Another turn of the century poll - a bit more up-to-date

[Dawg]

Was slightly disappointed to open the previous 'turn of the century' poll only to find a list of the usual suspects from well over a century ago. So here's something more up to date. I can't claim anything like comprehensiveness (apart from anything else, the poll only allows a limited number of entries), but I hope I've covered several bases and would be interested to see the result in this forum.

[Corlyss_D]

Maybe I should start one. The best composers of the 12th Century.

BTW, Dawg, if you are clever enough to put up such a poll, maybe you could help Kain with his last remaining unidentified composition.

http://classicalmusicguide.com/phpBB2/v ... hp?t=14279

[jbuck919]

Maybe I should start one. The best composers of the 12th Century.

Not a bad idea. It's getting a little weird, isn't it?

[popagano]

I personally love Alfred Schnittke, but out of the people on the list it is vary hard to say, for starters Henze, Stockhausen, and Boulez were all more influencial around '50 to 70' with the exception of Kerlheinz's 'Licht' I suppose?

[Joe Barron]

You didn't include my favorite turn of the 21st century composer --- Elliott Carter. I'm 0 for 2 in these polls.

[Lance]

I voted for PÄRT for this one, just so you know where I'm comin' from.

And maybe I should start one for the SEVENTEENTH century. Good idea?

[jbuck919]

I voted for PÄRT for this one, just so you know where I'm comin' from.

And maybe I should start one for the SEVENTEENTH century. Good idea?

This is getting a little silly, as I'm sure I don't have to tell you. As you know, the 17th century with the exception of Monteverdi is a dead zone in music. But it's always nice to see a post from you, Lance. Just knowing that you hang around and take care of the place always comforts me.

[Corlyss_D]

I voted for PÄRT for this one, just so you know where I'm comin' from.

And maybe I should start one for the SEVENTEENTH century. Good idea?

This is getting a little silly, as I'm sure I don't have to tell you. As you know, the 17th century with the exception of Monteverdi is a dead zone in music.

I beg your pardon, Bach-guy! It most certainly is not a dead zone.

[Lance]

I voted for PÄRT for this one, just so you know where I'm comin' from.

And maybe I should start one for the SEVENTEENTH century. Good idea?

This is getting a little silly, as I'm sure I don't have to tell you. As you know, the 17th century with the exception of Monteverdi is a dead zone in music. But it's always nice to see a post from you, Lance. Just knowing that you hang around and take care of the place always comforts me.

Well, a little humour is good, don't you think? (Or do we already have plenty on board?) I'm still thinking of moving ahead with a 17th Century Poll - will come up with composer's names soon, but I can almost guarantee who will take first place! (And probably you can, too!)

As for hanging around, BOTH Corlyss and I hang around far more than you think - only you don't see us; we're in hiding! And I LOVE hanging around the place. It's the one place where you can write about anything you want in the world of classical music. How very much I apprecite this great freedom!

And it's always nice 2-C-U-2, John!

[paulb]

I personally love Alfred Schnittke, but out of the people on the list it is vary hard to say, ?

I'm with you and Joe, if Schnittke and Carter were on the list, it'd make it quite simple.

...well I'm glad i deleted some comments about the list...as it may have given this board even more reason to vote me as CMG's most obnoxious poster. A hat that i know fits my head well . ....as i decided to give 2 of the composers on the list some clip listens over at gramophone.

I read Chris Forbes review on the sym 1/Barenboim/Chicago. He gives the music 3 stars (out of kindness I guess) review titled "10 yrs later loses its musical impact".
Anyway , there may not be enough there to hold my attention.
I gave the piano concerto a clip. Sound s to me very heavy Messiaen influence, and i do not like any Messiaen, though at one time I did...all of 4 months.
Oh btw I just now see the low price for the Corigliano sym 1/Barenboim is .69 cents, and there's 35 others offered at not much more than the .69 cent begging price.
I can never recall seeing any classical cd at .69 cents. WOW, that alone is a red falg.


