# What is the most overrated work in all of music?



## MarkW

No choices. Just curious what people think.


----------



## consuono

Le Sacre du printemps.


----------



## fluteman

MarkW said:


> No choices. Just curious what people think.


Stairway to Heaven, by Led Zeppelin. It just never did anything for me. Edit: Followed closely by Bruckner's 9th symphony.


----------



## consuono

^ OK, along those lines: Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Apart from the title tune and A Day in the Life I never felt there was much there.


----------



## Coach G

I think _West Side Story_ is overrated. The music is great, and I love Bernstein's orchestral suite. There's not much in the story-line or the lyrics, though. The lyricist, Stephen Sondheim, has discussed how the lyrics don't reflect the thinking of a bunch of tough street kids, and I think it's all really thin with characters that lack any real depth. Case in point: Tony's running, dancing, and skipping, through the mean streets of New York City singing "Maria, Maria, Maria" and he just met girl that day! I think musicals such as _Fiddler on the Roof_ by Bock and Harnick, or _Chess_ by Tim Rice and members of ABBA do a better job of exploring the human condition.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

No particular order:

Holst - The Planets
Hanson - Symphony no. 2
Satie - Gymnopedies
Vivaldi - The Four Seasons
Dvorak - Symphony no. 9 (except for the beautiful second movement...)

Numerous pieces by Bernstein and Gershwin

If we're including film scores then they probably replace every work on this list.


----------



## ORigel

Fantasia on Greensleeves
Bolero
Canon in D
1812 Overture

And if I include non-classical music, almost every song on the top 40.


----------



## Coach G

ORigel said:


> Fantasia on Greensleeves
> Bolero
> Canon in D
> 1812 Overture
> 
> And if I include non-classical music, almost every song on the top 40.


None of the above are masterpieces by any stretch of the imagination, but are they _overrated_? Perhaps they are overplayed or over-recorded, but has anyone who holds credentials and is respected as a scholar of music ever claimed that these works are anything more than fun and entertaining?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Coltrane's Love Supreme, Davis' Kind of Blue, second Fluteman's Stairway to Heaven, Radiohead's OK Computer or Kid A.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Phil loves classical said:


> Coltrane's Love Supreme, Davis' Kind of Blue, second Fluteman's Stairway to Heaven, Radiohead's OK Computer or Kid A.


Where's the "dislike" button?


----------



## starthrower

Yeah, that Miles guy and his buddies Bill Evans and Coltrane are nothing to write home about. And those Stravinsky ballets? I can't be bothered.


----------



## SONNET CLV

*What is the most overrated work in all of music?*

That "Happy Birthday" song.

Every time I hear it, someone's getting up in age.


----------



## Phil loves classical

starthrower said:


> Yeah, that Miles guy and his buddies Bill Evans and Coltrane are nothing to write home about. And those Stravinsky ballets? I can't be bothered.


More like Miles and Coltrane did better stuff than those albums in my view, as in Bitches Brew and Blue Train / Giant Steps.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> More like Miles and Coltrane did better stuff than those albums in my view, as in Bitches Brew and Blue Train / Giant Steps.


Yeah, good point. I mentioned *one* Stravinsky ballet.


----------



## Rogerx

4"33" Gage and Xenakis - ST/4


----------



## Woodduck

consuono said:


> Le Sacre du printemps.


I'll concede this in the sense that its history, reputation and influence add up to a phenomenon that hardly any work could live up to. No need to worry about that while listening, though. _Sacre_ may not have a lot to say, but it says it effectively.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Phil loves classical said:


> More like Miles and Coltrane did better stuff than those albums in my view, as in Bitches Brew and Blue Train / Giant Steps.


I like In a Silent Way best among Miles's albums. But calling Kind of Blue overrated just because it's not your favorite work of his is simply ridiculous. The Requiem isn't even close to my favorite work of Mozart's, but I'd never call it overrated.


----------



## consuono

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> ...The Requiem isn't even close to my favorite work of Mozart's, but I'd never call it overrated.


But if the Requiem is cited as being one of the greatest choral works of all time and I (or you) say that that's overrating it, who's to say otherwise? It's about personal opinion and taste. Someone said Bach's B minor Mass is overrated. Another said Beethoven's Missa solemnis is. All I can do is disagree.


----------



## consuono

Woodduck said:


> I'll concede this in the sense that its history, reputation and influence add up to a phenomenon that hardly any work could live up to. No need to worry about that while listening, though. _Sacre_ may not have a lot to say, but it says it effectively.


It's an interesting work, but I guess I prefer Petrouchka.


----------



## Ariasexta

All modern music is overrated, 80% of them should be destroyed into oblivion. For ever piece of JS Bach, there are 10 million musical pieces by modern people unnecessary.


----------



## Bourdon

Ariasexta said:


> All modern music is overrated, 80% of them should be destroyed into oblivion. For ever piece of JS Bach, there are 1 million musical pieces by modern people unnecessary.


I hope that you realize that this statement is no more than just your personal opinion.
These value judgments make so little sense and it goes a long way to dismiss all the artistic achievements of the past century as completely superfluous. There is something presumptuous in your words.

By the way,I love Bach and many modern classical music,is there something wrong with me?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Rogerx said:


> 4"33" Gage and Xenakis - ST/4


4"33" must be the correct call here.
This is a piece with no intrinsic musical content. Perhaps it was a joke played on elements of the musical establishment; perhaps it's something that a teenager might think was profound at about the same age as they think about questions like where did everything come from, etc.

It's fine that it exists as a provocative little piece of mischief. However, if it is given status as a great (or even good, or even average) piece of music, then that is an over-rating of the highest order.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Symphonie Fantastique. I think, as in the case of the Rite, that most instances of "overrating" occur when historical influence/position and intrinsic quality are conflated. The effect on later composers is a good measure of quality, but it is not the same thing.


----------



## Handelian

'Happy birthday to you' is the best selling song of all time!


----------



## Ariasexta

Bourdon said:


> I hope that you realize that this statement is no more than just your personal opinion.
> These value judgments make so little sense and it goes a long way to dismiss all the artistic achievements of the past century as completely superfluous. There is something presumptuous in your words.
> 
> By the way,I love Bach and many modern classical music,is there something wrong with me?


You are qualified as a musician by your adequate appreciation of JS Bach and early music, so, your soul is musically tuned and your life is music already. But those musicians who denigrate JS Bach and love picking faults with classical composers should stop making their own noise in disguise of music since their spirit is not properly tuned. Life is also a piece of art, by peoples spiritual state, there are too many underrated modern musicians and artists of life like that we need to fully appreciate.


----------



## Ariasexta

Handelian said:


> 'Happy birthday to you' is the best selling song of all time!


No, that is a true modern mythology.


----------



## Heck148

TacoBelle "Canon" - 
aaaarrrgghh....


----------



## Phil loves classical

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I like In a Silent Way best among Miles's albums. But calling Kind of Blue overrated just because it's not your favorite work of his is simply ridiculous. The Requiem isn't even close to my favorite work of Mozart's, but I'd never call it overrated.


Kind of Blue being called the best Jazz album ever is overrating it in my opinion. Jazz is a more personal thing since it is improvised. Mozart's Requiem is not. How many people would listen to Jazz and really think that is the best album? Other than some true advocates, the rest are just jumping on the bandwagon because of it mythical status. The bar was set when people call it the greatest, others will listen and think "ok, I can sort of see why" without really coming to that conclusion by listening to many other Jazz albums. I read also how some people admitted they just want to appear cultured and put the album on for parties, etc. but what they really get out of it is its laid back, cool atmosphere. It doesn't matter what notes are really being played. The same can't be said for the Requiem. Being the best selling Jazz album doesn't make it the greatest, as with the Titanic soundtrack. Kind of Blue should be called the most popular Jazz album ever, as in the Thriller being the most popular album.


----------



## Woodduck

consuono said:


> It's an interesting work, but I guess I prefer Petrouchka.


Agreed. I prefer both _Petrouchka_ and the _Firebird._ The latter even has a nice pre-_Sacre_ episode of violence in the dance of the creatures of Kashchei, in addition to its other magical beauties.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Agreed. I prefer both _Petrouchka_ and the _Firebird._ The latter even has a nice pre-_Sacre_ episode of violence in the dance of the creatures of Kashchei, in addition to its other magical beauties.


Both of your Stravinsky comments make good points. Firebird and Petrouchka were extraordinary, revolutionary, even. By the time he got to Sacre, Stravinsky had already made his mark. But the sensation, scandal even, of the premiere of Sacre, grew into a legend that few works of western music could live up to. And now that Stravinsky's innovations have been incorporated into western music for a century, when you actually see and hear the ballet performed (which I only have on TV, alas, but I've been to live concert performances of the music, of course), the whole production seems as old fashioned and traditional as The Nutcracker or Swan Lake (both of which I have seen beautifully performed in person).

However, Disney's brilliant Fantasia (the original Stokowski version) will always set Sacre apart for me.


----------



## Coach G

Miles Davis was a genius of jazz. While classical music has always been my main forte in music, during the late 1980s, I went through a very pronounced jazz phase that was the only genre to ever rival my interest in classical. I t was in my college years and a little bit beyond, (back when I was trying to be all "hip", "mysterious", and "intellectual"). I was particularly interested in the "classic" jazz musicians such as Dizzy Gillespie, Sun Ra, Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Buddy Rich, The Modern Jazz Quartet, David Brubeck, etc. Miles Davis, of course, is right up there with the best of the best, and it was his sense of shading, color, phrasing, and dynamics, that set him apart, especially in the two albums that have been noted here: _Kind of Blue_ and _In a Silent Way_. Davis could intuitively play a note that is supposed to be wrong and make it sound right. My favorite is _Sketches of Spain_ that Davis did with Gil Evans.


----------



## starthrower

Phil loves classical said:


> More like Miles and Coltrane did better stuff than those albums in my view, as in Bitches Brew and Blue Train / Giant Steps.


All a matter of taste, of course. To my ears the 60s quintet records are the pinnacle of Miles's recorded work. YMMV

As far as Stravinsky is concerned, the legendary riot story is the part that's overrated, not the music.


----------



## Coach G

Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ is a wonderful piece, and hardly overrated, IMO. The only problem with it is that it's misunderstood as a beginning of the Modern age when it's really an apotheosis. With _Rite_, Stravinsky took the melding of Debussy's and Rimsky-Korsakov as far as he could go. I remember when I first heard _Rite_ as a teenager on an old LP. Then and there I was captivated and thought that Stravinsky would be my new favorite composer. I couldn't wait to get the record store to buy more Stravinsky. I ended up with a recording of the _Violin Concerto_, and was completely disappointed. Where were the jagged edges, the primal percussionists, the raw energy? It took me years to enjoy Stravinsky as the master craftsman he was during his Neo-Classical stage and even after he jumped on Arnold Schoenberg's serial bandwagon; because I wanted to hear something else that sounded like _Rite_, and the closet I got to it was _Sensemaya_ by Silvestre Revueltes.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Mass in B minor


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Phil loves classical said:


> Kind of Blue being called the best Jazz album ever is overrating it in my opinion. Jazz is a more personal thing since it is improvised. Mozart's Requiem is not. How many people would listen to Jazz and really think that is the best album? Other than some true advocates, the rest are just jumping on the bandwagon because of it mythical status. The bar was set when people call it the greatest, others will listen and think "ok, I can sort of see why" without really coming to that conclusion by listening to many other Jazz albums. I read also how some people admitted they just want to appear cultured and put the album on for parties, etc. but what they really get out of it is its laid back, cool atmosphere. It doesn't matter what notes are really being played. The same can't be said for the Requiem. Being the best selling Jazz album doesn't make it the greatest, as with the Titanic soundtrack. Kind of Blue should be called the most popular Jazz album ever, as in the Thriller being the most popular album.


First of all, the same probably CAN be said for Mozart's Requiem. I've heard it used in commercials etc simply to conjure a dramatic (and sometimes aristocratic) atmosphere... as you say, the notes don't really matter.

I never argued that Kind of Blue's merit is in any way connected to its sales numbers. But, for what it's worth, I can say that at least from personal/online experience, the album's "true advocates" are a rather large "some" of people.


----------



## Dorsetmike

Beethoven's 9th, plus anything by Gorecki or Einaudi

(dons tin hat and takes refuge in a slit trench)


----------



## SONNET CLV

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Mass in B minor


Oh no, you must have read this thread's title wrong. It's ... "most _over_rated work in all of music". Not the "greatest work".


----------



## fluteman

Coach G said:


> Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ is a wonderful piece, and hardly overrated, IMO. The only problem with it is that it's misunderstood as a beginning of the Modern age when it's really an apotheosis. With _Rite_, Stravinsky took the melding of Debussy's and Rimsky-Korsakov as far as he could go. I remember when I first heard _Rite_ as a teenager on an old LP. Then and there I was captivated and thought that Stravinsky would be my new favorite composer. I couldn't wait to get the record store to buy more Stravinsky. I ended up with a recording of the _Violin Concerto_, and was completely disappointed. Where were the jagged edges, the primal percussionists, the raw energy? It took me years to enjoy Stravinsky as the master craftsman he was during his Neo-Classical stage and even after he jumped on Arnold Schoenberg's serial bandwagon; because I wanted to hear something else that sounded like _Rite_, and the closet I got to it was _Sensemaya_ by Silvestre Revueltes.


Good comments. But in Petrouchka and Rite, there were many innovative things that heralded the modern era. Dissonance and complex rhythms, of course, but also the effective use of minimalist textures and silences that one rarely if ever encounters in, say, the music of Wagner or Bruckner. I've argued that Stravinsky's ultimate ventures in this direction were l'Histoire du Soldat (imo the ultimate antidote for the grand Wagner opera), Ragtime, the Ebony Concerto and the Octet for winds. It's really these smaller works (and a few others in a similar vein) that most clearly establish the Stravinsky sound, that became a major part of the foundation of modern 20th century music.


----------



## Skakner

*Beatles* except 2-3 songs.
I really can't understand the hype.


----------



## Simon Moon

Ariasexta said:


> All modern music is overrated, 80% of them should be destroyed into oblivion. For ever piece of JS Bach, there are 10 million musical pieces by modern people unnecessary.


Okay...

I can understand not everyone enjoying modern classical music, but why should it be destroyed into oblivion?

Is anyone forcing you to listen to it? Is it replacing recordings of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, etc? The Bach section in my local record stores has not been decreased because they also carry Ligeti or Carter. Are classical stations not playing Bach anymore, and replacing it with Penderecki? Are any of the major orchestras no longer playing Bach?

What does the existence of modern classical have to do with your enjoyment of Bach?

To me, almost everything composed earlier than about 1910 is, in my opinion, overrated. It sounds predictable and boring to me. But I have no problems going through my life without hearing it, and it is much more ubiquitous than modern music.


----------



## Handelian

Simon Moon said:


> Okay...
> 
> I can understand not everyone enjoying modern classical music, but why should it be destroyed into oblivion?
> 
> Is anyone forcing you to listen to it? Is it replacing recordings of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, etc? The Bach section in my local record stores has not been decreased because they also carry Ligeti or Carter. Are classical stations not playing Bach anymore, and replacing it with Penderecki? Are any of the major orchestras no longer playing Bach?
> 
> What does the existence of modern classical have to do with your enjoyment of Bach?
> 
> To me, almost everything composed earlier than about 1910 is, in my opinion, overrated. It sounds predictable and boring to me. But I have no problems going through my life without hearing it, and it is much more ubiquitous than modern music.


Then please go through life problem free and leave the great music to the rest of us! No-one is forcing you to listen to it.


----------



## pianozach

Coach G said:


> I think _West Side Story_ is overrated. The music is great, and I love Bernstein's orchestral suite. There's not much in the story-line or the lyrics, though. The lyricist, Stephen Sondheim, has discussed how the lyrics don't reflect the thinking of a bunch of tough street kids, and I think it's all really thin with characters that lack any real depth. Case in point: Tony's running, dancing, and skipping, through the mean streets of New York City singing "Maria, Maria, Maria" and he just met girl that day! I think musicals such as _Fiddler on the Roof_ by Bock and Harnick, or _Chess_ by Tim Rice and members of ABBA do a better job of exploring the human condition.


_"Tony's running, dancing, and skipping, through the mean streets of New York City singing "Maria, Maria, Maria" and he just met girl that day!"_

Well, yeah, that's the genre. Most musicals tend to have the characters singing and dancing. Aside from musicals that take place in nightclubs, cabarets, and theatres, the singing is a characteristic of musicals.

Here - off the top of my head:

*Guys and Dolls*: Tough gangsters and gamblers dancing and singing
*South Pacific*: Tough American sailors singing and dancing
*Hamilton*: Rebellious American founding fathers singing and dancing
*Evita*: Ruthless Argentinian politicians and generals singing and dancing
*Oklahoma!*: Tough ranchers and farmers singing and dancing
*Oliver!*: Orphans and pickpockets singing and dancing

*Fiddler on the Roof*: Russian peasants singing and dancing

Many musicals have plots or subplots that revolve around people falling in love and singing about it: *South Pacific* ("_*Some Enchanted Evening*_"), *Brigadoon* ("_*The Heather on the Hill*_"), *Les Miserables* ("_*In My Life*_", _*"On My Own"*_), *Aladdin* ("*A Whole New World*"), *She Loves Me* (_*"She Loves Me"*_). _*Ten Minutes Ago*_ from Rodgers and Hammerstein's *Cinderella*.

