# Composers that you learned to appreciate



## TudorMihai (Feb 20, 2013)

Is there a composer you didn't like in the beginning but, in time, you began to like, even love, his music? For me, it was Bach. While Bach was part of the first classical music CD I ever bought, he wasn't to my liking. I found his music to be too complex and I thought that I would never be able to listen to his music. Now, some years later, not only that I learned to understand his music, but Bach became one of my favorite composers, second only to Mahler.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I guess the composers for whom I didn't have to adjust much were Haydn and Telemann, their music somehow naturally interested me. I also liked Vivaldi pretty naturally, same with Bach's Brandenburg Concertos. In the beginning, I had to get used to the romantic sound, so I started with Beethoven. After I started liking his music a lot, I then moved on to the other romantics, Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, more recently also Schumann and Wanger. I now appreciate the romantic period much more and am glad that I took the time to discover the great composers in this era. The more modern classical has been eluding me, but maybe that'll change sometime.


----------



## classifriend (Mar 9, 2014)

Berlioz, especially after i heard his lieder


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Shostakovich. There was something.....that even when I didn't like what I was hearing, I somehow still wanted to find out what he had to say next. Now I really like a fair bit of his music. Glad I hung on and decided to listen more, he provides some good variety to my collection!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Elliott Carter...................


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Charles Ives.


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2014)

Mahler/Schoenberg/Berg/Webern/Messiaen have all fallen in this category at one time or another. Right now I'm trying to appreciate some weirder stuff...for instance, I'd like both Berio and Saariaho to click soon


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford (Feb 8, 2014)

Bach has taken on a special significance for me.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Pretty much all music before 1900 appealed to me easily. Unfortunately, most music composed after 1900 did not. With few exceptions when I first heard Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich, I did not enjoy their music. After listening to their works along with similar others, I gradually came to appreciate them more and more until now I can't quite remember what it was like to dislike their music. 

I'm still in transition with other modern music. There were many composers whose music I disliked and couldn't understand how anyone could enjoy them (e.g. Boulez, Stockhausen, Messiaen, Berg, Schoenberg, etc.). Now I enjoy some works by all of them although there's still much music that eludes me. Perhaps more importantly when I hear modern music that I don't enjoy, I no longer wonder "How could anyone enjoy this?"

My general expectation is that with enough listening and perhaps some guidance most classical music listeners could "learn" to appreciate the vast majority of composers.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Many, many composers fall into this category. Takemitsu is an interesting case, though. I heard his music a while back and couldn't make heads or tails of it. Then I came back to it after encountering Messiaen, and it made a good deal more sense. Then I got some experience playing Japanese traditional music (at a very basic level, but still), and it clicked instantaneously.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Bruckner and Mozart. The former, I found dull until I discovered the ninth (which became one of my favorites immediately). Afterward, I did a complete re-evaluation of his other symphonies and have grown to appreciate him as a great composer. The latter, I thought was boring for the longest time, until I recently discovered the beauty of his late piano concertos. Now I'm re-evaluating works that I previously thought were uninteresting, and slowly appreciating him more. This isn't as easy as with Bruckner, because I'm biased towards Romantic era or later music.

Also, I second the Schoenberg/Berg/Webern trio. I used to think their ideas of music were just some upper-class "intellectual" bull. But over this last year, I have been more accepting of their works, and have developed an ear to appreciate them [along with many, many more composers from the 20th century].


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Handel, too. I used to find his music quite dull and this was due to the misinformed overly-romanticized performances I was listening to.

Now I am deeply into Giulio Cesare performed by period-aware singers,conductors and musicians and it has made a world of difference.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl (Jul 21, 2013)

When I was starting to listen classical, it was for me hard to get into the music of composers for the baroque era. I found the Baroque music strange and I found annoying the sound of the harpsichord. But now I enjoy it a lot. 
Also I had some kind of revelation about Schoenberg, but he still is not my cup of tea.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

Both Haydn and Mozart was a bit boring a periode before I Their masterness wawed over me


----------



## LancsMan (Oct 28, 2013)

Rachmaninov and Chopin: In my arrogant youth I used to dismiss these composers as populist lightweights. I've chilled out and quite like their music now.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Schoenberg - though strangely enough I liked Webern all that time! It is almost inconceivable to me now; I listen to him with surprising frequency in these days. Brahms too, though that was even longer ago.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Liszt, Schnittke, to name just two. :tiphat:


----------



## Whistler Fred (Feb 6, 2014)

LancsMan said:


> Rachmaninov and Chopin: In my arrogant youth I used to dismiss these composers as populist lightweights. I've chilled out and quite like their music now.


I had a similar experience with George Gershwin.


----------



## DaDirkNL (Aug 26, 2013)

Brahms and Mahler for starters. Brahms is now one of my favourite composers, and the same goes for Mahler.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Of course besides Handel and Ives, I learned to appreciate Berlioz after hearing and seeing Les Troyens, and I have a new-found appreciation for Persichetti and Schuman, which I surely didn't have one year ago.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Elliott Carter. After reading up on him, I finally understood what he was doing, and went back and listened with a new perception. This* is *ear/brain territory, after all. If you think this is not true of Haydn and Vivaldi, try it out on somebody without a brain. They will simply ask "Where's the beat?" and my point will have been made.


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

It took me quite a few listens to appreciate and enjoy Bruckner symphonies. On the other hand, I am still waiting for this to happen with Bach for me.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2014)

I've been "getting" Prokofiev lately, but I'm probably in the minority that has a lot of his absolute music (think I have all the symphonies/concertos/sonatas/quartets), and yet I have *none* of his stage music!


