Jeff Dunn <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>It is so nice to hear from lurkers!  We need to hear more from you out
>there!

"Well, here's another one," he said, raising his hand.

>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.

I find I like to put a difficult work on as 'background music' for a
period of time in order to absorb, albeit through an audio-osmosis, the
sound-world it creates.  It is surprising how much easier it is to get
a handle on a work after letting it float around the ozone for a spell.
Of course, details are not perceived when reducing the music to ambient
noise, at least not at any real conscious level.  But I do find it helpful
to have the sound of a composer in my mind's ear when i do sit down to
listen 'seriously'.

>>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.

For me, each work stands on its own merits.  Even a lousy composer can
have a flash of real inspiration.  I love the Brahms clarinet quintet
but find the late piano works tedious and stodgy.  Of course, it works
the opposite way too; Beethoven could write Wellington's Victory and
then go on to pen the A minor String Quartet.  Sometimes I just don't
respond well to a composer - either his language or the message in his
music.  I despise the music of Benjamin Britten,listening to it once a
year to be sure it is really as bad as I remember it.  That he speaks
to some I do not question nor do I judge them for enjoying the music.
I hope they extend the same courtesy to me for my lack of enthusiasm for
his work.

>>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.

I rarely read the program of a work until after I have lived with
the music alone for some time.  I remember one time teaching a music
appreciation class, I told the story of Till Eulenspiegel only to have
the class monitor put on Ein Heldenleben.  It worked perfectly fine.
Remember too Leonard Bernstein's Harvard lectures: "One morning, Gregor
Samsa woke up feeling strange....." followed by the first few bars of
Beethoven's Pastorale.

Too much emphasis is put on what music 'means'.  Peter Maxwell Davies'
Third Symphony, at its most elemental level, means Peter Maxwell Davies'
Third Symphony - no more, no less.  Once you divorce yourself from the
dependency to hear bird calls, folk songs, or Slinkies descending a
staircase in the music, it makes it much easier to appreciate the music
itself and the compositional process which brought it into being.

>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.

Ernest Krenek once told me, "You know Ray, I am middle European, Jeweish,
heterosexual, I like Schubert.....there is no reason people should know
this from listening to my music." I tend to agree.

>>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. ...
>
>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.

A little reminiscence for you: While teaching that course in music
appreciation to grade school students I would start the very first day
of classes by playing them the Bach Toccata & Fugue in D minor followed
by George Crumb's Black Angels.  I would then ask them what the difference
between the two was.  Of course they pointed out string quartet vs.
organ but about the music itself, they could not explain what was different
with any degree of accuracy.  The remainder of the semester was spent
giving them the listening skills and musical vocabulary to at least
superficially explain how the music differed.  At the end of the semester
I would ask them, of all the music they heard in the classes what were
their favorite works.  The was invariably, the Bach and the Black Angels.

Draw whatever conclusion you like.

Respectfully submitted,

Ray Osnato