Pieces of Music that don't really do it for you

Palestrina had great influence on the musical history,
but he leaves me completely cold.
Romantic opera, especially italian bel canto and
Wagner makes me even colder.
Serial music makes me deep frozen.

Couperin, - the salon music of the baroque,
Rameau is more substantial.

 

Most things written after about 1800

Carmina Burana in particular

 

Anything 'witty' by Haydn. Hey, the symphony started with the subdominant chord - ha-de-****ing-ha-ha. The only thing more irritating than Haydn's wit are those elements of the Haydn audience who feel the need to guffaw ostentatiously at all the appropriate moments to demonstrate that they really understand it.

Beethoven's Violin Concerto, possibly the most over-rated work in the repertoire and a true snooze-fest. If only he'd waited another fifteen years before writing it...

Eine kleine Nachtmusik.

 

You're joining a nudist colony???

 

We'd better not comment the moderator's little perversions. But nobody seems to really like Bach's Musical Offering?

 

Nope - I'm a barbarian/caveman

Michael.

 

About two years ago I had a complete blank for the period 1828-1910 and especially Chopin. Now I adore Chopin, I think the Nocturnes were my Road to Damascus. I still have problems with the 2nd Vienese school, Tippett, Mahler.

The thing I have noticed is that the better the system, the older one gets and hearing stuff live open the doors of understanding

 

I do !

 

Sublime!

 

The thing I have noticed is that the better the system, the older one gets and hearing stuff live open the doors of understanding[/QUOTE]

Yes Tom, so is often the case, but I remember much music, which I loved in my young days, which I can't stand now:

Emperor Concerto, Fate symphony, Pathetique-symphony, Dvoraks cello-concerto, Haydns trumpet-concerto and so on.

Age has not given me more insight in these works, I have so to say consumed them long time ago.

Venlig hilsen

 

Histoire du Soldat. I have tried many times to get through the one recording i have of it (Reference Recordings) and have not made it yet.

Then I read some reviewer saying how good it is and I try again. Nope.

Maybe I'll give it another try someday.

 

1) I'm not particularly fond of anything pre-1825/baroque, especially chamber music (Vivaldi excluded ;-). Just find it very "twee" and a little ponderous - background music for the bourgeois?

2) I think Chopin is over-rated. Very good, but hyped to an extreme degree. I've never really "connected" with any of his music. A great "explorer" of the piano's abilities, but I think he struggles to communicate "emotion" effectively.(I would be grateful if you could point me in the direction of his best work - maybe I've only heard his "middle of the road" stuff ).

3) Absolutely HATE the Harpsichord - the synthesizer of the 17th century.

DT

 

Chopin: Waltzes played by Dinu Lipatti. Has it all

 

Well. I like most music, but I do not warm to Haydn. I hate Prokofief, get very bored with most of Stravinski.

Now concerning Couperin. I happen to love his harpsichord music. Leonhardt says it is so much understated that it is difficult to like it off-hand. Nevertheless, try the 8th order.

It is subtle music. But so marvelous when played right. You need a not too bright harpsichord (a Rückers as the one Russet used in his recent recordings) and a very low diapason (390). But marvelous stuff, really.

Gesualdo. I feel like death after listening to it. Or even Frescobaldi: always makes me feel depressed.

The Musical Offering has great things and very boring neo-palestrinian polyphonic conundrums. But the 6 voice Ricercare is sublime.

And now for the big surprise. I loathe the 9th! (Beethoven's, of course).

 

The front page of this forum keeps reminding me that I haven't contributed in the last few weeks and asks that I remedy this. One reason that I haven't contributed is that the classical section seems to be dominated by posts on the music of J.S. Bach, about which I know nothing and care even less.

The second reason concerns the juvenile nature of the current thread. What does it prove? Does it add anything to our knowledge or appreciation of any genre of classical music? We all know and are comfortable with the fact that our musical interests and tastes differ. So why are we bothering to get ourselves in a lather about what pieces of music we don't like, and commenting adversely when someone cites a work that we do enjoy?

I'll keep lurking on the outskirts of the forum until a valid item of genuine interest comes up.

 

Well, feel free to not join in then.

