# How do I get to like Romanticism?



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

Hi. I've been listening to classical for about a year and explored its various periods. One which I haven't listened to much is Romanticism. What I've heard I haven't liked or better put, enjoyed. Now, I don't want to just pick a work from the top recommended lists, as I fear it may make me dislike it even more. My only exception is that I've learned to like Mahler. Rather, I would appreciate it if someone could guide me through a couple of Romantic works that aren't as "emotionless", "predictable" or "boring" as some of the others, and which might provide a more inspiring introduction to the genre. I'm looking also for your own stories, how you got to love or at least appreciate Romanticism.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

David OByrne said:


> My only exception is that I've learned to like Mahler.


Perhaps certain characteristics of Mahler's works -- amazing orchestration, exceptional evocation of mood, combination of solo voices & orchestra, or a unique philosophical and Eastern-influenced "composer's voice" -- attract you. In any case you must like the augmented Romantic orchestra to like Mahler ... Tchaikovsky can be a gateway to Romanticism -- _Symphonies 4,5, and 6_, _Romeo and Juliet _and _Francesca da Rimini_ are certainly not emotionless or boring anyway!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I think a lot of people of my vintage got to know so-called "romantic" music because that's the way the great movie soundtracks of the 30's through 50's were written. From the Universal Horror classics through the great Warner Bros. dramas, I quickly learned to love that sound - learning to enjoy music of the classical era took a lot longer, and Baroque - still have no appetite for it. So...here are some of my favorite scores of the romantic era. Give them a try...I learned this music over 50 years ago and still love it.

Rimsky-Korsakov: Scheherazade (Mackerras on Telarc is hard to beat)
Rachmaninoff: Symphony no. 2 (Previn with the LSO on EMI cannot be beat)
Tchaikovsky: Symphony no. 6 (Monteux with Boston on RCA)
Raff: Symphony no. 5 (Herrmann with London Philharmonic, if you can find it.)
Sibelius: Symphony no. 2 (Barbirolli with Royal Philharmonic on Chesky)
Dvorak: Symphony no. 8 (Walter with Columbia Symphony on Sony)
Franck: Symphony in d minor (Monteux with Chicago on RCA)
Berlioz: Symphonie Fantastique (Munch with Boston on RCA)
Saint-Saens: Organ Symphony (no. 3) (Munch on RCA)

and if you're tired of symphonies:

Tchaikovsky: Piano concerto no. 1 (Gilels and Reiner on RCA)
Rachmaninoff: Piano concerto no. 2 (so many great ones)
Mendelssohn: violin concerto (Heifetz on RCA)
Grieg: piano concerto (many great ones)


Tchaikovsky: Sleeping Beauty Ballet (Previn with LSO on EMI)
Bizet: Carmen suites (Ormandy on RCA)
Grieg: Peer Gynt music (Beecham on EMI)

All of the above (except the Raff) are "warhorses", very popular and for good reason. Achingly beautiful, powerful, moving.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I don’t feel as strongly against Romantic music as you, but don’t quite like some of its conventions. My favourite work from the Romantic period by far is Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, which some say was inspired by the composer on opium, Bernstein calls it psychedelic. Stravinsky and even Boulez (!) were against his use of harmony. 

For hyperemotional, I don’t think anything matches Tchaikovsky. His symphonies 4-6 have very intense moments. 

Wagner is for me the quintessential romantic, even though his works are really long, and doesn’t always sustain my interest.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

David OByrne said:


> ...My only exception is that I've learned to like Mahler. Rather, I would appreciate it if someone could guide me through a couple of Romantic works that aren't as "emotionless", "predictable" or "boring" as some of the others, ...


How did you learn to like Mahler?

Since most people find Romantic works quite emotional and some find them overly emotional, your reaction to music may be rather different than many. Maybe you are looking for qualities often found in modern music rather than listening to what Romantic music offers. Your request for guidance for music that isn't "emotionless", "predictable" or "boring" is similar to someone asking for guidance to Schoenberg works that are not random, without harmony, or ugly.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

David OByrne said:


> Hi. I've been listening to classical for about a year and explored its various periods. One which I haven't listened to much is Romanticism. What I've heard I haven't liked or better put, enjoyed. Now, I don't want to just pick a work from the top recommended lists, as I fear it may make me dislike it even more. My only exception is that I've learned to like Mahler. Rather, I would appreciate it if someone could guide me through a couple of Romantic works that aren't as "emotionless", "predictable" or "boring" as some of the others, and which might provide a more inspiring introduction to the genre. I'm looking also for your own stories, how you got to love or at least appreciate Romanticism.


I can't answer your question (obviously, given my comments in the other thread). But I got a much greater appreciation for Rachmaninov when my college orchestra played Rachmaninov's Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini. Though our conductor was a composer and a big proponent of Stravinsky and other modernists, we also played the Schumann piano concerto, the Tchaikovsky Nutcracker Suite, Wagner's Meistersingers prelude, the Dvorak Serenade for violin and orchestra, the Mendelssohn Hebrides overture, and several other romantic standards, and Rach's superiority as an orchestrator to all of them was striking. He had a great understanding of the contrasting sonorities of the different instruments and how to use them, much like Mahler and Richard Strauss, and Mozart and Beethoven for that matter, though the latter two didn't have the advantage of modern instruments. Also, there is an important element of humor in the Rhapsody, almost inevitably when the task is taking Paganini's simple theme and blowing it up into such an ornate production.

