# Bad superficial crtitiques and value judgements towards dead composers



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Here's some fun from the internet I've compiled for you:

1. Actual Birdsong is pretty unmusical and *Messiaen* was a naive juxtaposer with more care towards his colour view than actual musical discourse.

2. *Hindemith* had musical instincts he decided to ruin with a theory nobody cares about anymore.

3. *Busoni* is pretty unremarkable so listen to him as a bridge composer into modernity and then forget him like everyone does.

4. Cluster *Ligeti* has no rhythm, post-modern Ligeti doesn't have much to say for harmony. I guess he fixed one thing to alter the other.

5. *Prokofiev*, having passed over an infantile neoclassical phase, demonstrated in his great failure "Symphony No.2" that he wasn't cut for the avant-garde. Thus, he retreated to a kind of safe yet astringent neoromanticism. This conflict within his music would never fully resolve, leaning towards more traditional or modernist tendencies as new pieces and personal situations saw fit.

6. *Godowsky* is like Ades or Mahler and so many others. Folks making new-ish music recycling the garbage from the past into nice looking plastic bottles. You can drink from them sure, but what you get is what you pay for.

7. *Handel* had a mastery of the theatrical effect which was sadly backed up by a semi-incompetent technical backbone that is evident in the so called Handel-effect in which the subsequent appearances of a theme are less and less engaging. Handel's lack of confidence in his figurations leads to the simple accompaniments of say the left hand piano of the classical era or the endless soundpad arpeggiations of many Romantic composers.

8. In their symphonies, *Schumann and Brahms* attempted to maintain a traditional Beethovenian developmental aesthetic while improving upon the technique and, specially, the counterpoint behind it. The result is however never quite satisfactory. Bundles of thick lines over doubled harmonies coexist, making the music flow akin to molasses and the weight heavy as lead. When they were not trying as hard on the Beet front, Schumann experimented on his chamber pieces to varied success and Brahms regressed to a simpler Mozartian serenade style until his later years when he'd try hard to enlarge his harmony maintaining classical means. Who could make having resolutions bad? these guys.

9. *Dutilleux*: His rhythms are boring. His melodies are boring. His harmonies manage a balance between colourful and old-fashion sounding. His only saving grace is a magisterial command of form and texture.

10. *Xenakis *should have quit music after Metastasis. His pieces basically exploit the same visceral effects over and over even though the mathematical processes behind them vary widely. Late Xenakis, more distanced to his models, and more personal, show that there was nothing good (technical or otherwise) in there to begin with. His music is the raw agony of an engineer trapped in war and suffering from its consequences.

11. *Shostakovich*: The entirety of his materials are old junk save the infamous nowhere-going melodies that are stuck there harmonised in a way to take no advantage of their "ambiguities". At his best he has a perfectly built piece made out of uninteresting scraps (often quoting his own), at his worse he doesn't even get form right. This makes the music he produces a hollow cave where people can recognise the tribal paintings on the wall and the fake imitation of them too. Some say he did this on purpose. Then, what is there to salvage?

12. *Schoenberg* had absolutely no consideration for a sensible harmonic rhythm, as soon as a new harmony is "achieved" another one is there to replace it, giving no time for the listener to adjust. His melodies are so compressed in awkward Brahmsian rhythms it feels the performance is a bad remastering of a lost record. He has a taste for the most ugly jumps and progressions so expressive it says nothing. He also inherited the thickness and weight of Brahms, mixed with Strauss and concocted what is akin to musical crude oil. Rarely producing a nice perfume, there is much to distill from his poisonous cauldrons but no need to sink your head into them and drown.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

> 2. Hindemith had musical instincts he decided to ruin with a theory nobody cares about anymore.


 :lol: I've seen stuff like that here. As for the rest I've seen some entertaining word salad fests here as well. There's one still going on in that "Bubbles" thread.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Here's some fun from the internet I've compiled for you:


What are the sources? I typed them on google, but no relevant search results come up.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> What are the sources? I typed them on google, but no relevant search results come up.


Classical music Discord servers.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> 5. *Prokofiev*, having passed over an infantile neoclassical phase, demonstrated in his great failure "Symphony No.2" that he wasn't cut for the avant-garde. Thus, he retreated to a kind of safe yet astringent neoromanticism. This conflict within his music would never fully resolve, leaning towards more traditional or modernist tendencies as new pieces and personal situations saw fit.


Prokofiev was the one who made "Neoclassical" a thing with his Classical Symphony. Many other composers followed his lead.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Here's some fun from the internet I've compiled for you:
> 
> 12. *Schoenberg* had absolutely no consideration for a sensible harmonic rhythm, as soon as a new harmony is "achieved" another one is there to replace it, giving no time for the listener to adjust. His melodies are so compressed in awkward Brahmsian rhythms it feels the performance is a bad remastering of a lost record. He has a taste for the most ugly jumps and progressions so expressive it says nothing. He also inherited the thickness and weight of Brahms, mixed with Strauss and concocted what is akin to musical crude oil. Rarely producing a nice perfume, there is much to distill from his poisonous cauldrons but no need to sink your head into them and drown.


