In a word, yes, and there's nothing wrong with that. In this chat, I consider ways to keep our listening experience of the allegedly "immortal" classics fresh.
Great stuff, Dave. As a former professional brass player, I was burned out on all the "classics" in the repertoire that were largely brass-focused. After a long hiatus and a long career in something unrelated to classical music, I found your channel. The exposure to new ways of thinking about music, music listening, and the philosophy behind that listening inspired me to embrace so many different forms: string quartets, trios, piano sonatas (beyond Beethoven ;-)), and on and on. "Keep it fresh" and "keep on listening" is spot on, Brother Dave! Thanks again for a great posting!
There may be those out there who never get sick of the classics, that is, as you say, the core repertoire. In general, I can have long spans when I'm "sick" of classical music in general but I know it will always be a temporary illness and I will come back in full force with the desire for it. Last night I went from Tchaikovsky to Stevie Ray Vaughan style electric blues, to 1970s funk jazz, to Brazilian jazz to Joni Mitchell and back again. I never have any trouble listening to anything of quality.
Well, if a piece is repeated on each and every official occasion... like it is the case with the Dvořák's 'New World' Symphony here, in Czechia... you may get tired of these repeated performances... and tend to avoid the concerts where this piece is played. Then you happen to hear a really good performance and realize how wonderful the piece is, again! (Big thanks go to Paavo Järvi and the Tonhalle-Orchester Zürich for their concert in Prague on 7th September.) So, you can get sick but you can be cured of your sickness, as well.... (An explanation: I wrote the above before listening to this episode to the end... So, my own experience just confirms what Dave had to say...)
I played the drums in heavy metal bands throughout the 1980s in LA... and one day - completely out of the blue! - one of my lead guitar players asked me, "You listen to Classical music, don't you?" "YES," I replied with enthusiastic warmth, "and I absolutely love it!" "Do you have a good recording of Beethoven's 5th Symphony I can borrow," my friend asked, somewhat sheepishly. "I have around twenty... but I think I know the one that you'll really appreciate." I proceeded to loan him Karajan's 1984 "copper-metallic-covered" recording - glassy, 1980s DDD sound, and all! - coupled with the 6th Symphony. The upstart to all this is that when he had listened to (and thoroughly enjoyed!) the CD, he told me, "Beethoven's fifth is pretty cool... but I really liked the gentleness of the 6th symphony even more..." and that coming from a diehard metal guitarist who cut his heavy metal "teeth" on Metallica, Iron Maiden & the Motörhead! Wherever you go - or wherever life takes you - Mozart & Beethoven & Brahms will find you out... and win you over! Thanks for your very informative and sympathetic musical talks, Dave; I have, like my metallic friend of old, enjoyed them immensely! Mike D.
Thanks for this, Dave! I agree, “keeping it fresh” is essential. My life so far looked like this: up to the age of 25 only Rock/Pop/Punk and everything connected to it. From 25 to 45 mostly Classical (80%). And then, I’m 60 now, a lot of Jazz. Since a few years now probably 1/3 of each (Classical, Jazz, Rock). So there is a lot of contrast and it’s easy to keep things fresh. The only “problem” is, that there is too much good music to listen to in one lifetime. When I started with Classical, I had no idea whatsoever about it. I pretty much started randomly, this means I didn’t start with the standard repertoire. This might be odd knowing Arnold Bax before all the Brahms symphonies or checking out John Field before Chopin, but it seemed to work for me. And I’m loving it! There are a few genres I don’t like (Lieder, most Operas), but this may come later. If not, so be it.
I started similarly to you, if somewhat earlier! I first discovered classical music through the radio when I was in 8th grade, having just moved back to the US after 9 years in Dubai. Back in the 80s and 90s, classical music was virtually nonexistent in Dubai, so I'd never had a chance to hear it. And while American pop culture got to Dubai, it usually arrived there 5-10 years late, so when I moved back to the US in middle school I experienced a sort of chronological culture shock where I hadn't heard of any of the bands my classmates were listening to. And that's when I discovered classical music and realized it wasn't going to go out of style. But that meant I first got what the radio gave me, so the first symphony I heard in full was Howard Hanson's 1st, and it's always been one of my favorites. And apart from the radio, much of my introduction to classical music was through browsing record stores for interesting-looking CDs and downloading stuff from Napster, so my early favorites included Boccherini, Bridge, Szymanowski, Gliere, and Kabalevsky, and I was familiar with all of them before Brahms even really registered in my awareness.
Thank you for your wisdom, so well expressed. Your words reflect what I am still learning in my 70 or so years of listening. There's so much great music out there to be discovered.
You’re absolutely right on everything, you’ll get tired of anything if you have too much of it. I go through phases when I listen to music. There’s extended periods of time where I don’t feel like listening to classical music, so I listen to other non-classical things. Then eventually the urge for classical music comes back, and that’s what I listen to for a while. But then there’s also phases within the classical umbrella. Sometimes I get fixated on a certain composer or genre or style until I feel satisfied enough to move on to something else, and all of this allows the music to stay fresh. And that’s not even mentioning the sheer amount of classical music I’ve yet to discover! I’m a piano guy, so keyboard repertoire is what got me into classical and it’s what I know the most, and things like symphonic repertoire are actually very foreign to me and don’t click as well (but I’m really working on it now)! So I don’t worry, all these “classics” will always be fresh to me for the rest of my life.
Dave, All of us have benefited so much from your guidance and your obvious love of music. This video expresses far better than I ever could the feeling that I have when coming back to a piece that I haven't listened to in a long time. It's like the warm feeling of a reunion with an old friend. Please keep guiding us. Thank you!
In all honesty, having a large CD collection and an interest in classical music from the Renaissance to today, I find I get to listen to a classic piece about once a year. So I don't get sick of the classics. For example, I think I heard the 'Symphonie Fantastique' sometime in February, but I heard a bassoon concerto by Kaipainen yesterday.
My memory is really bad. Even scores I've spent months studying in micro detail, I can't say I've internalized any of them. I remember themes and general features but not how details of transitions and arguments occur. On the other hand, I love discovering wonderful music I've never heard before. That's one reason why I'm so addicted to your talks. You keep suggesting stuff I haven't heard. I don't expect to like everything, but I'm grateful for the suggestions. It's one of many reasons why I'm addicted to your talks.
This topic really hit home for me. I absolutely adore just about anything by Tchaikovsky and listen to him all the time. But I force myself to put it aside for as long as I can not because I tire of it, -- can't see that happening -- but just to be able to come back to it and be dazzled by it all over again. For it to be "fresh" again like you said. With all the music I listen to on the radio and all the TV I watch it's almost impossible to NOT hear Tchaikovsky though. It's everywhere. (Smile) BTW, I love the horse neighing when you mention Bruckner. I'm not familiar with his work but it's funny all the same.
There is, of course, a vast array of music of all genres to enjoy. I have always mixed things up between classical, jazz, and what is now called classic rock. There are many pieces I enjoy regularly, others only occasionally, and a few I don't care to revisit. As to this topic in particular, the standard canon is fine, but represents only the tiny tip of the classical music iceberg. Explore and discover the great works that lie in obscurity.
I think this is very true. That's why I'm never afraid to try out super low budget labels like LaserLight or Pilz. Sometimes they are better than one might expect but it definitely allows for a much greater appreciation of the "masters" like Szell and Ormandy etc etc.
While there are a handful of works that I continue to listen to after I have internalized them, I fully agree that giving much of it a breather is a good idea. After a year or two away, they are fresh again. Many composers reputations are based on such a small number of works. One of most of our strategies over the years is to find their lesser known works. After 50 years of listening, I’ve felt classical music get stale a few times. When it does, I always go back to Haydn. No matter how much Haydn I’ve heard, there is always more (!), and it is going to be great. For me it’s Haydn; we each have our favorites. Finding a piece you can discover for the first time by a favorite composer is easier now, and incredibly fun.
I love this - so much understanding here & such an important issue! I had a high school friend, who played cello in Maggio Musicale Fiorentina for her entire long career, who told me she never wanted to hear (let alone play) New World Symphony or anything by Tchaikovsky again. I think part of the problem is that orchestras, so expensive to run, are dependent on private funding that comes mostly from older wealthy people (or unimaginative govt agencies), so the orchestras play what those people want to hear. Very interesting point about internalizing the music. You being an actual orchestral musician I'd think you have an internal memory that's much more detailed than someone like me but I think that's mostly true for me too. In college I made my way through much of the standard repertoire, which was fantastic, listened to Mahler 1, 2 & 3 obsessively (to the point of memorization), then went kind of crazy buying marked-down obscure & contemporary music LPs at Sam Goody's. I couldn't get enough of things that are different from the standard rep. Some of that has held up, some not. I make a conscious effort to not listen too much to the pieces (so many!) that I love the most so that they'll stay fresh. Revisiting pieces you haven't listened to for decades can be a revelation. Sometimes I try to answer the question "What would you listen to if you had only one more piece to hear in your life?" (I'd love to hear a video by you on that.) I usually settle on the Schubert Cmaj quintet.