Mendelsohn's incidental music to A Midsummer Night's Dream, Schumann's Scenes from Childhood and Carnival, and several of Chopin's Mazurkas are other examples of romantic music with important elements of humor and high spirited fun.

Fortunately, though the "Romantic" heading doesn't encompass nearly the scope and variety the "Modern" heading does, it means much more than suffering through a complete performance of Tristan or Meistersingers. I think most who take the time to listen can find something to like, as with most genres of music.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

What worked for me was listening exclusively to the baroque and classical eras until I finally started to get a little tired of them, which took a couple years. After I'd primed my brain for so long to perceive Handel, Haydn, and etc as the "standard" sound of music in my life, romanticism suddenly seemed fresh rather than emotionless as I also first perceived it when I was sampling all the eras at once.

I remember once a poster made a thread requesting music that sounded "geometric," and naturally many of the suggestions he received were fugues, Haydn's symphonies, etc. I used to get similar cravings for the overt, driving rhythms of Haydn and the mechanical (in a good way) sounds of Bach, to the point that I disliked how floaty, sweeping, and loose the romantic era, even Beethoven's late quartets, sounded by comparison. Eventually I had my fill and started to crave those same floaty, sweeping, and loose motions I disliked before.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Start with late Beethoven, Schubert symphonies, Mendelssohn concertos and Verdi operas.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

In the spirit of the OP :

I would first ask why you think you should like it, or any other kind of music for that matter. Then ask what is meant by "Romanticism".

My own approach has been a gradual one - the more variety I've listened to, the more I've found that what once appeared difficult or unlikeable is now much more accessible (and this doesn't just apply to Romantic music). I still don't like a lot of music, but at least I don't necessarily need to reach for the off switch when I hear it.

One thing I'll say is that Romantic music overall is part of the general continuum of gradually evolving music. I think for many listeners there's a daunting notion of some sort of dividing line between "regular" classical music and the older "Romantic" classical music, so there's a psychological barrier to accepting the Romantic. If you have the time and patience I recommend exploring the repertoire in reverse chronological order; it becomes clearer then that the Romantic era has been the inspiration for the boundary-pushers of the modern age, and that while as with any era there were a relatively large number of conservative Romantic composers, everyone is pretty much part of that gradual evolution, and there's a common thread running through the music, so I think it's possible to ease yourself backwards into the Romantic. (But, as above, this of course doesn't mean you're obliged to like the music from which that evolution proceeded!)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

David OByrne said:


> Hi. I've been listening to classical for about a year and explored its various periods. One which I haven't listened to much is Romanticism. What I've heard I haven't liked or better put, enjoyed. Now, I don't want to just pick a work from the top recommended lists, as I fear it may make me dislike it even more. My only exception is that I've learned to like Mahler. Rather, I would appreciate it if someone could guide me through a couple of Romantic works that aren't as "emotionless", "predictable" or "boring" as some of the others, and which might provide a more inspiring introduction to the genre. I'm looking also for your own stories, how you got to love or at least appreciate Romanticism.


Are you thinking of symphony orchestra music? Then I think you should get yourself a recording of Wagner overtures and orchestral transcriptions.

I remember that when I used to enjoy Mahler symphonies I also enjoyed Bruckner 9 and Shostakovich 5, Schubert 8, Beethoven 3 and 9, Brahms 1 and 4, Sibelius 5, Tchaikovsky 6, Symphonie Fantastique (Berlioz), Elgar 2. They were never as interesting as Mahler, but nevertheless fun when you're in the mood.

Maybe think of short form music too - The Coriolan Overture and Leonora 3 (Beethoven), Till Eugenspiegel and Death and Transfiguration (Strauss), The Tragic Overture (Brahms)

And maybe think of some modern music which is romantically inspired, like Berio's Symphonia.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

ArtMusic said:


> Start with late Beethoven, Schubert symphonies, Mendelssohn concertos and Verdi operas.


I would suggest just the opposite, because you already like Mahler. Work your way back time-wise from Mahler (e.g. Dvorak, Brahms, Bruch, Braunfels).


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Take it out for a drink and get to know it -- and see if you have anything in common.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

No one mentions Liszt? Chopin? Schumann? There are many, many others who would fit into the 'Romanticism' category but these are three who epitomise what people love (or dislike) about Romanticism in music. My advice would be to go beyond the large-scale symphonic works and explore the treasures that exist in other genres as well.

There's a very nice guide at https://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/top-10-romantic-composers which explains what 'Romanticism' means, links a selection of composers to this label, and makes recommendations of works and performances to listen to


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

How do I get to like Romanticism?