For Tony in *WSS* to dance and sing through the tough streets of NYC is a metaphor for the passion, love, and joy he feels inside, just like the orphans in *Oliver!* singing _*Food Glorious Food*_ after being served gruel once again. These examples, as well as yours about *Fiddler* and *Chess*, are all ways of exploring the human condition through playacting, song, and dance.


----------



## pianozach

Handelian said:


> 'Happy birthday to you' is the best selling song of all time!





Ariasexta said:


> No, that is a true modern mythology.


Technically, you are correct.

*Happy Birthday to You* has never been a best selling single. It's never charted. People don't buy the song. They sing it.

Legally, though, until recently, every time it's been sung on film television, there was a publisher that insisted on being paid royalties, often resorting to legal action to get paid for owning the copyright. An estimated $2 million in royalties for such uses was generated annually. But four years ago a US judge ruled that Warner/Chappell Music does not own a valid copyright to one of the world's most recognizable songs, "_*Happy Birthday to You,"*_ a decision that brings the song into the public domain. This ruling rested on proof that the song had been previously published in 1893 as _*Good Morning to All*_, in a kindergarten songbook, written by a Kentucky woman named Mildred Hill and her sister, Patty.

The highly-anticipated ruling comes in a putative class-action lawsuit filed by several artists against Warner/Chappell, the music publishing arm of Warner Music Group, over the song in 2013 seeking a return of the millions of dollars in fees the company has collected over the years.

Perhaps it's *the most sung song ever* though. Not a day goes by that 100s (1000s?) of birthday boys and girls have it sung to them by a loved one, or a crowd of partiers.


----------



## Handelian

pianozach said:


> Technically, you are correct.
> 
> *Happy Birthday to You* has never been a best selling single. It's never charted. People don't buy the song. They sing it.
> 
> Legally, though, until recently, every time it's been sung on film television, there was a publisher that insisted on being paid royalties, often resorting to legal action to get paid for owning the copyright. An estimated $2 million in royalties for such uses was generated annually. But four years ago a US judge ruled that Warner/Chappell Music does not own a valid copyright to one of the world's most recognizable songs, "_*Happy Birthday to You,"*_ a decision that brings the song into the public domain. This ruling rested on proof that the song had been previously published in 1893 as _*Good Morning to All*_, in a kindergarten songbook, written by a Kentucky woman named Mildred Hill and her sister, Patty.
> 
> The highly-anticipated ruling comes in a putative class-action lawsuit filed by several artists against Warner/Chappell, the music publishing arm of Warner Music Group, over the song in 2013 seeking a return of the millions of dollars in fees the company has collected over the years.
> 
> Perhaps it's *the most sung song ever* though. Not a day goes by that 100s (1000s?) of birthday boys and girls have it sung to them by a loved one, or a crowd of partiers.


I am technically correct and can corroborate your research


----------



## Simon Moon

Handelian said:


> Then please go through life problem free and leave the great music to the rest of us! No-one is forcing you to listen to it.


But I am not the one complaining the the music you traditionalists enjoy, exists, and should be destroyed.


----------



## Ariasexta

Simon Moon said:


> Okay...
> 
> I can understand not everyone enjoying modern classical music, but why should it be destroyed into oblivion?
> 
> Is anyone forcing you to listen to it? Is it replacing recordings of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, etc? The Bach section in my local record stores has not been decreased because they also carry Ligeti or Carter. Are classical stations not playing Bach anymore, and replacing it with Penderecki? Are any of the major orchestras no longer playing Bach?
> 
> What does the existence of modern classical have to do with your enjoyment of Bach?
> 
> To me, almost everything composed earlier than about 1910 is, in my opinion, overrated. It sounds predictable and boring to me. But I have no problems going through my life without hearing it, and it is much more ubiquitous than modern music.


To attain the cerebral thrill I am learning some sciences instead of using half-baked musical works. Music is never meant to be anything like fashion. The point of modern music is mostly about the fashion, if not for the classical heritage, people today will not have a proper idea about what is music. Many modern bands and rockers just phase in and out like wind, if they are good they are fresh breeze if bad they are smog, do they leave any impact, yes, it is how I settle with early music and going for retrospective evaluation of music in particular. I would never reject music for being simple or for the sake of the scales of complexity. If people want to consider complexity as a factor then they are betraying themself as failed scientists seeking asylum in music. It is true without experiences in modern music I would not become interested in the classical music, this is the whole point of the music, to teach people to look and pay more tribute retrospectively. All good music teach people to retain tradition and heritage.


----------



## Handelian

Simon Moon said:


> But I am not the one complaining the the music you traditionalists enjoy, exists, and should be destroyed.


Nor I complaining that the music you like should be destroyed. Just played in an anechoic chamber perhaps! As long as I don't have to listen to it fine! Indulge yourself to your heart's content for all I'm concerned.


----------



## fluteman

pianozach said:


> "Tony's running, dancing, and skipping, through the mean streets of New York City singing "Maria, Maria, Maria" and he just met girl that day!"
> 
> Well, yeah, that's the genre. Most musicals tend to have the characters singing and dancing. Aside from musicals that take place in nightclubs, cabarets, and theatres, the singing is a characteristic of musicals.
> 
> Here - off the top of my head:
> 
> *Guys and Dolls*: Tough gangsters and gamblers dancing and singing
> *South Pacific*: Tough American sailors singing and dancing
> *Hamilton*: Rebellious American founding fathers singing and dancing
> *Evita*: Ruthless Argentinian politicians and generals singing and dancing
> *Oklahoma!*: Tough ranchers and farmers singing and dancing
> *Oliver!*: Orphans and pickpockets singing and dancing
> 
> *Fiddler on the Roof*: Russian peasants singing and dancing
> 
> Many musicals have plots or subplots that revolve around people falling in love and singing about it: *South Pacific* ("_*Some Enchanted Evening*_"), *Brigadoon* ("_*The Heather on the Hill*_"), *Les Miserables* ("_*In My Life*_", _*"On My Own"*_), *Aladdin* ("*A Whole New World*"), *She Loves Me* (_*"She Loves Me"*_). _*Ten Minutes Ago*_ from Rodgers and Hammerstein's *Cinderella*.
> 
> For Tony in *WSS* to dance and sing through the tough streets of NYC is a metaphor for the passion, love, and joy he feels inside, just like the orphans in *Oliver!* singing _*Food Glorious Food*_ after being served gruel once again. These examples, as well as yours about *Fiddler* and *Chess*, are all ways of exploring the human condition through playacting, song, and dance.


Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Good to see a fellow Broadway musical fan. What made WSS so revolutionary is that it broke once and for all the traditions of light drama and sugar-coated nostalgia derived from the 19th century operetta and took on more serious, current and complex themes, with the sophisticated (and brilliant) music of Leonard Bernstein and choreography of Jerome Robbins supporting the story perfectly. It's the height of irony that WSS was edged out for the 1957 Tony award for best musical by The Music Man, Meredith Willson's loving gesture of nostalgia to his home town of Mason City, Iowa (known in real life by its locals, and referred to in the show, as River City).

And yes, modern ideas had already begun to emerge in musicals such as Showboat, South Pacific, Carousel and especially Oklahoma!, with its choreography by Agnes de Mille enormously influential on later musicals, including WSS. Of course, Oklahoma!, like The Music Man, brought its audience back 40+ years to a (supposedly) more innocent, simpler time seen through the dewy mists of nostalgia. WSS was torn from the day's headlines -- gang violence, racial tensions, urban poverty.


----------



## hammeredklavier

There are also works that get overly-excessive praise simply because the composers wrote them when they were young. I find the hype around Mendelssohn's octet slightly "irrational" in this regard.
"Conrad Wilson summarizes much of its reception ever since: "Its youthful verve, brilliance and perfection make it one of the miracles of nineteenth-century music.""



hammeredklavier said:


> I know everyone talks of Mendelssohn's octet as being impressive for the age he was when he wrote it. Sure it is IMPRESSIVE, but I don't think all that highly of passages like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ( I think he's slightly "overhyped" about his precociousness: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/02/23/the-youngest-master-2 , https://www.classical-scene.com/2009/10/24/1692/ ) sorry, I think it's chatty, and seems to me like a worse version of the finale of Beethoven's C major Razumovsky , -and in terms of expressive dissonance, I find Mozart's works from years 1773~4 more interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K.167:


----------



## Phil loves classical

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> First of all, the same probably CAN be said for Mozart's Requiem. I've heard it used in commercials etc simply to conjure a dramatic (and sometimes aristocratic) atmosphere... as you say, the notes don't really matter.
> 
> I never argued that Kind of Blue's merit is in any way connected to its sales numbers. But, for what it's worth, I can say that at least from personal/online experience, the album's "true advocates" are a rather large "some" of people.


The usage of Mozart's Requiem in commercials for atmospheric effect is different than listening to it for the substance. They could have used some cheap film score instead for a similar effect. But that doesn't diminish the quality of the Requiem. But how many people actually listen to Kind of Blue for all the passages, which don't really stand out as better compared to other albums of its class. It becomes a highly personal preference, or a matter of popularity.

Just check out the passage from 14:30, 26:30, or 39:45 onwards, from what I just sampled at random. I bet most of the fans can't tell it from another Jazz album of similar style. It's just not that amazing. I'm sure most recognize 'So What' for the 2 note motif and basic sketches of the others. The solos can be interchanged, and just not that notable. That's why they do some takes and just take what they feel is the best one.


----------



## Simon Moon

Handelian said:


> Nor I complaining that the music you like should be destroyed. Just played in an anechoic chamber perhaps! As long as I don't have to listen to it fine! Indulge yourself to your heart's content for all I'm concerned.


No, but Ariasexta was in post #20.

And that who my initial response was to.

But now that I see Ariasexta's latest post above, I might have mistook the phrase, "10 million musical pieces by modern people unnecessary" to mean only modern classical music, and not all modern music of all genres.

So, I retract my original post of that is the case.


----------



## Woodduck

Handelian said:


> Nor I complaining that the music you like should be destroyed. Just played in an anechoic chamber perhaps! As long as I don't have to listen to it fine! Indulge yourself to your heart's content for all I'm concerned.


I'm sure that Simon Moon appreciates deeply the permission you have granted him to listen to the music he prefers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Mass in B minor


Michael Haydn's Missa Sanctissimae Trinitatis in B minor (K I:1), MH 1?
Sure it is overrated.


----------



## AeolianStrains

consuono said:


> But if the Requiem is cited as being one of the greatest choral works of all time and I (or you) say that that's overrating it, who's to say otherwise? It's about personal opinion and taste. Someone said Bach's B minor Mass is overrated. Another said Beethoven's Missa solemnis is. All I can do is disagree.


I don't think it's all about opinion and taste. I think some things can be objectively better than one's favorites. I have no problem saying that my favorite things aren't always the best of their class. People can have a favorite song because of nostalgia or because they particularly relate to a certain lyric or they heard it at a particular point in their life and it became poignant, but they wouldn't always say it's the best song ever. Just their favorite.


----------



## ORigel

Coach G said:


> None of the above are masterpieces by any stretch of the imagination, but are they _overrated_? Perhaps they are overplayed or over-recorded, but has anyone who holds credentials and is respected as a scholar of music ever claimed that these works are anything more than fun and entertaining?


There are masterpieces I don't like but I'd hesitate to call them "overrated."


----------



## Ethereality

AeolianStrains said:


> I don't think it's all about opinion and taste. I think some things can be objectively better than one's favorites. I have no problem saying that my favorite things aren't always the best of their class.


Let's agree to disagree about what's objectively better. We can each presuppose the qualities and authorities of music that fit whatever notions we believe to be worthy. You may for example believe the music of Buxtehude to be some of the greatest, as a musical authority would back you, but an appeal to that authority would be relative. For all I know, a less popular composer like Schumann or Dohnanyi are the greatest authorities on music.


----------



## AeolianStrains

Ethereality said:


> Let's agree to disagree about what's objectively better. We can each presuppose the qualities and authorities of music that fit whatever notions we think are worthy.


Even if you want to jettison the word 'objective,' there's still a difference between thinking "this is superior" and "this is my favorite."


----------



## Ethereality

I don't see how one would come to an honest realization of the difference upon hearing a piece. Just the pretentious realization "ah this is popular to some popular names."

How about Chopin's Piano Concertos? Are they objectively superior or subjectively superior? Under the criteria of beauty, or something else?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Phil loves classical said:


> The usage of Mozart's Requiem in commercials for atmospheric effect is different than listening to it for the substance. They could have used some cheap film score instead for a similar effect. But that doesn't diminish the quality of the Requiem. But how many people actually listen to Kind of Blue for all the passages, which don't really stand out as better compared to other albums of its class. It becomes a highly personal preference, or a matter of popularity.
> 
> Just check out the passage from 14:30, 26:30, or 39:45 onwards, from what I just sampled at random. I bet most of the fans can't tell it from another Jazz album of similar style. It's just not that amazing. I'm sure most recognize 'So What' for the 2 note motif and basic sketches of the others. The solos can be interchanged, and just not that notable. That's why they do some takes and just take what they feel is the best one.


Video not available ...


----------



## AeolianStrains

Ethereality said:


> I don't see how one would come to an honest realization of the difference upon hearing a piece. Just the pretentious realization "ah this is popular to some popular names."
> 
> How about Chopin's Piano Concertos? Are they objectively superior or subjectively superior? Under the criteria of beauty, or something else?


As an analogy, someone could state why the burger at Minetta's Tavern is objectively better than a McDonald's cheeseburger given a list of criteria. That list could even include subjective items, if you so wish. "Yeah, when I eat Minetta's burger, I know it just tastes better. It's a better cut of meat, there's more to it, the flavor profile is superior, etc. But I grew up on McDonald's cheeseburgers, so they're just my favorite." It's like comfort food. Some music can be comfort music, even if a person can say that another work is just by all measurements "better."

It's a wise practice in fact to reflect whence these feelings come, and we do it all the time for many other things. "Yeah, that job over there has better pay, better hours, better working conditions, but I really like my team, so I'm staying here." "Yeah, that model over there has a fitter, leaner figure, more symmetrical features, and is taller and tanner, all of which I like, but I love my spouse more."

Why is art somehow magically different than every other aspect of life?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

There are actually people who don't like Mozart's Requiem?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There are actually people who don't like Mozart's Requiem?


Certainly the entire opening sequence is masterful and riveting, but I usually lose interest after the Dies Irae. I prefer the Great Mass in C Minor.


----------



## Unkadunk

"Me So Horny." The title says it all.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There are actually people who don't like Mozart's Requiem?


I have certain reservations, especially for the parts "butchered" by Sussmayr. They just feel so "wrong". The Lacrimosa (and Concerto for flute and harp K.299) gets my vote for Mozart's most overrated work. The sanctus and benedictus should contain more darker moods, like Michael Haydn's.



hammeredklavier said:


> 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


----------



## consuono

AeolianStrains said:


> I don't think it's all about opinion and taste. I think some things can be objectively better than one's favorites. ...


If you know that such-and-such is objectively greater than your favorite, then why isn't such-and-such your favorite? I also believe there is an objective greatness in art -- whether I can easily define it or not -- and those things that I think are in some way objectively great I would never call "overrated". As for "objective greatness" I'll paraphrase something Northrop Frye once wrote: when we hear Schumann or Tchaikovsky we hear the usually satisfying work of a craftsman; but when we hear the Kyries of Bach's B minor Mass or Mozart's Requiem, a certain impersonal element appears, as if this is the thing music exists to say.


----------



## AeolianStrains

consuono said:


> If you know that such-and-such is objectively greater than your favorite, then why isn't such-and-such your favorite? I also believe there is an objective greatness in art, and those things that I think are in some way objectively great I would never call "overrated".


I literally answered your question in the very same post you quote. I have no idea why you decided to cut out that part.


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> *If you know that such-and-such is objectively greater than your favorite, then why isn't such-and-such your favorite? *When we hear Schumann or Tchaikovsky we hear the usually satisfying work of a craftsman; but when we hear the Kyries of Bach's B minor Mass or Mozart's Requiem, a certain impersonal element appears, as if this is the thing music exists to say.


The greatest music is my favorite. I just don't call it 'objectively great', because some people may enjoy the pieces you quote instead. For some reason you write '_we_' know they're greater than a Schumann concerto, a Tchaikovsky symphony, or 'insert x', as though people will have to agree with you. People may never agree with that.

It's fun finding our similarities, but most of the time the reason why Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are considered great is because they wrote a lot of diverse music that may appeal at a level to people; it was the time period to explore a lot of genres. It's best not to overpraise one of their works as 'greatest', but rather, more popular to be liked in some capacity by people. Most people would not say they're 'greater' than their favorite works, sorry. More people would say it's 'good' compared to less popular composers.


----------



## consuono

AeolianStrains said:


> I literally answered your question in the very same post you quote. I have no idea why you decided to cut out that part.


But...you really didn't. I can say I like this or that but then I really wouldn't say it's "overrated". On the other hand there are things that are usually praised to the skies that I just don't like very much and *will* call "overrated". It's taste and perception, which doesn't mean it's totally subjective.


