As a retired veteran of 40 years symphony performance and nearly 15 years as classical radio presenter, I find this gentleman's commentaries quite entertaining. I don't do either of those things anymore, so I find much bittersweet nostalgia in this. Thank you, Sir.
Bruckner...yes. When I was getting into music i rather dreaded Bruckner, though some parts were amazing. But I kept on with it and now i admire and enjoy his symphonies. I understand those who don't Get it, but if you do, he is one of the Greats.
Interestingly, that splendid chorus was one of Handel's borrowings from another of his works, in this case the duet "Nò, di voi non vo fidarmi". As the late Christopher Hogwood pointed out, this explains why the stress is oddly placed on the first syllable of the chorus ("FOR unto us...") as opposed to the more natural "for unto US a child is born", "for unto us a CHILD is born" or "for unto us a child is BORN". You can check out a recording of the original here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-m-PvpzxZfcQ.html
Handel's greatest music is in his Italian language operas starting off with those he wrote in Italy like "Rodrigo" and Agrippina and through to his first London "hit" "Rinaldo". His most outstanding operas are Xerxes, Julius Caesar, Rodelinda , Partenope and Orlando. The beauty of the arias in those operas are sublime beyond belief like the aria "Dove sei amato bene" sung by the exiled king Bertarido as he reads his own epitaph in the cemetery (he has been presumed dead.) I often say that Handel understood the human condition and portrays human emotions even better than Shakespeare -and that's saying something! Having said that the late English language oratorio "Theodora" is stunningly beautiful -he considered it as one of his best works though it was a commercial failure. The Peter Sellars Glyndebourne production of about 20 years ago which is set in modern times during the Clinton presidency has such an impact on the audience that I believe 3 ambulances had to be outside during performances as people became so overcome with emotion. When I first watched it on video I was almost literally on cloud 9 for about a month.Heartbreaking that the singer Lorraine Hunt Liebersohn would be dead from cancer a few years after this production.
Boring classical music to me would probably be the early Roccoco classical era composers like Stamitz, Hoffmeister etc (not including the Bach sons, they were great). Haydn and Mozart did so much to give the classical era style a much needed boost of creativity and depth.
I’d love to hear your list of “boring” pieces because from your previous videos I feel that our tastes are very similar! I’d like to see if I agree or not. But only if you promise to make a list of pieces that you find especially interesting afterwards, just to make up for the sin of another’s art (and also because I’d find that very interesting to hear as well)
Very true! But it is essential that it is played well, with the most sensitive expression and musicality, or indeed it will feel too long and repetitive. The pianist has to be great and then it will be heartbreaking! (Saying that as an obsessed Chopin enthusiast!) Though, this is obviously true for quite a lot of pieces, not just by Chopin, but Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert & Co.
With Pachelbel's canon it's not the piece itself (which is wonderful), it's the number of pop songs that "borrow" the chord sequence D, A, B minor, F# minor, G, D, G, A (hope I've got it right!). I'm sure that's why it's so popular as a wedding march, young people with no knowledge of classical music partially recognise it.
I wonder if that excerpt you played from the Nutcracker (the one that’s just a scale downward) served as inspiration for the last movement of his 6th symphony, like the dark world version of that tune haha
Possibly. The fascinating thing about the melody in the finale of the 6th is that it doesn't exist in the score! The 1st and 2nd violins swap notes in a really fascinating way.
My school choir gave a genuinely fine performance of it back in the 1980s. It wasn't a music school or private school, but we had a strong musical tradition, and although Messiah is always a challenge, I think we did it justice. Kudos to Mrs Rowlands, our inspirational music teacher and choirmistress.
But it's fun to do. Even if your choir's singing leaves something to be desired. The piece is so good it can stand any number of less than stellar performances.
