# Composers strengths and weaknesses



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I thought this might be an interesting discussion. I strongly believe that every composer has their strengths and weaknesses, as hard as it is to admit if you are a fan/anti-fan of that particular composer. But I thought the subject might raise some interesting discussion/debate.

*Beethoven*: Strengths: Beethoven's was really great at taking simple themes and transforming/changing them. He really took classical development and development sections in sonata form to a whole new level. There is also a very compelling emotional quality to his music, one that really speaks to a lot of people. He took great advantage of accents and also of musical surprises/jokes. He was really great at playing musical jokes (a skill he must have learned from Haydn) and his music always has a strong rhetorical quality to it. 
Weaknesses: I don't buy into the fact that Beethoven was not good at writing melodies, he has tons and tons of memorable melodies to his name. However, his melodies DO tend to not be have that effortless flowing lyrical sound that a really really amazing melody has (especially comparing him to Mozart and Schubert). Not that he doesn't have some to his credit but they are rarer in my opinion. The way Beethoven treats dissonance can be a little unsatisfying sometimes as well. A lot of his dissonances consist of crudely handled diminished triads, which is cool sometimes. But he doesn't take full advantage of more graceful passing dissonances that spice things up quite a bit. I like both treatments I suppose but it depends on what mood I'm in.

*Schumann*: Strengths: The interplay and interaction between instruments in Schumann's music can be very very beautiful. Listen to Marchenerzahlungen and you'll see what I mean. He has a lot of really great harmonic surprises and shifts in his music. Not to mention his great melodies. Some people criticize his structure but I think when he is working with shorter "miniatures" he creates really satisfying structures. 
Weakness: However, I think with a few exceptions, he didn't have a very good handle on larger forms. I think this mainly has to do with (my opinion) that he wasn't very good at developing themes. His themes are wonderful, but he has a hard time knowing what to do with them if the pieces lasts longer than 5-6 minutes. Sometimes too, his music sounds a bit meandering to me. A lot of it doesn't have very strong directional force.

Anyway, my choir class is about to start, but I'll add more later.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Knew you would mention Schumann when I read the title to this thread. That's I'll I've got to say for now, I'd need to think more.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Knew you would mention Schumann when I read the title to this thread. That's I'll I've got to say for now, I'd need to think more.


How did you figure I would add Schumann? The reason I did was because I just got back from playing a piece by him so his music was stuck in my brain. lol


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I just guessed that you would talk about Schumann and perhaps mistook the coincidence for that one discussion we had about him.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

violadude said:


> The way Beethoven treats dissonance can be a little unsatisfying sometimes as well. A lot of his dissonances consist of crudely handled diminished triads, which is cool sometimes. But he doesn't take full advantage of more graceful passing dissonances that spice things up quite a bit. I like both treatments I suppose but it depends on what mood I'm in.


I've never really noticed this before, I'll have to listen for it. The violin clashes in the first movement of the Eroica are one my favourite uses of pre-Romantic dissonance though.

I think that Beethoven very occasionally lacks taste, he kind of sits on the border between writing powerful music and writing bombastic music at times (eg. last movement of the fifth). Sometimes I feel that he liked his Is and Vs a bit too much as well. But to be honest his strengths so far eclipse his weaknesses that they don't bother me at all when I listen to his music.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think one of Schumann's greatest strengths, which I've come to appreciate through looking at his piano music recently, is actually how inventive and surprisingly intuitive the way he writes for solo piano is. It has a kind of effortless grace, and yet a characteristic uniqueness which, I think, is on par with what you might associate with Chopin.

So, I suppose I'm obliged to assess *BRAHMS*!

Strengths: Of course, I think he has _so many_ strengths, it's hard to pick any out as more formidable than the rest. Instead, I'll just isolate the two things that I hear and appreciate most when I listen to his music. First, I would say his structure is magnificent - always intricate and inventive, but not obtuse and difficult to follow. His forms always have such compelling drive and direction to them, and I adore how many of his works lead to a climax of pure catharsis. Secondly, his melodies. Though they are of a completely different nature, I think they are as sublime as any Schubert or Mozart, despite people not thinking of Brahms as a melodist. They're less likely to be pervasive enough to become earworms, but they are certainly as beautiful as any others.

Weaknesses: Being the biased devotee I am, I haven't even bothered to consider his weaknesses that much. However, in accordance with my comment about Schumann above, I think I would actually have to make the concession that I secretly feel Brahms's piano music is not all that intuitively pianistic. I think there is always the sense that the music shouldn't be any different - it is all played out precisely as it should be played out - but the spread of the keys can often be awkward (clumsy, even?), as though it's an arrangement originally for a different ensemble. Maybe it's just that I have small hands!


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

violadude said:


> Weakness: However, I think with a few exceptions, he didn't have a very good handle on larger forms. I think this mainly has to do with (my opinion) that he wasn't very good at developing themes. His themes are wonderful, but he has a hard time knowing what to do with them if the pieces lasts longer than 5-6 minutes. Sometimes too, his music sounds a bit meandering to me. A lot of it doesn't have very strong directional force.


I can never get why people are so down on Schumann's larger works. They sound perfect to me.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

*Bach* 

*Strengths:* Bach's music represents the absolute ultimate achievement ever reached in the history of absolute musical perfection. He was the greatest master of counterpoint. One only needs to listen to one of Bach's triple fugues to see that no such genius ever existed or will ever exist again in history. And that's nothing compared to the perfection and beauty that is called Contrapunctus XIV, i.e. the most monumental achievement in the history of music and one of the most monumental achievements in the history of humanity (alongside Newton's development of Calculus, Michelangelo's sculptures, etc etc).

Essentially, Bach surpassed everyone that came before him and anticipated everyone that came after him. A wise composer once said: "All of music is but a footnote to Bach." Aside from all of that, Bach was also a straight up pimp, for he had 20 children (10 of whom survived until adulthood).

