# Bad Music



## BeatOven

Do we ignore the power bad music has on us in regards to musicial appreciation or understanding?

Have you ever listened to music that you do not like? To be more specific, intentionally listened or re-listened to music you find bad rather then having to listen to it against your will. Do you ever try to explore and dig at your own thoughts and reactions to the music to uncover the mechanics of your dissatisfaction? 

I am wondering if anyone has any thoughts on any such personal explorations. We all awe at, deconstruct, and submerge ourselves in the music or parts of music that we love, and we all love to pin point what it is we love about it. But experiencing music that you absolutely do not care for can sometimes cause a comparable reaction in the negative direction. How does bad music or better yet, specific examples of bad effect you? What is it about it that ruins it for you or even repulses you? Is there something that everybody else praises that you just can not relate with? Do you think there is any value in such an analysis? 

Also, there is no question that people will have the desire or feel an imperative even to rebuttal someone’s response that they share. But i think that would be a irrelevant contribution. This is not about judging music, this is about assessing the mental/emotional process that results in how you qualify something as not enjoyable.


----------



## StevenOBrien

I greatly respect Wagner as a composer. I very much enjoy his melodies and I can listen to reductions or summaries of his work with great pleasure (i.e. 



), but I haven't so far been able to enjoy his operas as a whole, I just end up falling asleep 25% through one >_<. So I guess the dragging out of a lot of late romantic music is something I particularly find difficult to appreciate.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Mmm... Let me see, i don't like my own music, I am a terrible composer.

Martin


----------



## BeatOven

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Mmm... Let me see, i don't like my own music, I am a terrible composer.
> 
> Martin


ha, i too share this affliction in regards to my own music. I am a terrible composer too. Cursed with obsession.


----------



## PetrB

What, precisely, is "Bad Music?" 

Do you speak of music of which you do not agree with the aesthetics?

Are you talking about those more fundamental 'badly written' pieces -- almost none of which come from more practiced professional composers of any genre? (i.e. - those clearly inept student works or some pieces from the badly self-taught?)

I am completely turned of by the ilk of Ferde Grofe's "Grand Canyon Suite," Leroy Anderson's works in general ('the Light Classical Fare') but to deny their skill would only show a bias against the style or sentiment, and at least a bit of ignorance about true skill and an ability to make 'a successful piece.'

So, please, perhaps this thread should be more about defining 'what is bad music,' and trying to set up some criteria which could be agreed upon to shape the discussion. If that is not done, the proposal as it stands is open to the wildest swings of personal and subjective taste, making no point other than 'display of personal taste.'


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Chopin's piano concerti. Schumann's symphonies. Mozart's early symphonies.


----------



## bigshot

I think I'm going to end up liking most of the things listed here as bad. I love Wagner's operas, light classical, Chopin, early Mozart. I haven't connected with Schumann, but I wouldn't call him bad.

By the way, if I put a bunch of blank lines in my sig, will that make my comments more important?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Chopin's piano comcerti and early Mozart then. Schumann's orchestrations aren't as bad as Chopin's but they're still not that great.


----------



## Jaws

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Chopin's piano comcerti and early Mozart then. Schumann's orchestrations aren't as bad as Chopin's but they're still not that great.


Sibelius, his music is very boring.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Jaws said:


> Sibelius, his music is very boring.


Never really been interested in Sibelius. I have heard some of his music and I got bored quite quickly.


----------



## Jaws

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Never really been interested in Sibelius. I have heard some of his music and I got bored quite quickly.


I can't stand the music of Sibelius, it all sounds the same, and the themes are repeated and repeated and repeated. So what I always get out of it is some extremely boring music that gets repeated a lot.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Jaws said:


> I can't stand the music of Sibelius, it all sounds the same, and the themes are repeated and repeated and repeated. So what I always get out of it is some extremely boring music that gets repeated a lot.


That description fits the music of Michael Nyman.


----------



## MaestroViolinist

Jaws said:


> Sibelius, his music is very boring.


I need that dislike button again. 

Are we talking about badly written music or music that makes us bored? If it's bored then I think Handel and Telemann can get boring and repetitive.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

MaestroViolinist said:


> I need that dislike button again.
> 
> Are we talking about badly written music or music that makes us bored? If it's bored then I think Handel and Telemann can get boring and repetitive.


Handel, yes. His music seems so much less inventive than Bach and Vivaldi, and harmonically and melodically very boring.


----------



## PetrB

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Handel, yes. His music seems so much less inventive than Bach and Vivaldi, and harmonically and melodically very boring.


I'd suggest taking the wool out of your ears re: Haendel -- in some of the operas, the arias, some of the most pliable, elegantly and profoundly expressive music written, sans schmaltz


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

PetrB said:


> I'd suggest taking the wool out of your ears re: Haendel -- in some of the operas, the arias, some of the most pliable, elegantly and profoundly expressive music written, sans schmaltz


Apart from some of his operas I meant. His organ concerti in particular are very boring.


----------



## TresPicos

Jaws said:


> I can't stand the music of Sibelius, it all sounds the same, and the themes are repeated and repeated and repeated. So what I always get out of it is some extremely boring music that gets repeated a lot.


A while ago, I listened to all his symphonies and came to the exact same conclusion. How could he repeat everything endlessly and still get away with it? But is the music actually bad? Most likely not, since so many people like it. So, I just have to accept that I don't get it, or learn how to get it. I'm sure someone could explain to me that "yeah, well, his music could seem tedious to the inexperienced listener, but it also has these and these and these and these and these and these and these qualities that make up for that hundredfold".

Somehow, all it should take is one experience of having disliked some composer or style or period at some point, and then years later finding oneself liking him/her/it, in order to give everything perceived as bad the benefit of a doubt.


----------



## Lenfer

As much as I like some of his pieces *Vaughan Williams's* bores me a lot of the time. I think boring music unless it's supposed to be boring is music that has failed. You have to account for taste but *Sibelius* gets hammered on the forum by everyone. So I'd have to agree although I don't think it's *BAD* it's boring.

I dislike _most_ *Wagner* most of the time although I wouldn't say it's bad music. I think what annoys me most about *Wagner* is the fanatic fans but I would be interested in listening to some *Wagner Gould* style I can't see that being bad music at all.


----------



## bigshot

Music is rarely boring. People often are. When I was a teenager, there was a LOT of boring music in the world. But then I grew up, and the older I get, the better the music gets.


----------



## Toddlertoddy

There's no such thing as bad music. It's whether you like it or not.


----------



## Philip

PetrB said:


> I'd suggest taking the wool out of your ears re: Haendel -- in some of the operas, the arias, some of the most pliable, elegantly and profoundly expressive music written, sans schmaltz


You have to take what CoAG says with a grain of salt, in 5 years he will probably have completely different tastes and opinions.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Philip said:


> You have to take what CoAG says with a grain of salt, in 5 years he will probably have completely different tastes and opinions.


Five years ago I found it difficult to listen to middle period Stravinksy because the tonality sounded too harsh. Now I find it difficult to listen to because _tonality_ sounds too harsh. :tiphat:


----------



## bigshot

Toddlertoddy said:


> There's no such thing as bad music. It's whether you like it or not.


There is bad music... Amateurish, poorly crafted, not thought out... But "boredom" is a subjective reaction to music that may very well say more about the listener than the music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Chopin's piano concerti. Schumann's symphonies. Mozart's early symphonies.

Have you composed anything better?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Chopin's piano concerti. Schumann's symphonies. Mozart's early symphonies.
> 
> Have you composed anything better?


Stupid question. OF COURSE I HAVE!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Let me guess... it is simply just so _avant garde_ that the rest of the world hasn't been able to catch up as of yet.:devil:


----------



## Andreas

Perhaps this is out of place, but I would like to thank Monsieur Boulez for making splendid recordings of music that I don't particularly like. I'm thinking of Debussy, Berlioz, Stravinsky. I don't necessarily think their music is bad, it's just that I don't enjoy it much. But I love the analytical, matter-of-fact approach that Boulez takes.

It's similar with Mahler and Ravel, although I do like their music. But Boulez simply takes it to another level altogether, especially Mahler. I'm looking forward to hearing his Bartok recordings, since Bartok is also a composer I feel lukewarm about at most.


----------



## bigshot

Analytical, matter of fact Debussy is not a good thing to me. I prefer technicolor splendor in that stuff.


----------



## Vesteralen

I think I have a much higher tolerance for unconventional instrumental music than I do for uncoventional vocal music. I'm not sure why that is. A lot of vocal music, particularly solo vocal music, gets on my nerves. 

I don't like old blues music (pre 1920's stuff), I don't like wailing vocal music (like you might hear in certain types of world music), and I don't l like avant-garde vocal music. I also do not like recitatives in opera. All these things are "Bad" music to my ears. So is rap, but that's more because its usually bad rhyming - it isn't really music at all. 

Oh yeah...I also don't like melisma...


----------



## Lenfer

Philip said:


> You have to take what CoAG says with a grain of salt, in 5 years he will probably have completely different tastes and opinions.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Thank you for your support once again, Madame L'enfer.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I agree that much early Mozart is recorded just because he is after all - as scots would say - The Man.
Somone once asked me if every note M wrote is worth listening to and I had to admit no - he was a Beethoven fan and proudly declared everything B composed is worth listening to. Yet I do try to get through the early M stuff - say before K 150 or so - with some exceptions it is second/third rate music. How he took that quantumn leap and became the musical giant he is - is a true wonder. 
I once checked out Salieri to see if he is any good - as I thought some of the clips on amadeus were quite promising. I listened to a piano conerto on youtube - and despite people saying - it's as good as M - found it musically very weak - no good ideas - poor construction - banal and just plain bad. I am amazed that Beethoven took anything from him at all. I did listen to a movement from Salier's requiem - which I thought was better than that awful PC.


----------



## PlaySalieri

bigshot said:


> Music is rarely boring. People often are. When I was a teenager, there was a LOT of boring music in the world. But then I grew up, and the older I get, the better the music gets.


You haven't sat through Boccherini's 500 quintets.


----------



## bigshot

Send me some nice mp3s and I will!


----------



## rrudolph

I must decline to pass a value judgement, but I will confess that some years ago I made quite an effort to understand Milton Babbit's music. I read his essays, studied and tried my own hand at some of his methods, studied his scores and listened with score in hand for many hours. I think I understand what his aesthetic is about but the music fails to engage or move me on any level. There's plenty of other serial music that I really enjoy, but not that. I must conclude that either there's just nothing there or that I'm just not able to "get" it for whatever reason. Is that bad music? I guess it's all in how we define "bad".


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

rrudolph said:


> I must decline to pass a value judgement, but I will confess that some years ago I made quite an effort to understand Milton Babbit's music. I read his essays, studied and tried my own hand at some of his methods, studied his scores and listened with score in hand for many hours. I think I understand what his aesthetic is about but the music fails to engage or move me on any level. There's plenty of other serial music that I really enjoy, but not that. I must conclude that either there's just nothing there or that I'm just not able to "get" it for whatever reason. Is that bad music? I guess it's all in how we define "bad".


Well, do the compositions show lack of skill?


----------



## millionrainbows

rrudolph said:


> There's plenty of other serial music that I really enjoy, but not that. I must conclude that either there's just nothing there or that I'm just not able to "get" it for whatever reason. Is that bad music? I guess it's all in how we define "bad".


Hmm, it's convenient how Milton Babbit has been singled out, yet the reference to other serial music is unspecified. _So,_ I will work my post on the assumption that Schoenberg appeals to 'rrudolph.'

This makes sense, especially after reading Malcolm MacDonald's book on Schoenberg. I realize now that Schoenberg was actually more rooted in tonality than is the common perception. That is, he was very concerned with creating "tensions" and "resolutions," to the point of actually referring to his Op. 29 Suite as being "I-IV-V" to Zemlinsky (who was somewhat skeptical, knowing Schoenberg's sardonic sense of humor), and the Suite for Piano, using only 4 forms of the row (of a possible 48): the original on E, its inversion, and a transposition of the original to Bb (the tritone of E), and _its _inversion.

Knowing about the V7-I, and how the dominant b7 chord contains a 3-b7 tritone (which is the only invertible interval), this does not surprise me. I'll post more on this later. Anyway, my point is that comparing Babbitt to Schoenberg is a study in contrast, for me. I know that Schoenberg was an artist in the "old" sense, and had a great desire to communicate. Not that Babbitt didn't, but I think that by then, priorities had changed, along with the world.

I can dig Babbitt on this level: he was expanding the language, bringing in total serialism; so in a sense, his work was "probing" and experimental. Plus, the days of Viennese bombast had gone, as the ever-expanding bubble of huge works and symphonies (Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler) finally inflated to exploding, ended by World War II.

But Babbitt is an artist; I can appreciate & love "Philomel," for the sheer audacity (and beauty) of juxtaposing a female soprano voice with electronic sound produced by the behemoth room-sized RCA/Princeton MARK IV synthesizer (which used punch-card input). Listen to Bethany Beardslee's version (or Judith Bettina's, pictured here) and you will see what I mean (or perhaps not). Robert Taub's performance of his piano works is superb. What's not to like, for lovers of sheer sensual sound? I guess after music is outlawed, like it was in Iran, we will appreciate it more for what it is, not what we expect it to be.


----------



## Sid James

BeatOven said:


> ...
> Have you ever listened to music that you do not like? To be more specific, intentionally listened or re-listened to music you find bad rather then having to listen to it against your will. Do you ever try to explore and dig at your own thoughts and reactions to the music to uncover the mechanics of your dissatisfaction? ....


Yes, I have relistened to music that upon first listen I consider 'bad.' Of course there are other words, more like 'not to my taste' or 'not to my liking.'

Sometimes relistening, maybe not straight away but much after the first listen, makes me reconsider my initial reaction. But I think I only turn around, make a complete (or near complete) about face if I initially thought the piece was 'not too bad' or 'okay' rather than outright 'bad.'



> ...
> How does bad music or better yet, specific examples of bad effect you? What is it about it that ruins it for you or even repulses you? Is there something that everybody else praises that you just can not relate with? ...


Rehash. Especially a composer doing what he's already done in countless other works. Lack of artistic development over a long period of time. Regurgitating what's already been done before.

Some composers I've found do this, I've talked about a lot on this forum, I don't want to bash them, but they are -
Arvo Part - for the last 20 years, he's been in deep rehash mode
Rautavaara - basically same issue as Part
Langgaard - his symphonies I see as a bunch of rehash (but 'Music of the Spheres' is worth a listen, something unique)



> ...Do you think there is any value in such an analysis? ...


Only if there is some consensus amongst all our subjective reactions to the same types of music. This is called by musicologists 'intersubjectivity,' a term coined over the past 10 years or so. Basically boils down to consensus.

I mean I have little time for Wagner or a good deal of J.S. Bach's things - esp. his choral things - but that goes against the general consensus that these are pieces of high artistic value. In the case of Wagner, I think his music has little aesthetic merit for me, although I realise him as an innovator. But I'm not so harsh on Bach and more open to him, I've had some success in beginning to like his instrumental musics.



> ...
> Also, there is no question that people will have the desire or feel an imperative even to rebuttal someone's response that they share. But i think that would be a irrelevant contribution. This is not about judging music, this is about assessing the mental/emotional process that results in how you qualify something as not enjoyable.


I think its okay to say out loud what we think on this forum. As long as we're not doing it for example in a primitive way, eg. to belittle others or ridicule them or their tastes. Or going too far, stepping over the line.

I listen to a good deal of music that people here, and a lot of 'mainstream' classical listeners, would think to be 'bad.' This can be anything from operetta, to Broadway musicals, to light classical/easy listening and of course non classical things. At the other extreme, some 'hard core' contemporary or newer classical, like Xenakis or even guys from earlier like 2nd Viennese School can be considered 'bad' by a good amount of listeners. You name it, some (or more) people will not like it. That's life, that's diversity. It's the beauty of music as a whole, there's a lot out there, I see it as a smorgasbord from which I chose what I want. People can question my choice but not my taste, which is unique to every listener.


----------



## Philip

Lenfer said:


>


L'enfer... are you actually Audrey Hepburn in real life...? <3


----------



## rrudolph

millionrainbows,

My apologies for not being more specific about the other serialists whose music I enjoy. Although you are correct that I do have a high regard for Schoenberg (and Berg and Webern) I was thinking more of composers who are more or less contemporaneous with Babbit; the ones that come immediately to mind are Boulez, early period Stockhausen, Martino and particularly Wuorinen. I should also make clear that I don't hate or even dislike Babbit's music, in fact I do like most of his electronic music that I've heard (although I can't say that I understand it on the level Babbitt intended). Reflections, recorded on the Robert Taub disc above (and which I am re-listening to as I type this) is something I like although most of the rest of the piano music leaves me rather cold. Philomel works artistically for me as well. I also like Sextets and the Joy of More Sextets on a visceral level (have not had the chance to really study those works). Perhaps my problem is that I've taken Babbitt's statements that his music should be intensively studied to be understood a little too seriously and I should just put the scores down and listen.

My gateway into Wuorinen's music was learning and playing his Janissary Music when I was in college. What initially seemed to me to be fairly dense, even impenetrable writing eventually made perfect sense to me through the process of learning the piece. It inspired me to check out Wuorinen's other works and I grew to consider him to be one of the two greatest living American composers (Elliott Carter being the other). Perhaps I should attck Babbit's music from this angle. I do have copies of his Concerto Piccolino (solo vibraphone) and Beaten Paths (solo marimba); I've never actually tried to learn either piece but maybe I'll give it a go (but all those dynamic markings-oy!!).

Thanks for your spirited defense of Babbitt. It inspired me to take another look; even if I reach the same conclusions as before it will still be a worthwhile effort.


----------



## spradlig

Did Telemann write any good music? Really? If anyone can suggest a good composition of his I can keep an open mind.

Also Pachelbel's Canon.


----------



## TresPicos

spradlig said:


> Did Telemann write any good music? Really? If anyone can suggest a good composition of his I can keep an open mind.


Perhaps this one?






It's probably one of the most well-known baroque pieces here in Sweden, since we are using it as theme music in our version of the Antiques Roadshow.


----------



## PetrB

I'll toss the Grieg Piano Concerto to the lions here. Bad piece. Really bad piece. Wildly popular but really bad piece.

[And from a composer whose miniatures, Lyric pieces, etc. are quite durable gems. Go figure.]


----------



## PlaySalieri

spradlig said:


> Did Telemann write any good music? Really? If anyone can suggest a good composition of his I can keep an open mind.
> 
> Also Pachelbel's Canon.


Telemann wrote some superb pieces for solo violin - some sound almost as good as a Bach partita.


----------



## millionrainbows

rrudolph said:


> Thanks for your spirited defense of Babbitt. It inspired me to take another look; even if I reach the same conclusions as before it will still be a worthwhile effort.


I'm glad that you are open-minded enough to say what you think, rrudolf. I'll defer a bit and say that Milton Babbit is not beyond reproach. His Piano Concerto is an oddly static work; it seems to reach a level of entropy and just stays there, the same feeling I get from John Cage's Piano Concerto and larger works such as Atlas Eclipticalis. But these Cage examples are the result of random operations; one would think that with Babbitt, the result would be more controlled, but it's not. It has the same "feel" as the Cage works, as if the work was being produced 'automatically.' Maybe it's that he has trouble with larger forms. Even so, I accept the work as it is: a curious walk through an entropic space. I've likened it to a stroll through an elephant graveyard. I must have seen that image in a movie somewhere.


----------



## millionrainbows

spradlig said:


> Did Telemann write any good music? Really? If anyone can suggest a good composition of his I can keep an open mind.
> 
> Also Pachelbel's Canon.


Here is a Pachabel I really like, by Palliard. Also, try some Teleman on period instruments.























This other "period" Pachabel is much faster than the Palliard, almost too fast. The Palliard is supposedly the one Brian Eno used as the source for his "Discreet Music."


----------



## stevenski

Can we please lay to rest this idea that Chopin's orchestration is bad; at the very worst it beautifully and unobtrusively supports the piano; but this too is a cliche: if you actually listen to Chopin's orchestration closely, especially in the PCs, it is FULL of bassoon soli, flute soli, horn soli(sometimes in counterpoint with the piano); and this is not even in the tutti parts, which, whilst in the Hummel grand pompous tutti (first movement)mode make full and expressive use of ALL sections of the orchestra. This, to me anyway, is one of those ungrounded musical myths, which defies close examination; as is the one re Schumann: if you have heard eg Harnoncourt playing on "period" instruments, in the Symphonies, there is utmost clarity in the orchestration; and his brass writing, in particualar, is spectacular, especially the horns , eg start of the Third symphony and throughout the Conzertstuck for 4 Horns; the Second symphony too has lovely orchestration.Steve


----------



## DavidA

I find all avant-garde 'music' appalling. The only good thing about it is when it finishes.


----------



## Mahlerian

Bad music can be interesting. Sometimes something is so terrible you want to find out how the composer could possibly have come up with it, let alone think it sounded good or acceptable. Amateur music can also be interesting in its mistakes. None of it is satisfying, though, and it isn't a good substitute for listening to good music.


----------



## Tristan

It's rare that I find classical music "bad"; most of the "bad music" I can think of comes from other genres. There is some classical music I find a little boring (for me that's the greatest sin in music; it definitely cannot be _boring_), or is just not my style (serialism), but calling it "bad" seems a little extreme. It's not like the way I feel about screamo music, for example...


----------



## Vaneyes

DavidA said:


> I find all avant-garde 'music' appalling. The only good thing about it is when it finishes.


Do you have a period or a composer that you draw this line of demarcation with?


----------



## Mahlerian

Tristan said:


> It's rare that I find classical music "bad"; most of the "bad music" I can think of comes from other genres. There is some classical music I find a little boring (for me that's the greatest sin in music; it definitely cannot be _boring_), or is just not my style (serialism), but calling it "bad" seems a little extreme. It's not like the way I feel about screamo music, for example...


This is bad. I don't know anyone who would defend it.


----------



## Tristan

^Yeah, can't say that's very good. But it's just kind of obnoxious to me.

Here's an example of a piece that I love, but I've heard others call "bad":






But this certainly is "avant garde" and people calling it bad probably wouldn't care for that whole genre.


----------



## Mahlerian

Tristan said:


> ^Yeah, can't say that's very good. But it's just kind of obnoxious to me.
> 
> Here's an example of a piece that I love, but I've heard others call "bad":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this certainly is "avant garde" and people calling it bad probably wouldn't care for that whole genre.


I love Les Noces. One of my favorite Stravinsky works. It's fine if you dislike it, but calling it bad music is just wrong. The Strauss is something I'm pretty sure even the composer would call a quick hack-job for a pointless commission.


----------



## DavidA

Vaneyes said:


> Do you have a period or a composer that you draw this line of demarcation with?


This sort of music sounds like a piano falling downstairs.


----------



## violadude

DavidA said:


> This sort of music sounds like a piano falling downstairs.


That's not an answer to the question asked.


----------



## Mahlerian

violadude said:


> That's not an answer to the question asked.


It's pretty unambiguous. He clearly means Liszt.






All of that pointless passagework in octaves.


----------



## Lisztian

Mahlerian said:


> It's pretty unambiguous. He clearly means Liszt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of that pointless passagework in octaves.


It's not pointless. The Liszt Hungarian Rhapsodies do a marvellous job at depicting what they are meant to: the improvisatory music-making sessions of the gypsies. They cadenza's are for keeping with that improvisatory spirit, there is much passage work depicting the different instruments they used (especially the cimbalom), and overall they are very entertaining, light-hearted pieces that were crucial in furthering what people thought was possible on the piano. If it's not your thing, there are hundreds of other more 'serious' Liszt works that have nothing to do with the stereotype you presented.


----------



## Mahlerian

Lisztian said:


> It's not pointless. The Liszt Hungarian Rhapsodies do a marvellous job at depicting what they are meant to: the improvisatory music-making sessions of the gypsies. They cadenza's are for keeping with that improvisatory spirit, there is much passage work depicting the different instruments they used (especially the cimbalom), and overall they are very entertaining, light-hearted pieces that were crucial in furthering what people thought was possible on the piano. If it's not your thing, there are hundreds of other more 'serious' Liszt works that have nothing to do with the stereotype you presented.


I was just replacing one uninformed stereotype with another, then, which was my point. I've heard a number of Liszt works that I thought were far better, like the Sonata in B minor.


----------



## Hausmusik

stevenski said:


> Can we please lay to rest this idea that Chopin's orchestration is bad; at the very worst it beautifully and unobtrusively supports the piano; but this too is a cliche...This, to me anyway, is one of those ungrounded musical myths, which defies close examination


As we are talking about an opinion, it's only "mythical" if no one holds it. I hold it, so it's not a myth. I find Chopin's writing for orchestra quite pedestrian, plodding, amateurish--qualitatively as far as can be imagined from his inspired writing for solo piano. Our tastes may differ, however.


----------



## Hausmusik

PetrB said:


> I'll toss the Grieg Piano Concerto to the lions here. Bad piece. Really bad piece. Wildly popular but really bad piece.


Interesting PetrB. I think I agree with you. I'd toss in for dessert Grieg's string quartet, another gratingly extroverted and repetitious work which, however, has a lot of admirers on CM message boards.


----------



## lorelei

Mahlerian said:


> Bad music can be interesting. Sometimes something is so terrible you want to find out how the composer could possibly have come up with it, let alone think it sounded good or acceptable. Amateur music can also be interesting in its mistakes. None of it is satisfying, though, and it isn't a good substitute for listening to good music.


Well put. Indeed, as a composer, I sometimes try to extrapolate what it was that I didn't like and then try not to do that myself. However, most of the music I listen to I end up liking a lot, although I am often forced to listen to music I dislike in places like restaurants and elevators.


----------



## starthrower

DavidA said:


> I find all avant-garde 'music' appalling. The only good thing about it is when it finishes.


Take a nap for 200 years, and when you wake up, many of the pieces you find appalling will be revered classics.


----------



## Arsakes

Bad music is the good music played by bad artists and conducted by bad conductors ...
or
is bad music in its structure or the instruments it uses!


----------



## Arsakes

And Grieg's Piano Concerto is like God, comparing to Ligeti's Piano concerto ... Yes I had to say that :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian

I think we can all agree that Richard Nanes' Symphonies are among the worst music ever recorded by a professional orchestral ensemble. All the hilarious amateurism one could want, without any creative spark to ameliorate its effects.


----------



## Dimboukas

I found this video on YouTube and I consider this an example of very bad classical music. Not only is that music very servile but it is of very bad quality too. Unfortunately, I wonder how many composers of that era composed such music. If you listen to it, I would appreciate your opinion.


----------



## Tristan

^Well, that's an example of music that was composed for a very specific purpose (and that purpose was not sitting down and listening to it). Nonetheless, those particular performers don't sound very good in my opinion. This recording makes the piece sound much better:


----------



## Bone

Arsakes said:


> And Grieg's Piano Concerto is like God, comparing to Ligeti's Piano concerto ... Yes I had to say that :lol:


I can go with that. I think the point of this post is identifying bad music, no matter the composer or style. I love Sibelius, but there are plenty of bad moments to be had in his music (or, judging from the comments on this blog, only boring moments). Did Mozart lay an egg or two? We'd be silly to think that every one of his compositions is a "jewel" in the crown of all great compositions. 
Yes, I have done exactly what the original poster asked about: purposefully sat and listened to something I esteemed "bad" in the hopes that either I would find something enjoyable about the experience or confirm my initial belief in its inherent badness. Vaughn Williams, Beethoven (seriously), and Chopin have all benefited from my decisions to take the time and listen carefully and with an open mind. Danielpour and Walton haven't fared as well


----------



## Alydon

Sibelius' music has a unique nobility to it which can grow on you, but one composer who has the prize as the most boring composer of all time is Wagner - his Ring cycle contains what can only be described as utterly futile and brain numbing passages which last for ever and I always think of the term, 'Emperor's new clothes.' The problem with Wagner is that there is no one with any clout out there who will be brave enough to say that Wagner was given (like a spoilt child) the means of creating his own fantasy world in which he managed to convince people he had composed the greatest opera of all time, which as an achievement in human terms is genius, but in listening terms is something else.

I don't say any of the above lightly and especially after over 40 years of listening to Wagner and the purchase of at least a dozen Rings, trying to find the break- through, and yes, there is plently of great moments, but it always has the feeling of a wait in a doctor's surgery which goes on and on until you almost give up the will to live.

Just to mention, much baroque and minor classical composers music I always think of as wallpaper - just hangs around in the background, not as bad music, but fills in the cracks in the silence but without having to bother about it.


----------



## Mahlerian

Alydon said:


> Sibelius' music has a unique nobility to it which can grow on you, but one composer who has the prize as the most boring composer of all time is Wagner - his Ring cycle contains what can only be described as utterly futile and brain numbing passages which last for ever and I always think of the term, 'Emperor's new clothes.' The problem with Wagner is that there is no one with any clout out there who will be brave enough to say that Wagner was given (like a spoilt child) the means of creating his own fantasy world in which he managed to convince people he had composed the greatest opera of all time, which as an achievement in human terms is genius, but in listening terms is something else.


Be very careful when assuming something isn't there, especially if musicians as diverse as Mahler, Bruckner, Verdi, Debussy (though he reacted against it as well as respected it), Bernstein, Schoenberg, Glenn Gould (whose unkind words regarding Mozart should destroy any doubt that he had no use for sacred cows), Boulez (for whom the phrase sacred cow means nothing), Messiaen, and John Adams have found something in Wagner's music.

If your argument is that people are enamored of it because it is audacious, that begs the question of why so many audacious works, especially operatic works, have fallen by the wayside never to be heard again.

If Wagner's 17-hour Ring cycle is liked because it is long, then what about Stockhausen's Licht cycle, which is far longer? It has its devotees, sure, but they are few and far between.


----------



## Tristan

Mahlerian said:


> If your argument is that people are enamored of it because it is audacious, that begs the question of why so many audacious works, especially operatic works, have fallen by the wayside never to be heard again.


Reminds me of "Le Prophète" by Meyerbeer. Would love to hear a new recording of that...


----------



## Mahlerian

Tristan said:


> Reminds me of "Le Prophète" by Meyerbeer. Would love to hear a new recording of that...


Meyerbeer is often disparaged, but little heard. It's too much of a risk for opera companies to commit so much in the way of resources without the promise of much reward. I'm not familiar enough with Meyerbeer's music to say anything, good or bad, about it, but it has had a poor reputation for pompous grandiosity and striving after effect, and has for quite a long time. Keep in mind, though, that some of this criticism may have come about because of his Jewish origins.

Amusingly, Wagner's Rienzi is sometimes called either "Meyerbeer's worst opera" or "Meyerbeer's best opera".


----------



## aleazk

Arsakes said:


> And Grieg's Piano Concerto is like God, comparing to Ligeti's Piano concerto ... Yes I had to say that :lol:


Indeed, Ligeti's Piano Concerto is the Devil if Grieg's Piano Concerto is like God. I would have to say that I always found the Devil more interesting as a character. And not that boring and benevolent (with the dinos :lol God.


----------



## obwan

Nixon in china. At first listen I hated it, second listen I loved it.


----------



## StevenOBrien

Mahlerian said:


> I think we can all agree that Richard Nanes' Symphonies are among the worst music ever recorded by a professional orchestral ensemble. All the hilarious amateurism one could want, without any creative spark to ameliorate its effects.


You inspired me to check out some of his music...






Dear God...


----------



## Ukko

The man has gathered considerable recognition for his achievements. At least on the surface, he is as serious about his music as was the Jenkins lady. I wonder if a professional medico (not sure what specialty would be appropriate) has studied the phenomenon.


----------



## ahammel

I keep checking every few months to see if I like Mahler. So far he just doesn't do anything for me. It's because I haven't got a soul, no doubt.


----------



## Mahlerian

StevenOBrien said:


> You inspired me to check out some of his music...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear God...


Believe it or not, the "symphonies" are even worse.


----------



## moody

ahammel said:


> I keep checking every few months to see if I like Mahler. So far he just doesn't do anything for me. It's because I haven't got a soul, no doubt.


Maybe you're a vampire.


----------



## moody

Mahlerian said:


> Believe it or not, the "symphonies" are even worse.


I've never heard of him--good thing by the sounds of it!


----------



## Flamme

We can learn a lot from the music ''we dont like''...Its not always the quality but sometimes just some of our prejudices...


----------



## moody

Flamme said:


> We can learn a lot from the music ''we dont like''...Its not always the quality but sometimes just some of our prejudices...


Yes,but that's true of everything we perceive is it not ?


----------



## Igneous01

I despise those classical and baroque pieces in major keys. I find the rhythmic pace and the fluffiness of the theme to be shallow. Haydn is the first composer that comes to mind that I just do not like to listen to. Im sure a majority of people enjoy those light works for the bright cheeriness. But I cannot tolerate them. Its comparable to watching Dora the explorer or Caillou on TV. 

That's me answering the question that was originally asked.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Never really been interested in Sibelius. I have heard some of his music and I got bored quite quickly.


mmmmmmmmmmmmmm lol ok I'll stop looking now- honestly, I was innocently just viewing posts and walla!


----------



## millionrainbows




----------



## ptr

millionrainbows said:


> http://youtu.be/hpJ6anurfuw


But Sir/Madam! The Portsmouth Sinfonia is a blissful on any event horizon! It is a musical nucular explosion beyond our senses!

/ptr


----------



## millionrainbows

Igneous01 said:


> I despise those classical and baroque pieces in major keys. I find the rhythmic pace and the fluffiness of the theme to be shallow. Haydn is the first composer that comes to mind that I just do not like to listen to. Im sure a majority of people enjoy those light works for the bright cheeriness. But I cannot tolerate them. Its comparable to watching Dora the explorer or Caillou on TV.
> 
> That's me answering the question that was originally asked.


Try listening to Haydn while wearing leiderhosen and a powdered wig (nothing else). It works for me.


----------



## millionrainbows

StevenOBrien said:


> You inspired me to check out some of his music...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear God...


But you don't understand... Nanes is the "Anti-Ives." There must be an amateur counter-archetype. There is no dissonance whatsoever...there is a certain purity to it...someday you'll see...


----------



## ahammel

moody said:


> Maybe you're a vampire.


Vampire tests:

- Never goes outside during the day.
- Does not cast a reflection in a mirror.
- Fails to weep when _Das Lied von der Erde_ is played.


----------



## Feathers

Igneous01 said:


> I despise those classical and baroque pieces in major keys. I find the rhythmic pace and the fluffiness of the theme to be shallow. Haydn is the first composer that comes to mind that I just do not like to listen to. Im sure a majority of people enjoy those light works for the bright cheeriness. But I cannot tolerate them. Its comparable to watching Dora the explorer or Caillou on TV.


 That's a major portion (no pun intended) of more than 200 years of music! Just because of the key (which can be used in an enormous number of different ways)?


----------



## sharik

BeatOven said:


> Bad Music


Philip Glass.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

sharik said:


> Philip Glass.


Wolfgang A Mozart.


----------



## sharik

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Wolfgang A Mozart


of course Mozart was bad, but 'bad' in a positive sense, unlike Glass who is merely a charlatan.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^oooooooooweeeeeeee, hold no punches!


----------



## ptr

..being a mere charlatan is most often way beyond what the average will succeed at so I think he's fine, and for me charlatanism is much better than poor opinions! 

/ptr


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Try this then for bad............... oh no not more stairway to heaven


----------



## ptr

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Try this then for bad............... oh no not more stairway to heaven


No, No, No, that's just fun! 

/ptr


----------



## millionrainbows

To me, "bad music" would be _music that fails within its own specific genre-criteria._

This means someone can dislike the Madonna song "Rain," yet within its own genre-context, it is a sucessful hit song, performing its intended function successfully.

Therefore, deeming "bad music" to be a failure is in the area of specialized expertise. Any cross-genre comparisons become absurd, and lose credibility among experts in the respective genres, as these types of absurd comparisons ignore the intent and function of the music in question.


----------



## DeepR

millionrainbows said:


> To me, "bad music" would be _music that fails within its own specific genre-criteria._


To me, "bad music" would be music that does nothing other than meeting specific genre-criteria.


----------



## millionrainbows

DeepR said:


> To me, "bad music" would be music that does nothing other than meeting specific genre-criteria.


???

It must not fail, it must succeed. To "meet" those criteria is a given, before it is deemed "failure" or "success."

If the music meets those specific criteria it was intended to function within, it is not necessarily "bad." These criteria are simply limiting parameters, devised to make sensible judgments and avoid or nullify absurd cross-genre comparisons.


----------



## conclass

good bad
ugly beautiful
right wrong

good music can only exist when bad music exist, so i´m gratefull that justin exist. :lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ Welcome to the Dark Side


----------



## TrevBus

Rap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## BeatOven

Mahlerian said:


> Bad music can be interesting. Sometimes something is so terrible you want to find out how the composer could possibly have come up with it, let alone think it sounded good or acceptable. Amateur music can also be interesting in its mistakes. None of it is satisfying, though, and it isn't a good substitute for listening to good music.


This is on target with the thinking that i was really curious to learn reactions to, and this post articulates even more clearer my initial wondering.

Hate can be so close to love..

One can sometimes find oneself talking/thinking about how they do not like a thing just as much and as passionately as what one does like. That is a strange power.


----------



## BeatOven

Mahlerian said:


> This is bad. I don't know anyone who would defend it.


sounds like opening credits to a 1930's B-film. Or a composer trying to make every musical idea he's fantasied of into one composition. Woof.. Poor musicians..


----------



## TrevBus

TrevBus said:


> Rap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I'm sorry I made a mistake here. It can't be bad, because it's not music. Therefore, Rap must be HORRIBLE because it can't even be considered BAD music.


----------



## mtmailey

Did you know that when you drop the c from crap spells rap?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

BeatOven said:


> sounds like opening credits to a 1930's B-film. Or a composer trying to make every musical idea he's fantasied of into one composition. Woof.. Poor musicians..


Disturbing background﻿ to the music, Richard Strauss would have been under tremendous pressure at the time and may have composed like this on purpose to mock the German regime of which he was not fond.


----------



## Jobis

I can't stand the 'music' of John Cage, but that may be due to my disagreeing with his theories about music. Whether you can regard the likes of 4'33 as music, its still a boring, soul-less piece. How any one can appreciate this anti-art charlatan I don't know.


----------



## LouisMasterMusic

Toddlertoddy said:


> There's no such thing as bad music. It's whether you like it or not.


This statement should give a certain Alfie Boe a run for his money - he has said that there are only two types of music, "good" music and "bad" music". I know full well what "good" music is, but I also know what I don't like, and I just leave it at that. I don't publicly tell people that there is "bad" music.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Handel, yes. His music seems so much less inventive than Bach and Vivaldi, and harmonically and melodically very boring.


I would definitely not call the music in the Messiah boring.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Igneous01 said:


> I despise those classical and baroque pieces in major keys. I find the rhythmic pace and the fluffiness of the theme to be shallow. Haydn is the first composer that comes to mind that I just do not like to listen to. Im sure a majority of people enjoy those light works for the bright cheeriness. But I cannot tolerate them. Its comparable to watching Dora the explorer or Caillou on TV.
> 
> That's me answering the question that was originally asked.


I don't know what Haydn you've been listening to - he has much more than just cheeriness.


----------



## Guest

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I would definitely not call the music in the Messiah boring.


Neither would I. But (there is always a 'but') if you were contracted to play this piece as a viola player on a winter cruise ship for a period of 10 days you might change your opinion. Or maybe a week's contract playing some crappy third-rate operetta or "musical" in the summer slack period for beer money? There are various degrees of "boring", I can assure you.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

TalkingHead said:


> Neither would I. But (there is always a 'but') if you were contracted to play this piece as a viola player on a winter cruise ship for a period of 10 days you might change your opinion. Or maybe a week's contract playing some crappy third-rate operetta or "musical" in the summer slack period for beer money? There are various degrees of "boring", I can assure you.


I think any piece would get boring with this approach though, hehe.


----------



## Celloman

Alan Hovhaness is interesting for about ten minutes, and then I want to listen to something else.


----------



## Vaneyes

Celloman said:


> Alan Hovhaness is interesting for about ten minutes, and then I want to listen to something else.


Only slight exaggeration. His Symphony 50 receives my full attention for 31:25. :tiphat:


----------



## arpeggio

See th following post: http://www.talkclassical.com/26853-uneven-composers.html#post498183


----------



## violadude

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Never really been interested in Sibelius. I have heard some of his music and I got bored quite quickly.


You can tell this is an old thread when you see COAG say something like this lol


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> You can tell this is an old thread when you see COAG say something like this lol


Yeah, one day it was smurf dolls with purple flesh and blue hair, the next ponies with pink hair, then Scandinavian troll figurines -- though he did graduate there to the more artisan-worthy hand carved crafted ones. Later, action figures from The Legend of Zelda, and Beethoven and Sigmund Freud.

Ah, teens, so quixotic, so many shifts of moods, preferences. BFF one day is your betrayer the next, until twenty minutes later they make up.

But the lad is growing up pretty nicely, I think


----------



## Celloman

Pachelbel's Canon. Not that it's bad music _per se_, I just don't like it. Maybe it's because I play the cello part about twenty billion times a year. D, A, B, F#, G, D, G, A, repeat ad nauseum, etc, etc,...


----------



## Mahlerian

Celloman said:


> Pachelbel's Canon. Not that it's bad music _per se_, I just don't like it. Maybe it's because I play the cello part about twenty billion times a year. D, A, B, F#, G, D, G, A, repeat ad nauseum, etc, etc,...


At the very least, I think most people can agree that it doesn't deserve the inordinate amount of attention given it...


----------



## arpeggio

*Pachelbel Rant*

Someone posted this in another thread and I can not find it. So I will go ahead and repost it:


----------



## DaDirkNL

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Chopin's piano comcerti and early Mozart then. Schumann's orchestrations aren't as bad as Chopin's but they're still not that great.


Sure, Mozart's early symphonies are not great, but have you ever listened to his 9th symphony? I think it's a magnificent piece, especially the 3rd movement. Link:


----------



## mstar

Nixon in China? If it's real, please post a link. If not, I am prone to believing some of the most absurd things after being "traumatized" by GRIEG'S PEER GYNT SUITE. Anyone else think this interesting work is just not at the top of any of their favorite lists, or just me?


----------



## Mahlerian

mstar said:


> Nixon in China? If it's real, please post a link. If not, I am prone to believing some of the most absurd things after being "traumatized" by GRIEG'S PEER GYNT SUITE. Anyone else think this interesting work is just not at the top of any of their favorite lists, or just me?


Nixon in China has its good parts and its weaker parts. I think Act I starts well and ends well, but fizzles somewhat during the conversation between Mao and Nixon. The first scene of Act II is stronger than the ballet scene, which is interesting conceptually (make something that sounds like it was written by committee) but not musically. Act III is better, and makes for a thoughtful close to the work, but it doesn't quite keep up its inspiration throughout.

And yes, it's very real:


----------



## nightscape

BeatOven said:


> Do we ignore the power bad music has on us in regards to musicial appreciation or understanding?
> 
> Have you ever listened to music that you do not like? To be more specific, intentionally listened or re-listened to music you find bad rather then having to listen to it against your will. Do you ever try to explore and dig at your own thoughts and reactions to the music to uncover the mechanics of your dissatisfaction?


The movie critic Pauline Kael said, "Movies are so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash we have very little reason to be interested in them."

I can see this being applied through a musical lens in relation to your quandary.


----------



## aleazk

Jobis said:


> I can't stand the 'music' of John Cage, but that may be due to my disagreeing with his theories about music. Whether you can regard the likes of 4'33 as music, its still a boring, soul-less piece. How any one can appreciate this anti-art charlatan I don't know.


You say _the_ music of Cage, as implying his whole oeuvre. You mention then 4'33''. Hardly a representative of Cage's whole oeuvre, which is very diverse.
This is soul-less and the work of a "charlatan"?:





 - In a landscape.





 - Six Melodies.





 - Third Construction.

I don't think so. Those pieces are pure soul. 
I do think there's a charlatan here, and it's not Cage precisely...


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Mahlerian said:


> Nixon in China has its good parts and its weaker parts.


For me, _Nixon_ loses its momentum when Alice Goodman's libretto gets verbose and/or too clever for its own good. The same happens in _The Death of Klinghoffer_, whose libretto was also written by Goodman.


----------



## Wandering

Celloman said:


> Pachelbel's Canon. Not that it's bad music _per se_, I just don't like it. Maybe it's because I play the cello part about twenty billion times a year. D, A, B, F#, G, D, G, A, repeat ad nauseum, etc, etc,...


This comment made me think of the Greensleeves scene from 'The Madness of King George'. Those poor musicians.


----------



## niv

Nobody actually enjoys 4"33' as a piece of music. At most it's conceptual art.


----------



## aleazk

niv said:


> Nobody actually enjoys 4"33' as a piece of music. At most it's conceptual art.


Well, Cage actually wanted the audience to enjoy the noises and sounds produced during the piece, by this same audience, as music. 
But, indeed, I see it more as conceptual art.
Exactly the same can be said about Ligeti's Poème Symphonique, for 100 metronomes.
Although I find the effect produced by the last dying metronomes as quite thrilling.


----------



## Mahlerian

aleazk said:


> Well, Cage actually wanted the audience to enjoy the noises and sounds produced during the piece, by this same audience, as music.
> But, indeed, I see it more as conceptual art.
> Exactly the same can be said about Ligeti's Poème Symphonique, for 100 metronomes.
> Although I find the effect produced by the last dying metronomes as quite thrilling.


This type of thing also loses its effect completely outside of the concert hall. There's no real reason why 4'33" should be recorded on CD, and very little for "Poeme Symphonique"....


----------



## aleazk

Mahlerian said:


> This type of thing also loses its effect completely outside of the concert hall. There's no real reason why 4'33" should be recorded on CD, and very little for "Poeme Symphonique"....


Indeed, since they also have a theatrical element, which can only be fully appreciated if you go to a live performance.


----------



## shangoyal

Honestly, how can you take the 4'33" seriously?


----------



## KenOC

shangoyal said:


> Honestly, how can you take the 4'33" seriously?


Somebody does. Yesterday was the LA Phil's kickoff concert for the new season. The first piece on the program was 4'33".


----------



## shangoyal

They probably did it and got it out of the way.

Perhaps it only speaks about how little we have left to say as a race. I mean, how can we ever get more ridiculous than sitting in a concert hall and listening to the ambient sounds while the stage is full of musicians in reverent motionlessness. Anybody who has this in their programs is just doing it for ridiculous reasons, whatever they may be.


----------



## dgee

It's such a weird question that was originally posed! Like manfully listening to "bad music" will give you great insight...

I've had no such insight from trying music I don't like (which is different from bad) - trying to find value or be moved in Verdi or Liszt or Tchaikovsky just makes me realise I don't think that stuff is great and I'm better off listening to other things (although I'll concede a bit of fun can be had from the latter two). 

Sometimes one comes across something on the radio that is really undistinguished like, say, a Kuhlau flute sonata, clunky Edwardian English rot, or something from the "American boring" school which sounds like interminable bad Hindemith, and you can get a sinking feeling about it being a waste of time. So why make yourself listen to it again?

As a player I've sat through my fair share of poor quality music (over and over and over, sometimes) but in that setting you can just switch off and focus on playing well

Good to see the blue rinse brigade hitching their skirts up and stamping their little feet in rage over rap and John Cage!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

shangoyal said:


> Honestly, how can you take the 4'33" seriously?


That's like saying "Honestly, how can you take Socrates seriously?"
Sure, there are probably some people do not take Socrates seriously though....but....it's basically just saying that you don't appreciate some philosophical ideas.


----------



## Pantheon

John Cage did say he lost many friends because of 4'33'' ! 
Maybe it was for the best...


----------



## KenOC

shangoyal said:


> Perhaps it only speaks about how little we have left to say as a race. I mean, how can we ever get more ridiculous than sitting in a concert hall and listening to the ambient sounds while the stage is full of musicians in reverent motionlessness.


Not a new opinion. Almost a century ago, Olin Downes called the Rite of Spring "the expression of one who is fundamentally a barbarian and a primitive, tinctured with, and educated in, the utmost sophistications and satieties of a worn-out civilization."

I'm not sure if our civilization was more worn out then or now. Probably both!


----------



## shangoyal

KenOC said:


> Almost a century ago, Olin Downes called the Rite of Spring "the expression of one who is fundamentally a barbarian and a primitive, tinctured with, and educated in, the utmost sophistications and satieties of a worn-out civilization."


That's very interesting indeed! The problem I have with 4'33" is that it's perfectly neutral.