Yes - I too have sung and played chamber organ (and timps in another performance) in various performances of varying quality. The genius of Messiah is partly its incredible versatility. It's wonderful that there are masterpieces like this that are relatively straightforward to do. Beethoven's Missa Solemnis on the other hand... or Stravinsky's Threni...anyone...?
While I think your expression of acknowledgement that sometimes we don't "click" with a piece initially - some are growers, not show-ers - and some it is just our individual reaction to - demonstrates patience and humility, I think it's rather like who we find attractive. Most will appreciate why, say, Naomi Campbell is a top model, yet that's not to say that all of those admirers would want to sleep with her. In other words, no matter how much open mindedness, interest and dedication one brings to bear on a given piece - either as a listener or performer or both - sometimes it's fine to say "I find it boring. I don't like it" even when everyone else raves.
I'm really interested in your list of pieces that you find boring. Personally, when I find a piece boring, I often assume that I just haven't cracked it yet. Of course there are pieces that are genuinely uninspired and repetitive, but most pieces, you just have to stick with if you find them boring, and eventually, you'll "unlock" their charm.
I would like to know which pieces do you find boring but also, which composers do you find boring as well? by the way, I thought, you were gonna continue analyzing chopin preludes after his 4th
I enjoyed this video. I think that individual critics that have strong conviction about not liking a classical piece deserve to be heard and it provided a wonderful platform for you to show why in most cases they are wrong. Arguing for the Chopin 2nd sonata was almost greater than listening to a performance of the piece because you showed a few of the many great things about it. I have a university level music education, i took harmony class but i am always surprised at how easily your music memory easily provides your examples. I would think you are at a level where you can and should compose. I did one composition for an academic class but unfortunately unrelated life imperatives stopped my music studies and i am now an autodidact as far as music is concerned.
I wonder if some of the "boring" judgements are more a case of "familiarity breeds contempt"? E.g. I'm generally a huge Vaughan Williams fan (Mystical Songs; Sea Symphony; ...) and I probably liked "The Lark Ascending" the first half-dozen times I heard it, but in recent years I try to avoid it, because, sadly, some classical radio stations seem to have made its performance a near-weekly ritual.
Those selfsame radio stations seem to have elevated "Lark" to greater prominence than it perhaps merits, when compared with the wonderful Greensleeves and Tallis fantasias, the latter being one of RVW's towering masterpieces.
I am anticipating playing Mahler 5 in just under a year's time. I won't be playing the Corno Obligato part in the scherzo though - that part scares me! In the meantime I will have to settle for playing Mahler 6 at the End of November. All very challenging for an amateur like me. I certainly won't be bored!
@themusicprofessor In the very misty, long ago past I recall reading that they were written as incidental music for the little plays performed at Sand's Nohant-Vic country residence. But, I can't find the info in any of my Chopin books, so I might very well be wrong.
Most of these works were written in an era before acoustic recording, broadcasting or digitisation. So most were written to be heard very sparingly, maybe once or twice in a lifetime. Almost anything can become boring if you are exposed to it too often. My first classical recording, a 33 rpm LP gramophone record which I purchased at the age of 8, comprised Mozart’s 40th symphony on the A-side and his Eine kleine Nachtmusik on the B-side. By age 11, I never wanted to hear either piece again. I then made the same mistake with my second purchase, Beethoven’s 6th symphony. Happily, by age 14, I had a part-time job and could afford to enlarge my record collection beyond the initial 2 purchases. Since then, I have never once allowed myself to become bored with a single piece of music.
Exactly! Recordings are a very weird, unnatural phenomenon. Great music can endure many listenings because it's so rich and deep but even so we need a wide and varied diet of music in our lives!