I don't think of Mahler's music as Romantic; it is generally classified as late romanticism, meaning it goes beyond romance. Romantic music tends to describe something -- often stated in its title or movements -- and is sometimes developed as the musical equivalent of a poem or book. The greatest Romantic composers were in the 19th century. My list of compositions I would recommend would be:

*Beethoven Symphony No. 3 "Eroica" or heroic*
Written 1803, this is generally regarded as the first romantic symphony because of its duration and outward emotions. Its slow movement alone was lengthier than the average symphony being written in the day. If this is too much for you, try Beethoven's Symphony No.5 or Wellington's Victory.

*Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 4*
I think of this composer as the poster boy for romanticism. Tchaikovsky's "fate" symphony is, in my opinion, the most easy to grasp of his late symphonies. It is full of ideas and has the Berliozian "idee fixe" or the fate theme from the first movement that shows up again and again. If this becomes too much for you, try some of Tchaikovsky's shorter works with descriptions such as Romeo and Juliet, the Nutrcracker ballet suite, or the 1812 Overture.

*Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique*
Probably nothing from the Romantic 19th century stretched the boundaries of romanticism as much as this masterpiece. Every section of it has a description of what it is trying to show musically. There is nothing remotely like this anywhere else.

*Dvorak Symphony No. 9, "From The New World"*
Antonin Dvoark, a Czech, wrote all kinds of music on Czech legends but he came to America and wrote this symphony as his memoir of the country. It is probably the most recorded symphony ever. Like most romantic music, there is a program to it.

*Mendelssohn Symphony No. 4 "Italian"*
Mendelssohn was the happy story of romantic era classical composers and this is happy, sparkling music, light and airy and beautiful and memorable and based on Italianate themes. If you like it, try his suite to A Midsummer Night's Dream.

If you listen to all this, you'll have a good introduction to Romantic music and probably will know if you can like it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I find it hard to imagine anyone who likes orchestral music disliking Brahms although I know that as a child I took more time getting to enjoy his symphonies to any others. There is a difficulty, I think, in choosing versions that work for you when you don't know Brahms so well. It was the Klemperer recordings that "broke" Brahms for me but I like them less now as I want my Brahms to sound warmer and no longer need Klemperer's ruggedness to make Brahms sound symphonic. I guess Karajan or Kempe might both work well for an introduction. It is perhaps best to recognise that, of all the Romantics, Brahms has strong classical tendencies - form, structure and argument are important in his music and although you might be lulled into expecting histrionics her rarely delivers anything so crude!

Schumann is the arch Romantic I suppose, especially his piano music.

Tchaik 5 can be easy to love. And Wagner - have it playing constantly in the background: don't try listening to it - can get under your skin.

Personally, I find a fair bit of Mahler more difficult than any of the above. So often he seems to struggle to make his points.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

let's throw in some Liszt!


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

The Bruch violin concerto is a nice start. Once you get tired of that (which you probably will), give some time to Brahms' VC, which will last you forever. Then just really listen to Beethoven (try the Harp Quartet first). Franck's violin sonata is a great bit of Romanticism too. If you like Mahler then you might like Bruckner, so try the 7th.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Headphone Hermit said:


> No one mentions Liszt? Chopin? Schumann? There are many, many others who would fit into the 'Romanticism' category but these are three who epitomise what people love (or dislike) about Romanticism in music. My advice would be to go beyond the large-scale symphonic works and explore the treasures that exist in other genres as well.
> 
> There's a very nice guide at https://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/top-10-romantic-composers which explains what 'Romanticism' means, links a selection of composers to this label, and makes recommendations of works and performances to listen to


Well, I mentioned Chopin and Schumann, am I "no one"?  I like your suggestion of going beyond large-scale symphonic works. There are Chopin mazurkas that last about a minute.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

David OByrne said:


> Hi. I've been listening to classical for about a year and explored its various periods.


Now I "understand" a bit better why you have spread so much hate about Mozart's music on this forum. You may change your opinion on Mozart's music with more experience and exposure to classical music in the future.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I'm certain the entire thread was a parody of '_How do I get to like Modernism_?'.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Well, I mentioned Chopin and Schumann, am I "no one"?  I like your suggestion of going beyond large-scale symphonic works. There are Chopin mazurkas that last about a minute.


apologies - clearly I didn't read your post carefully enough :tiphat:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Musical Romanticism is like most every other kind of music or musical "ism"--a mix of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. I've found over the years that my best approach is just to listen to music new to me without preconception (to the extent that that's possible) and to see if I like it. It's certainly more efficient to begin with the major composers of any sort of music, listen to their most-discussed works, and see if there is a useful pattern. There's no law that says anyone must like Romanticism or to dislike it--I like what I like of Romanticism or Baroqueism or any other ism; the music either works for one or it doesn't.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Musical Romanticism is like most every other kind of music or musical "ism"--a mix of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. I've found over the years that my best approach is just to listen to music new to me without preconception (to the extent that that's possible) and to see if I like it. It's certainly more efficient to begin with the major composers of any sort of music, listen to their most-discussed works, and see if there is a useful pattern. There's no law that says anyone must like Romanticism or to dislike it--I like what I like of Romanticism or Baroqueism or any other ism; the music either works for one or it doesn't.


