I LOATHE Bland

dulcinea · Post by **dulcinea** » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:30 pm

I want only music that is vigorous and energetic and full of power and dynamism. No sissy pansy effete Delius, Faure, Grainger or Holst for me!
That said, does that mean that I always like thorny difficult music? Not necessarily.
How would you recognise which ,,easy'' music is worth listening more than once, and which one is so bland that it loses your interest almost at the beginning?
How would you recognise which ,,hard'' music deserves your love, and which one is so harsh that you will never like it no matter how many times you listen to it?

some guy · Post by **some guy** » Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:12 pm

There are a few things I know right away I never want to hear again.

For all the rest, I don't know whether any music is worth listening to again until I listen to it again.

Nothing is so harsh I never want to hear it again. (I've heard a couple things by Prurient I don't particularly care about, but not because of the harshness.)

stenka razin · Post by **stenka razin** » Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:21 pm

Dulcinea,

Really.......You wrote 'No sissy pansy effete Delius, Faure, Grainger or Holst for me!'

Well, I love all four composers and the above quartet will be joyfully accepted in my house whenever I want to hear beautiful music. There is nothing bland about any of them.

Regards,
Mel

some guy · Post by **some guy** » Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:20 pm

Hey Mel,

I've seen that trumpet player live in concert.

She's pretty good.

Plus she's pretty.

Win win.

--Michael

absinthe · Post by **absinthe** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:20 am

Hey, Dulcinea,

I fully understand only for me it's no more effete, pansy, sissy Mozart, Hidin', Bra-a-ahms. Beethoven's fine but no more of that elite pop music from the 18th c. The stuff where people had to attend concerts because it was done, not because they liked the music - hence Haydn's Farewell and Surprise symphonies.

Try Revueltas' Sensemaya; Creston's Invocation and Dance; Walton's Symphony No.1; Paul Ben-Haim's Symphony 2; Rosenberg's Symphony 3; Shotakovitch movements 2 & 4 from Symphony 10; Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No.2; the only Stravinsky that fits your bill is Le Sacre; Orff's Cours d'Amour from the Carmina Burana and through to the end.

Just a few but the first 3 in particular.

PJME · Post by **PJME** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:41 am

It's time you listen to grainger's "The warriors"! enjoy.

http://youtu.be/81h-C6j6Lfw

P.

Jared · Post by **Jared** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:25 am

absinthe wrote:I fully understand only for me it's no more effete, pansy, sissy Mozart, Hidin', Bra-a-ahms. Beethoven's fine but no more of that elite pop music from the 18th c. The stuff where people had to attend concerts because it was done, not because they liked the music - hence Haydn's Farewell and Surprise symphonies.

well, you've just listed eveything/one I love most in Classical Music! please don't come over to Norfolk to 'admire' my collection, because you'll be terribly disappointed..

diegobueno · Post by **diegobueno** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:37 am

There are some composers who are so subtle that, given a superficial listening, can seem bland, but reward you with stunning beauty when you listen more closely. Fauré is just such a composer. For truly bland music you have to turn to someone like John Milquetoast Rutter or Charles Blasé Gounod.

Jared · Post by **Jared** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:53 am

diegobueno wrote:There are some composers who are so subtle that, given a superficial listening, can seem bland, but reward you with stunning beauty when you listen more closely.

quite right.... I was kind of thinking along those lines when recalling this wonderful disk...

Beecham really knew how to bring out those glorious subtleties in Delius' music...

THEHORN · Post by **THEHORN** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:37 am

Since when is the Planets by Holst "bland". Mars, the bringer of war, with its harsh dissonances, is bland ?
I'm not fond of Delius because his music is so cloying sentimental and monotonously languorous in mood.
It's like having to swallow a large bowl of treacle . But Holst ?

dulcinea · Post by **dulcinea** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:00 pm

THEHORN wrote:Since when is the Planets by Holst "bland". Mars, the bringer of war, with its harsh dissonances, is bland ?

Holst is a true one-hit-wonder; if it weren't for THE PLANETS he would deserve total oblivion.
I have a cartoon in which Holst says to Handel and Haydn:
Mein Herren Handel und Haydn, I have played for you all my best work. Will you accept me as the Third H?
Handel glares angrily, and Haydn rolls on the floor with raucous uproarious laughter.

absinthe · Post by **absinthe** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:38 pm

Jared wrote:
absinthe wrote:I fully understand only for me it's no more effete, pansy, sissy Mozart, Hidin', Bra-a-ahms. Beethoven's fine but no more of that elite pop music from the 18th c. The stuff where people had to attend concerts because it was done, not because they liked the music - hence Haydn's Farewell and Surprise symphonies.
well, you've just listed eveything/one I love most in Classical Music! please don't come over to Norfolk to 'admire' my collection, because you'll be terribly disappointed..

