# The Hardest Composers to Like That is Popular



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Speak your mind. Brahms is the choice for me.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Brahms used to be hard to like for me too, now he's among my favorites probably.

I found it really hard to like Hindemith for a long time. For a while I thought his harmonies didn't really sound like anything. I was fine with dissonance, but Schoenberg's harmonies, for example, were kind of dark and mysterious, or other dissonances sounded angry. But for a while, Hindemith's harmonies were just kinda, "uh eh".


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Xenakis.

(I am assuming he is popular).


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Hans Zimmer and James Horner


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Vivaldi (whom I'm already on the record as disliking), and Bruckner, whom I've tried to like for decades, but his music just doesn't speak to me.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

How can you not like the Four Seasons?


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Mozart is my absolute favorite composer, but I can totally understand why a lot of people find him "difficult". It's like Shakespeare. At first, a lot of people will just hear what just seems like a bunch of extravagant adjectives that seem haphazardly strung together, making for a pompous, incomprehensible mess. But if you listen to a good performance of Hamlet or Macbeth, you begin to understand the meaning behind those words, and you begin to appreciate those "pompous" adjectives for what they really are. Mozart is very much the same, in my opinion. So my advice for anyone who finds him difficult but wants to get into his music, look for the best performances, and look for the meaning behind the music rather than getting stuck at the wall of "adjectives".

If you still can't grow to appreciate him though, there's no problem with that. I really despise people who say things such as a listener has "no taste" because they don't like Mozart. People should never demand that a person like a certain composer, they should try to introduce the composer and share their music with them, and if the person doesn't like the music, then oh well.

That aside, here are some composers I find difficult. I'm not sure why, but I seem to have a HUGE problem with late romanticism:

Brahms - He has potential for me, but he drags on far too much for my tastes. While he writes a lot of beautiful stuff, I bore far too quickly when listening to it.

Wagner - An incredible tunesmith who drags his melodies and themes out far too much for my tastes. I don't understand why his operas have to be so long. In my eyes, the content could be made much more concise. I think the problem may be that I am focusing too much on the music and not really paying attention to the drama itself?

Bruckner - Similar to Brahms/Wagner

Mahler - There are times when I absolutely love his symphonies, but there are times when I cannot stand them. I generally just get a feeling of formlessness from them which gives them a feeling of being far too meandering.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I like Mozart as I like most of the Classical Era. The Romantic Era is more of a mixed bag. There are some great pieces in the Romantic Era but listening to the average pieces that take an hour to finish is torture.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I don't know why but I can only take Liszt and Chopin in short doses. It's not that I don't like them at all as I own their major works but can never get through a whole CD. I listen usually to half and move on to something else. They are the only two composers I do this with and have done so for years. I don't know if I will ever make it through a whole CD.  

Kevin


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Liszt I can understand but Chopin is one of the greats. Yeah not all his works are my type. I need to listen to Chopin. I think it has to with piano works in general. Piano is definitely not my top choice for instruments. Especially by itself.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

neoshredder said:


> Liszt I can understand but Chopin is one of the greats. Yeah not all his works are my type. I need to listen to Chopin. I think it has to with piano works in general. Piano is definitely not my top choice for instruments. Especially by itself.


I certainly acknowledge their greatness but I would rather listen to Scriabin's sonatas all day if I had a choice. 

Kevin


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

StevenOBrien said:


> Mozart is my absolute favorite composer, but I can totally understand why a lot of people find him "difficult". It's like Shakespeare. At first, a lot of people will just hear what just seems like a bunch of extravagant adjectives that seem haphazardly strung together, making for a pompous, incomprehensible mess. But if you listen to a good performance of Hamlet or Macbeth, you begin to understand the meaning behind those words, and you begin to appreciate those "pompous" adjectives for what they really are. Mozart is very much the same, in my opinion. So my advice for anyone who finds him difficult but wants to get into his music, look for the best performances, and look for the meaning behind the music rather than getting stuck at the wall of "adjectives".
> 
> If you still can't grow to appreciate him though, there's no problem with that. I really despise people who say things such as a listener has "no taste" because they don't like Mozart. People should never demand that a person like a certain composer, they should try to introduce the composer and share their music with them, and if the person doesn't like the music, then oh well.
> 
> ...


I've given you a "like" but I'm disappointed about your Brahms comments.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

It's hard to know who counts as popular. Of composers I truly believe are popular, I agree with violadude since Hindemith was moderately tough for me to crack. If we include ones that I feel are much less popular in general but discussed on TC often, I would say Schoenberg.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2012)

I really struggle with Debussy. A lot of his music makes me feel car sick.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Liszt I can understand but Chopin is one of the greats.


And Liszt _isn't_ one of the greats?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> Mozart is my absolute favorite composer, but I can totally understand why a lot of people find him "difficult". It's like Shakespeare. At first, a lot of people will just hear what just seems like a bunch of extravagant adjectives that seem haphazardly strung together, making for a pompous, incomprehensible mess. But if you listen to a good performance of Hamlet or Macbeth, you begin to understand the meaning behind those words, and you begin to appreciate those "pompous" adjectives for what they really are. Mozart is very much the same, in my opinion. So my advice for anyone who finds him difficult but wants to get into his music, look for the best performances, and look for the meaning behind the music rather than getting stuck at the wall of "adjectives".


I don't really find him difficult (if anything, the music isn't difficult enough). I love Shakespeare. Mozart is just okay to my ears.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I think it is amazing when the likes of the Baroque composers Bach and Vivaldi wrote so much that any of it seems at all 'inspired.' Most of the works of either to me are 'well-made' but remarkably boring. I'm aware the dislike of most of Bach is akin to sacrilege - call me a pagan and move on with it, please.

I've never been able to 'find' - even over decades of giving it another go - an appreciation for Liszt's works - any of them. 

The same holds true for Bruckner (that comment that if you want to hear a theme iterated wholesale while it reappears once within one movement in all the keys is exactly why I don't care for it. It becomes actually comic, like 'follow the bouncing ball' sing-alongs.) 

Rachmaninov - again all of it - and this when I cannot dispute he really really knew how to compose for both his instrument and orchestra in general.

Tchaikovsky - adding him after Rachmaninov makes it clear to me I am not much interested in 'the melodists' of the repertoire (but I love Schubert, and the lieder - go figure), nor what I call 'romantic emo excess.' 

I don't care very little for Brahms, that common criticism "one can hear the pen scratching on the paper as one listens" is also my complaint, and I even think as I listen I can also hear him 'thinking it out' and hear a fingernail of the master's free hand scratching his scalp, with a even a bit of dandruff falling to the manuscript page - and though some admire 'the huge architecture,' those larger scale works seem horribly 'overbuilt' to me.

