# Great or popular works that you were disappointed in?



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

I don't intend this to be a flame contest, but I was interested in what works have disappointed you s far as not being as good as you've always heard, my example, though I have since changed my opinion was the first few times I tried getting into Bruckner, it just didn't click with me, he seems to be thought if very highly at least here anyway, thou as I said I have since altered my opinion, I think it was the recording and nit the music that I didn't like. What were your disappointments?


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

Enigma Variations. Only Nimrod is any good.


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

Most of Brahms, I don't know what it is but I just can't connect with the majority of his stuff. He's one of the main "major" composers that I've never really been able to get in to at all.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I get but do not at all care for:

Bruckner -- all of it.

Rachmaninoff -- ditto, but at least with this composer I can fully admire the craft, both piano and orchestral, where with Bruckner, 'meh.'

Tchaikovsky -- some wonderful woodwind writing here and there, other than that, not for me, as in gag me with a spoon not for me.

Think Beethoven's Hammerklavier wrongly enshrined, a seriously flawed and ugly piece, but hey, it is Beethoven, in full force amain with all of his personal struggle of actually composing, wrestling with the musical materials 'to make them work.' Ditto his Grosse Fuga movement from the string quartet.

Mahler 2nd: Religious / Spiritual content of text sways both public and critics to cite it as one of his best. Mahler 1, 4, Das Lied von der Erde and the adagio from the uncompleted 10th, yes. The second? It just ain't 

Sometimes popular is still the lower common denominator, even with the popular classical rep.


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

> Most of Brahms, I don't know what it is but I just can't connect with the majority of his stuff. He's one of the main "major" composers that I've never really been able to get in to at all.


Me too - and also Schuman.

In terms of being _disappointed_ by pieces of music; Rachmaninovs' 2nd symphony is his most popular, yet I can't get into it at all, much much MUCH preferring the rarely performed 1st. Also Mahler's 5th - it simply doesn't press enough of my buttons, and Shostakovich 14th 'cos it's not a symphony.


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

Stargazer said:


> Most of Brahms, I don't know what it is but I just can't connect with the majority of his stuff. He's one of the main "major" composers that I've never really been able to get in to at all.


I thought Brahms was a must have. After buying 2 cycles of the symphonies, I still can't see the greatness in him. However, I then listened to his string quartets and quintets and loved them. Maybe I don't like his orchestration.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I can't speak of Beethoven, because I don't remember the _first _time I ever heard something through by him. I got pretty irritated at hearing some live performances of the 5th and 6th symphonies though, hoping a live performance might make it better (it didn't). A live performance of the 7th did just a little better.

But pieces I was hopeful for and didn't like probably include Mahler. I bought his 1st symphony, and I liked it a little the first listening, but I got kinda bored of it and haven't picked it up since, except to hear it on radio. I've also heard his whole 2nd symphony performed live, and the whole first half did nothing for me. Then, when the vocal/choral stuff came in, everything changed and I loved it. Strange experience.

I guess I was disappointed a little with the Shostakovich 7th symphony too. I bought it, hoping it would be awesome, because I liked the 1st movement so much, but the other movements felt bland, lacking melody... and actually way too Mahlerian for my taste. Shostakovich lost his Russian coloring and became not himself in that symphony.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I guess I was disappointed a little with the Shostakovich 7th symphony too. I bought it, hoping it would be awesome, because I liked the 1st movement so much, but the other movements felt bland, lacking melody... and actually way too Mahlerian for my taste. Shostakovich lost his Russian coloring and became not himself in that symphony.


Speaking as a Mahlerian, I can attest that I, too, dislike Shostakovich's 7th symphony, particularly the outer movements, though. So, perhaps not Mahlerian enough for me, but too much for you?

I can't imagine ever thinking that Mahlerian means that something is "bland" or "lacking in melody", though...


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

I still find several of Johannes Brahms' works toilsome like he was trying too hard, way too hard to "impress" especially with his large scale works - symphonies and concertos.