*True* ...........................

P.S. Actually I don't know what most of that gibberish means, but I definitely would prefer drowning in crude oil to listening to Schoenberg's "music".


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

What, no quotes about John Cage?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Manxfeeder said:


> What, no quotes about John Cage?


Apparently too low hanging fruit even for sophomoric "criticism".


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Nancarrow should just get Protools like a normal person


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

fbjim said:


> Nancarrow should just get Protools like a normal person


That's hilarious. :tiphat:


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Franck Symphony in d: "a symphony only a mother could love."


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

progmatist said:


> Prokofiev was the one who made "Neoclassical" a thing with his Classical Symphony. Many other composers followed his lead.


Prokofiev's neoclassical thing bore little similarity to the music produced as part of the neoclassical movement of the 1920-1940 period. It was a one off that may have had some influence on some other one offs by other composers.

IMO Prokofiev was more a follower than a pioneer. He had a great melodic gift.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

"Typical neoclassicism" is usually dated after Stravinsky's "Soldier's tale" (1918). Prokofiev's symphonie classique (and also the 1st Violin concerto) predate this by about a year. So it seems more appropriate to say that (neo)classicism was an aspect of Prokofiev from the beginning and in this respect he did not necessarily adopt trends from others. 
If one looks at his earlyish pieces, say up to ca. 1918, we have the first two piano concertos, first violin concerto, symphonie classique, sarcasmes, Toccata, Vision fugitives this is extremely original and not obviously following anyone. The Scythian suite follows Le sacre but this is one piece among many and not really the most typical.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

The OP has made me feel a bit better about life this morning - I understand very little of the pretentious verbiage and boy I am glad I don't.
What ever happened to listening to music for enjoyment? 
I do get why people want to understand composers thoughts and processes but it seems to me too many get bogged down in the theory and the mechanics of the process - sad really.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Classical music Discord servers.


I've not visited these before - not easy to negotiate, are they?

Which server do I need to join...is there one specifically labelled 'bad critique'?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Forster said:


> I've not visited these before - not easy to negotiate, are they?
> 
> Which server do I need to join...is there one specifically labelled 'bad critique'?


The r/classicalmusic discord server is the main one, there is no specific one for this kind of stuff but there is a channel in there for venting and another for goofing.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Kreisler jr said:


> "Typical neoclassicism" is usually dated after Stravinsky's "Soldier's tale" (1918). Prokofiev's symphonie classique (and also the 1st Violin concerto) predate this by about a year. So it seems more appropriate to say that (neo)classicism was an aspect of Prokofiev from the beginning and in this respect he did not necessarily adopt trends from others.
> If one looks at his earlyish pieces, say up to ca. 1918, we have the first two piano concertos, first violin concerto, symphonie classique, sarcasmes, Toccata, Vision fugitives this is extremely original and not obviously following anyone. The Scythian suite follows Le sacre but this is one piece among many and not really the most typical.


I have never thought of Prokofiev's 1st violin concerto or the first two piano concertos (especially the 2nd) as being neoclassical works and trying to do so makes me wonder what the term could mean.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Sorry, this is a misunderstanding; I don't think the concerti are neoclassical and neither are the short piano pieces. The Toccata of course refers back to Bach and Schumann. The violin concerto is a borderline case, I'd say. It is certainly neither typically late romantic nor strongly modern and I think one could find (neo)classical aspects both here and in later concerti.

My point was that Prokofiev certainly didn't need neoclassical Stravinsky as an example as the Symphonie Classique shows. And it is also absurd that he turned to neoclassicism after failing at being daringly modern. 
To me, Prokofiev seems to have his own peculiar mix from quite early on. This was adaptable in several directions, later works like the 5th and 6th symphony could be called "neoromantic" and he also easily wrote stuff compatible with Soviet sensibilities. Sure, he also wrote some pieces like the Scythian suite following in footsteps but his (neo)classical strain clearly predates Stravinsky's turn.

I think, what's usually called neoclassicism, namely Stravinsky and followers after ca. 1920 is not really that new, it's just a slightly different, often more acerbic take on (neo)classicism that was around during the 19th century. There is a spectrum from Grieg's Holberg, Tchaikovsky's Mozartiana, Brahms's 3rd string quartet to Reger's "suite in the old style", variations on Mozart or Hiller, and Debussy's and Ravel's homages to French baroque music.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I'm a card-carrying Hindemith fan but the comment made about him still made me snicker.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Thank you! This thread fulfills a pressing need and gives a platform to all of the many musical semi-literates whose voices go sadly unheard because of the draconian standards for reasonable and collegial discourse so oppressively and universally enforced on the internet today. Finally, all of those sacred cows like Schoenberg and Ligeti can face, albeit posthumously, the honest and well-considered critiques they were never forced to address in their lifetimes. It's heartening to know that, on the whole and in the end, history bends toward truth and justice.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> Thank you! This thread fulfills a pressing need and gives a platform to all of the many musical semi-literates whose voices go sadly unheard because of the draconian standards for reasonable and collegial discourse so oppressively and universally enforced on the internet today. Finally, all of those sacred cows like Schoenberg and Ligeti can face, albeit posthumously, the honest and well-considered critiques they were never forced to address in their lifetimes. It's heartening to know that, on the whole and in the end, history bends toward truth and justice.


