distracted me from every other aspect of the music. I am still aware of those, ah, deviations, but now I enjoy them - and the rest of it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think I'm only disappointed if

- I really can't figure out what goes on in the piece, or 
- something is clearly wrong with the sound or performance, or
- it is trite/kitsch: cliche, naive and intensely sentimental.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Yes, I am disappointed if it's rubbish. 

Your question seems to be about what musical attributes I look for most. Personally, what I think I get most enjoyment out of is good melody, but I mean it in a very specific way - it's not that I want a piece to be lyrical throughout, it's that I want it to have a robust theme that is then treated interestingly in terms of harmony, rhythm, structure, and counterpoint _etc._. I value all of these things, but I think they must be based on a strong initial idea. That's probably why variation form is my favourite.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I can accept any work as long as it is INTERESTING . Some works are just nondescript
and filled with empty note-spinning ,lack interesting harmony etc . 
However , the question of form, or "correct" form is loaded with baggage, because 
many people, including critics,musicologists and theorists approach the question of form in a rigidly dogmatic manner, and will dismiss any work out of hand which does not fit into their Procrustean bed ideals of "correct' form .
If you have such rigid standards of correct form , you will never be able to appreciate the greatness and originality of the Bruckner symphonies, which do not conform to classical
ideals of correct form , but which are perfectly logical and structurally cohenerent on their own terms .
This is why repeated hearings of any unfamiliar work are so important . If you hear an unfamiliar and complex work at a concert , it will often tend to leave you confused and even baffled . But with recordings , what seems confused and incoherent on first hearing can often come to make much more sense with repeated hearings .
The saying that "familiarity breeds contempt " is NOT true of classical music - in fact, it's just the opposite . It's UNFAMILIARITY which does this .


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2011)

What disappoints me is how the listener disappears as a participant when elevated to judge.

superhorn, for instance, says that a piece must be interesting. (Pardon me, INTERESTING.) Interesting to whom? Well, to superhorn, of course. But superhorn is presenting "interesting" as descriptive of the piece, which it's not. (Note how he backs away from that to talk, very sensibly, about familiarity. That's encouraging!!)

Polednice, for another more disappointing instance, says that he's disappointed by rubbish. Rubbish being another word that is taken as descriptive. It's not.

And everyone else the same. Using judgment words as if they were descriptors puts judgment before engagement. Or, in a fine phrase from pre-automobile days, the cart before the horse.

I got M. Behrens' _Final Ballet_ around a dozen years ago. Disappointing. Nothing happens and then more nothing happens some more. Definitely NOT interesting. Took it out maybe once every couple of years. Disappointing. But somewhere in that dozen years, I became familiar with and enamoured of some very sparse musics by such people as Keith Rowe and Toshimaru Nakamura and Sachiko M. So when around a year ago, when I put _Final Ballet_ on, it was suddenly delightful.

In all that time, the sounds of that CD were identical. They did not change even a little bit. The same sounds in the same order. The only thing that had changed was me.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

some guy said:


> What disappoints me is how the listener disappears as a participant when elevated to judge.
> 
> superhorn, for instance, says that a piece must be interesting. (Pardon me, INTERESTING.) Interesting to whom? Well, to superhorn, of course. But superhorn is presenting "interesting" as descriptive of the piece, which it's not. (Note how he backs away from that to talk, very sensibly, about familiarity. That's encouraging!!)
> 
> ...


Way to keep up the mischaracterisations!

Again, certain people need to stop being on the constant defensive and realise that assumed in each post is an initial "IMHO...".

You say that superhorn uses the label "interesting" as being descriptive of the piece. Not true. He is quite blatantly using it to refer to his own perception of a piece, which is why he took the effort to point out ideas about "correct" form are loaded with baggage.

And apparently my emoticon went over your head - perhaps that's an internet custom you're not familiar with. With regards to the rest of my post, it was quite obvious I was saying "I like music that does this..." and not "The only good music is music that does this, so screw the rest of you!"

Give people a little more credit sometimes.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Way to keep up the mischaracterisations!
> 
> Again, certain people need to stop being on the constant defensive and realise that assumed in each post is an initial "IMHO...".
> 
> ...


Well, *I* am disappointed that you are still annoyed by _some_guy_'s monomania. You ought to be used to it by now.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2011)

How _dare_ you become accustomed to my monomanias!

You must bow down before my.... Oh wait. More than one monomania? That must be polymania.

You must bow down before my polymania!!

It (they?) must be forever fresh and new to you.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

some guy said:


> How _dare_ you become accustomed to my monomanias!
> 
> You must bow down before my.... Oh wait. More than one monomania? That must be polymania.
> 
> ...