Avro Part and i have "parted" (no pun intended) ways long ago.
Get the idea. No sense in me going down the list.
Guess i wear the arrogant hat as well.

[Ralph]

Not one of them!!!

[Joe Barron]

If you're going to do a 17th-century poll, please include Heinrich Schutz, or I'll be 0 for 3 ...

[paulb]

Not one of them!!!

Ralph believe it or not, for once your position and mine align up perfectly.
You say it so ...succintly.
I go on and on, and look stupid. Or an ass, as i've been told today.

[Ralph]

Not one of them!!!

Ralph believe it or not, for once your position and mine align up perfectly.
You say it so ...succintly.
I go on and on, and look stupid.

*****

We make a good team.

[Lance]

Not one of them!!!

Ralph believe it or not, for once your position and mine align up perfectly.
You say it so ...succintly.
I go on and on, and look stupid.

*****

We make a good team.

WHAT?

A couple of DONKEYS on CMG? It just couldn't be possible ... just couldn't be - and I can't believe it, at least not totally.

[paulb]

Not one of them!!!

Ralph believe it or not, for once your position and mine align up perfectly.
You say it so ...succintly.
I go on and on, and look stupid.

*****

We make a good team.

I know that much of the 20th century music in my collection clashes with the composers you've come to love. I can understand and respect your position for not wanting to disrupt the listening pleasure you get from classical music. This is the way it ought to be for EACH of us, to be honest with ones SELF. (Jungian sense)
But here in my case, a big fan of many 20th century compoers, ( my collection is 90% 20th century) finds the composers on the LATE 20th century list to actually clash with the music I love.
So your opinion of rejection is not seen as closed minded at all, for even a 20th century fan as I am, find much of the late 20th century to be oppsoed to what I've come to know as the classical art form.
Much of the late 20th century 'classical composers" seems to my sensibilities, as an abberation from the classical tradition, thus I assign alot of this music to being "marginal classical". Better known, may I be the first to coin the term, 'Pop classical".
This word has been brewing long time within me, and now it has just pop-ed out on the keyboard.
POP CLASSICAL

[paulb]

Not one of them!!!

Ralph believe it or not, for once your position and mine align up perfectly.
You say it so ...succintly.
I go on and on, and look stupid.

*****

We make a good team.

WHAT?

A couple of DONKEYS on CMG? It just couldn't be possible ... just couldn't be - and I can't believe it, at least not totally.

Hi Lance, I know you've posted your concern for that we have more lurkers than active posters here.
So If you feel I need to tone it down a bit, I will. I don't want to intimidate anyone off, due to my flurries and rants.
Am I within bounds here?

oh btw thanks for using the gentler word "donkey" instead of the usual colloquial jackass, or even ass.
I've been called worse

[Lance]

Not one of them!!!

Ralph believe it or not, for once your position and mine align up perfectly.
You say it so ...succintly.
I go on and on, and look stupid.

*****

We make a good team.

WHAT?

A couple of DONKEYS on CMG? It just couldn't be possible ... just couldn't be - and I can't believe it, at least not totally.

Hi Lance, I know you've posted your concern for that we have more lurkers than active posters here.
So If you feel I need to tone it down a bit, I will. I don't want to intimidate anyone off, due to my flurries and rants.
Am I within bounds here?

oh btw thanks for using the gentler word "donkey" instead of the usual colloquial jackass, or even ass.
I've been called worse

Well Paul, you're doing just fine. You speak your mind and thoughts, even though it doesn't always go over very well. And, it's also nice to have little fun on these boards with a little ribbing, but it is always done with respect and in fun. Glad you also have a good sense of humour, Paul!

[Brahms]

György Ligeti (1923–2006).

[Lance]

György Ligeti (1923–2006).

Do you happen to have the exact death date of Mr. Ligeti?

Many thanks.

[Brahms]

György Ligeti (1923–2006).

Do you happen to have the exact death date of Mr. Ligeti?

Many thanks.

György Ligeti died on the 12th June, 2006, in Vienna at the age of 83 after suffering a long illness.

