Thread: Which composers especially reward attention to detail? " Purely austere composers"

I guess this post fits best in this subforum.

Sure, listeners will get more out of music in general if more appreciation is given to the details and the subtleties outside the main themes, but which composers are especially rewarding the listeners is able to pay attention to all the subtleties? Usually in my case, these composers can be described as "thick" and thematically austere but fantastic in their development of their themes and often change things in their music that is difficult to detect after even multiple listenings, usually multiple listening hint more to the listener just how much depth/ORDER is contained in the music. Brahms is my archetypal composer in this regard.

Some other composers I consider to be in this vein:
Elgar(especially those symphonies that make Brahms look like nursery rhymes, I still don't get them)
Medtner: Very subtle and thick, not as hard as the Elgar symphonies and his first piano concerto actually inspired this post
Taneyev: Austere and clean, cleaner than Brahms in orchestration so a bit easier, but still quite subtle.
Bartok: Dissonant as all heck, but I've found him very rewarding and very tidy

And then for older composers, it maybe works a little differently
Corelli: A baroque composer, but very polished and in a different period sort of way, similar principals may apply.
J.S. Bach: Well, he might be another archetype, but he doesn't always require this kind of listening and I feel it differently for him somehow
W.F. Bach: I have a knack for this guy, but he certainly has such tendencies

I'm curious about how Richard Strauss and Mahler and Bruckner fit into this category. Where are they on this spectrum? And what about Ravel, or late Debussy, or Janacek. What about Gliere?

And what of the early 20th century composers?

And which composers do you think aren't worth all the attention? Just a start to a complex topic.

I agree with you on Taneyev, good call.

I dont think Debussy would fit on this scale. As he said himself, 'there is no theory, pleasure is the law'. Makes me think his music is meant to be enjoyed 'in the moment' without any further thought.

Its good that you mentioned that about the Debussy, his music seems uniquely tonally/structurally complex and immediate, there is a logic of intuition in his music, but there are depths to plunge as well I believe. His big works like La Mer can be listened to over again, because its so rich and you'll feel new things, despite being so spectacular to the first listen. fHis later music is so much what I would call atmospheric, more for mood because because it sometimes goes right over my head, but works as an atmosphere creator all the same. I'm thinking of this one chamber piece that I heard live a while ago in particular, can't remember what it was.

The Bartok on my list perhaps is of a slightly different category, 20th century.

For me, greater enjoyment comes from understanding the overall structure and how one idea logically flows to the next.. The particular details of each moment of the music don't require special attention, as they are usually very easy to hear. In other words, I try to have the bigger picture of the piece in mind whenever I listen, not just focusing on the moment... unless there is nothing particularly interesting about the form of the piece.

As far as composers who deserve this sort of attention... This particularly applies to Romantic and Modern composers, because their pieces tend to be less predictable in terms of large-scale form than older composers. Once you've studied a few Mozart or Haydn symphonies, for example, they become pretty easy to follow, since they mostly use standard sonata form. J.S. Bach is a bit more difficult, but he too can become very predictable after studying a few preludes and fugues. I think that individual symphonies by composers like Shostakovich, Mahler and Sibelius, however, are not easy to follow unless you have some familiarity with each piece beforehand.

EDIT: On second thought, perhaps Bach is not as easy as I just said.. I have been playing Bach fugues for nearly 10 years, so the sequences and subject entries come pretty easily to me now. I can't speak for others, though.

I agree with Ravellian that a lot of orchestral music by composers like Shostakovich, Mahler and Sibelius (plus Brahms, Bruckner, etc.) is among the hardest to follow and needs several listens. Chamber music, particularly string quartets, can be difficult to follow, but it depends on the composer. I can't say I agree with Ravellian that Bach's fugues are all that easy to follow, but most of the preludes are. Piano concertos and violin concertos from all eras (except avant-garde works) are usually linear and not that hard to follow. Organ music can be really difficult; with piano music, it depends on how much pedal is being used...