And, now that I'm done with my worshipping and deification of Bach, let's look at his weaknesses:

*Weaknesses:* None.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

HerlockSholmes said:


> *Bach*
> 
> *Strengths:* Bach's music represents the absolute ultimate achievement ever reached in the history of absolute musical perfection. He was the greatest master of counterpoint. One only needs to listen to one of Bach's triple fugues to see that no such genius ever existed or will ever exist again in history.


I hope you're exaggerating, yes?! I know I can be (jokingly) extreme in my love for Brahms, but I think this kind of deification (which many people think sincerely) is very inhuman and unrealistic.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I hope you're exaggerating, yes?!


I'm somewhat exaggerating and somewhat telling the truth at the same time.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HerlockSholmes said:


> ...
> And, now that I'm done with my worshipping and deification of Bach, let's look at his weaknesses:
> 
> *Weaknesses:* None.


I'm no J.S. Bach fan, or a big fan of any of the Bachs, but I would agree the quality of his music is of a very high standard. To me, he's not that important in terms of enjoyment of his music, but more as an aid or guide to the enjoyment of many other composers' musics who were influenced by him. He was the most influential composer in terms of Western classical music on the planet...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'll stay away from composers whose music I don't know that well, and concentrate on those I know well or at least to some greater extent than just the superficial. Here's the first one for now -

*Alan Hovhaness* (USA, c20th)

_Strengths _- Very listenable but using modern techniques (eg. controlled chance, aleatorics, not marking time signatures, some atonality and dissonance, incorporating recorded sounds from nature, etc.), incorporating non-Western musics (eg. Oriental, Middle Eastern), quite optimistic but not syrupy, easy listening most of the time in comparative terms but still with some substance, consistency in style - no sudden changes in his musical language, probably one of the first composers to express a strong concern for the environment & the fate of our planet with the onset of large scale industrialisation in the c20th.

_Weaknesses _- Some very good & excellent works, but some works that are just too "new age" and like carbon copies of eachother or other composers, difficult to distinguish between some of his works, going further a bit & being more experimental may not have hurt, at least to give his music a bit of variety.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

violadude said:


> *Schumann*: Strengths: The interplay and interaction between instruments in Schumann's music can be very very beautiful. Listen to Marchenerzahlungen and you'll see what I mean. He has a lot of really great harmonic surprises and shifts in his music. Not to mention his great melodies. Some people criticize his structure but I think when he is working with shorter "miniatures" he creates really satisfying structures.
> 
> Weakness: However, I think with a few exceptions, he didn't have a very good handle on larger forms. I think this mainly has to do with (my opinion) that he wasn't very good at developing themes. His themes are wonderful, but he has a hard time knowing what to do with them if the pieces lasts longer than 5-6 minutes. Sometimes too, his music sounds a bit meandering to me. A lot of it doesn't have very strong directional force.
> 
> Anyway, my choir class is about to start, but I'll add more later.


That's an agreeable opinion about Schumann. I particularly like his talent for smaller scale inventions. I discussed this with member Air once, and when a listener gains more experience with Schumann's craft, his music becomes much more recognisable - a Schumann idiom, so to speak that really was unique. His solo piano works really showed that he was very capable at it.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

One weakness of Beethoven's that violadude omits is his fondness for ending - for letting us think a piece is about to end, but then it doesn't, and then it runs on and on way past the time it would have ended had he allowed it to do so, and then when it does finally wind down to its end, it keeps ending some more, until you are ready to pull out a machete and do some creative restructuring of your playback device, and then finally the last real cadence is reached and there - is - blessed - silence. 

I too have no problems with Schumann's more ambitious works, but then I've never tried to analyze the structure. He may not have Beethoven's ability to put a motive through the meat grinder, but who does? I find Schumann's symphonies more satisfying than Mendelssohn's for example, and nearly as satisfying as those of Brahms.

I'll have to stew a while to come with strengths and weaknesses of other favorite composers.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Weston said:


> One weakness of Beethoven's that violadude omits is his fondness for ending - for letting us think a piece is about to end, but then it doesn't, and then it runs on and on way past the time it would have ended had he allowed it to do so, and then when it does finally wind down to its end, it keeps ending some more, until you are ready to pull out a machete and do some creative restructuring of your playback device, and then finally the last real cadence is reached and there - is - blessed - silence.


How is this a weakness? He basically enlarged and added importance to the coda, a conscious decision rather than a failing. It might be something you dislike but that doesn't make it a weakness. I would never claim that Tchaikovsky's heart-on-sleeve emotional content is a weakness even though it does turn me off a bit.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Weston said:


> One weakness of Beethoven's that violadude omits is his fondness for ending - for letting us think a piece is about to end, but then it doesn't, and then it runs on and on way past the time it would have ended had he allowed it to do so, and then when it does finally wind down to its end, it keeps ending some more, until you are ready to pull out a machete and do some creative restructuring of your playback device, and then finally the last real cadence is reached and there - is - blessed - silence.
> 
> I too have no problems with Schumann's more ambitious works, but then I've never tried to analyze the structure. He may not have Beethoven's ability to put a motive through the meat grinder, but who does? I find Schumann's symphonies more satisfying than Mendelssohn's for example, and nearly as satisfying as those of Brahms.
> 
> I'll have to stew a while to come with strengths and weaknesses of other favorite composers.


Actually this is one of the things I like so much about Beethoven...

I entirely agree about Schumann; if the weaknesses in form and development do nothing to inhibit my appreciation, who cares about them?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*Elliott Carter *(USA, c20th/21st)

_Strengths_ - A composer who took on the experimental tendencies of Charles Ives (who he personally knew) & combined it with European trends in music (Carter studied under Nadia Boulanger in Paris). His music gives me a sense that Carter really understands the instruments he writes for & knows how to "push" them & do interesting things esp. with colour, dynamics & rhythm. These aspects of his music are the main attaction for me, esp. his earlier "atonal" works of around 1950 (I like how he really pushes the dynamics and tempos in the _Piano Sonata_, & how he takes a single theme on a journey in his _String Quartet #1_).