That was beautiful. I'm wiping a tear as I reply.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Here's some fun from the internet I've compiled for you:
> 
> 1. Actual Birdsong is pretty unmusical and *Messiaen* was a naive juxtaposer with more care towards his colour view than actual musical discourse.
> 
> ...


Given an even chance, *Hindemith* is worth the effort. The way I see it, liking Hindemith is all in the way you listen to him. If you are looking for a pleasant melody to hold on to, you're not going to find it. If you want drama or passion, look elsewhere. But if you are one who admirer's craftsmanship; music for it's own sake; then Hindemith may be your guy. I like the set of sonatas that Hindemith recorded for several brass instruments (trumpet, alto horn, French horn, trombone tuba) and piano. Glenn Gould, lent his prestigious title as one of his generations finest (if not most eccentric!) concert pianists of his day, to a wonderful recording of all five brass sonatas in a recording he made with the Philadelphia Brass Ensemble. Each sonata is a tribute and celebration to the range of possibilities of each brass instrument.

I don't have much by *Busoni*: the _Violin Sonata_; _Violin Concerto_; something for flute and orchestra that I remember liking; but the _Piano Concerto_ (perhaps not even _that_ representative of Busoni's overall musical vision) is a wild and wonderful ride; not something you want to listen to everyday, but always to be admired and enjoyed just for the ambition and the effort. In the Piano Concerto, Busoni out-does every lush and rich _Piano Concerto_ of the Romantic age: Liszt, Brahms, Tchaikovsky. Busoni's opening cascades go on ten times longer Tchaikovsky's _Piano Concerto #1_!), and the whole thing goes on as long as a Mahler symphony with five movements ending with a choral finale; so at least give Busoni credit for that.

*Prokofiev* and *Shostakovich*; they are both good: the mighty twin towers of the classical music from time that Russia was under the Soviet Union; and both have been favorites of mine since I was a teenager back in the 1980s. Mstislav Rostropovich identified Prokofiev and Shostakovich as his two "musical deities" and who am I to challenge Rostropovich who knew them personally? Though Prokofiev and Shostakovich have some things in common (especially in Shostakovich's earlier phase); the two are very different. I think of Prokofiev as being more like Mozart, seeking to find order, melody, weaving things together to form something pleasant, entertaining, and optimistic. Shostakovich, on the other hand, is more like Beethoven, always at war with himself, always struggling to find the beauty in the world; but unlike Beethoven who emerges the hero, Shostakovich is the anti-hero, the defeated man, crying into his vodka, who is sad and bitter; but still trying to find some hope where he can find it.

Far be it for me to defend the legacies of *Schumann* and _Brahms_; who are part and parcel of anyone's volume on "Great Composers". I will say, though, from my own perspective that I struggled with both. While I place Schumann along side Schubert, Mendelssohn, and Chopin, as the really pretty composers of the High Romantic Age, I'm curious as to how Schumann's piano music which is as "Romantic" as it gets, seems to remind me of Debussy's piano music, who many identify as perhaps the first "Modern" composer. After all, how far a jump is it to go from Schumann's _Prophet Bird_ to Debussy's _Girl with the Flaxen Hair_? Brahms, meanwhile is the essence of fine German craftsmanship, study, thick, and ornate; and for years or decades I could not warm up much to Brahms, but after years of listening I found that beneath the thickness is a very warm and sentimental Romantic soul which is the thing I like about Brahms.

*Handel* is an interesting case. Beethoven is said to have loved him, and Tchaikovsky wrote that he didn't even find Handel to be "entertaining". Handel's _Messiah_, the _Water Music_ and the _Fireworks_, are fine enough to warrant Handel some love and respect. As a practitioner of the Baroque era, I'd place Handel along side Vivaldi, and just ahead of the likes of Coreeli and Telemann; with Bach way, way, way, in front by several lengths.

*Schoenberg*, like Hindemith, is another tough nut to crack, and I really, really wanted to like Schoenberg; if not for the music but just for his being such a stubborn musical visionary, his fascination with numerology, his talent as an Expressionist painter, and his reputation as one of music's great teachers whose students Berg and Webern, are so tied to him that so many classical recordings program them along side one another: Schoenberg, Berg and Webern (like a Viennese law firm!). Even so, it took me years, even decades to really enjoy Schoenberg. It's ironic that Schoenberg's 12-tone system led to a movement by the likes of composers such as Babbitt and others that became known for being cool, intellectual, mathematical, and meant for the computer/atomic age; as Schoenberg seemed to himself as more-or-less traditional; the next logical step in the German tradition of Brahms and Wagner; so when I listen to Schoenberg I try to find Wagner's sense of passion and Brahms' sense of fine German craftsmanship.