----------



## Celloman

That's what I find so intriguing about the _Rite_. It depicts pagan Russia thousands of years ago, yet the music is so completely modern in outlook. Primitivism and modernism go hand-in-hand. It is both old and new.


----------



## PetrB

Pantheon said:


> John Cage did say he lost many friends because of 4'33'' !
> Maybe it was for the best...


Uh, it is a very worn but true cliche -- those were not actual friends in the first place.


----------



## Rapide

Pantheon said:


> John Cage did say he lost many friends because of 4'33'' !
> Maybe it was for the best...


...and he lost many real listeners too.


----------



## bigshot

He didn't lose listeners, because there was nothing to listen to.


----------



## Andrei

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Try this then for bad............... oh no not more stairway to heaven


Ay yai yai. Makes that Nanes music sound great (You're not Nanes are you?)


----------



## leomarillier

Massenet has always been a great mystery to me, as to how his music survived more than his own lifetime! He gives such a bad image to what music is all about to the people, such pretention... Saint-Saens as well.
Sometimes Schumann bores me, it's said that his symphonies' orchestration is here to protect the music itself more than to emphasize aspects of it... I prefer the Manfred Overture much more, he put much more of himself. Some choral works he wrote are also pretty boring, even though it's great music, it's still too specifically german for me.
Gounod (and I'm saying this as a professional french musician) is of the same kind as Massenet, except what he wrote is even less under the impression of being convinced of the beauty of music. There's something awfully mundane here. Thank god "la bande a Franck" changed history.
Tchaikovsky is pretty bad in terms of taste (but I guess all russian composers were a bit rough on the edge), but his music is so exclusively sentimental and melodramatic that it's just sugar, sauce, and huge amounts of whipped cream over a dead cabbage. His music is ostensibly certain of its genuine purity. Especially violin concerto, piano pieces, chamber music, though it "fits" better in the symphonic works, where he really is able to convey the power of the orchestra.
I don't know what singers have with Puccini (especially Turandot, that is a great abomination in the fact that he's covering up music without tail of head with overused exotism), but Rossini and Bellini, Donizetti are so much worse than that.
Early Mozart is not Mozart. The only Mozart worth looking at is that of the operas and piano concerti. He would already have been the greatest composer ever with Cosi, Giovanni, the Flute, la Clemenza.
Sibelius is very strange: I didn't understand his music before I came to north Finland. After that, I considered him the most beautiful composer. It's difficult to have a correct way of listening to him.
Some Schubert is sometimes overly sustained and subtle emotionnaly it becomes too much.
Stravinsky in the 20s-30s is really bad, with the exception of the symphonies. It is is just played due to the generalized idolatry (that he deserves, still). Jeux de cartes, just that...
Strauss's sinfonia domestica is just the weirdest piling up of "familial" (what does that even mean?) cliches I've never seen, but I really love his Alpine Symphony (maybe that's the nietzschean within me...)
Liszt sometimes bores me, the piano concerti are "bad good music" and the Totentanz is "good bad music", most youth pieces I can't stand. But the Faust Symphony is so incredible it just erases every other work he had the mistake of having composed. He bought himself back on this one and the piano Sonata.


----------



## Inceptionist

I've listened to bad music out of my own will, I only do it to try and like that style. It's actually worked before which surprised me. Although it can only do so much, most of the songs I just end up hating even more than I did before


----------



## aleazk

Inceptionist said:


> I've listened to bad music out of my own will, I only do it to try and like that style. It's actually worked before which surprised me. Although it can only do so much, most of the songs I just end up hating even more than I did before


Oh, I didn't know that bad music was a "style". What kind of style?.


----------



## Inceptionist

aleazk said:


> Oh, I didn't know that bad music was a "style". What kind of style?.


... to try and like whichever style I dislike*


----------



## aleazk

Inceptionist said:


> ... to try and like whichever style I dislike*


Well, that seems a sane directive to me. :tiphat:


----------



## dgee

In response to leomarillier haha - I agree with most of this except for the fact I adore Sinfonia Domestica for its sheer audacity and ludicrously germanic sensuality (and Alpine symphony is caca) and for showing the merest respect for Liszt's orchestral garbage. Other than that - bienissimo


----------



## Wandering

dgee said:


> In response to leomarillier haha - I agree with most of this except for the fact I adore Sinfonia Domestica for its sheer audacity and ludicrously germanic sensuality (and Alpine symphony is caca) and for showing the merest respect for Liszt's orchestral garbage. Other than that - bienissimo


The humor in Der Rosen and Ariadne often puts me in a jolly silly mood, I'll pull them out and listen for that reason alone sometimes. The brilliant build up to the storm is what I'd always found interesting about the Alpine Symphony, but the storm itself is a true unbearable racket to my ears.


----------



## hpowders

leomarillier said:


> Massenet has always been a great mystery to me, as to how his music survived more than his own lifetime! He gives such a bad image to what music is all about to the people, such pretention... Saint-Saens as well.
> Sometimes Schumann bores me, it's said that his symphonies' orchestration is here to protect the music itself more than to emphasize aspects of it... I prefer the Manfred Overture much more, he put much more of himself. Some choral works he wrote are also pretty boring, even though it's great music, it's still too specifically german for me.
> Gounod (and I'm saying this as a professional french musician) is of the same kind as Massenet, except what he wrote is even less under the impression of being convinced of the beauty of music. There's something awfully mundane here. Thank god "la bande a Franck" changed history.
> Tchaikovsky is pretty bad in terms of taste (but I guess all russian composers were a bit rough on the edge), but his music is so exclusively sentimental and melodramatic that it's just sugar, sauce, and huge amounts of whipped cream over a dead cabbage. His music is ostensibly certain of its genuine purity. Especially violin concerto, piano pieces, chamber music, though it "fits" better in the symphonic works, where he really is able to convey the power of the orchestra.
> I don't know what singers have with Puccini (especially Turandot, that is a great abomination in the fact that he's covering up music without tail of head with overused exotism), but Rossini and Bellini, Donizetti are so much worse than that.
> Early Mozart is not Mozart. The only Mozart worth looking at is that of the operas and piano concerti. He would already have been the greatest composer ever with Cosi, Giovanni, the Flute, la Clemenza.
> Sibelius is very strange: I didn't understand his music before I came to north Finland. After that, I considered him the most beautiful composer. It's difficult to have a correct way of listening to him.
> Some Schubert is sometimes overly sustained and subtle emotionnaly it becomes too much.
> Stravinsky in the 20s-30s is really bad, with the exception of the symphonies. It is is just played due to the generalized idolatry (that he deserves, still). Jeux de cartes, just that...
> Strauss's sinfonia domestica is just the weirdest piling up of "familial" (what does that even mean?) cliches I've never seen, but I really love his Alpine Symphony (maybe that's the nietzschean within me...)
> Liszt sometimes bores me, the piano concerti are "bad good music" and the Totentanz is "good bad music", most youth pieces I can't stand. But the Faust Symphony is so incredible it just erases every other work he had the mistake of having composed. He bought himself back on this one and the piano Sonata.


 Schumann, Saint-Saens and Massenet all bore me too. I got spoiled by the super-geniuses!


----------

