What's your favorite musical genre?  Which types of classical music
do you dislike, and why?

49 responses total.

This response has been erased.

I like a lot of types of music, even assuming I'm supposed to stick to
classical.  My strongest preference is for the baroque era, as a whole.  In
a way it's hard to say why, beyond things like "I just like it", but a few
factors that might be involved include: a general preference for the texture
of chamber music (individual instruments vs. orchestral sections in much later
music); enjoyment of polyphony; and, well, I just *like* it - the
then-standard ideas of how melody & harmony should work just feel *right* to
my ears.

In general, I dislike most of the "classical" music of the 20th century.  My
analysis is that much of it was undergirded by two impulses, both of them
wrong (not to say usually disastrous): first, a horror of being caught doing
The Same Old Thing, and second a theoretical/academic/intellectual approach
to music that took the view that what it *sounds* like is secondary.

In saying this I recognize that there's a dilemma here.  On the one hand,
things that are sufficiently new (to you) may sound bad (to you) just because
you lack the experience to detect what's going on, so that greater exposure
is necessary.  OTOH, this isn't *always* the case, but greater exposure may
nonetheless inure you to the ugliness of what you're hearing, making it easy
to see this as a case of the first sort.

<dave wonders how he managed to be the first one responding, anyway, & how
he's going to get out of this>

I tried four times to respond.....and got kicked off Grex each time. I guess
it didn't like my music preference. I hope you have broken the jinx. 

Like Dave, I like Baroque the most (if it isn't baroque, it needs fixing....).
At the other extreme of music I like the least, is all of jazz, rock, etc -
I think the latter is because I find those forms to be repetitious and both
thematically and harmonically barren...noise. The very clear and intertwining
themes and harmonies of the baroque really hold my musical attention as they
are full of suspenses and resolutions. 

Well I guess I'll buck the trend and say I like a lot of 20th century
classical starting with Bartok and going into electronic "new music."
What I like about a lot of this music is the fearless experimentation in
finding new timbres and new ways of putting sound together.  Also some "new
music" Steve Reich comes to mind is much more listenable than say the seralism
of Webern.  If we don't support new composers inovation will come to a
standstill and new ways of doing music will come to a halt.  What if there had
been no support for Bach or Mozart?  It is true that I lot of new music is
uninspired but that is true in any era Salearie (sp? Mozarts's contemporary)
ring any bells?

Related to that - is music finite? There is, after all, only a *finite* number
of ways to assemble themes. It is like mining for coal. No new coal is being
made (all possible themes exist virtually, and composers just "mine" them).
What fraction of all themes have been dug up?

re # 5 It depends on whether we are talking about about a 12 tone tuning
system or not.  Within a 12 tone system and allowing only for themes of
say a listenable length of say 5 minutes plus development then it is
a pretty finite system.  If you allow for microtones then it seems to
me it would be infinite.

Re: #5  That's something I've been saying about books for 
quite some time now.  They all are just a reshuffling of the
same words yet people pay good money for more books just to
try a different order. ;-)

When you consider the lifespan of the listener I don't
think there is much of a problem with finite variety.
Every performer puts an individual stamp on a piece.
And what I found pleasing 15 years ago I now find not
so engaging.  Glen Gould's Bach was inconsistently
messy to my ear 15 years ago.  Now I see his work as
brilliant.  If I ever start to think of classical music
as "been there, done that" I'll know I've stopped listening.
Really listening.

Well...the plots of books *are* used over and over and over again...Musical
themes are repeated less often, especially "recognizeable" themes. It
is often noted when one composer slips in a snippet from the work of another.
I think that this might be a force leading to "modern" music - not a real
evolution in musical creativity, but an attempt to write music without using
a previous theme. 

Back to the topic, I am a big fan of most kinds of Classical Music.
Of course the term "classical" has two meanings. Here we mean not the 
restrictive sense, but the inclusive sense. It's inclusive enough to include
20th century music that hasn't been around long enough to deserve the name
"classical".

My favorite period is the Romantic Period, but only by a hair.

Renaissance and earlier music is not for me.