As for the others, Duttileaux, Xanakis, and Ligeti; I don't them well enough to comment.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

re: "Neo-Classical"

The way I understand it, Neo-Classicism was a movement in music to get back to the ideals of the age of Mozart and Haydn; to take the emotional element out of it and return music to a place where music can be admired and enjoyed for it's craftsmanship, balance, and objectivity. Elgar's _Cello Concerto_ and Ravel's _La Valse_ attest to the level that the horrors of World War I changed the arts throughout Europe; so while Schoenberg was looking for a new and more severe form of expression; others like Stravinsky were also looking for a new ethos and language that had to be invented. Stravinsky said that his _Violin Concerto_ should "smell of the violin" as if (I guess?) the concerto is meant to celebrate the violin for it's own sake.

To what extent Prokofiev fits into the Neo-Classical mold, I don't know. As a student, I read that he was something of a rebel who thought little of his teachers (the likes of Rimsky-Korsakov!) and as a pianist, Prokofiev hated Chopin. His early music suggests a new approach, an "Age of Steel" as some have called it. Prokofiev's student work, _Piano Concerto #1_, revealss, to me, a wild and daring smart-aleck, telling his teachers, "To hell with your Chopin!" Yes, Prokofiev did have a gift for melody, and like Tchaikovsky, seemed to be able to almost be able to compose a catchy tune in his sleep; but I also think that as Prokofiev aged and especially after he returned to Russia (or the, then, USSR) he had become something of a hack, and I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way.

Say what you want about Shostakovich, that he is depressing, bitter, gloomy and morose; but at least with Shostakovich you always feel as if the composer's soul is very close to you; that he's always composing what he is feeling. Prokofiev, on the other hand, strikes me more as a composer who just wants to get the job done. When I listen to Prokofiev, I say to myself, isn't it neat how he made _Cinderella_ at the ball so "dream-like"; or isn't it neat, how in the _Classical Symphony_ he manages to sound like Haydn and _also_ sound like Prokofev; or "Wow, that _Violin Concerto #1_ sure sets the battlefield on fire!...but with Shostakovich (post-_Lady Macbeth of Mdsensk_) I find myself feeling as if I know what the composer is feeling in all it's nuances.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Here's some fun from the internet I've compiled for you:
> ...
> 
> 4. Cluster *Ligeti* has no rhythm, post-modern Ligeti doesn't have much to say for harmony. I guess he fixed one thing to alter the other.


I guess anyone who has spent a fair amount of time online will fall for making such comments. Whether the statements are made by qualified musicians or amateur listeners, they are mostly either crude caricatures or lazy thumbnail sketches.

Stereotypes tend to have a grain of truth to them, so if reductionist thinking is combined with the spark of wit, it can convey a sense of the essence of the composer's music. The Ligeti one is a good example. It makes me think of some (possibly apocryphal) quotes by composers like Copland's quip about listening to Vaughan Williams' fifth symphony being like staring at a cow for 45 minutes, or Rossini's barb about Wagner's music having wonderful moments but terrible quarter hours.

Others are just cliches. What's wrong with a composer changing his style? Who cares if its from neoclassicism to avant-garde or the reverse? Why not go for theatrical effect like Handel? Handel's reply to those comments would be something along the lines of "yeah, and so what?" Forget the theory, he was as much a businessman as a composer.

I find the one about Godowsky somewhat dismaying. He isn't popular, but he composed some real gems. Does the tall poppy syndrome apply here? Nope. Even Xenakis has a stronger following, as a major figure of the postwar era. What would anyone get from pulling down Godowsky? Maybe a few likes or something. How lame.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Coach G said:


> Say what you want about Shostakovich, that he is depressing, bitter, gloomy and morose; but at least with Shostakovich you always feel as if the composer's soul is very close to you; that he's always composing what he is feeling. Prokofiev, on the other hand, strikes me more as a composer who just wants to get the job done. When I listen to Prokofiev, I say to myself, isn't it neat how he made _Cinderella_ at the ball so "dream-like"; or isn't it neat, how in the _Classical Symphony_ he manages to sound like Haydn and _also_ sound like Prokofev; or "Wow, that _Violin Concerto #1_ sure sets the battlefield on fire!...but with Shostakovich (post-_Lady Macbeth of Mdsensk_) I find myself feeling as if I know what the composer is feeling in all it's nuances.


No wonder I prefer Prokofiev!