My sincere apologies, Jared. My micro-tirade was a bit tongue in cheek.
It was rather a dig about Delius being "bland". I can't think of anyone more adventurous - his first and last works/periods of composition are eons apart! The more extended works need a listen: The Mass of Life; Sea Drift; Requiem before classing him bland - and the music of Irmelin is (to me) ravishing even if the libretto is on the awful side. Dutton recently released two discs of fairly extended works including Hiawatha, a piece that lands somewhere between the Florida Suite and Paris; and Suites based around Irmelin and Village Romeo and Juliet. I like a fair bit of Mozart. Was listening to the Dennis Brain readings of the Horn Concertos last evening. Besides, I'm sure you could teach me much about these composers.

I fear if you saw my somewhat meagre CD 'collection' you'd frown and shake your head with perplexity!

dulcinea · Post by **dulcinea** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:45 pm

absinthe wrote:Hey, Dulcinea,

I fully understand only for me it's no more effete, pansy, sissy Mozart, Hidin', Bra-a-ahms. Beethoven's fine but no more of that elite pop music from the 18th c.

You are rating Delius, Faure, Grainger and Holst as equal to Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn and Mozart? Your command of irony is seriously defective.

John F · Post by **John F** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:04 pm

dulcinea wrote:I want only music that is vigorous and energetic and full of power and dynamism. No sissy pansy effete Delius, Faure, Grainger or Holst for me!

Say what???

William Steinberg and the Boston Symphony Orchestra. (You can tell from the trumpet.)

absinthe · Post by **absinthe** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:16 pm

dulcinea wrote:
absinthe wrote:Hey, Dulcinea,

I fully understand only for me it's no more effete, pansy, sissy Mozart, Hidin', Bra-a-ahms. Beethoven's fine but no more of that elite pop music from the 18th c.
You are rating Delius, Faure, Grainger and Holst as equal to Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn and Mozart? Your command of irony is seriously defective.

I know too little of Faure, Grainger and Holst to comment but I know a fair bit about Delius. I don't rate anyone against anyone else. Music isn't a competition.

I never included Beethoven in my selection of sissy and bland. Brahms is a different matter: Hanslick's bumboy.
I mean, jeez, they played the last mvt of the 4th on BBC R3 the other day, that horrid passacaglia that sounds like orchestral throat-clearing before it starts. It is a gross insult to Beethoven to speak of him in the same breath/sentence as Brahms the bureaucrat filling the blanks in the template he nicked off Beethoven with pretty tunes (mostly).

I won't return your rudeness by the way, but I still recommend Revueltas Sensemaya, Creston Invocation and Dance and Walton Symphony 1 to lift you out of the rut if it's vigorous, energetic and full of power you want. Or even Ruggles' Sun Treader.

diegobueno · Post by **diegobueno** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:43 pm

Jared wrote:
Beecham really knew how to bring out those glorious subtleties in Delius' music...

He really did. Beecham seems to have really "gotten" Delius in a way that eludes other conductors. A lot of Delius, especially the longer works, eludes me, but the Dance Rhapsody no. 2, and Beecham's recording of it, is really glorious stuff.

diegobueno · Post by **diegobueno** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:48 pm

absinthe wrote: ... but I still recommend Revueltas Sensemaya, Creston Invocation and Dance and Walton Symphony 1 to lift you out of the rut if it's vigorous, energetic and full of power you want. Or even Ruggles' Sun Treader.

These pieces will all do the trick in the strong vigorous department. Really glorious stuff.

(I seem to be in a "glorious stuff" mood today)

You need to give the Brahms 4th another shot, though. That's the Mount Everest of symphonies, the one that stands head and shoulders above the rest.

dulcinea · Post by **dulcinea** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:40 pm

absinthe wrote:
dulcinea wrote:
absinthe wrote:Hey, Dulcinea,

I fully understand only for me it's no more effete, pansy, sissy Mozart, Hidin', Bra-a-ahms. Beethoven's fine but no more of that elite pop music from the 18th c.
You are rating Delius, Faure, Grainger and Holst as equal to Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn and Mozart? Your command of irony is seriously defective.