[RebLem]

I voted for Arvo Part, but I wouldn't argue with Henri Dutilleux. Part is far more prolific, though. Also, two more that should be on the list--George Crumb and Einojuhani Rautavaara.

[Barry]

I agree with Ligeti.

[Corlyss_D]

If you're going to do a 17th-century poll, please include Heinrich Schutz, or I'll be 0 for 3 ...

Absolutely he would one of the stars.

[Dawg]

György Ligeti (1923–2006).

Darn! I knew I'd forgotton someone important. Should I delete one of the names no one's voted for and replace them with Gyorgy?

btw I didn't include guys like Schnittke as I wanted to only put in people still alive by the turn of this century - though I take the point one or two of you have made about composers I've included who have been most productive in the '60s and '70s. The only trouble was I was wary of putting up lesser known but currently productive (and IMO worthwhile) coposers like Desyatnikov and Julian Anderson, as I thought - perhaps wrongly - that much fewer people would be encouraged to vote.

[paulb]

György Ligeti (1923–2006).

Darn! I knew I'd forgotton someone important. Should I delete one of the names no one's voted for and replace them with Gyorgy?

btw I didn't include guys like Schnittke .

Ligeti's name would fit in quite nicely with this grouping of names. As I know well , more than I want to, of Ligeti's music.
I am so glad that neither Pettersson nor Schnittke appeared on your list.
This was by the hand of divine providence that neither composer appeared in such a grouping.
It would be like compliing a list as such:

Luigi Boccherini, Boieldieu Adrien, Cimarosa Domenico, Wolgang Mozart.
Test question, what name does NOT belong in this list?
And I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds of other composers names floating around the times, ones we only know from old dusty history of classical music books.

I've looked through The Encyclopedia Of Composers, its about 3000 pages and has more than 6000 names (funny,,,no strange that Allan Pettersson was not in there, latest edition, 2005/at Tulane's library).
As I went down the list of P's its unreal the amount of composers in just the P category.

Lets not just jumble compoers together in a list like,
Henze, Pettersson, Ligeti.
Or
Adams, Schnittke, Corigliano

That sandwiching in of P and S between pop classical really gets on my nerves.
Hows this look to you?
Adrien, Mozart, Domenico
When I see listts such as these , here's what I really see
Tin, Gold, Zinc.
And also as:
Quartz, Diamond, Feldspar.

Please lets be more careful in who we group with who. Gold with other highly precious metals, diamonds with other highly precious stones.

[moldyoldie]

Of those on the poll list, Stockhausen rocks -- love Stimmung, Kurzwellen, Gesang der Junglinge, and Hymnen.

Pärt's allure escapes me. Henze can be interesting; he'd probably take the silver with Adams taking the bronze.

[Sapphire]

Dawg

Could you please add a "none" category.

You might get more numbers voting, me included.



Saphire

[marapets]

all the others were talented but Jonathan Harvey was a genius and an absolutly execeptional musician

[paulb]

Dawg

Could you please add a "none" category.

You might get more numbers voting, me included.



Saphire

Sap
There are 2 kinds of classicphiles.
Those who'll take any "Tom, Dick, or Harry" 's music that comes along and says 'its classical"!!, that those who have refined their taste and developed sensibilities of selection.
You my friend are of that elite group.
Nice answer.

[Sapphire]

Hi Paul

Thanks. I think this idea about "classical fans" could be extended:

type 1: haven't got much past the 1812 Overture and say they love classical music

type 2: know a bit about everything but can't make their mind up which they like best so they say they love it all

type 3: been there, seen this, done that, finally decided what they like

It's the type 3 variety I'm interested in. It breaks down into two main sub-groups: (i) those who do genuinely like a wide variety (ii) those whose tastes have crystallised into a more condensed group.

I'm in group 3 (ii).

It's fun actually picking out the different types. You're in 3 (ii) too, I think. I had better not speculate on how I perceive various others here.


