# Help! "Classical" music bores me



## PoorSadDrunk (Nov 6, 2016)

I have simply lost my appetite for anything written before 1890. I have embarked on many musical journeys and alas find myself thinking "I hope it ends soon." I don't want to sound unappreciative of the countless contributions and innovations composers have given to the music community over the past several hundred years, but I just don't seem to find pleasure in listening to music belonging to the Baroque/Classical/Romantic periods. (I omit Renaissance/Medieval from that list because I find something innately spiritual and carnally aesthetic about organum, plainchant etc.)

I realize there is beauty in the music of Brahms, Telemann, Chopin and like, but I don't find that I am in any way challenged by what I am hearing. This is not to say that I have somehow have fully assimilated all the complexities and nuances of 'old' music and perceive my intellect as being above it; but rather that I have a fear there is some kind of modern bias perpetuating in my brain that is being fueled by self invented pretension.

In my (very subjective) mind; between something such as Beethoven's 9th and Schnittke's Concerto for Mixed Chorus, there is no comparison. Haydn's string music stands no chance in the ring with the like's of Shostakovich's Quartets. The chamber works of Babbitt yield tapestries of color and depth where the concerto's of Mozart taste like warm, stale beer. 

I could drone on with further musing of cynicism, but I will refrain so as to not break my foot while kicking the horse.

Thoughts?


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

It's a good problem to have. More people have the opposite problem, everything after 1920 sounds like noise to them.


----------



## Weird Heather (Aug 24, 2016)

Taste varies from person to person; there is nothing wrong with that. I have met other people with similar issues over the years. One person I know is almost like you, except that he will go a bit earlier. His cut-off seems to be about 1840. I know another person who seldom listens to anything written after c. 1800. You might have modern bias, but perhaps this other person has Baroque bias. I like every time period, but then I am the sort who compulsively seeks the maximum possible variety, and I flit about from one thing to another, seldom getting too deeply involved in the music of one particular composer or one narrow time period. One day, my mood might lead me to the most challenging modern music, the next day I might listen to Mozart, and then the following day I might listen to the most simplistic 1950s rock music. Maybe there is just something about the modern period that strongly appeals to you right now. Enjoy it while it lasts; your attention might be diverted to something else at some later date.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Stay with what you like. I would never attempt to force Mozart or Beethoven down your throat.
I myself tend to concentrate on 20th century works.
Beethoven and Brahms don't do it for me anymore these days.
I would rather listen to Schuman and Mennin Symphonies, Persichetti's Piano Sonatas and Ives' Concord Sonata.

I think you may have more support for your position on TC than you may imagine.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Have you tried Beethoven's Grosse Fuge? Stravinsky called it an absolutely contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I humbly and respectfully suggest that if older music bores you, listening to something else may be preferable. Just not Persichetti! (Heh-heh)


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

IMHO, several things that really make "Viennese classical style" a classic is the economical way of using materials, the efficient and logical approaches to develop those ideas, the perfect balance between different voices or sections in a piece. All early classical works are made in such contexts. If we try to find and appreciate them in music, those works become no less attractive and valuable than the Shostakovich-like harsh sounds or aggression.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Bettina said:


> Have you tried Beethoven's Grosse Fuge? Stravinsky called it an absolutely contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever.


That was exactly my thought - it was actually composed in the 1920s and then sent back via time machine.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Then don't listen to it.


----------



## PoorSadDrunk (Nov 6, 2016)

Bruckner Anton said:


> IMHO, several things that really make "Viennese classical style" a classic is the economical way of using materials, the efficient and logical approaches to develop those ideas, *the perfect balance between different voices or sections in a piece*. All early classical works are made in such contexts. If we try to find and appreciate them in music, those works become no less attractive and valuable than the Shostakovich-like harsh sounds or aggression.


Interesting insight regarding the economics of composition. I hadn't really thought of it that way..

Though, I'm not sure what you mean by the 'perfect' balance. I'm ignorant to what constitutes 'balance' as meaning anything other than the criteria for music being written at that time.