_Weaknesses_ - A tendency for too much complexity, & what some say is the intellectual aspect strongly outweighing the emotional. His _Concerto for Orchestra _is far too complex for me, but I like the chaos at the end, so many things going on at once, the layering and collision of these fragments. Sometimes he does reduce his complexity, eg. in the _Violin Concerto_, the violin is soloist, the orchestra is accompanist, simple as that. But more often than not, he goes for this kind of complexity which is kind of exhausting and daunting for the average listener.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Fun thread, I hope everyone contributes a composer they're familiar with.

*Samuel Barber*

_Strengths_- His music is effortlessly lyrical and beautiful. His melodies are often very long and drawn out, which make them less catchy and hummable, but allow for him to develop an idea before he's even finished with it. I think his long unfolding melodies are the key to what makes him such a fantastic writer of slow movements. He keeps our attention by focusing on just one continuos line of music that remains present until the end of the piece. It's like this line is a single person, and the harmonies and colors around us form the setting. An excellent orchestrator, and very versatile, writing with great success in a wide variety of styles.

_Weaknesses_- I think his greatest flaw is that some of his music has a tendency to be impersonal. When listening to his music I sometimes feel like I'm not listening to Barber, but music that's supposed to convey the personality of someone else. The Cello Concerto is an obvious example as it was meant to describe of the lady who premiered it. But take the Adagio for Strings, a piece of mourning thats used at countless memorials. For whatever reason, I have a difficult time believing that Barber was really as sad or distressed as the piece actually is. That isn't to say the music isn't affecting, but I think Barber had a more difficult time in expressing _himself_ then others. I've listened to almost every instrumental work by the man, and I still don't feel as if I know him on a deeply personal level. And I don't have the same problem with opera composers (like Verdi and Wagner), who even though their job is to convey the emotions of others, they're music shines through with such personality. Perhaps if he had written more chamber music it would have remedied the problem.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Weston said:


> One weakness of Beethoven's that violadude omits is his fondness for ending - for letting us think a piece is about to end, but then it doesn't, and then it runs on and on way past the time it would have ended had he allowed it to do so, and then when it does finally wind down to its end, it keeps ending some more, until you are ready to pull out a machete and do some creative restructuring of your playback device, and then finally the last real cadence is reached and there - is - blessed - silence.





jalex said:


> How is this a weakness? He basically enlarged and added importance to the coda, a conscious decision rather than a failing. It might be something you dislike but that doesn't make it a weakness. I would never claim that Tchaikovsky's heart-on-sleeve emotional content is a weakness even though it does turn me off a bit.


My interpretation of Weston's post was that it isn't Beethoven's enlargement of the coda that he's objecting to as much as the cadences (usually at the ends of symphonies) that go on forever. But that could just be me projecting my own feelings about Beethoven codas. It's totally cool when he continues to develop themes (or even introduce new themes!) in the coda, and that's something I really like about Beethoven. But the I-V-I-V-I-V-I-V-I-I-I-I-I endings of some of his works, after the interesting parts of the coda, do seem to me to be a bit uninspired (pretty much the only aspect of Beethoven's work about which I'd say that). The ending of the 5th symphony is probably not supposed to be comical, but (to me) it is.

I think there are few, if any, "weaknesses" listed on this thread that are things at which the composer in question _objectively sucked_, but this does seem to me to be... not Beethoven's strongest point.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

@* Nix*, loved your thoughts on *Barber* (& funny how it came after my description of his compatriot, Carter!), re his music not being an expression of his headspace or emotion etc., your thoughts there do strike me as being quite valid in some ways. However I think this is a bit of a strength in the way _Adagio for Strings _can be used to commemorate anyone or anything, esp. if it's an American thing, eg. it's been traditionally played on radio when a President of the USA dies. Or the way it was used so effectively in a number of films, eg. _Platoon _or _The Elephant Man_. It is like a generic vanilla type piece to some, esp. in terms of it's popularity (everyone knows it in the Western world), but I think it's still good (even though Barber was not happy that everyone wanted a sequel to it from him, like a carbon copy, that he wasn't willing to produce, although oddly he did do a choral version of it called _Agnus Dei_)...


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

violadude said:


> The way Beethoven treats dissonance can be a little unsatisfying sometimes as well. A lot of his dissonances consist of crudely handled diminished triads, which is cool sometimes. But he doesn't take full advantage of more graceful passing dissonances that spice things up quite a bit. I like both treatments I suppose but it depends on what mood I'm in.


I highly recommend the second movement of Sonata #26 ("Les Adieux"/"Das Lebewohl"), if you haven't listened to it before. (I know I mention this sonata a lot, but what with playing it and writing an analysis paper on it, I am pretty much living and breathing it right now.) It displays some very creative and beautiful use of dissonance. There are a lot of appoggiaturas (haha, spelling suggestion is "polyunsaturates") that are sustained for longer than their resolutions, and they are often part of seventh chords, so it makes the actual identity of the chords very ambiguous. And there are also ninth chords! Which you don't see very often in Beethoven. It's pretty great. I used to not like the second movement as much as the first, but I do now.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Meaghan said:


> I highly recommend the second movement of Sonata #26 ("Les Adieux"/"Das Lebewohl"), if you haven't listened to it before. (I know I mention this sonata a lot, but what with playing it and writing an analysis paper on it, I am pretty much living and breathing it right now.) It displays some very creative and beautiful use of dissonance. There are a lot of appoggiaturas (haha, spelling suggestion is "polyunsaturates") that are sustained for longer than their resolutions, and they are often part of seventh chords, so it makes the actual identity of the chords very ambiguous. And there are also ninth chords! Which you don't see very often in Beethoven. It's pretty great. I used to not like the second movement as much as the first, but I do now.


Yes I've listened to all of Beethoven sonatas. I agree, that sonata is largely an exception. I was speaking in generalities when I typed the OP.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*Camille Saint-Saens* (c19th, French)

_Strengths_ - Combining Germanic rigour with French finesse and polish. His music can be described as the best of both worlds. It can be very expressive and his melodies have a tendency to stick in the mind long after the listener has heard them. A main player in the Romantic movement (eg. friend of Liszt & others, he also knew Elgar), a big supporter of new French music & in his final years wrote some chamber music that was largely in line with the emerging neo-classical style. Also a great pianist and admired arranger in his time.

