Robert Stumpf, II, writes:

>I have been wondering what makes some composers, such as Bruch, on a
>lower tier as compared to many of his contemporaries such as Mahler,
>Tchaikovsky and Brahms.  That is, why is it when I listen to Bruch or
>Hovhaness does nothing stick with me, where is the swing?  I am re-reading
>Music, the Brain and Ecstasy and came across this passage.  ...
>
>Lesser composers make quick, perfunctory returns to tonal
>centers or travel so far from them that the listener hardly
>recognizes them when finally brought home."
>
>This seems to me to be at least part of the answer to my question.
>Listening to Bruch is eventually not involving because of the
>predictability due to the relationship with the tonal center.  He fears
>to travel far from it.  Mahler, on the other hand, has no such fear and
>takes us on a more interesting journey.

Yes: You don't like Bruch or Hovhaness as much as you do Mahler
and Brahms, for whatever reason.  It may be the one the author cites.
However, Mozart doesn't modulate all that much.  Neither does Josquin
or Byrd.  On the other hand, Reger, Raff, and Petterson-Berger jump
around tonally like fleas on bricks.

Of course, the assumption behind this is that your taste points somehow
to an aesthetic universal.  What about someone who doesn't like Brahms
for the exact same reason you cite -- that is, his harmonies aren't
interesting enough, too predictable, etc.?

Steve Schwartz