I know too little of Faure, Grainger and Holst to comment but I know a fair bit about Delius. I don't rate anyone against anyone else. Music isn't a competition.

I never included Beethoven in my selection of sissy and bland. Brahms is a different matter: Hanslick's bumboy.
I mean, jeez, they played the last mvt of the 4th on BBC R3 the other day, that horrid passacaglia that sounds like orchestral throat-clearing before it starts. It is a gross insult to Beethoven to speak of him in the same breath/sentence as Brahms the bureaucrat filling the blanks in the template he nicked off Beethoven with pretty tunes (mostly).

I won't return your rudeness by the way.

Did you know that rudeness, obstinacy and narrowmindedness are virtues shared by everybody in CMGF?

Jared · Post by **Jared** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:58 pm

diegobueno wrote:
Jared wrote:
Beecham really knew how to bring out those glorious subtleties in Delius' music...
He really did. Beecham seems to have really "gotten" Delius in a way that eludes other conductors. A lot of Delius, especially the longer works, eludes me, but the Dance Rhapsody no. 2, and Beecham's recording of it, is really glorious stuff.

I completely agree with you here... Delius has suffered from poor interpretation too often, because his tone colours are exceptionally subtle, and very difficult for a conductor to tease out... Beecham really seemed to understand this, which is why that disk is such a treasure, however a number of top ranking conductors weren't so successful, including the late great Richard Hickox who deserved a knighthood for his promotion of many British works, yet produced a fairly unexceptional recording on Chandos...

Jared · Post by **Jared** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:03 pm

absinthe wrote:
My sincere apologies, Jared. My micro-tirade was a bit tongue in cheek.

There is nothing to apologise for... my collection would simply resemble the efforts of someone who is making his own way, after having discovered CM 4 years ago... you are welcome to see it...

I like a fair bit of Mozart. Was listening to the Dennis Brain readings of the Horn Concertos last evening. Besides, I'm sure you could teach me much about these composers.

Love Mozart or not, it is rather difficult to come to any other conclusion other than the fact that the disk is a complete joy...

I fear if you saw my somewhat meagre CD 'collection' you'd frown and shake your head with perplexity!

No, I'm sure you'd be having to check my coat pockets on the way out the door...

StephenSutton · Post by **StephenSutton** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:37 pm

dulcinea wrote: Holst is a true one-hit-wonder; if it weren't for THE PLANETS he would deserve total oblivion.

Gosh, no! Likewise the majority of the world's population have no clue that Vivaldi wrote anything but the 4 wotsits, and Beethoven's Fifth was the only symphony he wrote. I totally agree bland is unacceptable (my tastes tend toward fast, loud, louder, faster and very fast and loud) and vast amounts of CURRENT so called 'classical' music is just that: elevator fodder. But Holst? The Beni Mora Suite is fabulous - subtle yes but so exotic. Grainger I would classify as 'light' but that is not the same thing as bland.

Heck148 · Post by **Heck148** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:03 pm

dulcinea wrote: Holst is a true one-hit-wonder; if it weren't for THE PLANETS he would deserve total oblivion.

complete baloney. a very foolish premise...

Holst's 2 Suites for Military Band are wonderful - great stuff - esp #1, in Eb - concise, powerful, perfect, a masterpiece, without doubt - Hammersmith and Moorside suite are really excellent, too - plus St Paul Suite, Perfect Fool. some fine choral music...

Holst a one-hit wonder?? no way

Delius = bland, uninteresting?? yup, you got that one right...

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:53 pm

stenka razin wrote:Dulcinea,

Really.......You wrote 'No sissy pansy effete Delius, Faure, Grainger or Holst for me!'

There is nothing bland about any of them.

Regards,
Mel

Let's just say that I think that Delius and Faure are the Margarine of Music...

Holst is a Three Hit Wonder of course...

Grainger is a Genius...who wrote way too much Music...

dulcinea · Post by **dulcinea** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:00 pm

dulcinea wrote: How would you recognise which ,,easy'' music is worth listening more than once, and which one is so bland that it loses your interest almost at the beginning?
How would you recognise which ,,hard'' music deserves your love, and which one is so harsh that you will never like it no matter how many times you listen to it?