The only Skriabin I like at all, and then seldom, are those whack orchestral tone poems, Poème de l'Extase and Poème de Feu - because they are so out there whack and eccentric there is something 'funny' about them - it is a crazed excess which once in a while delights, though I doubt this composer made music hoping it would be laughed at 

Of course because of my taste, or lack of it, I cannot fathom the current rage for Medtner, either.

Clearly, the later romantics, after Schumann until Mahler, and adding the later by date but still romantic Rachmaninov, Richard Strauss and Sibelius, etc. are just not my cuppa


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Hans Zimmer and James Horner


I thought the OP meant popular classical composers....


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The only composers I've ever struggled with are Schumann, Bruckner, R Strauss, and to a degree Mahler, but I'm almost to the point where I like all their main works.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think it is amazing when the likes of the Baroque composers Bach and Vivaldi wrote so much that any of it seems at all 'inspired.' Most of the works of either to me are 'well-made' but remarkably boring. I'm aware the dislike of most of Bach is akin to sacrilege - call me a pagan and move on with it, please.

I've never been able to 'find' - even over decades of giving it another go - an appreciation for Liszt's works - any of them.

The same holds true for Bruckner (that comment that if you want to hear a theme iterated wholesale while it reappears once within one movement in all the keys is exactly why I don't care for it. It becomes actually comic, like 'follow the bouncing ball' sing-alongs.)

Rachmaninov - again all of it - and this when I cannot dispute he really really knew how to compose for both his instrument and orchestra in general.

Tchaikovsky - adding him after Rachmaninov makes it clear to me I am not much interested in 'the melodists' of the repertoire (but I love Schubert, and the lieder - go figure), nor what I call 'romantic emo excess.'

I don't care very little for Brahms, that common criticism "one can hear the pen scratching on the paper as one listens" is also my complaint, and I even think as I listen I can also hear him 'thinking it out' and hear a fingernail of the master's free hand scratching his scalp, with a even a bit of dandruff falling to the manuscript page - and though some admire 'the huge architecture,' those larger scale works seem horribly 'overbuilt' to me.

The only Skriabin I like at all, and then seldom, are those whack orchestral tone poems, Poème de l'Extase and Poème de Feu - because they are so out there whack and eccentric there is something 'funny' about them - it is a crazed excess which once in a while delights, though I doubt this composer made music hoping it would be laughed at 

Of course because of my taste, or lack of it, I cannot fathom the current rage for Medtner, either.

Clearly, the later romantics, after Schumann until Mahler, and adding the later by date but still romantic Rachmaninov, Richard Strauss and Sibelius, etc. are just not my cuppa 

You don't like Bach, Vivaldi or pretty much the whole of the Baroque, not do you like Liszt, Bruckner, Brahms, Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Scriabin, Medtner, Richard Strauss, Sibelius, and the whole of later Romanticism. Do you actually like classical music at all?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> Mozart is my absolute favorite composer, but I can totally understand why a lot of people find him "difficult". It's like Shakespeare. At first, a lot of people will just hear what just seems like a bunch of extravagant adjectives that seem haphazardly strung together, making for a pompous, incomprehensible mess.


I'm surprised you think that is people's perception as - even before I decided I liked Mozart - his music seemed to be the epitomy of order. I do think a barrier to people liking Mozart is the perceptin that he writes sweet pretty chocolate box music lke Eine Kleine, or the Alla Turca rondo - people hear the pretty pieces in a rag bag compilation of 100 classics and think - ah - so that's Mozart - and on the same tape they hear the first movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony and are completely blown away. As a big M fan now - it is incomprehensible to me how, when I was 23 - went to see Amadeus - and yet I was 26 before I really became the unbearable fan that I am now.

BTW this thread is about popular composers - I am sorry but Hindemith is not popular.


----------



## Jared (Jul 9, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Speak your mind. Brahms is the choice for me.


never, ever understood this. Brahms is not only my favourite composer, but the intricacies of his music take me onto a plane unmatched by anyone else with the probable exception of LvB himself. I loved Brahms from the moment I first heard his music, and it was he who got me into CM in the wider sphere.

his Piano Quintet is in my view the finest piece of chamber music ever written.

Hardest composer?

as I've said before... Debussy by a long way....

although I understand his music more, I really don't see Wagner's appeal, either.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

PetrB said:


> I thought the OP meant popular classical composers....


They said popular composers. Personally I think film composers like those two fit into the canon of classical music (even though I also think they are crappy composers). If you don't think they fit, fine, but I don't really care.


----------



## Jared (Jul 9, 2012)

BPS said:


> I really struggle with Debussy. A lot of his music makes me feel car sick.


way hey!! I'm not entirely alone on this forum...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Haydn for me. I don't know why anyone would subject themselves willingly.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I might be stretching the definition of "popular" a little, but here goes.

Berlioz - Aside from one movement of Harold en Italie, I have not come across a single piece of music by Berlioz that I consider the least bit interesting.

Brahms - I've tried again and again, many times, to no avail. There simply isn't much of anything in Brahms that I find likeable.

Glass - Repeating things ad nauseam is not interesting to me.

Josquin - Gives me a headache.

Mendelssohn - It's the Brahms story all over again.

Mozart - If you're going to launch in to a tirade, can you elect a single board member to do it this time?

Nyman - Repeating things ad nauseam is still not interesting to me.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Brahms - not very interesting
Wagner - like Brahms just louder, longer and with more singing.
Liszt and Berlioz - little time for, I doubt I will ever like.
Bruckner - too long, too little motivation to get used to
Monteverdi - occasionally interesting - but _keeps going on_
Palestrina - just not as interesting as his contemporaries, particularly Victoria, or those who come in previous generations.

Of all these Wagner as to be the man of choice. Not because he's worse than the others. No, its because he's sneaky. He gives you an interesting first theme, you think "ooh that's nice" and then before you know it you are subjected to a four hours of the stuff. At least others have the decency to either be shorter about it, or not give you anything interesting in the first place to make you listen.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

StevenOBrien said:


> Mozart is my absolute favorite composer, but I can totally understand why a lot of people find him "difficult". It's like Shakespeare. At first, a lot of people will just hear what just seems like a bunch of extravagant adjectives that seem haphazardly strung together, making for a pompous, incomprehensible mess. But if you listen to a good performance of Hamlet or Macbeth, you begin to understand the meaning behind those words, and you begin to appreciate those "pompous" adjectives for what they really are. Mozart is very much the same, in my opinion. So my advice for anyone who finds him difficult but wants to get into his music, look for the best performances, and look for the meaning behind the music rather than getting stuck at the wall of "adjectives".
> 
> If you still can't grow to appreciate him though, there's no problem with that. I really despise people who say things such as a listener has "no taste" because they don't like Mozart. People should never demand that a person like a certain composer, they should try to introduce the composer and share their music with them, and if the person doesn't like the music, then oh well.