I agree entirely. It's far better to listen to music first and worry about what "-isms" might apply to it later, if ever, than the other way around. Too much reliance on "-isms" only leads to confusion, as evidenced by questions such as "How do I get to like ___ism?", and lengthy and sometimes acrimonious debates along various tangents.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2017)

If you want emotion and excitement in your Romanticism you should listen to Tchaikovsky:
Romeo and Juliet
Piano Concerto No. 1
Violin Concerto
Symphonies 5 & 6
Suites from Sleeping Beauty and Swan Lake


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> I agree entirely. It's far better to listen to music first and worry about what "-isms" might apply to it later, if ever, than the other way around. *Too much reliance on "-isms" only leads to confusion*, as evidenced by questions such as "How do I get to like ___ism?", and lengthy and sometimes acrimonious debates along various *tangents.*


Indeed. I never listen to isms myself. Something tells me I wouldn't enjoy them.

Did you mean "contingents"?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Indeed. I never listen to isms myself. Something tells me I wouldn't enjoy them.
> 
> Did you mean "contingents"?


How do I get to like that emoji?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

How does one get to like Romanticism? How does one get to like air and water? Hard to imagine anything more natural… Chopin, Felix Mendelsohn, Robert Schumann, Wagner, Berlioz, Brahms, Bruckner—it’s a cornucopia, a veritable feast of genius and so utterly personal and human. How could the field be any larger with more intimate appeal if one simply takes the time to listen to the allure? Sometimes I have to pinch myself and wonder if such questions are real.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

fluteman said:


> I agree entirely. It's far better to listen to music first and worry about what "-isms" might apply to it later, if ever, than the other way around. Too much reliance on "-isms" only leads to confusion, as evidenced by questions such as "How do I get to like ___ism?", and lengthy and sometimes acrimonious debates along various tangents.


I think there is only 20% of Classical Repertoire which transcends the -isms. The other 80% fall neatly and predictably in them.


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm certain the entire thread was a parody of '_How do I get to like Modernism_?'.


Well, you're the only one who used their brain :lol:

But the point that the thread makes is true; the false conception that "old music is by default easy to get and modern/new music is difficult or impossible". 
or that, somehow magically you are not meant to like certain things and if you do like them, you somehow have a bad ear/taste etc.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm certain the entire thread was a parody of '_How do I get to like Modernism_?'.


I know. I was being "sarcastic" too.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Romanticism was a terrible idea, all of them are in the pits of hell voluntarily.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Romanticism was a terrible idea, all of them are in the pits of hell voluntarily.


Yes, kissing the butts of inbred princelings and eating with the servants in exchange for providing jolly divertimenti as background music for banquets was a much better idea.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

In my readings about those times, I have actually gained a greater respect for the noble class, at least some of them. The Elector of Bonn, who footed the cost of Ludwig’s trips to Vienna (both of them), followed his progress closely and was quick to cry “foul” when Beethoven misrepresented works be had written in Bonn as new works from Vienna. Haydn, whom Beethoven had gulled, was probably very embarrassed. As time went on, the aristos (Lobkowitz, Lichnowsky, Kinsky, Rasumovsky, the Archduke Rudolph and others) provided much of Beethoven’s living throughout his life, asking little or nothing in return.

Haydn, the “servant” referred to, said that he would never have gone to England if his “beloved prince” were still alive. His relationship with Prince Esterhazy was certainly not as simple as being just another lowly servant in the court.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> How does one get to like Romanticism? How does one get to like air and water? Hard to imagine anything more natural… Chopin, Felix Mendelsohn, Robert Schumann, Wagner, Berlioz, Brahms, Bruckner-it's a cornucopia, a veritable feast of genius and so utterly personal and human. How could the field be any larger with more intimate appeal if one simply takes the time to listen to the allure? Sometimes I have to pinch myself and wonder if such questions are real.


And yet, the people I meet on a daily basis seldom have even the slightest interest in classical music of any kind, including that of the composers you list. Classical music, visual art, literature and theater are all very much the exception rather than the rule in western culture.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> As time went on, the aristos (Lobkowitz, Lichnowsky, Kinsky, Rasumovsky, the Archduke Rudolph and others) provided much of Beethoven's living throughout his life, asking little or nothing in return.


How I wish Mozart had had the same kind of patronage and economical support. Imagine the other kind of works he would have composed too with no hurries/pressures at all. Yet without that help, he still was one of the supreme masters.

Thanks for madame von Meck and Prince Ludwig II too.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> And yet, the people I meet on a daily basis seldom have even the slightest interest in classical music of any kind, including that of the composers you list. Classical music, visual art, literature and theater are all very much the exception rather than the rule in western culture.