_Weaknesses_ - A bit like Mendelssohn, many accuse him of lacking depth. Mendelssohn is often compared to say Beethoven or Schumann, Saint-Saens' bugbear is Berlioz. They're always pitted against eachother and in our era valuing the sheer force of expression, no holds barred emotion, Berlioz wins (whereas in the inter-war years, Saint-Saens was probably seen more highly). I have been among those to accuse him of changing from being a radical when young to a conservative by the time he got old, but in truth I think he was kind of an unaknowledged influence on the neo-classicists (it wouldn't have looked good for the bright young things in Paris to admit to being influenced by an old crumudgeonly guy in his eighties)...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*Arvo Part* (c20th, Baltic/East European)

_Strengths_ - The ringing bell-like harmonies (tintinnabulation) sounds quite rich but still modern and restrained. His music can be very relaxing in terms of him bringing back sounds of ancient church musics. Minimalism with a strong spiritual aspect, not just repetition for it's own sake. He's a very good writer for choir, his choral music is a staple of the contemporary repertoire.

_Weaknesses_ - A lot of his music can sound kind of the same. His style has not changed, or changed much, over the last 30 or more years. His music has been so influential, esp. amongst other Baltic & East European composers, that it's been much copied and become kind of a cliche (although this isn't exactly his fault)...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

violadude said:


> Weakness: However, I think with a few exceptions, he didn't have a very good handle on larger forms. I think this mainly has to do with (my opinion) that he wasn't very good at developing themes. His themes are wonderful, but he has a hard time knowing what to do with them if the pieces lasts longer than 5-6 minutes. Sometimes too, his music sounds a bit meandering to me. A lot of it doesn't have very strong directional force.


I would have to agree with you there, regardless of my admiration for Schumann. The cello concerto in A minor, for example, doesn't mature much and give us very varied themes with the same melody. It didn't need to be like a set of variations, but then again it did in some ways.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It would seem to me that many of the aspects that one listener may term as a "weakness" may be defined as a "strength" by another. Some might bristle ever so much at Beethoven's imagined "vulgarity"... while another may fully embrace his balls out audacity. Some might dismiss Mendelssohn or Mozart or a majority of Italian opera as "lightweight" while another might be enamored of the _joie de vivre_ and the playfulness and argue that Bach and Brahms might have done well to have learned from such examples. (I have long suspected that the Beethoven/Romantic fanboys never dismiss Bach in the same manner that they might dismiss Mozart and Haydn... or even the other Baroque composers... especially poor Vivaldi... for the simple reason that there is no way one might suggest Bach is a "lightweight"... in terms of emotion or musical complexity). Even looking to Schubert... who lacked the formal musical education and the virtuosity of Mozart or Beethoven... I find that what one might call a weakness could just as likely be a strength. Schubert's piano sonatas lack the complexity and virtuosity of Beethoven... but as a result they exude the most marvelous lyrical simplicity... albeit a deceptive simplicity.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

HerlockSholmes said:


> *Bach*
> 
> *Strengths:* Bach's music represents the absolute ultimate achievement ever reached in the history of absolute musical perfection. He was the greatest master of counterpoint. One only needs to listen to one of Bach's triple fugues to see that no such genius ever existed or will ever exist again in history. And that's nothing compared to the perfection and beauty that is called Contrapunctus XIV, i.e. the most monumental achievement in the history of music and one of the most monumental achievements in the history of humanity (alongside Newton's development of Calculus, Michelangelo's sculptures, etc etc).
> 
> ...


I puffy heart Contrapunctus XIV! Uncharacteristically for myself, I'm actually in line with you. Where is the weakness in Bach's music? Unemotional? Pah! Unimaginative? Crazy! Problems with form? Never heard any critique him on how effective his form is, or how well he develops a movement, how much he does with a theme, because he explores so much that people even lose patience with him.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ I think a number of people have mentioned the *Schubert-Beethoven comparison*, so I'll put in my two cents worth. Or the two cents of various writers on these things that I've read over the years.

In terms of Schubert, I have a feeling he continued the more melodic or song-like focus of Mozart, emphasis on these things being derived from the Italian traditions. As for Beethoven, he was after all taught by Haydn (although Beethoven claimed he'd learned nothing from Haydn, but listening to his music I don't fully believe that), so this was more emphasis on the Germanic traditions focusing more on structure & more direct (or unfettered if you like) emotional expression than melody or song-like lyricism. Of course, both Schubert's and Beethoven's "grand-daddy" was none other than J.S. Bach (as he was of guys like Mozart and Haydn).

This I have garnered from my general listening to and reading about these guys music over the years. Does this kind of impression or theory wash with you guys???...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Sid James said:


> I'm no J.S. Bach fan, or a big fan of any of the Bachs, but I would agree the quality of his music is of a very high standard. To me, he's not that important in terms of enjoyment of his music, but more as an aid or guide to the enjoyment of many other composers' musics who were influenced by him. He was the most influential composer in terms of Western classical music on the planet...


Wow. You and I ought to have a discussion just about Bach some time, because I didn't know you disliked listening to his music *that* much. Not to say that I'm gonna meaniehead you, but your appraisal of Bach just confuses me.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Sid James said:


> *Elliott Carter *(USA, c20th/21st)
> 
> _Strengths_ - A composer who took on the experimental tendencies of Charles Ives (who he personally knew) & combined it with European trends in music (Carter studied under Nadia Boulanger in Paris). His music gives me a sense that Carter really understands the instruments he writes for & knows how to "push" them & do interesting things esp. with colour, dynamics & rhythm. These aspects of his music are the main attaction for me, esp. his earlier "atonal" works of around 1950 (I like how he really pushes the dynamics and tempos in the _Piano Sonata_, & how he takes a single theme on a journey in his _String Quartet #1_).
> 
> _Weaknesses_ - A tendency for too much complexity, & what some say is the intellectual aspect strongly outweighing the emotional. His _Concerto for Orchestra _is far too complex for me, but I like the chaos at the end, so many things going on at once, the layering and collision of these fragments. Sometimes he does reduce his complexity, eg. in the _Violin Concerto_, the violin is soloist, the orchestra is accompanist, simple as that. But more often than not, he goes for this kind of complexity which is kind of exhausting and daunting for the average listener.