----------



## Rokais (Aug 23, 2021)

Somehow very much agree with all the "bad critiques"...(i don't know enough about Handel)
The thing with composers start from 20th century, is that technique attracts composers more than content. They compose without thinking about if their complex fomulae are audible. 
Just remebered someone said that the only thing with contemporary music is that the sheets are pretty looking. 
Nevertheless I still seek for new contemporary pieces daily.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Sid James said:


> Copland's quip about listening to Vaughan Williams' fifth symphony being like staring at a cow for 45 minutes,


It seems there was a queue of people (Copland, Lutyens, Warlock) wanting to talk about cows wrt Vaughan Williams. It says less about the composer and more about their lack of originality that they couldn't come up with some scathing comment of their own invention.

Oh, and there is no grain of truth in that particular criticism afaic, but of course, you can't prevent people thinking of cows if they will.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

"Handel effect" is almost certainly made up. 
I have never heard this expression and am not sure what it refers to. Handel is fairly conventional in his instrumental music, e.g. the diminuition/division variations like in the "Harmonious Blacksmith" and similar pieces are standard procedure. The contemporary descriptions of Handel's own playing use expressions like "full" and "rich", indicating that the realisation of figured bass or sketchy lines was uncommonly embellished and harmonious. 
We compare Handel to Bach who was the most thorough and elaborate composer and noted everything fully and Handel seems lacking when for the contemporaries what he brought into the Italian style from the German Lutheran church music background he shared with Bach was considered "learned". Part of what seems lacking was realised in performance back then and the contemporaries found Handel's accompaniments sometimes too rich and distracting from the singers, e.g. in Rinaldo's aria "Casa sposa" the string accompaniment was considered uncommonly elaborate (whereas for us it would hardly be anything special). 

Of the ca. 10 collections of instrumental music Handel himself only supervised two or three (the 1720 suites and op.6, maybe op.4, I am not sure), almost everything else was done by an editor, some contain inauthentic pieces (op.1 had 2x2 dubious sonatas in two different editions) and others movements combined/arranged by editors (in some of op.3, probably op.5 and the 1733 suites). 
It's a bit ironic that a composer who apparently cared very little for the future of his music and focussed on actual performances in the present became the most famous dead composer in the half century after his death.

As for RWV, I share the boredom experienced by some others (I had the bad fortune that one of the first RWV discs I encountered was symphonies 3+5, both very bucolic/bovine which turned me off for several years) but there is nothing wrong with having a bunch of such pastoral pieces, as long as there are also others. And in fairness to RWV he has written other pieces.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> As for RWV, I share the boredom experienced by some others (I had the bad fortune that one of the first RWV discs I encountered was symphonies 3+5, both very bucolic/bovine


In what way are they 'bucolic/bovine'?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The 3rd is the one that provoked the "cow" comments quoted above. I was referring to these. The 5th seems also a mostly serene, pastoral piece in a wider sense. To have them on one disc as introduction to a composer was not a good idea and totally turned me off. But to generalize it is unfair to the composer.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> The 3rd is the one that provoked the "cow" comments quoted above. I was referring to these. The 5th seems also a mostly serene, pastoral piece in a wider sense. To have them on one disc as introduction to a composer was not a good idea and totally turned me off. But to generalize it is unfair to the composer.


I thought it was the 5th (a/c to Sid James' post). I can find numerous repetitions for the Copland quote - but no source or context. Can anyone help?



> Peter Warlock's often-quoted comment that "it is all just a little too much like a cow looking over a gate" was in fact a comment on Vaughan Williams's style in general, and was not aimed specifically at _A Pastoral Symphony_, which he on the contrary described as "a truly splendid work" and "the best English orchestral music of this century"


I get neither bovine nor bucolic out of either 3rd or 5th. And anyone who has studied 'pastoral' will know that it's isn't all prancing lambkins (paraphrasing Vaughan Williams himself.)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Forster said:


> It seems there was a queue of people (Copland, Lutyens, Warlock) wanting to talk about cows wrt Vaughan Williams. It says less about the composer and more about their lack of originality that they couldn't come up with some scathing comment of their own invention.
> 
> Oh, and there is no grain of truth in that particular criticism afaic, but of course, you can't prevent people thinking of cows if they will.


I think that the comment is a good example of irony. I don't think its meant to be taken too seriously. I'm not surprised if its not too original, I've also seen Rossini's jibe attributed to Oscar Wilde. Such is the case about many of these sorts of apocryphal quotes and anecdotes.

Incidentally, I like Vaughan Williams' fifth.

There are comments that border on the toxic and are far less tongue in cheek. What do you think of G. B. Shaw's take on Brahms being "rather tiresomely addicted to dressing himself up as Handel or Beethoven and making a prolonged and intolerable noise?" Shaw said that the _German Requiem_ is "patiently borne only by the corpse." Pretty strong stuff.

As for Handel, he was like the bad boy of the Baroque - for taking shortcuts like false fugues, using predictable harmonies and relying too heavily on good tunes (some of which he pinched from Italian contemporaries). Perhaps the true qualities of his music are to be found in the hearing rather than in analysis?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Forster said:


> I thought it was the 5th (a/c to Sid James' post). I can find numerous repetitions for the Copland quote - but no source or context. Can anyone help?
> 
> I get neither bovine nor bucolic out of either 3rd or 5th. And anyone who has studied 'pastoral' will know that it's isn't all prancing lambkins (paraphrasing Vaughan Williams himself.)