As with others, I do really enjoy most Baroque music. My favorite is Baroque
composer is Vivaldi (not Bach, sorry) but I really like them all.
(Especially the violin concertos Opus 3 - L'Estro Harmonico)

The Classical era is another big winner for me. Haydn and Mozart and Beethoven
ruled this period. Picking between them is silly and pointless.
(I do have a warm spot for Mozart Symphony #39, and Schubert's delightful #5)

I have to break Romantic music into earlier (Schumann/Wagner) and Later 
(Tchaikovskii/Brahms) . Love both periods. 
I especially like Rimskii-Korsakov's Scherezade and Tales of Tsar Sultan.

Then there are the impressionists, led by Debussy. Great stuff.

I have a great love also for 20th century music, but not all of it. 
Winners: Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Gershwin, Copland, Bernstein.
(The Rite of Spring, and Appalachian Spring are two of my favorites here.)
Losers: Berg, Schoenberg, Cage, Neilsen.  
I really dislike both 12 tone and microtonal music.

There are many composers in those periods whom I did not mention. That does not
mean I don't like their music. 

I don't think that there is any "type" of classical music that
I dislike. There are individual works of all types that I
dislike, and individual works of all types that I like a lot.
I don't think I have a favorite genre. Don't get into opera
too much, except for Mozart opera.

As I'm a keyboard player, the music I like tends to equate to
a large extent to the music I like to play, at least in the
piano and harpsichord realms. Some special "likes":

  o Classical era: Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn (descending order
    of preference). I would not put Beethoven as squarely in
    the classical era as Steve does, although his roots are
    there -- he is really a transition figure from the
    Classical era to the Romantic. (And Schubert is more in
    the Romantic era, I think, than the classical.)

  o Baroque: Especially J.S. Bach, but also Francois Couperin
    and his uncle Louis, and of course Scarlatti.

  o Renaissance: The English virginalists -- especially the
    exquisite William Byrd, but also John Bull and Giles
    Farnaby.

  o Romantic: Well, I'm not that much into it, but I've a liking
    for Mendelsohn and Schumann.

  o 20th Century: Stravinsky, Bartok. Can't get into the atonal
    stuff.

  o Classical ragtime: Scott Joplin, Joe Lamb, James Scott,
    various other composers. This is 20th century too (and tail
    end of the 19th) but stands apart from Stravinsky, Bartok,
    and the like. It was popular music in its heyday, but it's
    concert music too, and with its fusing of European romantic
    styles, American folk elements, and Latin American rhythms,
    it constitutes a unique genre. This is the music that I'm
    most involved with as a performer and listener nowadays.

do i have to have a favorite?  I go from period to period with no problem.
I think i have my favorites in general.  I am a Mozart fan  (was taught alot
of his stuff when i played flute). I am at the present moment big into
Rockmanivoff  (i am too tired to see if i spelled that right).  And Borque
is i am happy and go-lightly feeling .

("Rachmaninoff")

Technically, since Russian names are all transliterated for us English
speakers/writers, jiffers spelling might be perfectly fine...  But
John gives the more typical spelling.  

I've noticed that no one has mentioned early music.  I'm a big fan of 
the music of the middle ages and rennisance.  (Of course, that's my 
current area of inquiry in my study of musicology, so I guess I sort of 
have to like it.)  There are things that happen with texture after music 
moves away from plainchant that are absolutely fascinating.  Of course, 
I may like this music more from an analytical point of view that I do 
from a "what I like to listen to" kind of view.  

I'm also a big 20th century fan, for the same reason-- it is more of an 
academic interest that it being what I like to listen to.  I love to 
perform 20th century music because it is doing something different.  I 
love to analyze 20th century music because of the challange it presents. 
Do I like to listen to it?  Not always, but don't tell my advisor that. 
I do, oddly enough, like listening to serialisim (12 tone music; 
Schoenburg, Berg, several other 20th centruy composers.)  I found that 
the key to understanding and enjoying it is to stay up really late 
studding for a music lit exam, listen to a Schoenburg piano trio, and it 
suddenly becomes clear.  (Or there is what my bass teacher said about 
it, "its just like Brahms, but the notes are wrong.")

As far as listening goes, I love Mahler.  I just can't get enough.  The 
first symphony is a favorite of mine.  (As a double bass player, it has 
to be; there's a big bass solo in the thrid mvt.)  I like most of the 
romantic composers, although they do get a little cheesy now and then, 
and I cannot abide Wagner.  Seiblius is a real winner, though.  I also 
like Beethoven's later symphonies, Mozart (especially the operas and 
choral works), and Bach wasn't such a bad guy either.  So I like just 
about everything.