Ethereality said:


> And for some reason you say 'we' know they're greater than Schumann, Tchaikovsky or 'insert x', as though people have to agree with you.


It's not really about forcing anybody to agree with me or not. That's irrelevant. The agreement usually is there anyway despite dissent here and there. The fact that an individual, or several individuals, say that the B Minor Mass is third rate changes *nothing* about the B Minor Mass. By the same token, no amount of rhetoric is going to make Schumann's Symphonic Etudes or Tchaikovsky's complete piano works the exact artistic equivalent of the Goldberg Variations.


----------



## Ethereality

I feel I answered your misrepresentation of these works in my next paragraph above. A lot of people will just never agree with your point even though we may like a lot of Bach. Some of us may even have a Bach or Mozart work in our Top 5 if only we're unbiased in our listening and ranking of other composers. Unfortunately however, people overpraise certain works of Bach, Mozart, as #1 not realizing they have plenty enough of their oeuvre in their top. It's natural to want to diminish other composers more than necessary, there's a reason why certain composers have 1 hit wonders: other composers have much greater works than we account for.


----------



## consuono

> I feel I answered your misrepresentation of these works in my next paragraph.


Misrepresentation of what works?


> Most people would not say they're 'greater' than their favorite works, sorry. More people would say it's 'good' compared to less popular composers.


"Good compared to less popular composers" is imposing another hierarchy apparently using objective criteria. It's not completely subjective.


> It's best not to overpraise one of their works as 'greatest', but rather, more popular to be liked in some capacity by people.


 There's a circularity in there. *Why* are they "more popular"? *Why* are the Bach or Mozart masses valued more highly than, say, Bruckner's? Or are Bruckner's of exactly the same "value" or "quality"?


> Unfortunately however, people overpraise certain works of Bach, Mozart, as #1 not realizing they have plenty enough of their oeuvre in their top.


Maybe this or the work *is* #1. And maybe the rest of their oeuvre actually *is* greater than the best of the rest. There's no quota system that says we have to include mediocrity just to be fair.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Certainly the entire opening sequence is masterful and riveting, but I usually lose interest after the Dies Irae. I prefer the Great Mass in C Minor.


The Confutatis and Lacrymosa are the highlights of the work for me, among the highlights of all choral literature.


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> There's a circularity in there. *Why* are they "more popular"? *Why* are the Bach or Mozart masses valued more highly than, say, Bruckner's? Or are Bruckner's of exactly the same "value" or "quality"?


I already answered this, but I'll give a clear example. The trends of this forums' listening compared to popular Classical statistics have demonstrated in full to me _how_ underrated certain works by less popular composers are. Incredibly. People will gravitate to the popular first. It turns out the more experienced you are as a listener, the more likely you'd safely say when comparing Mahler to Bach, that the former wrote the greater work, and when comparing Bruckner to Mozart, the former also wrote the greater work. I mean, this is proven... What I don't like is saying these works are objectively greater, or that Bach and Mozart's masses are objectively greater because they're more popular. Every experienced listener, it doesn't matter how experienced you are, has quite different tastes. I feel that a lot of pretentious say certain works are objectively great, for example, those who happen to love the most popular composers the most. I mean, your popular backing fools less people with brains. We will decide for ourselves what's great, as greatness is a relative concept in the mind. To answer your question, is Bach the greatest composer? Yes. To a group of people, sure. Tell me something I will care about with more interest.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> I already answered this, but I'll give a clear example. The trends of this forums' listening compared to popular Classical statistics have demonstrated in full to me _how_ underrated certain works by less popular composers are. Incredibly. People will gravitate to the popular first. It turns out the more experienced you are as a listener, the more likely you'd safely say when comparing Mahler to Bach, that the former wrote the greater work, and when comparing Bruckner to Mozart, the former also wrote the greater work. I mean, this is proven... What I don't like is saying these works are objectively greater, or that Bach and Mozart's masses are objectively greater because they're more popular. ...


The circularity is still there. You say that Bach and Mozart are more "popular" but don't give a reason for that "popularity". (Tchaikovsky may actually be more *popular* than Bach, btw.) There's also a contradiction. The more experienced you are, the more you realize that Bach and Mozart are "greater" than Mahler and Bruckner, but yet there's not supposed to be any objective standards for determining that. The gist of a lot of your comments would seem to indicate that your gripe may be that our admiring the work of Bach et al is somehow slighting some relative unknown past or present. If the work of that relative unknown is that good, then the work will speak for itself, one way or another.


----------



## Woodduck

People who think that judgments of musical quality are purely subjective - whether personally or collectively subjective - really should offer no opinions on the quality of any music, much less on how "overrated" or "underrated" it is. They should be content to say "I prefer..." and then quietly go their way.


----------



## Ethereality

The gist of the above two comments from my determination, is a redefinition of the word great to mean 'objectively great.' I don't know any realist (who has a good enough understanding of practical philosophy) who uses the term in this capacity. It's essentially counter-intuitive. You may as well redefine the word objective to mean something else that it doesn't mean. I don't see an effort to understand either of these experiences or the way famous (and more importantly, eccentric) artists understand them. If we seek to understand the whole of a situation, we can't start and end with our own hypothesis. Start with what you can reasonably argue using the correct words, ie. The Big 3 are popular in the Classical community. If I had a nickel for every artist who wanted to imitate the thought process of Beethoven or Bach, I'd be very poor.


----------



## Rogerx

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There are actually people who don't like Mozart's Requiem?


Yes. I do hope it's not a problem.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There are actually people who don't like Mozart's Requiem?


The B-minor Mass leaves it in the dust.


----------



## Ethereality

As long as we're speaking of the qualities and merits of the Big 2 (Mahler and Bruckner, not Bach and Mozart) be sure you're objectively correct first, or at least falsely confident.


----------



## Sequentia

Ariasexta said:


> those musicians who denigrate JS Bach


Care to provide some names?


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> As long as we're speaking of the qualities and merits of the Big 2 (Mahler and Bruckner, not Bach and Mozart) be sure you're objectively correct first, or at least falsely confident.


Well then give us a reason for the greater "popularity" of the other Big 2 (and I don't know if even that is objectively true...Mahler and Bruckner seem pretty popular on orchestra programs). You just pull "popularity" out of the air as if it's something that was somehow unfairly bestowed on the traditional biggies. But then which is more popular, the 1812 Overture or the Musical Offering?


----------



## AeolianStrains

Ethereality said:


> The gist of the above two comments from my determination, is a redefinition of the word great to mean 'objectively great.' I don't know any realist (who has a good enough understanding of practical philosophy) who uses the term in this capacity. It's essentially counter-intuitive. You may as well redefine the word objective to mean something else that it doesn't mean. I don't see an effort to understand either of these experiences or the way famous (and more importantly, eccentric) artists understand them. If we seek to understand the whole of a situation, we can't start and end with our own hypothesis. Start with what you can reasonably argue using the correct words, ie. The Big 3 are popular in the Classical community. If I had a nickel for every artist who wanted to imitate the thought process of Beethoven or Bach, I'd be very poor.


I mean, one can be objective in evaluating a work by using criteria rather than their own personal tastes. Things like novelty, diversity, and popularity could all be objective means of evaluating how "great" a composer is, regardless of whether you personally enjoy it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I just don't think this is how Mozart is supposed to sound like:




 (2:07 ~ the end; especially the bit at 2:45)

consider:




 (17:43 ~ 19:16)




 (13:14 ~ 15:20)




 (8:35 ~ 9:30)




 (21:10 ~ 23:04)
pay attention to the part 22:39~ 23:04

"...He leaves us on a cliff hanger" -Charles Hazlewood


----------



## Coach G

fluteman said:


> Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Good to see a fellow Broadway musical fan. What made WSS so revolutionary is that it broke once and for all the traditions of light drama and sugar-coated nostalgia derived from the 19th century operetta and took on more serious, current and complex themes, with the sophisticated (and brilliant) music of Leonard Bernstein and choreography of Jerome Robbins supporting the story perfectly. It's the height of irony that WSS was edged out for the 1957 Tony award for best musical by The Music Man, Meredith Willson's loving gesture of nostalgia to his home town of Mason City, Iowa (known in real life by its locals, and referred to in the show, as River City).
> 
> And yes, modern ideas had already begun to emerge in musicals such as Showboat, South Pacific, Carousel and especially Oklahoma!, with its choreography by Agnes de Mille enormously influential on later musicals, including WSS. Of course, Oklahoma!, like The Music Man, brought its audience back 40+ years to a (supposedly) more innocent, simpler time seen through the dewy mists of nostalgia. WSS was torn from the day's headlines -- gang violence, racial tensions, urban poverty.





pianozach said:


> _"Tony's running, dancing, and skipping, through the mean streets of New York City singing "Maria, Maria, Maria" and he just met girl that day!"_
> 
> Well, yeah, that's the genre. Most musicals tend to have the characters singing and dancing. Aside from musicals that take place in nightclubs, cabarets, and theatres, the singing is a characteristic of musicals.
> 
> Here - off the top of my head:
> 
> *Guys and Dolls*: Tough gangsters and gamblers dancing and singing
> *South Pacific*: Tough American sailors singing and dancing
> *Hamilton*: Rebellious American founding fathers singing and dancing
> *Evita*: Ruthless Argentinian politicians and generals singing and dancing
> *Oklahoma!*: Tough ranchers and farmers singing and dancing
> *Oliver!*: Orphans and pickpockets singing and dancing
> 
> *Fiddler on the Roof*: Russian peasants singing and dancing
> 
> Many musicals have plots or subplots that revolve around people falling in love and singing about it: *South Pacific* ("_*Some Enchanted Evening*_"), *Brigadoon* ("_*The Heather on the Hill*_"), *Les Miserables* ("_*In My Life*_", _*"On My Own"*_), *Aladdin* ("*A Whole New World*"), *She Loves Me* (_*"She Loves Me"*_). _*Ten Minutes Ago*_ from Rodgers and Hammerstein's *Cinderella*.
> 
> For Tony in *WSS* to dance and sing through the tough streets of NYC is a metaphor for the passion, love, and joy he feels inside, just like the orphans in *Oliver!* singing _*Food Glorious Food*_ after being served gruel once again. These examples, as well as yours about *Fiddler* and *Chess*, are all ways of exploring the human condition through playacting, song, and dance.


No doubt, _WSS_ has some great music, and every song is a hit! But if I were to compare _WSS_ to _Fiddler on the Roof_, the difference to me would be that _WSS_ never takes me out of the realm of the "musical" which (like opera, science fiction, and old western movies) is supposed to be ridiculous; and when I experience _WSS_ I'm always aware that I'm experiencing a musical and it's never that far removed from the _ridiculous_. Tony and Maria never take me into their world of urban poverty, prejudice, and forbidden love. With _Fiddler_, Tevye and the other characters take me into their world and I forget that I'm watching a musical, and I forget what should be ridiculous as I become absorbed in the message and the meaning of the play. Like _WSS_, _Fiddler_ touches upon the theme of forbidden love, as one of Tevye's daughters becomes baptized and marries a non-Jew. In _WSS_, Anita sings _A Boy Like That_ and the the Whites and Puerto Ricans talk about how much they hate each other; but in _Fiddler_, we experience Tevye's conflict between his religion, his people, his traditions, and the love he has for his daughter. In _WSS_ I see the conflict between cultures more as a as a plot device, but in _Fiddler_ the conflict is full of nuance and humanity. Likewise, while the love between Maria and Tony has nothing behind it besides, again, being the plot device where the two are standing in for Romeo and Juliet; the love between Tevye and Golda is based on years of struggle, survival, and support, and it takes us there.


----------



## consuono

^ Speaking of which, the movie _Tevye_ from 1940 iirc -- and done in Yiddish -- is worth checking out.

Edit -- oops, it's _Tevya_ and it's from 1939. Just looked it up. I saw it on the Turner channel once and it's pretty good.


----------



## fluteman

Coach G said:


> No doubt, _WSS_ has some great music, and every song is a hit! But if I were to compare _WSS_ to _Fiddler on the Roof_, the difference to me would be that _WSS_ never takes me out of the realm of the "musical" which (like opera, science fiction, and old western movies) is supposed to be ridiculous; and when I experience _WSS_ I'm always aware that I'm experiencing a musical and it's never that far removesd from the _ridiculous_. Tony and Maria never take me into their world of urban poverty, prejudice, and forbidden love. With _Fiddler_, Tevye and the other characters take me into their world and I forget that I'm watching a musical, and I forget what should be ridiculous as I become absorbed in the message and the meaning of the play. Like _WSS_, _Fiddler_ touches upon the theme of forbidden love, as one of Tevye's daughters becomes baptized and marries a non-Jew. In _WSS_, Anita sings _A Boy Like That_ and the the Whites and Puerto Ricans talk about how much they hate each other; but in _Fiddler_, we experience Tevye's conflict between his religion, his people, his traditions, and the love he has for his daughter. In _WSS_ I see the conflict between cultures more as a as a plot device, but in _Fiddler_ the conflict is full of nuance and humanity. Likewise, while the love between Maria and Tony has nothing behind it besides, again, being the plot device where the two are standing in for Romeo and Juliet; the love between Tevye and Golda is based on years of struggle, survival, and support, and it takes us there.


Can't agree with that, and I saw both shows on Broadway (in the case of FOTR, the original production), and could sing or play most of the songs from both from memory right now. (THAT will keep you far away even if covid doesn't!) In WSS, America is an ironic reference to the racist, classist and materialist sides of the US, and Officer Krupke refers to the ineffectual attempts of social services systems to deal with disaffected youth in low-income urban areas. Yes, the Tony and Maria love story is an unrealistic heightened dramatic construct based on Romeo and Juliet, but it dramatizes how white and Latino New Yorkers living the same way in the same place still live in different worlds, summarized in the song A Boy Like That.

Meanwhile, while it's true Fiddler on the Roof, based on the superb stories of Sholem Aleichem, doesn't rely on Shakespearian tragedy, it is an historical drama, using the unrealistic dramatic construct of concentrating in a single family all of the issues of Russian Jews during the pogroms of the 1880s through the early 1900s. Fiddler, as a post-WSS show, doesn't shy away from the harsh realities of the era. But it lacks the innovation of WSS in dealing with current issues rather than historical ones.

Both are among the all-time greatest shows, imo.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Sequentia said:


> Care to provide some names?


Jeremy Denk
https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations


> "this is a charge that can be leveled at Bach generally: being too excellent. A reviewer at a recital I played (Ives' first Sonata and the Goldbergs) complained that he wished Bach would have let himself be more Ivesian, thrown in some wrong notes, let himself go. Ha, take that, Johann Sebastian! The Kalamazoo press just totally trashed you!"


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

hammeredklavier said:


> Jeremy Denk
> https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations


I've already told you - this is a parody/satire article. He has others in the series where he explores them enthusiastically. Does he really sound like he hates the Goldberg Variations here?


----------



## thejewk

Yeah that article clearly has a jokey/click-bait title for what's essentially a love letter to the GBV.


----------



## pianozach

Fiddler and WSS. Both excellent examples of the what a Broadway musical can accomplish.

WSS (the original stage version) is based on Romeo and Juliet: Tony and Maria are not simply "standing in for Romeo and Juliet", they ARE Romeo and Juliet. The two gangs ARE the Capulets and the Montagues. Riff and Bernardo are killed at the end of Act One. The only major difference is that Juliet lives at the end, although she's dead inside. Excellent source material. Shakespeare; yeah, a freaking genius.

BTW - I've only seen two productions where the dancing tough guys were actually tough.

I've seen productions of the show many times, and played string patches in the pit, and conducted the orchestra from the piano. The music is extraordinary.

I've also been on the staff of Fiddler a few times (and in it once as Mendel, the Rabbi's son). Also good source material, although it had been 'sanitized' for Broadway: Golde lives, the constable is a "nice guy". Fiddler DOES take the forbidden love aspect and multiplies it times three: First the oldest daughter, Tzeitel, doesn't want an arranged marriage, but wants to marry the man she loves. Then Hodel wants to marry a liberal jew, then Chava wants to marry a non-jew. Each 'love' is more forbidden than the last.

While not a new theme, both shows highlight "otherness", and the bigotry against them.


----------



## fluteman

pianozach said:


> Fiddler and WSS. Both excellent examples of the what a Broadway musical can accomplish.
> 
> WSS (the original stage version) is based on Romeo and Juliet: Tony and Maria are not simply "standing in for Romeo and Juliet", they ARE Romeo and Juliet. The two gangs ARE the Capulets and the Montagues. Riff and Bernardo are killed at the end of Act One. The only major difference is that Juliet lives at the end, although she's dead inside. Excellent source material. Shakespeare; yeah, a freaking genius.
> 
> BTW - I've only seen two productions where the dancing tough guys were actually tough.
> 
> I've seen productions of the show many times, and played string patches in the pit, and conducted the orchestra from the piano. The music is extraordinary.
> 
> I've also been on the staff of Fiddler a few times (and in it once as Mendel, the Rabbi's son). Also good source material, although it had been 'sanitized' for Broadway: Golde lives, the constable is a "nice guy". Fiddler DOES take the forbidden love aspect and multiplies it times three: First the oldest daughter, Tzeitel, doesn't want an arranged marriage, but wants to marry the man she loves. Then Hodel wants to marry a liberal jew, then Chava wants to marry a non-jew. Each 'love' is more forbidden than the last.
> 
> While not a new theme, both shows highlight "otherness", and the bigotry against them.