According to a ClassicFM Anecdotes book I have by Henry Kelly and John Foley it is the 5th that Copland was referring to..what an idiot for not liking that sublime work....


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Coach G said:


> *Handel* is an interesting case. Beethoven is said to have loved him, and Tchaikovsky wrote that he didn't even find Handel to be "entertaining". Handel's _Messiah_, the _Water Music_ and the _Fireworks_, are fine enough to warrant Handel some love and respect. As a practitioner of the Baroque era, I'd place Handel along side Vivaldi, and just ahead of the likes of Coreeli and Telemann; with Bach way, way, way, in front by several lengths.


You sound like Tchaikovsky "disliked" Handel only, out of all those Baroque composers.
"Tchaikovsky did not show the slightest interest in the early music movement which emerged in the 1850s and has been gaining in strength ever since, leading to a revival of the works of Bach and Handel. For although (as he told me himself) he would every now and then play piano fugues by Bach when he was alone, he always felt that the latter's cantatas and major vocal works were "real classical bores" http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Johann_Sebastian_Bach


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> You sound like Tchaikovsky "disliked" Handel only, out of all those Baroque composers.
> "Tchaikovsky did not show the slightest interest in the early music movement which emerged in the 1850s and has been gaining in strength ever since, leading to a revival of the works of Bach and Handel. For although (as he told me himself) he would every now and then play piano fugues by Bach when he was alone, he always felt that the latter's cantatas and major vocal works were "real classical bores" http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Johann_Sebastian_Bach


Thanks for the information. I didn't know that Tchaikovsky didn't like Bach very much. Wasn't it Mendelssohn who made Bach popular?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Sid James said:


> As for Handel, he was like the bad boy of the Baroque - for taking shortcuts like false fugues, using predictable harmonies and relying too heavily on good tunes (some of which he pinched from Italian contemporaries). Perhaps the true qualities of his music are to be found in the hearing rather than in analysis?


Sure, but this was in no way sticking out from the other baroque composers. But Handel must have stuck out in some way because he was not only exceedingly famous while alive but about the only one whose music remained rather well known in the second half of the 18th century (And Beethoven was deaf and valued Handel highly from studying the scores.) If one looks at contemporary commentary, it seems that for many Handel struck the golden mean between too light and too learned (like Bach who was respected but considered a bit heavy). Although one not directly musical reason might simply have been that some of the oratorios survived more easily because of the well known biblical subjects when tastes in Opera seria had changed. They also travelled more easily to other Protestant regions and also Catholic Austria than real church music would have.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

> Bad superficial crtitiques and value judgements towards dead composers


Otherwise known as "hot takes"


----------



## JohnP (May 27, 2014)

My opinions are those of a lifelong music lover and part-time performer. I never had formal training in music theory, counterpoint, etc. But my opinions are my opinions. If they aren't welcome here, then why am I wasting my time? We're up against the old problem: aren't we all expressing our preferences, or is there some actual authority I'm not aware of? The OP holds up certain opinions as "bad. That means mine might be next. (For what it's worth, I actually agree with some of the quotations cited in the OP.) I also agree that “I definitely would prefer drowning in crude oil to listening to Schoenberg's "music". (Haziz) So there!

If some objective standard can be use to attack the OP's list of "bad" critiques, then let's hear them and have at them. Or they merely critiques the OP disagrees with?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Sid James said:


> I think that the comment is a good example of irony. I don't think its meant to be taken too seriously.


It is reported that it _was _meant seriously and was taken seriously and the English Pastoral School of music was considered inferior as a consequence.

If you can access this, it's worth a listen.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-cowpat-controversy/id1108468608?i=1000421793093


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Sure, but this was in no way sticking out from the other baroque composers. But Handel must have stuck out in some way because he was not only exceedingly famous while alive but about the only one whose music remained rather well known in the second half of the 18th century (And Beethoven was deaf and valued Handel highly from studying the scores.) If one looks at contemporary commentary, it seems that for many Handel struck the golden mean between too light and too learned (like Bach who was respected but considered a bit heavy). Although one not directly musical reason might simply have been that some of the oratorios survived more easily because of the well known biblical subjects when tastes in Opera seria had changed. They also travelled more easily to other Protestant regions and also Catholic Austria than real church music would have.


