# Is There a Great Composer You Plain Just Don't Like



## Ilych

I have been listening to classical music since I was a teenager, about 40 years. My specialty is in the Romantic and Classic eras, but I try to expose myself to all kinds of Classical. 
I know what I am about to say is tantamount to blasphemy on these forums, but I just don't like Johann Sebastian Bach. There, I said it. Outside of the Toccata and Fugue in D minor I can honestly say there is one piece of his that doesn't either put me to sleep or make me nervous or give me a headache, or all three of the above.
I know, I know. I've studied enough to know that Bach is one of the greatest of all the gods in the Classical spectrum. I know how extremely influential he was. I know most Classical fans adore him. I have given him chance after chance. I feel that there must be something in me that is somehow deficient to not appreciate his genius.
I am not looking for anyone to contradict my views, I fear they are set in concrete. I was wondering if anyone else has a virulent dislike to one of the acknowledged geniuses of Classical composition?
I am still very new to the forums and I was wondering what you think!


----------



## muxamed

Dare I say that I am not a big fan of Tchaikovsky


----------



## Artemis

muxamed said:


> Dare I say that I am not a big fan of Tchaikovsky


Nice one.

I can't think of any great composers that I have never at any time been keen on. In my case, I have rather lost interest to varying extents in several of them. Top of the list would be Wagner, Mahler, Bruckner.

Brahms is beginning to pall somewhat too. In the latter case, the more adulation I have recently seen about him expressed on this Board the less keen I become. For similar reasons I have rather gone off Ravel (brings back quite dreadful memories), and Sibelius is heading in the same direction.


----------



## Ilych

Funny you bring up Wagner. I went through a major phase where I adored just about all of his operas, particularly the Ring. Now I find so much of his music just plain overblown. I don't dislike him, but my youthful ardor has cooled somewhat! I still like Wagner more than Mark Twain who once quipped that Wagner's music "isn't as bad as it sounds."


----------



## Tapkaara

What a dangerous thread. Let's see how the free flow of ideas is impeded by those who simply cannot stand to see their favorite composers receive negative criticsm.

Mozart - Boring. I don't blindly buy into his greatness. I know we are all expected to worship him, and he was certainly a competant musician, but his end product, for me, are like stale cream puffs.

Mahler - Beginning to like him less and less. Symphonies 1,2 and 6 are great. Everything else I can do without. 

Tchaikovsky - Really a hit and miss composer. I like a lot of his stuff, but can't stand a lot of it either. Over-rated as a symphonist, in my opinion.

Dvorak - Also over-rated as a symphonist. Just my opinion. 

I could go on and on, but for the sake of my sanity, I will stop here. And before anyone attacks me, consider the great composers YOU don't like and ask yourself whether or not YOU deserve to be attacked for YOUR selections.


----------



## Artemis

Ilych said:


> Funny you bring up Wagner. I went through a major phase where I adored just about all of his operas, particularly the Ring. Now I find so much of his music just plain overblown. I don't dislike him, but my youthful ardor has cooled somewhat!


My CD collection is brimming with the works of all the second half 19th C great composers, as I went from one to another in often considerable enthusiasm. With limited exceptions, most of all that very heavily romanticised music is no longer of much interest to me.

Rather I have gone back to my teenager "roots" (which I sadly left some 11 years ago) of liking most of all the classical/early romantic composers. In the process I have been discovering lots of good material from composers who used to be mainly just names to me (e.g. Stamitz, Kraus, Myslivecek, Vanhal, Cimarosa, Rosetti, Dittersdorf).

To me that was the "golden age" age of classical music, and it's all been downhill since, after the virtually coincident deaths of Beethoven and Schubert. I say this partly to stir up a few other souls. Let's see what happens.

BTW, welcome to T-C.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Never been that big of a fan of Handel, Haydn or Tchaikovsky. I mean they all have works I enjoy, but overall I'm not usually interested in listening to them. Cannot stand Johann Strauss II, though I don't know that he's considered "great".


----------



## Aramis

Bruckner. In general I'm fan of "over-blown" music, but he? Mahler is damn expressive and great with what he did in symphonic genre, but Bruckner sounds like pastiche (sometimes even like parody) of truely romantic music. 

He sounds so empty and wanna-be romantic to me. And his person. I expect my favourite composers to be romantic heroes, not boring, bald geezers. 

What else, what else...


----------



## Mr Chewie

Mahler and Bruckner. They're good with melody and Mahler's symphonies have interesting development, but their music just sounds obese to me.


----------



## Head_case

I dunno....there's a lot of popular music (I presume that is what you mean by 'great', unless looking for some technical; theoretical, innovative or other criterion for defining greatness...)

Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, Schumann, Mahler, Wagner all leave me indifferent. Except maybe Wagner - I'd find Boyzone or Beyonce more listenable than his stuff 

'Obese' is a great way to describe their kinds of classical music: symphonic obesity is overwhelming. happy froppy classical music likewise. That was the then equivalent of Boyzone or Beyonce


----------



## Taneyev

I never listen to opera; hate any kind of it. And except Russian or French compòsers, I don't listen to symphonic works. I hate Haendel, Vivaldi, Corelli, Bach's sons, and probably 30 or 40 more.


----------



## Polednice

I second the OP's expression of his dislike for Bach.

As well as that, I still _hate_ Mahler. I give him chance after chance after chance, but his music always strikes me as vapid and pointless 

Also, in line with opinions about composers who fall out of favour and seem hit and miss, then I absolutely have to mention Rachmaninov. I used to _love_ his music. Now, I can't even remember the last time I listened to it. It's just boring now; I feel other composers expressed everything he wanted to but in much better ways.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

For those who dislike Bach's music, have you tried a HIP recording of some of the Bach favourites? Me think HIP do far greater justice to Bach's work (Baroque in general, too). And if you have, and still dislike Bach, well ignore what I have just wrote.


----------



## GraemeG

My, we are putting our shortcomings on display, aren't we?
Nearly all the 'big names' have written something redeeming, even if most of their ouevre strikes you personally as disagreeable (hateful? wow. I'd reserve description that for transient commercial pop). Even composers whose works I make no further effort to hear; Tchaikovsky, for instance, still have a few offerings whose greatness I'll concede.
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## James clerk

Chopin. And Brahms first symphony. Chopin.


----------



## yoshtodd

I'm having trouble appreciating Bach too. Everything I listen to from him just sounds so "dense", where there's so many notes and voices that I have a hard time following any melody. I just ordered a CD of his French Suites, gonna give those a try because I read that they're relatively simple and short. Chopin kind of bores me too.


----------



## David58117

Shostakovich for me! Reminds me too much of a B-grade horror movie soundtrack. 

Ditto on the Rachmaninoff & Tchaikovsky loss of interest. I was hugely into them when I first started listening, but now I haven't felt the desire to listen to their recordings in years.


----------



## Air

I'd say for those who don't like Bach, give him some time - 5, 10, maybe 15 years. I have other favorite composers (along with Bach), but I can still agree without hesitation that Bach is the single greatest classical composer of all time. 

If something sounds "too dense", chances are it's you who hasn't come around to the music yet. (and that is meant in the kindest manner possible) That doesn't make Bach any worse. Or maybe you just haven't heard enough of Bach's glorious output to understand him. That's similar to my feelings regarding Haydn - I still can't give a valid opinion on his music even though I've heard a lot of it. I'm just waiting for that 'moment of truth' - whether it it sudden or gradual. 

I've played Bach since I was a kid, but even with all those years it was hard to come around to his music until much later. Playing some of his fugues is like brain surgery!


----------



## Scott Good

Air said:


> IThat's similar to my feelings regarding Haydn - I still can't give a valid opinion on his music even though I've heard a lot of it. I'm just waiting for that 'moment of truth' - whether it it sudden or gradual.


I'd recommend this:






Or this:






I can't explain it, but the opening of this second movement is just sublime for me. These were "moment of truth" works for me. Now, I'm a big fan.

I don't hate any of the greats, and, well, I hate very little music. Something to be enjoyed everywhere. Any time I'm bored, I feel it has more to do with me in that moment than the music.


----------



## Air

Scott Good said:


> I don't hate any of the greats, and, well, I hate very little music. Something to be enjoyed everywhere. Any time I'm bored, I feel it has more to do with me in that moment than the music.


Well said.

I actually like many of Haydn's works (piano sonatas and string quartets mostly). It's just I never really have had an obsession... I wish I could put him on a throne next to Bach and Mozart, but for me, that moment has yet to come. It's something to be enthusiastic about, surely. 

One of my favorite Haydn Piano Sonatas is the c minor, Hob. XVI:20. 
From the Rubinstein competition:






Ms. Buniatishvili is both beautiful and talented. Check out her Schumann Fantasia if you haven't already (from the same competition). It brims with passion and vitality... oh, words don't do it justice...just listen!


----------



## rojo

"Is There a Great Composer You Plain Just Don't Like"

No, I don't think so. Although I've never met any of the "acknowledged" great ones.

Oh, you mean their music. Mm, still no.



Ilych said:


> I was wondering if anyone else has a virulent dislike to one of the acknowledged geniuses of Classical composition?


Not me. I think they've all made excellent contributions to the vast musical landscape. Of course, I do have my preferences for certain works by certain composers.

I can't think of a single composer that hasn't written at least one work that I like.

So what am I doing in this thread? I'm not sure. This really isn't a very good contribution, is it. Oh well.


----------



## Tapkaara

GraemeG said:


> My, we are putting our shortcomings on display, aren't we?


Can you please explain what these "shortcomings" are? Giving honest answers about how our tastes don't always flow with the mainstream, I suppose?

I'm sorry, but being told all these years that Mozart is great, and Dvorak is great and Chopin is great, etc., means nothing to me if I don't like their music. If they communicate something to you, by all means, embrace it. But please don't refer to one's lack of appreciation for a "great" composer as a shortcoming. It comes off as snooty.

I think threads like this are healthy, by the way. Why should we only talk about the composers we love? There are two sides to every coin.


----------



## Scott Good

Air said:


> I actually like many of Haydn's works (piano sonatas and string quartets mostly). It's just I never really have had an obsession... I wish I could put him on a throne next to Bach and Mozart, but for me, that moment has yet to come. It's something to be enthusiastic about, surely.


 I like that.



Air said:


> One of my favorite Haydn Piano Sonatas is the c minor, Hob. XVI:20.
> From the Rubinstein competition:


I'm listening now. Oh yes, this is where it is at. So much colour in her playing. The flourishes are so tasty. Every note is going to and coming from.

And a very very fine piece of music. Haydn has a sense of levity and playfulness that I so admire.

One thing about Haydn, from the performers perspective, is that he seems to teach one how to play...does that make sense? Well, I'm just a trombone honk machine, so rarely get to involve myself with his music. But ask any string quartet where they started, and the name Haydn will assuredly be one of the first mentioned.

Wait...what am I doing, this thread is about not liking music...see ya!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Head_case said:


> I dunno....there's a lot of popular music (I presume that is what you mean by 'great', unless looking for some technical; theoretical, innovative or other criterion for defining greatness...)
> 
> Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, Schumann, Mahler, Wagner all leave me indifferent. Except maybe Wagner - I'd find Boyzone or Beyonce more listenable than his stuff
> 
> 'Obese' is a great way to describe their kinds of classical music: symphonic obesity is overwhelming. happy froppy classical music likewise. That was the then equivalent of Boyzone or Beyonce


I think you are more suited to be in the Boyzone/boyband forums. Or are you here to post for the sake of posting? I just don't see what the point is of your retarded post by crossing out the greats from Bach to Wagner and linking the "indifference" with preference for Boyzone or Beyonce in a Classical forum. And your nonsensical placement of smilies afterwards.

Oh, unless of course you were meant to be joking. Then very silly of me.


----------



## Artemis

It's nothing approaching a decent sized poll but looking at the limited number of views expressed so far it seems that top of the list of dislikes is Mahler, followed by Tchaikovsky and then Bruckner and Bach. Thus, at least as regards Mahler and Bruckner, I'm not alone.

I agree with the point made previously that people should be free to express their likes and dislikes among composers without fear of being accused of lacking in education or experience. It irritates me especially when I am informed that my general dislike of contemporary classical music is due to lack of effort to appreciate it. I seldom express an opinion on matters musical without having given it a fair chance beforehand. More generally, it's very easy to become infatuated with certain of the the greatest composers on the way up the learning curve, and it's quite easy to spot these fans. I'm generally far more interested in the opinions of people who have a lot of listening experience under their "belts". 

In the case of the OP, I can well understand and appreciate what was said about Bach. He is not everyone's cup of tea, even among people who may like baroque music generally. Personally, I prefer Handel, Vivaldi, and Purcell as I too find a lot of Bach's music over-dense. But that's not to say that I dislike Bach. I still rate him (objectively) as one of the top three composers of all time.


----------



## muxamed

Very interesting discussion.  

In my previous post I wrote that I didn't like Tchaikovsky. Even Wagner's and Händel's music leave me completely unaffected.


----------



## muxamed

Artemis said:


> It's nothing approaching a decent sized poll but looking at the limited number of views expressed so far it seems that top of the list of dislikes is Mahler, followed by Tchaikovsky and then Bruckner and Bach.


And Wagner I guess..



Artemis said:


> More generally, it's very easy to become infatuated with certain of the the greatest composers on the way up the learning curve, and it's quite easy to spot these fans. .


Which doesn't mean that the infatuation isn't there after many years of listening. I have a lot of listening experience under my "belt" and I am still "infatuated" by Beethoven's music  but not by many other composers who are regarded as the greats.


----------



## Mozartgirl92

I never liked Handel, I can´t see what´s so great about him.
There are a few more that I don´t like like Ravel, Schoenberg, Berg and a few more that I don´t remember the name of.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

muxamed said:


> Very interesting discussion.
> 
> In my previous post I wrote that I didn't like Tchaikovsky. Even Wagner's and Händel's music leave me completely unaffected.


Yep. Wagner does nothing to me, along with many Romantics and all those that follow (chronologically speaking).


----------



## JAKE WYB

*Handel* - I cant see whats good about any note of his despite generous attempts to delve - just empty rumpty tumpty..

*Mozart* - sounds like whining at me - insipid and without depth or interest - always seems to sap the life and atmosphere out of a concert hall

*Saint Saens* - recentluy has started to annoy me greatly - cant explan why but all seems compltetely superficial and trivial - bar piano concertos 2 and 5 which are good

*Verdi* - sounds awful and not at all timeless to me - lke most other italian opera coposers too

*Britten* - sounds derivative and warped and pallid in its expression - I could write better not that he can be called 'great' by any standard

Say 5 years ago I would have said the following but have learnt to appreciate them with time patience and experience and so I dont dismiss the above.. too quickly

Beethoven
Haydn
Tchaikovsky
Wagner

I even at one time cited sinelius as an undesirable conposer for me but as uual it was based on the most immeiate pieces avaiolable - ie finlandia, valse triste etc which i still hate - if id have heard lemminkainem first i t would really have been love at first sight - it was only due to seeing symphony 7 in concert years after mistakenly dismissing him that i was persuaded into his discipleship


----------



## Artemis

muxamed said:


> Which doesn't mean that the infatuation isn't there after many years of listening. I have a lot of listening experience under my "belt" and I am still "infatuated" by Beethoven's music  but not by many other composers who are regarded as the greats.


One can obviously continue to like immensely any number of composers one was first drawn to. But in using the word "infatuation" I was trying to draw a distinction between a temporary situation of liking a particular composer (usually lasting 6-12 months) and the more enduring kind of appreciation. There have been several composers I once liked, but these days hardly bother with them.

Incidentally, there have been other recent threads on this same topic. Responses usually split into two main categories: those who say they continue to like the same composers they did at an earlier age, but now they like more of them; those whose tastes have changed so that former favourites have given way to new ones, and the previous ones have largely disappeared.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

There are a few composers that I don't appreciate in a manner consistent with their considered reputations. I slightly prefer Bach to the other Baroque composers (so far), but haven't made much progress with Handel, and even less with Vivaldi. I hope that (like *Air* says) one day it'll eventually come together for me.

Considering that he composed during a period that contains a great deal of my favorite music, Scriabin has been pretty resistant to my attempts to enjoy and appreciate his output.

I *am* making progress with Haydn. It's not going to be in the nature of an epiphany, though. The forward momentum is little-by-little. I suspect that my forays into Baroque will be a similarly slow accumulation of understanding.

This might not be the place for it-- but (speaking of Haydn) I had this thought recently re: the relative valuation of Haydn & Mozart. (A topic previously discussed in a few other places.) Try this experiment- whistle a Mozart tune. (Don't need to know hardly _anything_ about Classical Music to be able to do that.) O.K.: whistle another one. Half-a-dozen. A dozen. Two dozen. Many of you (if not necessarily me) can keep going still!

Now whistle a Haydn tune. Half-a-dozen? A dozen (if you can)? You run out of "tunes" much more quickly, no?

Of course, one can argue that this misses the point of Haydn's greatness. That seeking "Haydn tunes" is as relevant to comprehending Haydn as seeking "Bruckner tunes" is to an understanding of Bruckner. However, it could go a long way to explaining the (pretty much default) higher esteem placed on Mozart.


----------



## JAKE WYB

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Considering that he composed during a period that contains a great deal of my favorite music, Scriabin has been pretty resistant to my attempts to enjoy and appreciate his output.


Hes another one I took ages to get into - his orchestral works were a sickly mush - it took 
*5th Piano sonata* to draw me in properly and now i believe him almost to be the greatest piano composer of the 20 th century


----------



## Aramis

Even if Scriabin would compose most terible music in the world I would still listen to him because of his moustache.


----------



## Moldyoldie

Could never get into *Berlioz* or *Liszt* despite numerous attempts with various works and performances. However, I'll never say never again -- I once thought the same about Sibelius.  For shame!


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Berlioz, Stravinsky, Shoshtakovich., Debussy.


----------



## Art Rock

I'm with rojo, I never encountered a classical composer of (some) fame where I like nothing of his/her output.
That said, the following composers do much less for me than for most classical music lovers:

Handel
Verdi (except Requiem)
Bartok 
Stravinsky (except early ballets)
Walton


----------



## yoshtodd

Air said:


> If something sounds "too dense", chances are it's you who hasn't come around to the music yet. (and that is meant in the kindest manner possible) That doesn't make Bach any worse. Or maybe you just haven't heard enough of Bach's glorious output to understand him.


Just to clarify, I'm not saying saying he is bad, only describing what it sounds like to my ear as a relative novice to classical music.


----------



## Guest

For whatever reason, I simply can't get into Wagner's music. I keep trying, but it just doesn't do anything for me. Liszt is almost in that same camp.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Unfortunately I think most people are introduced to Wagner's music through his "hits" (which is probably part of the reason he is widely considered to be bombastic and crude) or through the huge, overwhelming dimensions of _The Ring_. I don't know that either is the best route. Because a work like _Die Meistersinger_ is imbued with so much warmness of spirit and filled with so many lyrical melodies which weave in and out of on another that it blows my mind that people don't take to it immediately, and that Wagner is considered inaccessible or uncrackable.

But, I suppose that's the nature of art and everyone is a little flabbergasted when someone else can't appreciate what brings themselves so much enrichment.


----------



## TWhite

I can't think of any composers I ABSOLUTELY dislike, however there are several that don't do a great deal for me--Chopin and Mozart are two of them (though I love several Mozart operas). Chopin to me just seems like a lot of empty 'passage' work, anymore. And I never did get a feeling of 'solidity' in his piano music. And at least for me, it's REALLY uncomfortable to play--not worth all of that work. And I'm told I'm a more than decent pianist. 

I'm not a great Baroque fan--I can largely take it or leave it, though I enjoy Scarlatti keyboard works a lot. My main interest these days seems to be in the Late and Post-Romantic Era (Brahms, Wagner, Richard Strauss, Mahler, Korngold, Wolf) and the 20th century. I'm not a big Schoenberg or Webern fan, though I do like Berg (go figure??). Lots of affection for Debussy and Ravel, Copland and Barber. 

Like several other posters, I've gone hot and cold on Rachmaninov--right now I'm kind of luke-warm (though his Symphonic Dances and Vesper Mass can still make me sit up and take notice). 

I tend to prefer German opera to Italian--especially the operas of Richard Strauss--though I'll kill for tickets to Verdi's FALSTAFF. And as a vocal accompanist I'm a huge fan of Lieder and Russian and American art songs (not so much French Chanson, though I enjoy accompanying Debussy).

So, though I can't really say I actively DISLIKE some composers--except Chopin, I suppose-- I find myself running hot and cold on some of them. 

Tom


----------



## Weston

*Mozart's* music is sublime perfection. That's probably why it bores the hell out of me. I can sort of enjoy his later works. Haydn is incredible to me however, a sort of proto-Beethoven. Or Beethoven was a post-Haydn. I think we can't hum as many Haydn tunes only because of lack of exposure. I can hum a lot of pop music. That doesn't make it any good.

*Chopin* is just so much finger exercising to me, interspersed with over the top dramatic pauses. It does nothing at all for me.

It's funny that folks should dislike the density of Bach. That's exactly the thing I do like about his music and baroque in general. To each his own.


----------



## kingtim

Tapkaara said:


> What a dangerous thread. Let's see how the free flow of ideas is impeded by those who simply cannot stand to see their favorite composers receive negative criticsm.
> 
> Mozart - Boring. I don't blindly buy into his greatness. I know we are all expected to worship him, and he was certainly a competant musician, but his end product, for me, are like stale cream puffs.
> 
> Mahler - Beginning to like him less and less. Symphonies 1,2 and 6 are great. Everything else I can do without.
> 
> Tchaikovsky - Really a hit and miss composer. I like a lot of his stuff, but can't stand a lot of it either. Over-rated as a symphonist, in my opinion.
> 
> Dvorak - Also over-rated as a symphonist. Just my opinion.
> 
> I could go on and on, but for the sake of my sanity, I will stop here. And before anyone attacks me, consider the great composers YOU don't like and ask yourself whether or not YOU deserve to be attacked for YOUR selections.


I agree... Mozart is pretty boring. I just can't get too into it. Tchaikovsky too. But both are still better than:


----------



## Head_case

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I think you are more suited to be in the Boyzone/boyband forums. Or are you here to post for the sake of posting? I just don't see what the point is of your retarded post by crossing out the greats from Bach to Wagner and linking the "indifference" with preference for Boyzone or Beyonce in a Classical forum. And your nonsensical placement of smilies afterwards.
> 
> Oh, unless of course you were meant to be joking. Then very silly of me.


Lolll. Lol. 

Boyzone rules!

PS - do you think we're all narrowly confined into following a hierarchy of defining who is a 'great' composer, according to such a narrow whim, as limiting this within the Germano-Prussian tradition?


----------



## Il Seraglio

There are hardly any (if any) big name composers I don't respect, but if I had to say which composers I don't particularly enjoy listening to from personal experience, it would be...

Telemann - I don't know about anyone else, but I find his music highly repetitious and it just seems to plod. It's good for nodding off to sleep to though.

Dvorak - I just hate that New World Symphony... it feels so emotionally simplistic. I understand his music was a precursor to polystylism and he was a big influence in general, but his music is not my cup of tea.

Scriabin and Rachmaninov - Everytime I try to listen to them, all I really get is an incomprehensible wall of piano notes or the bombastic clang of an orchestra. I think I voted for Scriabin as one of my favourite symphonists in a relevant thread not long ago, but I feel like taking it back now. I found there wasn't much to appreciate beneath the surface in his third symphony given some more listening.

Spohr - I know he was regarded as a master in Beethoven's time, but I fail to understand the appeal. He sounds like Mendelssohn without the melodies or Brahms without the layered harmonies.


----------



## Head_case

Surprised to find Scriabin here. Have you heard his Piano sonatas?

I'm not a piano fan, but his piano sonatas along with Szymanowski's Mazurkas are amongst the only piano music I listen to. 

His Promethean stuff is a bit intoxicating or 'bombastic' as you put it. I find his gentler and darker side (Black Mass) very compelling. 

As for Rachmaninov ~ it's Vespers time


----------



## Lukecash12

I'm going to have to say no.


----------



## World Violist

Mozart. That's all I want to say but of course there's the 10-letter minimum...


----------



## Romantic Geek

Head_case said:


> Surprised to find Scriabin here. Have you heard his Piano sonatas?
> 
> I'm not a piano fan, but his piano sonatas along with Szymanowski's Mazurkas are amongst the only piano music I listen to.
> 
> His Promethean stuff is a bit intoxicating or 'bombastic' as you put it. I find his gentler and darker side (Black Mass) very compelling.
> 
> As for Rachmaninov ~ it's Vespers time


I've never found too many pianists that actually liked playing Scriabin. I really haven't heard enough of his rep to make a statement that I "don't like" him...but I haven't been blown away by anything I have heard.

As far as Bach, I used to be in the same camp. I really hated playing Bach - and maybe that's where my hatred for him really spun out of control. But after studying basic 18th century harmony, I really started to appreciate his works more. His organ pieces are amazing. Obviously, everyone knows the Toccata and Fugue. The Passacaglia and Fugue in C Minor is simply awesome (in the real sense of the word.) His chorales and keyboard works have really grown on me as well. Still not a fan of the oratorios and Brandenburg concertos. I'm just not a huge fan of basso continuo...that's what it really boils down to.

Mahler. Seems like a lot of hatin' going on around here. I really like what I have heard. I can understand why people may think his music is bloated. It certainly takes a few listens to really appreciate any of his symphonic works. You really have to get into a groove and listen closely to appreciate it (in my opinion.) Some people don't have patience for that - and thus, he's not as well liked as some other composers.

As far as composers I can't stand.

Public Enemy #1: Elliot Carter. I'm sorry, but his music is bonafide crap. He crossed a point of sophistication that is even beyond me as a listener. I take a lot of time to really listen closely to a piece - but when I'd rather hear fingernails scraping along a chalkboard more than his works...something has gone awfully wrong.

I'd say that Phillip Glass and John Cage are tied for second. Once again, their works just seem pretentious. Never cared for Hindemith. The quality of his works are quite subpar.

Still having a hard time biting into Wagner, but I haven't had the time to really understand his music. Since I like a few composers that evolved out of the Wagner/Liszt camp - I'll eventually get around to it.


----------



## Sid James

For me, it's not really a matter of disliking a "great" composer, but which of their compositions. For example I can't stand Saint-Saens' _Organ Symphony_, but I have time for some of his _Piano Concertos_. I dislike Sibelius' _Symphony No. 2_ but think _Lemminkainen_ is a masterpiece. As for Wagner, I tend to go for orchestral highlights from his operas, or even the excellent stand-alone _Siegfried Idyll_, rather than listening to (or owning) whole operas. Elgar, can't stand his symphonies or _Pomp & Circumstance Marches_ but love his chamber music. Bach, I'm ok with works like the _Brandenburg Concertos_ but not with his solo instrumental works. Can't stand Vivaldi's_ Four Seasons_ but I have time for his other concertos.

So that's how it is with me, there's bound to be something I like from any given composer, all I have to do is look & find out. That's part of the reason why I'm a member of this forum. Generally, my preference is for C20th, and I like basically everything classical from the past 100 years, give or take a few of the more minor composers (eg. have no time for English pastoral idyllicism). I suppose there are a few composers whose music strikes me as being bland, like Glazunov, but there aren't many like that which I can think of...


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Romantic Geek said:


> I'd say that Phillip Glass and John Cage are tied for second. Once again, their works just seem pretentious.


Funny you mention Cage because he was perhaps the least pretentious artist of all time in that he did the most to remove the artist and any pretense of art from his work.


----------



## jurianbai

trallaa....result after page 4 of don't like or partially don't like composers :

Phillip glas
john cage
elliot carter
mozart
handel
vivaldi
scriabin
berlioz
liszt
stravinsky
shostakovich
debussy
verdi
walton
wagner
chopin
tchaikovsky
telemann
spohr
bach
haydn
saint saens
britten
mahler
bruckner
dvorak
johann strauss II
corelli
schumann

this leave only Beethoven and .... Brahms the big names that haven't got mentioned!

I think it is not fair to talk about other era or musical leaning composer where I have no interest, so no 20th century musician bashing for me. As my interest is in classical and romantic, my choice is ... Schumann. Never got luck listening to his works.


----------



## rojo

Brahms was mentioned, I believe.

For crying out loud, there won't be any one left unscathed! lol

Wait; what about Mendelssohn?


----------



## Air

*Prokofiev, Bartok, Beethoven, Brahms, R.Strauss, Sibelius, and Schubert for the win!* (or FTW, as someone another thread pointed out that saying "FTW" shows that us classical fans are keeping up with the rest of the world.  With that logic, I minus well listen to all of Gaga and BEP's latest songs too... )


----------



## Tapkaara

I have to say, the honesty with with some in this thread have proclaimed their distaste for Mozart is a revelation! Like a gulp of ice cold water after having trekked through 100 miles of desert. I have faith in humanity once again!

I don't know where or when exactly, but at some point in music history, someone proclaimed Mozart to be the greatest musician who ever lived or who will ever live...the non plus ultra composer of musical perfection. This person must have also proclaimed that an appreciation of Mozart was absolutely necessary to have any musical taste.

I am very happy to see that there are members of this forum who can think for themselves, embrace their distaste for Mozart and refuse to be bullied by the self-proclaimed intelligentia who attack those who happen not to like this composer.

This is truly one of the happiest days of my life. Oh yeah, and screw Schoenberg, too.


----------



## JSK

For me, at least right now, the biggest one is definitely Saint-Saens. His organ symphony and introduction and rondo capriccioso are OK, but I don't like them to much. Despite my status as a pianist I HATE carnival of the animals and the 2nd piano concerto. Aside from the great Bach-like beginning of the 2nd piano concerto, both works seem superficial, boring, and even annoying to me.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

While I love Mozart, and do believe him to be the genius he is. I cannot for the life of me, listen to his Salzburg work. Vienna must have made him miles better.

Wagner, not my favorite at all, but he does have his moments. I find his opera's to have great stories and great preludes, but in the end I cannot listen to them for too long. People say that the roles are the most demanding, but it doesn't sound good even on the best singers. German is not an easy language to make beautiful music to, but it has been done many times. In the case of Wagner, he makes the language harsh and annoying. He is one of the Romantics, but for some reason I don't hear it in his music. It sounds loud and "earsplitting"

Handel. Before Mozart, he was up on the pedestal with Bach as one of the greatest composers. All I hear is predictable melodies. Not to say it isn't enjoyable, rather than overrated.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Has nobody mentioned Mendelssohn? He's a great I just can't fully admire. Dvorak too, but to a lesser extent as his 9th symphony got me into classical music in the first place.


----------



## jhar26

Tapkaara said:


> I have to say, the honesty with with some in this thread have proclaimed their distaste for Mozart is a revelation! Like a gulp of ice cold water after having trekked through 100 miles of desert. I have faith in humanity once again!
> 
> I don't know where or when exactly, but at some point in music history, someone proclaimed Mozart to be the greatest musician who ever lived or who will ever live...the non plus ultra composer of musical perfection. This person must have also proclaimed that an appreciation of Mozart was absolutely necessary to have any musical taste.
> 
> I am very happy to see that there are members of this forum who can think for themselves, embrace their distaste for Mozart and refuse to be bullied by the self-proclaimed intelligentia who attack those who happen not to like this composer.


Since I can't think for myself I still consider Mozart the greatest of all composers.


----------



## Dim7

Tapkaara said:


> I am very happy to see that there are members of this forum who can think for themselves, embrace their distaste for Mozart and refuse to be bullied by the self-proclaimed intelligentia who attack those who happen not to like this composer.


Seriously, have you actually encountered "bullying" people for not like Mozart? And where, for example?


----------



## muxamed

Tapkaara said:


> I have to say, the honesty with with some in this thread have proclaimed their distaste for Mozart is a revelation! Like a gulp of ice cold water after having trekked through 100 miles of desert. I have faith in humanity once again!
> 
> I don't know where or when exactly, but at some point in music history, someone proclaimed Mozart to be the greatest musician who ever lived or who will ever live...the non plus ultra composer of musical perfection. This person must have also proclaimed that an appreciation of Mozart was absolutely necessary to have any musical taste.
> 
> I am very happy to see that there are members of this forum who can think for themselves, embrace their distaste for Mozart and refuse to be bullied by the self-proclaimed intelligentia who attack those who happen not to like this composer.
> 
> This is truly one of the happiest days of my life. Oh yeah, and screw Schoenberg, too.


I agree that the appreciation of Mozart (or Beethoven, or Bach for that matter) is a very strong discourse that has built up during the centuries and has been boosted during the last 50 years by TV and cinema. That doesn't mean that there should not exist people who appreciate and love the music of the composers mentioned above. But then at the end of the day maybe we should question the sheer existance of the appreciation of classical music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Tapkaara said:


> I have to say, the honesty with with some in this thread have proclaimed their distaste for Mozart is a revelation! Like a gulp of ice cold water after having trekked through 100 miles of desert. I have faith in humanity once again!
> 
> I don't know where or when exactly, but at some point in music history, someone proclaimed Mozart to be the greatest musician who ever lived or who will ever live...the non plus ultra composer of musical perfection. This person must have also proclaimed that an appreciation of Mozart was absolutely necessary to have any musical taste.
> 
> I am very happy to see that there are members of this forum who can think for themselves, embrace their distaste for Mozart and refuse to be bullied by the self-proclaimed intelligentia who attack those who happen not to like this composer.
> 
> *This is truly one of the happiest days of my life.* Oh yeah, and screw Schoenberg, too.


"This is truly one of the happiest days of my life", after you read a bunch of people's/strangers' dislike for Mozart's music in a public internet discussion forum.  You need to get a life.


----------



## muxamed

Dim7 said:


> Seriously, have you actually encountered "bullying" people for not like Mozart? And where, for example?


I haven't seen such a behavior on this forum. The strongest bullys here seem to be those who are into romanticism and late romanticism.


----------



## Mozartgirl92

jhar26 said:


> Since I can't think for myself I still consider Mozart the greatest of all composers.


Well said jhar26, without Mozart I probably wouldn´t have been here today, I can see why he can be considered overrated by others than me, but I won´t complain about peoples music taste even though it may not include my dear Mozart.


----------



## Dim7

muxamed said:


> I haven't seen such a behavior on this forum. The strongest bullys here seem to be those who are into romanticism and late romanticism.


I don't think I have seen that either. I mean, those people can speak harshly about classical-era or modern music, but I don't see them attacking fans of those music really.


----------



## Artemis

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> "This is truly one of the happiest days of my life", after you read a bunch of people's/strangers' dislike for Mozart's music in a public internet discussion forum.  You need to get a life.


Chortle, chortle.


----------



## muxamed

Dim7 said:


> I don't think I have seen that either. I mean, those people can speak harshly about classical-era or modern music, but I don't see them attacking fans of those music really.


That's what I meant too  I guess I exaggerated when I used the word "bully".


----------



## Romantic Geek

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Funny you mention Cage because he was perhaps the least pretentious artist of all time in that he did the most to remove the artist and any pretense of art from his work.


I'm sorry, but what? I think that is what makes him so pretentious! It puts all of the focus on the composer. You can't truly replicate concept music as it is conceived. It's all streamers and ribbons! That is pretentious!

Concept music is the worst stuff out there - because, simple, it isn't music.


----------



## mueske

Chopin bores me to tears... His music sounds empty, pointless. Even the great second piano sonata does absolutely nothing to me. There are some etudes I can listen too, but overall I steer far away from him.

Also, I find his his piano concerti to be the worst in the whole 'genre'.


----------



## Aramis

mueske said:


> Chopin bores me to tears... His music sounds empty, pointless. Even the great second piano sonata does absolutely nothing to me. There are some etudes I can listen too, but overall I steer far away from him.
> 
> Also, I find his his piano concerti to be the worst in the whole 'genre'.


----------



## Ilych

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> Wagner, not my favorite at all, but he does have his moments. I find his opera's to have great stories and great preludes, but in the end I cannot listen to them for too long. People say that the roles are the most demanding, but it doesn't sound good even on the best singers. German is not an easy language to make beautiful music to, but it has been done many times. In the case of Wagner, he makes the language harsh and annoying. He is one of the Romantics, but for some reason I don't hear it in his music. It sounds loud and "earsplitting"
> 
> .


Wagner was a victim of his own ego; truly a legend in his own mind. I know it is heresy, but if I were general manager of an opera company I would put on the Ring, but cut Walkure, Siegfried and Gotterdammerung down to about two hours each. How many times does one have to listen to Wotan or Brunnhilde tell the background story over and over and over again, usually to not very interesting music.

Wagner was a great composer, but an awful librettist who suffered from inflammation of the ego.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Romantic Geek said:


> It puts all of the focus on the composer.


But no, see, that's actually the complete opposite of what John Cage was all about. He was interested in freeing music from the composer.

Pretentious doesn't mean "experimental music I don't like"
Pretentious doesn't mean "experimental music I don't understand"

People too often use this word as a negative value judgement to criticize music.

Art, by definition, contains pretense. Art without pretense is called "life".


----------



## Romantic Geek

Poppin' Fresh said:


> But no, see, that's actually the complete opposite of what John Cage was all about. He was interested in freeing music from the composer.
> 
> Pretentious doesn't mean "experimental music I don't like"
> Pretentious doesn't mean "experimental music I don't understand"
> 
> People too often use this word as a negative value judgement to criticize music.
> 
> Art, by definition, contains pretense. Art without pretense is called "life".


I don't think you really understand what I'm saying at all. The point is, he is one of a very set few composers who tried to liberate music from the composer, but by doing so, put all of the focus on the composer, because it is only his concept that could truly represent the conceptual music he envisioned! Therefore, the whole concept music is simply not worth the recreation because it's worth is only as the composer envisions - and not otherwise.

That, by definition, is pretentious.

Trust me, I do not mean pretentious to mean "experimental music I don't understand." I certainly understand what he's trying to do and as a composer/theorist myself, it's simply worthless to me. The point of 4'33 is not for me to admire, but rather the composer to admire the concept of silence. It was Cage's idea to capture that moment in time when the work was first performed. That was his concept. Any repetitions of such is simply worthless, especially to the audience. Hence, why I don't like it. What does a performance of 4'33 do to the audience now and these days? It's hardly revolutionary now. It's been done - there's no point in doing it again. But people hardly ever understand that. (And I hate to make the point with 4'33, but it best fits my whole ideology behind concept music.)

With that said, Cage does have some "bright" moments. His sonatas for prepared piano are OK. But then again, you have to weigh the whole mentality of actually preparing a piano for performance - and the reason it hardly ever gets performed is because it's impractical. So - as far as I'm concerned, Cage's music is quite close to the bottom of the list for me.


----------



## Aramis

Ilych said:


> Wagner was a victim of his own ego; truly a legend in his own mind. I know it is heresy, but if I were general manager of an opera company I would put on the Ring, but cut Walkure, Siegfried and Gotterdammerung down to about two hours each. How many times does one have to listen to Wotan or Brunnhilde tell the background story over and over and over again, usually to not very interesting music.
> 
> Wagner was a great composer, but an awful librettist who suffered from inflammation of the ego.


Good point. Not entirely truth, but still. I disagree that he was terrible librettist, but he indeed wrote some unnecessary music. For example Tristans loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong monologue in last act of Tristan und Isolde where he talks about some place in which he have been while unconscious. It even uses a motive that appeared in first act in completely diffrent context. It clearly has no musicial point.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Ilych said:


> Wagner was a victim of his own ego; truly a legend in his own mind. I know it is heresy, but if I were general manager of an opera company I would put on the Ring, but cut Walkure, Siegfried and Gotterdammerung down to about two hours each. How many times does one have to listen to Wotan or Brunnhilde tell the background story over and over and over again, usually to not very interesting music.
> 
> Wagner was a great composer, but an awful librettist who suffered from inflammation of the ego.


Shockingly, I completely disagree.

The skill Wagner had in synthesizing often completely unrelated mythological, quasi-historical, philosophical and socio-political elements into a cohesive three-act drama is incredibly impressive. His libretti deal successfully in archetypes and other universal attributes of the human psyche, and while they may be unsuccessful as pure poetry, as structures to build music around and to allow the music to offer insights and comment on the action alongside the actual words, they are some of the most successful I've read. In fact, because he wrote his own libretti and composed the music, I find his works have integration all the way down, that few others have, because everything is a product of the same creative impulse and the same creative mind.

As for the length and so-called repetition in his works...personally I'm completely captivated by them from beginning to end, I'm in no hurry for them to finish, and don't mind the restating of past events. The thing about Wagner is that he took over from the dramatists of the ancient Greeks the presentation of a story not from the beginning, but at a point close to the climax. So while not much outward "action" is taking place, a lot of psychological development is happening in and between characters. Usually what happens when Brünnhilde or Wotan are "telling a background story over and over" is quite more subtle than just that: the characters are digesting their experiences, reconciling with past reality, and making profound insights. They are seeing the same story differently, you could say. I find these passages to be some of the most fascinating in _The Ring_.

Of course there will be those who find his dramatic presentation boring, and to them it just seems characters are droning on about things that have already happened, with nothing else taking place. These are auditors whom, alas, the music does not speak, and for whom this form of drama must therefore be the least accessible of any.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Romantic Geek said:


> I don't think you really understand what I'm saying at all. The point is, he is one of a very set few composers who tried to liberate music from the composer, but by doing so, put all of the focus on the composer, because it is only his concept that could truly represent the conceptual music he envisioned! Therefore, the whole concept music is simply not worth the recreation because it's worth is only as the composer envisions - and not otherwise.


I don't think you understand what I'm saying. That's not what Cage was doing, it was the complete opposite of what you once again stated. The worth of sound, the concept of music for Cage is _not_ what the composer envisions. Composers are traditionally the ones creating the pretense of "art", deciding what is important and what isn't. Cage liberated sound/music and placed it in the hands of the _listener_.



> That, by definition, is pretentious.


No, it's not though. I don't expect you to like Cage's work, but you have to understand. He is the anti-pretentious composer.


----------



## Romantic Geek

You don't think the act of "liberating" music (which I can never fathom as an actuality) is not a pretentious act? Not like Schoenberg striking down tonality and creating serialism? It's a new level of pretentiousness over those works like Beethoven's 9th which may be considered as such.

I cannot fathom concept music being as anything other than the creation and envision of anything but the composer. He set this precedent that puts the focus on him rather than the listener. I would greatly argue the idea that the art is put into the hands of the listener. The interpretation of the art, surely, is put in the hands of the listener, but has been since art existed. Concept music is just another way for an audience to interpret "art," but surely, it is not in the hands of the listener, but rather the composer who conceptualized the idea! The reason I say it is the among the most pretentious music I've listened to is because he's trying to do something THAT IS NOT HUMANELY POSSIBLE! He's trying to hand his creation of art and brand it as the listener's art. As far as I'm concerned, the only person that can create art (including the conception) is the artist. Not the spectator, not the listener, not anyone else.

Therefore, he is close to the epitome of pretentiousness as it can come to the creation of art.


----------



## Tapkaara

Dim7 said:


> Seriously, have you actually encountered "bullying" people for not like Mozart? And where, for example?


I know that I have been taken to task in this forum in the past for saying I didn't like Mozart. It's just so damn unacceptable to say. And then there is the old "you don't understand" argument and all of that.

In another forum, I was certainly bullied when I called Mozart a "sacred cow" and was compared to that Newman character. Sorry, I didn't say Mozart didn't write his own music as Newman claims, I just said I did not like him. Perhaps I even said he's over-rated. But that's just my opinion. And I am honestly heartened to see that I am not the only who thinks this way. I realize a distaste for Mozart is against the grain. Thus, I realize there will always be more people around me who like him. Thus I am a minority. When a minority learns there are others like him, one loses that feeling of being alone. I, THANK GOD, am not alone.


----------



## Tapkaara

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> "This is truly one of the happiest days of my life", after you read a bunch of people's/strangers' dislike for Mozart's music in a public internet discussion forum.  You need to get a life.


Oh please.......


----------



## Head_case

Tapkaara said:


> I know that I have been taken to task in this forum in the past for saying I didn't like Mozart. It's just so damn unacceptable to say. And then there is the old "you don't understand" argument and all of that.


Yes...I can see that. 'You don't understand Boyzone' however, is one counter-argument, is it not? 

Don't worry - you're not alone in finding Germano-Prussian music of Mozart's ilk uninteresting. We're right behind you! Just lead the way


----------



## Tapkaara

Head_case said:


> Yes...I can see that. 'You don't understand Boyzone' however, is one counter-argument, is it not?
> 
> Don't worry - you're not alone in finding Germano-Prussian music of Mozart's ilk uninteresting. We're right behind you! Just lead the way


Leading the way...CHARGE!!!!

And of course, I mean not to offend anyone who finds value and enjoyment in Mozart. More power to you. But the amount of posts in this thread in such a short period of time suggest to me there is something popularly cathartic about proclaiming your indifference to some of the great composers. We all deserve the chance to make posts that are relevent to the purpose of the thread without receiving personal attacks in the process. So far, so good. I am proud of our T-C group! We have kept it pretty much nice...!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Tapkaara said:


> I know that I have been taken to task in this forum in the past for saying I didn't like Mozart. It's just so damn unacceptable to say. And then there is the old "you don't understand" argument and all of that.
> 
> In another forum, I was certainly bullied when I called Mozart a "sacred cow" and was compared to that Newman character. Sorry, I didn't say Mozart didn't write his own music as Newman claims, I just said I did not like him. Perhaps I even said he's over-rated. But that's just my opinion. And I am honestly heartened to see that I am not the only who thinks this way. I realize a distaste for Mozart is against the grain. Thus, I realize there will always be more people around me who like him. Thus I am a minority. When a minority learns there are others like him, one loses that feeling of being alone. I, THANK GOD, am not alone.


Nothing to do with your dislike/indifference of Mozart, but I am rather amused by your way of expressing joy and not feeling alone by reading a bunch of posters who may share the same opinion as you. Does it really elevate you to that level - thanking God, happiest day in your life etc. etc.? 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not troubled by folks who dislike the music of Mozart, Bach, Handel etc. (which I enjoy); this is a Classical music discussion. In my opinion, one ought to enjoy whichever type of music that one likes freely, without worrying, giving a **** what others might think of that or how unique one might think one is. My self-esteem isn't tied down by what others think of me.


----------



## Polednice

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Nothing to do with your dislike/indifference of Mozart, but I am rather amused by your way of expressing joy and not feeling alone by reading a bunch of posters who may share the same opinion as you. Does it really elevate you to that level - thanking God, happiest day in your life etc. etc.?


What is it with so many people taking everyone's comments as literal?  No wonder people think I'm a prat sometimes - it's called _hyperbole_! Although, if the comments weren't exaggerations, then yes, that's bad!


----------



## World Violist

Dim7 said:


> Seriously, have you actually encountered "bullying" people for not like Mozart? And where, for example?


Um... yes. I've had several people gently chide me, saying "Oh, you'll grow out of it, you don't understand," blah blah blah. I just find Mozart's music empty. That's all there is to it. It may be perfect in form and such things like that, but in the end form still doesn't mean anything to me if it doesn't have something more than the purely technical.

Like Tapkaara, I don't have any vendetta against Mozart or his fans; I respect all of them just as much as the next person. I just don't like the music, and that's all there is to it.


----------



## Tapkaara

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Nothing to do with your dislike/indifference of Mozart, but I am rather amused by your way of expressing joy and not feeling alone by reading a bunch of posters who may share the same opinion as you. Does it really elevate you to that level - thanking God, happiest day in your life etc. etc.?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not troubled by folks who dislike the music of Mozart, Bach, Handel etc. (which I enjoy); this is a Classical music discussion. In my opinion, one ought to enjoy whichever type of music that one likes freely, without worrying, giving a **** what others might think of that or how unique one might think one is. My self-esteem isn't tied down by what others think of me.


Just to set the record straight...I might have been exaggerationg just a tiny bit when I said it was the happepiest day in my life...


----------



## Sid James

I don't think there is much intolerance of people who don't like Mozart or other 'traditional' composers. I think there is alot of intolerance & vilification of composers like Cage, Carter, Glass (see above) & also anyone who went against the grain like Schoenberg or Stockhausen. I really hate how people get really ideological with music as if it were politics or religion or something, I wish they could just say 'live & let live' for once. They sound like as if they were really old (when they are probably young) judging by how conservative & inflexible their taste seems to be...


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Romantic Geek said:


> You don't think the act of "liberating" music (which I can never fathom as an actuality) is not a pretentious act? Not like Schoenberg striking down tonality and creating serialism? It's a new level of pretentiousness over those works like Beethoven's 9th which may be considered as such.


I don't know that any composer can liberate music so much as liberate people's perceptions about music. You bring up Schoenberg. Honestly I've never seen his music as anything more than a part of Western music tradition. In fact, I think the way that people speak of his works is interestingly quite analogous to the way that people talked of Wagner in the mid-19th century. Wagner loved to write and explain exactly what he was doing with his art. And for quite a while, before his mature operas gained popularity, more people were familiar with his writings and theories than they were with his music. So it's amazing how many people/critics talked about Wagner's music in terms of composing according to a theory, or writing formulaic music, or as if he were some sort of musical anarchist. When in fact Wagner's lifelong struggles with the theory of opera were always primarily an attempt on his part to achieve an intellectual understanding of what he was doing as a creative artist, and I think that is more or less true of Schoenberg as well. Was Schoenberg really "striking down" tonality? I think he was just creating a method for himself, based on his artistic instincts, that enabled him to compose in a way that didn't put what he felt were the restrictions of tonality on his shoulders.



> I cannot fathom concept music being as anything other than the creation and envision of anything but the composer. He set this precedent that puts the focus on him rather than the listener. I would greatly argue the idea that the art is put into the hands of the listener. The interpretation of the art, surely, is put in the hands of the listener, but has been since art existed. Concept music is just another way for an audience to interpret "art," but surely, it is not in the hands of the listener, but rather the composer who conceptualized the idea! The reason I say it is the among the most pretentious music I've listened to is because he's trying to do something THAT IS NOT HUMANELY POSSIBLE! He's trying to hand his creation of art and brand it as the listener's art. As far as I'm concerned, the only person that can create art (including the conception) is the artist. Not the spectator, not the listener, not anyone else.
> 
> Therefore, he is close to the epitome of pretentiousness as it can come to the creation of art.


I don't really know where you're going with this, so let's just agree to disagree or something. Because now you're talking about Cage's music as "concept music", as if all music didn't have a concept. I don't think he ever tried to do anything impossible, unless you call trying to put the focus on sound rather than on so-called composers impossible. Cage simply had a holistic appreciation for sound; he wanted to express that people shouldn't take the fascinating world of sound that they experience everyday for granted just because it didn't have the pretense of being art or coming from a artist, and that there were always amazing things to be heard.

But you have your viewpoint, I have mine. You can't see how anyone but an "artist" can create art, I don't see what makes an artist other than the pretense to make art. So just as the classical music snob can say that jazz and any popular music forms are simply noise and by no means art, I can decide what sounds are important or interesting myself. I can listen to the sounds of the beach; seagulls chirping, the waves crashing against the shore, and find that to be the most moving piece of art ever created. Simply because I sat and listened and appreciated the wonders of those sound for an allotted period of time. I was my own artist.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Wagner was a great composer, but an awful librettist who suffered from inflammation of the ego.

Nonsense. Wagner was actually one of the greatest librettists ever. His librettos, along with those of Hugo von Hoffmansthal are virtually the only librettos taken seriously as literature (sans the music) by literary critics.

Up to now I haven't responded to this thread because I seriously cannot think of a "great" composer that I "dislike". Even among Schoenberg and other more extreme Modernists who I am less than enamored of I still find works that I truly like. Now certainly there are composers since the mid-20th century who do nothing for me... but I question whether we can attach the term "great" to an artist whose work hasn't stood the test of time. Contemporary music would seem to be a work in progress... something which history will sort out... although that has no bearing upon what we like or dislike at the moment. Beyond that...? I personally don't get the dislike for Bach or Handel or Mozart or Wagner or Brahms or Mahler or any of the rest. There are certainly composers who do more or less for me. I probably listen to Tchaikovsky less than his reputation affords and Debussy more... but I don't think I would say I dislike Tchaikovsky.


----------



## Artemis

Tapkaara said:


> In another forum, I was certainly bullied when I called Mozart a "sacred cow" and was compared to that Newman character. Sorry, I didn't say Mozart didn't write his own music as Newman claims, I just said I did not like him.


I assume that was the thread entitled "_Five Worst Composers_" in which you were the only member to list a very major figure, Mozart, among your five, and then, following questioning by others asking you to justify this highly dubious assertion, you spent the rest of the 14 page thread back-pedalling? T'was so funny.


----------



## Air

Tapkaara said:


> In another forum, I was certainly bullied when I called Mozart a "sacred cow" and was compared to that Newman character. Sorry, I didn't say Mozart didn't write his own music as Newman claims, I just said I did not like him. Perhaps I even said he's over-rated.


Which was enough to make you leave forever...


----------



## Artemis

Polednice said:


> No wonder people think I'm a prat sometimes - it's called _hyperbole_! !


Are you sure that's the only reason?


----------



## Artemis

Air said:


> Which was enough to make you leave forever...


Most people leave quite soon, don't they? It's mainly just a few die-hards, masochistic gluttons for punishment, or dispensers thereof, who tend to stick around for long. The one to watch out for is the apparently soft-spoken member with street cred, but one wrong word from him and the "wolves" are out.


----------



## Artemis

World Violist said:


> Um... yes. I've had several people gently chide me, saying "Oh, you'll grow out of it, you don't understand," blah blah blah. I


How can you possibly equate this sort of thing with "bullying"? It sounds like perfectly innocent advice from people, perhaps older than yourself, who took their time before coming round to appreciate the magnificent artistry of Mozart. Mid-teenagers, whilst obviously fully entitled to their viewpoints on musical matters, are hardly the voice of experience and maturity.


----------



## muxamed

Artemis said:


> How can you possibly equate this sort of thing with "bullying"? It sounds like perfectly innocent advice from people, perhaps older than yourself, who took their time before coming round to appreciate the magnificent artistry of Mozart. Mid-teenagers, whilst obviously fully entitled to their viewpoints on musical matters, are hardly the voice of experience and maturity.


It would be interesting to see whether there is a positive correlation between appreciation of Mozart's music and age of the listener


----------



## Artemis

muxamed said:


> It would be interesting to see whether there is a positive correlation between appreciation of Mozart's music and age of the listener


Right you are. Let's try to create a correlation co-efficient.

Let's give composers a score between 0 (don't like) to 10 (favourite). I would give Mozart a score of 9. I'm 30, so

age= 30, score = 9

And the next one ...

C'mon don't be shy.


----------



## muxamed

OK  Here comes my vote for Mozart

age=41 score=8


----------



## Polednice

Artemis said:


> Are you sure that's the only reason?


I suppose it's also because people like you judge others far too quickly, especially when intonation-less posts on an internet forum cannot possibly convey a person's true character. If you want to enter another tirade of misinformed personal attacks, feel free to do it by private message; I don't care much for having discussions with you in other people's threads.


----------



## World Violist

Mozart

Age: 18
Rating: 4


----------



## Conor71

Age: 38
Rating: 7


----------



## Romantic Geek

Mozart

Age: 22
Rating: 5.5


----------



## Aramis

> Mozart
> 
> Age: 18
> Rating: 4





> Mozart
> 
> Age: 22
> Rating: 5.5


Don't know what's this rating all about but I'm sure you are all wrong about the age. Let me correct you:

Mozart

age: 254


----------



## jhar26

Age 48
Score 10


----------



## Artemis

Some further thoughts to stir the pot on the subject of Mozart ....

 I would conjecture that at least some, possibly most, of the few critics of Mozart's music who have surfaced in this thread are mainly basing their negative perceptions on having explored only a narrow selection of his entire output. This might possibly be as narrow as a few symphonies and maybe a couple of his better known concertos, at most. 

I say this partly on general observations I have made about such people on my travels around this and other message boards, and partly on the specific situation regarding the most vociferous critic here, whose favourite composer wrote very little of any value outside the orchestral sphere. I would guess that these people have hardly delved, if at all into, into Mozart's quite vast array of other works including his many highly rated chamber works, piano solo, various sacred works, smaller scale choral works, let alone any of his large number of splendid operas. 

I suspect that the reason for this is that these other genres don't interest them to anything like the extent certain types of orchestral music do. Thus, what they're really saying is that they don't much care for the kind of music Mozart wrote. The fact that Mozart is by far the most revered composer of the Classical era simply makes him the number one target for their attacks. In short, these people have a narrow musical focus and do not have the wherewithal necessary to appreciate the virtues of a composer like Mozart who excelled in all these other genres. 

It seems astonishing to me that these people who profess a disliking of Mozart can't see for themselves how hollow their attacks are. Nothing they say is remotely of any significance in the grand scheme of things. The very high status of Mozart is a fact and it won't be changed one iota by any of their negative assessment. Of course they are entitled to express their opinions, but with some comments there seems to be an innuendo that the rest of us are somehow dimwitted to like Mozart.

It also seems astonishing that some very few individuals seek to make martyrs of themselves by pretending that they have been bullied when in fact all that's happened is that they have faced some serious questioning asking them to justify their reasons for believing Mozart to be a poor composer. The generally silly answers they have given show that their antagonism is all mainly a lot of pure "hot air", based on nothing more than a general disliking of that kind of music. It's almost as crude as someone saying they hate Chopin because as a child they had an accident with a piano lid.


----------



## Art Rock

Age: 52
Mozart: 7-8
based on his concertos, chamber music and Requiem. I don't care for his symphonies, piano sonatas and opera's.


----------



## Tapkaara

Age: 31
Mozart: 2


----------



## Argus

His music aside, does no else think he looks like a reet smug get:










Almost as much as this picture exudes an impressive level of ****ishness:


----------



## Polednice

Ha! 

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


----------



## Elgarian

Gosh.

I feel a bit like the poor bemused guy who said 'I know something about art but I don't know what I like.' Truth is, I don't know what I 'like', because I find the word virtually meaningless when applied to the arts. But I do know what I love passionately, or what shows me new and enriching perspectives, or what gives me insights I've never had before. But the antithesis of this - what I _don't_ like - is even more unhelpful, because usually what I really mean by not liking a certain composer is something like 'I'm not interested enough in that kind of music right now to be bothered putting the time in to find out if I want to explore it'.

The list of artists, poets, and composers that I used to 'dislike' (in ignorance) but now find deeply enriching is so long as to be embarrassing. I'd hoped I'd learn by experience faster than I actually did. Once I thought Mozart was predictable and dull. Now, I can't get enough of the man, and am playing my way through all the piano concertos in three different recorded versions, and the excitement that his music is generating is no less breathless and vivid than the excitement generated by discovering Sibelius or Wagner when I was younger. Once I thought Handel was just 'pretty'. Now I have cupboards overflowing with boxed sets of his operas, and they're as profoundly moving as anything I've ever heard.

The list of composers whose work doesn't interest me very much is probably longer than the list of those who do, but what I _do_ know is that it's a steadily dwindling list. And I hope I'll know better and be spiritually richer this time next year; and the year after that. In the meantime, what I 'dislike' today doesn't seem worth talking about - the reason I 'dislike' it is almost certainly (in the case of a generally acknowledged great composer) something to do with my own ignorance and reluctance to put the work in, rather than with any fundamental restriction of my 'taste' (another not-very-useful word), and certainly not due to any real shortcomings in the composer.

For the sake of the topic - well, I'm not attracted by those long-winded Romantics (Wagner excepted) - who always seem to give me a poor return for any time (admittedly not much) that I put in listening to them. And next year, who knows, maybe I'll be the latest Mahler convert? I could believe it. But I _do_ know that here and now, my opinions about what I _don't _like are of no importance.


----------



## Aramis

Argus said:


> Almost as much as this picture exudes an impressive level of ****ishness


This picture exudes with creating power of young and raw half-god whose eyes cast look full of nobility and splendor.


----------



## Argus

Aramis said:


> This picture exudes with creating power of young and raw half-god whose eyes cast look full of nobility and splendor.


Yeah, exactly.


----------



## Tapkaara

Artemis said:


> Some further thoughts to stir the pot on the subject of Mozart ....
> 
> I would conjecture that at least some, possibly most, of the few critics of Mozart's music who have surfaced in this thread are mainly basing their negative perceptions on having explored only a narrow selection of his entire output. This might possibly be as narrow as a few symphonies and maybe a couple of his better known concertos, at most.


It might possibly be as narrow as a few symphonies and a couple of his better known concerti, but in my case, it is not. While I own only a handful of Mozart recordings personally, I spend quite a bit of time listening to classical radio, either in the car or at home or over the internet. I listen mostly to KUSC in Los Angeles online. They even have an hour devoted to Mozart every afternoon. So, I have heard my fair share of Mozart beyond the symphonies and concerti: opera, quartets, sonate, etc. While I will not claim to have heard every work that flowed from Mozart's quill (which wouldn't be necessary anyway to form an opinion) nor can I name with exactitude every work I have heard (I don't know what number that symphony was...I just know it was by Mozart), I have been around long enough (at least one year longer than you, Artemis...not that it matters, just sayin') to know that, in the cultivation of my musical tastes, Mozart is persona non grata. This is simply a matter of personal taste and not of ignorance. An appreciation of classical music and of Mozart are not one and the same, despite what ANYONE says. How do I know this? Well, look at this thread. We have several members who obviously love classical music so much that they spend (waste?) their time in this forum talking about the art they love so much. I'd imagine anyone who takes the time to participate in such a forum probably is more knowledgeable and and cultivated than the average classical listener, so their (an my) opinions of Mozart simply cannot be based on some sort of ignorance. I think it is more ignorant to think that there is no such thing as intelligent classical music fans who don't like every single damn "mainstream" composer, Mozart CERTAINLY included.



Artemis said:


> I say this partly on general observations I have made about such people on my travels around this and other message boards, and partly on the specific situation regarding the most vociferous critic here, whose favourite composer wrote very little of any value outside the orchestral sphere. I would guess that these people have hardly delved, if at all into, into Mozart's quite vast array of other works including his many highly rated chamber works, piano solo, various sacred works, smaller scale choral works, let alone any of his large number of splendid operas.


The assertion that those who don't like Mozart only like "romantic" composers or purely orchestral composers may make some sense and I won't deny that you have observed this. While I myself prefer works for full orchestra over smaller formats, let's not make the assumption, at least in my case, that I am only limited to orchestral bombast. I love chamber music and I do not limit myself to 19th century romanticism. Notwithstanding, I don't see how exploring Mozart's chamber works would make any lick of difference. Are they better than his orchestral works?



Artemis said:


> I suspect that the reason for this is that these other genres don't interest them to anything like the extent certain types of orchestral music do. Thus, what they're really saying is that they don't much care for the kind of music Mozart wrote. The fact that Mozart is by far the most revered composer of the Classical era simply makes him the number one target for their attacks. In short, these people have a narrow musical focus and do not have the wherewithal necessary to appreciate the virtues of a composer like Mozart who excelled in all these other genres.


While I am not crazy for Haydn, I do enjoy much of what he has written. His 86th Symphony comes to mind immediately as a wonderful work. His "Emperor" quartet is popular, and I can see why...it is exquisite. I've enjoyed some of the piano concerti of Paisiello and Cherubini has captivated me. These are all composers of the classical period, yet I am lumping (genuine) praise on them. So period has nothing to do with it in my case. It seems that I really just don't like Mozart then. It's to so much I do not like the kind of music he wrote...it's more simple than that...I do not like the music he wrote, period.

And your statement about the "narrow musical focus" is the classsic "you don't understand" or "you are not educated enough" argument. Really, where do you get off making this judgment against others. Are you claiming that you are not narrow-minded but I am? How could you possibly go there? Again, I personally find it narrow to think that one MUST love Mozart in order to have any valid musical taste.



Artemis said:


> It seems astonishing to me that these people who profess a disliking of Mozart can't see for themselves how hollow their attacks are. Nothing they say is remotely of any significance in the grand scheme of things. The very high status of Mozart is a fact and it won't be changed one iota by any of their negative assessment. Of course they are entitled to express their opinions, but with some comments there seems to be an innuendo that the rest of us are somehow dimwitted to like Mozart.




Let the record show I have nothing bad to say about people who like Mozart. (Refer to my earlier posts.) Also, let the record show I am aware of Mozart's status and I know my opinions of him will not change that. While my comments may ultimately be insignificant in the grand scheme of things, they are still my opinions and it feels good to express them. As for the "hollow attacks," I am not attacking, merely expressing. But my expressions of distaste are not hollow; they are based on years of hear Mozart and forming an opinion on his output.

[/QUOTE]



Artemis said:


> It also seems astonishing that some very few individuals seek to make martyrs of themselves by pretending that they have been bullied when in fact all that's happened is that they have faced some serious questioning asking them to justify their reasons for believing Mozart to be a poor composer. The generally silly answers they have given show that their antagonism is all mainly a lot of pure "hot air", based on nothing more than a general disliking of that kind of music. It's almost as crude as someone saying they hate Chopin because as a child they had an accident with a piano lid.


I do not claim to be a martyr. I merely stated that I have been bullied. While I would not call Artemis's comments here bullying, he has asserted the classical "Mozart haters are ignorant" argument which, at the very least, demonstrates the intolerance the anti-Mozart folks get when they try to express their opinions. The fact remains that one cannot speak out against Mozart without being taken to task. The level of severity of the chiding may vary from person to person, but the chiding carries on!

Mozart is a sacred cow and all of our lives we are taught that he is God. This is funny, isn't it, and very apt, because there is certainly a religious-style admiration for this composer among most of the classical music set. Any insult to Mozart is like taking the lord's name in vain. My saying I do not like Mozart is like drawing a Danish cartoon of Mohammed, I guess. It releases fanatical hysteria from those who must protect their Holy Father whenever he is not revered as God.

OK, so perhaps that is hyperbole. But I hope it helps to clarify my point.


----------



## World Violist

Artemis said:


> Some further thoughts to stir the pot on the subject of Mozart ....
> 
> I would conjecture that at least some, possibly most, of the few critics of Mozart's music who have surfaced in this thread are mainly basing their negative perceptions on having explored only a narrow selection of his entire output. This might possibly be as narrow as a few symphonies and maybe a couple of his better known concertos, at most.


I would concede to exploring a comparatively narrow bit of his work. But I have heard selections from each genre in which Mozart was largely successful (piano sonatas, opera, symphonies, quartets, etc.; and I've played some string quartets as well). But it entirely eludes me. Arias from the Magic Flute, etc. just irritate me. Admittedly, I still haven't heard the Requiem, but if that's the only Mozart composition that I understand, then that basically equates to misunderstanding the composer overall, no?



Artemis said:


> I say this partly on general observations I have made about such people on my travels around this and other message boards, and partly on the specific situation regarding the most vociferous critic here, whose favourite composer wrote very little of any value outside the orchestral sphere. I would guess that these people have hardly delved, if at all into, into Mozart's quite vast array of other works including his many highly rated chamber works, piano solo, various sacred works, smaller scale choral works, let alone any of his large number of splendid operas.


I'll assume you're referring to me. Just for the record, Mahler isn't my "favorite" composer. To me, "favorite" is a useless word used to categorize people. Just because I happen to listen to Mahler quite a lot doesn't mean anything about how people should stereotype me as an orchestral junkie or whatever. I love Mahler just as much as Tallis choral works or Schubert's string quintet or Wagner operas. Not to mention my interest in Indian music, which I don't recall being symphonic at all.



Artemis said:


> I suspect that the reason for this is that these other genres don't interest them to anything like the extent certain types of orchestral music do. Thus, what they're really saying is that they don't much care for the kind of music Mozart wrote. The fact that Mozart is by far the most revered composer of the Classical era simply makes him the number one target for their attacks. In short, these people have a narrow musical focus and do not have the wherewithal necessary to appreciate the virtues of a composer like Mozart who excelled in all these other genres.


I'm not going to say that I entirely disagree with this. It may well come to me with age/knowledge/wisdom, but as I recall this thread is based on great composers one doesn't like right now, not 40 years down the road. If I find Mozart to be without much substance right now and practically worship him later on, that's fine. I would prefer, though, to keep this conversation where it belongs: at the present moment.



Artemis said:


> It seems astonishing to me that these people who profess a disliking of Mozart can't see for themselves how hollow their attacks are. Nothing they say is remotely of any significance in the grand scheme of things. The very high status of Mozart is a fact and it won't be changed one iota by any of their negative assessment. Of course they are entitled to express their opinions, but with some comments there seems to be an innuendo that the rest of us are somehow dimwitted to like Mozart.


Just as there seems an innuendo among those who chide us for disliking Mozart that we are somehow dimwitted to dislike him?



Artemis said:


> It also seems astonishing that some very few individuals seek to make martyrs of themselves by pretending that they have been bullied when in fact all that's happened is that they have faced some serious questioning asking them to justify their reasons for believing Mozart to be a poor composer. The generally silly answers they have given show that their antagonism is all mainly a lot of pure "hot air", based on nothing more than a general disliking of that kind of music. It's almost as crude as someone saying they hate Chopin because as a child they had an accident with a piano lid.


I don't intend to make Mozart out to be a bad composer. I just try to say that I don't like his music because it strikes me as being without substance. People try to tell me that it is, I disagree with them, and they go on about how great it is anyway, trying to make me see what they're trying to say. I don't mean to make it sound like they're "bullying" me in the connoted sense, but it is definitely tiring when people try to make me out to be some hyper-emotional teenager who can't listen to anything but Mahler all day just to get his emotional fix.

I'm not trying to imply anything about Mozart. Liking or disliking something is WAY different from stating anything about the quality of the music, and nobody tends to realize that important fact when posting here. The title of this thread seems to realize it just fine: What great composer do you not like. The composer is still great, you just don't like the music.

I think Mozart is a great composer. I just don't like his music. Fair enough?


----------



## Artemis

Tapkaara said:


> While I am not crazy for Haydn, I do enjoy much of what he has written. His 86th Symphony comes to mind immediately as a wonderful work. His "Emperor" quartet is popular, and I can see why...it is exquisite. I've enjoyed some of the piano concerti of Paisiello and Cherubini has captivated me. These are all composers of the classical period, yet I am lumping (genuine) praise on them. So period has nothing to do with it in my case. It seems that I really just don't like Mozart then. It's to so much I do not like the kind of music he wrote...it's more simple than that...I do not like the music he wrote, period.


The paragraph above is the core of your reply. You say that your disliking of Mozart has nothing to do with a general lack of interest in music of the Classical era generally. This I find is a very strange position to adopt. More so than with any other period in classical music, Mozart epitomises the Classical era, with most of all the other composers of that period being comparative minnows. The exception is Haydn but he is not generally considered to be in quite the same class as Mozart.

Leaving aside that debatable issue about Mozart vs Haydn, for you to say that there is nothing of Mozart's work which you find of high quality amazes me. What about all of his opera? Are you denying that there is not one gem among any of these, or that another Classical composer wrote anything better? As for Mozart's symphonies the last three (Nos 39-41) are worth more than all of Haydn's put together. One of the most beautiful Requiems ever written was the one by Mozart, even though he only half wrote it. Mozart's late piano concertos (especially Nos 20,21, 24) are works of exceptional quality, at least as good and in my view better than anything Beethoven wrote. The Clarinet Quintet and Clarinet Concertos are absolutely standard top quality works on any serious music lover's agenda. The String Quintet Kv516 and several late String Quartets are more than a match for anything Haydn wrote.

I could go on. All I can say is that I am astonished that you say you like Classical era music but not Mozart. It sounds fishy to me.


----------



## Artemis

World Violist said:


> I'll assume you're referring to me. Just for the record, Mahler isn't my "favorite" composer. To me, "favorite" is a useless word used to categorize people. Just because I happen to listen to Mahler quite a lot doesn't mean anything about how people should stereotype me as an orchestral junkie or whatever. I love Mahler just as much as Tallis choral works or Schubert's string quintet or Wagner operas. Not to mention my interest in Indian music, which I don't recall being symphonic at all.


 I wasn't referring to you at all. I had in mind Tapkaara's enthusiasm for Sibelius.

If I have understood you, your reply seems to be saying that you don't like Classical era music generally, for which you use "Mozart" as a shorthand descriptor.

If that is the case, it would be far more revealing if people who don't like particular genres of music, or periods of music, said so rather than pick on specific composers who represent that period and state that they don't like those composers.

Perhaps, however, I misunderstood you, and that you, like Tapkaara, do like the Classical era but not Mozart's music for some reason. If so, what is exactly is it about Mozart's music you dislike for which you find redeeming features in the work of other Classical composers, and who are those composers?


----------



## World Violist

Artemis said:


> I wasn't referring to you at all. I had in mind Tapkaara's enthusiasm for Sibelius.
> 
> If I have understood you, your reply seems to be saying that you don't like Classical era music generally, for which you use "Mozart" as a shorthand descriptor.
> 
> If that is the case, it would be far more revealing if people who don't like particular genres of music, or periods of music, said so rather than pick on specific composers who represent that period and state that they don't like those composers.
> 
> Perhaps, however, I misunderstood you, and that you, like Tapkaara, do like the Classical era but not Mozart's music for some reason. If so, what is exactly is it about Mozart's music you dislike for which you find redeeming features in the work of other Classical composers, and who are those composers?


I don't mean to say "Mozart" meaning all of classical music. In fact, I also am rather fond of Haydn. As to why I prefer Haydn over Mozart, I think Haydn is just less inhibited by form. True, Mozart may be more perfect formally, but I tend to find Haydn more easy to listen to. Haydn just seems purer than Mozart; there are times when I find Mozart to be a bit "self-conscious" compared to Haydn, who seems much more unbuttoned. Take the 88th symphony; I prefer it over Mozart's 40th (for consistency's sake) because I just don't understand what Mozart is trying to do. Is he trying to be all profound? That isn't working. Is he having a bad day? I don't know; all that's left is the music. Mozart's 40th seems to be trying to say something but not succeeding, whether or not it actually is. Haydn's 88th, on the other hand, is a complete thing; he's just writing the music and having fun while he's at it. The monothematic structure certainly helps; he doesn't have to deal with 2-3 thematic ideas, and this also allows the music to progress more organically.

This is why I prefer still more the earlier and later music: they didn't have unspoken rules about how to structure things. In sonata form you have the whole exposition-development-recapitulation thing going on (and one other quip about Mozart; he doesn't seem to want to develop anything beyond the exposition, and then he only mish-mashes the original themes together, whereas Haydn is integrating all the thematic devices in a different--more organic, again--way), which the classical composers, while never explicitly learning it that way, always did. In earlier music, sure, you have fugues and traditional masses, but there isn't a set of rules on how to _structure_ a fugue (at least are nowhere near as rigid as the way people wrote sonatas); just how to write them. In later music, especially when it came to Wagner and later on, form more or less went out the window. Or, if there is form, it's not taken literally, and if it is it's way more complex than what Mozart did.

Again, I have no delusions of attempting to dethrone Mozart. I just want to say what I don't like about his music.


----------



## Tapkaara

Artemis said:


> I could go on. All I can say is that I am astonished that you say you like Classical era music but not Mozart. It sounds fishy to me.


The Classical period is my least favorite of all the periods. Perhaps it's because Mozart defines the Classical period and I don't like his music.

Whether or not he defines the Classical period is not relevant. The other composer I mentioned maybe be "minnows" compared to Mozart, but still, I find them more engaging.

I find it funny that you think in order to like ANY music in the Classical period, you MUST love Mozart. That's like saying to like Baroque yo MUST like Bach or to like early Romanticism you MUST like Liszt and to like later Romanticism you MUST like Tchaikovsky. Who sets these rules? One does not have to love every composer in a genre (or the "best" composer in the genre) to like the genre in general. Just silly.

My distaste for Mozart is fishy? Do you think I have some hidden agenda here? I am making this up? Now I am a suspicious character. THIS IS EXACTLY what I mean when I talk about the offence people feel when the mighty God Mozart has detractors. It's completely irrational. Now it's fishy...there is something else at play here. Maybe I just don't like him? Can it not be that simple? In the world of the Mozart worshippers, I suppose not.


----------



## Artemis

Tapkaara said:


> The Classical period is my least favorite of all the periods. Perhaps it's because Mozart defines the Classical period and I don't like his music.
> 
> Whether or not he defines the Classical period is not relevant. The other composer I mentioned maybe be "minnows" compared to Mozart, but still, I find them more engaging.
> 
> I find it funny that you think in order to like ANY music in the Classical period, you MUST love Mozart. That's like saying to like Baroque yo MUST like Bach or to like early Romanticism you MUST like Liszt and to like later Romanticism you MUST like Tchaikovsky. Who sets these rules? One does not have to love every composer in a genre (or the "best" composer in the genre) to like the genre in general. Just silly.
> 
> My distaste for Mozart is fishy? Do you think I have some hidden agenda here? I am making this up? Now I am a suspicious character. THIS IS EXACTLY what I mean when I talk about the offence people feel when the mighty God Mozart has detractors. It's completely irrational. Now it's fishy...there is something else at play here. Maybe I just don't like him? Can it not be that simple? In the world of the Mozart worshippers, I suppose not.


The problem with all this is that, unlike other music periods, the Classical period is determined by the presence of a few major characters and Mozart was chief among them. With the Baroque period, while J S Bach was a very important figure, there were sufficient others to make it viable without him. The same applies with regard to the Romantic period, but even more so.

Mozart's music is not so different from that of other composers of the time except that it was generally far better in the opinion of the vast majority of people who enjoy that era. For anyone to say that they like the Classical era but dislike Mozart - not simply that Mozart is not their favourite Classical composer, but that they positively dislike Mozart - therefore comes over as disingenuous.

I haven't heard any remotely sensible arguments why Mozart should be so downgraded given a basic liking of Classical period music in general, and therefore I have doubts about how far to trust what you say.

What I am getting at is that I believe you are simply using Mozart as a whipping boy to represent your basic dislike of the music of that whole era, which you seem reluctant to admit. That being the case, I can't see why you keep sticking your head over the parapet in this that and the other forum to continue making this point. Someone or other is bound to challenge you. I've done it here but nothing like as severely as you were on GMG.


----------



## Lukecash12

Aramis said:


> This picture exudes with creating power of young and raw half-god whose eyes cast look full of nobility and splendor.


Precisely, that is the ****ishness he was going after


----------



## World Violist

Artemis said:


> The problem with all this is that, unlike other music periods, the Classical period is determined by the presence of a few major characters and Mozart was chief among them. With the Baroque period, while J S Bach was a very important figure, there were sufficient others to make it viable without him. The same applies with regard to the Romantic period, but even more so.
> 
> Mozart's music is not so different from that of other composers of the time except that it was generally far better in the opinion of the vast majority of people who enjoy that era. For anyone to say that they like the Classical era but dislike Mozart - not simply that Mozart is not their favourite Classical composer, but that they positively dislike Mozart - therefore comes over as disingenuous.
> 
> I haven't heard any remotely sensible arguments why Mozart should be so downgraded given a basic liking of Classical period music in general, and therefore I have doubts about how far to trust what you say.
> 
> What I am getting at is that I believe you are simply using Mozart as a whipping boy to represent your basic dislike of the music of that whole era, which you seem reluctant to admit. That being the case, I can't see why you keep sticking your head over the parapet in this that and the other forum to continue making this point. Someone or other is bound to challenge you. I've done it here but nothing like as severely as you were on GMG.


What I'm confused about is why Mozart must be the poster child of the classical era? Sure, he's considered the best by the vast majority of people, but "vast majority" just doesn't mean anything. How can it? It's just the conclusion a lot of people have come to, but what about the rest of us? We might not be "the vast majority" of people. So what? There's no point in going on about this; Tapkaara and I just don't like Mozart as much as Haydn. There really isn't much more to say about it. Why try to?


----------



## Artemis

World Violist said:


> There's no point in going on about this; Tapkaara and I just don't like Mozart as much as Haydn. There really isn't much more to say about it. Why try to?


It would be perfectly respectable for anyone to say that they "... _don't like Mozart as much as Haydn_", as you have done. But that's not what is being stated by Tapkaara, is it? He is saying that he positively dislikes Mozart, but quite likes Haydn and and a few others. In fact, on all of his missions to set forth this viewpoint (I've seen them in several places) there has never been any mention of Haydn, etc. It has been simply that he dislikes Mozart intensely.

The reason I am pursuing this is because I'm fed up listening to these same old prejudices popping up in various threads. I don't especially like Sibelius or Mahler but I don't keep going on about it, in thread after thread, or in one forum after another. As he has admitted, the same thing was done on GMG last Summer and he got his head bitten off by a few smart characters over there. Now he's here again thinking that no-one will dare challenge his opinions because T-C is somehow different, and won't allow such things to take place here.


----------



## Tapkaara

Artemis said:


> It would be perfectly respectable for anyone to say that they "... _don't like Mozart as much as Haydn_", as you have done. But that's not what is being stated by Tapkaara, is it? He is saying that he positively dislikes Mozart, but quite likes Haydn and and a few others. In fact, on all of his missions to set forth this viewpoint (I've seen them in several places) there has never been any mention of Haydn, etc. It has been simply that he dislikes Mozart intensely.
> 
> The reason I am pursuing this is because I'm fed up listening to these same old prejudices popping up in various threads. I don't especially like Sibelius or Mahler but I don't keep going on about it, in thread after thread, or in one forum after another. As he has admitted, the same thing was done on GMG last Summer and he got his head bitten off by a few smart characters over there. Now he's here again thinking that no-one will dare challenge his opinions because T-C is somehow different, and won't allow such things to take place here.


I said I am not crazy about Haydn but enjoy him. I don't mention Haydn too much because he is by no means my favorite composer. My favorite composers (Khachaturian, Holst, Ifukube, Kilar, etc.) no one in this forum ever talks about. I wish I liked Brahms then i could participate more freely in just about every thread in this forum. People do tend to listen to/talk about Sibelius, so that why I mention him more than any other composer in this forum. Still has nothing to do with the fact I do not like Mozart. spit on his pock-marked face and fluffy music.

Have a nice day! Mozart sucks!  Smells fishy, don't it?


----------



## Head_case

> I said I am not crazy about Haydn but enjoy him. I don't mention Haydn too much because he is by no means my favorite composer. My favorite composers (Khachaturian, Holst, Ifukube, Kilar, etc.) no one in this forum ever talks about. I wish I liked Brahms then i could participate more freely in just about every thread in this forum. People do tend to listen to/talk about Sibelius, so that why I mention him more than any other composer in this forum. Still has nothing to do with the fact I do not like Mozart. spit on his pock-marked face and fluffy music.


I'm not crazy about Mozart, nor Haydn. I don't enjoy either, although Mozart's Masses are listenable.

Khachaturian's violin concerto is delightful and Wojiech Kilar....wow! Why does no one recognise the majesty of the vintage 33 Polish composers?! His Orawa and Requiem for Pere Kolbe are among my favourites, along with the Angelus. His 'Dracula' score is just vampishly good too 

One bias I think which the Mozart lovers don't seem to grasp, is that Mozart and the Germano-Prussian field, very much constitutes, what the masses see as 'classical music'. Indeed, this is the kind of music I listened to as a kid. It becomes as regimented as expecting French impressionism on tablecloths. No doubt there are some lovely moments in this kind of uber-classical orthodoxy....however it risks closing the minds of classical music listeners...and those who don't know, that there is a world of music which transcends such stifling high regard for a respectable composer.

Again, it's not the composers whom we tend to dislike. It's their followers 

(j/k)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Artemis said:


> ... exception is Haydn but he is not generally considered to be in quite the same class as Mozart.
> 
> ... As for Mozart's symphonies the last three (Nos 39-41) are worth more than all of Haydn's put together.
> 
> The String Quintet Kv516 and several late String Quartets are more than a match for anything Haydn wrote.


You obviously love the music of Mozart and put him as your no.1, but you present your opinions showing narrow-mindness about the Classical period. Haydn was developing the Classical four movement "standard" symphony during his isolation at Esterhazy when Mozart was a well travelled child prodigy. Likewise, it was Haydn who showed Mozart how to compose string quartets of the quality you mentioned.

I immensely enjoy the music of Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Handel; all of whom (perhaps unfortunately so) are in some ways found in several members' dislikes as we have read. But it is not as disturbing as reading one's view that "Mozart rules and everything else doesn't come close", from someone who presumably is well informed about the Classical period in general.

That probably also explains your apparent intolerance of those who dislike Mozart's music.


----------



## Tapkaara

Head_case said:


> I'm not crazy about Mozart, nor Haydn. I don't enjoy either, although Mozart's Masses are listenable.
> 
> Khachaturian's violin concerto is delightful and Wojiech Kilar....wow! Why does no one recognise the majesty of the vintage 33 Polish composers?! His Orawa and Requiem for Pere Kolbe are among my favourites, along with the Angelus. His 'Dracula' score is just vampishly good too
> 
> One bias I think which the Mozart lovers don't seem to grasp, is that Mozart and the Germano-Prussian field, very much constitutes, what the masses see as 'classical music'. Indeed, this is the kind of music I listened to as a kid. It becomes as regimented as expecting French impressionism on tablecloths. No doubt there are some lovely moments in this kind of uber-classical orthodoxy....however it risks closing the minds of classical music listeners...and those who don't know, that there is a world of music which transcends such stifling high regard for a respectable composer.
> 
> Again, it's not the composers whom we tend to dislike. It's their followers
> 
> (j/k)


Yes, I LOVE Wojciech Kilar. No one else here seems to care. Khachaturian also gets shrot-shrift around here too. For shame.