Yes, you know whereof you speak, not surprising given your background and experience. And yes, both shows are somewhat sanitized relative to some of the harsh themes they deal with, but that is to be expected. Your comment that the music of WSS is extraordinary is key. IMO it is the music, more even than the dance, that makes the show.


----------



## tdc

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I've already told you - this is a parody/satire article.


Yes 'being too excellent' hardly sounds like real criticism. Besides there are plenty of 'wrong' notes in Bach, one of the main reasons I love his music. Bach was doing dissonance for dissonance sake long before Ives. Just listen to the Passacaglia and Fugue! It takes some balls to compose a piece like that.


----------



## Coach G

fluteman said:


> Can't agree with that, and I saw both shows on Broadway (in the case of FOTR, the original production), and could sing or play most of the songs from both from memory right now. (THAT will keep you far away even if covid doesn't!) In WSS, America is an ironic reference to the racist, classist and materialist sides of the US, and Officer Krupke refers to the ineffectual attempts of social services systems to deal with disaffected youth in low-income urban areas. Yes, the Tony and Maria love story is an unrealistic heightened dramatic construct based on Romeo and Juliet, but it dramatizes how white and Latino New Yorkers living the same way in the same place still live in different worlds, summarized in the song A Boy Like That.
> 
> Meanwhile, while it's true Fiddler on the Roof, based on the superb stories of Sholem Aleichem, doesn't rely on Shakespearian tragedy, it is an historical drama, using the unrealistic dramatic construct of concentrating in a single family all of the issues of Russian Jews during the pogroms of the 1880s through the early 1900s. Fiddler, as a post-WSS show, doesn't shy away from the harsh realities of the era. But it lacks the innovation of WSS in dealing with current issues rather than historical ones.
> 
> Both are among the all-time greatest shows, imo.





pianozach said:


> Fiddler and WSS. Both excellent examples of the what a Broadway musical can accomplish.
> 
> WSS (the original stage version) is based on Romeo and Juliet: Tony and Maria are not simply "standing in for Romeo and Juliet", they ARE Romeo and Juliet. The two gangs ARE the Capulets and the Montagues. Riff and Bernardo are killed at the end of Act One. The only major difference is that Juliet lives at the end, although she's dead inside. Excellent source material. Shakespeare; yeah, a freaking genius.
> 
> BTW - I've only seen two productions where the dancing tough guys were actually tough.
> 
> I've seen productions of the show many times, and played string patches in the pit, and conducted the orchestra from the piano. The music is extraordinary.
> 
> I've also been on the staff of Fiddler a few times (and in it once as Mendel, the Rabbi's son). Also good source material, although it had been 'sanitized' for Broadway: Golde lives, the constable is a "nice guy". Fiddler DOES take the forbidden love aspect and multiplies it times three: First the oldest daughter, Tzeitel, doesn't want an arranged marriage, but wants to marry the man she loves. Then Hodel wants to marry a liberal jew, then Chava wants to marry a non-jew. Each 'love' is more forbidden than the last.
> 
> While not a new theme, both shows highlight "otherness", and the bigotry against them.


I concede that the music in _WSS_ is superior, and I like the two recordings that Bernstein made of the _WSS_ orchestral suite (the first with the NYPO for Columbia and then the one he made with the LAPO for DG). The _WSS_ thing that Bernstein did with Jose Carreras and Kiri Te Kiwana didn't work as well for me, although Carreras did seem to make a sincere effort. I also have many jazz albums devoted entirely to the music from _WSS_ including Andre Previn, Oscar Peterson, Stan Kenton, and the David Brubeck Quartet. The Buddy Rich Big Band did a _WSS_ suite that they recorded several times, but where Rich does the best and tightest drum solo I've ever heard when he plays the _WSS_ suite on the _Swinging New Band_ album.

Both of you also make interesting and well-stated points regarding the characterizations and story-line regarding _WSS_.


----------



## consuono

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I've already told you - this is a parody/satire article. He has others in the series where he explores them enthusiastically. Does he really sound like he hates the Goldberg Variations here?


Yeah, Denk was being ironic. It's actually a good little series of "essays".


> The Goldbergs are like a friend you have who always does everything right. This friend always answers his emails, keeps a clean house, has a kind word for everyone, behaves properly at concerts, writes thank you cards, grooms himself assiduously, knows how to tie a tie, never eats Burger King at 2 AM, and never ever writes silly blog posts saying he hates pieces he really loves. He's an example to the world. He's smiling at you over drinks, listening as always with benevolent patience, and you realize through your gritted hateful envious teeth that he is certainly not your enemy, and what would it hurt to admit, you wouldn't want to face life without him?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Here is probably the most grossly overrated album of all time. If there was ever any truth to the emperor with no clothes, I think this is it.


----------



## pianozach

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is probably the most grossly overrated album of all time. If there was ever any truth to the emperor with no clothes, I think this is it.


*!
Video unavailable
This video is not available.*


----------



## DeepR

Luis Fonsi - Despacito ft. Daddy Yankee

As the second most viewed video on Youtube with over 7 _billion_ views surely this is overrated. 
It is awful and everything I hate about modern pop music.


----------



## consuono

DeepR said:


> Luis Fonsi - Despacito ft. Daddy Yankee
> 
> As the second most viewed video on Youtube with over 7 _billion_ views surely this is overrated.
> It is awful and everything I hate about modern pop music.


Un-be-lievable. Seven billion? It shows how out of the loop I am. I had never heard of it. But then YT views, likes etc can be bought or manipulated I guess.


----------



## AeolianStrains

consuono said:


> Un-be-lievable. Seven billion? It shows how out of the loop I am. I had never heard of it. But then YT views, likes etc can be bought or manipulated I guess.


It became popular as an internet joke or meme song. Views are not always indicative of how well-received a song is.


----------



## 20centrfuge

Fiddler on the Roof, the musical


----------



## Blancrocher

Nobody's mentioned The Four Seasons? I'm honestly surprised. I wonder if Vivaldi belongs on the "underrated" thread now...


----------



## consuono

AeolianStrains said:


> It became popular as an internet joke or meme song. Views are not always indicative of how well-received a song is.


That's still incredible. Even after all the "rickrolling", that Rick Astley video hasn't even hit 1 billion, much less 7.


----------



## 20centrfuge

"Wicked" the musical was also absolute rubbish. Generic music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

20centrfuge said:


> Fiddler on the Roof, the musical


No!

If I were a Rich Man
Sunrise, Sunset
Miracle of Miracles
Tradition
Matchmaker

So many great tunes as well as the main theme. I've done it on stage, and it's magical. The wedding scene is the best.


----------



## pianozach

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No!
> 
> If I were a Rich Man
> Sunrise, Sunset
> Miracle of Miracles
> Tradition
> Matchmaker
> 
> So many great tunes as well as the main theme. I've done it on stage, and it's magical. The wedding scene is the best.


I'll concur. While I still think *West Side Story* is an astonishingly good "musical", and probably a more sophisticated work, *Fiddler on the Roof* really is very . . . well . . . yes! Very well indeed.

Great catchy songs, a laugh/cry musical that is extraordinarily well written. Excellent use of jewish (hebrew?) musical idioms.

You want an overrated musicals?

Mame
Hairspray
Bye Bye Birdie
Phantom of the Opera


----------



## Machiavel

Happy birthday to you 
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday
Happy birthday
Happy birthday to you
repeat...


----------



## Christine

"For He's a Jolly Good Fellow." I cannot stand this. I've heard it all my life in movies and TV shows. "Which nobody can deny, which nobody can deny..." Are there any dumber lyrics? Stupid and thoroughly overrated.


----------



## Handelian

Christine said:


> "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow." I cannot stand this. I've heard it all my life in movies and TV shows. "Which nobody can deny, which nobody can deny..." Are there any dumber lyrics? Stupid and thoroughly overrated.


It comes in 'Wellington's Victory'


----------



## jegreenwood

fluteman said:


> Yes, you know whereof you speak, not surprising given your background and experience. And yes, both shows are somewhat sanitized relative to some of the harsh themes they deal with, but that is to be expected. Your comment that the music of WSS is extraordinary is key. *IMO it is the music, more even than the dance, that makes the show.*


Not sure I can agree with that. What is remarkable is that one musical can contain the greatest music and choreography in Broadway history.


----------



## jegreenwood

Thinking about the original question, and limiting my response to classical, I'd say "The Four Seasons." Charming, but I go nuts every time I have to listen to it while I'm on hold for tech support.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Coltrane's Love Supreme, Davis' Kind of Blue, second Fluteman's Stairway to Heaven, Radiohead's OK Computer or Kid A.


I'll agree with Love Supreme and Ok Computer, but not the rest.


----------



## Barbebleu

From his postings, probably anything that Phil loves classical likes!


----------



## AeolianStrains

pianozach said:


> I'll concur. While I still think *West Side Story* is an astonishingly good "musical", and probably a more sophisticated work, *Fiddler on the Roof* really is very . . . well . . . yes! Very well indeed.
> 
> Great catchy songs, a laugh/cry musical that is extraordinarily well written. Excellent use of jewish (hebrew?) musical idioms.
> 
> You want an overrated musicals?
> 
> Mame
> Hairspray
> Bye Bye Birdie
> Phantom of the Opera


Phantom is overrated in the extreme. I absolutely despised it and that tune-stealing hack ALW.


----------



## SanAntone

Not just one work, all classical music is over-rated. :devil: :tiphat:


----------



## fluteman

jegreenwood said:


> Not sure I can agree with that. What is remarkable is that one musical can contain the greatest music and choreography in Broadway history.


Agreed. But imo Robbins' choreography requires professional classical ballet dancers of the highest caliber to have its fullest effect. Robbins reportedly was a nightmare to work with on the original Broadway show, and was so bad on the movie set he was fired before it was completed (of course, he is still credited). But after seeing the 1980 Broadway production, the last one directed by Robbins, which in my opinion fell flat except for a sensational young Debbie Allen in the role of Anita, I can understand his frustration with actors who are not top professional ballet dancers. The choreography simply wasn't executed at the level it needed to be to have its full effect. The singing wasn't of the highest caliber either (Maria had a stand-in singing from the orchestra pit for her climactic solo in Tonight), as it often isn't in Broadway shows (a style of singing with flat vowels is often used, to make it more like speaking and easier to understand) but that mattered less.


----------



## NoCoPilot

The cultural imperialism in this has always been cringe-worthy.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Anything by Michael Jackson.


----------



## consuono

NoCoPilot said:


> The cultural imperialism in this has always been cringe-worthy.


I wouldn't have a problem so much with "cultural imperialism" in that context as with preening and sanctimony. But wow, that was a long time ago...and yeah unfortunately I'm old enough to remember it well.  That Live Aid show in 1985 was memorable though.

At any rate I think *that* song was better than the "We Are the World" one the US singers put together. That one was awful. Even then I'd say it was more condescending than imperialistic.


----------



## janxharris

NoCoPilot said:


> The cultural imperialism in this has always been cringe-worthy.


In what way is it so? It raised money for the hungry. Musically it's not up to much for sure.


----------



## Gallus

Opus 9 no.2

It's good, no doubt...but it's not even the best piece in that key in that genre by that composer.


----------



## Jacck

Beatles, but I am not sure which work, pretty much most of them. Though they are fading, in 50 years, no one will remember them and they will no longer be overrated, just like barely anyone today remembers Elvis.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> Beatles, but I am not sure which work, pretty much most of them. Though they are fading, in 50 years, no one will remember them and they will no longer be overrated, just like barely anyone today remembers Elvis.


I kind of agree that they will fade but they are currently number 122 on Spotify. That does not equate to barely remembered.

Oops - you said Elvis...mind you he is no. 93


----------



## Jacck

Blancrocher said:


> Nobody's mentioned The Four Seasons? I'm honestly surprised. I wonder if Vivaldi belongs on the "underrated" thread now...


I believe he does. People tend to underestimate Vivaldi. Vivaldi - to his own detriment - composed too much music, but he composed some amazing masterpieces


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jacck said:


> I believe he does. People tend to underestimate Vivaldi. Vivaldi - to his own detriment - composed too much music, but he composed some amazing masterpieces


{ Vivaldi - Amor Sacro (Motets) }
At least Vivaldi has his "hits", -Telemann still doesn't have any, (even after all the "promotion" on his music in the recent years) and I wonder how much influence or impact Telemann actually had on the course of classical music history. He "churned out" in an unimaginable scale and was a friend of Bach, but does he deserve any more recognition or renown today than say, Eberlin?

Mass in A minor: Kyrie / Gloria / Credo / Sanctus / Benedictus / Agnus Dei
Missa a Due Chori

"The music collection of the Salzburg cathedral contains more sacred vocal music of the mid-18th century (ca. 1730-80) than any other period. An inventory of this large collection, recently undertaken by this writer at the request of Domkapellmeister Prof. Josef Messner, shows that Mozart's predecessors and colleagues in the archbishop's service are represented by an imposing amount of liturgical music. Among these musicians none seems to have been more industrious than *Johann Ernst Eberlin* (1702-62). There is evidence in the number of works preserved: a thematic catalog contains, so far, approximately 70 Masses, Mass fragments and Requiems, 160 motets and other smaller works, 37 litanies, 14 sequences and hymns, 35 settings of individual or grouped vesper psalms, and 3 Te Deum. This list does not include the large amount of sacred music in the vernacular. Aside from such first-hand evidence there is the well-known testimony of Eberlin's younger colleague, Leopold Mozart. In his report on the Salzburg musical establishment in 1757, the older Mozart singled out Eberlin for his industry and speed in composing, comparing him to Alessandro Scarlatti and Telemann. At the time of Leopold Mozart's writing Eberlin had risen, from the position of fourth organist in 1725, to the highest rank of Hof-und Domkapellmeister (1749) and had recently been granted the added honorary appointment of Titular-Truchsess.
Both Leopold and his son thought highly of Eberlin's ability; from their testimony and from other evidence it appears that Eberlin's reputation was primarily based on his contrapuntal works. Wolfgang Mozart's remarks are significant: while eventually he modified his high opinion of Eberlin's keyboard works (the only works to be published during the composer's lifetime) he continued to esteem his vocal writing."
<Johann Ernst Eberlin's Motets for Lent / Reinhard G. Pauly / Journal of the American Musicological Society (1962) 15 (2): 182-192.>

I like Eberlin's chromatic part-writing:


----------



## NoCoPilot

janxharris said:


> In what way is it so? It raised money for the hungry. Musically it's not up to much for sure.


"Do they know it's Christmas"? Hello, 3/4 of the world isn't Christian.


----------



## janxharris

NoCoPilot said:


> "Do they know it's Christmas"? Hello, 3/4 of the world isn't Christian.


And?

I'm not aware that anyone has had Christianity forced on them because this record exists.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Gallus said:


> Opus 9 no.2
> It's good, no doubt...but it's not even the best piece in that key in that genre by that composer.


Sure, this is far lesser known, I have to admit it is just as delicately beautiful (albeit with more maturity of texture):


----------



## fluteman

Jacck said:


> Beatles, but I am not sure which work, pretty much most of them. Though they are fading, in 50 years, no one will remember them and they will no longer be overrated, just like barely anyone today remembers Elvis.


That is most likely true. However, the main purpose of a popular music group like the Beatles is to have the greatest possible immediate impact, not to be remembered by future generations. They did have more ambitious artistic aspirations and achievements than most, if not all, other popular music groups of their era, and I think that is why they remained big news for so long. I recently had my hair cut by a young lady in her early 20s, as American as can be but the daughter of Egyptian immigrants. She never heard of the Beatles.


----------



## SanAntone

Jacck said:


> Beatles, but I am not sure which work, pretty much most of them. Though they are fading, in 50 years, no one will remember them and they will no longer be overrated, just like barely anyone today remembers Elvis.


I disagree. But I am not talking about their music, but of their impact. I think The Beatles will be remembered as a global cultural phenomenon of the 1960s. I also think that as an example of popular music, they represent the best that can be achieved in that genre. I cannot predict their lasting appeal, and do not think anyone can really make such a prediction, nor do I think such a prediction is important.

They have already had a huge impact, which I do not think has been overrated.


----------



## Coach G

re: Elvis, the Beatles, Michael Jackson:

I think they all belong to a phenomenon that also includes Frank Sinatra, and that is that they were all super-music-icons; Sinatra in the 1940s, Elvis in the 1950s, the Beatles in the 1960s, and Michael Jackson in the 1980s. In each case, the driving force behind the super-stardom was teenage girls, and a popular media that limited the exposure of pop music to just a few outlets of radio and TV stations, record companies, magazines and so forth. So the question is to what extend did these icons transcend their status as being just for the teenage girls and bring something important to music?