Saphire

[Länzchen]

Much of the late 20th century 'classical composers" seems to my sensibilities, as an abberation from the classical tradition, thus I assign alot of this music to being "marginal classical". Better known, may I be the first to coin the term, 'Pop classical".
This word has been brewing long time within me, and now it has just pop-ed out on the keyboard.
POP CLASSICAL

Lets not just jumble compoers together in a list like,
Henze, Pettersson, Ligeti.
Or
Adams, Schnittke, Corigliano

I guess just as Paul insists that anyone who likes Beethoven is of the "old-school", anyone who likes Ligeti is wasting their time with "pop-classical". Thanks for figuring it out for us with more of your definitions, Paul.

[karlhenning]

Saphire, I wonder if Paul has not so much "crystallized," as ossified

[paulb]

Hi Paul

Thanks. I think this idea about "classical fans" could be extended:

type 1: haven't got much past the 1812 Overture and say they love classical music

type 2: know a bit about everything but can't make their mind up which they like best so they say they love it all

type 3: been there, seen this, done that, finally decided what they like

It's the type 3 variety I'm interested in. It breaks down into two main sub-groups: (i) those who do genuinely like a wide variety (ii) those whose tastes have crystallised into a more condensed group.

I'm in group 3 (ii).

It's fun actually picking out the different types. You're in 3 (ii) too, I think. I had better not speculate on how I perceive various others here.


Saphire

Sap I believe it was you who wrote that you not only Know the music of Schnittke and Pettersson, but actaully love their music.
I'll PM you.

Thats a good categorization of the 3 basic types of classicphiles.

Indeed I do fall in group ...Type 3.
Take for instance Mahler's 2 famous works for voice and orchestra. I would enjoy hearing both these works in concert. Really would. Even once a year.
But on recorded format, they do not carry well with me. I much prefer all the vocal and choral works from Schonberg, WEbern, Berg. Now these compoers music give me an overwhelming experience on cd format. I can listen to the same piece over and over, all day long.
Not sure why its like this with me, but its the way i'm wired.

Most of the mid/late 2oth century music, doesn't work for me. As I say i find its marginal classical, thus the term "Pop classical" depicts how I hear it.

Look there were thousands of composers in the 19th century, but we only know a handful. From say Beethoven upto 1900, there's only about 20 well known composers that we continue to lsiten to today.
In 100 yrs from now, how many composers from 1950-2000 do you think will still have some recognition? I'm talking in the years 2075-2100..
Obviously its all complete conjecture. maybe Ligeti will be considered as great as Beethoven, or even better. No one can say for sure.

All I know is that in this year, 2006, much of the so called "classical music" written in 1950-2000 does not appeal to me.
But thats not to say to "throw the baby out with the bath water" Indeed not.
As Schnittke , Pettersson and Carter music was born in this era, and is music that to me is worth more than the entire romatic period, all bundled together.

The romantics, which fall in Type 2, they have very wide acceptance levels, and thats good. For them. However I've yet to see Type2, say "wow" t either Schnittke and Pettersson, and also carter.

But I'm definetly type 3.

One of my motos is "more is not always better".

[karlhenning]

However I've yet to see Type2, say "wow" t either Schnittke and Pettersson, and also carter.

Of all this amusingly strawmannish post, Paul, this line is the most blatant of your strawmen.

Cheers,
~Karl

[paulb]

However I've yet to see Type2, say "wow" t either Schnittke and Pettersson, and also carter.

Of all this amusingly strawmannish post, Paul, this line is the most blatant of your strawmen.

Cheers,
~Karl

Karl as you know even the clown has a part in Shakespeare's plays.
How am I doing

[karlhenning]

Paul, you remember what Viola (disguised as Cesario) said to Olivia: "Westward ho!"

:-)

Cheers,
~Karl

[Sapphire]

All I know is that in this year, 2006, much of the so called "classical music" written in 1950-2000 does not appeal to me.

Paul: At least we are agreed on this.

I've just had a quick check and I think I can deduct only about 5 years from this to about 1945: RVW Symphony 5 (early 1940's), and Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra (1945).

