I sold that disc shortly afterwards and made a mental note to avoid the symphony at all costs. I genuinely hate it when a piece or composer doesn't 'work' for me and I tend to think the fault is mine. Elgar, Brahms and Schmidt are just three composers who fall into that category but I do revisit them in the hope that some sort of Damascene conversion will take place. Sadly, no blinding revelations yet.
In that spirit of perseverance, and in response to to Rob Barnett's enthusiastic review, I went out and bought Schmidt's Book with Seven Seals. No revelations there either, so I sold that one too. Then along comes Ashkenazy's new recording of Asrael so, ever the optimist, I bought a copy yesterday. I have just finished listening to it (around 2am) and...no dice. I definitely won't revisit this one (and if anyone's after a bargain it goes on to Amazon Marketplace after I've posted this).
I'm sure I'm not alone in struggling with certain composers/pieces. I try to approach everything I hear with an open mind (and ears) but I'm sorely tempted to think Asrael is Suk's fault and not mine. It's structurally weak, repetitive and derivative. This particular recording is also rather recessed, which just emphasises the symphony's general weediness. Indeed, if I were synaesthetic I'd say Asrael is nothing but shades of grey from start to finish.
I'd be interested to hear other posters' 'blind spots' and how they deal with them. Any takers?
I'm with you on Schmidt's "Book of the Seven Seals." My first encounter with it was live in concert. I was stuck in the middle of a row. If I had been at the end of a row, I would have left. That piece of turgid sludge made me want to pull out my hair. Horrible.
ReplyDeleteI don't have too many composer-wide blind spots, other than possibly Reger. Repertory blind spots for me are Mendelssohn's "Reformation Symphony," which first bores me then irritates me; Wagner's "Siegfried Idyll," which everyone just seems to adore, though it strikes me as 20 minutes of meandering in search of a point; and most of all, Schoenberg's "Transfigured Night." I can handle most of his other works fine, whether tonal, atonal or series. But that one just grates on me.
As for the Suk, I've never been compelled to memorize it, but I have liked it the handful of times I've listened.
Mark
It'll only be a matter of time before you get a post from Paul Serotsky on this one. He reveres the piece and did an illuminating talk on it for our local Music Society some years ago. For myself, I'm with Dan on this one - I've tried more than once but just find it rambles and I find my mind wandering. I thought of trying the Ashkenazy to see if it would 'open the door' for me, but maybe I won't bother now...
ReplyDeleteI also thought like Dan and avoided Asrael for years but I have listened to the Ashkenazy and for me it worked and I enjoyed listening to it for the first time.
ReplyDeleteIt will be available on the next list that I am just starting on (unless Rob bags it first)
AS for blank spots, in spite of my love for Arnold, Alwyn etc I have great difficulty with Rubbra, Moeran and Ireland. However I do like Bliss and Bridge who leave others cold. And in spite of Rob's advocacy I find Eugene Goossens a turgid composer
Len
Yes, I have one or two English romantics that I've tried hard with and eventually given up on - and Rubbra is one of them. I'll never forget reading a rave crit by Robert Layton about a disc of his symphonies and couldn't wait to hear it. All I remember thinking is how dry and rather academic it all sounded, with great intellect and crafsmanship but no emotional engagement. Of course, I'm a great advocate of Korngold, and he still has any number of detractors, but that subjectivity is what makes this hobby of ours so fascinating. One man's meat...
ReplyDeleteTony
ReplyDeleteI share your enthusiasm for Korngold but several musical friends dismiss his music out of hand. As for Rubbra, I've not heard anything of his - apart from Arnold, Britten and RVW English music is a bit of a blank spot for me, rather than a blind one. I much admired Bridge's The Sea, which I first heard on that magical Seascapes disc from BIS.
I suspect I might have an allergy to Wagner. I try to keep an open mind and ear, but every time I've approached the operas I find myself pacing up and down, sensing increased stress, raised heart-rate and sweatiness, and a burning desire to leave the room. I did once survive Barenboim's televised Rhinegold, but that's about it. I've tried Solti, and have the Brilliant Classics box (played by whom I forget for the moment) which remains prodded but unplayed beyond my own breaking point.
