Extremely annoying pieces of classical music

[ahinton]

On the composers' part or yours?

I can't and won't speak for cloughie but my own answer would be "on the composers' part" in these particular instances; I wouldn't have the barefaced cheek to let out some of the things that such composers have on occason been wont to do, because I have less than no right wilfully or carelessly to bore an audience or leave one short-changed. That's not to make a milligram of claim for what I do - far from it - but merely to point out that, however bad some might think it to be, I do nevertheless have a conscience and a duty of care and try to bear both in mind when working, as indeed I feel that I should.

Anyway, since this thread has got the point of approaching the 400 post mark without anything of mine having yet been cited (although without sufficient time or inclination to trawl through it all I cannot be sure of this, of course), I suppose that there might be something for which to be thankful, at least for the time being...

[Bryn]

I can't and won't speak for cloughie but my own answer would be "on the composers' part" in these particular instances; I wouldn't have the barefaced cheek to let out some of the things that such composers have on occason been wont to do, because I have less than no right wilfully or carelessly to bore an audience or leave one short-changed. That's not to make a milligram of claim for what I do - far from it - but merely to point out that, however bad some might think it to be, I do nevertheless have a conscience and a duty of care and try to bear both in mind when working, as indeed I feel that I should.

So name a work by either of the composers mentioned which "monotonously goes on and then it goes on again". I would submit that only "laziness or lack of musical imagination" on the part of the listener would fail to recognise the lack of monotony in the work of either composer, even in the more recent and, to me, far less musically interesting works by Glass.

[cloughie]

On the composers' part or yours?

I have plenty of musical imagination, but not yet the skills to write my ideas down, perhaps my laziness is not learning those skills!

[ahinton]

So name a work by either of the composers mentioned which "monotonously goes on and then it goes on again". I would submit that only "laziness or lack of musical imagination" on the part of the listener would fail to recognise the lack of monotony in the work of either composer, even in the more recent and, to me, far less musically interesting works by Glass.

"Where would I start?", I ask myself. Why should or do I ask such a question rather than naming guilty parties? Well, put it this way - consider the opening three minutes of Mahler 9, or Schönberg's D minor Quartet or E major Chamber Symphony, or Medtner's Sonata Romantica, or the opening movement of Elgar's First Symphony (OK, maybe six minutes in this case!), or any of the late Beethoven Quartets (or any number of thousands of other similarly potent examples) with any given three minutes of most of the works of the composers mentioned (although not only those) and, if that alone doesn't answer the question in terms of how much information is imparted and how much listener concentration is encouraged by those examples and how little by examples of the work of the composers mentioned, I'm not sure what would, frankly. It's not so much about "monotony" per se and more about the sheer opposite of it that's possible but about which those composers seem to have comparatively little concern.

Anyway, I now see under this thread "Extremely annoying pieces of classical music by ahinton", so perhaps my case has already been rested on my behalf!...

[Bryn]

... It's not so much about "monotony" per se and more about the sheer opposite of it that's possible but about which those composers seem to have comparatively little concern.

The issue at hand thus conveniently dodged, eh? Comparing apples and oranges and finding one lacking in features found in the other to negate its classification as a fruit is, well, fruitless. Glass, Reich et al were, at least in their earlier work, not attempting to address their audiences in the same terms as Mahler, Beethoven et al. There are those who like to describe the early experimental works of these composers as "trance" music. That, to me, is another expression of lazy listening. There is a lot more to be found in such works by active listening than by letting it passively wash over one.

[Richard Barrett]

Glass, Reich et al were, at least in their earlier work, not attempting to address their audiences in the same terms as Mahler, Beethoven et al.

The thing is that most people's cursory acquaintance with the music of these composers doesn't extend back far enough to encompass their most interesting work. As for repetition, a gradually unfolding structure like Reich's Music for 18 Musicians is actually far less "repetitive" in a literal sense than a sonata or symphony movement in which entire sections are played twice or more without any changes.

[Barbirollians]

Carmina Burana - dire stuff .

[ahinton]

The issue at hand thus conveniently dodged, eh? Comparing apples and oranges and finding one lacking in features found in the other to negate its classification as a fruit is, well, fruitless. Glass, Reich et al were, at least in their earlier work, not attempting to address their audiences in the same terms as Mahler, Beethoven et al.