The part of your comment I don't understand is the "and yet." How is citing the cultural ignorance of the masses a response to Larkenfield's remarks? We won't know how "natural" it is to enjoy classical music and the other fine arts until we have an education system that respects the part of human nature that creates and appreciates them, and invites participation in them from an early age. Instances where participation in artistic activity is considered important suggest that there is nothing natural about our culture's current mass ignorance and indifference. Of course nothing will change unless people can be persuaded of the value of what they don't know. But, alas, the mere suggestion that anyone (at least in my benighted country) could stand some self-improvement is "elitism," so it'll probably never catch on.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Both posts--actually all three posts: Larkenfield, Fluteman, Woodduck--can be accurate simultaneously.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

David OByrne said:


> Well, you're the only one who used their brain :lol:


Memo to self: don't be cleverer than the OP.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> The part of your comment I don't understand is the "and yet." How is citing the cultural ignorance of the masses a response to Larkenfield's remarks? We won't know how "natural" it is to enjoy classical music and the other fine arts until we have an education system that respects the part of human nature that creates and appreciates them, and invites participation in them from an early age. Instances where participation in artistic activity is considered important suggest that there is nothing natural about our culture's current mass ignorance and indifference. Of course nothing will change unless people can be persuaded of the value of what they don't know. But, alas, the mere suggestion that anyone (at least in my benighted country) could stand some self-improvement is "elitism," so it'll probably never catch on.


I agree with your general position concerning the availability of art in school and life in general, but I want to also try and put myself in the shoes of other people, particularly youth. I'm grateful that I eventually went to a decent school, but even though I had access to music, I didn't want to listen to some of the fare my schoolteachers thought was great. The whole school system then had the attitude of things that were 'improving'. Along the lines of: reading _these_ books, listening to _this_ music, knowing _these_ facts and talking points, will make you a better human being, even a _correct_ example of educated civilisation. I'm not so sure. I think it's okay to not like certain music, provided you've given it a fair hearing. I never expect people to automatically like 'classical' music based upon its supposed innate cultural superiority.

There are more people with a copy of '_The Complete Works of Shakespeare_' on their bookshelf than there are people who have actually read any Shakespeare. The same holds for a lot of other 'culture' activities, which are often just social markers. There's always talk about the audiences for classical music, but who are these 'audience' really? In times past, as now, there was a large part of theatre and concert audiences who were there not because they were passionate about music or theatre, but because they were/are part of a particular social milieu. Bored aristocrats sitting in private boxes week after week and middle-class aspirants feeling they've arrived. Only a small section of the audience has ever been the dedicated crowd. The huge crowds were for things like Johann Strauss's events, seen as lightweight dance music. It's the equivalent of people now going to see Ed Sheeran or Adele. That's what a lot of people want.

I've changed my mind about pop culture in the last few years. It's not all great (what is?), but it is relevant and vibrant and it holds meaning for people. I think too often there is a tendency to write-off even the good pop culture - modern dance, theatre, music - as a sign of cultural decline and simplification because it isn't giving a nod to recognisable 'highbrow' sources. In any case no-one can know what other variety of private tastes and passions a person has. 
I'll never forget when I was a first year undergraduate and I joined a theatre group. There was a goth-type guy there, wearing headphones listening to 'indie music', said he was also a musician. There I was thinking myself oh-so much more refined for listening to 'serious' music and imagining him thumping away on a bass guitar or something. Months later there was a free concert in the university and I went along and there he was playing the oboe, a Bach sonata. D'oh! I felt like a complete twit. It put me in my place. I'm still in contact with him.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

My notion is that whatever music is heard regularly in the home is absorbed by the children being reared therein. But perhaps that "is" needs to be updated to "was". The advent of headphone auditing of music among almost all members of today's families, and among vast percentages of whole populations, has rendered the acquisition of the musical tastes of parents by their children very problematic, except among those families where there is a tradition of playing instruments and/or supporting strong school music education programs. Neither was the case in my childhood home, so my own exposure to and love of classical music derived almost entirely from my mother's own childhood exposure to such music, though she herself never played an instrument or actually was that familiar with the lives of composers or the basics of musical practice or theory. But the increasing privatization/isolation of the experience of listening to music may be the largest factor today in limiting the audience for CM.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The part of your comment I don't understand is the "and yet." How is citing the cultural ignorance of the masses a response to Larkenfield's remarks? We won't know how "natural" it is to enjoy classical music and the other fine arts until we have an education system that respects the part of human nature that creates and appreciates them, and invites participation in them from an early age. Instances where participation in artistic activity is considered important suggest that there is nothing natural about our culture's current mass ignorance and indifference. Of course nothing will change unless people can be persuaded of the value of what they don't know. But, alas, the mere suggestion that anyone (at least in my benighted country) could stand some self-improvement is "elitism," so it'll probably never catch on.