I keep it fresh easily. I listen to (and play) many genres: classical, jazz, rock, metal, R&B, soul, funk, blues, and on and on. Going where the spirit moves me, by the time I get around to wanting to hear an old classical warhorse again, it's probably been a few years or even decades since I last heard it, so it necessarily sounds at least somewhat fresh. It might have been months or years since I heard any classical music at all, for that matter. And as the bulk of my classical exploring and listening consists of off-the-beaten path pieces, that doesn't leave a lot of time to hear the New World Symphony or LvB's 5th yet again, anyway. (I find that the 5th needs about 5-10 years between listens to sound remotely fresh :) )
It's not really an issue in my case. I listen to music seriously-parked in front of the stereo-only a few hours a week. And my interests are divided equally between classical and jazz. It might be Monk on Monday, and Wagner on Vednesday. So for me the classical standards repeat themselves only after several years. There's no way I get tired of any particular piece. Also, I tend not to keep umpteen versions of this piece or that. Sometimes only two or three; often only one.
A bigger issue I run into, especially playing pieces for high school music survey classes, is the lack of ability to focus for more than a minute or two. I can barely play 1 movement from a symphony without them losing interest 3 minutes in. I can only play videos of performances with visually captivating concerts..not even possible to just play the music without a video for them anymore..
Isn't that sad??? The attention span of today's youth is so fleeting...but the need of a visual component to appreciate instrumental music should be unnecessary, but, having a 19 yr old daughter and a 17 yr old son, I can personally second your assessment of this dilemma...just close your eyes and make your own visuals!!!
But isn’t that how music has always been intended to be experienced? Music is more than the sounds; if that’s all that counted, just let the synthesized instruments do their thing. There’s a reason people still like to go to theaters to see movies: it’s a social experience. The more senses we involve in an experience, the better we remember and understand it. It’s especially important, I think, for new listeners to be able to associate what they’re hearing with the instruments that are producing it. Let them watch music being created. Let them see the joy on the faces of the musicians and the interplay among them. Make it real, not abstract.
@PolymathCrowsbane Good point...although I can't say that I have ever seen much joy on the faces of orchestral musicians when playing live, but I agree that kids should see what instruments make what sounds and the way the composer has created interplay between them for sure
I love the generosity in your message Dave. And would add, extending the idea of generosity, that many great works of music are also bottomlessly generous but that to appreciate this you have to allow for the generosity when you come to it as a listener. The more you open yourself and enter into a kind of vulnerability, the more extraordinary and mind-blowing the music can become.
I have found that I have seasonal listening habits, which helps keep it fresh for me. In spring, it is Renaissance madrigals and lighter Classical Era with a floral sound. Come my birthday at the end of spring = a Baroque bombastic extravaganza. Summer = all things Americana from Memorial Day to July 4th (Copland, Grofe, Still, Williams, etc.), and during the swelter of the summer, setting most historic classical music aside for contemporary film scores, rock, 80's pop, etc. When the heat breaks, it is time to turn back to Early Baroque (esp. 17th c.), with a month or so of Medieval and Ren leading up to our annual trip to the Renaissance Faire in October. Baroque and Americana fills the rest of fall. Christmastide has its own repetoire (with baroque brass and sacred music filling in supplementary duty). Then, with the dark moodiness of winter: the Romantic Era. Switch to Irish folk/Celtic at St. Patrick's Day, and then the cycle repeats. Solo piano, classical era, and contemporary/minimal music serve duty mostly year-round. And anything else I am simply in the mood for that day.
I try to pace my listening of my favorite pieces-maybe once every 5 or 6 months-so I don't grow tired of them. And in between I sample unfamiliar works because the range beyond the standard repertoire in "Classical Music " is vast.
I've wondered long at what was central to the enjoyment to be gained by listening to classical music, well, I'm now sure that it's always been wonderment. The possibility of the next great and pleasant surprise. Whatever that may mean for me or you, that's always for the future. Thank you, Dave, for the many, many nice surprises this year!
David, I know what you mean about knowing the music and having it internalized. I remember playing my Sibelius and Dvorak LPs, for examples, over and over when I’d discovered them. I never got tired or sick of them. But that phase ran its course and I enjoyed them all over again later on, occasionally playing them or hearing them on the radio. I branched out, enjoying other music that I wasn’t acquainted with.
I'm in the phase of listening to 100 diff Bruckner 4! You're always so accurate with your comments. What you mention here happened to me with the Beatles. Had to take a break for a couple of years. Then came back and now I enjoy their music more than ever
Lovely conversation. I love the idea that when you really internalize a work it becomes a part of you. And then it's just a delight to revisit occasionally, or to re-experience as though new by showing it to somebody who's never heard it before.
A few quick thoughts: 1) In my own experience, being fascinated with music comes in certain phases. I had my Bartok, Brahms, Bruckner, Busoni, Martinu, Frank Zappa, etc. phases. This is probably something we have to accept. 2) There are certain things more or less closely related to classical music that one can get sick of. One should be well aware of the nature of one's classics-related sickness. In additional to the vast but limited core repertoire, there is also the artist cult, the at times terrible concert programming, the very necessary but also annoying business side of things (i.e., the record labels), the cult-like worshipping of composers etc., the tendency to turn concerts into quasi-religious happenings. Etc. 3) As indicated in the video, it's a good idea to take a step back at times. There are also infinite ways to accepting composer x as ones personal saviour. Attending concerts can be fun, even if the local team is not world class. Maybe there is a local conservatory which runs it's own concert series (probably involving lots of chamber music). Also worth considering: Not placing the classics on a pedestal and treat them like something holy that only the initiated (i.e. world-class artists) are allowed to touch. But instead get a score or piano reduction (maybe from second hand) and /or grab an instrument and toy around with it. And, by all means, sing Bizet's Carmen while showering.
It seems to me that there lots of composers who have been overlooked not because their music wasn't good, but because they didn't really innovate or challenge any status quo. Like George Onslow, whose music I have always simply enjoyed as technically excellent and beautifully 'put together' (the little I have heard, anyway).
I like to think that I am continually refreshing my "repertoire" at the age of 70. Glazunov my latest. There are many, many composers out there whose names most people have never heard of, but deserve at least a hearing if only to be able to better judge the masters.
Dave, your thoughts on this brought two things to mind from my experience. Firstly, back in the late 1980s when I was still buying vinyl, I found a record shop which had got hold of a load of Supraphon recordings at bargain prices - in that way I not only discovered Suk, Novak, Martinu and other Czech composers, but kind of adopted a policy of "if I've never heard of the composer (and the album looks interesting to me) I'll buy it." Same with all those lesser known British composers - Arnold, Brian, Lloyd etc. That widened my musical horizons immensely, and I'm still curious today! Secondly, and on the other hand, I need to rein in a tendency to try the "latest and greatest" recordings of some of my favourite "repertoire" works when, you know, really I should stick to my favourite ones! On a related note, I did kind of sicken myself of Mussorgsky's "Pictures..." a few years ago when I decided to try to track down as many different orchestrations as I could find. Not that it wasn't interesting, but as a result I've only just begun to enjoy the piece again. So yeah, as you said - take a break!
A few years ago I had to give five lectures on the St. Matthew Passion in one week. (In the Netherlands there is complete hysteria around the piece. The rest of Bach's oeuvre is ignored.) At the end I was sick and depressed, really. Last week I heard a good performance and it sounded fresh again. But I remain cautious with the piece.
Yes, "Classical Music" has its share of "You Light Up My Life" or "Stairway to Heaven" examples of overplayed material that you plain get sick of hearing anymore. I myself certainly appreciate your delving into exposing your channel pals to a vast array of other composers` repertoire to tickle our tympanums.
The one thing I love about internalising a piece of music I love is that not only do I not have to listen to it too often, but also that the music I have in my head is not any one performance, but all sorts of how the music has the potential to be performed. And I think it's really helpful, especially when, at least for me, it's much easier to understand the "geniusness" of the piece.
I fully share your analysis Dave, especially when you mention the fissations for some composers outside the core repertoire. I had it for Bruckner, Rossini, Wagner, Malcolm Arnold, simply because I fell in love with them. Now I keep exploring other composers, but those names will stay always in my hearth, as a part of me, as you rightly said.
