# The most irritating clichés in classical music?



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

What are the most irritating clichés in classical music for you?

For me, it is the use of Javanese gamelan. Debussy was searching for a new musical language, and he found his exotic inspiration. To make it look cooler, the man even glorified it over the counterpoint of Palestrina. OK, fine, good for him! His passion "somehow" becomes contagious, it spread to Bartok, Britten, Poulenc, Messiaen, and Boulez. Then, it established itself as the high fashion among the later avant-garde (I guess that was also the case with the Turkish flavor in the music of the late 18th-early 19th century). 

I'm not allergic to gamelan, just lukewarm to it both in its original form and the westernized version. But the abuse of gamelan cliche really irritates me.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda (Jul 12, 2017)

I'd probably say in proper classical music, those trills they used to throw in to end a phrase bothers me a lot.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

silentio said:


> What are the most irritating clichés in classical music for you?
> 
> For me, it is the use of Javanese gamelan...


Debussy didn't use the gamelan itself, just let the sound influence his piano writing. I'm really not all that perturbed by a well sustained piano sound. I also don't feel that the other people you mentioned really did the same thing, perhaps Messiaen, but if he's doing anything like Debussy it's really just influence of Debussy's piano writing, not writing like a gamelan. (Even if it is the case I'm glad because his _Vingt Regards_ are sublime).


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Maybe cadential 6/4 chords. People who know theory know what that is. It's a kind of chord progression used in cadences of the most academic, proper and erudite, most common in the Baroque to early Romantic eras (Beethoven).


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda (Jul 12, 2017)

I wholeheartedly agree. In general, Baroque and Classical are so dull to listen to since most all of them use these same chord progressions and conventions, that it just goops together.

I, for the life of me, will never understand how one can listen to that music for hours.


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

Major and minor keys 

5-1 cadences 

Melodies with really simple rhythms


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

David OByrne said:


> Major and minor keys
> 
> 5-1 cadences
> 
> Melodies with really simple rhythms


this is the most try-hard thing ever written on this forum.


----------



## ST4 (Oct 27, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> this is the most try-hard thing ever written on this forum.


But he is right, they're all overused 

Fight me bro? :clap:


----------



## bigboy (May 26, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Debussy didn't use the gamelan itself, just let the sound influence his piano writing. I'm really not all that perturbed by a well sustained piano sound. I also don't feel that the other people you mentioned really did the same thing, perhaps Messiaen, but if he's doing anything like Debussy it's really just influence of Debussy's piano writing, not writing like a gamelan. (Even if it is the case I'm glad because his _Vingt Regards_ are sublime).


I'm just riffing off of your commentary here which I think is nice:

I think that Debussy (in contrast to some other composers) really had some nice insights into what javanese music could bring to the western music tradition. I can't help but feel that Debussy had a keen ear for what it was about this music that was so refreshing and exciting to western ears, in terms of harmonies textures and rhythms. 
Feel free to disagree here, but I think by point of contrast Leopold Godowsky's Java suite just totally missed the mark, and (forgive the crass simile) I think has aged like a minstrel show.

At any rate, I suppose all I mean to say is that if having a heavy Javanese influence is a cliche then it is in spite of good old Claude instead of because of him!


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

the words "greatest genius" instead of "the only ones I know" :lol:


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

Pretty much any vibration that travels through the air that's audible to the human ear is cliché.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

In the music of the lesser composers, practically everything sounds like a cliche: the dominant-tonic cadences, the ornamentation, the sequences, the chromatic flourishes...

Yet these very same features often sound fresh and magical (at least to my ears) in the hands of a great composer. How is this possible? I suppose that it's all in the skillful handling of the conventions, judiciously balanced with some strange moments that keep us on our toes.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I don't think there is any classical music cliché that I dislike. I think it's all mythical, the ever-renewing stream of the basic archetypes of the universe. Clichés are sometimes boring, but boring usually doesn't translate into dislike for me.

Now when it comes to the opposite - innovation - there are several classical music innovations that I dislike. Not all of them, no! But I seem to much easier dislike innovations than clichés. And what I dislike the most is the attitude that an innovation is always good, because it's an innovation. Composers: if you're a genius, please come up with new stuff. If you're not, please don't come up with new stuff, just keep re-hashing the old stuff instead.

Of course, only time separates innovation from cliché, they don't bear intrinsic labels. So what matters to me here is what kind of a feeling I get when listening to the music.

Trying to innovate, result being successful: good!
Trying to mix and match existing elements in an interesting way, result being successful: good!
Trying to mix and match existing elements in an interesting way, result being a failure: it's ok!
Trying to innovate, result being a failure: I hate this music!


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> I wholeheartedly agree. In general, Baroque and Classical are so dull to listen to since most all of them use these same chord progressions and conventions, that it just goops together.
> 
> I, for the life of me, will never understand how one can listen to that music for hours.


Tastes differ. If the above post is genuinely representative of yours, you'll find yourself in a very small minority.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I'm not sure any musical element in isolation can be called a cliche. They become cliches in context.


----------



## Jacob Brooks (Feb 21, 2017)

I think cliche is a contextual term, and I'd certainly have a hard time finding music in isolation!


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

The sound of big string sections in orchestral music gets tiresome after a while.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

For me, Mozart used trills a bit much, but who am I to question such greatness?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

apricissimus said:


> The sound of big string sections in orchestral music gets tiresome after a while.


Noooooo, that's so exciting, I like it, the more the better.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Classical period leading-tone melodies. I don't think Mozart composed a single piece without multiple instances of this cliche.