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

I can see, or hear, why Brahms is a "great" composer, but I still don't like him. He is very academic and studied in his works. I would say, "stuffy".


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

A few weeks ago there was all this hullabaloo about how great and wonderful Orff's _Carmina Burana_ is, so I finally got to listening to it the other night. I was pathetically disappointed. It was an hour of what sounded like cheap movie/drama music with lots of dark, minor chords sung by the choir and lots of timpani.


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

A couple of years ago I went to see a performance of Mahler's 2nd symphony (probably my favourite of all works). It was an amateur performance so there were a lot of imperfections in the playing - a lot of fluffed notes in particular - but that was okay; overall it was a performance of power and enthusiasm...until the closing bars when the 1st tam-tam player (the larger tam-tam) just sat down and completely ignored his 4 crucial big hits at the end. I was _so_ disappointed particularly as until that moment, all the percussion had been really excellent.
Mahler 2 doesn't work for me if the ending doesn't deliver - so many recordings disappoint in this way.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Nothing like that. 
A piece is often either likable or unlikable when you have heard it 3 times.

But the reverse has happened to me ... some works have cheered me up and don't seem as bad as I've always heard.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I've always found Brahms pretty easy to like, especially the later works. Not many composers have his attention to detail. I hear new things each time I listen. But I do have trouble with the Cello Sonata No. 1, even though it has a great theme. Most of his music has a black border, but the border's a bit too thick here.

As for other composers, I confess I'm no Brucknerian, I don't like Alkan, and Elgar and Dvorak do little for me. I like some of Mahler's movements (e.g. first movement of the Third) and not others.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I can see why Brahms may not immediately hook people, quite of his music is rather dense. I found that I instantly loved sections of his chamber works but had trouble with the whole piece. Interest in those little snippets paid off though because he grew on me with repeat listens. Now he's my favorite. Mahler is my second favorite, and I liked him straight off. I've said before, his symphony #2 hit me right between the eyes on my first listen. He made me like symphonies when I didn't think I would.

As for my pick: Tristan Unde Isolde. It's been touted many times here as one of the most beautiful works. I've had some say that it's beautiful independent of story and others say you need to story and visuals to appreciate. I've tried music alone, music +libretto, and video. I suspect Tristan Unde Isolde just might not be for me. And that's ok.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

drpraetorus said:


> I can see, or hear, why Brahms is a "great" composer, but I still don't like him. He is very academic and studied in his works. I would say, "stuffy".


There are several greats that were "academic" say Bach but Brahms seemed to be academic to the point that he tried "too hard" to craft the large pieces and lost sight of it all. He was better at the smaller pieces or at least pieces that required fewer parts like the chamber music.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Drive by wave to my old friends. I'm just passing through, but thought this thread is short enough to answer. 

While I love Brahms orchestral works, especially the four symphonies, his piano music sounds a little bottom heavy to me. Too many notes crowded into the left hand or something. Maybe I need a really good recording to appreciate them, but they sound muddy to me. 

Also, Sibelius' Finlandia is even duller than itself to me. Cheers!


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Honestly many of the big ones...Brahms, Bruckner, Sibelius, Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky's Symphonies didn't "blow me away" at first listen. 

I "liked" them and found them enjoyable. They had some great moments, but I wasn't on the edge of my seat like when I first heard Mahler, Mozart, or Beethoven. The 1st few notes of Mahler's 2nd or 3rd pulls me in like "whoa! what was that?", followed by me putting down whatever I was doing to stop and listen.

It took many repeated listenings to really get into them. 

Other works like Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto #1 or 1812 Overture, or Sibelius's Valse Trista are different stories. Those hooked me instantly.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The great thing about this forum is that there's someone here to hate just about everything! Such a wide variety of dislikes!