Nadia Boulanger was kind of monumental among the pedagogues. It's really too bad we don't know more about her today, considering her influence. Who has a student resume like her, I might ask?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Wow. You and I ought to have a discussion just about Bach some time, because I didn't know you disliked listening to his music *that* much. Not to say that I'm gonna meaniehead you, but your appraisal of Bach just confuses me.


Well, I'm okay with his instrumental music (esp. solo instrumental) but his choral/vocal is basically too heavy for me (esp. at this point in time, I need more lighter music, a boost, not full-on stuff). But I do have a CD of his guitar music played by our own John Williams waiting in the wings which I think will be positive, I haven't yet heard any guitar music that hasn't engaged me to a higher degree than some other things (plus I've been listening to c20th guitar music, a lot of which is based on knowledge, forms, etc. of the Baroque and you know who)...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Sid James said:


> Well, I'm okay with his instrumental music (esp. solo instrumental) but his choral/vocal is basically too heavy for me (esp. at this point in time, I need more lighter music, a boost, not full-on stuff). But I do have a CD of his guitar music played by our own John Williams waiting in the wings which I think will be positive, I haven't yet heard any guitar music that hasn't engaged me to a higher degree than some other things (plus I've been listening to c20th guitar music, a lot of which is based on knowledge, forms, etc. of the Baroque and you know who)...


Just how much Bach have you explored? He had a presence in tons of different formats and ensembles, so I wouldn't be surprised if you loved his lute suites, cello suites, and even some heavier orchestration but "simple" listening like his keyboard concertos.

This performance of his concerto BWV 1052 is sweeping, and while Romantic, Gould intones and rhythmically drives much like Bach would have, presumably:






Great motif development there, definitely not the easiest listening, but it certainly packs a punch when it comes to emotion. Some people might never be turned on to the Baroque performance practices, but the music itself can be very emotional, especially so in the sense of musical devotion.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*Haydn*

_Strengths_ - A huge innovator, it is hard to imagine music developing the way it did after him if he had not been there. He followed conventions but often broke with them and made up new conventions (he isn't called the father of both the symphony and string quartet for nothing, he was one of the first to develop these to being more than just diversions).

_Weaknesses_ - I can't think of any substantial weaknesses, except for the thing that he was an optimist and more often than not this shows in his music - as well as a sense of humour. But this could probably be equally applied to a number of composers of the Classical Era, it is more a limitation of the style or tendencies of the era as a whole rather than the weakness of Haydn. Blaming Haydn for his overall sunny disposition is much like blaming guys like Shostakovich for their sarcasm and bitterness...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Meaghan said:


> My interpretation of Weston's post was that it isn't Beethoven's enlargement of the coda that he's objecting to as much as the cadences (usually at the ends of symphonies) that go on forever. But that could just be me projecting my own feelings about Beethoven codas. It's totally cool when he continues to develop themes (or even introduce new themes!) in the coda, and that's something I really like about Beethoven. But the I-V-I-V-I-V-I-V-I-I-I-I-I endings of some of his works, after the interesting parts of the coda, do seem to me to be a bit uninspired (pretty much the only aspect of Beethoven's work about which I'd say that). The ending of the 5th symphony is probably not supposed to be comical, but (to me) it is.
> 
> I think there are few, if any, "weaknesses" listed on this thread that are things at which the composer in question _objectively sucked_, but this does seem to me to be... not Beethoven's strongest point.


Yes, you pegged my thoughts exactly. I love the codas and blind alleys and false starts and sudden right angle turns. Those are a tour de force. But those endings . . . Usually they are charming. Sometimes they can seem like powerful hammer blows, driving a nail home to close the door forever on the subject, but depending on my mood, they can also seem ever so slightly quaint and embarrassing. I took a close friend to see a live performance of the 3rd Symphony and afterword she said, "I wanted to tell the conductor, it's over. You can stop now." Of course, she was joking with me. The 3rd doesn't even use the never ending ending as much as some other pieces.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Brahms

Strengths: produced some of the most iconic lullabies of the Romantic era.

Weaknesses: didn't do anything else!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Sid James said:


> *Camille Saint-Saens* (c19th, French)
> 
> _Strengths_ - Combining Germanic rigour with French finesse and polish. His music can be described as the best of both worlds. It can be very expressive and his melodies have a tendency to stick in the mind long after the listener has heard them. A main player in the Romantic movement (eg. friend of Liszt & others, he also knew Elgar), a big supporter of new French music & in his final years wrote some chamber music that was largely in line with the emerging neo-classical style. Also a great pianist and admired arranger in his time.
> 
> _Weaknesses_ - A bit like Mendelssohn, many accuse him of lacking depth. Mendelssohn is often compared to say Beethoven or Schumann, Saint-Saens' bugbear is Berlioz. They're always pitted against eachother and in our era valuing the sheer force of expression, no holds barred emotion, Berlioz wins (whereas in the inter-war years, Saint-Saens was probably seen more highly). I have been among those to accuse him of changing from being a radical when young to a conservative by the time he got old, but in truth I think he was kind of an unaknowledged influence on the neo-classicists (it wouldn't have looked good for the bright young things in Paris to admit to being influenced by an old crumudgeonly guy in his eighties)...


Though I have no research to back it up, I have often thought Saint-Saens may have contributed to the art of orchestration in some ways. I remember hearing a violin concerto (or maybe it was a chamber work) in which I thought I heard a new orchestral color I had not heard before. I asked in another forum what the instrument was, and it turned out to be the violin, but playing only harmonics by just barely depressing the string. Guitarists will be very familiar with what I'm trying to say here. I had never heard that done before with a violin. It sounds amazingly sonorous, yet ancient.