After many years of classical music listening I have employed several strategies to keep the listening experience fresh and enjoyable : Obtain and listen to compositions that are off the beaten path'. In the course of a typical listening session, include "standard" works with lesser known works. For example, start off with the Schreker Chamber Symphony and follow with Beethoven's 4th symphony. Intersperse works of different genres. Listen to an orchestral work, then a chamber work or solo instrumental work. As you perceptively stated, don't get obsessed with one particular recording to the point that it is the sole focus of your listening. When I first acquired the Wand/NDR/Luhbeck Bruckner 8 I could not get enough of it , playing it every day. I set it aside for a long while and returned to it a few weeks ago with renewed appreciation. Thanks for an enjoyable and relevant chat.
For me, I chase myself around different areas of repertoire. Some months I’m all about romantic orchestral music, sometimes it’s opera, and sometimes I’m deep-digging into Haydn or Handel or Offenbach. By the time you come back around, it’s time to listen anew.
I like to discover rarely played works by major composers. For example, symphonies 3 through 6 of Dvorak, wonderful masterpieces, IMO. Also, the two piano romances by Brahms, both of them are breathtakingly beautiful. And then there are the rarely performed Haydn symphonies my favorites being 6, 39, 44, 81, etc. I sometimes wonder what the odds would be for one composer to write 104 symphonies, a handful of concertos, operas, choral works, etc. The odds would probably be something like 1 out of a million, or higher.
I enjoy the "immortal" classics as you call them, but lately with more exposure I've come to enjoy lesser-known composers and lesser-known works from the big names. One of the great pleasures I've enjoyed over the last few weeks has been discovering lots of Renaissance and baroque-era organ music besides that of J.S. Bach - finding composers like Pachelbel who have a lot more to them than their "big hit" (his chamber music and keyboard music is incredible), composers like Scheidt or Merulo who have leagues of amazing organ compositions and Masses. The "immortals" always have their place. It's no different than with other music. There's more to Miles Davis than Kind of Blue or In a Silent Way. There's more to the Beach Boys than Pet Sounds. There's more to Johnny Cash than At Folsom Prison. Exploring any artist's repertoire beyond the "big hits" is extremely rewarding.
Keeping it fresh with Pierne, Faure, Cras, Villa-Lobos, also looking into Argentinian composers other than Piazzolla (suggestions?). I last listened to Vivaldi's The Four Seasons about 5 years ago, will re-visit maybe next year! A"works I will always listen to" is in order!
One of the standard repertoire’s that I don’t listen to much is Beethoven’s 5th. When I do listen to it, it’s with the 4th from the Paul Kletzki cycle. I’m always amazed at the opening of the 4th. When I listen to the 5th, I enjoy it and move on. Recently, I bought the Glazunov cycle with José Serebrier. Definitely worth listening. I would like to see how to program Glazunov’s symphonies in concert. When it comes to music whether classical or pop, “Variety is the spice of life.” Thank you Mr. Hurwitz for giving us a chance to expand our listening experience. I will keep on listening. Paul D.
9 місяців тому
Discovering a new wonderful piece of music is one of the great joys in life, and it has gotten so easy using the streaming services. When I find something I like the next piece by the same composer, the next recording of something else by the performers is just a few clicks away, and couplings of works provide further inspiration, even before I get turned on to something new by a review. So while I am very much a Mahler cultist (way too many recordings in my collection), I cannot understand people limiting their listening to just a few pieces or composers.
I'm still a listener newbie but I find it helpful to rotate periods and forms. So, for example, I'll chase a symphony with a piece of solo piano and return to the classical trinity after sampling a late romantic composer. Another trick is to alternate between works which have become familiar to one I've never heard or had difficulty with at first (but still feel is worth getting to know).
Not getting sick of listening to the classical music canon at home is easy - there's an extremely wide repertoire available in recorded form. When looking to attend concerts it's different. Went to Vienna to hear Schmidt's 2nd symphony last summer and it was well worth it, but it's something I can only afford maybe twice a year, and hearing non-standard repertoire is possible all the time but it might require going to some decent (perhaps) amateur orchestra's concert in a medium sized city thousands of km away from home. Then it's easier to just attend the Concertgebouw orchestra playing Mahler or Bruckner and spend 50 euros a ticket and travel 2 hours by train.
This is a good talk. I've found myself expanding my listening in an unexpected way: old vinyl and shellac. When my teen developed a fascination with the ancient technology on display at the thrift stores (Typewriters! Calculators!), and I started idly thumbing through the dollar-bin record albums nearby, I realized how narrow and idiosyncratic my tastes had become -- as you pointed out -- whatever happened to Franck's symphony? Why was Scheherezade so popular in the Fifties? More to the point: why did I not have a single recording of it, when I remember my Mom had it as part of a drug-store great masterpieces set that no one but me ever listened to? Well, I do have one now. It's scratchy and inconvenient, but I'm having a blast, and loving it again. Not just classical music -- old pop music that was "beneath me" had a lot of pleasing stuff too. My eyes are opened to how technology shapes fashion and our tastes.
Whenever critics speak of a boring performance, and they often do, I have to wonder if they really speak of the performance at hand of unconsciously of themselves after hearing too many of the same. This is where descriptive language makes all the difference. Describing the performance is helpful, saying how one felt listening to it is not.
Wise words indeed. To an extent we can all hey sucked in to what is, let's face it, some very sophisticated marketing from the record companies. They try to make you feel that you are seriously missing out if you don't have this latest version of Mahler 5/Goldberg Variations/Beethoven 5 etc... I'm with DH here - put things down, listen to something else, there is so much amazing stuff out there.
Thank you for the topic, Dave. It's interesting to know what music do you listening to besides ‘academical’ stuff? I remember your brief compliments to Throbbing Gristle. It would be wonderful to know what else do you cherrish with examples. Thanks!
I adopt some strategies, for example all Brahms (which I love) is embargoed from the New Year until Autumn every year. Always makes it a treat when that time of year comes around ...
Yes, you can get sick of the classics. Overexposure to Beethoven symphonies and concertos at a young age has left me with no desire to hear them again! - But occasionally a performer will make you sit up and think again about them - a case in point was when I was going to hear Beethoven's 3rd piano concerto. Oh God, i thought, but the pianist came on, the tutti started and he was playing along with it! Odd, i thought, maybe he's warming up, and why not? But then when he came to the solo parts he was adding little bits here and there and there were things he was doing during orchestral tuttis that made me think I'd never heard the work before. The pianist? Robert Levin. And that was the best Beethoven 3 PC I've ever heard. But frankly, the repertoire is now so large that I'd rather listen to something I've never heard before - and thanks to your good self I can now hear Alwyn or Arnold rather than Beethoven or Mahler. The pool of great music is large: dive in!
I found myself like that as well, even to the point that I couldn't really put own other contemporary works of the 'masters' from the 18th and 19th centuries up to Debussy. After 20-something years of church choirs, there was little in classical or romantic harmony/progressions that could, well, surprise me. Thanks to Bernstein's Harvard Lectures and Rattle's Leaving Home, I've come to embrace 20th and 21st century "classical" music in many of its forms. Aside from catching Fantasia every so often, I've generally only gone back to the old stuff to teach about it to my kid. (I'm also very fortunate that her orchestra for the county very much is interested in getting the kids playing contemporary as well as classic works.
This is my problem with concert programming. Every pianist wants to perform the Tchaikovsky concerto. Every violinist wants to play the Sibelius. I heard Joshua Bell play the Mendelssohn recently (gorgeous!) and asked him if Nicholas Maw's concerto was still played? No. That's a shame: a work can only grow by having fresh eyes on it. I remember when I moved on from Debussy and Ravel to Roussel. I was won over instantly. Unfortunately I've long since internalized the Roussel symphonies and a bunch of smaller works, and have to limit my exposure to them - but man, when you come back...!
I hate to just say “I agree” without adding my own thoughts, but my thoughts about why the classical world seems hopelessly devoted to the standard repertoire aren’t fully formed. I know business has to do with it - you’re going to sell more CD’s and tickets for Beethoven and company than for most equally deserving composers - but I think there’s also a lot of close minded people (the folks who diss Philip Glass on your channel spring to mind immediately). I could go on but it would be rambling. Thanks for this.
Dave. Personally, I have a problem. I'm a music addict. I can't live an hour without classics. I listen to it everywhere - at home, at work, in the car, on the street. I'm obsessed with classics. For me, there is no other music except classical. And I'll say this - Classical music can't get bored, but it can get bored for a while. But not music, but a certain composer or a certain work. By the way, there is ONE composer who never gets bored and never gets bored - This is Tchaikovsky. His music is my life, my world and a part of my soul. And when the time comes to die, I will regret one thing - That there is no Tchaikovsky music in paradise and I will not hear it anymore.
Tchaikovsky is a soaring genius. People complain about his over-sentimentality, but that's how he expressed himself. If you "germanify" his music, it also sounds good..