----------



## PoorSadDrunk (Nov 6, 2016)

Unfortunately, one piece of music cannot hold up an entire era. let alone three.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It isn't really possible to say what this indifference to certain periods of music means. I've found, though, that expectations have a lot to do with what we get out of music - not just new music, but old music with which we think we're completely familiar. If what we want from music is not what that particular style or work has to offer, we're coming at it from an unproductive direction and the music may fail to touch us. But if we have the mental and emotional flexibility to imagine ourselves into its peculiar sensibility - a certain kind of pretending, a pretense of being someone other than who we normally are, or were when we arrived at the concert hall - we may find meanings in music we wouldn't otherwise suspect. If I listen to music of the Classical period with the unstable harmonic idiom, huge melodic gestures and rhapsodic developments of Wagner or Schoenberg as my implicit norm, I may find Haydn simplistic and vapid. But if I can accept his basic idiom as an ultimate point of reference, the harmonic, melodic and structural ingenuity he achieves within that idiom can exercise on my mind and emotions its own distinctive power and give me great pleasure, regardless of my deeper personal identification with another sort of music. Bach and Mozart have things to say to us that Wagner and Schoenberg do not, but we have to be open to receiving them. It can be hard to hear thrice-familiar music with unspoiled ears, but anyone who appreciates a wide spectrum of music from across time does it to some extent, consciously or not.

Possibly none of these thoughts are new to anyone. They're simply things that occurred to me.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

MarkW said:


> Then don't listen to it.


My first thought exactly.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Pugg said:


> My first thought exactly.


But hopefully not your last.


----------



## PoorSadDrunk (Nov 6, 2016)

Pugg and MarkW, don't be boring. It's all to easy to give up on something when it becomes difficult. Music demands more than breezing through thoughts concerning it's nature. 

Woodduck, I appreciate your insight. I share your sentiment on an cognitive level, but maybe it's just that I've yet to reach that level consumer stability.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

So listen to what you want.

I find I go through phases - periods of weeks or months where I listen to one kind of music and find I don't get much enjoyment out of other music. It fluctuates. I've never felt I should try to make myself listen to music I don't feel like listening to. Maybe you'll wake up one day and suddenly want to listen to Bach and Brahms, or maybe not. It's not like you're going to run out of music after 1890.

As an aside I've noticed that tastes for early music and modern music tend to go together, something I've thought of starting a thread on.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

PoorSadDrunk said:


> Unfortunately, one piece of music cannot hold up an entire era. let alone three.


I agree that one piece can't hold up three eras! But I was thinking that the Grosse Fugue could be a good "gateway" for you to get into 19th-century music. The modernist style in that piece might open your ears to the avant-garde features in some other 19th-century pieces. Anton Reicha's fugues (Op. 36) also have a modernist feel and you might enjoy listening to those. Lots of stuff by Alkan sounds pretty contemporary as well.

Basically, I'm suggesting that you could start with the more experimental 19th-century stuff. And from there, you could work your way toward the more traditional stuff.

Of course, feel free to disregard all of this if you're satisfied with your current musical tastes. There's no need to force yourself to enjoy earlier music...there's certainly more than enough fascinating material to explore in 20th and 21st century music! But if you do want to develop a taste for earlier periods, then maybe start with the more experimental works from those periods.


----------



## PoorSadDrunk (Nov 6, 2016)

Haha, I like it!!! Work backwards. This would be an interesting approach to teaching music history.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

In my experience there are only a few things you can do to help. While I do think there's a prerequisite amount of language-absorption listening needed to enjoy any era of music (I'm assuming you've already gotten through that), it should be clear that just continuing to listen to something you find completely boring does not work. I have tried it probably even more painstakingly than you have, for a looong time. It. does. not. work. 

I played the Parsifal overture for my dad a couple of months ago. He thought it sounded like film music and didn't care for it. Over the course of a couple more months I probably played it for him twelve more times, and just yesterday it gave him goosebumps. That was probably just him absorbing the language of classical music and learning how to like something he really liked anyway. I'm not talking about that. For the last two years I heard certain things dozens (probably a couple hundred) of times seeking that same response my dad experienced and it never worked. Brute force listening does not work.

Anyway, here are the few things I think might work.

Take an extended break from all music to clear out your musical expectations. 

Take a break via other genres of music with totally different timbres and don't return until you're craving the sound of a traditional orchestra. 

Listen only to renaissance/medieval music for an extended period, until it is all your ears know, and then perhaps you can experience the baroque era and onward as something new.