Surely Saint-Saens was not the first to use this effect, but he certainly used it well. This and other unusual orchestral colorations makes me perceive him as a bridge to the rich orchestration of the 20th century. Those are just a layman's thoughts. I'd be interested to know if anyone more scholarly than me would grant him this strength.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

................


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Weston said:


> ...I have often thought Saint-Saens may have contributed to the art of orchestration in some ways. I remember hearing a violin concerto (or maybe it was a chamber work) in which I thought I heard a new orchestral color I had not heard before. ... It sounds amazingly sonorous, yet ancient.
> ...This and other unusual orchestral colorations makes me perceive him as a bridge to the rich orchestration of the 20th century. Those are just a layman's thoughts. I'd be interested to know if anyone more scholarly than me would grant him this strength.


Well, as a layman I can largely agree with that, in terms of Saint-Saens being a master of writing for instruments, both in orchestral & chamber music. In terms of orchestral, his famous _*Carnival of the Animals *_attests to this (eg. is the _*Acquarium*_ section much different from some things that guys like Ravel & Debussy were to do?) It was written around the 1880's & not premiered until after Saint-Saens' death in the 1920's. There's also a chamber version of _Carnival_ & hearing it here last year, I felt that yes he did capture the brass instruments (trombone or tuba, I think) well in terms of writing it for the double bass in the chamber version. Previous to that chamber recital I'd only heard the orchestral version of this work, so I kind of compared the two.

Another thing I've only heard as a one-off live was this -

*Franz Liszt *- _*Orphée - Poème symphonique S98 *_*(transcribed for piano trio by Camille Saint-Saens)*

Liszt was very happy with this arrangement by Saint-Saens. That's why I mentioned him as a great arranger earlier. I remember that although this was a chamber work for piano trio, the sounds were quite rich...


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Brahms
> 
> Strengths: produced some of the most iconic lullabies of the Romantic era.
> 
> Weaknesses: didn't do anything else!


Polednice-baiting


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Haydn:

Strengths: Motivation. He produced 106 symphonies without giving up.

Weaknesses: He should have.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Meaghan said:


> Polednice-baiting


Caught in the act.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Vivaldi.

Strengths: Deep exploration of Credos and Concertos. Wild orchestral effects for his time, and he brought the bombast to the fore. Wrote for every instrument effectively, explored Italian aria type melodies in his choral music (melodies that were particularly rhapsodic and expansive for his time), and composed a massive amount of this great stuff.

Weaknesses: He can seem pretty repetitive to people not familiar with his time and setting, being a kapellmeister in the tradition of Bertali (you might say). A lot of his concertos have long periods of air tight rhythmic device and chord structure, which can be a put off if you aren't impressed by the development. Lastly, it must be admitted that a bit of his work was hastily made.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I agree with violadude about the lack of dissonance in Beethoven. There are individual moments in Beethoven that are very dissonant, but the dissonance isn't applied as consistently as it is Bach, Chopin, Mozart, Brahms, etc. And actually, the one thing I miss when listening to Beethoven's piano music (especially the early sonatas) is the more dissonant, chromatic harmony that you find in Chopin or in Bach's C-sharp Minor Fugue, for example.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Meaghan said:


> Polednice-baiting


Polednice waits for worthier prey!


----------



## waldvogel (Jul 10, 2011)

*Hector Berlioz*

Strengths: Beautiful melodies driven by their rhythms, organized in asymmetrical lengths. This makes his melodies fascinating to some people, and clumsy to others. His orchestration has probably never been surpassed - he could get exactly the sound he needed at any point. He worked well with massive forces, which when conducted properly have surprisingly transparent sounds. He excelled in vocal compositions, with operas, an oratorio, and the exquisite and unclassifiable _Romeo and Juliet_.

Weaknesses: After a few early songs, he wrote almost exclusively for large forces - no solo piano music, no chamber works. His counterpoint isn't as bad as reputed, but he's no JS Bach, either. His music costs a fortune to perform live, leading to fewer concerts than he deserves.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I agree with Klavierspieler. Schumann's handling of larger forms works perfectly well on its own terms. One of the besetting faults of musical criticism is holding composers up to rigid standards of what "correct" form is. 
Just because certain composers fit certain critics or musicologists ideals of what "correct" form should does not necessarily mean that composers who have different methods of constructing works are "deficient" in their sense of form.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

*Strengths* - Every composer has some.
*Weaknesses* - Every composer has some.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Sid James said:


> I'll stay away from composers whose music I don't know that well, and concentrate on those I know well or at least to some greater extent than just the superficial. Here's the first one for now -
> 
> *Alan Hovhaness* (USA, c20th)
> 
> ...


what are your favorites of him?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

superhorn said:


> I agree with Klavierspieler. Schumann's handling of larger forms works perfectly well on its own terms. One of the besetting faults of musical criticism is holding composers up to rigid standards of what "correct" form is.
> Just because certain composers fit certain critics or musicologists ideals of what "correct" form should does not necessarily mean that composers who have different methods of constructing works are "deficient" in their sense of form.


You mistake the criticism of Schumann's form for a declaration that his lack of form wasn't tasteful. Schumann, being a fairly staunch classicist, must have goals in motivic, thematic, and form development, that he evidently didn't live up to. His Cello Concerto in A minor sounds operatic, and maybe even listless, because Schumann just wasn't composing something that was characteristic of himself when he took on that ensemble and form. Compare that concerto to his sonata-fantasie in C minor, and you'll see the obvious differences between the usual Schumann and the Schumann of that concerto.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> You mistake the criticism of Schumann's form for a declaration that his lack of form wasn't tasteful. Schumann, being a fairly staunch classicist, must have goals in motivic, thematic, and form development, that he evidently didn't live up to. His Cello Concerto in A minor sounds operatic, and maybe even listless, because Schumann just wasn't composing something that was characteristic of himself when he took on that ensemble and form. Compare that concerto to his sonata-fantasie in C minor, and you'll see the obvious differences between the usual Schumann and the Schumann of that concerto.


