# Your unpopular opinion



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Beethoven's 8th symphony is better than his 6th. An even more unpopular one: the 6th is his worst symphony. And by worst I mean the one I like the least


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Beethoven’s 7th is his weakest symphony and its repetitive rhythms drive me off the wall.

Well, you asked for unpopular opinions...


----------



## Bulldog

I can't tolerate Rzewski's The people united will never be defeated.


----------



## MusicSybarite

CDs featuring vocal recitals are a waste of money, moreso if they're old recordings.


----------



## Rogerx

Noting, absolutely nothing.


----------



## cheregi

The contemporary framing of Bach as, like, such a self-evident genius that it's inconceivable to dislike his music actually does him a great disservice. For me, it was only possible to really get into him when I understood him as his contemporaries did - kind of inelegant, overly fussy, too old-school... and then his genius becomes apparent as a kind of unexpected ugly-duckling thing, which is much more interesting.


----------



## tdc

cheregi said:


> The contemporary framing of Bach as, like, such a self-evident genius that it's inconceivable to dislike his music actually does him a great disservice. For me, it was only possible to really get into him when I *understood him as his contemporaries did - kind of inelegant, overly fussy, too old-school*... and then his genius becomes apparent as a kind of unexpected ugly-duckling thing, which is much more interesting.


A false statement. Bach was revered in his time by his contemporaries. No one's music becomes universally loved and accepted by everyone, and brilliant artists often get misunderstood by some in their own time. Your comment highlights some of that and then attempts to frame it as though all of his contemporaries felt exactly the same way. This is a gross simplification and a display of ignorance.

Here is a remark made by a contemporary in Italy (showing that knowledge and appreciation of Bach was already spreading far past Germany in Bach's lifetime) in 1750 a little more than three months before Bach's death:

"I consider it superfluous to describe the singular merit of Sig. Bach, for he is thoroughly known and admired not only in Germany but throughout our Italy. I will say only that I think it would be difficult to find someone in the profession who could surpass him, since these days he could rightfully claim to be among the first in Europe."

- Padre Giovanni Battista Martini


----------



## Guest

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Beethoven's 8th symphony is better than his 6th.


Sorry, but not unpopular with me. I may have heard and bought the 6th first (in my teens), but I listen to the 8th more now.


----------



## DavidA

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Beethoven's 8th symphony is better than his 6th. An even more unpopular one: the 6th is his worst symphony. And by worst I mean the one I like the least


The 6th symphony was the first Beethoven symphony I bought and I love it now. As actually I love all the symphonies of Beethoven. I also can't see the point of this particular thread unless it is to upset people by giving unpopular opinions?


----------



## Art Rock

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Beethoven's 8th symphony is better than his 6th. An even more unpopular one: the 6th is his worst symphony. And by worst I mean the one I like the least


You're completely right. Just as I am completely right in stating that the 6th is his best symphony. And by best I mean the one I like most.


----------



## Phil loves classical

cheregi said:


> The contemporary framing of Bach as, like, such a self-evident genius that it's inconceivable to dislike his music actually does him a great disservice. For me, it was only possible to really get into him when I understood him as his contemporaries did - kind of inelegant, overly fussy, *too old-school*... and then his genius becomes apparent as a kind of unexpected ugly-duckling thing, which is much more interesting.


I agree with all except he was actually ahead of his time.


----------



## Ras

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Beethoven's 7th is his weakest symphony and its repetitive rhythms drive me off the wall.


Didn't Weber say with regards to the seventh that Beethoven was "ripe for the madhouse"?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

DavidA said:


> The 6th symphony was the first Beethoven symphony I bought and I love it now. As actually I love all the symphonies of Beethoven. I also can't see the point of this particular thread unless it is to upset people by giving unpopular opinions?


If people get upset by seeing other people's opinions then they should probably not read anything on the internet.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Art Rock said:


> You're completely right. Just as I am completely right in stating that the 6th is his best symphony. And by best I mean the one I like most.


I know many love the 6th and rank it among their favourites. Hence, my ranking it last among his all excellent symphonies makes it an unpopular opinion.


----------



## eljr

Rogerx said:


> Noting, absolutely nothing.


"There is good music and there is great music, there is no such thing as bad music" has long been my motto.:tiphat:


----------



## DavidA

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I know many love the 6th and rank it among their favourites. Hence, my ranking it last among his all excellent symphonies makes it an unpopular opinion.


Not unpopular just incomprehensible


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

DavidA said:


> Not unpopular just incomprehensible


You should consider expanding your perspectives range. You seem to have a difficult time seeing other points of view.


----------



## mbhaub

Leroy Anderson was a greater composer than any of the other mid-20th century Americans including Sessions, Schuman, Copland, Babbitt, Carter and all those others who strove to write incomprehensible, ugly music.


----------



## consuono

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Beethoven's 8th symphony is better than his 6th. An even more unpopular one: the 6th is his worst symphony. And by worst I mean the one I like the least


Here's an even more unpopular one: Beethoven's 8th is better than his 9th.


----------



## Xisten267

Mahler was grossly underrated until sixty years ago. Now he is grossly overrated.


----------



## DeepR

Beethoven's 5th, second movement is rubbish with its awfully banal themes. It nearly destroys the symphony after the great first movement. How could he write something so distasteful and why does nobody else hear this?  He gets away with it only because the stupendous 1st and 4th movements make up for it!


----------



## realdealblues

Allerius said:


> Mahler was grossly underrated until sixty years ago. Now he is grossly overrated.


Still grossly underrated to me...


----------



## DavidA

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> You should consider expanding your perspectives range. You seem to have a difficult time seeing other points of view.


I think most people would have a problem with this one. I think the problem is actually your own


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

DavidA said:


> I think most people would have a problem with this one. I think the problem is actually your own


I don't have a problem. You seem to be the one failing to understand that having different opinions without their being a problem is how some people see the world.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I like yodeling more than opera!


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I don't have a problem. You seem to be the one failing to understand that having different opinions without their being a problem is how some people see the world.


This has nothing to do with your debate, I just wanted to mention I can't help but smile every time I see your avatar. Something about it cracks me up


----------



## premont

consuono said:


> Here's an even more unpopular one: Beethoven's 8th is better than his 9th.


Tend to agree. When I listen to the Ninth, I use to skip the choral finale.


----------



## premont

DeepR said:


> Beethoven's 5th, second movement is rubbish with its awfully banal themes. It nearly destroys the symphony after the great first movement. How could he write something so distasteful and why does nobody else hear this?  He gets away with it only because the stupendous 1st and 4th movements make up for it!


I always thought that the Fifth's symphony's second movement sounded like orchestrated piano music and that Liszt's piano transcription was better than Beethovens original.


----------



## premont

Another very unpopular opinion: Glenn Gould recorded far too much.


----------



## Bulldog

Murray Perahia is nothing special.


----------



## Simplicissimus

I like the orchestrated version of _Der Tod und das Mädchen_ better than the string quartet


----------



## Bulldog

I much prefer the music of Neils Gade to Felix Mendelssohn.


----------



## Tasto solo

cheregi said:


> The contemporary framing of Bach as, like, such a self-evident genius that it's inconceivable to dislike his music actually does him a great disservice. For me, it was only possible to really get into him when I understood him as his contemporaries did - kind of inelegant, overly fussy, too old-school... and then his genius becomes apparent as a kind of unexpected ugly-duckling thing, which is much more interesting.


Interesting indeed. For me it went the other way. Getting to know his contemporaries convinced me that the main disservice by the "modern" (19th century onwards) musicians, scholars and audiences is the neglect of giants like Zelenka, Graupner and co...


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> I much prefer the music of Neils Gade to Felix Mendelssohn.


As I have never heard of Mr Gade I cannot comment


----------



## DavidA

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I don't have a problem. You seem to be the one failing to understand that having different opinions without their being a problem is how some people see the world.


It's quite typical that you start a thread like this and then say everybody else has a problem. I have no problem with you having your opinion even though it is incomprehensible to me. You are actually saying that your opinion shouldn't be incomprehensible to me and that I should not have had opinion.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> It's quite typical that you start a thread like this and then say everybody else has a problem. I have no problem with you having your opinion even though it is incomprehensible to me. You are actually saying that your opinion shouldn't be incomprehensible to me and that I should not have had opinion.


Plainly, he didn't say everybody else has a problem.

Whether you think this thread was started to 'upset people' or not, there is nothing wrong, IMO, with people posting, some in jest, what they believe to be unpopular opinions. Recognising that disliking Beethoven's Pastoral is an unpopular opinion is, of course, complimentary to Beethoven's Pastoral, as it obviously acknowledges the mainstream opinion. More than once, Art Rock - not noted for his provocative posting - has made plain that doesn't like Beethoven's Ninth, and that this is an unpopular opinion. I'm just waiting for him to say so here (he might have done, and I missed it).

If you don't want to play, you don't have to.


----------



## Art Rock

MacLeod said:


> More than once, Art Rock - not noted for his provocative posting - has made plain that doesn't like Beethoven's Ninth, and that this is an unpopular opinion. I'm just waiting for him to say so here (he might have done, and I missed it)..


I managed to constrain myself, thinking that I've already made it clear enough what my opinion is on the piece.


----------



## mikeh375

MacLeod said:


> Plainly, he didn't say everybody else has a problem.
> 
> Whether you think this thread was started to 'upset people' or not, there is nothing wrong, IMO, with people posting, some in jest, what they believe to be unpopular opinions. Recognising that disliking Beethoven's Pastoral is an unpopular opinion is, of course, complimentary to Beethoven's Pastoral, as it obviously acknowledges the mainstream opinion. *More than once, Art Rock - not noted for his provocative posting - has made plain that doesn't like Beethoven's Ninth, *and that this is an unpopular opinion. I'm just waiting for him to say so here (he might have done, and I missed it).
> 
> If you don't want to play, you don't have to.


"I don't belieeeeeve it".........


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Plainly, he didn't say everybody else has a problem.
> 
> Whether you think this thread was started to 'upset people' or not, there is nothing wrong, IMO, with people posting, some in jest, what they believe to be unpopular opinions. Recognising that disliking Beethoven's Pastoral is an unpopular opinion is, of course, complimentary to Beethoven's Pastoral, as it obviously acknowledges the mainstream opinion. More than once, Art Rock - not noted for his provocative posting - has made plain that doesn't like Beethoven's Ninth, and that this is an unpopular opinion. I'm just waiting for him to say so here (he might have done, and I missed it).
> 
> If you don't want to play, you don't have to.


I would have thought even for you there is room for people to express different opinions. Tolerance is allowing for different opinions not just the ones you happen to like.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I would have thought *even for you *there is room for people to express *different opinions*. Tolerance is allowing for different opinions not just the ones you happen to like.


"Even for me", eh? I think you forgot your trademark emoji :lol::lol::lol::lol:

As for 'different opinions', that's exactly what this thread is about.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> "Even for me", eh? I think you forgot your trademark emoji :lol::lol::lol::lol:
> 
> As for 'different opinions', that's exactly what this thread is about.


Exactly! Lest we forget!


----------



## janxharris

Art Rock said:


> I managed to constrain myself, thinking that I've already made it clear enough what my opinion is on the piece.


Is it Beethoven's in your face importunance? - his loud insistant demand that his particular angst be heard?


----------



## Guest

Thread duty:

Mozart is bo- (no, that's been done recently I think).

Brahms is the grea- (ditto)

Wagner was a philan- (too provocative!)

I'm struggling here. Unpopular with whom?


----------



## Art Rock

janxharris said:


> Is it Beethoven's in your face importunance? - his loud insistant demand that his particular angst be heard?


Not particularly. I find the first three movements OK, but also not that special (on par with the 8th). I can't stand the vocal parts. It is a general problem I have with Beethoven, I also don't like the Missa Solemnis, Fidelio, An die ferne Geliebte, and Choral fantasy (I don't have this with other composers).

But let's not turn this thread into an umpteenth discussion about B9.


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> Is it Beethoven's in your face importunance? - his loud insistant demand that his particular angst be heard?


I think everyone who loves Beethoven ought to read Swafford's biography to get the feel of his incredible multi-sided and complex personality. After all, he wrote the 5th and 6th symphonies at the same time. Angst and pastoral joy side by side


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> I think everyone who loves Beethoven ought to read Swafford's biography to get the feel of his incredible multi-sided and complex personality. After all, he wrote the 5th and 6th symphonies at the same time. Angst and pastoral joy side by side


I haven't read Swafford - but have that of Maynard Solomon.

I am a fan of most of Beethoven's Symphonies including the 9th. I know Beethoven was stymied by the 5th's transition from 3rd to 4th movement and laid it aside to compose/finish the fourth symphony. And, of course, the 5th and 6th were premiered together.


----------



## Ariasexta

I can not stand the favorite pieces thing, if a composer disappoints with a piece of his work no matter how many brilliant pieces he has, I will quit him altogather. Even occaisional listener can use music as resort for relaxation, but for some, it is a new dimension to the universe, just like people look at stars for romantic experiences, but some look at them with faith.


----------



## Aurelian

I don't understand the big deal about the Tristan chord. The Prelude is too long.


----------



## Merl

Unpoular opinions? Erm, Dvorak's 3rd symphony is better than his 6th. I dont think that was unpopular enough. Ok, Debussy's string quartet is infinitely inferior to the Ravel SQ that it is often paired with, on disc (bear in mind that Ravel's SQ is one of my fave SQs of all time, though). Lol


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

Avant Garde music sounds like it was written by a kindergartener high on acid.


----------



## JAS

BlackAdderLXX said:


> Avant Garde music sounds like it was written by a kindergartener high on acid.


I suppose that counts as an unpopular opinion here at TC, so fair enough.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Kindergarteners high on acid are underrated!


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

I think knowing the words greatly enhances vocal music, opera particularly, and for many listeners is actually essential even if they don't know it. If I don't know what's being said, the impression I get is of pure music tarnished by arbitrary cues to pause, interrupt itself, and just generally go off on tangents that kill the momentum. The material is harmonizing with the syntax of the sentences and entry/exits of key phrases constantly, and knowing the words gives meaning to all of these gestures that seem random otherwise.

I have post-classical era opera in mind as I write this, but I think it applies overall. Repeats in Bach choruses, Schubert lieder, and etc become more tolerable. Certain melodies by Handel that seemed like formless globs of intoned talking became actual tunes when I learned the words.

Obviously you can enjoy lots of vocal music greatly without knowing the language, and yet it seems for every post claiming the most you need to do is peruse a libretto and know the general story, there are 20 of someone claiming to love classical music except for opera. When I listen blind to either Wagner or Verdi, the lack of pure music's more direct structure and the frequent blending of recitative with singing just devolves it all into a cacophany of squawking after about 20 minutes. There is just too much lost information, too many nuances as to why the music is doing what it is doing not perceived.


----------



## Fabulin

Ariasexta said:


> I can not stand the favorite pieces thing, if a composer disappoints with a piece of his work no matter how many brilliant pieces he has, I will quit him altogather. Even occaisional listener can use music as resort for relaxation, but for some, it is a new dimension to the universe, just like people look at stars for romantic experiences, but some look at them with faith.


What a dreadful prospect. I would have to quit on everybody! :lol:


----------



## Pat Fairlea

I don't have unpopular opinions, merely ones the wisdom of which has yet to be fully recognised. 

I can't be doing with three-quarters of Elgar's output. 
I think I actually prefer Barber's 'Adagio for Strings' in its original form as a string 4tet movement. 
And bagpipes are an abomination.


----------



## mmsbls

I'm not actually sure how unpopular these are.

I prefer almost all all keyboard concertos to be played on the piano.

I think Fur Elise, the 1812 Overture, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Pachelbel's Canon, and the Radetzky March are all wonderful pieces. Well, maybe Fur Elise wouldn't quite be wonderful, but it's enjoyable.


----------



## Tristan

mmsbls said:


> I think Fur Elise, the 1812 Overture, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Pachelbel's Canon, and the Radetzky March are all wonderful pieces. Well, maybe Fur Elise wouldn't quite be wonderful, but it's enjoyable.


Same. I like all of those. Marche Slave, Carmina Burana, Blue Danube...all the pieces that appeal to the masses, I like them.


----------



## JAS

The one piece of classical music that my older brother liked was the 1812 overture, and he played our record of it to the point that I still find it hard to listen to. (If I do listen to it, I want real canons.) In this case, I fully realize that there is nothing in particular wrong with the work, and it is just my personal issue. I hope some day to recover from the problem (and it has gotten a bit better as the years pass).


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Unpopular opinion: All sound is music, not all music is sound.


----------



## SONNET CLV

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Unpopular opinion: All sound is music, not all music is sound.


I suspect that truisms _can_ count as unpopular opinions.


----------



## mmsbls

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Unpopular opinion: All sound is music, not all music is sound.


This is interesting. Do you mean that all sound _could be_ music or do you actually mean that all sound _is_ music?

Also can you give an example of music that is not sound?


----------



## Xisten267

More unpopular opinions:

- Górecki's _symphony of sorrowful songs_ is not as great as many people think; the reason for this is that the piece, although profound, is boring rhythmically;

- Mozart is the less challenging composer to be listened to of the "big three"; all one has to do is follow the gorgeous melodies and be pleased by the beauty of the music.


----------



## adriesba

_Carmina Burana _is a great piece and is given too much hate.


----------



## Malx

Nielsens Symphonies are more satisfying than those by Sibelius......


----------



## adriesba

Tristan said:


> Same. I like all of those. Marche Slave, Carmina Burana, Blue Danube...all the pieces that appeal to the masses, I like them.


Ah, I see this has been mentioned. I like them too. I don't understand why they are despised so much.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Eugenics should be taught as core curriculum in all primary schools. 

Juries should be replaced by reliance on phrenology

4'33" is pretentious claptrap, no wonder so many people are put off modern "music".

Guess how many actually ARE opinions.....


----------



## hammeredklavier

----------------------------------


----------



## JAS

CnC Bartok said:


> Eugenics should be taught as core curriculum in all primary schools.


I assumed that the point of the thread was to air opinions that one actually held but that happened to be unpopular, not to generate ideas so outrageous that they must be (or we would hope they would be) unpopular . . . I am assuming the grinning smiley at the end is an admission of impishness and not sincerity.


----------



## CnC Bartok

^^^ Ok, then. No Beethoven symphony cycle is complete without Op.91.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

PopRock said:


> I don't like Bach. Sorry, too mechanical and virtuosistic.


Bach is one of my all time favorite composers. But I can understand why someone would think that on the surface, like it's all just some giant contrapuntal machine. There's soul in all his music, but listen to the Cello Suites to hear the soul really come out clearly. They're monophonic (but with implied polyphony) since they're written for solo cello and they're not at all mechanical or or show-off virtuosic. In fact, the music itself isn't terribly difficult to play (the first 3 suites, at least), the real challenge is bringing the soul out and making the notes on the page really _sing_. Ironically, people thought they were etudes until Pablo Casals revived them.


----------



## trazom

Allerius said:


> Mozart is the less challenging composer to be listened to of the "big three"; all one has to do is follow the gorgeous melodies and be pleased by the beauty of the music.


If that really were the case you'd think fewer people here would appear so challenged when they try to talk about his music.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

PopRock said:


> yeah i tried the celo suites they are pure bore sorrry mate. I go listen to real music, real man music, not this snooze fest . You should try some good music too, its good for the ears cheers


Sure, to each their own. It really depends on what you're looking for and what speaks to you. Not everything's going to do that for you.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Never mind, I just realized the guy's a troll. He made a thread called "Bach is an great composer". If you look at some of his other posts I think he's just saying contadictory and false things to get a rise of out of what he thinks are stodgy, pretentious elitist classical music people. I mean, gotta keep yourself entertained somehow, though I can think of far better activities. 

EDIT: Ok, above post pretty much confirms it. Ngl I find it kind of entertaining, but I also have a really dumb sense of humour.


----------



## hammeredklavier

-----------------------------------------


----------



## CnC Bartok

^^^ I think I can manage more genuine unpopular opinions than I give myself credit for.

The Choral Fantasia is a fine piece of music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

----------------------------------------------


----------



## hammeredklavier

---------------------------------------------


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart can be light-hearted, but not silly to the point of ridiculousness.
> 
> I hate to say it, but this, for example, is what I would consider as "being silly to the point of ridiculousness":
> View attachment 136902
> 
> *[ 16:20 ]*


Mozart can be light-hearted and silly to the point of ridiculousness:


----------



## hammeredklavier

--------------------------------------------------


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart can be light-hearted, but not silly to the point of ridiculousness.
> 
> I hate to say it, but this, for example, is what I would consider as "being silly to the point of ridiculousness":
> View attachment 136902
> 
> *[ 16:20 ]*





hammeredklavier said:


> Yeah, it's funny, and Mozart is being intentionally funny in that piece. But still, he doesn't do stuff like this:
> View attachment 136902
> 
> the thing about the Beethoven piece is that you can't tell if Beethoven is being serious or funny. That's what makes it seem "ridiculous", I think.


Mozart can _really_ be light-hearted and silly to the point of ridiculousness:

For you, Mr. Donkey-Come on-quick-get on with it-like a good fellow-be brave-Are you finished yet?-for you-beast-oh what a dissonance-Oh!-Woe is me!!-Well done, poor chap-oh, pain in the balls!-Oh God, how fast!-you make me laugh-help-take a breather-go on, go on-that's a little better-still not finished?-you awful swine!-how charming you are!-dear one!-little donkey!-ha, ha, ha-take a breath!-But do play at least one note, you prick!-Aha! Bravo, bravo, hurrah!-You're going to bore me for the fourth time, and thank God it's the last-Oh finish now, I beg of you!-Confound it-also bravura?-Bravo!-oh, a sheep bleating-you're finished?-Thank heavens!-Enough, enough! - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, *source here*.


----------



## Xisten267

trazom said:


> If that really were the case you'd think fewer people here would appear so challenged when they try to talk about his music.


Perhaps you're right, but the fact is that Mozart tends to develop much less his material than Beethoven and is less complex in counterpoint than J.S. Bach. And by "less challenging" I'm not necessarily saying "less interesting", although for my personal taste it is the case.


----------



## hammeredklavier

--------------------------------------------------


----------



## hammeredklavier

Look how much of the music is just "both hands playing together", or "beeps", slow arpeggios, (like the 'D major -> diminished 7th on B# -> F sharp major' in the development of this sonata movement) , or slow recitatives. (just as you are to your own), I'm also entitled to my personal opinions, I just feel people don't see the "naked emperor" in Beethoven as much as they do in Mozart. If they did, they wouldn't always make threads like these:
What is it about Mozart? A Confessional Thread
Mozart is boring (or is he?)
https://www.talkclassical.com/25874-honest-here-4-do-14.html#post1781333


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> With all due respect, a lot of Beethoven's developments consists of "beeps", we talked about this before right?


I understand that these "beeps" exist only for you and are _your_ unpopular truth (you have yours and I have mine), as I've never seem any author talking of them. Mozart has many pieces, some of them true masterpieces, that tend to not give so much attention to the development sections. One interesting example for me is the first movement of K. 516, a piece I admire, and that has very extended exposition and recapitulation, but that develops little and almost reaches an AAA'A' form with it's double repeats. While Beethoven has the _Eroica_ symphony for example with it's mammoth and brilliant development section without equal at the time:

"Above all, his [Beethoven's] works distinguish themselves from those of any prior composer through his creation of large, extended architectonic structures characterised by the extensive development of musical material, themes, and motifs, usually by means of 'modulation', that is, a change in the feeling of the home key, through a variety of keys or harmonic regions. Although Haydn's later works often showed a greater fluidity between distant keys, Beethoven's innovation was the ability to rapidly establish a solidity in juxtaposing different keys and unexpected notes to join them. This expanded harmonic realm creates a sense of a vast musical and experiential space through which the music moves and the development of musical material creates a sense of unfolding drama in this space." - source here.

I think that it's harder to write/listen to extended developed material than beautiful melodies, and yes, it's my unpopular opinion that Beethoven is "harder" to listen than Mozart.


----------



## adriesba

hammeredklavier said:


> Yeah, it's funny, and Mozart is being intentionally funny in that piece. But still, he doesn't do stuff like this:
> View attachment 136902
> 
> the thing about the Beethoven piece is that you can't tell if Beethoven is being serious or funny. That's what makes it seem "ridiculous", I think.


I don't understand. What exactly is ridiculous?


----------



## premont

hammeredklavier said:


> There are also piano sonatas like the 19th, 20th, 25th, or 26th that contain developments that definitely aren't the best stuff Beethoven ever wrote.


No composer wrote exclusively perfect works, and as far as I know he didn't want no.s 19 and 20 to be published.


----------



## trazom

Allerius said:


> Perhaps you're right, but the fact is that Mozart tends to develop much less his material than Beethoven and is less complex in counterpoint than J.S. Bach. And by "less challenging" I'm not necessarily saying "less interesting", although for my personal taste it is the case.


Given their popularity, with Beethoven generally being more popular than Mozart in this forum, these things don't necessarily make music more "challenging." You still seem able to enjoy them well enough. And if you admit to not being able to engage with Mozart's music as deeply as others who love the music more than you do, how can you say how challenging it is/isn't compared to any other composer?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Look, Mr. Allerius. I'm not here to argue which composer is objectively better at composing. You expressed your unpopular opinions: Mahler is grossly overrated, Mozart is only about pleasant melodies. (And I do remember many instances of you criticizing composers like this, please don't pretend only I'm a villain in this forum.)
I expressed my opinion that Beethoven sounds ridiculous when he's going through tunnels of compositional struggles, (like when he just hits random keys in Op.106) and it's not hard at all to "understand" arguments when he does that.
Let's leave it at that.


----------



## Xisten267

trazom said:


> Given their popularity, with Beethoven generally being more popular than Mozart in this forum, these things don't necessarily make music more "challenging." You still seem able to enjoy them well enough. And if you admit to not being able to engage with Mozart's music as deeply as others who love the music more than you do, how can you say how challenging it is/isn't compared to any other composer?


According to GoogleTrends, Mozart has been about 16% more popular than Beethoven and 50% more than J.S. Bach in all the world in the last four years. Their poll of participants is much greater and more accurate than that of TC.

I greatly enjoy Mozart - he's currently my fifth or sixth favorite composer - and think that I'm totally able to engage with his music. What I stated was as an opinion, an unpopular one, not a fact - isn't it the point of this thread? I'm still entitled to my opinions, don't I?


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Look, Mr. Allerius. I'm not here to argue which composer is objectively better at composing. You expressed your unpopular opinions: Mahler is grossly overrated, Mozart is only about pleasant melodies. *(And I do remember many instances of you criticizing composers like this, please don't pretend only I'm a villain in this forum.)*


Composers? Many instances? Who, when? And who's calling you a villain? I recall having criticized only John Cage and Mozart in this forum before, and only a few times. You criticized Beethoven, Schubert, Cage, Bruckner, Chopin, Sibelius and others, many more times, and in a much more acid manner.



hammeredklavier said:


> I expressed my opinion that Beethoven sounds ridiculous when he's going through tunnels of compositional struggles, (like when he just hits random keys in Op.106) and it's not hard at all to "understand" arguments when he does that.
> Let's leave it at that.


Your opinion. Mine is that those keys only sound random for those who don't get them. I find it really... "alternative" how you attack Beethoven's masterpieces while making propaganda of Mozart's juvenilia and obscure works. But ok, let's leave it at that. Now, can I please have the right of expressing an unpopular opinion in a thread that asks for them?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> According to GoogleTrends, Mozart has been about 16% more popular than Beethoven and 50% more than J.S. Bach in all the world in the last four years. Their poll of participants is much greater and more accurate than that of TC. ...
> I greatly enjoy Mozart - he's currently my fifth or sixth favorite composer - and think that I'm totally able to engage with his music.


https://bachtrack.com/files/73896-Classical music statistics 2017-EN.pdf
Johann Strauss II is FAR less popular than Beethoven according to google trends. I don't know what point you're trying to make. 
Btw, I don't go around the forum writing how lowly Beethoven sits in my personal ranking or list, or writing posts after posts that his music is boring (unlike the OP of this thread), as if anyone should care.



Machiavel said:


> Dude get over it , we know you dislike him .  Damn the Beethoven fanboy club always have to talk about beethoven in a mozart thread. I mean I never read about a matchup between those 2 that was not instigated by beethoven lovers. Whatever the thread is about, they always have to go back to Beethoven. Some here sounds like 15 years old with there Beethoven this and that over and over again in all the thread. Just go and see for yourself. Each time they speak about any other composers they always bring the but beethoven was better. In a way I pity them. And sadly the majority of them are kids


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> https://bachtrack.com/files/73896-Classical music statistics 2017-EN.pdf
> Johann Strauss II is FAR less popular than Beethoven according to google trends. I don't know what point you're trying to make.


Member _trazom_ argued that Beethoven is more popular than Mozart here at TC. My point is that outside of here this is not the case. Only that. I'm not inferring anything else.



hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, I don't go around the forum writing how lowly Beethoven sits in my personal ranking or list, or writing posts after posts that his music is boring (unlike the OP of this thread), as if anyone should care.


Actually you do, and do worse, and did many times in the last years.



hammeredklavier said:


> I have a vague idea what Brahms meant cause the way Beethoven uses dissonance in moments like Grave, ma non troppo of Op.135 for example is ridiculously funny :lol:.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Beethoven was _actually_ struggling to overcome his deafness :lol:
> In the Grosse Fuge's bangy dotted homorhythms, he's seems to be saying "I can't hear anything! Dammit!" :lol: (Don't get me wrong, I do like the piece)
> Beethoven tried to do stuff like the beginning of Mozart K465 in the beginning of Op.59 No.3, but he didn't really achieve it. His attempts ended up being "bang! bang!", "bam! bam!"


----------



## trazom

Allerius said:


> According to GoogleTrends, Mozart has been about 16% more popular than Beethoven and 50% more than J.S. Bach in all the world in the last four years. Their poll of participants is much greater and more accurate than that of TC.
> 
> I greatly enjoy Mozart - he's currently my fifth or sixth favorite composer - and think that I'm totally able to engage with his music. What I stated was as an opinion, an unpopular one, not a fact - isn't it the point of this thread? I'm still entitled to my opinions, don't I?


A search doesn't say anything about the inquirer's attitude towards that composer's music though. Just that they looked it up.



Allerius said:


> I greatly enjoy Mozart - he's currently my fifth or sixth favorite composer - and think that I'm totally able to engage with his music.


Well, you said earlier his comparative lack of development and counterpoint made his music less interesting and that it could be enjoyed as a pleasing collection of melodies. I've heard that sentiment expressed before but rarely by anyone who really connected with his music. Maybe you do, but it _seemed_ as if you were patting yourself on the back for loving the music you do as "challenging" while dismissing music you liked less as "easy."



Allerius said:


> What I stated was as an opinion, an unpopular one, not a fact - isn't it the point of this thread? I'm still entitled to my opinions, don't I?


Yes, and since this is a discussion forum I'm allowed to respond and discuss viewpoints that I disagree with, aren't I?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Mine is that those keys only sound random for those who don't get them. I find it really... "alternative" how you attack Beethoven's masterpieces while making propaganda of Mozart's juvenilia and obscure works.


You mean that thread <Mozart is boring>, I didn't talk negatively of Beethoven til RogerWaters compared Mozart unfairly to him. I think you're being a bit sensitive, like how you were in the Mozart requiem thread we had months ago.



hammeredklavier said:


> I have a vague idea what Brahms meant cause the way Beethoven uses dissonance in moments like Grave, ma non troppo of Op.135 for example is ridiculously funny :lol:.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Beethoven was _actually_ struggling to overcome his deafness :lol:
> In the Grosse Fuge's bangy dotted homorhythms, he's seems to be saying "I can't hear anything! Dammit!" :lol: (Don't get me wrong, I do like the piece)


This is actually my parody of someone else's post which criticized Mozart in favor of Beethoven, in the same thread.
https://www.talkclassical.com/5227-beethoven-vs-mozart-31.html#post1732599


Christabel said:


> Disagree that these two are the greatest composers in history. I would rank Beethoven there along with Bach, but not Mozart.


----------



## KenOC

Allerius said:


> Member _trazom_ argued that Beethoven is more popular than Mozart here at TC. My point is that outside of here this is not the case. Only that. I'm not inferring anything else.


Some recent stats show Beethoven as more popular at US concerts. This is true for the two years where I have the stats.


----------



## Xisten267

trazom said:


> Well, you said earlier his comparative lack of development and counterpoint made his music less interesting and that it could be enjoyed as a pleasing collection of melodies. I've heard that sentiment expressed before but rarely by anyone who really connected with his music. Maybe you do, but it _seemed_ as if you were patting yourself on the back for loving the music you do as "challenging" while dismissing music you liked less as "easy."


Less challenging, and thus less interesting _for me_ than that of Bach and Beethoven. I prefer Bach and Beethoven over Mozart. I didn't say that I find Mozart boring, and I didn't mean my opinion to be taken as an absolute fact (what can be inferred by the thread title, I suppose - people here are giving their unpopular _opinions_, aren't they?).


----------



## trazom

KenOC said:


> Some recent stats show Beethoven as more popular at US concerts. This is true for the two years where I have the stats.


And remember the "composer cup" they did on KUSC several years ago? Out of how many thousands of voters worldwide, Beethoven won. Bach and Mozart in a virtual tie for second with 30-something thousand votes each with only a handful of voters making the difference.



Allerius said:


> Less challenging, and thus less interesting _for me_ than that of Bach and Beethoven. I prefer Bach and Beethoven over Mozart. I didn't say that I find Mozart boring, and I didn't mean my opinion to be taken as an absolute fact (what can be inferred by the thread title, I suppose).


I never said you found the music boring. I am just wondering if the music is so easy and accessible shouldn't you be able to find it more interesting than you do? Unless you think Mozart intended to write music that was merely pleasing and mildly interesting but not as interesting as others.


----------



## Xisten267

KenOC said:


> Some recent stats show Beethoven as more popular at US concerts. This is true for the two years where I have the stats.


Yes, and in the UK Mozart has always been more popular than Beethoven until 2016 according to _The Telegraph_. Considering the data of GoogleTrends, I suppose that in the world Mozart is the most popular, or at least the most searched as trazom argued:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/classical-music/why-beethoven-rules-supreme-over-mozart/#:~:text=Ludwig%20van%20Beethoven%20is%20now,compiled%20from%20a%20public%20vote.

But why are we measuring their popularity anyway?



trazom said:


> I never said you found the music boring. I am just wondering if the music is so easy and accessible shouldn't you be able to find it more interesting than you do?


Very interesting, I had not thought it this way. Now I'm wondering if shouldn't you like Justin Bieber more than Mozart (perhaps you do), if we can agree that the former is easier and more accessible than the latter. Do you like him more?



trazom said:


> Unless you think Mozart intended to write music that was merely pleasing and mildly interesting but not as interesting as others.


I think that his music tends to be more pleasing and less challeging than those of Bach and Beethoven, for the reasons I already specified earlier. You don't need to think that I'm implying anything more than this.


----------



## Xisten267

Duplicated. Delete this please.


----------



## KenOC

Allerius said:


> But why are we measuring their popularity anyway?


"Popularity" is the topic you argued in post #92: "_Member __trazom argued that Beethoven is more popular than Mozart here at TC. My point is that outside of here this is not the case."_


----------



## Xisten267

KenOC said:


> "Popularity" is the topic you argued in post #92: "_Member __trazom argued that Beethoven is more popular than Mozart here at TC. My point is that outside of here this is not the case."_


Yes, but this was an answer to member trazom, who brought the topic of popularity in post #87. I don't see why the popularity of the discussed composers' music today should demonstrate how easy or hard their music is. Simple and catchy songs have been made in the past decades, were hits in their days, and are almost forgotten nowadays.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> One interesting example for me is the first movement of K. 516, a piece I admire, and that has very extended exposition and recapitulation, but that develops little and almost reaches an AAA'A' form with it's double repeats.





trazom said:


> Well, you said earlier his comparative lack of development and counterpoint made his music less interesting and that it could be enjoyed as a pleasing collection of melodies.


I have no idea what Allerius means by "lack of development" in Mozart's K.516, since in the development+recap section of the opening movement, Mozart keeps taking material from exposition and develops them in creative ways:













Hans Keller wrote that there are far more Schoenbergian elements in Mozart than Beethoven, and this is one of several works he used as examples in his essay.

"In the first movement of the G minor Quintet, excerpts from the principal subject serve as serial bases for various formations at the second subject stage, including extended retrograde versions. The minuet is a serial orgy. The three-note row B flat-C sharp-D operates again vertically as well as horizontally and derives, moreover, from the first and second subjects of the opening movement" 
< Strict Serial Technique in Classical Music, By Hans Keller, Page 16 >
(the entire article is free to read online if you register)


----------



## adriesba

What in the world are we talking about?

And what is ridiculous about the choral fantasy?


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> I have no idea what Allerius means by "lack of development" in Mozart's K.516, since in the development+recap section of the opening movement, Mozart keeps taking material from exposition and develops them in creative ways:


The lenght of the development section is very small compared to that of the other sections of the movement.



adriesba said:


> What in the world are we arguing about?


I suppose that it's about how people can have unpopular opinions and expose them in this thread except if they are about Mozart, the untouchable.


----------



## trazom

Allerius said:


> But why are we measuring their popularity anyway?
> 
> Very interesting, I had not thought it this way. Now I'm wondering if shouldn't you like Justin Bieber more than Mozart (perhaps you do), if we can agree that the former is easier and more accessible than the latter. Do you like him more?


To your first question, because you introduced accessibility into the discussion in the first place by arguing Mozart was less "challenging" and I brought up Beethoven's overwhelming popularity as possible evidence against this. As to the second, I made no claims about which composer was more "challenging" vis-à-vis the other and so the burden of proof isn't on me to explain why, to entertain whether I should like Justin Bieber(as if I'm going to defend a proposition I never made), or to help remind you of your own assertions throughout this thread.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> The lenght of the development section is very small compared to that of the other sections of the movement.














But as I said, he keeps taking material from the exposition to develop them, throughout the development+recap section.
Wouldn't Beethoven's Op.111 first movement also be an example of weak development, by your logic? 
Btw, even though the overall sound is Beethovenian, I still think the development section is Beethoven's attempt to emulate Mozart's dissonant chromatic fugal writing of K.426/K.546. I still agree with what Brahms said in his final years.


----------



## ORigel

I do not like Debussy much at all.

I do not like Robert Schumann much; I prefer Berlioz and Mendelssohn.

I struggle with opera.

CPE Bach was a way more talented composer than his father. All right, that last one was a joke. However, I prefer his Magnificat to his father's.


----------



## hammeredklavier

ORigel said:


> I prefer his Magnificat to his father's.


I personally prefer his concertos slightly over those of baroque composers:
CARL PHILIPP EMANUEL BACH - Organ Concerto in G Major, Wq 34
Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Flute Concerto in D minor Wq. 22
Bach C.P.E.: Concerto in D minor, 1. Allegro, H. 427
C.P.E. Bach / Symphony in E minor, Wq. 178
CPE Bach Keyboard Concerto in G-major Wq 4 2nd mvt
C.P.E. Bach: Symphonies for Hamburg
C.P.E. Bach - Solfeggietto in C minor (H 220, Wq. 117: 2)
Carl Philipp Emaunel Bach Fantasy in F-sharp minor H. 300
C.P.E. Bach - Symphony For Strings in B Minor Wq. 182/5
C.P.E. Bach Concerto for Harpsichord and Fortepiano in E flat major, H 479, Wq 47
Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Fantasie in C minor
Symphony in G major (Wq 173 / H 648) - C.P.E. Bach
Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach. Cello Concerto No. 1 in A minor, Wq. 170
Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach. Cello Concerto No. 2 in B flat major, Wq. 171
Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach. Cello Concerto No. 3 in A major, Wq. 172
Keyboard Concerto in G Minor, Wq. 6, H. 409: III. Allegro
Bach C.P.E.: Concerto in D minor, 3. Allegro assai, H. 427
C.P.E. Bach - Concerto for 2 Harpsichords in F major, H. 408 (1740)
Keyboard Concerto in E Minor, Wq. 15, H. 418: III. Vivace


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> I assumed that the point of the thread was to air opinions that one actually held but that happened to be unpopular, not to generate ideas so outrageous that they must be (or we would hope they would be) unpopular . . . I am assuming the grinning smiley at the end is an admission of impishness and not sincerity.


I also assume that it was not expected that anyone would feel compelled to embark on a protracted defence against an unpopular opinion - but it happened.

Unpopular opinion: not everything has to be reduced to an argument about Mozart [Bach] [Beethoven].


----------



## Ethereality

ORigel said:


> I do not like Debussy much at all.


To quote DavidA



DavidA said:


> Anyone who hates Debussy hates music. Period!


























Just kidding, he didn't say that.


----------



## Portamento

ORigel said:


> I do not like Robert Schumann much; I prefer Berlioz and Mendelssohn.


I'll go further.

Schumann is the worst of the famous Romantics and all his symphonies + piano music should be burnt to make room for better works.


----------



## DavidA

Ethereality said:


> To quote DavidA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just kidding, he didn't say that.


Don't worry I'm used to people misquoting me


----------



## DavidA

Portamento said:


> I'll go further.
> 
> Schumann is the worst of the famous Romantics and all his symphonies + piano music should be burnt to make room for better works.


So what do I do with my Richter and Horowitz recitals which I enjoy? And my Rachmaninov recording of the carnival?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

My most unpopular opinion is that recorded music is a dead a thing . It does not react , will not
respond , has no will . My life is to experience music with real community . This will be ignored ?


----------



## DavidA

Tikoo Tuba said:


> My most unpopular opinion is that recorded music is a dead a thing . It does not react , will not
> respond , has no will . My life is to experience music with real community . This will be ignored ?


Yes at the moment


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

DavidA said:


> Yes at the moment


Damn it , ignorance has its moment .


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Segovia was a pompous prick!


----------



## DavidA

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Damn it , ignorance has its moment .


Well you said it! I assume by the way you have no recorded music in your house or on your person?


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Wouldn't Beethoven's Op.111 first movement also be an example of weak development, by your logic?.


The first movement of Beethoven's Op. 111 is an exception in his oeuvre, not the rule. Overall, Mozart developed less his music than Beethoven.

"Beethoven is viewed as a transitional figure between the Classical and Romantic eras of musical history. Above all, his works distinguish themselves from those of any prior composer through his creation of large, extended structures characterized by the extensive development of musical material, themes, and motifs, usually by means of "modulation", a change in the feeling of the home key, through a variety of keys or harmonic regions. Beethoven's innovation was the ability to rapidly establish a solidity in contrasting different keys and adding unexpected notes to join them. This expanded harmonic realm creates a sense of a vast musical space through which the music moves freely, and the development of musical material creates a sense of unfolding drama in this space. In this way, Beethoven's work creates a "story' where there are ups and downs, happiness and remorse, good and evil so to say and an ending.