For the post WW II period I far prefer pop, rock, country, metal. I’m talking about the likes of Elvis, Beatles, Willie Nelson, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin (plus many others). Are you interested in any of this, or are you strictly classical-only?

It's slightly odd, I guess, but my last classical outing was Delibe's wonderful ballet Coppelia at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, London last week. My next outing - as currently planned - is a metal concert with Deep Purple. For the former, it was dark suit and bow tie. For the latter I will have to get out my leather jacket and pretend to be a "head-banger."

Incidentally ballet is another of my interests. I don't like anything other than classical ballet. It is beautiful and only the very best performances are done at Covent Garden. The music assumes a completely different dimension. Tchaikovsky is "king" in my book. Do you like ballet? If you do, I wonder how you cope with the predominantly Romantic music?. Don't tell me Petterson wrote a ballet.

Actually, if I won the lottery I'd buy myself a £2 million pad overlooking the Thames somehere nice in London, and I'd be up at that Opera House every night. Sorry, just dreaming now ...............

Lastly, do you think if I asked "Dawg" to put Deep Purple on his list for this thread he might oblige? I guess he thought I was being bit cheeky asking for a "none" category, as nothing has actually happened in response. I don't know if you aware, but Deep Purple did at one stage in their career have a venture into the classical music scene. I think they joined up with Sir Malcolm Arnold but I'm not sure about the details. So maybe the idea isn't so bad after all. (Don't tell Dawg but I've never heard of anyone on his list; they could all be racehorses for all I know!)


Saphire

[paulb]

Saph
not sure exactly what you are saying about "1945, 5 yrs, ...bartok, RVW sym 5...."

Are you saying these 2 works represent the turning point as far as the great classical period started "tappering off"??
IOW you feel there' s not much happening past 1950?
Well for some reason you left off Schostakovich, who wrote some sq's in the 60's, but not sure of the dates to his final syms, which i happen to like, alot in fact. Those may have been written in the 50's and also his great vc1 in 1954 I believe. So we have in this order of time line as the completion of the great classical era. Shostakovich, Elliot Carter, Pettersson, Schnittke.
Elliot Carter is still, at 99 yrs, writing a piece or 2. And they are pretty solid works, from what i heard.
I have 95% of all Carter, and not a dud in the lot. All superior , top-notch compositions.
Not sure if you know Carter, we may have to talk on this composer.
I';ll send a PM and explain.


Between these 4 compoers, i have close to 100 cds worth of outstanding music to listen to before I die.
I want to spend quality time with this music, and so have no interest in buying cds from other late 20th C composers.
In a concert, other compoers may be OK, but I do not attend concerts. Besides there's none in my area, baton rouge.


Yes I would love to see a Tchaikovsky ballet at the Royal Opera. Would completely enjoy the music and the ballet. Tchaikovsky wrote incrediblely beautiful music for the ballet.
I would also like to seea Stravinsky ballet.
And as well Ravel's Daphis et Chole would be a draem come true, at The Paris Ballet. Those cute french femme fatals on stage. WOW

Deep Purple. Well I grew up on late 60's /early 70's R7R. John Mayall, Peter Green, ealry Fleetwood Mac, early Jethro Tull, early Wishbone Ash. I ise to love Deep Purple's In Rock album, with Child In Time. That entire album is great. DP Live in Japan is "heavy man,...like far-out".
My backgroud is lots of underground blues, rock.

But thats all behind me, thou I do have a soft spot for some, if i catch it on the radio somewhere. The Who's Quadrophenia was a big hit with me. Thats a creative effort from Pete.
But I try to avoid all Rock now, In order to concentrate on Schnittke and Pettersson, both of whom far surpass any rock offerings.

You see, we do have alot in common.
Was not aware you were a british chap.
"jolly good' to meet you.

[Sapphire]

Paul: My comment was that I draw a line about 1945 as there isn't much classical music after that which interests me. The 2 pieces I mentioned, which I do like, were written in the early 1940s and 1945. (Actually, I'm not sure why I'm posting here. It seems silly really. I only wanted a "none" category so that I could vote.)