Power through the boredom and familiarize yourself with as many baroque/classical/romantic era pieces as you'd like to love, wait a few years, and then see what happens. That is, learn something well enough to hum along with it, wait until you no longer can, and then try again. Something like returning to a piece of your writing months or years later and finding that you can assess it and respond to it in a new way.

If none of these things work, I don't know what else would. Outside of increasing your knowledge of music theory (I don't know any, but I'm sure it would change your perception of the music) I'm not sure there is anything else you can try, not that I believe will work.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Nothing wrong with the OPs saturation, I know it myself at times ... a couple of side remarks however: 

1) besides the religious choral music, the Middle Ages & the Renaissance saw a lot of instrumental and vocal secular music, that can be experienced as quirky, surprising or otherwise interesting for today´s listeners; 
2) differences in performances of the early classical works reveal extra dimensions of their content and their variety.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I don't see why this has to be a problem that you need help with. No one's expected to like everything; there's no test at the end of your life to determine whether you listened to all the right music. We can give you all the advice in the world about getting back into pre-modern music, but in the end it's up to you and whether you want to listen to it. You don't need to fear "some kind of modern bias perpetuating in my brain that is being fueled by self invented pretension" - it's probably just better phrased as "I prefer to listen to modern music", which is no more to be concerned about than "I prefer to _not_ listen to modern music". Neither should be a problem for anyone.

I suppose there is nevertheless an argument to be made that anyone who wishes to see themselves as a "classical music fan" (or some similar description) should make the effort to listen widely at first to give themselves a good understanding of what's been important across the history of music. But it sounds like you've already put in this work, so after that it comes down to personal taste and what you want to listen to.

Of course, maybe you _are_ merely pretentious, but in that case we can't help because your problems extend far deeper than whether you enjoy Telemann!


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

For some inexplicable reason I read the thread title as "ugly 'classical' music bores me".


----------



## juliante (Jun 7, 2013)

A great Haydn string quartet = a perfect bowl of fresh pasta, extra virgin olive oil, parmesan and freshly ground black pepper. Cleanse your palette from time to time and the modern stuff will sound even better.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

PoorSadDrunk said:


> Woodduck, I appreciate your insight. I share your sentiment on an cognitive level, but maybe it's just that I've yet to reach that level *consumer stability*.


consumer stability....

this is pearl of the pearls 
I hope I don´t sound too sarcastic and it´s not about just this post and if taken from a different point of view these are very precise words, good description what many people these days are.....consumers.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

helenora said:


> consumer stability....
> 
> this is pearl of the pearls
> I hope I don´t sound too sarcastic and it´s not about just this post and if taken from a different point of view these are very precise words, good description what many people these days are.....consumers.


Yes, many people nowadays are consumers. But that's nothing new! A lot of classical music was written to be "consumed" by the aristocracy.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

My perspective is similar, but at the opposite end. Over the last many years I'm really into early classical, baroque, and renaissance. Anything later than about 1820 is of less and less interest. As Nerreffid said, there's really nothing wrong with having such one-sided preferences, especially after having given other periods at least "a chance". 

There is some value to being a specialist over generalist, as narrow-minded as that may seem. At least you can devote yourself more intensely to what's in your heart with what's usually not unlimited financial resources.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

PoorSadDrunk said:


> I have simply lost my appetite for anything written before 1890.
> .
> ...
> 
> Thoughts?


Crikey, that's terrible. I feel so sorry that words fail me.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

frankly, I don't see what you don't see in it


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

I am passionate about Classical Music and do not find it boring at all. Even listening to the same piece, I discover something new that I hadn't noticed.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

A good number of years ago, there was a Classical music website like this one that had a frequent poster that loved Stockhousen and other "modernist" composers and could not stand anything from the 18th century. But before that site went belly-up, he "discovered" the genius and joy of Haydn.

So you probably will someday too.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

FWIW, I didn't really appreciate Mozart until well into adulthood.