You know from other threads that I am emphatically on your side on this issue. But I'm always skeptical at assertions that certain music, "classical" or not, is somehow more "natural" than other music, classical or not. Ironically, this argument is most often advanced by those who love other genres of music, but claim classical music as a whole (talk about lumping together a wide variety of works under a simplistic broad label!) is too boring, too long, or too hard to understand to even consider. 
Of course, there's no reason to take Larkenfield's post that way, and I don't. Strange Magic is right, we're all on the same page here.
When I was four, I was taken to the theater to see Disney's Fantasia. I was stunned. Overwhelmed. I'm not sure I can even find words to accurately describe my reaction. And the music that made far and away the greatest impression was Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring. That day began my lifelong love affair with Stravinsky's music. And that was no strange and inexplicable phenomenon. What I was experiencing was the great Leopold Stokowski's gift for communicating through music. And he loved performing for children and understood the importance of reaching them, which is why he made Fantasia.
Soon I would have other fine music teachers, in school (very importantly) and through the radio and phonograph. And I had the benefit of constant live chamber music in my home and other musical advantages at a young age. So, yes, given all that, my love for Stravinsky's music is "natural". But I realize that as I've been listening almost entirely to classical music every day since I was four years old, I probably have a head start over those who ask in bewilderment, "How to I get to like" this or that, or how do I make "the transition", as if your soul suddenly transmigrates to a new dimension.
I hope all that clarifies my comment.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

How does one get to like Baseball? I mean, really... Babe Ruth? Walter Johnson? Nolan Ryan? What do they have to do with anything other than their huge accomplishments that everyone is free to ignore and yet still say they are interested in the game? The same attitude prevails in the field of classical music, and people will dance all around the fact that the big names are what made the game whether it’s in the classical, romantic, or modern era. Then the music branches off from them into a 1001 directions that anyone is free to explore. But the big names within each era are hardly difficult to find and for most listeners truly interested in the music, hardly difficult to appreciate, because those names signify the core values of the music itself, and yet no composer is entirely left out even if they’re on the fringe. It’s not the music’s fault if someone is looking for the sun to rise in the west. They’re in the wrong ballpark.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Classical music, as a body of art, a "great tradition," and a recognized representation of a cultured mind and spirit, is receding into the past. In this it is representative of Western culture in general, which has been experiencing a breakdown of commonly held values that have been the "glue" that holds societies together. A cultural tradition - philosophical, moral, political, artistic - is a real human value; in fact, it's a necessity for human life to thrive. It's fine to appreciate and enjoy the enormous diversity of music available to us now - classical, popular, ethnic - but difficult (for me at least) not to feel the alienation represented by the relegation of the music I find incomparably fulfilling to a "niche" position in a society so unmoored from its traditions and overwhelmed by the resulting chaos that it seems to be degenerating into crude political and religious tribalism.

I'm aware every day, especially when I leave home and venture into public spaces where music is played, that the artistic culture I absorbed as a young person, carry around inside me, and find as normal and natural as breathing, has almost nothing in common with that of the people I pass in the street or the supermarket, most of whom have never heard a Brahms trio, a Wagner opera, or a mass of Josquin. I always wonder whether the person next to me actually enjoys hearing the sometimes catchy (because relentlessly repetitive) one-dimensional pap that's coming over the loudspeakers; I especially wonder this if the person appears to be as old as I am. And then I recall that, at age ten or so, I was picking out at the piano classical melodies and chords I'd heard on animated cartoons, sensing that there was something special and wonderful about this music that I didn't hear when my mother would watch "American Bandstand" on TV. Already it was dawning on me that the accumulated glory of Western civilization was becoming invisible, or inaudible, to my contemporaries.

To point out that classical "concert music" was always a minority pursuit is to overlook the fact that the music we now call classical was not always so alien to the experience or understanding of the less culturally sophisticated or educated. Small towns in 19th-century America had opera houses and looked forward to hosting traveling troupes and famous singers and instrumentalists. Homes had pianos, and people bought sheet music of classical pieces and played them, as piano students and simply for pleasure. People sang hymns to melodies of Bach and Schumann and Mendelssohn in church. They bought records of Caruso and Galli-Curci to play on the Victrola. These things were true of my grandparents, who were not otherwise musically educated, and of my parents as well, and I grew up, not in an upper-class home surrounded by classical music or any cultural sophistication at all, but in a working-class home in which that piano, that sheet music, those hymns, and those records were still around for my young mind to discover and absorb. And when I would visit the homes of my school friends or my parents' friends, I would often find there those same musical artifacts, and would be asked to play something classical on the piano.

Now that my own passing feels more immanent with each unexplained ache and pain, I try not to worry about the passing of a culture that, I realized long ago, was dying even as I was discovering it. But the music of that culture is not dead; far from it. Given an opportunity to hear it early in life - and even better, to participate in it (bring back the piano in every home!) - people can still discover how rich in meaning it is, and how much it has to say to them about themselves and about the heritage that made them what they are.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> ... a society so unmoored from its traditions and overwhelmed by the resulting chaos that it seems to be degenerating into crude political and religious tribalism."


Woodduck, be of good cheer! I have it, on unimpeachable authority, that every day in every way things are getting better and better. In fact, we live in the best of all possible worlds. (Obligatory music reference: Bernstein's _Candide_.)


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> How does one get to like Baseball? I mean, really... Babe Ruth? Walter Johnson? Nolan Ryan? What do they have to do with anything other than their huge accomplishments that everyone is free to ignore and yet still say they are interested in the game? The same attitude prevails in the field of classical music, and people will dance all around the fact that the big names are what made the game whether it's in the classical, romantic, or modern era. Then the music branches off from them into a 1001 directions that anyone is free to explore. But the big names within each era are hardly difficult to find and for most listeners truly interested in the music, hardly difficult to appreciate, because those names signify the core values of the music itself, and yet no composer is entirely left out even if they're on the fringe. It's not the music's fault if someone is looking for the sun to rise in the west. They're in the wrong ballpark.