As for Shosty: I think Sym 5 was written in 1937. Sym 10 and 11 were written in 1953 and 1957.

DP:- Made in Japan, Child in Time, Osaka 16th August 1972.


Saphire

[Wallingford]

Geez.....no Daugherty or Sheng??

[anasazi]

Hi Paul

Thanks. I think this idea about "classical fans" could be extended:

type 1: haven't got much past the 1812 Overture and say they love classical music

type 2: know a bit about everything but can't make their mind up which they like best so they say they love it all

type 3: been there, seen this, done that, finally decided what they like

It's the type 3 variety I'm interested in. It breaks down into two main sub-groups: (i) those who do genuinely like a wide variety (ii) those whose tastes have crystallised into a more condensed group.

I'm in group 3 (ii).

It's fun actually picking out the different types. You're in 3 (ii) too, I think. I had better not speculate on how I perceive various others here.


Saphire

That's fairly acurate I think. But there is still more. Those of us in group 3 (ii), and know exactly why we listen, and why we like to listen to certain music and not other BUT may be a bit shy or even embarrassed by it at times.

Classical music and classical music criticism. It's very intimidating. How can I be credible when I end up not liking the music of a famous composer who changed the course of music and for possibly enjoying the work of a lesser master?

So mostly I just beat around the bush and try not to give anything away.

And I also admit to more than a little of your type 2. So I'm still kind of in the progress of possible new discoveries along the way.

I also never put bumper stickers on my car (for very much the same reason).

[paulb]

Paul: My comment was that I draw a line about 1945 as there isn't much classical music after that which interests me. The 2 pieces I mentioned, which I do like, were written in the early 1940s and 1945. (Actually, I'm not sure why I'm posting here. It seems silly really. I only wanted a "none" category so that I could vote.)

As for Shosty: I think Sym 5 was written in 1937. Sym 10 and 11 were written in 1953 and 1957.

DP:- Made in Japan, Child in Time, Osaka 16th August 1972.


Saphire

But weren't you the one who said to love Schnittke and Pettersson?
You might want to slightly modify your statement to read like what i believe...here goes:
"lets say after 1950, I'm pretty cautios as to who i want to listen to at home".
IOW take Penderecki or Lutoslaswki. As expamples, a lsit that could be well extended. Now they may have some music that might appeal to me at a concert, but never on cd format.
Arvo Part, is another, never ever on cd, its possible at a concert I might be able to sit through his music.

Right now I'm not at all complaining what the past century produced. Late Shostakovich, all of Schnittke, all of Pettersson and all of Carter is post 1950. Why complain about the late 20th century classical when we have these treasures.
Also not sure when Shosty wrote syms 13,14,15 but i enjoy all 3.

I've not heard the Live in Tokyo version of Child, only in part.
Saph, you will find, or must find a way to break with all rock. It will, or should, come in time. But you must make some efforts.

I've got music to replace that stuff with. Trust me, you'll be happier for it.

[paulb]

Hi Paul

Thanks. I think this idea about "classical fans" could be extended:

type 1: haven't got much past the 1812 Overture and say they love classical music

type 2: know a bit about everything but can't make their mind up which they like best so they say they love it all

type 3: been there, seen this, done that, finally decided what they like

It's the type 3 variety I'm interested in. It breaks down into two main sub-groups: (i) those who do genuinely like a wide variety (ii) those whose tastes have crystallised into a more condensed group.

I'm in group 3 (ii).

It's fun actually picking out the different types. You're in 3 (ii) too, I think. I had better not speculate on how I perceive various others here.


Saphire

That's fairly acurate I think. But there is still more. Those of us in group 3 (ii), and know exactly why we listen, and why we like to listen to certain music and not other BUT may be a bit shy or even embarrassed by it at times.

Classical music and classical music criticism. It's very intimidating. How can I be credible when I end up not liking the music of a famous composer who changed the course of music and for possibly enjoying the work of a lesser master?

So mostly I just beat around the bush and try not to give anything away.