What is so engaging about the professor is he brings an obvious great depth of knowledge and understanding to a subject and - without dumbing it down - brings a colloquial and immediate wit and informality to the subject which (provided you have at least a reasonable background understanding) leads you lightly, confidently and recognisably through all the examples given. This is entirely a compliment when I say this reminded me of being read bedtime stories as a child - so immediately recognisable and entertaining! And by the way - he's so genial and unpretentious, it made the bollocking given to AlabasterNutSack all the more justified (albeit that I also think it's unrelentingly boring😂) The alternative version (based on the erroneously described note progression) was indeed far more interesting! I wish we could have heard especially the pieces where it was agreed they were boring - and yes, I would definitely listen to a selection considered dull !! Please do it! I wouldn't like to say what I find boring because so much of what was proferred as individual bugbears was mainly because by of over familiarity which is hardly the fault of the piece. But if you must have an answer, I cannot stand Nessun Dorma. I am a major opera buff and have given it a lot of thought and it's not through too much exposure to a cliché - fact is, I don't actually like Puccini. I find his output much too similar to musicals - blousy, overblown and hysterical - and not a patch on the searing human drama and authentic emotional power of the music from composers from earlier that century - Bellini, Rossini, Donizetti, Mercadante, Verdi, Meyerbeer, von Weber, Gounod, Glinka, Bizet, Wagner etc. Interestingly, it then turns the discussion into more one about musical "quality" rather than "dullness" - I find composers like Bartok and Britten almost universally full simply because I don't much care for their sound even though I have no doubt that probably makes me an ignorant Philistine although I am aware that they are both "high quality" composers. Certain "specialist" stuff, too, like Schubert lieder - again high quality - but gaaaahhhhh I d kill my myself if I had to sit through an evening of them - it's a similar story with chamber music - whether Bach, Haydn or Shostakovich, much of it I find dull - yet I enjoy The Trout - and some of the Baroque gems like the already mentioned mandolin concerti are great - and anyone who thinks "Baroque 's boring" should listen to Tim Mead do Purcell's "Strike the Viol"😂 In other words we can all have our own reactions to things which no one else "gets".... what people find dull is so interesting!😃
Thank you! Isn't the problem with Nessun Dorma that it is so popular and so overplayed and has been appropriated by the World Cup etc.? There's no denying Puccini's great melodic talent and his dramatic and orchestral skill - I think my favourite opera of his is Tosca. But I love the composers you mention, Wagner (the last on your list) especially. Bartok and Britten are tougher pills to swallow but amazing composers. You're right about Baroque music needing to be well performed (this is true of all music of course!). I can empathise when you say you can't bear Schubert lieder! Schubert is such a wonderful composer but his celebrated songs are quite difficult (nowadays) to listen - that heavy-going German Romantic thing with the singer standing by the piano: it's hard to enjoy! Interestingly, there is a video of Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears talking about Winterreise and singing bits. It may not change your mind but it's interesting: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MFaH-Kb2HD0.htmlsi=0Llz5HKExAc-VtsF
You're right, boulez could bé very hard to listen, like xenakis for instance, but none off those pieces wore boring. Well, the mandoline concertos you have to be on the right mood that's true.
Re the consecutive fifths in Chopin's funeral March - I believe this was a very deliberate act by Chopin that achieves a wonderful and necessary effect. The other example (which Chopin was almost certainly aware of, since he definitely knew Wintereisse) is from the Schubert song from his pseudo-cycle Schwanengesang: In Der Ferne, where at the climaxes of the first & second verses Schubert invokes consecutive fifths to emotional effect. Brahms wrote about this admitting he found it troublesome, and that Brahms actually tried to re-write that cadence several times, but ultimately conceded Schubert's solution was best. We, with our modern sensibilities, forget how shocking consecutive fifths may have sounded to early 19th century audiences, and I think this goes some way to explain Chopin's deliberate evocation of them in the Funeral March, he wanted to lend it a somewhat disturbing air.
Since we are talking about boring classical music, I cannot stand the Rolling Stones and Midnight Rambler, I think it wsa on the Get Your Ya Yas Out album. Thank God for fast forward.
