Curious Dislikes

I'm curious myself! I just looked through my copy of "The Works of Ralph Vaughan Williams" by Michael Kennedy and I couldn't find a mention of that though it does appear that he had a love/hate relationship with Beethoven (from what I read and also see that Mr. Kennedy felt--and said) the same.

Couldn't find any quote over the net, but perhaps I didn't phrase it correctly or dig deep enough.

Best, Petra

I've never really liked the Beethoven violin concerto, either, Schubert28. I know it well and have some very fine recordings, but it just doesn't work for me. I find it dull, to be honest.  But then, I find a lot of Beethoven dull and if it wasn't for the truly sublime late works and the string quartets, I am not sure I would listen to him at all. 

Cheryl, not Cheryl Cole. There is no Cheryl Cole anymore: she has been rebranded.

After a long flight from one place of the world to the other (wasting almost 36 hours), I see that this thread is truly "blossoming". Plenty of all sort of "dislikes".

However, at last, Herr Schubert28, referring to this "curious personal thing" called "taste", claims that "people can and should engage with the reasons" for liking or disliking works of Classical Music. Despite he eventually admits that, at the end of the day, "taste" is still a mystery, I trace a sort of sincerity in his intentions (of course, in his post #11 of yesterday, he give us a good display of quite a few "curious dislikes" that cannot be possibly explained or justified).

What I have tried from the very beginning to say is that, by all means, we are free and entitled to "like or dislike" anything in Classical Music as long as "the fault lies with us". The problem starts when, in our (conscious or subconscious) effort to explain or to justify our "taste", we start attributing the fault to the work and often even to the composer. I have seen listeners to freak out at their first encounter with "Siegfried" and, after years of studying and listening to Wagner's works from the early years, following his path of composition, to get crazy with the whole Ring (and Siegfried too), becoming the most ardent loyals of the composer.

It is not surprising, in this way, that some people (not only in this forum) do not like (sometimes at all) Beethoven's Violin Concerto. However, for someone who follows the work structurally, musically and in its form, it is the most musical of all of them. However, even soloists who are very prone to virtuosic Concertos abhor Beethoven's for the lack of virtuosic demands, while the whole emphasis is focusing on the musicality, the form and the structure of the work. However, Beethoven does not do anything less (maybe he does some more) than what he did in his other Concertos and generally in his compositions. His Violin Sonatas are also lacking virtuosic and even violinistic demands (except the "Kreutzer"), but, as compositions, are marvelous works of some of the most wonderful Chamber Music.

I'm glad that Schiller started finding some merits in the (otherwise) detestable and dismissed Shostakovich's Second. If you keep indulging in the composer and his work as a whole, you may find more merits even in the least interesting works (like his Piano Concerto no.2, which, however, could be a discovery after all).

Parla

P.S.: 50m, there is a thread on Shostakovich's Symphonies, where we had exhausted the issue. However, if you wish to start a new one on the composer's integral opus, go ahead. I will simply repeat what I have already stated...

Parla, regarding your Post#11 I must tell you that I didn't write that only for you: it was for all of us. I had in mind a more dynamic, more informal debate w/o those irritating concessive clauses that sometimes we feel necessary to add when we express some indifference or distaste for a work of a renowned composer, but that imo applies necessarily only when some formality is required.

About Shostakovitch, yes I didn't say that 2nd, 3rd and 12th symphonies are unworthy of the composer. Yes I know many people may like these works. Yes, I know their historical significance. Yes, I know that they show in many passages the talent of DSCH. Yes, I know.........: Just check my post.

I respect your opinions and many times we expressed similar opinions, many times, different or even antagonic ones, as usual with all other members of this forum. But let's watch out for syllogisms: don't let them damage the good debate.

 

 

 

Sorry Parla, Post#11/Page 8 of this thread.

More substantive than some lesser masters maybe. However, the finest works of not a few "minor" composers are little, if at all, inferior to those of the acknowledged greats. The minor composers just aren't as prolifically great as the Beethovens and the Bachs; there lies the difference.