John Dalmas wrote:

>Is this the same Ulvi Yurtsever who wrote about Shostakovich's 7th, that
>the reason critics harshly attack the symphony is "maybe because the first
>movement has too much of the same garbage which makes "Bolero" stink"?

Yup, the same one.  I don't see any contradiction here with what I am
advocating, by the way, since we are talking about a movement which
regularly gets panned by critics and listeners alike.

>Granted Shostakovich and Ravel may have less than "phenomenal"
>reputations, and reputations that may not have remained consistent
>over what Mr.Yurtsever might consider "large time spans,"

Actually they have mighty reputations, certainly large enough to pass the
test of "pay more attention if you don't get them." However, in both cases
we have a single work by both composers which I claim to be not up to par
with the rest their output (and these are works which don't get
overwhelming critical acclaim)

>...nevertheless he is by his statement, acknowledging that a "good"
>composer might sometime compose a "bad" work.

No need to read between the lines, I would acknowledge this anytime.

>Were Mr.Yurtsever to be as forthcoming about some of the works of Bach
>and Brahms, perhaps he would be less of an idolator and a better critic
>than the ones he disparages.

No disparagement of anyone was intended.  As for Bach, I don't care for the
Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue, some mvmnts of the Brandenburg concertos bore
me, and I can always go and dig out a few arias which leave me cold among
the cantatas.  I would say that about a few percent of Bach I find boring,
some of it are highly acclaimed works and it's possible that with these
"it's just me," others are works where I feel confident of their
"objectively" low worth.

With Brahms the problem is he destroyed more of his work than survives,
so it's harder to find truly awful stuff in his output.  Still, I can point
to a few dull and uninspired moments here and there within some otherwise
great Brahms pieces.  And I remember talking in this group about how I just
don't "get" the first movement of the first symphony (though here again
it's possible that "it's just me").  And I confess that I am beginning to
feel the same way about the first movement of the piano quintet, though I
used to enjoy this piece a lot more in the past.

So, the point is, our response to music is ultimately highly personal,
it changes as we change, and there is little truly "objective" about it.
When a piece of music or a composer doesn't appeal to me after repeated
listenings over some period of time, the only way I can make my decision
on it is by weighing various available evidence (and even then only
tentatively, as things do change with time).  Evidence comes from factors
like:  does the composer or work have a huge reputation which is constant
over generations and frontiers? do I recognize consummate skill in its
construction (even though it leaves me cold emotionally)? does it "sound
like" other highly acclaimed works which I find unappealing (maybe a sign
of a mental block I have against this sort of music)? If the answers are
"yes", it's probable that "it's just me." If the answer to all of the above
is "no," then I feel pretty confident about dumping on the work freely, and
assigning it to the trash bin in my mind's filing system.  But ultimately
these judgements are very fallible, and I have to keep this in mind too.

Ulvi Yurtsever
MathSense Research and Consulting
E-mail: [log in to unmask]