# From Horrible to Wonderful



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There are many posts on TC about a member initially disliking a work only to later find it beautiful, engaging, or musically fascinating. I'd like to hear about people's journey from strongly negative to profoundly positive impressions of a work. The journey can be from ugly to beautiful, from uninteresting to fascinating, from revolting to glorious, or just from "meh" to "pretty good".

I have mentioned my conversion on Berg's Violin Concerto. When I came to TC, I listened to the concerto because many members mentioned it as a great 20th century concerto. I found the work ugly, chaotic, and random sounding. I could make no sense of it and could not understand people enjoying it. I listened to it many times always somehow expecting to finally see the light only to have my hopes dashed and once again hate it. 

Finally I heard an audio recording of someone analyzing the work (the recording has since been deleted from the internet I believe). The analyst would describe a section and then play it either on the piano or from a recording. Slowly the analyst worked through the piece. I listened to the audio recording several times still having trouble hearing the work in a positive way. Eventually I listened and found some portions that I found enjoyable. One day I found myself humming parts from the coda. I find many parts achingly beautiful and now consider the Berg concerto perhaps my favorite 20th century violin concerto. 

It's hard for me to hear what I heard before my conversion (i.e. a random sounding, profoundly ugly work). It's almost a completely different work. The conversion process remains fascinating to me, but I'm thrilled that I continued to explore the piece.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> There are many posts on TC about a member initially disliking a work only to later find it beautiful, engaging, or musically fascinating. I'd like to hear about people's journey from strongly negative to profoundly positive impressions of a work. The journey can be from ugly to beautiful, from uninteresting to fascinating, from revolting to glorious, or just from "meh" to "pretty good".
> 
> I have mentioned my conversion on Berg's Violin Concerto. When I came to TC, I listened to the concerto because many members mentioned it as a great 20th century concerto. I found the work ugly, chaotic, and random sounding. I could make no sense of it and could not understand people enjoying it. I listened to it many times always somehow expecting to finally see the light only to have my hopes dashed and once again hate it.
> 
> ...


I have to say that Berg's _Violinkonzert_ was love on first-hearing for me. The first time I listened to it, I played it 11 times in a row (the Mutter/Levine recording on DG, which is still my reference for this work). I certainly do understand many listeners' ambivalence towards this work and perhaps the Second Viennese School in general. Let me just say when I decided to throw everything I knew about music out of the window, I was able to appreciate these Expressionistic sound-worlds of Schoenberg and Berg. I still have problems with Webern, but I do enjoy several of his works.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Mine are probably Babbitt, Carter, Cage and Ferneyhough most recently. But even Romantic era music was hard for me to grasp at some point before. It's not a matter of will or wanting to like it. Just need time to absorb and the brain probably works automatically (provided I actually pay attention) to familiarize itself with the idiom. Not so long ago, I thought I had to understand how the music is composed or the technique to appreciate it, but it's actually quite 'transferable' to even other unfamiliar composers. They basically use different techniques to achieve relatable expressions with sonorities, and rhythms.


----------



## OhDolcezzePerdute (Jul 11, 2021)

For me it was Prince Igor's aria. At first it seemed to me a bit boring and lengthy. After finding a translation of the lyrics and being able to relate to the character, the more I listened to it, the more I loved this aria. Not my favourite, but still an impressive work that for some reason I underestimated.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

When I started exploring classical music in the mid eighties, I listened mainly to well-known composers from the classical and romantic eras, with a bit of baroque (all from CD's I bought). Around CD # 100, I bought a CD with Stravinsky's Sacre (coupled with the Firebird), because I had read in my classical music book that this was an important work from an important composer. I was in shock. What was this? Fortunately I kept on trying, and the ugly duckling grew to be a beautiful swan - and opened my ears for the 20th century. It is now one of my favourite works.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Kreisleriana. I loved Schumann from the beginning but I found this one aggravating, frustrating, grating, and unmusical, especially the first movement. Now it's one of my favorite of his works. I don't know how to explain it except that it's one of his more challenging works and it requires one to really surrender to his particular emotional register and language - that said, it can be draining to do so, and I don't listen to it often.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I still recall when I was impatient with the following works, which turned me off upon first hearing as being either boring or silly or incomprehensible, all of which have for me today become essential treasures:

the Bach Cantatas
Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_
George Crumb's _Ancient Voices of Children
_

During my early teens when I had begun to explore "classical" music, I encountered a couple of Bach Cantatas on a vinyl disc. Upon listening to them I was deeply unimpressed, and upon learning that J.S. had written well over a hundred of these such works I was flabbergasted with a "What the --!" sense, wondering why anyone would "waste" his time writing such stuff, let alone spend time listening to it.
Today I proudly own several complete collections of the Cantatas and the scores of quite a few, and I enjoy a Cantata or two at least every week or so, especially on Sundays during my listening sessions in which the "Sunday Cantata" has become a sort of regular fixture.