Good post. I am one of those who struggle with mozart's music, so i'm curious to know what are your favorites of him.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

Mahler by far. But, I think that is mainly because I struggle with symphonies in general.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Lisztian said:


> And Liszt _isn't_ one of the greats?


There you are! Have you seen the thread "Favorite Piano Transcriptions " ? it's right up your street! I knew the above would bring you running.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ramako said:


> Brahms - not very interesting
> Wagner - like Brahms just louder, longer and with more singing.
> Liszt and Berlioz - little time for, I doubt I will ever like.
> Bruckner - too long, too little motivation to get used to
> ...


The young are so positive with their highly suspicious judgements.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

I had a problem with Haydn and Chopin. But it was my fault because I didn't explore enough of their music at the time.

Now I think they are both great.

I've never had a problem with Brahms but I can understand why so many people find him difficult to listen to. The thing is, sometimes his music can be heavy, and by that I mean overemotional and certainly not too academic as some think.

I absolutely love him, If I had to put Beethoven on the throne of romantic music, Brahms and Schubert would be right next to him.

Also for people who don't like or don't understand Mozart you don't need to love him, everyone has a different taste.

But be sure to have the right recordings of his music. In Mozart's music one note makes a huge difference. For example I had a recording of his piano concertos in which the performer would add new notes every now and then and basically start improvising.

It ruined the whole listening experience for me. Also try to look beyond the "beauty" and charm of his music. It may sound simple, but his music is extremely complex. I think the mathematicians proved that he is the least predictable composer.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Carpenoctem said:


> It ruined the whole listening experience for me. Also try to look beyond the "beauty" and charm of his music. It may sound simple, but his music is extremely complex. I think the mathematicians proved that he is the least predictable composer.


where you read that?
Actually one of the criticisms of mozart is exactly the fact that his music often seems predictable.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Carpenoctem said:


> I had a problem with Haydn and Chopin. But it was my fault because I didn't explore enough of their music at the time.
> 
> Now I think they are both great.
> 
> ...


i find a slight problem with your comments about imorovisation and the Mozart piano concerto. A pianist who did this was Friedrich Gulda ant this is a note from a sleeve note
"This record offers a tantalizing glimpse of how Mozart may have played his piano concertos. it is widely accepted by musicologists that the scores of Mozart's concertos give the barest minimum of the soloist's part and that in performace Mozart decorated and elaborated upon them.
Now i'm not one of the "experts" we've been hearing from, but I must say that it is fairly obvious.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hindemih is not. by any stretch of the imagination, popular. And if you've heard "Mathis der Mahler" you'll know why.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

norman bates said:


> where you read that?
> Actually one of the criticisms of mozart is exactly the fact that his music often seems predictable.


I'm sorry but I think saying that he is predictable is not correct, I have his boxed set and I actually find his rhythms not that predictable. But that's only my opinion, here are the articles though:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/65362-prof-maps-math-music-mozart-least-predictable

http://www.susantomes.com/mozart-power-law-levitin/


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

moody said:


> i find a slight problem with your comments about imorovisation and the Mozart piano concerto. A pianist who did this was Friedrich Gulda ant this is a note from a sleeve note
> "This record offers a tantalizing glimpse of how Mozart may have played his piano concertos. it is widely accepted by musicologists that the scores of Mozart's concertos give the barest minimum of the soloist's part and that in performace Mozart decorated and elaborated upon them.
> Now i'm not one of the "experts" we've been hearing from, but I must say that it is fairly obvious.


I've listened to many recordings of his PC's in which there was no improvisation and I am used to it, I don't know, I sounded weird to me. Maybe my ears are used to "normal" recordings. I'll try to listen to it again and see it anything has changed.

I'm just a listener, not an expert, so I'm sure they are correct with that statement.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> I've given you a "like" but I'm disappointed about your Brahms comments.


Brahms is one of those 'mixed bags'. For instance, I can really get into the 1st mvt of PC1, but the love goes away after that. There are too many Waltzes for one hearing. I like the Op. 1 sonata better than the Op. 5. The late works for solo piano make great mood music - including Op. 76 that is usually in the mix. I used to like the violin concerto, but the magic has gone away.

Brahms is still one of my 4Bs, because what I like of his music I like a lot.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

BPS said:


> I really struggle with Debussy. A lot of his music makes me feel car sick.




I don't share your allergy, but I do remember being car sick.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I can't really think of any popular composer that I find hard to like. I can think of specific works that I don't particularly like, but every composer that comes to mind wrote something that I like.

A few months ago, I would probably have said Telemann (though, I don't know if he qualifies as popular), but thanks to this forum, I've tried some of the new CPO recordings of Telemann and I've changed my mind.

I was going to echo Kevin Pearson and say Lizst and Chopin, because they often make me see technique without much content, but that really isn't a deeply considered opinion. I would have to study both of them a lot more to feel comfortable making that assessment.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

PetrB said:


> I think it is amazing when the likes of the Baroque composers Bach and Vivaldi wrote so much that any of it seems at all 'inspired.' Most of the works of either to me are 'well-made' but remarkably boring. I'm aware the dislike of most of Bach is akin to sacrilege - call me a pagan and move on with it, please.
> 
> I've never been able to 'find' - even over decades of giving it another go - an appreciation for Liszt's works - any of them.
> 
> ...


Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, (Grieg concerto ). Maybe you just don't like (solo) piano?
It's nearly impossible not to like any of these if you like the piano. And I miss Chopin in your list. If you do like Chopin, it's also nearly impossible not to like early Scriabin.
Anyway, keep listening.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

At various times in the past 20-odd years of my listening career, the most popular composers I recall having the biggest problems with initially were: Wagner, Bartok, Bruckner, Mahler, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Strauss R. 

All the problems eventually resolved, and some became firm favourites like Bartok and Stravinsky. The only one of these who seems to be losing appeal to me at this juncture is Wagner. I became quite keen on Wagner at one stage but I'm finding increasingly that I'm seldom in the right frame of mind to want to listen to all that dense kind of material any more. 

The smaller scale works (solo instrument and chamber works) of the likes of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Liszt, Brahms is where I'm mainly focussed.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

moody said:


> I've given you a "like" but I'm disappointed about your Brahms comments.