I'm getting a bit off topic, though. Sorry.

With a lot of composers, it's not necessary the complexity that's hard to get, but it can be another quality as well. Schumann and Brahms, I feel, can be difficult on the surface, Brahms because of his intricate forms, though not necessarily complex, and Schumann because of his incredibly strange thought process and his tendency to work with unfamiliar smaller forms that reject formal notions of complexity. Sometimes structure in Schumann is really difficult to pick out, and takes a lot of sensitivity, "ears that can hear further", to understand. For Bach fugues, greater appreciation can come with greater knowledge of the fugue structure - study of the score can be extremely rewarding in my opinion. You start to discover fugue subjects and strange harmonies in locations you would never expect them to be. And this is one reason I just love playing Bach.

I'm glad some of you mentioned Taneyev and Medtner. One of the reason Taneyev strays from the typical Russian school is because he works with extremely complex structures somewhat akin to Brahms... hence his being dubbed as "the Russian Brahms". With Medtner, the enigma in his music has to do with the fact that for him tonality was but a fleeting matter, and for many this extremely ambiguous late Romantic tonality can be irritating, intimidating, and set one's head spinning. Unlike his contemporary and fellow Russian composer Rachmaninoff (who admired Medtner as one of the world's best), Medtner's melodies are extremely unmemorable and hard to pick out, sprawling, rhythmically complex and never seeming to "settle in". I feel that a lot of Rachmaninoff's music is much more generous to beginners, for example his second piano concerto.

I find late Sibelius and Mahler needing much more repeated listens than early Sibelius and Mahler. Early Sibelius and Mahler are generally full of tunes, sentimentalism, and bombast, while works like Mahler's 9th and Sibelius's 6th can be much more enigmatic. Even with its outrageous length, I found Mahler's 2nd really easy to approach when I was first introduced to classical music.

I believe that every 20th century avant-garde composer rewards attention to detail. I've never found myself disliking these composers more after repeated listens, but only develop a greater appreciation for their work. I'm so grateful that music such as that of Xenakis and Stockhausen exists since it provides a lifelong challenge for me that will almost never grow old.

Finally, Mozart can definitely benefit from attention too. I think many people miss the greatness in his music because they reject it due to what they believe is a "lack of complexity".

Originally Posted by Air

Finally, I believe that every 20th century avant-garde composer rewards attention to detail. I've never found myself disliking these composers more after repeated listens, but only develop a greater appreciation for their work. I'm so grateful that music such as that of Xenakis and Stockhausen exists since it provides a lifelong challenge for me that will almost never grow old.

This is interesting, lately I have been very unsure as to where to draw the line between who's worth it and who isn't. For example, many early twentieth century symphonists, like William Schuman or William Walton seem acceptable to me, but I'm not certain. I know someone who is currently reading Medtner's book that talks about tonality and bashes atonality. That is an attempt to draw a line, and it is done very eloquently. I just don't know myself, drawing such lines can be discouraging. Medtner said that it was habit that this atonal music actually started to sound okay to us. I just don't know what any of this means to be sure.

Originally Posted by Ravellian

For me, greater enjoyment comes from understanding the overall structure and how one idea logically flows to the next.. The particular details of each moment of the music don't require special attention, as they are usually very easy to hear. In other words, I try to have the bigger picture of the piece in mind whenever I listen, not just focusing on the moment... unless there is nothing particularly interesting about the form of the piece.

Maybe that is more what I meant. Its a good distinction, sometimes language can be confusing. Maybe its that some pieces need to be understood in their overall structure before attention to details can really be given.

Originally Posted by emiellucifuge

I agree with you on Taneyev, good call.

I dont think Debussy would fit on this scale. As he said himself, 'there is no theory, pleasure is the law'. Makes me think his music is meant to be enjoyed 'in the moment' without any further thought.

True, but I find I can't just turn my brain off with Jeux.

I love this question and I'm going with Bach and Brahms. Brahms for the form, Bach for the counterpoint.