It was on 'Let it Bleed' from their best period. I don't think it's the best song on the album. It's too repetitive. But they're such a charismatic band they kind of make it work! It's remarkable to see them still playing it in 2003: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DRot9IjNSso.htmlsi=qjt7Bm_3hQb4zwMl
4'33" has some follow-up pieces also by Cage, that appear to be designed to dispel myths about what 4'33" was trying to do, by each doing one of those things better. One of them is a piece which instructs for a microphone to be set up pointing to the audience - thus amplifying the sounds of the auditorium. So I think that interpretation of 4'33" while common (it was the one I was taught) was possibly not what Cage was going for. There's a great video essay on the subject by Sideways ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--LDX7_wSXLI.html (sadly the guy quit youtube after getting immensely paranoid, unjustifiably imho, about people plagiarising him)
Certainly interested to hear what you would consider to be boring pieces. I think what people concider as boring music really just comes down to taste. Sure, a case can be made that a piece doesn't have many interesting things going on harmonicaly, melodically, developmentally etc. but requiring those elements for enjoyment is part of your taste in music as well. Music can still resonate with someone for many reasons even if it doesn't have any of those "interesting" elements. And since taste is so subjective i don't think a piece can be written off as inherently boring. In my taste for example, even though i like most of the concerto, the first movement of tchaikovsky's piano concerto no.1 goes on for about 10 minutes too long, but at the same time i also know a lot of people who enjoy that concerto front to back. There's no accounting for taste, for something to be interesiting or impressivley written maybe, but i think the former is a much more accurate signifier of enjoyment.
Does he mean Chopin's Ballade No.2? Interesting video; thanks. I love the music of Alan Hovhaness but I would concede that some of it is "going through the motions"
I'm an Atheist and not really a classical music fan. I use it to fall asleep to. One Saturday morning, I listened to Handel's Massiah and enjoyed it. And guess what? It put me in the best mood ever. What more do want from music, but that?
@@themusicprofessor although i agree that they sound like juvenilia i doubt 1846 is the publication date because they weren‘t published until chopins death, so its the composition date
@@themusicprofessor @Ramadamses I may ad that Chopin founded a puppet theatre for children in Nohant at around that time, in 1845/46. I have no sources ready to hand to back up the details for now, I would have to search my Chopin literature. But I remember that Sand wrote about it to a friend in her innate patronizing manner, thinking Chopin was being rather childish, while she was fully invested in pre-revolution politics with her politician friends. It is most likely that those compositions were written for that purpose. They certainly fit to the atmosphere of a puppet theatre perfectly and were never meant to be serious works to be known by the public. Edit: You can indeed even find information on Chopins puppet theatre from 1846 on the official website of "Maison de George Sand a Nohant".
I used to think the third movement of Beethoven's Ninth was so boring. I started playing a recording of it whenever my wife was having trouble falling asleep at night, because most of it is very slow and calm. As I listened to it more, I grew to love it and appreciate it much more. PS - I would love to hear about your list of music you find boring.
Also, I’m sick of people only mentioning Cage in the context of 4’33”. He wrote other music that’s genuinely great, like the Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano.
Yes - they're terrific. Also the Concerto for Prepared Piano & Chamber Orchestra, the Constructions in Metal and other percussion pieces, 'In a Landscape', String Quartet, Imaginary Landscapes, Wonderful Widow, Roaratorio...etc.
Well boring music has two meanings when I use it. First is music that doesn’t make sense, the ones that I can’t follow along. Many great pieces were on that list of mine (Ravel was on that list, now I can’t stop listening to his works). I would say it does take some knowledge to know what to follow. Take Ravel’s Bolero as an example, if you listen to music just for the tunes, this piece is absolutely repetitive. What’s to follow here is the change of instrumentation that people sometimes just miss or think it is given for granted. Second type is the ones that has nothing interesting going on. I tend to believe those ones are rarely mentioned/played these days because of how musically boring they are. I do think the all the nameable pieces in the video falls under first category, and some of them do require an open mind to take them in. I think it’s still fair to say some pieces in this category is boring to you as long as you give it quite few tries (and maybe consider finding some introduction/explanatory videos). But for me it always has been that I found the gem in the music after months or even years.