I've been going through the DG Fricsay box disc by disc. I came to Tchaikovsky just this past week. I thought to myself do I really want to hear these three symphonies again (and I had just heard the 5th in a historic NBC Symphony broadcast). But I put the 4th on and then the other two. Wow! They were such great performances I felt refreshed. Dave was right about them. It was like getting brand new tires after driving with worn down treads. Truly great music making can refresh things wonderfully.
It's a matter of taste in the end. Tchaikovsky doesn't speak to me, though of course I admire him. It wasn't till I heard Pletnev's DG recordings of the symphonies (very non-Romantic) that I enjoyed them, and now when I occasionally go back to Tchaikovsky - or listen to stuff like the Souvenir de Florence - it's a real thrill. I always prefer hearing his first three symphonies over the last three. Maybe that says something about me? My favorite Sibelius is No. 3 and my favorite Beethoven is No. 4.
There never was a "proposition that people should be listening" to anything. The "repertoire" is the result of the success of works in the concert hall and if that is repetitive, it is not something someone decided somewhere, it's just what the ticket buying crowd validates.
What follows may seem out of place here, but I love progressive rock and jazz as well as classical music and I personally believe there is a timelessness about those forms of music as well but, again, they should be listened to in moderation.
This generated a lot of thoughts, but I'll limit it to two. First, I wish those who program for orchestras would understand that regular subscribers can get sick of "basic" repertoire. During one terrible period, the Pittsburgh Symphony programmed the Italian Symphony for three years straight, and always in my series. I gave away the tickets the third year. I sympathize with the desire to please the audience and not scare away potential attendees--but ticket sales didn't change when the PSO started offering a more varied repertoire, including new works. Second, regarding internalized music, I have the same experience with "refreshing" a favorite work. I listened to Mahler's Sixth regularly in college, but I stopped listening to it for over a decade. One of your talks prompted me to listen to it last year, in sit down and don't do anything else mode. It was so beautiful, and the music was still fully internalized. As I've mentioned before, I've been trying to return to "internalizing" unfamiliar pieces. I don't listen to a performance every week, as I did when getting a new record was an event (although maybe I should), but I've stopped chasing new releases in favor of repeated listening to a release that strikes my fancy.
I'm working my way through the 21-CD boxed set "Decca Conductors' Gallery" and I'm finding that in general I like the music in it I'm not familiar with (like Vaughan Williams' "London Symphony" and Frederick Delius's "Sea Drift") better than the music I know well (like Beethoven's "Eroica" and Tchaikovsky's "Pathetique" symphonies). Alas, the "Sea Drift" was recorded in 1929 and, while I'm generally more tolerant of "historical" sound than you are, the surface noise is really fearsome and occasionally I can understand a word or two of the text and realize the baritone and chorus are singing in English. On other occasions I've discovered recordings of standard repertoire that take such an unusual approach to it they make it sound fresh, like the recent Pristine reissues of Carl Schuricht's complete Beethoven symphony cycle with the Paris Conservatory Orchestra in the 1950's, which bring a welcome lightness and flow to this over-familiar music.
A classic, in a wider sense,including any field of the humanities, is the only mean that a human being can rely on to try to understand who we are, where we go and where we come from. Remember the Gauguin’s painting?
What about listening to the standards in alternate formats? For a while, Dave peppered his talks with reviews of some orchestral pieces in piano transcription guise (without looking back, I think I recall videos on the Liszt Beethoven transcriptions, Dvorak 5th, Brahms symphonies, and Tchaikovsky Nutcracker, for example). The argument is that you get a totally different ( and refreshing) perspective on these old war horses.
In the late 80s, I was working as an air sampling tech at an asbestos removal job at an upscale department store. Work went from 10 pm to 5 am. On loop was Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez and his Fantasia para una Gentilhombre. Over ... and over .... and over. I was familiar with both pieces (had them on CD) and liked them very much. The recordings weren't muzak - they were legit orchestral performances and decent recordings. Nothing wrong with the store's sound system. It just went on and on and on, 7 hours every night. Yes, I got damn sick of them!
Your experience and advice is exactly what Ive experienced. Listening to the classics can be like intelligent, smart farming. Fields must remain unsewn and fallow for awhile to restore their fertility. I recall your video on a Bruckner Society topic which recommended listening to different versions of Symphony X on the same evening. Uh, no thanks. I would think a danger for critics would be welcoming a bad, eccentric performance simply because that critic is jaded and the bizarre interpretation is at least different. Right now if somebody is doing Puccini's La Boheme, I'd much rather hear Leoncavallo's instead, no matter what hotshot much touted leads are doing the Puccini. I will listen to just competent artists doing Leoncavallo. Today I heard Manon Lescaut and enjoyed it immensely, not just because I could hear Bjoerling but because I hadn't heard the dang thing in nearly two years.
I am a CD guy. I am not up to speed with streaming, etc. So budgetary considerations are a factor. Having multiple versions of a single work is not affordable. Having said that, I have always sought to flll my collection with composers I was not as familiar with in addition to the chessnuts. I have a fair sized collection now, and am happy with how broad is the coverage, even if it is only an inch deep.
Do you have any recommendations for East Asian, Indian or Middle Eastern composers who write or wrote in the classical style? (Meaning generally, symphonies, concertos etc)
I like the music of Takashi Yoshimatsu (born in 1953) a lot. There are several disks on Chandos. Also Naxos released several volumes in their “Japanese Classics” series. Very nice: Yasushi Akutagawa (1925-1989), his “Ellora Symphony” and the “Trinita Sinfonica”.
The composer Lord Berners (one of my joyful little discoveries listening outside of the canon) had inscribed on his tombstone: 'Here lies Lord Berners One of the learners His great love of learning May earn him a burning But praise to the Lord He seldom was bored.' That's my philosophy - open your ears, listen and learn. I seldom get bored😊
Very nice video! I have always been interested in the stuff outside the "canon" and felt a lot of it is overlooked for no valid reason. I get a lot of enjoyment out of the music by composers such as Weckmann, A. Scarlatti, Bruhns, Clérambault, Fasch, Hasse, Dittersdorf, Weinberg and many many more...
@@philscott6085 Weinberg is perhaps the most important discovery of the last 10 years for me. His music is like Shostakovich, but all the issues I have with Shostakovich fixed for my personal taste.
If I go through my life without ever hearing Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony or violin concerto again, I would be perfectly happy. I've heard both of them more than enough times for a lifetime, and neither has ever been anywhere near my favorite piece in its respective genre -- I end up hearing them (and playing the 5th Symphony) repeatedly even though I honestly hate both pieces by now. For some reason I tend to get tired of Tchaikovsky easily. I've usually liked Tchaikovsky pieces the first time I heard them, but with the notable exception of Souvenir de Florence (which has always sounded fresh to my ears), they start to get irritating after two or three hearings. This seems to happen uniquely with him even though I love other composers with similar styles. With other composers, there have definitely been times I've needed a break -- even Brahms and Schumann, who are usually my two favorite composers. And I always love discovering new composers; my favorites include a lot of composers that my musician friends haven't even heard of (except through me).
Anyone who is losing interest in great music should get their hearing tested. My life changed when I got hearing aids. I didn’t realize how much the degradation in my hearing was affecting my love of music itself.
I have been tempted to take down the Argo recording of Bo Girl again, the one led by Bonynge, but have so far resisted. But it's been years, so you never know. 😃
I am nonplussed by people who passionately and defiantly argue that the the classical music canon was aspic set in 1950, 1970, or some other year. Why the passion? Why the defiance?
Jokingly, I would say because setting things in aspic was all the rage in the 1950s-1970s . But at the same time, it then ages as well as a Watergate salad (especially considering that the Early Music movement, the Baroque Opera revival, and the Minimal music movement were only beginning in the 1970s!)
Great stuff, Dave. As a former professional brass player, I was burned out on all the "classics" in the repertoire that were largely brass-focused. After a long hiatus and a long career in something unrelated to classical music, I found your channel. The exposure to new ways of thinking about music, music listening, and the philosophy behind that listening inspired me to embrace so many different forms: string quartets, trios, piano sonatas (beyond Beethoven ;-)), and on and on. "Keep it fresh" and "keep on listening" is spot on, Brother Dave! Thanks again for a great posting!
What instrument did you play? What ensemble were you in?
There may be those out there who never get sick of the classics, that is, as you say, the core repertoire. In general, I can have long spans when I'm "sick" of classical music in general but I know it will always be a temporary illness and I will come back in full force with the desire for it. Last night I went from Tchaikovsky to Stevie Ray Vaughan style electric blues, to 1970s funk jazz, to Brazilian jazz to Joni Mitchell and back again. I never have any trouble listening to anything of quality.