I love Schoenberg's remark, "My music isn't dissonant, it's just
badly played."

heh

I'm a big Mahler fan, too, Jess. The Titan is great. My favorite is the 
next one. "Resurrection" It took me a while to get used to it, though.

Have you ever heard the "Blumine" movement from symphony #1?
It was originally written as the second movement, then Mahler suppressed 
it, but it has resurfaced in a few recordings. 

Most conductors continue to honor Mahler's wishes and do not include it. 
However it is a very interesting movement.

I have interesting story! Seven years ago my friend and I (then two
orthodox Bach's) went to concert. We heard highlights from Prokofiev's
"Romeo and Juliet". After performing we went to local pub with young
professor of music in some high music school. We spoke about music and I
asked him what he thing about Bach. He replied: "What Bach?". I was
surprised. Then he told me that there is only one classical music - 20th
Russian. Now, I of course think that he is to orthodox but not too much.
Classical music is endless. You have many "fields": German composers,
French impressionists, and Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring". More you
listen 'rite' more you love it. And it's only one Stravinsky's work.
Should I talk about "Petrouchka" or Shostakovich chamber symphony or
post WWII avantgarde composers like Denisov and Schnittke. Well, I
respect other opinion (believe me this is very rare in my country,
Yugoslavia) but this is my current taste.

I believe that the (communist) Russian arts were *very* politicized, and
the government dictated what was OK and what was not. However I find it weird
that that music professor would not have heard of Bach - or was he just being
dismissive of non-Russian (party line) music?

Well, you are too exclusive rcurl. That's right that many russian 
artist worked under state control. In the Stalin era composers had 
duty to write exact numbers of concertos or symphonys per week but 
there were composers who did not work that way. Everybody in the west 
knows who they were. My point is that russian music brought new 
dimension to 'dying' western europian music at the beginning of 20th 
century. I think that every new change is welcome. Because of that 
mixture of classical and other genres of music (even experimental) 
now we have very interesting and dynamical classical musical scene.
 
And by the way, that 'weird' professor did not said that literally 
but he said that very hard. That is his opinion.

Certainly a very large number of Russian composers are admired here (USA),
from the MIghty Five (Borodin, etc) through Tschaikovsky tStravinsky, o
Shostacovich and Prokovief. The latter, though, chose to leave communist
Russia and pursued composing mostly in the "West". I certainly agree that
Russian composers brought new dimensions of musical expression. 

Is there anyone else who finds the music of Charles Ives kind of fun, 
once in a while?

right here!!  Ives is pretty spiffy....

Hurrah, do 'ye have any other favorite disonant composers? <Cricket thanks
the yak gods that he finally managed to breath touch of life into what should
be a rompingly good conferance...

One of my favorite dissonant composers is Elliott Carter.  He worked for
Charles Ives when he was a teenager, helping organize the old man;s
manuscripts, editing them, etc.  Of the Americans who took up Ives's
banner, he's the best.  His music doesn't sound much like Ives at all,
but the spirit of ol' Charlie is definitely in there.

What a coincidence. We went to the Ursula Oppens performance at Rackham
last evening, in her Beethoven series, and she performed two Beethoven
piano sonatas, and one by Carter. I had never heard of Carter before.  The
sonata did have a lot of variety, but I would not have called it
"dissonant" - just...rather free with tone, rhythm and harmonics (part of
the sonata has consecutive measures made up of "different numbers of 16th
notes"....can't say I really noticed, since what's wrong with "13th
notes"?

"dissonant composers"?  Hrm... I like most twentieth centruy music. 
Stravinsky is another favorite of mine, as is Prokoiev.  I've been on a
serialisim kick lately (12 composition), and that means I'vew been into
Schoenburg and von Webern.  The new music ensemble here performed a von Webern
peice on friday, and it was just spiffy.  