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I don't want to pick on Brahms as I am quite enamoured with a fair bit of what I've heard of his but of all the A-list symphonic cycles I've listened to over the years his is one that has never really grabbed me as much as I was initially expecting it to bearing in mind its popularity. Who knows, maybe the floodgates will open one day...


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

My worst first listen experience was Tristan und Isolde. I was really looking forward to watching it. I knew how important and innovative it was, and.... I got bored to death. I really, really just wanted it to stop, never mind end.

I didn't care for Mahler's 4th on first listen either. The 9th, though... I was amazed!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Speaking as a Mahlerian, I can attest that I, too, dislike Shostakovich's 7th symphony, particularly the outer movements, though. So, perhaps not Mahlerian enough for me, but too much for you?
> 
> I can't imagine ever thinking that Mahlerian means that something is "bland" or "lacking in melody", though...


Well, speaking to a professed Mahlerian, I can see how your favorite style could be altered for the worse by a composer who shouldn't. And same for me, I wouldn't want a composer who sounds one way suddenly changing another way. Shostakovich _shouldn't_ sound like Mahler, imo, he should sound like himself, which is in his dramatic Ballet and Film music, and other Symphonies. You simply like the Mahlerian coloring, and I like the Russian coloring. I guess Shostakovich became luke-warm by trying to synthesize both, and didn't work out. :lol:


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

bigshot said:


> The great thing about this forum is that there's someone here to hate just about everything! Such a wide variety of dislikes!


Haha that's a clever way to see it. I don't see disliking pieces of music as negative, but simply a sign of knowledge of self, and sincerity. Above all, be yourself.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I get but do not at all care for:
> 
> Think Beethoven's Hammerklavier wrongly enshrined, a seriously flawed and ugly piece, but hey, it is Beethoven, in full force amain with all of his personal struggle of actually composing, wrestling with the musical materials 'to make them work.' Ditto his Grosse Fuga movement from the string quartet.


Man, screw late Beethoven!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I love the music of Brahms. I used to only admire his craft, or his lighter music, and found the 'brahmsian sound' interesting but never consistently moving. This really changed. I don't like every note the man wrote, and especially not on first listen, but I can think of few symphonies that satisfy me more than his 3rd. His shape shifting wit and variation, the unique use of harmony, its all so fully realized that I see his best work less as quirky and dark and more as wholesome these days. But none of that was the point of this thread. 

Dvorak used to bore me when younger; I thought his 9th was boring. Though he breathed more and wasn't as stuffy as Brahms seemed, there was still a clunkiness that I couldn't stand compared to the grave of Tchaikovsky. Then I came around to a genuine enjoyment of his 8th when I finally worked up the patience to hear the whole 1st movement, and he clicked more. This allowed the greatness of the 7th to sink in.

I'll say that one work that many people adore, but just bores me, is Tchaikovky's 5th symphony. To me, it is more bland than Tchaikovsky usually is; the 4th and 6th were instant sales, as was the 1st and even the 2nd. The 3rd fares better currently than the 5th, though its a tossup with the Manfred.

I also generally do not find Vaughan Williams to be very interesting. And hearing a Wagner work in its entirety destroys my enjoyment of the great music that can be found in it. Webern really doesn't work for me, I can use my imagination with his music and it makes a sort of sense, but I have never found that to be worth it except when I have to sit down and hear it in a concert.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

bigshot said:


> The great thing about this forum is that there's someone here to hate just about everything! Such a wide variety of dislikes!


In our world of more refined sensibilities, hate has become an expression of love!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

nvm...forget it


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

None, so far, and only because I always assume that there's something that I missed.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Weston said:


> Drive by wave to my old friends. I'm just passing through, but thought this thread is short enough to answer.
> 
> While I love Brahms orchestral works, especially the four symphonies, his piano music sounds a little bottom heavy to me. Too many notes crowded into the left hand or something. Maybe I need a really good recording to appreciate them, but they sound muddy to me.
> 
> Also, Sibelius' Finlandia is even duller than itself to me. Cheers!