Exactly. Real listening requires an investment of time and effort, and the humility to lay aside assumptions and prejudices and allow the music to say something to us! And you are also right that there are subtleties that take a long time to grasp: the astonishing subtlety of Ravel's sonic imagination passes people by a lot of the time - all they can hear is this weird tune going round and round!
I don't consider this "boring" as much I find it "irritating" or "bad" : Dvorak 9th symphony Movement 4. I love the themes but the way he repeats short phrases back-to-back drives me NUTS
I like Dvorak 9. It's nice and relaxing to play, until you get to the last page when the difficulty goes up a few notches. I personally find Dvorak 8 more irritating. Lots of the phrases, especially cello phrases for some reason seem to have clumsy ends where they just seem a bar to two too long.
I think there is a need for having gone for the low fruit of other people's views to put something out about candidates you have for "boring music". I think fundamentally it seems especially from the comments that frequent playing of pieces can make them boring. Going to live performances helps me to keep music fresh especially as you can focus on one performer doing their thing. I discovered when our local conductor tried to do Tchaikovsky symphony how to get those lush splergy sounds you have to play it exactly as written. That watercolour in rain effect was highly controlled and if you try to apply your own splerg then the piece falls apart badly. Mind you the worst performances locally are the former professor of organ who I call professor fat fingers as he hits note clusters rather than the actual note. We had some Handel (Händel) and he did the organ part now if he is on the performers list I won't go. Interestingly my partner has asked for the Sunrise from the Gurre-lieder as a funeral piece. I think he wants to go out on C.
I think it is often because pieces are too much programmed/played in a kind of Music for the Millions - highlights of classical music-way, that people are getting bored with it (and often taken out if context, a Valkyrie-ride here, an Mahler adagietto there... listen to the whole piece, it will make more sense).
Yes - we live in an era of atomised listening. Everything out of context. People hear little bits on mp3 and end up (unsurprisingly) with a pretty meaningless listening experience. Real listening requires an investment of time and effort, and the humility to lay aside assumptions and prejudices and allow the music to say something to them.
@@themusicprofessor yes, true, the attention span is pretty low nowadays i.m.o. And culture is a reflection of a society as well, in the past everything had to be - to put it in a dead language - sub specie aeternitatis, translating in long musical pieces as well I guess, now it's very much short-term thinking so it has to be snappy apparently (though people can paradoxically enough bingewatch hours of netflix-series).
@@themusicprofessor"He had always lacked the courage to plunge in this mob-bath so as to listen to Berlioz' compositions, several fragments of which had bewitched him by their passionate exaltations and their vigorous fugues, and he was certain that there was not one single scene, not even a phrase of one of the operas of the amazing Wagner which could with impunity be detached from its whole. The fragments, cut and served on the plate of a concert, lost all significance and remained senseless, since (like the chapters of a book, completing each other and moving to an inevitable conclusion) Wagner's melodies were necessary to sketch the characters, to incarnate their thoughts and to express their apparent or secret motives. He knew that their ingenious and persistent returns were understood only by the auditors who followed the subject from the beginning and gradually beheld the characters in relief, in a setting from which they could not be removed without dying, like branches torn from a tree. That was why he felt that, among the vulgar herd of melomaniacs enthusing each Sunday on benches, scarcely any knew the score that was being massacred, when the ushers consented to be silent and permit the orchestra to be heard."
The beauty in music is very subjective ! I love every genre of music even the most I like is classical music 🎶, I still open minded for any genre of music 🎶 : Jazz, metal, rock, rap, traditional music on each continent or ethnomusicology (Europe - Asia - Africa), etc.