*Frank Sinatra* honed and developed his craft as a musician and went from a crooner to a more robust and full-voiced style. Like all great artists, such as Stravinsky, Picasso, and Miles Davis, Sinatra tried many things, and some of those artistic risks didn't work out so well, but he was always trying things with different arrangers and musicians. You realize the level of Sinatra's phrasing and when you try to sing along with his albums because you never hear him breath. In contrast, Dean Martin had a better voice and stage presence; but while Martin's 1950s output when he was with Capitol records reflects more colorful tones, the Reprise output of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, is pretty much the same Jimmy Bowen pop country-tinged fare fare which might explain why Sinatra continued to have hit records while Martin stopped having hit songs in the 1960s with _Everybody Loves Somebody_. When I was a kid in the 1970s and 1980s, the Boomers and Gen Xers saw Sinatra as square and dated; now they can't get enough of him; Dean Martin either.

No Sinatra is NOT overrated, even if nobody asked.

On the *Elvis Presley*: as an entertainer, Elvis is not overrated as he had the charisma to put on a good show, discounting his last few declining years where drug addiction began to take it's toll. Musically, I think Elvis represents a good cross-section of the American culture as his songs touch upon Rock, Country, and Gospel music (which is why he was inducted into the Rock, Country, Gospel, and R & B hall of fames!, the only person to do so). In songs like _Love Me Tender_, I can even detect a hint of the crooner genre and singers such as Dean Martin, Perry Como, and Bing Crosby. The Beatles idolized Elvis Presley, and you could argue that there would be no Beatles without Elvis Presley. So no, I don't think Elvis Presley has been overrated. I don't think anyone ever claimed that he was more than what he was, and Elvis himself didn't seem to think so either. He readily admitted his shortcomings as a musician, at least enough to say publicly that he faked it on the guitar.

Now the *Beatles*, of course, were the ultimate in teenage girl fandom, and the Shea Stadium concert is well known as a fiasco where if you were there all you heard was the teenage girls screaming. Apart from their cultural impact, I'm particularly impressed with how the Beatles were able to explore so many musical avenues in the short time they were together: American Rock, American Folk (on _Rubber Soul_); Indian Classical, Electronic Music, Conceptual Music, and Western Classical music (with the use of the string quartet on _Eleanor Rigby_ and _Yesterday_). As much as I'm repulsed by heavy metal and hard rock, I often wonder if the Beatles invented the genre with _Helter Skelter_ because I don't know if a harder sound in rock was coming from anyone else at the time. I think the Beatles were the perfect example of synergy, how 1+1+1+1=MORE than 4 (not-withstanding George Martin, their innovative producer, and Brian Epstein who marketed them to success). In the long run, I think the Beatles will go down as great song writers, with Lennon & McCartney taking a place along side the song writers of Tin Pan Alley, Broadway, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, etc. The songs of George Harrison are pretty exceptional too! Then there's always Ringo's _Octopus' Garden_! Their songs are innumerable, and they are great songs, some of them covered over and over again by the likes of Sinatra, Elvis, Tony Bennett, Perry Como, The Boston Pops Orchestra, Jazz artists, etc. While the Beatles aren't "Bigger than God", they certainly aren't overrated, either.

Lastly, we get to *Michael Jackson*, who's artistic oeuvre is hard to judge objectively because he was also such a strange and controversial person. Certainly, Jackson's dancing and singing can't be surpassed. Like Sinatra, you understand Jackson's exemplar vocal capabilities when you try to sing along with a recording of one his ballads, and you sound like crap in comparison. I guess this is why even very few accomplished pop singers don't bother covering Jackson's ballads. The emotion that Jackson brings forth in those ballads is also profound as he could cry and sing at the same time, which is probably why the girls liked him so much. Along this line, I read that while Quincy Jones was producing records for Sinatra and Jackson around the same time during the 1980s, he originally had Sinatra in mind for the torch song _She's Out of My Life_, but ultimately gave it to Jackson. As an entertainer, Jackson was phenomenal, as big as Sinatra, Elvis, the Beatles, etc. Jackson's also important in that he was able to reclaim the heritage to which the previous two icons drew their musical influence, as we know that Elvis and the Beatles began by playing music that was rooted in the musical traditions that were more-or-less invented by African-Americans. Jackson's dance music is not my type of music but I guess it's not overrated for what it is.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## JakeWebster

I'm going to limit my answer to classical pieces.

Two pieces that I get no pleasure out of are *Bach's *_Mass in B Minor_, and his _Well-Tempered Clavier_. *Wagner's* _Ring Cycle_ is ok in that I like _Das Rheingold_ but nothing else. So it's pretty hard to listen to the 12 or so hours I dislike.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

hammeredklavier said:


>


He deserves to be forgotten. There is much, much eyewitness and first hand evidence and quite a number of accusers of his law breaking. All of which gets largely ignored.


----------



## pianozach

jegreenwood said:


> Thinking about the original question, and limiting my response to classical, I'd say "The Four Seasons." Charming, but I go nuts every time I have to listen to it while I'm on hold for tech support.


I forget where it was I was on hold for, but their Four Seasons was horribly distorted, truly agonizing.


----------



## pianozach

Coach G said:


> [edit]
> 
> . . . . Lastly, we get to *Michael Jackson*, who's artistic oeuvre is hard to judge objectively because he was also such a strange and controversial person. Certainly, Jackson's dancing and singing can't be surpassed. Like Sinatra, you understand Jackson's exemplar vocal capabilities when you try to sing along with a recording of one his ballads, and you sound like crap in comparison. I guess this is why even very few accomplished pop singers don't bother covering Jackson's ballads. The emotion that Jackson brings forth in those ballads is also profound as he could cry and sing at the same time, which is probably why the girls liked him so much. Along this line, I read that while Quincy Jones was producing records for Sinatra and Jackson around the same time during the 1980s, he originally had Sinatra in mind for the torch song _She's Out of My Life_, but ultimately gave it to Jackson. As an entertainer, Jackson was phenomenal, as big as Sinatra, Elvis, the Beatles, etc. Jackson's also important in that he was able to reclaim the heritage to which the previous two icons drew their musical influence, as we know that Elvis and the Beatles began by playing music that was rooted in the musical traditions that were more-or-less invented by African-Americans. Jackson's dance music is not my type of music but I guess it's not overrated for what it is.





hammeredklavier said:


>


Michael Jackson, like many superstars before him, was a flawed genius. One cannot deny his musical chops, in spite of him not playing an instrument. And one cannot deny the influence he had on music, just as The Beatles and Elvis did.

I often have some trouble listening to "lawbreakers" like Jackson. Sadly, there's an awful lot of artists that have been exposed as sexual predators or racists or donkeys. From film and TV (Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, Dustin Hoffman, Ben Affleck, Scott Baio, Matt Lauer), and of course, music (Jackson, Ceelo Green, James Levine, Jerry Lee Lewis).

Older Elvis always creeped me out.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I disagree. But I am not talking about their music, but of their impact. I think The Beatles will be remembered as a global cultural phenomenon of the 1960s. I also think that as an example of popular music, they represent the best that can be achieved in that genre. I cannot predict their lasting appeal, and do not think anyone can really make such a prediction, nor do I think such a prediction is important.
> 
> They have already had a huge impact, which I do not think has been overrated.


The thing is, SanAntone, some people, in this forum and generally, simply do not have the degree of respect you and I have for popular music, or popular art in general, and don't agree with us that it plays such an important role in our culture. This debate arises over and over here, resulting in lengthy threads that induce no one to change their minds.


----------



## consuono

pianozach said:


> Michael Jackson, like many superstars before him, was a flawed genius. One cannot deny his musical chops, in spite of him not playing an instrument. And one cannot deny the influence he had on music, just as The Beatles and Elvis did.


Well, we can deny it though. I always thought Prince was much more talented and musically interesting. What influence did Michael Jackson have, exactly?


----------



## Coach G

pianozach said:


> Michael Jackson, like many superstars before him, was a flawed genius. One cannot deny his musical chops, in spite of him not playing an instrument. And one cannot deny the influence he had on music, just as The Beatles and Elvis did.
> 
> I often have some trouble listening to "lawbreakers" like Jackson. Sadly, there's an awful lot of artists that have been exposed as sexual predators or racists or donkeys. From film and TV (Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, Dustin Hoffman, Ben Affleck, Scott Baio, Matt Lauer), and of course, music (Jackson, Ceelo Green, James Levine, Jerry Lee Lewis).
> 
> Older Elvis always creeped me out.


...and there are plenty of classical musicians both dead and alive who have been suspected of as much. There's no need to name names because we all know who they are. The usual suspects and their alleged indiscretions have all been discussed at length on TC. Enjoying the music and/or conceding their musical genius doesn't mean you accept them as a role-model of ethical behavior.


----------



## consuono

Coach G said:


> ...and there are plenty of classical musicians both dead and alive who have been suspected of as much. There's no need to name names because we all know who they are. The usual suspects and their alleged indiscretions have all been discussed at length on TC. Enjoying the music and/or conceding their musical genius doesn't mean you accept them as a role-model of ethical behavior.


Let me just take a shot and guess that the most talked about is the guy with the name that rhymes with Slogner. :lol:


----------



## fluteman

Coach G said:


> ...and there are plenty of classical musicians both dead and alive who have been suspected of as much. There's no need to name names because we all know who they are. The usual suspects and their alleged indiscretions have all been discussed at length on TC. Enjoying the music and/or conceding their musical genius doesn't mean you accept them as a role-model of ethical behavior.


In fact, great artists, if not outright evil, are often significantly less impressive in aspects of their lives other than their art. It's as if they concentrate all of their strengths and positive attributes on their art, and there isn't much left over for other things.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

pianozach said:


> Michael Jackson, like many superstars before him, was a flawed genius. One cannot deny his musical chops, in spite of him not playing an instrument. And one cannot deny the influence he had on music, just as The Beatles and Elvis did.
> 
> I often have some trouble listening to "lawbreakers" like Jackson. Sadly, there's an awful lot of artists that have been exposed as sexual predators or racists or donkeys. From film and TV (Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, Dustin Hoffman, Ben Affleck, Scott Baio, Matt Lauer), and of course, music (Jackson, Ceelo Green, James Levine, Jerry Lee Lewis).
> 
> Older Elvis always creeped me out.


The evidence on the Jackson issue is overwhelming. Money has won out in a corrupt justice system.

We excuse too much.


----------



## Taggart

Please avoid politics. Some posts have been edited and hence others removed since they no longer apply.


----------



## NoCoPilot

I think Michael Jackson would’ve been more successful as a Black artist.


----------



## Luchesi

NoCoPilot said:


> I think Michael Jackson would've been more successful as a Black artist.


more successful? That's quite funny.


----------



## Agamenon

in rock music: QUEEN. 

classical: 

**Mozart´s Le Nozze di figaro, 

**Mahler 5th symphony.

**Schubert: many many Lieds. Wolf is the king.


----------



## consuono

Agamenon said:


> **Mozart´s Le Nozze di figaro,


I could go along with most of your list, but there's no way *that* one could EVER be overrated.


----------



## Bxnwebster

Anything by Stravinsky


----------



## pianozach

consuono said:


> Well, we can deny it though. I always thought Prince was much more talented and musically interesting. What influence did Michael Jackson have, exactly?


Seriously?

As a non-fan, even I can appreciate that Michael Jackson, the "King of Pop", is regarded as one of the most significant cultural figures of the 20th century and one of the most successful and influential entertainers of all time.

Jackson's music has been extensively covered by other artists of various styles

His achievements helped to complete the *desegregation of popular music* in the United States and introduced an era of multiculturalism and integration that future generations of artists followed. His influence extended to inspiring fashion trends and raising awareness for social causes around the world.

His *music videos*, including those for "Beat It", "Billie Jean", and "Thriller" from his 1982 album Thriller, are credited with breaking racial barriers and transforming the medium into an art form and promotional tool.

Jackson popularized *street dances*, particularly his signature move the moonwalk, and attracted a cult of impersonators throughout the world. He is credited with helping to spread dance to a global audience and having an influence comparable to dance icons such as to Fred Astaire and Sammy Davis Jr. With an aesthetic borrowed from the musical film tradition, the Thriller videos created a subindustry of choreographers as other pop artists sought to produce sophisticated dance-oriented promotional films.


----------



## consuono

> His achievements helped to complete the desegregation of popular music in the United States and introduced an era of multiculturalism and integration that future generations of artists followed.


This is the sort of hackneyed sentiment that I don't really agree with. Popular music is now about as segregated as it ever was. Run DMC, Public Enemy and N.W.A. were *the* influences from that era, judging from today's scene. Jimi Hendrix did more in the area of pop desegregation than Michael Jackson ever did, and had more demonstrable, direct influence across the board on artists as varied as Prince and Stevie Ray Vaughan. Name some of the more notable Michael Jackson-influenced stars:


> ... as other pop artists sought to produce sophisticated dance-oriented promotional films.


Paula Abdul and Michael's sister Janet come to mind, and maybe Britney Spears, but I think they were as much influenced by Madonna. And that's all passé now anyway.


----------



## pianozach

consuono said:


> This is the sort of hackneyed sentiment that I don't really agree with. Popular music is now about as segregated as it ever was. Run DMC, Public Enemy and N.W.A. were *the* influences from that era, judging from today's scene. Jimi Hendrix did more in the area of pop desegregation than Michael Jackson ever did, and had more demonstrable, direct influence across the board on artists as varied as Prince and Stevie Ray Vaughan.
> 
> *Name some of the more notable Michael Jackson-influenced stars*:
> 
> Paula Abdul and Michael's sister Janet come to mind, and maybe Britney Spears, but I think they were as much influenced by Madonna. And that's all passé now anyway.


I'll agree that Jimi Hendrix was immensely influential, but Jimi did not reach the audience that Jackson did.

Prince? Just one of many influenced _*BY*_ Jackson, although I agree that Prince had a more diverse musical catalog than Jackson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artists_influenced_by_Michael_Jackson

*Wikipedia:
List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson:
*_
Akon,[15] Senegalese-American singer, songwriter and record producer
Beyoncé,[16][17] American pop and R&B singer-songwriter
Austin Brown,[18] American musician
Chris Brown,[19] American R&B singer
Aaron Bruno,[20] Lead singer of American alternative band Awolnation
Mariah Carey,[21] American singer
Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs,[22][23] American rapper, singer, actor, record producer and entrepreneur
Sheryl Crow,[24] American singer-songwriter
Peter Andre,[25] English-Australian singer, songwriter, businessman, presenter, television personality and actor
Stephen Gately,[26] Irish singer-songwriter, actor, children's writer, and dancer
Chance The Rapper,[27] American rapper, singer-songwriter, and activist.
Jason Derulo,[28] American singer-songwriter, dancer and actor
Prabhu Deva,[29] Indian dancer, choreographer, director and actor
Celine Dion,[30] Canadian singer and one of the best-selling and highest grossing female
Everything Everything,[31] British alternative rock band.
Green Day,[32] American punk rock band.
Janet Jackson,[33] American R&B singer dancer
Jamiroquai,[34] British funk and acid jazz band, fronted by lead singer Jay Kay
Wyclef Jean,[35] Haitian rapper
Justice,[36] French electronic music duo
Judith Hill,[37] American singer and songwriter
Farah Khan,[38] Indian choreographer
Lenny Kravitz[39][40] American singer and songwriter
Kesha,[41] American electropop singer-songwriter
Kimbra,[42] New Zealand indie pop singer
Sean Kingston,[43] Jamaican-American rapper, singer and songwriter
Aaron Kwok,[44] Hong Kong singer, actor and dancer
Lady Gaga,[45] American singer-songwriter and entertainer
Adam Lambert,[46] American singer-songwriter and stage actor
Taemin,[47] Korean dancer, singer and model
Snoop Dogg,[48] American rapper
Little Mix,[49][50] British girl group
Ludacris,[51] American rapper and actor
Abraham Mateo,[52] Spanish singer and songwriter
Maroon 5,[53] American pop rock band
Bruno Mars,[54] American pop singer-songwriter
George Michael,[55] English singer-songwriter, record producer and philanthropist.
Janelle Monáe,[56] American singer-songwriter, recording artist and entertainer
Muse,[57][58] British rock band
Ne-Yo,[19] American singer-songwriter, record producer, dancer and actor
NSYNC,[59] American boy band
Paramore,[60] American alternative rock band
Hrithik Roshan,[61] Indian actor and dancer
P-Square,[62] Nigerian duo
Rain,[63] South Korean singer, actor, songwriter, dancer, model, producer and designer
Signature,[citation needed] English dance duo
Shane Filan,[64] Irish singer and songwriter
Selena,[65] American singer, songwriter, and actress
Britney Spears,[66] American singer and songwriter
Patrick Stump,[67] American singer-songwriter (lead singer of Fall Out Boy), composer, record producer and actor
The Band Perry,[68] American country music group
Chris Tucker,[69] American actor and stand-up comedian
Justin Timberlake,[70] American singer-songwriter and actor
The 1975,[71] English indie rock band
The Weeknd,[72] Canadian singer, songwriter, and record producer.
Ashley Tisdale[73] American actress, singer, and producer.
Usher,[74] American singer-songwriter
Remo D'Souza,[75] Indian dancer, choreographer, actor and film director
Tiger Shroff,[76] Indian actor and dancer
Varun Dhawan,[77] Indian actor
Kanye West,[24] American musician and fashion designer
Betty Who,[78] Australian pop singer
Jay-Z,[79] American rapper
Taeyang,[80] South Korean singer and dancer
Ryan Destiny,[81] American singer-songwriter and actress
Kai,[82] South Korean singer and dancer
_
I merely copied and pasted, hence the sourcing numbers after each name. Each of these artist have cited Jackson as an influence.