Although Beethoven wrote many beautiful and lyrical melodies, another radical innovation of his music, compared especially to that of Mozart and Haydn, is his extensive use of forceful, marked, and even stark rhythmic patterns throughout his compositions and, in particular, some of which are primarily rhythmic rather than melodic. Some of his most famous themes, such as those of the first movements of the Third, Fifth, and Ninth symphonies, are primarily non-melodic rhythmic figures consisting of notes of a single chord, and the themes of the last movements of the Third and Seventh symphonies could more accurately be described as rhythms rather than as melodies. This use of rhythm was particularly well suited to the primacy of development in Beethoven's music, since a single rhythmic pattern can be taken through a succession of different, even remote, keys and harmonic regions while retaining and conveying an underlying stability much easier than a melody. This allowed him to combine different features of his themes in a wide variety of ways, extending the techniques of Haydn in development.

He also continued another trend, towards larger orchestras, that went on until the first decade of the 20th century, and moved the center of the sound downwards in the orchestra, to the violas and the lower register of the violins and cellos, giving his music a heavier and darker feel than Haydn or Mozart. This sadder, more sorrowful, music helped define Beethoven as who he was. The vast majority of Beethoven's compositions contain the hint of the darker part of himself. Even in his cheery pieces there is usually a part that grabs your attention in a quick, dark manner." - Source here.



hammeredklavier said:


> Much of the grosse fuge is "homo-rhythms" btw, (it's even hummable) and it's modeled on the structure of his own 9th symphony scherzo


...what does not mean that it's rhythms aren't complex, considering how much variety Beethoven brings to them:

"The opening of this first quartet stands in stark contrast, yet eerie parallel to that of the composer's late work, the Grosse Fuge, Op. 133. Beethoven composed this double fugue nearly three decades after the Op. 18 quartets and a mere two years before his death. Although the excerpt begins in similar fashion with unison texture alternating with silence, in Op. 133, (...) Beethoven exaggerates the unsettling textural contrast by maintaining the unison texture - with interjections of ominous silences - for an entire sixteen measures. This unsettling effect is further intensified by his forceful dynamics, 
chromaticism, and unconventional phrase structure. These elements, combined with the use of fermatas over the notated silence, dissolve all sense of metric continuity." - Source here.



hammeredklavier said:


> Yeah, it's funny, and Mozart is being intentionally funny in that piece. But still, he doesn't do stuff like this:
> View attachment 136902
> 
> the thing about the Beethoven piece is that you can't tell if Beethoven is being serious or funny. That's what makes it seem "ridiculous", I think.


The _Choral Fantasia_ is a great piece that introduced voices for the first time in history to this old instrumental genre. Beethoven's invention of the vocal symphony has a precedent in this piece. It also develops much more it's material than any Mozart fantasia.



Allerius said:


> Mozart is the less challenging composer to be listened to of the "big three"; all one has to do is follow the gorgeous melodies and be pleased by the beauty of the music.


I still think that my unpopular opinion at least makes sense. Mozart wasn't unfairly considered old fashioned as a composer by his peers like J.S. Bach was (and Bach was actually very innovative in his own ways, see for example the organ trio sonatas he invented or the instrumentations without parallels of the Brandenburg concertos), and I'm not aware of his most ambitious works receiving so harsh criticisms as some of Beethoven's (the Razumovsky nos. 1 & 2, the Violin Concerto, the Mass in C, the Grosse Fuge - all these being masterpieces that had very awkward reception by conservative critics at the composer's time, and even after in some cases), what suggests to me that at least in a first moment his music may have been truly easier to "get". I think that this may be due to the melodic and pleasant, restrained nature of much of his music, at least when compared to those of J.S. Bach and Beethoven.

"Melody is the essence of music. I compare a good melodist to a fine racer, and counterpointists to hack post-horses; therefore be advised, let well alone and remember the old Italian proverb: Chi sa più, meno sa-Who knows most, knows least." - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, according to a certain Michael Kelly.

"Nevertheless the passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music." - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, according to Delacroix.


----------



## Merl

DavidA said:


> So what do I do with my Richter and Horowitz recitals which I enjoy? And my Rachmaninov recording of the carnival?


Burn them... Burn them all (*manic laugh)


----------



## julide

Tikoo Tuba said:


> My most unpopular opinion is that recorded music is a dead a thing . It does not react , will not
> respond , has no will . My life is to experience music with real community . This will be ignored ?


then a film is a dead thing a book is a dead thing and a score is a dead thing. its not like a performance recorded in time can be exhausted... yes its set in stone but its not like you perceive the sheer complexity the same everytime.... what an absurd notion....


----------



## Guest

The music of Gustav Mahler is agonizingly boring and overrated. I have devoted countless wasted hours listening and trying to change my own opinion without success.


----------



## Merl

Operas are just rubbish musicals with fewer memorable songs. Hahaha. How's that for an unpopular opinion? :lol:


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

Merl said:


> Operas are just rubbish musicals with fewer memorable songs. Hahaha. How's that for an unpopular opinion? :lol:


Oh man. Shots fired!!! :Lol:
Do Furtwangler next!


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

mmsbls said:


> This is interesting. Do you mean that all sound _could be_ music or do you actually mean that all sound _is_ music?
> 
> Also can you give an example of music that is not sound?


That's a really acute distinction. I think I mean "is". But maybe it's worth adding "to me, at least".

As to your second question, sure. For a direct example, consider say, Beethoven's 9th. Not any particular sonic interpretation of the piece, rather just the piece itself. I don't think that the piece itself is something that's sounded, but it's certainly music. I'm inclined to think of sound as a medium through which music is commonly realized and relayed, though of course that does not exclude sound as also being a source of music (in fact I believe sound to always be a source of music).

For other examples, consider the feeling of time passing on a lazy summer afternoon, the alignment of the stars in the night sky, the warm smile of a loved one.

All music.

But admittedly much of this (like anything having to do with definitions) seems to be an issue of semantics. Perhaps I simply find it best or easiest to define music for myself in this broader sense.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> The first movement of Beethoven's Op. 111 is an exception in his oeuvre, not the rule. Overall, Mozart developed less his music than Beethoven.


That's typical Beethoven. More like the long-winded first movement of the Eroica is an exception in his oeuvre. As I said, Beethoven often spends his development doing beep-beeps, bam-bams, + some tinkly sounds (especially in the choral fantasy and the pastoral symphony), - 1st and 2nd movement of Eroica are good examples. 



The tempest sonata first movement, which is also full of sections of "both hands playing in unison", dragged-out arpeggios, recitatives, chords, is another good example. There is absolutely no reason to exaggerate and overhype Beethoven as an unsurpassed absolute master of motivic development like how you're doing in this thread ad nauseam. He's good, but there's absolutely no reason to elevate him that much while putting down Mozart regarding this issue.



Allerius said:


> "Beethoven is viewed as a transitional figure between the Classical and Romantic eras of musical history. Above all, his works distinguish themselves from those of any prior composer through his creation of large, extended structures characterized by the extensive development of musical material, themes, and motifs, usually by means of "modulation", a change in the feeling of the home key, through a variety of keys or harmonic regions.


So are Hummel, Weber, Spohr:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=2MPXSVcdzPUC&pg=PA99
"it is significant that his only preserved comment about Spohr's music should have been 'He is too rich in dissonances; pleasure in his music marred by his chromatic melody.'"

"Euryanthe is an accumulation of diminished seventh chords -- all little backdoors!" (Beethoven's remark to Schindler)
https://books.google.ca/books?id=b9_CDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT48


----------



## DavidA

Come guys! Quit this thread. Just producing more and morerubbish


----------



## hammeredklavier

Here, I'll show you on the score, how Beethoven often seems to drag out his development.

in sections colored in orange: he spends his time doing silent chords (often spending 30 seconds at a time)
sections colored in yellow: he lays out long dragged-out arpeggios, recitatives (like the oboe solo in his 5th symphony)
sections colored in green: he plays both hands in unison all the way
sections colored in blue: he does pretty much the same thing he did in the development of his 5th symphony. "beep-beep-beep-beep"

View attachment 143683

View attachment 143684

View attachment 143685


This is a lot of what makes up the development of his renowned Tempest sonata 1st movement. Pretty remarkable, isn't it.
Mozart and Beethoven simply adhere to different methods. To people who don't appreciate Beethoven, he can sound like he's simply wasting his time. I think it was tdc who once expressed his opinion that Beethoven is chatty.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> "Melody is the essence of music. I compare a good melodist to a fine racer, and counterpointists to hack post-horses; therefore be advised, let well alone and remember the old Italian proverb: Chi sa più, meno sa-Who knows most, knows least." - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, according to a certain Michael Kelly.


Because the Irish singer Michael Kelly wasn't even a professional composer, maybe Mozart felt that Kelly did not need to know much about various compositional techniques as such.

It's worth noting that around this time, Mozart, in a letter to his father, criticized the contrapuntal prowess of his former idol J.E. Eberlin by comparing him to Bach and Handel. So he clearly thought counterpoint was important. And don't get me started on Beethoven's mass in C major Op.86: about how that's contrapuntally "unsatisfactory" compared to Mozart's K.167, K.262, etc.

"He [Chopin] said the problem with the way they teach nowadays is that they teach the chords before they teach the movement of voices that creates the chords. That's the problem, he said, with Berlioz. He applies the chords as a kind of veneer and fills in the gaps the best way he can. Chopin then said that you can get a sense of pure logic in music with fugue and he cited not Bach-though we know that he worshiped Bach-but Mozart. He said, in every one of Mozart's pieces, you feel the counterpoint." (The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory, By Carl Schachter, Page 57)



Allerius said:


> "Nevertheless the passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music." - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, according to Delacroix.


This is a misattributed quote. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart#Misattributed


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> The _Choral Fantasia_. It also develops much more it's material than any Mozart fantasia.


How?

{ Excerpts from [ Fantasie K.475 ] , [ sonata K.457 first movement ] , [ sonata K.457 second movement ] , [ sonata K.457 third movement ] are denoted [ *F* ] , [ *S1* ] , [ *S2* ] , [ *S3* ] respectively in the top-left corners. }
View attachment 134941

View attachment 134942

View attachment 134943


*[ Fantasie K.475 ]
[ K.457 III. Allegro assai ]*
I think these "4-note motif" figures (in chords) in the "Più allegro" section of the Fantasie and the third movement of the sonata (right before reaching their final episodes) exhibit certain gestural similarities. I personally like the way they're used in the third movement of the sonata better; I find it to be more "Classically chaotic".

*[ Fantasie K.475 ]
[ K.457 I. Molto allegro ]
[ K.457 III. Allegro assai ]*
Another interesting commonality I find in the fantasie and the outer movements of the sonata is the "sigh-like expression", that is, when each of these movements is at the climatic midpoint of drama, (ex. around the end of the development section), there is a diminished seventh chord collapsing down to a dominant 6/5 chord. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 134944

View attachment 134945


*[ Fantasie K.475 ]
[ K.457 III. Allegro assai ]*
The last measures of both the fantasie and the sonata share the final statement "F♯-G-A♭-F-G-C". The article <W.A. Mozart's Fantasy in C minor, K. 475, And the Generalization of the Lydian Principle Through Motivic Thorough-Composition> discusses the significance of the interval C-F♯ in the fantasie.
The passages highlighted in pink also seem very similar in gesture, probably because their figures being somewhat similar, and also due to the context they're placed in, in both cases.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 134956

View attachment 134957

View attachment 134958


*[ Fantasie K.475 ]
[ K.457 I. Molto allegro ]*
The passages highlighted in yellow lead to the "second-thematic sections" in the expositions of the fantasie and the sonata's 1st movement, respectively (note the chromatic mediant modulation in the fantasie, Bm->D). I think these also share certain gestural similarities.

*[ K.475: Adagio ]
[ K.475: Andantino ] *
The figure highlighted in light green (in the topmost score), initially introduced in the exposition of the Fantasie (or the "Adagio" section or "1st movement"), later in the piece, becomes basis for the thematic working of the "Andantino" section (or the "3rd movement") of the Fantasie. The article <W. A. Mozart's Phantasie in C minor, K. 475: The Pillars of Musical Structure and Emotional Response> discusses how the Fantasie is conceptually "4 movements" contained in "one-movement sonata cycle", and may have been a source of inspiration for Liszt. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 134959

View attachment 134960


*[ Fantasie K.475 ]
[ K.457 II. Adagio ]*
The D major "second theme" of the fantasie and the theme of the sonata's 2nd movement, which are highlighted in violet; they may not be exactly the same thematic material, but in terms of rhythm, they're more similar than any other Mozart piano sonata slow movements. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 134951

View attachment 134952


*[ Fantasie K.475 ]
[ K.457 I. Molto allegro ]*
These are totally different thematic material, but to me, they still seem to exhibit resemblance in rhythmic proportion. Unlike that of the fantasie, the passage of the sonata is composed of descending chromatic fourths (like the G minor symphony K.550, where "G-F♯-F-E-D♯-D" shows up in all its movements { I / II (2nd violin, Bar 6) / III (bassoon, Bar 36) / IV } ), but the gesture, and the way it's used in the context of the movement strike me as having an indirect, non-thematic relationship with the similarly-rhythmed passage in the Fantasie. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 134953

View attachment 134954


*[ K.457 I. Molto allegro ]
[ K.457 III. Allegro assai ]*
This sort of gradually rising "agitated" chromatic figures accompanied by left-hand bass figures don't show up very often in Mozart's other keyboard works (At least not in this way. I can think of Fantasie K.397, but in this work, the right hand is accompanied by chords, rather than alberti bass figures) So I think there is a certain mood that Mozart wants to convey in the outer movements of K.457 that's unique from his other keyboard works.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Mystery and innovation in performances of Mozart's Fantasy KV 475: following the guidance of three great 20th-century masters> by Zélia Chueke
Written between May and June 1785, Mozart C minor Fantasy KV 475 is a perfect illustration example of what Brahms had in mind when proclaiming Mozart as "a fellow modernist." Extremely controversial, generating doubts and questions from the very first measure, musical ideas far ahead of their time make the adventure of exploring this piece with performance purposes one of the most exciting...


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> I still think that my unpopular opinion at least makes sense. Mozart wasn't unfairly considered old fashioned as a composer by his peers like J.S. Bach was (and Bach was actually very innovative in his own ways, see for example the organ trio sonatas he invented or the instrumentations without parallels of the Brandenburg concertos), and I'm not aware of his most ambitious works receiving so harsh criticisms as some of Beethoven's (the Razumovsky nos. 1 & 2, the Violin Concerto, the Mass in C, the Grosse Fuge - all these being masterpieces that had very awkward reception by conservative critics at the composer's time, and even after in some cases), what suggests to me that at least in a first moment his music may have been truly easier to "get". I think that this may be due to the melodic and pleasant, restrained nature of much of his music, at least when compared to those of J.S. Bach and Beethoven.


As I said before, Beethoven's image as a "misunderstood artist" is exaggerated in the general classical music community today. Beethoven's late string quartets were appreciated by Schubert (who wanted to hear Beethoven's Op.131 at the time of his own death, which happened in the year following Beethoven's own), Berlioz, who were his contemporaries for decades, and also Schumann. More than 40 years after Mozart wrote the Haydn quartets, François-Joseph Fétis was still writing articles that the opening of the dissonance quartet was harmonically " incorrect" and made "corrections" on the score. Haydn in 1785 said that "if Mozart wrote it, he must have meant it". Giuseppe Sarti said that Mozart was an incompetent piano composer who didn't understand proper counterpoint.

"The puzzling chromaticism of the opening of the 'Dissonance' quartet K.465 prompted vigorous discussion in the scholarly musical literature of the late 1820s and early 1830s. Fétis, in particular, devoted much attention to the Adagio in his journal La Revue musicale, believing that Mozart could not have intended such dissonance. In July 1829 he produced a study of these bars in which he printed a revision of his own, to stand comparison with the alleged misprint of Mozart's intentions in all available editions."
< Mozart: The 'Haydn' Quartets , By John Irving , Page 76 >

Also, look at the "critical reception" section from the wikipedia article on Mozart's Haydn quartets.






















K.608 also contains dizzying chromaticism that I never hear in Beethoven: 




"But the theorists told Mozart during his lifetime what a dissonance chaser he was, and how all too often he gave in to the passion to write something ugly, and how with his talent such writing really wasn't necessary."
(Theory of Harmony, by Arnold Schoenberg)

Johannes Brahms, 1896:
"But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."
( Composers On Music: Eight Centuries of Writings
, Josiah Fisk, Jeff Nichols, Technical Group Leader High Performance Computational Chemistry Group Jeff Nichols | p.134~135 )










I never denied Beethoven was an innovator, btw. Bartok regarded Beethoven his ideal more than Bach and Mozart.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Jerome said:


> The music of Gustav Mahler is agonizingly boring and overrated. I have devoted countless wasted hours listening and trying to change my own opinion without success.


I don't have anything against Mahler, but I'm still trying to understand him. I love Mahler's 2nd, but then everything else I have a hard time with. It's not that I dislike anything he does, I just find him way too 'busy' and its overwhelming to listen to, especially given the length of the music too. There's just so much going on at once it makes my head spin and I get lost, akin to drinking water out of a fire hydrant.


----------



## Marc

DavidA said:


> Come guys! Quit this thread. Just producing more and morerubbish


Better quit and close the entire internet then! 
It's at least 95 percent rubbish.

How about that for an unpopular opinion?


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Karajan was also a pompous prick!


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Richard Wagner was a pompous master of the universe!!


----------



## DavidA

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Richard Wagner was a pompous master of the universe!!


Sure RW wold have agreed! :lol:


----------



## adriesba

Well then what kind of pomp do you have if Karajan conducts Wagner?


----------



## DavidA

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Karajan was also a pompous prick!


That would be a popular opinion with the critics (the lords of failure) who hated his success! :lol:


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> That's typical Beethoven. More like the long-winded first movement of the Eroica is an exception in his oeuvre. As I said, Beethoven often spends his development doing beep-beeps, bam-bams, + some tinkly sounds (especially in the choral fantasy and the pastoral symphony), - 1st and 2nd movement of Eroica are good examples.
> 
> 
> 
> The tempest sonata first movement, which is also full of sections of "both hands playing in unison", dragged-out arpeggios, recitatives, chords, is another good example. There is absolutely no reason to exaggerate and overhype Beethoven as an unsurpassed absolute master of motivic development like how you're doing in this thread ad nauseam. He's good, but there's absolutely no reason to elevate him that much while putting down Mozart regarding this issue.


I think that the Eroica is very great symphony: it's first movement for example is the most developed to that date, more expansive (and I would say, interesting) than entire Mozart symphonies. The symphony has many surprises and harmonic tensions, a pronounced use of the brass to produce an heroic sound, an enormous range of tones, it uses interesting triadic themes. The development section even uses new material (a new theme), something that old Mozart never did in a symphony. It's a very powerful, great, well-thought, intense symphony, not just an amount of pretty melodies combined with an excess of flats and sharps to please effeminate men for example. The "beeps" and "bams-bams" you cite are funny and ridiculous, and don't exist anywhere else except in your mind... are you trying to be "light-hearted and silly to the point of ridiculousness" like your Mozart, mr. hammeredklavier? Beethoven didn't compose vulgar things like a canon telling people to lick his *** or an opera with a shallow and misogynist plot for example (Cosi fan tutte is usually translated as "Women are like that" in English), this he really didn't do.






Mozart and scatology



hammeredklavier said:


> So are Hummel, Weber, Spohr:


What's your point? That there were other famous composers in Beethoven's time and that he had his thoughts about their music? A bit obvious, no? I'll tell you a secret: the same happens with Mozart.



hammeredklavier said:


>


"For Bernstein, Beethoven was the greatest composer of all time - his very first TV show was on Beethoven's 5th symphony. Beethoven never let's you down, he said, because everything he wrote sounds inevitable." - Source here.

"Although other composers were already using this technique, it is Beethoven's example that really popularised cyclic form for subsequent Romantic composers (Taylor 2011). In Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, a large part of the scherzo movement is recalled to end the finale's development section and lead into the recapitulation; the Ninth Symphony's finale rapidly presents explicit reminiscences of the three preceding movements before discovering the idea that is to be its own principal theme; while both the Piano Sonata Op. 101 and Cello Sonata Op. 102 No. 2 similarly recall earlier movements before their finales." - Source here.



hammeredklavier said:


> Here, I'll show you on the score, how Beethoven often seems to drag out his development.
> 
> in sections colored in orange: he spends his time doing silent chords (often spending 30 seconds at a time)
> sections colored in yellow: he lays out long dragged-out arpeggios, recitatives (like the oboe solo in his 5th symphony)
> sections colored in green: he plays both hands in unison all the way
> sections colored in blue: he does pretty much the same thing he did in the development of his 5th symphony. "beep-beep-beep-beep"
> 
> Attachment 143683
> Attachment 143684
> Attachment 143685
> 
> This is a lot of what makes up the development of his renowned Tempest sonata 1st movement. Pretty remarkable, isn't it.
> Mozart and Beethoven simply adhere to different methods. To people who don't appreciate Beethoven, he can sound like he's simply wasting his time. I think it was tdc who once expressed his opinion that Beethoven is chatty.


Here, a description of the _Tempest_ sonata by an actual musicologist:

"The three piano sonatas of op. 31 written in that summer would be historic, each innovative in it's own way, the first and third lively and the one in the middle, tragic. Each starts with a gesture without precedents in the literature. (...) [Op. 31 no. 2] would be one of that works that would pave his somber reputation, incomparably dramatic. To listeners, critics, maybe even Beethoven himself, the piece worked as an undenible signal directing towards the New Path. Later called _The Tempest_, (...) the sonata is an unforgettable human document. (...) Since the beginning, Beethoven violates the formal traditions of the 18th century, that would ask for clear first and second themes and an unmistakable tonal pattern. (...) The indistinct form amplifies the uncertainties of rhythms and nervous themes. It is an _expressive form_. (...) The finale is tireless, obsessive, practically monothematic, with a turbulent intensity like an irreversible time machine. There, ends a most intense sonata than anything already written at the time, more daring and innovative, but executed with the most luminous clarity of means and purposes. From this point onwards, this junction of passion and lucidity would mark most of the great conquers of Beethoven." - Beethoven: Anguish and Triumph, Jan Swafford.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Because the Irish singer Michael Kelly wasn't even a professional composer, maybe Mozart felt that Kelly did not need to know much about various compositional techniques as such.
> 
> It's worth noting that around this time, Mozart, in a letter to his father, criticized the contrapuntal prowess of his former idol J.E. Eberlin by comparing him to Bach and Handel. So he clearly thought counterpoint was important. And don't get me started on Beethoven's mass in C major Op.86: about how that's contrapuntally "unsatisfactory" compared to Mozart's K.167, K.262, etc.


I would take that sincere and developed mass that has a richness of dynamic and rhythmic contrasts any day over the boring Mozart juvenilia.



hammeredklavier said:


> This is a misattributed quote. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart#Misattributed


According to your own link, there's no prove that it's misattributed and that Delacroix was lying, and actually I think that it would make sense that Mozart had said this considering his usual musical temperament.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> How?


"Beethoven is viewed as a transitional figure between the Classical and Romantic eras of musical history. Above all, his works distinguish themselves from those of any prior composer through his creation of large, extended structures characterized by the extensive development of musical material, themes, and motifs, usually by means of "modulation", a change in the feeling of the home key, through a variety of keys or harmonic regions. Beethoven's innovation was the ability to rapidly establish a solidity in contrasting different keys and adding unexpected notes to join them. This expanded harmonic realm creates a sense of a vast musical space through which the music moves freely, and the development of musical material creates a sense of unfolding drama in this space. In this way, Beethoven's work creates a "story' where there are ups and downs, happiness and remorse, good and evil so to say and an ending.

Although Beethoven wrote many beautiful and lyrical melodies, another radical innovation of his music, compared especially to that of Mozart and Haydn, is his extensive use of forceful, marked, and even stark rhythmic patterns throughout his compositions and, in particular, some of which are primarily rhythmic rather than melodic. Some of his most famous themes, such as those of the first movements of the Third, Fifth, and Ninth symphonies, are primarily non-melodic rhythmic figures consisting of notes of a single chord, and the themes of the last movements of the Third and Seventh symphonies could more accurately be described as rhythms rather than as melodies. This use of rhythm was particularly well suited to the primacy of development in Beethoven's music, since a single rhythmic pattern can be taken through a succession of different, even remote, keys and harmonic regions while retaining and conveying an underlying stability much easier than a melody. This allowed him to combine different features of his themes in a wide variety of ways, extending the techniques of Haydn in development.

He also continued another trend, towards larger orchestras, that went on until the first decade of the 20th century, and moved the center of the sound downwards in the orchestra, to the violas and the lower register of the violins and cellos, giving his music a heavier and darker feel than Haydn or Mozart. This sadder, more sorrowful, music helped define Beethoven as who he was. The vast majority of Beethoven's compositions contain the hint of the darker part of himself. Even in his cheery pieces there is usually a part that grabs your attention in a quick, dark manner." - Source here.



hammeredklavier said:


> As I said before, Beethoven's image as a "misunderstood artist" is exaggerated in the general classical music community today. Beethoven's late string quartets were appreciated by Schubert (who wanted to hear Beethoven's Op.131 at the time of his own death, which happened in the year following Beethoven's own), Berlioz, who were his contemporaries for decades, and also Schumann. More than 40 years after Mozart wrote the Haydn quartets, François-Joseph Fétis was still writing articles that the opening of the dissonance quartet was harmonically " incorrect" and made "corrections" on the score. Haydn in 1785 said that "if Mozart wrote it, he must have meant it". Giuseppe Sarti said that Mozart was an incompetent piano composer who didn't understand proper counterpoint.


I'm not aware of anyone trying to convince Mozart to write a substitute piece of music due to poor reception ("[The Grosse Fuge] stands out as the most problematic single work in Beethoven's output and ... doubtless in the entire literature of music,") , nor of anyone laughing at the première of one of his masterpieces, or of people calling him ripe for a madhouse etc.


----------



## Xisten267

Unpopular opinion:

Mozart has the worse, most radical fandom on the internet.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> it is Beethoven's example that really popularised cyclic form for subsequent Romantic composers (Taylor 2011).


Listen to these:









*Le Portrait musical de la nature ou Grande Symphonie (1785)*
Mov.I: Allegretto - Andante pastorale - Allegretto - Villanella grazioso, un poco adagio - Allegretto 00:00 
Mov.II: Tempo medemo (Allegretto) 09:39
Mov.III: Allegro molto 12:44
Mov.IV: Tempo medemo (Allegro molto) 18:39
Mov.V: L'inno con variazioni - Andantino - Coro: Allegro con brio - Andantino 20:59






Benedict Taylor also said that "The very term 'cyclic form' is confusing. Hans Keller was exaggerating only a little when he described it as 'one of the most senseless technical terms in the rich history of musicological nonsense'. In fact, it is almost obligatory for commentators to offer some brief apology for their continued use of the term. Charles Rosen, for instance, states that '"cyclical form" is an ambiguous as well as a vague term'"
https://www.cambridge.org/core/book...-cyclic-form/EF586221A63CED34F6A22761783653D0

And he doesn't seem to know the Knecht pastoral symphony (1785).


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Listen to these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Le Portrait musical de la nature ou Grande Symphonie (1785)*
> Mov.I: Allegretto - Andante pastorale - Allegretto - Villanella grazioso, un poco adagio - Allegretto 00:00
> Mov.II: Tempo medemo (Allegretto) 09:39
> Mov.III: Allegro molto 12:44
> Mov.IV: Tempo medemo (Allegro molto) 18:39
> Mov.V: L'inno con variazioni - Andantino - Coro: Allegro con brio - Andantino 20:59
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benedict Taylor also said that "The very term 'cyclic form' is confusing. Hans Keller was exaggerating only a little when he described it as 'one of the most senseless technical terms in the rich history of musicological nonsense'. In fact, it is almost obligatory for commentators to offer some brief apology for their continued use of the term. Charles Rosen, for instance, states that '"cyclical form" is an ambiguous as well as a vague term'"
> https://www.cambridge.org/core/book...-cyclic-form/EF586221A63CED34F6A22761783653D0
> 
> And he doesn't seem to know the Knecht pastoral symphony (1785).


"Although other composers were already using this technique, it is Beethoven's example that really popularised cyclic form for subsequent Romantic composers (Taylor 2011)"

The point is that Beethoven popularized cyclic form for the romantic composers, not that he created it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Mozart has the worse, most radical fandom on the internet.











Ok, I'm sorry about the "offenses" I've done. But frankly, this is exactly what I have always thought about the Beethoven fandom. (If you visit various places on the internet, such as reddit, youtube, etc: you'll notice there are multitudes of Beethoven-loving extremists elevating Beethoven and trashing Mozart everywhere). In fact, when I first came to this forum, there were Beethoven enthusiasts (most notably captainnumber) creating anti-Mozart threads every week. And even to this day, there are threads like these being created:
What is it about Mozart? A Confessional Thread
Mozart is boring (or is he?)
Even though I earlier in the thread <Mozart is boring> I said the following nicely, they didn't seem to care. (I mean those people who kept bashing Mozart's "second-tier" works)



hammeredklavier said:


> The same can be said of Beethoven, for example. I acknowledge him as a genius who produced many masterpieces, but I don't find his other works like Christ on the Mount of Olives Op.85 or Choral fantasie op.80 particularly interesting. (But I still respect people who do)


The OP of this thread, for example, is clearly a Beethoven enthusiast, and look how many times he continuously wrote what he thought of Mozart; "boring, boring, boring" (as if anyone should care).
The fact that you will never see this, but will only see "wrong-doings" in me
tells me you're more interested in being a blind Beethoven enthusiast, than being a reasonable or fair person. 
You keep pretending like I'm the only villain, but I also remember many instances your "wrong-doings", and it's you who first started this discussion we are having in this thread in the first place.

https://www.talkclassical.com/66279-most-misunderstood-composers-2.html#post1848265


Machiavel said:


> Dude get over it , we know you dislike him . Damn the Beethoven fanboy club always have to talk about beethoven in a mozart thread. I mean I never read about a matchup between those 2 that was not instigated by beethoven lovers. Whatever the thread is about, they always have to go back to Beethoven. Some here sounds like 15 years old with there Beethoven this and that over and over again in all the thread. Just go and see for yourself. Each time they speak about any other composers they always bring the but beethoven was better. In a way I pity them. And sadly the majority of them are kids


----------



## Ethereality

hammeredklavier said:


> That's typical Beethoven. More like the long-winded first movement of the Eroica is an exception in his oeuvre. As I said, Beethoven often spends his development doing beep-beeps, bam-bams, + some tinkly sounds (especially in the choral fantasy and the pastoral symphony), - 1st and 2nd movement of Eroica are good examples.
> 
> 
> 
> ]


I suppose composition doesn't require one to always have something profound to say, but, to say the right thing at the right time; beeping moments can sound profound at the right time. Beethoven was one of the first to really leverage or cheat the prolificacy system using this rhythmic beeping as one methodology to build up the right feelings and emotions in order to usher in greater series. Newcomers often misunderstand Beethoven if they don't let this curvy, adventurous process balance their ears, in understanding that every moment of an adventure can't be golden but it may require a perfect ratio of space and contrast to blossom into _aesthetic_ perfection. I think with Eroica he showed he clearly knows what development is about, and maybe many of his works are essentially 'more advanced' Beethoven. But to my ears, one can't possibly do better than the Eroica. That music always sounds simply perfect, I especially like Karajan's 1977.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> It's a very powerful, great, well-thought, intense symphony, not just an amount of pretty melodies combined with an excess of flats and sharps to please effeminate men for example. The "beeps" and "bams-bams" you cite are funny and ridiculous, and don't exist anywhere else except in your mind... are you trying to be "light-hearted and silly to the point of ridiculousness" like your Mozart, mr. hammeredklavier? Beethoven didn't compose vulgar things like a canon telling people to lick his *** or an opera with a shallow and misogynist plot for example (Cosi fan tutte is usually translated as "Women are like that" in English), this he really didn't do.







I think you're getting emotional again, Mr. Allerius. I apologize for using the words "silly", "ridiculous" if they offended you. I thought it was acceptable in the context of this thread <unpopular opinons>. 
You expressed your opinion that Mozart is only about pleasant melodies compared to Beethoven. I expressed my opinion a lot of late Beethoven isn't that "extreme" as some might think, and Beethoven actually did write plenty of "silly" stuff and I find it weird he's never criticized for "silliness" compared to Mozart. I still respect your opinion Mozart is only silly. (He's constantly bashed in the classical music community as being frilly and silly anyway. It's not even surprising)
Previously in this thread, I asked which parts of Op.130 (with the alternative finale) are really remarkable in terms of expressive dissonance. It sometimes seems to me Beethoven-admiring extremists are only interested in creating surface "brand images" about their idol. For example, according to them, the late works are supposed to be a "pinnacle of mankind", and any attempt to question its "depth and profundity" is pure blasphemy.

I mean, even Beethoven's "dances" such as the parts that are essentially early 19-century Landler music in his Pastoral symphony are supposed to be considered to possess "immeasurable depth", only because he was wetting himself over some programmatic imaginations and fantasies when he wrote it. The same can be said about late Beethoven in general: there are all kinds of hyperboles said about it, such as "since Beethoven lost his hearing completely, he was touching with the heavens from the inner spirit. So all he wrote in that time possesses "immeasurable depth" a simple human being cannot grasp fully blah blah".

If you ask my frank opinion, it's like a book with a really fancy, gorgeous cover, but when you look at its contents, they're not quite what the cover says they are. But I don't judge a book by its cover.
I mean, listen to Beethoven's missa solemnis (ex. et incarnatus est) and its use of dissonance. It's like shoving down a load of unsalted/unspiced meat down your throat. - Just like the Pastoral symphony, (which I feel is a bit too long). Also, I think that, when confronted with the idea of "death", Beethoven is only interested in being conciliatory. I'm sorry to say it, but it's a bit of a dissappointment to me.
But I also respect your opinions "Mozart is only for sissy guys", "Mozart is only about pleasant melodies". But I also feel that in certain respects Beethoven is somewhat of a "wimp" as well. His reliance on sheer dynamics to make his expression doesn't seem so intelligent to me either. He seems to be saying "my banging isn't over yet!" I still think that this 



 isn't really any more expressive than Mozart K.477, for example, but again this is just my opinion.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

So we've come to the Mozart vs. Beethoven chapter in this thread. I wonder, who'd win in a wrestling match between the two.


----------



## Bulldog

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> So we've come to the Mozart vs. Beethoven chapter in this thread. I wonder, who'd win in a wrestling match between the two.


It's a lose-lose situation with both composers being bashed as if they were *losers*.


----------



## Ethereality

As my Top 2 composers, this is more like an entertaining game of wack-a-mole.


----------



## adriesba

I wish I could write my college papers as fast as these essay-length posts about Beethoven vs Mozart are coming.

I didn't get an answer when I asked what is ridiculous about Beethoven's choral fantasy. I'm not buying any of this.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Mozart's Requiem is considered one of his finest works. I find it tedious.


----------



## DavidA

adriesba said:


> I wish I could write my college papers as fast as these essay-length posts about Beethoven vs Mozart are coming.
> 
> I didn't get an answer when I asked what is ridiculous about Beethoven's choral fantasy. I'm not buying any of this.


The choral fantasy of course is very valuable as it gives us an insight into what Beethoven was like at improvising. He of course improvised the first performance and then wrote down what he remembered. To say it is ridiculous it's ridiculous at least by musical history


----------



## consuono

Allerius said:


> Unpopular opinion:
> 
> Mozart has the worse, most radical fandom on the internet.


I disagree. I think "modern art" does.


----------



## consuono

> I think you're getting emotional again, Mr. Allerius. I apologize for using the words "silly", "ridiculous" if they offended you. I thought it was acceptable in the context of this thread <unpopular opinons>.


I don't think it's an offensive thing to say anyway. Although I don't think the term describes the Choral Fantasy, Beethoven was not averse to being ridiculous on occasion, especially in the late period. Mozart and Haydn and even (gasp!) Bach, ditto.


----------



## Xisten267

Unpopular opinion:

Mozart is not bashed more than Beethoven, and the mozartian member trashing Beethoven in this thread is the bullier here, not the victim.

...



Bulldog said:


> It's a lose-lose situation with both composers being bashed as if they were *losers*.


Yes, you're right. And, as the moderation asked in private, I won't derail this thread any more. I stop here.


----------



## Ethereality

Unpopular opinion:

I don't get how such a dull blob of sound such as _Mass in B Minor_ could compare to the sensational forms and rhythms of a Beethoven symphony or much of Mozart's music. I love Bach. Bach's theory of orchestration in this mass is good, but to me compositionally, it sounds like it should be a lullaby for a baby with its redundant patterns and safe harmonies; it just lags _on and on _with no interesting development.

As someone complained about Mahler on the previous page, this work slightly resembles a feature of Mahler which is a lack of true form or catchiness of construction. It sounds like it melts into a blob of little intrigue, but at least a Mahler symphony has real imaginative harmonies and orchestration! Once you've heard one note of this work, to me it's like you've heard all the notes. I'm already done.

I've heard this work many times however. If someone wants to send me a 10 minute clip that will change my mind, I will listen to it more carefully _again_ and rate it open-mindedly.


----------



## Xisten267

Ethereality said:


> I've heard this work many times however. If someone wants to send me a 10 minute clip that will change my mind, I will listen to it more carefully _again_ and rate it open-mindedly.


Well, I don't know if this will change what you think about the mass, but since you asked: I always thought that the starting _Kyrie_ with it's extended five-part choral writing is mind-blowing, and I believe that few pieces begin in such an awesome manner. Even today, after hearing it so many times, I still have goosebumps at some moments when the basses sing. My favorite performance of this _Kyrie_ is with Karl Richter, as I think that few other performances I've heard are so intense and sincere, and that the tempo is just perfect, not in a hurry like IMO in the versions of Herreweghe or Gardiner but also not lagging as, for me, in the Celibidache's.
The _Agnus Dei_ of this mass is for me one of the most profound and moving I've ever heard.

*First Kyrie:*





*Agnus Dei & Dona Nobis Pacem:*


----------



## fluteman

Igor Stravinsky was the most important composer in, and had the greatest influence of any single composer on, 20th century music.

Richard Wagner's operas are too long, repetitive and static for modern sensibilities. (His overtures were great for Tom and Jerry cartoons, though.)

Shostakovich's string quartets are better than his symphonies. Same with Beethoven.


----------



## Bulldog

The Shostakovich solo piano works are better than his string quartets. Actually, not better, but I prefer them.


----------



## fluteman

Bulldog said:


> The Shostakovich solo piano works are better than his string quartets. Actually, not better, but I prefer them.


No question Shostakovich wrote some great piano music. I'm not sure how your opinion qualifies as "unpopular", but as you are one of the leading experts here, if not anywhere, on which opinions are popularly held and which are not, I won't try to argue with you, as no doubt I would receive a sound drubbing.


----------



## Littlephrase

Schumann's late music is actually pretty good, albeit not of the same caliber or vitality as his earlier, more recognized work.


----------



## premont

Ethereality said:


> Unpopular opinion:
> 
> I don't get how such a dull blob of sound such as _Mass in B Minor_ could compare to the sensational forms and rhythms of a Beethoven symphony or much of Mozart's music. I love Bach. Bach's theory of orchestration in this mass is good, but to me compositionally, it sounds like it should be a lullaby for a baby with its redundant patterns and safe harmonies; it just lags _on and on _with no interesting development.


I have been occupied with Bach's music since my earliest teen-years, but it took me dozens of years to learn to appreciate the b-minor mass, which I found boring and inferior to the passions, christmas oratorium and a lot of cantatas. I listened to many recordings, studied the score et.c. The turning point which eventually convinced me of the excellence of the mass was the recording led by Thomas Hengelbrock, which I hereby recommend to you.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> I don't get how such a dull blob of sound such as _Mass in B Minor_ could compare to the sensational forms and rhythms of a Beethoven symphony or much of Mozart's music. I love Bach







I don't know how much renaissance or baroque music you like, but my suggestion is you should approach Bach with a mindset different from the one you would with the classicists.
You won't really find sudden changes of mood with texture, harmony, rhythm, dynamics in Bach as you would in the classicists. The aesthetics is closer to stuff like Allegri, Gesualdo, Palestrina. Even without the classical sense of drama, Bach can still instill feelings of transcendence in ways somewhat similar to their idiom.


----------



## Simon Moon

With only a few minor exceptions, I find the vast majority of music composed before about 1920: predictable, obvious, and cliche sounding. 

I find, that a lot of the music of the 20th century, and later, that many here speak of as 'ugly', is not ugly. But the beauty can sometimes be implied, not obvious, or may need to be sussed out. And even if it is ugly to me, there are many other reasons to listen to such music, than beauty.


----------



## Ethereality

Simon Moon said:


> With only a few minor exceptions, I find the vast majority of music composed before about 1920: predictable, obvious, and cliche sounding.
> 
> I find, that a lot of the music of the 20th century, and later, that many here speak of as 'ugly', is not ugly. But the beauty can sometimes be implied, not obvious, or may need to be sussed out. And even if it is ugly to me, there are many other reasons to listen to such music, than beauty.


That's a very valid opinion. To respond to the three prior:

@hammeredklavier, those are beautiful examples you gave in particular! All in all I wouldn't consider Bach's mass particularly awe-provoking or clever compared to some of his other music or a Beethoven/Mozart symphony, but the movements you linked especially the latter, are delightful, the harmonies in Crucifixus! The unpredictable *III at 0:57*. I love the melody at the beginning of Christe eleison (0:00-0:30), but imo the form soon devolves afterwards. I consider the overall mass to be more like 'commoner's music' with occasional moments, rather than advanced music. That's how it sounds to my ears: it lacks advanced construction.

@Allerius and premont, thank you! I can in some capacity tell that the Thomas Hengelbrock is a great recording. But I will need to invest more time into it. Allerius, thank you for your explanation and reasoning. I felt quite moved and touched by your review, and I sat back and listened to your clips and although I tried harder, I really didn't feel or hear anything profound or captivating  I think that, while the _way_ Bach writes his ideas (his vertical theory) is very highbrow, the actual ideas themselves, the compositional and horizontal ideas behind the craft lacks. It lines up with a post I wrote a while ago calling Bach the more 'aesthetic' of the Big 3.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

20th century orchestral works with a lot of added percussion sound outdated or corny to me, or even cacophonous. It doesn't ruin the piece for me and I can easily get past it to enjoy the work as a whole, though.