I have two things to say. First, nobody calls Mahler boring, he's one of the most exciting composers of all times, whoever says the opposite must have heard a few movements from one or two symphonies. Second, the Canon uses a cycle of EIGHT chords while pop music is constantly doing I-VI-V-I and that's really boring.
Given your enthusiasm and wide knowledge of so many genres, it seems a waste to focus on "boring" pieces. Would much rather hear you talk about - and play excerpts from - pieces you find to be special in some way (and not in the pejorative sense of the word "special....."). It's also enlightening when you discuss the background & context for a piece. Personally, I find different pieces of music serve different functions and even supposedly trite pieces - the Pachelbel rondo is an example, being the musical equivalent to merlot: it's a good introduction for a novice who's not ready for a good vintage of Lafite yet. So for someone who's grown up on pop, Pachelbel's approachable pleasant short tune provides a way into what for many people can seem too imposing and rarified for comfort, but which in reality is full of the most marvellous riches.
I'm probably not a particularly discerning listener whose exposure to music isn't nearly as deep as all these professionals, but I honestly can't think of any music I've ever heard which I find "boring." My mother always said if someone is bored, they simply lack imagination.
Your request for us to request a programme featuring boring music reminds me of the quest for the smallest uninteresting number. For the numbers it's obvious finding any candidate means it becomes interesting and thence must be eliminated. I have no doubt you will be nominating "boring" music items and proceeding to find them interesting. Beware of searches based on self cancelling criteria, there be madness. If you promise to remain sane I think this could be a very interesting quest.
A lot of bruckner is sort of running in place. I rather like his music. Folks should get to know the fifth symphony but find a good recording. Sawallisch and wand are excellent.
I like some of Sorabji's shorter works but his 5-10 hour works are just a complete waste of time and effort. All of the music described as "boring" here is only subjectively boring to some listeners, I'd say Sorabji is OBJECTIVELY boring in those long pieces. Not that they don't have nice moments! it's just the fact that spending 5-10 hours listening out for the occasional nice moment is the definition of "boring".
Pacalbell's Canon is boring for a string quartet to play. Much better for an organ where the ostinato played on the pedals is merely one element the musician is playing.
Op. 118 No. 2 by Brahms. Just can't do it, idk. something about this piece has absolutely no captivation to me whatsoever, and I really struggle to understand why it's so famous.
I once had a job for 6 months, 8 hours a day where all I did was either retrieve paper files from a massive room full of shelves of files, or put them back. When I had neither to do I tidied the shelves. I'll wager Charles would have gnawed his own arm off in boredom by week 3. He talks a good game.
It takes a lot for me to be bored by a piece of music, but I was VERY bored by John Tavener’s 1993 Oratorio, “The Apocalypse” - I was at the World Premiere at the Proms - so many people walked out as Tavener watched on in distain over the top of his half-moon glasses whilst fiddling with his pectoral cross! I stayed to the bitter end (yawning) and booed the composer (but not the performance) for the first and last time at a concert - it was over-long and largely consisted of the chorus and soloists singing octaves of but one note (which I think was D?) drawn out interminably with little in the way of rhythm or harmonic progression. It does NOT surprise me that it has never been recorded, and I’m not sure it’s ever been performed again!
Yes, I too was at that premiere at the Proms! Definitely not one of Tavener's best pieces. At a distance of 30 years, I'm not sure what I can say about it. At the time it seemed terribly thin and uneventful although I do remember occasionally being impressed by his theatrical use of space for the brass fanfares or voices coming from above etc....but it didn't happen often enough.
Didn't he already foreshadow that solo in one of his previous symphonies. Just the rhythm, repeated note and the minor third rise bit at the beginning of it.
@@martineyles yes he did, in his 4th I believe, or maybe his 1st. I mean, the solo itself isnt terrible, nor a bad way to begin the symphony, I just think it is way too overrated and highlighted, takes attention away from the last 2 movements, which are the highlights of the symphony for me.