Note the names of some A-list artists: Beyoncé, Chris Brown, Mariah Carey, Sheryl Crow, Chance the Rapper, Green Day, Jamiroquai, Lenny Kravitz, Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, Adam Lambert, Snoop Dogg, Justin Timberlake, Usher, and NSYNC, to name a few.

*Jackson* was influenced by those that came before him: James Brown, Diana Ross, Fred Astaire, Sammy Davis Jr., Gene Kelley, Jackie Wilson, and Little Richard.


----------



## consuono

> Prince? Just one of many influenced BY Jackson, although I agree that Prince had a more diverse musical catalog than Jackson


It could just as easily be said that Prince influenced Jackson. Prince began his recording career in 1978. Prince had a more diverse catalog because he was also a more talented musician and songwriter.

As for the rest of the list from the eminent authority Wikipedia, it's questionable. Snoop Dogg? Chris Tucker? Lady Gaga seems to have been as much a Madonna knockoff as anything. Lenny Kravitz was a Hendrix wannabe. Sheryl Crow? Green Day?? Srsly? :lol:


----------



## SanAntone

Who cares??????????????????????????


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Who cares??????????????????????????


I dunno.... It's just a topic to kick around. (I do think Prince was more talented though.  )


----------



## tdc

Yes, I consider Prince pretty much god like as a musician. Most people would need to dedicate most of their spare time just to reach his level of ability on guitar, yet he also danced, produced, wrote songs etc, could play something like 32 instruments. A prodigy.


----------



## Handelian

‘God save the Queen’ by the moronic Sex Pistols


----------



## Bxnwebster

Beethoven: Symphony No. 3


----------



## Beebert

Gallus said:


> Opus 9 no.2
> 
> It's good, no doubt...but it's not even the best piece in that key in that genre by that composer.


Absolutely agree. Although the other Nocturne in E flat, Op 55 2, might just be the greatest of all the nocturnes


----------



## hammeredklavier

Beebert said:


> Absolutely agree. Although the other Nocturne in E flat, Op 55 2, might just be the greatest of all the nocturnes


Haha~♪ I beat you to it~♪


hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, this is far lesser known, I have to admit it is just as delicately beautiful (albeit with more maturity of texture):


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Certainly the entire opening sequence is masterful and riveting, but I usually lose interest after the Dies Irae. I prefer the Great Mass in C Minor.


I've actually thought this way about mass K.427. The arias and stuff are very good, but they're not something "out of this world" like the vespers or the ave verum corpus.

"Magna opera domini exquisita" [ 4:30 ]
"Gloria patri et filio" [ 24:51 ]


----------



## DuncanW

God Save the Queen/King - I mean, you have a nation with a long and illustrious/not so illustrious history that has touched every corner of the planet, and their national anthem focuses on the health and wellbeing of one individual?! Don't get me wrong - I'm an Aussie who is still very much a constitutional monarchist, but that song!


----------



## Coach G

DuncanW said:


> God Save the Queen/King - I mean, you have a nation with a long and illustrious/not so illustrious history that has touched every corner of the planet, and their national anthem focuses on the health and wellbeing of one individual?! Don't get me wrong - I'm an Aussie who is still very much a constitutional monarchist, but that song!


I think national anthems in general are overrated. Some of them like the French, German and former Soviet national anthems amount to a rousing good tune; but isn't their purpose to more-or-less just to get the old man to get the young man to die for his country?


----------



## Pat Fairlea

DuncanW said:


> God Save the Queen/King - I mean, you have a nation with a long and illustrious/not so illustrious history that has touched every corner of the planet, and their national anthem focuses on the health and wellbeing of one individual?! Don't get me wrong - I'm an Aussie who is still very much a constitutional monarchist, but that song!


It's the tune ... I mean, the words are bad enough, but that dreadful dirge. It should only be played by a 4tet of soprano saxophones. At least that would be funny.


----------



## amfortas

Coach G said:


> I think national anthems in general are overrated. Some of them like the French, German and former Soviet national anthems amount to a rousing good tune; but isn't their purpose to more-or-less just to get the old man to get the young man to die for his country?


Very possibly. But the tune for that Soviet anthem almost makes *me* want to give my life for Mother Russia.


----------



## Rmathuln

Richard Strauss' Symphonia Domestica comes to mind. But I wonder sometimes if familiarity would lessen those feelings in me.


----------



## Guest002

Pat Fairlea said:


> It's the tune ... I mean, the words are bad enough, but that dreadful dirge. It should only be played by a 4tet of soprano saxophones. At least that would be funny.


You obviously haven't heard the Benjamin Britten version of it, which is masterful and not at all dirge-like. Try it some time.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Joseph Haydn string quartets Op.20 "Sun".

Yes, I've seen lectures and articles discussing their significance. Yet I still find their "historical significance" way too "overblown". Joseph Haydn wasn't even the first guy to utilize the ensemble and besides, 4 instruments taking the role of SATB, playing 4 movements is the most "basic, standardized form" any Classical-era composer could have come up with or would have eventually conformed to. There's nothing so ingenious about it.


> It's not, after all, a particularly balanced group. Two violins, one viola (which is tuned a fifth lower), and one cello (which is an octave below that). We hear all sorts of quasi mystical stuff about the famed 'balance' and 'equality' of the group, but in fact the differences between the instruments make the ensemble in some ways extremely problematic. A viola is bigger than a violin, which makes it louder, but also harder to play in tune, particularly when the playing is fast. And the cello is so much larger still that the distances the left hand has to traverse necessitate a radically different fingering system. All this means that music played on one instrument will not always transfer easily to another. To take only the most obvious example: a rapid melody that may be a walk in the park for the violins can become a steep mountain path for the viola; for the cello, an oxygen mask and advanced climbing gear may be needed.


Mozart does so much more interesting stuff with chromaticism and structure in K.334 (a divertimento for strings and horns in 6 movements).
And frankly, the quartets themselves are a bore to listen to. Face it. The famous fugue finale of Op.20 No.5 just sounds pedantic. There's nothing really remarkable about them, compared to, for example, the impassioned middle movements of Mozart's K.157, K.168, K.159, the the finales of K.168, especially the darkly chromatic K.173.

Come on. Let's face it (I'm not being a blind hater). No other composer's "juvenilia" is overhyped and discussed this much, except maybe Mendelssohn's:
Haydn String Quartets: Opus 20
The Haydn String Quartets Game (Semi-Final Round One)
Haydn - string quartets
Had it not been for their "historical significance" and the fact that the "Great" Joseph Haydn wrote them, they would have been shunned by everyone, just like Mozart's juvenilia.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> Joseph Haydn string quartets Op.20 "Sun".
> 
> Had it not been for their "historical significance" and the fact that the "Great" Joseph Haydn wrote them, they would have been shunned by everyone, just like Mozart's juvenilia.


That's a ridiculous comment that once again reveals your consistent personal bias.


----------



## haziz

Coach G said:


> I think _West Side Story_ is overrated. The music is great, and I love Bernstein's orchestral suite. There's not much in the story-line or the lyrics, though. The lyricist, Stephen Sondheim, has discussed how the lyrics don't reflect the thinking of a bunch of tough street kids, and I think it's all really thin with characters that lack any real depth. Case in point: Tony's running, dancing, and skipping, through the mean streets of New York City singing "Maria, Maria, Maria" and he just met girl that day! I think musicals such as _Fiddler on the Roof_ by Bock and Harnick, or _Chess_ by Tim Rice and members of ABBA do a better job of exploring the human condition.


Blame William Shakespeare.


----------



## John O

‘For he’s a jolly good fellow’
Agreed it is terrible!
It was only used so much in film and TV because of the copyright issues with Happy Birthday To You


----------



## John O

Surely ‘God Save the Queen’ despite it use by half the nations of the world including the US is not overrated because most people agree the tune is crap.


----------



## Agamenon

Bxnwebster said:


> Beethoven: Symphony No. 3


This sentence shows one giant truth: Symphony 3 is UNDERRATED.:devil:


----------



## Luchesi

Agamenon said:


> This sentence shows one giant truth: Symphony 3 is UNDERRATED.:devil:


compared to what?


----------



## DaveM

John O said:


> Surely 'God Save the Queen' despite it use by half the nations of the world including the US is not overrated because* most people* agree the tune is crap.


You interviewed all of them?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> That's a ridiculous comment that once again reveals your consistent personal bias.


Try any random Michael Haydn string quintet, MH.189 in G major (1773), for example. I'm sure you'll realize there's nothing really spectacular about his older brother's early efforts. I mean, just compare Joseph's long-winded Stabat mater (1767) with his younger brother's requiem (1771).


----------



## Simon23

In classical: Vivaldi - Four Seasons,

In popular - Boney M.


----------



## Handelian

John O said:


> Surely 'God Save the Queen' despite it use by half the nations of the world including the US is not overrated because most people agree the tune is crap.


The genius of it is that Arne's tune is brief and we don't have to stand for ages listening to it as some nations do to theirs.


----------



## Handelian

Simon23 said:


> In classical: Vivaldi - Four Seasons,
> 
> In popular - Boney M.


Oh people like it? Must be overrated then!


----------



## chu42

Pat Fairlea said:


> It's the tune ... I mean, the words are bad enough, but that dreadful dirge. It should only be played by a 4tet of soprano saxophones. At least that would be funny.







Not sure how you would feel about this.


----------



## Aries

Mozart and Brahms come to mind, but the most overrated work has to be something serialistic, because it is impossible to divide by zero.


----------



## John Lenin

The choral finale of Beethoven's 9th..... it's mind numbingly crass


----------



## Luchesi

Halfings taking shots at a great man.


----------



## pianozach

Jacck said:


> *Beatles*, but I am not sure which work, pretty much most of them. Though they are fading, in 50 years, no one will remember them and they will no longer be overrated, just like barely anyone today remembers Elvis.


Really? Their catalog of music, which is now over 50 years old already, is generally thought of as being some of the most influential music ever. They were innovators, pioneers, and broke open the small envelope of what could be Pop Music, and gave it a Galaxy of sound palettes. They made Pop Music evolve into an Art Form.

They played their own instruments live, and notably, on their recordings, rather unusual at the time. They also wrote their own songs, again rare at the time.

Their films also influenced a new art form, the MUSIC VIDEO, and MTV, a television network dedicated to music videos.

Almost every single song in their catalog has been covered over and over for almost 6 decades. Even _*their*_ *covers* have been *covered*.

The song _*Yesterday*_ has been re-recorded by artists over a thousand times. There are over 500 versions of *Something. Here Comes the Sun* has well over 300 versions recorded, and, in the last 10 years (since the beginning of 2011) there have been well over 130 versions recorded by other artists and bands.

Even non-singles and obscure tracks are covered; for instance, *Baby, You're a Rich Man* has had 9 versions released in the last 9 years. Almost every artist today cites them as having a significant influence on their own music.

I'd say that should you live another 50 years, you'll find your prediction to be incorrect. As of now, their music has etched its way into every corner of our lives.

In 2010, *President Obama* spoke of how *The Beatles* had changed America. _*"It's hard to believe that it's been nearly half a century since four lads from Liverpool landed on our shores and changed everything overnight" he said, "…In a few short years, they had changed the way that we listened to music, thought about music, and performed music, forever. They helped to lay the soundtrack for an entire generation-an era of endless possibility and of great change."*_

As of *2009*, they were the *best-selling band in history*, with estimated sales of over 600 million records worldwide. *Time* included them in its list of the *Twentieth Century's 100 Most Important People*.

Music historian Bill Martin says that although rock music has been defined by "synthesis and transmutation" since it began, _*"what was original about the Beatles is that they synthesized and transmuted more or less everything, they did this in a way that reflected their time, they reflected their time in a way that spoke to a great part of humanity, and they did all of this really, really well."*_


----------



## JohnP

Bourdon said:


> I hope that you realize that this statement is no more than just your personal opinion.
> These value judgments make so little sense and it goes a long way to dismiss all the artistic achievements of the past century as completely superfluous. There is something presumptuous in your words.
> 
> By the way,I love Bach and many modern classical music,is there something wrong with me?


If "these value judgments make so little sense," on whose judgments are we to rely? Is there an arbiter somewhere? Can I turn to him/her for the final word on Cage, etc.? Should I? Isn't my opinion, and Ariasexta's, all we have to rely on? I for one agree that much of 20th century music, the atonal and aleotoric part of it, is a waste. That's my opinion, and I'm the one doing the listening over here. I'll bet you're relying on your opinion over there in your house, too.


----------



## chipia

Possibly Boulez - Le Marteau sans Maitre

Also, Mozart's clarinet concerto.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> Really? Their catalog of music, which is now over 50 years old already, is generally thought of as being some of the most influential music ever. They were innovators, pioneers, and broke open the small envelope of what could be Pop Music, and gave it a Galaxy of sound palettes. They made Pop Music evolve into an Art Form.
> 
> They played their own instruments live, and notably, on their recordings, rather unusual at the time. They also wrote their own songs, again rare at the time.
> 
> Their films also influenced a new art form, the MUSIC VIDEO, and MTV, a television network dedicated to music videos.
> 
> Almost every single song in their catalog has been covered over and over for almost 6 decades. Even _*their*_ covers have been covered.
> 
> The song _*Yesterday*_ has been re-recorded by artists over a thousand times. There are over 500 versions of *Something. Here Comes the Sun* has well over 300 version, and, in the last 10 years, since the beginning of 2011, there have been well over 130 versions recorded by other artists and bands.
> 
> Even non-singles and obscure tracks are covered; for instance, *Baby, You're a Rich Man* has had 9 versions released in the last 9 years. Almost every artist today cites them as having a significant influence on their own music.
> 
> I'd say that should you live another 50 years, you'll find your prediction to be incorrect. As of now, their music has etched its way into every corner of our lives.
> 
> In 2010, *President Obama* spoke of how *The Beatles* had changed America. _*"It's hard to believe that it's been nearly half a century since four lads from Liverpool landed on our shores and changed everything overnight" he said, "…In a few short years, they had changed the way that we listened to music, thought about music, and performed music, forever. They helped to lay the soundtrack for an entire generation-an era of endless possibility and of great change."*_
> 
> As of *2009*, they were the *best-selling band in history*, with estimated sales of over 600 million records worldwide. *Time* included them in its list of the *Twentieth Century's 100 Most Important People*.
> 
> Music historian Bill Martin says that although rock music has been defined by "synthesis and transmutation" since it began, _*"what was original about the Beatles is that they synthesized and transmuted more or less everything, they did this in a way that reflected their time, they reflected their time in a way that spoke to a great part of humanity, and they did all of this really, really well."*_


Barrack is very smart, but he was born in 61. He was only 10 years old in 71.

Of the pop music today, are the Beatles an influence? How? Pop composers often do the opposite of what the Beatles put out there. I don't see connections.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> Barrack is very smart, but he was born in 61. He was only 10 years old in 71.
> 
> Of the pop music today, are the Beatles an influence? How? Pop composers often do the opposite of what the Beatles put out there. I don't see connections.


Just do a Google search and see what comes up. You don't have to believe it all, just a proportion, and you can see their influence.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

What is what and why?


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Just do a Google search and see what comes up. You don't have to believe it all, just a proportion, and you can see their influence.


Yes, that's revisionism for ya.


----------



## musicrom

Whatever music is in Classic FM's top 10 in any given year.


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> Barrack is very smart, but he was born in 61. He was only 10 years old in 71.
> 
> Of the pop music today, are the Beatles an influence? How? Pop composers often do the opposite of what the Beatles put out there. I don't see connections.


The Beatles were absolute innovators.

Musically, they invented backward masking, dance-rock (_*"Baby, You're a Rich Man"*_), backwards guitar solos, pudding drums, automatic double-tracking and DI'ed bass. The Beatles also restlessly reinvented their art. They used modal songwriting in *"Norwegian Wood"*, explored the impact of drugs and self-loathing in their lyrics. They blended Western music with Indian music, jazz with psychedelic rock and pop.

They made the concept of "*Innovation*" a requirement for Pop Music; in fact Indie music has swallowed whole the idea that music must be innovative to be worthwhile.

And, as far as innovation goes, the Beatles (and their recording engineers) either pioneered or popularized Artificial Double Tracking (ADT), back masking, tuned feedback, spliced audio loops, distortion, equalization, stereo effects, multi-tracking (overdubbing), compression, phase shifting, and innovative "microphoning."

Since you missed it the first time, I'll say it again: *The Beatles* practically invented the *Music Video*, and brought the idea of a *Concept Album* into the mainstream.

They called manager Brian Epstein crazy when he booked Shea Stadium for a concert in 1965. In essence, they invented *Stadium Rock*. Now this sort of thing is commonplace for musical artists.

They played their own instruments on their recordings, and wrote their own songs. This was hugely rare at the time. Releases from bands were typically made using session musicians, and songs were written by reliable songwriters.

They were the first band to start their own record label.

They were the highlighted subject of the first ever live global satellite television broadcast in June, 1967.

In April 1964, they staggeringly held *#1, #2, #3, #4,* AND *#5* (for a total of *14 songs*) in the *Billboard Hot 100*, a feat that no other artist has matched.

