Curious Dislikes

Just naming a piece is not very interesting, is it: who cares what I like? No-one is going to enjoy (say) Mozart's clarinet concerto any the less because you don't 'get' it (to use Parla's phrase).

But, when you asked "What does interest me is the mysterious way our taste - in this case mine - opens the door to some pieces and keeps it firmly locked for others" you identified what does seem an interesting question. However, you subsequently seemed to slam the door on any 'debate' on it. Inevitably a discussion of such a question, interesting but quite difficult as it is, is likely to be contentious (which you are very determined that you don't want), and I don't think there is much understanding to be gained simply by justifying a blind spot on the basis that [one feels that] it is the composer's fault.

What I'm saying I suppose is that your intention for the thread is not as clear as you claim from the outset (at least to this reader).

Is it really necessary Chris to again act as His Lordship's lackey? I perfectly understand the issue Eliza is trying to raise and I perfectly understand her frustration - it's keeping me from, for what it's worth, posting more than I do. Debating with Parla is simply impossible for the simple reason that he is unwilling, no unable, to accept anything other than his own opinion, naturally presented as fact. Why bother? Well, I bother because I care about music and I care about Gramophone - and I'm afraid that Parla's steel plate attitude is damaginging the reputation of both...

Hi Chris, Eliza has stomped out of the room in a huff but I'll talk to you. There obviously aren't many examples of what she is referring to, although for the record I suggested Tchaikovsky's 3rd Symphony (page 3 post 9) and asked why that might be. That piece just does not grow on me whereas I love all his other symphonies.

The fact is that when you love a composer's work and his style of writing you tend to admire all their works. You let them off for their weaker pieces and make excuses like "they were still finding their voice". First rate composers' second rate pieces are still often better than second rate composers first rate works.

Why Eliza has such an aversion for the two clarinet works of Mozart I'm not sure. I'm not sure why she called you an ass either. There are lots of things in life we can't explain!

Graham

Well I've always been a bit ambivalent about the ninth apart from the slow movement (probably not helped by the last movement's theme being over- exposed as the EU anthem) but for some reason I cannot explain, the Pastoral does nothing for me nor ever has, unlike all the rest, the concerti, piano music, chamber music which are all unsurpassed. I will quite happily accept this must for some reason  be my fault though!

Education is not elitism. 

I think i understand Eliza's post. With me, I would say that dislike is perhaps too strong a word. When I go to listen to something there are some works that don't get reached for often.

Mozarts Clarinet concerto is one of those works, as is Beethoven's 6th symphony. RVW's Sinfonia Antarctica also doesn't really hit the spot, nor Mozart's 29th symphony, (which I used to hold in high esteem - I feel many performances are too slow and 'chug along').

best wishes

P

All of Beethoven's Symphonies are some sort of "experiment". None is conventional, straightforward or anything "easy" to deal with. That's why they have such an extraordinary reputation and popularity.

The Sixth is a great masterpiece all the way and quite unique in its character, musicality, creativity, craftsmanship, inspiration and this sublime way to depict aspects of Nature. It is very important to follow the Symphony both as a whole  project but also to examine the individual movements separately, which, by themselves, are some sort of tone poems. The last movement is arguably the most sublime, gorgeous, magnificent hymn to Nature and Humanity and a supreme musical statement of all ages. (Of course, you may "dislike" it, if you must).

As for the "stinkers" (that's a word truly suitable for Classical Music!) from the "(otherwise)" greats, again the premises of the whole question is flat wrong (to use Eliza's words). The issue is whether we really and deeply know Beethoven's opus, so that we may be able to look for his "stinkers", if any. Dealing with, listening extensively, studying as much as I can and consulting friends-musicians, I can claim I have a good (not even deep or profound etc.) knowledge of only a fraction of his published music and a bit of his unpublished or later published works. For me to claim that I even traced a sort of lower or weak work is out of question. All of his works I know well are so utterly great, even perfect, that to talk about "rubbish" is only for creating an issue for a good laughing matter.

If you really wish to do something constructive, educational and revealing, just try to deal slowly and gradually with Beethoven's Op.1, no1 (the first official work of Ludwig; an early masterpiece) or the Cello Sonata op.5, no2 ( a superb work of the genre) or the String Quartet op. 18, no. 2 (a delightful perfectly structured masterwork; only for the masterly written Scherzo, we could have a mini thread) and so on. After all that, if you really have "room" for some "rubbish", you may give a shot.

Parla