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> I've been "getting" Prokofiev lately, but I'm probably in the minority that has a lot of his absolute music (think I have all the symphonies/concertos/sonatas/quartets), and yet I have *none* of his stage music!


You simply must hear the ballets! As much as I love the more well-known ones like _Romeo & Juliet_ and _Cinderella_, it is _Le pas d'acier_ that remains my favorite.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Well... do two pieces count? That's all I've heard by Finnissy. Red Earth didn't work at all the first two times I heard it. A few months later I put the recording on again, and son-of-a-gun.

Pretty much the same deal with Ives' 'Concord' Sonata, only that was a gradual thing. Some of his work was never a problem though; the 2nd Symphony for instance.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Scriabin and Carter. Had not listened to much of either until recently.


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

Used to think Handel and Haydn were boring. That changed when I heard Handel's vocal works and Haydn's string quartets.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Scriabin and Carter. Had not listened to much of either until recently.


Carter I don't much care for, but Scriabin was a brilliant composer. Such exoticism and fiery passion in his music. I recommend most of the solo piano works, but do check out his symphonies and give a listen to the _Piano Concerto_ (very underrated work).


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

DaDirkNL said:


> Brahms and Mahler for starters. Brahms is now one of my favourite composers, and the same goes for Mahler.


Yes this fits with me as well
I now love Brahm's but Mahler is still a work in progress


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Shadowtime, or: how I learned to stop worrying and love Ferneyhough.


----------



## shadowdancer (Mar 31, 2014)

In my case, Bela Bartók.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Elliott Carter. After reading up on him, I finally understood what he was doing, and went back and listened with a new perception. This* is *ear/brain territory, after all. If you think this is not true of Haydn and Vivaldi, try it out on somebody without a brain. They will simply ask "Where's the beat?" and my point will have been made.


That is a strange phenomenon, I've noticed that too that people who don't listen to classical music much thinks there's no beat...

I don't know why this is...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> That is a strange phenomenon, I've noticed that too that people who don't listen to classical music much thinks there's no beat...
> 
> I don't know why this is...


LOL. They are used to having the more than obvious shoved into their ears -- that "four on the floor," constant and almost always unbroken, running under and through almost all pop music via a trapset or other percussion. (It would actually be more than interesting to hear what a lot of pop music sounds like _without the percussion track._)

So used to that, the listener so conditioned to drums 'n' bass with almost everything will feel there is something missing when they hear music which does not include a constantly banged on every quarter note pulse.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Liszt - until I heard pieces from 'Annees de Pelerinage' at an Alfred Brendel concert. I'd never considered listening to Liszt before that (I'd gone to hear the Beethoven). I'd been put off as a child by his piano concertos.

Britten - I really struggled with, but came back to years later with more success after listening to the Second Viennese school composers.

Currently - Scriabin, a bit of a chromatic 'wash' that I'm still struggling to make much sense of. I'll get there!


----------



## Rhythm (Nov 2, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Elliott Carter. After reading up on him, I finally understood what he was doing, and went back and listened with a new perception. This* is *ear/brain territory, after all. If you think this is not true of Haydn and Vivaldi, try it out on somebody without a brain. They will simply ask "Where's the beat?" and my point will have been made.





violadude said:


> That is a strange phenomenon, I've noticed that too that people who don't listen to classical music much thinks there's no beat...
> 
> I don't know why this is...


I don't either, but I have a suspicion. I know half a dozen brilliant journalists who are also symbolic logicians, economic and political historians, quasi astronomers, free thinkers, etc., who couldn't distinguish pitches in intervals if they had to, and on the dance floor, can't distinguish beats. How that occurs to some and not for others is hardly understandable. Except for one thing: the planet-wide educational system has trained listening to music out of millions of people. And I have Sir Ken Robinson's word on that, too.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I only had one small speed bump getting in to the neoclassical repertoire (1st try, Stravinsky.) I was at that time in my very early teens, and immersed in a sensationalist search for 'all modern.' I knew a good lot of the earlier music as well, and a good deal of 20th century rep, (including the pre-neoclassical Stravinsky but the neoclassical threw me for a bit. I simply tried it later, "no problem."

I was started out very early on Bach, Prokofiev, Janacek and Bartok, so that must have put me in a very different 'place' as far as finding more contemporary music 'just music.'

I 'get' what people mean when they say they 'have a problem' with this music or that composer, but from the context of my experience, this most always comes down to the person with the problem having a 'set' of music they do listen to with which they have become both familiar and comfortable.

Their 'problem' with some composer or piece which is new to them is more due to their carrying the expectations of their (limited) listening habits to those newer works with which they are not familiar. Ergo, they find those works 'problematical.'

It is not _the music_ which is 'a problem,' then


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

PetrB said:


> LOL. They are used to having the more than obvious shoved into their ears -- that "four on the floor," constant and almost always unbroken, running under and through almost all pop music via a trapset or other percussion. (It would actually be more than interesting to hear what a lot of pop music sounds like _without the percussion track._)
> 
> So used to that, the listener so conditioned to drums 'n' bass with almost everything will feel there is something missing when they hear music which does not include a constantly banged on every quarter note pulse.


I figured this as much, but still. It's not like the pulse of a Vivaldi concerto is ambiguous in any way...


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Handel, too. I used to find his music quite dull and this was due to the misinformed overly-romanticized performances I was listening to.
> 
> Now I am deeply into Giulio Cesare performed by period-aware singers,conductors and musicians and it has made a world of difference.


That happened to me with both Bach and Handel. When I got back into classical music in my late 30's, I was listening to both composers through modern instrument performances and feeling that something wasn't quite right. With HIP and PI, everything was right.