The idea that classical music listeners "progress" from standard repertoire to "difficult" modern music is often wrong, particularly for listeners who are coming to classical music having already developed fairly adventurous tastes in other genres. I've seen it go the other way many times.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> The idea that classical music listeners "progress" from standard repertoire to "difficult" modern music is often wrong,


absolutely. 20th century racket is hardly a "progression"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> *FWIW, I didn't really appreciate Mozart until well into adulthood.*


Good example, and familiar to me. On the whole, I'm still more of an "appreciator" than a lover of Mozart's music. I hardly ever listen to him, even while knowing that he's one of music's most prodigious geniuses. I can hear that, and I know why others rave about him, but I don't care, and I don't see not caring as a problem or a personal defect.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Nate Miller said:


> absolutely. 20th century racket is hardly a "progression"


For the record, this is not what I meant. I'm sorry you're unable to enjoy so much great music.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> For the record, this is not what I meant. I'm sorry you're unable to enjoy so much great music.


that's ok. but your point that we all don't "progress" toward 20th century music is true. Sometimes people go the other way and get into early music. Sometimes they get really into a particular era. but they don't go along a continuum towards the 20th century.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I have a problem with liking too much. There's simply not enough time. :scold:


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

PoorSadDrunk said:


> I have simply lost my appetite for anything written before 1890. I have embarked on many musical journeys and alas find myself thinking "I hope it ends soon." I don't want to sound unappreciative of the countless contributions and innovations composers have given to the music community over the past several hundred years, but I just don't seem to find pleasure in listening to music belonging to the Baroque/Classical/Romantic periods. (I omit Renaissance/Medieval from that list because I find something innately spiritual and carnally aesthetic about organum, plainchant etc.)
> 
> I realize there is beauty in the music of Brahms, Telemann, Chopin and like, but I don't find that I am in any way challenged by what I am hearing. This is not to say that I have somehow have fully assimilated all the complexities and nuances of 'old' music and perceive my intellect as being above it; but rather that I have a fear there is some kind of modern bias perpetuating in my brain that is being fueled by self invented pretension.
> 
> ...


I have never been interested in anything composed pre 1900's, so I am on the same page.

I have tried many times, and will continue to try probably for the rest of my life, but I just don't find anything of interest pre 1900's.

Of course, I can completely respect and appreciate earlier composer's contributions, on an intellectual level. But their music does nothing for me.

Give me Stravinsky, Bartok, Webern, Carter, Penderecki, Ligeti, Schoenberg, Lindberg, etc anytime over the the '3 B's', or whatever the number of "Big" composers the majority of classical music fans like.

Let me add, that I don't actually find this situation a good one to be in, as it leaves out a lot of music that I could be listening to. I am not exactly happy that my tastes are somewhat limited.

On the plus side, there are always more great contemporary composers to discover.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> I have never been interested in anything composed pre 1900's, so I am on the same page.
> 
> I have tried many times, and will continue to try probably for the rest of my life, but I just don't find anything of interest pre 1900's.
> 
> ...


It doesn't matter what your taste is. What matters is the understanding that your taste isn't the only worthwhile road to take... that's really it.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Blake said:


> I have a problem with liking too much. There's simply not enough time. :scold:


Thinks about your blood pressure.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

PoorSadDrunk said:


> The chamber works of Babbitt yield tapestries of color and depth where the concerto's of Mozart taste like warm, stale beer.


For many years the idea idea of warm, stale beer would have disgusted me, but after spending considerable time in English bars I gradually came to like it.


----------



## Weird Heather (Aug 24, 2016)

Blake said:


> I have a problem with liking too much. There's simply not enough time. :scold:


This is my problem as well. I got at this in a rather roundabout fashion in my earlier post. There can be advantages to having a narrower focus. Devoting most of your listening to a relatively narrow category of music will allow you to gain a deeper understanding of it. It seems like I rarely get to this point since I always get distracted by something new.

As for "learning to like" a particular type of music over time, I have had that happen. As Clairvoyance Enough mentioned earlier, sometimes it is necessary to absorb an unfamiliar "musical language." While I have always liked jazz from the 1910s through the 1940s, modern jazz eluded me until I took some time to listen to a few of the more famous recordings, and as I absorbed the musical language, I came to understand and enjoy it. Importantly, I didn't force myself. I just listened occasionally whenever I was in the mood to challenge my taste, and it finally worked. Of course, you have probably already been through this process to some extent. If it hasn't worked, it might never work, or perhaps you need to reach a different point in your life when you will be more receptive to it.