I recall telling a piano teacher (again, when I was in my early teens) who admired the music of Igor Stravinsky that "I could take or leave" that composer's music, adding "but I'll mostly leave it, especially the _Rite of Spring_."
Needless to say I outgrew my childish manners (at least in that regard) and today admire and respect the _Rite_, having several dozen versions in my disc collection (including the big _100th Anniversary Collectors Edition_ box set on Decca ‎478 3729 DX20 which compiles nearly 40 different recordings of the work. I also have the score to this one, too.

George Crumb is an acquired taste, I suggest. Again in my teen years, when I first encountered the Nonesuch recording in a favorite instructor's box full of records, I asked, curious, "Is this any good?" and the instructor said "If you like screaming." Of course, that interested me in listening to the work, which I did, borrowing the record. Needless to say, at the time I was unimpressed.
It was only years later that my appreciation of Crumb and specifically of _Ancient Voices_ grew, largely I suspect because I had read Lorca and had become interested in his poetry. _Ancient Voices_ is one of the works I introduced my own students to over a couple decades of teaching drama and poetry. It remains a treasure, and I currently have both vinyl and CD issues of that Nonesuch recording from the early 1970's.

Bravo to progress and change, learning and reconsidering, growth and development!


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Art Rock said:


> .... I bought a CD with Stravinsky's Sacre (coupled with the Firebird), because I had read in my classical music book that this was an important work from an important composer. I was in shock. What was this? Fortunately I kept on trying, and the ugly duckling grew to be a beautiful swan - and opened my ears for the 20th century. It is now one of my favourite works.


I'm still walking that road to Damascus.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Hasn't happened to me here.

I grew up learning to play themes from Classical music, while the Beatles dominated the radio. While others dismissed the instrumental music from their films' soundtracks (A Hard Days Night, Help!, and Yellow Submarine), I marveled at the arrangements.

In 1971 two bands released songs that made my jaw drop: *ELP* released *Tarkus*, and *Yes* released *Roundabout*, the first track on *Fragile*. The second track, titled *Cans and Brahms*, was a reworking of *Brahms' 4th Symphony in E minor, Third Movement*.

On the *Tarkus* album, keyboardist Keith Emerson liberally "borrowed" from *Bach's Toccata and Fugue in F major*, BWV 540 and *Prelude and Fugue VI*, BWV 851. As I explored the *ELP* (and *The Nice*) back catalog, I discovered much more appropriated Classical music. ELP had a penchant for using dynamic and bombastic Classical music, and it wasn't long before I was also marveling at early 20th Century Classical music, as well as the wonderful music from Bach to Schubert.

I don't really listen to atonal and random modern music. I'm sure if I took it seriously I'd enjoy it, at least on an *intellectual* level, but that doesn't mean I enjoy listening *to* it.

I love TC, and have found plenty of "recommended" music from centuries of Classical Music, including Contemporary. If it seems interesting I'll give it a listen. Occasionally I'll like it, but usually it doesn't please me to listen to it.

But I do try.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Same, this hasn't happened to me. I've only more greatly appreciated composers by hearing that they have a greater breadth of work. But I don't listen to music that others critically acclaim, seems like a conventional mess. I literally just listen to music randomly, for the most unbiased experience. That is how I fell in love with Mozart and many less popular composers.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

It has never happened to me either. My likings have broadened over time, but no music that I considered horrible on the first listen has ever become good.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Sibelius
Shostakovich 

My aversion to 20th century music impeded my appreciation of those two composers. Sibelius has gone from meh, to one of my favorite composers, his Violin Concerto is now my favorite violin concerto of all. I don't love all of Shostakovich's output, but he has gone from never being listened to, to one of my favorites. I am particularly fond of symphonies 5, 9 and his 1st Cello Concerto. I also like symphonies 7, 10 and Babi Yar although not to the same level.


----------



## juliante (Jun 7, 2013)

Going back many years... i found Mahler horribly incoherent. I get him now and find much wonder in his music.


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

My initial reactions to most of the Xenakis works (especially orchestral or larger ensemble works) were not positive but his unique style gradually grew on me and I listen to him quite frequently nowadays.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I don't spend time worrying about not liking something, or even liking something else. I just listen to what I feel like hearing each day. One day I may find it enjoyable the next day I might find it boring. No matter. There's always something to hear.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

A number of people mentioned Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. I too found this work difficult to appreciate at first. I believe as I continued to listen to modern music I learned to hear the music differently than I heard CPT works. I was then able to listen for new aspects of the music and appreciate what I had not before. 