----------



## chalkpie (Oct 5, 2011)

I liked Ives, but didn't love him. Now he's pretty much tops!

Mahler I loathed for a long time. Now he's top 5. Same with Sibelius.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

chalkpie said:


> I liked Ives, but didn't love him. Now he's pretty much tops!
> 
> Mahler I loathed for a long time. Now he's top 5. Same with Sibelius.


Ives still gives me the occasional hives, but I do like Concord Sonata and SQ2. :tiphat:


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Edward elgar,edvard grieg,robert schumann,brahms


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

R. Strauss. Never used to understand his work, now I can't get enough.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> I figured this as much, but still. It's not like the pulse of a Vivaldi concerto is ambiguous in any way...


O.K. there is a pulse.
But, Dude, _where are the beats?_ :devil:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

senza sordino said:


> R. Strauss. Never used to understand his work, now I can't get enough.


In the 1970's soprano Anja Silja gained quite a reputation singing the role in Strauss' _Salome._

A reviewer for Time Magazine, with its tradition of somewhat clever phrases in articles, said that Silja sailed with ease through Strauss's _"dipsy doodle chromaticism."_


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Their 'problem' with some composer or piece which is new to them is more due to their carrying the expectations of their (limited) listening habits to those newer works with which they are not familiar. Ergo, they find those works 'problematical.'
> It is not _the music_ which is 'a problem,' then


I can see what you're getting at, but I had thought of this as being a problem of the interaction of the work and the listener. An example from visual art - many people like straightforward representational art in which an image looks like what it represents. Presumably this is (neuropsychologically) easier to get than, say, a cubist Picasso work purporting to represent the same thing (or a Piet Mondrian abstract inspired by it).

It would be interesting to have the reaction of an extra-terrestial to different styles of art music, but supposing they could appreciate it, they'd probably have a pre-existing bias to whatever their 'culture' (and their neuro-physiology) had accustomed them to.

I can't think of a thought experiment that could help you to seperate the effect of the listener's cultural expectations from the intrinsic 'difficulty' (whatever that means) of a piece of music.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I learned to appreciate...myself!

Only after reading this book though


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Oh, I'm sorry. I meant "Where's the *beef?"*


----------



## nightscape (Jun 22, 2013)

Bruckner. Took me a long time to really like Bruckner. I always appreciated the talent, but I didn't really get it until I heard his 6th, then I heard a whole new dimension. I then had repeated listen throughs of his 9th before my enjoyment was fully cemented.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

For me it was Elgar and Vaughan Williams
I think it was Elgar's Violin concerto and Thomas Tallis Theme that won me over


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

TurnaboutVox said:


> I can see what you're getting at, but I had thought of this as being a problem of the interaction of the work and the listener. An example from visual art - many people like straightforward representational art in which an image looks like what it represents. Presumably this is (neuropsychologically) easier to get than, say, a cubist Picasso work purporting to represent the same thing (or a Piet Mondrian abstract inspired by it).
> 
> I can't think of a thought experiment that could help you to separate the effect of the listener's cultural expectations from the intrinsic 'difficulty' (whatever that means) of a piece of music.


That neuro-physiology is formed by what one is exposed to, and early. It is not genetic. When we learn something new, the brain literally re-wires itself permanently, with further new learning causing another modification, etc.

Many seem to think their preference for common practice music is hard-wired many of those have a myriad of rationales about the maths, the acoustics, which they think support their argument that one mode of music (the earlier modal and tonal rep) is "natural" or "organic," and the later modern and contemporary music is not -- which is all pseudo science and babble -- but they do believe it.

Because that neuro-physiology is conditioned, then one should not be exposed to only the holy trinity of common practice music and then consider that initial exposure to music education done. When young, exposure to it all, maybe the newest first, might relieve the lack of understanding and prevent a 'cultural bias' for only the older art 

Just about anyone of a certain generation will readily recognize that cubist bronze of a head by Picasso _as a head._ Many from the same generation have big trouble with music which does not, as they say, 'have a melody,' (which is pretty ironic, considering Bach and much other common practice music _ is about anything but a tune._) Most people readily 'get' and are not put off or confused by simultaneous multiple dialogue in plays or films; they readily 'get' multiple frame split-screen displays in films; attend contemporary art exhibits in museums by the hundreds of thousands -- yet when it comes to music, they are stuck in the 19th century.

The only explanation for that is music, if taught at all in schools, is in a throwback mode beyond being just a titch wildly out of sync with the times, where any teaching of the other subjects known as "humanities" does not have such a neolithic agenda  That completely outdated approach is why so many people's neuro-physiological wiring about classical music is so stuck in the past.


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

It was only a couple of days ago(!) that I started to like Mahler. I had listened to his 8th symphony, which, for some reason, had put me off. Then, a few days ago, I decided to go back to the beginning and listen to his 1st; I was amazed! I hope that was the beginning of a long and happy relationship I will enjoy with Gustav in years to come!


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Mozart. At first, the Baroque era clicked instantly with me because of the pure dense musicality of it all. Romantic clicked with me instantly as well because emotions and volume and stuff. Classical though I saw as sort of a weird no man's land in-between, lacking the virtues of both. 

Two things helped: 
1. minor piano concerti 
and 2. realizing it's probably not a coincidence that my ideas of "greatness" align perfectly with the peak of Beethoven's expression; attempting to re-wire my brain accordingly while hearing Mozart.

Possibly connected: a lot of modern stuff has grown off me. Try as I might, I can't be everywhere at once.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

BaronScarpia said:


> It was only a couple of days ago(!) that I started to like Mahler. I had listened to his 8th symphony, which, for some reason, had put me off. Then, a few days ago, I decided to go back to the beginning and listen to his 1st; I was amazed! I hope that was the beginning of a long and happy relationship I will enjoy with Gustav in years to come!


