Mayako Kubo (1947): Piano Concerto (1985-'86)

[Jolly Roger]

I am usually open-minded about music tastes.
But when I hear something like this, I must assume there is no such thing as "bad" music
unless it is intended as a satirical joke or a ruse for the listener.
If I were introducing someone to newer classical music, I would keep
them as far away from this as possible, lest they mistake me for a madman or a drug addict.

Other opinions are welcomed.

Mayako Kubo (1947): Piano Concerto (1985-'86)

[guest2]

Yes, J R. In my experience women are not mentally capable of applying themselves to serious work.

[Gauk]

You never know - it can be that an inexperienced listener with an open mind could be fascinated by this. It is relatively accessible; it veers in and out of conventional harmonies, and I could think of it as the musical equivalent of a cubist painting. It's certainly not a bad piece, though I don't think I would want to listen to it repeatedly.

[Jolly Roger]

Yes, J R. In my experience women are not mentally capable of applying themselves to serious work.

Now now, Gerald..
A rather patronizing statement which many women would find offensive.
If this music were written by a man would you feel different? Music has no gender, does it??.
BTW:
Please refer to this post for sample of one fine female composer(there are many) to enhance your musical knowledge a bit..
http://artmusic.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,5060.0.html

[Jolly Roger]

You never know - it can be that an inexperienced listener with an open mind could be fascinated by this. It is relatively accessible; it veers in and out of conventional harmonies, and I could think of it as the musical equivalent of a cubist painting. It's certainly not a bad piece, though I don't think I would want to listen to it repeatedly.

interesting and kind response..can you name one "bad piece"?

[Gauk]

You never know - it can be that an inexperienced listener with an open mind could be fascinated by this. It is relatively accessible; it veers in and out of conventional harmonies, and I could think of it as the musical equivalent of a cubist painting. It's certainly not a bad piece, though I don't think I would want to listen to it repeatedly.

interesting and kind response..can you name one "bad piece"?

Bad pieces tend not to be given much in the way of performances, and also are usually not memorable (sometimes mercifully so). I have heard plenty, but I don't think I should try and nominate a single work as an example. There are any number of very dull serialist works written by composers with no sense of sonority, who just follow formulae.

[Jolly Roger]

You never know - it can be that an inexperienced listener with an open mind could be fascinated by this. It is relatively accessible; it veers in and out of conventional harmonies, and I could think of it as the musical equivalent of a cubist painting. It's certainly not a bad piece, though I don't think I would want to listen to it repeatedly.

interesting and kind response..can you name one "bad piece"?

Bad pieces tend not to be given much in the way of performances, and also are usually not memorable (sometimes mercifully so). I have heard plenty, but I don't think I should try and nominate a single work as an example. There are any number of very dull serialist works written by composers with no sense of sonority, who just follow formulae.

Fair enough..esoteric academic works may be pleasurable exercises for the composer, but not for his audience.

[Gauk]

Going back to the Kubo piano concerto, this is very far from an academic or formulaic work. The composer takes various musical ideas - fragments of harmony, rhythm, piano figurations - that would be considered inadmissable by a strict serialist, and juxtaposes them in imaginative ways. Of course, if you came to it expecting a late romantic concerto, you would be disappointed. I can imagine (and I have some experience in support of this) that an inexperienced listener with no idea of what to expect from a piano concerto might well approach the piece with an open mind and be quite receptive to it.

[Jolly Roger]

Going back to the Kubo piano concerto, this is very far from an academic or formulaic work. The composer takes various musical ideas - fragments of harmony, rhythm, piano figurations - that would be considered inadmissable by a strict serialist, and juxtaposes them in imaginative ways. Of course, if you came to it expecting a late romantic concerto, you would be disappointed. I can imagine (and I have some experience in support of this) that an inexperienced listener with no idea of what to expect from a piano concerto might well approach the piece with an open mind and be quite receptive to it.

To be honest, I don't know what "style" it is and/or what I expected. but I know it sure ain't Rachmaninoff or Vladigerov.
I'm an experienced listener but not a musician or musicologist..and perhaps there's the rub.
I think I have an open mind but I hope not an empty one. Perhaps I lack musical background
to be more discerning of just what this composer was trying to say.

I had a very strong negative reaction to this music and wanted to see if any others felt the same way.
But I should be aware that any discussion of "bad" music is generally not practical, but discussions of
bad (or flawed) performances and/or recordings can be very useful.

I think discussing this music may be akin to discussing opinions about eating liver.

Either you relish and enjoy it, or you hold your nose and leave the room before you get nauseous.
Disagreement on such things are unavoidable.

[relm1]

Yes, J R. In my experience women are not mentally capable of applying themselves to serious work.

What a silly thing to say. Hopefully this was just a joke.

[Jolly Roger]

Yes, J R. In my experience women are not mentally capable of applying themselves to serious work.

What a silly thing to say. Hopefully this was just a joke.

obviously a failed attempt at satire

[Gauk]

Disagreement on such things are unavoidable.

De gustibus non disputandum - no harm in that.