Took me to long to realize that this is your first post in over a year!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Man, screw late Beethoven!


You wicked youth you !!


----------



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

Now now keep things civil .


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

moody said:


> You wicked youth you !!


I am a youth, but what about PetrB there? But yes, though I like you moody, I must admit to some wicked tendencies.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I am a youth, but what about PetrB there? But yes, though I like you moody, I must admit to some wicked tendencies.


That sounds exciting,does it not? Also you can have wicked tendencies and still like me you know.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Interesting that many people here can't get into Brahms. I enjoy his piano concertos when played properly with relatively swift tempi (why I prefer Gilels earlier version of number 2) and the violin concerto played by Heifetz. Can't stand these violinists who drag it out. However, I can't say the Double Concerto does much for me. Neither do the symphonies which are too thick in texture. The requiem is wonderful but the Alto Rhapsody is depressing. As for the piano music, I'm still working on that - aurally, that is, not practically.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

I don't like Mahler 5th much, and still don't understand why the adagietto is considered to be so good.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

I might not be blown away, but I surely enjoy and see why others enjoy popular pieces of classical music. What Rachmanninoff said paraphrased as 'the brilliance of melody being core to all in music'.

The Nutcracker is _the definitive_ 'tunesmith jinglegenius' composition ever made. No matter what Tchaikovsky himself said, at heart, I am sure he knew this. *Be sure to watch it for the holidays!*


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Interesting that many people here can't get into Brahms. I enjoy his piano concertos when played properly with relatively swift tempi (why I prefer Gilels earlier version of number 2) and the violin concerto played by Heifetz. Can't stand these violinists who drag it out. However, I can't say the Double Concerto does much for me. Neither do the symphonies which are too thick in texture. The requiem is wonderful but the Alto Rhapsody is depressing. As for the piano music, I'm still working on that - aurally, that is, not practically.


I am disappointed in your verdict on the Alto Rhapsody, I love it and particularly the Kathleen Ferrier version,with Clemens Krauss I think.It is a sublime work.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Clovis said:


> I might not be blown away, but I surely enjoy and see why others enjoy popular pieces of classical music. What Rachmanninoff said paraphrased as 'the brilliance of melody being core to all in music'.
> 
> The Nutcracker is _the definitive_ 'tunesmith jinglegenius' composition ever made. No matter what Tchaikovsky himself said, at heart, I am sure he knew this. *Be sure to watch it for the holidays!*


I like that Rachmaninoff quote. Goes to show that I and Rachmaninoff (and probably all the other Russians) thought alike, seeing melody as central to a piece's brilliance.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Handel's Messiah
Haydn's late masses.
Fidelio


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

On page #1 I answered Brahms' Symphonies as disappointing , but I must mention the Giulini/VPO cycle has some incredible performances. Guilini provides a different approach; slower, more delicate (for lack of a better word). _"symphonies which are too thick in texture"_ quotes *moody* and I agree with him. But, Guilini's touch is something very special.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Manok said:


> I don't intend this to be a flame contest, but I was interested in what works have disappointed you s far as not being as good as you've always heard,


Mmmm... I got the Brandenburg Concerts by I Musici. Awful. And, the Mahler Symphonies with Klaus Tennstedt. He seems to be much more worried with the person of the composer than with the score.

Also Pollini at Mozart and Beethoven piano concertos, too.

But hey... this is about personal taste... not absolute statements.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

davinci said:


> On page #1 I answered Brahms' Symphonies as disappointing , but I must mention the Giulini/VPO cycle has some incredible performances. Guilini provides a different approach; slower, more delicate (for lack of a better word). _"symphonies which are too thick in texture"_ quotes *moody* and I agree with him. But, Guilini's touch is something very special.
> 
> View attachment 10973


That was a well-known friend of mine DavidA who said that, certainly not me.
I'm a great admirer of Brahms and find nothing stuffy or thick textured in any of his music.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I like Wagner and all, but the _Das Rheingold_ prelude is just a mass of E-flat major arpeggios. I don't get it. I realize that traditionally large-scale works often begin with a block of pure tonic (the _Eroica_ Symphony, Mozart's C major Quintet, etc.), and the _The Ring_ is obviously very large scale. But surely there would be better ways to start the cycle?