I'm not surprised, the 8th is probably one of the more off-putting of the lot. The first is very accessible. If you haven't yet, I recommend listening to the 4th next


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

It must be Liszt.
In the very first period of my approach to classical music I saw him as an overrated piano virtuoso, and that prejudice somehow kept me off his music for a very long time. Only recently did I put myself to a serious exploration oh his works, and now I think he's one of the underrated geniuses of all time.


----------



## chalkpie (Oct 5, 2011)

Mahler and Sibelius. Underwhelmed at first, now easily Top 10.


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

Bartók. When I was a lad, my mother played his Concerto for Orchestra (1942-3 rev.1945) on our phonograph and it made me physically ill. Now I enjoy some of his chamber works, particularly his Sonatas for Violin and Piano.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

It was a long road to appreciating the following composers:

Claude Debussy
Charles Ives 
Alban Berg
Alexander Scriabin
Benjamin Britten - Still not entirely sold on this one and it's strange because Shostakovich loved him and he loved Shostakovich (DSCH is someone I immediately connected with)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mozart and Haydn. After reading some history, and a sociological book about music (Simon Frith), I realized that these composers were under pressure from their power brokers to produce pleasing music which did not rock the boat. Then I realized that they weren't really expressing 'art,' but were just producing functional, utilitarian entertainment for the diversion and occasions of royals, or church music. 
Now I can listen to them, realizing the limits of this music in this context, and have the appropriate criteria to use in my listening expectations, as to what I'm supposed to be able to derive from this music.

That's not to say it's bad, but you can't expect this stuff to create the same effect as Beethoven or Saint-Saens. Dig it for its craftsmanship and its sensuous beauty.


----------



## revdrdave (Jan 8, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Mozart and Haydn. That's not to say it's bad, but you can't expect this stuff to create the same effect as Beethoven or Saint-Saens. Dig it for its craftsmanship and its sensuous beauty.


Even if I don't agree with your take on Mozart and Haydn, and even if I understand--if not agree with--the distinction you're making between them and Beethoven, your inclusion of Saint-Saens throws me completely. Why Saint-Saens?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

violadude said:


> I learned to appreciate...myself!
> 
> Only after reading this book though
> View attachment 38675


I learned to appreciate myself too; but after reading_ this _book:









I don't want to hurt anyone.

I don't like guns, or bombs, or electric chairs.

But sometimes, people just don't listen. . . . . . . and so I have to use. . . 'persuasion'.

But if persuasion fails?-- it's back to the drawing board.

So I kill. . . I destroy. . . I maim-- I destroy one innocent life after another. Aren't 'I' a human being? Don't I_ yearn_. . . and _ache_. . . don't _I_ deserve _love_. . . and _jewelry_?

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . .

I'm kidding of course. . . well, about everything except the part about love and jewelry.

The point of my post is that people would attack Miss Ayn Rand's philosophy of egoism-- which is virtually synonymous with the term 'self-esteem'.

-- Pop-psychology feel-good: good.

-- Academic-philosophy defense of individualism: bad.

-- They're the same thing though.

Our culture tolerates an emotional defense of individualism but not an intellectually-sustained one.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Mmm...Ayn Rand...

I won't say anything. That'll keep the moderators happy.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

I don't want to hurt anyone.

I don't like guns, or bombs, or electric chairs.

But sometimes, people just don't listen. . . . . . . and so I have to use. . . 'persuasion'.

But if persuasion fails?-- it's back to the drawing board.

So I kill. . . I destroy. . . I maim-- I destroy one innocent life after another. Aren't 'I' a human being? Don't I_ yearn_. . . and _ache_. . . don't _I_ deserve _love_. . . and _jewelry_?

This is from "Addams Family Values", right Marschallin?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

violadude said:


> Mmm...Ayn Rand...
> 
> I won't say anything. That'll keep the moderators happy.


. . . and I'll refrain from impetuous remarks about St. Marx.

Cheers.

_;D_


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> I don't want to hurt anyone.
> I don't like guns, or bombs, or electric chairs.
> 
> But sometimes, people just don't listen. . . . . . . and so I have to use. . . 'persuasion'.
> ...


You rule! You so rule! . . . Come here! I'm giving you a hug. . . and a kiss. . .

Don't you love that scene?

Jinkx Monsoon does it best though:


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Many thanks I think that was my first internet hug and kiss. Yeah I'm a bit of a film buff. I think I like that sequel better than the first. Love those camp councilors. :lol:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> Many thanks I think that was my first internet hug and kiss. Yeah I'm a bit of a film buff. I think I like that sequel better than the first. Love those camp councilors. :lol:


"I'm not here to punish. . . I'm here to_ inspire_."

-- But with Callas and not kumbaya. . .

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

You make my day.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> I don't want to hurt anyone.
> 
> I don't like guns, or bombs, or electric chairs.
> 
> ...


Sounds like the kind of monologue one typically gets in anime these days.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Mozart and Haydn.... these composers were under pressure from their power brokers to produce pleasing music which did not rock the boat.... they weren't really expressing 'art,' but were just producing functional, utilitarian entertainment....


Yes, whenever I get tired of art and crave functional, utilitarian entertainment, I put on Mozart's _Sinfonia Concertante_, or one of his piano or violin or clarinet concertos, or his _Clarinet Quintet_, or the _C-minor Mass_, or one of the string quintets, or the concert arias, or the _"Prague" Symphony_, or the violin sonatas, or the piano quartets, or the _"Gran Partita" Serenade_, or...