----------



## DavidA

Simon Moon said:


> With only a few minor exceptions, I find the vast majority of music composed before about 1920: predictable, obvious, and cliche sounding.
> 
> I find, that a lot of the music of the 20th century, and later, that many here speak of as 'ugly', is not ugly. But the beauty can sometimes be implied, not obvious, or may need to be sussed out. And even if it is ugly to me, there are many other reasons to listen to such music, than beauty.


Sorry but some of us believe in beauty not ugliness! I know THAT will be an unpopular opinion among some here! :lol:


----------



## SanAntone

DavidA said:


> some of us believe in beauty


I do too. But it would seem we don't always agree on what is beautiful.

This might be unpopular, I dunno: I am not interested in analyses of music. I get everything I need to know about a work by listening to it.


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> I do too. But it would seem we don't always agree on what is beautiful.
> 
> This might be unpopular, I dunno: I am not interested in analyses of music. I get everything I need to know about a work by listening to it.


Well most of us do!


----------



## SanAntone

DavidA said:


> Well most of us do!


I disagree. And unless you polled the entire human race, you are just wrapping yourself in a comfortable delusion. But, why it matters to you is the real mystery. Not a mystery that will cause me any concern, though. You are on your own to navigate life on Earth and the dangerous environment of music.


----------



## JAS

Too many people, especially the composers and their supporters, hide the unpopular aspects of their works behind clouds of uncertainty and evasive terminology. And then they outrageously claim the high ground when called out on it. (The most interesting parts of many of these works are the titles.)


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> Too many people, especially the composers and their supporters, hide the unpopular aspects of their works behind clouds of uncertainty and evasive terminology. And then they outrageously claim the high ground when called out on it. (The most interesting part of many of these works are the titles.)


Some people desperately grasp for a security blanket they call objective truth because living in a world of uncertainty unsettles their peace of mind. And then they outrageously claim the high ground when called out on it.


----------



## JAS

The love of meaningless drivel is strong with this one, and shows in "musical" interests as well.


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> I disagree. And unless you polled the entire human race, you are just wrapping yourself in a comfortable delusion. But, why it matters to you is the real mystery. Not a mystery that will cause me any concern, though. You are on your own to navigate life on Earth and the dangerous environment of music.


Oh so the entire human race gets out a score and analyses music when they listen to it? The delusion is yours friend.


----------



## Fabulin

SanAntone said:


> I disagree. And unless you polled the entire human race, you are just wrapping yourself in a comfortable delusion. But, why it matters to you is the real mystery. Not a mystery that will cause me any concern, though. You are on your own to navigate life on Earth and the dangerous environment of music.


The fraction of a percent of humans that analyzes music they listen to is negligible


----------



## SanAntone

DavidA said:


> Oh so the entire human race gets out a score and analyses music when they listen to it? The delusion is yours friend.


My second comment had nothing to do with the one addressed to you.



Fabulin said:


> The fraction of a percent of humans that analyzes music they listen to is negligible


What, are you saying my opinion is not unpopular enough for this thread? Maybe, but I often hear from fans of classical music that they could better appreciate modern music if they knew how it was put together or what the composer was doing.


----------



## JAS

I don't know if this is really all that unpopular as an opinion, but online forums are not generally a useful format for meaningful discussion. The amount of time and effort and thought to write a good and useful post is rarely compensated by reading and subsequent commenting. I have found useful recommendations from time to time, which mostly hurts my bank account and strains my already tight shelf space, but for the most part, posting at TC is just passing a little time during the COVID crisis. For the most part, nothing posted at TC is going to be very revelatory to anyone, or change anyone's mind, or have any tangible impact on the world at large. A lot of posters would benefit from keeping that in mind . . . and having a sense of humor.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> My second comment had nothing to do with the one addressed to you.
> 
> What, are you saying my opinion is not unpopular enough for this thread? *Maybe, but I often hear from fans of classical music that they could better appreciate modern music if they knew how it was put together or what the composer was doing*.


Yup, I'm one of those. But after I'm familiar with the technique, then I don't need to keep analyzing on paper, and can do so by ear. I know what you mean by beauty, it may not necessarily be beautiful in sound, but in the handling of sound.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> I don't know if this is really all that unpopular as an opinion, but online forums are not generally a useful format for meaningful discussion. The amount of time and effort and thought to write a good and useful post is rarely compensated by reading and subsequent commenting. I have found useful recommendations from time to time, which mostly hurts my bank account and strains my already tight shelf space, but for the most part, posting at TC is just passing a little time during the COVID crisis. For the most part, nothing posted at TC is going to be very revelatory to anyone, or change anyone's mind, or have any tangible impact on the world at large. A lot of posters would benefit from keeping that in mind . . . and having a sense of humor.


Yeah, know what you are saying. But I have discovered a lot of good music I might otherwise not find, or take a lot longer to find it, through music forums online. And most of it is available on YouTube, so much so that I went ahead and purchased the Premium subscription so I wouldn't see the ads.

I am maybe a bit less cynical about the level of discourse on TC, or other online forums devoted to classical music, than you seem to be.


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> Yup, I'm one of those. But after I'm familiar with the technique, then I don't need to keep analyzing on paper, and can do so by ear. I know what you mean by beauty, it may not necessarily be beautiful in sound, but in the handling of sound.


It's not even always about difficult music that this analyzing thing comes up. There's a thread on TC something like The Beatles Appraised where the OP is a longish video by an academician explicating the songs.


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> My second comment had nothing to do with the one addressed to you.


Which is why I addressed the one addressed to me.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ...
> This might be unpopular, I dunno: I am not interested in analyses of music. I get everything I need to know about a work by listening to it.


But that's the opposite of the advice I usually hear from modern music fans. Usually it goes something like this:
--"That sounds like meaningless cacophony."
--"But you really can't judge until you understand what the composer is doing here, the intricate structure...and the intense training the composer went through to compose what you so cavalierly and ignorantly call 'noise'...educate yourself and give this work a chance..."


----------



## premont

consuono said:


> But that's the opposite of the advice I usually hear from modern music fans. Usually it goes something like this:
> --"That sounds like meaningless cacophony."
> --"But you really can't judge until you understand what the composer is doing here, the intricate structure...and the intense training the composer went through to compose what you so cavalierly and ignorantly call 'noise'...educate yourself and give this work a chance..."


Yes, precisely.

But if someone is capable of getting a deep understanding of a work of the kind in question just by listening to it, I am ready to bow over.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> But that's the opposite of the advice I usually hear from modern music fans. Usually it goes something like this:
> --"That sounds like meaningless cacophony."
> --"But you really can't judge until you understand what the composer is doing here, the intricate structure...and the intense training the composer went through to compose what you so cavalierly and ignorantly call 'noise'...educate yourself and give this work a chance..."


My only advice, when asked, is to just listen with an open mind. If after a few minutes you are not interested in hearing more, turn it off. That's what I do.


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> My only advice, when asked, is to just listen with an open mind. If after a few minutes you are not interested in hearing more, turn it off. That's what I do.


Me too! :tiphat:


----------



## mmsbls

This thread is about unpopular opinions. Please refrain from personal comments and discuss your unpopular opinions of classical music.


----------



## Bourdon

It is a known fact that you do not listen with your ears but with your brain, new sounds must be understood by the brain and the only possibility is to listen and repeat as you learn a language in a foreign country.
You don't learn anything by walking away after two minutes.
Thus, something that had no meaning can be changed by an experience of beauty.
A lot of people walk away when they hear classical music, not because they don't like it, it never had a chance.
If you love music, you open up and assume the composer's honest intentions.
Reinbert de Leeuw once said that he did not understand that most people do not like the "moderns".
I've had this same experience, I thought I was sharing an experience of beauty while the other person looked at me as if I was out of my mind.
You cannot explain what you are experiencing, not everyone has the same degree of ability to learn a new language.
Also among professional musicians there are those who "reject the avant garde" and find words to substantiate "their" right.
There is no right or wrong, it simply is not given to everyone to appreciate this music. It took me quite a long time to give it a chance. You have to sow without harvesting immediately and there is not the immediate experience of any benefit.

An artwork like music does not have to be interpreted in words.
I'm just expressing my opinion on this one and don't want to kick anyone in the butt.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I'm always interested in references to "understanding" in this context. I like to think I have a reasonable grasp of musical technicalities and that helps when I'm reading about music, but when I listen to the music itself I don't do so with those technicalities in mind. The value I then get (or don't get, as in the case of much modern music unfortunately) from it is emotional, not intellectual in nature. Maybe that's where I, and those who react as I do, differ from those who can and do like such music.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I'm sorry to say, but most French music kind of sucks


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I kind of agree with that - not sure I'd go quite as far, but there's not a lot of French music that I enjoy all that much.


----------



## SanAntone

Bourdon said:


> It is a known fact that you do not listen with your ears but with your brain, new sounds must be understood by the brain and the only possibility is to listen and repeat as you learn a language in a foreign country.
> You don't learn anything by walking away after two minutes.
> Thus, something that had no meaning can be changed by an experience of beauty.
> A lot of people walk away when they hear classical music, not because they don't like it, it never had a chance.
> If you love music, you open up and assume the composer's honest intentions.
> Reinbert de Leeuw once said that he did not understand that most people do not like the "moderns".
> I've had this same experience, I thought I was sharing an experience of beauty while the other person looked at me as if I was out of my mind.
> You cannot explain what you are experiencing, not everyone has the same degree of ability to learn a new language.
> Also among professional musicians there are those who "reject the avant garde" and find words to substantiate "their" right.
> There is no right or wrong, it simply is not given to everyone to appreciate this music. It took me quite a long time to give it a chance. You have to sow without harvesting immediately and there is not the immediate experience of any benefit.
> 
> An artwork like music does not have to be interpreted in words.
> I'm just expressing my opinion on this one and don't want to kick anyone in the butt.


I listen to a lot of new music, much of it I find interesting and listen to a work all the way. But, for whatever reason, if after listening to a few minutes to something I decide it is not what I want to continue with, I move on. I may come back to it later, but maybe not.

My guide in all of my listening is my real time response to the music. I do think that if a work does not capture my interest after a few minutes I have given it a chance. It could be the mood I am in at that moment, or it could be the music is just not my cup of tea. I don't worry about it.

But there's that red text admonition for us not to discuss this on this thread. So I will respect that request.


----------



## Bourdon

SanAntone said:


> I listen to a lot of new music, much of it I find interesting and listen to a work all the way. But, for whatever reason, if after listening to a few minutes to something I decide it is not what I want to continue with, I move on. I may come back to it later, but maybe not.
> 
> My guide in all of my listening is my real time response to the music. I do think that if a work does not capture my interest after a few minutes I have given it a chance. It could be the mood I am in at that moment, or it could be the music is just not my cup of tea. I don't worry about it.
> 
> But there's that red text admonition for us not to discuss this on this thread. So I will respect that request.


I wasn't attacking anyone I just used a few examples to highlight my ideas.
If you are already an experienced listener, you can refuse to listen further on any other basis than someone who thinks it was not worthwhile in advance
I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Simon Moon

DavidA said:


> Sorry but some of us believe in beauty not ugliness! I know THAT will be an unpopular opinion among some here! :lol:


Absolutely no reason to apologize. It is also my opinion.

But you missed my point.

1. there is beauty in music that may seem, on the surface, ugly.

2. there are other reasons to listen to music other than its obvious beauty. I love a lot of music that has obvious beauty, but I do not always want to listen to such music. You seem to be creating a false dichotomy.

You do understand, that there are many people that find the way tigers or cheetahs hunt and kill their prey to be beautiful, even though the killing and the gore may be ugly, right?


----------



## DavidA

Simon Moon said:


> Absolutely no reason to apologize. It is also my opinion.
> 
> But you missed my point.
> 
> 1. there is beauty in music that may seem, on the surface, ugly.
> 
> 2. there are other reasons to listen to music other than its obvious beauty. I love a lot of music that has obvious beauty, but I do not always want to listen to such music. You seem to be creating a false dichotomy.
> 
> You do understand, that there are many people that find the way tigers or cheetahs hunt and kill their prey to be beautiful, even though the killing and the gore may be ugly, right?


Ah so ugliness is beauty! Thanks for pointing the false dichotomies out! I must also remember that black is white! :lol:

BTW these guys who find the cheetahs and tigers killing usually do so from the safety of their televisions! When you are actually facing one of these creatures in the wild it is not so beautiful my friend!


----------



## Simon Moon

DavidA said:


> Ah so ugliness is beauty! Thanks for pointing the false dichotomies out! I must also remember that black is white! :lol:


Not what I said.



> BTW these guys who find the cheetahs and tigers killing usually do so from the safety of their televisions! When you are actually facing one of these creatures in the wild it is not so beautiful my friend!


Again, missing my points.

There are 1000's of wildlife preservationists, biologists, zoologists, wildlife park rangers, etc, that put themselves in situations where they are facing such creatures on a daily basis, that still find it beautiful.


----------



## DavidA

Simon Moon said:


> Not what I said.
> 
> Again, missing my points.
> 
> *There are 1000's *of wildlife preservationists, biologists, zoologists, wildlife park rangers, etc, that put themselves in situations where they are facing such creatures on a daily basis, that still find it beautiful.


Not missing your points. Just pointing out I disagree with them. 

Not 1000s I don't think. There are some. Some of these guys get mauled of course. Not quite so beautiful then!

But of course these are extremely beautiful animals that must be seen in the wild. One of my highlights was seeing a leopard coming down the road at sunrise and passing right by our car. Very rare my friend told me! Worth getting up at some unearthly hour for.


----------



## fluteman

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I'm sorry to say, but most French music kind of sucks


A story told to French flutist Jean-Pierre Rampal when he was working as a young orchestra sub in the late 1930s: Two young French music students (one of whom was telling the story much later in his life) went to Vienna in the late 19th century and tried to make an unannounced call on Johannes Brahms. The composer's butler answered the door, and they heard him tell his employer that two French musicians were there and wished to see him. Alas, Brahms replied "French music is ****!" and refused to see them. But the thrill of hearing his voice made it a memorable day for them.


----------



## Fabulin

fluteman said:


> A story told to French flutist Jean-Pierre Rampal when he was working as a young orchestra sub in the late 1930s: Two young French music students (one of whom was telling the story much later in his life) went to Vienna in the late 19th century and tried to make an unannounced call on Johannes Brahms. The composer's butler answered the door, and they heard him tell his employer that two French musicians were there and wished to see him. Alas, Brahms replied "French music is ****!" and refused to see them. But the thrill of hearing his voice made it a memorable day for them.


I love such stories, if only because it takes so few steps to get quite far back in human history. It's the same as John Mauceri in the 2010s recalling how Leopold Stokowski once told him about visiting Mahler's concert in the 1900s. Or Copland telling in 1980 about having shaken hands with Saint-Saens, born 1835.


----------



## fluteman

Fabulin said:


> I love such stories, if only because it takes so few steps to get quite far back in human history. It's the same as John Mauceri in the 2010s recalling how Leopold Stokowski once told him about visiting Mahler's concert in the 1900s. Or Copland telling in 1980 about having shaken hands with Saint-Saens, born 1835.


Ouch. I met Stokowski in the green room in Carnegie Hall when I was 11. He loved meeting children, and shook my hand and gave me a big smile. One more about Brahms: As a young and already well-known child prodigy pianist, Wilhelm Backhaus attended a concert by his teacher of both Brahms piano concertos. Brahms himself was conducting. Backhaus lived and played long enough to record Brahms in stereo in the 1960s.


----------



## Fabulin

fluteman said:


> Ouch. I met Stokowski in the green room in Carnegie Hall when I was 11. He loved meeting children, and shook my hand and gave me a big smile. One more about Brahms: As a young and already well-known child prodigy pianist, Wilhelm Backhaus attended a concert by his teacher of both Brahms piano concertos. Brahms himself was conducting. Backhaus lived and played long enough to record Brahms in stereo in the 1960s.


I will have to check that recording out!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> @hammeredklavier, those are beautiful examples you gave in particular! All in all I wouldn't consider Bach's mass particularly awe-provoking or clever compared to some of his other music or a Beethoven/Mozart symphony, but the movements you linked especially the latter, are delightful, the harmonies in Crucifixus! The unpredictable *III at 0:57*. I love the melody at the beginning of Christe eleison (0:00-0:30), but imo the form soon devolves afterwards. I consider the overall mass to be more like 'commoner's music' with occasional moments, rather than advanced music. That's how it sounds to my ears: it lacks advanced construction.


I often find that, when you talk about harmony, you tend to focus on modulations, how unexpectedly something occurs in the "chord progressions". I think you might get more out of pre-Romantic era music if you looked at stuff like non-chord tones, or heard the music in terms of "individual moving lines".


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> Ouch. I met Stokowski in the green room in Carnegie Hall when I was 11. He loved meeting children, and shook my hand and gave me a big smile. One more about Brahms: As a young and already well-known child prodigy pianist, Wilhelm Backhaus attended a concert by his teacher of both Brahms piano concertos. Brahms himself was conducting. Backhaus lived and played long enough to record Brahms in stereo in the 1960s.


I think that is why Backhaus' Brahms playing is valuable historically as he knew Brahms. He doesn't dawdle as some do.


----------



## Ethereality

hammeredklavier said:


> I often find that, when you talk about harmony, you tend to focus on modulations, how unexpectedly something occurs in the "chord progressions". I think you might get more out of pre-Romantic era music if you looked at stuff like non-chord tones, or heard the music in terms of "individual moving lines".


None of these are important. You need to look at harmonic relationships via their function, ie. if I write a tune to have a function called note pattern A, these notes will be able to form and break relationships with similar patterns depending on which direction I take it; these directions can be relative, harmonic, counter-rhythmic, or variational. The bolded III chord I wrote is shorthand for a relationship between one of Bach's patterns, which didn't need to be a chord necessarily and doesn't include its contextual meaning.

For example, many of my Beethoven posts don't talk about chords because Beethoven's relationships are a bit more complicated, and are usually as much about counter-rhythm, relativity and variation as they are harmony: a year ago I wrote, "Beethoven I believe is a more complex composer than Bach, as he was able to unify all musical ideas into a whole new dimension: brilliant rhythms, themes, harmonies, dynamics, all combining and paralleling together into a more complex dimension..." Now I'd also say this for Mozart. Predominantly, the two seemed to use counter-rhythms differently:

Beethoven's counter-rhythms are more successive and elongated, Mozart's are more cleverly entwined within a function like Haydn's. Beethoven was also a little better at relativity while Mozart was at harmony, ie. a Beethoven piece often sounds like a succession of mirrors of itself when it's not, but rather, something much more clever. Perhaps what I wish I could better explain here. The last category, variation, I would have to give most of the points to Mozart.

*Contextual meaning* ^ is the point where personal musical discernment or preference comes into play, thus I have to leave any interpretation or theory at the door when selecting a predefined symbol like III.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> A story told to French flutist Jean-Pierre Rampal when he was working as a young orchestra sub in the late 1930s: Two young French music students (one of whom was telling the story much later in his life) went to Vienna in the late 19th century and tried to make an unannounced call on Johannes Brahms. The composer's butler answered the door, and they heard him tell his employer that two French musicians were there and wished to see him. Alas, Brahms replied "French music is ****!" and refused to see them. But the thrill of hearing his voice made it a memorable day for them.


I think Brahms should have written a book on "Frenchness in music" and discussed those two French musicians, like how Wagner discussed Mendelssohn and Meyerbeer in his book.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Malx said:


> Nielsens Symphonies are more satisfying than those by Sibelius......


That's fighting talk!
However, as the Mozart/Beethoven debate is entering its Stalingrad phase of attrition, let's not kick off another conflict. I'll just assume you didn't really mean it.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Ethereality said:


> None of these are important. You need to look at harmonic relationships via their function, ie. if I write a tune to have a function called note pattern A, these notes will be able to form and break relationships with similar patterns depending on which direction I take it; these directions can be relative, harmonic, counter-rhythmic, or variational. The bolded III chord I wrote is shorthand for a relationship between one of Bach's patterns, which didn't need to be a chord necessarily and doesn't include its contextual meaning.
> 
> For example, many of my Beethoven posts don't talk about chords because Beethoven's relationships are a bit more complicated, and are usually as much about counter-rhythm, relativity and variation as they are harmony: a year ago I wrote, "Beethoven I believe is a more complex composer than Bach, as he was able to unify all musical ideas into a whole new dimension: brilliant rhythms, themes, harmonies, dynamics, all combining and paralleling together into a more complex dimension..." Now I'd also say this for Mozart. Predominantly, the two seemed to use counter-rhythms differently:
> 
> Beethoven's counter-rhythms are more successive and elongated, Mozart's are more cleverly entwined within a function like Haydn's. Beethoven was also a little better at relativity while Mozart was at harmony, ie. a Beethoven piece often sounds like a succession of mirrors of itself when it's not, but rather, something much more clever. Perhaps what I wish I could better explain here. The last category, variation, I would have to give most of the points to Mozart.
> 
> *Contextual meaning* ^ is the point where personal musical discernment or preference comes into play, thus I have to leave any interpretation or theory at the door when selecting a predefined symbol like III.


But function is a 19th century concept, did not exist for Bach or most 18th century musicians who were trained in figured bass and partimento


----------



## Fabulin

DavidA said:


> I think that is why Backhaus' Brahms playing is valuable historically as he knew Brahms. He doesn't dawdle as some do.


Vigorous and unsentimental playing seems to have been more common in Brahms' circle:




Here Ilona Eibenschütz, who was a pupil of Clara Schumann, and who played for Brahms just a few years before making this recording.


----------



## fluteman

hammeredklavier said:


> I think Brahms should have written a book on "Frenchness in music" and discussed those two French musicians, like how Wagner discussed Mendelssohn and Meyerbeer in his book.


Ha! From what I've read, Brahms became a cranky sourpuss late in life, like most of us, but was polite, modest and deferential as a rising young star.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Schubert is boring


----------



## Littlephrase

Bwv 1080 said:


> Schubert is boring


There was a time when this opinion was unfathomable to me, particularly early in my classical listening journey. Schubert was my first love; discovering him in my teenage years was utterly formative to my appreciation of music.

But as I've matured in my love for Schubert, his "defects" or shortcomings as a composer have become increasingly apparent (his lack of contrapuntal skill, his compulsive repetitiveness, his formal awkwardnesses), yet instead of creating a distance between myself and the composer, this has only served to deepen my understanding as to what made Schubert special. There is this heartbreaking simplicity to the music, this youthful naïveté miraculously married with an aged world-weariness, that allows one to plunge fully and unabashedly into the deepest and purest of emotional regions. It is this simple unity of both Romantic youth and wise old age, that allows me to access the Schubertian sublime. It is a sublime completely different from that which I find in the compositional achievements of Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms. Mozart reached something similar to Schubert, but his uncanny compositional virtuosity and his devotion to (and perfection of) Classical form places him in a different aesthetic category, all of his own.


----------



## JAS

This is probably more _about_ unpopular opinions than an unpopular opinion itself, but people who really don't care about the opinions of others probably should not spend 30 or 40 posts insisting so, especially in the same thread. (Trying to have the last word is definitely a sign of unhappiness about the other opinions, and of caring.)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Littlephrase1913 said:


> It is a sublime completely different from that which I find in the compositional achievements of Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms. Mozart reached something similar to Schubert, but his uncanny compositional virtuosity and his devotion to (and perfection of) Classical form places him in a different aesthetic category, all of his own.


"In spontaneity of genius Schubert resembles Mozart more than any other master who ever lived. His early education and training were different from those of Mozart, and musical ideas take different form with him. While Mozart was distinctly a melodist, counterpoint and fugue were at his fingers' ends, and his thematic treatment had all the freedom which comes from a thorough training in the use of musical material. Schubert had not this kind of training. He never wrote a good fugue, and his counterpoint was indifferent; but on the other hand he had several qualities which Mozart had not, and in particular a very curious and interesting mental phenomenon, which we might call psychical resonance or clairvoyance. Whatever poem or story he read immediately called up musical images in his mind. Under the excitement of the sentiment of a poem, or of dramatic incidents narrated, strange harmonies spontaneously suggested themselves, and melodies exquisitely appropriate to the sentiment he desired to convey. He was a musical painter, whose colors were not imitated from something without himself, but were inspired from within."
<A Popular History of the Art of Music: From the Earliest Times Until the Present, By William Smythe Babcock Mathews, Page 388>

Just like Mozart and Beethoven, it's like apples and oranges; they have different flavors.


----------



## Malx

Pat Fairlea said:


> That's fighting talk!
> However, as the Mozart/Beethoven debate is entering its Stalingrad phase of attrition, let's not kick off another conflict. I'll just assume you didn't really mean it.


I was merely doing a little fishing thinking this may have been a light hearted thread - it took a while to get a little bite 
I like both equally, so one day I may believe my statement and the next completely disagree with myself.

Edit - I don't do conflict, life's too short for expending energy in debates in which there are no winners.


----------



## fluteman

hammeredklavier said:


> "In spontaneity of genius Schubert resembles Mozart more than any other master who ever lived. His early education and training were different from those of Mozart, and musical ideas take different form with him. While Mozart was distinctly a melodist, counterpoint and fugue were at his fingers' ends, and his thematic treatment had all the freedom which comes from a thorough training in the use of musical material. Schubert had not this kind of training. He never wrote a good fugue, and his counterpoint was indifferent; but on the other hand he had several qualities which Mozart had not, and in particular a very curious and interesting mental phenomenon, which we might call psychical resonance or clairvoyance. Whatever poem or story he read immediately called up musical images in his mind. Under the excitement of the sentiment of a poem, or of dramatic incidents narrated, strange harmonies spontaneously suggested themselves, and melodies exquisitely appropriate to the sentiment he desired to convey. He was a musical painter, whose colors were not imitated from something without himself, but were inspired from within."
> <A Popular History of the Art of Music: From the Earliest Times Until the Present, By William Smythe Babcock Mathews, Page 388>
> 
> Just like Mozart and Beethoven, it's like apples and oranges; they have different flavors.


That was such a nice post, I'll do you a favor, assuming you aren't already familiar with this recording, and you might be. Like me, you have probably listened to numerous Shepherds on numerous Rocks, whether on record, or in person. This is one tough song to sing, given its musical depth and variety and considerable technical challenges that I won't get into here.

For most of my life, my favorite version was that of Ely Ameling. But then I heard a recording that was so superior to everything else I've ever heard, it embarrassingly exposes the limitations and technical weaknesses of every other soprano, including Ameling (though hers is still a good attempt, of course.) This soprano negotiates the considerable technical difficulties effortlessly and is able to achieve a free and easy lyricism I've heard nowhere else.

Her name is Dorothy Maynor (1910-1996). As a non-white, part Native and part African American, she was denied the opera stage in America during her singing career, but there are some song recital recordings on CD. I have Der hirt auf dem felsen on a vinyl LP, haven't seen it on CD, alas.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Malx said:


> I was merely doing a little fishing thinking this may have been a light hearted thread - it took a while to get a little bite
> I like both equally, so one day I may believe my statement and the next completely disagree with myself.
> 
> Edit - I don't do conflict, life's too short for expending energy in debates in which there are no winners.


Excellent! Good natured pragmatism.


----------



## Lusvig

Debussy, Mozart, Vivaldi, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, Satie all seem overrated to me, particularly Mozart and Vivaldi. That's not to say they're bad or anything, just their fame/popularity is disproportionate. Similarly Mahler, Prokofiev, Scriabin, Nielsen, Ravel are kind of underrated, at least by the general public. All of them have written great works that don't really seem unapproachable or anything. Messiaen is underrated even by classical enthusiasts in my opinion. Beethoven's archduke piano trio and sonata 28 are underrated, and the cavatina from his 13th string quartet is overrated.

Für Elise is one of Beethoven's lamest compositions and shouldn't be used to introduce people to classical music as it sometimes is today. Same goes for Moonlight sonata. Sonatas like 15, 17 or 21 are much, much better and all seem pretty approachable for people who aren't very familiar with classical music.


----------



## tdc

Ravel and Debussy are greater than all composers other than Bach and Mozart (and they are not far behind Bach or Mozart). Brahms is their equal. 

Too much French music bashing in this thread.


----------



## consuono

> Similarly Mahler, Prokofiev, Scriabin, Nielsen, Ravel are kind of underrated, at least by the general public.


I'd imagine that the percentage of the general population that know who those names are is extremely. In any case I don't think Mahler and Ravel are underrated. In my teens, Mahler Mania seemed to be in full swing.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

tdc said:


> Too much French music bashing in this thread.


And rightly so, I might say. I agree with Brahms on French music.


----------



## tdc

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> And rightly so, I might say. I agree with Brahms on French music.


Brahms didn't live long enough to hear much (if any) of Debussy or Ravel. I agree with Ravel on Beethoven's music, actually it seemed like Brahms was souring a little on Beethoven later in life as well.


----------



## Roger Knox

Ravel's _Rhapsodie espagnole_ is the most annoying piece ever.


----------



## tdc

Deleted not necessary


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> This is probably more _about_ unpopular opinions than an unpopular opinion itself, but people who really don't care about the opinions of others probably should not spend 30 or 40 posts insisting so, especially in the same thread. (Trying to have the last word is definitely a sign of unhappiness about the other opinions, and of caring.)


There's considerable truth in your comments.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Brahms didn't live long enough to hear much (if any) of Debussy or Ravel. I agree with Ravel on Beethoven's music, actually it seemed like Brahms was souring a little on Beethoven later in life as well.


Please explain your last comment about Brahms.


----------



## Guest

Roger Knox said:


> Ravel's _Rhapsodie espagnole_ is the most annoying piece ever.


Actually, I think "Bolero" takes that cake!! Even Ravel was annoyed by it!!


----------



## tdc

Christabel said:


> Please explain your last comment about Brahms.


Well as I said 'a little'. I suspect over all Brahms still revered Beethoven but there are some quotes I've read, Hammeredklavier has posted them here on occasion where Brahms stated there is true dissonance in Bach and Mozart, but he doesn't find it in Beethoven. He also suggests essentially that in evaluating the masters one shouldn't always be distracted by what seems new. By those quotes (and also the quote where Brahms is gushing about the chaconne, and another comment he made suggesting Mozart is the greatest composer) it seems as though Brahms had found a closer affinity to both Bach and Mozart relative to Beethoven later in life.


----------



## Fabulin

Unpopular opinion: the symphonic works of Sibelius are closer to Copland's populist music than to Tchaikovsky


----------



## DavidA

Fabulin said:


> Unpopular opinion: the symphonic works of Sibelius are closer to Copland's populist music than to Tchaikovsky


They are not. Nothing like them


----------



## janxharris

Fabulin said:


> Unpopular opinion: the symphonic works of Sibelius are closer to Copland's populist music than to Tchaikovsky


I can't think of any music that sounds like the latter symphonies of Sibelius. The earlier ones do have Tchaikovsky's romanticism imo.

Which Copland?


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Well as I said 'a little'. I suspect over all Brahms still revered Beethoven but there are some quotes I've read, Hammeredklavier has posted them here on occasion where Brahms stated there is true dissonance in Bach and Mozart, but he doesn't find it in Beethoven. He also suggests essentially that in evaluating the masters one shouldn't always be distracted by what seems new. By those quotes (and also the quote where Brahms is gushing about the chaconne, and another comment he made suggesting Mozart is the greatest composer) it seems as though Brahms had found a closer affinity to both Bach and Mozart relative to Beethoven later in life.


I don't remember reading that in the Swafford biography of Brahms, but my memory could be faulty.


----------



## Fabulin

janxharris said:


> I can't think of any music that sounds like the latter symphonies of Sibelius. The earlier ones do have Tchaikovsky's romanticism imo.
> 
> Which Copland?


Aaron ..........


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Beethovens piano sonatas are noisy! (also Grosse Fuge!!) :devil:


----------



## janxharris

Fabulin said:


> Aaron ..........


 I meant which work(s).


----------



## Lusvig

consuono said:


> I'd imagine that the percentage of the general population that know who those names are is extremely. In any case I don't think Mahler and Ravel are underrated. In my teens, Mahler Mania seemed to be in full swing.


Yeah I meant the general public should know of some of these rather than, like Vivaldi or Satie


----------



## DavidA

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Beethovens piano sonatas are noisy! (also Grosse Fuge!!) :devil:


They are meant to be (in places)


----------



## erudite

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Beethovens piano sonatas are noisy! (also Grosse Fuge!!) :devil:


I agree!

Which is why I love 'em.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Beethovens piano sonatas are TOO noisy!!!


----------



## premont

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Beethovens piano sonatas are TOO noisy!!!


Yes, some pianists make them too noisy.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

tdc said:


> Brahms didn't live long enough to hear much (if any) of Debussy or Ravel. I agree with Ravel on Beethoven's music, actually it seemed like Brahms was souring a little on Beethoven later in life as well.


Still, I agree with Brahms 

I do like some of Debussy's music but I find Ravel mostly boring; I guess that is an unpopular opinion as he is very frequently performed and seems loved by many classical music listeners.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Christabel said:


> Actually, I think "Bolero" takes that cake!! Even Ravel was annoyed by it!!


I'd rather listen to rap than Bolero, and I can't stand rap.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Beethovens piano sonatas are noisy! (also Grosse Fuge!!) :devil:


And what gorgeous noise they are!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Christabel said:


> I don't remember reading that in the Swafford biography of Brahms, but my memory could be faulty.


"From a conversation with Richard Heuberger, 1896

I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."

< Composers On Music: Eight Centuries of Writings
, Josiah Fisk, Jeff Nichols, Technical Group Leader High Performance Computational Chemistry Group Jeff Nichols | p.134~135 >


----------



## Phil loves classical

Bwv 1080 said:


> Schubert is boring


Doesn't sound that unpopular on this forum.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> "From a conversation with Richard Heuberger, 1896
> 
> I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
> I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."
> 
> < Composers On Music: Eight Centuries of Writings
> , Josiah Fisk, Jeff Nichols, Technical Group Leader High Performance Computational Chemistry Group Jeff Nichols | p.134~135 >


I've never read anything like that. Will have to check it out. Remember; Brahms highly praised the music of Johann Strauss - and on that many highly disagree.


----------



## Guest

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> And what gorgeous noise they are!


For me, the Beethoven Piano Sonatas are the desert island works. Those and his symphonies 2, 3, 4 and 7. Apart from those, the Passions and B Minor Mass of Bach.


----------



## Guest

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Beethovens piano sonatas are TOO noisy!!!


Then play them more softly, if you please!


----------



## Caroline

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Beethoven's 8th symphony is better than his 6th. An even more unpopular one: the 6th is his worst symphony. And by worst I mean the one I like the least


Have you heard the 6th with a slower tempo?

It may not change your opinion - which many share - but may be worth considering....


----------



## Roger Knox

Being called "boring" on a TalkClassical post identifies a great composer.


----------



## Guest

Unpopular opinions? John Cage was a fraud.


----------



## tdc

Bolero is a charming piece, it is not among my favorites of Ravel, still it has a beautiful melody. Something one doesn't find in Beethoven.


----------



## tdc

Beethoven thought Handel was greater than Bach or Mozart. He had poor taste and it shows in his own music.


----------



## Ethereality

tdc said:


> Bolero is a charming piece, it is not among my favorites of Ravel, still it has a beautiful melody. Something one doesn't find in Beethoven.


11:23 




34:06 




38:01 




46:36 






tdc said:


> Beethoven thought Handel was greater than Bach or Mozart. He had poor taste and it shows in his own music.


And Bach's favorite composers were actually Monteverdi and Palestrina.


----------



## Bulldog

Roger Knox said:


> Being called "boring" on a TalkClassical post identifies a great composer.


It's looking that way. Just in the past week, Bach/Beethoven/Mozart have been tagged.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> Beethoven thought Handel was greater than Bach or Mozart. He had poor taste and it shows in his own music.


"Beethoven stole off from Mozart. He had good taste. " -Sara Davis Buechner

*[ 3:16 ]*


----------



## Ethereality

Bulldog said:


> It's looking that way. Just in the past week, Bach/Beethoven/Mozart have been tagged.


The most complex, interesting composers aren't always what you want... people are often attracted to music's simplicity of ability to express advanced emotions, ie.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Fabulin said:


> Unpopular opinion: the symphonic works of Sibelius are closer to Copland's populist music than to Tchaikovsky


That's not only unpopular, it's completely incomprehensible.

Unless you're referring to the less well-known Igor Sibelius and the Scottish symphonic maestro Cannae Copland?


----------



## JAS

Phil loves classical said:


> Doesn't sound that unpopular on this forum.


It is the unfinished opinion.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Bolero is a charming piece, it is not among my favorites of Ravel, still it has a beautiful melody. Something one doesn't find in Beethoven.


----------



## tdc

Beethoven's music is the aural equivalent of the image of an obese man wearing an XXL Seinfeld puffy pirate shirt.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Christabel said:


>


Likewise, some decent early Beethoven works:


----------



## Xisten267

Unpopular opinion:

The tick-tock rhythms of J.S. Bach sometimes can become a bit tedious to me.


----------



## Roger Knox

Bulldog said:


> It's looking that way. Just in the past week, Bach/Beethoven/Mozart have been tagged.


Schubert too (Oct. 2). And what could be more irrefutable than saying that something bores you!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Caroline said:


> Have you heard the 6th with a slower tempo?
> 
> It may not change your opinion - which many share - but may be worth considering....


I actually really like the 6th symphony. When I said it's his worst, I didn't mean it's bad, just that Beethoven wrote 8 better symphonies.


----------



## Bulldog

Allerius said:


> Unpopular opinion:
> 
> The tick-tock rhythms of J.S. Bach sometimes can become a bit tedious to me.


You hear "tedious", I hear "inevitability".


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

tdc said:


> Bolero is a charming piece, it is not among my favorites of Ravel, still it has a beautiful melody. Something one doesn't find in Beethoven.


Beethoven wrote hundreds of better melodies than Bolero. One just needs to hear them; many of them are more subtle and thus much more rewarding on repeated hearings than melodies like Bolero.


----------



## consuono

Allerius said:


> Unpopular opinion:
> 
> The tick-tock rhythms of J.S. Bach sometimes can become a bit tedious to me.


Wouldn't that apply to just about any Baroque composer? Or Haydn and Mozart for that matter.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Most of classical (the generic term, not the period term) music is boring.

(thankfully, the non-boring remainder is enough to fill a life time of pleasure).


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

tdc said:


> Beethoven's music is the aural equivalent of the image of an obese man wearing an XXL Seinfeld puffy pirate shirt.


Haha, nice image. Perhaps you're only familiar with Wellington's Victory.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Elgar wrote two of the finest symphonies of the early 20th century and some superb chamber music. But his cello concerto is rambling and syrupy.

Charles Ives was a truly great composer worthy to stand alongside the immortals, not just an American curiosity.

Carlos Kleiber and Glenn Gould are highly overrated.

Tchaikovsky is not all that great.

France is second only to Germany in producing extraordinary composers.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Allegro Con Brio said:


> France is second only to Germany in producing extraordinary composers.


Let's try this with Russia.

Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, Borodin, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Stravinsky

vs.

Rameau, Berlioz, Debussy, Ravel ... and ?

I'll take Russia over France easily.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^Faure, Debussy, Ravel, Schmitt, Franck, Messiaen, Vierne, Durufle, Boulez, Dutilleux, Poulenc, Ropartz, Jongen, Saint-Saëns, Chausson, Honegger. Well, they were all Francophiles even if they weren’t strictly from France. All composers I admire greatly. Of course I love Russian composers too, but there's something about the elegance and precision of French music that captivates me. Check some of them out if you haven't heard anything from them


----------



## consuono

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Let's try this with Russia.
> 
> Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, Borodin, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Stravinsky


My unpopular opinion would be that only the last 3 in that group are first-rate.



> vs.
> 
> Rameau, Berlioz, Debussy, Ravel ... and ?
> 
> I'll take Russia over France easily.


Rameau is unjustly neglected, as are the Couperins.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^Faure, Debussy, Ravel, Schmitt, Franck, Messiaen, Vierne, Durufle, Boulez, Dutilleux, Poulenc, Ropartz, Jongen, Saint-Saëns, Chausson, Honegger. Well, they were all Francophiles even if they weren't strictly from France. All composers I admire greatly. Of course I love Russian composers too, but there's something about the elegance and precision of French music that captivates me. Check some of them out if you haven't heard anything from them


Somehow I forgot Faure, Saint-Saens and Franck, composers whose music I enjoy. The others I need to learn more about, although I know I don't liek Boulez and Honegger, whose music I enjoy parts of, I thought was German.


----------



## Xisten267

consuono said:


> Wouldn't that apply to just about any Baroque composer? Or Haydn and Mozart for that matter.


It's my opinion, but I think that Vivaldi and Rameau vary more their rhythms than J.S. Bach, using more pauses for example, and in this sense I prefer their music (but in other aspects such as harmony and counterpoint I think that Bach is much stronger than them). I think that sometimes, for example in Haydn's _Philosopher_ and _Clock_ symphonies, the Classical era composers may deliberately produce "tick-tockish" rhythms as a parody of earlier styles, but overall I think that their rhythms are more interesting to me due to the use of devices such as ritardandos and accelerandos that I don't see appearing in the music of the Baroque era, and the absence of a basso continuo.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Elgar wrote two of the finest symphonies of the early 20th century and some superb chamber music. But his cello concerto is rambling and syrupy.
> 
> Charles Ives was a truly great composer worthy to stand alongside the immortals, not just an American curiosity.
> 
> Carlos Kleiber and Glenn Gould are highly overrated.
> 
> Tchaikovsky is not all that great.
> 
> France is second only to Germany in producing extraordinary composers.


I agree with all of these except for your stance on Kleiber (and I MIGHT put Austria ahead of France). And I'm not sure I'd say any of them are particularly unpopular, at least here on TC.


----------



## Roger Knox

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Most of classical (the generic term, not the period term) music is boring.
> 
> (thankfully, the non-boring remainder is enough to fill a life time of pleasure).


I don't agree at all. My unpopular opinion is that more listeners nowadays are distracted and have short attention spans -- factors that prevent them from enjoying much classical music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Roger Knox said:


> I don't agree at all. My unpopular opinion is that more listeners nowadays are distracted and have short attention spans -- factors that prevent them from enjoying much classical music.