Well, if a piece is repeated on each and every official occasion... like it is the case with the Dvořák's 'New World' Symphony here, in Czechia... you may get tired of these repeated performances... and tend to avoid the concerts where this piece is played. Then you happen to hear a really good performance and realize how wonderful the piece is, again! (Big thanks go to Paavo Järvi and the Tonhalle-Orchester Zürich for their concert in Prague on 7th September.) So, you can get sick but you can be cured of your sickness, as well....
(An explanation: I wrote the above before listening to this episode to the end... So, my own experience just confirms what Dave had to say...)
I played the drums in heavy metal bands throughout the 1980s in LA... and one day - completely out of the blue! - one of my lead guitar players asked me, "You listen to Classical music, don't you?" "YES," I replied with enthusiastic warmth, "and I absolutely love it!" "Do you have a good recording of Beethoven's 5th Symphony I can borrow," my friend asked, somewhat sheepishly. "I have around twenty... but I think I know the one that you'll really appreciate." I proceeded to loan him Karajan's 1984 "copper-metallic-covered" recording - glassy, 1980s DDD sound, and all! - coupled with the 6th Symphony. The upstart to all this is that when he had listened to (and thoroughly enjoyed!) the CD, he told me, "Beethoven's fifth is pretty cool... but I really liked the gentleness of the 6th symphony even more..." and that coming from a diehard metal guitarist who cut his heavy metal "teeth" on Metallica, Iron Maiden & the Motörhead! Wherever you go - or wherever life takes you - Mozart & Beethoven & Brahms will find you out... and win you over! Thanks for your very informative and sympathetic musical talks, Dave; I have, like my metallic friend of old, enjoyed them immensely! Mike D.
Thanks for this, Dave! I agree, “keeping it fresh” is essential. My life so far looked like this: up to the age of 25 only Rock/Pop/Punk and everything connected to it. From 25 to 45 mostly Classical (80%). And then, I’m 60 now, a lot of Jazz. Since a few years now probably 1/3 of each (Classical, Jazz, Rock). So there is a lot of contrast and it’s easy to keep things fresh. The only “problem” is, that there is too much good music to listen to in one lifetime. When I started with Classical, I had no idea whatsoever about it. I pretty much started randomly, this means I didn’t start with the standard repertoire. This might be odd knowing Arnold Bax before all the Brahms symphonies or checking out John Field before Chopin, but it seemed to work for me. And I’m loving it! There are a few genres I don’t like (Lieder, most Operas), but this may come later. If not, so be it.
I started similarly to you, if somewhat earlier! I first discovered classical music through the radio when I was in 8th grade, having just moved back to the US after 9 years in Dubai. Back in the 80s and 90s, classical music was virtually nonexistent in Dubai, so I'd never had a chance to hear it. And while American pop culture got to Dubai, it usually arrived there 5-10 years late, so when I moved back to the US in middle school I experienced a sort of chronological culture shock where I hadn't heard of any of the bands my classmates were listening to. And that's when I discovered classical music and realized it wasn't going to go out of style.
But that meant I first got what the radio gave me, so the first symphony I heard in full was Howard Hanson's 1st, and it's always been one of my favorites. And apart from the radio, much of my introduction to classical music was through browsing record stores for interesting-looking CDs and downloading stuff from Napster, so my early favorites included Boccherini, Bridge, Szymanowski, Gliere, and Kabalevsky, and I was familiar with all of them before Brahms even really registered in my awareness.
Thank you for your wisdom, so well expressed. Your words reflect what I am still learning in my 70 or so years of listening. There's so much great music out there to be discovered.
You’re absolutely right on everything, you’ll get tired of anything if you have too much of it. I go through phases when I listen to music. There’s extended periods of time where I don’t feel like listening to classical music, so I listen to other non-classical things. Then eventually the urge for classical music comes back, and that’s what I listen to for a while. But then there’s also phases within the classical umbrella. Sometimes I get fixated on a certain composer or genre or style until I feel satisfied enough to move on to something else, and all of this allows the music to stay fresh. And that’s not even mentioning the sheer amount of classical music I’ve yet to discover! I’m a piano guy, so keyboard repertoire is what got me into classical and it’s what I know the most, and things like symphonic repertoire are actually very foreign to me and don’t click as well (but I’m really working on it now)! So I don’t worry, all these “classics” will always be fresh to me for the rest of my life.
Dave, All of us have benefited so much from your guidance and your obvious love of music. This video expresses far better than I ever could the feeling that I have when coming back to a piece that I haven't listened to in a long time. It's like the warm feeling of a reunion with an old friend. Please keep guiding us. Thank you!
In all honesty, having a large CD collection and an interest in classical music from the Renaissance to today, I find I get to listen to a classic piece about once a year. So I don't get sick of the classics. For example, I think I heard the 'Symphonie Fantastique' sometime in February, but I heard a bassoon concerto by Kaipainen yesterday.
My memory is really bad. Even scores I've spent months studying in micro detail, I can't say I've internalized any of them. I remember themes and general features but not how details of transitions and arguments occur.
On the other hand, I love discovering wonderful music I've never heard before. That's one reason why I'm so addicted to your talks. You keep suggesting stuff I haven't heard. I don't expect to like everything, but I'm grateful for the suggestions. It's one of many reasons why I'm addicted to your talks.
At around sixty plus i listen to jazz, folk, classical and rock and thus I keep everything fresh.
This topic really hit home for me. I absolutely adore just about anything by Tchaikovsky and listen to him all the time. But I force myself to put it aside for as long as I can not because I tire of it, -- can't see that happening -- but just to be able to come back to it and be dazzled by it all over again. For it to be "fresh" again like you said. With all the music I listen to on the radio and all the TV I watch it's almost impossible to NOT hear Tchaikovsky though. It's everywhere. (Smile) BTW, I love the horse neighing when you mention Bruckner. I'm not familiar with his work but it's funny all the same.
There is, of course, a vast array of music of all genres to enjoy. I have always mixed things up between classical, jazz, and what is now called classic rock. There are many pieces I enjoy regularly, others only occasionally, and a few I don't care to revisit. As to this topic in particular, the standard canon is fine, but represents only the tiny tip of the classical music iceberg. Explore and discover the great works that lie in obscurity.
Dave another aspect to listening appreciation to classical music is hearing poor performances to appreciation the real treasures
I think this is very true. That's why I'm never afraid to try out super low budget labels like LaserLight or Pilz. Sometimes they are better than one might expect but it definitely allows for a much greater appreciation of the "masters" like Szell and Ormandy etc etc.
While there are a handful of works that I continue to listen to after I have internalized them, I fully agree that giving much of it a breather is a good idea. After a year or two away, they are fresh again.
Many composers reputations are based on such a small number of works. One of most of our strategies over the years is to find their lesser known works.
After 50 years of listening, I’ve felt classical music get stale a few times. When it does, I always go back to Haydn. No matter how much Haydn I’ve heard, there is always more (!), and it is going to be great. For me it’s Haydn; we each have our favorites. Finding a piece you can discover for the first time by a favorite composer is easier now, and incredibly fun.
Dave, I have a short statement: "You are a treasure" and "Thank you".
Hear, hear!
I love this - so much understanding here & such an important issue!
I had a high school friend, who played cello in Maggio Musicale Fiorentina for her entire long career, who told me she never wanted to hear (let alone play) New World Symphony or anything by Tchaikovsky again.
I think part of the problem is that orchestras, so expensive to run, are dependent on private funding that comes mostly from older wealthy people (or unimaginative govt agencies), so the orchestras play what those people want to hear.
Very interesting point about internalizing the music. You being an actual orchestral musician I'd think you have an internal memory that's much more detailed than someone like me but I think that's mostly true for me too. In college I made my way through much of the standard repertoire, which was fantastic, listened to Mahler 1, 2 & 3 obsessively (to the point of memorization), then went kind of crazy buying marked-down obscure & contemporary music LPs at Sam Goody's. I couldn't get enough of things that are different from the standard rep. Some of that has held up, some not. I make a conscious effort to not listen too much to the pieces (so many!) that I love the most so that they'll stay fresh. Revisiting pieces you haven't listened to for decades can be a revelation.
Sometimes I try to answer the question "What would you listen to if you had only one more piece to hear in your life?" (I'd love to hear a video by you on that.) I usually settle on the Schubert Cmaj quintet.
