Let's talk music, no genre boundaries

@audio-b-dog 

 

I could not make a list like @simonmoon of the musical attributes that appeal to me. 

Szymanowski’s Symphonie Concertante. It sounded "experimental" enough (although probably a hundred years old) to be on @simonmoon’s list. Do you know this composer?

 

Let me be clear, I did not consciously choose to only like music with the attributes I listed previously. I didn't create that list with intent to only only listen to music with those attributes. 

I just noticed over time, that music that did not have most or all of those attributes became less and less interesting to me, and my tastes and search for new music kept heading toward those attributes.

I have several recordings by Szymanowski that I like quite a bit.

Those criteria I previously mentioned:

Those criteria being (no particular order): very high level of musicianship, deep and broad levels of emotional and/or intellectual content conveyed, fairly high levels of complexity and sophistication, (usually) long form song structure that goes through changes in: mood, intensity, tempo, dynamics, time changes, etc., over its length.

I like a lot  Sorabji madness played by Ogdon (almost mad himself but a formidable pianist in Busoni too) 

I own many Sorabji music...pure genius and total madness...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OrAewTxBrc&list=RD_OrAewTxBrc&start_radio=1

 

 The transcendental studies is incredible  too by Ullen  :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsunU1Jyigk&list=PLRs_FxzJLU50ArgMv2Ykm9IUsELIYwoML 

 

 

But so much i admire Sorabji  and i like him a lot, he does not moves me at all...like Scriabin or Liszt well played (which is almost impossible by most pianists)

Music is not just creative esthetical research, it is a spiritual spell...

 

If i listen Gesualdo well interpreted madrigals i dont even note that his music has more than 500 years old... It moves us because it is not only inventive but rooted in the heart...

 

@mahgister 

 

Is Monteverdi 8th book of madrigals, all Gesualdo and  Josquin Des Prez   are boring or correspond to your definition ?

For me there is no relation between genius and chronological time ?

 

Those composers you mention, are not boring to me based on the attributes I previously mentioned. They are boring to me because they do nothing for my personal artistic sensibilities.

 

For me also, there no relationship between genius and chronolectal time. 

I am able to fully admit, that: Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, the composers you mentioned above, and many others of similar periods,  were probably geniuses. That doesn’t change the fact that I am mostly unmoved by their music. 

I have no problems understanding their: contributions to music, their innovations, their skill, their knowledge of theory,  etc, without actually enjoying their music. In fact, I will go one step further; I can listen to their music, and even hear what others: find so appealing, are moved by, what they hear and interpret as beauty, etc.

But I always feel like I am removed from it, emotionally and/or intellectually speaking. When I listen to music by those composers, I can’t help but think to myself, "Oh, this is the part where the composer is trying to elicit feelings of awe, here’s the part where the composer is trying to create tension, this is the part where the composer is trying create a pastoral atmosphere, here’s the part where the composer is trying to create excitement, etc". 

But despite hearing what the composer is going for, it doesn’t reach into me and actually create those feelings within me.  

 We are on the same page about this...

For me also, there no relationship between genius and chronolectal time. 

What about Sorabji or Scriabin ?  Are they predictible ?

And how Gesualdo could be predictable ?

 

 I learned how to appreciate Indian and Persian music ...Not boring at all...

The only music i dont like is music without genius nor heart...Most popular music is boring for me,...

Didgeridoo music is it boring ? not for me because it did something other music dont do...

Music initiate us to the history of consciousness...

All Western  written music is a book into the soul history as linguistic is...Non western music are unique expression of consciousness ...

My taste exist as your taste exist but taste does not dictate my music listening history which is an expression of human consciousness ...

I am never bored by the art of the fugue ... I listened to it 1000 times...

It is a deep complex structure whose details cannot be grasped by 10 hearings with 10 different interpretations...

I dont listen first  composers but mainly  musicians  interpretations of all style how can i be bored ?

 

 

 

Music is created by musician playing it each time in a different way... Nothing is boring in music save most  industrial popular music ...

In a word all music not interpreted by top musicians can be boring... but no music interpreted and played by musicians of genius can...

This had nothing to do with my taste only with my own  attention mastery...

When walking in a forest if i am not attentive i will be bored easily...

Music is a forest ...

@mahgister @simonmoon @stuartk 

What I am hearing you say, @mahgister, is that you like a kind of soul wrenching depth in performances. If that is true, and I'm not saying it is, my response would be that I like Dostoevsky but I also like to read other authors who provide lighter fare. Of course, most novels today are written and read by women. Jane Austen is still huge. 

But probably a more important point, directly pertinent to music, is how most performances of music are judged. Is the artist saying what the composer intended? Guess what? In the case of Debussy we don't have to guess. I am posting a piano roll of Debussy playing Debussy. He is not as lyrical (let's say mass appeal) as Entremont, nor as "expressive" as Moravec. I would call him definitive: "It is my music and this is the way it should be played!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3NX_TrxfVk