I like it but it is quite a strange piece. It was designed to be performed in the streets and I think it might work best presented in a resonant open air space. I think Berlioz did a good job of creating a grand public 'funèbre et triomphale' vibe!
@@michaszpyrka4153 The Harnoncourt/Leonhardt cycle was made at a time when period performance practice was a bit hit-and-miss, and although I like them, things had vastly improved by the time Gardiner/Suzuki recorded theirs.
A good ⅓ or so of the cantatas function at much the same inspired level as the Mass in B minor, or the Passions. Another ⅓ or so, most composers would kill to be as great as Bach in workaday mode.
The fact of the matter is, a lot of the music that you listed is genuinely incredibly boring and/or not preferable for modern audiences unless in a atmospheric concert setting. There are a number of reasons: 1. Classical music requires high emotional vulnerability and openness which are traits that are generally suppressed in normal social interactions and settings. 2. Classical music projects unrelatably direct, intense, and idealistic emotions that, on the surface to non-enthusiasts, appears childish and absurd. Modern audiences much prefer jazz as it, on average, conveys less emotional depth and is more passive. 3. Most mainstream classical music, despite its complex analytical foundations, projects simplistic emotions that are also far too childish. (I'm including Mahler, Rachmaninoff, and Tchaikovsky here). 20th century music by e.g. Ornstein, Feinberg, Ives, Vine, Kapustin, Scelsi, and Sorabji carries sufficient grit, passivity, complexity, and nuance for audiences to feel familiar and comfortable with. If you're not convinced, I've performed and shared 20th century classical music abundantly within industries like software and medicine and the appeal is incredibly high. The average response I usually get is "wow, this is amazing! why have I never heard mention of this?". 4. At the end of the day, modern audiences care about relatability and familiarity in the music, not how perfect and intricate the construction is. So, e.g., it matters very little to them how frugal Beethoven is with the placement of his notes, and how Bach's music is contrapuntally perfect. Like, it's nice trivia to them, but that's about it. On point #3, another example is if you go too far into 20th century music (approaching seralism and twelve-tone music), interest drops off again since, again, it becomes too focused on the construction rather than the projected emotions. In terms of construction, all that's needed to appeal to modern audiences is some degree of thematic continuity and that's good enough. 5. As a desperate effort for classical musicians to generate interest, they've also devalued and trivialized their own profession by putting emphasis on "how fast can I play this?" or "look at this incredible technique" or "look how loud and intense this is". Because social media algorithms are adapted to promoting sensationalized content, this further destroys the reputation of classical music and dissuades people from exploring it past the surface level. Many people, if engaged in piano music, will simply play some pieces by Liszt and Chopin, show off their technique, and then just quit because of points #1 to #4 because that's the impression they got from "professionals".
Thank you for the interesting comment. I love the fact that you mention such wonderful composers: Ornstein, Feinberg, Ives, Vine, Kapustin, Scelsi, and Sorabji, and I applaud your marvellous channel (www.youtube.com/@Musicforever60) on which you perform and champion such exciting repertoire. I completely agree that classical music "requires high emotional vulnerability and openness" but I disagree that the music of the composers you mention contains "simplistic emotions that are also far too childish". Tchaikovsy 6 has just about every nuance of human emotion: fabulously rich and complex. Rachmaninov's Corelli Variations is one of the most emotionally subtle pieces imaginable. I also disagree with a more general issue of 'relevance': of course, many people are not interested in investing time and energy on challenging pieces of music (and that's fine - they are people who tend to listen to pop music and that's OK: I listen to pop music too but it tends to be a different kind of listening...). However, many many people are interested and want to understand the music they are listening to. You can't dismiss the importance and value of (good) analysis in music, any more than you can dismiss it in Art or literature or politics or football or anything else.