I keep it fresh easily. I listen to (and play) many genres: classical, jazz, rock, metal, R&B, soul, funk, blues, and on and on. Going where the spirit moves me, by the time I get around to wanting to hear an old classical warhorse again, it's probably been a few years or even decades since I last heard it, so it necessarily sounds at least somewhat fresh. It might have been months or years since I heard any classical music at all, for that matter. And as the bulk of my classical exploring and listening consists of off-the-beaten path pieces, that doesn't leave a lot of time to hear the New World Symphony or LvB's 5th yet again, anyway. (I find that the 5th needs about 5-10 years between listens to sound remotely fresh :) )
It's not really an issue in my case. I listen to music seriously-parked in front of the stereo-only a few hours a week. And my interests are divided equally between classical and jazz. It might be Monk on Monday, and Wagner on Vednesday. So for me the classical standards repeat themselves only after several years. There's no way I get tired of any particular piece. Also, I tend not to keep umpteen versions of this piece or that. Sometimes only two or three; often only one.
I also have no need to hear every recording of a particular work. Give me a handful of terrific interpretations and I’m good.
A bigger issue I run into, especially playing pieces for high school music survey classes, is the lack of ability to focus for more than a minute or two. I can barely play 1 movement from a symphony without them losing interest 3 minutes in. I can only play videos of performances with visually captivating concerts..not even possible to just play the music without a video for them anymore..
Isn't that sad??? The attention span of today's youth is so fleeting...but the need of a visual component to appreciate instrumental music should be unnecessary, but, having a 19 yr old daughter and a 17 yr old son, I can personally second your assessment of this dilemma...just close your eyes and make your own visuals!!!
But isn’t that how music has always been intended to be experienced? Music is more than the sounds; if that’s all that counted, just let the synthesized instruments do their thing. There’s a reason people still like to go to theaters to see movies: it’s a social experience. The more senses we involve in an experience, the better we remember and understand it. It’s especially important, I think, for new listeners to be able to associate what they’re hearing with the instruments that are producing it. Let them watch music being created. Let them see the joy on the faces of the musicians and the interplay among them. Make it real, not abstract.
@PolymathCrowsbane Good point...although I can't say that I have ever seen much joy on the faces of orchestral musicians when playing live, but I agree that kids should see what instruments make what sounds and the way the composer has created interplay between them for sure
I love the generosity in your message Dave. And would add, extending the idea of generosity, that many great works of music are also bottomlessly generous but that to appreciate this you have to allow for the generosity when you come to it as a listener. The more you open yourself and enter into a kind of vulnerability, the more extraordinary and mind-blowing the music can become.
I totally 💯 get what you mean and this video is magnificent.💎
I have found that I have seasonal listening habits, which helps keep it fresh for me.
In spring, it is Renaissance madrigals and lighter Classical Era with a floral sound. Come my birthday at the end of spring = a Baroque bombastic extravaganza. Summer = all things Americana from Memorial Day to July 4th (Copland, Grofe, Still, Williams, etc.), and during the swelter of the summer, setting most historic classical music aside for contemporary film scores, rock, 80's pop, etc.
When the heat breaks, it is time to turn back to Early Baroque (esp. 17th c.), with a month or so of Medieval and Ren leading up to our annual trip to the Renaissance Faire in October. Baroque and Americana fills the rest of fall. Christmastide has its own repetoire (with baroque brass and sacred music filling in supplementary duty). Then, with the dark moodiness of winter: the Romantic Era. Switch to Irish folk/Celtic at St. Patrick's Day, and then the cycle repeats.
Solo piano, classical era, and contemporary/minimal music serve duty mostly year-round. And anything else I am simply in the mood for that day.
I try to pace my listening of my favorite pieces-maybe once every 5 or 6 months-so I don't grow tired of them. And in between I sample unfamiliar works because the range beyond the standard repertoire in "Classical Music " is vast.
I've wondered long at what was central to the enjoyment to be gained by listening to classical music, well, I'm now sure that it's always been wonderment. The possibility of the next great and pleasant surprise. Whatever that may mean for me or you, that's always for the future. Thank you, Dave, for the many, many nice surprises this year!
David, I know what you mean about knowing the music and having it internalized. I remember playing my Sibelius and Dvorak LPs, for examples, over and over when I’d discovered them. I never got tired or sick of them. But that phase ran its course and I enjoyed them all over again later on, occasionally playing them or hearing them on the radio. I branched out, enjoying other music that I wasn’t acquainted with.
I'm in the phase of listening to 100 diff Bruckner 4! You're always so accurate with your comments. What you mention here happened to me with the Beatles. Had to take a break for a couple of years. Then came back and now I enjoy their music more than ever
I’m constantly adding the new, and revisiting the old.
Lovely conversation. I love the idea that when you really internalize a work it becomes a part of you. And then it's just a delight to revisit occasionally, or to re-experience as though new by showing it to somebody who's never heard it before.
A few quick thoughts: 1) In my own experience, being fascinated with music comes in certain phases. I had my Bartok, Brahms, Bruckner, Busoni, Martinu, Frank Zappa, etc. phases. This is probably something we have to accept. 2) There are certain things more or less closely related to classical music that one can get sick of. One should be well aware of the nature of one's classics-related sickness. In additional to the vast but limited core repertoire, there is also the artist cult, the at times terrible concert programming, the very necessary but also annoying business side of things (i.e., the record labels), the cult-like worshipping of composers etc., the tendency to turn concerts into quasi-religious happenings. Etc. 3) As indicated in the video, it's a good idea to take a step back at times. There are also infinite ways to accepting composer x as ones personal saviour. Attending concerts can be fun, even if the local team is not world class. Maybe there is a local conservatory which runs it's own concert series (probably involving lots of chamber music). Also worth considering: Not placing the classics on a pedestal and treat them like something holy that only the initiated (i.e. world-class artists) are allowed to touch. But instead get a score or piano reduction (maybe from second hand) and /or grab an instrument and toy around with it. And, by all means, sing Bizet's Carmen while showering.
It seems to me that there lots of composers who have been overlooked not because their music wasn't good, but because they didn't really innovate or challenge any status quo. Like George Onslow, whose music I have always simply enjoyed as technically excellent and beautifully 'put together' (the little I have heard, anyway).
I like to think that I am continually refreshing my "repertoire" at the age of 70. Glazunov my latest. There are many, many composers out there whose names most people have never heard of, but deserve at least a hearing if only to be able to better judge the masters.
Dave, your thoughts on this brought two things to mind from my experience. Firstly, back in the late 1980s when I was still buying vinyl, I found a record shop which had got hold of a load of Supraphon recordings at bargain prices - in that way I not only discovered Suk, Novak, Martinu and other Czech composers, but kind of adopted a policy of "if I've never heard of the composer (and the album looks interesting to me) I'll buy it." Same with all those lesser known British composers - Arnold, Brian, Lloyd etc. That widened my musical horizons immensely, and I'm still curious today! Secondly, and on the other hand, I need to rein in a tendency to try the "latest and greatest" recordings of some of my favourite "repertoire" works when, you know, really I should stick to my favourite ones! On a related note, I did kind of sicken myself of Mussorgsky's "Pictures..." a few years ago when I decided to try to track down as many different orchestrations as I could find. Not that it wasn't interesting, but as a result I've only just begun to enjoy the piece again. So yeah, as you said - take a break!
A few years ago I had to give five lectures on the St. Matthew Passion in one week. (In the Netherlands there is complete hysteria around the piece. The rest of Bach's oeuvre is ignored.) At the end I was sick and depressed, really. Last week I heard a good performance and it sounded fresh again. But I remain cautious with the piece.
Yes, "Classical Music" has its share of "You Light Up My Life" or "Stairway to Heaven" examples of overplayed material that you plain get sick of hearing anymore. I myself certainly appreciate your delving into exposing your channel pals to a vast array of other composers` repertoire to tickle our tympanums.
The one thing I love about internalising a piece of music I love is that not only do I not have to listen to it too often, but also that the music I have in my head is not any one performance, but all sorts of how the music has the potential to be performed. And I think it's really helpful, especially when, at least for me, it's much easier to understand the "geniusness" of the piece.
I fully share your analysis Dave, especially when you mention the fissations for some composers outside the core repertoire. I had it for Bruckner, Rossini, Wagner, Malcolm Arnold, simply because I fell in love with them. Now I keep exploring other composers, but those names will stay always in my hearth, as a part of me, as you rightly said.
After many years of classical music listening I have employed several strategies to keep the listening experience fresh and enjoyable :
Obtain and listen to compositions that are off the beaten path'.
In the course of a typical listening session, include "standard" works with lesser known works. For example, start off with the Schreker Chamber Symphony and follow with Beethoven's 4th symphony.
Intersperse works of different genres. Listen to an orchestral work, then a chamber work or solo instrumental work.
As you perceptively stated, don't get obsessed with one particular recording to the point that it is the sole focus of your listening. When I first acquired the Wand/NDR/Luhbeck Bruckner 8 I could not get enough of it , playing it every day. I set it aside for a long while and returned to it a few weeks ago with renewed appreciation.
Thanks for an enjoyable and relevant chat.