Nothing dodged at all and no, of course those composers were not trying to address their audiences in that way; the problem that I have with it (and I stress that it is a personal opinion, not a matter of universal fact) is that what they were trying to do instead is ultimately a let-down. Rather than comparing apples and oranges I merely sought to point out the impact of the differences beteen them in terms of musical expression and what the composer puts before the listener.

There are those who like to describe the early experimental works of these composers as "trance" music. That, to me, is another expression of lazy listening. There is a lot more to be found in such works by active listening than by letting it passively wash over one.

Here I agree with you and disagree with those who refer to such music thus; the problem for me, however, remains that, if the listener is not "lazy" and is prepared to throw all of his/her concentrative faculties on the music when listening, they'll likely find less to get from it than might be the case had the composer made more of an effort to address those faculties; it might therefore at the same time be argued that the "laziness" (or at least complacency) in some of this is that of the composer rather than the listener.

[ahinton]

The thing is that most people's cursory acquaintance with the music of these composers doesn't extend back far enough to encompass their most interesting work. As for repetition, a gradually unfolding structure like Reich's Music for 18 Musicians is actually far less "repetitive" in a literal sense than a sonata or symphony movement in which entire sections are played twice or more without any changes.

Well, that bit is certainly true but that tradition grew at least in part, I think, out of a presumption that audience members might not "get" an exposition section, say, at first hearing and so it should be repeated, which in many cases is questionable.

What you say about Reich's Music for 18 Musicians could as easily be said for his The Desert Music which contains some very beautiful sounds and harmonies but leaves the listener in more or less the same place in the desert at its end; the absence of any apparent desire on the composer's part to take the listener on any kind of journey during the course of a work is what disappoints me more than the mere repetition per se - but, as I stated in my response to Bryn, that's just me and I don't expect everyone will, still less should, react to such music in similar ways.

[MrGongGong]

What you say about Reich's Music for 18 Musicians could as easily be said for his The Desert Music which contains some very beautiful sounds and harmonies but leaves the listener in more or less the same place in the desert at its end; the absence of any apparent desire on the composer's part to take the listener on any kind of journey during the course of a work is what disappoints me more than the mere repetition per se - but, as I stated in my response to Bryn, that's just me and I don't expect everyone will, still less should, react to such music in similar ways.

Listening strategies?

I think you are assuming that MUSIC is always about taking the audience on "a journey" defined by the composer.
It's not IMV
Sometimes music can be "a place to be".
One of the most wonderful performances I have heard was of La Monte Young's snappily titled "The Melodic Version of the Second Dream of the High-Tension Line Stepdown Transformer from the Four Dreams of China" at last years HCMF. Long notes, not too many, glacial speed changes, the first note (passed between 8 muted trumpets) lasted about 20 minutes. Absolutely mesmerising and wonderful but any sense of "journey" was in the perception of the audience.

[MrGongGong]

Carmina Burana - dire stuff .

But the rice is included and you get to add as much of the curry sauce as you like.

[MrGongGong]

But the rice is included and you get to add as much of the curry sauce as you like.

And, since this appeared it's hard NOT to like it

[visualnickmos]

Carmina Burana - dire stuff .

I rather like it - nothing wrong with a good ol' fashioned choral romp!

Rafeal Fruhbeck de Burgos - he's da man....

[teamsaint]

The thing is that most people's cursory acquaintance with the music of these composers doesn't extend back far enough to encompass their most interesting work. .

Oh dear.
My " possibly slightly better than cursory but not really in depth in any way"knowledge of Reich has led me to enjoy his more recent work ,in general, rather more than early stuff like " Come out", even given the fact that I understand that Come Out was a groundbreaking work.

[Beef Oven!]

The thing is that most people's cursory acquaintance with the music of these composers doesn't extend back far enough to encompass their most interesting work. As for repetition, a gradually unfolding structure like Reich's Music for 18 Musicians is actually far less "repetitive" in a literal sense than a sonata or symphony movement in which entire sections are played twice or more without any changes.

I struggle with Glass, but I’m quite keen on Reich. Your point about earlier works is a good one. Why did it go so wrong say, with Glass, later on?