Sung composers that you just "don't get"

[petershott@btinternet.com]

I have a similar problem as Peter. Quite simply, I don't understand the point of this thread at all. How is anyone else any wiser from reading the confession that a particular friend on the forum happens not to "get" a particular composer? (And what on earth does "get" mean here?) If someone says they don't 'get' for example the proverbial Piotr Zak are the rest of us supposed to throw up hands in horror, or weep with sympathy, or emit a gentle 'tut, tut', or what?

Seems to me a quite pointless thread. Clearly I don't 'get' it at all.

[Alan Howe]

Well, this is the problem with pure subjectivism - i.e. opinions without proper reasons with which we can all engage.

Perhaps we'd better leave this thread here. Of course, nobody was forced to participate in it...

[Mark Thomas]

Peters: it's simple. Just ignore the thread!

[Delicious Manager]

I have a similar problem as Peter. Quite simply, I don't understand the point of this thread at all. How is anyone else any wiser from reading the confession that a particular friend on the forum happens not to "get" a particular composer? (And what on earth does "get" mean here?) If someone says they don't 'get' for example the proverbial Piotr Zak are the rest of us supposed to throw up hands in horror, or weep with sympathy, or emit a gentle 'tut, tut', or what?

Seems to me a quite pointless thread. Clearly I don't 'get' it at all.

Interest? A bit of fun?

I actually find it interesting to read about what makes other music lovers tick (or not). I don't feel I need any the wiser from some threads; some are just flippant and a light-hearted. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

[Gauk]

All taste is essentially irrational, as Chesterton pointed out: remarks such as "if you like X then you ought to like Y" are wrong, because liking is not logical. Thus it is important not to confuse judgements about whether you like a work or a composer with a judgement about the quality of that composer's work. One can not like Schumann's music and still recognise his genius.

But to try and put the thread back on track, I think the idea of "not getting" a composer is not a question of liking but a question of understanding. I really had this issue with Scriabin when I first encountered his music. He sounded like the sort of composer I ought to enjoy, but whenever I heard any of his music, I had real difficulty in comprehending the language. However, I decided this was my fault and not Scriabin's. So one day I borrowed a copy of the score of Prometheus (it was Sir Hamilton Harty's conducting score with his pencil markings; amazing that in those days one could borrow such an item), and spent an afternoon listening to the LP about five times in succession.

On the fifth hearing it was like a curtain coming down, and the music suddenly became accessible. What I found really interesting was that after this experience, I did not have to repeat the exercise with (for instance) each piano sonata. Every new piece of Scriabin I listened to afterwards was enjoyable at first hearing.

So it is possible to overcome a barrier between a listener and a particular composer.

[Christopher]

I have a similar problem as Peter. Quite simply, I don't understand the point of this thread at all. How is anyone else any wiser from reading the confession that a particular friend on the forum happens not to "get" a particular composer? (And what on earth does "get" mean here?) If someone says they don't 'get' for example the proverbial Piotr Zak are the rest of us supposed to throw up hands in horror, or weep with sympathy, or emit a gentle 'tut, tut', or what?

Seems to me a quite pointless thread. Clearly I don't 'get' it at all.

I started this thread, and the point was this: to explore whether there are better ways in to a composer that is just not working for you. So in my opening thread I also also what pieces others would suggest to open up such a composer.  For example, I would like to enjoy Mahler, honestly I would. He seems to lighten up the worlds of others. But not mine.  So maybe others who do like Mahler, or who have come round to Mahler, can suggest pieces or recordings that might open him up for me.

[thalbergmad]

All threads like these are likely to end in tears, no matter how mature the posters.

It is difficult, but best to leave them alone.

Thal

[Peter1953]

Well, Thal, no tears for me although some posts leave me flabbergasted. I cannot just simply ignore this thread, on the contrary. I'm really interested in what fellow members think and write. And I respect other opinions, how different they are from mine. Chopin too flowery? I'm a bit stupéfait. Mark, what do you precisely mean by flowery?

[Alan Howe]

All taste is essentially irrational

Really? 'Irrational'...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/irrational
...means 'inconsistent with reason or logic; illogical; absurd'.
That would mean that we couldn't even discuss the subject in a reasoned way. Of course, discussing personal antipathies is tricky, but I don't believe my likes/dislikes cannot be explored rationally. For example, I don't 'get' later Schoenberg because he is writing in a language which deliberately undermines the basics of music.

[chill319]

Karajan gave an interview during the period when he was recording his third cycle of Beethoven symphonies. In it he said that he took tapes of the performances to his place in Switzerland and when he listened to them there, they were *all wrong*. Back in Berlin they sounded right. He concluded that his systemic (metabolic?) response to environment affected his experience of music.

I have found that some music I didn't get at 3 in the afternoon really got to me at 3 in the morning. At the same sea level.

[eschiss1]

(I have this image of Schoenberg "deliberately undermining the basics of music" that contradicts absolutely everything he ever said or wrote (on paper or in score) , let alone... ah well. Never mind, never mind, never mind... )

[semloh]

Christopher says that one reason for starting this thread was to hear about our experiences of attempting to change our opinions about composers that we don't "get" or don't enjoy.

My own experience of Brahms and Mahler shows that one can sometimes "see the light" and embrace music that one has - perhaps even for many years - thoroughly disliked. I've described my Brahms awakening elsewhere on the forum; my Mahler awakening was equally sudden, and followed seeing Russell's film Mahler at the cinema in about 1974. It was like the proverbial light bulb being switched on! I soon decided that were I marooned on Roy Plomley's desert island and could take the symphonies of only one composer it would be those of Mahler, and that would still be my choice.

However, I think changes of musical taste usually occur very slowly. With these two exceptions, my tastes in classical music have largely remained the same for over 50 years, and those composers I have never "got" I still don't get! 

[eschiss1]

That could be, or already has been, a thread in itself; for me it was Liszt, with the catalyst- not the cause, I hope, the proximate cause should ideally be relistening to the music itself - being reading Alan Walker's fine biography and seeing that what was getting between me and the music, was not the music but my mistaken preconceptions about e.g. the symphonic poems...

[Gauk]

All taste is essentially irrational

Really? 'Irrational'...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/irrational
...means 'inconsistent with reason or logic; illogical; absurd'.
That would mean that we couldn't even discuss the subject in a reasoned way.

Absolutely. Is it logical to prefer tea to coffee or vice versa? Can I persuade you to like coffee if you don't?

[kolaboy]

I like tea AND coffee. I just don't like Gershwin.