With athletes, some win more, or hit more home runs, etc. But with art, I guess it comes down to each of us having slightly or greatly different aesthetic values and tastes. The composers you mention are all among the greatest western culture has produced, but their greatness and mastery differs in sometimes subtle but important ways, and manifests itself in different aspects of the musical experience. Charles Rosen explains this very convincingly and in great detail in The Romantic Generation, for example, in the profound differences between the music of Chopin and Schumann. That's why to me, one can never rank in any meaningful way, say, Bach's Goldberg Variations, Beethoven's C-sharp minor string quartet, Schubert's Cello Quintet, Chopin's G minor Ballade, Bruckner's 9th Symphony, Ravel's Gaspard de la nuit, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring and Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra. I would suggest they are all worth a listen, but I have no insight on how someone else can get to like them.
Edit: Woodduck, as to your comments on the decline in appreciation of great music, I can only refer to my earlier posts, where I noted there was a "golden age" of music appreciation among the general public from the early 20th century to about the early 1960s. I don't think great music will disappear any time soon. True, cultures wax and in time wane, but how are they best remembered, even thousands of years later? Through their art, that's how. And now that music can be recorded and preserved more or less permanently, I think it will be one of the most important ways our culture is remembered as long as the human race remains.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Woodduck, be of good cheer! I have it, on unimpeachable authority, that every day in every way things are getting better and better. In fact, we live in the best of all possible worlds. (Obligatory music reference: Bernstein's _Candide_.)


Sometimes I wonder if you are paid by someone to make these kinds of comments.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> Sometimes I wonder if you are paid by someone to make these kinds of comments.


It's been said that virtue is its own reward.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Classical music, as a body of art, a "great tradition," and a recognized representation of a cultured mind and spirit, is receding into the past. In this it is representative of Western culture in general, which has been experiencing a breakdown of commonly held values that have been the "glue" that holds societies together. A cultural tradition - philosophical, moral, political, artistic - is a real human value; in fact, it's a necessity for human life to thrive. It's fine to appreciate and enjoy the enormous diversity of music available to us now - classical, popular, ethnic - but difficult (for me at least) not to feel the alienation represented by the relegation of the music I find incomparably fulfilling to a "niche" position in a society so unmoored from its traditions and overwhelmed by the resulting chaos that it seems to be degenerating into crude political and religious tribalism.... (snipped only for brevity)


Deep in my heart I agree with this excellent post. I am not by nature a 'contemporary culture' sort of person, but have always had a niggle* in the back of my brain that it is a mistake to ignore new and current things or to succumb to the thought that everything cultural is always degenerating. 
However, if we are being honest it has to be admitted that public art now too often opts for a narrow idea of democratic culture predicated on the belief that catering to all equally means always choosing from pop culture; the worst examples being chosen from the lowest common denominator.

I point the finger in two directions: a wrong-headed policy of believing 'inclusivity' means an imbalance of attention given over to uber-current youth culture and the encroachment of the commerce mentality into every tiny facet of our lives. It has made public spaces horrible, artificial, sanitised places with a feeling that you are always 'participating' in some sort of directed event rather just e.g. 'being in the park with your kids on the swings'. One of the things I hate the most is that venerable Banking establishments have been transformed into open-plan monstrosities with interior decoration according to the McDonald's aesthetic.

Perhaps it's inevitable given the amount of output, but we seem to fall into the same trap of letting our past cultural achievements be 'downsized' and the cool bits that everyone knows: a few bits from the _Nutcracker_, one of Chaplin's films (a talkie though, none of that silent, title-cards thing if you please), Homer's Odyssey (which you name-drop, but don't read), Beethoven's 5th etc are all part of a carefully curated list which represents 'culture', but even this streamlined list doesn't play that much of a role in the lives of the majority of people. It's run on a constant loop when we refer to 'our cultural achievements' in TV retrospectives. The rest is stuffed into permanent storage.

I'm on my way to being an old coot so I don't have my finger on the pulse of everything that is occurring culturally outside mainstream media-land, but I have come across good music being made now by new composers who are well-grounded with regard to what has passed before them. Things have shifted, but I think we experience a lot of our cultural activity via media now and it is shaped to present it in a certain way that probably doesn't give us a true representation of diversity. In the place I live it can be easy to think everything has gone to pot, but then there's an event like _Koningsdag_ (King's Day) where everyone is out selling their stuff on pavement flea-markets, loads of classical sheet music; and you see kids playing the violin accompanied by mum on the piano. Someone tap-dancing; an old man oil-painting... It's all hidden behind closed doors and we see even less of it now in our slightly anti-social, individualist societies.

Have hope Woodduck old bean. It may be less visible, but I don't think it has been erased.