Actually, some of your elucidations are interesting. When you get down to specifics I find myself _learning stuff_. My concern is, my head may have reached capacity some time back, so every time I learn new stuff some old stuff gets dumped. Already I seem to have lost most of the highschool algebra, and the trig is _completely_ gone.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I recall being initially disappointed with Brahms because the melodies didn't 'go where they should go'. That distracted me from every other aspect of the music. I am still aware of those, ah, deviations, but now I enjoy them - and the rest of it.


One of our musicologists Andrew Ford said that he personally finds the second themes of Brahms' pieces - eg. the secondary theme in a sonata form first movement, etc. - to be more memorable. I don't exactly know if that's the case for me, but I get what he's saying in a way. Some of his things, eg. the 2 string sextets I was listening to recently - have the first theme as a kind of intro and build up to the second theme, which kind of develops a life of it's own in a way.

But I agree that Brahms' themes develop differently from what one would expect. His concertos, in them the first movements are quite massive - up to 20 minutes or even more sometimes - it's interesting to me how he often meanders off the main road into the side streets. But I understand to some this can be kind of frustrating and come across as like noodling, such people might say "get to the bloody point, man!"...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I was really surprised to find playing Beethoven's music doesn't help me at all appreciate him, that was a sheer disappointment since I was open to trying it out. RHYTHM (yeah, that stuff usually given to percussion ) is given to the flute for measures and measures, especially repeated harmonic-rhythmic notation. Also, I was disappointed to find the excessive number of chord tones in his melodies (i.e. the use of too many straight arpeggios) and extreme scarcity of non-harmonic tones (except for some grace note things). I respect his treatment of the strings, he obviously loves them the most by giving them such work-outs, but in general I am disappointed by his treatment of the winds (brass and wood), which is something important to me. In a word, I guess I could say, the *treatment *of ideas and instruments is what can disappoint me.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I was really surprised to find playing Beethoven's music doesn't help me at all appreciate him, that was a sheer disappointment since I was open to trying it out. RHYTHM (yeah, that stuff usually given to percussion ) is given to the flute for measures and measures, especially repeated harmonic-rhythmic notation. Also, I was disappointed to find the excessive number of chord tones in his melodies (i.e. the use of too many straight arpeggios) and extreme scarcity of non-harmonic tones (except for some grace note things). I respect his treatment of the strings, he obviously loves them the most by giving them such work-outs, but in general I am disappointed by his treatment of the winds (brass and wood), which is something important to me. In a word, I guess I could say, the *treatment *of ideas and instruments is what can disappoint me.


Hah. Interesting. I have always had the feeling that his orchestrations are short on instrumental color. Not just compared to the Romantic composers or Mahler, but to contemporaries like Haydn too. There is plenty enough other content to please me, but...


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I am most displeased when a certain instrument calls for a high level of virtuosity and precision of phrasing and the performer is not able to deliver; especially when that performer comes along with a big name tag.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I was really surprised to find playing Beethoven's music doesn't help me at all appreciate him, that was a sheer disappointment since I was open to trying it out. RHYTHM (yeah, that stuff usually given to percussion ) is given to the flute for measures and measures, especially repeated harmonic-rhythmic notation. Also, I was disappointed to find the excessive number of chord tones in his melodies (i.e. the use of too many straight arpeggios) and extreme scarcity of non-harmonic tones (except for some grace note things). I respect his treatment of the strings, he obviously loves them the most by giving them such work-outs, but in general I am disappointed by his treatment of the winds (brass and wood), which is something important to me. In a word, I guess I could say, the *treatment *of ideas and instruments is what can disappoint me.


Hmm. Certainly there's _some_ truth to what you say, especially about his flute writing. Mind telling me which pieces you've played so I can have a proper look at the scores?

Edit: bear in mind it's hard (impossible) to write interesting symphonic parts for natural brass instruments.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

It disappoints me when a piece of music isn't fugal.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

It disappoints me if Medtner didn't write it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Fugues by Medtner disappoint me.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

science said:


> Fugues by Medtner disappoint me.


What fugues? I can only think of one true one in his finale in Sonata Ballade op 27. To be literal.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> What fugues? I can only think of one true one in his finale in Sonata Ballade op 27. To be literal.





Dodecaplex said:


> It disappoints me when a piece of music isn't fugal.





clavichorder said:


> It disappoints me if Medtner didn't write it.





science said:


> Fugues by Medtner disappoint me.


I'm just being silly.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

science said:


> I'm just being silly.


I'm just taking an opportunity to divulge a piece of information about Medtner's compositional output, which was also being silly.


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

I’m only disappointed if the performance is lacking in emotion or a compromise is being made somewhere.
I’m rarely disappointed in the actual music, composers know exactly what they’re doing and I respect that.


----------