I don't want to imply that it's bad. But compared with the preludes to the other mature operas, it seems muddy and uninteresting as an independent piece.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

There have been a few... but lately, Handel's Messiah has been the most glaring disappointment.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm disappointed with the youth of today.


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

moody said:


> That was a well-known friend of mine DavidA who said that, certainly not me.
> I'm a great admirer of Brahms and find nothing stuffy or thick textured in any of his music.


Sorry for the screwup. My point is that I should give Brahms another listen after hearing Guilini.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

When I have a problem with music generally regarded as great, most of the time it's not the fault of the composer. It's the interpretation. I've heard conductor after conductor trot out the same ol same ol, and just when I think it's just a boring piece, WHAM! a truly great conductor like Stokowski, Toscanini or Furtwangler will take it and knock it out of the park. The best interpretations are totally unique to that conductor. I don't believe in the "one true" interpretation of any work.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

I have to agree with those who find Bruckner among their least favorites. Also, I can also sympathize with the general dislike for Brahms--I used to have that same distaste. His works often seem confused inasmuch as there is little of voice-leading melody in his works, with notable exceptions. Nevertheless, after having studied many of his works intensively, I have come to venerate Brahms. Still, his piano works do little for me, with an exception being made for his works for four hands, and his variations. I adore all of Brahms' chamber music, especially the piano trios!

Please believe me when I tell you that I am not trying to troll, but I find most of Mozart's works uninteresting. A few symphonies, a few piano concerti, the 3rd and 5th violin concerti, the "Great" mass, a few string quartets, all of the church sonatas, and most of his operas--those are the things I like the most of Mozart's. Piano trios, violin sonatas, piano sonatas, most of his masses, almost all of his divertimenti, most of his symphonies--they don't interest me very much. Still, I would never deny that Mozart was an outstanding composer.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The more I know about music, the more things I appreciate.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Novelette said:


> I have to agree with those who find Bruckner among their least favorites. Also, I can also sympathize with the general dislike for Brahms--I used to have that same distaste. His works often seem confused inasmuch as there is little of voice-leading melody in his works, with notable exceptions. Nevertheless, after having studied many of his works intensively, I have come to venerate Brahms. Still, his piano works do little for me, with an exception being made for his works for four hands, and his variations. I adore all of Brahms' chamber music, especially the piano trios!
> 
> Please believe me when I tell you that I am not trying to troll, but I find most of Mozart's works uninteresting. A few symphonies, a few piano concerti, the 3rd and 5th violin concerti, the "Great" mass, a few string quartets, all of the church sonatas, and most of his operas--those are the things I like the most of Mozart's. Piano trios, violin sonatas, piano sonatas, most of his masses, almost all of his divertimenti, most of his symphonies--they don't interest me very much. Still, I would never deny that Mozart was an outstanding composer.


I am surprised to read such an emotive opinion of Brahms, he has plenty of knowledgeable supporters here from what I've seen.
I note that you make no mention of his lieder ,they are of great importance in his output.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Ramako said:


> My worst first listen experience was Tristan und Isolde. I was really looking forward to watching it. I knew how important and innovative it was, and.... I got bored to death. I really, really just wanted it to stop, never mind end.


Step one- fall into passionate love affair.
Step two- enforced absence from _enamorata_. (or would that be _enamorat*o*_?).
Step three- listen again.
Step four- achieve _Bodhisattva_ status.