Except Handel's oratorios were almost never performed the late 18th century. There was no reason to perform them instead of Classical period music, which was being written at the time. You could argue that the late 18th century composers and their connoissieur circles knew Handel, but then they also knew Bach. Even J.H. Knecht did a completion of the Art of the Fugue, (but it was lost), Albrechtsberger wrote pieces on the theme B.A.C.H.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> You sound like Tchaikovsky "disliked" Handel only, out of all those Baroque composers.
> "Tchaikovsky did not show the slightest interest in the early music movement which emerged in the 1850s and has been gaining in strength ever since, leading to a revival of the works of Bach and Handel. For although (as he told me himself) he would every now and then play piano fugues by Bach when he was alone, he always felt that the latter's cantatas and major vocal works were "real classical bores" http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Johann_Sebastian_Bach


Well then my opinion of Tchaikovsky's musical judgement sank. But I wonder how much of Bach's vocal music Tchaikovsky actually heard. I'm asking, I have no idea.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Handel was in fact considered equally "old-fashioned" as Bach in the late 18th century. He had none of the important attributes that characterize late 18th century music aesthetics; dramatic shifts in mood and dynamics in a single movement, the style of orchestration, and sections cleanly-cut with cadences, etc. 



 (5:32, 5:47, 6:30)
Handel's adherence to the Galant methods compared to Bach's is also exaggerated. Bach also used repeated notes in the accompaniment (ex. cantata BWV54)


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

There was a huge Handel festival in London in 1784 (they had gotten his birthyear wrong) and this became a tradition, so it was not the standard everyday repertoire but a yearly festival. 
I agree that Handel was as little "gallant" as Bach. But the oratorios were in fact performed also outside Britain. There had been a German translation of Messiah even before Mozart made his arrangement. CPE Bach performed Messiah in Hamburg in the 1770s and there were other performances. And why should Mozart arrange no less than four large scale Handel pieces 1789? These were not for private connoisseur sessions but public concerts.
Anyway, that's not the topic. I still think that there is no "Handel effect" and the criticism quoted in the first post is rather nonsensical.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Emanuel conducted his own magnificat and his father's B minor mass in a charity concert in 1786, in Hamburg.

"I consider it superfluous to describe the singular merit of Sig. Bach, for he is thoroughly known and admired not only in Germany but throughout our Italy. I will say only that I think it would be difficult to find someone in the profession who could surpass him, since these days he could rightfully claim to be among the first in Europe."
- Padre Giovanni Battista Martini, 1750

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Matthew_Passion#Second_half_of_the_18th_century
The Passion was performed under the Cantor of St. Thomas until about 1800. Specifically, in 1780, the Cantor, Doles, had three of Bach's Passions performed, assumed to include the St. John and St. Matthew, and "possibly the St. Luke".


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Emanuel conducted his own magnificat and his father's B minor mass in a charity concert in 1786, in Hamburg.
> 
> "I consider it superfluous to describe the singular merit of Sig. Bach, for he is thoroughly known and admired not only in Germany but throughout our Italy. I will say only that I think it would be difficult to find someone in the profession who could surpass him, since these days he could rightfully claim to be among the first in Europe."
> - Padre Giovanni Battista Martini, 1750


To which Sig. Bach was he referring, though? I don't see the full context of the quote. And "among the first" at what? Although I'd agree that the "obscurity" of Bach in the 18th century has been way overdone. He was quite respected in his time.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Kreisler jr said:


> Sure, but this was in no way sticking out from the other baroque composers. But Handel must have stuck out in some way because he was not only exceedingly famous while alive but about the only one whose music remained rather well known in the second half of the 18th century (And Beethoven was deaf and valued Handel highly from studying the scores.) If one looks at contemporary commentary, it seems that for many Handel struck the golden mean between too light and too learned (like Bach who was respected but considered a bit heavy). Although one not directly musical reason might simply have been that some of the oratorios survived more easily because of the well known biblical subjects when tastes in Opera seria had changed. They also travelled more easily to other Protestant regions and also Catholic Austria than real church music would have.


That makes sense. I would add that Baron van Sweiten was pivotal in bringing Handel's music to Vienna.

Handel comes across to me as someone who valued popularity over critical acclaim. I did a review of the biography of Handel by Keates (here https://www.talkclassical.com/15092-george-frideric-handel-8.html#post1613168). Keates discussed how its difficult to evaluate Handel's music if we focus too much on technical matters. To many, Handel is synonymous with Baroque yet in many respects he was atypical of the era.



Forster said:


> It is reported that it _was _meant seriously and was taken seriously and the English Pastoral School of music was considered inferior as a consequence.
> 
> If you can access this, it's worth a listen.
> 
> https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-cowpat-controversy/id1108468608?i=1000421793093


No doubt pastoralism would have received some push back from younger composers. The quote in itself is just a pithy jibe, not serious criticism. It would be different if it was part of an essay or article, especially if its intent was toxic and rancorous.

In any case, I like this piece and Vaughan Williams' music in general. I don't mind staring at a cow for 45 minutes. It's a bit like a peaceful respite. I recognise something I like about this piece in the one-liner, so I can take it with good humour.

This is why I said this on the outset:



Sid James said:


> Stereotypes tend to have a grain of truth to them, so if reductionist thinking is combined with the spark of wit, it can convey a sense of the essence of the composer's music.