They released the first pop album to have the lyrics printed on the cover.

In 1968 they released the first single to clock in at well over 7 minutes. And radio stations were changed forever. In fact, in America it pretty much changed how AM and FM stations operated.



They changed the way music was played.

They changed the way people dressed.

They changed the way people thought.

They opened up doors for musicians and artists and writers alike. The culture of music changed in a very major way; they were one of the first who ignited singer-songwriters to perform, play guitars, write, and no one knew at the time that they were the ones who paved the way for GENRES THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE TO BE CREATED.

And . . . they wrote _*more*_ _*classic songs*_ than any other artist.

Underrated? No influence? Listen to what Popular Music sounded like from 1959-1962, and how *The Beatles* changed everything, and left ripples that still affect us 50 years later.






_Just a side note on this clip video . . . some of the video clips are of the artists lip synching their songs many years later; no male artists had shaggy hair in 1962._






So . . . yeah, there's some gold amongst the dross. I'm surprised at just how many songs about "*The Twist*" were hits.

But how many of these "*Hit Artists*" had the staying power, and how many were one-hit wonders? Like, I love *Little Eva* and _*The Loco-motion*_ (even though it's just another 3 chord song), but how many other hits did she have? Did she play an instrument on the track? No. Did she write it? No, the song was written by the professional songwriting team of Goffin/King, just as most hit songs were written by songwriters.


----------



## 59540

pianozach said:


> And, as far as innovation goes, the Beatles (and their recording engineers) either pioneered or popularized Artificial Double Tracking (ADT), back masking, tuned feedback, spliced audio loops, distortion, equalization, stereo effects, multi-tracking (overdubbing), compression, phase shifting, and innovative "microphoning."


Yeah, but I often wonder how much of that was due to George Martin. If I'm not mistaken he was the one who came up with, among other things, the string quartet in "Yesterday" and that cello-heaviness of "I Am the Walrus".


----------



## Forster

Yes, The Beatles were innovators, and yes, they had considerable influence on the music and culture of the 60s and beyond.

But they were part of a cultural change, not the sole leaders. The Shadows came before them and the Rolling Stones, The Kinks, Manfred Mann, The Animals and others emerged just after. I'm less familiar with what was happening in the USA, but The Beatles 'competition' with The Beach Boys is well documented. And Motown?

My understanding of 'avant garde' is that of radical pioneers, often unaccepted by their contemporaries. To me, it's a matter of degree. The Beatles may have been more or less first to push at an opening door, but it was an opening door nevertheless.


----------



## pianozach

dissident said:


> Yeah, but I often wonder how much of that was due to George Martin. If I'm not mistaken he was the one who came up with, among other things, the string quartet in "Yesterday" and that cello-heaviness of "I Am the Walrus".





Forster said:


> Yes, The Beatles were innovators, and yes, they had considerable influence on the music and culture of the 60s and beyond.
> 
> But they were part of a cultural change, not the sole leaders. The Shadows came before them and the Rolling Stones, The Kinks, Manfred Mann, The Animals and others emerged just after. I'm less familiar with what was happening in the USA, but The Beatles 'competition' with The Beach Boys is well documented. And Motown?
> 
> My understanding of 'avant garde' is that of radical pioneers, often unaccepted by their contemporaries. To me, it's a matter of degree. The Beatles may have been more or less first to push at an opening door, but it was an opening door nevertheless.


Off the top of my head I cannot name a single song by *The Shadows*.

The *Beach Boys* (or rather, _*Brian Wilson*_) became innovators after a nice pop beginning as a surf rock band, but that wasn't until mid-1964. And that innovative period was rather short-lived as Wilson kind of self-imploded. The Beach Boys certainly made _*some*_ creative contributions to the development of Pop Music, but not to the extent that the Beatles did.

But all of your "_*What Abouts*_" is noted. *The Stones* were a popular and successful band, but "innovators"? The Stones wouldn't have even have been signed if it hadn't been on the recommendation of George Harrison of the Beatles. The rest of your list? *The Kinks, Manfred Mann, The Animals*? All of these bands were made possible only because of the inroads the Beatles made.

OK, *The Kinks*. Formed in 1963, and not even a critical success until 1966.

*Manfred Mann* had their first major hit in 1964, with a cover of _*Do Wah Diddy Diddy*_. Not really an innovative thing, more punkish bubblegum than an influence on pop music. Innovative with their jazz/rhythm-and-blues fusion thing, but never a major influence.

*The Animals*? Like the *Stones*, they were just a cleaned up and polished garage band. Both of these bands had hits, and were minor influences on Pop/Rock music, but other than being the poster children for sloppy rock bands with attitude, I don't hear any real major ripples. I find it amusing that the *Rolling Stones* first hit was a *Beatles* song. And *the Animals* had their first "hit" with an updating of an old folk song, _*The House of the Rising Sun*_, a song that had already been covered by Woody Guthrie, Joan Baez, and Bob Dylan. Maybe grunge rock can cite them as an influence, but they were just representative of the darker side of rock 'n' roll. Frankly, *Helter Skelter* had a bigger influence on hard rock. For the most part *the Animals* were a rocky version of R&B, with a handful of hits. They barely moved the "Influential" meter at all.

As for *George Martin* . . . Yep, most certainly the 5th Beatle. Producers occasionally get the credit they deserve. And his guidance in those early years certainly helped them make an international success. But by 1965 they were the ones giving HIM suggestions as to what they wanted, and his role changed into having to figure out how to help them get the sounds they wanted.


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> Off the top of my head I cannot name a single song by *The Shadows*.
> 
> The *Beach Boys* (or rather, _*Brian Wilson*_) became innovators after a nice pop beginning as a surf rock band, but that wasn't until mid-1964. And that innovative period was rather short-lived as Wilson kind of self-imploded. The Beach Boys certainly made _*some*_ creative contributions to the development of Pop Music, but not to the extent that the Beatles did.
> 
> But all of your "_*What Abouts*_" is noted. *The Stones* were a popular and successful band, but "innovators"? The Stones wouldn't have even have been signed if it hadn't been on the recommendation of George Harrison of the Beatles. The rest of your list? The Kinks, Manfred Mann, The Animals? All of these bands were made possible only because of the inroads the Beatles made.
> 
> OK, The Kinks. Formed in 1963, and not even a critical success until 1966.
> 
> *Manfred Mann* had their first major hit in 1964, with a cover of _*Do Wah Diddy Diddy*_. Not really an innovative thing, more punkish bubblegum than an influence on pop music. Innovative with their jazz/rhythm-and-blues fusion thing, but never a major influence.
> 
> *The Animals*? Like the *Stones*, they were just a cleaned up and polished garage band. Both of these bands had hits, and were minor influences on Pop/Rock music, but other than being the poster children for sloppy rock bands with attitude, I don't hear any real major ripples. I find it amusing that the *Rolling Stones* first hit was a cover of a *Beatles* song. And the Animals had their first "hit" with an updating of an old folk song, _*The House of the Rising Sun*_, a song that had already been covered by Woody Guthrie, Joan Baez, and Bob Dylan. Maybe grunge rock can cite them as an influence, but they were just representative of the darker side of rock 'n' roll. Frankly, *Helter Skelter* had a bigger influence on hard rock. For the most part *the Animals* were a rocky version of R&B, with a handful of hits. They barely moved the "Influential" meter at all.
> 
> As for *George Martin* . . . Yep, most certainly the 5th Beatle. Producers occasionally get the credit they deserve. And his guidance in those early years certainly helped them make an international success. But by 1965 they were the ones giving HIM suggestions as to what they wanted, and his role changed into having to figure out how to help them get the sounds they wanted.


First, I thought I made clear I waas talking about the UK - that I was less familiar with what was going on the USA. The Stones were having hits here before they were successful in the US.

Second, I wasn't naming other bands (again, more successful here than in the US) as more important than The Beatles, or even avant garde or innovators. I was listing a number of bands who contributed to the emergence of rock and pop in the early and mid-60s. They were a part of the scene.

Third, I suggest you find out about The Shadows and their influence, according to Wiki, the fifth most successful group in the UK's singles chart, behind Elvis, The Beatles, Cliff Richard and Madonna.

I may have been quite young at the time, but ours was a pop mad household, and watched Top of the Pops and Ready Steady Go, bought records by all those bands I've mentioned (except The Beach Boys, I think), and I was well aware of the change wrought on the radio as pop took over from 'easy listening'.


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> First, I thought I made clear I waas talking about the UK - that I was less familiar with what was going on the USA. *The Stones were having hits here before they were successful in the US*.
> 
> Second, I wasn't naming other bands (again, more successful here than in the US) as more important than The Beatles, or even avant garde or innovators. I was listing a number of bands who contributed to the emergence of rock and pop in the early and mid-60s. They were a part of the scene.
> 
> Third, I suggest you find out about *The Shadows* and their influence, according to Wiki, the *fifth most successful group* in the UK's singles chart, *behind* Elvis, *The Beatles*, Cliff Richard and Madonna.
> 
> I may have been quite young at the time, but ours was a pop mad household, and watched Top of the Pops and Ready Steady Go, bought records by all those bands I've mentioned (except The Beach Boys, I think), and I was well aware of the change wrought on the radio as pop took over from 'easy listening'.


*The Beatles* were having hits in the UK before they were successful in the US as well.

Wiki also states that most of their hits were instrumentals. Odd.

And that they were basically a backing band.

I'm thinking they were virtual unknowns in the US. Even their singles discography on Wikipedia doesn't even bother with a column for US singles. Perhaps they had none, I don't know. I think I've heard of one of their songs that wasn't a cover, *Kon-tiki*, a song that, naturally, was written by professional songwriter *Michael Carr*, the same guy that wrote *South of the Border (Down Mexico Way)* for the 1939 Gene Autrey singing cowboy film of the same name. I see that they released covers of Telstar, Imagine, and The Third Man Theme in the '80s.

Impact? Zero. Successful career as a band. Guitarist cited as an influence, along with many others, by many later guitarists. But here in the states, I think their airplay was almost zilch.

There's a bit of confusion about there being both *The Shadows*, as a mostly instrumental group, and *Cliff Richards and the Shadows*, them being Cliff's backing band. But Cliff Richard barely had an impact on the American market either.



That said, *Move It*, by *Cliff Richard and the Shadows*, released in 1958, seems to get credit for being the first British Rock and Roll record. I can't say I'd ever heard it before, but it's an excellent track.

Even *John Lennon* [allegedly] said that *before Cliff and the Shadows, there had been nothing worth listening to in British music.* So it's quite plausible that they had a significant impact on John, and by association, *The Beatles* as well.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> The Beatles were absolute innovators.
> 
> Musically, they invented songs were written by songwriters.


The whole post is an exaggeration and a revisionist view. It wasn't like that. You're making simplistic connections from hindsight (and to me they're surprising, it's gotten this far..).


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> The whole post is an exaggeration and a revisionist view. It wasn't like that. You're making simplistic connections from hindsight (and to me they're surprising, it's gotten this far..).


Jeez. That is the snarkiest, snidest, uninformed put down I've seen here on *TC*.

*The Beatles*' accomplishments and influence are not an exaggeration; they're facts. Historic even. Every music historian and music critic agrees that they were massively influential. Every list of MOST INFLUENTIAL bands in history has them at #1 or #2 (the lists where they AREN'T #1 all have some personal LIKE at #1, like David Bowie or some random band that IS influential in some way).

A random Google of MOST INFLUENTIAL BAND comes with hits that all list *The Beatles* at or near the top.

*Loudwire*: _"If you're aware that music exists, you know how influential the Beatles are. Having essentially invented countless subgenres of rock, the Beatles lit the fire of hard rock, heavy metal, folk rock, jangle pop and much more, inspiring musicians like Ozzy Osbourne and Joey Ramone to pursue their rock star dreams."_

3. The Ramones
2. Black Sabbath
1. The Beatles

https://loudwire.com/15-most-influential-bands-of-all-time/

*Louder Than War*: _"It's often be said that if you ever want to study a history of the sixties then listen to the Beatles back catalogue. If Elvis created rock n roll The Beatles took it to another level, inventing the modern notion of the band. The Beatles also kidded everyone that you could write your own songs which has been both a blessing and a curse in rock n roll."_

3. The Rolling Stones
2. The Beatles
1. Elvis Presley

https://louderthanwar.com/the-top-15-most-influential-bands-ever/

*Dig*: _"The Beatles have always been, and remain, a phenomenon. The timeless songwriting of Lennon-McCartney (Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day In The Life) and impeccable musicianship of George Harrison and Ringo Starr continues to inspire millions. With an eye for cultural relevance, The Beatles' exploration of multiple genres - moving beyond rock'n'roll to encompass Indian music and psychedelia - opened doors for pop music which have never been closed. And that's without mentioning their artistic daring and fearless studio experimentation. What The Beatles achieved in their ten years together remains unprecedented and awe-inspiring."_

3. Jimi Hendrix
2. The Beatles
1. David Bowie

https://www.thisisdig.com/feature/most-influential-musicians-changed-music/

*Rolling Stone*: Guest contributor *Elvis Costello*; _"Every record was a shock when it came out. Compared to rabid R&B evangelists like the Rolling Stones, the Beatles arrived sounding like nothing else. They had already absorbed Buddy Holly, the Everly Brothers and Chuck Berry, but they were also writing their own songs. They made writing your own material expected, rather than exceptional."

"They were pretty much the first group to mess with the aural perspective of their recordings and have it be more than just a gimmick. Before the Beatles, you had guys in lab coats doing recording experiments in the Fifties, but you didn't have rockers deliberately putting things out of balance . . . You can't exaggerate the license that this gave to everyone from Motown to Jimi Hendrix."_

3. Elvis Presley
2. Bob Dylan
1. The Beatles

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/100-greatest-artists-147446/the-beatles-7-31247/

*The Top Tens*: _"They were soon known as the foremost and most influential act of rock era. Rooted in skiffle, beat, and 1950s rock and roll, the Beatles later experimented with several genres, ranging from pop ballads and Indian music to psychedelia and hard rock, often incorporating classical elements in innovative ways."_

3. Bon Jovi
2. Led Zeppelin
1. The Beatles

https://www.thetoptens.com/rock/most-influential-rock-groups/

*Ledgernote*: _"These guys won all the awards, starred in and produced movies, and even hold records like having the most covered song of all time. The Lennon-McCartney songwriting team are the most successful ever. They had pop appeal, rock appeal, evolved through the interests of the hippy era... they're some of the best musicians to ever exist. They're so good that hipsters think it's cool to hate them."_

3. Pink Floyd
2. The Rolling Stones
1. The Beatles

https://ledgernote.com/blog/interesting/best-bands-of-all-time/

*Spinditty*: _"Being honest, when making this list I was trying to find a way to justify excluding them from the list (or at least listing another band at #1). . . . Trying to argue that there were rock bands more important than The Beatles borders on treason.

"Part of the amazing thing about The Beatles was the tremendous artistic growth experienced over a short period of time. They started off basically as one of the first "boy bands" and morphed into an experimental and groundbreaking rock band.

"Concerning The Beatles considerable legacy, Jack White summed it up best: "Do not trust people who call themselves musicians or record collectors who say that they don't like Bob Dylan or The Beatles. They do not love music if those words come out of their mouths.""_

3. Led Zeppelin
2. The Ramones
1. The Beatles

https://spinditty.com/genres/The-Top-10-Best-Rock-Bands-Of-All-Time

*The Today Show*: _"A small but significant slice of the Beatles' magic came back in 1986 with release of the classic John Hughes teen flick "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," wherein Matthew Broderick's title character lip-syncs the early Beatles classic "Twist and Shout" . . . The public was so wistful for Beatlemania that "Twist and Shout" returned to the charts for 15 weeks that year, a brief but sweet reminder of the real thing."_

3. U2
2. The Rolling Stones
1. The Beatles

https://www.today.com/popculture/10-best-rock-bands-ever-2d80554936

*Quartz*: _" . . . AllMusic, an online database started in 1991 that is perhaps the world's most comprehensive encyclopedia of popular music. . . . Quartz collected data from the site on 53,630 artists"_

3. The Rolling Stones
2. Bob Dylan
1. The Beatles

https://qz.com/1094962/a-definitive-list-of-the-musicians-who-influenced-our-lives-most/

*Parade*: _"As if The Beatles need any introduction: The Liverpool quartet is one of the bestselling, most influential bands in the history of music. Wondering just how far their influence extends? One of the Guardians of the Galaxy is named in homage to one of their songs."_

3. Prince and the Revolution
2. The Rolling Stones
1. The Beatles

https://parade.com/1020922/jessicasager/best-rock-bands-of-all-time/



The critics, reviewers, historians, and every journalist is of the same opinion: *The Beatles* are the most influential band of all time. I think *Ledgernote* must have been thinking of you when they wrote, *"They're so good that hipsters think it's cool to hate them."*

:tiphat:

So, you can keep calling it _*"revisionist"*_, without a whiff of evidence to back up your claim or give it even a hint of verisimilitude, but it's nothing but contrariness.

But do tell us all how it's "revisionist" and mere "simplistic connections from hindsight".


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ "They're so good that hipsters think it's cool to hate them."