Now- more on-topic... I think it would be more interesting to highlight a composition (or other) that we didn't care for, _against our expectations_, as opposed to simply naming a composer we don't seem to care for as much as others. [As though anybody _cares_ about my ongoing struggles to enjoy much of the output of Bach- which (I completely understand) is a personal problem.] For example:

I enjoy Program Romanticism. I'm usually responsive to big orchestral soundscapes. I adore much of the symphonic output of Richard Strauss. So I should REALLY enjoy the _Alpensinfonie_. And yet- I don't. Though you know what? _That_'s a personal problem too. But at least it's a smaller one- and not as potentially embarrassing...


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I adore much of the symphonic output of Richard Strauss. So I should REALLY enjoy the _Alpensinfonie_. And yet- I don't.


Go to the Alps, or maybe to the Rockies. Then have another listen. That should help.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> ...I should REALLY enjoy the _Alpensinfonie_. And yet- I don't. Though you know what? _That_'s a personal problem too.
> 
> 
> SiegendesLicht said:
> ...


Ahhh, the best kind of friend. The friend who provides _help_ for personal problems!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Generally J.S. Bach Harpsichord Concertos, I must say. I just don't get them yet. There will be a great theme, and then its lost in the business in a way that I find very off putting and not very clear. I like thicker romantic music better, generally speaking, but Bach's brand of thick and notey can get especially taxing to listen to in these works.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Generally J.S. Bach Harpsichord Concertos, I must say. I just don't get them yet. There will be a great theme, and then its lost in the business in a way that I find very off putting and not very clear. I like thicker romantic music better, generally speaking, but Bach's brand of thick and notey can get especially taxing to listen to in these works.


To each their own, but I find these works are simply genius, in ways that are difficult to describe. What you call thick and notey I call heavenly and other-worldly - but no... there are no words that can actually do these pieces justice. Like trying to describe the divine - it is impossible.

Where in Brahms PC's for example it sounds like he has stayed up about two weeks per measure trying to figure out what to write next, where Bach's notes seem to simply flow from an inexhaustible divine source.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I was looking at a post by World Violist in the JOHANNES BRAHMS thread and I think he put Brahm's case very well :
"Brahms probably published the highest percentage of great music as compared to almost anyone (with the probable exception of Bach and maybe Beethoven)....all (his works) have left a huge mark on today's repertoire of any kind of classical musician..."
That's well put ,but if a person is not keen on Brahms or any other composer just say so without slagging him off. I am not a Bach fan but have never issued a disparaging remark about him. Because I don't know enough and would look foolish chiefly because I know many professional musicians who have a high regard for the man .


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I struggle with Bach too. Some of his cantatas I really like, "Wachet auf" for example, but not many and not for a long time. I listened to the Christmas Oratorio today and could not make it halfway through. Maybe it's because I am not really in a Christmas mood yet.


----------



## Marsden (Nov 25, 2011)

stomanek said:


> Fidelio


Friend of mine called Fidelio his one-and-only Desert Island Disc and I tried, I really tried, but for the life of me I don't get it.



Novelette said:


> Please believe me when I tell you that I am not trying to troll, but I find most of Mozart's works uninteresting...Still, I would never deny that Mozart was an outstanding composer.


Same here. I perceive the craft--a bit of the creative genius even--yet most Mozart sounds trivial to me.



bigshot said:


> When I have a problem with music generally regarded as great, most of the time it's not the fault of the composer. It's the interpretation.


"My music is not modern, it's just badly played." (Schoenberg)


----------



## Oreb (Aug 8, 2013)

I finally got to see the Mona Lisa and it turned out to be just a picture of a bloke in a wig who was holding back a burp!


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2013)

I guess this isn't a fair answer but...

Opera


----------



## LindnerianSea (Jun 5, 2013)

As a great admirer of 'teutonic' music (Brahms, Bruckner, Beethoven), I find it terribly difficult to get into Impressionists such as Debussy, Delius, amd Ravel. I really get worked up with the wishy washy harmonies... Am I the only one ?