I have used enough brain cells on this thread already. I see little use in reaching the point that we start arguing about a piece of music we both like. I'm usually wary of posting on thread topics of this nature for this very reason.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Name one patron or employer of great wealth and social status in the late 18th century who had more interest for Handel than their own court composers' music.



hammeredklavier said:


> Emanuel conducted his own magnificat and his father's B minor mass in a charity concert in 1786, in Hamburg.





Kreisler jr said:


> CPE Bach performed Messiah in Hamburg in the 1770s and there were other performances. And why should Mozart arrange no less than four large scale Handel pieces 1789? These were not for private connoisseur sessions but public concerts.


Actually, these were all van Swieten-sponsored events and projects. Mozart did it mainly cause he was paid to. So interest for Handel in the late 18th century didn't go much beyond composers' studies, connoisseurs' hobbies, and anniversary festivals of some Londoners wanting to satisfy their nostalgia for their "ancient music".
There is no evidence Bach and Handel were treated differently in the late 18th century due to their stylistic difference. Mozart regarded the music of both "ancient".

"Mozart wrote to his father on 29 March 1783 about the musical gatherings in the apartments of Baron van Swieten: "we love to amuse ourselves with all kind of masters, ancient and modern." So music was the main object of these Kenner's interest - provided it was masterful. Occasionally, one of the other of the composers Mozart and his colleagues studied in these sessions is mentioned in the Mozart correspondence by name: Johann Ernst Eberlin, for instance, or *Georg Friedrich Handel, or J.S. Bach* and his sons Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Phillp Emmanuel, or Michael Haydn. Some of these were still among the living; the works Mozart and his colleagues examined were written for the most part in the first half of the eighteenth century. Nonetheless, some of the composers were already considered to be "old," or, to put it another way, "not modern." <Ulrich Konrad>



hammeredklavier said:


> You could argue that the late 18th century composers and their connoissieur circles knew Handel, but then they also knew Bach. Even J.H. Knecht did a completion of the Art of the Fugue, (but it was lost), Albrechtsberger wrote pieces on the theme B.A.C.H.


"Judging from a signed, dated autograph score that he copied in 1757 of Fux's Missa Canonica, Michael studied some of the Viennese composer's work during his formative years. The Biographische Skizze mentions that he also studied works of *Bach, Handel,* Graun and Hasse." < Michael Haydn and "The Haydn Tradition:" A Study of Attribution, Chronology, and Source Transmission | Dwight C. Blazin | P. 47 >



dissident said:


> To which Sig. Bach was he referring, though? I don't see the full context of the quote.


"Even before 1750, that legacy had begun to spread, slowly but steadily and irreversibly, primarily through his students and his sons, and first and foremost in circles of professional musicians. But knowledgeable admirers of Bach's art could be found outside German lands as well. A representative voice in this regard is that of the composer and theorist Padre Giovanni Battista Martini in Bologna, who wrote to a German colleague in April 1750, more than three months before Bach's death: "I consider it superfluous to describe the singular merit of Sig. Bach, for he is thoroughly known and admired not only in Germany but throughout our Italy. I will say only that I think it would be difficult to find someone in the profession who could surpass him, since these days he could rightfully claim to be among the first in Europe."" < Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician | Christoph Wolff · 2002 | P. 462 >


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"Samuel Wesley (24 February 1766 - 11 October 1837) was an English organist and composer in the late Georgian period.
Wesley seems to have become acquainted with the works of Johann Sebastian Bach sometime between 1796 and 1808. In 1810, he and Charles Frederick Horn collaborated in publishing the first English edition of J.S. Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier. Their joint publication and popularisation of Bach's work have been described as an "English Bach awakening". No time was lost in converting others to the Bach cause; Wesley's principal converts were William Crotch and Charles Burney. In a series of letters to his friend, Benjamin Jacob, Wesley documented how he made Bach better appreciated."


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

Beethoven, Ah that deaf men, he should have went with his first plan to off himself rather than giving us third rate mozart but heavier:lol::lol::devil: After him it all went downhill...

Music about me, me , me...


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Malx said:


> The OP has made me feel a bit better about life this morning - I understand very little of the pretentious verbiage and boy I am glad I don't.
> What ever happened to listening to music for enjoyment?
> I do get why people want to understand composers thoughts and processes but it seems to me too many get bogged down in the theory and the mechanics of the process - sad really.


Yes. What he said. Muchly.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> "Samuel Wesley (24 February 1766 - 11 October 1837) was an English organist and composer in the late Georgian period.
> Wesley seems to have become acquainted with the works of Johann Sebastian Bach sometime between 1796 and 1808. In 1810, he and Charles Frederick Horn collaborated in publishing the first English edition of J.S. Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier. Their joint publication and popularisation of Bach's work have been described as an "English Bach awakening". No time was lost in converting others to the Bach cause; Wesley's principal converts were William Crotch and Charles Burney. In a series of letters to his friend, Benjamin Jacob, Wesley documented how he made Bach better appreciated."


who is around Bach in the image, Handel, Haydn and who?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> who is around Bach in the image, Handel, Haydn and who?


Graun.

Clearer version of the image here.


----------