I started this thread because I thought it might be fun and interesting to see what people didn't like, and it more or less has been fun.... apologies for being juvenile and not providing genuine interest.

BTW I don't see anyone getting in a lather, looking back over the posts it looks like everyones enjoying themselves quite nicely

Anyway - regarding Chopin..... I used to hate his music too, finding it too florid and effeminate. But its beginning to grow on me, probably part of the ageing process, and especially since I heard a recording of his 2nd Sonata on the Lyrinx label (can't remember the pianist - young up-and-coming French pianists seem to be this label's speciality) which I really enjoyed. And also it was one of the best recorded piano discs I've heard.

 

A few days after this thread first started I posted this:New Music
Partly as a reaction to it; to see if there was much interest in the other side of the coin. Do the relative number of posts say something about us? Are we more comfortable with criticism than praise?
I like to hear what others have enjoyed as there is far more music out there than I will ever get to hear.

 

What I find fascinating, as a relative clueness classical music newbie, is how dogmatic those who know a lot about classical music tend to be about particular composers/compositions. Someone I know who has very 'catholic' musical tastes simply can't stand Mozart's music, and will leave the room if it is playing. I am reminded of the Turber cartoon of a gloom-looking bloke at art gallery, whose wife is saying to a friend: 'He knows everything about art, but he doesn't know what he likes'.

Personally I like all the 'obvious' stuff with catchy tunes; the only thing I have a real aversion to is atonal music which just sounds like a lot of dustbins being knocked over.

 

Dear RdS

To me the harpsichord-music of Couperin has always been the epitome of "wig"-music. In contrast to some of the harpsichord-music of Rameau, which I find more rewarding. But I shall try the 8.th Order. Which recording do you recommend the most?

I find much of Frescobaldis keyboard-music difficult to understand.I still try in between to get accustomed to it.
IMO Frescobaldi suffers (more than other composers from his time) from our relative ignorance of his style. How did he play his works - probably most engaging, yes - but how? He tries to describe his style in his prefaces, but even he can't describe it adequately.

But his Canzoni for different instrumentations are playful, expressive music without sophisticated style-problems, and not too difficult to play for an amateur like me.

Cheers

 

My answer to Joe is to listen to as wide a range of classical music as possible, both with respect to the type and to the historical period of the music. When you find something that you like, or a composer whose works generally please you, then listen to friends who like the same general area. And if you're currently into music that carries a good tune, that's fine because in one way or another that's where we all start. There's no need to be apologetic about liking Elgar's Pomp & Circumstance No.1 or the choral movement of Beethoven's Symphony 9.

You'll possibly find your musical tastes changing with time too; maybe several times over. When I started listening to opera I liked tuneful operas such as Rigoletto, Trovatore, Traviata, La Boheme etc. Then I got into Wagner and Strauss (R.) and temporarily ignored these "immature" works for a decade or so. Now I've learned to appreciate both, and to take in more modern composers such as Janacek, Britten and Berg as well. I've never been keen on anything by Mozart or his contemporaries, but if you find that your explorations take you in that direction I'd be the last to try and dissuade you.

Half my classical friends abhor my abiding interest in Mahler, and the other half can't get enough. It is interesting that there are more practising musicians in the former camp than the latter, but my preferences are mine alone. There was a time when orchestras would not play Mahler for fear of loosing their audience - it would seem that now you have to include Mahler to get an audience for a major symphony orchestra.

As to performers, you might find yourself starting off with Andrea Bocelli, Vanessa-Mae, and Charlotte Church, and you might find that this arouses derision in some circles. Later you might find yourself preferring Jussi Bjorling, Nigel Kennedy and Renee Fleming for example. But so long as you view your original preferences as a personal jumping-off point you can ride this out. There is no right or wrong way to approach classical music, and no right or wrong composers or performers to consider. Reading some of the other contributions to this thread might give the opposite impression, and the whiff of dogmatism contained therein might be intimidating - note the stick I took for an adverse comment - but following your own nose will give you a fascinating journey. There will be some false starts and some unproductive byways, but that's life. And if you eventually find yourself throwing in the whole classical bag for heavy-metal rock (whatever that is, but my kids like it) then that is just fine too. The exploration is the adventure.