For me, I chase myself around different areas of repertoire. Some months I’m all about romantic orchestral music, sometimes it’s opera, and sometimes I’m deep-digging into Haydn or Handel or Offenbach. By the time you come back around, it’s time to listen anew.
I like to discover rarely played works by major composers. For example, symphonies 3 through 6 of Dvorak, wonderful masterpieces, IMO. Also, the two piano romances by Brahms, both of them are breathtakingly beautiful. And then there are the rarely performed Haydn symphonies my favorites being 6, 39, 44, 81, etc. I sometimes wonder what the odds would be for one composer to write 104 symphonies, a handful of concertos, operas, choral works, etc. The odds would probably be something like 1 out of a million, or higher.
I enjoy the "immortal" classics as you call them, but lately with more exposure I've come to enjoy lesser-known composers and lesser-known works from the big names. One of the great pleasures I've enjoyed over the last few weeks has been discovering lots of Renaissance and baroque-era organ music besides that of J.S. Bach - finding composers like Pachelbel who have a lot more to them than their "big hit" (his chamber music and keyboard music is incredible), composers like Scheidt or Merulo who have leagues of amazing organ compositions and Masses.
The "immortals" always have their place. It's no different than with other music. There's more to Miles Davis than Kind of Blue or In a Silent Way. There's more to the Beach Boys than Pet Sounds. There's more to Johnny Cash than At Folsom Prison. Exploring any artist's repertoire beyond the "big hits" is extremely rewarding.
Keeping it fresh with Pierne, Faure, Cras, Villa-Lobos, also looking into Argentinian composers other than Piazzolla (suggestions?). I last listened to Vivaldi's The Four Seasons about 5 years ago, will re-visit maybe next year! A"works I will always listen to" is in order!
Try Ginastera!
One of the standard repertoire’s that I don’t listen to much is Beethoven’s 5th. When I do listen to it, it’s with the 4th from the Paul Kletzki cycle. I’m always amazed at the opening of the 4th. When I listen to the 5th, I enjoy it and move on.
Recently, I bought the Glazunov cycle with José Serebrier. Definitely worth listening. I would like to see how to program Glazunov’s symphonies in concert. When it comes to music whether classical or pop, “Variety is the spice of life.”
Thank you Mr. Hurwitz for giving us a chance to expand our listening experience. I will keep on listening.
Paul D.
Discovering a new wonderful piece of music is one of the great joys in life, and it has gotten so easy using the streaming services. When I find something I like the next piece by the same composer, the next recording of something else by the performers is just a few clicks away, and couplings of works provide further inspiration, even before I get turned on to something new by a review. So while I am very much a Mahler cultist (way too many recordings in my collection), I cannot understand people limiting their listening to just a few pieces or composers.
I'm still a listener newbie but I find it helpful to rotate periods and forms. So, for example, I'll chase a symphony with a piece of solo piano and return to the classical trinity after sampling a late romantic composer. Another trick is to alternate between works which have become familiar to one I've never heard or had difficulty with at first (but still feel is worth getting to know).
It's like a good meal. You can't eat roast beef and drink red wine every time!
Not getting sick of listening to the classical music canon at home is easy - there's an extremely wide repertoire available in recorded form. When looking to attend concerts it's different. Went to Vienna to hear Schmidt's 2nd symphony last summer and it was well worth it, but it's something I can only afford maybe twice a year, and hearing non-standard repertoire is possible all the time but it might require going to some decent (perhaps) amateur orchestra's concert in a medium sized city thousands of km away from home. Then it's easier to just attend the Concertgebouw orchestra playing Mahler or Bruckner and spend 50 euros a ticket and travel 2 hours by train.
Performing the music brings it to a new level. Nothing quite like performing a Mahler symphony.
This is a good talk.
I've found myself expanding my listening in an unexpected way: old vinyl and shellac. When my teen developed a fascination with the ancient technology on display at the thrift stores (Typewriters! Calculators!), and I started idly thumbing through the dollar-bin record albums nearby, I realized how narrow and idiosyncratic my tastes had become -- as you pointed out -- whatever happened to Franck's symphony? Why was Scheherezade so popular in the Fifties? More to the point: why did I not have a single recording of it, when I remember my Mom had it as part of a drug-store great masterpieces set that no one but me ever listened to? Well, I do have one now. It's scratchy and inconvenient, but I'm having a blast, and loving it again. Not just classical music -- old pop music that was "beneath me" had a lot of pleasing stuff too.
My eyes are opened to how technology shapes fashion and our tastes.
Whenever critics speak of a boring performance, and they often do, I have to wonder if they really speak of the performance at hand of unconsciously of themselves after hearing too many of the same. This is where descriptive language makes all the difference. Describing the performance is helpful, saying how one felt listening to it is not.
Wise words indeed. To an extent we can all hey sucked in to what is, let's face it, some very sophisticated marketing from the record companies. They try to make you feel that you are seriously missing out if you don't have this latest version of Mahler 5/Goldberg Variations/Beethoven 5 etc... I'm with DH here - put things down, listen to something else, there is so much amazing stuff out there.
Thank you for the topic, Dave. It's interesting to know what music do you listening to besides ‘academical’ stuff? I remember your brief compliments to Throbbing Gristle. It would be wonderful to know what else do you cherrish with examples. Thanks!
I adopt some strategies, for example all Brahms (which I love) is embargoed from the New Year until Autumn every year. Always makes it a treat when that time of year comes around ...
Miss the giant Tam Tam ( Gong ) behind you
Yes, you can get sick of the classics. Overexposure to Beethoven symphonies and concertos at a young age has left me with no desire to hear them again! - But occasionally a performer will make you sit up and think again about them - a case in point was when I was going to hear Beethoven's 3rd piano concerto. Oh God, i thought, but the pianist came on, the tutti started and he was playing along with it! Odd, i thought, maybe he's warming up, and why not? But then when he came to the solo parts he was adding little bits here and there and there were things he was doing during orchestral tuttis that made me think I'd never heard the work before. The pianist? Robert Levin. And that was the best Beethoven 3 PC I've ever heard.
But frankly, the repertoire is now so large that I'd rather listen to something I've never heard before - and thanks to your good self I can now hear Alwyn or Arnold rather than Beethoven or Mahler. The pool of great music is large: dive in!
Of course you can! I love the Beethoven symphonies, for example, but, frankly, I could live without listening to them very often anymore.
Do you have any PDQ Bach? I tried to search for him on your channel but nothing came up. I'm curious what you think of him!
I found myself like that as well, even to the point that I couldn't really put own other contemporary works of the 'masters' from the 18th and 19th centuries up to Debussy. After 20-something years of church choirs, there was little in classical or romantic harmony/progressions that could, well, surprise me. Thanks to Bernstein's Harvard Lectures and Rattle's Leaving Home, I've come to embrace 20th and 21st century "classical" music in many of its forms.
Aside from catching Fantasia every so often, I've generally only gone back to the old stuff to teach about it to my kid. (I'm also very fortunate that her orchestra for the county very much is interested in getting the kids playing contemporary as well as classic works.
This is my problem with concert programming. Every pianist wants to perform the Tchaikovsky concerto. Every violinist wants to play the Sibelius. I heard Joshua Bell play the Mendelssohn recently (gorgeous!) and asked him if Nicholas Maw's concerto was still played? No. That's a shame: a work can only grow by having fresh eyes on it.
I remember when I moved on from Debussy and Ravel to Roussel. I was won over instantly. Unfortunately I've long since internalized the Roussel symphonies and a bunch of smaller works, and have to limit my exposure to them - but man, when you come back...!
I hate to just say “I agree” without adding my own thoughts, but my thoughts about why the classical world seems hopelessly devoted to the standard repertoire aren’t fully formed. I know business has to do with it - you’re going to sell more CD’s and tickets for Beethoven and company than for most equally deserving composers - but I think there’s also a lot of close minded people (the folks who diss Philip Glass on your channel spring to mind immediately). I could go on but it would be rambling. Thanks for this.
Dave. Personally, I have a problem. I'm a music addict. I can't live an hour without classics. I listen to it everywhere - at home, at work, in the car, on the street. I'm obsessed with classics. For me, there is no other music except classical. And I'll say this - Classical music can't get bored, but it can get bored for a while. But not music, but a certain composer or a certain work. By the way, there is ONE composer who never gets bored and never gets bored - This is Tchaikovsky. His music is my life, my world and a part of my soul. And when the time comes to die, I will regret one thing - That there is no Tchaikovsky music in paradise and I will not hear it anymore.
Tchaikovsky is a soaring genius. People complain about his over-sentimentality, but that's how he expressed himself. If you "germanify" his music, it also sounds good..
@@mr-wx3lv and how to "germanify"? And how will it sound?