Oh, there's just so much utilitarian Mozart to choose from, I could be functionally entertained forever and forget art completely!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Yes, whenever I get tired of art and crave functional, utilitarian entertainment, I put on Mozart's _Sinfonia Concertante_, or one of his piano or violin or clarinet concertos, or his _Clarinet Quintet_, or the _C-minor Mass_, or one of the string quintets, or the concert arias, or the _"Prague" Symphony_, or the violin sonatas, or the piano quartets, or the _"Gran Partita" Serenade_, or...
> 
> Oh, there's just so much utilitarian Mozart to choose from, I could be functionally entertained forever and forget art completely!


A valuable and original post! I'm pretty sure these works have never before been described as "functional" and "utilitarian."  But I suppose they are...


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

That would be a toss between Mozart and Bach I suppose, but for entirely different reasons altogether.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

I'm sort of taken aback at how many of you had to come around to Mozart. How is his music not instantly captivating and wonderful? Millionrainbows gave an explanation but doesn't the music speak to you without having to know the man? I mean I could absolutely understand if it was someone like Penderecki or Schnittke but Mozart? Surely you can see he was an alien among us for his talents were otherworldly perhaps heavenly.


----------



## Stephanie Martin (Jul 13, 2014)

I had to learn to appreciate the more ambiguous Debussy pieces. Everyone loves Clair de Lune, of course, but other pieces with more complicated chord structures were difficult for me to enjoy at first. I had to grow into them.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Fugue Meister said:


> I'm sort of taken aback at how many of you had to come around to Mozart. How is his music not instantly captivating and wonderful? Millionrainbows gave an explanation but doesn't the music speak to you without having to know the man? I mean I could absolutely understand if it was someone like Penderecki or Schnittke but Mozart? Surely you can see he was an alien among us for his talents were otherworldly perhaps heavenly.


I think the difficulty getting into Mozart is partly a cultural thing. We are used to, and in a sense brought up, thinking about music as an intense vehicle for personal expression. This kind of expression usually takes the form of an indulgent (sometimes bloated) form of what they call Dionysian expression. Many people now in Western Culture aren't used to hearing the beauty in more restrained and balanced forms of Apollonian expression.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> I'm sort of taken aback at how many of you had to come around to Mozart. How is his music not instantly captivating and wonderful? Millionrainbows gave an explanation but doesn't the music speak to you without having to know the man? I mean I could absolutely understand if it was someone like Penderecki or Schnittke but Mozart? Surely you can see he was an alien among us for his talents were otherworldly perhaps heavenly.


Since I'm one who got it right away, I agree with a colleague / pal who has said, 
*"If you don't get Mozart, you don't get music!"*

I mean, children and animals seem to have an innate open channel access to Mozart -- no matter how high-falutin or sophisticated his procedures or structures -- which is at least a kind of minor miracle in itself.

To be fair, there are wholesale groups of listeners who don't at all cotton well to the classical era and its aesthetic, and for the entire era Mozart is _the representative poster boy_: the sort who are not attracted / or are put off by the classical era are near 100% likely to be seized with the more overt Drama of Beethoven (which I wholly admire but find as subtle as a sledge hammer hitting concrete) and the high emotional dramatics of the later romantic era.

It is curious though, since I think no one would argue that children and animals are highly intellectually refined... and that leads me to think there are external influences which put people off of the formalism of the classical era, perhaps through some of those more awful teachers and presenters of classical music in schools, both lower levels or some of those horribly conceived and delivered 'Music appreciation classes," which appear on the syllabus in high schools, junior colleges and colleges, and, Apollo forbid, online universities


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> I think the difficulty getting into Mozart is partly a cultural thing. We are used to, and in a sense brought up, thinking about music as an intense vehicle for personal expression. This kind of expression usually takes the form of an indulgent (sometimes bloated) form of what they call Dionysian expression. Many people now in Western Culture aren't used to hearing the beauty in more restrained and balanced forms of Apollonian expression.


-----------------------------*Bingo! ~ and Bravissimo *


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

For me Mozart was the gateway composer. My first love was a DG / Horowitz recording of his piano concerto no. 23 in A K. 488 along with piano sonata in Bb K. 333 I listened to it over and over for years. I had over 150 Mozart cds before I started buying any other composers music. I will always have a special place for that little man in my heart.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

violadude said:


> I think the difficulty getting into Mozart is partly a cultural thing. We are used to, and in a sense brought up, thinking about music as an intense vehicle for personal expression. This kind of expression usually takes the form of an indulgent (sometimes bloated) form of what they call Dionysian expression. Many people now in Western Culture aren't used to hearing the beauty in more restrained and balanced forms of Apollonian expression.


It has nothing to do with it being subtle and restrained. Satie is restrained. Debussy was often restrained. Mozart's Requiem is not restrained at all.

My problem with Mozart and the Classical period is that all music from that period is heavily homogenized, because it was so limited by the impositions of its rich patrons (much like contemporary film music). The music is extremely predictable most of the time. So some of the pieces are fine, and interesting, but once you've heard a few of the works of the era, you've basically heard all there is to it. I really resent people calling my understanding of music into question because I am unimpressed with extremely bland music. Everything Millions said is correct. The era was heavily limited, and to me that is to the music's detriment.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

violadude said:


> I think the difficulty getting into Mozart is partly a cultural thing. We are used to, and in a sense brought up, thinking about music as an intense vehicle for personal expression. This kind of expression usually takes the form of an indulgent (sometimes bloated) form of what they call Dionysian expression. Many people now in Western Culture aren't used to hearing the beauty in more restrained and balanced forms of Apollonian expression.