That would be your opinion. We like Schumann's form and themes; Concertos, Symphonies, and Sonatas alike.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

My main problem isn't that Schumann's forms in larger ensembles aren't "correct", just not satisfying to me. For example, the first movement of his 3rd string quartet. There is a slow introduction, then an exposition with a theme based on the introduction, then when you get to the development it's a few measures of awkwardness and boringness, then the recapitulation. It's just not a satisfying sonata form.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

waldvogel said:


> *Hector Berlioz*
> 
> Strengths: Beautiful melodies driven by their rhythms, organized in asymmetrical lengths. This makes his melodies fascinating to some people, and clumsy to others. His orchestration has probably never been surpassed - he could get exactly the sound he needed at any point. He worked well with massive forces, which when conducted properly have surprisingly transparent sounds. He excelled in vocal compositions, with operas, an oratorio, and the exquisite and unclassifiable _Romeo and Juliet_.
> 
> Weaknesses: After a few early songs, he wrote almost exclusively for large forces - no solo piano music, no chamber works. His counterpoint isn't as bad as reputed, but he's no JS Bach, either. His music costs a fortune to perform live, leading to fewer concerts than he deserves.


You're right there. Berlioz was one of the first composers to blend instruments in a quite sophisticated way. I can't imagine giants of orchestration later like R. Strauss and Wagner doing what they did without Berlioz's legacy. Another thing was his _idee fixe _which was a precursor to Wagner's _leitmotif_ technique.

Some people on TC have said things to the effect that his tendency for bombast (which comes as a natural result of using large forces, as you suggest) and also a kind of long windedness, movements that are too long or made up of not very strong material (I think some people said that about his _Symphonie Funebre et Triomphale_, although I can't judge because I haven't heard it).



norman bates said:


> what are your favorites of him?


I've got 3 of the Naxos disc as well as THIS Delos 2 cd set. My favourite works of those are the _Symphony #2 (Mysterious Mountain), Symphony #22 (City of Light), Symphony #50 (Mount St. Helens), Celestial Fantasy for string orch., Meditation on Orpheus, Cello Concerto_. These ones stand out in my memory. I think I basically have enough of him on disc, or more than enough. I enjoy his music & don't want to do overkill, which is easy with such composers who have a very consistent overall style. In short, I like his music, and I think it proves that not all post-1945 music is not immediately enjoyable for the average listener...


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

kv466 said:


> *Weaknesses* - Every composer has some.


Except Bach you blasphemous KV466 lover.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Except Bach you blasphemous KV466 lover.


Did old *J.S. Bach *pass on his lack of weaknesses to his sons? Is "immunity" to weakness hereditary? Is it a genetic thing?...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Bach's main strength was clearly in hiding his weaknesses.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Did old J.S. Bach pass on his lack of weaknesses to his sons? Is "immunity" to weakness hereditary? Is it a genetic thing?...

Unfortunately, his immunity to any and all flaws was not something passed along to his sons. But then again, in most cases the Greco-Roman Gods did not pass along immortality to their progeny either. They did, however, almost all inherent something of Bach's strengths. Really... can you name a greater family of composers?


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

One of the biggest criticisms I've seen of Bach's music on other forums is that his music is rhythmically simple or monotonous compared with composers that came later..


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ Oh no, don't make general statements like that - I'm not commenting on the validity or not of what you say - what it will bring is a barrage of youtube clips supporting arguments to the contrary. These things p*ss me off, they make it harder to scroll down the page. That's why I do links by hyperlink, not that big video thing...


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

trazom said:


> One of the biggest criticisms I've seen of Bach's music on other forums is that his music is rhythmically simple or monotonous compared with composers that came later..


Are you joking?


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Brahms: 

Strengths: That 4th symphony is incredible, along with most of the rest of his music.
Weaknesses: 4th symphony, again: am I the only person who thinks he should have saved that epic IV-I cadence at the end of the 1st movement for the last movement? I think that would have been the perfect ending for the symphony: closing off that powerful passacaglia with an unexpected IV-I cadence, rather than the expected V-I.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Klavierspieler said:


> Are you joking?


No. The subject was brought up on Bach's thread in the "composer" section at GMG.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

trazom said:


> One of the biggest criticisms I've seen of Bach's music on other forums is that his music is rhythmically simple or monotonous compared with composers that came later..


Although you're probably just trolling, I have to warn you that "simple" and "monotonous" are probably two of _the_ most inaccurate words a person could use to describe Bach's music. Do you want me to fill this thread with five dozens of YouTube videos that prove you wrong?


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Although you're probably just trolling, I have to warn you that "simple" and "monotonous" are probably two of _the_ most inaccurate words a person could use to describe Bach's music. Do you want me to fill this thread with five dozens of YouTube videos that prove you wrong?


Every time Bach's weakness is discussed, "rhythm" is brought up the most frequently. His music is rhythmically more advanced than contemporaries like Vivaldi, but simpler than later composers like Mozart or Brahms, whose names were used in example--not by me, but by posters who argued this.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

trazom said:


> Every time Bach's weakness is discussed, "rhythm" is brought up the most frequently. His music is rhythmically more advanced than contemporaries like Vivaldi, but simpler than later composers like Mozart or Brahms, whose names were used in example--not by me, but by posters who argued this.


Then you aren't actually critiquing him, you are just comparing apples to oranges. To you, I guess the new is better, and Bach is therefore less preferable even though he demonstrated advances in the very same compositional element you find weak in him.

Are we then to criticize Brahms or Mozart, for not writing music with rhythms like those found in Scriabin's Vers La Flamme? They didn't notate 9/8 time signatures with measures being blocked into quarters in the left and plainly in the right, so they were weak in rhythm, I guess?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Why is it that whenever someone says something some one else doesn't like about a composer they consider it trolling?


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

violadude said:


> Why is it that whenever someone says something some one else doesn't like about a composer they consider it trolling?


Because it's the internet.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Because it's the internet.


..........