And I also admit to more than a little of your type 2. So I'm still kind of in the progress of possible new discoveries along the way.

I also never put bumper stickers on my car (for very much the same reason).

WEll I can understand the timidity on the part of newbies in classical, and newbies on this caht site to speak up and be heard.
But this site is commited to all an open forum, where we can choose to ignore any post/posters, or participate with friendly debate.

But please express your feelings, just as long as you temper your opinions as being from a subject POV, and not speaking for any group, speak as you please.

I've seen the romantic/traditionalists get a bit flustered at some of my comments. Though my eccentricities can be a bit much, grate the nerves.
But i do believe there is a growing movement within the classicphile community that is giving consideration of looking at the history of classical from a critical perspective. IOW, what does classical mean to me, on a purely subjective basis? Dis-regarding what history says, what my father and grandfather has told me. Which composers appeal to me, and to what degree am i affected?

Music is many things, and defy's any complete description on a cognitive level.
However that elusive sense of "ultimate defined" meaning to classical does NOT preclude the abandonment of the psychological dimension to classical.
Music is psyche. We have the capacity to be psyche. And music is one means of many to facilitate this connection of our Self to Psyche.

Another way to say this is that our Psyche seeks to know the Self, and music can be the means to re connect, or the road to regain that lost sense of Self.

Go to the Vivaldi topic for more understanding of what iI'm getting at.

[Sapphire]

Hi Paul

Thanks. I think this idea about "classical fans" could be extended:

type 1: haven't got much past the 1812 Overture and say they love classical music

type 2: know a bit about everything but can't make their mind up which they like best so they say they love it all

type 3: been there, seen this, done that, finally decided what they like

It's the type 3 variety I'm interested in. It breaks down into two main sub-groups: (i) those who do genuinely like a wide variety (ii) those whose tastes have crystallised into a more condensed group.

I'm in group 3 (ii).

It's fun actually picking out the different types. You're in 3 (ii) too, I think. I had better not speculate on how I perceive various others here.


Saphire

That's fairly acurate I think. But there is still more. Those of us in group 3 (ii), and know exactly why we listen, and why we like to listen to certain music and not other BUT may be a bit shy or even embarrassed by it at times.

Classical music and classical music criticism. It's very intimidating. How can I be credible when I end up not liking the music of a famous composer who changed the course of music and for possibly enjoying the work of a lesser master?

So mostly I just beat around the bush and try not to give anything away.

And I also admit to more than a little of your type 2. So I'm still kind of in the progress of possible new discoveries along the way.

I also never put bumper stickers on my car (for very much the same reason).

Anasazi: I agree with you fully. I was in the same position re Wagner. I couldn't reconcile my dislike for Wagner with my Romantic period bias. So I went back to type 2 for another thrash around in there, and came out a second time with a more consistent and comprehensive set of preferences, this time liking Wagner.

However, I still haven't cracked Debussy or Stravinsky (whose greatness I fully recognise). I'm less concerned about these two because at least I've given them a good chance. Having said this, I'm tolerant of most classical music from 1700-1950. I'd be happy to listen to virtually anything, except atonal.

For the modern era, as I've said I much prefer the likes of Deep Purple and Pink Floyd, instead of what passes off as classical music these days. I'm quite happy with that outcome, my tastes in this era being very much crystallised. Some of my most memorable live concerts ever involved Pink Floyd, who are true musical geniuses in every sense.


Saphire

[jbuck919]

I voted for PÄRT for this one, just so you know where I'm comin' from.

And maybe I should start one for the SEVENTEENTH century. Good idea?

This is getting a little silly, as I'm sure I don't have to tell you. As you know, the 17th century with the exception of Monteverdi is a dead zone in music.

I beg your pardon, Bach-guy! It most certainly is not a dead zone.

Neither Bach nor Handel nor Scarlatti, all born in 1685, wrote anything important before 1701. I'll give you some space mainly for Schuetz, who was a disciple of Monteverdi. It is hard to fill in that gap in any other signifcant way.