Depends on the type of music and which sort of distractions I'm guessing. I read there were some studies that shown certain Classical Music can help people with ADHD. I had pretty severe ADHD since childhood myself. And Classical music was one of the only things I could actually focus on (beside video games and books). In particular they note Vivaldi, Mozart, Handel, Bach, and Beethoven are particularly good for those with that condition.


----------



## tdc

Allerius said:


> It's my opinion, but I think that Vivaldi and Rameau vary more their rhythms than J.S. Bach, using more pauses for example, and in this sense I prefer their music (but in other aspects such as harmony and counterpoint I think that Bach is much stronger than them). I think that sometimes, for example in Haydn's _Philosopher_ and _Clock_ symphonies, the Classical era composers may deliberately produce "tick-tockish" rhythms as a parody of earlier styles, but overall I think that their rhythms are more interesting to me due to the use of devices such as ritardandos and accelerandos that I don't see appearing in the music of the Baroque era, and the absence of a basso continuo.


Bach's rhythm's are well suited to his music. In the past I have posted examples of pieces of his with more pauses (for example the lute suites), so there is variety there, but him using rhythms similar to the other composers you mentioned would not improve his music in my view. His rhythmic approach contributes to the style of his sound, his music evokes more than any other I think the concept of the sacred. The roots of the rhythmic approach of Bach is in counterpoint and in composing music to the glory of God. The rhythms used in the classical era originated in light entertainment and comic opera, it does convey a kind of dramatic action effectively, one that at its very nature is comedic. This is part of the reason Beethoven can sound a little awkward to me, because it comes across as though he is often trying to be very serious and full of angst and gravitas, mixed with a harmonic and rhythmic style that is literally rooted in comedy.

Mozart's compositional personality on the other hand I feel is well suited to the aesthetic of classicism, his style seems to (I read the following insightful quote on another post somewhere here) 'mock pretensions of grandeur', yet simultaneously it has an effortless depth and beauty, natural grace and humor.


----------



## Roger Knox

Phil loves classical said:


> Depends on the type of music and which sort of distractions I'm guessing. I read there were some studies that shown certain Classical Music can help people with ADHD. I had pretty severe ADHD since childhood myself. And Classical music was one of the only things I could actually focus on (beside video games and books). In particular they note Vivaldi, Mozart, Handel, Bach, and Beethoven are particularly good for those with that condition.


Well, you're the expert! Congratulations on your success with music for ADHD. I'm glad you were able to find some things that you could focus on -- it sounds like quite a challenge. As for my unpopular opinion, I'm sending it off to for re-education in an Unwarranted Assumptions course.


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> My unpopular opinion would be that only the last 3 in that group are first-rate.
> 
> Rameau is unjustly neglected, as are the Couperins.


Rameau has long been a favourite, but his theatre music is somewhat esoteric compared to most other composers of opera.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^Faure, Debussy, Ravel, Schmitt, Franck, Messiaen, Vierne, Durufle, Boulez, Dutilleux, Poulenc, Ropartz, Jongen, Saint-Saëns, Chausson, Honegger.


You forgot Varèse, one of the most innovative composer of the 20th century, Xenakis, who was born in Greece but was naturalized, and Koechlin, a neglected genius who deserves its place alongside Debussy and Ravel, plus an handful of "minor masters" who produced better music than Ropartz or, dare I say, Poulenc, like Gabriel Dupont, Albert Roussel, André Jolivet, André Caplet, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## fluteman

Kilgore Trout said:


> You forgot Varèse, one of the most innovative composer of the 20th century, Xenakis, who was born in Greece but was naturalized, and Koechlin, a neglected genius who deserves its place alongside Debussy and Ravel, plus an handful of "minor masters" who produced better music than Ropartz or, dare I say, Poulenc, like Gabriel Dupont, Albert Roussel, André Jolivet, André Caplet, etc., etc., etc.


Varèse was often referred to as an American composer during his lifetime, and he certainly spent most of his adult life there.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> Beethoven thought Handel was greater than Bach or Mozart. He had poor taste and it shows in his own music.


I just remembered that Bartok is one of your favorites:
"In my youth Bach and Mozart were not my ideals of the beautiful, but rather Beethoven." -Bartók, after completing his Fourth String Quartet (1929)


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> I just remembered that Bartok is one of your favorites:
> "In my youth Bach and Mozart were not my ideals of the beautiful, but rather Beethoven." -bartók, after completing his Fourth String Quartet (1929) )


Yes, _in his youth_. Perhaps he is suggesting his tastes matured? Bartok is quoted as saying in his music he tried to create a synthesis of the styles of Bach, Beethoven and Debussy. Considering 2 out of 3 of those are among my favorites, it is not too surprising that I enjoy his music.


----------



## tdc

I can acknowledge Beethoven as one of the great composers, as you may have noticed I refrained from saying anything negative about Beethoven on this forum for a long time, even when threads were started like the one about Cherubini bashing Beethoven. I did not make any comment on that thread. I have even in the recent past made some respectful comments about him.

I'm not interested in trashing the music of Beethoven, I would prefer not to, but when I saw all the French music bashing in this thread, complained about it, only to be met with a chorus of Ravel criticisms, then its on.


----------



## consuono

Allerius said:


> Unpopular opinion:
> 
> The tick-tock rhythms of J.S. Bach sometimes can become a bit tedious to me.


I will say though that the tempo in Bach is one of the things that make playing his music so difficult. It can be unforgiving and relentless.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> tick-tock rhythms of J.S. Bach


lol, this is so gay


----------



## hammeredklavier

Look at the tempo changes of the gloria:

*[ 5:48 ]*


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> lol, this is so gay


I was going to say something else but I just imagined you opening the link and listening to that all serious and then I laughed. Ok, I admit, I shouldn't have posted that lol.  The thing is, I wanted a link with Bach's music plus metronome beatings to clarify my point.



hammeredklavier said:


> Look at the tempo changes of the gloria:
> 
> *[ 5:48 ]*


Many Bach pieces have complex and interesting rhythms IMO. I think he had a phase in his career, around the 1720s, when the "clock" rhythms appear more, and these I don't like, although I may still enjoy the pieces for other reasons than their rhythms.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Look at the tempo changes of the gloria:
> 
> *[ 5:48 ]*


Ah, wunderbah!!


----------



## Ethereality

Unpopular opinion:

I much prefer Beethoven's 5-3 to 5-1.








hammeredklavier said:


> lol, this is so gay


Wow! I actually like this more than the original. It's like 2 songs in 1!


----------



## Ethereality

tdc said:


> Beethoven's music is the aural equivalent of the image of an obese man wearing an XXL Seinfeld puffy pirate shirt.


Ravel's music sounds like it exists within alternate timelines, as if, at any moment it could always go one way or another, and both are correct. It's extraordinary, it's incredible, how he captures this medial effect and perception is a mystery.

Another way to put this is, his harmonies sound like they break the laws of causation in clever ways.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> Wow! I actually like this more than the original. It's like 2 songs in 1!


If you liked that one, you should also try:





An unpopular opinion of George Sand's:
"There is more music in Chopin's tiny C-minor Prélude than in the four hours of the trumpeting in Les Huguenots."


----------



## Ethereality

Ethereality said:


> Unpopular opinion:
> 
> I much prefer Beethoven's 5-3 to 5-1.!


Yeah, I think Schumann's 3-1 or Schubert's 8-1 is better than Beethoven's 5-1 too. The terrific harmonies!



hammeredklavier said:


> If you liked that one, you should also try:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An unpopular opinion of George Sand's:
> "There is more music in Chopin's tiny C-minor Prélude than in the four hours of the trumpeting in Les Huguenots."


Double wow! This will be my new substitution for sleep keyboard rhythms tonight:



Ethereality said:


> You get one of those 100 rhythm keyboards, play your favorite chord so it automatically syncs it to the rhythm, then get a bowl of icecream and turn off the lights. You're in for sensational night. I can just picture the keyboard rhythms now.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^Faure, Debussy, Ravel, Schmitt, Franck, Messiaen, Vierne, Durufle, Boulez, Dutilleux, Poulenc, Ropartz, Jongen, Saint-Saëns, Chausson, Honegger. Well, they were all Francophiles even if they weren't strictly from France. All composers I admire greatly. Of course I love Russian composers too, but there's something about the elegance and precision of French music that captivates me. Check some of them out if you haven't heard anything from them


Tailleferre, Chabrier, Ibert, Milhaud.... but the Mighty Handful were dam' fine too.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Piano trios should be written for 3 pianos.


----------



## Bulldog

There's way too much non-classical activity on TC.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Piano trios should be written for 3 pianos.


Wind trios should be written for TwoFlutesOneTrumpet


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

talking classical leads to megalomania


----------



## MusicSybarite

Malx said:


> Nielsens Symphonies are more satisfying than those by Sibelius......


Same here. By comparing their cycles, Nielsen beats Sibelius in symphonies 3-6 by far. Sibelius wins in 1 and 2, though.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

MusicSybarite said:


> Same here. By comparing their cycles, Nielsen beats Sibelius in symphonies 3-6 by far. Sibelius wins in 1 and 2, though.


Sibelius trounces Nielsen in symphony 7, though


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Opera is the least musical of the classical sub-genres. It is at the bottom of the list which goes something like this with symphonies clearly at the top

1. symphonies
2. concertos
string quartets
solo piano music
3. other chamber music
instrumental music for smaller ensembles 
4. vocal religious music, like Bach's masses and passions
5. other genres I'm forgetting at the moment
6. opera


----------



## DavidA

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Opera is the least musical of the classical sub-genres. It is at the bottom of the list which goes something like this with symphonies clearly at the top
> 
> 1. symphonies
> 2. concertos
> string quartets
> solo piano music
> 3. other chamber music
> instrumental music for smaller ensembles
> 4. vocal religious music, like Bach's masses and passions
> *5. other genres I'm forgetting at the moment*
> 6. opera


This is supposed to be for unpopular opinions not fiction!


----------



## adriesba

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Opera is the least musical of the classical sub-genres. It is at the bottom of the list which goes something like this with symphonies clearly at the top
> 
> 1. symphonies
> 2. concertos
> string quartets
> solo piano music
> 3. other chamber music
> instrumental music for smaller ensembles
> 4. vocal religious music, like Bach's masses and passions
> 5. other genres I'm forgetting at the moment
> 6. opera


So, singing makes something less musical?


----------



## vtpoet

1.) Some music is objectively, not subjectively, but _objectively_ better than other music. 
2.) Immediate popularity is often, if not mostly, a sign of mediocrity, lasting popularity is a measure of greatness.
3.) Talent/Genius is a thing.
4.) Why some composers are listened to more often than others is not due to some happenstance of culture but because they're genuinely and objectively better than other composers.

Be warned, I have a pump bee-bee gun and know how to use it.


----------



## Alfacharger

vtpoet said:


> 1.)
> 
> Be warned, I have a pump bee-bee gun and know how to use it.


You'll shoot your eye out.


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Opera is the least musical of the classical sub-genres. It is at the bottom of the list which goes something like this with symphonies clearly at the top
> 
> 1. symphonies
> 2. concertos
> string quartets
> solo piano music
> 3. other chamber music
> instrumental music for smaller ensembles
> 4. vocal religious music, like Bach's masses and passions
> 5. other genres I'm forgetting at the moment
> 6. *opera*


I had a similar opinion about opera some years ago until I decided to explore Wagner, and I got so much pleasure from listening to his music (the second act of _Lohengrin_ back then) that I immediately reconsidered my position. Now I think that opera has some of the "greatest" - to me anyway - music in CM.






A genre of classical that I don't get is lieder, maybe because the combo piano+voice is just not my thing.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

adriesba said:


> So, singing makes something less musical?


You got it. Instrumental music is pure music. Music with words, and especially opera, is not just about music but about a non-musical story and non-musical visual effects. There is a lot of very boring, barely musical bits in opera, the fillers in between the music that tie together the non-musical plot.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Allerius said:


> I had a similar opinion about opera some years ago until I decided to explore Wagner, and I got so much pleasure from listening to his music (the second act of _Lohengrin_ back then) that I immediately reconsidered my position. Now I think that opera has some of the "greatest" - to me anyway - music in CM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A genre of classical that I don't get is lieder, maybe because the combo piano+voice is just not my thing.


Yeah, I really enjoy Wagner's music, but I wish I could replace the singing in German with non-vocal instruments. I do listen to Wagner but it is almost exclusively to purely instrumental excerpts from his operas. I have tried multiple times to listen to a whole Wagner opera but alas every time I failed to make it through. What I enjoy is a very condensed purely instrumental Wagner. I'll try a few more times and who knows, maybe I'll hear what others have heard so often.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> 5. other genres I'm forgetting at the moment


I'm pretty sure this would be choral symphonies


----------



## adriesba

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> You got it. Instrumental music is pure music. Music with words, and especially opera, is not just about music but about a non-musical story and non-musical visual effects. There is a lot of very boring, barely musical bits in opera, the fillers in between the music that tie together the non-musical plot.


Well... I completely disagree, but OK, we can leave it at that.


----------



## MusicSybarite

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Sibelius trounces Nielsen in symphony 7, though


I love Sibelius 7th, but even so I prefer Nielsen as a symphonist.


----------



## ZJovicic

Piano is not that great of an instrument... I agree that it's very expressive and allows you to do more with it then with any other instrument... but its sound can be cold, and sometimes even irritating. Also it's fundamentally rhythmic, percussive instrument, which doesn't make it very suitable for long, sustained notes.


----------



## DavidA

ZJovicic said:


> Piano is not that great of an instrument... I agree that it's very expressive and allows you to do more with it then with any other instrument... but its sound can be cold, and sometimes even irritating. Also it's fundamentally rhythmic, percussive instrument, which doesn't make it very suitable for long, sustained notes.


The piano is of course a machine not an instrument


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

MusicSybarite said:


> I love Sibelius 7th, but even so I prefer Nielsen as a symphonist.


I love Nielsen but Sibelius is on a whole different level.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

ZJovicic said:


> Piano is not that great of an instrument... I agree that it's very expressive and allows you to do more with it then with any other instrument... but its sound can be cold, and sometimes even irritating. Also it's fundamentally rhythmic, percussive instrument, *which doesn't make it very suitable for long, sustained notes*.


That's why they invented the pedal.


----------



## Xisten267

vtpoet said:


> 1.) Some music is objectively, not subjectively, but _objectively_ better than other music.
> 2.) Immediate popularity is often, if not mostly, a sign of mediocrity, lasting popularity is a measure of greatness.
> 3.) Talent/Genius is a thing.
> 4.) Why some composers are listened to more often than others is not due to some happenstance of culture but because they're genuinely and objectively better than other composers.
> 
> Be warned, I have a pump bee-bee gun and know how to use it.


I agree with most of your points. For the #4, I would only complement that, to me, popularity amongst non-casual listeners is yes an indicator of greatness, but the absence of it doesn't mean the lack of talent or originality on the part of a composer - perhaps he just needs to be rediscovered, like Bach, Vivaldi and Mahler were.


----------



## vtpoet

Allerius said:


> I agree with most of your points. For the #4, I would only complement that, to me, popularity amongst non-casual listeners is yes an indicator of greatness, but the absence of it doesn't mean the lack of talent or originality on the part of a composer - perhaps he just needs to be rediscovered, like Bach, Vivaldi and Mahler were.


Agreed. We can add that as 5.

The only long and extended argument I've gotten into here (and I ideally come here to relax) concerned 1-4.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Allerius said:


> I had a similar opinion about opera some years ago until I decided to explore Wagner, and I got so much pleasure from listening to his music (the second act of _Lohengrin_ back then) that I immediately reconsidered my position. Now I think that opera has some of the "greatest" - to me anyway - music in CM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A genre of classical that I don't get is lieder, maybe because the combo piano+voice is just not my thing.


I do love the first 10 minutes of instrumental music, absolutely beautiful. But then the singing starts and for the life of me I don't understand the appeal. From the roughly 10 minute mark, for the next 5 minutes there is mostly singing of what to me sounds like a very uninteresting sequence of notes. This singing is accompanied by background music with occasional bursts from the orchestra that make the passage dominated by drab singing somewhat less boring. You see, that is my challenge with opera. I don't see what is so interesting about those long sung passages where there isn't even a discernible melody. I guess they are there to advance the non-musical plot; if there is appealing music to that passage, I fail to hear it.


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I do love the first 10 minutes of instrumental music, absolutely beautiful. But then the singing starts and for the life of me I don't understand the appeal. From the roughly 10 minute mark, for the next 5 minutes there is mostly singing of what to me sounds like a very uninteresting sequence of notes. This singing is accompanied by background music with occasional bursts from the orchestra that make the passage dominated by drab singing somewhat less boring. You see, that is my challenge with opera. I don't see what is so interesting about those long sung passages where there isn't even a discernible melody. I guess they are there to advance the non-musical plot; if there is appealing music to that passage, I fail to hear it.


Tried the second act?

It's a matter of personal taste, I guess. My mother also doesn't like the human voice; she says she likes Wagner, but unlike me she won't listen to anything but his orchestral preludes/overtures. The Tannhäuser overture is her favorite.

Are you aware of this? It's a compilation of orchestral excerpts from the Ring. It seems very popular on youtube. You may want to listen when you feel like giving Wagner another shot.


----------



## JAS

There is also a "jumbo suite" conducted by Neemi Jarvi (who I generally like but isn't my favorite Wagner conductor):









They call it an orchestral adventure.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Allerius said:


> Tried the second act?
> 
> It's a matter of personal taste, I guess. My mother also doesn't like the human voice; she says she likes Wagner, but unlike me she won't listen to anything but his orchestral preludes/overtures. The Tannhäuser overture is her favorite.
> 
> *Are you aware of this*? It's a compilation of orchestral excerpts from the Ring. It seems very popular on youtube. You may want to listen when you feel like giving Wagner another shot.


Yes, I have the CD. Love it!

Yes, tried the 2nd act, had the same non-positive reaction to the singing.

I don't dislike the human voice in general. I love listening to Pavarotti sing Nessum Dorma or Callas sing O Mio Babbino Caro but these arias have a discernible melody. What I don't appreciate is the singing in between the arias that seems almost like random notes without much musical purpose or goal.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

See, I love opera but it's not unfathomable to me why other people wouldn't like opera. 

1. It's long. 
2. It's in another language and you don't understand what they're saying
3. It's long 
4. The voices can be really shrill and sound like just random shrieking to some 
5. On paper, the plots are usually pretty mentally bereft (which doesn't bother me personally, I'm in it for the music and less the theatrics, though that also counts for something)


----------



## vtpoet

A new one(!) that I just afflicted upon the forum today:

I see Mendelssohn and Telemann as comparable composers (albeit of different time periods).


----------



## BachIsBest

vtpoet said:


> A new one(!) that I just afflicted upon the forum today:
> 
> I see Mendelssohn and Telemann as comparable composers (albeit of different time periods).


Why is that controversial? They both seem like pretty good composers to me.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Fascinating.
Wrong, obviously, but none the less fascinating.


----------



## level82rat

Rachmaninoff wrote some of the most boring symphonies known to mankind


----------



## chu42

Schumann is the greatest composer for the piano, next to Chopin, Beethoven, Mozart, Scriabin, whomever.


----------



## DavidA

level82rat said:


> Rachmaninoff wrote some of the most boring symphonies known to mankind


No there are symphonies far more boring


----------



## DavidA

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> See, I love opera but it's not unfathomable to me why other people wouldn't like opera.
> 
> 1. It's long.
> 2. It's in another language and you don't understand what they're saying
> 3. It's long
> 4. The voices can be really shrill and sound like just random shrieking to some
> 5. On paper, the plots are usually pretty mentally bereft (which doesn't bother me personally, I'm in it for the music and less the theatrics, though that also counts for something)


It's a matter of personality too. People of a certain personality cannot get past the pretty ridiculous fact that people sing when they could speak


----------



## Merl

DavidA said:


> It's a matter of personality too. People of a certain personality cannot get past the pretty ridiculous fact that people sing when they could speak


I feel the same about musicals.


----------



## Roger Knox

Partly because of their advanced classical training, Art Tatum and Oscar Peterson are by far my favourite jazz pianists of the 20th century.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Merl said:


> I feel the same about musicals.


Bleggghh, I hate showtunes and musicals! I respect the talent that goes into it (the singing, the music, the choreography, what have it) but it sounds so goofy and corny to me.


----------



## Roger Knox

vtpoet said:


> 1.) Some music is objectively, not subjectively, but _objectively_ better than other music.
> 2.) Immediate popularity is often, if not mostly, a sign of mediocrity, lasting popularity is a measure of greatness.
> 3.) Talent/Genius is a thing.
> 4.) Why some composers are listened to more often than others is not due to some happenstance of culture but because they're genuinely and objectively better than other composers.
> 
> Be warned, I have a pump bee-bee gun and know how to use it.


I don't know if pump bee-bee guns are allowed in Canada; in any case I trust they're not essential to your arguments! I agree with you because if "better" and "worse" did not exist nothing would get done! There would be a constant swirl of choices and counter-choices, even within the composer's head, as decisions one after another were rejected as "only subjective." As for achieving consensus on, say, what goes on a program, this would be ruled out of order as all judgements of quality would be points of contention.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Sibelius is the 2nd best symphony composer.


----------



## level82rat

DavidA said:


> No there are symphonies far more boring


Doubt it. But what did you have in mind?


----------



## BachIsBest

level82rat said:


> Doubt it. But what did you have in mind?


The longest twenty minutes of your life (if you actually make it).






Edit: And that's just the first movement.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

BachIsBest said:


> The longest twenty minutes of your life (if you actually make it).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: And that's just the first movement.


Yeah, boring no doubt but I can find longer stretches of opera I find equally boring.


----------



## Botschaft

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Sibelius is the 2nd best symphony composer.


Brahms being the best.


----------



## hammeredklavier

level82rat said:


> Doubt it. But what did you have in mind?


----------



## Plague

Regietheater directors - especially the German ones - should be sent to re-education camps. They deserve a Stalin and a Pravda. :tiphat:


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Waldesnacht said:


> Brahms being the best.


Brahms is actually tied with Sibelius for 2nd place. 1st place is of course Beethoven.


----------



## Open Book

I haven't read the whole thread so maybe I will echo some other listeners who have posted.

Opera in my opinion has a lot of filler. The filler is usually dramatically cliched because it serves to let you know how you should be feeling about the action or the characters - it conveys fear, elation, anxiety, etc. But it's often not great music. It's music from a cookbook.

The amount of truly great music in most operas could be distilled. Not that I would want to watch an abridged opera.

Some operas are resounding exceptions to that rule, like Mozart's operas with Da Ponte, overflowing with riches.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Brahms is actually tied with Sibelius for 2nd place. 1st place is of course Beethoven.


Brahms is actually tied with Beethoven for 1st place


----------



## hammeredklavier

Plague said:


> Regietheater directors - especially the German ones - should be sent to re-education camps. They deserve a Stalin and a Pravda. :tiphat:


re-education camps that teach how to concentrate - concentration camps


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> Brahms is actually tied with Beethoven for 1st place


I'm not going to argue with this, given that my favourite symphonists are Beethoven, Brahms and Sibelius.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Merl said:


> I feel the same about musicals.


I almost watched Les Miserables until I realized that Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe actually sing in it. Phew, that was a close one.


----------



## chu42

DavidA said:


> No there are symphonies far more boring







Does this count as boring


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

chu42 said:


> Does this count as boring


We are really stretching the definition of symphony with this one.


----------



## ricky3

bolero is too quiet


----------



## ricky3

mahler's music is trash


----------



## ricky3

mephisto waltz no.1 is the greatest piano piece ever cpmposed by a non-jew


----------



## Bulldog

ricky3 said:


> mephisto waltz no.1 is the greatest piano piece ever cpmposed by a non-jew


Hypothetical Situation:

The Boston Symphony Orchestra has announced its first season of music composed by non-christians.


----------



## vtpoet

Chopin wrote beautiful music, but also too many passages that were just showboating.


----------



## BenG

My unpopular opinions are on Chopin + Liszt.

I find Chopin...... boring. I dislike the majority of his Nocturnes and do not care for the 4th Ballade. I fail to find anything interesting in the Piano Concertos or Sonatas. I only really like a few of the Nocturnes and the 1st Ballade.

I hold a similar opinion about Liszt: I like the B minor sonata and Faust Symphonie, but everything else, I find lacking substance. I don't get on with the Piano Concertos. I also - while I am fascinated by them - don't care for his late chromatic "playing with tonality" works. I am, however, well aware of his importance in music as well as Chopin's.


----------



## Malx

I can't listen to any work with a narrator.


----------



## Guest002

Nearly everyone tags and organises their digital classical music collection incorrectly.


----------



## Rogerx

ricky3 said:


> mahler's music is trash





ricky3 said:


> mephisto waltz no.1 is the greatest piano piece ever composed by a non-jew


You must be a joker


----------



## musichal

My favorite Bruckner conductor is Barenboim.


----------



## Bulldog

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Nearly everyone tags and organises their digital classical music collection incorrectly.


Not me. I don't tag or organize anything.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Nearly everyone tags and organises their digital classical music collection incorrectly.


Very controversial and unpopular opinion! Luckily, I'm not nearly everyone


----------



## Guest002

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Very controversial and unpopular opinion! Luckily, I'm not nearly everyone


Well, I like to muck in and make a point everyone can agree with


----------



## Guest002

Bulldog said:


> Not me. I don't tag or organize anything.


Er, that means you fulfill all my requirements and are indeed doing it wrong. Unless you adhere to the Worship of The Vinyl, in which case all your sins are absolved. Because no-one can save you there...


----------



## consuono

It may be unpopular, but...Bach's arrangement (BWV 1083) of Pergolesi's Stabat Mater is better than the original.


----------



## Roger Knox

My opinions unpopular in the academic classical world c. 1970, that perhaps have become "passable" c. 2020:

1. J.S. Bach's keyboard music sounds fine on the piano and doesn't have to be played on harpsichord or clavichord.
2. J.S. Bach's organ music sounds wonderful on electro-pneumatic pipe organs and doesn't have to be played on manual tracker organs.
3. I like Anton Webern's music but feel he came to a dead end; he would have dismissed those who claimed to succeed him.
4. Hideous early music recordings c. 1970 were a turn-off. To recover took me 5 years and a new generation of performers.
5. Students c. 1970 didn't learn enough theory and therefore classical performance and composition suffered.
6. Under-recognized composers included Albinoni, Rameau, C.P.E. Bach, Soler, Tomascek, Weber, Bruckner, Bizet, Busoni, Mahler, Joplin, Tournemire, Reger, Ireland, Poulenc, Eckhart-Gramatte, Tippett, Dello Joio, Gould, Ligeti.


----------



## Ulfilas

To paraphrase George Szell, they should play Schumann symphonies instead of Tchaikovsky symphonies.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Beethoven's and Schubert's 9th symphonies both outstay their welcome.


----------



## vtpoet

People who write comments on Classical Music Forums all have gray hair and are boring.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Animal the Drummer said:


> Beethoven's and Schubert's 9th symphonies both outstay their welcome.


Agree but only the last movement of Beethoven's.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

vtpoet said:


> People who write comments on Classical Music Forums all have gray hair and are boring.


...boring hair and are grey...


----------



## vtpoet

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> ...boring hair and are grey...


Even their hair is bald.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Roger Knox said:


> My opinions unpopular in the academic classical world c. 1970, that perhaps have become "passable" c. 2020:
> 
> 1. J.S. Bach's keyboard music sounds fine on the piano and doesn't have to be played on harpsichord or clavichord.
> 2. J.S. Bach's organ music sounds wonderful on electro-pneumatic pipe organs and doesn't have to be played on manual tracker organs.
> 3.* I like Anton Webern's music but feel he came to a dead end; he would have dismissed those who claimed to succeed him.*
> 4. Hideous early music recordings c. 1970 were a turn-off. To recover took me 5 years and a new generation of performers.
> 5. Students c. 1970 didn't learn enough theory and therefore classical performance and composition suffered.
> 6. Under-recognized composers included Albinoni, Rameau, C.P.E. Bach, Soler, Tomascek, Weber, Bruckner, Bizet, Busoni, Mahler, Joplin, Tournemire, Reger, Ireland, Poulenc, Eckhart-Gramatte, Tippett, Dello Joio, Gould, Ligeti.


That's an interesting view on Webern. I could see that, as in the loosening/expansion of technique after him.


----------



## adriesba

vtpoet said:


> People who write comments on Classical Music Forums all have gray hair and are boring.


I actually probably am a bit boring, but I don't have gray hair yet. :lol:


----------



## adriesba

Animal the Drummer said:


> Beethoven's and Schubert's 9th symphonies both outstay their welcome.





TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Agree but only the last movement of Beethoven's.


 Me no understand ...


----------



## Aerobat

vtpoet said:


> People who write comments on Classical Music Forums all have gray hair and are boring.


I have no hair by choice, because most of it fell out and what's left is grey.

My unpopular opinion: Maria Callas may or may not have been great. But all recordings of her are so poor it's almost impossible to tell exactly what she really sounded like.

In context - she died when I had barely learned to walk, so I never heard her perform live. But every recording I've tried, and I've tried many, has been so bad in terms of sound quality that I've given up.


----------



## Xisten267

Roger Knox said:


> 6. Under-recognized composers included Albinoni, Rameau, C.P.E. Bach, Soler, Tomascek, Weber, Bruckner, Bizet, Busoni, *Mahler*, Joplin, Tournemire, Reger, Ireland, Poulenc, Eckhart-Gramatte, Tippett, Dello Joio, Gould, Ligeti.


You mean this for the 70s, right? According *to this thread*, Mahler is at the moment one of the absolute favorite composers here in TC, with only the "big three" ahead of him in terms of popularity.



vtpoet said:


> People who write comments on Classical Music Forums *all have gray hair*


Yet, according to *this poll* (made some months ago), it seems that there's a reasonable number of members here that do not have gray hair (myself included).


----------



## Roger Knox

Allerius said:


> You mean this for the 70s, right?


Yes, the beginning of the 70's when I was an eager teen. These were composers for whom there were tiny-to-gigantic efforts to raise their level of recognition, in my little corner of the world as I observed it. Bruckner and Mahler had already benefitted form a lot of advocacy, and Mahler was going to keep growing (though it was rising standards of orchestral performance that supported Mahler). Some of the others are still where they were then.

Glad to here that a reasonable number of TC members don't have gray hair. I think we could do more to allow young people to feel welcome.


----------



## vtpoet

I think the recitatives in Bach's Cantatas and in Classical and baroque operas are beautiful and sometimes captivating.


----------



## Machiavel

vtpoet said:


> People who write comments on Classical Music Forums all have gray hair and are boring.


So what you are saying if I follow you is that you are an old whack with grey hair. You are the forum so you are bald and old? Its very generous of you to be honest about yourself:devil:


----------



## vtpoet

Machiavel said:


> So what you are saying if I follow you is that you are an old whack with grey hair. You are the forum so you are bald and old? Its very generous of you to be honest about yourself:devil:


I'm the exception that proves the rule. Of course.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Killing mice is much better than listening to Beethoven


----------



## Xisten267

Newbie listeners may enjoy ordinary music a bit too much because they don't know the masterpieces yet; advanced listeners may enjoy ordinary music a bit too much because they overlistened the masterpieces and can't stand them anymore;

Great composers' haters usually hate what they must due to random extra-musical circumstances and therefore should not be trusted;

Beethoven and Wagner were actually good people.


----------



## flamencosketches

I thought of one:

John Williams wrote some of the most corny, saccharine music I've ever heard. It serves its purpose in the context of the films in question, but I couldn't see myself ever listening to it by itself. (Sorry.)


----------



## flamencosketches

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Charles Ives was a truly great composer worthy to stand alongside the immortals, not just an American curiosity.


What are some of the Ives works that make you feel this way? I must confess that I don't really understand his music though I have enjoyed parts of it in the past.


----------



## Varick

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Killing mice is much better than listening to Beethoven


Wow, that's a tough one to call. Obviously if you have rodents in your dwelling, that is not good. They carry disease, can get into your food supply, and you can become very sick. So maybe, you are correct. As great as it is to listen to Beethoven, it sure won't prevent you from getting sick from rodents. And while you are taking the time listening to Beethoven, the mice could be reproducing and creating an infestation. 
Killing those mice is better than listening to Beethoven as a practical and sequential action. Then maybe, once you have eradicated all the rodents in your dwelling, then you can sit back, relax, and enjoy the wonderful music of Beethoven.

I now understand your post. Well done!

V


----------



## ORigel

This probably isn't a heretical opinion, but *Liszt's Christus oratorio sucks.*


----------



## Ulfilas

ORigel said:


> This probably isn't a heretical opinion, but *Liszt's Christus oratorio sucks.*


Most of Liszt sucks, especially the orchestral works.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Very unpopular opinion and this comes from a Mahler lover: the last movement of Mahler's 2nd is boring. I only listen to the first 3 movements. Yes, the 4th movement is also boring. In fact, all of Mahler's music that is not purely instrumental is boring.


----------



## hammeredklavier

ORigel said:


> This probably isn't a heretical opinion, but *Liszt's Christus oratorio sucks.*


I also prefer his keyboard works over his vocal works


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

flamencosketches said:


> What are some of the Ives works that make you feel this way? I must confess that I don't really understand his music though I have enjoyed parts of it in the past.


The 4th symphony is IMO his masterpiece, one of the greatest marriages of classical and folk music. The Concord sonata is a massive magnum opus for the piano but I must confess that I can't sit through the whole thing at once; I think the second two movements are best. But the adventurous, playful personality of the composer is also seen in his shorter orchestral works like the Unanswered Question, Central Park in the Dark, and Three Places in New England. I find his music to capture the spirit of America in a poetic and poignant way - sometimes jumbled, sometimes chaotic, sometimes tuneful, sometimes roaring forth with unstoppable momentum, always forward-looking and a glorious amalgam of disparate elements.


----------



## Heck148

Roger Knox said:


> Ravel's _Rhapsodie espagnole_ is the most annoying piece ever.


LOL!! I love Rapsodie Espagnole!! Wonderful piece....


----------



## Varick

This thread is a riot. Ok, here's one: Stravinsky's Le Sacre Du Printemps is one of the most god awful pieces of music. I marvel at how so many think it's great.

V


----------



## Ulfilas

I think Mendelssohn is massively underrated.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

ORigel said:


> This probably isn't a heretical opinion, but *Liszt's Christus oratorio sucks.*


You're dead wrong, but I can't blame you, because there isn't any recording that does the piece justice.


----------



## Guest002

27 pages in and it's difficult to know if this is an _original_ unpopular opinion, but here goes for nothing anyway: Franz Schubert's music is, on the whole, rather dull and undistinguished and quite 'same-y'.


----------



## JAS

Kilgore Trout said:


> You're dead wrong, but I can't blame you, because there isn't any recording that does the piece justice.


Ah, the old True Scotsman argument, or, as I once heard in another context, the music is better than it sounds.

I am pretty consistently impressed by Liszt's transcriptions, but not so much by his own original compositions.


----------



## vtpoet

Kilgore Trout said:


> You're dead wrong, but I can't blame you, because there isn't any recording that does the piece justice.


Well of course you would say that. This is, after all, the unpopular opinion thread.


----------



## vtpoet

Mediocre 18th century composers, on the whole, wrote better music than mediocre 19th century composers and mediocre 19th century composers, by in large, wrote better music than mediocre 20th century composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

vtpoet said:


> Chopin wrote beautiful music, but also too many passages that were just showboating.





vtpoet said:


> Mediocre 18th century composers, on the whole, wrote better music than mediocre 19th century composers and mediocre 19th century composers, by in large, wrote better music than mediocre 20th century composers.


I wouldn't say "average" 19th century music in general is objectively worse than that of the 18th century cause they're too far apart in terms of styles and idioms. I will say though, I think people tend to exaggerate how "individual" certain 19th century composers are. Every great composer has fans like that, but with composers like Chopin, it sometimes get a bit "extreme" (by people like Larkenfield, Eva Yojimbo, who don't come to the forum very often any more. But I've seen worse people in other sites)



Dustin said:


> Chopin came out of nowhere with his style of music. Unlike Beethoven's clear evolution from Mozart, Chopin is unlike any other. And he also influenced many later composers. (Wagner, Debussy, Liszt himself, etc...)





Eva Yojimbo said:


> Chopin is consistently everything Mozart is not (or rarely is). There's the profound poetry, the depth of thought and feeling, the rich exploration of inner and outer worlds, the complex textures and moods and evocations. There's also a much more innovative and original musical language that was influential to Romanticism in general.





Larkenfield said:


> Chopin was also called "the greatest harmonist since Bach" by one of his biographers, James Huneker, and I couldn't agree more. Chopin was as exacting and disciplined as Bach. One can hear the exactness by simply slowing down any passage to half-speed of anything he wrote. It's precise, carefully worked out, technically brilliant, skillfully chromatic, innovative, daring, and often revolutionary. He set out to create a new world, and he did.


"Charles Mayer (21 March 1799 - 2 July 1862), also known as Carl Mayer or Charles Meyer, was a Prussian pianist and composer active in the early 19th century."
Charles Mayer "Le regret" Valse-Etude mélancolique op.332 (This had been misattributed to Chopin for some time) 
Charles Mayer ：Nocturne sentimentale op.232
Charles Mayer：Chanson Sentimentale

Johann Nepomuk Hummel - Piano Concerto No. 2 in A minor, Op. 85 (1816)

Ignaz Moscheles Etude Op.70 No.3 in G Major (1826)
Chopin Etude Op.10 No.2 in A minor (1832)
Ignaz Moscheles Etude Op.70 No.2 in E minor (1826)
Chopin Etude Op.10 No.11 in E flat major (1832)
Joseph Christoph Kessler Etude No.20 No.9 in A flat major (1825):
{note that Chopin dedicated his 24 Preludes Op.28 to Kessler}
Chopin Etude Op.25 No.1 in A flat major (1835).

Also it's weird some people talk like it's some sort of an unthinkable sacrilege to say that "he is harmonically boring", (which is simply a matter of personal opinion):

this can be seen as "diminished 7th spam":




and these can be seen as "parallel 8th spam":
















(I'm not saying they are "spam", I'm just saying there can be different perspectives on them)

It's not any more a sacrilege than to say any great 18th century composer who adhered to "good taste" is boring. (When someone says Mozart is harmonically boring, people simply accept it by saying "_yeah, sure, he reused cadential cliches, tonic/dominant-dependent harmony all the time_". But when someone says Chopin is harmonically boring, people become furious, "_what!? Are you fking out of your mind!?_") With certain 19th-century composers, there is this sort of bizarre cultist treatment around them to make it seem like all they did stemmed from "personal expression" and "individual artistic expression".
I don't really mean to put down Chopin in this post. I do think he's a genius and a great composer. It's just that I don't think some composers should get more "special treatment" than others.

View attachment 130822


----------



## vtpoet

I wish you'd write something I disagreed with.

As to my opinion on mediocre composers, I have a reason for thinking that mediocrity got progressively "worse" and it no doubt belongs in the unpopular opinion thread. And that's that as formal structures became progressively looser and less relevant from the 17th century on (and by formal structures I mean formal elements expected both in thematic development, harmony, tonality and form itself) the music itself became more self-indulgent and self-justifying (and not in a good way). The discipline required to write a proper baroque concerto forced mediocre talents to at least strive for common standards that might have been beyond their comfort zone. There were/are no such "minimum requirements" for the 20th & 21st century composer. Any composer (as with poetry) can compose whatsoever they want and howsoever they want to answerable only to their own ego/vanity and mediocre aesthetic judgment-the worst of all possible workshops for a mediocre talent.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

vtpoet said:


> I wish you'd write something I disagreed with.
> 
> As to my opinion on mediocre composers, I have a reason for thinking that mediocrity got progressively "worse" and it no doubt belongs in the unpopular opinion thread. And that's that as formal structures became progressively looser and less relevant from the 17th century on (and by formal structures I mean formal elements expected both in thematic development, harmony, tonality and form itself) the music itself became more self-indulgent and self-justifying (and not in a good way). The discipline required to write a proper baroque concerto forced mediocre talents to at least strive for common standards that might have been beyond their comfort zone. There were/are no such "minimum requirements" for the 20th & 21st century composer. Any composer (as with poetry) can compose whatsoever they want and howsoever they want to answerable only to their own ego/vanity and mediocre aesthetic judgment-the worst of all possible workshops for a mediocre talent.


I don't remember if you were one of the posters in there, but this was pretty much the centerpiece of that "What's so great about the 20th century's music ?" thread that got really immature and toxic. Honestly I think both sides of the argument have their points. I agree with you that the bar did get lowered in a certain regard (I mean it's hard to argue, it's just true) but I still believe that 20th century and contemporary music can still be discerned as being well-crafted and original or being self-indulgent and lacking in substance. I don't think some no-man's land suddenly emerged and there's no concrete way to criticize a piece.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Depending on how they're used, I think of runs and flourishes on the piano as being the classical equivalent of nonsensical guitar shredding. There's obviously nothing wrong with being flashy and adding flourishes, but if that's all I'm hearing it comes off that way.


----------



## vtpoet

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I don't remember if you were one of the posters in there, but this was pretty much the centerpiece of that "What's so great about the 20th century's music ?" thread that got really immature and toxic. Honestly I think both sides of the argument have their points. I agree with you that the bar did get lowered in a certain regard (I mean it's hard to argue, it's just true) but I still believe that 20th century and contemporary music can still be discerned as being well-crafted and original or being self-indulgent and lacking in substance. I don't think some no-man's land suddenly emerged and there's no concrete way to criticize a piece.


I could be wrong, but I think I steered clear of that thread?

What you write is correct. My critique is of mediocre talent. How the best representatives of each era-Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Sibelius, etc.-fair in any comparison is a separate discussion (and I personally wouldn't say the same of them.)

That said, and because this is the unpopular opinion thread, I _do_ think that the greatest "music makers" of the 20th century weren't in 20th classical (unless one counts John Williams or Danny Elfman as classical composers), but in Jazz and popular music - the Beatles, Pink Floyd, the Who, David Bowie, the Rolling Stones, etc.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

vtpoet said:


> That said, and because this is the unpopular opinion thread, I _do_ think that the greatest "music makers" of the 20th century weren't in 20th classical (unless one counts John Williams or Danny Elfman as classical composers), but in Jazz and popular music - the Beatles, Pink Floyd, the Who, David Bowie, the Rolling Stones, etc.