I'm disappointed too, not just about Brahms, but for an inability to grasp any composer that other people can become so enthusiastic about. It really makes me wonder what more I could be getting out of music if I was able to enjoy these composers more.

With Brahms in particular, I sat down and listened to his clarinet quintet recently, and I loved it, but I have to be in a certain mood to be able to enjoy it.

There's another strange thing about Brahms. Certain pieces, such as the scherzo from his Symphony No. 4, the Hungarian dances etc., feel as if they were written by a different composer. I can get into the ones I mentioned very easily, but I'm at a loss when it comes to most of his works.



BurningDesire said:


> I don't really find him difficult (if anything, the music isn't difficult enough). I love Shakespeare. Mozart is just okay to my ears.


You make a good point, actually. It's deceivingly simple. The thing I love about Mozart is that I can discover new things in every piece, every time I relisten.



norman bates said:


> Good post. I am one of those who struggle with mozart's music, so i'm curious to know what are your favorites of him.


Oh man. I'll pick one from each genre

- Don Giovanni
- Symphony No. 40... 35
- Piano Concerto No. 27, 23... 25, 20, 21... 19, 17 (How can I pick just one?! )
- Piano Sonata No. 11 (Listen to it all the way through, don't just skip to the third movement)
- String Quartet No. 19 "Dissonance"... 18, 17 (This whole "one from each genre thing" isn't going well)
- Clarinet Concerto
- Clarinet Quintet
- The Requiem

... I'm going to stop now before I end up listing the entire Kochel catalogue.

... Okay:

- Eine Kleine Nachtmusik (I don't care if some people hear this as "chocolate box" music, I love it)


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Carpenoctem said:


> It ruined the whole listening experience for me. Also try to look beyond the "beauty" and charm of his music. It may sound simple, but his music is extremely complex. *I think the mathematicians proved that he is the least predictable composer*.


Most of it really isn't that complicated. Most of it is quite simple. I'd love to see your source for that outlandish claim (in bold).

EDIT: sorry, read both of your citations. So least predictable rhythm. I still find that pretty outlandish. I'm guessing there's no Stravinsky in that test, or I have no idea how they're actually qualifying "predictability". Did they include any serialists in that study?


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

seriously do we have another pro-/anti- Mozart debate flaring up? *facepalm*

To answer the original question, for me it's Wagner and Schumann. Wagner I've made quite a lot of progress with orchestral-only albums, which I quite enjoy a few of them. Add in the vocals and the full opera....and he just doesn't do it for me. Schumann feels bland to my ears. Although in the latter case, I'll acknowledge that it could be the recordings I have. I have the digital 100 masterpieces from Amazon, and that may just not do him justice, because I have a single disc of piano/violin music of his and like that, as well as love his piano concerto. So I'll keep trying.


----------



## msvadi (Apr 14, 2012)

GGluek said:


> Vivaldi (whom I'm already on the record as disliking), and Bruckner, whom I've tried to like for decades, but his music just doesn't speak to me.


Have you tried Bruckner's 3rd Symphony? Absolutely beautiful?


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

At the moment, I got problems with liking: Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler.

But believe me, I'm trying  I love most of Beethoven's piano sonatas, but it is the orchestral works I'm struggling with (the symphonies). I wont even begin trying to describe why, because i partly don't understand it, and because i don't think people will understand it, and disagree with me.

I'm beginning to understand Mozart a bit more. Ive started liking Piano Sonata no 10. And his c minor mass was one of the works that got me in to classical music, and remained the only work i ever liked by Mozart. Problem is, i can't listen to his more famous symphonies, because the 'movie industry' has ruined it. Every time i try, i feel like ive heard it to many times before. 

I'm pretty new to Mahler, so can't say much more than I'm trying..

I don't understand why people have so big problems with Bruckner.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> How can you not like the Four Seasons?


Nevert been able to stand it. As Gertrude Stein said about Oakland, "There's no 'there' there."


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Why do people think Mahler is so formless? Almost every movement in his symphonic repertoire is a modified version of either sonata form, dance forms, rondos or song forms.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

violadude said:


> Why do people think Mahler is so formless? Almost every movement in his symphonic repertoire is a modified version of either sonata form, dance forms, rondos or song forms.


I wouldn't say formless, but, for instance, I find the first movement of the 2nd Symphony disjoint.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

GGluek said:


> I wouldn't say formless, but, for instance, I find the first movement of the 2nd Symphony disjoint.


Have you thought of it as a sonata form with a three theme exposition and a very large development section that divides into two parts?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

violadude said:


> Why do people think Mahler is so formless? Almost every movement in his symphonic repertoire is a modified version of either sonata form, dance forms, rondos or song forms.


Because some people get really confused and lost when movements are longer than 15 minutes. They need music that is easy and simple.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I think it is amazing when the likes of the Baroque composers Bach and Vivaldi wrote so much that any of it seems at all 'inspired.' Most of the works of either to me are 'well-made' but remarkably boring. I'm aware the dislike of most of Bach is akin to sacrilege - call me a pagan and move on with it, please.
> 
> I've never been able to 'find' - even over decades of giving it another go - an appreciation for Liszt's works - any of them.
> 
> ...


Before I signed up several members advised me you were the 'challenge' bully of the board, i.e. you would challenge people on their creds, and moreso if it seemed they appeared to be actually qualified. Then I later learn you are a painter with a deep interest in music. So... you're a bright boy, and must know of at least two hundred great composers from a.d. 1300 to the present, including the medieval, renaissance, baroque, etc. to this present day.

I'll leave it for you to compile a list and I can then tick off the hundred or so of those whose music I love and admire.

I'll 'give you' Guillaume de Machaut / Claudio Monteverdi / Jean-Philippe Rameau / Mozart / Schubert / Schumann / Mahler / Debussy / Stravinsky / Elliott Carter / Luciano Berio / Beat Furrer as a few of the commonly known 'big boys' whose music I love and admire, which leaves you with one hundred and eighty-eight names to come up with to 'check' my 'taste and legitimacy' to see if it meets with your highness' approval.

ADD: P.s. I actually love music enough to never make it the favored tool of bludgeoning in a puerile ego contest.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

For most of the people here, I'm guessing Weber. 

Proof? He's not even popular.

I love everyone from Perotin to Berg, although I do think that Schumann and Tchaikovsky are awfully overrated.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

PetrB said:


> ADD: P.s. I actually love music enough to never make it the favored tool of bludgeoning in a puerile ego contest.


*slow clap* Respect.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> For most of the people here, I'm guessing Weber.
> 
> Proof? He's not even popular.
> 
> I love everyone from Perotin to Berg, although I do think that Schumann and Tchaikovsky are awfully overrated.


