Anyone who hears Penderecki’s Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima [...] for the first time gets an idea [...] Like anyone, my first reaction to the piece is negative.
Anyone? For what it’s worth, my first reaction (I’m listening as I type this and it’s just finishing) is positive. I think it’s entirely appropriately evocative of desolation, menace and destruction, with hints of aircraft engines and weaponry and so forth. (All of which are negative things, of course, but I assume that isn’t what you mean by having a negative reaction to the piece. It’s not supposed to be nice.) My only complaint would be that if it has much structure then it isn’t apparent, but it’s not clear to me that this sort of piece requires much structure and there’s no reason why it should be clearly discernible on a first listening anyway.
(Also, when you wrote “proceeds” you were probably going for “precedes” but actually wanted “follows” :-).)
But maybe my sophistication-signalling habits are just too deeply ingrained or something. I quite enjoy the Grosse Fuge too, though I haven’t listened to it intently enough for my opinion to be worth anything.
Honestly, I know a lot of people who have listened to piece, musicians and everything, and almost none have positive reactions to it at first. Not many people would listen to this in their spare time. (I suspect if I said “this piece is awesome you’d totally love it” you may have reacted differently. Is there a cognitive term for that?)
Actually the structure of the piece, which isn’t totally apparent at first, is one of the most intriguing part of the piece for many composers and theorists. The piece is famous for many reasons.
Anyone? For what it’s worth, my first reaction (I’m listening as I type this and it’s just finishing) is positive. I think it’s entirely appropriately evocative of desolation, menace and destruction, with hints of aircraft engines and weaponry and so forth. (All of which are negative things, of course, but I assume that isn’t what you mean by having a negative reaction to the piece. It’s not supposed to be nice.) My only complaint would be that if it has much structure then it isn’t apparent, but it’s not clear to me that this sort of piece requires much structure and there’s no reason why it should be clearly discernible on a first listening anyway.
(Also, when you wrote “proceeds” you were probably going for “precedes” but actually wanted “follows” :-).)
But maybe my sophistication-signalling habits are just too deeply ingrained or something. I quite enjoy the Grosse Fuge too, though I haven’t listened to it intently enough for my opinion to be worth anything.
Honestly, I know a lot of people who have listened to piece, musicians and everything, and almost none have positive reactions to it at first. Not many people would listen to this in their spare time. (I suspect if I said “this piece is awesome you’d totally love it” you may have reacted differently. Is there a cognitive term for that?)
Actually the structure of the piece, which isn’t totally apparent at first, is one of the most intriguing part of the piece for many composers and theorists. The piece is famous for many reasons.