This is the REAL QUESTION of this here thread; can anybody answer it?

dulcinea · Post by **dulcinea** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:00 pm

dulcinea wrote: How would you recognise which ,,easy'' music is worth listening more than once, and which one is so bland that it loses your interest almost at the beginning?
How would you recognise which ,,hard'' music deserves your love, and which one is so harsh that you will never like it no matter how many times you listen to it?

This is the REAL QUESTION of this here thread; can anybody answer it?

7flat5 · Post by **7flat5** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:43 pm

dulcinea wrote:
dulcinea wrote: How would you recognise which ,,easy'' music is worth listening more than once, and which one is so bland that it loses your interest almost at the beginning?
How would you recognise which ,,hard'' music deserves your love, and which one is so harsh that you will never like it no matter how many times you listen to it?
This is the REAL QUESTION of this here thread; can anybody answer it?

Can't answer it for you at all. I can only answer it for me. If I listen once, and want to hear it again, then it's in. If I have to make myself listen to it again, well... sometimes, that works.

I can also observe my own patterns in what kind of music I must listen to again. It is usually pieces which you might label bland. For me, anything in the perky cheery diddly music category goes immediately in the ash can. I can only stomach a small minority of Mozart--the string quintets come to mind. I can listen to the Bruckner 8 Adagio on infinite repeat, and avoid the finales more often than not. For me, the Adagio carries truth. Perky diddly music is irritating and boring.

I am glad for the perky composers of the world that they have listeners. Not me.

PJME · Post by **PJME** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:23 am

Ah Dulcinea, you're quite a character!

But, after a while, I often feel like the poor Don himself...

With kind musical greetings.

P.

absinthe · Post by **absinthe** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:01 am

dulcinea wrote:
dulcinea wrote: How would you recognise which ,,easy'' music is worth listening more than once, and which one is so bland that it loses your interest almost at the beginning?
How would you recognise which ,,hard'' music deserves your love, and which one is so harsh that you will never like it no matter how many times you listen to it?
This is the REAL QUESTION of this here thread; can anybody answer it?

Nope.

If you can't for yourself then that's sad and maybe music just isn't for you.

Jared · Post by **Jared** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:44 am

absinthe wrote:
dulcinea wrote: How would you recognise which ,,easy'' music is worth listening more than once, and which one is so bland that it loses your interest almost at the beginning?
How would you recognise which ,,hard'' music deserves your love, and which one is so harsh that you will never like it no matter how many times you listen to it?
Nope.

If you can't for yourself then that's sad and maybe music just isn't for you.

I think the discussion in this thread has shown just how subjective this can be... generally speaking, if an 'easy' piece of music has layers of subtlety to it, these should start opening up to you by listen 4 or 5, although some styles/ pieces of music could of course take longer. Of course, you'll be more inclined to presevere with a piece if you are already familiar with and enjoy other works by that composer, but the judgement call over when to persevere and when to give up can only rest with you.

There are times when another interpretation by a different conductor/ orchestra will be worth investigating before writing something off altogether. Speaking as a newbie, I haven't written anything off entirely (I'd be foolish to do so); some things I set aside for the time being, like Monteverdi's Books of Madrigals, which I think I tried to tackle too early on in my listening development, and will shortly have another go at them. Other works such as those by Debussy or Wagner will be set aside for a longer period of time, in all probability.

The case of Delius in this thread alone highlights a divide even among CMGers as to whether his music is subtle and multi-layered, or bland... that is a call only you can make after a reasonable amount of considered exposure to his music, and no-one should criticise you for the personal conclusions you draw...

maestrob · Post by **maestrob** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:55 am

My best answer is: If at first you don't care for a piece of music, put it aside and give it time. Each composer had something to say.

I've not heard a single piece of important music that I would rate as bland, or uninspiring in some way, whether it's Delius or Offenbach or Shostakovich.

That said, there are some minor pieces that I don't care for, but that's another story.

Certainly Beecham's way with Delius is a fine case in point: it takes a certain sympathy with the music on the part of the performers to make any music "work" for me. There are certainly lots of weak performances of great music floating around on disc: those must be avoided at all costs.

PJME · Post by **PJME** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:26 pm

I have Copland's "What to listen for in music" here on my desk. Here are a few excerpts:

'We all listen to music according to our seperate capacities.....
-------
The simplest way of listening to music is to listen for the sheer pleasure of musical sound itself. That is the sensuous plane. It is the plane on which we hear music without thinking.
-------
The second plane on which music exists is what I have called the expressive one. Here, immediately, we tread on controversial ground. Composers have a way of shying away from any discussion of music's expressive side.....