I personally think they're pretty under-rated. I know they're popular (especially Tchaikovsky), but neither of them tend to be mentioned with the kind if admiration or respect or academic interest as say, Chopin or Wagner. Personally, I think they're amazing composers.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Don't diss Tchaikovsky. My favorite Romantic Composer.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> *slow clap* Respect.


*ironic slow clap". "Respect".


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> *ironic slow clap". "Respect".


No irony at all. Genuine respect.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> I personally think they're pretty under-rated. I know they're popular (especially Tchaikovsky), but neither of them tend to be mentioned with the kind if admiration or respect or academic interest as say, Chopin or Wagner. Personally, I think they're amazing composers.


I think Schumann is rated very fairly on TC. In fact in a recent ranking he was in the top 10.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Lisztian said:


> I think Schumann is rated very fairly on TC. In fact in a recent ranking he was in the top 10, which to me is overrating him - much as I love him.


One of my professors really liked Schumann alot, I think. He used several of his pieces for us to analyze in theory, and one of his piano pieces was one of the excerpts we were allowed to choose from for an orchestration assignment.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

^Now that I think about it, high teens/low top 10 is reasonable for a composer whose piano works, lieder, and chamber music are among the greatest in their respective genres. His piano concerto is another pinnacle and his choral music is underrated. I'm not sure about his orchestral output - I don't know it very well.


----------



## eonbird (Aug 21, 2012)

At the moment, I find it really difficult to like Brahms in general. There are certain pieces, like the Violin Concerto in G Minor and his Symphony No.3 that are good, but some of his other symphonies I just find extremely hard to understand. The Symphony No.1, for instance.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Brahms is my pick too although I do really like some of his music. That being said I haven't given him the appropriate time and focus.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Beethoven's weaker Movements is similar to Brahms imo. If you like every movement Beethoven made, than Brahms would be suitable to you.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> Because some people get really confused and lost when movements are longer than 15 minutes. They need music that is easy and simple.


I think that's much more pervasive with our modern culture. I have found young people who have been raised on TV, Internet, video games, pop music, cell phones, texting and general cultural trendyness have a very hard time concentrating for longer than 20 minutes on any one thing. I think technology has become both a blessing and a curse.

Kevin


----------



## eonbird (Aug 21, 2012)

@Kevin - I agree that young people do have a very hard time concentrating for 20 minutes on a certain piece, but not necessarily due to new technology. I myself am not into such things at all but I've still found that I can't really concentrate too much on such a long piece either. :3


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

eonbird said:


> At the moment, I find it really difficult to like Brahms in general. There are certain pieces, like the* Violin Concerto in G Minor* and his Symphony No.3 that are good, but some of his other symphonies I just find extremely hard to understand. The Symphony No.1, for instance.


Are you perhaps getting Brahms confused with Bruch?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

violadude said:


> Are you perhaps getting Brahms confused with Bruch?


No I think he confused D with G and major with minor.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Kevin Pearson said:


> I think that's much more pervasive with our modern culture. I have found young people who have been raised on TV, Internet, video games, pop music, cell phones, texting and general cultural trendyness have a very hard time concentrating for longer than 20 minutes on any one thing. I think technology has become both a blessing and a curse.
> 
> Kevin


Hey! I'm a young person.


----------



## eonbird (Aug 21, 2012)

Oh yeah, I messed up those letters. I meant D instead.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

violadude said:


> Hey! I'm a young person.


I should have maybe qualified that with a "many" young people. Obviously there are exceptions. :tiphat:

Kevin


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

Kevin Pearson said:


> I think that's much more pervasive with our modern culture. I have found young people who have been raised on TV, Internet, video games, pop music, cell phones, texting and general cultural trendyness have a very hard time concentrating for longer than 20 minutes on any one thing. I think technology has become both a blessing and a curse.
> 
> Kevin


Maybe. Or it's just the same, but now we can get a hold of much more information, than before.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Kevin Pearson said:


> I think that's much more pervasive with our modern culture. I have found young people who have been raised on TV, Internet, video games, pop music, cell phones, texting and general cultural trendyness have a very hard time concentrating for longer than 20 minutes on any one thing. I think technology has become both a blessing and a curse.
> 
> Kevin


I don't believe it is the fault of technology. I know older people who have difficulty paying attention to things for a long period of time. I think its more that people are more used to instant gratification. They just want a fast, simple tune that they can enjoy or dance to, set to words they identify with in some way. I don't think its very hard for most young people to wind up really enjoying a symphony or a tone poem or a ballet, they just need to hear it. They need to take the time to really listen, and they learn, like I am.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

When I first listened to Handel I thought his works were a bit repetitive. When I looked more closely and listened to a wider variety of his works I found out that he easily competes with Bach. (and I never thought that possible) I may even listen to Handel more than Bach currently. Thankfully I kept an open mind.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PetrB said:


> ...
> I'll leave it for you to compile a list and I can then tick off the hundred or so of those whose music I love and admire.
> 
> I'll 'give you' Guillaume de Machaut / Claudio Monteverdi / Jean-Philippe Rameau / Mozart / Schubert / Schumann / Mahler / Debussy / Stravinsky / Elliott Carter / Luciano Berio / Beat Furrer as a few of the commonly known 'big boys' whose music I love and admire...


Don't worry. Let's make a club for those who've listened to classical music for ages, but of course we know absolutely nothing about it. NOTHING! ZILCH! ZERO! Am I being clear enough?

Let's put people up against a wall and shoot them for their 'crimes.' Just like a certain dictator did who liked a certain composer! No prizes for guessing which composer!

Anyway, 'that' composer is my answer for this thread, regardless of whether this leads people to conclude that I don't know a fig about music. Basically, I don't care, I should be free to say it, that's what I thought a forum was for?

But forget it, the 'thought police' have won, yet again!


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Don't worry. Let's make a club for those who've listened to classical music for ages, but of course we know absolutely nothing about it. NOTHING! ZILCH! ZERO! Am I being clear enough?
> 
> Let's put people up against a wall and shoot them for their 'crimes.' Just like a certain dictator did who liked a certain composer! No prizes for guessing which composer!
> 
> ...


Wagner is not the be all, end all of music o3o he never even wrote an opera with an aria about getting venereal diseases from the toilet seat, or hardcore robo-orgies  Lohengrin could have used more muffins.