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

Sid James said:


> You're right there. Berlioz was one of the first composers to blend instruments in a quite sophisticated way. I can't imagine giants of orchestration later like R. Strauss and Wagner doing what they did without Berlioz's legacy. Another thing was his _idee fixe _which was a precursor to Wagner's _leitmotif_ technique.
> 
> I could not agree more and I think you can add Mahler and Bruckner on the list of composers who we're strongly influence by Berlioz. Mahler for the orchestration and Bruckner maybe took his idea of architectural symphony from Berlioz Requiem.
> He probably had more influence on all those big composers than even Beethoven.
> ...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Then you aren't actually critiquing him, you are just comparing apples to oranges...


A lot of that happens around here. It's okay to compare, but the comparison has to be commonsense. Eg. within a certain era or genre. Comparing Bach to Mozart & Beethoven or whoever to the detriment of Bach is silly because clearly he influenced both of them greatly. Both of these guys and many others were inspired by and learnt a lot from studying and playing Bach's music. I'm not surprised by this being bought up on GMG forum. It's a place of much intellectualising bullsh*t and hot air, commonsense is rare there, it's an endangered species. Owning thousands of Cd's which you bought on amazon.com (which partly funds GMG, btw) does not make you have commonsense regarding music, musical history, or be good at comparing them, etc...


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> Weaknesses: 4th symphony, again: am I the only person who thinks he should have saved that epic IV-I cadence at the end of the 1st movement for the last movement? I think that would have been the perfect ending for the symphony: closing off that powerful passacaglia with an unexpected IV-I cadence, rather than the expected V-I.


Wow, you read my mind. :tiphat:


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

violadude said:


> ..........


I know it seems anti-intellectual, but you really gotta take things with a grain of salt here, and anywhere online.

I don't think that Bach post was unreasonable or trollish, though. Any dissent toward the three "gods" just falls under tremendous scrutiny. You can tell it shakes up the academics' little world.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> Both of these guys and many others were inspired by and learnt a lot from studying and playing Bach's music.


This does not mean the music itself is beyond reproach, however. Most of the weaknesses of other composers' music listed here are based on personal response to the music. If one aspect of Bach's music, like rhythm, is not as interesting to someone as say the music's counterpoint, then why can't it be considered a weakness relative to other aspects of his music, even if it's not compared to composers of other eras? Passively assuming the music is perfect is unrealistic and doesn't add very much to discussion.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

trazom said:


> This does not mean the music itself is beyond reproach, however. Most of the weaknesses of other composers' music listed here are based on personal response to the music. If one aspect of Bach's music, like rhythm, is not as interesting to someone as say the music's counterpoint, then why can't it be considered a weakness relative to other aspects of his music, even if it's not compared to composers of other eras? Passively assuming the music is perfect is unrealistic and doesn't add very much to discussion.


I'm not a blind worshipper/fanboy of J.S. Bach by any means. I don't even know whether or not his sense of rhythm was not as interesting as his contemporaries or later composers. I know his counterpoint was/is very influential, and his work with equal temperament in the _Well Tempered Clavier_. Even though he was in obscurity until major revivals in the mid c19th and early c20th, as far as composers were concerned, they knew his music well. Mozart had a well thumbed copy of the WTC, he studied and played it regularly. Listen to Mozart's, Haydn's or Beethoven's music and Bach's fingerprints are all over their scores, so to speak.

But I agree, if an individual listener is interested in the aspect of rhythm, and say not counterpoint or things of the sort, then yes he/she will favour those composers who emphasise rhythm. Yes, the issue of "personal (listener) response" is different from the substance or technical attributes of the music itself.

& in terms of the rhythm of say the final movement of_ Brandenburg Concerto #3_, it has always reminded me of minimalism. This kind of chug chug chugging repetitive Baroque rhythm can be boring if you don't like repetitive music. But in a way, it's also innovative, eg. I don't doubt guys like Philip Glass may well admire this score which is well over 200 years old. So it depends how you look at it, from perspective of composer who's interested in innovation or a listener who just wants to listen to something they enjoy and what is most suited to their taste or preference...


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Sid James said:


> I've got 3 of the Naxos disc as well as THIS Delos 2 cd set. My favourite works of those are the _Symphony #2 (Mysterious Mountain), Symphony #22 (City of Light), Symphony #50 (Mount St. Helens), Celestial Fantasy for string orch., Meditation on Orpheus, Cello Concerto_. These ones stand out in my memory. I think I basically have enough of him on disc, or more than enough. I enjoy his music & don't want to do overkill, which is easy with such composers who have a very consistent overall style. In short, I like his music, and I think it proves that not all post-1945 music is not immediately enjoyable for the average listener...


Thank you Sid


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

My subjective opinion, this comes mostly from my listening to all his string quartets (so symphonies are excluded from here):

Antonin Dvorak:

Strengths: 
Great Motif and thematic development. Also displays his talent in writing slower melodies in his string quartets (which I would say all his slow movements from them are memorable). 

Weaknesses: 
Abrupt contrasts - the Finale in string quartet no. 4 begins with intense forte passage in 16ths, and then it just suddenly dies away into a slower melodic line, which to me doesnt really make much sense musically. There are also abrupt rhythmic changes in alot of his quartets that are a little too abrupt.

Form - Sometimes he uses too many motifs in a single movement, I cant recall which quartet and movement it was, but I remember hearing 5 different themes, and the alteration between them was confusing for me.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Igneous01 said:


> My subjective opinion, this comes mostly from my listening to all his string quartets (so symphonies are excluded from here):
> 
> Antonin Dvorak:
> 
> ...


was that #3?


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

violadude said:


> was that #3?


I believe it might be, I only remember the movement started somewhat andante, and alternated between slow and fast passages.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Igneous01 said:


> I believe it might be, I only remember the movement started somewhat andante, and alternated between slow and fast passages.


I ask because the first movement of his 3rd SQ is 24 minutes long and it just goes on and on and on and on...


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

woah :O i just noticed that now as well! No wonder I didnt listen to this quartet a whole lot, the first two movements are 40 minutes!


----------