Wow, now that's a *bold* opinion! To me I think they serve different functions in listening as from let's say, Shostakovich, Bartok, Villa-Lobos (the list goes on forever) so it's hard for me to compare them in my own personal aesthetic world.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

vtpoet said:


> I could be wrong, but I think I steered clear of that thread?
> 
> What you write is correct. My critique is of mediocre talent. How the best representatives of each era-Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Sibelius, etc.-fair in any comparison is a separate discussion (and I personally wouldn't say the same of them.)


I think history will most likely weed out the mediocre talent and separate the men from the boys (or the women from the girls). Like if Süssmayr didn't complete the Requiem no one would even know who he is. That being said, it is interesting to think about whose heads will be on the Mount Rushmore of 21st century art music, especially given that there's tons of talented composers who fly under the radar.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

vtpoet said:


> I could be wrong, but I think I steered clear of that thread?
> 
> What you write is correct. My critique is of mediocre talent. How the best representatives of each era-Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Sibelius, etc.-fair in any comparison is a separate discussion (and I personally wouldn't say the same of them.)
> 
> That said, and because this is the unpopular opinion thread, I _do_ think that *the greatest "music makers" of the 20th century weren't in 20th classical* (unless one counts John Williams or Danny Elfman as classical composers), but in Jazz and popular music - the Beatles, Pink Floyd, the Who, David Bowie, the Rolling Stones, etc.


Sibelius, Mahler, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Bartok say hello.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Sibelius, Mahler, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Bartok say hello.


I honestly consider the jazz guys to be on the same level as the great composers. Mingus, Miles Davis, John & Alice Coltrane, Pharaoh Sanders, all just incredible compositional geniuses.

In terms of popular music, like I said in my previous post, comparing (random examples) Black Sabbath, New Order, and The Rolling Stones to the big guns you listed above is an apples and oranges situation to me. They serve different musical functions in my mind and get different feelings and aesthetics across. It's the variety that makes music so special.


----------



## DeepR

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Very unpopular opinion and this comes from a Mahler lover: the last movement of Mahler's 2nd is boring.


Haha, to me the rest of this symphony is pretty much worthless compared to the last movement. Have you heard Dudamel @ Proms on Youtube?


----------



## DeepR

Varick said:


> This thread is a riot. Ok, here's one: Stravinsky's Le Sacre Du Printemps is one of the most god awful pieces of music. I marvel at how so many think it's great.
> 
> V


I don't think it's awful, I find it quite enjoyabe, but it's still massively overrated.


----------



## vtpoet

DeepR said:


> I don't think it's awful, I find it quite enjoyabe, but it's still massively overrated.


I remember attending a concert where Joshua Bell played a Beethoven violin sonata, then followed that up with pieces for violin and piano by Stravinsky. I remember being shocked by how simplistic, insipid and timid Stravinsky sounded next to the Beethoven. [*Unpopular opinion alert*.] And decided, upon further review, that Stravinsky in general is massively overrated. He's like the Kozeluch of his day.


----------



## vtpoet

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Sibelius, Mahler, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Bartok say hello.


Stravinsky? Prokofiev? Meh...


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

DeepR said:


> Haha, to me the rest of this symphony is pretty much worthless compared to the last movement. Have you heard Dudamel @ Proms on Youtube?


I haven't but I doubt it'll change my opinion of the music as I've heard half a dozen top recordings of it. Symphonies should not have words in them. It makes composers write inferior music.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

delete .........................


----------



## consuono

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I honestly consider the jazz guys to be on the same level as the great composers. Mingus, Miles Davis, John & Alice Coltrane, Pharaoh Sanders, all just incredible compositional geniuses.
> 
> ...


I don't, really. For one thing the ones you mentioned are from a different musical world, and for another that world is more improvisational than compositional. Even so, it could be that Mozart, Bach, Handel, Liszt and others were at least as adept at improvisation.


----------



## MusicSybarite

Malx said:


> I can't listen to any work with a narrator.


A work I really like is Copland's Lincoln's Portrait.


----------



## MusicSybarite

Historical Instruments Performances make music sound gray, soulless, anemic, insipid most of the time. There is a HUGE difference when works are performed in modern instruments. Music has "color", brightness, life.


----------



## MusicSybarite

Another one: Marin Marais's pieces for viola da gamba are insufferably BORING.


----------



## adriesba

MusicSybarite said:


> Historical Instruments Performances make music sound gray, soulless, anemic, insipid most of the time. There is a HUGE difference when works are performed in modern instruments. Music has "color", brightness, life.


I would agree with this but only sometimes. A lot depends on the conductor and ensemble. Les Arts Florissants with William Christie don't sound lifeless to me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> I don't, really. For one thing the ones you mentioned are from a different musical world, and for another that world is more improvisational than compositional. Even so, it could be that Mozart, Bach, Handel, Liszt and others were at least as adept at improvisation.


----------



## consuono

MusicSybarite said:


> A work I really like is Copland's Lincoln's Portrait.


I also kinda like Blitzstein's Airborne Symphony...in the Bernstein/Orson Welles recording.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Das lied von der erde is one of the most boring pieces a major symphonist post-Beethoven has written.


----------



## adriesba

consuono said:


> I also kinda like Blitzstein's Airborne Symphony...in the Bernstein/Orson Welles recording.


That is a rather interesting piece. I wonder, has it ever been performed outside of the two Bernstein recordings?


----------



## vtpoet

Aaron Copeland's music is classical music's version of American kitsch.


----------



## Guest002

vtpoet said:


> Aaron Copeland's music is classical music's version of American kitsch.


Oh Gosh. There's a reason no-one likes you!! (/s)

He can be Kitschy. But he can also be magnificent. I wouldn't trade Fanfare for anything. I also think "I bought me a cat" is one of the high-points of English vocal song-setting. So, to you sir, I say, "fiddle-eye fee"


----------



## vtpoet

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Oh Gosh. There's a reason no-one likes you!! (/s)
> 
> He can be Kitschy. But he can also be magnificent. I wouldn't trade Fanfare for anything. I also think "I bought me a cat" is one of the high-points of English vocal song-setting. So, to you sir, I say, "fiddle-eye fee"


Ha! I'm sure I could find something composed by your precious Benjamin Britten that you would trade for Fanfare.


----------



## Guest002

vtpoet said:


> Ha! I'm sure I could find something composed by your precious Benjamin Britten that you would trade for Fanfare.


I would trade you Voices for Today for Fanfare. IE, I keep Fanfare... You can have Voices.

Deal?


----------



## vtpoet

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I would trade you Voices for Today for Fanfare. IE, I keep Fanfare... You can have Voices.
> 
> Deal?


I'll find the Britten (and your little dog too) for which you would give up Fanfare. :devil:


----------



## Pat Fairlea

vtpoet said:


> I remember attending a concert where Joshua Bell played a Beethoven violin sonata, then followed that up with pieces for violin and piano by Stravinsky. I remember being shocked by how simplistic, insipid and timid Stravinsky sounded next to the Beethoven. [*Unpopular opinion alert*.] And decided, upon further review, that Stravinsky in general is massively overrated. He's like the Kozeluch of his day.


D'you know, I think you're right there. Petroushka and Firebird have some fine passages but otherwise...dull...going through the motions? Not bad music, just not interesting.


----------



## adriesba

The opinions here keep getting crazier as the thread goes on.


----------



## Rogerx

adriesba said:


> The opinions here keep getting crazier as the thread goes on.


I predicted that when OP started.


----------



## adriesba

Rogerx said:


> I predicted that when OP started.


People must be bored. I am speechless over some of the more recent posts! :lol:


----------



## rice

Bernstein conducted Shostakovich's 5th wrong. What's with the rush in the last movement?


----------



## Ramenbot

Fauré's nocturnes are better than Chopin's. They have more character, variety, and interesting textures and melodies.


----------



## trbl0001

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Beethoven's 7th is his weakest symphony and its repetitive rhythms drive me off the wall.
> 
> Well, you asked for unpopular opinions...


I know what you mean, at least as far as the third movement goes. I love the Allegretto though, I think is one of his best movements.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

trbl0001 said:


> I know what you mean, at least as far as the third movement goes. I love the Allegretto though, I think is one of his best movements.


The third movement is my least favourite movement from any Beethoven symphony but I love the other three.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

adriesba said:


> The opinions here keep getting crazier as the thread goes on.


I know. I thought the Copland comment was quite out there.


----------



## vtpoet

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I know. I thought the Copland comment was quite out there.


The truth is unpopular. <--- Another unpopular opinion.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

vtpoet said:


> The truth is unpopular. <--- Another unpopular opinion.


Not sure there are any "truths" in this thread; just opinions of various degrees of unpopularity.


----------



## vtpoet

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Not sure there are any "truths" in this thread; just opinions of various degrees of unpopularity.


What? No truths in this thread? I'll take that as your opinion and being of questionable popularity. <--- Speaks the truth.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

vtpoet said:


> What? No truths in this thread? I'll take that as your opinion and being of questionable popularity. <--- Speaks the truth.


Which truth, the red pill or blue pill?


----------



## vtpoet

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Which truth, the red pill or blue pill?


Given that it's election day today, I'd have to say blue. Through and through. Line item pills if you know what I mean...


----------



## Varick

adriesba said:


> The opinions here keep getting crazier as the thread goes on.


I think it's because people are getting less scared to voice an opinion they know is unpopular. Once one person does it, it gives courage to a few others. When they do it, courage is found in others still. And so on and so on and so on.

I like this thread. I disagree with a lot of these opinions, and that's what I like about it!

V


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Catching 3 mice in mousetraps is just as good as Beethovens 3rd


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

consuono said:


> I don't, really. For one thing the ones you mentioned are from a different musical world, and for another that world is more improvisational than compositional. Even so, it could be that Mozart, Bach, Handel, Liszt and others were at least as adept at improvisation.


You do have a strong point there. However, there is a high level of written compositional craftsmanship in jazz besides writing lead sheets to improvise off of. But compared to classical you're definitely right that its not to the same extent. I do enjoy both sides of the coin almost equally, with a bigger edge to classical of course.


----------



## Winterreisender

Hello - my unpopular opinion is that I rarely enjoy a piece of music that is in theme-and-variations form. Whether that is Beethoven's _Diabelli_, Brahms's _Handel_, Tchaikovsky's Piano Trio (second movement), or any of the countless _Paganini Variations_, I find these works musically uninspired, flashy-for-the-sake-of-it, and I roll my eyes at the obligatory concluding fugue sections.


----------



## Varick

I don't care for potatoes in any form. Even french fries (or as the English say, "chips").

V


----------



## vtpoet

Varick said:


> I don't care for potatoes in any form. Even french fries (or as the English say, "chips").
> 
> V


Ah. I see you're getting less scared now. Go ahead. Gather your courage. Tell us what you think of ketchup.


----------



## vtpoet

Winterreisender said:


> Hello - my unpopular opinion is that I rarely enjoy a piece of music that is in theme-and-variations form. Whether that is Beethoven's _Diabelli_, Brahms's _Handel_, Tchaikovsky's Piano Trio (second movement), or any of the countless _Paganini Variations_, I find these works musically uninspired, flashy-for-the-sake-of-it, and I roll my eyes at the obligatory concluding fugue sections.


That's interesting, because I find Mozart's Theme & Variations rather formulaic and uninspired whereas I love Beethoven's and find them brilliant.


----------



## Varick

vtpoet said:


> Ah. I see you're getting less scared now. Go ahead. Gather your courage. Tell us what you think of ketchup.


[looking around shyly and nervously] I really like it. I even put it on hotdogs.

V


----------



## Xisten267

Late Bach, late Beethoven and late Wagner are amongst the most difficult music to grasp in the common practice period, and some listeners may need years, even decades, to get them, but few things in life can be as rewarding as overcoming such a challenge;

Repeated listens and careful choices of recordings are not an option but actually a necessity in classical music;

The music of the Classical era, including that of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert, sometimes relies too much in repeats for the sake of formal balance and the listener may benefit from removing some of these repeats.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Allerius said:


> Late Bach, late Beethoven and late Wagner are amongst the most difficult music to grasp in the common practice period, and some listeners may need years, even decades, to get them, but few things in life can be as rewarding as overcoming such a challenge.
> 
> Repeated listens and careful choices of recordings are not an option but actually a necessity in classical music.
> 
> The music of the Classical era, including that of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert, sometimes relies too much in repeats for the sake of formal balance and the listener may benefit from removing some of these repeats.


I don't find these views unpopular. Well, at least not with me


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I don't find these views unpopular. Well, at least not with me


Purists may become particularly upset by the last, and the idea of difficult music that requires effort to be assimilated is not popular and may be seem as snobbery by some, or at least I think so.


----------



## vtpoet

Allerius said:


> Late Bach, late Beethoven and late Wagner are amongst the most difficult music to grasp in the common practice period, and some listeners may need years, even decades, to get them, but few things in life can be as rewarding as overcoming such a challenge;
> 
> Repeated listens and careful choices of recordings are not an option but actually a necessity in classical music;
> 
> The music of the Classical era, including that of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert, sometimes relies too much in repeats for the sake of formal balance and the listener may benefit from removing some of these repeats.


I'm sorry, but this is the *un*popular opinion thread. Please see yourself out.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

vtpoet said:


> I'm sorry, but this is the *un*popular opinion thread. Please see yourself out.


I dont agree with the 3rd point about the repeats for the sake of balance. It helps reinforce the thematic material in the listeners head, especially cause back then they didnt have the luxury of being able to rewind the tape. Like id argue a repeat is vital in the exposition of sonata form, for example, so the thematic material is properly embossed before it undergoes development


----------



## hammeredklavier

^Here are some real unpopular opinions:


Allerius said:


> Just listened to K. 546 again. This work is not my cup of tea, I much prefer other late Mozart compositions



When other people don't appreciate the same stuff as you do, and you tell them "it's because you simply don't understand", - but at the same time, you don't apply the same logic to yourself when you don't appreciate something other people appreciate, then you're a pretentious listener. 
Beethoven's Op.130 (with the alternative finale), for example, is a typical late-classical period "divertimento" (this is not a put-down of the music).


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> ^Here are some real unpopular opinions:
> 
> 
> When other people don't appreciate the same stuff as you do, and you tell them "it's because you simply don't understand", - but at the same time, you don't apply the same logic to yourself when you don't appreciate something other people appreciate, then you're a pretentious listener.
> Beethoven's Op.130 (with the alternative finale), for example, is a typical late-classical period "divertimento" (this is not a put-down of the music).


Late Mozart may be great, but I don't think that it's particularly difficult, and I believe that any newbie in classical music wouldn't have much trouble assimilating _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik_, the _Great_ G minor symphony or the Requiem for example, unless he/she had already some bias against the Classical era aesthetics. The most challenging Mozart in my opinion occurs in opera, not because the numbers themselves are difficult but because of the overall lenght of the works and the secco recitatives, that may be off-putting to some (including myself). But good luck trying to make a newbie enjoy for example the Missa Solemnis, the last movement of the _Choral_ symphony or Op. 130 with it's original finale.

I'm listening to K. 546 again. My impression is that it is a pleasant piece of music, with interesting harmony and counterpoint, but that lacks the emotional depth of other Mozart works. Give me one of the composer's late string quintets over it any day. But if you enjoy it, good for you, different people have different tastes.








hammeredklavier said:


> ... you tell them *"it's because you simply don't understand"*,


This is not a quote of myself. I didn't write these words.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Another unpopular opinion:

Brahms is 100% right in his final assessment of Beethoven (1896).

"I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."
( Composers On Music: Eight Centuries of Writings
, Josiah Fisk, Jeff Nichols, Technical Group Leader High Performance Computational Chemistry Group Jeff Nichols | p.134~135 )


----------



## hammeredklavier

I consider Beethoven as one of the greatest of all time, if not the greatest. 
I don't mean to denigrate the value of the Beethoven work, but to me these sound eerily similar as expressions:

*[ 17:25 ]*





*[ 2:25 ]*





So when someone dislikes the Chopin, it's because Chopin wasn't good enough,
but when someone dislikes the Beethoven, it's because he doesn't "understand" Beethoven?

I think there are many other ways to express your appreciation of a composer, without resorting to the idolatrous idea of telling others; "he's GOD, your little human mind can't understand his thinking".*
I don't think Beethoven (or any other great composers for that matter) needs this* sort of bizarre treatment to be considered great.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> So when someone dislikes the Chopin, it's because Chopin wasn't good enough,
> but when someone dislikes the Beethoven, it's because he doesn't "understand" Beethoven?
> 
> I think there are many other ways to express your appreciation of a composer, without resorting to the idolatrous idea; *"he's GOD, your little human mind can't understand his thinking"*.*
> I don't think Beethoven (or any other great composers for that matter) needs this* sort of bizarre treatment to be considered great.


I think you're getting too personal in this. I didn't mean any attack on you with what I wrote in post #451, and if it sounded like I did, I apologize. I also apologize for my excesses in our previous discussion in this same thread, I think I was not in my best moment when it happened. But this thread is about opinions, unpopular ones, and if someone can even believe that killing mice is better than listening to the great music of a genius like Beethoven, then why can't I express a personal truth that the last portion of his oeuvre is rewarding but difficult? It's not a doctoral dissertation, I'm not trying to prove anything, and nobody has to believe in what I write.

Regarding your Chopin vs Beethoven point: I think the latter in his last years tended to build larger and more complex structures than those of Chopin, and that these tend to be less melodic but more abstract. Due to this, I believe that Beethoven's late music is harder to grasp. I also think that there's a kind of romantic atmophere in most of Chopin's music that is absent in late Beethoven and that makes the polish's music instantly approachable. I'm far from saying that Chopin is a bad composer. I think that middle Beethoven is easy and I still love it.



hammeredklavier said:


> I think there are many other ways to express your appreciation of a composer, without resorting to the idolatrous idea; *"he's GOD, your little human mind can't understand his thinking"*.*


I didn't write what is in bold, so I guess you're directing your complain to the wrong person. I acknowledge that not all what Beethoven wrote is great and, not being a fan of lieder, I can tell you that I can for example live without most of those that old Ludwig wrote (but I still want to have around some of the most important and innovative such as _An die ferne Geliebte_ and _Adelaide_). Beethoven _is_ my idol, but I don't think I use any "sort of bizarre treatment" to him.

Also, note that Beethoven has received many more "punches" in this thread than the other two of the "big three", and I haven't been complaining, at least not directly, so let's please maintain a "sportsmanship" and not derail the thread again...?


----------



## hammeredklavier

^Likewise, I don't think TwoFlutesOneTrumpet dislikes the Ring cycle because he lacks "capacity to understand". Vocal music just isn't his cup of tea.

<Why I Hate The 'Goldberg Variations'>
https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations
^Don't tell me this pianist hasn't practiced the piece many times enough.



Allerius said:


> The tick-tock rhythms of J.S. Bach sometimes can become a bit tedious to me.


^So can it be argued this person hasn't understood the depth of the "tick-tock rhythms"?

So Here's my another unpopular opinion:
You're free to dislike Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc, just as you can dislike apples and oranges. They were not gods. Expressing dislike for them is not a sacrilege.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> So can it be argued this person hasn't understood the depth of the "tick-tock rhythms"?


Perhaps there's more to music than rhythm? J.S. Bach is a legendary master of expressive counterpoint and harmony. Besides, the constant Baroque beat may not be a problem to some (it is only sometimes to me and, again, this was an unpopular opinion in an unpopular opinions' thread).



hammeredklavier said:


> So Here's my another unpopular opinion:
> You're free to dislike Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc, just as you can dislike apples and oranges. They were not gods. Expressing dislike for them is not a sacrilege.


I think they deserve respect due to their invaluable musical gifts to humankind, but yes, I agree to that. But you're the last person I would expect to say this considering how you usually react when the name "Mozart" appears somewhere.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Perhaps there's more to music than rhythm?


Yes, and you should have said that in that post, #262



Allerius said:


> But you're the last person I would expect to say this considering how you usually react when the name "Mozart" appears somewhere.


Everytime janxharris, for example, expressed dislike for Mozart, I respected his view. I never pretended like he's "too stupid/ignorant to understand". I wouldn't want to indulge in that sort of bizarre idolatry about a composer.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, and you should have said that in that post, #262


Why? I don't think so. What I said is my opinion, is relevant to the thread, and I didn't disrespect Bach.



hammeredklavier said:


> Everytime janxharris, for example, expressed dislike for Mozart, I respected his view. I never pretended like he's "too stupid/ignorant to understand". I wouldn't want to indulge in that sort of bizarre idolatry about a composer.


I didn't say anything about anyone being stupid/ignorant to understand anything, so I don't have to respond to this.


----------



## vtpoet

As far as concertos for solo instruments goes, with one or two exceptions, Telemann's works are greater and more profound than Händel's. Also: Händel's organ concertos are trivial and lazy—like Händel imitating Händel.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Regarding your Chopin vs Beethoven point: I think the latter in his last years tended to build larger and more complex structures than those of Chopin, and that these tend to be less melodic but more abstract. Due to this, I believe that Beethoven's late music is harder to grasp. I also think that there's a kind of romantic atmophere in most of Chopin's music that is absent in late Beethoven and that makes the polish's music instantly approachable. I'm far from saying that Chopin is a bad composer. I think that middle Beethoven is easy and I still love it.











I'm sorry to say this, I think all you've shown me time and time again regarding this topic, is just how pretentious you can get. You said you don't like Mahler and called him "grossly overrated", but how can you say you've fully "understood" him then?


Allerius said:


> Mahler was grossly underrated until sixty years ago. Now he is grossly overrated.


I don't exactly know what you mean by "to grasp" and "to understand" in the context of our discussion, -but I ask how hard exactly is it to "understand" stuff like this:

View attachment 142695

View attachment 142696

View attachment 142697






I could ridicule other people for "not seeing the naked emperor", but I won't because that would be pretentious.

Also, the "overhype" (the sort of thing you're doing) with late Beethoven (especially the grosse fuge) has become something of a "cliche" nowadays. You mentioned the 9th symphony, but there's of a video recording of that work with over 100 million views on youtube these days, and there's another with about 25 million.
I wonder why you don't apply the same logic "if you've listened many times enough, you'll eventually get it" to other Beethoven works like the development of the Archduke trio 1st movement, or fantasie Op.77, for example. After all, I find the variations of this eerily similar to those of his late piano sonatas in certain ways:


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm sorry to say this, I think all you've shown time and time again to me regarding this topic, is just how pretentious you can get. You said you don't like Mahler and called him "grossly overrated", but how can you say you've fully "understood" him then?


Fine. I think you are being picky and is making a mountain out of molehill. Many people are giving their unpopular opinions in this thread, but I can't say anything because I'm "pretentious."

...

I never said I don't like Mahler. I said in this thread that I find his music overrated nowadays, and in other thread I explained that I have a problem connecting with his music in an emotional level because, somehow, and to me, he doesn't seem to be sincere in his expression. Note that I agreed that this is probably my own difficulty, a blind spot, and that I should continue to listen to his music to see if I reconsider my opinion. These were my exact words: "Considering how many people love Mahler in this forum, I suppose that this is a personal problem, not the composer's - a blind spot of mine."

Pretentious? Or just another member with an opinion?



hammeredklavier said:


> I don't exactly know what you mean by "to grasp" and "to understand" in the context of our discussion, -but I ask how hard exactly is it to "understand" stuff like this:


I think _you_ are being pretentious now. So you don't need to listen to certain pieces of music more than once to assimilate them? I do, and depending on the piece it may take more or less listens so that I can really enjoy it. As a rule, I believe that a piece that is non-melodic, lengthy, thicker in texture, more developed, more dissonant, with rare repeats, etc. is harder to assimilate than one that is melodic, short, thin in texture, less developed, more consonant, abundant in repeats, etc.



hammeredklavier said:


> I could ridicule other people for "not seeing the naked emperor", but I won't because that would be pretentious.
> 
> Also, the "overhype" (the sort of thing you're doing) with late Beethoven (especially the grosse fuge) has become something of a "cliche" nowadays. You mentioned the 9th symphony, but there's of a video recording of that work with over 100 million views on youtube these days, and there's another with about 25 million.


One man's trash is another man's treasure. And Beethoven's late period won't become any less interesting because of your hatred for it.


----------



## Xisten267

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I dont agree with the 3rd point about the repeats for the sake of balance. It helps reinforce the thematic material in the listeners head, especially cause back then they didnt have the luxury of being able to rewind the tape. Like id argue a repeat is vital in the exposition of sonata form, for example, so the thematic material is properly embossed before it undergoes development


If the first repeat of sonata form is always vital, then why great composers such as Beethoven, Brahms and Dvorák would sometimes ignore it? And what about the development+recapitulation repeats, are they really that necessary for a listener today? What about those forms reminiscent of dances, like minuets and scherzi: why is it so necessary that sometimes they have so many repeats?

Back then they couldn't rewind the tape, but now we can.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Allerius said:


> If the first repeat of sonata form is always vital, then why great composers such as Beethoven, Brahms and Dvorák would sometimes ignore it? And what about the development+recapitulation repeats, are they really that necessary for a listener today? What about those forms reminiscent of dances, like minuets and scherzi: why is it so necessary that sometimes they have so many repeats?
> 
> Back then they couldn't rewind the tape, but now we can.


The repeat in sonata form is not always vital, it depends on several things such as how easy it is to remember the material or its length compared to the overall length of the movement. Imagine the Eroica without the repeat in the 1st movement. The exposition becomes so short compared to the development section and the rest of the movement, you need it for balance.

What do you mean by development and recapitulation repeats? I have not come across any movements in sonata form that require development repeats or recap repeats.


----------



## Open Book

Allerius said:


> [*]Repeated listens and careful choices of recordings are not an option but actually a necessity in classical music;


How the heck did people grasp classical music before recordings?


----------



## vtpoet

Open Book said:


> How the heck did people grasp classical music before recordings?


They were smarter than present day people.


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> The repeat in sonata form is not always vital, it depends on several things such as how easy it is to remember the material or its length compared to the overall length of the movement. Imagine the Eroica without the repeat in the 1st movement. The exposition becomes so short compared to the development section and the rest of the movement, you need it for balance.


Perhaps. My opinion is that the exposition repeat is only truly necessary when the development section has a sense of culmination, for example in Schubert's _Unfinished_ or Beethoven's Fifth. I think that the lenght of a movement doesn't matter for the purposes of determining repeats, and if I recall correctly Beethoven himself considered removing the repeat of the first movement of the _Eroica_ because of the already considerable size of the symphony. The first movement of the _Choral_ symphony is almost as massive as that of the _Eroica_, and in it Beethoven omitted the repeat (the entire one-hour long symphony has only two repeats).



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> What do you mean by development and recapitulation repeats? I have not come across any movements in sonata form that require development repeats or recap repeats.


Performers usually (rightfully in my opinion) omit them. From the top of my head, check the scores for example of the first movements of most of Mozart string quintets (I'm not sure if all them have the second repeat. K. 516 certainly does.), or of the composer's _Prague_ symphony, or of the second movement of his _Great_ G minor symphony, or of the last movement of Beethoven's _Appassionata_, the first movement of the composer's piano sonata No. 25 or the very last movement of his last string quartet, and you'll see a development+recapitulation repeat marked.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Allerius said:


> Performers usually (rightfully in my opinion) omit them. From the top of my head, check the scores for example of the first movements of most of Mozart string quintets (I'm not sure if all them have the second repeat. K. 516 certainly does.), or of the composer's _Prague_ symphony, or of the second movement of his _Great_ G minor symphony, or of the last movement of Beethoven's _Appassionata_, the first movement of the composer's piano sonata No. 25 or the very last movement of his last string quartet, and you'll see a development+recapitulatio repeat marked.


Ah, I didn't realize that - I have not looked at the scores of many pieces I listen to regularly. I guess I own the lack of development and recap repeats to the good judgment of today's performers.


----------



## Xisten267

Open Book said:


> How the heck did people grasp classical music before recordings?


The ones that could would attend concerts many times? They would familiarize with pieces through the use of piano reductions (considering that many people had a in-home keyboard back in 19th century Europe)? They would listen to easy music of composers that are now forgotten?

Perhaps I should have added a "nowadays" to my unpopular opinion, considering that we have a sea of recordings nowadays, including many bad recordings, and that due to this in my unpopular opinion it is necessary to search for good ones.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Allerius said:


> If the first repeat of sonata form is always vital, then why great composers such as Beethoven, Brahms and Dvorák would sometimes ignore it? And what about the development+recapitulation repeats, are they really that necessary for a listener today? What about those forms reminiscent of dances, like minuets and scherzi: why is it so necessary that sometimes they have so many repeats?
> 
> Back then they couldn't rewind the tape, but now we can.


That was their call then. Im definitely not gonna say Beethoven, Dvorak and Brahms were somehow wrong for omitting repeats and im sure there are instances where a repeat could be considered superfluous. However, I still like them even for development sections because even with our ability to rewind, the repeat of the exposition reinforces as said above, and the 2nd time in the development there's new things you pick up on the 2nd time around. Perhaps is one is intimately familiar with said piece the repeats could seem tautologus but I don't hear them that way. Then again I am a massive Bruckner enthusiast for perhaps Im a bit biased when it comes to repeated thematic material!


----------



## vtpoet

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> That was their call then. Im definitely not gonna say Beethoven, Dvorak and Brahms were somehow wrong for omitting repeats and im sure there are instances where a repeat could be considered superfluous. However, I still like them even for development sections because even with our ability to rewind, the repeat of the exposition reinforces as said above, and the 2nd time in the development there's new things you pick up on the 2nd time around. Perhaps is one is intimately familiar with said piece the repeats could seem tautologus but I don't hear them that way. Then again I am a massive Bruckner enthusiast for perhaps Im a bit biased when it comes to repeated thematic material!


I'm familiar with the reasons repeats aren't played, but I summarily reject all of them. I think all repeats should be honored because, damnit, that's what the composer wrote, which brings me to my next unpopular opinion, and that's that.... [see comment below]


----------



## vtpoet

All of Beethoven's metronome markings should be respected, if not exactly, then in spirit. It's not like one of the greatest musical minds of all time suddenly couldn't keep track of time. Nothing irritates me more than pompous musicians who say: "Well, I know better than Beethoven what time signatures these pieces should be played at. Beethoven was deaf and confused after all or, obviously, the metronome was wrong. A properly weighted metronome would have confirmed my aesthetic preference."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> As a rule, I believe that a piece that is non-melodic, lengthy, thicker in texture, more developed, more dissonant, with rare repeats, etc. is harder to assimilate than one that is melodic, short, thin in texture, less developed, more consonant, abundant in repeats, etc.







I think you exaggerate these things about Beethoven way too much. I'm not sure if Beethoven was really an unprecedented master of use of texture (you know what "texture" means in music, right? ) dissonance in part-writing (aside from some obvious examples such as the opening of the 9th symphony 4th movement) as you make him out to be.










Yes, Beethoven is at times a bit "weak" with melody, and seems to simply "prolong" at times (like in these moments: 



 / long pauses 



 - he has used up all his ideas in the section and has nothing more particularly important to say and simply "prolongs" imv ). I'll accept he is unique in expression. But he shouldn't really be continued to be "glorified" for this though.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

vtpoet said:


> All of Beethoven's metronome markings should be respected, if not exactly, then in spirit. It's not like one of the greatest musical minds of all time suddenly couldn't keep track of time. Nothing irritates me more than pompous musicians who say: "Well, I know better than Beethoven what time signatures these pieces should be played at. Beethoven was deaf and confused after all or, obviously, the metronome was wrong. A properly weighted metronome would have confirmed my aesthetic preference."


Isn't the Beethoven metronome theory a bunch of crap anyway?


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> I think you exaggerate these things about Beethoven way too much. I'm not sure if Beethoven was really an unprecedented master of use of texture (you know what "texture" means in music, right? ) dissonance in part-writing (aside from some obvious examples such as the opening of the 9th symphony 4th movement) as you make him out to be.


I didn't say Beethoven is an unprecedented master of use of texture (as Josquin, Ockeghem and Palestrina were using polyphony with many voices long before the Classical era) or of dissonance in part-writing (J.S. Bach comes to mind). Stop attributing to me ideas and phrases I didn't express, please.



hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, Beethoven is at times a bit "weak" with melody, and seems to simply "prolong" at times (like in these moments:
> 
> 
> 
> / long pauses
> 
> 
> 
> - he has used up all his ideas in the section and has nothing more particularly important to say and simply "prolongs" imv ). I'll accept he is unique in expression. But he shouldn't really be continued to be "glorified" for this though.


I don't think Beethoven is weak with melody, but rather that he deliberately prefers to use rhythmic themes instead of melodic ones as the building blocks for his music. This because he likes to make expansive development sections, and short motifs are better to develop than long melodic themes. And his use of pauses usually is meant to enhance the dramatic purposes of his pieces - I think that few composers were as talented in making his notes/rests seem as inevitable as Beethoven.



vtpoet said:


> All of Beethoven's metronome markings should be respected, if not exactly, then in spirit. It's not like one of the greatest musical minds of all time suddenly couldn't keep track of time. Nothing irritates me more than pompous musicians who say: "Well, I know better than Beethoven what time signatures these pieces should be played at. Beethoven was deaf and confused after all or, obviously, the metronome was wrong. A properly weighted metronome would have confirmed my aesthetic preference."


I totally agree with this.


----------



## JakeBloch

eljr said:


> "There is good music and there is great music, there is no such thing as bad music" has long been my motto.:tiphat:


I disagree. Bad visual art can be easily ignored. But listening to a dreary symphony for 30 minutes takes time from ones's life. All composers are good, in that they create goodness. But individual works can be bad in that they create bad experiences for listeners.

This is a great discussion thread!


----------



## Tchaikov6

eljr said:


> "There is good music and there is great music, there is no such thing as bad music" has long been my motto.:tiphat:


I agree DDDDDDD


----------



## hammeredklavier

Another unpopular opinion of mine:
In every single online discussion or article about "inter-movemental motivic development", Beethoven's 5th symphony gets mentioned, and talked about as if its use of the 4-note motif brought about some kind of "sensation" in the history of classical music. But I find the whole "overhype" (not around the work, but the use of the 4-note motif) rather cliched and exaggerated to be honest.
Doesn't it feel like the Eroica's slow movement would have worked better as a slow movement for the 5th symphony, if consistent use of the 4-note motif was really Beethoven's aim in the 5th symphony? (That would make the symphony "homotonal" , but Haydn also wrote a homotonal symphony, his 49th) And throughout the 5th symphony, the 4-note motifs aren't really tonally compatible with each other. In the final movement, for example, it is reduced to a mere rhythmic device hammering on one note, and recedes in the background. I fail to see how that's remarkable compared to the smooth transition between movements and development of the 1st movement's theme in the 5th movement in Heinrich Knecht's 5-movement programmatic pastoral symphony (1785), 



, for example. Don't get me wrong, I still think Beethoven's 5th is an excellent piece of art, it's just that I find the whole hype thing around the 4-note motif sort of exaggerated and cliched. I think the 9th symphony is more ingenious in this regard.


----------



## tdc

A good amount of pieces by Beethoven, Liszt and Tchaikovsky sounds like music for little kids to me.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Allegro Con Brio said:


> The 4th symphony is IMO [Ives's] masterpiece, one of the greatest marriages of classical and folk music. The Concord sonata is a massive magnum opus for the piano but I must confess that I can't sit through the whole thing at once; I think the second two movements are best. But the adventurous, playful personality of the composer is also seen in his shorter orchestral works like the Unanswered Question, Central Park in the Dark, and Three Places in New England. I find his music to capture the spirit of America in a poetic and poignant way - sometimes jumbled, sometimes chaotic, sometimes tuneful, sometimes roaring forth with unstoppable momentum, always forward-looking and a glorious amalgam of disparate elements.


Agreed, and awesome post! The Concord Sonata was initially difficult for me because it was harder to hear, as you put it, the glorious amalgam of disparate elements on a solo piano. But of course, that solo piano allows for a freedom, flexibility, and overflowing of melody.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> A good amount of pieces by Beethoven, Liszt and Tchaikovsky sounds like music for little kids to me.


Try this:





"It is said that upon listening to a performance of this quartet, Schubert remarked, "After this, what is left for us to write?" Schumann said that this quartet and Op. 127 had a "grandeur ... which no words can express. They seem to me to stand ... on the extreme boundary of all that has hitherto been attained by human art and imagination.""


----------



## KenOC

hammeredklavier said:


> "It is said that upon listening to a performance of this quartet, Schubert remarked, "After this, what is left for us to write?" Schumann said that this quartet and Op. 127 had a "grandeur ... which no words can express. They seem to me to stand ... on the extreme boundary of all that has hitherto been attained by human art and imagination.""


But: "Beethoven's last quartets were written by a deaf man and should only be listened to by a deaf man." - Sir Thomas Beecham.


----------



## Xisten267

Unpopular opinions:


Different pieces of music may share thematic material but have distinct styles. The reciprocal is also true;

Different styles of the Classical era before Beethoven era look like the same.
If one was told, without knowing the works' history previously, that Knecht's _Pastoral_ symphony or a Salieri opera were actually a lost work by Mozart, one could be tempted to believe, I think. In fact, "Mozart's" symphony No. 37 and violin concertos Nos. 6 & 7 were thought to be by him for many years before it was discovered they aren't. I believe that non-early Beethoven and the composers of the Romantic era aren't affected by this problem.

Some "Mozart's lost works" below:


----------



## hammeredklavier

^That's because they aren't Mozart's major works. I said some time ago that I would never mistake a Mozart missa brevis for one by Salieri; the orchestration and harmonic styles are miles apart.
I think the Romantic era is somewhat overhyped in that regard; Charles Mayer's Le Regret Op.332 was once misattributed to Chopin, (as posthumous "Valse Melancolique in F sharp minor" ). I also remember hearing similar expressions in Tchaikovsky's and Brahms' piano sonatas , even though their nationalities are different. (It may be because they both admired Schumann) I think I would have believed it if someone told me Rossini's William Tell overture was written by Beethoven and Beethoven's Egmont overture was by Rossini when I heard them for the first time without knowing who composed them. The Et vitam venturi from Beethoven mass in C major also sounds like something Schubert might have written.


----------



## Becca

The CSO is certainly a top-rank orchestra and Georg Fritz is (are) very good conductors. I have seen the CSO both in Chicago and on the road, the former with Solti and they were certainly impressive but my unpopular opinon is that the CSO is not as often the answer to the best recordings of anything as may often seem on TC. Actually while I got to know quite a bit of repertoire with Solti, these days he rarely shows up on my radar. I also find much of what the CSO does to be a bit OTT, which is how I felt after coming out of Orchestra Hall.


----------



## JakeBloch

Malx said:


> Nielsens Symphonies are more satisfying than those by Sibelius......


Wow! I don't put Nielsen in Sibelius' league. A provocative opinion which I must investigate and for which I thank you!


----------



## JakeBloch

premont said:


> No composer wrote exclusively perfect works, and as far as I know he didn't want no.s 19 and 20 to be published.


Only mediocre talents are consistently at their best.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> I also remember hearing similar expressions in Tchaikovsky's and Brahms' piano sonatas , even though their nationalities are different. (It may be because they both admired Schumann)


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream

1. Bach is not God
2. Beethoven 5 and 6 are his worst symphonies, especially from a formal perspective
3. Henri Dutilleux is in the top 5 20th century composers and is severely underappreciated

Also I can't stand Ravel


----------



## hammeredklavier

I regularly listen to guys like Michael Haydn and Adolph Hasse. In Michael, I hear some chromatic excursions reminding of Mozart, but he's just not "eccentric in character", spontaneous or edgy in the way Mozart is. (Joseph is actually far more different. I think Michael is more similar to Mozart in terms of style and output produced, - about 40 symphonies, 20 string quartets, 6 string quintets, litanies, vespers, requiems, serenades, divertimentos. Both Michael and Mozart spent their formative years in Salzburg, unlike Joseph.)

By spontaneous chromaticism in Mozart, I mean something like this, in K.167, which suddenly takes us from G minor to E major: 




Now, look at: 



"The most breathtaking chromatic trip of all occurs in the final movement, which begins innocently enough, and isn't too eventful tonally throughout the whole exposition. But then, again comes the development section, and all hell breaks loose.
Do you realize that, that wild, atonal-sounding passage contains every one of the twelve chromatic tones except the tonic note G? What an inspired idea.. all the notes except the tonic.
It could easily pass for twentieth-century music, if we didn't already know it was Mozart. But even that explosion of chromaticism is explainable in terms of the circle of fifths, not that I'd dream of burdening you with it. Take my word for it, that out-burst of chromatic rage is classically contained, and so is the climax of this development section, which finds itself in the unlikely key of C-sharp minor, which is as far away as you can get from the home key of G minor.
And, again, believe me; all these phonological arrivals and departures to and from the most distantly related areas operate in the smoothest, the most Mozartian way, under perfect diatonic control."





compare this with the passage of ascending chromatic fourths in the opening of dissonance quartet K.465: 

















show me examples of expressions like them in Salieri. You can look through the scores of Salieri's requiem, emperor mass, hofkapellmeister mass and whatnot, and listen to them. https://imslp.eu/files/imglnks/euimg/8/84/IMSLP139205-PMLP264266-Salieri_-_Requiem_Cmin_FS_rsl.pdf He never sounds like those Mozart examples.

"On the other hand, for the French, Mozart was certainly not 'one of us' from a national point of view. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz's time, some influential critics - for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy - rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music 'scholastic', stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas - all these were considered negative features of 'Germanic' music."
<
View attachment 130858
>


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> Charles Mayer's Le Regret Op.332 was once misattributed to Chopin, (as posthumous "Valse Melancolique in F sharp minor" ).


https://www.talkclassical.com/64486-charles-mayer.html#post1764539


----------



## hammeredklavier

Hummel Etude Op. 125 No. 21 in B flat major, Allegro moderato: 



Beethoven piano sonata Op.106 1st movement: 




Hummel - Piano Sonata No. 5 In F-sharp Minor Op. 81:












Beethoven piano sonata Op.110:









the slow movement of Hummel's Op.81 also reminds me of that of Beethoven's Op.106 in atmosphere.


----------



## Xisten267

I don't think that Brahms' style looks like Tchaikovsky's or that Beethoven's looks like Hummel's, but I guess some people may hear things where I don't.

"Hummel's music took a different direction from that of Beethoven. Looking forward, Hummel stepped into modernity through pieces like his Sonata in F-sharp minor, Op. 81, and his Fantasy, Op. 18, for piano. These pieces are examples where Hummel may be seen to both challenge the classical harmonic structures and stretch the sonata form.