My own belief is that all music has an expresive power, some more , some less, but that all music has a certain meaning behind the notes and that that meaning behind the notes constitutes, after all, what the piece is saying, what the piece is about.

-----

...(Because) music which always says the same thing to you will necesarrily soon become dull music, but music whose meaning is slightly different with each hearing has a greater chance of remaing alive.

-----
A subjective and objective attitude is implied in both creating and listening to music.

-----

To lend oneself completely inevitably means , for one thing,the broadening of one's taste . It is insufficient to love music only in its more conventional aspects. Taste, like sensitivity, is to a certain extent, an inborn quality, but both can be considerably developed by intelligent practice. That means listening to music of all schools and all periods, old and new, conservative ands modern. It means unprejudiced listening in the best sense of the term.

P.

some guy · Post by **some guy** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:29 pm

Jared wrote:[S]ome things I set aside for the time being, like Monteverdi's Books of Madrigals, which I think I tried to tackle too early on in my listening development.

I tried these only a couple of months ago--I don't recall if I had ever heard them earlier--and was underwhelmed.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I started picking things to listen to "blind." That is, the picking was blind. One thing was a CD of the Books of Madrigals. It was magical. Magical and more than magical.

Setting things aside is wise. Writing things off? Not so much.

I too abhor bland. But I certainly wouldn't say its opposite is vigorous and energetic and full of power and dynamism. Those opposites of gentle and calm and weak and static. Only "weak" goes with "bland."

And one woman's bland is another woman's subtle.

Anyway, if there's one thing the bulk of what we call "classical" has in common, it's contrast, eh? Most pieces are full of calm and vigorous and energetic and gentle and static and dynamic and a dozen other things as well. To enjoy classical music, you really have to like a lot of different and contradictory things. Otherwise, short of picking dribs and drabs out of pieces and listening only to those bits, then more commercial music is the only option. There's plenty of consistently bland music there; and consistently vigorous and consistently manic and so forth. More uniform than classical, which is rough and knobbly and goes in all sorts of directions, sometimes in a very short span.

[Anecdote: in the corner music store last night, a woman came in remarking that classical is always so soothing. A common cliche. Several minutes later she was castigating a certain conductor for holding the orchestra back during a vigorous section. "That's supposed to knock your socks off!" she said, with no sense of contradiction! Wow.]

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:55 pm

Jared wrote:Other works such as those by Debussy or Wagner will be set aside for a longer period of time, in all probability.

If you never listen to Wagner in your entire life, you will have missed nothing...

Jared · Post by **Jared** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:18 pm

some guy wrote:
Jared wrote:[S]ome things I set aside for the time being, like Monteverdi's Books of Madrigals, which I think I tried to tackle too early on in my listening development.
I tried these only a couple of months ago--I don't recall if I had ever heard them earlier--and was underwhelmed.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I started picking things to listen to "blind." That is, the picking was blind. One thing was a CD of the Books of Madrigals. It was magical. Magical and more than magical.

It's the kind of response that I'll be hoping for, from myself, some 3 -4 years since I last tried the recording. I was 'chatting' to Fergus about this recently, because he loves the Madrigals... and we were saying that the soundworld is something which must be acquired through constant exposure to it, because it is so very different from today's music... I'm looking forward to the challenge...

Jared · Post by **Jared** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:23 pm

Chalkperson wrote:
Jared wrote:Other works such as those by Debussy or Wagner will be set aside for a longer period of time, in all probability.
If you never listen to Wagner in your entire life, you will have missed nothing...

Michael is correct... we should be slow to write things off..

I think all I'll say on the above point is that I do genuinely find Debussy very difficult to understand and appreciate... I'm hoping that in time, this opinion may change, but believe me, I keep on trying but as yet, to no avail...

Wagner, I find almost impossible to get through one side of a CD without having to reach for the Neurophen... I alternate between wanting to laugh outloud and feeling nauseous...

absinthe · Post by **absinthe** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:55 pm

Jared wrote: Wagner, I find almost impossible to get through one side of a CD without having to reach for the Neurophen... I alternate between wanting to laugh outloud and feeling nauseous...