Plastic Norse gods, such a drag.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

If ignorance is bliss you folks are in Nirvana!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Really this thread is absurd, because whenever you create two threads on the internet... 1) The greatest heros and 2) The biggest bums, inevitably the same names end up in both threads. For a while I was cruising netflix to find zero star movies. A lot of them were really good,


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

TrazomGangflow said:


> When I first listened to Handel I thought his works were a bit repetitive. When I looked more closely and listened to a wider variety of his works I found out that he easily competes with Bach.


not to take anything away from Bach, that's my experience too. There's a lot more to Handel than Water Music and Fireworks. I'd like to know more.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> I don't believe it is the fault of technology. I know older people who have difficulty paying attention to things for a long period of time. I think its more that people are more used to instant gratification. They just want a fast, simple tune that they can enjoy or dance to, set to words they identify with in some way. I don't think its very hard for most young people to wind up really enjoying a symphony or a tone poem or a ballet, they just need to hear it. They need to take the time to really listen, and they learn, like I am.


Well I respectfully disagree. I know a lot of educators who have been teaching for many years and they tell me that there is a huge difference in the attention span of children and teenagers today compared to 30 years ago. I also work with a LOT of young people and not a one of them can stay at a task that requires any concentration for more than ten to fifteen minutes. Not a single one of us older folks at the store have that problem! Thus we get stuck doing those kind of tasks because otherwise it would never get done. There is definitely a cellphone *addiction* in the youth culture. We have a constant battle over cellphones in the store. Young people are willing to risk being fired just to sneak a text to a friend. Never seen that even once with anyone over 40. And probably never will.

Kevin


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Kevin is right.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Out of all the atonalists (Babbitt, Boulez, Schoenberg), I found Webern by far the hardest to like. His music was just so pointillistic and disjunct that it seemed to me to be incoherent. A few essays and many frustrating listens ever, I think he's one of the greatest abstract forces of thought of the 20th century.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Before I signed up several members advised me you were the 'challenge' bully of the board, i.e. you would challenge people on their creds, and moreso if it seemed they appeared to be actually qualified.

Petr... you've posted this same invention at least 3 or 4 times here... pretty much any time we have had the least disagreement. By now it seems to have become something of a personal myth that you have come to believe yourself. Considering that with the exception of the recent Mozart debacle and the usual Wagner Nazi debates, the only member here that I have really got into a knock-down drag-out dispute with is our resident hard-core avant gardist, someguy. I have to really wonder just how I I achieved this great reputation as the "bully" of the board. The bit about challenging others with regard to their credentials always makes me laugh... considering that I have no formal music education.

Then I later learn you are a painter with a deep interest in music. So... you're a bright boy, and must know of at least two hundred great composers from a.d. 1300 to the present, including the medieval, renaissance, baroque, etc. to this present day.

And what, pray tell, is so impressive about knowing some 200 composers after listening to classical music passionately for some 20 years? It seems to me that a good many members here could easily compile a list of 200 admired composers without any snide suggestions of name-dropping forthcoming.

I'll leave it for you to compile a list and I can then tick off the hundred or so of those whose music I love and admire.

Instead... why don't you just continue dropping names of all the great composers like Bach and Tchaikovsky and pretty much the whole of the Baroque that really aren't all that impressive at all and we'll all act impressed by your brilliant insight and refusal to bow before popular Philistine tastes.


I'll 'give you' Guillaume de Machaut / Claudio Monteverdi / Jean-Philippe Rameau / Mozart / Schubert / Schumann / Mahler / Debussy / Stravinsky / Elliott Carter / Luciano Berio / Beat Furrer as a few of the commonly known 'big boys' whose music I love and admire, which leaves you with one hundred and eighty-eight names to come up with to 'check' my 'taste and legitimacy' to see if it meets with your highness' approval.

P.s. I actually love music enough to never make it the favored tool of bludgeoning in a puerile ego contest.


Hmmm... I wonder if anyone else sees the irony of your postscript.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

TrazomGangflow -When I first listened to Handel I thought his works were a bit repetitive. When I looked more closely and listened to a wider variety of his works I found out that he easily competes with Bach.

bigshot- not to take anything away from Bach, that's my experience too. There's a lot more to Handel than Water Music and Fireworks. I'd like to know more.

Check out his cantatas.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I have to get all the way through Bach's first... Working on it.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

StevenOBrien said:


> Wagner - An incredible tunesmith who drags his melodies and themes out far too much for my tastes. I don't understand why his operas have to be so long. In my eyes, the content could be made much more concise. I think the problem may be that I am focusing too much on the music and not really paying attention to the drama itself?


Wagner is only long when you're getting to know him. When you're fairly well acquainted, he is far too brief.

It could be your problem is not paying attention to the drama. You're not likely to get past the instrumental excerpts stage with that approach. Although I seldom care to understand what is being said word for word, it is important to have a good grasp on the essentials of what is being said. The music and the text enhance each other.

Buy this CD: http://www.amazon.com/Wagner-Tristan-Isolde-Birgit-Nilsson/dp/B000001GXS

Buy this DVD: http://www.amazon.com/Wagner-Tristan-Isolde-Siegfried-Jerusalem/dp/B0012NO92O

Loop the CD a few times as background music to working/studying/driving/chores/reading/whatever you do. Don't worry about the text. Just absorb the texture.

When you have a good scope of the musical feel to the piece, play the DVD with subtitles. Be sure to set aside the four hours ahead of time to see it properly. Take in the drama, and drink the music.

When you're finished, assuming you haven't died in some passionate ecstatic seizure of devastation, return here and in-between your humbled sobs at the loss of your virginity, I will make another recommendation.


----------



## Muddy (Feb 5, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> TrazomGangflow -When I first listened to Handel I thought his works were a bit repetitive. When I looked more closely and listened to a wider variety of his works I found out that he easily competes with Bach.
> 
> bigshot- not to take anything away from Bach, that's my experience too. There's a lot more to Handel than Water Music and Fireworks. I'd like to know more.
> 
> Check out his cantatas.


Yes, do! I've said it before, but Bach's cantatas are as rich as Beethoven's sonatas or quartets, or Mozart's concertos, or any body of music within a specific genre, in my opinion. And that does NOT reduce the music of other masters. I am lifting up Bach, not reducing any other music.


----------



## Muddy (Feb 5, 2012)

Jared said:


> never, ever understood this. Brahms is not only my favourite composer, but the intricacies of his music take me onto a plane unmatched by anyone else with the probable exception of LvB himself. I loved Brahms from the moment I first heard his music, and it was he who got me into CM in the wider sphere.
> 
> his Piano Quintet is in my view the finest piece of chamber music ever writ
> 
> ...


I love this forum! I am listening to the piano quintet as I type. It is magnificent!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Wagner is only long when you're getting to know him. When you're fairly well acquainted, he is far too brief.
> 
> Loop the CD a few times as background music to working/studying/driving/chores/reading/whatever you do. Don't worry about the text. Just absorb the texture.