Rane, Carter's Piano Sonata might be a relatively early piece from
the 1940s.  He was composing large-scale tonal works through the
mid-1950s (the Variations for Orchestra).  But some time around
1950, I think, he spent a year in the Arizona desert doing some
soul-searching, and emerged with his First String Quartet.  His
first major orchestral work in his new style is called "Double
Concerto for Piano and Harpsichord with Two Chamber Orchestras."
I wish he'd called it something else.  Starvinsky hailed it as
a "masterpiece," which Stravinsky didn't do often.  My favorite
Carter composition, from the moment I first heard it in 1970, is
his Concerto for Orchestra.  The British composer and conductor
Oliver Knussen recently wrote (liner notes to his CD of Carter's
music) that Carter's Concerto for Orchestra occupies for his
generation of composers the same place Stravinsy's Sacre occupied
for Carter's generation.  

(here's hoping everyone hasn't faded away by the time I belatedly discover
this conversation...)
The thing is, I wouldn't think to call Stravinsky 'dissonant'.  (Well, first
off, there's all the stuff he wrote after those early ballets that everyone
threw tomatoes at him for, but beyond that...)
I mean, sure, the Rite of Spring's rich and scary and tangled and has these
funny layers and corners pointing off in weird directions, but it all fits
together, and the chords really _sing_.  

la.

Actually, the near-rioting at the primere of _Rite of Spring_ had nothing to
do with the music... the crowd was upset about what they considered obscenity
in the dancing.... several of teh critics commented that it if weren't for
the dancing, the music would have been very good.  (And the dance was
kinda.... contriversical for teh early 20th century-- it portrayed ritual rape
and sacrifice... not exactly in the spirit of _The Nutcracker_)

(Yeah, I can see that going against the grain)

Nobody mentioned Handel.  His Fireworks Music is just wonderful to work by.
Is Sousa classical?  There is nothing better than the Water Music.  (Of course
there are a lot of things that might be just as good).  Or Dvorak, who I would
consider the last of the premodern classical composers.  Or are there any
later composers that I should check out who wrote like the earlier ones?

Certainly "the march king" is more rightly classified as "classical" than any
other genre I can think of.  "Popular" doesn't seem right.  Sousa wrote [music
for] operettas also.  I guess most people would consider Jacques Offenbach
to be "classical" as well, though he wrote "popular" music for his day.  What
about modern day composers John Williams & Andrew Lloyd Webber?  Besides being
*famous* for writing film scores and musicals respectively, are they not best
considered "classical" as well?

WOuld you include Rodgers and Hammerstein, Lerner and Lowe, Gilbert and
Sullivan (I can never remember which one was the composer)?

Sullivan counts as "classical", and definitely wanted to be remembered for
writing something more serious than that musical-comedy stuff. 
_The_Gondoliers_  gets quite a ways along before there's any spoken dialogue;
my memory is that this play (Italian setting, etc.) was to some degree a sop
from Gilbert (& Carte) to Sullivan's insistence that he was going to do grand
opera instead.  (Queen Victoria, among others, kept telling him he ought to
write serious music.  But he gambled heavily, & always needed money.)

IMNAAHO, Rogers and Lerner (I *think* Loewe was the lyricist) and Webber are
all more clearly related to pop music than classical.  Ditto Gershwin.

For what it's worth, I'd definitely include Sousa as "classical" myself; but
when I was in junior high & high school, playing in band & orchestra (this
is 1960s), I noticed that people like Sousa were much more apt to turn up in
things labeled "pops concerts" than otherwise.  I kind of think Williams and
Webber are in that position now, to a degree.

InMyNot?A?A?HumbleOpinion (IMNAAHO)

IMHO, almost all comnposers of "art" music (I'm using that term for composers
of what we've been terming "classical" music for the sake of the distinction
I'm about to make) through out most of history, into the presnet, to an
extent, were the popular artists of their time.  Mozart's operas were
exceptionally popular in his lifetime, and Beethoven was something of a star
in many ways.  It has only been in the last 90 years or so that popular music
has departed from "serious music", and that seperation stems from the reduce
in cost of pianos, and the increase in disposable income in the genearal
population-- there was suddenly a large demand for music that was relitively
easy for the masses to sing and play.  (Tangelntally, there was a similar need
for easy vocal music in the mid-Renisceance, which resulted in a lot of
madrigals)
        So because a composer appeals to the popular masses doesn't nessicarly
mean that they aren't a composer of serious music (despite wht the snobbier
musiclogists might say).  All one needs to do is look at hte music of
Copeland, Britten, or even some of Lloyd Webber's music to realized that it
is serious, complex music. 

(AA=AtAll)

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss