Richard Tsuyuki wrote:
>Perusing some of Steve Schwartz's latest edifying and entertaining reviews
>has prompted me to emerge from lurking to ask a few questions.
It is so nice to hear from lurkers! We need to hear more from you out
there!
>For those of you who regularly seek and enjoy "modern" music (whether
>it be labeled "contemporary", "avant-garde", "atonal", "evil and corrupt",
>etc.):
Well, should we really equate "modern" with "difficult." There is difficult
music of all eras, and easy of all eras. I almost equate "modern" with
"Modernist," currently a passe style. Truly "contemporary" music is
getting easier to listen to in general.
>Is your emotional reaction immediate, upon first listen? Or does it take
>a while to "sink in"?
The music I like best almost always strikes me hard on first listen.
The "first" listen might be a second or third or fourth if there is an
interval of years between each. But by then I'm a different person with
different musical experience, and I'm ready for a truly "first" listen
where I'm ready to be grabbed.
I don't waste time on a second or third listen if I'm not grabbed somehow
at once. There are too many great pieces out there waiting to be found!
Maybe if a piece has or develops quite a reputation over time, I'll try
it again in a few years.
>Does it depend on the mood you're in, time of day, color of the sofa, etc?
It can, about 25% of the time; that's why if I first hear it in the car
and don't like it, I'll listen to it again in a quieter, more relaxed
situation at home.
>Does it change dramatically over long time scales?
Yes. Usually I like it more for the first 5 to 20 hearings; then it
tails off.
>Does it depend on your familiarity with the rest of the composer's (or
>other similar composers') oeuvre?
My reaction can be affected either positively or negatively by style
familiarity, but not significantly enough to sink or swim a piece by
that criterion alone.
>Does it help you (in emotional appreciation, not intellectual) to read
>liner notes/historical perspectives/theoretical analysis/critical reviews?
It usually helps, except when the notes are so ridiculously conceptual
or full of BS that I get angry. Reading the background is especially
important to me if the piece has a "program" of some sort. If it's a
song cycle or opera, of course I want to read the words or libretto.
Over time, I've found I'm much more likely to have a strong emotional
reaction when the piece tells a story or reveals supposed "intriguing"
personality traits of its creator. Notes which highlight notated themes
or describe detailed structures also can be enhancing. I particularly
remember enjoying Rzewki's "People united shall never be defeated" more
after understanding its structure; the same with Birtwistle's "Mask of
Orpheus." That said, there are still purely abstract pieces I can like
right off the bat, like Currier's "Microsymph" and Nelson's "Passacaglia."
>In case you're wondering, I'm a relatively conventional listener (i.e.,
>I go with ease from medieval chant up to some Bartok and Shostakovich,
>but beyond only with some sweat and bruises) who is trying to expand.
More power to you for trying! I wouldn't worry about it. If you already
like some Bartok and Shostakovich, there are hundreds of pieces from
1920 to the present you should be able to love quickly. You don't have
to like even 20% of a piece initially. For me, initially, there might
only be a single passage that grabs me a little. My experience tells me
now that the little tickle I feel from that passage means I'll probably
like the whole piece later, so I listen more. If I don't get the "tickle"
on first or second hearing, I move elsewhere. So I'd say, "Tune in to
your tickler."
You can send me or others on the List the "modern" pieces you like a
little bit, and we can give you loads of recommendations to try next.
Don't worry about not liking certain pieces we recommend; there are some
I assure you you will like. You can go back to the others later.
Just keep growing.
Jeff Dunn
[log in to unmask]
|