I tried this method with Wagner years ago - as it worked for me superbly well with Mozart, Weber, Verdi, Puccini - but did not work with Wagner! I found myself waiting for the famous bits and it just did not grow on me.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

This was a very well articulated thread - but it has turned into another what I like and what I don't like thread. I think OP - you might have stipulated what you mean by popular composer - I took it to mean the mainstream big guns - and we all know who those are. So Webern, Bartok etc etc do not count.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Bartok definitely counts. Webern is borderline. But I like Bartok. So can't select that one.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Before I signed up several members advised me you were the 'challenge' bully of the board, i.e. you would challenge people on their creds, and moreso if it seemed they appeared to be actually qualified. Then I later learn you are a painter with a deep interest in music. So... you're a bright boy, and must know of at least two hundred great composers from a.d. 1300 to the present, including the medieval, renaissance, baroque, etc. to this present day.
> 
> I'll leave it for you to compile a list and I can then tick off the hundred or so of those whose music I love and admire.
> 
> ...


I don't think that is quite fair - he just tends to be there with exactly the appropriate comment when someone posts something utterly ridiculous.

200 composers? I have been listening for 25 years (though the last 10 have been married) and I can't say I have listening to the music is more than 20 - and in fact only half a dozen in any depth - and one in tremendous depth. I could get up to 200 if I really wanted - but having taken recommendations from people, on this board "You should listen to Clementi - he's amazing" or "Check out Bocherini's 200th quintet - it's sublime" - invariably when I check out obscure music I find it obsure for very good reason.

I have yet to really listen carefully to real masters - like Bartok, Britten, Prokofiev - why I should audition the likes of Cimarosa, Salieri, Gluck before those acknowledged world class composers I have no idea.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

stomanek said:


> I don't think that is quite fair - he just tends to be there with exactly the appropriate comment when someone posts something utterly ridiculous.
> 
> 200 composers? I have been listening for 25 years (though the last 10 have been married) and I can't say I have listening to the music is more than 20 - and in fact only half a dozen in any depth - and one in tremendous depth. I could get up to 200 if I really wanted - but having taken recommendations from people, on this board "You should listen to Clementi - he's amazing" or "Check out Bocherini's 200th quintet - it's sublime" - invariably when I check out obscure music I find it obsure for very good reason.
> 
> I have yet to really listen carefully to real masters - like Bartok, Britten, Prokofiev - why I should audition the likes of Cimarosa, Salieri, Gluck before those acknowledged world class composers I have no idea.


Or you could listen to all of them. Its not hard to listen to a huge variety of music.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

stomanek said:


> This was a very well articulated thread - but it has turned into another what I like and what I don't like thread. I think OP - you might have stipulated what you mean by popular composer - I took it to mean the mainstream big guns - and we all know who those are. So Webern, Bartok etc etc do not count.


I think that this thread may have been misunderstood by some contributors.

I had assumed it was about those popular composers you may have struggled with initially, but eventually found their works satisfying after expending further time and effort. Instead, it has turned out to be yet another of those threads listing composers you either do like, don't like, haven't got round to listening to yet, or consider over-rated or under-rated.

Some of the comment appears to be coming from people who are evidently quite new to classical music. Inevitably their likes and dislikes will almost definitely change in a few years time, so all we getting now is a biased short term glimpse of their immature preferences. In some instances, people are discussing some composers who are quite a way down the popularity league, and in one or two cases some dubious classical composers from the usual suspect sources.

In those cases where members have expressed a long-standing disliking of certain composers, I wonder whether they might ever have considered that this negative kind of information is mostly of little or no interest to other people. I couldn't care less which composers they dislike. I don't know why they do it other than to try to justify their own narrow tastes, or to try to rubbish other peoples' preferences in a hopefully less obvious way.

And interestingly when these individuals get a questioning reaction from more tolerant and better informed members, it can cause quite ludicrous claims of "bullying" by the initiating party. Piling on the agony yet further, we get highly predictable whining support from the same usual source along the lines that people should be allowed to express their viewpoints without fear of receiving hostile comments.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Maybe that would be a good idea. 'Composers that you grew to Like'. Anyways, if you aren't interested in this thread, you don't have to participate in it.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Most of it really isn't that complicated. Most of it is quite simple. I'd love to see your source for that outlandish claim (in bold).
> 
> EDIT: sorry, read both of your citations. So least predictable rhythm. I still find that pretty outlandish. I'm guessing there's no Stravinsky in that test, or I have no idea how they're actually qualifying "predictability". Did they include any serialists in that study?


The paper is here. The final page gives a complete list of composers. The most modern ones would be Prokofiev, Ravel, and Scriabin. There's a pretty wide range of composers from the Renaissance through the early modern era without Stravinsky or any atonal composers. Of course the authors were not out to determine the least predictable composer or to have an exhaustive list.

The only interesting thing about the Mozart observation is that in one particular key musical area (rhythm), he appears less predictable than other great composers writing in time periods anywhere near him. But if you already know that Mozart is simple, then this result may not matter much to you.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

neoshredder said:


> Maybe that would be a good idea. 'Composers that you grew to Like'. Anyways, if you aren't interested in this thread, you don't have to participate in it.


I'm always interested in commenting on posts and opinions which I consider to be of questionable quality and relevance, especially when they come from people with unreasonably inflated opionions of themselves, even in threads that appear to be the umpteenth manifestaion of the same old thing.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> I'm always interested in commenting on posts and opinions which I consider to be of questionable quality and relevance, especially when they come from people with unreasonably inflated opionions of themselves, even in threads that appear to be the umpteenth manifestaion of the same old thing.


So basically you are trolling then. Attacking people in every thread is trolling. No interest in discussing things with people you agree with. We know how Sid James thinks about you. Sid James is one of the most respected posters on this board. Maybe it's a good idea to rethink what your priorities of this board is. This board is supposed to be fun. Yes people have their disagreements but it shouldn't get personal.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Or you could listen to all of them. Its not hard to listen to a huge variety of music.


There are thousands of composers - you can't listen to all of them. You need to be selective - as in reading, film, theatre. For me - knowing the music of the acknoweldged masters comes first. I do check out the occasional obscure composer now and again - just to understand why they are obscure.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

stomanek said:


> There are thousands of composers - you can't listen to all of them. You need to be selective - as in reading, film, theatre. For me - knowing the music of the acknoweldged masters comes first. I do check out the occasional obscure composer now and again - just to understand why they are obscure.