----------



## Tapkaara

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You obviously love the music of Mozart and put him as your no.1, but you present your opinions showing narrow-mindness about the Classical period. Haydn was developing the Classical four movement "standard" symphony during his isolation at Esterhazy when Mozart was a well travelled child prodigy. Likewise, it was Haydn who showed Mozart how to compose string quartets of the quality you mentioned.
> 
> I immensely enjoy the music of Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Handel; all of whom (perhaps unfortunately so) are in some ways found in several members' dislikes as we have read. But it is not as disturbing as reading one's view that "Mozart rules and everything else doesn't come close", from someone who presumably is well informed about the Classical period in general.
> 
> That probably also explains your apparent intolerance of those who dislike Mozart's music.


Thank you, Harpsichord.


----------



## rojo

Andre said:


> I don't think there is much intolerance of people who don't like Mozart or other 'traditional' composers. I think there is alot of intolerance & vilification of composers like Cage, Carter, Glass (see above) & also anyone who went against the grain like Schoenberg or Stockhausen. I really hate how people get really ideological with music as if it were politics or religion or something, I wish they could just say 'live & let live' for once. They sound like as if they were really old (when they are probably young) judging by how conservative & inflexible their taste seems to be...


This. Although I suppose I could see there might be a level of surprise upon learning one doesn't like Mozart.



Aramis said:


> Don't know what's this rating all about but I'm sure you are all wrong about the age. Let me correct you:
> 
> Mozart
> 
> age: 254


----------



## Artemis

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You obviously love the music of Mozart and put him as your no.1, but you present your opinions showing narrow-mindness about the Classical period. Haydn was developing the Classical four movement "standard" symphony during his isolation at Esterhazy when Mozart was a well travelled child prodigy. Likewise, it was Haydn who showed Mozart how to compose string quartets of the quality you mentioned.
> 
> I immensely enjoy the music of Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Handel; all of whom (perhaps unfortunately so) are in some ways found in several members' dislikes as we have read. But it is not as disturbing as reading one's view that "Mozart rules and everything else doesn't come close", from someone who presumably is well informed about the Classical period in general.
> 
> That probably also explains your apparent intolerance of those who dislike Mozart's music.


 I wonder how much of this discussion you have really followed. It looks to me from the above that you have misconstrued most of it.

First some preliminaries. I couldn't care two figs what other peoples' tastes in music are. If someone dislikes a particular style of music or a particular composer within that style then so be it. Nor am I interested in persuading anyone of the generally high status of Mozart or trying to make any converts to that broad style of music. Mozart is not my favourite composer, although I enjoy most of works immensely. My comments about Haydn's relative status are broadly consistent with generally perceived opinions. Go into any record shop, or scan the internet libraries and you'll see that Mozart far outweighs the material devoted to Haydn.

The point I have been trying to get over in this thread is that is that it is unlikely that someone with pretensions of having a well rounded education in classical music, and who is genuine in their assessment about the Classical period, will say that they quite like Haydn but strongly dislike Mozart to the extent of including the latter in their list of the "5 worst composers". I bet that if you chat among your classical music friends and teachers you will not come across many, or indeed any, such characters. It's like trying to find a Wagnerian who dislikes the Ring. Or possibly looking for someone who says that he is quite keen on Impressionism but considers Debussy to be trash, or maybe someone who enjoys baroque music but thinks that J S Bach is a bad joke of a composer.

You may believe such fairy stories but I don't. I fully accept that people may not like all the big names in these various periods, but to rubbish the principal ones in each period as being either completely incompetent or having written music which is so completely different from all the others is not a credible position. In the present context, I have suggested that the "Mozart" name has been used very loosely as a way of rubbishing an entire era of classical music. I have seen no evidence at all from the most vociferous opponent of Mozart's music to demonstrate why he believes Mozart deserves such a poor rating. Instead, all we've had is huff, puff and ****


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Artemis said:


> I wonder how much of this discussion you have really followed. It looks to me from the above that you have misconstrued most of it.
> 
> First some preliminaries. I couldn't care two figs what other peoples' tastes in music are. If someone dislikes a particular style of music or a particular composer within that style then so be it. Nor am I interested in persuading anyone of the generally high status of Mozart or trying to make any converts to that broad style of music. Mozart is not my favourite composer, although I enjoy most of works immensely. My comments about Haydn's relative status are broadly consistent with generally perceived opinions. Go into any record shop, or scan the internet libraries and you'll see that Mozart far outweighs the material devoted to Haydn.
> 
> The point I have been trying to get over in this thread is that is that it is unlikely that someone with pretensions of having a well rounded education in classical music, and who is genuine in their assessment about the Classical period, will say that they quite like Haydn but strongly dislike Mozart to the extent of including the latter in their list of the "5 worst composers". I bet that if you chat among your classical music friends and teachers you will not come across many, or indeed any, such characters. It's like trying to find a Wagnerian who dislikes the Ring. Or possibly looking for someone who says that he is quite keen on Impressionism but considers Debussy to be trash, or maybe someone who enjoys baroque music but thinks that J S Bach is a bad joke of a composer.
> 
> You may believe such fairy stories but I don't. I fully accept that people may not like all the big names in these various periods, but to rubbish the principal ones in each period as being either completely incompetent or having written music which is so completely different from all the others is not a credible position. In the present context, I have suggested that the "Mozart" name has been used very loosely as a way of rubbishing an entire era of classical music. I have seen no evidence at all from the most vociferous opponent of Mozart's music to demonstrate why he believes Mozart deserves such a poor rating. Instead, all we've had is huff, puff and ****


I think you just described _yourself_. You wrote a stupid comment that Mozart's last three great symphonies are worth more than all of Haydn's put together. In a way, your lofty comments about Mozart's music compared with his great peer puts you in a ridiculously contradictory spot, when you further write above (quoted) that you don't believe in folks who happen to like the period but rubbish the principal composers. Now, by implication, if you think Mozart's last three symphonies are worth far more than all of Haydn's put togther (over 100), then what would you think about other Classical symphonies by say, Michael Haydn, Boccherini, Stamitz, C. P. E. Bach etc.? Rubbish? You are part of the fairy story which you don't believe you're in.

I have all of Mozart's 60 symphonies and Haydn's 106 symphonies (104 + 2), all of Mozart's string quartets and most of Haydn's (lacking his earlier ones), to know that Haydn was a man of amazing mind, who paved the foundations of Classical music, inextricably linked to the maturing of the Classical period. Early Beethoven, for example, his symphonies no.1 and no.2 are all Haydn-esque.

P.S. I don't really think you know as much about the Classical period as you think you do. Quoting some comment by George Szell in another thread ("Poll: Mozart Gold or Garbage") containing mistakes about the number of symphonies and operas Mozart composed.


----------



## muxamed

Tapkaara said:


> My favorite composers (Khachaturian, Holst, Ifukube, Kilar, etc.) no one in this forum ever talks about.


What a coincidence. I am listening to Khachaturian's Symphony No.2 right now


----------



## Artemis

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> P.S. I don't really think you know as much about the Classical period as you think you do. Quoting some comment by George Szell in another thread ("Poll: Mozart Gold or Garbage") containing mistakes about the number of symphonies and operas Mozart composed.


 What a silly and very trivial comment.

Don't you realise that I have no control over what other people write on this subject? I can hardly be bothered to carry a full audit for accuracy of any numbers on symphony count etc, as given in such quotes? There were many of these quotes, and I thought that collectively they might provide some useful insights into what some of the "great and the good" have had to say about Mozart over the past 200-odd years, as opposed to the highly inconsequential and amateurish trivia that tries to pass itself off as comment in this place. Indeed, why couldn't you have attempted something like this rather than make whining comments about numerical errors of no great consequence? Very puerile stuff indeed.

Further, are you really suggesting that I should change the bits of quotes from illustrious Conductors like Szell in order to correct any errors of that nature? That would be unforgivable. Or possibly you think I should have jazzed up or toned down someone else's comment of a more general nature if I disagreed with it? How about if I made up some quotes from scratch and falsely ascribed them to famous people. Would that suit you? If so, you are more naïve than you would appear to be.

I find the tone and slant of your other comments ignorant, misconceived, and most of all bewildering as I see them as complete volte-face from where I originally thought you stood on all this. If you want to be associated with people who are basically out to rubbish the type of music that people like you and I enjoy (but who attempt to dress it up to garner at least some plausibility for their basic prejudices) that's up to you. I am surprised you are taken in so easily. If you can possibly try, I would appreciate it you don't bother with me with any more of your misconceived comments, as I'm not interested. I won't be replying to any more.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Artemis said:


> What a silly and very trivial comment.
> 
> Don't you realise that I have no control over what other people write on this subject? I can hardly be bothered to carry a full audit for accuracy of any numbers on symphony count etc, as given in such quotes? There were many of these quotes, and I thought that collectively they might provide some useful insights into what some of the "great and the good" have had to say about Mozart over the past 200-odd years, as opposed to the highly inconsequential and amateurish trivia that tries to pass itself off as comment in this place. Indeed, why couldn't you have attempted something like this rather than make whining comments about numerical errors of no great consequence? Very puerile stuff indeed.


D'ont you read carefully what you quote? As a lover of Mozart's music, it never striked you as obvious that he wrote more than 13 operas, for example? "Numerical errors of no great consequence" - yes, let's just ditch half a dozen of Mozart's operas when quoting historic facts. It's only a few works, right? Just like the last three Mozart symphonies are greater than all 106 Haydn wrote.



Artemis said:


> Further, are you really suggesting that I should change the bits of quotes from illustrious Conductors like Szell in order to correct any errors of that nature? That would be unforgivable. Or possibly you think I should have jazzed up or toned down someone else's comment of a more general nature if I disagreed with it? How about if I made up some quotes from scratch and falsely ascribed them to famous people. Would that suit you? If so, you are more naïve than you would appear to be.


Pointless waffle. I'm not even suggesting you change any quotes. I'm suggesting you simply get your facts right. You probably prefer inaccuracies to perpetuate, even if it came from "illustrious conductors like Szell".



Artemis said:


> I find the tone and slant of your other comments ignorant, misconceived, and most of all bewildering as I see them as complete volte-face from where I originally thought you stood on all this. If you want to be associated with people who are basically out to rubbish the type of music that people like you and I enjoy (but who attempt to dress it up to garner at least some plausibility for their basic prejudices) that's up to you. I am surprised you are taken in so easily. If you can possibly try, I would appreciate it you don't bother with me with any more of your misconceived comments, as I'm not interested. I won't be replying to any more.


I'm not associating with anyone/strangers in a public internet discussion forum. But I will remember your comments as a great admirer of Mozart's music who ditches Haydn's music and hence by implcation, all other Classical composers. You avoided my question about the symphonies of other great contemporaries of Mozart and Haydn.


----------



## Elgarian

Well, gosh, again. I go off to bed and wake up to find thermonuclear Mozartian warfare.

But why? I don't even think my own 'dislikes' are of any importance, so I certainly don't think anyone else's are. The things we 'dislike' change all the time as we grow - hopefully from lack of understanding to enlightenment. And as I said in my post yesterday, now engulfed by the tide of vituperation:


> Usually what I really mean by not liking a certain composer is something like 'I'm not interested enough in that kind of music right now to be bothered putting the time in to find out if I want to explore it.'


What's to be gained by hammering away at each other on such a trivial basis? On something that for most of us will change tomorrow, or next week, or next year, or even (as has often happened in my case) in 10 or 20 years time?


----------



## david johnson

"Is There a Great Composer You Plain Just Don't Like"

no. i know enough to not listen to vivaldi the same way i listen to prokofiev.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

There's a long list of "great" composers I have become bored with. There were several among these it took time to appreciate but there are none that I never at one stage or other failed to appreciate to some extent at least.

When I say "bored with" I don't mean that I don't listen to them any more or dislike them in any fundamental way. I mean only that the thrill and excitement they once generated has worn off to varying degrees.

Having a list of "favourite" composers, or ones I don't like, is a phenomenon now largely alien to me. It's what I call "music forum syndrome". What gets me each time I see a new member welcomed with: "_Welcome on board, who's your favourite composer_", reminds me of dogs sniffing each other in the park (to extend the analogy started elsewhere). Think about it.

I am always, without exception, completely unimpressed by anyone's claim that they have discovered the "best" in classical music, or that their view of some composer they happen to dislike should carry any weight. Honestly, nobody else gives a damn about these issues, except possibly some highly impressionable newbies.

I can listen to virtually any classical music, and I find that radio is the best medium for me as it's quite random. I say this without any expectation that anyone will take the slightest bit of interest in what I have just written.


----------



## starry

Elgarian said:


> The list of composers whose work doesn't interest me very much is probably longer than the list of those who do, but what I _do_ know is that it's a steadily dwindling list. And I hope I'll know better and be spiritually richer this time next year; and the year after that. In the meantime, what I 'dislike' today doesn't seem worth talking about - the reason I 'dislike' it is almost certainly (in the case of a generally acknowledged great composer) something to do with my own ignorance and reluctance to put the work in, rather than with any fundamental restriction of my 'taste' (another not-very-useful word), and certainly not due to any real shortcomings in the composer.


But isn't it normal to listen to one or just a few things at a time anyway? It does take effort to tune in to a style of music and time to listen to different composers within a style.


----------



## starry

Someone briefly mentioned earlier about listening to a recording they liked and the performance is certainly an important part in appreciating a piece of music. Hear a bad performance and even a very good piece might sound boring. An average piece in an excellent performance might sound quite good.

Some of words people use to describe music they don't like such as dense or obese seem to describe as much the style of the music as the actual music itself. Perhaps we can differentiate between the two. Get used to the style first and then judge whether the music works within that? It's easy to just dismiss a whole composer's work based on just not tuning into the style but is it really helpful to do that?

I wonder if some people dislike a famous composer because they think they somehow overshadow some other composer that they like. I don't see why that should be the case. Liking Mozart doesn't mean you have to underrate Haydn or 20th century music or anything else.

Mozart probably is more lyrical and singable than Haydn that's why maybe his tunes are more memorable. Mozart (often) can hide his craft through the flow of his music, Haydn's craft is more on the surface. Just because something is memorably tuneful doesn't mean that it's 'better' than something which isn't, it's just a different style I think. But certainly the immediate enjoyment factor is probably there with more fluid music, for most people at least. I don't understand where WorldViolist says Haydn's music is purer than Mozart's, if anything I would say it is the other way round. Haydn is earthier, Mozart more graceful. I suppose it just reflects their different characters. The music of both is full of craft and invention. I wouldn't say I prefer Mozart because his greatest is better than Haydn's greatest. How can you really compare one great piece in one style with another in a different style. Both are great in different ways. But on quantity of music which I like I would say I think Mozart probably did more good music than Haydn.

As for Mozart being the pin up boy of the classical period as someone said...well look at his own reputation at time he lived. He was considered a genius by many, even with the inevitable fluctuations in fashion that happened. Haydn himself was astounded by Mozart's work, so was Beethoven.

I don't understand how someone can like some music and then go off it. I see exploring music as adding to what I like rather than subtracting things. If something withstands a few listens I don't really see myself going off it easily later. Of course it's best not to overplay something. You can always refresh something by listening to a different performance too.

As for ego, well don't all of the best composers have to have confidence and a single mindedness? Writing music is a competitive area and it isn't a private art it's there for public display and recognition.


----------



## Elgarian

starry said:


> But isn't it normal to listen to one or just a few things at a time anyway? It does take effort to tune in to a style of music and time to listen to different composers within a style.


Yes indeed. That's what I mean about my dislikes being of no importance. As far as the generally acknowledged 'great' composers are concerned, the list of my 'dislikes' (I hate using the word because I think it's worse than meaningless) is a steadily shrinking one. Yesterday's 'dislikes' continually become today's 'likes', as ignorance continues to give way to understanding, and blindness gives way to illumination. If ever that stops being so, I'll know that I've ceased to grow (musically speaking).


----------



## Orgelbear

Ilych,
An interesting question, and I liked the way you put it...

There are several great composers who, while I intellectually comprehend and appreciate the reason for their greatness, just don't move me. And I am embarrassed to admit not being particularly attracted to their music. Beethoven, Wagner, Sibelius, Stravinsky...

Beethoven is an especially hard nut for me. Technically, I am in awe of the late pieces, but emotionally I just miss the point. On the other hand, even the most abstract Bach counterpoint resonates with me like a bell.


----------



## Tapkaara

Orgelbear said:


> Ilych,
> An interesting question, and I liked the way you put it...
> 
> There are several great composers who, while I intellectually comprehend and appreciate the reason for their greatness, just don't move me. And I am embarrassed to admit not being particularly attracted to their music. Beethoven, Wagner, Sibelius, Stravinsky...
> 
> Beethoven is an especially hard nut for me. Technically, I am in awe of the late pieces, but emotionally I just miss the point. On the other hand, even the most abstract Bach counterpoint resonates with me like a bell.


You don't like Beethoven, Wagner, Sibelius or Stravinsky? There is something very suspicious about your motives. You obviously need to be exposed to more musical training to know that these are four of the greatest composers over. You obviously do not understand them. Beethoven exemplified the transition period between the classical and romantic periods. You must hate all other composers from this period since you hate Beethoven. But how could you? Something fishy here...what is your agenda? Beethoven is a speck of filth compared to Mozart, but he's still pretty good. You know what, if you don't like Beethoven, how can you like ANY type of music?

Long story short, an appreciation of Beethoven is a requirement in classical music. If you do not like Beethoven, it is because you don;t understand him, and thus you need to get the f#$k out.


----------



## muxamed

Tapkaara said:


> Long story short, an appreciation of Beethoven is a requirement in classical music. If you do not like Beethoven, it is because you don;t understand him, and thus you need to get the f#$k out.


I am not really sure why this should be true. Weren't you in this same thread an opponent to the dogmatic followers of the "music gods"?


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Orgelbear said:


> Ilych,
> An interesting question, and I liked the way you put it...
> 
> There are several great composers who, while I intellectually comprehend and appreciate the reason for their greatness, just don't move me. And I am embarrassed to admit not being particularly attracted to their music. Beethoven, Wagner, *Sibelius*, Stravinsky...
> 
> Beethoven is an especially hard nut for me. Technically, I am in awe of the late pieces, but emotionally I just miss the point. On the other hand, even the most abstract Bach counterpoint resonates with me like a bell.


Wow, isn't that something else!

What GREAT joy it brings to me to hear from another Sibelius sceptic.

Let me say straight away that I know how you feel about Sibelius. To coin an apt saying from Dr Johnson, "_He is not only dull himself, he is the cause of dullness in others."_

I can't give up this opportunity to refer to you another part of the T-C forum where you can express your opinion about this great dollop of musical nothingness in the form of a Poll. On that thread you will be among friends, and you should feel a lot safer than you are here in expressing your true feelings with less risk of facing bullying/sarcastic responses.

To recap the situation, it is conjectured that Sibelius' music is generally of poor quality save for a few pieces that aren't too bad (written presumably during his few sober years). As for rest of it, it's dark and moody and sounds like he had must have his head up his a.s while writing it. Outside the orchestral sphere, it is a virtual desert landscape, not worth touching unless you are an inveterate masochistic or want some music to help you to press the "kill" button at a Swiss "Dignitas" clinic (for assisted suicide).

As an enthusiast of 14th Century music, wherein I believe lies the true source of all that is really great in classical music, I feel eminently qualified to make informed judgements about all subsequent classical music fads and changing fashions. At this juncture, I must say that I do not dislike the Romantic period as such, and I do quite like Mahler, so please do not assume that I am merely being a two-faced twister in condemning Sibelius. To prove this I once heard a piece by Marler (excuse me but I can never recall how to spell his name) on the radio and I thought it was quite nice but shucks, for the hell of me, I can't remember what it was, except that it was part of one his symphonies.

Enough on Mahler, my true passion in classical music is the work of a couple of, as yet, highly obscure monks from a 14th Century Franciscan Monastery in lower Gascony (now part of France). They are believed to be the first composers to use leitmotifs, some 500 years before Wagner. Musicologists of the period have only begun to scratch the surface of their hidden treasures, but soon the enormous scale and beauty of their works will be emblazoned across the classical musical world like the discovery of a new Beethoven. Musicologists have proposed the use of the phrase "Tosser Era" to describe this hitherto unknown style, for which the reasons may become clearer if you read the thread to which I have referred above.

In summary, I can't tell you how over the moon I am with joy and pleasurable emotion to find another member who hates Sibelius.

Stick around. Sceptics like you are very valuable.


----------



## Tapkaara

Andy Loochazee said:


> Wow, isn't that something else!
> 
> What GREAT joy it brings to me to hear from another Sibelius sceptic.
> 
> Let me say straight away that I know how you feel about Sibelius. To coin an apt saying from Dr Johnson, "_He is not only dull himself, he is the cause of dullness in others."_
> 
> I can't give up this opportunity to refer to you another part of the T-C forum where you can express your opinion about this great dollop of musical nothingness in the form of a Poll. On that thread you will be among friends, and you should feel a lot safer than you are here in expressing your true feelings with less risk of facing bullying/sarcastic responses.
> 
> To recap the situation, it is conjectured that Sibelius' music is generally of poor quality save for a few pieces that aren't too bad (written presumably during his few sober years). As for rest of it, it's dark and moody and sounds like he had must have his head up his a.s while writing it. Outside the orchestral sphere, it is a virtual desert landscape, not worth touching unless you are an inveterate masochistic or want some music to help you to press the "kill" button at a Swiss "Dignitas" clinic (for assisted suicide).
> 
> As an enthusiast of 14th Century music, wherein I believe lies the true source of all that is really great in classical music, I feel eminently qualified to make informed judgements about all subsequent classical music fads and changing fashions. At this juncture, I must say that I do not dislike the Romantic period as such, and I do quite like Mahler, so please do not assume that I am merely being a two-faced twister in condemning Sibelius. To prove this I once heard a piece by Marler (excuse me but I can never recall how to spell his name) on the radio and I thought it was quite nice but shucks, for the hell of me, I can't remember what it was, except that it was part of one his symphonies.
> 
> Enough on Mahler, my true passion in classical music is the work of a couple of, as yet, highly obscure monks from a 14th Century Franciscan Monastery in lower Gascony (now part of France). They are believed to be the first composers to use leitmotifs, some 500 years before Wagner. Musicologists of the period have only begun to scratch the surface of their hidden treasures, but soon the enormous scale and beauty of their works will be emblazoned across the classical musical world like the discovery of a new Beethoven. Musicologists have proposed the use of the phrase "Tosser Era" to describe this hitherto unknown style, for which the reasons may become clearer if you read the thread to which I have referred above.
> 
> In summary, I can't tell you how over the moon I am with joy and pleasurable emotion to find another member who hates Sibelius.
> 
> Stick around. Sceptics like you are very valuable.


Well, now we need to see if he is a Mozart skeptic too. If he is...and he cannot stand the music of Sibelius AND Mozart, then we have a true arbiter of musical taste in this forum!!


----------



## Head_case

Lol.

Do we need any more macho posturing about classical composers, eh guys? 



> As for Mozart being the pin up boy of the classical period as someone said...well look at his own reputation at time he lived. He was considered a genius by many, even with the inevitable fluctuations in fashion that happened. Haydn himself was astounded by Mozart's work, so was Beethoven.


Yes...I remember reading when I was a child...that Mozart was a genius at playing the piano. He could do it in the womb, only the piano wouldn't fit. He apparently wrote so much before his 18th birthday that toilet paper was scarcely found in his estate.

Mozart's music for the dead is his best works 

If you haven't already got it, get the Mozart Masses by Peter Neumann; done by the Kolner Kammerchor-Hammer-Haus of Horror cum Collegium Constipatus Cartusianum. Simply sublime!


----------



## Alkanian

I don't like Mozart at all, nor Stravinsky.


----------



## realdealblues

"Is There a Great Composer You Plain Just Don't Like?"

No, usually there is at least 1 composition by each composer I've heard that I can enjoy. Although I will say I generally have had a hard time getting into the 12 tone guys.


----------



## kingtim

realdealblues said:


> "Is There a Great Composer You Plain Just Don't Like?"
> 
> No, usually there is at least 1 composition by each composer I've heard that I can enjoy. Although I will say I generally have had a hard time getting into the 12 tone guys.


I would agree with this. I always tell people that I like all music and having anything on is pleasant (with some exceptions). But, I still have my preferences.

Still, I have a hard time enjoying less Dynamic composers. The music has to get boisterous for me to get excited.


----------



## SPR

I must say, I am impressed by the restraint I am seeing in this thread. :-D

Favorites getting trampled, composers trashed - and lovers taking it (generally) in stride. 

Nice.


----------



## Tapkaara

SPR said:


> I must say, I am impressed by the restraint I am seeing in this thread. :-D
> 
> Favorites getting trampled, composers trashed - and lovers taking it (generally) in stride.
> 
> Nice.


Lovers GENERALLY taking it in stride is the operative word. Mozart-worshippers can't keep quiet when their hero gets a little criticism.


----------



## SPR

I *beg* your pardon, friend. 

I frankly admit to being a Mozart worshiper...although I worship Bach equally so. In any case - I am completely capable of having my man-crush(es) trampled upon without resorting to extreme righeous indignation and the throwing of spoiled fruit.

--------------------------

As for myself... I dont fiddle around with disliking single composers. For my part - I simply dislike entire spans of history, great sweeping expanses of it. (ahem... the term 'modern' springs to mind'.)

Even so - I keep proving myself wrong. Every time (well...nearly every time) I spend some time on some particular piece or a composer... I wind up appreciating it/them. It really causes considerable harm to my wallet.

p.s. me=46. Mozart, 10.


----------



## jhar26

Tapkaara said:


> Lovers GENERALLY taking it in stride is the operative word. Mozart-worshippers can't keep quiet when their hero gets a little criticism.


Does that make them any different from the worshippers of other composers?


----------



## Il Seraglio

Tapkaara said:


> Lovers GENERALLY taking it in stride is the operative word. Mozart-worshippers can't keep quiet when their hero gets a little criticism.


I worship Mozart, but I also believe in freedom of religion and freedom _from_ religion.


----------



## Tapkaara

jhar26 said:


> Does that make them any different from the worshippers of other composers?


It's OK to worship composers.


----------



## Tapkaara

Il Seraglio said:


> I worship Mozart, but I also believe in freedom of religion and freedom _from_ religion.


Me too! Just like I believe in the right to vote and the right NOT to vote if all you have to vote for is a bunch of crap. Don't tell me grandpa died for my right to vote in WWII. He also died for my right to not vote if I don't want to. He died for me to have that CHOICE.


----------



## SPR

Tapkaara said:


> Me too! Just like I believe in the right to vote and the right NOT to vote if all you have to vote for is a bunch of crap. Don't tell me grandpa died for my right to vote in WWII. He also died for my right to not vote if I don't want to. He died for me to have that CHOICE.


Actually, I thought the questions was 'is there a composer you dont like?'

lets move on, shall we?


----------



## alan sheffield

Loads of them including Wagner, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Schubert (except C major quintet) Richard Strauss (mostly), Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Handel and all the other Baroque composers, Berlioz, Stravinsky (mostly), Bizet


----------



## mueske

alan sheffield said:


> Loads of them including Wagner, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Schubert (except C major quintet) Richard Strauss (mostly), Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Handel and all the other Baroque composers, Berlioz, Stravinsky (mostly), Bizet


So, what _do_ you like then?


----------



## maestro267

Mozart and Haydn; all their music sounds the same to me. Same goes for (almost) every composer of the Baroque and Classical periods (up to Beethoven, who finally broke through the barrier to progress).


----------



## Edward Elgar

maestro267 said:


> Mozart and Haydn; all their music sounds the same to me. Same goes for (almost) every composer of the Baroque and Classical periods (up to Beethoven, who finally broke through the barrier to progress).


I can't believe this!!! Is this a common belief? Their styles are similar, but in terms of musical ideas, Mozart and Haydn couldn't be more different! Mozart preferred high-class topics and many melodies. Haydn preferred short motifs and his music is full of imaginative humour. It would take me days to list all the differences. T anyone who thinks Mozart and Haydn sound the same, please listen and compare. You will be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

maestro267 said:


> Mozart and Haydn; all their music sounds the same to me. Same goes for (almost) every composer of the Baroque and Classical periods (up to Beethoven, who finally broke through the barrier to progress).


Just like someone who does not listen to Classical music in general who says all Classical music sound alike, or someone who does not listen to Jazz who says all Jazz sound alike. Either that or they have no ear at all.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Mozart and Haydn; all their music sounds the same to me. Same goes for (almost) every composer of the Baroque and Classical periods (up to Beethoven, who finally broke through the barrier to progress).

Just like someone who does not listen to Classical music in general who says all Classical music sound alike, or someone who does not listen to Jazz who says all Jazz sound alike. Either that or they have no ear at all. 

Exactly. Mozart and Haydn or Bach, Beethoven, and Vivaldi sound no more or less alike than Bruckner, Mahler, Brahms, Wagner, and Richard Strauss. As for "progress"... certainly there is change in art... but "progress"...? This assumes that one era somehow improved upon the previous and in art that is simply a ridiculous idea. Beethoven is no more an improvement upon Bach than Picasso is an improvement upon Michelangelo.


----------



## Sid James

I think it's ok not to like the music of a certain era or composer. We all have our preferences. But I think people should still be open to the possibility of liking other works by a composer even if they may not like a certain work. It's all about flexibility. & I'm sure that, if one goes to a live concert, it sometimes doesn't matter that something might be on the program which you don't exactly love. It's the energy & atmosphere created by the live performance which draws me in more than just necessarily what's being played. That being said, I would never subject myself to going to a live concert of something I entirely despise (like Saint-Saens' _Organ Symphony_, which seems to be performed at least once a year here in Sydney), but if I am lukewarm on the piece, I might still go, especially if there's something more interesting on the program as well. It's all about variety & contrast, isn't it, one can't always listen to the same type of music, right?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I think it's ok not to like the music of a certain era or composer. 

Of course... but certainly there's a difference between saying "I don't particularly like Berlioz," or "Handel's _Water Music_ does nothing for me," and saying Mozart and Haydn and everything before Beethoven all sounds the same... or (as we've had pop up again and again recently) "Modern music sucks." I agree that being open and flexible is a real asset. Hell, I recently ordered Boulez' boxed set of Schoenberg because I'm willing to give him another go... especially at the current price for the Sony set. Of course it takes no less effort to come to an appreciation of virtually any music. Grasping Gregorian chants, Wagnerian opera, 19th century English choral music, Bach's organ music, or Beethoven's quartets can be no less demanding than Messiaen, Takemitsu, or Phillip Glass. WE all make the choice, however, as to whether the pleasure the work affords is commensurate with the effort demanded.


----------



## Toccata

maestro267 said:


> Mozart and Haydn; all their music sounds the same to me. Same goes for (almost) every composer of the Baroque and Classical periods (up to Beethoven, who finally broke through the barrier to progress).


One of the most bewildering comments I have ever seen on a classical music board. If I were you I'd consider packing up up listening to classical music altogether, if it is true that you find everything before Beethoven sounds the same.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Opal said:


> One of the most bewildering comments I have ever seen on a classical music board. If I were you I'd consider packing up up listening to classical music altogether, if it is true that you find everything before Beethoven sounds the same.


Reading maestro267's other posts and threads suggest maestro267 is musically trained, which makes his/her comment above even more stupid. One of the dumbest comments I've read since joining.


----------



## starry

Andre said:


> It's all about variety & contrast, isn't it, one can't always listen to the same type of music, right?


It can be fun work stretching the brain to understand different types of art as well as being ultimately rewarding. Most though look at music as merely being something that has the right mood for them or not (music that just immediately agrees with them rather than changes them).


----------



## Argus

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Reading maestro267's other posts and threads suggest maestro267 is musically trained, which makes his/her comment above even more stupid. One of the dumbest comments I've read since joining.


I'd disagree that all Baroque and Classical sounds the same, but I would say that they sound _more_ similar than music that came after, especially since the electric evolution.

For example, I was watching the film _Watchmen_ the other day and heard the background music and immediately recognised it as either Philip Glass or an imitator of his. Similarly, a while back I watched the remake of _Lolita_ with Jeremy Irons and heard the first piece of music and instantly thought it was Ennio Morricone. Both were pieces I hadn't heard before or at least don't remember hearing them. Now if I heard a Mozart piece that I had never previously heard I may think that sounds like Mozart but there would be a doubt in my mind, thinking it may be Haydn or a couple of other classical composers. But I'd never think it was Purcell or Scarlatti.

So I think individual composers have become more distinguishable as time passes, as nowadays composers are more interested in standing out from the crowd and going their own way rather than adhering to a strict style or method as in the past.

Actually, upon second reading of maestro267's comment's I think he was meaning that all Mozart sounds like all other Mozart, all Haydn sounds like all other Haydn etc. Not that all different pre-Beethoven composers sound alike. If this is the case I would disagree even more and say that is this not true of all great compsers, Classical, Baroque or other wise.


----------



## starry

Obviously over time more styles got added to the possibilities in music. But I wonder if this is always an advantage, with so many styles to choose from there may not be as in depth an exploration of a particular style as there could be in the past. Also I think in Beethoven's time the predominant style was that of Beethoven, there weren't a huge variety of styles then necessarily. Listen to some of Beethoven's contemporaries and alot of them are influenced by him (and earlier classicists) and in a similar style.


----------



## Zingo

For me that composer would be Beethoven. On an objective scale I would certainly rate him at the very top among composers. At the same time, while I realise that the music's great I would happily live the rest of my life without hearing a note of Beethoven again.


----------



## Tapkaara

Opal said:


> One of the most bewildering comments I have ever seen on a classical music board. If I were you I'd consider packing up up listening to classical music altogether, if it is true that you find everything before Beethoven sounds the same.


This is one of the most pretentious comments I have ever seen on a classical music board...which is saying quite a lot!

While it is likely a stretch for someone to assert that all of the music before Beethoven sounds the same (perhaps the hyperbole was intentional), it is clear that this person is not a big fan of either a Baroque or Classical periods. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone who likes western art music will like these periods.

So, to tell someone to get lost because they have an obvious distaste for these periods is silly. But perhaps that was a little intentional hyperbole too!


----------



## Toccata

Tapkaara said:


> This is one of the most pretentious comments I have ever seen on a classical music board...which is saying quite a lot!
> 
> While it is likely a stretch for someone to assert that all of the music before Beethoven sounds the same (perhaps the hyperbole was intentional), it is clear that this person is not a big fan of either a Baroque or Classical periods. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone who likes western art music will like these periods.
> 
> So, to tell someone to get lost because they have an obvious distaste for these periods is silly. But perhaps that was a little intentional hyperbole too!


Don't be ridiculous. Oh, apologies, perhaps you can't help it.


----------



## starry

Just because someone doesn't have a preference for a particular period doesn't mean they can voice some ill informed judgement on it without criticism. And Zingo's remark that he/she could live the rest of their life happily never hearing Beethoven is ill informed too imo. I guess that member must be a fortune teller who can tell how their musical taste will develop over the rest of that life, because most of us wouldn't be able to.


----------



## Grosse Fugue

Mahler-Some things I like but others I find just boring, including the 1st Symphony. This is just my opinion.


----------



## David58117

Grosse Fugue said:


> Mahler-Some things I like but others I find just boring, including the 1st Symphony. This is just my opinion.


no no no!!!!!!


----------



## Tapkaara

Opal said:


> Don't be ridiculous. Oh, apologies, perhaps you can't help it.


I don't accept apolgies from internet hack-jobs like you. So please don't bother.


----------



## Toccata

Tapkaara said:


> I don't accept apolgies from internet hack-jobs like you. So please don't bother.


How foolish of you to think I was apologising.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

starry said:


> Just because someone doesn't have a preference for a particular period doesn't mean they can voice some ill informed judgement on it without criticism.


That's right. Of course they can; this is a public discussion forum after all. Equally, I can voice my opinion on their "ill informed judgement".

To say I dislike Mozart's music is completely different to saying the entire period to which Mozart belonged was somewhat stagnate and that real progress came only after Beethoven, and I supposedly knew what I was talking about because I am musically trained, too. 

Well, here's a musician I certainly wouldn't hire!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Argus said:


> So I think individual composers have become more distinguishable as time passes, as nowadays composers are more interested in standing out from the crowd and going their own way rather than adhering to a strict style or method as in the past.


Yep. They sure stand out alright, for writting ****** music.


----------



## Sid James

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Yep. They sure stand out alright, for writting ****** music.


That statement says more about you than the classical music of today. I haven't heard a "******" (as you describe) piece of contemporary music, every piece has it's merits. Of course, if you are unable (or unwilling) to perceive, then that's your limitation, not the composers...


----------



## Johnny

Just because he/she thinks the music is ****** doesn't mean there is a problem or limitation with him/her (ie that he/she is "unable or unwilling to perceive" - whatever that means). It's a bizarre conclusion.


----------



## Sid James

Do you think a composer sets out to create what can be "objectively" defined as "******" music? That would be a bizarre conclusion. I think the ball is in the listener's court - either s/he is flexible & willing to perceive the music, or not...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Andre said:


> Do you think a composer sets out to create what can be "objectively" defined as "******" music?


No, I do not believe a composer deliberately sets out to compose junk music. I have not suggested in anyway that's what a modern composer deliberately does. I am saying I dislike modern/contemporary music because the composers often want to be a standout, ending up with junk music to my ears, in response to member Argus' post (#166) above. An excellent example is atonal music. It's different, it's a standout (almost by definition) but it ain't uplifting to me.



Andre said:


> That would be a bizarre conclusion. I think the ball is in the listener's court - either s/he is flexible & willing to perceive the music, or not...


Yes, try convincing most of us here that atonal music is great stuff.

Peter Sculthorpe, different story. I think it's obvious what I mean when I say contemporary composers who write ****** music versus those (like Peter Sculthorpe) who do not.


----------



## Johnny

*Do you think a composer sets out to create what can be "objectively" defined as "******" music?*

Eh, no. Who thinks that? Do you think I said that?

You think if somebody expresses a dislike for a particular piece of music, it means they are just "unwilling to perceive"?

Do you think that all music must actually be good, just because it was made by somebody who wanted to make good music?

Seeing the good in _every_ piece of music is odd. (Of course you are entitled to like everything if you want though.)

What do you mean about people being willing, or unwilling, to perceive the music? Please explain to me what you mean (in plain clear English).

You seem to think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if somebody doesn't like a piece of music, there is obviously a problem with the listener, because the composer obviously didn't try to make something that sounds bad.

I get irritated when somebody expresses a dislike for something and others take it as a sign of intellectual inferiority. Like they're not "open-minded" enough. Maybe we should all like everything so that nobody can say that we don't "understand" or "get" something. Heaven forbid!


----------



## Sid James

Much of post-1945 music doesn't work on the level of music of the past. It won't grab you with a big tune or something like that. It's more complex, requiring repeated listening. That's why it requires the listener to perceive, or develop a sensitivity or understanding of it over time, rather than simply on first acquaintance. Yes, there is great "atonal" music as HC puts it, I don't need to convince anyone that it's good. Just look at the calibre of performing artists today who are (still) recording great serial pieces like Hilary Hahn with her riveting recording of the Schoenberg _Violin Concerto_. Ditto in the past, people like Isaac Stern & Leonard Bernstein with their account of Berg's own _Violin Concerto_. Do you seriously think that music like this is rubbish because SOME classical listeners, who are unwilling to open their minds, misunderstand it? No, I think that a good amount of classical listeners out there are open to this music like I have been for a while now. No wonder Hahn, when she took the Schoenberg concerto on tour recently, played it to packed houses in Europe, and was lauded by the critics as well. I don't mean to put down people who do not understand (or want to) this type of music, but the fact is that they are not exactly flexible, given we are now in 2010 and Schoenberg's masterpieces were written prior to his death (obviously) in 1951.

& HC, I don't know what pieces you have heard by Sculthorpe, but he is not a composer who sticks to rigid "tonal" dogmas (or "atonal"/serial for that matter). He has said that two of his biggest influences were Varese & Messiaen (as well as East Asian & Australian indigenous music). So he's hardly a good example to pit against serial/atonal music, he actually employs alot of atonality and has a progressive attitude to tonality. I'd say there would be definitely pieces by him that you would call "******" on them stretching the boundaries too far, according to your rather conservative analysis.


----------



## Johnny

You don't need to convince anyone it's good because whether it's good or not is just a matter of opinion. It doesn't even make sense to try and prove to someone that a piece of music, is in fact, good. There is something seriously amiss if you don't already know this.

Where did I say it's rubbish? Did you even read what I said?


----------



## Sid James

I've removed the quotation marks, you didn't say it's rubbish, I know...

Here we are back in the objectivity/subjectivity debate. All I can say is that works by Schoenberg, Berg & Webern are some of the best examples of "atonal" or (later) serial music that has ever been written. That's not opinion, that's fact, read any text on classical music or modern composers...


----------



## Johnny

How is this even a debate?

Whether a particular piece of music, or any form of art, is "good" is entirely a matter of opinion. _That_, is a fact. Are there actually people who don't realise this?

The fact that you try and defend calling a piece of music objectively "good" by claiming that textbook writers think so, is daft. Their opinion isn't any more valid than anyone elses!

Maybe if everyone in the world agreed on some criterion for what constitutes a "good" piece of music. Some sort of inventory that looks at a list of properties (that are objectively quantifiable) of each piece. And we add up a score at the end. And we use the score a particular piece of music on this inventory scale gets as our measurement of how "good" it is. If everyone in the world agreed on such a thing, _then_ you could maybe claim something was objectively better than something else. Until such a day, you have absolutely no leg to stand on.

Seriously, the idea that somebody could _prove_ a piece of music is better than some other piece of music is as bizarre as somebody proving green is better than orange.


----------



## Sid James

Yes, opinion is important. Sometimes there's consensus of opinion as to what is a good example of say, a symphony or opera, and what is not. Sometimes, there is less agreement. All I was trying to say is that most experts, people who know their stuff, have a valued opinion (not to be taken as gospel, but still important)...


----------



## Johnny

But, just because such people like something, doesn't in any way mean it is more objectively "good" than something they don't like.


----------



## Johnny

Post 186 was edited to add in a couple of commas. Not that anyone cares, I suppose.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Schoenberg's music is a good example then. I dislike it. I probably don't understand it at all, as I am not musically trained like the "experts" around here. I am almost certainly approaching it the "wrong way" (compared with the "experts" or fellow member Andre), because I listen way, way more to Baroque, Classical and early Romantic.

If Handel stepped out of a time machine and appeared at one of today's concerts playing Schoenberg, Handel would probably say what kind of trash is peformed before him. Genius composers of those days were often critical of their own contemporaries' work, so why not a casual listener (such as me) expressing dislike of any work that I don't like (without obviously sounding like an idiot)?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Much of post-1945 music doesn't work on the level of music of the past. It won't grab you with a big tune or something like that. It's more complex, requiring repeated listening. That's why it requires the listener to perceive, or develop a sensitivity or understanding of it over time, rather than simply on first acquaintance.

Andre... while I agree that some works of music... especially if it is of a form or genre or era with which you are not overly familiar... may demand repeated hearings... it is still possible to be open-minded... to give a certain composer or work your best effort... and to discover that it still fails to move you. The pretension that has been repeatedly thrown about is that which suggests anothers' dislikes are the result of an intellectual deficit... a lack of sophistication or open-mindedness, while one's own dislikes are the results of a greater maturity, sophistication, or experience (and no, I'm not speaking to any single person specifically). Seriously, I don't think that dismissing Vivaldi, or Mozart, or Bax shows any more or less of sense of close-mindedness or musical sophistication than a dismissal of Schoenberg, Cage, or Glass. Seriously... do you imagine that Delius or Mozart or Bach or Perotin are less complex than Webern, Ligeti, or Reich? I don't buy into the relativist notion that all art is equal (there is no bad nor good)... the mere notion is but weak thinking... and I'm repeatedly bemused by the hostility suggested if one merely suggests doubts about the merits of certain works of modern or contemporary music... while to suggest that Mozart is a mediocre composer whose work all sounds alike...? I'm not prepared to offer more than a personal opinion as to what I like or dislike when approaching more contemporary music... the more difficult question as to what Modern or Contemporary music is clearly good, better, and best (or bad) is something that I feel is far more up in the air.


----------



## Johnny

Could you point out the problem with what I said then?


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Reading maestro267's other posts and threads suggest maestro267 is musically trained, which makes his/her comment above even more stupid. One of the dumbest comments I've read since joining.





HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Yep. They sure stand out alright, for writting ****** music.




Oh, the irony.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Oh, the irony.


First one you quoted was my response to a point about Classical stagnation, while the second point you quoted was about my dislike of modern/contemporary music; ****** music. I ain't a music "expert" but I sure have listened to a great tonne of music from all periods to know what appeals to me, and have consciously chose to stick to a particular period or two.

Now you may roll your eyes till they pop out.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

It seems to me you should be able to identify with maestro. He finds little difference in any music he's heard before Beethoven...perhaps due to apathy, lack of exposure, or distaste. And I can sympathize to an extent, I know that when I began listening to classical I couldn't tell a Haydn piece from a Mozart piece for the life of me. You find little joy in the modern music you've heard, possibly for similar reasons as his dislike for pre-Beethoven music. Yet his post was incredibly stupid, and yours labeling all modern composers as ****** was enlightened and intelligent?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Poppin' Fresh said:


> It seems to me you should be able to identify with maestro. He finds little difference in any music he's heard before Beethoven...perhaps due to apathy, lack of exposure, or distaste. And I can sympathize to an extent, I know that when I began listening to classical I couldn't tell a Haydn piece from a Mozart piece for the life of me. You find little joy in the modern music you've heard, possibly for similar reasons as his dislike for pre-Beethoven music. Yet his post was incredibly stupid, and yours labeling all modern composers as ****** was enlightened and intelligent?


Alright. Let me spell it out totally and simply. No, I don't think I would be able to identiy with dear maestro.

Member maestro (apparently musically trained, too) commented that all Baroque and Classical music sound alike, and implied there was no progress, only stagnation, until Beethoven came along. An absurd comment from a musically trained individual.

I am saying, I have difficulty liking modern/contemporary/atonal music. I am not musically trained at all to appreciate these works. I am a casual listener, approaching them (perhaps incorrectly) like I do with Classical, for example.

Get my point?


----------



## Air

Taken.

And before the furnace heats up again, I think we should all take time to realize that our petty dislikes belong more on a blog than in an educated forum such as this.

Yeah, post on your blog about whether Vivaldi wrote the same concerto over and over again, or if the Hiroshima victims are rolling in their grave because of what Penderecki wrote. These are all very subjective things that are affected by you, not the music!

[I realize though that this is not a very easy thread to just chime in and leave. In fact, it would be too boring like that! So thank god for human instincts...]


----------



## Zingo

starry said:


> I guess that member must be a fortune teller who can tell how their musical taste will develop over the rest of that life, because most of us wouldn't be able to.


Fair enough, you certainly have a point there. My own point was rather the somewhat odd fact that there is music I realise is very good indeed (and no, it isn't simply because of "received opinion") but what I actually choose to listen to is a different matter altogether.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Alright. Let me spell it out totally and simply. No, I don't think I would be able to identiy with dear maestro.
> 
> Member maestro (apparently musically trained, too) commented that all Baroque and Classical music sound alike, and implied there was no progress, only stagnation, until Beethoven came along. An absurd comment from a musically trained individual.


I don't think he implied any such stagnation. He said he couldn't tell the difference between Haydn and Mozart (not that uncommon), or between other Baroque and Classical composers. I'm not quite sure whether he meant he couldn't tell the difference between one Baroque composer to another, one Classical composer to another, or the difference between Baroque compared to Classical composers. Frankly that is unclear. But either way it's an interpretation of what he hears; he hasn't spent enough time listening to this music to gain an appreciation for it and an understanding of the subtleties and stylistic differences between these composers. If it seems incomprehensible that a "musically trained" individual can form such an opinion, well, I've heard some musically trained individuals in classical music give some pretty inane comments in regards to popular music or jazz, and vice versa. I've read comments by musicians/composers in regards to other musicians/composers that seem downright silly. Hans von Bülow saying of Mahler "If this is still music, I know nothing of music." Having some musical training does not equate to an understanding and appreciation of the nuances in musical artists outside one's spectrum of experience/enjoyment.



> I am saying, I have difficulty liking modern/contemporary/atonal music. I am not musically trained at all to appreciate these works. I am a casual listener, approaching them (perhaps incorrectly) like I do with Classical, for example.
> 
> Get my point?


I understand. I don't have any musical training either. I'm just pointing out that as incomprehensible as maestro's statement was to you, your ability to lump together the incredibly wide variety of musical styles and approaches that make up the modern/contemporary repertoire as ****** or even atonal is just as bewildering to fans of modern music, whether you're musically trained or not. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge maestro and his "stupid" comments.


----------



## Johnny

Air said:


> I think we should all take time to realize that our petty dislikes belong more on a blog than in an educated forum such as this.


You mean our petty music dislikes?


----------



## Tapkaara

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Schoenberg's music is a good example then. I dislike it. I probably don't understand it at all, as I am not musically trained like the "experts" around here.


But perhaps you do understand it. Understanding something is not the same as liking it. I understand soccer, but I do not like it. I understand chess, but I do not like it. I understand Schönberg and his musical aims and I do not like it.

Don't sell yourself too short.


----------



## Johnny

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.


----------



## jhar26

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Schoenberg's music is a good example then. I dislike it. I probably don't understand it at all, as I am not musically trained like the "experts" around here. I am almost certainly approaching it the "wrong way" (compared with the "experts" or fellow member Andre), because I listen way, way more to Baroque, Classical and early Romantic.


I wouldn't worry about that. When I first joined here I had a huge inferiority complex about my lack of education. But that gradually disappeared when I noticed that virtually every composer, musician, singer or work is disliked by some members, including the educated ones. The 'experts' are just as divided in their opinions as the rest of us. That tells me that they aren't necessarily better judges of music. Some are just better in explaining why they like or don't like a piece or a composer. But it doesn't necessarily make them more right or wrong than you, me or anyone else here.


----------



## Zingo

jhar26 said:


> Virtually every composer, musician, singer or work is disliked by some members, including the educated ones. The 'experts' are just as divided in their opinions as the rest of us.


"I played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless *******! It annoys me that this self-inflated mediocrity is hailed as a genius. Why, in comparison with him, Raff is a giant, not to speak of Rubinstein, who is after all a live and important human being, while Brahms is chaotic and absolutely empty dried-up stuff."

(From a diary entry in 1886 by Peter Tchaikovsky)


----------



## Johnny

Tchaikovsky just didn't "understand" the music. Somebody should have told him that Brahms' music is actually good. It's an important opinion for one to have!


----------



## Tapkaara

jhar26 said:


> I wouldn't worry about that. When I first joined here I had a huge inferiority complex about my lack of education. But that gradually disappeared when I noticed that virtually every composer, musician, singer or work is disliked by some members, including the educated ones. The 'experts' are just as divided in their opinions as the rest of us. That tells me that they aren't necessarily better judges of music. Some are just better in explaining why they like or don't like a piece or a composer. But it doesn't necessarily make them more right or wrong than you, me or anyone else here.


Agreed with all of that.

Anyone who calls themselves an "expert" is to be approached with caution. They may have greater technical knowledge than some, but you DO NOT need technical knowledge to know what you like and do not like. While music is a sort of hybrid art and science, it is, utlimately, art. Art can never be anything but subjective.


----------



## Johnny

You made sense there apart from the "music is a sort of hybrid of art and science" bit.

What are you talking about?


----------



## starry

Zingo said:


> "I played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless *******! It annoys me that this self-inflated mediocrity is hailed as a genius. Why, in comparison with him, Raff is a giant, not to speak of Rubinstein, who is after all a live and important human being, while Brahms is chaotic and absolutely empty dried-up stuff."
> 
> (From a diary entry in 1886 by Peter Tchaikovsky)


However elsewhere Tchaikovsky did acknowledge Brahms was an important composer. It's easy to take a comment like that out of whatever context he wrote it in and make out that he hated Brahms. They even went out drinking together sometimes.


----------



## mueske

Johnny said:


> You made sense there apart from the "music is a sort of hybrid of art and science" bit.
> 
> What are you talking about?


Exactly what is says.


----------



## Johnny

It's gibberish.

Watch how there is no way to explain what was meant in clear concise unambiguous English.


----------



## starry

jhar26 said:


> The 'experts' are just as divided in their opinions as the rest of us. That tells me that they aren't necessarily better judges of music. Some are just better in explaining why they like or don't like a piece or a composer. But it doesn't necessarily make them more right or wrong than you, me or anyone else here.


Well I would apply some caution to what you said here. I don't know how we would define an 'expert' but let's say we mean some eminent musician. I'm not sure there are any who would judge - for instance - Mozart, Beethoven or JS Bach to be bad composers. Perhaps they may have a preference / liking towards one of them, but that doesn't mean they would 'judge' one to be bad. Having a preference is ok, we all have preferences and they probably change through our lives. It's easier to concentrate on just one or a few styles at a time.


----------



## Johnny

People are completely entitled to not like Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach. It in no way implies some sort of intellectual inferiority.


----------



## Zingo

starry said:


> However elsewhere Tchaikovsky did acknowledge Brahms was an important composer. It's easy to take a comment like that out of whatever context he wrote it in and make out that he hated Brahms.


Yes, he did moderate his opinion a few years later but I don't think there is much question that when he wrote this he didn't much care for Brahms. But of course he is a model of restraint compared to Boulez (Brahms is a "bore," Tchaikovsky is "abominable" and Verdi "stupid, stupid, stupid").


----------



## jhar26

starry said:


> Well I would apply some caution to what you said here. I don't know how we would define an 'expert' but let's say we mean some eminent musician. I'm not sure there are any who would judge - for instance - Mozart, Beethoven or JS Bach to be bad composers. Perhaps they may have a preference / liking towards one of them, but that doesn't mean they would 'judge' one to be bad. Having a preference is ok, we all have preferences and they probably change through our lives. It's easier to concentrate on just one or a few styles at a time.


Well, there have been many experts throughout history who've said the most ridiculous things about composers or works that most people don't agree with. That comment from Tchaikovsky about Brahms is just one of them.


----------



## starry

Zingo said:


> Yes, he did moderate his opinion a few years later but I don't think there is much question that when he wrote this he didn't much care for Brahms. But of course he is a model of restraint compared to Boulez (Brahms is a "bore," Tchaikovsky is "abominable" and Verdi "stupid, stupid, stupid").


Maybe he didn't care for Brahms at that time because Brahms was getting more popular in Russia and Tchaikovsky found it hard to become that popular in Germany? There are other factors at work apart from the purely musical. Boulez was the champion of the new modern music, he was hardly about to say nice words about 19th century composers.


----------



## jhar26

Johnny said:


> People are completely entitled to not like Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach. It in no way implies some sort of intellectual inferiority.


It doesn't. On the other hand, they are missing out on some terrific music. But it's their own choice.


----------



## starry

Helps to have a reason not to like something, a musical reason. Otherwise it's just a preference based on what someone may like at a particular time. That's something which can change, it isn't fixed.


----------



## Toccata

Johnny said:


> People are completely entitled to not like Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach. It in no way implies some sort of intellectual inferiority.


When you say "people", can you be a bit clearer as to which sub-set of humanity you are referring to specifically?

If perchance you mean that sub-set which purports to like/appreciate classical music, would you not agree that it is somewhat unlikely to find anyone among them who dislikes all 3 of these composers?

Would you not agree also that it is unlikely to find someone who reckons he is keen on classical music and yet believes that all music before Beethoven sounded the same, and it was only with Beethoven that any progress was made in raising the general quality to anything approaching acceptable?


----------



## Argus

jhar26 said:


> It doesn't. On the other hand, they are missing out on some terrific music. But it's their own choice.


It's not terrific music if they don't like it or, possibly more correctly, don't want to like it.


----------



## Zingo

starry said:


> Maybe he didn't care for Brahms at that time because Brahms was getting more popular in Russia and Tchaikovsky found it hard to become that popular in Germany? There are other factors at work apart from the purely musical. Boulez was the champion of the new modern music, he was hardly about to say nice words about 19th century composers.


Well, to rephrase what you're saying: Boulez lied about what he really thought about his predecessors' music in order to promote his own - a behaviour that is hardly worthy of much respect in my opinion. Personally I'm more inclined to believe that he was honest and simply thought his own music superior.

In the Tchaikovsky case, who knows? However, he was surely stating a frank opinion since he was writing in his diary. To me it seems Tchaikovsky came to consider Brahms an important composer but he never, as far as I'm aware, actually said anything positive about any of his compositions.


----------



## Toccata

Zingo said:


> Well, to rephrase what you're saying: Boulez lied about what he really thought about his predecessors' music in order to promote his own - a behaviour that is hardly worthy of much respect in my opinion. Personally I'm more inclined to believe that he was honest and simply thought his own music superior.
> 
> In the Tchaikovsky case, who knows? However, he was surely stating a frank opinion since he was writing in his diary. To me it seems Tchaikovsky came to consider Brahms an important composer but he never, as far as I'm aware, actually said anything positive about any of his compositions.


As for Mr T and Brahms being drinking buddies, this strikes me as being dubious. I've not heard that tale before.


----------



## Argus

Zingo said:


> Yes, he did moderate his opinion a few years later but I don't think there is much question that when he wrote this he didn't much care for Brahms. But of course he is a model of restraint compared to Boulez (Brahms is a "bore," Tchaikovsky is "abominable" and Verdi "stupid, stupid, stupid").


Tis' a blatant display of beard envy.


----------



## starry

Zingo said:


> Well, to rephrase what you're saying: Boulez lied about what he really thought about his predecessors' music in order to promote his own - a behaviour that is hardly worthy of much respect in my opinion. Personally I'm more inclined to believe that he was honest and simply thought his own music superior.
> 
> In the Tchaikovsky case, who knows? However, he was surely stating a frank opinion since he was writing in his diary. To me it seems Tchaikovsky came to consider Brahms an important composer but he never, as far as I'm aware, actually said anything positive about any of his compositions.


Music is politics at times isn't it? Boulez has been a public face of classical music in France, in quite powerful positions at times from what I remember. Tchaikovsky studied works of Brahms, and he did say some good things. He admired that Brahms was able to stand independent of Wagner and wasn't drawn to theatrical music for example.

I'm not saying that either Boulez or Tchaikovsky didn't perhaps prefer in general other music , however that doesn't mean that they thought that these other composers in question were actually crap. That is such an extreme position that I find it hard to believe.


----------



## Zingo

Opal said:


> As for Mr T and Brahms being drinking buddies, this strikes me as being dubious. I've not heard that tale before.


"I have been here [in Hamburg] since yesterday evening. Today was the first rehearsal. Brahms stayed a whole extra day so as to hear the symphony and was very kind. After the rehearsal we went for lunch together and had a bit of a drinking-spree. He is very nice, and I like his frankness and simplicity."

(From a letter from Peter Tchaikovsky to his brother Modest, 28 February 1889)


----------



## starry

1887

"I've met an incredibly large number of people here. Amongst these Brahms and Grieg stand out in particular. Brahms is a pot-bellied boozer [кутила], together with whom I got myself pretty drunk yesterday at Brodsky's house. Grieg is an uncommonly nice man of my age."

"… I went on the booze with Brahms-he's awfully fond of drinking, you know; he's a very nice person and not at all as proud as I had imagined. "


----------



## Toccata

starry said:


> 1887
> 
> "I've met an incredibly large number of people here. Amongst these Brahms and Grieg stand out in particular. Brahms is a pot-bellied boozer [кутила], together with whom I got myself pretty drunk yesterday at Brodsky's house. Grieg is an uncommonly nice man of my age."
> 
> "… I went on the booze with Brahms-he's awfully fond of drinking, you know; he's a very nice person and not at all as proud as I had imagined. "


Does this imply they were regular drinking buddies?


----------



## starry

Opal said:


> Does this imply they were regular drinking buddies?


I don't know for sure. I would say occasional is more likely as they weren't always in the same place together. They are a funny kind of contrast from what I read, Tchaikovsky seemingly quite prim almost aristocratic and Brahms more down to earth. But Tchaikovsky did seem to get used to Brahms as a person over time, even if his music wasn't exactly his main preference.


----------



## Johnny

*When you say "people", can you be a bit clearer as to which sub-set of humanity you are referring to specifically? *

How does that make any difference?

*If perchance you mean that sub-set which purports to like/appreciate classical music, would you not agree that it is somewhat unlikely to find anyone among them who dislikes all 3 of these composers? *

Yea. So? Again, not sure what relevance that has.

*Would you not agree also that it is unlikely to find someone who reckons he is keen on classical music and yet believes that all music before Beethoven sounded the same, and it was only with Beethoven that any progress was made in raising the general quality to anything approaching acceptable?*

Probably. But again, so what?

None of those three points has anything to do with what I said. If you think they do, you need to read what I said again.


----------



## Toccata

starry said:


> I don't know for sure. I would say occasional is more likely as they weren't always in the same place together. They are a funny kind of contrast from what I read, Tchaikovsky seemingly quite prim almost aristocratic and Brahms more down to earth. But Tchaikovsky did seem to get used to Brahms as a person over time, even if his music wasn't exactly his main preference.


I have read quite a bit about Tchaikovsky and Brahms, as they are two composers I have in the past been very keen on. They're now among several others, buried somewhere beneath a pile of other CDs, as one's tastes move on and change. I must admit that I wasn't aware that their paths crossed physically, but I accept from your quote that they did at least meet once. I can scarcely however believe that their relationship was that close that they regularly drank together whilst slanging each off publicly.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Poppin' Fresh said:


> I don't think he implied any such stagnation. He said he couldn't tell the difference between Haydn and Mozart (not that uncommon), or between other Baroque and Classical composers. I'm not quite sure whether he meant he couldn't tell the difference between one Baroque composer to another, one Classical composer to another, or the difference between Baroque compared to Classical composers. Frankly that is unclear. But either way it's an interpretation of what he hears; he hasn't spent enough time listening to this music to gain an appreciation for it and an understanding of the subtleties and stylistic differences between these composers. If it seems incomprehensible that a "musically trained" individual can form such an opinion, well, I've heard some musically trained individuals in classical music give some pretty inane comments in regards to popular music or jazz, and vice versa. I've read comments by musicians/composers in regards to other musicians/composers that seem downright silly. Hans von Bülow saying of Mahler "If this is still music, I know nothing of music." Having some musical training does not equate to an understanding and appreciation of the nuances in musical artists outside one's spectrum of experience/enjoyment.
> 
> I understand. I don't have any musical training either. I'm just pointing out that as incomprehensible as maestro's statement was to you, your ability to lump together the incredibly wide variety of musical styles and approaches that make up the modern/contemporary repertoire as ****** or even atonal is just as bewildering to fans of modern music, whether you're musically trained or not. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge maestro and his "stupid" comments.


Here's member's maestro267's comments below. Clear as daylight to me: "Mozart and Haydn; all their music sound the same to me". Then came along Louis v.B. who "... broke the barrier to progress", implies there was no progress or at best stagnation because almost everything else in Baroque and Classical sounded the same.

I'm surprised you wrote a long paragraph to suggest maestro267's short and simple note is unclear.



maestro267 said:


> Mozart and Haydn; all their music sounds the same to me. Same goes for (almost) every composer of the Baroque and Classical periods (up to Beethoven, who finally broke through the barrier to progress).


Anyway, it was fun discussing this topic. I'm over it.

Let's see if there are more silly comments in other threads for me to pick on.


----------



## Toccata

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I'm surprised you wrote a long paragraph to suggest maestro267's short and simple note is unclear.


Especially one that fails to justify the position he was manifestly having great difficulty understanding anyway, by his own admission.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Here's member's maestro267's comments below. Clear as daylight to me: "Mozart and Haydn; all their music sound the same to me". Then came along Louis v.B. who "... broke the barrier to progress", implies there was no progress or at best stagnation because almost everything else in Baroque and Classical sounded the same.
> 
> I'm surprised you wrote a long paragraph to suggest maestro267's short and simple note is unclear.


And I'm surprised that you didn't seem to read anything else I wrote, pointing out the fact that you called him stupid for making a generalization based on his _perception_ of music pre-Beethoven, and then went on to make a sweeping generalization of your own based on your perceptions that was just as uninformed and bewildering.



Opal said:


> Especially one that fails to justify the position he was manifestly having great difficulty understanding anyway, by his own admission.


There's no justifying a statement like that, or justifying how different people hear music. There's also no need to insult someone for not liking the music of a particular period(s) because it all sounds the same to them, a common occurrence where a lack of appreciation is involved.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Poppin' Fresh said:


> And I'm surprised that you didn't seem to read anything else I wrote, pointing out the fact that you called him stupid for making a generalization based on his _perception_ of music pre-Beethoven, and then went on to make a sweeping generalization of your own based on your perceptions that was just as uninformed and bewildering.


I picked modern atonal music as my primary target point. I think it is ******/crap music (well, just noise actually). Yep, that's just as "uninformed and bewildering" as saying Mr Mozart's and Mr Haydn's music sound the same, as their music lacked progress (sarcasm intended here, in case if you don't get it).



Poppin' Fresh said:


> There's no justifying a statement like that, or justifying how different people hear music. There's also no need to insult someone for not liking the music of a particular period(s) because it all sounds the same to them, a common occurrence where a lack of appreciation is involved.


Your little agenda here appears to be expressing the dislike of someone "insulting" another "for not liking the music of a particular period". Get this right: I wrote maestro267's _comment _was the dumbest I've read since joining, not the dumbest person I have met since joining. His comment is even more absurd in the context from one who appears to be musically trained.

You don't need to pretend maestro267's comment is unclear. If you can draft up a long-ish paragraph explaining why it seemed unclear to you (i.e. in maestro267's defence), then you are more than capable of understanding mestro267's absurd and succint comments in the first place.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I picked modern atonal music as my primary target point. I think it is ******/crap music (well, just noise actually).


Actually, the post you responded to wasn't referring to modern atonal music.



Argus said:


> So I think individual composers have become more distinguishable as time passes, as nowadays composers are more interested in standing out from the crowd and going their own way rather than adhering to a strict style or method as in the past.


It's speaking of all modern composers, no matter their sound or style. To which you replied they stand out as being ******. Implying all modern composers are equally ******, or _sound_ equally as ****** to you.

But yes. Saying Schoenberg is just noise is just as bewildering to me as saying Bach and Mozart sound alike.



> Yep, that's just as "uninformed and bewildering" as saying Mr Mozart's and Mr Haydn's music sound the same, as it lacks progress.


"It all sounds the same" is a pretty common reason a person gives for not liking an artist or a particular style of music.



> Your little agenda here appears to be expressing the dislike of someone "insulting" another "for not liking the music of a particular period". Get this right: I wrote maestro267's _comment _was the dumbest I've read since joining, not the dumbest person I have met since joining. His comment is even more absurd in the context from one who appears to be musically trained.


I don't have a little agenda. You insulted his _comments_ because you found his reason for not liking something absurd. Then went on to make a pretty absurd statement yourself.

And no, his comment is no more absurd because he may or may not be musically trained, as I addressed in my other post. Musical training doesn't necessarily remove biases or change perceptions.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Poppin' Fresh said:


> And no, his comment is no more absurd because he may or may not be musically trained, as I addressed in my other post. Musical training doesn't necessarily remove biases or change perceptions.


I simply don't buy into the belief that ridiculous comments from educated folks are no more or less absurd than one who is not. This is when society stops being critical and be sheep-ish.

Well, I guesss in your view of things then, it's OK to let garbage perpetuate from supposedly educated folks (musical or science or whatever discipline). My comments about Schoenberg's atonal junk may be bewildering to you, and I can accept that (not that I care), but it is definitely the case that _my_ "bewildering" comments about maestro267's comments bothers you even more. Strange.


----------



## Tapkaara

Johnny said:


> You made sense there apart from the "music is a sort of hybrid of art and science" bit.
> 
> What are you talking about?


If you don't understand what I mean by that, perhaps you should pack your bags and move away from classical music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Tapkaara said:


> If you don't understand what I mean by that, perhaps you should pack your bags and move away from classical music.


The "biggest musical-scientific" piece I tried to understand (I still don't) is Bach's _Art of Fugue_. _The Musical Offering_ comes close, too (but at least that has a performance oriented trio sonata in the middle; the rest is didactic).


----------



## Johnny

Tapkaara said:


> If you don't understand what I mean by that, perhaps you should pack your bags and move away from classical music.


Thank you for acting just as I predicted.

Conveniently avoiding doing what I asked, because you can't. Just avoiding the request by replying with an empty insult that, (rather pleasingly), helps show you for what you really are.


----------



## Sid James

Air said:


> ...And before the furnace heats up again, I think we should all take time to realize that our petty dislikes belong more on a blog than in an educated forum such as this.
> 
> Yeah, post on your blog about whether Vivaldi wrote the same concerto over and over again, or if the Hiroshima victims are rolling in their grave because of what Penderecki wrote. These are all very subjective things that are affected by you, not the music!...


I agree with this. People who don't like Schoenberg's masterpieces, & question their artistic worth/quality as a result, are clearly just voicing their own opinions, not stating objective proof that the music is "******." I think their opinions are as of little value here as my own dislike of some composers (eg. Glazunov or Saint-Saens), which has no relevance at all to anything (& even may change at some stage). By not leaving the door open to change, such people display a level of inflexibility that is staggering. Like today I bought a cd of the music of Webern, who I don't know that much about, but I'm interested in giving his music a chance. This is an example of flexibility, & being open to perceive things on a different level, which such people are closed to. It's their loss, really, their limitation...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Andre said:


> ... really, their limitation...


Yep. Those folks, unlike you, are "limited". Yep. We have never tried listening to ****** Schoenberg's music before to form that conclusion. (Sarcasm intended, just to spell it out).


----------



## Sid James

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Yep. Those folks, unlike you, are "limited". Yep. We have never tried listening to ****** Schoenberg's music before to form that conclusion. (Sarcasm intended, just to spell it out).


I'm not a huge fan of Handel's (or Bach's) music either, but see how I don't go rubbishing them here. It's a matter of having tact (& intelligence), which you appear to have little of in this case...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Andre said:


> It's a matter of having tact (& intelligence), which you appear to have little of in this case...


Yep. We lack tact and intelligence, too. Thanks.

You are welcome to rubbish out Handel's music if you like. This is a public discussion forum open to all opinions, and for those to respond to those opinions. It really, really seems to me that you simply cannot handle a bit of rough words, not even directed at the individual in the first instance but directed at their comments/opinions.


----------



## Johnny

There's no harm in saying you don't like something though. It seems daft for people to not be allowed voice their dislike of a particular piece of music. It'd be very boring if we were only allowed to say positive things when something we like is mentioned, and not allowed speak when something we dislike is mentioned. It really doesn't reflect well on people when they start looking down on others for their differing taste in music.

It may be more productive, if when people see some type of music they haven't been able to get into mentioned, that they maybe inquire with those who do like it as to what works may be worth checking out. Ones that they may have missed. Be open to changing your mind! Of course, just saying you don't like what you've heard by someone is also equally valid.


----------



## Sid James

Maybe I expect people to approach music which they have never heard before the same way I do. That's with an open mind. Like today I went to a concert where they played both works by a contemporary Australian composer (Matthew Hindson) and a classic from further back (Weber's _Clarinet Quintet_). I enjoyed both for their unique qualities. I wouldn't be without either. Maybe some people are more locked into only enjoying music from one era at the moment, but I think it's preempting the situation (to say the least) to lock themselves out from enjoying & accessing other types of music. What I'm saying is that there's a whole world of music out there to be discovered (but I agree, it's ok to have composers you don't like, as long as you don't rubbish them, which I think is erroneous & unneccessary).

Some of us on this forum remember the bad old days when a member called Mirror Image ruled the forum with an iron grip, and his tastes in music were very limited, he had a habit of calling music which he couldn't understand as "rubbish." Especially the serialists, or in any case less traditionally tonal composers, who I think were/are very good composers, so why shouldn't I stick up for them here, since noone else does?...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

When Handel was asked what he thought of Gluck, Handel reportedly said something like: "He knows no more of contrapunctus than mein cook ...". I guess that was a polite way of rubbishing out a fellow composer.

Much hasn't changed (for some of us anyway)!


----------



## Johnny

Andre,

But just because somebody doesn't like something doesn't mean they are any less open-minded than you!

Being open-minded when it comes to music surely just means being open to anything. Trying to go in with no biases and judge everything on its own merit. If you like something - great! But if you don't like something - that's just as valid an opinion!

Why is it people can't see this? 

Your goal seems to be to like everything, which is IMO pointless to say the least.


----------



## saltyseaweed

I know the thread kind of moved on from the original topic, but this kind of question seems meaningless to me. Certainly there are composers who affect me more than others, but at least when it comes to the "greats" I found at least a few pieces of music that I could appreciate. Even post-Stravinsky atonal music pieces have some parts or phases that I like. With the average output of the major composers (Bach with his 1,000+ work, Mozart with his 600+, etc.) I just find it hard that a person who finds nothing good out of all that work can have an open mind/true sense of musical appreciation. 

It seems to me there is too much nitpicking and apparently a group of people who think attacking a sacred cow will make them cool or at least garner them a bit of attention. Well, as for me, nitpicking makes you small. They all contributed to the world of music in their own way. 

Even Stravinsky =)


----------



## Johnny

Another one!


----------



## Johnny

I know there are people who must agree with me on this, but say nothing. Maybe they could voice their opinions here. If they keep saying nothing, this delusion we all have to put up with is only going to get worse. 

Nobody's opinion of music is any more valid than anyone elses! Not liking something does not imply some sort of close(d)mindedness/intellectual inferiority/ignorance/etc! 

Some people need their pedestal swiftly kicked out from under them.


----------



## muxamed

Tapkaara said:


> If you don't understand what I mean by that, perhaps you should pack your bags and move away from classical music.


----------



## saltyseaweed

Johnny said:


> I know there are people who must agree with me on this, but say nothing. Maybe they could voice their opinions here. If they keep saying nothing, this delusion we all have to put up with is only going to get worse.
> 
> Nobody's opinion of music is any more valid than anyone elses! Not liking something does not imply some sort of close(d)mindedness/intellectual inferiority/ignorance/etc!
> 
> Some people need their pedestal swiftly kicked out from under them.


I wouldn't exactly agree with you. People form their opinions in different manners. A person can quite easily form an opinion about a piece or a composer without even having heard it. Some people may have some type of baggage and form their opinion without really giving the piece a chance. Some people have a much more limited knowledge, so their opinion is kind of restricted by the lack of knowledge.

I mean, a kindergartner may say his teacher is a better writer than Shakespeare, and that certainly is an opinion but I wouldn't say it weighs the same as the opinion from a literary professor or even a well-read college educated individual.

I don't see why music is any different. For example, a lot of people buy into Mozart's music based on his reputation or the movie Amadeus without really understanding his works (and I adore his music, but just an example). Some people dislike him just based on his reputation of being a classical giant, thinking his music is all about formality and aristocratic fluff. I think neither of these groups' opinions should be given much weight . . .


----------



## Toccata

Tapkaara said:


> If you don't understand what I mean by that, perhaps you should pack your bags and move away from classical music.


What's this? Telling someone to pack his bags because he queried one of your nonsensical comments. Dear me, you let your guard drop a bit there, didn't you? Whatever next?


----------



## Toccata

Johnny said:


> I know there are people who must agree with me on this, but say nothing.


Possibly it's past their bedtime, and their mummies won't let them mess about any more on the computer today.


----------



## David58117

It seems like the last week or so this forum has moved away from music discussion and more towards bickering and hallow online arguments. Members trying to call each other out and adding (often idiotic) remarks meant to stir someone else up, is getting old.


----------



## Toccata

Andre said:


> Some of us on this forum remember the bad old days when a member called Mirror Image ruled the forum with an iron grip, and his tastes in music were very limited, he had a habit of calling music which he couldn't understand as "rubbish." Especially the serialists, or in any case less traditionally tonal composers, who I think were/are very good composers, so why shouldn't I stick up for them here, since noone else does?...


Someone "ruled" this place with an "iron grip" and who had limited tastes, calling music he couldn't understand "rubbish". Is that so? That's interesting.


----------



## starry

Opal said:


> I have read quite a bit about Tchaikovsky and Brahms, as they are two composers I have in the past been very keen on. They're now among several others, buried somewhere beneath a pile of other CDs, as one's tastes move on and change. I must admit that I wasn't aware that their paths crossed physically, but I accept from your quote that they did at least meet once. I can scarcely however believe that their relationship was that close that they regularly drank together whilst slanging each off publicly.


But did they slag each other off publicly? The famous Tchaikovsky quote was from his diary I believe. In person they seem very polite to each other. I wonder if it was supporters of them who wanted to exaggerate the assumed antagonism, same for other composers. Generally I think artists can have respect for each other, even if they might not have exactly the same musical preference.


----------



## starry

saltyseaweed said:


> I don't see why music is any different. For example, a lot of people buy into Mozart's music based on his reputation or the movie Amadeus without really understanding his works (and I adore his music, but just an example). Some people dislike him just based on his reputation of being a classical giant, thinking his music is all about formality and aristocratic fluff. I think neither of these groups' opinions should be given much weight . . .


I agree on this, some people can have an opinion but not a very informed one.


----------



## jhar26

Johnny said:


> I know there are people who must agree with me on this, but say nothing. Maybe they could voice their opinions here. If they keep saying nothing, this delusion we all have to put up with is only going to get worse.
> 
> Nobody's opinion of music is any more valid than anyone elses! Not liking something does not imply some sort of close(d)mindedness/intellectual inferiority/ignorance/etc!
> 
> Some people need their pedestal swiftly kicked out from under them.


I agree that everyone should be allowed to say whatever he or she wants. Having said that, I usually find the posts from people who are passionate about a particular composer or era in music more helpfull than those from members who don't like said composer or era. I mean, if I want to check out the music of, say, Prokofiev and get some advise on what cd's I should buy I will carefully read the posts of those who like Prkofiev. I will just skip those of posters who hate him because I know that theirs will be of no help to me whatsoever.


----------



## Toccata

jhar26 said:


> I wouldn't worry about that. When I first joined here I had a huge inferiority complex about my lack of education. But that gradually disappeared when I noticed that virtually every composer, musician, singer or work is disliked by some members, including the educated ones. The 'experts' are just as divided in their opinions as the rest of us. That tells me that they aren't necessarily better judges of music. Some are just better in explaining why they like or don't like a piece or a composer. But it doesn't necessarily make them more right or wrong than you, me or anyone else here.


Fair enough, but I would far prefer to hear the opinions of people who can lay some proper claim to possessing expertise in music rather than the highly predictable waffle one gets from most others, who generally only that they like or dislike certain types of music without knowing the first thing about it apart from its composer and general form.


----------



## Zingo

starry said:


> But did they slag each other off publicly? The famous Tchaikovsky quote was from his diary I believe. In person they seem very polite to each other. I wonder if it was supporters of them who wanted to exaggerate the assumed antagonism, same for other composers. Generally I think artists can have respect for each other, even if they might not have exactly the same musical preference.


If you disregard personal letters, Tchaikovsky as far as I'm aware only passed judgement on Brahms' music on three occasions: a 1872 newspaper article ("mediocre composer"), an unpublished article from 1888 ("I have never been able to like his music and never shall be") and a newspaper interview in 1892 ("Brahms can hardly be said to have made an eternal and precious contribution to the treasure-house of German music").

However, it is quite clear that he liked and respected Brahms as a person. As for Brahms, he had a more favourable view of Tchaikovsky's music.


----------



## Johnny

jhar26 said:


> I agree that everyone should be allowed to say whatever he or she wants. Having said that, I usually find the posts from people who are passionate about a particular composer or era in music more helpfull than those from members who don't like said composer or era. I mean, if I want to check out the music of, say, Prokofiev and get some advise on what cd's I should buy I will carefully read the posts of those who like Prkofiev. I will just skip those of posters who hate him because I know that theirs will be of no help to me whatsoever.


I agree. But it doesn't really change my point.


----------



## Zingo

saltyseaweed said:


> With the average output of the major composers (Bach with his 1,000+ work, Mozart with his 600+, etc.) I just find it hard that a person who finds nothing good out of all that work can have an open mind/true sense of musical appreciation.


Few have heard every single piece from a composer who wrote hundreds of pieces. I find your argument confusing. Let's say that you, like me, have heard dozens of pieces by Shostakovich and haven't liked them. Would you honestly say that "OK, I haven't heard the right pieces yet"? Would anyone? Surely life is too short.


----------



## Johnny

It is. Technically you should maybe say "I don't like anything I've heard by Shostakovich" instead of "I don't like anything by Shostakovich". But maybe that should be just taken to be implicit in any such claim.


----------



## saltyseaweed

Zingo said:


> Few have heard every single piece from a composer who wrote hundreds of pieces. I find your argument confusing. Let's say that you, like me, have heard dozens of pieces by Shostakovich and haven't liked them. Would you honestly say that "OK, I haven't heard the right pieces yet"? Would anyone? Surely life is too short.


I just meant that a lot of times, classical giants have very diverse bodies of work and it is easy to find something you do like. I agree there is no need to listen to every one to have an informed opinion, but it would be silly to form an opinion of Mozart just based on Eine Kleine Nichtmusik or on Bach just based on his Toccata.


----------



## starry

Zingo said:


> If you disregard personal letters, Tchaikovsky as far as I'm aware only passed judgement on Brahms' music on three occasions: a 1872 newspaper article ("mediocre composer"), an unpublished article from 1888 ("I have never been able to like his music and never shall be") and a newspaper interview in 1892 ("Brahms can hardly be said to have made an eternal and precious contribution to the treasure-house of German music").
> 
> However, it is quite clear that he liked and respected Brahms as a person. As for Brahms, he had a more favourable view of Tchaikovsky's music.


He still considered Brahms a big shot in his words, and when Bülow mentioned himself with Raff, Brahms and Saint-Saens as being the great hopes of the future of music of music he said he was flattered. He appreciated the high minded earnestness and lack of orchestral effects. In wrting about Brahm's Sextet he said: "Brahms is not without talent, and that is the reason why he is head and shoulders above so many of his contemporaries". So he did consider Brahms to have talent, he didn't think he was crap. His music just wasn't his preference. I don't like some of Tchaikovsky's judgements, though it is fair to say that Brahms' work at it's worst can sound a bit turgid.


----------



## Argus

Johnny said:


> Your goal seems to be to like everything, which is IMO pointless to say the least.


I'd like to like everything. That would be awesome. But what does it mean 'to like' something?


----------



## Johnny

What does it even mean to ask "what does it mean "to like" something"!?

Sounds like something for a philosopher to ponder. And get a phd out of.


----------



## Argus

Johnny said:


> What does it even mean to ask "what does it mean "to like" something"!?
> 
> Sounds like something for a philosopher to ponder. And get a phd out of.


I thought you'd enjoy that given your penchant for asking those kind of philosophical/rhetorical questions.

Wouldn't you like to like eveything?


----------



## Johnny

I don't ask those kinds of questions. I ask why people ask those questions. Or, if someone makes a point and I need to clarify what they mean.

The idea of liking everything is so ridiculous, even if you were to clarify what you mean, that I don't feel like wasting time thinking about it. I mean, would you like to like rape? For example. 

I meant it with regards to music. If you hear a piece of music and don't like it, I think it is extremely odd to persist indefinitely trying to convince yourself it is good. There is enough music out there for every taste. Maybe people need to be more selective. But then, people are entitled to listen to whatever they want, for whatever reasons they want.


----------



## Tapkaara

Johnny said:


> Thank you for acting just as I predicted.
> 
> Conveniently avoiding doing what I asked, because you can't. Just avoiding the request by replying with an empty insult that, (rather pleasingly), helps show you for what you really are.


Hehehehe...


----------



## Tapkaara

Johnny said:


> I don't ask those kinds of questions. I ask why people ask those questions. Or, if someone makes a point and I need to clarify what they mean.
> 
> The idea of liking everything is so ridiculous, even if you were to clarify what you mean, that I don't feel like wasting time thinking about it. I mean, would you like to like rape? For example.
> 
> I meant it with regards to music. If you hear a piece of music and don't like it, I think it is extremely odd to persist indefinitely trying to convince yourself it is good. There is enough music out there for every taste. Maybe people need to be more selective. But then, people are entitled to listen to whatever they want, for whatever reasons they want.


What do you mean by this? Can you please explain this in clear way and double-spaced for added clarity?


----------



## Argus

Johnny said:


> I don't ask those kinds of questions. I ask why people ask those questions. Or, if someone makes a point and I need to clarify what they mean.
> 
> The idea of liking everything is so ridiculous, even if you were to clarify what you mean, that I don't feel like wasting time thinking about it. I mean, would you like to like rape? For example.
> 
> I meant it with regards to music. If you hear a piece of music and don't like it, I think it is extremely odd to persist indefinitely trying to convince yourself it is good. There is enough music out there for every taste. Maybe people need to be more selective. But then, people are entitled to listen to whatever they want, for whatever reasons they want.