ReplyDeleteOver a pleasant lunch last Summer, Len told of his own lectures which he used to give on the subject, and I freely admit that my resistance may well have a basis in ignorance. As a contemporary music enthusiast however I've heard more extreme noises then many and tolerated plenty of strangeness, and would hate to think I have a closed mind when it comes to any kind of music - especially when it is of such undoubted quality and musical-historical significance as Wagner. Nor do I consider myself incurable: Henze used to give me instant neuralgia, but I've since developed an appreciation of his symphonies.
At age 44 I suspect there may be no cure for my Wagneritis, but if anyone shares my sheer physical reaction to this or other music then I would be interested to hear of it.
Somehow I feel obligated to say something (thanks, Tony!). Regarding "Asrael", the juice of my opinions is encapsulated in my programme note, posted on MWI. If that helps anyone to see the light through the intervening darkness, I shall be inordinately pleased.
ReplyDeleteAs for my own "blind spots". Well, they are few, largley because I always look for what is "good" in what the composer is doing, and generally I do manage to find something! However, with very few exceptions, I give a big thumbs-down to so-called "Minimalists". For me the only "minimalists" really worth bothering with are Bruckner (who usually bursts the bubble of a minimalist doodle with transcendent lyricism or sonorous grandeur), and Ravel (whose only minimalist work is, of course, "Bolero" - again, see my programme note!).
Mind you, I also give fairly short shrift to composers who seem to create their scores by spraying ink, blindfolded, in the general direction of some manuscript paper, and not always leaving it to dry. Am I being a bit catty? Hell, I'm too old to care any more!
Ooh, kitty has claws :)) Seriously, Paul, thanks for the pointer. Others elsewhere have suggested I try the Behlolavek recording as something of an ideal. Would you agree?
ReplyDeleteAs for Dominy's Wagneritis I'm delighted to say I'm a fellow sufferer (sorry, Len). Hmm, this thread is proving very therapeutic...
From Michael Cookson
ReplyDeleteI really do try to keep an open mind on the merits of the various composers. I find that as my exposure to various types of music increases I often develop an ear for the music of composers that at one time I cared nothing for. Ligeti is one such example and Bartók another.
Like Dan I also have problems with Suk's Asrael Symphony that is for me overlong and generally interesting. The Nielsen Clarinet Concerto is another score that I find tedious.
I also confess to having difficulties enjoying the music of Handel and Purcell; music that I can only take in small doses. Kodály’s music doesn’t not hold the same interest for me as it clearly has for many others.
Dan - I have the Behlolavek recording. It is very fine, but even so it's not a patch on a performance that I recorded off-air about 25 years ago (unfortunately, I omitted to note the performers!). Played like that, Asrael was entirely gripping, intensely moving, sometimes blood-curdling, and nary a bar too long!
ReplyDeleteFor those who've not been walloped by this work, I would say, "It did little for me the first time I heard it. Yet, of all the works that have 'grown' on me, this one takes the cake. On each successive hearing, it tightened its grip. Now, I have to ration auditions, lest it finally strangle me!"
AH!!! Let's not forget, please, that Wagner is no one composer, but three! He starts off as "Weber" (or something of close kin), and ends up as a fuzzy, long-winded "minimalist". But in between he came up with some pretty exciting stuff - especially if you avoid the occasional boring quarter of an hour!
Indeed - I refer to the Wagner of 'The Ring' rather than 'The Wesendonck' (and other stuff), which is/are/can be fairly easy on the ear. Kodály wrote reams of dross, but the complete Hary Janos (Ferencsik) is a cracking desert island recording which I would recommend to anyone. We shall all have our weaknesses and blind spots - in the end I think it prevents us from going entirely mad!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow... I do have my "blind" spots, but I've worked on most of them successfully.
ReplyDeleteI like Asrael, I like the 7 Seals, I like Wagner, I like Glass... I do have issues with some of the ink-sprayers, I suppose. And I think Ferneyhough's Shadowtime is a ghastly waste of time and effort. I don't think Minkus is great [that's because he isn't] and I'm still struggling with Verdi [where I am aware the fault lies with me]. I can say catty things about Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov, but that doesn't mean I can't or don't enjoy them.
Not a "blind spot" but merely a crap-allergy keeps me away from Rutter and worse (almost impossible, yet he manages it): A.LloydWebber. But that (the latter, at least), is not classical music by any sane definition. Is it?