And the overuse of dominant cadences to signal the end of a movement. Dvorak is particularly guilty of this; his string of dominant cadences at the end of a piece seem almost endless.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

To you perhaps, and that's fair enough, but I suspect Dvorak's answer to your accusation of "overuse" would be the same as Mozart's to the Kaiser in "Amadeus" when His Majesty ventured the suggestion that "Figaro" contained "too many notes", in other words "only as many as necessary". And I likewise suspect most classical listeners would agree with him.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

V-I cadences don't have to be a cliche unless they are bolted on out of habit rather than necessity. Best/worst example I know of is at the end of Smetana's Vltava, a rather charming tone-poem that whiffles away to almost nothing at the end as the river, presumably, loses itself in the ocean. Then there's a crashing V-I cadence for no good reason whatsoever. I heard one live performance in which the conductor - I forget who - dealt with it by reducing the cadence to pianissimo. Damage limitation!


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Pat Fairlea said:


> V-I cadences don't have to be a cliche unless they are bolted on out of habit rather than necessity. Best/worst example I know of is at the end of Smetana's Vltava, a rather charming tone-poem that whiffles away to almost nothing at the end as the river, presumably, loses itself in the ocean. Then there's a crashing V-I cadence for no good reason whatsoever. I heard one live performance in which the conductor - I forget who - dealt with it by reducing the cadence to pianissimo. Damage limitation!


Pat,

Yes, that is involved with my inference. Nothing wrong with the V-I cadence, but tacking on a string of them leaves me scratching my head. If you've watched old movies, many of them end with a big "THE END" title on screen. For me, a string of V-Is at the end of a piece is akin to seeing at the end of a movie: THE END! the end! The End. THE! END! END! END! THE END! THHHHEEEEEEE..... END! THEENDTHEENDTHEEND THE END! Yes, after one "the end," I get it. Extraneous "the ends" seem to detract rather than add. Dvorak, I'm looking in your direction.

Again... this is yet again the opinion of just one listener.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Most anything parodied in this brilliant performance


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> In the music of the lesser composers, practically everything sounds like a cliche: the dominant-tonic cadences, the ornamentation, the sequences, the chromatic flourishes...
> 
> Yet these very same features often sound fresh and magical (at least to my ears) in the hands of a great composer. How is this possible? I suppose that it's all in the skillful handling of the conventions, judiciously balanced with some strange moments that keep us on our toes.


Yeah. Genius is so elusive. I bought some Spohr Clarinet Concertos and it is all note-spinning. One gets spoiled listening to the greatest composers.


----------



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

Neopolitan sixths.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Bettina said:


> Yet these very same features often sound fresh and magical (at least to my ears) in the hands of a great composer. How is this possible? I suppose that it's all in the skillful handling of the conventions, judiciously balanced with some strange moments that keep us on our toes.


In addition to what is done with the potentially cliché phrase or tune, there is the extent to which the whole piece prepares you for that moment. A trite little tune played openly without much ornamentation can feel like the fulfillment of all our desires, if the composer has teased us with it enough before hand.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Here's Satie's parody of a clichéd, overblown ending (skip to 6:14):


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Omicron9 said:


> Pat,
> 
> Yes, that is involved with my inference. Nothing wrong with the V-I cadence, but tacking on a string of them leaves me scratching my head. If you've watched old movies, many of them end with a big "THE END" title on screen. For me, a string of V-Is at the end of a piece is akin to seeing at the end of a movie: THE END! the end! The End. THE! END! END! END! THE END! THHHHEEEEEEE..... END! THEENDTHEENDTHEEND THE END! Yes, after one "the end," I get it. Extraneous "the ends" seem to detract rather than add. Dvorak, I'm looking in your direction.
> 
> Again... this is yet again the opinion of just one listener.


You're right

That's it

Debate over

No more to be said

Last word

Fin!

V-I!!


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Bettina said:


> Yet these very same features often sound fresh and magical (at least to my ears) in the hands of a great composer. How is this possible? I suppose that it's all in the skillful handling of the conventions, judiciously balanced with some strange moments that keep us on our toes.


The cynic in me suspects that there are some instances (obviously not every instance) where knowing it's Mozart makes us more predisposed to hear familiar devices as fresh, whereas Giovanni Battista Sammartini would not get the same benefit of the doubt. Many years ago I attended a talk by a music theorist who purported to demonstrate that a certain Brahms melody (I forget which one) was aesthetically superior to a similar one by Josef Rheinberger; during the Q&A, someone in the audience expressed her suspicion that had the authorship of the two melodies been reversed, the conclusion would still be the same. Amazingly, the theorist conceded with utterly no resistance that this was probably true.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Eschbeg said:


> The cynic in me suspects that there are some instances (obviously not every instance) where knowing it's Mozart makes us more predisposed to hear familiar devices as fresh, whereas Giovanni Battista Sammartini would not get the same benefit of the doubt.


Hey, you never know! I purchased a CD tonight containing music from Giovanni Battista Sammartini. I didn't buy any CDs containing music by Mozart! 

As a Baroque fan, I've learned that there's a lot of fine music that was written by relatively unknown composers. I'm sure this is true of all eras, but I've had the most luck finding music I find to be highly enjoyable from unknown composers in the Baroque and early Classical eras. I'm not much of a "brand name" shopper in general. I usually try to do some research to find the best products for the task at hand given a range of criteria. While "best" may not exist in music, just substitute "personally enjoyable" in it's place.


----------