I've been going through the DG Fricsay box disc by disc. I came to Tchaikovsky just this past week. I thought to myself do I really want to hear these three symphonies again (and I had just heard the 5th in a historic NBC Symphony broadcast). But I put the 4th on and then the other two. Wow! They were such great performances I felt refreshed. Dave was right about them. It was like getting brand new tires after driving with worn down treads. Truly great music making can refresh things wonderfully.
It's a matter of taste in the end. Tchaikovsky doesn't speak to me, though of course I admire him. It wasn't till I heard Pletnev's DG recordings of the symphonies (very non-Romantic) that I enjoyed them, and now when I occasionally go back to Tchaikovsky - or listen to stuff like the Souvenir de Florence - it's a real thrill. I always prefer hearing his first three symphonies over the last three. Maybe that says something about me? My favorite Sibelius is No. 3 and my favorite Beethoven is No. 4.
There never was a "proposition that people should be listening" to anything. The "repertoire" is the result of the success of works in the concert hall and if that is repetitive, it is not something someone decided somewhere, it's just what the ticket buying crowd validates.
What follows may seem out of place here, but I love progressive rock and jazz as well as classical music and I personally believe there is a timelessness about those forms of music as well but, again, they should be listened to in moderation.
This generated a lot of thoughts, but I'll limit it to two. First, I wish those who program for orchestras would understand that regular subscribers can get sick of "basic" repertoire. During one terrible period, the Pittsburgh Symphony programmed the Italian Symphony for three years straight, and always in my series. I gave away the tickets the third year. I sympathize with the desire to please the audience and not scare away potential attendees--but ticket sales didn't change when the PSO started offering a more varied repertoire, including new works.
Second, regarding internalized music, I have the same experience with "refreshing" a favorite work. I listened to Mahler's Sixth regularly in college, but I stopped listening to it for over a decade. One of your talks prompted me to listen to it last year, in sit down and don't do anything else mode. It was so beautiful, and the music was still fully internalized.
As I've mentioned before, I've been trying to return to "internalizing" unfamiliar pieces. I don't listen to a performance every week, as I did when getting a new record was an event (although maybe I should), but I've stopped chasing new releases in favor of repeated listening to a release that strikes my fancy.
I get sick of major CD companies deleting great recordings:
Ormandy Sibelius SONY
Stravinsky C.Davis PHILIPS
Stravinsky Dochnanyi DECCA
R.Strauss Dochnanyi DECCA
Brahms Levine RCA
Mahler Chailly DECCCA
Mahler Blomstedt DECCCA
Shoastakovich 10 Ancerl DG
Munch/Reiner/Monteux RCA Living Stereo
Muti/Philharmonia Tchaikovsky EMI ....
I'm working my way through the 21-CD boxed set "Decca Conductors' Gallery" and I'm finding that in general I like the music in it I'm not familiar with (like Vaughan Williams' "London Symphony" and Frederick Delius's "Sea Drift") better than the music I know well (like Beethoven's "Eroica" and Tchaikovsky's "Pathetique" symphonies). Alas, the "Sea Drift" was recorded in 1929 and, while I'm generally more tolerant of "historical" sound than you are, the surface noise is really fearsome and occasionally I can understand a word or two of the text and realize the baritone and chorus are singing in English. On other occasions I've discovered recordings of standard repertoire that take such an unusual approach to it they make it sound fresh, like the recent Pristine reissues of Carl Schuricht's complete Beethoven symphony cycle with the Paris Conservatory Orchestra in the 1950's, which bring a welcome lightness and flow to this over-familiar music.
Those recordings don't need Pristine to sound great.
A classic, in a wider sense,including any field of the humanities, is the only mean that a human being can rely on to try to understand who we are, where we go and where we come from. Remember the Gauguin’s painting?
What about listening to the standards in alternate formats? For a while, Dave peppered his talks with reviews of some orchestral pieces in piano transcription guise (without looking back, I think I recall videos on the Liszt Beethoven transcriptions, Dvorak 5th, Brahms symphonies, and Tchaikovsky Nutcracker, for example). The argument is that you get a totally different ( and refreshing) perspective on these old war horses.
In the late 80s, I was working as an air sampling tech at an asbestos removal job at an upscale department store. Work went from 10 pm to 5 am. On loop was Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez and his Fantasia para una Gentilhombre. Over ... and over .... and over. I was familiar with both pieces (had them on CD) and liked them very much. The recordings weren't muzak - they were legit orchestral performances and decent recordings. Nothing wrong with the store's sound system. It just went on and on and on, 7 hours every night. Yes, I got damn sick of them!
Your experience and advice is exactly what Ive experienced. Listening to the classics can be like intelligent, smart farming. Fields must remain unsewn and fallow for awhile to restore their fertility.
I recall your video on a Bruckner Society topic which recommended listening to different versions of Symphony X on the same evening. Uh, no thanks.
I would think a danger for critics would be welcoming a bad, eccentric performance simply because that critic is jaded and the bizarre interpretation is at least different.
Right now if somebody is doing Puccini's La Boheme, I'd much rather hear Leoncavallo's instead, no matter what hotshot much touted leads are doing the Puccini. I will listen to just competent artists doing Leoncavallo. Today I heard Manon Lescaut and enjoyed it immensely, not just because I could hear Bjoerling but because I hadn't heard the dang thing in nearly two years.
I am a CD guy. I am not up to speed with streaming, etc. So budgetary considerations are a factor. Having multiple versions of a single work is not affordable. Having said that, I have always sought to flll my collection with composers I was not as familiar with in addition to the chessnuts. I have a fair sized collection now, and am happy with how broad is the coverage, even if it is only an inch deep.
Do you have any recommendations for East Asian, Indian or Middle Eastern composers who write or wrote in the classical style? (Meaning generally, symphonies, concertos etc)
I like the music of Takashi Yoshimatsu (born in 1953) a lot. There are several disks on Chandos. Also Naxos released several volumes in their “Japanese Classics” series. Very nice: Yasushi Akutagawa (1925-1989), his “Ellora Symphony” and the “Trinita Sinfonica”.
The composer Lord Berners (one of my joyful little discoveries listening outside of the canon) had inscribed on his tombstone:
'Here lies Lord Berners
One of the learners
His great love of learning
May earn him a burning
But praise to the Lord
He seldom was bored.' That's my philosophy - open your ears, listen and learn. I seldom get bored😊
Very nice video! I have always been interested in the stuff outside the "canon" and felt a lot of it is overlooked for no valid reason. I get a lot of enjoyment out of the music by composers such as Weckmann, A. Scarlatti, Bruhns, Clérambault, Fasch, Hasse, Dittersdorf, Weinberg and many many more...
Weinberg is the "find" of the century.
@@philscott6085 Weinberg is perhaps the most important discovery of the last 10 years for me. His music is like Shostakovich, but all the issues I have with Shostakovich fixed for my personal taste.
👍 👍 👍 👍 👍
If I go through my life without ever hearing Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony or violin concerto again, I would be perfectly happy. I've heard both of them more than enough times for a lifetime, and neither has ever been anywhere near my favorite piece in its respective genre -- I end up hearing them (and playing the 5th Symphony) repeatedly even though I honestly hate both pieces by now. For some reason I tend to get tired of Tchaikovsky easily. I've usually liked Tchaikovsky pieces the first time I heard them, but with the notable exception of Souvenir de Florence (which has always sounded fresh to my ears), they start to get irritating after two or three hearings. This seems to happen uniquely with him even though I love other composers with similar styles.
With other composers, there have definitely been times I've needed a break -- even Brahms and Schumann, who are usually my two favorite composers. And I always love discovering new composers; my favorites include a lot of composers that my musician friends haven't even heard of (except through me).
I heard about one player from a very important austrian orchestra that used to call Brahms 4 "the unbearable" after so many times playing it
Anyone wanna join my Järvi cult? That’ll keep you from getting bored.
Anyone who is losing interest in great music should get their hearing tested. My life changed when I got hearing aids. I didn’t realize how much the degradation in my hearing was affecting my love of music itself.
My only rule is that I won't listen to Michael William Balfe again.
"I dreamt I dwelt in a world without MWBalfe"?
I have been tempted to take down the Argo recording of Bo Girl again, the one led by Bonynge, but have so far resisted. But it's been years, so you never know. 😃
Well ... can you get tired of the same meal?
I am nonplussed by people who passionately and defiantly argue that the the classical music canon was aspic set in 1950, 1970, or some other year. Why the passion? Why the defiance?
Jokingly, I would say because setting things in aspic was all the rage in the 1950s-1970s . But at the same time, it then ages as well as a Watergate salad (especially considering that the Early Music movement, the Baroque Opera revival, and the Minimal music movement were only beginning in the 1970s!)
You got a smile and a nod out of me.@@tmorganriley