George Crumb's Black Angels was rather unpleasant until I came back to it after some time listening to other modern/contemporary music. Suddenly it was beautiful. I do find the transition remarkable but wonderful as well.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

I wouldn't describe any of my first encounters with classical pieces as "horrible" experience. "Boring" and "unimpressive" are two more correct words.
Well, I did have a hard time getting into Mahler's Seventh Symphony. It took Bernstein to turn M7 into one of my favorites.
But the best "horrible to wonderful" example comes from a world of progressive rock, not classical music. My first encounter with Van Der Graaf Generator's "Pawn Hearts" album from 1971 left me totally puzzled and not in a good way ("what the hell was that?!?") In about a couple of years I was still analyzing my strong reaction to the music and thank God I had a mind to give it another try. That was love from the second sight.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

mmsbls said:


> A number of people mentioned Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. I too found this work difficult to appreciate at first. I believe as I continued to listen to modern music I learned to hear the music differently than I heard CPT works. I was then able to listen for new aspects of the music and appreciate what I had not before.
> 
> George Crumb's Black Angels was rather unpleasant until I came back to it after some time listening to other modern/contemporary music. Suddenly it was beautiful. I do find the transition remarkable but wonderful as well.


I liked Rite of Spring when I first heard it, but my tastes in music at the time favored dramatically bombastic music: Mars, the Bringer of War, Toccata and Fugue, In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida, proto-metal from the late 60s and early 70s.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It has happened to me often ... so much so that I have now learned which reasons for my disliking music are likely to change to their opposite and which will always be a "no". When I was a teenager I quite liked a lot of modern music (Stravinsky, Bartok, Hindemith etc but not the second Viennese school) but then, after several years of listening mostly to rock music, I thought of those modern composers as less good than the Romantics and Classicists. But I started listening again to them and found the experience incredibly magical - in a way I never had as a child. It was natural then to start exploring Schoenberg, Berg and Webern - suddenly I was amazed by their music - and they opened the door to a lot more music. Boulez, Carter, Nono, Kurtag and others each took me a bit of time but I not sure I ever hated them. They just left me cold until they didn't and I learned along the way that I would grow to like them, too. 

During that time I tried quite a few other contemporary composers who interested me but eventually seemed empty. That won't change, I suspect, and I have given up trying again with them. But there was one composer whose music I really actively disliked: Messiaen. I spent a long time avoiding his music but then somehow the Quartet for the End of Time caught hold of me and was quickly followed by many of his orchestral pieces. I think it was my taking an interest in George Benjamin, a pupil of Messiaen's, that opened my door to his teacher. Whatever it was, the music was suddenly transporting me to very special places. I experienced much of this as physical - not mental - and would feel quite dizzy after hearing a piece. He is now one of my favourite composers. 

I think I have become more discriminating at the same time that my repertoire has grown. So there is much that seems to me less good than it used to.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> A number of people mentioned Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. I too found this work difficult to appreciate at first. I believe as I continued to listen to modern music I learned to hear the music differently than I heard CPT works. I was then able to listen for new aspects of the music and appreciate what I had not before.
> 
> George Crumb's Black Angels was rather unpleasant until I came back to it after some time listening to other modern/contemporary music. Suddenly it was beautiful. I do find the transition remarkable but wonderful as well.


_Black Angels_ and Takemitsu's _From Me Flows What You Call Time_ would be my examples. Neither of them were really unpleasant to me, but they were two of the first works of classical music that I heard and I was really surprised that music like that was made. I think I'm here today rather than on a jazz forum primarily because I had the good fortune to start there.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I really like sacred music, so when I read about Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, I had to seek it out. I remember the first time I heard it, I hated it. It was noisy and sounded like an assemblage of jump cuts. Actually, the next three times I heard it, I hated it. Then on the fifth hearing, it made sense. Now it's one of my all-time favorite works. 

Also, the first time I heard Webern, I was angry. How could I tell if what I was hearing were the correct notes or just random note-plucking? I had to have help on this one, and I was fortunate enough to be able to correspond with the cellist from the Artis Quartet, who had just released their Webern CD, and he told he how to listen. Again, now Webern is one of my favorite composers.

On the opposite end, it is strange that some composers/pieces just click with me for no particular reason, like Scelsi and Feldman. I don't really know what they're doing and haven't made an effort to find out; I just like how they sound.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Another amazing transition for me was Beethoven's Grose Fugue. The first time I heard it I was stunned that Beethoven had written it (and not because it was ahead of its time). It was definitely unpleasant. Now it is one of my favorite quartets. I simply love the parts I used to strongly dislike. TO me, it's almost magical how the brain can transition to hearing a work one way causing displeasure to hearing it another way yielding bliss.


----------



## strawa (Apr 1, 2020)

Interesting theme, because I'd say I'm going through it right now with Elgar. I've always listened the Cello Concerto, but everything else seemed unpleasant to me - as a matter of fact, I generally have difficulty with british music, Britten being the exception that confirms the rule. But a week or so ago, I decided to listen the other work that accompanied the Barbirolli/Du Pré, which was Sea Pictures, with Janet Baker. And how wonderful! So I've been finding some of his stuff in my collection and listening to it again. One of them was _In the South_, from Silvestri's box that made me jump. Twenty years listening to music and there are still wide open horizons.