----------



## TrevBus (Jun 6, 2013)

Liszt, Chopin, Handel, Cyril Scott, R. Schumann, and Carl Nielson. Except for Scott and Chopin, there are some works from these composers that I do like. Overall, however, not so much


----------



## TrevBus (Jun 6, 2013)

LindnerianSea said:


> As a great admirer of 'teutonic' music (Brahms, Bruckner, Beethoven), I find it terribly difficult to get into Impressionists such as Debussy, Delius, amd Ravel. I really get worked up with the wishy washy harmonies... Am I the only one ?


W/Debussy, yes. Delius, sometimes. Ravel, however, is one of my favorites and no his "wishy washy harmonies" are not noticeable to me.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

LindnerianSea said:


> As a great admirer of 'teutonic' music (Brahms, Bruckner, Beethoven), I find it terribly difficult to get into Impressionists such as Debussy, Delius, amd Ravel. I really get worked up with the wishy washy harmonies... Am I the only one ?


I am a massive "teutonite" (just look at my favorite composers list for a hint) and I rank Debussy in my top 5 of all time. Ravel I am hot or cold about, and Delius I enjoy only in small doses.

Debussy's music often has a hard, biting, incisive edge to it, both in harmony and rhythm, that I love. I never hear it as wishy-washy, although sometimes it is filled with wonderful ambiguities.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

Masses. Doesn't seem to matter what composer, they just aren't my thing.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

LindnerianSea said:


> As a great admirer of 'teutonic' music (Brahms, Bruckner, Beethoven), I find it terribly difficult to get into Impressionists such as Debussy, Delius, amd Ravel. I really get worked up with the wishy washy harmonies... Am I the only one ?


I find them harder to "get into" as well, I don't know anything about wishy washy harmonies though...

I've got a 2CD set of Ravel and a 2CD set of Debussy both conducted by Charles Dutoit for Orchestral works and Samson Francois's Debussy/Ravel Piano Works. I'm pretty happy owning those and I haven't really found myself wanting to dig much deeper as of yet. Delius I haven't really heard so perhaps one day I will delve a little deeper there.

But I heard Bolero and figured that was what Ravel was. I know Ravel himself didn't think much of the work, but I loved it as a kid and I still love it. I was a little disappointed when I found out Ravel wasn't all Bolero.


----------



## LindnerianSea (Jun 5, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> I am a massive "teutonite" (just look at my favorite composers list for a hint) and I rank Debussy in my top 5 of all time. Ravel I am hot or cold about, and Delius I enjoy only in small doses.
> 
> Debussy's music often has a hard, biting, incisive edge to it, both in harmony and rhythm, that I love. I never hear it as wishy-washy, although sometimes it is filled with wonderful ambiguities.


I sincerely hope that I get into those three in the not too distant future. It's just that there's too much to listen at the moment ...
On a side note, as I am relatively new to TC, I did not manage to find your list of favourite composers. Would you be so kind to lead me to the list ?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

LindnerianSea said:


> I sincerely hope that I get into those three in the not too distant future. It's just that there's too much to listen at the moment ...
> On a side note, as I am relatively new to TC, I did not manage to find your list of favourite composers. Would you be so kind to lead me to the list ?


http://www.talkclassical.com/23706-your-top-10-composers.html#post414962

I can't find that top 25 I refer to in that post...oh well.

As for Debussy/Ravel/Delius, the first thing that will strike you when you "get it" will be how utterly different they really are from each other, which explains the diversity of the responses to your post so far!

P.S. Given your "wishy-washy" comment, my referring to Debussy's "biting" rhythms and harmonies may seem far-fetched, but I can assure you, it's not for nothing that he was cited as the primary influence on _The Rite of Spring_.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

I was really disappointed by Tchaikovsky's symphonies. The sixth is supposed to be his masterpiece, but (to me) it's kinda bleh. The rest are just as bleh really. Also, his first piano concerto (which is only popular for the first 3 minutes)


----------