Well said, violadude. I came slowly to Mozart (though not to a perception of his brilliance) precisely because of a "Dionysian" temperament whose ideal of artistic expression was Wagnerian music drama. Anyone looking at my posts knows I'm still the kid who went into transports in the gardens of Cornwall and the precincts of Montsalvat (not to mention the bottom of the Rhine). I don't think I'll ever be as much at home in an 18th-century drawing room, or find the more formal gesture of Classicism as resonant as the torrential outpourings of Romanticism, or even the sustained tensions of the high Baroque. But age should broaden our perspectives and our sympathies as we, in some measure, "get over ourselves" and learn how wide the world is and how many ways there are to say "I love you." I love Mozart now, and am astonished not only at his uncanny facility but at his range and depth, even if he is not that ecstatic first love (RW), the like of which, as first loves tend to go, nothing and no one can ever duplicate.

With a little patience, Apollo and Dionysus can learn to shake hands.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> but once you've heard a few of the works of the era, you've basically heard all there is to it


ssssssssssss
HARDLY

Assumption probably made without getting beyond these "few of the works of the era". The diversity of era that produced composers as different as Haydn, Gluck and Kraus (just to name some) is plain to everybody who cares to explore before making "bold" statements.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Originally Posted by millionrainbows
> Mozart and Haydn.... these composers were under pressure from their power brokers to produce pleasing music which did not rock the boat.... they weren't really expressing 'art,' but were just producing functional, utilitarian entertainment....
> 
> Woodduck: Yes, whenever I get tired of art and crave functional, utilitarian entertainment, I put on Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante, or one of his piano or violin or clarinet concertos, or his Clarinet Quintet, or the C-minor Mass, or one of the string quintets, or the concert arias, or the "Prague" Symphony, or the violin sonatas, or the piano quartets, or the "Gran Partita" Serenade, or...
> ...


Thank _God_ we have such maudlin, utiltarian things as Mozart to insulate us from such lofty and elevated, Voice-of-the-People things like _American Idol_.

Who needs Dior and Versace when you can have the People's Choices of Mizrahi and Target?

I for one am absolutely thrilled to be Marxian-schoolmarmed on my false-consciousness; by people with _no_ consciouness. . . _or_ taste. . . _or_ left foot.

-- Cheers to "utilitarianism."

<Clink.>


----------



## sdtom (Jul 7, 2014)

I'm proud to say I've never seen American Idol. My television went into the trash 30 years ago. I watch things on my computer from time to time.
Tom


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I learned to appreciate myself too; but after reading_ this _book:
> 
> View attachment 46418
> 
> ...


I also learned to appreciate myself better after reading Ayn Rand. I no longer hate myself enough to finish books like Atlas Shrugged, ah well at least I will always have emergency toilet paper.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I'm still learning to appreciate Schubert. Not there yet.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I'm still learning to appreciate Schubert. Not there yet.


Brother, I'm right there with you I just re-listened to the C string quintet and heard some good things, I enjoy a few of his symphonies but for the most part I just can't see what everyone else does.


----------



## 38157 (Jul 4, 2014)

I learned to appreciate Beethoven quite recently. Or rather, to like him. Always appreciated his craftsmanship. I always lumped him with Mozart, whose music to me always sounded well-constructed and tight, but bland (reminds me of lettuce - I neither like nor dislike it). I listened to my pianist friend perform the 3rd movement of "Moonlight" sonata, and I got to hear a few of his late works, and now, although I don't seek his music out on disc, I realise that I like his aesthetic.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Fugue Meister said:


> Brother, I'm right there with you I just re-listened to the C string quintet and heard some good things, I enjoy a few of his symphonies but for the most part I just can't see what everyone else does.


Something about his music that makes it a tough nut to crack for me. Most of his early symphonies I find dull. The 9th symphony I find repetitive and rhythmically tedious. Others here seem to be very into Schubert. Maybe I'm just a mental defective! :lol:

Anyhow, I will keep trying and if one day I wake up and Schubert's my main man, I will post it somewhere on TC!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Piwikiwi said:


> I also learned to appreciate myself better after reading Ayn Rand. I no longer hate myself enough to finish books like Atlas Shrugged, ah well at least I will always have emergency toilet paper.


You say the sweetest things. What do you do for fun? Play mumblety-peg with your fingers?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Something about his music that makes it a tough nut to crack for me. Most of his early symphonies I find dull. The 9th symphony I find repetitive and rhythmically tedious. Others here seem to be very into Schubert. Maybe I'm just a mental defective! :lol:
> 
> Anyhow, I will keep trying and if one day I wake up and Schubert's my main man, I will post it somewhere on TC!


Have you heard Toscanini's 1939 BBCSO Beethoven's Second?:






Check out the firebrand first movement.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> Brother, I'm right there with you I just re-listened to the C string quintet and heard some good things, I enjoy a few of his symphonies but for the most part I just can't see what everyone else does.


Heard this?:






(03:00+)


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> You say the sweetest things. What do you do for fun? Play mumblety-peg with your fingers?


Overthrowing capitalist regimes to spread world communism


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Originally Posted by Marschallin Blair
> You say the sweetest things. What do you do for fun? Play mumblety-peg with your fingers?
> 
> Piwikiwi :Overthrowing capitalist regimes to spread world communism


Oh, so you play mumblety-peg with _other people's _fingers. . . How 'bankster.'


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Something about his music that makes it a tough nut to crack for me. Most of his early symphonies I find dull. The 9th symphony I find repetitive and rhythmically tedious. Others here seem to be very into Schubert. Maybe I'm just a mental defective! :lol:
> 
> Anyhow, I will keep trying and if one day I wake up and Schubert's my main man, I will post it somewhere on TC!


