Why the lack of love for Bartok?
- Thread starter spiritofmusic
- Start date
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-6842574-1451241619-2821.png.jpg)
You did try, Keith, that's great. I did not expect it to be your cup of tea, but thumbs up for having had an open mind.
From my experience it took 2-3 listens for each piece to 'understand' it. Then, one may yet not be enthralled though willing to recognize it's not, uh, er... poo. 'Understand' neither precludes nor excludes 'like'. It may sound hoity-toity to say one can truly appreciate a piece and/or the genius that created it without liking it, but there it is.
I would figure most of us don’t get some composers even if we have a fairly broad appreciation of classical music or are relatively broad and open classical listeners.
For me others not liking certain music really doesn’t make any difference and having a disconnect with particular composers seems just kind of a potentially natural response.
There is one extremely highly regarded romantic composer who is often touted as a must listen that I have tried so many times to appreciate but just never jelled with at all.
No names (though not Bartok) but the word fluffy always comes to mind whenever I hear this composer’s work.
Funnily enough I said to someone in my family the other day when some of this music came on via Tidal radio that it always struck me as kind of fluffy to which the comment was yes, it is very, very fluffy isn’t it. Maybe it’s an inherited aversion to music without some tension and angst. I do enjoy a good bit of emotional struggle over the more flighty or mentally pretty tunes. Gavotte me no gigues, but bouree me some sarabandes instead. I’d always go for a good serving of the dark night of the soul any day... might cue up a bit of Shosty right now to satiate a few more of my demons.
For me others not liking certain music really doesn’t make any difference and having a disconnect with particular composers seems just kind of a potentially natural response.
There is one extremely highly regarded romantic composer who is often touted as a must listen that I have tried so many times to appreciate but just never jelled with at all.
No names (though not Bartok) but the word fluffy always comes to mind whenever I hear this composer’s work.
Funnily enough I said to someone in my family the other day when some of this music came on via Tidal radio that it always struck me as kind of fluffy to which the comment was yes, it is very, very fluffy isn’t it. Maybe it’s an inherited aversion to music without some tension and angst. I do enjoy a good bit of emotional struggle over the more flighty or mentally pretty tunes. Gavotte me no gigues, but bouree me some sarabandes instead. I’d always go for a good serving of the dark night of the soul any day... might cue up a bit of Shosty right now to satiate a few more of my demons.
Lucky you. Only 2-3 listens? I have struggled with some pieces for years, even from favorite composers like Bartok (but he is not even the biggest 'offender'). Other pieces I could follow more or less from the first time. But truly understanding a piece may even in those instances take a while. But perhaps I am a less adept listener, or my standards for "understanding" are high. I'd like to think it's the latter
.Agreed.
To love classical music is such a fabulous retreat. To appreciate jazz is a gift to the listener. I’m lucky to love both. Put on some Brahms, Smetana and Palestrina tonight as well as some Cecile McLorin Salvant and Aaron Parkes and just thought how lucky we are to have this extraordinary thread of connection with the past and also to be alive and listening to music in the present. Recorded music is a treasure beyond countenance. I so relate to music lovers whatever their creed.
Last edited:
For me, not "getting" a new piece portends the wonderful possibility of weeks to sometimes many years unraveling its secrets, gradually coming, via repetition, to perceive more and more of what the music has to offer. This process is one of the real joys of listening to music of depth and complexity.
A sizable number of my favorite pieces, I love without ever getting to a point where I can say I completely understand what it's all about but with each listening I take delight in new aspects, interrelations, etc. that I hadn't noticed before and look forward to future listenings free of the boredom that can creep into my evolving attitudes regarding lesser works.
A sizable number of my favorite pieces, I love without ever getting to a point where I can say I completely understand what it's all about but with each listening I take delight in new aspects, interrelations, etc. that I hadn't noticed before and look forward to future listenings free of the boredom that can creep into my evolving attitudes regarding lesser works.
Last edited:
Hmm, Graham, the powers that be in the UK on the whole think Stormzy is more "relevant" than Tchaikovsky.
Yep, more relevant for Inner City kids to have less beauty in their lives. To match the outside world.
Classical, its just so irrelevant.
Yep, more relevant for Inner City kids to have less beauty in their lives. To match the outside world.
Classical, its just so irrelevant.
Britain is of course one of the most alive cultural hubs on the planet... it’s jazz and classical central. Your country is a musical wonder, don’t stress
Graham. There IS plenty to stress about. Starting w the dumbing down of the next generation. Stormzy? Yeah, great on the car stereo, or at a party. As a route to inner enlightenment and connection w whatever passes for a higher power and the universe generally, er, no.
Marc, musically your country is just extraordinary atm. I’d trade you our entire cricket team just for Shabaka Hutchins and the Sons of Kehmet... though that might not immediately seem like a fair trade
I would suggest you listen once to the first violin concerto. It has got two movements and they actually have an "idea" behind it: The first one is his declaration of love for Stefi Geyer (who did not care a fig) and the second one is a tantrum about said fig. It can make perfect sense, and maybe we should not stick to Beethoven alone, we would not have invented anything great afterwards, if the invention of the wheel made os stop?
He would have many versions of the violin concertos by different performers on different labels and would have heard them all
Totally agree.
From my experience, my favorite artists, bands, composers, were not immediately appreciated by me, on the first few listenings. It took several or more times until they gelled for me.
I was not a fan of classical, at all, until I heard Bartok, Stravinsky, Britton, Ravel. I didn't become a obsessed until I discovered Carter, Wourinen, Berg, Schwantner, Schoenberg, Lindberg, Ades, Tower, etc.
Classical music from earlier than about 1920 does nothing for me. And it's not for lack of trying. The vast majority of the classical I listen to is post 1950.
Last edited:
While post 1950s classical is also a gravitational point for me, I listen to older stuff as well. Just the last few days I became enthralled with some of Haydn's piano sonatas.
As for the issue of immediate appreciation, I agree. It should also be noted that Beethoven's late string quartets were not really appreciated more widely until the 20th century, when they really entered the 'canon'. Now they are viewed as being among the pinnacle of the string quartet repertoire. So it is obvious also from that point of view that easy appreciation is no measure of quality by any means.