Another example I can remember: Prokofiev's symphonies nº 3 and nº 4, which I avoided and now they tend to be the ones I listen to the most.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> There are many posts on TC about a member initially disliking a work only to later find it beautiful, engaging, or musically fascinating. I'd like to hear about people's journey from strongly negative to profoundly positive impressions of a work. The journey can be from ugly to beautiful, from uninteresting to fascinating, from revolting to glorious, or just from "meh" to "pretty good".
> 
> I have mentioned my conversion on Berg's Violin Concerto...
> 
> It's hard for me to hear what I heard before my conversion (i.e. a random sounding, profoundly ugly work). It's almost a completely different work. The conversion process remains fascinating to me, but I'm thrilled that I continued to explore the piece.


When I first heard Schoenberg's _Pierrot Lunaire_, it did sound horrible to me, and in a sense it still does. Ugly, harsh, psychopathic are other descriptors which come to mind. I learnt to appreciate that work after purchasing a recording with printed lyrics (which I didn't have in the borrowed recording I first heard). What triggered my urge to revisit the piece was that it came up on a concert schedule of a group I had been following. So I listened to the recording and went to the concert, which incorporated choreographed dance and lighting.

I described that conversion process in a previous thread on the subject:
https://www.talkclassical.com/59339-schonberg-le-pierrot-lunaire.html#post1572028

I think that in confronting modernity, we are required to accept that some things are horrible.

Joseph Conrad's _Heart of Darkness_ is pretty much the archetypal modernist novel. At the end of it, the character Kurtz utters "the horror" as he dies. The story is like a psychological road movie, nothing much happens on the surface but its apparent that a lot is going on underneath. Conrad doesn't spare us what is a very unadorned view of reality. Kurtz was a mix of things - coloniser, self-made God, psychopath. At the end of the book he's deemed expendable by his superiors and despatched by someone ultimately no better than him. The hired assassin Marlow doesn't even know Kurtz, and pieces together what he knows along the journey.

Part of the modern condition was to be exposed to reality without filters. Harsh realities exist, whether or not we notice them.

Understanding works like _Pierrot Lunaire_ or _Heart of Darkness_ doesn't make them less horrible. They remain horrible, its merely that our experience of them changes.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

When I was four I was brought to see Disney's Fantasia, which got me hooked on Stravinsky for life. Even before that, I would sit beneath the music stands of my father's string quartet and listen to Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms. I started on the piano at seven with Bartok's Mikrokosmos. So all of that seems natural to me.

Of course starting on the flute got me intimately familiar with a whole lot of baroque music. My college orchestra conductor was a Pulitzer prize-winning composer himself, and got us into all sorts of contemporary music.

But I've also done a lot of barbershop and other close harmony singing and choral singing, and grew up being brought to all the hit Broadway musicals, which was a thrill.

So, what you are exposed to, especially at a young age, is key. Also, learning music thoroughly makes a huge difference. In my college orchestra, we played Webern's Six Pieces for Orchestra. Talk about random noise. But after numerous rehearsals, certain ideas began to emerge. You could hear splinters and shards of Mahler and other late-romantic symphonic traditions flash and flicker from all directions. But I don't think such 'ear training' necessarily involves formal academic training or taking a seat in the orchestra yourself.


----------



## rice (Mar 23, 2017)

I can't find the reason to listen to ugly music just to condition myself to like it, when there is so much beautiful music available.
Despite my narrow music taste, the repertoire is still too enormous to get tired of.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

rice said:


> I can't find the reason to listen to ugly music just to condition myself to like it, when there is so much beautiful music available.
> Despite my narrow music taste, the repertoire is still too enormous to get tired of.


"Ugly Music"

I hear ya.

In general, I don't care for "ugly" music, although there certainly are exceptions (and even those exceptions will depend on my mood). I find that context and association is important as well; for instance, some might find the music of György Ligeti, as heard in the film *2001: A Space Odyssey* to be quite "ugly", but it's some highly effective music in the film, and now it doesn't seem ugly at all.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

It hasn't really happened to me, either, but for different reasons than the others that mention it hasn't happened to them.

Before I got into classical music, I was (still am) a big fan of prog, including the subgenre of avant-prog. Avant-prog is described by the website, ProgressiveArchives.com like this:

Avant-prog is generally considered to be more extreme and 'difficult' than other forms of progressive rock, though these terms are naturally subjective and open to interpretation. Common elements that may or may not be displayed by specific avant-prog artists include:

- Regular use of dissonance and atonality.
- Extremely complex and unpredictable song arrangements.
- Free or experimental improvisation.
- Fusion of disparate musical genres.
- Polyrhythms and highly complex time signatures.

Most avant-prog artists are highly unique and eclectic in sound and consequently tend to resist easy comparisons. However, Frank Zappa is often cited as a major influence on many avant-prog artists due to his early adoption of avant-garde and experimental attitudes within a predominantly rock/jazz context.

So, when I started listening to the classical music of the mid to late 20th century, my mind was already receptive to some of the above described aspects of avant-prog, that also applied to the classical music of the mid/late 20th century. So, even some of the most extreme examples, took me very little time to appreciate.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Yeah, I don't think I've ever gone all the way from hatred to love on something. I did find Haydn very boring on my first dive into classical, but then it clicked and I adore his symphonies now.

I found Mahler boring and incoherent on my first listen. And my second, and then my third. My latest listen had me appreciating some isolated sections of the symphonies (he could certainly write engaging music) but still by about the 2/3 mark in each one I just wanted it to be over.

Other 20th century music is where I have come around more. Experience with more repertoire, acclimatization to new sounds, and a desire for novelty has rendered stuff like Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, 2nd Vienna School, Bartok, etc. more sonically palatable to me. I still couldn't hum you a bar from nearly any of them (Prokofiev 1 notwithstanding) but I enjoy listening to them.

I haven't come around on Ligeti yet. Carl Orff makes me want to claw my brain out. I still don't really enjoy opera at all if it's not live. I don't like the way most classical vocal music sounds. I tolerate the Beethoven 9th choral movement. But a lot of it sounds like... Zaftig ladies sitting on tacks to me.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Simon Moon said:


> It hasn't really happened to me, either, but for different reasons than the others that mention it hasn't happened to them.


Simon, I know you've mentioned that pre-20th century music simply doesn't interest you. Do you find it boring, unpleasant, simply hard to connect with? I'm not sure how many pre-20th century works you've listened to, but have you found any that you think could possibly interest you?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

rice said:


> I can't find the reason to listen to ugly music just to condition myself to like it...


I wonder if anyone has actually tried to condition themselves to like a work of music. I guess it would be possible, but I agree it seems an odd thing to try.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

At first I absolutely hated this thread, but now it's grown into one of my favorites.

On a slightly more substantial note, I *do* want to applaud the OP for initiating this discussion. It's so much more uplifting and encouraging for struggling listeners than the acrimonious debates we typically get into.

As for an anecdote of my own, I remember my first try at _Parsifal_ left me (perhaps appropriately) mystified. It was only after progressing through some of Wagner's other operas, more or less chronologically, that I came to love his final work.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> Simon, I know you've mentioned that pre-20th century music simply doesn't interest you. Do you find it boring, unpleasant, simply hard to connect with? I'm not sure how many pre-20th century works you've listened to, but have you found any that you think could possibly interest you?


My collection of classical music began with pre-20th century composers/pieces, and I still have (probably) almost all of it. I spent years listening to it, off and on, with the hopes of getting into it. But I always found it boring, and predictable, and for me, it lacks artistic, musical and intellectual relevance. And by relevance, I don't mean culturally relevant, but personally relevant to my artistic, emotional and intellectual ethos.

And, no, I don't find pre-20th century classical unpleasant at all. But maybe it's that constant, obvious pleasantness, that I find boring. I think I have the ability to hear pre-20th century music by the greats, and recognize beautiful melodies, but think to myself, "that sure is a beautiful melody, now what?".

With regards to classical music, there are other aspects that I place above the sort of _obvious_ beauty pre-20th century music has. I think much of the music that many (most?) of the members here on TC consider ugly, I do not consider so. It's just that the beauty, to me, presents itself in less obvious ways, it might be implied instead of obvious, or the beauty my be in the rhythmic complexity, or interplay between different instruments, etc.

And even some of the music that I myself may consider ugly, can still be emotionally and/or intellectually rewarding. Sometimes there may be feeling of catharsis when listening.

As far as my fairly extensive collection of pre-20th century music goes, I still make honest attempts on a fairly regular basis to get into it, with hopes that someday I will, but so far, no luck.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Simon Moon said:


> And, no, I don't find pre-20th century classical unpleasant at all. But maybe it's that constant, obvious pleasantness, that I find boring. I think I have the ability to hear pre-20th century music by the greats, and recognize beautiful melodies, but think to myself, "that sure is a beautiful melody, now what?".


I guess it's not surprising that a lot of people feel this way, but I can't help but see this as desensitization.

Unironic, simple beauty for its own sake (e.g., Mozart) is an elemental building block of art. It's true that, by the 20th century (or even the 19th), this kind of music no longer sounded fresh, and had to be subverted with ugliness - I think that's a good thing, and I like a lot of 20th-century stuff, for what it is.

But I wonder whether, if someone who is interested in music can't find anything at all in the pre-20th century period that doesn't sound "boring," it's more than a matter of taste... it reminds me of what I've seen described as "irony poisoning." To put it another way, it seems like there are intellectual, non-musical, non-artistic reasons in the way of enjoying the music.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

I think for me it would be the Second Viennese School. I thought it was just noise long long ago, until I figured out there was a fascinating method to the madness.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Simon Moon said:


> With regards to classical music, there are other aspects that I place above the sort of _obvious_ beauty pre-20th century music has. I think much of the music that many (most?) of the members here on TC consider ugly, I do not consider so. It's just that the beauty, to me, presents itself in less obvious ways, it might be implied instead of obvious, or the beauty my be in the rhythmic complexity, or interplay between different instruments, etc.


I once asked members if they viewed any music they enjoyed as ugly. Some said yes, but others said nothing they liked was ugly. I would agree with the latter. Once I find a piece enjoyable, it may not be beautiful in the conventional sense, but there's a kind of beauty to every work I like.

When I first came to TC, there were many works that I thought were unpleasant or ugly. I no longer view works that way. I may hear a work that I don't like, but it's not ugly to me. Usually I just can't make sense of the music. It doesn't resonate to me. I find myself hearing sounds rather than pleasing music.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Simon Moon said:


> And, no, I don't find pre-20th century classical unpleasant at all. But maybe it's that constant, obvious pleasantness, that I find boring. I think I have the ability to hear pre-20th century music by the greats, and recognize beautiful melodies, but think to myself, "that sure is a beautiful melody, now what?".


Your tastes are what they are and of course there's no argument with that, but that's a pretty simplistic view of what the greatest of the "traditional" or "pre-modern" composers were doing. It wasn't just beautiful melodies, and there is loads going on with that melody or theme. It isn't just "pleasantness", there's also often an almost (or actual) mathematical rigor at work.


Simon Moon said:


> With regards to classical music, there are other aspects that I place above the sort of obvious beauty pre-20th century music has. I think much of the music that many (most?) of the members here on TC consider ugly, I do not consider so. It's just that the beauty, to me, presents itself in less obvious ways, it might be implied instead of obvious, or the beauty my be in the rhythmic complexity, or interplay between different instruments, etc.


Well those things are present in Bach and Mozart as well. There are beauties in their music that are also less obvious, but there in abundance. In fact I think composers beginning with Beethoven realized they were never really going to out-beautiful Bach and Mozart on their terms, and structural beauty and sometimes eliciting visceral reactions would have to suffice. Thus we have "modern music". I think the development might have been inevitable.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

mmsbls said:


> A number of people mentioned Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. I too found this work difficult to appreciate at first.


With a lot of 20th century music, I think it's all about atmosphere. I just think in my mind what kind of images the music evokes.


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

Sid James said:


> I think that in confronting modernity, we are required to accept that some things are horrible.
> 
> Joseph Conrad's _Heart of Darkness_ is pretty much the archetypal modernist novel. At the end of it, the character Kurtz utters "the horror" as he dies. The story is like a psychological road movie, nothing much happens on the surface but its apparent that a lot is going on underneath. Conrad doesn't spare us what is a very unadorned view of reality. Kurtz was a mix of things - coloniser, self-made God, psychopath. At the end of the book he's deemed expendable by his superiors and despatched by someone ultimately no better than him. The hired assassin Marlow doesn't even know Kurtz, and pieces together what he knows along the journey.
> 
> ...


Notice the phonetical similarity between the words _Kurtz_ and _Kunst_ (which means "art" in German as in _Die Kunst der Fuge_). I think Kurtz is the archetypal modernist artist. The majority of the novella consists of the rumours about his accomplishments/deeds which are remarkable albeit horrible. Conrad investigates the legitimacy of the modern art through Kurtz`s remarkable but ugly deeds and I think Kurtz hence modern art is vindicated at the very end as Marlow lies about the last words of Kurtz to his "intended". Although Kurtz died horrified with existential angst, his legacy as a God/Artist remains unblemished and lives through Marlow as he gives his records/files to him. Conrad`s "Modernist Artist" is very different from the likes of Wordsworth`s "Romantic Artist" but no less remarkable.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

^ I think also with modern -- especially contemporary -- music is an emphasis on sound itself, as in "prepared piano" or electronic music. It's become largely about soundscapes.


----------



## Alinde (Feb 8, 2020)

SONNET CLV said:


> During my early teens when I had begun to explore "classical" music, I encountered a couple of Bach Cantatas on a vinyl disc. Upon listening to them I was deeply unimpressed, and upon learning that J.S. had written well over a hundred of these such works I was flabbergasted with a "What the --!" sense, wondering why anyone would "waste" his time writing such stuff, let alone spend time listening to it.
> Today I proudly own several complete collections of the Cantatas and the scores of quite a few, and I enjoy a Cantata or two at least every week or so, especially on Sundays during my listening sessions in which the "Sunday Cantata" has become a sort of regular fixture.


That was my reaction too. I now have a shelf full of different collections. I had a resistance to the religious content and I knew no German. What was a real hindrance was being chosen at 18 to sing Mein gläubiges Herze in the university choir I had just joined. I was too shy and musically ignorant to experience anything but terror at this first encounter with the cantatas. I avoided them for years.

I owe Harnoncourt a great debt.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> With a lot of 20th century music, I think it's all about atmosphere. I just think in my mind what kind of images the music evokes.


I wrote to consuono that Williams kind of uses pure music ie. "melodies, themes, harmonies" as an outlet to express atmospheres. I think Mahler does somewhat the opposite, he gives off something very pastoral and affectual through writing pure themes and counterpoint, and either way it's just more profound and well-structured than some of Williams' ditties or melodies. Ravel and Debussy also do what Williams does and goes the opposite of Mahler. Some examples from Williams:



Ethereality said:


> _[from Jurassic Park]_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We also had comments that Wagner is more focused on the narrative material than Mahler who writes stand-alone, and that is definitely a huge difference between Williams and Mahler. I don't know if more serious is the word, but Mahler's music is much self-contained. It is closer to pure music or pure structure.

It's different from say, Mozart inputting pure structure, and out comes not even atmospheres, but emotions, impressions. The first *M* is to* W,* as the second *M* is to *W:*
Mozart, Wagner. M and W express purely emotions, impressions, but the M isn't as purposeful to. He begins only with pure structure in mind.
The second M and W express many atmospheres, but the M isn't as purposeful to. He begins mainly with pure structure in mind.
However, _structurally_, horizontally, Williams is more similar to the Ms, because both are catchy, don't just sound like noises and harmonies: their music makes sense.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Opera in general. And as hopelessly stereotypical a "first opera I actually liked" this is, thanks to La Traviata (and probably to an equal extent, Un Ballo in Maschera)


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> I once asked members if they viewed any music they enjoyed as ugly. Some said yes, but others said nothing they liked was ugly. I would agree with the latter. Once I find a piece enjoyable, it may not be beautiful in the conventional sense, but there's a kind of beauty to every work I like.
> 
> When I first came to TC, there were many works that I thought were unpleasant or ugly. I no longer view works that way. I may hear a work that I don't like, but it's not ugly to me. Usually I just can't make sense of the music. It doesn't resonate to me. I find myself hearing sounds rather than pleasing music.


There's some music I've heard that is very, very deliberately ugly and meant to be uncomfortable for the listener (apart from "programmatic ugliness" like dissonant music in a mad/horror scene in an opera). A lot of the time this is done for cathartic reasons- for a blunt comparison it's like how when you rip off a bandage, the sensation of pain dying away slowly can be as relieving as any "good" feeling.

which is to say that (to take a rock album example) this ( 



 ) is very not meant to be "listened to until you find it beautiful" and is instead supposed to literally cause you pain and discomfort and make your skin crawl, though listeners who enjoy this album certainly find it cathartic. I don't think e.g. Elliot Carter (to take an example of an "ugly" composer) is deliberately attempting to compose with this in mind, though there probably are composers who do this sort of thing.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Highwayman said:


> Notice the phonetical similarity between the words _Kurtz_ and _Kunst_ (which means "art" in German as in _Die Kunst der Fuge_). I think Kurtz is the archetypal modernist artist. The majority of the novella consists of the rumours about his accomplishments/deeds which are remarkable albeit horrible. Conrad investigates the legitimacy of the modern art through Kurtz`s remarkable but ugly deeds and I think Kurtz hence modern art is vindicated at the very end as Marlow lies about the last words of Kurtz to his "intended". Although Kurtz died horrified with existential angst, his legacy as a God/Artist remains unblemished and lives through Marlow as he gives his records/files to him. Conrad`s "Modernist Artist" is very different from the likes of Wordsworth`s "Romantic Artist" but no less remarkable.


I see the outcome as highly ambiguous, because what is presented as a dichotomy - between enlightenment and darkness, civilisation and barbarism, or as you suggest genius and madness - doesn't get resolved at the end. I think that this sense of ambiguity, losing control and being overwhelmed by reality is also central to experiencing modernity.

I think that if there's any moral of the story its that the heart of darkness is within us all, and civilization can struggle to keep it in check. I guess a more postmodern take on it might be that progress doesn't guarantee anything, except change. The hardware (e.g. technology) can change for the better but the software (e.g. human nature) remains the same, with all its extremes and pitfalls.


----------



## hiroica (Aug 31, 2015)

I would say that at least half of the classical music that I love fits this category. In a way it’s one of the things that I love about it…the fact that for me it takes a process (time or repeated listenings) to “unlock” the magic or beauty in pieces. I’m constantly listening to things that I don’t absolutely love if I have the sense that there is something that’s just not clicking yet. A brief sampling:

Mass in b minor— was completely perplexed as to why it received such high praise… now I love it
Haydn symphonys and piano sonatas —-thought they were horribly boring…now I can’t get enough
Any Beethoven piano sonata movement that wasn’t beautiful and relaxing…now I love them

You get the idea, I could go on and on. 
I’ve had this experience in other type of music as well, but classical music takes the cake for the most conversions of “music I didn’t like but then became obsessed with”. 
Btw there’s a distinction b/w music I don’t like because i feel I can’t understand it (ives Concorde sonata/atonal music, etc), vs music that just sounds boring ie Mozart or Haydn (which I now love both) . It’s almost more exciting to unlock the magic of something I found boring than it is to something that I found challenging to listen to. Either way, the constant exploration and evolution of the listening experience is one of the most rewarding parts of listening to classical music for me


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

As a teenager I purchased a reissue of Stravinsky's own recording of _Rite of Spring_ and loved it as soon as I heard it. I thought it was wild and mysterious and immediately went to the record store (Yes, it was a long time ago), to buy more Stravinsky. I came home with a DG recording by Itzhak Perlman and Seiji Ozawa with Stravinsky's _Violin Concerto_ on side A and Berg's _Violin Concerto_ on side B (And as for "side A and side B", did I mention that this all happened a long time ago?). I was intrigued by Berg's atonal yet somehow very passionate, _Violin Concerto_, but so disappointed with Stravinsky's _VC_ because I wanted to hear the jagged edges, the savage percussion, and the raw intensity, that I experienced with _Rite of Spring_. It took me years or even decades to "get" Stravinsky's overall musical vision as it applied to his "Neo-Classical" phase, but eventually realized that Stravinsky's Russian phase, his Neo-Classical phase, and even his serial phase were all the same Stravinsky. As different as they are from one another, I see Mozart, Brahms, Stravinsky and Schoenberg as the finest craftsmen in classical music. All were composers that took me a long time to appreciate and enjoy, but now I just love these composers for the craftsmanship; the art of putting something together that is completely abstract and yet makes a kind of sense out of it.


----------



## mparta (Sep 29, 2020)

I thought, much farther into adulthood than I want to admit, that I had no interest in Bach. What in the world?

I'm still trying to generate enthusiasm for Haydn, but I do try.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Absolutely hated Cage, and everything about him. But I think I took him (or is it myself?) too seriously. He's probably the biggest swan transformation for me, although I doubt he'll ever be one of my favourite composers.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Phil loves classical said:


> Absolutely hated Cage, and everything about him. But I think I took him (or is it myself?) too seriously. He's probably the biggest swan transformation for me, although I doubt he'll ever be one of my favourite composers.


The Prepared Piano CDs are my go-to for an "introduction" to Cage. I still need to get to his famous "number" pieces, though I've liked what I've heard.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I was going over some notes on a book I read, and found this quote by *Schoenberg*:

_"Beauty only exists from that moment in which the uncreative begin to miss it. Before that, it does not exist, for the artist does not need it...To him it is enough to have said what had to be said; according to the laws of his nature."_

I remembered this thread, and I think the quote raises related issues:
- The distinction between a composer's act of creating and the end product.
- The difference between aims of the composer and the perception of the listener.
- The argument that there are no prerequisites for creative expression, including beauty.

I know the title of this thread is _From Horrible to Wonderful_ - and not _From Horrible to Beautiful_ - nevertheless, I think there is food for thought in Schoenberg's statement in light of what we discussed here.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

My example is the music of Busoni, which I've increasingly been getting into lately. In my case the transition hasn't been so much from horrible to wonderful, more from pointless to "ah, now I'm starting to get it", and at my age I'm just glad to find I'm still capable of that. I've worked my way with growing enjoyment through the piano concerto and the violin sonatas, and am now looking forward to the violin concerto. Oddly enough, given that the piano was Busoni's instrument and is mine, I haven't yet found a way into much of the solo piano music, but I'll keep at it.


----------



## Endeavour (Sep 9, 2021)

The only one I can think of doing a total 180 on is Stravinsky's The Rite Of Spring. I don't think I got it at all when I first heard it and I certainly didn't realize it was a ballet at the time.

There are a ton of works that I didn't like when I heard them for the first time. I didn't find them necessarily "unlistenable" but just strongly didn't care for them for one reason or another and there are quite a few that I now find "somewhat enjoyable" but that is a lot different from a total conversion or coming around 180 degrees, probably more of a 45 degree turn.

Around 5 years ago I actually started to keep a running list of works that "I don't care for" and I do occasionally go back and give something from that list a listen (especially popular works that others seem to love) just to see if my feelings have changed, but usually they don't. Sometimes things get a little more "listenable" but none of them that I can think of have moved into a "love this work" category.


----------