Your reactions to Schubert's symphonies were mine for decades. I still think the 4th movement of the 9th monotonous. But Schubert has risen greatly in my estimation, based mainly on the songs, the late chamber music, and the piano works. I now think of him the way his admirers always have, as one of the greatest musical geniuses, original and profound, whom I not only respect but love. Even the early symphonies please me more than formerly! Don't give up.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Something about his music that makes it a tough nut to crack for me. Most of his early symphonies I find dull. The 9th symphony I find repetitive and rhythmically tedious. Others here seem to be very into Schubert. Maybe I'm just a mental defective! :lol:
> 
> Anyhow, I will keep trying and if one day I wake up and Schubert's my main man, I will post it somewhere on TC!


I'll keep trying as well but I doubt Schubert will ever be my main guy. I like him better than Schumann.. I don't care for Schumann at all.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Schubert was instant addiction for me with his absolutely brilliant melodic abilities. A composer that I had to learn to love a long time ago was Bach. The WTC was incomprehensible to me for the first few months and then it finally clicked. Another one would be Schumann. He is still not in my upper-echelon but I used to not care for him at all.


----------



## spradlig (Jul 25, 2012)

I used to find Brahms stuffy and boring. Some of his work can sound that way if you listen to it for a few seconds. Now I love it. Many of his works I find deeply moving.

I used to find Mozart boring, trivial, and too consonant. This may have been the result of hearing his C major piano sonata or _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik_ too many times. Now I love many of this piano concertos and his _Sinfonia Concertante_'s (the one for violin, viola, and orchestra as well as the one for winds and orchestra. I have no doubt that he wrote the latter.)


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Mahler was the one for me when I was in college. I never "got it." Then sometime in my late 20's (about 15 years ago), it happened. I now love the guy.

It's not really composers on the whole that I don't like, it's certain pieces in the more popular musical canon that sometimes baffle me. I just bought Szell/Cleveland doing the four Schumann symphonies. I've listened to each symphony twice already and nothing is ringing my bell.

I have other recordings of all the symphonies by other conductors and orchestras and the Szell recordings are great performances, but to me it's like Martin Scorsese directing a bland screenplay.

Perhaps it will still grab me at another time, but there are reasons why I never reach for Schumann when I'm in the mood to hear a symphony.

V


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Varick said:


> Mahler was the one for me when I was in college. I never "got it." Then sometime in my late 20's (about 15 years ago), it happened. I now love the guy.
> 
> It's not really composers on the whole that I don't like, it's certain pieces in the more popular musical canon that sometimes baffle me. I just bought Szell/Cleveland doing the four Schumann symphonies. I've listened to each symphony twice already and nothing is ringing my bell.
> 
> ...


I too, had a hard time getting into Mahler. For one thing the I'm not into songs there I said it, and besides his song cycles, and a piano quartet all he really wrote was symphonies. But like any true lover of music listen to something enough and it may grow on you. Now Mahler is one of my favorites I only wish he had done more like some string quartets or piano sonatas.

Well his symphonies are more than enough I suppose, after all each one is like a world all it's own.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Heard this?:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I had but I will give it a few more listens and maybe I'll revisit some of the others as well. Is the 4th your favorite of his?


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Anton Bruckner, but I should add that it didn't take long at all to learn to like him. My first encounter with his work was the 9th symphony (C.Maria Giulini, VPO, DG), I didn't "get" or understand it right away, but the music stayed with me for a while. It resonated with me, emotionally. Now, I count it as one of my favorites symphonies. 

Still on the topic of learning to like something, even though Beethoven is my favorite composer, I actually didn't warm to the 3rd "Eroica" or 7th symphony right away, they both required a bit of time for me to fully appreciate them as much as I do today.


----------



## Lovemylute (Jul 17, 2014)

It was Mozart for me, too. As embarrassing as this is to admit, I dismissed him because I thought his music to be too light-weight and popular, in that, I figured, if so many people, including those who may not normally like classical music, enjoy Mozart, there must be something deficient about his music! It was years later when the depth and sublime beauty of Mozart's music finally struck me, and I was annoyed at myself for avoiding him for so long. However, I don't think that I would say that I "learned to appreciate" Mozart, because that seems to imply a slow process, whereas in reality, for me, it was a sudden revelation that abruptly knocked me off my feet (and rightly so!).


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Lovemylute said:


> It was Mozart for me, too. As embarrassing as this is to admit, I dismissed him because I thought his music to be too light-weight and popular, in that, I figured, if so many people, including those who may not normally like classical music, enjoy Mozart, there must be something deficient about his music! It was years later when the depth and sublime beauty of Mozart's music finally struck me, and I was annoyed at myself for avoiding him for so long. However, I don't think that I would say that I "learned to appreciate" Mozart, because that seems to imply a slow process, whereas in reality, for me, it was a sudden revelation that abruptly knocked me off my feet (and rightly so!).


I think this is definitely how people really feel when they say they don't like Mozart, I think it has everything to do with being to popular. Beethoven is my favorite but I still don't ever listen to the first movement of his 5th because it's been way too overused and I can't separate those connections to pop culture. I really hate it when music I love is used in a commercial.. is there anything more loathsome than putting a great masterpiece of sound over a 30 second spot about kitty litter or the newest insurance firms attempt to make themselves known by enlisting one of the great masters' music to associate themselves with class.. Shameless.