*_I just checked to see if the word 'niggle' is also currency in the US rather than just a UK colloquialism and I believe the Merriam-Webster dictionary has a completely opposite meaning: actively carping about things, rather than it being a sort of background stone-in-the-shoe, which is how we use it._


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> Deep in my heart I agree with this excellent post. I am not by nature a 'contemporary culture' sort of person, but have always had a niggle* in the back of my brain that it is a mistake to ignore new and current things or to succumb to the thought that everything cultural is always degenerating.
> However, if we are being honest it has to be admitted that public art now too often opts for a narrow idea of democratic culture predicated on the belief that catering to all equally means always choosing from pop culture; the worst examples being chosen from the lowest common denominator.
> 
> I point the finger in two directions: a wrong-headed policy of believing 'inclusivity' means an imbalance of attention given over to uber-current youth culture and the encroachment of the commerce mentality into every tiny facet of our lives. It has made public spaces horrible, artificial, sanitised places with a feeling hat you are always 'participating' in some sort of directed event rather just e.g. 'being in the park with your kids on the swings'. One of the things I hate the most is that venerable Banking establishments have been transformed into open-plan monstrosities with interior decoration according to the McDonald's aesthetic.
> ...


No, our heritage won't ever be erased. I imagine that nothing will ever again be completely lost; everything ever said or written will be immortalized by technology, and we won't see a new Dark Ages, barring some global catastrophe, but only some very dark times for Planet Earth.

I suspect that feelings of doom come easily to me just now as the "American experiment" seems in danger of failing; the Confederate States of America (meaning both a region and a state of mind), feeling their own pre-Enlightenment culture threatened, are trying to impose on us a would-be autocratic/theocratic regime of the sort that our founders sought to abolish, and we're holding our breaths waiting to see who will be dead when the smoke clears. But the battle could go on for a long time, and perhaps it's those who are now young who will bury the bodies and replant the charred earth. By that time Beethoven may have become little more than a name in a book - or he may have gained a new lease on life as a deathless voice for Man's indefatigable spirit.

Well, that was a bit of a tangent, wasn't it?

(We don't use "niggle" as a noun, but as a verb it means either to cause slight but persistent annoyance, discomfort, or anxiety, or to carp or criticize in a petty manner.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

tdc said:


> Sometimes I wonder if you are paid by someone to make these kinds of comments.


Well, it was kind of short so I expect only about 20 bucks for it. Plus of course an extra fiver because somebody (you) responded to it. Thanks!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

(deleted post...........)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

While as a realist I agree with almost all gloom-and-doom scenarios for our culture and our biosphere, even to the point of thinking many pessimists are putting too good a face on things, I cannot share the notion that classical music today is any more of a niche interest today than it was in yesteryears--it's always been a niche interest. The difference today is that there are now so many other competing musics available on so many platforms that CM's wedge of the pie may be the same, or smaller, or larger than it was, but the pie has grown so enormously in size. We also have an enormous increase in the size and influence of once small and marginal populations, cultures, traditions of music-making and enjoyment as our society has grown more diverse, that would have been very hard to find 60 or 80 or 100 years ago. The upside of today for the lover of CM has been also spoken of: its ubiquity, its availability, its amazing bandwidth of composers and music available now through CDs, YouTube, whatever. Who would have been able to hear dozens of symphonies by dozens of Myaskovskys or any one of countless composers very, very few people had even heard of 80 years ago? The music may become rare or even moribund in this circle or that, but as long as the technology continues to exist to preserve and hear it, it will live on until........


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> It's been said that virtue is its own reward.


Its also been said that ignorance is bliss, though it doesn't seem to always work that way.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> While as a realist I agree with almost all gloom-and-doom scenarios for our culture and our biosphere, even to the point of thinking many pessimists are putting too good a face on things, I cannot share the notion that classical music today is any more of a niche interest today than it was in yesteryears--it's always been a niche interest. The difference today is that there are now so many other competing musics available on so many platforms that CM's wedge of the pie may be the same, or smaller, or larger than it was, but the pie has grown so enormously in size. We also have an enormous increase in the size and influence of once small and marginal populations, cultures, traditions of music-making and enjoyment as our society has grown more diverse, that would have been very hard to find 60 or 80 or 100 years ago. The upside of today for the lover of CM has been also spoken of: its ubiquity, its availability, its amazing bandwidth of composers and music available now through CDs, YouTube, whatever. Who would have been able to hear dozens of symphonies by dozens of Myaskovskys or any one of countless composers very, very few people had even heard of 80 years ago? The music may become rare or even moribund in this circle or that, but as long as the technology continues to exist to preserve and hear it, it will live on until........


Exactly. As I've said before, the early-20th century excitement of the general middle class populace at suddenly gaining access to a glamorous world of music formerly available only to the wealthy aristocracy, due mainly to the appearance of the phonograph and broadcast radio, was bound to fade. Things that were rare and then become common and pervasive often lose their mystique and fall out of fashion. And I'm not going to fall into the trap of trying to prove contemporary music, architecture, or any other artistic enterprise is intrinsically better or worse than what came before. For me, that's painting with too broad a brush.


----------