1. Agreed. 2. Jazz is all about live performance, improvisation. If you take it outside of that context, of course it will be more passive than classical, because classical keeps its vivacity even when it's inert. Non-enthusiasts don't think classical projects absurd and childish ideas. On the contrary, they believe it's too intellectual and complex. 3. You were on to something at the start, but the composers you chose to illustrate your point just suck, and they argue the opposite of your point. 4. You're mixing up complexity with richness. I don't like Bach because it's contrapuntally perfect, I like it because it's powerful and giving. Almost nobody likes Bach for intellectual reasons, and I pity those who do. 5. I deeply agree with the first part of your comment, it's a very real problem, algorithms and social media destroy the conception of classical music to the masses. Not sure what you're on about in your last sentence though, people don't 'just play Chopin and Liszt and then quit". All in all, it seems like you are trying to intellectualise the reason why people like a music and not another. That's a totally unproductive and pointless thing to do. Nobody will ever remember you for it, even if you were the smartest man in the world, you couldn't make that take interesting.
@@Zinozad 2. I did not say the foundational ideas of classical music is childish and absurd. I said the emotions that it projects is often direct, intense, and idealistic to the point it's childish and absurd. Take the climax in Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony, 1st movement for example. Nobody actually experiences emotions as strong as those. If you played that in any social setting outside of classical music enthusiasts, it'd be awkward as hell and people will wonder why you're being so emotional and overdramatic. It's only appropriate for a concert hall, your headphones, and your bedroom. Even in a movie theatre, people would feel super uncomfortable listening to that if it were played with a movie. 3. Did you not read the part where I said people from non-music disciplines absolutely love 20th century classical music? 4. And that's why modern audiences somewhat like Bach's music. It's emotionally held back, dry, and passive. Heck, it's supposed to be played that way intentionally. 5. You probably haven't met many teens or young adults in person, but those who play piano always play the same repertoire and it's never played with any personality, just relentless emphasis on technical prowess. And guess where they were inspired from? Sensationalist RU-vid channels. Also, if you never analyze and understand the situation, you'll just always be stuck in the same situation of begging people to like classical music when you don't even understand why they don't like it. I didn't even have beg those acquaintances to like 20th century classical music, they just did. And now, they are big fans of my channel.
@@themusicprofessor Just a disclaimer, I grew up in my teens listening to the music that you're using as examples and I absolutely loved them at the time. It is without a doubt that they explore the broadest range of human emotions but the emotions are too "in the open". They are unfiltered, raw, overdramatic, unrealistic, and frankly quite socially unacceptable. I'm also not saying that analysis of music is not enjoyable. I'm saying most people treat music as something they want to relate to and find familiar. I tried sharing Tchaikovsky's symphonies with my friends when I was younger and did it ever catch on? Nope, they just said "it's not really my thing" and then just ignored it. However, now, with fellow adults, I share music by Ives, Sorabji, Feinberg, and even Scelsi and there's basically always positive reception (and it's not them being nice). In fact, I sometimes still share symphonies by Mahler and people just tell me it's so "childish" and "overdramatic". I've been observing this phenomenon for years now, in case you think this is a recent thing.
I've had a look at them. Yes, intriguing. They were published in the 1840s but the style is almost certainly that of his earliest pieces. My hunch is they were written when he was around 12.
People who think classical music is boring are usually people with very short attention spans like children have or people who are so used to overamplified and thumping style of music that they think that anything with nuance and subtlety is boring!
Well some of the Lacrimosa is by Süßmayer! As John McEnroe used to say, "you cannot be serious"! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NecLh4YOT9M.htmlsi=Wc058v2ILFykbxcG
I cannot listen to Arvo Part's Spiegel im Spiegel. This may be a personal and subjective reaction but ........ However I greatly like other bits of minimalist music - Steve Reich, Philip Glass. John Adams etc.
Dear music professor, please learn to pronounce names of composers you are expressing you EXPERT opinions on. Myaskovsky (мясковский) {myiaskOvskiy} is not too hard, is it?