This so-called rock critic wanted to make a name for himself, in putting them down. He really doesn't get into the music, you just have to take his word.

https://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> *The Beatles* were having hits in the UK before they were successful in the US as well.
> 
> Wiki also states that most of their hits were instrumentals. Odd.
> 
> And that they were basically a backing band. [etc]


What your post illustrates is that while certain 'facts' can be established about who did what, perspectives on influence and impact are affected by the context of those making claims for this or that viewpoint.

Have you heard of Bert Weedon?


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> Yes, that's revisionism for ya.


Instead of dismissing, try researching.



> The Beatles And BTS Are The Only Groups To Sell 1 Million Album Units In 2020


https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanr...es-bts-1-million-albums-2020/?sh=6e2f5fdc5ec4


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> ............Have you heard of Bert Weedon?


I had a guitar like one of his, except it was a cheaper Epiphone and had a Bert Weedon 'How to' book. I remember practising for weeks a boogie woogie exercise, trying to get the plectrum to do up and down strokes in time.

I've mentioned before that my mum used to play with George Harrison as a kid in Wavertree. She lived a few doors away and remembered him playing the piano in the parlour whilst she'd be occasionally banging on the window and running away...sorry, digressing a bit.

The Beatles innovations and legacy are not in doubt, at least they better not be, I've bought all of their albums 3 times over the years!!!!!!..


----------



## Forster

I saw Bert Weedon doing pantomime in 1969/70 with the Paper Dolls...not my closest brush with celebrity, but still...

As for The Beatles, I've not quite purchased 3x over, but I have invested in the three deluxe reissues of Sgt Pepper, The Beatles and Abbey Road. And I only started buying my own copies of these albums when my older brother left home and took his copies with him.


----------



## AndorFoldes

The Beatles catalogue is the most influential music ever to one generation: the people who grew up with their music. To me it's insignificant.


----------



## pianozach

AndorFoldes said:


> The Beatles catalogue is the most influential music ever to one generation: the people who grew up with their music. To me it's insignificant.


Absolute innovators, even there in their first album they were doing things that were subtly innovative. By 1964, practically every song had something unique about it.

By 1966, practically every song had multiple things that were innovative.

Here's a short video running through the handful of innovations in a single song, Rain.






.

Most of these are things that hadn't really been pioneered on a pop record previously, with the exception of John having his voice recorded while the backing track was slowed down, then when the track was brought back to normal speed, his vocal was faster, brighter, and had a unique timbre. Who used this previously? None other than Dave Bagdasarian, when he produced the novelty song The Witch Doctor, and then the fictitious group The Chipmunks.

.

The Beatles were so innovative that the music YOU listen has been influenced by what the Beatles did over 50 years ago. Your ignorance is amazing . . . it's like denying that *Joseph Haydn, Martin Luther, Ben Franklin, Henry Ford, or FDR* were only influential back when they did things . . . They, like the *Beatles*, accomplished things so monumental that you're not even aware of how their deeds impact you in the 21st Century. Some people invent things, create ideas, write music and novels, and other things, that reverberate decades, even centuries later. The Magna Carta.

Simply because you don't see the connection doesn't mean that *The Beatles* no longer have any influence on music and culture.


----------



## Forster

AndorFoldes said:


> The Beatles catalogue is the most influential music ever to one generation: the people who grew up with their music. To me it's insignificant.


It rather depends on how you define 'generation'. These days, the gap between them seems to be shrinking. My mother, born in 1931 is a fan. My sister, born in 1950 is a fan. I'm a fan (born 1959). Thom Yorke, born in 1968 acknowledged their influence on Radiohead. Oasis blatantly copied their style.

I think you'll find that there's more than one 'generation' for whom The Beatles is important.

It's also true that there are Boomers around who aren't stuck in a timewarp and like classical from many different generations of composers, as well as the pop/rock of contemporary artists.


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> What your post illustrates is that while certain 'facts' can be established about who did what, perspectives on influence and impact are affected by the context of those making claims for this or that viewpoint.
> 
> Have you heard of Bert Weedon?


Yeah, that's exactly how assessments are made. People look back, assess what someone did, analyzes it, and determines the impact and lingering influence and importance. Anyone looking back and putting historical context around things uses this method of _USING THEIR VIEWPOINT_ to do so.

That's what historians and experts do.

*Bert Weedon*? No, hadn't heard of him. I had to *Google* him. *Wikipedia* cites him as an influence on some later guitarists, complete with a quote from the editor of a guitar magazine claiming, *"Weedon could well be described as the most genuinely influential guitarist of all time"*.

I'll be OK with the concept of people I've never heard of having an influence on their craft. But I also think that this editor's claim may be a bit _overstated_. I think that saying he was one of the most influential guitarists of the very late 1950s and very early 1960s might be a bit more accurate. _THE_ most influential of all time? Probably not.

*B.B. King,, Les Paul, Chet Atkins, Chuck Berry, Wes Montgomery* were likely MORE influential in that time frame, and there have been guitarists since then that may be considered for that "THE MOST INFLUENTIAL" spot: *Jimi Hendrix, Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Eddie Van Halen, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Brian May, Yngwie Malmstein* . . .

And I'm sure that there are several guitarists prior to the 1950s that had some major impact. For instance, there was *Charlie Christian* and *Robert Johnson*.

Yes, I get that many of these guitarists were influenced by other guitarists that had some influence from someone like *Bert Weedon*. All those guitarists likely had _MANY_ different influences.

In 1959, *Weedon* had a Top Ten hit with his first single, *Guitar Boogie Shuffle*, and now the editor of Guitar Technique Magazine is saying Weedon was the most influential guitarist of all time.






Some nice stuff there, but hardly new. *Chuck Berry* had that walking bass strings thing and great soloing nailed years prior to this.

And *Les Paul* was doing THIS way back in 1951, as well as pioneering double tracking and overdubbing:






.

Also in 1951; listen to him just effortlessly _*shred*_ in the middle of THIS tune . . .


----------



## Forster

Thanks for your post.



pianozach said:


> Yeah, that's exactly how assessments are made. People look back, assess what someone did, analyzes it, and determines the impact and lingering influence and importance. Anyone looking back and putting historical context around things uses this method of _USING THEIR VIEWPOINT_ to do so.
> 
> That's what historians and experts do.


And regular Joes on the internet.

So, you see my point. Because viewpoints differ, so do the outcomes of those analyses. Broadly, you and I agree on the significance of The Beatles, though we see things slightly differently because of our differing perspectives. I only mentioned Bert Weedon to illustrate this. I was not trying to make my own claim for his influence, merely that from my point of view, he figures in the business of assessing what was happening to turn rock and roll into pop/rock from the late 1950s into the early 1960s _in the UK._

Whether it's fair to conclude that The Beatles are 'overrated' is another matter, and that would partly depend on what we think 'overrating' means. To my mind, it's a worthless term. Plainly, if someone were to claim that The Beatles were the most important composers since Hildegard of Bingen, we'd smell the scent of overrating. And if someone wished to say that they were just another band of mopheads whose output pales into insignificance next to the Spice Girls, we'd smell that too. Alas, that's what 'overrating' usually entails: hyperbole or put down.


----------



## Art Rock

Forster said:


> It's also true that there are Boomers around who aren't stuck in a timewarp and like classical from many different generations of composers, as well as the pop/rock of contemporary artists.


I know at least one.

* waves at the mirror *


----------



## Coach G

Forster said:


> It rather depends on how you define 'generation'. These days, the gap between them seems to be shrinking. My mother, born in 1931 is a fan [of the Beatles]. My sister, born in 1950 is a fan. I'm a fan (born 1959). Thom Yorke, born in 1968 acknowledged their influence on Radiohead. Oasis blatantly copied their style.
> 
> I think you'll find that there's more than one 'generation' for whom The Beatles is important...


...and the Beatles even influenced the generations that came BEFORE that; as many Vaudeville performers; easy listening, jazz, big band, and classical musicians of previous generations have covered Beatles songs; in example:

Arthur Fiedler, 1894-1979 (_I Want To Hold Your Hand_, _Hard Day's Night_, _O-Bli-Di-Bla-Da_, _Yesterday_, etc.)
George Burns, 1896-1996 (_I Get By With a Little Help from My Friends_, _Fixing a Hole_) 
Bing Crosby, 1903-1977, (_Hey Jude_)
Lawrence Welk, 1903-1992 (_Hey Jude_, _When I'm 64_, _Yesterday_, etc)
Count Basie, 1904-1984 (_Michelle_)
Benny Goodman, 1909-1986 (_Yesterday_, _Rocky Raccoon_)
Mitch Miller, 1911-2010 (_Give Peace a Chance_)
Perry Como, 1912-2001 (_Yesterday_, _Something_)
Frankie Laine 1913-2007 (_Maxwell's Silver Hammer_)
Frank Sinatra, 1915-1998 (_Something_)
Buddy Rich, 1917-1987 (_Norwegian Wood_)
Ella Fitzgerald, 1917-1996 (_Can't Buy Me Love_, _Savoy Truffle_)
Liberace, 1919-1987 (_Here, There, and Everywhere_; _Yesterday_; _The Long and Winding Road_; _Imagine_) 
Mel Torme, 1925-1999 (_She's Leaving Home_)
Tony Bennett, born 1926 (_Something_, _The Long and Winding Road_, _Eleanor Rigby_)
Andy Williams, 1927-2012 (_My Sweet Lord_)
Ray Charles, 1930-2004 (_Eleanor Rigby_, _Yesterday_)
Jim Nabors, 1930-2017 (_Something_)

I am not going to question the wisdom and musical knowledge of such an eclectic list of luminaries.

The Lawrence Welk Orchestra plays _Hey Jude_:


----------



## pianozach

Coach G said:


> ...and the Beatles even influenced the generations that came BEFORE that; as many Vaudeville performers; easy listening, jazz, big band, and classical musicians of previous generations have covered Beatles songs; in example:
> 
> Arthur Fiedler, 1894-1979 (_I Want To Hold Your Hand_, _Hard Day's Night_, _O-Bli-Di-Bla-Da_, _Yesterday_, etc.)
> George Burns, 1896-1996 (_I Get By With a Little Help from My Friends_, _Fixing a Hole_)
> Bing Crosby, 1903-1977, (_Hey Jude_)
> Lawrence Welk, 1903-1992 (_Hey Jude_, _When I'm 64_, _Yesterday_, etc)
> Count Basie, 1904-1984 (_Michelle_)
> Benny Goodman, 1909-1986 (_Yesterday_, _Rocky Raccoon_)
> Mitch Miller, 1911-2010 (_Give Peace a Chance_)
> Perry Como, 1912-2001 (_Yesterday_, _Something_)
> Frankie Laine 1913-2007 (_Maxwell's Silver Hammer_)
> Frank Sinatra, 1915-1998 (_Something_)
> Buddy Rich, 1917-1987 (_Norwegian Wood_)
> Ella Fitzgerald, 1917-1996 (_Can't Buy Me Love_, _Savoy Truffle_)
> Liberace, 1919-1987 (_Here, There, and Everywhere_; _Yesterday_; _The Long and Winding Road_; _Imagine_)
> Mel Torme, 1925-1999 (_She's Leaving Home_)
> Tony Bennett, born 1926 (_Something_, _The Long and Winding Road_, _Eleanor Rigby_)
> Andy Williams, 1927-2012 (_My Sweet Lord_)
> Ray Charles, 1930-2004 (_Eleanor Rigby_, _Yesterday_)
> Jim Nabors, 1930-2017 (_Something_)
> 
> I am not going to question the wisdom and musical knowledge of such an eclectic list of luminaries.
> 
> The Lawrence Welk Orchestra plays _Hey Jude_:


There is something about the majority of *Beatles* songs that is so . . . _*flexible*_. They've been covered hundreds of times in dozens of ways . . . translated into multiple genres and styles, from jazz to country to alternative, from bluegrass to barbershop, from André Rieu to Heavy Metal. I've heard reggae covers and classical covers.

The most popular artists of the last 60 years have recorded covers of Beatles songs, and less well known artists have created a catalog of covers that range from insipid to inspiring.

Some of their songs have gone on to be bigger hits in the hands of others: Joe Cocker's With A Little Help From My Friends, Elton John's Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Earth, Wind & Fire with Got to Get You Into My Life. I'll stop. The list of covers of Beatles songs is practically endless.

And their melodies are flexible as well.

*Fugue on Hey Jude*


----------



## Nawdry

MarkW said:


> What is the most overrated work in all of music?
> No choices. Just curious what people think.


I'll nominate The Star Spangled Banner.


----------



## Rogerx

Nawdry said:


> I'll nominate The Star Spangled Banner.


Post of the day :clap:


----------



## Doublestring

In classical music I would nominate:

Pachelbel - Canon
Albinoni - Adagio
Orff - Carmina Burana
Holst - The Planets

In pop, rock and hip hop there's an abundance of choice, but Kanye West and Eminem must be the most overrated artists of all times.


----------



## JackRance

consuono said:


> Le Sacre du printemps.


I really don't understand...
Why?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> No particular order:
> 
> Holst - The Planets
> Hanson - Symphony no. 2
> Satie - Gymnopedies
> Vivaldi - The Four Seasons
> Dvorak - Symphony no. 9 (except for the beautiful second movement...)
> 
> Numerous pieces by Bernstein and Gershwin
> 
> If we're including film scores then they probably replace every work on this list.


Take out the Satie they don't belong in this pile of rubbish! My sincere apologies, Erik.


----------



## Forster

MarkW said:


> No choices. Just curious what people think.


Dd you mean in classical only? It's in the classical discussion section, but some have decided to include pop etc.


----------



## fbjim

Nawdry said:


> I'll nominate The Star Spangled Banner.


Always thought God Save The Queen was a bore too. Compared to France and Italy, no contest!

South America's anthems have their own distinctive style that almost sound operatic.


----------



## Heck148

Many, many candidates, but the

"TacoBelle" Canon has to be very near the top of the list....:lol:


----------



## MarkW

Forster said:


> Dd you mean in classical only? It's in the classical discussion section, but some have decided to include pop etc.


That was a reaction to several overrated music threads, and I really do't know what I was thinking.


----------



## Luchesi

They're over-rated only in our memory and perception. At the time they were very clever pieces. Iconic really..


----------



## Rogerx

Luchesi said:


> They're over-rated only in our memory and perception. At the time they were very clever pieces. Iconic really..


And most of all .....ironic .


----------



## JackRance

*!!!!!carmen!!!!!*


----------



## Neo Romanza

consuono said:


> Le Sacre du printemps.


I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. You may not like the work, but let's not forget its historical significance. It's a masterpiece and has been acknowledged as such even by people who dislike the work. It's like saying that all Bach is overrated.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

I don't like this sort of thing, because it belittles works that many people love, but for me, any Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto


----------



## fbjim

Yeah, everyone knows his best piano work is the Paganini Rhapsody!


----------



## Forster

Neo Romanza said:


> I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. You may not like the work, but let's not forget its historical significance. It's a masterpiece and has been acknowledged as such even by people who dislike the work. It's like saying that all Bach is overrated.


Well, then again, the word "overrated" is dependent on the rating in the first place that the overrated is complaining about. So anyone claiming that the Rite is the greatest piece of music ever written could be accused of overrating it. See what I mean?


----------



## Neo Romanza

Forster said:


> Well, then again, the word "overrated" is dependent on the rating in the first place that the overrated is complaining about. So anyone claiming that the Rite is the greatest piece of music ever written could be accused of overrating it. See what I mean?


Your wording here "the greatest piece of music ever written" is a grandiose overstatement. I'm just pointing out that classical music history hasn't let us forget how important this work was to the development of 20th Century music and not only that, but look how influential it was to other generations.


----------



## Forster

Neo Romanza said:


> Your wording here "the greatest piece of music ever written" is a grandiose overstatement. I'm just pointing out that classical music history hasn't let us forget how important this work was to the development of 20th Century music and not only that, but look how influential it was to other generations.


Yes, I know how important and influential it is, but that doesn't mean there isn't still room for hyperbole.


----------



## fbjim

man, poor Bizet, he's got one major work, didn't live to see it become popular and now everyone's mad it gets played more often than Siegfried or something


----------



## Rogerx

fbjim said:


> man, poor Bizet, he's got one major work, didn't live to see it become popular and now everyone's mad it gets played more often than Siegfried or something


And so well deserved.


----------



## John Zito

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> I don't like this sort of thing, because it belittles works that many people love, but for me, any Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto





fbjim said:


> Yeah, everyone knows his best piano work is the Paganini Rhapsody!


Yeah, Rachmaninoff's third concerto is my pick. I enjoy it very much, but I think it pales in comparison to the second concerto and the Paganini Rhapsody, and it could do without all that extra-musical mystique about the difficulty and whatever.


----------



## SONDEK

Most overrated classical piece...?

For me, it's an easy win for *RAVEL's Bolero.*

Ironically, RAVEL is one of my favourite composers, but I could easily live without another Bolero encounter.


----------



## JackRance

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> I don't like this sort of thing, because it belittles works that many people love, but for me, any Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto


I think is overplayed but not so overrated. There is a little difference.


----------



## JackRance

Also Rhapsody in Blues is overplayed, but is good music...


----------



## JackRance

Carmen is bad music. 
[in my opinion]


----------