Sympathise. It was either Rossini or Verdi who claimed Wagner had dazzling moments and awful half hours.
(And heaven help me I have tried with Wagner). Perhaps it needs live performances. DVDs have several shortcomings such as a continually shifting camera and closeups that can be an offput. Sky Arts recently broadcast Tristan and Isolde. I watched in the hope of illumination.... trouble was the illumination fell on the unfortunate face of Isolde in too many closeups portraying her of sufficient seniority to be my grandmother. Good singer but the image clashed. In Glyndebourne, assuming I could get a mortgage for the tickets, I doubt I'd have seen her in such detail.

dulcinea · Post by **dulcinea** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:38 pm

absinthe wrote:
dulcinea wrote:
dulcinea wrote: How would you recognise which ,,easy'' music is worth listening more than once, and which one is so bland that it loses your interest almost at the beginning?
How would you recognise which ,,hard'' music deserves your love, and which one is so harsh that you will never like it no matter how many times you listen to it?
This is the REAL QUESTION of this here thread; can anybody answer it?
Nope.

If you can't for yourself then that's sad and maybe music just isn't for you.

That's SOOO trueee! Buying the complete works of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Corelli, Haydn, Mahler, Mozart, the complete operas of Wagner, the selected works of Britten, Dvorak, Elgar, Glass, Handel, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Pettersson, Rodrigo, Schumann, Shostakovich, Vaughan-Williams and Vivaldi, plus more than 500 CDs that range from Gesualdo to Reich was obviously a waste of my money.

dulcinea · Post by **dulcinea** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:45 pm

Chalkperson wrote:
Jared wrote:Other works such as those by Debussy or Wagner will be set aside for a longer period of time, in all probability.
If you never listen to Wagner in your entire life, you will have missed nothing...

If you listen to the movie music of such as Steiner, Tiomkin, Waxman and Williams you ARE listening to Wagner. RW has the distinction of being the composer who has most influenced movie music.

absinthe · Post by **absinthe** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:55 pm

Yes.

I was just appreciating the Wagner-like character of "The Stripper," track 9 from the Beat Girl soundtrack to which I gave a spin earlier.

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:06 pm

dulcinea wrote:
Chalkperson wrote:
Jared wrote:Other works such as those by Debussy or Wagner will be set aside for a longer period of time, in all probability.
If you never listen to Wagner in your entire life, you will have missed nothing...
If you listen to the movie music of such as Steiner, Tiomkin, Waxman and Williams you ARE listening to Wagner. RW has the distinction of being the composer who has most influenced movie music.

And the US Military plays Wagner on it's Helicopter Gunships...

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:08 pm

dulcinea wrote:
Chalkperson wrote:
Jared wrote:Other works such as those by Debussy or Wagner will be set aside for a longer period of time, in all probability.
If you never listen to Wagner in your entire life, you will have missed nothing...
If you listen to the movie music of such as Steiner, Tiomkin, Waxman and Williams you ARE listening to Wagner. RW has the distinction of being the composer who has most influenced movie music.

The good part about their Movie Music is that there aren't any words...

absinthe · Post by **absinthe** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:18 pm

dulcinea wrote:
absinthe wrote:
dulcinea wrote:
dulcinea wrote: How would you recognise which ,,easy'' music is worth listening more than once, and which one is so bland that it loses your interest almost at the beginning?
How would you recognise which ,,hard'' music deserves your love, and which one is so harsh that you will never like it no matter how many times you listen to it?
This is the REAL QUESTION of this here thread; can anybody answer it?
Nope.

If you can't for yourself then that's sad and maybe music just isn't for you.
That's SOOO trueee! Buying the complete works of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Corelli, Haydn, Mahler, Mozart, the complete operas of Wagner, the selected works of Britten, Dvorak, Elgar, Glass, Handel, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Pettersson, Rodrigo, Schumann, Shostakovich, Vaughan-Williams and Vivaldi, plus more than 500 CDs that range from Gesualdo to Reich was obviously a waste of my money.

Ah, but they do look good on the considerable shelving they must take up, don't they?

And should you ever change your mind and fancy a tad of effete such as Mozart's Sunshine Sonata in C major K-something-or-other, it's always at hand.

However, with a collection of that volume it's a fair bet you can answer the questions you posed, anyway.

My impoverished "collection" was largely a waste of time as much as money as there's so little free time to play anything. Times I wished I had but one CD to take all the decision out of choice.
But do tell me: I like early Wagner but have yet to find a pleasant recording of Das Liebesverbot. If you happen to have one acknowledged to be good, please quote me the Cat no/label.