----------



## Marcel (Aug 14, 2014)

Händel, after I hear his Julio Cesare, Tolomeo, Alcina.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I learned to appreciate Handel through period performances of his oratorios and operas. Never could stand the heavy vibrato/romantic interpretations of his music.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I learned to appreciate them all at one time or another, otherwise I wouldn't like any, would I?


----------



## Celloissimo (Mar 29, 2013)

I'm still trying to learn to appreciate a lot of the Baroque dudes like Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, etc. I absolutely adore Bach of course and can enjoy him without difficulty, but everyone else from the Baroque period I just find kind of...boring.


----------



## Bruce (Jan 2, 2013)

Believe it or not, I actually found Chopin difficult when I first heard his music. That was many years ago, when my total experience of listening was Beethoven's 5th and Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. At that time, for some reason, I decided to put some Chopin on as background music (though I no longer believe there is such a thing), and after hearing the same piece three or four times, discovered that it was quite nice. Chopin is one of my favorite composers, and it's hard to imagine nowadays that I ever found his music a challenge. More recently, I've learned to appreciate the music of William Schuman. I worked quite a while to understand his compositional style, and it has paid of, since I can now enjoy his music.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Not everything he wrote, but I learned to like Schönberg's Piano Concerto. For me that's a big leap (no pun intended).


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Not everything he wrote, but I learned to like Schönberg's Piano Concerto. For me that's a big leap (no pun intended).


Just like your sister was last night!

On a more serious note, you should try his violin concerto. It's beautifully dark.


----------



## WorthyYeti (May 18, 2014)

Brahms, I was bored listening when I first started, but slowly I began to change my feelings towards him by listening to his symphonies than moving towards his chamber work


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

WorthyYeti said:


> Brahms, I was bored listening when I first started, but slowly I began to change my feelings towards him by listening to his symphonies than moving towards his chamber work


Yay! I especially enjoy the 4 clarinet works and the pure string quartets, quintets, and sextets, but the chamber music I've heard so far of Brahms is great! The requiem is also really good!


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

WorthyYeti said:


> Brahms, I was bored listening when I first started, but slowly I began to change my feelings towards him by listening to his symphonies than moving towards his chamber work


It's funny... I got into modern Avant-garde before I got into Brahms. He was my last, but strongest realization. Don't know why it worked out that way. However, he's currently on my top shelf.


----------



## WorthyYeti (May 18, 2014)

Interesting. I still haven't gotten into the Avant-garde stuff just because I'm still relatively new to classical music so I want to have the giants under my belt, but I plan to branch out.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Yay! I especially enjoy the 4 clarinet works and the pure string quartets, quintets, and sextets, but the chamber music I've heard so far of Brahms is great! The requiem is also really good!


Glad you brought that up, I've been meaning to give Brahms' Requiem another chance, do you have a particular preferred recording for it?


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Glad you brought that up, I've been meaning to give Brahms' Requiem another chance, do you have a particular preferred recording for it?


You're asking the wrong person: I don't really pay attention to different recordings or performers, and listen to almost everything on youtube!


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> You're asking the wrong person: I don't really pay attention to different recordings or performers, and listen to almost everything on youtube!


Haha, YouTube can be pretty addicting, I get distracted sometimes by the suggested videos on the side. I'll be watching a video of Stravinsky then I'll see a suggested video of Schoenberg on the side then a different piece by the same composer and so on and so on, I'll end up on YouTube for hours!!


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2014)

Mozart. I used to think his music was insipid and superficial. I've since learned the error of my ways!


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Celloissimo said:


> I'm still trying to learn to appreciate a lot of the Baroque dudes like Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, etc. I absolutely adore Bach of course and can enjoy him without difficulty, but everyone else from the Baroque period I just find kind of...boring.


Try Rameau and Scarlatti


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Just like your sister was last night!
> 
> On a more serious note, you should try his violin concerto. It's beautifully dark.


Ha! Ha! I don't even have a sister, but if I did, I'm sure she would have been a natural for classical music.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Just like your sister was last night!
> 
> On a more serious note, you should try his violin concerto. It's beautifully dark.


Yes. The Schönberg violin concerto is on my radar screen.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Yes. The Schönberg violin concerto is on my radar screen.


And so is the dog.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> And so is the dog.


The dog is a whole lot easier.


----------



## Marcel (Aug 14, 2014)

In my first approximation to the Dietrich Buxtehude's music I listen this cd and it likes to me.


----------



## billeames (Jan 17, 2014)

Messiaen (Turangalila), Webern (still working on it), Henze (still working on it). I find Turangalila to be a great work. Thanks. Bill


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

Kontrapunctus said:


> Mozart. I used to think his music was insipid and superficial. I've since learned the error of my ways!


My experience was the same. I think the adjective I would have used was "trite".

What can I tell you? I used to think girls were gross too.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Schoenberg and Mahler for me, mostly. Didn't like the choral parts of Mahler's works, but grew to like Mahler's work as a whole after listening to his 1st and 6th symphonies. Interestingly, all it took for me to "get" Schoenberg was listening to his "Sechs Kleine Klavierstueke." That opus helped to distill Schoenberg's idea of atonality for me so I could finally enjoy his music as it was instead of subconsciously, vainly searching for a tonal center.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Never heard any of Vincent Persichetti's compositions until his piano sonatas were featured in a major classical music journal a few years ago as "must haves".

Now, 9 out of 12 of these sonatas are among my favorite pieces to listen to.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Glad you brought that up, I've been meaning to give Brahms' Requiem another chance, do you have a particular preferred recording for it?


just decided the same-one of the great mans works I have essentially ignored after first encountering it c.25 years ago-so as Gardiner is my main man at the moment I ordered a second hand copy of John Eliot and the rest performing the Requiem-buttons on amazon!


----------