If you truly are interested in "learning to like" pre-1900 music, my recommendation would be to keep trying at a low level. At times, you will feel like challenging your taste. Then, you might listen to a piece or two - just enough to keep your mind aware of it. Then, if you happen to become more receptive to it one day, you will naturally want to listen to more of it. Taking a break from the post-1900 music and delving into something else you like isn't a bad idea either. Just don't force anything too strongly - that is a great way to lose interest in something you might have otherwise come to like.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I interpret the purpose of this thread as more a promotion of post-1900 music than anything else and thus, find the title of the thread misleading. My view is that anyone who finds pre-1900 old and stale hasn't listened to it all. There is a wealth of great 19th century music that isn't by the usual suspects.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I think you are welcome to listen to whatever you like! There are tons of different music from the last century to dive into. A wonderful world beneath the vast ocean to go bathing in. A universe of sound within the universe to lend your ears to. Ever-changing like the clouds in the sky when night turns to day and day turns into night.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

I think it´s more a felt saturation as regards repetitive, very general or cliche-like patterns heard in the earlier music.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Blake said:


> I have a problem with liking too much. There's simply not enough time. :scold:


It's quite a challenging problem!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> Yes, many people nowadays are consumers. But that's nothing new! A lot of classical music was written to be "consumed" by the aristocracy.


Yeah. The common folk were home watching "Celebrity Apprentice".


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Stay with what you like. I would never attempt to force Mozart or Beethoven down your throat.
> I myself tend to concentrate on 20th century works.
> Beethoven and Brahms don't do it for me anymore these days.
> I would rather listen to Schuman and Mennin Symphonies, Persichetti's Piano Sonatas and Ives' Concord Sonata.
> ...


Deleted. Mistake.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Deleted. Mistake.


Is this a tribute to my deleted posts? If so, thanks!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> Is this a tribute to my deleted posts? If so, thanks!


Ha! Ha! I guess I'm human too!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Sonata said:


> It's quite a challenging problem!


Problems can all be solved.


----------



## Lyricus (Dec 11, 2015)

isorhythm said:


> So listen to what you want.
> 
> I find I go through phases - periods of weeks or months where I listen to one kind of music and find I don't get much enjoyment out of other music. It fluctuates. I've never felt I should try to make myself listen to music I don't feel like listening to. Maybe you'll wake up one day and suddenly want to listen to Bach and Brahms, or maybe not. It's not like you're going to run out of music after 1890.
> 
> As an aside I've noticed that tastes for early music and modern music tend to go together, something I've thought of starting a thread on.


This is me, too. For the past year I've been filling in gaps in my jazz listening, so "art music" has taken a back seat. I'm sure in a couple years I'll hunger for a month period of hard rock purges.

That said, I do find myself listening to things several times if I don't necessarily like it right away. On the subject of jazz, for which it has happened far more than Classical, etc., it took me several listens of more modal/free jazz greats like _A Love Supreme_ than I care to admit. I'm still not in love with it, but I definitely now see what the hubaloo was about. So maybe revisiting a work a couple times over a week might make you hear it diffferently.

As for something for you to look into, how much have you delved into Vivaldi's concertos? There's quite a bit of force there, and none of it, to my ears, at least, can be called boring.


----------



## Lyricus (Dec 11, 2015)

Nate Miller said:


> that's ok. but your point that we all don't "progress" toward 20th century music is true. Sometimes people go the other way and get into early music. Sometimes they get really into a particular era. but they don't go along a continuum towards the 20th century.


And more to that point - progress here makes it sound like 20th century music is the epitome, but fantastic music can be found in all eras, and the 20th century has no monopoly on that.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Ha! Ha! I guess I'm human too!


What are the chances of the 'guess' being accurate? :devil:


----------



## PoorSadDrunk (Nov 6, 2016)

Blancrocher said:


> For many years the idea idea of warm, stale beer would have disgusted me, but after spending considerable time in English bars I gradually came to like it.


Best advise thus far... cheers.

Thank you all for your insights! and ***** off people who have nothing to contribute. Your worthless brains will be sucked into the abyss of eternal facehugging and complacency.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Posting a thread that "Classical Music Bores Me" on Talk Classical is like posting "I find the BMW 328i uninspiring" on Bimmerfest.

Nothing good will come of it.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Blake said:


> I have a problem with liking too much. There's simply not enough time. :scold:


I agree. I keep buying music then can't find the time to listen to it!!


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Judith said:


> I agree. I keep buying music then can't find the time to listen to it!!


Maybe we should all try listening to several pieces simultaneously. Actually, that could be a good solution to the OP's boredom problem.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

> Actually, that could be a good solution to the OP's boredom problem.


I do think it was more attention seeking.


----------