Cheers.

Like or dislike Wagner, one has to admit he was destined to write for the stage as he set out on Die Feen.

dulcinea · Post by **dulcinea** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:40 pm

absinthe wrote:
dulcinea wrote:
absinthe wrote:
dulcinea wrote:
dulcinea wrote: How would you recognise which ,,easy'' music is worth listening more than once, and which one is so bland that it loses your interest almost at the beginning?
How would you recognise which ,,hard'' music deserves your love, and which one is so harsh that you will never like it no matter how many times you listen to it?
This is the REAL QUESTION of this here thread; can anybody answer it?
Nope.

If you can't for yourself then that's sad and maybe music just isn't for you.
That's SOOO trueee! Buying the complete works of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Corelli, Haydn, Mahler, Mozart, the complete operas of Wagner, the selected works of Britten, Dvorak, Elgar, Glass, Handel, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Pettersson, Rodrigo, Schumann, Shostakovich, Vaughan-Williams and Vivaldi, plus more than 500 CDs that range from Gesualdo to Reich was obviously a waste of my money.
Ah, but they do look good on the considerable shelving they must take up, don't they?

And should you ever change your mind and fancy a tad of effete such as Mozart's Sunshine Sonata in C major K-something-or-other, it's always at hand.

However, with a collection of that volume it's a fair bet you can answer the questions you posed, anyway.

My impoverished "collection" was largely a waste of time as much as money as there's so little free time to play anything. Times I wished I had but one CD to take all the decision out of choice.
But do tell me: I like early Wagner but have yet to find a pleasant recording of Das Liebesverbot. If you happen to have one acknowledged to be good, please quote me the Cat no/label.

Cheers.

Like or dislike Wagner, one has to admit he was destined to write for the stage as he set out on Die Feen.

Years ago I tried to listen to the Gabriel Pierne CD of THE ROMANTIC PIANO COLLECTION, and quit half of the way; I did the same yesterday with the CD of Charles Villiers Stanford of THE ROMANTIC VIOLIN CONCERTO, both for the same reason: none of the thousands of notes played in those CDs added up to anything that could be described as memorable or interesting music.
How can con-poseurs soil thousands of pages of music paper with millions of notes and still not manage to create even one tune that deserves to be admired as catchy???

StephenSutton · Post by **StephenSutton** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:53 pm

dulcinea wrote:[How can con-poseurs soil thousands of pages of music paper with millions of notes and still not manage to create even one tune that deserves to be admired as catchy???

That's the nub...... music with a catchy tune is only one type of music, just as a painting with photographic realism is only one form of painting. Melody, theme, phrase, all can be something other than a singable tune....

dulcinea · Post by **dulcinea** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:55 pm

StephenSutton wrote:
dulcinea wrote:[How can con-poseurs soil thousands of pages of music paper with millions of notes and still not manage to create even one tune that deserves to be admired as catchy???
That's the nub...... music with a catchy tune is only one type of music, just as a painting with photographic realism is only one form of painting. Melody, theme, phrase, all can be something other than a singable tune....

Neither Pierne nor Stanford managed in those CDs anything other than a dull parade of notes that communicated nothing but a beige monotony where no melody, no theme, no phrase and no mood could be recognised. In essence the pieces of those CDs are nothing but white noise.

Heck148 · Post by **Heck148** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 7:45 pm

Hmmm...

I love Wagner, either in big entire operas, or in "bleeding chunks". yes, the guy was a complete jerk, an egomaniac, etc, etc, etc, but he sure wrote some fine music.

I also love the Monteverdi Madrigals, esp Book VIII

for bland, unappealing. I usually think of Delius or Rachmaninoff...

Wallingford · Post by **Wallingford** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 8:25 pm

Rachmaninoff is "right up there" with me, too....his symphonies and concertos are just one big soup. There's no keeping track of his main ideas.

But for me, blandness or effeteness or energy don't make or break a work. Rather, it's how OPPRESSIVE a composer can be to me.

Bruckner is tops in this camp. He oppresses even in ways a Mahler or a Wagner (a born oppressor!) never quite manage. Every time I successfully finish getting thru a whole symphony of Bruckner's, I'm somehow made to feel like a schmuck for squandering my listening time.

If I were a banker--and my listening time money--I'd reduce Bruckner to an immediate barrel.

Who is online