His main oeuvre is for the piano, on which instrument he was one of the great virtuosi of his day. He wrote eight piano concertos, a double concerto for violin and piano, ten piano sonatas (of which four are without opus numbers, and one is still unpublished), eight piano trios, a piano quartet, a piano quintet, a wind octet, a cello sonata, two piano septets, a mandolin concerto, a mandolin sonata, a Trumpet Concerto in E major written for the keyed trumpet (usually heard in the more convenient E-flat major), a "Grand Bassoon Concerto" in F, a quartet for clarinet, violin, viola, and cello, four hand piano music, 22 operas and Singspiels, masses, and much more, including a variation on a theme supplied by Anton Diabelli for part 2 of Vaterländischer Künstlerverein.

Although thought of in terms of the piano in modern times, Hummel was seriously and constantly interested in the guitar, and he was talented with the instrument. He was prolific in his writing, and his compositions for it begin with opus 7 and finish with opus 93. Other guitar works include Opp. 43, 53, 62, 63, 66, 71 and 91, which are written for a mixture of instruments.

Hummel's output is marked by the conspicuous lack of a symphony. Of his eight piano concertos the first two are early Mozartesque compositions (S. 4/WoO 24 and S. 5) and the later six were numbered and published with opus numbers (Opp. 36, 85, 89, 110, 113, and posth.)" - Source.

*This article* compares the styles of Beethoven and Hummel, calling them "two [distinct] Viennese piano schools."

...

Mozart is famous for merging different Classical era styles into his music. In the first movement of his piano sonata #12 K. 332 for example he uses three different styles. I don't think that it's easy for a person that's not musically trained to clearly discern between them.


----------



## JAS

tdc said:


> A good amount of pieces by Beethoven, Liszt and Tchaikovsky sounds like music for little kids to me.


You say this as if it is a bad thing. I would say that it would be more accurate to say that they wrote a good number of pieces for a general audience, and not merely a snobbish few. Composers who do the opposite are usually not worth listening to.


----------



## flamencosketches

SeptimalTritone said:


> Agreed, and awesome post! The Concord Sonata was initially difficult for me because it was harder to hear, as you put it, the glorious amalgam of disparate elements on a solo piano. But of course, that solo piano allows for a freedom, flexibility, and overflowing of melody.


Thanks, guys. I do plan on giving Ives another chance until it all clicks. I do like the second and third symphonies, and some of the short, psychotic orchestral works like Gong on the Hook and Ladder, Central Park in the Dark etc.


----------



## apricissimus

I like choral music to be recorded very dry, and with as little reverb as possible. I don't like the sound of big echoey churches, even if that's where a lot of choral music is created.


----------



## vtpoet

apricissimus said:


> I like choral music to be recorded very dry, and with as little reverb as possible. I don't like the sound of big echoey churches, even if that's where a lot of choral music is created.


Yeah, I'm not a fan of reverb either. If I want reverb, I'll throw out my furniture.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Someone made a Telemann > Bach thread a couple weeks ago and while I, like a lot of others, didn't agree with him, I did see where he was coming from, as one can entertain a thought without accepting it. I thought he made some valid points, just with a very brash and dismissive attitude.

He was basically saying that Bach's trademark for dense, polyphonic textures led to an intellectual fetishization of counterpoint over the years and removed the function of melody or tunefulness, which is more musical and what Telemann had a stronger sense for.

I do not agree with this statement in its entirety, as I love both Bach and Telemann and I find Bach's masterful polyphony very cosmic and profound, being both cerebrally and emotionally/spiritually moving, and the opposite of being mechanical and unmusical. However, what I do agree with is that Telemann really _is _more tuneful than Bach a lot of the time and that his clearer textures can be a wonderful breath of fresh air from Bach's dense polyphony. Telemann was extremely talented and had a great ear for pleasing, tuneful melodies backed by air-tight accompanying orchestration.


----------



## 444mil

Most of the XX century pianists, like Arrau, Kempff, etc, are overrated, besides Richter who was a genius.


----------



## DeepR

A little (natural) reverb gives extra depth to the sound and makes it come alive. Of course the music shouldn't drown in reverb. But no reverb at all is like a piano without sustain pedal, very limited. Especially choral music needs reverb. Orchestral music as well.
I don't understand how anyone could prefer awfully dry sounding recordings.
This is an extreme example but the Tallis Fantasia, which was meant to be performed in this cathedral, would lose its magic without the reverb.


----------



## vtpoet

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> He was basically saying that Bach's trademark for dense, polyphonic textures led to an intellectual fetishization of counterpoint over the years and removed the function of melody or tunefulness, which is more musical and what Telemann had a stronger sense for.


I must have missed that discussion. I can't fathom what he's talking about. His argument was the argument of every rococo composer ever. If anything at all, the baroque period led to the fetishization of melody and tunefulness _over even so much_ as harmony-and from which music never really recovered despite Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and the great composers who followed.


----------



## vtpoet

DeepR said:


> A little (natural) reverb gives extra depth to the sound and makes it come alive. Of course the music shouldn't drown in reverb. But no reverb at all is like a piano without sustain pedal, very limited. Especially choral music needs reverb. Orchestral music as well.
> I don't understand how anyone could prefer awfully dry sounding recordings.
> This is an extreme example but the Tallis Fantasia, which was meant to be performed in this cathedral, would lose its magic without the reverb.


Yes. But there are recordings with way-ay-ay-ay-ay too much reverb. It doesn't really belong in chamber music recordings for example. <--- Unpopular opinion?


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

vtpoet said:


> I must have missed that discussion. I can't fathom what he's talking about. His argument was the argument of every rococo composer ever. If anything at all, the baroque period led to the fetishization of melody and tunefulness _over even so much_ as harmony-*and from which music never really recovered* despite Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and the great composers who followed.


Here's the thread if you're curious: 
Telemann is greater than Bach.

I think he made a couple valid points, but was kind of an @ss about it.

Also you wouldn't say that music shifted into a more harmony > melody paradigm in the 20th century and contemporary music?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> I don't think that Brahms' style looks like Tchaikovsky's or that Beethoven's looks like Hummel's, but I guess some people may hear things where I don't.


I can see your point, overall. In the baroque and classical periods, many professional composers had craftsman-like attitudes to composition. I'm just saying that I think there are many "counterexamples" to the general consensus, and I feel that people tend to overrate the Romantic era, (which contains imv, a nauseating abundance of forgettable music sounding like generic film scores and new age piano) about how much individuality its composers had. I hear just as much individuality in Emanuel Bach's "empfindsamer stil" Fantasie in F sharp minor and Mozart's Rondo K.511, which were both written in 1787. Sorry, I can't say the same for Beethoven's Mass in C major, for example, which sounds a bit like typical early 19th century kapellmeister music to me. Whenever I think of the Gloria, it keeps occurring to me unconsciously that it feels like something written by Schubert , I have to remind myself "it's not Schubert, it's Beethoven!". I feel this way about some of Beethoven's obscure music and Weber's. Maybe you could teach me how to differentiate them properly. I also hate to confess I don't hear as much harmonic distinctiveness in the openings of 'Beethoven's Op.59 no.3, op.127 vs Schubert's C major quintet' as I do in 'Mozart's dissonance quartet vs his contemporaries'.
I sometimes don't find it any harder to identify Joseph Haydn's clever use of monothematicism or Michael Haydn's various use of stile antico; his Missa sti. Gabrielis and Deutschemesse for example, sound miles different. It's no wonder to me why Beethoven and Schubert (as did Mozart) admired him.

Michael Haydn's Missa Sti. Gabrielis & Beethoven's Missa solemnis

I also want to point out that different schools of keyboard playing also existed in the 18th century btw. Clementi inclined more towards legato whereas Mozart did more towards non-legato, harpsichord style.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> I can see your point, overall. In the baroque and classical periods, many professional composers had craftsman-like attitude toward composition. I'm just saying that I think there are many "counterexamples" to the general consensus, and I feel that people tend to overrate the Romantic era, (which contains imv, a nauseating abundance of forgettable music sounding like generic film scores and new age piano) about how much individuality its composers had. I hear just as much individuality in Emanuel Bach's "empfindsamer stil" Fantasie in F sharp minor and Mozart's Rondo K.511, which were both written in 1787. Sorry, I can't say the same for *Beethoven's Mass in C major, for example, which sounds a bit like typical early 19th century kapellmeister music to me. Whenever I think of the Gloria, it keeps occurring to me unconsciously that it feels like something written by Schubert , I have to remind myself "it's not Schubert, it's Beethoven!". I feel this way about some of Beethoven's obscure music and Weber's. Maybe you could teach me how to differentiate them properly. I also hate to confess I don't hear as much harmonic distinctiveness in the openings of 'Beethoven's Op.59 no.3, op.127 vs Schubert's C major quintet' as I do in 'Mozart's dissonance quartet vs his contemporaries'.*
> I sometimes don't find it any harder to identify Joseph Haydn's clever use of monothematicism or Michael Haydn's various use of stile antico; his Missa sti. Gabrielis and Deutschemesse for example, sound miles different. It's no wonder to me why Beethoven and Schubert (as did Mozart) admired him.
> 
> Michael Haydn's Missa Sti. Gabrielis & Beethoven's Missa solemnis
> 
> I also want to point out that different schools of keyboard playing also existed in the 18th century btw. Clementi inclined more towards legato whereas Mozart did more towards non-legato, harpsichord style.


Unfortunately for me I'm not a musician - it's my personal hobby to read a lot about music (I have books about classical, rock, metal, jazz, pop etc.), but I have no formal training. Therefore, unlike you, I can't explain exactly what differences I hear between a Schubert mass and the Beethoven two masses, but I know they are there. I think that Beethoven's music, even in the masses, sounds more dynamic, forward-moving, concise and has more overall "strenght" than that of Schubert, which to me sounds more lyrical, poetic, melodic. I know that Schubert is famous for his use of harmony, but comparing his string quintet to Beethoven's late quartets I think he tends to be much less adventurous in the use of form, counterpoint and raw dissonances. From what I've read, it seems also that Beethoven is more innovative in terms of use of variations (his _Diabelli_ variations are a turning point in the history of the genre, and the techniques Beethoven employed in this work were also used in other of his late pieces).

Here is a small text comparing the Schubert and Beethoven late sonatas:

"One of the reasons for the long period of neglect of Schubert's piano sonatas seems to be their dismissal as structurally and dramatically inferior to the sonatas of Beethoven. In fact, the last sonatas contain distinct allusions and similarities to works by Beethoven, a composer Schubert venerated. However, musicological analysis has shown that they maintain a mature, individual style. Schubert's last sonatas are now praised for that mature style, manifested in unique features such as a cyclical formal and tonal design, chamber music textures, and a rare depth of emotional expression.

(...)

It is well acknowledged that Schubert was a great admirer of Beethoven, and that Beethoven had an immense influence on Schubert's writing, especially on his late works. Schubert often borrowed musical and structural ideas from the works of Beethoven, to combine them into his own compositions. There are two outstanding examples for this practice in the last piano sonatas:

The opening of the Sonata in C minor is "taken almost note-for-note" from the theme of Beethoven's 32 Variations in C minor. The structure of the finale of the Sonata in A major is borrowed from the finale of Beethoven's Piano Sonata, Op. 31, No. 1, as evident through numerous parallels in structural features. Numerous additional, less obvious similarities to works by Beethoven have been frequently mentioned in the literature. In these cases, the question of whether or not Schubert had actually borrowed his ideas from Beethoven is open to musicological debate. Here are some examples:


in the C minor Sonata, certain passages in the first two movements resemble parallel passages from Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 8, Op. 13 (the Pathétique), written in the same key.

in the A major Sonata, bars 200-206 from the end of the development section in the finale recall bars 51-55 from the first movement of Beethoven's Piano Sonata in C♯ minor, Op. 27, No. 2 (the Moonlight Sonata).

in the B♭ Sonata, the opening theme of the first movement recalls the opening of Beethoven's "Archduke" Trio, whereas bars 34-39 recall bars 166-169 from the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth Piano Concerto, the Emperor; in the latter case, both passages are similarly modified in the recapitulations. The opening of the sonata's finale, in turn, recalls the opening of the finale from Beethoven's String Quartet in B♭ major, Op. 130.
A striking feature of many of these alleged borrowings from Beethoven is that they retain, in their borrowed state, the same structural position they had in Beethoven's original design - they appear in the same movements, at the same structural points. However, despite all this evidence in support of Schubert's borrowing from Beethoven, 'he evokes the memory of Beethoven and the classical style, but is no docile follower', as Alfred Brendel points out. 'On the contrary, his familiarity with Beethoven's works taught him to be different... Schubert relates to Beethoven, he reacts to him, but he follows him hardly at all. Similarities of motif, texture or formal pattern never obscure Schubert's own voice. Models are concealed, transformed, surpassed'. A good example of Schubert's departure from Beethoven's line can be found in his most overt quotation of Beethoven - the opening of the Sonata in C minor. Once Schubert's theme has reached A♭ - the highest note in Beethoven's theme - instead of the original, witty cadence in the tonic, Schubert's theme continues to ascend to higher pitches, culminating fortissimo on another A♭, an octave higher, tonicized as a downward rushing A♭ major scale. From this A♭ major interlude - an evasion of the opening material's harmonic goal, the main generative thematic material for the entire sonata will arise. In this way, what had initially appeared to be a mere note-to-note plagiarism of Beethoven has eventually given way to a radically different continuation, one which invokes Schubert's own, idiosyncratic compositional style.

But perhaps the best example of Schubert's departure from the style of his idol is the finale of the A major Sonata. Although starting from themes of equal length, Schubert's movement is much longer than Beethoven's. The added length comes from the episodes within the rondo structure:


Schubert's second theme (the B section of the rondo) indulges in a long harmonic and melodic excursion, going through the keys of the subdominant and flat submediant. Beethoven's more traditional short and simple theme merely consists of alternating tonic and dominant harmonies.

Schubert's development section ends with a long passage in C♯ minor, with no parallel in Beethoven's finale.
Charles Rosen, who unraveled this unique borrowing of a Beethovenian structure in Schubert's A major Sonata, has also referred to Schubert's departure from the former's style in this instance: "Schubert moves with great ease within the form which Beethoven created. He has, however, considerably loosened what held it together, and stretched its ligaments unmercifully... the correspondence of part to whole has been considerably altered by Schubert, and explains why his large movements often seem so long, since they are being produced with forms originally intended for shorter pieces. Some of the excitement naturally goes out of these forms when they are so extended, but this is even a condition of the unforced melodic flow of Schubert's music'. Rosen adds, however, that 'with the finale of the A major Sonata Schubert produced a work that is unquestionably greater than its model'." - *Source here*.


----------



## vtpoet

Substituting countertenors for female altos is a fad that must—please God—die. It's ruined whole cantata cycles and countless recordings of Händel.


----------



## hammeredklavier

vtpoet said:


> Substituting countertenors for female altos is a fad that must-please God-die.


countertenors in classical music always remind me of this:


----------



## vtpoet

hammeredklavier said:


> countertenors in classical music always remind me of this:


And now this association will be stuck in my head forever.


----------



## Taplow

... There once was a man whose brain, was like a sieve attached to a drain. Even the simplest text, would oft leave him perplexed, so he'd have to read it again and again.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> I can see your point, overall. In the baroque and classical periods, many professional composers had craftsman-like attitudes to composition.


Here's an interesting a video of Malcolm Bilson discussing the difference between Mozart's K.333/i and Christian Bach's Op.5 Op.3/i: 




"The minor composer spends his invention in the first few measures; the rest is more or less self-perpetuating. The great composer never abdicates in favor of automatic propagation. He is permanently engaged with all his powers of concentration and imagination." -Edward Lowinsky


----------



## adriesba

vtpoet said:


> Substituting countertenors for female altos is a fad that must-please God-die. It's ruined whole cantata cycles and countless recordings of Händel.


I agree! ‎‎‎‎‎‎


----------



## premont

vtpoet said:


> Substituting countertenors for female altos is a fad that must-please God-die. It's ruined whole cantata cycles and countless recordings of Händel.


Bach used boy altos for his cantatas, so in these cases female altos are just as un-HIP as countertenors. But I agree that countertenors have spoilt many recordings, female altos less so.


----------



## vtpoet

premont said:


> Bach used boy altos for his cantatas, so in these cases female altos are just as un-HIP as countertenors. But I agree that countertenors have spoilt many recordings, female altos less so.


That's disputed. I recently read scholarship claiming that the boys didn't perform in the cantatas, but possibly individuals and not multiple singers, which reinforces the OVPP performance practice.


----------



## vtpoet

hammeredklavier said:


> Here's an interesting a video of Malcolm Bilson discussing the difference between Mozart's K.333/i and Christian Bach's Op.5 Op.3/i:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The minor composer spends his invention in the first few measures; the rest is more or less self-perpetuating. The great composer never abdicates in favor of automatic propagation. He is permanently engaged with all his powers of concentration and imagination." -Edward Lowinsky


I love Bilson. I wish his recordings of the Schubert Sonatas were affordably and more easily available on CD.


----------



## premont

vtpoet said:


> That's disputed. I recently read scholarship claiming that the boys didn't perform in the cantatas, but possibly individuals and not multiple singers, which reinforces the OVPP performance practice.


As far as I know there were neither women nor falsetto singers in the Thomanerchor. And soloists - yes, boy altos were used.

Generally I trust common scholarship more than an individual musicologist who gets a "neat" idea. If only Joshua Rifkin had advocated OVPP, it wouldn't have been a strong argument.


----------



## consuono

vtpoet said:


> All of Beethoven's metronome markings should be respected, if not exactly, then in spirit. ...


How do you respect them "in spirit" while not being exact? The metronome markings for Op. 106 are insane.


----------



## vtpoet

consuono said:


> How do you respect them "in spirit" while not being exact? The metronome markings for Op. 106 are insane.


Your first question implies that you don't understand the expression: the spirit of the law vs. the letter. If that's the case, then I can explain, but I don't want to be insulting?

The metronome markings aren't insane, though if one is overly accustomed to decades of Mahlerian interpretations, I could see how it might seem so.


----------



## consuono

vtpoet said:


> Your first question implies that you don't understand the expression: the spirit of the law vs. the letter. If that's the case, then I can explain, but I don't want to be insulting?
> 
> The metronome markings aren't insane, though if one is overly accustomed to decades of Mahlerian interpretations, I could see how it might seem so.


Have you tried to play that first movement using Beethoven's metronome indication? Yeah, it's insane. But a lot of late Beethoven is.
One of the closest is Schnabel, and even he is a few ticks too slow...and I seem to detect a few clunkers here and there :lol:
However I do see your overall point, which is probably that the first and last movements shouldn't be played moderato but rather as fast as you can move your fingers.

Still it's insane. :lol:


----------



## Pat Fairlea

vtpoet said:


> Substituting countertenors for female altos is a fad that must-please God-die. It's ruined whole cantata cycles and countless recordings of Händel.


I agree.

That said, Mrs Pat is a contralto who has been known to substitute for tenors. Not necessarily recommended, but fun at the time.


----------



## Bulldog

vtpoet said:


> Substituting countertenors for female altos is a fad that must-please God-die. It's ruined whole cantata cycles and countless recordings of Händel.


I don't have any problem with countertenors. There have been some fantastic ones, some lousy - same with any other vocal category.


----------



## consuono

Bulldog said:


> I don't have any problem with countertenors. There have been some fantastic ones, some lousy - same with any other vocal category.


I would have to agree with vtpoet here. I haven't heard a countertenor that I liked. I honestly don't see the point except to skirt (no pun there) some male-only custom that might've prevailed at some time.


----------



## Bulldog

consuono said:


> I would have to agree with vtpoet here. I haven't heard a countertenor that I liked.


I've heard plenty that I liked, so I hope they keep on coming.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Re: countertenors, I’ve been hooked on the vintage recording of Alfred Deller singing BWV 170 and 54 lately, one of the earliest HIP recordings of anything. It’s soulful, lovely singing and it’s moved me to tears several times.


----------



## premont

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Re: countertenors, I've been hooked on the vintage recording of Alfred Deller singing BWV 170 and 54 lately, one of the earliest HIP recordings of anything. It's soulful, lovely singing and it's moved me to tears several times.


Yes, this one and his recording of "Music for a while" from Purcell's incidental music to Oedipus are truely milestone recordings.


----------



## Classical Playlists

new opinion:

Schumann's music sounds heavier than Bruckner's. It does for me, although you expect the opposite. To my feeling Schumann didn't know very well how to breathe in music, while Bruckner's musical breath is very precise, very effective to my ears.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Opera orchestras sound like they're in a cupboard!!! :lol:


----------



## Xisten267

Tchaikovsky's use of form - merging russian and german styles - is actually very interesting, original and innovative.


----------



## Open Book

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Opera orchestras sound like they're in a cupboard!!! :lol:


That reminds me of another opinion I have that is not shared by most.

Opera can be better performed with minimal stage trappings and the orchestra onstage, not in a pit. I have seen several such performances, not by opera companies but by a major symphony orchestra, and they were great.

Stripped down in this way the music is more vivid and the listener's imagination fills in the narrative and visuals. Plus the orchestra sounds better, as you said, and you can see the interesting stuff the instrumentalists are doing.


----------



## adriesba

Open Book said:


> That reminds me of another opinion I have that is not shared by most.
> 
> Opera can be better performed with minimal stage trappings and the orchestra onstage, not in a pit. I have seen several such performances, not by opera companies but by a major symphony orchestra, and they were great.
> 
> Stripped down in this way the music is more vivid and the listener's imagination fills in the narrative and visuals. Plus the orchestra sounds better, as you said, and you can see the interesting stuff the instrumentalists are doing.


That can be interesting occasionally, but not all the time.


----------



## hammeredklavier

The best part of the Mozart requiem is the Domine jesu, where its three fugues, "ne absorbeat eas", "sed signifer sanctus", "quam olim Abrahae" don't combine in the way subjects of a normal triple fugue would, but rather exist in a sort of "free fantasia".

Sussmayr's completion of the requiem is rather disappointing.
I find the way to expand the Lacrimosa too artificially "melodramatic" (feels rather 'devoid' of the sense of control and intricacies of chromatic part-writing we would expect from Mozart), and the Agnus dei too "static". The concluding fugue in the sanctus and benedictus is disproportionately short with respect to the size of the mass. (compare K.192, K.194 with K.167, K.262, you'll see what I mean). I think Levin did a great job fixing it, and developing on the Amen sketch in a way that resembles K.222.

The beginning of "Agnus dei" is pretty much "qui tollis peccata mundi" from K.220 and K.66 and string figures of K.341 mixed together.
And from there, it seems as though Sussmayr doesn't quite know how to continue on , so it gets static: 




I think these are way better than that cheap "melodrama":
9:20 , 21:10 , 22:30
7:30 , 13:50 , 14:30


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Tchaikovsky's use of form - merging russian and german styles - is actually very interesting, original and innovative.


Agreed. 




There is a very informative comment (made by Raja Orr SFCM) about the form, which I think is very convincingly composed:

INTRO (Completely rewritten by Tchaikovsky in 1872)
A1 Friar Laurence theme + chorale: 0:00
A2: 2:06
A3: 4:15
Transition 1: 5:24

EXPOSITION
Primary theme - Capulet & Montague fight theme: 5:36
Transition 2: 5:53
Canon in D minor: 6:00
Canon in G minor: 6:06
Transition 2: 6:14
Dominant preparation for b minor: 6:28
Primary theme restated: 6:40
Transition 2 expanded: 7:02
Secondary theme - Love theme: 7:45 (Lightly orchestrated)
Transition 3 - 8:04
Secondary theme restated: 8:55
Transition 4: 9:59

DEVELOPMENT (Completely rewritten in 1872)
Primary theme + Friar Laurence theme developed: 11:05
Dominant preparation for b minor: 13:07

RECAPITULATION (Mostly rewritten 1872 then revised 1880)
Primary theme restated: 13:20
Transition 5: 13:42
Secondary theme: 14:24 (Full orchestration)
Secondary theme restated: 15:54
Primary theme derived interruption: 16:03
Primary theme: 16:12
Love theme lament: 17:27
Friar Laurence chorale: 18:12 
Secondary theme derived coda: 19:13
Ending: 19:44


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a very informative comment (made by Raja Orr SFCM) about the form, which I think is very convincingly composed:
> 
> INTRO (Completely rewritten by Tchaikovsky in 1872)
> A1 Friar Laurence theme + chorale: 0:00
> A2: 2:06
> A3: 4:15
> Transition 1: 5:24
> 
> EXPOSITION
> Primary theme - Capulet & Montague fight theme: 5:36
> Transition 2: 5:53
> Canon in D minor: 6:00
> Canon in G minor: 6:06
> Transition 2: 6:14
> Dominant preparation for b minor: 6:28
> Primary theme restated: 6:40
> Transition 2 expanded: 7:02
> Secondary theme - Love theme: 7:45 (Lightly orchestrated)
> Transition 3 - 8:04
> Secondary theme restated: 8:55
> Transition 4: 9:59
> 
> DEVELOPMENT (Completely rewritten in 1872)
> Primary theme + Friar Laurence theme developed: 11:05
> Dominant preparation for b minor: 13:07
> 
> RECAPITULATION (Mostly rewritten 1872 then revised 1880)
> Primary theme restated: 13:20
> Transition 5: 13:42
> Secondary theme: 14:24 (Full orchestration)
> Secondary theme restated: 15:54
> Primary theme derived interruption: 16:03
> Primary theme: 16:12
> Love theme lament: 17:27
> Friar Laurence chorale: 18:12
> Secondary theme derived coda: 19:13
> Ending: 19:44


So, what is particularly "Russian" about that?


----------



## vtpoet

consuono said:


> I would have to agree with vtpoet here. I haven't heard a countertenor that I liked. I honestly don't see the point except to skirt (no pun there) some male-only custom that might've prevailed at some time.


The problem with countertenors is that they're ironically ahistorical. According to my reading, the modern countertenor by in large didn't exist prior to the 20th century. The debate hinges on whether men sung in falsetto, and while there are some debatable references to falsetto in the very early baroque, the answer appears to be, by in large, no. If that weren't the case, then I would expect that there would have been far fewer boys in the choir and a lot less balls lopped off. The modern countertenor is like putting thumbtacks on the hammers of a modern grand and calling it a fortepiano. <--- Unpopular Opinion.


----------



## consuono

> The modern countertenor is like putting thumbtacks on the hammers of a modern grand and calling it a fortepiano. <--- Unpopular Opinion.


That sounds like Glenn Gould's "harpsipiano" or whatever it was called. It sounded terrible.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Open Book said:


> Opera can be better performed with minimal stage trappings and the orchestra onstage, not in a pit. I have seen several such performances, not by opera companies but by a major symphony orchestra, and they were great.


----------



## musichal

I love Christmas music - in most genres.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

musichal said:


> I love Christmas music - in most genres.


I wish we had a puke emoji for moments like this.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I love Christmas music too, but not the ordinary "money-draped" kind...


----------



## adriesba

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I wish we had a puke emoji for moments like this.


You don't like Christmas music? Or just not in most genres?


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

adriesba said:


> You don't like Christmas music? Or just not in most genres?


It's honestly less the music itself and more the shallow commercialism I've come to associate it with. That makes me sound like a Beatnik or Marxist or Marxist Beatnik (which I'm not) but it just sounds so slimy to me because of that.


----------



## musichal

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> It's honestly less the music itself and more the shallow commercialism I've come to associate it with. That makes me sound like a Beatnik or Marxist or Marxist Beatnik (which I'm not) but it just sounds so slimy to me because of that.


I hung with a less shallow crowd, myself, so I don't have that connotation.


----------



## Xisten267

consuono said:


> So, what is particularly "Russian" about that?


The use of melody as a main principle of form. It's more apparent in the sonata form of the Tchaikovsky symphonies I think.



Allerius said:


> According to this article, russian popular music would be repetitive and ecstatic, and this would create formal problems for Tchaikovsky, particularly in his sonata form movements. Transitions and development sections would be weak in russian classical music according to it. I disagree. I think that the repetition of thematic material in Tchaikovsky is compensated by the lack of repeats in his scores, I think that his music has a sense of organic and natural flow that are typical of a great composer, and I think that his development sections are very interesting and original, yet different from the german practice: the musical material in these sections tends to build tension instead of reaching climaxes. The wikipedia article I cited seems very retrograde and one-sided to me.


----------



## adriesba

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> It's honestly less the music itself and more the shallow commercialism I've come to associate it with. That makes me sound like a Beatnik or Marxist or Marxist Beatnik (which I'm not) but it just sounds so slimy to me because of that.


I see. Indeed I'm not a fan of all the more recent "Baby I need you for my best Christmas kiss let Santa bring you back you are the only gift I need sugarplummy" stuff like they tend to play in stores and on the radio today, stuff that is less about Christmas or creating a Christmastime mood and more like someone just made a "Christmas" song because they need to produce something.

What I like are the traditional things. My Christmas music staples are _The Nutcracker_, Handel's _Messiah _(I know, not technically music just for Christmas), and the traditional carols ("Silent Night", "O Holy Night", etc.).


----------



## adriesba

This discussion of Christmas music reminds me, Handel's _Messiah _is not technically a Christmas work (it premiered in April in its time), and it is in some ways a pity that many only enjoy it at Christmastime. Maybe or maybe not an unpopular opinion, but that's what I think.

Actually, "Joy to the World" is not really Christmas music either. It's even less directly related to Christmas than Handel's _Messiah_.


----------



## eljr

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I love Christmas music too, but not the ordinary "money-draped" kind...


OK, I'll bit. What is the ordinary "money-draped" kind?


----------



## consuono

Allerius said:


> The use of melody as a main principle of form. It's more apparent in the sonata form of the Tchaikovsky symphonies I think.


Didn't Chopin do the same thing? Not to mention Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner. Also I don't think melody itself can be *form*. It's an element of it.


----------



## Xisten267

consuono said:


> Didn't Chopin do the same thing? Not to mention Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner. Also I don't think melody itself can be *form*. It's an element of it.


"Brown lists several factors in Russian folk music which contribute to this pattern of inertia. Melodies in Russian folk songs are self-contained, with no interaction between themes in contrasting musical keys or any clear transition from one theme to another Instead, melodies are repeated, 'using similar intervals and phrases with an almost ritual insistence,' according to musicologist John Warrack. This makes many folk songs essentially a series of variations on one basic shape or pattern of a few notes. The problem with repetition is that, even with a surface level of rhythmic activity added, the melody remains static over a period of time. Beneath that surface, nothing really moves or goes anywhere; the effect of the rhythm is decorative, not organic, because no true progress has taken place.

(...)

As large a challenge for Tchaikovsky as his Russian creative mentality was also his greatest compositional gift-namely, his own sense of melody. For him, however, the problem was two-fold. The first part stemmed, again, from his ethnic heritage. Brown points out that Tchaikovsky, like the majority of 19th-century Russian composers, was highly gifted melodically. However, even when those melodies were conceived with broad, multi-phrase structures, they tended to be even more self-contained than those in Russian folk songs, 'thus requiring the composer to climb, as it were, a perimeter fence if he wanted to move on, perhaps to explore a new melodic field.' This, Brown says, is again typical of Russian creativity, with a mindset of stasis rather than ongoing development.

'This problem of transition', Brown writes-of moving smoothly from one theme to another-'was one of the most vexed the Russian composer faced, greater in many ways than that of development.' In European music, this is where modulation comes into play; you simply change from the musical key of your first theme to the contrasting but related key of your second theme. Modulation was a driving principle in both Western harmony and sonata form. It maintained harmonic interest over an extended time-scale, provided a clear contrast between musical themes and showed how those themes were related to each other. Western harmony was a study in motion; it propelled the music and, on a larger scale, gave it shape.

Remember that Russian creativity centered around inertia, not motion. This mindset, according to Brown, made harmony a potential trap for Tchaikovsky, as it was for many other Russian composers. He had to get his melodies to go somewhere, to have the ability to connect together instead of standing apart and separate. Tchaikovsky had already shown 'a flair for harmony' that 'astonished' Rudolph Kündinger, his music tutor during his time at the School of Jurisprudence, and a thorough knowledge should have been part of his studies at the Saint Petersburg Conservatory. However, Tchaikovsky would run into problems with modulation as soon as the opening theme of his First Symphony.

In the exposition portion of sonata form, where both musical themes are introduced, the first theme generally begins on the tonic, the key in which the composition is to be written, then ends in preparation to modulate toward the next relative key to connect with the second theme. This 'fundamental move,' as Brown phrases it, could prove the greatest degree of difficulty for a composer. In the best-handled examples from the Classical era, this move 'is not just a modulation but a process of controlled tonal dynamism.' Instead of being a preparation of this event, the opening theme of the First Symphony simply ends on the tonic, exactly where it began, and becomes a self-enclosed melody as per Russian practice. He reduces the transition to the second theme to a half-dozen bars in the dominant.

(...)

Nevertheless, Tchaikovsky attempted to adhere more closely at least to the manner of sonata form in his first three symphonies. They remain chronicles of his attempts to reconcile his training from the Saint Petersburg Conservatory with the music he had heard all his life and his own innate penchant for melody. Both those factors worked against sonata form, not with it. With the Fourth Symphony, Tchaikovsky hit upon a solution he would refine in his remaining two numbered symphonies and his program symphony Manfred-one that would enable to reconcile the more personal, more dramatic and heightened emotional statements he wished to make with the classical structure of the symphony, showing, as musicologist Martin Cooper phrased it, that 'his inspiration was stronger than scruple.'

(...)

The fact that Tchaikovsky did not follow sonata form strictly and instead amended it creatively has been seen at times as a weakness rather than a sign of originality. Even with what music critic Harold C. Schonberg termed 'a professional reevaluation' of Tchaikovsky's work, the practice of faulting Tchaikovsky for not following in the steps of the Viennese masters has not gone away entirely. More often than in the past, however, his approach is being viewed as innovative rather than evasive and an effective fusion of two dissimilar musical philosophies." - Text taken from wikipedia.


----------



## vtpoet

I love Christmas music too. Sorry. I just do. Speaking of which, did Webern or Schoenberg write any twelve tone Christmas Carols?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I don't normally care whether Baroque orchestral music is on HIP or modern instruments, but there is only one instrument where I have a clear preference between the two - I can't stand the pinched, nasally sound of the modern oboe and would much rather hear the clear, rich tones of a Baroque oboe or oboe d'amore. When it comes to keyboard music I can't abide the solo harpsichord at all.


----------



## consuono

> Brown points out that Tchaikovsky, like the majority of 19th-century Russian composers, was highly gifted melodically.


So were Bellini, Donizetti, Verdi and Puccini. So were Chopin, Schumann and even Brahms.


----------



## JAS

vtpoet said:


> I love Christmas music too. Sorry. I just do. Speaking of which, did Webern or Schoenberg write any twelve tone Christmas Carols?


On the twelfth tone of Christmas, my true love gave to me . . . .


----------



## hammeredklavier

I think the reason for consuono's bitterness towards Tchaikovsky has something to do with Tchaikovsky's criticism of Bach; that's my gut feeling.



consuono said:


> They're opinions. I'd respect the opinions of many anonymous commenters here more than Tchaikovsky's, though. The guy seems to have had a critical streak that wasn't in keeping with his own status, in my opinion. He should've concentrated more on form within his own work than in trashing Handel or Brahms. Maybe Tchaikovsky should've been a professional critic.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Didn't Chopin do the same thing?


I think comparing Chopin with Tchaikovsky in terms of form is a disservice to Tchaikovsky. I know Chopin was a genius and a great composer, but the fact remains that he didn't go much beyond the realm of an "armchair pianist". I know tdc is another member who is (for some reason) critical about Tchaikovsky, while being generous towards Chopin. I don't get it - why does Chopin have to be elevated this much.
Here's an example of Chopin essentially adding more and more notes to the bass each time the main theme returns. (the F minor fantaisie is another work where he does this sort of thing)
0:09 , 1:42 , 3:33



hammeredklavier said:


> this can be seen as "diminished 7th spam":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and these can be seen as "parallel 8th spam":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I'm not saying they are "spam", I'm just saying there can be different perspectives on them)


https://books.google.ca/books?id=4gLQlHab4NsC&pg=PA162
"a composer for one right hand" -Richard Wagner
https://books.google.ca/books?id=OYo7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34
"In Schumann's other writings about Chopin that exist from 1836 through 1842, there is a good deal of positive feedback, although one will likely glean that Schumann was disappointed that there was not more significant development or innovation. In fact, he said more than once that Chopin's work was instantly recognizable because it was all so similar. He acknowledged Chopin's original showing as fabulous, and worried that it was too much for him to be more than that. "When he has given you a whole succession of the rarest creations, and you understand him more easily, do you suddenly demand something different? This is like chopping down your pomegranate tree because it produces, year after year, nothing but pomegranates." And furthermore: "We fear he will never achieve a level higher than that he has already reached. . . . With his abilities he could have achieved far more, influencing the progress of our art as a whole."


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> I think the reason for consuono's bitterness towards Tchaikovsky has something to do with Tchaikovsky's criticism of Bach; that's my gut feeling.


Nothing at all to do with that, and he was easy on Bach compared to his criticisms of Handel and Brahms. I'm just saying that if you're going to make melody the standard in form, there were plenty of gifted melody writers. If Chopin is an "armchair pianist", then it could be said that Tchaikovsky was an "armchair symphonist".


----------



## trbl0001

I just feel that - in my country at least - musicians and orchestras are complain much about subsidies, and need to find other sources of income. Also they need to focus on building and retaining a core audience - too often they boast about how many of their audience are first-timers. This is bad news!


----------



## JAS

trbl0001 said:


> I just feel that - in my country at least - musicians and orchestras are complain much about subsidies, and need to find other sources of income. Also they need to focus on building and retaining a core audience - too often they boast about how many of their audience are first-timers. This is bad news!


It isn't bad news as long as first-timers become second, third, etc-timers, and they at least keep pace as the existing audience dies off.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> I think the reason for consuono's bitterness towards Tchaikovsky has something to do with Tchaikovsky's criticism of Bach; that's my gut feeling.


One more thing: I'm not at all "bitter" about Tchaikovsky; I'm just not a big fan. I was more of an admirer of his music when I was a lot younger.


> I know tdc is another member who is (for some reason) critical about Tchaikovsky, while being generous towards Chopin. I don't get it - why does Chopin have to be elevated this much.


I don't "elevate" Chopin. His music is what it is. Chopin knew his limitations, and so do most who enjoy listening to or playing his music.


----------



## eric1

Agree completely


----------



## vtpoet

trbl0001 said:


> I just feel that - in my country at least - musicians and orchestras are complain much about subsidies, and need to find other sources of income. Also they need to focus on building and retaining a core audience - too often they boast about how many of their audience are first-timers. This is bad news!


Actually agree with this. The healthiest art is the one in which the artists have to earn their bread and butter by being artists, not by being the feted chairs of educational and government patronage. I'm more familiar with poets, for example, and I can tell you the quality of poetry would be much different if the medieval court patronage system hadn't been revived by Colleges and Universities, allowing them to scribble whatever the hell they want to scribble unanswerable to the broader public. As far as I know, there are no universities handing out tenure track chairs to rappers and/or garage bands-and these guys have to create innovative music _*that also*_ appeals to the broader public-or they get janitorial jobs.


----------



## trbl0001

That's true - getting more people in is obviously good. What's not so good is when they say something like "20% of the people coming were first-time". Getting new people is expensive, and if they're not sticking around then that's a big problem.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> If Chopin is an "armchair pianist"


Maybe I should have put it a bit differently; a "solo-instrument miniaturist".



consuono said:


> I don't "elevate" Chopin. His music is what it is. Chopin knew his limitations, and so do most who enjoy listening to or playing his music.


He was a musical genius and the popularity his music enjoys today is well-deserved. I have nothing against Chopin and his music, it's the kind of constant "elevation" (hiding his weaknesses and exaggerating strengths) some people do about his music that disturbs me a little. 
0:09 , 1:42 , 3:33
Look at the example of the B minor sonata finale, which I pointed out in the previous post. The orchestral equivalence of this would be an orchestral piece where each time the main theme returns, only the strings play with faster notes (ie. quarter notes -> 8th notes -> 16th notes).
4:26 , 1:08
The exact same material, but the recap section is characterized by more forte and more doubling in the bass for emphasis , with the melody pitched higher than it is in the exposition. If I were to make an analogy in orchestral music, this is like saving up the piccolo and contrabassoon for a later repeat. If any Romantic orchestrators like Tchaikovsky wrote like this, they would have been criticized (for "exaggerating things way out of proportion", or whatever). But of course nobody criticizes Chopin, he'll always be a Romantic (or rather should I say "Romanticized") genius of incredible subtlety and poetic depth in everyone's minds, (while someone like Liszt is always remembered as an under-talented copy-cat only capable of bangy bombasts).


----------



## hammeredklavier

I should file these under "unpopular opinions":

1. Some people in this thread (just a few pages ago) have criticized classical-era composers for using repeats in instrumental music, but to me, Chopin is just as reliant on repeats, (notably in the polonaises). In some cases, for example the scherzos, the repeats are written out in full in the score, and if you omit them, the actual playing time reduces to almost 50%.

2. His "individuality" as a Romantic artist is seems a bit overrated. I can't tell Chopin's waltz style apart from other composers' of the same period other than the fact Chopin wrote all of his for the piano.
"Chopin wrote home from Vienna, marveling at the "terrific applause" garnered by the Strauss and Lanner waltzes, yet citing them as evidence of the public's "corrupt taste," and claiming that he was unable to play them. Yet, the structure of his own first published waltz, entitled "Grand Valse brilliante," *closely adhered to the style he claimed to deplore.* Following an opening fanfare (a standard functional device of the time to draw dancers' attention) that coalesces into ¾ time, a schematic outline, assigning a letter to each distinct 16-bar melody, would read: A, A, B, A, B, C, C, D, E, F, F, G, F, G, F, H, a bridge to reassert the rhythm, A, B, A (interrupted by two pauses), four bars of bass rhythm, and then a coda combining fragments of B, G and A, followed by A that dissolves into scalar elaborations that lead to cadential chords."

Aside from about two dozens of his signature "masterpieces", I can't tell Chopin's style apart from that of many early-Romantic central-European pianist-composers of "Brillante" style.