This link helped me get an idea of which Composers I might like. Just find a Composer you really like and go down the list. I even used it as idea of which 20th Century I might like. Though it is way down the list from Baroque.
http://www.last.fm/music/Antonio+Vivaldi/+similar


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> This link helped me get an idea of which Composers I might like. Just find a Composer you really like and go down the list. I even used it as idea of which 20th Century I might like. Though it is way down the list from Baroque.
> http://www.last.fm/music/Antonio+Vivaldi/+similar


Hmm, I'm not sure how they determine similarity between artists, but I am skeptical because they said Berg was super similar to Xenakis.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

stomanek said:


> I don't think that is quite fair - he just tends to be there with exactly the appropriate comment when someone posts something utterly ridiculous.
> 
> 200 composers? I have been listening for 25 years (though the last 10 have been married) and I can't say I have listening to the music is more than 20 - and in fact only half a dozen in any depth - and one in tremendous depth. I could get up to 200 if I really wanted - but having taken recommendations from people, on this board "You should listen to Clementi - he's amazing" or "Check out Bocherini's 200th quintet - it's sublime" - invariably when I check out obscure music I find it obsure for very good reason.
> 
> I have yet to really listen carefully to real masters - like Bartok, Britten, Prokofiev - why I should audition the likes of Cimarosa, Salieri, Gluck before those acknowledged world class composers I have no idea.


I wholehearedly agree with your first comment. I thought that SLG's observation was not in any way unreasonable, given the list of highly regarded composers evidently found lacking in quality to which his comment was directed.

Please don't take this the wrong way but I'm surprised that after 25 years listening you aren't familiar with more than 20 composers. My listening time has been slightly less but I reckon I have acquired a repectable knoweldege of about 10, decent knowledge of another 15, reasonable familiarity with a further 75, and a more patchy knowledge of another 300-400.

As I mentioned in another thread, I have been fortunate in being able to pool my CD collection with several members of family and various friends. Several of these people are highly knowledgeable about particular composers. In addition I have been a long-term listener of classical music radio, which has provided me with a great deal of useful information on composers and their music, far more so than any other single source of information.

For anyone new or fairly new to classical music, say within two years from first starting, who wants to get a good guide to the best material to try out, I would suggest that the various T-C lists of recommended works would be a good place to go looking rather than trying to pick up the odd tip from scanning threads like this one. Some of the mis-information and juvenile comments put about in some threads of this nature is both laughable and scandalous.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

violadude said:


> Hmm, I'm not sure how they determine similarity between artists, but I am skeptical because they said Berg was super similar to Xenakis.


Well its atonal, thats all the same stuff right?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> Hmm, I'm not sure how they determine similarity between artists, but I am skeptical because they said Berg was super similar to Xenakis.


It's based on other listerners. And yes it's not really accurate but it gives you a good idea on possible other Composers to like. Listerner tendencies doesn't equal most similar Composers to each other though.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Very Senior Member said:


> And interestingly when these individuals get a questioning reaction from ... better informed members, it can cause quite ludicrous claims of "bullying" by the initiating party. Piling on the agony yet further, we get highly predictable whining support from the same usual source along the lines that people should be allowed to express their viewpoints without fear of receiving hostile comments.


I doubt that PetrB would agree that SLGO is "better informed." But regardless of the individuals involved, I personally wouldn't feel too great flaunting a superior knowledge of classical music.

- It depends on so many things outside of my personal control (my environment, my age, etc.) that I can't take much personal credit for it.

- I can't be sure it'll last; perhaps in a decade the object of my scorn will have surpassed me. In fact, one of my main goals is to know enough about classical music that in a decade or two very few people will be able to scorn me on this basis. And I'm not the only one catching up.

- It's a rather insignificant thing in the big picture, so I'd be embarrassed trying to make a big deal of it. In fact, if that's all someone has on me now, then I'm sure that with a little personal familiarity I could find a more substantial reason to scorn them.

Considering this, our "highly predictable whining that people should be allowed to express their viewpoints without fear of receiving hostile comments" might really us trying to save the self-annointed "better informed" from themselves.

Not really, of course. It's actually about having a positive environment here, even for beginners and the "experts" with the narrowest of tastes. We can like what we like and not like what we don't like, as long as we express ourselves without antagonism. Since you "couldn't care less which composers [we] dislike" you might let us discuss it with each other.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

neoshredder said:


> So basically you are trolling then. Attacking people in every thread is trolling. No interest in discussing things with people you agree with. We know how Sid James thinks about you. Sid James is one of the most respected posters on this board. Maybe it's a good idea to rethink what your priorities of this board is. This board is supposed to be fun. Yes people have their disagreements but it shouldn't get personal.


Trolling? Not at all. I'm surprised you make this allegation. It's kind of personal, don't you think? Getting a bit too close to breaching the Forum Rules, possiby?

I'm just commenting on any occasional dubious comments I happen to spot, and making suggestions that I hope some people may find of interest about my approach to learning about, and appreciating, music.

Some people, it seems, are more interested in making "friends" than commenting fairly on music, and giving "likes" no what dubious opinion a "friiend" may have delivered. I do not feel bound by any such constraints but instead try to take a consistent line in my comments, and will question anyone's opinion, whoever they may be. I am particularly drawn to questioning the views of people I detect are bluffing, with an assumed knowledge or credentials they don't really have. You can possibly try to work out who I consider to be the main culprits in this respect.

So far as I'm aware, I haven't thrown anyone under a bus.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I'm just going to put you on ignore. You obviously are looking for arguments. Someone else can be that one to argue with. Not me.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> I'm just going to put you on ignore. You obviously are looking for arguments. Someone else can be that one to argue with. Not me.


Whoa there, whoa... whoa, my friend. We have an ignore feature?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> Whoa there, whoa... whoa, my friend. We have an ignore feature?


Yeah we got one. Go under other posters profiles and it is there.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Yeah we got one. Go under other posters profiles and it is there.


I never noticed it before. Thanks.

This thread is highly educational.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> I never noticed it before. Thanks.
> 
> This thread is highly educational.


Good for something at least. Yeah I know not one of my best threads.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Good for something at least. Yeah I know not one of my best threads.


I thought it was fine, it's not exactly your fault if some people take it in a different direction. What I've noticed lately is that fairly harmless threads like this one are being turned in to meta conversations on the true nature of the OP by the self-appointed forum cognoscenti.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Crudblud said:


> This thread is highly educational.


Yeah... the staffers are getting an education (or, in some cases, *re*-education), too. Unfortunately, a lot of the insights are once again psychological ones.

Thread temporarily closed, pending review of multiple incidences of possibly actionable posts.


----------