By 'everything' I thought you'd understand I meant all music, like you did in your quoted post, not literally 'everything'.


----------



## David58117

Johnny said:


> I don't ask those kinds of questions. I ask why people ask those questions. Or, if someone makes a point and I need to clarify what they mean.
> 
> The idea of liking everything is so ridiculous, even if you were to clarify what you mean, that I don't feel like wasting time thinking about it. I mean, would you like to like rape? For example.
> 
> I meant it with regards to music. If you hear a piece of music and don't like it, I think it is extremely odd to persist indefinitely trying to convince yourself it is good. There is enough music out there for every taste. Maybe people need to be more selective. But then, people are entitled to listen to whatever they want, for whatever reasons they want.


What do you mean by "if you don't like it?"

Is "it" a style you're not accustomed to, a composer you've only heard on youtube once or twice, a piece you've analyzed to death and think it's written poorly....?


----------



## starry

People can listen to whatever they want of course, it's more about when they give opinions on music and whether they might be considered informed or not with what they say.


----------



## Zingo

David58117 said:


> What do you mean by "if you don't like it?"


Groan. Discussion board exchanges like this bring me back to my old University days when every late-night discussion degenerated into a perpetual "but then you have to define what you mean by..."


----------



## Tapkaara

Zingo said:


> Groan. Discussion board exchanges like this bring me back to my old University days when every late-night discussion degenerated into a perpetual "but then you have to define what you mean by..."


Good quote. It doesn't have to be that complicated. The truth is everyone has composers they don't that are revered by others. People here seem to take it personally when Mozart or any of their other "composer-gods" are put down or not liked by someone else.


----------



## David58117

Zingo said:


> Groan. Discussion board exchanges like this bring me back to my old University days when every late-night discussion degenerated into a perpetual "but then you have to define what you mean by..."


Woah - I was simply making fun of a member who continually asks that exact same question...


----------



## Zingo

David58117 said:


> Woah - I was simply making fun of a member who continually asks that exact same question...


Then I am sorry. In any case, my intention wasn't to seriously attack anybody, rather to muse on the fact that so many discussions end up either with a ceaseless demand for definitions or recapitulations of what has already been said along the lines of "hang on a minute - it was you who first said [insert random, long quote here] and I simply responded that [insert an even longer quote here]."

Anyway, I've been away from internet discussion boards for years and I find this quite amusing again so don't mind me.


----------



## jhar26

Tapkaara said:


> Good quote. It doesn't have to be that complicated. The truth is everyone has composers they don't that are revered by others. People here seem to take it personally when Mozart or any of their other "composer-gods" are put down or not liked by someone else.


I guess it depends on how it's formulated how fans of said composers react. If it's in the "I don't like Mozart/Wagner/Schoenberg or whoever because hat type of expression doesn't appeal to me" mold very few would take offence with that I think. But if the comment is "I don't like Mozart/Wagner/Schoenberg because he is a poor composer" their fans are more likely to take that personal because it's like saying that they have a poor taste in music for liking them.


----------



## Johnny

jhar26,

True. But when somebody says that they think a particular composer is better than some other composer, they shouldn't really have to always explicitly state "IMO". It should be taken for granted that's what they mean. At least, that's how it should be, IMO. 

It's more the "my opinion is FACT"-type attitude, that is pathetic. Delusions of grandeur!

But what do I know?! There is actually some music I've heard that I didn't like. Although maybe I just didn't realise it is actually good. Apparently experts have proven that it is indeed, good. I must just not be open-minded!


----------



## starry

Many people aren't open minded, that's a fact.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Johnny said:


> jhar26,
> 
> True. But when somebody says that they think a particular composer is better than some other composer, *they shouldn't really have to always explicitly state "IMO". It should be taken for granted that's what they mean.* At least, that's how it should be, IMO.


Agree 100%. Unless they are quoting a third party, writing out IMO is really just to spell it out clearly. Even if one is the universal galactic professor of music, (s)he is still expressing an opinion (though obviously we hope a very educated and well founded one, without the absurdities of for example, maestro267's  , that is nonetheless potentially open to criticism).



Johnny said:


> It's more the "my opinion is FACT"-type attitude, that is pathetic. Delusions of grandeur!


Actually, I think the problem lies with folks who read another's opinion and interpreted it as if the original poster thought that way. For example, I wrote Schoenberg's atonal music is ****** and a fellow member couldn't take a few "rough words from the streets" that I have used, and maybe also considered my opinion was believed by me to be universal fact, which obviously wasn't.

In a nutshell, everyone is capable of expressing their own opinions, in whatever way, and should be prepared to be criticised by others who may not agree. But to suggest we should not criticise, perhaps because it is not all bad but everything is all good, and that we are all educated smart people, is pure crap.


----------



## Johnny

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Actually, I think the problem lies with folks who read another's opinion and interpret it as if the original poster thought that way. For example, I wrote Schoenberg's atonal music is ****** and a fellow member couldn't take a few 'rough words from the streets" that I have used, and maybe also considered my opinion was believed by me to be universal fact, which obviously isn't.


Kind of splitting hairs at this stage, although I agree that mistakenly thinking somebody thinks their opinion is a fact indeed may have a role. Some people here in fact seem to actually think their opinion (or some other "expert" whose opinion they read), are somehow "special" or "inspired" or "FACT". The misunderstanding should be possible to clear up with a single enquiring post though.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> In a nutshell, everyone is capable of expressing their own opinions, in whatever way, and be prepared to be criticised by others who may not agree. But to suggest we should not criticise, perhaps because it is not all bad but everything is all good, and that we are all educated smart people, is pure crap.


I think someone just made sense. 

IMO.


----------



## starry

Everyone is surely learning where art is concerned and needs to develop their appreciation of music more, nobody is perfect at all. It's just that some shut off their desire to learn. That's their choice, ok. But as long as that is acknowledged.


----------



## alan sheffield

mueske said:


> So, what _do_ you like then?


Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, most English music from Elgar to Tippett, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Nielsen, Sibelius, Ravel, Debussy, Mahler, Bruckner, James Macmillan. I am very definitely a 20th Century fan. I could easily cope if this was the only century from which I was allowed to choose music.


----------



## Zingo

starry said:


> Everyone is surely learning where art is concerned and needs to develop their appreciation of music more, nobody is perfect at all. It's just that some shut off their desire to learn. That's their choice, ok. But as long as that is acknowledged.


With all due respect, I don't think it's as easy as telling people who dislike a composer to simply further "develop their appreciation of music". Vaughan-Williams for example claimed that Schönberg's music "meant nothing" to him.


----------



## starry

Zingo said:


> With all due respect, I don't think it's as easy as telling people who dislike a composer to simply further "develop their appreciation of music". Vaughan-Williams for example claimed that Schönberg's music "meant nothing" to him.


I'm not telling them to do that. I said it's "their choice".


----------



## Eusebius12

jhar26 said:


> I guess it depends on how it's formulated how fans of said composers react. If it's in the "I don't like Mozart/Wagner/Schoenberg or whoever because hat type of expression doesn't appeal to me" mold very few would take offence with that I think. But if the comment is "I don't like Mozart/Wagner/Schoenberg because he is a poor composer" their fans are more likely to take that personal because it's like saying that they have a poor taste in music for liking them.


I don't like Mahler, not because he doesn't impress or even wow me on many levels but he leaves me with a sense of emptiness, of desolation. His work to me is not spiritually enriching, but rather enervating.

I don't like a lot of Schoenberg because it isn't very good  (I do value some of his works however, but his serialism in my view was not at all as productive as that of some of his successors)
Also, Shostakovitch is a lot about very little most of the time. This is banality taken to extremes. Its often repetitive, and empty, and uninteresting. Who cares if Stalin was repetitive, and empty, and uninteresting. I am not interested. Nor in fears of a useless man who supported the system fretting about death. Also, DSCH. (DSCH ad nauseam)


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Aramis said:


> Bruckner. In general I'm fan of "over-blown" music, but he? Mahler is damn expressive and great with what he did in symphonic genre, but Bruckner sounds like pastiche (sometimes even like parody) of truely romantic music.
> 
> He sounds so empty and wanna-be romantic to me. And his person. I expect my favourite composers to be romantic heroes, not boring, bald geezers.
> 
> What else, what else...


It is a shame you are not musically mature enough for Bruckner's works. How you could think of Bruckner's symphonies as "empty" is a mystery to me: he is able to draw more sound from an orchestra than any composer, not only because of his spectacular orchestration, but also because of the way in which he structures his melodies. He is not a "parody" of truly romantic music, he IS truly romantic music.

As for your shallow comment about his appearance, I don't view any composers as being "heroes," which, in this case, I would assume means bulging muscles and flowing hair? A little silly don't you think?


----------



## Zingo

starry said:


> I'm not telling them to do that. I said it's "their choice".


But let's say that you like Schönberg and Vaughan-Williams doesn't, does this mean that he chose not to develop his sense of music to the extent that you have?



Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> It is a shame you are not musically mature enough for Bruckner's works.


This is getting ridiculous. I love Bruckner myself, but surely one should be entitled to dislike him.

To me, it's simply differences of musical temperament that make you dislike a composer. The point I'm clearly failing to make is that many, if not most, of the musical giants themselves had their favourite objects of scorn. It isn't a question of developing your taste to the point where you like all music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> It is a shame you are not musically mature enough for Bruckner's works. ...
> 
> As for your shallow comment about his appearance, I don't view any composers as being "heroes," which, in this case, I would assume means bulging muscles and flowing hair? A little silly don't you think?


The composer Bruckner would probably have died of a heart attack reading comments like this from some poster who even has the self-annointed task of naming himself/herself "Josef Anton Bruckner".

And no, none of us are assuming "heroes" means muscular and flowing haired human beings, not in the same way that you adore the composer Bruckner with his headstone as your Avatar as well as your membership name.

P.S. Yes, I too, am musically immature enough to dislike Bruckner's music. You probably needed binoculors to see where I'm coming from while you are sitting exaltedly on your high horse.

P.P.S. My Avatar is a portrait of Handel, whose music I enjoy, and the Avatar happens to be a fine portrait in itself, which I much rather use to praise, than a clunk of stone.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

The "clunk of stone," as you call it, is used as remembrance to the composer, and I don't understand what you find so distasteful and obscene about it.

As for the "heroes" comment, you appear to have overlooked the comment I quoted. I contrasted the original poster's comment by placing what his vision of heroes appeared to be.

What your first sentence even means, I am not completely sure. Why Bruckner would have a heart attack based on the fact that he has a fan that adores his music and remembers him as a great composer makes no sense to me.

I understand that not everyone likes Bruckner's music, and don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem when they are not able to say what they dislike about it, other than comments that couldn't be further from the truth such as "a parody of truly romantic music" or "empty-sounding." That indicates to me that they have never really listened to his work.

P.S. I enjoy Handel's music as well, in addition to numerous other composers' music. I am not a Bruckner zealot who is too blind to realize the genius in other composers.


----------



## Aramis

> I contrasted the original poster's comment by placing what his vision of heroes appeared to be.


Wololo. Do you really think that saying "heroes" I mean long-haired bodybuilders? My idea of "romantic hero" is person with fascinating personality and life, someone who is as magnificent and fascinating as his works. You could write adventure novel about life of Liszt, about how he was jumping through windows to escape armed and jealous husbands and how he traveled the whole world to find his inspirations.

Bruckner seems to me like repulsive guy who prayed all day long and had a unrequited weakness for young girls.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Aramis said:


> Bruckner seems to me like repulsive guy who prayed all day long and had a unrequited weakness for young girls.


He also had a morbid interest in dead bodies. A right weirdo, in fact.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Aramis said:


> Wololo. Do you really think that saying "heroes" I mean long-haired bodybuilders? My idea of "romantic hero" is person with fascinating personality and life, someone who is as magnificent and fascinating as his works. You could write adventure novel about life of Liszt, about how he was jumping through windows to escape armed and jealous husbands and how he traveled the whole world to find his inspirations.
> 
> Bruckner seems to me like repulsive guy who prayed all day long and had a unrequited weakness for young girls.


I can make an assumption from your avatar that you are a fan of Wagner, and therefore, must think of him as a romantic hero. As long as we are bringing the personal lives of composers into account, which, normally, I would see no need to do, you must know that Wagner was a raging anti-semite and preached against the Jews at any possible opportunity. So much, in fact, that his music and essays were used as Nazi propaganda.

Hmmm....really heroic, wasn't he?


----------



## Aramis

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> I would see no need to do, you must know that Wagner was a raging anti-semite and preached against the Jews at any possible opportunity. So much, in fact, that his music and essays were used as Nazi propaganda.
> 
> Hmmm....really heroic, wasn't he?


I dislike Asians activity in european classical music and often insult likes of Lang Lang. If 50 years after my death some guy will murder milions of them and he will be fan of my music, will you blame me?

Besides, subject of Wagner's antisemitism was widely discussed many times so I won't elaborate further.

And yes, he was kind of romantic hero. I enjoyed reading about his earlier life and its issues like his forced, risky sea journey which inspired him to write Flying Dutchman.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

I don't think you are really grasping the idea of Wagner's hatred of the Jewish race. It cannot be compared to your petty dislike of Asians who happen to be talented musicians. Not only were the Nazis "fans" of Wagner's music, they were influenced by it. And no, of course I don't blame Wagner for the holocaust. I'm just pointing out that his anti-semitic views shaped some of their ideas.

There's no doubt that Bruckner was a very strange and insecure man. But that should not impact how one receives his symphonies and other works. 

Anyway, you stick to the "heroism," and I'll stick to the music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Andy Loochazee said:


> He also had a morbid interest in dead bodies. A right weirdo, in fact.


I never knew that. I just looked up the internet, all I could quickly find was as follows.

Quote:-
"Bruckner died in Vienna, and his Ninth Symphony premiered in the same city on February 11, 1903. He was never married, though he proposed to a large list of astonished teenage girls. He had a morbid interest in dead bodies, even at one point cradling the head of Beethoven in his hands when Beethoven was exhumed. He left extensive instructions that he was to be embalmed".

So, I'm not sure what "morbid interest in dead bodies" meant exactly.


----------



## Aramis

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> But that should not impact how one receives his symphonies and other works.


Why not?

Artists express themselves in art. If I know something about composer as a person it always affects how I see his music and how I approach it. What's wrong about it? I consider it natural.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

And he was also very insecure. He took any and all suggestions from conductors and other people about his symphonies, which resulted in multiple versions of each one. And, because of the Wagner/Brahms feud, suffered greatly at the hands of the critics, prominently Eduard Hanslick. This resulted in his symphonies rarely ever being played in his time. And when they were, they were met with heavy criticism.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Well that is something you find useful in interpreting music, I suppose. Everyone approaches music differently. But Bruckner's symphonies definitely do not reflect proposing to teenage girls, drinking, or taking pleasure in viewing the dead. I'm just curious, not trying to start an argument, but how much Bruckner have you listened to?


----------



## Aramis

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> I'm just curious, not trying to start an argument, but how much Bruckner have you listened to?












This and Karajan. And Mahler's version of the 4th.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

You've heard every symphony in its entirety? And by Karajan too? You are just not a Bruckner person then. But I still think to claim that it sounds empty is a little...far-fetched.


----------



## Aramis

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> You've heard every symphony in its entirety? And by Karajan too? You are just not a Bruckner person then. But I still think to claim that it sounds empty is a little...far-fetched.


How could I hear every symphony by Karajan? Did he record complete cycle? :<


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Indeed he has recorded every Bruckner symphony, however I am unsure of whether or not he recorded them all in one set. Actually, yes, scratch that, he did record the entire cycle.


----------



## Eusebius12

Die Nullte also?

Of course, Bruckner wrote more than 10....


----------



## superhorn

These are probably not "great" composers, but I can't stand the music of Francis Poulenc.
It's so insufferably cute, and full of mincing preciosity. All that affected Parisian chi-chi and frou-frou is so annoying. Humor in music is wonderful, but I can't stand affected cuteness.
His music reminds me a grown person who behaves really childishly at a party and thinks he's being oh so clever but is only making a fool of himself.
And when Poulenc tries to be more serious,as in the opera The Dialogues of the Carmelites, he's merely boring. 
Vivaldi and most Italian baroque music is so formulaic and predicatble. It just keeps going
"chugga-chugga chugga-chugga "ad nauseam. I agree with whoever said that Vivaldi didn't write 500 concertos but wrote the same concerto 500 times.
The operas Faust and Romeo&Juliette by Charles Gounod are loved by many opera fans, but to me they're just bland,insipid and sugary. Musical pabulum. And his Saint Cecelia mass is the most insipid musical setting of the mass I've ever heard. His two symphonies are just about the blandest ever written. 
The minimalist music of Philip Glass is of minimal interest. I like this quote by the distinguished music critic Andrew Porter. He said he prefers the music of Elliott Carter to Glass because he would"rather have his mind challenged than his patience".


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Eusebius12 said:


> Die Nullte also?
> 
> Of course, Bruckner wrote more than 10....


Actually I'm not sure he recorded 0, I overlooked that. But the main set, 1-9, I am 100% sure he did.


----------



## superhorn

As a trained musician and professional, with over 40 years of loving classical music, it's fascinating to see how many people here don't like such greats as Mozart and Bach etc.
This illustrates a motto of my own invention about classical music; in this kind of music,it's not familiarity which breeds contempt, but UNFAMILIARITY.
If you find that a particular work by any composer leaves you cold,or you just don't get it, 
give the recording repeated hearings. Of course, you don't have this luxury if you're hearing a
live performance of a work new to you.
Often, what may seem chaotic or unpleasant at first will start to make much more sense to you with repeated hearings.
This has happened to me so many times with recordings. 
As a musician, I once played a concert with "Six Orchestral Pieces" by Anton Webern on the program. This is the kind of music which spooks many people; if they hear for the first time at a concert, it may seem awful. Webern's music is extremely esoteric stuff ; to newcomers it may seem as difficult to comprehend as a treatise on nuclear physics. 
But as the rehearsals for the concert progressed, the work came to sound much more coherent to me,almost tuneful ! 
Don't ever hesitate to give something repeated hearings on recordings if you don't like something at first ! You may be glad you took the time and effort to do so.


----------



## Johnny

*Don't ever hesitate to give something repeated hearings on recordings if you don't like something at first ! You may be glad you took the time and effort to do so.*

That also applies to Metal. Particularly for people who aren't that familiar with it.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

superhorn said:


> Don't ever hesitate to give something repeated hearings on recordings if you don't like something at first ! You may be glad you took the time and effort to do so.


Some of what you say is perfectly valid but it is rather like teaching grandmother to suck eggs, don't you think?

I can easily anticipate the reaction of many of the Mozart-haters here that they have indeed tried repeatedly to appreciate the man's music but it's still not to their liking, and any further effort would be useless.

Your point about persistence in trying to like something that doesn't appeal immediately does have a cost, which is that you might still not like it at the end of the day in which case you have wasted money and time that could have been spent delving further into other works which you don't currently have by the composers you know you like, or works by other composers you may like because of close similarity of style. Mostly everything has a (opportunity) cost.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

superhorn said:


> As a trained musician and professional, with over 40 years of loving classical music, it's fascinating to see how many people here don't like such greats as Mozart and Bach etc.
> This illustrates a motto of my own invention about classical music; in this kind of music,it's not familiarity which breeds contempt, but UNFAMILIARITY.
> If you find that a particular work by any composer leaves you cold,or you just don't get it,
> give the recording repeated hearings. Of course, you don't have this luxury if you're hearing a
> live performance of a work new to you.
> Often, what may seem chaotic or unpleasant at first will start to make much more sense to you with repeated hearings.


And this also applies to Bruckner and Schubert.


----------



## Johnny

I don't think he was suggesting that if you find a piece you don't like, that you listen to it constantly until you like it. There are obviously limits. You can also always retry it some time in the future.


----------



## superhorn

Actually, you don't have to waste money to get to know music better. You can always borrow CDs from your library Many , such as mine in New Rochelle near New York allow you to borrow things from other libraries in Westchester county on an interloan system where the CD or whatever is brought to your library to pick it up.
And if you rlibrary doesn't have a particular CD, you can always ask a librarian to have the library aquire it.


----------



## Sid James

I agree that part of what makes classical so interesting is the ability for the listener to be flexible & discover things upon repeated listenings that were not apparent at first. I myself was not into solo piano or choral until recently, but now I listen to them all the time. I think part of the reason why we don't like a particular genre or composer is that we want to be instantly gratified. Of course, not all music is like that & Webern was a good example, because more contemporary music can often be off-putting at first due to it's complexity (or in Webern's case, it's conciseness). But I think part of the thrill of discovery or rediscovery is to be open to as many different things as possible, and slowly let them work their magic & sink in...

But I disagree with you about Poulenc & Gounod, although they are by no means my favourite composers. But I love Gounod's _St. Cecilia Mass_ & Poulenc's _Les Biches_...


----------



## JAKE WYB

superhorn said:


> As a trained musician and professional, with over 40 years of loving classical music, it's fascinating to see how many people here don't like such greats as Mozart and Bach etc.
> This illustrates a motto of my own invention about classical music; in this kind of music,it's not familiarity which breeds contempt, but UNFAMILIARITY.
> If you find that a particular work by any composer leaves you cold,or you just don't get it,
> give the recording repeated hearings. Of course, you don't have this luxury if you're hearing a
> live performance of a work new to you.
> Often, what may seem chaotic or unpleasant at first will start to make much more sense to you with repeated hearings.
> This has happened to me so many times with recordings.
> As a musician, I once played a concert with "Six Orchestral Pieces" by Anton Webern on the program. This is the kind of music which spooks many people; if they hear for the first time at a concert, it may seem awful. Webern's music is extremely esoteric stuff ; to newcomers it may seem as difficult to comprehend as a treatise on nuclear physics.
> But as the rehearsals for the concert progressed, the work came to sound much more coherent to me,almost tuneful !
> Don't ever hesitate to give something repeated hearings on recordings if you don't like something at first ! You may be glad you took the time and effort to do so.


I get rather tired of being talked down to because I say I cant stand the winging, ponsy sound of Mozart - my musical appreciation has benefitted a huge amount from working hard at familiarisation with music - my most favourite pieces by sibelius were mediocre to me for years before they started to make sense and became almost biblical to me in importance, timelessness and spiritual comfort, i dont need telling by an 'educated' musician i am missing out - ii hear reems of mozrt on the radio - i never avoid it but its pointless to me. I dont mind lots of music from other so called greats like bach or beethoven but mozrt is a nuisance and a pollution or when seen live which i have done a good few times is boring and insipid and makes the atmosphere in the concert hall stale and tired only to be revitalised and made electric after by Strauss or Mahler etc...
Its often over-academicised musicians that start missing the point and context of music through confined and limited study of classical 'academic' music and its those people who preach persevering with such music who would greatly benefit from some enlightening, broadening wider listening themselves, as theres so much excellence in the two centuries since the 'golden period' to put Mozart and his arpeggios and wafts and pathetic cadences into complete perspective - unfortunately it will take a good few decades yet for that to be appreciated


----------



## muxamed

JAKE WYB said:


> but mozrt is a nuisance and a pollution or when seen live which i have done a good few times is boring and insipid and makes the atmosphere in the concert hall stale and tired only to be revitalised and made electric after by Strauss or Mahler etc...
> 
> broadening wider listening themselves, as theres so much excellence in the two centuries since the 'golden period' to put Mozart and his arpeggios and wafts and pathetic cadences into complete perspective - unfortunately it will take a good few decades yet for that to be appreciated


In any case you are very good at generalising and believing that every other human being sees and feels things the same way as you do. "Tired and staled atmosphere in the concert hall" is probably something that only exists inside your head due to your deep depreciation of the composer. In reality there is no such thing as "tired and staled atmosphere in the concert hall" because such a situation would presuppose that everyone else in that concert hall feels in the same way as you do. I can assure you that is impossible. If that was the case than Mozart's music would be dead and gone long time ago.


----------



## jhar26

Everybody has a right to his or her own opinion, but I've noticed that whenever people bash the music of Mozart and his admirers come to his defence that it's the bashers who accuse Mozart fans of being intolerant.


----------



## Tapkaara

jhar26 said:


> Everybody has a right to his or her own opinion, but I've noticed that whenever people bash the music of Mozart and his admirers come to his defence that it's the bashers who accuse Mozart fans of being intolerant.


But Mozart-lovers ARE intolerant. People can (and do) bash my favorite composers all day long and I love it. People should be allowed to say Sibelius is the scum of the earth. What do I care? Why should I care? It feels good to talk about compoers you like and composers you DON'T like. People should be allowed the luxury to speak and say whatever they want without being taken to task or called an imbecile.

An area where people can air their opinions, no matter how divergent, is what this place should be about. Why can't the Mozart lovers ever say "I don't agree with you but I respect your opinion" or something like that. Instead, we have to be schooled by someone who knows more than we do. I guess it's naive to think you should expect respect around here.

I dunno, I suppose it's all part of the forum experience and we should all learn to be tolerant of intolernace. These forums are not utopias of an exchange of opinions. Rather, they are nothing more than an internet back alley where you can voice your opion...if you dare. And if you don't like Mozart, maybe it's better to stay out of forums all together.


----------



## Aramis

> People can (and do) bash my favorite composers all day long and I love it. People should be allowed to say Sibelius is the scum of the earth. What do I care?


That's another reason why Mozart > Sibelius.

His lovers are like legendary knights who will never allow anyone to insult ladies of their hearts. They shall always stand for her (him) and fierce blasphemer's heart with their swords.

Shame on you for not adhering to the knightly virtues.


----------



## jhar26

Tapkaara said:


> But Mozart-lovers ARE intolerant.


No. SOME Mozart fans are intolerant, just like some fans of every other composer are intolerant. One could just as easily say that Mozart bashers are intolerant of the fact that us fans love his music. That would be a generalization - and thus wrong. But not more so than your statement that Mozart fans are intolerant. I'm not intolerant. Mozartgirl is not intolerant. Elgarian is not intolerant. And that's to name but a few, because I'm sure that many another Mozart fan here when he reads this thinks, "hey, I'm not intolerant either."


> People should be allowed the luxury to speak and say whatever they want without being taken to task or called an imbecile. An area where people can air their opinions, no matter how divergent, is what this place should be about. Why can't the Mozart lovers ever say "I don't agree with you but I respect your opinion" or something like that.


Well, as you know I say that all the time. In fact, I've said that so often, and I've walked on egg shells so many times trying not to upset anyone over the years that it makes ME feel like an imbecile.


----------



## SPR

..really now. How many times can mozart hater/lover topic be dragged around? Surely this horse has been beaten to smithereens, shot through the lungs, stomped on with fantastic zeal, then dismembered and buried in soft peat for 3 months. I must admit the righeous indignation adorned by the nay-sayers is pretty surprising sometimes... but then again... its obvious on which side of the 'intolerant' fence I have fallen.

Lets discuss someone/something less controvercial shall we? Perhaps John Cage or the Grosse Fuge?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Tapkaara said:


> An area where people can air their opinions, no matter how divergent, is what this place should be about. Why can't the Mozart lovers ever say "I don't agree with you but I respect your opinion" or something like that. Instead, we have to be schooled by someone who knows more than we do. I guess it's naive to think you should expect respect around here.


My advice is: toughen up and not be whimps.

(I like the word "imbecile". I used it to describe and shame a few trolls we had over the last few days. Now they are gone, for the betterment of this discussion board, hopefully.)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

SPR said:


> Lets discuss someone/something less controvercial shall we? Perhaps John Cage or the Grosse Fuge?


How about what size shoe Mozart wore? That's less controversial for sure. What about Bruckner's favourite preservation methods for corpses?


----------



## Argus

SPR said:


> ..really now. How many times can mozart hater/lover topic be dragged around? Surely this horse has been beaten to smithereens, shot through the lungs, stomped on with fantastic zeal, then dismembered and buried in soft peat for 3 months. I must admit the righeous indignation adorned by the nay-sayers is pretty surprising sometimes... but then again... its obvious on which side of the 'intolerant' fence I have fallen.
> 
> Lets discuss someone/something less controvercial shall we? Perhaps John Cage or the Grosse Fuge?


I'm beginning to think Tapkaara doesn't like Mozart.


----------



## Tapkaara

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> My advice is: toughen up and not be whimps.
> 
> (I like the word "imbecile". I used it to describe and shame a few trolls we had over the last few days. Now they are gone, for the betterment of this discussion board, hopefully.)


Shouldn't those who get so wound up because someone doesn't like Mozart also "toughen up?"

Anyway, I give up. I guess I should just expect the backlash. It's just the internet, after all.


----------



## Tapkaara

jhar26 said:


> No. SOME Mozart fans are intolerant, just like some fans of every other composer are intolerant. One could just as easily say that Mozart bashers are intolerant of the fact that us fans love his music. That would be a generalization - and thus wrong. But not more so than your statement that Mozart fans are intolerant. I'm not intolerant. Mozartgirl is not intolerant. Elgarian is not intolerant. And that's to name but a few, because I'm sure that many another Mozart fan here when he reads this thinks, "hey, I'm not intolerant either."


I suppose I was generalizing when I said "all Mozart lovers." I retract that.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Tapkaara said:


> Shouldn't those who get so wound up because someone doesn't like Mozart also "toughen up?"
> 
> Anyway, I give up. I guess I should just expect the backlash. It's just the internet, after all.


I like your discussions, Mr Tapkaara. I feel you are quite honest, though I may be wrong.

I think I am a tough old "bustard". You probably have read my posts here and there, and I do fight a fight alright. Battered and wounded, I still march on.


----------



## Tapkaara

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I like your discussions, Mr Tapkaara. I feel you are quite honest, though I may be wrong.
> 
> I think I am a tough old "bustard". You probably have read my posts here and there, and I do fight a fight alright. Battered and wounded, I still march on.


Why do you think you'd be wrong that I am honest?!

You are a good guy yourself. I appreciate your civility, certainly.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> What about Bruckner's favourite preservation methods for corpses?


I spotted this somewhere on the internet:

_"... Bruckner was a very traditional Catholic with a reverence for relics, such as the remains of saints. For him composers like Beethoven were "saints," and when Beethoven and Schubert's remains were exhumed for reburial close to each other in the Central Cemetery in Vienna, Bruckner insisted upon being present and in handling the remains of Beethoven, even being the one to put Beethoven's skull back in the casket after examination by physicians. Afterwards he was proud of the fact that he might have lost a lens out of his pince nez gles in handling Beethoven's bones and that the lens might have ended up being buried with Beethoven! That Bruckner was morbid by most people's standards when it came to viewing corpses could be supported by the reports that when there was a terrible fire at a theater near where he lived in Vienna, Bruckner insisted upon going to view the charred remains with the families of the victims, and when the Emperor Maximilian's body was returned to Vienna for burial after his execution in Mexico, Bruckner wrote to his friend Weinwurm to go to the office of the Hofberg Palace to see if there would be a viewing of the remains in a gl-topped casket. He was so obsessed with the Mayerling tragedy that he got a friend to take him out to the monastery where Mary Vetsara was buried to try and learn the facts of the case from the monks, and he also went to the hunting lodge at night and crept up to the windows to peek in, and thereby became one of the first persons not connected with the imperial family to know that the Emperor had moved an enclosed order of nuns into the hunting lodge as a step towards turning it into a convent for perpetual prayers for the Archduke Rudolph. I have also read that Bruckner left instructions for a gl lid for his own casket at St. Florian, but that obviously did not happen ..."_

Kind of spooky, as Dame Edna might say.


----------



## Zingo

Andy Loochazee said:


> Kind of spooky, as Dame Edna might say.


I dunno. Considering that most people eat their evening crisps while watching CSI, which to me appears to consist of non-stop autopsy close-ups, their may live a little Anton Bruckner in many of us.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

He was undoubtedly a strange man, but, also a genius. The latter is unusual without the former.

A composer that I strongly dislike that some may consider great: Benjamin Britten.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> A composer that I strongly dislike that some may consider great: Benjamin Britten.


I wouldn't wish to argue with you but I quite like Britten. Despite my overall preference for music of much earlier periods, I still enjoy a lot of 20th C music, mainly by English composers or those who sound "English" like Delius.

Having just looked at my pile of Britten CDs, it totals about 10 hours. I especially like his Violin Concerto Opus 15, Cello Sonata Opus 65, War Requiem, Peter Grimes.


----------



## David C Coleman

Of the well established composers, I've always struggled a bit with Elgar! to me he sounds a bit generic: The least interesting of that British lot that bridged the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Having said that his Cello Concerto is a very moving piece. But it's the only piece that I return to again and again...


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

David C Coleman said:


> Of the well established composers, I've always struggled a bit with Elgar! to me he sounds a bit generic:


Sometimes, I feel that way about 'Raif.'


----------



## starry

David C Coleman said:


> Of the well established composers, I've always struggled a bit with Elgar! to me he sounds a bit generic: The least interesting of that British lot that bridged the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Having said that his Cello Concerto is a very moving piece. But it's the only piece that I return to again and again...


Some Elgar I like some I don't like. But some pieces like his 1st symphony I think can stand up among it's peers in the period (looking internationally, rather than merely locally).


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

David C Coleman said:


> Of the well established composers, I've always struggled a bit with Elgar! to me he sounds a bit generic: The least interesting of that British lot that bridged the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Having said that his Cello Concerto is a very moving piece. But it's the only piece that I return to again and again...


I can't say I disagree...but to me, his cello concerto is so marvelous that Elgar ranks very highly in my book.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Andy Loochazee said:


> I wouldn't wish to argue with you but I quite like Britten. Despite my overall preference for music of much earlier periods, I still enjoy a lot of 20th C music, mainly by English composers or those who sound "English" like Delius.
> 
> Having just looked at my pile of Britten CDs, it totals about 10 hours. I especially like his Violin Concerto Opus 15, Cello Sonata Opus 65, War Requiem, Peter Grimes.


I too find English composers of the 20th century to be interesting in most cases, however Britten just doesn't excite me in any way.


----------



## starry

There's no single 'English' sound really. Indeed some would say Delius was influenced by some French composers. But does it really matter? As long as he did some good music in the style that personally suited him that's all I care about.

And I can't say I've been a huge fan of Britten either, although no doubt there are some things I like.


----------



## Tapkaara

starry said:


> There's no single 'English' sound really.


Does anyone else disagree with this?


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Tapkaara said:


> Does anyone else disagree with this?


I might have to agree with Tapkaara here. An "English" sound is just as distinguishable as a Russian sound in my opinion. And a Russian sound is pretty distinct.


----------



## Tapkaara

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> I might have to agree with Tapkaara here. An "English" sound is just as distinguishable as a Russian sound in my opinion. And a Russian sound is pretty distinct.


Quite agree. It is easy to tell the difference between Russian music, we'll say, and the Austro-German tradition.


----------



## David C Coleman

There are "national" sounds and styles from most continents/countries, but there are also differences from different composers within their countries..very few composers I've heard compose in a neutral kind of style!..Most are influenced from local folk tunes/dances, and from the environment/surroundings they live in.


----------



## starry

English composers
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Category:English_composers

Lots of styles there, from Byrd in the Renaissance style to Benjamin Frankel in the Twelve-tone technique of Schoenberg. Or are you saying that they aren't 'English' enough? What conception of 'English' do you have? I suspect it's tied to some late 19th century romantic style, maybe pastoralism. Quite a limited concept. It seems to make about as little sense as saying there is one style in English literature. The only thing liking all English composers or writers together is that they happened to come from England.

And it's a stylistic choice as to whether a composer decides to use folk tunes in their music, indeed they might use folk tunes of a foreign country in some of their pieces or no folk tunes at all. Folk tunes can also be regional and not strictly national. And what's so special about a folk tune anyway? What matters more is the style it is played in and the whole arrangement. All that can differ according to whatever style the music is.

Surprised I need to point this out.


----------



## JAKE WYB

you cant tarr users of folk sound and the pastoral sound with the same folksy brush and failing to distinguish what links the likes of Elgar, VW, Bax, Holst etc have in common - one that cant be dismissed as using the folksy or pastoral or romanticism. 

There is a very english sound that can percolate into any sort of abstract music you like - Choral, symphonic, tone poemy, and avant garde of various sorts etc. To get all inverse snobbery about national sounds wether deliberate or not, is to miss the point of classical music in general - 

nevertheless folk of various hues has informed regional/national musical charactersitics since time immemorial. Just because there isnnt such a rich and pervasive traditional folk tradition in this country, theres no reason wehty it should be any less relevant or interesting. Even so its how it evolved into a deeper sound right from the tudor choral composers to VW to nowadays into the general sound and treatment.


----------



## kingtim

Anyone who doesn't like Holst should check out his Planets suite. Mars, the bringer of War is a great piece! It's so bold and powerful, so moving. I have no idea how anyone could dislike this piece, although I must admit am not the most familiar with Holst.

Aside from this, I really don't like most composers that use the harpsichord commonly. It just smacks of snooty, to me.


----------



## SPR

kingtim said:


> ...Aside from this, I really don't like most composers that use the harpsichord commonly. It just smacks of snooty, to me.


laugh. You cant understand people that dislike 'Planets'... and then dismiss all music created before 1720 or so? (before fortepiano) Thats fine 

Personally, I like harpsicord... most of the time.

Sounds like you hate powdered wigs more than harpsichord.


----------



## starry

JAKE WYB said:


> There is a very english sound that can percolate into any sort of abstract music you like - Choral, symphonic, tone poemy, and avant garde of various sorts etc.


I'm not sure there is real evidence of this, and I like to enjoy the variety and individuality of music anyway. I think some like to fit music into national stereotypes, even peculiarly 'ethnic' views on classical music I see sometimes. I've nothing against folk music, it can be interesting more so maybe when used in an interesting way. But it's how it is used that is important, classical music is a art which develops and changes according to it's time and will take all kinds of influences and traditions which have developed to help it's creativity. I celebrate the individual creativity of a composer (if they are good) rather than try and pack them together with loads of others on the basis of where they are born or assumed ethnicity. A society is also a very complex thing and is something which is constantly changing, very hard to pin it down to one style/sound of music.


----------



## Argus

kingtim said:


> Aside from this, I really don't like most composers that use the harpsichord commonly. It just smacks of snooty, to me.
































Learn and return.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

kingtim said:


> Aside from this, I really don't like most composers that use the harpsichord commonly. It just smacks of snooty, to me.


What a lowlife comment. No different to the ignorant perception that Classical music is for snobs, rich people, gays etc.


----------



## superhorn

The only English composer I don't like is Fredrick Delius. His music is sort of pretty, but it's monotonously languorous in mood and cloyingly sentimental. His harmonies are so sugary they could induce diabetes ! Each of his works sounds like the soundtrack to some sentimental British film of the 30s or 40s. Listening to his music is rather like being forced to consume a large bowl of treacle.


----------



## Serge

Amazingly, no. Not yet, anyway. But I might be getting there… I suspect that Messiaen is rubbing me against the grain, but I want to make sure that I am more than just neutral to his music before I can safely say that I hate him. 

Having said that, there are more than plenty of presumably great composers that I feel quite dispassionate about. It’s not that I don’t get their music, on the contrary, I think that I am not fascinated by it because I can pretty much see through it, so to speak. I don’t hate these composers though or blame them for being limited in expressive means they had at their disposal. I might even enjoy their compositions mildly on occasion.


----------



## JAKE WYB

superhorn said:


> The only English composer I don't like is Fredrick Delius. His music is sort of pretty, but it's monotonously languorous in mood and cloyingly sentimental. His harmonies are so sugary they could induce diabetes ! Each of his works sounds like the soundtrack to some sentimental British film of the 30s or 40s. Listening to his music is rather like being forced to consume a large bowl of treacle.


Delius - i agree that his music is completely over sugared with sickly, aimless noise - most of what ive heard a number of times is relatively unlistenable to me - a lot of BAX has a similar floaty chromatic wishy washy ness but I he is such a master orchestrator it sounds genuinely glowing and atmospheric at its best - anything attractive about Delius can be found in greater abundance and atmosphere in Bax - take Spring fire. But i shouldnt mention Bax on this tread because he _is_ a favourite of mine.

If all of Deliuss music was put together it would just sound like any long Delius span of music without starts or ends all the same but without form - bit like Ligeti - though i like ligeti


----------



## Huge

Borodin is beginning to get on my peck..... Should have stayed in the lab.


----------



## starry

Borodin's second symphony is hard to dislike imo, and Delius could be quite impressionistic (in a style sometimes considered just for several French composers) such as in Brigg Fair.


----------



## JAKE WYB

When the slightly weaker early 20th century composers used impressionistic sound worlds in their own music they most often relied on a heavy chromatic swill which turns music innto treacle - Delius is to me a good example, and Bax did in his weaker giuse, but there is a fine line between sickly chromticism and heady, dreamy sensuality one finds in Bax such as spring fire and nympholept. Which is why i like such early Bax and dont like Delius though they inhabit a similar world


----------



## starry

I've no doubt some impressionistic music was weak and I certainly don't like all of Delius, but I wouldn't say all of it is bad. He could do a nice light work such as Sleigh Ride as well. Similarly I like some Bax but dislike some other pieces.


----------



## JRFuerst

Bach, Chopin, Mozart and Brahms. They never really do it for me.


----------



## superhorn

I agree about Bax. His music has something of the lush harmonies of Delius, but it has much more backbone, and his harmonies at least aren't so cloyingly sweet.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Personally, I quite like Delius... more than Bax. I find he merges something of French Impressionism with an English pastoral sound. His operas are also quite unique... Koanga set African-American protagonists to opera well before Porgy and Bess... while his Village Romeo and Juliet merges elements of Impressionism and the English pastorale with aspects of Wagner achieving something as beautiful as Puccini.


----------



## JAKE WYB

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally, I quite like Delius... more than Bax. I find he merges something of French Impressionism with an English pastoral sound. His operas are also quite unique... Koanga set African-American protagonists to opera well before Porgy and Bess... while his Village Romeo and Juliet merges elements of Impressionism and the English pastorale with aspects of Wagner achieving something as beautiful as Puccini.


to me thats all the reason why i dont like delius - all the above the inspid qualities in one basket without the depth and magic of bax, the melancholy, timelessness englishness (not the wafty flowery cliched sort) of VW nor the focus and colour judgement of the french impressionists.


----------



## Stravinsky

Pierre Boulez!


----------



## MJTTOMB

Huge said:


> Borodin is beginning to get on my peck..... Should have stayed in the lab.


Listen to his string quartets. If you have to, forget the Polovtsian Dances, forget the folk music if you absolutely must, but don't give up on his other works!

As for me, I hate Beethoven. I can't explain why. I respect him as a musician but I hate his guts.


----------



## Tapkaara

MJTTOMB said:


> As for me, I hate Beethoven. I can't explain why. I respect him as a musician but I hate his guts.


You pig...


----------



## MJTTOMB

Tapkaara said:


> You pig...


That was entirely uncalled for.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

MJTTOMB said:


> As for me, I hate Beethoven. I can't explain why. I respect him as a musician but I hate his guts.


You mean you hate Beethoven personally? Did he insult you recently? What did he say? What did he do? What was he wearing/how did he look like when he insulted you? Most of us here have never seen him in real life. Lucky you. I'm jealous.


----------



## MJTTOMB

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You mean you hate Beethoven personally? Did he insult you recently? What did he say? What did he do? What was he wearing/how did he look like when he insulted you? Most of us here have never seen him in real life. Lucky you. I'm jealous.


As a person he was certainly not worse than Wagner. I don't particularly hate him as a person. I hate that he has a cult of blind followers who seem to look the other way when all other composers are being talked down, yet who jump to kill the messenger who bears the news that his music is truly nothing special. It's simply a great lot of theoretically perfect drivel. He wrote for the piano crudely, treating it like an orchestra rather than a piano. Granted, his ability to compose whilst deaf is about as impressive as someone who is blind and can draw, but since when are handicaps given to composers? I suppose next we're going to be boosting Salieri to a higher pedestal than he deserves because he was a madman?

Give me one equally valid reason that his music is worth my time and I'd consider changing my thoughts, but otherwise stop with your empty insults and sarcasm. (edit: Insults refers to the individual who somehow found it necessary to call me a pig for some reason, not to your comments)

On the one hand his music is indeed fantastic, the symphonies are anyway. However, it is not human. I personally hear it as being mechanical.

I'm sorry that my tastes are not the same as your own, but attacking me for having a difference of opinion is terribly immature, and really solves nothing.


----------



## Johnny

kingtim said:


> Anyone who doesn't like Holst should check out his Planets suite. Mars, the bringer of War is a great piece! It's so bold and powerful, so moving. I have no idea how anyone could dislike this piece, although I must admit am not the most familiar with Holst.
> 
> Aside from this, I really don't like most composers that use the harpsichord commonly. It just smacks of snooty, to me.







EDIT: Wow the sound is awful on that video. I recommend searching for the album and listening to it properly.


----------



## Tapkaara

MJTTOMB said:


> As a person he was certainly not worse than Wagner. I don't particularly hate him as a person. I hate that he has a cult of blind followers who seem to look the other way when all other composers are being talked down, yet who jump to kill the messenger who bears the news that his music is truly nothing special. It's simply a great lot of theoretically perfect drivel. He wrote for the piano crudely, treating it like an orchestra rather than a piano. Granted, his ability to compose whilst deaf is about as impressive as someone who is blind and can draw, but since when are handicaps given to composers? I suppose next we're going to be boosting Salieri to a higher pedestal than he deserves because he was a madman?
> 
> Give me one equally valid reason that his music is worth my time and I'd consider changing my thoughts, but otherwise stop with your empty insults and sarcasm. (edit: Insults refers to the individual who somehow found it necessary to call me a pig for some reason, not to your comments)
> 
> On the one hand his music is indeed fantastic, the symphonies are anyway. However, it is not human. I personally hear it as being mechanical.
> 
> I'm sorry that my tastes are not the same as your own, but attacking me for having a difference of opinion is terribly immature, and really solves nothing.


These types of statements will not fly in here.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Tapkaara said:


> These types of statements will not fly in here.


Would it be an acceptable statement for me to, oh, call you a pig?

I reiterate, my opinion is simply an opinion. I'm not saying you can't like Beethoven. In fact, I posted a few links a few days back for somebody who was interested in knowing which recordings of the symphonies were considered to be the best. I'm happy to help people explore his works if that's what brings them deeper into the world of art music. I'm simply saying that to me his music is not anywhere near as great as most people seem to think it is. Is that any different than what anyone else has said in this thread? The title is, after all, "Is There a Great Composer You Plain Just Don't Like". I answered the question, sue me.

Edit: I'd like to point out that by even posting his name in this thread I'm acknowledging at the very least that he is indeed a "great composer".


----------



## Tapkaara

MJTTOMB said:


> Would it be an acceptable statement for me to, oh, call you a pig?
> 
> I reiterate, my opinion is simply an opinion. I'm not saying you can't like Beethoven. In fact, I posted a few links a few days back for somebody who was interested in knowing which recordings of the symphonies were considered to be the best. I'm happy to help people explore his works if that's what brings them deeper into the world of art music. I'm simply saying that to me his music is not anywhere near as great as most people seem to think it is. Is that any different than what anyone else has said in this thread? The title is, after all, "Is There a Great Composer You Plain Just Don't Like". I answered the question, sue me.
> 
> Edit: I'd like to point out that by even posting his name in this thread I'm acknowledging at the very least that he is indeed a "great composer".


You will soon learn, my little friend, that opinions contrary to the status quo of popular opinion are not welcome here. If you don't like Beethoven, you might as well pack your bags and leave the world of western art music and go take in Justin Bieber instead. It's that simple.

We don't like uninformed, uneducated opinions around here. We like the facts. Beethoven is great, and that, my little friend, is a FACT. Be gone with you! Pig!


----------



## MJTTOMB

Tapkaara said:


> You will soon learn, my little friend, that opinions contrary to the status quo of popular opinion are not welcome here. If you don't like Beethoven, you might as well pack your bags and leave the world of western art music and go take in Justin Bieber instead. It's that simple.
> 
> We don't like uninformed, uneducated opinions around here. We like the facts. Beethoven is great, and that, my little friend, is a FACT. Be gone with you! Pig!


What do you know about my education? I compose music, certainly not at the same level as your dear Beethoven, but I never claimed to be a great. I know theory in and out, I know the repertoire out and in, and I know the biographies and works of the greats. beethoven was one of those greats, but I do not like his music.

The odd thing is that I actually cited reasons for my dislike of his music, while you simply stated as fact that the status quo is the only thing that matters. Perhaps you are not with the times, but the status quo also says that my good friend Justin Bieber is a good musician. Is he? I wouldn't know, I've never heard any of his work.

Your colossal composer is one of only two composers in the entirety of the repertoire I don't like. I'm sorry that you don't agree, but that's really not my problem. I'm not a pig, and I refuse to leave until I've heard a decent explanation for how exactly it is that I'm wrong. By all means, feel free to post some of your own compositions, and I'll gladly post my own. And then perhaps, we can talk about "education".


----------



## Johnny

You are both as bad as each other. Both ignorant hypocrites.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Johnny's got the right idea.


----------



## Tapkaara

MJTTOMB said:


> What do you know about my education? I compose music, certainly not at the same level as your dear Beethoven, but I never claimed to be a great. I know theory in and out, I know the repertoire out and in, and I know the biographies and works of the greats. beethoven was one of those greats, but I do not like his music.
> 
> The odd thing is that I actually cited reasons for my dislike of his music, while you simply stated as fact that the status quo is the only thing that matters. Perhaps you are not with the times, but the status quo also says that my good friend Justin Bieber is a good musician. Is he? I wouldn't know, I've never heard any of his work.
> 
> Your colossal composer is one of only two composers in the entirety of the repertoire I don't like. I'm sorry that you don't agree, but that's really not my problem. I'm not a pig, and I refuse to leave until I've heard a decent explanation for how exactly it is that I'm wrong. By all means, feel free to post some of your own compositions, and I'll gladly post my own. And then perhaps, we can talk about "education".


I am so upset now. Your compositions will surely be superior to my own. I must now repent.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Tapkaara said:


> I am so upset now. Your compositions will surely be superior to my own. I must now repent.


You're hopeless, I'm not going to bother trying to talk with you. Anyone else who may be offended my comments, I apologize. But this gentleman here is simply a bit off his rocker.


----------



## Tapkaara

Another "great" composer I cannot stand is Scriabin. Just awful music.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Tapkaara said:


> Another "great" composer I cannot stand is Scriabin. Just awful music.


Oh, that's mature.

I wouldn't even call him a great. He's still terribly obscure, and perhaps for good reason. He created a completely original harmonic language that was similar to others that came before, but radically new. If you don't like it, it's really your loss, not mine. To each their own.


----------



## Tapkaara

MJTTOMB said:


> Oh, that's mature.
> 
> I wouldn't even call him a great. He's still terribly obscure, and perhaps for good reason. He created a completely original harmonic language that was similar to others that came before, but radically new. If you don't like it, it's really your loss, not mine. To each their own.


Now THAT is a very good response to criticism of a composer that may be dear to you. My vicious attacks on poor MJTTOMB, however, are demonstrative of the ridiculous attacks one is wont to receive around here should they voice a potentially unpopular opinion.

I have learned, though, it's awfully naive to think that others can be mature and sympathetic to unpopular, against-the-grain commentary, so we just have to take it in stride or "pack our bags," as it were.

Welcome, MJTTOMB!


----------



## MJTTOMB

Tapkaara said:


> Now THAT is a very good response to criticism of a composer that may be dear to you. My vicious attacks on poor MJTTOMB, however, are demonstrative of the ridiculous attacks one is wont to receive around here should they voice a potentially unpopular opinion.
> 
> I have learned, though, it's awfully naive to think that others can be mature and sympathetic to unpopular, against-the-grain commentary, so we just have to take it in stride or "pack our bags," as it were.
> 
> Welcome, MJTTOMB!


You were starting to make me unhappy, sir. Thanks for the strange welcome, I guess? hahahah

Cheers.

It's really really interesting though. His harmonic language centered around chords constructed of fourths rather than thirds. It's really fascinating, whether you like the sound of it or not, it's certainly innovative.


----------



## Tapkaara

MJTTOMB said:


> You were starting to make me unhappy, sir. Thanks for the strange welcome, I guess? hahahah
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> It's really really interesting though. His harmonic language centered around chords constructed of fourths rather than thirds. It's really fascinating, whether you like the sound of it or not, it's certainly innovative.


You will learn just how strange things can get around here very quickly...

Anyway, I am indifferent to Scriabin. I agree that he is unique, original and perhaps even innovative but I have yet to have my soul open to him. It could happen. I really admire him, if anything. If that makes sense.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

MJTTOMB said:


> As a person he was certainly not worse than Wagner. I don't particularly hate him as a person. I hate that he has a cult of blind followers who seem to look the other way when all other composers are being talked down, yet who jump to kill the messenger who bears the news that his music is truly nothing special. It's simply a great lot of theoretically perfect drivel. He wrote for the piano crudely, treating it like an orchestra rather than a piano. Granted, his ability to compose whilst deaf is about as impressive as someone who is blind and can draw, but since when are handicaps given to composers? I suppose next we're going to be boosting Salieri to a higher pedestal than he deserves because he was a madman?
> 
> Give me one equally valid reason that his music is worth my time and I'd consider changing my thoughts, but otherwise stop with your empty insults and sarcasm. (edit: Insults refers to the individual who somehow found it necessary to call me a pig for some reason, not to your comments)
> 
> On the one hand his music is indeed fantastic, the symphonies are anyway. However, it is not human. I personally hear it as being mechanical.
> 
> I'm sorry that my tastes are not the same as your own, but attacking me for having a difference of opinion is terribly immature, and really solves nothing.


Why do you find Beethoven's music mechanical? Mechanical implies the structure of his music (Classical form essentially) is crafted for functional use/lack of emotion, like a clock. Do you also think the same of say, Haydn's music/music of that era in general?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

to me thats all the reason why i dont like delius - all the above the inspid qualities in one basket without the depth and magic of bax, the melancholy, timelessness englishness (not the wafty flowery cliched sort) of VW nor the focus and colour judgement of the french impressionists.

Ummm... how exactly do you measure Bax' "depth" vs that of Delius... or anyone else for that matter?


----------



## MJTTOMB

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Why do you find Beethoven's music mechanical? Mechanical implies the structure of his music (Classical form essentially) is crafted for functional use/lack of emotion, like a clock. Do you also think the same of say, Haydn's music/music of that era in general?


I'm not particularly fond of Haydn, though I do like his string quartets. Haydn's phrasings are notoriously symmetrical. Mozart, and late Mozart especially used unpredictable and unsymmetrical phrases.

I'm not particularly alone, ,I might add. Debussy and Saint-Saens attended a programme of Beethoven's music, and Debussy left the hall, explaining to Saint-Saens something along the lines of "the old man is starting to develop". Beethoven certainly made a huge influence on structure and large-scale form. His form was much grander than the form of Mozart or Haydn, but it essentially only expanded on the development. I can't completely describe what it is that sounds mechanical about his music, it is an entirely personal reaction to the music, one that probably very few others share.

Ironically enough I find that Bach's works are actually quite compelling, not particularly through their structural elements, but in his harmonic language and driving rhythms. See if you can find a recording of his chromatic fantasia and fugue. It has dissonances that won't be heard again until the late romantic period.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

MJTTOMB said:


> I'm not particularly fond of Haydn, though I do like his string quartets. Haydn's phrasings are notoriously symmetrical. Mozart, and late Mozart especially used unpredictable and unsymmetrical phrases.
> 
> I'm not particularly alone, ,I might add. Debussy and Saint-Saens attended a programme of Beethoven's music, and Debussy left the hall, explaining to Saint-Saens something along the lines of "the old man is starting to develop". Beethoven certainly made a huge influence on structure and large-scale form. His form was much grander than the form of Mozart or Haydn, but it essentially only expanded on the development. I can't completely describe what it is that sounds mechanical about his music, it is an entirely personal reaction to the music, one that probably very few others share.
> 
> Ironically enough I find that Bach's works are actually quite compelling, not particularly through their structural elements, but in his harmonic language and driving rhythms. See if you can find a recording of his chromatic fantasia and fugue. It has dissonances that won't be heard again until the late romantic period.


I can see where you're coming from, now that you've explained more about why you dislike Beethoven's music. Thanks.

I know Bach's _Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue_ in D minor, BMW903. It's a very enigmatic piece/dissonance as you describe it. (I have one version of it on recording, played by Christophe Rousset on a period harpsichord). But yet orderly.


----------



## JAKE WYB

StlukesguildOhio said:


> to me thats all the reason why i dont like delius - all the above the inspid qualities in one basket without the depth and magic of bax, the melancholy, timelessness englishness (not the wafty flowery cliched sort) of VW nor the focus and colour judgement of the french impressionists.
> 
> Ummm... how exactly do you measure Bax' "depth" vs that of Delius... or anyone else for that matter?


we dont need to 'measure' _anything_ do we? 
because a personal response to music is unquantifiable and inexplicable


----------



## mueske

MJTTOMB said:


> I'm not particularly fond of Haydn, though I do like his string quartets. Haydn's phrasings are notoriously symmetrical. Mozart, and late Mozart especially used unpredictable and unsymmetrical phrases.
> 
> I'm not particularly alone, ,I might add. Debussy and Saint-Saens attended a programme of Beethoven's music, and Debussy left the hall, explaining to Saint-Saens something along the lines of "the old man is starting to develop". Beethoven certainly made a huge influence on structure and large-scale form. His form was much grander than the form of Mozart or Haydn, but it essentially only expanded on the development. I can't completely describe what it is that sounds mechanical about his music, it is an entirely personal reaction to the music, one that probably very few others share.
> 
> Ironically enough I find that Bach's works are actually quite compelling, not particularly through their structural elements, but in his harmonic language and driving rhythms. See if you can find a recording of his chromatic fantasia and fugue. It has dissonances that won't be heard again until the late romantic period.






 Doesn't get more mechanical than that!

I'm trying to understand how you feel, Chopin bores me to end, but sometimes I catch a tiny glimpse of emotion. I dislike Chopin, but I would never call his music emotionless.


----------



## MJTTOMB

mueske said:


> Doesn't get more mechanical than that!
> 
> I'm trying to understand how you feel, Chopin bores me to end, but sometimes I catch a tiny glimpse of emotion. I dislike Chopin, but I would never call his music emotionless.


I personally love the Chopin Ballades. If there is any emotion in his works, those would be where it lies. If you haven't heard them, that would be my suggestion. For me, my love of Chopin comes from how he treats the piano. His works fit so well under the hands, and in their nature, they're extremely pianistic.

I can certainly understand that it would be hard to find emotion in the large volume of waltzes and mazurkas he wrote, but it would seem to me that there is an emotion in them, if not sublime happiness or despair, there's certainly an element of love for his native Poland and a sense of national devotion.

Edit: As for the link, I must admit it's probably the Piano Sonatas that made me dislike Ludwig van. Not that Maestro Barenboim's doing anything to help by interpreting his works so dryly.

Edit, part deux: I just realized that I am a negative nancy in all respects.


----------



## mueske

MJTTOMB said:


> I personally love the Chopin Ballades. If there is any emotion in his works, those would be where it lies. If you haven't heard them, that would be my suggestion. For me, my love of Chopin comes from how he treats the piano. His works fit so well under the hands, and in their nature, they're extremely pianistic.
> 
> I can certainly understand that it would be hard to find emotion in the large volume of waltzes and mazurkas he wrote, but it would seem to me that there is an emotion in them, if not sublime happiness or despair, there's certainly an element of love for his native Poland and a sense of national devotion.
> 
> Edit: As for the link, I must admit it's probably the Piano Sonatas that made me dislike Ludwig van. Not that Maestro Barenboim's doing anything to help by interpreting his works so dryly.
> 
> Edit, part deux: I just realized that I am a negative nancy in all respects.


I have heard no. 2-3 and 4, didn't like anything at all. I do somewhat like his second and third piano sonata, and some of the etudes. Nothing I listen to more than once every 6 month or so. The fact that you think nationalism is present, only explains so much more why I dislike his music, I hate nationalism. -_-

Yeah, I read that you think Beethoven didn't treat the piano as a piano. I just don't see how that is such a bad thing. It's a different, and at the time original approach to music for the piano. I'm also no pianist, but what I have heard is that Beethoven's piano work is a blast to play. I think you should just appreciate the piano music, and ignore that it is written in a different fashion. And since you like Scriabin, like different things shouldn't come hard to you.

Yeah, I know bad interpretation of that sonata, I agree. Barenboim is a master in the other sonatas, but his op. 109 is quite lacking.

Part deux? Second movement?


----------



## MJTTOMB

mueske said:


> Part deux? Second movement?


I edited the post twice hah, nothing musical there. Just being silly.

As for me, I love nationalism. There aren't many of my favorites who haven't been particularly nationalistic at some point.


----------



## Tapkaara

MJTTOMB said:


> I edited the post twice hah, nothing musical there. Just being silly.
> 
> As for me, I love nationalism. There aren't many of my favorites who haven't been particularly nationalistic at some point.


This is actually true of me as well. Most of my favorite composers are nationalists. Certainly my two favorites were.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Tapkaara said:


> This is actually true of me as well. Most of my favorite composers are nationalists. Certainly my two favorites were.


To name a few of mine, Bartok, Dvorak, Moussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Borodin, Sibelius, Grieg. Chopin certainly was inspired by nationalism at points, as was Wagner, the self-proclaimed "Ultimate German", though I'm not terribly familiar with his work, and I'm not aware if his nationalism is apparent in his music as it is in these other cases.


----------



## Johnny

Anyone have a link to a Night On Bald Mountain version that they think tops the Fantasia version?


----------



## mueske

Out of those I only really like Bartok and Borodin. I guess Rachmaninoff, my favourite composer is also somewhat 'nationalistic'. Hate was a strong word to use I guess, same for nationalism. I'll soothe myself into believing they were just proud of their country and origin, however illogical that may be.


----------



## JAKE WYB

mueske said:


> Out of those I only really like Bartok and Borodin. I guess Rachmaninoff, my favourite composer is also somewhat 'nationalistic'. Hate was a strong word to use I guess, same for nationalism. I'll soothe myself into believing they were just proud of their country and origin, however illogical that may be.


Actualy nationalism is about the most natural and creative urge a human can have and it is all too often at the very core of some of the most profound art & music aslong as its based on a healthy sense of tradition and belonging in the broader sense and not anything sinister - most of my favurite composers were nationalists too - the usual VW, Sibelius, bartok, Grieg, etc etc and others who asorbed and showed a general appreciation of identity of place & culture - Martinu, bax etc etc

i think its the general sound of Folk based idioms and scales and melodic shapes that most attracts me because i cant abide the other sort of nationalist sounds like marches and strong songs and big tunes which sound the same and empty the world over - sometimes liszt and smetana went a bit too like that and even some of sibelius' weaker works like finlania etc- just gestures upon nationalistic feeling nothing culturally maeningful or ingrained with actual identity


----------



## mueske

JAKE WYB said:


> Actualy nationalism is about the most natural and creative urge a human can have and it is all too often at the very core of some of the most profound art & music aslong as its based on a healthy sense of tradition and belonging in the broader sense and not anything sinister - most of my favurite composers were nationalists too - the usual VW, Sibelius, bartok, Grieg, etc etc and others who asorbed and showed a general appreciation of identity of place & culture - Martinu, bax etc etc
> 
> i think its the general sound of Folk based idioms and scales and melodic shapes that most attracts me because i cant abide the other sort of nationalist sounds like marches and strong songs and big tunes which sound the same and empty the world over - sometimes liszt and smetana went a bit too like that and even some of sibelius' weaker works like finlania etc- just gestures upon nationalistic feeling nothing culturally maeningful or ingrained with actual identity


I said illogical, not sinister. Taking pride in arbitrary borders and feats not accomplished by yourself, is illogical.


----------



## Sid James

Can't really make head nor tail of why I might not like or dislike a certain work on first hearing. Of course first impressions are misleading, as I have all too often discovered. Something that I might not like or "get" after one or two listens, begin to work their magic on me on subsequent listens. Eventually, everything fits together. But there's no guarantee that I'll like (or dislike) a work based on even past experience with the same composer. Eg. Ahmet Adnan Saygun, C20th Turkish composer (there's yet another "nationalist" for you!), I first got & almost instantly connected with his solo piano music, those typically limping rhythms & unique harmonies. Then I got his two piano concertos & am still struggling with them. Unlike the solo piano music, which is basically of it's time (i.e. a C20th idiom or style), the concertos sound like they are romantic music in modern garb. They sound formulaic and unadventurous. I still listen to them for the more "Turkish" sound, but they're not half as characteristic as his solo piano works...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Andre said:


> Ahmet Adnan Saygun, C20th Turkish composer (there's yet another "nationalist" for you!), I first got & almost instantly connected with his solo piano music, those typically limping rhythms & unique harmonies. Then I got his two piano concertos & am still struggling with them. Unlike the solo piano music, which is basically of it's time (i.e. a C20th idiom or style), the concertos sound like they are romantic music in modern garb. They sound formulaic and unadventurous. I still listen to them for the more "Turkish" sound, but they're not half as characteristic as his solo piano works...


I have never heard of Saygun until your post. So, I decided to take a listen on youtube, _Suite for Violin and Piano: "Demet" op. 33 - Prelude_. It's quite listenable. Romantic-ish.


----------



## JAKE WYB

mueske said:


> I said illogical, not sinister. Taking pride in arbitrary borders and feats not accomplished by yourself, is illogical.


Being titillated by wobbly, wrinkly or smelly bits of dangly flesh is illogical too but the feeling perfectly natural and often irrespressible

The point that isnt to be missed is that culture is a creation of many people - the placing in a tradition of somebody who has done ones bit to contribute to that tradition entitles an equal right to be proud of a civilisations achievements - none is entitled alone to claim accomplishment for culture - its a team effort.

Despite the constant mixing by globalisation throughout history its the transcendant nature of the emotions and inspiration involved that can give the very most powerful artistic expression that slightly ironically gives a sense of timelessness and therefore hope and positive outlook for a culture - the VW and Sibelius for example will be as powerful and familiar for English and Finns for centuries and everyone else enjoys too. 
Its what makes the world such a vibrant patchwork quilt of creativity.

Of course not everyone responds to that sort of thing and can create international art of no particular context, which can be as powerful as anything, as long as anyone doesnt dismiss nationalism as a creative force for profound art and doesnt regard them as inferior for relying on such a relationship for the language of their art. The very worst thing is to deny it and to deliberately avoid it in the widest sense - to refuse to react to ones surroundings or culture just for the sake of being all inclusive internationally and chronologically is a good way to be of little consequence for the future.


----------



## mueske

JAKE WYB said:


> Being titillated by wobbly, wrinkly or smelly bits of dangly flesh is illogical too but the feeling perfectly natural and often irrespressible
> 
> The point that isnt to be missed is that culture is a creation of many people - the placing in a tradition of somebody who has done ones bit to contribute to that tradition entitles an equal right to be proud of a civilisations achievements - none is entitled alone to claim accomplishment for culture - its a team effort.
> 
> Despite the constant mixing by globalisation throughout history its the transcendant nature of the emotions and inspiration involved that can give the very most powerful artistic expression that slightly ironically gives a sense of timelessness and therefore hope and positive outlook for a culture - the VW and Sibelius for example will be as powerful and familiar for English and Finns for centuries and everyone else enjoys too.
> Its what makes the world such a vibrant patchwork quilt of creativity.
> 
> Of course not everyone responds to that sort of thing and can create international art of no particular context, which can be as powerful as anything, as long as anyone doesnt dismiss nationalism as a creative force for profound art and doesnt regard them as inferior for relying on such a relationship for the language of their art. The very worst thing is to deny it and to deliberately avoid it in the widest sense - to refuse to react to ones surroundings or culture just for the sake of being all inclusive internationally and chronologically is a good way to be of little consequence for the future.


Don't worry, I'll never regard music inspired by a degree of nationalism to be inferior. Though I'm not going about listening to anthems from other countries. 

I have never experienced any feelings of proud for the country I was born in, so I just don't get the whole nationalism thing. It's so arbitrary, one little even in history and the country might not even exist today, or I might have been born in a completely different place (ooh, I like the sound of that). Taking pride in a coincidence, something random, just isn't for me. More power to those who can appreciate I suppose.

Anyway, I'd rather listen to pieces like Beethoven's ninth symphony, a piece of music with a message far more powerful than any nationalistic piece... In my opinion.


----------



## muxamed

Tapkaara said:


> You will soon learn, my little friend, that opinions contrary to the status quo of popular opinion are not welcome here. If you don't like Beethoven, you might as well pack your bags and leave the world of western art music and go take in Justin Bieber instead. It's that simple.
> 
> We don't like uninformed, uneducated opinions around here. We like the facts. Beethoven is great, and that, my little friend, is a FACT. Be gone with you! Pig!


Oh my god, it is incredible that these words are coming from you Tapkaara, the man who likes to belittle greatness of other composers coming from classical era. I didn't know there is a status quo of popular opinion on Beethoven  And there is really no need for calling any member of this forum a pig. What's the matter with you??


----------



## mueske

muxamed said:


> Oh my god, it is incredible that these words are coming from you Tapkaara, the man who likes to belittle greatness of other composers coming from classical era. I didn't know there is a status quo of popular opinion on Beethoven  And there is really no need for calling any member of this forum a pig. What's the matter with you??


Sarcasm, quite common around this time of the year.


----------



## Tapkaara

muxamed said:


> Oh my god, it is incredible that these words are coming from you Tapkaara, the man who likes to belittle greatness of other composers coming from classical era. I didn't know there is a status quo of popular opinion on Beethoven  And there is really no need for calling any member of this forum a pig. What's the matter with you??


What's incredible is that you could not read the subsequent quotes to see I was kidding around with the new guy.


----------



## muxamed

Tapkaara said:


> What's incredible is that you could not read the subsequent quotes to see I was kidding around with the new guy.


Sorry Tapkaara  My patience was exhausted when I read your post and I didn't read the subsequent quotes until after I posted my comment. I guess that my sense of humor wasn't really in tune with yours. 

Cheers


----------



## Toccata

Tapkaara said:


> You will soon learn, my little friend, that opinions contrary to the status quo of popular opinion are not welcome here. If you don't like Beethoven, you might as well pack your bags and leave the world of western art music and go take in Justin Bieber instead. It's that simple.
> 
> We don't like uninformed, uneducated opinions around here. We like the facts. Beethoven is great, and that, my little friend, is a FACT. Be gone with you! Pig!


Is it the case that "_opinions contrary to the status quo of popular opinion are not welcome here"_? It would be interesting to see any examples you can provide.


----------



## Tapkaara

muxamed said:


> Sorry Tapkaara  My patience was exhausted when I read your post and I didn't read the subsequent quotes until after I posted my comment. I guess that my sense of humor wasn't really in tune with yours.
> 
> Cheers


It's all good!


----------



## Tapkaara

Opal said:


> Is it the case that "_opinions contrary to the status quo of popular opinion are not welcome here"_? It would be interesting to see any examples you can provide.


Again, please read the posts SUBSEQUENT to that one.


----------



## starry

JAKE WYB said:


> Actualy nationalism is about the most natural and creative urge a human can have and it is all too often at the very core of some of the most profound art & music aslong as its based on a healthy sense of tradition and belonging in the broader sense and not anything sinister - most of my favurite composers were nationalists too - the usual VW, Sibelius, bartok, Grieg, etc etc and others who asorbed and showed a general appreciation of identity of place & culture - Martinu, bax etc etc


Tribalism rather than nationalism (which is a relatively recent concept) would make more sense with your opening statement. And even then the celebration of the creativity of the individual has increasingly come into prominence over time in art.


----------



## starry

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally, I quite like Delius... more than Bax. I find he merges something of French Impressionism with an English pastoral sound. His operas are also quite unique... Koanga set African-American protagonists to opera well before Porgy and Bess... while his Village Romeo and Juliet merges elements of Impressionism and the English pastorale with aspects of Wagner achieving something as beautiful as Puccini.


Uniqueness is something which does draw people to particular composers, not some stereotypical image. Delius is not some stiff upper lip Victorian, neither is Elgar actually as he was influenced by 'continental' composers such as Richard Strauss.

But ultimately the style is just the style, more important I believe is the actual material within a piece and whether it can sustain a piece well enough with it's number of ideas and with what development it can inspire and really whether it is just memorable enough.


----------



## Lemminkainen

I am trying mightily to appreciate Mahler's symphonies, but I have a hard time paying attention.


----------



## Aramis

Lemminkäinen said:


> I am trying mightily to appreciate Mahler's symphonies, but I have a hard time paying attention.


I know what it's like. Take your time.


----------



## JAKE WYB

Lemminkainen said:


> I am trying mightily to appreciate Mahler's symphonies, but I have a hard time paying attention.


Once you see Mahler *live*, like 1, 2,5,6 it grabs you a lot more and its never such hard work to appreciate again


----------



## Eusebius12

MJTTOMB said:


> To name a few of mine, Bartok, Dvorak, Moussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Borodin, Sibelius, Grieg. Chopin certainly was inspired by nationalism at points, as was Wagner, the self-proclaimed "Ultimate German", though I'm not terribly familiar with his work, and I'm not aware if his nationalism is apparent in his music as it is in these other cases.


Wagner's nationalism is probably more overt than in the other cases, certainly Meistersingers contains passages extolling the virtues of German unity and decrying foreign occupation, and of course the whole Ring cycle is meant to be a German counterpoint to Greek myths and thus extolling them as a fitting homage to the German nation.

Verdi is considered the analogous Italian case, and although I cannot detect much nationalism in the operas (Verdi wrote a few patriotic 'puff' pieces) his name, or at least the acronym of it, became a catchcry of Italian nationhood (Vitor Emanuele Re d'Italia).

Some other individuals who come to mind as having strong nationalistic affinities are Kalomiris, Villa-Lobos, Granados, Elgar, Enescu, Alfven, and Ginastera.


----------



## starry

Eusebius12 said:


> Some other individuals who come to mind as having strong nationalistic affinities are Kalomiris, Villa-Lobos, Granados, Elgar, Enescu, Alfven, and Ginastera.


Elgar not so much apparently, though some of his music was used for nationalistic purposes (the 'Land of Hope and Glory' song from his first P&C March was not his idea).

Verdi and Wagner will obviously have been influenced by some of the nationalism at that time because of the political events within their areas.


----------



## Lemminkainen

JAKE WYB said:


> Once you see Mahler *live*, like 1, 2,5,6 it grabs you a lot more and its never such hard work to appreciate again


The city symphony is performing No. 1 in September. I'll be sure to catch it.


----------



## SatiesFaction

I don't get Mozart! Too merry. Only sad music makes me happy.


----------



## Eusebius12

starry said:


> Elgar not so much apparently, though some of his music was used for nationalistic purposes (the 'Land of Hope and Glory' song from his first P&C March was not his idea).
> 
> Verdi and Wagner will obviously have been influenced by some of the nationalism at that time because of the political events within their areas.


Elgar was perfectly happy for his music to be used for nationalistic purposes, and whereas there was more depth to him than the superficial 'hale fellow well met' that he often exhibited, the 'jolly good chap' exterior, there was a genuine unapologetic jingoism of the time which Elgar seems to have participated in. As far as Verdi and Wagner, I'm not sure how genuine Verdi's nods toward nationalism were, but Wagner certainly was a fervent nationalist, evident at times in his music and very evident in his prose writings.


----------



## starry

Eusebius12 said:


> Elgar was perfectly happy for his music to be used for nationalistic purposes


Alot of people have questioned the stereotypical view of him as some Victorian stiff upper lip conservative. His music is more than anything personal (about himself and his friends) and is more cosmopolitan in style than some of his contemporaries and that tends to be it's appeal to those who like it alot. He was also a self taught musician and a bit of an outsider. I'm hardly alone in thinking that - as usual with music and art in general - it's very often other people who want to hijack it away from the more complicated genesis of the art itself.

http://carolinanavy.com/fleet2/f2/zclassicalmusic/EdwardElgar(1857-1934)hall/cas/130.html

During some coronation period he was willing to capitalize on re-using some of his music, but I've also seen quite a few comments that he has doubts at least later about some of the words Benson wrote. Not that there was necessarily anything wrong about him using some of his music for a coronation anyway. Royalty does tend to be very associated with nationalism, that really was/is virtually their last reason for existing, to be some symbol of the nation state.


----------



## Eusebius12

I do think that the music world at large has laboured under a very large misconception for decades regarding Elgar's music along the lines you mention, which has unfairly diminished his stature in some places. On the other hand, I don't think that we can deny entirely that Elgar willingly allowed his music to be used for rather crude nationalistic purposes and was happy to be a symbol of Empire.

But this is really a small part of his output and the essence of his music, as you imply, was on the whole rather different, less bombastic than reflective, or with moments of bombast trending toward seeming self-doubt. Even the image he portrayed, as an English country gentleman regularly attending social functions and the races, seems to have been a facade. He was always an outsider, self-taught as you say, a Catholic in very much a Protestant society. The 2nd symphony is not the product of a fervent nationalist, rather a man of a rather melancholy cast of mind; there seems to be a sense of foreboding, even doomladen, which the first audience reacted negatively towards (they hardly applauded, in Elgar's words "they sat there like stuffed pigs"). The 1st world war and the death of his wife seem to have removed the crutches that supported his insecure creativity, after the outpouring of grief of the cello concerto. He was always insecure about his art and the public and critical reception of that art, and his place in the world generally.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Can anyone say 'Aaron Copland'?
Sure. I knew you could.


----------



## Ravellian

I admit that I dislike composers with lame names.. like "Gluck," "Meyerbeer," "Scriabin" (sounds like scrubbin'), "Glinka", "Schutz", etc. <_<


----------



## MJTTOMB

Ravellian said:


> I admit that I dislike composers with lame names.. like "Gluck," "Meyerbeer," "Scriabin" (sounds like scrubbin'), "Glinka", "Schutz", etc. <_<


Every time I tell my parents about Grieg they think I'm talking about someone named "Greek".


----------



## mueske

I think I'm starting to enjoy Chopin... Completely out of the blue I felt like listening to his first piano concerto.


----------



## SatiesFaction

I love Chopin (the sad mazurkas & waltzes especially), but I don't enjoy this concerto at all. I heard he did not enjoy composing it either, so maybe it shows.


----------



## superhorn

Well, these composers don't give a Schutz if you don't like their music.


----------



## JAKE WYB

No im sure they couldnt give a Gluck


----------



## SatiesFaction

That's a long liszt of insults.


----------



## MJTTOMB

you'd better stop before i get out my chainsaw and do some chopin.


----------



## SatiesFaction

MJTTOMB said:


> you'd better stop before i get out my chainsaw and do some chopin.


Be prepared for a bachlash.


----------



## MJTTOMB

You won't be able to Handel it.


----------



## mueske

You guys are such _Beach_es...


----------



## SatiesFaction

Nothing's too hard to haendel fauré man like me


----------



## mueske

SatiesFaction said:


> Nothing's too hard to haendel fauré man like me


Good one!


----------



## SatiesFaction

Thanks. I had to mention a French composer at some point.


----------



## World Violist

As I just found out tonight... Berlioz. I should've taken it as a sign that I couldn't possibly get through my Colin Davis/Tabea Zimmerman performance of Harold in Italy (great viola piece? Hardly. Not great by any stretch of my imagination. And violists actually like it???), nor did I at all care for Symphony Fantastique. But nevertheless, for a requirement in my choir class I went to a concert of Berlioz's Requiem. The first item was the Roman Carnival Overture, which I found a vastly better piece. But the Berlioz was either overdosing on special spacial effects and percussion steroids or completely comatose--mostly the latter--while pretending to be somewhat profound. And that was as far as it got. As far as I'm concerned, that was the worst-spent hour and a half I've ever wasted on a classical music concert. And the performance was quite satisfactory, by the way. The music just couldn't be done justice.


----------



## Tapkaara

World Violist said:


> As I just found out tonight... Berlioz. I should've taken it as a sign that I couldn't possibly get through my Colin Davis/Tabea Zimmerman performance of Harold in Italy (great viola piece? Hardly. Not great by any stretch of my imagination. And violists actually like it???), nor did I at all care for Symphony Fantastique. But nevertheless, for a requirement in my choir class I went to a concert of Berlioz's Requiem. The first item was the Roman Carnival Overture, which I found a vastly better piece. But the Berlioz was either overdosing on special spacial effects and percussion steroids or completely comatose--mostly the latter--while pretending to be somewhat profound. And that was as far as it got. As far as I'm concerned, that was the worst-spent hour and a half I've ever wasted on a classical music concert. And the performance was quite satisfactory, by the way. The music just couldn't be done justice.


I find Harold in Italy to be awfully boring as well. Though I am more sympathetic to the Symphony fantastique (the third movement is overlong and not all that interesting) and I really like the Requiem. The Roman Carnival Overture is kinda lousy.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Hector Berlioz. Well, well, well. I have only one CD of his works in my collection: _Symphonie fantastique_ and overture to _Les Francs-juges_, played by The London Classical Players/Norrington.

I find the _Symphonie fantastique_ quite bombastic in many parts, with the entire 5th movement totally so. A few interesting moments here and there in other movements, but generally I can't see where its good merits are at all. Maybe that's why I have only one Berlioz CD.


----------



## MJTTOMB

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Hector Berlioz. Well, well, well. I have only one CD of his works in my collection: _Symphonie fantastique_ and overture to _Les Francs-juges_, played by The London Classical Players/Norrington.
> 
> I find the _Symphonie fantastique_ quite bombastic in many parts, with the entire 5th movement totally so. A few interesting moments here and there in other movements, but generally I can't see where its good merits are at all. Maybe that's why I have only one Berlioz CD.


Do you know the program of the work? It's largely just programatic, I wouldn't call it bombast.


----------



## SatiesFaction

I dislike Berlioz too. Boring AND portentous.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

MJTTOMB said:


> Do you know the program of the work? It's largely just programatic, I wouldn't call it bombast.


Yes, I know it's a program symphony. If it's supposed to evoke certain types of emotions/feelings particular to each movement (as per the words for each movement), then that's probably even worse, because it did almost nothing to me.

Beethoven's 6th symphony is my favourite of his. There are words for each movement, too. The feelings and the music match, and it all works.


----------



## Machiavel

Don't know if I'm the only one but Beethoven does'nt move me much.I don't find him to be good to write melody and it's not somethin I like to listen to hours in a row. And when I say I don't like im I'm not bashing on him, since I know he is a great composer, maybe it's the record I have of him:Beethoven complete piano sonatas william kempff
concerto ashkenazy,solti
some string quartet from quarttetto italiano
Symphony 6 bohm
9 Karajan
5 gardiner
Am I just listening to the wrong recording or It's that I cannot grasp his greatness. feel free to comment!


----------



## superhorn

Charles Gounod wrote what is for me just about the most bland and insipid music ever.
His opera Faust is a total trivialiszation of Goethe's great play. Pretty meodies, but utterly insipid. 
The only one of his other operas performed today ,Romeo&Juliette, is also full of pretty melodies, but just as insipid, and also cloyingly sentimental at times. 
There was a recent revival in Paris of another opera of his Mireille,which has its admirers.
I don't know if his other operas are any better, but chances are they aren't.
His Saint Cecelia Mass is the blandest setting of this venerable form by any composer ever.
Ditto his two symphonies and the one for winds. 
It's the musical equivalent of pablum. Berlioz is an infinitely greater composer; his music is so bold, original, colorful, unpredictable and viscerally exciting.


----------



## starry

Machiavel said:


> Don't know if I'm the only one but Beethoven does'nt move me much.I don't find him to be good to write melody and it's not somethin I like to listen to hours in a row. And when I say I don't like im I'm not bashing on him, since I know he is a great composer, maybe it's the record I have of him:Beethoven complete piano sonatas william kempff
> concerto ashkenazy,solti
> some string quartet from quarttetto italiano
> Symphony 6 bohm
> 9 Karajan
> 5 gardiner
> Am I just listening to the wrong recording or It's that I cannot grasp his greatness. feel free to comment!


Bohm is too relaxed in the 6th for me.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Don't know if I'm the only one but Beethoven does'nt move me much.I don't find him to be good to write melody and it's not somethin I like to listen to hours in a row. And when I say I don't like im I'm not bashing on him, since I know he is a great composer, maybe it's the record I have of him:Beethoven complete piano sonatas william kempff
concerto ashkenazy,solti
some string quartet from quarttetto italiano
Symphony 6 bohm
9 Karajan
5 gardiner
Am I just listening to the wrong recording or It's that I cannot grasp his greatness. feel free to comment!

Nope... its just you. Those are generally some fine recordings.


----------



## starry

I would recommend Schnabel over Kempff, even if the sound quality isn't as good.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I would recommend Schnabel over Kempff, even if the sound quality isn't as good.

Of course... doesn't that all come down to personal taste? Kempff, Friedrich Gulda, Alfred Brendel, Artur Rubinstein, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Emil Gilels, Daniel Barenboim, Maurizio Pollini, Arthur Schnabel... you are not going to go horribly wrong with any one of these pianists (although the non-specialist may have difficulty with the sound quality of the Schnabel recordings). I seriously doubt that if someone finds Beethoven's piano sonatas don't work for them after listening to Kempf or his 9th symphony falls flat after hearing Karajan, that they will suddenly be enthralled with him upon hearing Gulda or Schnabel or Jos van Immerseel.


----------



## starry

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I would recommend Schnabel over Kempff, even if the sound quality isn't as good.
> 
> Of course... doesn't that all come down to personal taste? Kempff, Friedrich Gulda, Alfred Brendel, Artur Rubinstein, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Emil Gilels, Daniel Barenboim, Maurizio Pollini, Arthur Schnabel... you are not going to go horribly wrong with any one of these pianists (although the non-specialist may have difficulty with the sound quality of the Schnabel recordings). I seriously doubt that if someone finds Beethoven's piano sonatas don't work for them after listening to Kempf or his 9th symphony falls flat after hearing Karajan, that they will suddenly be enthralled with him upon hearing Gulda or Schnabel or Jos van Immerseel.


I'm not saying Kempff is bad of course, but if looking at the sonatas as a whole I would take Schnabel. In general it's good to hear a variety of interpretations of course, as some pianists may be particularly good with some sonatas or their style may appeal more to a particular listener. I do think that a performer can cloud the greatness of a piece if they are particularly eccentric with their interpretation or just lack interpretative skill (feeling for a piece), most aren't though. Two of the more difficult ones to find good performances of in the past for me are 26 and 29 (last two movements).


----------



## Sid James

I recently attended a concert here in Sydney of Berlioz' _Symphonie Fantastique_ & it was awesome! I think this is a great work, but I'm a huge fan of Berlioz anyhow. It is true that Beethoven preceded Berlioz with the first 'programmatic' symphony (the pastoral), but the Fantastique made much more of an impact. It's just quite amazing that Berlioz composed this revolutionary piece only a few years after Beethoven had died. There are similarities, but the work is totally original. As for_ Harold in Italy_, I love that too. It is a much more lyrical and refined work, but the end where the violist representing Harold tapers off and 'dies' to leave the orchestra it's long climax, is pretty effective in my book...


----------



## Serenade

Benjamin Britten. I can respect the guy but for the most part I really can't stand his music.


----------



## Glaliraha

Schumann. His symphonies, songs and piano works are all deathly boring.


----------



## prustage

As I get older I keep finding old prejudices breaking down and develop the ability to get pleasure out of composers who in the past I couldnt stand. 

My love for the renaissance, baroque and classical periods has not waned but my previous intense dislike of Tchaikovsky is now giving way to a degree of tolerance - particularly of his chamber works. I find Rachmaninoff more acceptable than i used to. Although I have never thought of Dvorak as a "great" composer - at least these days I can enjoy his simple tunes without prejudice. Once I abandoned the idea that music ought to have a sense of direction and development I found I could now see Bruckner in a new light - it was the choral works that converted me there.

But no matter how hard I try (and believe me I do try - frequently) I still feel no sympathy at all for Mahler. 

I suspect it may be psychological. I just don't want to enter the stressful angst-ridden world that he seems to inhabit. I find no beauty, no fulfillment, only pain and frustration. 

I am not saying that I only like music that is friendly and reassurung. I am attracted by conflict, tension anger and rage. But it needs to be more universal, more to do with the human condition and the forces of nature and destiny. With Mahler it is just too personal. Its all about him. Him and his sad little existence. About which, frankly, I just don't care.


----------



## Guest

prustage said:


> As I get older I keep finding old prejudices breaking down and develop the ability to get pleasure out of composers who in the past I couldnt stand.


I feel the exact same way, as I'm sure many others do as well. In fact, I too once disliked Rachmaninoff but now hold him in very high regard (Tchaikovsky, however, is a composer I still intensely dislike!).

The great composer whose music I've never caught on to is Beethoven, which is somewhat surprising since my favorite composer is Brahms. Maybe it's an era-related thing. Most pre-romantic music is unsatisfying to me (although I know Beethoven is a stretch in this regard).


----------



## Aramis

> Him and his sad little existence.


If existence of great and influental composer seems "little" to you, then I'm sure you will agree with me that your own existence is totally worthless, you miserable creature.


----------



## Il Seraglio

My response to Mahler's music has shifted from negative to positive, but now I would say I have mixed feelings. I take back one or two ridiculous statements I might have made about him before... that his vocal music is poor (Das Lied von Erde sung by Janet Baker is amazing), but I'll be damned if his symphonies don't drag at times. The sheer length of them and their emotionally bi-polar nature make me feel exhausted at the end. 

Maybe the received wisdom about Mahler is true. A genius whose music is not for everybody.


----------



## Major Minor

Schoenberg


----------



## Sid James

I've also come to appreciate many composers & genres (which maybe I had dismissed in the past). This applies to solo piano music especially. I think part of being a perceptive listener is being able to get something out of all things. Just think about it: all of this great classical music hasn't remained in the repertoire for decades or centuries just because it is good, it has to be great! Once we put aside some of our personal prejudices and preferences, we can actually take the blinkers off and enjoy all types of music to the max! That said, I still do have some personal preferences, but even with those composers, I am willing to give them a chance (eg. Saint-Saens & Glazunov).

I find virtually ANY classical music performed live to be a great experience, it can be moving on so many levels. I think that with our preoccupation with "canned" music, we just get into these cycles and listen to only what we think we may connect with in five seconds. Great music is more complex than that, and I have little time for people who rubbish things like Liszt's _A Faust Symphony_ for it's minor flaws, and who don't take time to listen more than once (and equally importantly discuss is with friends or here online), to try to grasp the "totality" of the work, rather than focussing on irrelevant details...

I think that I enjoy the way each composer "engages" me on certain levels which are all different and unique. Mozart does it in a different way to Berlioz or Schoenberg, but what they had in common was to be able to communicate many things about the human condition. Being open to the multiplicity of expression is one of the things I value most in classical music. If some music brings me out of my "comfort zone," then all the better, at least I am learning something, and thus (hopefully) developing my perception...


----------



## Earthling

Is there a great composer I plain just don't like? Well, I'd hesitate to call him "great," but (with some exceptions) 95% of *Philip Glass*' output I simply can't stomach. The irony is that I actually like his more extreme early work from the 70s, which is far more "hardcore" minimalism (like *Einstein on the Beach*), but when he started using shorter and easier-to-digest structures, I get bored with him quickly (the only other exception being his *fifth string quartet*). I mean, how many pieces with a two-against-three rhythm with three arpeggiated triads can one composer write? And the sad thing is I really have really _tried _to like Glass (I listen to much Reich and Adams with no such qualms), but I can't help but find his music just plain vacuous.

A composer certainly less debatable in terms of being "great": *Mahler*. I wouldn't say I can't stand him, but I have yet to connect with any of his music. I've not given up, but I'm no longer actively trying either. This isn't to say Mahler is a bad composer-- it says at least as much about my prejudices as it does about Mahler.

There are a few other composers I don't go out of my way to listen to, but I wouldn't say I just hate-- they just aren't at the top of my need-to-listen list.


----------



## Vaneyes

Purcell, Telemann, Rameau, Paganini, Alkan, Ysaye, Ives, Schmidt, Medtner, Grainger, Szymanowski, Villa-Lobos, Bliss, Rubbra, Tubin, Cage, Xenakis, Nono, Stockhausen, Birtwistle, Davies, Riley, Reich, Glass, Adams, Ades.


----------



## Major Minor

Some of Glass I like... his symphonies and violin concerto work for me.. my main gripe with him is his choice of timbres... his textural sense... those hideous wheezy organs could get the most shrill frequencies and the whole point of being mesmerized by the sound (Which can be argued is the point of minimalism) is undermined by that shrill, annoying sound.

Reich and Adams, on the other hand, can really put me in a blissed out zone.... mostly. 
(I don't care for the Reich pieces with Vocals.)


----------



## Vaneyes

Major Minor said:


> Some of Glass I like... his symphonies and violin concerto work for me.. my main gripe with him is his choice of timbres... his textural sense... those hideous wheezy organs could get the most shrill frequencies and the whole point of being mesmerized by the sound (Which can be argued is the point of minimalism) is undermined by that shrill, annoying sound.


Some of the junk can work in today's movies, which I don't see.

I'm stuck with the VC, since it shares a DG disc with Schnittke Cto. Gr. 5, Kremer/Keuschnig/VPO/Dohnanyi.


----------



## kingtim

I can completely relate about the Reich pieces...

I really can't do classical music with vocals. For some reason it just doesn't sound right to me. The acception to this rule, however, would be Opera. I can't get enough of any opera.

See this and see if you agree with me...


----------



## Norse

There aren't really any great composers that I truly dislike or have absolutely no interest in, but I have listened to Mozart and found it so bland and boring that it almost hurt physically. On the other hand, I like SOME Mozart so I can't really bring myself to say I "plain just don't like him".


----------



## jhar26

Tapkaara said:


> I find Harold in Italy to be awfully boring as well. Though I am more sympathetic to the Symphony fantastique (the third movement is overlong and not all that interesting) and I really like the Requiem. The Roman Carnival Overture is kinda lousy.


Of all his major works I like the Requiem the least. To me it just seems all to be about the size. A massive choir and orchestra, but in my opinion it's always on the verge of collapsing under it's own weight. An interesting work, maybe, but not as great as it's usually given credit for. But who knows? Maybe it will grow on me and I'll feel differently about it a few years from now.

The Berlioz works that I love are the Symphonie Fantastique, his opera/oratorio La Damnation de Faust and the orchestral song cycle Les Nuits d'Ete. I wouldn't quite rank Harold in Italy with those, but I like it ok. Overall I think that Berlioz is a fine composer and not overrated.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Let's see if I have to duck my head.

Bartok. I've heard enough that I know I'm not supportive of him. I have a couple problems with him.

One, if he really is so famous and awesome, why isn't he on the radio more? Don't people know that going to concerts isn't always easy (especially for me, who has no money for that)? I've been listening to the radio for a long time, and have hardly heard any works by him, hence, I've only known his *existence* 3 years. I guess he's not really a nice "radio" composer, but still, I ought to have heard him more on the Friday nights when people can request works. And radio is one of the biggest ways I personally discover new composers/works.

Two, I don't like his mentality. His main priority seemed to be keeping up with the fashion of the time rather than doing what is simply beautiful. I've heard some works by him that were tonal, but it seems to me that wasn't his favorite thing. I say this because there were 20th century composers that made much more conscious effort to be beautiful and lyrical while using modern techniques.

I'm a _real _revolutionary. I revolt _against_ revolutionaries! Viva belleza!


----------



## Air

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Let's see if I have to duck my head.
> 
> Bartok. I've heard enough that I know I'm not supportive of him. I have a couple problems with him.
> 
> One, if he really is so famous and awesome, why isn't he on the radio more? Don't people know that going to concerts isn't always easy (especially for me, who has no money for that)? I've been listening to the radio for a long time, and have hardly heard any works by him, hence, I've only known his *existence* 3 years. I guess he's not really a nice "radio" composer, but still, I ought to have heard him more on the Friday nights when people can request works. And radio is one of the biggest ways I personally discover new composers/works.
> 
> Two, I don't like his mentality. His main priority seemed to be keeping up with the fashion of the time rather than doing what is simply beautiful. I've heard some works by him that were tonal, but it seems to me that wasn't his favorite thing. I say this because there were 20th century composers that made much more conscious effort to be beautiful and lyrical while using modern techniques.
> 
> I'm a _real _revolutionary. I revolt _against_ revolutionaries! Viva belleza!


Both of these reasons just seem bizarre to me.

One - sorry, but what does "the radio" have _anything_ to do with the music of a composer? 
Two - maybe because what he was doing was something greater and beyond "a conscious effort to be beautiful and lyrical while using modern techniques"?

If you think Bartók is a revolutionary, you really need to get yourself some Varèse.


----------



## Guest

I've recently come to great admire Bartok. The Concerto for Orchestra is great, of course, as are the Piano Concertos. I'm still just opening up to him, though, so I've got a lot more stuff to listen too. Like what I hear so far.

A few 'great' composers I just can't get into: Wagner, Liszt, and Bruckner. They each have moments here and there, but I can't listen for too long before getting bored or annoyed.


----------



## Badinerie

My top three bottom three would be in order....

Brahms...Yawn!
Mahler...moments of great beauty surrounded by unlistenable fervour.
Benjamin Britten...WTF!?


----------



## gmubandgeek

I do not like Schubert in the least. I don't know what it is (maybe I just don't like German Lieder and I know I hate his symphonies), but I can't do it. I don't like J.S Bach (I do like his sons however) either. Outside the Brandenburg Concertos I find his music a bit "busy." And as far as Beethoven, I like his piano sonatas and his 1st and 8th symphonies. Other than that I don't fancy him too much either.


----------



## Argus

gmubandgeek said:


> I do not like Schubert in the least. I don't know what it is (maybe I just don't like German Lieder and I know I hate his symphonies), but I can't do it. I don't like J.S Bach (I do like his sons however) either. Outside the Brandenburg Concertos I find his music a bit "busy." And as far as Beethoven, I like his piano sonatas and his 1st and 8th symphonies. Other than that I don't fancy him too much either.


So are they all the composers you dislike? Bach, Schubert and Beethoven.

What about, for example, Schoenberg, Mahler, Gesualdo, Cage, Bartok, Wagner, Purcell, Penderecki, Schumann and Poulenc. Do you like all these?


----------



## gmubandgeek

Argus said:


> So are they all the composers you dislike? Bach, Schubert and Beethoven.
> 
> What about, for example, Schoenberg, Mahler, Gesualdo, Cage, Bartok, Wagner, Purcell, Penderecki, Schumann and Poulenc. Do you like all these?


Schoenberg's twelve-tone technique is interesting to say the least. I don't particularly enjoy it, but I can suffer it. I'm not really into Schumann however his "Carnaval" continually captivates me. I find Wagner bombastic and while I try my hardest to separate the man's personal beliefs from his contributions to the music world, I still have a slight bias against him. Mahler, Cage, and Purcell are okay but as I am zealously in love with the Classical Era, I don't listen to them as much and only enough to demonstrate knowledge and to have an intelligible conversation during lecture.

I should mention this however: I don't hate Carl Weber (I like his operas) but as a clarinetist I find his Concertino for Clarinet in Eb the most *grievous* offense of them all. If have to perform, or sit through another performance of that wretched piece again, I will vanish into a pillar of salt. I'm *SICK* of that piece.


----------



## Ravellian

The topic title has been consistently bothering me. Shouldn't it be "just plain don't like" and not "plain just don't like"? It is disquietingly obvious that the grammatical structure of the title is incorrect.


----------



## Charon

Wow Mahler is sure getting some hate in this thread lol.

Mahler was one of the first composers that I was able to feel a connection with, and I feel that connection only growing stronger today. I really do enjoy listening to his music.

Great composer that I just can't stand? I wouldn't say I just can't stand any. But there are some that I feel "I just don't get". In other words, their music doesn't resonate with me the way it does when I listen to other composers. I do believe that it is probably just a matter of time before I feel a connection to it. For example, I used to "not get" Schubert, but I now I adore much of his music.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

On the contrary, Schubert is probably the oldest composer I actually consider a real favorite, not because of any flute work (Bach, Vivaldi, Telemann, Mozart, etc. are great flute composers, but that's all I really like them for). I really like Schubert for his symphonies, and various piano music like his Military March no. 1. Most early romantic composers I don't like, but he's an exception, mysteriously.


----------



## ellll

I dislike Reinhold Gliere most seriously.. Just do not find any musicality in him

ellll


----------



## Km7

Pierre Boulez, whom I consider a narrow-minded prick. He once said: "Anyone who has not felt -- I do not say understand -- but felt the necessity of the dodecaphonic language is USELESS". Considering that it is easier to program computers to realize total serialism than to realize other music, ironically, it is more likely that he is the useless one.

Gustav Mahler - pompous, yet boring symphonies that remind me of vomiting. I totally agree with Claude Debussy, who left the premiere of Mahler's 2nd with the words: "Let's open our eyes and close our ears".


----------



## Il Seraglio

Km7 said:


> Pierre Boulez, whom I consider a narrow-minded prick. He once said: "Anyone who has not felt -- I do not say understand -- but felt the necessity of the dodecaphonic language is USELESS". Considering that it is easier to program computers to realize total serialism than to realize other music, ironically, it is more likely that he is the useless one.


Where did he say this? That's almost hard to believe. Not knocking your comment by the way as Boulez is one of my least favourite composers also.



Km7 said:


> Gustav Mahler - pompous, yet boring symphonies that remind me of vomiting. I totally agree with Claude Debussy, who left the premiere of Mahler's 2nd with the words: "Let's open our eyes and close our ears".


Have you given Das Lied von der Erde a listen? I think it is quite easy to appreciate, even for someone, like me, who couldn't warm to many of his symphonies.


----------



## Tapkaara

Il Seraglio said:


> Where did he say this? That's almost hard to believe. Not knocking your comment by the way as Boulez is one of my least favourite composers also.
> 
> Have you given Das Lied von der Erde a listen? I think it is quite easy to appreciate, even for someone, like me, who couldn't warm to many of his symphonies.


I just don't see what all the hoopla over Das Lied is. Or any of Mahler's vocal works. I find them very hard to listen to. They come off as very unmelodic to me.

The only three Mahler symphonies I can say I LOVE (and I do love them) are 1, 2 and 6. The others, the more I listen to them, bore me. I used to be more enthusiastic about Mahler.


----------



## Aramis

> I just don't see what all the hoopla over Das Lied is. Or any of Mahler's vocal works. I find them very hard to listen to. They come off as very unmelodic to me.


True, DLvE requires more understanding and insight than most of his symphonies.


----------



## Il Seraglio

Aramis said:


> True, DLvE requires more understanding and insight than most of his symphonies.


Maybe I worded it wrong. I would just say that even if you disliked Mahler's symphonies, Das Lied von der Erde is still a work you can appreciate. Although many consider it a Mahler symphony in all but name, it's a very different experience.

It goes without saying that it's not a good place to start with Mahler, especially if you don't like vocal music.


----------



## Ian Elliott

Sorry, Tchaikovsky. But I must make an exception: I've always liked his Capriccio Italien. Chopin. Most of Wagner. Mahler. Shostakovich. Schoenberg. Max Reger (ugh!). Brahms except for about half a dozen pieces. Pierre Boulez (like his conducting, though; except for his reading of Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy, which is pornographic!)


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Î don't like Bach.

Martin Pitchon, sincere


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Bach, I do not like Bach


----------



## Webernite

We heard you the first time.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Sorry if he's already been mentioned but I don't feel up to wading through hundreds of posts! The only composer I have consciously tried to avoid is Sullivan. I've nothing against operetta and the like but I've often found G & S too trite for my liking. I can't comment on his purely orchestral works but what I've heard of his stage works have more often than not irritated the hell out of me.


----------



## charismajc

Tchaikovsky - generally too heart-on-sleeve sentimental for my taste. I do like his violim concerto and onegin however. I can see why some people like him though. 

Mahler - I do like parts of his music here and there, but I much prefer wagner and bruckner.


----------



## Ukko

*Wagner*

I do not like Wagner - not his music nor him, nor his wife nor his daughter.

:scold:


----------



## opus55

David58117 said:


> Shostakovich for me! Reminds me too much of a B-grade horror movie soundtrack.





JAKE WYB said:


> *Britten* - sounds derivative and warped and pallid in its expression - I could write better not that he can be called 'great' by any standard





Aramis said:


> Even if Scriabin would compose most terible music in the world I would still listen to him because of his moustache.





Il Seraglio said:


> I think I voted for Scriabin as one of my favourite symphonists in a relevant thread not long ago, but I feel like taking it back now.


This thread is hilarious!! :lol:

Here's my contribution. I don't like Handel's music.. boring and uninspiring. And I don't really like operas in general. But I never give up with classical music. I still remember that summer night being shocked by Beethoven late string quartets box set which I owned for 11 or 12 years. They used to be just background music , now I find them so full of energy and emotion! I thought Beethoven must have been a mad man to create music like that!!


----------



## myaskovsky2002

:lol:I said I don't like J.S. Bach...I suppose my message got lost somewhere, it is not politically correct....LOL

Martin


----------



## opus55

myaskovsky2002 said:


> :lol:I said I don't like J.S. Bach...I suppose my message got lost somewhere, it is not politically correct....LOL
> 
> Martin


You're posting for the third time saying you don't like Bach.


----------



## Ravellian

Bach's not my favorite composer either.  Nor Brahms, though I find his shorter piano works quite pleasant. 

As far as truly dislike.. hard to say, since I can find things to like about most composers, even the ones I tend to enjoy less. I suppose Pachelbel, since hearing that stupid canon makes me fume in anger every time..


----------



## Genoveva

Ravellian said:


> As far as truly dislike.. hard to say, since I can find things to like about most composers, even the ones I tend to enjoy less. I suppose Pachelbel, since hearing that stupid canon makes me fume in anger every time..


Pachelbel wrote a lot more besides the Canon. He wrote lots of other chamber music, vocal music and some high quality organ music. Have you bothered to investigate any of this? I would be loathe to write off a composer merely on the strength of one overdone work, as seems to be what you have done.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I think I havve already said I don't like Bach


----------



## Argus

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I think I havve already said I don't like Bach


I'm beginning to think you don't like Bach.


----------



## Chris

Myaskovsky2002, when you lock your house up at night do you check all the bolts 400 times before going to bed?


----------



## myaskovsky2002

hcaB ekil t'nod I

Nitram


----------



## myaskovsky2002

No, Chris, I don't.

Myaskovsky (Martin)


----------



## Meaghan

I admire Schoenberg for his innovations, but I really don't like listening to his music. Same goes for Berg and Webern. The underlying processes of 12-tone music in particular are complex and fascinating, but, at least for me, don't make for enjoyable listening.

I've tried to like Haydn, but he bores me.

And Tchaikovsky is just a bit too sappy.


----------



## Ravellian

Erm, Genoveva, please lighten up? 99.9% of the time people mention Pachelbel, it's in connection with that awful canon. It's all he's known for, and I frankly don't care what else he wrote.


----------



## charismajc

I actually find fur elise even more annoying than that canon (if that's possible), but I still like beethoven


----------



## Genoveva

Ravellian said:


> Erm, Genoveva, please lighten up? 99.9% of the time people mention Pachelbel, it's in connection with that awful canon. It's all he's known for, and I frankly don't care what else he wrote.


You might find the two following threads of interest in this context.

http://www.talkclassical.com/7287-pachelbel-anyone.html#post78253

http://www.talkclassical.com/4387-your-favorite-non-bach.html

As you will see, your view of Pachelbel's contribution to music is, well let's say not particularly well-informed.

If you don't like his Canon, that's fine but there's no need to pretend that's all he wrote, which is plainly incorrect.


----------



## bassClef

Haydn, Brahms and (to a lesser extent) Bach all bore me to tears.


----------



## Comus

I like to give everything two chances before being final. I used to dislike Tchaikovsky, but I gave him another chance and enjoy his symphonies. Right now, I'd say I really don't like Sibelius. In the words of my Swedish grandfather, "Finnlander!"


----------



## Ukko

*Up with music!*



Comus said:


> I like to give everything two chances before being final. I used to dislike Tchaikovsky, but I gave him another chance and enjoy his symphonies. Right now, I'd say I really don't like Sibelius. In the words of my Swedish grandfather, "Finnlander!"


I have to agree with the poster above who was amused by this thread . If all the negatives were added together, there wouldn't be much classical music left to hear.

BTW Comus, Sibelius grew up speaking Swedish as his 1st language. I gather that's still not unusual around Helsinki?

:devil:


----------



## superhorn

There has been a Swedish-speaking minority in Sweden for centuries,as Sweden used to rule the country,and Sibelius was part of it,although he did learn to speak Finnish as a young man.
This is still true,and to this day,Swedish is an official language of Finland along with Finnish,are from what I hear public signs in both languages are common there.
Many Finns have Swedish names too,like conductors Paavo Berglund and eif Segerstam and composer Magnus Lindberg,now composer in residence for the New York Philharmonic.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

superhorn said:


> There has been a Swedish-speaking minority in Sweden for centuries,as Sweden used to rule the country,and Sibelius was part of it,although he did learn to speak Finnish as a young man.
> This is still true,and to this day,Swedish is an official language of Finland along with Finnish,are from what I hear public signs in both languages are common there.
> Many Finns have Swedish names too,like conductors Paavo Berglund and eif Segerstam and composer Magnus Lindberg,now composer in residence for the New York Philharmonic.


Would you like to know there happens to be a (half) Finland-Swede here on the forum, namely myself? I'm highly connected to my heritage, although I don't speak Finnish or Swedish. And my mom's relatives in Finland are close friends with some descendants of Sibelius.


----------



## drth15

*Scriabin*

His piano works are intriguing. But orchestrally, he starts over the top and heads down from there.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

drth15 said:


> But orchestrally, he starts over the top and heads down from there.


Just like Richard Strauss


----------



## Aramis

> His piano works are intriguing. But orchestrally, he starts over the top and heads down from there.


Then how can you dislike him because of this, considering that his orchestral pieces are lesser part of his works? I'm not big fan of his Poemes or symphonies but I love Scriabin just because of his piano works which you also consider"intriguing".


----------



## LindenLea

Genoveva said:


> You might find the two following threads of interest in this context.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/7287-pachelbel-anyone.html#post78253
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/4387-your-favorite-non-bach.html
> 
> As you will see, your view of Pachelbel's contribution to music is, well let's say not particularly well-informed.
> 
> If you don't like his Canon, that's fine but there's no need to pretend that's all he wrote, which is plainly incorrect.


This is correct, I have a superb CD of Pachelbel chamber works by London Baroque which actually proves that the infamous 'canon' is maybe the least interesting thing he ever composed, and another of his organ works on Naxos which oozes ideas and some astonishing counterpoint which the younger J S Bach was clearly influenced by, so yes, Pachelbel is a much maligned, influential, and ignored chap, it's hardly his fault that Classic FM ram his damn 'canon' down everyone's throats to the exclusion of everything else he wrote, but the recording catalogue is still woefully short of his works, he'll probably remain something of a one-hit-wonder until the period instrument/baroque fraternity themselves begin to take him more seriously.


----------



## emiellucifuge

superhorn said:


> There has been a Swedish-speaking minority in Sweden for centuries.


What does the majority speak?


----------



## Genoveva

LindenLea said:


> This is correct, I have a superb CD of Pachelbel chamber works by London Baroque which actually proves that the infamous 'canon' is maybe the least interesting thing he ever composed, and another of his organ works on Naxos which oozes ideas and some astonishing counterpoint which the younger J S Bach was clearly influenced by, so yes, Pachelbel is a much maligned, influential, and ignored chap, it's hardly his fault that Classic FM ram his damn 'canon' down everyone's throats to the exclusion of everything else he wrote, but the recording catalogue is still woefully short of his works, he'll probably remain something of a one-hit-wonder until the period instrument/baroque fraternity themselves begin to take him more seriously.


I'm glad to hear you agree. It's a similar story for several other composers who are blighted with an unfortunate but totally incorrect reputation for having composed only one main work which tends to get seriously overplayed by radio stations. I'm thinking of the likes of Albinoni who actually wrote a lot more than the piece he is most famous for, including several other very good string and oboe concertos, and Thomas Arne (he of Rule Britannia fame) who wrote much else besides including some excellent songs, chamber and orchestral works, even though mush of his original output is lost. I happen to be doing a school project on these two composers, plus Pachelbel, at the moment for that very reason. Radio stations generally in my experience are not much good at giving balanced presentations of composers' works, but that's another story.


----------



## LindenLea

Indeed, for example, listen to this uttrerly charming suite for theorbo by Pachelbel


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

I can't help but despise Debussy.


----------



## Conor71

I have just been listening to CM seriously for 3 years now and have not yet found any composers whose work I despise!.
Admittedly there are some composers/works which I have not appreciated straight away e.g: Messiaen, Mahler, etc. but I find that if you have good-will towards the music and are prepared to listen to a work several times before dismissing it that it is possible to gain an appreciation of just about any work.
A lot has to do with what stage you are at in your listening too - some works become accessible as a result of your listening history e.g: I only began to appreciate Bruckner and Shostakovich after I had begun to understand Mahlers Idiom.


----------



## Ian Elliott

*One More*

Yes, this is a funny thread. I have a little more to add. I don't enjoy most of Bach but I get enough of his music to realize I'm missing something. So it's not just a question of like or dislike; comprehension comes into the picture as well. After all, that is why we explore classical music and try to give it a chance. I gave Mahler a chance a while back, and came away (I think, from his 4th symphony) admiring his cleverness but feeling rather empty emotionally. Does this mean I don't get him?

The other mystery for me is John Cage. Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano is one of my favorite 'suites', if the piano is prepared in a non-jarring way; but I have tried to listen to his other stuff and I do not like it at all. How can this be?


----------



## Genoveva

Ian Elliott said:


> I gave Mahler a chance a while back, and came away (I think, from his 4th symphony) admiring his cleverness but feeling rather empty emotionally. Does this mean I don't get him?


Don't mention this on the "T-C 150 Favourite Symphony" thread lest you risk having a bunch of derisory emoticons thrown at you. I see the wheels are coming off that thread now that a certain guy has tried to put them all straight on where they're all going wrong. Very funny indeed.


----------



## Gymnopédie

I don't care much for Liszt, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Offenbach or quite a few prominent Romantic composers.


----------



## Genoveva

Gymnopédie said:


> I don't care much for Liszt, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Offenbach or quite a few prominent Romantic composers.


Wow that's very interesting. Care to elaborate?


----------



## LindenLea

Gymnopédie said:


> I don't care much for Liszt, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Offenbach or quite a few prominent Romantic composers.


I don't especially actively hate too many composers, I think the optimum policy is to simply avoid them entirely and save yourself the anguish, rather than waste nervous energy hating them, but I do agree with you about Wagner, hour upon hour of shrill caterwauling and racket that seems to go absolutely nowhere, somebody really should have taken his quill off him when he got into his 5th hour of Gotterdammerung, and thrown a blanket over him, or maybe even better a bucket of cold water! Plus, I have never heard a single bar of Wagner's music which has ever improved my mood by one iota, or brought even the suggestion of a smile to my face, which is another test that I often apply to composers, he's so relentlessly miserable and depressing, ghastly stuff. Though my wife quite likes Wagner, amongst other things she claims that it soothes her on long flights/journeys, but I'm afraid for me life is far too short for any piece of music where you can start to listen to it in the departure lounge at Manchester airport, England, and the same piece is still going strong when you land in Montreal, Canada!

Stravinsky, Hindemith and Berlioz also seem to me to be rather pointless people.


----------



## Aramis

> seems to go absolutely nowhere


I often got that impression, in positive way though: huge climax, complexity, 5254224465498 singers singing at the same time and you just think "now, cadence!" but there is no cadence, just some unexpected and genious harmonic turn, then you think "now, just in couple of seconds he must end this mess, just simple, conventional DA-DI-DAAAA-AM!" but again, he doesn't end, another harmonic turn that dispels all doubts that Wagner is almighty geezer.


----------



## Ravellian

"Wagner's music doesn't go anywhere?" It's constantly in motion! Unlike other operas, the drama doesn't have to keep stopping to allow for the arias to be sung. Wagner is all drama, all the time. Think of _Tristan und Isolde_, where there is no concrete harmonic cadence until the very end (though that big climax in the second act comes pretty close).. think of how satisfying that final cadence hears when it finally happens! It's an incredible feeling, to be quite honest.

With Parsifal, I could understand where you're coming from... The only version I've listened to is an incredibly long 5-hour interpretation conducted by Levine, and I definitely had to keep myself from nodding off...


----------



## Ukko

*why there are multiple recordings*



Ian Elliott said:


> I gave Mahler a chance a while back, and came away (I think, from his 4th symphony) admiring his cleverness but feeling rather empty emotionally. Does this mean I don't get him?
> 
> The other mystery for me is John Cage. Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano is one of my favorite 'suites', if the piano is prepared in a non-jarring way; but I have tried to listen to his other stuff and I do not like it at all. How can this be?


If it was Mahlers' 4th you heard, you don't say which recording. Mahler interpretations vary a lot. Abravanel/Utah SO is, for instance, nothing special, *except* for the solo in the last movement by Davrath. It leaves me smiling. If you feel like getting beaten on with emotion, listen to Mahler's 2nd; it isn't exactly subtle.

The Cage sonatas you like are pretty early Cage (I like them too). He got farther out later.


----------



## Ian Elliott

I think we should ask ourselves what we mean when we say we like or dislike, love or hate a composer's music. There can be more than one meaning, just as there can be more than one way of listening to music. If I say I don't particularly like Verdi, for instance, but I enjoy the ballet music from 'Aida,' it is clear that I prefer instrumental to vocal music, which is a different listening experience. Enjoying vocal music involves the social imagination, with feelings of identification towards the charadters in the opera or perhaps the situation, whereas instrumental appreciation is more solitary and evokes private associations that may have very ltitle to do with the opera. Then there is the matter of æsthetic distance. Someone here said that Stravinsky's neoclassical music from the Twenties was 'horrible'. I do not find it so. If we leave it like that and just agree to disagree, we shall have learnt nothing about the matter in hand. If someone asks, why do you like that music? I would answer that emotional content has little to do with it; I enjoy those pieces (some of them) as well-made objects, like a Ming vase or porcelain tea kettle. I enjoy their finish, their polish, their instrumental coloring, their feeling of clean form. But that is not the way I always listen to music, so this is an excursion for me. Someone who never enjoys listening to music in that visceral sort of way will find his neoclassical works insufferable. Finally, there is the matter of intention. I strongly dislike the music of Tchaikovsky, which unfortunately I have had to hear all my life, and when I say that I mean, additionally, that I intend never to like his music or give him any more chances. I do not merely dislike him, I am against him. I think that is what people on this forum mean when they say they hate a certain composer. It means the music puts one in a mood that is uncomfortable or depressing or simply boring. On the other hand, I can have so many positive experiences listening to music, say to Sibelius, that I come to identify with that pleasure and feel that I not only like his music but in a sense I am his music. When that happens, watch out! You may need to give his music a long rest and turn to other ways of listening.


----------



## Ian Elliott

"Wagner's music is better than it sounds." - Mark Twain


----------



## Ian Elliott

I'll have to check. The Mahler recording was from a library, and I live in Norway now, so most of the performances are by Scandinavian musicians, who are often quite good. Also you sometimes come across some rare gems, such as the last two piano pieces Debussy composed, which were unknown until 1971 and 2001, respectively. And of course there is a great deal of local Scandinavian music, much of it skippable, but there are some diamonds in the rough.


----------



## Kieran

I'm semi-indifferent to Beethoven. I love the music, but it doesn't move me. I listen mainly to his sonatas and they're incredible, but they don't hook me. 

Is there a cure for this? Because I really wanna love the guy! I have a blank-spot when it comes to him...


----------



## Ravellian

Kieran said:


> I'm semi-indifferent to Beethoven. I love the music, but it doesn't move me. I listen mainly to his sonatas and they're incredible, but they don't hook me.
> 
> Is there a cure for this? Because I really wanna love the guy! I have a blank-spot when it comes to him...


This post reminds me of a sermon I heard about loving Jesus <_< 
If you really WANTED to love Beethoven, you would not be indifferent and you would be actively trying to do whatever you could do love him more. You would be listening not just to his sonatas, but his symphonies, chamber music, opera, and everything else. You would meditate every day on how awesome Beethoven is.

As my pastor would say, as it is now, you don't want to love Beethoven, but you WANT to want to love him.


----------



## Listener

Plenty of composers I rarely or never listen to. I don't know if I'd say that I don't like them, it's just I find them much less interesting than those I spend more time listening to.


----------



## Kieran

Ravellian said:


> This post reminds me of a sermon I heard about loving Jesus <_<
> If you really WANTED to love Beethoven, you would not be indifferent and you would be actively trying to do whatever you could do love him more. You would be listening not just to his sonatas, but his symphonies, chamber music, opera, and everything else. You would meditate every day on how awesome Beethoven is.
> 
> As my pastor would say, as it is now, you don't want to love Beethoven, but you WANT to want to love him.


That's a true post, Ravellian! I wanna wanna - but I don't really wanna! But Beethoven is worth more effort on my side, so I'm gonna put on the 9th this week and clear the schedules for it. By the way, is there any "conversion music" by Beethoven? Some infallibly catchy but profound piece that won't only impress me, but also move me? I'm rarely moved by the fellow! Mozart moves me, but Beethoven's music seems to be all about him...


----------



## Ian Elliott

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> I can't help but despise Debussy.


He's an old favorite of mine. Can you tell me what you don't like about him? There is one piece of his I cannot stand - Jeux. All the rest I find at least pleasant, and half a dozen of the larger works retain their power for me. I understand Mao tse-tung hated his music. It is rather bourgeois; but then he was rather bourgeois, for personal biographical reasons I will skip in this post.


----------



## Webernite

Kieran said:


> That's a true post, Ravellian! I wanna wanna - but I don't really wanna! But Beethoven is worth more effort on my side, so I'm gonna put on the 9th this week and clear the schedules for it. By the way, is there any "conversion music" by Beethoven? Some infallibly catchy but profound piece that won't only impress me, but also move me? I'm rarely moved by the fellow! Mozart moves me, but Beethoven's music seems to be all about him...


If you like Mozart, then you might try some of Beethoven's earlier works. Contrary to popular belief, they are mostly consummate, well-constructed and, yes, sophisticated. (Why else would Glenn Gould think so highly of them?) I recommend the lovely Op. 16 Quintet for a start. You might also try the Op. 18 quartets, the Piano Concerto No. 1, and the Op. 34 and Op. 35 variations.

Op. 16





Op. 34


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*I don't like*

Elgar.

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*I don't like*

Hector Berlioz


----------



## Aramis

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Elgar.
> 
> Martin


I second Martin. Terrible composer.


----------



## gobaith

I have listened quite a lot to Wagner in the past month. Is it the music itself or the political conotations that makes me uncomfortable. Maybe I am missing something, as a "beginner" in classical music, but it sounds pompous at times, often aggressive and dark. Listening to" the ring" late at night had me looking under my bed for monsters .....!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## robertsica

Probably Handel and Chopin.


----------



## Ian Elliott

Try the seventh symphony.


----------



## Ian Elliott

You are not alone. "Wagner's music is better than it sounds." - Mark Twain


----------



## zoziejemaar

Händel. Definitely. 

Some catchy tunes, some easy sentiment, and that's it. In between, one big formulaic bore -- sorry for over-emphasizing my point . There are tons of Baroque operas which are at least as interesting as Händel's. I can only figure one reason why he gets so much attention, and that is that he was at his time highly successful in London. But hey, other composers in the 17th and 18th centuries were highly successful as well, and they get only a fraction of the attention that goes to Händel.


----------



## starthrower

I never cared for Mozart or Haydn. Richard Strauss doesn't do much for me either. 

I've tried to enjoy Mahler's Symphonies, but so far no luck. Hell, I don't even like most of Beethoven's Symphonies, save the 5th, 6th, and 9th.


----------



## Ukko

zoziejemaar said:


> Händel. Definitely.
> [snip]
> I can only figure one reason why he gets so much attention, and that is that he was at his time highly successful in London. But hey, other composers in the 17th and 18th centuries were highly successful as well, and they get only a fraction of the attention that goes to Händel.


 Doesn't that mess up your 'figure'? Maybe there's something behind the smile?

:devil:


----------



## Webernite

zoziejemaar said:


> Händel. Definitely.
> 
> Some catchy tunes, some easy sentiment, and that's it. In between, one big formulaic bore -- sorry for over-emphasizing my point . There are tons of Baroque operas which are at least as interesting as Händel's. I can only figure one reason why he gets so much attention, and that is that he was at his time highly successful in London. But hey, other composers in the 17th and 18th centuries were highly successful as well, and they get only a fraction of the attention that goes to Händel.


I think Handel's greatest skill was that he knew how to orchestrate and write for particular instruments so as to give the impression that there was an enormous orchestra playing, even when in fact it was just a chamber ensemble or a small orchestra. Personally, I prefer the Brandenburg Concertos of Bach to Handel's Op. 6 Concertos, but I always get the impression that the Brandenburgs are essentially chamber music, whereas the Op. 6 are what you might call proto-symphonic.

Rameau's orchestrations are extremely colorful, and this becomes especially clear if you listen to music from his operas in the form of a suite. But again, I never get the impression of true orchestral or symphonic writing when listening to Rameau. Handel is the only Baroque composer who gives me that impression.


----------



## Ukko

Aramis said:


> I second Martin. Terrible composer.


I am unfamiliar with Martin's work. I do have some experience with Elgar's music. He had his good days, e.g. with the Cello Concerto; if you let it hook you, it will ring you out.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*I love Wagner!*

I love Wagner and the seeds of him:

- Mahler (Austrian)
- Zemlinsky (Austrian)
- Schreker (Austrian)
- Richard Strauss (German)
- Schönberg (Austrian)
- Berg (Austrian)
- Webern (Austrian)
- Wellesz. (Austrian)

I hate Elgar...I like in a lukewarm way Bruchner...and Bruch (his violin concerto is gut!)






Martin


----------



## JeremyMcGrath

I dont really like Elgar either


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*I don't like*

Myself! I'm bad!

Martin


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

zoziejemaar said:


> I can only figure one reason why he gets so much attention, and that is that he was at his time highly successful in London.


You might like to read some books about him instead of "figuring out" a reason.


----------



## zoziejemaar

> You might like to read some books about him instead of "figuring out" a reason.


Well, I started reading in this one:

http://www.amazon.com/George-Frider...2274/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1294127589&sr=8-2

and I think it only proves my point about the consequent reception of Händel. There is a public, like this author, that idolizes Händel (and goes at great lengths to appropriate him as a thoroughly English composer), and chooses to ignore other works (especially operas) of the same time, which, in my humble opinion, are as least as interesting and innovating (which is, not so innovating, in fact). The reasoning used by these authors is: he had much success at his time, so that means he is a good composer. That is fine, but then there were many others in the same case (well, take even Rameau, or Graupner, or A. Scarlatti) who are commonly not considered as the likes of Händel. Which I think is a shame.



> I think Handel's greatest skill was that he knew how to orchestrate and write for particular instruments so as to give the impression that there was an enormous orchestra playing.


Perhaps. I promise I will pay more attention to this aspect in the future. I also admit that he had a great gift for melodies (which he thereafter used thirteen times again, :devil

Sorry, I thought there could be some winks and (admitted) bold statements in a thread called "Is there a great composer you plain just don't like". I also sometimes enjoy Händel very much.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I see where you're coming from.

Firstly, I would avoid Lang's outdated book, which was first published in the 1960s and revised perhaps a few times that have since been way, way updated by more recent Handel musicology. I do not have Lang's book precisely for that reason. I have Handel biographies by Christopher Hogwood and Donald Burrows; the latter I can warmly recommend indeed. Both references provided much more balanced (and more accurate, as musicology has shown) studies on Handel. Lang, from what I read in sections, contained too much speculation and biases as you already pointed out (perhaps that was what Lang could do at best half a century ago).

Yes, I agree with your view that just because Handel was relatively successful with his career should not imply exculsion of other Baroque composers worthy our attention, especially in the world of Baroque opera. On the one hand, Handel's contemporary and personal friend, Telemann was more success than Handel during their lifetimes, although it is now often agreed that Handel's operas probably have a better charm than Telemann's. However, Vivaldi's operas are enjoying a resurgence, along with many other Italian Baroque operas too. These that I have managed to get hold of on CD have really been worthy of my time to listen to as much as Handel's, along with French Baroque opera, such as many by Lully and Rameau.

If I could speculate (at the risk of doing it all a disservice perhaps), that I also think that because Handel was a naturalised English subject too, could have perhaps let to some patriotic bias, especially in view of how popular his music was during Victorian times when for example, _The Messiah_ was performed by such huge forces and Handel was verging on national idolatry - that I think does no service to forward his music nor that of other Baroque masterpieces still yet to be discovered.


----------



## zoziejemaar

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I see where you're coming from.
> 
> Firstly, I would avoid Lang's outdated book, which was first published in the 1960s and revised perhaps a few times that have since been way, way updated by more recent Handel musicology. I do not have Lang's book precisely for that reason. I have Handel biographies by Christopher Hogwood and Donald Burrows; the latter I can warmly recommend indeed. Both references provided much more balanced (and more accurate, as musicology has shown) studies on Handel. Lang, from what I read in sections, contained too much speculation and biases as you already pointed out (perhaps that was what Lang could do at best half a century ago).
> 
> Yes, I agree with your view that just because Handel was relatively successful with his career should not imply exculsion of other Baroque composers worthy our attention, especially in the world of Baroque opera. On the one hand, Handel's contemporary and personal friend, Telemann was more success than Handel during their lifetimes, although it is now often agreed that Handel's operas probably have a better charm than Telemann's. However, Vivaldi's operas are enjoying a resurgence, along with many other Italian Baroque operas too. These that I have managed to get hold of on CD have really been worthy of my time to listen to as much as Handel's, along with French Baroque opera, such as many by Lully and Rameau.
> 
> If I could speculate (at the risk of doing it all a disservice perhaps), that I also think that because Handel was a naturalised English subject too, could have perhaps let to some patriotic bias, especially in view of how popular his music was during Victorian times when for example, _The Messiah_ was performed by such huge forces and Handel was verging on national idolatry - that I think does no service to forward his music nor that of other Baroque masterpieces still yet to be discovered.


I see that we actually agree on many points. Thank you for the reading recommendations!

Yes, I also had Vivaldi's operas in mind. For me, they are perfectly comparable to Händel's. I can only hope that their resurgence will continue...

I have not heard Telemann's operas. I can imagine that it's quite a strain to sit through them... Anyone here who has given it a try (or has seen a performance)?


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*A Frenchy said:*

"Un peuple qui ne sait pas manger ne peut pas composer de la belle musique."

Martin, dressed as a French.

Fish and chips

LOL


----------



## Musicbox

I Prefer Martin to Martinu - whose symphonies I find pretty awful.

(How could anyone not like Martin's Mass for Double Choir?)

Scriabin makes me feel a bit queasy.


----------



## Pieck

Dont like Mozart. Why does it have to be so happy all the time.
Debussy - Cant make myself like it, his music is just too weird.
Gershwin - If I wanted jazz I'd listen to Coltrane.
Most of modern composers (not all of them) - maybe someday I'll get it.


----------



## norman bates

Chopin - His works are best suited for those of the male species who enjoy “stopping to smell the flowers" (cit.)

Boulez - (about messiaen) "He was a very good teacher, and I liked his more adventurous works,” says Boulez. “But then you find a conventional or even banal melodic phrase, or he finished with a C major chord, which I found puzzling".
If he would have been a painter probably he would have found puzzling the use of primary colors by a modern painter. He has the mind of the researcher more than that of an artist.

Mozart - the usual critic, i usually find his music boring or too simple for my tastes. I can't stand most of his most famous melodies. I can't understand why he is so famous and nobody knows about Samuel Wesley.


----------



## starry

Pieck said:


> Dont like Mozart. Why does it have to be so happy all the time.


But it isn't always happy all the time. That's like saying Beethoven's music is angry all the time.


----------



## Pieck

starry said:


> But it isn't always happy all the time. That's like saying Beethoven's music is angry all the time.


Even when it's not happy I feel like he felt a waste that it's not happy.
I went to a concert\lecture about Mozart and Haydn and the lecturer talked about how Mozart always wrote childish like motifs (she didn't mean it in a bad way).
Mostly I dont like it. I like his violin sonata no. 30 somthing, his sinfonia concertante, and his requiem. I hope I'll like him more in the future.
BTW, I like Beethoven the most when he's angry.


----------



## Aramis

Those who think Mozart is always happy should try his music from period when his mother died and he wrote some expressive works like 8th piano sonata. And generally his works in minor keys, he's generally much less cheerful than other classical period dudes like Haydn.


----------



## gr8gunz

Stravinsky, Mahler, Ives, Delius. 

Mahler's 1st is listenable as is Stravinsky's rite of spring but the rest just doesn't make sense. Ives/Delius are not listenable at all.


----------



## Art Rock

Two composers that will end up in the top20 (current thread) leave me rather cold:　Ｍｏｎｔｅｖｅｒｄｉ　ａｎｄ　Ｈａｎｄｅｌ．

（ｔｈｉｓ　ｌａｐｔｏｐ　ｓｏｍｅｔｉｍｅｓ　ｃｈａｎｇｅｓ　ｌａｙ－ｏｕｔ　ｗｉｔｈｏｕｔ　ｃａｕｓｅ　ｔｈａｔ　Ｉ　ｃａｎ　ｓｅｅ）．


----------



## Kbmanonymous

Camille saint seans.....HATE! mmmmm theres alot of music i think is boring but i dont hate the composer. Like Brahms and Mahler i can't sit through them....theres to much detail or maybe not enough or something


----------



## Barking Spiderz

I've tried hard and have listened to several highly rated cycles but I just dont like the symphonies of Bruckner, Sibelius and Mahler. Joyless afFairs IMO. I'm generally not fussed on Baroque to early Classical so that tends to rule out Bach and Handel. I prefer big orchestrations with brass and percussion. I also hate the harpsichord. Reminds me of of those dull period Jane Austen type dramas where you've got these drippy young women idling the days away on a harpsichord while waiting for their gentlemen callers. And I really dont like Wagner's music. I prefer Rossini and Bizet for opera. Have little time for Schoenberg, Webern, Berg. And as for the 'best of British' - i.e. Elgar, Vaughan Williams and Britten - erm no thanks


----------



## Jacob Singer

Barking Spiderz said:


> I've tried hard and have listened to several highly rated cycles but I just dont like the symphonies of Bruckner, Sibelius and Mahler. Joyless afFairs IMO. I'm generally not fussed on Baroque to early Classical so that tends to rule out Bach and Handel. I prefer big orchestrations with brass and percussion. I also hate the harpsichord. Reminds me of of those dull period Jane Austen type dramas where you've got these drippy young women idling the days away on a harpsichord while waiting for their gentlemen callers. And I really dont like Wagner's music. I prefer Rossini and Bizet for opera. Have little time for Schoenberg, Webern, Berg. And as for the 'best of British' - i.e. Elgar, Vaughan Williams and Britten - erm no thanks


Wow, I agree with virtually every single word you said. The only main thing I would change is that I prefer Verdi for opera.


----------



## mueske

Barking Spiderz said:


> I've tried hard and have listened to several highly rated cycles but I just dont like the symphonies of Bruckner, Sibelius and Mahler. Joyless afFairs IMO. I'm generally not fussed on Baroque to early Classical so that tends to rule out Bach and Handel. I prefer big orchestrations with brass and percussion. I also hate the harpsichord. Reminds me of of those dull period Jane Austen type dramas where you've got these drippy young women idling the days away on a harpsichord while waiting for their gentlemen callers. And I really dont like Wagner's music. I prefer Rossini and Bizet for opera. Have little time for Schoenberg, Webern, Berg. And as for the 'best of British' - i.e. Elgar, Vaughan Williams and Britten - erm no thanks





Jacob Singer said:


> Wow, I agree with virtually every single word you said. The only main thing I would change is that I prefer Verdi for opera.


So, I have to ask. What the hell _do_ you like?


----------



## dmg

As a person? Wagner. As a composer? I don't dislike any composer's entire body of work. There are some composers that I like a few works while finding others bland or uninteresting (Haydn would be the biggest one of these, followed by Brahms and perhaps Mahler).

I prefer to judge the works themselves and not the composer as a whole.

:tiphat:


----------



## Vor Gott

As has been said before, Mozart to some extent drives me insane, but only in some works. Others are just as good as Beethoven (whom I worship dearly!) in my eyes.

Other than that: Bizet, and any Copland-esque composer whose works possess the intellectual complexity of a Cro-Magnon skinning chant.


----------



## Nix

All great composers have something to offer. That's why they're called 'great.'


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Berlioz*

Nothing to add.

Martin


----------



## Barking Spiderz

and I forggot to mention Stockhausen and his followers


----------



## Barking Spiderz

mueske said:


> So, I have to ask. What the hell _do_ you like?


Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Dvorak, Smetana, Janacek, Schmidt, Novak, Albeniz, Borodin, Satie, Debussy, Bizet, Haydn, Schumann, von Suppe, von Reznicek, Bruch, Berlioz, Saint-Saens, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgssky, Nielsen, Prokofiev, Sor, Villa Lobos, Vivaldi (the exception to Baroque), Kodaly, Dukas, Shostakovich, Rossini....errm how's that for starters?


----------



## Xaltotun

Reading this thread is... soothing! It's really OK not to like some composer's music, great to see that there's room for preferences in classical music. I feel better about myself already


----------



## Curiosity

I don't think I outright _dislike_ the works of any composer, but there are some I'm (currently) indifferent towards.

Tchaikovsky - His violin concerto was actually the first piece of classical music I loved, but oddly I haven't been able to enjoy any of his symphonies. They are loud and dramatic, but to my ears structurally uninteresting with a wealth of thematic material but not much in terms of interesting developments. My attention tends to wane around midway through their respective first movements!

Mozart - Has his moments (The Requiem, sonata no.14 and symphony 40 being among my favourite pieces), but overall I find him in want of consistency and drama much of the time. Many of his acclaimed works don't appeal to me that much - the exalted piano concertos, for example.

Schubert - Similarly to Tchaikovsky, I find his music overflowing with appealing melodies and creative thematic material, but structurally uninteresting and kinda half baked. Also his supporters overrate him enormously, claiming things as ridiculous as that he beats Beethoven in solo piano, symphonic, chamber, and vocal works...


----------



## KJohnson

Mozart's name comes up again and again whenever such threads are started, and the Requiem is always listed as an exception. I wonder, if he continued to live, Requiem might have marked the beginning of his new style, like the Rite for Stravinsky.


----------



## Art Rock

Curiosity said:


> Also his supporters overrate him enormously, claiming things as ridiculous as that he beats Beethoven in solo piano, symphonic, chamber, and vocal works...


Solo piano - probably just Beethoven for me. But it is close (Impromptus!).
Symphonic - Beethoven by a small margin, courtecy of Beethoven 3,5,6,7 versus Schubert 8,9
Chamber - Schubert, with string quartets on par, but with octet and especially string quintet outshining LvB
Vocal - Schubert by an extremely wide margin. Winterreise and Die schoene Muellerin are perfection.


----------



## Curiosity

Beethoven is about a million miles ahead of Schubert in solo piano works. Schubert has no Pathetique, Moonlight, Waldstein, Appassionata or Hammerklavier to pinpoint just the named sonatas!

Symphonies - I find Schubert enormously overrated in this regard. Again, his best symphonies rival Beethoven's 1st and 2nd but can't even begin to touch upon the invention and power of Beethoven's middle and late works.

Schubert's string quartets are not close to Beethoven's middle or late works in the genre. His better ones approach the quality of Beethoven's early quartets, though.

Vocal is infact close, though the Missa Solemnis surpasses any of Schubert's individual achievements in vocal works.


----------



## tdc

Personally I find Schubert's 8th and 9th at least close to as good as any of Beethoven's Symphonies, but Beethoven wins here in quantity.

Beethoven gets the nod in solo keyboard music by a decent margin...But again when Schubert is at his best he is close.

I personally prefer Schubert's chamber and vocal music to Beethovens. 

I rank Beethoven and Schubert as 3rd and 4th respectively on my personal list of the all time greatest composers.


----------



## clavichorder

Just please don't discredit the people who do like Mozart. I love Mozart, would you say that my taste in liking him is not legitimate? You don't know that, and you'd be dead wrong. I don't like him due to pressures put upon me, but because he's one of the very first composers I ever really liked. I used to find Beethoven clunky by comparison, but that changed and I love them both.


----------



## clavichorder

I like to believe in the competence of almost any great and lesser great I can think of that didn't compose in too modern a style(the line is drawn with atonality and experimental sounding music, Hindemith is just barely in the okay zone of my line). Sometimes it totally depends on the performer. Its sometimes a process of getting used to some composers and discovering the proper performer, which can be hard. Handel and Mozart criticized for being trivial, I plain don't like it, Bruckner criticized, I don't agree and slightly dislike it but understand it with it having appreciated him quite a bit, and I don't think its a good idea to discredit Wagner or Liszt. Tchaikovsky criticism downright makes me angry. What makes me most angry is people who criticize lesser known but highly competent classical era and romantic composers as not deserving to be known. 

I don't think throwing away all diplomacy and benefit of the doubt is a good idea. I try my hardest to maintain it with modern composers even, though I am not optimistic about future appreciation. I just don't like that part of the musical tree of evolution, but every competent composer before that interests me and can thrill me due to my knowledge and love of connecting various musical developments. I think that to really learn about music, that's how you have to think of it.


----------



## Curiosity

I definitely wouldn't dismiss any composer outright. I still listen to Schubert, Mozart and Tchaikovsky despite my reservations about their music and I hope that it grows on me.


----------



## Nicola

Curiosity said:


> I definitely wouldn't dismiss any composer outright. I still listen to Schubert, Mozart and Tchaikovsky despite my reservations about their music and I hope that it grows on me.


How long have you been listening to classical music?


----------



## clavichorder

My god how could anyone hate Berlioz, the most creative of them all!(to be taken as my subjective opinion


----------



## Ravellian

Nicola said:


> How long have you been listening to classical music?


There is to be absolutely *NO* Tchaikovsky bashing on this forum. Thank you!


----------



## clavichorder

I have a theory that there are small form oriented listeners who gravitate more towards certain earlier music and melody oriented listeners who gravitate towards Tchaikovsky and Mozart and some Schubert and Bizet and the like, motif and big structural oriented listeners that like Wagner, Beethoven, and they develop strong loyalties for certain composers in those categories and then there are people who like Modern exclusively, then there are combined listeners. And instrumental preferences factor in. The more boundaries you can transcend the better, although I've yet to be convinced that liking totally modern music would be complimentary to my appreciation of everything else.


----------



## Curiosity

Nicola said:


> How long have you been listening to classical music?


I've had a passing interest for years (the first piece to spark my interest being Handel's Messiah overture used in the movie The Killer, when I was 11 or so), but have only been delving deeply into it over the last year.


----------



## clavichorder

And there are those that like to put there foots in various worlds with certain composers to represent each type of music, and so they pick what they think is the best of everything.


----------



## clavichorder

It all should gradually be moving to liking most great composers I think.


----------



## Argus

KJohnson said:


> Mozart's name comes up again and again whenever such threads are started, and the Requiem is always listed as an exception. I wonder, if he continued to live, Requiem might have marked the beginning of his new style, like the Rite for Stravinsky.


The Rite was an exception too. By the of the decade he had arrived at his neoclassical style and I don't think he ever wrote anything as original and as far removed what other composers were doing at the time as the Rite. Not to say Stravinsky didn't produce other works I really like.


----------



## Nicola

Ravellian said:


> There is to be absolutely *NO* Tchaikovsky bashing on this forum. Thank you!


I wasn't going to "bash" anyone, least of all Tchaikovsky. I just want to find out how much listening experience underpins the comments made earlier by member "curiosity".


----------



## Webernite

Curiosity said:


> Schubert's string quartets are not close to Beethoven's *middle* or late works in the genre. His better ones *approach the quality* of Beethoven's early quartets, though.


Oh, come on. That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. I think you're one of those people who hears a catchy melody and immediately assumes the work can't be any good.


----------



## Aramis

I don't get that "developement" argument against Tchaikovsky. Wasn't he one of very few composers of late romantic period who were so attached to traditional view of form and elaborative developement? Most of them intentionally rejected it and put emotional progression at it's place while Tchaikovsky often sticks to tradition of developing structure.


----------



## Nicola

Curiosity said:


> I've had a passing interest for years (the first piece to spark my interest being Handel's Messiah overture used in the movie The Killer, when I was 11 or so), but have only been delving deeply into it over the last year.


Not long is it?


----------



## Curiosity

Webernite said:


> Oh, come on. That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. I think you're one of those people who hears a catchy melody and immediately assumes the work can't be any good.


You can't have heard many ridiculous things, then. I confess to being more interested in structure and form than melody but I adore many a melodic piece.

I'm very open to changing my opinions about Schubert's music.


----------



## Curiosity

Nicola said:


> Not long is it?


What does that matter? Get off your high horse. I make no claims of expertise. I just know what I like.


----------



## Nicola

Curiosity said:


> What does that matter? Get off your high horse. I make no claims of expertise. I just know what I like.


A year is not a long time in which to assess the music of the great masters. How old are you?


----------



## Curiosity

Nicola said:


> A year is not a long time in which to assess the music of the great masters. How old are you?


That's of no consequence. I don't claim to assess the music objectively, I assess it according to my own subjective feelings and responses to the music.

That's like telling somebody that they need to have been gourging on the world's finest cuisines for a lifetime before they are qualified to say they don't like doritos. It makes no sense.


----------



## Nicola

Webernite said:


> Oh, come on. That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. I think you're one of those people who hears a catchy melody and immediately assumes the work can't be any good.


I'm glad you said it and not me, but that's what I thought too. The comments struck me as being very naive.


----------



## Curiosity

Nicola said:


> I'm glad you said it and not me, but that's what I thought too. The comments struck me as being very naive.


On the contrary I would suggest that it is you who is naive for implying that one must be an experienced listener before they are qualified to form a subjective opinion. I never claimed to be an authority on the subject, but you, through implication, have done just that.

You may opt to not take my views seriously as a result of my relative inexperience with classical music, that's your decision.


----------



## Webernite

I didn't mean it in an antagonistic way.


----------



## Nicola

Curiosity said:


> That's of no consequence. I don't claim to assess the music objectively, I assess it according to my own subjective feelings and responses to the music.
> 
> That's like telling somebody that they need to have been gourging on the world's finest cuisines for a lifetime before they are qualified to say they don't like doritos. It makes no sense.


So you are saying that after one year of listening to classical music you feel qualified to condemn the likes of Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Mozart as mere second-raters to Beethoven?


----------



## Curiosity

Nicola said:


> So you are saying that after one year of listening to classical music you feel qualified to condemn the likes of Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Mozart as mere second-raters to Beethoven?


Yeah... in my opinion. Can't help it if their music doesn't grip me, hon! I may look at things differently in the future but this is the now.


----------



## Kieran

Went to see Stockhausen about a dozen years ago, dunno if it was pere or fils, or if there's even such a thing. Unfortunately for the performers there was an interval.

During the interval, the theatre emptied into the bar. When the interval ended, the bar didn't empty back into the theatre...


----------



## regressivetransphobe

> Would you like to know there happens to be a (half) Finland-Swede here on the forum, namely myself?


There's more of us than you think!

Stravinsky doesn't do much for me. Someone on this site described him as "technique-obsessed", and that's probably why. I always said he seems more like a bad French composer than a good Russian composer, but I'm sure that might get me crucified.


----------



## Meaghan

Nicola said:


> A year is not a long time in which to assess the music of the great masters. How old are you?


Now, be nice...


----------



## Meaghan

Aramis said:


> I don't get that "developement" argument against Tchaikovsky. Wasn't he one of very few composers of late romantic period who were so attached to traditional view of form and elaborative developement? Most of them intentionally rejected it and put emotional progression at it's place while Tchaikovsky often sticks to tradition of developing structure.


Yeah, he was really into forms, right? Despite his music being pretty darn romantic. And he was a big Mozart fan.


----------



## Guest

He's not considered "great" I suppose, but I really can't stand Milhaud.


----------



## Conor71

I dont think theres any of the composers I've heard that I dislike - I guess I am lucky and like pretty much all the music in my collection


----------



## violadude

Johnny said:


> *Do you think a composer sets out to create what can be "objectively" defined as "******" music?*
> 
> Eh, no. Who thinks that? Do you think I said that?
> 
> You think if somebody expresses a dislike for a particular piece of music, it means they are just "unwilling to perceive"?
> 
> Do you think that all music must actually be good, just because it was made by somebody who wanted to make good music?
> 
> Seeing the good in _every_ piece of music is odd. (Of course you are entitled to like everything if you want though.)
> 
> What do you mean about people being willing, or unwilling, to perceive the music? Please explain to me what you mean (in plain clear English).
> 
> You seem to think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if somebody doesn't like a piece of music, there is obviously a problem with the listener, because the composer obviously didn't try to make something that sounds bad.
> 
> I get irritated when somebody expresses a dislike for something and others take it as a sign of intellectual inferiority. Like they're not "open-minded" enough. Maybe we should all like everything so that nobody can say that we don't "understand" or "get" something. Heaven forbid!


I know this quote was from about a year ago, but I kind of disagree with this. Every piece that I have given a fair listen to I've come to like to some degree. Actually, I think I could say good things about any piece of music you give me.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> I know this quote was from about a year ago, but I kind of disagree with this. Every piece that I have given a fair listen to I've come to like to some degree. Actually, I think I could say good things about any piece of music you give me.


I think that's more likely to mean that you're just not all that discerning (which is no bad thing in itself) than that certain listeners are deficient because they don't like everything at least a little.

I can't stand most Baroque music. I know, on an intellectual level, that it is 'good' and 'worthy', but it's just not to my tastes and never has been. That's not a _problem_ with me, just a _difference_.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> I think that's more likely to mean that you're just not all that discerning (which is no bad thing in itself) than that certain listeners are deficient because they don't like everything at least a little.
> 
> I can't stand most Baroque music. I know, on an intellectual level, that it is 'good' and 'worthy', but it's just not to my tastes and never has been. That's not a _problem_ with me, just a _difference_.


I'm not saying it's a deficiency on the listeners part if they don't like everything. I just wanted to say that it isn't quite so weird to like everything as the poster I was quoting made it out to be.

Actually, the only real problem I have with people saying that they don't like a piece of music is when they never say exactly what they don't like about the music. A lot of the time they just list a bunch of synonyms of "garbage" that they can to describe the piece without saying any worthwhile reason that they don't like it.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> I'm not saying it's a deficiency on the listeners part if they don't like everything. I just wanted to say that it isn't quite so weird to like everything as the poster I was quoting made it out to be.


Ah, OK. 



violadude said:


> Actually, the only real problem I have with people saying that they don't like a piece of music is when they never say exactly what they don't like about the music. A lot of the time they just list a bunch of synonyms of "garbage" that they can to describe the piece without saying any worthwhile reason that they don't like it.


Yes, that does just seem to indicate prejudice rather than thought (I know I've been accused of prejudice on some recent controversial threads, but I do at least _try_ to give reasoned opinions, even if others don't find them satisfactory!  ).


----------



## elgar's ghost

If he's considered great then I'd have to pick Arthur Sullivan - nothing in classical grates on me as much as G & S and this is from yours truly who is otherwise quite happy listening to lighter works for the stage.


----------



## Sid James

Conor71 said:


> I dont think theres any of the composers I've heard that I dislike - I guess I am lucky and like pretty much all the music in my collection


I like your positive attitude (as in this quote), I can tell that you genuinely mean this. I'm much the same, indeed, my "problem" is what to choose from all the goodies & riches out there (there have been very few "total stinkers" over the years of my classical discoveries/journeys)...


----------



## Curiosity

I love Bach's music all things considered, but does anyone else feel that some of it just sounds like some kind of mathematical exercise? I hear this problem mainly with his solo keyboard works.


----------



## Sid James

Curiosity said:


> I love Bach's music all things considered, but does anyone else feel that some of it just sounds like some kind of mathematical exercise? I hear this problem mainly with his solo keyboard works.


I used to kind of feel the same way regarding J. S. Bach. I think it comes down to - as with any composer - how the guy's music is played. If it is payed in a dry or "mathematical" way, as you suggest, then it will inevitably come across as sounding that way. On record, I have been quite moved by some of the "classic" performers of Bach's music, performers like Pablo Casals, Wanda Landowska, Ruggiero Ricci & Sviatoslav Richter. I know this is maybe not thought of highly by the "HIP" mob, but I don't care. I was particularly moved (to tears! - & some others present in the audience were as well) by a recent performance here by a chamber group, with guest soloists, of the _Double Violin Concerto_. I don't know what it was, it kind of came out of the blue, maybe I let my guard down at that concert. Certainly seeing the two beautiful young performers play may have played a huge part in this mini "conversion," but I think that the composer himself - clearly a man of not only genius but great ability to move if his music is in the "right" hands - can still take 99 per cent of the credit...


----------



## tdc

Curiosity said:


> I love Bach's music all things considered, but does anyone else feel that some of it just sounds like some kind of mathematical exercise? I hear this problem mainly with his solo keyboard works.


No. I've listened to all of Bach's keyboard works, and I've never thought this. His Well Tempered Clavier may be the only collection of keyboard works, that I personally feel surpasses even Beethoven's Piano Sonatas.


----------



## Klavierspieler

I don't consider him a great composer, but I can't stand Schoenberg, or any of his pupils.

I also don't care for too many of Liszt's compositions, too me they too often seem flashy and showy rather than having real depth of emotion to them.


----------



## waldvogel

Alphabetically, I wouldn't be sad if I never heard another note from:

Hans Erich Apostel
Pierre Boulez
John Cage
Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf
Enya
Frederick the Great
Baldassare Galuppi
Johann Hasse
I - no answer. I really like Charles Ives and Jacques Ibert.
Niccolo Jommelli
Ernst Krenek
Andrea Lucchesi
Gian Carlo Menotti
Luigi Nono
Carl Orff
Johann Pachelbel. At least the Canon and Gigue, which is all that I ever hear from him.
Johann Joachim Quantz
Steve Reich, although he's not really awful.
Karlheinz Stockhausen
Randall Thompson
Antonio Vivaldi
Silvius Leopold Weiss
Iannis Xenakis. The only "X" out there, and he makes the list.
Lamont Young
not Zemlinsky, and I can't think of anyone else.


----------



## Guest

waldvogel said:


> Alphabetically, I wouldn't be sad if I never heard another note from:
> 
> Hans Erich Apostel
> Pierre Boulez
> John Cage
> Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf
> Enya
> Frederick the Great
> Baldassare Galuppi
> Johann Hasse
> I - no answer. I really like Charles Ives and Jacques Ibert.
> Niccolo Jommelli
> Ernst Krenek
> Andrea Lucchesi
> Gian Carlo Menotti
> Luigi Nono
> Carl Orff
> Johann Pachelbel. At least the Canon and Gigue, which is all that I ever hear from him.
> Johann Joachim Quantz
> Steve Reich, although he's not really awful.
> Karlheinz Stockhausen
> Randall Thompson
> Antonio Vivaldi
> Silvius Leopold Weiss
> Iannis Xenakis. The only "X" out there, and he makes the list.
> Lamont Young
> not Zemlinsky, and I can't think of anyone else.


I would consider less than half of those names as great composers...


----------



## Whipsnade

Jeff N said:


> I would consider less than half of those names as great composers...


Not even Frederick the Great? It's right there in the name!


----------



## Lenfer

I am generally not a as big a fan of orchestral works I don't dislike them though, I prefer chamber music, small groups or soloists. Perhaps it's just becuase I haven't seen a lot of live music. As for composers I don't hate any but I find *Mozart * to be the equivalent of those girls who talk in that excessively high voice I believe in the *US* they are colloquially called valley girls? I also find *Wagner* a little bloated and brimming with undue grandiosity. :tiphat:


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Sibelius for reasons set out here:

http://www.talkclassical.com/8266-sibelius-any-good-just.html


----------



## jalex

Lenfer said:


> I find *Mozart * to be the equivalent of those girls who talk in that excessively high voice


Requiem? D min piano concerto? Symphony 40? Don Giovanni (listen to the overture)? Great Mass in C min? None of these could even mistakenly be described as that. Symphony 39 with those brash opening chords? Piano concerto 25? Prague symphony? String quartet 15? Jupiter Symphony with the monstrous fugal finale? No-one who has listened properly could describe these that way. Mozart covers the whole spectrum.

Tchaikovsky for me, he leaves me cold. Rachmaninov's piano music likewise. Also Liszt.


----------



## Lenfer

jalex said:


> Requiem? D min piano concerto? Symphony 40? Don Giovanni (listen to the overture)? Great Mass in C min? None of these could even mistakenly be described as that. Symphony 39 with those brash opening chords? Piano concerto 25? Prague symphony? String quartet 15? Jupiter Symphony with the monstrous fugal finale? No-one who has listened properly could describe these that way. Mozart covers the whole spectrum.
> 
> Tchaikovsky for me, he leaves me cold. Rachmaninov's piano music likewise. Also Liszt.


I'm not saying all *Mozart * but there was a few pieces can't remember the names of them sorry - I'll try and find them again - that were just so.  Perhaps my comment was a little to harsh or badly phrased.


----------



## jalex

Lenfer said:


> I'm not saying all *Mozart * but there was a few pieces can't remember the names of them sorry - I'll try and find them again - that were just so.  Perhaps my comment was a little to harsh or badly phrased.


A lot of people seem to have this first impression of Mozart as fluffy, polite and lacking in substance, and personally I don't think anything could be further from the truth. For one thing he wrote lots of dramatic works such as some of the works mentioned above (I'd add piano concerto 24 to that list as well), and for another his more sedate, graceful works which people tend to focus their criticism on (I guess you are thinking of pieces like piano concerto 21 etc) are often masterpieces of melodic invention, orchestration and form. Though they do start to feel a bit like parlour music if you listen to too much in this style in one sitting 

Also on my list of composers I don't like is Vaughan Williams (with a couple of exceptions eg symphony 4, although even that I don't particularly like). All the pastoral-type music infuriates me.


----------



## Yoshi

I guess that would be Liszt. 

Edit: Also I really dislike most of the works from those impressionist composers like Debussy, Ravel, Satie, etc. It's just a music style that I plain don't like.


----------



## violadude

jalex said:


> A lot of people seem to have this first impression of Mozart as fluffy, polite and lacking in substance, and personally I don't think anything could be further from the truth. For one thing he wrote lots of dramatic works such as some of the works mentioned above (I'd add piano concerto 24 to that list as well), and for another his more sedate, graceful works which people tend to focus their criticism on (I guess you are thinking of pieces like piano concerto 21 etc) are often masterpieces of melodic invention, orchestration and form. Though they do start to feel a bit like parlour music if you listen to too much in this style in one sitting
> 
> Also on my list of composers I don't like is Vaughan Williams (with a couple of exceptions eg symphony 4, although even that I don't particularly like). All the pastoral-type music infuriates me.


This is a quote about Mozart from Schoenberg's book "The Theory of Harmony"

"But the theorists told Mozart during his lifetime what a dissonance chaser he was, and how all too often he gave in to the passion to write something ugly, and how with his talent such writing really wasn't necessary."

So I think you're right.


----------



## Curiosity

Schubert and Mozart often sound like the classical music equivalent of elevator music to me.


----------



## samurai

@ jalex: Re your comments vis a vis Vaughan Williams, do you include his *Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis* as one of the works which you dislike?


----------



## Sid James

Samurai, I think that since jalex said this -



jalex said:


> ...All the pastoral-type music infuriates me.


...s/he most likely doesn't like RVW's Tallis Fantasia.

Not talking to jalex here, just saying generally, this work is actually one of the most innovative pieces of music to come out of the UK in it's time (early c20th). The composer's study and collation of the British Hymnal, which included hymns of Tallis, informed him in the composition of this work. Never before (I have read) had these sounds been heard in the concert hall on acoustic instruments (eg. Tallis' hymns being written to be sung by choirs in church, obviously). This, and many other things, point to how RVW was not the conservative as some stereotype him as (I was one of those people until a year or two ago). The fact that this approach/style came to be hackneyed, much imitated and stereotyped as "cowpat" pastoralism really has nothing to do with this, if one tries to mentally go back to the first performance, which would have been just as unusual for that audience as things like Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ was around 1913...


----------



## sybilvane

Gotta say Wagner--and maybe the whole anti-Semitism thing has left me biased against him--I like and respect him but his works are too melodramatic at times for them to be my favorites.


----------



## FrankieP

I could live without Brahms, I think. Although not without Brahms' influence!

Aside from Karl Jenkins, Rutter, Einaudi, Nyman and the like, there are very few who I'm not fond of. I get a little tired of Chopin after a while though. 

Why do so many people dislike Mahler? Maybe I love his music a little too much, as reading people saying that they don't like it brought a tear to my eyes 

I'm very sorry if this posts upsets any Brahms admirers.


----------



## Argus

FrankieP said:


> Aside from Karl Jenkins, Rutter, Einaudi, Nyman and the like, there are very few who I'm not fond of. I get a little tired of Chopin after a while though.


How much Nyman have you heard? I think he's a pretty decent composer and I wouldn't group him in with the others you mentioned.


----------



## FrankieP

quite a significant amount, and I just don't like it. I agree he doesn't fit in with the others, I think I phrased it quite badly..


----------



## Sonata

Wagner fails to hold much appeal for me


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Bach! indeed...that I pronounce Batch....Bach is Bachoring....Bach+Boring= Bachoring. LOL
A batch of boring music with some exceptions....

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Bach! indeed...that I pronounce Batch....Bach is Bachoring....Bach+Boring= Bachoring. LOL
> A batch of boring music with some exceptions....
> 
> Martin


Martin, I believe you don't like Bach because he wasn't Russian

Nikolai


----------



## violadude

Aha! I finally thought of a composer that I don't like! It took me so long because I never actually think of this composer at all, anyway, Paganini! Ya I know, he wrote that popular 24th caprice and all. It is my humble opinion that, had he not advanced violin playing technique so far, based purely on his music he would just be one of those random forgotten composers that people only know through composers like Liszt and Brahms that actually managed to do something interesting with his music


----------



## DavidMahler

I think Mendelssohn is vastly overrated. But I still like him


----------



## brianwalker

Shostakovich. The popularity of his symphonies is astounding to me. I think his best pieces are the Festive Overture and the Jazz suites. I've heard good things about the operas and plan to explore them in the future.

I find parts of the 4, 5, and 10th tolerable, even enjoyable, but the rest I find a sprawling mess. 

I don't think I'm alone in this. I remember going through the comment section in Tommasini's top ten list and finding that many people approved of the fact that Mahler didn't make the list. If even Mahler hasn't found universal acceptance, I doubt Shostakovich will achieve that anytime soon. I also found the Mahler hate in this thread peculiar; is it because Shostakovich isn't considered great and Mahler is? 

Apart from him I admire every "great" composer from Monteverdi to Neoclassical Stravinsky, and even the not so great from earlier like Perotin. Although there are a few I consider to be overrated, in no way do I "dislike" them.


----------



## Vaneyes

Is There a Great Composer You Plain Just Don't Like? 

No.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

James clerk said:


> Chopin. And Brahms first symphony. Chopin.


You're lucky you caught me on a good day today.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

I truly can't say that there is a composer whose music I disslike.


----------



## neoshredder

TrazomGangflow said:


> I truly can't say that there is a composer whose music I disslike.


----------



## Eviticus

Love this thread.

Least favourite greats: Bach and Liszt.

The only time i will love Bach is if i become an insomniac. As for Liszt, i just don't like his style. He seems to lack the fluidity and soul of say Chopin or Saint Saens.


----------



## aleazk

I hate the composers who are liked by people who don't like Ravel.


----------



## clavichorder

aleazk said:


> I hate the composers who are liked by people who don't like Ravel.


I start to hate composers when somebody says they don't like Medtner and go on to cite the greatness of such and such.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

DavidMahler said:


> I think Mendelssohn is vastly overrated. But I still like him


Can you explain exactly what you mean by "vastly overrated"? For example, do you have some specific list of top composers in mind in which you disagree with the position of Mendelssohn?


----------



## Oskaar

I have problems with Chopin. Dont ask me way, I dont have the language of expressing that. I will give him some chances though.


----------



## clavichorder

oskaar said:


> I have problems with Chopin. Dont ask me way, I dont have the language of expressing that. I will give him some chances though.


Given the fact that you are Okaar, king of spotify, I'm sure you've tried your share of Chopin, but I wonder if you've tried to get into his Mazurkas, or his Polonaises? They are interesting forms, if you like delving into complete sets of works like Haydn symphonies, or Mozart concertos, you might be pleased with the Mazurkas as a set. I was not a Chopin person, and now I'm a convert, amazingly.

Here's one of my favorite Mazurkas, I love it for its harmonies and chromaticism


----------



## NightHawk

There is a strong theory that JSBach did not write the Toccata and Fugue in d minor. Some critics say it resembles a 19th century work more in some ways and stands 'alone' quite apart from his other works.



Ilych said:


> I have been listening to classical music since I was a teenager, about 40 years. My specialty is in the Romantic and Classic eras, but I try to expose myself to all kinds of Classical.
> I know what I am about to say is tantamount to blasphemy on these forums, but I just don't like Johann Sebastian Bach. There, I said it. Outside of the Toccata and Fugue in D minor I can honestly say there is one piece of his that doesn't either put me to sleep or make me nervous or give me a headache, or all three of the above.
> I know, I know. I've studied enough to know that Bach is one of the greatest of all the gods in the Classical spectrum. I know how extremely influential he was. I know most Classical fans adore him. I have given him chance after chance. I feel that there must be something in me that is somehow deficient to not appreciate his genius.
> I am not looking for anyone to contradict my views, I fear they are set in concrete. I was wondering if anyone else has a virulent dislike to one of the acknowledged geniuses of Classical composition?
> I am still very new to the forums and I was wondering what you think!


----------



## NightHawk

Yes, the Mazurkas...the best.



clavichorder said:


> Given the fact that you are Okaar, king of spotify, I'm sure you've tried your share of Chopin, but I wonder if you've tried to get into his Mazurkas, or his Polonaises? They are interesting forms, if you like delving into complete sets of works like Haydn symphonies, or Mozart concertos, you might be pleased with the Mazurkas as a set. I was not a Chopin person, and now I'm a convert, amazingly.
> 
> Here's one of my favorite Mazurkas, I love it for its harmonies and chromaticism


----------



## NightHawk

As has been noted before, some feel Shostakovich is best in his chamber music - Quartet in C minor #8 (one of 15), Quintet in G minor.



brianwalker said:


> Shostakovich. The popularity of his symphonies is astounding to me. I think his best pieces are the Festive Overture and the Jazz suites. I've heard good things about the operas and plan to explore them in the future.
> 
> I find parts of the 4, 5, and 10th tolerable, even enjoyable, but the rest I find a sprawling mess.
> 
> I don't think I'm alone in this. I remember going through the comment section in Tommasini's top ten list and finding that many people approved of the fact that Mahler didn't make the list. If even Mahler hasn't found universal acceptance, I doubt Shostakovich will achieve that anytime soon. I also found the Mahler hate in this thread peculiar; is it because Shostakovich isn't considered great and Mahler is?
> 
> Apart from him I admire every "great" composer from Monteverdi to Neoclassical Stravinsky, and even the not so great from earlier like Perotin. Although there are a few I consider to be overrated, in no way do I "dislike" them.


----------



## neoshredder

NightHawk said:


> There is a strong theory that JSBach did not write the Toccata and Fugue in d minor. Some critics say it resembles a 19th century work more in some ways and stands 'alone' quite apart from his other works.


My ears tell me that fits fine with Bach. He loved the Harmonic Minor scale. Not that he had his weak moments just like any composer but his best were amazing. Air on a G String and Oboe Concerto is D minor were amazing.


----------



## Oskaar

I will give Chopin more tries, and start with the mazurkas! Later....There is so much.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Ilych said:


> Is There a Great Composer You Plain Just Don't Like


Well, if I don't like them, they can't be great can they? Duh!


----------



## Oskaar

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Well, if I don't like them, they can't be great can they? Duh!


And if I dont like them also, they must be really bad....


----------



## Manok

Hate? The only one that comes close is Anton Webern. After reading a few posts on here I thought I'd give him a try, and honestly, I gave him more than one shot, but his music (if it can be called that) is just not for me.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Liszt - too flashy for my taste.
Impressionists - just don't care for them.


----------



## violadude

I'm not sure if this even counts, but I'm not particularly fond of guys like Stephen Foster, or Philip Sousa.


----------



## jalex

Manok said:


> Hate? The only one that comes close is Anton Webern. After reading a few posts on here I thought I'd give him a try, and honestly, I gave him more than one shot, but his *music* (*if it can be called that*) is just not for me.


Curious that someone who enjoys Penderecki makes the statement in bold. What makes you say that?


----------



## Webernite

Not too found of Mendelssohn, or Dvorak. But I don't _dis_like their music.


----------



## Manok

jalex said:


> Curious that someone who enjoys Penderecki makes the statement in bold. What makes you say that?


Didn't recall making that statement in bold. . Either way, don't know why, just never got into Webern.


----------



## Lisztian

Klavierspieler said:


> Liszt - too flashy for my taste.
> Impressionists - just don't care for them.


Not trying to attack your opinion or anything because I respect it 100%, but more making a general statement. I just get a bit peeved when people say they don't like Liszt because he's too flashy. Yeah there are many pieces by him that you could make that statement about and while most of those pieces I tend to like, I would understand. But he wrote a huge array of first-rate pieces that I just don't think you can say that about (although with you especially I don't think I need to tell you that as you seem knowledgeable about repetoire, especially solo piano). But to make a list of these pieces off the top of my head, being careful not to include any works that could in any way be called flashy:

The entire Années de pèlerinage, not including Orage, Vallée d'Obermann, Après une lecture du Dante, Gondoliera, Tarantella, all of which are good pieces (two masterpieces) but not to everyones taste.
6 Consolations.
Half the Harmonies poétiques et religieuses, and that's being very careful. The half i'm not including includes pieces that are either good pieces or masterpieces that could possibly be called flashy if they are looked at the wrong way, like Bénédiction de Dieu dans la solitude, Invocation, Funérailles, Miserere, d'après Palestrina, Cantique d'amour, Pensée des morts, but honestly I don't think any of those can really be called flashy.
Entire Weihnachtsbaum.
Nuages gris.
3 Liebesträume.
Romance in E Minor.
La lugubre gondola II.
En rêve. Nocturne.
Hungarian Rhapsody No. 5.
Canzone Napolitana.
Paysage.
Countless transcriptions...
Christus Oratorio, The Legend of St. Elisabeth, Via Crucis, and pretty much all the choral music he wrote.
Poème symphoniques, No. 4, Orpheus, No. 8, Héroïde funèbre, No. 10, Hamlet, No. 13, Von der Wiege bis zum Grabe.

And many more. That's a repertoire in itself!


----------



## aleazk

Klavierspieler said:


> Liszt - too flashy for my taste.
> *Impressionists - just don't care for them*.


 well then, sir, you have a new enemy from now on... :lol:


----------



## Oskaar

aleazk said:


> well then, sir, you have a new enemy from now on... :lol:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I can't stand Elgar. Don't ask me why. I have no idea.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I can't stand Elgar. Don't ask me why. I have no idea.


Why?  Why?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Why?  Why?


AARGH!!! I told you not to do that!


----------



## TheWimp

muxamed said:


> Dare I say that I am not a big fan of Tchaikovsky


what, how? anyways, you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine. I'm not such a big fan of Bach either. I don't like anything Baroque actually.


----------



## TheWimp

oh by the way, I quoted someone from the first page, just in case anyone follows these replies


----------



## suffolkcoastal

Mahler, the 6th & 9th symphony are ok and some of the songs, but the 2nd, 3rd, 7th & 8th symphonies in particular bore me totally.


----------



## Muddy

For the life of me, I cannot understand how any lover of classical music doesn't adore Mozart. 

As for Bach, I too had a difficult time with his music for a long time. Of course I was aware of his reputation, but I couldn't get into him. Then I listened to his Mass in B Minor. Such a great work. So I decided to try to gain entry into Bach's rich world via his Cantatas. I began ordering the Monteverdi Choir recent releases of the complete Cantata collection, and listened to them as I drove to work, everyday. They hooked me! Every cantata has something magical. That began my love for Bach. He is my desert island composer.


----------



## PetrB

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> For those who dislike Bach's music, have you tried a HIP recording of some of the Bach favourites? Me think HIP do far greater justice to Bach's work (Baroque in general, too). And if you have, and still dislike Bach, well ignore what I have just wrote.


Hip, schmip - too often perfectly made and perfectly boring. A miracle when he wrote every day and about 1300 works that a handful are inspired. Stiff counterpoint like the ticking gears of an 18th century chronometer. I like crossword puzzles, and everything falling neatly and cleverly into place - but I do not consider them 'art.'


----------



## brianwalker

None. I love all of them, if "great" means top 40.


----------



## neoshredder

The better name for the title is "Is There a Popular Composer You Plain Just Don't Like"


----------



## Polyphemus

Bound to get some knickers in a twist but my dislikes would include :-
Richard Strauss
Wagner
Mendelsshon.
Heading for my air-raid shelter now.


----------



## neoshredder

PetrB said:


> Hip, schmip - too often perfectly made and perfectly boring. A miracle when he wrote every day and about 1300 works that a handful are inspired. Stiff counterpoint like the ticking gears of an 18th century chronometer. I like crossword puzzles, and everything falling neatly and cleverly into place - but I do not consider them 'art.'


Whatever style you call it, it sounds incredibly good to my ears.


----------



## Webernite

I've never understood this idea that "clockwork" music (a very subjective judgement any way) is easier to write or less inspired than "unpredictable" music. Bach and Mozart are the composers usually accused of writing "clockwork" music. But if we look at the compositions of theirs that don't run like clockwork (and there are many, not least Bach's Fantasias and Mozart's Capriccios), they're always the ones that were written with least effort, in the shortest space of time. They're widely recognized as little more than written down improvisations. Or look at Bach's cantatas: most of them were written in a hurry without enthusiasm, and are among the quirkiest, most unpredictable and least "clockwork" of his works.

Bach published none of his cantatas or fantasias. On the other hand, the works Bach did publish (and therefore which he probably worked hardest on, and considered inspired) are the _most _"clockwork": the _Goldberg Variations_, _Art of Fugue_, keyboard _Partitas_, etc. Of course, some composers were different. With Beethoven and Brahms, the compositions they worked hardest on tend to be roughest round the edges (the _Hammerklavier_ Sonata, Brahms's Symphony No. 1, etc.). But the point is it's wrong to think: "This composition sounds perfect. It must be a piece of hackwork." The evidence points the other way.

What makes a piece of music sound "perfect" any way? I think it's caused by a particular harmonic style that was prevalent 18th-century, more than by composers being lazy.


----------



## martijn

Not too fond of pretension in music, especially when the prentension is bigger than the musical skills, as with Berlioz for example. Despite everything, Liszt ís in general flashy, and as a result not my favorite either. Too much of late-romanticism can become boring too. And everything involving a castrato I avoid.


----------



## kv466

*cough*Wagner!*cough* *cough*Mahler!*cough*


----------



## martijn

Wagner's operas are just too short.


----------



## martijn

Please let someone note that I'm ironic.


----------



## violadude

martijn said:


> Please let someone note that I'm ironic.


I noticed lol


----------



## martijn

Thank god, if no one had responded, I would have added that his operas were so short because Wagner was just a modest man.


----------



## jalex

martijn said:


> Not too fond of pretension in music, especially when the prentension is bigger than the musical skills, as with Berlioz for example.


What's pretentious about Berlioz's music?


----------



## martijn

Mainly his notes.


----------



## Webernite

martijn is on a roll today.


----------



## moody

Webernite said:


> I've never understood this idea that "clockwork" music (a very subjective judgement any way) is easier to write or less inspired than "unpredictable" music. Bach and Mozart are the composers usually accused of writing "clockwork" music. But if we look at the compositions of theirs that don't run like clockwork (and there are many, not least Bach's Fantasias and Mozart's Capriccios), they're always the ones that were written with least effort, in the shortest space of time. They're widely recognized as little more than written down improvisations. Or look at Bach's cantatas: most of them were written in a hurry without enthusiasm, and are among the quirkiest, most unpredictable and least "clockwork" of his works.
> 
> Bach published none of his cantatas or fantasias. On the other hand, the works Bach did publish (and therefore which he probably worked hardest on, and considered inspired) are the _most _"clockwork": the _Goldberg Variations_, _Art of Fugue_, keyboard _Partitas_, etc. Of course, some composers were different. With Beethoven and Brahms, the compositions they worked hardest on tend to be roughest round the edges (the _Hammerklavier_ Sonata, Brahms's Symphony No. 1, etc.). But the point is it's wrong to think: "This composition sounds perfect. It must be a piece of hackwork." The evidence points the other way.
> 
> What makes a piece of music sound "perfect" any way? I think it's caused by a particular harmonic style that was prevalent 18th-century, more than by composers being lazy.


Where did that comment about Mozart come from, I've never heard it before and whoever said it is a twit.
The problem with Bach and Haydn is this , how do you write 5000 pieces of music and how can anyone call such a factory operation inspired ?


----------



## moody

martijn said:


> Not too fond of pretension in music, especially when the prentension is bigger than the musical skills, as with Berlioz for example. Despite everything, Liszt ís in general flashy, and as a result not my favorite either. Too much of late-romanticism can become boring too. And everything involving a castrato I avoid.


This is extreme pretention and you are in trouble when Lisztian reads this rigmarole.


----------



## moody

Webernite said:


> martijn is on a roll today.


His head might be.


----------



## moody

martijn said:


> Please let someone note that I'm ironic.


You're a what?


----------



## martijn

Is he ok?

First of all, one can be perfectly inspired writing 5000 pieces. It's a modern nonsensical idea that one should wait for inspiration. The best way to get inspiration is to work hard. Your Liszt, that you seem to want to defend, wrote also more than 2 pieces by the way.

What's pretentious about my post? I don't deny that Liszt and Berlioz are good composers. They are just not my favorites, and Berlioz lacks some skills, in comparison to other composers, and Liszt just happens to be often flashy.


----------



## Webernite

moody said:


> Where did that comment about Mozart come from, I've never heard it before and whoever said it is a twit.


I quite often see Mozart being accused of lacking inspiration, usually by Beethoven fans. They don't always use the word "clockwork" - they say things like "predictable," "machine-made," etc., implying that Mozart composed using a special formula. Obviously, it's aimed at the instrumental works more than the operas.



moody said:


> The problem with Bach and Haydn is this , how do you write 5000 pieces of music and how can anyone call such a factory operation inspired ?


I agree that not everything Bach and Haydn wrote is inspired, but that's true of every composer, even Mozart! Let's not forget that the only reason he wrote fewer works than they did is that he died young.


----------



## martijn

I seem to have posted something twice, I delete it now, anyone any ideas what I could put here?


----------



## martijn

I think it hardly can be said that Mozart wrote less than Bach by the way. The complete edition of Mozart consisted of 170 cd's, that of Bach of 157 I believe. Now of course quite something by Bach has been lost, that's true.


----------



## scarbo

What constitutes a great composer? Obviously, if you don't like him (or her...), he is not great in your view... Nothing is indisputable, but some composers are great in the minds of a lot of people. Personally, I have always disliked Handel - found his compositions mostly predictable and, well, somewhat bland. Still, as to choral effects on a grand scale, there is no doubt he is 'great'... Just please, spare me the annual installment of "Messiah"...

BTW, there is plenty of lesser known composers I like very much... I find some of them great though many will disagree.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I hate Elgar. And I'm only saying this again to get my post count up.


----------



## Lisztian

martijn said:


> Not too fond of pretension in music, especially when the prentension is bigger than the musical skills, as with Berlioz for example. Despite everything, Liszt ís in general flashy, and as a result not my favorite either. Too much of late-romanticism can become boring too. And everything involving a castrato I avoid.


Liszt....Flashy....*Listens to Via Crucis*


----------



## martijn

I wrote "in general", that was pretty visible, wasn't it?


----------



## emiellucifuge

martijn said:


> Wagner's operas are just too short.


I wouldnt mind if they went on just a little longer.. that is, unless the quality is sacrificed.


----------



## martijn

Could we extend this thread to compositions as well? Then I would vote for Beethoven's 9th, not that I dislike it, but it's so enormously overrated.


----------



## Lisztian

martijn said:


> I wrote "in general", that was pretty visible, wasn't it?


I know. I was half joking. I just don't like it when he's called 'flashy.' Sure, he was a rockstar - perhaps the greatest virtuoso pianist of his day and he wrote a lot of music mainly for the purpose of promoting that. Even later in his life that virtuosic nature pervaded a lot of his music...Still, calling him in general 'flashy' is a negative connotation when really, for the most part when he was writing for the sake of music he was terrific. Most of the pieces that may seem 'flashy' at first really aren't, they just use a virtuosic language to make the music. Works like the Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen variations, Vallee d'Obermann, Mephisto Waltzes 1 and 2, Ballade No. 2, even the Sonata all employ a virtuosic language but they are some of the greatest musical pieces for the piano even written. He also wrote a huge amount of music that is completely devoid of a virtuosic language, or perhaps only uses it sparingly like in Chopin or Schumann or most other composers. When it came down to it, as a composer Liszt was all about the music.


----------



## violadude

Lisztian said:


> I know. I was half joking. I just don't like it when he's called 'flashy.' Sure, he was a rockstar - perhaps the greatest virtuoso pianist of his day and he wrote a lot of music mainly for the purpose of promoting that. Even later in his life that virtuosic nature pervaded a lot of his music...Still, calling him in general 'flashy' is a negative connotation when really, for the most part when he was writing for the sake of music he was terrific. Most of the pieces that may seem 'flashy' at first really aren't, they just use a virtuosic language to make the music. Works like the Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen variations, Vallee d'Obermann, Mephisto Waltzes 1 and 2, Ballade No. 2, even the Sonata all employ a virtuosic language but they are some of the greatest musical pieces for the piano even written. He also wrote a huge amount of music that is completely devoid of a virtuosic language, or perhaps only uses it sparingly like in Chopin or Schumann or most other composers. *When it came down to it, as a composer Liszt was all about the music.*


Unlike Paganini


----------



## Chrythes

Do you dislike Paganini's Caprices as well?
Some of them are indeed a showcase of technique, but most of them, at least for me, have a memorable melody/motif and it's quite amazing how Paganini manages to achieve so many voices (Caprice no.15 - imitation of 4 horns) on the violin.


----------



## martijn

I will agree Liszt and Paganini are very different. Paganini was a huge virtuoso and a rather mediocre (relatively speaking) and uninspired composer. Liszt was a very gifted composer besides being a virtuoso, though I still feel his technique did more harm than good in a way.


----------



## violadude

Chrythes said:


> Do you dislike Paganini's Caprices as well?
> Some of them are indeed a showcase of technique, but most of them, at least for me, have a memorable melody/motif and it's quite amazing how Paganini manages to achieve so many voices (Caprice no.15 - imitation of 4 horns) on the violin.


Well I was half joking, but generally I'm not too fond of Paganini's music. However, I am not to fond of solo instrumental music in general.


----------



## neoshredder

Paganini's Caprices are awesome.


----------



## martijn

it's all relative of course, if I had a composing Paganini or Liszt living nextdoor, I would be amazed.

What do you mean with solo instrumental music, piano music included, or solo instruments like the violin and cello and so on?


----------



## violadude

martijn said:


> it's all relative of course, if I had a composing Paganini or Liszt living nextdoor, I would be amazed.
> 
> What do you mean with solo instrumental music, piano music included, or solo instruments like the violin and cello and so on?


Not including piano.


----------



## martijn

Then I really agree with you. Even Bach's works for the violin and viola: no matter what composers try, there's always the problem of being unable to play harmonies in a normal way. It's something like boxing while only being allowed to use your thumb.


----------



## jalex

martijn said:


> Mainly his notes.


Any notes in particular?


----------



## moody

martijn said:


> Is he ok?
> 
> First of all, one can be perfectly inspired writing 5000 pieces. It's a modern nonsensical idea that one should wait for inspiration. The best way to get inspiration is to work hard. Your Liszt, that you seem to want to defend, wrote also more than 2 pieces by the way.
> 
> What's pretentious about my post? I don't deny that Liszt and Berlioz are good composers. They are just not my favorites, and Berlioz lacks some skills, in comparison to other composers, and Liszt just happens to be often flashy.


Yes I'm OK, I was just being a bit facetious because I thought you were fooling around.
I was surprised to see , in this day and age, anybody referring to Liszt as a flashy composer that type of remark comes from days long gone in the mists of history.
I was recently involved in what i think is one of the best threads run on these forums--"Liszt is the most underrated composer on TC"--Which put to bed once and for all such nonsense. I think you should look at it, as it was launched in January, I am surprised you are not aware already given your obvious knowledge of the composer.
As for Berlioz, he virtually created the symphony orchestra as we know it today and he is unequalled in the art of orchestration.Unlike some composers he was not an instrumentalist but took the whole orchestra as his instrument, becoming its supreme exponent. There is no doubt at all that Berlioz was a unique , original, inspired genius. He threw off most of the shackles of French academical musical traditions of the day but was more than just a rebel,
he gave creative, constructive expression to his rebellion in his music.
When you consider some ot the conductors who have specialised in Berlioz we find the names of Sir Thomas Beecham, Charles Munch, Pierre Monteaux , Sir Colin Davis and Leonard Bernstein, I think they knew what it was all about!
Meanwhile, do check the meanings if pretentious and ironic.


----------



## martijn

I am well aware of the meaning of the words pretentious and ironic, don't worry about that.

I recognize the revolutionary aspect of Liszt, and he's not always flashy. But I will continue to feel he is too much technique and too little inspiration, and he doesn't appeal to me much.

As for Berlioz, I wouldn't deny his skill in orchestrations, though unequalled would be too much honour (there are so many great orchestrators, in different periods, from Händel, Mozart and Mendelssohn to Rimsky-Korsakov, Richard Strauss and Ravel). For me the problem with Berlioz is that he's not so much outside his skill in orchestration. This is by the way a view that has been shared by many great composers. 

Again, I do not hate him, but compared to the very greats, I find him lacking in skill.


----------



## martijn

jalex said:


> Any notes in particular?


His a flat is very pretentious.


----------



## martijn

Does any of you have an "opus tic" as well? We are at 79 likes now, opus 79 is a Beethoven sonata, immediately crosses my mind. Anyone with the same thing?


----------



## brianwalker

neoshredder said:


> The better name for the title is "Is There a Popular Composer You Plain Just Don't Like"


If Mozart is not a great composer, the word "great" has no meaning.

You can argue that the word "great", used by everyone everywhere, has no meaning and is nonsensical. My heart goes out to your fanatical consistency. *If you do not accept the latter conclusion you are contradicting yourself and speaking nonsense.*

Mozart is a great composer, and *that is that,* if the word "great" has any meaning whatsoever.

"What" "great" *means, * what *meaning means,* that's an ontological dispute, and inappropriate for this forum.

Great is not the same as popular, that's a basic premise in all traditions. Take it or leave it.



martijn said:


> His a flat is very pretentious.


It's silly to evaluate Berlioz or Liszt in a vacuum, for it is undeniable that they are highly listenable, that they are immensely talented and have had great historical impact; better assign them a number on your ranking of the greatest composers ever. I did just that. 

I'd like to see your top 50 list. That would provide some perspective.



kv466 said:


> *cough*Wagner!*cough* *cough*Mahler!*cough*


Wagner's operas are too long, but his life was too short. Same goes for Mahler.

*Why the snarky "*cough*"? *You can't stand Wagner or Mahler, no need to condescend. *Lots of people can't stand any classical music whatsoever.*

I'll say it straight; your inability to appreciate Wagner is your shortcoming, and not Wagner's. You should've adopted the humble attitude of the OP.

===========

Overrated =/= bad. I often listen to composers I think grossly overrated; Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich for example.

I think most people here conflate "overrated" with "don't like".

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. - Keynes

Replace "economists and political philosophers" with "cultural theorists and analytic philosophers and metaphysicians" and you get a pretty good picture of this forum.


----------



## martijn

I find that very interesting, that you have your tastes so clear, that you not only have a top 50 list, but also have tied numbers 26. I can't make such a list, and there's always a tension between "objective" and "subjective". I consider Bach for example a more "perfect" composer than Beethoven, but I love Beethoven more. Mozart would be in any case my number 1. 

Not only in comparison to such masters as those three I find Berlioz lacking in skill, but also compared to f.e. Mendelssohn or Dvorak. I think I made it very clear that it's all relative, I would put Berlioz and Liszt both in a top 30 or 40, which might some consider underrated, but given the millions of people in Western music trying to write music, that it still not bad, is it?


----------



## brianwalker

martijn said:


> I find that very interesting, that you have your tastes so clear, that you not only have a top 50 list, but also have tied numbers 26. I can't make such a list, and there's always a tension between "objective" and "subjective". I consider Bach for example a more "perfect" composer than Beethoven, but I love Beethoven more. Mozart would be in any case my number 1.
> 
> Not only in comparison to such masters as those three I find Berlioz lacking in skill, but also compared to f.e. Mendelssohn or Dvorak. I think I made it very clear that it's all relative, I would put Berlioz and Liszt both in a top 30 or 40, which might some consider underrated, but given the millions of people in Western music trying to write music, that it still not bad, is it?


The list is an approximation, and it changes ever so slightly as I listen more, but the key phrase is *ever so slightly.*

My current list looks something like this.

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Wagner 
4. Mozart
5. Stravinsky 
6. Verdi
7. Schubert
8. Brahms
9. Haydn
10. Debussy 
11. Bartok 
12. Mahler 
13. Strauss, Richard
14. Ravel
15. Chopin 
16. Handel
17. Bruckner 
18. Puccini 
19. Schumann
20. Sibelius 
21. Alban Berg
22. Scriabin
23. Rimsky Korsakov 
24. Prokofiev 
25. Dvorak
26. Janacek 
27. Bizet 
......

The point is that Berlioz and Liszt and Tchaikovsky don't even make the top 27; the point is that it's a fact, as far as facts go, that Tchaikovsky isn't top ten, and that any list where he shows up as 10 ten is indicative of his overrated-ness.

For the three to make the top 27 they'd have to dethrone one of the names on that list.

I'm willing to debate to the death anyone who tries to argue that any of the three is better or even equal to anyone that that list of 27.


----------



## jalex

martijn said:


> As for Berlioz, I wouldn't deny his skill in orchestrations, though unequalled would be too much honour (there are so many great orchestrators, in different periods, from Händel, Mozart and Mendelssohn to Rimsky-Korsakov, Richard Strauss and Ravel). For me the problem with Berlioz is that he's not so much outside his skill in orchestration. This is by the way a view that has been shared by many great composers.


To these sorts of objections, I think Chabrier gave the perfect answer: 'Berlioz...put variety, colour and rhythm into La Damnation, Romeo and L'Enfance du Christ - there isn't any unity, people say - and I answer, 'Merde'! '.


----------



## Cnote11

Here we go again... people mixing up opinions and facts again. Of course any list with Tchaikovsky at its top is wrong and only serves to speak to how overrated he is because I said so. If you're willing to debate to the death then I'm afraid you might want to go to therapy.


----------



## brianwalker

Cnote11 said:


> Here we go again... people mixing up opinions and facts again. Of course any list with Tchaikovsky at its top is wrong and only serves to speak to how overrated he is because I said so.


The fact/opinion dichotomy is an opinion.

http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Value-Dichotomy-Other-Essays/dp/0674013808

http://www.philosophy.su.se/texter/putnam.htm

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40104278?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=55940341683

You are wrong on the fact/opinion dichotomy; that *is* a fact.



> If you're willing to debate to the death then I'm afraid you might want to go to therapy.


"A picture held us *captive.* And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably."

"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually *the slaves* of some defunct [metaphysician.]"

You're so in love with this lascivious strumpet, ostensibly named "fact", that you've forgotten everything.



jalex said:


> To these sorts of objections, I think Chabrier gave the perfect answer: 'Berlioz...put variety, colour and rhythm into La Damnation, Romeo and L'Enfance du Christ - there isn't any unity, people say - and I answer, 'Merde'! '.


Do you think Berlioz better than any in my top 27, jalex?


----------



## Lisztian

brianwalker said:


> The list is an approximation, and it changes ever so slightly as I listen more, but the key phrase is *ever so slightly.*
> 
> My current list looks something like this.
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Wagner
> 4. Mozart
> 5. Stravinsky
> 6. Verdi
> 7. Schubert
> 8. Brahms
> 9. Haydn
> 10. Debussy
> 11. Bartok
> 12. Mahler
> 13. Strauss, Richard
> 14. Ravel
> 15. Chopin
> 16. Handel
> 17. Bruckner
> 18. Puccini
> 19. Schumann
> 20. Sibelius
> 21. Alban Berg
> 22. Scriabin
> 23. Rimsky Korsakov
> 24. Prokofiev
> 25. Dvorak
> 26. Janacek
> 27. Bizet
> ......
> 
> The point is that Berlioz and Liszt and Tchaikovsky don't even make the top 17; the point is that it's a fact, as far as facts go, that Tchaikovsky isn't top ten, and that any list where he shows up as 10 ten is indicative of his overrated-ness.
> 
> For the three to make the top 27 they'd have to dethrone one of the names on that list.
> 
> I'm willing to debate to the death anyone who tries to argue that any of the three is better or even equal to anyone that that list of 27.


Some of the composers on there (like Janacek) I don't know well enough to really argue about, and some, while I disagree, i'm fine with being put above Liszt. That being said...

Liszt - Bizet, Scriabin, Debussy, Chopin...GO.


----------



## Cnote11

You're delusional. If I put Listz over Bizet you'd seriously freak out and debate to your death? That's extremely sad. I know plenty of people who think Debussy is overrated and wouldn't put him in the top 27. I'm not going to accept what you say as fact because you say it is. You don't say anything beyond you are wrong and I am right and then use a few links to attempt to support your argument instead of actually making the case yourself. I have no reason to believe that the links you said are pertinent to your argument. You could just be abstracting it to do so. Also, the fact that you link me to books expecting me to buy or read the entirety of them is a cop out on your part. Just because there are books written on the subject doesn't make them fact just because they exist. Maybe you should try arguing yourself if you want me to believe you. Besides, God hates music and God is right and you're WRONG and that is a FACT. David Noebel states so in his books. Go read them.


----------



## brianwalker

You're delusional.
My psychologist tells me I'm fine.

If I put Listz over Bizet you'd seriously freak out and debate to your death? That's extremely sad.
Hey buddy, ever heard of figurative language?

I know plenty of people who think Debussy is overrated and wouldn't put him in the top 27. 
I know plenty of people who only listen to rap and would put Tupac over Beethoven.

I'm not going to accept what you say as fact because you say it is. You don't say anything beyond you are wrong and I am right and then use a few links to attempt to support your argument instead of actually making the case yourself. I have no reason to believe that the links you said are pertinent to your argument.
You can believe anything you want, but that doesn't make you any less wrong or any less ignorant.

Also, the fact that you link me to books expecting me to buy or read the entirety of them is a cop out on your part. 
The fact/value distinction has been dead for decades. Do you expect me to spoon-feed elementary philosophy to you?

Just because there are books written on the subject doesn't make them fact just because they exist.
No, but the communal consensus of the intellectual community is meaningful.

Maybe you should try arguing yourself if you want me to believe you. Besides, God hates music and God is right and you're WRONG and that is a FACT. David Noebel states so in his books. Go read them.
Show me this book.

====

Lisztian give me some time to prepare my "case". I'm not fond of  short impromptu posts.


----------



## jalex

brianwalker said:


> Do you think Berlioz better than any in my top 27, jalex?


I only think of composers in tiers of excellence rather than the (somewhat absurd) precise rankings you use. The only composers I would say Berlioz is in a different league to on your list are Bizet (though given more time I am sure this would not be the case) and Rimsky Korsakov (presuming his operas are not significantly better than the rest of his music; I've never seen any of them). I might argue also that he was better than Scriabin and also Bruckner, whose faults were surely worse than Berlioz's but whose height's were no higher. I think of him as about equal to Schumann, Berg etc.

I _like_ Berlioz a lot more than many of the composers on the list though (Schubert, Strauss, Ravel, Handel....)


----------



## Cnote11

That last bit wasn't actually serious. If you want to read the mans books go look them up. I don't support such rubbish. Also, I agree that opinions of the intellectual community are more meaningful than other groups, however, there are more than one "intellectual community". There is an intellectual community centered around religion, which I find to be complete rubbish and I would not take what they had to say seriously because of this. Also, I'm pretty sure the fact/value distinction isn't "dead". The point is I'm pretty sure if you drew a poll for the top 27 composers in your mysterious undefined intellectual community that the consensus would not come up with your list. Does this negate your list then? Why is your list so definitive? Also, those people who think Debussy are overrated may agree with your whole list but instead swap Debussy out with Listz, which then apparently would invalidate their opinion? The point is you've yet to defend your list or your opinion in any way.


----------



## brianwalker

jalex said:


> I only think of composers in tiers of excellence rather than the (somewhat absurd) precise rankings you use. The only composers I would say Berlioz is in a different league to on your list are Bizet (though given more time I am sure this would not be the case) and Rimsky Korsakov (presuming his operas are not significantly better than the rest of his music; I've never seen any of them). I might argue also that he was better than Scriabin and also Bruckner, whose faults were surely worse than Berlioz's but whose height's were no higher. I think of him as about equal to Schumann.
> 
> I _like_ Berlioz a lot more than many of the composers on the list though (Schubert, Strauss, Ravel, Handel....)


I'd like to hear about why he's better than Bruckner. Give me all you've got. The others I don't care enough to dispute.

Every scrutinizing detail, every personal reaction and sentiment, down to the specific recording. I want names, places, the minute of the movement etc.



Cnote11 said:


> That last bit wasn't actually serious. If you want to read the mans books go look them up. I don't support such rubbish. Also, I agree that opinions of the intellectual community are more meaningful than other groups, however, there are more than one "intellectual community". There is an intellectual community centered around religion, which I find to be complete rubbish and I would not take what they had to say seriously because of this. Also, I'm pretty sure the fact/value distinction isn't "dead". The point is I'm pretty sure if you drew a poll for the top 27 composers in your mysterious undefined intellectual community that the consensus would not come up with your list. Does this negate your list then? Why is your list so definitive? Also, those people who think Debussy are overrated may agree with your whole list but instead swap Debussy out with Listz, which then apparently would invalidate their opinion? The point is you've yet to defend your list or your opinion in any way.


You've yet to challenge my list in any meaningful way apart from proffering thrice-chewed-and-vomited relativism as argument.


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> I'd like to hear about why he's better than Bruckner. Give me all you've got.
> 
> You've yet to challenge my list in any meaningful way apart from offering thrice-chewed-and-vomited relativism as argument.


Well for starters he was pretty much the pioneer of the "progressive romantic" movement.


----------



## Cnote11

I don't think that weight is mine to bear. If I made up magical ponies I wouldn't ask you to prove they existed. You should have to validate your assertion; others shouldn't have to invalidate it. You apparently refuse to do so in any manner so I will just let you be in your fantasy land of superiority where everything you say is the only way and everybody else is clearly wrong.


----------



## brianwalker

violadude said:


> Well for starters he was pretty much the pioneer of the "progressive romantic" movement.


And Bach was not _the _pioneer of Baroque, and Mozart was not _the_ pioneer of Classical, and Mahler was not _the _pioneer of the Wagner-infused symphony (do you think Bruckner and Dvorak are better than Mahler?).



Cnote11 said:


> I don't think that weight is mine to bear. If I made up magical ponies I wouldn't ask you to prove they existed. You should have to validate your assertion; others shouldn't have to invalidate it. You apparently refuse to do so in any manner so I will just let you be in your fantasy land of superiority where everything you say is the only way and everybody else is clearly wrong.


I've offered links; you've offered nothing but snotty platitudes of "facts" and "opinions".


----------



## moody

martijn said:


> I am well aware of the meaning of the words pretentious and ironic, don't worry about that.
> 
> I recognize the revolutionary aspect of Liszt, and he's not always flashy. But I will continue to feel he is too much technique and too little inspiration, and he doesn't appeal to me much.
> 
> As for Berlioz, I wouldn't deny his skill in orchestrations, though unequalled would be too much honour (there are so many great orchestrators, in different periods, from Händel, Mozart and Mendelssohn to Rimsky-Korsakov, Richard Strauss and Ravel). For me the problem with Berlioz is that he's not so much outside his skill in orchestration. This is by the way a view that has been shared by many great composers.
> 
> Again, I do not hate him, but compared to the very greats, I find him lacking in skill.


Which great composers? If you want a composer who is empty outside his orchestration as you put it, look no further you've mentioned him -- Rimsky- Korsakov.
Incidentally I cribbed the "unequalled in the art of orchestration " from Leonard Bernstein, obviously he's not one of Berlioz' detractors as a composer himself.


----------



## Cnote11

You should put your argument into context of your list. I'm not going to a read a book and then think about how it pertains, if at all, to your list being definitive. I imagine if we polled 2 billion and only 5 people had the same exact list as you, then only those 5 are part of your undefined intellectual community? Your arguments are seriously worthless if you present them in such an ambiguous way and I'm not about to put in work to try to make sense of them, no more than I would have someone profess that God hates music and then hands me The Bible or a bunch of commentaries written on The Bible and tell me to read them.


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> And Bach was not _the _pioneer of Baroque, and Mozart was not _the_ pioneer of Classical, and Mahler was not _the _pioneer of the Wagner-infused symphony (do you think Bruckner and Dvorak are better than Mahler?).


You don't have to be so aggressive. I am pretty much a relativist anyway. I don't really buy into ranking composers like you do. But I am just saying why Berlioz could be considered greater than Bruckner as Bruckner was a part of the progressive romantic music while Berlioz was it's founder. It's just an thought.


----------



## brianwalker

Cnote11 said:


> You should put your argument into context of your list. I'm not going to a read a book and then think about how it pertains, if at all, to your list being definitive. I imagine if we polled 2 billion and only 5 people had the same exact list as you, then only those 5 are part of your undefined intellectual community? Your arguments are seriously worthless if you present them in such an ambiguous way and I'm not about to put in work to try to make sense of them, no more than I would have someone profess that God hates music and then hands me The Bible or a bunch of commentaries written on The Bible and tell me to read them.


Your entire argument rests on the fact/value distinct, which I've told you multiple time has been dead for decades.



violadude said:


> You don't have to be so aggressive. I am pretty much a relativist anyway. I don't really buy into ranking composers like you do. But I am just saying why Berlioz could be considered greater than Bruckner as Bruckner was a part of the progressive romantic music while Berlioz was it's founder. It's just an thought.


I know. My argument is that such a criterion would lead to absurd conclusions, such as Vivaldi being better than Bach, J.C. Bach being better than Mozart, and Dvorak being better than Mahler. My parallelism is also "just a though". All my forum posts are also "just a thought".

Come on guys, this is an internet forum.


----------



## Cnote11

Actually, you're assuming that it relies on the fact/value distinction. In fact, I happen to reject it myself. It is only your interpretation that has led you to believe this. This brings me to another point. You act like if I accept -- which I do -- the "death" of fact/value distinction, that I'll somehow understand how your list is definitive. That book you linked to doesn't state how your list is definitive. You realise that you're hiding behind this and insulting my argument based on your own invalid interpretation of something I said, simply because you enjoy being polarizing, and you don't bother to actually put forth an argument.


----------



## Couchie

brianwalker said:


> The list is an approximation, and it changes ever so slightly as I listen more, but the key phrase is *ever so slightly.*
> 
> My current list looks something like this.
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Wagner
> 4. Mozart
> 5. Stravinsky
> 6. Verdi
> 7. Schubert
> 8. Brahms
> 9. Haydn
> 10. Debussy
> 11. Bartok
> 12. Mahler
> 13. Strauss, Richard
> 14. Ravel
> 15. Chopin
> 16. Handel
> 17. Bruckner
> 18. Puccini
> 19. Schumann
> 20. Sibelius
> 21. Alban Berg
> 22. Scriabin
> 23. Rimsky Korsakov
> 24. Prokofiev
> 25. Dvorak
> 26. Janacek
> 27. Bizet
> ......
> 
> The point is that Berlioz and Liszt and Tchaikovsky don't even make the top 27; the point is that it's a fact, as far as facts go, that Tchaikovsky isn't top ten, and that any list where he shows up as 10 ten is indicative of his overrated-ness.
> 
> For the three to make the top 27 they'd have to dethrone one of the names on that list.
> 
> I'm willing to debate to the death anyone who tries to argue that any of the three is better or even equal to anyone that that list of 27.


Forget Tchaikovsky. Why are Bach and Beethoven above Wagner? Is it a nod to custom? Bach, the counterpoint is nice, but the games dissolve the true expression. Beethoven, aside from the Late works, is mere rudiments. Surely Wagner is #1.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Couchie said:


> Forget Tchaikovsky. Why are Bach and Beethoven above Wagner? Is it a nod to custom? Bach, the counterpoint is nice, but the games dissolve the true expression. Beethoven, aside from the Late works, is mere rudiments. Surely Wagner is #1.


Couchie, Wagner is spelt *L-I-G-E-T-I.* Check your spelling next time please.


----------



## martijn

There are no absolute "facts" in music. If you listen to music for orchestration in the first place, Berlioz could be at top of your list. If you listen to music for melodies, Tchaikovsky might be very well near the top of your list (god how I hate when people are snobberish about Tchaikovsky, like it's a sin to write good melodies). If you, like me, listen for a lot of different things, rhythm, melody, harmony, counterpoint, structure, orchestration, someone like Mozart might be first.


----------



## martijn

My great composer is greater than yours, nah nah nah nah nah.


----------



## moody

BRIANWALKER.
I am not going to get involved in one of your interminable arguments, but your list is very questionable . " The point is that Berlioz, Liszt and Tchaikovsky don't even make the top 27". How ridiculous, but Scriabin, Alban Berg, Janacek and Bartok do?? I'm glad it's your list but then we can all write lists, to what end after all it is just your list.

This thread is supposed to be about "A Great Composer You Plain Don't Like", but as usual you have attempted to turn things into a BrianWalker festival.


----------



## martijn

Last year I met a nice woman at the BrianWalker festival. Got way too drunk.


----------



## brianwalker

martijn said:


> There are no absolute "facts" in music. If you listen to music for orchestration in the first place, Berlioz could be at top of your list. If you listen to music for melodies, Tchaikovsky might be very well near the top of your list (god how I hate when people are snobberish about Tchaikovsky, like it's a sin to write good melodies). If you, like me, listen for a lot of different things, rhythm, melody, harmony, counterpoint, structure, orchestration, someone like Mozart might be first.


There are no absolute facts about anything.


----------



## martijn

brianwalker said:


> There are no absolute facts about anything.


That's a fact.


----------



## bassClef

"plain just don't like"? - what language is that?


----------



## Cnote11

I think those words might be in English. Not sure though.


----------



## moody

Cnote11 said:


> I think those words might be in English. Not sure though.


Yes, but pretty lousy English.


----------



## martijn

He's from the United States, perhaps that explains his lousy English.


----------



## mmsbls

If I had posted here a couple of years ago, I would have said Stravinsky, Shostakovich, and Bartok. Now I would say there are no composers in conventional top 40 composer lists (e.g Goulding's or DDD) that I do not like. Probably the "greatest" composer I don't like would be Schoenberg or Berg. I just haven't cracked atonal music yet.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

martijn said:


> He's from the United States, perhaps that explains his lousy English.


It's almost as if certain dialects develop different quirks and colloquialisms.

Impossible.

If you'll excuse me, I've got to work on me maths.


----------



## martijn

It was tongue-in-cheek. I'm Dutch myself, so I'm not the one to talk.


----------



## jhar26

martijn said:


> There are no absolute "facts" in music. If you listen to music for orchestration in the first place, Berlioz could be at top of your list. If you listen to music for melodies, Tchaikovsky might be very well near the top of your list* (god how I hate when people are snobberish about Tchaikovsky, like it's a sin to write good melodies).* If you, like me, listen for a lot of different things, rhythm, melody, harmony, counterpoint, structure, orchestration, someone like Mozart might be first.


I agree. If a composer doesn't write good melodies it's not because he chooses not to but because he's not capable of doing it. Most composers would kill if it would enable them to come up with tunes like Tchaikovsky.


----------



## moody

martijn said:


> He's from the United States, perhaps that explains his lousy English.


Are you saying that Americans can't speak good English? I think that Hilltroll and St.Lukesguild among others rather disprove that.


----------



## martijn

It's not necessarily that a composer is not able to write such melodies. He might as well choose a different approach. It's not Beethoven couldn't find a catchy singalong tune to open the 5th, and then choose to open the 5th symphony as he did. He just needed a strong opening that would provide the material for the rest of the symphony. This is more about thinking in long-range effects. But it's true, some adherents of such long-range composing become snobberish about people who write beautiful melodies, because since there's beauty in the short-range, they think, the composition must be a mess, not "intellectual".


----------



## martijn

I already answered this, Moody.


----------



## moody

martijn said:


> It was tongue-in-cheek. I'm Dutch myself, so I'm not the one to talk.


I think the saying you were looking for was "foot in mouth".


----------



## brianwalker

martijn said:


> There are no absolute "facts" in music. If you listen to music for orchestration in the first place, Berlioz could be at top of your list. If you listen to music for melodies, Tchaikovsky might be very well near the top of your list (god how I hate when people are snobberish about Tchaikovsky, like it's a sin to write good melodies). If you, like me, listen for a lot of different things, rhythm, melody, harmony, counterpoint, structure, orchestration, someone like Mozart might be first.


1. I never said Tchaikovsky was lesser because of his great melodies. 
2. Ayn Rand thought Tchaikovsky better than Wagner. Suck on that. 
3. Why am I snobbish about Tchaikovsky? What does that word even mean? If you think Tchaikovsky deserves a higher position, then another composer or many other composers will have to be knocked down a rank.


----------



## Cnote11

Oh lord, I hope Ayn Rand hated Wagner and only put Tchaikovsky above him for that reason or I'm about to start feeling dirty everytime I turn on Tchaikovsky.


----------



## martijn

Where did I state you were snobbish about Tchaikovsky, Brian Walker? And again, I'm not thinking in terms of ranking like you, after I saw the match Prokofiev - Dvorak last week, which Dvorak only won because of diving, I don't follow the Great Composers Competition anymore.


----------



## fpschubert

If Schubert's name has not been mentioned in this thread...rightfully so, as his name should only be whispered at night to the trees and the stars (to quote Schumann)


----------



## PetrB

Well, we're all eating hamburger made from sacred cows, so what the hell....

I'd prefer to leave it but can take it:

Bach ~ perfectly made, 100% of it; perfectly boring, 95% of it.

Brahms 

Can't take it ~ almost all romantic music post Schumann until Mahler - exception is some Chopin, which I consider much more interesting to play than to listen to, though he is (imo) a radical and towering genius.

Have to run the other way if I know it is coming -- 
or, "They are singing songs of love, but not for me":

Wagner / Liszt / Tchaikovsky / Rachmaninoff / Bruckner / Puccini / Vaughan-Williams, and about all the Brits of the first half + of the 20th Century, Mr. Britten excepted.

Then there is the current rage for the second to seventh tier late romantic Russians: Medtner, et alia -- Ghastly boring music.


----------



## bassClef

Boulez is one, but that's only based on a few of listens to 2 or 3 pieces. Perhaps I need to tune into it.
Haydn doesn't do much for me.


----------



## aleazk

bassClef said:


> Boulez is one, but that's only based on a few of listens to 2 or 3 pieces. Perhaps I need to tune into it.
> Haydn doesn't do much for me.


Have you tried this one?, late Boulez, I think it's more "accessible" at first hearing:


----------



## martijn

It's accesible, but doesn't strike me as a masterpiece.


----------



## aleazk

martijn said:


> It's accesible, but doesn't strike me as a masterpiece.


well, not all good pieces need to be masterpieces. But, in this particular case, _is_ a masterpiece


----------



## martijn

Oh, it's certainly not bad. But I find it a bit too immobile.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

I think I've never been really touched by the music of * Liszt,* despite my great admiration of Wagner. His piano concertos are interesting, but what did he want to say by them, I don't now.

I love Beethoven, Mahler and late Bruckner. I like Brahms very much.

I'm not a big fan of Tchaikovsky and I can not stand "Eugene Onegin" libretto - I think it was an error to make an opera on this poem by Pushkin, which is full of irony, and interesting from pure poetical and stylistical point of view. But the librettist just took the narrative (which not very cllever and original ITSELF) and made some melodrama from it.

*And Lensky's aria "Kuda, kuda vy udalilis" is somewhat whining, as a famous Russian-Jewish-Poilish poet and pushkinist Vladislav Khodasevich (or Wladysław Chodasiewicz) noted.*

Though, it is more a matter of text, not the music.


----------



## Lisztian

Moscow-Mahler said:


> I think I've never been really touched by the music of * Liszt,* despite my great admiration of Wagner. His piano concertos are interesting, but what did he want to say by them, I don't now.


While I love the piano concerti and think they're great, highly innovative and original pieces, they really aren't among his best works, and they aren't at the level of Grieg, Schumann, Brahms, Rachmaninoff, etc.

With Liszt, the solo piano music, better orchestral works, and the choral works are where it's at.


----------



## Miaou

C for Chopin and Cheesy. Can't keep listening without getting bored.


----------



## Cnote11

Lisztian said:


> While I love the piano concerti and think they're great, highly innovative and original pieces, they really aren't among his best works, and they aren't at the level of Grieg, Schumann, Brahms, Rachmaninoff, etc.
> 
> With Liszt, the solo piano music, better orchestral works, and the choral works are where it's at.


So impartial for someone decked out in Liszt. I love it!


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

Handel has never been a composer that I've enjoyed. 

Chopin just kinda bores me.


----------



## Cnote11

Sometimes I find it hard to handel chopin music. I have to rush out of the store so I can get away from it.

I think I need to revisit Chopin. I've never really thought too much of him, but I haven't really listened to very much.


----------



## Lisztian

Cnote11 said:


> Sometimes I find it hard to handel chopin music. I have to rush out of the store so I can get away from it.
> 
> I think I need to revisit Chopin. I've never really thought too much of him, but I haven't really listened to very much.


What have you heard? And what is it about him that you're not fond of?


----------



## Cnote11

Refer to Miaou's and iforgotmypassword's posts. I just find it rather bland and boring... I don't remember exactly what I've heard as I've heard numerous things growing up but I can not identify them by name. The only pieces I can identify are the entirety of the Nocturnes. I'm going to give them another go because, in all honesty, it just sounds like something I would love.


----------



## Lisztian

Cnote11 said:


> Refer to Miaou's and iforgotmypassword's posts. I just find it rather bland and boring... I don't remember exactly what I've heard as I've heard numerous things growing up but I can not identify them by name. The only pieces I can identify are the entirety of the Nocturnes. I'm going to give them another go because, in all honesty, it just sounds like something I would love.


I find the two very best Nocturnes to be 27/2 and 48/1 - although a few others are brilliant too. The Nocturnes as a whole can bore me at times too, but those two - especially the latter - never fail to move me.

But I do think that the Nocturnes, for one who has been bored by Chopin before, may not be the ticket in. I think the Scherzi and Ballades could be better there.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

Cnote11 said:


> Sometimes I find it hard to *handel chopin* music. I have to rush out of the store so I can get away from it.
> 
> I think I need to revisit Chopin. I've never really thought too much of him, but I haven't really listened to very much.


Well played.


----------



## thehoople

I shouldn't say I don't like this composer because I do. However, I have to say I have never been that fond of Beethoven's music. I respect his genius but I find I always prefer Mozart. Or sometimes I feel like listening to the Baroque greats such as Bach and Handel. Or strangely I even prefer the romantic giants, Liszt, Wagner, Richard Strauss, Mahler before Beethoven, save a few of his pieces. Am I insane? probably.. That being said though Mozart is my absolute favourite. To me Beethoven just broke through more boundaries than Mozart but that doesn't mean the music is better. As well frankly, I don't buy into the whole Beethoven has more emotion than Mozart argument which some people try to start. I think Mozart had just as much expression in any of his pieces than Beethoven ever did.


----------



## Alydon

Wagner. I like some of Wagner, but after forty years of persistence find the 'Ring' an utter bore and totally overblown both critically & artistically - a waste of 13 hours listening time; as Rossini famously said ' Wagner has wonderful moments, but very dull twenty minutes.'

I would also make a strong case for Benjamin Britten, a composer I admire but just can't connect to, followed by Mahler who strikes me as a person who you would meet at a party or through work and has to repeat himself at least five times to make a point. As time goes on I might come to like some of these composer's music, but I just can't see it in the near future!


----------



## Jaws

Sibelius, can't stand his music, never have been able to.


----------



## samurai

Jaws said:


> Sibelius, can't stand his music, never have been able to.


What are your feelings re: Carl Nielsen?


----------



## cwarchc

Not yet, but I'm still a novice


----------



## DeepR

I mostly like Chopin's Etudes and Ballades. And a lot of the Nocturnes and Preludes are very beautiful. Some Nocturnes are a bit cheesy, yes. 
I love the energetic and wild Etudes like Op 10. No.1, No. 4 No. 9, no. 12 and Op. 25 No. 11 and no. 12.
I'm usually on piano forums and he is absolutely revered there. A bit too much if you ask me, but for sure he is one of the gods of (romantic) piano music. 
Somehow Chopin doesn't have a high "replay value" for me, maybe because it's so perfectly made, but once in a while there is really nothing better than listening to Zimerman play his Ballade No. 1 or no. 4.


----------



## DeepR

To answer the original question: I don't think so. I'm sure there is something I like from just about any composer and any time period. But in general anything pre-romantic, as great as it may be, starts to bore me a lot quicker than romantic music. Romantic, late romantic and some modernish music is what I like to listen to most of the time.


----------



## dmg

I have difficulty getting into Britten. I can't find a work of his that I can say I thoroughly enjoy; I've come to the realization that I merely tolerate his work.


----------



## DeepR

Although I absolutely despise his abuse of the piano, I do like some of Stockhausen's electronic music.


----------



## Polyphemus

I count among my dislikes, Mendelsshon, Wagner and Ricard Strauss. I have no idea why I dislike Mendelsshon but Strauss and Wagner I just find bloated.


----------



## Romantic Geek

dmg said:


> I have difficulty getting into Britten. I can't find a work of his that I can say I thoroughly enjoy; I've come to the realization that I merely tolerate his work.


I just find his music to just be really static (and I think that was intentional). Thus, I don't blame you. I guess Part's music is similar, but I just like his orchestration better, so the stasis bothers me less.


----------



## Vesteralen

I never met a composer I didn't like.

(I've never actually met any composer, to be perfectly truthful...)


----------



## IBMchicago

Not a fan of any of the atonal composers, though I wish I were. Also, I can't stand Fur Elise...I think it's from hearing so many 10-year-olds stumble through it in music class in grade school. And the McDonalds commercial that reiterated this point didn't help:


----------



## neoshredder

Bartok maybe. Just don't find his music that melodic.


----------



## aleazk

neoshredder said:


> Bartok maybe. Just don't find his music that melodic.


And why music _must_ be melodic?


----------



## science

For a long time mine have been Bruckner and R. Strauss, but at this point I think I probably have to remove Bruckner from my list. The last half-dozen or so times I've heard a Bruckner symphony, I've liked it. 

I'll probably ride this for awhile, sinking my teeth into Bruckner's music, and then I'll work harder on R. Strauss again.


----------



## leomarillier

Ravel and Tchaikovsky. And Brahms (well only his symphonies) Tchaikovsky is just so easy and doesn't offer very much to think about. I prefer Bruckner, who is much deeper. I use to like Tchaikovsky, but only in Manfred and francecsa da Rimini, which are his most powerful compositions. Tchaikovsky oscilliates between sugarplum Wagner and semi-quotation of some russian plain-chant. I'm sorry but this doesn't make him a great composer. 
Ravel, is I think underrated, but I just don't get it. We see him criticize Strauss for putting too much notes, and he composes pieces with no purpose. plus, he completely denies Wagner. It's always the same thing with Ravel, even if it's great, it's a little bit superficial.
And as an accomplished (sort of) violinist, i can tell you that I hate all virtuoso composers of the 19th century. Wieniawsky, Paganini (maybe not him), Sarasate, Ernst, it's not interesting at all. it's not even music anymore! it's violin stunts and useless monkey tricks! Music should give the audience something to think about. Who could give them something to think about otherwise?
morality: praise Wagner and Bach.


----------



## neoshredder

aleazk said:


> And why music _must_ be melodic?


To be more enjoyable.


----------



## science

neoshredder said:


> To be more enjoyable.


Bartok wasn't easy for me, so I understand where you're coming from. What initially got me was the Reiner/Chicago recording of the Concerto for Orchestra etc.... But after that I was stuck for a long time. And I was determined to like him!

The violin concerto was the next thing that got me, as well as pretty much everything from the Menuhin 2-disk set from EMI. If I'd gone for the Miraculous Mandarin earlier, I believe I would've liked it too.

The piano concertos were absolutely the hardest for me. I probably listened to them a dozen times before I started genuinely enjoying them.

I don't know if you're interested in pursuing Bartok now, but just in case... and regardless, I can certainly relate !


----------



## Guest

Milhaud--his music is just plain stupid to me.


----------



## violadude

Kontrapunctus said:


> Milhaud--his music is just plain stupid to me.


What have you heard?

As a musical descendent of Milhaud, I must defend his honor!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I hate Elgar


----------



## Turangalîla

Liszt! Especially his piano works! Almost everything he wrote was just virtuosic fluff, void of substance or meaning.

And then there's Alkan, who possesses the above qualities on steroids...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I hate Elgar


That was an understatement.


----------



## bigshot

I don't hate him as a composer, because I've heard other things by him I like, but I've never been able to connect with Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra. I have quite a few versions on LP and CD, but none of them do anything for me. I seem to have a bind spot for Symphonie Fantastique too.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I hate Elgar


But I _would_ buy Hilary Hahn's recording of his violin concerto, even if I don't like the music.


----------



## aleazk

leomarillier said:


> Ravel...


 :scold::scold:


----------



## Lisztian

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Liszt! Especially his piano works! Almost everything he wrote was just virtuosic fluff, void of substance or meaning.


That points to a severe lack of understanding as well as a lack of knowledge of Liszt and his music rather than Liszt being 'virtuosic fluff.'


----------



## Turangalîla

Lisztian said:


> That points to a severe lack of understanding as well as a lack of knowledge of Liszt and his music rather than Liszt being 'virtuosic fluff.'


I expected some retaliation from at least one Liszt fan . I am not speaking for all of his music, of course.


----------



## DeepR

If I would totally adore just a single piece by a certain composer while I hated everything else he composed, then I still wouldn't mention that composer here.
And since I haven't heard _all_ compositions of any composer (yet), it would be unfair to mention any composer.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I hate Elgar

Just putting it out there again


----------



## Arsakes

Boulez is rude like Nietzsche ... I hate them both.


----------



## neoshredder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I hate Elgar
> 
> Just putting it out there again


But the real question is do you hate Elgar?


----------



## Lisztian

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I expected some retaliation from at least one Liszt fan . I am not speaking for all of his music, of course.


Then don't give that as a reason for not liking his music. Besides, what you said (or meant, disregarding the exaggeration) cannot justifiably be said about a high percentage of his original works.


----------



## Turangalîla

Lisztian said:


> Then don't give that as a reason for not liking his music. Besides, what you said (or meant, disregarding the exaggeration) cannot justifiably be said about a high percentage of his original works.


I can give that as a reason because I think that it is a characteristic of quite a bit of his music. You may say that I do not "understand" his music, and when it comes to his later, more mature works, perhaps I don't. But think of this: early in his career, Liszt was considered almost as a deity. Women fainted at his feet. What did the audience love about him? His fabulous virtuosity and performance style. So he wrote pieces with fabulous virtuosity. But the problem was, they were virtuosic _only for the sake of being virtuosic_. I find it very hard to believe that most of his early works go much "deeper" than that.


----------



## bigshot

I think Liszt's transcriptions are very sympathetic to the music he's adapting. It's clear that he fully understood the music he was adapting, and wasn't just going for effect. In today's world, there may not be as much need for piano transcriptions, but that doesn't take away from Liszt's unique ability to transcribe for piano.


----------



## Lisztian

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I can give that as a reason because I think that it is a characteristic of quite a bit of his music. You may say that I do not "understand" his music, and when it comes to his later, more mature works, perhaps I don't. But think of this: early in his career, Liszt was considered almost as a deity. Women fainted at his feet. What did the audience love about him? His fabulous virtuosity and performance style. So he wrote pieces with fabulous virtuosity. But the problem was, they were virtuosic _only for the sake of being virtuosic_. I find it very hard to believe that most of his early works go much "deeper" than that.


You're absolutely right. Before Liszt retired from the concert platform very many of his works (many opera fantasies and some other paraphrases/rhapsodies) were written to show off his technique, or to realise different (often bravura) effects on the piano. I'm not a blind Liszt fan - but you can't judge him as a composer for these works. That isn't to say he wrote nothing of substance before he retired - he did write some very good works. Even works like the Don Juan and Norma fantasies are works of genius if you understand them (unlike some of the other opera fantasies).

After he retired from the concert platform in 1848, most of his output was written fully for the sake of music rather than technical display. He often employed a virtuosic language, but it is for musical purposes. As Charles Rosen said: As far as realising sound on the piano, Liszt was the greatest between Scarlatti and Debussy - the difference is that Liszt is obviously highly romantic (and at times almost impressionistic). If you learn to understand his language and what he was trying to express in his music, you will realise that his pieces aren't meaningless cascades of notes, and it will snowball into realising the various sides to his genius (or, he still might not be to your taste, as is a possibility with any composer). Of course, Liszt also wrote a lot of music that is completely devoid of virtuosity.

Which pieces written after 1847 do you dislike?


----------



## Lisztian

bigshot said:


> I think Liszt's transcriptions are very sympathetic to the music he's adapting. It's clear that he fully understood the music he was adapting, and wasn't just going for effect. In today's world, there may not be as much need for piano transcriptions, but that doesn't take away from Liszt's unique ability to transcribe for piano.


Indeed. They may seem pointless for some (not pianists!), but Liszt's transcriptions are works of unprecedented pianistic genius.


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> What have you heard?
> 
> As a musical descendent of Milhaud, I must defend his honor!


What honor?  I don't recall them all (I'm desperately trying to unhear them...), but one that sticks with me is Le boeuf sur le toit. Gag.


----------



## Bas

Stravinsky, Strauss, a lot of Debussy's just don't like it, and why, I can barely explain.


----------



## spradlig

Experts in the field think that J. S. Bach did not write the Tocatta and Fugue in d minor. (see Wikipedia)


----------



## spradlig

Try Berg's Chamber Concerto. I don't get 12-tone music either, but I love parts of this piece.


----------



## drpraetorus

Vivaldi, Strvinsky was right about him.
Haydn, a country bumpkin version of Mozart
A great deal of Beethoven.
Most of Schubert
Schuman
Huge chunks of Berlioz
Brahms, deadly dull.
Verdi. Worlds best oompah master. No one better at mindless bombast.
Debusy
Mahler
Berg
Schonberg
Brukner
Most of Hindemith
Most of Prokofiev
Bernstein
Glass
Delius. Flacid version of Vaughn Williams.
Durafle


----------



## violadude

Kontrapunctus said:


> What honor?  I don't recall them all (I'm desperately trying to unhear them...), but one that sticks with me is Le boeuf sur le toit. Gag.


Oh ya, not a huge fan of that particular piece either.....

Try his piano concertos. They're fun.


----------



## neoshredder

drpraetorus said:


> Vivaldi, Strvinsky was right about him.
> Haydn, a country bumpkin version of Mozart
> A great deal of Beethoven.
> Most of Schubert
> Schuman
> Huge chunks of Berlioz
> Brahms, deadly dull.
> Verdi. Worlds best oompah master. No one better at mindless bombast.
> Debusy
> Mahler
> Berg
> Schonberg
> Brukner
> Most of Hindemith
> Most of Prokofiev
> Bernstein
> Glass
> Delius. Flacid version of Vaughn Williams.
> Durafle


Who do you like then? lol


----------



## BurningDesire

Well if I don't like them, I don't think they're particularly great :3

Personally, I'm not terribly fond of Philip Glass. I'm not a huge fan of the minimalist aesthetic as a whole, but his music in particular just tends to bore me, more-so than that of Mozart. Perhaps one day I'll wind up enjoying it, but for now, most of his music is just not particularly interesting to me. I'll take Reich any day over Glass.


----------



## neoshredder

Have you seen Koyaanisqatsi?


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> Have you seen Koyaanisqatsi?


No, but I have heard some of the music from it. I like what I've heard, especially how he uses the organ, but nothing that really makes me swoon lol


----------



## Crudblud

BurningDesire said:


> Personally, I'm not terribly fond of Philip Glass. I'm not a huge fan of the minimalist aesthetic as a whole, but his music in particular just tends to bore me, more-so than that of Mozart. Perhaps one day I'll wind up enjoying it, but for now, most of his music is just not particularly interesting to me. I'll take Reich any day over Glass.


Reich is definitely the best upbeat/pulse minimalist for my money, if only for The Desert Music, but on the whole I'd much rather go with Feldman when I want to listen to the sound of nothing much happening.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

drpraetorus-

Vivaldi, Strvinsky was right about him.

No, he wasn't. Stravinsky was judging Vivaldi based upon the limited range of his works then known... and available exclusively in performances that were far from being HIP. Vivaldi's sacred choral/vocal works, operas, and sonatas have a wealth of marvelous music in them. By the same token... if you invest some real effort in the exploration of the Baroque repertoire you will find that Vivaldi's (or Telemann's, etc...) concertos are no more "all alike" than the average Romantic concert.

Haydn, a country bumpkin version of Mozart

Absolute blasphemy! Haydn was the father of the modern symphony and string quartet. His best works in this genre are equal to all but one of two of Mozart's absolute finest... and there are far more of them. His choral oeuvre is every bit equal... if not superior to Mozart. As much as I love Mozart's _Requiem_, I would probably take Haydn's _Creation_ over it.

A great deal of Beethoven.
Most of Schubert
Schuman

Accck!

Huge chunks of Berlioz

Brahms, deadly dull.

Double Accck!

Verdi. Worlds best oompah master. No one better at mindless bombast.

Except that his oompah and bombast are far from mindless, but serve the drama of his operas perfectly.

Debusy
Mahler
Berg
Schonberg
Brukner
Most of Hindemith
Most of Prokofiev
Bernstein
Glass
Delius. Flacid version of Vaughn Williams.
Durafle

That's Debussy and Duruflé



Who do you like then? lol

Now isn't that the sort of comment that got me in trouble?


----------



## BurningDesire

Crudblud said:


> Reich is definitely the best upbeat/pulse minimalist for my money, if only for The Desert Music, but on the whole I'd much rather go with Feldman when I want to listen to the sound of nothing much happening.


I really like what I've heard of Feldman. X3 I usually don't think of him, nor composers like Part and Gorecki as minimalists. I think of composers like Reich, Riley, Glass, and Adams more in that light.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

StlukesguildOhio said:


> No, he wasn't. Stravinsky was judging Vivaldi based upon the limited range of his works then known...


Oh surely that wasn't common of him to make that mistake! And so many people hanging on his golden word...!

:tiphat:


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

> Is There a Great Composer You Plain Just Don't Like


Well, if I don't like them, they can't be great. Right?


----------



## violadude

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Well, if I don't like them, they can't be great. Right?


Depends on what you mean by great. According to some definitions, Rossini was apparently pretty great whether you like his music or not.


----------



## Ramako

I don't think this counts, but I never feel like listening to Bach. I rarely feel like listening to any of his works except perhaps one or two. I normally put him on when other people are around because he's reliable. Not sure if this makes sense, but I still feel the 'greatness' coming through, even though I can't seem to properly appreciate it. Hopefully this will change with time.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

You poor child.

Medic!!!


----------



## Alydon

I can't agree with much of this list but I cheered when I saw the name of Verdi - mindless bombast indeed!
I purchased a couple of his operas some years ago and lasted out about fifteen minutes - I should have put the money on a horse.
Mahler is one of my least favourite composers, never has one gained such a reputation on such a slender and over- blown body of work, and I know there are those out there who will demand the death penalty for such a statement, but what Mahler takes an hour to say, Schubert can say in a few minutes.
A special mention on the subject of Haydn - I too though he was a rougher version of Mozart - but actually have come to love him more, do make a case for him and go back and listen - it will be worth the time.


----------



## Mahlerian

Alydon said:


> Mahler is one of my least favourite composers, never has one gained such a reputation on such a slender and over- blown body of work, and I know there are those out there who will demand the death penalty for such a statement, but what Mahler takes an hour to say, Schubert can say in a few minutes.


When are they saying the same thing?

Here's a short Mahler for you, just as short as Schubert.






And Schubert's 9th is just as long as a Mahler symphony; longer than some if you take all the repeats.


----------



## moody

Alydon said:


> I can't agree with much of this list but I cheered when I saw the name of Verdi - mindless bombast indeed!
> I purchased a couple of his operas some years ago and lasted out about fifteen minutes - I should have put the money on a horse.
> Mahler is one of my least favourite composers, never has one gained such a reputation on such a slender and over- blown body of work, and I know there are those out there who will demand the death penalty for such a statement, but what Mahler takes an hour to say, Schubert can say in a few minutes.
> A special mention on the subject of Haydn - I too though he was a rougher version of Mozart - but actually have come to love him more, do make a case for him and go back and listen - it will be worth the time.


I would suggest you do the same with Verdi and Mahler.


----------



## starthrower

Tapkaara;87699
Mozart - Boring. I don't blindly buy into his greatness. I know we are all expected to worship him said:


> I can relate to the stale cream puff analogy!


----------



## Tristan

Music I don't like is that which I find boring. If it's boring, I don't listen to it. Music doesn't have to have excellent memorable melodies for me to like it, but that kind of music does stand out, which is why composers like Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, and Rimsky-Korsakov are at the top of my list of favorites.

So my answer is no. I have a decent amount of music by most of the "greats" and while I might prefer some over others, there are none that I just plain don't like.


----------



## Bone

Schubert. And it ain't close.


----------



## Hausmusik

drpraetorus said:


> Vivaldi, Strvinsky was right about him.
> Haydn, a country bumpkin version of Mozart
> A great deal of Beethoven.
> Most of Schubert
> Schuman
> Huge chunks of Berlioz
> Brahms, deadly dull.
> Verdi. Worlds best oompah master. No one better at mindless bombast.
> Debusy
> Mahler
> Berg
> Schonberg
> Brukner
> Most of Hindemith
> Most of Prokofiev
> Bernstein
> Glass
> Delius. Flacid version of Vaughn Williams.
> Durafle


This list makes me sad, and not just because of the misspellings.


----------



## Hausmusik

My confession: While I realize they are much-admired by people I respect, if I never heard another composition by Janacek or Messiaen as long as I live, that'd be fine.


----------



## Kieran

Hausmusik said:


> My confession: While I realize they are much-admired by people I respect, if I never heard another composition by Janacek or Messiaen as long as I live, that'd be fine.


What about after that?


----------



## Hausmusik

As long as I live is long enough.


----------



## EricABQ

I don't have much use for Handel.

And I tried to get into Scriabin, because he seemed like someone I would like, but it turns out not so much.


----------



## Tristan

EricABQ said:


> I don't have much use for Handel.
> 
> And I tried to get into Scriabin, because he seemed like someone I would like, but it turns out not so much.


Did you try Scriabin's orchestral as well as his piano works? Just wondering--I'm not going to try and proselytize


----------



## neoshredder

Handel is awesome. Can't understand why people can't get into Handel. Water Music, Concerti Grossi op. 6, Royal Fireworks, and etc. Maybe his vocal music is overdone though.


----------



## neoshredder

And I agree that Messiaen is boring. I prefer Ligeti or Schnittke.


----------



## Crudblud

I find Ligeti pretty boring most of the time, though I do like his _Metamorphoses Nocturnes_. Schnittke at his worst can be very dull, but when he's on form he's often brilliant.

Composers I can't get in to at all: Brahms, Mendelssohn, Vivaldi, Händel, Josquin, Norgard, Lutoslawski, Copland, Rossini, Glass, Reich, Gounod, Delius, Vaughan Williams, Boulez, Ferneyhough, Rachmaninoff.

Composers with only a couple of works I enjoy: Stravinsky, Liszt, Mussorgsky, Bach, Mozart, Corelli, Gesualdo, Wagner, Rimsky-Korsakov.


----------



## Tristan

There's a lot of talk about Messiaen and Ligeti on this site. Can't say I care for either one, honestly. But it's nothing about them in particular, I just don't really care for their style of music as a whole.


----------



## Hausmusik

I am surprised how often Bach has come up on this thread. There are certain Bach recordings--Richard Egarr's Brandenburgs, Julia Fischer's Violin Concertos, Pinnock's Harpsichord Concertos--that I can listen to over and over and over again with undiminished pleasure. I find Bach doesn't cloy as some other composers I like can do.


----------



## Guest

The question was: Is there "a great" composer you just don't like? That would imply picking one. It would also imply that the composer must be considered on the shorter list of composers widely considered to be great, since if you don't like a composer he would not be "great" to you.

My answer: Brahms. I find his work stiff and boring. He tried too hard to be Beethoven and failed. Not enough melodic excitement. I know that some are averse to music with catchy melodies, but I like to remember a piece and be able to hum it in the shower. I dislike Brahms for the same reason I love Tchaikovsky. Speak to me with a melody!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

But I like Chopin - but totally dislike/ detest ALW .........


----------



## nbharakey

I hate Mozart! Beethoven also. That Tchaikovsky is just pathetic! Rachmaninoff isn't any better! Just joking! 
Well, I always try really hard to be touched by any music. But Liszt and Wagner are still only interesting to me. Nothing more. And Liszt a bit more interesting.


----------



## Classicallystrained

Schoenberg id definitely a composer you either love or hate ...and as such is ripe for parody. This is a fun youtube video parody on Schoenberg...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Anything that not avant-garde or not at least a little bit "pseudo-intellectual noise", leaves me cold. Gotta have spirit and a bit of fire and freshness!


----------



## chrisco97

For me it is Bach. I cannot deny his brilliance and his role in music, but I have never liked his music aside from the Brandenburg Concertos. Maybe I just need to listen to more of his music. Maybe it is because people often rank him above Beethoven (my absolute favourite composer). Maybe I am just not crazy about his style of music. I do not know.

I would not say I _hate_ him though. haha


----------



## Neo Romanza

I don't like hardly any Baroque or Classical Era composers including Bach, Mozart, and, yes, Beethoven. I do, however, think very highly of Haydn.


----------



## aleazk

Mozart, of course. And Tchaikovsky... ugh.


----------



## Guest

Any composer that's still alive and most that were alive past 1950.

And outside of composers, I hate anyone that hates Mozart, Beethoven, or Bach. That's just wrong.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby

Stavinsky- I just can't take it.
Schoenberg- Even worse.
Mahler- Boring as all get out.
Brahms- Not too interesting to me.
Debussy- Some nice art songs, but _Pelleas et mellisande_ is like three hours of treading water.
Wagner- Overblown and egotistical music that is so boring it makes watching paint dry seem like fun, speckled with moments of unfathomable beauty
Mendelssohn- Ok... I guess.
Britten- I prefer the orthodontist's chair.


----------



## deggial

violadude said:


> According to some definitions, Rossini was apparently pretty great whether you like his music or not.


still is!

of the "great" greats, probably Schoenberg. Lesser greats - Gesualdo.


----------



## Feathers

For me it's Stravinsky. When I listen to his music it just feels like someone dumped a bucket of colour in my face, whereas I'd rather let the paint get absorbed into the paper a little more, if that makes any sense.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Jerome said:


> And outside of composers, I hate anyone that hates Mozart, Beethoven, or Bach. That's just wrong.


Yikes! Was it something I wrote?  I don't hate anyone. Hate is such a strong word, especially if it's used in the manner you used it in. Not everybody likes the same things. Also, I never said I hated Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven. I said I disliked their music. I think it's childish of you to have these kinds of thoughts.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Also, you don't see me saying I HATE people who don't like Stravinsky. I love Stravinsky but I respect those people who do not.


----------



## spradlig

I love Bach, but I respect your courage to voice what may be an unpopular opinion. By the way, according to Wikipedia at least there is consensus among experts that J. S. Bach did not actually write the Toccata and Fugue in d minor attributed to him.

I don't know if he is considered a "great" composer, but I have never heard anything by Telemann that I liked.


----------



## Guest

Neo Romanza said:


> Yikes! Was it something I wrote?  I don't hate anyone. Hate is such a strong word, especially if it's used in the manner you used it in. Not everybody likes the same things. Also, I never said I hated Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven. I said I disliked their music. I think it's childish of you to have these kinds of thoughts.


You took it too personally. I was just venting and trying to be sarcasticly humourous at the same time. Obviously I failed. I don't hate anybody. But I love Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach so much that I feel the need to defend the most beautiful and perfectly structured music ever created.

And no you didn't say you hated anyone so I must not have been directing my vent at you.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Jerome said:


> You took it too personally. I was just venting and trying to be sarcasticly humourous at the same time. Obviously I failed. I don't hate anybody. But I love Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach so much that I feel the need to defend the most beautiful and perfectly structured music ever created.
> 
> And no you didn't say you hated anyone so I must not have been directing my vent at you.


Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach don't need to be defended IMHO because their place in history has long been secured. Don't you think?  Anyway, fair enough. Good to hear you don't actually hate people who don't like the same things you do.


----------



## Guest

Neo Romanza said:


> Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach don't need to be defended IMHO because their place in history has long been secured. Don't you think?  Anyway, fair enough. Good to hear you don't actually hate people who don't like the same things you do.


I'm sensing you weren't actually offended, just saw an opportunity to appear to take the high road.


----------



## CypressWillow

Wagner. 
I'd even listen to John Cage before I'd listen to Wagner.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Jerome said:


> I'm sensing you weren't actually offended, just saw an opportunity to appear to take the high road.


Actually, what you posted did bother me, which is _why_ I posted a response to it. Usually when somebody makes a joke online, it's followed by a smiley face or some kind of indication that you were joking. Anyway, I don't take high roads, I'm scared of heights.


----------



## chrisco97

CypressWillow said:


> Wagner.
> I'd even listen to John Cage before I'd listen to Wagner.


Lol, is John Cage really that bad? I have not taken the time to check out his work because so many people seem to dislike him. xD


----------



## neoshredder

Stravinsky, Bartok, Mahler, and Schoenberg don't really interest me.


----------



## violadude

What's wrong with Stravinsky?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

CypressWillow said:


> Wagner.
> I'd even listen to John Cage before I'd listen to Wagner.


Finally some light at the end of the tunnel. Now if I could just persuade you to like Cage and embrase the avant garde (its aways better to be ahead of the pack than be following from behind) and dispense with Wig music totally - I'd have another convert:devil:


----------



## SiegendesLicht

CypressWillow said:


> Wagner.
> I'd even listen to John Cage before I'd listen to Wagner.


And what should be the reason for such strong dislike, if I may ask?


----------



## aleazk

I'm going to take out this of my chest: Schoenberg.
Of course, not because it's "atonal" music, since I like other composers from the 2nd viennese school and even integral serialism.
My thing is with Schoenberg, I can't find nothing that interests me in his music. His music simply does not appeal to me at any level. I don't even dislike it, it's a feeling of indifference.
Anyway, I hold him high because of his seminal introduction of the twelve-tone technique.


----------



## neoshredder

violadude said:


> What's wrong with Stravinsky?


Nothing. It's just during the period of supposed great Composers that don't really interest me. I guess I need to give it more of a chance. But my taste seems to be more towards the lush late Romanticism over Early Modernism generally speaking. For me, it's more melodic and memorable. Though some obviously disagree about that based on that one poll I made that got locked. Plus he dissed Vivaldi.  (not really a reason)


----------



## Garlic

Apart from a few moments I like, I'm yet to make a breakthrough with Chopin, Rachmaninov, Liszt, or Glass. I haven't written them off though, they may click one day.


----------



## GiulioCesare

Haydn.

I'm trying, I'm really trying hard...


----------



## Crudblud

Debussy, it seems.


----------



## bigshot

I like all the great composers. It's the crappy ones I don't like.


----------



## chalkpie

Brahms. .


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> I like all the great composers. It's the crappy ones I don't like.


You must have changed your opinion on John Cage then


----------



## chalkpie

I haven't read this whole thread, but I'm floored that Ives isn't mentioned more often - is he mentioned at all?

Huge Ives fan here BTW.I have no shame in saying he is one of America's greatest musical treasures, maybe THE best. Our ears as of 2013 still haven't caught up to what he was doing, and this is the very early 1900's were talking.

Another fav of mine that is shockingly not on the "Hate List" is Varese. Maybe most folks here have never even listened to him I guess


----------



## Neo Romanza

chalkpie said:


> Our ears as of 2013 still haven't caught up to what he was doing


Speak for yourself.  I understand and comprehend Ives just fine. In fact, Ives was one of the first composers I got into. Heard _Central Park in the Dark_ (Bernstein/NY Phil. DG performance) and even then I knew he was one of the most original composers that ever lived.


----------



## violadude

I still have trouble with Ives sometimes, actually.


----------



## Neo Romanza

violadude said:


> I still have trouble with Ives sometimes, actually.


Really? In what ways? Just curious...


----------



## mmsbls

chalkpie said:


> I haven't read this whole thread, but I'm floored that Ives isn't mentioned more often - is he mentioned at all?
> 
> Huge Ives fan here BTW.I have no shame in saying he is one of America's greatest musical treasures, maybe THE best. Our ears as of 2013 still haven't caught up to what he was doing, and this is the very early 1900's were talking.
> 
> Another fav of mine that is shockingly not on the "Hate List" is Varese. Maybe most folks here have never even listened to him I guess


I think relatively few people view Ives or Varese as "great" composers. I'm not saying few people think they are very good, but I think most people view this thread about major composers and likely felt composers such as Ives and Varese didn't "make the cut".

I think the numerous threads and posts that disparage modern composers suggest that a reasonable number here don't especially enjoy Varese. I'm not sure how people feel about Ives. When I first listened to Ives, I thought I might strongly dislike his music because I had heard such strong comments about the difficulty of his music. In fact, my first experiences were quite positive, and now I generally expect to enjoy works of his.


----------



## neoshredder

chalkpie said:


> I haven't read this whole thread, but I'm floored that Ives isn't mentioned more often - is he mentioned at all?
> 
> Huge Ives fan here BTW.I have no shame in saying he is one of America's greatest musical treasures, maybe THE best. Our ears as of 2013 still haven't caught up to what he was doing, and this is the very early 1900's were talking.
> 
> Another fav of mine that is shockingly not on the "Hate List" is Varese. Maybe most folks here have never even listened to him I guess


Both aren't quite as known. And to be considered great, one usually has to be popular or considered by many as great. Both Ives and Varese I wouldn't quite label as great based on this. Shostakovich I would consider the last great Composer.


----------



## moody

neoshredder said:


> Both aren't quite as known. And to be considered great, one usually has to be popular or considered by many as great. Both Ives and Varese I wouldn't quite label as great based on this. Shostakovich I would consider the last great Composer.


I would agree with this if the word "popular" is dropped.


----------



## neoshredder

Popular among the Classical Music community. Is that better?


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> Popular among the Classical Music community. Is that better?


*
In matters like this, who the hell else counts?*


----------



## violadude

Neo Romanza said:


> Really? In what ways? Just curious...


I'm not sure to be honest. I really like the 4th symphony. I have the string quartets and I like the 1st alright and the 2nd seems like it should be good, but for some reason I can't keep my mind on it. It always looses me. But I haven't written him off at all yet.


----------



## tdc

mmsbls said:


> I think relatively few people view Ives as (a) "great" composer...


I would disagree. I think most people who study classical music would see the reasons why he was great. In academic circles it wouldn't surprise me if his 'greatness' was more widely acknowledged than a composer like Shostakovich. He was certainly more innovative and versatile, and I think his music shows an equal amount of technical mastery. I personally think Ives is as deserving as any composer in the 20th century of being considered 'great', and his music will continue to influence future composers.


----------



## moody

tdc said:


> I would disagree. I think most people who study classical music would see the reasons why he was great. In academic circles it wouldn't surprise me if his 'greatness' was more widely acknowledged than a composer like Shostakovich. He was certainly more innovative and versatile, and I think his music shows an equal amount of technical mastery. I personally think Ives is as deserving as any composer in the 20th century of being considered 'great', and his music will continue to influence future composers.


What about the people who don't study classical music ?
Also,although I find Ives most amusing to claim him as a great is preposterous.


----------



## mmsbls

tdc said:


> I would disagree. I think most people who study classical music would see the reasons why he was great. In academic circles it wouldn't surprise me if his 'greatness' was more widely acknowledged than a composer like Shostakovich. He was certainly more innovative and versatile, and I think his music shows an equal amount of technical mastery. I personally think Ives is as deserving as any composer in the 20th century of being considered 'great', and his music will continue to influence future composers.


You are arguing that Ives is great and that those who study classical music will agree with that assessment. I used "great" in quotes because I was trying to say that others here (most of whom do not study classical music) might not view him in the group of composers eligible for this thread. So I think your _post_ does not really disagree with my post (although you might in fact disagree). I would agree with your assessment of Ives' greatness.


----------



## moody

mmsbls said:


> You are arguing that Ives is great and that those who study classical music will agree with that assessment. I used "great" in quotes because I was trying to say that others here (most of whom do not study classical music) might not view him in the group of composers eligible for this thread. So I think your _post_ does not really disagree with my post (although you might in fact disagree). I would agree with your assessment of Ives' greatness.


Perhaps you would like to explain why you think this way.


----------



## Crudblud

moody said:


> Perhaps you would like to explain why you think this way.


I'm curious to know why you think he isn't great. You've said that he isn't several times, going so far as to ridicule the idea that he could be, but you have yet to give an explanation of this view.


----------



## PetrB

Crudblud said:


> I'm curious to know why you think he isn't great. You've said that he isn't several times, going so far as to ridicule the idea that he could be, but you have yet to give an explanation of this view.


No hummable tunes, no doubt. (Of course that is not true


----------



## moody

PetrB said:


> No hummable tunes, no doubt. (Of course that is not true


Keep that type of crack to yourself.it hardly suits you.


----------



## moody

Crudblud said:


> I'm curious to know why you think he isn't great. You've said that he isn't several times, going so far as to ridicule the idea that he could be, but you have yet to give an explanation of this view.


I mentioned it once that I recall,but do correct me if I'm mistaken as this thread has been going for ever.
He was a very wealthy man who liked dabbling and found it fascinating , his first symphony is in a Dvorakian mode.
I have never heard him mentioned by anybody as a great composer and I don't understand why you would consider he was---if you do.
Apparently mmsbls thinks that "normal" non music students type people would think this way. These are the people who spend the money and he obviously hasn't made an impact there. Whereas Bach, who is no favourite of mine, has it seems.
Whether you can be great and not popular is a moot point.Certainly Dickens is and so is Shakespeare,Beethoven is and so is Mozart, Stravinsky is and so is Shostakovich.
Tdc says that he thinks Ives is deserving of being considered "great" ,that verdict is actually in effect admitting that Ives is not considered to be "great".
I would imagine that a check on availability of recordings and sales volume would give some indication of the man's standing.
I asked mmsbl for an explanation of his feelings on the subject but so far he has not come back. Perhaps if you are taking up the cudgels you would like to from your perspective.
I have a number of his works but really look upon him as a novelty more than anything else.


----------



## tdc

moody said:


> *What about the people who don't study classical music *?
> Also,although I find Ives most amusing to claim him as a great is preposterous.


I think those who don't study classical music can still have credible and valid opinions on music, as long as they are backed up with something concrete. Simply saying it is preposterous to call Ives great without giving any reasoning as to why isn't really an opinion that I would give as much credence to compared to an opinion backed up with some kind of logical reason or evidence.


----------



## moody

tdc said:


> I think those who don't study classical music can still have credible and valid opinions on music, as long as they are backed up with something concrete. Simply saying it is preposterous to call Ives great without giving any reasoning as to why isn't really an opinion that I would give as much credence to compared to an opinion backed up with some kind of logical reason or evidence.


Well where's your logic and evidence on this matter--this is getting tedious. Are you seriously telling me that you have seen Ives mentioned as great often or is this some pet project as is often the case on TC.or perhaps we inhabit parallel universes.


----------



## Mahlerian

moody said:


> I mentioned it once that I recall,but do correct me if I'm mistaken as this thread has been going for ever.
> He was a very wealthy man who liked dabbling and found it fascinating , his first symphony is in a Dvorakian mode.


He was no amateur, but a trained professional (studied at Yale) who chose not to make a living with composition.



moody said:


> I have never heard him mentioned by anybody as a great composer and I don't understand why you would consider he was---if you do.


Schoenberg, Cowell, and Bernstein thought differently....



moody said:


> Whether you can be great and not popular is a moot point.Certainly Dickens is and so is Shakespeare,Beethoven is and so is Mozart, Stravinsky is and so is Shostakovich.
> Tdc says that he thinks Ives is deserving of being considered "great" ,that verdict is actually in effect admitting that Ives is not considered to be "great".
> I would imagine that a check on availability of recordings and sales volume would give some indication of the man's standing.


It's a sign that someone is considered to have significant merit if every single thing they wrote, even the barest piece of juvenilia or most minor alteration of a better-known work, is recorded and published.


----------



## tdc

mmsbls said:


> You are arguing that Ives is great and that those who study classical music will agree with that assessment. I used "great" in quotes because I was trying to say that others here (most of whom do not study classical music) might not view him in the group of composers eligible for this thread. So I think your _post_ does not really disagree with my post (although you might in fact disagree). I would agree with your assessment of Ives' greatness.


I see what you are saying, and you may be right. I don't think we disagree on Ives but I'm not sure why you would assume that relatively few here think Ives is a great composer. I assumed that it was pretty common knowledge among listeners that take some effort to learn about composers in the classical tradition (not even necessarily study the music) that he is one of the most important composers of the 20th century. If its not then I am glad I brought the point up anyway, as I think he is a composer that deserves to be recognized as a major figure in western music.


----------



## moody

So now we have "..considered to have considerable merit" from mahlerian and "..a major figure in western music" from Tdc that's much more acceptable.


----------



## tdc

moody said:


> So now we have "..considered to have considerable merit" from mahlerian and "..a major figure in western music" from Tdc that's much more acceptable.


Well I have pointed out that he was very innovative and versatile and had great technical mastery. As pointed out by Mahlerian these attributes were recognized by music scholars such as Bernstein, Cowell, and Schoenberg. I will add Stravinsky to that list who thought that Ives _New England Holidays_ Symphony was among the greatest works of the 20th century.

May I ask which (if any) composers of the 20th century you consider to be great?


----------



## moody

tdc said:


> Well I have pointed out that he was very innovative and versatile and had great technical mastery. As pointed out by Mahlerian these attributes were recognized by music scholars such as Bernstein, Cowell, and Schoenberg. I will add Stravinsky to that list who thought that Ives 4th Symphony was among the greatest works of the 20th century.
> 
> May I ask which (if any) composers of the 20th century you consider to be great?


No,enough,enough this will become a swirling down the plughole situation.


----------



## Crudblud

moody said:


> I mentioned it once that I recall,but do correct me if I'm mistaken as this thread has been going for ever.
> He was a very wealthy man who liked dabbling and found it fascinating , his first symphony is in a Dvorakian mode.
> I have never heard him mentioned by anybody as a great composer and I don't understand why you would consider he was---if you do.
> Apparently mmsbls thinks that "normal" non music students type people would think this way. These are the people who spend the money and he obviously hasn't made an impact there. Whereas Bach, who is no favourite of mine, has it seems.
> Whether you can be great and not popular is a moot point.Certainly Dickens is and so is Shakespeare,Beethoven is and so is Mozart, Stravinsky is and so is Shostakovich.
> Tdc says that he thinks Ives is deserving of being considered "great" ,that verdict is actually in effect admitting that Ives is not considered to be "great".
> I would imagine that a check on availability of recordings and sales volume would give some indication of the man's standing.
> I asked mmsbl for an explanation of his feelings on the subject but so far he has not come back. Perhaps if you are taking up the cudgels you would like to from your perspective.
> I have a number of his works but really look upon him as a novelty more than anything else.


This whole post is a bunch of ignorant, incomplete and poorly developed thoughts that do not connect to create a coherent argument in any way, shape or form.

I am not going to speak for mmsbls, though I suspect he has long since realised that you are simply blowing smoke up his backside and has given up on you.


----------



## moody

Crudblud said:


> This whole post is a bunch of ignorant, incomplete and poorly developed thoughts that do not connect to create a coherent argument in any way, shape or form.
> 
> I am not going to speak for mmsbls, though I suspect he has long since realised that you are simply blowing smoke up his backside and has given up on you.


I do not have ignorant,incomplete and poorly developed thoughts on this subject as it is in fact of supreme indifference to me.
You though appear to have rude and insulting thoughts,i do not need to develop anything as I merely wanted to know why Ives should be considered great as it came as a surprise to me.
You have certainly have not answered my question,you have merely blustered, have you any interest in answering or not ---in a well developed way of course.


----------



## violadude

Uh, well just so you guys didn't misunderstand me, I said I had a hard time getting into Ives, not that he didn't deserve the title of "great". He clearly does.


----------



## Crudblud

moody said:


> I do not have ignorant,incomplete and poorly developed thoughts on this subject as it is in fact of supreme indifference to me.
> You though appear to have rude and insulting thoughts,i do not need to develop anything as I merely wanted to know why Ives should be considered great as it came as a surprise to me.
> You have certainly have not answered my question,you have merely blustered, have you any interest in answering or not ---in a well developed way of course.


If I appear rude then I apologise, sincerely. I am curious, though: if it is of supreme indifference to you, why do you continue to make posts on the subject?

What is your question? Do I think Ives is great? Frankly I don't even know what "great" is supposed to mean, the availability of his records and sales thereof don't seem to me to be a particularly good measure of it, though.


----------



## bigshot

Ives is one of my favorite composers, but I would completely understand why someone who liked a lot of other classical music might not necessarily like Ives. To me, Ives' music is more like film music, evoking things rather than stating them. Even though I really like his music, I don't enjoy it unless I am in the right frame of mind to enjoy it. That isn't true of other composers like Bach, Mozart, Dvorak or Tchaikovsky. Their music is immediate and direct, and creates its own proper situation.

I also think Ives is quintessentially American. Not being British, I really don't fully appreciate Gilbert and Sullivan. I think Americans are more apt to understand Ives.


----------



## mmsbls

First, we're simply discussing the potential of calling a composer "great" so please let's keep the discussion focused on the composer's attributes rather than posters attributes. 

As has been mentioned repeatedly on TC, the term "great" is poorly defined. I do not consider Ives a "top 50 composer". If that is one's definition (or something along those lines), I would not agree that he is great. But there exist enough of Ives' works that I find compelling, interesting, or beautiful that I feel he deserves consideration as "a major figure in western music". Some may say that does not make him "great". I'm happy to accept someone's view of a major figure in history as "great". 

Among his works that I find wonderful are:
Symphonies 1, 2, and 4 (often beautiful and sometimes quite intriguing)
Piano Sonata No. 2 (original and compelling and sometimes over my head)
The Unanswered Question (beautiful and ethereal)
Central Park in the Dark (wonderful sounds juxtaposed throughout)
String Quartet No. 1 (beautiful)
Three Places in New England (overlap of melodies and dense construction make these fascinating)

I doubt any of this will change the view of one who feels Ives is not a major or great composer, but that's OK.


----------



## tdc

mmsbls said:


> As has been mentioned repeatedly on TC, the term "great" is poorly defined. I do not consider Ives a "top 50 composer".


Well, when it comes to numerically ranking composers, I think things get pretty tedious and are inevitably swayed by our own 'era' preferences. But I personally do think a strong argument could be made for Ives being a top 50 composer, or higher. Though again the numerical ranking is pretty subjective and in my opinion doesn't really mean too much.

I forgot to mention Dave Frank, former associate professor of piano at Berklee College of music, (and who occasionally use to post here), considers Ives the greatest composer of the 20th century. I really enjoyed his tutorial on the piano music of Charles Ives.


----------



## moody

Crudblud said:


> If I appear rude then I apologise, sincerely. I am curious, though: if it is of supreme indifference to you, why do you continue to make posts on the subject?
> 
> What is your question? Do I think Ives is great? Frankly I don't even know what "great" is supposed to mean, the availability of his records and sales thereof don't seem to me to be a particularly good measure of it, though.


Things should not be allowed to get out of hand when discussing music.
I assure you that my initial remarks were made out of surprise and that was all. No blowing smoke.
This morning I checked and discovered that my first LP of Ives was bought in 1966,"Music For Chorus " that included "General William Booth Enters Into Heaven " Also around that time "Old Songs Deranged" Music for Theatre Orchestra.
So I took an interest 50 years ago,when did you guys get involved?
But I have always considered him to be a quirky novelty and never a "great".
Lastly,to answer tdc, I don't listen composers after mid-term Stravinsky with the exception of Kurt Weill (1900) and Shostakovich (1906) I suppose.


----------



## joen_cph

Crudblud said:


> I find Ligeti pretty boring most of the time, though I do like his _Metamorphoses Nocturnes_. Schnittke at his worst can be very dull, but when he's on form he's often brilliant.
> 
> Composers I can't get in to at all: Brahms, Mendelssohn, Vivaldi, Händel, Josquin, *Norgard*, Lutoslawski, Copland, Rossini, Glass, Reich, Gounod, Delius, Vaughan Williams, Boulez, Ferneyhough, Rachmaninoff.


If anyone has an interest, Nørgård´s "_I Ching_" for percussion is an example of a quite refreshing and clearly structured work of his 



There´s an orchestral version too ("Concerto, For a Change"), which Mortensen has also recorded.

The _1st Symphony_ 



 should be of interest for those liking late Sibelius ("Tapiola"), for instance, and draws on the Northern tradition.


----------



## Cosmos

Mozart. Blasphemy, I know, but I just can't bring myself to like Mozart. Some of his pieces are nice, but I never feel that I want to keep listening, I never want to look for more. He just doesn't do it for me.


----------



## Cheyenne

Chopin. Sorry, I suppose.


----------



## Jobis

I'm not particularly fond of Shostakovich, but I think I just need to look more into his work.


----------



## trazom

Dvorak. Each time I hear a piece on the radio that I can't stand, it's usually by him. The first time, it was his set of Slavonic dances. Recently, it was his serenade in e major. I just remember the same violin melody being played over and over at different registers.


----------



## Bix

DrMike said:


> For whatever reason, I simply can't get into Wagner's music. I keep trying, but it just doesn't do anything for me. Liszt is almost in that same camp.


I'm finding Wagner difficult to get into - I'm going to look at him over the next few months, but I may flail after a day or two - where to start.

Love Liszt though.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

I can appreciate pretty much all of the great composers but I find it more difficult to get into the later romantic/modern music. I've heard some Bruckner for example, and actually liked it, but the sheer size of it requires a monumental amount of listening time, which I can't seem to find. I generally find baroque/classical music easier to get into because I generally like fast-paced, 'shifting' music.


----------



## neoshredder

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I can appreciate pretty much all of the great composers but I find it more difficult to get into the later romantic/modern music. I've heard some Bruckner for example, and actually liked it, but the sheer size of it requires a monumental amount of listening time, which I can't seem to find. I generally find baroque/classical music easier to get into because I generally like fast-paced, 'shifting' music.


Great post. Exactly how I feel.


----------



## poptart

Can't get the hang of Mahler at all. And Haydn is just a dull version of Mozart.

But my real pet hate is Ludovico Einaudi. I've heard more interesting nursery rhymes.


----------



## nightscape

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I can appreciate pretty much all of the great composers but I find it more difficult to get into the later romantic/modern music. I've heard some Bruckner for example, and actually liked it, but the sheer size of it requires a monumental amount of listening time, which I can't seem to find. I generally find baroque/classical music easier to get into because I generally like fast-paced, 'shifting' music.


Bruckner is one of the most polarizing composers for that very reason. He's not overtly melodic with tunes you can whistle and hang your coat on, and his works are very dense and long, requiring a lot of concentration to fully appreciate him. It seems you either love him or hate him with very few people just "liking" him.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

nightscape said:


> Bruckner is one of the most polarizing composers for that very reason. He's not overtly melodic with tunes you can whistle and hang your coat on, and his works are very dense and long, requiring a lot of concentration to fully appreciate him. It seems you either love him or hate him with very few people just "liking" him.


Well, I would say I'm impressed by what I hear, it's just that I usually only have 20 mins. or so at a time to listen to something - but I definitely want to explore Bruckner further.


----------



## starry

poptart said:


> But my real pet hate is Ludovico Einaudi. I've heard more interesting nursery rhymes.


Most of the time I've heard his music it's sounded like _bad_ new age music rather than classical. So I think he gives a bad name to both classical and new age.


----------



## DeepR

starry said:


> Most of the time I've heard his music it's sounded like _bad_ new age music rather than classical. So I think he gives a bad name to both classical and new age.


Agree. It's so incredibly dull and unimaginative. I don't understand why he is so popular. My best guess is that his fans just haven't really listened to any classical or romantic piano music, at all... so they actually think Einaudi is good piano music.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

The nearest for me would be Handel.

I say nearest because my exposure is limited so I would not call it an informed choice, likewise I would say it is more a lack of interest than actual dislike.

I do plan on giving Handel a try again down the line, but not in the immediate future.


----------



## brotagonist

There is no composer whose oeuvre I categorically 'hate'. I have albums by all of these composers, but they are not the major ones in my collection:

Tchaikovsky is rather effusive, although I do like the symphonies & violin concerto
Rachmaninov can be excessively effusive (of the 4 piano concertos and rhapsody, I like the latter the most)
Liszt never really grabbed me, but I'm not writing him off
Chopin is about the same, but I think I might be ready to be more receptive
I am not as wild about Vivaldi as others are; he's just not JS Bach 
Stockhausen can be great! but there is a fair bit that is simply too kooky
Stravinsky is ok, but I think he's over-rated, particularly his exhausted ballets
I am somewhat lukewarm to Dvorak, but I haven't heard enough
I probably could say the same about Schumann, but I haven't heard enough
Opera is not a great interest


----------



## poptart

DeepR said:


> Agree. It's so incredibly dull and unimaginative. I don't understand why he is so popular. My best guess is that his fans just haven't really listened to any classical or romantic piano music, at all... so they actually think Einaudi is good piano music.


It's classical elevator music. Shockingly banal.


----------



## Jobis

brotagonist said:


> There is no composer whose oeuvre I categorically 'hate'. I have albums by all of these composers, but they are not the major ones in my collection:
> 
> Tchaikovsky is rather effusive, although I do like the symphonies & violin concerto
> Rachmaninov can be excessively effusive (of the 4 piano concertos and rhapsody, I like the latter the most)
> Liszt never really grabbed me, but I'm not writing him off
> Chopin is about the same, but I think I might be ready to be more receptive
> I am not as wild about Vivaldi as others are; he's just not JS Bach
> Stockhausen can be great! but there is a fair bit that is simply too kooky
> Stravinsky is ok, but I think he's over-rated, particularly his exhausted ballets
> I am somewhat lukewarm to Dvorak, but I haven't heard enough
> I probably could say the same about Schumann, but I haven't heard enough
> Opera is not a great interest


Stravinsky's music goes much further than his ballets, check out his opera Oedipus Rex, his symphony for wind instruments, symphony of psalms and the canticum sacrum. All tremendous masterpieces, but tragically overlooked.


----------



## brotagonist

Jobis said:


> symphony for wind instruments, symphony of psalms


I want to reacquire these!



Jobis said:


> All tremendous masterpieces, but tragically overlooked.


Not overlooked by me


----------



## starry

DeepR said:


> Agree. It's so incredibly dull and unimaginative. I don't understand why he is so popular. My best guess is that his fans just haven't really listened to any classical or romantic piano music, at all... so they actually think Einaudi is good piano music.


Some people now just like to wallow in a mood, but I don't think that's proper engagement.


----------



## jim prideaux

just noticed the existence of this thread-on all others I have generally spent time extolling virtues of composers I enjoy so in an indulgent attempt to balance this there are three significant figures I still cannot really enjoy-no matter that there may be individual works that I can appreciate-Elgar, Tchaikovsky and Wagner.


----------



## TrevBus

Not too fond of Chopin or Elliot Carter. However, w/Carter I kind could probably like some(1st Symphony, Cello Concerto)but, sorry, not Chopin.


----------



## Op.123

I have quite a few...

Wagner 
Verdi
Puccini
Mahler
Richard Strauss
Stravinsky
Shostakovich
Bartok
Rossini
Webern
Bruckner
Liszt


----------



## neoshredder

TrevBus said:


> Not too fond of Chopin or Elliot Carter. However, w/Carter I kind could probably like some(1st Symphony, Cello Concerto)but, sorry, not Chopin.


Elliot Carter is one of the greats? I guess the term great is used rather loosely in this thread.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> Elliot Carter is one of the greats? I guess the term great is used rather loosely in this thread.


Yes, in fact, the term great is used "rather loosely" by nearly all the experts in the classical music field who have spent years studying Carter's music.


----------



## Crudblud

neoshredder said:


> Elliot Carter is one of the greats? I guess the term great is used rather loosely in this thread.


He is considered by many to be one of the greats of our time, certainly.


----------



## Garlic

If Chopin counts as a great then Carter definitely is.


----------



## poptart

Burroughs said:


> I have quite a few...
> 
> Wagner
> Verdi
> Puccini
> Mahler
> Richard Strauss
> Stravinsky
> Shostakovich
> Bartok
> Rossini
> Webern
> Bruckner
> Liszt


You'd be quicker saying which ones you like.


----------



## neoshredder

Garlic said:


> If Chopin counts as a great then Carter definitely is.


Chopin is widely more recognized as one of the greats. Carter is only known in the Modernist group. Hardly a common choice among the general Classical Community.


----------



## Garlic

I know. I'd still rather listen to Carter.


----------



## neoshredder

Garlic said:


> I know. I'd still rather listen to Carter.


I'd rather listen to Chopin.


----------



## DeepR

Can there really be a "plain dislike"? I think in most cases people just haven't listened enough to a composer's music. Even among Chopin's output there should be enough variation for almost any music lover to find at least one piece that they do like...


----------



## Garlic

The last movement of the 2nd piano sonata is awesome. Did he do anything else like that?


----------



## Borodin

Tapkaara said:


> Tchaikovsky - Really a hit and miss composer. I like a lot of his stuff, but can't stand a lot of it either. Over-rated as a symphonist, in my opinion.


When you said "hit-and-miss," Sibelius came to mind right away for some reason.


----------



## tdc

neoshredder said:


> Elliot Carter is one of the greats? I guess the term great is used rather loosely in this thread.


I think Carter was most certainly a great composer and I don't feel I'm using the term loosely at all when I say that.

He studied with great teachers, received numerous awards for his music, and his compositions are known and performed throughout the world. I hear his music frequently on my local Classical music station. His music is highly innovative, and very well constructed. He was clearly a great composer.


----------



## Garlic

tdc said:


> I hear his music frequently on my local Classical music station.


Lucky *******, where do you live?


----------



## Ondine

At the moment, Shumann. I just can't connect with his music. Don't know why.

Romantics of that generation do not resonate with me at all, with the exception of Chopin. 

I feel more acquainted with 'post romanticism' and beyond.

But anyway, nothing is absolute so this can change at any moment.


----------



## tdc

Garlic said:


> Lucky *******, where do you live?


Here in Canada there are 2 radio stations I know of that play a pretty decent selection of Classical music from old to new one is CBC radio2 and the other is CKUA.


----------



## neoshredder

Garlic said:


> Lucky *******, where do you live?


Most of the country is lucky getting a big dose of Baroque, Classical, and Romantic Era Composers.


----------



## musicphotogAnimal

Wagner - one word "leitmotifs"

‘Tannhäuser’ is a music one must hear several times. I am not going again.
— Gioacchino Rossini

‘Parsifal’ is the kind of opera that starts at six o’clock. After it has been going three hours, you look at your watch and it says 6.20.
— David Randolph

Wagner used to read the libretti of his operas to his friends; I am glad I was not there.
— Ralph Vaughan Williams


----------



## Feathers

Burroughs said:


> I have quite a few...
> 
> Wagner
> Verdi
> Puccini
> Mahler
> Richard Strauss
> Stravinsky
> Shostakovich
> Bartok
> Rossini
> Webern
> Bruckner
> Liszt


I thought you liked Liszt


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Burroughs said:


> I have quite a few...
> 
> Wagner
> Verdi
> Puccini
> Mahler
> Richard Strauss
> Stravinsky
> Shostakovich
> Bartok
> Rossini
> Webern
> Bruckner
> Liszt


I would describe the majority of those composers as "loud-mouthed," and not just the operatic composers.


----------



## Forte

I don't really like most of the Romantic operatic composers, Wagner, Verdi, Rossini included. Not sure why, just a matter of preference. Tchaikovsky is too spontaneously bombastic at times, if you understand what I mean - he sometimes makes too much out of something that really isn't all that sublime and celebrates it like a war was just won.

Oh yeah, and Schumann doesn't really do justice for me either, I can't explain what it is.

But I welcome disagreement and always am prone to changing my mind about composers.


----------



## jim prideaux

just looked through recent posts-reassuring to see Tchaikovsky mentioned as a composer that people have reservations about-I personally just do not 'get it'-although must admit to enjoying Rococco variations on the Karajan/Rostropovich recording of the Dvorak cello concerto


----------



## Blancrocher

Ondine said:


> At the moment, Shumann. I just can't connect with his music. Don't know why.
> 
> Romantics of that generation do not resonate with me at all, with the exception of Chopin.
> 
> I feel more acquainted with 'post romanticism' and beyond.
> 
> But anyway, nothing is absolute so this can change at any moment.


I'm often of two minds about Schumann (as was Schumann!), but I find a lot of his piano music extraordinary and sometimes deeply moving. Incidentally, I've heard some wonderful concerts where Schumann was played alongside modern atonal greats. Making a playlist with the Waldszenen and Schoenberg's piano music may be a way to get into this composer.


----------



## spradlig

I recommend Schoenberg's "Verklarte Nacht" if you haven't already heard it. It is in the late Romantic style. I prefer the original version for string sextet but there is an arrangement for string orchestra that I think Schoenberg made himself.


----------



## isridgewell

I don't really warm to Arnold Bax.

I must explain this next statement as it is almost sacrilege!! I find SOME of Bach's compositions a bit tedious, especially the quiet organ works that organists like to use as "time fillers" at the beginning of services! As I say it is only some of his works.


----------



## Joris

I don't really get Verdi. Any tips that will change my mind?


----------



## violadude

Joris said:


> I don't really get Verdi. Any tips that will change my mind?


Do you like opera? /////////////////


----------



## mstar

Seeing hardly any likes on this thread.... Not surprised, though, since the subject is basically saying what you don't like....  

That doesn't stop me from posting, though!! :tiphat: 

1. I would rarely enjoy playing a Mozart piano sonata more than a Beethoven sonata. 
2. Opera's great.... It's just not my favorite, though. I'm not exactly an expert on all operas is what I'm saying.  
3. I can't stand much of Rimsky-Korsakov (of course, excluding his symphonic suite Scheherazade), especially Antar. 
4. I once heard it said that Bach's piano works were more "experimental" than anything.... True or not, that's what it sounds like to me most of the time. Perhaps I haven't heard enough? 

Just personal opinion! Plus, I have a tendency to try to like the things that I do not, so I'll probably have reason to change this list in a while (I suppose I won't edit, though.)


----------



## Weston

Necroposting a bit to add Paul Dukas to my list of composers I'm supposed to enjoy, but don't.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice is too over exposed for me to enjoy. Last week I had his Symphony in C on my iPod and found it dull, dull, dull through and through. A few other works I see listed in my catalog are completely forgettable. About the only pieces I can stand are the Fanfare from La Peri and the big piano sonata in something or other minor. I'm not sure why I just can't connect with his music.


----------



## EricABQ

Looking back at my one post in this thread I'm embarrassed that I mentioned Scriabin because I'm quite fond of his music now.


----------



## Rackon

DeepR said:


> Can there really be a "plain dislike"? I think in most cases people just haven't listened enough to a composer's music. Even among Chopin's output there should be enough variation for almost any music lover to find at least one piece that they do like...


I've listened to a lot of Bruckner, I've sung the Te Deum, and I still don't care for this composer's work. I've tried but life is just too short.

Chopin, OTOH, I could not live without.

In fact, I like, respect and or enjoy at least one or more works by almost all the composers listed as "not liked" in this thread..


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Not a "great" composer by any means, but Respighi does nothing for me.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Probably to my eternal shame - Brahms. All that complexity and (I gather) self-critical revision; the music goes round and round, and nothing emerges that seems to me intelligible at all...bah!

(I think Webern and Schoenberg wrote better 'Brahmsian' works than Brahms did).

However - I would have to confess some fondness for:

the Piano Quintet in F minor, Op. 34 which I heard live last year
the Piano Pieces Op 119

so maybe there's hope for me and Brahms yet!


----------



## badRomance

I don't understand Chopin at all. Listening to his piano pieces literally turns my stomach. I get a similar feeling when I listen to certain instrumental jazz music such as the Blues.

I don't like Brahms at all except for his vocal works.

For a long time I did not like Liszt until I started watching visualizations on youtube. Now I enjoy his works but so far I prefer his transcriptions of other composers (his Beethoven symphony transcriptions are absolutely addictive) over his own compositions some of which strike me as tiresome virtuosity.


----------



## Ingélou

I don't like Benjamin Britten - except when he arranges other people's music. But his own work always just seems a bit lumbering, a bit laborious. I'm not saying it *is*, mind you; I expect it's just me!


----------



## Winterreisender

Ingélou said:


> I don't like Benjamin Britten - except when he arranges other people's music. But his own work always just seems a bit lumbering, a bit laborious. I'm not saying it *is*, mind you; I expect it's just me!


To an extent I would agree, but I would also defend Britten's more playful character with works such as the Simple Symphony and Frank Bridge Variations which I do not find laborious at all.


----------



## trazom

Something about the title of this thread is annoying. Maybe it's been bumped too many times, or the way it's written, or both. idk


----------



## Vesteralen

My plane just don't like Blitzstein ("Airborne" Symphony).



My plane likes all the "great" composers.


----------



## Ingélou

Winterreisender said:


> To an extent I would agree, but I would also defend Britten's more playful character with works such as the Simple Symphony and Frank Bridge Variations which I do not find laborious at all.


Oh dear, I don't know how to say this  - but it's *precisely* the _Simple Symphony_ that I was thinking of when I said 'laborious' - as in *trying too hard* to make a joke!
I know you're going to hate me now!


----------



## elgar's ghost

Ingélou said:


> Oh dear, I don't know how to say this  - but it's *precisely* the _Simple Symphony_ that I was thinking of when I said 'laborious' - as in *trying too hard* to make a joke!
> I know you're going to hate me now!


I think the humour was quite flippant for BB standards - the impetuosity of youth, I suppose. I can see where you're coming from but I think the Simple Symphony (along with the opera Albert Herring and some of his art songs and folk-songs arrangements) makes an interesting and agreeable contrast with the seriousness of much of his later output.


----------



## jim prideaux

Ingélou said:


> I don't like Benjamin Britten - except when he arranges other people's music. But his own work always just seems a bit lumbering, a bit laborious. I'm not saying it *is*, mind you; I expect it's just me!


and me......tried.......but no!


----------



## DeepR

EricABQ said:


> Looking back at my one post in this thread I'm embarrassed that I mentioned Scriabin because I'm quite fond of his music now.


"Quite fond" is just the first stage.


----------



## Celloissimo

I find a lot of Baroque music to be excruciatingly boring. Even the holy Bach can get on my nerves sometimes, but it's mostly guys like Vivaldi and Handel who I'm calling out here. It all sounds so cookie-cutter and uninspired.


----------



## senza sordino

Never understood Bruckner and Liszt. And I don't usually listen to Baroque, in fact, I usually listen only to music written by Beethoven and after, so even Mozart and Haydn aren't interesting enough for me.


----------



## Celloissimo

senza sordino said:


> Never understood Bruckner and Liszt. And I don't usually listen to Baroque, in fact, I usually listen only to music written by Beethoven and after, so even Mozart and Haydn aren't interesting enough for me.


Yeah, I've never gotten into Liszt either. The music sounds really shallow and banal, especially the few orchestral works he wrote like the Faust Symphony. Mozart was a genius but his catalogue can often sound very cookie-cutter: I'm more into his operas anyway.


----------



## Crassus

I was never able to enjoy most of Vivaldi works.


----------



## neoshredder

Crassus said:


> I was never able to enjoy most of Vivaldi works.


I'll save all the enjoyment for Vivaldi for myself then. You can have Mahler though.


----------



## GioCar

Rachmaninov. Just can't stand him.


----------



## DeepR

GioCar said:


> Rachmaninov. Just can't stand him.


My first question would be: have you listened to his music beyond the piano concertos?


----------



## GioCar

Possibly I'm quite out of fashion, particurarly in these years of "Rachmaninov Renaissance", but I find him quite overrated and boring. I'm thinking of his piano concertos and symphonies. If you know anything else from him that can help change my mind...


----------



## Aramis

GioCar said:


> If you know anything else from him that can help change my mind...


Try his piano trios and perhaps operas, the latter if you like the genre.


----------



## ccravens

Peter Maxwell Davies.

There, I said it.


----------



## DeepR

GioCar said:


> Possibly I'm quite out of fashion, particurarly in these years of "Rachmaninov Renaissance", but I find him quite overrated and boring. I'm thinking of his piano concertos and symphonies. If you know anything else from him that can help change my mind...


solo piano music (preludes, etudes, moments musicaux etc.), sacred choral works, other orchestral music (the isle of the dead, symphonic dances among others)


----------



## Weston

I too sometimes find Rachmaninov a little too Lush-Syrupy-Theme-from-a-Daytime-Soap-Opera-ish. But then sometimes I'm in the mood for just that, and Isle of the Dead is definitely in a different realm.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

The world would have nothing much musicwise without the three Bs a couple of H's an M and the odd V once cited as writing the same concerto 500 times ;-)


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

actually agreed


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Nicholas Maw ... in his instance Maw's less ;-)


----------



## EDaddy

Ives... Can't stand his music! Would rather hear claws on a chalkboard.


----------



## Blake

I love them all, man. Even the ones I don't like... I love them for giving me perspective.


----------



## Flamme

Ilych said:


> Funny you bring up Wagner. I went through a major phase where I adored just about all of his operas, particularly the Ring. Now I find so much of his music just plain overblown. I don't dislike him, but my youthful ardor has cooled somewhat! I still like Wagner more than Mark Twain who once quipped that Wagner's music "isn't as bad as it sounds."


Same here, i dont deny his genius but something in his m usic i dont know is not so close to me...Maybe too aggressive approach at times


----------



## scratchgolf

I've just spent the last 20 minutes reading through the the last 10 or 11 pages. Wanted get a pulse for the topic. I've seen Bach mentioned a few times and I have a few thoughts on that. The general consensus seems to be that he's the greatest composer in history, usually followed by an interchangeable Mozart and Beethoven. In many ways this seems similar to other popular greats in respective fields. Jordan in Basketball, Ruth in baseball, or the Beatles in popular music. Almost to the point where one feels forced to choose them as their default #1 (and at times make mention that they aren't their favorites but they respect their greatness). 

From another perspective, if Bach was the inventor of the wheel, and Beethoven the inventor of the automobile, who gets more credit? Perhaps that's a large jump but maybe the first airplane vs the stealth fighter. Certain one must exist to have the other. I like Bach but don't love him. I certainly love some of his works. I definitely love interpretations and arrangements of many of his works. I feel that Beethoven's advancement of, and in my opinion, the perfection of the symphony is the greatest accomplishment in musical history. I just find it difficult to truly rate their music against each other. It just seems many experts default to the older accomplishments and many others purposely don't in attempt to go against the norms. 

One last note. I remember reading a site that had members rank Beethoven's symphonies. Out of about 30 entries, only 3 or 4 had the 9th ranked 1st. The majority had a combination of the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th as their top 5s. A few even ranked the 9th dead last. While I don't see how this is humanly possible, I won't discredit anyones opinion. Still, I would wager if you polled those 30 people privately and released the answers without names, the 9th would rank 1st. Perhaps people who didn't list it 1st would still rank it first. If I've just contradicted myself, it wasn't the first time and certainly won't be the last. Just know I do everything with the best of intentions.


----------



## dgee

Verdi. What is it and why? The closest I can come to understanding the naive tunes and incessant oompah accompaniment is that it's almost "folk art". 

A non-musical friend of mine summed Verdi up nicely after a first and last trip to the opera: he was bothered by the dislocation between the action and the music "It was a tragic scene but the music was bouncy and happy." Not sure which opera he was referring to - I can't tell them apart, maybe Aida?


----------



## Weston

scratchgolf said:


> I've just spent the last 20 minutes reading through the the last 10 or 11 pages. Wanted get a pulse for the topic. I've seen Bach mentioned a few times and I have a few thoughts on that. The general consensus seems to be that he's the greatest composer in history, usually followed by an interchangeable Mozart and Beethoven. In many ways this seems similar to other popular greats in respective fields. Jordan in Basketball, Ruth in baseball, or the Beatles in popular music. Almost to the point where one feels forced to choose them as their default #1 (and at times make mention that they aren't their favorites but they respect their greatness).
> 
> From another perspective, if Bach was the inventor of the wheel, and Beethoven the inventor of the automobile, who gets more credit? Perhaps that's a large jump but maybe the first airplane vs the stealth fighter. Certain one must exist to have the other. I like Bach but don't love him. I certainly love some of his works. I definitely love interpretations and arrangements of many of his works. I feel that Beethoven's advancement of, and in my opinion, the perfection of the symphony is the greatest accomplishment in musical history. I just find it difficult to truly rate their music against each other. It just seems many experts default to the older accomplishments and many others purposely don't in attempt to go against the norms.
> 
> One last note. I remember reading a site that had members rank Beethoven's symphonies. Out of about 30 entries, only 3 or 4 had the 9th ranked 1st. The majority had a combination of the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th as their top 5s. A few even ranked the 9th dead last. While I don't see how this is humanly possible, I won't discredit anyones opinion. Still, I would wager if you polled those 30 people privately and released the answers without names, the 9th would rank 1st. Perhaps people who didn't list it 1st would still rank it first. If I've just contradicted myself, it wasn't the first time and certainly won't be the last. Just know I do everything with the best of intentions.


Interesting thoughts here. I think I'm in the same place as you regarding Beethoven compared to Bach. For me Beethoven's contribution was the greater overall. However I'm not sure it is true that people _always_ hold Bach in the greatest esteem or admire him because he invented the airplane so to speak, but rather because he refined all that had come before him into this astonishing pile of definitive, nearly flawless baroque works -- like M. C. Escher drawings set to music. He is the summation of his time, the climax and final chapter. He did not pave the way to Beethoven. Haydn did that, in my opinion.


----------



## scratchgolf

Very well put. I've read that Beethoven was more influenced by Bach than were Mozart or Haydn, and that Haydn was rather unfamiliar with Bach, but also that Beethoven was highly influenced by Haydn. I think Babe Ruth might be a better comparison for Bach as he wasn't the first great but the... (I'll stick with your description). Beethoven would be a Hank Aaron or Willie Mays. Great in different ways and possibly greater, yet of little importance beyond personal tastes. Still, nearly impossible to unseat from the pedestal. Prior to joining this site I was surfing many different discussions and polls on greatest composers, symphonies, etc.. Lists from numerous sources and I believe Bach topped them all. I've seen many comments like, "My favorite is Mozart but Bach was the greatest." From my short time here though I'm getting amazing new perspectives and hearing new intriguing names to research.


----------



## Guest

scratchgolf said:


> I feel that Beethoven's advancement of, and in my opinion, the perfection of the symphony is the greatest accomplishment in musical history.


Strong claim. I'm not sure that Beethoven perfected anything. I don't think that any composer can lay claim to that, except possibly J S Bach in the area of fugal writing. In any case there are no absolute standards by which to measure these things, so it is only a matter of personal opinion.

Beethoven added length and a bit of drama, if you like that sort of thing, to some of his symphonies. But after a while they can begin to sound slight bit tedious, and all you want to do is give them a rest and try similar works by other composers like Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Sibelius, Shostakovich etc. Each of these added their own distinguishing touches, and you might finish up preferring some of their symphonies.

You haven't said how long you've been listening to classical music for, but if you are fairly new it's possible that in a few years time you could be sick to death of Beethoven, his symphonies and all. It happens, just look around this site. You may even go off symphonies in general. At any rate, in comparison with the symphonies of Beethoven I now generally prefer the late symphonies of Mozart and Schubert, even though there was a time when I too was a Beethoven devotee and thought his status was invincible across many genres. I still rate Beethoven very highly but there are others I like more or less equally.


----------



## Flamme

I came to a conclusion i dont have any composer i dont like or a composer i like in particular...Some of them made great works in a jigsaw puzzle called classical music, and all of them have boring or too complicated works...Also it depends on my mood what suits me in a moment


----------



## scratchgolf

Thanks for your insight. Perfect is a strong word but my love of Beethoven is equally strong. I'll shift to favorite though and his symphonies are certainly my favorite works. I also love certain symphonies of Schubert, Mozart, Haydn, and Schumann. I'm currently experimenting with Mahler, Sibelius, and Bruckner, due to such high recommendations here. Besides Rap, Country Music, and senseless noise, I'm open-minded to all music.


----------



## Guest

scratchgolf said:


> Thanks for your insight. Perfect is a strong word but my love of Beethoven is equally strong. I'll shift to favorite though and his symphonies are certainly my favorite works. I also love certain symphonies of Schubert, Mozart, Haydn, and Schumann. I'm currently experimenting with Mahler, Sibelius, and Bruckner, due to such high recommendations here. Besides Rap, Country Music, and senseless noise, I'm open-minded to all music.


You don't mention the symphonies of Mendelssohn and Brahms. For Mendelssohn the ones to get are Nos 2, 3, 4. For Brahms, all 4 are important. Since you very much like Beethoven's symphonies, the most obvious follow-up would be those by Brahms. Some of these contain some spine-tingling music, just like Beethoven's.


----------



## Guest

To answer the original question: No. Because if I don't like them, they can't possibly be great.


----------



## starthrower

Like, the word like is so popular, dude!


----------



## scratchgolf

Partita said:


> You don't mention the symphonies of Mendelssohn and Brahms. For Mendelssohn the ones to get are Nos 2, 3, 4. For Brahms, all 4 are important. Since you very much like Beethoven's symphonies, the most obvious follow-up would be those by Brahms. Some of these contain some spine-tingling music, just like Beethoven's.


I own both. I'm slowly working my way around the spectrum  but I always appreciate recommendations. I've listened to Brahms quite a bit. Mendelssohn is being very patient with me.


----------



## BillT

Ilych said:


> I was wondering if anyone else has a virulent dislike to one of the acknowledged geniuses of Classical composition?


Plenty. But I ain't dead yet. I have experienced several times that some composer I did not like suddenly and unexpectedly came into my heart. I'm hoping it happens again. And again. And again. I try to give them a chance, once in a while.

- Bill


----------



## SarahO

IMHO, Leonard Bernstein was a great composer of Broadway musicals. His symphonic works ....I just don't care for.


----------



## Copperears

I just never got into Webern, or Alban Berg. Wozzeck, why?


----------



## Mahlerian

Copperears said:


> I just never got into Webern, or Alban Berg. Wozzeck, why?


Well, what do you dislike about it? If it's that the melodies don't appeal to you, that's fine, but if you hear no melodies/themes at all, then it's because you're not used to the style.


----------



## aleazk

Most late romantic composers. I really fail to connect with that music.


----------



## GiulioCesare

SarahO said:


> IMHO, Leonard Bernstein was a great composer of Broadway musicals. His symphonic works ....I just don't care for.


This a pretty widely held opinion.


----------



## science

I think "Candide" is genuine good fun and the "Age of Anxiety" symphony might deserve more respect.


----------



## neoshredder

aleazk said:


> Most late romantic composers. I really fail to connect with that music.


Replace late romantic with late modern and you got my answer.


----------



## Blake

The one style I've had trouble with is the 12-tone "atonal" music. I really do not understand it.


----------



## Mahlerian

Vesuvius said:


> The one style I've had trouble with is the 12-tone "atonal" music. I really do not understand it.


You're talking about multiple styles here. There is 12-tone music, a specific method of composing, and there are many things that have been called atonal over the years, though none of them are any less related to tonal centricity than any other music that avoids functional tonality (which began with the Baroque era).

It's just like any other music, really. You follow themes and they change over time, interacting with other themes. The absence of V7-I progressions may make it seem like the markers you're accustomed to are missing, but once you understand a composer's style, it makes sense like anything else.

In fact, nothing has ever convinced me that the casual listener can tell the difference between non-12 tone chromatic music and 12-tone music. I constantly see things that are unquestionably tonal referred to as atonal, in preference to works that are less securely anchored in functional relations.

If all of this sounds like technical jargon, don't worry about it. It's music, not theory, that matters.


----------



## Blake

Mahlerian said:


> You're talking about multiple styles here. There is 12-tone music, a specific method of composing, and there are many things that have been called atonal over the years, though none of them are any less related to tonal centricity than any other music that avoids functional tonality (which began with the Baroque era).
> 
> It's just like any other music, really. You follow themes and they change over time, interacting with other themes. The absence of V7-I progressions may make it seem like the markers you're accustomed to are missing, but once you understand a composer's style, it makes sense like anything else.
> 
> In fact, nothing has ever convinced me that the casual listener can tell the difference between non-12 tone chromatic music and 12-tone music. In fact, I constantly see things that are unquestionably tonal referred to as atonal, in preference to works that are less securely anchored in functional relations.
> 
> If all of this sounds like technical jargon, don't worry about it. It's music, not theory, that matters.


Haha, for sure. I was talking about the music that doesn't follow your regular key and mode format. It places all tones on a more equal level.... I heard it called "hyper-tonal" as well. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, although my description is pretty elementary.

By the way, I'm not trying to degrade it's status. I'm simply saying that I've never understood it.


----------



## Mahlerian

Vesuvius said:


> Haha, for sure. I was talking about the music that doesn't follow your regular key and mode format. It places all tones on a more equal level.... I heard it called "hyper-tonal" as well. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, although my description is pretty elementary.


Pieces like this also put all of the tones on an equal level, and it's not in any "key".





While this is in B minor, albeit a very chromatic B minor.





The problem is that the term is incoherent, and usually is used simply to disparage music that a given person dislikes. The word atonal was invented by critics. Composers usually avoid using the term atonal (unless they mean it as a criticism of someone else).


----------



## KenOC

Schoenberg was wrong, of course, misled by his idealistic tonal egalitarianism. As we know from direct experience, all tones are *not* equal -- that's like saying that all flavors of ice cream are equal. In fact, some tones are simply better than others.

Take E-flat for instance. Now *there's* a tone to reckon with! Few would deny its nobility and authority. Compare that with F-sharp, a morose and unfriendly tone. If all the F-sharps were banished from music, would anybody notice or care? Of course pieces written in that key would suffer, but if even those pieces were entirely gone, would our lives sputter to a halt? I think not! And in those rare cases where an F-sharp seems really necessary, we can easily substitute a G-flat, a much more amiable tone kept in reserve for just such situations.

So, with respect to the tones -- all twelve or more of them (if you're Harry Partch) -- Vive la différence!


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> If all the F sharps were banished from music, would anybody notice or care? Of course pieces written in that key would suffer, but if even those pieces were entirely gone, would our lives sputter to a halt? I think not!


But...but...F-sharp is the note I remember by Beethoven's Ode to Joy! Goodbye, my friend.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> But...but...F-sharp is the note I remember by Beethoven's Ode to Joy! Goodbye, my friend.


The solution is provided in my post that you quoted from...happily.


----------



## mmsbls

Mahlerian said:


> The problem is that the term is incoherent, and usually is used simply to disparage music that a given person dislikes. The word atonal was invented by critics. Composers usually avoid using the term atonal (unless they mean it as a criticism of someone else).


When I first came to TC, I did not really know the term, "atonal". From reading posts here and definitions online I thought I knew what it meant, but after reading more posts such as yours, some guy's, and probably others, I came to understand that the term has such a specific meaning that it probably is not useful in any discussion I wish to have.

But then there remains the music that I thought atonal referred to. For people like me who have relatively little music theory and used to have relatively little listening experience with modern music, there is occasion to ask questions about certain music, for example Berg's Violin Concerto, Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire, Ligeti's Lux Aeterna, Crumb's Black Angels, Xenakis's Pithoprakta, and others. They _seem_ to sound the same to many people. The question is, "Is there a term that _is_ useful to discuss music such as those?" I might use highly chromatic, but I'm not sure if that's really proper. Obviously someone can name a variety of music and ask about those works, but that's a pain to repeat over and over. The terms "20th century" and "modern" don't work because they include works that sound distinctly different such as Barber's Violin Concerto, Glass's Violin Concerto, and many others.

In other words, for all the threads where people discuss "atonal" music, is there a different word that would make sense? I know no word would be perfect because people really are referring to a range of music, but maybe there is something relatively short that is vastly superior to atonal.


----------



## Garlic

Is there really a need to talk about "atonal" music as a whole? The works you mention cover a huge range stylistically, I don't see what's useful in lumping them all together as "atonal". The word "atonal" just seems to be a handy way for people to dismiss a whole load of music without much thought.


----------



## Blake

Mahlerian said:


> Pieces like this also put all of the tones on an equal level, and it's not in any "key".
> 
> While this is in B minor, albeit a very chromatic B minor.
> 
> The problem is that the term is incoherent, and usually is used simply to disparage music that a given person dislikes. The word atonal was invented by critics. Composers usually avoid using the term atonal (unless they mean it as a criticism of someone else).


Well, thanks for the info. I'm not trying to disparage any style. I thought "atonal" was a simple term used to describe music in the vein of Shoenberg, Webern, etc...


----------



## Mahlerian

mmsbls said:


> In other words, for all the threads where people discuss "atonal" music, is there a different word that would make sense? I know no word would be perfect because people really are referring to a range of music, but maybe there is something relatively short that is vastly superior to atonal.


Non-tonal would be fine if people used the word tonal to refer only to common practice tonality, but they don't. Post-tonal is probably better. The more exact and cumbersome phrase that describes it best is non-functional chromatic, to distinguish it from functional chromatic (late Wagner, Wolf, etc.) and non-functional diatonic/modal (in this case indicating any subset of fewer than 12 notes) (Neoclassical Stravinsky, Debussy, Messiaen), but I don't see that catching on.



Vesuvius said:


> By the way, I'm not trying to degrade it's status. I'm simply saying that I've never understood it.


I know, and I'm not offended or anything, but the way the term is often used, it opens the door for nonsensical criticisms based on nothing more than the term itself. Any criticism of music should be directed at the music itself.


----------



## Blake

Mahlerian said:


> Non-tonal would be fine if people used the word tonal to refer only to common practice tonality, but they don't. Post-tonal is probably better. The more exact and cumbersome phrase that describes it best is non-functional chromatic, to distinguish it from functional chromatic (late Wagner, Wolf, etc.) and non-functional diatonic/modal (in this case indicating any subset of fewer than 12 notes) (Neoclassical Stravinsky, Debussy, Messiaen), but I don't see that catching on.
> 
> I know, and I'm not offended or anything, but the way the term is often used, it opens the door for nonsensical criticisms based on nothing more than the term itself. Any criticism of music should be directed at the music itself.


Does the term "serialism" have any value to that style? The artists I'm referring to also have been put in this category. Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, Alban Berg, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez, Luigi Nono and Jean Barraqué.....


----------



## Mahlerian

Vesuvius said:


> Does the term "serialism" have any value to that style? The artists I'm referring to also have been put in this category. Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, Alban Berg, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez, Luigi Nono and Jean Barraqué.....


Yes, but not to all of their works. Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra are 12-tone (and thus serial), but not Pierrot Lunaire or the Chamber Symphony. Berg's Lulu is 12-tone, but not the Piano Sonata or Wozzeck. Boulez's _Le marteau sans maitre_ is serial (after a fashion), but not 12-tone.

None of Eliott Carter's works, for example, are serial, though some people think they are in a similar style. Olivier Messiaen's music, sometimes associated with Boulez's or Nono's, is not serial either, though in some cases it's influenced by serial techniques.


----------



## Blake

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but not to all of their works. Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra are 12-tone (and thus serial), but not Pierrot Lunaire or the Chamber Symphony. Berg's Lulu is 12-tone, but not the Piano Sonata or Wozzeck. Boulez's _Le marteau sans maitre_ is serial (after a fashion), but not 12-tone.
> 
> None of Eliott Carter's works, for example, are serial, though some people think they are in a similar style. Olivier Messiaen's music, sometimes associated with Boulez's or Nono's, is not serial either, though in some cases it's influenced by serial techniques.


There's definitely something intriguing about it, but it doesn't satisfy me musically. It's more of a mental thing... for me. I'll keep an open mind. Maybe it'll click one day.


----------



## Copperears

Mahlerian said:


> Well, what do you dislike about it? If it's that the melodies don't appeal to you, that's fine, but if you hear no melodies/themes at all, then it's because you're not used to the style.


I suspect yes, like with Bruckner, it's mainly lack of familiarity. I certainly don't have any explicit theoretical or musical bone to pick with the 2nd Viennese School, and like Schoenberg. Generally have never felt the motivation to dig deeper into the post-Mahler, post-WW1 period except for France (Ravel) and the UK (Vaughn Williams), can't say why, rationally. Also like Hindemith, Stravinsky, Messiaen from the same period.

Plus yes, I can't get enough of Elliott Carter, and love Crumb. Vox Balaenae! Hmm. With the Also Sprach Zarathustra quote.


----------



## mmsbls

Garlic said:


> Is there really a need to talk about "atonal" music as a whole? The works you mention cover a huge range stylistically, I don't see what's useful in lumping them all together as "atonal". The word "atonal" just seems to be a handy way for people to dismiss a whole load of music without much thought.


For those who have a better understanding of music, there is probably not a need. The reason for lumping them together is simply that some people (not me now, but to some extent before) hear them as very similar. Maybe they hear them simply as vastly different than music they are familiar with, but they don't have the experience to place them in separate categories. We at TC speak of classical music which encompasses a much wider range than non-tonal, and we consider classical music to be a sensible term.

Some people do use atonal in a negative, dismissive sense, but others do not. To some it's "atonal" crap while to others it's "atonal" stuff that sounds so completely different.


----------



## Copperears

John Coltrane! Cecil Taylor. Plenty of "atonal" music; the term is near-meaningless, really.


----------



## mmsbls

Mahlerian said:


> Non-tonal would be fine if people used the word tonal to refer only to common practice tonality, but they don't. Post-tonal is probably better. The more exact and cumbersome phrase that describes it best is non-functional chromatic, to distinguish it from functional chromatic (late Wagner, Wolf, etc.) and non-functional diatonic/modal (in this case indicating any subset of fewer than 12 notes) (Neoclassical Stravinsky, Debussy, Messiaen), but I don't see that catching on.


Thanks. I tried to look up non-functional chromatic or functional chromatic, but I think I need a bit more music theory to understand what I read. I'll ask my daughter when I see her next. For now if I think a term is needed, I'll try to use post-tonal. Maybe if people try to do that more on TC, the term atonal will wither and die (at least here).


----------



## EDaddy

Wagner. Oh, and Ives. I can't STAND Ives!


----------



## Mahlerian

mmsbls said:


> Thanks. I tried to look up non-functional chromatic or functional chromatic, but I think I need a bit more music theory to understand what I read. I'll ask my daughter when I see her next. For now if I think a term is needed, I'll try to use post-tonal. Maybe if people try to do that more on TC, the term atonal will wither and die (at least here).


Well, non-functional chromatic is my own synthesis of terms, as far as I know, but non-functional tonality (what I called non-functional diatonic/modal) is not (see the last line in this section).


----------



## aakermit

Tapkaara said:


> Age: 31
> Mozart: 2


Age: 65
Mozart: 6


----------



## Winterreisender

I've been reluctant to post on this thread, because there are few "great" composers whom I actively dislike. 

But then I thought of Charles Villiers Stanford and Hubert Parry (not exactly "greats" but still resonable well-known), whose music I will avoid at all costs!! I essentially agree with the sentiments of George Bernard Shaw that the fame of these two composers, together with that of a few of their cronies, is the result of a very well propagated "mutual appreciation society." I find the concept of an "English Musical Renaissance" at this time laughable, since in reality England was lagging well behind the contemporaries on the contenant.


----------



## skipper

So you don't like music?


----------



## skipper

If he comes off as snooty, you come off as philistine: "means nothing to me if I don't like their music." Close to the philistine motto: "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." This is an egotistic fallacy--pleasure comes with understanding, and understanding is not easy. This thread is not, from what I've read so far, drawing out real criticism, but rather prejudice--some of which (the digs against Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich, to name names) please me. I find their music derivative, conservative, structurally illogical, and in Tchaikovsky case saccharine. But I have enjoyed both composers before, and understand that they evidently give pleasure to many serious musicians, so I'm rather skeptical of my distaste, which being impatient with this music is naturally not well informed about it.


----------



## GioCar

Aramis said:


> Try his piano trios and perhaps operas, the latter if you like the genre.


I'am just listening to









Trio élégiaque No.2 in D minor, Op.9 for Piano, Violin and Cello
Beaux Arts Trio

2. Quasi variazione

It surely deserves a second, third, etc... listening

Thanks for your advice


----------



## trazom

skipper said:


> If he comes off as snooty, you come off as philistine: "means nothing to me if I don't like their music." Close to the philistine motto: "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." This is an egotistic fallacy--pleasure comes with understanding, and understanding is not easy. This thread is not, from what I've read so far, drawing out real criticism, but rather prejudice--some of which (the digs against Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich, to name names) please me. I find their music derivative, conservative, structurally illogical, and in Tchaikovsky case saccharine. But I have enjoyed both composers before, and understand that they evidently give pleasure to many serious musicians, so I'm rather skeptical of my distaste, which being impatient with this music is naturally not well informed about it.


I feel the same way. I did have to work towards appreciating the music of some of my favorite composers, but I wouldn't have done that if I didn't know there would be a lifelong reward at the end. This actually reminds me of a popular ongoing thread down at the good gentlemen of leisure's club on amazon, I think it's called "Would you dare admit" where distaste and (in my opinion) ignorance is encouraged. It generates camaraderie, but didn't see much encouragement to educate or appreciate works they didn't immediately like "I don't like this composer, he's crap" and "Oh, I agree"; but I didn't scroll through all the posts either, so it's possible I missed some.


----------



## Funny

Can't say I actively dislike him, but Mozart is wayyyyyyyy overrated. The prodigy thing was largely a circus stunt successfully planned and implemented by his father, and he gets too much credit for "bold" moves that he clearly learned from Haydn. Certainly some nice melodies and orchestral effects, but he's just another composer.


----------



## KenOC

Funny said:


> Can't say I actively dislike him, but Mozart is wayyyyyyyy overrated.


Urghhh! I was yawning and I think I swallowed a tonsil.


----------



## ahammel

Funny said:


> Can't say I actively dislike him, but Mozart is wayyyyyyyy overrated. The prodigy thing was largely a circus stunt successfully planned and implemented by his father, and he gets too much credit for "bold" moves that he clearly learned from Haydn.


Oh yeah? Name three.


----------



## brotagonist

Every time I think I've found one I don't like, I've proven myself wrong


----------



## BurningDesire

ahammel said:


> Oh yeah? Name three.


Can you even name a "move" in music yourself?

One need not get technical, its pretty easily apparent to anybody with working ears that Mozart's writing is typical of the period, often following the same forms, harmonic sequences, and using similar melodic habits to contemporaries of his like Haydn. Mozart wrote some really awesome music, but he is surely over-rated. Basically anybody who is constantly hailed as being of divine genius, or as "teh gratest of all tiem" is over-rated, because those are absurd pedestals to put anybody on.


----------



## moody

Funny said:


> Can't say I actively dislike him, but Mozart is wayyyyyyyy overrated. The prodigy thing was largely a circus stunt successfully planned and implemented by his father, and he gets too much credit for "bold" moves that he clearly learned from Haydn. Certainly some nice melodies and orchestral effects, but he's just another composer.


I presume that you have listened to him from time to time . If so, which "other composers" do you equate with Mozart ?


----------



## moody

BurningDesire said:


> Can you even name a "move" in music yourself?
> 
> One need not get technical, its pretty easily apparent to anybody with working ears that Mozart's writing is typical of the period, often following the same forms, harmonic sequences, and using similar melodic habits to contemporaries of his like Haydn. Mozart wrote some really awesome music, but he is surely over-rated. Basically anybody who is constantly hailed as being of divine genius, or as "teh gratest of all tiem" is over-rated, because those are absurd pedestals to put anybody on.


Hi there friend, anybody who is hailed as "the gratest of all tiem " is not to be dallied with I'm sure.


----------



## neoshredder

BurningDesire said:


> Can you even name a "move" in music yourself?
> 
> One need not get technical, its pretty easily apparent to anybody with working ears that Mozart's writing is typical of the period, often following the same forms, harmonic sequences, and using similar melodic habits to contemporaries of his like Haydn. Mozart wrote some really awesome music, but he is surely over-rated. Basically anybody who is constantly hailed as being of divine genius, or as "teh gratest of all tiem" is over-rated, because those are absurd pedestals to put anybody on.


Similar maybe. But he did it better and more complex. At least in his later works, he took it to another level.


----------



## scratchgolf

ahammel said:


> Oh yeah? Name three.


The cross-over, the alley-oop, and the behind the back pass. Haydn had game :lol:


----------



## neoshredder

I'll take Mozart in a 1 on 1 game anyday. Mozart has the age advantage.


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> Similar maybe. But he did it better and more complex. At least in his later works, he took it to another level.


Better and more complex than Haydn? Maybe better than some of the less adventurous composers of the time, but if anything Mozart and Haydn were at least musical equals.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

BurningDesire said:


> Better and more complex than Haydn? Maybe better than some of the less adventurous composers of the time, but if anything Mozart and Haydn were at least musical equals.


Mozart and Haydn were both great in their own way - they emphasized entirely different things imo. Haydn emphasized cohesion, rhythm and the element of surprise whereas Mozart emphasized melody and orchestration more. I think Haydn also liked working with single themes, developing them and using different compositional techniques on them, whereas Mozart liked introducing new themes. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.


----------



## trazom

Funny said:


> Can't say I actively dislike him, but Mozart is wayyyyyyyy overrated. The prodigy thing was largely a circus stunt successfully planned and implemented by his father, and he gets too much credit for "bold" moves that he clearly learned from Haydn. Certainly some nice melodies and orchestral effects, but he's just another composer.


I believe the 'bold moves' were what distinguished him from Haydn. Which Haydn works use counterpoint and chromaticism as freely as Mozart's mid to late works?


----------



## mikey

There's very few pieces by Britten I like.
Still getting my head around Bach; I can only deal with so many semiquavers! (It's my problem, I know)


----------



## Funny

trazom said:


> I believe the 'bold moves' were what distinguished him from Haydn. Which Haydn works use counterpoint and chromaticism as freely as Mozart's mid to late works?


Not sure how you'd quantify "as freely," but just to pick an example at random, Symphony 78 has a great deal of chromaticism beginning with the opening theme, which gets various contrapuntal treatments before the first movement's end. And of course he was no slouch in generating, say, fugato passages. There's also a chromatic melody in the 2nd movement of Haydn's symphony 28 that's as lush as any that Mozart would wind up writing. Obviously Mozart had his own style and his own flourishes, but I just don't hear the quantum leap from the style Haydn established that many seem to want to attribute to him.


----------



## cihlomorka

I cant somehow get in touch with Bruckner ... although it may have more to do with his appearance/personality than music.


----------



## Gilberto

I probably haven't been looking very hard for music by these guys but I've never been given a reason to...


----------



## ahammel

cihlomorka said:


> I cant somehow get in touch with Bruckner ... although it may have more to do with his appearance/personality than music.


What's wrong with his appearance and personality?


----------



## hpowders

That's easy. Bruckner and Schubert.


----------



## hpowders

Whoops! I forgot about Dvorak. His music gives me acne. There is only one performance of his music that I can tolerate and that is the Gregor Piatagorsky/Charles Munch, Boston Symphony performance of the Dvorak Cello Concerto. Forever fabulous!


----------



## Katie

I'm not sure what constitutes great outside of the pantheon of conventional names populating most posts, but what little exposure I've had to Hindeminth (NOT as a conductor (at least of others' work  )) leave me wanting for an inspired or even modest emotional reaction - most recently Symphony Mathis der Maler, Symphonic Dances, and Symphonic Metamorphosis. Unfortunately I haven't the familiarity or vocabulary to more eloquently or definitively quantify my disappointment, but it's there. (Sorry Paul)


----------



## eyeman

Ilych said:


> I have been listening to classical music since I was a teenager, about 40 years. My specialty is in the Romantic and Classic eras, but I try to expose myself to all kinds of Classical.
> I know what I am about to say is tantamount to blasphemy on these forums, but I just don't like Johann Sebastian Bach. There, I said it. Outside of the Toccata and Fugue in D minor I can honestly say there is one piece of his that doesn't either put me to sleep or make me nervous or give me a headache, or all three of the above.
> I know, I know. I've studied enough to know that Bach is one of the greatest of all the gods in the Classical spectrum. I know how extremely influential he was. I know most Classical fans adore him. I have given him chance after chance. I feel that there must be something in me that is somehow deficient to not appreciate his genius.
> I am not looking for anyone to contradict my views, I fear they are set in concrete. I was wondering if anyone else has a virulent dislike to one of the acknowledged geniuses of Classical composition?
> I am still very new to the forums and I was wondering what you think!


I don't care for Bach either. His music sounds too regimented to me...no feeling, and it progresses nowhere. His music pushes me away and I find myself moving from one piece to another trying to find something I can latch on to and it just doesn't happen. I like some of the Brandenburg concertos but there's too much other stuff I enjoy so why waste time trying to learn to appreciate something I find boring and even irritating at times.


----------



## Blake

eyeman said:


> I don't care for Bach either. His music sounds too regimented to me...no feeling, and it progresses nowhere. His music pushes me away and I find myself moving from one piece to another trying to find something I can latch on to and it just doesn't happen. I like some of the Brandenburg concertos but there's too much other stuff I enjoy so why waste time trying to learn to appreciate something I find boring and even irritating at times.


I have a similar reserve. I've really enjoyed his Cantatas, but I've hardly connected to his instrumentals.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Vesuvius said:


> I have a similar reserve. I've really enjoyed his Cantatas, but I've hardly connected to his instrumentals.


Strangely, I'm the opposite - I play his keyboard and chamber works far more often than his orchestral and vocal output.


----------



## hpowders

elgars ghost said:


> Strangely, I'm the opposite - I play his keyboard and chamber works far more often than his orchestral and vocal output.


Me too. Love his WTC, Goldberg Variations, English Suites, French Suites and keyboard Partitas; all on harpsichord.


----------



## GGluek

No. If I don't like him, he's obviously not a great composer.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

As I've said in other threads, I loathe the Second Vienna School. I'm also no fan of the minimalists. I'm actually related to Mahler (my maternal great-grandfather's first cousin), but a lot of his stuff I can easily do without. I also find quite a bit of Bach simply boring.

I will, however, listen to Mozart for hours on end.


----------



## revdrdave

Richard Strauss. And Stravinsky.


----------



## hpowders

Wagner because of:
1. his politics.
2. all that interminable sprechstimme between melodies.


----------



## Anterix

I like just a few moments of Wagner. And Mozart.


----------



## Rachmanijohn

Schoenberg. Fails to do anything for me.


----------



## hpowders

^^^Doesn't do much for me either.


----------



## Itullian

GREAT composer ?

No


----------



## Yardrax

hpowders said:


> all that interminable sprechstimme between melodies.


Where is the Sprechstimme in Wagner?


----------



## hpowders

Oh, about half of Parsifal.


----------



## neoshredder

Rachmanijohn said:


> Schoenberg. Fails to do anything for me.


Though I wouldn't call him great.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> Though I wouldn't call him great.


You would be wrong in terms of his sheer magnitude of influence and pure objective composition ability.


----------



## Rachmanijohn

neoshredder said:


> Though I wouldn't call him great.


Me neither, but he (along with Boulez and other crappy composers) tends to arouse an alarmingly amount of people.


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> You would be wrong in terms of his...pure objective composition ability.


I always enjoy seeing the word "objective" in these discussions.


----------



## guy

Mozart: boring and strange chromaticism.


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> I always enjoy seeing the word "objective" in these discussions.


I'm not talking about the musical taste of the listener though. I'm talking about the compositional ability and imagination of the composer.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I actually like Schoenberg's early works (the tonal works written in a late-Romantic style), but I can appreciate his 'free atonal' period, but I draw the line at the 12-tone works.


----------



## GreenMamba

KenOC said:


> I always enjoy seeing the word "objective" in these discussions.


Well, if there's nothing objective, then this thread is pointless, as you couldn't possibly dislike a composer who you subjectively think is great.

But perhaps it is better to say that, by any objective measure, he is widely considered to be an important and influential composer, "great" in that sense.


----------



## Mahlerian

Neo Romanza said:


> I actually like Schoenberg's early works (the tonal works written in a late-Romantic style), but I can appreciate his 'free atonal' period, but I draw the line at the 12-tone works.


I seem to remember you liked the concertos, though.


----------



## Mahlerian

Rachmanijohn said:


> Me neither, but he (along with Boulez and other crappy composers) tends to arouse an alarmingly amount of people.


That's because he's a great composer, not a crappy one. Why is the fact that people appreciate his music "alarming"???


----------



## violadude

Mahlerian said:


> That's because he's a great composer, not a crappy one. Why is the fact that people appreciate his music "alarming"???


I find it hard to grasp that someone, even if they don't like Schoenberg's music, can't listen to something like this and hear the themes or the musicality evident in it.


----------



## Rachmanijohn

Mahlerian said:


> That's because he's a great composer, not a crappy one. Why is the fact that people appreciate his music "alarming"???


This obsession with atonality is what's killing classical music. The golden age of composition has passed and we are not getting it back, because we killed it (how human of us). That there are sects of people who find joy in it's chaos is actually a disturbing thought. Like killing animals leads to killing humans. Liking music that makes no sense and has no expressive qualities is just the beginning. In my humble opinion. End rant.


----------



## violadude

Rachmanijohn said:


> This obsession with atonality is what's killing classical music. The golden age of composition has passed and we are not getting it back, because we killed it (how human of us). That there are sects of people who find joy in it's chaos is actually a disturbing thought. Like killing animals leads to killing humans. Liking music that makes no sense and has no expressive qualities is just the beginning. In my humble opinion. End rant.


Oh my! How vivid. 12 tone music is actually the opposite of "chaotic". And I don't know what "obsession with atonality" you are talking about. I think you may be living in the past a bit. The serialism craze of the 60s and 70s has been over for a while now.

But if you think that 12 tone music is just a chaotic bunch of notes thrown together, you can try this hypothesis out yourself. Go to a piano and play a bunch of random notes and see how similar it is to the music of Schoenberg (or Boulez or Webern).


----------



## Blake

Rachmanijohn said:


> This obsession with atonality is what's killing classical music. The golden age of composition has passed and we are not getting it back, because we killed it (how human of us). That there are sects of people who find joy in it's chaos is actually a disturbing thought. Like killing animals leads to killing humans. Liking music that makes no sense and has no expressive qualities is just the beginning. In my humble opinion. End rant.


Haha. Hehe. Hoho.


----------



## Mahlerian

Rachmanijohn said:


> This obsession with atonality is what's killing classical music. The golden age of composition has passed and we are not getting it back, because we killed it (how human of us). That there are sects of people who find joy in it's chaos is actually a disturbing thought. Like killing animals leads to killing humans. Liking music that makes no sense and has no expressive qualities is just the beginning. In my humble opinion. End rant.


Schoenberg's music is some of the most expressive ever written. Not only does it make sense, it is perfectly logical, yet formally/structurally free at the same time. He is one of the highest points of the Austro/German musical tradition, and his own country, the country and culture he loved dearly and was a proud part of, rejected him because of his heritage.


----------



## hpowders

Rachmanijohn said:


> This obsession with atonality is what's killing classical music. The golden age of composition has passed and we are not getting it back, because we killed it (how human of us). That there are sects of people who find joy in it's chaos is actually a disturbing thought. Like killing animals leads to killing humans. Liking music that makes no sense and has no expressive qualities is just the beginning. In my humble opinion. End rant.


Oh dear. I hope you are wearing your bullet proof vest!


----------



## Itullian

Rachmanijohn said:


> This obsession with atonality is what's killing classical music. The golden age of composition has passed and we are not getting it back, because we killed it (how human of us). That there are sects of people who find joy in it's chaos is actually a disturbing thought. Like killing animals leads to killing humans. Liking music that makes no sense and has no expressive qualities is just the beginning. In my humble opinion. End rant.


I admire your courage to speak your view.
kudos


----------



## neoshredder

Rachmanijohn said:


> This obsession with atonality is what's killing classical music. The golden age of composition has passed and we are not getting it back, because we killed it (how human of us). That there are sects of people who find joy in it's chaos is actually a disturbing thought. Like killing animals leads to killing humans. Liking music that makes no sense and has no expressive qualities is just the beginning. In my humble opinion. End rant.


Finally someone other than me is willing to speak their mind against atonal music. Great moment.


----------



## ahammel

Rachmanijohn said:


> This obsession with atonality is what's killing classical music.


We've had serialism for more than 100 years now and, oddly enough, classical music doesn't seem to be dead yet.


----------



## KenOC

ahammel said:


> We've had serialism for more than 100 years now and, oddly enough, classical music doesn't seem to be dead yet.


But serialism is suffering or dead. So much of a century's efforts gone for naught! I'm sure somebody will post a list of composers "influenced" by serialism...yawn...


----------



## brianvds

ahammel said:


> We've had serialism for more than 100 years now and, oddly enough, classical music doesn't seem to be dead yet.


In some ways, classical music is experiencing a golden age. It's just that lots of other genres are ALSO experiencing a golden age, so that classical music no longer stands out as the only major player.

As for Schoenberg, the acrimonious debate will never end. 

I never really liked his work, for all the obvious reasons. Then, late one evening, I saw a performance of his five pieces for orchestra on TV. To my own surprise I got drawn into it, fascinated by its variety of orchestral colour. The thing with Schoenberg is not to sit and wit for the nice melodies to start. 

On the whole, I would probably still not consider atonal work my favourite style. It's like spice: nice to sprinkle on now and then, but you wouldn't make it the staple of your diet.


----------



## mmsbls

Rachmanijohn said:


> This obsession with atonality is what's killing classical music. The golden age of composition has passed and we are not getting it back, because we killed it (how human of us). That there are sects of people who find joy in it's chaos is actually a disturbing thought. Like killing animals leads to killing humans. Liking music that makes no sense and has no expressive qualities is just the beginning. In my humble opinion. End rant.


I can understand why you are surprised that people like "music that makes no sense and has no expressive qualities" _to you_. "Atonal" music truly seems unlikeable to you. But do you honestly believe people like music "that makes no sense and has no expressive qualities" _to them_?



violadude said:


> But if you think that 12 tone music is just a chaotic bunch of notes thrown together, you can try this hypothesis out yourself. Go to a piano and play a bunch of random notes and see how similar it is to the music of Schoenberg (or Boulez or Webern).


I think there's a tendency to respond to quotes such as Rachmanijohn's above stating or giving a brief explanation that they are wrong. There's probably some benefit in responding, but unfortunately I feel the explanations often will not make sense. To Rachmanijohn (and me several years ago) "atonal" music truly sounds random and chaotic. It isn't, but it sounds that way. Statements to the contrary or similar explanations just sound wrong, nonsensical, or absurd.

In a sense it is similar to me explaining to a non-scientist that global warming predicts that the Antarctic ice should grow thicker as the earth warms. Most people simply think that sounds ridiculous. Explanations about the saturation vapor pressure of water increasing with temperature don't help. Similarly, I think if I had played a bunch of random notes on a piano years ago, I would have thought it really does sound like Schoenberg's or Berg's music. You, and others who counter these views, really do hear music differently so it seems obvious that the music is not random, but that is decidedly not the case to everyone.

I really don't know the best way to counter the view that "atonal" or other music is random or like noise. I suppose people need to be open to understanding and learning about these "strange" new sounds. The trick is to get them to "see" the music from your perspective. In music, politics, and other areas that can be rather difficult.


----------



## SimonNZ

Rachmanijohn said:


> This obsession with atonality is what's killing classical music. The golden age of composition has passed and we are not getting it back, because we killed it (how human of us). That there are sects of people who find joy in it's chaos is actually a disturbing thought. Like killing animals leads to killing humans. Liking music that makes no sense and has no expressive qualities is just the beginning. In my humble opinion. End rant.


There is, hand on my heart, no era of classical music I'd rather be living through than the one taking place right now. I'm constantly - daily - being amazed by the work being done by the composers writing right now and by the sheer volume of exciting and unique work that's been composed and recorded in just the last ten or twenty years.

Nothing is killing classical music - its more alive and vibrant than its ever been.


----------



## PetrB

Rachmanijohn said:


> This obsession with atonality is what's killing classical music. The golden age of composition has passed and we are not getting it back, because we killed it (how human of us). That there are sects of people who find joy in it's chaos is actually a disturbing thought. Like killing animals leads to killing humans. Liking music that makes no sense and has no expressive qualities is just the beginning. In my humble opinion. End rant.


That rant could as readily and 'validly' be -- verbatim --applied to the end of the golden age of modal music, tonality having killed it, Monteverdi the instigator, Vivaldi and Bach the biggest culprits / murderers.

At least it is, 'just an opinion,' (in that it can make a sort of non-sense sense) vs. having been stated as any sort of proof of fact.

I find the music of Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff and Puccini especially repellent, which is yet another opinion.

We all know the saw, "Opinions are like _____. Everyone has one."


----------



## Piwikiwi

neoshredder said:


> Finally someone other than me is willing to speak their mind against atonal music. Great moment.


:') You know you aren't achieving anything with this attitude and that speaking your mind against any kind of music is kind of pointless.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> But serialism is suffering or dead. So much of a century's efforts gone for naught! I'm sure somebody will post a list of composers "influenced" by serialism...yawn...


I'm sorry that facts bore you so much...but it's instructive to remember that the process-oriented thinking of serialism survived into early minimalism. Schoenberg and Webern remain about as influential as they ever have been; more openly in Europe perhaps with composers like Rihm, but the US has Harbison, for example.

Just because (almost, as Wuorinen's still alive and kicking) no one composes using the 12-tone method doesn't mean that the results of that method and the composers associated with it aren't still influential.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

I too, dislike atonality. To me, it does seem like a collection of randomly chosen notes, the aural equivalent of a Jackson Pollock painting. (Incidentally, I do like much of Pollock, but that's the best comparison I can think of.) It is significant, I believe, to note that atonality has never had any sort of popular appeal, perhaps because it offers nothing to the unsophisticated ear.

I love just about all of Mozart, but I also find much of J S Bach to be boring.


----------



## Art Rock

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> I too, dislike atonality. To me, it does seem like a collection of randomly chosen notes, the aural equivalent of a Jackson Pollock painting. (Incidentally, I do like much of Pollock, but that's the best comparison I can think of.)


Maybe a more general comparison would be between tonal/atonal and figurative/abstract.


----------



## Mahlerian

Art Rock said:


> Maybe a more general comparison would be between tonal/atonal and figurative/abstract.


I think there's a far better comparison to be made with perspective in art.

You have modal music, which is relatively "flat", followed by tonality, which grounds everything in three dimensions. Post-tonal music (including Impressionism) is informed by this three-dimensional space, but bends it to its will, depending on the material.

Schoenberg was good friends with Kandinsky, who loved Schoenberg's music and found that it inspired his art.


















Schoenberg's own paintings were more along the lines of a Munch, though.









Visual art is not my forte, though, so perhaps someone else can add more.


----------



## hpowders

I was always horrible in art class, couldn't draw for crap. Should have saved my efforts. Could have been worth millions today.


----------



## hpowders

Shouldn't have shredded them, neoshredder!


----------



## ahammel

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> I too, dislike atonality. To me, it does seem like a collection of randomly chosen notes, the aural equivalent of a Jackson Pollock painting.


I have often remarked that this was exactly my first impression of _Die Kunst der Fuge_.

I'm sure that somebody who knows more about painting than I do would tell you than Pollack was by no means splashing paint on the canvas at random, any more than Schoenberg was selecting random notes.


----------



## Mahlerian

ahammel said:


> I'm sure that somebody who knows more about painting than I do would tell you than Pollack was by no means splashing paint on the canvas at random, any more than Schoenberg was selecting random notes.


Pollock's drip paintings are perhaps closer to John Cage in spirit (and era). Of course, in both cases, the results inevitably end up reflecting their creator.


----------



## hpowders

I used to hate art class; painted like Pollock, amost failed the class and gave up because of it. Who knew those discarded failures could have been worth millions!!


----------



## adrem

I can't stand Wagner (but I love Bruckner). I'm also not admirer of Debussy music.


----------



## lupinix

Stravinsky, i find it cold and emotionless and he really frightens me as a person when I listen to his music. I know he was great in at least a technical way and am greatefull to him for making certain musical things more accepted like cellbased additive rhythm and frozen tonality, but I really can't listen to his music. Ive tried so many many times, have tortured myself so many times, especially with the sacre.

Debussy I like a lot more but also with him I don't connect to too well. His music is very beautiful, but to me mostly only beautiful and sometimes it just feels too sappy or something, I don't know, but I know of course not all his works and I kindoff really liked La mer so who knows maybe I'll grow to like him yet. 

Then there's beethoven, a composer I also like but don't connect to very well. I especially like some of his piano sonatas, or I should say, sonata-movements. I think maybe his music is a bit to clear and obvious and bombastic to me, because I'm pretty vague myself in my music, and to me it seems he wants to explain to you what he feels instead of making you feel it or something, I don't know. I do admire him though.

Well that is enough I guess, there are a few composers I dislike more than debussy and beethoven or as even as much as stravinsky but theyre not generally considered that great (for instance clementi) and I don't feel like explaining either.
Also I'm not fond of serialism in general for instance, but thats another matter. I do like most kinds of music though, its just too serial.... I guess


----------



## hpowders

adrem said:


> I can't stand Wagner (but I love Bruckner). I'm also not admirer of Debussy music.


Also not an admirer of Debussy. His piano music puts me to sleep.


----------



## neoshredder

Debussy is awesome. Putting you to sleep is the beauty of his music. More like putting you in a dreamlike state. You don't want to wake up from this perfect world and face reality after the trance he puts you in.


----------



## hpowders

Anymore dreamlike from Debussy and I will be in a coma.


----------



## DavidA

I must confess to not being able to get into Mahler. All those strainings and heavings


----------



## hpowders

^^^^^^^^^^^ouch!!!!


----------



## lupinix

Maybe I should say something about the tonality/atonality discussion, because I understand both sides and do agree (and yet also disagree) with both until a certain level. 
I do think there is recently a bit of a atonality obsession, at least in europe, they don't like it much in conservatories when you write tonalish or even modalish music, and I don't think there is anything wrong with atonality, but I don't like how they take away the right to exist for tonal music which is written now and everything I write something really tonal I have to explain myself.
But as I said, I don't think anything is wrong with atonal music, it can be very expressive and personal in my opinion, and composers like liszt (in his late works) had already set steps in the direction of omnitonic/atonal music, so it isn't that surprising it had to come to be for music to develop further. 
Atonal music is NOT (only) 12tonemusic though, 12tone is just a composition technique, or a kind of "style" which is used for making atonal music, but theres loads of atonal music which don't use this technique and are more free and intuitive. 
Besides I don't like the duality thinking that a piece must be totally tonal or totally atonal, most great music is somewhere in between, or between those and the more melodic based modality. Classical tonality which is totally and strictly based on chords (which is unfortunately also the reason of melodic and rhymic decline in 17/18th centuries) according to "classical harmony" marks just one pole and twelvetonemusic and other "perfect atonal" music the other pole. The more personal and expressive is in the enormous world between in my opinion. I like schoenberg (and berg, webern a lot less to be honest, I should have mentioned him above) though, even some of his 12tone compositions like I also like some strictly classical style pieces. 

I guess that was all I wanted to say


----------



## Blake

lupinix said:


> Maybe I should say something about the tonality/atonality discussion, because I understand both sides and do agree (and yet also disagree) with both until a certain level.
> I do think there is recently a bit of a atonality obsession, at least in europe, they don't like it much in conservatories when you write tonalish or even modalish music, and I don't think there is anything wrong with atonality, but I don't like how they take away the right to exist for tonal music which is written now and everything I write something really tonal I have to explain myself.
> But as I said, I don't think anything is wrong with atonal music, it can be very expressive and personal in my opinion, and composers like liszt (in his late works) had already set steps in the direction of omnitonic/atonal music, so it isn't that surprising it had to come to be for music to develop further.
> Atonal music is NOT (only) 12tonemusic though, 12tone is just a composition technique, or a kind of "style" which is used for making atonal music, but theres loads of atonal music which don't use this technique and are more free and intuitive.
> Besides I don't like the duality thinking that a piece must be totally tonal or totally atonal, most great music is somewhere in between, or between those and the more melodic based modality. Classical tonality which is totally and strictly based on chords (which is unfortunately also the reason of melodic and rhymic decline in 17/18th centuries) according to "classical harmony" marks just one pole and twelvetonemusic and other "perfect atonal" music the other pole. The more personal and expressive is in the enormous world between in my opinion. I like schoenberg (and berg, webern a lot less to be honest, I should have mentioned him above) though, even some of his 12tone compositions like I also like some strictly classical style pieces.
> 
> I guess that was all I wanted to say


The dynamics of expression in life is quite beautiful. There are those who keep the past alive, as to enjoy some wonderful Medieval, Renaissance, Classical, etc... And there are those who take the past and put a bit of a contemporary twist on it. Then there are those who are unceasingly pushing for new ways of doing things.

I have a feeling that all are valuable in the play of existence.


----------



## lupinix

Vesuvius said:


> The dynamics of expression in life is quite beautiful. There are those who keep the past alive, as to enjoy some beautiful Medieval, Renaissance, Classical, etc... And there are those who take the past and put a bit of a contemporary twist on it. Then there are those who are unceasingly pushing for new ways of doing things.
> 
> I have a feeling that all are valuable in the play of existence.


yeah me too Im sure ^^


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

neoshredder said:


> Putting you to sleep is the beauty of his music. More like putting you in a dreamlike state. You don't want to wake up from this perfect world and face reality after the trance he puts you in.


I'm thinking of Haydn's Surprise Symphony, where he lulls you to sleep only to wake you up!

I will admit to dozing off during a performance of Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune.


----------



## ahammel

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> I will admit to dozing off during a performance of Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune.


 It's usually less than 10 minutes long! Was Celibidache involved?


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

I was extremely tired, having had essentially no sleep the night before.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I can't stand Carl Nielsen's "hyperactive" rhythms, it is a shame they obscure such a great woodwind and brass writing.


----------



## hpowders

I'm not attracted to Nielsen's music myself and it's not for lack of trying.


----------



## hpowders

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> I'm thinking of Haydn's Surprise Symphony, where he lulls you to sleep only to wake you up!
> 
> I will admit to dozing off during a performance of Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune.


You are not the only one.


----------



## ahammel

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> I was extremely tired, having had essentially no sleep the night before.


Reminds me of when my music teacher got everybody up at 5am to watch a rehearsal, with predictable results.


----------



## Ravndal

Rachmaninoff and Alkan would be my vote.


----------



## lupinix

(i do really like beethoven in his latest latest period though, I forgot about that, his grosse fuge is great)


----------



## hpowders

lupinix said:


> (i do really like beethoven in his latest latest period though, I forgot about that, his grosse fuge is great)


Have you listened to the Hammerklavier Piano Sonata? Another amazing late period work.


----------



## lupinix

hpowders said:


> Have you listened to the Hammerklavier Piano Sonata? Another amazing late period work.


Yeah its the sonata I like most


----------



## guy

To me, most Haydn and Mozart style pieces are too dry, I suppose. See, I can hate tonal works, too! :B


----------



## ahammel

guy said:


> To me, most Haydn and Mozart style pieces are too dry, I suppose. See, I can hate tonal works, too! :B


I started getting into Mozart and Schoenberg at about the same time. Make of that what you will.


----------



## guy

ahammel said:


> I started getting into Mozart and Schoenberg at about the same time. Make of that what you will.


You like what I dislike, I suppose would be too obvious.


----------



## stevederekson

Schoenberg is the obvious choice here.


----------



## lupinix

ahammel said:


> I started getting into Mozart and Schoenberg at about the same time. Make of that what you will.


both austrian, both composition techniques that have a lot of rules/guidelines, especially for pitch (other important aspects of music being rhythm, articulation, dynamics, form), both great composers within those styles and both can be surprisingly romantic in feeling (of course not counting schoenbergs early works who are really romantic in every way), I was just thinking that when I saw your post ^^


----------



## ahammel

guy said:


> You like what I dislike, I suppose would be too obvious.


I'm sure there's an overlap somewhere. Maybe we both like ice-cream?


----------



## tdc

hpowders said:


> Also not an admirer of Debussy. His piano music puts me to sleep.


Have you tried his Etudes played by Uchida?


----------



## hpowders

tdc said:


> Have you tried his Etudes played by Uchida?


Ahhhh!! Finally something I can whistle!


----------



## EricABQ

hpowders said:


> Also not an admirer of Debussy. His piano music puts me to sleep.


Much of his piano music does the same for me, but in a good way. I consider it a feature, not a bug.

I will sometimes pair Debussy with NyQuil. That's a good time.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

I am no fan of Schoenberg either, although I dislike Alban Berg even more.


----------



## hpowders

I didn't care for Berg much either 'til I heard his violin concerto.

Curiously refreshing!


----------



## stevederekson

> I didn't care for Berg much either 'til I heard his violin concerto.
> 
> Curiously refreshing!


I agree that the piece is interesting, but it is saved by the four clarinets that simulate an organ. There is a buildup to that point that has something in it I can't really point out. One of the few atonal pieces I have ever taken a genuine interest in.


----------



## hpowders

stevederekson said:


> I agree that the piece is interesting, but it is saved by the four clarinets that simulate an organ. There is a buildup to that point that has something in it I can't really point out. One of the few atonal pieces I have ever taken a genuine interest in.


Yes. Worth listening to for the folks who claim to hate everything atonal.


----------



## hpowders

adrem said:


> I can't stand Wagner (but I love Bruckner). I'm also not admirer of Debussy music.


Agreed. Debussy puts me to sleep.


----------



## Piwikiwi

hpowders said:


> Agreed. Debussy puts me to sleep.


Try his etudes or his preludes


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> Agreed. Debussy puts me to sleep.


I challenge you to find the least anything soporific about the third movement of _La Mer_!
(III starts @ 16'20'')


----------



## hpowders

Piwikiwi said:


> Try his etudes or his preludes


I've tried all of his piano and orchestral stuff, even his opera, Pelléas et Mélisande. I just can't maintain my attention span for long. Sorry.


----------



## revdrdave

Rachmaninoff. Listening to Rachmaninoff wears me out because he usually wrote twice as many notes as he needed to, requiring me to process twice as much info. And some of his melodies go on so long I can take a nap shortly after they start and still wake up in time to hear them finish (then start over). :lol:


----------



## hpowders

I used to like Rachmaninoff, but now I simply find his music excessively sentimental-Tchaikovsky without the genius.


----------



## violadude

hpowders said:


> I used to like Rachmaninoff, but now I simply find his music excessively sentimental-Tchaikovsky without the genius.


I partly agree but there are some Rachmaninoff pieces I really like. My favorite is Isle of the Dead. Have you heard it?


----------



## hpowders

violadude said:


> I partly agree but there are some Rachmaninoff pieces I really like. My favorite is Isle of the Dead. Have you heard it?


Yeah. It's okay. Some of his short piano pieces are okay too. Where he loses me: 2nd symphony, 2nd piano concerto, etc;
It all sounds like the soundtrack to a Hollywood tearjerker with Bette Davis from 1938.


----------



## violadude

hpowders said:


> Yeah. It's okay. Some of his short piano pieces are okay too. Where he loses me: 2nd symphony, 2nd piano concerto, etc;
> It all sounds like the soundtrack to a Hollywood tearjerker with Bette Davis from 1938.


I hear ya. ......................


----------



## Mahlerian

hpowders said:


> Yeah. It's okay. Some of his short piano pieces are okay too. Where he loses me: 2nd symphony, 2nd piano concerto, etc;
> It all sounds like the soundtrack to a Hollywood tearjerker with Bette Davis from 1938.


You know, I have the same kind of reaction, but it's not necessarily Rachmaninoff's fault that he inspired insipid epigones. We'd have to condemn most composers if we held that sort of thing against them.

Nor do I hold it against him that he was Ayn Rand's composer of choice, but in those endless Wagner/Hitler discussions, it's probably something that should be brought up more often....


----------



## dgee

With Rach I don't mind the tearjerker so much (the Third Piano Concerto is the ultimate dog) but give credit to the witty, interesting and exciting Symphonic Dances - that is some great stuff right there


----------



## KenOC

dgee said:


> With Rach I don't mind the tearjerker so much (the Third Piano Concerto is the ultimate dog) but give credit to the witty, interesting and exciting Symphonic Dances - that is some great stuff right there


Agree. For a long time I preferred R's later works. In fact I still do!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

hpowders said:


> Debussy puts me to sleep.


Early Debussy definitely doesn't, but late Debussy does.


----------



## hpowders

The Symphonic Dances has its moments, but the fact that I have no idea where my one CD of it is, speaks volumes of how I feel about it.


----------



## Morimur

I don't get Verdi or Puccini. Perhaps someone could enlighten me because their music simply doesn't make me feel anything; it's like wallpaper.


----------



## WJM

Debussy. To tell the truth, I haven't heard much of his works - but what I've heard just bored me. Maybe I put it this way: I can't really play any instrument, I have no musical education. When I once sat at the piano and slowly played some random chords, I got the impression that this pretty much sounds like Debussy's preludes. Like someone tried to play the piano without any idea what he's doing. The only Debussy's piece I kind of enjoy is La Plus Que Lente Valse. I always thought it would sound good in a cofeehouse...


----------



## hpowders

^^^^I agree with you. I've listened to much of his music and the only piece I consider captivating is The Enchanted Isle for piano.


----------



## neoshredder

Why all the Debussy hate? He's one of my favorites for relaxing.


----------



## MagneticGhost

I can normally find something to like in most composers. 
Having said that. I was always terminally bored whilst playing symphonies of Dittersdorf and Stamitz (and progeny)
Early classical I suppose. Incessant 5.1.5.1.5.1 in the cello line. Mannheim rockets galore and zero surprises.

I'll freely admit to never returning to these composers in the last 25 years, so my memory may be doing these fine gentlemen a disservice.


----------



## hpowders

I admit neoshredder, if I want to relax into a deep coma, Debussy's my man.


----------



## FleshRobot

Schoenberg. Not because of atonality (I do like most works by Alban Berg) but just because I find them ugly, including his early tonal works.


----------



## hpowders

Interesting....hope you are reading your bible.


----------



## FleshRobot

hpowders said:


> Interesting....hope you are reading your bible.


What do you mean?


----------



## Mahlerian

He's probably referring to me. I consider Schoenberg one of the best composers of all time, and I'm willing to fight for it, too! Still, it's fine if you don't like it, just so long as you don't go about telling everyone that he "destroyed music" or "wrote music that's absolutely terrible"...

I love Debussy, too, but I can't help it if other people find the things I love boring...


----------



## violadude

FleshRobot said:


> What do you mean?


I was thinking more along the lines of: If you read all those "Eziah begat Ezra" passages in the Bible and then read all the "And the width of the temple must be 4 cubits by 5 cubits long" passages of the Bible. Then by comparison, Schoenberg's music will seem infinitely exciting.


----------



## FleshRobot

Mahlerian said:


> He's probably referring to me. I consider Schoenberg one of the best composers of all time, and I'm willing to fight for it, too! Still, it's fine if you don't like it, just so long as you don't go about telling everyone that he "destroyed music" or "wrote music that's absolutely terrible"...
> 
> I love Debussy, too, but I can't help it if other people find the things I love boring...


Well, I wouldn't say he destroyed music. You see, there are many composers that I personally dislike, I only mentioned Schoenberg because he is the greatest among them. There are many composers influenced by him that I like. Mahler is my second favorite symphonist too, think about that before you try to kill me.


----------



## FleshRobot

violadude said:


> I was thinking more along the lines of: If you read all those "Eziah begat Ezra" passages in the Bible and then read all the "And the width of the temple must be 4 cubits by 5 cubits long" passages of the Bible. Then by comparison, Schoenberg's music will seem infinitely exciting.


Thanks for the tip


----------



## Mahlerian

FleshRobot said:


> Well, I wouldn't say he destroyed music. You see, there are many composers that I personally dislike, I only mentioned Schoenberg because he is the greatest among them. There are many composers influenced by him that I like. Mahler is my second favorite symphonist too, think about that before you try to kill me.


I don't believe in violence of any kind, and welcome dissent! I, too, have my likes and dislikes.

Welcome to the forum, by the way!


----------



## FleshRobot

Thank you! (15 characters needed)


----------



## Guest

To answer the OP, I have to admit that I tend to be overcome by torpor when confronted by the music of César (Auguste Jean Guillaume Hubert) Franck. My apologies to those who admire César, the fault is totally mine, something to do with the wiring, no doubt.
Looking on the positive side, with the above confession I now claim membership to Ingélou's "Unworthy Listeners" Club, which I propose we should rename "ULA" (Unworthy Listeners Anonymous). Here is a sketch about such a concept:

"Hello, I'm TalkingHead and I'm an unworthy listener. It all started so innocently - a couple of little organ pieces of Franck from time to time, followed by some D'Indy chasers... From there it all went so quickly downhill. Hitting rock bottom meant the all-day binges on Edouard Lalo..."


----------



## Blancrocher

TalkingHead said:


> To answer the OP, I have to admit that I tend to be overcome by torpor when confronted by the music of César (Auguste Jean Guillaume Hubert) Franck. My apologies to those who admire César, the fault is totally mine, something to do with the wiring, no doubt.
> Looking on the positive side, with the above confession I now claim membership to Ingélou's "Unworthy Listeners" Club, which I propose we should rename "ULA" (Unworthy Listeners Anonymous). Here is a sketch about such a concept:
> 
> "Hello, I'm TalkingHead and I'm an unworthy listener. It all started so innocently - a couple of little organ pieces of Franck from time to time, followed by some D'Indy chasers... From there it all went so quickly downhill. Hitting rock bottom meant the all-day binges on Edouard Lalo..."


Thank you for your frank confession, TalkingHead--though, to my distress, I can tell you you are far from the only one on this forum with this problem! To help you get over your resistance, may I suggest Moravec's performance of the "Prelude, Chorale, and Fugue"? You may be interested in the review of Peter Gutmann, another Franck-hater:



> His mastery of Debussy (the Images and Pour le piano) and Ravel (the Sonatine) are to be expected, but perhaps the greatest surprise is the way he demands attention for the unbearably boring Franck Prelude, choral et fugue, from the remarkable variety with which he renders the repetitive opening chords to the astounding perfection of his arpeggiations of the chorale.


http://www.classicalnotes.net/columns/pianoweb.html


----------



## brotagonist

Franck wrote a number of organ and other works, but his output was relatively small, as he didn't really get going until his 50s. His 2 on this disc are definitely worth hearing: _Symphony in D minor_ (1886-88) and _Symphonic Variations _(1885).









From Wikipedia:

Many of Franck's works employ "cyclic form", a method aspiring to achieve unity across multiple movements. This may be achieved by reminiscence, or recall, of an earlier thematic material into a later movement, or as in Franck's output where all of the principal themes of the work are generated from a germinal motif. The main melodic subjects, thus interrelated, are then recapitulated in the final movement. Franck's use of "cyclic form" is best illustrated by his Symphony in D minor (1888).

His music is often contrapuntally complex, using a harmonic language that is prototypically late Romantic, showing a great deal of influence from Franz Liszt and Richard Wagner. In his compositions, Franck showed a talent and a penchant for frequent, graceful modulations of key. Often these modulatory sequences, achieved through a pivot chord or through inflection of a melodic phrase, arrive at harmonically remote keys.


----------



## hpowders

Franck's Symphony in D minor and Sonata for Violin and Piano in A major are fine works.


----------



## Chris

hpowders said:


> Franck's Symphony in D minor and Sonata for Violin and Piano in A major are fine works.


Dead right! The unexpected change of mood in the A major sonata as the fourth movement begins is a wonderful moment.


----------



## hpowders

All the great violinists past and present have a go at the Franck A Major Sonata, one of the most beautiful sonatas in the entire violin repertoire.


----------



## Mister Man

I don't like Richard Wagner.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Mister Man said:


> I don't like Richard Wagner.


ಠ_ಠ , Even early Wagner (before he discovered poison)?


----------



## Mister Man

> ಠ_ಠ , Even early Wagner (before he discovered poison)?


It has nothing to do with the music.


----------



## hpowders

I do believe the spirit of the OP's word "like" refers to a composer's music.


----------



## Whistler Fred

Not a big fan of either Verdi's or Puccini's music - probably because I'm not as much an opera fan and they were primarily opera composers.


----------



## hpowders

Not even La Boheme? Can soften the heart of any opera hater.


----------



## Itullian

I like em all. Not everything, all the time, but I'm lucky enough to be able to enjoy most things.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

hpowders said:


> Not even La Boheme? Can soften the heart of any opera hater.


Some things I cannot oblige: If you don't like Bohème, then get away from me. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## Whistler Fred

Marschallin Blair said:


> Some things I cannot oblige: If you don't like Bohème, then get away from me. Ha. Ha. Ha.


Well, okay, I can enjoy a good performance of La Boheme. And, for that matter, La Traviata.


----------



## hpowders

Marschallin Blair said:


> Some things I cannot oblige: If you don't like Bohème, then get away from me. Ha. Ha. Ha.


Yes. La Boheme transcends the opera stereotype some folks have as dull and long, with ridiculous plots. Seeing it live with the supertitles, there's no excuses anymore not to see it or like it. It's surely been on PBS enough times. Everyone loves a good love story.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

Personally, La Boheme is one of my least favorite operas.


----------



## hpowders

Whistler Fred said:


> Well, okay, I can enjoy a good performance of La Boheme. And, for that matter, La Traviata.


Good! That's the spirit!! Folks who hate opera based on Wagner, let's say, should try La Boheme. They might be surprised.


----------



## jlaw

Music is like women. Usually you are attracted to their beauty and get bored after marriage. In rare instances you find love of your life. If you find such music/woman, congratulations! Otherwise, it is always true we like or dislike some music at some point, regardless how great the composers are supposed to be.


----------



## hpowders

Funny! The composer I plain don't like came in #3 in the compiled top 100 composers list.

Either "they" are wrong or I am and personally, I couldn't care less.


----------



## Weston

Four years after I initially posted in this thread I have an update -- and a confession. It has slowly dawned on me over the years that I don't care much for Mendelssohn. I've always ranked him highly in my personal pecking order, but I think that was only because of the Hebridean Overture. The rest of his output is like some other composer altogether. The symphonies do next to nothing for me these days. The string symphonies are merely okay in an academic sort of way, but a lot of his work is kind of on the frenetic side. The octet is scarcely listenable because of this. 

I'll still probably collect Mendelssohn, but he'll never be my go to composer when I want a special satisfying musical experience.


----------



## hpowders

Prescription: Take two Mendelssohn Piano trios once a day for three days. Call me if you don't feel better.


----------



## neoshredder

What's your prescription for Brahms?


----------



## hpowders

neoshredder said:


> What's your prescription for Brahms?


Take the B Major Piano Trio every 12 hours for 3 days. If you don't feel better I will recommend you to our specialist, Dr. Joachim.


----------



## KenOC

neoshredder said:


> What's your prescription for Brahms?


My godfather (long since departed) once said, always listen to Brahms with a quart of warm beer. Seriously. And he was a pretty smart old coot.


----------



## samurai

So far, it's been Walton and Elgar for me.


----------



## hpowders

samurai said:


> So far, it's been Walton and Elgar for me.


Just curious, have you heard Walton's violin concerto?


----------



## samurai

hpowders said:


> Just curious, have you heard Walton's violin concerto?


No, I haven't; I guess you are recommending it then? I seem to be more attracted to symphonies, what with all their different instruments and the colors and timbres they are able to produce. I also like the interactions and trade-offs amongst the different sections of a large orchestra, as--for example--the much maligned Bolero like march sequence one finds in Shostakovich's *Leningrad Symphony. * Having said all this, however, I am willing to give the piece alluded to you a go, especially as I already have the CD with Heifetz performing it. Thanks again for the heads up! :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders

samurai said:


> No, I haven't; I guess you are recommending it then? I seem to be more attracted to symphonies, what with all their different instruments and the colors and timbres they are able to produce. I also like the interactions and trade-offs amongst the different sections of a large orchestra, as--for example--the much maligned Bolero like march sequence one finds in Shostakovich's *Leningrad Symphony. * Having said all this, however, I am willing to give the piece alluded to you a go, especially as I already have the CD with Heifetz performing it. Thanks again for the heads up! :tiphat:


I hear you. The Walton Violin Concerto is very appealing though, and since you already have it, take the Walton Violin Concerto with 7 ounces of water, once a day for 4 consecutive days. If you still don't feel better, then I will refer you to our specialist, Dr. Malcolm Arnold.


----------



## samurai

Will do. And to whom shall I remit payment?


----------



## hpowders

samurai said:


> Will do. And to whom shall I remit payment?


Don't worry. it's all included in your Platinum Talk Classical Membership Plan.
Now aren't you glad you didn't select the Selenium Plan?


----------



## Morimur

Not a fan of Phillip Glass; too repetitive, among other things.


----------



## samurai

hpowders said:


> Don't worry. it's all included in your Platinum Talk Classical Membership Plan.
> Now aren't you glad you didn't select the Selenium Plan?


Absolutely! :lol:


----------



## starthrower

I don't like your favorite composer! Nah nah, na na, nah...


----------



## Morimur

Justin Bieber. Overrated!!!


----------



## starthrower

Yes, we must assess the bubble-gummers at once!


----------



## neoshredder

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Justin Bieber. Overrated!!!


Overrated as in overhated? Everyone seems to hate him. haha


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

I love all this prescribing. "Pharmacists and physicians have been finding ways to fill prescriptions despite a shortage in the province of certain drugs," notes the _Saskatoon Star Phoenix_. Pharmacy technician and operational manager of the Medicine Shoppe, Lisa Clezy, says not to worry, "We can take powders (sic) and make anything." So can we!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

hpowders said:


> Now aren't you glad you didn't select the Selenium Plan?


Who could resist that lovely unforgettable smell...


----------



## Morimur

I am not a fan of the great composer, Kenny G.


----------



## neoshredder

But he is great for some dentist work. lol


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Curiously, I've recently been seen listening obsessively to this particular recording of Rachmaninoff's The Bells. The sort of charm one gets when discovering Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique or Roméo et Juliette. I'm not very fond of his purely orchestral symphonies, but who knows? this thread prompted a rather necessary Rachmaninoff reevaluation from my part.


----------



## aleazk

I played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless *******! It annoys me that this self-inflated mediocrity is hailed as a genius.


----------



## KenOC

aleazk said:


> I played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless *******! It annoys me that this self-inflated mediocrity is hailed as a genius.


The Economist once used the best part of this quote in an advertisement for their mag. PIT's words were on bold face on top, attributed. Below, in smaller type, was written "For a more considered opinion, subscribe to The Economist."


----------



## mmsbls

I'm always amazed at the absurd over-the-top quotes by composers about their contemporaries. I'm also surprised that The Economist would have a "more considered opinion" on such a subject and further that they would use that as an advertisement.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> I'm always amazed at the absurd over-the-top quotes by composers about their contemporaries. I'm also surprised that The Economist would have a "more considered opinion" on such a subject and further that they would use that as an advertisement.


I haven't read the Economist for some years, but they used to have quite a bit of humorous stuff. One of their nice features was a table, in each issue, estimating the amount by which major countries' currencies were over- or under-valued using the local prices for Big Macs. Also, I think they were using the phrase "considered opinion" in a general way, in contrast to PIT's opinion which seemed, well, less considered.


----------



## hpowders

Tchaikovsky hated Brahms and Wagner. 

As to the former, Tchaikovsky wrote,"I played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless *******! It annoys me that this self-inflated mediocrity is hailed as a genius." 

As to the latter, Tchaikovsky wrote, "After the last note of Gotterdammerung I felt as though I had been let out of prison." 

Somebody I would have loved to have a brew or two with.


----------



## mmsbls

KenOC said:


> I haven't read the Economist for some years, but they used to have quite a bit of humorous stuff. One of their nice features was a table, in each issue, estimating the amount by which major countries' currencies were over- or under-valued using the local prices for Big Macs. Also, I think they were using the phrase "considered opinion" in a general way, in contrast to PIT's opinion which seemed, well, less considered.


Yes, I love Tchaikovsky, but don't understand his view of Brahms and agree with the "less considered" assessment. Personalities get in the way of many composer's assessments of other composers.

I actually think that advertisement from the The Economist is wonderful, but I wonder how many of their targeted people found it so.


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

aleazk said:


> I played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless *******! It annoys me that this self-inflated mediocrity is hailed as a genius.


You're more than welcome, I'm sure, to your (and Tchaikovsky's!) opinion! I have often heard it said, for what it's worth, that "musicians have a favorite composer and Brahms," which is high praise for him. I _will_ take issue with your "self-inflated" comment: he must rank among the most self-doubting of all composers; inconsistent with being self-inflated, as you describe him. Might I prescribe a remedy for your predicament ? : Brahms' Clarinet Trio, Op. 114, listen once per day for a week with a sip of cabernet sauvignon. Let our office know how you're doing.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> I actually think that advertisement from the The Economist is wonderful, but I wonder how many of their targeted people found it so.


Some, I hope. Just checked and their listed subscription price is US$180 per annum (though can be had somewhat cheaper third-party). That's a lot of moolah in these Last Days of print magazines!


----------



## arpeggio

I have mentioned these before in other threads so I thought I would officially post it in the official "Is There a Great Composer You Plain Just Don't Like" Thread.

Verdi, Faure, Delibes, Massenet, Cage and Babbitt.

There are a few exceptions in the above composers oeuvre that I enjoy.


----------



## Funny

hpowders said:


> Tchaikovsky ...
> 
> Somebody I would have loved to have a brew or two with.


Just don't drink the water!


----------



## hpowders

Yeah. I won't. After Sochi!


----------



## hpowders

You know as hard as I try, I just can't seem to get into Carl Nielsen's music. No staying power with me. I find my mind wandering through his 4th and 5th symphonies.


----------



## neoshredder

I assume Nielsen takes many listens. I found it difficult as well.


----------



## hpowders

neoshredder said:


> I assume Nielsen takes many listens. I found it difficult as well.


Whenever it begins to sound interesting, he goes off in a different direction and loses me.
Glad I'm not the only one.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I think it is important to remark that there's a difference between "don't like" (negative) and "it does nothing/little to me" (neutral...ish).


----------



## ArtMusic

I also dislike the music of Wolfgang Rhim. But he's not great anyway.


----------



## ArtMusic

mmsbls said:


> I'm always amazed at the absurd over-the-top quotes by composers about their contemporaries. I'm also surprised that The Economist would have a "more considered opinion" on such a subject and further that they would use that as an advertisement.


Well, Mr mmsbls, *it goes to show that composers were willing to express their disikes of their contemporaries*, and of course they had/have every right to do so, *just like any member here at TC or anywhere in the world*. So you might like to be less surprised by it. Pure and simple.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

hpowders said:


> You know as hard as I try, I just can't seem to get into Carl Nielsen's music. No staying power with me. I find my mind wandering through his 4th and 5th symphonies.


The falling brass theme form Nielsen's 4th has gotten stuck in my head but I still hate those annoying rhythms he plagues his strings with.


----------



## hpowders

Richannes Wrahms said:


> The falling brass theme form Nielsen's 4th has gotten stuck in my head but I still hate those annoying rhythms he plagues his strings with.


The problem for me is he can't seem to decide if he's a Romantic or Modern composer. I don't find his straddling between them convincing, although the music has its moments, like the persistent snare drum in movement one of Symphony Number Five.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

ArtMusic said:


> I also dislike the music of Wolfgang Rhim. But he's not great anyway.


I don't like Rihm so that's Rhim and Rihm unloved with neither rhyme nor reason 

Seriously though, Rihm is very prolific but with only a portion of his hundreds of completed scores published, as yet, so I guess no-one else loves him either :devil:


----------



## dgee

Rihm has plenty of dungers and he is highly variable, but Jagden und Formen is one of the absolute rippers of the last 50 years and Jacob Lenz is pretty rad


----------



## Morimur

Is Leonard Bernstein considered great? Not a fan.


----------



## Ukko

It is obvious, is it not, that if I don't like a composer he/she/it ain't great?


----------



## violadude

I really like Wolfgang Rihm. This is the first piece I listened to that made me like his music.


----------



## Mahlerian

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Is Leonard Bernstein considered great? Not a fan.


The majority of his concert pieces are on the fringes of the repertory at best.


----------



## hpowders

Well Bernstein wrote the music for West Side Story and Candide. Two works of genius.
On The Town is nice too.
Facsimile is a fine work too.
He was primarily a composer for the musical theater.
His serious concert works appear to be overly theatrical.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Leonard Bernstein feels too "generic" to my ears, not bad but not impressive either.


----------



## Morimur

*Tod Machover - (1980) Soft Morning, City!*

Opinions, please...


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford

Ilych said:


> I have been listening to classical music since I was a teenager, about 40 years. My specialty is in the Romantic and Classic eras, but I try to expose myself to all kinds of Classical.
> I know what I am about to say is tantamount to blasphemy on these forums, but I just don't like Johann Sebastian Bach. There, I said it. Outside of the Toccata and Fugue in D minor I can honestly say there is one piece of his that doesn't either put me to sleep or make me nervous or give me a headache, or all three of the above.
> I know, I know. I've studied enough to know that Bach is one of the greatest of all the gods in the Classical spectrum. I know how extremely influential he was. I know most Classical fans adore him. I have given him chance after chance. I feel that there must be something in me that is somehow deficient to not appreciate his genius.
> I am not looking for anyone to contradict my views, I fear they are set in concrete. I was wondering if anyone else has a virulent dislike to one of the acknowledged geniuses of Classical composition?
> I am still very new to the forums and I was wondering what you think!


I liked how you shared your dislike for Bach, but I still don't quite understand why anybody wouldn't like it. Oh well, Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so I can't condemn you for your honest opinion.


----------



## Itullian

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Opinions, please...


I'd better not


----------



## aleazk

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Opinions, please...


Not bad. Reminds me of Ligeti's Le grand macabre, but with electronics. The left-right balance details are nice, and innovative for 1980 I guess.


----------



## apricissimus

Brahms just does nothing for me.


----------



## hpowders

Especially since he be dead.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

WRT Bernstein, I love the overture to Candide.

On the other hand, I dislike the Mass he wrote with Steven Schwartz. I don't think much of it musically, and positively loathe it theologically.


----------



## Rhythm

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Opinions, please...


Soprano, Jane Manning, and what she does with her voice is enough to make that piece by Machover tolerable, in my opinion. More than once I've enjoyed her vocals, and flabbergasted, too!

The world's first robotic opera, Death and the Powers, by Mr. Machover, was introduced at this TED2008 talk. Other excerpts from that opera are here.

An excerpt from Machover's wiki | ...Joining the faculty at the new Media Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1985, he became Professor of Music and Media and Director of the Experimental Media Facility. Currently Professor of Music and Media at the MIT Media Lab, he is head of the Lab's Hyperinstruments/Opera of the Future group and has been Co-Director of the Things That Think (TTT) and Toys of Tomorrow (TOT) consortia since 1995....​
Another influential from MIT is Scott Rickard, who at this TED2011 talk introduced pattern-free music, titled The Perfect Ping, a piece composed without repetition. He also mentions, prior to its piano performance in the vid, that it's the ugliest music. And, I nod approvingly at that description with eyebrows raised and a fixed grin on my face.


----------



## Polyphemus

Wagner is anathema to me, overblown, pompous and mindblowingly tedious. 
Richard Strauss (See above)
Bernstein when he took himself seriously as a composer of symphonies and operas. His best work to me was the earlier work for the theatre, On The Town, Candide, West side Story and his suites from On The Waterfront & WSS.


----------



## KenOC

Polyphemus said:


> Wagner is anathema to me, overblown, pompous and mindblowingly tedious.


Tchaikovsky referred to Wagner as a "symphonist" lost on the opera stage where "the music loses all power of expression." I very much admire the orchestral excerpts from his operas and wish he had written more in that vein.


----------



## Chris

This morning Radio 3 played something by Henry VIII. It was dreadful.


----------



## hpowders

Wow! That's some hatchet job. Bet you wouldn't have said that to his face.


----------



## Chris

I might have tried sneaking something past him under cover of vocabulary. 'Your majesty, that was a masterpiece of aleatoric malsonance'. Risky though.


----------



## hpowders

I would have offered him one of my wives; then I would have torn his music to shreds verbally. 
I figure one would offset the other....
Of course, I also thought the Titanic would float.


----------



## danielsshao

I'm very often reluctant to say I flat-out don't like any classical work or composer unless it's/he or she is truly devoid of any sort of originality or quality whatsoever. However, I do have to say that some composers don't do as much for me as others. The one that always comes to mind is Tchaikovsky: I find much to respect in his music, particularly his Sixth Symphony, but there's this saccharine and overly dramatic quality about a lot of his work that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Again, if you're a Tchaikovsky fan, I have nothing against you, and I'm sure you have your very good reasons for enjoying his music, but Tchaikovsky just can't do the same for me.


----------



## Polyphemus

Henry would have been busy with the axe.


----------



## hpowders

I've reconsidered. I would just stand there, listen to the music, keep my mouth shut and
axe him no questions!


----------



## QuietGuy

I agree with Ilych. Outside of a few pieces (Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor, Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring, A Mighty Fortress), I dislike Bach's music. Yes, the contrapuntal technique is wonderful, but a little goes a long way. And since Bach's music defines an entire era, I must say I don't like the era either. All that moto perpetuo makes me nervous and gives me a headache.


----------



## Piwikiwi

QuietGuy said:


> I agree with Ilych. Outside of a few pieces (Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor, Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring, A Mighty Fortress), I dislike Bach's music. Yes, the contrapuntal technique is wonderful, but a little goes a long way. And since Bach's music defines an entire era, I must say I don't like the era either. All that moto perpetuo makes me nervous and gives me a headache.


JS Bach isn't that representative for baroque music.


----------



## Oskaar

Hmmmkrhmm... I have a confession, but please dont shoot me... I really like beethoven in not to big doses..., but I cant stand his symphonies! Is there a cure for that? I have not tried for a while, I guess I soon should to see if something is changed


----------



## neoshredder

QuietGuy said:


> I agree with Ilych. Outside of a few pieces (Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor, Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring, A Mighty Fortress), I dislike Bach's music. Yes, the contrapuntal technique is wonderful, but a little goes a long way. And since Bach's music defines an entire era, I must say I don't like the era either. All that moto perpetuo makes me nervous and gives me a headache.


Bach is actually quite different from other Baroque music. Listen to Handel, Telemann, and Vivaldi for instance.


----------



## hpowders

Good thing he wasn't born in the early 1700's. He might have had a nervous breakdown from all that moto perpetuo.


----------



## neoshredder

hpowders said:


> Good thing he wasn't born in the early 1700's. He might have had a nervous breakdown from all that moto perpetuo.


Uh he might've been more popular. The galante style basically made him obsolete.


----------



## hpowders

neoshredder said:


> Uh he might've been more popular. The galante style basically made him obsolete.


Except for a few great composers, the music could sound like "sewing machine" music.


----------



## neoshredder

hpowders said:


> Except for a few great composers, the music could sound like "sewing machine" music.


The Italians and French were awesome at that time. And every Era has its mediocre Composers.


----------



## hpowders

neoshredder said:


> The Italians and French were awesome at that time. And every Era has its mediocre Composers.


I find the French Baroque composers tougher to get into-all that flowery ornamentation at the expense of memorable melodies.


----------



## Frasier

Listeners, cognoscenti and others try to assure me that Mahler is a great composer. I find him a rambling noisemaker whose music simply doesn't cohere. I think his music grates more than 'is great'.


----------



## hpowders

Everybody's different. Nobody's forcing you to listen to Mahler.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Blake

Frasier said:


> Listeners, cognoscenti and others try to assure me that Mahler is a great composer. I find him a rambling noisemaker whose music simply doesn't cohere. I think his music grates more than 'is great'.


In other words, one more listen and you'll be completely smitten... Agreed.


----------



## southwood

Brahms ? How is he rated so highly ? He's mediocre. Beethoven is over rated. Shostakovich lacks melody way too much. Sibelius symphonies are over rated, but his tone poems, incidental music, and violin concerto are fantastic.


----------



## violadude

southwood said:


> Brahms ? How is he rated so highly ? He's mediocre. Beethoven is over rated. Shostakovich lacks melody way too much. Sibelius symphonies are over rated, but his tone poems, incidental music, and violin concerto are fantastic.


What do you find mediocre about Brahms?

Strange quality you give to Shostakovich. I'm having trouble thinking of a piece by him that doesn't have a clear melody. 

Sibelius is quite the acquired taste, I suspect. But I think his symphony cycle is one of the best and most consistent of that time frame.


----------



## hpowders

I agree with southwood. The Sibelius violin concerto is fantastic.


----------



## southwood

violadude said:


> What do you find mediocre about Brahms?
> 
> Strange quality you give to Shostakovich. I'm having trouble thinking of a piece by him that doesn't have a clear melody.
> 
> Sibelius is quite the acquired taste, I suspect. But I think his symphony cycle is one of the best and most consistent of that time frame.


I just don't "get it" with Brahms. His music just seems dull and pointless. I am in good company on this. Prokofiev, I believe ; certainly Britten and Tchaikovsky didn't rate Brahms either.
Shostakovich ? "Melody" wasn't the correct term. Euphonics is closer. Shosty admitted as much. I do like SOME of Shosty's stuff when I am in the mood. Funny, he used to be my favourite. So did Mahler at one time, but I still rather like Mahler.
Sibelius' 1st symphony has its excellent passages. His other ones are so so. I think I am actually starting prefer Nielsen as a symphonist. But Sibelius' other works are enough to make him one of my top three 20th century composers.


----------



## violadude

southwood said:


> I just don't "get it" with Brahms. His music just seems dull and pointless. I am in good company on this. Prokofiev, I believe ; certainly Britten and Tchaikovsky didn't rate Brahms either.
> 
> Sibelius' 1st symphony has its excellent passages. His other ones are so so. I think I am actually starting prefer Nielsen as a symphonist. But Sibelius' other works are enough to make him one of my top three 20th century composers.


Well, I don't want to assume too much about your listening habits or tastes but these are two composers that I used to not like much either so I feel urged to write a little bit about it, maybe our experiences are similar.

Brahms is one of the most meticulous craftsmen in all of classical music and as such, he often lacks a certain charm or naturalness that other composer's music are blessed with. It can all sound rather heavy and dull at first listen. People say similar things about Beethoven but I think it's even more prevalent in Brahms' music. I first started appreciating Brahms fully through his piano music and I think that's a good place to start because the piano miniatures are pieces where you can hear how brilliantly Brahms is able to engineer his musical material and fit the form to that material so perfectly on a small scale. It's going to be easier to hear on a small scale rather than a large scale, at least, that's what I assume. Eventually, I think Brahms way of writing melodies and the way they interact with his harmonies can grow on you, but something has to grab you first.

I started with the set of 8 pieces, Op. 76.

As for Sibelius, the fact that you only really like his 1st symphony makes me think that you don't really like Sibelius' style at all (or at least not his symphonic style of writing) because the 1st is the least Sibelian of the bunch by far. Perhaps you are expecting him to sound like that in the rest of his symphonies? I don't want to do too much guesswork, but I would try to meet Sibelius on his own terms, if you care about liking his music that is. In his 1st symphony he seems to be trying to imitate some kind of Tchaikovsky like middle-late Romantic style and it simply wasn't him. He was much more comfortable with building climaxes through the use of slowly building ostinatos, for example. His climaxes as a result sound very controlled rather than ecstatically wild like Tchaikovsky's tend to be.

I hope what I'm writing helps somewhat.


----------



## hpowders

Well he must like Sibelius' style somewhat if he zeroed in on Sibelius' greatest work, the violin concerto (which you over-looked, post #1270)) as being a favorite of his. "Fantastic", and I agree.

He quite rightly in my opinion, chooses Nielsen over Sibelius as a symphonist. No crime in that.
Shows musical sophistication.

Underestimate southwood at your peril.


----------



## violadude

hpowders said:


> Well he must like Sibelius' style somewhat if he zeroed in on Sibelius' greatest work, the violin concerto (which you over-looked, post #1270)) as being a favorite of his. "Fantastic", and I agree.
> 
> He quite rightly in my opinion, chooses Nielsen over Sibelius as a symphonist. No crime in that.
> Shows musical sophistication.
> 
> Underestimate southwood at your peril.


Well, I think Sibelius' violin concerto is very far from being Sibelius' best work. So...we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one I guess. I was speaking specifically of the symphonies in my post.

I like both Nielsen and Sibelius as symphonists a lot and probably wouldn't compare the two too much. They are pretty different in style.


----------



## hpowders

violadude said:


> Well, I think Sibelius' violin concerto is very far from being Sibelius' best work. So...we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one I guess. I was speaking specifically of the symphonies in my post.
> 
> I like both Nielsen and Sibelius as symphonists a lot and probably wouldn't compare the two too much. They are pretty different in style.


Yeah one is original and one ummmm....sounds a little too much like Tchaikovsky.


----------



## violadude

hpowders said:


> Yeah one is original and one ummmm....sounds a little too much like Tchaikovsky.


Sibelius only sounds somewhat like Tchaikovsky in his 1st symphony. After that he sounds nothing like Tchaikovsky and is just as original as Nielsen as a symphonist I would say.


----------



## hpowders

Sibelius puts me to sleep (violin concerto exception) and Nielsen does not. I've only recently began liking Nielsen's music. Not easy, but rewarding through repetition.

To each his own. No key signature off my composition paper!


----------



## neoshredder

hpowders said:


> Sibelius puts me to sleep (violin concerto exception) and Nielsen does not.
> 
> To each his own. No key signature off my composition paper!


Sibelius is awesome! I could listen to him all day!


----------



## Itullian

neoshredder said:


> Sibelius is awesome! I could listen to him all day!


Second that emotion.


----------



## hpowders

Sibelius, Wagner and Bruckner pretty well sums it up for me in the "plain don't like" category of composers.

Great thread! :tiphat:


----------



## neoshredder

Itullian said:


> Second that emotion.


OT: That song is annoying. Lol


----------



## southwood

"As for Sibelius, the fact that you only really like his 1st symphony makes me think that you don't really like Sibelius' style at all (or at least not his symphonic style of writing) because the 1st is the least Sibelian of the bunch by far. Perhaps you are expecting him to sound like that in the rest of his symphonies? I don't want to do too much guesswork, but I would try to meet Sibelius on his own terms, if you care about liking his music that is. In his 1st symphony he seems to be trying to imitate some kind of Tchaikovsky like middle-late Romantic style and it simply wasn't him. He was much more comfortable with building climaxes through the use of slowly building ostinatos, for example. His climaxes as a result sound very controlled rather than ecstatically wild like Tchaikovsky's tend to be."

I found your remark about my not liking Sibelius' style quite astounding. Did you not read what I said about Sibelius being one of my two or three fave 20th century composers ? I think he is a great composer. I love most of his stuff, just not the symphonies or the piano music. I would have preferred it if he had stayed in the Tchaikovsky mode in the symphonies. His fourth has a certain sombre charm I would say. Mahler and Sibelius had a disagreement about the nature of the symphony. It seems old Gustav was more on the money than old Jean methinks.

Brahms is weird. I mean I hear a piece of his music, say a segment from a symphony, and think "that's brilliant". But when I hear the whole work it leaves me cold. He's not a patch on, say, Dvorak or Bruckner as a symphonist.


----------



## hpowders

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Yep. *Wagner does nothing to me*, along with many Romantics and all those that follow (chronologically speaking).


Well....maybe not nothing....he can give me a migraine headache.


----------



## neoshredder

hpowders said:


> Well....maybe not nothing....he can give me a migraine headache.


Yeah Wagner, Verdi, and whoever else does only Opera's. Not a fan.


----------



## Ingélou

I was going to post something jokey about Benjamin Britten. I was put off him after having to play his 'Simple Symphony' in the Junior Section of the York Schools Strings Orchestra. 
Then Conscience compelled me to try something else of his, and I came across this lovely Lute Song:





So - come back, Benjamin, all is forgiven. 
Which just shows - it really doesn't do to be prejudiced.


----------



## violadude

southwood said:


> "As for Sibelius, the fact that you only really like his 1st symphony makes me think that you don't really like Sibelius' style at all (or at least not his symphonic style of writing) because the 1st is the least Sibelian of the bunch by far. Perhaps you are expecting him to sound like that in the rest of his symphonies? I don't want to do too much guesswork, but I would try to meet Sibelius on his own terms, if you care about liking his music that is. In his 1st symphony he seems to be trying to imitate some kind of Tchaikovsky like middle-late Romantic style and it simply wasn't him. He was much more comfortable with building climaxes through the use of slowly building ostinatos, for example. His climaxes as a result sound very controlled rather than ecstatically wild like Tchaikovsky's tend to be."
> 
> I found your remark about my not liking Sibelius' style quite astounding. Did you not read what I said about Sibelius being one of my two or three fave 20th century composers ? I think he is a great composer. I love most of his stuff, just not the symphonies or the piano music. I would have preferred it if he had stayed in the Tchaikovsky mode in the symphonies. His fourth has a certain sombre charm I would say. Mahler and Sibelius had a disagreement about the nature of the symphony. It seems old Gustav was more on the money than old Jean methinks.


Alright, alright, I didn't mean to "astound" you. And I did revise my statement about you not liking Sibelius' style in the parentheses, just to be clear...


----------



## hpowders

Yeah. Be careful. You don't want to give an innocent poster a hearty 'tack.


----------



## Itullian

hpowders said:


> Sibelius, Wagner and Bruckner pretty well sums it up for me.
> 
> Great thread! :tiphat:


Forgetting Debussy, Chopin and Rachmaninoff?


----------



## neoshredder

Itullian said:


> Forgetting Debussy, Chopin and Rachmaninoff?


Schubert as well. All Romantics. Oh well.


----------



## Serge

No, I love all 5 or 6 of them!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

violadude said:


> As for Sibelius, the fact that you only really like his 1st symphony makes me think that you don't really like Sibelius' style at all (or at least not his symphonic style of writing) because the 1st is the least Sibelian of the bunch by far. Perhaps you are expecting him to sound like that in the rest of his symphonies? I don't want to do too much guesswork, but I would try to meet Sibelius on his own terms, if you care about liking his music that is. In his 1st symphony he seems to be trying to imitate some kind of Tchaikovsky like middle-late Romantic style and it simply wasn't him.


From Dinner with Lenny: The Last Long Interview with Leonard Bernstein page 32.

Dragging, amid fits of coughing, on a cigarette dangling from his lips, Bernstein rummaged through a collection of ancient LPs, dug out a still-pristine copy of the Columbia Records album of the Sibelius First Symphony featuring the New York Philharmonic ("a much-underrated orchestra," the maestro commented), and placed it on a turntable. Softly, a solitary clarinetist began to unwind a seemingly endless sinuous and forlorn melodic line, over which Bernstein, in a tone of mock-grandiloquence, announced: "And did you know that the president of Finland anointed me Commander of the Order of the Lion in 1965?"

Passing his own vodka glass from one hand to the other, Bernstein then started to sing-humming, crooning, moaning, shouting-out gospel-style-as he conducted and danced along to the four movements of the symphony (written in 1898 when the composer was thirty-three). All the while he added recitative-like interpolations, explanations, words of approval and disapproval, and assorted comments for my benefit about this impassioned, mercurial, wildly inventive work.

"Listen, child!" the maestro announced to me. "Here's the Jewish rabbi theme . . . There's Beethoven . . . There'sTchaikovsky-it's Swan Lake -and just wait for some Borodin and Mussorgsky later on . . . Some Grieg (but better than Grieg) . . . And now comes Sibelius-just listen, that's unmistakably Sibelius. [L.B. sang and quickly wrote out for me on an old envelope the distinctively Sibelian rhythmic cell we'd just heard: Dah-dedum-dum.] Now, a wind . . . sighing . . . And now a pop song [singing] 'What-did-we-do-till-we-loved?' . . . Yeah, that's completely Carousel . . . And now a breeze comes along." Then, as the gorgeous Andante movement came to a close, the now-motionless maestro, glass upraised, bent his head and closed his eyes.

"There sure are a lot of borrowings in there," I said, breaking the spell.

"But it's so marvelous how all music is tied up together!" Bernstein replied enthusiastically, as he went over to the turntable to turn over the record. "I mean, I could go through Stravinsky's Rite of Spring with you and point out what comes from Mussorgsky and Ravel-note-for-note passages from Ravel-outright, out-*******-rageous steals! I could go through Beethoven at his most revolutionary, bar by bar, and show you the derivations from Handel and Haydn and Mozart."

"What about Carl Orff?" I asked. "If you took Stravinsky's Les Noces out of Carmina Burana, you wouldn't have much left, would you?"

"Orff took nine-tenths of the style from Stravinsky's Les Noces and the other tenth from Israeli horas. [L.B.was now off and away singing and dancing a hora, pounding the table as he went along.] And Orff was such a Nazi. Of course, the Israelis stole from the Romanians. So? It's Stravinsky plus Jewish horas from Romania.

Because a composer is the sum total of his listening experience . . . plus the voice and jism that belong specifically to him: 'I am Wolfgang Amadeus!' 'I am Ludwig!' 'I am Igor Fedorovich!' 'Me, me, Sibelius!' And that makes them instantly identifiable to listeners with sensitive ears. And it's in that sense that I can prove to you in my Talmudic way that Stravinsky's Le Sacre is not a revolutionary piece and that it is a revolutionary piece because there's never been anything like it, before or since."

"Picasso," I said, "once remarked that 'good artists copy and great ones steal.' "

"Right. And part of the artifice of art is knowing how to steal classy ."

"But what if it's unconscious?" I asked.

"Of course. It's all unconscious."

"There's such a thing as a classy unconscious steal?"

"If you're a good composer," he replied, "you steal good steals."

Bernstein now walked over to the turntable and started to play the symphony's Scherzo and Finale movements. After a few minutes, a particularly passionate string passage ("Jerome Kern would be very proud of this melody") forced from him a sweeping upward right armed movement and the instruction (to invisible violins):

"Now sing it on . . . stand up and sing!" Then, a moment later (to me): "Did you catch Jimmy Chambers on horn and Harold Gomberg on oboe? What great guys! They don't make them like that anymore." At that moment, there was a sudden pause in the score. "I have no idea what's coming," Bernstein said, his arms frozen in midair. And then, slowly, as the Finale began gradually to rise to its blazing climax, the symphony all at once stopped dead in its tracks. Lights out.

"What happened to the record?" I asked.

"That's the ending," Bernstein said to me as he lifted the tone arm. "Dum . . . Dum. Two chords. That's it. No diminuendo, no ritard, no nothing . . . as if to say: '**** you, if you don't like it, go home!' And that's very twentieth century."


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

hpowders said:


> Sibelius puts me to sleep (violin concerto exception) and Nielsen does not. I've only recently began liking Nielsen's music. Not easy, but rewarding through repetition.
> 
> To each his own. No key signature off my composition paper!


May I suggest you to try Sibelius's Luonnotar Op. 70?


----------



## hpowders

Richannes Wrahms said:


> May I suggest you to try Sibelius's Luonnotar Op. 70?


Will do! Thanks!


----------



## southwood

violadude said:


> Alright, alright, I didn't mean to "astound" you. And I did revise my statement about you not liking Sibelius' style in the parentheses, just to be clear...


Thank ye, dude. I just stumbled on this little gem, after dismissing Sibelius' piano works. If he has more piano stuff like this then I look forward to hearing it. Oh, nearly forgot; I rather like Kullervo. That's a symphony.


----------



## southwood

hpowders said:


> Will do! Thanks!


Try this. Ignore the crazy lyrics. The singing is wonderful. She is Finnish too so singing in her native tongue.


----------



## hpowders

southwood said:


> Try this. Ignore the crazy lyrics. The singing is wonderful. She is Finnish too so singing in her native tongue.


Nice. I wonder why they put that long non-musical introduction in there?


----------



## omega

I feel ashamed. I've tried many times, but I simply cannot listen to Chopin.


----------



## hpowders

omega said:


> I feel ashamed. I've tried many times, but I simply cannot listen to Chopin.


Nothing to be ashamed about. I hear a certain sameness and fragility to his music which frankly bores me.


----------



## Woodduck

Since this is my first post, I really should try to address the proposed topic, so I'll name Schutz (monotonous harmonies and short-winded phrases with stock cadences), Mozart (actually there are some works I admire but still for some reason never want to listen to), Bizet (except when Callas renovates Carmen), Debussy (except where "Pelleas" turns into "Parsifal," which really chagrined old Claude!), Mahler (I want to slap him and tell him to get over himself, also to stay away from Goethe, religion, and large aggregations of voices and instruments) and Schoenberg (post-"Verklarte Nacht" and "Gurrelieder"). 

But that brings me to what really got me into this forum, a statement made some time back by Mahlerian about Schoenberg being "expressive" and "logical." My question to Mahlerian is: If you're talking about Schoenberg's 12 tone stuff, just what aspects of it would you say make it "some of the most expressive music ever written"? What does it express? And to whom? To me, the abandonment of functional, hierarchical tonal harmony, with the capacity to structure tension and release over time that it makes possible, deprives music of much of its expressive power and variety of affect, as exploited by composers from (roughly) the Renaissance on. In this respect there is simply nothing in world music comparable in eloquence to the language of tonality. This is not to say that the other elements of music, and the various ways of manipulating them, are without expressive value. Schoenberg and friends certainly do express things with those other elements; in fact I'd say they express some things quite intensely, but within a quite narrow range, and a particular range that vast numbers of us find largely unsympathetic. When harmonic motion is unmoored from a place of departure and return, when dissonance ceases to imply or seek resolution (whether or not it ever attains it), harmonic change loses most of its expressive charge and is little more than a play of colors, and not the most pleasant colors at that.

As for "perfectly logical," I don't know what you mean. Anyone can create a "logical" system, given certain premises, but that's no guarantee of significance or value.

I'm not disparaging Schoenberg or anyone who chooses to work in a non-tonal style. I can see that such music can have intrinsic aesthetic virtues. But most of it isn't interesting to me on a subjective level because, apparently unlike you, I find what it expresses limited and tiresome in more than small doses - useful perhaps as a dramatic effect, but poor as a language of the soul.


----------



## millionrainbows

I like to find the weaknesses in all composers, just to prove they are not Gods. I mean, to the extent that I try out these criticisms in thread discussions as a Devil's advocate, just to see how they fly, and what sort of counter-arguments are provided. First, it was Mozart, then Brahms, then Schoenberg; now I'm deconstructing Mahler.


----------



## arpeggio

*Viva la differences*

^^^^^
"If you're talking about Schoenberg's 12 tone stuff, just what aspects of it would you say make it "some of the most expressive music ever written"? "

This addresses an issue that can not be resolved.

If a person dislikes Schutz, Mozart, Bizet, Debussy, Mahler and Schoenberg I seriously doubt that anyone here can say anything to them that will changed their minds. I know I can not do it. I have my biases: Verdi, Faure, Beethoven Concertos, Cage, Phillip Glass, Frank Wigglesworth (who has deservedly been forgotten). When these guys trains left the station I was not on them. I seriously doubt that anyone can change my mind either.

'some guy' and I have a good nature feud going on over music of Bax. I love Bax. He hates him.

Maybe we should have fun over our petty differences. (I know I take things a little too seriously around here.)

Like I was at the dentist last week undergoing a root canal and I was longing for the soothing sounds of the Schoenberg's _Violin Concerto_ instead of that country western cr*p she plays in the background. (I actually had a root canal last week with an Endodontist. He played classical in the background. It did not help.)

Or given a choice between "Yummy, Yummy, Yummy I've Got Love in My Tummy" and _4' 33"_, I will chose _4' 33"_. Silence can be golden.

Or Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there? Knock Knock. Who's there?....Phillip Glass.


----------



## Woodduck

Millionrainbows, your reference to composers' "weaknesses" provokes the thought that discussions of our dislikes always involve two separate yet inseparable questions: 1) How do I feel about the music and why? and 2) What do I think its faults are and why? The effort of trying to understand the boundaries and the overlap of these questions, and what we learn about both music and ourselves in the process, is for me a big part of what makes this kind of discussion both exhilarating and edifying.

I don't think I've ever felt the need to prove that great composers are not gods; I know that already - and yet that knowledge doesn't preclude awe and reverence in the presence of the inexplicable power of music and the ability of some human beings to wield that power. In the greatest works of art, weaknesses (even if they exist and I notice them) are swept away by the flood of inspiration and never get an anchorhold in my soul. And yet, I still love to look for them and argue about them. I stumbled upon this site the other day while I was considering the question "Is Mozart overrated?"; I'd been debating with a friend over whether he's the first, second, or third greatest composer in history (he says first, I say third), and we'll go to our graves, and maybe beyond, fighting about it. Delicious!

Anyhow - I too have "deconstructed" the composers you mention, and if you're presently working on Mahler, your findings would interest me. My subjective response to his music has been predominantly one of distaste, ranging from mild annoyance and boredom to gut-churning disgust (with some of his songs and "Das Lied von der Erde" the major exceptions) for nigh on forty years, yet I think most of his stuff is great music! Over no other composer do my head and heart disagree more. I welcome the perspective of anyone else for whom his music is problematic.


----------



## hpowders

"I try and find weaknesses of the great composers to prove they are not Gods."

I don't know about you folks, but so far I have been miserably unsuccessful.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck, as someone who counts Debussy and Mozart among my favorite composers, as well as Schoenberg and (naturally) Mahler, we certainly have very different perspectives. That might make it hard for me to communicate with you, as so many things in discussion art are available to us only by shared experience, but I'll try anyway, since you are approaching this in good faith.



Woodduck said:


> But that brings me to what really got me into this forum, a statement made some time back by Mahlerian about Schoenberg being "expressive" and "logical." My question to Mahlerian is: If you're talking about Schoenberg's 12 tone stuff, just what aspects of it would you say make it "some of the most expressive music ever written"? What does it express? And to whom? To me, the abandonment of functional, hierarchical tonal harmony, with the capacity to structure tension and release over time that it makes possible, deprives music of much of its expressive power and variety of affect, as exploited by composers from (roughly) the Renaissance on. In this respect there is simply nothing in world music comparable in eloquence to the language of tonality. This is not to say that the other elements of music, and the various ways of manipulating them, are without expressive value. Schoenberg and friends certainly do express things with those other elements; in fact I'd say they express some things quite intensely, but within a quite narrow range, and a particular range that vast numbers of us find largely unsympathetic. When harmonic motion is unmoored from a place of departure and return, when dissonance ceases to imply or seek resolution (whether or not it ever attains it), harmonic change loses most of its expressive charge and is little more than a play of colors, and not the most pleasant colors at that.


It is true that tonal hierarchy and the clarity of perspectives that tonal relations provide are not as clearly present in "atonal" music, and much the same goes for the non-functional "tonalities" of Impressionism and Post-Impressionism (Messiaen, Takemitsu) as well (and I would exclude any pre-Baroque music). That does not mean that the power of say, movement of a fifth or a semitone is completely absent. Those intervals still work in exactly the same way as they do in any other music.

When I say Schoenberg's music is extremely expressive, I mean that in exactly the same way that I say the music of Wagner, Gesualdo, Mozart, Bartok, Monteverdi, Chopin, Messiaen, and Mahler is expressive. I mean that the melody and harmony and form work together to create expectations and fulfill or deny them, creating suspense and resolution. Schoenberg's music, in addition to the rich lyricism of its melodic and harmonic lines, is constantly shifting, ever developing its motifs into new forms and new combinations.

I disagree both with the idea that Schoenberg's music has a narrow expressive range and the idea that the range it has is anathema to concertgoers. In good performances (and there are quite a number these days, as more top-level performers take up this challenging-to-perform music) audiences seem to respond quite well. Look at the response to Hilary Hahn's recording of the Violin Concerto, or Uchida's of the Piano Concerto, for example. As for the music's expressive range, once one finds one's way inside this seemingly dense music, there is a whole world that contains humor (Serenade), playfulness (the scherzo of Quartet No. 4), and even transcendent elation (the last of the Four Pieces for Mixed Choir). If one can only hear the outside, then perhaps it all sounds the same, but from the inside, there are many different gradations of character and expression.

There is, of course, the kind of nervous _Fin de siecle_ angst that people associate with Schoenberg, but it is rarely the only mood of an entire work, even a short one. The most expressionist works of his "free atonal" period are in fact defined by their kaleidoscopic shifts of mood as well as texture and harmony. Note that Pierrot lunaire has its "Valse de Chopin", "Serenade", and "O alter Duft" as well as "Nacht" and "Enthauptung", and Five Orchestral Pieces has "Farben" and "Vergangenes" in addition to "Vorgefuhle" and "Perepetie".



Woodduck said:


> As for "perfectly logical," I don't know what you mean. Anyone can create a "logical" system, given certain premises, but that's no guarantee of significance or value.


But the statement I was responding to, which alledged that Schoenberg's music was "chaos", was not about quality as such. Of course having coherent structure is not a sufficient condition for great art, but it may at least be a necessary one.



Woodduck said:


> *I'm not disparaging Schoenberg or anyone who chooses to work in a non-tonal style.* I can see that such music can have intrinsic aesthetic virtues. But most of* it isn't interesting to me on a subjective level because*, apparently unlike you,* I find what it expresses limited and tiresome* in more than small doses - useful perhaps as a dramatic effect, but *poor as a language of the soul*.


So, "I'm not saying anything bad about X", but "X seems like a limited, spiritually poor idea to me"? Doesn't that strike you as a contradiction? I know that the latter part is phrased as being your own perception, and that you're aware of the conflict here, but you're still trying to have it both ways.

I don't think Schoenberg's music is good because it's not functionally tonal, nor do I think that it's good in spite of not being functionally tonal. I just think it's good music, period. The fact that the idiom is substantially new is simply a bonus.


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian, I really appreciate your thoughtful and tolerant reply. I know statements such as I was making can at least border on sounding dogmatic, especially as they must be largely subjective yet strongly put and perhaps overgeneralized to make a point. You didn't accuse me of any of that! Bless you.

I can perceive expressive relationships between tones in Schoenberg's music. His melodic gestures are often quite dramatic (inherited from Wagner and Mahler, yes?). I hear as well a great suggestiveness of relational possibilities in the harmony, and I think this unavoidable; the human mind wants order, and some kind of intrinsic relationship containing a sense of expectation (if not necessarily the full tonal system Western music evolved) suggests itself when the mind is presented with sequences of notes or harmonies, especially when these are perceived as dissonant and in need of resolution. I'm just unsure to what extent Schoenberg himself wanted this to happen. Wasn't the idea behind dodecophony the frustration or elimination of that kind of expectation? If not, what was the point of it? I have to say that when I listen to 12-tone music, my mind perceives all sorts of momentary "tonal" intimations which are constantly left unrealized as the music intentionally goes elsewhere and moves not into the resolution of relative consonance but into still further tense dissonance. Alternative ordering principles may be at work, and of course melodic intervals may move with intense resolve to express whatever they can, but the "system's" persistent undermining of my mind's innate predisposition to hear harmonic progression often leaves me feeling mainly a sort of nervous irritation. Perhaps I'm trying to hear what is not there and not intended to be there.

I just heard Wozzeck broadcast by the Met this afternoon. It's one of my favorite works from the "New Viennese School," and I have to admit this is so because Berg has a wonderful feel for when tonality is needed to "humanize" his expressive language. For this very reason I can enjoy a lot of Berg, when my mood is right (not too often!). I will probably always find late Schoenberg and Webern more interesting in the abstract than sympathetic to my nature; I'm sure it's a partly a temperamental and cultural-sense-of-life thing. But I won't give up. There's plenty of music of that school I don't know, and I want particularly to hear Moses und Aron again.

The "nonfunctional tonalities" of other styles seem very different in effect from those of the Second Viennese School. Wagner is always cited as pivotal in loosening the grip of tonality by prolonging his harmonic excursions past the point where their context can be perceived. Yet he still relies completely on the listener's tonal sense even while taxing it to the breaking point, and much of his expressive power derives from this. I think Mahler follows him in the excruciatingly intense delay of resolution, although in a less chromatic idiom. Liszt, on the other hand, while still using a harmonic idiom similar to Wagner's, begins playing with harmony for the sake of sound as such. Debussy goes further in this direction, not through chromatic wandering but through juxtaposition of chords that have no progressive relation to one another. Messiaen takes this further. As I hear it, this kind of "non-tonality" doesn't allow for the intense emotional expressivity of more tonal music but rather tends toward "mood" and a variety of sensuous effects (which can be enchanting in themselves). But I think it's interesting that when Debussy, in Pelleas et Melisande (I like the opera, by the way) wanted to cut deepest emotionally, he wrote less "impressionistically" and more tonally, and was, to his own great annoyance, influenced by that bete noir Wagner (Parsifal is clearly audible, especially in the interludes). What's interesting is that this is exactly what Berg did in Wozzeck when _he_ felt the need for a deeper emotional expression! Both composers, when they wanted to pierce our hearts, drew upon the irresistible power of tonality.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> Mahlerian, I really appreciate your thoughtful and tolerant reply. I know statements such as I was making can at least border on sounding dogmatic, especially as they must be largely subjective yet strongly put and perhaps overgeneralized to make a point. You didn't accuse me of any of that! Bless you.


I've gotten into enough of these arguments to recognize when someone is asking questions in good faith and when someone just wants their opinion confirmed by like-minded people. I enjoy a good discussion on these topics myself, so thank you!



Woodduck said:


> I can perceive expressive relationships between tones in Schoenberg's music. His melodic gestures are often quite dramatic (inherited from Wagner and Mahler, yes?) *[Yes, and Strauss as well - M.]*. I hear as well a great suggestiveness of relational possibilities in the harmony, and I think this unavoidable; the human mind wants order, and some kind of intrinsic relationship containing a sense of expectation (if not necessarily the full tonal system Western music evolved) suggests itself when the mind is presented with sequences of notes or harmonies, especially when these are perceived as dissonant and in need of resolution. I'm just unsure to what extent Schoenberg himself wanted this to happen. Wasn't the idea behind dodecophony the frustration or elimination of that kind of expectation? If not, what was the point of it? I have to say that when I listen to 12-tone music, my mind perceives all sorts of momentary "tonal" intimations which are constantly left unrealized as the music intentionally goes elsewhere and moves not into the resolution of relative consonance but into still further tense dissonance. Alternative ordering principles may be at work, and of course melodic intervals may move with intense resolve to express whatever they can, but the "system's" persistent undermining of my mind's innate predisposition to hear harmonic progression often leaves me feeling mainly a sort of nervous irritation. Perhaps I'm trying to hear what is not there and not intended to be there.


Yes, if you're looking for stated and fully followed-through tonal relations. But the partial implications you hear are things that Schoenberg was very intentionally making use of. More than any sort of avoidance of "tonality" as people have suggested, the most characteristic mode of expressive dissonance for Schoenberg lay in his use of omissions and suggestion, rather than direct statement.

That said, the more familiar I become with any particular Schoenberg work, the more easily I can hear the underlying tonal implications. Yes, some of these are based on the resolutions of individual lines, but increasingly I have heard specific roots to the harmonies he uses. The difference is that these are not always or even usually in the bass line.

One more thing. I always find it fascinating that in the Second String Quartet, the abandonment of functional tonality is directly correlated to a freedom from an endless yearning for resolution. The moment the fourth movement begins, it seems to float entirely free of the angst that had suffused the previous movements. When we reach the disconnected F# major triad (6/4) after the word "planeten", it is a sudden burst of light, which is quickly refracted into various shards.



Woodduck said:


> I just heard Wozzeck broadcast by the Met this afternoon. It's one of my favorite works from the "New Viennese School," and I have to admit this is so because Berg has a wonderful feel for when tonality is needed to "humanize" his expressive language. For this very reason I can enjoy a lot of Berg, when my mood is right (not too often!). I will probably always find late Schoenberg and Webern more interesting in the abstract than sympathetic to my nature; I'm sure it's a partly a temperamental and cultural-sense-of-life thing. But I won't give up. There's plenty of music of that school I don't know, and I want particularly to hear Moses und Aron again.


I wouldn't be sure that your reactions won't change. I know for my part that I started out far more attracted to Berg than either Schoenberg or Webern, because his expressive idiom seemed closer to the Mahler and Wagner that I loved, but eventually I found myself drawn in by Schoenberg's wider range. Berg never wrote anything with the same lighter wit of the Suite op. 25 or the ironic/tragic contrasts of Pierrot lunaire.

I'm very fond of Schoenberg's choral works (a genre Berg never touched), as many around here know. Here's his expressive, dramatic setting of Psalm 130, one of the last works of a disillusioned Zionist who saw himself as a German but was only ever seen by those around him as a Jew:







Woodduck said:


> The "nonfunctional tonalities" of other styles seem very different in effect from those of the Second Viennese School. Wagner is always cited as pivotal in loosening the grip of tonality by prolonging his harmonic excursions past the point where their context can be perceived. Yet he still relies completely on the listener's tonal sense even while taxing it to the breaking point, and much of his expressive power derives from this. I think Mahler follows him in the excruciatingly intense delay of resolution, although in a less chromatic idiom. Liszt, on the other hand, while still using a harmonic idiom similar to Wagner's, begins playing with harmony for the sake of sound as such. Debussy goes further in this direction, not through chromatic wandering but through juxtaposition of chords that have no progressive relation to one another. Messiaen takes this further. As I hear it, this kind of "non-tonality" doesn't allow for the intense emotional expressivity of more tonal music but rather tends toward "mood" and a variety of sensuous effects (which can be enchanting in themselves).


The difference, I believe, lies more in the Second Viennese aesthetic of non-repetition and contrapuntal and developmental density than in the immediate harmonies themselves. There do exist 7 and 8-note chords in their music (and of course the famous 12-note death scream of Lulu), but these things are routine in Messiaen, for example. The context of the final chord in Oiseaux exotiques, though, with its 29 repetitions, is of a very different character.



Woodduck said:


> But I think it's interesting that when Debussy, in Pelleas et Melisande (I like the opera, by the way) wanted to cut deepest emotionally, he wrote less "impressionistically" and more tonally, and was, to his own great annoyance, influenced by that bete noir Wagner (Parsifal is clearly audible, especially in the interludes). What's interesting is that this is exactly what Berg did in Wozzeck when _he_ felt the need for a deeper emotional expression! Both composers, when they wanted to pierce our hearts, drew upon the irresistible power of tonality.


The most strongly tonally-oriented parts of Wozzeck are: the march that accompanies the entrance of the drum major, Marie's lullaby, the Pub scene in Act 2, and the interlude between the final two scenes.

The first of these is used ironically, to point up the banality of the drum major's bravado. The second is used to express tenderness, and the last to release the pent-up emotional weight of the opera (though its middle section is more or less freely chromatic as well). But the Pub Scene is, in my opinion, one of the most brilliant in the whole opera, and it is notable, I believe, that here the collapse of the diatonic tonality of the band's laendler coincides exactly with the heightening of expression as Wozzeck's madness grows. As with many of Mahler's similar dance movements, the regularity and conventionality of the language is an analogue for the world's drudgery. All of this is to say that "tonality" is not felt as an exclusively positive or expressive language in the work.


----------



## Woodduck

There is certainly a lot to chew on here. I'm prompted by your perceptions to wonder how much of our response to a given work or style of music is determined by what we hear in it and how much by our judgment (not necessarily conscious) upon what we hear - and how much these can be differentiated. I hear what you mean about the particular places Berg goes tonal in Wozzeck, and I hear in those places precisely an acknowledgment of the peculiar expressive domains I find characteristic of tonal versus nontonal harmony. It feels to me as if B. reaches for tonality when he needs to portray or appeal to more "normal" - i.e., stabler, simpler, or healthier - emotional states, as opposed to depravity and madness. Normality may be the tenderness of motherhood (is a 12-tone lullaby even conceivable?); it may be the merely mundane, the "world's drudgery" as you put it; or it may be the audience's need to feel compassion and a sense of tragedy, as opposed to shock and horror. I don't hear that poignant interlude only as releasing pent-up emotional weight, but more as introducing a new depth of emotion which the horror of the story and its expression in atonal music would not let me feel before. That kind of tonal revelation and catharsis has precedent, notably in Wagner; I think of Parsifal's entrance in Act 3, in which Amfortas' healing enacts onstage the healing of the harrowing chromatic dissonances of the transformation music, funeral procession, and Amfortas plea for death. Of course these tormented passages never actually shatter tonality; they merely threaten to, a tightrope act over an abyss which makes them, in my judgment, some of the scariest music ever written. It's in such a context that I can welcome extreme and persistent dissonance. As the basic idiom of a musical style, though, I seem less susceptible to its charms!

It's obvious that my familiarity with Schoenberg and friends is considerably less than yours, and I don't doubt that increasing that familiarity would lead at least to greater tolerance, if not perhaps to liking some things I don't like now. My first real experience with S. was as a high-school chorister decades ago, when I sang in S.'s "Survivor from Warsaw." It was a challenge to learn the melodic intervals, along with the Hebrew text, and I could feel, from the "inside," the tense, grim drama of it. I can't say I perceived any expression of the survivor's religious fervor or of his relief at having survived (it felt more like his persistent nightmare), and I can't say that the experience opened any worlds for me; there was no sense of revelation such as I felt when the mysteries of Wagner's harmony unfolded before me. Those mysteries are still potent (if better understood theoretically), while the "Schoenberg rebellion" still feels in search of a worthy cause - by which I mean, of course, a cause that feels worthwhile to this particular listener.

I bought some of S.'s choral music on an Arte Nova recording. Couldn't stand most of it! But I thank you for sending me Psalm 130. I've listened to it twice. It has fascinating moments (!) and the performance is remarkable; I know how hard those people worked to make it comprehensible to the ear. But am I really moved by it, or tempted to listen a third time? Alas, no. Chacun a son gout.

Nice talking to you. Breakfast has waited long.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> There is certainly a lot to chew on here. I'm prompted by your perceptions to wonder how much of our response to a given work or style of music is determined by what we hear in it and how much by our judgment (not necessarily conscious) upon what we hear - and how much these can be differentiated. I hear what you mean about the particular places Berg goes tonal in Wozzeck, and I hear in those places precisely an acknowledgment of the peculiar expressive domains I find characteristic of tonal versus nontonal harmony. It feels to me as if B. reaches for tonality when he needs to portray or appeal to more normal" - i.e., stabler, simpler, or healthier - emotional states, as opposed to depravity and madness. Normality may be the tenderness of motherhood (is a 12-tone lullaby even conceivable?); it may be the merely mundane, the "world's drudgery" as you put it; or it may be the audience's need to feel compassion and a sense of tragedy, as opposed to shock and horror. I don't hear that poignant interlude only as releasing pent-up emotional weight, but more as introducing a new depth of emotion which the horror of the story and its expression in atonal music would not let me feel before.


Webern did in fact write a kind of 12-tone lullaby (characteristically, a canon): 




As I said before, I don't perceive "shock and horror" as the dominant or only mode of Schoenberg's expression. Perhaps there is a connection in our minds between "worldly" emotions and tonality, but I cannot accept the idea that this is because of natural properties rather than cultural upbringing. Furthermore, as Alex Ross and others have pointed out, non-tonal music has, for this exact reason, proven well-suited to the expression of the sublime and the supernatural. The hexachords opening Moses und Aron represent God because of their relative unfamiliarity, their uncanny sense of something above the conventional.



Woodduck said:


> It's in such a context that I can welcome extreme and persistent dissonance. As the basic idiom of a musical style, though, I seem less susceptible to its charms!


I don't even hear Schoenberg's 12-tone works as persistently dissonant anymore, in the sense of needing to resolve.



Woodduck said:


> It's obvious that my familiarity with Schoenberg and friends is considerably less than yours, and I don't doubt that increasing that familiarity would lead at least to greater tolerance, if not perhaps to liking some things I don't like now. My first real experience with S. was as a high-school chorister decades ago, when I sang in S.'s "Survivor from Warsaw." It was a challenge to learn the melodic intervals, along with the Hebrew text, and I could feel, from the "inside," the tense, grim drama of it. I can't say I perceived any expression of the survivor's religious fervor or of his relief at having survived (it felt more like his persistent nightmare), and I can't say that the experience opened any worlds for me; there was no sense of revelation such as I felt when the mysteries of Wagner's harmony unfolded before me. Those mysteries are still potent (if better understood theoretically), while the "Schoenberg rebellion" still feels in search of a worthy cause - by which I mean, of course, a cause that feels worthwhile to this particular listener.


The choral outburst at the end of "Survivor" was never meant to express relief. Protest, yes. A sudden rush of feeling, of solidarity, yes, but not relief or simple devotion.

Schoenberg didn't see himself as particularly rebellious (or at least he didn't later in life). He did see the 12-tone technique as a new beginning, and compared his own position to that of the composers of the Renaissance, who were trying to figure out the ways harmony worked as they went along within a primarily diatonic idiom. I don't think that fully chromatic music is set to disappear as long as the tradition of art music continues. Even those composers who align themselves with the Neoromantic and Minimalist movements today do not go back to the functional tonality of the 19th century as if nothing had happened in the meantime. They can't.



Woodduck said:


> I bought some of S.'s choral music on an Arte Nova recording. Couldn't bear it! Chacun a son gout.


Ah yes, I am familiar with the only Amazon.com review for that disc. I assume (given your handle here and there are identical) that it's yours?

In that case, I've always wanted to ask something. Why is the review calling out the "folly of 12-tone technique" when there is actually a large range of styles represented on the disc, from conventional tonality in Friede auf Erden to the neo-modal folksong settings (which are probably safe for radio play, even) in addition to 12-tone works?

In any event, one person I happen to know who has somewhat conservative taste and dislikes Schoenberg in general enjoys his choral works, because she tends to get choral music more easily than other kinds. Taste is individual indeed.


----------



## Art Rock

I think this recent discussion is of such a high level compared to the rest of this thread, that it would be beneficial to split it off as a separate thread.


----------



## Woodduck

Yes, that little review was mine. Not my best effort, I confess! I'm sure I missed some of the numbers on that disc. But I was honest about being unsure whether some of the sounds I found disagreeable were S.'s music or the choir singing out of tune. It's got to be difficult singing 12-tone music a cappella.

In any event it's been a pleasure tapping into your knowledge and experience with this repertoire. I doubt I have much more of value to offer on the subject. I am enjoying this forum, so I'm sure we'll run into each other again. And I promise to be as nice as possible if I mention Mahler. Wouldn't want to tangle with someone who apparently looks just like him.


----------



## Andolink

Getting back to the OP, I'd name Jan Dismas Zelenka as a composer who gets a lot of accolades (though may not be counted among the "great composers") who I find to be quite boring. Lots of sequencing and empty note spinning IMO.


----------



## Sudonim

I have to admit that, thus far, I have yet to hear anything by César Franck that impresses me very much.

I'm happy to be disabused of this impression, though. _Mea culpa_, I'm sure.


----------



## hpowders

Sudonim said:


> I have to admit that, thus far, I have yet to hear anything by César Franck that impresses me very much.
> 
> I'm happy to be disabused of this impression, though. _Mea culpa_, I'm sure.


The A Major Violin Piano Sonata? Not a fan?


----------



## Sudonim

hpowders said:


> The A Major Violin Piano Sonata? Not a fan?


I'll check to see if I even have that one, hpowders. I assume you're recommending it?


----------



## Blancrocher

Sudonim said:


> I'll check to see if I even have that one, hpowders. I assume you're recommending it?


It's worth a shot--probably his most-admired piece, along with my favorite, "The Prelude, Chorale, and Fugue" for piano. On a side-note, the Violin Sonata may have been the inspiration for Vinteuil's "petite phrase" in Proust's "In Search of Lost Time."


----------



## Bulldog

Andolink said:


> Getting back to the OP, I'd name Jan Dismas Zelenka as a composer who gets a lot of accolades (though may not be counted among the "great composers") who I find to be quite boring. Lots of sequencing and empty note spinning IMO.


Zelenka gets lots of accolades? Seems to me that he's hardly known except by strong baroque music enthusiasts.


----------



## KenOC

Bulldog said:


> Zelenka gets lots of accolades? Seems to me that he's hardly known except by strong baroque music enthusiasts.


Zelenka is fabulous -- and I'm not a baroque enthusiast by any account. Here's a great album of his trio sonatas -- it's available in a cheaper edition but this one has the reviews. Better than the Kuijken set IMO and highly recommended (by me anyway). If this is "note spinning", then he'll be in the dock with Bach.

http://www.amazon.com/Trio-Sonatas-...qid=1395694877&sr=1-1&keywords=zelenka+kohnen

Here's a taste:


----------



## hpowders

Sudonim said:


> I'll check to see if I even have that one, hpowders. I assume you're recommending it?


Yes! It's Franck at his best, frankly.


----------



## Andolink

KenOC said:


> Zelenka is fabulous -- and I'm not a baroque enthusiast by any account. Here's a great album of his trio sonatas -- it's available in a cheaper edition but this one has the reviews. Better than the Kuijken set IMO and highly recommended (by me anyway). If this is "note spinning", then he'll be in the dock with Bach.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Trio-Sonatas-...qid=1395694877&sr=1-1&keywords=zelenka+kohnen
> 
> Here's a taste:


I've had the Trio Sonata set in my collection for over 20 years (the version you linked to) along with a recording of some sacred vocal music and, while I was initially enthusiastic, subsequent listenings have been excercises in tedium. It's sacreligious to even hint that Zelenka's in the same league as J. S. Bach!


----------



## composira

Mozart- With the exception of his Requiem, his music doesn't really cut it for me. I mean, a lot his pieces are pretty and pleasing to the ear, but they just blend together in my head. They're nothing that really stays with me.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

composira said:


> Mozart- With the exception of his Requiem, his music doesn't really cut it for me. I mean, a lot his pieces are pretty and pleasing to the ear, but they just blend together in my head. They're nothing that really stays with me.


I was just discussing this with someone else on this forum. This is a common sentiment held among people who don't really care for Mozart. We are of course free to like who like and listen to who we want to listen, but may I recommend that you give it a bit more time. I find that enjoyment and appreciation (or understanding) are two sides of the same coin. If you can give something a bit of effort in order to understand it you might come to appreciate his music which will enable you to enjoy it. This is precisely what happened to me for Mahler. For quite a while, I just didn't get it, for various reasons. One day (fairly recently) I gave his symphonies a real chance, with open ears and an open mind, as free of preconceived ideas as possible. It all of a sudden clicked! I don't believe that the only music one should like is the music that clicks with you immediately on the first listen. I don't think it works that way, many people here will attest to that.

As I said, we all have our likes and dislikes, but sometimes the way we go about it restricts the possibility of enjoying the vast amount of great music out there. Had I never changed my preconceived ideas about Mahler, I would have never come to know some of the greatest music I've ever heard.

Also, welcome to the TC forum!


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I used to think that about Bach, but never Mozart. Since I started learning the organ and getting greater exposure to Bach, my attitude has changed massively.
I'm afraid I haven't learned to like Mahler. I'll keep trying though.


----------



## starthrower

Mozart
Hadyn
Brahms
Wagner
Schubert
Richard Strauss
John Adams
Steve Reich


----------



## KenOC

Andolink said:


> It's sacreligious to even hint that Zelenka's in the same league as J. S. Bach!


As a famous man once said, if this be sacrilege then let us make the most of it!


----------



## hpowders

I don't care for Schubert's music. Not for lack of trying either. It just doesn't speak to me.


----------



## Blancrocher

hpowders said:


> I don't care for Schubert's music. Not for lack of trying either. It just doesn't speak to me.


That's alright, even though he's my favorite composer. In the more scientific polls on this forum both our votes are discounted as outliers, so it all evens out in the end.


----------



## dgee

starthrower said:


> Mozart
> Hadyn
> Brahms
> Wagner
> Schubert
> Richard Strauss
> John Adams
> Steve Reich


I love how this courageous list still leaves a literal universe of music of a scale beyond any one person's comprehension to enjoy! *my god it's full of stars*


----------



## Lord Lance

As several dozens have already said, I dislike _most_ of Bach's output.


----------



## hpowders

Adding it all up, except for Bruckner and Schubert, I am at piece with the other classical composers.


----------



## Überstürzter Neumann

The only one I can't positively stand, and not for the want of trying, is Mahler.


----------



## Blake

I honestly can't think of any composers I flat out don't like. I'm weird like that.


----------



## violadude

Vesuvius said:


> I honestly can't think of any composers I flat out don't like. I'm weird like that.


Same here. So cool it, you aren't that weird.


----------



## julianoq

Vesuvius said:


> I honestly can't think of any composers I flat out don't like. I'm weird like that.





violadude said:


> Same here. So cool it, you aren't that weird.


So we are three. Some composers I find hard to listen so I just let them for another day and eventually it clicks. I had a problem with Webern for some time, but I am glad that one day I found one piece great and suddenly I liked his works that I heard.


----------



## hpowders

I can add Andrew Lloyd Webber to the list. I find his show songs to be dull and "pseudo-operatic".


----------



## Blancrocher

I'm not very enamored of Gesualdo, I'll confess. Good music, of course, but he's not the sort I'd care to share some vino with.


----------



## OlivierM

For the life of me, Mozart. I just can't his works, that I find childish (and I gave him many tries).
I thoroughly enjoy Haydn, though. I guess their friendship didn't emulate me.
Otherwise, Morton Feldman, John Cage, Steve Reich, and basically, minimalist composers, who deserve a palm for boring me to tears.

More generally, I can't stand trills, so that removes 90% of baroque music.


----------



## violadude

OlivierM said:


> For the life of me, Mozart. I just can't his works, that I find childish (and I gave him many tries).
> I thoroughly enjoy Haydn, though. I guess their friendship didn't emulate me.
> Otherwise, Morton Feldman, John Cage, Steve Reich, and basically, minimalist composers, who deserve a palm for boring me to tears.


Cage and Reich boring?

Have you tried pieces like these?

Cage, Third Construction: 




Reich, Different Trains (second movement): 




I can understand where you are coming from with Feldman, even though I love his music too.


----------



## OlivierM

Tastes; fellow user, tastes. But yeah, I consider Feldman, Cage and Reich's music as torture. But that's me, of course (and the best part, I own many of the renditions of their works).


----------



## violadude

OlivierM said:


> Tastes; fellow user, tastes. But yeah, I consider Feldman, Cage and Reich's music as torture. But that's me, of course.


Which pieces have you heard though?


----------



## Blake

Feldman can be a hard nut to crack. On the surface it may seem quite slow and repetitive, but all it's variation and technicolor is in subtleties... and there it is exceptionally diverse.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

I have never come around to Schumann. There's actually nothing negative I can say about the music. It just doesn't reach out and grab me, it leaves me a bit cold. Same goes for Liszt, there's no doubting their status as composers, but I don't foresee those two making my list of favorite composers anytime soon.


----------



## violadude

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I have never come around to Schumann. There's actually nothing negative I can say about the music. It just doesn't reach out and grab me, it leaves me a bit cold. Same goes for Liszt, there's no doubting their status as composers, but I don't foresee those two making my list of favorite composers anytime soon.


I used to feel the same way about both composers.

You'll probably come around to them someday 

Have you listened to the "Year of the Pilgrim" (I don't know how to spell the actual name and I'm too lazy to look it up) piano set by Liszt?

For Schumann, I got into him through his lesser known chamber works, especially "5 Stucke Im Volkstan" for piano and cello and "Marchenzahlungen" for viola, clarinet and piano. Those are some really great works that are very touching. I also really like "Davidsbundlertanze" and Kreisleriana.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

violadude said:


> I used to feel the same way about both composers.
> 
> You'll probably come around to them someday
> 
> Have you listened to the "Year of the Pilgrim" (I don't know how to spell the actual name and I'm too lazy to look it up) piano set by Liszt?
> 
> for Schumann, I got into him through his lesser known chamber works. Especially "5 Stucke Im Volkstan" for piano and cello and "Marchenzahlungen" for viola, clarinet and piano. Those are some really great works that are very touching. I also really like "Davidsbundlertanze" and Kreisleriana.


I haven't yet, I'll have to check those out one day. Consider them filed away in my "Listen To Later list" Word document. So many works in there! It's intimidating.

I admit I haven't exhausted their works, sometimes it really is about finding the right piece that puts your foot in the door. It happened to me with Mahler! Thanks for the suggestions, violadude.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Also Schumann's piano quartet (not the quintet) is pretty good too.


----------



## violadude

SeptimalTritone said:


> Also Schumann's piano quartet (not the quintet) is pretty good too.


You don't like the Quintet? That's one of my favorite Schumann pieces.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

violadude said:


> You don't like the Quintet? That's one of my favorite Schumann pieces.


They're definitely both good, but I like the quartet a lot more.


----------



## violadude

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I admit I haven't exhausted their works, sometimes it really is about finding the right piece that puts your foot in the door. It happened to me with Mahler! Thanks for the suggestions, violadude.


Right, and not only that but sometimes it's just your frame of mind. There have been instances where I have been very lukewarm about a certain composer or particular piece and all of a sudden, one night I decide to listen to the same work I've tried over and over again and somehow it just clicks. Not sure if it's because of a particular combination of circumstances or somehow your sub-concious perception changes without you knowing or a little bit of both!


----------



## violadude

SeptimalTritone said:


> They're definitely both good, but I like the quartet a lot more.


I haven't actually heard the quartet. I'll have to do that.


----------



## Chronochromie

violadude said:


> I used to feel the same way about both composers.
> 
> You'll probably come around to them someday
> 
> Have you listened to the "Year of the Pilgrim" (I don't know how to spell the actual name and I'm too lazy to look it up) piano set by Liszt?
> 
> For Schumann, I got into him through his lesser known chamber works, especially "5 Stucke Im Volkstan" for piano and cello and "Marchenzahlungen" for viola, clarinet and piano. Those are some really great works that are very touching. I also really like "Davidsbundlertanze" and Kreisleriana.


Yes, Annees de pelerinage, my favorite Liszt work. Also, those are some nice Schumann works I have not heard before, thanks!


----------



## hpowders

Beethoven. Simply too ponderous and overbearing for these ears.


----------



## Morimur

hpowders said:


> Beethoven. Simply too ponderous and overbearing for these ears.


Really? I find his music to be hopelessly gay and optimistic. Too much joy for these ears.


----------



## mtmailey

I would say Bach because i do not seem to like his music as much like others.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> Beethoven. Simply too ponderous and overbearing for these ears.


Mmm. Bad-taste pomposity, musical banality.

Not the first time I've used this, but it has a certain ring to it.


----------



## iwhoopedbatman

No, but reading through this thread, I guess I'll come to hate everything I currently love.


----------



## hpowders

Morimur said:


> Really? I find his music to be hopelessly gay and optimistic. Too much joy for these ears.


You missed the humor in what I was trying to say. Go back and look at a recent Beethoven thread title.


----------



## Morimur

hpowders said:


> You missed the humor in what I was trying to say. Go back and look at a recent Beethoven thread title.


I got it. I was trying to make an equally outlandish remark.


----------



## hpowders

Morimur said:


> I got it. I was trying to make an equally outlandish remark.


Okay. I need another cup of coffee.


----------



## hpowders

Add Varese to the list. I absolutely LOATHE his music.*

*Quite possibly my most intelligent post.


----------



## shangoyal

hpowders said:


> Add Varese to the list. I absolutely LOATHE his music.*
> 
> *Quite possibly my most intelligent post.


Wait, wait. Is Varese a "Great Composer"?


----------



## hpowders

shangoyal said:


> Wait, wait. Is Varese a "Great Composer"?


Wow! You are right!! I withdraw his name! I have to stay with Schubert and Bruckner. Rules are rules!!!


----------



## violadude

shangoyal said:


> Wait, wait. Is Varese a "Great Composer"?


I would say he is considered among the "greats", or the "cannon" if you will.


----------



## trazom

violadude said:


> I would say he is considered among the "greats", or the "cannon" if you will.


*Canon; though it is possible for him to be among a cannon, too. stranger things have happened to dead composers.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

violadude said:


> I used to feel the same way about both composers.
> 
> Have you listened to the "Year of the Pilgrim" piano set by Liszt?
> 
> For Schumann, I got into him through his lesser known chamber works


Yes, the Années de pèlerinage ("Years of pilgrimage") were also my way into Liszt - a revelation which came while listening to Alfred Brendel in concert.

I wish I could find a similar 'key' to Brahms!


----------



## violadude

TurnaboutVox said:


> Yes, the Années de pèlerinage ("Years of pilgrimage") was also my way into Liszt - a revelation which came while listening to Alfred Brendel in concert.
> 
> I wish I could find a similar 'key' to Brahms!


Have you listened to his late piano music?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Yes, violadude, I had a real 'Liszt piano solo works' phase a few years ago and have a fair collection of discs of his late works, including Richter, Brendel, Jando and Leslie Howard

Edit: Whoops, you meant Brahms! Yes, also, and I do like Op. 116 - 119. It didn't generalise, though. (I quite like the string quartet Op 51/2 as well)


----------



## violadude

TurnaboutVox said:


> Yes, violadude, I had a real 'Liszt piano solo works' phase a few years ago and have a fair collection of discs of his late works, including Richter, Brendel, Jando and Leslie Howard


I meant, have you listened to Brahms' late piano works?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

D'oh! I got it just before you posted.


----------



## violadude

TurnaboutVox said:


> Edit: Whoops, you meant Brahms! Yes, also, and I do like Op. 116 - 119. It didn't generalise, though. (I quite like the string quartet Op 51/2 as well)


Have you tried his other chamber music?

I'll suggest the 2nd string quintet, the 1st and 2nd piano trio and 3rd piano quartet.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

OK, thanks for the suggestions, so now I have a good reason to sample those on Spotify. I'll let you know what I think when I've listened to one or more.

Cheers, T-V


----------



## violadude

TurnaboutVox said:


> OK, thanks for the suggestions, so now I have a good reason to sample those on Spotify. I'll let you know what I think when I've listened to one or more.
> 
> Cheers, T-V


I edited my post. I actually meant the 2nd string quintet...sorry about that haha. There is no 2nd piano quintet. 

Anyway, ya let me know what you think.


----------



## Vaneyes

Eddie, where are you?


----------



## musicrom

I don't think I've heard a piece by Ralph Vaughan Williams that I've enjoyed yet. From my (admittedly little) experience with him, his music sounds either cheesy or just plain boring.

EDIT: Also, Ravel and Debussy have never really appealed to me. Both, in general, wrote music that is more interesting than RVW's (in my opinion), but there's just something about their music that feels annoying and repellent to me.


----------



## hpowders

I would agree with that. Except I don't consider him to be a "great composer" and hence wouldn't consider naming him for this thread.


----------



## coupdeimpressionism

Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of Williams either, but if there's any composer whose music irks me, it would have to be John Cage.


----------



## brotagonist

I have a lot of trouble differentiating between _don't like_ and _currently not interested in_. Oftentimes, I will use the two statements interchangeably, but they are _not at all_ the same thing, in my mind. Composers I have in the past claimed not to like, because I simply wasn't interested in them at the time, have turned out to be great treasures, once I did become interested in them. Two such composers, among many others, have, for me, been Rachmaninov and Debussy. Elgar, too, is just on the verge of opening up a bit more for me, as I am still having a bit of trouble getting over the 'rule Britannia' schmaltz.


----------



## Weston

There are two English composers everyone is supposed to enjoy, but I don't get.

*Frank Bridge*'s melodies just wander around going nowhere. They are not serial or atonal. They're just aimless. The phrases mean nothing to me. Yet he supposedly inspired Benjamin Britten who was a fantastic composer. I just don't get it. I've heard more compelling aleatoric compositions.

The same to a lesser extent can be said of *Frederick Delius*. Meandering around from one note to another and then adding sonorities, however lush, just doesn't hold my attention. I feel there is no direction.

In my first post in this thread several years ago, I expressed my dislike for Mozart and Chopin. I've done a complete about face on those two and now enjoy them very much. So who knows? Maybe someday I'll get Bridge.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl

Chopin and Liszt for me.


----------



## hpowders

OldFashionedGirl said:


> Chopin and Liszt for me.


I agree with that. Never cared much for Chopin and especially Liszt.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Weston said:


> There are two English composers everyone is supposed to enjoy, but I don't get.
> 
> *Frank Bridge*'s melodies just wander around going nowhere. They are not serial or atonal. They're just aimless. The phrases mean nothing to me. Yet he supposedly inspired Benjamin Britten who was a fantastic composer. I just don't get it. I've heard more compelling aleatoric compositions.
> 
> The same to a lesser extent can be said of *Frederick Delius*. Meandering around from one note to another and then adding sonorities, however lush, just doesn't hold my attention. I feel there is no direction.
> 
> In my first post in this thread several years ago, I expressed my dislike for Mozart and Chopin. I've done a complete about face on those two and now enjoy them very much. So who knows? Maybe someday I'll get Bridge.


Ah well, there you go, two particular favourites of mine. I don't know about everyone being supposed to enjoy Bridge, I get that he can be found very elusive. I think he is often trying to express despair and resignation though - the fate of a man of deeply held pacifist beliefs who lived through World War I and survived to see WW2 as well (from the relatively safe position of England).

Delius, as his deepest admirers have said, is not an acquired taste but one that divides people at first hearing.

Obviously I hope you come to appreciate them both but - perhaps you just aren't going to like what and how they communicated.

Edit: I should add, I am glad you (implicitly) consider them to be great composers. For what it's worth, I think - Delius, maybe; Bridge, not, though both very good and very worthwhile. They speak to me, at least.


----------



## brotagonist

Odd, because both Chopin and Liszt were also ones I, for decades, claimed to dislike. Perhaps it's common to dislike their music?

I have done a complete about-face with respect to Liszt. I began by reevaluating his Hungarian Rhapsodies (orchestral) and tentatively acquiring a few further albums: first, the Wagner Transcriptions, which reinforced my desire for more; next, his Faust Symphony, which had me wondering why I was so against his music; and finally, his piano masterpiece, Années de Pèlerinage.

As for Chopin... well, I haven't really warmed much to his Complete Works for Piano and Orchestra (Arrau, Inbal/London PO), although I don't dislike it either, but the Polonaises are pleasant.


----------



## Lord Lance

violadude said:


> I used to feel the same way about both composers.
> 
> You'll probably come around to them someday
> 
> Have you listened to the "Year of the Pilgrim" *(I don't know how to spell the actual name and I'm too lazy to look it up)* piano set by Liszt?
> 
> For Schumann, I got into him through his lesser known chamber works, especially "5 Stucke Im Volkstan" for piano and cello and "Marchenzahlungen" for viola, clarinet and piano. Those are some really great works that are very touching. I also really like "Davidsbundlertanze" and Kreisleriana.


Années de pèlerinage.


----------



## Korados

A great composer I just don't like? Mozart. I'll never warm up to his music. Never.


----------



## hpowders

OP: You mean personally as in previous negative social interactions with a composer or are you specifically referring to a composer's music?


----------



## brotagonist

If I didn't like him, I wouldn't call him great [slap! gives himself an Ohrfeige]


----------



## violadude

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Années de pèlerinage.


I knew it was something like that. However, my spelling in English is bad enough; I wasn't about to butcher French spelling too.

Thank God for spell check. It's the only reason I don't look like an idiot all the time haha.


----------



## brotagonist

You could just say, Years of Pilgrimage


----------



## Morimur

Haydn. He's a bore.


----------



## science

violadude said:


> Thank God for spell check. It's the only reason I don't look like an idiot all the time haha.


Join the club, brother!

In my case, I look like an idiot most of the time anyway, yet I thank the gods it's not for that reason!


----------



## violadude

brotagonist said:


> You could just say, Years of Pilgrimage


I did.

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

Actually I said something like year of the pilgrimage. Oh well, closee enough.


----------



## bigshot

Korados said:


> I'll never warm up to his music. Never.


That sentence tells me more about you than the sentence that precedes it.


----------



## bigshot

brotagonist said:


> As for Chopin... well, I haven't really warmed much to his Complete Works for Piano and Orchestra (Arrau, Inbal/London PO)


Ahem! RUBINSTEIN! Ahem!


----------



## hpowders

I hate Beethoven as in the Ninth Symphony performed by a "Maestro" (???) Cobra. Dreadful!!


----------



## DiesIraeCX

hpowders said:


> I hate Beethoven as in the Ninth Symphony performed by a "Maestro" (???) Cobra. Dreadful!!


This is what you're looking for, Conductor Maximianno Cobra. I warn others, the content may be shocking to some, as it was to me. :lol: The 9th is my favorite symphony so it was kinda hard to listen to, makes "later Klemperer" seem like a speed-demon!






I will say this, though. It is interesting, no matter how unmusical it sounds, because it sort of lays bare the orchestration and instruments, you can hear its _musical skeleton_, so to speak.


----------



## hpowders

DiesIraeVIX said:


> *This is what you're looking for,* Conductor Maximianno Cobra. I warn others, the content may be shocking to some, as it was to me. The 9th is my favorite symphony so it was kinda hard to listen to, makes "later Klemperer" seem like a speed-demon!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will say this, though. It is interesting, no matter how unmusical it sounds, because it sort of lays bare the orchestration and instruments, you can hear its _musical skeleton_, so to speak.


This is not what I am looking for. It is what I am running away from! 

I think Pierre Boulez would do a more convincing job of "laying bare the orchestration and instruments".

Has Boulez EVER conducted Beethoven?


----------



## DiesIraeCX

hpowders said:


> This is not what I am looking for. It is what I am running away from!
> 
> I think Pierre Boulez would do a more convincing job of "laying bare the orchestration and instruments".
> 
> Has Boulez EVER conducted Beethoven?


Haha, me too!

That's a very good point, I think Boulez is the master of laying bare the orchestration in the unmatched clarity of his recordings.

Great question, I wondered about this myself. Someone call Mahlerian! I'm sure he knows, I believe he's another admirer of Boulez's conducting (and music).


----------



## hpowders

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Haha, me too!
> 
> That's a very good point, I think Boulez is the master of laying bare the orchestration in the unmatched clarity of recordings.
> 
> Great question, I wondered about this myself. Someone call Mahlerian! I'm sure he knows, I believe he's another admirer of Boulez's conducting (and music).


I would love to hear Boulez do the Beethoven Ninth, especially after I was so impressed by his Mahler Eighth.


----------



## GreenMamba

hpowders said:


> I would love to hear Boulez do the Beethoven Ninth, especially after I was so impressed by his Mahler Eighth.


Youtube has what's claimed to be bootlegs of Boulez conducting Beethoven's 7th and 9th, but no idea of their authenticity. Boulez did conduct Beethoven. I've read interviews where he talks about it.


----------



## Mahlerian

hpowders said:


> Has Boulez EVER conducted Beethoven?


I think he did while he was conductor of the New York Philharmonic, but I don't remember any recordings. I like his Mozart concerto 20 with Pires.


----------



## hpowders

Mahlerian said:


> I think he did while he was conductor of the New York Philharmonic, but I don't remember any recordings. I like his Mozart concerto 20 with Pires.


I subscribed to the NY Philharmonic during the Boulez years and don't remember any Beethoven. He probably did do a bit, due to where he was. Needless to say, the majority of subscribers hated his guts! 

I do remember a very fine La Valse, but that is neither here nor there.


----------



## hpowders

Somebody get Boulez a chair and a fine orchestra to record Beethoven's Ninth before it is too late!!!


----------



## GreenMamba

hpowders said:


> I subscribed to the NY Philharmonic during the Boulez years and don't remember any Beethoven. He probably did do a bit, due to where he was. Needless to say, the majority of subscribers hated his guts!


I wasn't around the, but I always understood he never did Beethoven at NY.

There's a book called *Conversations with Boulez *which lists most of his programs in the index. It mentions Beethoven several times, and in fact Boulez discusses how to conduct LvB. It also reveals that Boulez once conducted The Four Seasons somewhere.


----------



## Mahlerian

hpowders said:


> I subscribed to the NY Philharmonic during the Boulez years and don't remember any Beethoven. He probably did do a bit, due to where he was. Needless to say, the majority of subscribers hated his guts!


Well, he came right after Lenny, and he wasn't the same as Bernstein; neither did he try to be.


----------



## hpowders

Mahlerian said:


> Well, he came right after Lenny, and he wasn't the same as Bernstein; neither did he try to be.


The conservative subscriber base was in an uproar. The newspaper music critics didn't like him either.



GreenMamba said:


> I wasn't around the, but I always understood he never did Beethoven at NY.
> 
> There's a book called *Conversations with Boulez *which lists most of his programs in the index. It mentions Beethoven several times, and in fact Boulez discusses how to conduct LvB. It also reveals that Boulez once conducted The Four Seasons somewhere.


So my memory's correct. How can you be the music director of a big 5 orchestra with a very conservative subscriber base and not conduct any Beethoven? Astonishing!



GreenMamba said:


> Youtube has what's claimed to be bootlegs of Boulez conducting Beethoven's 7th and 9th, but no idea of their authenticity. Boulez did conduct Beethoven. I've read interviews where he talks about it.


Thanks! I'll check it out!


----------



## Ian Moore

Schubert every time. I think his music is very competent but also very woolly and flowery. I find his songs really annoying, very predictable. His unfinished symphony is far too long. What is takes Schubert an hour to say; Beethoven says it a few bars.
I can't understand the fascination. However, he has huge number of devoted fans and an unshakeable place in history.


----------



## Declined

Tchaikovksy's music just comes off as obnoxious to me. That is not to say he is a bad composer. I respect him greatly.


----------



## Bellinilover

I'm far from being the most experienced member of this Forum. That said, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that I'll never be able to like either Berg's or Schoenberg's music. Also, I can't seem to get into Bach's _vocal_ music.


----------



## Bellinilover

Declined said:


> Tchaikovksy's music just comes off as obnoxious to me. That is not to say he is a bad composer. I respect him greatly.


Tchaikovsky is probably one of my favorite opera composers, but no offense taken. I appreciate that you acknowledged his talent.


----------



## TwoPhotons

I just can't get into Brahms. His style seems to be everything I hate about music. I always find it interesting when people say that he is their favourite composer and it makes me think about how people can have wildly different musical tastes.


----------



## violadude

TwoPhotons said:


> I just can't get into Brahms. His style seems to be everything I hate about music. I always find it interesting when people say that he is their favourite composer and it makes me think about how people can have wildly different musical tastes.


What do you hate about music that Brahms embodies, then?


----------



## mmsbls

TwoPhotons said:


> I just can't get into Brahms. His style seems to be everything I hate about music. I always find it interesting when people say that he is their favourite composer and it makes me think about how people can have wildly different musical tastes.


Could you give us a somewhat better sense of what you mean when you say Brahms' style is everything you hate about music? I assume you do not mean you hate most late Romantic music, but rather there is something about Brahms' music in particular that you dislike.

Edit: I just saw violadude's post, but we apparently have the same question.


----------



## Vesteralen

As long as an individual's hate for a given composer doesn't remove said composer's works from the repertoire, I'd say "live and let hate". It's no one's loss but their own.

Speaking nostalgically, I can remember the days when I "hated" things. Much like some of Brahms' later music, I've gotten really mellow in my old age. Unlike Weird Al, I'm mellow _before_ I'm dead.


----------



## Ilarion

Now I'll be a burr under some peoples saddle - No offense meant in any way, shape, or form:

Handel - Oh how I detest, loathe and despise his oeuvre. Imo, Handel is a JSBach wannabe.

Phew!!! - Now that I got that off my chest...


Give me John Cage over GFHandel any day of the week.............


----------



## isorhythm

Ilarion said:


> Now I'll be a burr under some peoples saddle - No offense meant in any way, shape, or form:
> 
> Handel - Oh how I detest, loathe and despise his oeuvre. Imo, Handel is a JSBach wannabe.
> 
> Phew!!! - Now that I got that off my chest...


I wouldn't go _quite_ that far...but I don't have much affection for Handel either.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

the latest couple of pages have terms like _obnoxious, hate, loathe, despise, detest _ applied to aspects of classical music

Tchah!

Try using these terms for some things that merit them - like intolerance, ignorance, prejudice et al


----------



## TwoPhotons

violadude said:


> What do you hate about music that Brahms embodies, then?





mmsbls said:


> Could you give us a somewhat better sense of what you mean when you say Brahms' style is everything you hate about music? I assume you do not mean you hate most late Romantic music, but rather there is something about Brahms' music in particular that you dislike.
> 
> Edit: I just saw violadude's post, but we apparently have the same question.


For example, the beginning of the 1st Symphony, it feels like it's either not brooding enough or not dangerous enough. The strings are climbing slowly, then out of nowhere they go up a 4th...then climb slowly again. And the timpani playing that simple beat at a tempo which seems to be either not fast enough or slow enough gets monotonous after a while.

It just doesn't flow with my expectations, and I've noticed this with all of Brahms' music I've listened to. He starts some new idea, then either lingers on it for too long, or switches to something new which leaves me puzzled. For example, when the piano first enters in his 2nd Piano Concerto. We just had some sweet little melodic idea from the winds and strings, then suddenly the piano comes in with something very very different, but somehow not different enough to leave me impressed, just puzzled. Then Zimerman plays a very jaggered idea which undegoes a few harmonic changes...but listen from 57:10. The right hand plays F - Eb, and I subconsciously expect the right hand to go up and repeat those notes an octave above, but it doesn't, it goes Eb -> E diminished seventh. But for some reason it doesn't stand out as something new, it just sounds like Zimerman doesn't know what he's doing. And I get this all the time from Brahms' music.

And, just as a final example, the Von ewiger Liebe, op.43 no.1. I listen to the first 30 seconds and all I get out of it is a confused mess. I see what Brahms is doing with the seventh in the 2nd bar but I just don't _get_ it. As I keep stating, he changes something but the change just leaves me puzzled. And then when the vocal comes in, he just leaves it in B minor, and it just sounds to me like he doesn't know in what direction the piece is going.

I hate having to write this sort of criticism about a composer, because normally I'm very open when it comes to appreciating different sorts of music, but Brahms just doesn't do it for me _at all_. And the thing I find most interesting about this is that Brahms is the _only _composer I know whose music I wouldn't be able to sit through in a concert hall. It's almost as if he sits in some "uncanny valley" in my musical taste, that there must be something that he does which irks me, which other people love about him (I think it's the puzzling "shifts" that I've been describing, as well as generally directionless musical ideas). And, I mean, I have trouble understanding why people dislike Chopin, when he's one of my favourite composers. I just think it's very interesting how people's musical tastes can be so different.

Of course, I'd like to emphasize that I'm very well aware that my opinions are subjective, and I do actually wish that I liked his music, because it feels like I'm missing something.


----------



## mmsbls

@TwoPhotons: Thank you. Your response was actually much more specific than I expected and more useful. I can imagine why you feel so surprised at Brahms who seems to be an outlier for you among classical composers. I wonder if there are people who could understand from a music theory standpoint why Brahms might sit in that uncanny valley; whereas, essentially no other composers do.


----------



## DeepR

No, or at least I haven't come across one, because:
- Everytime I really start exploring a composer's work I have found at least one or more pieces that I like (even by composers who I am generally not positive about)
- I haven't heard 100% of the music by any composer, yet


----------



## Winged Wolf

Since I'm not a big opera fan, I would have to say Verdi and Puccini. Wagner and Rossini too though to a lesser extent because the orchestral excerpts of Wagner's operas are really good as are Rossini's overtures.


----------



## Bellinilover

It's interesting to hear how many members dislike Handel. He's one of my favorite composers, so I can't relate at all, but today my brother (a Baroque violinist) told me that he's not a big Handel fan, either.

My brother's favorite Baroque composer is Heinrich Biber. Anyone here want to say what they think of him (I'm not familiar with Biber myself)?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

TwoPhotons said:


> It just doesn't flow with my expectations, and I've noticed this with all of Brahms' music I've listened to. He starts some new idea, then either lingers on it for too long, or switches to something new which leaves me puzzled. For example, when the piano first enters... We just had some sweet little melodic idea from the winds and strings, then suddenly the piano comes in with something very very different, but somehow not different enough to leave me impressed, just puzzled.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I hate having to write this sort of criticism about a composer, because normally I'm very open when it comes to appreciating different sorts of music, but Brahms just doesn't do it for me _at all_. And the thing I find most interesting about this is that Brahms is the _only _composer I know whose music I wouldn't be able to sit through in a concert hall. It's almost as if he sits in some "uncanny valley" in my musical taste, that there must be something that he does which irks me, which other people love about him (I think it's the puzzling "shifts" that I've been describing, as well as generally directionless musical ideas). And, I mean, I have trouble understanding why people dislike Chopin, when he's one of my favourite composers. I just think it's very interesting how people's musical tastes can be so different.
> 
> Of course, I'd like to emphasize that I'm very well aware that my opinions are subjective, and I do actually wish that I liked his music, because it feels like I'm missing something.


I too have a very difficult relationship with Brahms' music. I'm trying to educate myself into a better, or at least more informed one. I have set out elsewhere what I don't like about Brahms' musical 'signature' - I find his style rather too sweet for my ears, over-controlled, harmonically unadventurous; his themes don't really seem to me to develop into anything satisfying. I've had most pleasure from his late piano music (Opp. 76 - 119), one of the string quartets (Op 51/2) and the Piano Quintet Op 34, but I have been immersing myself in the Piano Trios and the Violin Sonatas recently, and I'm getting to know them.

It puzzles me because I have taken to almost everything by Schumann I have heard and I'm certainly not averse to the works of other 'romantic' period composers like Mendelssohn, Chopin and Liszt.


----------



## brotagonist

There is no great composer I don't like. If I don't like them, then they're not great


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I'd say in Brahms there's a sort of conflict between the constructive mind and the unconscious creative force.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I'd say in Brahms there's a sort of conflict between the constructive mind and the unconscious creative force.


Well, yes, I can see that, and the outcome of an internal conflict like that can be a creative solution or an inhibition of creative output. I gather that Brahms struggled with this. There does seem to be a terrific 'restraint' in that of his musical output with which I'm familiar (perhaps not very much of his total oeuvre).


----------



## ArtMusic

TwoPhotons said:


> For example, the beginning of the 1st Symphony, it feels like it's either not brooding enough or not dangerous enough. The strings are climbing slowly, then out of nowhere they go up a 4th...then climb slowly again. And the timpani playing that simple beat at a tempo which seems to be either not fast enough or slow enough gets monotonous after a while.
> 
> It just doesn't flow with my expectations, and I've noticed this with all of Brahms' music I've listened to. He starts some new idea, then either lingers on it for too long, or switches to something new which leaves me puzzled. For example, when the piano first enters in his 2nd Piano Concerto. We just had some sweet little melodic idea from the winds and strings, then suddenly the piano comes in with something very very different, but somehow not different enough to leave me impressed, just puzzled. Then Zimerman plays a very jaggered idea which undegoes a few harmonic changes...but listen from 57:10. The right hand plays F - Eb, and I subconsciously expect the right hand to go up and repeat those notes an octave above, but it doesn't, it goes Eb -> E diminished seventh. But for some reason it doesn't stand out as something new, it just sounds like Zimerman doesn't know what he's doing. And I get this all the time from Brahms' music.
> 
> And, just as a final example, the Von ewiger Liebe, op.43 no.1. I listen to the first 30 seconds and all I get out of it is a confused mess. I see what Brahms is doing with the seventh in the 2nd bar but I just don't _get_ it. As I keep stating, he changes something but the change just leaves me puzzled. And then when the vocal comes in, he just leaves it in B minor, and it just sounds to me like he doesn't know in what direction the piece is going.
> 
> I hate having to write this sort of criticism about a composer, because normally I'm very open when it comes to appreciating different sorts of music, but Brahms just doesn't do it for me _at all_. And the thing I find most interesting about this is that Brahms is the _only _composer I know whose music I wouldn't be able to sit through in a concert hall. It's almost as if he sits in some "uncanny valley" in my musical taste, that there must be something that he does which irks me, which other people love about him (I think it's the puzzling "shifts" that I've been describing, as well as generally directionless musical ideas). And, I mean, I have trouble understanding why people dislike Chopin, when he's one of my favourite composers. I just think it's very interesting how people's musical tastes can be so different.
> 
> Of course, I'd like to emphasize that I'm very well aware that my opinions are subjective, and I do actually wish that I liked his music, because it feels like I'm missing something.


I can agree with this in particular with the large scale works by Brahms, such as his symphonies. These four works seem to meander about trying to be serious, very serious but to no resolution of the "serious conflicts". Unlike Beethoven who got very serious with most of his nine symphonies and offer a resolution (fifth is the grandest conflict resolution piece ever written), Brahms falls by a million miles in comparison with his serious attempt. Best to take a HIP recording that make the symphonies sound a touch lighter and more Classical, rather than forcing to be more serious than it really is.


----------



## Bulldog

Bellinilover said:


> It's interesting to hear how many members dislike Handel. He's one of my favorite composers, so I can't relate at all, but today my brother (a Baroque violinist) told me that he's not a big Handel fan, either.
> 
> My brother's favorite Baroque composer is Heinrich Biber. Anyone here want to say what they think of him (I'm not familiar with Biber myself)?


Among baroque music enthusiasts, Biber is held in high esteem. There are many exceptions, but Biber's music is more serious and reflective than Handel's; Biber was born about 20 years before Handel. I think both are top-rate.


----------



## isorhythm

@TwoPhotons

I can't strong-arm anyone into liking Brahms, but it does seem fairly clear to me what he's doing in that song: he's establishing the tonic key with a brief piano introduction, and then the singer starts on the tonic key, same as Mozart or Schubert would do. What you're calling a seventh in the second bar, I think is the relative major. Root movement by thirds without preparation is one of Brahms' favorite devices. I wonder if that second bar made you expect something more harmonically adventurous than you got, and that's why you're disappointed?

The harmonic interest in Brahms is about the distinctive way he juxtaposes and moves between ordinary chords. He's not going to write new unclassifiable chords or withhold the tonic until the end of his million hour long opera, but that doesn't mean it's boring.

Here's the slow movement of his horn trio: 




Starting around 5:15, we go through C flat major, E flat major, C minor, F major, D minor, back to E flat. The texture is very spare and there are no dissonances or twisty chromatic lines; we just slip quietly from one key to the next. This is pure Brahms.


----------



## Woodduck

To those who dislike Brahms: you may or may not come to like his music - I've been up and down with it - but I can assure you that it does _not_ meander.

If Brahms has a fault, it lies in an occasional lack of spontaneity, a sense that the music is too deliberately put together. I think his striving after a Classical ideal was occasionally at odds with his Romantic impulses, and originated at a deep level of personality which also manifested itself in his gruffness, his "hiding" behind his bushy beard and girth, his frustrated sex life, and his strong but rarely expressed ambivalence toward the arch-Romantic Wagner.

So much for Doktor Woodduck's psychological profiling of a man who isn't here to set me straight. But I do think I'm on to something.


----------



## TwoPhotons

Thank you TurnaboutVox, Richannes Wrahms, ArtMusic, isorhythm and Woodduck for your posts on Brahms!



isorhythm said:


> I can't strong-arm anyone into liking Brahms, but it does seem fairly clear to me what he's doing in that song: he's establishing the tonic key with a brief piano introduction, and then the singer starts on the tonic key, same as Mozart or Schubert would do. What you're calling a seventh in the second bar, I think is the relative major. Root movement by thirds without preparation is one of Brahms' favorite devices. I wonder if that second bar made you expect something more harmonically adventurous than you got, and that's why you're disappointed?


I was also unsure whether to call it D major or a seventh in that 2nd bar because it's very ambiguous. But I think it's the bass line in that introduction that sounds most problematic to me. I _see_ what he's doing: he goes up the root minor triad, then happens to use the 5th as a crossing point to the mediant major (D major) in the right hand, and leaps up to D in the left hand both to emphasise (perhaps) the D major harmony as well as prepare for a descending figure...it all sounds good and perfectly fine on paper. But when I actually listen to how Brahms executed this, it sounds meager and unconvincing. The jump from F# to D in the left hand just sounds forced and makes me go, "Huh?!", a bit like that sudden rise of the 4th in the strings in the 1st symphony introduction. I think it's to do with the fact that the F# is not very well harmonically established in the first place, and neither is the D. Hmmmm...I might be on to something here!

[Please note, by the way, that I never do this sort of analysis in my head while listening to music, I don't judge the music this way. I don't listen to music and go: "So that was the development, we must be onto the recapitulation now". I just listen to the music and like it or not. This is just me trying to understand why I don't like it, and why others might like it. Note also that I've never studied musical analysis and am not familiar with all the musical terms out there so apologies if I'm not being as clear as I could be.]



isorhythm said:


> Here's the slow movement of his horn trio:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starting around 5:15, we go through C flat major, E flat major, C minor, F major, D minor, back to E flat. The texture is very spare and there are no dissonances or twisty chromatic lines; we just slip quietly from one key to the next. This is pure Brahms.


I listened to that excerpt and right off the bat I had a problem with 5:19. This sudden shift in texture and musical idea is almost like the piano introduction in the 2nd Piano Concerto, and leaves me lost and frustrated. Again, after analysing, I can see what he's doing: the chords go like VI-V-I (Cb, Bb, Eb), and that chord progression can be found all over the Classical and Romantic repetoire. But again, the execution sounds all wrong. The piano does a descent, then is left hanging on the Bb. Not to mention that the bass line just before, again, doesn't sound very convincing to me.

EDIT: On more listenings I see that he seems to skip the Bb chord and jumps to Eb (as you wrote in your original post). It was the Bb in the piano bass which threw me off!

I did like the part from 5:20, especially the low C in the piano at around 5:30. But from 5:30 till 5:40, I've lost it again. It sounds like the performers have lost their place in the sheet music and the pianist is improvising some sort of pretty melody to cover it up. It is certainly a spare texture but...how can I say it, it feels to me like it's always meant to be going somewhere else, maybe to an even sparser texture or thicker texture, but Brahms keeps twisting my expectations around in a very unassuming and uncalled-for way which leaves me confused and frustrated.

As you can see, I can go on like this for pages and pages.....



Woodduck said:


> a sense that the music is too *deliberately *put together. I think his striving after a Classical ideal was occasionally *at odds *with his Romantic impulses


I think I can relate to this. I've heard about the 'rivalry' between Wagner and Brahms (or was it Wagnerians and Brahmsians?), that Brahms was more conservative whereas Wagner was more progressive (guess which one I prefer). Perhaps I'm just not used to listening to Romantic music which hearkens back to the Classical era; my tastes are mainly late Romantic/early 20th century. I don't actively go out to listen to Beethoven or Mozart as much but I certainly enjoy their music as well. Perhaps the reason why Brahms sits in this "uncanny valley" for me is that his music attempts at connecting the two periods somehow and I just don't understand that style. It creates a sense of "restraint" in his music.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

TwoPhotons said:


> Thank you TurnaboutVox, Richannes Wrahms, ArtMusic, isorhythm and Woodduck for your posts on Brahms!
> 
> As you can see, I can go on like this for pages and pages.....


Indeed. But you started off earlier with _"just can't get into Brahms. His style seems to be everything I *hate *about music"_ and none of what you have said so far seems to justify the verb 'hate'.

If you don't appreciate the music of Brahms, well, so be it .... maybe later on, with more experience or in a different stage of life, you will change your mind. For a long period, I also just couldn't get into Brahms (and now I very much enjoy his music) but I seldom find classical music that I genuinely 'hate'.


----------



## Woodduck

TwoPhotons said:


> I listened to that excerpt [Horn Trio: adagio] and right off the bat I had a problem with 5:19. This sudden shift in texture and musical idea is almost like the piano introduction in the 2nd Piano Concerto, and leaves me lost and frustrated. Again, after analysing, I can see what he's doing: the chords go like VI-V-I (Cb, Bb, Eb), and that chord progression can be found all over the Classical and Romantic repetoire. But again, the execution sounds all wrong. The piano does a descent, then is left hanging on the Bb. Not to mention that the bass line just before, again, doesn't sound very convincing to me.
> 
> EDIT: On more listenings I see that he seems to skip the Bb chord and jumps to Eb (as you wrote in your original post). It was the Bb in the piano bass which threw me off!
> 
> I did like the part from 5:20, especially the low C in the piano at around 5:30. But from 5:30 till 5:40, I've lost it again. It sounds like the performers have lost their place in the sheet music and the pianist is improvising some sort of pretty melody to cover it up. It is certainly a spare texture but...how can I say it, it feels to me like it's always meant to be going somewhere else, maybe to an even sparser texture or thicker texture, but Brahms keeps twisting my expectations around in a very unassuming and uncalled-for way which leaves me confused and frustrated.


The solution to your mystery at 5:19 is that Brahms is sneaking in a premonition of the theme of the final movement of the work. Schumann does something similar just before the last movement of his Piano Quartet in Eb, though the effect is less enigmatic. It's meant to make us raise our eyebrows a little in the moment - to anticipate something, we don't know what. Then, when the finale begins, we understand. Listen to the whole trio.


----------



## Ilarion

Bellinilover said:


> It's interesting to hear how many members dislike Handel. He's one of my favorite composers, so I can't relate at all, but today my brother (a Baroque violinist) told me that he's not a big Handel fan, either.
> 
> My brother's favorite Baroque composer is Heinrich Biber. Anyone here want to say what they think of him (I'm not familiar with Biber myself)?


Ah Biber - such majestic music e.g. Missa Salisburgensis - I never tire of hearing his music.


----------



## Trumpet12

Shostakovich. His 7th symphony is super boring until the last 3 minutes, which ironically is the most epic ending to any symphony in history!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> To those who dislike Brahms: you may or may not come to like his music - I've been up and down with it - but I can assure you that it does _not_ meander.
> 
> If Brahms has a fault, it lies in an occasional lack of spontaneity, a sense that the music is too deliberately put together. I think his striving after a Classical ideal was occasionally at odds with his Romantic impulses, and originated at a deep level of personality which also manifested itself in his gruffness, his "hiding" behind his bushy beard and girth, his frustrated sex life, and his strong but rarely expressed ambivalence toward the arch-Romantic Wagner.
> 
> So much for Doktor Woodduck's psychological profiling of a man who isn't here to set me straight. But I do think I'm on to something.


 - or for the Marschallin's psycho-pharmacological profiling of Brahms as sounding like Beethoven on downers.


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> - or for the Marschallin's psycho-pharmacological profiling of Brahms as sounding like Beethoven on downers.


I hear a distinct growling from behind that beard and cigar.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> I hear a distinct growling from behind that beard and cigar.


Doktor Freud says for him to sublimate it to his music.


----------



## miroirs

I cannot stand Handel, Haydn, most Mozart. Much preferring the 20th Century composers. Cage, Copland, Stravinsky. Do love Brahms though.


----------



## Ferrariman601

I have to agree 100% with the original post way back at the start if this thread - I cannot, under any circumstances, find any liking for J.S. Bach. I found classical music in my late teens (I'm still only 23 now), so I know that I have much to learn, but Bach is just over my head entirely. I'm not sure if it's due to failures in my comprehension, lapses in attention, or simple ignorance, but Bach always ends up making me feel mentally exhausted. There's nothing in it for me from him. It isn't the Baroque style - I love Händel - and it isn't the forms he chooses; it's just...Bach. I can't explain why.


----------



## Antiquarian

I really don't enjoy Mendelssohn as much as I probably should. Why? I don't know. I like his _Elijah_, but his purely instrumental works leave me cold.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

*John Cage*_ if he can be considered great_

4'33 is my reason. That's artistic asshattery at it's lowest. It's the musical form of taking a blank canvas and selling it as is (Sadly there are people that would pay loads of money if the right artist did it).


----------



## HolstThePhone

Tchaikovsky - sometimes he's lovely, sometimes he annoys me. His the first movement of his first piano concerto is a prime example of this. It should be a crime to not repeat that brilliant theme at the start again towards the end of the piece.

Brahms as well - sorry I've tried. I don't know why but he just doesn't do anything for me.


----------



## Vesteralen

HolstThePhone said:


> Brahms as well - sorry I've tried. I don't know why but he just doesn't do anything for me.


I know. I tried calling him up to ask if he'd pick me up some fish on his way home from town. Nothing. Somebody told me he was dead.


----------



## Baregrass

It is Sibelius for me. Just can't like his music. No real reason, there just isn't anything there for me. And add Wagner to the list as well.


----------



## mstar

Mahler. Every time I try, I get a migraine. 
No joke.


----------



## Morimur

mstar said:


> Mahler. Every time I try, I get a migraine.
> No joke.


Can't imagine why Mahler would induce a migraine but I do love your signature.


----------



## Morimur

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> That's artistic asshattery at it's lowest.


BAAAAAHAHAHAHA! That's gold, Jerry! Gold!!


----------



## Guest

Morimur said:


> BAAAAAHAHAHAHA! That's gold, Jerry! Gold!!


Now, a lot of people get caught in the act, but he literally just _admitted_ outright to judging John Cage on the sole basis of 4'33".


----------



## Blancrocher

Yeah, tons--Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Ligeti, you name it. Don't get me wrong, they're pleasant enough company--_for awhile_. But it seems anytime I'm at home they're there on the stereo; if I'm at work they're on my headphones; and if I take a drive they're there on the radio. Can't remember the last time I had some peace and quiet. And they've taken their toll on my wallet too, as my wife can confirm.

If you don't know any great composers yet, I'd suggest you keep your distance.


----------



## mstar

Morimur said:


> *Can't imagine why Mahler would induce a migraine* but I do love your signature.


Interestingly, and rather sadly, neither can I.


----------



## Sloe

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> *John Cage*_ if he can be considered great_
> 
> 4'33 is my reason. That's artistic asshattery at it's lowest. It's the musical form of taking a blank canvas and selling it as is (Sadly there are people that would pay loads of money if the right artist did it).


That is not my reason. My reason is that I just do not like to listen to most of his music. Honestly i think it is unfair that a composer is judged only on one work.


----------



## Guest

Sloe said:


> That is not my reason. My reason is that I just do not like to listen to most of his music. Honestly i think it is unfair that a composer is judged only on one work.


Yes. People that do this must also evaluate Beethoven solely in terms of _Rage Over A Lost Penny_, Mozart solely in terms of _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik_, Tchaikovsky solely in terms of the _1812 Overture_, Ravel solely in terms of _Bolero_, and so on... or face their own hypocrisy.

Eliminate all but one composition of your choice... and very few composers would be left with the same prestige.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

To be fair to John Cage, I listened to more than one work of his. For every brilliant moment he might have in a piece, it's like he ruins it in the next phrase. He might have some beautiful stuff that I just haven't dug deep enough for, but you shouldn't have to dig to find brilliance in a well known composer's work.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Can I say that I just don't see why Liszt is so popular? He just seems mediocre to me. 

*pictures Chopin and Liszt as Mozart and Salieri in Amadeus respectively*


----------



## Balthazar

^ If you haven't yet, I would encourage you to listen to Bertrand Chamayou's recording of Liszt's _Années de pèlerinage_ and Arrau's recording of the _Études_. If you still don't like it, perhaps give it a listen every year or so. You never know...


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Balthazar said:


> ^ If you haven't yet, I would encourage you to listen to Bertrand Chamayou's recording of Liszt's _Années de pèlerinage_ and Arrau's recording of the _Études_. If you still don't like it, perhaps give it a listen every year or so. You never know...


I think Lazar Berman's set on DG is a very persuasive argument of the worth of this (wonderful) music


----------



## Sloe

Ravell
Glass
Rachmanninov
Pärt

I can´t say that I get very content listening to these composers.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Sloe said:


> Pärt
> 
> I can´t say that I get very content listening to these composers.


Its not to everyone's taste, but I find Part's music to be very interesting and exciting. Maybe try this ....


----------



## Sloe

Headphone Hermit said:


> Its not to everyone's taste, but I find Part's music to be very interesting and exciting. Maybe try this ....
> 
> View attachment 76323


I just think much his music is boring.
Of course a composer that have been active for several decades can have made something that I could lik or even love.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

OK - as I said ... its not to everyone's taste.

There is some music that fails to excite me too


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Pärt's Passacaglia for Violin was included on a recent purchase of Vivaldi's music, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. That's my only taster of Pärt's music.


----------



## Guillet81

Old thread, but Stravinsky is one of those "legendary" composers I have never cared for. (Perhaps I have just never heard his good compositions? Always a possibility.) Berg would probably be in that category too.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Bach
Beethoven
Mozart


----------



## Bettina

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Bach
> Beethoven
> Mozart


How about Zozart? :lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Bettina said:


> How about Zozart? :lol:


Oh, no he's very good got him on heavy rotation......


----------



## Phil loves classical

To a certain degree, Bach. To a large degree, Brahms. Some works I like from both though.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Chopin, probably. He soaks everything in Romanticism too much in my opinion, and the melody _has to be_ beautiful and lyrical and Romantic to the soul. I do like some of his pieces though( First Piano Concerto, Heroic Polonaise). His contemporaries (Mendelssohn, Schumann, etc.) seem to do a better job in expressing a true Romantic spirit in my opinion.


----------



## Bettina

I've posted about this many times before, but I'll repeat my shameful confession: I have trouble enjoying Mahler's music. To my ears, his music sounds aimless and sad. I just can't seem to move beyond that (obviously incorrect) impression. 

However, I am continuing to try for a breakthrough. Hopefully one day, I'll be able to share some good Mahler-related news with all of you here on TC!


----------



## hpowders

I don't care for much of Bruckner's music. Nothing personal. Never met him.


----------



## JAS

Sloe said:


> Ravell
> Glass
> Rachmanninov
> Pärt
> 
> I can´t say that I get very content listening to these composers.


But how is this even possible? Someone in another thread asserted with absolute confidence that Ravel is "a million times better at melody" than Rachmaninoff, and yet you don't like either one of them.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Tchaikov6 said:


> Chopin, probably. He soaks everything in Romanticism too much in my opinion, and the melody _has to be_ beautiful and lyrical and Romantic to the soul. I do like some of his pieces though( First Piano Concerto, Heroic Polonaise). His contemporaries (Mendelssohn, Schumann, etc.) seem to do a better job in expressing a true Romantic spirit in my opinion.


Totally agree. I have certain respect for Bach and Brahms, but I feel Chopin seems out of place with other "great" composers.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Bettina said:


> I've posted about this many times before, but I'll repeat my shameful confession: I have trouble enjoying Mahler's music. To my ears, his music sounds aimless and sad. I just can't seem to move beyond that (obviously incorrect) impression.
> 
> However, I am continuing to try for a breakthrough. Hopefully one day, I'll be able to share some good Mahler-related news with all of you here on TC!


Other than the 1st and 9th, I agree with you on Mahler.


----------



## Smikkelbeer

Many people will probably not like this, but I don't like the music of Bach. I can't get into it, it bores me after a minute of 5.


----------



## Pugg

Smikkelbeer said:


> Many people will probably not like this, but I don't like the music of Bach. I can't get into it, it bores me after a minute of 5.


Lost of Bach fans on this site but everyone is entitled to his / her own taste.


----------



## Richard8655

I wouldn't miss Rimsky-Korsakov or Mussorgsky (Pictures at an Exhibition). Too much program and narrative. Prefer more abstract music experience (i.e., Bach, Handel).


----------



## hpowders

OP: Schnittke and Scarlatti.


----------



## Fugue Meister

I never miss an opportunity to decry that hack Schumann, who sucks. :devil:


----------



## Omicron9

Yes and no. Dvorak, but he's not a great composer.


----------



## Guest

I can't listen to opera. I also need to have 7 more posts.


----------



## keymasher

I probably struggle the most with Mendelssohn. For me, most of his compositions decidedly into the "nice" category, but never really connect on a personal level. I'm mostly familiar with Songs Without Words and of course, the Violin Concerto in E minor, which I do enjoy. Happy to be enlightened.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

I can't listen to Mahler, because of how fast I fall asleep.


----------



## neoshredder

Omicron9 said:


> Yes and no. Dvorak, but he's not a great composer.


Yes he is actually.


----------



## neoshredder

I currently have no great Composer I can't listen to. But I generally find Opera difficult to get into.


----------



## jdec

OP, not in my case. I feel fortunate that I'm able to appreciate (love in most cases) the music of basically all of the great composers (and even many of the not so great ones).


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Bettina said:


> I've posted about this many times before, but I'll repeat my shameful confession: I have trouble enjoying Mahler's music. To my ears, his music sounds aimless and sad. I just can't seem to move beyond that (obviously incorrect) impression.
> 
> However, I am continuing to try for a breakthrough. Hopefully one day, I'll be able to share some good Mahler-related news with all of you here on TC!


I agree with Bettina re Mahler. Just can't get into his music. But I'll try again some time.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Pat Fairlea said:


> I agree with Bettina re Mahler. Just can't get into his music. But I'll try again some time.


The guy is pretty good orchestrator, but he sounds like he was overwriting his symphonies (this is more often encountered in literature than in music).


----------



## hpowders

Medtner. He tried to be Rachmaninov but couldn't.


----------



## lluissineu

Smikkelbeer said:


> Many people will probably not like this, but I don't like the music of Bach. I can't get into it, it bores me after a minute of 5.


I wouldn't be so categorical (I like some Bach's works) but broadly speaking something similar happens to me.

I read other posts: I think Dvorak Is a wonderful composer and love schumann music.

Though in many cases I share The same taste with Bettina, I must say I love Mahler. It's so curious how tastes work. There's no accounting for tastes.


----------



## Baregrass

neoshredder said:


> I currently have no great Composer I can't listen to. But I generally find Opera difficult to get into.


I'm with you on opera. I love the instrumental music but the screeching high soprano voices are like fingernails on a blackboard to me.


----------



## Totenfeier

Wagner. Just finished listening to the end of Die Walkure, the Departure of Wotan, and the awakening of Brunnhilde from Siegfried, on a recommendation to somebody else in another thread. Bored me nearly to death.


----------



## Jacred

Mahler. I can't get into his symphonies. I think he once said something about symphonies "being like the world", but that just makes them overloaded and not work for me.


----------



## Arent

I'm still new to this forum and going slowly through some old threads, but what strikes me as how firmly in the middle of consensus opinion a lot of my views are! It's weird. I've never really had a group of music-loving friends to share my thoughts with, but it seems a lot of my tastes are very much shared.

Anyway, on topic:
Bach doesn't do it for me. I've tried, but he just doesn't.
Brahms for the most part doesn't move me. Occasionally I'm in the mood for some of his chamber music, but not often. His symphonies are a big yawn.
I've heard Wagner described as "meretricious" and that echoes my own feeling. Great composer, sure, but he strives for effect a little too much.
Mahler is very uneven. I like the first, ninth, tenth, and _Das Lied von der Erde_. The rest can take a hike. 
Perhaps not considered by anyone a "great" composer, but the music of Max Reger is perhaps the worst thing Germany ever produced prior to 1933.


----------



## hpowders

In real time, the usual suspects: Bruckner, Liszt, Chopin, Schubert.


----------



## Arent

hpowders said:


> In real time, the usual suspects: Bruckner, Liszt, Chopin, Schubert.


It's interesting, though, that until about the 1980s Bruckner wasn't even on the list of "great composers" in the English-speaking world. His popularity has soared.


----------



## jegreenwood

Bruckner. I've tried, and there are several works I like (4th and 7th Symphonies, some of the religious music), but the rest just bore me.

Someone above mentioned Liszt. I can't say I dislike him - I just don't listen to him very often. But the more flamboyant romantic composers have been growing on me in recent months.

(Having said that, I've liked Mahler since the first time I heard him.)


----------



## mathisdermaler

Debussy. I have only found "Jeux" to be any good, it is great though. His music lacks any virile energy to me. Too quaint.


----------



## Richard8655

Bruckner with me as well. Just doesn't seem to go anywhere or have any effect on an emotional level.


----------



## hpowders

jegreenwood said:


> *Bruckner*, I've tried and there are several works I like (4th and 7th Symphonies, some of the religious music),but the rest just* bores me.*
> 
> Someone above mentioned Liszt. I can't say I dislike him - I just don't listen to him very often. But the more flamboyant romantic composers have been growing on me in recent months.
> 
> (Having said that, I've liked Mahler since the first time I heard him.)


Welcome, pilgrim!! :lol:


----------



## Portamento

Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Brahms, Schubert, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Mahler, Bruckner, Dvořák, Liszt, Chopin, and Miroslav Srnka.












































































































did anyone get the joke?


----------



## SixFootScowl

Baregrass said:


> I'm with you on opera. I love the instrumental music but the screeching high soprano voices are like fingernails on a blackboard to me.


You need to give Boris Godunov a try if you don't like screeching high soprano voices.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I am mostly focused into opera, but I do like symphonic works. However I have limited my self in that to Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Saint-Saens, and Mahler for the most part. I don't try to listen to Haydn, Bach, or Mozart, partly because I have enough to keep me busy, and partly because I don't think they will improve on my favorite: Beethoven. I did think someday I should bet Bach's great mass, but the urge has not pushed me to search and buy yet.


----------



## Arent

And Shostakovich. Either boring or viscerally revolting to me, depending on the work.


----------



## KenOC

Arent said:


> And Shostakovich. Either boring or viscerally revolting to me, depending on the work.


Have you tried his 2nd Piano Concerto?


----------



## Arent

KenOC said:


> Have you tried his 2nd Piano Concerto?


Can't stand it, I'm sorry! I can see he knows what he's doing. Just a temperamental mismatch, I think. I can handle middlebrow Sunday afternoon and a cup of tea music. Shostakovich is like that but without the comfy sofa and Earl Grey. Russian cheerless middlebrow.


----------



## Klassik

Of course not! A composer wouldn't be great if I didn't like them! Well, they wouldn't be great in my world at least.

Amongst the handful of composers who have the highest levels of popularity, I'm not sure if there's any I would say that I plain don't like. I'm not an opera fan so composers best known for opera aren't going to be high on my list, but even then there are some overtures/instrumental versions of their works that I do enjoy (Rossini, Bizet, and Wagner come to mind).

There's a number of composers whom I only enjoy a few of their works and am left mostly cold by the majority of their works. I wouldn't say that I don't like these composers (I believe I own CDs of all these composers), but I probably would not invest in any kind of boxset of theirs. Handel would be on this list. Mahler too. I like Titan and his Symphony 5, but the majority of Mahler's work does not interest me that much. I wouldn't call it bad, but it just doesn't interest me. A lot of the works from Sibelius do not interest me that much. I like his first symphony and the fourth is interesting due to the oddity of it if nothing else. Finlandia is okay. The rest of it, well, it's not bad. It's not something I would listen to given other options though.

I would consider Liszt to be amongst the composers I really like, but that's almost exclusively for his symphonic poems and not his piano works that he's best known for. I wouldn't call myself a Debussy fan in general, but I do find La Mer to be rather enjoyable. Oddly enough, I do like some of Chopin's works, but it's still not something that I listen to frequently.

There are some frequently discussed composers on TC who I do not like, but I don't think these composers are considered to be great by many/most posters here on TC so I'm not alone in that regard. I won't say who they are right now, but you can take a few guesses and you'd probably be right.


----------



## Martin D

Klassik said:


> Of course not! A composer wouldn't be great if I didn't like them! Well, they wouldn't be great in my world at least.


You make some interesting comments.

I just thought I'd mention that if you look at the OP he was referring to a "_… a virulent dislike to one of the acknowledged geniuses of Classical composition"_.

This of course isn't necessarily the same thing as "great" composers that one likes, to whom you refer

The question then is: who are considered to be the "acknowleged geniuses" of classical music composition? To help answer this fascinating issue on a Forum-wide basis, it might be of interest to set up a system of polls asking which of the "great composers" are most "disliked".

Ah but wait. There could be a short-cut. All one has to do is take the existing list of most "liked" composers, decide the point at which "great" becomes "not so great", and reverse the order from that point. On this basis, one could easily read off the most disliked great composers, from the worst to the least, if you see what I mean.

I do agree, though, that this short-cut may not be such fun as running a few polls to determine the same.


----------



## pcnog11

I am not a big fan of Brahams, some of his stuff is good, but it is not my cup of tea.


----------



## Klassik

Martin D said:


> I just thought I'd mention that if you look at the OP he was referring to a "_… a virulent dislike to one of the acknowledged geniuses of Classical composition"_.
> 
> This of course isn't necessarily the same thing as "great" composers that one likes, to whom you refer


Fair point. There are some composers for whom I respect their musical genius more than I enjoy listening to their actual music. Sibelius would be an example. He'd be higher on my genius list than he would be on my like list. Someone like Handel may very well have written music more of my liking if he had worked for different patrons, but that's something we just don't know and we would have to take a guess.

Anyway, a poll that can measure how members view "likeness" versus "genius" could yield some interesting results especially when there are composers with big differences between the variables.

Getting everyone to use the same definitions will be a problem as always though. I know OP said geniuses, but I'm thinking he wanted to know which beloved composers aren't liked. I suspect OP is long gone though so we'll never get clarification.


----------



## Woodduck

The term "genius" has always generated a lot of controversy and dislike around here, so I doubt that any poll depending on it would mean much.

The idea of "genius" doesn't bother me, though, so I'll name Mozart, Debussy, Mahler and Stravinsky as four acknowledged geniuses I have but limited interest in, enjoying some of their works but rarely moved to listen to even the works I do like. "Virulent dislike" I generally save for stuff few people would identify as "genius."


----------



## Lenny

Funny thing, from one of the gratest, that who is in the OP's picture I don't really like


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

I listen to non-vocal music almost exclusively so I'm not a fan of composers who wrote mainly opera. Love Wagner's purely orchestral music but don't like his operas.


----------



## Richard8655

Arent said:


> Can't stand it, I'm sorry! I can see he knows what he's doing. Just a temperamental mismatch, I think. I can handle middlebrow Sunday afternoon and a cup of tea music. Shostakovich is like that but without the comfy sofa and Earl Grey. Russian cheerless middlebrow.


Understand the reaction. But I'd say Shostakovich is not meant to be comfy, but rather challenging, stimulating, and provoking. In the end, that often provides the most memorable satisfaction. But I agree - he's not for everyone. Took me a while.


----------



## hpowders

Richard8655 said:


> Understand the reaction. But I'd say Shostakovich is not meant to be comfy, but rather challenging, stimulating, and provoking. In the end, that often provides the most memorable satisfaction. But I agree - he's not for everyone. Took me a while.


Of course, his music wasn't meant to be relaxing. He was risking his life writing most of it under Stalin's oppressive regime. How could most of it not be gloomy, depressing and disturbing?


----------



## Arent

Richard8655 said:


> Understand the reaction. But I'd say Shostakovich is not meant to be comfy, but rather challenging, stimulating, and provoking. In the end, that often provides the most memorable satisfaction. But I agree - he's not for everyone. Took me a while.


For challenging and stimulating, I'll take Boulez or Ligeti. But Shostakovich doesn't work for me. Will have to try more perhaps, at least so I can articulate my dislike better!


----------



## Totenfeier

Well, I'm at the ragged end of a long thread, so what I have to contribute is surely not original, but the little I've heard of both Brahms and Wagner has not, so far, enticed me to want to hear more from either.


----------



## hpowders

Totenfeier said:


> Well, I'm at the ragged end of a long thread, so what I have to contribute is surely not original, but the little I've heard of both Brahms and Wagner has not, so far, enticed me to want to hear more from either.


Your gain and their loss...or is it the other way around. Tough to get things right after a large slice of potent rum cake.


----------



## Richard8655

hpowders said:


> Of course, his music wasn't meant to be relaxing. He was risking his life writing most of it under Stalin's oppressive regime. How could most of it not be gloomy, depressing and disturbing?


Exactly. In a way, this is what makes his music even more interesting. Who needs to listen to forest sounds, pastoral imagery, or afternoon fawns when we have this history!


----------



## Totenfeier

hpowders said:


> Your gain and their loss...or is it the other way around. Tough to get things right after a large slice of potent rum cake.


Try washing the cake down with a potent rum, and see if that helps (this from somebody who ruefully remembers going a few rounds with the Kraken - and _losing_).


----------



## David OByrne

Most of the so called "greats" currently, they sound dull to me


----------



## hpowders

Richard8655 said:


> Exactly. In a way, this is what makes his music even more interesting. Who needs to listen to forest sounds, pastoral imagery, or afternoon fawns when we have this history!


This is true. Imagine being in Shostakovich's shoes where musical censorship could mean Siberia or death. That fear and depression is all in the music. You can feel it.

When I played golf, there was a brook adjacent to one of the holes. Nice but boring.

Hey Beethoven, lose the brook already!!


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> This is true. Imagine being in Shostakovich's shoes where musical censorship could mean Siberia or death. That fear and depression is all in the music. You can feel it.
> 
> When I played golf, there was a brook adjacent to one of the holes. Nice but boring.
> 
> Hey Beethoven, lose the brook already!!


For some reason I suspect that the creative artists who got on the wrong side of the regime and found themselves laboring and sweating and freezing and dying in a Siberian gulag would have wept for joy at the opportunity to be "bored" by Beethoven's brook.

Thrilling to Shostakovich's fear and depression is such an easy indulgence for us rich fat Americans. They should play his symphonies at all-you-can-eat buffets.


----------



## Becca

Florestan said:


> You need to give Boris Godunov a try if you don't like screeching high soprano voices.


Or Britten's _Billy Budd_


----------



## Becca

Of the large number of composers who I have listened to who cover a range of over 500 years, who might just possibly fall into a generally acknowledged high rank  and where I have listened to more than 1 or 2 pieces, there is only one that I can think of where I have not liked anything that I have heard (and note, dislike and not liked are _*not*_ the same the thing) and that would be Pierre Boulez.


----------



## John Kiunke

I don't know much beyond the baroque and classical periods, but the funny thing is, as much as I enjoy Beethoven when I listen to him, I never really get "into" him. But I want to stress that I really do enjoy his music, he's just not my go to guy. Brahms, however, I have tried to listen to and I just.. hate.. it. It's okay, but there's just nothing there for me.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> Imagine being in Shostakovich's shoes where musical censorship could mean Siberia or death.


Umm...was there a Soviet composer for whom musical censorship meant Siberia or death? Loss of employment, certainly.


----------



## Woodduck

John Kiunke said:


> I don't know much beyond the baroque and classical periods, but the funny thing is, as much as I enjoy Beethoven when I listen to him, I never really get "into" him. But I want to stress that I really do enjoy his music, he's just not my go to guy. *Brahms, however, I have tried to listen to and I just.. hate.. it.* It's okay, but there's just nothing there for me.


Luckily, this can change, and it isn't always because we've "worked" at it. I disliked Brahms, finding his music labored, stuffy and drab, until I heard his Requiem in college, and after that his other works opened up to me, to the point that he became an absolute passion. He remains a favorite forty-some years later. Maybe I had to discover the labored, stuffy and drab parts of myself!


----------



## pierrot

Stravinsky, not even the Rite of Spring.


----------



## SixFootScowl

John Kiunke said:


> I don't know much beyond the baroque and classical periods, but the funny thing is, as much as I enjoy Beethoven when I listen to him, I never really get "into" him. But I want to stress that I really do enjoy his music, he's just not my go to guy. Brahms, however, I have tried to listen to and I just.. hate.. it. It's okay, but there's just nothing there for me.


A lot of people have only heard one Baroque piece: Handel's Messiah.

I have tried Brahms a few times, purchased two symphony cycles, and still don't find it worth my time.


----------



## Pugg

David OByrne said:


> Most of the so called "greats" currently, they sound dull to me


Aprils fool :lol:


----------



## Klassik

Florestan said:


> A lot of people have only heard one Baroque piece: Handel's Messiah.


I've always found Vivaldi's Four Seasons to be the most unavoidable even if you tried Baroque piece, but Handel's Messiah is up there too. Personally, I'd rather take in the Vivaldi.

EDIT: Pachelbel's Canon in D is up there too on the unavoidable list.


----------



## Pugg

Klassik said:


> I've always found Vivaldi's Four Seasons to be the most unavoidable even if you tried Baroque piece, but Handel's Messiah is up there too. Personally, I'd rather take in the Vivaldi.
> 
> EDIT: Pachelbel's Canon in D is up there too on the unavoidable list.


Also used frequently at funerals.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

Klassik said:


> I've always found Vivaldi's Four Seasons to be the most unavoidable even if you tried Baroque piece, but Handel's Messiah is up there too. Personally, I'd rather take in the Vivaldi.
> 
> EDIT: Pachelbel's Canon in D is up there too on the unavoidable list.


----------



## JAS

It seems that we have slipped from composers to compositions that we don't like (and mostly just because they are, perhaps, somewhat overplayed).


----------



## mmsbls

The thread is rather long so I'm not surprised that people are moving slightly off topic. 

It would be interesting to see if any composer from our top composer threads (maybe top 25 in various threads) has totally escaped the designation of "Great Composer You Plain Just Don't Like." From the recent composer polls, we know there are composers who did not get unanimous likes from the membership, but not liking can be different from disliking.


----------



## mathisdermaler

Florestan said:


> I am mostly focused into opera, but I do like symphonic works. However I have limited my self in that to Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Saint-Saens, and Mahler for the most part. I don't try to listen to Haydn, Bach, or Mozart, partly because I have enough to keep me busy, and partly because I don't think they will improve on my favorite: Beethoven. I did think someday I should bet Bach's great mass, but the urge has not pushed me to search and buy yet.


For me, Bach's Mass in B minor is the most sublime music on earth. You are depriving yourself of something great and that's coming from someone who's not even a Bach fanatic (don't love WTC or AOF).


----------



## Klassik

JAS said:


> It seems that we have slipped from composers to compositions that we don't like (and mostly just because they are, perhaps, somewhat overplayed).


In the case of Pachelbel's Canon in D, Canon in D _is_ Pachelbel for many people. I don't know anything about the composer and I don't know any of his other works. I suspect that some may be so fatigued by the piece that there's little motivation to investigate his other works. I don't dislike the piece, but I could do without it as well. Are there any other great masterpieces from Herr Pachelbel?


----------



## Pat Fairlea

To return to the OP, I just cannot get into Verdi and that's not for want of trying.


----------



## Crystal

I hate almost all 20th century composers! Except Gershwin and Rachmaninoff


----------



## jdec

No no. There is simply no great composer I don't like.


----------



## Portamento

Crystal said:


> I *hate* almost all 20th century composers! Except Gershwin and Rachmaninoff


Why do you uphold that attitude before fully exploring what the 20th century has to offer? I presume you haven't heard of Rochberg or George Lloyd...


----------



## Bulldog

Klassik said:


> In the case of Pachelbel's Canon in D, Canon in D _is_ Pachelbel for many people. I don't know anything about the composer and I don't know any of his other works. I suspect that some may be so fatigued by the piece that there's little motivation to investigate his other works. I don't dislike the piece, but I could do without it as well. Are there any other great masterpieces from Herr Pachelbel?


If we're talking about masterpieces on the level of a Bach or Handel, no. Pachelbel was most prolific with organ works; many of them are excellent.


----------



## Botschaft

I'd say I like any truly great composers with whom I am sufficiently familiar, which quite frankly isn't all that many.



John Kiunke said:


> I don't know much beyond the baroque and classical periods, but the funny thing is, as much as I enjoy Beethoven when I listen to him, I never really get "into" him. But I want to stress that I really do enjoy his music, he's just not my go to guy. Brahms, however, I have tried to listen to and I just.. hate.. it. It's okay, but there's just nothing there for me.


It makes a lot of sense that you should dislike Brahms when you don't like Beethoven, but hopefully you will one day come to your senses.


----------



## Zhdanov

Portamento said:


> I presume you haven't heard of Rochberg or George Lloyd...


even if he has, but to what avail, since he seems to hate Stravinsky or Prokofiev?


----------



## hpowders

OP: Sure:

Tchaikovsky's acne-inducing schmalz is a bit tiring and sounds dated these days.

Beethoven has been over-played by me over the years, so I've been avoiding his music.

Schubert's music to me sounds rhythmically tedious, so I avoid it.

Liszt's music sounds a bit superficial to me.

Scarlatti uses the same formula over 500 times and I took the hint after Sonata No. 11.

Stravinsky, except for Le Sacre....doesn't speak to me. A very cold composer.

Bruckner's music would have been better without the awkward, clumsy, rhythmically tedious scherzos.

OP: Thanks for asking!!!


----------



## Der Titan

My answer to the question is: No, I like all great composers without exception. But I must say I have my difficulties with early music. I like the Missa Papae Marcelli of Palestrina, but otherwise it's very difficult to share the enthusiasm for early music like Ockeghem for example. I don't find access to this music. The other music is atonal or 12 tone music. Maybe a bit Berg ( his violin concerto) but this is simply not my music. But otherwise there is really no composer I don't like. Haydn, I admit, lasted a lot of years, but today I love him very much.


----------



## Zhdanov

hpowders said:


> Tchaikovsky's acne-inducing schmalz is a bit tiring and sounds dated these days.
> 
> Beethoven has been over-played by me over the years, so I've been avoiding his music.
> 
> Schubert's music to me sounds rhythmically tedious, so I avoid it.
> 
> Liszt's music sounds a bit superficial to me.
> 
> Scarlatti uses the same formula over 500 times and I took the hint after Sonata No. 11.
> 
> Stravinsky, except for Le Sacre....doesn't speak to me. A very cold composer.
> 
> Bruckner's music would have been better without the awkward, clumsy, rhythmically tedious scherzos.


don't worry, you will sure like this -


----------



## hpowders

Zhdanov said:


> *don't worry, you will sure like this -*


*Yes I did*. Very refreshing. The perfect antidote to Tchaikovsky's fits of uncontrollable tears.

Thank you! Please send me more if you can!! :tiphat:


----------



## Botschaft

hpowders said:


> Beethoven has been over-played by me over the years, so I've been avoiding his music.


Perhaps you could remedy this through _moderate_ playing of his music (which would of course still be quite a lot).


----------



## eugeneonagain

hpowders said:


> Scarlatti uses the same formula over 500 times and I took the hint after Sonata No. 11.


Opinion? Okay, but why are you repeating it when it's completely false? If it is based upon stylistic similarity because of a particular form used, then so many composers would have to be dismissed in the same way it would lose impact and become a ridiculous statement (which, incidentally, it is).


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> The perfect antidote to Tchaikovsky's fits of uncontrollable tears.


An excellent antidote to Tchaikovsky's fits of uncontrollable tears is one of his dry-eyed works: the Sleeping Beauty, the Nutcracker, the early symphonies, the four orchestral suites, the Serenade for Strings, the Rococo Variations, the Souvenir de Florence, the piano concertos, the string quartets, Pique Dame... Plenty of stiff upper lip stuff there, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Zhdanov

hpowders said:


> Thank you! Please send me more if you can!!


try metal forums - https://www.metalforum.com - and quit classical's.


----------



## Zhdanov

hpowders said:


> Tchaikovsky's fits of uncontrollable tears.


how are his piano and violin concertos in fits of uncontrolled tears?


----------



## Tallisman

Zhdanov said:


> how are his piano and violin concertos in fits of uncontrolled tears?


The piano ones taste a little like marangue sometimes, but I will stand by the violin concerto - a strong and vigorous concerto


----------



## Tallisman

hpowders said:


> In real time, the usual suspects: Bruckner, Liszt, Chopin, Schubert.


I only agree on showy Mr Liszt. Bruckner, I forgive his occasional simpleton rhythms for the fact that they often accompany moments of extraordinary surging power. No one soared like Bruckner. To tire of Schubert's music seems impossible to me, ditto Chopin.


----------



## Baregrass

Bruckner period.


----------



## Lisztian

hpowders said:


> Stravinsky, except for Le Sacre....doesn't speak to me. A very cold composer.


I can certainly see why this would be the case for some people and indeed I, a Stravinsky lover, consider a lot of his music to be rather cool and detached (which is part of what I love about it): so that's perfectly fine. However I would like to recommend Apollo to you if you haven't heard it, which is Stravinsky at his warmest and most lyrical. This recording -with the composer conducting- is the best I've heard:
















If you have heard it or you don't like it (both definitely possibilities), then as you were :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders

Vivaldi. I can never get through a CD comprising 6-8 compilations of his concertos. After two of them, I am usually climbing the walls.

Why Bach ever transcribed any of his concertos to solo organ works, I will never know. Proves Bach was human and made mistakes as the rest of us do. Deadly dull.

Predictably, there will be negative feedBach arising.

I don't care. I hate Vivaldi!

I wouldn't waste any more posts on the "inquisition" to follow.


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> Vivaldi. I can never get through a CD comprising 6-8 compilation of his concertos. After two of them, I am usually climbing the walls.
> 
> Why Bach ever transcribed any of his concertos to solo organ works, I will never know. Proves Bach was human and made mistakes as the rest of us do. Deadly dull.


I think Bach admired Vivaldi's clarity and economy. But had he known you would criticize his arrangements, he would certainly not have bothered making them.

Actually, no. He would have shouted "Verdammte Amerikanische Schwein!" and thrown his wig at J.C., W.F., or C.P.E., whichever was nearer.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Woodduck said:


> I think Bach admired Vivaldi's clarity and economy. But had he known you would criticize his arrangements, he would certainly not have bothered making them.
> 
> Actually, no. He would have shouted "Verdammte Amerikanische Schwein!" and thrown his wig at J.C., W.F., or C.P.E., whichever was nearer.


I had to use Google Translate for Verdammte Amerikanische Schwein... he no doubt would have done that.


----------



## Sandor36

Let's see...Bartok, Glass, Vaughan Williams. 3 composers I dont like too much.


----------



## hpowders

Baregrass said:


> Bruckner period.


Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!

As you might infer, I completely agree with you....except for the lack of comma.


----------



## ST4

Sir Grosso Composê (1650 - 1724) 

He's really not that great, I don't get why people love him so much


----------



## hpowders

Woodduck said:


> An excellent antidote to Tchaikovsky's fits of uncontrollable tears is one of his dry-eyed works: the Sleeping Beauty, the Nutcracker, the early symphonies, the four orchestral suites, the Serenade for Strings, the Rococo Variations, the Souvenir de Florence, the piano concertos, the string quartets, Pique Dame... Plenty of stiff upper lip stuff there, wouldn't you agree?


I'll concede Nutcracker. That's it.

Since I'm feelin' good today, I will place Tchaikovsky below Bruckner on my disliked composer list....subject to change at a moment's notice. Proves that I'm whom-an.


----------



## hpowders

"Lighten Up" A whom-orous ode by hpowders

Why the dissention
from composers not in hp's contention
bad for your hypertension
from so much reprehension

Purposely written in an atonal, haphazard meter, in keeping with today's times.


----------



## Tallisman

Out of curiosity, hpowders, what is it about Bruckner that doesn't do it for you? It's strange: he's one of the few composers that I love that I can also comprehend easily why others don't like him. I'm curious to hear your reasons, though. I'll guess rhythmic simplicity, lack of cohesion, lack of Brahmsian/Classical harmonic subtlety, overly faux-heroic...?


----------



## ST4

If I don't like a composer, then quite obviously I don't consider them great :lol:


----------



## Botschaft

ST4 said:


> If I don't like a composer, then quite obviously I don't consider them great :lol:


Unless one recognizes that the failing in fact lies with oneself rather than with the composer.


----------



## ST4

Improbus said:


> Unless one recognizes that the failing in fact lies with oneself rather than with the composer.


Yes, that is the case with all music in existence, nothing new there


----------



## Botschaft

ST4 said:


> Yes, that is the case with all music in existence, nothing new there


No: some music is just ill-conceived, inept and with little or no potential.


----------



## Der Titan

I said earlier in this thread that there is no great composer whom I don't like. But there is one exception: Respighi. I don't like him. For me his music is orgies in instrumentation, harmony and colours, but with no real substance. Am I wrong?


----------



## ST4

I'm glad you like golf, I'm getting hitched. You can't excel in bad posting on a forum swarmed with bad posting unless you've posted 30,000 posts. I'm gonna go to the toilet now, if I end up in the hospital it will be because of my aids. Thank you.


----------



## Botschaft

ST4 said:


> I'm glad you like golf, I'm getting hitched. You can't excel in bad posting on a forum swarmed with bad posting unless you've posted 30,000 posts. I'm gonna go to the toilet now, if I end up in the hospital it will be because of my aids. Thank you.


I have no words.


----------



## MusicSybarite

I don't like to write bad things about composers, but according to the purpose of this thread, I must admit I don't like many works by both serialist/dodecaphonic and " too dissonant" composers such as Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Stravinsky, Messiaen, Carter, Xenakis, among others. There are some exceptions (e.g. Penderecki, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Schnittke). I tend to prefer tonal music.


----------



## KenOC

Der Titan said:


> I said earlier in this thread that there is no great composer whom I don't like. But there is one exception: Respighi. I don't like him. For me his music is orgies in instrumentation, harmony and colours, but with no real substance. Am I wrong?


Oh yes, most certainly. Worse than that, you're wrong on the Internet! The horror... :lol:

In fact, I'm listening to Church Windows as I write. An absolute orgy of instrumentation, harmony and colors. What's not to love?


----------



## Dan Ante

Is There a Great Composer You Plain Just Don't Like?
No I like all the great composers its the rubbish ones that I don't like.


----------



## ST4

"Do you enjoy any composers you think suck?"


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Composers whose work I don't generally care for include Shostakovich and Stravinsky. And I've tried .


----------



## Agamemnon

My big sin is that I still don't get a great kick out of Bach's music. It seems to be a scientific truth that Bach is the greatest of all composers and that his music is so divine that he is our best proof that God exists. I can only hope that one fine day God gives me grace so I can finally see Bach's greatness too.

Lesser gods that I have some difficulties with appreciating their worth fully include Bruckner and Shostakovich.


----------



## dillonp2020

I'll probably be hanged for this, but Mozart.

Don't get me wrong, I love his operas, and some of his orchestral music, but when compared to the other giants (i.e. Bach, Beethoven) he doesn't do it for me. I've tried, I bought the Mozart 225 box. I listen to his music and enjoy it, but I don't love it. His music doesn't capture me like Beethoven's. When I put on a Beethoven piece, I sit and listen to the piece. When I listen to Mozart, I am typically reading or doing work.


----------



## Heck148

ST4 said:


> If I don't like a composer, then quite obviously I don't consider them great :lol:


my thoughts exactly....


----------



## Chronochromie

Agamemnon said:


> My big sin is that I still don't get a great kick out of Bach's music. It seems to be a scientific truth that Bach is the greatest of all composers and that his music is so divine that he is our best proof that God exists.


That probably doesn't help matters...


----------



## Heck148

Agamemnon said:


> ......Bach is the greatest of all composers and that his music is so divine that he is our best proof that God exists.


whether Bach's music is "divinely" blessed or not.......I love it anyway...


----------



## znapschatz

Bruckner. I just don't "get" his work. My confidence in the musical tastes of those who do appreciate him indicates that the deficiency is mine, but still, I can't get into it, and haven't found it worth my while to make the effort.


----------



## hpowders

znapschatz said:


> Bruckner. I just don't "get" his work. My confidence in the musical tastes of those who do appreciate him indicates that the deficiency is mine, but still, I can't get into it, and haven't found it worth my while to make the effort.


You are not alone. His scherzos are lumbering and tedious to listen to.


----------



## ArtMusic

I agree. Bruckner tried too hard and his symphonies are "over-written".


----------



## hpowders

ST4 said:


> "Do you enjoy any composers you think suck?"


Only when on my third slice of rum cake.


----------



## Pugg

ArtMusic said:


> I agree. Bruckner tried too hard and his symphonies are "over-written".


Some people can get carried away by composing, it started way back and still goes on.


----------



## Woodduck

Pugg said:


> Some people can get carried away by composing, it started way back and still goes on.


I have been carried away by composing. So far I've always managed to break free and come back. But I know that some day I will not come back, and on that day composing will have won.


----------



## Tallisman

Rossini is considered a giant of opera. Can't stand him. If I want to listen to Mozartian opera, guess what: I'll listen to Mozart!


----------



## Merl

Benjamin Britten's compositions bore me rigid. If I never hear Billy Budd again i'll be a happy man.


----------



## Dan Ante

Merl said:


> Benjamin Britten's compositions bore me rigid. If I never hear Billy Budd again i'll be a happy man.


A few of his short works are ok IMO but in general I agree with you, a few years ago I saw a program on TV of Rostropovich playing Britten's Cello Con and in an interview latter on he said "Britten's day had arrived at last" hmmmmm


----------



## KenOC

I have become a great fan of Britten's Cello Symphony (not named a concerto). It's a gnarly work and must be heard a few times to sort it out. The Rostropovich/Britten original recording is still my favorite.


----------



## hpowders

You take Mahler. Remove 70% of his brain's M1 and M3 regions and you get:

Zemlinsky.


You are correct: I HATE HIM!!!!!! :lol:


----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


> I have become a great fan of Britten's Cello Symphony (not named a concerto). It's a gnarly work and must be heard a few times to sort it out. The Rostropovich/Britten original recording is still my favorite.


After a nights sleep I am not sure which work I was referring to it may even have been a sonata or something for solo cello (suite) it was in the early 90s so my memory is a bit vague any way it was the comment made by Rostropovich that I was taking the **** out of. 
BTW is that a selfie you are using as a avatar


----------



## ArtMusic

KenOC said:


> I have become a great fan of Britten's Cello Symphony (not named a concerto). It's a gnarly work and must be heard a few times to sort it out. The Rostropovich/Britten original recording is still my favorite.


I listened to Britten's cello concerto, it barely made any impression on me. But Rostropovich might make it more "alive", so I might give that version a listen.


----------



## Tallisman

I didn't want to contribute to this for a while, but I've listened and collected enough to arrive at something approaching the concrete.

Plain don't care for:

Grieg (piano concerto is super-boring because it tries so hard to be exciting)

Dvorak (his stuff is really nice for about the first 2 or 3 listens, after which it becomes over-sweet. The Cello Concerto is quite good, but massively overrated)

Tchaikovsky (suffers from the same thing as Dvorak and is also overly sweet and cartoonishly Romantic, though I hold something of a soft spot for the violin concerto and piano concerto)

Telemann (Über-derivative, or at least derivative of himself. Prolific self-plagiariser and his best music is actually the stuff intended for the background while eating, so I can drown out his flutey-lutey stuff while I chew on a chicken wing and gulp some Weissbeer)

Shostakovich (I can seriously take or leave it. Bleak, stark, wintery, political)

Stravinsky (Hijacked the avant-garde and just made it more palletable whilst retaining enough modernity to make himself the 'big new thing'. I'll take some Schoenberg over this fugly fascist, please)


----------



## eugeneonagain

Tallisman said:


> I didn't want to contribute to this for a while, but I've listened and collected enough to arrive at something approaching the concrete.


Since I feel a bit lazy, is it okay for me to comment on your choices?



Tallisman said:


> Plain don't care for:
> 
> Grieg (piano concerto is super-boring because it tries so hard to be exciting)


I can't be having this. It's far better than a good deal of the vaunted great piano concertos. Better than Brahms in any case. I am a bit biased because I saw Grieg's concerto played live last Saturday.



Tallisman said:


> Dvorak (his stuff is really nice for about the first 2 or 3 listens, after which it becomes over-sweet. The Cello Concerto is quite good, but massively overrated)


Never was a Dvorak fan, but this year I have been listening to all the composers I never really cared for to see if time has changed my views. I think I can appreciate his music more now. Since I'm not likely to overdose on it it doesn't feel over-sweet to me at all. It's pretty robust.



Tallisman said:


> Tchaikovsky (suffers from the same thing as Dvorak and is also overly sweet and cartoonishly Romantic, though I hold something of a soft spot for the violin concerto and piano concerto)


Tchaikovsky was an early teen favourite, but aged about 17 I went off his style. He is another I've revisited this year and enjoyed. His skill at orchestral writing and his melodic powers crushes many other pretenders. He's emotional, but so what?



Tallisman said:


> Telemann (Über-derivative, or at least derivative of himself. Prolific self-plagiariser and his best music is actually the stuff intended for the background while eating, so I can drown out his flutey-lutey stuff while I chew on a chicken wing and gulp some Weissbeer)


His bits and pieces of keyboard music are fun to play, but I've never really listened to his music that closely. I know he has a popular reputation for being a second-rung baroque figure, but I'm reserving judgement.



Tallisman said:


> Shostakovich (I can seriously take or leave it. Bleak, stark, wintery, political)


Completely opposite view. His music ranges from rich and stirring, to playful, to profound. He's a lot more than stark or political.



Tallisman said:


> Stravinsky (Hijacked the avant-garde and just made it more palletable whilst retaining enough modernity to make himself the 'big new thing'. I'll take some Schoenberg over this fugly fascist, please)


D'accord. I like some of his music, but I find him exaggeratedly praised on the back of a small handful of pieces and mainly two. When people talk about his reputation as a famous 'wit', I always think they've misspelt 'twit'.


----------



## Tallisman

eugeneonagain said:


> Since I feel a bit lazy, is it okay for me to comment on your choices?
> 
> I can't be having this. It's far better than a good deal of the vaunted great piano concertos. Better than Brahms in any case. I am a bit biased because I saw Grieg's concerto played live last Saturday.
> 
> Never was a Dvorak fan, but this year I have been listening to all the composers I never really cared for to see if time has changed my views. I think I can appreciate his music more now. Since I'm not likely to overdose on it it doesn't feel over-sweet to me at all. It's pretty robust.
> 
> Tchaikovsky was an early teen favourite, but aged about 17 I went off his style. He is another I've revisited this year and enjoyed. His skill at orchestral writing and his melodic powers crushes many other pretenders. He's emotional, but so what?
> 
> His bits and pieces of keyboard music are fun to play, but I've never really listened to his music that closely. I know he has a popular reputation for being a second-rung baroque figure, but I'm reserving judgement.
> 
> Completely opposite view. His music ranges from rich and stirring, to playful, to profound. He's a lot more than stark or political.
> 
> D'accord. I like some of his music, but I find him exaggeratedly praised on the back of a small handful of pieces and mainly two. When people talk about his reputation as a famous 'wit', I always think they've misspelt 'twit'.


Take my choices with a certain pinch of salt - they were slightly over-the-top just for fun. I should try more with Shostakovich. 
I agree with the use of 'robust' to describe Dvorak. I just need more than robustness to make him a composer I like. Tchaikovsky is seriously skilled as a composer. But it's about how you use it that matters.


----------



## mathisdermaler

Guys, Haydn is not as good as Mozart. Please just abandon that narrative.


----------



## DeepR

Every composer I like is great. Every composer I don't like is not great. So no. :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

DeepR said:


> Every composer I like is great. Every composer I don't like is not great. So no. :tiphat:


I was just thinking that too. We can't both be right unless we both like and dislike the same composers, or maybe like or dislike all composers.


----------



## bz3

Most Romantic composers except Brahms, Schumann, Wagner, Chopin, and a smattering of Mahler.

Most modernist composers period - only exceptions are Stravinsky and the impressionists (if they count).

Most post-modernists or whatever you call post-1950s classical. Just don't like it, but I'm admittedly much less versed in this than I am all other genres save maybe Medieval music. Bates is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that I enjoy, and even he pales compared to other eras' composers.


----------



## eugeneonagain

bz3 said:


> Most Romantic composers except Brahms, Schumann, Wagner, Chopin, and a smattering of Mahler.
> 
> Most modernist composers period - only exceptions are Stravinsky and the impressionists (if they count).
> 
> Most post-modernists or whatever you call post-1950s classical. Just don't like it, but I'm admittedly much less versed in this than I am all other genres save maybe Medieval music. Bates is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that I enjoy, and even he pales compared to other eras' composers.


This is a baffling post. 'Most' romantic composers, 'most' modernists and post-1950 music leaves a rather narrow remainder. 'Classical'?


----------



## Nevum

Verdi!.......................................................


----------



## Donna Elvira

Berlioz
Lizst
Massenet
Gluck


----------



## Boston Charlie

Grieg is a wonderful composer. The Piano Concerto is perhaps the finest of the Romantic Era; the Piano Sonata is likewise outstanding, as is the String Quartet which Debussy used as his model for his String Quartet.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

The ones you _do_ like are in your collections, waiting as always to give you enjoyment. :cheers:


----------



## bz3

eugeneonagain said:


> This is a baffling post. 'Most' romantic composers, 'most' modernists and post-1950 music leaves a rather narrow remainder. 'Classical'?


Classical and everything before, mostly high and late baroque.

I somewhat exaggerated in the spirit of the thread, I do like about a third of Prokofiev's stuff, most Ives, early Schoenberg, some Verdi, some Shostakovich, a little Elgar and some works by assorted Russians. And I neglected Bruckner and Sibelius somehow entirely, both whom I love. I was probably drinking when I wrote that post since it was Christmas eve.


----------



## EdwardBast

Is Bruckner a great composer?


----------



## Nevum

EdwardBast said:


> Is Bruckner a great composer?


No, but he certainly was.


----------



## EdwardBast

Nevum said:


> No, but he certainly was.


Close enough: Then there is (or was) a great composer I don't like.


----------