Hummel: Piano Variations Op.57 - 4. Variation: Scherzando
Chopin Écossaises Op.posth.72 No.3
Hummel Etude Op.125 No.19

Moscheles : Impromptu op. 89
Chopin - Fantaisie Impromptu, Op. 66

Hummel, Fantasy for Piano in E flat Major op. 18 (1805) - IV. Allegro assai:
Chopin - Ballade No. 4, Op. 52 (I can agree Chopin's harmonic ideas are more interesting in this case though)

Field Romance in E flat major
Maria Szymanowska Mazurka no. 13
Maria Szymanowska Polonaise in F minor
Johann Nepomuk Hummel - Piano Concerto No. 2 in A minor, Op. 85 (1816)
Hummel Etude, Op. 125: No. 3, Tempo di polacca (sounds like Chopin's Op.25 No.6)



hammeredklavier said:


> Ignaz Moscheles Etude Op.70 No.3 in G Major (1826)
> Chopin Etude Op.10 No.2 in A minor (1832)
> Ignaz Moscheles Etude Op.70 No.2 in E minor (1826)
> Chopin Etude Op.10 No.11 in E flat major (1832)
> Joseph Christoph Kessler Etude No.20 No.9 in A flat major (1825):
> {note that Chopin dedicated his 24 Preludes Op.28 to Kessler}
> Chopin Etude Op.25 No.1 in A flat major (1835).


3. Use of rhythms in pieces like prelude No.24 in D minor, or berceuse Op.57 is not totally impressive.


----------



## consuono

> I can't tell Chopin's waltz style apart from other composers' of the same period other than the fact Chopin wrote all of his for the piano.


Maybe Tchaikovsky should've done the same. After becoming a competent pianist.


----------



## Enthalpy

I wish so dearly Mozart were still alive!
And his music already dead.


----------



## vtpoet

Enthalpy said:


> I wish so dearly Mozart were still alive!
> And his music already dead.


Yeah, Franz Xavier Mozart doesn't do it for me either.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Having listened to and enjoyed contemporary western art music for 30 years makes you surprised every time somebody has to express their lack of respect for the music and composers. Leave me alone!!! :kiss:


----------



## Xisten267

Minds that are too open may become empty.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Allerius said:


> Minds that are too open may become empty.


"Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." -G.K. Chesterton.


----------



## Ravn

Here comes my two unpopular opinions. The second one should come with a trigger warning since it seems like many people on this forum (and David Hutwitz as well) will disagree strongly.

My unpopular opinion #1: _The best recording of Bruckner's 7th is conducted by Simon Rattle_.

My unpopular opinion #2: _Rattle is a very good conductor. I enjoy many of his recordings._


----------



## vtpoet

Isaac Blackburn said:


> "Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." -G.K. Chesterton.


"For all the flaws of an open mind, the closed mind has only one." :devil:


----------



## flamencosketches

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Having listened to and enjoyed contemporary western art music for 30 years makes you surprised every time somebody has to express their lack of respect for the music and composers. Leave me alone!!! :kiss:


Sad that this is an unpopular opinion but I completely agree.


----------



## JAS

Allerius said:


> Minds that are too open may become empty.
> 
> View attachment 146054


My version of this is that if you leave all of your doors and windows open, everything of value will quickly get stolen, or ruined by the weather, and all that will be left won't be of much value or use. (Plus, given time, wild animals are likely to move in, and just leave a real mess.)


----------



## vtpoet

JAS said:


> My version of this is that if you leave all of your doors and windows open, everything of value will quickly get stolen, or ruined by the weather, and all that will be left won't be of much value or use. (Plus, given time, wild animals are likely to move in, and just leave a real mess.)


In closed minds, everything spoils and gets moldy.


----------



## Ulfilas

Mendelssohn's is the greatest series of quartets between Beethoven and Bartók!

My favourite recording:


----------



## JAS

vtpoet said:


> In closed minds, everything spoils and gets moldy.


Probably not if it is air tight. Think vacuum sealed.


----------



## vtpoet

JAS said:


> Probably not if it is air tight. Think vacuum sealed.


Good point. Problematically though, if you want to use it, you have to open it.


----------



## JAS

vtpoet said:


> Good point. Problematically though, if you want to use it, you have to open it.


Somewhat more seriously, the secret to almost everything is to strike a proper balance (but balance is not necessarily merely finding a middle point between two extremes).


----------



## Ariasexta

Everytime I see unfavorable reviews on discs I like I just want to trample on modern classical again. Why do they have to be so critical on some newly rediscovered music? Such criticisms on baroque music have been my chief motivation to trash modern music.



> Les disques consacrés à Gasparini ne courent pas les rues. Ainsi on félicitera l'éditeur de prendre le risque d'enregistrer un opéra entier du compositeur. L'œuvre s'écoute de façon agréable sans que jamais l'auditeur ne soit totalement satisfait.* Bien des airs restent convenus et il est difficile d'y trouver la marque d'un génie.* Côté interprètes, F. Mineccia domine complètement la distribution de sa voix riche et bien assurée, c'est l'évènement de cette nouveauté. A l'opposé, le Bajazet de L. de Lisi possède un chant frustre et débridé d'une insupportable lourdeur. A écouter malgré tout.


--A review of Il Bajazet by Francesco Gasparini



> Quite frankly, I had never heard of Kaspar Förster and just tried my chance when the disc came up for cheap on the famous auction site, from a seller with whom I had already won another disc, in order to benefit from a rebate for combined shipment.* I assumed Förster was a German composer from the era of Bach, Haendel and Telemann, and expected to get an oratorio more or less in their style.*
> 
> Not exactly. Förster is from a good half-century before, nicely fitting perfectly on both halves of the 17th Century: 1617-1673. In fact, there are very few truly 17th Century German/Austrian composers that have achieved some prominence on recordings, and most others straddle one of the other centuries. To limit myself to those born before 1650: Praetorius (1571-1621), Schutz (1585-1672), Scheidt (1587-1653), Schmelzer who is the closest contemporary to Förster (circa 1620-1680) and, later, already biting on the 18th Century, Buxtehude (1637-1707), Friedrich Nikolaus Bruhns (1637-1718), Biber (1644-1704), Johann Theile (1647-1724); Pachelbel (1653-1706) and Johann Joseph Fux (1660-1741) are already out of my scope. Although entirely forgotten today Förster was a recognized master in his own time, and his talent and knowledge were praised by the famous composer and music chronicler Johann Mattheson, one of the primary sources on the biography of German composers active between the late 17th century and 1740.
> 
> In those years the models were often Italian, and indeed Förster studied in Rome and Venice (at a time when Monteverdi was still active). Capella Ducale (singers) and Musica Fiata (instrumental ensemble) under cornet player and leader Roland Wilson offer five oratorios and three instrumental sonatas. Based on their offering, Förster writes music in the madrigal-inspired style of late Monteverdi (Selva Morale) and primarily of Carissimi. Some early 20th Century musicologists have even found the music of Förster better, more inventive and daring than Carissimi's. Anyway, how much you will enjoy it depends on how much you enjoy these composers.* I tend to find 17th century music in general somewhat sparse and rudimentary compared to the vocal works of Bach-Haendel-Telemann-Vivaldi.* At its best the madrigalesque vocal interplay can be quite beautiful, in a relatively austere manner (as in the opening 10-part Domine Dominus Noster - 5 voices and 5 instrumental lines including continuo), but the short oratorio that gives the disc its title, Vanitas vanitatum, in the course of its circa 10-minutes, unfolds mainly a Monteverdi-like accompanied recitative (the dialogue between the wealthy and selfish man sent to hell after his death while poor Lazarus was sent to Heaven, and Abraham): and that is a taste I have yet to acquire. The music is also often of a plangent nature, and in the course of the first five minutes out of 11 of Repleta est malis anima mea (Our soul is full of troubles, track 6), I felt like telling the mourner to stop whining and move on. At 5:30, on the line "(Arise, o Lord, to our help,) and our heart will rejoice", he duly obliged, although the instrumental accompaniment, limited to solo violin and basso continuo, didn't bring much color.
> 
> There is, in the introduction and conclusion to Viri Israelite audite (a setting of the story of Judith and Holofernes) an adumbration of the colorful vocal virtuosity so typical of 18th Century vocal music, but truth is, one can easily imagine what Haendel would have made of a sentence like "prepare, fight, contend, fight, seek, lead, polish your weapons, Sound the trumpets, beat the drums", *and Förster is really pale and inconspicuous in comparison*. And the beheading of Holofernes is, if I may dare, tossed off in a rather matter-of-fact and inconspicuous recitative. The last oratorio on the CD, Congregantes Philistei, on the story of David and Goliath, has more martial brilliance (although, there too, the actual slinging of Goliath is expedited in a matter of fact recit). The narrative form of those two oratorios in many ways bridges the gap between Monteverdi's Combattimento of Tancredi and Clorinda and Bach's Passions, with direct dialogues (or rather, alternating monologues) interspersed with bridging story-telling by a narrator (the so-called "Historicus") and comments from the chorus, impersonating either the Hebrew crowd or the Servants of Holofernes or Goliath's Philistines. The use in both oratorios, as well as in some of the instrumental sonatas, of baroque cornets, give some of the accompaniment a texture and color which we have come to typically associate to 17th Century music (and never more martial and reminiscent of the antiphonal fanfares of Gabrieli than in Congregantes Philistei), but they aren't as brilliant and brassily shining as 18th century "corni" either.
> 
> Nonetheless, this disc was a labor of love by Roland Wilson who, based on those few comments from early 20th Century musicologists I referred to, researched the unpublished manuscripts and made the transcriptions himself. He contributed himself the remarkably informative liner notes. And if you appreciate the music of Monteverdi and Carissimi more than I do, then you are likely to enjoy the music of Förster more than I did.


--A review of a Kaspar Forster CPO issue: Vanitas Vanitatum.

There are more but I will leave them out for not to hijack the thread. Look at these untiring reviews trying to be sarcastical and acrimonious toward the rare repertoirs. They wanted genius and fully developped music of the 18th century of the customary giants. I know being critical is a western way of thinking, so nobody will stop me from returning the favor to their modern music productions, in multiple folds. I enjoy almost all classical music from Medieval to Beethoven without piano, the major difference I find between the moods of 17th century and 18th century music is the severity of the texts concerned. Kaspar Forster was writing for the 17th century churches and setting psalms and hymns to music how can anyone expect he would write like Handel and Bach, for whom Johann Mattheson was fighting to protect the new style of writing of church music? He does realize that Kaspar Forster was almost 70 years senior to JS Bach generation so why he still persevered in enumerating his ignorant sarcasm? It is OK if you do not like the music, but do not try to be looking right.

The french review is typical of those corrosive modernist listeners which are always self-centered, everytime they are not immediately arouse in interests they say because the others lack genius, and because they are being born genius to be served all the time. Like all leftist hooligans justifying their own stupidity and vulgarity, in order to answer to their invasion I will continue to be harsh to modern music. Though they love the same 18th century music as I do, like many people around which are quicker to be critical than to learn to listen, I am sure they are more in love with the media and the audiophile equipments than music. *All arts are acquired taste, artists do not need to appeal to you immediately to prove their genius, as if you are the born genius to the served by all the rest of world. *


----------



## Ariasexta

How to express your disatisfaction toward some musical works or composers? Sell their CDs, discard their CDs form your collection, nobody want to know it. Just to concentrate more and more on your principle circle of composers, nobody is supposed to love or hate everything at first sight. You can listen to JS Bach or play some Bach does not mean you are fully developped as a listener, even in the field of professional harpsochordists, I can immediately name more than 10 very bad harpsichordists, and the best 3 including 2 already deceased.


----------



## Ariasexta

Ancient people were not just smarter than we are, they were more beautiful in looks, modern people have become uglier because of indulgences in junk food and industrial lifestyle. Without scientific pretension I can say that ancient people were more simple-minded, more strong-willed, more wise. If such corrupted lifestyle continued, I am sure people will become more disfigured in the future dued to genetic degeneration. Modern people are not just uglier than the ancients, also psychologically more incompitent. This is just another good reason to keep up the patience to the ancient arts and wisdom. Bluntly say, all modern music is flat-out inferior to classical music, never believe for a minute given the huge amount of knowledge of the musical theories and history, people can regenerate the same arts of the past ages: not just unable to regenerate the spirit of the ancient arts, also becoming more mentally stupid and incapable(unworthy) of appreciating their own heritages. 

All progressive perspectives are degenerate and retarded, nothing in nature coming togather in our sight, everything decays, because everything else is greater than us, we are constantly becoming smaller, like a hive of flies and maggots upon a rotting carcass. Plato harked back to Egypt, Egypt to Atlantis, all great minds hark back to the mysteries of the antiquity. No great thinkers in antiquity untill Baroque age expressed their hope in the future, they always sook to pay tributes to the past, they knew we will be damned. Nothing can be more screwed than modern progressivism in the whole history of the universal creation, and the most characteristic symptom is that people feel they are the best ever in history.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

Ariasexta said:


> Ancient people were not just smarter than we are, they were more beautiful in looks, modern people have become uglier because of indulgences in junk food and industrial lifestyle. Without scientific pretension I can say that ancient people were more simple-minded, more strong-willed, more wise. If such corrupted lifestyle continued, I am sure people will become more disfigured in the future dued to genetic degeneration. Modern people are not just uglier than the ancients, also psychologically more incompitent. This is just another good reason to keep up the patience to the ancient arts and wisdom. Bluntly say, all modern music is flat-out inferior to classical music, never believe for a minute given the huge amount of knowledge of the musical theories and history, people can regenerate the same arts of the past ages: not just unable to regenerate the spirit of the ancient arts, also becoming more mentally stupid and incapable(unworthy) of appreciating their own heritages.
> 
> All progressive perspectives are degenerate and retarded, nothing in nature coming togather in our sight, everything decays, because everything else is greater than us, we are constantly becoming smaller, like a hive of flies and maggots upon a rotting carcass. Plato harked back to Egypt, Egypt to Atlantis, all great minds hark back to the mysteries of the antiquity. No great thinkers in antiquity untill Baroque age expressed their hope in the future, they always sook to pay tributes to the past, they knew we will be damned. Nothing can be more screwed than modern progressivism in the whole history of the universal creation, and the most characteristic symptom is that people feel they are the best ever in history.


:trp::cheers::trp:ut::trp:


----------



## vtpoet

Ariasexta said:


> Ancient people were not just smarter than we are, they were more beautiful in looks, modern people have become uglier because of indulgences in junk food and industrial lifestyle. Without scientific pretension I can say that ancient people were more simple-minded, more strong-willed, more wise. If such corrupted lifestyle continued, I am sure people will become more disfigured in the future dued to genetic degeneration. Modern people are not just uglier than the ancients, also psychologically more incompitent. This is just another good reason to keep up the patience to the ancient arts and wisdom. Bluntly say, all modern music is flat-out inferior to classical music, never believe for a minute given the huge amount of knowledge of the musical theories and history, people can regenerate the same arts of the past ages: not just unable to regenerate the spirit of the ancient arts, also becoming more mentally stupid and incapable(unworthy) of appreciating their own heritages.
> 
> All progressive perspectives are degenerate and retarded, nothing in nature coming togather in our sight, everything decays, because everything else is greater than us, we are constantly becoming smaller, like a hive of flies and maggots upon a rotting carcass. Plato harked back to Egypt, Egypt to Atlantis, all great minds hark back to the mysteries of the antiquity. No great thinkers in antiquity untill Baroque age expressed their hope in the future, they always sook to pay tributes to the past, they knew we will be damned. Nothing can be more screwed than modern progressivism in the whole history of the universal creation, and the most characteristic symptom is that people feel they are the best ever in history.


When reactionary cultural conservatism slides all the way down the slippery slope. Love it.


----------



## Torkelburger

vtpoet said:


> Actually agree with this. The healthiest art is the one in which the artists have to earn their bread and butter by being artists, not by being the feted chairs of educational and government patronage. I'm more familiar with poets, for example, and I can tell you the quality of poetry would be much different if the medieval court patronage system hadn't been revived by Colleges and Universities, allowing them to scribble whatever the hell they want to scribble unanswerable to the broader public. As far as I know, there are no universities handing out tenure track chairs to rappers and/or garage bands-and these guys have to create innovative music _*that also*_ appeals to the broader public-or they get janitorial jobs.


I could not disagree more.

Unfortunately, the downside to capitalism is that it has actually made art unhealthy in that the artists cannot earn their bread and butter by being artists with imaginative aesthetic purposes, refined thinking and mental stimulation, social commentary, etc. anymore,…they must now concentrate solely on being shallow entertainment only, so that it appeals to the lowest common denominator in order to maximize consumption by the ignorant masses with no concern for the aforementioned creativity.

If anyone is to blame for the current situation, it is our country's education system. If our citizens had more exposure and education in the arts, they would more likely be better-informed about such matters.

Being "answerable to the broader public" is a big problem right now with the quality of the arts and what the uneducated, ignorant public and corporate system has done to it. To "earn their bread and butter" by selling to the lowest common denominator, artists have succumbed to common, every day formulas including the overuse of gratuitous sexual subject matter and themes; gratuitous violence; foul language; and glorification of crime, drugs and alcohol. I am not advocating censorship, just pointing out shallow devices and cliches used to ensure the selling of art in a capitalist society.

Further, as far as movies and fiction are concerned, "artists" must yield to the most popular, ignorant tastes with the highest entertainment value that will appeal to the masses which include the following: naïve sentimentality, naïve moral polarizations between "good and evil", and a naïve worldview based on simple moral systems.

What makes it even worse is that since the purpose of art is now to make as much money as possible via cheap entertainment value, companies want a "sure thing". They are looking for the next "summer blockbuster" to save their "bottom line" and guarantee profits for their investors and shareholders. This means they cannot risk doing something outside of the box and original or truly artistic, but rather copy something that has been done before several times over. This is why we get very little originality in Hollywood these days and everyone comes out with their own version of a previously made "blockbuster" over and over again.

The same for fiction. Especially in sci-fi and fantasy, the publishers want everything in a trilogy format with stock characters and events, reminiscent of previous best-sellers.

As far as music is concerned, I see very little artistic value or innovation in rap or garage bands, both of them showing very little knowledge of music beyond 5 or 10 years ago. To me rap music has very little innovation with the regular sampling of other's work and the non-stop, incessant rhyming including internal rhymes and rhyming the same sound multiple times over, while adding little to the lyrical meaning. Many hire someone else to write the actual music, cannot even read or write English, nor speak it properly, and use so much street vernacular in the lyrics that the song becomes outdated quickly due to the words' limited lifespan. Rap's subject matter about life on the streets, glorification of drugs and violence, objectification of women, disrespect of women and homosexuals, etc. is tiresome, unoriginal, and not universal nor innovative IMO. What artistic value it had has run out a long time ago as far as I'm concerned. The beats are very derivative of each other and do not possess much variety from one rap to the next. They are all functionally the same. But as long as it makes money.


----------



## vtpoet

Torkelburger said:


> I could not disagree more.
> 
> Unfortunately, the downside to capitalism is that it has actually made art unhealthy in that the artists cannot earn their bread and butter by being artists with imaginative aesthetic purposes...


Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, CPE Bach and an entire hundred years of music all beg to differ. They couldn't wait to get out from under an oppressive patronage system and try their hands at Capitalism. The Magic Flute wouldn't exist if not for that. And what nonsense you spout. The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Benny Goodman, any number of 20th century musicians flourished precisely because they were able to please both the connoisseur and the dilettante. Mozart explicitly prided himself in his ability to appeal to both. Does popular culture produce terrible music? Of course it does-always has and will. It's also produced our greatest works of art.

Let artists be answerable only to their own aesthetics, and you end up (as Frost put it) with a kind of "success called "of esteem" and it butters no parsnips. It means a success with the critical few who are supposed to know. But really to arrive where I can stand on my legs as a poet and nothing else I must get outside that circle to the general reader who buys books in their thousands."


----------



## JAS

It is a strange world where a Jackson Pollock canvas dappled in drips of paint sells for $140 million, but no one even pays attention to my towel where I clean my brushes from any of my painting projects, which is every bit as good. (Perhaps after I am dead and gone.) I will note that I have never accidentally done anything that might be mistaken for a Rembrandt or a Da Vinci painting. (Nor would I be able to do so on purpose.)


----------



## vtpoet

JAS said:


> It is a strange world where a Jackson Pollock canvas dappled in drips of paint sells for $140 million, but no one even pays attention to my towel where I clean my brushes from any of my painting projects, which is every bit as good. (Perhaps after I am dead and gone.) I will note that I have never accidentally done anything that might be mistaken for a Rembrandt or a Da Vinci painting. (Nor would I be able to do so on purpose.)


You have to die first, or at minimum fake your death, and your dishtowels will be worth millions.

I personally look forward to finally achieving fame and recognition upon my death and the many posthumous awards.


----------



## JAS

I know that I am not feeling terribly well at the moment, but that might just be from re-reading the Cage thread.


----------



## Handelian

Ariasexta said:


> Ancient people were not just smarter than we are, they were more beautiful in looks, modern people have become uglier because of indulgences in junk food and industrial lifestyle. Without scientific pretension I can say that ancient people were more simple-minded, more strong-willed, more wise. If such corrupted lifestyle continued, I am sure people will become more disfigured in the future dued to genetic degeneration. Modern people are not just uglier than the ancients, also psychologically more incompitent. This is just another good reason to keep up the patience to the ancient arts and wisdom. Bluntly say, all modern music is flat-out inferior to classical music, never believe for a minute given the huge amount of knowledge of the musical theories and history, people can regenerate the same arts of the past ages: not just unable to regenerate the spirit of the ancient arts, also becoming more mentally stupid and incapable(unworthy) of appreciating their own heritages.
> 
> All progressive perspectives are degenerate and retarded, nothing in nature coming togather in our sight, everything decays, because everything else is greater than us, we are constantly becoming smaller, like a hive of flies and maggots upon a rotting carcass. Plato harked back to Egypt, Egypt to Atlantis, all great minds hark back to the mysteries of the antiquity. No great thinkers in antiquity untill Baroque age expressed their hope in the future, they always sook to pay tributes to the past, they knew we will be damned. Nothing can be more screwed than modern progressivism in the whole history of the universal creation, and the most characteristic symptom is that people feel they are the best ever in history.


Yes when I read of Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun I know what you mean.


----------



## Ariasexta

Handelian said:


> Yes when I read of Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun I know what you mean.


Ghengis Khan was supported by a banking system, he was very much the classical left. Central Asia and Middle East were the origin of banking, their system influenced GK and used him against their own enemies. Attila was not exactly asian, his hordes were multiracial, ideologically different from the GK.



> When reactionary cultural conservatism slides all the way down the slippery slope. Love it.


I am against all forms of progressivism, which is a code word for denegeracy, and the enemies are using western cultural stamps to cover it up and sell it to the rest of the world.


----------



## Torkelburger

> Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, CPE Bach and an entire hundred years of music all beg to differ.


Given that none of them were alive during my country's current situation and more importantly, anything remotely close to the current culture I described in great detail, I can see why.



> The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Benny Goodman, any number of 20th century musicians flourished precisely because they were able to please both the connoisseur and the dilettante.


Pink Floyd wouldn't flourish with the popular crowd if what they did was brand new today, nor would they even make it to the ears of some connoisseurs, precisely because they don't fit the mold of a money-making act, or current trends. No major labels or sponsors today want to risk money on albums with 15 or 20-minute songs that take minutes to develop or with psychedelic sounding music and subject matter. They want three and a half minute songs with catchy hooks mostly about adolescent boy-girl relationships. Benny Goodman wouldn't flourish in today's current situation either. But it's the same art with the same qualities.



> Mozart explicitly prided himself in his ability to appeal to both.


The thing is that he wouldn't even be given the chance to appeal to one them if he lived today unless he changed his aesthetics to fit a mold he might not want to.



> Does popular culture produce terrible music? Of course it does, but always has and will. It's also produced our greatest works of art.


In some art forms like film, I'd say it produces well less than 1% of merely decent art. Fiction is catching up to that reputation along with popular music. The quality of all arts, in my opinion, is dwindling due to our current situation.



> Let artists be answerable only to their own aesthetics, and you end up (as Frost put it) with a kind of "success called "of esteem" and it butters no parsnips. It means a success with the critical few who are supposed to know. But really to arrive where I can stand on my legs as a poet and nothing else I must get outside that circle to the general reader who buys books in their thousands."


Please. Tell that to van Gogh, Lovecraft, Zappa…

And with all due respect to Mr. Frost, I don't see too many poets standing on their legs as poets and nothing else in our current society, no matter how good they are. I know, I know. Mary Oliver. But the percentage is very, very low. Even when appealing to the masses, your chances don't look good. When it comes to consuming poetry, the masses just have better things to do, especially when it comes to "entertainment".


----------



## Ariasexta

Western music belong to the pinnacle of human civilization, not science and democracy in my eye, it means humanity must preserve the essence of western music while fighting against the forces that corrupt it. Along with the western classical music, the humanist literature, paintings, religious scrolls, canons, scripts also belong to the must haves for humanity. While being the cream of civilization but under the cream there is not always cakes and fruits. That is the point. I am not buying anything progressivistic no matter how pompous the enemies wrapped up like a gift. In my eastern culture, I also prepare our own cream and cheese. Our path on the right is exciting and enlightening without boundaries of the happiness and knowledge.


----------



## Handelian

Ariasexta said:


> Ghengis Khan was supported by a banking system, he was very much the classical left. Central Asia and Middle East were the origin of banking, their system influenced GK and used him against their own enemies. Attila was not exactly asian, his hordes were multiracial, ideologically different from the GK.
> 
> I am against all forms of progressivism, which is a code word for denegeracy, and the enemies are using western heritage to cover it up and sell it to the rest of the world.


I assume then you do not live in the west on principle.


----------



## vtpoet

Torkelburger said:


> Pink Floyd wouldn't flourish with the popular crowd if what they did was brand new today, nor would they even make it to the ears of some connoisseurs, precisely because they don't fit the mold of a money-making act, or current trends.


Of course not. This is saying nothing except that you yourself would probably dismiss a new Beatles or Mozart by a different name all while bemoaning that they didn't sound like something out of the 1960's or 1790's.


----------



## JAS

Torkelburger said:


> . . . Please. Tell that to van Gogh, Lovecraft, Zappa . . .


Perhaps ironically, at least two of those names would certainly have a claim to commercial success in death that they never achieved in life.


----------



## vtpoet

Ariasexta said:


> I am against all forms of progressivism, which is a code word for denegeracy, and the enemies are using western cultural stamps to cover it up and sell it to the rest of the world.


Yes, I'm guessing that the opinions of your older self are a pale shadow of your younger opinions.


----------



## Ariasexta

Handelian said:


> I assume then you do not live in the west on principle.


The left use people in their false-flag actions, sooner or later you/I will have to stand up to them. 
I will only emigrate on career grounds. China is a hotpot of leftism now, but if improved many people will like to live here.


----------



## Handelian

Ariasexta said:


> The left use people in their false-flag actions, sooner or later you/I will have to stand up to them.
> I will only emigrate on career grounds. China is a hotpot of leftism now, but if improved many people will like to live here.


So you do live in the corrupt west and share their corruption?


----------



## Ariasexta

vtpoet said:


> Yes, I'm guessing that the opinions of your older self are a pale shadow of your younger opinions.


We have 2000 years history of civil wars and ideological struggles. If I gave up, I will be less than worthless. Life in China is painfully difficult even you have some money do not believe in the propagandas.


----------



## Ariasexta

Handelian said:


> So you do live in the corrupt west and share their corruption?


The west is not corrupt throughout, it is being parasitized like China. People will find out too late and blame each other. 
I am not the one seeking wars, they are.


----------



## vtpoet

Meh. I'd rather discuss music. I go to SLATE for my politics fix.


----------



## Aerobat

OK, back to music. I'll bite the bullet. I'm just know I'm going to get flamed for this though...

I don't like Maria Callas's singing. Her voice always seems harsh and edgy to me and frequently, well, wobbly. Her high Es and Fs weren't exactly world class to put it mildly. And most of her recordings are so bad that the lack of audio quality destroys whatever quality of performance may have been there. 

I know, it's totally unacceptable to not like Callas. But, according to history she was regularly booed at the Met, as well as at La Scala. So I know I'm not alone.

I'm also an audiophile. So I like very high fidelity recordings. I struggle with most recordings made before the late 80s. There are a small number of singers who are so special that I'll put up with poor audio quality (such as Virginia Zeani). But Callas, sorry but no.


----------



## Ariasexta

Musical crumbs: 

1-About 4 years ago, I read a comment about Montserrat Figueras, one of the famous baroque singer and wife to the world renowned Jordi Savall, saying that he does not like her voice: too much vibrato and lack of precision. Guess people are always susceptible to the herd mentality, I was mysteriously hypnotized to believe this, and tried to find other singers for Caccini`s monodies mainly for which I knew Montserrat Figueras voice. And I actually forgot that I used to love her voice very much. How amazing, after trying some other voices, I have to return to her voice again, I missed her voice, and found out that her voice is indispensable for me.

2-I am learning music but avoid using internet sources as much as possible, try to use books, papers, pens and fountains pens, notebooks in the study. I also do not use video lectures, downloading scores or music etc. I only use internet to buy books and other related necessities for music and musical study. Although even learning by myself alone, buying paper scores and isntruments will cost as much as the a good HIFI combination. I will never play a piano, any kind of piano, also eletronic keyboards, I need a keyboard, and probably will have to buy a spinet first for the small budget. I have a strong but chronicle repulsion toward electronics long before I started to delve into classical music. Though I can not adopt minimalism for buying books and CDs, buying these things itself has been a part of joy of life for me. 

3-Basically I think talking about music in the public in technical terms is vulgar, one should talk about musical theories with closest collegues in private or in essays. But musico-historiological articles are extremely interesting to me. I feel myself endorsing Plato`s musical minimalism but can not give up richly composed music. So, I will find many unique ways to justify my personal treatment of the musical laws.


----------



## Ethereality

I actually really enjoy MIDI synth for some performances, because I do a lot of sequencing and always loved the clarity of voices it has.


----------



## Haydn70

*************************************************


----------



## arapinho1

I have never liked opera. I have tried many times but I can't stand it honestly


----------



## eljr

arapinho1 said:


> I have never liked opera. I have tried many times but I can't stand it honestly


Try a Philip Glass Opera, it may change your mind. :tiphat:


----------



## Ned Low

arapinho1 said:


> I have never liked opera. I have tried many times but I can't stand it honestly


Do try Wagner. Before i listened to his music dramas, i despised opera immensly. He made me love what i disliked. So get Solti's Ring and enjoy a 14 hour-long epic drama.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Murderers are not bad people.


----------



## Couchie

Wagner is a greater composer than Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. While Bach and Mozart channeled the divine, and Beethoven the struggles of what it is to be human, Wagner unites the two, and reveals the path from which the human may become divine.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

I'd rather listen to almost anything but Wagner operas. I do love the orchestral excerpts from his operas but I have given up trying to appreciate Wagner operas. There is just so much uninteresting music there.


----------



## arapinho1

Commendatore scene from Don Giovanni is awesome I must admit


----------



## Ned Low

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I'd rather listen to almost anything but Wagner operas. I do love the orchestral excerpts from his operas but I have given up trying to appreciate Wagner operas. There is just so much uninteresting music there.


Naturally, we don't like every composer we listen to. I haven't been able to enjoy some like Schoenberg and his loyal disciples Webern, Berg and Boulez.


----------



## Xisten267

Ned Low said:


> Do try Wagner. *Before i listened to his music dramas, i despised opera immensly*. He made me love what i disliked. So get Solti's Ring and enjoy a 14 hour-long epic drama.


Same here. When I was beginning my exploration of CM, I listened to operas such as _Carmen_, _La Traviata_, _Eugene Onegin_ and _Aida_, but I didn't connect with them and for some time thought that opera was not for me. Having heard previously some Wagner overtures which greatly impressed me, I decided one day to try the second act of his _Lohengrin_. I had set very low expectations for what I would think of this experience, so what followed was a surprise to me: I greatly enjoyed listening to it, to the point that when act II ended I decided that opera was worth exploring, that I seriously needed more of _that_ in my life. Since them, Wagner became one of my favorite composers (for some time he was _the_ favorite) and I started to be much more interested in opera in general, including those not by him.


----------



## Couchie

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I'd rather listen to almost anything but Wagner operas. I do love the orchestral excerpts from his operas but I have given up trying to appreciate Wagner operas. There is just so much uninteresting music there.


Enlightenment is not for everybody. Some are capable of only glimpses.


----------



## Ned Low

Allerius said:


> Same here. When I was beginning my exploration of CM, I listened to operas such as _Carmen_, _La Traviata_, _Eugene Onegin_ and _Aida_, but I didn't connect with them and for some time thought that opera was not for me. Having heard previously some Wagner overtures which greatly impressed me, I decided one day to try the second act of his _Lohengrin_. I had set very low expectations for what I would think of this experience, so what followed was a surprise to me: I greatly enjoyed listening to it, to the point that when act II ended I decided that opera was worth exploring, that I seriously needed more of _that_ in my life. Since them, Wagner became one of my favorite composers (for some time he was _the_ favorite) and I started to be much more interested in opera in general, including those not by him.


Nice. Yes Lohengrin is one of the finest operas of the Romantic era. It's also a good place to start with Wagner, though my first Wagner was Dutchman.


----------



## KenOC

Hurwitz offers ten opinions that will certainly be unpopular with many here!


----------



## Xisten267

KenOC said:


> Hurwitz offers ten opinions that will certainly be unpopular with many here!


Now these are truly controversial IMO, and I disagree with most of them, but I actually believe that there's some truth at No. 2. I also think that the Grosse Fuge is ugly, yet in my perspective this is actually the point: I assume that Beethoven wanted it to shock, to challenge the listener, to be a provocation to him/her. The man is showing us deep and turbulent emotions, the turmoil that he must have felt in his last years, and to me his genius is shown in this piece when he chooses not to please us with some bold and melodic finale, but with a giant, dense, harsh, raw and yes ugly, fugal movement. I consider the Grosse Fuge as one of the most important expressionistic works ever created, and I don't accept to listen to Op. 130 without it.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Couchie said:


> Enlightenment is not for everybody. Some are capable of only glimpses.


Right, because appreciating Wagner is the litmus test for enlightenment 

Your braggadocio does not come across as clever as you think.


----------



## Bulldog

Hurwitz is a hoot!! "Liszt is trash". He also thinks that nobody cares about the first three movements of Symphonie Fantaastique; the first two are the ones I like best. Finally, I'm headed to Oklahoma to discover more Bach cantatas.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Bulldog said:


> Hurwitz is a hoot!! "Liszt is trash". He also thinks that nobody cares about the first three movements of Symphonie Fantaastique; the first two are the ones I like best. Finally, I'm headed to Oklahoma to discover more Bach cantatas.


Yeah, I totally disagree with his Symphonie Fantaastique comment. I love all the movements. Partially agree with his Mozart and fully agree with his Wagner comments. He is spot-on about Bruckner.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Right, because appreciating Wagner is the litmus test for enlightenment
> Your braggadocio does not come across as clever as you think.


I thought you didn't appreciate vocal music in general, not just Wagner


----------



## hammeredklavier

Robert Levin Mozart Lecture Part 1: The Slow Movements and The Human Formula




"I think what one notices the most about these is how different they are. There isn't a formula for a Mozart slow movement, he would say "but there's no formula for human beings".


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> I thought you didn't appreciate vocal music in general, not just Wagner


I don't appreciate opera is the more accurate statement. I think it distracts from the pure abstract nature of music when used in opera setting to carry the narrative forward. I hold the same opinion of symphonies with vocals, including my favourite Beethoven and his 9th.

Outside of classical music, I can appreciate vocals as they are often an integral part of the song and sometimes even make up for a deficiency in the actual music, which one might argue is more poetry than music.


----------



## Agamenon

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I don't appreciate opera is the more accurate statement. I think it distracts from the pure abstract nature of music when used in opera setting to carry the narrative forward. I hold the same opinion of symphonies with vocals, including my favourite Beethoven and his 9th.
> 
> Outside of classical music, I can appreciate vocals as they are often an integral part of the song and sometimes even make up for a deficiency in the actual music, which one might argue is more poetry than music.


My professors told me the same:

*Music is music*. Opera is a basket full of uneven elements, and music,( not always), is not the main aspect. Opera is "stage", music is the servant. And.... this is the sin.


----------



## Phil loves classical

KenOC said:


> Hurwitz offers ten opinions that will certainly be unpopular with many here!


Pretty entertaining. Have to admit, some of Mozart does sound the same. The most infuriating for me was on Schoenberg and Berlioz.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Actually though, I'm inclined to think AbsolutelyBaching quitted TC to devote the rest of his lifetime in searching for "those missing cantatas". He might have taken Hurwitz's suggestions seriously.



Guest002 said:


> hammeredklavier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 randomly selected excerpts from Bach cantatas:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to do all 50 in one sitting, because I think you've been a bit mean in picking on the cantatas... and then not including _any_ of the singing, which is what makes a cantata a cantata! I also think if you split it into five sets of 10, I'd do more of them at a time, but concentrating for 50 in one sitting is just silly. I also think a gap between each one might be a nice touch of consideration for your listeners, as the abrupt transitions really throw the mind out each time, making it difficult to think clearly.
> 
> So I'll do the first eleven. I won't bother listing the specific movement within the cantata, but I can do that if you insist.
> 
> 1. Preise dien Glücke gesegnetes Sachsen BWV 215
> 2. Ach, ich sehe itzt, da ich zur Hochzeit gehe, BWV 162
> 3. Ärgre dich, o Seele, nicht BWV 186
> 4. Ich freue mich in dir, BWV 133
> 5. Weichet nur, betrübte Schatten, BWV 202
> 6. Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, BWV 99
> 7. Allein zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ, BWV 33
> 8. Meinen Jesum laß ich ncht, BWV 124
> 9. Wer mich liebet, der wird mein Wort halten, BWV 74
> 10. Seht, wir gehen hinauf gen Jerusalem, BWV 159
> 11. Jesus nahm zu sich die Zwölfe, BWV 22
> 
> I did another 5 or 6 after:
> 
> 12. Ich bin vergnügt mit meinem Glücke, BWV 84
> 13. Wir danken dir, Gott, wir danken dir, BWV 29
> 14. Ich ge' und suche mit Verlangen, BWV 49
> 15. Laß, Fürstin, laß noch einen Strahl also known as Trauerode, BWV 198
> 16. I don't know
> 17. O Ewigkeit du Donnerwort, BWV 60
> 
> And three more to make it a round number:
> 
> 18. Zerreißet, Zersprenget, BWV 205 (?)
> 19. Jesu, nun sei gepreiset, BWV 41
> 20. Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121
> 
> But now I'm knackered and need a stiff drink.
> 
> OK, that cup of tea finished, I did five more...
> 
> 21. Was willst du dich betrüben, BWV 107
> 22. Preise, Jerusalem, den Herrn, BWV 119
> 23. Gott, man lobet dich in der Stille, BWV 120
> 24. Was mein Gott will, das g'scheh allzeit, BWV 111
> 25. Christus, der ist mein Leben, BWV 95 (one of my favourites, and it's the 'schlage doch bald' aria)
> 
> Another batch:
> 
> 26. Zweig und Äste from BWV 205
> 27. Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ, BWV 91
> 28. Don't know
> 29. Was Got tut, das ist Wohlgetan, BWV 100
> 30. Dem Gerechten muß das Licht, BWV 195
> 31. Sie werden aus Saba alle kommen, BWV 65
> 32. Don't know.
> 33. Gott ist unsre Zuversicht, BWV 197
> 34. Süsser Trost, mein Jesu kömmt, BWV 151
> 35. Er rufet seinen Schafen mit Namen, BWV 175
> 36. Mache dich, mein Geist, bereit, BWV 115
> 
> Another few to round the numbers up again
> 
> 37. Wohl dem, der sich auf seinen Gott, BWV 139
> 38. Also hat Gott die Welt geliebt, BWV 68
> 39. Herr Jesu Christ, du höchstes Gut, BWV 113
> 40. Wer Dank opfert, der preiset mich, BWV 17
> 
> And finally...
> 
> 41. Ich lasse dich nicht, du segnest mich denn, BWV 157 (not sure, though)
> 42. Ein ungefärbt Gemüte, BWV 24
> 43. Don't know
> 44. Höchsterwünschtes Freudenfest, BWV 194
> 45. Laßt uns sorgen, laßt uns wachen, BWV 213
> 46. Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142
> 47. Man singet mit Freuden vom Sieg, BWV 149
> 48. Du wahrer Gott und Davids Sohn, BWV 23
> 49. Auf Christi Himmelfahrt allein, BWV 128
> 50. Wer nur den lieben Gott lässt walten, BWV 93
> 
> I should add that #18 is a puzzle, as I've got that work listed as BWV 205 in my music library, but I think that might be an error for 202. Not sure, hence the question mark. Personally, I've only translated the cantatas up to about number 151, so anything higher than that is a bit of a struggle for me at the moment: I noticed you were fairly free with the _secular_ cantatas, for example!
Click to expand...


----------



## jdec

KenOC said:


> Hurwitz offers ten opinions that will certainly be unpopular with many here!


11th and most important one, Hurwitz's opinion is trash.


----------



## Couchie

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Right, because appreciating Wagner is the litmus test for enlightenment
> 
> Your braggadocio does not come across as clever as you think.


Oh, I'm not clever. I'm Kundry. Every morning I wake up in horror at my continued existence, and only roam aimlessly, moaning "Dienen... dienen!", and posting Wagner "braggadocio".


----------



## Elvira0518

My unpopular oppinion: Attila is most likely the best of Verdi's operas. 

Verdi is overrated.

19th century opera in general is very overrated (while 18th century and earlier opera is very underrated).

I prefer the roles to be gender accurate - so if the character is male, I would prefer a male performer, even if the composer wrote it for female voice (so it would be a countertenor or a high countertenor, sopranist, if it's originally writen for soprano). So needless to say I prefer all the casrato roles to be performed by countertenors. Not that I like countertenors that much, but what other options do we have? (Blame it on composers.)


----------



## Xisten267

Here's another one:


Total relativism in the evaluation of the arts is one of the main reasons for the downfall of timeless, true classical music.

If picking some random chords that sound good in a garage with an electric guitar is as valid as spending years learning theory and trying to create something original and of high quality (because "everything we do is music"), then why bother doing the latter? Let's just have the money, the fame, the girls and be happy.


----------



## SanAntone

Allerius said:


> Here's another one:
> 
> 
> Total relativism in the evaluation of the arts is one of the main reasons for the downfall of timeless, true classical music.
> 
> If picking some random chords that sound good in a garage with an electric guitar is as valid as spending years learning theory and trying to create something original and of high quality (because "everything we do is music"), then why bother doing the latter? Let's just have the money, the fame, the girls and be happy.


The existence of The Ramones is not stopping a composer from writing "timeless, true classical music." Oh, wait, they are writing new classical music. You just don't like it.


----------



## Xisten267

SanAntone said:


> The existence of The Ramones is not stopping a composer from writing "timeless, true classical music." Oh, wait, they are writing new classical music. You just don't like it.


No artist lives in a vacuum. Competition is central to our society, and when artists A, B and C receive too much attention, this means that artists X, Y and Z may be receiving too few. This wouldn't really be a problem if attention in this case didn't also mean money and power and, as such, the ability of the artists to have a reasonable living and to be able to freely create their art. The rise of punk meant the declining of prog for example.

I believe that the great musical minds of our time are evading classical music and going to other, less demanding and more materially rewarding genres (because, again, "everything we do is music"), and this in my view is the reason for we having so much great music in non-classical nowadays (I think that few would disagree that _The Beatles_ were a great band with great albums for example) but that IMO do not reach the heights of high quality of masterpieces of the past such as a _St. Matthew Passion_ or a _Mass in B minor_.


----------



## Bulldog

Allerius said:


> I believe that the great musical minds of our time are evading classical music and going to other, less demanding and more materially rewarding genres (because, again, "everything we do is music"), and this in my view is the reason for we having so much great music in non-classical nowadays (I think that few would disagree that _The Beatles_ were a great band with great albums for example) but that IMO do not reach the heights of high quality of masterpieces of the past such as a _St. Matthew Passion_ or a _Mass in B minor_.


I love both the Beatles and Bach. I do listen to Bach more frequently. His music is more mature than the Beatles, and I keep getting older. :lol:

It's not about quality, it's about what satisfies me at this stage of my life.


----------



## Xisten267

Bulldog said:


> I love both the Beatles and Bach. I do listen to Bach more frequently. His music is more mature than the Beatles, and I keep getting older. :lol:
> 
> It's not about quality, it's about what satisfies me at this stage of my life.


Listening to my own, trivial piano music satisfies me more than listening to _Pierrot Lunaire_. Should I, due to this, consider that these compositions are on the same level as artistic achievements? I guess not.


----------



## SanAntone

Allerius said:


> No artist lives in a vacuum. Competition is central to our society, and when artists A, B and C receive too much attention, this means that artists X, Y and Z may be receiving too few. This wouldn't really be a problem if attention in this case didn't also mean money and power and, as such, the ability of the artists to have a reasonable living and to be able to freely create their art. The rise of punk meant the declining of prog for example.
> 
> I believe that the great musical minds of our time are evading classical music and going to other, less demanding and more materially rewarding genres (because, again, "everything we do is music"), and this in my view is the reason for we having so much great music in non-classical nowadays (I think that few would disagree that _The Beatles_ were a great band with great albums for example) but that IMO do not reach the heights of high quality of masterpieces of the past such as a _St. Matthew Passion_ or a _Mass in B minor_.


Artists have integrity and follow their aesthetic compass when they compose. The market for music is not a zero sum game, people often will support many different kinds of music. But, markets are driven by trends which are the collective expression of taste - which is often driven by "influencers".

But if punk became the flavor of choice for a while it was replaced with new wave, etc. But prog did not disappear and most of those prog bands did not abandon their style and jump on the punk bandwagon.

There are hundreds of composers working in the classical genre. But you call it "avant-garde" and say it isn't classical music.

These composers continue to write new classical music despite what you may think.


----------



## Bulldog

Allerius said:


> Listening to my own, trivial piano music satisfies me more than listening to _Pierrot Lunaire_. Am I a better composer than Schoenberg? I guess not.


I'm glad you enjoy creating music. Once upon a time I did some of that, and it totally frustrated me.


----------



## Xisten267

Bulldog said:


> I'm glad you enjoy creating music. Once upon a time I did some of that, and it totally frustrated me.


It's been years since I last composed something, but I think that it was an amazing experience, even if I also became frustrated after some time, and if I did only a few pieces. The idea of expressing what I felt through the world of sounds looked great back then, and I think I even created some reasonable tunes (it isn't so hard in my opinion). Besides, it was _my_ music. If it was good or not didn't matter at the time: it was _mine_, _I_ did that. The problem later is that I noticed I couldn't properly develop my material because I didn't have the technique, and the idea of never evolving (because I don't have formal training; I study maths, not music) in the end made me stop.

So, after all, what frustrated me was the idea of not creating something good enough; if I believed in the total relativity in the arts, I wouldn't care for this and could have continued. I know how this idea can be convenient and seductive; it must be good for a newbie composer to think that he can create a song as artistically valid as _Yesterday_ or _Penny Lane_. But in most cases, he just can't. I firmly believe this at least.

Why composing was so frustrating to you, considering that you don't believe in absolute greatness in music?


----------



## SanAntone

Allerius said:


> ... if I believed in the idea of total relativity in the arts, I wouldn't care for this and could have continued. I know how this idea can be convenient and seductive;


I think you are confused about what we "relativists" are saying. At least, I am not saying that Work X by someone can be as good as Work Y by Beethoven because there is no objective standard. No, what I am saying is that I like Work X better than Work Y by Beethoven. Personally I don't care whether a work is good, better, great, etc., on some abstract standard. My only standard is my personal subjective opinion. And I won't say that Work X is "great" only that I enjoy it.

Do you see the difference?



> it must be good for a newbie composer to think that he can create a song as artistically valid as _Yesterday_ or _Penny Lane_. But in most cases, he just can't. I firmly believe this at least.


However, I have been a professional songwriter since 1992 (now pretty much retired) but we all tried to write the best song we could, everyday. The song was considered "good" if the feedback from our publisher and producers and artists was positive enough to record it. But those decisions were based more on what kind of song they needed for a project, what the climate in the market was at that time, i.e. what kind of songs were "hot" and also if the lyric was something the artist wanted to express.

Now, every songwriter has songs which he and his fellow songwriters, and even other publishers and pluggers, think are exceptional but just not what the market wants at the moment. These songs will be heard in writers nights and always land - but may never get recorded. I've had songs that a producer kept on his shelf for years waiting for the right artist to do it.

And occasionally a truly great song gets recorded and becomes a hit.

I can also say I've known writers who wrote songs that I thought were as good if not better than Yesterday or Penny Lane. If you're interested I can name some.

But, we never concerned ourselves with whether our song was "as good" as Yesterday or Penny Lane - we did our best and that was all we could do. After that, the song was on its own.

The next day we would write another song.


----------



## Xisten267

SanAntone said:


> I think you are confused about what we "relativists" are saying. At least, I am not saying that Work X by someone can be as good as Work Y by Beethoven because there is no objective standard. No, what I am saying is that I like Work X better than Work Y by Beethoven. Personally I don't care whether a work is good, better, great, etc., on some abstract standard. My only standard is my personal subjective opinion. And I won't say that Work X is "great" only that I enjoy it.
> 
> Do you see the difference?


If we can agree that there are legitimate standards that measure greatness in music other than personal taste, and that therefore greatness exists and has a certain degree of objectivity (better saying, greatness is relative, but not totally relative), then I guess that we have nothing more to discuss here. Musical taste is relative and if you choose to select what you listen only with your taste in mind, I'm the last person to complain. I accept unconditionally that you love traffic noise and hate, say, Bach's _Art of Fugue_, or Beethoven's _Ninth_, or Wagner's _Ring_. But I disagree totally if you claim that traffic noise is equally valid as art as these masterpieces just because you like it.


----------



## SanAntone

Allerius said:


> If we can agree that there are legitimate standards that measure greatness in music other than personal taste, and that therefore greatness exists and has a certain degree of objectivity (better saying, greatness is relative, but not totally relative), then I guess that we have nothing more to discuss here. Musical taste is relative and if you choose to select what you listen only with your taste in mind, I'm the last person to complain. I accept unconditionally that you love traffic noise and hate, say, Bach's _Art of Fugue_, or Beethoven's _Ninth_, or Wagner's _Ring_. But I disagree totally if you claim that traffic noise is equally valid as art as these masterpieces just because you like it.


I won't agree "that there are legitimate standards that measure greatness in music" since I've never been presented with any that convinced me of what you claim. Other than that, I don't "love traffic noise and hate, say, Bach's _Art of Fugue_, or Beethoven's _Ninth_, or Wagner's _Ring_" (well, I'm not a fan of The Ring  ).

My taste in classical music is not what I think of as radical, but I am curious about what new music composers are writing, and I don't judge it. Most of my listening, though, is by composers you probably also enjoy.


----------



## Bulldog

Allerius said:


> Why composing was so frustrating to you, considering that you don't believe in absolute greatness in music?


Within myself, I definitely have notions of levels of greatness, of some music being just decent and other music being poor, etc. However, that just applies to myself. Others will see it differently.

I've heard numerous works through my games that I would never heard of otherwise. Most of those works don't appeal to me. Sometimes, a work I don't care for gets many votes from two or three other members, maybe even wins the game. What's wrong with those folks? Nothing, they just have a different internal mechanism than mine. What's poor to me is golden to them. That's diversity of opinion, not a recognition of greatness or lack of it.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Within myself . I haplessly create music of woo .


----------



## DaveM

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Within myself . I haplessly create music of woo .


Would that be music *W*ith *O*ut *O*pus?


----------



## Xisten267

SanAntone said:


> I won't agree "that there are legitimate standards that measure greatness in music" since I've never been presented with any that convinced me of what you claim. *Other than that, I don't "love traffic noise and hate, say, Bach's Art of Fugue, or Beethoven's Ninth, or Wagner's Ring"* (well, I'm not a fan of The Ring  ).


Oh, I didn't mean you actually do (I didn't know). It was an hipothetical situation. I should have written "...one loves traffic noise..." not "...you love traffic noise...". 



Bulldog said:


> Within myself, I definitely have notions of levels of greatness, of some music being just decent and other music being poor, etc. However, that just applies to myself. Others will see it differently.
> 
> I've heard numerous works through my games that I would never heard of otherwise. Most of those works don't appeal to me. It's my case at least. Sometimes, a work I don't care for gets many votes from two or three other members, maybe even wins the game. What's wrong with those folks? Nothing, they just have a different internal mechanism than mine. What's poor to me is golden to them. That's diversity of opinion, not a recognition of greatness or lack of it.


Well, I understand that we vote for what we like in the games, not necessarily for what we believe to be great or not. Also, the fact that I believe in greatness in the arts doesn't mean that I think I'm the one to judge what's better than what when it comes to works by the great composers - actually, I think that there are members here at TC much more experienced, knowledgeable and prepared to do such a thing if they want than me. My main goal with the games is discovering new music I like - if participating makes me discover at least one piece I can enjoy, to me it will have been totally worth it. It's for the fun of a competition also.


----------



## chu42

Allerius said:


> Well, I understand that we vote for what we like in the games, not necessarily for what we believe to be great or not. Also, the fact that I believe in greatness in the arts doesn't mean that I think I'm the one to judge what's better than what when it comes to works by the great composers - actually, I think that there are members here at TC much more experienced, knowledgeable and prepared to do such a thing if they want than me. My main goal with the games is discovering new music I like - if participating makes me discover at least one piece I can enjoy, to me it will have been totally worth it. It's for the fun of a competition also.


Why does one have to be "highly experienced" or an "expert" to judge art? You realize that even experts and professionals routinely have dissenting opinions on what is great art? Or an expert can hold one opinion and it can change over time after repeated listenings; for better or for worse.

It's because even though humans _do_ follow certain biological and cultural trends, at the end of the day they still perceive things subjectively.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

My unpopular opinion is performers, orchestra, recordings are mostly the same quality played slightly different at times, although tge differences are slight. Yes there are poor recordings and performances but for the most part it's all subjective. Unknown, lesser known, non brand name soloists, orchestra, conductors and performers turn in recordings equal to the celebrated and popular ones. I no longer search around for the "best version". Sometimes my massive big box $.99 download of a bunch of unknown cats is the version of a work I like sometimes it's the the highly touted known cats. 

I don't give a rats rear end about critic recommendations.


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> Why does one have to be "highly experienced" or an "expert" to judge art? You realize that even experts and professionals routinely have dissenting opinions on what is great art? Or an expert can hold one opinion and it can change over time after repeated listenings; for better or for worse.
> 
> It's because even though humans _do_ follow certain biological and cultural trends, at the end of the day they still perceive things subjectively.


But isn't that the case in literally any subject (except possibly mathematics and exact philosophy)? Experts in science often disagree on things and change their opinions after looking at the evidence again. This is no reason to throw out expert opinion altogether or conclude science is subjective.


----------



## WNvXXT

Drone shots. In film. An immediate turn off. Worst than that - cgi blood. Lazy film making and fake as hell. Any film today can be made without computer generated imagery.


----------



## adriesba

WNvXXT said:


> Drone shots. In film. An immediate turn off.


Why?‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎


----------



## WNvXXT

And I'll tell you right now. I am not watching anything with people wearing masks. I'll walk out if I'm in a movie, not even add to my watch list - cull those out.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Bulldog said:


> Sometimes, a work I don't care for gets many votes from two or three other members, maybe even wins the game. What's wrong with those folks? Nothing, they just have a different internal mechanism than mine. What's poor to me is golden to them. That's diversity of opinion, not a recognition of greatness or lack of it.


Come on, Bulldog... you must admit it. There's something wrong with these people. You can't just let them go on appreciating garbage!


----------



## Roger Knox

I think that the hardest lesson in classical music is being made aware of what you don't know. We flounder about in areas of which we know little, while neglecting to develop our areas of strength. I think this opinion is unpopular but I don't mean it to be a criticism of anyone in particular -- rather it's an observation that self-knowledge can be difficult.


----------



## hammeredklavier

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Come on, Bulldog... you must admit it. There's something wrong with these people. You can't just let them go on appreciating garbage!


What should Bull do about it? Be a bully?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Here's an unpopular opinion:

In general (NOT in every case), the more "likes" a post has on TC, the less likely I am to find it interesting.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Roger Knox said:


> I think that the hardest lesson in classical music is being made aware of what you don't know. We flounder about in areas of which we know little, while neglecting to develop our areas of strength. I think this opinion is unpopular but I don't mean it to be a criticism of anyone in particular -- rather it's an observation that self-knowledge can be difficult.


I think when it comes to all life-long endeavors, not just classical music, one should accept that they're always going to be ignorant to some extent and that they'll always be a student.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Here's an unpopular opinion:
> 
> In general (NOT in every case), the more "likes" a post has on TC, the less likely I am to find it interesting.


Wow, great post Brahms! Have a like!!! :tiphat:


----------



## Malx

It seems to me for many this may be an unpopular opinion - 'For a listener, music should primarily be a source of pleasure and enjoyment. Any micro-analysis or comparisons of performances that do not add to that enjoyment are a waste of valuable listening time'


----------



## LesCyclopes

Mozart sounds like elevator music. 

If he lived a bit longer and wrote more in minor keys, maybe his music would have improved.


----------



## hammeredklavier

LesCyclopes said:


> Mozart sounds like elevator music.
> If he lived a bit longer and wrote more in minor keys, maybe his music would have improved.


have a look through this thread:
https://www.talkclassical.com/67435-does-bach-clarity-pride-4.html#post1906129


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Wow, great post Brahms! Have a like!!! :tiphat:


Up until a couple of days ago, my like / post ratio was just over 1:1. Admittedly for a while I was a little self-conscious about it, posting the occasional fluff which I knew would garner likes just to keep it this way (though I never resorted to "Current Listening").

At some point I finally said "to hell with it. I'll say what I want, when I want, how I want." I have more posts than likes now, but I feel a lot better having this stigma off my chest.

Sorta did a similar thing in real life. Might have lost some "friends" in the process, but I feel a lot better now.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

A lot of the time people on TC care more about being right and proving the other person wrong instead of finding common ground for discussion. Which to be fair isn't a TC thing, it's a people thing.


----------



## Portamento

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> A lot of the time people on TC care more about being right and proving the other person wrong instead of finding common ground for discussion. Which to be fair isn't a TC thing, it's a people thing.


Sometimes there's common ground and sometimes there's not. What to do?


----------



## HenryPenfold

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> A lot of the time people on TC care more about being right and proving the other person wrong instead of *finding common ground for discussion.*


Or failing that, finding how to explore differences and learn how to disagree.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

I strongly dislike Lieder. They sound goofy to me and make me cringe. I have a hard time with vocal music in general.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Portamento said:


> Sometimes there's common ground and sometimes there's not. What to do?


I think Henry put it much better than I did.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I strongly dislike Lieder. They sound goofy to me and make me cringe. I have a hard time with vocal music in general.


What about those of Webern, or the second Viennese school generally? The expressionist sensibility and harmony makes it seem more directly evocative of emotion rather than representative of emotion, and that helped me get into the singing. It was easier for me to go backwards in time in musical history after that.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

SeptimalTritone said:


> What about those of Webern, or the second Viennese school generally? The expressionist sensibility and harmony makes it seem more directly evocative of emotion rather than representative of emotion, and that helped me get into the singing. It was easier for me to go backwards in time in musical history after that.


Haha, it's funny you mention that, those are the primary offenders for me! I wish I could get into it but it's hard. I'll keep what you said in mind about the emotional evocation, it could help me come around to it.

I find these vocal pieces pretty hard to get into, just for examples


----------



## SeptimalTritone

The key for Webern's vocal music is to hear the melodicism of the singer and the melodicism of the instruments as being one and the same. His vocal works occupy a unique position in music: on the one hand, we hear the singer as the melody and the instruments as accompaniment because the human voice sticks out, yet on the other hand the singer and instruments are melodic contrapuntal equals. This produces great tension.

For some people, especially those who don't generally like second-Viennese music, the wide leaps and emphasis on melodic major sevenths and minor ninths is particularly off-putting when it comes to vocals, but I don't think that should be a problem for you.

Those works are great examples, another is the Cantata 1, whose second movement 



 particularly embodies the tension between solo singer melody - instrumental accompaniment and contrapuntal equality. The second and fourth movements of the Cantata 2 you mentioned above are similar. The fourth movement in the Cantata 2, while short, particularly strikes the right part of the brain with its instrumental color and chord patterns.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

SeptimalTritone said:


> The key for Webern's vocal music is to hear the melodicism of the singer and the melodicism of the instruments as being one and the same. His vocal works occupy a unique position in music: on the one hand, we hear the singer as the melody and the instruments as accompaniment because the human voice sticks out, yet on the other hand the singer and instruments are melodic contrapuntal equals. This produces great tension.
> 
> For some people, especially those who don't generally like second-Viennese music, the wide leaps and emphasis on melodic major sevenths and minor ninths is particularly off-putting when it comes to vocals, but I don't think that should be a problem for you.
> 
> Those works are great examples, another is the Cantata 1, whose second movement
> 
> 
> 
> particularly embodies the tension between solo singer melody - instrumental accompaniment and contrapuntal equality. The second and fourth movements of the Cantata 2 you mentioned above are similar. The fourth movement in the Cantata 2, while short, particularly strikes the right part of the brain with its instrumental color and chord patterns.


I can't tell you how much I appreciate this post, this has always been such a tough nut to crack in Webern's music


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Malx said:


> It seems to me for many this may be an unpopular opinion - 'For a listener, music should primarily be a source of pleasure and enjoyment. Any micro-analysis or comparisons of performances that do not add to that enjoyment are a waste of valuable listening time'


Yes. Wouldn't argue with that.


----------



## consuono

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Here's an unpopular opinion:
> 
> In general (NOT in every case), the more "likes" a post has on TC, the less likely I am to find it interesting.


I use the mobile interface most of the time so I don't even see "likes".


----------



## superguy4519

Mozart's Jupiter coda is one of the worse examples of invertible counterpoint i know of


----------



## Neo Romanza

I don’t like the Baroque or Classical Eras. The Romantic Era is where things start getting interesting for me.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

If Mahler had cut each of his symphonies down by at least 50%, they would be much better compositions.


----------



## science

MatthewWeflen said:


> If Mahler had cut each of his symphonies down by at least 50%, they would be much better compositions.


Make that 65% for Bruckner and you've got a deal.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

MatthewWeflen said:


> If Mahler had cut each of his symphonies down by at least 50%, they would be much better compositions.





science said:


> Make that 65% for Bruckner and you've got a deal.


I love both Bruckner and Mahler (35% and 50%, respectively) and I agree with both statements. But I would want more selective cutting instead of from each symphony. For example, Mahler can keep most of symphony 1 but cut most of symphony 6


----------



## fbjim

I disagree and submit that all Webern orchestral pieces should be as long as a Bruckner movement.


----------



## science

fbjim said:


> I disagree and submit that all Webern orchestral pieces should be as long as a Bruckner movement.


They could easily last 90 minutes, if only the musicians would play them that slowly!

Where are the Celibidaches of yesteryear?


----------



## MatthewWeflen

science said:


> Make that 65% for Bruckner and you've got a deal.


I can agree with that - I would go with a 30% cut from Bruckner.

There are portions I enjoy from most of Mahler's symphonies. I just wish they would then move on to the next movement and resolve as a composition in a coherent manner.

Bruckner is far more coherent, he just repeats ideas a bit more.

Give me a Haydn. He's like George Costanza - always leave them wanting more!


----------



## rice

I saw people criticized hard on Rachmaninoff based on his symphonies. 

His greatest works are the piano concertos. It's only fair of a composer to be judged by his best works.

Not that he needed affirmation from those people though. He is popular enough.


----------



## Enthusiast

I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion but most of the dislike confessions in this thread seem based in a misunderstanding of what a period, composer or a piece is about and perhaps on limited experience with those. A little bit of humility might help some to suspend disbelief and persevere with music that so many other people with good knowledge and experience value highly. To think that something highly valued is "not for me" seems a little self-obsessed or even teenaged (as in the age of identity crises).


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Enthusiast said:


> I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion but most of the dislike confessions in this thread seem based in a misunderstanding of what a period, composer or a piece is about and perhaps on limited experience with those. A little bit of humility might help some to suspend disbelief and persevere with music that so many other people with good knowledge and experience value highly. To think that something highly valued is "not for me" seems a little self-obsessed or even teenaged (as in the age of identity crises).


Yep, that's very likely an unpopular opinion.

I've sunk a good 25+ hours into Mahler, because so many people with "good knowledge and experience" keep raving about it.

At some point, my own opinion needs to take precedence for my own listening choices. I don't think that's teen-aged at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Teen-agers slavishly devote themselves to what the "cool kids" like.


----------



## Art Rock

MatthewWeflen said:


> At some point, my own opinion needs to take precedence for my own listening choices.


Definitely. No-one is obliged to like every famous composer or every famous composition. The important thing is that you gave it a serious try. Do try again though in 5-10 years down the line - you might be surprised.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

MatthewWeflen said:


> Yep, that's very likely an unpopular opinion.
> 
> I've sunk a good 25+ hours into Mahler, because so many people with "good knowledge and experience" keep raving about it.
> 
> At some point, my own opinion needs to take precedence for my own listening choices. I don't think that's teen-aged at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Teen-agers slavishly devote themselves to what the "cool kids" like.


I think he means those who don't give them a serious try. I also have given a lot of time to composers who people regard highly, some I've come to like, some I haven't.

But I've recommended pieces on here and people listen to it once and say its not for them. That's not a serious listener to me.


----------



## fbjim

I think all anyone can ask is good faith from the listener (and the assumption of good faith from the composer)- anything past that is taste. 


and yeah absolutely try again, tastes change over time with experience, both musical and otherwise


----------



## Open Book

MatthewWeflen said:


> Yep, that's very likely an unpopular opinion.
> 
> I've sunk a good 25+ hours into Mahler, because so many people with "good knowledge and experience" keep raving about it.
> 
> At some point, my own opinion needs to take precedence for my own listening choices. I don't think that's teen-aged at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Teen-agers slavishly devote themselves to what the "cool kids" like.


25+ hours into all of Mahler? I can sink nearly that much into single works.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> "There is good music and there is great music, there is no such thing as bad music" has long been my motto.:tiphat:


I don't know, I've heard some pretty bad stuff in my time...


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Open Book said:


> 25+ hours into all of Mahler? I can sink nearly that much into single works.


That's only because they last that long. :devil:

Basically, I've done three full cycles over the past two years. It still hasn't clicked. There are isolated sections that I enjoy, but I still find them formless and meandering as complete works.


----------



## fluteman

science said:


> Make that 65% for Bruckner and you've got a deal.


And 80 percent for the king of endless thematic repetition with little or no variation: Richard Wagner. It may work for the audience, or some audiences, but it's exhausting for the orchestra and few singers have the stamina to even attempt his operas.


----------



## Nedeslusire

Western Renaissance polyphony and Eastern Byzantine kalophony are the highest forms of music, vastly superior to all that came afterward.


----------



## RussianFlute

The harpsichord is the most annoying instrument to ever exist. Seriously, it sounds like cheap tingling silverware.


----------



## fbjim

It's OK to stop listening to the Eroica after the second movement.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

RussianFlute said:


> The harpsichord is the most annoying instrument to ever exist. Seriously, it sounds like cheap tingling silverware.


Beecham compared it to skeletons copulating on a tin roof in a thunderstorm.


----------



## fbjim

fbjim said:


> It's OK to stop listening to the Eroica after the second movement.


This wasn't unpopular enough so how about- "not only is it OK to stop listening to the Eroica after the second movement, but people should program it that way"

They did it in the 1800s so you can call it HIP. Actually someone should do a HIP version of the 2nd or something where they randomly drop the Allegretto from the 7th in there like you hear the stories about conductors doing.


----------



## PuerAzaelis

I don't like violin concertos. Screeching, whining, wheezing, sliding ...


----------



## Celloman

Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Debussy, Stravinsky, and Bartok are the worst composers who ever lived.

Completely overrated.

And Florence Foster Jenkins is the greatest singer of all time.


----------



## janxharris

Celloman said:


> Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Debussy, Stravinsky, and Bartok are the worst composers who ever lived.
> 
> Completely overrated.
> 
> And Florence Foster Jenkins is the greatest singer of all time.


Who would you say is the best?


----------



## Celloman

janxharris said:


> Who would you say is the best?


Alma Deutscher, of course!


----------



## fbjim

oh, one more


In sacred choral music, I tend to prefer boy soprano sections to women sopranos. Even if it's technically less "beautiful", something about the timbre of boy soprano sections just sounds right for sacred music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

fbjim said:


> oh, one more
> 
> In sacred choral music, I tend to prefer boy soprano sections to women sopranos. Even if it's technically less "beautiful", something about the timbre of boy soprano sections just sounds right for sacred music.


That's also my preference. I'm not sure if that is so unpopular an opinion.


----------



## fbjim

I dunno, I've specifically seen recordings of things like requiem masses be marked down for having boy soprano groups in them.


----------



## Enthusiast

Art Rock said:


> Definitely. No-one is obliged to like every famous composer or every famous composition. The important thing is that you gave it a serious try. Do try again though in 5-10 years down the line - you might be surprised.


I agree 100%. But the key is remaining open to a future discovery. There were lots of composers who after lots of trying I didn't like and I told the world about it. But then, for some of them, I found that I suddenly had the key and had been missing something wonderful. So, except in cases where unwanted kitsch or pastiche seem to be the main focus of my disdain, I try not to conclude that I dislike such composers. That doesn't mean others have to do the same but it is wisdom that works for me.


----------



## Xisten267

fbjim said:


> It's OK to stop listening to the Eroica after the second movement.





fbjim said:


> This wasn't unpopular enough so how about- "not only is it OK to stop listening to the Eroica after the second movement, but people should program it that way"
> 
> They did it in the 1800s so you can call it HIP. Actually someone should do a HIP version of the 2nd or something where they randomly drop the Allegretto from the 7th in there like you hear the stories about conductors doing.


But then we would not hear that magnificent finale that combines sonata and variation forms with lot's of counterpoint and an _englische_ and it's humanistic symbolism! The heart of the _Eroica_ is the last movement in my opinion.


----------



## fluteman

Celloman said:


> Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Debussy, Stravinsky, and Bartok are the worst composers who ever lived.
> 
> Completely overrated.
> 
> And Florence Foster Jenkins is the greatest singer of all time.


The problem with all that is, you don't really believe it. I really believe my 'unpopular' opinion. I could say, Meryl Streep has no acting talent, and was awful as Florence Foster Jenkins. Who here would agree? But I really think she is a great actress who gets a lot of great roles in great movies, and is delightful in that particular movie. If you haven't seen it, do so. There, I just made this entire, somewhat silly, thread worthwhile for you.


----------



## 59540

Celloman said:


> Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Debussy, Stravinsky, and Bartok are the worst composers who ever lived.
> 
> Completely overrated. ...


As a fan of all the above I wonder if that's my cue to take it as a personal insult and be offended. Things were getting to be so much better around here for fans of these composers. We finally felt able to come out of the shadows. And now this.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

dissident said:


> As a fan of all the above I wonder if that's my cue to take it as a personal insult and be offended. Things were getting to be so much better around here for fans of these composers. We finally felt able to come out of the shadows. And now this.


It's an opinion and a very unpopular one at that. Why would you take this as a persona insult?


----------



## 59540

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> It's an opinion and a very unpopular one at that. Why would you take this as a persona insult?


Because I've been called a dupe. It's a personal insult. Sorry Celloman, I might have to report. (Not really, of course. I have confidence that Bach, Beethoven et al can withstand some criticism on an internet forum.)


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Mane is overrated


----------



## fbjim

Xisten267 said:


> But then we would not hear that magnificent finale that combines sonata and variation forms with lot's of counterpoint and an _englische_ and it's humanistic symbolism! The heart of the _Eroica_ is the last movement in my opinion.


I've given that finale a shot and I'll probably give it many, many more shots before I either die or get burnt out on Beethoven.

I did like reading a contemporary newspaper report from London in the middle of the 19th century reading something like "The performance properly ended with the funeral march, rather than continuing with the third and fourth movements" which would be unthinkable nowadays but I was like, yeah, I lose interest in the Eroica after that too. How do you follow *that* movement?


----------



## Open Book

I like that people on this thread have been mostly tolerant of others' unpopular, often outrageous opinions. Fewer arguments than in other threads.


----------



## Art Rock

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Mane is overrated


----------



## fbjim

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Mane is overrated


Like the state?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion, but I think Bach - while my favorite Baroque composer and one of my favorites of all time - is hardly representative of the Baroque era. He was kind of an anomaly, in fact. Most Baroque music is much more dramatic, more spacious.


----------



## fbjim

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion, but I think Bach - while my favorite Baroque composer and one of my favorites of all time - is hardly representative of the Baroque era. He was kind of an anomaly, in fact. Most Baroque music is much more dramatic, more spacious.


Maybe related- I think a lot of Mozart, especially early Mozart is effectively just in a common practice mode and it takes a lot of experience of the classical era to seek out Mozart's very specific voice in those works, especially "minor" Mozart works- but there are few other composers in that mode which listeners regularly listen to.

This is probably why it was historically relatively easy to write "fake" Mozart, or why many historic works were incorrectly attributed to him.


----------



## fbjim

fbjim said:


> Maybe related- I think a lot of Mozart, especially early Mozart is effectively just in a common practice mode and it takes a lot of experience of the classical era to seek out Mozart's very specific voice in those works, especially "minor" Mozart works- but there are few other composers in that mode which listeners regularly listen to.
> 
> This is probably why it was historically relatively easy to write "fake" Mozart, or why many historic works were incorrectly attributed to him.


sorry I should have formatted this in the terms of an unpopular opinion - here goes

"All Mozart sounds the same!"


----------



## Malx

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion, but I think Bach - while my favorite Baroque composer and one of my favorites of all time - is hardly representative of the Baroque era. He was kind of an anomaly, in fact. Most Baroque music is much more dramatic, more spacious.


So was Bach the first minimalist :devil:


----------



## 59540

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion, but I think Bach - while my favorite Baroque composer and one of my favorites of all time - is hardly representative of the Baroque era. He was kind of an anomaly, in fact. Most Baroque music is much more dramatic, more spacious.


What Baroque music is more dramatic and spacious than the St Matthew Passion or B Minor Mass?


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> Maybe related- I think a lot of Mozart, especially early Mozart is effectively just in a common practice mode and it takes a lot of experience of the classical era to seek out Mozart's very specific voice in those works, especially "minor" Mozart works- but there are few other composers in that mode which listeners regularly listen to.
> This is probably why it was historically relatively easy to write "fake" Mozart, or why many historic works were incorrectly attributed to him.


I think this is one of the most widespread stereotypes about the Classical idiom and Mozart. Whenever there's a typically Classical-sounding late 18th century composer, people always say "he sounds like Mozart!", but I don't think there are many that actually sound like Mozart beyond the surface level. You'll see what I'm saying if you go through what I wrote Classical music vs Great music. Of Mice, Mozart and Mahler


----------



## hammeredklavier

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion, but I think Bach - while my favorite Baroque composer and one of my favorites of all time - is hardly representative of the Baroque era. He was kind of an anomaly, in fact. Most Baroque music is much more dramatic, more spacious.


People also have this misconception that Bach was the norm of the Baroque and Boccherini was the norm of the Classical period, and the difference of their styles represent the idiomatic change that occurred in the mid 18th century. But I think it would be more reasonable to categorize Bach as a "church composer" and with compare his style with the "church composers' " of the Classical period. There was a divergence of different styles, but the alleged "decline of counterpoint" is a "myth"; it never really happened. For instance, Anton Cajetan Adlgasser (1729-1777), an organist in Salzburg, was referred to as a "master of counterpoint" by the 20-year-old Mozart in a letter.


----------



## fbjim

I guess the problem is that the standard rep kind of jumps from Bach to Mozart to Beethoven and doesn't have much time for anything other than stopping at Handel, Vivaldi and Haydn for a bit. Certainly listeners more familiar with classical period composers will have a much easier time identifying Mozart's specific musical voice in his work.


----------



## janxharris

fbjim said:


> I guess the problem is that the standard rep kind of jumps from Bach to Mozart to Beethoven and doesn't have much time for anything other than stopping at Handel, Vivaldi and Haydn for a bit. Certainly listeners more familiar with classical period composers will have a much easier time identifying Mozart's specific musical voice in his work.


I think it's the harmonic homogeny that is the essence of the 'it all sounds the same' complaint; certainly if one's focus is on harmony then one may find the classical era relatively disappointing from a more romantic / modernist perspective.


----------



## Kreisler jr

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion, but I think Bach - while my favorite Baroque composer and one of my favorites of all time - is hardly representative of the Baroque era. He was kind of an anomaly, in fact. Most Baroque music is much more dramatic, more spacious.


I am not sure what you mean with the last sentence, especially as they seem two rather different attributes. 
It depends on the comparisons. Bach was obviously rather different from Vivaldi and Rameau as they represented different cultures and had different focusses. (Although the Bach concerto style is basically Vivaldian, expanded and beefed up with north German counterpoint.) 
But even with Handel who basically left the background he shared with Bach when he as ~20 there is quite a bit of overlap. Bach's keyboard suites are more elaborate and systematic but they are not totally different from Handel's (I am very far from an expert but if one takes the middle between the sometimes a bit flashy Handel and more contemplative suites from Buxtehude, Kuhnau... Bach will still be Bach but not stick out as entirely different.) 
The Brockes Passion, not considered one of Handel's better works was important enough for Bach to copy. If one uses as comparisons the German contemporaries like Telemann or a generation earlier, like Kuhnau, Bach's cantatas and passions do not stick out (in fact despite early Bach scholars like Spitta hating on Telemann, they mistook a few Telemann cantatas for Bach). They might be the best, the most elaborate or learned, but not fundamentally different (as they might appear compared to Vivaldi's sacred music).
Sure, there probably was no organ composer in Bach's generation of comparable weight, so one again has to go a bit back to Buxtehude but here Bach was a part of a strong organist tradition, focussed mostly in Germany and Netherlands. Even the most special Bachian works (and they should not be taken as representative of the whole), the "theoretical" works like Art of Fugue etc. have predecessors or some kind of tradition. And there was sufficient interest in such things that the Mizler society promoted them.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> I think it's the harmonic homogeny that is the essence of the 'it all sounds the same' complaint; certainly if one's focus is on harmony then one may find the classical era relatively disappointing from a more romantic / modernist perspective.


As I said, if you're only focused on the tonic and dominant structure and don't see their expressivity with non-chord tones or chromaticism, I think you're missing the forest for the trees. So far, the "big names" of the romantic / modernist idiom are interesting and impressive. But aside from those, there are also ones that are generic and uninspired (ones that sound like today's good film music with their meanderings).


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> As I said, if you're only tonic and dominant structure (and not their expressivity with non-chord tones or chromaticism), I think you're missing the forest for the trees. So far, the "big names" of the romantic / modernist idiom are interesting and impressive. But aside from those, there are also ones that are generic and uninspired (ones that sound like today's good film music with their endless meanderings).


I agree with you HK - I'm certainly not perceiving the forest you perceive...which is fine. Yes, there is a lot of such generic / uninspired romantic / modern.

So do you agree that the first movement of the 40th symphony (of WAM) has an exposition melody that is so strong that one does not find oneself focusing on any (possible) harmonic shortcomings? The harmony does get interesting in the development, admittedly.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> I agree with you HK - I'm certainly not perceiving the forest you perceive...which is fine. Yes, there is a lot of such generic / uninspired romantic / modern.
> So do you agree that the first movement of the 40th symphony (of WAM) has an exposition melody that is so strong that one does not find oneself focusing on any (possible) harmonic shortcomings? The harmony does get interesting in the development, admittedly.


Sure, but I think the same can be said of




I think one could get the feeling that the idiom is rather "pedantic", with clear diatonic sections. 
I agree with Charles Hazlewood's view on this, but your view on the idiom isn't too unreasonable either.

Charles Hazlewood: "Such a key for Mozart is that, you put two characters side by side, and it's all about the particular oil they give off when they're applied to each other. It's something I love so much about Mozart. He's so human. He totally understood you can't have joy without pain, terror without consolation, love without grief."


----------



## Phil loves classical

janxharris said:


> I think it's the harmonic homogeny that is the essence of the 'it all sounds the same' complaint; certainly if one's focus is on harmony then one may find the classical era relatively disappointing from a more romantic / modernist perspective.


Here's my unpopular opinion, which contrasts yours. Romanticism as a weak bridge between Classical and Modernism.

I think a lot of composers not just Haydn (yes, Joseph) and Mozart found interesting things with harmony and expressions in the Classical era forms. In fact I find it interesting to have certain constraints in a more conservative form which forced composers to make more interesting lines or make the harmony go somewhere less predictable in the intermediate. Even minor composers can do that. They never skin the cat the same way, even when they always end up skinning. The romantic era changed things up, and the game was changed, but in many ways it's less interesting to me.

I heard the popular 2nd movement on the radio the other day, and it just feels right.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Maybe not unpopular but with the years I tend to the position that even drawing vague lines to get epochs is often more misleading than enlightening. 
I don't know enough about MA/Renaissance but the sharpest/clearest line seem to me the introduction of melody + figured bass around 1600. But this did not make polyphony vanish, only changed it, nevertheless it is a strong division and I think it is one of the most common misunderstandings that baroque is mostly polyphony when the new thing about baroque was exactly the opposite...

Baroque - "gallant style" - classicism around 1750 is already harder to delineate. One says that this is "after figured bass". But this is not true because people still learned composition mainly in that way up to Beethoven and many scores still show the numbers in the late 18th century.

Classicism - romanticism in the 1820s is largely a mess. I think the main problem is that there is no romanticism. The important composer of the 1810s-30s are just too different to cover them with one label: Cherubini, Beethoven, Hummel, Weber, Spohr, Schubert, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Liszt, Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti. And it is even more contentious who should count as classical and who as romantic. (I mean, Beethoven's "An die ferne Geliebte" might count as an early romantic precursor of Schumann, but Beethoven's instrumental music are not early baby steps but far more accomplished than almost anything the Romantics could muster, he is certainly not an early romantic if these are the associations.)
It is also a fact that most important romantic composers are "classicist" in a way, namely mostly writing in forms that reached their standard shape the late 18th century.

Romanticism - modernity around 1900 is an even more confounded mess with some people composing romantically until the 1940s or even 50s (Rachmaninoff, Korngold...) and modernity being even less unifiying as a category than romanticism.


----------



## fbjim

Kreisler jr said:


> Romanticism - modernity around 1900 is an even more confounded mess with some people composing romantically until the 1940s or even 50s (Rachmaninoff, Korngold...) and modernity being even less unifiying as a category than romanticism.


I *still* see people writing stuff which seems to assume that all contemporary music now is either serial or minimalist. Which I don't think was true, ever.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, but I think the same can be said of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think one could get the feeling that the idiom is rather "pedantic", with clear diatonic sections.
> I agree with Charles Hazlewood's view on this, but your view on the idiom isn't too unreasonable either.
> 
> Charles Hazlewood: "Such a key for Mozart is that, you put two characters side by side, and it's all about the particular oil they give off when they're applied to each other. It's something I love so much about Mozart. He's so human. He totally understood you can't have joy without pain, terror without consolation, love without grief."


I don't share your view of that String Quintet...but thanks.

Curious language employed by Hazlewood (in it's specifics).


----------



## science

One of my unpopular opinions is that too many of us are depriving ourselves of the pleasure of getting to know music composed prior to 1700.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Contemporary performance practice of classical music is far more symptomatic of cultural decadence than popular music.

HIP/PI is at least as relevant for Classical / Romantic music as it is for Baroque and earlier music, if not more so.

People who advocate HIP for Baroque and Renaissance music but not for Classical or Early Romantic music are like people who call themselves Christians but just use God for personal gain.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Here's another unpopular opinion:

I support judging people by their taste in music as much as I support judging them by any other of their facets, characteristics, or personality traits (which, to be fair, is not at all; I don't think you ever have the right to judge another person. But if you are going to, might as well judge them by their taste in music).


----------



## fbjim

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Contemporary performance practice of classical music is far more symptomatic of cultural decadence than popular music.
> 
> HIP/PI is at least as relevant for Classical / Romantic music as it is for Baroque and earlier music, if not more so.
> 
> People who advocate HIP for Baroque and Renaissance music but not for Classical or Early Romantic music are like people who call themselves Christians but just use God for personal gain.


thankfully I like "big band" baroque so I am exempt

actually these days, liking "big band" baroque is possibly unpopular.


----------



## 59540

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Contemporary performance practice of classical music is far more symptomatic of cultural decadence than popular music.
> 
> HIP/PI is at least as relevant for Classical / Romantic music as it is for Baroque and earlier music, if not more so.
> 
> People who advocate HIP for Baroque and Renaissance music but not for Classical or Early Romantic music are like people who call themselves Christians but just use God for personal gain.


I kinda agree. Shouldn't Chopin be played only on 1840s pianos or earlier? Shouldn't Brahms be played only on an 1860s or so J. B. Streicher?


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I like it when people are funny when they are serious and serious when they are funny, people.


----------

